TexasCHLforum.com

Doublej, you're too kind.

mr.72 wrote:The question is, are you proficient at reloading a revolver in a hurry while you are on the ground having the snot kicked out of you by a half a dozen hoods? It's one thing to be proficient at the firing range, quite another to do so while under attack.

First off, my goal is not to be put on the ground to get kicked in the first place. If a group of thugs is on top of you, the type of firearm you have has already become irrelevant. Reloading ANYTHING at this stage is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Besides, even if you started with 18 rounds in your gun, that doesn't mean you're going to put them where they need to go to stop the threat.

Be as good as you can with the tools you have and try not to put yourself in a situation you cannot escape. That's all any of us can do.

HV I am not trying to argue, but discuss for clarification.

HighVelocity wrote: First off, my goal is not to be put on the ground to get kicked in the first place. If a group of thugs is on top of you, the type of firearm you have has already become irrelevant. Reloading ANYTHING at this stage is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

Of course. Well my goal is to not be attacked in the first place. So then I don't need to carry a gun at all, right? But the point is that sometimes, we don't get to pick whether we are a victim, or under what circumstances.

So given that, as you say, reloading ANYTHING is going to be difficult if not impossible, you are certainly better off to be shooting the gun than you are to be reloading it while being kicked on the ground.

However I think the odds of you being knocked to the ground are likely astronomically higher once you run out of ammo and begin to reload, even if that is a process you can undertake in 1 second flat without taking your eyes off of the assailant. Figuring a group of 6 determined attackers closing in from 25 ft. when you begin shooting, maybe you stop two or three of them while they are advancing before you run out of of 5 or 6 rounds and have to reload, and that takes you 3 seconds, by then whichever ones are still standing are at arm's reach and undeterred from advancing once you stop shooting for even one second.

Besides, even if you started with 18 rounds in your gun, that doesn't mean you're going to put them where they need to go to stop the threat.

Well you have better odds with 18 rounds than you do with 6.

Be as good as you can with the tools you have and try not to put yourself in a situation you cannot escape. That's all any of us can do.

I agree to an extent.

However your choice of tools bears heavily on what you can do with those tools.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

HighVelocity wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree.

What are we disagreeing about?

mr.72 wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree.

What are we disagreeing about?

Mainly, the idea that a revolver would be insufficient as a tool for self defense in the situation described in the original post.

Well, I don't choose to carry a revolver and one main reason is the limited round capacity (it's not the only reason or even the best reason). But I am not disagreeing with you that it is a perfectly valid choice if it suits your needs.

However, there is some legitimate point to be made that more capacity is better, if all else can be made equal (which it can't in most cases).

Mr. 72, manufacturers continue to sell hundreds of thousands of revolvers a year, and plenty of people carry them for a number of reasons. In the book Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting, Ed McGivern describes a re-creation of the gunfight at the OK Corral in which several shooters hit six targets in less than 6 seconds, drawing from an open holster.

I honestly can't think of a case in real life where someone lost a gunfight because he ran out of ammunition.

Meanwhile, semi-auto pistols have given us countless incidents where a shooter missed 10 or 20 times.

Carry whatever you like.



- Jim

well Jim, please note I didn't write the original post. I agree it's beating a dead horse. Lots of people carry and own revolvers for whatever reason, in spite of the limited capacity. Many people also own autoloaders that are limited to 7 or fewer rounds as well, and there are perfectly good reasons for doing that.

however with this:

semi-auto pistols have given us countless incidents where a shooter missed 10 or 20 times.

are you suggesting that somehow carrying a semi-auto makes it more likely for you to miss 10 or 20 times?

I am sure that people that hit 6 out of 6 will do so with whatever gun is in their hand regardless of action.

mr.72 wrote:are you suggesting that somehow carrying a semi-auto makes it more likely for you to miss 10 or 20 times?

On one level, it's possible to miss more than 6 times only with a semi-auto*. If you miss 6 times with a revolver, the fight is probably over at that point.

On another level, my opinion is that larger magazines encourage a certain amount of spray-and-pray mentality among some shooters. I see this at the range, when someone is shooting like the ammo is free, and their target looks like they're using a shotgun.

I emphasize that this is an individual fault, not a general trend. It's also possible to shoot poorly with a revolver, but I don't see that happening.

BTW, I own and shoot both types of handguns.

*Production revolvers are available with up to 9 chambers, and historically some were made up to 24.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:
Carry whatever you like.



- Jim

I am carrying a 6 holer tonight. Hope I dont have to use it. Sure hope I dont have to reload.

I think a combination of pepper spray and a revolver could work, 7 guys come at me, I draw my pistol and pepperspray, drench the baddies in the stuff, and pick off the people who haven't stopped.

I wonder if somehow one could mount a pepperspray module to a pistol or automatic and have a button that would release it.

heh. I'm waiting on my CHL and carrying a 3" locking folder.

Sure hope I don't get into a gun fight!

Anyone mention the possibility of maybe just carrying two revolvers?

First, a good contextual reality check:

fm2 wrote: This happened outside an amusement park. Many have metal detectors, Remember they have security there to protect you. So how well armed would you be as you exited the park? Empty hands or improvised weapons is where you would start, so who's ready to go wading in now? Now if you had re-armed when you got in your car, like you should, and were rolling by then you might be more effective.

The likelihood of a CHLee (or is that CHLer?) loitering near the entrance of the amusement park as described, while armed with a handgun (or anything remotely effective), is vanishingly small. The revolver vs semiautomatic discussion is still interesting, however.

jbirds1210 wrote: There is NO disadvantage to the wheelgun if it is in the proper hands.

Well said. However, I would expect that developing the skill (proper hands) may be more costly, in both time and money, with the revolver than the semiautomatic handgun. Maybe HV or other revolver competitors can affirm or refute this.

At first I was surprised to see the IDPA classification scoring brackets have the revolver divisions consistently trailing SSP by (only!) 2-4 seconds, but since only three classification strings exceed 6 rounds, it is somewhat understandable.

mr.72 wrote: I certainly am not trying to denigrate anyone. However I think in any scenario, there is no advantage to running out of ammo and being forced to reload in order to keep shooting if the threat persists, no matter how perfectly trained you are at such a combat reload. It's always faster to just keep shooting than it is to reload, is it not?

Well said.

mr.72 wrote:The question is, are you proficient at reloading a revolver in a hurry while you are on the ground having the snot kicked out of you by a half a dozen hoods?

Quantity does have a certain quality of its own, whether in magazine/cylinder capacity or the size of a crew or posse. However . . .

seamusTX wrote:On another level, my opinion is that larger magazines encourage a certain amount of spray-and-pray mentality among some shooters.

The NYPD is Exhibit A for this phenomenon; another reason to avoid the Cesspool-on-Hudson. (I am not implying that another reason was necessary, but this reason is almost good enough by itself.)

Competition like IDPA can help expose the ineffectiveness of spray-and-pray and impart a measure of discipline.