Author Topic: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!  (Read 5898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« on: July 30, 2015, 09:05:00 AM »
They are not up to the task of hunting, personal defense, or sporting purposes as is the modern semi-automatic pistol - according to this article.

I read this article with the experience of handling both revolvers and pistols.  I have, by far, had more failures with the semi-automatic pistol than I have had with revolvers.  Granted, most were easily remedied without tools.  Some; however, required parts replacement by a qualified gunsmith.

I tend to keep an open mind when discussing revolvers vs. semi-automatic pistols.  My mind is more easily closed by the rantings of an obvious biased gun writer.

Anyway, if you decide that you want to read the article, here is the link to it: http://preparedgunowners.com/2015/07/30/why-revolvers-are-not-more-reliable-than-semi-auto-pistols/
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 11:23:31 AM by Taurian »
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

LEJoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2558
  • Location: Parrish, Florida
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2015, 10:55:13 AM »
Thanks for posting this Taurian. I've been a revolver guy for over 40 years. There will always be a place for them in my house. The more I learn about and use pistols, the more I like them. I live in the best of both worlds. As of this writing I am wearing a Glock. So maybe I'm changing and don't realize it.   ::)

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2015, 12:25:22 PM »
Thanks for posting this Taurian. I've been a revolver guy for over 40 years. There will always be a place for them in my house. The more I learn about and use pistols, the more I like them. I live in the best of both worlds. As of this writing I am wearing a Glock. So maybe I'm changing and don't realize it.   ::)

As am I.  I have been known to slide the Ruger GP141 into a Simply Rugged IWB holster during the winter months.  The SP101 doesn't seem to mind being carried every so often nor does the S&W 642.  There is also the satisfaction of cocking the hammer and pressing the trigger of a good single-action revolver.

Those pesky, archaic semi-automatics like the 1911, weren't all that reliable as many claim them to be; they had problems of their own but were, agreed, inherent to the semi-automatic pistol.  The 1911-based pistol design is seeing a resurgence today simply because more people are seeing the "soul of the machine" and not just the machine itself.

One of the many reasons the semi-automatic is where it is today is because of the military and private sector acceptance of them.  Although Gadsen Glock may have "unleashed the devil" with his "Glock Perfection" pistol, he was not the first to be innovative in regards to firearm design.

So, what will be said about the present, soon to be archaic, version of the semi-automatic pistol when advances in technology take it to a laser-guided, electronically-fired, minimal-of-parts package?  Do we bad mouth the prior technology and engineering that gets us to that point?

The author seems to assume that a firearm, any firearm, is a soulless creature - especially revolvers.  He fails to look at the soul of the machine - the people involved with them.

Enough of my philosophical rant! 
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2015, 06:55:35 PM »
I like revolvers.
I like autos.

See? There's room for both!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

EDITED: by the way, I like philosophy and soul.
Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

NorCalChuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
    • Redwood Practical Shooters
  • Location: Mendocino, California
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2015, 09:49:40 AM »
Of course none of you are being specific enough.
Are we talking double action or single action?
How about caliber and of course are we talking concealed carry or open carry cowboy style.
Very important details are being over looked.
"We will have a good government as long as those that govern are effected by those laws that they pass. When those that are passing the laws are no longer effected by those laws then they will no longer pass good laws."

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2015, 09:56:44 AM »
Of course none of you are being specific enough.
Are we talking double action or single action?
How about caliber and of course are we talking concealed carry or open carry cowboy style.
Very important details are being over looked.


Ban any and revolvers; it is quite obvious, when watching "western" movies that carrying a revolver will start (and also end) a gunfight - regardless of caliber!! </snark>
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

NorCalChuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
    • Redwood Practical Shooters
  • Location: Mendocino, California
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2015, 12:47:48 PM »
And never run out of bullets!
"We will have a good government as long as those that govern are effected by those laws that they pass. When those that are passing the laws are no longer effected by those laws then they will no longer pass good laws."

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2015, 05:40:56 AM »
Well, according to CCM Magazine I hate revolvers so I suppose I'm supposed to defend this one. Seeing as how the editor changed the title of the article from the one I submitted with it (and then in the magazine itself couldn't keep the titles straight...a different one in the TOC than on the page) and I don't really hate them I'm going to defend him anyway, mostly.

His points are valid in that revolvers do have more parts than semis, especially modern-built ones. I personally have seen more failures in revolvers as a percentage of all guns observed in operation than I have semis. Also, the failures I have seen took those revolvers completely out of operation whereas very few semi-auto failures were not immediately correctable so that the gun could continue shooting. Besides the enduring myth caused by the factors cited by Givens, one of the reasons you still hear that inaccurate bit about reliability is that there are far more semis with far more rounds being fired through them currently than with revolvers. Any system that runs as much as semis do is going to suffer failures. A more telling argument would be percentage of total guns of each type in operation that fail. Even then you'd still have to break things down some more, methinks, to be accurate.

That said--revolvers, like Okinawan karate, can still be used to fight with. But revolvers, like Okinawan karate, have been superseded by more modern systems that are better suited to the type of fight we are most likely to have to engage in today. Revolvers were state of the art in their time but their time is long passed. If you want the best handgun to fight with today, get a semi-auto.

One note: I think his comparison to watches doesn't work as well as he thinks. Mechanical watches generally run for a long time lots of parts or not.

Final thought: More of the defense of revolver carry for EDC in my opinion is based on feeling than on fact.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2015, 06:33:18 AM »





<snip>

Final thought: More of the defense of revolver carry for EDC in my opinion is based on feeling than on fact.



I have to agree with this statement.

Although, I'm convinced that effectively carrying and using an auto ("semi-auto" technically speaking), requires more in the way of savy, skill, proficiency, and intelligence than a revolver.

Now wait...before sending flames my way, just think about stoppages and clearing a FTF, squib, or FTE while in the thick of a gunfight.
There are scores of humans I see every day that amaze me, that they can even drive a car without running people down,...they're just that dumb.  I cringe when I think of then operating a firearm under normal conditions, let alone a SHTF high-stress moment.

Rambling now, but CR is right, I believe.

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2015, 07:34:57 AM »
Quote
Revolvers were state of the art in their time but their time is long passed.

Funny, the same thing is being said about the U.S. Constitution and the 1911-based pistol.

The only reason the revolver became a complicated piece of machinery is because it went from single-action to double-action.  People needed to shoot faster and the double-action revolver enabled them to do so.  Moving forward, people wanted to shoot faster and they wanted more rounds while doing so and the ability to reload quicker than they could with a revolver. 

Today, we can stuff a semi-automatic pistol with magazines and drums containing up to 100 rounds (+1 chambered). Oh, my!

The pistol brought us convenience.  Since we are basically a lazy breed of animal, convenience is a good thing.  This coming from a person who now carries a semi-automatic that contains as many rounds as a 6-shot revolver, but in a more convenient package, both from a concealment and a cartridge size aspect - much easier to hide in the waistband over, say, a S&W Model 25-2.

We could further the debate on semi-automatics by saying that a hammer-fired semi-automatic is worse than a striker-fired semi-automatic.  It is quite obvious that hammer-fired semi-automatics were state of the art in their time, but their time has long passed.  As pistol technology advances, the same may be said for the striker-fired pistol. Yet, hammer-fired pistols are still popular, but it seems, only with older shooters (IMHO).

In a UCAP moment, I can grab the throat of an assailant, forcibly push the barrel of my Ruger SP101, 2.25-inch barreled revolver into his chest (or any other body part available to me) and pull the trigger with complete confidence that the firearm is not going to go "out of battery" and not fire.  That is something that I cannot say even with the most modern of pistols.

There are positive and negative traits of both revolvers and pistols.  If I had to really concern myself with the negative traits, I would carry neither revolver nor pistol but would simply rely on the police or my personal (and well-paid) bodyguard -  neither of which is available to me at this time.  With that said, I'll rely on the Ruger GP141, .357 magnum revolver that is in my desk drawer, the XDs .45 acp that is on my hip, and the archaic design of the Mossberg 20-gauge that resides within a short distance from where I sit.  I feel confident in all three for mitigating any threat.

I feel so confident, in fact, that I may carry the archaic and past its prime Ruger SP101 with me today.

My response is not in defense of the revolver; it is in defense of the person who carries a revolver and is reliant on its performance to possibly stop a threat - and I don't care if that revolver is a single-action "Peacemaker" if it works for them.
 
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2015, 08:25:25 AM »





<snip>

Final thought: More of the defense of revolver carry for EDC in my opinion is based on feeling than on fact.



I have to agree with this statement.

Although, I'm convinced that effectively carrying and using an auto ("semi-auto" technically speaking), requires more in the way of savy, skill, proficiency, and intelligence than a revolver.

Now wait...before sending flames my way, just think about stoppages and clearing a FTF, squib, or FTE while in the thick of a gunfight.
There are scores of humans I see every day that amaze me, that they can even drive a car without running people down,...they're just that dumb.  I cringe when I think of then operating a firearm under normal conditions, let alone a SHTF high-stress moment.

Rambling now, but CR is right, I believe.

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>



Isn't carrying any firearm for the purpose of self-defense based on a feeling?  How about the ammunition that is packed into the thing?

We are deluged by what firearm is best and more so what ammunition to use is best. What revolver is the best among revolvers. What pistol is best among pistols? What ammunition is best among ammunition?  Heck, even carrying a firearm is based on "feelings" for the most part.

I have the Ammo & Ballistics (5th edition) book that covers 190 calibers and 2,600 loads; it presents a lot of statistical information.  The data presented in the book somewhat satisfies the inquiring mind, but it also leave a lot of wonderment.

For example, when running different ammunition through my XDs 9mm, I found that one of the top rounds deemed worthy of self-defense (Remington 124-grain Golden Saber) was inaccurate by my standards - and I ran several boxes of this ammunition through the XDs 9.  I recently received some Fiocchi 124-grain Extrema XTPHP (9XTPC25) ammunition that performed much better (accuracy-wise) through the XDs than the Golden Sabre.  The Fiocchi is hotter than the Golden Sabre (more felt recoil), but I was able to turn in some acceptable groups with it at the same distance..  Guess which ammunition that I am going with?  Is the Fiocchi a better round to carry?  I have no earthly idea.  I sincerely hope that I don't have to find out, but I feel as though I have a better chance of surviving an encounter with a round that is more accurate than the Golden Sabre.  If I find that Buffalo Bore ammunition is more accurate than the Fiocchi ammunition, I will switch to that - as long as it reliably feeds through the pistol.  How well the Fiocchi will perform the the CX4 Storm, I have no idea until I test it out; I can only hope that it will perform well well enough to use the same ammunition in both pistol and carbine.  I can also hope that the Fiocchi will perform as well out of the Glock G43, a completely different firearm from the XDs.  It would be nice if I could find one round by one manufacturer that could be used in multiple firearms; cost notwithstanding, as the Fiocchi ammunition is less expensive than Remington or Buffalo Bore.

I feel that feelings do play a major part of "feeling out" a firearm and the ammunition to be used in them.
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2015, 08:37:14 AM »
I'm on the road this morning  (no surprise ) so cannot really respond now.

But succinctly, I do not plan to ditch any revolvers in favor of autos, ever.

There was a time when I wouldn't  ever choose a revolver over an auto, but those days are gone and nowadays I'll choose whichever piece fits the role it's needed for.

"I'll be back"

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2015, 08:43:12 AM »
I'm on the road this morning  (no surprise ) so cannot really respond now.

But succinctly, I do not plan to ditch any revolvers in favor of autos, ever.

There was a time when I wouldn't  ever choose a revolver over an auto, but those days are gone and nowadays I'll choose whichever piece fits the role it's needed for.

"I'll be back"

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>



Drive safe and we'll be looking forward to your response.
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2015, 05:14:33 PM »
I'm on the road this morning  (no surprise ) so cannot really respond now.

But succinctly, I do not plan to ditch any revolvers in favor of autos, ever.

There was a time when I wouldn't  ever choose a revolver over an auto, but those days are gone and nowadays I'll choose whichever piece fits the role it's needed for.

"I'll be back"

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>



Drive safe and we'll be looking forward to your response.


Hi,
Just got home but I don't want to let this slide longer than necessary.

There's something I call "the force", when talking about marksmanship.  Naturally I'm making loose analogy to the movie "Star Wars", but I'm pretty sure most (if not all) shooters have found that they made shots that they (we) cannot possibly attribute to anything but "luck"...uh, but that doesn't always fit.
The reason it doesn't always fit is because WE shooters have observed that MOST times, when we are "in the groove" and all the "cosmic forces" are lined up, etc, etc, etc... we make shots, and good ones, and good ones when the chips are down and all the money's on the table, so to speak.
Ok, that being said, I'll go on.

I've found, with myself, that the sight picture atop an auto loader pistol allows me much greater marksmanship than the sight picture atop a revolver.  And that has been a consistent observation through thousands and thousands of shots over the last 50 years or so. 
It is real.  Observations (my own) confirm that to me.

I shoot better with an auto than I do with a revolver, hands down.

I've discussed this with a few friends over the years and I've heard varying opinions.  One friend said he had the same experience, only, he was better with revolver sight picture than auto.  OK.  I get it.
I'm ok with that.

I know only what I've experienced, and I've stated that above.

When I got the Bulldog in 2012, I was determined to "force" myself to be better with a revolver.  I succeeded only partially.

What I've found since getting the Beretta last year is strictly consistent with life-long observations.  I am a better shot with an auto.  Hands Down.

Do I love revolvers?  YES!
Do I love autos?  YES!

If I have a choice, I'll pack the .44Mag in the woods as primary and keep the Beretta in reserve.
In "civilization", (for now at least), I'll keep the Beretta primarily because I KNOW I'll hit what I shoot at with it...better than the revolver.
Mag capacity and reload time not withstanding, I am better with an auto than a revolver.

That's just me.

Comments? 
Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 06:25:58 PM »
I shoot a revolver well if the revolver has a good "staging" point; the point in the trigger pull where there is a little slack and a little more pull almost gives you single-action operation.  I can usually hold the "slack" as long as I need to check my sight alignment.

I shoot a pistol better when I know where the trigger break is.  I want to feel where that trigger is just about to release the hammer or striker.  It is hard for me to find on most semi-automatic pistols. I don't like surprise trigger breaks. 

When I had to transition from the S&W 686 to the Sig P220, it was like night and day; I definitely shot the P220 better.

With me, it depends on the revolver or pistol that I am shooting.  Overall?  I probably do shoot a pistol better than a revolver, and that may be because I practice more with semi-autos than with revolvers.

I just talked myself into practicing more with revolvers.
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

pop pop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Location: middle TN
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2015, 05:36:47 AM »
I have gone to revolver carry because I have diabetic neuropathy in my hands and wrist and have a tendancy to limp wrist, and not be aware of when I am doing it. I carry 2, "sometimes" when out and do not feel undergunned in the least. Always  have my 7 shooter 357 with me 24/7, when legal.

To each his own.   

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2015, 09:18:52 AM »
Quote
To each his own.

Exactly!
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2015, 10:35:13 AM »
Quote
Revolvers were state of the art in their time but their time is long passed.

Funny, the same thing is being said about the U.S. Constitution and the 1911-based pistol.

The Constitution is not a revolver. I have not heard it said that 1911s, current-build ones at least, are not state of the art but I can believe it was said. They are also semi-autos and as such are still current.

I'll consider the rest of the arguments you put forward later.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2015, 10:41:00 AM »
<snip>
Final thought: More of the defense of revolver carry for EDC in my opinion is based on feeling than on fact.

Isn't carrying any firearm for the purpose of self-defense based on a feeling?  How about the ammunition that is packed into the thing?

For some it is, yes. However: It does not have to be and in fact should not be if you're making a decision in the right way.

We have facts of performance of weapons and ammunition available. We have facts of our own experience and how well we have handled and shoot/have shot various weapons. We have information available that allows us to evaluate and rate threats and the nature of the environment including threats that we move in. When all this is available to us basing this kind of decision primarily on feeling is the wrong way to do it. Feeling should follow fact. It should not lead it.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2015, 10:51:20 AM »
...nowadays I'll choose whichever piece fits the role it's needed for.
<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

That's what you should do.

Here is what I have NOT said and will NOT say: The revolver is useless now and should never be carried as a weapon of defense of life.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of you think I said that somewhere.

Not current and not state of the art is not the same thing as not still useful and not still effective. Okinawan karate is not current or state of the art in my view. It is, however, useful and effective still.

For current counter-offensive use in the current circumstances given the most likely threat any of us might have to face, the semi-auto is the superior choice. This statement does not make the revolver useless--silly idea, that would be--it just makes it a less-effective choice when you have one.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2015, 10:57:25 AM »
I have gone to revolver carry because I have diabetic neuropathy in my hands and wrist and have a tendancy to limp wrist, and not be aware of when I am doing it. I carry 2, "sometimes" when out and do not feel undergunned in the least. Always  have my 7 shooter 357 with me 24/7, when legal.

To each his own.

This is an example of the exception that tests the rule. In pop pop's case the revolver is the superior choice. He also recognizes one of the main limitations of the wheelgun as a modern fighting weapon and has made adjustments to compensate for it.

Some people can't fire .45s or 9mms. They may have to go down to smaller calibers, even as far down as .22s. That's what they should do and I commend everyone that makes these kinds of adjustments.

There is no blanket 'best'. There are general-case 'betters' and even general-case 'bests' of sorts: Rifles over shotguns as fighting guns, for example. Someone that wants to can likely come up with a specific rifle that isn't as good or a specific shotgun that is better in one way or another or a specific circumstance where one beats the other. But in general, rifles beat shotguns as fighting weapons.

There is no blanket 'best'.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2015, 12:14:47 PM »
What came first, fact or feeling?

How does one know if fire is hot? They usually find out after they feel the burn.  With electricity, we know that it takes current to kill - that's a fact.  Voltage (pressure), by itself, is not harmful until a flow of current is established. How do we know this? Because people have felt the flow of current and died.  The severity of injury from electrical shock depends on the amount of electrical current and the length of time the current passes through the body. For example, 1/10 of an ampere (amp) of electricity going through the body for just 2 seconds is enough to cause death.  This is a fact.

When I shoot any firearm, I feel recoil.  I don't know how much recoil there is, but if I turn the gun over to folks who know how to correctly measure the amount of recoil, I can find out. 

Firearms have no feelings; however, people have feelings about firearms - and that is a fact.

"A throat strike is more devastating than a kick to the groin" I was once told.  Really!  And what fact led you to tell me that?  I'll tell you what, I'll kick to the groin and take my chances. That's how I feel about that!

Quote
For some it is, yes. However: It does not have to be and in fact should not be if you're making a decision in the right way.

My version: For some it is, yes. However: It does not have to be and in fact should not be if you're making a decision.

When I decided to purchase the Glock G34, I went through my usual process of researching the firearm; spec sheets, on-line videos and reviews. I tried to gather as much information about the G43 as I could find.  Based on the information that I found, my thinking is that it is a good firearm (deductive reasoning).

When I had a chance to shoot one at the range, the results bore out the fact that it is a good gun (collective reasoning).

The above; however, is not why I purchased the G43.  It just felt good in my hand; better than the Shield, XDs, and LC9s Pro.

If I don't feel good about a firearm, I will not own it regardless of the facts associated with it.

Debating over ammunition, types of firearms, and firearms within the same category, is a futile  adventure at best, although it does make for interesting conversations.

The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

RayMich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Location: Mid MI
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2015, 06:36:28 PM »
And never run out of bullets!

Exactly! - I keep looking for a couple of those "Wild West" revolvers with endless ammo capacity. The endless capacity rifle and shotgun would also be great to own. Much better than a modern "Evil Black Rifle" with only a 30-round magazine capacity. But no doubt, the anti-gun liberals' heads would explode. ;D
- Ray -

"The Constitution is NOT and instrument for the government to restrain the people, it IS an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2015, 06:59:49 AM »
What came first, fact or feeling?

More accurate question is which comes first? Answer is: Either one can. That doesn't make it correct in a given situation if one precedes the other.

How does one know if fire is hot? They usually find out after they feel the burn.  With electricity, we know that it takes current to kill - that's a fact.  Voltage (pressure), by itself, is not harmful until a flow of current is established. How do we know this? Because people have felt the flow of current and died.  The severity of injury from electrical shock depends on the amount of electrical current and the length of time the current passes through the body. For example, 1/10 of an ampere (amp) of electricity going through the body for just 2 seconds is enough to cause death.  This is a fact.

Yes it is. So?


When I shoot any firearm, I feel recoil.  I don't know how much recoil there is, but if I turn the gun over to folks who know how to correctly measure the amount of recoil, I can find out.

Felt recoil is both actual and subjective, but both are factual in nature.

There is emotional feeling and there is physical feeling. You're mixing the two up here. 

Firearms have no feelings; however, people have feelings about firearms - and that is a fact.

Yes they do. That's what gets them in trouble sometimes. And what about an inanimate physical object having no feelings is relevant to this discussion?

"A throat strike is more devastating than a kick to the groin" I was once told.  Really!  And what fact led you to tell me that?  I'll tell you what, I'll kick to the groin and take my chances. That's how I feel about that!

The throat strike can be more immediately disabling or lethal. That's physiology. How you feel about it is irrelevant to the physiology. Do you want efficiency and effectiveness in the strike or do you want to do what feels good to you? Which is more likely to do what you want to the person you're hitting? Are your feelings about this more important than that?

Quote
For some it is, yes. However: It does not have to be and in fact should not be if you're making a decision in the right way.

My version: For some it is, yes. However: It does not have to be and in fact should not be if you're making a decision.

That depends on what you're deciding about. In relation to the subject under discussion, I stand by the original statement. I should have specified that. If you're deciding about marrying someone I'm not sure if pure fact should take precedence, for example. (Though perhaps if it did there would be fewer busted ones afterwards. But that's another question.)

When I decided to purchase the Glock G34, I went through my usual process of researching the firearm; spec sheets, on-line videos and reviews. I tried to gather as much information about the G43 as I could find.  Based on the information that I found, my thinking is that it is a good firearm (deductive reasoning).

When I had a chance to shoot one at the range, the results bore out the fact that it is a good gun (collective reasoning).

The above; however, is not why I purchased the G43.  It just felt good in my hand; better than the Shield, XDs, and LC9s Pro.

You did not base your purchase decision in the latter case on an emotional feeling (except where the physical drives the emotional). There is a difference. I believe a lot of the defense of revolvers comes from emotion. I suppose I should have specified that.

If I don't feel good about a firearm, I will not own it regardless of the facts associated with it.

That is your choice and to some extent I can't say that I don't share it. Just as long as we don't reject a battlefield pickup because we can't be emotionally invested in it I don't think I'll worry overmuch about it.

Debating over ammunition, types of firearms, and firearms within the same category, is a futile  adventure at best, although it does make for interesting conversations.

It must not be or why would you be doing it now?

It's not a futile adventure, Taurian. I'll leave the why of that unwritten for the present because I'm feeling a bit impish about it now. ;D
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2015, 04:05:32 PM »
Can we have a group hug, yet?

[attachimg=1]
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2015, 04:21:04 PM »
I love autos.
I love revolvers.
I love double barrel shotguns.
I love pump shotguns.
I love belt fed machineguns.
I love magazine fed machineguns.
I love bolt action rifles.
I love single shot rifles.

I'm very emotional about all firearms!

I love em all!

Ok...now the group hug!

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2015, 04:58:05 PM »
You missed "Lever" guns!!!

Okay!  I'm sorry, but I have to leave now and eat some apple pie and ice cream.  I really hate to do it, but somebody has to.

If you really want a laugh, watch Jerry Mikulek "stumble" through firing a revolver and educate Coilion Noir on technique.  Note the custom sights on the one he shoots.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNWGTj6Zjss" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNWGTj6Zjss</a>
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2015, 05:18:45 AM »
You missed "Lever" guns!!!

And pump-action rifles. Don't forget the pump-action rifles.

And semi-auto shotguns.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2015, 05:21:22 AM »
Can we have a group hug, yet?[attachimg=1]

Thanks for reminding me that as much as I like cats there are too many kittens around my house at this time.

No group hugs. I am also against any "team building" events that don't involve urban combat or rural patrolling.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2015, 06:30:34 AM »
A Tactical Group Hug equates to everyone facing outward shoulder to shoulder and watching the perimeter while hugging their ARs, AKs, shotguns, rifles, carbines, etc.
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

oldranger53

  • The Ranger Creed-words to live by
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • 2/503d INF ABN 173d BDE ABN
    • Temporary website home with basic information.
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2015, 08:31:43 AM »
A Tactical Group Hug equates to everyone facing outward shoulder to shoulder and watching the perimeter while hugging their ARs, AKs, shotguns, rifles, carbines, etc.
Now THAT is what I call "A HUG!"

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight, and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be.  One hundred percent and then some.

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2015, 09:33:59 AM »
Quote
Revolvers were state of the art in their time but their time is long passed. If you want the best handgun to fight with today, get a semi-auto.

Quote
Here is what I have NOT said and will NOT say: The revolver is useless now and should never be carried as a weapon of defense of life.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of you think I said that somewhere.

Pretty close, though.  In my opinion, pistols were (are) designed for convenience and revolvers were (are) designed for business.  Both are extensions to natural weapons.

When J. Browning gave us the 1911, the .455 Webley revolver was in existence.  "The Webley & Scott pistol was sold to the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Navy during World War One. There were also some Colt M1911 pistols chambered in .455 Auto purchased by the Royal Navy. Although not a standard sidearm or a standard service cartridge, a few Colt M1911 "British Service Models" chambered in .455 Auto were sold commercially to British Navy and Army officers through outfitters. The service ammunition came packed in 7-round boxes stamped "Not For Revolvers" to prevent confusion.+ - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.455_Webley

I respect your passion for thinking tactically and trying to ensure our survival based on modern weapons and tactics.  I will not; however, fault anyone who can defend their life with a .30-06, .223/5.56 NATO, or even the .22 LR regardless of the tool used to do so.

When I do seek out training, I do want a trainer that is passionate about what he or she teaches.  If the training is just a means to satisfy "business as usual", I don't need that trainer or the by-the-numbers product.  A good firearms instructor should be able to take the person and any firearm of the person's choosing, marry them together, and train them to work as a unit.

With that said, I am looking forward to attending one of your classes when I am able to do so; I might even bring a revolver with me.  ;D

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.  ;)
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2015, 05:52:22 AM »
I wouldn't be surprised if some of you think I said that somewhere.

Pretty close, though.  In my opinion, pistols were (are) designed for convenience and revolvers were (are) designed for business.

Both those statements indicate an emotional attachment to me. Which is fine. I tend to make pretty flat statements about this in particular and am not surprised when I get some emotion in the response.

Both are extensions to natural weapons.

We have natural projectile weapons? :P

When J. Browning gave us the 1911, the .455 Webley revolver was in existence.  "The Webley & Scott pistol was sold to the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Navy during World War One. There were also some Colt M1911 pistols chambered in .455 Auto purchased by the Royal Navy. Although not a standard sidearm or a standard service cartridge, a few Colt M1911 "British Service Models" chambered in .455 Auto were sold commercially to British Navy and Army officers through outfitters. The service ammunition came packed in 7-round boxes stamped "Not For Revolvers" to prevent confusion.+ - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.455_Webley

John Browning also gave us the Hi-Power, which he considered a more refined design than the 1911. Which historical tidbit doesn't seem relevant to this argument either.


I respect your passion for thinking tactically and trying to ensure our survival based on modern weapons and tactics.  I will not; however, fault anyone who can defend their life with a .30-06, .223/5.56 NATO, or even the .22 LR regardless of the tool used to do so.

Where. Did. I. Say. That. I. Did.

When I do seek out training, I do want a trainer that is passionate about what he or she teaches.  If the training is just a means to satisfy "business as usual", I don't need that trainer or the by-the-numbers product.  A good firearms instructor should be able to take the person and any firearm of the person's choosing, marry them together, and train them to work as a unit.

Are you implying that I don't? If you are, please present the evidence you have in reference to that.

With that said, I am looking forward to attending one of your classes when I am able to do so; I might even bring a revolver with me.  ;D

If you bring a wheelgun please let me know ahead of time. I have an S&W Model 13 I use when working with students with revolvers but don't always add it to the pile of class tools.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.  ;)[/quote]

Okay, here's the article as it appeared in CCM. I submitted it with the title "Revolvers: A Contrarian View" and deliberately took a flat and direct approach to it in part because I was looking for the reader to ask themselves the question I posed at the end of it. The editor changed the title (twice, once in the TOC and once on the article page) to basically make me a liar in the reader's eyes. Irritating, but not fixable. I tried.

"I SUSPECT THAT what you are about to read will make some of you angry so I will ask a favor of you before you continue. Answer the question I will ask toward the end of
this article as honestly as you can. You donít have to answer me; answer yourself. If it seems appropriate after that, go ahead and send me the email or send the editor the letter you were composing before you got to the question.

Here is my _first declaration: You should not carry a revolver by choice
as a primary weapon. A revolver should not be what you choose to put between you and someone who is trying to kill you. If you are choosing your _ first handgun, do not purchase a revolver. If the choice of handgun is between a modern revolver and a modern semi-automatic, the semi-auto should be chosen except under certain specific circumstances.

Here is my second declaration: The revolver was cutting edge in its time;
that time is long past. Both technological developments and the nature of the potential threats you are most likely to face have made the revolver a second-choice weapon at best.

Here is my reasoning: Revolvers are limited in ammunition capacity
compared to most semi-autos. (This can be mitigated by carrying two or more revolvers, but you can carry two or more semi-autos as easily.)
Revolvers cannot be reloaded as quickly as semi-autos. (Again, you can carry two or more, but you can carry two or more semis too.)
For most people, revolvers are more dificult to shoot well than semi-autos. (Most people can learn to shoot well faster and easier using a semi-auto pistol.)

Revolvers are harder physically on many, perhaps most, people to shoot than semi-autos. (More recoil is translated to the shooter than would be with an equivalent semi-auto.)

If a revolver fails in combat (and they do fail) that failure is more likely to be catastrophic to the shooter than it would be with a semi-auto. (Most semi-auto failures can be rectified quickly. A revolver failure is more likely to make the weapon useless.)

Spare ammunition is harder to carry for a revolver than it is for a semi-auto. There is not as much choice of model and type or caliber, nor is there as much flexibility in regard to add-ons and modifications with revolvers as there are with semi-autos.

Translation: Semi-autos should take precedence of choice over revolvers in the vast majority of cases.

Conditions and situations under which a revolver might be a better choice or perform better than a semi-auto handgun are: Where semi-autos are restricted or banned for civilian carry, either outright or because of limited choice of ammunition (caliber) or ammunition capacity that creates a de facto restriction on such weapons. Where there is a high probability or expectation that shots will have to be _ fired from inside a pocket or with the gun in contact with the attacker. Where there is reason to want to keep
the spent shells fully under your control. (Such as for reloading and re-use.)
Where there is an inability for some reason to be able to operate a semi-auto. (Such as an inability to manipulate the slide.)

If you do carry a revolver or revolvers, whether by choice or necessity, always carry at least one, preferably two, reloads for the revolver(s). If you can find one that fits, get and carry a speed-loader for your model revolver. Even if you do carry a speed-loader, and especially if you do not, carry at least one speed-strip as well. You can use a speed-strip to do partial reloads that you canít do, or do nearly as easily, with a speed-loader.

Even if you donít own one and donít intend to own one, you should still take a little time and learn how to operate and fire one. There are a lot of them out there, and if you ever do need to run one, you need to know how best to do it. So take some time, stretch yourself and learn about them.

Here is the question I have for you if you are upset or angry from reading this: Why are you upset?

Is it because I am factually, realistically or rationally wrong about something? Or is it because you, personally, have an emotional
attachment to, maybe even an ego investment in, the revolver? Be honest with yourself.

I have no problem with an emotional attachment to a thing, idea, concept, tradition, philosophy or anything else, unless it interferes with you having the best possible chance to win a fight for your life. However, if emotional attachment, tradition, convenience or laziness gets in the way of survival ó and I think these reasons sometimes do where the choice between a
revolver and a semi- is concerned ó then I get worried about it.
I have written this because what I see and hear in defense of the revolver as a primary weapon sometimes sounds like inhibiting attachments and not like fully reasoned arguments based on solid experience, history and
knowledge. Because I prefer my good guys to be alive and unharmed, that worries me.

The choice, as always, is yours. Investigate, research, consider, test, think, experiment as best you can, and make it a good one.

You be safe out there. And if you canít be safe, be dangerous."

And by the way: Grant Cunnigham has two excellent books that focus on revolvers in the counter-offensive role. I have one and the other is on my Wish List but hasn't been pulled in yet. I highly recommend these as an enhancement to your own study of the subject.


Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2015, 07:08:00 AM »
Quote
Both those statements indicate an emotional attachment to me. Which is fine. I tend to make pretty flat statements about this in particular and am not surprised when I get some emotion in the response.

I have no emotional attachment to you.  ;D

I do; however, have emotional attachment to material possessions; it is part of my birth sign and I just can't help it.

Quote
We have natural projectile weapons?

You have been talking to my wifey?

My point is that all things mechanical are prone to failure.  Some failures are caused by incorrect human intervention while others are truly mechanical in nature.

I have had cylinders on revolver lock up to the point where I had to slam the palm of my hand against the cylinder, short of using a plastic-headed hammer, to free it from the frame.  I have also had an "Officer" model 1911 fail to cycle properly. The fix took replacing the recoil spring with a good Wolf unit, replacing the extractor with a better unit, and enlarging the ejection port.  I have had a "Government" model 1911 that would not cycle (multiple FTFs with any ammunition) properly out of the box; a new Wolf #18 recoil spring fixed that problem.  The most serious problem occurred when an Iver Johnson .44 magnum single-action revolver blew up in my hand; that cost me an eye tooth and several stitches.  I have had to replace the barrel on a Llama .45 acp pistol because the barrel was not bored properly.  I have experienced timing problems in both revolvers and pistols.

I think that we can both agree on; regardless of whether a person uses a revolver or pistol, for competition, hunting, sport shooting, or for self-defense especially, the firearm needs to be 110% reliable in the hands of the operator of that firearm.
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2015, 05:23:48 AM »
I have an attachment to material possessions of one kind or another. Not so much to some as to others. Maybe not as much in general as some do. Where guns are concerned any attachment follows the tasking. I'm not prepared to let emotional attachment get in the way of effectiveness. I've occasionally gotten an impression that some 'revolver guys' let that happen. It's not just revolvers and not just the gun world where this happens. It is something that should be guarded against at any time in any place in any area of life.

Emotional attachment where guns are concerned should stop at "I won't sell this one and I like to shoot it more than others I have". The point it gets to where someone is convincing themselves and trying to convince others that their beloved ____________ is the best one for the job when it is not is a place it never needs to get to or be allowed to approach.

Nope, don't think anybody here does that.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com

crzyjarmans

  • Fewer words carry a great weight than someone who never stops talking
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
  • Location: Las Vegas,NV
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2015, 02:05:36 PM »
Can we ban people that want to ban other things?
Shawn, Stay armed, Stay safe

Taurian

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7894
  • Location: About 3,546 Miles S.E. of Nome Alaska
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #36 on: September 04, 2015, 03:04:18 PM »
Banning is so banal!
The fact that the GOVERNMENT would even consider removing the natural right to bear arms is the very reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

CR Williams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
    • In Shadow In Light
  • Location: Central Alabama
Re: Let's Ban Revolvers!!!
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2015, 05:45:06 AM »
Can we ban people that want to ban other things?

May depend on what they want to ban. I'd support banning stupidity, Federal Department of Education, and progressive political parties and their supporters.

I'm not too much for high school and college football either as it is currently constituted, but I can negotiate on that. Maybe just ban parents and people that paint their bodies in team colors. I'd like to ban thugs and criminals from the teams but some colleges couldn't support a program if that happened, which would be fine with me.
Shikan haramitsu dai ko myo.

In Shadow In Light - Studying and advancing the art and the science of the fight.

www.inshadowinlight.com