TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

casselthief wrote: anyway, you have to check things, no matter what you carry. it's life.
TXI, nice routine.

True. Though IMO CCW is all about "risk management" and
simplification is a very powerful tool in any form of risk
management. Yes, the above is a great checklist. My checklist
is alot shorter.

Cheers,

Patrick

I carried a revolver for MANY years. Too many people think revolvers are too foolproof and fail to take the proper precautions and make adaquete checks. I am not implying that YOU don't, just making a statement.

On revolvers, ejection rods can become bent and loose. Both can "jam it up". Revolvers can get jammed up from defective or damaged or clogged up cylinder rotating mechanism. They are subject to loose cylinder release mechanisms.

All things to certainly keep an eye on. And one reason for choosing
the SP101 over other options was it's reputation for durability (not
that such a malfunction is impossible, of course). But again, correct
functioning always needs to be checked regularly. Agreed.

I guess the point I was trying to make, for those who ponder such
issues, is that all other things being equal (relating to proper maintenance,
practice, etc.) there are fewer things to worry about with a revolver
than a semi-auto; and for some folks, like me, that's important. For
other folks, it might be irrelevant, and that's fine.

It just seems that lately I've been coming across alot of stories of
various mishaps, goofs, oopses, etc. by folks carrying semi-autos
that I don't have to worry about, and felt inclined to make a note
of that.

I really (really) didn't want to spark off some big debate or "dis"
all the folks carrying semi-autos (especially since that's the great
majority

txinvestigator wrote: Revolvers are inherently more difficult to shoot well under stress. (risk management)

Hmmm...

I haven't been shooting for ages, as many of you have, but I'm not sure
I fully buy that. Fortunately, I've not had to go through a "real life" test of
that, but at least I know that personally, I trust my carry revolver more
than any pistol I've ever fired, and that I expect my stress level
is less, accordingly. Aside from NRA Bullseye rapid fire matches,
I've not experienced my revolver failing to provide sufficient
accuracy and speed, particularly in CCW relevant scenarios, so not
sure what I might be missing to fully understand/appreciate the above claim.

I'm happy to recieve further enlightenment from those more experienced
than me. Really.

-----

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

casselthief wrote: anyway, you have to check things, no matter what you carry. it's life.
TXI, nice routine.

True. Though IMO CCW is all about "risk management" and
simplification is a very powerful tool in any form of risk
management. Yes, the above is a great checklist. My checklist
is alot shorter.

Cheers,

Patrick

I carried a revolver for MANY years. Too many people think revolvers are too foolproof and fail to take the proper precautions and make adaquete checks. I am not implying that YOU don't, just making a statement.

On revolvers, ejection rods can become bent and loose. Both can "jam it up". Revolvers can get jammed up from defective or damaged or clogged up cylinder rotating mechanism. They are subject to loose cylinder release mechanisms.

All things to certainly keep an eye on. And one reason for choosing
the SP101 over other options was it's reputation for durability (not
that such a malfunction is impossible, of course). But again, correct
functioning always needs to be checked regularly. Agreed.

I guess the point I was trying to make, for those who ponder such
issues, is that all other things being equal (relating to proper maintenance,
practice, etc.) there are fewer things to worry about with a revolver
than a semi-auto; and for some folks, like me, that's important. For
other folks, it might be irrelevant, and that's fine.

Thats my point. There are NOT fewer things to worry about on a revolver. Just different things.

txinvestigator wrote: Revolvers are inherently more difficult to shoot well under stress. (risk management)

Hmmm...

I haven't been shooting for ages, as many of you have, but I'm not sure
I fully buy that. Fortunately, I've not had to go through a "real life" test of
that, but at least I know that personally, I trust my carry revolver more
than any pistol I've ever fired, and that I expect my stress level
is less, accordingly. Aside from NRA Bullseye rapid fire matches,
I've not experienced my revolver failing to provide sufficient
accuracy and speed, particularly in CCW relevant scenarios, so not
sure what I might be missing to fully understand/appreciate the above claim.

I'm happy to recieve further enlightenment from those more experienced
than me. Really.

Since no one really studies non-LEO shootings, I have to defer to studies on LE shootings. Generally hit ratios increased with semi-autos.

There are several reasons for this, except for DAO pistols, semi-autos have lighter and shorter trigger pulls than revolvers (after the first shot for DA pistols)

And generally semi-autos tend to have better sights. (I said generally ;) )


However, a revolver shooter who trains more than the average cop would probably have better hit ratios.

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

casselthief wrote: anyway, you have to check things, no matter what you carry. it's life.
TXI, nice routine.

True. Though IMO CCW is all about "risk management" and
simplification is a very powerful tool in any form of risk
management. Yes, the above is a great checklist. My checklist
is alot shorter.

Cheers,

Patrick

I carried a revolver for MANY years. Too many people think revolvers are too foolproof and fail to take the proper precautions and make adaquete checks. I am not implying that YOU don't, just making a statement.

On revolvers, ejection rods can become bent and loose. Both can "jam it up". Revolvers can get jammed up from defective or damaged or clogged up cylinder rotating mechanism. They are subject to loose cylinder release mechanisms.

All things to certainly keep an eye on. And one reason for choosing
the SP101 over other options was it's reputation for durability (not
that such a malfunction is impossible, of course). But again, correct
functioning always needs to be checked regularly. Agreed.

I guess the point I was trying to make, for those who ponder such
issues, is that all other things being equal (relating to proper maintenance,
practice, etc.) there are fewer things to worry about with a revolver
than a semi-auto; and for some folks, like me, that's important. For
other folks, it might be irrelevant, and that's fine.

Thats my point. There are NOT fewer things to worry about on a revolver. Just different things.

Hmmm... one side of my brain is telling me to just keep my mouth
shut and let it go, but the other side of my brain (the part that
likes to take things apart to see how they tick or dissect a topic
repeatedly to find that last grain of knowledge) is spurring me to
reply. I guess I'll give in one last time Apologies to any folks
who consider this beating a dead, or near-dead horse...

Based on a good bit of reading (though admitedly not years of personal
experience, even if lots of reading of stuff by other folks with years
of experience, etc.) I've come to conclude that what you say above
is true in essence, but not true in degree. Meaning, if one simply
lists the number of issues that might arise with a revolver, and then
list those that might arise with a semi-auto, the lists seem to even
out. But that's misleading. The frequency at which the issues on
the revolver list are encountered seem to be much rarer than those
on the semi-auto list.

Yes, revolvers can jam. But honestly, are you really saying that
revolvers jam, or malfunction in other critical ways, *as often*
as semi-autos? Or that maintainance on revolvers must be done
as frequently, and with as great significance, as with semi-autos?

Quite a lot of literature seems to reflect a concensus that overall,
revolvers are simpler to operate and more reliable, and that the
reasons for choosing less reliability in a semi-automatic are capacity
and reloading speed. For lots of folks (heck, for most folks) that is
an acceptable compromise. Fair enough.

But for others, greater simplicity of operation and reliability are
valued over capacity and speed of reloading.

That seems to be the key watershed for folks choosing one over
the other. You seem to be suggesting that there is no real difference
in degree, only in essense. I.e. a revolver is just as prone to malfunction
as a semi-auto, and just as complicated to operate/maintain as
a semi-auto.

Yes, there are things to check in both cases to ensure proper
functioning of the firearm, but the frequency that one might
utter "uh oh" with a revolver seems quite a bit less than with
a semi-auto, overall.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood.

txinvestigator wrote: Revolvers are inherently more difficult to shoot well under stress. (risk management)

Hmmm...

I haven't been shooting for ages, as many of you have, but I'm not sure
I fully buy that. Fortunately, I've not had to go through a "real life" test of
that, but at least I know that personally, I trust my carry revolver more
than any pistol I've ever fired, and that I expect my stress level
is less, accordingly. Aside from NRA Bullseye rapid fire matches,
I've not experienced my revolver failing to provide sufficient
accuracy and speed, particularly in CCW relevant scenarios, so not
sure what I might be missing to fully understand/appreciate the above claim.

I'm happy to recieve further enlightenment from those more experienced
than me. Really.

Since no one really studies non-LEO shootings, I have to defer to studies on LE shootings. Generally hit ratios increased with semi-autos.

There are several reasons for this, except for DAO pistols, semi-autos have lighter and shorter trigger pulls than revolvers (after the first shot for DA pistols)

And generally semi-autos tend to have better sights. (I said generally ;) )


However, a revolver shooter who trains more than the average cop would probably have better hit ratios.

Fair enough. And I take no issue with that conclusion.

Which I guess brings us all the way back to my original posting
noting that I carry a DAO revolver with an outstanding record
for rock solid durability, excellent sights, and no added holster
issues and thus enjoy a much simpler, more reliable (at least
statistically) solution with a minimum of variables to deal with
on a day-in-day-out basis. But if no'one else can appreciate that, at
least I do, and we can leave it at that.

Cheers,

Patrick

Fair enough.

What holster issues though?

txinvestigator wrote:Fair enough.

What holster issues though?

Just one case in point, the original posting of this thread,
whereby due to the felt presence of the holster one might
overlook adding the firearm as well.

In my case, I have but one thing only to remember to take
along, my gun. Everything I need (or rather, choose to carry)
is in one package, either in or attached to the gun itself.
It's either with me or it isn't. And if it's
with me, it's both verified to be in good working condition
and in a ready-to-use state without any special steps that
can be forgotten (cock and lock, etc.) nor are any special
holster issues relevant, such as protecting the trigger, etc.

Minimal variables. Simplicity. Yet sufficient for its purpose.

Of course, there is risk of setting off yet another debate on a
hot topic -- how much, if any, extra ammo one carries,
but let's just not go there eh?

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

casselthief wrote: anyway, you have to check things, no matter what you carry. it's life.
TXI, nice routine.

True. Though IMO CCW is all about "risk management" and
simplification is a very powerful tool in any form of risk
management. Yes, the above is a great checklist. My checklist
is alot shorter.

Cheers,

Patrick

I carried a revolver for MANY years. Too many people think revolvers are too foolproof and fail to take the proper precautions and make adaquete checks. I am not implying that YOU don't, just making a statement.

On revolvers, ejection rods can become bent and loose. Both can "jam it up". Revolvers can get jammed up from defective or damaged or clogged up cylinder rotating mechanism. They are subject to loose cylinder release mechanisms.

All things to certainly keep an eye on. And one reason for choosing
the SP101 over other options was it's reputation for durability (not
that such a malfunction is impossible, of course). But again, correct
functioning always needs to be checked regularly. Agreed.

I guess the point I was trying to make, for those who ponder such
issues, is that all other things being equal (relating to proper maintenance,
practice, etc.) there are fewer things to worry about with a revolver
than a semi-auto; and for some folks, like me, that's important. For
other folks, it might be irrelevant, and that's fine.

Thats my point. There are NOT fewer things to worry about on a revolver. Just different things.

Based on a good bit of reading (though admitedly not years of personal
experience, even if lots of reading of stuff by other folks with years
of experience, etc.) I've come to conclude that what you say above
is true in essence, but not true in degree. Meaning, if one simply
lists the number of issues that might arise with a revolver, and then
list those that might arise with a semi-auto, the lists seem to even
out. But that's misleading. The frequency at which the issues on
the revolver list are encountered seem to be much rarer than those
on the semi-auto list
Yes, revolvers can jam. But honestly, are you really saying that
revolvers jam, or malfunction in other critical ways, *as often*
as semi-autos? .

Dunno, I have never had a failure with either type. But I have seen them while training others, and it is overwhelmingly a lack of care of the weapon.

Or that maintainance on revolvers must be done
as frequently, and with as great significance, as with semi-autos?

Umm, yeah. I don't care for my semis any more then I did my revolvers. But then again, I carried a revolver as a cop.

Quite a lot of literature seems to reflect a concensus that overall,
revolvers are simpler to operate and more reliable, and that the
reasons for choosing less reliability in a semi-automatic are capacity
and reloading speed.

Years ago, that was true. Semi-autos were scorned and teased. (we called them electric guns, and put those shooters on the far right end of the line.) However, I will not carry a gun that is not 100% reliable. My old revolvers met that requirement, my 1980's S&W 5900 series wondernine met that, my Beretta 92FS met that, and both my Kimbers meet that. The ONLY reason I carry a semi-auto is my ability to hit faster, harder and with better precision than a revolver. I would NEVER sacrifice reliability for more bullets. for that matter, I could reload my model 10 as fast if not faster than most semi-auto carriers.

For lots of folks (heck, for most folks) that is
an acceptable compromise.

Disagree. Sacrificing reliability for any reason is not justifiable for anyone I know.

But for others, greater simplicity of operation and reliability are
valued over capacity and speed of reloading.

Ever try to clear a malfunction in a revolver that got jammed up due to any reason?

That seems to be the key watershed for folks choosing one over
the other. You seem to be suggesting that there is no real difference
in degree, only in essense. I.e. a revolver is just as prone to malfunction
as a semi-auto, and just as complicated to operate/maintain as
a semi-auto.

Essence. Humm, let me think about that.

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Fair enough.

What holster issues though?

Just one case in point, the original posting of this thread,
whereby due to the felt presence of the holster one might
overlook adding the firearm as well.

In my case, I have but one thing only to remember to take
along, my gun. Everything I need (or rather, choose to carry)
is in one package, either in or attached to the gun itself.
It's either with me or it isn't. And if it's
with me, it's both verified to be in good working condition
and in a ready-to-use state without any special steps that
can be forgotten (cock and lock, etc.) nor are any special
holster issues relevant, such as protecting the trigger, etc.

Minimal variables. Simplicity. Yet sufficient for its purpose.

Of course, there is risk of setting off yet another debate on a
hot topic -- how much, if any, extra ammo one carries,
but let's just not go there eh?

You carry sans holster?

I carried speed strips while off duty. Not as fast as a speed loader, but the same one worked for my full sized as well as my Chief Special.

PS. I am enjoying your posts and points of discussion.

txinvestigator wrote:

patrickstickler wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Fair enough.

What holster issues though?

Just one case in point, the original posting of this thread,
whereby due to the felt presence of the holster one might
overlook adding the firearm as well.

In my case, I have but one thing only to remember to take
along, my gun. Everything I need (or rather, choose to carry)
is in one package, either in or attached to the gun itself.
It's either with me or it isn't. And if it's
with me, it's both verified to be in good working condition
and in a ready-to-use state without any special steps that
can be forgotten (cock and lock, etc.) nor are any special
holster issues relevant, such as protecting the trigger, etc.

Minimal variables. Simplicity. Yet sufficient for its purpose.

Of course, there is risk of setting off yet another debate on a
hot topic -- how much, if any, extra ammo one carries,
but let's just not go there eh?

You carry sans holster?

Yes. I use a clipdraw. I have both a pocket holster
and OWB holster (the latter required for various
practice matches, etc.).

I actually came to this mode of carry by accident,
so to speak. I opted to carry "mexican" style for
a few days due to being limited to some hiking
pants with short pockets and a built in belt, and
found it to be so amazingly confortable, with the
least printing I'd ever had with the SP101, that I
just stuck with it. The clipdraw adds a little extra
security, alleviating risk of it falling down my pants
leg.

Have yet to carry spare ammo, either speed loaders
or strips.

I tend to look at things from the perspective of
achieving a balance between convenience and risk
management. Yes, there may be scenarios that
might require having several reloads of ammo
on hand -- but if I'm in such a scenario, I am
probably at fault of failing to avoid being there in
the first place, and the likelyhood of needing more
than 5 rounds of .357 HP (or even doing more than
just revealing my gun) are of such a greater
unlikelyhood that it is not worth the "cost" (in
increasing the complexity of life) to carry a
larger arsenal on my person.

I'm in a way a "reluctant CCW" such that, I'd
very much prefer not to have to bother at all
carrying (all political issues of constitutional rights
aside) but do so because I consider it to be a
responsible level of risk management -- on par with
wearing a seat belt, having health insurance, having
fire insurance, wearing a motorcycle helmet,
etc. etc. But just as I don't have 5 point seatbelts
in my car as some racing fans do, because that's
par for the course in Nascar or F1, I'm disinclined to
load my belt up with tactical gear on par with your
typical LEO, so that I'm "prepared for anything".

I'm going out on a limb here in saying this, but it seems
to me that there is a bit too tactical a trend in most
CCW circles, which can very easily intimidate and put
off folks that are just looking to wear seat belts, so to
speak, and much of the push for semi-autos is tied
up with that.

Before anyone gets the impression that I'm in any way
saying that folks shouldn't carry semi-auto pistols or
that such an option isn't optimal for them, I'm not saying
that.

I just see that there are alot of folks, myself included,
for whom a small frame, simple, easy to use, revolver
is all that is needed, and I felt inclined (for reasons I
still can't explain) to voice the fact that -- in the midst
of all sorts of postings from all sorts of folks about all
sorts of gotchas, that maybe for many, or even most
of them, something simpler is worth considering, in
cases where CCW is a lifestyle, but not necessarily
a "hobby" (yeah, I know, I better duck

Feel free, anyone, to correct me if you think my
logic or conclusions are flawed (...sound of me
diving for cover quickly

I carried speed strips while off duty. Not as fast as a speed loader, but the same one worked for my full sized as well as my Chief Special.

PS. I am enjoying your posts and points of discussion.

Glad to hear it. And I'm very appreciative of your input.

I'm always ready to be convinced to do something
better

patrickstickler

Very good and well-thought out points.

In all honesty, most self-defense shootings are up close and fast. As a concealed carrier and a person prepared to meet force with force, you have an advantage. If you respond within the limitations of your tools, you have a high probability of survival, which I assume is the ultimate goal.

Same for anyone else.

txinvestigator wrote:patrickstickler

Very good and well-thought out points.

In all honesty, most self-defense shootings are up close and fast. As a concealed carrier and a person prepared to meet force with force, you have an advantage. If you respond within the limitations of your tools, you have a high probability of survival, which I assume is the ultimate goal.

Same for anyone else.

I agree.

Cheers,

Patrick