Why a revolver may be a better choice for most shooters...

[RON in PA]

The"powers that be", the so called experts will tell you that in the real world the semi-auto is easier to train newbies on, with higher scores and fewer NDs. I think a lot of this is due to the difficulty of the DA trigger. Although I wonder about those trained on DA/SA autos.

As for me I agree with Preacherman, I love the simplicity of the revolver and find that I'm using mine more and more and my autos less and less. For civilian carry I firmly believe 5 or 6 shots is all you need.

 

[Dave T]

I could agree with the basic point of the original thread except for one problem. That person who isn't going to clean their gun, practice, or be familiar with the action/function of a semiauto, isn't going to be able to hit anything with a DA revolver. If you can't hit, what is the point?

Sorry, but 6 years as a LEO instructor and 10 years as a civilian CCW instructor has convinced me that shootability (how well you hit) is more important than simplicity. Those who can't handle something as simple as a 9mm Glock probably shouldn't be carrying without more training.

YMMV!

 

[Sean Smith]

There's an amusing undercurrent running through parts of this thread that seemingly equates a higher level of expertise with semiauto ownership.

I think it takes more skill to be GOOD with a DA revolver than it does to be good with a semi-auto. Revolvers may be more chucklehead-resistant, but they are also challenging to hit with, unless you thumb-cock for every shot. That's inherent in the long, relatively heavy DA pull. And last I checked, hitting with them WAS the whole point of the exercise. Of course, revolvers are often very accurate, and good shots with them often shoot superbly in DA all day long, but we are talking about shootability for newbies here.

This is especially true for (a) magnum revolvers, and (b) snubby revolvers, which constitute between them a huge proportion of the revolvers out there. Magnums have more blast and kick than almost any autoloader, and snubby revolvers just plain suck to shoot thanks to their craptacular combination of ergonomics, sights, trigger pull and recoil. A 642 or 342PD is great for what it is meant for, but the constant suggestion that newbies go get a snubby is just asinine. Even a steel snubby sucks for a novice.

A 4" K or L frame (or equivalent) shooting .38 Special is a credible suggestion for a starting gun. But even that isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for every newbie shooter. Really, nothing is.

I could agree with the basic point of the original thread except for one problem. That person who isn't going to clean their gun, practice, or be familiar with the action/function of a semiauto, isn't going to be able to hit anything with a DA revolver. If you can't hit, what is the point?

That kind of sums up my feelings about the whole thing.

And lest anybody think I'm anti-revolver, I've owned a couple, and my most recent gun is a 4" Python. But they aren't the one-size-fits-all magic solution that some folks are claiming they are.

 

[flatrock]

My wife just got a S&W 642 J-Frame for concealed carry. It's not her first gun. Her first gun was a Beretta 21 wich is a short barreled .22 auto.

She really likes the 642 and is pretty accurate with it. It requires practice to build up the muscle memory to fire any gun well in a self defense situation, but if you are in that situation at least you don't have to worry about fumbling with the slide to clear a jam or misfire. My only concern is if she gets into a situation with multiple assailants and 5 rounds isn't enough. Therefore she needs to spend time practicing reloading with a speedloader.

I'm planning on carrying an auto when I get my permit in a few weeks. I'll need to make sure I practice racking the slide as I would to clear a jam so the I can do it almost as a reflex action if the need arises.

Either type of gun can get the job done well. However the revolver does a better job of keeping things simple, which seems like a really good thing when you're in a self defense situation and scared for your life.

However, I've fired my wife's revolver a reasonable amount, and I just don't like shooting it. There seems to be more options for me in a concealable automatic. The width of a revolver makes it hard for me to conceal with my body type, and if I can't conceal it well I won't carry it. If I don't carry it, it's useless.

 

[Penforhire]

Preacherman, a very lucid list I agree with.

Some of the arguments about accuracy are moot. Presenting a gun should resolve most self-defense situations without firing. If they carry a snubby more often because it is small and light it will be there when they need it. Beyond that, engagements are arms length have little to do with bullseye accuracy. I don't think sights or barrel length have any value at contact distance. At much longer distances I don't think shooting has anything to do with self-defense -- duck and cover makes more sense.

 

[fix]

What say you?

I've been rapidly coming to the same conclusion over the last year or so. Lately, I've taken to packing a wheelgun anytime I can only bring one gun, but I much prefer the "Tamara Reload â„¢" mode of carry which, in my case, means a 1911 and a J-Frame.

 

[Ankeny]

I whole heartedly agree...with Sean Smith.

As a general rule, it's faster, cheaper, and easier to take first time shooters and get them to actually hit the target in a reasonable amount of time with a semi-auto, especially the simplistic pistols like an XD or a Glock. Law enforcement agencies have known that for years.

BTW, I love revolvers.

 

[J Miller]

Preacherman,

I agree with you on all points. Having had autos and revolvers, and being fairly proficient with both, I still prefer the revolver.

1. Reliability.Most shooters, in my experience, do NOT maintain their defensive firearms adequately. They leave them uncleaned and/or un-lubricated for long periods;: carry them extensively and never clean out the dust, pocket lint, etc. that accumulates in nooks and crannies of the gun; and often don't even dry them off properly if they get wet due to perspiration, rain, condensation, etc. I'm sure that virtually all of us on THR know better than to make these mistakes, but we're not exactly "most shooters", are we? - if we were, we wouldn't be active participants here. For those who don't get good training in weapons maintenance, a revolver is simpler and less likely to hang up at a critical moment due to lack of lubrication.

(Bold emphasis added by J Miller)

When I drove armored trucks I shot regularly in IPSC matches, privatly, and at the company sponsored shoots. One of my partners was a classic example of the person you described in the quote above. He carried a 4" Mdl 15 S&W on duty. When he left for home he would take off the rig and put it in his locker at work and leave it. When the required qualification shoots were held he would bring his home gun and shoot that, using company supplied ammo.

One day we were discussing guns and ammo and he pulled his gun out of the holster and opened the cylinder. The six once nickled cases were green. The rounds had to be forceably pushed out of the chambers, and the rest of the revolver was a gunked up mess. He had two of the old style dump pouches on his gun belt and the ammo in them was a solid mass of green mold and corrosion. The ammo was so old it had the domed primers in it. My partner had no idea of when he had last cleaned this revolver.
I was agast, I'd never seen a defensive gun that was carried every day in that condition. So I took it home for my partner and stripped it down and cleaned it.

That weekend I got him out for some shooting. We stopped and he bought a new box of ammo.
When we got to the shooting place he asked me what I'd done with the old ammo. I told him I had wiped it off and was going to try to shoot it. I wanted to see what would have happened if he had to fire his gun.
Surprisingly ALL 18 of the severly corroded rounds fired. So did the rest of the box he had at home.
I was surprised the ammo fired, and I probably should have tried to fire his revolver in the filthy shape it was in. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.


Joe

 

[Old Fuff]

I was wondering how far the revolver = inexperienced and/or inept user line would go.

One of the more interesting people that crossed my path was Bill Jordan, the late Border Patrol Inspector and well known shootest. No one who ever watched one of his demonstrations could ever doubt that he could take care of himself most adequately with a revolver. In one of our discussions about pistols vs. revolvers he pointed out that if one had to shoot a pistol below eye level there was an excellent chance they’d get hit in the face by ejecting brass, and that the development of the “new technique†of pistol shooting using two hands and picking up a flash sight picture at eye level came about at the same time pistols were ascending to their current popularity as law enforcement handguns.

He continued by pointing out that fights often if not usually happened a very close range and the one could not be certain they’d be able to fire with a two-handed hold with the gun up and pointed. A revolver could be fired while held at any angle or position, one handed or two, and nothing had to cycle except the cylinder.

On several occasions he was challenged to a “shoot from the leather†duel (against targets, not each other) by New Technique shooters, but never lost because he would be shooting (and hitting) while they were still lifting their gun.

Double Action revolver techniques are largely unknown to many of today’s shooters, and the out-of-the-box quality of such actions has been in steady decline since the middle 1960’s. This is particularly true of small-frame Smith & Wesson’s with coil mainsprings. Between mechanical deterioration and lack of knowledge it is little wonder that many say they can’t hit the broad side of a barn if they’re inside and the door’s closed while using this method of shooting. This however is not to say the method is not good. I invite anyone who has doubts to obtain a copy of Ed. McGivern’s book “Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting.†And Bill Jordan’s “No Second Place Winner.†They will quickly dispel any notion that revolver users are necessarily incompetent, and that revolvers are not effective self-defense weapons. Their strong point is that they are not ammunition dependent to function, and this is no small consideration.

 

[JohnKSa]

The biggest problem with modern DA revolvers is that the DA trigger pulls are so stiff that good accuracy is nearly impossible.

I've also run into more than one person who didn't have the hand strength to empty a cylinder on an out of the box DA revolver due to the heavy springs.

 

[Ankeny]

Oh good grief, I thought we were talking about Joe Average not Bill Jordon and Ed Mc Givern.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think that those "Joe Average" types who don't particularly want to go through life as, well ... average ... might benefit from the combined wisdom McGivern and Jordan offered. Knowledge, like guns and ammunition is a tool that can lead to better performance. I detected a sense that some thought that those who used revolvers were the kind that couldn't, or wouldn't make the effort to master automatic pistols. While this may be true in some cases it is not in all. The two gentlemen I mentioned proved it.

 

[sm]

I still contend for Joe Average the revolver has merit.

A lot of guns have lawyer triggers and are "stiff" from the factory, be it revolver or semi. Liability and QC . Most folks tweak a gun and smooth no matter if Revo or Semi.

I also still contend the K frame and similar tend to fit a larger variety of hand sizes and due to the larger variety of grips for revolvers in a variety of materials,grips tweak the fit...for trigger,or recoil mgmt.

Using a gun fitted with a proper trigger and the "stiffness" of cyl release..etc, Proper trigger use, sight aquistion, and all is ingrained . Some students were "surprised" by the recoil of slide "coming back".

Learning the DA of a good Revolver benefits the shooter who transitions to other actions and Platforms. Will benefit the SA Revo, Semi's in SA, DA/SA, DAO.

Edit: Old Fuff, Lots of folks I know whom are great with a Semi,started with Revos. They had a different set of quals that had to be done with a revolver.

Folks that are good shooters learn the basics, learn the platform and is thier nature will apply the lessons to learn other platforms. Tend to take matters serious, enjoy the challenge of learning and being proffiecient with whatever tool they aquire.

They get to point , no matter what they shoot it "appears" effortless or "natural born"...

Good shooters are made - not born - Misseldine

 

[Old Fuff]

>> Edit: Old Fuff, Lots of folks I know whom are great with a Semi, started with Revos. They had a different set of quals that had to be done with a revolver. <<

True, and that includes me, as I have had extensive experience with both. One point I was trying to make is that revolvers aren't necessarily inferior to pistols. I had that misconception straightened out the first time I watched Bill Jordan give a shooting demonstration. It's a case of picking the best tool for the particular mission.

 

[JohnKSa]

Most folks tweak a gun and smooth no matter if Revo or Semi.

Actually, just the reverse is true.

Remember, TFL is made up of gun enthusiasts. There are maybe 15K members here? There are MILLIONS of gun owners in the U.S.

Most gun owners go to the store, try what they have in stock, buy it, shoot it a couple of times, maybe they clean it, and then it gets dropped in a drawer, or stuck under a car seat or a bed. I'll bet only one gun owner in a thousand ever buys any custom gunsmithing (such as a trigger job.)

 

[Ankeny]

I detected a sense that some thought that those who used revolvers were the kind that couldn't, or wouldn't make the effort to master automatic pistols.

I get that sense from folks too, but I don't feel that way at all. If anything, I am saying just the opposite. It seems to me that new shooters can progress to a level of being "competent" in the sense of decent accuracy while shooting quickly with something like a Glock or XD in a shorter time than it would take them to reach the same level of proficiency shooting a revolver double action. On the flip side, there are some very good revolver shooters, Ed McGivern and Bill Jordan from days gone by, and today we have Jerry Miculek.

I guess what I find tiresome is the whole semi vs. revolver debate. Back in the 1970's when I was shooting a revolver exclusively I didn't understand why anyone would handicap themselves by shooting an automatic pistol. I thought autos were a joke. Later on in life, I made the transition to a 1911 and my position has changed. Like many on this board, I have shot revolvers, single action pistols, sa/da pistols, and safe action pistols. Each have their own place.

Fact is, folks should shoot what they enjoy and pack what they feel confident with. If a person is proficient and confident with a revolver by all means use one.

 

[Dienekes]

A long time ago in a galaxy far away I was forced to park my LW Commander .45 as a duty gun and carry a revolver. My 'temporary solution' was a 4" Ruger Service Six .357. Initially I found it very hard to manage with the stock small grips; Craig Spegel made me up a proper set, and that made all the difference. As a firearms instructor I decided to try to master the 'obsolete' DA revolver. Toward that end I read and reread Ed McGivern's book. Also wore out two barrels. In my travels I also had the opportunity to learn from a few other hands, one of them being Jim Cirillo who made his mark with a Model 10 S&W.

As far as I can see, a good DA wheelgun suits BOTH the tyro for simplicity and the master for reliability, speed, and lethality.

There are a lot of claims for semiauto 'perfection'...all I know is that in my instructor years I saw enough malfunctions with factory ammo to keep carrying the wheelgun. I have an assortment of semiautos in the gun safe--multiple 1911s, a couple of BHPs, a SIG 220, and a P97. The ones with the most blue worn off, though, are the Ruger DA .357s and a 442. They do just fine in the real world.

 

[Hal]

1. Reliability.Most shooters, in my experience, do NOT maintain their defensive firearms adequately.

Preacherman,
Only comment I have is that in my humble experience, a malfunction with a dirty revolver tends to be more "catastophic" than it does with a semi-auto.

Both of the ones I experienced (stuff under the star extractor:loose ejector rod) required considerable time to clear and get the gun back in working order.

Overall though, I agree with your list.

 

[fallingblock]

Agreed, Preacherman....

I've been shooting handguns for forty years now and have owned and carried (while in a jurisdiction which permits such freedoms) a dozen semi-auto centerfires and as many centerfire revolvers.

What you write rings true to me.

My last big bore defensive pistol was a Glock 30.

My now aged arthritic wrists could not keep from limp-wristing it, so I traded it on a revolver.

Folks with little training and especially those with physical handicaps, are much better served with a revolver.

I knew a man in my home town who had lost both hands in an industrial accident, but carried a Colt Detective Special for defense. He could load and fire it with his hooks!

To each his own, but for those who want a reliable handgun that can be depended upon after months in a drawer or locker, the revolver does have the advantage.

 

[riverdog]

Good thread. I like and shoot both semi-auto's (usually a 1911 type) and revolvers (usually a S&W). Like many others here, I've had most of my 1911's tweaked -- from simple trigger jobs to fully customized. As others have noted, members here aren't typical gun owners.

I keep all my handguns clean and lubed. The only one not in the safe is loaded and is the gun I shot most recently. It was cleaned, lubed, function checked and was then loaded with a full mag less one.

I could just as easily put it back in the safe and replace it with a S&W 586, Mod 19 or even 629 with light .44 Mag loads. They all work just fine and I've got speed-loaders for all of them. I just feel more comfortable with the full size 1911 right now.

Besides, that's just a back-up anyway. HD gun is a Rem 870 w/ 00B.

 

[sm]

Most folks tweak a gun and smooth no matter if Revo or Semi

-sm

JohnKSa -

Yes I see your reference and point. I "forgot" about them other folks that were not around fireams growing up and continued to not be around firearms all their life.

Sorry !

Even so growing up when triggers were better out of the box and QC was better, folks learned - were taught with a revolver. It seemed "just what we did". Basics and fundamentals were taught along with safety, ethics and other life stuff- like Shot placement.

Along with gun fit . Pair of grips whittled, sanded ...for a kid like me, or for a lady, or the Cop walking the beat. Tools were taken care of, adapted to fit user, no rough edges...So for me growing up and others this was normal.

We didn't mess with stuff that didn't need fixing, just for sake of fixing. Gun Magazines...heck I was more interested in reading Ruark, and seeing the pictures of game and places. Sending a dime and nickel ( taped to a postcard) to Penguin Industries for a bottle of Hoppe's No. 9 of my own.

Someone would get a new gun or new "used" one...most likely a model 10
[in the case of this discussion] ...and the LEO's, Military, or someone with experience would take the time to give the purchaser a "checking out" of the gun. Checking and teaching the mechanical, how to lube and maintain, how to shoot it - properly- and if need tweaking the fit.

Ok maybe I'm the one "not normal" ...been accused before...I was raised that way...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[JohnKSa]

sm,

It's not really a matter of being right/wrong/normal/abnormal...

I work in a large company that has a pretty good sized gun club and I'm pretty well known in the club and the company. I have a bit of visibility as a result and frequently get asked what gun is good for (fill in the blank).

My initial response is to recommend something in my safe--after all that's what I have experience with.

BUT, since I'm not only a shooter, but also a tinkerer, most all of my guns have been tweaked a bit.

I have to stop and think what is good for a person who doesn't want to pay for or smooth out a trigger themselves. I have to stop myself from referring a $1,000 gun to a person who obviously wants to spend about $300. I have to keep in mind that this person (in many cases) has no more interest in this firearm than he would in a fire extinguisher, a seat belt, or a first aid kit.

I agree that what is on the new gun market can be vastly improved with a bit of gunsmithing. However, the vast majority of gun buyers will never even consider such an option... I think that a big reason for the extreme popularity of autos is the terrible DA triggers found on most revolvers these days. A choice between a 20lb DA revolver trigger and a 7lb Glock trigger is easy--easier when the clerk tells you the Glock "works just like a revolver."

 

[Citadel99]

I'm taking a lot of interest in this thread. I carry gun is in the works for me and I'm torn between a revolver (probably .38) and a compact 1911. Either weapon will get PLENTY of range time. If purchasing a new revolver, how much is a good trigger job? I love the 1911 frame and am user to shooting the full size model. I have a Ruger SP101 that shoots great. Just can't make up my mind on a carry gun...

Mark

 

[JPM70535]

I started with revolvers many years ago and swore by them long after all my buddies were touting the virtues of their Semi-Autos. Competed in PPC, IPSC, Falling Plate,Bowling Pin shoots, and others and always remained competitive. Always felt comfortable with Snubby S&W mod. 66 as an off duty weapon.

Finally made the switch to Autos, touted the advantages, (flatter pkg. versus Revolvers for CC, higher capacity, ease of rfeloads, etc.) Joined with my buddies in chiding Revolver shooters over their choice.I retired my 66 in favor of a succession of compact Autos for CC.

After retirement, I began to see some merit in a small frame revolver as an alternative to my 45 (Para Companion LDA) for CCW in my relatively peacefull rural community. I chose a j frame Smith mod. 649 357 magnum carried IWB strong side. The difference in weight although not that much less, made a substantial difference in comfort. The big plus for me is the potential for pocket carry when my everyday IWB is not possible. Even though out of habit I thoroughly strip and clean my CC weapon weekly, most casual shooters and CCW holders don't. I know shooters who clean on a yearly basis, (or close to it) who seldom practice more than once a month, and never practice drawing and firing from their CC position.

For these and other reasons, I have to agree that for most folks a revolver may be the better choice, provided that the revolver chosen is a quality piece with a smooth (not necessarily light) trigger pull. Almost any S&W will make the grade OOTB as will most Colts. As to the rest of the pack, GET A TRIGGER JOB!

 

[roscoe]

My feeling is that the reason a revolver is the appropriate choice for self-defence for beginners/infrequent shooters is that there is so much less to have to think about. Under pressure, nobody, but less experienced shooters especially, wants to have to think about safeties, loaded chambers, magazines, racking the slide, hammer position, etc. A revolver is like a (computer) mouse - point and click. Since they may not spend as much time thinking about their weapons as we (here at THR), they are less likely to know the status (conditions 1-4) of their firearm, other than whether it is loaded.

Since most engagements occur at close range, I worry less about accuracy than about having the thing roar when the trigger is squeezed.

Of course, ideally, everyone would be appropriately trained and shoot a couple hundred rounds a month, but that is simply unrealistic.