Replies

There is no empirical evidence from all of the CCW data of the superiority of either a semi-auto pistol or a revolver.

In fact, in the VAST MAJORITY of CCW defense cases, just brandishing the weapon scares off the attacker. It could be a toy or squirt gun in most defenses and the attacker would still be just as disuaded.

In the vast majority of cases where a CCW holder fires shots, there is no empirical evidence that a .50 S&W, .44 Magnum, 10mm, 45 ACP or other big bad boy, etc, is better than a .22LR. This is becaus in the vast majority of CCW shootings, the perps flee the instant they hear shots. They don’t wait around to check the size of the hole in the gun or see if they can distinguish between the shatteringly loud sound of a .22 vs the shatteringly louder sound of a hand cannon like a .44 Mag. All guns sound loud when you are taking fire.

So back to what is REAL.

Carrying a hand-gun is insurance that very few of us will ever need in our lifetimes.

For those who feel better having this not-likely-to-ever-be-used insurance, having anything is better than having nothing. Having a .32 0r .380 mouse gun is just as good as having a hand cannon for most of the CCW encounters you will have, let alone the fact that 98% of us will never have to defend ourselves against a threat of death or serious injury.

For those who want a 16 round hand cannon that could stop a pride of lions, if that is what it takes to feel comfortable as insurance against an event that likely will never take place in your lifetime, then have at it. You have my respect as your premium insurance prepares you for any and all contingencies.

Some people just want catastrophic insurance and carrying a pocket mouse gun works great for that.

Some want a moderate insurance plan and carrying a revolver or 9mm auto of modest capacity works well for that.

Carry a 16 round hand-cannon certainly works well for everything, your platinum insurance.

But please don’t tell everybody else what works for them, when the odds of needing to pull a handgun in defense of life or against serious bodily injury is so low, with such a vast number of people never having to do so, let alone never carrying anyway.

This is also mitigated for most of us Freepers by our sociology-economic class. We tend not to be where the baddies all hang out most of the time. It is usually a marginal time and place that puts us at risk and we can often mitigate that by generally planning around that. Not always of course. And by our situational awareness, which is huge. Dumb people have it a lot worse, so do people with their noses in their iphones checking social media all day.

you're changing the argument. I didn't say that a revolver isn't adequate frequently. I said that a high quality high cap semi-auto is a better SD weapon chpoice and it is.

And I happen to live in a large city where murder, robbery, gangs, and drugs are all too common. people get shot, knifed, robbed, burglarized, and killed here all the time and you have to always be situation awares. The threat here is "real".

And I would be interested to see the research that your referencing regarding brandishing a weapon (which is actually a crime where I live btw).

The research I am most familiar with is FBI research taken from Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness where it is made perfectly clear that the best choice for a SD handgun will be one that fires a cartridge that penetrates 18" and which creates the largest possible permanent wound cavity without sacrificing penetration.

That ain't a snub nosed revolver.

AFAIC, that's what's real here. What works best. Not what works adequately frequently according to research that remains questionable at this point.

and once again, there's a reason that cops, military personnel, feds, and serious gun fighter types don't carry revolvers anymore. Many reasons actually.

If you want to carry a revolver, go right ahead, but don't try to tell me that it's a better choice than a high quality high cap semi-automatic pistol and expect me to agree.