For self-defense shooting, the revolver has been surpassed, EXCEPT...

[StrikeFire83]

I’m not a troll and I’m not here to start a technology war.

The revolver seems to be superior for outdoors/hunting situations, as an extremely potent cartridge can be carried in a package with better long range accuracy and capacity really isn’t an issue.

However, it is my OPINION that the modern service auto (polymer or steel) has surpassed the large frame service revolver for duty and concealed carry. Higher capacity, astonishing reliability (tens of thousands of rounds w/o malfunction), faster follow-up shots, etc. We can quibble about “bottom feeders”, anecdotal failures, and the rest, but well made service auto failures seem to be right up there with binding cylinders, light strikes, incorrect timing, flame cutting, etc in their frequency.

Now I say all this because I think there is one area where the auto HASN’T surpassed the revolver in self defense shooting, and that is small frame pocket guns. I own both a Kahr PM9 and a S&W 638, it just seems that the revolver in this size just feels like a more trustworthy weapon. Capacity becomes moot because pocket guns can’t be double stack, and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash. I’ve only put about 200 rounds of FMJ through the Kahr, and had a few failures, which I was told to expect during the “break in” period. Hopefully this will end now that the break in is over and I switch over to self defense hollow points.

With the 638 there was no break in period. Glocks and CZs and Sigs don’t have break in periods, anyhow, I digress. The 638 has fired everything with no issues. I don’t shoot perfect groups with it yet, but that’s my problem, not the gun’s. It just seems that it is harder to make a totally reliable semi-auto in j-frame size. Time will tell with both guns, I guess.

Just my opinion.

 

[AStone]

As a 642 owner, I couldn't agree more.

I'd also add the M&P340, which is my next one.

 

[StrikeFire83]

I looked hard at the 642, and almost went for it, but I wanted the ability for single action shots, so 638 is was.

I have no logical reason to distrust my Kahr PM9, and I will continue to work with it. The break in period is over, and now I just need to start running JHPs through it. But when I want to pocket carry, right now, I'm reaching for the revolver.

Now I just need to buy some more 38 practice ammo and take it to the range more and get better with it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

astonishing reliability (tens of thousands of rounds w/o malfunction)

I am still waiting to see one with astonishing reliability.

and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash.

40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?

 

[StrikeFire83]

Well, I can't attest to tens of thousands of rounds, but many others have documented...law enforcement and military agencies, private citizens.

What I can attest to, is:

1) Glock 17: 8,250 rounds since 2005, mix of FMJ and JHP, all weights. ONLY 1 malfunction, due to an improperly crimped factory round.

2) CZ-75B: 3,800 rounds since 2007, mostly FMJ with a few boxes of JHP. ZERO malfunctions.

3) XD-45 Tactical. 2,200 rounds, zero malfunctions. Sold it in 2007 due high cost of .45 ammo.

I keep track of my ammo usage on a spreadsheet, and the malfunctions tend to stand out.

So that's almost 15k rounds spread across 3 modern semi-autos, with 1 malfunction that was not the gun's fault. That's pretty damn good, in my opinion.

40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?

Well, you can quote percentages all you want, but we're talking about 2 rounds difference. Two rounds might make a difference, but if its an extended gunfight I'm pretty much going to be just as boned with 7 rounds as I would be with 5. Now 18 rounds in a light weight service auto with 34 rounds on tap right on my belt (like my Glock 17) vs. 6 rounds in larger, more cumbersome package IS a lot more significant, to me. THREE times the firepower BEFORE I even reload.

 

[LTR shooter]

However, it is my OPINION that the modern service auto (polymer or steel) has surpassed the large frame service revolver for duty and concealed carry.

I doubt large frame revolvers were ever popular for concealed carry or even a duty holster. I recall back in the "old days" living in NC many of the law enforcement carrying Smith K-frames like the Model 66 in their holster. The Smith J-Frames or K-Frame snubs were probably more common for concealed use.

 

[Virginian]

That is because the desirability for many rounds to throw downrage has covered up the lack of accuracy in all governmental uses.

 

[pinkymingeo]

Extended gunfight? I thought we were talking self-defense. The only area I know where autoloaders have an advantage is the tactical arena, where looks matter a lot more than function. Revolvers are more reliable, insensitive to ammo changes, just pull right through FTFs, come in more powerful chamberings and save handloaders the misery of crawling around between other shooter's legs, looking for brass. Most of my shooting is with moonclipped revolvers. While a 1911 can send 8 rounds downrange faster than I can, I can shoot 12 faster. Not that it matters in civilian self-defense. Some argue that autoloaders are better combat firearms. Could be, but I'm past draft age and care less about combat. Self-defense? That's different. Revolvers shine, there.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am still waiting to see one with astonishing reliability.

Come over and I'll show you my M1927 Argentine and my Kimber Classic Custom.

 

[Fat Boy]

I would be curious to see a definition of "extended gunfight". According to what I have read historically, most "gunfights" are over in a matter of seconds, with very few rounds fired. In such a situation, a single cylinder full or single magazine would be sufficient. While there are exceptions, in my opinion, they are rare. I would rather rely on trying not to get into an encounter where I actually felt the need to shoot at someone; but focus on getting away from the situation, etc and keep my weapon for the absolute, worst case scenario.

I think most "extended gunfights" are seen in movies like "Public Enemy"...

 

[OurSafeHome.net]

"Extended gunfight"

It has been said (over and over again) that most self-defense gunfights occur at distances of less than 3 yards, are over in about 3 seconds and 3 shots are fired by all the participants.

Our business is teaching women how to shoot to defend themselves. The efficacy of the revolver in a self-defense situation combined with the simplicity of operation make it possible to train a relatively uninterested population in a short period of time.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Come over and I'll show you my M1927 Argentine and my Kimber Classic Custom.

Between the Glock v. 1911 and other 1000 round matches hosted by Little Mac and TDSA in Texas and the ISHOT1000 matches I have hosted, I am still waiting to see the astonishing reliability. I have watched several guns break and with the exception of a single Sig entry, every brand and model entered having malfunctioned.

You very well might have an exceptional gun or guns, but notice that they will be the exception. So classifying semi-autos as astonishingly reliable is pushing it a bit.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a revolver guy at all, just a realist.

FYI, the IIISHOT1000 will be allowing revolvers to participate next Spring as well.

 

[earlthegoat2]

and 7 rounds of 9mm vs 5 rounds of 38 special seems like a wash.

40% more ammo is a wash? So you would be willing to carrying 40% less and make the same claim?

It is probably not really fair to make this claim. Since it is talking about pocket guns when the OP was referring to a 5 shot revolver I know there are exceptions but most carry 380s as pocket guns as the 9mm options are just not as popular particularly due to cost. It didnt stop me though. Anyway it is more like 5 rounds of 38 Special vs 7 rounds of 380 or even 32 more than likely. This may be a wash or it may be an advantage to the revolver.

 

[Carl Levitian]

Having had the same Smith and Wesson bobbed hammer mdel 60 since 1972, and having put many many thousands of rounds thru it with zero malfuctions in 37 years of shooting, I'll go with a revolver.

One other thing to consider; with the heavier hammer fall of the J frame revolver, there's less chance of a dud round due to light firing pin strike in a striker fired pocket auto.

Is there anyone else here that has had the same handgun for almost 40 years of steady shooting with 0 problems?

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Revolvers NEVER malfunction. (whistle)

 

[Guillermo]

Rule one of a gunfight...bring a gun

Since we mostly have to conceal the best gun is always a compromise. (Yes, I know that some claim to be able to hide an eight inch Smith 29 while wearing a speedo and doing the uneven parallel bars)

I am quite happy with having a PM9 in the pocket of cargo shorts or on a high ride belt holster. As I shoot it better, when conditions allow I prefer a Detective Special. Recently got a Smith 36 and I will see how it works into the rotation.

This is a verbose way to say that the superior weapon is the one that you can bring with you and shoot best. Due to the bring with you provision...for me sometimes that is a bottom feeder and sometimes it is a wheelie.

 

[ironvic]

Revolver or auto doesn't matter much to me, it's the shooter, seldom the gun that wins the duel. I normally choose a revolver only because I shoot better with them and enjoy the feel of shooting a cylinder full of fun. I strongly agree with Guillermo.

That said, I've owned several 9mms, .45 Autos and even a .32 caliber mouse gun. They're enjoyable to shoot and I have this Sig P-226 in 9mm that I wouldn't trade for anything, even another wheelgun. Depending on my mood, I might stuff the P-226 in the front pocket one day and the .357 magnum 686+ with the 2 1/2" barrel on another day. Either way, I feel well armed should trouble come calling.

 

[MMCSRET]

We are back to fire power over marksmanship. I vote for marksmanship and qualification over familiarization.

 

[snooperman]

snub nose revolver is superior for CCW

A study was done by the NYC police Dept and they found that their officers fired more shots with the semi autos they now carry but the number of hits on the bad guy has not changed. In fact the revolvers used only needed 2.4 shots to settle the matter, not so with the semiauto. Also, in close quarters, where it got physical many semiautos were taken out of battery by the assailant pressing on the slide, causing the semiauto not to fire. This is niot a problem with the revolver.You need to read the data that is out there on this written by who? Police Departments and retired police such as Massad Ayoob who has several books out on conceal carry and personal defense. The fact remains there is absolutely no credible study yet that has been done to refute the use of revolvers for defense. My 2 cents.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Between the Glock v. 1911 and other 1000 round matches hosted by Little Mac and TDSA in Texas and the ISHOT1000 matches I have hosted, I am still waiting to see the astonishing reliability. I have watched several guns break and with the exception of a single Sig entry, every brand and model entered having malfunctioned.

You very well might have an exceptional gun or guns, but notice that they will be the exception. So classifying semi-autos as astonishingly reliable is pushing it a bit.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a revolver guy at all, just a realist.

FYI, the IIISHOT1000 will be allowing revolvers to participate next Spring as well.

Which is to say, you have not seen revolvers under the same conditions.

Remember, as John Farnham said, "The most common stoppage encountered in the revolver . . . (and) in the autoloader is running out of ammunition." Put the same requirements on both and give us some feedback.

 

[David E]

It has been said (over and over again) that most self-defense gunfights occur at distances of less than 3 yards, are over in about 3 seconds and 3 shots are fired by all the participants.

Just because something has been said "over and over again" doesn't make it true. Right off the bat, the "less than 3 shots fired" stat includes suicides, AD's, warning shots, putting down injured animals, etc, skewing the actual number.

In fact the revolvers used only needed 2.4 shots to settle the matter, not so with the semiauto.

This is simply a matter of training. Who would argue that having more ammo in the gun is a bad thing during a shootout?

In close quarters, where it got physical many semiautos were taken out of battery by the assailant pressing on the slide, causing the semiauto not to fire. This is niot a problem with the revolver.

Also a training issue. A cocked and locked 1911 cannot be taken out of battery. A revolver held tight won't allow the cylinder to rotate.

Additionally, consider that revolvers are "point and shoot" guns, allowing anyone with a finger to pull the trigger. Many semi-autos (like the 1911) have levers that must be activated before the gun can be fired. Others have magazine disconnects that won't allow a shot to be fired at all. In the aforementioned close quarters struggle, the good guy can hit the mag release if he thinks he's losing the struggle for the gun. This has saved more than one life.

Revolvers tolerate neglect better than autos, while autos tolerate abuse better than revolvers. Both are still very viable tools for self defense, but one needs to understand the limitations of each.

 

[.38 Special]

The advent of 8 shot .357 revolvers has made the capacity argument obsolete -- unless you want to argue that the 1911 doesn't hold enough rounds.

I don't buy the argument that autos are capable of "faster follow-up shots". In my experience the double action pull is as fast as the single action pull when any real recoil is involved. Elmer Keith and Ed McGivern noted that it was easier to hit multiple aerial targets DA because the heavy trigger pull helped to pull the gun back onto target.

As far as carry goes, I don't see that one has an advantage over the other when carried openly. Concealed, I'd rather live with the slim auto than the bulky revolver, but that's not a deal breaker.

Overall, I say David E hit the nail on the head: both work just fine -- if you know what they and you are about. Choose the one that speaks to you and learn how to use it.

 

[wrs840]

FWIW, I had an LEO once tell me there are sometimes SD situations in which it's "better not to leave a trail of little-brass pieces of evidence" all over the ground... Something else to consider.

Les

 

[StrikeFire83]

38 Special, frankly, I do think that the 1911 has also been surpassed. Personally, if I'm going to try and conceal a gun that large, I want something with more capacity then it has to offer.

I'm with David E, I'd hate to be in a situation that requires more then 3-6 shots...saying to the bad guy "but this isn't a typical SD situation" isn't going to make you any less dead. If I can have three times the rounds on tap before needing to reload in a package that is equally easy to conceal, I'm going to go for it. Anybody who claims that reloading doesn't leave you exposed...well, um, we're not all Jerry M.

I like my Kahr PM9, but I'm not personally convinced that it is as dead nuts reliable as a 5 shot snubbie. That might change in time. I'm totally confident in my Glock 17 in terms of reliability, my ability to shoot it, etc. But in the Texas heat its not always possible to wear a bowling shirt, a baggy polo, or something long enough to conceal a full size weapon. Right now that means I'll be pocket carrying my S&W 638 when attire dictates.

 

[Guillermo]

in the Texas heat its not always possible to wear a bowling shirt, a baggy polo, or something long enough to conceal a full size weapon

damned straight...the only way I have been able to carry a blued weapon in in a fobus paddle holster that hold it away from the body