Why would you carry Revolver over Semi-Auto?


PDA






AirPower
August 17, 2004, 01:08 AM
does anyone around here specifically carry a wheelgun even if you have a semiauto? why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why would you carry Revolver over Semi-Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Stephen A. Camp
August 17, 2004, 01:26 AM
Hello. My pocket gun is a revolver, a S&W Model 642 loaded with Remington 158-gr. LSWCHP +P. It is more difficult to shoot accurately at speed than a similar size .380 or 9mm, but it's also reliable for that size handgun. I've tried some of the really compact autos and had more problems than I cared to stake my life on. I also find the snub easier to get into action from my pocket holster. Others might experience just the opposite. I do regularly shoot the little revolver. When I do wear a belt gun, it is almost always an automatic.

Best.

goalie
August 17, 2004, 01:42 AM
Ever fire that semi-auto from INSIDE your jacket pocket? If you did, how long did it take to make it fire the 2nd shot?

I can think of other reasons, but that one will suffice for now.

saltydog452
August 17, 2004, 01:48 AM
Climate, lifestyle, confidence, etc.

If I wore a suit coat, BDUs, etc., I would carry a largersidearm. As it is, I carry the most reliable, accessable, effective tool that I can 'get away with'.

For me, thats usually a revolver with a Guardian 32 in the off side hip pocket.

Cooler weather changes the options available.

Go with whatever trips your trigger my friend, but you might wanna realize that not everyone has to live and work in the same enviorment.

Gimme a pair of bib overalls, and I'll wear a 'Mad Max' 2 barrel smoothbore strapped to my leg.

salty.

russlate
August 17, 2004, 01:48 AM
If I do my job right, it doesn't matter what I use to do it with. If I fail to do it right, well that doesn't much matter either.

saltydog452
August 17, 2004, 01:50 AM
P.S....Who ever said that a revolver was difficult to shoot?

salty.

sm
August 17, 2004, 01:51 AM
Well , I consider some folks pretty sharp around here , and Mr. Camp is just one of these folks . He hit on a big reason - IMO. Reliability . Add Reliabilty with a bigger bullet than a small semi. Lets add to this the ability of revos to shoot ammo - meaning : some semis are ammo sensitive .

Now I have, I do and will continue to use a wheelgun. Primary or BUG.

Other reasons:

- Cost . Many a student bought a used police trade in for a LOT less than a semi , AND the mags. Gotta have reliabilty, mags are a BIG part of semi goin bang each time.

- Physical Impariments. You don't have to have arthritis or whatever to have difficulty with a semi. Minor surgery, burns, bad cut , broken fingers....stuff happens, them old revolvers are sure easy to check to make safe / ready to use/ inspect and maintain.

-MOA during stressful situations . Point - Pull - Bang .

- MOA for teaching students - or getting out of a slump. I have always said a person that learns to shoot a Revolver , DA will be a better shooter - Period. Makes no difference if they choose a SA, DA/SA, DAO....the basics learned will make them a better shooter. If going through a bad slump - revolver re -instills the basics.

- When I see / read / visit with folks that have seen the elephant - I pay attention. I pay attention to folks whom have taught/ teach folks that may go into harms way.

Mr. Camp is a right sharp fellow, I consider CRSam to be sharp, Tamara is no dummy, I could go on....

Have a gun, gun must go bang, must hit what needs to be hit . Revolver fits this nicely I believe.

Black Majik
August 17, 2004, 05:04 AM
... because some people just shoot revolvers better....



but hell, I dont. :o

stans
August 17, 2004, 06:20 AM
I carry a revolver almost every day, occasionally I switch to a semi-auto, but that is kind of rare. I prefer my S&W 640-1 for several reasons.

It is compact and comparing it to the compact 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP semi-auto's, I really think the 640-1 is easier to conceal.

Very reliable, it has never failed to fire.

Powerful, even out of a 2-1/8 inch barrel the 357 Magnum is no slouch.

Controllable, at least for me, no problems with double taps.

Accurate, moreso than my skills allow.

Can be repeatedly fired from within a coat pocket, kind of rough on the coat though!

Easy to maintain.

Easy to operate.

ChristopherG
August 17, 2004, 07:44 AM
Safe. I'm puttin' something in my front pocket, I want it to have a long, (relatively) hard Double Action pull. I wanna know if it's loaded at a glance.

And, I want it to be a 357 magnum.

PBIR
August 17, 2004, 09:04 AM
1) Less prone to malfunction. If it doesn't fire, just pull the trigger again. No tap rack drill needed.

2) You don't have to worry about the weapon being knocked out of battery in a true cqb situation.

gvass
August 17, 2004, 09:06 AM
"why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of "

RELIABILITY FIRST.
EASIER TO USE UNDER STRESS SECOND.

Do not really need any more justification. Revolver is the king of civilian selfedefence handguns. Period.

Preacherman
August 17, 2004, 09:18 AM
I used to carry semi-auto's extensively, and revolvers only for use as BUG's, but this has changed in recent years.

Firstly, in training disabled or handicapped shooters, I've noticed that many of them simply can't handle a pistol properly. Their limited upper body and/or arm strength makes "limp-wristing" a fact of life. Now, in a combat situation, one is very likely indeed to be shooting from the ground, having been knocked down; or with one hand, using the other to fend off an attacker at close range; or after being shot or stabbed oneself, and having to shoot with that impairment. Given these circumstances, the chances of "limp-wristing" a pistol are very real. It's a problem that simply doesn't arise with a revolver.

Secondly, pistols are notoriously ammo-sensitive. There are some (e.g. Glock, SIG, etc.) that feed almost anything with monotonous reliability: but others (including the fabled 1911) need a certain type of bullet to feed reliably. All of them need a certain amount of power to cycle reliably. All of them, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on lubrication and a lack of dirt in the action to work properly. A revolver is less susceptible to these problems: it will feed anything, anytime; it will fire irrespective of the power level of the bullet; and it will shoot at least a few rounds even if bone dry and covered with dust and dirt.

Third, simplicity of action is of major importance. One's fine motor skills tend to degrade significantly in a high-stress environment. One needs no fine motor skills at all to fire a revolver, but several of them to use the average pistol, what with safeties. slide stops, etc. Also, in certain situations (e.g. with the muzzle pushed into the torso of one's attacker, or the gun grasped by one's assailant) a pistol slide can be pushed "out of battery", meaning that the gun will not fire and/or will not cycle the action if fired. A revolver suffers rather less from this handicap (although if the cylinder is grasped, it can be prevented from turning, so a revolver isn't altogether immune).

Fourthly, a well-tuned and well-set-up revolver will rival most autopistols in accuracy and ease of use. A good action job makes the double-action trigger pull a joy to use. A moonclip conversion means that speed of reloading is almost identical to most autopistols, and a speedloader is not too far behind. A decent set of sights are OK, but the fixed sights on something like a S&W Model 13 or 65 are just fine for most combat distances (I can get a decent group with them at up to 50 yards), and they won't get knocked out of alignment by being dropped.

So, the revolver scores high on simplicity, reliability, etc. I'm finding myself carrying a revolver more often than a pistol these days - and I've been in more shooting encounters than I care to remember (18 years in a civil war situation will do that to you). I feel very confident in my ability to handle a revolver at least as accurately as a pistol, and the 5- or 6-round capacity will enable me to deal with up to 2 or 3 attackers before I need to worry about reloading. Also, on my snubbies for pocket or backup carry, I've fitted Crimson Trace laser grips, which give an instant sight picture even if I can't use the sights! Very useful accessory, that...

Works for me!

Okiecruffler
August 17, 2004, 09:38 AM
I carried an auto for years, but always wondered why I couldn't shoot it as well as I did my revolvers. Then one day, I started wondering why I wasn't carrying what I shot best. And like a fella once told me on TFL, "it's hard to argue with 5 shots of 357, you can try, but you're gonna bleed".

Brian Williams
August 17, 2004, 10:07 AM
You might say that a revolver is hard to shoot, but I have taken a 5 shot S&W 940 J frame with Moonclipped 9mms and shot 15 shots taking 2 reloads and fired faster and more accurately than a person shooting a Glock 19 and a full 15 round mag.

I have a Glock 19 and a 1911 and would carry a revo before an auto.

Malamute
August 17, 2004, 10:12 AM
Why a revolver? POWER! Reliability is right behind it. I live in bear country, so these 2 things are important to me. I have the utmost confidence in my "field carry" guns to handle anything that may come up in town or on the road also. To get the same power level in an auto that you have in a 29 4" or a SA revolver you have to go to a huge, clunky, awkward auto. The revolver also handles a wide variey of loads with no spring changes etc. I shoot round balls, on up to 325 gr loads in the same gun with no changes to the gun. And they all work with the same reliability, which means they always work.

Revolvers also can be "point" or "instinct" shot with more satisfting results, meaning I can actually hit with them. I was never able to achieve reliable hits shooting an auto this way. Wasn't able to shoot running rabbits or things thrown in the air with an auto either. They just don't seem to have a "natural" feel for me.

Not sure where the "auto is easier to shoot" idea came from, but I've never shot any auto as well as a revolver, and most people that I know feel the same way, including those that shoot some competetion. They say they simply shoot better scores with a revolver. To achieve a high level of proficiency with the auto, it takes more practice on average.

To get the same level of accuracy in an auto that most revolvers( particularly older Smiths)have out of the box, you need to either have an action/accuracy job done, which can compromise reliability, or spend a lot more money than an average quality revolver costs.

Other than that, no particular reason.

whiteben
August 17, 2004, 10:22 AM
A lot of people (small women and kids, mostly) have trouble racking the slides on some of my semi-autos. This is not a problem with revolvers.

A revolver is a simpler design. Thus it is going to work with monotonous regularity. It has greater flexibility in ammo used (22short/long; 44spec/mag; 38spec/357mag; etc). It is less picky about ammo in general.

A revolver is quieter. No safety to flip off, no slide to rack. (Unless you are a loon and you carry in condition 1 with the safety already off.) Point and click. In a case in which alerting a potential bad guy to the fact that you are armed a revolver is your friend.

CAS700850
August 17, 2004, 10:25 AM
Why a Revolver instead of an auto? Interesting question. I proudly own and shoot both, and I can tell you this, I just shoot a revolver mmore accurately than I shoot any of my autos. It may be grip size, shape (Hogue monogrips), or God knows what. That said, the whole thing comes down to capacity. If it's hot, I carry my Bodyguard (Smith 649), but if I can carry a covering garment, it's my Glock.

But, for those rare occassions when I can carry openly, and concealment means nothing, and bragging rights may be on the line, it's my revolvers that go on my hip.

Ala Dan
August 17, 2004, 10:41 AM
Greeting's All-

Air Power I have been known to alternate between a SIG
P220A in .45 ACP, and a old model Smith & Wesson 60 in .38 SPL.
I think most member's will agree, it is dependent on the dress of
the day, and what the situation dictates. I favor the P220, and do
carry it as often as I can; but there have been a few instances
where the small J-frame Smith worked better.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

C.R.Sam
August 17, 2004, 12:44 PM
Many good reasons above.

When I had to...I carried a 1911 or 11A1 and could use them well.
But I also carried either MnP or 36 for insurance.

Kinda figured autoloader for offence and wheel for defence.

Used em both in cometition as appropriate.
Have owned many autoloaders from over a dozen makers.

Currently carry wheels...of any size, depending on mood.

All my wheels have same manual of arms.

Sam... my favorite 9mm is the 9X32.

Damon
August 17, 2004, 01:22 PM
When I need a small gun, I use a J-frame revolver. I think small revolvers are more reliable than small autos.

TonyB
August 17, 2004, 02:10 PM
Anybody can carry an auto..it takes a REAL MAN(or woman)to carry a wheelgun:D
here's my reasons:
1)reliability
2)concealablity
3)my sp101 fits my hand perfectly
4)I like being"old fashioned"
plus anything good enough for Mr.March.......:cool:

klover
August 17, 2004, 07:50 PM
and I hate Desert Storms as well as most other semi autos:fire:

MrMurphy
August 17, 2004, 08:08 PM
For a pocket piece the revolver rules, as well as for close (as in body contact) distance shooting.


I'm a confirmed automatic man, but there are things revolvers are still better at (you don't see anyone making a .480 Ruger automatic do you?) such as pocket guns, or dangerous game/hunting, etc. House guns.


Revolvers aren't any more difficult to shoot, they just take practice. I grew up on the 1911, but my first handgun was a .357 Security Six. After about a thousand rounds of DA-only Magnums, I could put six rounds rapid fire anywhere I wanted.

I was in the process of becoming a armed security officer, everyone else in teh test shot 9mm (usually cheap ones, not even Rugers) since that's what they had. The company had a No Glock policy thanks to the owner as well as a No .45 policy, so my G30 was out. I whistled up my L-frame .357 Magnum 4" S&W... after 100 rounds to reacquaint myself with the DA trigger, I proceeded to shoot a 97% on the test... everyone else was in the 50s and 60s. One guy (former Marine) shot a 92% despite his crappy piece, but aside from us two, that was that.

Majic
August 17, 2004, 08:51 PM
That it's difficult to shoot maybe a personal item for you, but others (myself included) find it exactly the opposite, but first and foremost is the reliability factor of the revolver.

Marshall
August 17, 2004, 10:19 PM
I can't add much to the replies already given but, I do like this one from C.R.Sam real well.......

"Kinda figured autoloader for offence and wheel for defence."


:)


(Now if we can teach him to spell offense and defense we'll be good to go.) :neener:

Paladin7
August 17, 2004, 10:24 PM
Well you asked, so here are my thoughts...

Sometimes I think we all get a little too "tactical" for our own good. Maybe its the gun rags we all read, who knows....

I view a pistol as nothing more than a means of personal DEFENSE - not OFFENSE. For offense I'd make other choices. For defense, I want a firearm that is reliable, of sufficient caliber to do some stopping, and concealable within reason, for one purpose only - to get me out of a very bad situation quickly. Yes, that means to create distance enough to run away - if possible. Bad things happen in gun fights, people die or are maimed for life. Very few folks hit by a bullet have a full 100% recovery. Most languish through life in a great deal of pain and are unable to enjoy life to the fullest. Also, most gunfights are over after only a few rounds are expended at distances under 10 feet.

Given that reasoning, I base my choice of a carry weapon on what sort of threats I might reasonably encounter. I think when you really take an honest assessment of your situation, a good revolver with grips that fit your hand and a good action job, will handle most situations the ordinary American citizen might encounter quite adequately.

See all the reasons above, but here are some of mine...

A revolver is more reliable. If it fails to fire, pull the trigger again, a natural response under stress. No need for Tap, Rack, Bang drills.

A j frame in 38, 357, or a small revolver in 44spl, etc. are plenty powerful for personal defense.

A j frame can be fired from within a pocket - hand on the gun without drawing attention - the best way to enter a gun fight.

The cylinder of a revolver causes the grip to be slightly elevated off the body, making grasping it under stress a bit faster than a small auto.

The revolver is easier to maintain on a daily basis - no magazine springs to take a set, fewer issues with lubrication, easy to make safe, easy to load and unload during the day, simpler ammo requirements, etc.

If you take the time to make a transition, you will be surprised how fast and accurate a good revolver can be.

All the Best, Paladin7

Old Dog
August 17, 2004, 10:44 PM
Preacherman and Paladin 7 are on the mark ... I've carried autoloaders on duty for years, starting with the 1911A1, transitioning to the M9 Beretta, having opportunity to use the M11 (military nomenclature for the SIG 228) ... it's funny, often when I go out now (if I'm not going far from home), I wear or pocket my S & W 637 Airweight ... Concealability is a big factor for some of us wheelgun-packers, I'm sure, but ease of use under stress and reliability remain the key factors, of course. But hey, we're all playing the odds -- what're the chances anyone of us will need more than 5 or 6 rounds in a defensive scenario?

fedlaw
August 17, 2004, 10:56 PM
To paraphrase my hero, Harry Callahan, who said when asked why he carried such a big gun, "Because I like to hit what I aim at."
I like SIG's and really enjoy Kimbers, but only a big Smith has that confidence inspiring, built in radar-lock.
Steve

Dr.Rob
August 18, 2004, 01:06 AM
Try a .45 out of a 1917 revolver vs a 1911 auto and tell me which is 'easier to shoot.'

PS. Using stock sights from the year of mfg.

:p

I don't own a hard hitting stainless auto that's lightwieght and powerful... but I do own a revolver like that. Makes for an excellent backpacking gun.

Reloads a lot slower than a 1911 or BHP, but my Colt Magnum Carry is plenty powerful.

Dienekes
August 18, 2004, 02:27 PM
Reliability, in spades. Versatility. Ergonomics with the right stocks.

6/5 shots generally suffice. Without a little skill, discipline, and mindset, a beltfed, crew served weapon may not be enough...

Would still be OK carrying one as an LEO. For military (FMJ) would try very hard to have a .45 ACP, and it's always to have a long gun nearby.

T'would be nice to see a fraction of the attention lavished on "guns and bullets" devoted to mindset and martial training. After all, these are just iron and plastic bullet launchers...

Ex-MA Hole
August 18, 2004, 02:39 PM
To overly simplify what others before me have said:
1. Pull trigger
2. Gun go bang*

Any questions?


*100% of the time. Isn't that what you need?

jc2
August 19, 2004, 09:39 AM
Airpower -
why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?
The above appears to be a misperception on your part (though it may be based on your experience) based the responses to the thread. Also, here's "What do you shoot best? Autos or Revolvers?" poll running in this forum in which 62% of the respondents indicated they shoot revolvers as well or better than bottom-feeders.

gbelleh
August 19, 2004, 11:04 AM
I carry a semi-auto most of the time, but sometimes a Taurus 85UL.

The reason I sometimes carry the revolver is because it flops around a little less in my front pocket. This is only an issue if I'm planning to do a lot of walking. Otherwise, I choose the PM9 for the extra couple rounds and the more powerful round.

I have much more experience shooting autos and shoot them much better than revolvers. Autos point much better for me. Revolvers usually seem to naturally point very high and I have to aim downward which is awkward.

I like the reliability of revolvers and there are times when I choose to carry one, but I'm much more confident using a semi-auto. YMMV.

DDGator
August 19, 2004, 09:10 PM
Others have challenged parts of the facts "assumed" in your question -- i.e., the ease of shooting/aiming a revolver vs. a semi-auto... I should point out that your 5/6 rounds is off-base too.

If you are talking about 10 to 15 rounds -- like a compact auto size -- you could have a wheel gun with 7 or even 8 rounds of .357 Magnum. I don't think 7 or 8 Magnums is any less firepower than 10 rounds of 9mm, unless you are just spraying lead all over the place.

Ric
August 19, 2004, 11:42 PM
No misfire procedures, no safety to fumble with, no flying brass to duck



(and just plain sexier)

Series 70
August 20, 2004, 02:50 PM
99% of the time I have a 1911 IWB. Often times I also have a j-frame in an ankle hoslter. I am currently breaking-in a P3AT for pocket carry after deciding the j-frame is too uncomfortable there.

My wife has a model 60LS that she shoots well. She does not trust self-loaders, but has not found a comfortable way to carry her j-frame. Consequently, she does not carry often.

When I brought my P3AT home, she thought it was something she could carry comfortably. She shot it for the first time last night and had an FTE on her fourth round. She shot some more, but that one FTE soured her on the kel-tec. She does not want to deal with malfunctions at all.

I explained to her that, with only 75 rounds through it before yesterday, the little pistol was not yet broken-in. She didn't care. She wants perfection in her carry piece. I can't argue with that. She said she'd shoot it more, but it would have to go a long time without a failure before she'd consider carrying it.

For her, reliability is they key.

LAK
August 20, 2004, 09:19 PM
Primarily speed. A 2" to 4" small to medium frame revolver can be very fast from the holster to first shots close up where most shootings take place.

Vapor63
August 20, 2004, 09:36 PM
I've talked to a few old experienced FBI agents who were in some real scuffles, and they all carry snubnose .357 magnums. I think it's the fact that most of the time you need to use it in self defense, a snub nose is able to easily cover that range, and it works even better in a fight or scuffle because you barely need to pull it out and aim to get a good shoot off quickly. No slide to get caught up on clothing either.

shep854
August 24, 2004, 11:02 PM
A J-frame or equivalent is what former Sheriff Jim Wilson (of Shooting Times) calls an "anytime gun"; it can be dropped into a pocket and carried even when a full-size gun isn't practical.

Here in Alabama, the climate makes a full-size gun impractical. A small handgun that one can carry in a pocket is very attractive. The chance of fabric causing an auto to jam is a real problem, though, so a small revo is favored. An enclosed or shrouded hammer is best. I carry a Model 49 Bodyguard for these reasons. Come winter, coats are worn, but then a CCW carrier will need to retrain if he wants to carry a full-size weaon.

Gunz
August 25, 2004, 01:40 AM
I like the el cheapo Model 85 Taurus I bought around 1990. Stainless and small. Mega heavy DA trigger pull, and nice and crisp SA pull. It is small, light enough, and much more reliable than my PPK, 230, Mustang, etc. Five shots are fine for me. Even my 296 is too big and bulky, though remarkably light. I like a certain amount of weight to absrob recoil. I think the SP101 357 mags are super little revolers to handle heavy loads with comfort. I like my 686 with 7 rds also. I am looking to find a Taurus 8-shot 357 with a 3in barrel one of these days. They only make them in 4in, I beleive. Revolvers are easy to own and use.

Rebeldon
August 25, 2004, 06:57 AM
I got tired of the tiny Semiautos, and opted for the S&W 642. But then I found the S&W trigger to be unbearable, so I got a Glock 642.

ChristopherG
August 25, 2004, 08:17 AM
I got a Glock 642

Really? I'll give you a million dollars for it. ;)

scotjute
August 25, 2004, 09:34 AM
I rely on revolvers because of the simplicity of action vs auto. I own two revolvers (S&W and Ruger) and their actions are the same, pull the hammer back and shoot single-action or just pull the trigger for double-action. I can ignore these guns for months, and I can pick one up and instantly know how to operate it. I can pick up some other mfg.'s revolver and instantly know how to operate it. Can't say the same for autos. For someone who's not particularly into pistols, the revolver offers a simple easy to understand and operate mechanism that works reliably.

Pappy John
August 25, 2004, 09:50 AM
Just 'cause I hate looking all over the place for the spent brass. :fire:

russlate
August 26, 2004, 12:35 AM
Wanted to add this:

I'm small, older, and have hearing problems. My first clue I'm in trouble may be when I'm half-conscious on the ground.

If I'm half-conscious, ALL my most basic training was done with a DA revolver. That stuff is written on my brain cells with indelible ink.

Rebeldon
August 26, 2004, 07:54 AM
I got a Glock 642.

I mean, Glock 26. :o

litework
August 26, 2004, 12:52 PM
The only time I carry a revolver over an autoloader is when I'm hunting. Big bullets shot deliberately from a rest well above the action; this is where I believe the revolver has a huge advantage over the autoloader. I don't believe revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders. I believe that revolvers can be more reliable than a specific autoloader, but that's true with anything. I don't believe any particular platform is easiest to shoot if you don't practice with the method and often.

biere
August 26, 2004, 12:59 PM
I considered it a compliment when a friend said my glock was "revolver simple" to use.

I like speed loaders but speed strips are really easy to conceal and even a few loose rounds in the pocket sound like a pocket full of change.

Ric
August 26, 2004, 09:29 PM
I like mine because
No misfire procedures, just pull the trigger again
No safety to fumble with
No brass to get in yur collar

Marshall
August 26, 2004, 10:04 PM
Take a factory stock Smith revolver and a factory stock Springer 1911 at the same price, start shooting side by side until you reach 5000, one bullet at a time. I'll bet about any amount of money the revolver will experience far less misfires (meaning it doesn't go bang for any reason), than the 1911, if it experiences any at all.

Any Takers? :D

litework
August 27, 2004, 12:20 PM
I'll bet about any amount of money the revolver will experience far less misfires (meaning it doesn't go bang for any reason), than the 1911, if it experiences any at all.

Any Takers?

Sure, if I can select a USP or Sig instead, and we count improper cylinder rotation and/or alignment as a misfire. Anything mechanical will malfunction,especially if we don't do a little PM; there is nothing magical about a revolver that makes it impervious to wear and tear.

fedlaw
August 29, 2004, 02:32 PM
There is a difference between a Tool, an Object of Desire and This is why I carry a revolver.
P226-9mm SIG: Reliability: (7,500 rds., 0 failures of any kind); accuracy (3"-4" groups @ 7-15yds.) = Tool.
629 S&W (PC): Reliability: (2,500 rds., 6+ failures, including: timing, ejector rod lock up, etc.), accuracy (0.5" @ 7-15 yds; 1.5" groups @ 50yds.) = Object of Desire.
625 S&W : Reliability (900 rds., 0 failures of any kind); accuracy (<1" @7-15 yds.) = Best of both worlds including the ever popular moonclip reloads.

Conclusion: As I get to know the 625, I am beginning to feel this could be the start of a wonderful relationship.

Steve

Dave Williams
August 30, 2004, 05:49 AM
In the CCW class I just taught, 8 out of 12 shooters were shooting revolvers. 5 shot 38s were preferred.

Every single female CCW student I've had was shooting a 5 shot 38.

Revolvers are far from obsolete it seems.

Dave Williams

Hand_Rifle_Guy
August 30, 2004, 02:29 PM
We had a thread like this a while back. I posted a nice short answer that sums it all up nicely.

Granted, it's been said here, in essence, but I do like the line. One of our own members uses it for a screen-name.

While not a panacea, the answer I like is pretty simple.

Six for Sure. :)

---H_R_G



Here's the thread I mentioned. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10349) Actually, you should probably read it. It rather directly answers the question.

DaleJunior
August 30, 2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Preacherman
* * * a well-tuned and well-set-up revolver will rival most autopistols in accuracy....

What about a snubbie vs. a highly regarded autopistol? And which caliber (or calibers) are we comparing to each other?

Ben Shepherd
August 30, 2004, 08:46 PM
My reason is this:

I was raised on revolvers. You have to "let 'em roll"or end up with asore wrist. That's the way they were designed to recoil.

Now that I've grown up, moved out of my parents house and gotten into heavy magnum loads in my wheel guns, a semi-auto would be a death sentence for me, as I can almost guarantee a limp wristed second round stove pipe. And since I've got nerve damage in my non-dominant arm, clearing a jam is tough at the range, let alone under an adrenaliane dump.

Therefore I'll just stick to my round-n-round guns.

Majic
August 31, 2004, 12:41 AM
What about a snubbie vs. a highly regarded autopistol?
Short barreled revolvers are just as accurate as their long barreled siblings. It's the shooter's ability to shoot it accurately that favors the longer barrel and sight radius.

DaleJunior
August 31, 2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Majic
Short barreled revolvers are just as accurate as their long barreled siblings. It's the shooter's ability to shoot it accurately that favors the longer barrel and sight radius.
thank you for the semantics lesson. okay, fine.....what about the typical shooter's ability with a snubbie vs. a typical shooter's ability with a highly regarded autopistol? oh, and what caliber (or calibers) are we comparing between typical shooter's ability with a snubbie vs. a typical shooter's ability with a highly regarded autopistol? :banghead:

Majic
September 1, 2004, 03:00 AM
typical shooter's ability with a snubbie vs. a typical shooter's ability with a highly regarded autopistol?
With the 9mm, 10mm, and the .45acp having been used in both the short barreled revolver and the compact pistols the typical shooters fair about equally as well with one or the other. Especially so with similar trigger systems. Both offer a short sight radius and an abreviated grip which makes control somewhat harder.

Jack19
September 2, 2004, 07:24 PM
I like revolvers, I really do. But, I'm one of those "more bullets is better" guys and, well, there are a lot of good choices out there in autos that carry much more ammo than a revolver.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, snubbies have their fans, and I like them too. And, you can shoot some dumb ass bad guy's ass off with a revolver...no problem. I know. I know.

But why limit yourself?

In this day and age, my philosophy is, bring ammo; lots of ammo. Have enough to go home every day no matter what you do. Police Officer.....Stock Broker....it just doesn't matter anymore.

If you can carry a Ruger SP101 in .357 with five rounds....why wouldn't you carry a Glock 26 with 11 rounds or a Glock 19 with 18? Dead is dead....and the bad guy won't know the diff....but you might.

355sigfan
September 2, 2004, 10:43 PM
MOA for teaching students - or getting out of a slump. I have always said a person that learns to shoot a Revolver , DA will be a better shooter - Period. Makes no difference if they choose a SA, DA/SA, DAO....the basics learned will make them a better shooter. If going through a bad slump - revolver re -instills the basics.
END QUOTE

I disagree as a firearms instructor. The platform does nothing for teaching the basics. If you like revolvers stick with revolvers. If you like and carry autos don't confuse your students by having them shoot the revolver to re instill the basics. Because the basics of operation between the two guns are different. Marksman ship principles are the same but nearly everything else is different. If you want to focus on the basics use a rimfire pistol with a like action to the gun your trying to learn. If you carry a revolver then have a 22 lr revolver understudy. If you carry an auto get an auto in 22 lr simular to what you carry.
Pat

munched
April 21, 2010, 01:27 AM
Revolvers don't leave incriminating brass casings lying around after you've solved your problem.

Okiecruffler
April 21, 2010, 01:41 AM
Hopefully you would stick around after the fact. :rolleyes: God where do these people come from????

wilkersk
April 21, 2010, 03:16 AM
Who says revolvers are more difficult to shoot?

A .38+P snubby can be a very good choice for a concealed carry. No floating barrel, no moving mass, just point and shoot!

jbrown50
April 21, 2010, 07:16 AM
Holy thread resurrection Batman!:what:

snooperman
April 21, 2010, 09:54 AM
RELIABILTY.....I have semiautos but my carry gun is most often a revolver. I like the simplicity of the revolver as well.

easyg
April 21, 2010, 09:58 AM
Who says revolvers are more difficult to shoot?
Anyone can learn to shoot a double-action revolver, with great speed and accuracy, if they practice and train enough.

Having said that...

There's just no denying the fact that a revolver with a heavy double-action trigger-pull (typically more than 10 lbs) is more difficult to master, and requires more practice and more range time to master, than a lighter semi trigger such as found on a 1911, a Glock, a SA XD, a M&P, etc....

Have you ever noticed that rifles and shotguns don't have heavy trigger-pulls?
This is because its more difficult to shoot oneself with a long gun.
The only reason for a heavy double-action trigger on a handgun is for safety's sake.
This is why just about every pistol with a manual safety has a light trigger, and those pistols without a manual safety often have a heavy double-action trigger (at least for the first shot if they are DA/SA).

There's no denying the truth: heavy double-action triggers are harder to shoot quickly and accurately than a light single-action trigger, or even a light pull double-action trigger.
And novices will need to spend more time at the range, and more $$$, to become proficient with a double-action revolver than they would with a semi.

A .38+P snubby can be a very good choice for a concealed carry. No floating barrel, no moving mass, just point and shoot!
I like a nice .38 revolver....

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/HPIM6334.jpg

While they don't have that "moving mass" called the slide, that's not necessarily a good thing....
With a semi, much of the recoil is absorbed by the functioning of the slide.
With a revolver all of the recoil is transmitted directly to the shooters hand.

And while they are "point and shoot" weapons, so are plenty of semis (like Glock, M&P, XDs, Kahrs, Sigs, etc...).

Personally, the only reason I carry a snubbie is when I need a very lightweight handgun and I want to carry it in my pocket.
For a holstered weapon OWB or IWB, I'll take a semi every time.

MCgunner
April 21, 2010, 10:04 AM
Another resurrected dinosaur post, but I'll play.....

Maybe because I'm just in a revolver mood.

dovedescending
April 21, 2010, 10:04 AM
Revolvers have a bit more history and nostalgia to them, too. I've been obsessed with wheelguns for years, simply because they look and feel right. A man's gun, born of a better age. Mechanical wonders, they are. Something about carrying one just feels right.

And yeah, they're reliable.

shockwave
April 21, 2010, 10:16 AM
Revolvers feel better in my hand. In my current search for a CCW, I've looked at and tried out a number of popular autos, but only the revolvers feel right. And they look right - a revolver looks like a serious weapon, whereas a small auto feels more like a toy. That's just a visual thing, I know, but the revolver has the intimidation factor that few autos can match.

The simplicity and reliability of a wheel gun are reinforcing reasons to carry one. Ammo capacity doesn't seem like much of an argument because 5 or 6 bullets in a solid caliber is a strong defense.

W.E.G.
April 21, 2010, 10:47 AM
I carry a .45 revolver because .45 is better than 9mm.

Holy thread resurrection alert indeed.



http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-1.gifhttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-sway.gif http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-1.gifhttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/people/rob_zombie_2.jpghttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-1.gifhttp://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-sway.gif http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zombie-1.gif

.................................http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/trivia/thrzombiethread.jpg.................................

easyg
April 21, 2010, 10:55 AM
A man's gun, born of a better age.
I would have to disagree.

A "better age"???
For who?
Certainly not for a black American or a female American or an Asian American or an Irish American.
Heck, even for the average poor white English American guy it was a fairly terrible time period to live in....

Folks dying from TB and pneumonia and even from what today would be called a "minor infection"....

Polio, the flu, and other diseases claimed many before their 30th birthday....

Many settlers and pioneers didn't even survive the winter due to hunger or freezing....

Lynch mob justice, law enforcement bought and paid for by the railroad companies, no building codes, no food inspectors, no labor laws, politicians more corrupt than ever....

Nope, not a "better age" in my opinion.

dovedescending
April 21, 2010, 11:00 AM
;) You are entitled to your own opinions.

Dave Williams
April 21, 2010, 11:02 AM
easyg makes some excellent points

I still prefer the revolver however.

Dave Williams

the-ghost
April 21, 2010, 11:17 AM
Try a .45 out of a 1917 revolver vs a 1911 auto and tell me which is 'easier to shoot.'

PS. Using stock sights from the year of mfg.

:p

I don't own a hard hitting stainless auto that's lightwieght and powerful... but I do own a revolver like that. Makes for an excellent backpacking gun.

Reloads a lot slower than a 1911 or BHP, but my Colt Magnum Carry is plenty powerful.
don't reload much slower with full moon clips vs the old halfers.

Nushif
April 21, 2010, 11:25 AM
I carry one because it presents miles faster.

When thinking of a personal defense weapon, that's out in a heartbeat and makes any bad guy do a double take, a nice old DS or any 5 shot snubbie will probably make ye olde bad guy think twice; because most people (of course not all) who own them shoot them well.
Some random dude pulling out a random autoloader isn't quite as intimidating. At least it wouldn't be to me.

45Frank
April 21, 2010, 11:46 AM
I most of the time carry a .32 H&R mag. in SS. Confidence, I can whip that thing out and hit a baseball at 20-30 feet without aiming or thinking twice. I have several auto's and just can't get the accuracy needed. no matter if you a 15 round clip it you can't hit anything. And you just don't want to shoot 15 rounds and not know what your going to hit. Single action as well.

easyg
April 21, 2010, 12:50 PM
That's just a visual thing, I know, but the revolver has the intimidation factor that few autos can match.
I'm not so sure about that....

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/HPIM6440.jpg


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/HPIM6453.jpg


They both look plenty intimidating to me.
But think about it....a person pointing a loaded Glock at you only need apply about 5 lbs pressure on that trigger, and BANG!!!



BTW, getting these images was done in a safe manner. No one's finger was on the trigger, no one's hands were on the pistols, and no one was standing behind the camera.

Easy

easyg
April 21, 2010, 12:55 PM
a nice old DS or any 5 shot snubbie will probably make ye olde bad guy think twice; because most people (of course not all) who own them shoot them well.
I totally disagree.
In fact, I think the opposite is true....

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of revolver owners, especially those who own snubbies, can't shoot them worth crap.
It takes lots of practice to be really good with a snubbie, and most folks just don't spend the time nor the money to practice enough to develop great proficiency with one.
And lots of folks are steered toward revolvers as a first handgun, which means lots of newbies, to shooting, own revolvers.
And then there are those who want a handgun that they can load, place in the night stand or glove compartment, and forget about until they need to shoot something.....but they seldom (if ever) actually shoot the gun for practice.
It's kind of a "in case of emergency, break glass" type of weapon for many folks.

It doesn't help that plenty of gun dealers tell folks that the snub-nose revolver is a "belly gun" and not designed for distance shooting (I've heard this rubbish myself way too often).
This leaves the new buyer with the notion that he really doesn't need to practice much since he's just going to push it in to the target's belly and pull the trigger.


Easy

Nushif
April 21, 2010, 01:49 PM
Alright ... most people I've seen with them can shoot them? *le sheepish*

They both look plenty intimidating to me

That's because you don't have a black revolver. 8)

loneviking
April 21, 2010, 02:33 PM
Why? Lots of reasons:

Actually, revolvers can be much cheaper to learn to shoot well if you practice with wax bullets. I can set 1,000 of these for about $75--cases,primers and wax bullets. You can't cycle these in a brass chucker, but the wheel guns do fine. First rate tool for teaching hip shooting, working the trigger for accuracy and just having fun.

It's easier to get a revolver grip to fit your hand. The front to back dimension of the grip determines where your finger rests on the trigger, and whether your hand is in line with the barrel or twisted around to he side trying to reach the trigger. If your hand isn't lined up right, accuracy can suffer.

One of the big problems with semi-autos' is the mag fits into the grip, which means that changing the front to back dimension is tough. The Glocks and M&P's have different grips that can change this a bit, but not to the extent you can with a revolver. The front to back dimension of the grip determines where your finger rests on the trigger, and whether your hand is in line with the barrel or twisted around to he side trying to reach the trigger.

My opinion is that you can learn to draw and fire a revolver faster than a semi-auto, in part because of the shape of the revolvers grip. I haven't seen anyone beating fast draw revolver records with a semi-auto. If I walk in on a bad situation, I want a weapon that I can draw very fast, and that launches a heavy fast bullet. Give me a .357 and a 158 gr. hollowpoint as an ideal combination.

Strahley
April 21, 2010, 04:36 PM
Not me, I'll take the semi-auto any day of the week

Colton White
April 21, 2010, 04:46 PM
Some people have class...

jimmyraythomason
April 21, 2010, 05:12 PM
I carry both(alternately). I am equally well armed with either.

SharpsDressedMan
April 21, 2010, 06:53 PM
Range 3 yards or less. Iminent danger: GO! GO! GO!!!! Does it really matter? It's the man, not the gun.

easyg
April 21, 2010, 08:04 PM
That's because you don't have a black revolver. 8)

Not quite black, but close enough....

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n165/allenXdog/HPIM5676.jpg

It still doesn't look more intimidating than my Glock.
Maybe it's because the Glock is a .40 while the S&W is a .38 and the Taurus is a 9mm?

wrs840
April 21, 2010, 08:13 PM
I carry two autos when in "civilized" society (full-frame or compact .40 + LCP in pocket), and change them out for my "always when at home" 442 (in my pocket) when I get back to the ranch. If I'm going into the brush, I'll add another revolver on my hip. Different tools for different circumstances.

Les

TheProf
April 21, 2010, 08:30 PM
Most people who carry are looking for the "smallest gun with the biggest caliber" combination. I don't think that there is a semi-auto out there that has the same "small size large bullet" combination as a snub nose .357 magnum. And its not just size...but the rounded shape of the j-frame makes it easier to conceal than a same size semi-auto.

With the snub nose, you have:
1. Super reliability
2. Pocket carry
3. Big caliber (.357) (or .38 HP) in such a small package
4. Easier to grip handles
5. Can fire from inside your jacket pocket
6. Can fire your weapon at contact range with the bag guy. (many semi-auto will be thrown out of battery if you shove the weapon against the bad guy while firing)
7. Rounded shape that tends to break up the tell-tale flat gun printing when CC.

The alternative that I am considering is a Glock 27. (The 10 +1 rounds of .40 with Glock reliability might just be the tipping point for me to switch to a semi auto CCW.)

inSight-NEO
April 21, 2010, 08:40 PM
Its been said before, but I will reiterate that [for me at least] it comes down to:

a) the ability to fire through clothing, against the body, through a bag, etc. Try doing this with a semi-auto and you are asking for trouble.

b) the revolver generally stands up to dirt and grime better than a semi-auto..not always the case, but certainly worth considering.

c) ease of maintenance- I believe the revolver requires much less than the semi-auto.

d) generally speaking, the revolver is less prone to malfunction vs the semi-auto; with the semi-auto, if the gun does not fail, the mags certainly can.

e) ease of use and readiness- point and shoot [easy to understand "manual of arms"]; also, unless you carry the semi-auto with a round in the chamber (along with no safety engaged), the revolver maintains a higher state of "readiness."

You get the general idea. Now, having said all of this, I still prefer to use a semi-auto. But, this is simply due to the fact that my method of carry allows me to feel comfortable with such a decision. In addition, I do enjoy a slightly higher capacity, even if this only averages out to an extra 2 or 3 rounds (based on my current weapon of choice).

However, the only real negatives I can see with the use of a revolver is lack of capacity, relatively heavy in weight and the idea that when a revolver fails, it is either minor or catastrophic...usually, there seems to be no in-between. These were among my considerations for using a semi-auto. However, for my wife, should she ever carry, I would certainly recommend a revolver nonetheless.

SharpsDressedMan
April 21, 2010, 09:09 PM
I just did some internet surfing, and it appears the Glock 33 with 3.5" barrel generates equal or greater velocity and energy with 125 grain bullets than a comparable load in a 2.5" .357 Mag revolver. Given its smaller size, lower weight, and 9-10 round capacity, a .357 fan might want to give the Glock a go, unless one is hung up on the aesthetics or nature of the revover.l

FoMoGo
April 21, 2010, 09:23 PM
I carry a pair of 1911s in .45 and a pair of revolvers in .44, not usually at the same time however...
I love them all, when I am going into "the badlands" I carry the revolvers.
The primary is a 2.75" .44 magnum, the backup is a 2" .44 special.
I carry reloads for both.
I put as many rounds thru all of them in practice, I can put 6 rounds on target with the .44 mag about as fast as most people can with a .38 or 9mm.
Its not that I am THAT good, most people I have observed at the range just suck.
Why carry the revolver if I think there is a higher chance of a bad encounter?
If it is a contact close encounter, the revolver wont get pushed out of battery if it gets stuffed into someones body.
If I have to fire the special from concealment, I am more likely to get more shots off after that 1st one.
I tend to shoot more accurately with a revolver.
My 1911s have been dead reliable, so reliability isnt a factor... and it is at the same time.
My autos dont jam... but its easier to make them do it.


Jim

jhallrv4
April 21, 2010, 09:31 PM
"why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire? "

Sorry, pal, you lost me when you assumed a couple of scenarios that aren't at all assumable.

Jeff

Gadget
April 21, 2010, 09:38 PM
The major reason why I prefer a revolver for SD is simple. I worry about the combat focus/adrenaline overload under stress affecting my use of the weapon. The manual of arms is simpler with a wheelgun, push the narrow end towards the target, pull the little curvy thing on the bottom, repeat as needed. A semi had a few more small-muscle actions prior to use. As I get older, I prefer simpler.

jad0110
April 21, 2010, 09:38 PM
There's just no denying the fact that a revolver with a heavy double-action trigger-pull (typically more than 10 lbs) is more difficult to master, and requires more practice and more range time to master, than a lighter semi trigger such as found on a 1911, a Glock, a SA XD, a M&P, etc....

I'll deny it. :)

It only took me about 200 rounds, firing double action, to shoot DA revolvers better than a whole plethora of autos with light weight triggers. To this day, I can't hit squat with a Glock or XD. Their triggers may be lighter, but personally I equate the feel of their triggers to be about what it might feel like to squeeze a mushy cat turd between your fingers. Not that I've done that, I'm just guessing here :p .

Assuming one doesn't have arthritis in their finger joints, and they are willing to put in the effort, it really isn't difficult at all IMO. In fact, after seeing so many folks throw up their hands saying "it can't be done", I took it as a challenge. Granted, I'm not certain how much difference the trigger makes for me in that DA S&Ws and Rugers just point more naturally for me than any other platform. So that certainly helps.

And for me, that is why I carry revolvers exclusively these days; everything from a diminutive S&W 642 J Frame to a beefy N Frame Model 28. They work for me, though as always they aren't for everyone. Being able to fire the gun from odd angles with a less than perfect grip is comforting as well. I shoot 1911s nearly as well, and I used to carry one fairly regularly. But mine has gone from being reliable to finicky, so until I address it's problems, it stays in the safe.

My 2 cents.

heron
April 21, 2010, 10:18 PM
I don't carry, but I have a valid preference, due to arthritis, at the base of my thumb.

A little while back, I was getting the itch to have an auto (in centerfire) and I went to the gun shop to check some out. The guy handed me one, and I could not work the slide. I tried a few others, with the same results. The problem is that trying to pinch anything with my thumb is just way too painful, even though it doesn't bother me for the majority of other daily activities. I finally gave up, and as I was leaving, I said, "Well, I've still got my GP100 . . . " -- and I can work it just fine.

inSight-NEO
April 21, 2010, 10:36 PM
Even though I have already piped in on the discussion, I will add one more thing. Whether a revolver or semi-auto, the whole idea is being armed. This is a good thing regardless.

Outside of this, one simply needs to be aware of the positives and negatives regarding each platform. Same goes for choice of caliber. In addition, realize that any weapon can fail....therefore, its always good to have a contingency plan.

easyg
April 22, 2010, 12:36 AM
a) the ability to fire through clothing, against the body, through a bag, etc. Try doing this with a semi-auto and you are asking for trouble.
Sure you can fire through clothing, but when shooting from the pocket with a 2" snub-nose barrel you're not likely to hit your intended target....but you sure as heck might hit an unintended target.
And if you're close enough to the target to push the revolver in to his side, you're also close enough for him to grab the revolver by the cylinder, which will prevent it from firing double-action.

b) the revolver generally stands up to dirt and grime better than a semi-auto..not always the case, but certainly worth considering.
No way!
Revolvers are much easier to foul with dirt and grime than autos.
It takes alot of dirt to stop an auto from working, but it doesn't take much to bind up a revolver's cylinder.

e) ease of use and readiness- point and shoot [easy to understand "manual of arms"]; also, unless you carry the semi-auto with a round in the chamber (along with no safety engaged), the revolver maintains a higher state of "readiness."
A loaded revolver is no more "ready" that a loaded Glock, XD, M&P, Kahr, Sig, HK DA/SA, Beretta DA/SA, Ruger DA/SA, and many other pistols.
Single-action manual safety pistols (like the 1911) are the only ones that require any additional step beyond "point and shoot".

easyg
April 22, 2010, 12:38 AM
It only took me about 200 rounds, firing double action, to shoot DA revolvers better than a whole plethora of autos with light weight triggers. To this day, I can't hit squat with a Glock or XD.
:scrutiny:

You can accurately shoot a double-action snubbie, but you can't hit squat with a Glock or an XD?
And it only took you 200 rounds to get proficient shooting a double-action revolver?

Hmmmm....

Something just doesn't add up.

inSight-NEO
April 22, 2010, 12:50 AM
Sure you can fire through clothing, but when shooting from the pocket with a 2" snub-nose barrel you're not likely to hit your intended target....but you sure as heck might hit an unintended target.
And if you're close enough to the target to push the revolver in to his side, you're also close enough for him to grab the revolver by the cylinder, which will prevent it from firing double-action.

Both of these statements are reaching just a bit. And, I never mentioned pushing a revolver in to the BGs side. I meant firing the weapon next to yourself...as in body.

I was merely stating the potential benefits.

Revolvers are much easier to foul with dirt and grime than autos.
It takes alot of dirt to stop an auto from working, but it doesn't take much to bind up a revolver's cylinder.

How do you figure? Simply put, I believe you are wrong. Similar to this would be the reliability of pump shotguns vs semi-auto shotguns.

Having said this, I did mention that this statement of mine was not all inclusive. Rather, it was a general statement at best.


A loaded revolver is no more "ready" that a loaded Glock, XD, M&P, Kahr, Sig, HK DA/SA, Beretta DA/SA, Ruger DA/SA, and many other pistols.
Single-action manual safety pistols (like the 1911) are the only ones that require any additional step beyond "point and shoot".

Fair enough. I own an XD and various DA/SA weapons. I know the score here. You are not telling me anything I do not already know. However, my earlier statement was meant for the many that do indeed carry semi-automatics which are safety equipped. This, btw, is not merely the realm of "single action only" weapons. The XD? Yeah...it can be had with a manual safety. The M&P? Again...it can be had with a manual safety. The list goes on.....

Regardless, these weapons require mags...mags can fail. It is something to be aware of.

As I mentioned before, I actually prefer to carry a semi-auto. But, I do so knowing the limitations. If I carried a revolver...it would be the same.

sgt127
April 22, 2010, 12:59 AM
I had to get on this thread, simply because I missed it the first time around...and, hadn't written my theory on revolvers vs auto's yet..so, I'll reprint it..

(I think this is the oldest resurrected thread I have ever seen)

Enjoy (or hate it, doesn't really matter to me)

Revolver VS auto. Random thoughts.
I started out shooting revolvers, years ago. Revolvers are quite reliable. Autos came along and designs improved, bullet shapes improved. The reliabilty of the auto came up to what I felt was the level of a good well maintained revolver. And I carried an auto.

Some random observations I have discovered. Revolvers will occasionally malfunction. So will autos. Lets remove parts breakage from the equation for a bit. I can accept the fact that a high quality auto is just as likely, or unlikey, to break a part that stops the gun from functioning, as an equal quality revolver. I have actually broken more parts in auto's than revolvers, but, I can attribute that to sheer luck. Slide stops have broken, firing pins have broken, but, statistically, I would argue that neither one is likley to just "break" when you need it.

On the few occasions that I have had a revolver stop working, it was a cumalitive effect of shooting. It started to get dirty, crap under the extractor star, the barrel cylinder gap got lead and powder residue, the chambers got sticky from lots of .38's and then having to force a .357 in the chamber. In other words, most of the problems came on slowly. I knew, eventually, the gun was going to stop working. The trigger pull got heavier, it was harder to close the cylinder, something along those lines.

But, for no apparent reason, a clean well lubed auto, would sometimes just not feed, fire or eject a round. Bullet nose caught on the feedramp, empty failed to get out of the way of the next round, some other failure that seemed to occur randomly, and without warning.

Now, standing on the the line, at the range, neither gun failed very often. Nice firm grip, dry hands, locked wrists, all is well in the world of handgunning.

Recently, I have watched a few episodes of "Under Fire" on Court TV. Autos, good quality (and, hopefully) well maintained autos, sometimes crap out in the middle of a gunfight. Whats the difference? Weak one handed grip, rolling around on the ground, upside down, shoved against the bad guy, sweaty blood covered hands, whatever. The auto needs a solid platform to work off of. Something it can't get in a real world, up close gunfight.

At a distance, involved in a shootout, the auto's rarely seem to jam, much as I would expect. But, if its a fight, that leads to a gunfight, the auto may turn into a single shot.

A particular episode that comes to mind is the Officer that was fighting a real, no kidding boxer, that was about to beat the Officer to death. He finally drew his pistol and got off one shot, in the BG's midsection, with little effect, the BG grabbed the gun and beat the Officer with the gun, tossed it and the Officer picked it back up later in the fight. (Interesting video if you ever get a chance to see it)

On duty, I have to carry a Glock 35. And, I'm not sure I am ready to give up the general reliabilty, mag capacity and ease of shooting of a good auto for the vast majority of shooting situations. But, as a back up, I carry a 642. And, it seems alot of others are big fans of the little revolvers as back up guns.

But, Off duty, I find myself carrying a 3" S&W M65 more and more. I envision an off duty encounter being a very fast fight that turns into a gunfight. Bad guy rushing you with a knife, BG jumping you, knocking you down and attacking you, two guys pinning you into a corner and the fight is on. Capacity becomes secondary to utter reliability for me at that point. I can still get good hits with a revovler out to 25 yards or so, if I have to, but, its not really something I see happening. Truth be known, the odds of needing a gun at all are pretty remote, but, we all plan for the unexpected.

SO, what are some others thoughts? Have you taken your favorite defense auto out to the range, held it with your left hand, bent your wrist and elbow and tried getting off as many shots as you could? Upside down? Cover your hands in soapy water and empty a magazine? Shove it into the target and see if it gets pushed out of battery? Does it jam after the first shot? I have, and, the reliabilty of a previously Utterly reliable auto went down hill.

It seems that most autos jam during the feeding and ejecting cycle. That's the one part that you do manually before and after the festivities with a revolver. During a gunfight, a revolver cannot have a feeding malfunction or ejection malfunction.

I realize that clearing an auto jam is alot faster than clearing a revolver jam. But, that really cool "tap-rack-bang" that you practice on the range really needs that off hand to work. If that off hand is keeping a boxcutter off your throat, things go downhill in a hurry. High primer on a revolver? Pull the trigger REALLY hard, it just may go bang again...

If this little ramble gets a few people to thinking, and making you more aware of you and your guns abilities and limitations, great. If it just makes you train harder, for what YOU consider a real world gunfight, even better. Practice alot, and, best to all.

inSight-NEO
April 22, 2010, 01:14 AM
If this little ramble gets a few people to thinking, and making you more aware of you and your guns abilities and limitations, great. If it just makes you train harder, for what YOU consider a real world gunfight, even better. Practice alot, and, best to all.

Good post. As you stated, the most important thing (regarding the whole revolver vs semi-auto thing) is to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. Beyond that...practice. Makes sense to me.

Guy de Loimbard
April 22, 2010, 11:27 AM
Why? I like my Security Six because it's a .357 and it's accurate. It's easier to shoot that accurately in DA than it is for me to shoot the 1911 I have. With good speedloaders having to reload is not really an issue.

easyg
April 22, 2010, 11:36 AM
It's easier to shoot that accurately in DA than it is for me to shoot the 1911 I have.
I would say that you're the exception that proves the rule.
I've personally never met anyone who shot a heavy DA revolver trigger better than they shot a 1911.

What do you think is the underlying reason that you shoot the revolver, with its long heavy double-action trigger, better than you shoot the 1911 with its short light-weight single-action trigger?

searcher451
April 22, 2010, 02:08 PM
Sgt127: That's a thoughtful essay; thanks for find that and sharing it again.

One thing that I consider when thinking of revolvers vs. semi-autos is the number of rounds available to you on first blush. Between that and the fact that I'm better with most any semi- than I am with any revolver I've ever seriously tried, the answer for me, at least, is an easy one.

shockwave
April 22, 2010, 02:51 PM
Revolvers are much easier to foul with dirt and grime than autos.
It takes alot of dirt to stop an auto from working, but it doesn't take much to bind up a revolver's cylinder.

Based on what I've seen personally and read from others, the theory of "speck of dirt causes revolver to fail" is an invention of semi-auto owners who are determined not to cede the reliability argument. Of course, a revolver can fail to fire or bind up or something, but the ratio of problems between platforms is likely on the order of 100:1. And you never hear about a revolver needing a particular brand/type of ammo, whereas this is common in the auto world. Autos usually have more firepower, revolvers more reliability.

sgt127
April 22, 2010, 02:51 PM
Searcher451:

I appreciate that, thank you.


I can pretty much make an argument either way. And, I have no real qualms about wandering around with an HK USPc on my hip...or a Sig...or a Glock...I have carried a Glock 35 every day for the last 10 years, and, honestly, they work just dandy.

But, on a purely gut level, based on all the wierd things that can happen in the real world that makes a gun suddenly NOT go bang, I would give a slight edge to the humble revolver in pure reliability for the 5 or 6 shots that can end the problem, right now.

We had an Officer, in plain clothes get robbed, at gunpoint. When the bad guy tried to make him get in the backseat of the car, he decided it was time to fight it out. He drew his Glock and the gunfight began.

The Officer fired a couple rounds, got one hit and the bad guy took off, firing back at the Officer.

For the average person, it was over. Two (or three) rounds, the bad guy is wounded, he runs off, get behind cover, call for help, protect yourself.

However, he was in "Cop" mode. He had no wife and kids with him, he was on duty, it was catch the bad guy time. They got into one hell of a running gunbattle through an industrial park, into an aprtment complex. Went through one mag, reloaded and ended the affair.

He would have survived the encounter with a 5 shot Chief Special. He turned it into a gunfight. (Don't take me wrong, I am not saying what he did was a bad thing, far from it, his actions are to be commended, and, a Grand Jury agreed as he was immediatly no billed) But, he knew his abilities, had the right tools with him and made a decision to take this guy down.

Most self defense shooting don't get to that point. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever heard of a self defense shooting that took more than 2-3 rounds in 25 years of being a cop.

sgt127
April 22, 2010, 03:04 PM
Based on what I've seen personally and read from others, the theory of "speck of dirt causes revolver to fail" is an invention of semi-auto owners who are determined not to cede the reliability argument. Of course, a revolver can fail to fire or bind up or something, but the ratio of problems between platforms is likely on the order of 100:1. And you never hear about a revolver needing a particular brand/type of ammo, whereas this is common in the auto world. Autos usually have more firepower, revolvers more reliability.


A buddy of mine just brought me his dads off duty model 36. His dad bough the gun in 1967. Asked that I clean it up a little.

I assure you, that gun had not been cleaned since it left Springfield in 1967. It was unbelievable. There was enough blue wool in the action to make a new uniform, well, a sleeve anyway. It was bone dry. The grips were slightly rusted to the frame. The gas ring was litterly caked with carbon. The yoke felt like it was lubed with mollasses. There was enough lead in the barrel to make it look almost like a smooth bore. Top strap was filled in with lead and carbon over the barrel.

But, it worked. You could have gotten a couple boxes of ammo and shot it up without a burp. The Smith design is a testament to engineering for the lowest common denominator. Every moving part in there seemed like it sweeping out the crap from the moving parts and letting it function properly.

We have to remember, on the gun forums, we are not "normal" Gun owners, gun toters and gunsligers. We are a little wierd. We obsess about what KIND of oil we should use on our favorite gun. Grease versus Oil for the rails. What chemical will get that last TRACE of lead out of the barrel.

jad0110
April 22, 2010, 05:44 PM
I've personally never met anyone who shot a heavy DA revolver trigger better than they shot a 1911.

Well, now you can say you've met two :p .

What do you think is the underlying reason that you shoot the revolver, with its long heavy double-action trigger, better than you shoot the 1911 with its short light-weight single-action trigger?

Well, if one's fingers are strong enough and you don't have arthritis, the weight really isn't in issue IMHO. More critical for me is the smoothness of the action, how cleanly the trigger breaks, what the overtravel is like, etc. I read a post someplace a few months ago where the author stated that Americans these days seem to be conditioned to believe that a light trigger is automatically a good trigger. But such is not the case, as you may agree. For example, when I first got my Springer 1911, the trigger was terrible. It was short and light, yes. But it was also rough, gritty, jerky with a stiff, cruddy letoff. One of the crappier triggers I've experienced. I really should not have purchased the gun, but I had 1911 fever so it didn't matter :o. My groups were terrible, to say the least. After a $50 action job, the trigger was much smoother with a nice clean release. Not quite the proverbial glass rod breaking, but pretty good. My groups shrunk by more than half, though I still dont' shoot the gun as well as a revolver with a smooth DA trigger.

This might explain why I've never done well with Glocks and XDs. The XD I owned, as well as all the Glocks and XDs I've fired did not have the smoothest, cleanest triggers out there. Far from it. But as I indicated in my prior post, revolvers are more natural pointers for me. XDs, Ruger P Series Pistols, and Glocks in particular are do not feel as natural in my hands, so that might well have a lot to do with it. Glocks flat feel odd to me. 1911s point well in my hands, so do HiPowers and CZ-75s. I'd like to pick up a HiPower or CZ someday for that reason.

Additionally, for me I tend to flinch/antipate recoil more frequently with short, light SA triggers. When I am squeezing a long DA trigger, I seem to be concentrating more on squeezing the trigger straight to the rear, and not concentrating on when the gun will fire so much. So there is that.

And I was being honest when I said that it only took 200 rounds or so to do reasonably well with a DA revolver trigger. They just feel right, what can I say?

wankerjake
April 22, 2010, 06:10 PM
why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?
I think this is the big mis-conception. I would like to know what about a revolver makes it "difficult to shoot?" I carried a semi-auto until I bought a short barreled revolver. It's smaller, more comfortable to carry, hides better, pleasant to shoot (Ruger SP 101 with hogue grips), and is accurate. I shoot better with it than with my semi-auto. As far as round count goes, it's just a compromise for concealability. I guess I'm just not the paranoid type, but I'm fairly confident that if I need more than 5 rounds of 38 +P then I'm probably doing something that I shouldn't be.

easyg
April 22, 2010, 10:49 PM
I think that some folks here are really stretching the truth a bit, or they are (perhaps unknowingly) "in denial".

jbrown50
April 23, 2010, 09:06 AM
I think that some folks here are really stretching the truth a bit, or they are (perhaps unknowingly) "in denial".
I don't think it's denial.

The problem is that you're arguing with a bunch of experienced shooters versus inexperienced ones. For most of the people in these forums it has become second nature to practice good trigger control. A novice shooter on the other hand would have more trouble shooting a double action revolver initially especially if that novice started out on semi-autos with relatively lighter triggers.

I don't think anyone's arguing that revolvers aren't more difficult to shoot than semi-autos, that's a moot point. The point is once you learn and practice proper technique there's really no difference between shooting one or the other well. A revolver will expose improper shooting technique much more so.

I learned to shoot initially with revolvers. Later while in the military I shot both revolvers and 1911s. I later became a Cop at which time my on duty gun was a Glock 19. A little bit later I bought a S&W M36 and decided to carry it as a backup in my pocket. At the range I couldn't believe how much looser my groups were with the M36 than with the G19. I then thought "hey, somethings not right, I've shot revolvers in the past and was pretty good with them". I did a little research and then realized that I'd become lackadaisical in with my grip and trigger pull. Once I got back to the basics of front sight concentration, gripping the gun tight and smoothly squeezing the trigger instead of jerking, the M36's groups tightened up to mimmick the G19's, which got better too.

Moral of the story:
Yes, the revolver is more challenging than the semi-auto to shoot well but, if your technique is sound you won't have a problem shooting either.

shockwave
April 23, 2010, 09:27 AM
Once I got back to the basics of front sight concentration, gripping the gun tight and smoothly squeezing the trigger instead of jerking, the M36's groups tightened up to mimmick the G19's, which got better too.

That makes a lot of sense. In baseball, a batter standing over the plate doesn't wait until the ball is there before swinging - he starts the swing in anticipation of the ball's arrival. In bringing a revolver's sights to bear on a target, it's similar - you point into the "box" area enclosing the X-point as you start pulling the trigger and as you reach break point and the sights align the trigger falls.

There's also something ergonomic for me, such that pointing a revolver at a target is like pointing my finger. The way the gun fits in the hand and the sight picture is extremely natural and comfortable, whereas an automatic (I'm thinking Glock or M&P here) feels like I'm pointing a shoebox. I know this would be resolved through more practice, but revolvers are very accurate for me and in SA mode the trigger pull is way, way better than anything I've ever felt in an auto.

easyg
April 23, 2010, 11:10 AM
The point is once you learn and practice proper technique there's really no difference between shooting one or the other well.
I disagree.

There's a reason that the better rifles and shotguns have light triggers:
It makes for more accurate shooting than a heavy trigger.

And when it comes to revolvers, I've never met any shooter, experienced or novice, that was actually more accurate shooting their revolver DA instead of shooting their revolver SA.

The less force you need to apply to the trigger, and the less travel the trigger needs to make, and the less your finger needs to move, the more accurate the shot is going to be.
More movement and more force equals a much greater chance that the handgun will move off target.
Even if a shooter was very experienced shooting a DA revolver, he's still going to be more accurate shooting a revolver SA.



Don't get me wrong....
Lighter and shorter trigger pulls do not necessarily make for a better carry handgun.
Who would want to carry a SA cocked revolver on their side?!?!
The ONLY reason the heavy DA revolver pull exists is for safety reasons, and to eliminate the need to cock the weapon before firing....certainly not to increase shooting accuracy.

sgt127
April 23, 2010, 11:36 AM
In "combat shooting" iI can shoot a DA revolver as well as I can an SA (1911 for example). In the time it takes to recover from recoil, I am re-aligning the sights and starting the trigger squeeze. At about the time the sights line up, the hammer falls. It takes alot longer to describe whats happening than it takes. If I am trying to be reasonably accurate, it takes about the same amount of time to get the shots off between the two platforms. With a 1911, I waste about the same amount of time recovering from recoil and then "tapping" the trigger when the sights are lined up.

If I am just hosing rounds into a target, as fast as I can, there is a slight edge to the 1911. Not alot, but, just a tiny bit. I can fire six rounds at 7 yards with a revolver at about the same speed as I can with a 1911 with reasonable accuracy. Neither one of those will be a group I can cover with dime. Maybe softball size. Not REALLY using the sights, just getting that front sight in the center and cranking the trigger.

However (and I do this every once in awhile) If I am shooting a Milpark target at 100 yards, there is no question, the sigle action auto, or cocked revolver has a decided edge. The better the trigger, the faster I can do it. Its still not fast, by any means. Its about as exciting to watch as paint drying. But, it will take me twice, maybe three times as long fighting through a DA trigger, waiting for the trigger break. The recovery between shots time that I can use at 3-5-7-10 yards is a moot point. Its all about breathing, watching the sights and very gently putting pressure on the trigger until the gun goes bang. No matter how smooth the trigger on a good DA revolver, its one more thing thats causing extra movement. Just your trigger finger flexing is enough to screw up that perfect sight picture when you are shooting at that distance. On most guns, the front sight completely covers the Milpark at 100 yards. So, its a hard enough sight picture to maintain. Add raising it above the target for a .45, things get really hard to keep aligned. (on average, I can get about 8 hits out of 10 on the target from 100 yards with my Wilson .45) Straight back pressure on a GOOD 1911 causes very little extra movement until the break point.

In a perfect world, I would have a gun that fires when I think it should and remove the whole finger moving, hand flexing thing altogether.

(Maybe thats not such a good idea, I'm getting old and cranky and that would lead to alot of holes in my car seat.)

:)

WardenWolf
April 23, 2010, 02:13 PM
Some people talk about autos jamming under less-than-optimal shooting conditions. However, not all autos are so vulnerable. I exclusively carry Combloc semi-autos for concealed carry. These weapons were designed to be simple, accurate, and, above all else, reliable. I have never seen one jam or malfunction. About the only modern pistol I would trust over these guns is the Springfield XD.

That being said, there are times when I would carry a revolver. If I was in bear territory, for instance. In that case, effective stopping power is far more important, and unless someone makes a semi-auto able to handle .454 Casull, the revolver comes out on top in terms of raw power. For most uses, though, I'll stick with my semi-autos.

Hokkmike
April 23, 2010, 02:17 PM
does anyone around here specifically carry a wheelgun even if you have a semiauto? why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?

Never heard of a revolver that had FTF or FTE problems.

easyg
April 23, 2010, 06:08 PM
Never heard of a revolver that had FTF or FTE problems.
Never heard of a semi with a loose yoke screw or a loose ejector rod.

BTW, I have heard of revolvers experiencing a failure-to-eject the spent casing from the cylinder.

sgt127
April 24, 2010, 01:02 AM
Never heard of a semi with a loose yoke screw or a loose ejector rod.

BTW, I have heard of revolvers experiencing a failure-to-eject the spent casing from the cylinder.

Playing devils advocate:

Yoke screw can fall all the way out, it will still fire as many rounds as are in it, the cylinder may fall off when you go to empty it or reload it though.

Ejector rod MAY cause a problem during a course of fire, but, it would have to be very loose to begin with for it to unscrew enough to tie up the gun in six rounds. The ejector rod backing out may keep you from opening the cylinder to dump the empties or put in new ones, but, I have never seen it tie up the gun while actually shooting it.

It may fail to eject, but, that is after its fired all of its rounds without a problem. It may have problems ejecting an empty, you may short stroke the ejector rod, the extractor star can jump over the brass and trap it underneath, but, again, its after it has delivered its payload.

All kinds of things can go wrong with any mechanical device, certainly including a revolver, but, the problems listed will not cause the revolver to quit working in the middle of a string of fire.

:)

Joe-R
April 24, 2010, 02:43 AM
I carry a wheel gun because I like my S&W 66 in 357Mag.

Cosmoline
April 24, 2010, 04:01 AM
I've carried both over the years, but I favor revolvers because you can get primo quality for a bargain price, they digest the full range of ammo, they have fewer problems functioning, and they fit my hand much better. The only semi that really worked well for me was a P225, which is a real oddball among semis and suffers from the downside of being chambered in 9x19. With .357 I can cover a lot more ground, from light .38 special wadcutters to 200 grain hardcasts.

squinty
April 24, 2010, 06:59 AM
My .357/.38 J-frame is nearly as concealable and much better ergonomically than all my "compact" autos - it fills my hand better, points more naturally and comes out of the holster (yes, OWB holster) and onto the target more quickly and smoothly. Simpler manual of arms, better safety and reliability, less maintenace/cleaning/lube dependent. I think it's easier to shoot than most autos - the DA pull is heavy but smoother than that on DA/SA autos, smoother than striker fired pistol triggers. Cock it and there's a lighter, crisper SA pull than my 1911. Less risk of a ND than SA auto triggers because it doesn't return to SA. This isn't my favorite gun but it would be my favorite concealed handgun. Full-size auto might be a better choice for HD or open carry.

For hiking/predator defense, the only handgun I own that might fill that role is a 4" 629. No autos in my collection will do much for game/predator animals.

I like the ammo versatility of .357 and .44 magnum.

The day may come when I wish dearly for more than 5 or 6 rounds, but that's what speedloaders are for and the vast majority of civilian self defense shootings resolve themselves with a very few shots.

jad0110
April 24, 2010, 09:14 AM
Ejector rod MAY cause a problem during a course of fire, but, it would have to be very loose to begin with for it to unscrew enough to tie up the gun in six rounds. The ejector rod backing out may keep you from opening the cylinder to dump the empties or put in new ones, but, I have never seen it tie up the gun while actually shooting it.

On S&Ws, this is only really an issue on guns made prior to late 1959, when S&W switched to a reverse thread on the ejector rod. Basically, firing post '59 S&Ws with left hand thread ejector rods tigtens the rod. I have an early 1959 K-22 / 17-0 that is right hand threaded, and the ejector rod does back out fairly frequently since the cylinder, with its counter clockwise rotation, unscrews the right hand threaded rod. Certainly, this doesn't usually happen until after shooting around 100 rounds. Certainly not prior to 50.

S&W switching to the left hand thread is probably one of the few improvements that have occured to S&Ws over years that most, if not all S&W fans agree was actually an improvement. :p

And when it comes to revolvers, I've never met any shooter, experienced or novice, that was actually more accurate shooting their revolver DA instead of shooting their revolver SA.

For a time, I was more accurate shooting SA. Then, I was actually more accurate shooting DA, for about a year or so. Probably because I was having issues with anticipation in SA for a while. Nowadays, I shoot both about the same, more or less. Though I shoot much more often in DA.

Actually, in the Nov '57 issue of Guns, Frank de Haas states that double action shooting is "the fastest, most accurate, and most natural way to shoot a double action revolver." He goes on to state "Contrary to popular belief, the same shooter with far less training and practice ... shooting double action, can equal or even surpass his single action accuracy, with amazing speed and naturalness."

One of the reasons for this, de Haas claims and as I've discovered myself, is that shooting DA removes much of the anticipation of the hammer falling that causes flinching. "But herein lies the basis of good D.A. shooting: when the trigger is being pulled it must be done in one even motion from start to finish, pulled continually and non-stop. This is all there is to it. The pull is long and you have no notion whatsoever when the gun is going to fire, so there is no chance to flinch or to jerk the trigger."

Granted, Frank does state that he preferred the older long action S&Ws to the later/current short actions design because the short action revolvers have a bit stiffer trigger pull. And for many, all this is probably still easier said than done.

The gun itself is as mechanically accurate in SA or DA, so it is all up to the guy or gal behind the trigger. So if you can squeeze that sucker to the rear without wobbling it all over, there is no reason DA can't be as accurate as SA.

Jonah71
April 24, 2010, 09:32 AM
I carry my Security Six (or sometimes The S&W mod 14 4") in a shoulder holster under my jacket or shirt. Easy to access and get on target and both are very accurate with trigger pull adjusted to very light. Plus I keep a 9mm or .45 IWB(not so accurate with either). I'm just more comfortable and confident of hitting the target with a revolver.

gearhead
April 24, 2010, 12:20 PM
Some people talk about autos jamming under less-than-optimal shooting conditions. However, not all autos are so vulnerable. I exclusively carry Combloc semi-autos for concealed carry. These weapons were designed to be simple, accurate, and, above all else, reliable. I have never seen one jam or malfunction. About the only modern pistol I would trust over these guns is the Springfield XD.

That being said, there are times when I would carry a revolver. If I was in bear territory, for instance. In that case, effective stopping power is far more important, and unless someone makes a semi-auto able to handle .454 Casull, the revolver comes out on top in terms of raw power. For most uses, though, I'll stick with my semi-autos.
+1

I concur with all of sgt127's points too, though. A semi isn't a great close quarters weapon due to the amount of exposed moving parts and the way some rather random physics have to take place with utter reliability in positions and orientations they weren't really optimized for. If the slide is pushed back .060", it won't fire. If something obstructs the ejector port it won't cycle. If it's a hammer fired pistol, the hammer can get blocked. The slide can short cycle due to a loose grip or being partially obstructed during its trip back while cycling. The round can drag and nosedive in the magazine. Have you ever noticed how many shootings ended due to the gun "jamming", according to the news accounts? The reliability of a semi in a close quarters defense situation is much lower than when firing at the range, especially in the case where you're fighting off an assailant who jumps you.

chihuahuatn
April 24, 2010, 11:17 PM
sgt127 thank you for some great insightful comments above average :o
Mike

tack
April 25, 2010, 01:56 AM
Guns are a tool, and there is a practice versus performance curve with any tool. I think the learning curve starts a little higher and steeper for the revolver; most can get adequate performance with limited or infrequent practice.

I recommend a revolver for home defense unless you plan to practice frequently. Even if you practice, some of the fastest and most accurate shooters in my local IDPA gang are shooting revolvers. I'm an auto shooter myself, but these men and women are good!

May you be so too.
Tack

ironvic
April 25, 2010, 11:38 AM
I daily carry a S&W Model 60 no dash and love the thing. My first gun was a revolver and I spent many years learning the fundamentals of shooting wheelies. That said, I find the semiauto easier to shoot and I truly enjoy shooting the 1911 and the Sig P-226/P-220. Still, the revolver is always my go-to gun. It points naturally, is super accurate and I feel well armed with it. Some people consider the revolver an "entry level" gun. I consider it a deadly accurate expert's weapon that will serve you well if you take care of it and learn to properly maintain it. Some will also say that the semiauto has more springs to take a "set" and render the gun useless but consider that the revolver also relies on springs, and lots of 'em, to get the job done.

I just bought a used Model 60 and thought at first that it had serious timing issues due to the fact that you could close the cylinder and it would skip a few chambers before the cylinder lock engaged. After tearing it down, I found the internal springs to be caked with old, thickened powder residue, like nostrils packed with hard dried snot. The problem was actually caked and baked gunk in the cylinder lock's spring cavity and the spring itself was packed with hardened residue inside the coils, rendering the gun sluggish on cylinder lock-up. So I find revolvers to be just as complex in their lockwork as a semiauto and they need just as much maintenance as any other weapon to keep them running in optimal condition.

I mostly choose the revolver because it's a versatile weapon. With the wheelgun you can shoot anything that fits and it won't care if it's a full wadcutter, semi wadcutter, round nose, flat nose bullet; high or low powered charge or even a mix of calibers-.38 Special mixed with .357 Magnum in the cylinder for instance. The sights remain where they need to be, before, during and after the firing cycle. The semiauto's sights, in large part, move with the slide during the firing sequence, forcing you to reacquire them in 2 stages with every shot due to recoil impulse and back & forth movement as the slide cycles. Unless you're shooting an older military style 1911, the tiny sights and milled sight channel can be a problem with small revolvers, especially the S&W J-Frame. I put a little Testor's bright orange enamel on my front sight to help acquire them in most lighting conditions and find the sight picture easy to use with this simple fix. Even though it's made for plastic models, the Testor's paint is rugged, doesn't flake off and it's not at all susceptable to common gun solvents like Hoppe's No. 9 once it cures, if the sight is properly prepped with alcohol before applying the paint with a fine brush.

There it is, all things considered, make mine a pocket revolver.

doc2rn
April 25, 2010, 11:48 AM
I can put all 6 rd into the size of a half dollar at 25' with my s&w. If I cant stop what I am shooting at with 6 I better be runnin. I dont spray n pray cause each projectile released has a lawyer attached...good enuff reason for me.

bullbarrel
April 25, 2010, 01:13 PM
I prefer the revolver for the reasons cited above, plus I dislike the lump that results in my holster from a mag holding 16 rounds + one in the chamber. I speak of the striker plastic auto. It's like with the old VW Beetle. Drivers would buy it for gas efficiency then load it up with extras to defeat their purpose. With a .357 or .38 Special you can better distribute your ammo. Five rounds in the gun and another 5 in a speedloader attached to the other side of your belt.

Guy de Loimbard
April 25, 2010, 11:57 PM
easyg: I expect it is mostly because my 1911 is an RIA nickel plated GI model. Very tiny, very shiny sights. There is also the point that I haven't been able to do as much load development on it because 158gr LSWC is cheap and 130gr JRN (.38 super) is not as cheap.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why would you carry Revolver over Semi-Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!