T Nation

Proper Gun Handling Technique

Great skill. Played it off very well too.

“I’m the only one in the room professional enough to carry a Glock .40”

Pure poetry.

And he sued the government for releasing this embarrassing video that ruined his career.

Does he have his tax stamp for that Destructive Device?

True. Also notice in the video when they pick up the rifle, you hear people yelling “put it down”, “put it down”.

It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

And for the record, that was a Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge.

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
And for the record, that was a Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge. [/quote]

Very true, it’s not an accident,it’s stupid.

I loled

that sucks

[quote]Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense. [/quote]

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.

[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.[/quote]

Use your newly obtained ninjabacklfipkickofdoom on him…

[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.[/quote]

Gregus,since you allude to believing that semi-auto pistols accidentally go off by themselves…why in the hell would a revolver be any different?

Glock is a safe firearm…but its not immune to human error and stupidity…which is the case for ALL firearms.

[quote]asusvenus wrote:
HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.

Use your newly obtained ninjabacklfipkickofdoom on him…[/quote]

Like this?

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:

Use your newly obtained ninjabacklfipkickofdoom on him…

Like this?[/quote]

Well, of you’re real mad… Sure.

[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.[/quote]

Well, yes and no. Gregus makes four statements, some of which are true, some of which are not. Let’s look at them.

  1. Revolvers are safer.
    First off, let’s get semantics out of the way. Any gun is “safe” in the hands of a skilled user (assuming the gun is metallurgically and mechanically sound, and the ammunition has been loaded properly), whereas any gun would be “unsafe” in the hands of an idiot, a child, or someone who otherwise didn’t understand the basics of gun handling.

Now, mechanically, a double-action revolver is more difficult to fire unintentionally. You either have to manually cock the hammer and squeeze the trigger, or else squeeze the trigger through a long and heavy pull to cock and fire the piece. In either case, the action is deliberate. Not only that, but it’s consistent, if one trains only to shoot double-action, which is not a bad idea if you anticipate shooting for blood.

A single-action automatic pistol with an exposed hammer gives you many choices. You can carry with an empty chamber, racking the slide before the first shot. You can carry loaded and uncocked, cocking the hammer before the first shot. You can carry cocked and locked, working the safety before the first shot. And of course, after that first shot, you are cocked and unlocked, having to do nothing but squeeze that trigger again. Again, for the expert, this is all second nature, but for the novice, it’s a lot more confusing than “squeeze the trigger in a long, controlled pull for every shot.”

Sure, there are trigger-cocking-only handguns such as the Taurus Millennium and Heckler & Koch VP70Z, which allow a consistent mode of operation (as long as you ignore the Taurus’ quite superfluous thumb safety), but for simplicity, you just can’t beat the double action revolver. And simple means easily learned and retained, which translates to safety.

  1. Revolvers are more powerful.
    Obviously not. There is nothing about the design of a revolver that makes it inherently more powerful than a semiautomatic pistol. A Colt .45 automatic and a Colt New Service revolver fire the same round, with equivalent barrel length. They are practically identical in the “power” department.

What can be said, however, is that revolvers are commonly available to fire more powerful cartridges than automatic pistols are. There are exceptions, such as the .44 Magnum Auto Mag, the AMT Grizzly, and the Desert Eagle, but I wouldn’t want to carry any of those monstrosities. They’re also ridiculously expensive, even if you can find them.

  1. Revolvers are heavier and bulkier.
    Only if you figure weight divided by capacity, rather than weight divided by kinetic energy of the round it fires. Contrary to overwhelmingly popular opinion, you don’t need a handgun that holds half a box of ammunition in its magazine for self defense. What you need is a pistol that will end the engagement with the minimum number of shots fired. Knocking down an assailant with one center hit from a .45 is going to look a lot better to a jury than punching thirteen 9 mm holes in his worthless carcass.

A fully-loaded double action revolver is no heavier nor 'bulkier" than an automatic pistol firing an equivalently powerful cartridge, with equivalent barrel length. Even the Ruger Redhawk .45 Colt is three ounces lighter than the .45 Win Mag Grizzly, which you’d be hard pressed to find, let alone find ammunition for.

  1. Revolvers are perfect for home defense.
    As I’ve said before, the “perfect” firearm for home defense is the one you have on you or within immediate reach when you need it. Any gun can be “perfect” if you are proficient with it, and it’s loaded with ammunition appropriate to the task.

That said, I’ll reiterate that for the vast majority of people, who probably won’t take the time to acquaint themselves intimately with the operation of their weapon, a large-caliber double-action revolver makes much more sense than a semiautomatic pistol for home defense, self-defense, and (as this video makes painfully clear) police work.

Varq’s statement was beautifully accurate regarding the similarities and differences between autos and revolvers. One other slight difference is with less moving and smaller parts inherent with autos and not found in revolvers, is you tend to have a weapon capable of a higher degree of accuracy with a revolver.

Now if you’re busting caps at targets twenty yards in front of you without pinpoint accuracy needs no big deal. But if you’re trying to give a live target a dose of lead poisoning in the boiler room (hear lung or other fatal organ) at ranges of thirty up to possibly a hundred yards, you’d be better served with a revolver.

Similar to the differences between a bolt action and most automatic rifles. A Couple pieces of solid forged steel allow higher pressures (calibers) to be utilized. Also the less movement of the weapon from less moving parts when fired allows for less vibrations and better accuracy.

In the capacity I use my guns spitting a high amount of lead at targets a short distance away is of no interest to me. I want to be able to pinpoint a lethal shot at the ranges usually encountered in hunting situations.

However, I did become highly proficient at taking cottontails with my Ruger 22 auto at ranges up to fifty yards which aint bad with a handgun.

D

[quote]Dedicated wrote:
Varq’s statement was beautifully accurate regarding the similarities and differences between autos and revolvers. One other slight difference is with less moving and smaller parts inherent with autos and not found in revolvers, is you tend to have a weapon capable of a higher degree of accuracy with a revolver.

Now if you’re busting caps at targets twenty yards in front of you without pinpoint accuracy needs no big deal. But if you’re trying to give a live target a dose of lead poisoning in the boiler room (hear lung or other fatal organ) at ranges of thirty up to possibly a hundred yards, you’d be better served with a revolver. [/quote]

Thanks, D. And that actually addresses something that Macaroni asked me on the other thread, whether I was selecting a handgun primarily for hunting. The answer is that while a compact automatic pistol might be more comfortable carrying around all day in a waistband, I have no idea what I might have to use it for. The fact that the same handgun would be just as effective in putting down a two-legged attacker or four-legged food (yes, even elk or moose, with the right load and at the correct range) is extremely comforting to me.

Besides, I subscribe to Jeff Cooper’s dictum that the primary purpose of a pistol is to keep you alive until you can get to your rifle. A heavy revolver, while not of course a perfect substitute for my rifle, is nonetheless a capable understudy that can perform a great many of the rifle’s duties.

[quote]Similar to the differences between a bolt action and most automatic rifles. A Couple pieces of solid forged steel allow higher pressures (calibers) to be utilized. Also the less movement of the weapon from less moving parts when fired allows for less vibrations and better accuracy.

In the capacity I use my guns spitting a high amount of lead at targets a short distance away is of no interest to me. I want to be able to pinpoint a lethal shot at the ranges usually encountered in hunting situations. [/quote]

Yes indeed. In any situation.

[quote]However, I did become highly proficient at taking cottontails with my Ruger 22 auto at ranges up to fifty yards which aint bad with a handgun.

D[/quote]

Oh, yeah. Ruger .22 automatics are great. I have nothing against automatic pistols per se. Like I said, my first gun was a .45 automatic, and I love them still. It’s just that I would prefer a handgun that can do practically anything I might need a firearm to do, and I don’t know of any automatic pistol that can.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.

Gregus,since you allude to believing that semi-auto pistols accidentally go off by themselves…why in the hell would a revolver be any different?

Glock is a safe firearm…but its not immune to human error and stupidity…which is the case for ALL firearms.[/quote]

They don’t accidentally go off. No such thing. I said that because a revolver is more “error proof” when you’re at your darwinian lowest. Pull the drum out and thats all theres to it. No chambered round to accidentally make an error on.

BTW: im pro guns so don’t misunderstand what im saying.

Indeed my friend. Given the choice you’ll generally find me packing a revolver.

One other point I don’t believe we’ve covered is that in terms of an outdoor survival situation where you might be covering hard terrain and taking blows from falling and such. You have a much more rugged durable weapon in a revolver that will withstand dirt, grime, and and unexpected blows, then an auto would.

D

[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
Gregus wrote:
It’s actually why i prefer revolvers. Much safer and more powerful anyway, but heavier and bulkier. Perfect for home defense.

this is just a dumb statement. i don’t even know what to say back to it.[/quote]

When youre smarter you’ll figure out what to say. Seriously WTF? A revolver is a more fool proof weapon for the uninitiated. How dumb do you have to be to not realize that?

The round in the chamber is something that caught many very competent shooters by surprise when they made a human error. Much like that officer did. To err is human. Granted that gun is very safe and literally fool proof, the human is not.