D/A revolvers, enough for todays streets?

[ZVP]

You see it in every movie, across the news and at the gun range, the rage today is for the Semi-Auto, Yes they have a lot going for them slab sided for easy carry, powerfull cartriges, large capacity mags and more!
The question is do our beloved revolvers counter the capabilitys of the modern semi-auto?
First of all you have to carry a serious caliber (ny choice is the .38 special) and you need to carry a revolver that has at least 5 rounds (double derringers are nasty but only have 2 shots), and you need to be proficient with the revolver in D/A mode and in reloading it. Even the smallest semi-autos usually hold 6 shots. So you are sort of outgunned in a manner of speaking.
Modern Police agency's and the Military have gone on to the semi-auto to keep up with what the bad guys carry.
Now I have read all sorts of stories about how the gunfight lasts 3.5 shots etc, and how with a single threat you are equal but I still wonder with todays ever increasing threats from gangs, wanna-be's and all!
I pratice at least every 2 weeks with my revolvers as much as i can afford to, (retired) and can keep a cylinder full in the blck at 21 feet but I can't help wondering if the bd guy might get lucky in his spray and pray style (the modern movie how-to!) as opposed to my slower fire aimed barrage?
I just like my revolvers (a Model 36 and a HB Model 10) and feel safe with my purposeful choice of a low recoiling .38 special and it's high preformance .38 Special HP ammo. I really think that a praticed shot, familliar with his weapon stands a good chance even today!
What's your feelings on the revolver vs semi-auro debate? are we undergunned ? what do you think of my self training?
BPDave

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

The gun is capable. Is the shooter? Do you think Jerry Miculek would have a problem?

 

[pokersamurai]

I still trust my life to the revolver everyday, and I never feel under-gunned.

 

[SwampWolf]

Now I have read all sorts of stories about how the gunfight lasts 3.5 shots etc,

The trouble is, of course, that you can't count on your individual scenario replicating the "norm". Facing multiple assailants might not reflect what "usually" happens but it might well occur in your particular circumstance. Real-life gun fights aren't movies. You just can't know what the future might portend and it makes good sense to be prepared for even the "atypical" event.

The revolver vs semi-auto debate will never have a "winner". The advantages and disadvantages of each have been discussed at length and are well documented. The auto offers the advantages of superior ammunition capacity, faster speed of reload and better concealability by virtue of its slimmer profile. The revolver's best advantages are extreme reliability (though modern autos are pretty darn reliable) and its ability to digest various loads without fear of a malfunction.

If you feel more comfortable and are more trained shooting a revolver, then that might well be the best choice for you, in spite of its supposed disadvantages. But if it happens that you have to reckon with more than one adversary (and don't count on them returning fire with a "spray and pray style"-not all crooks are cowardly and stupid), you might be better armed having a high-capacity, reliable semi-auto in your hand with a spare magazine at your disposal.

 

[Doc7]

The trouble is, of course, that you can't count on your[/I individual] scenario replicating the "norm". Facing multiple assailants might not reflect what "usually" happens but it might well occur in your particular circumstance. Real-life gun fights aren't movies. You just can't know what the future might portend and it makes good sense to be prepared for even the "atypical" event.

The revolver vs semi-auto debate will never have a "winner". The advantages and disadvantages of each have been discussed at length and are well documented. The auto offers the advantages of superior ammunition capacity, faster speed of reload and better concealability by virtue of its slimmer profile. The revolver's best advantage is extreme reliability (though modern autos are pretty darn reliable) and its ability to digest various loads without fear of a malfunction.

If you feel more comfortable and are more trained shooting a revolver, then that might well be the best choice for you, in spite of its supposed disadvantages. But if it happens that you have to reckon with more than one adversary (and don't count on them returning fire with a "spray and pray style"-not all crooks are cowardly and stupid), you might be better armed having a high-capacity, reliable semi-auto in your hand with a spare magazine at your disposal.

One aspect I rarely see addresses is how much practice time plays into the decision. There is NO doubt that practice is required to properly use and reload a revolver proficiently. But I believe more practice is required to train for malfunctions with a semi auto to ingrain tap rack bang.

Let's say a new handgunner can only practice once per month. Is this a case where the revolver may be a better option? For instance - my fiancée , who has no interest whatsoever in "training" with any type of firearm, would clearly be much better served by a D/A revolver in a true emergency than a semi auto she doesn't know how to handle. So at a practice rate of 0 times per month revolver wins out. How high does that variable need to go before semi takes over?

 

[Dave T]

Doc7,

Have to respectfully disagree with you Sir. My experience in law enforcement as my department's chief firearms instructor for the last 6 years before retiring and running my own firearms training business for 10 years tells me the DA revolver takes significantly more training, to shoot well, than do most semi-autos.

My experience also indicates this business of semi-autos malfunctioning all the time is a bit hyped. A well made and maintained auto, fed good ammunition is as likely to be reliable as any revolver. Why do you think the world's armys have universally adopted the auto pistol?

Finally, DA trigger control with revolvers, particularly small frame guns like the too popular 2", five shot 38 Special, is a problem for most everyone. In all my years on the shooting range I have yet to see someone who could shoot double action quickly with a J-frame and get consistent hits.

Dave

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

The answer is maybe. I carry 2!

 

[ZVP]

I agree the DA revolver is the most difficult gun I have ever tried to master! In no way am I there yet! This is why I try to shoot often, every week if I can . There are so many muscles in play as you fire DA and the gun (smaller ones more difficult) moves a lot.
There are many things to keep coordinated as you cycle the action so consistancy is the most important factor!
BPDave

 

[Onward Allusion]

Unless you're living in a really rough part of town or have a tendency to wander into unfamiliar areas, you should be fine. 5 shots from a snub will ruin most BG's day. If you're still uncomfortable, carry a speedloader. Better yet, carry a mousegun as backup to the 5-shot.

 

[rcmodel]

You betcha it is.

If you know how to use it.

rc

 

[9mmepiphany]

One aspect I rarely see addresses is how much practice time plays into the decision. There is NO doubt that practice is required to properly use and reload a revolver proficiently. But I believe more practice is required to train for malfunctions with a semi auto to ingrain tap rack bang.

I've carried both revolvers and semi-auto pistols as duty guns as for CCW and this doesn't reflect my experience either. The malfunction rate of a pistol is much lower than many believe if you start with a quality one and it is much more curable than a malfunction with a revolver

Let's say a new handgunner can only practice once per month. Is this a case where the revolver may be a better option?

...So at a practice rate of 0 times per month revolver wins out. How high does that variable need to go before semi takes over?

Actually my experience has shown that this isn't true either. It is much easier to for someone who doesn't practice to make hits with a pistol than a revolver...for the simple reason that the semi-auto's flatter profile indexes better in the hand.

Even when comparing a DAO pistol like a Kahr to a revolver (certainly a J-frame)...apples to apples...the Kahr wins out. It does even out a bit if you move the revolver up to a K-frame(the geometry of the action makes all the difference)...a tuned K-frame would be pretty much an even heat

 

[PedalBiker]

D/A revolvers, enough for todays streets?

There are a lot of streets, today, that I wouldn't enter without an APC and a squad of armed soldiers.

If you are more specific about where you are talking about it's probably more relevant than the "today" part of it. The world is still a large and diverse place.

The streets where I live are safe enough that I don't carry much. When I do a 5 shot .38 is often "good enough" in my opinion. Around here the bad guys don't often work together (except those working for the govt and the govt guys tend to use subterfuge rather than outright violence).

When I'm farther out of town and the LE guys are more than 6 minutes away I carry something with more power and more capacity. Sure, a "woods" gun is typically a large revolver, but I'm happy with an 8 round 45 or a 10 round 9mm.

 

[Ex]

There are a lot of streets, today, that I wouldn't enter without an APC and a squad of armed soldiers.

If you are more specific about where you are talking about it's probably more relevant than the "today" part of it. The world is still a large and diverse place.

The streets where I live are safe enough that I don't carry much. When I do a 5 shot .38 is often "good enough" in my opinion. Around here the bad guys don't often work together (except those working for the govt and the govt guys tend to use subterfuge rather than outright violence).

When I'm farther out of town and the LE guys are more than 6 minutes away I carry something with more power and more capacity. Sure, a "woods" gun is typically a large revolver, but I'm happy with an 8 round 45 or a 10 round 9mm.

No disrespect to this poster or to LEOs, but the saying goes "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!". This is much of the reason so many are inclined today to own a weapon and learn how to use it. Also, in 99% of instances, one or two shots should suffice. I believe that television has entirely too much influence on what/how we think about self defence. If I fired 5 or 6 rounds at a bad guy, I would be tremendously concerned about where four or five of them went, knowing that if I was on spot with my aim one or certainly two would be enough.

Training is again the key factor in most of these kind of threads. If you can't hit what you shoot at, pepper spray is the better choice. Or better, more practice. Personally, I would rather take one than "take out" an innocent. Train, practice, train then practice some more.

 

[TennJed]

More capable than the slew of similar capacity pocket pistols on the marker today

 

[ArchAngelCD]

D/A revolvers, enough for todays streets?

Like said above, there are a lot of streets in this country and none are created equal.

This topic has been beaten to death, the corps reanimated and then beaten to death again!

Carry what you shoot best and hit what you aim at, it's that simple...

 

[CajunBass]

You betcha it is.

If you know how to use it.

rc

Truth.

And if you don't know how to use it, a M-2 machine gun isn't much help.

Pick a gun you like, that you trust, and carry it. I've swapped carry guns a dozen times over the years. I finally settled on a revolver, but I could have stuck with the original Kel-Tec P-11 and it would have been just fine.

 

[Blue Brick]

D/A revolvers, enough for todays streets?

Yes.

 

[evan price]

It's not all about capacity.
If I carried daily what I would need to stave off a rampaging motorcycle gang hopped up on meth I wouldn't be able to get out the door under my load-out.
A 5-shot snub or a single-stack 9mm works fine for me. Carry a couple reloads.

Still got the donut spare tire in your trunk?

 

[mott]

I think sharpsdressedman had it right.

 

[MedWheeler]

I learned to run the revolver, scoring an "expert" level, way before I learned to shoot the semi-automatic, as I was in law enforcement when they were still the sidearm of the profession.

Combined with a strategy including use of cover/concealment and self-extraction, when available, I believe the revolver, in the hands of someone who can run it, is a perfectly-acceptable and capable defensive weapon.

Unlike "non-cops" (my term for "civilians" in this context, as LEOs are also civilians), law enforcement officers are obligated to remain in the fight, even when an assailant breaks off and attempts to self-extract. This keeps them in an elevated-risk environment longer than non-cops typically need to be.

That being said, I do carry an autoloader these days.

 

[skoro]

What's your feelings on the revolver vs semi-auro debate? are we undergunned ?

It varies depending on the individual's situation. In my case, the S&W 642 is entirely appropriate. I'm not a celebrity, wealthy, or engaged in law enforcement. I'm not a likely target and my lifestyle doesn't include risky business. The probability that I'd ever need to draw is vanishingly small. But, being a former Boy Scout, I like to "be prepared."

Under other circumstances, a hi-cap semiauto would certainly be in order.

I feel adequately armed.

 

[SwampWolf]

in 99% of instances, one or two shots should suffice.

That's a pretty big stretch. If one or two shots are all you'll ever need in "99 % of instances", then I suppose a 2-shot Derringer would suffice almost all of the time.

I believe that television has entirely too much influence on what/how we think about self defence.

This is probably true. Which is why some people apparently believe that they will be so calm and collected in a gun fight that "shot placement" will carry the day; after all, who needs more than a couple of rounds if you've shot the bad guy between the eyes?
Though there is no substitute for adequate training and accurate shooting, let's not kid ourselves here. In the "heat of the battle", though all of the things you've learned in training will serve you well, it can never fully prepare you for the fear of being shot as bullets are headed your way and the ensuing "fight or flight" adrenaline rush you will undoubtedly have to cope with and overcome.
In my thirty years in le, I've had the occasion to investigate and interview more than a couple of people involved in a shoot-out and I never heard one person lamenting over having too many bullets on board. Quite the contrary, not surprisingly.
I often carry a concealed revolver in my "civilian" status and I tote it with confidence. But I agree with those who argue that, everything else being equal, it generally takes more training to be proficient with a revolver than it does with an auto, in terms of using a handgun for self-defense. But, as I opined earlier in this thread, carry the gun you are most confident with. And not just blind confidence because the gun "feels" good or because others have assured you that it's all you'll ever need, but real confidence, predicated on your training and demonstrated proficiency with it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by skoro: In my case, the S&W 642 is entirely appropriate. I'm not a celebrity, wealthy, or engaged in law enforcement. I'm not a likely target and my lifestyle doesn't include risky business. The probability that I'd ever need to draw is vanishingly small. But, being a former Boy Scout, I like to "be prepared."

Regardless of what concludes one might like to have in the event of an encounter with one or more violent criminal actors, the likelihood of having such an encounter should not enter into the analysis.

Rather, one should consider the conditional probability--the assesmemt of what one might need should the necessity arise. That's a basic tenet of risk management.

If one is attacked, it no longer matters at all whether one is a celebrity, wealthy, or a likely target.

I feel adequately armed.

Many years ago, there was a saying to the effect that that and a dime "will get you a cup of coffee."

Until last summer, I often carried a J-Frame. Some objective analysis led me to retire it from primary carry. One reason for that was capacity, but the fact that I'm not all that proficient with it due to the trigger pull was also important.

If I were sufficiently proficient with a revolver, I would opt for two of them--preferably six shot models.

Older police office, mostly retired, who carried revolvers tell me that for back up, the "all important sixth shot" of a Cobra or Detective special carried a lot of with with them.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

If they aren't then I'm on the wrong street and in the completely wrong state like Illinois.

 

[SwampWolf]

Older police office, mostly retired, who carried revolvers tell me that for back up, the "all important sixth shot" of a Cobra

Yep, that's me. When carrying a revolver concealed, it's either a Colt Cobra or a Smith Model 12; both are relatively light in weight and compact in size (the Cobra weighs no more than a J-frame Smith Airweight and not much larger) and, with their six-shot capacities, carry 20 % more ammunition than the J-frame counterpart. If you ever need a sixth shot, you really need it.