PDA

View Full Version : 5 shot revolver training... double tap...double tap... single tap ???


Magnum Wheel Man
February 23, 2008, 11:41 PM
I got to thinking about switching around my training with my revolvers this spring / summer, concerning engaging multiple bad guys... ( several of my CCW revolvers are 5 shot revolvers, some are 6 shots ), but I think conditioning to shoot 2 sets of double taps, followed by a single tap... assuming I've done my job, leaves 3 bad guys down, & if there is a 4th to engage, no one would have heard a hammer drop on an empty cylinder, so even if I happen to be carrying one of the 5 shot revolvers & my revolver is empty, the bad guy doesn't know that, & a command like "freeze or die", or "drop your weapon or die", may be all thats needed, especially if you've already piled up 3 of thier buddies, if I happen to be carrying one of the 6 shot revolvers, I have one live round left...

I also train with my autos, but what are your guys thoughts as to training like this with my revolvers, both 5 & 6 shot weapons ??? I live & work in a pretty safe area, & likely will never need to deal with actually having to shoot 3-4 bad guys anyway, so I currently don't carry a reload, because of the safe "type" area I live & work in...

T. O'Heir
February 24, 2008, 03:06 AM
Changing firearms is just like going from a proper standard transmission to an automatic transmission vehicle. You adjust according to what you're using. You just have to adjust. And practice quick reloads. You can't rely on bluffing.

KD5NRH
February 24, 2008, 04:03 AM
It depends on the situation; what I've been training with is a multiple-choice situation with one or more targets:

If I'm aware of two or more targets from the draw, I hit each one once, then reassess (including threat scan) and reengage as needed.

If I'm aware of only one target, I double-tap it, scan for more, and reengage as needed.

2cooltoolz
February 24, 2008, 05:58 AM
I think your regimen is fine. There can always be one more bad guy, but unless you're fighting trained soldiers, I think once they realize they are meeting armed resistance, they will haul butt. There is really no advantage to a BG to get into a real gunfight except to avoid capture.
If you run into a crew wearing body armor and carrying AR's...don't pull out the 2 inch...

KD5NRH
February 24, 2008, 06:17 AM
If you run into a crew wearing body armor and carrying AR's...don't pull out the 2 inch...

My practice is to take headshots on anything that has already been shot and still needs to be shot again after reassessment.

The general rule I follow is that you shoot COM as many times as you feel is prudent (using the rules in my previous post with low-capacity weapons, winging it with high-caps) then transition to where the nose was while you reassess; if it's still there, shoot it until it stops being there and reassess/threat-scan again.

FerFAL
February 24, 2008, 07:38 AM
The question would be, if you are serious about self defense as you obviously are, why carry a 5 shot revolver to begin with?

If you are used to fire doubles with your auto, try carrying the 6 shot revolver at least, so as to simplify things in terms of the “software” in your head ( you know you have 2 double taps , not 2 and ½)

Loves revolvers ( recently bought a nice S&W 12-2 Airweigt) but I cant consider them a wise alternative as my main gun, not when you have extremely reliable autos that have 15+1 rounds that are just as easy to carry.

For whatever reason, if a 5-shot is what you have, I’d be cautious about the amount of ammo I’m firing ( not something I’d like to do when defending my life, but well...)
Against a single attacker, two to the chest and one to the head if the head is still in vertical position.
Against two, I’d go for two shots each, and if I think there could be more than just two ( there’s generally one around that is not directly involved in the crime but keeping an eye on things, in case cops show up) I’d go for one shot each until they are down... or until I run out of ammo… :eek:

assuming I've done my job, leaves 3 bad guys down, & if there is a 4th to engage, no one would have heard a hammer drop on an empty cylinder, so even if I happen to be carrying one of the 5 shot revolvers & my revolver is empty, the bad guy doesn't know that, & a command like "freeze or die", or "drop your weapon or die", may be all thats needed, especially if you've already piled up 3 of thier buddies

PLEASE, don’t count on that. If he has a gun he will shoot, SPECIALLY with 3 guys dead around him.

FerFAL

nemoaz
February 24, 2008, 10:54 AM
The question would be, if you are serious about self defense as you obviously are, why carry a 5 shot revolver to begin with?Yeah, what he said. By the time you alter your dress slightly to accommodate a small firearm, you could probably be carrying a compact real weapon (G23, P2000, lightweight Commander, whatever) in a GOOD HOLSTER.

I think once they realize they are meeting armed resistance, they will haul butt. We see training videos every day of people who continue the attack in the face of armed resistance. If they aren't afraid of trying to kill a trained, armed cop, why in the heck are they gonna run from a civilian who may or may not even have the nerve to fire in self-defense or any training or marksmanship skills whatsoever?

Magnum Wheel Man
February 24, 2008, 11:22 AM
The 2 autos I carry are a full size witness in 10mm & a CZ compact in 9mm... however both are way heavier than either my airlite 44 special or my airweight 32 H&R J Frame ( which BTW is a 6 shot ), as is my custom 6 shot 44 mag snubbie which I very rarely carry... but as I said, I very rarely put myself in a situation where I might "realistically" encounter a "normal" self defense situation... so the light weight 44 special is my carry gun of choice, it's a 5 shot 3" L Frame, with adjustable sights, & it is the gun I shoot best, of those I carry & is so light that loaded, it's just about the same weight as a loaded magazine alone from the 10 mm... so if there is ever any question of wheather I should "strap one on" wheather it's physical activity or what ever, the light weight revolver is almost always there... I'm also building a custom 50 cal. "special" 5 shot revolver, which I might carry occasionally, so I have some 5 shots, that are both my primary carry pieces, & could be regular use items... ( also have a NAA Mini, which I rarely carry, but it is nice to slip into a pocket if there is just no way to "strap one on"... it is also a 5 shot revolver )

I guess I figured if I trained for 5 shots for both single & multiple targets, I'd still have the 6th if needed if carrying one of my 6 shot revolvers, & plenty left, if carrying one of the autos, but I've been in several "medical emergency situations" in the past, & while I've always had better reactivity than most, I'm counting on one training method so if while in shock of actually having to defend myself, there is only one trained style to fall back on... nothing to have to think about during the limited time of action...

BTW... I've definately attracted the mall commandos with this thread, if this is not considered a "real" weapon here :confused:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27884&d=1193745335

FerFAL
February 24, 2008, 06:45 PM
My friend… you are talking about mall commandos yet you are the one with the 44 mag sunb for defense… and the 50 “Special”.. :)

There’s nothing commandoish ( just invented that one) about Glocks or Hi Powers, just to mention a couple of the guns that came to mind when I said that you could have 15+1 rounds or more for almost the same size.

As Nemoaz suggested, if you bother enough to carry, carry something that offers good firepower, but if 5 shooters is your thing, go for it.
I think that your autos are much better defensive tools. Offer more peace of mind if you ever happen to need to defend yourself from more than two attackers.

The weapon on the pic is real enough, also very nice piece, but you can get something that has 3 times more capacity, it’s less bulky (personally, bulk bothers me more than weight) and fires a more powerful round than 44 special..
Since you like 10mm, a Glock 10mm, for example, would fit such description.

FerFAL

David Armstrong
February 24, 2008, 07:30 PM
For many years folks managed to fight off the badguys with just 5 or 6 shot revolvers. Badguys haven't gotten any tougher just because there are hi-cap weapons out there. "Back in the day...." as they say, snubs were THE CCW gun, and in spite of the rhetoric you'd be surprised at how many are still carried as primary weapons. As to your problem, we were taught not to get into a pattern. Don't plan on double taps, or anything else. Plan on shooting what you have to when you have to. If 1 round makes the BG go away, one is enough. The variables are too complicated to say one size fits all.

Deaf Smith
February 24, 2008, 07:48 PM
Magnum,

If you are going to carry a revolver, especially a J snubbie, I suggest you do alot of DA practice. I do mean a lot. It's a very hard gun to master. Once in a IDPA match I ran, I had a J .38 as the supprise gun everyone was going to have to shoot a stage with. Light power reloads. I asked if everyone knew how to shoot one. They all answered yes. Well to make a long story short, well over half of them (we are talking over 20 guys) missed the target! A few even missed the backstop (which ****** me off royaly.)

As for double taps and such, practice several types of fire. Single shots, doubles, emptying the gun. Especialy practice one handed shooting with the little hand cannons.

I practice with both a J 34 kit gun, 2 inch, in .22 lr, and a Smith 640 .357 (with .38s) quite often. And to practice drawing from concealment, I have a ASP red .38 J 'chiefs' that fits my hosters. As you can see I am dedicated to being good with that little gun!

My two carry guns now are a Glock 27 and a Smith 642 .38. If it's possible, I carry the Glock, if for some reason I can't conceal the 27, then the J rides on me and the 27 is in the car console.

Deaf

FerFAL
February 24, 2008, 07:57 PM
David Armstrong wrote:
"Back in the day...." as they say, snubs were THE CCW gun, and in spite of the rhetoric you'd be surprised at how many are still carried as primary weapons.


There was a time when a lever action rifle was considered a high capacity, high speed weapon.
So all of a sudden cowboy action shooters that have grown fond of their guns claim that a lever action rifle is more than enough for self defense. WRONG. It’s good, better than nothing, better than a single shot or even a bolt rifle, but not better than a proven semi auto design.

It was more than enough back in the day, when they where the fastest, highest capacity arm a man could buy.
Today, if you choose such a tool for self defense and you try to convince yourself with popular excuses such as “its enough firepower” “ its less threatening and draws less attention”, “I’m not likely to need more gun” you are just kidding yourself and refusing to admit that you had your choice for weapon influenced by romanticism and nostalgia.

There was a time when flintlocks were used for defense and carrying a couple of loaded single shot pistols was enough. You fired your one round, and you had another spare pistol just in case.
Bad guys were similarly armed.
Same happened with revolvers.
There was a time when revolvers were THE handgun of choice, and that’s what most people carried.
Today you are more likely to face an attacker armed with a high capacity pistol, than a revolver.

Badguys haven't gotten any tougher just because there are hi-cap weapons out there.

No, but they have become more common, more ruthless and have evolved into a greater threat. They’ve perfected their strategies too, in many cases.
“Back in the day”, as you say, only one or two guys came after you during a normal robbery. Now, it’s more likely to be at least 3. And weapons do make a difference.
Over here, Hi Powers are very popular. Sometimes you hear of shootings where 30 or 50 rounds are fired by the bad guys. With 3 or 5 guys attacking, and each carrying a Hi Power that at the very least holds 13 rounds, it’s easy to see how that can happen in just a few seconds.
Only hits count, but a fool firing at you is 3 times more likely to hit you if he has 15 rounds than if he has only 5, just a matter of simple probability math.

FerFAL

Chindo18Z
February 24, 2008, 09:02 PM
David Armstrong: "As to your problem, we were taught not to get into a pattern. Don't plan on double taps, or anything else. Plan on shooting what you have to when you have to. If 1 round makes the BG go away, one is enough. The variables are too complicated to say one size fits all."

Agree 100%.

I'd recommend focusing more on accuracy than a default double-tap, controlled pair, or "hammer" drill. You've only got 5 (or 6) shots. Be sure they count. You might have to take an extra fraction of time to ensure that.

A single speedloader really doesn't take up much room in a pocket or carrier...just something to think about.

nemoaz
February 24, 2008, 11:05 PM
BTW... I've definately attracted the mall commandos with this thread, if this is not considered a "real" weapon here Mall commando, huh? Been called a pig, jackbooted thug, or minion of the Uncle or whatever... but never mall commando. Thanks, I guess. Sounds like a promotion. :)

Back to the five shooters, as they said in Lethal Weapon "lots of old timers carry those." Hopefully, the old timers have been promoted to chief and won't be anywhere near any real criminals without plenty of other agents or officers present.

You think you're the only one who has ever been tempted to carry a lighter firearm? I've carried an airweight 38, a G27, and a P2000sk for years at a time in the past. But since I took a position that requires quarterly qualifications under stress (from the holster, 4 rounds in 6 seconds at 15 yards-- stuff like that), it became clear to me that I just don't shoot as well enough with a snubby or a subcompact weapon. Making a headshot, if necessary, is just far more of a challenge with a snubby. I don't know if you've ever been in any life threatening situations, but the first few times you probably will have issues with stress responses. It's hard to control your own adrenalin. The adrenalin doesn't do much for your accuracy.

Five shots is JUST five shots. It might be enough. It PROBABLY will be enough, but....I'm not willing to take the chance. See, in real shooting situations, the silhouettes move. They run and jump. The shoot back. And they don't necessarily fall the first time you shoot them. Sometimes, the are wearing body armor. Five shots? Not me.

I also learned that I can't just tuck a 38 or subcompact auto under my t shirt anyway. I wear thicker shirts, or a coverup shirt, or jacket, whatever. By the time I do that, I can just as easily carry my duty weapon, the gun with which I'm most familiar and with which I shoot 30 or 40 points higher on the qual course. So that's what I do.

I don't carry on my ankle so that really isn't an issue for me.

Maybe I'm just paranoid. But there seems to be a lot more kooks or spontaneous jihad types walking through our malls and schools shooting people. In the most highly unlikely chance that I'm near something like that, I'd sure as hell want something more than a 5 shooter. Wasn't the guy at the Utah mall carrying a five shooter? I'm not sure, but I do think I remember that he was out of ammo and basically at the mercy of the killer. Luckily, that killer died quickly. Not all of them do.

If you like your snubbies or even an old single action, so be it. Being armed is better than being unarmed. But I won't choose a five shooter for myself.

Magnum Wheel Man
February 25, 2008, 07:47 AM
I honestly wasn't trying to offend anyone... just felt a bit offended that the gun I carry 90% of the time ( & you all know now what I have available to me ), was blown off as "not a real weapon"

... I have my own rifle & pistol shooting range, & do practice shooting acurately, I used my 357 Magnum (6 shot) revolver to range qualify with for my CCW license ( got a perfect score BTW with 2 reloads )... still the 44 special with adjustable rear sight, & fiber optic front sight is the weapon I would carry before almost any other...

...I've been doing the "normal" belt & holster research, but still have more issues with a guns weight, that it's size within reason... I actually went into the toy store ( the day I bought my Witness 10mm ) with the intent of buying my 1st plastic gun... the Glock was my 1st choice... but I found the grip fit ( for me ) was so horrible, that I just couldn't make myself buy one... yes the Witness is heavier, but it fits my hand like a glove...

... so now for the 2nd time I've posted on this thread, primarily defending my choice of carry weapon, rather than disussing the training techniques of which I started the thread about in the 1st place... I'm going to steer it back in the right direction again... ( thanks to those that did post in response to my questions )....

so the general concensus seems to be to not train in any one pattern... I'm curious the expirience levels of those who recommend that ( I'm not doubting you guys, just trying to return this back to training questions, not about my choice of weapon )...my expirience ( & what is generally taught ), is that under stress we don't think as clearly or remember details as well, & rely more on muscle memory & engrained memory... my thoughts along those lines was, I can train all I want on the acurate use of my weapon, but when someone shoots back, most of your training goes out the window, & you do what comes "naturally"

... shortly after I joined this forum, I posted a humorous post in which I had to shoot an animal in "self defense"... it happened while I was deer hunting, & while I won't go into the long story,even though it was funny, I had to draw my handgun & shoot, even though I had a rifle with ( I had allowed the animal to get too close to use the rifle, in disbelief that I was actually going to have to shoot it ) & it was at that point instinct, not thought about the situation that was used to shoot the animal... it happened too fast, & came unexpectedly... just like most would tell you bad guy attacks happen... but truth be told, we can try not to put ourselves in situations where bad guy attacks happen, & I do that already... but there is always that once, where it comes when you least expect it, that IMO, you need that instictual training

... I'm hoping that if I train around 5 shots,that I'll be able to make the best use of my 1st 5 shots... if I'm carrying a 5 shot revolver, I'm fine, if I'm carrying the 10mm all the better... thats really all I'm after here, is how to train to best use my 1st 5 shots

Mannlicher
February 25, 2008, 09:21 AM
Rather than to into a possible confrontation with a preconceived plan, go with the mindset that you will be doing what is necessary. That means if you are going to carry a 5 shot revolver, you should already be proficient with speed loaders or speed strips. It also means that you need to know the limitations of the weapon, and adjust your possible tactics with those limitations in mind.

Rob Pincus
February 25, 2008, 09:21 AM
I carry a S&W 642 more often than anything else..... am I not serious about self-defense?

Many of the most "serious" guys I know carry a J-frame. They are convenient and they work.

One of my students who is rather serious about training shot over 1400 rnds out of his J-frame (actually 2 that he was switching in and out) in a class last summer.

enough on that.....
------

As David noted, shoot because you have a threat, stop shooting when the threat ends... don't get into patterns of shots. In CFS, after the first 10 minutes, students shoot 2 OR 3 rounds for each standard range command to fire unless we are controlling number of rounds for a specific drill. If a student shoots 2 all the time, we remind them to mix it up (same for 3). This breaks the tendency to start developing a pattern of the number of shots you train to shoot. Visualizing a threat during each string of fire (and the end of the threat) is part of the program.

----

The other training fallacy that exists is that you will be dealing with "multiple threats at one time"... In the overwhelming majority of multiple threat incidents, you will focus intently on one threat before realizing/acknowledging any other. The Square Range DRill/IDPA stage that has you cognitively dealing with multiple threats simultaneously is probably not reflecting what would happen in a real situation. It would be nice in some ways if we could multi-task like that, but it has been historically much more important to human survival to focus intently on the ONE thing that was a danger (hence orienting towards the threat, tunnel vision, bringing our hands to our eyeline towards the threat, etc....).

Stick to varied strings of fire and engage each target/threat separately in your training and you'll be preparing in a way that is likely to be consistent with a real world threat, single or multiple....

-RJP

pax
February 25, 2008, 09:51 AM
In the overwhelming majority of multiple threat incidents, you will focus intently on one threat before realizing/acknowledging any other. The Square Range DRill/IDPA stage that has you cognitively dealing with multiple threats simultaneously is probably not reflecting what would happen in a real situation.

Good post & good point.

Last year sometime, Concealed Carry Magazine featured a first-person account of a man who took five home invaders at gun point. He was dealing with two people and did not realize there were so many others when he started! But by the time the activity was over, he had five guys proned out on the ground in front of him.

pax

David Armstrong
February 25, 2008, 10:51 AM
There was a time when a lever action rifle was considered a high capacity, high speed weapon.
So all of a sudden cowboy action shooters that have grown fond of their guns claim that a lever action rifle is more than enough for self defense. WRONG. It’s good, better than nothing, better than a single shot or even a bolt rifle, but not better than a proven semi auto design.
You are confusing two things, "good enough" and "better than." And yes, a lever action is quite adequate for self defense. In fact, Jeff Cooper recommended it as a pretty good choice. Just because something better comes along doesn't mean the older stuff is suddenly not going to work.
No, but they have become more common, more ruthless and have evolved into a greater threat.
That is certainly open to debate when discussing the U.S., and a lot of debate at that.
“Back in the day”, as you say, only one or two guys came after you during a normal robbery. Now, it’s more likely to be at least 3.
Sorry, but the data on robberies does not reflect that here.
With 3 or 5 guys attacking, and each carrying a Hi Power....
If 3 or 5 guys are attacking, even if they only have revolvers, your making it through OK is not going be based on how many rounds you have in your gun.

BikerRN
February 25, 2008, 11:00 AM
With multiple adversaries it's "One shot per target, repeat as needed."

If you spend time trying to "double tap" you will be soaking up bullets from the one(s) you didn't shoot. I favor revolvers for off duty carry, or low capacity autoloaders like the 1911 or Kahr PM9. I spend a lot of time practicing multiple targets. Shooting and moving is very relevant here.

In the words of Clint Smith, "If you aren't shooting you should be moving. If you aren't moving you should be reloading. If you aren't reloading you should be communicating." That's a lot to do in a life or death encounter. I forgot the communicating part last time.

Biker

Glenn E. Meyer
February 25, 2008, 11:31 AM
At the NTI - in the ATSA village scenarios, we were given 5 shot revolvers and last year we had many discovered gun stages with 6 revolvers and varying number of rounds. As folks said, after stage critiques pointed out that some folks fired rounds as they shooting hicap semis. Guess what - you ran out of rounds (now how would I know that).

I shot my 642 at an IDPA match awhile ago, good practice to running the gun. It isn't really that hard at most distances for a match (well except for one target :o). Plan to do it again with my Colt Cobra.

BTW - with multiple attackers - isn't the standard cant to put one in each, thus you can hit five guys and they will all die, be incapacitated or flee. One thing good about the NTI is those darn reactive targets so you can see when your killer shot leaves the guy standing there. OOPS.

David Armstrong
February 25, 2008, 01:20 PM
Many of the most "serious" guys I know carry a J-frame. They are convenient and they work.
I was at a table with a few of the "top-tier" instructors a while back, taking a break at a conference. The off-duty/CCW gun came up, and one well-known author posed the question: "What are each of you carrying right now?" Of the 6 of us, 5 admitted to having some sort of J-frame as the primary gun.

Dwight55
February 25, 2008, 04:33 PM
While I subscribe to the theory, I had never heard it put into words until one of the other posters did it, . . . and it went something like this:

Just like at momma's table, . . . everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.

That is my training routine, . . . belief, . . . and matches directly with the teaching of Eugene Sockut in his book Secrets of Street Survival-ISRAEL STYLE, Staying Alive in a Civilian War Zone. He makes the case that it has been shown that if you spend enough time on the first two to expend 2 or more rounds, . . . the 3rd guy will nail you before you get to him.

Anyway, . . . that's my $.02

May God bless,
Dwight

FerFAL
February 25, 2008, 07:52 PM
Magnum Wheel Man wrote:
so the general concensus seems to be to not train in any one pattern... I'm curious the expirience levels of those who recommend that ( I'm not doubting you guys, just trying to return this back to training questions, not about my choice of weapon )...my expirience ( & what is generally taught ), is that under stress we don't think as clearly or remember details as well, & rely more on muscle memory & engrained memory... my thoughts along those lines was, I can train all I want on the acurate use of my weapon, but when someone shoots back, most of your training goes out the window, & you do what comes "naturally"

You’d be right to be suspicious.
Train, have a plan, have a strategy. Don’t just hope to rise to the situation, understand you’ll surely drop to your level of training, as someone say.
You must have a plan, and repeat it frequently enough so that it comes naturally when you react.
2 “hammers” for one or two guys sounds about right, more than that and you want to fire each one once. If you can distinguish between armed and unarmed attackers, of course the closest armed one is the one you want to put down first.

Again, have a plan, don’t expect to improvise. Expect to simply react, so train to react in a certain way.

For example, for a quick unarmed response, I practice right jab to the face, right low kick, left hook to the face.
I practice this mostly because I’m a left handed fighter, and it always gets people off guard when the quick left punch comes.
The first right jab is mostly to get the guard up in that direction. Against someone that isn’t very good that first punch may connect well, though I’m not counting much on it.
The low kick is something most people don’t expect, and if done well it can drop most people to the ground, catching them off guard.
After the quick strikes to the right, someone that knows how to fight will have the guard in that direction and the left hook is very likely to connect nicely.

Same happens with gun fighting, you need to react in a certain way. Reaction is always faster than action, don’t count on stopping, analyzing the situation and then acting. Train so as to react in a certain way.
Answering the question then, double tap wouldn’t be very wise with a5 shot revolver, “hammers” are a better tactic.

David Armstrong wrote:
If 3 or 5 guys are attacking, even if they only have revolvers, your making it through OK is not going be based on how many rounds you have in your gun.


Yes it does, at least for part of the equation ( you having enough ammo to fight back).
When attacked by several social predators three things may occur.

1)You might be unlucky and go down in the first shot.
2)You might be a bit luckier and fight back, taking a few down before they kill you.
3)Or you might be one lucky MF, or one that is very good with guns, has the proper mental attitude and even more important, the lifesaving awareness attitude, combined with a good dose of luck, combined with a greater or lesser amount of skill, along with an adequate weapon, and win against a large group of attackers.

Again, I know of people that saw all those endings. Winning against 3 or 4 determined armed attackers that are ambushing you is improbable, but it can occur. People HAVE done it successfully and that’s reason enough to try, beats the alternative, don’t you think?

No sense in wasting much time with cases 1) and 2), but I take into great consideration number 3), what weapon made the difference? Hi capacity autos.

In all those cases high capacity weapons where used.
A neighbor of mine ( forensic doc) was ambushed outside a restaurant., by 5 attackers. They didn’t want money or to kidnap him, they just wanted to kill him right there.
The good doc fought back with his Glock, and even though he didn’t win, he killed 3 and injured a 4th before going down.
A kid (17 or so) saw how home invaders attacked his mom and forced her into the house. He grabbed his dad’s Taurus .40 and waited for them, as they went upstairs he caught them in the hallway and opened fire, killing them all. They where four bad guys if I’m remembering correctly, and at least one was an active duty cop.
I’ve never heard of anything like that getting pulled with a revolver.

Skill is very important, but superior firepower does even the odds a lot. There’s no use in trying to deny that.

A bad guy walks in front of a patrol car that stopped at a red light. When he’s standing right in front of the car full of armed cops, he pulls a 40 round 9mm SMG and empties it on the car, killing everyone inside.

The best tennis or golf players buy the best rackets and golf clubs money can buy, they don’t use the one that was best 5 years ago, they use they best tool they can get. Doesn’t matter if it’s Tiger Woods you are talking about.
Same happens with weapons.
How many elite military and law enforcement forces carry revolvers these days?
Like it or not, that says a lot.
It says that autos are finally reliable enough that the revolver advantage is not worth it anymore, not when weighted against almost 3 times the capacity, in many cases greater ruggedness and abuse tolerance service autos offer.

There was this shooting instructor I met once that carried a 22 LR revolver for self defense. He said he was very good with it, could hit people in the eye, so that’s what he carried…
He lived in the richest part of town so I doubt he ever used it for defense.

I was at a table with a few of the "top-tier" instructors a while back, taking a break at a conference. The off-duty/CCW gun came up, and one well-known author posed the question: "What are each of you carrying right now?" Of the 6 of us, 5 admitted to having some sort of J-frame as the primary gun.

I know a few instructors myself, most are Bonaerense cops, with many gunfights under their belts.
They all carry high capacity autos, mostly Glocks, and in some cases a backup revolver or smaller Glock.

I’ve slipped my Colt Detective into my pocket on occasions, but I didn’t fool myself. I knew it’s not the best gun for the purpose I intend.

I did it when working around the house, on the front lawn, and thought that I wouldn’t be needing more than that for protection.
If my number was up that day and I happened to need more than 6 rounds, I had only myself to blame.

I wont carry a revolver as my only weapon anymore.
I reasoned it out that if I’m the kind of person that prepares for unlikely events, I’d be an idiot to do so for an unlikely event that falls within my convenient parameters, so I prepare for the worst case scenario, choosing the gun that gives me al the potential that fits into a handgun, to better my odds in such a situation.

Wrote Rob Pincus:

I carry a S&W 642 more often than anything else..... am I not serious about self-defense?

You probably are but your weapon of choice doesn’t show that. You are not picking the gun you would pick if you had to go out that door into a gunfight, and all you could take with you is a handgun.
Ask yourself sincerely, why did you pick it?
Is it because it’s light, comfortable ( rather than comforting , which is what it should be) because it’s simpler to operate ?( more complex firearms present a problem for you? I doubt that very much)
Did you compromise, giving up the % of possible situations where more rounds would be needed, just to be a bit more comfortable?
In a nutshell, why did you choose that gun?


FerFAL

Deaf Smith
February 25, 2008, 11:01 PM
"No man in combat has ever wished for a lesser powered weapon nor for less ammo."

Just keep that in mind.

Ayoob has written about ISP troopers that had their Smith 39s stop the BG with the last shot (8 rounds.) I did not say they didn't hit the guy with just one round, but the eight one dropped him.

So the merry-go-round might stop at one shot, or it might stop when you run out of BBs (and turn out badly for you.) It's happened both ways.

If you do carry a J only, I do suggest either spare ammo (very slow to load) or a spare gun as the reload.

Erik
February 26, 2008, 11:32 AM
I carry and favor j-frame as bugs; subsequently I train to use them. Even when I didn't, I trained to use them; they are a very common carry and BUG option.

It is probably no surprisegiven that fact tha I disagree with the notion that somehow a j-frame is not worth carrying, or that someone carrying one is not as serious as the next carrier.

I concur with the posters advocating avoiding "packaged solutons" for given problems, such as X number of rounds per assailant in a set pattern. A viable training excercise, coupled with others, so long as it is thought of as nothing more? Sure.

longcoldwinter
February 26, 2008, 01:27 PM
I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter. The most commonly cited stats are 2-3 shots with a encounter length of 2-3 seconds. The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

Call it a cost benifit anlaysis but the additional effort and discomfort involved in carring a high cap auto vs a j frame 38 when balanced against the need for such a gun, I dont have any problems carry "only" a 5 shot 38 subby.

Course if I found my self living in inner city detroit I might have a different outlook :)

FerFAL
February 26, 2008, 07:01 PM
Longcoldwinter wrote:

I picked a 38 snubby as my carry gun because I consider it the best comprise between power, concealability, safety and ease of use.

You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you? :)

Some people seem to forget your CCW does not make you a cop, you dont have to chase down a BG, all you need to do is end the encounter.

You are right, you don’t have partner, you don’t have a shotgun or rifle in the patrol vehicle ( good idea to have one in your car, BTW)
You cant call for backup, all of which are even more reason to carry all the firepower and advantage that fits into a handgun.

The average person will never draw their CCW, and the chances of finding yourself in a situaition where you need 10+ rounds of .40 cal even smaller.

According to the NRA, 90% of the time you don’t even need to fire, the mere presence of the gun is enough to sent attackers away.
I believe that statistic to be a pretty accurate one, according to personal experience.
Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded ( think of how it would completely eliminate AD probabilities!) combine that with the already small percentage of getting attacked at all, and you are already heading to an anti gun logic where you realize that according to %, you really don’t even need a gun, or you just need an empty gun just to scare bad guys.

Those of use that choose to carry do so understanding that ( at least for you guys in USA) needing a weapon is a remote enough possibility, but you still carry. Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?

FerFAL

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 10:52 AM
He makes the case that it has been shown that if you spend enough time on the first two to expend 2 or more rounds, . . . the 3rd guy will nail you before you get to him.
I think it was Walt Rauch who showed that it didn't matter what you did, the 3rd guy would nail you before you got to him.

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 11:01 AM
Yes it does, at least for part of the equation ( you having enough ammo to fight back).
We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.
The good doc fought back with his Glock, and even though he didn’t win, he killed 3 and injured a 4th before going down.
So all those rounds didn't make any difference.
I’ve never heard of anything like that getting pulled with a revolver.

Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.
Skill is very important, but superior firepower does even the odds a lot. There’s no use in trying to deny that.
Welll, actually, one can deny that, quite easily.
How many elite military and law enforcement forces carry revolvers these days?
Like it or not, that says a lot.
Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.

FerFAL
February 27, 2008, 12:00 PM
David Armstrong wrote:
We will agree to disagree. If 5 guys are attacking you, whether you have 5 rounds in the gun or 15 won't matter much to your survival. Your survival will be based on your tactics and their abilities along with a big dose of luck.

Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?

So all those rounds didn't make any difference.

No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.
As mentioned before, some are more lucky and make it.
I know of a politician, guy named Rico, that made it through in a similar situation. He was lucky, had the skill, and he also had the right tool ( Beretta 92).

Maybe you should look more? There are numerous instances of the revolver armed individual triumphing over large numbers. But again, it rarely is the result of the number of rounds in the gun.

I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.In most of these situations, where a single person faces many attackers, most of the time the ones that make it fire more than just 6 rounds and use a high capacity auto.
Only if you consider the role of them the same as the CCW holder, particularly when given the fact that many of those "elite" units choose a low-capacity auto over a high capacity.
Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.
But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.
The handgun is just backup in case the primary goes down.
As a civilian, you dont walk around the street carrying a rifle do you?
That's why it' s even more importnat for you as a civilian to carry a high capacity auto.

FerFAL

MLeake
February 27, 2008, 12:23 PM
Seems to me that one of the first things they teach in Shoot-Don't Shoot scenarios is make proper use of concealment and cover. IE, while engaging, don't forget to try to move behind objects, or bad guys.

Going back to the MA angle, in randori training, you learn to try to move so that members of the attacking group are placed between you and some of the other attackers. NEVER place yourself where they all have a shot at you, or you will get hit.

This is true vs fists, feet, shinai, bokken and tanto. I'd suggest that it is also true vs firearms.

Limit their sightlines, and try to increase the odds they shoot each other.

Better yet, avoid areas where a group attack is feasible.

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 01:41 PM
"No man in combat has ever wished for a lesser powered weapon nor for less ammo."
I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors.

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 01:47 PM
You know you just used the word “compromise” in a life or death matter, don’t you?
You know that all life is a compromise, and the selection of a CCW is always going to be a compromise within the compromise.
Does that mean you wont carry, or that you wont carry it loaded
Not carrying at all is very different from not carrying more than "X" rounds.
Why then choose to prepare for an unlikely event yet hope that that unlikely incident will fall within the favorable statistic of only 2 or 3 rounds being fired?
Again, you have to always compromise. The question becomes one of what point you compromise at. What about the unllikely incident where you will need a .44 Magnum instead of a 9mm? Or the unlikely incident where you will need 20 rounds instead of 17?

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 01:57 PM
Of course, luck ( a lot of it) and skill, no doubt there, but why cant you accept that the tool you choose, it's capacity and traits, may influence the outcome if the situation calls for more than just 5 or 6 shots?
Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.
No, but he did come close to making it, closer than if he had a 5 shot snubby.
You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.
I'm pretty interested in this so I do look enough.
Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.
Yes, 1911s have a rather low capacity.
That is a matter of opinion. They might have less capacity than a 16 shot, but less does not equal low.
But you seem to forget that those "elite" units carry a carbine or rifle as a primary.
But you seem to forget that YOU are theone that brought up those "elite" units and what they carried to prove your point claiming that "Like it or not, that says a lot." So now that it now longer proves your point we should not consider it?? Strange.

FerFAL
February 27, 2008, 02:51 PM
Well, it proves that none of the carry revolvers :)
And those that carry 1911 carry rifles.

FerFAL

David Armstrong
February 27, 2008, 03:43 PM
Those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too, so I fail to see the point, particularly given that we are discussing the CCW issue, not military and LE fights.

longcoldwinter
February 27, 2008, 06:22 PM
Is there some far fetched situation, where having a high cap auto could help you, sure is it ever going to happen to a normal person, no.

Just remember your not rambo, you dont have super human powers to dodge bullets and if you find yourself attacked by a large group of armed men hell bent on killing you, the number of bullets in your gun aint going to matter. If you can't flee using cover your going to wind up dead.

So I'll carry my 5 shot revolver and be comforted with the knowledge that I have enough firepower to see my through any self defence situation I am likely to find my self in.

FerFAL
February 27, 2008, 06:47 PM
First, military and law enforcement personal all around the world carry autos. When you go to shooting classes, almost everyone (about 9 out of 10, and I’m being generous) has autos.
I’m guessing that you concur with me up to here.
The reason for this is that you do have more capacity, autos are easier for most newbies, and they’ve become reliable enough, that any person that shoots and practices as he should can clear the unlikely dud round or most common FTF in less than a second.
These are basically the reasons why all agencies and military, almost everyone that works in security uses autos.
You say that those that carry high-volume 9mms carry rifles too.
Well, it’s a pretty good idea. To bad they are stuck with FMJ.

My point was that certain units carry 45 ACP because they are great autos, it’s a proven design, you still have 50 % more capacity than a 6 shot revolver, and they also have a rifle so capacity isn’t that important.

Point is, as a civilian all you have on you is your handgun, so you should have the best handgun has to offer.
A snubby isn’t something you’d pick as your only gun if you knew you were going to a fight, you just carry it because it’s convenient.

Does that mean that revolvers are no good? Please, I never said that.

I’m just saying that it’s not the best tool you could conceal in an IWB holster, and if you choose to go that way you should at least be honest with yourself about it.

David Armstrong wrote:
Of course I accept it, just as I accept the situation may call for a shotgun, or a major caliber, or any of a dozen other factors. But one needs to decide just how many and how rare a situation one wishes to prepare for.

Well done! “Major caliber” I forgot that one.
Of course, the handgun should offer all the power you can show proficiency with, that you can still control well enough for fast follow up shots.
That’s why I chose the Glock 31. Simple to use, as powerful as a 124 gr 357 magnum out of a 4 inch barrel 15+1 round, accurate and reliable as no other caliber due to the bottle neck case.
Shotgun? That’s nice but we are talking about handguns here, something you can realistically carry at all times. But you can leave the shotgun or rifle in the car though, sure is a good idea.

You make an assumption that is not supported by the facts. Maybe he would have shot a little better with the snubby. Maybe hhis tactics would have changed. Lots of maybe. What we do know is that having all those bullets didn't make any difference, so using that to support your argument seems a little questionable.

I don’t think so. You have to be a pretty lucky guy to put down 5 guys with a 5 shot 38, specially a 38. Now with 15 rounds of 9mm +P, or better yet, 40S&W or 357 SIG, you have ammo and power to spare, given that you get to use it.
How about 6 guys? My friend, your chances fall to 0% given that you are now 1 round short even if you are the luckiest bstrd in the planet…:)
With more ammo? Maybe you pull it , maybe not, but at least your chances aren’t 0%.

Apparently not, as there are numerous instances available that show just that.

Show just what? People killing 6 guys with a 5 shot revolver? You must throw that little Airlight pretty hard …:)
Hi longcoldwinter
It’s not Rambo stuff.
I understand that my country can be a bit more violent than yours and these things are more common, with kidnappers and more organized crimes, home robberies involving many attackers.
But just as I was trying to explain to Dave, normal people do get to succeed against them sometimes, and in most of them high capacity autos are used.
If you live in a quiet safe place, where there’s no history of violent crimes involving many attackers, than maybe your snubby is fine for what you may end up facing realistically, but that doesn’t make it the best handgun, especially not for situations where a bit more firepower is needed, such as the ones that are common knowledge around here.

FerFAL

Deaf Smith
February 27, 2008, 10:16 PM
I think the counterpoint to that is that no man who has been shot ever complained that the person shooting him didn't use enough power or should have shot him more times. It is always a compromise between the various factors

They didn't have to complain david. Plenty of them just keep fighting after being shot. And that is why one keeps a-shooten. And the 5 shooter don't go so far.

seeker_two
February 28, 2008, 07:01 AM
Also helps if your carry snubby is an all-steel version (i.e. SP-101)....you can use the empty gun as a blunt instrument in hand-to-had if needed...

Magnum Wheel Man
February 28, 2008, 07:41 AM
one of the lines from my 1st post in this thread...

I live & work in a pretty safe area, & likely will never need to deal with actually having to shoot 3-4 bad guys anyway, so I currently don't carry a reload, because of the safe "type" area I live & work in...

this thread continues to get dragged ( kicking & screaming ) into the toilet with those who continue to say that my 5 shot revolver is not enough, yet still add comments like this...

If you live in a quiet safe place, where there’s no history of violent crimes involving many attackers, than maybe your snubby is fine for what you may end up facing realistically

yes, I'm the O.P of this thread, & yes I do live in work in a more rural, quiet setting... in fact, before I started carrying, I envisioned keeping a loaded revolver in the truck, more for dispatching 4 legged vermin on the farm, than carrying the light weight revolvers I have been carryng on my belt lately...

as I mentioned, I have the 2 "hi cap" autos that I am more likely to strap on if going into the downtown metro area, ( where realistically the threat warrents something with more capacity ) but for my day to day, I feel plenty safe with 5 shots of 200 grain 44 out of a weapon that I'm capable of shooting 3-4" groups at common self defense distances...

as for the reality of surviving a gang of 4-5 guys all armed guns of any kind, & with the sole intent of killing you... I think keeping your head, & thinking outside the box, being in good shape, & having a whole lotta luck on your side is way way more important than having a high capacity handgun... I will admit, that if I ever knowingly had to face 5 armed bad guys, ( in the 1st place, I'd avoid that like the plauge ), 2nd, I'm going to run as fast as I can... but I guess if I'm going to have to fight it out, I guess I hope I'm carrying my 10mm...

but since I carry my 5 shot 44... like 95% of the time.... I need to train the most with that weapon, & have a viable training plan for engaging multiple targets... with my 5 shot revolver...

FerFAL
February 28, 2008, 09:06 AM
On the same post you also said "I got to thinking about switching around my training with my revolvers this spring / summer, concerning engaging multiple bad guys..."
If that kind of threat is not a probelm, then a revolver should be enough, but you said yourself that you trained for several bad guys.
Even if the place is safe, Id still carry the auto, but that's just me.
Question, wouldn't your 10mm be enough for putting down animals?
That way you only carry one gun, one sistem, makes things easier.

FerFAL

Magnum Wheel Man
February 28, 2008, 09:23 AM
I honestly can't tell you how much easier the Airlite 44 is to strap on all day, than the full sized steel high capacity 10mm... the weight difference is incredible...

as I've said before ( maybe not on this thread ), when I planned on buying a 10mm, I fully intended to buy the Glock, but I found the grip fit for me to be awefull... the CZ cloned Witness fits like a glove, but it is a very heavy gun.. especially when loaded to capacity...

the loaded airlite 44 is almost the same weight as a spare loaded magazine for the 10mm... If I were carrying in a shoulder rig, I might find the weight of either auto to not matter as much, but for my dressing style, I carry almost exclusively OWB, & that is were the light weights shine... for me, it's not the bulk of the gun, as much as the weight, that I find anoying...

I still keep the loaded stainless 4" 357 magnum in the truck for varments around the farm, but have decided to start carrying on my person, if it's not too inconvient, & the airlite is very easy to carry... I guess from a tactical position, I do have a loaded 4" 357 Magnum & 3 speedloaders as a back up, if I'm anywhere around my truck, should I have a multiple BG situation...

That way you only carry one gun, one sistem, makes things easier. agree that would be easier, but right now, if I were going to limit it to one gun, that would be the 5 shot 44... but I like to be able to switch up between 3-4 different guns, each better suited for different types of conditions... & while I hope to have the compact 9mm or the full sized 10mm strapped on, if I really had to engage multiple bad guys, I still feel I need to train for that situation with the gun I carry most often, as well...

Whirlwind06
February 28, 2008, 11:37 AM
This is one of concealed carry sacred cows. Similar to the 9mm vs the .45 or glock vs the 1911 debates that rage across the boards.

The 3 shots 3 second statistic that gets thrown out on these threads. Isn't that like a 20 year old statistic? Like and FBI study from the 1980s?

Back in the summer of 2006 I had a epiphany of sorts. I was in the inner city of Cleveland Ohio at my Moms house. Helping her around the house doing some yard work. I had just gotten my CHL just a month or 2 before and I was carrying my trusty .38. I was in the front yard trimming bushes and there was a 5 or 6 young men siting on the porch on the house next to me.

I started thinking about what would happen if these fellas came at me. I have 5 shots and a reload. I could retreat into the house and have at a least a defensible position. I would still be in bad shape with my 5 shots. Granted if 6 guys came at me, no matter what I was carrying short of a 12 gauge would not be enough gun. But it really got me thinking about it and I ended up carrying first a 1911 then a hi-cap 9mm. Which is what I carry now.

I have kind stuck to this belief. I carry a Kel-Tec P11 now. 12 shots of 9mm in about the size a j-frame. A couple weeks ago I used my P11 in a IDPA style shoot, know what? under the stress of a timer and a bit of completion I missed a few times. That was with 12 shots and static non-moving targets. I guess I'm not one of those highly trained door kickers that can shoot somebodies eye out from 50 yards with my P11. The more shots I have the better chance I have of success. If that holds true in a game, why not in real life?

I would like to get a J-frame at some point but I see it as a BUG either that or I would carry two J-frames.

I'll para-phrase a comment made by somebody another board, "carry what you want and keep whistling in the dark hoping that the wolves won't attack. And your 5 shots will be enough, if they do."

Lurper
February 29, 2008, 12:22 AM
There's nothing wrong with your J frame as a primary. It isn't perfect, but it is sufficient. My biggest worry would be if it were a .38 not a .357, not the 5 shots. I can't speak about what happens in other countries, but in the US I can tell you what is likely to happen.
First of all, the vast majority of the time no shots are fired (by a factor of something like 10,000). Most of the time in multiple assailant encounters, when the victim opens fire, the assailants run - the urge of self preservation overides the uge to kill. Quite often, the assailants don't want to kill you (if they did, they would just walk up and cap you) let alone expect resistance. Hitting your target is critical, usually the person who hits their target first comes out of the fight the best.

I'll echo what some of the other more qualified posters have said:
Don't practice a certain number of rounds or pattern. Shoot until the threat is removed. If faced with multiple assailants, my choice would be to shoot the one nearest me if he was armed once then move to the next. Unless you fall into a very very small group, 5 shots will be enough.

David Armstrong
March 1, 2008, 12:08 AM
A snubby isn’t something you’d pick as your only gun if you knew you were going to a fight, you just carry it because it’s convenient.
If I knew I was going to a fight I'd go somewhere else if possible. If not, I wouldn't pick any handgun as my first choice, I'd want a rifle or a shotgun.
First, military and law enforcement personal all around the world carry autos.
And we are not talking about military or LE here, so I fail to see what tha has to do with anything. Until recently, most LE carried reolvers and would not use autos. Nothing has changed in the last 20 or 30 years to make the revolver less effective.
I’m just saying that it’s not the best tool you could conceal in an IWB holster, and if you choose to go that way you should at least be honest with yourself about it.
To me all this nonsense about caliber, volumes of fire and so on are just that, nonsense, in the context of the CCW world.
I don’t think so. You have to be a pretty lucky guy to put down 5 guys with a 5 shot 38, specially a 38.
I do think so. When the odds against you are 5 to 1, survival is not predicated on caliber or number of rounds available.
Show just what? People killing 6 guys with a 5 shot revolver?
I think you are going to be pretty hard pressed to find instances of anybody killing 6 armed assailants, no matter haow many rounds they had. There are many instances of revolver-armed parties defeating multiple opponents. The point is that the win is rarely the function of the number of rounds in the gun.

They didn't have to complain david. Plenty of them just keep fighting after being shot. And that is why one keeps a-shooten. And the 5 shooter don't go so far.
Right. So the whole cliche business that you seem so fond of is fairly irrelevant to anything factual. And the 5-shooter goes far enough for most.

FerFAL
March 1, 2008, 09:45 AM
David Armstrong wrote:
If I knew I was going to a fight I'd go somewhere else if possible. If not, I wouldn't pick any handgun as my first choice, I'd want a rifle or a shotgun.

Just handguns, no shotguns or rifles, no tanks or SEAL buddies, no going other place either.

If you had no other choice but to go out that door and into a gunfight. Which handgun ( again, handgun, shotguns can’t be carried all day concealed) you can only use a handgun and there’s no avoiding the fight, which one would you choose?

Nothing has changed in the last 20 or 30 years to make the revolver less effective.

Well, something has changed. You now have reliable weapons with excellent stopping power that have 3 times more capacity. :)

To me all this nonsense about caliber, volumes of fire and so on are just that, nonsense, in the context of the CCW world.

?? Not much to reply to that.
Carry a 22LR derringer?:confused:
It’s light weight and conceals like no other.

Found this for you David.
"The only problem was I run out of bullets," Picket said.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080214_lj_hawes.bfc57dff.html
Read and learn from other's mistakes.;)

FerFAL

David Armstrong
March 1, 2008, 06:27 PM
If you had no other choice but to go out that door and into a gunfight. Which handgun ( again, handgun, shotguns can’t be carried all day concealed) you can only use a handgun and there’s no avoiding the fight, which one would you choose?
When one attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point, it is easy to do so. However, getting something realistic is a bit harder to do. If I've got a choice, there is no need for concealement. Also, if I have to go out a door into a fight the gun I've got with me is the least of my worries. But given your comepletely artificial and contrived setup---It Doesn't Matter. I'm as comfortable (or uncomfortable) with a 5 shot snub, a 6 shot K-frame .357, an 8 shot 1911, a 9-shot Sig, an 18 shot Glock, or anything comparable. When I kicked doors for a living I chose to do it with an S&W Model 65 as my handgun. Maybe that is the difference between us--you want to worry about something that will never happen and make your choice based on the most unlikely events. I, along with many others, choose to respond based on more realistic situations.
Well, something has changed. You now have reliable weapons with excellent stopping power that have 3 times more capacity.
But that in no way changes the fact that the revolver will do the job just fine, as it has for a long time. You seem to think that capacity somehow makes you a better fighter or will change a bad situation to a good one. It doesn't.
Carry a 22LR derringer?
That will take care of most CCW needs. It's not my choice, as there are .22 autos that conceal just as well, but I've carried a High Standard .22 derringer in the past and didn't feel particularly worried.
Read and learn from other's mistakes.
A nice story with little value for your position, as it appears he solved the problem with 1 shot, and then they ran away. Looks like a 5-shot snub would have worked out fine for this incident. I can give you one where a .22 derringer was used to stop the BG. Will you learn from that???

FerFAL
March 1, 2008, 10:10 PM
David Armstrong worte:
When one attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point, it is easy to do so. However, getting something realistic is a bit harder to do.

You try to deny something that is just too obvious.
There’s nothing unrealistic about the situation I’m talking.
What’s unrealistic is to think that you’ll always have a choice NOT to end up shooting.
What I’m saying is just what happens when you end up defending yourself with whatever you happen to be carrying.

1) It happens, and wishing otherwise will change nothing.
2) We already suppose that you are shooting/fighting because there’s no other option left. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be doing it.
3) If you happen to be a careful person and pack a CCW, that weapon is all you have. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wishing for shotguns, rifles, or laser guided missiles changes nothing. You just have what’s inside your holster.

What part of that do you find it to be an “attempts to set up a situation to prove a specific point”, what part of it is “unrealistic”?

If I've got a choice, there is no need for concealment.

You don’t, in most ½ way civilized places of the world, civilians walking around cities and towns don’t carry openly, not all the time.

you want to worry about something that will never happen and make your choice based on the most unlikely events.

Exactly what will never happen?

Kidnappings? People getting attacked by several criminals working together? David: IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I, along with many others, choose to respond based on more realistic situations.

Maybe you don’t share my situation, but that doesn’t make mine any less real, now does it?

You seem to think that capacity somehow makes you a better fighter or will change a bad situation to a good one. It doesn't.

No I don’t. It gives you more ammo already loaded in the gun, almost 3 times more in many cases.
Sometimes that’s just what you need, sometimes it doesn’t change a thing.
Personally I’d rather have it and not need it, than needing I and not….well, not having it.

A nice story with little value for your position, as it appears he solved the problem with 1 shot, and then they ran away. Looks like a 5-shot snub would have worked out fine for this incident. I can give you one where a .22 derringer was used to stop the BG. Will you learn from that???

That some bad guys run at the sight of anything that looks like a gun while others keep firing at you even when wounded?
No, I already new that.
Hear carefully to what the old man says in the video clip, he says he’ll have something else to deal with the rats if the come back after him.
Maybe next time there wont be bad guys left to go to trial, or to go on bothering honest people.

That will take care of most CCW needs.

According to your door kicking experience a 22 LR derringer will take care of most CCW needs???:confused:
This is getting more bizarre, post after post.

FerFAL

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 11:00 PM
This is one of concealed carry scared cows.
Dyslexics untie!!!!

:D Sorry man, I couldn't resist.

Whirlwind06
March 1, 2008, 11:22 PM
:D

BAGTIC
March 3, 2008, 12:33 PM
The guy with the five shot revolver does the same as those of us with seven or nine shot revolvers.

Actually it doesn't make much difference. One uses what one has at the time according to the circumstances of the moment.

Realistically the likelihood is extremely slight that any of us will ever be required to fire a shot in self defense. In many cases the victim will be caught off guard and 'neutralized' before he realizes what is happening. The real world odds of being killed in a gunfight are far less that falling down the stairs, being kit by a drunk driver, or a thousand other causes. How many people who obsess about what to do in a never to exist gunfight drive without seatbelts, while drinking or too fast for conditions, involve themselves with the drug scene or the neighbors wife, etc. etc. There are lots of more productive ways to assure one''s safety and continued good health.

Apparently some people have very active fantasy lives and enjoy leading theme as though they were video games. Personally I am building an underground bunker to protect me and mine from falling meteorites. At least the storage space will come in handy.

FerFAL
March 3, 2008, 06:58 PM
Realistically the likelihood is extremely slight that any of us will ever be required to fire a shot in self defense.
Speak for yourself. ;)
Not all places are as safe as yours.
How many people who obsess about what to do in a never to exist gunfight drive without seatbelts, while drinking or too fast for conditions, involve themselves with the drug scene or the neighbors wife, etc. etc
Personally I always wear the seat belt ( saved my life a couple times) dont drink, except for a beer with friends in the odd reunion every now and then. May go months without drinking a single glass of alcohol. No drugs or cheating my wife either.
. There are lots of more productive ways to assure one''s safety and continued good health.
Like people worrying about zombies when they ignore that the gut they have hanging or the cheeseburger they are eating is 10000x more likely to kill him in the end?
Yes, but you seem to forget what forum you are in. It's called "Tactics and Training".


If you dont like thinking and training for these things, or you think it's stupid...
....
....
exactly what are you doing here??:p

FerFAL

Deaf Smith
March 3, 2008, 11:30 PM
Every day in the papers you read of some people being robbed. Others murdered. Others resisting and many times suceeding!

Just because I have never needed to actually shoot someone does not mean it can't or won't happen. If I really didn't think I might one day have to defend myself, I sure wouldn't bother getting a CHL, or lugging aroud a gun, or doing all the dojo training I do. I mean, life sure would be less complicated and less expensive if I just decided to let the government 'protect' me.

But like Tom Givens says, "It aways happens to other people... but to everyone else, you are 'other people'." And I know the government can't protect me.

David Armstrong
March 4, 2008, 07:23 PM
You try to deny something that is just too obvious.
There’s nothing unrealistic about the situation I’m talking.

OK, maybe not, but in all the years of research on this issue I've not run across any CCW situation where somebody had to go out the door to get into a gunfight. Seems pretty unrealistic to me.
You don’t, in most ½ way civilized places of the world, civilians walking around cities and towns don’t carry openly, not all the time.
You need to make up your mind. Either we are walking around in the city or we are in a house. Very different situation.
Kidnappings? People getting attacked by several criminals working together? David: IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And every single day it is prevented by folks with snubs and not prevented by folks with hi-cap autos. The gun is not going to determine what happens.
Hear carefully to what the old man says in the video clip, he says he’ll have something else to deal with the rats if the come back after him.

And you hear him also. He didn't need a hi-cap auto loader to solve his problem. Again, I prefer to deal with what is instead of what may be.
According to your door kicking experience a 22 LR derringer will take care of most CCW needs?
My door kicking experience has little or no bearing on CCW. And yes, for our purposes, a 2-shot 22 will handle most of the DGU issues. Your problems in your country may be different and thus suggest different solutions.
Yes, but you seem to forget what forum you are in. It's called "Tactics and Training".
You seem to forget what the thread is. It is not "what gun is best for fighting off hordes of bandits in 3rd World countries." A poster asked a question, some of us have tried to address that instead of delving off into issues that are of little or no relevance to that.

FerFAL
March 5, 2008, 06:46 PM
You need to make up your mind. Either we are walking around in the city or we are in a house. Very different situation.
There's something called concealed carry... maybe you heard about it.

You seem to forget what the thread is. It is not "what gun is best for fighting off hordes of bandits in 3rd World countries." A poster asked a question, some of us have tried to address that instead of delving off into issues that are of little or no relevance to that.

That is your opinion. I happen to have a different one. You not agreeing with mine doesn't make it wrong.

And every single day it is prevented by folks with snubs and not prevented by folks with hi-cap autos. The gun is not going to determine what happens.

Crime is prevented by people with snubs, but "not prevented by folks with hi-cap autos"??:confused:
Do they have some magic property, that cna be found in snubs alone?
That has to be the most unrealistic comment I've read, ever.

. And yes, for our purposes, a 2-shot 22 will handle most of the DGU issues.

I stand corrected. Suggesting a 22 LR derringer for self defense. Now that's the most outrageous advice I've read in a gun related forum.

FerFAL

Glenn E. Meyer
March 6, 2008, 11:34 AM
BTW - 22 mag derringers or NAA minis have saved the day several times.

Not to harp on research design but one would have to come up with incident rates which examined the rate of failure of such guns to save the day vs. that of larger calibers.

As far as I know - and I know the literature and experts quite well - the rate of success of such guns is very, very high and if there is a significant different in DGU success by caliber for civilians - it's not out there and the experts don't know it.

Here you go for a case. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080214_lj_hawes.bfc57dff.html

Deaf Smith
March 6, 2008, 09:34 PM
I stand corrected. Suggesting a 22 LR derringer for self defense. Now that's the most outrageous advice I've read in a gun related forum.


FerFAL,

david has always felt 'scareing' BGs with guns would do for 'most' situations. I guess he fells one just plays the odds. If 95 percent of the time or so all you need to do is 'scare', why a 2 shot .22 would be fine. Maybe he also has just a bicycle tire for his spare car tire since most of the time you don't need one either.

Say david, since one usually doesn't need seat belts, in fact I''ve in well over 35 years of driving never needed them, wonder why we need those gizmos, or maybe just a rope would do for a seat belt, right?

I suggest other readers here see that you don't carry a substandard gun, nor substandard seat belts, nor substandard tires cuase most of the time you won't need them. Cause if you do need them, you will need them bad.

Carry something a bit better than that piece of crap david suggest for 'most' situations.

Whirlwind06
March 7, 2008, 08:34 AM
As far as I know - and I know the literature and experts quite well - the rate of success of such guns is very, very high and if there is a significant different in DGU success by caliber for civilians - it's not out there and the experts don't know it.

Here you go for a case. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....bfc57dff.html



His NAA .22 did the job no doubt.
But from watching the interview he pretty much says he wished he had more shots. Then at the very end of the interview he says something about "having 15 of something next time" then stops talking. Which I would infer to mean that he is going to start packing a Hi-cap 9.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 7, 2008, 10:36 AM
This is always a useless argument. It comes down to this:

1. Mouse guns have no utility - not true.
2. Mouse guns have utility - true
3. If you could carry a bigger gun that you can use, is this better - true
4. Are you better off not carrying the mouse gun - not true.

Sprinkle rants through this and you have the never ending thread.

David Armstrong
March 7, 2008, 10:48 AM
There's something called concealed carry... maybe you heard about it.
Heard about it, practiced it, train others in it, for quite some time. haven't really run across much about any requirement for CCW in your own house.
That is your opinion.
Sorry, but no. The OP asked for info on a specific point, the use of a 5-shot snub in a particular situation. Changing the situation to defend your own personal choice of gun is not particualrly relevant.
Crime is prevented by people with snubs, but "not prevented by folks with hi-cap autos"??
Do they have some magic property, that cna be found in snubs alone?
That has to be the most unrealistic comment I've read, ever.
Perhaps your English is a bit weak? It is not an exclusive comment, that one always works and that one never works. It says that on a regular basis we see crimes attempted that are stopped by snubs, just as on a regular basis we see crimes that are not stopped by hi-cap autos. Nothing magic, just failure to understand some nuances of language on your part.
I stand corrected. Suggesting a 22 LR derringer for self defense. Now that's the most outrageous advice I've read in a gun related forum.

Well, once again we see the that some want to argue over what was not said instead of dealing with what was said. Nobody suggested anything. There is a difference between pointing out that something works and suggesting that it be used, and it is outrageous to claim otherwise.

david has always felt 'scareing' BGs with guns would do for 'most' situations.
That is not so much what David feels as it is what all the data show. I know that reporting facts offends you for some reason, but it doesn't change those facts.
Carry something a bit better than that piece of crap david suggest for 'most' situations.

As always, deaf, you make claims that are not true. David has never suggested one carry a piece of crap. You are making things up again.

As far as I know - and I know the literature and experts quite well - the rate of success of such guns is very, very high and if there is a significant different in DGU success by caliber for civilians - it's not out there and the experts don't know it.
Uncommonly strange how the literature in the field and the experts in the field agree on this, yet so many with absolutely no real kowledge of the subject disagree with them.

Deaf Smith
March 7, 2008, 01:23 PM
david,

Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it. If it works, it works, if it don't it don't. You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed.

That is one of your main problems. You give so nuanced a reply you don't see to say it works basicly says you approve, and then don't add any qualifer. And it's not the first time you have done this.

It would be like me saying riding on bald tires works most of the time and the just stop and not point out it's a very bad idea. But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea.

Same with pointing out the 'scareing'. You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that.

'm sure the other readers here know one does not keep a gun just to frighten off the bad guys. One must not only have decided if need be they will use it. And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed. And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 7, 2008, 01:34 PM
Talking at cross purposes - again the small gun has utility. If that's all you got or can carry - go for it.

If one argues that you shouldn't carry the small gun at all, which is the implication - you are making a mistake of missing its added value.

Look at it this way. For some reason - you have only have a short barreled Single Action Colt clone in 38SP or 357. If that's all you had - would you carry it? It's not a modern gun and difficult to shoot quickly without practice.

But I'd carry it.

Some predicted utility vs. max predicted utility.

I do agree that one should not be delusional about the smaller gun IF you do get into an intensive fight. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't carry one at all.

David Armstrong
March 7, 2008, 02:32 PM
Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it.
No, not at all. In fact, it is very easy to say it. I might point out that travelling by ox cart across the country works, but I certainly don't recommend it. I could point out that one can live quite well on a diet consisting of insects, milk, and blood, but I don't recommend it.
You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed.
Given the right situation any pick can be stupid and get you killed. I try to disregard the odd-ball exceptions and focus more on the normal and regular.
That is one of your main problems.
Yawn. I point out a set of facts that are accurate and acceptable in the overwhelming majority of the incidents. You respond "Ah Hah! Gotcha! Here is this one in a hundred incident where you would be wrong, so you are wrong for all the incidents." Sorry, that is not my problem. I would consider the main problem to be those who fail to recognize the big picture and focus on the rare and exceptional to the extent it colors their ability to understand the more common.
But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea.
I don't care if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I care about if it is an effective response to the situation. So what I say is that the .22 has been shown to be effective for most CCW situations. That is a true and accurate statement that one may use however they wish.
You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that.
It is not a good strategy to rely on any single factor. It is a good strategy to understand all the dynamics that go into an incident, how they typically play out, and plan your response around that.
And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed.
I know you hate it, but that is just not true. A serious weapon is not needed most of the time, assuming by "serious" you are talking about full-scale fighting guns. Most of the time the small gun will work. Most of the time ANY gun will work. And sometimes even the "serious" gun will not work.
And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.
Never said you should only rely on the stats, but knowing and understanding the stats help you more accurately determine what the best approach is to your problem. It is not the only factor, but it should certainly be one of them. Again, you probably shouldn't rely on any single factor. But the more you know the better you are.
Only in the world of personal defense do we regularly see people suggest one should ignore the best information and instead rely on guesses and unusual experiences. It is like going to the casino and betting "00" on the roulette wheel every spin.

MLeake
March 7, 2008, 03:07 PM
... any gun works better for SD purposes than no gun.

... most SD applications of a firearm won't require the weapon to actually be fired.

... in most cases where the weapon is fired, no more than 3 rounds are expended.

... a .38 snubby is adequate for the majority of SD cases.

However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the most sensible pistol to carry is the one that, for the given conditions, allows:

1) as close to perfect reliability as can be obtained;
2) the most power the user can effectively control, for initial and follow-up shots;
and
3) the best ammunition capacity available

Conditions will vary. They will include:

1) Physical strength, size and condition. Some weapons may be too heavy to carry all day, or too bulky to conceal.
2) Weather. Some weapons may require impractical (uncomfortable and tactically obvious) clothing.
3) Legality. Sorry, CA members...

The list can go on.

So, statistically, David Armstrong is basically right. Common sensically, so is FerFAL.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 7, 2008, 03:11 PM
Stop being rational - this is the Internet.

Dave speaks to the body of the distribution and others speak to a cut off level for the small percent of intensive interactions in the tail. It's real like a signal detection matrix with various types of errors. Oh, shut up - Glenn!

Deaf Smith
March 7, 2008, 10:36 PM
No, one carries a weapon to defend their life. They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical.

Weapons like .22 two shot pistols are, as they say, 'good guns for your opponent to have'. To on purpose pick an ineffective weapon just shows one is either not serious or is ignorant (or both.)

And to say they are adequate is to show either the same ignorance ir they just like to argue on the internet.

Same goes for using statitics that way.

SAWBONES
March 8, 2008, 05:29 PM
"No, one carries a weapon to defend their life. They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical."

Say rather that it should have an acceptably-optimal balance of potential terminal ballistic effectiveness, ease of use, comfort and concealability for the individual, and that there may be a range of acceptable choices.
People won't agree on what constitutes that acceptably-optimal balance, and each man must find those CCW choices which meet his perceived needs.

Though I prefer a 1911 in .45ACP, I'm often found carrying a S&W 649 snubby loaded with 158gr+P LSWCHPs because its lighter weight and concealability may trump the heavier weight and better ballistics of the 1911 enough to make it the favored choice at some times and places.
My range of acceptable CCW choices, in terms of ballistic effectiveness, weapon size and weight, doesn't go below a .38 Special snubby plus a speedloader, or above a full size 1911 with two spare mags, though I realize some have broader limits than mine.

Deaf Smith
March 8, 2008, 10:39 PM
Saw,

I have two principle carry guns. Glock 27 and 642. Now the 642 is a 5 shooter, but I practice an awful lot with a 640 and 63 (2 inch .22 kit gun.)

Yes we all make choices about what we feel our needs. But things like .22 2 shot pistols are not in that relm.

SAWBONES
March 9, 2008, 11:52 AM
I agree not only that handguns shooting .22 rimfire loads, but also handguns shooting .25ACP, .32ACP and .380ACP are not among my acceptable choices for self defense and CCW, but I can imagine occasions when they might serve my needs, and I can also imagine particular persons whose needs for self protection they might meet better than guns of more powerful calibers (folks whose hands are weak for whatever reason or disabled by arthritis or deformity), since almost any gun is better than no gun when in extremis.

I'm not limited to those weaker-caliber choices, so I won't go "below" a .38 Special snubby for CCW, but I have no illusions about such being "good" or "good enough" or "an effective manstopper", nor do I place undue confidence in any carryable handgun-cartridge combination. CCW is always a compromise.
I think most of us know these things, it seems we just argue or disagree about relatively minor points.

David Armstrong
March 10, 2008, 09:36 AM
They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical.
No. The proper phrasing, IMO, is that it should be practical for their needs. It is always a compromise. Different people will have different concerns, thus the compromise might change.
To on purpose pick an ineffective weapon just shows one is either not serious or is ignorant (or both.)
Of course, given the history, one could argue that claiming the .22 is ineffective for the large majority of CCW incidents is either not serious or ignorant (or both).
Same goes for using statitics that way.
What way is that, deaf? The way that shows what works for the huge majority of the time? Why does identifying what is successful seem to bother you so much?
And to say they are adequate is to show either the same ignorance ir they just like to argue on the internet.
Hmmm. "On the subject of wheel guns, I tend to fancy the feather-weight 22 introduced last year by Smith & Wesson. At risk of sounding loony, I maintain that the 22 long rifle is a considerably more practical cartridge than the 38 Special, or for that matter almost any other handgun cartridge."
--OR--
"What about the 22 for self-defense? We do not recommend it, but we certainly do not disregard it."
The above quotes from the apparently ignorant and argumentative late Col. Jeff Cooper, who I guess knew far less about defensive handgun use than does our own deaf smith. Admitedly he is discussing the .22 in general here, and not the derringer in particular, but I think the point is still worth tossing out there. Cooper recognized that while a full-size fighting gun in major caliber was the first choice, it was not always the only choice, and for some it was not even the best choice.

pax
March 10, 2008, 09:48 AM
Been watching this one for awhile, hoping it would get back on track, but it just keeps getting further afield ... and more acidic, too. Too bad!

This one's closed.

If you want to continue the discussion about .22 calibers for defense, I believe one of the handgun forums has that subject going right now.

If you want to debate semi-autos versus revolvers, the general handgun discussion forum is thataway. ------>

If you'd like to discuss training methods for revolvers, feel free to open a new thread next week or so, after tempers from this one have cooled a little.

pax