SHTF- is there a role for SA pistols AND revolvers?

[Doctorr Fabulous]

What weapon I carry is contigent on the SHTF scenario. I can think of two reasons why revolvers, and I mean short barreled revolvers specifically, have a place in a SHTF scenario. The first is practicality. Look at how many Ruger LCR's, S&W bodyguards and similar revolvers have been sold in recent years for CCW. Not everyone takes training courses, even though they should, or shoot on a regular basis to keep their skills up. Using a different platform that they aren't as familiar or comfortable with in a high stress crisis situation, I think, could degrade their capabilities further. Also, not everyone owns holsters for the handguns they don't carry and only shoot at the range. Hell, at the last MilCopp training course, I used an old M9 military holster for my Glock 17.

The second reason is the grey man theory that many preppers abide by. SHTF could be many situations that we all have to respond to accordingly. For those who follow the grey man theory, staying out of sight and being inconspicuous as possible is key. For instance, in a Katrina type scenario with martial law declared, open carrying full sized handguns with chest rigs and a rifle/shotgun in front of government law enforcement agents would not pan out well. At best, your weapons would be confiscated (probably never to be returned) and you could be arrested and/or detained. In that situation I would carry my CCW gun only in hopes of avoiding any confrontation with the national guard or LEO's. I know that there are many semi-autos that are practical for CCW, I carry a glock 36, but my point again goes to the fact that there are many who CCW revolvers.

So, your reasons for revolvers being superior are: people don't have train, they don't have to prep (by getting the proper equipment) and somethign about the grayman theory, which has been debated to death, is not a universal prepping law, and I would wager that most people here agree that there is a lot of bullshit attached to the "gray man" idea.

I refute this with the following points of order:
1. Your first paragraph made no sense. A lot of pocket snubbies have been sold, ergo people don't hgave to train and they don't have to get a holster? That is both unsafe and makes no sense.
2. CCW is CCW, and most semi-autos present less profile than a revolver, given the proper forethought, training, and gear.
3. If you aren't willing to get the proper training and gear, buy whatever you like. It won't make too much of a difference

I'd like to thank you for being the first not to jump straight into "the PAW" and staying within the "SHTF" scenario, however you lost me in the details.

[Bearcat]

What weapon I carry is contigent on the SHTF scenario. I can think of two reasons why revolvers, and I mean short barreled revolvers specifically, have a place in a SHTF scenario. The first is practicality. Look at how many Ruger LCR's, S&W bodyguards and similar revolvers have been sold in recent years for CCW. Not everyone takes training courses, even though they should, or shoot on a regular basis to keep their skills up. Using a different platform that they aren't as familiar or comfortable with in a high stress crisis situation, I think, could degrade their capabilities further. Also, not everyone owns holsters for the handguns they don't carry and only shoot at the range. Hell, at the last MilCopp training course, I used an old M9 military holster for my Glock 17.

The second reason is the grey man theory that many preppers abide by. SHTF could be many situations that we all have to respond to accordingly. For those who follow the grey man theory, staying out of sight and being inconspicuous as possible is key. For instance, in a Katrina type scenario with martial law declared, open carrying full sized handguns with chest rigs and a rifle/shotgun in front of government law enforcement agents would not pan out well. At best, your weapons would be confiscated (probably never to be returned) and you could be arrested and/or detained. In that situation I would carry my CCW gun only in hopes of avoiding any confrontation with the national guard or LEO's. I know that there are many semi-autos that are practical for CCW, I carry a glock 36, but my point again goes to the fact that there are many who CCW revolvers.

So, your reasons for revolvers being superior are: people don't have train, they don't have to prep (by getting the proper equipment) and somethign about the grayman theory, which has been debated to death, is not a universal prepping law, and I would wager that most people here agree that there is a lot of bullshit attached to the "gray man" idea.

I refute this with the following points of order:
1. Your first paragraph made no sense. A lot of pocket snubbies have been sold, ergo people don't hgave to train and they don't have to get a holster? That is both unsafe and makes no sense.
2. CCW is CCW, and most semi-autos present less profile than a revolver, given the proper forethought, training, and gear.
3. If you aren't willing to get the proper training and gear, buy whatever you like. It won't make too much of a difference

I'd like to thank you for being the first not to jump straight into "the PAW" and staying within the "SHTF" scenario, however you lost me in the details.

Where did I say revolvers are superior? I did not. I even stated that I CCW a semi. I do think semi's are better the option. I'm not saying because people don't train, they should carry a revolver. Everyone should train. But if someone hardly ever trains or practices, and has chosen to CCW a revolver, why should they pick something they have even less experience with in a life or death situation?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear and concise enough with my thoughts. My thoughts are geared at the general gun owning, CCW carrying, gun collector population at large. Not everyone has the prepper mentality that we do here. Being a firearms enthusiasts does not make you a survivalist. I'm talking about the people at gun shows buying crap to tacticool their SKS's and will probably fire it no more than 500 rounds per year. I'm talking about the dentist, his wife and daughter who took the CCW course with me and had never fired a gun in their lives. I'm talking about the elderly couple who took the course with no firearms experience and asked what type of gun to buy to keep by their nightstand. They were not gun people, but thought that guns were a necessary precaution and I guarantee you they will probably go to the range a handful of times at the most in the future. Maybe that description will help you to see better where my mindset is.

Now with that in mind, for someone in their shoes faced with a SHTF scenario, wouldn't it make sense to use what they have the most experience with? Which are revolvers in a lot of cases.

To address your first two points,

1. I'm saying a lot of revolvers are used for CCW and people don't take proper training courses with ANY type of gun. I'm not saying don't get a proper holster. Everyone should, but not everyone has proper holsters for all of their "extra" handguns. So if they don't have a holster other than the one for their CCW guns, how are they gonna carry another gun effectively? For example, I was a gun collector first before I found Zombie Squad and had no gear, no holsters and hardly any spare mags or ammo stock piled. That is one type of person I'm referring to.

2. I agree with that point, but the fact is many people do CCW a revolver.

The grey man debate is entering a separate discussion so I will just say this. I know not everyone follows the grey man theory, but if you feel you aren't gonna get unwanted attention from the cops in a katrina like situation, then go ahead, slap on the open carry pistol, chest rig, AK and good luck.

Again, I think semi-autos are the better choice. But I think revolvers have a role for SHTF with the "novices" or whatever you want to call them who have already chosen a revolver. Is it ideal? Not in my opinion, but it is what is. Not everyone prepares for the same things or to the same levels. I hope this has clarified some confusion.

[Shinhao]

Three good reasons for a revolver:

1. A 8-round or 9-round 22LR revolver, as a last-ditch survival gun. 22 rimfire is occasionally unreliable, so it's worth getting a revolver in case of a light firing pin strike or a dud you can just cycle through to the next chamber. Definitely not your first choice for CCW, but something is better than nothing, and after everything else runs out of ammo or lube, a bone-dry revolver that can fire half-rotted, unreliable 22LR scrounged from soaking wet ammo cans with failed seals is going to look pretty good.

2. A snub-nosed .357/.38 J-frame, or J-frame equivalent with enclosed hammer. Someone else mentioned this, but it's the most reliable close-in weapon you could have. You can fire it from within clothes (it would probably be painful with all that hot gas, but at least you can), there is no slide to jam, almost no barrel to grab, and the barrel-cylinder gap will give anyone trying to take the gun from you a nasty surprise.

3. Hand cannons. It's not my thing, but there are limits to blowback-actions. Revolvers don't have that problem. They are limited only by wrist bone strength.

Other than these three things, I think an semi would be better for everything else. For the average everyday, the semi-auto, properly oiled and fed quality ammo, is just as durable and reliable. The recoil springs will eventually wear out, I suppose. The semi-auto has more rounds on tap, and while revolvers can be reloaded quickly, most if not all techniques require two hands and fine motor skills. Reloading a semi can be done with one hand, or with two hands without breaking grip on the weapon hand.

Edit:

Make that 4. Another good reason to have a revolver is to have a handgun that shoots the same thing as your lever-action carbine. And lever-action carbines are awesome.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Like I said, for people who don't want to train or get the proper gear, then I have nothing to say to them. as far as firing from a pocket...eh. I feel responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves my gun, and fuiring from within a pocket makes aimed difficult.

[PointBlank]

I have to reiterate: If you're planning on surviving for years to come in a world that has no manufacturing capabilities, or the commerce system we know of is dissolved, your semi-auto mags WILL eventually fail(probably within 3-5 years).

Someone mentioned that (kept)loaded mags for the AK-47 are fine, that may well be true...the two 20rnd suicide mags I have still function flawlessly(I also have three 30rndrs stored empty for prosperity). However, the OP referred to handguns not rifles/shotguns.

Someone else mentioned that revolvers' hammer springs(or main springs) eventually weaken with use. That is true, and fabricating a replacement from what you can find(when/IF that happens, low probability) will be much easier than trying to reinvent a mag spring for an auto.

All mechanical devices are susceptible to malfunction/breakage, that goes without question. I'm merely stating that the DA revolver would be much easier to maintain than a semi-auto. Besides the side arm is just a backup anyway, we'd all be using our primary weapons(rifles/shotguns) for defense/offense first and foremost...

PS......HAHAHA, I sure resurrected this putrid corpse of a thread!!!

[DannusMaximus]

...your semi-auto mags WILL eventually fail(probably within 3-5 years).

You need to buy better magazines or engage in fewer PAW firefights to decrease wear and tear...

[jor-el]

Like I said, for people who don't want to train or get the proper gear, then I have nothing to say to them. as far as firing from a pocket...eh. I feel responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves my gun, and fuiring from within a pocket makes aimed difficult.

It's meant for contact range CQB where an opponent is within the 21 foot range but has not launched the ambush. There is a question in your mind whether an attack is about to take place and you don't want your opponent to realize you're armed. The pocket in question is usually a jacket pocket, not a pants pocket.

Another application for LEOs is at a carstop where you want your hand on a gun but the scenario has not risen to an application of DPF.

I am responsible for every bullet I fire, but there are many gray situations where I want the option available but not the public perception.

[Polie]

Everyone, (or some) seems to think theres going to be epic battles if SHTF. I think of revolvers as a perfect firearm for long term use. Sure I do LOVE my semi-auto's but for hunting and general use I prefer this Ruger. I know it has over 40k rounds though it and its about 50 years old. Everything is stock except the trigger is lighted a bit, trigger surfaces polished to a mirror, and some nice grips I made that fit perfectly. I have a backup of all the springs, screw, and ejector rod/spring. Someone stated that hunting should be done with a rifle (I'm guessing you ment if possible first) but some prefer hunting with pistols, just like bow hunters and black powered fans. Sure I can use one of my rifles to shoot a critter, but using the pistol leaves my hands completely free for walking stick, fishing pole, or whatever. I can sling a rifle over my shoulder just fine, but like I said I just prefer using a pistol. I dont use it as a CCW, but I do plan on getting a Bulldog .44 Special soon for a CCW. (That is if dont decided to check out one of those new sig P220 Compact second gen.'s)

After its all said and done and the internets dies, we are all alone, and wild space beavers invade Alaska; anything is better than nothing. I for one do not plan on going on a "walk-about". I think it better to avoid everyone and everything. I doubt if SHTF its going to stay that way for a loooong time. A firearm is only a tool. Use it for protection or to hunt for dinner, either way just use what you know the best.

[foxx]

I know what you mean. I just can't imagine huge gun battles out here where I live, there's not that many people. There's all sorts of animals to eat out here, domestic or wild. Plenty of ponds and streams, you could plant a garden just about anywhere and grow food.
With my 9mm, it's holds 15+1, and it's easy and fast to shoot. I can loose count of the "never ending" shots. I imagine that, in a gunfight, I could end up spraying and praying, just a bit, and wasting ammo. With more practice, I'm getting better at shooting faster and staying accurate.
My .357 magnum only holds 6, but I've tried to make each one count every time I shoot it. It's more accurate, I can hit tighter groups, and I know it's more powerful than my 9mm.

[crypto]

So my point is...revolvers can remain loaded without any concern but semi-autos' mag springs eventually become weak(causing jams/FTF problems). In a SHTF scenario you won't be able to go out and purchase(or order online) replacement springs/mags for your semi-autos!!!!!!!!

Any time period long enough to cause a mag spring to fail will also cause a revolver's mainspring to fail.

Springs dont fail due to 'set', they fail due to being flexed repeatedly.

[mwestjeeper]

If you are in a situation in which you would need to feed yourself, a 6" barrel 357 wouldn't be a bad thing to have in your pack.

[Michael2007]

My SHTF plan is the same as my daily plan. A G19 on my hip and a SW 442 on my ankle.

[Browning 35]

If you are in a situation in which you would need to feed yourself, a 6" barrel 357 wouldn't be a bad thing to have in your pack.

I wonder how usual it is for a hog or a deer tagged in the 'A' zone to drop almost immediately?

Or do they continue to run for awhile and stand a very good chance of getting lost in the brush if shot through the heart/lungs?

Anyone here done it? (handgun hunting on deer or hogs with an automatic pistol cartridge like the 9mm, .40 S&W or the .45 ACP)

For handgun hunting most people use revolvers chambered in .357 Mag or .44 Mag revolver or they'll use a Thompson Contender chambered in an honest to God rifle cartridge just out of default so that it gets into the 'Handgun' category through a legal loophole. So I'm a bit curious how quickly they'd run out of gas if hit though the lung(s) and the heart. Hell...sometimes they run for a bit if shot broadside with a .243 or a .270, so I'm curious if losing medium sized game in the brush is a 50/50 proposition for handgun hunters.

Going for a head shot would be your best bet if you were subsistence hunting, but say such a shot wasn't available and it was 'Take a heart/lung shot or your kids starve'.

I know that some handgun hunters have been successful with the 9mm and .45 ACP as I've seen pics.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Purpose%20of%20the%20Handgun.htm



Just always kind of wondered that (how far a deer or a hog usually gets on a broadside hit with an ACP cartridge).

I've put a few hogs down (that were already down after being shot and that collapsed while trying to make it to the brush) as an 'Insurance Shot' behind the ear with my Browning Hi-Power before, not exactly the same thing as having a pistol as your primary. I was just wondering if anyone here has tried it and how far the game usually gets.

[northernxposure]

I wonder how usual it is for a hog or a deer tagged in the 'A' zone to drop almost immediately?

Or do they continue to run for awhile and stand a very good chance of getting lost in the brush if shot through the heart/lungs?

Anyone here done it? (handgun hunting on deer or hogs with an automatic pistol cartridge like the 9mm, .40 S&W or the .45 ACP)

Not with a 45ACP, but with a 357mag from a 5" barrel. They will run, same as if they were shot from a bow and arrow, mine piled up about 80yrds out. I've had them run longer, some were curious and stopped after 40/50 only to kneel and drop.

The only way you'll get a drop right there is with a spine/CNS shot or something that breaks them down immediately. Most rifle shots are for the shoulder, as it'll break both joints and still pass through both lungs - thus breaking the animal down. Larger caliber handgun cartridges can do the same thing but must be done at closer ranges. Personally I won't try that shot with a 357, I'll take the gimmie with a double lung and track it after a couple minutes. I'd be more apt to try it with a 44mag or hot loaded 45LC.

I think you'd be fine with a DL/H shot with an auto cartridge, but fairly close in (20+yrds). My preferred auto would be a 45 Super or 10mm, but a hot loaded 45ACP+ would be fine.

YMMV.

NXP

[Redeyes]

I have to reiterate: If you're planning on surviving for years to come in a world that has no manufacturing capabilities, or the commerce system we know of is dissolved, your semi-auto mags WILL eventually fail(probably within 3-5 years).

Someone mentioned that (kept)loaded mags for the AK-47 are fine, that may well be true...the two 20rnd suicide mags I have still function flawlessly(I also have three 30rndrs stored empty for prosperity). However, the OP referred to handguns not rifles/shotguns.

That was me. I also mentioned keeping Glock and Saiga 12 magazines loaded for years.

Someone else mentioned that revolvers' hammer springs(or main springs) eventually weaken with use. That is true, and fabricating a replacement from what you can find(when/IF that happens, low probability) will be much easier than trying to reinvent a mag spring for an auto.

Replacement Glock magazine springs go for around $7. I personally have 20+ magazines for my pistol. In the type of situation you describe I will exhaust all available ammunition long before those magazines go bad.

All mechanical devices are susceptible to malfunction/breakage, that goes without question. I'm merely stating that the DA revolver would be much easier to maintain than a semi-auto. Besides the side arm is just a backup anyway, we'd all be using our primary weapons(rifles/shotguns) for defense/offense first and foremost...

PS......HAHAHA, I sure resurrected this putrid corpse of a thread!!!

[Browning 35]

I wonder how usual it is for a hog or a deer tagged in the 'A' zone to drop almost immediately?

Or do they continue to run for awhile and stand a very good chance of getting lost in the brush if shot through the heart/lungs?

Anyone here done it? (handgun hunting on deer or hogs with an automatic pistol cartridge like the 9mm, .40 S&W or the .45 ACP)

Not with a 45ACP, but with a 357mag from a 5" barrel. They will run, same as if they were shot from a bow and arrow, mine piled up about 80yrds out. I've had them run longer, some were curious and stopped after 40/50 only to kneel and drop.

The only way you'll get a drop right there is with a spine/CNS shot or something that breaks them down immediately. Most rifle shots are for the shoulder, as it'll break both joints and still pass through both lungs - thus breaking the animal down. Larger caliber handgun cartridges can do the same thing but must be done at closer ranges. Personally I won't try that shot with a 357, I'll take the gimmie with a double lung and track it after a couple minutes. I'd be more apt to try it with a 44mag or hot loaded 45LC.

I think you'd be fine with a DL/H shot with an auto cartridge, but fairly close in (20+yrds). My preferred auto would be a 45 Super or 10mm, but a hot loaded 45ACP+ would be fine. YMMV.
NXP

Okay, cool. Thanks for the quick answer.

I've just always used rifles, don't see myself trying my hand at handgun hunting at any point in the near future w/an ACP cartridge (maybe a .357 or .44 Mag at some point) so I just figured I'd ask.

[Siggy01]

I've owned a bunch of different pistols, from different makers, of different types(semi or revolver) and calibers. I'm not really planning on getting into any fire fights if shtf, but it could happen and most likely I'd have my rifle as my first choice. But, if weapons needed to be CC'd in certain scenarios, pistols will shine. A glock 17 is a great pistol, capacity and cartridge wise, and they will run for a long time. Revolvers on the other hand, can handle much bigger ammo, usually for hunting, at the cost for less capacity. I normally have been carrying my glock 23, but now it sits in the safe and goes to the range now and then. My Ruger Sp101 comes with me everywhere now. It weighs about the same as the glock fully loaded, and holds fewer rounds, but it gives me the power and report of a .357 magnum, and can use .38's as well. I'd bring both of course if I were to bug out, but I know my revolver will last a lot longer than I will.

[Branth]

While I generally prefer to shoot semi-autos, I think the revolver does definitely have a place in a realistic PAW scenario.

While the capacity and reload speed of a semi-auto would generally leave a revolver in the dust in the short-term, revolvers would be around long after semi-autos ran out of reliable ammo or spare parts.

Semi-autos are only as reliable as the ammo that's put in them - If you have ammunition that won't feed well, or won't cycle the action reliably, or has a dud primer, then you have to tap-rack-bang to get your pistol back into the fight. With a revolver, you can just advance to the next cylinder and throw out the bad round with the empties. Furthermore, you can make your own blackpowder and cast lead bullets, so you can hypothetically keep shooting your revolver until it breaks down completely or you run out of brass.

Speaking of brass, a revolver makes it much easier to recover your brass, which could be very important after the collapse of infrastructure. I can recover about 80% of my semi-auto brass on a cleanly mowed lawn in a flat area. If I was in tall grass or woods, that would go down considerably. With a revolver, the brass is either in your hand or in a neat little pile of 5-8 casings.

Also, revolvers are less susceptible to limp-wristing and obstructing the path of the slide. The can be fired with two fingers, in a pocket, close to the body (though you will suffer some powder burns), and in any possible position.

In the short term, automatics would reign supreme with the volume of fire and ease of reloads, but revolvers would outlast them in the very long term.

[Sen]

In any kind of scenario in which I will be openly carrying I will be using my AR15 as my primary weapon. To me a sidearm is just the weapon I use to help me get my rifle back or working or whatever. I don't see a need for large magazine capacity or extra mags as my rifle already has those things. A sidearm needs to be dependable, accurate, and powerful.

In a SHTF scenario I would probably carry my Beretta M9, my 1911, or my G23. These are all good reliable combat guns that should back up my AR15 very well.

In a PAW scenario I would probably carry my Ruger GP100 SS 6in. Yes it's big, yes it's heavy, yes it only has 6 shots. I probably can't drop it out of a airplane without breaking it or fire 2000 rounds without cleaning it, but I can neglect it. I can neglect the shit out if it. I could live in the woods for a year with it on my side without ever firing it, cleaning it, lubing it, or drying it off and know that it will do what it needs to do when I need it. A well built revolver can be ignored when you don't need it and counted on when you do. Plus a .357 is enough to hunt anything in my AO, so even if I do loose the rifle, I'm still OK.

[2now]

Let me weigh in for the revolver.

I've carried one or another for decades in .357. Why?

A pistol is to fill the gap between nothing and the rifle you wished you had with you right then.
combat , hunting, doesn't matter the same rule applies. If I am shooting combat, I want a rifle!

So teh 1st question is what am I most likely to want to do, suddenly without warning? For me the answer is, take a shot at a predator that is too close to something on the farm. [last spring my next door neighbor saw 7 differnt bears go through his yard one day.] I want range, accuracy and punch when it gets there. For me that is a .357.

I also feel that a .357 will do a fine job for surprise self defense. Most likely, Low number of targets with lots of room in a rural environment.

I have a friend who is a drug counselor in an urban environment. He carries a glock .45. He never shoots at 4 legged predators, and worries about 2 legged predators, hopped up on something, and bringing their friends. That is a good choice for him.

To be fair if I am expecting possible social problems in an urban environment, I carry an autoloading pistol.

Second I think ammo availability is an issue, unless you NEVER leave your BIL without an ammo train. One thing I am working on is light weight loads specifically for a BOB. That is a .38 brass with the lightest weight bullet I can find to keep the number of ounces per round down. Still not a .22, but more flexible.
Another use for a revolver is with the callibi low report light weight .22 loads. They cycle in a revolver fine. So I can load 2 low report loads followed by zippier rounds with no issues.

In my opinion an autoloading pistol is more a a weapon, and less of a tool. The revolver is more of a tool and less of a weapon. Kind of Like the difference between a sword and a machete.

[Coffeesnuff]

Yes of course there is a role for SA pistols and revolvers. get a good pistol, hk, glock, sig, etc... a good revolver and a nice 1911. Load up on ammo and some range time, when you get proficient upgrade all of them, and start the cycle again.

[Mr. Denver]

Honestly the whole argument on which trype of gun is better, revolvers vs. semiauto, is kinda like the argument on which type of transmission is better. Automatic tranny vs. Manual tranny. I feel it truly is a personal preferance issue. There is a role for each type of firearm, and both have plusses and minuses. It is unreasonable to expect one gun to cover all scenarios well. People have been developeing specialized guns for years trying to find the one gun that will work in all situations. Honestly its impossible.

For myself, I love revolvers. I love the reliability and ease of maintanence. I also think they look cool and mean, especially when you pull the hammer back and you see the cylinder rotate. But I also grew up watching John Wayne movies so I have a natural biase toward revolvers.

HOWEVER, they do not work in all situations. For example I would not take a revolver into a combat situation where I would be expected to operate for a long period of time with out support. Revolvers just simply do not have the ability to carry lots of ammo on your person.

Not to mention selecting a handgun depends on what you need it for. Also it depends on which gun you can shoot best. If you cant shoot a revolver reliably then dont get one. The best gun you can have is the one you know how to use well. Be it revolver or semiauto. I have both a semiauto and a revolver, and i practice a lot with both with drie fire drills and range time. So i feel safe and confident no matter what i carry. I will say that I have run into guys who dont use guns, but feel more comfortable useing a knife for self defense.

Anyway just my opinion.

[MaconCJ7]

I will say that I have run into guys who dont use guns, but feel more comfortable useing a knife for self defense.

Then those guys are idiots. Automatic, revolver, single shot. I don't care. Use what you want. But to choose a knife over a firearm for SD is just stupid (this is for people that have the choice). A knife as a backup, fine. Not a primary. The problem with knife fighting is that you get cut up too. Since it's being used as a defense tool, the aggressor will know you have it. He'll do one of two things. Shoot you, or use his knife on you. Either way, it sucks for you. A firearm gives you a distance/cover advantage. Two things that are very useful in defense.

[jor-el]

I will say that I have run into guys who dont use guns, but feel more comfortable useing a knife for self defense.

Then those guys are idiots. Automatic, revolver, single shot. I don't care. Use what you want. But to choose a knife over a firearm for SD is just stupid (this is for people that have the choice). A knife as a backup, fine. Not a primary. The problem with knife fighting is that you get cut up too. Since it's being used as a defense tool, the aggressor will know you have it. He'll do one of two things. Shoot you, or use his knife on you. Either way, it sucks for you. A firearm gives you a distance/cover advantage. Two things that are very useful in defense.

As a LEO in a city that works hard to disarm everyone, I could pare the GOOD reasons people choose to carry knives/swords/machetes instead of a handgun down to these:

1) Cheaper. Machetes can still be had from hardware stores for ten bucks or less and its OTC. No ammo to buy.

2) Legal. Though shoving a meat cleaver or machete without a sheath into the front of your pants is such a bad idea for SO many reasons (Whipping it out of your pants is worse. Think about it.) mere possession of such is still legal in NYC.

That having been said, the BAD reasons for picking blade over gun:

1)

2) I've never seen anyone manage this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35cLo7d0 ... re=related

Maybe one of you can.

3) I've mentioned elsewhere about my encounters with a late middle aged man in the South Jamaica neighborhood carrying a katana blade in a Shirasaya mount. He acts like its a walking stick but we all know its a sword. To the uneducated and the majority of muggers its an edge that works for him ONLY because he is respectful to us and we allow it. If he ever wandered into one of the more effete neighborhoods in Queens with it someone would recognize that sword for what it is and force us to arrest him.