25 ways a revolver beats a semi auto

[355sigfan]

Even though the thread drifted a bunch, it looks like most of us can finally agree on something, IPSC and IDPA are games. I suppose those two games can teach some pretty important gunhandling skills, but without tactics, situational awareness, and a bit of a "warrior" mentality, a person's "gunfighting" skill set is incomplete.
END

I agree ISPC and IDPA are not good places to learn tactics. They do develope your fundamental gun handling and marksmanship skills. These skills will give you an edge in the street.
Pat

 

[Sean Smith]

I've provided this link before.

Thanks, you've found some of the weakest 10mm load data available to "prove" your point.

Using bullets of equal weight, the .357 retains a slight advantage in both energy and penetration. Using bullets of equal sectional density, the .357 retains a larger advantage in energy.

Um, no. That is simply inaccurate. You obviously haven't actually looked at the factory ballistics or anything silly like that.

Obvious comparison:

Similar sectional density:

Cor-Bon 180gr .357 Magnum: 1,265 ft/sec, 640 ft-lbs
Cor-Bon 200gr 10mm: 1,200 ft/sec, 640 ft-lbs

So at smilar sectional density, .357 is at best EQUAL to 10mm. It certainly has no advantage in energy, and of course is throwing a smaller bullet to boot. And just to be nice, I've left out the really hot 10mm stuff throwing 200gr bullets at 1,250+ ft/sec.

At the same weight, the Cor-Bon 180gr 10mm is going 1,320 ft/sec for 696 ft-lbs; in other words, at the same bullet weight 10mm actually has MORE energy.

 

[jc2]

With the hottest factory loads, the .357 Magnum and 10mm are neck and neck. Basically, the hottest 10mm are roughly comparable to hottest .357 Magnum. As you can see, with similar weights (and SDs), the .357 Magnum trumps the 10mm in energy, albeit by a very small margin.

Double Tap 10mm:
135-grain JHP - 1600 fps / 767 ft/lbs
165-grain JHP - 1400 fps / 718 ft/lbs
180-grain JHP - 1300 fps / 676 ft/lbs

Buffalo Bore .357 Magnum:
125-grain JHP - 1700 fps / 802 ft/lbs
158-grain JHP - 1475 fps / 763 ft/lbs
170-grain JHP - 1400 fps / 740 ft/lbs
180-grain LFN - 1400 fps / 783 ft/lbs

You're just looking at the wrong manufacturer, Sean! Contrary to popular belief, the 10mm is not even in the same ballpark as the .41 Magnum (for example, Buffalo Bore doesn't even catalog a .41 Magnum at less than 1000 ft/lbs).

 

[pwrtool45]

I think it odd that you'd call Alliant out on nerf'ing the 10mm when they obviously don't mind hot-rodding other calibers. Comparing other published data yields Alliant to be no better or worse than other powder manufacturers. The data jc posted further exemplifies my point... unless you'd accuse Double Tap for nerf'ing the 10mm as well.

I'm not anti-10mm. The round, however great, is the subject of much internet hysteria. There are enough cold, logical reasons for choosing the 10mm. The ".41 mag in an auto" exaggerations just aren't needed.

Basically, what jc said. Nothing either one of us has offered detracts from the 10mm in any way. It boils down to platform. If you like autopistols, take the 10mm. If you like revolvers, take the .357.

 

[L-Frame]

Let me say that I am astonished that this post is still going. Alot of people entrenching pretty deeply. Let me say this to everyone and your semi vs. revolver debate: I DON'T CARE! Here's why:

I like heavy guns, just my tastes. I carry a PC S&W 681, 7 shot .357 (the green and black finished one). It has fixed sights and I had a front night sight installed. Great gun. I carry it in an Uncle Mike's IWB holster in front, about half way between my midline and right hip. I have compact grips on it so all I have to do is have a t-shirt on untucked and it hides perfectly. I even go jogging with it on. I have never been comfortable carrying anywhere else. I live in Arizona where heavy clothes are rarely worn and having the butt pattern through clothes has always been a problem. I train with it and shoot it well.

I have never been able to carry a semi-auto comfortably in that position due to the large grip patterning through a t-shirt and, the square shape digs into my ribs if I bend over. I don't have any problems with my 681 doing this. I do think that a revolver is more reliable than an autoloader but if we are talking about Glocks or similiar modern bottom feeders I don't think the difference is worth 100+ posts in this thread. I simply prefer revolvers because I enjoy shooting them more, they carry better FOR ME, and I am totally comfortable with having 7 shots (with 7 more in a SL in my pocket). I am quite confident that should I ever need to use it in defense of myself or loved ones it will come through if I do. If that ever happens I don't think the mugger when I'm jogging or car-jacker, or whatever bad guy I'm dealing with will look at my revolver as obselete. This thread can go on indefinitely but I do think that it is about time to move on. Any quality handgun will do the job if the person using it will do the job.

 

[pwrtool45]

I too have a Performance Center tuned 681 that I adore. I usually wear a T-shirt of heavier material when I'm packing it, but jeans and a T-shirt are beyond doable.

I'm sorry to hear the PC messed up your cylinder (7 holes you say? hmm..QC should have caught that...). As far as that green stuff goes, I usually use Break-Free CLP. The trick is to let it sit for a couple hours before you actually put a brush to steel. Good luck getting that taken care of!

 

[L-Frame]

You know, if you don't panic right away and give it a little time, that green, 7-holed strangeness can actually start getting on your good side. Heck, I may never start scrugging.

 

[Mike Irwin]

All this talk about power levels for .357 Mag. and 10mm is interesting, but I think a bit impractical.

My first consideration for picking a defensive handgun load isn't going to be which caliber/ammo has more raw power. It's going to be how well the bullet penetrates, expands, and holds together, in that order.

And given that more powerful normally equates to greater recoil, I'm going to look for loads that meet those three aforementioned criteria that are also in the middle of the power spectrum.

Less recoil generally means faster recovery time between shots.

 

[L-Frame]

to pwrtool

Scrugging? I don't know what it means either. Insert the word "scrubbing" and it should make a little more sense.

 

[Sean Smith]

pwrtool45,

Now you are just being evasive. You claimed that 10mm is inferior to .357 Magnum in terms of ballistics. That's not so, as was rather clearly demonstrated. In case you need a reminder:

Using bullets of equal weight, the .357 retains a slight advantage in both energy and penetration. Using bullets of equal sectional density, the .357 retains a larger advantage in energy. The differences aren't dramatic, but they exist.

By the way, I never claimed that 10mm = .41 Magnum, so you are just making a straw man argument by bringing that up. I'm only arguing against the supposed ballistic inferiority of 10mm to .357, which is nonsense.

As you can see, with similar weights (and SDs), the .357 Magnum trumps the 10mm in energy, albeit by a very small margin.

No, because you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. As Buffalo Bore's own web page states, it took a 6" Ruger GP100 to hit the 1,700 ft/sec mark (their claimed "box flap velocity") with their 125gr .357 load. The DT loads are quoted from 4.6" barrels, ditto the Cor-Bon 10mm ballistics.

 

[pwrtool45]

Now you're just taking things personally. I never said the 10mm was "inferior." I said the .357 magnum had a slight but present advantage in energy. A few ft/lbs of energy hardly qualifies the 10mm as an inferior cartridge (at least as the word is used in 21st century America), and certainly doesn't warrant the bolding of the term in your response. You're plainly changing the meaning of my words to suit you. My point was corroborated by jc's comment which compared Double Tap factory ammo to Buffalo Bore factory ammo. While the barrel lengths are different, the energy differences are also much more pronounced that I originally stated. Modifying the velocities to the level at which they would perform from similar barrel lengths would put those loads in the relation I stated earlier.

Take a moment to note that I provided a reference to Alliant's reloading data (chosen because of the identical barrel lengths used for testing and the wide (almost complete) range of bullets for both calibers). JC provided a reference to multiple loads from Buffalo Bore and Double Tap. You provided one load each from Cor-Bon.

I would also like to note that the ".41 mag in an auto" statement was not a strawman as it was not specifically directed at you or your argument. You're not the only 10mm "defender" (since you want to polarize the discussion) on the board. The ".41 mag in an auto" is simply representative of the commonplace overstatement of the 10mms abilities. That is the scope of the statement. No more, no less. Clever wordsmithing does not change that.

Your response stating my "apples to oranges" comparison confuses my post with jc's. My post (which was quoting the Alliant reloading data, not Buffalo Bore and Double Tap) involved 5.6" barrels for both cartridges.

Your hostile tone is what gets threads closed.

 

[seeker_two]

And the best reason of all....


The effectiveness of "outdated technology" like revolvers gets the Combat Tupperware crowd in such a tizzy....

 

[Atticus]

Anyone know where I can get a 1911 Gov. model cut down to a snubbie for under $100.

 

[Cosmoline]

I wouldn't say wheelguns are better or semis are better. They are good for different things and different people. Some, for example, prefer to have a semi in a shoulder holster because semis tend to be flatter. Some prefer small wheelguns as pocket iron because they have heavy triggers and no distinct safety lever to worry about.

There are a few areas where each platform is superior. Semis have superior capacity while revolvers are capable of containing much larger cartridges which at the high end (.454 Casull, .500 S&W, .45-70) are equal to small rifles in power. No semi could chamber such potent, huge rounds without being too large to hold in one hand. The .50 AE is about the bigges possible. Revolvers therefore tend to be better choices for hunting.

OTOH no revolver can chamber 15 or 30 rounds. Nor do revolvers (other than rare auto-revolvers) offer light trigger pulls on followup shots without cocking the hammer by thumb.

I would also say revolvers have the advantage at point blank range because there are no parts to jam in loose clothing.

This debate is therefore a bit like arguing which kind of hammer is best. The answer is "it depends what you want to use it for."

 

[Sean Smith]

My point was corroborated by jc's comment which compared Double Tap factory ammo to Buffalo Bore factory ammo.

No it wasn't, because the barrel lengths were different, enough so that they account for the entire difference in velocity, and then some. Nothing is "corroborated" by flawed evidence.

While the barrel lengths are different, the energy differences are also much more pronounced that I originally stated.

... Because of the difference in barrel lengths.

Modifying the velocities to the level at which they would perform from similar barrel lengths would put those loads in the relation I stated earlier.

Not true. Using the "wimpier" ballistics of the Cor-Bon 10mm hunting loads (as opposed to the DT numbers, which are the hottest 10mm numbers available) , the 1,320 ft/sec from a 4.6" barrel goes up to 1,420 ft/sec when shot over a chronograph from a 6" barrel, at which point the "differences" turn to .357 Magnum's disadvantage once barrel lengths and bullet weights are equal.

Oops.

Now you're just taking things personally.

An invalid assumption on your part. Not everyone takes disagreement as a personal attack.

At this point I'll punch out to prevent further thread drift... like it will help at this point.

 

[jc2]

No it wasn't, because the barrel lengths were different, enough so that they account for the entire difference in velocity, and then some. Nothing is "corroborated" by flawed evidence.

Total and absolute rubbish!! It is very good and valid comparison because it is comparing commonly carried handguns in each calibre (perhaps the most commonly carried). Sure, there are differences but the differences are generic to cartridges compared--it's not like I used the figures from the Marlin 94, is it?

I don't understand what it is about some people who just have to believe they the "biggest," "hottest," or whatever and are willing to go to any lengths to "prove" it. The 10mm is roughly the bottom-feeder equivalent of the .357 Magnum (at least when comparing the hottest factory loads in each with commonly carried handguns). I don't really see why it's so important to some people to make the 10mm more than it is--the .357 Magnum when properly loaded is no slouch. Anyway you cut it, the 10mm is roughly equivalent to the .357 Magnum (in terms of raw energy)--sure the platforms are different, so what? There's cerainly nothing "flawed" in comparing Double Tap's 10mm figures to Buffalo Bore's .357 Magnum figures--and it most definitely is not an "apples-to-oranges comparison" (but it is a revolver to autoloader comparison). It's still kind silly to cry "foul" just because you don't like the results.

 

[355sigfan]

Barrel lenghts should be kept common for a fair comparision to be made. Its not fair to combare a 4.5 inch barrel's velocities in one caliber to a 6 inch barrel's velocities in another. When I had a Glock 20 the 6 inch KKM barrel added approximately 100 to 150 fps. So I agree with Sean. Compare apples to apples. Not standard lenght barrels to hunting barrels.
Pat

 

[jc2]

So I agree with Sean. Compare apples to apples. Not standard lenght barrels to hunting barrels.

Pat, maybe you should go and look at the Buffalo Bore website before you chime in--velocities were provided for three, four, and five inch barrels. Only one velocity (out of the four compared) was from a six-inch barrel (a point Sean forgot to highlight in his zeal). The velocities are from "standard lenght [sic] barrels." The six inch Ruger is a standard length (check the Ruger catalog and website). (Besides, all but one of the four velocities were from shorter barrels.)

The point remains is that the 10mm velocities are from the Glock 20--probably the most commonly carried 10mm. The velocities from for the .357 Magnum are from commonly carried .357 revolvers. If ever, there is an apples to apples comparison this it. These are the handguns most commonly available and commonly chambered for their respective rounds. It only makes sense to compare velocities with commonly carried handguns--not some artificially created test bed to be "fair." (Or like I used to have to tell my children, "Where is it written that life if fair?")

If you buy a new medium (or "medium/large") 10mm, chances it will be a Glock 20. If you buy a new medium (or "medium/large") .357 Magnum chances are it will be a S&W or Ruger with a four or six inch barrel. If you really want to compare "apples-to-apples," then you want to use the handguns that are commonly available and commonly carried, don't you? Very little is "fair" in real life (and particularly when you compare bottom-feeders and revolvers--there really are differences between them, Pat). Frankly, I have no intention of sawing four tenths of inch off the end of my Model 27 to provide a "fair" comparison--if it provides with a four tenths of inch advantage, so be it. If you don't like it, stop whining and go buy a revolver!

Sean's complaints sound more like sour grapes than reasoned objections. I could understand the whining if, for example, the 10mm velocities were from a Glock 29 and the .357 Magnum velocities were from a 686 or GP100, but the G20 is roughly an equivalent handgun to the 686/GP100.

The 10mm in autoloaders is roughly equivalent to the .357 Magnum in revolvers. What's the problem with that? (Unless are suffering from teminal 10mm oneupsmanship--or, maybe, your nose is bent a little out of shape over something else?) There is certainly no way to build a case that one is superior to the other (and I'm sure not trying to).

 

[pwrtool45]

Sean,

You've offered no hard data, save for some 6" Glock chrono results (with no source?) and a pair of loads from Cor-bon. Every single statement I've made thus far has been backed up with verifiable data.

If you don't like the Alliant data, you had the opportunity to provide similar, documented data in rebuttal. One load each from Cor-Bon is insufficient to make any sort of conclusion. The Alliant data was fired from identical barrel lenghts for both calibers using a wide range of powders and an almost complete range of bullet weights for both calibers. I guess you think Alliant (makes of such magnum-loving powders like #2400 and Blue Dot) specifically downloaded their data for the 10mm? I have to guess because you haven't addressed this issue, other than to call it "wimpy" in passing. FWIW, the .357 BB ammo is hotter (even from a shorter barrel) than the Alliant data also. Alliant was used as a control group since both rounds were fired from 5.6" barrels (as that seems to be one of your overriding concerns).

You also don't like Buffalo Bore and Double Tap being compared, because one of the BB loads uses a 6" barrel. You don't address the rest of the data which uses shorter barrels at all.

Addendum: JC makes some excellent points. This isn't about oneupsmanship. This is about dispelling an internet myth. The 10mm can stand on its own merits quite fine.

 

[Rogelio]

Hello everyone:

I mean no disrespect here, but this was supposed to be a friendly post, I just wanted to get some information about a magazine article and if I got lucky, a couple of "why revolvers rock" from guys who know them...I never wanted this to become a discussion where very nice people start arguing.

Can we just say that there are X ways a revolver beats an auto and X ways an auto beats the livinh hell out a of revolver? I just want us to be a very nice and friendly internet comunity...

Sorry if I started an argument, I am truly embarrassed at myself. "My bad", as you Americans say

Rogelio

 

[Preacherman]

Enough.