Concealed carry

[FireForged]

I did not see that comment as condescending--just realistic.

I wasn't looking for consensus, I call it as I see it.

"Good" in what respects?

Good as in the common language definition in respect to usual gun handling and marksmanship.

As would be the idea of choosing one for concealed carry if there were other choices available.

I would not carry one for SD but I disagree that the choice is indicative of naiveté. That determination would require much more information if it were to be accepted as intellectually honest.

[zincwarrior]

I'm confused, why are you did you start the thread then? If someone is comfortable with an SA, great. If they are comfortable with a cap and ball musket, great. That doesn't mean other's are not going to point out the perceived faults of them.

[OldMarksman]

Good as in the common language definition in respect to usual gun handling and marksmanship.

"Good" for self defense and "good" for bullseye shooting are not at all the same thing.

[TailGator]

I agree with the OP and the other posters on that side of the proverbial fence. I honestly don't understand the mind set of EDC carrying a full-size "combat" weapon with two or even three extra mags, a back-up firearm with two mags, two edged weapons, mace, nunchucks, telescoping police baton, plasma rifle in the 40-watt range, etc.

Another false dichotomy, or straw man argument if you prefer. No one has recommended any such thing. What several have said, if I might paraphrase, is that there are other choices that might make a skilled shooter who knew the weapon more capable in a fight than an SAA. Heck, your own post went on to say that you have made other choices that were much more reasonable than the big load-out you declared to be the alternative. Why was that? If the SAA is your choice, or the OP's, you are better armed than most. You may not be optimally armed, especially if you have the opportunity and willingness to practice up with something else, but still better armed than most. Make your choice.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
I agree with the OP and the other posters on that side of the proverbial fence. I honestly don't understand the mind set of EDC carrying a full-size "combat" weapon with two or even three extra mags, a back-up firearm with two mags, two edged weapons, mace, nunchucks, telescoping police baton, plasma rifle in the 40-watt range, etc.
Another false dichotomy, or straw man argument if you prefer. No one has recommended any such thing. What several have said, if I might paraphrase, is that there are other choices that might make a skilled shooter who knew the weapon more capable in a fight than an SAA. Heck, your own post went on to say that you have made other choices that were much more reasonable than the big load-out you declared to be the alternative. Why was that? If the SAA is your choice, or the OP's, you are better armed than most. You may not be optimally armed, especially if you have the opportunity and willingness to practice up with something else, but still better armed than most. Make your choice.

In his defense, I've perused more than one thread on boards (not here that I recollect) discussing CHLs where those who espouse the multigun multimag flashlight tacticool pen combo kit have been loud and downright abusive at times. The OP may in fact be a reaction to that type of argument.

[Onward Allusion]

Semantics . . .

Just carry a gun that fits your own needs and don't worry about the other guy 'cause the other guy might literally live in a gang-infested zone and needs that full-size duty pistol as his EDC. Whereas others will do fine with a NAA Mini as their EDC.

[FireForged]

Good" for self defense and "good" for bullseye shooting are not at all the same thing.

sure.. and this thread is not about "bullseye shooting". The context was well established before I joined the discussion. My comments were made within the spirit of that context.

[FireForged]

Another false dichotomy, or straw man argument if you prefer

not really.. he is using sarcasm to counter the seemingly critical suggestion that the OP needs something else. He is commenting specific to what has been said or seemingly suggested. I don't think its a stawman argument simply because nobody actually mentioned a plasma rifle in a 40 watt range... its sarcasm.

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by Rangerrich99

I agree with the OP and the other posters on that side of the proverbial fence. I honestly don't understand the mind set of EDC carrying a full-size "combat" weapon with two or even three extra mags, a back-up firearm with two mags, two edged weapons, mace, nunchucks, telescoping police baton, plasma rifle in the 40-watt range, etc. If I really felt that I needed all of that, I honestly would move and/or get a different job. For the basic purpose of defending my life or the lives of loved ones in what would be a 'typical mugging' scenario, in my limited experience, five rounds will do, and over 10 rounds is likely unnecessary.

Hey, Just what you see pal.

Ah so we start splitting hairs of level of paranoia, Or perhaps what you prefer to carry we'll call "reasonable" for argument sake? hmm.

Listen im 35, and have been able to avoid being robbed, rapped, or murdered so far.. my car has never been ripped off.. my house has never been burglarized.
Im not rich, I've never lived in a gated community.
I've been carrying just a couple months shy of 9 years.. I've never had to draw my gun on anyone and can only remember 2 incidents where I thought I even might. (Spoiler ALERT, I didn't)

Statistically speaking this country is fairly safe.

If I was to look at you from THAT perspective you are paranoid for caring any gun.

I carry one of those full size "COMBAT" weapons, with a 18round "assault clip"
I don't criticize you for what you carry so please don't try to make me feel like some sort of lunatic because I carry something more substantial then you.

Statistical we're both paranoid here so let's not start drawing lines in the sand because you think your particular level of paranoia is somehow just the right amount.

[Rangerrich99]

@JoeSixpack;

Good catch on the Terminator reference.

To your point, I may not have made my tone clear. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic really, more like ironic. However, after re-reading my post, I see how it could easily be construed to be sarcastic.

And I agree with you that people shouldn't judge others about their decisions as it relates to what they carry. That said, I wasn't really trying to do that. I was attempting to poke a little fun at the "ninja" types that seem to insist on not only carrying a "COMBAT" piece with all the trimmings, but also feel the need to tell the rest of us that we are fools if we don't carry in the same manner and quantity that they do.

Side note @tailgator: First off, I like reading your posts; you always seem to have something interesting/intelligent to say. Anyway, I think the word you were looking for is "paradigm ( a philosophical or theoretical framework within a school or discipline of thought)," rather "dichotomy (a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different)."

Anyway, the point is, I wasn't trying to attack anyone with my post; I was actually trying to address one point within the OP's opening post, with a little levity.

As for the idea of carrying a SA revolver, if the person has the training and skill, why not? People have been defending themselves with SA revolvers for a long time, probably no real reason one can't do so now. I wouldn't, as I just don't have the skills required, but I feel pretty comfortable with my skills with a DA revolver. Comfortable enough anyway to make a DA revolver my primary carry in the woods. YMMV.

[ShootistPRS]

I am glad to see the differing opinions here. More so I like the support for shooting a gun well when it is a carry gun. I don't carry my SA Ruger for defense, although I probably could because it's an old friend. I have been carrying the same gun for self defense for 45 years or so and it is a double action Ruger Security-Six with a 6 inch barrel. I have gone through several professional self defense classes with it and I have used it in Hunters Pistol Silhouette, falling plates, and training on a consistent basis. I "play" with the gun shooting at pine cones and ground squirrels - about the same size as a chipmunk. I can run the "El Presidente" drill in just over five seconds, which is very good in most anyones book. I began this thread with the intent of discussing the use of a "combat" or "battle" pistol for self defense. It has gone well beyond that but it is clear that there are some who use a "battle ready" thought process while others use a similar process to my own. A gun for self defense has to be a gun that you train with and practice the training with and shoot often under all kinds of conditions. I don't wear body armor and my gun has five rounds. I have, and practice with speed loaders but it takes about a second and a half to reload my revolver. I plan on shooting until the threat is gone but typically, for me, that will be 1 or 2 shots. If I have to deal with a group of eight thugs who are determined to kill me I will take as many as I can before I go. Most likely after the first one falls the rest will just remember a more pressing engagement. If someone wants me dead they can find a way to kill me. I'm not afraid of dying, I've been there before. I just have a long list of things I still need to do.
I do want to thank everyone for their views and opinions. This has been, for the most part, a well mannered and pleasant discussion.
I don't take life too seriously, nobody gets out alive.

[5whiskey]

Well... This thread got interesting.

So... One of the better posts is the statement on open carry and the prudence of being strategic with your carry options. That being said, there are a lot of places in this country where no one would even batt an eye if you walked in with a SA revolver carried in a thigh slap holster. I live in a county where I could literally drive 30 minutes (to where I grew up no less) and walk in a store wearing just such a rig and probably speak with someone else wearing the same thing. The end of the county I live at now? Well, I will continue to concealed carry. Obviously concealing a SA revolver isn't really practical. It also may not be necessary, depending on where you are. I do not advocate OC in urban areas for reasons mentioned, along with the fact that no one else realizing I am armed gives me a tactical advantage IMO.

Now, on to carrying a SA for self defense... Well there probably are better options. If you are proficient, and you want to, and you won't stick out like a cub scout in a whore house, I say go for it. Better than no gun. I don't see why anyone would have heartburn with your decision. You did post a thread, so folks will give their opinion. I'm of the opinion that most folks put more thought and discussion than is necessary to their carry rig. So long as you are proficient with it, go for it.

[OldMarksman]

As for the idea of carrying a SA revolver, if the person has the training and skill, why not?

That's the point, and it is the sticking point. The best way to answer the questionis to take one to a good defensive forearms raining class and try it out.

I'll wager that the decision will be "no". I've never seen anyone shoot one rapidly enough under those conditions.

People have been defending themselves with SA revolvers for a long time, probably no real reason one can't do so now.

Well, that's all they had.

But there is a reason that S&W quit pricing .38 single action defensive revolvers some years before Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, and why single action service revolvers were related to reserve duty some years before that, and why the Colt single action was dropped and only revived for reasons of nostalgia driven by stories on the silver screen.

Now, on to carrying a SA for self defense... Well there probably are better options.

You can say that again!

NO ONE SHOULD TAKE OFFENSE AT THIS! Until one has actually learned first hand what (training for) defensive shooting is all about, one is unlikely to appreciate the need for speed.

After all, we have been shown for years the supposed effectiveness of the single action in fictional one shot stops in movies and on television .

I was pretty proficient with my .45 Colt SAA, fired slowly at a target with one hand. But I would not carry one fore self defense---based on what I know now, which I learned much later in life.

[Don Fischer]

if I was going to race at Daytona I would not choose my little Jeep with it's 6cyl engine as the car to drive, I'd learn to drive a competative car. I would not choose sn SA revolver for a concealed carry weapon either, I'd decide between a DA and an auto. The auto carry's more ammo and I like the single stack best for carry. The auto should be faster to reload than either the SA or the DA, Let's consider practiced pro's on all three.

I also think referring to handguns as battle guns and assault guns does a great injustice to carrying for protection. The black rifles are referred to as assault weapons and anti's hate them! Change their name to semi auto's and the view of them would change for a lot of people but of course not all. Are you carrying to assault someone or to do battle? I carry my auto as a defense weapon, I don't use a battle gun or an assault gun. To use the term's in regard to what they might be used for, an assault gun would have to have a double stack magazine and min 3" to max 4" barrel. I don't believe attacking without the most fire power you can have is a smart thing to do. I'd also carry a min of two extra magazine's. For a battle weapon I agree, rifle should be used but, in the right conditions, a semi auto hand gun with large capacity magazine might work best. But your talking about battle weapons and if all I had was a defense weapon, I'd use it but I'd really rather not, deck is stacked against you!

The mod 1903 and mod 1917 were battle weapons but nobody refer's to them as that. Of course the single shot black powder guns could also be refereed to as assault or battle weapons.

[ShootistPRS]

Don,
For the most part I agree with what you say about single action handguns but I have known three people who have carried them for self defense. I witnessed first hand the ability of a SA in the hands of someone who was good enough that I couldn't argue that any other gun would have been better for him. He could put 5 rounds into a 2 inch circle at 10 yards faster than I could fire six shots with a 1911 45. His was a modern 6 shot SA and the first round always went 1" high. We often practiced together and he could shoot four targets at different heights and spread laterally just as fast as any of us. He carried an extra cylinder for fast reloads and could change them out as fast as I could swap mags in my 1911.

It is not the gun that makes a good defense, it is the person behind the gun.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In a self defense scenario, do you plan to shoot until the target ceases to be a threat?
How fast can you shoot?
How long will it take for the target to cease to be a threat?
How much longer will it take you to recognize that?

Those are good questions to consider when asking how much ammo you should carry.

If you have .33 splits and it takes two seconds for the target to cease and you to realize it, you have fired six rounds and hopefully there are no other targets that need servicing if you are carrying a six shooter.

I once read an account of a SWAT trained officer who stopped a McDonald's robbery off-duty with a Glock 26. He was carrying 11 rounds and fired them all even though the robber was a dead man walking after round #1 and the whole thing was over in less than 2 seconds. He mentioned being very concerned about whether the robber was acting alone as he stood there with his carry piece at slide lock and no reload.

[JoeSixpack]

Do you remember where you read it?
Im not asking cause I don't believe you Im asking cause I'd like to read his insights on the incident.

[OldMarksman]

I witnessed first hand the ability of a SA in the hands of someone who was good enough that I couldn't argue that any other gun would have been better for him. He could put 5 rounds into a 2 inch circle at 10 yards faster than I could fire six shots with a 1911 45.

I would not conclude from an observation that one particular shooter has outshot another that a single action would be a good choice for self defense for anyone.

The SA revolver was on its way out from being generally issued for serious police and military use a century and a quarter ago.

The DA revolvers that replaced them could be fired in the single action mode, but skilled pistol shooters such as Ed McGivern and Delf Bryce were strongly urging officers to train to shoot double action eight decades ago. Old FBI training films made the same point.

I learned my lesson late in life. I started shooting single action and double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols one handed around fifty five years ago. I thought I was reasonably good.

However, when I attended my first high performance defensive pistol class some years ago, I was shocked by the speed of fire that was being taught. It took me half a day and several hundred rounds just to gain the dexterity to do it even reasonably well in El Presidente drills. I was using a semi-automatic pistol. By the way, class participants who were using service sized 9mm pistols did best, far outperforming me with my officer-frame .45 ACP.

Why is that important for self defense?

First, realize that the one shot stops we see in screen fiction are just that--fiction. Second, consider that the body parts we need to hit to effect a quick stop are small and internal--we cannot see them, and hitting them is as much a matter of chance as anything, requiring multiple hits. Third, consider how fast a charging attacker may be moving, as has been discussed.

If someone can fire a pistol two to three times in a second with good control (say, all shots in the upper chest area of a running person at five to fifteen feet) when needed, he will be well equipped, should he not be able to avoid the encounter altogether, and if he can get the gun into action quickly enough. That's the "balance of speed and precision" concept that Rob Pincus teaches us about.

With a single action? Most unlikely, for the great majority of people.

But rather than cogitating about it, people should avail themselves of the training.

[ShootistPRS]

oldMarksman, I totally agree that training is the most important part, followed closely by the practice of that training.

[zincwarrior]

Well maybe if they had a single action howdah pistol. It was designed to kill charging lions.

[JoeSixpack]

I agree a SA revolver is not going to be the best choice for the avg person.
But I think Shootist point was anyone practiced enough can be quite formidable with something most others would dismiss.

Im sure the man was not born that good it took practice, But isn't that true of nearly all things?

Im reminded of the saying.. Fear the man with 1 gun, He probably knows how to use it.

I subscribe and believe that to be true.

If someone has been practicing primarily with a SA revolver and has gotten good with it then we have no basis to criticize it's deployment as most of us (my self included) have no standing on skill with such a weapon.
Otherwise all we do is project our own incompetence in that area.

[FITASC]

Is "Battle Gun" the new cool term now instead of the overused "tactical"?

OP, use whatever you are proficient with, and the rest of these folks will do the same. If you have the confidence in your gun of choice and your ability to use it in the scenarios you will likely face where you live, then go ahead and use it.

There are a lot of very knowledgeable folks here and on other forums and 99% of the time, the comments and wisdom are great. There are also some who feel that if you aren't carrying 3 guns with 2 reloads for each, a few knives, pepper spray and wearing body armor, you're crazy to leave your house. YOU know the threats YOU are most likely to face where YOU live, work and play. Use your judgement to determine if your choice will be the best option.

[OldMarksman]

....I totally agree that training is the most important part, followed closely by the practice of that training.

Yes.

And do not be surprised if you do not change pistols, or holsters, or both after a good training session. That is not at all unusual.

[OldMarksman]

If someone has been practicing primarily with a SA revolver and has gotten good with it then we have no basis to criticize it's deployment as most of us (my self included) have no standing on skill with such a weapon.

That depends entirely on what is meant by "has gotten good with it".

[ShootistPRS]

FITASC.
Where I am I am more likely to need my gun when facing a steer or a bull with a bad attitude than I am a person. I am almost always carrying my 357 Magnum because that is the gun I started carrying 45 years ago. I sometimes carry my 45 but it is rare.
The only semi-auto I have is still a "new" gun and I don't trust it enough to use as a carry piece yet. I have some bad history with a 1911 and have not yet recovered from its FTF history. The "new" CZ75B has given me no problems but I want to put a few thousand rounds through it before I start training seriously with it. (that and I am not sure that 9mm is a good caliber for me)