Revolver versus Semi-Auto 50 Round Challenge
- Thread starter tomrkba
- Start date
- Status
love the idea of learning a new skill-set.
but, for those non-idpa guys that want to play, how about: only one mag for the auto, no speedloaders for the wheel gun, and an eight and a half by eleven sheet of paper for the target ten yards away, start with gun and mag empty, same scoring?
can call it "ghetto blaster".
murf
but, for those non-idpa guys that want to play, how about: only one mag for the auto, no speedloaders for the wheel gun, and an eight and a half by eleven sheet of paper for the target ten yards away, start with gun and mag empty, same scoring?
can call it "ghetto blaster".
murf
You could have just stopped after #1.
dogtown tom
Member
Horsehockey.
Firearms that our police officers carry has nothing to do with tin foil hat concepts of "militarization". And if it did big whoop.
I don't think there's ever been a police officer that wished he had fewer rounds available after being involved in a gun fight. J frame .38's are cute and will stop a fight, but how many of you would carry one as a police officer?
As a backup sure, but few would choose it as their service weapon.
A cop carrying 2-3 mags for his Glock has NOTHING to do with "militarization"......and everything to do with survival. I know a Texas Ranger that carried six spare mags for his 1911...........every day......in the '60's.
His reasoning was no different than any cop on the street today..........you never know how many bad guys you'll meet that day or when help will arrive.
Good Grief. THR can't have six posts without someone jumping in and whining about government conspiracies, militarization or other nonsense that has nothing to do with guns.:banghead:
easyg
Member
No one here is "whining" or talking about "government conspiracies".
Re-read what has been posted in this thread and you will see that either your were mistaken in your assumptions, or you just can't comprehend what is being said.
Yes, all police agencies in the U.S. have become much more military like in their training, their tactics, their uniforms, their equipment, and their weapons.
Hence the term "militarization".
It has nothing to do with conspiracies whatsoever.
It's just a fact.
And yes this does pertain to guns and this gun forum because some folks actually believe that if the police carry it then it must be a better gun than one the police don't carry.
Which is just nonsense.
Stop trying to kill conversation just because you disagree with what is being said.
Claude Clay
Member
"since evolver shooters are more accurate shooters and semi-auto shooters spray and pray"
this far i read and as we are worlds apart with that statement...i'll pass on whatever else you have to say. though...please provide proof of this ...absurd statement.
this far i read and as we are worlds apart with that statement...i'll pass on whatever else you have to say. though...please provide proof of this ...absurd statement.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Just don't see the practicality in neutering a superior platform.
Use both guns in their best configuration and score and time each.
Fully agree with Tom in his statements on capacity, why down load the pistol to the same level as the revolver? Is that what we do in real life?
If there is another point in the exercise beyond simulating defensive shooting what is it?
Use both guns in their best configuration and score and time each.
Fully agree with Tom in his statements on capacity, why down load the pistol to the same level as the revolver? Is that what we do in real life?
If there is another point in the exercise beyond simulating defensive shooting what is it?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Iteration 1 and 2:
If the goal is to see which can put 50 rounds down range faster, then imposing too many limitations on either/both guns seems nonsensical to me. Why make such a performance comparison between two inherently different pistol designs if you're going to impose limitations that restrict or enhance the performance characteristics of one over the other?
Hitting or missing the target, one can argue, has nothing to do with how fast one can reload and shoot two different designs of handguns.
Limiting the number of rounds one can load is also nonsense, within reason.
One can argue that using a 33 round magazine might excessively bias the performace statistics somewhat, since you cut the time involved in changing magazines down to one magazine change. But then, the capability to take 33 rounds in a single magazine is an inherent characteristic of certain handguns.
Start your comparison with two given guns so people can't hem-haw about that.
If manual reloading is what you're testing, then use guns with similar capacities. They don't have to be equal, just not hugely disparate. Like a six-shot revolver and a seven-shot 1911 style. One cylinder and one magazine and a box of bullets.
And reloading times would change from person to person, depending on their own training and experience.
No matter how you look at it, though, there are going to be inherent differences between any two such pistols which could work in favor of one or the other. That said, specific comparisions make more sense...especially since, once the performance results are in for one you can easily set up another comparison by changing one or more pistols for another round.
For example, you could start off with a S&W Model 27 vs a Colt 1911. Then for a second round of testing, use the S&W Model 27 against a Beretta 92FS while maintaining a 7 round limit on the Beretta. This will level the playing ground between semi-automatic pistols and give you a relatively level common ground between platform changes.
And, when changing pistol platforms, take notes on the shooter's opinions of the differences between them. Like why he felt the Colt and the Beretta performed differently compared to each other.
What you end up with, afterwards, is a LOT of shooting (and shooting is fun) where you can make actual performance measures against MANY different guns with a fairly consistent set of common ground rules. And such a large collection of information is often very revealing.
If the goal is to see which can put 50 rounds down range faster, then imposing too many limitations on either/both guns seems nonsensical to me. Why make such a performance comparison between two inherently different pistol designs if you're going to impose limitations that restrict or enhance the performance characteristics of one over the other?
Hitting or missing the target, one can argue, has nothing to do with how fast one can reload and shoot two different designs of handguns.
Limiting the number of rounds one can load is also nonsense, within reason.
One can argue that using a 33 round magazine might excessively bias the performace statistics somewhat, since you cut the time involved in changing magazines down to one magazine change. But then, the capability to take 33 rounds in a single magazine is an inherent characteristic of certain handguns.
Start your comparison with two given guns so people can't hem-haw about that.
If manual reloading is what you're testing, then use guns with similar capacities. They don't have to be equal, just not hugely disparate. Like a six-shot revolver and a seven-shot 1911 style. One cylinder and one magazine and a box of bullets.
And reloading times would change from person to person, depending on their own training and experience.
No matter how you look at it, though, there are going to be inherent differences between any two such pistols which could work in favor of one or the other. That said, specific comparisions make more sense...especially since, once the performance results are in for one you can easily set up another comparison by changing one or more pistols for another round.
For example, you could start off with a S&W Model 27 vs a Colt 1911. Then for a second round of testing, use the S&W Model 27 against a Beretta 92FS while maintaining a 7 round limit on the Beretta. This will level the playing ground between semi-automatic pistols and give you a relatively level common ground between platform changes.
And, when changing pistol platforms, take notes on the shooter's opinions of the differences between them. Like why he felt the Colt and the Beretta performed differently compared to each other.
What you end up with, afterwards, is a LOT of shooting (and shooting is fun) where you can make actual performance measures against MANY different guns with a fairly consistent set of common ground rules. And such a large collection of information is often very revealing.
Smith357
Member
My friend and I did a challenge like this a few years ago, we started on equal footing with both guns and magazines empty, we are evenly matched in shooting ability and have been trading wins in rifle matches for 20 years. He had a Sig 9mm I used my my S&W K38. We shot 100 aimed shots as fast as we could, both of us kept all our shots in the black but I finished my 100 rounds a good minute or two before he completed his 100 rounds. The moral of the story is loading magazines takes a lot of time.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
No, the moral of the story is that your friend takes a lot of time loading magazines.
peacemaker45
Member
Why would anyone bother actually performing one of these tests, whichever set of rules you eventually settle on?
All you have to do is go to a USPSA match. Compare the Revolver shooters, all three of them, to the Single Stack, Production, and Limited shooters. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that 8, 10, or 28 rounds are all better than 6. A nice single action trigger is better than crunching away double action.
All the Revolver does is contribute to the delinquency of a bunch of macho chest thumpers, who like to feel that because they use more limited and difficult to use equipment, it makes them tougher than people who choose more modern equipment, or breed a false sense of security, that he'll not need to practice failure drills.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
All you have to do is go to a USPSA match. Compare the Revolver shooters, all three of them, to the Single Stack, Production, and Limited shooters. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that 8, 10, or 28 rounds are all better than 6. A nice single action trigger is better than crunching away double action.
All the Revolver does is contribute to the delinquency of a bunch of macho chest thumpers, who like to feel that because they use more limited and difficult to use equipment, it makes them tougher than people who choose more modern equipment, or breed a false sense of security, that he'll not need to practice failure drills.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
easyg
Member
What?!?
Revolvers are certainly not more difficult to use for self defense.
Now there are a heck of a lot of folks out there, many carrying an autoloader for self defense, who never ever practice a single stoppage drill.
And I think these folks would be better served with a revolver for self defense purposes.
It's not about being macho or about chest thumping, it's just about being honest and practical.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
When you get a "click" instead of a "bang," you pull the trigger again.
That's the revolver failure drill.
OP
OP
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
Well...I think that is an incomplete failure drill. Pull the trigger once. If you get another click, then reload. If you get yet another click or the gun cannot be reloaded, move to cover (if not there already) while transitioning to the BUG, knife, or spray.
A shortcut would be to transition to the backup revolver on the first click no matter what. Reload the first revolver from behind cover when the opportunity presents itself.
A shortcut would be to transition to the backup revolver on the first click no matter what. Reload the first revolver from behind cover when the opportunity presents itself.
I wont list them all.
USPSA Nats 2o12
1934.8636 L
2043.9273 Rev
2038.2823 Pro
1958.9200 L10
1042.8339 SS
IDPA Nats 2012
206.6 SSP
298.14 ESR
238.93 ESP
****Keep in mind no one on this board will come close to any of these times. Vogel smoked, and I mean smoked, the competition in SSP and the revolver shooter in both nationals is none other than Miculek
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
You can't count Limited or Single Stack, since they didn't shoot the same match.
In fact, you can't compare them at all, since the results are specific to their divisions. IE; revolver wins Stage One in revolver, but could be 20th overall if the divisions were combined.
This is a fairer comparison, but its still flawed and very stage dependent.
Revolver shooters have to typically reload twice,sometimes thrice to get thru a stage. SSP and ESP usually only reload once AND still have a few extra rounds for pickup shots. I've triple tapped more than one target to get 2 rds in the circle.
Further, everyone in ESP and SSP is shooting minor loads, while ESR is required to shoot major loads.
Over the course of 20+ stages, these things matter.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
threoh8
Member
How about we start with loose ammunition components - powder, bullets, primers, et cetera - and let the percussion revolver shooters school us?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I almost hate, really HATE, to wade into this as I'm sure to be seen as negative, but I really don't understand the point of the exercise.
To my view, handguns have a purpose. They're designed to be carried readily available on the person to be ready at very short notice to respond defensively to a close-range direct personal threat. To that end, they form part of a system that includes loading devices, spare ammo, holsters, pouches for the spares, and so forth.
Further, they have a specific manual-of-arms that defines how they are most efficiently loaded, carried, and deployed.
The system and the process work together with the firearm itself to allow a defender to put rounds on target in a timely manner.
You could test many finite facets of the system if you had reason to. (Mechanical accuracy, practical accuracy of the shooter with that gun, draw speed, splits and transitions, reload speed, ease of carrying, weight per round carried, etc., etc.) But in the end, none of that matters in comparison to the overall question of which gun gives the shooter the ability to make enough hits, accurately enough, quickly enough.
Starting with an empty gun and empty mags defeats the purpose. It isn't relevant to how one USES a sidearm. Might as well ask which platform puts most hits on target if you're blindfolded, or your hair's on fire, or the guns are encased in blocks of lime jello, or you're stuck in a car trunk with a butter knife and a badger who just ate all your ammo.
Testing the ability to shoot 100 times or 50 times or really much over a reload or two doesn't help matters, either.
How about you just start with the load-out you'd normally carry, and some real-world threat scenario and compare how you do with each gun, using the guns you'd have, loaded with the full complement of ammo you'd be likely to carry, and let the chips fall where they may?
To my view, handguns have a purpose. They're designed to be carried readily available on the person to be ready at very short notice to respond defensively to a close-range direct personal threat. To that end, they form part of a system that includes loading devices, spare ammo, holsters, pouches for the spares, and so forth.
Further, they have a specific manual-of-arms that defines how they are most efficiently loaded, carried, and deployed.
The system and the process work together with the firearm itself to allow a defender to put rounds on target in a timely manner.
You could test many finite facets of the system if you had reason to. (Mechanical accuracy, practical accuracy of the shooter with that gun, draw speed, splits and transitions, reload speed, ease of carrying, weight per round carried, etc., etc.) But in the end, none of that matters in comparison to the overall question of which gun gives the shooter the ability to make enough hits, accurately enough, quickly enough.
Starting with an empty gun and empty mags defeats the purpose. It isn't relevant to how one USES a sidearm. Might as well ask which platform puts most hits on target if you're blindfolded, or your hair's on fire, or the guns are encased in blocks of lime jello, or you're stuck in a car trunk with a butter knife and a badger who just ate all your ammo.
Testing the ability to shoot 100 times or 50 times or really much over a reload or two doesn't help matters, either.
How about you just start with the load-out you'd normally carry, and some real-world threat scenario and compare how you do with each gun, using the guns you'd have, loaded with the full complement of ammo you'd be likely to carry, and let the chips fall where they may?
CoRoMo
Member
Why climb the mountain?
Because it's there.
Because it's there.
- Status
