Revolver vs. Pistol

[Walkingwolf]

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

Everything is lumped together in those claims. A person that gets in dozens of incedents throws off the actual stats. None of those were taken by census, the only true way to tell who have been a victim of crime. A LEO may have hundreds of incidents over their life, that does not relate to law abiding citizens that do not live in high crime locations. Domestic violence also factors in, the same people are involved over, and over again. A person that reports abuse once a month over years does not relate to law abiding citizens in non violent relationships.

Another example is the rate of divorces. I have been divorced twice, that certainly is going to throw off the results over the total population. They take the number of divorces and average that to the total. But not taken into account is people who have had multiple divorces.

I certainly have not seen reports on the forums like this one that everybody will be a victim of a crime. Even at best the stats do not show that most people will be victims. If true that it is only a one time incident for each person then that would be less than half.

 

[fredj338]

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'...

Yeah kind of a ridiculous concern. A 38sp with solids will likely over penetrate. If it is fed a jhp factory round, go to go. If you feed it handloads, you might want a good reason in the back of your mind.

 

[fredj338]

Everything is lumped together in those claims. A person that gets in dozens of incedents throws off the actual stats. None of those were taken by census, the only true way to tell who have been a victim of crime. A LEO may have hundreds of incidents over their life, that does not relate to law abiding citizens that do not live in high crime locations. Domestic violence also factors in, the same people are involved over, and over again. A person that reports abuse once a month over years does not relate to law abiding citizens in non violent relationships.

Another example is the rate of divorces. I have been divorced twice, that certainly is going to throw off the results over the total population. They take the number of divorces and average that to the total. But not taken into account is people who have had multiple divorces.

I certainly have not seen reports on the forums like this one that everybody will be a victim of a crime. Even at best the stats do not show that most people will be victims. If true that it is only a one time incident for each person then that would be less than half.

Mostly a true statement BUT, consider all the violent crime that happens, & much of it being location drive, it is not unlikely that you or I may be a victim of some violent crime in our lives. Unless you stay @ home in a nice city, if you travel you are more likely putting yourself in harms way just by doing that.
I live in a nice large town, but it is near not so nice large city like LA or SanBernadino. I have to travel thru those areas monthly so being armed in the road is generally a good idea.

 

[richbuff]

"Revolver vs. Pistol"

There will never be general agreement on this topic, because it is a matter of personality. That is why I carry both.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Mostly a true statement BUT, consider all the violent crime that happens, & much of it being location drive, it is not unlikely that you or I may be a victim of some violent crime in our lives. Unless you stay @ home in a nice city, if you travel you are more likely putting yourself in harms way just by doing that.
I live in a nice large town, but it is near not so nice large city like LA or SanBernadino. I have to travel thru those areas monthly so being armed in the road is generally a good idea.

I didn't say that being armed was a bad idea, but the claim that most citizens will be victims of violent crime is BS even by the articles provided. Truth is most married people will not get divorced, although many do. Some like me will be divorced several times.

Now the statistics about cheating are closer because they are compiled not from lump data, but actual interviews/polls with couples. Even then most couples do not cheat by those interviews, unless they are being less than truthful.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Everything is lumped together in those claims. A person that gets in dozens of incedents throws off the actual stats. None of those were taken by census, the only true way to tell who have been a victim of crime. A LEO may have hundreds of incidents over their life, that does not relate to law abiding citizens that do not live in high crime locations. Domestic violence also factors in, the same people are involved over, and over again. A person that reports abuse once a month over years does not relate to law abiding citizens in non violent relationships.

Another example is the rate of divorces. I have been divorced twice, that certainly is going to throw off the results over the total population. They take the number of divorces and average that to the total. But not taken into account is people who have had multiple divorces.

I certainly have not seen reports on the forums like this one that everybody will be a victim of a crime. Even at best the stats do not show that most people will be victims. If true that it is only a one time incident for each person then that would be less than half.

I don't always agree with Mr. X, but in the reports he posted, the first study split out the lifetime likelihood of only experiencing a single violent attack, two violent attacks, three violent attacks, etc. It broke those down by decade of age, by race, and by sex (IIRC).

The numbers seem too high to me. In the report, there's an 80+% likelihood of a 12 year old experiencing a violent attacked in their lifetime. Just my ad-hoc observation, that would seem to be more like 15%. Still too high.

 

[Walkingwolf]

I don't always agree with Mr. X, but in the reports he posted, the first study split out the lifetime likelihood of only experiencing a single violent attack, two violent attacks, three violent attacks, etc. It broke those down by decade of age, by race, and by sex (IIRC).

The numbers seem too high to me. In the report, there's an 80+% likelihood of a 12 year old experiencing a violent attacked in their lifetime. Just my ad-hoc observation, that would seem to be more like 15%. Still too high.

They are taking base numbers from crime reports. Crime reports are not broken down to individuals by the FBI. They are by numbers per 100,000. Take a group of 99 people, and one LEO all in the same age group. That LEO probably makes several arrests for being assaulted in a period of time, likely 100 over several years. That means the 99 probably did not have any assaults.

Without detailed record keeping like is done on the level of perfection that takes into account all variables polls, and statistics are only as good as they are taken. This has been proven over, and over again with failures by relying completely on them. The drug industry has seen drugs approved after vigorous testing only later to be pulled.

FBI stats are not based on individuals, it is based on crimes reported compared to census data. Want good data that cannot be skewed by false positives, look at cause of death data. A person only dies once so multiple deaths per person is impossible. And that data shows that doctors are more dangerous to the public than the common criminal.

 

[Rastoff]

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.

The chances of success for anyone at any age drop dramatically once things go to the ground.

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.

This should be the goal of everyone. Distance is your friend.

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

If you can get to your pepper spray, why didn't you just get the gun?

3) If you get caught standing and entangled,...

4) If you get caught on the ground with a [age irrelevant], enraged attacker on top of you, you're in trouble.

These two are really the same. If you get "caught" in a fist fight, there's a 99% chance you'll end up on the ground.

Again, age is irrelevant. Any type of empty hand training is good. Most martial schools will help you learn to your own ability and stamina. I've never heard of a school that would turn away a student because they were too old. Generally, if you can walk in under your own power, any martial school worth their salt can help you become better with empty hand defense.

Now, let's be realistic here, size, strength, ability, speed, stamina all matter. My neighbor is 95 and has difficulty walking to the mailbox that's just across the street. If he is attacked, he has no chance. Even so, there are things he can learn if he wants to. No on can learn if they don't want to.


So let me put it back in your court. Is there some specific ailment or perceived weakness you want to overcome? Some specific attack that you find most concerning? Maybe we can direct your efforts to a type of self study that will help you in these areas.

 

[Ziggy2525]

.
...
So let me put it back in your court. Is there some specific ailment or perceived weakness you want to overcome? Some specific attack that you find most concerning? Maybe we can direct your efforts to a type of self study that will help you in these areas.

Interesting input, but I was making a different point, specifically to Mr. X.

He frequently makes two recommendations. 1) BJJ. 2) ECQC classes like Craig Douglas's. I don't think either of those are practical solutions for the over 60 crowd. Working backwards ...

Seen the videos from of Southnarc's training classes. Not sure many people in my age demographic (mid-60's) and older, even healthy ones, can sustain the level of physical contact in the Southnarc ECQC class just for training.

I'd say something similar about BJJ. To get a self defense benefit from BJJ, not just a fitness benefit, you gotta agressively roll. From the people I'm around in the over 60 demographic, they're not going to do that without getting injured in training.

IMO, if you're in the SSN crowd, you're not going to be able to defend yourself for any length of time in a deadly hands-on attack from a 20 year old professional criminal. You have to be able to disengage very fast. You need to be able to hit first if possible, and when you hit, hit in a way that disables the BG bad enough to give yourself at least a couple seconds margin to either access your weapon or escape. Things like deep eye gouges and throat chops. Not seeing those practiced in the Southnarc videos or BJJ. Sort of dangerous for training, right?

Mister X frequently posts about the 1,000's of attack videos he's analyzed and the years of experience he has teaching ECQC. I'm not doubting him, but since he's the one that keeps bringing it up, I'd just like him to share his wisdom as it relates to functional solutions for the over 60 crowd.

 

[7shooter]

I have studied a half dozen or so martial arts over my life time and was the oldest person ( 70 ) to earn a black belt in the most recent style that I studied. I agree that it is more complicated for older people to defend against younger and stronger attackers. Part of my black belt test was to spar against a 265# Marine iron worker so I know it can be done.

There are some advantages to looking old and decrepit. The attackers don't expect that you will be able to defend yourself. Also it confuses them if you smile at them just before cutting loose.

A couple of techniques that are quite effective for older and for that matter very young defenders include a variety of low kicks from the knee on down coupled with stomps to the opponents instep. Knees break very easily when kicked from the side. Another surprisingly effective move is to forcefully shove fingers up the nose and twist. No matter how big and strong they are they will spin like a top as you hot foot it away.

And lets not overlook some simple and effective " cane fu " techniques .

Find a school the specializes in these techniques for older people. You are not training for MMA competition.

You've got nothing to lose. Why not go down fighting.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

 

[Wise_A]

One thing I would suggest is that Rolling On The Ground 101, along with Advanced Glock 19 and AR/Plate Carrier Basics just aren't practically available to most folks.

Most folks really can't spare a weekend to travel away from home to take a class. Even fewer can justify the various costs--money, time, burdening their spouse for however long it takes, and so on. Sure, you can enroll in a local Jiu-Jitsu class, but how many instructors are interested in or qualified to teach fighting, as opposed to advancing the art form or a bit of fun exercise? And more importantly, as an uninitiated beginner, how are you supposed to tell the difference?

And even if everybody could afford to make it to one of these CCW Mini-Vacays--how many class spots are available, versus the number of gun carriers?

Learning to fight is good, no doubt about that (although I feel it's more useful as an alternative to deadly force, than as a wrastlin'-wit'-guns thing). But I think that lashing out against the people that don't is misplaced. I think I've mentioned this before--some gun folks use training as chips to attack and degrade other gun folks.

 

[American1776]

I remember being a young kid in high school watching the film, 'U.S. Marshalls' in the theater. When Tommy Lee Jones told Robert Downy Jr. to 'Get yourself a Glock, and get rid of that nickle plated sissy pistol', I knew that I had to get myself a Glock when I grew up. A Glock .40, too.

Now that I've grown up, I've only owned one Glock, and I don't own one now. Many of my guns are 'nickle-plated sissy pistols' (well, not nickle, but various stainless guns).

 

[CB3]

I drive with an average of 1/3 of a tank of gas in my car.
It gets me where I need to go, and statistics show that most of the time I drive only 15 miles from my home.

I fill up more often, so that keeps the gas in my tank fresh. I don't worry about running out of gas because the chance that I would have to suddenly drive a long distance in a hurry and not have gas available is very remote.

Besides, I drive a hybrid to save the environment and me cash because I can get free refills at a few places around town.

Living my life prepared for worst case scenarios just adds too much pressure to how I live my average life. I ain't doin it. Show me the statistics that I'm wrong.

 

[fredj338]

I didn't say that being armed was a bad idea, but the claim that most citizens will be victims of violent crime is BS even by the articles provided. Truth is most married people will not get divorced, although many do. Some like me will be divorced several times.

Now the statistics about cheating are closer because they are compiled not from lump data, but actual interviews/polls with couples. Even then most couples do not cheat by those interviews, unless they are being less than truthful.

Again, mostly tue, but murder victims, just one time victim. Most rape victims, just once. Your proximity to crime is almost 99% location driven. BUT be in that 1% location, wrong place, wrong time, then you need your gun, you just wont know of its 5 or 15. I am sure the victims in the texas church thought it would never happen.
I have No issue with what anyone carries, just their reasoning behind their choice. Just say I like to train/practice soft & my gun choice is part of that. At least its 100% honest?? If all I had was a 5 shot j frame, I would certainly carry it along with a reload. Fortunately that is not my only choice.

 

[JJEH]

I carry my full size M&P9 Pro on- and off duty, hot/cold/windy/rainy don't matter, don't care. Do I have smaller guns? Yes. But I'm not trusting them with my life. My 9mm M&P? All day, every day.

Bottom line, like others have already said, carry what you are most comfortable and proficient with. Use a good belt/holster and it won't bother you. Or at least not as much.

 

[IAM Rand]

Now where is that dead horse. I want my turn at beating on it.

I used to carry a 627 for work and still carry it off duty. Powers that be made me carry semi on duty. It is the 2 5/8 barrel. Never felt that I would have been out gunned. Moon clips are the great equalizer. I was keeping up with the semi autos on the range as far as reloads went. I could carry 4 moon clips on my belt. For those that are doing the math that would be a total of 40 rounds of 357 luv. I was initially carrying the Corbon Barnes X bullet loads but went cheaper to the 140 gr Federal Barnes loads.

Having said that, carry what you are comfortable with. Don't try to learn a new trick unless you have the time and the need. Lastly, I have always said it is all about location, location, location. It would be nice to hit someone with a 460 or 500 5 times all over but, would rather rely on hitting someone once in the heart with a 22. A little of an exaggeration but you get my point...............I hope.

 

[fredj338]

The "shot placement is king" thing is so over done. Why every LEA teaches COM hits, because the avg shooter can deliver true accuracy in a combat situation. A 22lr in the heart is likely fatal but the guy can kill you long before he dies. So we use bigger calibers & multiple hits to stop an attack sooner than later. The bad guy needs one lucky shot to your CNS for you to lose the fight, just one. Bigger guys have lots of nonvital area to put bullets into, so having more before a reload is always better than having less.

 

[fredj338]

I've always liked Revolvers best. When it came time for CCW I tried several semi-Autos but always went back to Revolvers. I like having a gun I can shove against someone without worry of moving the slide out of lockup causing the gun not to fire. I also don't want to worry about the slide being blocked by me or an object turning the gun into a single shot. Also if I don't have a good grip on a semi-Auto during a attack it could cause a malfunction. I am just more comfortable and confident with a Revolver. I like Snubs. I shoot them well. They are not for everyone.

You do realize that revos have sim malfunction issues as pistols right? Clothing can cause a cyl to to not rotate. A hand placed over the cyl will prevent it from firing at all where a semi will get at least one round off. Any malf will put a revo out of order. Many malfs in a semi can be cleared with a malf drill. Again, I don't care what anyone carries, but your reasons should be well thought out.

 

[Doc Holliday 1950]

Wow! My post took on a pretty wild ride.
It started with a simple question & evolved into
Huge gun battles, martial arts, etc.
Up until 3.5 yrs. ago I only carried a revolver.
Then I got caught up in "did I have enough
rounds just in case"! So I asked my wife's
baby brother(special forces) what he carried
& he said Glock 19. So off I went & bought a
G19 gen 4. I expected to shoot better & I did.
The G19 was ok to carry but I wanted something
smaller & bought the G43. A little more
difficult for me to shoot, but with a lot of practice
I became proficient. Only have a couple of jams
with the G43 but that was my fault & quickly
Fixed that. Now back to my post. I carry
My revolver, one a S&W 686 + 3" or
A 2" vindicator both in 357 in magnum
Most of the time & occasionally just because I feel like it I carry
One of my Glocks. I'm not worried about a gun
battle with a gang of attackers. I just want to
be prepared because there seems to me to
be more idiots & bad guys carrying who don't
Seem to care about using violence for almost
any reasons just because & you can fill in
the blanks. In all of my years carrying, I
Only drew my revolver out once & that was in 1972
When I was on the force. But I'm very glad that
I have a choice to carry either revolver or
A Pistol.

 

[Rastoff]

Interesting input, but I was making a different point, specifically to Mr. X.

Noted.

Even so, I'd like to comment on this a little more...

Not sure many people in my age demographic (mid-60's) and older, even healthy ones, can sustain the level of physical contact in the Southnarc ECQC class just for training.

Self-defense is not just about having a gun. In my opinion, claiming that you can only defend yourself with a gun because you don't have the physical strength is not being realistic. Like I said, size, strength, stamina all matter. No one expects a new student, regardless of age, to walk in and be able to roll on day one. You have to build up to it.

Meet Chuck Sullivan:

He's 86 years old and still one of the most dangerous people on the planet. He's never been in a street fight, but his extensive training in Chinese Kenpo has kept him aware and able to avoid any issues to date. If he can be this active at 86, any of us can get more physically fit.

Like I said before, if you can walk under your own power, we can get you to a point where you can effectively defend yourself. Yes, it will take work and most aren't willing to put in the time and effort.

Your thinking is not wrong. The two most effective strikes in self-defense are a punch/ridge hand/knuckle strike to the throat or a strike to the groin. Don't underestimate the value of these two strikes. Fighting fair or following any "gentleman's" rules is for victims. This is potentially a life and death situation. Use what you have.

Self-defense is not about going toe to toe in a cage for 20 minutes. It's about delivering the most damage you can, as quickly as you can and disengaging in 10 seconds or less.