A revolver represents a considerable investment of time in order to become proficient with its more difficult trigger system. While I won't argue that very good work can be done double action, I will say that is the same amount of time is invested ibn the mastery of a light, crisp single action pull, the returns would likely be higher.
Then too, there's a considerable amount of ego stroking that goes on in these arguments, in that people often feel that being proficient with a more difficult to employ, and inherently limited weapon somehow makes them tougher, better, or manlier than the fellow who chooses an easier to use, less limited system. They don't seem to consider that the same amount of skill, when applied to an easier to use platform, makes for a more effective shooterx preferring to paint the users of the easier system as incompetents, depending on a good trigger or higher capacity or whatever as a mere crutch, rather than a true advantage.
Also, another thread of argument that often shows up in these discussions is: "I carry a single j- frame, with no reload and I never feel undergunned." Sorry, but how you feel isn't an objective measurement of anything. If you've never needed it, then any gun is going to "feel," like it's enough, since all you're using it for is to weigh down your pants.
Talk to the folks who really have needed a gun, not just once, but enough times to really constitute valid base of experience, and you're likely to find them carrying multiple full size handguns, along with the rest of their BatBelt of equipment.
Revolvers have limited capacity, ranging from five to eight rounds, compared to the auto loaders' six to twenty. Even the fastest revolver reload, the full moon clip, is marginally slower than changing a box magazine, and the other methods, speed loaders, speed strips, and dump pouches are all slower still. Revolvers, by their nature, have a lump in the middle, compared to the flatter profile of an auto, making them potentially more difficult to conceal. Their trigger system is more difficult to use. In return for all these limitations, all they offer is a claim to increased reliability.
Even that, however, doesn't really bear examination. Modern quality semi auto pistols are very, very reliable. With quality ammunition and magazines, the likelihood of failure is extremely remote. Granted, if you get one dirty enough, the slide may not operate freely enough and stick, but even then, generally a cylinder will bind first.
Don't get me wrong. I like revolvers. I think they're an interesting challenge. I can even shoot them fairly respectably. But I don't see any point in making a defensive gun, that is, one I may someday depend on shooting well, harder to shoot than it has to be.
So yeah, now that autoloaders have had more than a hundred years of development and refinement, there are lots of good reasons to carry one, and few, if any, not to. Is a revolver "good enough?" Possibly. Even probably. But autos are better.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
