carrying the percussion revolver

[Blacktimberwolf]

I carried a C&B Remington New Army in .36 for more than ten years, once I was attacked, I shot one time and hit his knee, because he was only two yards away, the attack was immediately stopped.

[brazosdave]

USMC grunt, you're wrong. I spent 25 yrs in the Army, including Iraq, as well as some of my friends who arm themselves pretty much like me. And the streets of East Texas ain't quite Baghdad.

[foolzrushn]

nail clippers for defense against lions

If there are no lions where I am, then nail clippers or anything else that suits me, would be just fine. Should we all carry high power rifles just in case we are attacked by a lion? Which really makes more sense? Yes it was an absurd example on purpose. But each of us decides what makes us comfortable.

or strongly believes something, it won't make it true

This is also true for those who are thinking about being in an extended firefight at their local Wallyworld. Sure it could happen. What do you think the real odds are? Maybe one in 300,000? Lets be honest, you carry what you carry, because it's what you like, what you feel comfortable with.

an ignition system that became obsolete in the 1800s

Where are the ignition stats on a comparison between primers and percussion caps, on whether the BP system or smokeless has more FTFs? If the caps fit and/or you use cap sleeves, where is the reliability issue? Convenience yes, but reliability? Haven't percussion caps been fired under water? Wasn't it convenience that made them obsolete?

doesn't mean they are capable of defending themselves

Absolutely. And having a bigger gun, 10 clips or camo pants doesn't either. I don't know about sabers....although in the dark, in his own familiar surroundings, with most likely one invader (who might not even be armed) I'd sure give your friend a good chance. The worst case scenario usually doesn't happen. As has been said 'the gun is probably the least of it'.

I was hoping people would get into the specifics of why they think what they do. That didn't happen. I guess that would require a survey, poll or whatever it's called.

People just have stated their opinion without saying why. That's OK, we all are happy with our choices. But I don't think it's reasonable to condemn another's choices, just because you wouldn't make the same decisions.

And even though I have quoted JohnKSa.....this is not directed at him, but at the ideas expressed by many, but condensed by him. Probably shouldn't post this, but start a survey instead.

[brazosdave]

Excellent post! Perhaps a poll would be interesting

[JohnKSa]

If there are no lions where I am, then nail clippers or anything else that suits me, would be just fine.

Well said. Similarly, if you're where you won't need to use it for self-defense , then a cap & ball revolver (or anything else that suits you) would be just fine.

Otherwise, it is obviously better to weigh the relative merits of other available choices before making a decision.

Lets be honest, you carry what you carry, because it's what you like, what you feel comfortable with.

That's the crux of this issue.

If what you like and feel comfortable with are the only criteria you really care about, then carry it.

That's hugely different from promoting the idea that something is a good choice for self-defense.

Liking something and/or being comfortable with something doesn't make it a good choice for self-defense. Something is a good choice for self-defense because its characteristics/merits, when weighed against other options, stack up well.

In other words:

...extended firefight at their local Wallyworld...
...
Where are the ignition stats on a comparison between primers and precussion caps?
...
Haven't percussion caps been fired under water?
...
And having a bigger gun, 10 clips or camo pants doesn't either.
...
The worst case scenario usually doesn't happen. As has been said 'the gun is probably the least of it'.

This is a lot of work to go for to justify carrying something because you like it and are comfortable with it. If you're going to carry it because you like it and are comfortable with it, there's no need to bother with nonsense like the above. Just say you're carrying it because you like it and are comfortable with it and that you don't care that it's less capable than other carry options. Done.

Clearly that's not what's happening here. This thread has gone on for 5 pages because people are trying to rationalize their choice and trying to get others to affirm their decision, NOT because they're comfortable with just doing what they like.

[Hawg]

Not percussion and not black powder but I met a deputy sheriff once that carried a Uberti Cattleman as a duty weapon.

[Stormson]

Hmm.. How strange.

The man simply asked IF any of us DID carry BP. We all answered, one way or the other, but only those of us who have CHOSEN, for better or for worse, to indeed carry BP either part or full time seem to have been attacked FOR that choice??

Am I or others HARMING someone else by not ascribing to their personal carry method? Why should those of us who have chosen one method or other be attacked for it? I have given my reasons and others have given theirs.... Frankly that was more then the OP asked for.

I didnt answer this thread as a means of ASKING PERMISSION. I have MADE my choice, others have made theirs, sorry, but I really dont feel the need to apologize for it. When and if I feel the need for more then as a free, and free thinking, American I will carry more. Until then perhaps people should simply be grateful that fellow Countrymen carry at ALL in these dark times, and have their backs in the field AS WELL as the current fight TO carry at all...

[swathdiver]

Around the turn of the last century and into the time before WW2, fellas like Jerry Miculek were not uncommon. I know at least one of them spent a lot of time shooting the '51 Navy and Keith and Miculek would not feel or be undergunned going up against some jerk holding up a clerk somewhere with a cap and ball sixgun.

It's the training and familiarity that determines your level of proficiency and comfort with a firearm.

Use whatever you want, just get good with it fellas.

[rodwhaincamo]

There are two certain drawbacks I see to a reproduction percussion revolver. 1st is that I've read the springs break over time. 2nd is the plume of smoke they produce, which may not be as big of an issue outdoors. 3rd, for me at least, is the single action mechanism. I'm not Bob Munden, but then he certainly wasn't hindered at all.

My pistols, once I found that Rem #10's fit perfectly, have been 100% reliable as long as I've made certain the priming compound was inside the cap. That's with 300-400 shots fired, but more with my Ruger.

[LeadZinger]

When I "dress" for personal defense...I always start with a good pair of sneakers.

[Hawg]

There are two certain drawbacks I see to a reproduction percussion revolver. 1st is that I've read the springs break over time. 2nd is the plume of smoke they produce, which may not be as big of an issue outdoors. 3rd, for me at least, is the single action mechanism. I'm not Bob Munden, but then he certainly wasn't hindered at all.

My pistols, once I found that Rem #10's fit perfectly, have been 100% reliable as long as I've made certain the priming compound was inside the cap. That's with 300-400 shots fired, but more with my Ruger.

I've broken one spring since 1969 and that was in a brand new gun. With revolvers I prefer SA. I always cock a DA revolver, it's just second nature to do so and I'm glad somebody else has problems with compound missing out of Remington caps.

[rodwhaincamo]

I, too, cock a DA revolver. I don't shoot so well with a DA trigger pull trying quickly.

It's not often I find a compound missing, but it's been more than a few times. So I usually check.

[aarondhgraham]

I did carry a Remington pocket 36 cal for a short while,,,
Because of a small (short-lived) loophole in California law in the late 70's.

I had a letter from the Chief of Police in Paradise, California,,,
Explaining the (then) current interpretation of the law.

Because it was considered an antique firearm,,,
One where "cartridges are no longer readily available",,,
It was not-illegal to have it loaded in your car or carry it on your person.

That lasted for about two years,,,
The law was amended in the early eighties.

To tell the truth I would rather have had a .22.

Aarond

.

[foolzrushn]

As to city carry of an 1851 Colt, that is even sillier.

your dorky Saturday-morning western fueled nostalgia

if you live in a storybook fantasy

grow up and get a real gun for defense

most of this fantasy is being fueled by nostalgia

Time to grow up and join the 21st century

Some previous comments
___________________________________________________

JohnKSa--there's no need to bother with nonsense like the above

Really? I thought I made valid points. If you don't need a high round count, if caps can be as reliable as primers, if moisture isn't a problem and a longer barrel may be more accurate, why all the scorn? And being ‘comfortable’ with something means that I think I have already evaluated the pros and cons and made a conclusion.

One good point was to be sure that the cap actually has a charge in it. I suppose there are occasionally bad primers as well.

Did you read my posts? I gave my preference in two different ones. As others do, I think that a BP pistol can be adequate for self defense. But for what I want to do, the ones that I have are not small enough.

I am not justifying anything….I don’t need to. What works for me, may not work for you. I'm not promoting anything but discussion. The things I enumerated were merely to show the areas where I feel BPs are adequate for self defense. Unlike a parent who tells his children “just because I said so” without giving a reason…I was waiting for you and some of the other adamant posters to share some reasons that had not been covered. I will guess that many feel ‘six is not enough’, and that is the major factor.

I did notice that the pro ‘BP carry posters’ didn’t use terms like ‘nonsense’, ‘dorky’, ‘fantasy’, ‘silly’ and ‘grow up’. Nor did they call anyone sanctimonious or anything else. Considering…I think they were very well behaved. Maybe they feel that everyone has the right to choose what they feel is adequate.

Seems ironic that ‘BP carry’ gathered so much flack on the Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting forum. Thanks, I'm done with this thread.

[JohnKSa]

I thought I made valid points.

There's no need to make any points if, as you claimed, it just comes down to what a person likes and is comfortable with. Then trying to make points, valid or otherwise, is nonsense.

IF, on the other hand, that's not what it's really about then it would make sense (it wouldn't be nonsense) to try to justify the choice by making valid points in favor of the premise you're trying to support with facts or logic.

...why all the scorn?

Nothing I've posted could be construed as "scorn".

If ... if ... if ...

Sure, if one carefully constrains the circumstances of the shooting they're planning to be in, then it's possible to justify just about any choice for a self-defense weapon. If one constrains the circumstances so that the other guy isn't very mobile and his gun isn't loaded, then there's no need to be armed at all. One could deal with every "attack" by walking away briskly.

And being ‘comfortable’ with something means that I think I have already evaluated the pros and cons and made a conclusion.

At this point it would be worthwhile to go back and re-read my initial post on this thread.

It was all about evaluating pros and cons, making logical arguments and objective assessments.

The response to that post was primarily that "each of us decides what makes us comfortable" and that "you carry what you carry, because it's what you like, what you feel comfortable with." Which is fine.

But that's not where it stopped. From there it branched out into comments about the odds of being in an extended firefight in the local Wal-Mart, talk of carrying 10 magazines or wearing camo pants, shooting firearms underwater, comments about the value of edged weapons in encounters which take place in the dark with an unarmed opponent, etc.

Look, it can be one or the other but not both. If it's just about what people like and feel comfortable with then that's really the end of it.

Bob likes white cars, Ralph likes blue cars. That's it--end of story. On the other hand, if Ralph tries to tell Bob that blue cars are better, then that's different. Bob could point out that white cars have higher resale value, stay cooler in the hot sun and that the paint tends to last longer, all else being equal, because it's more reflective.

If, at that point, Ralph tries to say that he really just buys blue cars because he likes them and is comfortable in them AND also tries to argue all Bob's points at the same time, he's engaging in nonsense. Because he's trying to end the argument by saying it's all about preference AND at the same time continuing the argument by trying to prove he's right about blue cars actually being better. It's either one or the other. If it's all about likes/dislikes and what makes Ralph feel comfortable then there's no need for arguments. If the arguments are important to Ralph then clearly it's not all about preference to him.

Seems ironic that ‘BP carry’ gathered so much flack on the Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting forum.

One could look at it that way, I suppose. One could also observe that the practice of carrying a cap & ball revolver for self-defense doesn't even get much traction in a discussion forum focused on Black Powder and wonder why that might be true instead of merely dismissing it as irony.

I was waiting for you and some of the other adamant posters to share some reasons that had not been covered.

Again, this would be a good time to re-read my initial post on this thread. It was about using logic, about not deflecting the discussion by introducing red herrings, about looking at the things objectively. It was clearly NOT intended to be a list of reasons why people shouldn't carry cap & ball revolvers, it was all about being realistic about the relative merits of doing so vs. other available options.

[swathdiver]

I thought I made valid points.

Your points are spot on. The problem comes with skills. A cap and ball sixgun requires a higher skill set to maintain, operate and shoot effectively compared to a modern popgun.

As an example, poor marksmanship is why most police departments dropped the wheel guns and traded them in for the simplicity of operating and high capacity Glocks. Folks love to refer to the 1980s Miami shootout and how the LEOs were undergunned. They were, but worse, they were terribly inept with their firearms.

A similar case was made by those opposing the adoption of the M-16. The troops in Vietnam fired many more rounds than were necessary compared with the M14 and the M1 Garand and M1903 from the previous wars.

Anyway, I reckon your most vociferous opponents just aren't very proficient with the old cap and ball six-shooter and they make all justifications for why their favorite is best or better for carry.

For 99.99% percent of us needing to defend ourselves in 99.99% of situations, 5 or 6 shots will be more than enough to stop a threat.

[JohnKSa]

Anyway, I reckon your most vociferous opponents just aren't very proficient with the old cap and ball six-shooter and they make all justifications for why their favorite is best or better for carry.

No doubt. In fact, I'm nearly certain that the reason for the invention of modern propellants, semi-auto pistols, double-action handguns and self-contained metallic cartridges was due mostly to a lack of proficiency of shooters with cap and ball revolvers. If it weren't for the proficiency deficit experienced by many using percussion cap wheelguns, I can't see why inventors would have bothered to waste their time on things like that.

For 99.99% percent of us needing to defend ourselves in 99.99% of situations, 5 or 6 shots will be more than enough to stop a threat.

Across the board, the odds of NOT being a victim of serious violent crime in any given year are around 99.5%. Those of us not engaged in risky/criminal activities are even more likely to not encounter seriously violent crime.

Most (over 90%) of self-defense gun uses are resolved either without firing a shot or without the attacker being seriously injured, or shot at but missed.

In other words, just looking at the odds, it's safe to say that 99% of us won't need a gun for self-defense and that for the very few who do, over 90% of those folks will be adequately armed with any gun at all that can be made to fire.

Of course, it's not always solely about the odds. Sometimes it's about the stakes...