Revolver capacity

G

garyl43

New member
I'm always hearing people talk about quicker reloading and superior capacity in semi-autos compared to revolvers which is true, but I have never seen a real world recorded example of a civilian in a self defense situation that ever really had to reload either. Now I have seen many examples of semi-auto failures in self defense situations AND on the side of the perp. Can anyone show me an example of a revolver failing or having to be reloaded in a CIVILIAN case?
 
woman used a 5 shot snub in a home invasion guy was still functional after all five hit him. I believe he surrendered after he left the house.

I'm going of memory. She was lucky he decided to stop attacking.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?45333-Urban-Gunfighter-(-The-Lance-Thomas-story)

Lance needed quite a few reloads.

Why does it matter? Do you feel undergunned and are looking into examples?

Semis are quicker to reload and have larger capacities its not an opinion its a fact. Having more rounds to defend yourself is better being able to reload it with more faster is better still.
 
Sorry I only got the first part of your answer. It wasn't opinion, I know it's faster to reload a semi than a revolver obviously and I carry a Glock 26 or a Bersa .380cc and I don't feel under gunned with either. I've been getting more into revolvers lately and have heard all the pros and cons from people online but I'm looking for documented real world examples that a revolver just didn't have the capacity or failed?
 
I've been getting more into revolvers lately and have heard all the pros and cons from people online but I'm looking for documented real world examples that a revolver just didn't have the capacity or failed?
Click to expand...
There are cases of revolvers locking up. Very rare in a gun fight because they have a much less tendency to fail and are not used as much too. There are many more cases of Semi-autos jamming in a firefight. Yet they are usually easy to clear and continue.

Most cases of SD shootings involve very few rounds. However there have been a few where reloading was necessary. With that being said the odds are more favorable that a revolver holds enough rounds. Yet odds are not favorable should you need more than five or six. Aside from "one bullet per kill" movie heroics, most handguns have been proven to not be great "man stoppers" to begin with. Most people prefer to have more capacity "just in case". Speaking of odds, the odds are you will never half to fire a shot in defense too. Kinda feel like a pair of jeans in a washer yet? Kinda that way when comparing SD firearms pros and cons.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Wreck, that's basically what I've found over the years. I pulled my Glock 26 once back in '99 on a guy that pulled a knife on my boss as he tried to to bounce a guy from from a micro brewery I worked at then. I left after work out the back door and went around to the front parking lot when I noticed the confrontation. The patron was drunk and refused to leave so I positioned myself between then off to the left side just in case. Next thing the guy reaches back and pulls a knife out of his back pocket and I immediately drew the 26 with a laser sight and put the dot on his chest, his eyes turned into pie plates and he slowly put the knife away and left without a word, no police report. Now I've had failures with the Glock but never the Bersa (not knocking Glock) but I've never had a failure with a revolver that wasn't the ammos fault and just another pull of the trigger to fire. I'm very practical and look at real world odds when making decisions you know?
 
Odds are that a revolver will be enough for most people.

To be sure, exceptions.

The shopkeeper had a business in a particularly nasty section of the city.

You want an automatic with greater firepower than a revolver? Fine, plenty
fine.

But do we go through life planning for the absolute worst case scenarios?

Do we avoid airplanes because some crash? Do we stay off all but the quietist streets because car crashes injure more and kill more than any death rate by guns? Do we avoid swimming pools because drowning is always possible? Do we avoid most cooking at home because a home fire is always
possible? Do we never ride a bicycle or let our children do so because serious injury or death can happen in a bad spill?
 
Exactly UncleEd, I think real world statistics prove that a revolver will be more than enough firepower in 99.99% of any situation a civilian might find themselves in, and a revolvers reliability would make up any difference in capacity in the real world.
 
Let me say that I love revolvers, and I think the craftsmanship of them in most is beautiful, and a kind harder to match in autos. I used to carry an LCR, and a 3 inch model 10.

The sad fact is that there's no REASON to carry a revolver over a semi. An auto can be made to weigh less, be smaller, carry better in shape, reload more quickly, hold more ammo and be at LEAST as powerful as many revolvers. In fact, power, depending on your caliber choice, is about the only advantage that a revolver offers. Maybe a slight edge in reliability, but technology these days makes that an almost nonexistent issue when you've made sure your auto is reliable. The last thing you want to do is carry a gun for your whole life, and one day need to actually fire it, and have it not be enough. I don't want to be lying there on the ground one day bleeding to death thinking of the irony that if I'd had a couple more shots, this wouldn't be happening.

Like the Glock vs 1911 debate, it's more a matter of hanging on to the old school way. And I say this with a love of revolvers.
 
But you have to make sure your semi is reliable with the ammo that is used. With a revolver, it works from the start, no break in, not picky with ammo etc.. If it misfires, you just pull the trigger again. Again, real world, not the one in a million case. There's a documented case of a highway patrolman shooting a truck driver 6 times with a .357 mag and the truck driver shooting him once with a NAA .22 and killing him. The trucker lived but the patrolman was hit under the arm where there was no body armor protection killing him. That's one in a million and not what I would be worried about or prepare for. In my many years of shooting I've experienced many failures with semi autos but only a couple failures with a revolver, and that was the fault of the ammo, not the gun.
 
No gun is going to be perfect for every situation. I read a few years ago that most non police shootings (they are civilians just like the rest of us) take place at a distance of under seven yards and involve an average of four shots fired.

It's very easy to get caught up in capacity and reloads but let's be honest, for 99% of us, a gun will hopefully be deterrent enough. In the event it isn't, having a reliable gun that you carry all the time and shoot well is more important than reload speed or capacity.

Carry what you will actually carry and practice with it. The rest will sort itself out.
 
I have nice semi-autos and nice revolvers. Once I have shot hundreds of rounds over several years through any of them, I feel plenty confident in them. However, one bad round of ammo in a semi-auto could be a real problem. In a revolver it's no big deal.
 
Is a Glock more likely to malfunction or are you more likely to run out of ammo in a revolver? Both of those are very slim odds, but I would lean towards it is more likely you will run out of ammo in a revolver. Remember, a Glock or other high quality gun, quality ammo, and an experienced shooter (not one limp wristing).

I have both, and I love my GP100, which I would have no problem using as my primary HD gun, but I keep the Glock on my night stand because it is the one with night sights and a laser, and easier to reload.
 
Years ago, in the twilight of the revolver as a duty gun, a neighboring PD had an officer killed during a two-man response to a loud party disturbance call.
Knocked on the door, it was opened, a shot was immediately fired and struck him.

His partner was also subsequently wounded in the leg, fired all 6 in his Smith before and after going down.
Bleeding and on the ground, he was able to reload by the time backups arrived.
The suspect ran off before other units got there. Had he not disengaged as soon as he was able, or if anybody else inside the house had had a gun & murderous intent.....

The first officer shot did not realize he was already dead, chased the shooter several yards before dropping with a bullet through his heart.
I knew the survivor.
Denis
 
Yeah Kreyzhorse, I read 3 rounds myself. I've drawn my gun once and didn't have to fire, but it was with a Glock 26 that I had had some ftf's and stovepipes with. I'm looking at a GP100 which is fairly heavy but I have no problem with the weight and with 6 rounds of .357mag, I don't think I'd feel under gunned at all. With all the talk about about capacity and the ability to reload quickly, I just haven't seen any real evidence that it's ever been an issue except maybe in zombie movies lol!
 
DPris, thanks, but I am specifically asking about civilian cases of self defense. Obviously law enforcement and military need more, but even my uncle, who was a Chicago cop in the 60's and 70's having just his .38 special got by just fine, and he dealt with the worst of the worst.
 
My point, obviously missed, is that you NEVER COUNT ON ONLY WHAT'S IN YOUR GUN.

You NEVER COUNT ON NEVER HAVING TO RELOAD.

You NEVER KNOW!
Civilian or cop, you never play to the highest odds in setting yourself up for the lowest odds of survival.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top