"Why Carry A Revolver?"

[Skpotamus]

Thanks, I'm gonna enjoy reading that when I have the time.

I'm not sure that revolvers of the 20's and 30's ( when Fairbairn/Sykes served in Shanghai and did all the fighting) Can be compared to modern revolvers though in terms of steel or caliber(.38 special, when it first came our in 1899, was first loaded with blackpowder, and then gradually became a smokeless round, and .357 magnum wasn't around till 1935 and I'm not sure you can really say the steel used then was the same standard as now--but I've been wrong before).

On the other side, I'd like to invite anyone interested to read Ed Lovette's "The Snubby Revolver" and visit

www.snubtraining.com and www.snubnose.info ( Most especially the "Library" section) for some perhaps surprising little bits of knowledge that may have you reconsidering the snubby.

To be clear: I do not think the snubby is a suitable military or general issue police sidearm given modern needs in those fields.

Do I think the snubby is a battlefield dominator? No I do not.

Do I think it's underrated and is still an almost perfect "Streetfighter"? Yes I do.

Would I prefer a fullsize auto? Who wouldn't.

Would I , failing that, or not wanting to bother with a concealing garment, rather have a pocket revolver than a pocket auto? Who wouldn't?

Very nice resource, look forward to reading it

RE: steel and revolvers, it's entirely possible that todays revolvers are more robust than those in that era. They were definitely using webleys (at least one story in there about a webley) and probably the S&W model 10 and 1917, most of those models are still available today, so the design didn't really change much, but the metallurgy might have.

I do know I managed to tweak the yoke in my GP100 using my maxfire speedloaders a lot Shame to, because I really liked those speed loaders. BTW, the gun got fixed and I still shoot it pretty often. Just switched to the safariland speed loaders

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Very nice resource, look forward to reading it

RE: steel and revolvers, it's entirely possible that todays revolvers are more robust than those in that era. They were definitely using webleys (at least one story in there about a webley) and probably the S&W model 10 and 1917, most of those models are still available today, so the design didn't really change much, but the metallurgy might have.

I do know I managed to tweak the yoke in my GP100 using my maxfire speedloaders a lot Shame to, because I really liked those speed loaders. BTW, the gun got fixed and I still shoot it pretty often. Just switched to the safariland speed loaders

Yeah, I took one look at the way you're supposed to use the maxfires and I was just like, "nnnNO. Revolver abuse". Ayoob didn't like them either. I don't blame him.

 

[lklawson]

Why carry either one? A large-caliber DA derringer works just fine as a carry weapon for non-police work.

The stats I've seen for Civilian SD shootings have an average of more than two shots fired.

So who would need more than a large caliber derringer? Civilians interested in self defense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_64.../1/print/Historic_-_W.E_Fairbairn_-_Shooting_To_Live_____110_pages.pdf is the book itself, available for free download.

Free but illegal.

This is a scan of Paladin Press' edition. PP 2 in the PDF:

Copyright 1987 Paladin Press.
Reprinted with permission by
Paladin Press, P.O. Box 1307,
Boulder, CO 80306.
Web site: http://www.paladin-press.com

Further, its 1st Ed. 1942 authorship and private publishing does not put it in the Public Domain since the original copyright can not have expired yet, by law (Copyright Act of 1976). The earliest date at which this work could possibly become Public Domain is 2037.

Yes, U.S. Copyright Law is seriously borked. Yes, it desperately needs fixed. Yes, every time Congress undertakes the task to "fix" it, the "fix" is always to extend ownership of the work, and never in favor of the Public Domain. Yes, this sucks.

In summary, this copy is NOT LEGAL, download at your own risk! Paladin Press tends to be one of the nicer publishing firms but the DMCA can be used to really REALLY bork you. I don't think it's probably worth the risk for a book on shooting theory which was cutting edge more than half a century ago.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Conversely with a magazine you should really be relaxing the springs from time to time.

Unnecessary. Modern springs do not suffer any significant fatigue from remaining in a state of compression for anything approaching human-reasonable periods of time. Springs "wear out" from repeated compression and release.

Using them wears them out, not compressing them and then not using them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The stats I've seen for Civilian SD shootings have an average of more than two shots fired.

I think you'll find that those stats do not exist.

I've gone on many a wild-goose chase trying to find the source of those oft-quoted statistics; my conclusion is that they do not actually exist.

So who would need more than a large caliber derringer? Civilians interested in self defense.

I'm interested in self-defense, and I do not believe the number of shots fired by civilians in self-defense is known. In any case, I find that a large-caliber derringer offers some advantages in concealment and carry that a larger-framed weapon does not. In any case, I think we can agree that the best carry weapon is the one you actually carry, yes?

It has been my experience that some folks tend to neglect carry in hot weather or when they are wearing light summer attire. It's better to be with a weapon than without one, IMHO, so if one is honest with oneself and recognizes that they may not have the self-discipline to bring their weapon with them everywhere, then perhaps a derringer is not a bad alternative, if it means they'll carry it more often.

I would also make a passing reference to the 'macho' angle. Often enough, one tends to prefer the 'biggest' gun, whether or not it has any particular advantage in a self-defense situation. Hey, we Americans like the biggest car, the loudest stereo, the biggest-screen TV...it's understandable.

 

[KenpoTex]

I'm interested in self-defense, and I do not believe the number of shots fired by civilians in self-defense is known. In any case, I find that a large-caliber derringer offers some advantages in concealment and carry that a larger-framed weapon does not. In any case, I think we can agree that the best carry weapon is the one you actually carry, yes?

AFAIC, ease of carry/concealment is the ONLY thing a derringer has going for it. You have a weapon that's really small (therefore harder to grasp and manipulate under stress), probably has really tiny sights, and only has two rounds available. Even if you're of the old "modern technique" school of though, you don't even have enough to do a Mozambique drill on someone. I don't know what the "average gunfight" looks like, but I can't see counting on a two shot derringer for anything. Hell, I'd rather have a kel-tec .32...it's not going to be much larger or heavier (may even be lighter) and at least you have a few more BB's to sling at the guy(s).

And not to pick on you specifically, Bill, but I really have gotten to hate that "the best is the one you actually carry" line. To me it's like an attempt to "relativise" the issue. That because "X" is all I will carry, that it's the best, which makes it as good as whatever you carry.
It may be true that carrying something like a two-shot derringer is better than nothing, but it's sure as hell inferior to pretty much anything else out there.

It has been my experience that some folks tend to neglect carry in hot weather or when they are wearing light summer attire. It's better to be with a weapon than without one, IMHO, so if one is honest with oneself and recognizes that they may not have the self-discipline to bring their weapon with them everywhere, then perhaps a derringer is not a bad alternative, if it means they'll carry it more often.

I guess I've never seen "it's hot" as being a valid reason for downgrading to a less-optimal weapon. With the plethora of quality carry options, it is not difficult to carry a compact or service-sized auto, even under light clothing. I was carrying a Glock 17 yesterday while wearing a pair of cargo shorts and an UnderArmor t-shirt.

IMO (and as you said), it's a self-discipline (mindset) issue rather than an actual need for something smaller.
But whatever...everyone is entitled to their own choices. Hopefully those choices won't bite them in the ***.

 

[tellner]

A service pistol with holographic sights and three extra magazines for over fifty rounds might be a tad more than you need to carry around. And it could unreasonably restrict your options for clothing and walking without making clank-clank sounds.

Two shots from a very short-barreled weapon with minimal accuracy is less than I'd want in the extremely unlikely event that I'll need to use it. If I want CCW at a Naturist event it might be the only way

There's a range of options between these which will work. Realistically a well-maintained modern revolver or pistol with good ammunition falls into that range for most people.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

AFAIC, ease of carry/concealment is the ONLY thing a derringer has going for it. You have a weapon that's really small (therefore harder to grasp and manipulate under stress), probably has really tiny sights, and only has two rounds available. Even if you're of the old "modern technique" school of though, you don't even have enough to do a Mozambique drill on someone. I don't know what the "average gunfight" looks like, but I can't see counting on a two shot derringer for anything. Hell, I'd rather have a kel-tec .32...it's not going to be much larger or heavier (may even be lighter) and at least you have a few more BB's to sling at the guy(s).

Personal preference. I don't find myself limited by a large-caliber derringer, and the barrel is a minimum of three inches long (longer than many snub-nose revolvers and the same length as a chopped-down Colt 1911 such as the Commander).

As to accuracy, I don't plan on engaging anyone at 25 feet, much less 25 yards. Accuracy is of course important, but my personal belief is that if I'm carrying in public and find need to engage in armed self-defense, the range will be zero to ten or fifteen feet tops.

And not to pick on you specifically, Bill, but I really have gotten to hate that "the best is the one you actually carry" line. To me it's like an attempt to "relativise" the issue. That because "X" is all I will carry, that it's the best, which makes it as good as whatever you carry.
It may be true that carrying something like a two-shot derringer is better than nothing, but it's sure as hell inferior to pretty much anything else out there.

I note that despite protestations to the contrary, CCW holders sometimes go unarmed. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a number of CCW holders who do not *always* carry. I've asked them why, because I find this interesting. Some have said that they don't carry if they're going someplace where they know they can't legally bring in a weapon, rather than leave the weapon in the car; that makes sense. But others have told me that they don't carry while running short errands or if their clothes don't permit easy concealed carry (summertime) or if they 'feel safe' in general where they are going.

I guess I've never seen "it's hot" as being a valid reason for downgrading to a less-optimal weapon. With the plethora of quality carry options, it is not difficult to carry a compact or service-sized auto, even under light clothing. I was carrying a Glock 17 yesterday while wearing a pair of cargo shorts and an UnderArmor t-shirt.

I'm not claiming it's a valid reason, but I am claiming that people who are legally allowed to carry concealed sometimes don't, and the weather and their attire are sometimes the reasons they give. It's a reason, valid or not.

And as you know, in most states that allow CCW carry, the weapon must actually be concealed. That can even prohibit open jackets or weapons that 'print' through a shirt.

IMO (and as you said), it's a self-discipline (mindset) issue rather than an actual need for something smaller.
But whatever...everyone is entitled to their own choices. Hopefully those choices won't bite them in the ***.

I'm 49 years old in July. No problems so far.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A service pistol with holographic sights and three extra magazines for over fifty rounds might be a tad more than you need to carry around. And it could unreasonably restrict your options for clothing and walking without making clank-clank sounds.

Even if it prints through your clothing, that can be illegal, depending on the state.

Two shots from a very short-barreled weapon with minimal accuracy is less than I'd want in the extremely unlikely event that I'll need to use it. If I want CCW at a Naturist event it might be the only way

What is 'minimal accuracy' and how much accuracy do you need at point-blank range? How many shots are required?

There's a range of options between these which will work. Realistically a well-maintained modern revolver or pistol with good ammunition falls into that range for most people.

Sure, if they will carry it all the time, and if they can. I note that I've talked to some CCW holders who freely admit that they don't *always* carry when they legally could. Sometimes, it is due to the way they are dressed; they don't feel they could conceal the weapon effectively.

A large-caliber derringer is just another option. I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.

 

[elder999]

Even if it prints through your clothing, that can be illegal, depending on the state.

If you have a CCW, then it's not illegal.....it's a bit much, but not illegal for me, for example; I just wouldn't.

It could also be carried openly, if yours is an open carry state. A bit of a silly rig, from the sound of it, but to each his own....

What is 'minimal accuracy' and how much accuracy do you need at point-blank range? How many shots are required?

As I've posted before, I carry a lot of the time in the field-as in, out in the woods-for the bear. I don't ever want to have to shoot one, but if I do, I want the bear to lie down. In this instance, how many shots are required?

All of them, most likely.......:lol:

Sure, if they will carry it all the time, and if they can. I note that I've talked to some CCW holders who freely admit that they don't *always* carry when they legally could. Sometimes, it is due to the way they are dressed; they don't feel they could conceal the weapon effectively.

Same thing: I carry a Glock 29 in the field, usually: 10mm, and about 6 inches high and 4 inches long. Not as accurate as our Glock 20-or a a few of our other pistols, but, like you said, how accurate to I need to be at "bear range?" It's also not too much bigger than a derringer for a big fellow like me. I've worn it with shorts quite a bit-well concealed and accessible (I'm actually more likely to meet hikers than bears, though it's 50-50. Having carried openly in the field for years, I can tell you that it makes them.....nervous.)

And I'd rather have 10 shots, or 15, than 2.....

A large-caliber derringer is just another option. I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.

It's an option of desparation-a backup. It's also not very accurate, and not really meant for "point blank range." More like right in the face.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you have a CCW, then it's not illegal.....it's a bit much, but not illegal for me, for example; I just wouldn't.

Some states do not allow CCW carry holders to allow their weapons to be seen.

It could also be carried openly, if yours is an open carry state. A bit of a silly rig, from the sound of it, but to each his own....

And that, I think, may be the crux of it. It's not the derringer itself, it's that no one wants to be seen with it. What would people think!?!

I've never been overly concerned with what people think. But most here know that about me.

As I've posted before, I carry a lot of the time in the field-as in, out in the woods-for the bear. I don't ever want to have to shoot one, but if I do, I want the bear to lie down. In this instance, how many shots are required?

If I were likely to run into a bear, I agree that a derringer would most likely be a poor choice. Although of course some swear by the Thompson/Center Contender and successors, a single-shot pistol/rifle available in many calibers...

And I'd rather have 10 shots, or 15, than 2.....

So would I, but all firearms are a compromise, eh? The real question is whether a large-caliber derringer is too much of a compromise in exchange for the advantages it carries with it.

It's an option of desparation-a backup. It's also not very accurate, and not really meant for "point blank range." More like right in the face.

Well, I keep hearing 'not very accurate' but then I here others saying they use 4-inch and 3-inch snubbies and short autos. The derringer I'm referring to has a minimum 3 inch barrel.

As to 'point blank range', that's kind of what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-blank_range

In forensics and popular usage, point-blank range has come to mean extreme close range (i.e., target within about a meter (3 ft) of the muzzle at moment of discharge but not close enough to be an actual contact shot)[1].

My imagined use of such a weapon as a carry weapon involves urban carry, day-to-day, in all manner of situations involving the risk of armed robbery. Such robberies are generally carried out at (as I describe it) point-blank range, and so I also imagine that any such self-defense with a firearm (if there is going to be one) would also be conducted at such range. I do not imagine myself taking cover and trading volleys for an extended period of time with such a weapon; it would clearly be impractical for that sort of thing (and bear hunting too). For home defense, of course, concealed carry is not required or practical (for that, I choose a shotgun).

So the question: just how many non-law-enforcement non-home-invasion self-defense scenarios have involved shooting at extended ranges or requiring reloading and/or firing volleys of shots?

There is scant information on the subject that I can find. People refer to this study or that set of statistics that they've heard about, but when I go looking for them, they don't seem to actually exist - do you have any cites? Anyone?

Absent such information, I have to go on what my limited life experience has taught me; that personal armed robberies take place at very close distances, involve one or more attackers, and generally end if/when the victim shoots one of them. For these circumstances, a derringer seems to me to be particularly well-suited to the situation, while being easy to carry and less likely to be left behind. I don't often go out in the woods; if I feared big game attacks, I'd certainly bring more than a derringer, and like you, would most likely carry openly.

 

[zDom]

The problem I see with a derringer is a scenario in which you are confronted by multiple attackers.

Having four more shots after firing the first, in the case of a typical carry revolver, seems to me to present a whole lot more deterrent than "He's only got one shot left" to the remaining thugs.

Not as nice as having an auto-loader's magazine, but I WILL carry a 442 or 642 everywhere I go whereas my SIG 226 often won't get carried. It still just feels like such a large hunk of metal after going 40 years being unarmed.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Personal preference. I don't find myself limited by a large-caliber derringer, and the barrel is a minimum of three inches long (longer than many snub-nose revolvers and the same length as a chopped-down Colt 1911 such as the Commander).

Commander's 4 or 4-1/4 inches,I think the model you are trying to describe is the Officer's model.

As to accuracy, I don't plan on engaging anyone at 25 feet, much less 25 yards. Accuracy is of course important, but my personal belief is that if I'm carrying in public and find need to engage in armed self-defense, the range will be zero to ten or fifteen feet tops.

The FBI 3X3 guideline would seem to bear this out.( Most take place at 3 yards or less, in 3 seconds or less with 3 rounds or less). Still, there's always the possibility that hostilities may continue past this, and if we could schedule our emergencies, they wouldn't be "emergencies".

I note that despite protestations to the contrary, CCW holders sometimes go unarmed. This is purely anecdotal, but I know a number of CCW holders who do not *always* carry. I've asked them why, because I find this interesting. Some have said that they don't carry if they're going someplace where they know they can't legally bring in a weapon, rather than leave the weapon in the car; that makes sense. But others have told me that they don't carry while running short errands or if their clothes don't permit easy concealed carry (summertime) or if they 'feel safe' in general where they are going.

Yeah that "Oh, well, I don't carry unless I think/know I might need to" line is starting to SERIOUSLY grind my gears, because it flies in the face of all training on the subject--If you know you may be going to a gunfight-- DON'T GO! If by some astronomically unlikely twist of fate you *must* go, don't go with just a sidearm!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

A large-caliber derringer is just another option. I wonder at how many people reject it out-of-hand without giving it much thought.

For the record, I would have no problem carrying a derringer or two, albeit as a deep-conceal/backup-to-my-backup type of thing.

It just so happens that none of the reputable( in fact I don't think ANY) of the current Derringer manufacturing companies are on my fair state's asinine approved handgun roster(or I'd be seeing them in shops).

 

[Brian S]

Great thread! Very informative and insightful!

I usually carry a kimber pro carry 2 .45acp with a Ruger LCR 5-shot 38+p. Just like to cover my bases. :ultracool

 

[Archangel M]

Two shots just isnt enough insurance to bet my life on. You all are free to gamble at whatever odds you choose.

 

[Skpotamus]

RE: Number of shots per incident:

Found this stuff while digging around: http://gunfacts.info/ a downloadable pdf that has a reference to a trauma journal article (page 67) that stated the average number of shots fired by a revolver armed subject during a fight was 2.04, and a semi-auto was 2.53.

Also found this: http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm stated that over a 10 year period with NYPD officers the average number of shots fired per gunfight was 10.3, shots fired per officer averaged 5.2

Which number is correct? Dunno, but I'd rather have a LOT more ammo available and ready to shoot than I could EVER need.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem I see with a derringer is a scenario in which you are confronted by multiple attackers.

It would be a problem, no doubt.

But let's think about it.

First, the chances of particular one of us becoming a victim of an armed robbery is quite low.

Second, the chances (or opportunity, if one looks at things that way) of having to defend oneself with deadly force in the course of being robbed is lower.

Third, the chances that a second attacker will continue to engage after his buddy has been shot is...what? I'm going to call that low as well, but I admit I have nothing to back it up with, just my experience and belief.

Having four more shots after firing the first, in the case of a typical carry revolver, seems to me to present a whole lot more deterrent than "He's only got one shot left" to the remaining thugs.

I think on the whole, people imagine scenarios that will never happen. Only once that I can recall have police officers faced a 'movie like' scenario of armed robbers that actively engaged (and even hunted) the officers themselves in the course of a robbery (the infamous LA shootout). When has this happened to a civilian being robbed? Ever?

Not as nice as having an auto-loader's magazine, but I WILL carry a 442 or 642 everywhere I go whereas my SIG 226 often won't get carried. It still just feels like such a large hunk of metal after going 40 years being unarmed.

I absolutely agree that if you indeed carry your weapon everywhere, you're making a wise choice.

However, I note that no one is taking issue with my statement that I know many CCW holders who have admitted to me that they sometimes choose not to carry, and for a variety of reasons. If you're not one of them, bravo. But I suspect that a lot of "I always carry" CCW holders don't always carry. They just say they do online. I'm just sayin'...

So for such people, I suggest a smaller, flatter, lighter weapon that is such that one can easily carry it everywhere, even in a pocket. It's not ideal; all weapons are a series of tradeoffs. I suggest that the tradeoffs a large-caliber derringer offers are not as bad as one might think, given the realistic odds of facing multiple attackers who press the attack after one is shot, and/or count your rounds to determine when you're out of ammo and then fire back. I humbly suggest that's Hollywood for the most part.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

RE: Number of shots per incident:

Found this stuff while digging around: http://gunfacts.info/ a downloadable pdf that has a reference to a trauma journal article (page 67) that stated the average number of shots fired by a revolver armed subject during a fight was 2.04, and a semi-auto was 2.53.

Also found this: http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm stated that over a 10 year period with NYPD officers the average number of shots fired per gunfight was 10.3, shots fired per officer averaged 5.2

Which number is correct? Dunno, but I'd rather have a LOT more ammo available and ready to shoot than I could EVER need.

Those are neat links, thanks!

I referenced the material cited in the first study: Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective and found that it was a measurement of deaths in urban Philadelphia, and it wasn't (necessarily) victims of armed crimes defending themselves, but of all shootings by criminals resulting in death:

"This study examined the trends in firearm violence and victims during a 5-year period in the city of Philadelphia. Medical Examiner records of all deaths in Philadelphia County in 1985 and 1990 were reviewed. Demographic, autopsy, and criminal record information was analyzed."

There were many more issues that would take this study out of the realm of usefulness when determining the average number of shots fired by a law-abiding but armed victim of crime in self-defense, such as the fact that all the persons studied had criminal records and more than half were intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

Even so, one can imagine that the average number of shots fired by a drunken inner-city gang-banger engaged in gun battles with each other might tend to be higher than those fired by a citizen in self-defense.

Of course the other study is of police officers; again, one might suspect that police officers have more reasons to shoot their guns than ordinary citizens, and would be more likely to fire more rounds when they do so. In fact, I have read parts of the study by the PMA that this study references, and one of the disturbing trends they noted was the tendency of NYPD police officers to fire more rounds, hit suspects less often, and when they do hit, kill them more often than in the past, despite better medical technology for bullet wounds these days. It's a disturbing statistic that most police would rather not think about. However, not really applicable to citizens involved in lawful self-defense in terms of discovering how many shots on average are actually fired or at what range.

I wish there was such information available, but I still have not found any.