I've carried a 38 LCR for a while now. Its a fine gun and easy to carry. Is it enough? Probably. However after seeing more and more troubling scenarios play out in the news, I've decided I want more firepower... so I bought a Glock 30 today, 10+1 of 45acp. I just need to put some rounds down range next week to verify operation, and its my edc. I'll still carry the LCR when its size is important.
Well I'm no internet expert, in fact I'm no expert at all. ( An expert is that substance that's last squeezed out) but I have been carrying a S & W Model 19 .357 with a 2.5 in barrel for over 50 years and as a law enforcement officer I've had to use it. I was successful in defending myself and even others and was able to make the arrest albeit a bit messy. I have never wished I had more because I practiced a lot and was/am very good with my revolver. (I can still bark a squirell at 20 yards off handed). I just was to an indoor range today and shooting at 20 yards and the young bucks around me were quite amazed that this old poop was so handy with a revolver.
Originally Posted by azchevy
In the old days we learned to fire for effect (don't spray and pray) and load while moving. Then speed loaders came out and we still reloaded while moving. Makes better sense then standing still and being a quiet target.
Short answer to your question; Yes revolvers are still pratical self defense weapons depending on the shooter. Practice, practice, practice.
I started out with an old timer as my coach who taught me using the revolver (a model 10) and shooting at a 4 X 4 post off hand. I can still destroy a 4 X 4 post.
Hope that rambling helps.
Will a revolver still cut it for self defense.....
In a word, Yes, but simply speaking, the key will be; the shooter will need to know how to use it and put the rounds where they need to go.:hand5:
I have been in self defense situations with both. Both a revolver, and an autoloader IMO are tools. I never felt undergunned with either. In one confrontation with a revolver I remember wishing I had brought my second one... But that was due to the number of people I was dealing with. Very tense, very dangerous situation. Not so much for round count, but to fill my off hand. I probably would have wanted a second gun if I'd had an auto.
More important than the type of handgun is the skillset of the shooter. If a person is confident with his or her revolver... then thats the right gun. If someone simply must have a auto?... Then thats the right gun. As individuals we all have different perception of threat. I respect everyones personal perception. I only ask they respect mine.
Imo the option that will make the biggest difference in a tight situation is not so much the kind of gun, but the training recieved, and the practice of the technique learned. Then more practice, and more practice after that.
"But they were just misguided kids trying to have a little fun. Should they pay for that for the rest of their lives?".... yes they should!
(refering to OP's news clip)
This seems to be the consensus of the folks who have been there done that. I was addressing the people who are arguing that absolutely a revolver won't cut it in this day and age, trying to point out all these scenarios that they them selves never have been involved in and trying to convince me otherwise.
Originally Posted by Secret Spuk
Today, we learn to fire for effect (not to spray & pray) and load while moving too...
Originally Posted by wot
We just do it with a different platform that has a lot more ammo in it.
Unless shooting a 3"x5" card taped to a target's chest with no other hits (other than head shots) counting doesn't count as firing for effect?
Thanks for proving my point. :rofl:
Originally Posted by azchevy
Originally Posted by Bill MO
Nothing disturbs me more then to see people, LEO included, keep shooting tll you run out of ammo. I've investigated too many ois using high count mags only to learn that the BG was hit only twice and no accounting for the other bullets. Real dangerous for the public or other LEO's.
Good training is making every shot count and knowing where every shot goes and keeping enough ammo in the mag/cylinder to protect yourself until YOU are no longer in the threat.
In answer to your question; I've been protecting myself and the citizens with a model 19 S & W 357 for over 30 years and I've carried the model 19 for fifty years. The secret is practice, practice, practice and I don't mean shooting paper targets while standing at a range. Get out into country where you can shoot to a backstop of a hill or birm and practice shooting at a 4 X 4 post from a lot of positions. When you can hit the 4 X 4 from any position out to 30 or 40 feet free hand then you are a pistol shooter. Practice, practice, practice.
A revolver may indeed "cut it" for a skilled user in a lethal force situation. However, the fact remains that for shooters of equal practice and skill, a modern, reliable semiauto pistol in a service caliber is far superior to any revolver in capacity and reload capability, and usually has a better trigger and available sights than the typical DA revolver. Revolver shooters are not automatically more skilled than semiauto shooters, as some have seemed to imply in this thread. There may be limited circumstances where more than 5 or 6 shots are needed, but if today is your day to meet those circumstances, all the rationalization for the little J frame in your pocket being your only defensive tool is going to be little comfort. The entire reason that most of us bother to carry a handgun every day is the notion of "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." I simply extend that rationale to select the most effective platform that I can fit into my lifestyle. No amount of proficiency will make up for the empty cylinder in your wheelgun when the bad guy is still up and shooting at the IHOP or the local mall, and you are the one responsible for your family's safety. I will simply not handicap myself with 5 or 6 shots before running empty, when I can select a lighter, easier to carry platform with readily available night sights and twice to 3 times the capacity of modern JHP ammunition for my defensive needs. If I ultimately perish in my attempt to protect what is dear to me, at least it will not be because I foolishly thought that I could predict when and where 3 or 4 shots would be sufficient to save my life or the life of one of my family members.
Sounds a lot like a Glock or an M&P to me. :smile:
Originally Posted by Guns and more
Please share with all if us your first hand self defense encounter and why you felt the revolver would not have cut it. I am eager to hear you actually prove anything.
Originally Posted by Knightrider
Oh boy...this is another of those topics that seems to get rather heated, rather quickly.
IMHO - in most cases, a revolver will work fine. In some cases, a revolver is preferable to a pistol (contact shots, etc).
I have not read through the entire thread, but the question was asked about civilian defensive encounters where a revolver was not enough. I did indeed read of one. A family was in their SUV, sleeping - trying to be the first on line to sign their kids up for a school. A man with a shotgun forced his way into the vehicle. The father struggled with the attacker, and EMPTIED his revolver. Unfortunately, one of the bullets hit one of his children in the back row, and the child died.
The fight spilled out of the vehicle, and the father managed to get the shotgun away from the attacker. He shot the attacker with the shotgun. Despite several revolver hits, AND a blast from the shotgun (not sure what it was loaded with), he did NOT die right away. IIRC, he said something like, "please don't shoot me again."
So, here is an example of a civilian defensive encounter against ONE attacker, where a revolver's capacity was not enough.
Just to be clear, my normal carry consists of two low-cap pistols - either a 7 shot PM9 and a 7 shot LCP, or two LCPs. This is due to my needs, which are on the discreet side of the spectrum. At times, I will carry a 9mm Glock in a Smartcarry, but it gets painful after a few hours for me.
I would suggest this - a Glock 26 has the same footprint as a snubbie revolver, but has twice the capacity. Why NOT carry a G26 instead of a snubbie? Even better - carry one of each. If you are hung up on Magnum revolvers, you can get a subcompact Glock in .357 Sig, or in .40.
Last thoughts - "It is better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have."
"The only time you can have too much ammo is when you are drowning, or on fire."
I realize that none of this will change the mind of any of the revolver lovers out there - but for others with a perhaps more objective mind, I hope I have given some things to consider.
It's an example of skill not being enough.
Originally Posted by 10thmtn
It's an example of Situational Awareness not being used sufficiently.
It's also an example of what happens when you encounter a human cockroach that doesn't die easy.
But - it's not an example of a revolver, in and of itself being insufficient.
Originally Posted by MitchellCT
I hope you realize how condescending your post comes across as.
If we were all so "skilled" as to never miss, there would be little need for more than a two shot derringer.
I suppose if you go out camping, one of you stays up and keeps armed watch? You know - for situational awareness? Fact is that, in the real world, you cannot be on guard all the time - especially with kids distracting you.
You can have all kinds of "skill" but when things go hands-on, you cannot predict what will happen - as was the case in this tragic example.
Fact is, in this case, if the father had been using a weapon with more capacity, he might have been able to end things without the need to get the shotgun away from the attacker. We'll never know for certain, of course. But the question was asked - if there have ever been situations involving civilians where the capacity of the revolver was insufficient, and in this case, it was. The fight was not ended with the revolver.
And we know of many, many cases in law enforcement where officers were killed or injured after running their revolvers dry. Which is the reason virtually NO law enforcement agencies issue revolvers anymore.
Again - for most civilian encounters a revolver (preferably two) will be fine. But not always. If you can carry a higher capacity gun instead, I would.