Yes, but if the round is a dud, when you pull the trigger again on a DA revolver, a new round moves into battery automatically when you pull the trigger.
Are revolvers better?
- Thread starter Godsgunman
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but if the round is a dud, when you pull the trigger again on a DA revolver, a new round moves into battery automatically when you pull the trigger.
mcb
Member
In my personal experience of the past ~13 years of shooting USPSA and IDPA competition with both semi-autos and revolvers (revolvers exclusively from the last quarter of 2013 to the beginning of this year) encompassing close to 50,000 rds of ammo fired in practice and competition I have had two failures that have rendered my handgun completely unusable. One a broker part and one a broken spring and in both cases they happened in semi-autos not a revolvers. I am not saying revolvers are more reliable only that both types of handguns (if made by reputable manufactures) have vanishing few hard failures. A modern well cared for and quality handgun, revolver or semi-auto, is so reliable as to no longer be a primary consideration in selecting a handgun for most applications.
A round may be lined up with barrel/firing pin but if the hammer is down (the way 99.9% of revolver shooters carry their revolver) then the cylinder must turn to the next chamber as the hammer is cocked, single action or double action. The hammer and cylinder are mechanically tied together.
MTMilitiaman
Member
There appears to be a lot of people who still think the revolver is significantly more reliable than an auto. This has not been my experience. What has been my experience is that while revolvers screw the pooch slightly less often than an auto loader, when they do, it is a much bigger deal. An auto can typically be cleared and put back in the fight in a couple of seconds, esp in the hands of someone knowledgeable and trained in immediate and remedial action. Worst case scenario would usually involve a bad magazine being replaced in a speed reload, again, a process that is much faster in an auto. When a revolver screws the pooch, it's usually pretty bad and often requires a gunsmith or tools to fix. If you have ever had a revolver lock up and stop revolving, you know a malfunction in a revolver can easily be outside the realm of immediate action. Unless you have a backup, you're out of the fight with a revolver.
And accuracy? The accuracy advantage touted for revolvers I think is overblown as well. A defensive gun encounter is likely to require more accuracy from the user than from the handgun. Both autos and revolvers are way more accurate than required to place rounds where they need to be to be effective. The intrinsic mechanical accuracy of the handgun is a non-issue at typical defensive handgun ranges. If the ranges are long enough to take advantage of the handgun's mechanical accuracy, legally, a civilian is probably going to be expected to take that opportunity to disengage and escape. Very few situations are going to allow a civilian to engage at 50+ yards without legal repercussions. An auto is not necessarily any more complicated to employ than a revolver, so there is exactly zero reasons why the user shouldn't be able to train to an adequate level of proficiency with either system.
Use what you're going to use, but simply put, there is a reason every single military and law enforcement agency issues autos, and it isn't because revolvers are better.
And accuracy? The accuracy advantage touted for revolvers I think is overblown as well. A defensive gun encounter is likely to require more accuracy from the user than from the handgun. Both autos and revolvers are way more accurate than required to place rounds where they need to be to be effective. The intrinsic mechanical accuracy of the handgun is a non-issue at typical defensive handgun ranges. If the ranges are long enough to take advantage of the handgun's mechanical accuracy, legally, a civilian is probably going to be expected to take that opportunity to disengage and escape. Very few situations are going to allow a civilian to engage at 50+ yards without legal repercussions. An auto is not necessarily any more complicated to employ than a revolver, so there is exactly zero reasons why the user shouldn't be able to train to an adequate level of proficiency with either system.
Use what you're going to use, but simply put, there is a reason every single military and law enforcement agency issues autos, and it isn't because revolvers are better.
mcb
Member
Yep, reread it and you were talking double action semi-auto not revolvers at all. Sorry about that.
P5 Guy
Member
Semi-auto revolvers?
For having fun at the range then use whatever makes you happy. Plinking with a classic Smith and Wesson make me happy. I don't hunt with a handgun but if I did it would be a revolver. However, for fighting the semiauto is the way to go for most people.
Lots of good night sights available
Much higher capacity
Ability to easily mount a light
Much greater capacity
Fast reloads
Slimmer profile that doesn't print as badly.
Many quality manufacturers so it's easy to find one that fits your hand right.
Top brands are very reliable with all types of ammo
I'm sure others could add to the list. I don't for a minute believe that revolvers are obsolete because that's just foolish. People protect themselves successfully with revolvers all the time. However, I do recognize that firearm technology has advanced to where revolvers although a good choice, are no longer the best choice for most people.
Lots of good night sights available
Much higher capacity
Ability to easily mount a light
Much greater capacity
Fast reloads
Slimmer profile that doesn't print as badly.
Many quality manufacturers so it's easy to find one that fits your hand right.
Top brands are very reliable with all types of ammo
I'm sure others could add to the list. I don't for a minute believe that revolvers are obsolete because that's just foolish. People protect themselves successfully with revolvers all the time. However, I do recognize that firearm technology has advanced to where revolvers although a good choice, are no longer the best choice for most people.
mcb
Member
LOL, those are cool and I would love to have either but you have taken all the worst features of the revolver and semi-auto and combined them into one handgun. Low capacity with all the complexity of a revolvers lock work intermingle with many of the parts of a semi-auto. More springs and more moving parts than either base design with none of the real advantages of either.
FL-NC
Member
Unless a population of those critters appears south of, say, Iowa- I'll be OK. Also, they live where its just way too cold for this rebel!
Labguy47
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2018
- Messages
- 863
It is all going to depend on a persons point of view. I often times find myself carrying my S&W mod 10 that my daughter says is going to the grave with me, when I don't even think of putting one on. Its already there. I shoot that particular platform like it was part of my hand, and when the pressure is on, I want to know I have the one in my hand that is going to put lead where it needs to be. I have shot poisonous snakes, coyotes, and rats galore on the farm with that thing. As pappy always said if it aint broke don't fix it!
Hoppes Love Potion
Member
1. Under stress, revolvers are generally easier to operate.
2. Typically easier to operate with weakened or injured hands or compromised gripping ability.
3. Inherently more accurate (slights attached to barrel on a revolver; aligned with the barrel but attached to the slide on a semi-auto).
4. Ammo, #1: Precise overall length of the round not as much of a factor as with semi-autos (revolver rounds headspace on the rim, semis on front of the chamber)
5. Ammo, #2: Major revolver calibers (.38, .357, .44, etc.) have larger case capacity than major semi-auto calibers (9mm, .40, .45).
6. Ammo, #3: More variability possible in ammo; rounds can be very low to very high power, and will work; unlike semi-auto, where rounds have to be within a certain range of power to operate the recoil-driven mechanism properly.
7. Ammo, #4: Bullets of almost any design will function in a revolver, whereas most semi-autos require a properly ogived bullet of the right material, for proper feeding.
8. Ammo, #5: Higher power rounds are more practical in a revolver than a semi-auto.
9. Ammo, #6: Revolver ammo will not suffer bullet setback from repeated loading, as bullets in semi-autos can if chambered repeatedly (this can lead to dangerously high pressures in rounds, esp. 9mm and 40). Bullet setback can occur in revolvers from recoil, but is less dangerous (see para 5, above).
10. Revolvers have more choice for grips, in terms of fit and aesthetics.
11. Greater functional reliability than semi-autos, especially small semi-autos; fewer malfunctions and stoppages than semi-autos.
12. Easier to operate from inside a jacket pocket, especially "hammerless" models. Hard to operate a pistol with a reciprocating slide inside a pocket.
13. Revolvers don't leave shell casings on the ground (No brass to pick up; no shell casings left at the scene).
14. Revolvers have a soul; semi-autos are tools.* *Certain semi-autos designed by JMB may be an exception to this observation.
15. Long, heavy DA trigger press makes handling most revolvers safer in practice than most semi-autos, especially striker-fired, pre-cocked, light-triggered semi-autos.
16. Revolvers are more amenable to mounting of scopes (an advantage that is lessening a bit with new technology, e.g., RMR sights now available for many semi-autos).
17. Can’t be pressed out of battery during a struggle.
18. Revolvers typically telegraph incipient mechanical problems before they cause the gun to stop operating – cylinder timing, failure to carry up, cylinder binding (“cramps”), extractor rod loosening, etc., all these let you know they are starting to need repair or adjustment.
19. A dud round can be bypassed by a quick trigger pull, unlike on a pistol, where the slide has to be cycled by hand to chamber the next round.
20. Needs less lubrication than a semi-auto; less susceptible to becoming “dried out” or to suffering congealed lube like a semi-auto that has been stored for along period of time.
21. Most common ammo caliber (e.g., .38 Special) is not listed as “military” and thus not restricted in sales (as is 9mm, .40, and .45) in certain areas, e.g., Mexico, Latin America, etc.
22. Revolvers cannot slamfire if their firing pin becomes gooped up from lube, carbon etc.
23. Ammo, #7: Revolvers are much better at handling long, thin, high velocity ammo like .17 HMR, .22 WMR and .327 Fed Mag.
2. Typically easier to operate with weakened or injured hands or compromised gripping ability.
3. Inherently more accurate (slights attached to barrel on a revolver; aligned with the barrel but attached to the slide on a semi-auto).
4. Ammo, #1: Precise overall length of the round not as much of a factor as with semi-autos (revolver rounds headspace on the rim, semis on front of the chamber)
5. Ammo, #2: Major revolver calibers (.38, .357, .44, etc.) have larger case capacity than major semi-auto calibers (9mm, .40, .45).
6. Ammo, #3: More variability possible in ammo; rounds can be very low to very high power, and will work; unlike semi-auto, where rounds have to be within a certain range of power to operate the recoil-driven mechanism properly.
7. Ammo, #4: Bullets of almost any design will function in a revolver, whereas most semi-autos require a properly ogived bullet of the right material, for proper feeding.
8. Ammo, #5: Higher power rounds are more practical in a revolver than a semi-auto.
9. Ammo, #6: Revolver ammo will not suffer bullet setback from repeated loading, as bullets in semi-autos can if chambered repeatedly (this can lead to dangerously high pressures in rounds, esp. 9mm and 40). Bullet setback can occur in revolvers from recoil, but is less dangerous (see para 5, above).
10. Revolvers have more choice for grips, in terms of fit and aesthetics.
11. Greater functional reliability than semi-autos, especially small semi-autos; fewer malfunctions and stoppages than semi-autos.
12. Easier to operate from inside a jacket pocket, especially "hammerless" models. Hard to operate a pistol with a reciprocating slide inside a pocket.
13. Revolvers don't leave shell casings on the ground (No brass to pick up; no shell casings left at the scene).
14. Revolvers have a soul; semi-autos are tools.* *Certain semi-autos designed by JMB may be an exception to this observation.
15. Long, heavy DA trigger press makes handling most revolvers safer in practice than most semi-autos, especially striker-fired, pre-cocked, light-triggered semi-autos.
16. Revolvers are more amenable to mounting of scopes (an advantage that is lessening a bit with new technology, e.g., RMR sights now available for many semi-autos).
17. Can’t be pressed out of battery during a struggle.
18. Revolvers typically telegraph incipient mechanical problems before they cause the gun to stop operating – cylinder timing, failure to carry up, cylinder binding (“cramps”), extractor rod loosening, etc., all these let you know they are starting to need repair or adjustment.
19. A dud round can be bypassed by a quick trigger pull, unlike on a pistol, where the slide has to be cycled by hand to chamber the next round.
20. Needs less lubrication than a semi-auto; less susceptible to becoming “dried out” or to suffering congealed lube like a semi-auto that has been stored for along period of time.
21. Most common ammo caliber (e.g., .38 Special) is not listed as “military” and thus not restricted in sales (as is 9mm, .40, and .45) in certain areas, e.g., Mexico, Latin America, etc.
22. Revolvers cannot slamfire if their firing pin becomes gooped up from lube, carbon etc.
23. Ammo, #7: Revolvers are much better at handling long, thin, high velocity ammo like .17 HMR, .22 WMR and .327 Fed Mag.
mcb
Member
Clearly you have not taken the side plate off a modern double action revolver. I have said it before and I will say it again. Modern handguns from reputable makers and properly maintain, both revolvers and semi-autos are so reliable as to nearly be a non-issue.
I see just as many if not more springs and small fiddly bits that could break in a revolver as I do in a semi-auto.
S&W double action revolver (old enough to have the firing pin still on the hammer, more parts if its a frame mounted firing pin and internal lock)
Plastic fantastic Glock 17. You are hard pressed to find a more ubiquitous and reliable semi-auto handgun anywhere in the world now. And nearly half the number of parts in it than in a S&W double action revolver.
Zerodefect
member
Revolvers have terrible ergo's. Bad recoil and flip due to small grips and very high bore axis.
Revolvers have terrible sights.
Revolvers can often unseat a bullet and jam up, due to harsh recoil. Think jframe magnum.
Revolvers are reliable, not durable. Easy to bend the crane. Bend the frame and shoot crooked. CCW's need to be able to handle being strapped to a heavy klutz.
Revolvers rust as much as 1911's do. Does anyone make a nice melonite version?
Some revolvers have sharp cylinder releases that eat our hands in recoil.
Some revolvers have silly key lock things.
Revolvers have terrible sights.
Revolvers can often unseat a bullet and jam up, due to harsh recoil. Think jframe magnum.
Revolvers are reliable, not durable. Easy to bend the crane. Bend the frame and shoot crooked. CCW's need to be able to handle being strapped to a heavy klutz.
Revolvers rust as much as 1911's do. Does anyone make a nice melonite version?
Some revolvers have sharp cylinder releases that eat our hands in recoil.
Some revolvers have silly key lock things.
milemaker13
Member
Yes 
John Joseph
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,441
And if that first round is a dud, you'v got to choose between another pull or clearing the chamber.
With a revolver another squeeze you've got a fresh round launched.
I shoot both revolvers and semi automatics and like them both. It's your rational I don't understand.
mcb
Member
Got to disagree, and I suspect Jerry would too. As blazingly fast as his revolver reload is, his magazine feed handgun reload is as fast or faster.
Assuming a given skill level with similar time invested in practice with both handgun types the semi-auto pistol will almost always reload faster and less fumble prone than a revolver to reload.
I spent the past four years shooting revolvers only in USPSA and IDPA competition. I am not Jerry or Travis but can hit a sub 2 sec revolver reload when things go right. I bought a Limited setup earlier this summer and after just a few practice sessions and a match or two sub 2 sec reloads where relatively easy with my R1 Limited.
Semi auto are generally easier and faster to reload and almost more importantly they are less fumble prone than revolvers to reload. Magazines are also more robust than moonclips or speed-loaders. And magazines almost always hold more rounds...
Last edited:
The fact that a revolver’s cylinder must turn before it can fire means that it can fail to turn from any number of reasons. Debris can jam it, the lockwork can slip or fail, etc. Pulling the trigger a second time won’t help in these situations.
My point is that the semi auto is more likely to work the first time, after that, the reliability prize goes to the revolver. Incidentally, this isn’t something I just made up. I learned this from a conversation I had years ago with a Special Forces weapons expert during which I was making the opposite argument.
In my small, unscientific study, since 1980, I have had four parts failure with semi-autos and only one with a revolver.
1. Beretta M84. The frame gets peened over on recoil preventing the gun from being disassembled.
2. Springfield P9C Sub-compact bends the shaft of the slide stop preventing the gun from being disassembled or the slide stop shaft fails (actually, I replaced three of these over the 10 years or so that I had this semi-auto so maybe the semi-auto parts failure number should be six. This is the only handgun that I have ever dumped when I got a chance).
3 and 4. M1911. I've had two barrel bushings fail on two different M1911s. First was a fingered collet bushing. A finger broke off and jammed the slide. The second, the flange of the bushing failed allowing the a recoil spring and plug to fly down range.
5. S&W Model 19. I cracked the forcing cone on my Model 19 as a result of a steady diet of full power 158 grain 357 magnum ammunition.
So, draw your own conclusions.
1. Beretta M84. The frame gets peened over on recoil preventing the gun from being disassembled.
2. Springfield P9C Sub-compact bends the shaft of the slide stop preventing the gun from being disassembled or the slide stop shaft fails (actually, I replaced three of these over the 10 years or so that I had this semi-auto so maybe the semi-auto parts failure number should be six. This is the only handgun that I have ever dumped when I got a chance).
3 and 4. M1911. I've had two barrel bushings fail on two different M1911s. First was a fingered collet bushing. A finger broke off and jammed the slide. The second, the flange of the bushing failed allowing the a recoil spring and plug to fly down range.
5. S&W Model 19. I cracked the forcing cone on my Model 19 as a result of a steady diet of full power 158 grain 357 magnum ammunition.
So, draw your own conclusions.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Semi-autos are better for concealed carry (for me) because they are flat and light. For me, they are a one-trick-pony with very limited application. I don't know how anybody figures an auto has a better trigger or sights. They are fun in their own way.
Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable, more powerful, have better sights, better triggers, better grips and all the capacity you'll ever need 99.9999% of the time. They are fun in their own way and cover uses for which autos are not appropriate.
IMHO, people put way too much faith/importance on capacity. If we ain't talking about LE or military use, capacity is really a moot issue.
Revolvers are more accurate, more reliable, more powerful, have better sights, better triggers, better grips and all the capacity you'll ever need 99.9999% of the time. They are fun in their own way and cover uses for which autos are not appropriate.
IMHO, people put way too much faith/importance on capacity. If we ain't talking about LE or military use, capacity is really a moot issue.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
IMHO, this argument is usually made by folks with little revolver experience, special forces or not.
Sistema1927
Member
Has the dead horse gotten up yet or should we continue beating?
cheygriz
member
Are pickups better than sedans????
Not if you live on Manhattan.
Revolvers have several strong points and many weak points. better or bot depends on intended use.
Revolvers are not usually a good choice for carry/SD/duty IMHO.
Not if you live on Manhattan.
Revolvers have several strong points and many weak points. better or bot depends on intended use.
Revolvers are not usually a good choice for carry/SD/duty IMHO.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
