Revolver vs Semi Auto for carry

[Astro14]

So, to be clear, you can't own a handgun. They're banned in UK.

Meaning that can't really "carry" a weapon in the sense that is meant in this thread. The OP is referring to a concealed firearm carried for self defense and he's referring to handguns.

Your target pistol is interesting, and looks like fun to shoot, but you can't carry it concealed. In fact, the way that I read the information in your link, you can't own the 1911 either...and the firearms certificate only allows you to own a weapon...and those that you're allowed to own are restricted...self-loading center fire rifles, for example, are prohibited.

Do I have that right?

 

[Olas]

To be permissible, a pistol must have a barrel of more than 30cm and an overall length of more than 60cm. In a way its become a bit of an elitist, wallet-swinging competition based around who can afford to comission a manufacturer to build something (often bespoke) that fits within the rules.
Those dimensions don't lend themselves to concealment in any way plus to carry a weapon in public it must be unloaded in a locked case with ammunition stored seperately, in another locked case.

*EDIT*
I forgot to mention, muzzle loaders are not subject to the overall length requirement.

 

[nleksan]

I have always carried semi-autos, and maybe it's because I grew up with them or something, but even the inherent reliability of a revolver doesn't offset the fact that 6 rounds is not what I consider adequate for "meeting any threat".

Plus, I have trained and competed exclusively with semi's, and even after spending the time trying to learn how to be fast with reloading a revolver, I just can't get good at it; on the other hand, I can put 2 full magazines of 357SIG throughmy 226 in a ttight group at 25ft, in the time it takes me to fire six and reload with a spin gun.

If I were to carry a backup, like in an ankle holster or something, I'd be tempted to get a revolver because some of the compact ultra low drag ones are insanely easy to conceal, more so than a Glock 26 or any similar competent sub-compact semi.


My answer is that there is absolutely no right answer to what is best for any one person. This is just as applicable to the type of handgun ad it is to what it's chambered in; the best weapon and caliber is the one that you have the most experience with, because carrying a weapon that's not been fired outside of the initial CCW course is the surest way to get shot before you can even get off a round..
I like the 357SIG for its ballistics and having a recoil feel that makes it just as easy to fire very quickly, very accurately, as a 9x19, but with the ability to reliably penetrate barriers that turn the 9 into a BB.

Also, it's always better to have more rounds than necessary, than to come up short. While I don't Envy anyone who has had to explain to a jury why it was necessary to unload 8 45ACP rounds into an attacker, I would rather have to try to do that than be dead.

Just remember, no matter what you buy, there's almost a zero percent chance that you are going to put someone down (to where they cannot be a threat) with a single round. Well, you could be a massive overcompensator and carry a .454 Casull or .500S&W, but even then it is just as likely to not stop the aggressor as it is to put them down.

And I absolutely think that the idea of carrying a .17HMR, or .22LR/WMR, as a personal defense round is a horrible idea. I have been shooting competitively for a long time, and I can confidently say that no way in [censored] would I be making a single shot between the eyes in a real firefight, and I will go so far as to say that anyone who claims to be capable of doing so has never been in such a situation, and is likely just an armchair "shooter".
I have spent a lot of time doing FoF in kill houses and the like, using Simunitions, and even though they hurt like [censored] you still act "braver" than you would with real lead coming your way (I do, and everyone I know does). And yet, with engagement distances of 8 to 26 feet, just getting 2-3 "critical" center mass hits, while trying to avoid taking any yourself, well, I have yet to see anyone who is not a highly trained and experienced operator do so with just 2-3 shots, and most people fire close to an entire magazine (14-16 rounds) and only one in ten rounds hits the target.

Furthermore, I don't care that the person shooting at me is trying to kill me, I simply cannot endorse using a rimfire teeny tiny round because it's quite frankly beyond inhumane. Taking a life is something no one should ever hve to do, bbut if you have no other option, why would you not want to be as humane as possible? [censored], plenty of people survive a magazine or more worth of 9mm sized new bodily orifices, so you really think that a vastly weaker round is a good idea?

Stick with 9mm, 40, 45, 10, or 357SIG for a semi auto, and I would say for a revolver, something stronger than a 38sp, but no stronger than a 44Mag (overkill itself) would be the sweet spot.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: nleksan
I have always carried semi-autos, and maybe it's because I grew up with them or something, but even the inherent reliability of a revolver doesn't offset the fact that 6 rounds is not what I consider adequate for "meeting any threat".

Plus, I have trained and competed exclusively with semi's, and even after spending the time trying to learn how to be fast with reloading a revolver, I just can't get good at it; on the other hand, I can put 2 full magazines of 357SIG throughmy 226 in a ttight group at 25ft, in the time it takes me to fire six and reload with a spin gun.

If I were to carry a backup, like in an ankle holster or something, I'd be tempted to get a revolver because some of the compact ultra low drag ones are insanely easy to conceal, more so than a Glock 26 or any similar competent sub-compact semi.


My answer is that there is absolutely no right answer to what is best for any one person. This is just as applicable to the type of handgun ad it is to what it's chambered in; the best weapon and caliber is the one that you have the most experience with, because carrying a weapon that's not been fired outside of the initial CCW course is the surest way to get shot before you can even get off a round..
I like the 357SIG for its ballistics and having a recoil feel that makes it just as easy to fire very quickly, very accurately, as a 9x19, but with the ability to reliably penetrate barriers that turn the 9 into a BB.

Also, it's always better to have more rounds than necessary, than to come up short. While I don't Envy anyone who has had to explain to a jury why it was necessary to unload 8 45ACP rounds into an attacker, I would rather have to try to do that than be dead.

Just remember, no matter what you buy, there's almost a zero percent chance that you are going to put someone down (to where they cannot be a threat) with a single round. Well, you could be a massive overcompensator and carry a .454 Casull or .500S&W, but even then it is just as likely to not stop the aggressor as it is to put them down.

And I absolutely think that the idea of carrying a .17HMR, or .22LR/WMR, as a personal defense round is a horrible idea. I have been shooting competitively for a long time, and I can confidently say that no way in [censored] would I be making a single shot between the eyes in a real firefight, and I will go so far as to say that anyone who claims to be capable of doing so has never been in such a situation, and is likely just an armchair "shooter".
I have spent a lot of time doing FoF in kill houses and the like, using Simunitions, and even though they hurt like [censored] you still act "braver" than you would with real lead coming your way (I do, and everyone I know does). And yet, with engagement distances of 8 to 26 feet, just getting 2-3 "critical" center mass hits, while trying to avoid taking any yourself, well, I have yet to see anyone who is not a highly trained and experienced operator do so with just 2-3 shots, and most people fire close to an entire magazine (14-16 rounds) and only one in ten rounds hits the target.

Furthermore, I don't care that the person shooting at me is trying to kill me, I simply cannot endorse using a rimfire teeny tiny round because it's quite frankly beyond inhumane. Taking a life is something no one should ever hve to do, bbut if you have no other option, why would you not want to be as humane as possible? [censored], plenty of people survive a magazine or more worth of 9mm sized new bodily orifices, so you really think that a vastly weaker round is a good idea?

Stick with 9mm, 40, 45, 10, or 357SIG for a semi auto, and I would say for a revolver, something stronger than a 38sp, but no stronger than a 44Mag (overkill itself) would be the sweet spot.


I think you took my comment out of context - I mentioned those tiny calibers in response to the poster who said 'its about the indians, not the arrows' and I meant that if you're comfortable using that round and can place shots accurately then it becomes more about shot placement than caliber.
Re the smaller caliber being inhumane, why not use a 12g hollowpoint? that will transfer more energy into the target than any .44/.45/.50 could hope to transfer..

 

[Shannow]

Someone coming though your front door...humane is not something that the defender should ever have considered in their wildest dreams.

 

[Astro14]

The thread is about concealed carry weapons. Guns carried concealed on your person. So, observations about target pistols, or shotguns, aren't really germane....

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Someone coming though your front door...humane is not something that the defender should ever have considered in their wildest dreams.


True but usually "humane" means a quick kill, and if someone comes through my door, turning off their lights as fast as possible is indeed something I do consider. I just call it "efficient" instead of "humane"

 

[nleksan]

The above poster put it better (efficiency), but still, I believe that if you have to kill someone, it should be as quickly and humanely as possible. Why make them suffer?
I just think that when talking self defense, it's too often put in people's minds that the person you're shooting isn't a person, and I would not want to have to watch a person slowly bleed out and die from a bullet wound I inflict. It's better than me beingdown, bbut it is still not acting with respect towards life in general. Same reason you don't shoot deer with a 22 to see how many dozens of bullets it takes to kill it.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Someone coming though your front door...humane is not something that the defender should ever have considered in their wildest dreams.


True but usually "humane" means a quick kill, and if someone comes through my door, turning off their lights as fast as possible is indeed something I do consider. I just call it "efficient" instead of "humane"


Fair call, and I agree.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Someone coming though your front door...humane is not something that the defender should ever have considered in their wildest dreams.


True but usually "humane" means a quick kill, and if someone comes through my door, turning off their lights as fast as possible is indeed something I do consider. I just call it "efficient" instead of "humane"


Fair call, and I agree.


This is an interesting point on concealed carry and the use of a weapon for self defense: proportionality and necessity.

You have the right to defend yourself. We have been debating the most effective tool for that use - defense of self, but the right only exists under a clear threat of bodily harm or death. Once that threat no longer exists, then the right to self defense does NOT allow you to continue the application of lethal force. Your use of force must be proportional to the threat presented. You must reasonably be in fear of your life by a threat that has ability, opportunity and intent.

Remove any one of those three; ability, opportunity, or intent, and the threat ceases to exist. At that instant, your proportional response must change, you are no longer allowed to use lethal force. Someone coming through the front door might present a lethal threat, depending on the circumstances, and I would support your use of lethal force if the person coming through the door did, in fact have the three attributes of a threat: ability, opportunity, and intent.

However, engaging a person at 60 yards, as was mentioned earlier, would be a crime - since that person would not likely have opportunity (unless they were already pointing a weapon at you) and it is very difficult to determine intent at that range (unless they are already employing that weapon).

So, you have the right to the use of lethal force to stop a threat...but I do not believe that you ever have a right to kill. That is a different thing altogether. If your use of force happens to kill, then that is unfortunate for the assailant, but reasonable if they presented a lethal threat. Your intent was to stop a threat to your person (or to other innocent persons). If your intent was to kill - then you were committing the crime of murder/manslaughter and a good DA will send you "up river" for that crime.

It's a fine point - but an important one. Use lethal force? Absolutely. Kill? No, never.

So, in that context of necessary, proportional use of force to stop a threat, I would recommend the most effective tool. If that tool happens to cause the death of my assailant, well, that is not a crime because I was not intending to kill, merely to preserve my own life through the legal, reasonable use of force.

 

[nleksan]

I agree with the above. It was a vastly better worded explanation of what I meant that what I could have said.

The fewer rounds you can put into an attacker to stop them, the more humane (efficient) it is, and the more likely you will negate the threat without loss of life.
And while I would not say it's wrong to carry hollowpoints (because I sure as heck do!), I would also suggest that I am breaking my own "rule" because a HP is vastly more likely to cause irreparable organ damage than a closed tip round, and I know myself enough to know that my personal morality would have me feeling horrific about myself if I had to fire on someone and they ended up spending a week dying in a hospital.

My personal opinion is that, in a home breakin scenario forex ample, you should keep your weapon and phone in the same place, and be dialing 911, then pressing call the second you're certain a person is in yourhome.
Those calls are rrecorded, and the simple fact that you even called could prevent a case against you, but if they have the entire event on audio, and you know what to do in such a situation (hint: it's not "empty a magazine into the intruder's back as he is taking down a painting"), you will be pretty darn safe from criminal or civil suits.

For a while, I even kept my Benelli M3 Super 90" Entry" loaded with 2 3" HV Beanbag rounds as shots 1 and 2, followed by the 3" #4-1 buck. One of the advantages of a semi AND pump in one, but I think that most people would stop after a hit or two from beanbags at less than 20ft. If not, well, it takes less than 2 seconds for me to fire all 6+1 rounds (semi).
I no longer do that, because it could be argued that "how do you know that the third bag wouldn't have worked?". Less lethal rounds can get you into much more trouble than real ones, which is ridiculous, but I can't do anything about it.

 

[Hasty46]

S&W Shield 9mm here, very slim and easy to conceal.