Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Arguments against NOT carrying a revolver

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-19-2013, 11:40 PM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 174
Liked 38 Times on 26 Posts

Default

My only reason for not carrying my .357 revolver as my primary CC weapon is that it is worth a lot more than my Glock and I wouldn't want to have it confiscated "for evidence."

__________________
lucznik is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 01:23 AM   #42
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,272
Liked 8329 Times on 3601 Posts
Likes Given: 1281

Default

Boys were sitting in the bar, when suddenly the door was kicked open, and a wild eyed man stormed in, waving a .44 Magnum revolver.

"I'm gonna shoot the S.O.B. that's has been fooling around with my wife!!!!"

Voice from the back of the bar...

"For that, yer gonna need more ammo..."

__________________

What we have heah is.... failure to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
6
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 05:30 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 891
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JW357
First, let me preface with a few things.

1) Being in Kalifornia, I do not yet have a CC permit here, so I do not carry.
2) This is not intended to be an argument to try to get everyone to carry a revolver; I am simply trying to dispel some of the popular arguments against carrying wheel guns.

Here we go:

Argument against carrying a revolver, #1
Limited capacity.

This is a valid argument, and if I were to carry a revolver it might scare me if I were to be attacked by three or more attackers.

A revolver typically has six rounds, sometimes five. What do you say to people who carry a .380, or a single stacked 9mm? Those types of guns typically have very similar capacity to a wheel gun. I would take six rounds of .38 Special +p anyway over the same amount of .380. An XDs in .45 ACP has 5+1, IIRC.

If people can be comfortable carrying 6 rounds of .380 why can't they be comfortable carrying 6 rounds of .357 Magnum or .38 +p ?

Argument against carrying a revolver, #2
Slow reload time

Any gun will have a slow reload time if you don't train with it. To me, once proficiency in the manual of arms is established, the next priority needs to be reloads. Even someone who carries a Glock 19 with a billion rounds in the magazine might have to reload. Most high capacity guys I know carry an extra magazine anyway, so right there they are admitting they might have to reload.

If I were to train reloads on a revolver under situations where I have elevated adrenaline, such as after sprinting and whatnot, I bet I could get pretty quick with it. Especially if I used a spring-loaded speed loader, which I would if I were to carry a wheel gun. Last I checked those things are about $10-15 online, which is half the cost of most cheap magazines for semi-autos. Train with it, and I guarantee any wheel gun carrier can reload as fast as someone carrying a semi.

Argument against carrying a revolver, #3
Weight

I personally consider this a throw-away argument because there are plenty of quality lightweight revolvers out there. S&W air weight J-Frames, Ruger LCRs, etc. the lightest .357 Magnum revolver is the S&W 340, 5 shot capacity, at 12 ounces. The lightest 9mm is the Diamondback DB9 at 11 ounces, 6 + 1. To me its so close that it isn't even an issue.

Argument against carrying a revolver, #4
Revolvers are antiquated technology

Please. Why do semis have an advantage? Because of their capacity, which I've already talked about? How about because of their reload time, which I've already talked about? Maybe in their size. The cylinder on a revolver does lend itself to be wider than most, if not all, semis. But this isn't always a disadvantage. Some people's bodies are built to accept the shape a revolver better than the flat sides of a semi-auto.

I honestly can't think of any other relatively valid arguments against revolvers. Perhaps you guys can contribute something I missed, and we can have a reasonable discussion.

For what it's worth, the gun I've selected as my carry piece, for when I do get the permit, is a S&W M&P9c. But I have put serious thought into revolvers and single stacked 9mms. And I haven't ruled either out. At the end of the day, I want to be able to carry something I am comfortable with, regardless of the weather or my clothing.

The bottom line is, carry something you are comfortable with, you shoot well, you reload fast, something you don't mind being taken away if you are involved in a shooting. Regardless of its platform or caliber.

And don't begrudge someone for their carry choice. Doing so only shows a lack of maturity and ignorance on your part.

EDIT: this post ended up being a lot longer than I had anticipated. Sorry about that. But I assure you, it was more painful for me to type it than it was for you to read it, as I did so on an iPad.
I tried carrying a small revolver! Never felt comfortable to me, either I felt I was printing to much or if I did manage to conceal well,l it was just to uncomfortable. Maybe I wasn't patient enough on the right holster!! I also tried to pocket carry the LCP 380! Great little gun and concealed in anything! But something always told me I was underpowered, coupled with low capacity. So I settled on the G26! For me, the 26 meets everything I need in a carry gun! Conceal friendly, decent capacity(10+1) adequate power(9MM) and she shoots really sweet!! And I don't hesitate to leave it on the nightstand for HD!! Just a great gun that has become a part of me!! Reloading is no problem, if you carry extra mags or have them close by!! I love revolvers, but for me there is to many advantages with semi-autos to ignore!! No I'm not a Glock lover I just found, that gun meets all my needs!!
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2013, 05:40 AM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 174
Liked 38 Times on 26 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c3shooter
Boys were sitting in the bar, when suddenly the door was kicked open, and a wild eyed man stormed in, waving a .44 Magnum revolver.

"I'm gonna shoot the S.O.B. that's has been fooling around with my wife!!!!"

Voice from the back of the bar...

"For that, yer gonna need more ammo..."
Ha!!! That was great. Laughed so hard I almost woke the wife.

Thanks for that. It's been a long day and I needed a good laugh.
__________________
lucznik is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 07:09 AM   #45
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,939
Liked 2191 Times on 1213 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

Hey JW, I had posted about the 1986 FBI Miami shootout in one of the "capacity" flameouts that had flared up on the forums lately. I know you probably unsubscribed before you saw it because you're sick of the endless arguments that seem to go nowhere. I am getting there myself.

But, that event itself was part of what really sparked the transition of law enforcement from revolvers to semi automatics. It's also one of the events that made a lot of law enforcement agencies pay attention to the need for better duty rounds and standardized testing that had ignored the issue up to this point.

There is a break down of this shootout that was done by a medical examiner for law enforcement purposes. If everyones already familiar with the event I won't bother posting on it, but if not I think it might add a little bit of perspective to this thread as there were revolvers, semi automatics, a rifle and several shotguns all used in this shootout. I've never examined the facts from this angle, but I'd be curious to see if there was any point in the shootout where you could point and say "okay this agent ran out of ammo and if he'd had a semi instead of a revolver he would have ended the BGs life right there."

Not that it would prove anything one way or the other. Just add perspective.

I'm not gonna go out of my way to dig the old report up unless you're interested though, let me know.

__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 07:37 AM   #46
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JW357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,724
Liked 3721 Times on 2281 Posts
Likes Given: 1224

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF
Hey JW, I had posted about the 1986 FBI Miami shootout in one of the "capacity" flameouts that had flared up on the forums lately. I know you probably unsubscribed before you saw it because you're sick of the endless arguments that seem to go nowhere. I am getting there myself.

But, that event itself was part of what really sparked the transition of law enforcement from revolvers to semi automatics. It's also one of the events that made a lot of law enforcement agencies pay attention to the need for better duty rounds and standardized testing that had ignored the issue up to this point.

There is a break down of this shootout that was done by a medical examiner for law enforcement purposes. If everyones already familiar with the event I won't bother posting on it, but if not I think it might add a little bit of perspective to this thread as there were revolvers, semi automatics, a rifle and several shotguns all used in this shootout. I've never examined the facts from this angle, but I'd be curious to see if there was any point in the shootout where you could point and say "okay this agent ran out of ammo and if he'd had a semi instead of a revolver he would have ended the BGs life right there."

Not that it would prove anything one way or the other. Just add perspective.

I'm not gonna go out of my way to dig the old report up unless you're interested though, let me know.
I know the basics of the shoot out. And I know some of the agents were actually using semi-autos. I know of at least an old (not for that day) model S&W semi of some sort. I know it was a 9mm.

I also saw your post on the most recent capacity flare up, right before I unsubbed. You mentioned one of the bad dudes was hit... 14 times I believe it was? The other, five times? Would that 15th shot have put him down? Not if the agents continued aiming poorly, as IMO they must have been.

In my opinion, this doesn't necessarily speak to the need to replace revolvers with semis. It speaks to the need to use good hollow point ammo, and train the agents to hit vital areas better. The second part is an assumption on my part. I'm assuming under stress they weren't aiming very well and just taking the hits where they could get them.

Now, I'm not trying to necessarily make the case for cops to use revolvers. I believe reloading a revolver quickly requires more training than reloading a semi-auto. For one, most police agencies don't want to take that amount of time to train every officer to reload a revolver fast. For two, yes I do think cops should have more than six rounds in their gun. As we have seen by that example and by history, cops are likely to get in a situation where they might be facing multiple attackers, or one or more of the attackers might be on a drug which causes a loss of felt pain. Therefore, I think its a good thing most police forces use semi-autos.

In this post I was making my case for a civilian CCW holder to not be wary of carrying a revolver vs a semi-auto.

I am still not swayed by the need for more than 12 rounds on my person as a civilian walking around out in town. I have given my reasons for that recently in the "Capacity" thread, so I don't feel I need to repeat them here. But the one thing I will say is that I would feel comfortable playing the odds that I won't face more than 2-3 attackers and they prolly won't be on drugs.

Again, I differentiate between what a cop might encounter vs what a civilian will encounter, and between what a cop will encounter vs what a Marine/Soldier will encounter. They are all, in my opinion, very different circumstances that can have different weapons better suited for the job.

For me, I would feel more comfortable carrying a wheel gun with 12 rounds on my body, knowing it will work every single time I pull the trigger (if there is something wrong with the gun I will know about it before I'm in a defensive situation because I train with my guns as much as possible). Yes, there is a chance of a light primer strike still, but when that happens I only have to pull the trigger again, to cycle to the next round and try again. Compare that to a semi-auto, where you have to:

1) observe the chamber to see what the problem is
2) rack the slide to clear the round (assuming its not a double feed, stove pipe, etc)
3) pull the trigger, after getting back on sights

So, in summary. Cops should have more shots before a reload, and utilize a reload which requires less training to do efficiently. Civilians can be perfectly fine with a five or six shot revolver. They just need to train on reloads as much as possible.
__________________

Always have clean socks.


Last edited by JW357; 08-30-2013 at 07:42 AM.
JW357 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 08:30 AM   #47
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,939
Liked 2191 Times on 1213 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

Okay well I wont post the article then its long and technical. There was a lot of "bad shooting." Good example of what actually happens when your adrenaline spikes and theres someone shooting back at you.

As I recall some of initial wounds sustained were a headshot, a shot that penetrated the sternum and lodged against the spine, and one that pierced a lung. All of these are shots that the "accuracy vs capacity" crowd would have expected to end the fight. It's an impressive example of human endurance under stress and injury on both sides. One of the bad guys was shot 12 times. (Not 14) You would expect that after being shot 12 times including head shots, center mass shots, a shotgun blast to the feet, and a shot to the subjects strong arm that he would have laid down and died.... Or at least stopped shooting... But he didn't.

Of interest to this discussion, 1 of the agents killed and 1 seriously injured were taken out while while trying to fix a failure to feed in a semi that was rendered inoperable by a stray round.

The fight was finally ended at point blank range by a revolver shooter who finally after 5 minutes of gunfire was able to "make his rounds count." And killed them both.

Now Miami shootout aside Ill attempt to debunk 2 thoughts raised earlier on this thread that I can say for sure (at least in my area of the country) are complete myths.

MYTH: It takes much more time and money to teach a cop to efficiently shoot a revolver.

Our police academy consists of about 25% revolver shooters on average.

These are agencies too low on funding to buy an officer a new semi when he may or may not graduate from the academy and pass FTO. So they give him an old service revolver and have their firearms instructors transition him to a semi later. Or prison deputies who are issued old service revolvers because they do not carry their weapons often. Or officers who prefer their revolver because of sentimental value.

There are no special revolver groups or classes. The students are taught how to load and unload revolvers and how to load and unload semis, and how to clear malfunctions as a unit because officers should have a general knowledge of how to safely deal with both types of firearms in the course if their duties.

The revolvers are mixed in with the semis on the firing line and special instruction is given to individuals who need it by the range staff on the firing line during practice.

Revolver shooters have to reload more often than semi automatic users so the entire firing line waits a few seconds between courses of fire for the revolver shooters to load their guns. Some of the courses of fire include mandatory reloads both for semi auto and revolver shooters.

No extra time or money is spent on revolver shooters beyond waiting on them to reload during or between courses of fire. It is actually cheaper for them to issue revolvers rather than semi automatics because they last practically forever and therefore agencies usually have a supply of old service revolvers that no one uses anymore. Most agencies here locally just keep them in storage somewhere rather than sell them.

HUGE MYTH: police carry semi automatics because its cheaper to buy extra anmo for them to dump at a target than it is to teach them how to shoot accurately.

This is 100% total and complete horse hockey. Semi automatic AND revolver shooters in law enforcement are taught to make every round count. They are taught that they are liable for each bullet that leaves their gun and the damage it causes.

At the end of the academy, if a round misses the silhouette, physical punishment is sometimes inflicted by the range staff in the form of push-ups or sit-ups or even miles. Sometimes the entire class will be punished for each round each officer puts "in the white."

Hours of videos of crying widows and children of people injured by police officers stray rounds are played. Along with videos of other officers who were hit. Or who hit others on accident. The make every shot count philosophy is drilled home.

When you see an officer dump his ammo at a target on camera it's not because he was trained that way. It's because he is ****ing his pants. His adrenaline dumped, he went into fight or flight, and he just started shooting as fast as he could. Can you blame him? It's easy to armchair quarterback the guy but unless you've been under fire before, you don't know whether or not you will do the same thing.

I'm done. Sorry for being long winded.

__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."

Last edited by DeltaF; 08-30-2013 at 08:45 AM.
DeltaF is offline  
Mason609 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 01:18 PM   #48
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 16,948
Liked 5129 Times on 2671 Posts
Likes Given: 311

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaF View Post
HUGE MYTH: police carry semi automatics because its cheaper to buy extra anmo for them to dump at a target than it is to teach them how to shoot accurately.

This is 100% total and complete horse hockey. Semi automatic AND revolver shooters in law enforcement are taught to make every round count. They are taught that they are liable for each bullet that leaves their gun and the damage it causes.
Not a total myth. Local range I attend on occasion is an indoor one where the racine county detectives practice and train. They usually take half the lanes. Their training consists solely of putting up targets loading all their mags and dumping ammo from their guns until all mags are dry. They yell show me your hands then immediately open fire with no pause for compliance. They practice executions not police work.

I've witnessed this on multiple occasions. Its very creepy because under stress you react like you train.
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 02:50 PM   #49
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DeltaF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Deep South USA
Posts: 2,939
Liked 2191 Times on 1213 Posts
Likes Given: 280

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM

Not a total myth. Local range I attend on occasion is an indoor one where the racine county detectives practice and train. They usually take half the lanes. Their training consists solely of putting up targets loading all their mags and dumping ammo from their guns until all mags are dry. They yell show me your hands then immediately open fire with no pause for compliance. They practice executions not police work.

I've witnessed this on multiple occasions. Its very creepy because under stress you react like you train.
This is one of 2 things. They may be practicing reactive shooting. It's generally only used at very close range. It's purpose is for a subject within the reactionary gap who draws a gun or knife and attacks immediately. The reason it is practiced more than basic marksmanship is because it is difficult to use this technique, as it is based on muscle memory, proper unholstering technique, visually following the rounds as they impact the target and adjusting the weapon based on where the rounds strike the target until a sight picture can be gained. The goal is to keep all the rounds within a silhouette and rounds begin being fired when the weapon clears the holster. It is hard to properly practice this technique at an indoor range because the shooter is supposed to be moving away from the attacker and towards cover during the drill.

This type of shooting automatically assumes that you are looking down the barrel of your attackers gun and he is AT ARMS LENGTH. It was developed by trainers after reviewing reports and video footage from multiple line of duty deaths which occurred during an engagement begun by the bad guy within the reactionary gap. It is a last ditch SHTF survival skill. The large number of rounds used is because despite what most CCP holders would like to believe, absent a CNS shot it takes multiple handgun rounds to cause a persons body to involuntarily shut down. There have been multiple officers who have died on camera while their attackers still had bodily function even after receiving 1 or more fatal gunshot wounds and continued to attack the officer until they blacked out from loss of blood.

The rounds are NOT fired in rapid succession to "get lucky" but to place multiple hits on the attacker and overwhelm his body so that it shuts down and he stops doing what it was doing. Any rounds missed in this drill are marked and the technique is reviewed and adjusted to prevent the round from straying during the next round of fire. Ideally this drill is never supposed to be used because police are never supposed to let someone get within their reactionary gap. But in the real world most of us attempt to engage the public on an interpersonal level.

Law enforcement shooters do not advance to these types of techniques until they have mastered basic marksmanship skills.

I do agree with you that under stress an officer who has practiced this technique often to attempt to use this technique at distances where it is both dangerous an ineffective. But they are not reacting according to their training. Most training at distances of more than 2-5 yards is to fire 2 rounds to the chest, 1 to the head and move out of the subjects line of fire and towards cover.

They may also be practicing short range controlled fire. This technique is to acquire a sight picture and to fire successive shots to center mass until the target drops or begins to cooperate. These rounds are fired as soon as recoil has ended and the front sight drops back down. At 7 yards while using this technique I have been accused by range staff on non-law enforcement ranges of "excessive rapid fire" despite the fact that my shot group stays within 6 inches or less. I can keep all of my rounds inside a head silhouette at this range and still fire my weapon as fast as my sights realign themselves. Law enforcement shooters are discouraged from practicing these techniques unless they demonstrate good basic marksmanship.

In both instances the goal again is not to "dump ammo and get lucky," but to hit the attacker multiple times in the kill zone and overwhelm his body because of multiple instances in which attackers have killed police officers even after receiving fatal gunshot wounds. I know this goes against the school of thought of most CCP holders who firmly believe that they will only have to fire 1-2 shots to end an engagement, but we have lost multiple friends and brothers in law enforcement to bad guys who didn't know they were supposed to die nicely in 1-2 shots.

I am not trying to start a capacity debate, simply relating the training and techniques police officers are actually taught. If you were trained differently then shoot how you were trained if you want your firearms instructor to testify in your favor in court.
__________________
Quote:
Nobody on this thread licked anybody's bodypart.

Nobody said anything.....about Glocks until you posted about your bacon dog who needs dentures.

What did somebody forget to engage their safety and shoot the dogs front teeth out? Or are we blaming that on the Glock shooters?

"Gaston, the Doggy dentist's best friend."

Last edited by DeltaF; 08-30-2013 at 03:27 PM.
DeltaF is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 03:28 PM   #50
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 16,948
Liked 5129 Times on 2671 Posts
Likes Given: 311

Default

I'm previous law enforcement . You don't train using the command show me your hands then opening fire with no pause. It turns a very commonly used police phrase to ingrain the shoot command.

These detectives weren't training gunpoint tactics. Their trainer sets up the scenarios almost all with people answering a door hand in pocket driver sitting in a car hands hidden . Or refusing to comply with no visible weapon. I've seen them doing it. Its some scary stuff.

That's what I'm getting at. We trained reaction shooting in the mp's in the army using the call word "gun".

We also trained to shoot until the command he is down which could occur at any point not just when your last mag runs dry.

All I'm saying is not all police units follow good practice and some teach what I call execution training.

I'm not saying its a all police doing this. It seems to just be this group. Here where I live

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...


Last edited by JonM; 08-30-2013 at 03:32 PM.
JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Gun control debate: what arguments the left will use and how to answer them FullautoUSA Legal and Activism 0 01-01-2013 03:27 PM
Refresher Course on Gun Control Arguments RJMercer Legal and Activism 0 12-31-2012 10:40 PM
Supreme Court has heard the Arguments Kelly J Legal and Activism 0 03-02-2010 07:20 PM
arguments? Braeden Ammunition & Reloading 10 07-28-2008 02:24 PM
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment sculker The Club House 3 01-19-2008 03:30 PM