Do you feel under gunned with a revolver?
- Thread starter TheSigmaEnigma
- Start date
- Status
dprice3844444
member
revolver or auto,if you can't hit your target with the first shot or so,you might wind up dead.
I don't know, there was a time when I would have agreed with Jeff Cooper, but not any longer. I was involved in an altercation about 15 years ago, with three guys and they all had guns. One of them shot at me, I shot back, the other two took cover, as did I. By then, the third was under cover.
Then I started getting worried about being flanked by one of them. In the end, I fired 14 rounds and couldn't get a good clear shot without breaking cover. All I know is that I kept them off of me long enough for them to decide that leaving was the best course of action. It all happend in under 30 seconds or so. Talk about scary. The adrenaline hit, then my hearing went and tunnel vision. Anyway, would it have ended differently if I had a revolver? I don't know.
If I had a revolver, I may have had a speed loader handy; but then again, in those days, I believed in Jeff Cooper's line of reasoning, hence, no spare mag for the auto.
Of course, if I had been shooting a .357 instead of a 9mm, a couple of my rounds may have punched through the car door that I put three rounds into trying to get to the guy shooting at me from behind it.
Although I now keep a little single stack 9mm (Kahr K9), I always have a spare mag and 9mm ammo has come a long way since then.
These days, I still keep a revolver if circumstances dictate that I have to make a compromise, but given a choice, I'll go with an auto that will reload quickly.
Then I started getting worried about being flanked by one of them. In the end, I fired 14 rounds and couldn't get a good clear shot without breaking cover. All I know is that I kept them off of me long enough for them to decide that leaving was the best course of action. It all happend in under 30 seconds or so. Talk about scary. The adrenaline hit, then my hearing went and tunnel vision. Anyway, would it have ended differently if I had a revolver? I don't know.
If I had a revolver, I may have had a speed loader handy; but then again, in those days, I believed in Jeff Cooper's line of reasoning, hence, no spare mag for the auto.
Of course, if I had been shooting a .357 instead of a 9mm, a couple of my rounds may have punched through the car door that I put three rounds into trying to get to the guy shooting at me from behind it.
Although I now keep a little single stack 9mm (Kahr K9), I always have a spare mag and 9mm ammo has come a long way since then.
These days, I still keep a revolver if circumstances dictate that I have to make a compromise, but given a choice, I'll go with an auto that will reload quickly.
easyrider604
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 735
/\ Nice to hear your story. Gave me goose bumps just reading it. Glad to hear you're still around to share. Maybe I should load full .357 magnum in my revos.
Red Cent
Member
I also pack too many clothes, take too much food to the range, and in my house you can really can do a NY reload.
CSA 357
Member
i feel well armed with a wheel gun!
I've been giving this some thought since the wife took my PM9 pocket pistol and gave me her 442 in trade.
I do better with the PM9 too, but for now I'm carrying her 442 with a strip and a speed loader, it does draw from the pocket cleaner and quicker then the Kahr and has a Laser on it which has it's advantages.
Back in the 70's and 80's I carried a 4" 686 with the hottest 125's I could find and my line of thinking was I only need 1 well placed shot per bad guy.
I'm getting back into revolvers, the 442 and a needed 629 for the woods but I still feel a bit more comfy with a compact 1911 and a spare mag verses a six shooter and a speed loader.
Although that old 686 with the one shot mentality probably wasn't all that bad of a deal.
I do better with the PM9 too, but for now I'm carrying her 442 with a strip and a speed loader, it does draw from the pocket cleaner and quicker then the Kahr and has a Laser on it which has it's advantages.
Back in the 70's and 80's I carried a 4" 686 with the hottest 125's I could find and my line of thinking was I only need 1 well placed shot per bad guy.
I'm getting back into revolvers, the 442 and a needed 629 for the woods but I still feel a bit more comfy with a compact 1911 and a spare mag verses a six shooter and a speed loader.
Although that old 686 with the one shot mentality probably wasn't all that bad of a deal.
20x12ga
Member
No ,I'd rather have a gun that is going to go off without a jam Eveytime I squeeze the trigger. Auto's ?? who knows sometimes they do and then sometimes they don't I'm Not taking the chance . Anything a 9mm or 380 will do ,my .45 L.C. or even my "Little" .357 mag will do better. Your Choice ?
dwo357
Member
Wheel guns are the best
One shot , one kill. Wild game hunting of course. No need to defoliate the forest with rapid fire.
One shot , one kill. Wild game hunting of course. No need to defoliate the forest with rapid fire.
That's why Jeff Cooper said "probably."
You see, most people will probably never need a gun at all (in all honesty, anti-gunners aren't wrong about everything 
). Those who do will probably need to fire no more than two shots, or even none. Those who need to fire more will probably not need more than five or six rounds (basically what Cooper said). And those who need even more than that probably should have packed a high-capacity autoloader. 
There is no hard threshold that represents equal probability for every person and their specific situation, and even if there were we'd all have different subjective levels of comfort, no matter how objective we try to make our arguments. This is why I've been so ambivalent on this topic. On the one hand, generally no, I would not feel under-gunned with a revolver because the odds are heavily on my side...but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to have a few additional rounds...you know...just in the off-chance that I'd need them like you did....
Thanks for sharing your story, by the way.
That's exactly what it is, a compromise that at times is justifiable, and at other times is unnecessary.
If that's what you're most comfortable with, then I won't argue with it because I happen to feel the same way about rimfire autos--I just don't trust them based on my personal experience. However, my defensive auto has never had a malfunction, and I've put nearly 3000 rounds through it. I've had centerfire autos malfunction on me before, and I've read about it happening in real life defensive scenarios enough to be wary, but my particular pistol seems reliable enough for me to trust. For some that's not good enough (particularly if they've had bad luck with autos), but for others it is (especially if they happen to find a truly reliable one).
I'd also like to add that revolvers do lend sort of a false sense of security. As the above poster said, he trusts revolvers more because they always go bang. I've been messing with guns for a long time. Well, longer than most, not as long as others. Anyway, I've seen a fair number of revolvers lock up too. Revolvers are mechanical devices and do succumb to failures sometimes.
The trick to an auto is training/practice, which is another good reason to carry a spare magazine. If for no other reason, but to give the ability to clear a jam and reload, which a practiced shooter can do pdq.
I think that the moral of the story is to be as prepared as you practicably can be. As Manco pointed out, it is sometimes a compromise. A five shooter at the ankle is better than a P229 in the safe.
The trick to an auto is training/practice, which is another good reason to carry a spare magazine. If for no other reason, but to give the ability to clear a jam and reload, which a practiced shooter can do pdq.
I think that the moral of the story is to be as prepared as you practicably can be. As Manco pointed out, it is sometimes a compromise. A five shooter at the ankle is better than a P229 in the safe.
Tony-- It was fortunate that your gun performed as well as it did, there are more stories of autos failing than revolvers. The third Airman in Frankfurt Germany march 4th was spared by the gun jamming, but that goes both ways, he might have been out of bullets by that time with a revolver (maybe not an 8 shot). There are pluses and minuses, I would say go with what your more comfortable with and you have more training with.
easyg
Member
This line of thinking is based upon faulty logic....
Just because one chooses to use a wheel gun, that does not mean that they will be capable of "one shot, one kill".
And just because one chooses to use an autoloader, that does not mean that they will use rapid fire.
Many a revolver shooter has emptied his revolver, reloaded, emptied his revolver a second time, and still failed to hit the target.
And many a semi shooter has hit his target with a single well placed shot.
easyg
Member
If you think that this is true, why do you carry a reload for your revolver?
txhoghunter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 663
Two Words....Jerry. Miculek.
Have you seen Jerry Miculek shoot a revolver?? I'm pretty sure that thing is registered as a FA pistol with the ATF
Have you seen Jerry Miculek shoot a revolver?? I'm pretty sure that thing is registered as a FA pistol with the ATF
230therapy
Member
Don't even go there txhoghunter.
Mr. Miculek stated in an interview a few years back that he was approaching, or had exceeded, a million rounds fired from revolvers.
He is a shooting machine. We're just mere men.
Mr. Miculek stated in an interview a few years back that he was approaching, or had exceeded, a million rounds fired from revolvers.
He is a shooting machine. We're just mere men.
230therapy
Member
What I see based upon the contents of this thread is a lack to think things through.
When people make statements like:
"If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
"It shouldn't take more than 6 shots. Ever."
they are declaring in advance several parameters of their fight.
We do not get to pick our fight. It could require a strong voice, displaying the gun, one or more shots, some combatives, or something else. Situations are different and the goblins' goals will differ. A mugging will be a very different fight than a home invasion. Predetermining what will be required is a mistake. You may or may not need to reload; but making a statement about the difficulty of winning based upon shots fired does not seem logical to me.
Variations of "Revolvers are more reliable than semi-automatics" and "Revolvers fire every time" are "feel good" statements. These statements alone do not justify the use of the revolver over another platform because any mechanical device can malfunction or break. The problems are different between the platforms and a quick look through Kuhnhausen's manuals shows this.
Then: "Accuracy beats ammo capacity for civilian work."
This is a very misleading statement in that it oversimplifies the problem. The goblin gets a say as to whether or not it gets shot! Combat shooting is very different from target shooting. Most shooters seem to believe otherwise. Movement alone makes accurate shooting very difficult. Cover, adrenaline and so forth increase the complexity. I have seen very few people (compared to the number of people who go to the range) practice shooting while moving at a moving target. The movement I'm talking about is not walking or gun school "crab walking" (sidestepping); it is fast movement with both torsos bobbing around all over the place. Shooting stationary paper targets does nothing to prepare the self-defense oriented person for this type of activity.
In the end, the trained man has higher odds of success. If you don't know how to run your gun, then you are not prepared for a fight. Semi-autos and revolvers require good gun operating skills. Fighting requires a solid foundation in tactics, movement, combatives, fitness, and so on. If you're going to carry a revolver, then attend classes on fighting taught by a revolver specialist (after NRA gun safety and a basic handgun class). A trainer with lots of experience semi-automatics may not have the skill to help you learn the proper techniques for clearing your revolver if it jams. Many of the statements in this thread tell me that the posters have no idea what they're doing outside the context of a gun range.
When people make statements like:
"If you can't solve the problem with six shots, you probably can't solve the problem".
"It shouldn't take more than 6 shots. Ever."
they are declaring in advance several parameters of their fight.
We do not get to pick our fight. It could require a strong voice, displaying the gun, one or more shots, some combatives, or something else. Situations are different and the goblins' goals will differ. A mugging will be a very different fight than a home invasion. Predetermining what will be required is a mistake. You may or may not need to reload; but making a statement about the difficulty of winning based upon shots fired does not seem logical to me.
Variations of "Revolvers are more reliable than semi-automatics" and "Revolvers fire every time" are "feel good" statements. These statements alone do not justify the use of the revolver over another platform because any mechanical device can malfunction or break. The problems are different between the platforms and a quick look through Kuhnhausen's manuals shows this.
Then: "Accuracy beats ammo capacity for civilian work."
This is a very misleading statement in that it oversimplifies the problem. The goblin gets a say as to whether or not it gets shot! Combat shooting is very different from target shooting. Most shooters seem to believe otherwise. Movement alone makes accurate shooting very difficult. Cover, adrenaline and so forth increase the complexity. I have seen very few people (compared to the number of people who go to the range) practice shooting while moving at a moving target. The movement I'm talking about is not walking or gun school "crab walking" (sidestepping); it is fast movement with both torsos bobbing around all over the place. Shooting stationary paper targets does nothing to prepare the self-defense oriented person for this type of activity.
In the end, the trained man has higher odds of success. If you don't know how to run your gun, then you are not prepared for a fight. Semi-autos and revolvers require good gun operating skills. Fighting requires a solid foundation in tactics, movement, combatives, fitness, and so on. If you're going to carry a revolver, then attend classes on fighting taught by a revolver specialist (after NRA gun safety and a basic handgun class). A trainer with lots of experience semi-automatics may not have the skill to help you learn the proper techniques for clearing your revolver if it jams. Many of the statements in this thread tell me that the posters have no idea what they're doing outside the context of a gun range.
Last edited:
Well, that may be more true for some folks than others (Jeff Cooper made one of those statements, and I believe that he's done some thinking on the subject), but what they're all doing, whether consciously or otherwise, is picking a level of probability with which they are comfortable enough to stop considering any additional and relatively unlikely scenarios. For some it just seems ridiculous or not worth a perceived trade-off (e.g. reliability), while others may actually be in denial or believe that they'd have no chance in scenarios with relatively high-volume shooting anyway.
That last thing you said directly addresses the last thing that I said, and I agree--the fact that many shots are fired does not necessarily imply lower odds of survival, as there are many parameters to consider besides the characteristics of one's gun (although I think it is fair to say that having more rounds is generally an advantage in such scenarios).
Not only that, but there is always a "strawman" argument, either implicit or explicit, that says that having more rounds available always makes the shooter "spray & pray," which is false (I control the gun, not the other way around), and that shooting a revolver somehow makes one more accurate, which is just as false (especially given what you're saying about moving targets). Higher capacity simply means more shot opportunities, and in some cases hits on the bad guy that would otherwise not have been made.
That's right, if the bad guy would just hold still for a few seconds, I wouldn't need a super-powerful revolver that some have been touting to put him down with one shot, but in reality I may be lucky to hit him anywhere at all given the above. It is often said that under stress people will revert to the most basic level of training that has become ingrained, which from what I've seen is most commonly standing square before the target, taking really careful aim, squeezing the trigger slowly (and staging it if that applies), and then gathering oneself up for the next shot (which sometimes involves habitually adjusting one's grip on the gun). While they may (and often do) behave differently in a real shooting, they won't be properly prepared for it beyond the most basic of skills, no matter how tight their groups may be or how many rounds they've shot.
By the way, many public shooting ranges have strictly enforced rules against rapid fire, so many people don't even practice that. This is not to advocate "spray & pray" by any means--I'm talking about controlled, aimed (each round individually) bursts of fire whenever limited shot opportunities present themselves, which may land more hits on the target faster in order to end the threat sooner. In real shootings, people commonly shoot more rounds faster than they ever have before anyway, often without even realizing it until afterward. All I'm saying is that training for it will help one put those rounds to better use, so try to find a range that allows it. Naturally, higher round capacity gives one some leeway in how rounds can be used, and a margin in case more rounds are fired than one would have expected beforehand.
Last edited:
MtnSpur
Member
Some experiences differ
As a combat veteran my basic level of training is exactly the opposite of squaring up, careful aim and squeezing off a round. I'm looking for cover, any cover, I'm making 6'5" into the smallest, thinnist and most invisible package known to man...if I know where my threat is I'll have my primary attention on him but not limited to swivelheading like a $1 hooker at a chili cookoff. Lastly, no matter what weapon I have you can believe I've spent many hours with it and know it's limitations as well as my own. I'd prefer home field advantage but we know the odds of that are slim.
As a combat veteran my basic level of training is exactly the opposite of squaring up, careful aim and squeezing off a round. I'm looking for cover, any cover, I'm making 6'5" into the smallest, thinnist and most invisible package known to man...if I know where my threat is I'll have my primary attention on him but not limited to swivelheading like a $1 hooker at a chili cookoff. Lastly, no matter what weapon I have you can believe I've spent many hours with it and know it's limitations as well as my own. I'd prefer home field advantage but we know the odds of that are slim.
Just to be clear in case I misspoke, I didn't mean that everybody on the revolver side of the debate lacked training in combat tactics, just that a lot probably do based on what I predominantly see at public shooting ranges. Those who know well how to fight have their own reasons for their choices (reliability in your case), and there's no denying that knowing how to handle oneself and one's weapon, whatever type it may be, makes one far less likely to be under-gunned.
By the way, running into someone like that but on the wrong side of the law is why I prefer to give myself the advantage of more ammo (since I have an auto that I feel I can trust). At the end of the day, it's all about having confidence, both in oneself and one's tools.
bushmaster1313
Member
No.
But I do feel like one gun under the revolver
But I do feel like one gun under the revolver
Do I feel under gunned NO … because my 3” - 44 special will do some serious damage as long as I can keep up my part of our agreement.
Now having said that … I have to ask myself …
Self …
Do you I feel out gunned?
Well if I find myself in a situation that requires more then only 5 boolits to get my fat a$$ out of harms way in one piece safely while keeping every drop of my vivacious bodily fluids right where they belong … then YES!
Yes I say,,, Because if I have to start fumbling around to eject some spent casings and re-load with 5 fresh boolits before one or more gun wielding furry footed burrowers whom have pastelos housing 8 to 33 boolits that they feel the need to inject into my body then yes … I hope I too have something able to hold a lot more boolits then only 5 or 6 to expel back at them.
Which IMHO the way things appear to be to me while strolling around these recently visited gun shows in my area, lately customers are carrying FAR MORE higher capacity semi-automatic pistols and extra high capacity magazines out the door to be carried incognito by these folks on the streets of their neighborhoods then there are 5 or 6 round wheelies.
So UNDER gunned NO … OUT gunned MAYBE.
Think of it this way. Since I AM going to be on my own I’ll run dry having ONLY 5 or 6 boolits before someone or if they brought backups will … while they will have 9 or more each. Heck I’ll only have 5 to make sure count while even being up against one shooter will have AT LEAST 3 or more to waste, if not more.
Let’s say for argument sake I do get a rewarding hit out of 5 BOOLITS TO TRY WITH … how many boolits did it take me? How many do I have left?? And how many of those do I still have left OUT OF 5 or maybe 6 to work with on how many guns pointed at me??? AND how many boolits do they all have to “COLLATERALLY” rain down on me with?????????
In closing I hope I never never ever never EVER have to find out the answer to these equations !!!!!!
Now having said that … I have to ask myself …
Self …
Do you I feel out gunned?
Well if I find myself in a situation that requires more then only 5 boolits to get my fat a$$ out of harms way in one piece safely while keeping every drop of my vivacious bodily fluids right where they belong … then YES!
Yes I say,,, Because if I have to start fumbling around to eject some spent casings and re-load with 5 fresh boolits before one or more gun wielding furry footed burrowers whom have pastelos housing 8 to 33 boolits that they feel the need to inject into my body then yes … I hope I too have something able to hold a lot more boolits then only 5 or 6 to expel back at them.
Which IMHO the way things appear to be to me while strolling around these recently visited gun shows in my area, lately customers are carrying FAR MORE higher capacity semi-automatic pistols and extra high capacity magazines out the door to be carried incognito by these folks on the streets of their neighborhoods then there are 5 or 6 round wheelies.
So UNDER gunned NO … OUT gunned MAYBE.
Think of it this way. Since I AM going to be on my own I’ll run dry having ONLY 5 or 6 boolits before someone or if they brought backups will … while they will have 9 or more each. Heck I’ll only have 5 to make sure count while even being up against one shooter will have AT LEAST 3 or more to waste, if not more.
Let’s say for argument sake I do get a rewarding hit out of 5 BOOLITS TO TRY WITH … how many boolits did it take me? How many do I have left?? And how many of those do I still have left OUT OF 5 or maybe 6 to work with on how many guns pointed at me??? AND how many boolits do they all have to “COLLATERALLY” rain down on me with?????????
In closing I hope I never never ever never EVER have to find out the answer to these equations !!!!!!
I do feel a little undergunned with a revolver, that is why I don't carry one anymore. I had an experience while on a road trip and armed with a revolver and I decided then that more onboard payload would be favorable. Until that point, I was perfectly fine carrying a revolver. I was quite good with it that revolver, so ability to shoot it wasn't an issue.
MtnSpur
Member
We're good
Just to be clear in case I misspoke.QUOTE]
I totally understand where you are coming from. I've taken more than a few handgun classes (NRA and private) where first time students made me more than a little nervous concerning muzzle direction (or lack thereof)
Though I prefer a revolver at this point in my life I by no means restrict myself to revolver only carry. I have a Sig P239 that I carry that is an old and trusted friend. I qualified for my original CHL with only one flyer out of 50 using a Norinco 1911A1 because I practiced a LOT, not because I am anywhere close to the caliber of a competitive shooter.
Everyone has their own level of comfort concerning what weapon they feel best suits them and I won't ever lobby in either direction due to the fact that there is no "right answer" there is only "their preference".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
