Why don't revolver carriers worry about capacity?

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Good, but shooting too slowly, I think.

Try shooting at five yards, keeping your shots with the area of a small pie plate, and shooting three to five shots in about a second or a little more--maybe two and a half seconds including the draw.

Move off line while drawing, or risk getting run over.

Consider that the average charging person can cover more than forty feet in three seconds.

I didn't either, for a time.

this is good advice regardless of caliber or gun design. you can use paper plates as a quick cheap and easy focal point on a target. doing this allows you to see where you are missing as opposed to simply not hitting a similar sized steel plate. also, equally as important is moving... get off the X.

[Cosmodragoon]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

That describes my 642.

I retired it after realizing two things:

1. The likelihood that I would need a firearm has no bearing on what would happen should the need arise,
2. and a Ruger SP-9c pistol, with twice the capacity and a much better trigger, was no larger.

Size is a major factor in the carry equation.

At least during warmer weather, an LCR is the biggest gun I can comfortably carry and shoot well. The most powerful caliber I can shoot well and enjoy practicing with on that platform is .327 Federal. Being a six-shooter also maximizes capacity.

Once I'm wearing enough to comfortably carry a K or L frame, I might as well carry a double-stack semi-auto. I can easily get double the capacity with acceptably powerful rounds in 9mm or .40 S&W.

In the woods, I still tend to carry a longer-barrelled revolver in .357 magnum. Part of that is the increased power for animals. Part of it is an excuse to carry something that makes me happy and that I don't otherwise have much occasion to carry.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Good, but shooting too slowly, I think.

Try shooting at five yards, keeping your shots with the area of a small pie plate, and shooting three to five shots in about a second or a little more--maybe two and a half seconds including the draw.

Move off line while drawing, or risk getting run over.

Consider that the average charging person can cover more than forty feet in three seconds.

I didn't either, for a time.

Keeping in mind that the 3 seconds is a bit of a WAG. I've had buddies time me before using the app on their phone, but never used a true shooting timer w/ a snubbie revolver.

With a larger gun, like either of my S&W M&PCs (9/.40), my average time for five shots from the draw is just under 2 seconds. But I practice a lot more with those, and the grip is significantly larger and easier to get a hand on in a hurry, the sights are larger, plus the triggers are better for fast shooting. The 642 just isn't conducive to fast work. My only point being, that it's serviceable if necessary.

But yeah, I practice moving laterally regularly as well; it's only good sense to practice not being a static target.

However, if I were shooting at a pie plate, I'm fairly sure I could average about 2.5 seconds with that 642. Maybe even faster. A pie plate is a pretty big target.

[2damnold4this]

That describes my 642.

I retired it after realizing two things:
The likelihood that I would need a firearm has no bearing on what would happen should the need arise,
and a Ruger SP-9c pistol, with twice the capacity and a much better trigger, was no larger.

A loaded Ruger SR 9c weighs almost twice what a loaded 642 weighs and more than twice what a 342 weighs. I have no doubt a handgun like a Ruger SCR 9c is a more capable handgun than a 642 or 342 in many circumstances but it isn't as easily concealed.

I don't have experience drawing an SR9c from concealment but J frames like the 642 seem much easier to present than the boxier semis from the pocket. My G26 doesn't weigh quite as much loaded as an SR9c but it's the closest thing I have to compare.

Yes, my G26 carries more rounds than my 342. The G26 is easier to shoot fast than the 342. I get sub a 0.2 second split with the G26 and while the 342 is a tick over 0.3 seconds. I can easily hit an 8" plate at 25 yards with the G26 in slow fire while I sometimes miss a 12" plate at 25 yards with the 342. But at ranges less than 21 feet, I get quicker first shot hits from the draw using the 342. Once the G26 is out and on target, it's a far more capable handgun for me but the 342 is out quicker for a first and second shot hit at close ranges and it's far easier to tote.

From the draw from concealment at ranges less than ten yards, I am far faster getting a round, or even two or three, into an eight inch target with the 342 than with the G26. Going from the low ready, the G26 is slightly behind for the first shot but has caught up by round three. I do better with the G26 than the 342 with speed and accuracy as the range gets further with the G26 handily outperforming the 342 past fifteen yards. I would probably improve performance with the G26 at close range from the draw with more practice but I don't think I'll ever get as quick a first round hit from the draw at close range as with a 342 or 642.

How important is shooting from the draw in a defensive situation? I don't know but I do know that at short ranges I can get quicker hits with the 642 or 342 than the G26 when drawing from concealment. I do worry about capacity but the most common violent attack involves one attacker.

[J.G. Terry]

Brian Enos: I have just started "Practical Shooting-Beyond Fundamentals." This book gives a different perspective on handgun basics. Enos is a noted real world shooter.

[Lohman446]

Enos is a noted real world shooter.

I think this is where some of us kind of raise eyebrows at expert opinions. This begs the question - in real world mortal danger situations? The answer, as near as I can tell, is no. In gun games. Now before this sounds too derisive I realize that many of the skills taught in gun games are part of the skill set that is likely needed to survive a real world confrontation. I also realize that there are going to be VERY few experts in real world shootings from a civilian stand point as very few people are involved in enough to become experts. Still lets not call this a 1:1 ratio.

But Lohman there are many experts who have studied the data of real world shooting events and interviewed those involved. Are you dismissing their work? Not entirely but I am dismissing the ability to generalize their findings as much as it is done. These findings, by need of practicality, are not given to controlled environments. There is a tremendous amount of bias that goes into the relating of events from real world shootings and there is, again by nature of practicality, seldom unbiased observers. We cannot hang on the data as if it were gospel.

Its like me reading up on hitting a baseball, talking to and being taught by a bunch of hitting coaches and former hitters who have a lot more real world experience than most shooting experts, taking countless practice in the batting cages, maybe even having some "force on force" live training from practice pitchers, and then believing the skill set I have learned will translate into being in the box in the bottom of the ninth in game seven of the World Series.

Perhaps, even worse, its me attempting to parrot the lessons to someone else.

Are there skills that are important? Yes there are. In the baseball example I would be far better off than if I had not taken any advise and practice. However there is not a 1:1 correlation. Some of us, perhaps. should beg forgiveness if we don't take the word of experts as the seeming gospel others do.

A personal example. I was 18 or so at the time and had signed up to a new martial arts class that allowed moderate contact on adult sparring night. It was not my first experience in martial arts but I had wanted to change schools. I had taken a couple weeks before engaging in this particular class and felt I was well prepared for it. I was reasonably skilled, in reasonable shape, and I had practiced in point fighting against several of the people I would be participating against. So I end up squared off against Mr. Peterson. I know he has a better skill set than I do and normally wins point fighting. Still I have some chance. He has some reach advantage so I need to move in and keep this simple. As I do he takes a massively powerful right arm, folds my guard as if it is nothing, and lands a "moderate" strike to my headgear. Further attempts were just as fruitless.

I hope, should I ever need to draw a firearm, I don't find myself in the same situation because despite believing I had a chance it, from previous "force on force" exercises and classroom time, and find all my expertise only worked in games.

After all that though - getting different view points, such as those from Enos, is never a bad thing as long as one realizes the limits of the experts. Recently read the book "When violence is the answer" by Tim Larkin. Interesting perspective and pretty damning to the "stay on defense" argument.

[J.G. Terry]

Thanks for your well written post on the topic of learning and practice.

First impressions on Enos as a newfer [me]: I think that your last paragraphs is having to do with knowing one's limitations is important. Also. the work with Enos goes on before the gun comes out. So far, just getting started in the book Enos stresses awareness. This awareness comes across as not being necessarily defensive. You are probably keenly aware of this from your martial arts experience. I'd rather concentrate on awareness versus old thinking.

You appear to be a person whose life is a process of learning. As that should be for all of us. Has the expert lost his "beginners mind?" Hubris can put one in the bone orchard. In my competitive experience real champs/experts have won the match before getting to the actual range. Thanks again.

Added: "An expert is somebody twenty miles from home with a brief case."

[Ruger45LC]

I tend the think that it has a lot to do with statistics, both that you're very unlikely to have to ever use a gun to defend yourself and that most instances statistically are over in just 2-3 shots. There are other factors too, maybe the noir of carrying a snubbie around, who knows. By biggest gripe is the very slow reload, because even with practice, it's still slow comparatively, I hate to think of how bad it would be if your life was on the line.

[J.G. Terry]

It's easy to punk people out on the net. I not sure ,but it looks like you contradicted yourself in the middle of the post. If it's two or three shots only why is reloading a concern? Round here we have a serious gang problem. These folks are generally armed with Glock's or similar. How would you defend yourself when a gangbanger is using a G17 opened fire? Your three shot statistics would tell me what? Give me the statistics on how that would go down. Remember, my carry gun is a G23.4. I'm shopping for a G29. No strips needed here

Added: You got lies, damn lies, then you got statistics

[JohnKSa]

If it two or three shots only...

There's a big difference between "two or three shots only" and "most instances statistically are over in just 2-3 shots".

You are correct that if it really could be limited to "two or three shots only" that reloading would not be a concern.

Of course it's not possible to limit things like that. In fact, most successful self-defense gun uses (about 4 out of 5) are resolved without a shot being fired. Again, the word "most" is critical, or we would all be justified in carrying unloaded guns.

[J.G. Terry]

"Statistics" and "Most of the time" plus "unlikely" do not warm the cockles of my heart. How about one solid reason the self-loader would not cover more ordinary situations than a revolver. Just one reason. Reliability? Many of us have shot hundreds if not thousands of rounds through our Glock's without a malfunction. I trust the ugly things.

[Ruger45LC]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

It's easy to punk people out on the net. I not sure ,but it looks like you contradicted yourself in the middle of the post. If it's two or three shots only why is reloading a concern? Round here we have a serious gang problem. These folks are generally armed with Glock's or similar. How would you defend yourself when a gangbanger is using a G17 opened fire? Your three shot statistics would tell me what? Give me the statistics on how that would go down. Remember, my carry gun is a G23.4. I'm shopping for a G29. No strips needed here

Added: You got lies, damn lies, then you got statistics

I don't carry a revolver these days. I have at times in the past, mostly before the current crop of smaller semi autos showed up. I've carried a 642/442/SW360/SP101 because I do like revolvers in general for some things, but for carry, it's no longer for me. There are too many good small semi autos that are easier to shoot, weigh less, have better sights and hold 2x the ammo or more. I don't think it's smart to rely on statistics to determine your carry gun, because there's no way of knowing what's going to come your way, even if it is statistically unlikely in the first place.

Generally speaking I can agree that most people are fine, most of the time, carrying a 5 shot J-frame, but it's the what if's that kill the idea for me. Terribly slow reloads and another factor is that no matter how good of a shot we are at the range, in a chaotic situation where the adrenaline is pumping, it seems commonplace for accuracy to go out the window. When there's only 5 shots on tap and a potential for 50% or worse hit rate, that's awful and made worse by probably needing to do a very slow reload, assuming the person is even carrying a reload.

I have a G27 and a G42 I carry, I love the G23 but the G27 carries much better. I've had the G29 but it's just too damn thick and bulky, it looks close on paper to a G23 but it's not.

[Nanuk]

By biggest gripe is the very slow reload, because even with practice, it's still slow comparatively, I hate to think of how bad it would be if your life was on the line.

That depends entirely on equipment and skill. I reload a revolver as fast or faster than most reload a semi.

[Nanuk]

How would you defend yourself when a gangbanger is using a G17 opened fire?

Do my best not to miss. Misses have consequences.

[Nanuk]

How about one solid reason the self-loader would not cover more ordinary situations than a revolver. Just one reason.

Besides personal preference probably none. The only times I carry a wheel gun these days is its a 44 magnum loaded with 200 grain Gold dots or a 357 magnum J frame as a 2nd gun.

[JohnKSa]

How about one solid reason the self-loader would not cover more ordinary situations than a revolver. Just one reason. Reliability? Many of us have shot hundreds if not thousands of rounds through our Glock's without a malfunction. I trust the ugly things.

I can think of some reasons why revolvers are superior to autos for self-defense. I can think of some reasons why autos are superior to revolvers for self-defense.

All the self-defense guns I have "on duty" are autos, so maybe I'm not the best person to argue that autos won't work for self-defense.

That depends entirely on equipment and skill. I reload a revolver as fast or faster than most reload a semi.

It's still slow "comparatively" because it involves more actions, and more complicated actions. It's clearly possible to practice a lot and get very good at it, but an equal amount of practice with a semi-auto would make a person faster and the reloads would also be more sure because the alignment of the mag to the grip frame is simpler than the alignment of all of the cartridge noses to the chambers.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against using revolvers for self-defense, just pointing out that revolver reloads (given equal skill and practice) will be slower than autopistol reloads.

[rodfac]

In my use, the revolver is a personal choice, based on 50 years of experience with it. For those weaned on the auto-loader the opposite may be true. No worries...we each choose what works for us...I'm not, nor ever have been an LEO. Though I have spent considerable time in combat, on the ground in a Special Forces unit, and in flight operations. But...neither has much bearing on my current circumstances.

I live on a small farm in KY; my trips to the big city are a dozen or less per year...I carry daily for my own enjoyment and the needs of farm chores. Given those environs, a good revolver carried in an OWB holster in what used to be called the "FBI" position, suits me just fine. I carry autos, on occasion, but a revolver's capacity and operating mode on balance, do nicely. While I do carry autos on a semi-regular basis, their increased capacity and manual of arms, not to mention the scattering of their brass, are not positives...they're often detriments.

I like 'em both...but find that capacity is not a major concern...I don't envision the OK corral scenario as even a remote possibility given my life choices.

YMMv, Best Regards, Rod

[Nanuk]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against using revolvers for self-defense, just pointing out that revolver reloads (given equal skill and practice) will be slower than autopistol reloads.

Absolutely, but not as bad as he was trying to make it.

[J.G. Terry]

What sort of training are we talking about. You cannot blame us ordinary humans for being skeptical. It's hard to sell the idea that this fast loading of a revolver is regularly possible. That is, for the average person, The fact is undeniable that the usual pick of auto has to with more rounds and, by reports, easier to shoot. Are there any US police forces of any size that still use revolvers? Also, I can get tons of statistics that the world is flat. Can you tell me how to load a revolver with "one in the pipe?"

When I reload my revolvers fast where does the brass go? Does the brass jump back into the speed loader? When I took my carry class the instructor made the point that dead people have been found with a handful of fired brass. He did not quote statistics so that must have been untrue to leave the brass on the ground.

G23: My G27 was stolen. Got a dynamite deal on the G23. Really like the compact more than the sub compact. My speed loader is a G22 magazine.

[Pathfinder45]

Why don't revolver carriers worry about capacity?

"What? Me worry?"

[Webleymkv]

I don't "worry" about capacity in the sense that I don't lay awake at night anguishing about it, but it is a consideration. That being said, it is but one of many considerations and there are other attributes of a revolver that, for me at least, outweigh capacity on my list of priorities.

Reliability is one. Now we can argue until the cows come home about how reliable modern autos have become and I will concede that, with good ammo, good magazines, proper maintenance (cleaned and lubed regularly with springs periodically replaced), and proper shooting technique they are very reliable. That being said, we don't live in a vacuum and I personally prefer my gun not be so dependent on so many variables. If there's another big panic buying event, I needn't worry quite so much about whether or not my revolver will "like" the only off-brand ammo that's available. If I have to shoot from a less than ideal position or grip, I needn't worry about slides being pushed out of battery or limp-wristing. I don't need to worry about how long it's been since I changed my magazine springs or if my feed lips might get damaged without me noticing it.

Caliber is another consideration, revolvers for a given size and weight are more commonly available in more powerful calibers than semi-autos. For a variety of reasons, I often prefer to carry a more powerful handgun and I can carry and conceal my 4" .44 Magnum just as easily and comfortably as my full-size semi autos (at least in the carry methods that work for me).

Accessibility is another factor, in many of the carry methods I prefer (especially pocket carry) the shape of a revolver's grip makes it much faster and easier to grasp when I draw.

Finally there is shootability. With a revolver that's set up the way I prefer (trigger, sights, grip, etc.) I can simply shoot it better than I can a auto. The shorter, lighter trigger of many semi-autos requires me to make a conscious effort to slow down and reaquire my sight picture before firing again lest my accuracy go to pot. The longer, heavier stroke of a good DA revolver trigger slows me down just enough to reaquire my sight picture yet is smooth enough not to be a hindrance to accuracy (I've never found a DA auto trigger as smooth as a good revolver).

Now, please remember that these are my priorities and yours may be different. Neither platform is really better than the other, they're different tools and are best suited for different situations. While I carry a revolver more often, my nightstand gun is a semi-auto because it can more easily have a light attached to it. In a dedicated nightstand gun, an attached weapon light is important to me since, should I need it I probably won't have the luxury of holsters, pouches, slings, or large pockets so I'll have to make due with what's in my hands. When I'm out and about, however, I have a handheld flashlight in my pocket so a weapon mounted light is no longer a necessity.

[J.G. Terry]

Auto's: First up it not necessary to replace springs as often as implied. Magazines are not a fragile as implied. Preferences do not mean better or worse. I just means I like it better.

For calibers I'd suggest looking at the utility on 357 SIG and 10MM. Smaller and lighter than an auto when you are carrying ,or using for an example, a 44 Magnum revolver. It;s hard to blow off magazine capacity. I like what I like would have done it.

Remember there is a real difference between "I don't like" and ..."it's no good." It's hard to minimize the benefits of an auto for self-defense purposes based on the merits of the respective handguns. Convenience does not get me out of harms way.

Added: Have you ever had an empty case fall behind the extractor on your revolver. How about so much junk in the gun that it's not possible to closed and lock the crane. How about a sprung crane. How about getting out of time? Bubba had at the gun turning out the stain screw until the gun won't fire. Point being anything made my the hand of man can break etc? Bubba helps it along.

[jar]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

Why don't revolver carriers worry about capacity?

"What? Me worry?"

Absolutely. Alfred's advice rules.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

Added: Have you ever had an empty case fall behind the extractor on your revolver. How about so much junk in the gun that it's not possible to closed and lock the crane. How about a sprung crane. How about getting out of time? Bubba had at the gun turning out the stain screw until the gun won't fire. Point being anything made my the hand of man can break etc? Bubba helps it along.

I have... my converted Victory did it to me once. Just push the ejector rod all the way down and flick out. But if you are asking about my carry gun, it is another reason why I converted my 642 to 9mm (moonclips).

For the lock work complaints... I do keep my gun clean, and do my best not to fall into mud with the gun unprotected (holster and cover garment help). I knew a guy that would carry an off duty gun (Kahr, if I remember correctly) in a leather holster... and didn’t take it out of the holster for like two years. Sweat actually fused the holster to the gun, to the point where he has to cut it out, and work on it for an hour or two just to get the round out of the chamber. There are people who don’t take care of their guns in both camps.

For the bubba comment... you really are telling me people don’t screw around with semi-autos, and more people do with revolvers? I remember one guy I used to shoot with got a match barrel for accuracy, and would carry it when he was visiting family. Did like two trips carrying it before we went to the range and asked him how the gun shoots. Goes to fire it (turned out to be the first time), and the gun was a single shot. Did not have the barrel fitted, which was beyond me as I saw him having issue loading the gun.

I had my Airweight redone in NP3 Plus, and tossed in an Apex Duty/Carry kit prior to it m. Only other change was having a gunsmith fit a 9mm cylinder... far from bubba there.

That all be said, we are currently issued a .40 H&K P2000 LEM... which has 12 round magazines. While I like the gun, I don’t carry it off duty. I could deal with the size, but don’t want to be yanking off a light, since we don’t have them approved... and I prefer a light option. My J-frame has a LaserMax weapon light, is a lot lighter, and can get the job done. I know plenty of people who don’t carry off-duty... and not going to argue with anyone over me having a gun on me pretty much all the time (minus sleep and showering... and occasional trip to Canada).

And since this thread can always use more pictures...



Switched holster backing to OWB.

[Hal]

How would you defend yourself when a gangbanger is using a G17 opened fire?

Ok - I'll have to ask....what difference does it make what the other person has - - in the way of a handgun?