CHL quals with a revolver

[HankB]

I typically carry a .45 caliber semi-auto, but I also occasionally pocket carry a .357 magnum J-frame revolver.

I shot my most recent qualification with a 1911, but my "always" carry gun is an S&W 340Sc. Having the "SA" qualification on my CHL lets me carry either a revolover or auto.

I would like to know why that silly restriction even exists.
Does it serve a legitimate purpose or is it just a product of bureaucratic red tape?

My vote is the latter. Actually, everyone knows that semi-autos are far more deadly and dangerous, so persons who carry these mini-WMD's ought to be made to prove that they can handle them.

Seriously, IMHO, it's that attitude that was at work for instituting the SA/NSA distinction.

[3dfxMM]

And if, God forbid, we are involved in a shooting together and I get taken down, she is legally able to pick up my more powerful and higher capacity .45 - with its faster reload capability - and use it.

What bearing does her CHL have on that scenario?

[Grog]

And if, God forbid, we are involved in a shooting together and I get taken down, she is legally able to pick up my more powerful and higher capacity .45 - with its faster reload capability - and use it.

What bearing does her CHL have on that scenario?

I would say none, she's not doing the carrying, just the using

[rdcrags]

My first qual was with a revolver. The instructor asked us wheelers to wait until the semis did their thing, then took us together to follow a different procedure, similar to what was described earlier. I then renewed using a semi.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

[hirundo82]

Since 1995 I can only recall having 3, maybe 4, students who wanted to qualify with a revolver. When such happens, it requires a minor modification of the second exercise (10 rounds. each 2 shots in three seconds). It's pretty easy to make time to let em load 6 then 4. Or with the 5-holers, 4, 4 and 2.

I would think that could be necessary even if all students were qualifying with a semiauto.

I took my renewal course Saturday and the instructor had us all load 6 and then 4 for that string--I was using a 1911 and other students were also using non-high capacity semiautos as well, but everyone could load at least 6 rounds.

No revolvers in my class, although I would have considered using a GP-100 just to be different (the reason I used a 1911 even though I usually carry a Glock) if it weren't for the SA/NSA license distinction.

I've heard that the reason the SA/NSA license difference is in there is because that is how armed security guards qualify, and when CHL was originally passed the shooting portion was made virtually identical to the security officer qualification to make it more palatable to legislators who were on the fence about CHL. Does anyone know if that is true?

[PvilleStang]

My instructor had us load no more than 5 rounds per exercise (since some of us only had mags that hold 6 rounds, my Glock 36 in particular).

My question: Shouldn't it be the other way around? I own both types, revolver and SA, and from my experience and from my observations, most people can put a much tighter grouping on the target with a SA versus a revolver. In my eyes, they originally did this whole restriction to help keep people from carrying guns they weren't proficient with. Personally, it would scare me if someone carried a new revolver they haven't shot much. Wouldn't want to be on the other side of the BG in that case.

[TexasTony]

My instructor had us load no more than 5 rounds per exercise (since some of us only had mags that hold 6 rounds, my Glock 36 in particular).

My question: Shouldn't it be the other way around? I own both types, revolver and SA, and from my experience and from my observations, most people can put a much tighter grouping on the target with a SA versus a revolver. In my eyes, they originally did this whole restriction to help keep people from carrying guns they weren't proficient with. Personally, it would scare me if someone carried a new revolver they haven't shot much. Wouldn't want to be on the other side of the BG in that case.

I don't know I think revolvers generally tend to be more accurate. Might have something to do with the fixed barrel. When I first shot a 45 revolver, I was able to put rounds in a 4 inch group around the bullseye. When I first shot a 9mm beretta semi-auto, I had problems getting the bullets within 5 inches of the bullseye. I shot both of these for the first time on the same day, and had only shot 22 prior.

[PvilleStang]

Okay, I guess I should elaborate a little more. Most revolvers that are carried are snub nosed. You don't tend to see a lot of Dirty Harry .44 magnums being concealed at 4 o'clock. Granted, I can't speak for the .380 ankle / boot / pocket SA models, but my .38sp vs. my Glock 36 (.45 cal), SA wins every time. Granted, if I had a full barrel on a good revolver, I'd probably be more accurate with it. BUT, the discussion is carry weapons, not pistols in general.

[skub]

My assumption has been that the revolver is easier to operate safely, not necessarily more accurately. There are a variety of features that a semi-auto may or may not have (slide lock, de-cocker, external safety) , and those unfamiliar with them may make incorrect assumptions about a particular feature's function, and thus handle it in a dangerous manner. Additionally, it seems that there have been some unfamiliar with semi-autos who assume that if you drop the mag, the gun is unloaded.

Don't have any documentation that this was actually the logic - just seemed to make sense to me.

[blue]

-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there ANY other state that even cares - revolver/ semi??????
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its just feelgood garbage added on to burden the law abiding. NO other valid reason whatsoever.

Truly needs to be removed ASAP.
--------------------------------------

We REALLY, REALLY need a real good cleanup bill on the TX CHL passed SOON!

--TX CHL is FAR, FAR more Complex and Expensive than it needs to be. --

CHL IS 'behind' MPA car carry. We pay an exorbitant amount of time AND cash, while the MPA driving down the road with us does not pay a dime,(REALLY SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR CHL - $0.00 !) Our TOTAL costs should be LESS than $50 for first 5 yrs/<$25 for renewal, for ALL costs and SAME for EVERYONE with the ONLY exception for military, PERIOD.

(Grrrrrrrrrrr!)


Regards,
Blue

[Cobra Medic]

Talk to people and you hear many stories for someone qualifying with a SA who never shot one before. That shows how pointless the split is between SA and NSA. It also shows maybe the shooting test has not much value.

[fickman]

Talk to people and you hear many stories for someone qualifying with a SA who never shot one before. That shows how pointless the split is between SA and NSA. It also shows maybe the shooting test has not much value.

I'd be for getting rid of the shooting test altogether.

If we can't, let it be as easy as possible. Let an infirm elderly fellow qualify. All the government needs to ensure is that I know which end not to point at myself. . .

[blue]

There should NOT be a shooting test in the first place.

Again, NONE is required for MPA car carry.

---Alaska/Vermont seem to be doing just fine WITHOUT a bunch of the stuff "required" for a TX CHL.---



Blue

[Liberty]

Shooting test is the only really fun part of the class. now someone wants to take that away ...

[jester]

Shooting is usually fun but somehow my CHL instructor turned it into a chore.