Massad Ayoob: "Are revolvers still relevant?"

[Corpral_Agarn]

Suggesting that the calculator on your phone makes doing math in your head obsolete is an argument that can be made, but you can lose a lot of quite beneficial utility by relegating something functional to obsolescence. I've got a chainsaw and an axe, neither is obsolete.

That's more like saying that the shooting fundamentals somehow are no longer important as equipment available changes.

You still have to know how math works to be able to punch it into a calculator

 

[Pudge]

That's more like saying that the shooting fundamentals somehow are no longer important as equipment available changes.

Yet another advantage for the revolver. Nothing teaches fundamentals like shooting a DA revolver, and the advantages for reloading to make that shooting more affordable...

There certainly are advantages to semi autos, but those advantages don't reduce the capabilities of a revolver. I enjoy them both, and I'm mightily impressed by the P365xl with a red dot. Very impressed. But the advantages of the 356 don't diminish the capabilities (or reloading advantages) of my M65 in the least.

 

[mcb]

Yet another advantage for the revolver. Nothing teaches fundamentals like shooting a DA revolver, and the advantages for reloading to make that shooting more affordable...

There certainly are advantages to semi autos, but those advantages don't reduce the capabilities of a revolver. I enjoy them both, and I'm mightily impressed by the P365xl with a red dot. Very impressed. But the advantages of the 356 don't diminish the capabilities (or reloading advantages) of my M65 in the least.

I agree that learning to shoot a DA revolver well can have beneficial impact on more general shooting but just because the DA revolver is a good teaching tool does not necessarily make it better in an application like CCW.

ie I did all the homework my second semester of physics in college with a slide rule (much to the derisions of my study partners). My arithmetic was considerable stronger after that semester for that effort but my HP-48SX calculator still beats the pant off my Pickett N1010-ES slide rule. And when it was exam day the HP was in the backpack and the Pickett on the desk in the dorm room.

 

[35 Whelen]

I love revolvers and use them when appropriate but the technology is largely obsolete

"People tend to have a proclivity towards an object rather than their own skill."

And this is why these discussions of this subject always, always, ALWAYS turn to how much more quickly a semi-auto can be fired and how much more quickly they can be reloaded. Most shooters simply rely on, or plan to rely on volume of fire rather than learning to shoot accurately.

One rarely mentioned yet distinct advantage a revolver has over a semi-auto is they're completely self-contained. But damage, drop or lose your magazine(s) and your semi-auto becomes a really, really slow single shot handgun.

35W

 

[P89DCSS]

CZ purchased Colt?! Oh my goodness. I gotta go find out more about that. Thanks for the information.

You're welcome!

 

[S.Crockett]

Okay, watched video:

• Mostly okay. Worth someone doing finally.
• A little cherry-picking * * *
• Reloading a revolver in a fight is statistically not a thing. I can think of more anecdotes of failures than successes. Even badass gunfighters in the mid-century US when we started to gather data and know how to fight had really, really few effective reloads in fights. It's very manual dexterity oriented, and that goes out the window in adrenaline dumps.

• Agree with your comment.
• 
  
• On the bolded part quoted above regarding reloading, you’re right. That’s an exercise in fumble-bumblery under any real-world stressor, like while being shot at, which is why the so-called “New York reload” came into vogue per veteran NYC cops who’d survived OIS gunfights.
• 
  “The fastest reload is always a second gun,” … as in carrying a second revolver.

 

[mcb]

"People tend to have a proclivity towards an object rather than their own skill."

And this is why these discussions of this subject always, always, ALWAYS turn to how much more quickly a semi-auto can be fired and how much more quickly they can be reloaded. Most shooters simply rely on, or plan to rely on volume of fire rather than learning to shoot accurately.

One rarely mentioned yet distinct advantage a revolver has over a semi-auto is they're completely self-contained. But damage, drop or lose your magazine(s) and your semi-auto becomes a really, really slow single shot handgun.

35W

"Spray and pray" is almost always a bad tactic. That fact and the reality that revolvers are poor at this rarely beneficial tactic does not make revolvers better than semi autos. Your assumption that the majority of semi auto users are relying on volume of fire is as wrong as the assumption revolvers shooters are not simple because their hardware is not capable of it. The fact that you can shoot faster, with greater capacity, and reload quicker with a semi auto is a fact and gives an advantage in many situations. A well trained and practiced user is more capable with a semi auto than a revolver due to these facts in nearly all realistic scenarios. The use of poor tactics by the untrained does not negate the technologic advantage. In the hands of equally trained individuals the semi auto has significant advantages. ie Jerry Miculek is a better shooter with a semi auto than a revolver despite holding many revolver world records.

 

[Tallball]

If someone is mugging or carjacking or sexually assaulting you, reloads won't be an issue.

 

[trackskippy]

Spray and pray is a bad tactic, but it has nothing to do with the gun, that is simply a function of the shooter.

Volume of fire is a thing, revolver or auto, and since handgun rounds basically suck as man stoppers, it only makes sense and takes no more effort to quickly and accurately fire 2 or 3 rounds as it does 1. And which one do you suppose will give you better odds at stopping things quickly?

As far as the revolver being self contained and the idea the autos are so fragile, that's really not even close. I regularly shoot a good bit of both and overall, the guns Ive had the most trouble with, if and when there was trouble, or require more work on your part, have been the revolvers. And if one is more fragile, and more prone to stoppages that cant be resolved in the moment, its the revolver, hands down.

As far as reloads go, if youre carrying a gun, of any type, you should be carrying a reload, well versed at doing them, and be able to do it without thought. It doesnt matter that in some cases you might not be able to do it, there are reasons why you might need to. And if youre worried that reloading might be necessary due to lack of round count and could be an issue, then youre not carrying the right gun. There are guns that help reduce that worry.

In order to be capable and proficient with whatever it is you choose to carry, you need to be able to work and shoot the gun in a realistic manner and know its MOA to the point of working and shooting it without thought. Carrying it, the draw and presentation, sighted and unsighted shooting, reloading it, dealing with stoppages, knowing how best to use the gun as an impact weapon should you need to, etc, is all part of things here.

Realistically here too, the only way to know what is or isnt relevant, is to be as well versed as possible with as many different things as you can, so you actually have a true idea of what is and isnt, and can make a realistic decision.

 

[nugi]

"Spray and pray" is almost always a bad tactic. That fact and the reality that revolvers are poor at this rarely beneficial tactic does not make revolvers better than semi autos. Your assumption that the majority of semi auto users are relying on volume of fire is as wrong as the assumption revolvers shooters are not simple because their hardware is not capable of it.

I'll try and find the source, read somewhere that the French hostage rescue force that used Manurhin revolvers used them in part because there's a mindset change even in trained users when ammo is restricted. I agree that's a very speculative "advantage" of revolvers but the question would be are the majority of advantages touted for semi-autos based more on competitions than real world carry and use, even in some trained environments? (Not that I would want a revolver if I was going into battle or rescuing hostages)

 

[mcb]

I'll try and find the source, read somewhere that the French hostage rescue force that used Manurhin revolvers used them in part because there's a mindset change even in trained users when ammo is restricted. I agree that's a very speculative "advantage" of revolvers but the point would be that the majority of advantages touted for semi-autos may be based more on competitions than real world carry and use even in some trained environments (though I certainly wouldn't want a revolver if I was going into battle).

I was under the impression the French hostage rescue force used revolvers because a larger part of their tactics included bullet resistance shields and the revolver was less prone to malfunction when operate against/around a shield.

For me the biggest evidence that semi-autos have eclipsed revolvers is simply looking at LEO and to a lesser degree military. Almost none of these organizations are still issuing revolvers. Semi-auto have even made significant inroads into the LEO BUG application that was at one point almost exclusively airweight snub noses.

I also see competition derided as not real world (and I agree) but having shot a lot of USPSA and IDPA its hard to ignore how much quicker and easier it is to operate the semi-auto in those scenarios (that are at least sometimes loosely based on representative real world scenarios) and not think those skills and shoot-ability does not transition to real world self defense. Even if we set reloads aside. Pick a USPSA classifiers stages that does not require a reload and look at the Hit Factor it takes to get a GM score in Production or Limited and compare to the score it takes to get a GM for Revolver and the Revolver HF is always lower.

example. Classifier 06-10 Speedy Steel VII
Simple scenario. On the start signal draw, and shoot around a barricade in front of you and knock down three pepper poppers and three US poppers. No reload, no movement.

https://uspsa.org/viewer//06-10.pdf

A Hit Factor or 8.0 on this stage means you shot that stage in 3.75 seconds to knock down all six targets.

That score would get you a:
98.7% Grand Master in Revolver
80.6% A in Production (ie Glock, M&P, etc)
74.1% B in Limited (ie double stack 1911 or similar CZ)

Its hard to argue the revolver is better even if we set reloads aside. Modern semi-autos can be shot faster and more accurately than a revolver and that can be a deciding factor in many real world self defense scenarios. This is not spray and pray, misses only cost you time and HF (score) in these games and a lot more in the real world.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

"People tend to have a proclivity towards an object rather than their own skill."

And this is why these discussions of this subject always, always, ALWAYS turn to how much more quickly a semi-auto can be fired and how much more quickly they can be reloaded. Most shooters simply rely on, or plan to rely on volume of fire rather than learning to shoot accurately.

One rarely mentioned yet distinct advantage a revolver has over a semi-auto is they're completely self-contained. But damage, drop or lose your magazine(s) and your semi-auto becomes a really, really slow single shot handgun.

35W

I'm not most shooters. Claiming that a semi auto shooter relies on volume of fire doesn't take away all the other pros of the system.

DA revolvers are more difficult to be accurate with when used in a hurry. Long and heavy trigger pulls, for each shot, don't get accurate without a lot of work.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

If someone is mugging or carjacking or sexually assaulting you, reloads won't be an issue.

No way to know that.

But let's say you're playing the odds. You're betting that you won't need a reload.

How much safer is that bet when you bring 15-20 rounds instead of 5-8?

 

[anothernewb]

dang. this got far more acerbic than i expected. Guess one will have to count me amongst those that don't think the revolver is obsolete at all. Certainly not a mainstream thing anymore, but far from obsolete.

I've taught and assisted in many carry classes, and I've come across a number of people that simply cant work the slide effectively, and others that have had issues holding a semi auto. Now I'm not going to go into all of the mechanics because YES, much of that can be solved with familiarization, repitition, and some strength training. Just stating observations and experiences.

What I will state is that many of those did rather well with the revolver when given one and passed the class easily. I saw the argument earlier about pappys old 38 bed stand gun.I gotta agree with that. That is going to be the best for some people. My wife carry's a 327 mag because she simply likes the round and prefers a revolver to an auto.

There was a test somewhere where they put unfamiliar people in with autoloaders and revolvers and had them try to shoot them. With zero experience, most figured out how to shoot a revolver within something like 3 seconds. the autoloaders didn't go so well, with some just giving up even trying to get the gun off safety. Wish I could find that article for citing.

Take it FWIW, but personally I take that result to mean even if you're not well trained with your particular firearm - and let's face it, it's a minority of us that actually regularly shoot and practice draw and shoot with our conceal firearms- I think that a revolver could be a good instinctive choice for those that may not practice that much.

Regarding capacity. I'll repeat what was once said to me. you can't miss fast enough to win.

 

[Riomouse911]

I started my LE career in 1991, when a few agencies still had revolvers but the vast majority didn’t use them as primary sidearms anymore. Four of my 50-odd academy mates had S&W revolvers in their holsters, within a year or two nobody carried them anymore. In roughly 2003 I did sport a 686+ 4” .357 Magnum for a short period of time on patrol as a sergeant when recovering from a thumb-ligament injury, but once all was well I went right back to my SIG-Sauer P-228.

As we can all surmise, they went to autos due to additional ammo capacity, ease of training/higher scores and the realization that the revolvers’ heyday had past and technological advances were with the autoloader. (Kind of hard to mount a light on a regular production revolver and still find holsters to carry them is but one example.) As for the revolver guys in my class, as best I can recall none of them made the top 90% on the range qual finals.

I love revolvers. I own a few and have been shooting them for as long as I have been shooting. Yes, slow deliberate DA is a great way to learn and practice fundamentals; as maintaining a good sight picture, performing a smooth trigger pull and recoil recovery/follow through are universal to handgun shooting. But the advantages many (if not most) autos offer over revolvers in ease of carry, potential firepower and operational and reloading simplicity under stress in so many areas is too much to overcome for me. YMMV.

I never look down on anyone’s choice of CCW be it revolver, auto, whatever. Choice is just that, and there are lots to choose from. All I hope is that the CCW person is confident in their carry choice of gun/ammo and competent in their abilities to handle the gun and react to an unexpected and out-of-the-box situation. Because whether it happens at a distance of 2’ or 30’, and with just one suspect or a group of four+, you are almost always starting at a severe disadvantage.

Stay safe.

 

[shoobe01]

OMG, can't believe we've decended to 1980s "semi-autos will teach you to spray and pray" type discussions.

Several agencies (LAPD wrote theirs up and published it openly, others are LE restricted) documented their revolver-to-auto conversion. You can probably find them still. This was the dawn of science in firearms, when we started getting better bullets etc but mostly for this, we understood cognitive psychology, physiology, and started training for the way humans actually interact with systems, from MDTs to firearms.

So, the auto conversion went with new training, not just for the different gun but All New training, vs the variant of (at best) 1940s training most agencies still used before. Across the board the results of the new recruits or converted officers were:

• Better hit ratio (fewer bullets flying across the neighborhood)
• Better stop ratio (firearms solved the problem more often, if employed)
• Slightly higher number of rounds fired (but this appears to be a benefit despite some spin, see bullet 2; magazine depth means the proper number were fired to solve the problem)
• NDs dropped to near zero. The LAPD had something like 80 documented NDs (in offices and stuff!) a year in the mid-80s. It was assumed that is life with firearms. The auto conversion surprised everyone and is why now the expectation is ZERO. Someone, maybe the LAPD one, had one ND inside the academy during the first class of autoloaders: an instructor showing off his revolver fired a round down a hallway

There are surely anecdotes of firing too much and missing, but don't cherrypick data. That happened in the revolver era also, and due to shallow magazine depth and slow reloads, fewer practitioners survived to tell of it.

 

[nugi]

NDs dropped to near zero

That's really surprising, what makes sense of that? I remember a conversation here about how it's "glock leg" not "revolver leg" but this says the opposite doesn't it?

 

[jar]

That's really surprising, what makes sense of that? I remember a conversation here about how it's "glock leg" not "revolver leg" but this says the opposite doesn't it?

Playing Cowboy or Quick Draw.

 

[21H40]

As long as there is a chance that 5 rounds are sufficient, revolvers will be around.

Once we switch to dystopian levels of crazy - with normal people needing to face off dozens of marauding neo-tribesmen from Mad Max - the lack of capacity will relegate it to desk drawers and nightstands.

 

[jstert]

As long as there is a chance that 5 rounds are sufficient, revolvers will be around.

Once we switch to dystopian levels of crazy - with normal people needing to face off dozens of marauding neo-tribesmen from Mad Max - the lack of capacity will relegate it to desk drawers and nightstands.

lord humongus, the ayatollah of rock and rollah, liked his revolver… and in a dystopian world, where ammo factories are burnt out relics, a revolver with its controlled ammo burn rate may be the more judicious choice in handgun.

 

[shoobe01]

That's really surprising, what makes sense of that? I remember a conversation here about how it's "glock leg" not "revolver leg" but this says the opposite doesn't it?

Training, training, training. Not always more, but better, more consistent, more attuned to the way people process info than boring them with endless PPTs.

Things like trigger discipline being absolutely critical every single time. Then, all is good but if not trained: a DA revolver has a high enough trigger pull it is hard (but I promise, Not Impossible!) to fire a round by keeping your finger on the trigger as you holster. Your finger hurts before the gun goes off. Less true for modern self-loaders (or others). If you have a halfassed training program and accept some bad behavior then you tend to do stopgap measures like heavy trigger pulls to keep from NDs; LAPD even buzzed off all the SA notches on their revolvers (in the 70s? earlier?) to try to alleviate having cocked guns trained at people in stressful situations, lowering hammers before holstering etc. but it was a stopgap.

 

[35 Whelen]

.

.

Both of you just re-enforced my point.

Much thanks for the amusement.

35W

 

[Old Dog]

Both of you just re-enforced my point.

So this (below) was your point?

Most shooters simply rely on, or plan to rely on volume of fire rather than learning to shoot accurately.

I would have to ask then, since you're indicating amusement, how often you've engaged in actual gunfights? Because I think you are incorrect. Because if you are speaking to the folks with military and/or law enforcement experience, you'd be wrong. If you are speaking to the average Joe Six-pack concealed carrier citizen, you may still be wrong. There's really no need to adopt a patronizing tone in a speculative thread that really has no right or wrong answer.

 

[Rexster]

• Muzzle presses will cause many self-loaders to come out of battery, revolvers won't. If you are at shoving-into-gut range, you are at grappling range and a defensive revolver is DA meaning the trigger pull has to move the cylinder before it fires. Been in training where we tried this and grappling with a revolver pretty much means it's not going to go bang.
• Reloading a revolver in a fight is statistically not a thing. I can think of more anecdotes of failures than successes. Even badass gunfighters in the mid-century US when we started to gather data and know how to fight had really, really few effective reloads in fights. It's very manual dexterity oriented, and that goes out the window in adrenaline dumps.
• Did not acknowledge he's an expert and mostly hangs out with experts. Just press this lever and you can see the ammo... have you seen even gun people not familiar with a revolver try to open one? Might as well be trying to knap a flint. Again, specialist gun anymore.

Well, to pick some nits:

1. In a grappling-range scenario, either a revolver OR auto can be disabled, by the hand(s) of one’s opponent. It can become necessary to remediate that, in order to fire the weapon. Michael de Bethencourt will train a student how to free a revolver from the grasp of an opponent.

2. Reloading any handgun during a fight is statistically not a thing. Plus, body cam footage shows how often police will unintentionally drop magazines, and fumble reloads. This includes mistakenly dumping mags when ammo is still inside the mags.

3. Having experienced several auto pistols that tended to malfunction in ways that required more than just a tap-rack to resolve, I can assert that autos can be “specialist” guns, too.

To be clear, I may be in my sixties, already, but started handgunning with an auto, 40+ years ago, at age 21, when I thought that revolvers were quaint relics. Soon, I had to learn to run revolvers, when I was hired by a PD, and, well, I learned to like revolvers. I have uses for both revolvers and autos, today.

 

[Tallball]

"Reloading any handgun during a fight is statistically not a thing."


Yep. Unfortunately, most of us know quite a few people who have been mugged or sexually assaulted.

I guarantee that none of those cases involved someone opening fire on the victim from 25 yards away with a handgun, and then a gun battle ensued that consumed dozens of rounds. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Someone is going to grab you by the throat as you walk around a corner and start beating the snot out of you. That's how assault works.

I keep myself aware and armed (mostly aware) so that is unlikely to happen to me. Here are some things more important to me than a 15-round magazine:

Paying attention and not looking at my phone are the two most important things. I wear work boots or hiking boots because I'm harder to knock down and they are useful for kicking or stomping. A fixed-blade knife is faster than any reload and is helpful when encouraging others to bleed faster. My dog cost $35 at the pound (how much is your life worth?). He is around 120 pounds now. He's almost impossible to surprise, and no one who sees him is going to seriously consider assaulting me. Those things are all much more useful than two extra 15-round mags, IMHO.

It's great if you enjoy shooting competitions. They look really fun. I'm sure they're good training for LEO and military. Fast reloading is an interesting skill. Unfortunately, most of it seems irrelevant for civilians trying to protect themselves from typical violent crimes.