Most of this will be well-trodden ground for THR regulars. This thread is intended to outline the basic pros and cons of semi-automatic pistols versus revolvers, for people new to handguns, or even to guns in general. I've noticed people that are just starting out will often look at the number of rounds modern automatics hold, and go "why would anyone ever buy a revolver?" This thread should address that.
If it seems dumbed down in places, just remember that you weren't born knowing what you do now.
To start with, let's look at a fairly typical automatic.
Many people, including me, find the Glock 23 to be a nearly perfect balance between concealability, power, controllability, and magazine capacity. As long as you don't mind .40 S&W recoil, it's a great all-around gun.
The SP-101 has quite a following. Rugers are often underestimated by gun snobs, but it's a very solid weapon. An S&W J-frame snubnose would be smaller and lighter--much lighter if it's alloy-framed--but recoil would be proportionally worse. The SP-101 strikes a good balance between wearing it comfortably and shooting it comfortably.
So both guns are very good compromises between size and power. In either caliber, either platform, you could go smaller or larger. But I'd say both guns are representative of a compact belt gun, intended for daily concealed carry under light clothing. So how do the two stack up next to each other?
Sizewise, they're pretty similar, though the SP-101 has a slight advantage. The G23 is about 8.5" diagonally from muzzle to butt, while the SP-101 is 8." The main difference is the back of the G23's slide.
In terms of weight, similar yet again, though this time the Glock takes the lead. The G23 is 25 ounces with an empty magazine, 34 ounces loaded with 13+1 rounds of 180 grain ammunition, though mine has a tungsten recoil guide rod. A stock G23 would be one ounce lighter. SP-101 is 25.5 ounces empty, 28 ounces with 5 rounds of 158 gr ammo.
For power, they're similar yet again, if you don't handload.
But first, one thing you need to keep in mind about barrel length. Revolver barrel length is measured from the front of the cylinder, while automatic barrel length is measured from the breech face, where the back of the cartridge rests. To compare the two more directly, you need to add the length of the cylinder, plus the thickness of the cartridge rims, which stick out of the back. For the SP-101, this adds about 1.64". Using a caliper to measure the actual distance from the muzzle to the breech face, we find that the Glock 23 has a barrel length of 4.03", and the SP-101 is 3.94". Not too much of a difference, which shouldn't be surprising, given how similar the guns are in overall size. Thus, a 4" barreled revolver actually has an equivalent barrel length to a 5.64" automatic.
.357 magnum is a much longer cartridge, however, so less of the barrel length of a revolver will actually be used. A 180 gr .40 caliber bullet in a 4" auto will have about 3.45" of actual distance before it exits the barrel, while a 158 gr .357 caliber bullet through a 4" (5.64" equivalent)-barreled revolver has around 4.68". However, you should go by the equivalent barrel lengths instead, as this will tell you more about how large the gun is likely to be, overall.
Anyway, on to the comparative power levels. From a 4" barrel in both cases (keeping in mind the difference):
.357 magnum (Federal):
130 grains at 1410 feet per second
158 grains at 1240 fps
180 grains at 1080 fps
.40 S&W (Remington):
155 grains at 1205 fps
165 grains at 1150 fps
180 grains at 1015 fps
I would have preferred to compare the same brands, but Remington and Winchester both use 8" barrels for their 180 grain .357 loads, and Federal's .40 numbers are pretty weird in some weights, since they make some reduced recoil type stuff.
From those numbers, it's fairly clear that .40 S&W and .357 magnum factory loads would be just about identical in power, if fired through truly equivalent barrel lengths. If you make your own ammo, and go for power above everything else, the edge goes to the .357 magnum. But maximum power .357 ammo through an SP-101 sized gun would be very uncomfortable to fire.
Unless you're a magazine writer of course, in which case anything is "controllable," regardless of what the pictures appear to say. http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454/MVC-021F.jpg "While recoil with full-power .454 loads was stiff, the Alaskan proved to be controllable with all loads fired." No disrespect to Jeff Quinn intended, that's just one of my favorite picture-quote combinations.
If it seems dumbed down in places, just remember that you weren't born knowing what you do now.
To start with, let's look at a fairly typical automatic.
Many people, including me, find the Glock 23 to be a nearly perfect balance between concealability, power, controllability, and magazine capacity. As long as you don't mind .40 S&W recoil, it's a great all-around gun.
The SP-101 has quite a following. Rugers are often underestimated by gun snobs, but it's a very solid weapon. An S&W J-frame snubnose would be smaller and lighter--much lighter if it's alloy-framed--but recoil would be proportionally worse. The SP-101 strikes a good balance between wearing it comfortably and shooting it comfortably.
So both guns are very good compromises between size and power. In either caliber, either platform, you could go smaller or larger. But I'd say both guns are representative of a compact belt gun, intended for daily concealed carry under light clothing. So how do the two stack up next to each other?
Sizewise, they're pretty similar, though the SP-101 has a slight advantage. The G23 is about 8.5" diagonally from muzzle to butt, while the SP-101 is 8." The main difference is the back of the G23's slide.
In terms of weight, similar yet again, though this time the Glock takes the lead. The G23 is 25 ounces with an empty magazine, 34 ounces loaded with 13+1 rounds of 180 grain ammunition, though mine has a tungsten recoil guide rod. A stock G23 would be one ounce lighter. SP-101 is 25.5 ounces empty, 28 ounces with 5 rounds of 158 gr ammo.
For power, they're similar yet again, if you don't handload.
But first, one thing you need to keep in mind about barrel length. Revolver barrel length is measured from the front of the cylinder, while automatic barrel length is measured from the breech face, where the back of the cartridge rests. To compare the two more directly, you need to add the length of the cylinder, plus the thickness of the cartridge rims, which stick out of the back. For the SP-101, this adds about 1.64". Using a caliper to measure the actual distance from the muzzle to the breech face, we find that the Glock 23 has a barrel length of 4.03", and the SP-101 is 3.94". Not too much of a difference, which shouldn't be surprising, given how similar the guns are in overall size. Thus, a 4" barreled revolver actually has an equivalent barrel length to a 5.64" automatic.
.357 magnum is a much longer cartridge, however, so less of the barrel length of a revolver will actually be used. A 180 gr .40 caliber bullet in a 4" auto will have about 3.45" of actual distance before it exits the barrel, while a 158 gr .357 caliber bullet through a 4" (5.64" equivalent)-barreled revolver has around 4.68". However, you should go by the equivalent barrel lengths instead, as this will tell you more about how large the gun is likely to be, overall.
Anyway, on to the comparative power levels. From a 4" barrel in both cases (keeping in mind the difference):
.357 magnum (Federal):
130 grains at 1410 feet per second
158 grains at 1240 fps
180 grains at 1080 fps
.40 S&W (Remington):
155 grains at 1205 fps
165 grains at 1150 fps
180 grains at 1015 fps
I would have preferred to compare the same brands, but Remington and Winchester both use 8" barrels for their 180 grain .357 loads, and Federal's .40 numbers are pretty weird in some weights, since they make some reduced recoil type stuff.
From those numbers, it's fairly clear that .40 S&W and .357 magnum factory loads would be just about identical in power, if fired through truly equivalent barrel lengths. If you make your own ammo, and go for power above everything else, the edge goes to the .357 magnum. But maximum power .357 ammo through an SP-101 sized gun would be very uncomfortable to fire.
Unless you're a magazine writer of course, in which case anything is "controllable," regardless of what the pictures appear to say. http://www.gunblast.com/images/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454/MVC-021F.jpg "While recoil with full-power .454 loads was stiff, the Alaskan proved to be controllable with all loads fired." No disrespect to Jeff Quinn intended, that's just one of my favorite picture-quote combinations.
Attachments
Last edited: