Single Action Revolvers for Defense?

[Safestuffer]

My life is valuable to me, enough so that I will pick the best tool for the job of defending it. A SA is not the best tool for the job. I choose to practice SD scenarios with a glock 19. The S.A. is for playtime, range time, and woods carry. The G19 is for social situations. I don't waste my time practicing for SD scenarios with a S.A. because that boat sailed over 100 years ago.

 

[fredj338]

Why would you cripple yourself in one area for no gain?

Suppose someone invented a bullet which functioned normally inside of 10 yards, but dissipated into nothing past that. Very safe and all for missing, you see. Would you use it?

Why not??!! After all, it should be perfectly fine for almost all self-defense encounters! Statistically-speaking, you'll be fine!

Why I don't carry a mouse gun.

 

[fredj338]

My life is valuable to me, enough so that I will pick the best tool for the job of defending it. A SA is not the best tool for the job. I choose to practice SD scenarios with a glock 19. The S.A. is for playtime, range time, and woods carry. The G19 is for social situations. I don't waste my time practicing for SD scenarios with a S.A. because that boat sailed over 100 years ago.

I have carried my RBH out hiking, when I hit town it stays on. but mostly out of convenience not carrying an extra gun. If I had to I could fight with it but it would be almost my last choice.

 

[500SNW]

My life is valuable to me, enough so that I will pick the best tool for the job of defending it. A SA is not the best tool for the job. I choose to practice SD scenarios with a glock 19. The S.A. is for playtime, range time, and woods carry. The G19 is for social situations. I don't waste my time practicing for SD scenarios with a S.A. because that boat sailed over 100 years ago.

You don't always have a choice. You use what you happen to have on hand at the time of need. A belt-fed MG42 would be a great defensive weapon, second only to a M134 Mini-Gun, but it's not the kind of thing you take to the office downtown...it also wouldn't work well in your living room or anywhere there was a crowd. I think the OP's point was that, despite all the advances in technology, the now 145 year old 1873 SAA design and it's equally old cartridge are still effective as defensive weapons. There's a reason (besides Cowboy Action matches) why the 1873 is still around today and with the exception of WWII and Korean War years, has never been out of production. It is because it works and it works well.

Now if that's not what the OP originally meant, it is what I mean to say.

 

[Watchdog]

Because the triggers are **** and they're so small they're almost impossible to manipulate. Do they even fire a .22LR cartridge?

I guess if you're not going to carry a real gun, these are OK, but I would never recommend one.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? "Not going to carry a real gun"? Really?

 

[Watchdog]

Sure, with practice, any semi can be reloaded 1st to last shot in 2sec. I can do that while moving to cover. Guys it is 2018, not 1918.

I'm confused here. Of course a semi can be reloaded in two seconds. But did you really mean all seven or eight rounds can be fired (unloaded) in two seconds?

And what's 1918 have to do with anything?

 

[Whitwabit]

Why would you cripple yourself in one area for no gain?

Suppose someone invented a bullet which functioned normally inside of 10 yards, but dissipated into nothing past that. Very safe and all for missing, you see. Would you use it?

Why not??!! After all, it should be perfectly fine for almost all self-defense encounters! Statistically-speaking, you'll be fine!

Why wouldn't you think that Perps would just stay out side of the 10 yard range and kill you using regular ammo !!! and walk up and take what they want ???

Would be a pretty dumb move !!

 

[Mister X]

Regarding carrying an AR or any long gun.

It's not just a matter of them being heavy, impractical or illegal to carry, they would simply be virtually useless in the vast majority of civilian defense scenarios, which tend to be reactive, so you'll never have the time and/or opportunity to bring it into action. The rifle is primarily a proactive weapon which is perfectly suitable for what the military does, but it has relatively very limited usefulness for the civilian defender, especially carrying one.

 

[Wise_A]

I can't tell if you're just agreeing with me, or if my sarcasm was that successful. But yes, I was suggesting that claiming that something was enough for almost all self-defense encounters was sort've silly, when the downside is dying.

Selecting a smaller, more concealable pistol is one thing. Going with a cheaper pistol is okay. But putting five rounds in a 10-shot pistol--or using a single-action revolver over a double-action--has no upside. Even if that five round capacity or single-action mechanism would be fine 90% of the time, you're going to feel really foolish the other 10%.

 

[keith44spl]

Somebody said the lit'l American Arms 22 is not a serious firearm.....Sheep dip !!!

When I was working the road, always carried one in my left breast uniform shirt pocket.

If a feller is ground fightin one that's trying to tear your primary out of your holster.
And you can't reach your ankle gun....By golly, if you can screw that lit'l 22 in their ear....

And that's all I got to say about that there....


.

 

[fredj338]

I'm confused here. Of course a semi can be reloaded in two seconds. But did you really mean all seven or eight rounds can be fired (unloaded) in two seconds?

And what's 1918 have to do with anything?

No, last shot, next aimed shot, 2sec with a semi. While reloading probably isn't going to happen, if you need it, like carrying a gun, you need it badly. Why I would not consider a SA revo a serious choice for SD/carry. Yep, if it is what I had with me, then it has to do, but I would never choose that for an edc.
The SAA was still quite popular in the early 1900 by folks not comfy with the then new semiautos. Many still carried & used them, some quite effectively. Then again, you were likely facing a sim armed opponent. It is 2018, every dirt-bag carries a cheap high cap pistol. So times 2 or 3, well again, SA revo not even my 2nd choice.

 

[fredj338]

I can't tell if you're just agreeing with me, or if my sarcasm was that successful. But yes, I was suggesting that claiming that something was enough for almost all self-defense encounters was sort've silly, when the downside is dying.

Selecting a smaller, more concealable pistol is one thing. Going with a cheaper pistol is okay. But putting five rounds in a 10-shot pistol--or using a single-action revolver over a double-action--has no upside. Even if that five round capacity or single-action mechanism would be fine 90% of the time, you're going to feel really foolish the other 10%.

100%. I do not train or carry for average. I assume the worst will happen & try to prepare for that.

 

[SuperMan]

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? "Not going to carry a real gun"? Really?

...I didn't want to...but I'll second what he said. And I own three of the NAA Mini Revolvers but would never carry one by itself.

Learn from the mistakes of others. Go over to LiveLeak or YouTube and watch the videos of actual gunfights and ask yourself HONESTLY if you think you could survive any of them.

And put yourself in the place of the officer cited above except you are a civilian whose daughter just got taken by her nutcase ex-husband...you really think that the Mini in your pocket is going to bring the guy down at 10 yards...

I know 9 officers personally who were involved in on and off-duty incidences with .38 Specials. All but one were so dissatisfied with the results they changed guns and calibers...and you expect to get it done with a with one of the hardest to shoot guns made in just .22 caliber.

You can dream and rationalize all you want..but as my signature line says...if you can't deal with reality, reality will deal with you.

Bob

 

[Rastoff]

...I didn't want to...but I'll second what he said. And I own three of the NAA Mini Revolvers but would never carry one by itself.

Indeed.

Of course the NAA is a real gun. Anything that will fire a cartridge is a real gun. The point is it's not a gun I would ever recommend as a carry gun. A back up? Yeah, I guess it's better than nothing.

But that's the point of this whole thread. I would never recommend a SA as a primary carry gun, but it's not unusable. I would recommend a full size SA long before I'd recommend a mini SA, but it's still something.

Personally I think that some skill at empty hand defense would be more valuable in the situation that keith44spl mentions. I'd rather be able to win the fight, or at least create space, than to have to rely on that gun. But that's me and everyone doesn't think the same. It takes all kinds and we're all different. That's the beauty of a free society. So, if the NAA is your thing, have at it.

 

[Mister X]

In a ground scenario that's gone sideways, I'd probably opt for a blade over a .22 caliber mini-revolver.

 

[Tjohns42]

I personally practice at least two cylinders of single action shooting every time I take my 19-2 to the range. I can't tell you why (because I don't know why, not it's a big secret) but my dad always insisted that I do it when he would take me to the range. Now it's just habit. I think if I had to grab a single action as a last resort I'd like my chances. Of course that may have been his lesson all along. If you can shoot it accurately and faster than the other guy then the first shot is the one that counts.

 

[SuperMan]

...so a question. In the above scenario where the LEO with a 5 shot .38 Snubbie, that LOTS of posters on this board regularly carry as a SD gun, takes on a BG with a Glock 17, would he have been better off with a 5 or 6 shot .357 Magnum, .44 Special or .45 Colt Freedom Arms 97 like Naphtali is considering building for a carry gun....

Other than being "convenient" in size and weight what's the advantage...zero. And to ammo effectiveness, from what I have seen in the real world, the .38 Special, especially from a snubbie, is MARGINAL....not ADEQUATE.

So between the choice of carrying a snubbie and my only slightly less convenient Freedom Arms 97/.41 Magnum, I'll take the Single Action every time...

Bob

 

[Mister X]

...so a question. In the above scenario where the LEO with a 5 shot .38 Snubbie, that LOTS of posters on this board regularly carry as a SD gun, takes on a BG with a Glock 17, would he have been better off with a 5 or 6 shot .357 Magnum, .44 Special or .45 Colt Freedom Arms 97 like Naphtali is considering building for a carry gun....

Other than being "convenient" in size and weight what's the advantage...zero. And to ammo effectiveness, from what I have seen in the real world, the .38 Special, especially from a snubbie, is MARGINAL....not ADEQUATE.

So between the choice of carrying a snubbie and my only slightly less convenient Freedom Arms 97/.41 Magnum, I'll take the Single Action every time...

Bob

My perspective is the snub revolver is actually a superior ccw weapon, not merely a weapon of convenience and carry comfort.

The odds of a civilian getting into a ranged shoot-out is astronomically rare. The potential is obviously there, but unless you're a cop, a gang member or are intent on intervening in situations that are not really any of your business, the most likely defense encounters will be at extremely close distances and unfold very quickly.

In a reactive scenario taking place inside 3 yards or contact distances, the enclosed hammer snub is an extremely formidable weapon if not the ideal one.

If any given individual wanted to be as prepared as possible or felt that ranged gunfights were a reasonably likely possibility, I would recommend they opt for a service size or compact autoloader or at the very least a well handling, shootable subcompact that holds at least 10 rounds at the minimum backed up by a snub. Otherwise, and in reality, I think the snub by itself is a good choice and makes a lot of sense. A single-action revolver on the other hand doesn't make much sense, at least not to me.

 

[fredj338]

In a ground scenario that's gone sideways, I'd probably opt for a blade over a .22 caliber mini-revolver.

In a heart beat. A blade is easier to manipulate with one hand, never runs out of ammo & imo, at contact, just as or more deadly than a 22lr. A blade into the torso will generally have a better result than a singke 22lr. You can stick the blade in the bad guys ear too.

 

[fredj338]

...so a question. In the above scenario where the LEO with a 5 shot .38 Snubbie, that LOTS of posters on this board regularly carry as a SD gun, takes on a BG with a Glock 17, would he have been better off with a 5 or 6 shot .357 Magnum, .44 Special or .45 Colt Freedom Arms 97 like Naphtali is considering building for a carry gun....

Other than being "convenient" in size and weight what's the advantage...zero. And to ammo effectiveness, from what I have seen in the real world, the .38 Special, especially from a snubbie, is MARGINAL....not ADEQUATE.

So between the choice of carrying a snubbie and my only slightly less convenient Freedom Arms 97/.41 Magnum, I'll take the Single Action every time...

Bob

Apples & oranges. If carrying that much gun, just carry a m57-4". You are now about twice as effective in a fight with multiple attackers.
This is simple; take a timer & say 2 idpa or uspsa target, 7y. Square up timer goes off, fire three at each, reload, three at each. Get bak to me on how much slower the SA is thru the entire drill.

 

[keith44spl]

Originally Posted by Mister X
In a ground scenario that's gone sideways, I'd probably opt for a blade over a .22 caliber mini-revolver.

In a heart beat. A blade is easier to manipulate with one hand, never runs out of ammo & imo, at contact, just as or more deadly than a 22lr. A blade into the torso will generally have a better result than a singke 22lr. You can stick the blade in the bad guys ear too.

I always kept a small palm knife hidden behind my mag pouch...


But, the thread is about SA revolvers...…….not knifes.


.

 

[wgnovak]

When in Wyoming all I had was my Ruger .41 mag and yes I carried it.

 

[otasan56]

If you wound someone with a SAA, the wounded person could claim that you fired by accident.

 

[otasan56]

Since 1776 and I had this discussion already via PM I will have to disagree with him...

Lance Thomas...his shop was a commercial robbery magnet...not something a normal civilian would ever encounter. There are videos of his gun fights that I have seen and after wildly blasting one gun dry he would run down the counter for another...

Richard Davis was shot before he shot the robbers not after. He took care of business with the 5 shots he had. There was no more incoming fire after he ran dry...fight over:

"The streetwise Davis came prepared for an assault, but his body was unprepared for the two bullets that nailed him seconds later, one glancing off his head just beneath the frame of his glasses and the other plowing into the back of his leg.

Rather than falling to the ground, Davis somehow managed to wound two of his three attackers. "Thank God for the 'Saturday Night Special,' " he said, referring to the small, cheap handgun his attackers used. "I was hit twice, but I got four hits on them, so I won the game on points, I guess."

Jason Hendeix, while and exceptionally brave LEO, was not acting as a civilian once he decided to go on the "offensive" to stop the possible murder/kidnapping. In reading the whole story, even if he had extra ammo when he ran his gun dry, the likelihood of him being able to reload due to his injuries was doubtful...

I have either personally spoken to or emailed with many of the top trainers and have asked the same questions about a civilian reload and other than the ones cited, they have none. (this was in the 2003-5 area).

What you bring to the dance in your gun is what you are going to finish the fight with...

If you read Tom Givens book Fighting Smarter, he has had 65 students involved in gun fights...not a one reloaded except for one who reportedly topped off his gun after the hostilities were basically over...

So as to the original question on carrying a SA for self-defense and are competent with it, it beats someone who who has a Wonder 9 who isn't...mindset/training/tactics are everything...

Bob

Richard Davis went on to host a big bowling pin shooting match (Second Chance). He is a personal friend of mine.

 

[SuperMan]

If you wound someone with a SAA, the wounded person could claim that you fired by accident.

Since you have to have your finger on the trigger to make the gun go off...what is the difference between cocked SA revolver or a SA semi when you take the safety off...zero. And how many unintentional discharges have there been with striker fired guns as the safety is automatically taken off when you put your finger on the trigger...

 

[SuperMan]

Aples & oranges. If carrying that much gun, just carry a m57-4". You are now about twice as effective in a fight with multiple attackers.
This is simple; take a timer & say 2 idpa or uspsa target, 7y. Square up timer goes off, fire three at each, reload, three at each. Get bak to me on how much slower thecSA is thru the entire drill.

100% agree...but that is not what I am comparing... I have a 57 4" and would carry that over a 97 gladly...but I will take either over a snubbie.

As to your example of shoot-reload-shoot...again show me the hundreds or even dozens of self-defense shootings that require a reload. They don't exist.

 

[jtcarm]

Maybe not my first choice for SD, but then no handgun would be.

Back in the day, hunting & silhouette with big bore Ruger SAs was my thing, and I'm right at home with one.

It may be heresy on this forum, but in a big-bore magnum (bigger than .357), I'll take a DA over an SA every time.

The OP mentioned Vegas and the possibility of being attacked while out shooting his .45. In the wide open spaces of the desert, I'd take a big bore Ruger SA over a pocket nine or snub DA. On the other hand, I'd also have my M-64 under my shirt.

 

[jtcarm]

If he's seen even one cowboy movie I think he will figure it out.

That means you're probably safe if you're attacker is a millennial.

 

[jtcarm]

If you wound someone with a SAA, the wounded person could claim that you fired by accident.

Lp

 

[Rastoff]

If you wound someone with a SAA, the wounded person could claim that you fired by accident.

Their claims are irrelevant. If I point a gun at a person, the shot would be intentional.