Why have revolvers become passé ?

[RustyShackelford]

Magazines, choices, semi autos, Cirello.....

I don't understand some forum members constant use of the media(gun press) or popular culture(novels, films, TV, video games) as the motivation to carry a semi auto pistol over a DA revolver.
Nobody makes me buy any guns.
I think pistols are superior to revolvers for a # of reasons but either platform can work for basic carry or protection.
As for James Cirello, he retired from the NYPD & started to teach at www.FLETC.gov in south GA. He was on the cadre of the US Customs Service(now CBP & ICE in the US Department of Homeland Security). I think US Customs was switching from the S&W model 66 2/3" .357magnum to the Glocks while Cirello was a formal trainer. For him to pack a Glock like the students isn't that hard to see.

Rusty

 

[TestPilot]

You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
...

Yet, there are people who survived being attacked by more than one.

You also conveniently ignore ONE opponent requiring more than 6 shots to incapacitate.

There are multiple factors. Even when attacked by multiple opponents, not all of them may have a clear shot at the defender. Not all of them may get a hit even when they did fire.

Please explain to me how an auto is going to make you less screwed than a revolver, when being attacked by multiple attackers.

Simple, if you need to fire more than 6~8, it is done more easily.

And, the fact that it was his job to get into gunfights with armed assailants is very relevant. His job was to confront extremely violent pairs/groups of men who were robbing businesses. His involvement in multiple gunfights was a forgone conclusion.
The same is not true for us. We can avoid most situations where a weapon would be required. We can avoid bad areas (most of the time). He could not.

That only expalins why he got into multiple gun fights. It still does not explain why any particular one a regular citizen may face would be less dangerous.

Those robbers are the very same ones robbing regelar citizens.

Lance's decision to go with autos over revolvers was based on his personal feelings that they would serve him better than his revolvers would.

People in your position's denial that selecting a self-loader is always emotional and revolver is always based on practical decision is based on "personal feelings."

Truth is, they did not.

His revolvers never jammed on him, as did his SIG 9mm.

He ended his first fight with only 3 of 5 rounds from a Chief's Special.
In his fights, he was lucky enough to have had the majority of his assailants not be fully committed to the violent act. Some of them stayed and fought, others had stronger wills to live.

It was a counter point to your false assertion that "If you have enough assailants as to require you to need more than six shots, you're screwed regardless of whether your pistol is of the revolving or semiauto persuasion."

So, youre assertion is proven false.

If he only had six shots and six shots only, like YOU said he would be screwed if he needed more than that, he would have been killed by those opponents who were "not be fully commited to the violent act."

Could have been ammo choice, but it's damned foolish to try to make an argument against a 125 grain .357 magnum projectile being the top of the heap in terms of handgun manstoppers.

Of course 357 Magnum is effective. But, it is not like it is twice as effective that would negate having the advantage of 2~3 times the capacity. It is also not as controllable in a similar weight and size gun.

Who said revolver or 357 Magnum is not effective?

I am not arguing that revolver is not effective.

I am arguing that "you need no more than six, and if you need more than six, you're dead anyway," "capacity is not an advantage" is false.

Yes, some men require a lot of killin'. That being the case, how would any handgun fare better than a load of 12 gauge buckshot that failed to stop a BG?
I can see where a 12 gauge slug would fare better, but not a revolver nor autopistol round.

We cannot carry a shotgun or a rifle. If we could, we would not be arguing about this.

 

[TestPilot]

It's been a long one.

If you were following this post, no one is arguing that revolver is ineffective. No one us arguing that it is wrong to choose a revolver.

The problem is, and as I see it, mostly an emotional response from the other side, that for whatever reason, must deny that self-loaders are chosen for reason other than "tacticool" or "mall ninja" related issues.

They go far as to deny that higher capacity is an advantage no matter what.

They go far as to deny that situations and danger that in fact exists and already manifested does not and cannot occur.

That is irrational.

 

[jimbo555]

Capacity can be an advantage but the revolver reliability advantage under adverse conditions is more important to me. You make your choices and you live with them. If I have to go to bad parts of town, I take 2 revolvers.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Being unable to shoot more than one assailant at a time is not an assumption, it's a fact.
You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.

Obviously, you've never seen "Sledge Hammer! Dori Day Afternoon".

"One bullet, two scumsuckers...decisions, decisions, huh? I just have to figure out how to do it."

"Do what?"

"Get them to stand in single file!"

About 10:10

 

[Trent]

I used to be a semi-auto-only type of guy.

 

[Trent]

If I have to go to bad parts of town, I take 2 revolvers.

[YOUTUBE]c2tAHnb06tU[/YOUTUBE]

Heck yeah.

 

[jimbo555]

Now that's too funny Trent!

 

[Trent]

Now that's too funny Trent!

Well, yes and no. It kind of strikes a little close to home when I think about how (and what) I pack if I'm going on an extended trip far away from home.

I feel a revolver is fine if I'm out raking the yard on a nice autumn day or walking the dogs. (That SP101 revolver basically "lives" in my inside coat pocket all winter)

But, there's times when "more is better."

I've told this story in other threads (usually ST&T) but never in the handgun forum... so here's the short version once again.

A couple of years ago a "crew" out of Peoria started hitting rural homes, specifically going after firearms. They were smart and knew the police response time was horrible in the boonies - 20-30 minutes or more.

Eventually they got in to our neck of the woods, and in one day hit two homes nearby. The first one, they got the guns in the garage, in town (small farm town), in broad daylight. Later that night, they hit another house in the country (just down the road from us). They staked it out until the man left for work (3rd shift at the mitsubishi plant), then went in while the wife and daughters were asleep.

She awoke to find *5* - yes FIVE - armed intruders in her house. They cleaned out the guns, and split. (she was not armed, the guns were locked up in a cabinet).

Now, there's more to the story (such as one of the daughters having a big mouth and the wrong people overhearing about her family's "stockpile"), but it drove home a lesson to me.

You can't assume there'd just be ONE person. And you can't assume that even 5 or 6 well placed shots will stop a single bad guy.

(Further combine the above with the Atlanta incident - where a woman put five 357 shots in to a bad guys face & neck; followed by him leaving, getting in a car, and driving away before he finally passed out from blood loss/shock.. obviously he could have still done her in if he was so inclined, but he was more inclined to leave at that point...)

This being said a gun in the hand is better than nothing.

But there is a strong case to be made about higher capacity guns, given the predisposition to bad guys traveling in packs, and the myth that there is a "man stopper" bullet. They all drill holes, but you can't be guaranteed of a DRT if they miss arteries on the way through.

(This includes head shots - as my own my father survived a 45 caliber ball straight through the brain, and there's been plenty of other botched suicides where headshots haven't been lethal - or incapacitating. Last year I watched a video of a man who'd taken an AK-47 under his chin, he was still conscious and sitting up in the ER afterwards, missing part of his face and an eyeball, but still talking and holding his own bandage to his face, bleeding in to a bucket.)


Anyway yes, I'll still carry revolvers from time to time - because ANY gun is going to be a heck of a deterrent in public if you bring it to bear. Like pack animals, once the "leader" goes down the more timid aggressors are going to flee.

But in my own home?

I'm planning for 5 on 1 odds and I plan to win through superior firepower and superior mindset.

 

[Trent]

^^ that all being said, I'd never admonish a man for carrying a revolver as I often do that very thing, even though I'm a little 'out there' and eclectic as far as this fixation on firepower goes.

I do not feel "out gunned" carrying only 5 shots as that's 5 more than I would have otherwise, and I know how to use them.

If you are against multiple assailants (2 or 4 legged), drop the most aggressive first.

The others should turn tail and run.

And you should do the same, as you call authorities ...

 

[jimbo555]

I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

 

[ljnowell]

It's been a long one.



If you were following this post, no one is arguing that revolver is ineffective. No one us arguing that it is wrong to choose a revolver.



The problem is, and as I see it, mostly an emotional response from the other side, that for whatever reason, must deny that self-loaders are chosen for reason other than "tacticool" or "mall ninja" related issues.



They go far as to deny that higher capacity is an advantage no matter what.



They go far as to deny that situations and danger that in fact exists and already manifested does not and cannot occur.



That is irrational.

If we really want to lay all the cards on the table, the emotional response cones from both sides.

On side A the revolver guy will argue many points like if you need more than x rounds, or most fights are over in x shots, or even reliability.

On side B the semi auto guys will say capacity, quicker reloads, easier to carry reloads, etc.

In all honesty both sides are right. Both platforms have pros and cons. It's up to the individual to choose what's right for them.

I am happy to argue for either side. On my small hometown I carry a j frame and a speedloader everywhere. When I go to a bigger city I carry a 1911 or Glock with an extra mag AND a J Frame in my pocket.

 

[Trent]

I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Despite the 5 on 1 odds and anecdotes I positioned earlier, we still keep a 38 snub nose in the kitchen cabinet.

My wife can put all 6 in the 10 ring at 7 yards with that dang snubbie.

So...I'm not going to argue with her on her choice.

She wants to keep a revolver in the kitchen, more power to her.

She catches her own brass with even my softer shooting 9mm's from weak wrists, so semi-auto is not for her.

 

[jimbo555]

My wife is recoil sensitive. The only handgun she'll shoot is a ruger lcr22lr, but she can put all 8shots in the black from 7 yards. That'll have to do.

 

[BSA1]

She awoke to find *5* - yes FIVE - armed intruders in her house. They cleaned out the guns, and split. (she was not armed, the guns were locked up in a cabinet).

This story is more about lack of making their home defensible than not having a semi-automatic handgun available. As I understand it the story ends with nobody getting hurt which is a happy ending to me.

For every story like this there are dozens more where use of firearm has driven multiple criminals away. Most of the criminals I have known have a strong survival instinct and a desire to get out of the way of incoming bullets.

I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

All handguns are poor stoppers and more difficult to shoot accurately in dim light or the dark. A Ruger S.A. 45 Colt hangs on my bedpost. While I don't worry about home invasion, let alone multiple attackers, I hedge my bets with a Remington 870 with 7 rounds in the tube.

Oh a lever action rifle stands in the corner. Country folk think alike.

 

[TestPilot]

If you are against multiple assailants (2 or 4 legged), drop the most aggressive first.

The others should turn tail and run.

Plenty of cases where it did not turn out that way.

 

[Fiv3r]

I see this has turned into one of those hypothetical wheel gun vs. semiauto threads. That's cool. I mean, we all know that there will be some meeting of the minds and both the semi auto and revolver guys will leave with a greater understanding and respect for one another

I think the main points have already been touched upon:

• Revolvers offer shooters a platform for high caliber hunting rounds that a semi auto can't accommodate.
  
• Revolvers have a manual of arms that are (generally) easier for most anyone to deploy.
  
• Revolvers offer a trade off in capacity, but everyone pays their monies and takes their chances on what they prefer to carry or shoot best.

etc etc etc.

For me, I lean more toward being a revolver guy over a semi auto guy. It mostly has to do with the fact that a snub nose .357 is a good compromise for my day to day life. It's powerful yet pocketable. I give up follow up shots for potency. I shoot a revolver better than I shoot a striker fired semi-auto of similar size.

As others have said, semi-auto pistols are cheaper to manufacture than revolvers, semi autos have more of a mainstay in current popular culture, semi autos are the preferred choice of the throngs of internet gun board posters who live in areas where gaggles of tweaked out meth heads flock and converge on anyone foolish enough to be armed with less than 10 rounds in their gun.

I prefer a full size semi-auto most days when I can carry it. I adore my 92fs. I can accurately engage targets with my 1911 faster than any other pistol I own. My nightstand gun is an FNX-9 with a light on it. I really like all of these guns.

Still, unless I am going downtown after dark, I generally carry a 5 shot revolver or a 7 shot .380. Even then, I wouldn't feel undergunned with either of those. Maybe I would be, but it's the risk we take.

 

[TestPilot]

Revolvers have a manual of arms that are (generally) easier for most anyone to deploy.

No.

Revolver: aim and pull the trigger.

Glock, M&P: aim and pull the trigger.

Self-loaders that require anything more is by the choice of the buyer, not because it is a self-loading pistol.

 

[fastbolt]

Handgun sales are predominantly pistols, and by a decent margin. Rifles are close. (At least as far as 2011 figures go, which won't reflect the huge spikes of the last 2-3 years. Guess we'll see what those did later on.)

http://www.atf.gov/files/statistics...inal-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf

It's just a handgun.

Mindset
Skillset
Training
Experience
Knowledge of law
Knowledge of tactics
.
.
.
.
.
.
Equipment selection (based upon a wide variety of influences, conditions, perceived needs, etc)

Regardless of how someone feels about what's holstered at the their side (make, model, caliber, popularity of the moment, "special" ammunition, etc) ... it's the justified, accurate & speedy placement of holes in the identified & intended threat target that starts to tell the real story.

Sometimes I may anticipate finding myself in potential situations which might present a higher perceived risk, and I may choose one of my higher capacity pistols (meaning 8-12 rounds) instead of one of my diminutive 5-shot snubs or my LCP.

I certainly don't expect (or demand) less of myself when running those smaller guns through demanding drills or qual sessions, though.

Carrying a 'lesser capacity' or small caliber weapon doesn't mean expecting, accepting or justifying 'lesser' skills or abilities, or the ability to effectively utilize them.

Dunno how others may feel about their situations.

 

[gbw]

With California's new gun laws revolvers will become very more common.

This is probably very true. Soon thereafter, and after a few well publicized irresponsible / criminal acts involving revolvers, they will also be heavily controlled by Ca. legislature.

 

[fastbolt]

This is probably very true. Soon thereafter, and after a few well publicized irresponsible / criminal acts involving revolvers, they will also be heavily controlled by Ca. legislature.

Revolvers, shotguns (pump & single shot) and small TDA (DA/SA) .380's have already long been established as frequently encountered firearms used in the commission of criminal acts in CA (and other states).

The use of hi-cap pistols, and semiauto rifles which have appearances similar to military-style small arms, have captured the attention of ordinary folks when used in crimes which make the major news, though. Understandable.

 

[45_auto]

No.

Revolver: aim and pull the trigger.

Glock, M&P: aim and pull the trigger.

You'll quickly find that making clicking noises at bad guys is relatively ineffective.

Both types of firearm are MUCH more effective if they're loaded (part of the manual of arms).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Despite the 5 on 1 odds and anecdotes I positioned earlier, we still keep a 38 snub nose in the kitchen cabinet.

My wife can put all 6 in the 10 ring at 7 yards with that dang snubbie.

So...I'm not going to argue with her on her choice.

She wants to keep a revolver in the kitchen, more power to her.

She catches her own brass with even my softer shooting 9mm's from weak wrists, so semi-auto is not for her.

The father of one of my best friends has a favorite story about his wife and a .22 handgun.

She doesn't like snakes...at all. While she was working the garden one day, she ran across a snake. Went back in the house, got the .22, and stood in the back doorway and emptied the gun at the snake.

He came come, heard the story as part of the "get-rid-of-that-snake-I-shot" husbandly duty. Went out to the garden and found the poor, unfortunate Garter Snake. Which had been shot six times. Out of six shots. Looking across the yard to the back door, he said he decided then that he didn't want to get on his wife's bad side.

 

[Midwest]

Revolvers will still be popular. For instance I don't see how they could make semi automatic black powder guns.
.

 

[Sam1911]

For instance I don't see how they could make semi automatic black powder guns.

Not a worry!