[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Revolver challenge (Page 3 of 3)
|
Quoted: Most handgun shooters believe “SHTF” will be no different than shooting slow-fire bullseyes with their RDS. In reality, they’ll likely not even see their RDS, let alone sight with it when faced with imminent death, and the threat confronting them isn’t a stationary paper/cardboard /steel target. One guy here even posted that he was immune from fear because he “trained through it”. (Presumably at the shooting matches he competed in, and often posted about.) Quoted: Quoted: Having watched decades of shooting footage of all kinds, the only constant I really ever saw is "it wasn't gonna happen like they expected it to happen”. I've seen the bag guys win because the good guys were still doing "I don't believe this is happening." Even happens to LEOs from time to time. Most handgun shooters believe “SHTF” will be no different than shooting slow-fire bullseyes with their RDS. In reality, they’ll likely not even see their RDS, let alone sight with it when faced with imminent death, and the threat confronting them isn’t a stationary paper/cardboard /steel target. One guy here even posted that he was immune from fear because he “trained through it”. (Presumably at the shooting matches he competed in, and often posted about.) Yet just like some have not seen sights we’ve had multiple shootings in which the individuals did see there sights and did use there RDSs |
| I’m of two minds here. I have watched numerous videos where the defender pulls the ccw starts firing and the hoodrats scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on. 3-4 rounds mission accomplished. I am also aware that under stress. You loose motor skills. Aiming is lost ,you just point and shoot. You need big mags to be effective . |
|
Quoted: You might want to talk to Tom Givens. He's had +/-65 students get into gunfights. Several of those went more than 6 rounds, so presumably they would have fared poorly had they not had an auto with higher capacity. Yup, op's ask is flawed. Should be asking for shootings where 5 or 6+ rounds were fired by the good guy regardless of gun type. |
|
Quoted: Eight shot flash bang .357 with a 1 7/8” barrel. 22.6 oz https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/485085/IMG_0087_jpeg-3732173.JPG This is so dumb that I absolutely need one! |
|
Quoted: Really wasn’t trying to put you down. But my argument, which I assume is what the OP would make is that by having a duty to act you’re really not afforded the ability to just run away. People who have a duty to act like police officers and security guards can find themselves in very different scenarios than ordinary citizens. If a convenience store is being robbed it would not be acceptable for the security guard to run out the back door like I can do. So thus he is forced into confrontations, which someone who does not have a duty to act can merely evade the situation. Basically, the professional hired guns are supposed to push forward in the confrontation. They interject themselves into the situation because of that duty to act. Their definition of a win is apprehending the criminal or preventing a crime, whereas my definition of a win in a confrontation is simply surviving. Interesting. It’s a damn shame we live in a world where every man doesn’t feel he has a duty to act. |
|
Quoted: Yup, op's ask is flawed. Should be asking for shootings where 5 or 6+ rounds were fired by the good guy regardless of gun type. Quoted: Quoted: You might want to talk to Tom Givens. He's had +/-65 students get into gunfights. Several of those went more than 6 rounds, so presumably they would have fared poorly had they not had an auto with higher capacity. Yup, op's ask is flawed. Should be asking for shootings where 5 or 6+ rounds were fired by the good guy regardless of gun type. I think revolver shooters tend to shoot slower and more methodically knowing they have limited capacity. That may or may not be wise. But when you know you only have 5 or 6 shots you are more like to shoot twice and assess then shoot 4-5 then assess. You can’t be shooting faster than you can think when capacity is limited. |
|
Quoted: Got it. I don't disagree that discretion is the better part of valor in general, but for the cases where you can't evade, it's fair to evaluate gear based on history outside OP's very narrow parameters. See the other posts in the thread about people not dying when they should. A civilian might be able to more easily get away with a technologically inferior choice, but it's still technologically inferior. Quoted: Quoted: Really wasn’t trying to put you down. But my argument, which I assume is what the OP would make is that by having a duty to act you’re really not afforded the ability to just run away. People who have a duty to act like police officers and security guards can find themselves in very different scenarios than ordinary citizens. If a convenience store is being robbed it would not be acceptable for the security guard to run out the back door like I can do. So thus he is forced into confrontations, which someone who does not have a duty to act can merely evade the situation. Basically, the professional hired guns are supposed to push forward in the confrontation. They interject themselves into the situation because of that duty to act. Their definition of a win is apprehending the criminal or preventing a crime, whereas my definition of a win in a confrontation is simply surviving. Got it. I don't disagree that discretion is the better part of valor in general, but for the cases where you can't evade, it's fair to evaluate gear based on history outside OP's very narrow parameters. See the other posts in the thread about people not dying when they should. A civilian might be able to more easily get away with a technologically inferior choice, but it's still technologically inferior. An infantryman sorties w/ what, 40+ lbs of gear - radio, laser designator, night vision, carbine, Level 4 ceramic plates, kevlar, 210 rnds, etc, etc. A policeman has what, 10 lbs of gear on his belt? Pistol, Taser, extra mags, tourniquet, handcuffs, collapsible baton, mace, radio, maybe Level 3+ poly plates, etc, etc. What is an appropriate amount and level of emergency gear for a civilian in his AO? Are you going to leave your house to check the mail or go get a cup of coffee w/ Level 4 plates? To use just a 3A vest is technologically inferior. Level 4 ceramics exist and are available to civilians. What this entire debate is about is what can you reasonably carry as a civilian in your day to day life, what dangers are you likely to encounter, and what gear and training is best suited to meet those dangers? You are far more likely to respond or be involved in an auto accident than in a shootout; a tourniquet is likely more worthwhile gear to EDC than a spare magazine. We can obsess over Black Swan events of the police officer shot w/ his empty J frame posted above, or we can assess our AO, choose gear at reasonable weights to carry on our person & in our vehicles, and train with that gear to address likely threats. You're more likely to use CPR or a fire extinguisher than a pistol. |
|
Quoted: Interesting. It’s a damn shame we live in a world where every man doesn’t feel he has a duty to act. Quoted: Quoted: Really wasn’t trying to put you down. But my argument, which I assume is what the OP would make is that by having a duty to act you’re really not afforded the ability to just run away. People who have a duty to act like police officers and security guards can find themselves in very different scenarios than ordinary citizens. If a convenience store is being robbed it would not be acceptable for the security guard to run out the back door like I can do. So thus he is forced into confrontations, which someone who does not have a duty to act can merely evade the situation. Basically, the professional hired guns are supposed to push forward in the confrontation. They interject themselves into the situation because of that duty to act. Their definition of a win is apprehending the criminal or preventing a crime, whereas my definition of a win in a confrontation is simply surviving. Interesting. It’s a damn shame we live in a world where every man doesn’t feel he has a duty to act. Yes, we all have a duty to act - but we don't have a duty to chase down every criminal and arrest them. Breaking contact is generally the goal rather than pursuit. If you come upon a hostage situation as above, yes, act - but know the likely outcome is you'll be shot by the perpetrator or the responding officers. I would far rather break contact w/ a criminal than hold him at gunpoint - b/c my odds of being served & protected to death go way up. |
|
Quoted: I think revolver shooters tend to shoot slower and more methodically knowing they have limited capacity. That may or may not be wise. But when you know you only have 5 or 6 shots you are more like to shoot twice and assess then shoot 4-5 then assess. You can’t be shooting faster than you can think when capacity is limited. I'm not sure that "shooting faster than you can think" is good for anyone regardless of what firearms they're using. |
|
Quoted: An infantryman sorties w/ what, 40+ lbs of gear - radio, laser designator, night vision, carbine, Level 4 ceramic plates, kevlar, 210 rnds, etc, etc. A policeman has what, 10 lbs of gear on his belt? Pistol, Taser, extra mags, tourniquet, handcuffs, collapsible baton, mace, radio, maybe Level 3+ poly plates, etc, etc. What is an appropriate amount and level of emergency gear for a civilian in his AO? Are you going to leave your house to check the mail or go get a cup of coffee w/ Level 4 plates? To use just a 3A vest is technologically inferior. Level 4 ceramics exist and are available to civilians. What this entire debate is about is what can you reasonably carry as a civilian in your day to day life, what dangers are you likely to encounter, and what gear and training is best suited to meet those dangers? You are far more likely to respond or be involved in an auto accident than in a shootout; a tourniquet is likely more worthwhile gear to EDC than a spare magazine. We can obsess over Black Swan events of the police officer shot w/ his empty J frame posted above, or we can assess our AO, choose gear at reasonable weights to carry on our person & in our vehicles, and train with that gear to address likely threats. You're more likely to use CPR or a fire extinguisher than a pistol. Closer to 20 for a LEO Not to mention if they have an active shooter outer carrier in the car it's more likely to have steel plates,not ceramic My agency couldn't afford ceramics. |
|
Quoted: I'm not sure that "shooting faster than you can think" is good for anyone regardless of what firearms they're using. Quoted: Quoted: I think revolver shooters tend to shoot slower and more methodically knowing they have limited capacity. That may or may not be wise. But when you know you only have 5 or 6 shots you are more like to shoot twice and assess then shoot 4-5 then assess. You can’t be shooting faster than you can think when capacity is limited. I'm not sure that "shooting faster than you can think" is good for anyone regardless of what firearms they're using. It’s not but it’s very popular |
|
I haven’t read the thread in totality so forgive me if this has already been covered: IIRC there was a mall shooting in the last ten or fifteen years where an off-duty cop had a 1911 or other low cap pistol with no reloads. Some dude was trying to shoot up a mall and the off duty cop intervened. He ran out of ammo and pinned the shooter by pretending his gun was still in action until LE responded, and that was enough to thwart a massacre. I enjoy carrying revolvers even though they’re bulky and heavy in comparison to a polymer auto. I don’t feel under-gunned but I haven’t been faced with bangers holding switched Glocks with stendos. |
|
Quoted: Yes, we all have a duty to act - but we don't have a duty to chase down every criminal and arrest them. Breaking contact is generally the goal rather than pursuit. If you come upon a hostage situation as above, yes, act - but know the likely outcome is you'll be shot by the perpetrator or the responding officers. I would far rather break contact w/ a criminal than hold him at gunpoint - b/c my odds of being served & protected to death go way up. There is also the litigious aspect of our society at play. A person may have well done the right thing only to get railroaded by an over-eager DA or face a civil suit by the family of the dead. Both of which have the potential to wreck you financially or worse. Would you want George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse’s life post trial? I wouldn’t. Removing yourself from the situation if possible is always the best move. It doesn’t make someone weak… it makes them smart. |
|
Quoted: There is also the litigious aspect of our society at play. A person may have well done the right thing only to get railroaded by an over-eager DA or face a civil suit by the family of the dead. Both of which have the potential to wreck you financially or worse. Would you want George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse’s life post trial? I wouldn’t. Removing yourself from the situation if possible is always the best move. It doesn’t make someone weak… it makes them smart. Quoted: Quoted: Yes, we all have a duty to act - but we don't have a duty to chase down every criminal and arrest them. Breaking contact is generally the goal rather than pursuit. If you come upon a hostage situation as above, yes, act - but know the likely outcome is you'll be shot by the perpetrator or the responding officers. I would far rather break contact w/ a criminal than hold him at gunpoint - b/c my odds of being served & protected to death go way up. There is also the litigious aspect of our society at play. A person may have well done the right thing only to get railroaded by an over-eager DA or face a civil suit by the family of the dead. Both of which have the potential to wreck you financially or worse. Would you want George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse’s life post trial? I wouldn’t. Removing yourself from the situation if possible is always the best move. It doesn’t make someone weak… it makes them smart. Meh. I do things that let me sleep at night. No one wants to be railroaded by a communist DA, but if I go to prison b/c I did the right thing I'm ok with that. |
|
Quoted: I think extreme close quarters/entangled fights are the rule rather than the exception when it comes to street crime. I took a class with Craig Douglas a few years ago, and it was eye opening. Douglas did a real nice job addressing the hand on the revolver / pocket carry fantasy “1 shot drill to the head” that many people fetishize over on pistol-forum.com. Quoted: You might want to talk to Tom Givens. He's had +/-65 students get into gunfights. Several of those went more than 6 rounds, so presumably they would have fared poorly had they not had an auto with higher capacity. So when autos took over in police work, average shots per encounter skyrocketed. Perhaps if someone is carrying a revolver, similar results would exist in these encounters? ie you know you have limited rounds so make em count. |
|
Quoted: An infantryman sorties w/ what, 40+ lbs of gear - radio, laser designator, night vision, carbine, Level 4 ceramic plates, kevlar, 210 rnds, etc, etc. A policeman has what, 10 lbs of gear on his belt? Pistol, Taser, extra mags, tourniquet, handcuffs, collapsible baton, mace, radio, maybe Level 3+ poly plates, etc, etc. What is an appropriate amount and level of emergency gear for a civilian in his AO? Are you going to leave your house to check the mail or go get a cup of coffee w/ Level 4 plates? To use just a 3A vest is technologically inferior. Level 4 ceramics exist and are available to civilians. What this entire debate is about is what can you reasonably carry as a civilian in your day to day life, what dangers are you likely to encounter, and what gear and training is best suited to meet those dangers? You are far more likely to respond or be involved in an auto accident than in a shootout; a tourniquet is likely more worthwhile gear to EDC than a spare magazine. We can obsess over Black Swan events of the police officer shot w/ his empty J frame posted above, or we can assess our AO, choose gear at reasonable weights to carry on our person & in our vehicles, and train with that gear to address likely threats. You're more likely to use CPR or a fire extinguisher than a pistol. I usually don't carry a full-size handgun, spare mags or a tourniquet because the hassle isn't worth it for me, but I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm less prepared than if I did. If you open carry an AR, you're even better armed, but there are also way more downsides. Edit: after rereading, I think we're making different points. I'm not really trying to argue about how much you can reasonably carry or that you should come to the same decisions about EDC tradeoffs as me, just that you should be able to honestly evaluate gear. I read OP as claiming that you'll never need more than six shots, which is only true if you exclude a bunch of situations for no good reason. I don't think we should ignore almost all situations where handguns are actually used when trying to see what kinds of handguns are effective. |
|
Quoted: Meh. I do things that let me sleep at night. No one wants to be railroaded by a communist DA, but if I go to prison b/c I did the right thing I'm ok with that. I don’t disagree, it’s situation dependent though. Both of em were in situations they could and probably should have avoided, but Rittenhouse’s string of decisions leading up to his shooting event were far dumber than Zimmerman’s. IMO |
|
Quoted: I don’t disagree, it’s situation dependent though. Both of em were in situations they could and probably should have avoided, but Rittenhouse’s string of decisions leading up to his shooting event were far dumber than Zimmerman’s. IMO Quoted: Quoted: Meh. I do things that let me sleep at night. No one wants to be railroaded by a communist DA, but if I go to prison b/c I did the right thing I'm ok with that. I don’t disagree, it’s situation dependent though. Both of em were in situations they could and probably should have avoided, but Rittenhouse’s string of decisions leading up to his shooting event were far dumber than Zimmerman’s. IMO There used to be a firearms trainer named Andy Stanford whose motto was: "Your number one option for personal security is a commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." I learned that from him 22 years ago, and I live by it and teach it to others. The best way to prepare for a gun fight is not to be in one. |
|
Quoted: I usually don't carry a full-size handgun, spare mags or a tourniquet because the hassle isn't worth it for me, but I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm less prepared than if I did. If you open carry an AR, you're even better armed, but there are also way more downsides. Edit: after rereading, I think we're making different points. I'm not really trying to argue about how much you can reasonably carry or that you should come to the same decisions about EDC tradeoffs as me, just that you should be able to honestly evaluate gear. I read OP as claiming that you'll never need more than six shots, which is only true if you exclude a bunch of situations for no good reason. I don't think we should ignore almost all situations where handguns are actually used when trying to see what kinds of handguns are effective. Quoted: Quoted: An infantryman sorties w/ what, 40+ lbs of gear - radio, laser designator, night vision, carbine, Level 4 ceramic plates, kevlar, 210 rnds, etc, etc. A policeman has what, 10 lbs of gear on his belt? Pistol, Taser, extra mags, tourniquet, handcuffs, collapsible baton, mace, radio, maybe Level 3+ poly plates, etc, etc. What is an appropriate amount and level of emergency gear for a civilian in his AO? Are you going to leave your house to check the mail or go get a cup of coffee w/ Level 4 plates? To use just a 3A vest is technologically inferior. Level 4 ceramics exist and are available to civilians. What this entire debate is about is what can you reasonably carry as a civilian in your day to day life, what dangers are you likely to encounter, and what gear and training is best suited to meet those dangers? You are far more likely to respond or be involved in an auto accident than in a shootout; a tourniquet is likely more worthwhile gear to EDC than a spare magazine. We can obsess over Black Swan events of the police officer shot w/ his empty J frame posted above, or we can assess our AO, choose gear at reasonable weights to carry on our person & in our vehicles, and train with that gear to address likely threats. You're more likely to use CPR or a fire extinguisher than a pistol. I usually don't carry a full-size handgun, spare mags or a tourniquet because the hassle isn't worth it for me, but I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm less prepared than if I did. If you open carry an AR, you're even better armed, but there are also way more downsides. Edit: after rereading, I think we're making different points. I'm not really trying to argue about how much you can reasonably carry or that you should come to the same decisions about EDC tradeoffs as me, just that you should be able to honestly evaluate gear. I read OP as claiming that you'll never need more than six shots, which is only true if you exclude a bunch of situations for no good reason. I don't think we should ignore almost all situations where handguns are actually used when trying to see what kinds of handguns are effective. I wear a tourniquet on my belt all the time after being present at a shooting and didn't have one. I think OP's point is that if exclude shootings done by cops who are intentionally seeking trouble, we'll have a much clearer picture of what actually needs to be carried. As a civilian, I only carry handcuffs when going on a date. 
|
|
Quoted: There used to be a firearms trainer named Andy Stanford whose motto was: "Your number one option for personal security is a commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." I learned that from him 22 years ago, and I live by it and teach it to others. The best way to prepare for a gun fight is not to be in one. Agree 100%. There are times where it might not be an option. But I think that it’s almost always an option, almost every time. 
|
|
Quoted: Agree 100%. There are times where it might not be an option. But I think that it’s almost always an option, almost every time. Quoted: Quoted: There used to be a firearms trainer named Andy Stanford whose motto was: "Your number one option for personal security is a commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." I learned that from him 22 years ago, and I live by it and teach it to others. The best way to prepare for a gun fight is not to be in one. Agree 100%. There are times where it might not be an option. But I think that it’s almost always an option, almost every time. I lost a family member to an armed robbery when I was 16. I always try to avoid it, but I am ready if it comes my way. I am not going out without a fight. |