CCW with a single action

[jackmoser65]

A single action revolver is just not the best tool for the job of self defense in todays world.

That's 100% dependent on the individual in question. Which is more important, the tool itself or the proficiency?

 

[OldMarksman]

That [(whether a single action revolver is the best tool for the job of self defense in todays world)]'s 100% dependent on the individual in question. Which is more important, the tool itself or the proficiency?

Are there really those who would contend that there are individuals who, having practiced with single action revolvers and with other alternatives, would do better in realistic self defense drills than with other firearms?

Forget reloading for a moment. Consider only drawing from concealment and firing one-handed very rapidly at a fast moving target and achieving combat accuracy.

Years ago I was a lot more proficient with a Colt Model P .45 than with a Commander or a 1911 with old service sights and trigger--if we measure proficiency in shooting slowly at a stationary bullseye.

But that's not what self defense is about.

 

[Wyosmith]

Just poked my head back in here to look at the thread. I already posted all that I believe is important, but just for fun I'll make the point one more time:

I see this comment.
A single action revolver is just not the best tool for the job of self defense in todays world.

Yup, I'd agree.

But to focus on that statement is to miss 98 to 99 percent of what's important.

On a scale of 1-10 if a SA revolver rates a 3, but it's in the hands of a man who rates a 9 or 10, the "best gun" in the hands of the enemy who rates a 5 or a 6 is not going to matter.

He just brought a "better" gun to the festivities and gave it to the winner.
The good man with the so-so gun will pick up the "better" gun if he wants it, because the so-so man is not going to need or want it anymore.

Again, fights are won by the better fighter 98-99% of the time and the tool he uses is worth about 1-2% of the equation.

 

[briandg]

Jack, your argument is pointless. You admit that proficiency is the most important tool. Well, that was already covered that the gun is not the most important tool.

To my recall, during this whole conversation nobody has ever said that he should carry a gun that he can't shoot well and leave the other ones at home. The general flow of conversation has been that not very many people can handle a single action revolver with the skills necessary, or proficiency, as some would say, but could handle another handgun more proficiently, and if that is the case, then the choice clearly should be to use the gun that most suits the carrier.

Anyone who can shoot a single action better than he can any other weapon should carry his single action and leave the others home. I don't know how much simpler it can get.

As usual those passing judgment and making disparaging remarks are those least qualified to do so.

Nice work. mostly wrong.

they'd rather pull their own teeth than spend five minutes with a Glock.

Now I have to ask, are you qualified to discuss shooting with a semiautomatic handgun? If a person would rather have his teeth pulled than use one, using one in this kind of emergency could be a problem.

 

[RickB]

I've never carried a single action, don't think I would, but for a "fast" reload, consider a Peacemaker chambered in .45 Auto.
Your "speedloader" is a 6-round 1911 mag.
After you've ejected the empties, and while holding the gun in the left hand, hold the top of the mag near the loading gate and thumb the rounds out of the mag and into the chambers.
It would take some practice, but the mag keeps the rounds together so you don't have to handle them singly, and mag pouches are readily available.
I didn't come up with the idea, just the messenger.

 

[357 Python]

Many years ago just after my parents gave me a 5 1/2 inch barrel Ruger Vaquero in 44 Magnum I tried it just for kicks. It concealed very well. An old friend who knew I always carried saw me and had no idea I was carrying a gun that size. Would I do it on a regular basis? Not a chance. In todays world a nice double action revolver or semi-auto pistol is the proper thing to carry. Back in the 1880s, yes but not now.

 

[jackmoser65]

Are there really those who would contend that there are individuals who, having practiced with single action revolvers and with other alternatives, would do better in realistic self defense drills than with other firearms?

Uh, yeah. That's kinda the point. Believe it or not, not everybody has use for a semi auto or the desire to shoot one enough to be good with it.

Consider only drawing from concealment and firing one-handed very rapidly at a fast moving target and achieving combat accuracy.

That is the single action's greatest advantage, if there is one.

Nice work. mostly wrong.

I guarantee that very few who disparage the use of a single action revolver have spent enough time with one to really know. Leisurely farting around at the range doesn't count.

 

[OldMarksman]

That [(drawing from concealment and firing one-handed very rapidly at a fast moving target and achieving combat accuracy)] is the single action's greatest advantage, if there is one.

Concealing a full size single scion reviver is a challenge. Drawing quickly is another.

Firing rapidly with one hand is not the single action's forte.

Consider an assailant three yards away and moving at five yards per second. Realize that the critical parts of the body hath must be hit are hidden, small, and moving in six degrees of freedom, and that hitting them is a matter of chance that is enhanced by firing multiple shots quickly.

Within those constructs I do not see how very many people at all would choose a single action for self defense.

Believe it or not, not everybody has use for a semi auto or the desire to shoot one enough to be good with it.

I respectfully suggest that everyone who carries a firearm for self defense "has use" for one that he or she can handle effectively in the drill described above, and that one that need not have the hammer thumbed back between shots will likely serve anyone better.

I guarantee that very few who disparage the use of a single action revolver have spent enough time with one to really know.

That is a guarantee on which you would be most unlikely to make good.

 

[Hawg]

they'd rather pull their own teeth than spend five minutes with a Glock.

Do I like a Glock? Not in the slightest. Would I own another Glock? Nope, never. Would I use a Glock if it was all I could get my hands on? Yes indeed but I am not proficient with one. I am proficient with a SA and would probably be better off with one. I would stand a better chance of getting a good hit with a SA than sending a lot of bullets their way and hoping for a good hit with a Glock. But in reality make mine a 1911. Still a SA but faster cocking.

 

[Auto5]

It's not my regular carry, but I have carried a 3.5" Cimarron Lightning .38 Special just to change things up.

 

[Armybrat]

I had thought about one of those little Cimarron Lightnings, but the new Ruger Single Seven Birdshead (7 shot, .327 Federal) has moved to the top of my want list.

 

[Real Gun]

The Lightning has an advantage in its ejector design, able to pop spent cases even with a 3" barrel.

 

[Bob Wright]

OldMarksman said:

Firing rapidly with one hand is not the single action's forte.

I beg to differ with you there.


Bob Wright

 

[OldMarksman]

I beg to differ with you there [(Firing rapidly with one hand is not the single action's forte)].Takes one more step and a change in grip. Simple human factors or methods-time-measurement issue.

The single action revolver was replaced in most applications other than the taking of game many years ago. The reason was simple: it was single action.

 

[reteach]

Howdy. Been to places without internet for a couple of days. Before I left, I found a cheap little iwb slide holster that fit the Single Seven pretty well, so I wore it for the two days. I definitely need a better holster, but otherwise the 3 3/4" barrel was comfortable and it all stayed concealed. At least, no one told me it was showing. So there's one step toward using that revolver for ccw.

 

[Real Gun]

I beg to differ with you there [(Firing rapidly with one hand is not the single action's forte)].Takes one more step and a change in grip. Simple human factors or methods-time-measurement issue.

I agree that a typical single action is slower to operate but would comment that cocking a hammer with a light trigger that breaks like glass is in exchange for a long and careful DA trigger pull. I think it just takes less skill to do pretty well with a DA at close range. It should be noted that single action gamers often use special hammers that are easier to thumb and cock than a classic Colt style hammer spur. The Ruger Montado would be a good picture to check for an example.

 

[jackmoser65]

Concealing a full size single scion reviver is a challenge. Drawing quickly is another.

First part is true but it's also a challenge to conceal a full size auto. Compact versions of either are preferable. Second part is false. The SA is quicker from leather to the first shot than anything else.

Firing rapidly with one hand is not the single action's forte.

Maybe in your hands.

...and that hitting them is a matter of chance that is enhanced by firing multiple shots quickly.

If one is going to spray and pray then an SA is not a good choice.

I respectfully suggest that everyone who carries a firearm for self defense "has use" for one that he or she can handle effectively in the drill described above, and that one that need not have the hammer thumbed back between shots will likely serve anyone better.

You think someone who shoots SA's all the time would be better served in a gunfight with a Glock they're completely unfamiliar with? So skill is irrelevant?

Takes one more step and a change in grip. Simple human factors or methods-time-measurement issue.

Change in grip??? The hammer is cocked while coming down from recoil. If both hands are used, there is nothing faster. One handed the difference is manageable.

That is a guarantee on which you would be most unlikely to make good.

So far you're making it easy.

 

[OldMarksman]

The SA is quicker from leather to the first shot than anything else.

The discussion is about concealed carry. Fast draw for an open belt holster is not part of the equation,

As a matter of fact, most trainers recommend that revolver users conceal carry firearms with no hammer spur at all. One reason is to speed the draw.

If one is going to spray and pray then an SA is not a good choice.

For effective use of a handgun against a moving attacker, the likelihood of hitting anything critical timely with slow fire is much lower than that of hitting such body parts timely with controlled rapid fire. The latter is not "spray and pray".

You think someone who shoots SA's all the time would be better served in a gunfight with a Glock they're completely unfamiliar with?

Why anyone would carry a concealed weapon with which one is completely unfamiliar is one issue, but choosing to carry and practice with one that is inherently slower that those that most experts recommend is what the thread is about.

So skill is irrelevant?

Where did that come from?

Change in grip??? The hammer is cocked while coming down from recoil. If both hands are used, there is nothing faster. One handed the difference is manageable.

Firing one handed, moving the thumb to cock the hammer involves a change in grip.

There are those who can fire quite rapidly by thumbing the hammer with the other hand, but I doubt that "there is nothing faster". Most carriers will, if given the choice, find themselves better served with a firearm that obviates the need for the extra step before each shot.

 

[jackmoser65]

You are basically proving my guarantee. How much time have you actually spent doing all this? Because this sounds like a lot of postulating.

The discussion is about concealed carry. Fast draw for an open belt holster is not part of the equation

I understand that, do you?

As a matter of fact, most trainers recommend that revolver users conceal carry firearms with no hammer spur at all. One reason is to speed the draw.

Spurless hammers just prevent snagging, which is more an issue with pocket carry than belt carry. Having actually carried an SA concealed and practiced drawing it from leather for 40yrs, I don't think this is founded in reality.

The latter is not "spray and pray".

Sounded like it to me.

Why anyone would carry a concealed weapon with which one is completely unfamiliar is one issue, but choosing to carry and practice with one that is inherently slower that those that most experts recommend is what the thread is about.

Where did that come from?

According to yourself and others the tool is more important than the skillset. I'm just reading your words on the screen.

Firing one handed, moving the thumb to cock the hammer involves a change in grip.

No it doesn't. It's the moving of one finger. Not unlike flicking off the safety of a semi auto.

I doubt that "there is nothing faster".

Then I would say you're imposing your own limitations upon others.

Most carriers will, if given the choice, find themselves better served with a firearm that obviates the need for the extra step before each shot.

Most carriers will be best served with the tool they are the most proficient with. Since cops seem to miss 90% of the time, it might be a good idea to "slow down and have a more harmonious outcome". You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

I think my guarantee is safe for now.

 

[briandg]

Jack, I've rarely heard such nonsense.

Everything that you are espousing in your posts depends entirely on having a high skilled shooter, and you absolutely ignore the reality that for every person who trains and becomes skilled enough to carry a single action in a concealed position there may be thousands of people who cannot master single action speed shooting.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous as your statement that nothing is faster than an sa pistol, I wish that you could explain that, but I don't want to spend anymore time. Are you talking about fractions of a second, times so short that they can't even be measured without an electronic timer?any handgun can be drawn, cocked, and fired in a single instantaneous moment, are you saying that an ordinary shooter can beat another ordinaryguy with a da/sa pistol with a literally identical action? That a guy who doesn't even have to cock his pistol to shoot one handed will be so much slower than the guy who has to go through that process ? Is your statement regarding differences in performance measured in hundredths of a second?

More importantly, tell me seriously, why is speed of drawing and firing the first shot even important? I have never known anyone personally who seemed to set so much importance on how fast he could draw and fire. All of the practical trainers that I have known dismiss training for high speed out of leather and focus on making shots. while praising one group for being able to shoot quickly, you have ridiculed people who use other weapons with your spray and pray comment.

If you want to talk about what a truly skilled expert is capable of doing, what bearing does that have on what the average shooter can do,
and whether a person should devote his training to that system instead of another?

There is one simple fact. You are only one person, you may have become proficient with the system that you chose, but that doesn't prove that your choice is the best one. I am not fond of saying that the majority is right, but it is. For about a century, shooters all around the entire world have found that it is easier to gain proficiency with, and perform well with any of the other semiautomatic or double action platforms. This doesn't prove anything, but it does clearly show that those other systems are preferred, and obviously work better for the average shooter. If the sa was the better system, the 1911 would be stuck on the bottom corner of the case.