Revolver or High Capacity Auto

[6.8KT]

I carry a 442 because it's better than nothing and it comfortably fits in my pocket, and the DAO trigger is heavy enough that I don't think I'll end up putting a hole in my leg.
Still, I think it would probably be wiser to carry a G26 or P365 or similar.

 

[GEM]

I am deleting some silly, cutesy suggestions of illegality and bad language.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

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).

I agree that most people don't practice enough. I don't see how a Glock or similar polymer strikers are more complicated than point and squeeze revolvers.

 

[labnoti]

People want any advantage they can get -- In this case, the advantages don't really cost anything extra.

Alternatives do cost something other than dollars. The most frequently cited would be the "big gun" left at home or in the car or whatever instead of the little gun on the person. But an argument could be made that a P365 is not harder to carry than a j frame and it does offer twice the capacity and faster reloads. Besides that, I've come to think a full-size auto is not hard to carry at all so the argument for the size penalty is lost on me until we start talking about AR pistols or something.

The non-dollar cost of automatics as a category is not in the weight, size, or concealability (although that does remain a cost of higher capacity (20 or 30 rd magazines), larger cartridges (.45), and longer barrels for greater sight radius etc.) Instead, the cost of automatics as a category is either in shooter-induced malfunctions or risk of accidental or negligent discharge. If we agree that automatics are generally "reliable" (and there's certainly enough evidence to suggest they are), we can also recognize that there are a number of different types of actions (SA, DA/SA, striker etc.) which present different risks for shooters to screw up. For example, the SA requires safety-manipulation or condition-3 carry, both which can be screwed up resulting in ND or an unprepared gun. DA/SA can be fouled up by gross negligence, but even a conscientious person can limp wrist or struggle with a slide release.

If the arguments in favor of revolvers were very compelling, they would be far more popular.

But that doesn't mean people don't make mistakes in selecting for high capacity, high-rate of fire, high ballistic performance, fast reloads and on and on, where those things almost always do cost something in trade-offs for the criteria that might be the most beneficial for their situation. Some of the criteria that matter more than high-everything are:

safe carry for the method that will actually be used
simple manual of arms
easy to shoot with good marksmanship (nothing ultralight, high-recoil, super-short, with undersize grips and crap sights)

For shootability, a S&W 66 is going to beat a J frame. A Glock 19 is going to beat a PPK. But what about a 66 vs the G19? That's like comparing a pickup truck to a minivan for driving to work. The minivan has a higher capacity, but your kids are grown up and you'll almost certainly never use those 5 extra seats. The pickup truck is also more capable than you're likely to need, and they both cost about the same money. The difference for me is in the parking. Some people might complain about the weight of the pickup truck, but I feel pretty safe parking it concealed. The G19 on the other hand is more vulnerable to unintended discharges when it's just parked in a pocket for example. But let's say I swap it for a 92FS. Great. Now I've got what is like a crew-cab truck. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right?

 

[6.8KT]

Now I kinda want a 92FS. I mean, if the miltary used it, and Paul Harrell uses it... it must be pretty good.
And that negligent discharge thing vis-a-vis the Glock 19. There's a case to be made there.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Now I kinda want a 92FS. I mean, if the miltary used it, and Paul Harrell uses it... it must be pretty good.
And that negligent discharge thing vis-a-vis the Glock 19. There's a case to be made there.

92's don't prevent negligence.

 

[6.8KT]

92's don't prevent negligence.

No, but that extra thumb safety (or whatever, I've never shot one)... it puts another step between the user and the ND.
Though, obviously, it puts another step between the user and the neutralizing of a bad guy in a stressful situation.
Trade-offs and such.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

The whole reason those of us that carry carry is in case we need it, why in the world would one not want more capacity just in case you need it is beyond me.

But it's a free country and I'd rather see someone with a 6 shot gun than no gun.

 

[Old Dog]

Was just thinking that of all my buddies over the years who've been in gun fights (both military and law enforcement, not an inconsequential number), not a single one carries a mouse gun or five-shot J-frame. G19 with a spare mag is about the minimum.

Already made my own opinion known.

 

[Balrog]

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).

Its a pretty severe case of stupid if someone can't remember how to shoot a Glock.

I am in favor of people being able to make whatever poor choices they want to make for whatever reason, but it boggles my mind why I would want to carry less ammo instead of more.

I have been in situations where I felt very poorly armed with a Glock 19. I don't even want to think how I would have felt if I had been armed with a 5 shot J frame.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

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

View attachment 822389

Ol' Painless is kind of hard to carry IWB!

 

[Slamfire]

I have been in situations where I felt very poorly armed with a Glock 19. I don't even want to think how I would have felt if I had been armed with a 5 shot J frame.

Better than if you only had a tire iron with which to fend off rioters. If, due to my travel route, and my ignorance of the area, had I gone through a riot zone, and been pulled out of my vehicle, I might have gotten one or two of them before they killed me.



Have the residents of LA built statues and parks in celebration of the LA four? They sure did not send them to jail for trying to kill the truck driver.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Again we have a thread that's popping up on just about all the major gun forums, written by a business owner who has a vested interest in you choosing a pocket gun over a full sized gun. Just sayin'.

The gun that I carry the most often is a Glock 26 with a 12 round magazine. It's relatively the same size as a J Frame but has almost 3 times the capacity and is easier to reload. Why wouldn't I choose it?

I'm not sure who might be familiar with Pistolforum but a large number of the people who participate over there carry guns professionally. Every year one of the members does a survey of who carries what and for the last 2 years in a row more respondents carry Glock 19s than all other firearms combined. I think that speaks for itself

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The G19 on the other hand is more vulnerable to unintended discharges when it's just parked in a pocket for example.

Of course only an idiot would carry an unholstered Glock in their pocket.

 

[Slamfire]

Again we have a thread that's popping up on just about all the major gun forums, written by a business owner who has a vested interest in you choosing a pocket gun over a full sized gun. Just sayin'.

The gun that I carry the most often is a Glock 26 with a 12 round magazine. It's relatively the same size as a J Frame but has almost 3 times the capacity and is easier to reload. Why wouldn't I choose it?

I'm not sure who might be familiar with Pistolforum but a large number of the people who participate over there carry guns professionally. Every year one of the members does a survey of who carries what and for the last 2 years in a row more respondents carry Glock 19s than all other firearms combined. I think that speaks for itself

You are right, the OP does make Pocket Holster's. In today's world of mass marketing, this might be an example of guerilla marketing.

 

[labnoti]

No, but that extra thumb safety (or whatever, I've never shot one)... it puts another step between the user and the ND.
Though, obviously, it puts another step between the user and the neutralizing of a bad guy in a stressful situation.
Trade-offs and such.

The 92 is a DA/SA (like a P226 or CZ75). So it's not the step that it puts in there, but the longer, harder initial double-action trigger pull. Like most DA/SA, 92's can be had with manual safeties, decockers or both. With a decocker only, there would never be safety manipulation needed to put the gun in action. There are tradeoffs though. The most frequently cited being the inconsistency in trigger pull from DA to SA. Also, the SA pull on a DA/SA is longer and less crisp than a SA like a 1911. But since you mentioned it:

 

[labnoti]

Of course only an idiot would carry an unholstered Glock in their pocket.

That's right. So it costs something other than dollars. It costs a certain type of carry. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's not free. For myself, I would not carry a striker fired gun in a soft pocket holster at all. It would have to be stiff leather or Kydex, firmly fixed OWB. Other people are less paranoid or careful, but they'd be foolish not to put some restrictions or constraints around how they carry it. I would be fine with an unholstered hammerless J frame in any pocket. I always use a holster, but I wouldn't be an idiot to put it in a Carhartt jacket with no holster.

 

[labnoti]

Was just thinking that of all my buddies over the years who've been in gun fights (both military and law enforcement, not an inconsequential number), not a single one carries a mouse gun or five-shot J-frame. G19 with a spare mag is about the minimum.

Already made my own opinion known.

They were almost certainly belligerents persuing the lawless to do violence to them. That's not what most of us do. We avoid confrontation. More importantly, when we do encounter confrontation, we achieve success when we break contact with the enemy. If we shoot the enemy with a mouse gun and they run away, we win. For your buddies breaking contact would have been failure. They needed to maintain engagement through to the enemies surrender or death. I'm not advocating mouse guns, but that military and police weapons incur trade-offs that can put a non-belligerent with a CCW at a disadvantage just so they can feel like they have more firepower.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Good lord, the Fudd brigade is out in force today.

I am wearing a three piece suit right now with a P-10C on my hip. No one knows it's there. When in uniform, the same P-10C rides in a Safariland 6360. If you think you need a nose gun to conceal a semi-auto, get some skills. That's 16 rounds instead of 6 at zero penalty. No, don't make up stupid imaginary penalties that help you internally justify things.

Oh, I don't "need" the extra bullets because I'm private instead of government and therefore aren't supposed to go looking for Trouble? Well, gee, I'm glad someone has consulted with Trouble ahead of time and come to an agreement as to exactly how many bullets I will be needing. Thanks. Please pass that info on to me.

No one has heard of a high round count civilian encounter? That's funny, I remember a high profile home invasion last week where a homeowner shot five intruders.

And how the heck did submachine guns get in this conversation?

Questions about the reliability of semi-autos? Please, that's some garbage that FUDD LEO leadership used as an excuse to keep from transitioning out of revolvers. Semi-autos have been reliable machines wince the first World War.

Oh, police training in the past emphasized better tactics? Really? Really? I have seen quite a few police training videos and manuals that are absolutely terrifying. Not to mention one of the biggest lessons learned from the Miami FBI shootout is that the agents didn't have enough ready ammunition on them.

If you want to carry a revolver, that's fine. Just don't pretend they offer any real advantage over a semi-auto, when they have a very obvious disadvantage. If you carry a gun, hopefully it's because you might one day need it and not just because you think it's cool to carry a gun. If you carry a gun because you might one day need it, I have absolutely zero clue why you would intentionally carry a gun that limits your ability to win the fight when a more capable gun could be carried in it's place.

 

[Old Dog]

More importantly, when we do encounter confrontation, we achieve success when we break contact with the enemy. If we shoot the enemy with a mouse gun and they run away, we win.

Not sure how this would look. Citizens "break[ing] contact with the enemy?" I simply stated that I personally desire to be prepared for the worst possible confrontation I could encounter, not what I consider would be the most likely sort of confrontation I could encounter. I do not seek violence, but I've been around long enough to have seen that violence can visit anyone, anywhere and at any time.

A few local stories from the last couple of days. I'm sure if the victims could have, they would have disengaged.
https://komonews.com/news/local/pol...nd-killed-employee-at-kelso-convenience-store
https://komonews.com/news/local/2-c...after-armed-robbers-hit-bellevue-gas-stations
https://komonews.com/news/local/store-employee-stabbed-during-attempted-robbery
https://komonews.com/news/local/yakima-pd-family-fight-off-and-stab-home-invader
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/crime/article224919320.html

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

That's not what most of us do. We avoid confrontation.

To the extent possible.

More importantly, when we do encounter confrontation, we achieve success when we break contact with the enemy.

When possible

If we shoot the enemy with a mouse gun and they run away, we win.

And what happens when your ideal gun fight isn't the one you find yourself in? What happens when you shoot the enemy and he doesn't go down or run away? What happens when you are being attacked by multiple assailants? What happens when you are in a position you can't retreat from?

It sounds a lot like you have decided ahead of time what gun fight you are going to find yourself in. The problem is that it's usually going to be the opposite. The aggressor is going to decide which kind of gun fight you are going to be in, and the terms generally won't be in your favor.

 

[Old Dog]

Good lord, the Fudd brigade is out in force today.

I am wearing a three piece suit right now with a P-10C on my hip. No one knows it's there. When in uniform, the same P-10C rides in a Safariland 6360. If you think you need a nose gun to conceal a semi-auto, get some skills. That's 16 rounds instead of 6 at zero penalty. No, don't make up stupid imaginary penalties that help you internally justify things.

Oh, I don't "need" the extra bullets because I'm private instead of government and therefore aren't supposed to go looking for Trouble? Well, gee, I'm glad someone has consulted with Trouble ahead of time and come to an agreement as to exactly how many bullets I will be needing. Thanks. Please pass that info on to me.

No one has heard of a high round count civilian encounter? That's funny, I remember a high profile home invasion last week where a homeowner shot five intruders.

And how the heck did submachine guns get in this conversation?

Questions about the reliability of semi-autos? Please, that's some garbage that FUDD LEO leadership used as an excuse to keep from transitioning out of revolvers. Semi-autos have been reliable machines wince the first World War.

Oh, police training in the past emphasized better tactics? Really? Really? I have seen quite a few police training videos and manuals that are absolutely terrifying. Not to mention one of the biggest lessons learned from the Miami FBI shootout is that the agents didn't have enough ready ammunition on them.

If you want to carry a revolver, that's fine. Just don't pretend they offer any real advantage over a semi-auto, when they have a very obvious disadvantage. If you carry a gun, hopefully it's because you might one day need it and not just because you think it's cool to carry a gun. If you carry a gun because you might one day need it, I have absolutely zero clue why you would intentionally carry a gun that limits your ability to win the fight when a more capable gun could be carried in it's place.

All worth repeating. Well-stated, sir.

 

[Old Dog]

It sounds a lot like you have decided ahead of time what gun fight you are going to find yourself in.

Lot of that going on in a lot of threads here lately.

 

[labnoti]

The whole reason those of us that carry carry is in case we need it, why in the world would one not want more capacity just in case you need it is beyond me.

But it's a free country and I'd rather see someone with a 6 shot gun than no gun.

You wouldn't say that about someone elk hunting. 18 rounds in the gun isn't better than 5. In the case of elk hunting, you can be certain you don't need more than 5 in the gun. For personal protection, self-defense or concealed carry, people have less certainty. The problem is most people have no certainty at all. They can't even be certain that four 18 round magazines will be enough. They just figure there's some practical limit to what's easy to carry. But if they could practically (magically) carry 250 rounds, they would. And they would justify it by saying to themselves, "you just never know."

I won't be able to make an argument that is more compelling than some people's lust for firepower. Some people will covet as much firepower as they find practical to carry and they will make it practical to carry at least as much as military and police do with their sidearms.

But even in the face of uncertainty, there is a limit to what one needs based on probability. Although accurate and reliable statistics for self-defense, personal protection, concealed carry incidents are too difficult to attain, we can imagine if those events were plotted on axis for # of events and firepower needed, we would have some kind of "bell curve," but it would probably be lop-sided. Many incidents would require the least amount of firepower (perhaps just showing any gun). Suppose that most events in the center of the curve required 1 to 3 shots of a full-power (9mm-.45) handgun. Remember we have to use our imagination here because even with real statistics there's no way we could say an event where a .45 was used couldn't have had the same result with a .32. Similarly, we can be sure there are real events where people dumped high capacity magazines, but it might not have been needed. So looking at how many shots were fired doesn't tell us anything. Again we have to use our imagination to consider there must be a smaller number of events where more shots will be needed. There is no evidence at all that most self-defense encounters require a high volume of fire, so it's not realistic to imagine that this isn't a smaller number of events. Then we get to the part of the curve where we have events that require not only a high volume of fire but also a magazine or speedloader reload. I've never heard of one, and John from ASP has said he's never seen one. But we're using our imagination here, so we can imagine that there might have been such an event that not many people heard of, though it's hard to imagine that considering how spectacular it must have been. Or we can use our imagination to think that we will be the one to whom it happens. As truly wonderful as that might seem, I think we can say the probability is low -- like the probability of having 6 elk tags and 6 trophy bulls lined up like a plate rack, but damn that low-capacity 5-shot .270.

 

[John_R]

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

The only semiauto I shoot more accurately than my revolvers is my High Power. For me, I carry what I shoot most accurately. If the social fabric begins to shred, I'll change to higher capacity regardless.

I don't feel the need to plan for the maximum scenario. I don't have a wet-pipe sprinkler system in my house in case of fire, and I don't keep a rifle with extra mags in the car. But y'all do what makes you feel good.