In and of itself, revolvers may not be the answer, but in my experience those that carry them are less likely to depend on the volumn of available shots, and more likely to depend on making "meaningful hits," because they don't have any other option.
Speaking for myself here and as a person who carries either (revolver or semi-auto), depending on the circumstance or whim at the moment; it's been
my experience that, with a modicum of sound training, the object of scoring "meaningful" hits in a gunfight is not compromised by using a high-capacity semi-auto as opposed to a revolver. Before retiring after thirty years of service, our agency transitioned from revolvers to semi-autos and one of the mantras our instructors continually drilled into every officer's head was to "make every shot count" because you are accountable for every shot fired. This fundamental principle is just as true for Chief Special users as it is for Glock users. I think it's just as likely for an untrained person firing a revolver under extreme stress to "push their panic button and dump a whole (
cylinder) as fast as they can pull the trigger." What might follow in that instance is the same as if he were firing an automatic: "a lot of shots fired with relatively few hits", albeit, maybe less shots fired than would be if the same untrained individual was using a Glock.
The awful truth is, as I and others have recounted in earlier posts, in "the heat of the moment", there will likely be misses when exchanging bullets with people who mean to kill us, even with revolvers, no matter how well-disciplined, well-intentioned and well-trained we are. The idea is to minimize, if not eliminate, stray shots. To say otherwise reflects a certain lack of awareness as to the unpredictable and predictable dynamics sure to be at play in a "typical" shootout.
One might point out that the solution is better training, but in the real world the required amount is unlikely to happen.
Well, I guess I'm the one you're referring to
: the solution
is better training. However, the principle of
making every shot count does not require a whole lot of training time or expensive instruction courses to understand and follow. And as people who carry a firearm for self-protection responsibly, imo, we have an obligation to acquire at least a minimal amount of suitable training as to how, when and why a firearm should be employed in self-defense.
Stinger's statement is basic: "Clearly it's the person behind using the gun, not the gun itself." And if that person uses a semi-auto pistol to "spray and pray" as a tactic in a gunfight, let's not fault the implement he used wrongly. And I doubt very much that a revolver placed in the same individual's hand would make him any more choosy as to how many random rounds he expends.
