Guillermo
member
Craig is right as usual (except for his love of obsolete transportation, he usually is)
That said, to the average joe, a pistol can be shot more quickly.
That said, to the average joe, a pistol can be shot more quickly.
True but the above was in reference to Ed McGivern, who was not the average Joe, maybe not even human!That said, to the average joe, a pistol can be shot more quickly.
Probably not so large if the shooter is worth a toot. If you heard me slip-hammering a single action off in the distance, you'd swear it was an automatic. The difference is that most shooters at the line are satisfied to just make some noise. For them, the automatic is definitely quicker and easier to empty.but for everyone else at the line the auto is faster by a large margin.
Posted by 460Kodiak: If I need more than 5 shots, I made a bad choice about where I am and a situation I've put myself in.
So thought I, for a long time.
Then it dawned on me that, should the unthinkable happen, there is no reason to expect the encounter to unfold any differently if it happens in a parking lot in a nice neighborhood or in a parking lot next to an Interstate in meth country or near a major city. It's just a matter of likelihood. The tactical Requirements are the same.
True but the above was in reference to Ed McGivern, who was not the average Joe, maybe not even human!
I believe there is footage of McGivern shooting. I recall seeing it a long time ago, not on a computer.I would love to have seen him shoot.
Truly one of the pioneers of stretching the limit of the double action revolver.
That said, to the average joe, a pistol can be shot more quickly.
So, then, if you do end up needing to fire in self defense,...Posted by 460Kodiak: I guess my point is that if a small revolver is not enough of a self defense weapon and I think I need more gun than that, I would likely avoid the situation.
Yes, we all agree that they "still have a place as ccw's." Perhaps for back-up, or perhaps in pairs. Or maybe when one is accompanied by another armed citizen.The question from the OP was whether or not revolvers still have a place as ccw's. I think we have established that they do.........
So what, it's a 15-20 shot 9mm or nothing? Maybe a subgun in case things get really dicey??? Sorry but I can't go along with this logic.The problem is, anyone who has really analyzed the subject has either come to the conclusion that carrying one small revolver by itself probably does not constitute a very prudent risk mitigation strategy, or has chosen to remain in denial.
carrying one small revolver by itself probably does not constitute a very prudent risk mitigation strategy
Proper stress placed on the wielder, rather than the wielded.DavidE is a SERIOUS threat with a J-frame
Agreed, 100%!!!Somewhere in the middle there is something between being utterly defenseless and going way overboard.
Bob Munden has well proven that an auto pistol cannot be fired as quickly as a revolver.
Ed McGivern found this out long ago.
Ok, apparently I have to spell it out, lest I be accused of visiting Egypt.....
Ed's record is "5 shots in 2/5th's of a second." 2/5th's of a second is .4 or 40/100th's.
Since Ed was a fast shooter and not a fast draw, we will start the time at the first shot.
1st shot at .00, second shot at .10, third shot at .20, fourth shot at .30 and the last shot at .40
So we see how his "splits" (time between shots, is .10, or 1/10th of a second.
This is phenomenal, since Jerry typically had .14 splits when he sets World records.
But remember, Ed was using "state of the art" equipment......at the time. The timer he used was mechanical and could be no more precise than ONE FIFTH or TWO TENTHS of a second. Today's shot timers go at least to ONE HUNDREDTH of a second.
So we are giving Ed a pretty big benefit of the doubt allowing his split time to be 1/10th of a second.
But semi-auto guns typically are ready for the next shot in .07- 08......which is faster than Ed at .10
Well, whatever the chosen assumptions, it is demonstrable via calculation that six is better than five (and by more than might be intuitively indicated), seven is better than six, and eight is better than seven. Two J-frames would be better than that for the defender who knew how to use them and who employed effective tactics, and two Colt D-Frames might prove even better.Posted by CraigC: So what, it's a 15-20 shot 9mm or nothing? Maybe a subgun in case things get really dicey??? Sorry but I can't go along with this logic.
There is no way of knowing what one needs until it happens, and no to encounters will yield the same result except through coincidence.Is there any data to support the theory that you really need more than a five-shot snub?
The demonstration was done with live ammo and the revolver cycled more quickly than the auto, which was a 1911. Even if he did use blanks, it proved that mechanically, a revolver can be fire more quickly than a semi-auto.Bob uses two hands to fire blanks, so it's comparing apples and Choco Tacos.
I'm not impressed with your tactics David E....
A proven fact, autos jam more than revolvers.
The demonstration was done with live ammo and the revolver cycled more quickly than the auto, which was a 1911. Even if he did use blanks, it proved that mechanically, a revolver can be fire more quickly than a semi-auto.
skidder
you now I respect you but do not disregard David on this.
He spends a lot of time thinking about and practicing everything from pre draw to reload.
You may disagree, but he is the real deal.
Also a multiple grand master in the gun games I believe