lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,319
This is an old arguement. Ignore his ranting. Keep your Smith.
Auto vs Revolver
- Thread starter whm1974
- Start date
- Status
This is an old arguement. Ignore his ranting. Keep your Smith.
"Will a revolver really still work when filled with sand or mud like most 1911s/Glocks will?"
I don't know. Tho I've owned and shot several 1911's that occasionally didn't work even when not filled with sand or mud. A single failure in a thousand rounds was more than I cared for, and more than I've experienced in revolvers.
I've been a true gun cleaning sloth on several occaisions, including only "dusting off" the outside of a revolver with my hand every couple of months, no cleaning, shooting off and on, and going a year or more between cleanings. Never had a Smith 29, 19, or Ruger SA fail to function.
The problems I have seen with revolvers is people that never clean under the extractor star, and use very cruddy powder. I've found that if cleaned well under the star, then they will go for very long periods of carry and use without maintainence.
I don't know. Tho I've owned and shot several 1911's that occasionally didn't work even when not filled with sand or mud. A single failure in a thousand rounds was more than I cared for, and more than I've experienced in revolvers.
I've been a true gun cleaning sloth on several occaisions, including only "dusting off" the outside of a revolver with my hand every couple of months, no cleaning, shooting off and on, and going a year or more between cleanings. Never had a Smith 29, 19, or Ruger SA fail to function.
The problems I have seen with revolvers is people that never clean under the extractor star, and use very cruddy powder. I've found that if cleaned well under the star, then they will go for very long periods of carry and use without maintainence.
If I had to bet the farm on which would work better in mud and sand I would take the semi-auto. But, I also believe that the mud/sand scenario is only relevant in a military situation. And yes, there have been situations where civilians and police had guns in the mud and sand, but the incredibly small number of incidents where that might make a difference don't negate the inherent reliability advantage of a revolver, for me,(in my experience.)
dmallind
Member
Well personally I prefer semiautos, but that doesn't mean I expect everyone else to agree.
When I started handgun shooting, which was quite recently, I asked around and did some research and bought widely respected standard do-it-all versions of both - a SW686 and a Glock 19. I shot both of them for several hundred rounds with various ammo.
Regardless of which is the "better" gun I found myself more comfortable, more accurate and getting more enjoyment from the Glock. So I tried a few more revolvers that friends have, and a few more semiautos too.
I found my initial bias continued. I enjoyed and was better with the semiautos. I still kept the SW for a while to see if I changed opinions. Decided I hadn't and wouldn't so sold it and went exclusively semiauto from that point on. As my sig shows I'm still there and have a variety of them. I wouldn't absolutely rule out buying a wheelgun again but it would have to be one I tried first and thought it gave me something more or better than the pistols do - which I suspect is unlikely.
YMMV of course and de gustibus non disputandum est. Wheel guns are great and all that - not a biased bone in my body against them or those who love 'em dearly - I just swing the other way
When I started handgun shooting, which was quite recently, I asked around and did some research and bought widely respected standard do-it-all versions of both - a SW686 and a Glock 19. I shot both of them for several hundred rounds with various ammo.
Regardless of which is the "better" gun I found myself more comfortable, more accurate and getting more enjoyment from the Glock. So I tried a few more revolvers that friends have, and a few more semiautos too.
I found my initial bias continued. I enjoyed and was better with the semiautos. I still kept the SW for a while to see if I changed opinions. Decided I hadn't and wouldn't so sold it and went exclusively semiauto from that point on. As my sig shows I'm still there and have a variety of them. I wouldn't absolutely rule out buying a wheelgun again but it would have to be one I tried first and thought it gave me something more or better than the pistols do - which I suspect is unlikely.
YMMV of course and de gustibus non disputandum est. Wheel guns are great and all that - not a biased bone in my body against them or those who love 'em dearly - I just swing the other way
Mastrogiacomo
Member
I'm always amazed by the auto vs revolver arguement. My Beretta M is THE gun for me and my Dad (got him into shooting) but because of his arthritis in his hands, the 3" 100 GP is the better for home defense so for him, the better gun depends on how his hands feel at the moment. Different guns for different situations but clearly the bottom line is the better gun is what you use best; I have five Berettas, one Glock 19, and one CX Storm...and my revolver collection I'm sure will soon take over my collection.
ducktapehero
Member
Give me a wheelgun anyday. Even in a combat situation. The Colt and Smith 1917's of WWI and WWII seemed to do all right in the 2 biggest conflicts of all time. If the "reload" time of a wheelgun is too slow for you get something with moon clips. Those are just as fast as a magazine, and a moon clip is usually a lot cheaper than a magazine.
medic_guns
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 335
My .02.........
I like the revolver better. Have had some stovepiped rounds in the glock, have had some jams.............but in the Smith, never had a single problem. Unless I am going into a rough section (which I always avoid), the two revolvers I carry, with a speedloader, will probably be all I will ever need.
But, two weeks ago, the news ran a story about five homeboys that knocked over a huddle house and the awful waffle in little old Snellville, Georgia. This would be a place where I would probably only be carrying one smith and one loader. Since the story broke, I have changed my mode to two j frames minimum with the speedloader and I am going to pick up some speed strips. I also picked up a nice Colt DS II that will ride in an OWB. DS II with a speedloader, a 342 ti with speed strips, a knife, and pepper spray should be adequate, even if multiple attackers hit. Let the bodies hit the floor. Stats show that the average gunfight lasts only seconds, few rounds are fired, and the attack is very close. Revolver can get er done!
I like the revolver better. Have had some stovepiped rounds in the glock, have had some jams.............but in the Smith, never had a single problem. Unless I am going into a rough section (which I always avoid), the two revolvers I carry, with a speedloader, will probably be all I will ever need.
But, two weeks ago, the news ran a story about five homeboys that knocked over a huddle house and the awful waffle in little old Snellville, Georgia. This would be a place where I would probably only be carrying one smith and one loader. Since the story broke, I have changed my mode to two j frames minimum with the speedloader and I am going to pick up some speed strips. I also picked up a nice Colt DS II that will ride in an OWB. DS II with a speedloader, a 342 ti with speed strips, a knife, and pepper spray should be adequate, even if multiple attackers hit. Let the bodies hit the floor. Stats show that the average gunfight lasts only seconds, few rounds are fired, and the attack is very close. Revolver can get er done!
Another thing on my friend here is he doen't see any use for .22 handguns(he does have a rifle). Partialey for self defence. He was shocked after I told him that for certain people(.i.e old folks) a .22 revolver would be suitable. Low recoil, cheap ammo, better a hit with a .22 then a miss with .45... It is another thing we have agrue about.
-Bill
-Bill
kart racer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 482
A few months ago at the range I was shooting my pistols/revolvers and the only ones that gave problems were my security six and my s/w snubbie.I have shot the security six a few times after that w/out problems but I just don't have 100% belief in it anymore.Strange enough my s/a xd9 and 1911 have been flawless thru several thousand rounds.However I still want another snubbie for cc.
boldkharma
Member
Maybe it shouldn't be auto v.s. revo. Can't we all get along? If I ever go down in a blaze of gunfire( I hope I dont) I will have a 1911 in one hand, and a smith revo in the other..........
dasmi
Member
I prefer revolvers for sheer reliability, but for some reason, I am more accurate with a Glock 17 than I am with my .357 ruger service six, 4 inch.
boldkharma
Member
I am the same way dasmi, with me, its an old 1911. I have an old pre-70 that just shoots bulls all day long. It never jams, is always accurate, and is my go to gun. I like revos, but I have never been able to shoot one better than my old colt.
BilboTN
Member
I've had both and prefer my revolvers. I may get another auto but only as a plinker.
charby
Member
I like revolvers better, just because mine always go boom when I pull the trigger. No stove pipes, fail to feed, etc.
I know that semi's hold more rounds, but if you can't get it done in 5-6 shots you need to practice more.
Charby
I know that semi's hold more rounds, but if you can't get it done in 5-6 shots you need to practice more.
Charby
I would have to say that more rounds are not bad by any means, but I just haven't had an auto that I shoot as well as my revolvers. For me, the reliabilty factor is also an issue, one not worth the extra rounds.
I guess to restate the sentiment, I feel more confident of being able to settle the matter in 6 rounds with the revolver because of how I shoot them, tho I do carry spare loads. My guns do double duty also, being carried in the hills far more than in a town or on the road, but I prefer the same guns for both uses. Being able to hit running rabbits or things thrown in the air with the revolver builds confidence. I have never been able to do that with an auto, and feel "handling handicapped" when counting on one for a defense gun.
I guess to restate the sentiment, I feel more confident of being able to settle the matter in 6 rounds with the revolver because of how I shoot them, tho I do carry spare loads. My guns do double duty also, being carried in the hills far more than in a town or on the road, but I prefer the same guns for both uses. Being able to hit running rabbits or things thrown in the air with the revolver builds confidence. I have never been able to do that with an auto, and feel "handling handicapped" when counting on one for a defense gun.
Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
It's pretty telling that, after roughly one hundred years of incremental improvement in semi-auto design and construction, revolvers still hold their own on the sales floor. The market has spoken: each type of handgun has advantages and disadvantages, but none of these are so pronounced so as to make the other type obsolete. Semi-autos and revolvers persist together because each provides the best answer to a somewhat different set of questions.
I agrued with my friend today. Asked him what gun would recamend for someone who wanted something for protection but has never handled a gun before. He said right of the bat a Glock(his first gun).
For someone who is also getting into guns and/or shooting, maybe. For a person who just wants a gun for HD but is not going to shoot it very often, then I think he is better served getting a .38 or .22 revolver.
-Bill
For someone who is also getting into guns and/or shooting, maybe. For a person who just wants a gun for HD but is not going to shoot it very often, then I think he is better served getting a .38 or .22 revolver.
-Bill
BlackCat
member
For someone just getting into guns/shooting I'd say a Glock is an extremely poor choice. Plenty of experienced shooters and "professionals" have had negligent discharges with Glocks, that should say something right there. Keep them away from newbs. This, coming from a Glock fan (me).
A better choice, or IMO, the only sensible choice is a double action revolver. Preferably a .357 magnum, since it has the ability to shoot .38 shells for practice as well as having enough snuff to kill about any 2 or 4 legged animal one would need to kill.
A .22 is not a man-stopper. No. Absolutely not. Especially in a handgun. While I would feel grossly inadequate with my Ruger 10/22 and a loaded 25rd Butler Creek 'nanner clip, I would feel about like urinating in my pants if all I had was a damned .22 pistol with, what, 9 shots, or less in it! A .22LR pistol is certainly better than nothing, but where there are obviously smarter alternatives (like even a weak .25ACP), you'd be a damn fool not to go with them.
I wasn't saying that a .22 is a man stopper. However if I was a serial rapist, I would be more afraid of a woman who shoots her .22 handgun all the time then someone with something more powerful but only shot once or twice and put it her desk drawer since then.
.22s are cheap and have almost no recoil. The newbie who only has a gun for proctection and who is NOT a shooter will shoot far more often then with a CF pistol.
He can always buy a powerful gun later on.
A lady at work is thinking about getting proctection agaist her ex-husband. She was looking at a Bersa .380 in one my magazines. She could get the money for the pistol, but she wouldn't be able to shoot it very often.
And a .22 revovler DOES have more power then a .25 auto.
-Bill
As you say your friend is still young and wet behind the ears. He has a lot to learn. For a handgun shooter a .22 is a valuable tool. Not only is it fun and cheap to shoot, it also allows you to correct shooting mistakes when they pop up from time to time.
No need in arguing with your friend. Just point out a fact or two every now and then. In time he may come around. Right now most of his knowledge probably comes from the gun rags.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked