Pistols vs revolvers?

D

David spargenator

New member
I'd say the advantages of a revolver are it's durability and ability to accept 357 and 44 mag. And the advantages of pistols are more rounds per reload. What do you guys think the advantages are between the 2. Which do you prefer?
 
Not an expert in this matter, but from what I've read revolvers are more reliable due to fewer moving parts and less dependence on tight tolerances.

With few exceptions, pistols carry more cartridges than revolvers.

Pistols are usually narrower than revolvers and easier to carry as a result.

Generally speaking, revolvers will deliver less velocity due to escaped gases between the cylinder and the barrel, and due to the fact that most carried revolvers have shorter barrels than pistols. This second point can easily be overcome by simply carrying a revolver with a longer barrel.

BTW, accuracy increases with barrel length as well.

Even with speed loaders, revolvers are slower to reload than pistols.

The two most impressive handgun loads only come in revolvers (.357 and .44 magnum).

All that said, the most important reason to carry a pistol rather than a revolver is that revolvers don't come as 1911s ;)
 
BTW, accuracy increases with barrel length as well. (as stated above)

That is not a true statement. In fact, inaccuracy is due to a shorter sight radius, coupled with the ability of the shooter... I.E a Smith Model 19 with a 1 1/2" bbl or a 4" barrel have the same accuracy. Velocity IS affected by barrel length however...

If you are looking for an auto that has comparable ballistics to a .357 and great reliability, go with a compact Glock 10mm... If you are looking for 'single action' ability/accuracy go with a Smith Model 60 w/ a 3" bbl in .357.

I would honestly say, personal comfort and ability to shoot the desired weapon comes into play heavily here. I love revolvers for their simplicity, but a Glock's reliability is above reproach. If you're set on reliability, go with the revolver, if you need/want more firepower w/ equal power, go with the Glock 10mm.
 
I prefer revolver. Nothing like touching off a cylinder full of max power ultra hot .357 maggies. Sure pistol have more rounds per magazine, but when the chips are down I'll take 6 butt stomping rounds that are reliable to however many the pistol holds that might not be so reliable.
 
David spargenator said:
I'd say the advantages of a revolver are it's durability
Click to expand...
By "durability" do you mean impact resistant? If so, in general a revolver will be LESS durable than a semi-auto.
 
Big-Blue said:
BTW, accuracy increases with barrel length as well.
Click to expand...
This is a myth; there is no direct correlation between barrel length and accuracy. Like MoGas1341 said: A longer barrel might allow the shooter to be more accurate due to the longer sight radius, but that's it; the longer barrel doesn't actually make the gun itself more accurate.
 
David spargenator said:
What do you guys think the advantages are between the 2.
Click to expand...
Advantages to a revolver:

-Simplicity.
-Greater ammo flexibility.
-They are generally more reliable.
-They are usually more powerful compared to a semi-auto of the same size.
-They generally can tolerate neglect better.

Advantages to a semi-auto:

-Higher capacity.
-A lighter and shorter trigger pull.
-Lower felt recoil.
-Faster reloads.
-They are generally more durable.
-They can be suppressed.

David spargenator said:
Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...
I prefer a semi-auto because I shoot it better; the lighter and shorter trigger pull combined with the lower felt recoil allows me to be more accurate, especially with follow-up shots.
 
The post starts out by talking about the relative merits of one platform over the other but then the question arises about which we might prefer.

The problem here, for me, is that what I like about them has nothing to do with their advantages. I like both.

I like the auto-loader for the thrill of faster shooting and the buzz I get from a really seamless reload, and I like the revolvers because of the more organic, visceral feeling of operating it. With an auto-loader it is over in a flash, literally. Squeeze, bang, ready to go again, before you even know it.

With the revolver there is the deliberate cocking of the hammer, and the twist and clunk of the cylinder offering up the next primer. There is the click as the hammer seats and the smooth trigger pull to touch off the next shot. As a shooter I feel far more connected to a revolver than an auto-loader.

So I like both, but not for reasons entirely connected with their strengths/weaknesses.
 
I think a longer sight radius just helps you know when the gun is swaying off target. It may help and it may not. So you guys are saying that the semi auto will actually last longer? For me, I just want a gun that will last . I can train with either and get good.
 
With a revolver you don't have to concern yourself with failure to eject, failure to feed, limp wristing, accidentally hitting the magazine release, losing the magazine.

With a bad round in a revolver you just move on to the next round, no tap, rack, bang. Just bang. Although, some autos do have second strike capability.
 
Really personal preference on one or the other. Having own, carry and shot both, my personal preference is for a semi-auto pistol. Additional capacity, ease of carry and speed of reloads are the controlling factors for me.

For revolvers the power factor is most impressive whether a 357 Mag, 41 Mag, 44 mag, 454 Casull, 45 Colt, 464 or 500 S&W there is no question as to what delivers the most bang for the buck.

However, (there is always a however) due to the shape (cylinder) and speed at which I can reload a revolver (slow for me), the semi-auto pistol has always been my preference, from the BHP I carried for many years to my current 45 ACP pistol they have always been reliable and a consent companion.

Like I said, it is a personal preference and due to shape and size I find the semi-auto just fits my needs better.

Jim

I would have guessed that a revolver does.
Click to expand...

About the same.

With a bad round in a revolver you just move on to the next round
Click to expand...

No, the gun has to go to the gunsmith to be fixed. (broken or worn firing pin, excessive space on indexing, lose or worn cylinder or bullet creep and cylinder gets locked up and gun does not function) They are not as reliable as you may think and they do wear out faster.
 
Last edited:
The revolver is the manual transmission of firearms and the semi-auto is the automatic. Some of us just prefer the feeling of control and the simplicity of a manual even though it might not be better. We old codgers are like that. I shoot my revolver more than my semi-automatics and I shoot my lever rifle more than my semi-automatic.
 
To see the real advantage of revolvers over semi, take in a self defense handgun class.

I conduct weekly hand gun classes. Students range from those who have never fired a handgun class to those raised with guns. I have students from 14 to 80 years of age.

I do not recommend any certain brand, caliber, or type. I advise to use the biggest caliber they can comfortably handle.

In the last few years I'm finding I was wrong with that theory.

I have found that few people will spend the time to be totally comfortable with the gun they carry.

If they have a safety, the fumble trying to find it. If it has a mag release they fumble trying to find it. Same with slide release. Some use the weak hand to pull the slide back to release it and too often don't get the slide back far enough to pick up the round or ride the slide causing it not to go into battery.

Sure they can stand there doing 3-3-3 drills for an hour they do fine, then you interject stress or the unknown, the fumbling starts anew.

As I mentioned before, I'm a firm believer in using only one hand in SD training. And using weak hand as much as strong hand. Then the fumbling really starts.

To demonstrate this I have several students face the firing line. I walk back and forth and will tap one of the students (they don't know which one will get tapped), and you get fumbling if they don't know they are going to be called upon.

You see the same thing at pistol matches. People forgetting to release the safety, having to pause and look for the mag release, all sorts of problems.

Then there is the revolver. Nothing to do but pull the trigger. Nothing to thing about (I don't let students use the hammer on a DA/SA revolver). Just pull the trigger, no thinking, no fumbling. Sure the is the cylinder catch, but they're suppose to be behind cover for reloading.

I know there are those who will pick up their gun, without thinking get it in action, reaching the safety, mag release, slide release without ever changing their grips. That is the exception.

Take into account this is in a class or range environment. Add the stress of a mugging, car jacking, home invasion; completely different ball game.

If you cant, without warning draw and fire your gun hitting a torso size target at 3 yards, in less then one second from a concealed condition, EVERYTIME, you have the wrong gun.
 
Is platform synonymous with gun?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, no idea...

For me a platform would a recognisable sub group. I take it to mean the means of differentiating between revolver handguns and auto loaders, in this case. It could differentiate between AK variants and AR designs, 1911s and other semi-auto pistols.

That is how I understand it.
 
I'd say the advantages of a revolver are it's durability and ability to accept 357 and 44 mag. And the advantages of pistols are more rounds per reload. What do you guys think the advantages are between the 2.
Click to expand...

Use the search. "Revolver vs. auto".

It's way up there, in the list of gun board Frequently Asked Questions. Read over the back issues of any given gunrag, ditto.

If I remember another thread right, David spargenator, you're young. Stick around for a while -- you'll see it come up again and again.

Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...

They each have different advantages and disadvantages. They each have unique ways of failing. Neither one is the absolute best choice for everyone.

Right now I tend to favor the small revolvers (colloquially called "snub nose" or "snubby").

In a year, I might think differently.
 
Last edited:
About the only advantage I see with a revolver really is in it's ability to shoot the real big cartridges in the .45-.50 cal range for hunting.

Other than that, really I think the semi auto has the largest advantage.

- Ease of use, and while it's easy to just pull the trigger on a revolver, it's also that easy for a semi auto. It takes all of maybe 5 minutes for someone not used to shooting to get to know the controls of a semi auto. Now if someone flat out refuses to learn, then maybe the revolver would be easier.

- I don't believe revolvers are more reliable, I've owned quite a few and I've had issues with them. If you have a problem with a semi auto you can clear it relatively quickly. If you have a problem with a revolver, it's likely out of the game period. If a bullet jumps crimp and locks up the gun, bad thing. Unburnt powder can and does often gum up the mechanism making it nearly impossible to pull the trigger.

- The semi auto holds a far greater amount of ammo and reloads much much faster. Sure you can get a double action revolver to reload quickly if you practice a lot, but it'll never be as fast as a bottom feeder.

- Power, while the revolver wins here on a shot by shot basis, the semi auto is nothing to sneeze at and is still capable of hunting even large game. 10mm is a good option, but so are the .45 Super and 460 Rowland. I can't argue against a .44 Mag revolver, but how can Glock holding 14rds of .45 Super with the ability to shoot 250-300gr bullets with over 900 ft-lbs be a bad thing? It's not!

- Semi autos are easier to upgrade as well, simply the ability to run night sights and to attach a weapons light for instance. Extra mags are easier to carry compared to revolver speed loaders as well.

- Carry-ability. Sure a 5 shot 38 Special is a classic, but I'd rather have a smaller, higher capacity 9mm or .40 S&W pocket gun instead, it carries flatter, the extra mags are easier to carry and it reloads far faster, not to mention packs a bigger punch.
 
Pond, James Pond,

A recognizable subgroup would be part of a larger group, and if the larger group is comprised of only guns, that would mean that the subgroup is comprised of only guns, which means you're referring to guns.

What's up with the politically correct nomenclature? I own GUNS. I do not own platforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top