isn't it interesting that when the chips are down

[Deaf Smith]

Yet when all else fails they choose revolvers to be the gun that saves their bacon, and let's be honest most are issued autos, most police are not given a choice, The only reason for the change over to autos was for higher capacity and quicker reloads, but for the preceding 100 years before that revolvers took care of the problems at hand and still could today. I'm not saying all police should go back to revolvers but I'm also not going to ignore the fact that if cops still carried them it wouldn't be as disadvantaged as you think

Barry,

About 20 years ago I ran the local police PD qualification. One of the chiefs was an old NYPD man and he still kept his guys with revolvers. Well they DID want autos as they told me (and so he said to), so I gave him a copy of Ayoob's book, "The Semi-Automatic Pistol in Police Service and Self Defense". That and what I told him convinced him to let them carry semi-autos.

Yes they want them. They are very reliable, lighter, hold more ammo, and easier to shoot for most people. You are not going to see a mass exodus to revolvers for PD.

Look I like revolvers a lot, but I know for belt carry semi-autos are better on the average for SD.

Deaf

 

[Rexster]

It is not just reliability that is sought in a hide-out gun. The ability to easily slip from the confines of a pocket is a factor; a spurless-hammer revolver, or the concealed-hammer Centennial models, or the shrouded-hammer Bodyguard models, more easily clear pockets and other deep-concealment locations, where the rear of a slide may tend to bind, especially the blocky slides of striker-fired pistols.

Another reason: Pocket lint plus pistol lube equals a big mess. Revolvers can be lubed with a drying-type lubricant that leaves a dry film. This factor is also present with ankle rigs, as there is much more dust and dirt kicked-up at ground level.

 

[george29]

True story I read about terrorist home invasion in Israel, two guys begin slaughtering the family, husband is dead wife grabs his 9mm but never learned how to operate it, end result, all are murdered. Too bad they didn't buy a revolver, maybe she could have saved herself and her children.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Too bad they didn't buy a revolver, maybe she could have saved herself and her children.

Only if she learned how to operate it. Way to many people think all they need to do is buy a gun. It takes training no matter what you get for a weapon.

Deaf

 

[joem1945]

Watch where you step when the chips are down.

 

[JC111]

I'm a revolver nut. I collect them and over the years I've sunk thousands of dollars into them. But I carry a Glock 19 as my primary duty sidearm. A S&W Model 49 is my BUG, but bottom-feeder is my primary. It works and I shoot it well. American Law Enforcement is not going to go back to the revolver.

 

[Barry the Bear]

I never said cops are or should go back to revolvers, I'm simply stating the fact that the revolver can still do the job of protection and peace keeping, too many people believe the auto loaders higher capacity will forgive them for their lacking accuracy, they believe that even if it's not said or they argue against it. Cops are civilians and therefore not combatants in any war, people in the US have the choice for what they want to use to defend themselves but don't put your choice of a SIDEARM above others choices they are for personal defense and it doesn't matter the platform long arms are used to wage offensive campaigns not handguns.

 

[Sunray]

If a cop needs to resort to a small revolver, he has done something tactically very wrong. Anyway, anything that applies to "civilian" CCW does not apply to anything a cop does. Or is allowed to do.
Suspect that in most jurisdictions, like up here, the average cop isn't allowed to carry anything than what he is issued. Most of 'em, at least the guys I know, do not want to anyway. More stuff to lug around. And the rest of it is primarily Hollywood. Most cops never fire their issue firearm except for the annual qualification shoot. Lot of 'em don't even take the thing out of the holster to maintain it either.
"...sales of small handguns are very strong..." Doesn't mean they're being sold to cops.
"...reason for the change over to autos was..." Primarily police unions complaining about criminals having 'em while cops had six shot revolvers with really crappy triggers and no sights.
"...36 on Sundays..." And 18 on Saturday night? snicker.

 

[Malamute]

If a cop needs to resort to a small revolver, he has done something tactically very wrong.

Perhaps you should write a book about police tactics and weapons use, as you seem to know more about it than many experienced officers that carry backup weapons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Revolvers work perfectly one handed never needing a rack to clear a jam or misfire and are nearly impossible to disable.

Well, you CAN'T rack a revolver, which is why a jam is so much more serious with a revolver. And you can disable a revolver merely by grabbing the cylinder.

 

[BSA1]

Well, you CAN'T rack a revolver, which is why a jam is so much more serious with a revolver.

What type of revolver "jam" are you referring to. Two come to mind?

The first is a high primer which will rub against the recoil shield preventing the cylinder from rotating. This is easily preventable by rotating the cylinder after the gun is loaded.

The second is the bullet jumping it's crimp and moving forward to prevent the cylinder from rotating. This usually can only occurred after one or more rounds has been fired and in lightweight / ultra lightweight small frame revolvers.

In both cases will "jam" after the first shot has been fired whereas a semi-auto can be prevented from firing a round already in chamber by pushing the slide out-of-battery such as jamming the muzzle of the gun into the body of the attacker in close quarters combat.

And you can disable a revolver merely by grabbing the cylinder.

Is this based on your first hand experience or just Internet or third hand stories?

Assuming I am foolish enough to allow you to grab my revolver in this manner I can break your grip enough to allow the cylinder to rotate by twisting the gun. When doing so I will be pulling the trigger so once your grip is loose enough to allow the cylinder to finish rotating you are going to loose interest in holding onto the gun real quick. I am curious how well a attacker can grab the cylinder of a small frame gun to prevent the cylinder from rotating.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The first is a high primer which will rub against the recoil shield preventing the cylinder from rotating. This is easily preventable by rotating the cylinder after the gun is loaded.

The second is the bullet jumping it's crimp and moving forward to prevent the cylinder from rotating. This usually can only occurred after one or more rounds has been fired and in lightweight / ultra lightweight small frame revolvers.

Actually power under the extractor star can jam a revolver. And A bent ejector rod can jam a revolver (with the exception of the Ruger GP and SP series.)

Deaf

 

[M-Cameron]

What type of revolver "jam" are you referring to. Two come to mind?

i jammed a revolver a few weeks ago.....i put a few hundred rounds through it, and there was enough debris and carbon buildup on the face of the cylinder to prevent it from rotating past the forcing cone.

Is this based on your first hand experience or just Internet or third hand stories?

Assuming I am foolish enough to allow you to grab my revolver in this manner I can break your grip enough to allow the cylinder to rotate by twisting the gun. When doing so I will be pulling the trigger so once your grip is loose enough to allow the cylinder to finish rotating you are going to loose interest in holding onto the gun real quick. I am curious how well a attacker can grab the cylinder of a small frame gun to prevent the cylinder from rotating.

grab your cylinder, and try to pull the trigger.......that trigger isnt budging, no need to heard it third hand.

also, you are assuming you can easily just "break his grip"........god forbid the guy is stronger than you.....then "breaking his grip" might not be as easy as you think

 

[Malamute]

also, you are assuming you can easily just "break his grip"........god forbid the guy is stronger than you.....then "breaking his grip" might not be as easy as you think

Roger that.

I was wondering if that comment had been made after experience of hands on grappling and hand to hand, on the ground (horizontal) training. Perhaps something like Craig Douglas does.

 

[BSA1]

M-Cameron,

i jammed a revolver a few weeks ago.....i put a few hundred rounds through it, and there was enough debris and carbon buildup on the face of the cylinder to prevent it from rotating past the forcing cone.

You can prevent this from happening in the future by opening the barrel/cylinder gap to
.008”. I typically only clean my revolvers once a year and have avoided this problem after opening the b/c gap. This is a quick easy 10 minute job by a gunsmith.

grab your cylinder, and try to pull the trigger.......that trigger isnt budging, no need to heard it third hand.

Which proves nothing. The point is about the attacker grabbing the cylinder. I question this is even possible especially with a small frame gun as the attacker will be wrapping his hand partly around mine. So he will not have a complete grip on the cylinder and will have to squeeze my hand tight enough to prevent the cylinder from rotating.

also, you are assuming you can easily just "break his grip"........god forbid the guy is stronger than you.....then "breaking his grip" might not be as easy as you think.

I dunno. He will have to ignore my foot stomps on top of his feet, kicks to his shins and knees, knee blows to his groin, face strikes with my free hand to his nose, eye gouging, hooking my thumb into the corner of his mouth ripping the skin open, twisting his ears, bitting him wherever possible, spitting in his face.

Are you still sure you want to try to prevent my gun from firing by grabbing the cylinder???

 

[heyjoe]

you forgot head butting to the face

 

[BSA1]

Naw. My hand gets in the way delivering face strikes with my free hand to his nose, eye gouging, hooking my thumb into the corner of his mouth ripping the skin open and twisting his ears. Although I did forget to say "Please let go of my gun."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What type of revolver "jam" are you referring to. Two come to mind?

The first is a high primer which will rub against the recoil shield preventing the cylinder from rotating. This is easily preventable by rotating the cylinder after the gun is loaded.

The second is the bullet jumping it's crimp and moving forward to prevent the cylinder from rotating. This usually can only occurred after one or more rounds has been fired and in lightweight / ultra lightweight small frame revolvers.

Add to that a primer backing out after firing, a broken hand, a broken transfer bar, and so on and on.

In both cases will "jam" after the first shot has been fired whereas a semi-auto can be prevented from firing a round already in chamber by pushing the slide out-of-battery such as jamming the muzzle of the gun into the body of the attacker in close quarters combat.

See below:

Assuming I am foolish enough to allow you to grab my revolver in this manner I can break your grip enough to allow the cylinder to rotate by twisting the gun. When doing so I will be pulling the trigger so once your grip is loose enough to allow the cylinder to finish rotating you are going to loose interest in holding onto the gun real quick. I am curious how well a attacker can grab the cylinder of a small frame gun to prevent the cylinder from rotating.

Let me get this straight: An opponent CAN push the slide out-of-battery and keep it out of battery, but he CAN'T grab your gun hand and hold on to it while blocking the cylinder?

 

[JWH321]

My 637-2 isn't ever leaving. I know that when I pull the trigger it WILL go bang. It has gone with me many many times when I couldn't find a way to conceal one of the bigger guns. I never have to find mags for it and it never jams or fails to feed or eject its rounds. I like new stuff, and I love the way my VP9 feels and looks. But if I had to choose between it and the little Airweight, the VP would be on the block.

 

[BSA1]

Add to that a primer backing out after firing, a broken hand, a broken transfer bar, and so on and on.

Bad primers and broken parts can occur with semi-automatics also. Broken firing pins are one of the most common broken parts failure. Semi-automatics have the added disadvantage of needing a magazine to feed ammunition.

Let me get this straight: An opponent CAN push the slide out-of-battery and keep it out of battery, but he CAN'T grab your gun hand and hold on to it while blocking the cylinder?

I suppose so but I was thinking of close quarters combat where you can only jam the muzzle of the gun into the attackers body and pull the trigger. It is possible, although arguably how probable, that the slide could be pushed slightly enough out of battery to prevent it from firing.

I have a close friend that was in just a such situation and having a revolver saved his bacon. Long story short he was checking a burglary alarm at a Pharmacy and happened upon the burglar. They had foot chase and fight which ended up with my friend ending up laying on his back with the perp bending over him beating him up. My friend drew his service revolver, jammed it into the attackers lower body and pulled the trigger blowing away a significant portion of the liver. He said he had his gun jammed so tight against the attackers body the gun went "pop" instead of kaboom and all of the muzzle blast went inside the attackers body.

This is exactly one of the type of situations I am talking about when I say "when the chips are down."

Oh. His attacker stopped his attack and laid down after being shot.

 

[The Alaskan]

I think the concept of the original post was, if the semi auto design is not reliable enough for the last ditch emergency, why is it good enough to be a primary gun?

Or, stated another way, if the semi auto design is so awesome, why wouldn't you use another one as your back up gun?

 

[mope540]

I think the concept of the original post was, if the semi auto design is not reliable enough for the last ditch emergency, why is it good enough to be a primary gun?

Or, stated another way, if the semi auto design is so awesome, why wouldn't you use another one as your back up gun?

Agreed..exactly what OP meant.

Qualified for CC yesterday using the stone cold reliable G 26 that has never had a hiccup of any kind, and can honestly say that i could trust my life to it. But i will carry the S&W 66, or the 640.

 

[M-Cameron]

I think the concept of the original post was, if the semi auto design is not reliable enough for the last ditch emergency, why is it good enough to be a primary gun?

Or, stated another way, if the semi auto design is so awesome, why wouldn't you use another one as your back up gun?

You are assuming people make sidearm choices (especially BUG) from nothing but stone cold fact and reason.

Maybe I chose a revolver for a bug simply because I like revolvers...and no other reason.

One could argue that a BUG is far less important than your primary, so you are free to choose a gun simply because you like it and no other reason.

 

[USAF_Vet]

When there are more ambidextrous or left hand friendly revolvers, I'll consider carrying one. Til then , I'll stick with flawless, yet inferior, semis.

 

[Waveski]

"revolver, jammed it into the attackers lower body and pulled the trigger blowing away a significant portion of the liver."


This would be an example of a situation is which the bad guy is
" going to loose interest in holding onto the gun real quick"