Concealed carry

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In a self defense scenario, do you plan to shoot until the target ceases to be a threat?
How fast can you shoot?
How long will it take for the target to cease to be a threat?
How much longer will it take you to recognize that?

Those are good questions to consider when asking how much ammo you should carry.

If you have .33 splits and it takes two seconds for the target to cease and you to realize it, you have fired six rounds and hopefully there are no other targets that need servicing if you are carrying a six shooter.

I once read an account of a SWAT trained officer who stopped a McDonald's robbery off-duty with a Glock 26. He was carrying 11 rounds and fired them all even though the robber was a dead man walking after round #1 and the whole thing was over in less than 2 seconds. He mentioned being very concerned about whether the robber was acting alone as he stood there with his carry piece at slide lock and no reload.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Do you remember where you read it?
Im not asking cause I don't believe you Im asking cause I'd like to read his insights on the incident.

 

[OldMarksman]

I witnessed first hand the ability of a SA in the hands of someone who was good enough that I couldn't argue that any other gun would have been better for him. He could put 5 rounds into a 2 inch circle at 10 yards faster than I could fire six shots with a 1911 45.

I would not conclude from an observation that one particular shooter has outshot another that a single action would be a good choice for self defense for anyone.

The SA revolver was on its way out from being generally issued for serious police and military use a century and a quarter ago.

The DA revolvers that replaced them could be fired in the single action mode, but skilled pistol shooters such as Ed McGivern and Delf Bryce were strongly urging officers to train to shoot double action eight decades ago. Old FBI training films made the same point.

I learned my lesson late in life. I started shooting single action and double action revolvers and semi-automatic pistols one handed around fifty five years ago. I thought I was reasonably good.

However, when I attended my first high performance defensive pistol class some years ago, I was shocked by the speed of fire that was being taught. It took me half a day and several hundred rounds just to gain the dexterity to do it even reasonably well in El Presidente drills. I was using a semi-automatic pistol. By the way, class participants who were using service sized 9mm pistols did best, far outperforming me with my officer-frame .45 ACP.

Why is that important for self defense?

First, realize that the one shot stops we see in screen fiction are just that--fiction. Second, consider that the body parts we need to hit to effect a quick stop are small and internal--we cannot see them, and hitting them is as much a matter of chance as anything, requiring multiple hits. Third, consider how fast a charging attacker may be moving, as has been discussed.

If someone can fire a pistol two to three times in a second with good control (say, all shots in the upper chest area of a running person at five to fifteen feet) when needed, he will be well equipped, should he not be able to avoid the encounter altogether, and if he can get the gun into action quickly enough. That's the "balance of speed and precision" concept that Rob Pincus teaches us about.

With a single action? Most unlikely, for the great majority of people.

But rather than cogitating about it, people should avail themselves of the training.

 

[ShootistPRS]

oldMarksman, I totally agree that training is the most important part, followed closely by the practice of that training.

 

[zincwarrior]

Well maybe if they had a single action howdah pistol. It was designed to kill charging lions.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I agree a SA revolver is not going to be the best choice for the avg person.
But I think Shootist point was anyone practiced enough can be quite formidable with something most others would dismiss.

Im sure the man was not born that good it took practice, But isn't that true of nearly all things?

Im reminded of the saying.. Fear the man with 1 gun, He probably knows how to use it.

I subscribe and believe that to be true.

If someone has been practicing primarily with a SA revolver and has gotten good with it then we have no basis to criticize it's deployment as most of us (my self included) have no standing on skill with such a weapon.
Otherwise all we do is project our own incompetence in that area.

 

[FITASC]

Is "Battle Gun" the new cool term now instead of the overused "tactical"?

OP, use whatever you are proficient with, and the rest of these folks will do the same. If you have the confidence in your gun of choice and your ability to use it in the scenarios you will likely face where you live, then go ahead and use it.

There are a lot of very knowledgeable folks here and on other forums and 99% of the time, the comments and wisdom are great. There are also some who feel that if you aren't carrying 3 guns with 2 reloads for each, a few knives, pepper spray and wearing body armor, you're crazy to leave your house. YOU know the threats YOU are most likely to face where YOU live, work and play. Use your judgement to determine if your choice will be the best option.

 

[OldMarksman]

....I totally agree that training is the most important part, followed closely by the practice of that training.

Yes.

And do not be surprised if you do not change pistols, or holsters, or both after a good training session. That is not at all unusual.

 

[OldMarksman]

If someone has been practicing primarily with a SA revolver and has gotten good with it then we have no basis to criticize it's deployment as most of us (my self included) have no standing on skill with such a weapon.

That depends entirely on what is meant by "has gotten good with it".

 

[ShootistPRS]

FITASC.
Where I am I am more likely to need my gun when facing a steer or a bull with a bad attitude than I am a person. I am almost always carrying my 357 Magnum because that is the gun I started carrying 45 years ago. I sometimes carry my 45 but it is rare.
The only semi-auto I have is still a "new" gun and I don't trust it enough to use as a carry piece yet. I have some bad history with a 1911 and have not yet recovered from its FTF history. The "new" CZ75B has given me no problems but I want to put a few thousand rounds through it before I start training seriously with it. (that and I am not sure that 9mm is a good caliber for me)

 

[JoeSixpack]

I don't know exactly where I'd define "good"
but I'd say the guy Shootist was talking about qualifies for sure.

But I suppose If I had to define it I'd say if the person carrying one feels confident with one enough to carry it.. Then they're probably good.

 

[FITASC]

FITASC.
Where I am I am more likely to need my gun when facing a steer or a bull with a bad attitude than I am a person. I am almost always carrying my 357 Magnum because that is the gun I started carrying 45 years ago. I sometimes carry my 45 but it is rare.
The only semi-auto I have is still a "new" gun and I don't trust it enough to use as a carry piece yet. I have some bad history with a 1911 and have not yet recovered from its FTF history. The "new" CZ75B has given me no problems but I want to put a few thousand rounds through it before I start training seriously with it. (that and I am not sure that 9mm is a good caliber for me)

I understand and agree completely. Not having total confidence in your equipment (no matter the situation) can be a recipe for disaster, even in a no-stakes scenario like a shooting game such as sporting clays. In a life and death scenario, the slightest hesitancy brought on by thinking about whether your gun is going to fire can get you dead.

 

[OldMarksman]

I don't know exactly where I'd define "good"
but I'd say the guy Shootist was talking about qualifies for sure.

Well, shooting all of one's shots into a two inch circle at ten yards is certainly "good shooting", but I seriously doubt that any qualified defensive shooting instructor would characterize it as being very applicable to self defense in the general case.

But I suppose If I had to define it I'd say if the person carrying one feels confident with one enough to carry it.. Then they're probably good.

Why would you ever think that?

There are a number of really good defensive pistol training instructors. Just to name a few, Rob Pincus, Mike Seeklander, Tom Givens, and Massad Ayoob can explain the skills most likely to be needed for using a handgun in a civilian defensive situation, and thay can teach them. And there are others.

They will point out the very significant differences between "good shooting" at a stationary target at a square range at, say, seven to ten yards or more, and defensive shooting.

Most people who avail themselves of such training will find out very quickly that what they had previously "felt confident" about is likely not what they really need.

For most students, the shorter distances and higher rates of fire involved in defensive pistol shooing training come as quite a surprise.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I think you missed the part where he was not just accurate but faster then him with a 1911.

The last part of your post would apply regardless of the gun they use.

Maybe you should go ask the masters for their blessing and stop asking me about it.

This argument reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkY7W6kCRY4
just replace "shoes" with "gun"

 

[OldMarksman]

I think you missed the part where he was not just accurate but faster then him with a 1911.

What might that have to do with it?

The last part of your post would apply regardless of the gun they use.

Actually, the training of which I have spoken would do several things, and among them would be to give an appreciation of what might constitute "good", and the second, to let them know better how to select an effective defensive firearm for concealed carry.

Maybe you should go ask the masters for their blessing and stop asking me about it.

I don't have any idea what you might mean by the first part of that.

And I hate to put it quite this way, but I cannot see the point in asking you about any of this.

The OP stated that he or she carries a single action revolver for self defense, and described the kind of shooting that he or she can do with it. I pointed out that that kind of shooting is not really what one needs for self defense, and I explained why; and I suggested that one can be better able to choose a defensive firearm after some training.

As to your comment about what you think would define "good", I explained why I don't think much of it, not to be argumentative, but for the benefit of the OP.

 

[kraigwy]

I carry a revolver, simply because that's what I used in LE and every since. I did so to a hammerless 642.

In LE I pocket carried a 2 in Smith in my parka packet (this was Alaska) because though the parka was designed for access to my service revolver, it didn't.

Now I pocket carry my 642. I don't see the case where I'm gonna have to fight off hoards of "whatever" .

I will confess the last time I qualified for LEOSA, I qualified with a semi, but afterword I didn't feel comfortable carrying it, after 40 years or so of pocket carrying my revolver, I didn't make it home before I went back to my revolver.

I haven't open carried since I retired, and I don't see an event that would cause me to open carry now.

I'm not against open carry, its just not for me. I don't feel its anyone's business but mine whether I carry or not.

I actually like to see people open carry When see it I think, "well there is the target for the bandit to concern himself with while I seek cover and plan to do what I need to do."

 

[FITASC]

Kraig - do you not open carry when you're out hunting?

 

[OldMarksman]

I actually like to see people open carry When see it I think, "well there is the target for the bandit to concern himself with while I seek cover and plan to do what I need to do."

Good one!

 

[kraigwy]

Kraig - do you not open carry when you're out hunting?

No sir, unless you are talking about my rifle. But I still have my J Frame in my pocket.

 

[couldbeanyone]

I don't have any problem with anyone carrying a single action revolver for defense. Your life, your choice. What worries me is what is considered good by some. I have a friend who several years back was carrying a full size 9mm in a horizontal shoulder holster. He had been practicing drawing and shooting and was feeling very much good with his performance. He took great joy in making fun of me carrying 2 5 shot 38's. I carried one appendix crossdraw and another strongside hip. After yet another ribbing about it, I invited him out to shoot. Idpa target at 5 yards. I told him, at the beep of the timer, draw and shoot the target. After several attempts, his best time was 2.8 seconds to draw and fire one shot on target. Which he felt very good about. I then had him run the timer. I drew my crossdraw snubby from concealment and fired 5 rounds into the A zone of the target, total time, 2.3 seconds. I looked at him and said, I think you have a problem. He very shortly thereafter reevaluated what good was and his carry choices.
If you are going to carry a single action revolver, at least go spectate at a uspsa match or a steel challenge to get some sort of reference of what a good fast performance on even a single target is, much less multiple targets. Then watch some surveillance videos of shootouts on Youtube and see how quickly things really happen.
At the risk of sounding harsh, 3 targets spread at three yards apart in just over 7 seconds was cited as an example. That performance will get you positively smoked by a 65 year old gray haired woman at a steel challenge match. If you are happy with that. God bless and carry on. I'm just saying be realistic about your capabilities. After all, a gunfight is about the most serious form of competition there is.