Is a double-action revolver still a viable defensive weapon?

>If you use a revolver it's probably not going to work

Attached: Bait Killer.jpg (525x407, 70K)

You're right. Revolvers are just a handicap, as are pistols in general. That's why I CC an obrez because if you're going to shoot someone why intentionally handicap yourself?

No you need a rifle. I mean a rifle platoon. Fuck, I meant close air support. What's wrong with me today, I meant a carrier battle group. Jesus, I meant the nuclear football. Sorry, I really meant a supermassive black hole, the Wrath of God and heat death of the universe.

Against what, people? A gang? A militia? An army? Aliens? Dragons? Satan?

Is it optimal compared to other choices these days?
No.

Will it absolutely fucking kill somebody like they have been able to do for hundreds of years, especially if you are proficient and carry a decent caliber?
Yes.

Anybody who says "no absolutely not" I invite to stand down range of a .357 unprotected.

Yes it absolutely is.

.357 is a capable round but i wouldnt use it anything less than 3 inch barrel and i would practice a lot because you have less shots

No you need a 10mm double stack with at least 3 spare mags to even leave your house. In your claymore surrounded house you need a belt fed MG, and thats if you're in a nice neighborhood.

Nope. Pistol bullets only do a small amount of damage and even though revolvers generally do more damage and are more accurate than pistols, you want to be able to kill at least four guys with one magazine. That's why everyone uses glocks and stuff nowadays. You need that high damage per second and killing power or you're a dead man.

>Is it optimal compared to other choices these days?
>No.
>Is it optimal compared to other choices these days?
>No.
Why not, you can put a 9x19+p in it.
Sure a .357sig is suppose to replicate a light .357 mag load, and .357sig is way beyond what 9x19 can do.
I'm pretty sure we can extrapolate that you need to place your shot at the target 300 meters away while your life is in threat. If you use anything bigger than that it's just not sporting and people will die slower and nobody deserves to die. Sometimes you just got to carry a bunch of extra ammunition, probably a few at a time like maybe 10 to make things less dangerous for everyone.

>t. noguns foreigner

Shut up I've voted democrat. You're a fascist. You think I'm going to talk shit about 9x19 when I got a double stack 9x19? I seen a polar bear in the zoo and while I'm pretty sure it could just be a great murder machine it was in a cage perfectly safe and I'm terrified of fucking bears I'm sure I could just sharp shooter it in the eye from 200 meters and just mag dump it while it eats you instead of me so at least it stops. I wouldn't worry about bears even just use less lethal force I never heard of a polar bear eating anyone. You'd hear about their handlers getting eaten left and right like orcas unless CNN decided trumps voters were illegal polar bears helping the Russians.

Attached: 1504150344072.jpg (758x1024, 126K)

I swear we have this thread everyday

Attached: 1532348322631.png (1080x1174, 2.88M)

I'm debating whether or not this jumble of words even counts as english or not.

oh fug :DDDDDD
benis xxDDD

The schizophrenia is rampant in this thread

I'm the user you replied to. I have genuinely no fucking idea what you're trying to say. Wheel guns are NOT the best choice but obviously still work as they always have. Not sure what's so confusing or rage provoking about that. Go take your meds.

>Revolver is inherently more powerful than pistol
Go play more video games dumbass.

What the hell is this thread?

Attached: 1539670297813.jpg (914x1115, 209K)

Attached: 1518081067921.png (342x444, 96K)

everyone should own both. its testament to invention, theres no this or that. that shit is brainlet tier. dont stoop down that low.

He is a retard, but hes not incorrect.... if hes talking about 357 mag, 38 special and anything smaller isnt as powerful though.

If you are in the woods, a revolver is your only option for a handgun. Revolvers are inherently much more versatile and not picky at all. Unless you want to carry a desert eagle, revolvers are the only option in nature.

Well there's also 10mm or a USP45 loaded with .45 Super, but yes revolvers are great and more practical imo

Yeah but this one seems particularly.... "psychoactive"

Attached: 1534682839625.png (622x532, 574K)

Right but that's "if" we could read his mind. I could have a .22short revolver and a .50AE semi just the same.

10mm and .45 super aren't powerful enough. you need .44 magnum or greater.

>Is a double-action revolver still a viable defensive weapon?
A flint spear is still a viable defensive weapon, user. There may be better choices now but the old tech never stopped working.

It is the only option if you are hiking outside of carrying a shotgun or rifle.

A single action revolver is viable for self defense. What the fuck is this thread?

I've actually been considering one for CC. Looking for a smaller framed .44 mag, port it, trim the hammer, notch the trigger guard, trigger work to lighten and smooth, trench sight and a nice low profile grip.

as much as I like wheelguns, CCing a .44 mag is not something you want to do, ported barrel or not. not only are you looking at a pretty unimpressive muzzle energy for the size of the handgun (500-700ft-lbs out of a 2-3" barrel) with consideration paid to the sheer bulk something like an N frame has even without a barrel, it's going to be incredibly heavy for a CC piece and you'd better have some damn good trigger discipline because a sub-4" barrel on a .44 will make you develop a flinch damn quick. Jerry Miculek actually thought he didn't flinch many years ago until he started shooting a 4" .44 and had to learn how to control that; imagine where you'll be with a 2-3" .44. there are no "smaller frames" for .44s, the smallest I can think of is L frame with the 69 combat magnum, which is still a hefty piece and only a 5 shot.

if you have to carry a magnum revolver, .357 and .327 are both great choices around 3". if you are specifically looking for a larger bullet diameter and a shitload of force, start looking at 10MM.

>Anything weaker than these calibers is not as powerful as these calibers.
Well, thank you for your meaningful contribution, user.

Attached: wm_6898813.jpg (4248x1624, 415K)

But aren't there pistols chambered for 44 magnum and other silly shit like that? Surely you could make a bear mattress with one of those all the same. :^)

Attached: Magnum_Research_Desert_Eagle_Lightweight_pistol_2.jpg (2000x1335, 115K)

> needing guns when you have a moat around your house
i swear you poor fags piss me off

Sure but at that point you're looking at single stacks with roughly the same capacity of a large revolver, the same amount of weight, and considerably higher chances of having a stoppage to clear. At that point in the game a revolver just is easier and usually cheaper to boot.

there's also a pistol chambered in .38 Special

and hoo boy do I want one something fierce

Attached: 52.jpg (1500x937, 125K)

>shovel: $5 at a flea market
>gun: $100 minimum

fucking poorfag

>I'm sorry what was that king dumbo?

Attached: 62b.jpg (680x510, 57K)

> using treacherous against cannons
see where you fucked up is attacking an american

maybe some people have had enough of these stupid fucking threads

Any gun in .38 SPL should have a .357 Magnum alternative, which would then be the better purschase IMO. Being able to use 38 on an emergency sounds pretty good.

And yes, I know that a 357 pistol wouldn't do it's thing while firing 38, which is precisely why I wouldn't get any semi-auto on any of these calibers.

Fair enough, hadn't considered that.

Understandable but they should attempt to be coherent about their displeasure then.

I am pretty proficient with handguns in general any weapon is better than no weapon. I see I where people get the idea that 18 shots are better than 6 but in reality I only need 1

The desert eagle is the only thing I know of, but you are better off with a revolver anyway because they can handle any ammunition you put into it, they are much more reliable (inb4 autofags I mean no chance of stovepipe or slide not in battery in a life or death situation against a brown bear) and you really don't need more than 6rds of .44 magnum or like 454 to take down anything in the woods. It should be your side arm anyway and you should be carrying a legitimate rifle or shotgun if you are somewhere with brown bears.. black bears you really don't need more than a revolver and that's only if you aren't able to scare them off and they are actually attacking you which seems rare for black bears. They are like big fat dogs.

and no autofags your 10mm isn't enough shut the fuck up

Attached: S&W 69 Combat-Magnum.jpg (650x400, 69K)

What if it's a simease nigger?

I can’t decide who is worse between pistol elitists and wheelfudds.

Attached: 2C327CBC-9EFA-4579-8C70-697791D2FCFF.jpg (1008x1024, 172K)

A Glock 20 is actually a 100% better choice than a snub nose .44 in capacity, energy, reliability, and in some cases, concealability.

If you want to carry a big man gun, you have to find a way to carry a 5+" barrel. I carry a .454 with a 6.5" barrel in a shoulder holster under a jacket or button-up shirt.

You can't get a powerful gun in a short barrel because that length is just too important to accelerate the bullet. .223, for example, has the ME of a fucking .32 ACP out of a 3" barrel. .44 mag and .357 are the same as .223 in the sense that they were made for a relatively long barrel and cutting it too short completely neuters them. Like the other user said, .44 mag will do 700 ft/lbs out of a 3" barrel which is actually less than real 10mm out of a 4" barrel.

TL;DR Don't get babby barrels because the barrel is the easiest part to conceal anyways and short barrels ruin good cartridges.

or just get a judge ergo a fucking shotgun

what if I like snub aesthetics tho

Insanity aside, this. A six-shot revolver in a standard caliber like 357 Magnum will handle 99.9% of your self-defense needs as a civilian.

Get a bullpup revolver, naturally.

A martini henry can by viable if that is all you have.
6 shots can probably handle it, but why not have something with more rounds with no disadvantage?

why are you validating my post?

It's a k frame so it shits on your "not easy to carry" bullshit. And before you try to continue to make your case that .44 is not a good CCW round. I don't care what you think. It's a gun. it will do gun things. now kindly fuck off back to an autofag thread.

>The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
Survivor bias right there.

See . In a subset of just under 500 cases biased towards survivors, the maximum amount of shots fired was 20. So that's at least a 0.2% chance where you need 20 rounds, which is three to four times what you get in a revolver depending on type. They don't even mention the cases with 6-20 shots, but I'll go out on a limb and say it's more then 5%.

Wheelgun is likely good enough for 90% of all self defence cases. The problem is the remaining 10%, which is a statistically significant issue. Personally, given that 20 round maximum, I'd want at least a ten round capacity on my carry gun and a spare mag.

Certainly.

If it's not a .38spl don't bother

Unironically, you should carry a gun that you love. You will practice with it more, you'll want to carry it more, and you'll be more confident with it. If your favorite gun is a .22lr snub nose, go right ahead.

>See . In a subset of just under 500 cases biased towards survivors, the maximum amount of shots fired was 20. So that's at least a 0.2% chance where you need 20 rounds, which is three to four times what you get in a revolver depending on type. They don't even mention the cases with 6-20 shots, but I'll go out on a limb and say it's more then 5%.
>Wheelgun is likely good enough for 90% of all self defence cases. The problem is the remaining 10%, which is a statistically significant issue. Personally, given that 20 round maximum, I'd want at least a ten round capacity on my carry gun and a spare mag.
Your math is completely fucked m8

>Needing more than one-two bullets for one person
You can’t aim can you?

I'm sure you'll aim like a champ when Jamal and Habib pull a knife on you in the train/bus/whatever.

>All of them
>Imagining the unrealistic self defence situation where six or over six men want to kill you for your wallet.
You’re fucking retarded.

At close range if you point the gun at centre mass you’re not likely to miss. If you’ve ever been on a train there isn’t much room. I have pretty bad anxiety and it’s rather easy for me to get shaken, so living like that kinda prepares you a little.

Well, this shit does happen here in Brazil, and it's called an 'arrastão'. Basically a mob of bandits going around robbing people blind.

But even then a couple of shots from the most innocent-looking .22 lr would put them to run.

Attached: LCR-Pair.jpg (3648x2736, 2.13M)

So it’s not unrealistic but it’s just easy to scare them off.

Context is important. If I lived in a shithole like Brazil I would definitely want to carry the most powerful, highest capacity handgun I could. Most of the idiots who worry about this shit aloud live in fucking Utah or wherever though. It's a complete non-issue for most Americans. Carry what you like, just don't delude yourself.