Revolver or Auto

[easyrider604]

On the other hand revolvers are pretty fool proof as far as operation.

Functionally, a reliable auto is as dependable as a reliable revolver. Assuming proper ammo of course...and we should all use reliable ammo, right?

Mechanically, a revolver is simpler to operate. Any gun literate person would know that.

Under the stress of a life-death confrontation, simple is better. When in this situation, you're mind is working at hyper speed .... you do not need to overload your brain with the intricacies of operating an autopistol.

Doesn't matter how many years experience you have shooting, I believe the experienced revolver man is better equipped than the experienced auto guy. For the first 5, 6 or 7 shots, anyway.

Just my .02

 

[woad_yurt]

Certain semi-autos (not all!) are pretty fool proof. Something like a Makarov is rock solid dependable, very flat and very simple. Some other semi-autos require too much study, familiarization and practice for a newbie. On the other hand, a revolver is easy and dependable but it's fatter. I'm talking about carry guns, btw.

For a range gun, one has the luxury of time to spare and do-overs, so the type of gun isn't as crucial as with a carry piece.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by easyrider6042004:
Doesn't matter how many years experience you have shooting, I believe the experienced revolver man is better equipped than the experienced auto guy. For the first 5, 6 or 7 shots, anyway.

Anecdotal evidence is SO convincing. NOT!

At the last handgun course that was given at my range, there were three guys there who were experienced owners of .357 Magnums. I shot both more accurately and faster than all three of them, with a Kimber CDPII that I had borrowed from the head instructor of the course. I'd never shot it before that day, and the .357 Magnum owners were all using their personal weapons with their personal ammo.

My real life experience disproves your hypothesis.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by easyrider6042004:
Under the stress of a life-death confrontation, simple is better. When in this situation, you're mind is working at hyper speed .... you do not need to overload your brain with the intricacies of operating an autopistol.

I carry my Springfield XD with a round in the chamber at all times. There's no thumb safety or anything else that needs to be disengaged before firing.

Draw, aim and pull the trigger. Pretty simple, at least for a semi-auto owner.

 

[Silvanus]

I find it much easier to teach a new shooter to operate and shoot a revolver. And once they manage the DA trigger, they can shoot just about anything.

 

[Ltlabner]

I carry my Springfield XD with a round in the chamber at all times. There's no thumb safety or anything else that needs to be disengaged before firing.

I was thinking the same thing. Glocks. M&P's and XD's are pretty much "revolver-esque" in operation. Aquire target, align sights, press trigger, bang. Repeat as needed.

Of corse us silly auto owners will have to contend with racking the slide if needed, however, IMO this is ballenced out by the cumbersome reolading process of the revolver. So that keeps the DAO striker models pretty much on par with the revolvers in terms of ease of operation.

Both are fine choices, but it's up to the individual user as to what works best for them.

I find it much easier to teach a new shooter to operate and shoot a revolver. And once they manage the DA trigger, they can shoot just about anything.

From the text of the original post, he was talking about new to CCW, not new to shooting.

 

[Silvanus]

From the text of the original post, he was talking about new to CCW, not new to shooting

I know, but somebody who already has a lot of experience with handguns in general wouldn't even bother with that question. He would already know what he likes and shoots well and what not. And safety wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue anymore. The question seems (at least to me) to be for people who don't have much experience with handguns at all.

 

[Seven For Sure]

Either one. You can get the basics down on either in about 20 minutes. Then you can spend a lot of money on ammo and a lot of time at the range honing your skills. It's worth it and most people find it enjoyable. Welcome!

 

[Wheeler44]

An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.

Quote:

Posted by easyrider6042004:
Doesn't matter how many years experience you have shooting, I believe the experienced revolver man is better equipped than the experienced auto guy. For the first 5, 6 or 7 shots, anyway.

Anecdotal evidence is SO convincing. NOT!

At the last handgun course that was given at my range, there were three guys there who were experienced owners of .357 Magnums. I shot both more accurately and faster than all three of them,

Anecdotal evidence is SO convincing. NOT!

We finally agree

 

[TestPilot]

It depends on the person's taste than anything else. So, I can't vote.

Mechanically, a revolver is simpler to operate. Any gun literate person would know that.

Under the stress of a life-death confrontation, simple is better. When in this situation, you're mind is working at hyper speed .... you do not need to overload your brain with the intricacies of operating an autopistol.

What's so more difficult about drawing, aiming and pulling the trigger of a self loading pistol than doing the same with a revolver? There are many self loaders that does not have manual firing inhibitors and trigger of those pistols, such as SIG DAK, have less resistance than that of an average DA revolver.

Doesn't matter how many years experience you have shooting, I believe the experienced revolver man is better equipped than the experienced auto guy. For the first 5, 6 or 7 shots, anyway.

How so?

 

[global247]

To me a glock, xd, m&p, etc... autos like that seem pretty easy and reliable to shoot, how is a revolver any simpler to fire in a stressfull situation than auto with no lever safeties? I just think that with an auto you get more rounds.

 

[loneviking]

Say what you want, but to me there is a satisfaction to pulling the hammer back on a full size revolver that's right up there with racking the slide on a pump shotgun. I just can't get it with autoloaders....

BTW, I get REALLY tired of hearing how dependable Makarovs are. I have a CZ 82 that reguarly jams no matter how well I've cleaned it and oiled it. No burrs that I can see or feel. My .357 has never once jammed on me and I never had to ask 'is this reliable ammo?'---it'll eat anything!

 

[Silvanus]

A CZ 82 is not a Makarov.

 

[loneviking]

A CZ 82 is not a Makarov.

You tell me what you're calling a Makarov! A CZ 82/83 is most certainly a Makarov which refers to the design of the gun.

 

[rcmodel]

Tis not!

The only thing they have in common with a Makarov is the caliber, and that they are both blow-back action pistols fielded by one-time communist governments.

Not one part on a CZ-82/83 is interchangeable with a MAK, or even close.

rcmodel

 

[RustyShackelford]

DA only .38spl...

I'd buy a new DA only Ruger SP-101 .357mag or a Taurus CIA/da only .38spl. Learn the basics then move up to a well made DA only semi auto pistol, like the SIG/DAK model P-229R or a HK LEM, P-2000, .

 

[TestPilot]

I'd buy a new DA only Ruger SP-101 .357mag or a Taurus CIA/da only .38spl. Learn the basics then move up to a well made DA only semi auto pistol, like the SIG/DAK model P-229R or a HK LEM, P-2000, .

I believe "learning with a revolver to move up to a self loader" being a proper path is a myth.

There's nothing about proper shooting that can be learned with a revolver that cannot be learned with a self loader. If the shooter wants to shoot a self loader, just starting with a self loader will save time and money.

And, there's nothing about a self loader that makes me feel as if it's a "higher level" that requires an intermediate training gun before shooting one.

 

[poet]

Wouldn't it depend upon the situation? If expected threat is minimal and clothing attire dictates very light, I would carry in accordance to these factors. Pool party at clubhouse would be different than cook out at public park in a less than desirable neighborhood.

 

[3KillerBs]

I can't vote.

I don't like shooting revolvers. But I'm almost certainly going to end up carrying a Taurus 85 because that's the gun that fulfills about 90% of my requirements and that's better than any of the others do.

And if I carry it I have to shoot it regularly because I think it would be very irresponsible to carry a gun that I couldn't be confident of shooting well. Especially since its inevitable that my marksmanship would deteriorate in a stress situation.

 

[3KillerBs]

IMO, the "complexity" issue is way overblown.

Anyone who can reliably operate the 3-5 remote controls the ordinary American uses to operate the TV, VCR/DVD player, the satellite/cable box, and, perhaps, the TIVO system is more than capable of grasping the theory and practice of shooting a semi-automatic.

Its not rocket science.

 

[ArcherandShooter]

I believe it was the venerable Tamara who noted that the average American woman manages quite nicely all the intricate mechanical and kinesthic demands involved in driving a car to the gun store, whereupon she is told that a semiauto is too complicated for her.



My first (my very own) handgun was an XD-40. The second was a Bersa Thunder .380 because I needed something concealable through a Houston summer. Traded it for a m37. Eventually traded the XD for a BHP After that at some point, bought a Kimber Ultra Carry II. The Kimber, a new Bersa Thunder .380, and the m37 alternate as my carry guns. The Kimber is the best of the lot because I *always* hit where I'm aiming. But it's bulky for summer wear. The Bersa is second choice; and when I'm wearing something really lightweight, the m37.

Get what feels good to your hand, what you can shoot well. There is NO one right answer to this.

Springmom

 

[Glockman17366]

Revolver for me...

Although I'll carry a semi-auto (Glock 19 or Kahr MK9) occasionally, the great majority of the time I pocket carry. Small frame revolvers, IMHO, are more reliable then smaller semi-autos and can handle a more powerful round (.38 +P).
As far as controls, I don't think it matters. Many small semi-autos depend upon a long hard trigger pull (as do DA revolvers) rather then a safety. But small semi-autos may jam (FTE, FTF or a stovepipe) which do take considerable practice to clear (and a self defense situation isn't a good time to practice!). Jams may occur in a revolver but are extremely infrequent. I've read about them, but in 30 years of shooting, never experienced a jam (light strikes, yes). Jams could be a bear to correct, but light strikes...well, just keep pulling the trigger.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Wheeler44:
An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident. We finally agree

No, we still don't agree. I certainly hope your shooting skills are better than your knowledge of the English language.

You have confused an anecdote with anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is defined as:

"Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

easyrider made the the totally unscientific and completely unsubstantiated casual observation that "the experienced revolver man is better equipped than the experienced auto guy."

I responded with an actual event that occurred at my range, which was witnessed by multiple individuals, that disproved easyrider's baseless opinion.

easyrider is most certainly entitled to his opinion, but opinion is all it is.

The fact that "experienced auto guys" like Eric Grauffel, Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett etc. can outshoot any "experienced revolver guys" on the planet---as is easily verifiable by even the most casual perusal of the results of major IPSC, USPSA and IDPA events over the course of the histories of these organizations---is further solid evidence that easyrider's opinion cannot be substantiated.

 

[Defensory]

3KillerBs:
IMO, the "complexity" issue is way overblown.

Anyone who can reliably operate the 3-5 remote controls the ordinary American uses to operate the TV, VCR/DVD player, the satellite/cable box, and, perhaps, the TIVO system is more than capable of grasping the theory and practice of shooting a semi-automatic.

Its not rocket science.

AMEN!

 

[Snapping Twig]

I started with a revolver, but I was pretty much self taught - old school.

These days I still believe that a revolver is easier to learn to shoot with - getting your feet on the ground and building a good foundation.

If you have the luxury of attending a school like Gunsite, then with supervision you can learn with either revolver or semi-auto.

I have been training nuggets to use the 1911 for the past few years with great success, but we do 20 hours of classroom before we ever handle a live round.

While I am not able to have a CCW (California) I do have an opinion on which I would prefer. For woods carry ancillary to hunting and general all around safety I select a 3" .44 mag. I can shoot it well with either magnum or specials and the extra power is useful in the field.

For urban needs, I vastly prefer the 1911. I have on occasion carried this way and I am alive today because I did so. I never needed to fire a round, but let's say that I had total confidence in it when 2 scumbags confronted me and my then pregnant wife.

So, in short, carry what you feel most confident with and remember, it's all about the practice. You'll get out what you put in.