... Since many are beginning shooters, or at least not Advanced Shooters, they often have trouble even learning how to shoot the semi-autos properly. A good portion of the time in his class you spent talking about tap rack Bang and how to clear a malfunction from my semi-auto.
His so called "advanced" pistol class involves running and gunning and shooting behind barriers and other crap that would be more akin to some Special Forces operator than the regular citizen trying to defend himself.
I'm all for people being able to choose and shoot what they want, but I honestly feel that so much of the general population would be better served with a 6-shot revolver than a semi-auto pistol. The manual of arms of a revolver is just so much more simple for someone who is not a professional and has to kick down a door to arrest someone. I have both, and I carry both. Folks just can't seem to get over the issue of only having five or six shots before having to reload.
Any opinions on this?
I've cherry picked a couple of salient points here.
On the revolver vs. semi-auto, a revolver is going to be easier to learn and especially when clearing malfunctions - pull the trigger again. Whether 5-6 shots is enough, too many opinions and too many situations to state unequivocally one way or the other. Most gunfights are still decided in the first 2-3 seconds with just a few shots fired. "Most". As they say, you get the fight you get, not the fight you want.
But the highlighted parts I think are important for Joe and Jane Citizen, not Joe Alphabet Gamer or Joe Hi-speed Lo-Drag. Just MHO but if someone is going to carry concealed I think the greatest amount of training should be spent in drawing quickly and getting that first shot on target. The person who gets the first good hit ups his or her odds of winning the fight tremendously. Second greatest amount of time should be spent on getting the remaining shots on target - and that would certainly include clearing malfunctions. That second guy in the Texas church lost his life fumbling on the draw, the guy who ended the situation drew cleanly and took one good shot.
All of this starting from a high ready like you're third in line of a dynamic entry team really isn't pertinent to a guy going about his business and suddenly confronted with a deadly force situation. And while I sure applaud those folks who run toward the sound of gunfire, there are all kinds of legal and personal reasons to be very circumspect in such a situation. I used to joke that I carried a Kel-Tec P32 only to make loud noises long enough for me to get the hell out of there in the confusion.
I'm not saying don't do any of that tactical stuff, folks who argue in favor of it can come up with a zillion different scenarios where it would be advantageous to have that training; in any case more trigger time and training of any kind don't hurt. And if you are a LEO whose job is to run to the gunfire or a genuine HSLD operator or you want to win at the combat games then go for it.
I just think too much time is spent on the tactical stuff emphasizing scenarios that are less likely to happen for the average citizen carrying concealed versus being able to quickly clear the draw, present and get accurate shots off from a concealed carry.
