Revolver or High Capacity Auto

[cheeseinwisconsin]

Revolver or high capacity auto

Ok everyone, this is my second post on this forum and it has to do with a question that has been posed to me a number of times from my customers throughout the years. There have been a lot of opinions expressed regarding this subject and I thought I would give my take for what is it worth and ask you all join in and let us all know what you think. I feel it is important that we learn from one another. When I first became a officer for the City of Los Angeles back in 1973, we were issued a 38 caliber K frame revolver, and a wooden night stick. Add to that twelve extra rounds and that was it. No pepper spray or taser and or hand held radios. Fast forward to now and you will find an array of tools available to law enforcement and civilians alike that offer more choices on how to react in volatile situations. One upgrade, namely the high capacity auto handgun such as the Beretta 92 have allowed a officer or citizen a leg up so to speak in dealing in situations involving the use of deadly force. However, the carrying of a high capacity auto handgun comes with a price. My opinion is that it can give a individual sense of inflated confidence. Although the thought that more is better, sometimes that is a hindrance in employing good tactics. When we had only revolvers, we knew we had only six rounds before we had to reload so therefore we had to have acute awareness of our surroundings, i.e. cover. Unnecessarily placing ones self in the open was a no-no tactically and doing so meant a high possibility of being seriously injury or death. The point I’m alluding to is that although high capacity autos are a great tool to have for self defense, please be aware of the feeling of over confidence as all it takes is one bullet coming your way to wreck your day no matter if you are carrying a flintlock pistol or a machine gun.

<<Removed Links>>

 

[6.8KT]

I watch the Active Self Protection channel on YouTube; and what I've learned is that having a gun on you is not nearly enough.
Awareness of potential bad actors around you is far more important, because quite often (more often than not), the bad guy with a gun gets the drop on the good guy with a gun.

 

[paulsj]

I'm going to lighest and still reliable five shot package. I used to suggest something like G26 because one could use G17 magazines as reloads. Now I realize that extra useless weight is not needed.

 

[jmorris]

However, the carrying of a high capacity auto handguncomes with a price. My opinion is that it can give a individual sense of inflated confidence.

Confidence is an important component in winning in general, if you think something is better, it can help you in that goal.

How about you flip the argument to the other extreme. Pick your ideal round and carry it in a single shot pistol, make things any better?

Just because your hunting with a muzzle loader shouldn’t make you take better aim and make sure of your first shot but I do understand the “spray and pray” methodology.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I like revolvers but rarely carry one anymore. While five or six rounds may be enough for most self defense situations (except when it's not), additional firepower is not a disadvantage.
I carry a spare mag because I may need it after clearing a malfunction, also for more bullets.

 

[TomJ]

There's an additional aspect to carrying a higher capacity gun, and it's that you're responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun. If you opt for a spray and pray strategy, you need to understand that every bullet is going to hit something. It's irresponsible to shoot recklessly because you have more rounds available and you're assuming you're not going to hit an innocent person.

 

[FL-NC]

IMO, "overconfidence" in one's ability to win and survive due to someone carrying a modern auto vs a revolver isn't near as much of a challenge as the underconfidence and tactical disadvantage one may experience with a reduced capacity firearm, especially against multiple opponents with superior weapons. In any case, you owe it to yourself and those around you to be as proficient as possible with whatever is in your hand- and in my experience, you will be scared no matter the circumstances.

 

[lemaymiami]

Cheesi.. your experience in 1973 exactly mimics my own (and I was hired on in 1973 as well - but all the way across country in south Florida..). After my first six years on the job we were allowed to carry semi-auto pistols so at least we had a bit more firepower on the street - but here I learned a hard lesson... If at all possible I never ever relied on a sidearm if I had the slightest indication that weapons were involved in a situation I was heading to. Instead, without fail, I always had my shotgun in hand - and it served me well. The most important aspect was that it allowed me to control a dangerous situation without firing a shot (and in police work... not shooting is always the desired outcome...). On only one occasion did I ever have to fire - and a single shot ended the matter right then.... Of course I was in and out of court over it for about six months - and it took at least three years for me to get my head screwed back on properly (but that's another story...).

As far as pistols go, I came to believe that the best tactics off duty were not much different than being on duty... In fact, with a few more years experience I decided to always have my duty weapon with me - even off-duty - for that once in a lifetime need. This was a Beretta 92 initially, then a Sig in .40 cal. Carrying a small piece off duty is an invitation to get in over your head in a serious fashion (at least where I was during the height of the party down here in paradise..). At least a full sized auto pistol gave you a chance (no matter how slight) if things went wrong and you were either facing more than one opponent or were badly outgunned... No, carrying your duty weapon off duty is not particularly comfortable or in any way convenient but having it with you was far better than a five shot Chief's special or something equivalent...

At least that's my take on it... Every weapon has its drawbacks - and that's why we train to overcome them.

 

[shafter]

Some guys are going to stay calm and use good tactics whether they have a revolver or semiauto. The same applies for bad tactics and losing your cool. I prefer to give myself every advantage because I don't know what will be thrown at me. Spray and pray applies to revolvers too. You just run out of ammo sooner.

 

[Dibbs]

Look at it like this. If you KNEW you were going to be involved in a shooting incident, NO way to avoid it,
yet there were no way you could bring a rifle, which would you choose?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Look at it like this. If you KNEW you were going to be involved in a shooting incident, NO way to avoid it,
yet there were no way you could bring a rifle, which would you choose?

Can I just stay home

 

[Dibbs]

Oh, OBVIOUSLY, you would stay home, not go, bring a rifle, etc. My point is, if you knew,
and there were no way to avoid the circumstances,
you would want the higher capacity pistol.

 

[labnoti]

There is a strong divergence in the type of lethal force encounters expected of law enforcement vs. non-belligerents.

With current law enforcement methods, the sub-machine gun is the most advantageous weapon. Officers carry high-capacity semi-automatic pistols and three spare magazines because the sling-mounted submachine guns that would better serve their tactics would be off-putting from a PR standpoint, but make no mistake about it, they would do the same job much better.

Personal protection or self-defense for non-belligerents and non-high-value targets -- meaning people who are not aggressively pursuing bad-actors and people who are not at high risk such as high-value executives, politicians and celebrities -- is easily served adequately by the ubiquitous j frame or LCP. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a person shouldn't have more. I'm just saying that it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the need for a gun that gets closer to the description of a submachine gun if it's just for self-defense of your average Joe or Jill. [Not because Joe is worth less, but because he doesn't face the same risks]. The advantages of high rate and high volume of fire and quick reloads are mostly meaningless in that context. Consider the scenarios already mentioned where the aggressor gets the drop on lone "good guy." Does it even matter if he's got a PDW with 250 rounds or only a derringer? Bear in mind that I also do not think that self-defense is the only or even a necessary justification to carry a firearm.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Oh, OBVIOUSLY, you would stay home, not go, bring a rifle, etc. My point is, if you knew,
and there were no way to avoid the circumstances,
you would want the higher capacity pistol.

I get your point and I concur.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I think an overlooked advantage of the modern autopistol is that they're easier to shoot well. Certainly I can shoot my HK VP9 better than nearly any duty-type wheelgun. One notable exception would be my buddy's S&W 629. It's a bit larger than I could CCW with its heavy frame and 6" barrel but he extensively worked the action to use it for IPSC. I've never fired a DA that slick! I can clear the plate rack with it faster than any of my autos.

 

[Drail]

Yup. An N frame that's been tuned is a joy. I used to shoot a Model 57 and a 625-2 in USPSA and pins. It's really about practice and skill level though. I've carried revolvers since the 80s and they still work just fine and you get much more interesting caliber choices.

 

[P5 Guy]

I'll stick with my Glock 26.
If I'm in that much trouble a sub-compact semi can't get me out of I was dead before the gun emptied.

 

[patmccoy]

I think an overlooked advantage of the modern autopistol is that they're easier to shoot well.

That MAY be true, but is highly dependent on a greater amount of practice. Most folks do NOT practice enough to remain familiar with the operations of a semi-auto. This is based on 30 years of instructing, and having follow up sessions where those who passed the basic class were no longer able to operate the semi-auto (never had the problem with "point and squeeze revolvers).

 

[shafter]

Semiautos are not difficult to shoot, and I would argue that if someone lets their pistol sit in the drawer so long that they forget how to shoot it then they've let their skills erode to the point where a revolver isn't going to help them much either, especially factoring in stress.

 

[labnoti]

There is a strong divergence in the type of lethal force encounters expected of law enforcement vs. non-belligerents.

With current law enforcement methods, the sub-machine gun is the most advantageous weapon. Officers carry high-capacity semi-automatic pistols and three spare magazines because the sling-mounted submachine guns that would better serve their tactics would be off-putting from a PR standpoint, but make no mistake about it, they would do the same job much better.

Personal protection or self-defense for non-belligerents and non-high-value targets -- meaning people who are not aggressively pursuing bad-actors and people who are not at high risk such as high-value executives, politicians and celebrities -- is easily served adequately by the ubiquitous j frame or LCP. .... The advantages of high rate and high volume of fire and quick reloads are mostly meaningless in that context. Consider the scenarios already mentioned where the aggressor gets the drop on lone "good guy." Does it even matter if he's got a PDW with 250 rounds or only a derringer? ....

Consider this video from ASP:

This was a routine "domestic" type call, and the cop ends up emptying and reloading two magazines (so he used 3 magazines total). For a non-belligerent, the solution is simple: don't even go into the apartment in the first place. Problem solved. For the officer, he ends up "firing for effect." For the tactic he chose, he would have been much better off firing a submachine gun full auto with 30 or 50 round magazines. Oftentimes we see officers dumping magazines into cars the same way.

But notice also what John says at 8:20. "I've never seen a firefight in a CCW encounter that required more rounds than what was in the gun. I've never seen a reload actually effect a CCW gunfight." This was not an old video either. He made those comments last month.

I haven't watched all John's videos. I certainly haven't watched all the videos he hasn't published. But I think that amounts to substantial evidence that non-belligerent personal protection lethal-force encounters are substantially different than those of law enforcement where officers are aggressively pursuing people to do them violence.

If you don't want to need body armor and submachine guns with multiple high-capacity magazines, don't aggressively pursue and corner lawless people. If that is not on your agenda, then there may be much more important criteria that you might be neglecting if high-capacity, high-rate of fire and fast reloads are given priority.

 

[6.8KT]

If you don't want to need body armor and submachine guns with multiple high-capacity magazines, don't aggressively pursue and corner lawless people. If that is not on your agenda, then there may be much more important criteria that you might be neglecting if high-capacity, high-rate of fire and fast reloads are given priority.

People want any advantage they can get -- even if the likelihood of needing those advantages isn't particularly high (at least, with regard to how things are today. Tomorrow, that could change.)
In this case, the advantages don't really cost anything extra. A high-capacity autoloader with extra mags isn't more expensive than a decent 5/6-shot revolver.

I think one should have both. I like revolvers and I like autoloaders.

 

[Old Dog]

I think I recall reading this same debate in an issue of Guns and Ammo ... back in 1984.

I've met some pretty connected people in a certain line of work who believe that it's not a matter of if, but rather, when we will see some mass shootings perpetuated by multiple terrorists on our own soil. It's happened over and over in Europe, Russia, SE Asia, Africa and India. And there's other stuff. Y'all have seen how the looters come out after natural disasters. I don't want to be trying to get home after our 10.0 earthquake when the Cascadia subduction zone gives way with only a 5-shot j-frame in my pocket.

As the man once said, "No gunfight survivor has ever been quoted as saying, 'I wish I had less ammo.' "

We can keep re-treading the same old ground (especially with regard to the use of statistics or anecdotal compilations). We carry auto, home, property insurance; we keep fire extinguishers on hand, we wear seatbelts. Yeah, we may have beaten the statistical odds thus far along, but for me, the older I get, the more I'm gonna stack the deck in my favor. And if the unthinkable never happens, I shan't be worried about all the money I spent, the weight I carried daily, or the hassles I went through to protect me and mine.

 

[Slamfire]

I trust a revolver more for reliability, and the compactness of a J frame airweight is hard to beat

Now I am not looking for trouble, I think the absolute best tactic is distance between myself and trouble. I was in LA, on business travel, when the LA riots hit. I was scared, all I had was the tire iron in my rental vehicle. I remembered listening to the TV/radio and there was an account of a couple of guys who decided to sight see the riot in Anaheim. What a great idea: let's go down and see the riot!! They drove down on their motorcycles, were pulled off their motorcycles, and were murdered. At what point do you think the motorcyclists might have regretted visiting the riot?

Now if I was expecting trouble, I would be carrying something big. This would do very nicely:

 

[paulsj]

The alloyed J-frame is hard to beat especially with new Federal HST .38 Micro load where slug is inside the case. One essential upgrade for ole' Airweight is appropriate rubber grips.

 

[Old Dog]

Some apparently are predisposed to believe that they can see trouble coming. "If I were expecting trouble" doesn't acknowledge that most times, trouble comes unexpectedly. Doesn't matter who you are or where you are, trouble can find you. I myself am always expecting the possibility of trouble (and I'm not by any means a scared, cynical or paranoid individual, just experienced enough to know that I cannot always foresee the future).