1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Why would anyone buy a revolver?"

Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by RyanM, Sep 1, 2007.

  1. RyanM

    RyanM Well-Known Member

    Most of this will be well-trodden ground for THR regulars. This thread is intended to outline the basic pros and cons of semi-automatic pistols versus revolvers, for people new to handguns, or even to guns in general. I've noticed people that are just starting out will often look at the number of rounds modern automatics hold, and go "why would anyone ever buy a revolver?" This thread should address that.

    If it seems dumbed down in places, just remember that you weren't born knowing what you do now.

    To start with, let's look at a fairly typical automatic.


    Many people, including me, find the Glock 23 to be a nearly perfect balance between concealability, power, controllability, and magazine capacity. As long as you don't mind .40 S&W recoil, it's a great all-around gun.


    The SP-101 has quite a following. Rugers are often underestimated by gun snobs, but it's a very solid weapon. An S&W J-frame snubnose would be smaller and lighter--much lighter if it's alloy-framed--but recoil would be proportionally worse. The SP-101 strikes a good balance between wearing it comfortably and shooting it comfortably.

    So both guns are very good compromises between size and power. In either caliber, either platform, you could go smaller or larger. But I'd say both guns are representative of a compact belt gun, intended for daily concealed carry under light clothing. So how do the two stack up next to each other?


    Sizewise, they're pretty similar, though the SP-101 has a slight advantage. The G23 is about 8.5" diagonally from muzzle to butt, while the SP-101 is 8." The main difference is the back of the G23's slide.

    In terms of weight, similar yet again, though this time the Glock takes the lead. The G23 is 25 ounces with an empty magazine, 34 ounces loaded with 13+1 rounds of 180 grain ammunition, though mine has a tungsten recoil guide rod. A stock G23 would be one ounce lighter. SP-101 is 25.5 ounces empty, 28 ounces with 5 rounds of 158 gr ammo.

    For power, they're similar yet again, if you don't handload.

    But first, one thing you need to keep in mind about barrel length. Revolver barrel length is measured from the front of the cylinder, while automatic barrel length is measured from the breech face, where the back of the cartridge rests. To compare the two more directly, you need to add the length of the cylinder, plus the thickness of the cartridge rims, which stick out of the back. For the SP-101, this adds about 1.64". Using a caliper to measure the actual distance from the muzzle to the breech face, we find that the Glock 23 has a barrel length of 4.03", and the SP-101 is 3.94". Not too much of a difference, which shouldn't be surprising, given how similar the guns are in overall size. Thus, a 4" barreled revolver actually has an equivalent barrel length to a 5.64" automatic.

    .357 magnum is a much longer cartridge, however, so less of the barrel length of a revolver will actually be used. A 180 gr .40 caliber bullet in a 4" auto will have about 3.45" of actual distance before it exits the barrel, while a 158 gr .357 caliber bullet through a 4" (5.64" equivalent)-barreled revolver has around 4.68". However, you should go by the equivalent barrel lengths instead, as this will tell you more about how large the gun is likely to be, overall.

    Anyway, on to the comparative power levels. From a 4" barrel in both cases (keeping in mind the difference):

    .357 magnum (Federal):
    130 grains at 1410 feet per second
    158 grains at 1240 fps
    180 grains at 1080 fps

    .40 S&W (Remington):
    155 grains at 1205 fps
    165 grains at 1150 fps
    180 grains at 1015 fps

    I would have preferred to compare the same brands, but Remington and Winchester both use 8" barrels for their 180 grain .357 loads, and Federal's .40 numbers are pretty weird in some weights, since they make some reduced recoil type stuff.

    From those numbers, it's fairly clear that .40 S&W and .357 magnum factory loads would be just about identical in power, if fired through truly equivalent barrel lengths. If you make your own ammo, and go for power above everything else, the edge goes to the .357 magnum. But maximum power .357 ammo through an SP-101 sized gun would be very uncomfortable to fire.

    Unless you're a magazine writer of course, in which case anything is "controllable," regardless of what the pictures appear to say. http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454/MVC-021F.jpg "While recoil with full-power .454 loads was stiff, the Alaskan proved to be controllable with all loads fired." No disrespect to Jeff Quinn intended, that's just one of my favorite picture-quote combinations.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2007
  2. 10-Ring

    10-Ring Well-Known Member

    More me, I like both, carry both & like both A LOT! :cool:
  3. RyanM

    RyanM Well-Known Member

    So, other than potential for more powerful ammunition in the same sized package, what other benefit is there to using a revolver?

    The main one is ergonomics. An automatic's grip has to accomodate a magazine in it, while a revolver's grip only has a spring or two. A Glock would be one extreme of the spectrum. If you don't like a Glock's grip, there's very little you can do other than have a very expensive grip reduction. With a revolver, there are inevitably many aftermarket grip options, which can change the shape of the grip completely.

    Here's a Kahr MK40 with the grip panels removed.


    That's pretty much all the grip customization you can do to most automatics. Change the thickness and the backstrap shape, and that's about it.

    On the other hand, the Ruger barely has anything under the grip.


    Want something other than the factory grip? Bigger? Smaller? Different angle? Different shape? No problem. You could even hand carve a set of grips yourself, with some basic woodworking skills. The sky is the limit.

    Then there's the "manual of arms," the things you need to know to operate the weapon effectively. A lot of revolver advocates claim that revolvers have a simpler manual of arms, but that's not entirely true. Many modern automatics, like everything made by both Glock and Kahr, lack manual safeties, and have the same "point and shoot" functionality as revolvers.

    The main difference is loading the gun. A revolver is simpler and easier to load using loose cartridges, but an automatic is much easier to load if you have magazines already loaded up. With a revolver, you have to open the cylinder, eject the empty cases, line up the rounds in the speedloader with the holes in the cylinder, insert them, then close the cylinder. With an automatic, you just eject the empty magazine, insert a new one, and release the slide if it's locked back. Personally, I'd say that both platforms are equally difficult/easy to learn, overall.

    Many revolver advocates also claim that revolvers are mechanically simpler than automatics. Maybe back when the Luger was state-of-the-art this was true, but today, it really isn't.

    Here are the innards of the SP-101, the main parts responsible for making it go bang.


    And here's the Glock.


    Neither one is particularly complex, but both are the simplest of their respective breed. The edge definitely goes to the automatic in this case.

    Standard wisdom also says that revolvers are less prone to jams and other failures than automatics, but this is again not entirely true. In reality, revolvers are somewhat more tolerant of inept handling, but are no more mechanically robust than an automatic under normal operating conditions, in the hands of a skilled individual.

    With both the G23 and Ruger SP-101, I've never had a stoppage that wasn't my own fault, and I've actually had a roughly equivalent number of problems. The Glock, I had a couple to feed due to limp-wristing, when I first got it, and that's been it. With the Ruger, the trigger failed to return once, after I installed a lighter trigger return spring, and the cylinder bound up once when I decided to fire some homemade black powder cartridges.

    Under less than ideal conditions, either platform can fail. The main difference is that with the Glock, both jams were easily cleared by whacking the bottom of the magazine. That was enough to make the slide close the rest of the way, no manual racking required. With the SP-101's trigger, I had to disassemble the gun at home, and polish off a small burr that was only a problem with the lighter return spring (though it may have eventually been a problem even with the original spring). With the BP ammo, I didn't have any cleaning supplies at the range with me, so I ended up throwing the gun in a mud puddle, then wiping the front of the cylinder with my fingers. It worked fine for another 5 rounds, but it had to go back in the puddle every 5 rounds, to keep it from binding again (I've also tried putting my Glock through the mud puddle test, and it did fine as well).

    The main advantage of a revolver in terms of reliability is, once again, its slightly greater tolerance of operator error. You can't make it jam by not holding on tightly enough. It won't jam if it's over- or under-lubricated. But most modern automatics do fine under poor conditions as well. And I almost forgot, it's very possible to mess up the trigger pull on a revolver, if you're not practised. If you don't allow the trigger to return all the way forward before pulling again, it won't fire. Some revolvers, especially some Colts, can actually be damaged by doing this. You can also bind up the cylinder and prevent the gun from firing, if you're using an improper grip, that puts pressure on the cylinder. Those can be real problems if you're just starting out. I'd call this one a draw, too. Both platforms have their own unique operator error problems.

    Revolvers are also more reliable with different types of ammunition. Modern semi-auto designs are very tolerant of different bullet shapes, weights, and velocities, but there are still limits, and you often need to change recoil spring weights to use vastly different power ammo. A magnum caliber revolver, on the other hand, can fire anything from very wimpy, light ammo, to extremely heavy, wrist-breaking loads, without changing any parts.

    Another definite benefit to using a revolver is the amount of hand and arm strength required. Loading and firing an automatic requires relatively high strength to load the magazine and rack the slide. Even big, strong men often need a little practice before they can proficiently handle an automatic, while a revolver only needs the finger strength necessary to pull the trigger.

    Finally, there's the question of size to power ratios. Both platforms can excel, but under different conditions.


    Comparing an MK40 to the SP-101 hardly seems fair at all. The MK40 is .40 caliber and only slightly less powerful than the Glock due to its shorter barrel. It holds 5+1 shots in the gun, and 6 shots per extra (extended length) magazine. It's much, much smaller, yet still holds an extra shot compared to the SP-101. And mine has been 100% reliable since day one, even when I've tried to induce limp-wrist jams.

    Then there's the potential ammo difference. A .357 magnum snubnose can potentially use ammunition that's much more powerful than an auto, but it has to be a certain size to begin with. The S&W J-frame is the practical lower limit for all DA revolvers, really, while autos can be made much smaller, even in major calibers like .40 S&W and 9mm.

    In general, automatics have a monopoly over the lower end of the size scale, while revolvers have the high end. You can get very, very tiny semi-autos that are still adequate power, like the Seecamp LWS32 and 380. http://www.seecamp.com/LWSCherryPhone.jpg No revolver could possibly hope to match that in size. The NAA Mini revolvers come close, but they're .22 caliber and single action.

    But then there's the infamous .500 S&W mag. I don't think there'll ever be any automatics chambered in something that powerful! http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=14778&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

    So, to sum up, the pros of each platform:

    Semi-auto pistols:
    Many more shots for a given size
    Can be much smaller
    Faster and easier to load if you have loaded magazines

    More ergonomic with the right grips
    Wider variety of ammo can be used
    Faster and easier to load with loose ammo
    Less hand and arm strength required
    Can use much more powerful ammunition

    Which ones apply to a particular gun will depend on that gun, but for just narrowing it down to one platform or the other, those are the points to keep in mind.

    In my case, I'm keeping my Glock 23 and MK40, and selling the SP-101. It's a fine gun, but a close friend of mine wants it more than me.

    I like having more shots. I like being able to reload quickly, and always keep my magazines loaded. I like how tiny the MK40 is. The Glock 23 fits my hand like it was made for it, so ergonomics isn't an issue. I prefer to use only one power ammunition (180 gr at 1000 fps). I've got enough hand and arm strength (for now) that loading the gun isn't an issue. And I have no need of an incredibly powerful pistol; if .40 S&W won't kill it, I'd rather reach for a rifle than a bigger pistol. So semi-autos are definitely the platform for me.

    Which one you choose should be based on your own preferences and needs.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2007
  4. sm

    sm member


    Thank you for taking the time in writing such a well thought out thread topic; complete with wonderful, and useful pictures.

  5. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    Not true at all. The SP is more than heavy enough to absorb the recoil of full powered .357. I put Hogue wraparounds on mine and could fire five after five very quickly. I put many thousands of Fiocchi .357's downrange in my old SP, and have put quite a few through my Speed Six since. There is no comparison with something like an Alaskan with powerhouse Casulls. Not even a little. I've also owned a G23 and found it to be considerably less comfortable to fire. Not because of recoil but because the shape is not as ergonomic. I'm not a recoil fan, either.

    Triggers are another issue, and a critical one for many veteran shooters. As wheelguns go the SP has a pretty heavy trigger, but even without lighter springs it's a far better and smoother trigger than the G23's. The Glock's trigger feels mushy to me, and I could never really get into it. It's not bad, but it's no comparison to a good wheelgun.

    For me it comes down to this. I can get a revolver drawn, aimed and in action considerably faster and with less conscious thought than nearly any semi. There are not adjustments to my grip or stance. There are no adjustments to get my sights lined up. I'm up, on target and firing in one motion. I know there are people who can do that with a doublestack semi, but I'm not one of them. Capacity may be useful, but given the role and purpose of the sidearm I don't consider it a major factor. It's a purely short range defensive weapon.

    There are other, shall we say "spiritual" reasons for the preference as well. Just like scopes on long guns, I have a fundamental feeling of distance from most semis when using them. The firearm feels like a piece of jerking machinery. A good wheelgun feels like an extension of my arm.

    This is an interesting comparison, and throws light on an aspect of semis I've overlooked--the shifting weight. The G23 has an almost TEN OUNCE SPREAD over the course of a single firing. More if you have bigger mags, I suspect. The SP's spread is much less pronounced. For me that change means I have to make adjustments as the semi empties out. Felt recoil and balance alike all shift a little with each round downrange. I don't like that.
  6. RyanM

    RyanM Well-Known Member

    Steve, no problem. My pleasure. I've been thinking about this on and off for the last few days.

    Cosmoline, I'd say you've probably got pretty good recoil tolerance. Me, my hand turns beet red after firing about 10 Remington 125 gr SJHPs, but that's with the factory grips. Though the factories do fit my hands just fine. I've yet to meet anyone on the range that was willing to fire more than one cylinder full of those beasts.

    On the other hand, like I said, my G23 fits my hand practically like it was made for it. My fingers fit the grooves exactly, and with the trigger face shaved down a bit, the first crease of my trigger finger is right at the front edge of the trigger. Even relatively powerful handloads like 180 gr at 1100 fps aren't uncomfortable at all to me, and standard velocity stuff is quite mild.

    Sounds like that's mostly personal preference differences, not anything inherent to the revolver vs. semi-auto platforms.

    On triggers, that's also going to be highly dependent on the individual gun, not the platform, so I didn't bother to make any mention. I'm trying to compare autos in general to revolvers in general, not the specific models that I happen to own, and that happen to be what I think are fairly representative of the same class of gun (good balance between controlability and concealability).
  7. P. Plainsman

    P. Plainsman Well-Known Member

    Hmm. This is one sentence where you're likely to get substantial "push-back" on what is otherwise a useful and well-done comparison. Here at the dawn of the 21st century, revolvers own the "hand howitzer" category but also have a very powerful presence among the small guns -- and particularly, among the lightweight pocket guns. It's the broad middle of the spectrum, the "service handgun" zone, where the self-loader has most strongly eclipsed the round gun.

    To put it more simply, if your description is accurate, then what are all those little 15 oz (or lighter) alloy-frame snubby revolvers doing in people's pockets? That must represent a huge chunk of total U.S. revolver sales. Clearly, thousands of shooters and CCWers believe these little fiveguns will fill niches that other handguns, including semi-autos, may not do as well.

    I love my SP101, but it's not close to the whole story of what modern compact revolvers are like or what missions they can fill. The Ruger's niche is the "big little gun," the "belt snubby" -- an all steel piece that is super tough and that you can actually handle with full-boat .357 loads. (Like Cosmoline, I also think you're off-base about the feasibility of using heavy .357 in the SP101 -- can do, esp. with Hogues. If I took it hiking in rough country I'd seriously consider Buffalo Bore's 180 hard cast, which outdistances any .40 S&W for power.) But my larger point is, the SP101 isn't the median small revolver today.

    Forget, for a moment, the 12 oz S&W pocket .357 Magnum (a technologically amazing handgun). It's an "expert" weapon, so perhaps that's a fair reason to decline to mention it in a piece aimed at beginners.

    Still, to stay at mundane tech levels, I can control 158 grain +P lead hollowpoints @ 800 fps from a 15 oz aluminum-alloy revolver. Slips right in your slacks pocket (preferably into a Mika holster :D ), almost disappears. Under $400 new, and your local gun store's probably got a whole shelf of 'em. They do require practice to use well.

    I've handled the micro Kahr 9mm pistols. The slides are pretty wide and blocky. Cool guns, but the claim that the design is as "pocketable" as an Airweight Centennial does not match what I felt and saw.
  8. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    It's all about personal preferences, though. That's the prime consideration, and the most overlooked one. All the "inherent" issues with one platform or the other mean little if the shooter doesn't care much for the firearm or has some problem with it.

    LOL I was just thinking about trying to line mine up with the third generation grips on a Glock last year. It was comical. I was actually thinking I could take a knife to them and change them.
  9. gandog56

    gandog56 Well-Known Member

    One factor to consider is revolvers are fairly easy to shoot, and have less that can go wrong. The only advantage I really see to a semi-auto is number of rounds. Plus the really big bores are much easier for people to use than the same cartidge in a semi. You ever try to fit a small hand around a 44 magnum Desert Eagle. Mine can't, but it fits a Ruger Superblackhawk nicely. I own and use both, but both have advantages and disadvantages over each other. Plus I think it is a lot easier to train somebody on firearms use with a revolver over a semi. My 3 best shooting guns are two newer semi's and a 20 year old Taurus Model 66 .357 magnum.
  10. RyanM

    RyanM Well-Known Member

    I'm not making this a popularity contest. Picking something just because it's popular, or because everyone else is doing it, is the surest way to go wrong.

    Very small frame automatics are made in much more potent calibers than revolvers of the same size. There's no size comparison at all between an R9 and a J-frame, much like comparing an MK40 and SP-101. My MK40 rides in the pocket just fine. I don't find it thick at all.

    And if you go into the ultracompact size range, the only revolvers available at all are NAA Minis, which aren't even that small compared to autos of similar power, like the Baby Browning.

    I'd say the main reason why snubnoses still dominate the pocket carry and backup market is tradition. But Kel-Tec, Kahr, etc., are selling more and more guns, so it's probably only a matter of time before that market is flooded with autos, too.

    The area where there's the most overlap of both size and power, not popularity, is in the medium frame compact and duty handguns. A 3" K-frame with 158 gr .38 SPL +P LSWCHPs is just about the equivalent of a full sized 9mm with 147 gr ammo, just has less shots. And etc.
  11. sm

    sm member

    First off, I want to express how appreciative I am that folks are being civil and polite in this thread.

    This is a great thread, and I am being selfish when I share, I want it to continue to stay civil and polite.

    Gun Fit
    I noticed has come up quite often already *grin*

    Rule of 96 has come out, and for this thread I will define this rule a bit different from its original application to shotguns as being "weight of gun to payload".

    My take is well known around here, and many understand better why my take is so.

    I choose Gun Fit first, meaning the platform is determined first, then the caliber, then the said payload for caliber.

    IME/IMO, Four guns fit 90% of hands shooting.

    BHP (9mm)
    K frame
    D frame (i.e. Colt Detective Special)

    Not saying these are the only four to consider, or only to choose from, just that 90% of all hands will find one of these platforms will fit them in regard to gun fit, and therefore allow them to shoot well and afford quick effective follow up shots.

    There is a parallel that exists with these guns and others.
  12. P. Plainsman

    P. Plainsman Well-Known Member

    S&W 340PD. Personally, I don't want one, but it's an amazing handgun; no autoloader can do what it does.

    I don't think talking about the R9 here is relevant except as a forensic exercise. You said you wanted a post aimed at beginners.

    They have one R9 at GunsAmerica for $1,050.00. Quite a deal, I suppose. The other vendor wants $1200.00; this is about the going rate for a minty Colt Python.

    Or you could take that money and buy a 642; and a CT laser grip for it; and your next 5-7 years' supply of both carry and practice ammo. (Or a second J, with a second CT laser grip, for good luck, and some ammo too.)

    I submit that the post would, in fact, give a beginner the wrong impression. The most meaningful "small gun" category for most Americans is pocket carry, and revolvers are robustly present and useful in that category. Is that really controversial? Weight is a big factor; weight-and-power-per-dollar is another huge one.

    PS: The thread on THR called "The 642 Club" is about a little 15 oz pocket revolver. It has roughly one quarter of a million views as of today. No pocket auto is even within an order of magnitude of that level of use or interest. The closest thing, cultwise, is the little .32 and .380 Kel-Tec pistols, but they do not have an unmarred reputation for reliability, and a .380 is not a .38+P.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2007
  13. Snapping Twig

    Snapping Twig Well-Known Member

    First, my compliments on the excellent posts! Outstanding gentlemen!

    Now, my take.

    It depends on what you want to do with it, fight or hunt.

    For a gunfight, which I hope to never experience, I'd go with a 1911 full of .45acp. Why? I was trained with one and I believe in its capabilities. Fast presentation, low recoil and excellent follow-up shot placement, not to mention the proven capabilities of a 230g slug of .45 cal diameter.

    When hunting, the distances to a target are longer and the chances of return fire are...well...limited :) Caliber is generally larger and most semi automatics are not up to the challenges of these rounds, nor are these cartridges designed for a bottom feeder. Accuracy is also an issue. Face it, a shot out to 100 yards with a .44mag is a different challenge than a street incident at @ 7 yards.

    I'm in the camp of big, heavy slugs, fast or slow, bigger is better to me. I believe the 11th commandment states that thou shat not enter a gunfight with a pistol who's caliber does not start with a .4 :)

    I'd rather pack a 3" .44 loaded with .44 specials than a .357, but that's me. When I'm walking around in the woods, I do just that and I don't feel under gunned in the least, be it two or four legged predators. I do reload, so my specials are not the downloaded 200g stuff, they're 240g @ 1000 fps., but I realize you are referring to factory only, so my apologies on that point.

    So, all that in mind, a revolver is my preferred weapon.
  14. AStone

    AStone Well-Known Member

    Hey, this looks like a fun discussion.

    Found it just before bed, though,
    so I'll catch up reading another day.

  15. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Well-Known Member

    Most excellent Ryan.
    Size, weight, caliber, grip (hand fit). Good comparison.

    What about the physics/dynamics of shooting? Bore axis placement relative to grip (anchorage) rotation (or resistance to same), dampening of energy (slide sping action v. Hand absorption/cylinder-barrel gap), etc. Spring strength and age, timing issues, trigger weight (finger strength) vis a vis action mode, barrel length.

    When a newbie who has never really shot before, considers this or that at the gun shop with no experienced friend helping or a good counter salesperson who'll take the time to explain, this thread should be a god-send. For the life of me, I do not know why salesmen will steer a new shooter ('specially small females) towards the smallest, lightest .357 wheelgun they have for sale... unless they have no 4" Model 10s (a truly timeless design at so many levels).


    I know you're talking about actual use for life safety, but I spend far more time at the range (as do others I expect) and while I love both design concepts, who really needs to be throwing brass all over the place (unless you've got a 10 year old to help "police" up the empties after the fact)? ;)
  16. 45auto

    45auto Well-Known Member

    Great write-up and well done.

    Although 99% of my shooting is with autos, I would still recommend revolvers to many "people".

    The cost benefit/ratio of price, quality, reliability, adequate caliber, ease of use, safety, etc goes to the revolver IMO. For "shooters", I think the two can balance out if you choose the auto wisely.
  17. sig226

    sig226 Well-Known Member

    Interesting, but not a valid comparison. You modified the Ruger and then fed it in appropriate ammunition. Both things caused failures. Those two conditions would also cause failures in any semi automatic.

    Most of the Glocks we sell are model 19s. This seems to put us a little behind the times, since the G23 is the most popular LE sidearm in the country. It might be just a civilian vs. police issue. Pretty much all of the departments around here specify a .40 S&W handgun for on duty use.

    But the Smith and Wesson 442/642 is the top seller. The buyers are an absolutely diverse group. They include police who want an off duty or ankle gun and experienced shooters who want a small weapon that is easily inspected prior to use. They like the fact that the chambers can be inspected without having to manipulate a slide. And, the snubbie reputation for reliability is legend.

    We also sell the HK P2000 SK, which is not comparable in price, and the Sig P239, which is not comparable in price or weight. A lot of shooters recognize that if the gun fails to fire in a crisis, they'd rather keep the sights on target and pull the trigger again. It's easier and it's a faster action than manually operating a slide. But the cost drives them away from autos with hammers, particularly if they already own a larger sidearm and want a second one.

    And then there's the limp wrist jam. It would be nice if everyone assumed a proper stance, made a proper three step draw, and mentally prepared themselves to clear a jam as one of many contingencies when they unholster a handgun and prepare to use it. But time and budget constraints often interfere. There is also self discipline. If you're practicing clearing drills and such, good on you, but most people don't. And they're not going to do so just because we tell them it's a good idea.
  18. Neophyte1

    Neophyte1 Well-Known Member


    RyanM: Sir; I liked how you first sentences began:' for people new to handguns'
    Address the obvious and get it out of the way "Television"

    The two that you modeled: good pairing:

    1. Fitting should be #1 [like a pair of shoes?]
    2. Preferences [Television educated?]
    3. Color
    4. Caliber Television {Dirty Harry, Bruce Willis}]
    5. Friends advice [where did Friend learn?]
    6. Gun Store Professional [?]

    Yes I left some out.

    Now we all should revisit ourselves as the "Newbie". Some of had family, friends, associates, "that led us." What did we do? "Newbie Mentality" 'okay' prejudice from the 'git go'.

    Newbie [no shooting friends] going down the road decides to go and buy at the Local "Professional Gun Shop"

    Now I see a pattern of learning taking place.

    Each of us have preferences; with strong arguments; notwithstanding
    Logical reasoning? How ever. RyanM started with "new to"


    Owning any WEAPON should require more than MENIAL thought.

    EXPLORE your VALUES: EXPLORE your INTENT before you become one of the PREJUDICED ones.
    I can [and very rarely do] shoot off my mouth about which is better?
    [yeah right on]??.
    I Can, and do take both; bottom feeder, wheel gun, when I want.

    Newbie: come with me; I don't care which you shoot. I prefer you to ask all your questions, enjoy the moment, and not have "My Stuff is Better than those folks stuff mentality' it's not. Just happens to be what I have leaned toward.
    Not a unit made that isn't a compromise.
    How and what is you INTENT is the question. Impressing the Neighbor, flattering your friends, or enjoying your moment.

    RyanM: Sir; I may have missed your point?

    Thanks, for such a thoughtful question.
  19. wuchak

    wuchak Well-Known Member

    There is also the expense of making changes to your carry ammo. If you want to change carry ammo with your revolver you can run a couple of cylinders through it to check point of aim and recoil. After that you're done and you still have 15 out of the box of 25 expensive self defense rounds left to carry. You should probably practice more with it but there is no question of the reliability of your gun with the ammo. If you want to change carry ammo in your automatic you have to test it with each magazine you plan to carry it in. The number of tests per magazine before you can declare it reliable enough for carry depends on the shooter but I think for most prudent people the minimum would be two. So changing in the 23 ,if you are carrying an extra mag, would require a minimum of 56 rounds of expensive self defense ammo. Some experts recommend testing at least 100 rounds of whatever you're going to carry for self defense. If you want one type of reliable ammo for the house, another for around town, and another for the woods you'd better get your wallet out if you're going to carry a semi-auto.
  20. BryanP

    BryanP Well-Known Member

    Expense of the firearm itself is an issue. Some people's budgets are a bit more limited than others. I trust a cheap revolver more than a cheap semi auto.

Share This Page