Quote:
Originally Posted by otis24
I am at heart a revolver guy. I have always loved handguns, particularly revolvers. My first love was single action cowboy revolvers. As an adult, especially as a parent, I did not see the practicality of those for self-defense. I soon learned to love the S&W DA revolver (and a couple of Ruger SP101s) for their practicality as a CCW. They had to be all steel of course. After a short while, I found that they just weren't very practical due to the weight. I could carry them, but not very comfortably. I then evolved to the 642 hammerless J frame. Just a great carry gun. Light weight and practical. I did not feel outgunned. I like durability and reliability in a pistol. "Plastic" guns were just not on my radar. Finally, I reasoned that Glocks had been on the market for a very long time and have proven to be both durable and reliable. So, I transitioned to a S&W Shield. The Shield was much easier to shoot compared to the J frame due to me having developed cysts on the tendons of my shooting hands.
Recently, I read an article. I think it was by Massad Ayoob. He described how in many instances, a revolver just wasn't enough. In one situation, the assailant was so obese that six shots was not enough to stop him. In other cases, psychosis was a factor in an assailant failing to be stopped. Carrying a J frame with a couple of speed strips or speed loaders would give me 15 rounds of ammo. A Shield with an 8 round mag and two 8 round spare mags would give me 24 rounds. Just as easily carried as the J frame. The Shield has proven to be a reliable weapon. We often say, "It is better to have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have it". The same can be said of ammunition "It is better to have more rounds and not need them then to need them and not have them". We carry our weapons because we are preparing for the unexpected. With the unexpected, you never know what to expect, so expect the worst and prepare for it as best you can. I can carry a Shield just as easily and inexpensively as I can a J frame, with more ammo. An auto can jam, but so can a revolver. Today's autos have improved so much and so has the ammo. I love a revolver as much as the next guy. And, it often depends on your environment what threats you face. On the road, traveling away from home, my Shield is now my go to gun. Many people carry a revolver for the sake of nostalgia. My family's lives are too important to gamble for nostalgia's sake.
|
From the referenced article....
"
The subject was a grossly obese man with a death wish and a .357 magnum, who opened fire on the officer. In the moments that followed, Martin went through two magazines with his department issue Smith & Wesson model 59 service pistol, firing 29 shots and striking the subject 15 times in the torso and twice in the head. It was the last bullet to the head that put the gunman down as Martin's slide locked back for the second time. He reloaded his final magazine and cautiously approached to find the gunman dead. "
That incident was involving a police officer whose job it is to intentially engage and pursue. I would agree, high capacity autoloaders make the most sense for Law Enforcement as well as many home defense(why I own several Glocks) and business defense scenarios, but my likely needs when carrying concealed are very different. There have been civilian incidents involving high round counts, but nearly all of them are HD or an individual protecting a high-risk business like the Lance Thomas incidents or liquor and convenient stores. I don't nor would I work in such places. I also wouldn't intervene in situations that don't concern me directly. And pointing to rare outliers to justify a choice isn't sensible.
At the range, most people will probably perform better(shooting and reloading) with a compact auto compared with a snub revolver, but what most people do at the range has very little in common with most self-defense scenarios, which are reactive, at very close-quarters to contact distance and involve very few shots fired with the odds of needing(or having the opportunity) to reload being equivelant to being struck by lightning. I see no need to concern myself with lightning stikes all too much either since I don't intentionally put myself at undue risk for it just as I don't when it comes to personal defense i.e. the rules of stupids; don't go to stupid places with stupid people at stupid times and do stupid things.
In terms of the armed civilian being forced(as opposed to intentionally engaging/intervening), I'm just not finding any appreciable amount of incidents where the capacity of a revolver is inadequate nor is anyone producing them. Out of the thousands of incidents reported in statistics, videos or news reports I've studied, the percentage where the capacity of a revolver is an issue is a small fraction of 1%. The vast majority of civilian cases took place at very close range. The long-range gunfight against multiple armed assailants seems to be a common fantasy of many gun owners that carry concealed, but it simply isn't reality. Violence against civilians in general occurs at extremely close distances-with fists, knives, clubs and even with guns. Most people don't carry a gun on a daily basis, so we have a relatively limited pool of incidents to learn from, so maybe also consider the types of violence as a whole and how a gun would figure into the equation had the defender been armed. The possibility is there for needing high capacity, but the need for a weapon that is quick into action and will be reliable in all circumstances is much greater.
Consider the following incident, which I don't think is at all an improbable scenario in most circumstances. Which would you rather have in that situation; an enclosed hammer snub revolver or a Glock 19/17? I would choose the snub every time. The snubby will be quicker to access, get into the fight, offer better weapon retention(they will most likely either run or try to disarm you), and the snub will run reliably in that environment. I'm not confident any auto would and I've done a lot of H2H and ECQ training over the years that most haven't. What's better...5 rounds from a gun that you retain or one or none from a gun that you lose?
What if it's just one assailant? While this particular video is a law enforcement incident, I think it is still illustrative of the dynamics as physical assaults obviously routinely happen to civilians as well, whereas running gun battles do not.The auto malfunctioned just as we see time and again in force-on-force training.