Men use revolvers, wieners shoot fast with semis

[redryder]

It's Saturday night, you're heading down main street all decked out in your
best "All White Polyester Disco Suit" (from your John Travolta collection).
You turn the corner and there he is, your arch nemesis: the evil Mr. Revolver. Now
you're too far from your horse to get your rifle, but thank God your packin your
Super Atomic Semi Automatic Pistol with the K-Tel "Never Run Dry Clip"
(Now available at Canadian Tire by the way). You can see that Mr. Revolver isn't
standing any where near his horse and to make things worse, he's wearing his
best "All Black Polyester Disco Suit", so you know some iron is going to get slapped - stupid iron.
The evil Mr. Revolver makes the first move, so you go for "ol Betsy" your SASAP, jack the slide
and come to the realization that you've aready been shot twice and Mr. Revolver's third bullet is already half
way into your forehead. Your last thoughts are: Crap, I've already been shot 2.5 times.

So there you have it folks, if John Travolta can't do it, nobody can!
And the moral of this story is: Never leave your horse if you're going to go
around dressed in a Polyester Disco Suit.

Sheet man, made me laugh. Best thing I read today.

 

[Boomer]

In a vast majority of cases and individuals, quite true and with his experience, he would know. Not trying to stir the pot but a few of the more exceptional wheel gun shooters could actually shoot a tuned revolver faster than a semi-auto could actually cycle. Ed McGivern with a double action revolver comes to mind and possibly also Bob Munden with a single action.

Ed McGivern was remarkably fast with a DA revolver, and a great exhibition shooter as well, but he was not a gun fighter. I have his book, and it is an interesting insight to the man. Bob Munden also is incredibly fast, but in his speed shooting displays he is not using ammo suitable for winning a gunfight.

When I check out a pistol to see if it will cycle reliably with any given ammo, I hold the gun in my weak hand, put the trigger finger of my strong hand in the trigger guard, and rattle it back and forth as fast as I can between the trigger and the trigger guard until the slide locks open or the gun jams. The purpose is not to hit anything, just to see if the ammo will tie up the gun. I'm not as fast as a MAC-10, but if I'm a third as fast, that’s still 400 rpm or 6 rounds per second.

Consider that full auto versions of some pistols are cycling 900-1200 RPM or 15 to 20 rounds per second. So in normal shooting I don't think a revolver can cycle faster than a pistol, when loaded with full power ammo. But the limitation to the cycle time of the revolver is not in it's design, it is in the man shooting it. How fast can he repetitively squeeze the trigger, or in the case of a SA, cycle the hammer? If a revolver could be hooked up to an electric motor, it should be able to cycle as rapidly as its lock time would allow.

Anyway, speaking for myself, when shooting under time pressure I shoot better scores in less time with a pistol, than with a revolver. If I've got all day to shoot, I score better with a revolver, but I'm far from being a Cooper, Munden, Reed, Keith, McGivern, Jordan class of shooter.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Ed McGivern was remarkably fast with a DA revolver, and a great exhibition shooter as well, but he was not a gun fighter. I have his book, and it is an interesting insight to the man. Bob Munden also is incredibly fast, but in his speed shooting displays he is not using ammo suitable for winning a gunfight.

When I check out a pistol to see if it will cycle reliably with any given ammo, I hold the gun in my weak hand, put the trigger finger of my strong hand in the trigger guard, and rattle it back and forth as fast as I can between the trigger and the trigger guard until the slide locks open or the gun jams. The purpose is not to hit anything, just to see if the ammo will tie up the gun. I'm not as fast as a MAC-10, but if I'm a third as fast, that’s still 400 rpm or 6 rounds per second.

Consider that full auto versions of some pistols are cycling 900-1200 RPM or 15 to 20 rounds per second. So in normal shooting I don't think a revolver can cycle faster than a pistol, when loaded with full power ammo. But the limitation to the cycle time of the revolver is not in it's design, it is in the man shooting it. How fast can he repetitively squeeze the trigger, or in the case of a SA, cycle the hammer? If a revolver could be hooked up to an electric motor, it should be able to cycle as rapidly as its lock time would allow.

Anyway, speaking for myself, when shooting under time pressure I shoot better scores in less time with a pistol, than with a revolver. If I've got all day to shoot, I score better with a revolver, but I'm far from being a Cooper, Munden, Reed, Keith, McGivern, Jordan class of shooter.

True enough and I realise there is a vast difference between "fun shooting and combat/defence shooting". I was merely making reference to what has been shown to be possible by others that have gone on before us.

Me to, and that probably holds true for most of us. Today at the range was no exception. I did much better with my Python than I did with my accurised 1911 Colt 45ACP.

 

[TheTooner]

If you have to shoot an armed enemy, I'm sure the difference in potential performance between his gun and yours will very rarely be as important as the difference in actual performance between your shooting ability and his.

If I were setting off right now to go to a gunfight, I'd take one of my long guns, not because it is more powerful or may carry more rounds in the magazine than any handgun the other guy might bring, but because I've done a lot more shooting with rifles than with handguns.

 

[Boomer]

But that's the trick isn't it. It is difficult to plan one's emergencies, so a pistol or revolver is carried when it is inconvenient to carry the long gun you probably won't need.

 

[misanthropist]

Its not what you shoot them with its where you place them. Shot placement is far more important than calibre. All handguns are anemic, a rifle or shotgun would be a better choice.

TDC

you always hear people saying this, but it's not necessarily true.

Buffalo Bore lists a .44mag load that is a 340 grain bullet at 1,478 fps, using whatever barrel length they used, anyway.


That works out to 1,649 ft. lbs of energy at the muzzle, or about 35% more energy than a typical AR.

I don't dispute that this is an extreme pistol round, and impractical for normal carry, and probably inclined to severe overpenetration, excessive recoil, etc.

But the fact is that people who repeat that "all handguns are anemic" line are not thinking critically. Not all handguns are anemic. Some handguns are impractical for defense not because they are underpowered, but because they are overpowered and uncontrollable.

 

[TheTooner]

But that's the trick isn't it. It is difficult to plan one's emergencies, so a pistol or revolver is carried when it is inconvenient to carry the long gun you probably won't need.

Yes, but I meant to illustrate my point: any gun you are good with is better than a good gun you aren't any good with.

 

[TDC]

you always hear people saying this, but it's not necessarily true.

Buffalo Bore lists a .44mag load that is a 340 grain bullet at 1,478 fps, using whatever barrel length they used, anyway.


That works out to 1,649 ft. lbs of energy at the muzzle, or about 35% more energy than a typical AR.

I don't dispute that this is an extreme pistol round, and impractical for normal carry, and probably inclined to severe overpenetration, excessive recoil, etc.

But the fact is that people who repeat that "all handguns are anemic" line are not thinking critically. Not all handguns are anemic. Some handguns are impractical for defense not because they are underpowered, but because they are overpowered and uncontrollable.

Right. For a practical firearm for defensive work, all are anemic choices. Adding the fact that handguns are significantly more difficult to shoot compared to rifles/shotguns and the handgun is a poor performer. Hence the phrase. "Your pistol is only a means to fight your way back to the rifle/shotgun you never should have put down in the first place."

Regardless of calibre, would you choose a handgun or rifle in a gunfight?? That's what I thought...

TDC

 

[misanthropist]

I don't disagree...well, except for the "your pistol is to fight your way back to your rifle", that's another meaningless catchphrase that doesn't actually make sense for 99.99% of people.

But you didn't say, "all of the reasonable, normal, practical defensive handguns are anemic".

You said, "all handguns are anemic".

And since you're in the habit of praising absolutes, I would like to point out that you are absolutely wrong, as demonstrated. Not all handguns are anemic, and anyone who says so is not thinking critically about what they're saying. Some handguns, as I'm sure you'll agree, are not anemic.

As handguns become less anemic, of course, they do become more difficult to use. That is a compromise that each handgun user would have to decide on for himself. Most people these days feel sufficiently armed with a 9mm, as we all know.

But are there advantages to increasing the power on tap? Naturally, just as there are also disadvantages.

 

[TDC]

I don't disagree...well, except for the "your pistol is to fight your way back to your rifle", that's another meaningless catchphrase that doesn't actually make sense for 99.99% of people.

But you didn't say, "all of the reasonable, normal, practical defensive handguns are anemic".

You said, "all handguns are anemic".

And since you're in the habit of praising absolutes, I would like to point out that you are absolutely wrong, as demonstrated. Not all handguns are anemic, and anyone who says so is not thinking critically about what they're saying. Some handguns, as I'm sure you'll agree, are not anemic.

As handguns become less anemic, of course, they do become more difficult to use. That is a compromise that each handgun user would have to decide on for himself. Most people these days feel sufficiently armed with a 9mm, as we all know.

But are there advantages to increasing the power on tap? Naturally, just as there are also disadvantages.

Whether you praise or despise absolutes, they exist. I never said my statement was an absolute, nor did I imply any limitations or lack thereof when stating it. I'm a practical shooter and am really only concerned with practical tools. A .44mag is not a practical CCW firearm nor is it ideally suited for defensive work. It has its positive attributes but they are easily over shadowed by the many negatives.

As for the second quote. A handgun is indeed designed to fight your way back to your long gun. Long guns trump handguns. Of course, there are situations and cases where one has advantages over the other but overall, the long gun wins. The quote can be interpreted in several ways, a couple that come to mind are as follows:

Always have another plan/method for solving the problem.
Use the right tool for the right job

TDC

 

[misanthropist]

Well, again, you didn't say "a pistol is designed to fight your way back to your long gun" - although obviously that would be demonstrably wrong as well...I once owned a Hammerli that was clearly not designed to fight back to any long gun at all.

You said, "Your pistol is only a means to fight your way back to the rifle/shotgun you never should have put down in the first place." Well, that's obviously not true either...not only from a tactical standpoint, as many and possibly most people in the world who are packing pistols may not even have a long gun at their disposal, as per lots of police forces worldwide, but also from a practical standpoint: if a handgun is only a means to fight my way back to my long gun, then what have I been doing with it on weekends?

For Canadians, who can't carry, and more to the point, even for Alaskans and Vermonters and Arizonans who can, pistols are generally NOT simply a means to fight back to a rifle. That applies only to people in combat environments using rifles as their primaries, and, of course, to people with fantasies of being the same.

But it doesn't really apply to anyone else.

Finally, you don't need to preface a statement like "all dogs are black" with the announcement "this statement is an absolute" in order for it to be so..."all dogs are black" is an absolute statement whether you want it to be or not.

Just like "all handguns are anemic" and "Your pistol is only a means to fight your way back to the rifle/shotgun you never should have put down in the first place."

If you were anyone else, I wouldn't bother pointing this out. But you really like to talk in absolutes and you are in the habit of telling people they are wrong. Well, here is the thing: your habit of talking in absolutes makes you wrong a lot of the time, and if you ACTUALLY want to be an oracle of quality tactical information, not just an internet blowhard, then you will have to start thinking critically about what you are saying.

 

[mlehtovaara]

I don't think I would take any rifle over a handgun in any kind of close quarter home defense situation. Especially since semi auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds here. Aside from a shorty ar, but the reliability always brings me back to my G17 or Ruger redhawk. If we are talkin street shootout I might opt for an ar or cz 858 but this all depends if I can use the 30 rounders. I try to keep things real and in canada are reasoning will have to include round capacity.

 

[mudgunner49]

I don't think I would take any rifle over a handgun in any kind of close quarter home defense situation. Especially since semi auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds here. Aside from a shorty ar, but the reliability always brings me back to my G17 or Ruger redhawk. If we are talkin street shootout I might opt for an ar or cz 858 but this all depends if I can use the 30 rounders. I try to keep things real and in canada are reasoning will have to include round capacity.

I'd take 6 rds of .223 or x39 JHP over 10 rds of any 9/40/45 any day of the week. Your likelihood of having to use all 10 rds of (any) pistol ammo is exponetially greater than your likelihood of having to fire the full 6 rds of rifle ammo, and in addition your hit probability is higher with the rifle than the HG.

How's that for "real"???

 

[chopper 1]

A lot of opinions posted,

I wonder how many of the posters have actually had the experience of a pistol gunfight ?

I would listen to the opinions of experienced gunfighters.

As far as quick draw cqb cap and ball verses semi-auto - they are tied at extremely close distance, the semi gaining speed and accuracy as distance increases over 7 yards.

We tested IPSC and SASS styles together and thats what we found.

 

[Sundown]

It scares me that people still think a few mm's of difference in projectile size actually make a difference in a gunfight. Pistol calibers all suck. Ask anyone who works in the ER or does autopsies.

 

[mlehtovaara]

How bout the fact that your .223 or x39 is gonna overpenetrate and I live in an apartment so my neighbours might not like that. Do what you want but I would rather have my 9mm hollowpoints. I fail to see any benefit in your rifle over my 9mm. A shotgun would be a better choice than either if you ask me. and sights are the other issue here. regardless a bulky rifle in my small apartment is doing no good.

I'd take 6 rds of .223 or x39 JHP over 10 rds of any 9/40/45 any day of the week. Your likelihood of having to use all 10 rds of (any) pistol ammo is exponetially greater than your likelihood of having to fire the full 6 rds of rifle ammo, and in addition your hit probability is higher with the rifle than the HG.

How's that for "real"???

 

[TDC]

Well, again, you didn't say "a pistol is designed to fight your way back to your long gun" - although obviously that would be demonstrably wrong as well...I once owned a Hammerli that was clearly not designed to fight back to any long gun at all.

You said, "Your pistol is only a means to fight your way back to the rifle/shotgun you never should have put down in the first place." Well, that's obviously not true either...not only from a tactical standpoint, as many and possibly most people in the world who are packing pistols may not even have a long gun at their disposal, as per lots of police forces worldwide, but also from a practical standpoint: if a handgun is only a means to fight my way back to my long gun, then what have I been doing with it on weekends?

For Canadians, who can't carry, and more to the point, even for Alaskans and Vermonters and Arizonans who can, pistols are generally NOT simply a means to fight back to a rifle. That applies only to people in combat environments using rifles as their primaries, and, of course, to people with fantasies of being the same.

But it doesn't really apply to anyone else.

Finally, you don't need to preface a statement like "all dogs are black" with the announcement "this statement is an absolute" in order for it to be so..."all dogs are black" is an absolute statement whether you want it to be or not.

Just like "all handguns are anemic" and "Your pistol is only a means to fight your way back to the rifle/shotgun you never should have put down in the first place."

If you were anyone else, I wouldn't bother pointing this out. But you really like to talk in absolutes and you are in the habit of telling people they are wrong. Well, here is the thing: your habit of talking in absolutes makes you wrong a lot of the time, and if you ACTUALLY want to be an oracle of quality tactical information, not just an internet blowhard, then you will have to start thinking critically about what you are saying.

The Hammerli would be better than nothing but its far from ideal.

LE most definitely have a long gun at their disposal. Failure to sign one out or bring one along is their choice.

There are 34 "shall issue" states and 10 "may issue" making for a total of 44 states where the right to defend yourself hasn't been violated. CCW in Canada is for the most part illegal. It is not however, something you "can't" do as you say as an "absolute". Again, a long gun should always be part of the plan, whether it be in the car or close by at home. Regardless, the quote has many interpretations and the quote isn't mine. Regardless of how you interpret the quotes, what I post is what I know and I have yet to see someone dispute it.

TDC

 

[TDC]

I don't think I would take any rifle over a handgun in any kind of close quarter home defense situation. Especially since semi auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds here. Aside from a shorty ar, but the reliability always brings me back to my G17 or Ruger redhawk. If we are talkin street shootout I might opt for an ar or cz 858 but this all depends if I can use the 30 rounders. I try to keep things real and in canada are reasoning will have to include round capacity.

Reality knows no laws, they do not factor into the equation. For the sake of argument, we'll include them. With the availability of 10 round AR mags, the capacity advantage of the pistol is now completely mitigated. Even with the 858, 6 rounds of high velocity ammo from a shoulder controlled firearm is a far better option than 11 rounds of 9/40/45.

For a street fight. The long gun wins, even with the 5 round magazines. Making hits on both stationary and moving targets with a rifle is infinitely easier than doing the same with a handgun. Increase the range and the handgun stands little chance of winning.

How bout the fact that your .223 or x39 is gonna overpenetrate and I live in an apartment so my neighbours might not like that. Do what you want but I would rather have my 9mm hollowpoints. I fail to see any benefit in your rifle over my 9mm. A shotgun would be a better choice than either if you ask me. and sights are the other issue here. regardless a bulky rifle in my small apartment is doing no good.

The three common handgun calibres 9/40/45 all penetrate more interior walls than .223. Over penetration is an issue with nearly all calibres. The concern of OP is only a concern AFTER you survive the encounter. I'm not thrilled with the thought of sending rounds outside my home anymore than the next guy. The reality is that such issues are only relevant after the fight is over. Concerning oneself with OP or "was I justified" or "should I have used a restricted firearm" during the event is both highly unlikely and counter productive to surviving. If you're worried about these things, then don't reach for a firearm to defend yourself.

TDC

 

[mlehtovaara]

That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Everyone who is planning on using a gun for self defense needs to concern themselves with overpenetration. It is hard enough to get away with defending oneself in this country as it is. If you killed the neighbours kid you might as well have let the other guy kill you. And please explain how you are gonna load 6 rounds into your cz. Unless you are storing your gun illegally you will not have the time to do this. And the fact I can keep my 9mm in the bedside safe is another thing altogether. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not mine, and definetily not fact.

 

[TDC]

That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Everyone who is planning on using a gun for self defense needs to concern themselves with overpenetration. It is hard enough to get away with defending oneself in this country as it is. If you killed the neighbours kid you might as well have let the other guy kill you. And please explain how you are gonna load 6 rounds into your cz. Unless you are storing your gun illegally you will not have the time to do this. And the fact I can keep my 9mm in the bedside safe is another thing altogether. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not mine, and definetily not fact.

I never said you should disregard OP. I'm simply saying, that concerning yourself with it during the event is pointless. As you said, if you end up shooting the neighbour you're probably going to serve time, but the alternative could be worse. Either way, you won't know until you the time comes or you to act. Concern yourself with surviving, then deal with the legal side. It is impossible to plan for the aftermath before the events unfold.

TDC