• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Semi Auto or Revolver for OC .

Which do you prefer ? Revolver or Semi Auto

  • Semi Auto

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Revolver

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

hp-hobo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Manchester State Forest, SC
imported post

Old Grump wrote:
Beware the man with one gun, it might be all he has and he knows how to shoot it...well beware the man with only 6 bullets, he's probably pretty confident in his ability to make those shots count.
This pretty well sums it up right here. While the idea of having lots of ammo readily available sounds good on paper, there's a reason the old experienced guys don't need to carry a G17 with a 33-round mag in it along with five more happysticks on their belt.

There's a reason the US military got away from full auto M16's/M-4's and went to three round burst. It forces you to become a better marksman and make your shots count. If I'm not mistaken, it also increased the kill ratio.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

Old Grump wrote:
25% hits by an average law enforcement officer under stressful conditions and a not so good regimen of regular marksmanship practice comes out to an average of 4.75 hits out of 19 rounds fired. (numbers are arbitrary, if you don't like them make up your own numbers)

A revolver man who practices regularly and who has been to the party so his reactions are tempered by experience makes 75% hits out of 6 shots. This comes out to 4.5 hits. Anybody see a pattern here between a shooter and a spray and pray man.

Beware the man with one gun, it might be all he has and he knows how to shoot it...well beware the man with only 6 bullets, he's probably pretty confident in his ability to make those shots count.

Okay nit pickers jump in and flame away.
Could we have a source for those statistics?

Thanks!
 

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
imported post

I play paintball whenever I can, and people have noticed two different types of players: the players with a 1/4 - 3/4 of a case (2000 paintballs) on their back for a 5 minute match, and those with a grand total of 50 paintballs on their body for the same match.

It's always been a hot topic that if you shoot a lot, your going to miss a lot, so you shoot more to make up for what you miss. If you shoot a little, you take your time with each shot to make each shot count.

I know paintball is completely different then OC'ing, but its an analogy that people (I at least) can understand.

If you have less ammo, you conserve it and shoot only when you know you can make the shot. If you have a minigun with belt on you, then you hold the trigger down.

But again, to each his own on how that person wishes to defend themselves.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
Old Grump wrote:
25% hits by an average law enforcement officer under stressful conditions and a not so good regimen of regular marksmanship practice comes out to an average of 4.75 hits out of 19 rounds fired. (numbers are arbitrary, if you don't like them make up your own numbers)

A revolver man who practices regularly and who has been to the party so his reactions are tempered by experience makes 75% hits out of 6 shots. This comes out to 4.5 hits. Anybody see a pattern here between a shooter and a spray and pray man.
Could we have a source for those statistics?

Thanks!
Conglomeration of many articles over the years but here is one on police stats.

[font="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica"][font="Arial, Helvetica"]
Hit Potential In Gun Fights The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 38% 3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/Combat.htm
[/font][/font]
Myth 9: Ordinary citizens (non-police, non-military) cannot effectively use firearms for self-defense and are more likely to get injured using a gun for self-defense than not. The utility of defensive gun use can be determined by referencing the NCVS database and analyzing crime incidents that occurred between 1979-1985. These files are the most detailed and representative account of the defensive actions of victims. According to the information in the database, guns are the most effective weapon and means of self-defense in thwarting robbery and assault. When using a gun in self-defense, 83 percent of robbery victims and 88 percent of assault victims were not injured. Furthermore, only one in four victims using a gun in self-defense was even attacked during a robbery or assault. These rates were by far the lowest compared to other weapons, bodily force, or nonviolent actions used in self-defense. Additional support for defensive gun use can be garnered from the NSDS. The NSDS, which has yielded the most detailed information on defensive gun use to date, concluded that only 5.5 percent of victims using guns in self-defense were injured. Despite the impression fostered by films and TV, the majority of confrontations are not very dramatic. According to the NSDS, 76 percent of the incidents were resolved without the victim firing a shot. In only 16 percent of the incidents did the victim attempt to shoot the criminal, with no more than 8 percent of all incidents resulting in the wounding or death of the criminal. In fact, only 18 percent of the gun defense victims faced a criminal in possession of a gun, and only 3 percent of the incidents resulted in both parties shooting at each other. Contrary to the popular fear that a criminal is likely to seize the victim’s gun and use it against him, this situation occurred in about 1 percent of the incidents recorded in the NCVS. Furthermore, less than 2 percent of fatal gun accidents are defendants mistaking someone for an intruder. Sources: Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997). Don B. Kates Jr., and Gary Kleck. The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997).
Doesn't support my number but I told you it was arbitrary. Fact remains 75% of the time when a gun is displayed by the defender no shots are fired. a little over 7% of the defenders fired a warning shot, and 16% shot at the criminals and 8% of the criminals were wounded or died . This excerpt is from the 70's, reports from the 80's and 90's have nearly identical numbers percentage wise. Unfortunately data isn[t kept on civilian shootings the way they are on police shootings and they don't get reported the same way as they would if the home owner shot and killed an innocent person.

Other reports I have read over the years give the civilian the advantage over police in shootings vs offender because the civilian is already armed when he meets the offender. He is usually on home ground, he doesn't have the restraints on him that an officer has and his being armed is usually a surprise to the offender. Over the years in all the reports I have read the exchange of gunfire between the defender and the offender only happens 3% of the time. Point to the scare factor of guns in the hands of civilians. Telling point is that in spite of dire predictions by the ninnies the bad guys only get the gun away from the defender in a little less than 1% of the time.

I read way to much. Somewhere in my library are the numbers I'm looking for and don't have a clue as to where I squirreled them away or if I even kept them.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

Old Grump wrote:
CarryOpen wrote:
Old Grump wrote:
25% hits by an average law enforcement officer under stressful conditions and a not so good regimen of regular marksmanship practice comes out to an average of 4.75 hits out of 19 rounds fired. (numbers are arbitrary, if you don't like them make up your own numbers)

A revolver man who practices regularly and who has been to the party so his reactions are tempered by experience makes 75% hits out of 6 shots. This comes out to 4.5 hits. Anybody see a pattern here between a shooter and a spray and pray man.
Could we have a source for those statistics?

Thanks!
Conglomeration of many articles over the years but here is one on police stats.

[font="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica"][font="Arial, Helvetica"]
Hit Potential In Gun Fights The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 38% 3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/Combat.htm
[/font][/font]
Myth 9: Ordinary citizens (non-police, non-military) cannot effectively use firearms for self-defense and are more likely to get injured using a gun for self-defense than not. The utility of defensive gun use can be determined by referencing the NCVS database and analyzing crime incidents that occurred between 1979-1985. These files are the most detailed and representative account of the defensive actions of victims. According to the information in the database, guns are the most effective weapon and means of self-defense in thwarting robbery and assault. When using a gun in self-defense, 83 percent of robbery victims and 88 percent of assault victims were not injured. Furthermore, only one in four victims using a gun in self-defense was even attacked during a robbery or assault. These rates were by far the lowest compared to other weapons, bodily force, or nonviolent actions used in self-defense. Additional support for defensive gun use can be garnered from the NSDS. The NSDS, which has yielded the most detailed information on defensive gun use to date, concluded that only 5.5 percent of victims using guns in self-defense were injured. Despite the impression fostered by films and TV, the majority of confrontations are not very dramatic. According to the NSDS, 76 percent of the incidents were resolved without the victim firing a shot. In only 16 percent of the incidents did the victim attempt to shoot the criminal, with no more than 8 percent of all incidents resulting in the wounding or death of the criminal. In fact, only 18 percent of the gun defense victims faced a criminal in possession of a gun, and only 3 percent of the incidents resulted in both parties shooting at each other. Contrary to the popular fear that a criminal is likely to seize the victim’s gun and use it against him, this situation occurred in about 1 percent of the incidents recorded in the NCVS. Furthermore, less than 2 percent of fatal gun accidents are defendants mistaking someone for an intruder. Sources: Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1997). Don B. Kates Jr., and Gary Kleck. The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997).
Doesn't support my number but I told you it was arbitrary. Fact remains 75% of the time when a gun is displayed by the defender no shots are fired. a little over 7% of the defenders fired a warning shot, and 16% shot at the criminals and 8% of the criminals were wounded or died . This excerpt is from the 70's, reports from the 80's and 90's have nearly identical numbers percentage wise. Unfortunately data isn[t kept on civilian shootings the way they are on police shootings and they don't get reported the same way as they would if the home owner shot and killed an innocent person.

Other reports I have read over the years give the civilian the advantage over police in shootings vs offender because the civilian is already armed when he meets the offender. He is usually on home ground, he doesn't have the restraints on him that an officer has and his being armed is usually a surprise to the offender. Over the years in all the reports I have read the exchange of gunfire between the defender and the offender only happens 3% of the time. Point to the scare factor of guns in the hands of civilians. Telling point is that in spite of dire predictions by the ninnies the bad guys only get the gun away from the defender in a little less than 1% of the time.

I read way to much. Somewhere in my library are the numbers I'm looking for and don't have a clue as to where I squirreled them away or if I even kept them.
Actually, I'm not surprised you have a source for the 25%, but still have no source for the 75% figure. Nowhere did you say it was an arbitrary figure (arbitrary was only referenced in the auto paragraph), read the post that I quoted. You said that 75% hit rate was average for a "revolver man who practices regularly and who has been to the party".

Where do you get the number of 75% from? Where do you get the other two factors to narrow down which revolver shooter hits 75% of the time? What makes you think that someone who practices with an auto and has "been to the party" can't hit better than 25%?

I'd like sources on your new percentages as well, including dates, since all of the information that I have says that the numbers your throwing out there are anything but static.

ETA - I made a mistake on the sources and corrected it.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Where do you get the number of 75% from? Where do you get the other two factors to narrow down which revolver shooter hits 75% of the time? What makes you think that someone who practices with an auto and has "been to the party" can't hit better than 25%?

No proof I can find but lots of life experience as a military man, competitive shooter, marksmanship instructor for Iowa County Wisconsin and experience at target practicing and matches with law enforcement and old timers who never gave up their revolvers.

Best revolver shooter I ever met was a retired Chief of Police from Albuquerque New Mexico using a Colt 45 at a bullseye match and shooting Master Class. Came close to winning too. My cops and deputies who shot revolver didn't shoot any better or worse at practice but at qualification time when the pressure was on they excelled. It's certainly not the same as combat conditions but I would expect the same results from a man with a gun he was totally familiar with, comfortable with, and had a limited number of shots to fire.

Some place somewhere I read an article by somebody I respected as a source that cited a study of shootings in one city of shots fired compared to hits on the offender by both police and civilians and the civilian hit rate was considerably higher. The study did mention that there were no detailed records kept of those shootings like those of the police shootings and he was relying on survey results. But over the years I have read similar reports, I just never thought to save or catalog them and I am going on my old dinosaur memory.

Sorry but that's the best I can do.

Flame away
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
revolver? they still make those?
:what:You didn't know:question: Shocked I tell you, I'm just shocked:shock:.

Going to go outside now and shoot my Dan Wesson 357 instead of my 45 just because its feelings were hurt. Revolvers aren't like the Prima Dona pistols who think their doo doo don't stink. Revolvers are sensitive, they have feelings you know.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Revolvers are inherently more reliable. The less parts- the less chances to break down. I'm just SURE that's why Revolvers are and will always be produced. I have only semi automatics; but sure as shit I am looking into a 357/38 snubbie for concealed carry.
 

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

One thing that hasn't been pointed out is the cost difference. You can buy a cheap, new 375 revolver for only a few bucks more than a new .22 hipoint auto. I know as you get into more expensive guns the price difference between the same caliber of revolver and autos becomes less, but if you are broke and need a self defense weapon what would you go prefer to have; .22, or 357?
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

It's a matter of principle. Do you carry for self defense or not? If you carry for self defense- why would you Not consider a considerably more reliable handgun? Anybody care to say "Oh semi-autos are more reliable..." and back that up? Most likely not; because time and time again science and tests and organizations; Time itself; has presented the revolver as the more reliable handgun. Less parts- less to jam up- simple science. Elementary stuff. Many revolvers carry 8 loads- that's more than my CC daily carry .45 ACP.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Guns are machines made by men. All machines have one thing in common, eventually they will fail. Properly cared for they will last longer, properly made they will work better and last longer. No guarantees no matter what you carry. Carry what you like, shoot what you are comfortable with. Me, I don't care, I'm happy with either one. That's why I shoot both regularly. One trick ponies who rely on only one trick are handicapping themselves.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

To me the Semi Automatic pistol is an offensive design. Not a defensive design. Shoot as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible, and yeah it might jam.

The revolver is the more defensive design, to me. Not offensive. Guaranteed cycle through the rounds.. just as reliable of a cartridge... and far far less likely to jam at all. Not as "fast" as a semi-automatic; but usually one or two cartridges do the trick with a revolver. Most of us carry larger (.357 Magnum or .44 or .45 Magnum) loads in a self defense revolver.

Like I said I carry a semi automatic. I really do. It's lighter and smaller and skinnier than any revolver I have seen. Just saying my opinion is that the revolver is Obviously the safer bet between the two. I balance the convenience and comfort of a semi automatic with the fact that it's more likely to jam in an emergency.
 
Top