CC only revolvers.

[digiroc]

The holster is a cheap eBay holster with no maker tags on it. I do like it though as it rides high and tight to the body making CC possible for my model 69.

I cut out the front to accommodate my optic with a razor. My Don Hulm front break also needed the retention snap cut off to fit the optic.

digiroc

 

[Mister X]

Yes, that is the counter move for an attempted revolver disarm. For every move there is a counter move. Hypothetical situations rarely reflect the diversity of real world situations.

Looking at it from the other side, that it is you unarmed, facing a revolver wielding attacker stupid enough to get that close before he shoots you.

The move would be gripping the weapon by the cylinder while at the same time diverting the muzzle and delivering a debilitating blow to the body part of your choice, to the best target of opportunity. (upper-cut, palm strike, throat punch, knee to the groin, ect ... ).

So, your having the ability to twist out of the grasp may be impaired by the combined effects of the skill and ability of your attacker. That's why if I have drawn my weapon I have already made the decision to use it so I'm not going to want to wait until I'm tackled to try to stop the attack.

That movement is ONE possible counter movement to a revolver disarm attempt, not THE counter.

Just to be clear, you're advocating grabbing the snub itself as you're diverting the muzzle if you were the one doing the disarming? Have you ever done it in FoF?

You seem to have a viewpoint of being proactive and as if there will be a certain amount of time and distance involved in a defense situation. That just simply isn't the case. No matter how situationally aware someone thinks they are, a reactive ECQ defense scenario is always a high probability in terms of what a civilian is likely to encounter.

 

[digiroc]

FoF vs *** and ECQ is QED ...

That movement is ONE possible counter movement to a revolver disarm attempt, not THE counter.

So true ~ digiroc

 

[lrrifleman]

This is a very interesting thread. I enjoy viewing the exchange of ideas and perspectives. The common theme here is that we all select what we feel most comfortable with given how we each perceive the potential threat. The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what the threat will be or when it will strike until it presents itself. If we knew what the threat would be and when it would present itself, the majority of us would change our routine in order to avoid the threat.

Because my state doesn't grant the average person the right to self defense, I can only carry out of state where my non-resident permit is recognized. I live only about 20 miles from Atlantic City, where numerous hotel casinos have closed their doors. One entrepreneur wants to populate those shuttered hotels with up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. The way refugees are distributed among the population, the terrorist threat has increased. The likelihood of encountering a terrorist can be comparable to getting robbed or mugged, or encountering a serendipitous protest of mercenary liberals.

The bottom line is that we don't know what we will encounter, and we take a gamble everytime one of us steps out of our homes. We gamble on what will be facing us and backing that gamble with what we are most confident with.

 

[Mister X]

This is a very interesting thread. I enjoy viewing the exchange of ideas and perspectives. The common theme here is that we all select what we feel most comfortable with given how we each perceive the potential threat. The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what the threat will be or when it will strike until it presents itself. If we knew what the threat would be and when it would present itself, the majority of us would change our routine in order to avoid the threat.

Because my state doesn't grant the average person the right to self defense, I can only carry out of state where my non-resident permit is recognized. I live only about 20 miles from Atlantic City, where numerous hotel casinos have closed their doors. One entrepreneur wants to populate those shuttered hotels with up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. The way refugees are distributed among the population, the terrorist threat has increased. The likelihood of encountering a terrorist can be comparable to getting robbed or mugged, or encountering a serendipitous protest of mercenary liberals.

The bottom line is that we don't know what we will encounter, and we take a gamble everytime one of us steps out of our homes. We gamble on what will be facing us and backing that gamble with what we are most confident with.

You make some valid points and I would agree that a substantial increase in the number of refugees would probably increase the odds of terrorist attacks to some degree, but to think the odds of it are comparable to much more commonplace criminal acts(things such as physical assaults, muggings, armed robberies, rape, car-jackings) is just not factual. The stats clearly show this to be true and I think it sensible to use available stats, logic and common sense to help us determine how to properly allocate our training time to focus on the most probable threats as well as select the most suitable gear to deal with them. Perception doesn't always equal reality.

I sometimes wonder if perhaps the working definition of terrorism hasn't been stretched too far and we sometimes use the label inappropriately.

A middle eastern refugee commiting a simple common crime doesn't constitute it being Islamic terrorism anymore than a group of illegal immigrants from south of the border beating up a gringo for kicks constitutes it being Mexican terrorism. At least not according to my understanding of the definition of terrorism.

 

[lrrifleman]

@Mister,

I can appreciate where you are coming from. I am trying to use the definition of terrorism where actions are committed to influence conduct of everyday life. I agree, a group of South of the border illegals jumping a Gringo is a criminal act, mother and terrorist act. However, the act doesn't need to be that outlandish or unusual. I think that we can agree that San Bernardino, Miami, and Paris are examples of terrorism. Once the motives are identified, Chattanooga was deemed a terrorist act.

The key is the motivation. Sometimes that motivation isn't known until the dust settles and the files are closed. While it may be wrong to profile people and their actions, sometimes, it may be prudent to profile and act in preparation accordingly. If anything, we have to look at our choices (and conditions) prudently. If we didn't, none of us would seek CCWs!