zombietactics
New member
^^^^^^^^
I'm with this guy.
I'm with this guy.
Are we with the times?
- Thread starter ZVP
- Start date
I dunno, myself having had some poachers ride up on me with their SKS's and me with my Redhawk in 41 mag, well they didn't see any real need to raise a ruckus, and obliged my every command. Same with close to a dozen I caught hog hunting one evening at my friends place. Nobody was in any rush to find out if the big bore would rock or not.
Granted I don't carry and I do hunt with that and several other revolvers from .357 up to my 454 and I practice plenty enough with them all to get on target and drop the hammer without having to acquire my sights.
I am buy no means a quick draw artist, but I can swing pretty well. If confronted I would MUCH rather put one big hole through something than have to rely on several smaller ones. Just the way I look at it. I guess I really never bought into the spray and pray, have to have 15 round philosophy.
Granted I don't carry and I do hunt with that and several other revolvers from .357 up to my 454 and I practice plenty enough with them all to get on target and drop the hammer without having to acquire my sights.
I am buy no means a quick draw artist, but I can swing pretty well. If confronted I would MUCH rather put one big hole through something than have to rely on several smaller ones. Just the way I look at it. I guess I really never bought into the spray and pray, have to have 15 round philosophy.
Are we with the times?
Well ‘the times’ are so far ahead of me I’m getting lapped-but that lets me pretend I’m actually out in front.
Yep. And when you're doing that and you see our semi-auto brethern destroying their knee joints duck walking around the range searching for their brass just eject your six empties into your bag and say 'hey you missed a couple over in the corner' and smile to yourself a little or heck...a lot.
Well ‘the times’ are so far ahead of me I’m getting lapped-but that lets me pretend I’m actually out in front.
Yep. And when you're doing that and you see our semi-auto brethern destroying their knee joints duck walking around the range searching for their brass just eject your six empties into your bag and say 'hey you missed a couple over in the corner' and smile to yourself a little or heck...a lot.
Urbansavage
Inactive
My daily carry for several years was a Glock 19. For the last few years it has been a S&W j-frame. Although the G19 is a smaller pistol it did not fit my wardrobe. The j-frame is small, light weight, and very comfortable to carry. I now also carry the S&W .380 bodyguard. It's about a 50/50 between the j-frame and bodyguard. It's your choice whether you decide to carry a revolver, two shot derringer, or a HK Mark 23. As long as the gun meets your needs. A revolver will shot you just as dead as a 1911. Now having that said....
I'm very pro semi-auto pistols. I don't believe I will only need two rounds. I planning on shooting until the threat is stopped and in my head I have not assigned a specific number to what that is. I recommend taking training classes and using both a semi auto and a revolver. Highly recommend force on force training. You'll see how much faster the semi auto is compared to the revolver, especially in reloading.
I'm very pro semi-auto pistols. I don't believe I will only need two rounds. I planning on shooting until the threat is stopped and in my head I have not assigned a specific number to what that is. I recommend taking training classes and using both a semi auto and a revolver. Highly recommend force on force training. You'll see how much faster the semi auto is compared to the revolver, especially in reloading.
I tend to carry a semiauto most of the time. Single stack so it doesn't have huge capacity - usually 8 rounds. But I never feel poorly armed with my 38 snub. Just seems to me that I'll never be in a situation where I'll be shooting it out with a gang of desperados. Five rounds of 38+P is good enough for me.
Each of us needs to make our own evaluation of risk.
Each of us needs to make our own evaluation of risk.
Too many are enamored of the "high capacity" magazine, IMHO that leads to the "spray and pray" mentality and belief that if you put enough lead in the air you will hit something. I also note whenever a new semiauto appears on the market-the Remington R51, e.g., the first thing people as is "Is it reliable out of the box?"
NO CCW here alas, but at present all 3 of my home defense handguns are revolvers.
NO CCW here alas, but at present all 3 of my home defense handguns are revolvers.
petepeterson
Inactive
I've switched back and forth over the years, but my current mindset is-
In a tight confrontation, where bodily contact is likely, the reliability of my revolvers outweighs the capacity of my autos.
In a tight confrontation, where bodily contact is likely, the reliability of my revolvers outweighs the capacity of my autos.
Model12Win
Moderator
I own and carry a S&W M642-1 No Lock in .38 Special +P. I trust it with my life. It is small, concealable, extremely reliable, and accurate for what it is. .38 Special +P is no slouch with today's hollow point ammunition.
However, I am not a "revolver elitist". There are numerous advantages to the semi auto pistol, but as someone above said the trend is tiny ultrahyper subcompact nanomicro baby pistols that to me, really don't have many realistic advantages over the highly reliable J-frame revolvers.
When things start getting full sized- I'll take something like a Ruger GP100 with a 4" bbl or any of the various S&W K-L frame .357s, some Safariland speedloaders, a nice rig for it all, some Speer Gold Dot 125 grain .357 magnums, and I will feel pretty good about it too.
That being said, there is a reason why revolvers are seldom used for LE/military in 2014. Better options have arrived. Not that the old wheelguns aren't still effective and useful, they just aren't the MOST effective and they haven't been for a while now. Against the many excellent modern service pistols like the Glock, Sigs, XDs, I simply do not think the service revolver is a better choice. If I were a cop or someone who's risk of being in an extended firefight, than a revolver is not what I be packing on my hip. Maybe in 1970, but not today. We just have much better options now.
So for CCW users, light security, and home defense, revolvers are effective weapons just as they have been for decades. For the Law Enforcement mission and military users, semi-automatic pistols of quality design have attributes that lend themselves much better to that role than would DA revolvers. JMHO.
YMMV.
However, I am not a "revolver elitist". There are numerous advantages to the semi auto pistol, but as someone above said the trend is tiny ultrahyper subcompact nanomicro baby pistols that to me, really don't have many realistic advantages over the highly reliable J-frame revolvers.
When things start getting full sized- I'll take something like a Ruger GP100 with a 4" bbl or any of the various S&W K-L frame .357s, some Safariland speedloaders, a nice rig for it all, some Speer Gold Dot 125 grain .357 magnums, and I will feel pretty good about it too.
That being said, there is a reason why revolvers are seldom used for LE/military in 2014. Better options have arrived. Not that the old wheelguns aren't still effective and useful, they just aren't the MOST effective and they haven't been for a while now. Against the many excellent modern service pistols like the Glock, Sigs, XDs, I simply do not think the service revolver is a better choice. If I were a cop or someone who's risk of being in an extended firefight, than a revolver is not what I be packing on my hip. Maybe in 1970, but not today. We just have much better options now.
So for CCW users, light security, and home defense, revolvers are effective weapons just as they have been for decades. For the Law Enforcement mission and military users, semi-automatic pistols of quality design have attributes that lend themselves much better to that role than would DA revolvers. JMHO.
YMMV.
IMHO the biggest plus to the semiauto is that most can be easily disassembled, cleaned and lubed by the shooter. Biggest drawback is they are too sensitive to changes in ammunition, have chambering problems, are dependent on quality magazines.
Anyone who thinks revolvers are obsolete can send me theirs c/o this forum.
Anyone who thinks revolvers are obsolete can send me theirs c/o this forum.
Modernhoglegs
Inactive
Versatility vs. Utility
I know of no semi-auto I can reliably fire more than once from inside a jacket pocket. Plenty of revolvers and derringers will.
I know of no semi-auto that is as tolerant of imperfect ammo as a revolver is.
I know of no semi-auto I can hand to a novice we both can ber immediately certain of the loaded condition of the weapon as I can with a revolver.
I know of no semi-auto that will fire primer powered wax bullets I can make myself that does not require me to manually cycle the slide each time.
Is the semi-auto an inferior weapon? No.
Is it less reliable than a revolver? Not really as long as the ammo is of decent quality.
Everyone must define what qualities are mission critical for themselves.
For me I want the maximum power in a concealable platform. That means a 357 mag in a 2.25 SP101. My Mrs' choice was an S&W 638 Airweight in 38 special. I carried full size duty pistols for years, and I own a compact 9mm now, but I only use it for CHL qualifications.
I know of no semi-auto I can reliably fire more than once from inside a jacket pocket. Plenty of revolvers and derringers will.
I know of no semi-auto that is as tolerant of imperfect ammo as a revolver is.
I know of no semi-auto I can hand to a novice we both can ber immediately certain of the loaded condition of the weapon as I can with a revolver.
I know of no semi-auto that will fire primer powered wax bullets I can make myself that does not require me to manually cycle the slide each time.
Is the semi-auto an inferior weapon? No.
Is it less reliable than a revolver? Not really as long as the ammo is of decent quality.
Everyone must define what qualities are mission critical for themselves.
For me I want the maximum power in a concealable platform. That means a 357 mag in a 2.25 SP101. My Mrs' choice was an S&W 638 Airweight in 38 special. I carried full size duty pistols for years, and I own a compact 9mm now, but I only use it for CHL qualifications.
You have missed quite a few videos of attacks. Look around because they do occur, but are not as common as two criminal attacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes, the revolver afficionado's favorite justification for the revolver as a defensive tool. Never mind all the revolver shooters who spray and pray while shooting on the range and in courses. I have seen guys do so under the tiny bit of pressure generated from the timer. I find it funny to see on the range. THE PLATFORM IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SPRAY AND PRAY!
The purpose of the standard capacity magazine is to AVOID a reload. All defensive shooting requires a disciplined shooter who accounts for what is beyond his target, thinks about it beforehand (prior to the incident), and trains properly. The result is fire discipline and good tactics.
Now that is just silly. Of course it is possible: open the action as you would with a revolver. The action must be open when handing it to someone and the rule is the same regardless of platform.
Tell me: how many reported instances of firing from a pocket have you seen? I may have read about one in the past 20 years or so. Are we responsible for every round fired? Is firing from a pocket a technique that will most likely result in a hit or miss? In my mind, firing from a pocket is irresponsible as Hell and anyone who hits a bystander using the technique deserves to spend a decade in the slammer. Defensive shooters are far better served by shooting from retention and CONTROLLING their shots.
What is it about revolver afficionados and our stupid justifications for the revolver as a defensive tool? These "reasons" make us look foolish since they are based upon unsound principles. I would much rather we used reasons that are in-line with modern defensive techniques, tactics and thinking.
Finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with our entire justification being limited to "We carry revolvers because we LIKE them!"
Last edited:
What makes you think that just because someone has a pistol that holds more rounds than another that that makes them more predisposed to discharging more rounds than the occasion merits?
There is no such thing as a "pray and spray" mentality if someone follows the most basic protocols any minimal training regimen advocates. There is such a thing as running out of bullets when you need them most...
Last edited:
I find it humorous that so many people have the idea that revolvers are "old fashioned" while semi-automatics are "new and with the times." In fact, both the Double-Action revolver as we know it today and the first successful semi-automatic handguns were developed at about the same time: 1890-1920.
Now, it is certainly true that modern revolvers are more similar to their late 19th and early 20th century ancestors than semi-autos are (though the 1911 is still quite popular), but perhaps that is because the design of the DA revolver simply had less to improve upon to begin with.
Also, much is made of the fact that police have nearly universally adopted the semi-automatic, but what is ignored is that it took a very long time for them to do so. The majority of U.S. police agencies didn't make the switch to semi-autos until the 1980's and early 1990's. This means that most cops stayed with revolvers for more than 50 years after successful semi-automatic pistols had been available. Our own military has used semi-autos since 1911 and, because many, if not most, old-time cops were also veterans it's difficult to make the argument that a semi-auto was foreign to them. It seems obvious to me that police departments saw something very appealing in the revolver to stick with them for so long after the supposedly superior semi-auto had made its debut.
So, the question then is what was so appealing about a revolver and what finally prompted the changeover. A valid argument could be made that the nature of crime changed particularly with the rise in prominence of illicit drugs. However, the drug and gang wars of the 1980's are not the only period of lawlessness in American history. Certainly the gangsters and motorized bandits of the 1920's and 1930's were at least as well armed as the Crips or Bloods of today, yet revolvers were deemed sufficient during prohibition and the Great Depression.
The answer, I think, is that not only has the nature of crime changed, but the roles and attitudes of police, particularly in regards to firearms, has changed along with them. The handgun of a cop in decades past was primarily viewed as an instrument with which to defend himself/herself should an unexpected danger arise. If the cop intended to pursue an known dangerous individual, it was expected that a more formidable weapon such as a shotgun, rifle, or submachine gun would be called upon. Today, however, there seems to be an expectation that the cop's handgun should be suitable as a primary weapon with which to go forth and confront dangerous criminals with. The perceived need for high-capacity and speedy reloads seems to grow out of the expectation that, more likely than not, the handgun will be the only weapon at the cop's disposal when pursuing known dangerous individuals.
At this point, I think it is important to make a distinction between the responsibility and needs of a cop and the responsibility and needs of a private individual. It is the job of the cop to go forth, seek out, and confront dangerous and violent people. By comparison, the private individual is responsible only for his/her own safety and that of his/her loved ones. While the cop would be expected to intervene in a dangerous or volatile situation, it would be extremely unwise for the private individual to do so if it could be avoided.
As such, I think the erroneous assumption is made that the needs of a cop and the needs of a private individual, when it comes to firearms, are one in the same. In many, if not most, cases they are not. The offensive nature of a cop's use of a firearm makes capacity and speed/ease of reloading very important, but the defensive nature of the private individual's use of a firearm makes other considerations more important. For one thing, most private individuals who carry a firearm for defensive use prefer to do so discreetly, and in many places concealed is the only legal manner in which a private individual can carry a firearm. Likewise, should the private individual find it necessary to use a firearm in self-defense, it will most likely be very close, very fast, and under less-than-ideal circumstances.
For my own needs, I find a revolver to be best suited to the manner in which I'd most likely have to use a gun defensively. For one thing, revolvers seem to suffer less adverse effects in terms of reliability when miniaturized than semi-autos do. Also, they are ideally suited for close range use because they are less likely to malfunction from a shot at contact distance or due to a less-than-perfect grip. Finally, revolvers often offer more powerful cartridges than semi-automatics of similar size and weight and since my most likely attacker would be equal to or greater in size than I am this is an important consideration to me.
Now, before anyone dredges up the old cliches about preparing for the worst-case scenario, consider this: what sense does it make to prepare for a very bad but extremely unlikely scenario at the expense of being best prepared for a more likely yet equally bad scenario? While it is undeniable that a semi-automatic is the best handgun for certain situations, a revolver is a better choice for other situations. While one person may think of being attacked by a street gang as the "worst case scenario," I think that being cornered by a 400 lb drug addict is just as bad and I'm much more likely to find myself in the latter situation.
What it really comes down to, In my opinion, is that selecting a defensive handgun is a very personal thing. Without knowing some very intimate details about a person's life, it is nearly impossible for someone else to recommend the "best" defensive handgun. I think we would all do well to remember that what is best for one person may be a terrible choice for another.
Now, it is certainly true that modern revolvers are more similar to their late 19th and early 20th century ancestors than semi-autos are (though the 1911 is still quite popular), but perhaps that is because the design of the DA revolver simply had less to improve upon to begin with.
Also, much is made of the fact that police have nearly universally adopted the semi-automatic, but what is ignored is that it took a very long time for them to do so. The majority of U.S. police agencies didn't make the switch to semi-autos until the 1980's and early 1990's. This means that most cops stayed with revolvers for more than 50 years after successful semi-automatic pistols had been available. Our own military has used semi-autos since 1911 and, because many, if not most, old-time cops were also veterans it's difficult to make the argument that a semi-auto was foreign to them. It seems obvious to me that police departments saw something very appealing in the revolver to stick with them for so long after the supposedly superior semi-auto had made its debut.
So, the question then is what was so appealing about a revolver and what finally prompted the changeover. A valid argument could be made that the nature of crime changed particularly with the rise in prominence of illicit drugs. However, the drug and gang wars of the 1980's are not the only period of lawlessness in American history. Certainly the gangsters and motorized bandits of the 1920's and 1930's were at least as well armed as the Crips or Bloods of today, yet revolvers were deemed sufficient during prohibition and the Great Depression.
The answer, I think, is that not only has the nature of crime changed, but the roles and attitudes of police, particularly in regards to firearms, has changed along with them. The handgun of a cop in decades past was primarily viewed as an instrument with which to defend himself/herself should an unexpected danger arise. If the cop intended to pursue an known dangerous individual, it was expected that a more formidable weapon such as a shotgun, rifle, or submachine gun would be called upon. Today, however, there seems to be an expectation that the cop's handgun should be suitable as a primary weapon with which to go forth and confront dangerous criminals with. The perceived need for high-capacity and speedy reloads seems to grow out of the expectation that, more likely than not, the handgun will be the only weapon at the cop's disposal when pursuing known dangerous individuals.
At this point, I think it is important to make a distinction between the responsibility and needs of a cop and the responsibility and needs of a private individual. It is the job of the cop to go forth, seek out, and confront dangerous and violent people. By comparison, the private individual is responsible only for his/her own safety and that of his/her loved ones. While the cop would be expected to intervene in a dangerous or volatile situation, it would be extremely unwise for the private individual to do so if it could be avoided.
As such, I think the erroneous assumption is made that the needs of a cop and the needs of a private individual, when it comes to firearms, are one in the same. In many, if not most, cases they are not. The offensive nature of a cop's use of a firearm makes capacity and speed/ease of reloading very important, but the defensive nature of the private individual's use of a firearm makes other considerations more important. For one thing, most private individuals who carry a firearm for defensive use prefer to do so discreetly, and in many places concealed is the only legal manner in which a private individual can carry a firearm. Likewise, should the private individual find it necessary to use a firearm in self-defense, it will most likely be very close, very fast, and under less-than-ideal circumstances.
For my own needs, I find a revolver to be best suited to the manner in which I'd most likely have to use a gun defensively. For one thing, revolvers seem to suffer less adverse effects in terms of reliability when miniaturized than semi-autos do. Also, they are ideally suited for close range use because they are less likely to malfunction from a shot at contact distance or due to a less-than-perfect grip. Finally, revolvers often offer more powerful cartridges than semi-automatics of similar size and weight and since my most likely attacker would be equal to or greater in size than I am this is an important consideration to me.
Now, before anyone dredges up the old cliches about preparing for the worst-case scenario, consider this: what sense does it make to prepare for a very bad but extremely unlikely scenario at the expense of being best prepared for a more likely yet equally bad scenario? While it is undeniable that a semi-automatic is the best handgun for certain situations, a revolver is a better choice for other situations. While one person may think of being attacked by a street gang as the "worst case scenario," I think that being cornered by a 400 lb drug addict is just as bad and I'm much more likely to find myself in the latter situation.
What it really comes down to, In my opinion, is that selecting a defensive handgun is a very personal thing. Without knowing some very intimate details about a person's life, it is nearly impossible for someone else to recommend the "best" defensive handgun. I think we would all do well to remember that what is best for one person may be a terrible choice for another.
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
well I'm pretty much a revolver guy, but I have a little single stack plastic 380 on my belt today... so even if i'm carrying an auto, it's not a high cap...
we are probably dinosaurs carrying our wheel guns, this little TCP, was cheap, goes bang repeatedly, even when lightly stuffed with lint... the autos have come a long way... I took a class that the local PD offers, where you learn what they do, meet all of them, see a lot of things, & get the chance to shoot their weapons... there was over half the class that had never fired a gun before, of both genders, & even though they used cheaper 40 S&W ammo than what they carry regularly in our range session, there was not one misfire from even the oldest & frailest of ladies...
however, last time I renewed my CCW license... I used a 5 shot antique top break single action S&W, & out shot 8-9 newbies with their high cap 9's on the range qualification portion of the class... ( I'd suspect inexperience / nerves, & limp wristing for all the problems they had )
the shooter's mind set is the weapon... & not what they are holding in their hands... honestly, even if your holding the nicest flat top 44 special revolver, if your nerves are rattled at 5-6 rounds of 9mm fired your way, you're not any better off with a revolver than a semi auto...
... the main goal, is to be carrying something, that you can return fire with... IMO, 9 times out of 10, if the crazies are shooting at you, & you can return fire, that's going to end the confrontation...
... it would be nice to think we could pick out 2 assailants in 2 shots, with our beloved revolvers, but in reality, if we could do that with our revolver, we could do the same with a single stack, or high capacity auto, because it's the nut behind the wheel, not the gun that makes the shooter...
we are probably dinosaurs carrying our wheel guns, this little TCP, was cheap, goes bang repeatedly, even when lightly stuffed with lint... the autos have come a long way... I took a class that the local PD offers, where you learn what they do, meet all of them, see a lot of things, & get the chance to shoot their weapons... there was over half the class that had never fired a gun before, of both genders, & even though they used cheaper 40 S&W ammo than what they carry regularly in our range session, there was not one misfire from even the oldest & frailest of ladies...
however, last time I renewed my CCW license... I used a 5 shot antique top break single action S&W, & out shot 8-9 newbies with their high cap 9's on the range qualification portion of the class... ( I'd suspect inexperience / nerves, & limp wristing for all the problems they had )
the shooter's mind set is the weapon... & not what they are holding in their hands... honestly, even if your holding the nicest flat top 44 special revolver, if your nerves are rattled at 5-6 rounds of 9mm fired your way, you're not any better off with a revolver than a semi auto...
... the main goal, is to be carrying something, that you can return fire with... IMO, 9 times out of 10, if the crazies are shooting at you, & you can return fire, that's going to end the confrontation...
... it would be nice to think we could pick out 2 assailants in 2 shots, with our beloved revolvers, but in reality, if we could do that with our revolver, we could do the same with a single stack, or high capacity auto, because it's the nut behind the wheel, not the gun that makes the shooter...
Last edited: