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

[TallPine]

An AK type is my current home defense rifle, but to tell the truth I just like lever actions better. Certainly the lever rifle is easier to carry around on a hike or something.

And I just never felt the need to replace my 4" blue .357 DA with a semi-auto pistol.

 

[jakemccoy]

I prefer an 870 pump for its simplicity. Cleaning an 870 is a snap. An autoloading shotgun adds nothing that I really need. Generally, a gun must add signficant functionality for me to compromise simplicity. For handguns, the added functionality is significant.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by Joe Demko:
All of you who use those new-fangled cartridge bearing guns are crazy.
The true cognoscenti use a flintlock. How can you be sure there's even powder and stuff in every one of them little brass doohickeys?

Them there semi-otto's are jes' too durn compilicated fer me, Joe!

 

[DougDubya]

ArmedBear - the Springfield Armory Scout (okay, semi-auto, but has all the other features, and Jeff did love his Garand action), the Steyr Scout, and other makers have put out short barreled, long eye relief .308's like Savage.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

2) If you know what you're doing, you can pump rounds out of a lever gun just as fast as from an AR.

Not even Chuck Conners

 

[Geronimo45]

Just because a tool's not the best for the job doesn't mean it can't do the job.

Just because a tool can do the job doesn't mean it's the best for the job.

Your tool (whatever it is) probably isn't the best thing available. As long as it works well for you, go with it. Don't claim it's the best thing since expanding cones of fang-faced nytrillium particles - say that it works for you, and that it and you can do the job.

 

[bukijin]

Are we talking about pistols or long arms ?

Regarding longarms for sporting applications, semiauto gives no great advantage - if you believe that the first shot is the one that counts. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to each action type.
There is a reason that military and law enforcement use auto or semi-auto rifles however.
Regarding handguns for defensive applications there are valid arguments for both semi and revolver.

Guess variety gives us more firearms to own and practise with.

 

[ImARugerFan]

It sounds like you explained all of the reasons perfectly in your original post. They are more reliable. This doesn't mean there isn't a purpose for autoloaders. I keep an auto loader pistol under my bed, but I hunt deer with a pump solely because of the reliability.

 

[elChupacabra!]

mljdeckard -

In response to your comment that "You don't have any semi-auto anything that is 100% reliable," that's not what I said - I said I've got an AR and several autoloading pistols that SO FAR have been 100% reliable, and that IS true. I'm sure that eventually they will fail me at some point, but make no mistake, anything made by men will fail, no matter how simple or robust. Just because you haven't seen a revolver fail doesn't mean they are perfect, either - as some have pointed out, when an autoloader goes down, an immediate action drill can usually bring it back into the fight, but when a revolver goes down, it's not coming back up before a trip to the 'smith (some seem to think that just because they can't SEE any springs to wear out in their revolver, they aren't there, but believe me, they are).

Besides, getting back to the point that military and tactical teams use semi-autos, I have to be convinced that the reason that serious operators NEVER use revolvers or lever guns (and only really use pump guns for door breaching, as even military shotguns are going semi-auto - please reference the Benelli M4) is because, when treated right, the reliability ISN'T an issue - the ease of operation (better trigger, faster reloads, no manipulation of anything for immediate follow-up shots) IS. And treating the gun right shouldn't even be part of the argument - all guns should be treated right (all of mine, at least), and I've never had a problem doing that.

Again, I don't think that the marginal benefit in reliability that a revolver has over the reliability of a truly modern, quality manufacture handgun (HK, SIG, XD and even Glock, among others) makes it a better choice. To me, the autoloader still wins for trigger, magazine, etc.

I can give the pump shotgun vs. autoloader up, as I don't feel as strongly about that comparison. But I'm stickin to my guns (sorry about the pun) regarding revolvers vs. autoloaders, and levers vs. semi-auto rifles, as well.

Again, none of this is to say that there aren't valid reasons for liking the other. As I've said (and will continue to say), to each, his own - different strokes for different folks, all of that.

In the end, I'm just glad we all have guns to debate about.

 

[Hutch]

^The above is a good example of the narrow-minded claptrap that is quite common amongst revolver advocates.

Being a handgun instructor myself, I just happen to know two instructors who are female, and they both get mad as hell when they come across people who think like you.

Calm down, amigo. You mention autopistols as being appropriate for female instructors. My wife, my daughters, my nieces are NOT instructors. I didn't say they COULD NOT learn to manage a pistol, they CHOOSE NOT to. They have little interest in firearms except as a last ditch tool for survival. I've had them all out to the range for fam-firing of GLocks, 1911's, Makarov, and K-frame revolvers. Don't just assume I went and picked something out for "the little lady". The charge of "narrow-minded" cuts both ways here.

Oh, btw, one can buy a perfectly servicable, sound and reliable used revolver for quite a bit less than a similarly suitable pistol, now that the Makarovs are going up in price. But that's a different discussion.

 

[SSN Vet]

when Alaska park rangers go in after a grizzly bear that has attacked a human, they go in with 12 ga. pump shotguns.

That says a lot in my book

 

[elChupacabra!]

SSN Vet,

Good point, and against Grizzlies, I probably would feel best with a 12gauge pump or a big hefty revolver, too...

but Grizzly bears don't shoot back. That makes it a bit different from the situation I am discussing where you might be in a 2-way gunfight, where speed and violence of action might make the difference between who gets killed. In that situation, I still feel that an auto has the advantage in the critical seconds that determine life and death.

 

[DougDubya]

elChup, it's more a matter of "do you want to make noise, or do you want to get hits."

Some people are just more accurate with some platforms than others. Lots of people decry the 2-stage mushy AR trigger, while with a pump, lever or bolt action, you can get a really crisp single-stage, light trigger that improves your ability to hit.

As for a Grizzly not shooting back... there will be lots of people mauled by Grizzlies who will disagree with about how dangerous they are.

You are talking about speed, but there are also other factors like handiness, maneuverability, and the ability to utilize weapons from behind cover.

 

[sacp81170a]

Lots of people decry the 2-stage mushy AR trigger, while with a pump, lever or bolt action, you can get a really crisp single-stage, light trigger that improves your ability to hit.

I just gotta say this. If a grizzly is charging you, the trigger pull on your weapon will have far less influence on getting hits than a cool head. In fact, I'd bet you wouldn't even notice. Software over hardware always!

The same goes with guys who get mad if they can't get sub-MOA groups with their deer rifles. I'm not saying that it's not a good thing, but I have yet to have a deer get up after being shot, telling me that my group was so big it just wasn't good enough.

They use 12 gauges with slugs because of the easy pointing characteristics and the big honkin' 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 ounce chunk o'lead it throws. And yes, the bear ain't shootin' back, but you're better off standing fast and getting good hits before he can get to you. Turning and running for cover is a bad idea and could get you killed. Try standing your ground in a gunfight and that's more likely to get you killed. The two really can't be compared.

 

[mavracer]

but Grizzly bears don't shoot back.

na they do stuf like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

IT'S THE SOFTWARE NOT THE HARDWARE.

hey if we're talking war ya sure gimme an auto.
but if we're talking SD/HD gimme my 1873 lever and my peacemaker copys or my AR and 1911.the hardware won't likely matter my skill/know how will.
another plus for revolvers my 70 Year young mother lacks the hand strength to rack the slide on most autos and therefore does not feal comfortable with them.so the parents have his and hers 357 revolvers and a 1894c marlin for HD
(that way old fasioned common ammo thing)

 

[Yellowfin]

Both a Remington 1100 and a Marlin 336 currently are used for our home defense. For my lady and I the 336 fits us both very comfortably and it's light and easy to handle. A big perk of lever guns for people living in areas that aren't part of Free America is that they're legally squeaky clean--no jury is going to call you Rambo for using a .30-30.

 

[Wheeler44]

Sheesh, ya can't "plan" the situation where you will "need" to use a firearm in defense of self and/or others. You'll be lucky if you even have a minutes notice. And if you " know" that you will need one, then better than tryin' to figure out the "best" gun, you'd be better off tryin' to figure how not to be there.

My Great Grampa was a gunfighter, when his son (my Grampa) was gettin' into the business (Law enforcement) Great Grampa wrote these words, " get yourself a good S&W .44-40, I think the break tops are better, and a Winchester carbine in the same. Both are tough and have served me well." He even sent his own S&W breaktop .44 for him to use (it's still in the family and it still works well). That is what worked well for those old guys and just because there are other options available doesn't mean that a .44-40 won't stop a man intent on harming you these days.

If you are comfortable and confident with autos then use 'em.
If you gotta get on the internet to defend your decision (and deride others who may not agree with you) then you display a lack of confidence........think about that fer a minute.

 

[Igloodude]

My nightstand gun is a S&W model 625 revolver. I prefer it mostly because it is more tolerant of different revisions of software, and sports a simpler point-and-click interface compared to my 1911s.

I do not have to remember to swap out the recoil spring whether I'm putting my target SWCs, FMJ hardball, or Glaser "safety slugs" in it. Should there be a light pin strike or dud, the clearance drill is to... pull the trigger again. My reloads for it (using a full-moon clip) are very nearly as fast as my 1911 reloads, and I don't have to remember whether there was a round chambered or not when I started the reload. I don't have to remember whether I keep it in Condition 0, 1, or 2. I prefer a slightly heavier trigger in case some of the ingrained "keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot" fades a little under stress, but if I need to make a very controlled first shot then I can cock it and have a trigger pull under 2lbs. And if my wife needs to be the one doing the shooting, the "don't have to remember" parts apply to her too, as well as the revolver being immune to limp-wristed stovepipes.

To me those advantages outweigh the rate of fire and magazine capacity of a semiauto for a nightstand gun.

 

[Templar223]

They all have their advantages and disadvantages.

What is at least as important as your choice of gun, its action, and the load you use is to GET SOME TRAINING so you know how to effectively and safely use said choice and to make sure it works for you and your needs.

Yes, I'd take my S&W 65 over some autoloaders...

It's all about choices!

If you choose wrongly and your choice is really poor, then Darwin will take care of the rest.

John

 

[ArmedBear]

There is a reason that military and law enforcement use auto or semi-auto rifles however.

Note also that they're issued specific ammo. They have little need for a gun that will cycle whatever they put in it. This also means that their guns can appear to be more reliable than the same exact guns in civilian hands.

I've had exactly one FTF with my AR, ever. I'd shot a good few hundred rounds of UMC .223 55 Grain FMJ through it. I put in a magazine full of 5.56 WWB. First round didn't fire (probably due to a fouling ring in the chamber keeping the bolt from locking properly). After that, it was fine again.

Now say a civilian with a mixed bunch of ammo goes to the desert. This might happen several times. He'd think the AR is a POS that can't be relied on. If the same gun started clean and was then fed 500 rounds of identical military-issue 5.56 ammo, it would most likely be 100% reliable. Same gun, totally different perception of its reliability.

 

[JohnBT]

"is that personal preference is the reason some (or many) prefer revolvers / pumps / lever guns over autos. "

Hey, I never said that I prefer them.

I only listed a few reasons why I might be giving up a little in the way of reliability by using an autoloader. And why I need to be prepared to deal with a stoppage every time I pull the trigger on one.

John

 

[elChupacabra!]

Wheeler44,

"If you gotta get on the internet to defend your decision (and deride others who may not agree with you) then you display a lack of confidence" isn't very friendly, and I don't think I've derided anyone - I've been as respectful and cordial as I've known how, but discussion and even good healthy debate are very positive things to me - as long as everyone can play nice. I have consistently tried to reaffirm my acceptance of everyone's choice, while politely, if vigorously, debating the issue that we have all chosen to give our opinions on.

Also, for what it's worth, you can DEFINITELY plan which gun is READY in an HD scenario - i.e. which one you have decided to put in the nightstand drawer / closet, which ammunition to load it with, which state of readiness to have it in, etc. This is what I'm getting at when I discuss which one is "best" - i.e., make those decisions ahead of time so when muscle memory kicks in, you're operating at 100% capacity and not limited by hardware that slows you down. It may all be about software, but you can't run XP or Vista on a 286, so we all have at least servicable computers, don't we?

Further, the whole point of having a defensive weapon in the home is that if you need it, you CAN'T "not be there" any more - you've gotta take up arms in defense of you and yours. So you plan for that possibility, and pray it never happens... but if it does, thank God you planned for it.

Igloodude,

I think you've made the most coherent argument yet in favor of a revolver for an HD pistol. That's exactly the kind of response that I've been looking for - much more thoughtful than the same old "six fer sure" business. Thanks for taking the time to contribute that.

 

[elChupacabra!]

ArmedBear,

Good point about specific ammunition. For all my weapons, I learn very early on what they will shoot and what they won't. After that, I only buy what they WILL shoot, and only reserve the BEST of that for defense.

Even though a manually cycled weapon would definitely have an edge in terms of feeding diverse ammunition types, for an HD scenario, I've typically already thought the ammo out well enough that there shouldn't be any feeding / firing / ejecting problems associated with what's already waiting in the gun.

Now, for an EOTWAWKI scenario, I'd DEFINITELY want a pump shotgun over an autoloader, and I can see the benefits of a revolver over an auto, too. Even the lever and bolt guns would probably have more utility in the very long run than a semi-auto rifle. In that situation, absolute reliability for the absolute longest period of time possible would be a big priority, as cleaning the gun / replacing parts / buying a new one may become out of the question, as would careful ammunition selection. You would need to shoot what you could get, so a simple, reliable, robust platform would be choice.

 

[JohnL2]

I want a lot of types of guns. I know what certain performance characteristics the firearms I am interested in needs or maybe more accurately desire. But I know I can not afford all of them. So that means compromises and choosing firearms I feel that balances those wants and needs. A BIG issue for me is reliability.
I will be owning a .357 magnum revolver in the near future. Also a Browning BLR in .450 Marlin for a close-range hard-hitter with fast follow-up shots. I've always wanted a Browning.

I am not putting down autos in anyway. I think what scenarios people make up in their minds determines a lot on how they feel on the issue. Extremely few of us will ever be in a balls out gunfight in the regular world. So that relegates my thinking to what I might encounter on the street, in my home in the middle of the night, or what I might encounter in the woods. Speaking for myself I think this is a sensible rationale.

Good luck and stay safe.

 

[Wheeler44]

"If you gotta get on the internet to defend your decision (and deride others who may not agree with you) then you display a lack of confidence"

isn't very friendly, and I don't think I've derided anyone - I've been as respectful and cordial as I've known how, but discussion and even good healthy debate are very positive things to me - as long as everyone can play nice.

I didn't mean that YOU ,elChupacabra, were deriding anyone, but some here have. However I must say, if anyone feels the need to "justify" their decision then they are not "confident" yet. Think about it...read some of the responses to your query then think about it some more. If you "know" your tool is the best for you you don't need to even consider anyone else's decision, you can just bask in the knowledge that you are better armed.

Again, no offense meant to you, I'm glad you like what you like. That leaves more of what I like for me and mine.

Wheeler44