# "Why Carry A Revolver?"



## Andy Moynihan (May 22, 2010)

http://www.snubnose.info/docs/why_carry.htm



> "Also, in certain situations (e.g. with the muzzle pushed into the torso of one's attacker, or the gun grasped by one's assailant) a pistol slide can be pushed "out of battery", meaning that the gun will not fire and/or will not cycle the action if fired. A revolver suffers rather less from this handicap (although if the cylinder is grasped, it can be prevented from turning, so a revolver isn't altogether immune)."



Unless you know the trick to circumvent even the cylinder grab--which I DO....



Respect the revolver! *RESPECT IT!!!!*


----------



## Explorer (May 22, 2010)

Whatever you say Andy ... "Mr. Revolver, without reservation I would like to tell you how much I respect you and your entire family."


Good enough?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 22, 2010)

Perfect.


----------



## seasoned (May 22, 2010)

At times I do favor my 38 cal, SW 640.


----------



## jks9199 (May 22, 2010)

Revolvers have the advantage of being much simpler mechanically, so they can be deemed more reliable.  But they're slower to reload, and carry fewer rounds.  They'll also kick more, because the semi-auto uses the energy of the recoil to operate the slide.

In the end... no gun is "better" than another; one doesn't make you deader than another with a well aimed shot!  Use & carry what works for you!


----------



## Haakon (May 22, 2010)

Revolvers are great, I really miss my Ruger Speed Six. The 3" GP100 is great too, but I never should have traded off that Speed Six.


----------



## Skpotamus (May 22, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> In the end... no gun is "better" than another; one doesn't make you deader than another with a well aimed shot!  Use & carry what works for you!



I agree wholeheartedly.  Both types of guns are merely tools.  Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.  A revolver can be fired in a pocket or purse more than once without jamming, a semi auto can hold a lot more rounds.  I carry by 38 snub in a pocket often, but I prefer to carry my semi-autos as they carry a LOT more rounds.  5 in my snub, vs 18 in my glock.  My highest capacity revolver (non 22) is a 8 shot 357.  Even carrying a reload for the revolver, that puts me at less capacity than I can put out with my semi-auto without having to reload.  The 8 shot is cut for moonclips, but they are kinda slow to reload with in that gun.  Nowhere near as fast as my 625 6 shot 45 cut for moons.  Even then, I can still reload my semi-autos faster and have more rounds on board than my revolvers.  



jks9199 said:


> Revolvers have the advantage of being much simpler mechanically, so they can be deemed more reliable. But they're slower to reload, and carry fewer rounds. They'll also kick more, because the semi-auto uses the energy of the recoil to operate the slide.



Revolvers are not simpler mechanically than any semi-auto I can think of.  It's just that their guts are hidden inside the frame and you don't normally see them, so they get accused of being simpler.  Truth is, they have mroe parts, and more of them move than in semi autos.  

For comparison, a 1911 has 46 standard parts (http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Products.aspx?catid=11958)

A smith and wesson 686 has 78 (http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Products.aspx?catid=10085)

Even the old smith and wesson 1917 model had a total of 53 parts (http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Products.aspx?catid=8042)

I can't find the resource now, but I remember reading in either one of Applegate or Fairbairn's books that they saw far more revolvers break during their time in shanghai than semi-autos.


----------



## jks9199 (May 22, 2010)

I don't know; I'm quoting what I've been taught more than once about revolvers.  However, number of parts doesn't automatically tell you about how simple something is mechanically.  I'm not a gunsmith -- but as I understand it, there's much less that can go wrong with a revolver, and they're generally much more tolerant of poor care than many semi-autos.

Of course, there's not a lot of malfunction drills for a revolver, because when they do break, there's generally not a whole heck of lot you can do short of a gunsmith's bench!

One other note I wanted to address on the semi-autos... Most WILL fire at least one round, if it was already chambered, even if the slide is held.  They won't eject the spent casing, and they won't feed the next round... but you get one bang!  Whether it'll fire if you manage to shove the slide back, out of battery, is a different question.


----------



## Skpotamus (May 22, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I don't know; I'm quoting what I've been taught more than once about revolvers.  However, number of parts doesn't automatically tell you about how simple something is mechanically.  I'm not a gunsmith -- but as I understand it, there's much less that can go wrong with a revolver, and they're generally much more tolerant of poor care than many semi-autos.
> 
> Of course, there's not a lot of malfunction drills for a revolver, because when they do break, there's generally not a whole heck of lot you can do short of a gunsmith's bench!
> 
> One other note I wanted to address on the semi-autos... Most WILL fire at least one round, if it was already chambered, even if the slide is held.  They won't eject the spent casing, and they won't feed the next round... but you get one bang!  Whether it'll fire if you manage to shove the slide back, out of battery, is a different question.




The firing mechanisms are more complicated and a lot more of a PITA to work on, lots more parts working together, and they're all freaking small as hell and hard to hold onto with only two hands.  :soapbox:
Here's prob the best diagram I've found of an actual S&W revolvers guts:  http://www.dnmsport.com/SW/SMITH & WESSON REVOLVER CUTAWAY.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/revolver2.htm a neat little animation of a simple revolver firing, note that it's leaving out a HUGE chunk of the parts in teh above diagram.  
http://www.m1911.org/loader.swf  a 1911 animation 
http://www.sniperworld.com/content.aspx?ckey=sniper_world_glock_index and a glock animation

Part of the reason they seem to last longer is that most people don't shoot nearly as many rounds through a revolver as they do a semi-auto.  A box of 50 rounds at the range si a lot of shooting and reloading for a lot of revolver guys, a couple hundred rounds is a lot for most semi-auto guys.  
Another (and probably bigger reason) is that the revolvers guts are separated from the dirty powder burn so they don't get gunked up.  But when they do break or gunk up, it's beyond most people to fix them.


----------



## Haakon (May 22, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not a gunsmith -- but as I understand it, there's much less that can go wrong with a revolver, and they're generally much more tolerant of poor care than many semi-autos.



Revolvers are relatively fragile, especially compared to something like a 1911 or a Glock. In general revolvers hold up to _neglect_ better, autos hold up to _abuse_ better. It doesn't take all that much to bend a yoke or knock a revolver out of time and out of commission. Most combat autos have fairly loose tolerances, they can get whacked around and still function reliably.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

Haakon said:


> Revolvers are relatively fragile, especially compared to something like a 1911 or a Glock. In general revolvers hold up to _neglect_ better, autos hold up to _abuse_ better. It doesn't take all that much to bend a yoke or knock a revolver out of time and out of commission. Most combat autos have fairly loose tolerances, they can get whacked around and still function reliably.


 

Unless it's a Ruger, there is a definite difference between them and their S&W or Taurus counterparts( Colt no longer makes revolvers that aren't SAA's--such a shame, I sure would love me a nice 2 or 3 inch Python) .

Those Rugers are just about bombproof.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Both types of guns are merely tools. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. A revolver can be fired in a pocket or purse more than once without jamming, a semi auto can hold a lot more rounds. I carry by 38 snub in a pocket often, but I prefer to carry my semi-autos as they carry a LOT more rounds. 5 in my snub, vs 18 in my glock. My highest capacity revolver (non 22) is a 8 shot 357. Even carrying a reload for the revolver, that puts me at less capacity than I can put out with my semi-auto without having to reload. The 8 shot is cut for moonclips, but they are kinda slow to reload with in that gun. Nowhere near as fast as my 625 6 shot 45 cut for moons. Even then, I can still reload my semi-autos faster and have more rounds on board than my revolvers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Please let me know if you can find that reference, I'd love to hear what they said.

For the record--I have and occasionally carry an auto( SIG P220, 45, DAO converted).

Just if I want to carry that, I have to wear a concealing garment, and I don't wanna have to bother with it.

Does the auto have advantages? Sure. But it so happens that in my situation, I prefer the advantages of the wheelie to the self stuffer.

As to the ability of a revolver to break--of course it can, every manmade mechanical device is subject to failure.

_But you cannot compare a broken revolver to a jammed semi_--A revolver has to mechanically BREAK before it fails to feed/fire. An auto does not.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. Both types of guns are merely tools. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. A revolver can be fired in a pocket or purse more than once without jamming, a semi auto can hold a lot more rounds. I carry by 38 snub in a pocket often, but I prefer to carry my semi-autos as they carry a LOT more rounds. 5 in my snub, vs 18 in my glock. My highest capacity revolver (non 22) is a 8 shot 357. Even carrying a reload for the revolver, that puts me at less capacity than I can put out with my semi-auto without having to reload. The 8 shot is cut for moonclips, but they are kinda slow to reload with in that gun. Nowhere near as fast as my 625 6 shot 45 cut for moons. Even then, I can still reload my semi-autos faster and have more rounds on board than my revolvers.


 
Also true.

I just got tired of trying to imagine scenarios where I'd need to lug that much around all day every day. At the end of the day, realistically, for those of us NOT in a war zone, while the extra rounds are comforting, as far as self defense goes in scenarios we're likely to run into, us regular folks are gonna run out of TIME before AMMO, no matter what we brought. *shrug*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 23, 2010)

Why carry either one?  A large-caliber DA derringer works just fine as a carry weapon for non-police work.

http://www.amderringer.com/das.html

Available in .40 S&W.  Not sure who needs more other than police.  For the traditionalists, SA in .45 Colt / .410 shotgun.

http://www.amderringer.com/m1.html


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why carry either one? A large-caliber DA derringer works just fine as a carry weapon for non-police work.
> 
> http://www.amderringer.com/das.html
> 
> ...


 

Because those are not available in my excuse for a state.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 23, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Unless you know the trick to circumvent even the cylinder grab--which I DO....



Care to share?

The big obvious advantage with a revolver is that you can leave it on a shelf for ages and then pick it and not have a problem.  Conversely with a magazine you should really be relaxing the springs from time to time.


----------



## Skpotamus (May 23, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Please let me know if you can find that reference, I'd love to hear what they said.
> 
> For the record--I have and occasionally carry an auto( SIG P220, 45, DAO converted).
> 
> ...



Found it.   It was a quote on another forum from a guy who trained with Applegate and Sykes, I'll post his quote here: "In Shooting to Live by WE Fairbairn and EA Sykes, the authors state that they considered semiautos to be the most reliable. Anyone who has worked on both will see that revolvers are way more complicated and finicky. The belief that revolvers are more reliable because they are simpler is not true."

The actual quote in the book is talking about damage to firearms on page 67 of the .pdf, page 55 of the actual book "as far as our experience goes, a comparison between the automatic and the double action revolver, in respect to the their liability to damage, results in favour of the former"  The next few paragraphs talk about the damage they've seen revolvers take, most from dropping them, tweaking the cylinder, etc.  But they also talk about broken firing pins, worn out springs etc.  

It should also be noted, that they recommend a revolver for detectives who have to make that first shot while in contact with someone.  Of course, their mods to the gun make it seem scary by todays standards (cutting down barrel, removing hammer spur, removing front of trigger guard).  They also recommend removing safeties altogether on handguns.  

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_64...airbairn_-_Shooting_To_Live_____110_pages.pdf is the book itself, available for free download.  A great read for anybody who hasn't read it.  Lots of neat info from people who actually got into gunfights pretty regularly.  Some 600 odd gunfights with his police unit in shanghai over a 12 year period with handguns.


----------



## Carol (May 23, 2010)

Thanks for the link!  Looking forward to reading that :asian:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Care to share?


 
Sure.

The first thing you must do is know in advance which direction your revolver's cylinder rotates( Smith and Ruger revolvers rotate left, I know not of others). It'll be clear even before you work the action just by looking at which way the grooves at the rear of the cylinder "point".

Normally, you'd begin the DA trigger pull and the cylinder would rotate that way and then release the hammer once the chamber is lined up.

But in the case of a disarm attempt where the cylinder is grabbed, you cannot do this--the hand is holding the cylinder against the frame.

But even my hands can't hold the WHOLE gun still at once.

Since you cannot pull the trigger and rotate the cylinder to the left( in my revolver's case)----you simply perform what amounts to a karate punch in reverse--you all at once pull back, pull the trigger and, at the same time you pull, rotate the FRAME to the RIGHT. on my Smith model 60 a mere 45 degrees is all I need to move it to fire even with the cylinder grabbed, on my Ruger SP101 I need to first tweak it a few millimeters left and THEN crank it 45 degrees and then it works. You've got me? who's got YOU? *bang*



> The big obvious advantage with a revolver is that you can leave it on a shelf for ages and then pick it and not have a problem. Conversely with a magazine you should really be relaxing the springs from time to time.


 

Which I do. Give the slide rails an oiling once a month too whether they need it or not


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 23, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Found it. It was a quote on another forum from a guy who trained with Applegate and Sykes, I'll post his quote here: "In Shooting to Live by WE Fairbairn and EA Sykes, the authors state that they considered semiautos to be the most reliable. Anyone who has worked on both will see that revolvers are way more complicated and finicky. The belief that revolvers are more reliable because they are simpler is not true."
> 
> The actual quote in the book is talking about damage to firearms on page 67 of the .pdf, page 55 of the actual book "as far as our experience goes, a comparison between the automatic and the double action revolver, in respect to the their liability to damage, results in favour of the former" The next few paragraphs talk about the damage they've seen revolvers take, most from dropping them, tweaking the cylinder, etc. But they also talk about broken firing pins, worn out springs etc.
> 
> ...


 

Thanks, I'm gonna enjoy reading that when I have the time. 

I'm not sure that revolvers of the 20's and 30's ( when Fairbairn/Sykes served in Shanghai and did all the fighting) Can be compared to modern revolvers though in terms of steel or caliber(.38 special, when it first came our in 1899, was first loaded with blackpowder, and then gradually became a smokeless round, and .357 magnum wasn't around till 1935 and I'm not sure you can really say the steel used then was the same standard as now--but I've been wrong before).

On the other side, I'd like to invite anyone interested to read Ed Lovette's "The Snubby Revolver" and visit 

www.snubtraining.com and www.snubnose.info  ( Most especially the "Library" section) for some perhaps surprising little bits of knowledge that may have you reconsidering the snubby.

To be clear: I do not think the snubby is a suitable military or general issue police sidearm given modern needs in those fields.

Do I think the snubby is a battlefield dominator? No I do not.

Do I think it's underrated and is still an almost perfect "Streetfighter"? Yes I do. 

Would I prefer a fullsize auto? Who wouldn't.

Would I , failing that, or not wanting to bother with a concealing garment, rather have a pocket revolver than a pocket auto? Who wouldn't?


----------



## Skpotamus (May 24, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Thanks, I'm gonna enjoy reading that when I have the time.
> 
> I'm not sure that revolvers of the 20's and 30's ( when Fairbairn/Sykes served in Shanghai and did all the fighting) Can be compared to modern revolvers though in terms of steel or caliber(.38 special, when it first came our in 1899, was first loaded with blackpowder, and then gradually became a smokeless round, and .357 magnum wasn't around till 1935 and I'm not sure you can really say the steel used then was the same standard as now--but I've been wrong before).
> 
> ...



Very nice resource, look forward to reading it 

RE: steel and revolvers, it's entirely possible that todays revolvers are more robust than those in that era.  They were definitely using webleys (at least one story in there about a webley) and probably the S&W model 10 and 1917, most of those models are still available today, so the design didn't really change much, but the metallurgy might have.  

I do know I managed to tweak the yoke in my GP100 using my maxfire speedloaders a lot    Shame to, because I really liked those speed loaders.  BTW, the gun got fixed and I still shoot it pretty often.  Just switched to the safariland speed loaders


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 24, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Very nice resource, look forward to reading it
> 
> RE: steel and revolvers, it's entirely possible that todays revolvers are more robust than those in that era. They were definitely using webleys (at least one story in there about a webley) and probably the S&W model 10 and 1917, most of those models are still available today, so the design didn't really change much, but the metallurgy might have.
> 
> I do know I managed to tweak the yoke in my GP100 using my maxfire speedloaders a lot  Shame to, because I really liked those speed loaders. BTW, the gun got fixed and I still shoot it pretty often. Just switched to the safariland speed loaders


 
Yeah, I took one look at the way you're supposed to use the maxfires and I was just like, "nnnNO. Revolver abuse". Ayoob didn't like them either. I don't blame him.


----------



## lklawson (May 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why carry either one?  A large-caliber DA derringer works just fine as a carry weapon for non-police work.


The stats I've seen for Civilian SD shootings have an average of more than two shots fired.

So who would need more than a large caliber derringer?  Civilians interested in self defense.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 24, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_64.../1/print/Historic_-_W.E_Fairbairn_-_Shooting_To_Live_____110_pages.pdf is the book itself, available for free download.


Free but illegal.

This is a scan of Paladin Press' edition.  PP 2 in the PDF:

Copyright 1987 Paladin Press.
Reprinted with permission by 
Paladin Press, P.O. Box 1307,
Boulder, CO 80306.
Web site: http://www.paladin-press.com

Further, its 1st Ed. 1942 authorship and private publishing does not put it in the Public Domain since the original copyright can not have expired yet, by law (Copyright Act of 1976).  The earliest date at which this work could possibly become Public Domain is 2037.

Yes, U.S. Copyright Law is seriously borked.  Yes, it desperately needs fixed.  Yes, every time Congress undertakes the task to "fix" it, the "fix" is always to extend ownership of the work, and never in favor of the Public Domain.  Yes, this sucks.

In summary, this copy is NOT LEGAL, download at your own risk!  Paladin Press tends to be one of the nicer publishing firms but the DMCA can be used to really REALLY bork you.  I don't think it's probably worth the risk for a book on shooting theory which was cutting edge more than half a century ago.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 24, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Conversely with a magazine you should really be relaxing the springs from time to time.


Unnecessary.  Modern springs do not suffer any significant fatigue from remaining in a state of compression for anything approaching human-reasonable periods of time.  Springs "wear out" from repeated compression and release.

Using them wears them out, not compressing them and then not using them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 24, 2010)

lklawson said:


> The stats I've seen for Civilian SD shootings have an average of more than two shots fired.



I think you'll find that those stats do not exist.

I've gone on many a wild-goose chase trying to find the source of those oft-quoted statistics; my conclusion is that they do not actually exist.



> So who would need more than a large caliber derringer?  Civilians interested in self defense.



I'm interested in self-defense, and I do not believe the number of shots fired by civilians in self-defense is known.  In any case, I find that a large-caliber derringer offers some advantages in concealment and carry that a larger-framed weapon does not.   In any case, I think we can agree that the best carry weapon is the one you actually carry, yes?

It has been my experience that some folks tend to neglect carry in hot weather or when they are wearing light summer attire.  It's better to be with a weapon than without one, IMHO, so if one is honest with oneself and recognizes that they may not have the self-discipline to bring their weapon with them everywhere, then perhaps a derringer is not a bad alternative, if it means they'll carry it more often.

I would also make a passing reference to the 'macho' angle.  Often enough, one tends to prefer the 'biggest' gun, whether or not it has any particular advantage in a self-defense situation.  Hey, we Americans like the biggest car, the loudest stereo, the biggest-screen TV...it's understandable.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm interested in self-defense, and I do not believe the number of shots fired by civilians in self-defense is known.  In any case, I find that a large-caliber derringer offers some advantages in concealment and carry that a larger-framed weapon does not.   In any case, I think we can agree that the best carry weapon is the one you actually carry, yes?



AFAIC, ease of carry/concealment is the ONLY thing a derringer has going for it.  You have a weapon that's really small (therefore harder to grasp and manipulate under stress), probably has really tiny sights, and only has two rounds available.  Even if you're of the old "modern technique" school of though, you don't even have enough to do a Mozambique drill on someone.  I don't know what the "average gunfight" looks like, but I can't see counting on a two shot derringer for anything.  Hell, I'd rather have a kel-tec .32...it's not going to be much larger or heavier (may even be lighter) and at least you have a few more BB's to sling at the guy(s).

And not to pick on you specifically, Bill, but I really have gotten to hate that "the best is the one you actually carry" line.  To me it's like an attempt to "relativise" the issue.  That because "X" is all I will carry, that it's the best, which makes it as good as whatever you carry.
It may be true that carrying something like a two-shot derringer is better than _nothing_, but it's sure as hell inferior to pretty much anything else out there.  




Bill Mattocks said:


> It has been my experience that some folks tend to neglect carry in hot weather or when they are wearing light summer attire.  It's better to be with a weapon than without one, IMHO, so if one is honest with oneself and recognizes that they may not have the self-discipline to bring their weapon with them everywhere, then perhaps a derringer is not a bad alternative, if it means they'll carry it more often.



I guess I've never seen "it's hot" as being a valid reason for downgrading to a less-optimal weapon.  With the plethora of quality carry options, it is not difficult to carry a compact or service-sized auto, even under light clothing.  I was carrying a Glock 17 yesterday while wearing a pair of cargo shorts and an UnderArmor t-shirt.

IMO (and as you said), it's a self-discipline (mindset) issue rather than an actual _need_ for something smaller.
But whatever...everyone is entitled to their own choices.  Hopefully those choices won't bite them in the ***.


----------



## tellner (May 24, 2010)

A service pistol with holographic sights and three extra magazines for over fifty rounds might be a tad more than you need to carry around. And it could unreasonably restrict your options for clothing and walking without making clank-clank sounds. 

Two shots from a very short-barreled weapon with minimal accuracy is less than I'd want in the extremely unlikely event that I'll need to use it. If I want CCW at a Naturist event it might be the only way 

There's a range of options between these which will work. Realistically a well-maintained modern revolver or pistol with good ammunition falls into that range for most people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 24, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> AFAIC, ease of carry/concealment is the ONLY thing a derringer has going for it.  You have a weapon that's really small (therefore harder to grasp and manipulate under stress), probably has really tiny sights, and only has two rounds available.  Even if you're of the old "modern technique" school of though, you don't even have enough to do a Mozambique drill on someone.  I don't know what the "average gunfight" looks like, but I can't see counting on a two shot derringer for anything.  Hell, I'd rather have a kel-tec .32...it's not going to be much larger or heavier (may even be lighter) and at least you have a few more BB's to sling at the guy(s).



Personal preference.  I don't find myself limited by a large-caliber derringer, and the barrel is a minimum of three inches long (longer than many snub-nose revolvers and the same length as a chopped-down Colt 1911 such as the Commander).

As to accuracy, I don't plan on engaging anyone at 25 feet, much less 25 yards.  Accuracy is of course important, but my personal belief is that if I'm carrying in public and find need to engage in armed self-defense, the range will be zero to ten or fifteen feet tops.



> And not to pick on you specifically, Bill, but I really have gotten to hate that "the best is the one you actually carry" line.  To me it's like an attempt to "relativise" the issue.  That because "X" is all I will carry, that it's the best, which makes it as good as whatever you carry.
> It may be true that carrying something like a two-shot derringer is better than _nothing_, but it's sure as hell inferior to pretty much anything else out there.



I note that despite protestations to the contrary, CCW holders sometimes go unarmed.   This is purely anecdotal, but I know a number of CCW holders who do not *always* carry.  I've asked them why, because I find this interesting.  Some have said that they don't carry if they're going someplace where they know they can't legally bring in a weapon, rather than leave the weapon in the car; that makes sense.  But others have told me that they don't carry while running short errands or if their clothes don't permit easy concealed carry (summertime) or if they 'feel safe' in general where they are going.



> I guess I've never seen "it's hot" as being a valid reason for downgrading to a less-optimal weapon.  With the plethora of quality carry options, it is not difficult to carry a compact or service-sized auto, even under light clothing.  I was carrying a Glock 17 yesterday while wearing a pair of cargo shorts and an UnderArmor t-shirt.



I'm not claiming it's a *valid *reason, but I am claiming that people who are legally allowed to carry concealed sometimes don't, and the weather and their attire are sometimes the reasons they give.  It's a reason, valid or not.

And as you know, in most states that allow CCW carry, the weapon must actually be concealed.  That can even prohibit open jackets or weapons that 'print' through a shirt.



> IMO (and as you said), it's a self-discipline (mindset) issue rather than an actual _need_ for something smaller.
> But whatever...everyone is entitled to their own choices.  Hopefully those choices won't bite them in the ***.



I'm 49 years old in July.  No problems so far.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 24, 2010)

tellner said:


> A service pistol with holographic sights and three extra magazines for over fifty rounds might be a tad more than you need to carry around. And it could unreasonably restrict your options for clothing and walking without making clank-clank sounds.



Even if it prints through your clothing,  that can be illegal, depending on the state.



> Two shots from a very short-barreled weapon with minimal accuracy is less than I'd want in the extremely unlikely event that I'll need to use it. If I want CCW at a Naturist event it might be the only way


What is 'minimal accuracy' and how much accuracy do you need at point-blank range?  How many shots are required?



> There's a range of options between these which will work. Realistically a well-maintained modern revolver or pistol with good ammunition falls into that range for most people.


Sure, if they will carry it all the time, and if they can.  I note that I've talked to some CCW holders who freely admit that they don't *always* carry when they legally could.  Sometimes, it is due to the way they are dressed; they don't feel they could conceal the weapon effectively.

A large-caliber derringer is just another option.  I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.


----------



## elder999 (May 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Even if it prints through your clothing, that can be illegal, depending on the state.


 
If you have a CCW, then it's not illegal.....it's a bit much, but not illegal for me, for example; I just wouldn't. 

It could also be carried openly, if yours is an open carry state. A bit of a silly rig, from the sound of it, but to each his own....



Bill Mattocks said:


> What is 'minimal accuracy' and how much accuracy do you need at point-blank range? How many shots are required?


 
As I've posted before, I carry a lot of the time in the field-as in, out in the woods-for the bear. I don't ever want to have to shoot one, but if I do, I want the bear to _lie down._ In this instance, how many shots are required?

*All of them*, most likely.......:lol:




Bill Mattocks said:


> Sure, if they will carry it all the time, and if they can. I note that I've talked to some CCW holders who freely admit that they don't *always* carry when they legally could. Sometimes, it is due to the way they are dressed; they don't feel they could conceal the weapon effectively.


 
Same thing: I carry a Glock 29 in the field, usually: 10mm, and about 6 inches high and _4 inches long_. Not as accurate as our Glock 20-or a a few of our other pistols, but, like you said, how accurate to I need to be at "bear range?" It's also not too much bigger than a derringer for a big fellow like me. I've worn it with shorts quite a bit-well concealed and accessible (I'm actually more likely to meet hikers than bears, though it's 50-50. Having carried openly in the field for years, I can tell you that it makes them.....nervous.)

And I'd rather have 10 shots, or 15, than 2.....




Bill Mattocks said:


> A large-caliber derringer is just another option. I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.


 
It's an option of desparation-a backup. It's also not very accurate, and not really meant for "point blank range." More like _right in the face._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> If you have a CCW, then it's not illegal.....it's a bit much, but not illegal for me, for example; I just wouldn't.



Some states do not allow CCW carry holders to allow their weapons to be seen.



> It could also be carried openly, if yours is an open carry state. A bit of a silly rig, from the sound of it, but to each his own....



And that, I think, may be the crux of it.  It's not the derringer itself, it's that no one wants to be seen with it.  What would people think!?!

I've never been overly concerned with what people think.  But most here know that about me.



> As I've posted before, I carry a lot of the time in the field-as in, out in the woods-for the bear. I don't ever want to have to shoot one, but if I do, I want the bear to _lie down._ In this instance, how many shots are required?



If I were likely to run into a bear, I agree that a derringer would most likely be a poor choice.  Although of course some swear by the Thompson/Center Contender and successors, a single-shot pistol/rifle available in many calibers...



> And I'd rather have 10 shots, or 15, than 2.....



So would I, but all firearms are a compromise, eh?  The real question is whether a large-caliber derringer is too much of a compromise in exchange for the advantages it carries with it.



> It's an option of desparation-a backup. It's also not very accurate, and not really meant for "point blank range." More like _right in the face._



Well, I keep hearing _'not very accurate'_ but then I here others saying they use 4-inch and 3-inch snubbies and short autos.  The derringer I'm referring to has a minimum 3 inch barrel.

As to 'point blank range', that's kind of what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-blank_range



> In forensics and popular usage, *point-blank range* has come to mean extreme close range (i.e., target within about a meter (3 ft) of the muzzle at moment of discharge but not close enough to be an actual contact shot)[1].



My imagined use of such a weapon as a carry weapon involves urban carry, day-to-day, in all manner of situations involving the risk of armed robbery.  Such robberies are generally carried out at (as I describe it) point-blank range, and so I also imagine that any such self-defense with a firearm (if there is going to be one) would also be conducted at such range.  I do not imagine myself taking cover and trading volleys for an extended period of time with such a weapon; it would clearly be impractical for that sort of thing (and bear hunting too).  For home defense, of course, concealed carry is not required or practical (for that, I choose a shotgun).

So the question: just how many non-law-enforcement non-home-invasion self-defense scenarios have involved shooting at extended ranges or requiring reloading and/or firing volleys of shots?

There is scant information on the subject that I can find.  People refer to this study or that set of statistics that they've heard about, but when I go looking for them, they don't seem to actually exist - do you have any cites?  Anyone?

Absent such information, I have to go on what my limited life experience has taught me; that personal armed robberies take place at very close distances, involve one or more attackers, and generally end if/when the victim shoots one of them.  For these circumstances, a derringer seems to me to be particularly well-suited to the situation, while being easy to carry and less likely to be left behind.  I don't often go out in the woods; if I feared big game attacks, I'd certainly bring more than a derringer, and like you, would most likely carry openly.


----------



## zDom (May 24, 2010)

The problem I see with a derringer is a scenario in which you are confronted by multiple attackers.

Having four more shots after firing the first, in the case of a typical carry revolver, seems to me to present a whole lot more deterrent than "He's only got one shot left" to the remaining thugs.

Not as nice as having an auto-loader's magazine, but I WILL carry a 442 or 642 everywhere I go whereas my SIG 226 often won't get carried. It still just feels like such a large hunk of metal after going 40 years being unarmed.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Personal preference. I don't find myself limited by a large-caliber derringer, and the barrel is a minimum of three inches long (longer than many snub-nose revolvers and the same length as a chopped-down Colt 1911 such as the Commander).


 
Commander's 4 or 4-1/4 inches,I think the model you are trying to describe is the Officer's model.



> As to accuracy, I don't plan on engaging anyone at 25 feet, much less 25 yards. Accuracy is of course important, but my personal belief is that if I'm carrying in public and find need to engage in armed self-defense, the range will be zero to ten or fifteen feet tops.


 
The FBI 3X3 guideline would seem to bear this out.( Most take place at 3 yards or less, in 3 seconds or less with 3 rounds or less). Still, there's always the possibility that hostilities may continue past this, and if we could schedule our emergencies, they wouldn't be "emergencies".





> I note that despite protestations to the contrary, CCW holders sometimes go unarmed. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a number of CCW holders who do not *always* carry. I've asked them why, because I find this interesting. Some have said that they don't carry if they're going someplace where they know they can't legally bring in a weapon, rather than leave the weapon in the car; that makes sense. But others have told me that they don't carry while running short errands or if their clothes don't permit easy concealed carry (summertime) or if they 'feel safe' in general where they are going.


 
Yeah that "Oh, well, I don't carry unless I think/know I might need to" line is starting to SERIOUSLY grind my gears, because it flies in the face of all training on the subject--If you know you may be going to a gunfight-- *DON'T GO!* If by some astronomically unlikely twist of fate you *must* go, don't go with just a sidearm!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A large-caliber derringer is just another option. I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.


 
For the record, I would have no problem carrying a derringer or two, albeit as a deep-conceal/backup-to-my-backup type of thing.

It just so happens that none of the reputable( in fact I don't think ANY) of the current Derringer manufacturing companies are on my fair state's asinine approved handgun roster(or I'd be seeing them in shops).


----------



## Brian S (May 25, 2010)

Great thread! Very informative and insightful!

 I usually carry a kimber pro carry 2 .45acp with a Ruger LCR 5-shot 38+p. Just like to cover my bases. :ultracool


----------



## Archangel M (May 25, 2010)

Two shots just isnt enough insurance to bet my life on. You all are free to gamble at whatever odds you choose.


----------



## Skpotamus (May 25, 2010)

RE: Number of shots per incident:

Found this stuff while digging around: http://gunfacts.info/  a downloadable pdf that has a reference to a trauma journal article (page 67) that stated the average number of shots fired by a revolver armed subject during a fight was 2.04, and a semi-auto was 2.53.  

Also found this:  http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm  stated that over a 10 year period with NYPD officers the average number of shots fired per gunfight was 10.3, shots fired per officer averaged 5.2  

Which number is correct?  Dunno, but I'd rather have a LOT more ammo available and ready to shoot than I could EVER need.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2010)

zDom said:


> The problem I see with a derringer is a scenario in which you are confronted by multiple attackers.



It would be a problem, no doubt.

But let's think about it.  

First, the chances of particular one of us becoming a victim of an armed robbery is quite low.

Second, the chances (or opportunity, if one looks at things that way) of having to defend oneself with deadly force in the course of being robbed is lower.

Third, the chances that a second attacker will continue to engage after his buddy has been shot is...what?  I'm going to call that low as well, but I admit I have nothing to back it up with, just my experience and belief.



> Having four more shots after firing the first, in the case of a typical carry revolver, seems to me to present a whole lot more deterrent than "He's only got one shot left" to the remaining thugs.



I think on the whole, people imagine scenarios that will never happen.  Only once that I can recall have police officers faced a 'movie like' scenario of armed robbers that actively engaged (and even hunted) the officers themselves in the course of a robbery (the infamous LA shootout).  When has this happened to a civilian being robbed?  Ever?



> Not as nice as having an auto-loader's magazine, but I WILL carry a 442 or 642 everywhere I go whereas my SIG 226 often won't get carried. It still just feels like such a large hunk of metal after going 40 years being unarmed.



I absolutely agree that if you indeed carry your weapon everywhere, you're making a wise choice.

However, I note that no one is taking issue with my statement that I know many CCW holders who have admitted to me that they sometimes choose not to carry, and for a variety of reasons.  If you're not one of them, bravo.  But I suspect that a lot of _"I always carry"_ CCW holders don't always carry.  They just say they do online.  I'm just sayin'...

So for such people, I suggest a smaller, flatter, lighter weapon that is such that one can easily carry it everywhere, even in a pocket.  It's not ideal; all weapons are a series of tradeoffs.  I suggest that the tradeoffs a large-caliber derringer offers are not as bad as one might think, given the *realistic* odds of facing multiple attackers who press the attack after one is shot, and/or count your rounds to determine when you're out of ammo and then fire back.  I humbly suggest that's Hollywood for the most part.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> RE: Number of shots per incident:
> 
> Found this stuff while digging around: http://gunfacts.info/  a downloadable pdf that has a reference to a trauma journal article (page 67) that stated the average number of shots fired by a revolver armed subject during a fight was 2.04, and a semi-auto was 2.53.
> 
> ...



Those are neat links, thanks!

I referenced the material cited in the first study: Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective and found that it was a measurement of *deaths* in urban Philadelphia, and it wasn't (necessarily) victims of armed crimes defending themselves, but of all shootings by criminals resulting in death: 





> "This study examined the trends in firearm violence and victims during a 5-year period in the city of Philadelphia. Medical Examiner records of all deaths in Philadelphia County in 1985 and 1990 were reviewed. Demographic, autopsy, and criminal record information was analyzed."



There were many more issues that would take this study out of the realm of usefulness when determining the average number of shots fired by a law-abiding but armed victim of crime in self-defense, such as the fact that all the persons studied had criminal records and more than half were intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

Even so, one can imagine that the average number of shots fired by a drunken inner-city gang-banger engaged in gun battles with each other might tend to be higher than those fired by a citizen in self-defense.

Of course the other study is of police officers; again, one might suspect that police officers have more reasons to shoot their guns than ordinary citizens, and would be more likely to fire more rounds when they do so.  In fact, I have read parts of the study by the PMA that this study references, and one of the disturbing trends they noted was the tendency of NYPD police officers to fire more rounds, hit suspects less often, and when they do hit, kill them more often than in the past, despite better medical technology for bullet wounds these days.  It's a disturbing statistic that most police would rather not think about.  However, not really applicable to citizens involved in lawful self-defense in terms of discovering how many shots on average are actually fired or at what range.

I wish there was such information available,  but I still have not found any.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2010)

Brian S said:


> *I usually carry* a kimber pro carry 2 .45acp with a Ruger LCR 5-shot 38+p. Just like to cover my bases. :ultracool



Not to pick on you, but are there times when you don't carry?  Your statement would seem to indicate that there might be.  And if not, why not?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Commander's 4 or 4-1/4 inches,I think the model you are trying to describe is the Officer's model.



I stand corrected.



> The FBI 3X3 guideline would seem to bear this out.( Most take place at 3 yards or less, in 3 seconds or less with 3 rounds or less). Still, there's always the possibility that hostilities may continue past this, and if we could schedule our emergencies, they wouldn't be "emergencies".



And again, this applies to officer-involved shootings, as I recall.

Of course there are chances it could continue past this.  There are chances lots of things could happen.  One must examine the odds and make decisions accordingly.  As they say _"You pays your money and you takes your chances."_

My point is that many of the 'facts' about gunfights currently being circulated are either not based in fact or refer to studies that don't actually exist.  Like the _'drink 8 ounces of water a day'_ myth, nobody knows where they came from, but many consider them more-or-less correct anyway.

Absent actual facts, I rely on my own experiences plus whatever facts I have been able to glean, plus what I consider a rational examination of my own risk factors.  YMMV, of course.

What I *don't* do is a) assume the worst or b) get hung up on what a gun 'looks like' or how others view it (lady's gun, pansy gun, inaccurate, not enough rounds, etc).  I suspect that more than a couple of the folks in this thread would 'not be caught dead' carrying a derringer, just because of their social conditioning.  The facts don't enter into it, it's purely emotional.



> Yeah that "Oh, well, I don't carry unless I think/know I might need to" line is starting to SERIOUSLY grind my gears, because it flies in the face of all training on the subject--If you know you may be going to a gunfight-- *DON'T GO!* If by some astronomically unlikely twist of fate you *must* go, don't go with just a sidearm!



I have to agree with you.  But grinding gears or not, people do what they do.  I would suggest you ask any CCW holders you know if they ever just don't carry, and if so, why.  I'm sure there are lots of good reasons, and some that would fash you unduly, like it being hot, they feel safe where they are going, dressing too lightly to accommodate a concealed weapon,  and so on.  This has been my experience talking to CCW holders I know.  So again, the weapon you *will* carry everywhere trumps the one you *sometimes* don't carry, yes?


----------



## KenpoTex (May 25, 2010)

Bill, I don't think anyone is going to take exception to your statement about CCW holders who don't always carry because it's obviously true.  In fact, I would even go a little further and say that the "always carry" crowd is in the minority where CCW holders are concerned.

Now, as one of the "always carry" crowd (unless I'm going to have to walk through a metal-detector, I'm carrying), I tend to think that not carrying when you can is not only defeating the purpose of having the CCW, but is kinda dumb.  It reminds me of that line from _Heartbreak Ridge_: "Must be nice to know when and where you're going to be ambushed, sir."  To me, the idea that one only carries "when they think they might need it" is laughable. 
There is no way to know when/where you might need your firearm.  You don't have to be on the "wrong side of the tracks" for something bad to happen.    

As for stats on incidents involving private citizens, there isn't a whole lot out there.  There are however, some instructors who have compiled some data from incidents in which their students have been involved.

Here's a little snippet from Tom Givens of RangeMasters.  He's done other reports (he's had something like 60 students involved in shootings) but this was the only one I could find quickly.


> At the NTI this year I did a lecture and power point on seven representative shooting incidents my students have been involved in during recent years.
> 
> Trends-
> 4 of 7 incidents involved an armed robbery by 1 or 2 suspects
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 25, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> Here's a little snippet from Tom Givens of RangeMasters.  He's done other reports (he's had something like 60 students involved in shootings) but this was the only one I could find quickly.



Now this is interesting:



> Average # of shots fired = 4.1
> 3 incidents involved 4 or more shots fired



Since it appears his sample size is 7 shootings, one must of course keep in mind that it might not be very applicable to the world at large, but it's better than nothing.

So...7 shootings, 3 of which involved more than 3 shots fired, with an overall average of 4.1.  That would mean that 4 involved 3 or fewer shots fired.  Without knowing the fulls stats, I can't tell if most people fired 1, 2, or 3 shots, but it would be interesting to find out.

I think you see where I'm going with this, though.  People consider their odds when they arm themselves - that's good.  But many do not have a firm grasp of what the actual odds might be.  *Myself included*; we're all grasping the dark here to determine the actual risk.  I just tend to think the real risk is somewhat lower than most might assume.


----------



## zDom (May 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> are there times when you don't carry? ... And if not, why not?




I'll answer this one (even though it wasn't directed at me):

Because sometimes I like to have a drink or two in a public place. Usually a "with dinner beer" but not always. I know some folk choose to carry anyway  but not me.

I don't want to risk the loss of my CCW privilege.

I figure the odds of me getting caught under the influence (or even worse, intoxicated! A *felony*) with a firearm are greater than the odds of me getting into a situation where I need that firearm.

Thank God I have a better-than-average ability to defend myself empty handed.


----------



## lklawson (May 25, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> Bill, I don't think anyone is going to take exception to your statement about CCW holders who don't always carry because it's obviously true.  In fact, I would even go a little further and say that the "always carry" crowd is in the minority where CCW holders are concerned.
> 
> Now, as one of the "always carry" crowd (unless I'm going to have to walk through a metal-detector, I'm carrying), I tend to think that not carrying when you can is not only defeating the purpose of having the CCW, but is kinda dumb.  It reminds me of that line from _Heartbreak Ridge_: "Must be nice to know when and where you're going to be ambushed, sir."


Personally, the more I hear (see) people harassing folks about not always carrying, the more annoyed I get.

First, I get annoyed because I can't always carry legally.  My place of work is barred and there's nothing I can much do about it except find a new job (in this economy?!?!).  No, I can't even break it down, separate the ammo, and lock it up in separate boxes, stored in my vehicle for when I drive out of my "unarmed" work zone.  So, 5 days a week, I *have* to leave it at home.  Further, I'm in Ohio so 1/2 of all restaurants are automatically barred (we're working on it).  

Second, people make judgments about safety all the time.  Would you honestly live where you currently do if you felt it was unsafe; if you felt the odds for having a Home Invasion or being mugged on your front porch were high?  I wouldn't.  There are times when you weigh the odds.  First off, what are the odds that you're going to be assaulted at all?  For most of us, it's pretty low, even over a lifetime.  Second off, what are the odds you're going to be assaulted in a given area?  You know usually if the area you're going to is more or less "safe."  Those affect your odds too.

Now, I've got no problem with SD advocates wanting to be armed as often as legally permissible as an "insurance policy."  I want that too, to be honest.  But neither should we SD advocates harass folks who generally agree with us but have made an informed, well reasoned conclusion that odds and need for a given circumstance are low.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KenpoTex (May 26, 2010)

lklawson said:


> ...There are times when you weigh the odds.  First off, what are the odds that you're going to be assaulted at all?  For most of us, it's pretty low, even over a lifetime.  Second off, what are the odds you're going to be assaulted in a given area?  You know usually if the area you're going to is more or less "safe."  Those affect your odds too.
> 
> Now, I've got no problem with SD advocates wanting to be armed as often as legally permissible as an "insurance policy."  I want that too, to be honest.  But neither should we SD advocates harass folks who generally agree with us but have made an informed, well reasoned conclusion that odds and need for a given circumstance are low.



I don't recall ever advising someone to, or giving them crap because they don't, carry a gun when it is illegal to do so.  Furthermore, if someone makes a decision to not carry because exposure would cost them their job, I'm not going to give them much static.

However, the "perceived risk" issue is where I start to disagree.  Yes, the odds that any specific person will be targeted, particularly if they follow the "3 stupids rule," are probably pretty slim.  Unfortunately, as we all know, it doesn't matter where/who you are, you can still be targeted.  I'm sure all the people at mall, church, and school shootings, if asked ahead of time, would probably have classified that locale as a "safe" or "low risk" area.
Playing the odds is fine...until you become the statistical anomaly.

So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.  
If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I _personally_ feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.


----------



## Archangel M (May 26, 2010)

There are some times when I just like to go out on an errand in a pr of shorts and a t-shirt. Getting into my 5.11's, strapping on and covering it all up to go to the hardware store for something is just too much hassle. Am I aware of my risk? Sure I am, I carry more often than not but not 100%


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 26, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.
> If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I _personally_ feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.



Well in Belgium this discussion is moot for 99% of the people. CC is illegal. Unconcealed is illegal as well for that matter 

But there are other things to consider. Carrying a gun brings other risks. For the purpose of carrying a weapon, you have to own a weapon, and ammo, etc. Which means that you have weapons and ammo in your house.

There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.


----------



## elder999 (May 26, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.


 

feh.

If you look at the statistics, the logical/rational conclusion is not to eat hot dogs, and risk choking-or a pool, and risk drowning, etc., etc., etc.....


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 26, 2010)

elder999 said:


> feh.
> 
> If you look at the statistics, the logical/rational conclusion is not to eat hot dogs, and risk choking-or a pool, and risk drowning, etc., etc., etc.....



True. Absolutely true.

And you don't think people have a poor mindset if they don't eat hot dogs because of that. And you don't think they have a poor mindset if they decide not to have a pool.
So for the same reason, you should not think people have a poor mindset if they don't want to have a gun on the basis that owning one is more dangerous than not owning one.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 26, 2010)

Speaking for myself, I am not here on this thread to try to convince people who don't want guns to go and get them. I speak only to those who have made the decision already and wish to learn to do so responsibly and safely in order that the right to do so remains unmolested.

That gun's the heaviest two pounds you'll ever wear, and it IS a drastic lifestyle commitment, which WILL require you to change how you think, how you dress, how you act, and nobody else can make that decision for you, and I won't even try.
I'm just here to point the way for those who have already chosen the path.

I help those who help themselves. Debating the point with anyone else is a waste of my time.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 26, 2010)

I am not arguing for or against. I am just pointing out that it is presumptuous to judge the mindset of people solely on their decision to carry or not (as posted by kenpo-tex)


----------



## lklawson (May 26, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> However, the "perceived risk" issue is where I start to disagree.  Yes, the odds that any specific person will be targeted, particularly if they follow the "3 stupids rule," are probably pretty slim.  Unfortunately, as we all know, it doesn't matter where/who you are, you can still be targeted.  I'm sure all the people at mall, church, and school shootings, if asked ahead of time, would probably have classified that locale as a "safe" or "low risk" area.
> Playing the odds is fine...until you become the statistical anomaly.
> 
> So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.
> If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I _personally_ feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.


See, this is where our two opinions (and that's what they are) diverge.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to not carry based on an honest reflection of the odds.  But here's the catch, it's predicated on it being a informed decision.  I get well and truly annoyed at folks who make the decision based solely upon ideological or other reasons, or even for no reason at all.

As long as it's an informed decision, where they've understood the risks and consequences, then they're grown-ups and neither I nor anyone else has any call to harass them about their "mind set."

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, I also get well and truly annoyed by folks who think that their conclusion, informed or not, should somehow apply to me.  It's MY decision.  If I want to be armed (legally) then I don't give a flying fig whether or not you have decided that it's low risk.  

I think that you and I agree on the preceding paragraph, right?  The thing is that if I take this stand, then I would be a bald faced hypocrite (of Washington Politician proportions!) if I did not also apply the same standards to the opposite.  If I make an informed decision not to carry because I believe it is low risk, then I don't give a flying fig whether or not you disagree.

In summary, if I think that other people have no right to question my decision to be armed because they believe it is "low risk" then I equally have no right to question their decision not to be armed even if I believe it to be "high risk."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 26, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.


Good point.

It's worth noting, as part of that assessment, exactly how low the risks of an accident actually are.  In home firearms accidents (as opposed to murder and suicide) are so astoundingly low that they are dwarfed by even the (admittedly) low risk of a pool accident.

Still, I understand the point you are making.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Carol (May 26, 2010)

Personally, I think we define our tools, not the other way around.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 26, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I am not arguing for or against. I am just pointing out that it is presumptuous to judge the mindset of people solely on their decision to carry or not (as posted by kenpo-tex)



If you look at my last post, I made it clear that I am not directing my thoughts toward those who choose not to carry to remain within the law.  (and if I did have such thoughts, hypothetically, I wouldn't voice them on a public forum)

My issue is with those who have a CCW because, on some level, they recognize a "need" to have one.  Yet, they only carry some of the time because there are other times when it's uncomfortable or "unnecessary."  In other words, they are choosing for the sake of convenience to be unprepared.  _In my mind_, there is a disconnect there.  It would be akin to choosing to "turn off" your empty-hand abilities (if such a thing were possible) because you didn't feel like you'd need them that day.

But, as I said in an earlier post, everyone makes their own choices...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 26, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.



Fortunately, I have no children and therefore no kids in my house.  That risk does not exist for me.


----------



## jks9199 (May 26, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well in Belgium this discussion is moot for 99% of the people. CC is illegal. Unconcealed is illegal as well for that matter
> 
> But there are other things to consider. Carrying a gun brings other risks. For the purpose of carrying a weapon, you have to own a weapon, and ammo, etc. Which means that you have weapons and ammo in your house.
> 
> There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.


Those risks are easily handled, by proper storage and handling, coupled with EDUCATION from an early age.  I have guns and ammunition in my house.  Before the birth of my son, I was a little more lax at home since it was just me & my wife -- but even before his birth, I'd upgraded my practices.  First thing that happens when I walk in the door is the gun gets locked up.  What I'm doing evolves as my son grows; currently a Life Jacket and higher than he can reach is enough.  In a very few months, it'll go into a safe, too.  And, as he gets older, he'll start learning gun safety.  That's part of being a responsible gun owner and parent.  (Just like you'd handle teaching them about knives or other weapons you might have...)


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 26, 2010)

True. a good part of that risk is manageable. And indeed, I have loads of straight razor blades in the house (living room, bath room, basement, and there are sharepened objects in pretty much every room) and I did indeed put everything above head height for an adult. And my oldest daughter knows how to hold and carry them in case she should find any (which should never happen). When she was 3 I started teaching her how to cut vegetables with a sharp knife.

But still, carrying a gun vs not carrying one is a decision you have to make conciously and rationally, same as I decided to keep my blades in the house. As long as the decision is made based on arguments, it's a matter of deciding how important those arguments are, and respecting the decisions of someone else.

Come to think of it, it's kinda like arguing your decision to choose for one religion or the other


----------



## lklawson (May 26, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Skpotamus said:
> 
> 
> > _http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_64...airbairn_-_Shooting_To_Live_____110_pages.pdf is the book itself, available for free download._
> ...


I am very happy to say that I was WRONG.  This particular copy is, now, legal!

Yay!

I contacted Lulu.com's Copyright POC with my concerns about this download.  This is the response I received:


> Mr. Lawson,
> Hopefully, I can help clarify the situation. We have added the books to Lulu as a new distribution point through agreements with Ingram and other distributors to make their public catalogs available on our site. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Nick Popio


So, while the Copyright notice still says Paladin Press (which, I admit leaves me curious), the official stated stance of Lulu.com is that this is legal by agreement.

Download with a clear conscience.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 26, 2010)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910638/ 



> A student asked me recently, "If you tell us we can get by with a .38 Special snubby as a minimum carry gun, how come you're always carrying a full-size service pistol on your hip and just use the .38 for backup?"
> He had a point. I was due for a two-week training tour in places where the dress code was such that I couldn't be visibly armed, nor could I wear "concealing garments" while lecturing or supervising classroom training. I decided to put my money where my mouth was and pack a couple of .38 snubs.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 26, 2010)

http://www.amazon.com/Snubby-Revolver-Backup-Concealed-Standard/dp/1581603827


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 26, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Unless you know the trick to circumvent even the cylinder grab--which I DO....


 
I suspect Andy it has to do with rotating the handgun in the opposite direction while pulling the trigger.

Now about half my hoglegs are revolvers. Not one SSA in the bunch, all DA revolvers. Snubbies? L, K, J Smiths, Colt Dick, Charter Arms undercover, Taurus 85. I've even owned some real oddball snubs.

Now my first CCW gun was a Smith 640.







The one at the top. I was so afraid of printing I went to the J. Well later it dawned on me that you could pack a bit bigger one fine!






This one above is my current one. Add to that either a TCP or Smith 642. The 642, bring lighter than my old 640, rides much easier, especially if I'm packing a second weapon (I take the TCP Taurus ONLY as a backup, NEVER primary!)

Now the J .38 is a hard gun to master. For those of you wishing to master it I suggest two or three 'toys'. 

1) a Red/Blue gun to practice your draws, pivots, transitions, FOF, etc.. in the house without any chance of an AD (I have a Red ASP J 38 just for that.)

2) A 'laser' gun. Either a real Crimson Trace laser on your carry gun ,a practice gun, or a Red/Blue gun. This allows you to practice lots of hip shooting!

3) A .22 lr version of your snub. I have a Smith 63, 2 inch .22 lr,j ust for that.

I say this because if you intend on making your snub your primary CCW, YOU NEED TO BET GOOD. Real good! And that takes dedicated practice.

And if you do use the snub as primary, may I suggest a TCP, or LCP, or P3AT, etc.. for a backup. Or even a second snub!

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 26, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> I suspect Andy it has to do with rotating the handgun in the opposite direction while pulling the trigger.


 
You suspect correctly.






> Now the J .38 is a hard gun to master. For those of you wishing to master it I suggest two or three 'toys'.
> 
> 1) a Red/Blue gun to practice your draws, pivots, transitions, FOF, etc.. in the house without any chance of an AD (I have a Red ASP J 38 just for that.)
> 
> ...


 
You'll be pleased to know that the end of next month I'm taking both of Michael de Bethencourt's courses( Secrets of the concealed carry snub and Mastering the concealed carry snub) end of next month. Taking a weekend and banging 'em out back-to-back. In the meantime I'll be doing lots of practicing.

And I'm not getting rid of my SIG either


----------



## KenpoTex (May 26, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You'll be pleased to know that the end of next month I'm taking both of Michael de Bethencourt's courses( Secrets of the concealed carry snub and Mastering the concealed carry snub) end of next month. Taking a weekend and banging 'em out back-to-back. In the meantime I'll be doing lots of practicing.



Please post a course-review when you're done.  I was supposed to take a one of DeBethencourt's classes this year but it's not going to happen due to some financial issues


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 27, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> You'll be pleased to know that the end of next month I'm taking both of Michael de Bethencourt's courses( Secrets of the concealed carry snub and Mastering the concealed carry snub) end of next month. Taking a weekend and banging 'em out back-to-back. In the meantime I'll be doing lots of practicing.
> 
> And I'm not getting rid of my SIG either


 
Excellent!



KenpoTex said:


> Please post a course-review when you're done. I was supposed to take a one of DeBethencourt's classes this year but it's not going to happen due to some financial issues


 
Yes, ditto for me to! We will be most interested! Sure wish it was in Texas!

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 2, 2010)

As a follow-up to my earlier post in which I quoted some stats presented by Tom Givens of Rangemaster, I wanted to present a portion of a post he wrote on another forum just yesterday:



> I concede that there are, in fact, a lot of people who work in places where being caught would be too costly. I submit that they are only there 8-10 hours a day, however. If they have to pocket carry a j-frame there, that does not mean they have to the other 14 hours of the day. I believe that to many people, this is an excuse to not bother with a good concealment holster and an adequate covering garment. For many, its just too much trouble to change equipment or wear clothing suitable for concealed carry. Thats a choice, not a mandated circumstance.
> 
> Since December, we have had 4 student involved shootings. In 3 out of 4, there were multiple armed assailants (3, 1, 2, and 2 bad guys). In 3 of these, I personally would hate to be stuck there with nothing but a j-frame. In one of these cases, our guy was under fire by 2 armed robbers, both actively firing. Our guy fired 8 rounds and got 4 hits, ending the fight. He would have had a devil of a time doing that with a 5 shot snubby.
> 
> ...


----------

