[Shrinkmd]

I am very happy with my new 9mm, but I don't feel ready to replace my six-shooter in the nightstand.

After how many rounds of "carry" ammo through the same magazine, under what conditions, do you feel comfortable putting the .357 in the safe and replacing it with the 9 in the nighttable. I love shooting both, but I know it is ideal to really get to know "the one". Do people get paranoid and change out the spring at 5,000 rounds (or less) and how about the magazine?

Questions questions. I guess sometimes it really is 6 for sure.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll set aside my .357 and .44 magnums and start packing semi-automatic pistols when they pack the same punch and work with the same reliability: probably about May 37.

[pauli]

i can't think of much better than a 357 for fighting one's way to one's longarm, especially if it's going to sit in a drawer for a few years before it's needed.

[James T Thomas]

There is no need to become paranoid about spring fatigue, replacement schedules and that kind of thing with the revolver, but you just might want to reconsider trying to "rap, tap, slap," unjamming some blockage in the darkness with the semi -auto.

[Rockstar]

I refuse to give up my cap-n-ball single action, until them newfangled doubly actioned thangs proves theyselves.

Get a grip. I can't think of a much worse s.d. caliber than .44 magnum.

Can't help you with your psychological attachment to your revolver and your phobia of "modern", 100-yr-old semi-auto technology, but I will say that I trust semi-autos to protect me and my children. :cool:

[Shrinkmd]

The reason I was even considering the shift is that inside the house I would probably be using .38+P JHP, and I know that 124g+p in 9mm supposedly have more energy to them. And having 15+1 (I know the statistics on ever needing more than 2 or 3) seems comforting. I dunno. Maybe I should make it a poll. Nighttable: revolver or auto?

[Frandy]

My Sig 228 with a 15-round 226 magazine full of 124 gr. JHP has proven itself to be 100% reliable through 525 rounds. It sits chambered and decocked in my nightstand and I sleep soundly.

Standing bedside, my bedroom closet is within arm's reach and has a GP-100 loaded and ready with .38+P JHPs and my Mossberg 500 Mariner.

No problem. :D

[Border]

I sleep by the .357. Most of these guys who count on "their training to get them through" have never faced the working end of a criminal's gun-does anyone REALLY know for certain that they will react calmly remember to click the safety off, clear a stuck one etc.? Just an opinion.

[Old Fuff]

Yes, I trust my pistols. My Colt's are older ones and well proven. That said, my usual nightstand gun (which isn't really in a nightstand) is a S&W model 10. I prefer the simple point & pull double action, and unquestioned reliability when I might be half awake. A limp wrist will make no difference, and I won't have fired brass flying around the bedroom.

However Ol' Slabsides isn't far away if a situation comes up where I think I might need her ... :D

[browningguy]

I, along with every army in the world, have learned to trust them new-fangled semi autos. I own one revolver that I recently purchased for my wife because her hand strength is not good enough to clear a jam (rhumatoid arthritis) in the unlikely event one happens. Buy a good pistol and it will be just fine. I'm not talking about Lorcins, Jenings, FEG's etc. My preference is High Powers in both .40 S&W and 9mm flavors, but a SIG would also be fine (one made for cocked and locked carry) as well as some others.

I finally had my first failure with a High Power last year, my Inglis 9mm (3rd Chinese Contract) had to have a new sear after untold rounds down range. I aways shoot at least one full cycle through each mag when new, even with the High Powers. If a pistol needs 200 or 500 rounds to "break it in", then it's a target pistol not a combat pistol and should be used as such.

Just one guys opinion, others can have their own preferences. I like having 11 rounds of .40, or 17 rounds of 9mm, to fight my way to a real gun.

[Double Maduro]

However Ol' Slabsides isn't far away if a situation comes up where I think I might need her ...

That's a heck of a way to be talkin' about your wife. :neener:

My bedside gun is my CCW, Ruger P90. When I take my pants off it goes on the stand, when I put my pants on it goes in the holster.

I feel that if you always carry your weapon in the same condition, you will automatically make it ready to fire. I am sure that I could clear a jam, if not the 2" .357 is right there along with the Makarov and I am 2 steps from the 12 guage.

Before I would need any of these however the bg would have to brave 2-3 dogs, they would make the bg stop and play, and a couple of cats, by the time he got to the bedroom the police would be there hauling him away. LOL

You should have your carry gun on the stand, it should be the one you are most familiar with.

It does seem that a .357 or .44 mag could cause some collateral damage a house of two down the line, though.

Let us know what you decide.

DM

[MR.G]

My house handgun, for about a year now, has been a S&W 910S with three loaded fifteen round magazines. Prior to that, my house gun was a S&W 686 Plus revolver with several speed loaders. I switched to the auto because it carries more than twice the number of rounds. I can shoot the revolver better than the auto and have recently been thinking about switchig back to the 686 for home defense. I just wonder if seven rounds are enough between reloads if things really get bad. As far as reliability goes, I trust them both.

[Old Fuff]

Double Maduro:

That S&W model 10 is one of my carry guns - among several. My father owned an old 1905 Hand Ejector/Military & Police .38 revolver that preceeded the model 10, and it was the first handgun I became aware of. Following World War Two (nobody did any sport or target shooting during the war because ammunition wasn't available for such purposes, and dad wasn't going to shoot up what he had), I learned to shoot it, and in the process handloaded my first .38 Special ammunition using a Lyman Tong Tool. From that point on I have never been without a Military & Police or model 10 revolver. I know them forward, backward, and any which way.

About 1948 I got into .45 pistols, starting with a surplus 1911A1 Ithaca (wish I still had it.) It got traded for a commercial Colt Government Model, which I still do have. Since then I have always had at least one, and usually more, of the big .45's around. I am very, very confortable with them too. :D

Either will do to ride the river with ...

[Marshall]

Old Fluff, I know what you mean.

I've always been a revolver nighstand guy but you know, I'm starting to feel like a traitor or something? :o The darn Trijicons on my XD-40 keep calling out my name about 10:30PM, add to that that I have never had a FTF of any kind with it and it's starting to see nightstand time. A good lashing, maybe that's what I need. Be kind, I'm a revolver guy at heart.

[Fredhead]

Woohoo! Yo, Rockstar, long as Doc"s got his sxs under
his duster, we'll be ok!

[orionengnr]

but my 23 is by my bedside. As much a I love my S&W 340, the Glock has thirteen (so far ultra-reliable) .40s vice the 340's five .357s.
For carry it's the small, light, concealable 340 and a speed loader or two, but by my bedside, no concealment or reloading necessary...it's the Glock, at least until my Para P-14 LDA proves the same level of reliablility with a variety of ammo.
YMMV

[lotus]

I have a P7 PSP as my bedside gun. I like the idea of going hot with the squeeze cocker as needed and otherwise tossing it into my robe pocket with no fear of an AD. It's always gone bang when needed and can shoot the eyes off a fly.

Do I have revolvers and trust them? Yes. But their qualities don't trump the P7's.

[Shrinkmd]

Do people keep their autos with a round chambered and decocked, or in condition 3? I like the idea of 3 so I can just drop out the mag and dry fire with snap caps without rechambering rounds, but I also like the idea of keeping it with a round in the chamber and safety off, revolver style as far as "will it go bang in my moment of crisis" Maybe another poll?

[DougW]

My thoughts are that my Glock 17 with the +2 mag extensions, 115+P Hi-Vel's, and the Sure Fire flashlight are on the first tier of defence. The Security Six is loaded with .38+P's for the wife, with speed loaders next to it. The main defence weapon is either the Benelli M1 Super 90 with Tactical Buck Shot or the Mid Length AR15 with frangible 55gr loads. But, I live in a rural area, so a layered defence works well for me. Nothing wrong with a pistol though.

[Lone_Gunman]

I can't think of a much worse s.d. caliber than .44 magnum.

Then you just aren't thinking hard enough. I'd much rather have a 44 mag than a 22, 25, 32, or 380.

Also, if you just have trouble with handling recoil, you can always drop back to 44 special and have a perfectly fine self defense round.

[420Stainless]

I trust pistols and revolvers equally. My main access weapon is a pistol mainly due to familiarity. Its also the only thing I have with night sights.

[Rockstar]

Lone Gunman: You're right. Just would have never thought anybody'd throw the peashooters into the mix. I've been shooting a .44 mag for over 30 years, how about you? Still don't want one for s.d. purposes.

[Valkman]

I trust my carry gun (Kimber) as much as my revos but then I've shot it enough to trust it. I would not rely on a gun I hadn't shot enough to trust, so if I were you I'd keep the .357 doing nightstand duty until you get a few hundred rounds at least through the 9mm.

[gunfan]

My Glock 20 will handle the sitation until I get to my Remington Model 870!

Scott

[Double Maduro]

Old Fuff,

I think the next gun show I go to I will see if I can find a Military & Police. I have read great things about them.

I see we agree that you should have what you are familiar with on the night stand.

For those who might want to know, my bedside gun is my carry gun, Ruger P90, .45. It is always in the same condition, one in the pipe, decocked with the safety on. Why complicate things by having your sd weapon in a differant condition when it's at your bed side?

Going to bed now. Gotta be up at 06:30.

DM

[chopinbloc]

okay, no one else has said it so i will: a modern combat pistol is just as reliable as a revolver. revolvers can malfunction as well, you know. the hand gets worn and the cylinder won't advance right. gets too dirty and the same problem. you can have timing issues, broken springs, even get a kaboom from a cylinder firing out of alingnment. the revolver is not some magical talisman that can never fail. there are plenty of other potential problems with a revolver. one has to neglect the revolver pretty badly to get a malfunction but it's possible. my glock is 100% and i trust it as much as my sp101.

[cookekdjr]

i can't think of much better than a 357 for fighting one's way to one's longarm, especially if it's going to sit in a drawer for a few years before it's needed.
Ditto, although I'm happy w/stout .38 loads.
For a duty pistol, I think Glocks and their ilk are perfect. You fire them fairly often, and you check the mags enough to know if the springs are in good working order.
For a nightstand gun, where the gun may sit for years on end until its called to duty...its got to be a revolver (for me anyway).
-David

[Shrinkmd]

So if you get to the range and actually shoot a couple times a month, as opposed to keeping it loaded in the nightstand but otherwise never looking at it, its ok to use your autoloader for HD? :confused:

[WillBrayJr]

Both autoloaders and revolvers have pros and cons. I of yet to see revolver more reliable than an autoloader. Keep both clean and lubed and you shouldn't have any problems.

[Ken Rainey]

Well, you didn't say what brand of handguns you're talking about.....I mean, if it's a RG revolver and a Ruger pistol, then the Ruger would definetly be the one to use provided your comfortable with it's function. If I can presume that you're talking about quality made firearms such as S&W, Colt, Ruger, Glock, etc., with the revolver already having proved itself and the "new" 9mm proving itself to be reliable, then use whatever you're most comfortable with. Is the pistol being used for carry or just home defense...you could keep your carry weapon beside the bed and stash the other somewhere else in the house that would be quick to get to if needed.

A quality made pistol can be as reliable as any revolver provided it has proven itself with the ammo you are going to use and you maintain it as you should - such as keeping it clean and reoiling every month whether you fired it or not.

As far as the magazine springs and recoil springs, well, a good rule of thumb on the recoil spring is about every two thousand rounds on a steel or alloy framed pistol - what does the owners manual suggest? Resist the urge to use a stronger than factory recoil spring, it could compromise reliability.

Magazine springs wear with useage, I recommend using some mags just for practice and some just for "business" with the business mags never fully loaded - say 2 rds short of full with a 15 rd mag - just for the extra warm fuzzy feeling of knowing the spring hasn't been maxed out (or at least not many times or left that way if it's still relatively new) and thus will always have enough energy to push the bullets up as fast as need be. I'll give up a couple of rds for that extra insurance of reliability, even though some will say it's not necessary, I prefer to have every little bit of an "edge" that I can get. Using this method of having assigned magazines will let you keep your business mags always loaded until needed or when rotating (shooting) out the ammo every six months or every year (depending on the ammo's condition - maybe sooner if carried, maybe longer if always left inside). The practice mags will let you know more of just what they can take and if a failure is experienced, it will be on the range and not in a critical situation. Remember, the magazine is an integral part of the pistol - not an accessory. Also, the ammunition is what makes it all work - use good ammo from a reputable manufacturer and fire enough of it to convince yourself of it's dependability - shooting weakhand will sometimes reveal a reliability issue and I recommend doing it with any handgun that will be used for defense.

As always, YMMV.
Ken

[kennedy]

I keep a S&W 4043(.40) DAO handy, its also the one I take to the range each time to keep familar with, never had a failure, never have to worry about a safty, keep 2 10 rd mags with it.

[MachIVshooter]

Maybe I should make it a poll. Nighttable: revolver or auto?

Oh gawd, here we go...........

Honestly, at home it is not an issue. Keep both handy. I'll not disclose exactly how many firearms are in the bedroom on any given night, but suffice it to say there is not much need to fumble for spare mags. Just grab another gun. Not much need to "fight my way to a rifle" either. The trusty AR-10 carbine is 6 feet from me.

Carry guns are the ones that present these issues, since it is somewhat impractical and cumbersome to carry more than one.

[ShelbyV8]

A quality revolver or auto properly maintained in the hands of shooter who knowns the manual of arms for his weapon is reliable. As a LE firearms instructor for 12 years I saw malfunctions with both. 90% of the malfunctions was excessive head space between the ground and the trigger.

[RyanM]

I'd recommend whichever one you shoot better in the dark. If there are no ranges that will let you practice shooting at night or with lights off, X-ring makes rubber bullets in .357, .429, and .451 calibers, which are suitable for indoor practice. The .357 ones will work fine out of a 9mm, though they must be hand-cycled, and may not feed well.

Also, if you have occasional problems with mild sleep paralysis (ever woken up with absolutely no strength in your hands, that you can barely even make a fist? Happens to me every once in awhil. It happens if the sleep paralysis hormones don't quite dissapate completely before you wake up.), you may need to make sure that your bedside gun has a very light trigger, and a safety (if applicable) that's very easy to disengage. The gun would also need to be extremely resistant to limp-wristing. Unfortunately, this is kind of the exact opposite of conventional wisdom on bedside guns.

I'm not sure if adrenaline dump would counteract the weakness caused by sleep paralysis.

[Model520Fan]

I refuse to give up my cap-n-ball single action, until them newfangled doubly actioned thangs proves theyselves.

Get a grip. I can't think of a much worse s.d. caliber than .44 magnum.

Can't help you with your psychological attachment to your revolver and your phobia of "modern", 100-yr-old semi-auto technology, but I will say that I trust semi-autos to protect me and my children.

I, too, trust semi-autos to protect you and your children. For protecting myself and my children, a revolver is barely good enough.

Autos have their place, but to compare the reliability of a bedside auto to a bedside revolver? You can do that some places, like maybe a bar, or possibly a Sierra Club meeting, but in a forum full of gun nuts?

:rolleyes:

[jaysouth]

I keep a Model 64 3" on the night stand. Under the bed is a Rem 870 loaded with #4 lead shot. Standing on it's fixed bayonet behind the door is a M-1 Garand loaded with 180 gr. PSPs.

I figure that I can get their attention with the little .38 until I can get the shotgun out. If that won't do the trick, the M-1 has the triple threat of pigsticker, horizontal butt stroke or a couple of deer hunting bullets COM.

However, the most critical items on my nightstand are a Surefire flashlight and a cell phone plugged into the charger.

However, for a good night's sleep, more important than all the toys above is a 90 pound German Shepard that thinks he's a doberman pincher.

[jlh26oo]

Yeah, I learned that recently (see my "cylinder froze, brass stuck" thread).

So assuming they are equally reliable, I still prefer the revolver, just because I hate loading magazines. I mean, not a big deal obviously, but I just prefer to drop rounds in than force them against a spring. I also like that a revolver has no pieces that separate during normal use.

But for a nightstand gun, I'd take either. It's just the irrelevant and aesthetic reasons I prefer to shoot a revolver at the range, so it's why one is by my bed.

[c_yeager]

There is no need to become paranoid about spring fatigue, replacement schedules and that kind of thing with the revolver, but you just might want to reconsider trying to "rap, tap, slap," unjamming some blockage in the darkness with the semi -auto.

You dont *really* need to worry about "spring fatigue" with modern semi-autos either. Remember that the springs in a revolver are under constant tension as well.

Also, revolvers *do* fail on occasion. The difference is that the revolver failure drill is to pull the trigger again, and if that doesnt work to call a gunsmith. Everything breaks. I have found that revolvers do not suffer as many failures as semis, however when they do fail its something nasty that requires some concerted effort to repair.

In the end i still carry a revolver just because i like the options that I get with a .357 than anything else. i still have the utmost confidence in my semiautos as well and would happily trust them to work.

[gvass]

"After how many rounds of "carry" ammo through the same magazine, under what conditions, do you feel comfortable putting the .357 in the safe and replacing it with the 9 in the nighttable"

NEVER.

[Brian Williams]

I often put my 9mm on the nightstand, really an old-fashioned childs oak school desk, the thing is my 9 is a S&W 642 with a S&W 940 cylinder installed.
Right next to it is my S&W 13 and my "Old Slabsides" is in it's case right under the bed. Marlin 1894C is across the room next to my Win1300.

[DirksterG30]

Autos have their place, but to compare the reliability of a bedside auto to a bedside revolver? You can do that some places, like maybe a bar, or possibly a Sierra Club meeting, but in a forum full of gun nuts? :neener:

One thing this thread has shown is that some people are autoloader fans, some are revolver fans, and some like both. I guess you're a revolver fan!

Fact is, autoloaders are just as reliable as revolvers.

[Old Fuff]

DirksterG30:

>> One thing this thread has shown is that some people are autoloader fans, some are revolver fans, and some like both. <<

With this I would have to agree ... :)

>> Fact is, autoloaders are just as reliable as revolvers. <<

How come is it then, that this forum has far more threads concerning functional or reliability issues with pistols, then they do revolvers? :uhoh:

[Paco]

I agree with Old Fuff.

I'm a huge, huge 1911 fan. I own glocks which I love and I've shot all these guns several thousand times each. I've been shooting handguns since I was 19 and I'm 28 now.

Revolvers are more reliable.

-You just pay a big price for that reliability, and that's why I continue to carry the 1911 backed up by a 340pd. I like having more rounds, I like having faster reloads without being a revolver guru, I like having the recoil impulse absorbed a bit, etc.

The only guns that have never, not once, in any capacity, failed me were my revolvers. Not once.

-At the range- just look at who get's hung up: the autoloaders. I realize this and that's why I'm a huge proponent of FMJ through my 1911 as my main round for the gun, because I know I have to work to milk every last ounce of reliability from my auto, glocks included.

-Limp wrist a revolver. Now, go and limp wrist an auto.

This is why I have both. I usually keep the gp100 by my bedside, although lately it's been the 1911 and 340pd.

-If it must go bang, because of a bear on top of you, thugs coming in through the window, zombies etc, you could do a lot worst than a revolver.

Ask yourself this: which would you pickup, UNTESTED, to immediately defend yourself with:
-A loaded revolver
-A loaded Glock
-A loaded 1911

The revolver for me, and that's coming from a man that worships at the altar of Browning.

[Ken Rainey]

Well Paco I agree with you and Old Fuff too, but, if your talking brand new and untested, I would have to go with Glock. Although the brand of revolver would weigh heavily on that decision. Thats because I've seen two brand new Taurus revolvers fail to function over the last 5 years - not saying anything bad about Taurus because they replaced them pronto, any company can let one slip by.....but it does put that ?? in your mind.

Now, I do have some older S&W revolvers that have never failed and I would feel extremely confident in using any of them but to just pick up a weapon that was brand new and use it for my defense, well, sadly, today I'd have to pick Glock. I say sadly because the quality control in a lot of companies has sadly deminished, as you can tell by reading these forums. If you were to list specific makes and models of the weapons and the ammo also, then that 'might' change my pick to the revolver - it all depends....

And yep, I'm a huge 1911 and revolver fan too but you gotta give Glock it's dues - they have earned a reputation for reliability from the box.

Shrinkmd never did say what kind of handguns he has and that would make a difference to me as to how much confidence I had in it...some guns are just built better than others -- say a S&W revolver compared to an old RG or even an older Rossi and for the auto's, a Glock compared to a Hi Point or Jennings, you get the picture...it all depends.....

[Old Fuff]

While the GLOCK pistol is in many ways an excellent one, I would hesitate to recommend it to anyone for a bedside table gun - unless that person was exceptionally well trained and experienced in using one. In an emergency it would be far to easy for someone that didn't meet the above description to get their finger inside the trigger guard at a wrong time.

While it often isn't the case, I presume that those who are interested enough to read this thread are also interested enough to buy a quality arm. If money is an object, used high quality revolvers usually cost less then similar pistols.

For the record, my experience with RECENT Taurus revolvers has been very positive. I would not hesitate to carry or keep one for personal protection.

[Paco]

Ken, I hear you. You're talking to the President of the Arm-the-Military-with-Glocks Club. I feel, because of it's easy manual of arms, revolver-like reliability and peerless durability, that it would make the best choice for the military.

-As for bedside guns? Hmmm. I'm gonna give the standard answer: For a beginner, or an enthusiast who doesn't or can't train much, go revolver. Specifically a .357 mag stoked with .38 +p cartridges.

-Next step up, a point-and-shoot auto like a Sig or Glock. Take your pick.

-The absolute last thing I'd recommend for the uninitiated or untrained is a 1911 or BHP.

I stick by this rule too. If I go more than 2 months not going to a range, I shelve the 1911, pull the revolver out, dry-fire it a few hundred times DA, load and then place by my bed.

Respect the craft:
"A man's gotta know his limitations...."

[Shrinkmd]

Smith 686 vs a Smith 3rd gen auto, like 5906 or 4566. I know some people knock newer Smiths for a variety of reasons, but mine seem good "so far" Does that help in deciding?

I guess another part of the question would be, assuming you want to have fun at the range, and yet maintain the most proficiency with your carry and/or HD pistols, how many rounds do people shoot to maintain their comfort with their chosen one? I have limited range time due to work/family (don't we all) and want to have fun, too.

Obviously no amount of practice is enough for an emergency situation, but given realities of likely non-SHTF HD (not clearing house, staying in safe room with family, waiting for help) once you have basic shooting skills, does it matter which handgun you bring to the range the week before? :confused:

[Paco]

Shrinkmd,

I believe it does, when you're fumbling with the safety cause the Smith 3rd gen's safety sweeps up, the 1911 sweeps down, the Sig sweeps down, but, oh wait that's the decocker... See where I'm going with this?

[Ken Rainey]

Very similar thinkin' goin' on here; Old Fuff - I pretty much agree although the Glock does require 'some' trigger travel instead of just a touch to fire and a NY1 spring would make it even more revolver like if absolutely necessary.

I'm with you on a quality used revolver - can't beat a good K frame Smith...

As to the Taurus revolvers, one of those was just last month - a 5 shot .38 - I'm not labeling Taurus, I recommend them quite often...it was just that part of the question Paco posed as to picking up an untested handgun to defend myself with that made me think of them.

Paco, mah fren, it seems were on the same sheet of music.

Shrinkmd, well now, both S&W guns, both double action design....in this case, I personally would pick the wheel gun as THE gun to grab, preferably loaded with the .38+P 158 grain LSWC. Nothing wrong with the auto in 9mm or .45 - good pistols if you like that action type but I'd give the edge to the revolver - your choice, either will work. Limited range time, well, I'd put the most range time in with the auto to be as proficient as you need to be with it. It only takes me a few cycles of the action with my revolver to get my muscle memory woke up with it (EMPTY CYLINDER !) and since both weapons are double action - at least for the first shot - then they do have that similarity going for them.

[Paco]

Shrinkmd,

p.s. LOVE the 5906. Highly underrated, albeit heavy, gun.

[Slipstick]

There was a quote: "Get a grip. I can't think of a much worse s.d. caliber than .44 magnum."

The up side of the .44 is that if you miss, the muzzle blast will knock 'em down, and the flash will toast their eyebrows. You can then make the 2nd shot perfect.

The best gun to keep by the bed is one that is well-maintained and that you are so thoroughly familiar with, you can operate in the dark without conscious thought.

[RyanM]

unless that person was exceptionally well trained and experienced in using one. In an emergency it would be far to easy for someone that didn't meet the above description to get their finger inside the trigger guard at a wrong time.

I dunno. Isn't it that kind of thinking that's resulted in all modern production revolvers having terrible, gritty, heavy, anti-liability triggers out of the box? Any revolver's trigger is just as easy to accidentally pull as a Glock's, anyway (with the possible exception of the Nagant), especially with adrenaline added to the equation.

[Old Fuff]

Most current out-of-the box revolvers have double action trigger pulls running around 10 to 13 pounds.

Most Glocks are about half that.

If you do a little research in this forum's Search feature you will find far more threads and posts concerning "unintentional" discharges involving Glocks then double action revolvers (when fired in the double action mode).

I attribute most of the Glock incidents to a failure on the part of the gun owner/user, but this doesn't change the fact that the pistol should only be used by well trained and practiced individuals who understand the do's and dont's.

Relatively few people who purchase a handgun for personal protection or home defense take the time, of make the effort to meet the above description. This is unfortunate, but neverless true.

Therefore I stand by my contention that only those who meet my stated requirements should use a Glock pistol.

And on this point, Gaston Glock fully agrees with me.

[Shrinkmd]

Yeah, I'm very happy with it so far. Since I'm used to holding the 686, the 5906 weighs the same, balance a little different, but since nobody carries in NJ...

My thoughts on keeping the auto for HD would be in the locked bedside box, decocked and safety off, with one in the chamber. Essentially the same as the revolver, don't pull the DA trigger and it won't go off. Obviously making sure that the auto is ALWAYS in that condition when I put it to bed.

[RyanM]

If you do a little research in this forum's Search feature you will find far more threads and posts concerning "unintentional" discharges involving Glocks then double action revolvers (when fired in the double action mode).

Yes, but most of those also appear to be done by law enforcement, and Glocks are one of the most commonly issued duty sidearm nowadays. More guns of a certain type out there means more incidents (good and bad) will occur with them. If police departments were still issuing revolvers, I'm fairly sure that we'd be seeing the same old stories about some moron hanging his gun from a hook inside a bathroom stall, or using the trigger as a bottle opener, or holstering with his finger on the trigger.

There don't appear to be that many ND stories from back in the days when revolvers were commonly issued, but attitudes towards guns by the average cop back then were different too.

[chopinbloc]

I attribute most of the Glock incidents to a failure on the part of the gun owner/user, but this doesn't change the fact that the pistol should only be used by well trained and practiced individuals who understand the do's and dont's.

so it's fine for people who are completely untrained and unexperienced to use a revolver. please. training and experience are imperative for any type of firearm.

as long as you maintain your weapon properly and feed it good ammo, it will work just fine, whether it's a revolver or autopistol, assuming it's made by a reputable company. isn't it time for the revolver reliability myth to die once and for all? six for sure is simply not true. all things being equal, it may be easier to CAUSE a malfunction in an auto but i would have to do something extraordinary to get my glock to skip a beat. weak wristing doesn't do it, maybe i'm not limp wristed enough. dirty ammo and magazines won't do it. i've tried and been unable to induce a malfunction in either of my glocks or my witness, my ruger p-90 or sp101. they all work great. there are rational reasons for preferring a revolver but don't gimme that crap about revolvers being more reliable because it just isn't true anymore.

wonder if anybody's ever done a comparison to find out if revolvers kaboom more often?

[jashobeam]

What about ease or difficulty of rapidly firing multiple rounds?

Since many of these posts have focused on untrained (or undertrained) individuals, which type of firearm could such a person use best in an actual home defense situation--IF a malfunction did NOT occur? I am, for the sake of argument, going to eliminate malfunction as a point of concern and examine another potentially important issue. Remember that we are talking about an unskilled person shooting at an intruder, most likely in a darkened house. The intruder is believed to pose a life/bodily-harm threat; this threat must be eliminated. In such a mission, where failure may cost us our lives, who among us at THR would shoot one shot in the dark at a shadowy figure that we believe means to harms us or our families? Am I the only one who imagines my opening salvo consisting of a three shot burst? It's dark. I can't see if he's got a gun pointed at me. I'm not going to shoot once and wait to see what happens next. I'm not talking about shooting someone for trying to steal my TV. If I'm shooting someone, it's because I am convinced he's coming to get me or my loved ones. I'm gonna shoot him until he falls, and then probably shoot a couple more as guarantors.

Even for skilled persons--which, remember, we are not talking about--which is easier to bring back on target for an immediate follow-up shot, a 9mm auto or a .357 Magnum revolver? Which is easier to fire rapidly while remaining on target?

Before someone comes along and posts that one shot is all that is needed from a .357 Magnum, I will again recall our attention to the fact that the shooter in question is untrained (unprepared). Someone with little shooting experience will have serious doubts about being able to hit an inteded target, especially in a life threatening situation. Would such a person, totally lacking in confidence, really want to rely on a single shot (after which he/she would be deaf and blinded by muzzle flash)? Can someone lacking practice rapidly fire a .357 Magnum?

I fully appreciate all of the posts about jams and malfunctions. It has not been my intention to minimize that issue, but only to examine a different issue. Some failures are not the fault of the gun, but of the bullet (bad primers). Everyone who chooses to arm himself with a gun should become well-acquainted with the functioning of that gun. It would be tragic if someone armed with the means to protect himself died because he couldn't figure out what to do when his gun misfired. BTW, I have a Glock 17.

[Shrinkmd]

So let's assume the .357 is downloaded to .38+p

[Old Fuff]

>> Am I the only one who imagines my opening salvo consisting of a three shot burst? <<

Or on the other hand, is our "typical" homeowner going to panic and dump the whole magazine - something that's not unheard of even in law enforcement circles?

My concerns are not so much addressed toward members of this forum - many who have extraordinary skills because of their personal interest in handguns, or current or past military and law enforcement experience.

In the hands of a trained, and practiced user, the Glock is as safe as any other pistol of its kind. In the hands of someone else its firing system makes it extraordinarily dangerous. Owner ignorance is not the weapon's fault, but it is necessarily an issue that should be addressed.

In this aspect, double-action revolvers are safer, because the trigger's stroke is longer, and the weight of the pull is heavier - sometimes twice so - then that found on most (but not all) Glocks.

As a side note: I have examined something around 50 to 75 handguns made during the middle 1800's to the middle 20 century that were brand new - never had a round through them. Some were even in the original box. Most of them had been purchased for home protection, loaded, put in a drawer or nightstand, and left to sit, as the expected attack never came, and the owner had no particular interest in shooting. I would much prefer that handgun buyers have at least preliminary training and/or expertise in gun handling/marksmanship, but this is often not the case.

Conventional double-action/single-action pistols may, in the trigger pull sense, be as safe as a revolver for the first shot, but thereafter they are cocked, but not locked. That I think is not so good in the hands of the typical homeowner being discussed here.

D.A.O. pistols might be a more viable alternative, but I still believe the simplicity of the revolver makes it a better choice. Of course others will disagree. So be it, I will take no offense ... :)

[MICHAEL T]

A 22 rev with 22short CB caps. The last thing I want to do is wake up my wife in middle of night. I would be safer with the bad guys. :uhoh:

I keep my 1911 next to me, and a 44 mag levergun close by. No one lives near me and I don't worry about over penteration or rounds exiting house. Any Police late at night will take 30 min. No one patroling late at night except maybe 1 state trooper and he could be any where in county .

[Shrinkmd]

Good point. We're talking about an HD gun which will definitely make it to the range at least once or twice a month, so the issues on leaving it loaded forever without lubrication, emptying the magazine, etc do not apply. If I did want to lock a gun away and forget about it, I can see why the revolver would probably make more sense, stories about 40 yr old 1911's doing just fine not withstanding.

[rhubarb]

The first two handguns I shot were my dad's chrome SW .38 revolver and the little German .32 he brought back from WWII. The .32 never failed. The .38 had a problem with the timing and would occasionally lock up or drop the hammer on the edge of the cartridge. I thought, "Geez, what if it hit the primer when the bullet ain't lined up with the barrel. :eek: I bet that would suck. I ain't never gonna trust another revolver."

Yeah, I've grown since that incident in my childhood. I understand that even the best guns aren't infallible and that the problem with that one gun was not due to inherent flaws in revolver design. Still, are you gonna trust your life to a simple truism or are you gonna shoot your gun 'til you trust it? I shoot my autoloader weekly and I trust it. If I had a wheelgun I'd shoot it a bunch too before I trusted it.

I wouldn't trust any gun or type of gun just 'cause a bunch of people on the internets said it was reliable. :neener:

[f4t9r]

at night time hard to beat a revolver or good ol shot gun
I do trust most semi autos , Just alot easier for me to pull that revolver
be able to find everything needed in the dark

[Hardtarget]

This is always fun. Seriously though...just pick one, shoot it a bunch and go with it. I've got a .45 auto. I've only found one brand that consistantly failed to eject.I don't use it at all. Everything else works fine.
Mark.

[3rdpig]

I attribute most of the Glock incidents to a failure on the part of the gun owner/user, but this doesn't change the fact that the pistol should only be used by well trained and practiced individuals who understand the do's and dont's.

This of course applies to any firearm, not just Glocks.

I'm of the firm belief that manual safeties were not designed to prevent the user from pulling the trigger when he didn't mean to, in other words a negligent discharge, but rather were designed to overcome some mechanical shortcoming inherint in the design, or to prevent the gun from discharging when the gun is dropped or some part breaks allowing the hammer to fall.

That being said, I've had more than one instance of a revolver not firing. Primers that had backed out due to heavy recoil and locked the cylinder up. Coins or other objects entering the cylinder area. While I've never had it happen to me or needed to do it, I was taught in a hand to hand fighting course that a revolver could be taken completely out of action by an opponent gripping the cylinder. The shooter cannot impart enough force via the trigger or hammer to rotate the cylinder to fire the weapon. Try that with an autoloader and it still goes bang when the trigger is pulled. The amount of external parts that have to move before the first shot can be fired is a drawback. Also, the open nature of the revolver's mechanism is anohter drawback. Toss a revolver and a Glock in the sand, jump up and down on them and take them out. I'd bet money the Glock will fire and the revolver won't until the sand is cleaned out.

In a clean or holstered enviroment, I'd call it a toss up between a good revolver and a good autoloader. In any kind of dirty enviroment or where someone can get a grip on the gun and knows how to do it, I'll take a good autoloader, preferebly a Glock, any day. Add into that the inherent speed of reloading the auto and the higher capacity and there's no comparison at all. It's like comparing a lever action rifle with a modern military autoloading rifle. Sure, the lever action is still viable, but to compare the two just doesn't make sense.

[Cosmoline]

Get a grip. I can't think of a much worse s.d. caliber than .44 magnum.

No, you're quite correct. You don't want to hurt the guy who's trying to kill you very much.

I've had semis I really liked, such as the superlative Sig P225. But in the end the versatility and power of the wheelguns draws me back. I've never had a serious jam in a good condition Ruger revolver and scant few in the dozens of other Smiths & Colts I've owned. OTOH I've had some absolute jam-o-matic semis such as the Beretta Cougar. When it comes down to it I just trust the wheelguns more in a pinch.

[RyanM]

Actually, Glocks do terrible with sand.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1009265&postcount=22
But revolvers do also.

[DBR]

I completely agree with the "layered defense philosophy". In my case it consists of a SW 342 loaded with Speer 135gr Gold Dots under my pillow. This is a stick it in the gut or the throat and pull the trigger quick response weapon when the threat is here and now. A Glock 17 loaded with Speer 124gr +P HP Gold Dots beside a high output flashlight for if I have time (and presence of mind) to equip for a confrontation. And an 870 Shotgun within reach of my bed for anything I have time to respond to with a plan.

[jashobeam]

What do you intend to do with your layered defense plan?

Do you intend to work your way to your shotgun and then, with shotgun in hand, go and sweep your house?

A shotgun is a terrible weapon with which to go walking about within a house. It is hard to swing from side to side quickly; and it is easy for an assailant to grap hold of.

The "ensconced defender" is the best situation with the shotgun (or any gun, for that matter). This refers to a situation where you, the home-owner, remain in place strategically defending a given area. To go hunting around your house in search of an intruder forfeits any strategic advantage and gives the intruder the benefit of being the "ensconced defender", where he waits for you to step in front of his sights--instead of vice versa.

I am not saying that a Glock is the best gun for home defense. But I do believe that a gun for home defense should have a consistent trigger pull and should require some familiarity and hands-on experience, and ease of use.

If WWIII breaks out, then working your way to your safe to obtain an assault rifle will be an appropriate response; but if a raping/murdering intruder comes calling, then your first response weapon should be sufficient to answer any threat that presents itself.

BTW, I'm not talking about emptying the magazine in a moment of panic, but calculatingly answering a given threat with sufficient firepower.

[Marko Kloos]

In any kind of dirty enviroment or where someone can get a grip on the gun and knows how to do it, I'll take a good autoloader, preferebly a Glock, any day.

That cuts both ways. Many autos, namely all the ones that rely on the Browning tilt-barrel short recoil system (like the Glock, for example) can be rendered unfireable by pushing against the front of the weapon and bringing it out of battery. Incidentally, that's much easier to accomplish, either intentionally or unintentionally, than getting a good enough grasp on a short-barreled wheelgun to seize up the cylinder. That's one of the strong points of the revolver...it'll work even when pushed into an attacker's body.

But don't take my word for it...try it for yourself. Take a Glock and a typical SD snubbie, and try it with unloaded guns...you'll be surprised how little force is required to make the Glock (or any other short-recoil semi) inoperable, and how good and strong of a grip you need to prevent that cylinder from turning.

[albanian]

As a group, revolvers are far more reliable than autos. That is just the way it is. Certain autos can be just as reliable in practice as revolvers although in theory they are still more prone to problems.

The fact is, out of the many many handguns I have owned and the majority of them being autos, there are only a few autos that I really trust. In a well known brand that is known for reliabilty, I think if you get 500rds without a single problem, it is most likely going to be a reliable pistol. I have a few pistols that have several thousand rounds and have never jammed. My Berettta 92 FS has fed every kind of ammo I have put in it since day one and it never even felt like it was going to jam. I trust it as much as anyone can trust a semi-auto. IMHO it is probably the most reliable auto on the market. I use it as my home defense gun loaded with 21rds of 124gr Gold Dots. It also has night sights so it is great for at night.

I think the 9mm is the perfect round for home protection. It has power somewhere between the .38spl and .357 depending on the load and bbl length. With the Beretta's 5" tube and the 124gr +Ps, it is close to the fabled 125gr .357 mag load that is the ultimate one shot stopper.

Based on everything I have read and seen, this is decent set-up. The best thing is, I am super comfortable with it so I can shoot it by feel alone.

[Model520Fan]

In a clean or holstered enviroment, I'd call it a toss up between a good revolver and a good autoloader.

As a range officer in a previous life, I'd have to say that the guy with his left hand in the air has an autoloader in his right hand, almost always.

That's just how it is.

Carry what you want.

520

[3rdpig]

LOL, you guys win, the revolver is by far a better and more reliable weapon than an autoloading pistol. Now that you've convinced us, maybe you should move on to the world's miltary and police, who seem to have forgotten this simple fact.

I guess it's a good thing that so many companies still make defensive revolvers so we're not saddled with some horrible autoloader that will jam all the time and fail when we need it most. I don't even know how they still manage to sell those awful autoloaders!

Long live the Revolver!

:D

[3rdpig]

As a range officer in a previous life, I'd have to say that the guy with his left hand in the air has an autoloader in his right hand, almost always.

Wow, on the range a revolver is more reliable than an auto pistol. That's sure good to know. Must be why so many people prefer revolvers for self defense against paper targets.

[Cosmoline]

Would that be the same military and police who bought into the hype of the AR and switched over to the 9x19?

I'll keep my own counsel. I've had tons of fun with the K-Frames the wise LEO's dumped off in favor of plastic bottomfeeders. Keep 'em coming!

[Model520Fan]

3rdpig,

You seem to be really hung up on this, complete with repetitive sarcasm and an obsession with what other people carry. Notice that most folks, including me, don't have a problem with what you carry. Notice also, that many folks, including me, don't deny that autos have some advantages, particularly in a dirty environment or an extended firefight. In fact, I sometimes carry an auto as a primary weapon.

But for the benefit of newbies listening to all the b------- flying back and forth, I'll repeat it. In a clean environment, a good revolver is MUCH less likely to jam than a good auto. In fact, using factory ammo, it almost never happens. Not never, but almost never. There are a LOT more good autos around than fifty years ago, so the ratio isn't as ridiculous, but the statement still holds.

It's true. You can BS and ridicule and play with words all you want, but that's just how it is; in a clean environment, a good revolver is MUCH less likely to jam than a good auto.

Carry what you want.

520

BTW, since you pretend to be dense enough not to get it, I quoted range experience because that is where one can observe a lot of people using a lot of guns a lot, not because I believe that one should simulate defense against attacks by paper targets.

[Marko Kloos]

Wow, on the range a revolver is more reliable than an auto pistol. That's sure good to know. Must be why so many people prefer revolvers for self defense against paper targets.

A handgun is either reliable, or it isn't.

There's no special circumstance that makes the range environment any harder on guns than everyday usage. The corollary is that gun which is unreliable on the range is not likely to be any more reliable in real-life use.

If it fails you on the range, do you have faith in its ability to save your bacon when you're under stress and in a life-threatening situation?

[Dr.Rob]

DA/SA guns are good for the nightstand if you prefer your springs relaxed... but it's still not the same as having a 6 for sure revolver.

Still in my experience, I'd pick the handgun I practiced with the most, and call it good. I'd also make a point of practicing once in a while.

If you feel more confident with a 357 over a 9mm... by all means use it. If 6 rds doesn't feel like enough... well maybe what you really want is a hi-cap 9...

To-may-to To-mah-to.

[Lonestar.45]

I don't know of a modern present day army that currently issues revolvers. I'm sure someone will step in and tell me the Madagascar palace guard has them or something, or Navy Seals for underwater ops, but let's be serious.

I think they can be trusted as "nightstand" guns. If one is that concerned about the reliability of an auto for a home defense weapon, then there's a LOT of alternatives out there---no need to stay up at night scared that your glockensig won't fire at the critical moment.

[PaladinX13]

I was taught in a hand to hand fighting course that a revolver could be taken completely out of action by an opponent gripping the cylinder. The shooter cannot impart enough force via the trigger or hammer to rotate the cylinder to fire the weapon. Try that with an autoloader and it still goes bang when the trigger is pulled.

That's a pretty daring and dexterous feat to attempt... one that I doubt occurs in many places outside of fiction and theory fighters. Meanwhile, an auto getting struck out of battery in close combat is known to happen in the real world.

[albanian]

One thing to remember, so far there is still no better SMALL self defense gun out there than a light weight J-frame type revolver. The 642/637/638 and the ultra lights are about as reliable as they some in that size and weight. Maybe someday they will figuire out how to make small autos more reliable but until then, the snubby is still king.

I say that but my Kahr K-9 has been become my primary CCW with my 642 as a second choice. The Kahr is not the same size and weight of the 642 so it is not a true comparison. Show me a 15oz auto that is about the size of a snubby and I will show you a gun that has a spotty rep for reliabilty. I don't know of a single ultra small auto that is as reliable as a snubby. Nothing even comes close. Also a snubby can be fired until empty from within a pocket. If you don't know why that is important, you probably haven't carried a gun long enough.

[chipp]

I bought a speed loader for my smith revolver a while back.
Just for the hell of it i jumped behind my couch pretended someone was shooting at me and tried to speed load my revolver. Couldn't do it. So I say if you want more then 6 shots get another revolver.
One thing about an auto... there is less chance of someone else using your gun on you. I wouldn't argue that point. In that case I recomend a very high quaility Auto. And learn it very well.

[Riktoven]

I don't know a bunch of crap statistics regarding the reliability of revolvers versus autoloaders. All I have is personal experience and a basic knowledge of the mechanical functioning of the guns.

In my personal experience, no handgun has ever malfunctioned on me, ever. I don't currently own a wheelgun, but nearly 13,000 rounds with no failures has me believing in my P99.

On paper, autoloaders have a heck of a lot fewer moving parts than revolvers, and therefore should be more reliable in the long run. And have you ever seen a cylinder dangerously out of time or jam outright? I haven't, but I'm damn sure there's no on-the-spot fix for it either.

The biggest weaknesses of autoloaders are the dependence on (relatively) fragile magazines and properly manufactured ammunition. Wheelies will still kill, but unless you need to fire from a pocket (God bless the 642) the auto is going to offer more firepower on demand, and thus would be my first choice.

[fedlaw]

I was taught in a hand to hand fighting course that a revolver could be taken completely out of action by an opponent gripping the cylinder. The shooter cannot impart enough force via the trigger or hammer to rotate the cylinder to fire the weapon. Try that with an autoloader and it still goes bang when the trigger is pulled.

[QUOTE]That's a pretty daring and dexterous feat to attempt... one that I doubt occurs in many places outside of fiction and theory fighters. QUOTE]

During SEAL training we were taught to do just that w/ revo's and semi's; gripping the cylinder of revo's or pushing the slide to take an semi out of battery, respectively. Of course we were daring and dexterous. That's why we were there.

[Lone_Gunman]

During SEAL training we were taught to do just that w/ revo's and semi's

I will take that under advisement, if I ever find myself fighting a SEAL. Somehow, that seems unlikely though.

[PaladinX13]

During SEAL training we were taught to do just that w/ revo's and semi's; gripping the cylinder of revo's or pushing the slide to take an semi out of battery, respectively. Of course we were daring and dexterous. That's why we were there.

Yes, taught in theory, but in practice I've never read of a gripped cylinder in real-life whereas I have heard of both accidental and intentional slides taken out of battery. That's another difference, the semi can be taken out of battery accidentally in a close struggle, but gripping the cylinder has to be almost entirely intentional. So the one assaulting you is either a SEAL or otherwise trained/experienced enough to deftly execute the risky maneuver... yet pursuing a life of crime?

I'm just saying, in the context of citing it as a revolver disadvantage, the autoloader shares the same weakness if not worse off.

[torpid]

I bought a speed loader for my smith revolver a while back.
Just for the hell of it i jumped behind my couch pretended someone was shooting at me and tried to speed load my revolver. Couldn't do it. So I say if you want more then 6 shots get another revolver.

Practice more.

(And welcome aboard!)
:D

[go_fish]

Get a semi-auto and a revolver. I have a 9mm and love it, however, I just purchased a S&W 686 357mag, and guess what. I love it!

[bountyhunter]

i can't think of much better than a 357 for fighting one's way to one's longarm, especially if it's going to sit in a drawer for a few years before it's needed. Amen. The gun you bet your life on should have ".357 Magnum" stamped on the barrel and a big "SW" engraved on the side plate.

The old 125-gr .357 round is still the best for delivering the one-shot DRT*.

(*Dead Right There*)

[MDG1976]

I'll settle this all right here:
Revolvers are, in general, more reliable than semiautos.