BluesBear
member
Geeeesh!
Some people are just too thin skinned and take things waaaaaay too seriously.
Some people are just too thin skinned and take things waaaaaay too seriously.
25 ways a revolver beats a semi auto
- Thread starter Rogelio
- Start date
- Status
I know I have stick to my views in a strong manner. I am sorry that I took your posts in the wrong way.
As for the one handed shooting. I have not noticed a difference between revolvers and autos. I find shooting da much more difficult with my support hand vs shooting my autos with my support hand. Seems to be no real difference in my weapon hand. I shot bulleye for a while in collage. So one handed shooting for me was done with 22 autos.
SNIP
Some people are just too thin skinned and take things waaaaaay too seriously.
END
Well since you often like to throw out insults quite a bit yourself. I can see how you would call people who don't like such behavior thin skinned. Others simply call it being polite.
Pat
As for the one handed shooting. I have not noticed a difference between revolvers and autos. I find shooting da much more difficult with my support hand vs shooting my autos with my support hand. Seems to be no real difference in my weapon hand. I shot bulleye for a while in collage. So one handed shooting for me was done with 22 autos.
SNIP
Some people are just too thin skinned and take things waaaaaay too seriously.
END
Well since you often like to throw out insults quite a bit yourself. I can see how you would call people who don't like such behavior thin skinned. Others simply call it being polite.
Pat
Stainz
Member
So, Pat, tell us how you 'shot bulleye for a while in collage'...
You know, I think that I have decoded something relevant in this forum's title... "Handguns: Revolvers". Perhaps that is why folks, such as myself, seem to prefer the round guns over the evil-bottom-feeders here. The question is moot at best... we buy what we like for a myriad of reasons, rationalizing as we go...
I still like my earlier remark about a revolver being able to start fires from it's side... try to accomplish that with an evil-bottom-feeder. Come to think of it, had my range-neighbor been shooting an evil-bottom-feeder rather than a worn out Rossi with hot .357 rounds back in the summer, I probably wouldn't have been cut by his sideways copper/lead blast. By the third cut, I had gotten his attention... he sold that paper weight that day. That was a first for me... injured at the range!
Will we ever settle the revolver/evil-bottom-feeder question? No. History - and time - have driven most police departments towards higher round counts. Sadly, marksmanship may have also fallen as a result. For those of us with home and self to 'protect', a revolver is as state of the art as we will ever need. Rationalizing will continue... I bought my SRH in .454 years ago for 'protection' from 'large animals' (pachyderms?)... still haven't seen any here in central Alabama... it has been an effective deterent, as have my other revolvers bought for CC/PD - although not a one is loaded now. To me - and many others - this is a 'hobby'. We just seem to like revolvers a bit more than some...
Stainz
You know, I think that I have decoded something relevant in this forum's title... "Handguns: Revolvers". Perhaps that is why folks, such as myself, seem to prefer the round guns over the evil-bottom-feeders here. The question is moot at best... we buy what we like for a myriad of reasons, rationalizing as we go...
I still like my earlier remark about a revolver being able to start fires from it's side... try to accomplish that with an evil-bottom-feeder. Come to think of it, had my range-neighbor been shooting an evil-bottom-feeder rather than a worn out Rossi with hot .357 rounds back in the summer, I probably wouldn't have been cut by his sideways copper/lead blast. By the third cut, I had gotten his attention... he sold that paper weight that day. That was a first for me... injured at the range!
Will we ever settle the revolver/evil-bottom-feeder question? No. History - and time - have driven most police departments towards higher round counts. Sadly, marksmanship may have also fallen as a result. For those of us with home and self to 'protect', a revolver is as state of the art as we will ever need. Rationalizing will continue... I bought my SRH in .454 years ago for 'protection' from 'large animals' (pachyderms?)... still haven't seen any here in central Alabama... it has been an effective deterent, as have my other revolvers bought for CC/PD - although not a one is loaded now. To me - and many others - this is a 'hobby'. We just seem to like revolvers a bit more than some...
Stainz
Watch out Stanz. Once I briefly caught a glimpse of a pink elephant. Well I thought it was one as it looked distorted thru the bottom of the glass. It got away before I could decide to do anything. They are some quick buggers. They may migrate south in the winter.
La Pistoletta
Member
.454, is that Casull?
And how does that compare to, for example, .44 Mag and .50AE?
OT, I know.
And how does that compare to, for example, .44 Mag and .50AE?
OT, I know.
Pat,
Many of the points brought up here were in humor. No one here seriously believes that autos are jammamatics and revolvers are the one true way. I pretty sure I've mentioned before that my all-the-time gun is an auto. I've also taken a liking to carrying my 229. I'm not a revolver bigot (and I'm pretty sure I'm not a revolver zealot). Realize that this is just us revolver people having a laugh. This is a forum we all enjoy. I hate to sound condescending, but your crusade against the revolver is going to be met poorly here in Handguns: Revolvers, mostly because your die-hard insistence on exaggerating revolvers' failings runs contrary to experience. I know you've seen them break, many of us have as well, but the tenacity you use in persecuting those breakages implies that it's much more common that it really is. Experience isn't your propriety. Many of us have experience that counters yours. We admit it can happen. Are you able to admit that maybe your experience (or interpretation of that experience; how much do you know about each and every situation you've ever been in? sometimes things are easy to misinterpret...) is anomalous and that maybe, just maybe, these things aren't as breakage-prone and failure-ridden as you make out. If that were indeed the case, do you think you and a handful of gunrag writers would be the only ones saying it? If it were true, do you really think that we're *all* irrational people that have construted a flawed fantasy and cling to it regardless of what we *must* be experiencing first-hand?
Do we *look* like 1911 users?
I've countered the "case under the extractor star" (just tear it out *if* it happens, but if you're using ammo that matches the caliber stamped on the side of the barrel, it almost certainly won't) failure in other threads.
I've countered the durability issue in the same thread, I think. (Dropping it makes it go out of time? How? If you drop it from a great enough height, you *may* *bend* the center pin, I can almost guarantee you won't break it, and the bent pin doesn't have enough play in the frame to bend enough to tie the gun up. Timing will be unaffected.)
You're also quick to say something's easy to do with an auto, but refuse to allow someone who prefers the revolver the dignity of putting in a little more work to do the same. Reloading a revolver will get you killed, but doing a "tap-rack-assess" is easy to learn. Pardon me, but for a gun in my hand, isn't that kinda dependent on me? Yes, learning to be competitive is harder with a revolver since the baser things (reloads, DA shooting) are somewhat more difficult. Some of us choose to do so anyway. If we measure up, I really don't think it's anyone else's business why we chose to do so in the first place.
Many of the points brought up here were in humor. No one here seriously believes that autos are jammamatics and revolvers are the one true way. I pretty sure I've mentioned before that my all-the-time gun is an auto. I've also taken a liking to carrying my 229. I'm not a revolver bigot (and I'm pretty sure I'm not a revolver zealot). Realize that this is just us revolver people having a laugh. This is a forum we all enjoy. I hate to sound condescending, but your crusade against the revolver is going to be met poorly here in Handguns: Revolvers, mostly because your die-hard insistence on exaggerating revolvers' failings runs contrary to experience. I know you've seen them break, many of us have as well, but the tenacity you use in persecuting those breakages implies that it's much more common that it really is. Experience isn't your propriety. Many of us have experience that counters yours. We admit it can happen. Are you able to admit that maybe your experience (or interpretation of that experience; how much do you know about each and every situation you've ever been in? sometimes things are easy to misinterpret...) is anomalous and that maybe, just maybe, these things aren't as breakage-prone and failure-ridden as you make out. If that were indeed the case, do you think you and a handful of gunrag writers would be the only ones saying it? If it were true, do you really think that we're *all* irrational people that have construted a flawed fantasy and cling to it regardless of what we *must* be experiencing first-hand?
Do we *look* like 1911 users?
I've countered the "case under the extractor star" (just tear it out *if* it happens, but if you're using ammo that matches the caliber stamped on the side of the barrel, it almost certainly won't) failure in other threads.
I've countered the durability issue in the same thread, I think. (Dropping it makes it go out of time? How? If you drop it from a great enough height, you *may* *bend* the center pin, I can almost guarantee you won't break it, and the bent pin doesn't have enough play in the frame to bend enough to tie the gun up. Timing will be unaffected.)
You're also quick to say something's easy to do with an auto, but refuse to allow someone who prefers the revolver the dignity of putting in a little more work to do the same. Reloading a revolver will get you killed, but doing a "tap-rack-assess" is easy to learn. Pardon me, but for a gun in my hand, isn't that kinda dependent on me? Yes, learning to be competitive is harder with a revolver since the baser things (reloads, DA shooting) are somewhat more difficult. Some of us choose to do so anyway. If we measure up, I really don't think it's anyone else's business why we chose to do so in the first place.
I was just getting ready to post when I read Pwrtool's post. Pretty much what I was going to say (only much more eloquent than I could have put it). So I will just add that I don't think anyone here doubts sigfan's expertise. His knowledge is obvious in his many posts. I just give revolvers more credit than he does, (or semi-autos a little less).
So, Pat, tell us how you 'shot bulleye for a while in collage'...
END
Yes you caught my misspelling. The fact that I misspelled college as collage must mean my whole argument and point of view is also incorrect.
pwrtool45 I am open and honest about how I view revolvers as defensive firearms. I own 6 revolvers myself. I don't find them useless. I do find autos better for use as ccw guns, police duty weapons and as home defense weapons. The one area I will give revolvers an edge is as pocket guns. Now for non self defense purposes such as hunting and target shooting revolvers are very viable choices. They are better as woods guns because they can be had in serious calibers without too much bulk.
I frankly get tired of hearing how much more reliable revolvers are from revolver fans. When they compare their Smith or Colt revolver to someones Highpoint at the range. I don't care if someone prefers a revolver. Its their choice. If they train hard they should do fine. I am all about carring what you prefer. However when we discuss strengths and weakness of weapon systems people should accept some honesty and truth.
Stay safe and carry what your comfortable with.
Pat
END
Yes you caught my misspelling. The fact that I misspelled college as collage must mean my whole argument and point of view is also incorrect.
pwrtool45 I am open and honest about how I view revolvers as defensive firearms. I own 6 revolvers myself. I don't find them useless. I do find autos better for use as ccw guns, police duty weapons and as home defense weapons. The one area I will give revolvers an edge is as pocket guns. Now for non self defense purposes such as hunting and target shooting revolvers are very viable choices. They are better as woods guns because they can be had in serious calibers without too much bulk.
I frankly get tired of hearing how much more reliable revolvers are from revolver fans. When they compare their Smith or Colt revolver to someones Highpoint at the range. I don't care if someone prefers a revolver. Its their choice. If they train hard they should do fine. I am all about carring what you prefer. However when we discuss strengths and weakness of weapon systems people should accept some honesty and truth.
Stay safe and carry what your comfortable with.
Pat
seeker_two
Member
Ask him about double-barrel shotguns sometime... 
La Pistoletta
Member
How much power does a pistol lose, compared to a same calibre revolver with same barrel length, due to the semi-auto slide action?
Pat,
I understand your point about people insisting that "revolvers don't break none" and autos "jam up on you when you need 'um." But the people that make those arguments aren't going to be convinced otherwise short of driving the point home with a 30-lb maul. It's just not worth the time. For the benefit of posterity (since everything is preserved here) make a single, short, logical argument against their case and just quote the link whenver someone like that rears their head.
It probably wouldn't hurt to use qualifiers in some cases, like with regard to your view on how 686s are notorious for breaking. It's best to say "anything can break, I've seen several LEOs armed with 686s having functional problems." That'll give you a clean, simple argument you can link back to whenver somebody comes up with a brown-spittle drooling "buh gawlee ITEMTYPE::item don't have no problems! none! I've seen ITEMTYPE_2::item have all sorts of troubles on the range."
Honesty and truth are fine, just remember that other people have had experiences that conflict with yours. Don't be so quick to discount that. "Honesty and truth" are not going to be on anybody's side-- neither ours nor yours. Not completely.
I understand your point about people insisting that "revolvers don't break none" and autos "jam up on you when you need 'um." But the people that make those arguments aren't going to be convinced otherwise short of driving the point home with a 30-lb maul. It's just not worth the time. For the benefit of posterity (since everything is preserved here) make a single, short, logical argument against their case and just quote the link whenver someone like that rears their head.
It probably wouldn't hurt to use qualifiers in some cases, like with regard to your view on how 686s are notorious for breaking. It's best to say "anything can break, I've seen several LEOs armed with 686s having functional problems." That'll give you a clean, simple argument you can link back to whenver somebody comes up with a brown-spittle drooling "buh gawlee ITEMTYPE::item don't have no problems! none! I've seen ITEMTYPE_2::item have all sorts of troubles on the range."
Honesty and truth are fine, just remember that other people have had experiences that conflict with yours. Don't be so quick to discount that. "Honesty and truth" are not going to be on anybody's side-- neither ours nor yours. Not completely.
Holy cow, what a thread. Not bragging but just so you know where I am coming from, I shot a revolver for many years in NRA Action Pistol (master) and PPC (master) I also carried one on my hip during my short stint in law enforcement and I carried Smith revolvers ccw for many years. At the present time, I am one of only six earned Master class revolver shooters in the USPSA. I have shot a revolver for many years at a fairly respectable level of performance. I love the wheelgun.
Still the sad fact is the wheelgun is more or less a dinosaur. When it comes to shooting fast and accurately (assuming the gun runs) a semi-auto pretty much whoops up on the revolver all the way around. IPSC and IDPA shooters prove that every weekend.
As much as a revolver fan as I am, all of my personal defense weapons are semi-automatic pistols. I have a huge spot in my heart for wheelguns, but there is no place in my arsenal for one.
Still the sad fact is the wheelgun is more or less a dinosaur. When it comes to shooting fast and accurately (assuming the gun runs) a semi-auto pretty much whoops up on the revolver all the way around. IPSC and IDPA shooters prove that every weekend.
As much as a revolver fan as I am, all of my personal defense weapons are semi-automatic pistols. I have a huge spot in my heart for wheelguns, but there is no place in my arsenal for one.
Serpico
Member
"Revolvers are more efficient for pistol whipping. "
Quite the opposite since you are more likely to disable a revolver hitting someone with it...and balance wise, an auto, with it's weight in the handle, is much less unwieldy...and I woud hate to be hit with the butt of my P7....especially with that little lanyard ring sticking out....ouch!
Quite the opposite since you are more likely to disable a revolver hitting someone with it...and balance wise, an auto, with it's weight in the handle, is much less unwieldy...and I woud hate to be hit with the butt of my P7....especially with that little lanyard ring sticking out....ouch!
La Pistoletta
Member
Couldn't there be a way to contruct a recoil-operated revolver? Without making it a pistol in a revolver's suit, that is.
If a thread titled "25 ways a semi-auto beats a revolver" was to start over on the Handguns: Autoloaders forum and we were to jump in countering 90% of the comments it would be viewed the same way. Even though we could back our claims with facts it still would run against the opinons there as we would be invading their domain. You have to expect those to defend their choices since the forum is dedicated to them. Now if the thread was in the General Handgun forum you would expect a free-for-all. We all like to have fun and poke at one another, but what is to be gained by arguing a point. Just because this agency does this, or that school does that doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. Everyone have their own experiences and no one is an expert on everything. We are all different. What one views as an advantage to them may be a disadvantage to another. Does that make one or the other right or are they both entitled to their opinions? Human nature tends to bias one's thoughts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the way of the world simply because they see it that way. The world is diverse and there may be several ways to achieve a solution to a goal.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Two advantages
With a revolver the BG gets to look at the tips of 4 bullets facing him. Big psychological advantage when facing down muggers.
Well endowed women can shoot a revolver while wearing low cut clothing and not risk having to call time out for the hot shell dance.
With a revolver the BG gets to look at the tips of 4 bullets facing him. Big psychological advantage when facing down muggers.
Well endowed women can shoot a revolver while wearing low cut clothing and not risk having to call time out for the hot shell dance.
BluesBear
member
La Pistoletta, do you mean something like the Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver?
Article about it here
How much power does a pistol lose, compared to a same calibre revolver with same barrel length, due to the semi-auto slide action?
END
Actually they are more efficient than revolver because of the barrel cylinder gap on revolvers.
Pat
END
Actually they are more efficient than revolver because of the barrel cylinder gap on revolvers.
Pat
WheelMan
Member
For just the general purpose of "shooting" (not winning wars or out-tacticaling the other guy) I think revolvers hold some serious advantages.
I got into handloading and handgunning at about the same time. It was clear to me at the time that a revolver was the best choice for my purposes. Revolvers are:
1. Very forgiving of load variations (charge and OAL) no feeding to worry about and no need to change springs for different power levels. perfect for the reloader who wants to test loads and not his guns ability to run them
2. Easy to recover brass. An obvious advantage for the reloader
3. Faster loading. Now don't get confused here. I'm talking about total time between opening your box of ammo and having a round down range. My buddies all have autos and we go shoot I tend to finish up first because they spend a lot of time wrestling rounds into magazines.
4. No magazines to fiddle with, you're gun is one piece.
Those the three things that make revolvers great for the reloader and I think also make them great for most of your general shooting activities like plinking and hunting (it doesn't hurt that revolvers are more readily available in high power cartriges). I don't think even 355sigfan could generate enough foam to change that.
I think it is only until you get to combat/self-defense/carry before there is even a question about "revolver vs. auto" (simple "fun" factor aside). The only really unique thing (from an operational standpoint) that automatics bring to the table is capacity and speed of reloading, provided those rounds are in magazines ready to go.
Actually there is one self-defense senario I can imagine where I would still prefer an revolver. Many of us have lots of ammo at home but I doubt many of us have lots (I'm talking 1000s of rounds) of ammo ready to go in auto-magazines. If for some reason I was roused from my home unexpectedly and had to move and fight for some reason (the british are coming or what-have-you) I'd rather have my revolver because you can only eject your magazine while running through a dark field so many times before you're out of magazines and have a single shot pistol...maybe. Even if you manage to retain your mags it will take you longer to get that weapon loaded again than simply recharging the cylinder as mentioned abolve. Now if I did have a crate of charged magazines ready to go I'd prefer that, but I don't.
Similarly, if I were on a SWAT team auto all the way. I want lots of rounds ready to go and more strapped to my chest.
I got into handloading and handgunning at about the same time. It was clear to me at the time that a revolver was the best choice for my purposes. Revolvers are:
1. Very forgiving of load variations (charge and OAL) no feeding to worry about and no need to change springs for different power levels. perfect for the reloader who wants to test loads and not his guns ability to run them
2. Easy to recover brass. An obvious advantage for the reloader
3. Faster loading. Now don't get confused here. I'm talking about total time between opening your box of ammo and having a round down range. My buddies all have autos and we go shoot I tend to finish up first because they spend a lot of time wrestling rounds into magazines.
4. No magazines to fiddle with, you're gun is one piece.
Those the three things that make revolvers great for the reloader and I think also make them great for most of your general shooting activities like plinking and hunting (it doesn't hurt that revolvers are more readily available in high power cartriges). I don't think even 355sigfan could generate enough foam to change that.
I think it is only until you get to combat/self-defense/carry before there is even a question about "revolver vs. auto" (simple "fun" factor aside). The only really unique thing (from an operational standpoint) that automatics bring to the table is capacity and speed of reloading, provided those rounds are in magazines ready to go.
Actually there is one self-defense senario I can imagine where I would still prefer an revolver. Many of us have lots of ammo at home but I doubt many of us have lots (I'm talking 1000s of rounds) of ammo ready to go in auto-magazines. If for some reason I was roused from my home unexpectedly and had to move and fight for some reason (the british are coming or what-have-you) I'd rather have my revolver because you can only eject your magazine while running through a dark field so many times before you're out of magazines and have a single shot pistol...maybe. Even if you manage to retain your mags it will take you longer to get that weapon loaded again than simply recharging the cylinder as mentioned abolve. Now if I did have a crate of charged magazines ready to go I'd prefer that, but I don't.
Similarly, if I were on a SWAT team auto all the way. I want lots of rounds ready to go and more strapped to my chest.
The only really unique thing (from an operational standpoint) that automatics bring to the table is capacity and speed of reloading, provided those rounds are in magazines ready to go.
END
No I always go to gun fights with empty mags I prefer the challenge of loading loose ammo in a magazine while someone is trying to kill me.
I have also found that autos are quite easy to reload for in particular the 45 acp. The brass recovery issue is a revolver advantage. But I am not sure I would buy a gun based on that alone or even consider it.
In a crap hits the fan moment I would want a 9mm auto as that will be the most plentiful ammo. Also I would not be thinking much about my pistols but rather about my M4.
SNIP
that automatics bring to the table is capacity and speed of reloading, provided those rounds are in magazines ready to go.
END
The self cocking feature is pretty nice too. Its easier for most to make rapid accurate hits with a 3.5 pound trigger that travels about .25 of an inch vs a 10 pound pull that travels over twice that.
Pat
END
No I always go to gun fights with empty mags I prefer the challenge of loading loose ammo in a magazine while someone is trying to kill me.
I have also found that autos are quite easy to reload for in particular the 45 acp. The brass recovery issue is a revolver advantage. But I am not sure I would buy a gun based on that alone or even consider it.
In a crap hits the fan moment I would want a 9mm auto as that will be the most plentiful ammo. Also I would not be thinking much about my pistols but rather about my M4.
SNIP
that automatics bring to the table is capacity and speed of reloading, provided those rounds are in magazines ready to go.
END
The self cocking feature is pretty nice too. Its easier for most to make rapid accurate hits with a 3.5 pound trigger that travels about .25 of an inch vs a 10 pound pull that travels over twice that.
Pat
WheelMan
Member
Allow me to barrow from your play book
SNIP
No I always go to gun fights with empty mags I prefer the challenge of loading loose ammo in a magazine while someone is trying to kill me.
END
If you'll use your critical reading skills you'll noticed that I said if I had the rounds ready to go, or was knowingly going into harms way I'd rather have an auto and the ready mags. However if caught unawares (without loaded mags) give me a revolver.
SNIP
I have also found that autos are quite easy to reload for in particular the 45 acp.
END
It may be but you can't run a .45 from 850 fps to 1600 fps without respringing the gun for proper functioning like you can with a .357 or .44. Further OAL is almost a non-issue for revolvers and crimp is not so critical as in autos. Sorry you'll have to foam oceans from the mouth before you convince anybody that autos are easier to load for.
SNIP
The brass recovery issue is a revolver advantage. But I am not sure I would buy a gun based on that alone or even consider it.
END
Based on it? no. Is it nice? yes.
SNIP
In a crap hits the fan moment I would want a 9mm auto as that will be the most plentiful ammo.
END
Sure... how many magazines you carry. 5000 9mm's and a BHP (with a disconnector) = no gun.
SNIP
Also I would not be thinking much about my pistols but rather about my M4.
END
Me too, but we're talking about handguns. Are you paying attention?
SNIP
The self cocking feature is pretty nice too. Its easier for most to make rapid accurate hits with a 3.5 pound trigger that travels about .25 of an inch vs a 10 pound pull that travels over twice that.
END
It sure is, but this is largely mitigated by training a professional can be very deadly with either. My experience has been that on the average single action revolver pulls are superior to single action autos and double action revolver pulls are FAR superior to double action autos.
SNIP
Pat
END
And that concludes my Pat impression. I hope everyone enjoyed it, including pat.
Seriously though. I think everyone Pat and myself included can agree that if it comes down to two trained shootist facing off one with auto and one with revo the winner will be decided by skill and luck.
SNIP
No I always go to gun fights with empty mags I prefer the challenge of loading loose ammo in a magazine while someone is trying to kill me.
END
If you'll use your critical reading skills you'll noticed that I said if I had the rounds ready to go, or was knowingly going into harms way I'd rather have an auto and the ready mags. However if caught unawares (without loaded mags) give me a revolver.
SNIP
I have also found that autos are quite easy to reload for in particular the 45 acp.
END
It may be but you can't run a .45 from 850 fps to 1600 fps without respringing the gun for proper functioning like you can with a .357 or .44. Further OAL is almost a non-issue for revolvers and crimp is not so critical as in autos. Sorry you'll have to foam oceans from the mouth before you convince anybody that autos are easier to load for.
SNIP
The brass recovery issue is a revolver advantage. But I am not sure I would buy a gun based on that alone or even consider it.
END
Based on it? no. Is it nice? yes.
SNIP
In a crap hits the fan moment I would want a 9mm auto as that will be the most plentiful ammo.
END
Sure... how many magazines you carry. 5000 9mm's and a BHP (with a disconnector) = no gun.
SNIP
Also I would not be thinking much about my pistols but rather about my M4.
END
Me too, but we're talking about handguns. Are you paying attention?
SNIP
The self cocking feature is pretty nice too. Its easier for most to make rapid accurate hits with a 3.5 pound trigger that travels about .25 of an inch vs a 10 pound pull that travels over twice that.
END
It sure is, but this is largely mitigated by training a professional can be very deadly with either. My experience has been that on the average single action revolver pulls are superior to single action autos and double action revolver pulls are FAR superior to double action autos.
SNIP
Pat
END
And that concludes my Pat impression. I hope everyone enjoyed it, including pat.
Seriously though. I think everyone Pat and myself included can agree that if it comes down to two trained shootist facing off one with auto and one with revo the winner will be decided by skill and luck.
SNIP
Sorry you'll have to foam oceans from the mouth before you convince anybody that autos are easier to load for.
END
I did not say easier just not that much harder. About the same really.
SNIP
Sure... how many magazines you carry. 5000 9mm's and a BHP (with a disconnector) = no gun.
END
If I had to go in a hurry it would be easier to grab the mags I have loaded them to grab one of my revolvers and several boxes of ammo.
SNIP
Me too, but we're talking about handguns. Are you paying attention?
END
I was making a point are you paying attention or just being rude.
SNIP
It sure is, but this is largely mitigated by training a professional can be very deadly with either. My experience has been that on the average single action revolver pulls are superior to single action autos and double action revolver pulls are FAR superior to double action autos.
END
The single action pulls are on par if you’re talking a nice 1911 vs. a nice smith revolver. IF your comparing a da revolver to a standard da auto. Your right. However with the new LDA technology from Para, HK and Sig then the auto has the edge if you like da pulls. I don’t.
As for who would win assuming you have equal skill in every area the auto shooter has the advantage. But in life things are seldom equal and skill is more important than equipment.
Pat
Sorry you'll have to foam oceans from the mouth before you convince anybody that autos are easier to load for.
END
I did not say easier just not that much harder. About the same really.
SNIP
Sure... how many magazines you carry. 5000 9mm's and a BHP (with a disconnector) = no gun.
END
If I had to go in a hurry it would be easier to grab the mags I have loaded them to grab one of my revolvers and several boxes of ammo.
SNIP
Me too, but we're talking about handguns. Are you paying attention?
END
I was making a point are you paying attention or just being rude.
SNIP
It sure is, but this is largely mitigated by training a professional can be very deadly with either. My experience has been that on the average single action revolver pulls are superior to single action autos and double action revolver pulls are FAR superior to double action autos.
END
The single action pulls are on par if you’re talking a nice 1911 vs. a nice smith revolver. IF your comparing a da revolver to a standard da auto. Your right. However with the new LDA technology from Para, HK and Sig then the auto has the edge if you like da pulls. I don’t.
As for who would win assuming you have equal skill in every area the auto shooter has the advantage. But in life things are seldom equal and skill is more important than equipment.
Pat
Mike Irwin
Member
"If I had to go in a hurry it would be easier to grab the mags I have loaded them to grab one of my revolvers and several boxes of ammo."
????
I thought everyone kept a handgun and appropriate ammuntion already packed as part of the "on the run" kit.
And quite frankly, I'd say that palming two 50-round boxes of .357 Mag. and a revolver is FAR easier than trying to grab a semi-auto while palming anywhere from 7 to 15 fully loaded magazines that may or may not nestle nicely against themselves.
????
I thought everyone kept a handgun and appropriate ammuntion already packed as part of the "on the run" kit.
And quite frankly, I'd say that palming two 50-round boxes of .357 Mag. and a revolver is FAR easier than trying to grab a semi-auto while palming anywhere from 7 to 15 fully loaded magazines that may or may not nestle nicely against themselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
