Wheelgun versus auto: state your case!
- Thread starter Boats
- Start date
- Status
1badmagnum
Member
If I do ever wind up in a gunfight against some bad guys,I sure dont want to be picking up brass on my way out,I chose a large magnum wheelgun.
TheMariner
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2003
- Messages
- 154
For those who dislike SA/DA, why?
Also, jc2 you stated somethign about ulling the trigger to clean the GLock? PULL THE TRIGGER? How are you cleaning weapons? I've never in my life pulled the trigger on any weapon to clean it, be it a rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol or submachine gun.
You also pointed out that AD's can happen alot easier with autos, but as many revolver users have pointed out, it is much harder to become adjusted to teh DA trigger, requiring alot of training to be more accurate. Either weapon reuires training. A revolver is simpler to use, for the most part, but requires alot of practice for many people to get used to the feel of a DA trigger and fire teh weapon accurately. Auto's, especially in SA, are easier to fire accurately but require training in operation.
Many people say revovlers are better about duds and clearing jams. Just skip over the bad round. I don't know I like that idea since that bullet is still right there in teh gun. I've never seen a cookoff but I certainly wouldn't want that live round sitting anywhere near me. Maybe its just my unreasonable fear but I don't exactly feel comfortable with a punched round just sitting there. Feels too much like a ticking time bomb for my peace of mind. I like to just eject the round where it is less likely to cause me problems and retrieve it later.
Also, jc2 you stated somethign about ulling the trigger to clean the GLock? PULL THE TRIGGER? How are you cleaning weapons? I've never in my life pulled the trigger on any weapon to clean it, be it a rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol or submachine gun.
You also pointed out that AD's can happen alot easier with autos, but as many revolver users have pointed out, it is much harder to become adjusted to teh DA trigger, requiring alot of training to be more accurate. Either weapon reuires training. A revolver is simpler to use, for the most part, but requires alot of practice for many people to get used to the feel of a DA trigger and fire teh weapon accurately. Auto's, especially in SA, are easier to fire accurately but require training in operation.
Many people say revovlers are better about duds and clearing jams. Just skip over the bad round. I don't know I like that idea since that bullet is still right there in teh gun. I've never seen a cookoff but I certainly wouldn't want that live round sitting anywhere near me. Maybe its just my unreasonable fear but I don't exactly feel comfortable with a punched round just sitting there. Feels too much like a ticking time bomb for my peace of mind. I like to just eject the round where it is less likely to cause me problems and retrieve it later.
For those who dislike SA/DA, why?
END
Because their harder to shoot well due to the trigger transition. Your first shot is either slower and takes greater concentration or its just as fast and off target.
To disassemble a glock first you need to make sure its unloaded then dry fire in in a safe direction. Then pull the slide back a quarter inch of so then pull it forward.
1badmagnum If your ever in a shootout you had better stick around and not try to leave the scene like a hitman. We will find you and instead of being cleared because it was a justifable homicide we will think your guilty of murder because you ran.
PAT
END
Because their harder to shoot well due to the trigger transition. Your first shot is either slower and takes greater concentration or its just as fast and off target.
To disassemble a glock first you need to make sure its unloaded then dry fire in in a safe direction. Then pull the slide back a quarter inch of so then pull it forward.
1badmagnum If your ever in a shootout you had better stick around and not try to leave the scene like a hitman. We will find you and instead of being cleared because it was a justifable homicide we will think your guilty of murder because you ran.
PAT
Edward429451
member
We will find you
I know where 1badmagnum is coming from, cause I've thought the same thing. With the reception we could expect from the DA, even if it was justifiable, its a valid consideration right or wrong. Theres lots of good folks who got raked over the coals in seemingly justifiable situations just because of the gun issue and agenda thereof. DA's want a good track record and usually dont care who's life they squash to get it, right or wrong.
I know its not you LEO's fault, your probably a good man, but in this day & age while us citizens weigh the pros & cons of different situations, this 'shoot & scoot' scenario has validity as a reasonable option one could do in light of the political climate. It may keep one walking around where 'if he had did the right thing' one may not be.
No easy answers and nothing is carved in stone.
TheMariner-
Proper procedure, of course, is to drop the magazine (and leave it out), lock back the slide, visually and tactilely check the chamber, release the slide, and then pull the trigger. Unfortunately, due to fatigue, being in a hurry, poor training, or just a plain old neurological misfire (blonde moment), there are a lot of accidents while cleaning the Glock.
A couple of things to remember about accuracy is we are talking about a scenario where action is sudden and at close range--we are not talking about shooting out the ten-ring at 25 yards rather keeping them all on a paper plate a 15 yards. Most revolvers have the capability of being cocked for deliberate fire at longer distances--something many automatics (including the aforementioned Glock) lack. FWIW, a couple of relative accuracy facts to consider are: first, at least one study of law enforcement shootings showed the most accurate weapon in actual police shootings was the .357 revolver (the 1911 came in a close second)--kind of contrary to "popular wisdom." Secondly, even after the massive switch to automatics (and with much, much better training), the actual LE hit ratio (hits per rounds fired) has remained constant--in other words, the supposedly more accurate, easier to shoot automatic has not resulted in an increase in practical accuracy under combat conditions. The only real diffence since the large scale adoption of automatics has been a whole lot more unaccounted for rounds down range
Then you've never cleaned a Glock. Technically, you don't pull the trigger to clean it, but you have to pull the trigger to field strip it in order to clean it. There have been many documented ADs (including fatalities) with Glocks directly attributable to that "feature."
Proper procedure, of course, is to drop the magazine (and leave it out), lock back the slide, visually and tactilely check the chamber, release the slide, and then pull the trigger. Unfortunately, due to fatigue, being in a hurry, poor training, or just a plain old neurological misfire (blonde moment), there are a lot of accidents while cleaning the Glock.
True, but I was addressing mainly the relative safety of the systems. As to being "much harder to become adjusted to the DA trigger," I'd say that is slightly exagerated. It probably takes somewhat more practice to become and remain proficient with with a DA revolver but not a whole lot more than is required to remain proficient with any weapon. As for initial training (and practice to remain efficient), the DA/SA transition is probably harder to master than the constant DA trigger pull of a good revolver.
A couple of things to remember about accuracy is we are talking about a scenario where action is sudden and at close range--we are not talking about shooting out the ten-ring at 25 yards rather keeping them all on a paper plate a 15 yards. Most revolvers have the capability of being cocked for deliberate fire at longer distances--something many automatics (including the aforementioned Glock) lack. FWIW, a couple of relative accuracy facts to consider are: first, at least one study of law enforcement shootings showed the most accurate weapon in actual police shootings was the .357 revolver (the 1911 came in a close second)--kind of contrary to "popular wisdom." Secondly, even after the massive switch to automatics (and with much, much better training), the actual LE hit ratio (hits per rounds fired) has remained constant--in other words, the supposedly more accurate, easier to shoot automatic has not resulted in an increase in practical accuracy under combat conditions. The only real diffence since the large scale adoption of automatics has been a whole lot more unaccounted for rounds down range
Bowlcut
Member
im utterly vain....
and welll auto's are just sexier
i dont know, i just like the feel of them. weight of major mass(the lead in the ammo) in my hand, not above my knuckles
and welll auto's are just sexier
i dont know, i just like the feel of them. weight of major mass(the lead in the ammo) in my hand, not above my knuckles
Yo
Member
Wheelgun
I think just about the perfect self-defense gun would be a 627-8 SW 8-shot .357 with a 3" bbl and bobbed custom grip. Carries 8-rounds in a moon clip. With practice you can reload faster than some semis.
The Performance Center makes something similar in a 7-shot, but it's ported and I don't like that in a carry gun.
As to the weight of an N-frame. I think that's irrelevant if you're talking about a car gun that you might carry in a good revolver holster 3-4 hours a day. The second moon clip you just toss in a coat pocket.
16 rounds, better accuracy than virtually any semi-auto, and you don't leave any brass behind....
- - -
The only semi I've ever shot that I would trust 100% is my Sig 226. I want a hammer for restrike capability so glocks are out. Maaaaybe a CZ75 or a Makarov. I like my p7m8, but its too easy to drop the mag by accident.
I think just about the perfect self-defense gun would be a 627-8 SW 8-shot .357 with a 3" bbl and bobbed custom grip. Carries 8-rounds in a moon clip. With practice you can reload faster than some semis.
The Performance Center makes something similar in a 7-shot, but it's ported and I don't like that in a carry gun.
As to the weight of an N-frame. I think that's irrelevant if you're talking about a car gun that you might carry in a good revolver holster 3-4 hours a day. The second moon clip you just toss in a coat pocket.
16 rounds, better accuracy than virtually any semi-auto, and you don't leave any brass behind....
- - -
The only semi I've ever shot that I would trust 100% is my Sig 226. I want a hammer for restrike capability so glocks are out. Maaaaybe a CZ75 or a Makarov. I like my p7m8, but its too easy to drop the mag by accident.
Admiral Thrawn
Member
I vote for semi-auto. I think the benefits of the auto outweigh the downsides compared with the wheelgun when it comes to using a handgun for self-defence.
- Greater ammunition capacity.
- Faster reloads, also requiring less fine motor skill to reload.
- Less flash, bang and smoke.
- Softer recoil; some absorbed in the slide.
- Spare loaded magazines occupy less space than revolver speedloaders, while also carrying more ammunition in this reduced space.
- Wider range of calibers available.
- Greater ammunition capacity.
- Faster reloads, also requiring less fine motor skill to reload.
- Less flash, bang and smoke.
- Softer recoil; some absorbed in the slide.
- Spare loaded magazines occupy less space than revolver speedloaders, while also carrying more ammunition in this reduced space.
- Wider range of calibers available.
P12
Member
IMHO
It comes down to this;
If you don't have the TIME and income to discover what ammo and semi-auto combination will work for you then you need to own and carry a revolver.
If you do have the TIME and income to find the right combination of semi-auto and ammo and can trust it then your better off with a semi-auto due to more ammo and faster re-charge.
Case in point;
My wife doesn't enjoy shooting. When she gets her CHL she will qualify with a semi-auto but will carry a revolver.
Me I dig shooting and compete IDPA. I'm semi-auto period. I'm willing to work with models and ammo to find what works best.
It comes down to this;
If you don't have the TIME and income to discover what ammo and semi-auto combination will work for you then you need to own and carry a revolver.
If you do have the TIME and income to find the right combination of semi-auto and ammo and can trust it then your better off with a semi-auto due to more ammo and faster re-charge.
Case in point;
My wife doesn't enjoy shooting. When she gets her CHL she will qualify with a semi-auto but will carry a revolver.
Me I dig shooting and compete IDPA. I'm semi-auto period. I'm willing to work with models and ammo to find what works best.
Will Fennell
Member
Auto's
I chose the Autopistol......the reason why? Man has progressed......
I chose the Autopistol......the reason why? Man has progressed......
zorba
Member
I don't own a wheelgun, just semi auto's, which I trust implicitly. However, the wheelgun would have a slight edge due to the ability to just pull the trigger again if you have a FTF. Does that mean I am going to switch to a wheelgun, no. I guess you have to be comfortable with your choice.
Harold Mayo
Member
Semi-auto.
For me, it used to be a question of what I liked more, even from an appearance standpoint. NOW that the years have passed and I'm older and marginally wiser, I still prefer the semi-auto mainly for one reason...more ammunition.
I've never really been a caliber snob, so it isn't about "stopping power".
I realize that most gunfights in which a civilian is involved are over very quickly and you don't generally have to reload even once.
I hope that I never have to fire any of my weapons in self-defense. I carry a handgun in case something happens. It is just like my various insurance policies. With that in mind, I have realized that, although I will most likely never get in a gunfight and, if I do, it will be over very quickly, it also might NOT be over quickly.
We're preparing for what is unlikely to happen, not what is likely to happen. I've simply taken that preparedness a little farther than to simply have a gun.
I would feel fine with a single 5-shot revolver without extra ammo but I feel BETTER with a 13+1 shot BHP and a couple of spare magazines, a Kahr K9, and a long gun in the vehicle.
For me, it used to be a question of what I liked more, even from an appearance standpoint. NOW that the years have passed and I'm older and marginally wiser, I still prefer the semi-auto mainly for one reason...more ammunition.
I've never really been a caliber snob, so it isn't about "stopping power".
I realize that most gunfights in which a civilian is involved are over very quickly and you don't generally have to reload even once.
I hope that I never have to fire any of my weapons in self-defense. I carry a handgun in case something happens. It is just like my various insurance policies. With that in mind, I have realized that, although I will most likely never get in a gunfight and, if I do, it will be over very quickly, it also might NOT be over quickly.
We're preparing for what is unlikely to happen, not what is likely to happen. I've simply taken that preparedness a little farther than to simply have a gun.
I would feel fine with a single 5-shot revolver without extra ammo but I feel BETTER with a 13+1 shot BHP and a couple of spare magazines, a Kahr K9, and a long gun in the vehicle.
I’m firmly straddling the line on semi-auto vs. revolver. My all-the-time is a 442 in a strong side Kramer pocket holster. When I can carry more, it’s usually some form of 1911 in a Summer Special, moving the 442 to the offside front pocket. That said, I find that I take a lot less convincing to deem an individual revolver reliable enough for carry as opposed to a semi-auto.
At contact distance, the revolver is less likely to fail when pushed against an assailant, especially when it has an enclosed hammer like the 442.
Autos almost always hold more and reload faster (though moon clips are close on speed).
Single action autos are a bit easier to shoot accurately at speed than double action revolvers.
Revolvers are usually more mechanically accurate that semi-autos of equal cost.
Revolvers of equal quality are usually less expensive than semi-autos – especially when you factor in the used market.
I’ve seen or had numerous failures with both autos and revolvers. If you rule out ammo failures (almost all of the ammo failures have been with ammo I would never carry for personal defense - reloads and cheap import/surplus), most of the failures can be broken down into a few categories
1. Bad Magazines/Clips - Using inferior, out of spec or damaged magazines or moon clips. I’ve seen this more and done this more with 1911s than anything else with Glocks a close second.
2. Parts failure/lack of preventive maintenance - Often related to a lack of inspection and buying inferior, out of spec parts – usually to save money. I learned the hard way that cheap 1911 extractors are not worth fooling with.
3. Modifications - Fooling with the springs seems to be the best way to make a handgun fail. Replacing the mainspring with one of lighter weight to ease the trigger pull. Switching out the recoil spring to “ease recoilâ€. Fooling with the magazine springs to compensate for changing the recoil springs.
At contact distance, the revolver is less likely to fail when pushed against an assailant, especially when it has an enclosed hammer like the 442.
Autos almost always hold more and reload faster (though moon clips are close on speed).
Single action autos are a bit easier to shoot accurately at speed than double action revolvers.
Revolvers are usually more mechanically accurate that semi-autos of equal cost.
Revolvers of equal quality are usually less expensive than semi-autos – especially when you factor in the used market.
I’ve seen or had numerous failures with both autos and revolvers. If you rule out ammo failures (almost all of the ammo failures have been with ammo I would never carry for personal defense - reloads and cheap import/surplus), most of the failures can be broken down into a few categories
1. Bad Magazines/Clips - Using inferior, out of spec or damaged magazines or moon clips. I’ve seen this more and done this more with 1911s than anything else with Glocks a close second.
2. Parts failure/lack of preventive maintenance - Often related to a lack of inspection and buying inferior, out of spec parts – usually to save money. I learned the hard way that cheap 1911 extractors are not worth fooling with.
3. Modifications - Fooling with the springs seems to be the best way to make a handgun fail. Replacing the mainspring with one of lighter weight to ease the trigger pull. Switching out the recoil spring to “ease recoilâ€. Fooling with the magazine springs to compensate for changing the recoil springs.
Smoke
Member
Auto,
Para Ordnance P14.45 = 14 + 1 rnds.
Mags allow faster reloads. Modern, quality, autos are accurate and perform without trouble. Why limit yourself to six and a slow reload?
Para Ordnance P14.45 = 14 + 1 rnds.
Mags allow faster reloads. Modern, quality, autos are accurate and perform without trouble. Why limit yourself to six and a slow reload?
H
Handy
Guest
This debate has ranged all over, but most of the tangents are completely off track.
The only debatable difference between a revolver and an auto is their method of cycling ammunition. Either you think the revolver does it better, or you think the auto does just as well.
Both guns can be set up with the same triggers. Both guns can produce similar ballistics. Both guns can produce excellent accuracy. The auto, in general, holds more bullets and reloads quicker. It also has the option of a better trigger pull. All of those are bonuses that make the auto a better deal, if you feel the auto is as reliable as a revolver, or reliable enough.
In essense, a revolver man is willing to forego the advantages of the auto for the theoretical reliability of a revolver.
Arguing about NDs has nothing to do with this.
The only debatable difference between a revolver and an auto is their method of cycling ammunition. Either you think the revolver does it better, or you think the auto does just as well.
Both guns can be set up with the same triggers. Both guns can produce similar ballistics. Both guns can produce excellent accuracy. The auto, in general, holds more bullets and reloads quicker. It also has the option of a better trigger pull. All of those are bonuses that make the auto a better deal, if you feel the auto is as reliable as a revolver, or reliable enough.
In essense, a revolver man is willing to forego the advantages of the auto for the theoretical reliability of a revolver.
Arguing about NDs has nothing to do with this.
Handy -
I think you have oversimplified to the point of being silly. Of course, there are a whole lot more "debatable difference between a revolver and an auto is their method of cycling ammunition." That's about like saying the only debatable difference between the 1911 and the Glock is the frame material. "Either you think the [steel] does it better, or you think the [plastic] does just as well." Right?
There are a ton of debatable differences between different automatics much less between revolversa and automatics. Which is better locking system: Browning, modified Browning, Walther (a la P38/P5/Beretta 92), rotating barrel, or how about just a plain old recoil operated. Which is stronger? Which is more reliable? Which results in a thinner more concealable weapon. What about DAO, like Glocks, versus SA like the Browning Hi-power, versus a TDA like many S&Ws?
Ammunition capacity advantage is at best debatable since there are revolvers that hold as many or more rounds than similar size automatics.
The revolver holds a definite advantage in fit--you can adjust a revolver grip to point naturally with any hand. With most automatics (particularly the polymers) you are stuck with what you get.
Manual of arms, and yes safety--even in terms of operator error--should be a consideration. Some weapons tend to be just naturally more prone to operator error (due to their more complex manual of arms) than others. All pistols have a more complex manual arms than a revolver. The more complex the task, the greater the chance for error.
When you get down to brass tacks, the only real advantage the automatic has over a revolver is speed of reloading (which can be overcome with training and practice). Of course, how important the individual user thinks speed of reloading will be in in his or her situation helps determine whether this a theoretical or practical advantage--and of course, a number of people don't bother to carry a spare magazine which sort of makes the point moot for them, doesn't it?
I've shot a whole lot of weapons in my life--both revolvers and automatics. I have experienced reliability/dpendability problems with each system--it is to be expected and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I certainly do not consider automatics unreliable, but overall, I have to give the reliability edge to the revovler. A reliability scenario:
You know you are going to be in a fight and will need a weapon if you are to have a chance tosurvive. Your do not have access own personnel weapon. You are offered two choices--a 1911 (slightly rusty) and seven rounds of 200-grain LSWC (quality unknown), or S&W 686+ and seven rounds of 158-grain LSWC (quality unknown). You have one minute to check out both weapons and make your choice.
Which do you choose and why (addressing primarily the revolver's "theoretical" advantage in reliability)?
In any case, the advantages of an automatic are just as theoretical as the advantages of revolver, and to a large measure, "advantage" depends on what the end user wants and expects from the weapon.
I think you have oversimplified to the point of being silly. Of course, there are a whole lot more "debatable difference
There are a ton of debatable differences between different automatics much less between revolversa and automatics. Which is better locking system: Browning, modified Browning, Walther (a la P38/P5/Beretta 92), rotating barrel, or how about just a plain old recoil operated. Which is stronger? Which is more reliable? Which results in a thinner more concealable weapon. What about DAO, like Glocks, versus SA like the Browning Hi-power, versus a TDA like many S&Ws?
Ammunition capacity advantage is at best debatable since there are revolvers that hold as many or more rounds than similar size automatics.
The revolver holds a definite advantage in fit--you can adjust a revolver grip to point naturally with any hand. With most automatics (particularly the polymers) you are stuck with what you get.
Manual of arms, and yes safety--even in terms of operator error--should be a consideration. Some weapons tend to be just naturally more prone to operator error (due to their more complex manual of arms) than others. All pistols have a more complex manual arms than a revolver. The more complex the task, the greater the chance for error.
When you get down to brass tacks, the only real advantage the automatic has over a revolver is speed of reloading (which can be overcome with training and practice). Of course, how important the individual user thinks speed of reloading will be in in his or her situation helps determine whether this a theoretical or practical advantage--and of course, a number of people don't bother to carry a spare magazine which sort of makes the point moot for them, doesn't it?
I've shot a whole lot of weapons in my life--both revolvers and automatics. I have experienced reliability/dpendability problems with each system--it is to be expected and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I certainly do not consider automatics unreliable, but overall, I have to give the reliability edge to the revovler. A reliability scenario:
You know you are going to be in a fight and will need a weapon if you are to have a chance tosurvive. Your do not have access own personnel weapon. You are offered two choices--a 1911 (slightly rusty) and seven rounds of 200-grain LSWC (quality unknown), or S&W 686+ and seven rounds of 158-grain LSWC (quality unknown). You have one minute to check out both weapons and make your choice.
Which do you choose and why (addressing primarily the revolver's "theoretical" advantage in reliability)?
In any case, the advantages of an automatic are just as theoretical as the advantages of revolver, and to a large measure, "advantage" depends on what the end user wants and expects from the weapon.
Easy - I can shoot a auto more accurately under rapid fire than I can a revolver. Be it a .45 with 8+1 or a 10mm with 9+1, I am confident I can solve any problem that's likely to find me.
That said, I also think one of my revos could make a bad guy really, really sorry he attacked me. They're all large frame guns, but still viable in some defensive situations.
Last year I found myself staying in a cheap motel (nothing else open) with people next door. I had a couple guns in the luggage, but decided to load the Ruger Bisley, since I could load it far more quietly than the 1911. I expect those .45 Colt Cowboy loads with flat pointed 250's would still get the job done.
That said, I also think one of my revos could make a bad guy really, really sorry he attacked me. They're all large frame guns, but still viable in some defensive situations.
Last year I found myself staying in a cheap motel (nothing else open) with people next door. I had a couple guns in the luggage, but decided to load the Ruger Bisley, since I could load it far more quietly than the 1911. I expect those .45 Colt Cowboy loads with flat pointed 250's would still get the job done.
H
Handy
Guest
JC2,
I disagree. The only "advantage" the best revolver (for a particular job) is going to have over the best auto (for the job) is going to be method of operation. Everything else overlaps.
Sure, we could compare a .480 Redhawk and a Glock 26, but that's stupid. When you make a general statement, it's got to have some universal application to make the general statement true. Here are some of the big issues:
Ballistics: both can do .22 Short through monster magnums.
Accuracy: both can be terrible, but the best accuracy from both is rifle-like, without sacrificing reliability
Weight: both go feather to boat anchor
Grip style: between various models, there is a comfortable grip for every hand (but with a revolver, you can change your mind)
Manual of arms: There are many auto designs that are as simple in operation as a DA revolver
Capacity: While you can make an auto that holds 2 rounds, you can't make a revolver that holds 20. For size vs. capacity, the auto will always have an advantage
Trigger: Revolvers have 2 options, autos every possible option. While a revolver MAY have one of the nicest triggers of it's type, auto trigger options also include very light target triggers that are available immediately out of the holster
In other words, for any particular job, there is an auto that can do all the same stuff as a particular revolver, with the exception of rotating the cartridges, which MIGHT be more reliable. But the auto has everything else covered, which is why you see autos in every handgunning endeavor, even ones favored by revolvers.
I'll give you credit for being to imagine the various circumstances and compare two ideal weapons on their merits, rather than rambling on with examples.
I disagree. The only "advantage" the best revolver (for a particular job) is going to have over the best auto (for the job) is going to be method of operation. Everything else overlaps.
Sure, we could compare a .480 Redhawk and a Glock 26, but that's stupid. When you make a general statement, it's got to have some universal application to make the general statement true. Here are some of the big issues:
Ballistics: both can do .22 Short through monster magnums.
Accuracy: both can be terrible, but the best accuracy from both is rifle-like, without sacrificing reliability
Weight: both go feather to boat anchor
Grip style: between various models, there is a comfortable grip for every hand (but with a revolver, you can change your mind)
Manual of arms: There are many auto designs that are as simple in operation as a DA revolver
Capacity: While you can make an auto that holds 2 rounds, you can't make a revolver that holds 20. For size vs. capacity, the auto will always have an advantage
Trigger: Revolvers have 2 options, autos every possible option. While a revolver MAY have one of the nicest triggers of it's type, auto trigger options also include very light target triggers that are available immediately out of the holster
In other words, for any particular job, there is an auto that can do all the same stuff as a particular revolver, with the exception of rotating the cartridges, which MIGHT be more reliable. But the auto has everything else covered, which is why you see autos in every handgunning endeavor, even ones favored by revolvers.
I'll give you credit for being to imagine the various circumstances and compare two ideal weapons on their merits, rather than rambling on with examples.
charleym3
Member
You can limp wrist a revolver all day long and never have a problem. You can take a .357Mag revolver and shoot everything from .38 short colt to cannon level .357 loads in the same cylinder. In a frantic moment you can lose a magazine, but you will never drop the cylinder in the snow or mud with out the rest of the gun. Ever drive off the the shooting range with the wrong magazines for the chosen auto loader of the day? I have. The Revolver requires only ammunition. Speed loaders are nice but not necessary. You can leave a revolver loaded from now til yet and not have to worry about the springs wearing out.
All that said, I still carry an autoloader. It's thinner, lighter, and has more rounds at the ready.
I would carry a wheel gun full time save for one thing. I shoot IDPA. I got tired of being the only real-gun oops, sorry, wheel-gun shooter. I still believe in carrying the same gun I compete with so that there is only 1 manual of arms. For me that is a lightly customized G17.
All that said, I still carry an autoloader. It's thinner, lighter, and has more rounds at the ready.
I would carry a wheel gun full time save for one thing. I shoot IDPA. I got tired of being the only real-gun oops, sorry, wheel-gun shooter. I still believe in carrying the same gun I compete with so that there is only 1 manual of arms. For me that is a lightly customized G17.
The last time I qualified, I dropped my fresh magazine in the sand at the range from about 2.5 - 3.0 feet above the ground (the first time I'd ever dropped a magazine). It didn't damage the magazine, but the sand evidently got in the witness holes and locked it up (the follower) so tight I had to disassemble to get it to work--fortunately I had a spare in the car. I did get to shoot that leg again--something I probably would not be allowed the luxury of doing in real life. Magazines (the ease of loading associated with magazines) may be the autos strongest point, but it also their weakest link.
charleym3
Member
No doubt about it, the magazine is the Achille's heal of the autoloaded. If it works well the gun is happy... If not, there's nothing that will help.
Just an opinion, but I believe that the DA revolver is more reliable than the auto. This is because of the mechanics of each. Assuming a stoppage with an auto, the recovery generally requires the off-hand to recover. I realize that there are jams and malfunctions with revolvers, and there are problems that would completely lock-up a DA. One of which, is the reload that wasn’t crimped heavily enough.
But still, the DA revolver requires manual operation to cycle. There lies its strength. Sometimes dirt, unburnt powder, etc. will slow an action down. Many times you can still “pull through†it. Even a dry action can be manipulated this way. This is not what I would recommend on the range, as it does the handgun no good. But, if life or death, I’m pull’n the trigger 'till it shoots or breaks. This type of malfunction will totally stop an auto until corrective actions are taken.
Make no mistake. I am an auto man, but I am also a realist. There is a trade off for everything. If I wanted more nearly total reliability, I would carry a single shot.
But still, the DA revolver requires manual operation to cycle. There lies its strength. Sometimes dirt, unburnt powder, etc. will slow an action down. Many times you can still “pull through†it. Even a dry action can be manipulated this way. This is not what I would recommend on the range, as it does the handgun no good. But, if life or death, I’m pull’n the trigger 'till it shoots or breaks. This type of malfunction will totally stop an auto until corrective actions are taken.
Make no mistake. I am an auto man, but I am also a realist. There is a trade off for everything. If I wanted more nearly total reliability, I would carry a single shot.
H
Handy
Guest
And what happens if you drop a revolver in the sand? Or get and in the mechanism because you dropped your speedloader in the sand?
Guess what, all guns work poorly with sand in them. It pays not to drop the gun, loading devices or ammo in sand.
Actually, dropping stuff you depend on in general: not so good.
So this wasn't much of a revolver vs. auto question at all, was it?
Guess what, all guns work poorly with sand in them. It pays not to drop the gun, loading devices or ammo in sand.
Actually, dropping stuff you depend on in general: not so good.
So this wasn't much of a revolver vs. auto question at all, was it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked