Wow, Did not realize I would have to defendmy dissertationagainst someone who will not use spell check orhas taken basic grammer. Sigh.
99% of statistics are invented on the spot. Can you cite your 3 round 99% satistic?
Before you call me a liar, perhaps you should read. Something. Maybe just for fun.
Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes:
a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers
D C Reedy1 and C S Koper2
1 Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland,
2 Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Correspondence and reprint requests to:
Dr Christopher S Koper, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA;
It is also noted that after the switch to semi auto's police hit the center of mass less, and missed more as compared to a revolver.
Also: NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT
In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police
Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69). In Parti...The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined. In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action. In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.
I understand that revolvers CAN and DO fail. Perhaps not at the same 'rate' or ratio as semi-autos, but they can.
I never said that revolvers NEVER fail. I just said IN MY EXPERIENCE (and I am willing to bet this is the consensus for most of the shooting professionals due to my cited selection of the Thunder Ranch 44 special AND the endless use of the phrase: "and a revolver is more reliable if dirty" in handgun magazines). Revolvers are more reliable. If you agree auto's fail much more than revolvers, what is your problem with me pointing it out?
Squibs happen, semi-autos do not 'cause' squibs. You'd need a revolving barrel system to compleatly eliminate the potential for a squib causing problems.
Your squib problem scenario is incorrect AND Proves my point. A squib that exits the barrel jams an semiauto
(either a stovepipe or a doublefeed or afailure to eject) but a revolver keeps going. A squib that does not exit the barrel jams both.
If a person is going to "blaze and die," are they 'more likely' to survive by blazing 5 rounds, or blazing 16? If they are the blaze type, then I'd think that 11 extra rounds would at least increase their survival odds just a wee bit.
The weapon is the brain, not the gun. History shows that those who are "blazing" are not even using the sights. Case example: Miami shoot out. One FBI guy emptied his 15 shot S&W, reloaded and emptied, reloaded and died locked back on an empty gun. His gun had lots of bullets, but his brain was not present.
To 'address' the reloading issue you have to compare revolvers to 1911s: you're stacking the deck in your favor. Compare it instead with a Glock 19, where you gain an extra 11 rounds rather than just 1 or 2 rounds. And, for the 'average person' with the 'normal level of CCW training' -- it will be far quicker and easier to reload a semi-auto versus a revolver.
Sorry, the 1911 is one of the most popular weapons. I was showing how an 8 shot .357 magnum revolver compared in firepower with an 8 shot 1911. Compared to a glock 19 a S&W revolver holds less bullets. Wow. You got me there.
There's also never a blanket rule about a 'perfect gun for ______."
I'm sorry, I did not realize you were the rule maker. Please forgive.
A revolver, with it's cylinder bulge, is more apparent when carrying as opposed to a flat and slim semi-auto. Also a revolver (I'd imagine) would be harder and less comfortable to carry IWB, which is usually easier to conceal than OWB.
What a load of dodo. If I put a revolver under a jacket or an auto, I bet you can't tell. Come on. $100 say you can't even tell where I am carrying under my suit jacket. As for comfort, a 329 is lighter than a glockand more reliable.
Slip a revolver in your front pocket and then try slipping in a Khar. Which is 'less noticable?' In most situation I'd bet it was the Khar.
You just jumped from a glock 19to a Khar in comparison to a full sized Smith. There are lots of pocket pistols smaller than a Khar, some that don't jam. Why did you not pick one of them? (See post in this forum "Selecting a handgun" under "My Khar jams"). Funny you should pick that one.
Flexability, for the most part, does not matter. Ball and hollow point, that's all you really 'need' to be able to fire. Paint ball? Blanks? Absolutly no need.
I thought you were the ass with the "no blanket rule", rule? You missed the whole point. OK, restricting ourselves only to the ball and hollow point category there are many different shapes. Some arebetter than others,defensively. They open better after going through shirts, heavy clothing, etc. However, if they don't work in your auto you can't use them. A revolver can take the Best bullet shape, at the best weight in that caliber, and push it as fast as you need it to go. When you get a little more experienced, you might try some force on force training. They use standard weapons with paint-ball cartridges. (See Simunitions)
I guess I'm of the opinion that if it 'works best for you' then GREAT. But just because it works best for you, based on your narrow set of critera, does not mean it will work best for me -- based on my narrow set of criteria.
Actually, you havethe narrow criteria. Iam demonstrating how flexible the revolver is and how it can fulfill a number of different criteria. I notice you don't even address the horsepower issue...
Oh, I forgot to mention, you can hunt game up to Elk here in Washington state with a 44 mag with a 4 inch barrel. Can you do that with your glock? Or is that criteria too narrow?