TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, first of all, altering a "quote" of another persons to emphasize YOUR OPINION, is flat WRONG. You do not add words to what someone else has stated to suit you. That is not "fixing it".

I can't change another person's post and didn't intend to do so. I thought I was writing an original post of my own, and I made it very clear that I was intentionally altering the quote in order to make my point. Of course you are entitled to your opinion about whether this is "flat WRONG", but it is a reasonably normal practice in forums and discussion groups across the internet. I am not aware of a rule I violated on this forum, but I'll re-read them just in case I missed one.

In my eyes, anything you post on this forum in the future will not be worth reading.

Okey dokey.

HighVelocity wrote:

The outcome of this scenario will be determined primarily by the mindset, ability, and tactics of the
shooter and not solely by his choice of weapons

Winner!

There, I fixed it.

You cannot, logically, say that the choice of weapon is not relevant to the issue. Any attempt to do so fails basic logical analysis at the beginning.

Certainly there is a point beyond which the increased firepower yields a small enough additional advantage that one may reasonably determine it is not worth consideration. Where each of us draws that line is based on our own personal assessment of our risk and preferences.

heh. I'm waiting on my CHL and carrying a 3" locking folder.

Sure hope I don't get into a gun fight!

well Jim, please note I didn't write the original post. I agree it's beating a dead horse. Lots of people carry and own revolvers for whatever reason, in spite of the limited capacity. Many people also own autoloaders that are limited to 7 or fewer rounds as well, and there are perfectly good reasons for doing that.

however with this:

semi-auto pistols have given us countless incidents where a shooter missed 10 or 20 times.

are you suggesting that somehow carrying a semi-auto makes it more likely for you to miss 10 or 20 times?

I am sure that people that hit 6 out of 6 will do so with whatever gun is in their hand regardless of action.

Well, I don't choose to carry a revolver and one main reason is the limited round capacity (it's not the only reason or even the best reason). But I am not disagreeing with you that it is a perfectly valid choice if it suits your needs.

However, there is some legitimate point to be made that more capacity is better, if all else can be made equal (which it can't in most cases).

HighVelocity wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree.

What are we disagreeing about?

HV I am not trying to argue, but discuss for clarification.

HighVelocity wrote: First off, my goal is not to be put on the ground to get kicked in the first place. If a group of thugs is on top of you, the type of firearm you have has already become irrelevant. Reloading ANYTHING at this stage is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

Of course. Well my goal is to not be attacked in the first place. So then I don't need to carry a gun at all, right? But the point is that sometimes, we don't get to pick whether we are a victim, or under what circumstances.

So given that, as you say, reloading ANYTHING is going to be difficult if not impossible, you are certainly better off to be shooting the gun than you are to be reloading it while being kicked on the ground.

However I think the odds of you being knocked to the ground are likely astronomically higher once you run out of ammo and begin to reload, even if that is a process you can undertake in 1 second flat without taking your eyes off of the assailant. Figuring a group of 6 determined attackers closing in from 25 ft. when you begin shooting, maybe you stop two or three of them while they are advancing before you run out of of 5 or 6 rounds and have to reload, and that takes you 3 seconds, by then whichever ones are still standing are at arm's reach and undeterred from advancing once you stop shooting for even one second.

Besides, even if you started with 18 rounds in your gun, that doesn't mean you're going to put them where they need to go to stop the threat.

Well you have better odds with 18 rounds than you do with 6.

Be as good as you can with the tools you have and try not to put yourself in a situation you cannot escape. That's all any of us can do.

I agree to an extent.

However your choice of tools bears heavily on what you can do with those tools.

DoubleJ wrote:I feel confident in saying that the above poster is proficient at reloading anything in any position, circumstance, state of matter...

I mean, if you follow the forum enough, you'll find out that he went to the Louisiana State IDPA match and did pretty good, even against ol' Jerry himself.

he's too nice to say it for himself, though.

I certainly am not trying to denigrate anyone. However I think in any scenario, there is no advantage to running out of ammo and being forced to reload in order to keep shooting if the threat persists, no matter how perfectly trained you are at such a combat reload. It's always faster to just keep shooting than it is to reload, is it not?

The question is, are you proficient at reloading a revolver in a hurry while you are on the ground having the snot kicked out of you by a half a dozen hoods? It's one thing to be proficient at the firing range, quite another to do so while under attack.

HighVelocity wrote:Learn to reload fast, problem solved.

Let's hope you don't have to test that theory some day.

I am pretty good with math. I have two beautiful teenage daughters. I have heard stories like this before. I'll hedge against the crows-on-a-fence mathematical anomaly and carry double digits.