Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 5-shot revolver vs. 15-shot auto for carry/defense

I wonder why the guys who see more combat than anyone else in the world don't issue revolvers?

Are they unenlightened, or are they in the serious business of winning gunfights...

You probably can win a gunfight with a revolver, if you're well trained and they are not well armed.

Relative to the Col's comment about double stack mags, I'll bet it was from long ago (I'll look for it. I have three volumes of "Gunsite Gossip.")

Finally, the average Joe really does not practice that much with his handgun (I have 2,000 rounds fired this year and consider myself a slouch). So, we should be talking about what an average Joe carries, not an expert. Revolvers are for experts.

twice
If one believes the shows that Ed Head is on, then the answer would be daily unless he's ballyhooing for Ruger and being less than honest with the audience.
You seem to equate the gunsite instructors of today with the philosophy, tactics and beliefs of Cooper. I don't doubt that there would be Glocks and probably even a few da-autos, but if you believe what the Col wrote, the Glock wouldn't be the piece of choice. Really doesn't matter to me, I have nothing against Glocks.

...somehow "combat application, that is, fighting other people" doesn't jump out as primal, you obviously saw something that I didn't in that original post.


Maybe my dimwittedness trumps your limited experience, I don't know. The fact that you didn't see revolvers in Afganistan being used as a rationale to decry their use just isn't logical. If the Col was anything--he was logical.
BTW, I'm a fan of semi-autos--but also of logic.
Also, thanks for your service in Afganistan.

Dave, you're trying to fight a battle without being in the field of operations. No one is suggesting equiping our troops for combat with wheel guns. On the same note, do you really want to argue that any piece of equipment is best soley because the government issues it????? That'll be a short debate!!
If you're a believer in the Col's teachings then you can quote almost verbatim his postulate that you fight with your mind and the tool is secondary. I don't doubt that a semi-auto is better for combat, but for slipping in a backpack and shooting a coyote and having for general defense it's probably a moot arguement.
of course he said it a long time ago--he's been dead for almost 5 years

...we agree!! Probably a person that's "average" shouldn't attempt to defend himself with a handgun at all until he's reached a level of expertise--it will be easier to reach with a semi---but that doesn't proscribe revolvers.

Wasn't in Afghanistan, was in Iraq, but thank you for the thank you. It was the best job I've ever had, and I've been in 34 years.

I was at Gunsite for a week two months ago and did not see one revolver. Like I said, if they are carrying them for defense, they're experts, and that's OK. You still have to break open the handgun to reload. I know, I know Jerry Miculek can reload in whatever. But, we should be talking about average Joes.

I'm thinking "for carry, defense" means against people. Armed conflict with other people, one on one or in groups, is the definition of combat. Certainly your trips to Gunsite have reinforced that definition. Otherwise, what would you call that?

Jerry Miculek can reload rapidly because he is upright, using gravity to assist with the reload. In a gunfight, if you are on the ground, trying to use speed loaders, it is different. Some of the officers killed in the onion fields in Cal. were shot while trying to reload their revolvers while crouched behind their cars. Another officer who was in a shoot out while on the floor using a video machine for cover, lost 2 rounds on the floor when using his speedloader. In a stress reload, the auto wins every time.

Helluva lot of difference between combat and self-defense situations.

really? That's what Gunsite and Thunder Ranch call it.

Self defense is a short combat, I think.

Why do you think they're different?

The U.S. military hasn't issued revolvers to front-line fighters since the Colt and S&W 1917s were issued with half-moon clips during WW1 and those revolvers were only issued because there weren't enough Colt 1911s available. Same/same for the Enfield 1917s being issued as an alternative main battle rifle to the 1903 Springfields.

I would agree that very few people ever become proficient handgun shooters because they don't practice enough. From what I see at the local range, few people are good rifle shooters and less than 10% are competent handgun shooters.

JEff

There is a lot of good and informative discussion above and, seemingly, no overall answer applicablle to the masses. Among almost all of us, a "gunfight" as such - extended tactical movements and much firing at very capable opponents - would be an extreme rarity in our lives. For us, a fast-rising threatening situation requiring quick and effective short term response would be much more likely.

Thus, most handguns are carried with such possibilities in mind. As pointed out many times above, the proficiency of the user should be a big factor in the choice of gun. In the forest I carry a big revolver. In populated situations I carry a .45 semi-auto. But, at my direction due to her level of proficency, my wife has a very manageable 5 shot .38 special without exposed hammer. If someone got threateningly close, she sure enough would be able to put them down, and probably for keeps. But, a semi-auto would be too complicated/frustrating for her level of proficiency.

And, with revovers there is no failure to eject/feed when one needs them most - in a fast-rising and brief situation involving a few shots..

BT/DT on the SD situation.

Combat, as what you're detailing with reloads, etc., is one thing. Self-defense is a very close-quarters encounter where one has to take immediately action and use deadly force to counter an immediate, close-proximity threat to life or serious bodily injury.

The reason the average self-defense shooting is inside of 10 feet, and 2-3 shots, is that such is normally all it takes to stave off a mugger, rapist, jilted lover, crackhead, car-jacker, burglar, etc. It's one, maybe two, assailants and one victim, within bad breath range.

For that, the revolvers have, and will continue to, work just fine.

"Combat" is far more the local gang, or home invasion type situation with multiple armed assailants, varying ranges, etc. For that, and that is really what most of those "combat course" deal with; yes, the semi-auto is far superior.

Simplicity of action (and the fear of the more complicated process of SOME autos) is a valid reason for women. And as I said, those with weak hands.

Failure to eject is a 1960s problem with autos.

Sean
Excellent distinction between combat and SD, and the firearms that work in those situations.

Some of the prior posts do not make that distinction, which could keep the debate going on for a long time.

Steve

Haven't read the thread, so please excuse me if these are duplicate thoughts:

The best stats I can find say that if you are attacked and produce a firearm, your attacker will flee 93% of the time (vs. being injured 60% of the time if you offer no resistance). So 93% of the time, it doesn't matter what you have, as long as it looks intimidating. Attackers are looking for easy victims, not a fair fight.

For the other 7% of cases, some days I carry a snubby 41 mag, and other days I carry a compact 380. If a good deal on a 44 Spl came along, I'd probably snag that. It's 45 ACP ballistics in a light weight package.

Self defense is a lot easier than law enforcement. In self defense, you win if you get home with all your body parts intact. An LEO has the task of subduing the bad guy and hauling him off to jail.

denton;

Keep your eyes peeled for a Stratford, Conn., or Bridgeport, Conn., (the latter preferable) Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 Special.

What really concerns me about all this is the huge proliferation of small sub compact handguns in larger cartridges and the amount of the sale market they are capturing.
We are seeing 45 ACP,40 S&W and even 9mm to some extent in these 13 ounce handguns that takes an expert to control, yet neophytes are buying them up like hot cakes.Then when they do shoot them they get a big surprise from the recoil and find out they can't hit diddly sqaut with them.I suppose it is ok as most confrontations happen at less than a few yards.

I can't help but think that these people are someday going to encounter a situation and when the do let off a round,the fire ball in dim light and huge uncontrollable recoil is litteraly going to be the death of them.
Makes no differnce if it is a revolver or semi that I can see, 5 shotor 15 shot.

For myslef, considering I am fairly proficent with a handgun and even being a NRA certified instructor,a 5 shot Smith Model 66 revolver in.357 mag, 2" barrel fullfils my needs. My loads would be consider some where between 38+p and mid range .357 with 125 gr hollow points.

I don't subscribe to the idea that some say they need XX when they go to the ghetto or go here or there. Stay out of those places unless your job demands it. There is a big differnce in LEO requiremnts, military requiremnts, and common citizens requirements.

A lot of guys get anal about all this stuff as now they are able to carry when they could not before and get so they think there is bad guy behind very tree. I carry because I don't want to be a vcictum,bu tmy life is not controlled by what I carry.

They are double action but you can still use them single action style.

VA's using the word as a verb--you've morphed it into a noun. You know very well that as a verb, the military demands of combat are SIGNIFICANTLY different than the demands of civilian "combat" (for a lack of better words). In the Fleet Marine Force when I was in an infantry battalion, I was issued a handgun because I was a 2nd Lt. and wasn't expected to be shooting during "combat." Maybe things have changed, but in the Military the sidearm has played a secondary role to the point of having become largely ceremonial since the disbandment of horse cavalry. It has been used quite efficiently in numerous cases and there are all kinds of anecdotal cases of its use, but it's still secondary in the overall scheme of military conflict. They issue handguns to people who should be doing something other than shooting during combat (verb). I suppose that recon units, etc. may find a less defensive role for the handgun, but again, they're the exception.

For the CCW holder/home defender/armed civilian, it plays a primary role to be used reactively in an unexpected circumstance. That's where DVC becomes a factor. DVC is so significant because it is oriented to defensive activity---on the offense only accuracy (D) is of great relevance. A high capacity semi auto may in fact be the panacea for many in that defensive civilian role--but not necessarily for everyone!! Without incorporating the study of "probability" the only recourse is obtuse paranoia like that guy on the concealed carry video on the handgun thread demonstrated.

Regarding Mackay's comment: "...the primary functions of having a higher capacity auto is not to shoot more, but to manipulate less.

Time not spent fiddling with reloading is time spent looking at a threat, looking at your surroundings or coming up with an alternative solution to your problem."

The old pilot's maxim that "the only time you have too much fuel is if you're on fire," seems appropriate. More ammo is always better than less ammo, until you have to hump it. Once your life style convinces you that you "probably" aren't going to need it, you tend to leave it in the car or at home---at least I think that that's human nature. And while not a down side necessarily to increased magazine capacity, the positives may be neutered in some cases by another tendancy with shooters that don't have your level of training. Back in the early 80's Tommy Campbell of S&W was putting on a demo for our local PD. He and I went to lunch and discussed high cap magazines for law enforcement. He brought up the need to train fire control more strictly due to the tendancy in a fire fight for officers to empty the magazine. He related an oft quoted case where the officer was cross examined---Q: "Officer Sagebrush, why did you shoot my client 15 times?" A: "Because that's all the magazine held."

LOL, just meant "I" would have been in DA mode, as in, he would have heard a couple of ticks/clicks as the DA cycled.....and lights out...no way I would have taken a risk in giving him any room for error if somebody was grabbing 'my main gun' as he may have forced you to follow thru, hopefully if that had happened that muzzle would be in his ear had you 'reacted' to him NOT stopping, and continuing to go for your main pistol.

That scenario was you or him, lucky for him, he made the right choice and it worked out.

I know some folks who wish that were true.

65BR, my backup was stuck in his ear.

We were braking up a fight between two 16 or 17 year old kids.
The fight was over a girl.
Thank God he made the right choice, because I would have felt bad about killing him.
That was over 30 years ago.
I see this guy ever so offen and he turned out to be a good man