Switched to a revolver for ccw...

[Jeb Stuart]

What does number of sales have to do with this? How many newbies are purchasing firearms. How many will actually train on a consistent basis? How many have even shot a double Action revolver? And again, you will not answer the question to back up your arguments for large capacity and assaults, It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself. If you feel that you will be in a Miami shootout or have to fight off 5 or 6 cartel gang members, then fine. Carry a large capacity gun with extra mags. Better yet, get yourself a shotgun.

 

[Kleanbore]

And again, you will not answer the question to back up your arguments for large capacity and assaults

I have answered it. See the link in post 85.

It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.

I am already convinced, and have been for years.

If you feel that you will be in a Miami shootout or have to fight off 5 or 6 cartel gang members, then fine.

I'm thinking more along the lines of two attackers, but I do like the idea of a reserve.

When I was new to concealed carry, I bought a five shot double action revolver. I had availed myself of absolutely no defensive training; I had no understanding whatsoever of handgun wounding effectiveness; and I had done absolutely no real analysis.

Some training and some research and some analysis changed my perspective.

One of my trainers was Rob Pincus. He is now collaborating with a gunmaker to introduce his idea of the best concealed carry handgun for most civilians.

One of the specifications is a capacity of 10+1.

I can buy that.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I have answered it. See the link in post 85.

I am already convinced, and have been for years.

I'm thinking more along the lines of two attackers, but I do like the idea of a reserve.

When I was new to concealed carry, I bought a five shot double action revolver. I had availed myself of absolutely no defensive training; I had no understanding whatsoever of handgun wounding effectiveness; and I had done absolutely no real analysis.

Some training and some research and some analysis changed my perspective.

One of my trainers was Rob Pincus. He is now collaborating with a gunmaker to introduce his idea of the best concealed carry handgun for most civilians.

One of the specifications is a capacity of 10+1.

I can buy that.

Most civilians need to learn how to shoot and train more often. I would say the newbie most likely will need 10+ rounds, but unfortunately most likely will not make it past the first shot fired. More rounds is not the answer. More taining, consistent diligent training is. And too many opinions already of what is the best out there now.
Rob Pincus should focus on what is best for him, just like all should.

 

[Kleanbore]

Most civilians need to learn how to shoot and train more often.

I certainly agree with that.

And most need better training.

I would say the newbie most likely will need 10+ rounds,....

I would never say that anyone "most likely will need" ten rounds. Most people never need that many.

But "most" is not a meaningful assessment parameter.

I do believe that it not unlikely that an ordinary civilian doing everything right may need more rounds than revolvers contain, and that a reserve would be prudent.

...but unfortunately most likely will not make it past the first shot fired.

Do you have a basis for that?

More rounds is not the answer. More training, consistent diligent training is.

Very true.

Rob Pincus should focus on what is best for him, just like all should.

Rob Pincus is a highly regarded trainer and instructor who observes more students--new and experienced--shooting more kinds of handguns in realistic drills in any one week than most people ever see. A lot of people look to him for advice.

I am one of them.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I certainly agree with that.

And most need better training.

I would never say that anyone "most likely will need" ten rounds. Most people never need that many.

But "most" is not a meaningful assessment parameter.

I do believe that it not unlikely that an ordinary civilian doing everything right may need more rounds than revolvers contain, and that a reserve would be prudent.

Do you have a basis for that?

Very true.

Rob Pincus is a highly regarded trainer and instructor who observes more students--new and experienced--shooting more kinds of handguns in realistic drills in any one week than most people ever see. A lot of people look to him for advice.

I am one of them.

Good for you and Rob. Now I am going to get my LCR and get ready to head off to the range for some fun shooting. Have a good day.

 

[Trey Veston]

The world is changing rapidly. The threats that a good guy with a gun could possibly face are changing.

I don't feel adequately prepared with a 5-shot snubby.

Others obviously still do and that is their choice.

But please don't compare my reasons for being adequately prepared to anti-gunner's arguments.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Sales numbers are irrelevant...

99% of people buy based on price alone, and polymer autos cost less than revolvers.

And of the autos sold, maybe 1 in 1,000 is actually used in a defensive encounter so the math on whether they're really any more effective would get pretty complicated and difficult to prove anything.

Honestly, as the OP, I'm really surprised this topic resulted in so much discussion.

I made my decision based on 25 years of carrying, and not being at home to sleep in my own bed every night.

The 5 rounds I have on me being far more useful than the 15 I left in the truck.

 

[Sistema1927]

I think that the point that gets missed in these discussions is this:

Having a gun, any gun, and having intent to use it should the need warrant, will, in probably more than 90% of situations, serve more than adequately the needs of most people. A great many attacks are stopped by the presentation of a firearm, without a single shot being fired.

That said, carry what you want, what works for you.

 

[Kleanbore]

And of the autos sold, maybe 1 in 1,000 is actually used in a defensive encounter so the math on whether they're really any more effective would get pretty complicated and difficult to prove anything.

That is very true indeed. There are so many variables, so few data points, and so few measurements regarding actual shootings that historical data cannot be used in the analysis.

Simulation, shooting exercises, and expert opinion (particularly regarding wounding effectiveness) must be brought to bear to make informed judgements.

Having a gun, any gun, and having intent to use it should the need warrant, will, in probably more than 90% of situations, serve more than adequately the needs of most people. A great many attacks are stopped by the presentation of a firearm, without a single shot being fired.

That is true. But it does not have anything to do with the subject of many rounds may be required should shooting become necessary.

Even having to present a firearm is an unlikely circumstance. I have had to do so on several occasions, over six decades, but I have never had to shoot.

I think is extremely unlikely that I will ever have to present a weapon again, but I am not willing to refrain from carrying on that basis.

I consider it extremely unlikely that I will ever have to shoot, but I would never use that as a basis for evaluating what may be required should the need arise.

Training is very important. I think that most people who have availed themselves of good defensive firearms training know by now that is will usually be prudent to fire several rounds--perhaps two to four, , or even more, depending--very rapidly at the outset.

The number fired will likely be on the high side of that range. That stems from two factors: (1) the comparatively low wounding effectiveness of handguns, and (2) the fact that, with the distance and speed involved in almost all justified use of force events, the defender would not reasonably be able to stop shooting after determining that the assailant had been stopped if fewer than three or four hits are required.

After having actually having taken relevant training, I became extremely dubious about how effective my five shot revolver would be in a two-person attack.

There are two other things to keep in mind here. First, it would not be useful to base one's evaluation on shooting at a target we are facing when we have been planning to do so. I would not characterize that as training--rather ir is shooting practice..

Second, there seems to be a pervasive believe that the needs of the civilian differ greatly from those of the LEO in this regard. True, the LEO cannot choose to avoid danger, and he cannot step away from combat.

BUT: the civilian and the LEO are justified in the use of force for exactly the same reason--self preservation; and the civilian and the LEO armed with handguns face the same kind of human threats. Once the shooting starts, the needs are analogous.

Few law enforcement officers whom I know have ever fired a weapon in the line of duty, but they all train by firing several shots very rapidly.

That said, carry what you want, what works for you.

I do not know what will work for me, and I hope I will never find out.

 

[Styx]

The world is changing rapidly. The threats that a good guy with a gun could possibly face are changing.

I don't feel adequately prepared with a 5-shot snubby.

Others obviously still do and that is their choice.

But please don't compare my reasons for being adequately prepared to anti-gunner's arguments.

Not saying your reasoning is wrong, I'm saying there's no facts and documented cases to backup the claims that 5 rounds will leaves revolvers carriers inadequately prepared. Other than expressing feelings, no one had cited facts to back up these claims. A bunch of feeling based arguments contingent on a bunch of "what ifs" that aren't based on what's accually has and is happening in reality. Out of the plethora (millions) of men and women who have been and still are carrying 5 or 6 shot revolvers throughout the past several decades, there should be a dozens of document cases that you all should be able to point to to say "see 5 shots are handles down inadequate."

With that said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying more rounds if you feel less is inadequate.

 

[Styx]

Honestly, as the OP, I'm really surprised this topic resulted in so much discussion.

This same holy war debate comes up in revolvers threads quite often whenever someone meations that they carry/prefer wheel guns. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Happens on the Ruger, S&W, Defensive Carry, AKFiles, etc forums. Semiauto carriers always come in, make the same argument, and the same debate ensues.

I honestly don't know why they feel the need to debate other people's preferences on what they personally choose to carry instead of just supporting a fellow gun owner's choice to carry period. Be happy that they found what works for them instead inadvertently saying they feel that they made an inadequate choice...

 

[huntsman]

Not saying your reasoning is wrong, I'm saying there's no facts and documented cases to backup the claims that 5 rounds will leaves revolvers carriers inadequately prepared. Other than expressing feelings, no one had cited facts to back up these claims. A bunch of feeling based arguments contingent on a bunch of "what ifs" that aren't based on what's accually has and is happening in reality. Out of the plethora (millions) of men and women who have been and still are carrying 5 or 6 shot revolvers throughout the past several decades, there should be a dozens of document cases that you all should be able to point to to say "see 5 shots are handles down inadequate."

With that said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying more rounds if you feel less is inadequate.

This whole thread is based on feelings as is the decision to CC a revolver.

If that decision were based on logic then there’d be no discussion.

you can get a semi-auto that weighs less, has more capacity, better choice of holsters and is cheaper.

The distain of plastic guns is nothing but emotional based, industry has proven the durability and strength yet there’s still an emotional rejection of what the gun industry has deemed the standard now.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

This same holy war debate comes up in revolvers threads quite often whenever someone meations that they carry/prefer wheel guns. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. Happens on the Ruger, S&W, Defensive Carry, AKFiles, etc forums. Semiauto carriers always come in, make the same argument, and the same debate ensues.

I honestly don't know why they feel the need to debate other people's preferences on what they personally choose to carry instead of just supporting a fellow gun owner's choice to carry period. Be happy that they found what works for them instead inadvertently saying they feel that they made an inadequate choice...

Just proves how new I am to revolvers I guess.... Didn't mean to start such a fuss.

Just thought I'd share where my journey led me.

 

[Styx]

This whole thread is based on feelings as is the decision to CC a revolver.

If that decision were based on logic then there’d be no discussion.

you can get a semi-auto that weighs less, has more capacity, better choice of holsters and is cheaper.

The distain of plastic guns is nothing but emotional based, industry has proven the durability and strength yet there’s still an emotional rejection of what the gun industry has deemed the standard now.

No one is denying that they can get a semi-auto that weighs less*, has more capacity, better choice of holsters, and is cheaper. What I've seen in this thread is that people are saying that they prefer and/or shoot revolvers and DA pistols better, that they do not feel unarmed with 5 rounds. I personally have yet to see any data that would suggest that they are wrong for feeling the way they do.

I own several polymer pistols from single stacks, subcompacts, compacts, etc. Most here probably own and carried all of the above. We simply just prefer to carry revolvers and feel completely adequate with our choice. If carrying a revolver makes you feel inadequate, there are plenty of other options for you to choose from... I don't understand why there needs to be a debate...

[1] Most snubbies weigh less or the same loaded than single stack 9mms on up unloaded.

 

[WheelGunMan]

Just proves how new I am to revolvers I guess.... Didn't mean to start such a fuss.

Just thought I'd share where my journey led me.

By all means KEEP sharing your journey. Everyone has differering opinions on everything as is proven in this thread. All the arguments haven't changed my opinion one way or the other and I'm sure the same rings true for others. At the end of the day we're all going to do what feels right for us.

 

[Styx]

Another thing, just because someone carries a revolver doesn't mean they'll necessarily will only have 5 or 6 shots in a gun fight. Yes, reloads will be slower, but you can litterally carry several 6 round speedstrips easily and effortlessly in your pocket to the point where you forget it's there. Most pairs of pants allow you to get two in the little change pocket as well. While most who carry they ever so popular single stacks or subcompacts typically only carry one 7-10 round reload then they're out for good. Then there's the fact that you can shoot from the pocket with a hammerless revolver, make contact shots (most fights go to the ground), and not have to worry about a slew of extra ammo, grip, etc related malfunctions...

The point is there are pros and cons to what ever your choice is. Choose what your most comfortable with, and understand your limitations. There are no wrong answers...

 

[Boattale]

But what if I just like S&W Model 60 fine and have one? And don't have any centerfire semi auto pistols at all?

 

[Trey Veston]

Not saying your reasoning is wrong, I'm saying there's no facts and documented cases to backup the claims that 5 rounds will leaves revolvers carriers inadequately prepared. Other than expressing feelings, no one had cited facts to back up these claims.

There are dozens and dozens of examples of shootings that required more than five or six shots to end a threat. Here are a couple of articles by actual self-defense experts in which they discuss the number of rounds required to end a threat.

I'm not trying to tell you that you you are wrong to carry a low-capacity firearm, but the decision to carry a firearm with increased capacity is based on more than feelings; it is based on real world encounters and the opinions of experts...

https://www.shootingillustrated.com...-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

And, while we are talking about averages, let’s look at the average number of rounds fired in a deadly encounter. Depending upon which source one chooses to study, the average number of rounds fired in a deadly encounter is between two and four. So the guy who likes to bet his life on averages would say that he is good to go with a five-shot, snub-nose revolver with no extra reload.

But, what about the police officer who had to shoot the knife-wielding crook eight times with his .45 ACP before he stopped? Or, we could just examine some of the police shootings that involve 20 (or more) rounds being fired. Misses don’t mean much in a gunfight, no matter how close they are. And, we can’t be assured that the crook, high on dope or wearing body armor, will be impressed when we center punch him two to four times.

We carry extra ammunition to deal with all of those things that can go wrong when the shooting starts. A person’s pistol magazine may decide to give up the ghost right in the middle of a fight and, when it does, it sure would be nice to reach for that extra mag in order to stay in the fight. A defensive shooter may also have to dump his magazine in order to clear a double feed, in which case it is comforting to be able to pull an additional magazine and recharge.

Now, I am not a fan of carrying 20 or 30 rounds of extra ammunition around all day. Besides making concealment more difficult, the stuff just adds a lot of weight to my belt. However—average rounds fired be damned—an extra reload is a really good idea.

The optimist may plan and equip himself with the average gunfight in mind. I have always thought it was a far better idea to plan and equip (within reason) for the worst-case scenario. Knowing how my gun shoots at extended distances and having some extra ammunition is just a guard against an attack from Murphy and his silly law. As the old expression goes, no one involved in a gunfight ever wished they had less ammunition on hand.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/11/revolvers-semi-autos-comparison/

Semi-autos win this category. There’s no question about it. They hold more rounds and can be reloaded faster. Duty pistols like the Glock 17 and S&W M&P9 will give you 18 rounds of 9mm ammo at the tip of your trigger finger, literally three times the capacity of the sixgun of yesteryear. The little 9mm Glock 26 auto holds 11 rounds. You’d have to combine a five-shot S&W and a six-shot Colt to equal that in compact revolver technology.

With bad guys jacked up on drugs, wearing body armor, traveling in packs and knowing how to take cover—any of which can quickly drain the good guy’s ammo reservoir—this is a factor to consider. It’s probably the key reason for the autoloader’s ascendancy in both the police and the civilian markets.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2014/10/5-gunfighting-myths-debunked-massad-ayoob/

But four of those saves were absolutely firepower based. Two were Kaas and Davis, cited above. The other two were Bob Kolowski and Lloyd Burchette. Ambushed by a two-gun outlaw biker, they fired more than 20 shots and achieved 13 or 14 hits before attempted murderer Wayne O’Brien slumped and died. Kolowski had reloaded during the blazing gun battle.

And what about armed citizens? Famed Los Angeles watch shop owner Lance Thomas was involved in multiple gun battles with armed robbers, winning every one. In one of those incidents, he had to fire 19 rounds before the last of his multiple opponents was out of the fight. Some bad guys can soak up an unbelievable amount of lead, and the cunning ones run and use cover, making them harder to hit and requiring more shots to stop them.

 

[Styx]

There are dozens and dozens of examples of shootings that required more than five or six shots to end a threat. Here are a couple of articles by actual self-defense experts in which they discuss the number of rounds required to end a threat.

I'm not trying to tell you that you you are wrong to carry a low-capacity firearm, but the decision to carry a firearm with increased capacity is based on more than feelings; it is based on real world encounters and the opinions of experts...

https://www.shootingillustrated.com...-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

And, while we are talking about averages, let’s look at the average number of rounds fired in a deadly encounter. Depending upon which source one chooses to study, the average number of rounds fired in a deadly encounter is between two and four. So the guy who likes to bet his life on averages would say that he is good to go with a five-shot, snub-nose revolver with no extra reload.

But, what about the police officer who had to shoot the knife-wielding crook eight times with his .45 ACP before he stopped? Or, we could just examine some of the police shootings that involve 20 (or more) rounds being fired. Misses don’t mean much in a gunfight, no matter how close they are. And, we can’t be assured that the crook, high on dope or wearing body armor, will be impressed when we center punch him two to four times.

We carry extra ammunition to deal with all of those things that can go wrong when the shooting starts. A person’s pistol magazine may decide to give up the ghost right in the middle of a fight and, when it does, it sure would be nice to reach for that extra mag in order to stay in the fight. A defensive shooter may also have to dump his magazine in order to clear a double feed, in which case it is comforting to be able to pull an additional magazine and recharge.

Now, I am not a fan of carrying 20 or 30 rounds of extra ammunition around all day. Besides making concealment more difficult, the stuff just adds a lot of weight to my belt. However—average rounds fired be damned—an extra reload is a really good idea.

The optimist may plan and equip himself with the average gunfight in mind. I have always thought it was a far better idea to plan and equip (within reason) for the worst-case scenario. Knowing how my gun shoots at extended distances and having some extra ammunition is just a guard against an attack from Murphy and his silly law. As the old expression goes, no one involved in a gunfight ever wished they had less ammunition on hand.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/11/revolvers-semi-autos-comparison/

Semi-autos win this category. There’s no question about it. They hold more rounds and can be reloaded faster. Duty pistols like the Glock 17 and S&W M&P9 will give you 18 rounds of 9mm ammo at the tip of your trigger finger, literally three times the capacity of the sixgun of yesteryear. The little 9mm Glock 26 auto holds 11 rounds. You’d have to combine a five-shot S&W and a six-shot Colt to equal that in compact revolver technology.

With bad guys jacked up on drugs, wearing body armor, traveling in packs and knowing how to take cover—any of which can quickly drain the good guy’s ammo reservoir—this is a factor to consider. It’s probably the key reason for the autoloader’s ascendancy in both the police and the civilian markets.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2014/10/5-gunfighting-myths-debunked-massad-ayoob/

But four of those saves were absolutely firepower based. Two were Kaas and Davis, cited above. The other two were Bob Kolowski and Lloyd Burchette. Ambushed by a two-gun outlaw biker, they fired more than 20 shots and achieved 13 or 14 hits before attempted murderer Wayne O’Brien slumped and died. Kolowski had reloaded during the blazing gun battle.

And what about armed citizens? Famed Los Angeles watch shop owner Lance Thomas was involved in multiple gun battles with armed robbers, winning every one. In one of those incidents, he had to fire 19 rounds before the last of his multiple opponents was out of the fight. Some bad guys can soak up an unbelievable amount of lead, and the cunning ones run and use cover, making them harder to hit and requiring more shots to stop them.

Fair enough. Just about every single one of your examples referenced a law enforcement shooting. You've also quoted one side, and left out the others like for example:

Snub-nose revolvers have protected citizens and police officers alike for decades. The trick to drawing quickly and effectively is to make sure the hammer clears your covering garment as you raise the gun up and out of your holster. Revolvers are also more reliable than semi-autos, especially when it comes ot contact shots or situations where you must fire through fabric and quickly follow up with more shots.

Revolvers win in this category, too. A cop I know recently retired after three-plus decades of police work in a major city, and many gunfights. In the very first of those, a would-be killer wrestled with him, belly to belly, trying to bring his weapon to bear, and my friend rammed the muzzle of his S&W revolver into the man’s center chest and pulled the trigger. The press-contact shot sent the muzzle blast into the attacker’s thorax along with the bullet, killing him instantly.

I'll take your examples though, will conceed that there have been gunfights where more than fire rounds were fired, and where an attacker was hit several times before being wounded fatality.

Now can you offer some examples where someone was in a gunfight with a revolver and was killed or wounded after running out of ammo or while reloading? One thing that still sticks out to me is, while the articles you cited state that revolvers have been extensively used in the past, are still "extremely popular", and that both civilians and L.E. have relied on revolvers to protect themselves for decades, the authors (Sheriff Jim Wilson and Massad Ayoob) and people in this thread have still neglected to provided examples where someone who accually had a revolver on them lost a gun fight because of only having 5 shots.

In short, there are plenty of examples of people who had extra rounds used them and arguably needing them, but there seems to be an unexplained discrepancy in why there aren't several stories where revolver carriers were wounded or killed because they chose not to carry a semiauto. Why do you think this is? Can you explain it? Keep in mind, millions of L.E. and civilians for decades till this day respectively have been carrying revolvers...

 

[Trey Veston]

In short, there are plenty of examples of people who had extra rounds used them and arguably needing them, but there seems to be an unexplained discrepancy in why there aren't several stories where revolver carriers were wounded or killed because they chose not to carry a semiauto. Why do you think this is? Can you explain it?

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/02/massad-ayoob-gunfighting-fact-vs-fiction/

Myth #4: If You Can’t Do It With…




“If you can’t do it with six (or five), you can’t do it at all.” There are a whole lot of people who wouldn’t have survived high-volume firefights if they only had five or six cartridges at the time. Let’s look at some of the shootouts we’ve already discussed. Hickok did indeed kill Tutt with a single shot—but he had a second Colt in his waistband to back up the first if more shots had been required. When Holliday shot Tom McLaury at the end of the OK Corral shootout in Tombstone, Arizona, it was his third gun of the fight. Holliday had already emptied a double-barrel shotgun (killing Frank McLaury’s brother Tom), and a Colt SAA before drawing his backup Colt Lightning revolver to shoot Frank. Fast-forward to modern times: Officer Jared Reston, severely wounded, had to unleash most of the rounds in his 16-shot Glock 22 to finish his deadly fight in Jacksonville.

It happens to armed citizens, too. I’ve lost count of the shootings I’ve reviewed over the years where the good guys ran out of ammunition. Rich Davis fired all of the six shots he had and hit all three of the armed robbers he faced while delivering pizzas, but one of them was still up and running and able to shoot and wound him twice. That night in the emergency room, it occurred to him that there had to be something better than one’s own body to stop bullets with, and he was inspired to invent the soft body armor that has since saved thousands of lives.

I spoke at two trials, one criminal and one civil, for an attorney who had to shoot a man who pulled a gun on him in his law office. His nine-shot 9mm was at slide-lock, having delivered nine solid hits, before his opponent slumped and died. He survived both the gunfight and the trials, but it had been terribly close because he had no more ammunition at all when the gun duel ended.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

We are now going from the Ok Corral, and down to a lawyer shooting some guy 9 times before he killed him. A whole lot of question about that alone. But this cherry picking of gunfights is getting really old. How about we end this and start another "Caliber War"? We have not had one of those in about a week.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Myself.. I'm carrying 15 rounds, 5 in the gun and 2 speed loaders that I'm practicing with every day.

Reloads get pretty fast pretty quick when you practice.

No way I would carry with only 5 rounds... I carried a Glock 36 for several years, with 2 spare mags on me.

I can clear any jam pretty fast and instinctively, many years with many rounds fired... but my wife, she can shoot, and she can insert a mag, but clearing misfeeds and such she simply doesn't practice.

And I'm willing to bet at least 95% of everybody else couldn't clear a misfeed very fast either... Most simply don't practice that.

She likes the revolver for that reason ... She said it herself, when she decided she wanted a revolver... I may only have 5 rounds, but at least my chances of being able to use those 5 rounds without issue is better... Her words.... And they ring true for a whole lot of people.

It's easy (dangerous, but easy) for someone familiar with pistols to disable some semi autos.... Mag disconnects, push them out of battery, etc...in a hands on fight, a strong individual against one not so strong really has decent odds of disabling an auto, if they know what to do (and I suspect a few do).

Revolvers....especially hammerless ones, pull the trigger and they go bang most of the time.... And being shorter, they're harder to control if gripped by the barrel.

If someone grabs it by the front, pull the trigger, I bet they let go when the cylinder gap nearly cuts their fingers off.

Arguments to made both ways...

 

[Ridgerunner665]

There is a YouTube video about the U shaped learning curve with handguns....

It makes a compelling argument... But I can't seem to find it again.

In a nutshell ...

Wheelguns for beginners.

Autos come into their own later with more training.

Then when you get really proficient with reloads, trigger control, accuracy, and carry methods... Revolvers step back up to the plate.

 

[JR24]

There is a YouTube video about the I shaped learning curve with handguns....

It makes a compelling argument... But I can't seem to find it again.

In a nutshell ...

Wheelguns for beginners.

Autos come into their own later with more training.

Then when you get really proficient with reloads, trigger control, accuracy, and carry methods... Revolvers step back up to the plate.

I'll agree with the first two parts. But I'm not convinced that even when you are quite proficient that revolvers add much to the story in my eyes.

I'm practiced and proficient, considerably above average I'd wager, in autos and used to be pretty darned good with my GP100, could speed reload quite fast and was a very good shot at speed.

Then I realized that no matter how fast I get with my revolver, I will always be faster with my 1911 (or Glock). It's just a function of trigger reset speed if nothing else, and while I used to be pretty quick with a speed loader, I am always faster with a magazine reload; plus, and more importantly in my eyes, it's a much less involved process that has fewer moving parts so to speak.

Of course speed isnt all, but when I'm getting equally good hits, faster, with the auto, I'll take that.

Not that carrying a revolver is wrong, mind you, I'd be perfectly OK with EDC a S&W 19 or 66 with 2.5 or 3" barrel and a few speedloaders. They certainly have some advantages and disadvantages and of course personal comfort and proficiency are key.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

There is a YouTube video about the I shaped learning curve with handguns....

It makes a compelling argument... But I can't seem to find it again.

In a nutshell ...

Wheelguns for beginners.

Autos come into their own later with more training.

Then when you get really proficient with reloads, trigger control, accuracy, and carry methods... Revolvers step back up to the plate.

Seems to be the norm as the Original Post form the OP. Many revolver users now, were dedicated revolver shooters in the past, later to semi-autos and then returned to revolvers. Most revolver shooters that I know at my club, are all very experienced shooters. At least they are the one's you see training all the time. How many newbies actually buy a revolver over s semi? I would say very little. I see very few if any rookies shooting them. And when you do see a revolver guy, he is usually very good.