Why would you carry Revolver over Semi-Auto?

[sgt127]

I had to get on this thread, simply because I missed it the first time around...and, hadn't written my theory on revolvers vs auto's yet..so, I'll reprint it..

(I think this is the oldest resurrected thread I have ever seen)

Enjoy (or hate it, doesn't really matter to me)

Revolver VS auto. Random thoughts.
I started out shooting revolvers, years ago. Revolvers are quite reliable. Autos came along and designs improved, bullet shapes improved. The reliabilty of the auto came up to what I felt was the level of a good well maintained revolver. And I carried an auto.

Some random observations I have discovered. Revolvers will occasionally malfunction. So will autos. Lets remove parts breakage from the equation for a bit. I can accept the fact that a high quality auto is just as likely, or unlikey, to break a part that stops the gun from functioning, as an equal quality revolver. I have actually broken more parts in auto's than revolvers, but, I can attribute that to sheer luck. Slide stops have broken, firing pins have broken, but, statistically, I would argue that neither one is likley to just "break" when you need it.

On the few occasions that I have had a revolver stop working, it was a cumalitive effect of shooting. It started to get dirty, crap under the extractor star, the barrel cylinder gap got lead and powder residue, the chambers got sticky from lots of .38's and then having to force a .357 in the chamber. In other words, most of the problems came on slowly. I knew, eventually, the gun was going to stop working. The trigger pull got heavier, it was harder to close the cylinder, something along those lines.

But, for no apparent reason, a clean well lubed auto, would sometimes just not feed, fire or eject a round. Bullet nose caught on the feedramp, empty failed to get out of the way of the next round, some other failure that seemed to occur randomly, and without warning.

Now, standing on the the line, at the range, neither gun failed very often. Nice firm grip, dry hands, locked wrists, all is well in the world of handgunning.

Recently, I have watched a few episodes of "Under Fire" on Court TV. Autos, good quality (and, hopefully) well maintained autos, sometimes crap out in the middle of a gunfight. Whats the difference? Weak one handed grip, rolling around on the ground, upside down, shoved against the bad guy, sweaty blood covered hands, whatever. The auto needs a solid platform to work off of. Something it can't get in a real world, up close gunfight.

At a distance, involved in a shootout, the auto's rarely seem to jam, much as I would expect. But, if its a fight, that leads to a gunfight, the auto may turn into a single shot.

A particular episode that comes to mind is the Officer that was fighting a real, no kidding boxer, that was about to beat the Officer to death. He finally drew his pistol and got off one shot, in the BG's midsection, with little effect, the BG grabbed the gun and beat the Officer with the gun, tossed it and the Officer picked it back up later in the fight. (Interesting video if you ever get a chance to see it)

On duty, I have to carry a Glock 35. And, I'm not sure I am ready to give up the general reliabilty, mag capacity and ease of shooting of a good auto for the vast majority of shooting situations. But, as a back up, I carry a 642. And, it seems alot of others are big fans of the little revolvers as back up guns.

But, Off duty, I find myself carrying a 3" S&W M65 more and more. I envision an off duty encounter being a very fast fight that turns into a gunfight. Bad guy rushing you with a knife, BG jumping you, knocking you down and attacking you, two guys pinning you into a corner and the fight is on. Capacity becomes secondary to utter reliability for me at that point. I can still get good hits with a revovler out to 25 yards or so, if I have to, but, its not really something I see happening. Truth be known, the odds of needing a gun at all are pretty remote, but, we all plan for the unexpected.

SO, what are some others thoughts? Have you taken your favorite defense auto out to the range, held it with your left hand, bent your wrist and elbow and tried getting off as many shots as you could? Upside down? Cover your hands in soapy water and empty a magazine? Shove it into the target and see if it gets pushed out of battery? Does it jam after the first shot? I have, and, the reliabilty of a previously Utterly reliable auto went down hill.

It seems that most autos jam during the feeding and ejecting cycle. That's the one part that you do manually before and after the festivities with a revolver. During a gunfight, a revolver cannot have a feeding malfunction or ejection malfunction.

I realize that clearing an auto jam is alot faster than clearing a revolver jam. But, that really cool "tap-rack-bang" that you practice on the range really needs that off hand to work. If that off hand is keeping a boxcutter off your throat, things go downhill in a hurry. High primer on a revolver? Pull the trigger REALLY hard, it just may go bang again...

If this little ramble gets a few people to thinking, and making you more aware of you and your guns abilities and limitations, great. If it just makes you train harder, for what YOU consider a real world gunfight, even better. Practice alot, and, best to all.

 

[inSight-NEO]

If this little ramble gets a few people to thinking, and making you more aware of you and your guns abilities and limitations, great. If it just makes you train harder, for what YOU consider a real world gunfight, even better. Practice alot, and, best to all.

Good post. As you stated, the most important thing (regarding the whole revolver vs semi-auto thing) is to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each platform. Beyond that...practice. Makes sense to me.

 

[Guy de Loimbard]

Why? I like my Security Six because it's a .357 and it's accurate. It's easier to shoot that accurately in DA than it is for me to shoot the 1911 I have. With good speedloaders having to reload is not really an issue.

 

[easyg]

It's easier to shoot that accurately in DA than it is for me to shoot the 1911 I have.

I would say that you're the exception that proves the rule.
I've personally never met anyone who shot a heavy DA revolver trigger better than they shot a 1911.

What do you think is the underlying reason that you shoot the revolver, with its long heavy double-action trigger, better than you shoot the 1911 with its short light-weight single-action trigger?

 

[searcher451]

Sgt127: That's a thoughtful essay; thanks for find that and sharing it again.

One thing that I consider when thinking of revolvers vs. semi-autos is the number of rounds available to you on first blush. Between that and the fact that I'm better with most any semi- than I am with any revolver I've ever seriously tried, the answer for me, at least, is an easy one.

 

[shockwave]

Revolvers are much easier to foul with dirt and grime than autos.
It takes alot of dirt to stop an auto from working, but it doesn't take much to bind up a revolver's cylinder.

Based on what I've seen personally and read from others, the theory of "speck of dirt causes revolver to fail" is an invention of semi-auto owners who are determined not to cede the reliability argument. Of course, a revolver can fail to fire or bind up or something, but the ratio of problems between platforms is likely on the order of 100:1. And you never hear about a revolver needing a particular brand/type of ammo, whereas this is common in the auto world. Autos usually have more firepower, revolvers more reliability.

 

[sgt127]

Searcher451:

I appreciate that, thank you.


I can pretty much make an argument either way. And, I have no real qualms about wandering around with an HK USPc on my hip...or a Sig...or a Glock...I have carried a Glock 35 every day for the last 10 years, and, honestly, they work just dandy.

But, on a purely gut level, based on all the wierd things that can happen in the real world that makes a gun suddenly NOT go bang, I would give a slight edge to the humble revolver in pure reliability for the 5 or 6 shots that can end the problem, right now.

We had an Officer, in plain clothes get robbed, at gunpoint. When the bad guy tried to make him get in the backseat of the car, he decided it was time to fight it out. He drew his Glock and the gunfight began.

The Officer fired a couple rounds, got one hit and the bad guy took off, firing back at the Officer.

For the average person, it was over. Two (or three) rounds, the bad guy is wounded, he runs off, get behind cover, call for help, protect yourself.

However, he was in "Cop" mode. He had no wife and kids with him, he was on duty, it was catch the bad guy time. They got into one hell of a running gunbattle through an industrial park, into an aprtment complex. Went through one mag, reloaded and ended the affair.

He would have survived the encounter with a 5 shot Chief Special. He turned it into a gunfight. (Don't take me wrong, I am not saying what he did was a bad thing, far from it, his actions are to be commended, and, a Grand Jury agreed as he was immediatly no billed) But, he knew his abilities, had the right tools with him and made a decision to take this guy down.

Most self defense shooting don't get to that point. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever heard of a self defense shooting that took more than 2-3 rounds in 25 years of being a cop.

 

[sgt127]

Based on what I've seen personally and read from others, the theory of "speck of dirt causes revolver to fail" is an invention of semi-auto owners who are determined not to cede the reliability argument. Of course, a revolver can fail to fire or bind up or something, but the ratio of problems between platforms is likely on the order of 100:1. And you never hear about a revolver needing a particular brand/type of ammo, whereas this is common in the auto world. Autos usually have more firepower, revolvers more reliability.

A buddy of mine just brought me his dads off duty model 36. His dad bough the gun in 1967. Asked that I clean it up a little.

I assure you, that gun had not been cleaned since it left Springfield in 1967. It was unbelievable. There was enough blue wool in the action to make a new uniform, well, a sleeve anyway. It was bone dry. The grips were slightly rusted to the frame. The gas ring was litterly caked with carbon. The yoke felt like it was lubed with mollasses. There was enough lead in the barrel to make it look almost like a smooth bore. Top strap was filled in with lead and carbon over the barrel.

But, it worked. You could have gotten a couple boxes of ammo and shot it up without a burp. The Smith design is a testament to engineering for the lowest common denominator. Every moving part in there seemed like it sweeping out the crap from the moving parts and letting it function properly.

We have to remember, on the gun forums, we are not "normal" Gun owners, gun toters and gunsligers. We are a little wierd. We obsess about what KIND of oil we should use on our favorite gun. Grease versus Oil for the rails. What chemical will get that last TRACE of lead out of the barrel.

 

[jad0110]

I've personally never met anyone who shot a heavy DA revolver trigger better than they shot a 1911.

Well, now you can say you've met two .

What do you think is the underlying reason that you shoot the revolver, with its long heavy double-action trigger, better than you shoot the 1911 with its short light-weight single-action trigger?

Well, if one's fingers are strong enough and you don't have arthritis, the weight really isn't in issue IMHO. More critical for me is the smoothness of the action, how cleanly the trigger breaks, what the overtravel is like, etc. I read a post someplace a few months ago where the author stated that Americans these days seem to be conditioned to believe that a light trigger is automatically a good trigger. But such is not the case, as you may agree. For example, when I first got my Springer 1911, the trigger was terrible. It was short and light, yes. But it was also rough, gritty, jerky with a stiff, cruddy letoff. One of the crappier triggers I've experienced. I really should not have purchased the gun, but I had 1911 fever so it didn't matter . My groups were terrible, to say the least. After a $50 action job, the trigger was much smoother with a nice clean release. Not quite the proverbial glass rod breaking, but pretty good. My groups shrunk by more than half, though I still dont' shoot the gun as well as a revolver with a smooth DA trigger.

This might explain why I've never done well with Glocks and XDs. The XD I owned, as well as all the Glocks and XDs I've fired did not have the smoothest, cleanest triggers out there. Far from it. But as I indicated in my prior post, revolvers are more natural pointers for me. XDs, Ruger P Series Pistols, and Glocks in particular are do not feel as natural in my hands, so that might well have a lot to do with it. Glocks flat feel odd to me. 1911s point well in my hands, so do HiPowers and CZ-75s. I'd like to pick up a HiPower or CZ someday for that reason.

Additionally, for me I tend to flinch/antipate recoil more frequently with short, light SA triggers. When I am squeezing a long DA trigger, I seem to be concentrating more on squeezing the trigger straight to the rear, and not concentrating on when the gun will fire so much. So there is that.

And I was being honest when I said that it only took 200 rounds or so to do reasonably well with a DA revolver trigger. They just feel right, what can I say?

 

[wankerjake]

why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?

I think this is the big mis-conception. I would like to know what about a revolver makes it "difficult to shoot?" I carried a semi-auto until I bought a short barreled revolver. It's smaller, more comfortable to carry, hides better, pleasant to shoot (Ruger SP 101 with hogue grips), and is accurate. I shoot better with it than with my semi-auto. As far as round count goes, it's just a compromise for concealability. I guess I'm just not the paranoid type, but I'm fairly confident that if I need more than 5 rounds of 38 +P then I'm probably doing something that I shouldn't be.

 

[easyg]

I think that some folks here are really stretching the truth a bit, or they are (perhaps unknowingly) "in denial".

 

[jbrown50]

I think that some folks here are really stretching the truth a bit, or they are (perhaps unknowingly) "in denial".

I don't think it's denial.

The problem is that you're arguing with a bunch of experienced shooters versus inexperienced ones. For most of the people in these forums it has become second nature to practice good trigger control. A novice shooter on the other hand would have more trouble shooting a double action revolver initially especially if that novice started out on semi-autos with relatively lighter triggers.

I don't think anyone's arguing that revolvers aren't more difficult to shoot than semi-autos, that's a moot point. The point is once you learn and practice proper technique there's really no difference between shooting one or the other well. A revolver will expose improper shooting technique much more so.

I learned to shoot initially with revolvers. Later while in the military I shot both revolvers and 1911s. I later became a Cop at which time my on duty gun was a Glock 19. A little bit later I bought a S&W M36 and decided to carry it as a backup in my pocket. At the range I couldn't believe how much looser my groups were with the M36 than with the G19. I then thought "hey, somethings not right, I've shot revolvers in the past and was pretty good with them". I did a little research and then realized that I'd become lackadaisical in with my grip and trigger pull. Once I got back to the basics of front sight concentration, gripping the gun tight and smoothly squeezing the trigger instead of jerking, the M36's groups tightened up to mimmick the G19's, which got better too.

Moral of the story:
Yes, the revolver is more challenging than the semi-auto to shoot well but, if your technique is sound you won't have a problem shooting either.

 

[shockwave]

Once I got back to the basics of front sight concentration, gripping the gun tight and smoothly squeezing the trigger instead of jerking, the M36's groups tightened up to mimmick the G19's, which got better too.

That makes a lot of sense. In baseball, a batter standing over the plate doesn't wait until the ball is there before swinging - he starts the swing in anticipation of the ball's arrival. In bringing a revolver's sights to bear on a target, it's similar - you point into the "box" area enclosing the X-point as you start pulling the trigger and as you reach break point and the sights align the trigger falls.

There's also something ergonomic for me, such that pointing a revolver at a target is like pointing my finger. The way the gun fits in the hand and the sight picture is extremely natural and comfortable, whereas an automatic (I'm thinking Glock or M&P here) feels like I'm pointing a shoebox. I know this would be resolved through more practice, but revolvers are very accurate for me and in SA mode the trigger pull is way, way better than anything I've ever felt in an auto.

 

[easyg]

The point is once you learn and practice proper technique there's really no difference between shooting one or the other well.

I disagree.

There's a reason that the better rifles and shotguns have light triggers:
It makes for more accurate shooting than a heavy trigger.

And when it comes to revolvers, I've never met any shooter, experienced or novice, that was actually more accurate shooting their revolver DA instead of shooting their revolver SA.

The less force you need to apply to the trigger, and the less travel the trigger needs to make, and the less your finger needs to move, the more accurate the shot is going to be.
More movement and more force equals a much greater chance that the handgun will move off target.
Even if a shooter was very experienced shooting a DA revolver, he's still going to be more accurate shooting a revolver SA.



Don't get me wrong....
Lighter and shorter trigger pulls do not necessarily make for a better carry handgun.
Who would want to carry a SA cocked revolver on their side?!?!
The ONLY reason the heavy DA revolver pull exists is for safety reasons, and to eliminate the need to cock the weapon before firing....certainly not to increase shooting accuracy.

 

[sgt127]

In "combat shooting" iI can shoot a DA revolver as well as I can an SA (1911 for example). In the time it takes to recover from recoil, I am re-aligning the sights and starting the trigger squeeze. At about the time the sights line up, the hammer falls. It takes alot longer to describe whats happening than it takes. If I am trying to be reasonably accurate, it takes about the same amount of time to get the shots off between the two platforms. With a 1911, I waste about the same amount of time recovering from recoil and then "tapping" the trigger when the sights are lined up.

If I am just hosing rounds into a target, as fast as I can, there is a slight edge to the 1911. Not alot, but, just a tiny bit. I can fire six rounds at 7 yards with a revolver at about the same speed as I can with a 1911 with reasonable accuracy. Neither one of those will be a group I can cover with dime. Maybe softball size. Not REALLY using the sights, just getting that front sight in the center and cranking the trigger.

However (and I do this every once in awhile) If I am shooting a Milpark target at 100 yards, there is no question, the sigle action auto, or cocked revolver has a decided edge. The better the trigger, the faster I can do it. Its still not fast, by any means. Its about as exciting to watch as paint drying. But, it will take me twice, maybe three times as long fighting through a DA trigger, waiting for the trigger break. The recovery between shots time that I can use at 3-5-7-10 yards is a moot point. Its all about breathing, watching the sights and very gently putting pressure on the trigger until the gun goes bang. No matter how smooth the trigger on a good DA revolver, its one more thing thats causing extra movement. Just your trigger finger flexing is enough to screw up that perfect sight picture when you are shooting at that distance. On most guns, the front sight completely covers the Milpark at 100 yards. So, its a hard enough sight picture to maintain. Add raising it above the target for a .45, things get really hard to keep aligned. (on average, I can get about 8 hits out of 10 on the target from 100 yards with my Wilson .45) Straight back pressure on a GOOD 1911 causes very little extra movement until the break point.

In a perfect world, I would have a gun that fires when I think it should and remove the whole finger moving, hand flexing thing altogether.

(Maybe thats not such a good idea, I'm getting old and cranky and that would lead to alot of holes in my car seat.)

 

[WardenWolf]

Some people talk about autos jamming under less-than-optimal shooting conditions. However, not all autos are so vulnerable. I exclusively carry Combloc semi-autos for concealed carry. These weapons were designed to be simple, accurate, and, above all else, reliable. I have never seen one jam or malfunction. About the only modern pistol I would trust over these guns is the Springfield XD.

That being said, there are times when I would carry a revolver. If I was in bear territory, for instance. In that case, effective stopping power is far more important, and unless someone makes a semi-auto able to handle .454 Casull, the revolver comes out on top in terms of raw power. For most uses, though, I'll stick with my semi-autos.

 

[Hokkmike]

does anyone around here specifically carry a wheelgun even if you have a semiauto? why would you pick 5 or 6rd of a gun that's difficult to shoot vs. 10 or 15rd of semiauto that's easy to aim and fire?

Never heard of a revolver that had FTF or FTE problems.

 

[easyg]

Never heard of a revolver that had FTF or FTE problems.

Never heard of a semi with a loose yoke screw or a loose ejector rod.

BTW, I have heard of revolvers experiencing a failure-to-eject the spent casing from the cylinder.

 

[sgt127]

Never heard of a semi with a loose yoke screw or a loose ejector rod.

BTW, I have heard of revolvers experiencing a failure-to-eject the spent casing from the cylinder.

Playing devils advocate:

Yoke screw can fall all the way out, it will still fire as many rounds as are in it, the cylinder may fall off when you go to empty it or reload it though.

Ejector rod MAY cause a problem during a course of fire, but, it would have to be very loose to begin with for it to unscrew enough to tie up the gun in six rounds. The ejector rod backing out may keep you from opening the cylinder to dump the empties or put in new ones, but, I have never seen it tie up the gun while actually shooting it.

It may fail to eject, but, that is after its fired all of its rounds without a problem. It may have problems ejecting an empty, you may short stroke the ejector rod, the extractor star can jump over the brass and trap it underneath, but, again, its after it has delivered its payload.

All kinds of things can go wrong with any mechanical device, certainly including a revolver, but, the problems listed will not cause the revolver to quit working in the middle of a string of fire.

 

[Joe-R]

I carry a wheel gun because I like my S&W 66 in 357Mag.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've carried both over the years, but I favor revolvers because you can get primo quality for a bargain price, they digest the full range of ammo, they have fewer problems functioning, and they fit my hand much better. The only semi that really worked well for me was a P225, which is a real oddball among semis and suffers from the downside of being chambered in 9x19. With .357 I can cover a lot more ground, from light .38 special wadcutters to 200 grain hardcasts.

 

[squinty]

revolver

My .357/.38 J-frame is nearly as concealable and much better ergonomically than all my "compact" autos - it fills my hand better, points more naturally and comes out of the holster (yes, OWB holster) and onto the target more quickly and smoothly. Simpler manual of arms, better safety and reliability, less maintenace/cleaning/lube dependent. I think it's easier to shoot than most autos - the DA pull is heavy but smoother than that on DA/SA autos, smoother than striker fired pistol triggers. Cock it and there's a lighter, crisper SA pull than my 1911. Less risk of a ND than SA auto triggers because it doesn't return to SA. This isn't my favorite gun but it would be my favorite concealed handgun. Full-size auto might be a better choice for HD or open carry.

For hiking/predator defense, the only handgun I own that might fill that role is a 4" 629. No autos in my collection will do much for game/predator animals.

I like the ammo versatility of .357 and .44 magnum.

The day may come when I wish dearly for more than 5 or 6 rounds, but that's what speedloaders are for and the vast majority of civilian self defense shootings resolve themselves with a very few shots.

 

[jad0110]

Ejector rod MAY cause a problem during a course of fire, but, it would have to be very loose to begin with for it to unscrew enough to tie up the gun in six rounds. The ejector rod backing out may keep you from opening the cylinder to dump the empties or put in new ones, but, I have never seen it tie up the gun while actually shooting it.

On S&Ws, this is only really an issue on guns made prior to late 1959, when S&W switched to a reverse thread on the ejector rod. Basically, firing post '59 S&Ws with left hand thread ejector rods tigtens the rod. I have an early 1959 K-22 / 17-0 that is right hand threaded, and the ejector rod does back out fairly frequently since the cylinder, with its counter clockwise rotation, unscrews the right hand threaded rod. Certainly, this doesn't usually happen until after shooting around 100 rounds. Certainly not prior to 50.

S&W switching to the left hand thread is probably one of the few improvements that have occured to S&Ws over years that most, if not all S&W fans agree was actually an improvement.

And when it comes to revolvers, I've never met any shooter, experienced or novice, that was actually more accurate shooting their revolver DA instead of shooting their revolver SA.

For a time, I was more accurate shooting SA. Then, I was actually more accurate shooting DA, for about a year or so. Probably because I was having issues with anticipation in SA for a while. Nowadays, I shoot both about the same, more or less. Though I shoot much more often in DA.

Actually, in the Nov '57 issue of Guns, Frank de Haas states that double action shooting is "the fastest, most accurate, and most natural way to shoot a double action revolver." He goes on to state "Contrary to popular belief, the same shooter with far less training and practice ... shooting double action, can equal or even surpass his single action accuracy, with amazing speed and naturalness."

One of the reasons for this, de Haas claims and as I've discovered myself, is that shooting DA removes much of the anticipation of the hammer falling that causes flinching. "But herein lies the basis of good D.A. shooting: when the trigger is being pulled it must be done in one even motion from start to finish, pulled continually and non-stop. This is all there is to it. The pull is long and you have no notion whatsoever when the gun is going to fire, so there is no chance to flinch or to jerk the trigger."

Granted, Frank does state that he preferred the older long action S&Ws to the later/current short actions design because the short action revolvers have a bit stiffer trigger pull. And for many, all this is probably still easier said than done.

The gun itself is as mechanically accurate in SA or DA, so it is all up to the guy or gal behind the trigger. So if you can squeeze that sucker to the rear without wobbling it all over, there is no reason DA can't be as accurate as SA.

 

[Jonah71]

I carry my Security Six (or sometimes The S&W mod 14 4") in a shoulder holster under my jacket or shirt. Easy to access and get on target and both are very accurate with trigger pull adjusted to very light. Plus I keep a 9mm or .45 IWB(not so accurate with either). I'm just more comfortable and confident of hitting the target with a revolver.

 

[gearhead]

Some people talk about autos jamming under less-than-optimal shooting conditions. However, not all autos are so vulnerable. I exclusively carry Combloc semi-autos for concealed carry. These weapons were designed to be simple, accurate, and, above all else, reliable. I have never seen one jam or malfunction. About the only modern pistol I would trust over these guns is the Springfield XD.

That being said, there are times when I would carry a revolver. If I was in bear territory, for instance. In that case, effective stopping power is far more important, and unless someone makes a semi-auto able to handle .454 Casull, the revolver comes out on top in terms of raw power. For most uses, though, I'll stick with my semi-autos.

+1

I concur with all of sgt127's points too, though. A semi isn't a great close quarters weapon due to the amount of exposed moving parts and the way some rather random physics have to take place with utter reliability in positions and orientations they weren't really optimized for. If the slide is pushed back .060", it won't fire. If something obstructs the ejector port it won't cycle. If it's a hammer fired pistol, the hammer can get blocked. The slide can short cycle due to a loose grip or being partially obstructed during its trip back while cycling. The round can drag and nosedive in the magazine. Have you ever noticed how many shootings ended due to the gun "jamming", according to the news accounts? The reliability of a semi in a close quarters defense situation is much lower than when firing at the range, especially in the case where you're fighting off an assailant who jumps you.