Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

It's difficult to put the full context of this question into the title line. But assuming that size was not an issue, so you could carry any full size revolver you choose, would such a weapon really offer all the advantages of a high capacity semi-automatic pistol.

Six or seven shots of double action .357 Magnum have no place going up against 15 rounds of rapid fire single action .40S&W, or do they?

While I would agree that guns like the S&W 642 are great CCW pieces because of their small size and high reliability with a capable round, the real question is why would I want a Model 19 instead of a Glock 23. Would I not be starting off with a huge disadvantage.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic?

Seeing as how in most self defense scenarios, only 2 to 3 shots are fired, I don't think it would put you at much of a loss.

Personal preferences aside, the manual of arms is easier to learn for a revolver than a semi-auto. There are a lot of individuals who want a handgun for defensive purposes, but who are not recreational shooters who practice a lot. So to kick off the discussion, I'll offer that for such individuals, a revolver is a better platform.

Looking forward to seeing what others add.

Revolvers are STILL viable as a defensive weapon. Some folks are not comfortable with an auto-loader, so a revolver makes sense for them.

Now, in "Foggy's Chicken Coop", my bedside table companion is a Springfield 'GI-45' 1911. There have been times, though, that my B.T.C. firearm was a Ruger Blackhawk..a SINGLE-ACTION revolver :what: :eek:

At a car stop in Salinas, CA in 1995 three officers fired a total of 27 rounds in less than five seconds into a suspects vehicle after he brandished a gun during a car stop. The suspect dove back into the front seat of his vehicle and suffered only one wound to a hand he was holding up in an attempt to give up. While it is good to have overwhelming firepower in any scenario.....it helps in theory to be able to hit what one aims at.

I am plenty happy with a 5 shot .38. I have autos, too. Any self defense scenario I might have to shoot, it ain't going to take 15 shots. One, maybe two. I'm not a cop, just a civilian.

Six or seven shots of double action .357 Magnum have no place going up against 15 rounds of rapid fire single action .40S&W, or do

First of all, you have to remove all preconceptions of military style firefights. For a civilian, the handgun should always be a purely defensive weapon. There is no need for suppressive firepower. The primary requirements are:

1--Speed and ease of presentation
2--Speed and ease of target acquisition
3--Destructive or "stopping" power of round
4--Ease of concealment
5--Personal preference

The number of rounds is not a realistic factor in nearly all self defense encounters. But it really comes down to No. 5. I find I can present and aim wheelguns much faster than nearly any semi. And the semis I am good with don't conceal well given my clothes-changing, largely beltless lifestyle. I wear three different sets of clothes every day, most of which have no practical allowance for a duty belt. The pocket carry is best, and the Colt DS is the best pocket handgun ever made.

More rounds thrown downrange don't mean a thing if they are fired spray and pray.

the manual of arms is easier to learn for a revolver than a semi-auto.
With one important exception, the combat reload. It is magazine capacity and the ease of rapid reloading under pressure that gives the edge to the automatic for service use.

Now for personal self-defense use, a revolver may be perfectly satisfactory -- but remember, the primary cause of stoppages in actual engagements is running out of ammo.

Yes.

Cosmoline made great points to which I will add.

Center fire revolvers allow one a lot of quality dry fire practice. The more one is one with the gun, they better they will be with that gun in a stressful situation.

Revolvers in close areas are less prone to malfunction , such as a snub nose while lying in bed, or in the confines of a vehicle where bed, linens, steering wheels, car seats ...etc., might impede the cycling of a slide.

.38spl and .44 spl are low pressure rounds, and in closed environments, muzzle flash and noise is less.

Defensive scenarios, where a law abiding person has been known to defend themselves.

Manual of Arms is simpler and easier to learn. This is especially good for home and office guns. Where one is wise to have guns where anyone in the family can use.

Problem 2 . The worst happens and while jurisdictions vary, that firearm is going to be evidence.
The picture on the outside of that folder with one's name is going to be seen by everyone dealing with the event.
The gun(s) themselves will be inside the folder as well.
The brain remembers and associates.

Jury of one's peers does not mean 12 persons that are exactly like the one on trial.

The revolver is more apt to be associated with grandma, grandpa, dad, uncle, aunt, or even Mayberry RFD.

In fear of life...
What a prudent person would do...
Beyond an reasonable doubt...

The ability to dry fire, even shoot plastic training bullets, that are primer only, to instruct the youngest person, the physically limited, or elderly in a home or business setting. To allow one to shoot indoors with these plastic bullets in a barn or warehouse following safe rules...

Revolvers are not antiquated, in fact the more time goes on, the more one finds out how advanced they really are.

With one important exception, the combat reload. It is magazine capacity and the ease of rapid reloading under pressure that gives the edge to the automatic for service use.Agreed. My point was the manual of arms was easier to learn -- not faster to execute. The combat reload is something that needs to be practiced to achieve proficiency, and only those willing to practice a lot can do so.

If firing from concealment, I'd choose a revolver with no hammer. Semi-autos need to be free and clear to avoid snagging clothing. (Mine got fouled with a cord on an IDPA stage -- which is a far better place to learn that some other places.) But with that lesson behind me, I still carry a semi-auto.

My preference for semi-auto (9mm M&Pc)mainly relates to easier trigger pull...because it's harder for me (at my present level of experience) to keep the sight picture with a revolver. Under pressure, I'm more confident of shot placement with the 9mm. For target practice, cock-aim-fire-repeat with my model 64 would prevail.

As to manual of arms, well let's just say in a tough situation, I'd rather hand my wife a loaded M&P for defense that a loaded revolver with the heavy trigger and fewer shots.

Regarding the above comment on Colt DS, here's another opinion. According to Dave Anderson (American Handgunner) "For pocket carry I prefer the Airweight S&W J-frames, notably the 442/642 Centennials. The Colt DS revolvers are a bit heavy for pocket carry, and even my light alloy-framed Colt Cobra with hammer shroud is a bit bulky. In size and handling the DS falls between the S&W J- and K-frame snubbies."
The DS is comparable to SP101 for pocket carry -- both are a bit much.

With one important exception, the combat reload. It is magazine capacity and the ease of rapid reloading under pressure that gives the edge to the automatic for service use.

With a revolver that uses moonclips the combat reload advantage of the semi diminishes considerably.

I'd say you should use what ever you are proficient with.

I'd also say that few things are faster to reload (with practice) than a .45 ACP revolver and full moon clips.

When the bad guys bottom feeder stovepipes after the first round I'll be able to keep going with the seven .357's in my wheelie.

Six or seven shots of double action .357 Magnum have no place going up against 15 rounds of rapid fire single action .40S&W, or do they?

The first couple rounds fired are a lot more important than how many rounds are in the gun.

If you can't quickly put the first couple shots in the center of the target then it doesn't matter how many shots you have left.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic?
Just how fast and accurate is that guy with the revolver and how fast and accurate are you with your 15 rounds?

Consider this.
I'm a slow 70 year old fart, so how much good are your extra 9 rounds going to do you if you couldn't make the first several shots effective against a young fast shooter?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/5yardsrapidfire.jpg

Having a large magazine capaciity is great but quickly, accurately putting the first rounds on target is the most important thing, no matter what gun you are shooting.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/Kimberironsights.jpg

The DS is comparable to SP101 for pocket carry -- both are a bit much.

It comes down to preference, but I've used both extensively, along with J frames. The DS, at 21 oz, is just about the perfect weight for .38 specials and .38 +p FBI loads. Much lighter than that and you have too much muzzle flip and delay between shots.

The SP 101 weighs upwards of 26 oz and is not as trim in profile, though it only holds five rounds.

The J frames are good, but even there I prefer the steel frame versions that weigh about 19 to 20 oz over the airweight.

A steel K frame, in contrast, is over 30 oz.

The first couple rounds fired are a lot more important than how many rounds are in the gun.

Dang it, they never hold still for my first 2 shots!

If you can hit what you're shooting at due to regular practice, a revolver gives up nothing but capacity to a semiauto. Even then, unless you're facing multiple attackers (as in 3+), I wouldn't be terribly concerned about running out of ammo and needing to reload.

I wouldn't pick my 642 as my "go to" gun in an emergency, but sometimes that's just what will go with me when I'm out and about. If I needed a revolver at home, my 327 would be more than capable, but I'm just better with my 1911s. Both hold about the same amount of ammo (8 in the 327, 8+1 in the 1911s), and both are VERY accurate. If it takes more rounds than that, some serious crap has started going down at my place, and I'd probably better have some New York reloads right with me.

I am not a big fan of the " Hurtyourhandieum " line of super lightweight j frames due to recoil control issues with full power loads . With that being said on a personal level i would prefer almost any revolver to almost any glock . The glocks are fine firearms but simply do not work well for me and i refuse to try and retrain myself just to shoot one ( i mention glock not to bash the gun just to point out that not all autos are created equal for all shooters and glock is one that does not work for me ) . I cut my teeth so to speak on double action revolvers as a duty weapon tho and get along fine with them . Until double stack autos, and budgetary cuts for firearms training became prevailant spray and pray gunfights were uncommon at least on the LE side . The auto does offer advantages on reload time should a reload be necessary and on some action types a better trigger pull .
My carry gun(s) are either Kahr single stacks , P7 HK , or 1911 , Note that they are all single stack autos . This is because to me the utility of a slim pistol far outweighs any possible use for a half a box of ammo in the grip .

Think of the concept of Diminishing Marginal Utility from economics. Each available round matters less than the previous one, since, if you miss the target, you may not get the chance to use it, and if you hit the target, you won't need to use it.

Assuming that you can hit your target fairly well, and that you aren't battling many assailants,

Shot #1 matters MOST.
Shot #2 matters A LOT.
Shot #3 matters SOME.
Shot #4 matters A LITTLE, since you probably won't use it.
Shot #5 matters very little, since you almost certainly won't use it.
Shot #6 probably doesn't matter much. If you haven't stopped the guy by now, you've probably taken multiple hits, yourself.

Consider, also, that the first shot or two are most likely to be shot accurately, and that accuracy diminishes as you start firing repeatedly under stress. Even when you shoot beer cans, you know that pausing and taking a breath between shots results in far more hits! However, when you are being attacked, and you miss 2 or 3 times, do you really think you will be more calm and collected than when you took the first shot?

Now, assume that you might not hit your target. Shift everything down one:

1. MOST
2. MOST
3. A LOT
4. SOME
5. A LITTLE
6. VERY LITTLE
7. NOT MUCH

Now, consider the psychological factor.

If you know you have 15+ rounds, you might get sloppy. And sloppy shots are missed shots. This buys time for the bad guy to shoot you, stab you, or do whatever horrible thing he was doing that prompted you to shoot him in the first place.

Revolver shooters might be a bit more deliberate, since there's no illusion of a bottomless supply of ammunition. Or not. But if a shooter is deliberate, most likely he/she will hit the target, especially a large target at close range.

And any hunter knows that, if you miss the first few shots, your odds of connecting with the next ones become miniscule.

Now does all this mean that, if I were being attacked by three armed gangbangers intent on killing me, that I'd want to be armed only with the household Airweight? No. I'd want a group of people, all armed with semiauto carbines. However, a revolver is still a practical defensive weapon, even if it's not the only defensive weapon you might ever want.

Six or seven shots of double action .357 Magnum have no place going up against 15 rounds of rapid fire single action .40S&W, or do they?


If you are of the spray and pray school 15 shots may not be enough. I don't feel undergunned when I carry a revolver. If you hit the BG with your first round in the right place his 15 rounds or 100 rds won't matter.

ArmedBear That sir is a brilliant summation, in fact i plan to coopt it ( with attrib ) for later use on other forums .

if a shooter is deliberate, most likely he/she will hit the target, especially a large target at close range.
That's a big if. My experience is, expect a 90% degradation in performance in actual combat (and I know guys who think I'm an optimist.)

The revolver served very well in that capacity for over 100 years. I do not see that the wondernine or it's kin has changed much, other than the number of misses exchanged.
One in the ten ring beats 17 in the ceiling, no matter where the one came from.
Any of the real aces like Leatham or Munden is going to punch your ticket, no matter what you are carrying. If you are semi good, you ought to be able to punch some sideways gun pointing punk's ticket. With whatever you are carrying.
I am with ArmedBear.

My experience is, expect a 90% degradation in performance in actual combat

Yes, but if you think about it...

Say, of the first 3 rounds, you can put at least one of them in a one-inch circle at 5 yards, when not under stress. See the target above; this is not unrealistic. 90% degradation would be what, a 10 inch circle under stress? Still a hit if you aim at center-mass. (At least some one-shot-kill defensive shootings suggest a bit less than 90% degradation in group size.)

Assuming that the rest of the rounds will be less accurate than the first few when not under stress, they'll be even less accurate when you are under stress. Hence the hunter's experience that, if you miss the first couple shots, you'll probably just be wasting rounds after that.

So, if your performance really does degrade 90% or more, firing endless rounds still doesn't help your odds, because they're subject to the same degradation.

What about a revolver with a loaded speed loader or two as a nightstand weapon? Around here, we'd rather not have a loaded weapon in the house, but a semi-auto with a loaded clip or a wheel gun with a speed loader or two might be comforting.

I have a 1963 era Ruger Super Single Six with both cylinders available, but since I have developed ulnar drift in both hands--a result of rheumatoid arthritis--I am not up to snuff when speed and dexterity count. And while a gate-loading single action .22 might be fine as a trail gun, I don't think fumbling in the dark with it and its ammo is the answer.

Therefore, I'm looking for a lightly-used service piece of the .32-.38 families such as the S&W Combat Masterpiece or something in the 3-4-inch barrel category that could also serve as a car gun or suitable as a CCW. Any ideas or suggestions will be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.

Speed loaders take some dexterity to use effectively. I'd make sure you can use them before you buy something like that; I'm not sure what loss of dexterity you have, specifically.

Now there are some (expensive) autoloaders designed for competition with magazine wells that will load quickly if you get within an inch of the right spot. Might be worth it, depending.

Of course, it didn't seem to me that Western MT was overwhelmed by urban street criminals, the one time I was there.:)

Armedbear, use to be strictly a revolver guy, nypd model 10 for 20 yrs even when everyone else was switching over to Glocks. I strongly avoided switching. Worked on patrol in Harlem and upper Manhattan and drew my Smith many times. Now I am working in another place and Glock 40's are the Dept's choice. In my personal opinion, there is still a place, and I love revolvers. But for SD there is nothing like having 15 rounds loaded and 30 more ready to drop in on a split second. More rounds simply better the odds even when shooting degrades. I don't hunt so can't debate you there, but 10 to 15 rounds thrown at a perp give way better chance of either their retreat, their apprehension, or taking control of them. It also strongly stops them from advancing on you while you reload a six shot from a speedloader, or strip, or worse, loose in pocket. There are still times (though far and few between now) when I carry my 340PD, but not comfortable with all the drawbacks of it. I do have a model 27 that does nightstand duty, which in a home defense situation, I fel is the right weapon.

Well, here's an article I wrote on the subject. http://www.corneredcat.com/FirstGun/anotherview.aspx

To sum up the pros and cons (as they'd relate to someone new to shooting and CCW, anyway):

*Revolvers have a much wider choice of aftermarket grips available; you can get a grip any size, any shape, any angle.
*With the right grips, a revolver can "point" naturally for just about anyone.
*A revolver is more tolerant of poor maintenance (lack of lubrication, etc.).
*Easier to use for someone who lacks arm strength.
*Much easier to load using loose rounds.

However, the caveats:
*A revolver's DA trigger will always be heavier than an SA or precock DAO auto's trigger.
*Fewer shots.
*Larger size for a given power and capacity, if you use factory ammo (.357 from short barrel usually = .40 S&W from short barrel, with factory stuff).
*More complicated to reload.
*Slightly more felt recoil.

Main advantage, I'd say, is the grips. There's only so much you can do with an auto, but the sky's the limit with a revo.

when ever anyone asks me if 6 rounds are too few, I just tell them that if thats what they are worried about then they should invest in something bigger than a handgun or change their address.

A revolver's DA trigger will always be heavier than an SA or precock DAO auto's trigger.


Weight isn't everything. The followup SA shots from the semis I've shot have had horrible, grainy triggers compared with a wheelgun's. A tuned Smith or Colt will have a DA trigger pull like liquid velvet and can fire faster than a semi can cycle. Indeed the superior triggers are one of the main reasons I favor revolvers, and one reason they're so fast to fire. Only a 1911 or similar SA C&L semi can really compete with them in the trigger department.

Hell, Florida, sounds like you're talking about combat more than defense.:D

I never wanted to suggest that a cop in Harlem might not want lots of rounds. I was thinking, at least in part, of a use like you'd envision for your 27, and that a revolver is still viable.

Good to know you're still in one piece (and in a more comfortable place).

I say the revolver makes a fine defensive weapon; the one thing that counts is accuracy whether it be revolvers, autos, rifles- and different firearms work better for different individuals-

Weight isn't everything. The followup SA shots from the semis I've shot have had horrible, grainy triggers compared with a wheelgun's. A tuned Smith or Colt will have a DA trigger pull like liquid velvet and can fire faster than a semi can cycle.

Weight does make a difference for those with hand strength issues, though. I myself, had horrible problems with tendinitis a few years ago, which are now resolved. There were days when I physically could not pull an 8-10 pound trigger.

For someone with severe arthritis, carpal tunnel, or tendinitis, using an SA or precocked DAO auto, and having someone else load the mags and rock the slide, may be the only realistic choice.

These are superb responses. The quality of these arguments are what makes this site what it is.

Thanks guys.

Yes

:cool:

Revolvers make very practical defensive weapons. For many they will prove to be a superior choice to a semiauto.

But it's still really nice to see RyanM's article at CorneredCat - while revolvers are great for any number of reasons I've not found them to be more reliable or simpler than semiautos - for precisely the reasons noted in the article. Good work.

With one important exception, the combat reload. It is magazine capacity and the ease of rapid reloading under pressure that gives the edge to the automatic for service use.

Proficieny is the key, as a semi auto reload can be botched pretty easily too. I am embarrassed to admit that I tried sticking a magazine in my 1911 ... backwards :o . And I was relaxed and calm too. I am actually more proficient reloading my 686 with speedloaders than my 1911, so I can reload a bit faster with my 686.

Plus I can shoot it better too.

Now for personal self-defense use, a revolver may be perfectly satisfactory -- but remember, the primary cause of stoppages in actual engagements is running out of ammo.

That may be true, but I lean more towards the other primary failure I hear about: running out of time.

Weight isn't everything. The followup SA shots from the semis I've shot have had horrible, grainy triggers compared with a wheelgun's. A tuned Smith or Colt will have a DA trigger pull like liquid velvet and can fire faster than a semi can cycle. Indeed the superior triggers are one of the main reasons I favor revolvers, and one reason they're so fast to fire. Only a 1911 or similar SA C&L semi can really compete with them in the trigger department.

Well said, though I do acknowledge RyanM's point as well. To me, a super slick revolver trigger at 8 to 10 lbs DA will feel lighter than a 1911 with a gritty 6 lb pull. Of all the autos I've shot, only the 1911 comes close to a nice DA wheelgun in my book. Now, I admit that my S&Ws all have stock DA triggers (no tuning or polishing), so I'd rate the quality of their DA pulls as "acceptable" to "decent", though I'd like for them to be made "Superb" by a reputable smith one day.

Back to the OP's question. I choose to carry a revolver, a S&W 642 (most of the time) simply because I shoot revolvers better. I do carry a 1911 occaisionally as it is a larger, easier to shoot platform. Though I have outshot the 1911 with 642 once or twice, which is why I've added an intermediate sized revolver to my wish list for IWB duty.

Shot placement trumps capacity for a citizen like me, IMO. If you shoot an auto better and are more confortable with it, by all means, pack one! More rounds are nice, but choosing capacity for the sake of capacity alone is a mistake.

I like the .45 ACP - I have:
a S&W 1911 5" Bbl.
& S&W 625 5" Bbl.

EIther one with an extra mag or some full moon clips with
230 gr. Speer Gold DOt JHPs are my HD/SD load of choice

& yah know I practice with both, and some days
I shoot the 1911 best, other days the 625

I also have a Model 60 J-frame .357 Mag 3" Bbl.
but the HD/SD load is .38 Spcl +P Speer GD JHP

The 686P even with the .38 Spcl +P I just shoot the
60 better, as well as the 7 shot cyl. one or two of the
empties always hang up on extraction on the thumb release.
so I just use it at the range, keep trying but it's fourth
on my list of SHTF

.

The simplicity of operation make a revolver an excellent choice for self preservation. As is obvious, the only significant difference is capacity.

Most of us have not fired at a human being. Thank God for that. Unfortunately I have. The most I ever fired was 4 shots.

Personally I believe that I am equally well armed with one of my beloved revolvers or one of my effective striker fired pistols.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic?
It all depends on circumstances and what you're comfortable with.

It also depends on what you're defending yourself from. And where you are when you are defending yourself.

Many people simply prefer revolvers. Revolvers are a bit more reliable and generally a bit more powerful. No autoloader round has ever quite equalled the .357 mag 125-gr JHP for pure efficiency in putting down a determined human foe. And if you encounter a bad primer, a new round is much faster and easier to get into battery. If someone is ensconced, a revolver is a very good, efficient tool. And in the wilderness, a well-chosen revolver packs enough punch to put down an angry bear or cougar.

Many people simply prefer autoloaders. Autoloaders hold more rounds and they spit them out much more rapidly than most people can empty a revolver. Reloading also is far easier. Multiple targets are easier to engage than with a revolver in most cases.

Wherever you go, using an autoloader will spew out brass all over the place. Sometimes that may not be what you want. People can collect your brass and make your life miserable, or be interpreted ambiguously by forensics "experts" to work against you. It may be a shocking thought, but there have been one or two unscrupulous prosecutors every now and then who have made the lives of innocent civilians miserable. Again, brass is not discreet, nor does it behave in a constant manner when ejected from firearms.

Me, I prefer revolvers for the most part. But if I were a cop and going out and looking for trouble, I'd take an autoloader any day.

.

As I write this I'm sitting at a cheap Mexican feed place in Tucson AZ. (Laptop and cellular modem card combo rocks :).)

In the fanny pack on my waist (decorated with peace sign patches with a head shop - think "Camo For Democrats") is a Ruger New Vaquero 357 :). First two rounds are good 38+Ps, next four are Doubletap 800ft/lbs full-house Gold Dot 125gr 357s.

Why?

This gun fits my hand like nothing else. That's because the hammer has been swapped and stock grips shaved by me, for my hands.

Sights are also improved with a dovetailed front, rear sight channel hogged out to match.

This gun can do 2" groups at 25 yards. It also "points naturally" for me like nothing else.

First shot speed just rocks...and it's an *accurate* first shot.

As to the ammo: if those first two subsonics haven't solved the problem, the gun dials itself up to "extra crispy" and cuts loose some serious power. If I'm real lucky and firing from cover, goblins may think a second shooter has joined the party on my side, as I guarantee the sound profile will be "different". Read that as "who the %$#^% set off a howitzer!?"

I don't guarantee y'all I'll win a gunfight. But I do promise a goblin will know they've tangled with something nasty :).

The late Dave Arnold, gun writer, former world class shooter, and Police Officer in Rhodesia, wrote that he kept a S&W .357 in his night stand. Considering he had access to darn near every firearm made, that is a pretty good endorsement.

Jim, Practicing with my friends New Vaquero and snap caps two days ago has reminded me that a single action is no slouch for self defense. When drawing and firing I found having to cock the hammer added zero time to the first shot.

On another note when I did own a Glock 23 I rarely loaded to full capicity. In fact for HD it regularly only held 5 rounds to save the springs with anther 5 rd clip nearby. Say what you will, but I felt that there was very little that I couldn't tackle with that.

As to the ammo: if those first two subsonics haven't solved the problem, the gun dials itself up to "extra crispy" and cuts loose some serious power. If I'm real lucky and firing from cover, goblins may think a second shooter has joined the party on my side, as I guarantee the sound profile will be "different". Read that as "who the %$#^% set off a howitzer!?"

Man I love "extra crispy"!

Back at the thread...

I shoot a full size 1911 better than anything else, hands down, and carried one for years. In fact, up until a year-and-a-half ago I was a semi-auto only kind of guy. What do I carry now? A Ruger SP101 .357 Magnum or a J-frame size .38 special. Why? I have fibromyalgia and arthritis, and packing a full-size anymore just plain hurts. Size and comfort matter to me. Why not carry a lightweight semi-auto? I can't trust my hands to efficiently clear a jam, and I don't want to worry about it.

Give me a for-sure wheelie any day...and of course, a Mossberg 500 12 gauge behind the seat. ;)

rd

IMO unless you make a habit of picking fights with motorcycle gangs, revolvers have handled and will handle every self defense situation. Talk to just about any retired police officer who carried a .357 revolver on duty. In most cases if they had to use it, it was a two hit fight. The bullet hit the bad guy and the bad guy hit the ground. Highway patrolman will tell stories about shooting armed bank robbers out on the road from 75, 90, 100 yards away, and hitting them with the first shot. Those were the days when the qualification course was the National Police Course, 60 rounds, and 24 of those 60 rounds were shot at 50 yards. Most officers were better shots back then I think, and gunfights involving 49-50 rounds were unheard of.

Nothing wrong with a wheelgun. As mentioned, the .357 with 125 grain JHPs is still considered the Sword Excalibur of handguns.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Revolvers for defense? Yeah, they're ok ;)

Anyone who disagree would probably change their mind if they were on the business end of 8 rounds of 125 gr JHP's.

If you can hit what you need to nothing else really matters. Vital organs and the CNS don't care whether the bullet was expelled out of an autoloader or revolver.

In the SD/HD situation I practice at the range weekly, I am a better shot with my five-round 637 Airweight than with my seven-round 686+. And I am a better shot with my 686+ than with my 14-shot Browning Hi Power.

Is there a moral here? Oh yeah: the more rounds you have the sloppier you get with them. Which is why I load just five rounds in any of them when I practice.
Cordially, Jack

First let me say, I hope no one has to prove any theory or belief on this thread and we all stay safe. I was actually a Sgt in nyc and after 9/11 was thrown a bone and became a Training Sgt due to response at 911. Anyway, my duties now included matching the registered guns of cops in my command to what our teletype had on record. The vast majority had an model 10 or 64 and centennial or bodyguard. When we switched to Glocks, I didnt because I loved my Smith, many cops now had 3 guns due to the fact in NYC there were so many retires at once gunshops would only pay $25 for a model 10and we just threw them in our lockers. However at the time there were some cops with 10, 20, or more guns. I personally thought there was something not correct there about these Officers, but I am of the school, "to each their own". When I retired I left all 3 of my guns in my locker and never went back. They are probably still there 3 yrs later. Never thought I would work again, never wanted to carry another gun. I learned "never to say never." Now, after working in a gun friendly state, and seeing some of the gentlemen ( used extremely liberally) in gun stores and what they are carrying, and after reading these sites I never knew existed, my thoughts did a one hundred percent turn around. I would rather have a 5 shot J frame than nothing. I would prefer a 6 shot 357 N fram on top of that. But, in a combat defensive situation, protecting family in a restaurant, or people on the street, the more rounds available, the quicker reload and the easier trigger pull would only lead me to a semi, ( for me nothing but Glock). Almost every encounter where I drew involved multiple bad guys. Most men ( bad guys) from my experience do not act alone. they are not strong enough .The gang mentality of two or more is prevalent now. Actually our very own armed forces are breeding young gang members that take military training and then when back on civilian streets use that knowledge to become some of the most vicious gang members and leaders around especially true in southern Florida. So I guess what I really am saying is I love revolvers, they still have a place, just from what I am seeing in today's world I myself will try to meet fire with fire and carry and use in a defensive threat situation a semi-auto Glock 45 or 40. I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared.

But assuming that size was not an issue,

If size were not an issue I would be packing a 20 mm Vulcan chain gun. If they would not let me play with that, I sure as heck would not be carrying a hand gun, I would be carrying a M1a/FAL/HK 91.

Of course size is an issue. And 38 SPL snubbies, or the 44 Spl Charter Arms Bulldog. are extremely compact platforms. It is hard to beat the power/weight ratio of a revolver. However, when you get above the size of concealables, I would go with whatever is reliable and carries the most bullets.

But, I ain't looking for a fight, so a revolver does 99% of what I want.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic? yes, mom is 70 has arthritis and can't rack a slide on most automatics.

Size not an issue?

If you can conceal a 1911, you can conceal a 4" K-frame.

Hell, Mas Ayoob is FAR skinnier than me, but about the same height, and an untucked polo shirt and cargo shorts hide a Smith and Wesson .44 Magnum Mountain gun.

Dave Arnold died? I used to love his articles. :(

I think its all pretty relative. Is a revolver a practical self defense weapon? Yes, for many people, but nor really for me. I don't shoot them that well.

Let me illustrate. This is what usually happens when I point-shoot an XD-45 Compact, fast fire at 7 yards. This is simply clearing leather, emptying gun, putting in another mag, and emptying that one as fast as possible.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l315/strikefire83/XD_50Rounds_7Yards10-20-06.jpg

I'm no marksman, but I'm more than satisfied with those groups for combat accuracy.


Now take my Ruger SP 357, shooting 38s mind you, this is what I could do under the same circumstances firing significantly SLOWER.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l315/strikefire83/Ruger_30Rounds_7Yards12-1-06.jpg

I think the pics illustrate that, for some of us, a good semi is a much more "practical" self defense weapon.

Just my two cents. Ironically, even though I don't shoot it that well, I could never get rid of the Ruger, because the .357/.38 special is just too plentiful NOT to have a gun for it. And it's fun to shoot, even if I suck at it.

Quote:
First let me say, I hope no one has to prove any theory or belief on this thread and we all stay safe. I was actually a Sgt in nyc and after 9/11 was thrown a bone and became a Training Sgt due to response at 911. Anyway, my duties now included matching the registered guns of cops in my command to what our teletype had on record. The vast majority had an model 10 or 64 and centennial or bodyguard. When we switched to Glocks, I didnt because I loved my Smith, many cops now had 3 guns due to the fact in NYC there were so many retires at once gunshops would only pay $25 for a model 10and we just threw them in our lockers. However at the time there were some cops with 10, 20, or more guns. I personally thought there was something not correct there about these Officers, but I am of the school, "to each their own". When I retired I left all 3 of my guns in my locker and never went back. They are probably still there 3 yrs later. Never thought I would work again, never wanted to carry another gun. I learned "never to say never." Now, after working in a gun friendly state, and seeing some of the gentlemen ( used extremely liberally) in gun stores and what they are carrying, and after reading these sites I never knew existed, my thoughts did a one hundred percent turn around. I would rather have a 5 shot J frame than nothing. I would prefer a 6 shot 357 N fram on top of that. But, in a combat defensive situation, protecting family in a restaurant, or people on the street, the more rounds available, the quicker reload and the easier trigger pull would only lead me to a semi, ( for me nothing but Glock). Almost every encounter where I drew involved multiple bad guys. Most men ( bad guys) from my experience do not act alone. they are not strong enough .The gang mentality of two or more is prevalent now. Actually our very own armed forces are breeding young gang members that take military training and then when back on civilian streets use that knowledge to become some of the most vicious gang members and leaders around especially true in southern Florida. So I guess what I really am saying is I love revolvers, they still have a place, just from what I am seeing in today's world I myself will try to meet fire with fire and carry and use in a defensive threat situation a semi-auto Glock 45 or 40. I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared.

Thanks to Florida1098 for his views. I want to feel good about carrying a revolver, but a semi-auto seems to be the smart bet.
whw

Subscribed, and sitting in camp with Cosmo, A'Bear, Jad, J. March & RD.

Best line of the thread so far:

When ever anyone asks me if 6 rounds are too few, I just tell them that if thats what they are worried about
then they should invest in something bigger than a handgun or change their address.

"Revolver as defensive weapon" is a different animal from "Revolver vs. Semiauto" in that at least one advantage often cited for revolvers in the "vs. Semi" threads is cheerfully heaved over the gunwales in the context of "defensive weapon" - that being the generally nice single action trigger.

I gather that double action revolvers in a defensive context are to be fired double action, practiced with in that manner and possibly converted to DAO. My double-action-fu remains weak and I suspect I'm not alone. While working on improving it is enjoyable, at some point I'm going to have to seriously consider that, at my age, proficiency simply may not ever come.

As many have noted, it's going to come down to what one is proficient with.

DougDubya: Yes, Dave Arnold passed away in 2004.

Strikefire83:
Good to see you are leaving "occupied" territory (PRC) :)

Looking at thos two pictures leads me to see that either gun would be a fine choice for you to use.

That second target looks as "stopped" as the first. This isn't bullseye shooting with how many "X"s and points tallied up at the end. It is "last man standing."

ps Good shooting. I like to practice point shooting quite a bit myself.

Strikefire83:
Good to see you are leaving "occupied" territory (PRC)

Looking at thos two pictures leads me to see that either gun would be a fine choice for you to use.

That second target looks as "stopped" as the first. This isn't bullseye shooting with how many "X"s and points tallied up at the end. It is "last man standing."

ps Good shooting. I like to practice point shooting quite a bit myself.

Thanks. Yeah, I came out here for work...and the truth of the matter is I hate Los Angeles and California so much no job could overcome that. :cool:

I realize the revolver shooting inst horrible, but keep in mind this is pretty deliberate "cycled fire" letting off a shot double action about every 2 seconds. When you take into account that reflex action degrades in a gunfight, I have to go with the platform I'm best at.

Plus, 10 rounds of 45 ACP with two 13 round reloads at my side doesn't hurt matters, either.

the revolver is good because if the gun doesn't go bang you just pull the trigger again. I am going to get a revolver for my wife for that reason. I dont want her to have to worry about any malfunctions that may occur with a semi-auto.

I keep a revolver for one reason only: you don't have to pull the slide to go to battery. My wife can pick it up and pull the trigger period.
Then again, while I was on the force during a period of broken service. there was a case of a lady who shot the privates off a guy through a widow he was trying to get in. Go figure.

Another important point is caliber, are you using a 9mm with JHP 124grains that'll hit a 7 yard target at 1000+ or are you using a .44 Magunm 4" with JHP 180 grains that'll hit a target at 1200fps+ at seven yards. To be quite honest I generally carry two guns depending on my clothes. I'm going out to dinner with the fiancee I'm packing my P11 Kel Tec for pocket carry (that my fiancee loves to shoot and does so quite well out to fifteen yards) and I waist carry a Taurus M44C 4" .44 Magnum. If I'm out and about just running errands and such I pocket carry a Rossi Snubby .357 (that I carry .357 in) and I'm waist carrying a Ruger P90 .45 ACP. Mind you this allows me the ability to draw on each hand.

I'm a revolver fan sure enough and shoot them alot better. I like to doubletap at the range (2 shots one second or close to it) and oddly enough I can make the .44 Magnum connect on a playing card a lot more easily than my Ruger P90 (I think because of the slide coming back and I tend to overcompensate my grip for some reason). Admittedly I can keep a quad tap on my playing cards with my kel-tec a lot more easily than I can keep my snubby .357 which I can only usually milk for a tripple tap reliably. Mind you I double tap at ten yards. Everyone kind of has to find their own as I see it but I'm of the opinion that in a good self-defense shoot, the first two shots should decide the fight, if the attacker keeps coming you keep shooting.

I like the fact that if I am answering the door, and someone forces it open, I can stick the gun against them or the door, and it can't be pushed out of battery. Plus, the prosecution can't really say you're a Rambo, since you have a "old man's gun":rolleyes: with 5,6 or maybe 7 or 8 rounds in it.

Personally, I think they look classy, and they've worked for the past few hundred years, so they should well enough now.

What you like is most important.
As ArmedBear said your shots matter less the higher the round count.

A quick comparison as it relates:

A semi-auto has clear capacity advantages.
A semi takes a supressor better, but supressors are restricted in this country anyways, and not used for carry.
A semi is faster to reload (you don't usualy reload in one on one encounters) if you need to.
A semi is usualy chambered in loadings that are good enough for 2 legged predators, while holding more shots.

A revolver is more reliable, many designs can take more abuse and still fire than a semi. Rain, sweat, rugged conditions, perhaps similar conditions many days or weeks between uses of the firearm. I would trust a revolver more to go bang in such situations when I needed it after taking that abuse.

Get sand or mud on the gun? Wouldn't want it with any firearm, but it would be much easier to remove it from the important parts of a revolver than a semi auto in the field.

Revolvers also tend to be built more robust, often well beyond the needs of the caliber for which they are chambered. Some semis cant even handle the upper levels for cartridges for which they are chambered.
So revolvers are generaly stronger firearms.
For that same reason if you use one as a club for some reason it is much less likely to be damaged.

Revolvers can be fired better from a pocket, though the cylinder gap is something to be concerned about. The cylinder cycling takes a lot less room to operate than the entire slide of a semi. A semi in the same situation will usualy fire once, then need to be manualy cycled.

Revolvers can also be chambered much easier in very powerful cartridges. Few semis approach the power of a big bore revolver, and those that do are often twice the size, and often batter themselves to death if firing wildcats.

The axis you aim along also does not shift in a revolver, meaning very long distance shots have more potentialy from a revolver (a role handguns are not in often.)

If the number of rounds you can have is limited by legislation to something close to a revolver capacity anyways, you can just carry a handful of rounds in something very powerful, instead of a similar number of wimpy auto rounds.
Through ammo type you can always put more power to use even for defense against 2 legged predators, fragmention into multiple smaller projectiles with more suitable energy and less penetration, rapid expansion etc


So I think a revolver has many benefits over a semi for certain situations or uses, and in certain climates and conditions.
I would rather carry a revolver in some of them.

There is a movie out now, "In Bruges", with Colin Farrell, a crime/comedy flick.
I won't ruin the movie by exposing the plot, but someone does a dive off a medeival church and crashes to the street below. He manages to survive long enough to tell his friend to take his gun, but unfortunately it is an automatic and the spring is hanging out, the gun crushed by the fall.
The guy runs back to his hotel room and takes out a "girly revolver".
So if you are planning to dive off high places better carry a revolver.

Great post, Zoogster. You said, "Revolvers can be fired better from a pocket, though the cylinder gap is something to be concerned about. The cylinder cycling takes a lot less room to operate than the entire slide of a semi. A semi in the same situation will usualy fire once, then need to be manualy cycled."

True, but shooting inside a pocket also can ignite one's coat and clothing, especially with a snubby magnum. It's probably something that should be avoided.

One other aspect of this situation is the user. You buy two handguns, an autoloader and a revolver. Which of the two is likeliest to work flawlessly out of the box? A revolver. Often autos have to be broken in, especially if they're 1911-designs. You're normally obligated to go to the range and shoot at least 200 rounds of the kind of ammunition you're going to be using in your defense gun, which can be awfully costly for high-quality JHPs these days.

Second, you put an autoloader in your drawer for two years with a round up the snoot. Is it going to fire as reliably as it would have when you first cleaned it and loaded it? In most cases, no. Spring fatigue and lint are more problematic in long term storage than a revolver. I can pick up a revolver that's been loaded for five years, and unless I've used some lubricant with wax in it, it's going to be as reliable as the day it was loaded.

I had a friend who was actually saved because an autoloader failed to function. He was fourteen years old at the time and his brother 12. Not knowing it was loaded, he pointed it at his brother, pulled the slide back and released it. Fortunately the round jammed going into the chamber. Neither child knew how to disengage it and their father found the jammed gun later and extracted a confession. The gun was not supposed to have been loaded, but it was. And both of the kids had fired the gun out in the country, so they knew essentially how to use it. (The youngest of the two later took me out to an old dump and let me shoot his Llama 9mm pistol. And that's what got me interested in guns.)

Anyway, just thought I'd add those considerations, as I'm convinced that without intervention, a revolver will remain reliable for years, whilst an autoloader will grow less reliable all things considered.

I like the fact that if I am answering the door, and someone forces it open, I can stick the gun against them or the door, and it can't be pushed out of battery.

If you think someone is liable to force the door open, don't open it!!

And in any case, have a chain and a wedge in place.

As I get older I find that I dislike leaving empty brass all around the scene of a shooting... :rolleyes:

Call me old fashioned, but neat.

Should I ever be forced into taking on a horde of mutant ninja zombie bikers on crack, I'll probably rethink my decision... and switch from a J-frame to one of those newfangled 327/627 8 shot wonders, lock and all... cause I hate leaving brass lying around, ya know?

(disclaimer... no offense meant to members of a horde, mutants, ninjas, zombies or bikers, but I can do without tweakers)

Baba Louie.

Excellent point about the spent brass.

Verm, that was more of an example of why I like the revolver. There's NO WAY I would open the door in that instance. Not to mention, I think it'd be pretty hard to say it was SD when you opened a locked door to an intruder.

There is one disadvantage with the revolver, and that is close in if the perp get his hand around the cylinder you can not fire the revolver, however you can fire a semiautomatic pistol.

oneiron...I always thought that idea was pretty funny. Have you ever attempted to stop a revovler cylinder from turning using your hands? Personally, I can cause more damage with my GP100 at close proximity (pistol whipping) than firing 125 grain rounds at 25 yards.

There is one disadvantage with the revolver, and that is close in if the perp get his hand around the cylinder you can not fire the revolver, however you can fire a semiautomatic pistol.

If that happens, hopefully one would have the presence of mind to rotate the gun in the opposite direction of cylinder travel while pulling the trigger. That should do it :) .

A semi automatic can be pushed out of battery so that it cannot fire. It doesn't take much at all, perhaps 1/8" on my 1911. I suppose one counter would be to pull the gun away to allow the slide to go back into battery, if possible.

In either case ... the solution is much easier said than done.

Personally, I can cause more damage with my GP100 at close proximity (pistol whipping) than firing 125 grain rounds at 25 yards.

I don't doubt it :evil: ! Gotta give a revolver that ... your GP (like my 686) would make great war clubs if they crapped out in a fight!

I hope someone trys the "grab the cylinder" thing. If he is not shot in the fracas, the hot gases from the cylinder gap will eat through the perp's hand, and he will be easier to identify :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Yes. It was part of the FBI instructors program for a new police officer on the Savannah Police Department in 1962. There are other ways to handle the automatic beside pushing on the slide. If you have your hand on the slide push the barrel to the left for a right handed fellow and break his finger.
Don't let the perp get inside 20 feet. If you pull your gun shoot.

I'm going to wade in on this one. I'll probably say a few things that some folks will disagree with, and that's fine. Just remember, if you can't be nice when you reply, at least try and either make me laugh or call me something new and creative.

As far as fifteen round mags, big deal. Now you can flatten light ammo against the sides of buildings faster than the guy with the revolver. Bullets don't go where you want them to, they go where they are aimed; if you hit your target it doesn't matter how many rounds are left in the mag.

Also, running out of ammo is not the usual end of most civilian fire fights. Most civilian fire fights are over with no more than three to five rounds fired total. Not three to five from each side, but three to five total, and the best placed shots win the contest.

As I've said, I'll leave the high capacity mags to the grunts in the military and law enforcement who have the manpower to soak up the casualties. All I have out there in the street is me. I can't call backup and chances are, if the fight ain't over when the backup arrives, they are just as apt to shoot me as they are the bad guys. I prefer to make darn sure the fight is over, and my weapon is not in my hands when the police get there.

As for combat reload, you most likely won't have to reload: three to five rounds, remember?

As for any other advantage of the autoloader, there are drawbacks also. I just got back from the range. I fired a Sig, my P-38, a 1928 police colt .38 revolver and a .50 Desert Eagle. While you wouldn't want to have been on the wrong end of the range from me with any of those weapons, I, of course, did the best with my own Walther, but, of the other weapons, I did best with the revolver because they were all unfamiliar and the autos were a bit quirky and required more time on the range to get used the individuality of them. The Desert Eagle is just a beast, and it's like throwing a dollar at the target every time you pull the trigger.

The guy in the next firing lane kept ejecting his magazine by accident, effectively shutting down the range as well as his weapon. He may strike you as an idiot, but he was a nice kid, and just wasn't familiar with the weapon. You would probably be amazed at the number of times this has happened in a shoot out. A lot of people have been killed because in the pitched heat of battle they simply tried for too hard a grip and wrapped their thumbs, or fingers too far around and ejected the mag on their colt, or browning; or they simply hit the eject with their off hand. Even if you don't have a magazine safety, not having a magazine means that you no longer have any of that mega ammo you were bragging about.

As I have stated in other posts, my most recent purchase was a .380, and I am looking for a .45 acp. However, I have absolutely nothing against revolvers and I think that using them is a matter of personal preference.

Sato, Great post. Well said, on all points.
And I didn't even have to call you names!!!

I'm a revolver fan in my heart and I enjoy shooting them more than autos. I carry autos because they are thinner, smaller, lighter and have a higher capacity. I can shoot them faster. I can reload them faster (even faster than my 646 w/ moonclips). My glock 23 is the same size as my 3" 686+. It has exactly twice the capacity, bigger, heavier bullets. I shoot revolvers for enjoyment and hunting which is enjoyable for me also (I can afford to go to Publix). I'm more accurate with my revolvers, especially after 20 yards. Those are my thoughts and experiences. I usually keep a revolver by my bedside and in my truck because I like to.

It's so nice to have options! Revolvers look and feel so much better IMO.

One of our members once made an excellent point about this topic last year. That contributor said he would prefer a semi-auto pistol for offense and a revolver for defense. I agree with his outlook. Military and law enforcement officers have a greater need for firepower than civilians as a general rule. True, there are exceptions. But as a civilian, I am quite comfortable with a revolver for self-defense. I also agree with those who talk about the "comfort factor". If you are more comfortable with a revolver, then stay with it.


Timthinker

The auto loaders that I use are simply tools. Most are plastic framed striker pistols made by Glock, and Springfield. More often than not I carry an NAA Guardian .380. Rarely a day goes by when I don’t handle a pistol. Every one functions flawlessly. If I lost one I would replace it.

My revolvers are somehow different. The Colts and Smiths seem more like friends. If I lost them I would replace them but I would miss the originals.

Is such an attitude logical?

Of course not.

I carried an FN High Power for ten years in uniform, loved the gun. Three spare mags, all loaded with ten (save the springs) gave me 40 shots. It was a natural pointer and I was very good with it. My first gun was my grampas WW1 Colt 1911, stupidly, I traded it for a 686.
I agree with Florida1098, perps don't work alone, and a semi-auto is probably a more reasonable weapon to carry and I believe the Glocks and the Colts and the Brownings are just as reliable as any revolver, it's just a matter of training usually and anyone who has ever had their revolver cylinder lock up on them knows that in a gunfight that is a death knell, whereas any type of misfire from a semi auto can be cleared using one technique for all of the different misfires and one is back in the fight. Sand will lock up a revolver, not so most semi autos (Army tests not mine).
So why do I carry a revolver? Two reasons, no compressed springs to go bad just when you need it most (and as a regular joe not looking for trouble, I hope to never use my gun in self defense), I love the .44 caliber, slow and lumbersome like a slow moving freight train, and the platform I use goes straight in my pocket.
For all practical purposes of SD, especially multi-perps, a semi auto is probably better.
I once carried a G-17 backed up by a Taurus 905, great combo, I just wanted a better hitter so I got the 44c.

I have to say this is a very good discussion with many good points.
I was thinking the revolver for defense and auto for offense philosophy just last week. Very well put.

So many others have said well thoughtout responses. Good discussion.

When training new shooters I (we) try to give the statiscal scenario of a gun fight. Needing more than five rounds in a gunfight is about the same chance as your next airplane flight ending in a crash.

We can all recall the Miami/Dade shootout and the North Hollywood shootout. But, that is very far from real world and actually revolvers would have been just fine in each instance (too long to explain). But, we can each remember a famous person (s) being killed in an airplane crash (Buddy Holly, JFK Jr etc....) Statiscally the chances of you being in a gunfight is small. Needing more than five shots in said fight is even smaller.

Statiscally, revolvers are very viable defensive sidearms.

Anecdotally: we can all remember times when more firepower was needed. But, we can remember airplanes going down too. Do you still fly the friendly skies? I do and I carry revolvers.

ps I actually carry 2 snubbies for 10 shots :)

PSS bring a rifle/shotgun if you "know" you are going into harms way.

psss this is a good discussion.

I love my 9, and I love my .357. The smooth DA trigger pull is truly a beautiful thing. I think I point my 9 a little better. But it's pretty tough for a revolver not to go bang when you pull the trigger. I know modern semi-autos are pretty dang reliable, but still, the wheelgun is like a swiss clock. Click-bang, click-bang, everytime.

shotty will git er done

All I want to worry about in a defensive situation is point and pull trigger. I have had FTF's with Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, 1911s, Ruger P series. They are still great guns but I'll take the revolver. I've never had a FTF with a revolver ever.

Yes. I'm sure to be carrying a revolver if I'm somewhere that four legged problems roam. Sure 10mm will handles beasties but I don't have a 10mm.

A 5 shot 357mag in SS with CT grips is my "everyday" pistol about 70% of the time. A 357 will handle anything I'm likely to bump into in N.E.Ohio. I move up to 44mag if I'm in a very rural area. Black bears have been seen, not the time to have a 9x18 Mak with you.

You really have to balance who, what, where and how; when you talk about practical. Revolvers fit into my situation.

We can all recall the Miami/Dade shootout and the North Hollywood shootout. But, that is very far from real world and actually revolvers would have been just fine in each instance (too long to explain).

The short form of this is, sometimes really serious tactical screwups can be salvaged by the application of a metric buttload of fire :).

Keep your head and odds are you won't need to salvage things.

Posted by cowssurf
But it's pretty tough for a revolver not to go bang when you pull the trigger. I know modern semi-autos are pretty dang reliable, but still, the wheelgun is like a swiss clock. Click-bang, click-bang, everytime.

Dream on! :rolleyes:

I was at the range just last week, and two people had revolvers that failed to fire.

Here's a typical revolver malfunction at a cowboy shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xl92P_mVDM

Posted by WHW
But, in a combat defensive situation, protecting family in a restaurant, or people on the street, the more rounds available, the quicker reload and the easier trigger pull would only lead me to a semi, ( for me nothing but Glock). Almost every encounter where I drew involved multiple bad guys. Most men ( bad guys) from my experience do not act alone. they are not strong enough .The gang mentality of two or more is prevalent now....So I guess what I really am saying is I love revolvers, they still have a place, just from what I am seeing in today's world I myself will try to meet fire with fire and carry and use in a defensive threat situation a semi-auto Glock 45 or 40. I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared....I want to feel good about carrying a revolver, but a semi-auto seems to be the smart bet.

Thanks for your input. Unlike so many of the posts in this thread, yours is based on real life experience.

I agree completely that a semi-auto is the smart bet, especially in an era where multi-perp home invasions are commonplace. If three heavily armed thugs bust in my house, I want more than six rounds before having to reload.

Unlike so many of the posts in this thread, yours is based on real life experience.I see.

So, you've done the stats on this thread,
and can tell us what proportion of posts are based on
conjecture, fiction and other forms of "non" real life experience.

What is that proportion, exactly?

And, of course, you have done a Chi square test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square_test) to make sure
those proportions of real v fake posts are significantly different, right?

:scrutiny:

Nah, You need an auto loader with at least 17 rounds, 33 is better.
That way if you are ever attacked by the gangs of NY or zombies you will be prepared.


I recommend a Glock 17, 19, or 26.


I usually carry a Smith & Wesson 642 5 round revolver with good ammo and two extra speed loaders, I dont feel at all underarmed.

First, major props to all of the intelligent people here who are contributing their thoughts and ideas. That's what makes these kind of places work.

Until the high-capacity "wonder-nines" and similar guns came out, there wasn't really a whole lot of question as to the effectiveness of revolvers (6 shots on average, 5 for snubbies and 7 or 8 for big frames) or older semi-auto designs (7+1 - 8+1) in combat. They did the job when it counted.

The original question of this thread was: are revolvers still a viable personal defense weapon, or are they outdated? I would have to answer with an emphatic: "Yes, they're still a perfectly viable solution to the problem!"

The major advantage bottom-feeders have over wheelguns is their mag capacity. Personally, that consideration is fairly secondary to me. If I'm going somewhere where I think I'm going to need copious amounts of ammunition, I've got an SKS with 10, 20, 30, and 50 round magazines. Now, if you feel like you need to have 16+1 shots on your hip just to be on the safe side, that's fine.

I would say it ultimately comes down to what you are most comfortable with -- that's why I think the most convincing arguments made in favor of semi-autos are when guys post here and say "Yeah, Revolvers are OK, but I'm more comfortable with the semi-auto." Ultimately, you should shoot whatever you are the most confident with. Having shot plenty of both, I've never found an auto that felt as good in my hand as a revolver did.

I'm not old enough for a CHL permit yet, but you can bet the day that I am my first purchase is going to be a wheelie.

Quote --- scottishclaymore

"Until the high-capacity "wonder-nines" and similar guns came out, there wasn't really a whole lot of question as to the effectiveness of revolvers (6 shots on average, 5 for snubbies and 7 or 8 for big frames) or older semi-auto designs (7+1 - 8+1) in combat. They did the job when it counted."


Thanks to scottishclaymore. Of all the intelligent posts, the above is the most salient point of all.

whw

Couple points:
1. This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased. if you post it in general and there's still very few dissenting opinions, then you know it's gold.
2. The cops finding your brass is only an issue if you shoot someone then leave the scene. At that point, you've got bigger issues to worry about, methinks. I'd have to wonder about someone who intends for that to happen, as well.

This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased.Matt has a good point there.

Could be that if you ask a mod, they might move the thread over to General for you.

One of our members once made an excellent point about this topic last year. That contributor said he would prefer a semi-auto pistol for offense and a revolver for defense.

Best defense is a good offense.

In any case, though, I think some people are underestimating the number of rounds that may be required.

Good article that's sorta on the subject, by the FBI. One of my favorites to link to, when discussing realistic load choices and capacities. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable.

They wondered if they had done some thing wrong that caused their injury or placed them in the proximity of physical danger. They also wondered if they would react differently if faced with a similar situation.

These types of occurences may not be all that rare, either. People do all kinds of crazy things when fatally wounded. I believe the actual statistic is that about 40%-60% of people who are shot will flee, fall down, surrender, or otherwise be psychologically incapacitated, regardless of the severity of the wound.

Roughly 50/50 are not betting odds. The only way to definitely stop a threat is to take out the central nervous system. Either directly, with a bullet to the brain or upper spine, or indirectly through blood loss. More holes means more blood loss. More holes also increases your chances of tagging something major.

It might take only 1 round of .22 LR to stop a 300 pound crackhead. It might legitimately take 20 shots of .44 magnum to stop an 80 year old granny who decided to take pot shots at you for no reason.

"Statistics" are irrelevant to choosing a firearm. You want to prepare for the worst scenario you possibly can without overly inconveniencing yourself, while hoping for the best.

Now, if you do better with revolvers, by all means, go for it. You'd only be handicapping yourself, using a platform you're not as good with. Shooting well always takes priority over number of shots. But don't count on 5, 6, 7, or 8 shots "statistically" being enough. The limited capacity of a revolver is a disadvantage. Hell, the limited capacity of an 18 shot automatic is a disadvantage compared to a 30 shot EBR.

And regardless of how many shots you have, make every single one count. The parable of the archer never holding a second arrow in his off-hand is a lie. You can shoot just as accurately with a wondernine as with a T/C Contender, if the mechanical accuracy of the weapon is up to it. Concentrate on firing each shot individually. Have the mindset that every single shot is the shot that matters, because it is.

The Miami Dade firefight was mentioned.

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

Well, my auto holds 17+1, which are used thusly (in choronological order):
1) fire a shot across the bow to warn the perp;
2) fire another shot across the stern in case the first shot wasn't noticed;
3) shots 3 through 8 are fired into the chest area, taking into consideration the moving target and possible misses;
4) shots 9 through 12 are fired at the head in order to stop the person in case the 9mm bullet overpenetrates and misses all vital organs as it is wont to do;
5) shots 13 through 16 are because I don't practice enough and it's always good to practice;
6) shot 17 is shot in the air in a victory discharge;
7) shot 18 is to wound myself to make it look like self defense (hoping the forensics team misses that one...)

Now how in the world am I going to be able to pack all that in with a wheely?

:p

Can always count on people to miss the point.

Keep trying. It's right there! Control your breathing, focus on the front sight, and squeeeeeeeze the trigger slowly. You'll hit the point eventually.

-------------

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

Great display of logic! So get rid of the 9mms, get rid of the shotguns, and arm all the officers with 6-shooters from the start. Wait, no! All the officers should be unarmed except the one who used the wheelgun! Just let the guy with the magical revolver get the job done right the first time.

Really, that's basically what you're saying. The revolver worked. So... if that officer'd used a second wondernine rather than a revolver (assuming he didn't shoot one platform better than the other), the results would've been different? Those extra 10 shots would've been detrimental? Obviously then, the solution is to impose not a 10 round magazine ban, but a 6 round one. This will magically make those 6 shots more accurate and more effective, thus leveling the playing field between revolvers and autos.

And really, statistically, as well as according to well-documented real world firefights, 6 shots is all you need. No honest man needs more than 6!

Once again, just to make the bullseye bigger, the point is that additional shots are an advantage. Less is not more when you're talking about ammo. If you want to use a revolver because you shoot it better than an auto, then that's great. That's exactly the right reason to choose either platform, because you shoot it better. But don't try and pretend that the revolver is "better" simply because it's adequate in the statistical majority of cases, while an auto's capacity may be a little excessive in those same cases.

If someone chooses to "spray and pray" with an auto, that is a problem with mindset and training, not the gun. Give the same person a revolver and they'd do the exact same thing, just for a shorter period of time. But then, I guess people love to blame the gun rather than the person, for just about everything.

First my answer; an emphatic YES, with the caveat that a revolver is what you practice with.

Now one of the reasons. This weekend I took part in a pistol plate match. I know that it is not as stressful as being shot at but there is definitely more stress than when I'm out shootin' in the woods.
the guys that were shootin' revolvers rarely had to reload, I mean maybe 3 or 4 out of the whole match. On the other hand I saw folks with autos run through multiple mags and still leave plates up. Does this mean wheelies are better shooters? No it just means that the revolver guys had a better percentage of hits than the auto guys. If you can hit with an auto good for you, I seem to be more accurate with revolvers. Of course I was almost 50 before I shot an auto and I've been shootin' wheel guns since I was a kid.

You bet your Glock it is!

I shoot revolvers better. That's my reason. It's probably because I'm more familiar, comfortable and confident with them.

I didn't run an ANOVA, though, Nematocyst. I suspect heteroskedasticity, and I don't remember how to run a Kruskal-Wallis test. ;)

However, Defensory, my hands and my guns are in the real world. Not in gunfights, so far, and I dearly hope that it stays that way. Still, I must make my choices based on my knowledge of my own proficiency and quirks, rather than on broad, general data or the experiences of those who are sworn to go out and catch bad guys.

The short form of this is, sometimes really serious tactical screwups can be salvaged by the application of a metric buttload of fire .

Keep your head and odds are you won't need to salvage things.

Well said!

Posted by DougDubya
The Miami Dade firefight was mentioned.

Funny, the offenders in that exchange were finished off by one man with a six-shot revolver when wondernines and even a 12 gauge shotgun failed to anchor the cop-killers.

But hey, a real life, much-documented firefight isn't preparation for armed Bulgarian gun smugglers looking to rape 8 year-olds in the public bathroom at the mall, right?

Your logic is quite weak.

Using your logic, a revolver is a better self-defense firearm and man-stopper than a 12 gauge shotgun. :rolleyes:

Those who are actually knowledgeable about the FBI Miami shootout, know that the perps had already been seriously wounded by the 9mm semi-autos of agents Grogan, Dove and Risner---which allowed agent Mireles to approach the perp's vehicle and shoot them both at near point-blank range with his revolver. ANY semi-automatic could also have killed them at near point-blank range.

At the time of the Miami shootout, the .357 revolver was the standard issue sidearm of the FBI. Due to the fact that multiple agents carrying revolvers were involved in the firefight and had significant difficulty attempting to reload while under fire, the FBI shortly after gave revolvers the axe in favor of 10mm semi-autos. The 10mm's were replaced later with .40 S&W semi-autos.

To this day, semi-autos are the standard issue sidearms of the FBI. Now if the .357 "Rambo Revolvers" were so great, why did the FBI choose to replace them shortly after the Miami shootout?

Oh, by the way. The perps involved in the Miami shootout were BOTH carrying .357 magnum revolvers, but they STILL LOST the gunfight! The .357 "Rambo Revolvers" didn't get the job done for the FBI OR the perps!

I shoot revolvers better. That's my reason.'Nuff said. ;)

I didn't run an ANOVA, though, Nematocyst. Good thing. Proportions are notoriously non-Normal ('scuse me, Gaussian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution)), which violates the assumption for ANOVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVA).

I suspect heteroskedasticityThat's reasonable. Heteroskedasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroskedasticity) seems to apply here:
the variance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance) gets larger the further out we go on the revolver/semi-auto spectrum. :scrutiny:

and I don't remember how to run a Kruskal-Wallis test. Here's a quick review. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal-Wallis)

I preferred Mann-Whitney U (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann-Whitney_U) or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcoxon_signed-rank_test). Both non-parametric.
(Go non-parametric to reduce the number of necessary assumptions.)

And I prefer revolvers, also.
They seem non-parametric. :D

Posted by WHW
I will never forget when one of our cops with his female partner emptied his revolver on a perp in a basement, tried to reload, and the skell walked up on him and shot him in the head while his partner froze and stared.

The perp could've never walked up on him like that if he'd been carrying a high-capacity semi-auto. The officer's revolver cost him his life.

So much for the old "Six for sure" canard. In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

Thanks for relating that sad but true story. With multi-perp home invasions being pretty common these days all over the country, a revolver is a dead man's gun.

In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure". Unlike those carrying semi-autos, who always survive.

Wonder what the stats are?

:scrutiny:

Posted by Nematocyst
Unlike those carrying semi-autos, who always survive.

The bottom line is that the cop was killed while trying to reload his revolver, which only gave him six rounds.

If he'd had a 9mm with 16 rounds, the guy couldn't have walked up on him and killed him after he fired six shots, because he would've had ten left to work with.

It's plain common sense.

The bottom line is that you have provided no support for a conclusion that revolvers are inferior for self-defense,
only anecdotal statements like this that imply such a conclusion:

In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".The bottom line is that you need to provide citations to studies based on good data (not just anecdotes) substantiating such implicit conclusions.

In other words, as they say, put up or ...

1. This would have been better in the general handguns section, as the revolver section is clearly going to be a bit biased. if you post it in general and there's still very few dissenting opinions, then you know it's gold.

So it is now in General handguns, let the fun begin, Come on you bottomfeedingbrasspukers, show these roundyhandejectinghardtriggers up.

Whatever the revolver was capable of doing in the past, it is still capable of doing now, so yes, it is a practical self defense weapon.

"If he'd had a 9mm with 16 rounds, the guy couldn't have walked up on him and killed him after he fired six shots, because he would've had ten left to work with."
If he couldn't hit him with the first six, what makes you think he could with the rest?

"Great display of logic! So get rid of the 9mms, get rid of the shotguns, and arm all the officers with 6-shooters from the start. Wait, no! All the officers should be unarmed except the one who used the wheelgun! Just let the guy with the magical revolver get the job done right the first time.

Really, that's basically what you're saying. The revolver worked. So... if that officer'd used a second wondernine rather than a revolver (assuming he didn't shoot one platform better than the other), the results would've been different?"

What a bunch of nonsense! That isn't what he is saying. What he is saying and what the question was was is a revolver a practical defensive handgun and the answer is yes, it can be. It does not mean that other firearms can't be used. Come on! What a stupid thing to say!

It seems pretty elementary to me.

If you can shoot 6 accurately, then you can shoot 17 accurately.

If you're worried by FTF and FTE issues, and every time you close your eyes you see a pistol jamming, then it's likely you'll be happier and more confident with a wheelgun.

If you're worried by little timing components breaking, flames cutting your hands that have been poorly placed, or having a lack of ammo to send at the bad guy, then you'll likely be happier with a pistol.

What the argument really boils down to, for me, is whether I'm comfy and happy with the particular weapon, and whether or not I can hit anything with it.

Statistics, with mad respect to Nematocyst, don't mean jack to me. I could buy a lemony fresh M629 that promptly jammed completely up, shaved lead, or had hit and miss accuracy (tee hee). I could also get a lemony fresh 1911 or Glock or whatever, and have failures galore even if it was NIB or straight off the work benches of cylinder and slide. While the statistical probability is low that these problems might occur, someone has to skew the curve. And, that's usually me.

If a revolver is a good choice for me and I'm happy with it, then it's a good defensive weapon. If it isn't and I'm not, then it ain't. There really isn't a spoon.

The perp could've never walked up on him like that if he'd been carrying a high-capacity semi-auto. The officer's revolver cost him his life.

So much for the old "Six for sure" canard. In this and many other cases, those carrying revolvers have ended up "Six feet under for sure".

... a revolver is a dead man's gun.

I am sure Officer Beth Haynes in Boulder, Colorado would be glad to know the above information...:scrutiny::barf:

http://www.odmp.org/officer/644-officer-beth-haynes

---------------------------------------
Officer Beth Haynes
Boulder Police Department
Colorado
End of Watch: Saturday, April 16, 1994

Biographical Info
Age: 26
Tour of Duty: Not available
Badge Number: Not available

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Saturday, April 16, 1994
Weapon Used: Gun; Unknown type
Suspect Info: Committed suicide

Officer Haynes was shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance call. The suspect had abducted a man in Denver, Colorado, and forced him to drive to Boulder, Colorado, where the victim was able to escape and call police. The suspect intended to kill a woman who did not want a relationship with the man, who was raised in a culture which believes women are less important than men.

Officer Haynes confronted the suspect from behind cover and as she was issuing orders to the man, a bystander walked to a nearby car. The bystander then ignored Officer Hayne's orders to move from the danger area and stood by to watch. As Officer Haynes moved to the bystander in order to offer protection the suspect opened fire, striking her in the hand and armpit, just above her vest.

She was able to return fire, but her gun jammed. The suspect then shot her execution style in the head. Three of Officer Hayne's four shots struck the suspect, one of them fatally. The suspect lost so much blood that he had no strength left to run and committed suicide as officers closed in on him.
---------------------------------


Additional information (this happened when I was a senior in HS) is that Officer Haynes' weapon was a 16 shot Beretta 92 in 9mm. The department had recently transitioned from .38 Special S&W Model 15's to the "New Hotness" of a high-capacity wondernine. As indicated above, Officer Haynes marksmanship was very good, striking 3 out of 4 shots. Unfortunately , instead of "six-for-sure" (M15), Officer Haynes got "four-and-jam" (M92), :barf: and ended up getting shot in the head after trying to take cover under a nearby car while despairingly attempting to clear the malfunction...

Would the outcome have been different if she had been carrying the previously issued M15? No one will know for certain, but the two additional rounds prior to "stoppage" could have made a BIG difference. If the M92 malfunctioned due to limp-writing (wounded hand), the M15 would definitely not have succumbed to the same problem.

I am not trying to slam semi-autos. I am carrying two today myself, but to say that they are somehow markedly superior to a revolver is false. :(

I've had revolvers jam more often and more insistently than my semis could ever muster.

However, honesty would compel me to note that I generally buy revolvers used and without intent for serious social use. My primary semi was not only new but benefitted from a dealer tuning. The results of this disparate treatment are predictable.

As many have noted, one should stick with what one is comfortable with. What's mildly puzzling is that we, as a group, seem to feel a compulsion not only to explain our choice but to sway others to our way of thinking.

There's probably a post-grad thesis in there somewhere.

1. It's a perfectly useful defensive weapon.

2. I prefer a semi.

I also like brunettes and not blondes, and I prefer heavy, large displacement cars to light 4-cylinder rockets. Much as I like my preferences, however, I'm forced to admit that there are lots of fast little cars and sexy blondes.

It will do it's job if you do yours.

A revolver is my carry gun of choice. Do I feel under-gunned, not one bit. More then likely its going to be over and I will still have a few rounds left if it ever came to having to shoot. I usually carry a reload but sometimes not.

Short answer: Yes.

It can shoot a decent ammunition comparable to common combat calibers in self loaders just as accurately and just as fast.

I want to address a common misunderstanding here.

Revolver is NOT an easier manual of arms.

I don't understand what's so hard about inserting a magazine and racking a slide. If it's a DAO self loader so common today, such as Glock and SIG with a DAK trigger, that's all it takes.
Compare that with opening cylinder, aligning a speed loader with 5~7 holes, release the rounds to drop it in the cylinder, then close the cylinder. Not to mention that you'll have to hold it at a certain angle so that the rounds would not fall, or having to hold down the cylinder to keep it from swinging. Not that it's so difficult, but no less task than operating a self loader.

Revolver can be rapid fired just as fast as self loaders.

It can be done, and many people under stress emptied the 6 shot cylinder very fast. You won't see as much record split times with a revolver in competition, but that would hardly matter in a fight.


I hope someone trys the "grab the cylinder" thing. If he is not shot in the fracas, the hot gases from the cylinder gap will eat through the perp's hand, and he will be easier to identify .

That only applies when the shooter cocked the hammer to SA mode before the opponent grabs the cylinder. Otherwise, what you mentioned would not happen because the trigger cannot be pulled.

Some people recommend starting with a revolver and "graduating" to a self loader. I see no practical reason what so ever to do so.

"As many have noted, one should stick with what one is comfortable with. What's mildly puzzling is that we, as a group, seem to feel a compulsion not only to explain our choice but to sway others to our way of thinking."

It's called herd mentality. People feel more comfortable about their decisions if there are others who have made the same decision.

I personally have carried both revolvers and semis over the years. The one firefight I was in since getting out of the service I was carrying a Redhawk with full magnum loads. I was doing courier work and carrying a very valuable payload. The bad guys fired at me with semis and I fired three rounds. I killed two of them and their car while they flattened ammo against the concrete walls of the parking garage in a spray and pray manner. Three from that Redhawk was enough to convince the survivors that they didn't want me sending any more lead their way.

Now that being said, tomorrow, when I drive to Gainesville to take the dog up to our trusted vet to have some surgery done I will be packing my old P-38 into the car with me. Why? Because right now it is the only pistol I have available (damned ex-wife, I hope her new husband gets his hand caught in the action of my old 1911, or shoots himself in the foot with my old Vaquero).

I looked at pistols today. The two I am looking at for self defense carry weapons are a .44 mag revolver, which I will load with .44 specials, or a Taurus PT 1911. I will most likely go with the Taurus and then custom make a nice cavalry draw holster that will also hold the extra mag. However, I would not feel out gunned by some lowlife who pulls a high cap nine in either case.

We can all spout anecdotes all day long. I can find a lot of instances where some guy with a Highpower or other weapon with a clip safety died because he panicked and accidentally hit the eject with his off hand. Even without a clip safety, that mega-load of ammo won't do you much good if it's lying on the ground instead of in your weapon.

I can find lots of incidents of people getting their clothes so hopelessly fouled in the hammer of their revolver that they might as well have been unarmed and handcuffed.

What it boils down to is practice, both on the range with live fire, and loaded with snap caps for dry fire practice at drawing and aiming. In a panic situation muscle memory will take over and you will do what you have trained yourself to do. If you haven't trained, you'll probably freeze long enough to get yourself seriously injured or killed.

Whether you choose a trusty ol' revolver, or go with a sexy new Glock carrying ammo the "likes of which God has not seen before", all of the firepower in the world won't save your backside if you can't shoot it effectively.

Defensory, you obviously fail at logic, or even looking up the facts.

The fight was won with six rounds of .38 Special, in a .357 Magnum chambered revolver.

It was the carpenter, not the tools.

If you prefer to reduce your argument to absurd reductionism, then your points have no more validity in my eyes. The fact that so many lightly armed FBI agents SURVIVED against assault rifles pretty much shows that automatic weapons are no real advantage if you don't have the proper training.

There's a lot of good comments in this thread. I'll add my own:

Most people could reload an auto quite easily in the dark, or with impaired vision with a bit of practice. Not the case with a revolver. There was a good reason for "New York Reloads"; it's much faster to pull out another gun than to fumble with moon clips while under attack, in possibly bad lighting. I don't care if Jerry Miculek can reload a revolver in .05 seconds, that's what he's paid to do (and not while under fire I might add). The average person is going to be able to insert a magazine faster than loading a cylinder.
On the subject of ammo capacity, the old saying that no one ever complained about bringing too much ammo to a gunfight rings true here. Personally it's not even a question if I was in a dangerous situation, would I want to have 6 rounds or 16 rounds. I don't plan on spraying fire all over the place, but I'm not going to bet my life that the BG will know to fall down after 6 shots, or maybe he's got friends that aren't running away. Some folks seem to suggest that 6 shots should enough for whatever may happen, and that's probably true, but thinking that you're going to calmly dot the 10-ring with every shot is fantasy, and every shot missed is a good chunk of total firepower gone. I say all this not to knock revolvers, there are plenty of fine models out there and anything you carry that shoots bullets will hardly serve you wrong, but if I had a choice I would pick an auto any day.

Question from the original poster:

"Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?"

My answer:

Yes.

Catherine

Posted by DougDubya
Defensory, you obviously fail at logic, or even looking up the facts.

The fight was won with six rounds of .38 Special, in a .357 Magnum chambered revolver.

It was the carpenter, not the tools.

If you prefer to reduce your argument to absurd reductionism, then your points have no more validity in my eyes. The fact that so many lightly armed FBI agents SURVIVED against assault rifles pretty much shows that automatic weapons are no real advantage if you don't have the proper training.

You're the only one who fails at logic and looking up the facts.

If it's "the carpenter, not the tools", then why were you the one who originally brought up the irrelevant factoid that it was a man with a revolver who "finished off" the "offenders"?

I'm well aware agent Mireles was using .38 Special +P in his .357 Magnum revolver. In my previous post, I never specified what caliber of rounds he was firing when he shot them at near point-blank range. So your irrelevancies continue.

Thanks to the serious injuries to the perps caused by the semi-autos of agents Dove, Grogan and Risner---agent Mireles was fortunate enough to be able to advance on the perps' position and shoot them at near point-blank range. Any semi-auto could've also killed them at near point-blank range.

So the fact that Mireles shot them with a revolver doesn't make revolvers "better" or "as good" in any way, shape or form.

By the way, the perps in the Miami shootout were only in possession of one Ruger Mini-14, not "assault rifles" as you stated. Please get your facts straight.

Also, two FBI agents in that shootout were KILLED and three seriously injured by that semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 that you claim was "no real advantage". :rolleyes:

One of the perps was unconscious for much of the shootout, so just one perp managed to kill two FBI agents and seriously injure three others with a Ruger Mini-14 that you claim was "no real advantage". :rolleyes:

Bottom Line FACT--It was the Miami shootout that prompted the FBI to retire revolvers as the official sidearm of the agency. They've used semi-autos ever since.

Posted by Hawk
I've had revolvers jam more often and more insistently than my semis could ever muster.

Amen to that!

I was at the range about a week and a half ago. Even though probably at least 80% of the handguns being used were semi-autos, the only semi-auto malfunction was one lone failure to eject, which was promptly cleared without the shooter hardly skipping a beat.

Whereas two revolvers jammed and they had to be taken off the firing line to be attended to.

Six NOT for sure! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xl92P_mVDM

I have purposely avoided the semi/revolver/caliber wars for some time now. The arguments for/against are basically the same each time around and in the end it really doesn't matter much at this point. I have made my choice based upon years of experience, my current needs and my normal threat environment. My current EDC normally consists of two X42's with BB SP/+P, two speed strips w/4 rounds each, a primary and retention knife, a surefire light, a cell phone, and great deal of situational awareness. I have confidence in my equipment and training and my ability to avoid/manage/reduce (in that order) any threats I am likely to encounter. I have nothing against hicap major caliber semi's, I used them for many years and am well versed in their strengths and weaknesses and would not hesitate to go back to them if I felt the need, but I currently do not. If I knew I was going into a fight and needed one...I would of course...not go :cool:

I have made my choice based upon years of experience, my current needs and my normal threat environment.Amen to that!

Keep in mind that the key word is "Defense". Also, most gunfights are over in three rounds or less.

When guns, carried by good guys and gals come out, bad guys tend to "Kick Rocks". In short, they run to keep from getting shot. Therefore I find that the Revolver is not a hinderance in a defensive situation. If I need more rounds I probably haven't solved the problem tactically. Your tactics may be different with a Revolver, due to the limited amount of ammo available, but you should never be "spraying and praying" anyways.

The one that scores a decisive hit first is usually the winner. I have confidence in my ability to do that, so the gun doesn't matter as much. It's the person behind the gun more so than the gun. I like the .357 Magnum and carry it frequently. At work I have to carry the issued "bottomfeeder" but if they let me I'd carry a wheelie.

I like Revolvers for their simple manual of arms, cartridge variability and the fact that they can feed any bullet "type". Also, if the gun fails to go BANG, all I have to do is stroke the trigger again. No two handed complicated ritual to go through to get the gun up and running again.

BikerRN

The one that scores a decisive hit first is usually the winner.

Biker,

That's a fine post.

Remember that we are talking about a Defensive weapon. A Lawman or Soldier do not need a defensive weapon, they need an offensive weapon. An offensive weapon needs to have a higher capacity, the ability to penetrate many different materials and be practically indestructable. A defensive weapon, something that most Carry Permit users will carry, needs to function easily, quickly and with enough power to stop an attack. Can a revolver do this, absolutely. But so can most Semi-autos.

Defensory, I was attacking the inane logic of your original post.

This time, you actually dipped into the facts and came to a conclusion where training was the issue, not the tools.

However, I have no further need to debate you on a moot point as to what the FBI chooses as its sidearm, since their "gun people" went with a rattletrap, inefficient hunk of garbage as the modified 1076, which was nowhere nearly as efficient as any of the over the counter versions put out at that time.

The one that scores a decisive hit first is usually the winner.

Great point. Some say the most common failure in a gunfight is running out of ammo (but with most firefights ending in fewer than 4 shots?). Others (including me) believe it is running out of time, which has a lot more to do with training and situational awareness than equipment.

The average person is going to be able to insert a magazine faster than loading a cylinder.

Not me. I've always been different though. :p :o

I guess I've trained my hands more in the art of the speedloader revolver reload than the reloading of a semi. As a result, I can reload my 642 in about the same time it takes to reload my 1911. And I'm a bit faster with my 686. Though I admit, loading a "single wide" gun like a 1911 is typically not as easy as a "double wide".

If you don't practice the auto reload, it can be screwed up just as badly as a revolver reload. Speedloaders/speedstrips/moon clips and magazines can be dropped/fumbled alike, speedloaders/speedstrips/moon clips can be misaligned with the cylinder, magazines can be shoved in backwards ...

As for malfuction rate, I have owned a total of 11 handguns (9 revolvers, 2 autos). I've experienced problems with 2 revolvers and 1 auto. Percentage wise, I've had more auto problems. But my experiences alone don't count for anything. My problems were:

Taurus 94 (22 revolver): NIB, total lemon. Lemons come with both wheels and slides :D .

S&W K-22 (22 revolver): Had misfires about every 40 rounds. I replaced the 50 yr old mainspring with a new one for $15. Runs great now. Can't call this much of a problem.

Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec: Failure to go into battery once every 100 rounds when new. Break-in and a gunsmith tuneup solved most of the problems, though cheapo Blaser Brass still gives it fits. Loves 230 grain JHPs though.

---

I will add that I was able to induce jams in an Springer XD9 quite readily from limpwristing. I do love the simple manual of arms that comes with a wheelie.

As others have said early, just pick what you shoot best.

Again, Jad speaks the truth.

If you can shoot 6 accurately, then you can shoot 17 accurately.
+1
You can spray and pray with a revolver as well as with a semi, you'll just (probably) be a tad slower. :p
I believe the "only three shots in a gunfight" statistic is several years old... I'm pretty sure that the numbers have changed since the semis have become dominant. I also get the notion that the "you fire three or less" stat is just an average... some people fired a single shot and the guy ran away, some emptied the cylinder.

I prefer the revolver that I have to the semis that I have. My revolver fits my hand very well, the ammo allows for cheap practice, and I've been able to shoot pretty accurately with it. The Beretta 21A is also a great fit, but the sights on the Smith are faster for me to acquire. The Smith just works the best of all my handguns.

Dudes,

We got away from the original post.

Yes, the revolver is still a viable weapon for defense. Obviously the answer is yes. A different question is "is the revolver a viable offensive weapon"? One would have to also say yes. Seal Team Six (according to Richard Marcinko’s autobiography) used revolvers as recently as 1983 for some purposes. With that in mind we can't say that they are passé like blunderbusses

Is an auto better for some applications...absolutely.

Obviously the decision that I make as a CCL holder is different than a SWAT guy about to kick a door in.

I carry a NAA Guardian 380 80% of the time as I usually dress in a polo. A Colt Detective Special .38 15% of the time when I can wear heavier clothes. On those few cold Texas days where I am going to put on a thick coat all day I carry a Springfield XD45. Hiking or working in snake country I carry my Python with the first two cylinders loaded with snake shot.

Different tools for different conditions.

I've been to ranges a bunch of times.
I've fired a bunch of shots at birds, squirrels, rabbits ...

All were offensive shots: I was looking for dinner
rather than defending myself against kamikaze birds or psycho squirrels.

But I've never been in a firefight.

Honestly, I hope never to be in one.

If push comes to shove, in an SD situation, would I?
You bet. In a heart beat.

I like life, and intend to continue this one as long as possible.
(Just in case those promises about after life are wrong. :uhoh: )

And, given that I don't own a bottomfeeder (see sig line),
I'll do it with a revolver of one flavor or another.

I like my revolvers.
I shoot them well.
Not as well as my levers,
but well enough to increase the probability that
if I was in a firefight with one,
I'd still be breathing the next day,
as long as I practice situational awareness
which is far more important than
revolvers v whatever.

If I hit that low probability end and die instead,
then, oh well. Life was good. And I enjoyed the simplicity and elegance of my revolvers.

And I need neither parametric nor nonparametric statistical analysis to feel OK about that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/Heteroscedasticity.png

Beautiful statement, Nenatocyst!

Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

I've always thought so.

I no longer carry a single action revolver as an occasional off-duty weapon (I can hear the raised eye brows), but I frequently carry one or another DA/DAO revolver as an off-duty weapon.

However, I'm never quite sure everyone is actually speaking to the same subject when it comes to this topic. There are some different perspectives from which to debate a 'preference' regarding this subject.

Some folks seem to shoot revolvers better ... and some folks seem to shoot semi-auto pistols better. Fine.

There are subdivisions within each platform, as well, generally being DA/DAO for the revolvers ... and traditional double action (TDA, or DA/SA is you prefer), DAO and SA for the pistol users. (DAO is starting to cover a lot of interesting designs nowadays, too, and is sort of becoming a 'catch-all' category in some respects when someone doesn't know what else to call one of the new designs.)

Some folks like some calibers better than others. Lots of caliber choices in both platforms.

Reliability? Under what conditions and circumstances? Adverse/harsh environments? Lack of preventive maintenance? How about grip stability sensitivity (limp wristing/gripping or an unlocked wrist) in pistols? How about powder getting caught under the extractor star of a revolver? High primer hanging up on recoil shield? Short-stroked extraction/ejection of fired revolver cartridge cases? Double-feeds in pistols? Ammunition design/bullet nose profile sensitivity in pistols? Short-stroking a DA/DAO revolver trigger? Thumbing a pistol slide and causing a malfunction when cycling speed is affected? Thumbing a slide stop lever and either causing a premature slide-lock condition or preventing slide lock when the magazine runs empty? Magazine body/lip damage in pistols? Not closing a revolver cylinder and properly indexing it? Ease of reloading if only able to do so 1-handed? Resolving a bad/insert primer in either platform?

Ammunition choice? Well, pistol ammunition has certainly seemed to have received the lion's share of attention in recent years, but that's probably because it's been rather market-driven for LE application when it comes to defensive ammunition's "performance characteristics", at least to some degree. Revolver ammunition seems to have been receiving some increasing attention, though? Maybe because revolvers are becoming increasingly popular as defensive choices once again? S&W has been selling a ton of revolvers, and has been bring out new models. Hmmm. Wonder why theys eem to be selling so well?

Weight? Polymer pistols frames and ultra lightweight revolver frames seem to have made for really lightweight choices in both platforms.

Felt recoil? Subjective. Everyone's correct from their perspective.

Reloading? Easier to load more ammunition into a pistol with a high capacity magazine. No argument. Not everyone who chooses a service or defensive pistol chooses a 'high capacity' model, though. Lots of folks still claim a preference for 7-8 round .45 ACP pistols, and there are now 7-8 round service caliber revolvers on the market. Let's call that a wash in some instances.

Revolvers seem to be enjoying a resurgence in popularity, and a lot of the models being marketed and bought up seem to reflect personal defense as one of the potential reasons for interest.

Interesting. Could it be revolvers are still considered viable choices for some folks for this reason?

You know, I've carried a number of revolvers and pistols for both service and off-duty usage over the years of my career in LE.

I'd be comfortable with returning to carrying a revolver as a service weapon. Yep, you can stare aghast if you want to. :what: I wouldn't mind carrying one of the 8-shot .357 magnum S&W revolvers as a uniform choice, or a 6-7 shot .357 Magnum revolver for plainclothes. I managed to stay alive carrying a couple of different 6-shot revolvers back as a young cop. I practiced a lot. Focused on accuracy. Practiced a lot of reloading. Even carried my 6-shot service revolvers off-duty from time to time, too ... when I wasn't carrying a 7+1 capacity Colt Combat Commander (EXTRA CAPACITY!!!) or a S&W J-frame. ;)

I still carry one of my S&W J-frames more often off-duty than one of my 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP pistols ... and I own pistols ranging from subcompact to compact to full-size.

I practice with them, though. All of them. Revolvers included.

Some folks don't shoot small-framed revolvers well, so they may not be optimal choices for them. Choose wisely.

Hey, some folks who carry diminutive pocket pistols don't actually shoot them as well as they think they do, or would like to be able to do, either. :uhoh: Again, choose wisely.

I like to ask folks to consider for themselves what they would really want to be carrying if they found themselves in an unavoidable defensive shooting situation.

Like that little 'watch fob' pistol, do you? Think you'll actually be able to find it, access it, grasp it and shoot it well in an unexpected life-threatening, rapidly changing, evolving, highly stressful (physically & physiologically) and possibly physically demanding (close range, fending off the attacker) circumstances which may occur?

How about that big 'ol bulky, hard-recoiling handgun that you really can't comfortably grasp and control well with just one hand on the range? Think it'll do any better for you?

One thing I'll offer, as someone who teaches/trains LE and started my career carrying an issued .357 Magnum revolver ... and that is that in some ways I do miss the days when cops learned a good foundation of handgun shooting skills, focusing on a good grip, necessary sight picture/alignment and good trigger control when shooting a DA revolver.

High capacity was never intended to replace accurately aimed fire in civilian (LE & non-LE) situations, you know. :eek:

Choosing a defensive handgun is often a matter of limited/no choice for some folks. You get what you're given, or what you're permitted to receive/choose. Other folks have the luxury of choosing anything they desire.

If it's a personal choice, choose wisely, and for all the right reasons.

Just because you like the appearance of a handgun it doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be able to shoot it as well another one which you don't like as much, appearance-wise.

One of the other instructors with whom I often teach CCW classes sometimes looks at the different qualification targets of licensees after they're completed a course-of-fire ... using more than one of their selected CCW handguns ... and will simply say to them, "Carry that one. You shoot it much better." Sometimes he's talking about a pistol the licensee just used, and sometimes he's talking about a revolver they just used. Sometimes the response he receives is, "But I like the other gun better." My partner just shrugs and lets them go on their way, since they qualified with all their permitted choices (unless they didn't, of course). Their choice, their lives ... or the lives of their loved ones.

Just my thoughts.

I've been doing this long enough to have gained a some small amount of experience and to have formed my own opinions for my own needs. I've reviewed the number of rounds fired in a number of shooting situations, and I'm content to carry my currently issued 7+1 .45 pistol and my 5,6,7,8,9 & 10-rd capacity off-duty weapons. Other folks may have studied the same, or similar, things and have arrived at a different decision. That's fine for them. I won't presume to tell them they're 'wrong'.

Kind of like trying to argue which caliber is 'better'.

It's just handgun, though, you know ...

Great post, fastbolt!

I believe the "only three shots in a gunfight" statistic is several years old... I'm pretty sure that the numbers have changed since the semis have become dominant.

I wish I could remember the source (or the exact numbers), but I did see a stat recently that found that the average number of rounds fired for revolver and pistol are:

Revolver: 2.4
Semi: 2.7

Those aren't exact figures, but the spread is about right IIRC. Could have started with a "3".

Maybe someone could help me out here.

I agree though, averages are just averages. As others have said, he/she who places the critical shot first wins. Which has a heck of a lot more to do with training/tactics/awareness, not platform.

I say that knowing that I could benefit from a lot more training myself, so I don't mean to be a hypocrit.

Two points, one about ammo power between autos and wheelguns and the other about the Miami '86 shootout.

On ammo: revolver ammo doesn't need to compromise it's nose shape for feed ramp reliability. So we see bullet shapes in the revolver world that flat wouldn't fly in autos. As one glaring example: the 38+P Lead Semi-Wadcutter Hollowpoints (LSWC-HP) slugs as used by Winchester (4" or more barrels only please due to harder lead), Remington (2" compatible) or Buffalo Bore (standard pressure similar to Remmie, +P like nothing else on Earth) have reputations as "stoppers" that exceed their actual bullet energy. 250ft/lbs worth of the Remmie load is to me as useful on a per-round basis as 350ft/lbs of 9mm Luger and is worlds ahead of anything in 380 or 9mmMakarov (9x18). Once you hit the 357 the hottest loads leave everything but the 10mm in the dust and even that's hard-pressed to keep up with the best - and it's not a double-column mag round. And as one gent noted from a real shootout, three of his 44Mag rounds from a packable gun beat a swarm of sprayed autoloader "stuff" of unknown type.

Let's not even start with the "flying ashtray" Speer 200gr .44cal and 250gr .45cal slugs. There's not a feed ramp in the world that could eat those things 100% and they're near the top of the list of things I don't want to get hit with along with the Gold Dot 125gr 357 doing 1,500+ (which also has a funky nose shape).

On Miami: what I meant by "tactical screwups" had nothing to do with gun types, nor do I read the Miami shootout as an indictment of any one gun/ammo type. I don't blame the 9mm Silvertip for it's "failure" - the dang thing went through over 14" worth of *arm* before entering the goblin's chest cavity, while expanding perfectly.

No, the screwups involved:

* Tac vests left in trunks - yeah it was hot out, but they *knew* what sort of psychos they were hunting.

* Main sidearms pulled out and left on seats - once the chase came to a screeching halt all the decent guns went sliding down to hang out near the gas pedal or similar and most of the shooting then had to happen with backup guns that needed to be drawn first. Those crucial initial seconds lost were killers.

* Finally, pulling the goblins over in the dirt at close range raised a cloud of dust that rendered the first few seconds a blind firefight. The goblins in the center, being surrounded and equipped with at least one high-cap rifle had a "target rich environment" and then some.

The only solution to the resulting hideous tactical situation was the application of a "metric buttload" of fire.

Even then, they got lucky: in the first seconds one goblin managed to take out the other by blowing his eardrums out with a magnum revolver fired across his partner's lap while still in the car.

The FBI didn't want to admit all this and blamed the 9mm.

Now...I'm willing to trust my life to good 38+P, and I consider most 9mm fodder to be at least that good if not a tad better (more energy for starters). Like the 38+P, I think the 9mm shooter should pick their ammo carefully. But it'll git'r'done. The long sashay towards the 40S&W by way of a bastardized 10mm was a bit of a joke, but worked out mostly OK in the end except that some smaller (and often female) cops seem to be overwhelmed by the 40. But I think they'd have done better focusing on training, buying DAO 9s with *good* triggers, sights and 5" barrels for more bullet speed.

I also think making every cop in any department, local or Fed, use the *same* gun is nuts. Human hand sizes vary. Both the 10mm single-stack and 40 double-stack bottomfeeders ignore this completely and overall...it's a mess.

All because the Feebs couldn't admit to a lethal series of blunders.

Meh.

One guy with a magnum sixgun, some smarts, some patience and some tactics, none of which needed to be superhuman, could have dropped Platt and Matix like yesterday's newspaper ads. Jelly Brice, Bill Jordan, Rex Applegate or any number of others could have chopped 'em up and served 'em as sushi with 50+ year old guns.

Ghaaa.

That Jim March guy speaks truly..... :cool:

Nematocyst ,fastbolt ,Jim March
WOW three great posts to bad they're burried on page 6 they should be required reading


Thanks guys

Thanks for the complements. We all have our better days.

I'm honored to be recognized along with two others who have FAR more experience and expertise than me.

You're welcome ... but don't settle so easily. ;)

Expertise?!?! :scrutiny: Not hardly.

Revolvers are LAME. :neener: ;) Unless they're big bore, they just aren't cool IMO. I just can't ever feel comfortable with the variety of revolvers I've tried, however semi-auto's usually feel right at home in my hands. From a technical standpoint, they work. From a defense standpoint, the more rounds you can get on target accurately and more quickly the better. Revolvers can't hold as many rounds as most semi-autos, therefore from a technical standpoint I would tend to think semi's are "superior" in that regard. Revolver people don't even bother posting a video of Jerry Miculek. I'm familiar with him and his awe-inspiring feats with revolvers. That guy is the BEST at what he does, more so than probably ~99% of revolver shooters out there so most people can't expect to ever be nearly that fast putting rounds down range and reloading. Auto's make it much easier for the average individual (and lets face it, I'm sure most of us are) to put lots of rounds down range more quickly while still maintaining accuracy compared to the same average individual with a revolver.

From a self defense standpoint though, I feel that comfort is a major factor and whatever firearm you feel most comfortable with is probably better in that aspect as you won't have to waste any time/effort operating the controls, adjusting your grip, etc. In a self defense situation I would no more wish a revolver on myself than an 'auto on a revolver guy so don't get me wrong. ;)

Did somebody mentioned Jerry Miculek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI)?

:neener:

My Opinion. Yes A revolver is practical for self defence. For open security carry, I can carry whatever I am qualified on unless a client specifies a preference. When I have a choice I usually go with a revolver because that seems to be what I shoot a bit better with. Dont get me wrong I like Glocks and feel totally comfortable with one for self defence but I have never had an old lady ask me if I was carrying a "Real" gun when the GP100 is in the holster...

I was going to mention that I reload can thus afford shoot my revolver more than any semi but fact is I was shooting rented smiths and rugers better than a Glock I have owned for years long before I ever bought my GP...That's Just me

Posted by Nematocyst
Did somebody mentioned Jerry Miculek?

What Nematocyst conveniently neglected to mention regarding the youtube video he posted, is that Jerry Miculek's firearm was a specially made custom race revolver, built specifically for competition in the Smith & Wesson custom shop.

It has a heavily doctored trigger with about a one pound pull, and Miculek was using very light target loads that would be pretty much worthless in a self-defense situation.

Let's see ol' Jerry shoot that fast and accurate using a stock production S&W 686 off a dealer's shelf, with an 8 to 9 pound trigger pull and firing full .357 magnum defensive loads. :evil:

It ain't gonna happen! :p

Let's see ol' Jerry shoot that fast and accurate using a stock production S&W 686 off a dealer's shelf, with an 8 to 9 pound trigger pull and firing full .357 magnum defensive loads.

I've seen it, and it is still impressive. He can still fire more rounds down range than this C class USPSA production shooter. He is the exception to the rule. An amazing guy.

whw

What Nematocyst conveniently neglected to mention regarding the youtube video he posted, is that Jerry Miculek's firearm was a specially made custom race revolver, built specifically for competition in the Smith & Wesson custom shop.

It has a heavily doctored trigger with about a one pound pull, and Miculek was using very light target loads that would be pretty much worthless in a self-defense situation.

Let's see ol' Jerry shoot that fast and accurate using a stock production S&W 686 off a dealer's shelf, with an 8 to 9 pound trigger pull and firing full .357 magnum defensive loads.

It ain't gonna happen!

So, you're just saying, if you're armed with a revolver, when attacked, it's only good for rolling over onto it like the British did to their rifles when the Afghan women came down from the hills with their knives... quoth Kipling.

So, you're just saying, if you're armed with a revolver, when attacked, it's only good for rolling over onto it like the British did to their rifles when the Afghan women came down from the hills with their knives... quoth Kipling.

Odd you should say that. At the battle of the Little Bighorn, at least one trooper did that. The source for this is the accounts of the Indians who saw him do it. You can see an illustration of his suicide in Amos Bad Horn Bull's famous ledger book, published as, A Pictographic History of the Oglala Sioux.

It has a heavily doctored trigger with about a one pound pull, and Miculek was using very light target loads that would be pretty much worthless in a self-defense situation.
actually Jerry uses a much heavier than stock trigger return spring to keep him from over running the trigger, and since he must make major power factor to compete in IPSC they are not light.

TRY AGAIN

Jerry Miculek's firearm was a specially made custom race revolver, built specifically for competition in the Smith & Wesson custom shop.

It has a heavily doctored trigger with about a one pound pull

TRY AGAIN

I agree with mavracer. Besides, even Randy Lee, the wizard revolver smith who does miracle trigger jobs on many competition revolvers can "only" get a DA trigger down to about 4 pounds.

Though the action's probably been tuned & smoothened, JM is pretty clear that he uses revolvers with a pretty stock trigger pull. Ed McGivern, arguably the fastest revolver shooter in history used stock S&W revolvers. "Smooth" ought not be confused with "light". Nor should one automatically assume that a revolver can only be shot rapidly if the trigger pull is light. Guys like JM & McGivern are/were fast because they practice(d) shooting fast. What a concept. :rolleyes:

Some folks see technology as an answer to a training problem.

Fast reloads. Fast trigger work. Why should anyone have to learn how to use a weapon with deadly efficiency, speed and accuracy when you let some mechanism do it all for you?

My answer: "Yes"

I went through all of the posts and came across a couple interesting things.

Revolver jamming at the range? How does a revolver jam? I have yet to have a stove pipe in my S&W Mod 19 that I carry and don't think it is ever going to happen.

Jerry M. only shoots fast and accurate because he is shooting light loads in a custom tuned revolver. Sure, and all of those guys who particpate in the "games" with their semi-autos are shooting +P+ carry ammo in non-tuned handguns.

The fastest and most accurate way I can get two rounds center mass at 21 feet is with my K frame S&W. Is the trigger smoothed and tuned? You bet. I'm not a new shooter and have been shooting handguns for sport, hunting, military service, self defense and just for yucks for decades.

When I leave the house with the 2 1/2" S&W 357 in the IWB plus an extra six in a speed strip I'm fully armed for the reason I carry it. I carry it for me and any loved one that might accompany me in an life threatening situation. I don't carry it to protect you, our society or anything else except my life or my loved ones. I'm not a caped avenger seeking to fight crime or right wrongs. If I opt to get into a fire fight it won't be with any of my handguns and I'll make sure to take a few rifles and shotgun along.

Having said all of that.... If you have your reasons for carrying a self defense semi-auto that makes sense to you and are comforting to you then I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.

Some folks see technology as an answer to a training problem.

Fast reloads. Fast trigger work. Why should anyone have to learn how to use a weapon with deadly efficiency, speed and accuracy when you let some mechanism do it all for you?

No one said they selected a self loader or revolver so they can train less.

So, if you are in charge of an army armed with muzzle loader and when troops asks for assault rifles after they got beaten by another army with it, your reply would be "Just train harder"?
If your army got beaten again, are you going to say, "No, that does not count. They used technology to beat us, and my troops score higher in bull's eye and reloading skills."?

The original question wise, I already answered it.

Now, which probability is higher? Probability of self loaders such as Glock or SIG jamming or percentage of pistol shooting incidents where more than 6 shots were fired?

Even if I assume percentage of pistol shooting incidents where more than 6 shots were needed as 1%, which would be ridiculously and unrealistically lower than actual numbers, that would still be at least hundred times higher probability than a SIG or Glock malfunctioning.

[QUOTE]Revolver jamming at the range? How does a revolver jam? I have yet to have a stove pipe in my S&W Mod 19 that I carry and don't think it is ever going to happen./QUOTE]
=======================
I've had a couple of instances when my revolver "jammed." My Ruger GP100's cylinder wouldn't rotate after 6 to 10 rounds were fired. I guess you could call that a failure to go into battery in semi auto terms. A trip back to the factory fixed the problem, but required replacement of all the internals.

I also had a S&W Perf Center 586, a beautiful gun, but one that just didn't work well. After about 50 rounds of .357 magnum loads, the cylinder couldn't be moved. Not able to fire or swing the cylinder out to unload/reload. Again, off to the factory for repair.

In my limited experience, the most reliable handguns I've ever used have been the 9mm Glocks. Strangely enough, I hate the darn things. They are ugly and without a soul, but this comes from a guy that still uses fountain pens.

Guess what I carry----

whw

No one said they selected a self loader or revolver so they can train less.

So, if you are in charge of an army armed with muzzle loader and when troops asks for assault rifles after they got beaten by another army with it, your reply would be "Just train harder"?
If your army got beaten again, are you going to say, "No, that does not count. They used technology to beat us, and my troops score higher in bull's eye and reloading skills."?

Apples. Oranges. Fruit salad.

I'd rather take a hardcore revolver shooter on my side than a casual autoloader shooter. Comparing a musket to an M-16 is a vastly different kettle of fish than comparing a Model 10 K-frame to a Glock 17.

In reductum absurdum. Hence, refuted and ignored.

Apples. Oranges. Fruit salad.

I'd rather take a hardcore revolver shooter on my side than a casual autoloader shooter. Comparing a musket to an M-16 is a vastly different kettle of fish than comparing a Model 10 K-frame to a Glock 17.

In reductum absurdum. Hence, refuted and ignored.

The musket and assault rifle example is not an analogy about self loaders and revolvers. The example is to illustrate that your assertion that more training can always make up for technological gap is erroneous. What part of that did you refute?

A group of people may be trained to reload a revolver quickly, but given the same amount of training, that same group of people will be able to reload a self loader more faster. And, that self loader they reloaded will require less reloading. What part of that did you refute?

Refuted? Just because you declared so?

...Why should anyone have to learn how to use a weapon with deadly efficiency, speed and accuracy when you let some mechanism do it all for you? ...
I'd rather take a hardcore revolver shooter on my side than a casual autoloader shooter.
Did you prove that people who use self loader are has less mastery over their pistol than revolver shooters?

"The gun he used for the 5-shot effort came from the S&W Performance Center in 1994 and is basically a Model 66 with a special "V"-shaped, ported barrel. The action is stock, although Jim Rae, the Performance Center's revolver magician, who was there, said that it had been "smoothed up" a bit but everything was stock. The ammo he used as a standard target .38 Special handload of 2.7 gr. Bullseye with a 148 gr. cast wadcutter bullet, similar to what McGivern shot."---American Handgunner Magazine

Miculek's supposedly "stock" revolver was built by custom competition revolver guru Jim Rae in the Smith & Wesson Performance Center, and included a special "V"-shaped, ported barrel. Rae "smoothed up" the action, and Miculek was shooting very anemic .38 Special target loads with wadcutter bullets.

Like I said, Miculek CAN'T shoot that fast with a completely stock production 686, firing full powered .357 Magnum defensive loads.

Any way you look at it, your king is STILL wearing no clothes! :evil: :neener:

Apparently mavracer missed Jerry Miculek's own instructional DVD entitled Trigger Job, where Jerry explains how to "Tune" the action and make the trigger pull LIGHTER on a revolver.

Anybody who believes Miculek uses completely stock, production revolvers in his demonstrations and competitions is living in a fantasy world. :D :p

"This program shows complete gunsmithing procedures to "Tune" the overall action of your revolver; resulting in a smoother, lighter, more predictable trigger pull. You'll learn how to reduce metal to metal friction and why trigger return can be more important than trigger pull. Plus, Jerry Miculek shows you complete disassembly and reassembly of the Smith & Wesson Revolver, the relationship and function of all parts, and full nomenclature. A wealth of information presented to you by the most accomplished revolver shooter alive, Jerry Miculek. Applies to K, L, N frame revolvers."

http://gunvideo.com/index.php?category_id=314&tpl=pgroup_descrip&pid=5533&return=%3F

The example is to illustrate that your assertion that more training can always make up for technological gap is erroneous. so you would be willing to go take an M-16 into the woods after a highly trained gurrila armed with a muzzle loader.Doug was right some people think firepower will always make up for training and guess what he was talkin about you.

Apparently mavracer missed Jerry Miculek's own instructional DVD entitled Trigger Job, where Jerry explains how to "Tune" the action and make the trigger pull LIGHTER on a revolver.

Anybody who believes Miculek uses completely stock, production revolvers in his demonstrations and competitions is living in a fantasy world.
a. didn't say it was stock I said he uses a heavier than stock trigger return spring and his trigger pull is heavier than stock.
B. in order to compete in IPSC and score major you must make major power factor which is 165,000
C. just because I can tell you how to take a glock 21 apart an install a 3.5# trigger kit,doesn't mean i've ever shot one

Testpilot - what kind of situations are you even expecting that would require handguns to need to fire fifty rounds in short amounts of time?

And, pray tell, 'splain why these people didn't bring rifles and shotguns if the stuff were that serious.

Testpilot - what kind of situations are you even expecting that would require handguns to need to fire fifty rounds in short amounts of time?

And, pray tell, 'splain why these people didn't bring rifles and shotguns if the stuff were that serious.
Today 08:58 AM

Combat, whether if it's law enforcement officer engaged in a protracted gun fight or a general citizen caught in a self defense situation, does not go by how they want it to be. What I or anyone else "expect" is irrelelvant. What is relevant is situations criminals bring to us.


There has been gunfights where more than 6 rounds were needed, in a legetimate self defense situation. Are you denying this? Even master gunfighters are not confident with 100% hits in combat. Even if they do score 100% hits, it may take multiple shots, and there may be multiple susptect. The suspects may be behind good cover, and hard to hit. Not all people who fired more than 6 shots or even 15 shots were bad shooters. Why do you think good shooters such as Jim Cirillo gave lessons about "New York Reload"? He used revolvers for duty, and that proves he did not think "I'm a good shot, so I only need 6."

Why not rifles and shot gun? Does the person carry a rifle and shot gun? Do the person live in a sorry state that requires combat effective rifles to be butchered to have pinned magazine and with only 10 roudnd capacity? Is the person more proficient with a pistol than a shot gun? Take a pick.
If they have a rifle and shotgun available, and proficient with it, they might as well go with that instead of a pistol, even if it was a revolver. So, why is that even relevant?

Having 15 round do not mean you have to use all of them, but how can having it be bad?

are you a military personal or a police officer that knows some day you will get into a fire fight? most instances that CCW holders come into use is a close quators combat that you only need 1 or 2 shots to get the point acrost. you not going to run towards the sounds of gun fire and engage in a fire fight nor would you exchange rounds with a shooter in a mall. you would get the hell out of dodge, unless cornered then you would take your time and give a good shot. no need for 80 rounds.

i almost see carrying a higher cap. auto with a reload to be over kill.

i carry a .357mag revolver in a d-frame colt size. thats all i need with my HKS speed loaders.

While it's true that Jerry Miculek's speed shooting and competition form is excellent, the reverse side of that is that self defense isn't competition shooting. Whether or not you're using a revolver or pistol, you have to hit the target and the load has to "get the job done".

I agree that he probably couldn't shoot with the speed and accuracy that he does in competition in a self defense situation, but after his first two shots or so, it should all be over. If not, then he could be getting into a problem.

If he's shooting .357 "full loads", his first hit will most probably take the target down. I shoot both, and carry both, for different reasons. Revolvers provide "close contact" firepower, and pistols carry "extended fire" amounts of ammo. If I'm in a room with an assailant, I don't need 18 rounds... if I'm needing to reload my revolver, I'm in big trouble anyway. On the other hand, if I'm in a parking lot, and the assailant is ducking behind cars and telephone poles, I'm going to need more ammo to insure that I keep him pinned down.

As a former LEO, I can promise you that contentious situations are fluid... and you need to be prepared for whatever is going on... not simply imagine your scenario and then arm for it. I carry both pistols and revolvers in varying combinations... and, Oh yes... don't forget the "backup gun". I've known lots of ex-Leo's who, if they didn't learn anything else, learned that the guy who can keep firing is usually the winner.

Speed loaders, and extra clips are the key to continuing to run the gun, but revolver speed loaders are bulky and not good concealed carry items. The clips offer a flat profile that allows you to carry as many as you want without giving away that you have the ammo for an extended firefight. With revolvers, the old "pocket full of ammo" just won't get it done... but still don't sell them short.

It really doesn't matter what you carry as long as you can bullseye the target under pressure. I don't know if Jerry Miculek can "draw and fire" his self defense weapons to match his competition speed or not, but in either case, I don't think I want to be downrange of him.

WT

...close quators combat that you only need 1 or 2 shots to get the point acrost. ...
I hope who ever criminal who attempts to threaten your life agrees with you on that. Because, there's a lot of cases where the offender did not agree with that.

If you feel good with having only 6 shots and a reload, then I have nothing against it. But, to tell others that they don't "need" a self loader with a spare magazine is an error, unless you have a crystal ball that let's you see the future and it told you so, especially when an ordinary citizen firing more than 6 rounds in legetimate self defense already happened. Are you then going to tell people and lawmakers that "Hey, since 1~2 shots from a revolver is all it takes, there is no legetimate need for people to have rifles and shotguns for defense purpose, especially ones with over 6 round capacity."?

I really don't have anything against people carrying 6 shot revolver, even without a reload. I don't think they're negligent in only carrying 6 rounds, and I do think what they carry gives them option to defend themselves "most" of the time. What I object to is people telling me I don't "need" to have more when I want to be better prepared, especially when there are cases that proved otherwise. Let me decide what I need.

Besides, if I can carry a self loader and a spare mag more comfortably than a revolver and a speed loader, then how can having more rounds be bad? Having 80 rounds does not mean I have to use all of them, not that I actually carry it.

If you like revolvers, and shoot well with it, fine. It you are good with it, and want to carry it for self defense, fine. But, don't say having less round is not a disadvantage, and having more is an overkill, both of which is plain wrong.

TestPilot - you're the one poo-pooing on the revolver. Nowhere have I said 15 rounds on hand is bad. I'm a 9mm lover.

Again - if there's going to be a situation where you're attacked by fifty opponents, a single Glock-load isn't going to take down more than a few of them. If things are that impossibly bad that you'll die if you are limited to 5-8 shots between reloads, then you're an idiot for not finding cover or an avenue of retreat, going someplace where swarms of psychopaths are on patrol (at least without a Hummer and a Ma-Deuce), or you need to call in a bloody airstrike, not reload your handgun!

...Again - if there's going to be a situation where you're attacked by fifty opponents, a single Glock-load isn't going to take down more than a few of them. If things are that impossibly bad that you'll die if you are limited to 5-8 shots between reloads, ....
You don't need 50 opponents for that. Even 1~2 opponents can suffice. Besides, if you think, by your own admission, a single Glock can't take more than a "few" opponent's, what makes you think 6 shot will suffice?

...then you're an idiot for not finding cover or an avenue of retreat, going someplace where swarms of psychopaths are on patrol (at least without a Hummer and a Ma-Deuce), or you need to call in a bloody airstrike, not reload your handgun! ...

What part of my post lead you to believe that I would not seek cover or path for retreat?

TestPilot - you're the one poo-pooing on the revolver.
Do I think revolver is an effective defense weapon? Yes. Do I think revolver's 6 shot capacity is a disadvantage? Yes. Do I think revolvers have some other disadvantages? Yes. It was all legetimate concerns. If you want to call that poo-pooing, be my guest.

Having 15 round do not mean you have to use all of them, but how can having it be bad?

I don't think any of us here are saying that having 15 rounds is a bad thing. All else being equal, having more ammo is a plus. But there so many other factors that must be taken into consideration, of course. So what is bad is selecting a gun only for it's ammo capacity. A gun is like a pair of shoes. It must be fit to the individual user. What works for me won't necessarily work for you and vice versa.

So some of us just shoot revolvers better, and therefore, we feel we are better served by them. It's as simple as that. So going back to the OP, I would say:

1. A revolver IS a practical defensive weapon, so long as you are trained/confident/proficient in it's use.

2. A semi automatic IS a practical defensive weapon, so long as you are trained/confident/proficient in it's use.

BTW, #1 includes both DA and SA revolvers. Few people are proficient with a SA these days, but from I've seen with my own eyes, those that are should NOT be messed with :D .

It has a heavily doctored trigger with about a one pound pull, and Miculek was using very light target loads that would be pretty much worthless in a self-defense situation.

Let's see ol' Jerry shoot that fast and accurate using a stock production S&W 686 off a dealer's shelf, with an 8 to 9 pound trigger pull and firing full .357 magnum defensive loads.

Actually, Miculek is on record stating that his guns have a 6 to 8 lb pull (or thereabouts, I'd have to break out my Ultimate Advanced Revolver DVD for the exact number). Sub 5 lbs, it aint. The actual pull length is unchanged as well.

And I wouldn't call such a trigger "heavily doctored". I reserve that description for Glocks and 1911s that have been "heavily butchered" and will fire a round if you pop a fart off within 10 paces of one :eek: . A 6 to 8 lb pull is very much in the realm of possibility for a competent gunsmith without the need for replacing any internal parts. Simple smoothing and polishing of all the contact surfaces (particularly the rebound slide/side plate interface) are all that is really required. And the same treatment can be done to a revolver that is used for more "serious purposes" without sacrifacing a bit of reliability. What you basically wind up with is a revolver with the trigger quality of pre-war Smiths and Colts. An oh my, what fine slick shooting guns those were.

And I would venture that Miculek's times would drop a bit with a totally stock (non-tuned) 686, but I sure wouldn't care to venture down range to find out. Call me crazy, but I still think he'd kick my butt :o. Jerry is a skilled shooter, so I imagine he can make the most out of whatever tools he is handed in such a way that he'd still embarrass most of us. Care to challenge Lance Armstrong to an endurance race on identical Wallie World special 10-speeds? :)

On the other hand, Ed McGivern used a stock S&W for his shooting feats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_McGivern.

Auto's make it much easier for the average individual (and lets face it, I'm sure most of us are) to put lots of rounds down range more quickly while still maintaining accuracy compared to the same average individual with a revolver.

Plenty of us average people still can shoot a revolver more accurately at the same or better speed than an auto. We each have our own shooting rhythm/pace, and for myself and others that rhythm seems to better match with the wheel gun.

From a self defense standpoint though, I feel that comfort is a major factor and whatever firearm you feel most comfortable with is probably better in that aspect as you won't have to waste any time/effort operating the controls, adjusting your grip, etc. In a self defense situation I would no more wish a revolver on myself than an 'auto on a revolver guy so don't get me wrong.

Amen to that! Autos work for you, wheelies for me. As most of us are gun nuts, I think (well, hope) we can all respect that!

---

To someone earlier who mentioned revolver jams, yes, it can happen. Humans aren't perfect, so anything humans create is not going to be perfect either. Jamming in a revolver refers to the cylinder stopping it's rotation. This can be caused by a number of factors. Most of the time (not always), but it seems to either occur in:

- NIB guns that have too tight a cylinder gap or improperly fit hand. Every defensive gun should be tested for reliability, and this type of problem usually crops up in the first 50 rounds, so it becomes a PIA more than anything else.

- Guns that have been poorly maintained and neglected.

I test my revolvers for reliability when first purchased, then I clean/lube them after every range session. And the ones I rely on for self defense are usually cleaned more often. I do the same for my 1911 that I carry now-and-then. A well maintained and cared for revolver is highly unlikely (though not impossible) to sieze suddenly. Usually (in my personal experience) you can sense a stiffening in the pull long before a bind occurs, and can take appropriate corrective action before it becomes a liability.

If you feel good with having only 6 shots and a reload, then I have nothing against it. But, to tell others that they don't "need" a self loader with a spare magazine is an error, unless you have a crystal ball that let's you see the future and it told you so, especially when an ordinary citizen firing more than 6 rounds in legetimate self defense already happened. Are you then going to tell people and lawmakers that "Hey, since 1~2 shots from a revolver is all it takes, there is no legetimate need for people to have rifles and shotguns for defense purpose, especially ones with over 6 round capacity."?

I really don't have anything against people carrying 6 shot revolver, even without a reload. I don't think they're negligent in only carrying 6 rounds, and I do think what they carry gives them option to defend themselves "most" of the time. What I object to is people telling me I don't "need" to have more when I want to be better prepared, especially when there are cases that proved otherwise. Let me decide what I need.

As a revolver nut, I'd like to state that I agree 100% with your sentiments. I am certain the anti's would love to know that a significant number of pro-gunners don't see a "need" for more than 6 or 10 shots. :fire:

Now again, I go back to my post above. Don't pick a gun simply because it holds more rounds. Pick it because it fits YOU best.

How does a revolver jam?
Bullets jump crimp and tie up the cylinder -- often so badly you can't open the cylinder.

Primers back out and tie up the cylinder.

Crud gets under the ejector star and either ties up the cylinder, or prevents closing the cylinder.

An ejected round (or a round being loaded) slips sideways, falls back into the chamber, but with the rim under the ejector start.

Little eenchie parts break -- the hand, the transfer bar, the cylinder stop spring.

And I would venture that Miculek's times would drop a bit with a totally stock (non-tuned) 686, but I sure wouldn't care to venture down range to find out. Call me crazy, but I still think he'd kick my butt . Jerry is a skilled shooter, so I imagine he can make the most out of whatever tools he is handed in such a way that he'd still embarrass most of us. Care to challenge Lance Armstrong to an endurance race on identical Wallie World special 10-speeds
I will expound on this, When I first started shooting IPSC in 1992 I was lucky enough to have 3 master class shooters who shot our club level matches,I can tell you they are very fast at IDing problems and dealing with them.I've had my ass kicked with a single shot(gun wouldn't cycle and had to be racked every round).and had one of them show up with a bone stock smith 39 shooting minor and still finished 3rd .so ya Miculek will not only kick our butts he can probably bobble his reload and still beat you.and his draw is a reflex.also lance can give you his uberlight racer and kick your butt on a walmart 10speed

I think that the point has been made that when it comes time to actually be shooting, that a revolver or a semi-auto will both get the job done and that the limiting factor is the operator. Personally, I carry (concealed) a 4" 1911 style - 7+1 with 7 more in reserve.

However, the OP stated that size wasn't an issue, strongly implying open carry. Now there is more that just ability to shoot, but whether a bad guy will begin to engage or not. In the media, semi-auto's tend to be portrayed as spray-and-pray while revolvers tend to be portrayed as "country boy who can shoot the fleas off a dog". If I was a bad guy, I know which one I'd rather pick on, and it isn't the wheelgun.

Further, given that full size revolvers tend to be bigger than autos, it is possible that a bad guy may just plain not see the auto even if open carried, and may thus decide to engage what he thought was an unarmed victim-to-be. Armed or not, I don't want to get shot at or otherwise made the target of criminal activity.

In the end, if open carry was allowed where I live (it isn't) I just might go around with my S&W Model 19 in plain view on my hip with my 1911 in a pocket.

Two words: shot placement.

That is all. :)

Testpilot - I apologize for apparently taking the Low Road. My gripe was with those who felt someone was doomed because they had a revolver. I prefer a good 9mm auto myself, but there is a strong place in my heart for the fighting revolver.

Apologies for having taken the low road.

Guys like JM & McGivern are/were fast because they practice(d) shooting fast. What a concept.

Pshaw. Practice? That's for losers. WE talk about it on the internet. :D

just old and tired thread let it die

Last post March 30, 2008.

At 7:05PM, April 2, 2008 florida1098 resurrected while noting:
just old and tired thread let it die

I'm taking a screen shot for my entry in the irony contest we're running at work.
:)

+1 Hawk. It'd been quiet for at least 60 hours. Why post a response?

I often carry a 7 shot .357mag and never feel under gunned

For 21 years I never felt outgunned in NYC, with 2 revolvers, and later on a ppks. But when I moved down to FL, all the guys I knew from my business who were uncomfortable around guns, suddenlly were telling "me" who has been a shooter since I could walk, what I needed to get. For all these multiple attack, hostage and whatever else they saw on Miami Vice. My model 60 S&W felt very insecure, so I started going mad buying everything that came out for a couple of years, and I was used to carrying all of my adult life. Until one day I said, screw this, I don't need all this stuff, and sold all twenty or so that I had bought in the previous years. I am down to 5, now there are two that I like but don't ever carry, they are next. If I am in a gunfight with several armed attackers, which I doubt, they will only sue me anyway if I live through it, and i'll have to sell the guns for legal fees. guns are like woman you know when you found the right one. Revolvers and auto's both have thier purpose, only you can tell which one is good for you, that's why they make different colors. If you are an average shooter get a nice model 29 S&W, or a cpmbat masterpiece, and leave it near your bed with a mag lite. If you wish for an auto for the same purpose and xd, Glock or 1911,in any of the 3 calibers, The 9 is easier to shoot, and with the new attachment, you are looking at 22 rounds in the weapon. If you need more than that, you may as well get a tank. maybe add a laser and practice once a week at least, 10 minutes on the way to or from whrever you are going.

I didn't read this whole thread, but...

I feel just as safe with my .44mag single action 6 shooter as I would with any other gun. I can get all 6 shots into an area the size of a torso in under 6 seconds, and I'm a bad shot.

I'll take the centuries old tried and true revolver over some fancy plastic gun any day. If I actually need 17 bullets I'm probably screwed anyway.

I started at 5:30AM today and really tried to get through all 8 pages, but
page 7 just became YOU AR.... NO YOU ARE blah blah blah

I am convinced we all come to our own conclusions - some based on experience, some by way of theorizing, but nobody's opinion is far swayed
in the end.

SOme contributors to thread s are simply ocntrarians who toss out inflammatory examples of what if or what was but isn't BEST or ever happened to them...

Bye bye to this thread.

And after all this reading, I still haven't re-converted to a bottomfeedingbrasspuker.

I'm still carrying a roundyhandejectinghardtrigger on my right side in an OWB.

Where is rationality? Has argument failed? Has America lost its mind?

Where is rationality? Has argument failed? Has America lost its mind?


Where is rationality? Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues (again).
He hasn't been around these parts for over 25 years.

Has America Lost its Mind?
I am convinced that most Americans have lost their minds and their way.
Hence I carry.

Has Argument Failed? Not Yet.

Sorry to make light. Wanted to get my licks in before the lock clicks into place.

From the original post....
Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?
Yes.
Many folks have successfully defended themselves with revolvers, and many continue to do so everyday.

It's difficult to put the full context of this question into the title line. But assuming that size was not an issue, so you could carry any full size revolver you choose, would such a weapon really offer all the advantages of a high capacity semi-automatic pistol.
No, a revolver does not have "all the advantages of a high capacity semi-automatic pistol".
The revolver will not carry as many bullets, it will not be as easy to reload (provided a spare mag is carried), and it will not be as easy to clear a jam.

Six or seven shots of double action .357 Magnum have no place going up against 15 rounds of rapid fire single action .40S&W, or do they?
In a perfect world where nobody ever misses their target, the revolver fares just as well as the high-cap autoloader.
But this aint a perfect world. :rolleyes:
I think that we have all seen way too many videos of shootouts (and some of us have firsthand shootout experience) to discount magazine capacity.

While I would agree that guns like the S&W 642 are great CCW pieces because of their small size and high reliability with a capable round, the real question is why would I want a Model 19 instead of a Glock 23. Would I not be starting off with a huge disadvantage.
In my opinion, yes.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic?
If you had no experience operating an autoloader....inserting magazines, clearing jams, etc...then the revolver makes sense.
Otherwise, I really can't see any good reason to choose a revolver over an autoloader.

Good luck,
Easy.

I think so. The revolver's been around for about 150 years, the same basic design being unchanged for that time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for capactiy...I don't plan on shooting it out with insurgents in Baghdad or gangbangers in LA, so 5-6 should be plenty. Revolvers, however, are harder to conceal than autos, but it can be done.

I'd say a revolver (like .357 scandium in my pocket) is a good backup to my higher capacity semi-automatic pistol.

You never know if you'll be in a situation where you'll need more than 5-6 rounds! What if there're multiple attackers? What if you do need to lay down suppressive fire? Like in a Mall where a crazed gunman (or multiple gunmen) are firing up the place? And there're many examples you can think of where you'd want a lot of rounds.

Do not think only cops need this. That's just bad thinking, imo. Always be prepared for the worst, as long as you can conceal it all in public. :)

The rarity of it doesn't matter to me, because it's going to happen to SOMEONE, right? What if that 0.01% is YOU? Will quoting statistics matter then? I didn't think so!

Be prepared! Again, if anything, I'd rather have a revolver as backup to my other gun(s), rather than have just that single revolver on me.

Better to have, and not need... than to need, and not have. That goes for ammo capacity, as well... not just whether you have a gun on you, or not.

6 rounds of aimed and accurate .38 special lead round nose trumps 15 wildly fired rounds of your wondernine or funkyforty hotshot mankiller "dollar a round" bullets all day long.

6 rounds of aimed and accurate .38 special lead round nose trumps 15 wildly fired rounds of your wondernine or funkyforty hotshot mankiller "dollar a round" bullets all day long.

And 15 rounds of aimed and accurate 9mm (or .40) rounds trumps 6 wildly fired rounds of .38 special, all day long.



Just because one has only six shots does not make one a better marksman. :rolleyes:

I know that revolvers can possibly fail...just has never happened to me. Not Ever! Once, I had a bad primer in a round...I just pulled the trigger and the next round went...bang.

Now, my autos...they jam on me just about every other range trip or so. They always need slide glide...don't let it dry out...they constantly need new springs...don't forget to care for your magazines either...and they are ammo finniky, etc., etc. They suck in the elements too.

I have and love both...but the revolver will always be my first choice for defense.

Now, my autos...they jam on me just about every other range trip or so. They always need slide glide...don't let it dry out...they constantly need new springs...don't forget to care for your magazines either...and they are ammo finniky, etc., etc. They suck in the elements too.
Get a Glock! :neener:

Had one...G19, my first 9mm. Traded it for my first revolver. I will admit, it didn't jam...but the revovler had a better trigger...and a far superior caliber...and...it had that metal and wood thing going for it.

To answer the question of how do revolvers jam, easily and severely if you aren't careful.

Case in point, brand new Casull. The owner put six through it and handed it to me. Now remember the ammo we're talking, can't remember the brand at this moment, is factory and about two bucks a round. I loaded it up, and fired three 335 grain full lead slugs down range (that thing almost kills from both ends). Then it jams, cylinder won't even open. Finally get it open and one of the rounds isn't seated properly and is just barely sticking out of the end of the cylinder. Fault of the ammo, not the pistol, but still a jam, and harder to fix than just jacking the slide and letting the jammed round fall to the floor like the last jam I had in an autoloader.

My fault, I forgot my own rule, always check the ammo as well as the gun. Still it can happen.

I'm not posting this to say that revolvers are not fine weapons that are up to the job of self defense. I've already given my opinion that they are, and I still stand by it. However, that doesn't make the revolver immune to problems. Any mechanical device can fail, and, according to Mr. Murphy, it will probably happen at the worst possible moment. My thought on that is that Murphy was an optimist.

one of the rounds isn't seated properly and is just barely sticking out of the end of the cylinder. Fault of the ammo, not the pistol

huh? Explain that "jam" a bit better...I don't get it. Are you saying that a round was not seated properly in the revolver cylinder? How is that possible?

I belive everyone knows that anything mechanical can/could/possibly go wrong...but honestly, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning five times in a row on a sunny day than have a revolver jam on you. In fact, I cannot even relate. I've never had a revovler mishap whereas my autos malfunction frequently to the point of expectancy.

Dawg, Glock isn't limited to 9mm, so the caliber issue is out. :P

You can get a Glock 20 or 29 (smaller) in 10mm, which is the same or a little batter than the .357 Magnum! As long as it's DoubleTap 10mm. ;)

Check the DoubleTap website out, and look up their 10mm Auto rounds, then compare to their .357 Magnum rounds.

BTW: You can easily make your Glock trigger as stiff or loose as you want, with aftermarket triggers and different aftermarket connectors. You can customize it to be 3.5 to 11 lbs. !

Sorry, no excuses! ;)

The typical American's attitude is to maximize everything.

For the most part, revolvers do not take advantage of current technology. Therefore, they lack the "new & cool" factor.

They have limited capacity. This is an obvious limitation that can be a problem in long engagements or against multiple attackers.

Revolvers are slower to reload and the gear can be problematic. Again, not "maximal".

The Tac-ti-cool teams don't use them. This is their worst deficiency.

Regarding the revolver jam:

Revolvers don't have a moving slide to assist in reducing recoil. Heavy rounds can cause the bullets in other rounds in the cylinder can loosen and work themselves out of the case. A modern example of this occurs with the extremely light S&W revolvers. One is limited to 200 grain bullets or less; the heavy recoil from heavier bullets will result in problems.

Yes, it's still practical.
As the quote goes: "No weapon is ever obsolete; Ask anyone who has been hit with a rock lately."

In small CCW sized guns a revolver works fine.
For larger guns, I'd go with a 17 round 9mm over a 6 round .38 but that's my preference.
The revolver is still generally small enough to carry and fires an effective round.

Sorry, no excuses!

Northalius: I was not look for one...and hey, what about my preference for steel and wood over plastic?

1. I can fire reloads of far greater potency in my Ruger GP100 than the 10mm you mentioned. Try that in a Glock...well, don't: you would be guaranteed one of those famous "Kabooms".

2. I already own two plastic pistols. I could purchase another one but then I'd have to go out and buy a larger safe. To what end?

And...hey, the thread was about the defensive practicality of a revolver; why is it that Glock people come out of the woodwork all the time on any thread and whine, "Glock, Glock, glock?

Originally Posted by JT
I have made my choice based upon years of experience, my current needs and my normal threat environment.

A revolver is a very practical defense weapon. But for my ccw I've chosen an autoloader.

JT is right, I think geographic area needs to come into play when considering this.
The majority of BG's I've seen in the area where I grew up carry Autoloaders. I don't live in that area anymore
but I still visit some of my family in that area frequently.

But when I visit my wife's family the population in her town is only 30,000 people during the busy season.
With that amount of people I don't mind pocket carrying a J frame. Seeing a gangbanger is very very rare
in this area.

people go to extremes and dole out anectodes "One in the ten ring is better than 12 in the ceiling"

but the truth is like most things,

more is better.


more rounds are better.
more reliable is better.
more concealable is better.
more accurate is better.

So figure out what that means to you.

if there is in your opinion a reliable accurate concealable hi capacity autoloader....

bam you got it.

Quote:
one of the rounds isn't seated properly and is just barely sticking out of the end of the cylinder. Fault of the ammo, not the pistol
huh? Explain that "jam" a bit better...I don't get it. Are you saying that a round was not seated properly in the revolver cylinder? How is that possible?

I guess I didn't explain it well. The bullet wasn't properly seated in the case. It went in almost as far as it was supposed to go, and then was crimped. That made the overall length of the round just long enough for the lead bullet to stick out of the front of the cylinder just barely far enough to catch as the cylinder advanced. If I had checked each round as I put them into the cylinder I would have noticed it immediately, and not loaded that round. It was quite obvious once we got the cylinder opened and looked at the ammo.

As I said, not the fault of the gun, though. One bad round from a box of factory ammo is always possible. The jam is as much my fault as the fault of the ammo manufacturer. I know better than not check the ammo before I stick it in the hole.

Fortunately it happened on the range and my life didn't depend on all six rounds. Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter!

Dawg, I brought it up because I saw your comment on the Glock 9mm you had. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? ;)

BTW, you can buy multiple different aftermarket barrels to put in your Glock for more barrel support, when shooting really hot reloads. The Glock barrel is looser because this helps in feeding factory (aka NON-hot reloads) reliably... and that's all that matters when the criminal is coming after you: If your pistol goes "bang"... or not.

Aftermarket barrels cost but $100 (LWD) to $200 (Bar-Sto). No problems. People are loading their own 10mm rounds to shoot 1830+ fps, as well.

BTW again: Even revolvers "kaboom" (I've seen plenty of pictures on another forum), as have all different kinds of guns. "kB'ing" isn't limited to Glocks... but nice try!

Ted Nugent seems to love his Glock 20 for big game hunting in Africa. He even made a song "Kiss My Glock" ;)

The owner of DoubleTap uses his Glock 20 to test his "hotter than usual" 10mm rounds, too.

Seems as if theirs haven't "kaboomed" yet... have they? If you know how to properly use a Glock, you have little chance of a kaboom.

The semi-autos are brought up in this thread because they're the only counter to revolvers today! If semi-autos never existed, then the question "Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?" would never be asked, because, of course they would be, since everyone else is carrying only revolvers IWB, ankle or pocket!

But in light of today's reality, we see those with [much] higher capacity semi-autos on them! And in a long, drawn out gun fight (they have, can, and will happen), if both are of equal skill in shooting, the one with the semi-auto will win, due to having access more rounds before reloading; and even when reloading, it'll be quicker for the semi-auto holder to reload compared to a revolver.

I love when "revolver-lovers" say "Semi autos are for spray and prayers!"

If someone carries a gun on them with 1-2 rounds in it, can he say "revolver-lovers" are now spray and prayers? ;)

Better to have [more ammo] and not need, than to need [more ammo] and not have. Or else, hey, why aren't militaries carrying revolvers? Oh, they face multiple attackers on the field? And how do you know for sure that you won't face multiple attackers on the streets? Ever hear of gangs?

Before you say "Might as well carry an AR-15 or AK-47 on you then!"

My answer: "If you can conceal it day in and day out, then by all means, do so... if you won't get hassled by police, that is." :)

Northalius: My comment on the Glock was a retort to the previous poster stating, "buy a glock". I just stated that I had one...traded it. As usual, Glock ilk hijack the thread and bore everyone. Because of that we have to listen to you rant/rave on about plastic guns? As I stated...I had a Glock...I traded it. I don't miss it one iota.

Now, getting back on track to the original poster's question, "Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?"

I say yes...yes it is a very practical defensive weapon.

Why would a full size revolver ever make sense over an automatic?

I have a buddy that I fish with. He rides me for not using artificial lures more and not learning them. I tell him that I do use them, but I'm not going to use artificials when I have live bait with me.

That's kinda how I am with revolvers and autos. Why carry the revolver when I have the auto?

Sorry, that analogy just does not work in any way, shape or form. I could say the exact same thing and then end it with, "Why carry an auto when I can have a revolver?" Artificial lures and live bait does not lend support to any kind of weapon.

Look...without any further bantering...this question has been asked many times on many threads on many forums. There are many answers...I suggest:

1) Reliability
2) Accuracy
3) Concealability
4) Power

357 Magnum

The most effective handgun round on the market - regardless of caliber - is the Federal .357 Magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint (357B). This load has more stopping power than any other handgun bullet (and this includes more powerful rounds like the .41 and .44 Magnums). My GP100 holds them in a nice package...and I have had the revolver machined to use moon clips, which I might add, I have become as proficient using them as my pistol magazine in reloading drills.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/why_revolver.htm

Didn't this tired thread die once already??? Which one of you punks revived it :p ?


Like 9mm vs 45, I'd say this horse is pretty much beaten to a pulp.

Yes.

Proven daily across the country and around the world. There can be no argument, the facts are clear, and have been for well over a century. All the arguments in favor of the autoloader in this thread all have one thing in common, they are not answering the question.

The question was NOT "which is better for defense", or "which is more practical for carry", or even "which meets the needs of the modern military better? "

The question was (drumroll):Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

and the answer to that is, quite simply, yes.

Which one of you punks revived it?Punk?

Who said punk? :scrutiny:

I resemble that remark!

44AMP said:

Yes.

Proven daily across the country and around the world. There can be no argument, the facts are clear, and have been for well over a century. All the arguments in favor of the autoloader in this thread all have one thing in common, they are not answering the question.

The question was NOT "which is better for defense", or "which is more practical for carry", or even "which meets the needs of the modern military better? "

The question was (drumroll):
Quote:
Is the revolver really a practical defensive weapon?

and the answer to that is, quite simply, yes.

That sums it up very concisely. Exactly what I would have written, if I do say so myself :).

While we're waking the dead:

I switched from revolver to auto mostly due to the slower trigger on the revolver, which didn't allow for a quick double-tap or as quick a follow-up shot in the case of multiple foes or one really determined attacker.

I think in many cases it would have been more than fine. I just wanted to maximize my advantage, so I went from a 5 shot .357 with a long slow DA trigger to a 14 shot .45ACP with much faster response time.

I'll purchase another revolver eventually though... Just because... :D


gp911