On what do you base this assumption?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Sweet holster
- Thread starter bakeman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
On what do you base this assumption?
So, you post a quote extolling the virtues of having one gun and then immediately say you don't do that and vary what you carry?
Look, you keep ranging pretty far trying to justify that a SAA isn't antiquated. Limp wristing, really? So training to cock a hammer before each shot is harder than teaching proper grip? C'mon, let's be serious. Even if you believe semi-autos are unreliable, that still leaves the greatly superior DA/SA modern revolver.
I'm still waiting to hear one advantage a SAO revolver has over a modern firearm. Not what advantages revolvers in general have over semi-autos, that's not the discussion. Specifically what an SAO brings to the table that a modern revolver or SA doesn't, what keeps it from being antiquated.
You've only made one error. You assume I wish you to be better informed. That is not the case. And I don't take baiting as gentlemanly on a message board. Especially from LEO's.
Go back to the original quote: "You are just as dead with a six shooter as a 17." Anything beyond that is YOU adding in your interpretation of what you think I think.
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Alternately, you've staked out a completely indefensible claim, have ranged far and wide in an attempt to justify it without actually addressing it once, and realize that you were wrong but won't admit it.
In the time you took to type out this reply, you could have given me whatever perceived advantages you are seeing in a single action only revolver with a load gate. Surely the reason you joined this forum was to share and gain knowledge, yes? Else, why be here? So let's engage in the free flow of ideas and tell me what the advantages are and why we should consider a single action only revolver as our EDC.
I said initially, you are just as dead with a 6 shooter as a Glock 17.
Are you going to tell me that a bullet from a Vaquero is less deadly than a bullet from a Glock?
There is no advantage, per se, in the tool. The advantage is in the training and opportunity.
These 'whisky talk' arguments have been going on since the first caveman was articulating the benefits of a quartz rock over granite.
The only practical response to any question on a firearm's adequacy is: Would you be willing to be shot by it? My answer, as most people would answer, is: NO.
So, you can split the CCW atom all you wish. It isn't useful at this point.
Since you are not McCloud, I don't expect to see you riding a horse and carrying a single action as a LEO. As a civilian, I have done so. And I've also trained with a single action for many years and many many thousands of rounds shot in competition. To me, a single action continues to be a fine tool that has not outlived its usefulness.
To each his own.
Are you going to tell me that a bullet from a Vaquero is less deadly than a bullet from a Glock?
There is no advantage, per se, in the tool. The advantage is in the training and opportunity.
These 'whisky talk' arguments have been going on since the first caveman was articulating the benefits of a quartz rock over granite.
The only practical response to any question on a firearm's adequacy is: Would you be willing to be shot by it? My answer, as most people would answer, is: NO.
So, you can split the CCW atom all you wish. It isn't useful at this point.
Since you are not McCloud, I don't expect to see you riding a horse and carrying a single action as a LEO. As a civilian, I have done so. And I've also trained with a single action for many years and many many thousands of rounds shot in competition. To me, a single action continues to be a fine tool that has not outlived its usefulness.
To each his own.
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
So you see absolutely no advantage to "the tool"? Any gun is just as good as another?
You see no advantage in a more rapid follow up shot?
You see no advantage in easier one handed manipulation?
Manatee said:
I wouldn't be willing to be shot with this:
Colt
Does this mean that a .22 short single shot pocket pistol is an adequate self defense pistol?
My o my. You do carry on.
Look. I shoot gunfighter with single actions. That means a gun in each hand fired close to simultaneously, cocking one revolver while aiming and and shooting the other. The rate of fire and the opportunity to take on multiple assailants (targets), particularly in a flanking maneuver is pretty good. Much better in some circumstances than your 2-hand isoceles approach.
I already showed you that the rate of fire from a single action is capable of a rate at least similar to a semi-automatic in the youtube video posted earlier. If you've ever seen Jerry Miculek with a revolver, I'll tell you the guy in the video is as fast as Jerry. And he uses a stock single action Ruger in the video. Jerry uses a tuned DA S&W.
Is that little 22 Colt derringer adequate as a defensive weapon? I don't know. As opposed to the Sig P220 left in the safe...it's a whole lot better. Most Defensive Gun Uses in the US per year result in no shots fired. Caliber and capacity never come into play.
In those situations that do arise where shots are fired by potential victims, not many shots are fired by civilians (on average). Law enforcement is a different story.
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
What does "its better than the gun left at home" even mean? I can use that to justify anything, I guess, but let's be intellectually honest and compare apples to apples. Which is better in a gun fight, that P220 or that .22 short assuming you actually brought a gun with you?
How can you not know if the .22 short derringer isn't adequate, given your previous statement of "The only practical response to any question on a firearm's adequacy is: Would you be willing to be shot by it?" Are you willing to be shot with a .22 short? I'm guessing no, so it should be adequate. Especially if its all training and opportunity, no advantage to the tool, right?
So are you now advocating carrying two single actions, because it works so well in your game? Even if you believe that CAS translates into real life, couldn't you do the same thing with two modern revolvers, and also have the advantages of being able to fire DA and reload since we're now talkin about multiple attackers and flankers? Again, absolutely no advantage to a SA revolver. A sharp stick can be used as a defensive tool successfully, that doesn't make it the equivalent of a modern firearm. Why do multiple attackers matter now, when earlier you said
Why did people like Cooper, who you quoted earlier, drop the SAA and move to DA/SA revolvers or the 1911? Why does pretty much nobody, including you, carry one as an EDC? Why when "what should I get for home defense" threads come up does literally no one ever suggest a SAA? What training program out there advocates a SAA?
Because there isn't a single advantage, and are multiple disadvantages to the outdated design of an SAA. If you disagree, as I've asked multiple times, give me ONE ADVANTAGE a SAA has over a modern revolver. I'm still saying there isn't one, and that's why outside of recreational activities, you never see them in a holster.
Just one.
I always find it amusing when people say things like: "chances are, if you're in a gunfight, - this will be the situation."
If I played the odds, I wouldn't carry a gun at all. I've gone 42 years so far and never needed a gun for personal defense. What are the chances I will need one tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after? Not good. CHANCES ARE I will never be in a gun fight.
HOWEVER, being prepared is not about the 99%, it's about that 1% of the time when things go sideways. When that happens, I sure hope that the guy....or guys I face don't feel the need to carry more than 6 rounds, but I'm not counting on it.
99.9999% of gunfights are 3 shots, tops? I've heard that and for all I know, it's 100% accurate. What guarantee do I have that the incident I may be involved in is the 99.9999% and not in the .00001% that is an extended encounter?
Hey, I happen to think revolvers are great, reliable and will undoubtedly take care of most of the defense situations a person would ever face. Anyone who carries one for defense and is comfortable with that, should be. However, to act like there is no situation that could ever occur where 6 shots is not enough?
To use a somewhat tired and overused phrase, as of late: "I wish I had less ammunition said no one in a gunfight....ever."
If I played the odds, I wouldn't carry a gun at all. I've gone 42 years so far and never needed a gun for personal defense. What are the chances I will need one tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after? Not good. CHANCES ARE I will never be in a gun fight.
HOWEVER, being prepared is not about the 99%, it's about that 1% of the time when things go sideways. When that happens, I sure hope that the guy....or guys I face don't feel the need to carry more than 6 rounds, but I'm not counting on it.
99.9999% of gunfights are 3 shots, tops? I've heard that and for all I know, it's 100% accurate. What guarantee do I have that the incident I may be involved in is the 99.9999% and not in the .00001% that is an extended encounter?
Hey, I happen to think revolvers are great, reliable and will undoubtedly take care of most of the defense situations a person would ever face. Anyone who carries one for defense and is comfortable with that, should be. However, to act like there is no situation that could ever occur where 6 shots is not enough?
To use a somewhat tired and overused phrase, as of late: "I wish I had less ammunition said no one in a gunfight....ever."
Life has risk. We used to understand that. If you prepared for every possible threat and contingency, you wouldn't be able to carry everything. So, like it or not, you accept some risk in almost all things you do.
By the way, for your age group, you are far more likely to die from accidental/unintentional poisoning than a shootout. And since most suicides are of the "one bullet" variety if you use a firearm, your multiple shot scenario takes on even smaller odds than your "1%". http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf
The sad fact is, if you're not black, you have a greater propensity to take your life than have your life taken from you by a violent act.
What we are talking about is degree.
I have no idea why Blue is so wrapped up in the berries and the cherries in his Fruit of the Looms.
I wouldn't be so bold as to dictate to you what is necessary for your specific situation. Do what you think is best.
In my circumstances I'm pretty sure I understand the risks much of the time and sometimes adequately prepare for likely contingencies. Sometimes I'm lazy and do not. So, I've gotten to my 60's with 2 arms, 2 legs and no visible bullet holes (shrapnel doesn't count). I won't take credit for it. It may be Karma.
But, in the end, specifics do compile into data and statistics and it is possible to anticipate future outcomes based on historical information.
ymmv
Last edited:
Well I did not "assume" anything. I stated this due to the fact I do not travel into areas that are known "Gang haunts". Due to the FACT most robberies and assaults in otherwise "safe" area are committed by a single person or at worst a pair or BG's. I made my statement.
Granted there are exceptions to this fact, but as I stated the "odds" are certainly in my favor. In "normal" circumstances a well placed shot to one BG would most likely result in any others removing them from the scene.
They know they are going to the hospital and jail even if they survive the second round! I do not incite people that may wish to harm me so having several persons with the intent to injure me is very unlikely.
In 99% of the cases an encounter would only happen if the BG's were intent on robbery of me or others where I am located. In these cases most BG's would not want to be involved in a "shootout".
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Except he doesn't actually carry one, despite those years of experience. I'm not sure why you felt the need to bump this thread, but I'll ask you the same thing I asked him:
1) Can you name one advantage to carrying a single action over a modern revolver?
The whole argument has been about if they are outdated or not. Can they be effective? Yes. So can a spear. That doesn't mean we haven't progressed well beyond the technology involved. If you can only come up with downsides to carrying one and zero advantages over a more modern alternative, than we can safely say they are outdated.
Did you get what you wanted from the classifieds yet?
