Why would anyone choose a revolver over semi auto?

[QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW]

sorry, but what a stupid question. you are trying to defend auto's when no one is attacking them. a revolver is smaller and lighter then most auto's, have just as much punch.

now don't get me wrong, i carry both, but prefer my .357mag snubbie, recoil is not a problem if you hold the weapon properly. capacity, i dont care ether, thats why they make speed loaders.

LawofThirds, couldn't have said it better

 

[Dienekes]

Did then. Still do. I had the option of carrying a Glock or a SIG my last few years of work, and stuck with the wheelgun. By then I was pretty handy with the latter, and as an instructor got to see enough inexplicable malfunctions with the semiautos to keep what I had ("six for sure"). If 1911s had been authorized--fat chance--I would have gone to that as I had used them on duty before.

I still shoot the revolver better on a bad day than I do other semiautos on a good day, and no one laughs at a .357/125 out of a 4" barrel.

I don't think the old formula of 3 feet, 3 seconds, and 3 rounds has changed too much.

 

[doc2rn]

Until today I would have disagreed with you. I am partial to my '62 S&W 10-4. Today I got my FN9 and I can shoot a 3" group at 15 yds. with 17 rds. I cant wait to actually find a holster that fits it as well as my Galco high rise fits with my S&W.

 

[Maximum1]

Compared to MODERN QUALITY semi-autos revolvers simply don't cut it.

Major Revolver Negatives
- Limited capacity
- Trigger (hey let's not only have the trigger engage the hammer but it’ll also rotate the cylinder that should make it easy to pull the trigger, NOT!)
- Ergonomics are TERRIBLE compared to a semi-auto
- Revolvers of simpler caliber to a semi-auto have a much greater kick
- Oh did I mention limited capacity?

And they don’t look cool ;-)

And all this "talk" of unreliable semi-autos...Just don't see it....Haven't had one malfunction in ANY of my semi-autos and after going to the range CONSISTENTLY for the last seven years haven't seen any malfunctions by fellow shooters.

 

[Maximum1]

"Yes, autos are very reliable. Standing at the gun range in perfect conditions they are. from JTR"

That's just plain non-sense...So the army issues semi-autos insead of revolvers in Iraq because Iraq has perfect conditions? Give me a break.

LOL

 

[Funderb]

maximum, I think the reliability issue with semiautos is not derived from seven years of pampered treatment at the range, but in the precious seconds n combat in mud, dirt, sand, and debris.

Granted, revolvers can jam too.
Trigger pull is also very low in single action revolvers.

I'd imagine revolvers being good to pilots, when stuck in a downed aircraft, not having hot brass bouncing into your flight suit is nice.

Ergonomics are really not terrible at all.
And, finally, you don't get screwed when your mag fails to function properly.

Simple answer, fewer moving parts can be nice some times.

I prefer the semiauto.

 

[DougDubya]

And they don’t look cool ;-)

Of course, you know, this means war!

Or at least someone quoting Groucho Marx.

Then again, anyone saying revolvers don't look great might be quoting Karl Marx.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Own both,shoot both,be happy!

 

[jad0110]

Own both,shoot both,be happy!

Agreed!

Major Revolver Negatives

- Limited capacity

As a revolver guy, I'll be the first to admit that more rounds is never a bad thing. It can only be a plus. However, there other features that I place significantly higher on the priority list. Priority one is hitting the target. I've heard it said that the most common failure in a gunfight is running out of ammo. But as the average fight only lasts 3 seconds (give or take a second), only Jerry Miculek could dump 6 rounds in that amount of time. So it would appear to me that running out of time is the most critical failure element. Therefore, I have concluded that the first shot is by far the most critical. Therefore, I carry what I personally can get the most accurate shot of quickly. For me, that equates to DA revolvers and 1911s. YMMV.

- Trigger (hey let's not only have the trigger engage the hammer but it’ll also rotate the cylinder that should make it easy to pull the trigger, NOT!)

A matter of preference. I love the long firm pull of my wheelies. Can't stand Glock triggers. Lots of us shoot DA wheelguns best in DA. I sometimes shoot my bone stock DAO S&W 642 better than my tweaked SA 1911 with it's 4.5# pull. What a DA revolver does is highlight poor trigger control. I have witnessed many a shooter at the range fire 3 rounds DA and throw their hands up in the air, saying it can't be done. When I first started, I took it as a challenge .

- Ergonomics are TERRIBLE compared to a semi-auto

A rather broad statement, especially when considering that there are for more choices in grip designs/shapes/materials for revolvers. I've switched grips on all but one of my revolvers to get that perfect fit. Regardless, they still may not feel right to you, which is totally fine.

- Revolvers of simpler caliber to a semi-auto have a much greater kick

As for the actual impulse energy, revolvers will transmit a bit more energy to the shooter. How much, I am uncertain, but I don't suspect it is a massive amount. Ergonomics (fit to hand) can basically erase this difference. An improperly fitting auto in 45ACP will transmit more felt recoil to the shooter than a 45 ACP revolver of the same weight with ideal fitting grips.

---

In the end, it's like picking out a pair of shoes - what feels right on my feet may not work for you .

 

[ceadermtnboy]

Revolvers and autos make owning handguns and shooting them fun. I say give me either one and I feel like I can defend myself. Arguing about which one is better is just plain opinion period. I think this thread started by asking why would someone use a revolver over an auto. Not why would an army or police force choose a revolver. In that case an auto makes sense. But for an idividual, there could be many reasons a person is deadlier carrying a revolver.

 

[Fishman777]

Where do I start...

I don't own any autoloaders right now. My wife is not a shooter and I wanted to make sure that we had self defense choices that she could potentially shoot effectively without a lot practise.

Here are the reasons why I favor revolvers:

1. It is impoosible to limp wrist a revolver. Six for sure.
2. No magazine springs, so the guns could potentially be kept loaded for a long, long time without impacting the guns reliability. I don't store them loaded, but it is one less thing to worry about if I ever do.
3. I find stainless steel revolvers easier to shoot accurately than almost any autoloaders. The grips and the weight make the recoil very light. My wife agrees with this assessment and doesn't feel comfortable shooting autoloaders.
4. Simple manual of arms.
5. Ammo insensitivity.
6. Ammo flexibillity (special rounds and magnum rounds out of the same gun).

I don't dislike autoloaders. If I was a cop or a soldier, I would use autoloaders excusively. I don't think that civilians really *need* high capacity guns. Doesn't mean that I don't want to get an autoloader eventually, but it is not a priority for me right now.

 

[Dismantler]

Another reason that somebody (read that ME) might choose a revolver over an auto is that they grew up shooting revolvers and do
not want to change.

I am not part of a police department where somebody (or group of somebodies) decided that my revolver was obsolete. I am just plain happy with my revolvers and do not want to learn a new system.

Also, as others have mentioned, my wife has had basic instruction with the revolver, and can make it work without the safeties, decockers, magazine releases, etc., on an auto. For people that want a basic familiarity, but will not practice often, a revolver is a better choice.

 

[yakkingallover]

I am fairly new to carrying but view my options this way. For day to day life in stores,restaurants and at friends houses I carry my S&W 340 because I am a tall, lanky character and can carry it without notice, and if i need more than five rounds grilling burgers at a friends I will make new friends. I work in a machine shop and stay late and play and if locking up by myself late at night I take my 1911 and a spare mag. This is because a friend at the business next door was jumped by four guys and one extra round in my revolver does not suit me well. So I carry for the situation, but rest assured I do carry....

 

[docmagnum357]

revolver vs auto

For me, It is revolver all the way. Let me qualIfy that, Magnum revolver allthe way. In n.c., you can't hunt gig game with anything less than a 357 magnum and a six inch barrel. Big game here is basically less than three hundred pounds. All three magnum revolver calibers ar in a quasi pistol carbine class. Other rounds, sucha as the common "service " rounds are much less effective. They will kill, sure. But as for putting something down as fast as possible, a magnum is hard to beat, even with 7.62x39 30-30 type cartridges. If you practice enought to get good enough, then recoil isn't really an issue. Remember, only hits count. You can miss as many times as you want to, just as fast as you want to, but I want to hit them with something that will put them down. Do you really think someone is going to stand there and let you shoot at them 17 times? Crooks are dumd, but not that dumb.

 

[woad_yurt]

Why I use a revolver....

I use a semi-auto for day to day. I alwats have a p3AT with me. But, next to the bed, I have a 4" barrelled .38 SPL S&W M&P. I have that one ready because it points so well. If I had to use a gun in the dark after being awakened from a dead sleep, I want the S&W. It's very user friendly and I can point shoot well with it.

 

[calaverasslim]

I sold my only Glock, hated it. Own 2 semi's in 45acp and love them. 4" Kimber and 3.5 compact. Great carry guns. Love them....

What do I carry? A 3" 44 special revolver. Only one I carry. Slides into my front pants pocket with little effort to draw, little notice. I was in Academy and was talking with a LEO and he asked if I carried. I replied yes and he asked if I was carrying at that time and I replied yes. He looked me over and thought my cell was the carry. I showed him the cell and he asked where I carried. I showed him the butt of the pistol and he remarked he wouldn't have guessed in the pocket.

Small, compact, powerful, 44 special with factory 200gr GDHP's, 5 rounds. Can't do it in 5, then I would be in trouble with 7 or 8 in the auto anyway.



All in favor of revolvers?

Say AYE!

 

[Drgong]

I have a BHP, I really do like it a ton. but you know what, I will by carrying a Model 15 S&W and/or SP101. I am scarily accurate with a revolver and I am a firm beliver in Location, Location, Location. I may on occassion carry a PA-63 or BHP when I cannot CC a revolver do to my clothing choices. They both have good things and bad things, so I shoot both.

 

[crankshop1000]

Handle a 642 and you will know why.

 

[Carl Levitian]

I got my first revolver in 1961.

In 47 years of shooting handguns, I've had one revolver among many, fail me one time. An old model 10 that was over 50 years old and had a hard life. By comparison, I've had Colt 1911's, a Glock 17, Browning High Power, Smith and Wesson 39, Smith and wesson 59, all fail at some point with a stove pipe, or failure to feed. its the nature of the best. A revolver and a double barrel shotgun don't have the rounds moving around, and for a split nano second, totally unsuported.



These days I only have revolvers and break open shotguns.

When you get down to the pocket pistol class of guns, I don't think any of the .380 or small 9mm's are going to be as reliable as a small J-frame 38 revolver. Particularly with large hollow points.

 

[Hawk]

I would submit that reasons why one would carry a revolver or a semi needn't be objectively rational to be good.

If someone has no faith that a semiauto will run right and/or clear malfs quickly one should go with the alternative. No amount of well running semis will provide the confidence that the individual has in the revolver and it's probably not advisable to carry something one has no confidence in. One's personal experience with a recalcatrant semi will supersede all other evidence. That's just human nature.

But it does go both ways.

If most of one's experience with revolvers consists of used product the quality of that former use will figure prominently in one's assessment of the product. This doesn't objectively reflect on the product as the manufacturer has no control over the used market but impressions will still be made. For those of us hunting pre-lock S&Ws and the rare Colt DA, the only option is used and the reliablity of those things vary wildly.

A surprisingly large percentage of those I've bought suffered from light strikes. There must be some immutable rule that people will tinker with springs and strain screws until the piece will no longer reliably light Fiocchi or S&B product.

If something needs Fed primers to get reliability it's not "six for sure" it isn't even close. "Just pull the trigger again" doesn't work either - you'll generally only be rewarded with another "click". Sometimes they'll light the third time around or the first time if single action is used - it's kinda like a box of chocolats - you never know what you're going to get.

Anacondas will show up that had been reassembled with the crane spring and plunger upside down and backwards.

640s will unscrew their ejector rod binding the thing up.

A new Uberti sent its ejector housing sailing downrange. As if to prove that paying more doesn't absolve one of the need to check screws, a new Turnbull Classic spit out its trigger pivot screw in the first 50 rounds.

A couple of Bangor Punta 'Nam era pinned and recessed articles bear mute testimony to the spotty QC of the time (though several from that time are quite nice).

I still like revolvers but I've learned to limit internet purchases that can't be thouroughly checked. My bench now has a selection of Brownell's S&W-specific bits and cup punches. I've recently added a half dozen near-factory strength mainsprings and a couple unmolested strain screws. There's a couple Kuhnhausen manuals that weren't there a few years ago. I buy the larger size container of blue thread locking compound. Nothing about these recent purchases screams "reliability" to me. I've been known to laugh out loud when reading "six for sure".

Is it "right" to believe that revolver reliability is a myth based on previously molested product? Probably not but it's at least as "right" as thinking semis don't run based on one's experiences in 1977 - when disco was still alive. Much like the ancient prejudice against semis will not be swayed by assurances that they run now, I won't be swayed by anecdotes (which I believe, by the way) that folks have shot revolvers since before Oklahoma was a state with nary a hitch. Mine have hitched up plenty.

But they're still fun.

 

[MJRW]

I've had several friends ask for recommendations on handguns for personal defense. Without getting into all aspects on how I go about this, one point comes up from time to time; how often are you or the people that will use it for a defensive purpose going to practice with it? If the answer is "not very often," then I recommend revolvers without hesitation and recommend they NOT get a semi-auto.

There are responsibilities that come with owning a semi-auto, and if you're not practicing them, you're unprepared:

1. You must verify that your magazines work with the ammo you have loaded. You can't do this in a 50 round box. You might be able to do it in a 100 rounds. But if the person buying is just going to put 50 rounds down range so they can say they've done it, they haven't adequately verified magazine, gun, and ammo compatibility. You cannot assume it just works with a semi-auto. Most of the time it will, but sometimes they just don't work together.

2. You must be able to clear failures...in the dark...quickly...under stress. That means tap-rack-bang so that your response is automatic. And that means practice. And that means more time at the range. And that means if you're doing 50 rounds once, the semi-auto isn't right for you.

So if the owner isn't going to prepare themselves with appropriate training and hardware verification, then the owner should have something more appropriate to their actual needs. As much as I would like every gun owner to regularly practice with their gun, the reality is that not all of them will. And for those that won't regularly practice, but will still choose to own, then I believe the semi-auto is actually the wrong choice for them.

 

[LoneSniper3]

I think it's really just a matter of preference. People should rely on whatever firearm they are comfortable with. In my opinion revolvers generally are more reliable due to less moving parts. My S&W model 15 .38 to this day is the most comfortable and accurate handgun in my collection. You also can't forget the intimidation factor of a large revolver being pointed at you and hammer cocked. Psychologically it seems more intimidating than a pistol. I don't know, maybe I've just watched too much Dirty Harry.

 

[Hawk]

In my opinion revolvers generally are more reliable due to less moving parts.

Gotta pick that nit:
(credit to Numrich)

Even adjusting for the parts count in the Python adjustable rear sight, it still sails handily past that particular semi in moving parts count.

May not pertain to all revolvers and all semis but on average the revolvers I'm familiar with have more moving parts than my semis.

 

[jad0110]

# parts has never really swayed me either way...

Parts count doesn't matter as much as people think. At first thought, fewer parts means fewer parts to break. While that is true, there are a lot of other factors to consider. What materials are the parts made from, how are they designed and how well do they fit together and interact. Just these examples far outweigh the actual # of components, IMHO.

If number of parts was the only factor in determining reliability, then a Ford Fairmont or Chevy Citation should be much more reliable than a modern Toyota Camry or Honda Accord.

 

[Hawk]

I'm agnostic on parts count but I do appreciate accuracy.

Hence, I could easily refrain from hitting the "reply" button if I saw something like:

"In my opinion revolvers generally are more reliable despite having more moving parts."

or even:

"In my opinion revolvers generally are more reliable."

But there seems to be a common misconception that revolvers generally have a parts count advantage and that just isn't so.