Why do people think a pump / lever / revolver is better than an Autoloader?

[elChupacabra!]

Ok, I've got a question. I've spent a good part of my morning reading various boards that advocate that a Pump shotgun is more reliable than an autoloader; that a Lever rifle is as easy to manipulate quickly and under stress as a semi-auto, and that a revolver is more reliable than an autoloader.

I've heard all these arguments before, usually along these lines:

1) Pump shotguns never jam - autoloaders get fouled / have problems with gas system / etc. Only use 590 / 870.

2) If you know what you're doing, you can pump rounds out of a lever gun just as fast as from an AR. You don't need an AR or AK.

3) Revolvers never jam. That makes them inherantly better than autoloaders which may occasionally do so. ALWAYS use a revolver.

Unfortunately, I disagree with all these premises:

1) It's very easy to short-stroke a shotgun or just plain forget to pump it under stress. That could potentially make a pump-action 'gague LESS reliable than an autoloader that is proven to work with a given ammunition selection.

2) There's no way that a lever gun will beat a semi-auto rifle for rate of fire in either bursts or sustained fire. Further, add a reload and you are miles behind the power curve.

3) Revolvers may jam just the same as an autoloader - especially if dirty, poorly maintained, out-of-time, or something blocks the cylinder from rotating. On top of that, limited ammunition capacity, relatively long and heavy trigger pull (especially compared with a good 1911) and slow reloading times seem to me to make revolvers a VERY bad defensive choice, on the level.

I guess this all came to a head when I was reading about the Remington 7615P in .223 Rem. As the argument seems to go, that rifle is the best of both worlds - the precision of a rifle with the reliability of a pump-action. To me though, it's the WORST of both worlds - you lose the best thing about a good pump shotgun - 12Ga buck - and the best thing about a good semi-auto rifle - immediate, no-thought follow-up shots (this isn't to say it doesn't have its place in the hands of users with limited training, and it isn't as "scary" looking, but I don't believe, at $700, you can say there is any price advantage over an AR carbine, so I don't see what REAL advantage it has is - all I see are disadvantages where it counts).

What do yall think? What am I missing here? It seems to me that the simplicity of an autoloader for general-purpose, defensive uses, when considering the reliability of modern firearms (I've got an AR and several autoloading handguns that are 100% reliable), makes it the no-brainer choice, yet people still have their opinions otherwise.

Could you please share your opinions both ways? I really want to know what I'm overlooking, if that's the case.

Thanks guys.

 

[Diggers]

Yes perhaps people got a little extreem there.

Though I do think a revolver is the simplest firearm to operate. ---Its loaded when there are rounds in the cylinder, no slide no safety, just pull the trigger. That is good for some applications.

I guess it’s about under what conditions these weapons will be used. For H.D. revolvers, pump shotguns, lever guns all seem perfectly fine. For holding off the attacking hordes or going on the offensive....well we would probably want something with a higher rate of fire.

I did read something once about the positives of using lever guns in the context of AKs and AR being banned or that the user would be seen in a negative light for using such a weapon. It was talking about a lever carbine being a good alternative and that it can lay down pretty good fire and has range.

But again this is in the context of a good guy vs. a bad guy or 3 (maybe) in a HD setting. NOT taking on some invading army or some such scenario

 

[Brass Rain]

I wouldn't say a revolver is better for home defense than a semi-auto. But I wouldn't say a semi-auto is better either. They both have individual points that make them better than the other. Same goes for pump shotguns and lever-rifles/carbines.

And although revolvers can jam, they almost never jam. Whereas semi-autos rarely jam.

I wouldn't feel inadequete in a home defense situation with a semi-auto rifle, a semi-auto pistol, a revolver, a lever-rifle/carbine, or a pump shotgun. And I don't think anyone used to handling guns would. Unless you often take on waves and waves of well-armed thugs in which case you're probably screwed anyway, even if you have a SAW and a Striker and a few land mines lying around.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Diggers,

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Just for the sake of argument, I would agree with what you say about revolvers, but I've got an HK P2000 in .40S&W with the LEM trigger that is the same way - once you've got the mag in and rack the slide, it's good to go immediately when you need it - just press the trigger as many as 12 times until you feel the need to stop. I don't know how much of an advantage a good revolver would have over a gun like that one, or even a Glock or XD regarding accessability and reliability.

Now, I will definitely agree with you that having a wood-stocked pump shotgun or lever gun would probably look better than gunning down someone with an AK underfolder. That gun looks mean, so you might attract less attention with a more benign gun.

On the other hand, I don't know if I would want to limit my effectiveness at all if I hear a bump in the night and have to pick one gun to go find out what / who / how many are there. I would want the gun that would be the most effective, most reliable, easiest to use, right away. That's not to say that I wouldn't like to OWN lever guns, pump shotties, and revolvers, and I would like to have several examples of each one day.

But at O'dark thirty, I want the most effective gun in my home to be the one in my hands. I guess it doesn't hurt that I live in a Castle-Doctrine state (Tennessee) where I might have a better time with the law afterwards.

 

[SaxonPig]

Personal preferences. Each action type has its strengths and weaknesses.

The bolt action is the strongest and most accurate.

But the lever gun lays flat under the seat or in a scabbard on horseback.

And the auto can get off the fastest follow-up shot.

The pump is more sure in ejecting cases for fast shooting.

The revolver can bring up a fresh round after a dud.

Etc etc etc.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Brass Rain,

You're right - if I only get one gun to defend my life / home, you'd better believe I'll make it work to the absolute best of my ability, and given enough practice, I don't expect I would be undergunned much, either, regardless of what action type or caliber.

With that in mind, though, I'm reminded of a comment that when Jeff Cooper was invited to review training the FBI was giving to its agents, he was told that comparing his 1911 against the wheel guns used by the agents in training would be "unfair." He replied that perhaps the second rule of a gunfight was that it should never be fair - you bring the BEST choice to the fight, as much better than your opponent's choice as possible.

I guess that's the heart of my argument here. You're right - in well-trained hands, most any gun would usually do. But why limit yourself to something less than the absolute tops?

Case in point, a Remington 7615P seems very much like limiting onesself unneccessarily.

 

[M1911]

Each action type has its strengths and weaknesses.

Exactly.

 

[ArmedBear]

he was told that comparing his 1911 against the wheel guns used by the agents in training would be "unfair."

...which is silly in and of itself, given that he was evaluating training, not firearms...

Sufficient practice allows the Cowboy Action guys to shoot single-action black powder revolvers accurately and quickly.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

...autoloader that is proven to work with a given ammunition selection...

You have said it right there. A manual action gun is not selective or finicky about the ammo that you put in it, so a lot of people equate that advantage, right or wrong, with "reliability."

On top of that, limited ammunition capacity, relatively long and heavy trigger pull (especially compared with a good 1911) and slow reloading times seem to me to make revolvers a VERY bad defensive choice, on the level.

Certainly an autoloader has tactical advantages regarding superior rate of fire. I wouldn't however, call a revolver "a VERY bad defensive choice". If your home defense situation requires more than 6 rounds of .38, .357,, you need to move to a better neighborhood. Like one in the U.S.

 

[elChupacabra!]

All good points, but this is coming back to my argument - you're right, revolvers can be fired very quickly and accurately with enough practice - maybe even faster than many autoloaders; but I defy a good shooter to get more hits, more accurately, and faster, with a double action revolver (the defensive kind) than a good 1911, equally trained in both.

So if you pick a handgun for defense - what benefit does the revolver have over the 1911? Reliability is definitely one - but how often does a properly tuned 1911 jam when fed with tested and proved ammunition (It shouldn't have failed in at least 200 rounds, or you didn't prove it enough)? Regarding a "dud," as long as you are paying for good ammunition (the only kind you should try to defend yourself with anyway), how often do you get a bad primer / squib out of premium centerfire defensive ammunition? Both of these things may happen, but the probability that they will is so small, I don't know that it's meaningful when compared against the BENEFITS of the 1911:

Fantastic trigger pull - something you experience EVERY time you press the trigger; generally larger capacity (unless you've got a big 7 or 8 round revolver), faster reloads, God forbid you need to make one, and somewhat reduced recoil (depending on what you're shooting out of what revolver) due to the reciprocating action of the autoloader.

Probably my biggest pluses for the 1911 as compared to, say, a revolver, are the trigger and magazine capacity / change speed, which in my eyes, are much more tangible in real-life scenarios than the improbable occurrance of a 1911 encountering a problem that would be remedied with a revolver, as mentioned above.

I know there are pros and cons of each gun, but some guns have more important pros over other guns.

For instance, you might could kill a deer at 300m with a well-placed .223 Rem, but the advantages of .308 or 30-06 or 7mm so greatly outweigh the small advantages of .223 Rem (Lower recoil? Less ammunition weight? Who cares?) for the HUNTING scenerio, that most would agree a .308 would be a better choice for 300m shots at a deer than a .223 Rem.

I guess I'm trying to apply this same logic to defensive weapons too.

 

[M1911]

As you might guess from my handle, I'm partial to 1911s. But I'd feel adequately armed with my S&W 625.

Making overly broad statements about X always being better than Y will always get you in trouble. Choose what works for you and realize that other people may choose pick differently. I respect their choices, even though I choose differently.

 

[elChupacabra!]

M1911 - you're right, and I'm not trying to say that any one weapon is always better than any other weapon.

I'd much rather have a revolver than an auto if I was going against a bear - it's better suited for the situation. I don't think any gun is always better than another - in fact, even though I think an autoloading shotgun is probably superior in an HD situation to a pump, it's a pump I own, partially because of the cost differential. To me, at the time I bought it, that made it the better choice.

I'm just trying to say - in a theoretical situation, if resources weren't a consideration, what would make non-autoloaders BETTER than their autoloading counterparts for defensive / HD scenarios?

Thanks again everyone for your input.

 

[JohnBT]

"I defy a good shooter to get more hits, more accurately, and faster, with a double action revolver (the defensive kind) than a good 1911, equally trained in both. "

I don't think I'd be defying a good shooter, you might anger him.

Assuming the autoloader feeds every round. I've never had a revolver fail to feed, fail to eject, stovepipe, drop a magazine or any of the other things that happen to autoloaders from time to time that keep them from functioning. Sure, revolvers can have problems, but getting the ammo to feed isn't one of them.

The shot that matters is the first one, assuming we're still talking about those good shooters.

John

 

[Cosmoline]

As far as handguns, I've had far fewer problems with my wheelguns than semis. Even reliable semis still have stovepipes and may become jam o matics with ammo they don't like. I don't like to mess with these things and I prefer the way wheelguns shoot.

As far as rifles, semiautos add a lot of extra WEIGHT and BULK while throwing BALANCE off. Their receivers are larger and contain more steel than bolt actions and most lever actions. It's not so bad with an intermediate cartridge since the whole rifle is pretty small, but when you get to .308 level and beyond the semis (BAR's for example) become bulky and heavy while messing up balance. They're not bad weapons, but for non-combat applications I don't mind sacrificing firepower for better balance and less bulk. I think most people have made the same choice. Back in the 40's everyone figured we'd all be shooting semis by the 1970's but of course it didn't turn out that way.

Also, while semiauto rifles can be as accurate as bolts, it's not as easy to accurize them. And they cost a lot more to begin with. Try finding an MOA semiauto rifle in a high power cartridge for under $350. Or try finding a realistic semiauto rifle in .375 H&H mag or above power-wise. Beyond a point the bolt action and certain levers have the advantage. There's also the "pickiness" issue that all semis seem to share. You can't feed a Garand a regular diet of any old off the shelf .30'06. And you have to be careful not to feed a Romak the heavy ball 54R. Those are just some examples. Bolts tend to be able to handle anything in the range of potential loads, though they may be more accurate with one load vs another.

 

[elChupacabra!]

JohnBT and Cosmoline,

Good points about reliability with revolvers, especially feeding and stovepipes.

I can't say I've ever had either problem with my P2000, but I'm sure that eventually, given enough shooting, I will, whereas you will never have either failure with your revolvers. Using it for real would be a terrible time to have it happen for that first time.

Regarding weight in the full-power semi rifles, now that's one I hadn't considered. If portability and handiness are more important for whatever reason, then a lever gun might give that edge - handling is extremely important in a defensive weapon. Very good point.

 

[JesseL]

For those folks interested in defense against more than just two legged predators; I'd be interested in seeing what kind of autoloading pistols you can find chambered for cartridges beyond the .45acp/10mm/.357 Mag class. How reliable are they? How much are they going to cost you?

Most of my "serious" guns are autoloaders, but there is a lot to be said for personal comfort, familiarity, and affordability. Just because revolvers, levers, and pumps aren't ideal; don't make the mistake of thinking they're inadequate.

 

[M1911]

I'm just trying to say - in a theoretical situation, if resources weren't a consideration, what would make non-autoloaders BETTER than their autoloading counterparts for defensive / HD scenarios?

Reliability and simplicity. I've certainly had my share of failures to feed, stove-pipes, light-strikes, and double-feeds with semi-auto pistols. In contrast, the only time I had a revolver failure was when my Model 19 jammed due to a squib-load. The squib-load was one of my own reloaded rounds, so that is my fault as well.

Yes, you can short-stroke an 870. I've never done it or seen it, but I have heard of it happening. My own autoloading shotgun (a Mossberg jungle gun) has been reliable, but I watched my buddy go through 1/2 a dozen different brands of ammo trying to find one that his 1187 wouldn't choke on. And the 870 is easier to reload than my Mossberg.

In addition, revolvers and 870s are very resistant to neglect. If you don't oil your Model 66 or 870, and leave it in a closet for 5 years, chances are it will still shoot. An autoloader may start to have failures without proper lubrication. No, I'm not recommending that you neglect your guns.

My personal home defense guns are a 1911 and an AR15. But I'd feel well protected with my S&W 625 and 870.

 

[Wheeler44]

Not every one sees any particular firearm as a magic talisman to shake @ bad guys when things go bump in the night. Some folks just shoot because shootin' things is fun. The fact that the same tool can be used for self defense is just a big bonus.
If you have to carry a long gun all day (lets say that you work in bear country) weight, balance and ballistics will determine your choice. If (somehow) you know that today is the day that you will be attacked by a bear you decide based on ballistics, rate of fire and how quick you can get into ready position. Nobody knows when the bear(or bad guy or zombie bikers from mars) will attack.

Many people have more than one firearm but most practice with one more than the others (for too many reasons to list) so the one that they use the best is the one that they put more faith in when things go bump in the night.

You like autos? Good for you. Use 'em.

Someone likes Revos, bolties and pumps better? good for them let 'em use 'em.

No big deal.

 

[HB]

My feelings..

For what it's worth,

1. I have never seen a pump gun malfunction, but have seen many semiauto's jam, not cycle, or not eject. A semi auto is fine but the tend to cost more for what you get and some require the gas system to be adjusted for different loads. If you ever see a beginners sporting clays program, you'll see why pumps are fine for most informal uses.

2. The lever gun thing does strike me as odd, but I am very comfortable with a .30-30. I personally don't think a AR or AK is needed for HD, but it whatever you're comfortable with. I would use a AR for HD if I had one, but from my experience, you really don't need the unleash 30 rounds at an intruder, harsh words and a shotgun seems to work fine. AR cost $1000 but I can get an absolutely reliable lever/ pump for a lot less.

3. Revolvers are more reliable for the most part. They are simpler to get into action and there are no spring to where out. I have never seen a revolver "jam" but semi's do occasionally.

There no absolutes. What it usually comes down to is what people are used to and what meets their needs. Plus, I don't want to look like a mall ninga.


HB

 

[blackcash88]

One thing about a revolver malfunction is when it locks up, it locks up HARD. No tap, rack, bang drill is going to fix it.

 

[Hokkmike]

From your post all I can add is that revolvers are nearly foolproof. Else-wise I could debate the rest.

 

[Joe Demko]

Never had an autoloader tie up to where it took tools to clear and fix it. Can't say the same for revolvers.

 

[blackcash88]

3. Revolvers are more reliable for the most part. They are simpler to get into action and there are no spring to where out.

So, what is this mythical revolver you mention with "there are no spring to where out"?

Sure, there's no recoil or magazine spring, but revolvers have springs. Hammer and trigger return springs ring a bell?

 

[texas bulldog]

i guess i could ask you why so feel auto-loaders are so much better? several here have given you potential advantages of revolvers/pumps/levers, but we also recognizes they have drawbacks as well. the perfect platform is yet to be invented. if sm were to chime in, i bet the first thing he'd point out is that software is more important than hardware. and he's right.

i sleep with a S&W 586 on my nightstand. it was my first handgun purchase, and i chose it because the price was right. i continue to choose it because it is a platform and caliber i'm confident in getting the job done with. i also like that my wife is comfortable using it. she grew up around guns, but still gets confused sometimes using a semi-auto. this is because her dad was a revolver guy, so it's all she got experience with. sure, she could learn to use a semi-auto if she wanted, but she's not really interested in doing so, and i can't force her to. so a revolver makes sense in that it's a platform we can both operate confidently. speed-loaders are kept close by, though i honestly don't anticipate ever needing them. if hordes of bad guys all enter my house at once, i'm screwed no matter which of my guns i have available. all are in the gun safe, which is in the bedroom closet. so i have backup available if needed.

i guess if my 586 is such a bad choice, then my father-in-law is really screwed. he sleeps with a single action revolver on the night stand (gasp! cough! OMG! what!?!). yeah, that's right. you have to cock it before you fire. not a choice most of us here would make, but it's what he's most comfortable with, and i can assure you he is quite a good shot with it. not once have i ever thought he was being foolish for his choice. if he needs to reload, there are several other loaded options hidden about.

i guess what i'm getting at is that for typical defensive uses, you should use the platform you are most comfortable with. if you're going into battle, then capacity and follow-up ability become vitally important. in my house, it's unlikely i'll need a 30-round mag to get the job done.

 

[blackcash88]

Never had an autoloader tie up to where it took tools to clear and fix it.

I've had situations where a casing bulged in the chamber to the point where the extractor ripped through the rim of a casing and no amount of racking would remove it. Needed a wooden dowel and mallet to tap it out.

Had springs break (G19 trigger return spring) that required tools to fix, too.