[Boats]

It is time for this sort of thread again. Why? Because I am shopping for a revolver that's why. Though I have had basically flawless performance out of a variety of auto pistols over the years, I do have the odd failure that knaws at the back of my mind everytime I see an auto jam at the range or find myself clearing one of mine. In my personal experience, there was the one time shooting some Blazers where a bulged case tied up one of my 1911s that has never choked on anything else, but still, I wonder. Then there were the times where I limp-wristed a few wondernines and stovepiped them, accidentally dropped a mag early, rode the safety or the slide release lever etc. If it can happen, eventually it does happen with autopistols it seems.

I have never tied up a revolver. I have skipped right by dud primers, which is almost always a clearance drill on an auto. My brother, who was a young cop in a Glock ridden department before his forced medical retirement following a horrific pursuit crash, came to prefer the 4" S&W 686P because he had a custom grip made that adapted the gun to him rather than adapt himself to a gun. He became one of the top qualifiers in the department with it, but he still faced stern resistance from the brass about carrying it. Funny how officialdom was trying to save him from himself, because that revolver never failed at all, and he was completely comfortable with the idea of carrying a wheelgun on duty if allowed.

So here I am now thinking of making a .357 mag with some non-fireballing load, my home defense and CCW. I can probably rest assured that it will always put at least a cylinder full down range without excuses. As I have come to view things, I get decent enough capacity with decent enough defensive ammo, that is always at the ready, without having feeding or ejecting problems worth note.

It has been said that the military and police need(?) simple field disassembly and the magazine capacity that the bottom feeders bring to the table. The average joe needs reliability and more reliability because a high-cap gun battle is not likely at all to happen, cleaning in the field is usually not undertaken, and the gunsmith is but a call away in case of a serious need for a part (don't need an ability to immediately cannibalize). Am I thinking in some wrongheaded fashion?

[caz223]

Six for sure.
Also, they tend to be just a little more accurate for me, on average.
I get this mental picture of jodie foster in silence of the lambs, who shot her little revolver in the dark, and the flash lit the sight picture, over and over again, blinding the bad guy, who was wearing night vision equipment.

[Marko Kloos]

Revolvers are self-contained...no magazine to lose or break.

Revolvers have a simpler manual of arms.

Revolvers are less ammo-sensitive and can use any ammo regardless of powder charge or bullet shape.

Revolvers are more flexible than pistols when it comes to ammo choices.

Revolvers are more easily adapted to the hand than most autoloaders.

Revolvers are easier to learn and teach, and easier to verify as loaded or unloaded.

The failure drill on a revolver is much simpler and faster...simply pull the trigger again.

Revolvers can be fired at contact distance or from inside pockets without jamming the action.

Autopistols have their own advantages: they are flatter, faster to reload, offer more capacity, have more portable reloads, and offer more external safety options.

[P95Carry]

I do trust my P95 implicitly........ but will soon switch to M85 for summer carry ...... on balance i will always give a wheel gun that very slight ''edge'' with trust and reliability. It ain't a lot but ..... IMO it is there.

Downside is just capacity.

[Handy]

Is it really so true that revolvers are more reliable? I have read more than a handful of stories of cylinder binding and case set back.

I understand that revolvers aren't chained to any one load, but I guess I don't mind that so much when the load is the ubiquitous, reliable, accurate, cheap and 'deadly' 9mm Luger.

I have two 9mm pistols that are tough, as accurate as most any revolver and have NEVER jammed or hiccuped. I would have no more reason to doubt their functioning as I would to doubt the function of a quality revolver.

Given the above, plus size, speed and reloading issues, I'm down with the auto. Not any auto, but some autos.

[Standing Wolf]

I prefer to carry a revolver. When that's completely impractical, I carry my Walther PPK .380 A.C.P. in a pocket. It's a great little gun, but I've got a lot more faith in the .357 magnum cartridge.

[Gerald McDonald]

I suppose it depends on what your doing. I carry a revolver more often than an auto. But I keep a Kimber or BHP beside the bed and the BHP is what I use at the range. I think an auto might be better in a dirty enviroment ( and I mean really dirty) where a revolver would be better at going bang every time you pull the trigger. I have had a few FTF or FTE (probably no more than 1/10th of 1 %)in an auto but never had anything other than bad ammo in a revlover, then I just cycled on thru it.
Gerald

[natedog]

I too see that revolvers are great weapons. The only thing that concerns me is capacity. No, not capacity to spray and pray. But capacity to put a BG down. I hear all these stories about men who take 4 rounds of .45 ACP to the chest, then run 50 yards and collapse. What if they run 50 yards in the other direction? They could kill you with a melee weapon. Or multiple assailants. Things like that get me worried. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Devonai]

(Legal and liability issues aside)

...covering fire. Fifteen rounds is a whole lot better than six or eight when helping your buddy cross a danger area. As someone who has carried a firearm professionally and with partners, it is a factor that has it's place.

If you find yourself in combat in a rural area, a tactic that would be a disaster in the city could work quite well there.

For self-defense, I would feel confident with a revolver and two speedloaders or clips in reserve. I simply prefer having more.

[litework]

I prefer the auto loader for defense. I don't like a gun that takes a perfectly good bullet, spins it out of the way, just to be replaced by another perfectly good bullet. Seems a little inefficient to me. Revolvers aren't as good in a "scuffle." Although it may seem hard to do, a BG can grab the cylinder, which is a pretty large moving part with large grooves, and effectively disable the revolver. I'm not sure a revolver is as rugged as an autoloader. I haven't heard of too many revolver torture tests. They may be out there, but you just don't hear about them. Because of the autoloader popularity in the military and law enforcement, they are extensively tested in every possible defense scenario. I think cylinders can become misaligned with moderate abuse and the cylinder is a trap for gunk in harsh environments. I use my revolvers for hunting. My autoloaders are my preferred carry guns.

[tbeb]

Revolvers can jam. I have never had this happen with a S&W or Colt or Ruger. However, I just sent my older Charter Arms Undercover .38 to the factory for repair. It locks up when firing double action. I mean you can't pull the trigger (until after you push it forward with your finger).

I once saw a guy firing his own .357 magnum reloads. A bullet in an unfired cartridge jumped the crimp, so the bullet stuck out the front of the cylinder. This tied up the gun because the cylinder could not turn.

My Springfield Armory .45 and Ruger 9mm have never malfunctioned. These are my home defense guns. My carry gun is a revolver (used to carry a .380).

[10-Ring]

Revolvers are very simple, accurate, reliable yada yada yada! Mix in a good amount of training and you've got a great combo!

[jem375]

I have a S&W Model 66, and a Ruger GP100 in 357 mag, and I want to see the guy that could take 4 Federal Hydra Shoks in the chest and run 50 yards, or my reloads for that matter........

[Blackhawk]

So here I am now thinking of making a .357 mag with some non-fireballing load, my home defense and CCW. I can probably rest assured that it will always put at least a cylinder full down range without excuses. As I have come to view things, I get decent enough capacity with decent enough defensive ammo, that is always at the ready, without having feeding or ejecting problems worth note.
Good thinking.

However, revolvers are hopelessly boring.

They don't have any neato, fancy gizmos to learn how to operate.

They're about as reliable as gravity.

Pull, bang. Pull, bang. Pull, bang. On and on.

Even loading them can put a fella to sleep.

They're nearly impossible to have a ND with.

And if you get a Ruger SP 101, nothing exciting out-of-the-ordinary will EVER happen!

Me? I like the excitement of semi automatics.... :D

[4thHorseman]

If nothing else, just look at the type of posts on this forum between semi autos and revolvers. Look at the problems people have with semi auto and the lack of problems they have with revolvers. That has got to tell you something.;)

[355sigfan]

I will have to disagree with one posters comments about revolvers and nd's. More nd have been logged with police revolvers than have been logged with police auto's.

NEXT
Look at the problems people have with semi auto and the lack of problems they have with revolvers
END

I have had my share of problems with both designs. I have also had examples of both work great. In the revolver area Smith and Wession stand out as excellent products. On the Auto side, Sig, Glock, Beretta and HK stand out as excellent products. Speaking consumer satisfaction with reliablity. I like kimbers too and other 1911's but there seems to be more lemons in the 1911 market expecially when the price paid is under $1000. I love my kimber and feel blessed it works great.

Points for the revolver.
Takes neglect meaning poor maintnence better. You can load it and for get it and it will still normally work.

They are less expensive.
Generally they are more accurate within a given price range.

In the lower priced guns revolvers hold the reliability edge.

They are also totally tolerant of limpwristing.

Begining gun handling is easier. The load and shoot stage.

Points against a revolver

The are not as durable in the long run generally. Their are some exceptions to this rule like the Ruger GP100.

They are bulky and heavy compared to comparable power autos.

They are hard to shoot well than single action autos and glocks due to the da pull.

They are harder to speed load (reloading from empty) and harder to tac load (partial loading or spent rounds)

They hold less ammo generally.

Points for the auto.

Generally easier to shoot well for more new people due to single action trigger. For DA SA guns the transition is a problem.

Easier to speed load and tac load and are never out of the fight unless you run them dry. You can reload with one in the pipe and still shoot.

Autos are generally lighter, slimer and easier to conceal.

Autos generally recoil less for a given power level due to the slide soaking up some of the recoil.

Autos are generally more durable than revolvers.

Autos hold more ammo typically.

Points against a Auto.

Typically more expensive than a comparable quality revolver.

Take a bit more training to get to the load and shoot stage.

Require more maintence.

not as ammo tolerant.

Not tolerant of limp wristing.

Which do I carry. I now carry a Kimber Custom 1911. Preaty plain except it has night sights, wilson mags and wood grips. It works great for me and is easy to shoot. My second choice is the Glock series in just about any caliber. Would I feel unarmed if I had to carry my Smith 610, certainly not. The shooter is a greater variable than the gun. Mindset is also very important. If you feel more confident with one or the other then thats what you should carry. Confidence helps you to have a winning mindset.
PAT

[EJ]

I don't get your inference here?





I don't like a gun that takes a perfectly good bullet, spins it out of the way, just to be replaced by another perfectly good bullet. Seems a little inefficient to me.




What are you trying to tell me--????[

[gryphon]

I have a 1911 that I trust explicitly and has functioned over 500 rounds without failure.

I can't shoot a revolver worth a darn, so they really do me no good.

[dude]

my autos are a hobby and for fun at the range ( P7, Baby Eagle compact)
.........while my revolvers are for the important stuff (and fun also!!)

[billcameron]

One negative of a revolver not mentioned is the cost of installing good, highly visible sights or night sights. Its generally a custom job with a revolver, but not with an auto. But I think revolvers are a good choice for some people and in some circumstance. I especially like smith centennial in outside pocket. I have had good experience with smith and ruger revolvers. Had bad experience with charter arms and would never own again. Limited experience with colt and none with taurus.

[Quintin Likely]

I can't shoot revolvers worth a flip...I like knowing that I've got extra firepower a magazine away with an auto. I haven't shot a revolver yet that I really liked, but I'm in love with my Glock 19...so autos for me.

[litework]

EJ,


I'm talking about the first shot .

[EJ]

Gotcha--- Never occured to me--Brain freeze--:D

[happy old sailor]

i'm confused, maybe i'll just carry one of each.

my G17 which has never ever screwed up in near 15 years, and my K19 which has never ever screwed up in near 40 years.

both have been everywhere but duck hunting. i need an uzi for that.

[firestar]

If you keep a revovler clean and use factory ammo, it should never have a problem. It might have a dud primer every couple of thousand rounds but that is it. Autos can have a lot of different things go wrong that is not ammo related.

If it is for CCW, then I think a .38 snubbie makes sense for comfort.

What guns do I keep loaded? Beretta 92fs for home defense and Kel-Tec P-32 for carry. I have a bunch of pistols (about a dozen) but these are the two I like and trust.

[firestar]

Good revolver.

[firestar]

pic

[355sigfan]

If you keep a revovler clean and use factory ammo, it should never have a problem. It might have a dud primer every couple of thousand rounds but that is it. Autos can have a lot of different things go wrong that is not ammo related.

END

The same can be said for a quality auto keep it clean and feed it good ammo and it will run fine. Revolvers can have logs of things go wrong that are not ammo related. Take a colt trooper I recently bought it skips a chamber from time to time and needs to be retimed. Both designs have their lemons.
PAT

[TheMariner]

Auto... Grew up with them and I'll probably die with an empty one in my hand. I've worked with them for so long that the operation procedures become automatic themselves...

THat being said, revolvers have their place... normally with those whose understanding of firearms dictates the simplest delivery system possible... Like my mother. She's a good shot but she doesn't have time to devote to proper auto training. For two properly trained marksmen, the auto would be favored only due to its recoil compensation, easier reload, and higher ammo count per mag.

[scotjute]

Prefer the simplicity of revolvers.
In a self-defense situation, I can react automaticallly without haveing to stop and think.
Also prefer the cartridge/caliber selections available.

[JamisJockey]

I've never had a revolver jam!
:p

For light clothing days, I've got my Mod 85...for days with a touch more clothing, I've got my Security Six!
Eventually, I'll replace the Mod 85 with a .357 5shot 3" (Ruger sp).



normally with those whose understanding of firearms dictates the simplest delivery system possible...

I've got a high level of understanding and experience. For me, it came down to what would be best to have on or near my person 24/7. Dirty, tired, middle of the night and naked...i don't want to be clearing a jam, I want to be putting rounds downrange.

[BigG]

Boats, I don't think you are new to revolvers, but if you are make sure you check out enough examples to recognize when they are working properly. Once you have that confidence you will be able to choose wisely whether a revo or auto will fit your needs.

I like the S&Ws because I have not seen or had a lot of trouble with them and I can tell when they are working properly. I agree for 90% of folks, a revo will more than cover their needs. They do for me. Good luck.

[samualt]

I keep a Ruger Security Six .357 by my bedside. It is simple to operate and totally reliable. I figure it's best to have something simple if your just waking up because of a disturbance.

However:
Glock-17 with two 20 round mags and one 17 round mag is about $500.
A box of really cheap 9mm ammo is about $5.
Being able to rain lead on somebody who is threatening my life....priceless!

To heck with statistics. Sometimes more is better!

[Stevie-Ray]

Which do I carry. I now carry a Kimber Custom 1911. Preaty plain except it has night sights, wilson mags and wood grips. It works great for me and is easy to shoot. My second choice is the Glock series in just about any caliber. Just about what I carry; Ultra CDP and G26. My only blood-drawing injury came from an out of time revolver. Rapid fire with a revolver stands a better chance of a blown up gun with squib loads. (Possibly leading to disaster) They generally won't cycle the action of an auto. Score one for safety for the auto, which is unusual since the revolver is generally considered safer. Revolvers are great weapons, but they're just not for everybody.

I'll take autos also.

[jc2]

I will have to disagree with one posters comments about revolvers and nd's. More nd have been logged with police revolvers than have been logged with police auto's.
Real faulty logic here. The auto has been in general LE use for 15 to 20 years, and the DA revolver for 100 years. How about we compare the Washington DC PD's ADs with revolvers for the last two years they were in use and the ADs for Glocks the first two years they were in use?

[Gunhead]

IMO nothing beats the revolver in reliability and simplicity. The accuracy edge also goes to the revolver - a bone stock SW686 4-6", is definitely no worse at 25 meters than a fine tuned SIG P210.

For self-defense it boils down to rock solid reliability.

The only auto I trust nearly as much as a revolver is the P7... :rolleyes: But over the years even the P7 produced more "problems" (read: an occasional FTF every couple thousand rounds (bad ammo), broken firing pin bushing) than any revolver I ever shot.

[355sigfan]

Real faulty logic here. The auto has been in general LE use for 15 to 20 years, and the DA revolver for 100 years. How about we compare the Washington DC PD's ADs with revolvers for the last two years they were in use and the ADs for Glocks the first two years they were in use?
END

Point is that ND's happen with both designs. Its not the design its the idiot behind the gun that is responsible for an ND. Give a moron a revolver and a ND will happen. I just bought a Colt Trooper than has some reliability issue because it needs to be retimed. I have a sig 239 that I have put thousands of rounds though and I have yet to see a malfunction. It even fired 9mm ammo and its a 357 sig. Idiot friend loaded the gun and I started firing. Gun worked and cycled fine however. Smith revolvers have never given me a problem either.
PAT

[jc2]

"Point is that ND's happen with both designs," but that's not what you said PAT. You said, "I will have to disagree with one posters comments about revolvers and nd's. More nd [sic] have been logged with police revolvers than have been logged with police auto's [sic]."

It is also does not not address is more likely to cause problems in relatively untrained hands (and unpracticed hands--there's a difference). The Glock is a prime example of an automatic more prone (note: not "less safe") than a revolver--particularly with lack of training and practice. It fires like a revolver--just pull the trigger, but:

(1) the trigger stroke is much shorter (therefore less time to think);

(2) the trigger stroke is much lighter (therefore less conscious effort to fire it);

(3) there is no tactile or visual "feedback"--you can't see the hammer cock, the cylinder rotate or hear the action (no warning--just a little pressure on the trigger and boom);

(4) you can see whether a revolver is loaded--you can't see whether a Glock is loaded;

(5) you can unload a Glock (drop the magazine), and it can still fire;

(6) you don't have to pull the trigger to clean a revolver (see 4 and 5 above);

(7) you can shove a revolver in your waistband (just like on TV) and chances are you'll be OK--you can shove a Glock in your waistband and chances are you'll be singing soprano.

So, yes, you can AD a revolver, but you can AD a pistol a whole lot easier (and I do think the Washington DC PD proved that without a doubt). And yes, they are all "operator errors," but there are potential for a lot more "operator errors" with an automatic.

As to reliability, both are equally subject mechanical failures common to pieces of machinery. Some designs (e.g., S&W revolvers versus Colt revolvers) are more prone to mechanical failure than others. There's also QC and cost-cutting issues involved (e.g., Glocks' infamous slide rails). As a whole, the automatic is far more vulnerable to the far more common ammunition problems than a revolver (and generally a revolver will be quicker back into action again). The automatic's biggest weakness, however, is the magazine. The vast majority of the automatic's reliability problems are traced the magazine--a problem the revolver does not have. Didn't you just experience some serious magazine (and potentially fatal given your line of work) problems with your Glock 33?

[WebHobbit]

Revolver

Mostly for the peace of mind that I KNOW it will fire with each squeeze of the trigger.

However as a long-term wheel-man I must admit that revolvers DO jam. It's rare but it can happen AT THE RANGE.

I had a Colt Anaconda .45 Colt that had a very tight barrel-cylinder gap. It would start to bind after about 30 rounds or so due to crud build-up. It wasn't a big deal as I just cannot see needing to fire that many times with a hand-gun in a defensive situation. As for LEOs...I guess that many rounds COULD be required (doubtful). And if so the gap could be enlarged and/or cleaner ammo selected.

On the other hand I have a new S&W 686 that has a wide gap (-.008) and it starts to bind after about 60 rounds. And this was with FACTORY SJHP ammo. :scrutiny: It has been suggested that this is due to the heat generated by hot magnums. I'm not sure at this point.

So I suppose the question should come down to:

How many rounds are required BEFORE a cleaning?

If the answer is less than 30 than certainly a wheelgun can do the job and with GREAT reliability.

[jimbo]

I also used to think revolvers were 100% reliable. Then my Colt revolver binded up. The cylinder moves just out of play enough for the base of the cartridges to get jammed on the hand. It still cycles with an empty cylinder but is completely jammed when loaded. I would sure hate that to happen in a CCW weapon.

I would go with a highly reliable weapons such as Sig, Glock or Beretta and not sweat it. Most of my failures have been due to bad ammo or weak mag springs or dirty mags. With high-quality ammo and well-maintained mags, I have never had a problem.

[standingbear]

i like autos,they offer more capacity and sometimes faster followup shots.on the other hand,revolvers dont have mag springs to worry about,you can leave them indefinatly full of ammo,dont have to swap mags,rotate the ammo ect.you have 5 or 6 shots in a revolver depending on make and model.chances are for us homeowners,the first 2 shots are the ones that count as its doubtful a large group of badguys are going to forcably enter.6 will be enough.the other thing about revolvers,you can mix 38 special and 357 mag in the same cylinder,cant mix bullet lengths in an auto.you can use moon clips to quickly reload your revolvers.a sig as a primary gun and backup 3"snubby in 357.;)

[VaughnT]

Well, here's my take....and this is from personal observations over four years of working with a revolver on my hip.

1: The Smith 686 4" is probably the finest combat revolver ever designed. The only drawback to the serious user would be the fragile rear sight. Of all the thirty-plus revolvers in our weapons locker, the only visible damage is to the rear sight leaf and the rubber combat grips. All of the weapons are tested annually for function and they always pass, regardless of cleanliness.

2: The position of the grip on a revolver positions it at the highest point on the weapon as it sits in a holster. This means the path to the grip is not obscured beavertails/tangs. Whether your hand travels up to the grip or down to the grip, it is far faster to access than on 99% of the autos out there.

3: My personal weapon has seen very little cleaning in four years of use. At first, I was anal about cleaning it, but I got curious about how dirty it could get and still function. Right now it sits in my duty-belt holster covered in soot from several hundred rounds fired on Sunday. Dry-firing shows that everything is working as it should.

4: Accuracy is what you make of it. To say that you can't shoot a revolver for squat is to state simply that you haven't spent enough time behind the trigger of one. I can keep all of my rounds inside of a cardboard target (16"x16") when shooting rapid free-hand at 25yd. That's roughly the size of the average ribcage and isn't too bad. From a rest, my groups are tighter because a lot of me is taken out of the equation.

5: Trying to transition to a Colt 1991 for reasons of capacity and such has shown me recently that there really is a lot to the Revolver. Trying to snake my thumb around the beavertail to engage the thumbreak is slower...to say the least.

6: The various grips out there for a revolver can greatly change the feeling it gives to the shooter and, therefore, the way it shoots. Hogue wraparounds might be too big for the smaller shooters, but the same gun with cheap wood slabs might turn into a tackdriver. I've seen it happen countless times.

Make the most of it, folks. If you "can't shoot a wheelie for beans", get out there and spend more quality time with one. Look at it like a challenge. I dare ya!:neener:

[Edward429451]

Hmmm, good question. Revolvers do tend to be more accurate in my hands than autos...What helped me a lot with revolver shooting was laying a dime on top of the gun and dry firing double action trying to hold it still enough while cycing it to not let it fall off. Don't watch the dime, watch the sight. If you feel froggy, try stacking two or three dimes!

Alas, my favorite revolver is 53 ounces, and my auto is only 39 oz, and a lot flatter, and reloads faster, and clearing jams is possible in the field where a revolver would be out of commision...

My heart says revolver but my head says auto. Maybe just cause I live in the city though.

[Mike Irwin]

"How about we compare the Washington DC PD's ADs with revolvers for the last two years they were in use and the ADs for Glocks the first two years they were in use?"

Washington Post did just that about 5 or 6 years ago.

You don't want to know the results.

But it's not as cut and dried as you would think that it would be.

At the time the Glock was adopted, DC was under a court-mandated hiring program to get more officers on the streets.*

Because of that pressure, as well as financial pressure, training was, to put it mildly, cursory at best, potentially criminally lax, at worst.

Many of these recruits were handling guns really for the first time, and were starting out with a gun that is not at all forgiving to those who don't know how to handle firearms.

The light Glock trigger, poor oversight, even poorer training, and the number of NDs skyrocketed.

What is more telling, though, were that even officers with many years on the job were having NDs at rates much higer than normal.

Why?

Largely because of poor transitional training.

The situation is getting better, and the rate of NDs with the DC police is dropping.

*Those court-ordered hiring classes were among the dregs of DC "society." Many of the officers hired under the mandate later ended up being charged with crimes, ranging from drug offenses all the way to murder.

[Mike Irwin]

Anyone who knows me knows where I stand on this issue -- the same place I've stood for going on 30 years.

I'll pick a revolver for just about all occasions.

[litework]

You guys that are shooting the revolver more accurately than an auto...are you pulling the hammer back or shooting double action? I can't come close to the accuracy of my autos with a double action revolver in rapid fire drills, that's one of the reasons I got rid of my 608. I sold it to my uncle, and he has the office next to mine. Maybe I should buy that thing back!

jc2, I agree with some of your statements about the Glock. Check out the Springfield XD!

[Mike Irwin]

"You guys that are shooting the revolver more accurately than an auto...are you pulling the hammer back or shooting double action?"

There are some semi-autos I shoot more accurately than revolvers, and vice versa.

For revolver shooting, though, I shoot double action almost exclusively.

It takes a LOT of practice.

[Edward429451]

Single action with the wheelies is easier than DA, but to (I'm tryin and aint there yet) be the master of wheelguns means to master double action so yeah, it takes practice, and so thats the way I shoot my wheelguns, out to defensive distances at least which is most of it. Dryfire with snapcaps and a dime on the barrell out behind the front sight, it helped me alot. One shot at a time and just tiger that front sight to stay in place through the stroke. Don't try to be fast, just go for smoothness and the speed will come by itself.

[diyj98]

I've always had a slight fear of the magazine spring taking a set and resulting in a jam. But I know, I know, rotate your magazines. I just feel there's less to go wrong with a revolver.

[Correia]

I'm in the auto camp. Provided it is an auto with a good trigger pull. I'm not knocking revolvers, I have them and use them. I just shoot autos much better.

1. Trigger. I have just never been able to master a DA trigger. I know that with a lot of practice you can get really good, but I figure the same amount of practice on a SA will get me to Master class. :) I hate DA/SA the most though.

2. Revolvers jam too. Only from what I've seen shooting in various matches revolver jams usually mean something broke and you are screwed. Auto jams can usually be cleared on the spot. Unless of course something broke on it, so you are screwed. So neither one is perfect, but it just seems like revolver jams are a real pain to fix.

3. Slower reloads, unless you are a moon clip mac daddy.

4. More ammo. How can that be a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong, I love my S&W 1917. It makes me feel like Indiana Jones. :D

[..]

good info.:uhoh:

[1badmagnum]

If I do ever wind up in a gunfight against some bad guys,I sure dont want to be picking up brass on my way out,I chose a large magnum wheelgun.

[TheMariner]

For those who dislike SA/DA, why?

Also, jc2 you stated somethign about ulling the trigger to clean the GLock? PULL THE TRIGGER? How are you cleaning weapons? I've never in my life pulled the trigger on any weapon to clean it, be it a rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol or submachine gun.

You also pointed out that AD's can happen alot easier with autos, but as many revolver users have pointed out, it is much harder to become adjusted to teh DA trigger, requiring alot of training to be more accurate. Either weapon reuires training. A revolver is simpler to use, for the most part, but requires alot of practice for many people to get used to the feel of a DA trigger and fire teh weapon accurately. Auto's, especially in SA, are easier to fire accurately but require training in operation.

Many people say revovlers are better about duds and clearing jams. Just skip over the bad round. I don't know I like that idea since that bullet is still right there in teh gun. I've never seen a cookoff but I certainly wouldn't want that live round sitting anywhere near me. Maybe its just my unreasonable fear but I don't exactly feel comfortable with a punched round just sitting there. Feels too much like a ticking time bomb for my peace of mind. I like to just eject the round where it is less likely to cause me problems and retrieve it later.

[355sigfan]

For those who dislike SA/DA, why?
END

Because their harder to shoot well due to the trigger transition. Your first shot is either slower and takes greater concentration or its just as fast and off target.

To disassemble a glock first you need to make sure its unloaded then dry fire in in a safe direction. Then pull the slide back a quarter inch of so then pull it forward.

1badmagnum If your ever in a shootout you had better stick around and not try to leave the scene like a hitman. We will find you and instead of being cleared because it was a justifable homicide we will think your guilty of murder because you ran.
PAT

[Edward429451]

We will find you

We will find you

I know where 1badmagnum is coming from, cause I've thought the same thing. With the reception we could expect from the DA, even if it was justifiable, its a valid consideration right or wrong. Theres lots of good folks who got raked over the coals in seemingly justifiable situations just because of the gun issue and agenda thereof. DA's want a good track record and usually dont care who's life they squash to get it, right or wrong.

I know its not you LEO's fault, your probably a good man, but in this day & age while us citizens weigh the pros & cons of different situations, this 'shoot & scoot' scenario has validity as a reasonable option one could do in light of the political climate. It may keep one walking around where 'if he had did the right thing' one may not be.

No easy answers and nothing is carved in stone.

[jc2]

TheMariner-
Also, jc2 you stated somethign about ulling the trigger to clean the GLock? PULL THE TRIGGER? How are you cleaning weapons? I've never in my life pulled the trigger on any weapon to clean it, be it a rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol or submachine gun.
Then you've never cleaned a Glock. Technically, you don't pull the trigger to clean it, but you have to pull the trigger to field strip it in order to clean it. There have been many documented ADs (including fatalities) with Glocks directly attributable to that "feature."

Proper procedure, of course, is to drop the magazine (and leave it out), lock back the slide, visually and tactilely check the chamber, release the slide, and then pull the trigger. Unfortunately, due to fatigue, being in a hurry, poor training, or just a plain old neurological misfire (blonde moment), there are a lot of accidents while cleaning the Glock.
You also pointed out that AD's can happen alot easier with autos, but as many revolver users have pointed out, it is much harder to become adjusted to teh DA trigger, requiring alot of training to be more accurate.
True, but I was addressing mainly the relative safety of the systems. As to being "much harder to become adjusted to the DA trigger," I'd say that is slightly exagerated. It probably takes somewhat more practice to become and remain proficient with with a DA revolver but not a whole lot more than is required to remain proficient with any weapon. As for initial training (and practice to remain efficient), the DA/SA transition is probably harder to master than the constant DA trigger pull of a good revolver.

A couple of things to remember about accuracy is we are talking about a scenario where action is sudden and at close range--we are not talking about shooting out the ten-ring at 25 yards rather keeping them all on a paper plate a 15 yards. Most revolvers have the capability of being cocked for deliberate fire at longer distances--something many automatics (including the aforementioned Glock) lack. FWIW, a couple of relative accuracy facts to consider are: first, at least one study of law enforcement shootings showed the most accurate weapon in actual police shootings was the .357 revolver (the 1911 came in a close second)--kind of contrary to "popular wisdom." Secondly, even after the massive switch to automatics (and with much, much better training), the actual LE hit ratio (hits per rounds fired) has remained constant--in other words, the supposedly more accurate, easier to shoot automatic has not resulted in an increase in practical accuracy under combat conditions. The only real diffence since the large scale adoption of automatics has been a whole lot more unaccounted for rounds down range

[Bowlcut]

im utterly vain....
and welll auto's are just sexier :)

i dont know, i just like the feel of them. weight of major mass(the lead in the ammo) in my hand, not above my knuckles

[Yo]

I think just about the perfect self-defense gun would be a 627-8 SW 8-shot .357 with a 3" bbl and bobbed custom grip. Carries 8-rounds in a moon clip. With practice you can reload faster than some semis.

The Performance Center makes something similar in a 7-shot, but it's ported and I don't like that in a carry gun.

As to the weight of an N-frame. I think that's irrelevant if you're talking about a car gun that you might carry in a good revolver holster 3-4 hours a day. The second moon clip you just toss in a coat pocket.

16 rounds, better accuracy than virtually any semi-auto, and you don't leave any brass behind....

- - -

The only semi I've ever shot that I would trust 100% is my Sig 226. I want a hammer for restrike capability so glocks are out. Maaaaybe a CZ75 or a Makarov. I like my p7m8, but its too easy to drop the mag by accident.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I vote for semi-auto. I think the benefits of the auto outweigh the downsides compared with the wheelgun when it comes to using a handgun for self-defence.

- Greater ammunition capacity.

- Faster reloads, also requiring less fine motor skill to reload.

- Less flash, bang and smoke.

- Softer recoil; some absorbed in the slide.

- Spare loaded magazines occupy less space than revolver speedloaders, while also carrying more ammunition in this reduced space.

- Wider range of calibers available.

[P12]

It comes down to this;

If you don't have the TIME and income to discover what ammo and semi-auto combination will work for you then you need to own and carry a revolver.

If you do have the TIME and income to find the right combination of semi-auto and ammo and can trust it then your better off with a semi-auto due to more ammo and faster re-charge.

Case in point;

My wife doesn't enjoy shooting. When she gets her CHL she will qualify with a semi-auto but will carry a revolver.

Me I dig shooting and compete IDPA. I'm semi-auto period. I'm willing to work with models and ammo to find what works best.

[Will Fennell]

I chose the Autopistol......the reason why? Man has progressed......;)

[zorba]

I don't own a wheelgun, just semi auto's, which I trust implicitly. However, the wheelgun would have a slight edge due to the ability to just pull the trigger again if you have a FTF. Does that mean I am going to switch to a wheelgun, no. I guess you have to be comfortable with your choice.

[Harold Mayo]

Semi-auto.

For me, it used to be a question of what I liked more, even from an appearance standpoint. NOW that the years have passed and I'm older and marginally wiser, I still prefer the semi-auto mainly for one reason...more ammunition.

I've never really been a caliber snob, so it isn't about "stopping power".

I realize that most gunfights in which a civilian is involved are over very quickly and you don't generally have to reload even once.

I hope that I never have to fire any of my weapons in self-defense. I carry a handgun in case something happens. It is just like my various insurance policies. With that in mind, I have realized that, although I will most likely never get in a gunfight and, if I do, it will be over very quickly, it also might NOT be over quickly.

We're preparing for what is unlikely to happen, not what is likely to happen. I've simply taken that preparedness a little farther than to simply have a gun.

I would feel fine with a single 5-shot revolver without extra ammo but I feel BETTER with a 13+1 shot BHP and a couple of spare magazines, a Kahr K9, and a long gun in the vehicle.

[Maddock]

I’m firmly straddling the line on semi-auto vs. revolver. My all-the-time is a 442 in a strong side Kramer pocket holster. When I can carry more, it’s usually some form of 1911 in a Summer Special, moving the 442 to the offside front pocket. That said, I find that I take a lot less convincing to deem an individual revolver reliable enough for carry as opposed to a semi-auto.

At contact distance, the revolver is less likely to fail when pushed against an assailant, especially when it has an enclosed hammer like the 442.
Autos almost always hold more and reload faster (though moon clips are close on speed).
Single action autos are a bit easier to shoot accurately at speed than double action revolvers.
Revolvers are usually more mechanically accurate that semi-autos of equal cost.
Revolvers of equal quality are usually less expensive than semi-autos – especially when you factor in the used market.

I’ve seen or had numerous failures with both autos and revolvers. If you rule out ammo failures (almost all of the ammo failures have been with ammo I would never carry for personal defense - reloads and cheap import/surplus), most of the failures can be broken down into a few categories

1. Bad Magazines/Clips - Using inferior, out of spec or damaged magazines or moon clips. I’ve seen this more and done this more with 1911s than anything else with Glocks a close second.
2. Parts failure/lack of preventive maintenance - Often related to a lack of inspection and buying inferior, out of spec parts – usually to save money. I learned the hard way that cheap 1911 extractors are not worth fooling with.
3. Modifications - Fooling with the springs seems to be the best way to make a handgun fail. Replacing the mainspring with one of lighter weight to ease the trigger pull. Switching out the recoil spring to “ease recoil”. Fooling with the magazine springs to compensate for changing the recoil springs.

[Smoke]

Auto,

Para Ordnance P14.45 = 14 + 1 rnds.

Mags allow faster reloads. Modern, quality, autos are accurate and perform without trouble. Why limit yourself to six and a slow reload?

[Handy]

This debate has ranged all over, but most of the tangents are completely off track.


The only debatable difference between a revolver and an auto is their method of cycling ammunition. Either you think the revolver does it better, or you think the auto does just as well.


Both guns can be set up with the same triggers. Both guns can produce similar ballistics. Both guns can produce excellent accuracy. The auto, in general, holds more bullets and reloads quicker. It also has the option of a better trigger pull. All of those are bonuses that make the auto a better deal, if you feel the auto is as reliable as a revolver, or reliable enough.

In essense, a revolver man is willing to forego the advantages of the auto for the theoretical reliability of a revolver.


Arguing about NDs has nothing to do with this.

[jc2]

Handy -

I think you have oversimplified to the point of being silly. Of course, there are a whole lot more "debatable difference[s] between a revolver and an auto is their method of cycling ammunition." That's about like saying the only debatable difference between the 1911 and the Glock is the frame material. "Either you think the [steel] does it better, or you think the [plastic] does just as well." Right?

There are a ton of debatable differences between different automatics much less between revolversa and automatics. Which is better locking system: Browning, modified Browning, Walther (a la P38/P5/Beretta 92), rotating barrel, or how about just a plain old recoil operated. Which is stronger? Which is more reliable? Which results in a thinner more concealable weapon. What about DAO, like Glocks, versus SA like the Browning Hi-power, versus a TDA like many S&Ws?

Ammunition capacity advantage is at best debatable since there are revolvers that hold as many or more rounds than similar size automatics.

The revolver holds a definite advantage in fit--you can adjust a revolver grip to point naturally with any hand. With most automatics (particularly the polymers) you are stuck with what you get.

Manual of arms, and yes safety--even in terms of operator error--should be a consideration. Some weapons tend to be just naturally more prone to operator error (due to their more complex manual of arms) than others. All pistols have a more complex manual arms than a revolver. The more complex the task, the greater the chance for error.

When you get down to brass tacks, the only real advantage the automatic has over a revolver is speed of reloading (which can be overcome with training and practice). Of course, how important the individual user thinks speed of reloading will be in in his or her situation helps determine whether this a theoretical or practical advantage--and of course, a number of people don't bother to carry a spare magazine which sort of makes the point moot for them, doesn't it?

I've shot a whole lot of weapons in my life--both revolvers and automatics. I have experienced reliability/dpendability problems with each system--it is to be expected and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I certainly do not consider automatics unreliable, but overall, I have to give the reliability edge to the revovler. A reliability scenario:

You know you are going to be in a fight and will need a weapon if you are to have a chance tosurvive. Your do not have access own personnel weapon. You are offered two choices--a 1911 (slightly rusty) and seven rounds of 200-grain LSWC (quality unknown), or S&W 686+ and seven rounds of 158-grain LSWC (quality unknown). You have one minute to check out both weapons and make your choice.

Which do you choose and why (addressing primarily the revolver's "theoretical" advantage in reliability)?

In any case, the advantages of an automatic are just as theoretical as the advantages of revolver, and to a large measure, "advantage" depends on what the end user wants and expects from the weapon.

[tex_n_cal]

Easy - I can shoot a auto more accurately under rapid fire than I can a revolver. Be it a .45 with 8+1 or a 10mm with 9+1, I am confident I can solve any problem that's likely to find me.

That said, I also think one of my revos could make a bad guy really, really sorry he attacked me. They're all large frame guns, but still viable in some defensive situations.

Last year I found myself staying in a cheap motel (nothing else open) with people next door. I had a couple guns in the luggage, but decided to load the Ruger Bisley, since I could load it far more quietly than the 1911. I expect those .45 Colt Cowboy loads with flat pointed 250's would still get the job done.

[Handy]

JC2,

I disagree. The only "advantage" the best revolver (for a particular job) is going to have over the best auto (for the job) is going to be method of operation. Everything else overlaps.

Sure, we could compare a .480 Redhawk and a Glock 26, but that's stupid. When you make a general statement, it's got to have some universal application to make the general statement true. Here are some of the big issues:

Ballistics: both can do .22 Short through monster magnums.
Accuracy: both can be terrible, but the best accuracy from both is rifle-like, without sacrificing reliability
Weight: both go feather to boat anchor
Grip style: between various models, there is a comfortable grip for every hand (but with a revolver, you can change your mind)
Manual of arms: There are many auto designs that are as simple in operation as a DA revolver

Capacity: While you can make an auto that holds 2 rounds, you can't make a revolver that holds 20. For size vs. capacity, the auto will always have an advantage
Trigger: Revolvers have 2 options, autos every possible option. While a revolver MAY have one of the nicest triggers of it's type, auto trigger options also include very light target triggers that are available immediately out of the holster



In other words, for any particular job, there is an auto that can do all the same stuff as a particular revolver, with the exception of rotating the cartridges, which MIGHT be more reliable. But the auto has everything else covered, which is why you see autos in every handgunning endeavor, even ones favored by revolvers.

I'll give you credit for being to imagine the various circumstances and compare two ideal weapons on their merits, rather than rambling on with examples.

[Berg01]

The K.I.S.S. principle is one that I try to follow when it comes to handguns in general and CCW in particular. Having said that, It's hard to beat a good S&W J-Frame Model 442 with .38 Spl. +P GDHPs in a pocket holster.

[charleym3]

You can limp wrist a revolver all day long and never have a problem. You can take a .357Mag revolver and shoot everything from .38 short colt to cannon level .357 loads in the same cylinder. In a frantic moment you can lose a magazine, but you will never drop the cylinder in the snow or mud with out the rest of the gun. Ever drive off the the shooting range with the wrong magazines for the chosen auto loader of the day? I have. The Revolver requires only ammunition. Speed loaders are nice but not necessary. You can leave a revolver loaded from now til yet and not have to worry about the springs wearing out.
All that said, I still carry an autoloader. It's thinner, lighter, and has more rounds at the ready.
I would carry a wheel gun full time save for one thing. I shoot IDPA. I got tired of being the only real-gun oops, sorry, wheel-gun shooter. I still believe in carrying the same gun I compete with so that there is only 1 manual of arms. For me that is a lightly customized G17.

[jc2]

The last time I qualified, I dropped my fresh magazine in the sand at the range from about 2.5 - 3.0 feet above the ground (the first time I'd ever dropped a magazine). It didn't damage the magazine, but the sand evidently got in the witness holes and locked it up (the follower) so tight I had to disassemble to get it to work--fortunately I had a spare in the car. I did get to shoot that leg again--something I probably would not be allowed the luxury of doing in real life. Magazines (the ease of loading associated with magazines) may be the autos strongest point, but it also their weakest link.

[charleym3]

No doubt about it, the magazine is the Achille's heal of the autoloaded. If it works well the gun is happy... If not, there's nothing that will help.

[Dobe]

Just an opinion, but I believe that the DA revolver is more reliable than the auto. This is because of the mechanics of each. Assuming a stoppage with an auto, the recovery generally requires the off-hand to recover. I realize that there are jams and malfunctions with revolvers, and there are problems that would completely lock-up a DA. One of which, is the reload that wasn’t crimped heavily enough.

But still, the DA revolver requires manual operation to cycle. There lies its strength. Sometimes dirt, unburnt powder, etc. will slow an action down. Many times you can still “pull through” it. Even a dry action can be manipulated this way. This is not what I would recommend on the range, as it does the handgun no good. But, if life or death, I’m pull’n the trigger 'till it shoots or breaks. This type of malfunction will totally stop an auto until corrective actions are taken.

Make no mistake. I am an auto man, but I am also a realist. There is a trade off for everything. If I wanted more nearly total reliability, I would carry a single shot.

[Handy]

And what happens if you drop a revolver in the sand? Or get and in the mechanism because you dropped your speedloader in the sand?


Guess what, all guns work poorly with sand in them. It pays not to drop the gun, loading devices or ammo in sand.


Actually, dropping stuff you depend on in general: not so good.

So this wasn't much of a revolver vs. auto question at all, was it?

[Dobe]

Handy,

I'm still trying to work out what you meant. Get back to me on that one, alright?

[Mastrogiacomo]

Pistols all the way:

Less recoil
Easy to conceal
Easy to use
They hold more bullets
Reliable
More accurate
Not as loud -- revolvers are as loud as Hell
Cheaper ammo for longer range time
Prettier -- at least my Berettas are
No jams or malfunctions
Easier trigger pull without custom work
More comfortable to carry
Shoots more accurately at a distance
Price
Easy on the hands
Faster to reload...etc. etc. :D

[jc2]

Handy -
So this wasn't much of a revolver vs. auto question at all, was it?
Actually, it was very much a revolver vs. auto issue. What was dropped was the magazine--not the weapon. It's kind of hard to drop revolver magazine. The magazine failed--not the weaon. Sure you could "what if" this death, but the point remains is the magazine is the automatics's greatest weakness as well as its greatest strength.

Sure, it's not a good idea to drop anything, but it happens--you've heard of Murphy, haven't you. Believe me, if I'm ever in a situation where I have to reload with someone shooting at me ol' Murphy's working overtime. Sure, "actually, dropping stuff you depend on in general is not so good," but then, can you guarantee it will never happen?

BTW, I proposed a scenario for you a few posts back you sort of ducked. My question remains: Which do you choose and why (addressing primarily the revolver's "theoretical" advantage in reliability)?

[Handy]

Dobe,

My comment was mainly directed at Jc2.

Jc2,

I don't understand where you are coming from. There is nothing fundamentally "droppable" about a magazine. Many autos won't even drop the mag fully when the release is actuated (and it must be actuated).

Considering the hand switching technique used to reload DA revolvers, you are just as, or more likely to drop your revolver as you are to drop your magazine. And in either case, sand will bind up the dropped device. How is that different?

If anything, you make a case for the auto. Few carry multiple revolvers, but there might be a spare mag or two.



Add this to the list of topics that are identical between revolvers and autos: neither tolerate sand.

[Charles S]

All broad arguments aside.

For me it is simply:

I am faster to the first shot from a concealed holster with my auto than with my revolver - 1.22 to 1.45 sec.

My split times are faster with the auto than my revolver with the same level of accuracy - 0.55 to .85 sec.

My reloads are faster .98 sec to 3.1 sec auto to revolver.

The auto is more slim and easier to conceal.

The guns have the same failure rate. 3 failures in 4800 rounds auto and 2 failures in 3000 rounds with the revolver. All failures are ammo related (failure of the primer to fire in more than one gun).

This is just my personal experience.

I really like revolvers and would be happy to go back to a revolver as my primary carry gun. I just have found a great auto that fits me well, is accurate and I really like to shoot it and carry it.

Charles

[355sigfan]

Guess what, all guns work poorly with sand in them. It pays not to drop the gun, loading devices or ammo in sand.


Actually, dropping stuff you depend on in general: not so good.

So this wasn't much of a revolver vs. auto question at all, was it?

END

I agree in this area. I live in a very sandy and cold area and all guns will fail here depending on maintnence. I even had my AK fail to feed here because of the sand. Its true you should avoid dropping your weapon. Using dry lube or minimal lubercation can keep your guns running better in the sand however. I would say revolvers are more tolerant of sand at first. But once the sand gets in the revolvers action its hard to get it out.
PAT

[Penforhire]

I'd like to see more people chime in with failure rate numbers as seen a few posts above. That is the only nagging doubt that gnaws at my auto confidence.

I've get malfunctions somewhere between 1-in-500 and 1-in-1,000 rounds in my P99 (mostly 124 gr bullets). Most recent was a stovepipe by my girlfriend, who might have limp-wristed. I fully admit these were ALL with various cheap loads (Olympic, Wolf, Lawman, std. Federal, etc) never with a Hydrashock / Cor-Bon / etc. load. I have not fired enough of these "good" rounds to know they work better with any certainty (0% failure in a few hundred rounds of good stuff means litttle to me).

Those of you with confidence, inspire us with your statistics.

[355sigfan]

I fully admit as an auto fan that revolvers are not ammo dependant for reliability. In that sence they are more versatile if you want to beable to shoot paper with light loads and small game, use medium power loads for defence and full house loads for hunting.

For pure self defence against people this versatility is not as much of an issue. Because you should be practicing with loads simular in power to your carry loads. Your should also carry quality ammo. Don't judge your carry gun by its reliability with crap ammo. Judge it by its reliability with good ammo. Realy crappy ammo without a good crimp could stop a revolver cold too. But it does not prove much other than the ammo was crap.
PAT

[Handy]

Penforhire,

Several pages ago I opinioned that it can't be an about ALL autos, just the ones that work well.

I have two HK's that have never even pretended to jam. Never cycled funny, never threw the brass in any direction but one. I don't know what it would take to jam them.

That's a reliable auto. That doesn't mean that all autos, or even most, would work like that. But my experience with those two leads me to believe that an auto CAN be just as trustworthy as a revolver.

[Gerald McDonald]

The one you train with. Doesnt matter whether its a wheel gun or auto.