pignmud wrote:bladeracer wrote:pignmud wrote:Wasn’t that long ago WA police were still carrying revolvers when autos were readily available (think about 15 years ago)
I would have thought main reason is jams.
My glock 17 jammed many times over years I used it. In life of death situations think id trust a revolver more.
That said my beretta has never jammed once’s out of few thousand rounds but that’s in conditions and no chance of ‘limp wrist’ causing jam
I think WA Police carried the Browning 1910 when I was a kid.
When I was a kid in WA (45 years ago) I never saw any police with guns. Think they had them but just never carried them. Was something serious if you even saw police with handcuffs on their belt.
Diamond Jim wrote:That said, DA seems plenty accurate enough for any SHTF situation. Putting two rounds an inch or two apart at 5-15m as fast as you can pull the trigger should deter any miscreant.
FNQ wrote:I’ve witnessed a few hold ups (all overseas) even had the misfortune of being in a couple.
What I’ve learnt is Securtiy rarely have the opportunity to get their weapons out of their holsters let alone fire a round. Most are all over within a few minutes tops leaving most people looking around saying “what the fark just happened!”
The whole idea of security (Armed or not) is no more then a deterrent.
Boo wrote:A revolver has one big advantage, pull the trigger and it goes bang. No time wasting racking a pistol's slide, that's if you remember to do that while under pressure. I'm thinking of getting a 22 revolver when all the drama is over, just to see if I can get to hit something with it.
Boo wrote:Some consider a racked pistol to be unsafe, a revolver does not have that issue. To each his own I guess.
Diamond Jim wrote:One point, a failure to fire in a semi-auto means clearing the round and that takes seconds - longer if you don't shoot regularly and practice clearance drills. With a revolver you just pull the trigger again and move to the next round.
Ziege wrote:I think that you will find the pistol is more of a fashion accessory than something they're intended to use. Having it is a deterrent and a means of passively suppressing/intimidating any would be criminals. If they're anything like the police, then they would be close to completely useless with the pistol outside of a few meters anyway, yet to see a cop (besides ones that actively compete) that can actually shoot, If I were ever in an area where police were going to fire on a suspect I would be diving for the densest cover I can find lest I be accidentally shot by said officer. same goes for security guards.
SAnewb85 wrote:When the shtf and seconds count, cops are minutes away....... i believe in that statement to my very core.
BangWhizzClack wrote:This thread... what a joke :p I'd to keen to hear the opinion of lawyers who have dealt with such cases. So many people here are trying to put the fear of God into people. I will put it down to poor past representation and not enough cases to settle and set a precedent.
Firearms are not a "deterrent," they are not there to threaten people. They are there to end the threat of an aggressor should you reasonably believe that you or another person are in danger of grevious bodily harm or death. Anybody with the slightest bit of experience shooting could tell you when shooting a revolver or even a da/sa semi-auto, it is for more accurate and controlled to fire in a single action manner. Double action under stress could lead to less of a controlled shot and throw the barrel off target. I strongly recommend all shooters; civilian, security, police or military to subscribe to "Active Self Protection" on YouTube, they breakdown situations caught on camera, they do excellent work.
If you reasonably believe that you are in danger, you pull your firearm and you defend yourself if you have to. Compliance can work out for you but you are putting your fate in the hands of the aggressor(s) and quite often that doesn't work out. It is far more unreasonable to put your life in the hands of someone like that instead of defending yourself. You will be scrutinised in court but that is what the court is there for (sometimes) to come up with evidence and facts to determine whether laws were broken and/or the defendent had a genuine defence.
BangWhizzClack wrote:In IPSC is that because it was just more effective to shoot the first round in DA rather than taking the time to cock the gun or rack the slide? I'm unsure of the rules for IPSC as I've only watched, never participated in IPSC.
BangWhizzClack wrote:What semi-auto pistol do you use? Also do you have any experience in the security/police/military arena's?