Why Only Semi's for Carry??

[GEM]

Have the folks with hand problems tried the easy rack versions of semis put out by SW and Ruger? Just curious. I saw in the LGS, the wise salesman take a woman with racking problems through various guns and the SW worked for her.

Luckily in my 70's, I don't have that problem (yet). I do hand exercises and have a reasonble grip such that Glocks and 1911s don't bother me. If I did use a revolver for carry, I would probably carry a lighter recoiling load like the recommended wadcutters.

I prefer the semis for belt carry as I see no reason to limit my amount of rounds if I can use the gun. Don't buy into the 5 is enough baloney.

 

[Rexster]

Thankfully, I do not (yet) have hand/finger strength issues, to the extent that it affects my ability to pull DA triggers. I do keep my single-action sixgunning skills at a workable level, for the time that long-stroke DA may become a problem. Notably, one does not practice single-action sixgunning, at a high level. by merely cocking the hammer of a DA revolver, as some basic mechanical principles are different.

 

[golden]

Redcoat,

It is more complicated than you state.. RECOIL is a problem that may make +P ammo a problem for you. My wife used to work for the U.S. MARSHALL'S and had to qualify with a revolver. Now she cannot shoot one. The long trigger action, the considerable recoil when shooting a very light gun (say 1 pound revolver) all work against her using it effectively, even thought she used to have to carry one.

If you want to carry a revolver, I would go for a middle weight gun with a 3 inch barrel. The RUGER SP-101 can be had in .357. So can the COLT King Cobra.

I used to carry a S&W model 12 with a 2 inch barrel in a pancake holster when going out for walks at night. Now I prefer a 9m.m. It is just a huge difference in effectiveness and has night sights as well.

If I were going to carry a revolver IWB, which I do not, I think that I would go with the RUGER SP-101 with a 3 inch barrel. I would use a very effective +P load like the FEDERAL HST 130 grain jhp or my other choice would be DOUBLE TAP 125 grain jhp. Both appear to be very effective and have less recoil, muzzle blast and flash than a .357 magnum load. The 3 inch barrel will not be any harder to conceal with an IWB holster and it will get you a little more velocity with less recoil (the gun is a little heavier).In my experience, 3 inch guns are easier to shoot that 2 inch guns.

The FEDERAL .38 Special HST may be the most effective .38 Special defense round available.

As I have gotten older, I am getting more recoil sensitive. I sold my SIG 220 .45ACP for that reason and got rid of most of my .45's and .40's. I can still shoot a J-frame size 5 shot .38 Special with +P ammo, but it is not as easy as it used to be. I now carry WINCHESTER .38 Special Train & Defend ammo in my CHARTER ARMS Undercover, when I carry it. I think the harder kicking +P loads are harder to control and thus less effective in a lightweight revolver..

If I were going to carry a revolver IWB, which I do not, I think that I would go with the RUGER SP-101 with a 3 inch barrel. I would use a very effective .38 +P load like the FEDERAL HST 130 grain jhp or my other choice would be DOUBLE TAP 125 grain jhp. Both appear to be very effective. The HST may be the most effective .38 Special defense round available.

While high performance .38 Special +P loads are more effective than the best .380ACP rounds, they also have a LOT MORE RECOIL. If you want to compare .380ACP to .38 Special, I would compare standard pressure ammo.

I bought my wife a S&W .380ACP EZ for her birthday. Unlike a lot of semi-auto's. she can easily rack the slide. We both feel it may be the best compromise for a car or house gun, especially if her arthritis gets worse.

She now uses a BERETTA 92D Compact for her house gun, which she can shoot well enough with standard pressure HST.
She carry's a GLOCK 42, which is mild enough in recoil that she can shoot it well despite its very light weight and can work the slide without any problems..

Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

I prefer my EZ 9, which has a very light slide racking effort, over revolvers for EDC, for the following reasons:

• Trigger pull
• Capacity
• Thinness
• Longer sight radius
• Weight

I can fire it more rapidly in controlled shooting.

I have arthritis, tendonitis, and nerve damage.

For shooting at the range, however, I tend to prefer good, steel-framed revolvers.

 

[edwardware]

But it hit me that was discounting the easiest handgun of all to operate even with the arthritis I don't yet have: a revolver. No slide at all to worry about.

In my experience (teaching older shooters, arthritic hands, etc), a revolver is harder to use than the .380EZ or 9EZ. Single action trigger pull was very hard, gripping hard enough to avoid rolling the revolver back was right out, and the recoil was unmanageable.

I would not have anticipated this, but it's what I observed after spending a summer teaching a ~70yo lady to shoot, and eventually settling her in a .380EZ. I've sold a few more people on EZs since then.

 

[.38 Special]

I am a revolver man through-and-through, and disagree with most of the common arguments against their use for self defense. Having said that, my experience also is that D.A. revolvers often are more difficult for people with strength/dexterity/disease issues of the hands. I agree with those who note that the newer generation of "easy" semi-autos may be the best bet for such folks.

 

[GEM]

Good discussion. I would argue that if someone has poor hand abilities and they want to use a revolver - they take a variety of loads to the range and try them. Lots of folks in the trainer world argue for low recoil wadcutters as they do have a good penetration, wound profile and are easy to shoot - leading to faster follow up shots. I've shot a lot of higher power revolver loads and if my hands fail, I'm not going there. It's an empirical question for the shooter. I've told several times when I was shooting my SW 632 in 327 magnum when I switched from 32 SW Long to full power 32 mags (for a steel target that the longs wouldn't knock down), the resultant flash and boom scared everybody. The SO thought it blew up and the felt recoil was real.

 

[Roknstevo]

Have the folks with hand problems tried the easy rack versions of semis put out by SW and Ruger? Just curious. I saw in the LGS, the wise salesman take a woman with racking problems through various guns and the SW worked for her.

Luckily in my 70's, I don't have that problem (yet). I do hand exercises and have a reasonble grip such that Glocks and 1911s don't bother me. If I did use a revolver for carry, I would probably carry a lighter recoiling load like the recommended wadcutters.

I prefer the semis for belt carry as I see no reason to limit my amount of rounds if I can use the gun. Don't buy into the 5 is enough baloney.

Five is enough for me......when you can prove that it isn’t, then I’ll accept your “baloney”.

 

[Kleanbore]

Five is enough for me......

That is an absurd comment. No one can know what "is enough" before the event. Zero, one, or five shots may suffice in one event. Five may not suffice in another.

 

[GEM]

Exactly, my view is:

I do not know how many rounds I might need.
I have studied the issue to establish what is a reasonable carry based on my training, competition experience, FOF exercises and the opinion of trainers of well known repute.
5 round guns are one opponent, short time in the fight guns (to steal from Tom Givens).
I cannot assume the incident might just be an economically motivated opponent who might flee before me.
I cannot assume that my marksmanship will be superb and guarantee a one or two round stop, assuming only one opponent.
While rare the incident might be more intensive as in a rampage or terrorist attack. I worked in a place that the need for a firearm was more likely to be such as compared to an economically motivate opponent.
Thus, a semi with 10 rounds or more and an extra mag is a reasonable carry package and is typical of the experienced.
When I carry a J frame, it is a pocket gun and it is because of lazy convenience or dress restrictions.
I have spent a fair amount of time becoming reasonable competent with a J frame or small semi (like a G42), unlike most folks.
I understand the risk profile of the J frame, G42 carry and accept that limitation due to circumstance. I do not think 5 is enough. That is baloney. It is not enough but a compromise that one must make.

5 is enough is baloney as you cannot predict what will happen. You just accept that it may not be enough and you will be in trouble in some set of circumstances, even if rare.

This is subtle point, that the 5 is enough crowd always does not understand and then gets huffy puffy.

 

[Kleanbore]

What are the determinants? Well, if a physical stop is required, consider

• How many times you hit your attacker(s)
• What those hits damage inside his body
• How effective they turn out to be in stopping him
• How many rounds you fire before you understand that a physical stop has likely been achieved
• How many attackers you need to stop

When one considers that an attacker may be closing at 180 inches per second, one will have some appreciation of the difficulties

 

[bdickens]

I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority of the people advocating revolvers for others with arthritis, dont have arthritis in their hands

I have DA revolvers, and both DA/SA semi-autos, and SA semi-autos. I'd much rather work a slide with the big muscles of my upper body than work a 10 lb trigger with the small muscles in my trigger finger.

Exactly.

 

[Roknstevo]

That is an absurd comment. No one can know what "is enough" before the event. Zero, one, or five shots may suffice in one event. Five may not suffice in another.

Mr. Moderator......perhaps you missed the point. I said that five is enough for me, and it is. It has nothing to do with future incidents.....and you, my friend, cannot predict those. I am perfectly comfortable with my carry choice, and that’s no baloney, sir.

 

[Kleanbore]

I said that five is enough for me, and it is. It has nothing to do with future incidents

Oh. You choose to carry five, for whatever reason, having no objective basis for trying to understand the likelihood that five would suffice should the need to use the gun arise. Alrighty then.

 

[trackskippy]

It has nothing to do with future incidents.....and you, my friend, cannot predict those.

Thats the point. It does, and you cant.

 

[Roknstevo]

Oh. You choose to carry five, for whatever reason, having no objective basis for trying to understand the likelihood that five would suffice should the need to use the gun arise. Alrighty then.

I have only had one self defense incident in my 72 yrs. It occurred in1969. It took me exactly one shot to end it. Not proud of it....just a fact. That’s my real world experience. Your experience is yours....nuff said. I’m done.

 

[lee n. field]

I have a couple of carry guns: PX4compact; S&W CS9 & CS45; Sig .40 250; and Smith 6906. Plus a S&W 642 for pocket carry. That's more than enough variety.

...
But it hit me that was discounting the easiest handgun of all to operate even with the arthritis I don't yet have: a revolver. No slide at all to worry about.
Now my 642 is +P rated so that's not a bad bullet. But what about .357 or .44 special?

.44 Special is going to be much harder to find, with few options. And, not many guns. Charter Bulldog, plus what? Maybe look for a .45ACP or .45LC option?

Shouldn't I be considering something easily carried, say a 2" or 3" barrel, in my dotage?

If you not going to pocket carry it, may as well go 3".

So, if I were going to get a revolver for IWB carry and replace, say, my 6906, what should it be?
(And price is a consideration.

And so is recoil, I don't want some dainty, lightweight frame for full-load 357's; and how much, if anything, does one get out of a .357 in a 2" barrel versus a +P .38 (yeah, I gotta do a bit more research I think).

LCR is light, but handles .357 surprisingly well (the one time I tried it). Would not want to make a habit of it, though.

Interwebz consensus (very much YMMV) is that .357 in a 2"mostly gets you lots of sturm und drang, flash and recoil, with not enough increase in practical benefit over .38.

Anyway, suggestions are encouraged. What would you get?

3" LCR in .357. Possible option, Taurus 856 Defender .38 (3" barrel).

Or, maybe, LCR in 9mm. I think they have a 3" version now.

 

[.38 Special]

5 is enough is baloney as you cannot predict what will happen. You just accept that it may not be enough and you will be in trouble in some set of circumstances, even if rare.

This is subtle point, that the 5 is enough crowd always does not understand and then gets huffy puffy.

The trouble with that argument is that it applies to essentially any number of rounds a fellow might choose to carry. The huffy puffiness stems from the attitude, among certain folks, that they have a superior grasp of the subject and are therefore entitled to talk down to anyone who hasn't reached the same conclusions.

 

[trackskippy]

The trouble with that argument is that it applies to essentially any number of rounds a fellow might choose to carry. The huffy puffiness stems from the attitude, among certain folks, that they have a superior grasp of the subject and are therefore entitled to talk down to anyone who hasn't reached the same conclusions.

It does apply to any number of rounds, but those extra rounds give you breathing room if you dont make the perfect hits you do in slow fire practice at a static target when youre not under stress and you very well may need to continue to shoot.

If the target is moving, you are moving, etc., the target doesn't go down as you expected and continues to be a threat, those 5 or six rounds in most revolvers get used up pretty quick. And thats just "one" opponent. As soon as you add more, or increase the difficulty of the problem, things go south pretty quick.

One target with a revolver is doable. If youre well-practiced, two might be. Assuming you actually hit something that will bring about a quick stop, which is a lot harder than I think many seem to understand. Especially if the target is determined. COM is in no way a guarantee and is basically the choice, simply because its a bigger target with more chance of hitting "something". Its not the target that you really need to shoot to bring about a near-instant shot that many seem to think will always happen.

With any of them, you need to be able to shoot quickly, accurately, and repetitively, without hesitation, and without having to think about doing it.

This isnt about talking down to anyone, I think its about being realistic. From what Ive seen on the various ranges Ive shot on over the years, and with many people I know who have and carry guns, most of them/us WAY overestimate their skills and really dont put in the time and effort to be even reasonably and "realistically" proficient. And that goes from administrative handling through shooting. Its about more than just "shooting".

Just to get to be "reasonably" proficient takes a LOT of time, work, and ammo. Not to mention dryfire. How many people do you know who currently carry a gun, are actually putting in that effort?

Are 5 rounds enough? Are 17? Who knows. I just watched a video the other day where a cop got into it with a guy in a traffic stop, just literally feet apart, and in the matter of less than a minute or two, basically emptied his Glock 21 three times, hit the guy something like 15 times, with a number of "vital" hits, including three in the head, and he wasnt yet dead when they got him to the hospital.

Lets see....how many revolver reloads is that?

 

[bdickens]

The trouble with that argument is that it applies to essentially any number of rounds a fellow might choose to carry. The huffy puffiness stems from the attitude, among certain folks, that they have a superior grasp of the subject and are therefore entitled to talk down to anyone who hasn't reached the same conclusions.

Some people really do have a superior grasp of the subject....

 

[Mosin77]

Why only semis these days?

Back in the day a revolver held six shots (“for sure”) and a semi held 7, maybe 8. A semi also either meant a big honking .45 1911, or a smaller “pocket pistol” in .25, .32, or .380. So a revolver didn’t give up much at all, and in fact had some real world advantages, even as a heavy steel gun.

Nowadays we have lighter revolvers with 5 shots only (yet fairly brutal recoil) and we also have semis that are very light, very controllable, and offer similar or greater capacity than the revolver, in more potent service calibers like 9mm. And .380 has come a long way since the old days while .38spl and .32 long really haven’t….. I know the last is debatable but there just aren’t the loads in the old revolver rounds that you find in modern defensive semi auto calibers. And the semis are more reliable than ever, basically equaling revolvers, but without the big central bulge of the cylinder that can make concealment trickier.

So really, the defensive semi is the one to beat these days. A revolver may be better for one individual for a number of reasons, but they are indeed less popular, and justifiably so.

 

[.38 Special]

It does apply to any number of rounds, but those extra rounds give you breathing room if you dont make the perfect hits you do in slow fire practice at a static target when youre not under stress and you very well may need to continue to shoot.

If the target is moving, you are moving, etc., the target doesn't go down as you expected and continues to be a threat, those 5 or six rounds in most revolvers get used up pretty quick. And thats just "one" opponent. As soon as you add more, or increase the difficulty of the problem, things go south pretty quick.

One target with a revolver is doable. If youre well-practiced, two might be. Assuming you actually hit something that will bring about a quick stop, which is a lot harder than I think many seem to understand. Especially if the target is determined. COM is in no way a guarantee and is basically the choice, simply because its a bigger target with more chance of hitting "something". Its not the target that you really need to shoot to bring about a near-instant shot that many seem to think will always happen.

With any of them, you need to be able to shoot quickly, accurately, and repetitively, without hesitation, and without having to think about doing it.

This isnt about talking down to anyone, I think its about being realistic. From what Ive seen on the various ranges Ive shot on over the years, and with many people I know who have and carry guns, most of them/us WAY overestimate their skills and really dont put in the time and effort to be even reasonably and "realistically" proficient. And that goes from administrative handling through shooting. Its about more than just "shooting".

Just to get to be "reasonably" proficient takes a LOT of time, work, and ammo. Not to mention dryfire. How many people do you know who currently carry a gun, are actually putting in that effort?

Are 5 rounds enough? Are 17? Who knows. I just watched a video the other day where a cop got into it with a guy in a traffic stop, just literally feet apart, and in the matter of less than a minute or two, basically emptied his Glock 21 three times, hit the guy something like 15 times, with a number of "vital" hits, including three in the head, and he wasnt yet dead when they got him to the hospital.

Lets see....how many revolver reloads is that?

If we're being honest with ourselves, the likelihood of ever needing a gun is, for most of us, close to zero. Of those few who will ever need a gun, the statistics appear to indicate that only a small fraction will need to fire it. And of that fraction, it appears that two or three rounds are typically fired.

There are, of course, instances where a civilian will need to expend a great number of rounds, and perhaps even instances where reloading is necessary. All of it strikes me as being so enormously unlikely as to be unworthy of serious debate.

I am perfectly content to leave folks alone to make whatever choice they like about their personal weapons. I just get a little "huffy puffy" when other people don't extend me the same courtesy.

 

[.38 Special]

Some people really do have a superior grasp of the subject....

And few if any of them are here at THR being obnoxious about it.

 

[GEM]

Anyone can have an opinion. If you post it on an open forum, then you need to accept that it may not be accepted. Your opinion will be critiqued from reasonable analyses of your claim esp. on THR. We know that such analyses, if they don't match what a person claims, makes them huffy puffy. This is true on most forums from fishing to flying to firearms. With life and death issues, being blunt is better than just giving attaboys. Yes, glad you carry BP revolver OC in a cross draw! Attaboy. Oh, that isn't optimal. What do you mean! Huff and puff!

The OC BP revolver thread ranked in there with huff and puff along with the tactically equipped single barrel shotgun for folks getting upset with the critiques. In my professional world, you sent out your work for review and they could be not gentle. If you put forward something here - expect a rational analysis of such propositions. Saying 5 works for you is a meaningless statement. I laid out the contingencies for various carry configurations based on what is better suited for reasonably more intensive incidents.

A currently running thread that had someone claim they would hold a bad guy at gun point and the responses about the tactical and legal ramifications of such an attempt had some posters all tushy hurt as their perceived dominance posturing was challenged.

Carrying no ammo has worked for many as the modal DGU has no shots fired! Statistics prove (check on what prove and statistics mean together) that you don't need ammo in your gun!

 

[SteadyD]

32 magnum or 32 long from a 327 LCR is an option worth considering.