Revolver vs. Pistol

[dr. K]

I carry a Centennial, lately a model 640. In my area the biggest threat is the occasional black bear, so when I'm out hiking I load Buffalo Bore .357 instead of the usual .38 +p. That way if I do see a bear, and it doesn't run off like 99% of them do, I can discharge my carry gun and die stone deaf (after I pee myself).

In all seriousness, I carry a Centennial because they're what I like and what I'm most comfortable with. If I ever found a pistol that could bring me the same level of comfort in handling/use and ease of carry, I might give it a go... but for me the Centennials work so well I haven't felt the need to look for a pistol in some time.

 

[DD357]

I'm more comfortable with a hammer fired gun so the 357 for me over the 19. Now something like a 3953 - much tougher choice.

 

[Echo40]

I believe in choosing the right tool for the job and not every tool is equally capable and appropriately well-suited for a particular task. It makes little sense choosing a flat head screwdriver when the task calls for a Philips

There is always the seemingly straight-forward and sensible advice of choosing your weapon based on what you're "most proficient with" or "what works for you" given on threads such as these. Proficient at what? And how does that particular gun "work for you"? In the context of how most people shoot at the range, there is no doubt I shoot my Glock 19 better than I do my snub. Reloading speed and efficiency is no contest. However, I don't see that being a reason to choose to carry the Glock since I just do not see it being the best tool for the job. Each tool has certain attributes and when weighing those of the Glock vs a snub revolver, I come to the conclusion that the latter makes the most sense as a carry weapon. That doesn't mean I'm actually correct since the problem is not as simple as choosing the proper screwdriver, but you should be able to articulate why your choice makes sense with logical assertions backed up by facts and statistics. There will be trade-offs no matter what you choose and you can't prepare for every contingency, but I think it is logical to choose based on what is best suited for what is most probable.

To put it simply, I don't subscribe to the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that there is an objective best selection which not only offers the best performance, but also functions equally as well in the hands of everyone, ergo choosing "the best suited for what is most probable" is determined through individual distinction, and while I may not have said this aloud in my opening post, obviously effectiveness is a factor.
Furthermore, I have watched people who go so far in their search for the ideal self-defense weapon that they end up obsessed to point that they're throwing money away by constantly experimenting with new firearms/ammo, and in some cases even becoming paranoid because they've spent so long looking for that which is the best that they ultimately question the effectiveness of everything, then turning to something new because, "What if what I've got isn't enough?"

Say what you will, but I'd rather stick with what works than spend an excessive amount of time, effort, and money in search of "the best" combination when the likelihood of me ever even having to use my firearms in self-defense isn't even all that high, and if it were that high and I had the necessary time, money, and energy to experiment until I find the best combination, then I'd sooner invest it all in moving somewhere with a lower crime rate.

Is my choice of the Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP the best choice based on that which is most probable? I honestly don't know, but I am familiar enough with it to know that it will most certainly get the job done should I need it, and that's good enough for me.

It's an imperfect world we live in with a vast number of probabilities within any scenario, too many in my opinion to consider, much less hope to come to an ideal conclusion on any given matter of importance so vital that they can make the difference between life and death, ergo I'll settle for that which is adequate over that which is the best.

 

[Mister X]

To put it simply, I don't subscribe to the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that there is an objective best selection which not only offers the best performance, but also functions equally as well in the hands of everyone, ergo choosing "the best suited for what is most probable" is determined through individual distinction, and while I may not have said this aloud in my opening post, obviously effectiveness is a factor.
Furthermore, I have watched people who go so far in their search for the ideal self-defense weapon that they end up obsessed to point that they're throwing money away by constantly experimenting with new firearms/ammo, and in some cases even becoming paranoid because they've spent so long looking for that which is the best that they ultimately question the effectiveness of everything, then turning to something new because, "What if what I've got isn't enough?"

Say what you will, but I'd rather stick with what works than spend an excessive amount of time, effort, and money in search of "the best" combination when the likelihood of me ever even having to use my firearms in self-defense isn't even all that high, and if it were that high and I had the necessary time, money, and energy to experiment until I find the best combination, then I'd sooner invest it all in moving somewhere with a lower crime rate.

Is my choice of the Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP the best choice based on that which is most probable? I honestly don't know, but I am familiar enough with it to know that it will most certainly get the job done should I need it, and that's good enough for me.

It's an imperfect world we live in with a vast number of probabilities within any scenario, too many in my opinion to consider, much less hope to come to an ideal conclusion on any given matter of importance so vital that they can make the difference between life and death, ergo I'll settle for that which is adequate over that which is the best.

How do your guns work for you? Are you routinely getting into deadly force encounters? Are you using a simmunition version of it in Force-on-force training and ECQ scenario drills?

One size might not fit all, but it oftens fits most. You can walk into any reputable BJJ gym and every single one of the brown and black belts can fight and will usually do very well in a street encounter, no matter their age or gender. Most will even prove it to you should you feel it necessary to test them. You can't say the same about most martial arts since the techniques and training methods just simply are not as effective. Prior to MMA, there was great diversity in the martial arts with there being relatively equal validity given to the various styles and systems, but that is really no longer the case. I can remember numerous LEO's flocking to Aikido schools when Steven Seagal was big at the box office, but we know better now. Not that aikido has absolutely nothing to offer, just that there are much more effective systems for real-world self-defense if that is your goal. There are some extremely talented martial artists who can pretty much make nearly any system work fairly well, but they would be the exception. Just as there are many talented individuals who can handle a semi-auto in an entanglement with great efficiency, but they again are the exception.

Just go on YouTube and watch a few of Craig "Southnarc" Douglas' ECQC vids and you'll see very frequent malfunctions with the Glock sim guns. A lots of folks who have gone through that coursework switch to a snub revolver afterwards for carry due to its effectiveness in that environment. The rise of MMA as a proving ground was a transitional period in martial arts that advanced understanding and provided evidence of what worked and what did not. A lot was simply rediscovering long forgotten lessons from more violent periods in our history. The same is not likely to happen in armed defense since it is much more difficult to test what's effective for obvious reasons, but we do have fairly accurate simulations in force-on-force training as well as immediate access to statistics and video of countles actual scenarios. Still, most people in the world don't carry a gun on a daily basis so a certain amount theory will be required in many instances.

Based on available statistics as well as common sense, the most likely scenario in which I would need to defend myself using a firearm will be at contact distances out to a few yards. In an extreme close-quarter scenario, the enclosed hammer revolver is simply more efficient. That's pretty much the case with everyone with perhaps very rare exceptions.

You could argue that everyone is in different circumstances, but where is the proof? Where in this country are people at high risk of getting into a ranged gunfight at all, let alone with multiple armed assailants? In contrast, the chance of contact distance or very close-quarter violence is relatively high and most of us will experience it some point in our lives.

 

[Walkingwolf]

In contrast, the chance of contact distance or very close-quarter violence is relatively high and most of us will experience it some point in our lives.

Where are you getting these stats from?

 

[Echo40]

@Mister X, My guns work for me because I work with them. How do you know that your guns work for you? Forgive me for being presumptuous, but somehow I doubt that you frequently find yourself in deadly force encounters, so by what criteria do you gauge the aptitude of your own firearms?

No offense, but you're sounding more and more like a Mall Ninja with each passing comment. You don't have to be an expert in firearms nor CQC to defend yourself in everyday civilian life, most criminals are just petty thugs who aren't looking for a fight of any kind, much less an all-out gunfight, but rather an easy target who they can easily rob. Heck, even most of the ones who are looking for a fight aren't exactly known for being combat experts.
Oh well, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any further on the subject.

Bottom line, I am confident in my abilities to adequately defend myself with what I've got, and I don't need to convince you or anyone else for that matter that I am capable of doing so. In fact, in my experience it is those who are most insecure who feel the need to convince others (especially strangers on the internet) of their capabilities.

 

[Mister X]

@Mister X, My guns work for me because I work with them. How do you know that your guns work for you? Forgive me for being presumptuous, but somehow I doubt that you frequently find yourself in deadly force encounters, so by what criteria do you gauge the aptitude of your own firearms?

No offense, but you're sounding more and more like a Mall Ninja with each passing comment. You don't have to be an expert in firearms nor CQC to defend yourself in everyday civilian life, most criminals are just petty thugs who aren't looking for a fight of any kind, much less an all-out gunfight, but rather an easy target who they can easily rob. Heck, even most of the ones who are looking for a fight aren't exactly known for being combat experts.
Oh well, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any further on the subject.

Bottom line, I am confident in my abilities to adequately defend myself with what I've got, and I don't need to convince you or anyone else for that matter that I am capable of doing so. In fact, in my experience it is those who are most insecure who feel the need to convince others (especially strangers on the internet) of their capabilities.

I wasn't aware we were arguing or that there was any need to convince me of anything. I was simply debating the issue. This is a forum after all. You are the one who just got snarky and made it personal because you didn't want to answer simple legitimate inquiries. I'm open-minded and like getting different perspectives. My ideas are not set in stone and I like them challenged(with respect and civility) to see if they hold up against scrutiny and alternate opinions.

Mall ninja? Looking up the definition...[an uneperienced individual obsessed with tactical, paramilitary style firearms who pretends to be seasoned operator/Spec Ops]. I must be the worst mall ninja ever since I'm most often advocating for the S&W snub revolver as a carry weapon and frequently state that I think military gear and operations have little in common with civilian self-defense.

I know the snub works because I've pressure-tested it. Not only in live range fire, but in force-on-force scenarios. Primarily of the ECQ variety, because that is what I expect to involved in and unable to avoid. I also taught DT, disarms and weapon retention to Cops for three decades in addition to teaching civilian martial arts and reality-based self-defense during the same period.

You seem to have a very narrow view of crime as if it's only about petty robbery. That's really far from the truth. I agree you don't have to be an expert of any kind to successfully defend yourself and your wits and situational awareness will go a long way in avoiding conflict, but being better prepared by having the right tools, some functional skill-sets and effective training is still better than not having them and I thought that's is what we are discussing. This is especially true with older individuals who are more limited in their ability to respond, but also have more leeway with introducing lethal force. But, they have to be able to get to that point with their limitations and hopefully without taking too severe of a beating. That doesn't mean they have to undertake extensive training, which would be counter-productive, but they can learn some basics and understand the overall dynamics from those who have. I mention the elderly, because there are quite a few on this forum(and I'm not getting any younger myself) and if I had to guess, I think you just might fit that demographic, but if not, no offense intended either way.

I wouldn't underestimate most criminals abilities. Have you never been to a prison? Beyond just the physicality of most of the inmates(they spend much of their free time pumping iron after all), many are preoccupied, extremely skilled and experienced in inflicting violence in the most efficient means possible and unless you live a very limited life, it's not at all unrealistic to think you'll eventually cross paths with them.

 

[Mister X]

N

Where are you getting these stats from?

Bereau of Justice Statistics, FBI UCR tables, numerous articles, common sense. There are also multiple studies and stats on civilian defense shootings by Claude Werner, Tom Givens, Ed Lovette, John Correia to name a few.

They are not hard to find.

 

[AimHigher]

Carry the gun that you are comfortable with and well practiced with. I'm a big revolver fan.
The .357 magnum has it's advantages and disadvantages. Over penetration, excessive flash/night blindness, heavy recoil are some of the more notable disadvantages. Consider using .38 Special +P SJHP or SWCHP (the "FBI load"). Over penetration potential of the .357 mag concerns me. If I can defend myself just as effectively with .38 +P, without risking having to explain in court, why I chose .357 mag. if my bullet goes through my target and injures an innocent.

 

[AimHigher]

I'm honestly pleasantly surprised to see so many folks agree with me here, guess I've just gotten so used to seeing wannabe experts on various forums who somehow feel qualified to dictate what everyone ought to carry with blatant disregard for circumstances/preferences which may render their arbitrary definition of the perfect, one-size-fits-all platform/caliber combination uncomfortable, unwieldy, or even utterly ineffective in the hands of folks other than themselves.

For example, my EDC is a Smith & Wesson manufactured Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP and my Home Defense firearm is a Taurus Judge Magnum, and boy oh boy have I ever gotten an earful on how poor of a choice I have made with that combination... Never mind that it works for me, it deviates too far from the status-quo in just about every camp/school of thought there is, and therefore it must be responded to with the utmost snobbery and even hostility.
I've heard it all and then some, yet it never ceases to leave me utterly bewildered. What is this odd obsession with attempting to force others to reconsider their choice of firearms? I seriously doubt that it was born of legitimate concern when the folks who do it are so needlessly rude/imposing on the matter, most often presented as a demand or even a threat-by-proxy rather than a simple suggestion, which is needless to say a terribly ineffective way to convince someone to reconsider their decision.
Just saying, "If you value your life then you should dump that pea-shooter and pick up a real man's gun like the one I carry!" or worse, "You must really hate yourself and your family if you carry that piece of junk." doesn't exactly make for a convincing argument, let alone a positive suggestion that one is likely to accept, yet you see stuff to that affect quite often on the internet.

Ah, but then again... I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that folks here are more laid back and friendly, seeing as Smith & Wesson isn't exactly in with the overcompensating, tacticool, Mall Ninja/Armchair Commando crowd, nor would I still be an active poster on these forums if the userbase was compromised of such *ahem* characters.

IMO, the .380 is much better than nothing, but you could do better. It's not just the round, it the shot placement and your ability to hit you target under stress. I had a .380 semi-auto for a few years, but the more I learned (and saw), the less confidence I had in the .380 as an effective EDC. If my opponent has a gun and is trying to kill me, I don't want a .380. I want a heavy bullet at least 158 gr and preferably 180-230 gr. Consider either a .38 special +P or a compact .45 ACP. The bigger the hole (wound cavity), the more bleeding and the faster the target is incapacitated.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...

This is especially true with older individuals who are more limited in their ability to respond, but also have more leeway with introducing lethal force. But, they have to be able to get to that point with their limitations and hopefully without taking too severe of a beating. That doesn't mean they have to undertake extensive training, which would be counter-productive, but they can learn some basics and understand the overall dynamics from those who have.

...

You bring this idea of inadequately trained self defenders up a lot, but you always seem vague about the specifics. Other than carrying a snub I don't recall you actually putting any detail behind it in your posts.

So, other than carrying a snub, what do you consider to be "the basics" that the "over 60" crowd of armed self defenders are missing?

How much training is not extensive and not counter productive?

 

[Mister X]

You bring this idea of inadequately trained self defenders up a lot, but you always seem vague about the specifics. Other than carrying a snub I don't recall you actually putting any detail behind it in your posts.

So, other than carrying a snub, what do you consider to be "the basics" that the "over 60" crowd of armed self defenders are missing?

How much training is not extensive and not counter productive?

I'm primarily referring to integrated unarmed skills, which so many seem to completely neglect. Being able to avoid taking severe punishment resulting in significant injury, while getting the gun into the fight and getting off shots without having the gun taken away. An elderly individual will have slower processing of environmental stimuli and activity(less effective situational awareness), limited physical ability: mobility, reflexes, strength, quickness etc...

Due to this, it is more likely they will not be able to create and maintain distance and separation as effectively as a younger individual against a physical assault.

Obviously there is a great deal of variation in general physical ability among the elderly, so the degree of intensity of training they can safely engage in varies significantly, as does their odds of success in an actual defense encounter since we don't get to choose our assailants.

 

[Ziggy2525]

I'm primarily referring to integrated unarmed skills, which so many seem to completely neglect. Being able to avoid taking severe punishment resulting in significant injury, while getting the gun into the fight and getting off shots without having the gun taken away. An elderly individual will have slower processing of environmental stimuli and activity(less effective situational awareness), limited physical ability: mobility, reflexes, strength, quickness etc...

Due to this, it is more likely they will not be able to create and maintain distance and separation as effectively as a younger individual against a physical assault.

Obviously there is a great deal of variation in general physical ability among the elderly, so the degree of intensity of training they can safely engage in varies significantly, as does their odds of success in an actual defense encounter since we don't get to choose our assailants.

That's still pretty broad. IMO, unless you're in the .001% of the over 60 crowd that's still rolling on the mat, your chances of success in an entangled fight with a 20 year old criminal are pretty much nil. From my perspective, I think that only gives you four options...

1) Up your SA game. If possible, keep your distance and react first with your weapon.

2) Some type of deterrent like pepper spray to create some distance so you can react with a weapon.

3) If you get caught standing and entangled, immediately inflicting severe, disabling pain and create distance to draw your weapon. The only ways that seem reliable are eye gouge, throat chop, or attacking the groin.

4) If you get caught on the ground with a young, enraged attacker on top of you, you're in trouble. Your best hope is to pull a George Zimmerman, but it's going to be a challenge.

I'm not sure any of those things require any special skills or specific BJJ/MMA training.

Us old guys have sort of a limited number of physical tools in our tool bag. You talk quite a bit about all your experience evaluating and practicing these types of attacks. How about providing some very specific suggestions that you've found fit the "old guy" paradigm.

 

[fredj338]

Based on available statistics as well as common sense, the most likely scenario in which I would need to defend myself using a firearm will be at contact distances out to a few yards. In an extreme close-quarter scenario, the enclosed hammer revolver is simply more efficient. That's pretty much the case with everyone with perhaps very rare exceptions.

You could argue that everyone is in different circumstances, but where is the proof? Where in this country are people at high risk of getting into a ranged gunfight at all, let alone with multiple armed assailants? In contrast, the chance of contact distance or very close-quarter violence is relatively high and most of us will experience it some point in our lives.

I agree but ignoring the smaller % of situations where you will need more than 5-6rds seems short sighted when there is little to no downside carrying say a g26 as I usually do. Fwiw, failures in a sim gun are not the same as failures in a gun with live ammo.
You ate right, most of us over 50 are not practicing rolling on a mat with 20y olds. We are supposed to be wiser as we get older. Like work, its fighting smarter not harder as we get older.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Bereau of Justice Statistics, FBI UCR tables, numerous articles, common sense. There are also multiple studies and stats on civilian defense shootings by Claude Werner, Tom Givens, Ed Lovette, John Correia to name a few.

They are not hard to find.

Then cite the ones that pertain to your claim, because it is not true. The stats show that MOST people will not be victims of violence. The truth is the odds are very low. Claims you made without citation do not do well for one's credibility.

As far as 5 shot snubbies, I have full confidence in them for myself. But I never ever NEVER suggest what anybody else should carry. And I certainly would not invent reasons why they should do what I tell them to do. For one they would justifiably tell me to mind my own business.

If the law supports what a person carries, and it is what they want to carry, then it is up to them. If they feel the need for a Glock 17 with a 50 round drum I will still give them a thumbs up. Now if they tell me that is what I need, they need not waste their time.

 

[BC38]

...Consider using .38 Special +P SJHP or SWCHP (the "FBI load"). Over penetration potential of the .357 mag concerns me. If I can defend myself just as effectively with .38 +P, without risking having to explain in court, why I chose .357 mag. if my bullet goes through my target and injures an innocent.

Just curious, but in that case aren't you concerned that you would have to make the same kind of explanation of your use of +P rounds? What if you have to shoot some skinny meth-head and a round goes all the way through him?
Just sayin'...

 

[Walkingwolf]

Just curious, but in that case aren't you concerned that you would have to make the same kind of explanation of your use of +P rounds? What if you have to shoot some skinny meth-head and a round goes all the way through him?
Just sayin'...

Depending on bullet design there are times when higher velocity has less penetration than lower velocity. 357 soft points would penetrate less than 38spl soft points. Then their is the possibility that a bullet that goes through 12 inches of mass is going be non lethal once it exits. There have been very few cases of people injured by bullets that have excited center mass. Most innocent bystanders injured have been from shots that did not connect.

IMO the best method to prevent innocent bystanders being killed, or severely injured is being better shooters.

 

[Mister X]

Then cite the ones that pertain to your claim, because it is not true. The stats show that MOST people will not be victims of violence. The truth is the odds are very low. Claims you made without citation do not do well for one's credibility.

As far as 5 shot snubbies, I have full confidence in them for myself. But I never ever NEVER suggest what anybody else should carry. And I certainly would not invent reasons why they should do what I tell them to do. For one they would justifiably tell me to mind my own business.

If the law supports what a person carries, and it is what they want to carry, then it is up to them. If they feel the need for a Glock 17 with a 50 round drum I will still give them a thumbs up. Now if they tell me that is what I need, they need not waste their time.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/llv.pdf

FBI — Expanded Offense

https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf

The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings

Old Man's Gun | RECOIL

 

[Ribwizzard]

Choice

3" 686 plus in the nightstand, flock 19 for carry.

 

[BAM-BAM]

I go to the cabin for 5 days....... and I come back to this!!!!!!

A topic never before covered in its own thread.....................



Carry what you like and can shoot well...... the odds of you ever having to discharge your firearm in self defense are ....slim to none. That said carry one..... odds are you won''t need your life vest if you go boating...... or your fire extinguisher if you use your fire place. But all are good thing to have and know how to use...............................................also carry a good pocket knife and a AAA or AA single cell flashlight both will get more use than your handgun.

If you think there will be trouble where you are going ....... don't go;stay home and browse the S&W Forum!!!