Revolver or Pistol

F

FUD

Moderator
This topic may have been posted here before (maybe even by me :eek:) but since we seem to have some missing threads for the past half year, I've decided to bring the topic up (again) ...

I strongly suspect that I different from most here as most shooters started out with a revolver and worked their way up to a pistol. I, on the other hand, owned, carried & shot pistols for nearly two decades before getting my first revolver and I'm only now starting to appreciate them.

Despite the fact that a pistol can jam under the right conditions, I still feel better armed with one mostly because of the greater rounds available, the flatter design and the fact that I can reload with a spare magazine a whole lot faster than I can with a speedloader.

However, does anyone feel better armed with a revolver than with a pistol or even if you prefer the pistol, are there any situations that you could think of where you would prefer the revolver?

Share what you know & learn what you don't
fudflag.gif
FUD
 
I tend to prefer Revolvers. Not that I don't like Auto's mind you, but I learned on and carried Revolvers for over 20 years. At the time I was carrying for a living Auto's weren't as popular as they are today.( Due to reliability issues.) I carried a 4 incher on the job when I was in uniform and snubbies when I was in civies. We were taught that 6 shots were suffient to do the job. We were taught that placement was crucial. I spent many hours practicing gun skills. Part of which were reloading drills and my fast draw. I also studied instinctual shooting.(Point and shoot techniques) I always felt secure and confident with Revolvers. I guess that what's really important isn't wether you carry an Auto or a Revolver but that you are proficient in there use. I also think that it also depends on what you THINK you feel more comfortable with. Even to this day when I carry an Auto I always wonder if when the chips are down, if it will jam. Something I never worry about with a revolver. It's a physcological thing. Anyway that's my thoughts on the issue Fud.

------------------
***Torpedo***
It's a good life if you can survive it!
 
I like the 41/44 revolver as primary, and hicap 9 as New York reload ( backup ). Course even a single shot 12 ga loaded with a "Dragon's breath" cartridge should make the whole pistol/revolver debate moot.
 
Rusty S,

What is a "Dragon's breath" cartridge? :confused:

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
If I suspect that something is going to be going on, the first gun I reach for is my S&W Model 19.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
I own two pistols and a semi-auto rifle. Never had a major problem with a semi-auto and I like the flat profiles. I've shot bolt action, lever action, semi-auto; but never a revolver. I guess I'm young enough (27) that pistols have always been fairly reliable. Nothing against wheel guns, but I've never owned one. Doesn't mean I don't WANT to, but I'm comfortable with the pistols and that's what I learned to shoot with. I've got plenty of time ahead of me to buy a revolver. :)

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
i prefer wheel guns over autos. just trust them more. especially after my guide rod broke on my glock 26. the glock is still way easier to clean though.
 
I used to prefer my revolvers. My first automatic pistol was a Ruger MKII and all my big bores were revolvers. I eased into autos and now it is rare that I take a revolver out anywhere. The one time when I prefer a revolver is when I am hiking and I pack my .357 Magnum with full strength loads.
 
I like auto pistols for CCW use (nothing beats the Walther PPK for under the belt carry or a 1911 for the glove compartment) but have to agree that out in the woods with plenty of spreading-out room the S&W .357 or the Ruger .44mag is comfortable to carry for water moccasins, wild dogs and other dangerous vermin. And they're a lot easier to clean out the sand and dirt. :)
 
DorGunR,

We in the PRK (da Tovarich) don't have to worry about such things. Our state doesn't trust us to have them. They shoot a tongue of real fire out of your 12 gauge "to frighten pests away."

Oh, by the way, auto in .380 or .45. I also have a .357 mag for general social use in the home or woods.

Regards,

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited August 16, 2000).]
 
Ledbetter,
"They shoot a tongue of real fire out of your 12 gauge to frighten pests away."

WOW.....never heard of them before. I guess old dogs can learn new tricks, huh?

Thanks.....take care. :)

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
Well, I have both but I usually choose an auto because, like you said, they're flatter and easier to conceal. Also they generally hold more ammunition.

Will

------------------
Mendacity is the system we live in.
 
FUD; My preference is revolvers. Strategically and tactically for civilians I don't think there's a need for pistols. That said, I own several pistols because there're fascinating and fun to shoot. Just for me.. :) :) :)..The .357 magnum is the most versatile calibre there is. I can shoot light .38's or I can carry 180gr. hardcast loads for the woods and everything else in between. My house gun is a Glock 21 but hey, my S&W mod 28 is in the garage! Good Shooting everyone, J. Parker
 
Fud,

Good topic, which is certain to generate some interesting responses.

We have tangentially discussed this subject before. Like you, I started with semiautomatics. I continue to feel VERY secure, proficient, and comfortable with high-quality autoloaders (Glocks, Sigs, Kimbers, and old Colts). However, for my personal defensive requirements -- and I emphasize these requirements differ from many other individuals, particularly LEOs -- I believe I am even better armed with top-quality .357 magnum revolvers (two five-inch, full underlug, stainless S&W 627s and a four-inch, full underlug, stainless, Ruger GP100). My rationale follows:

a) RELIABILITY
I believe my revolvers are even more reliable and durable than my semiautomatics -- which is truly saying something. None of my semiautomatics have frequent failures. In fact, they currently fire hundreds of rounds with zero jams, failures-to-fire, or any other mechanical problems. Nevertheless, they experience a rare failure to fire (perhaps one round per thousand). The revolvers, on the other hand, NEVER -- and I do mean never-- fail to fire.

b) CAPACITY
All of my semiautomatics carry at least eight rounds (most carry eleven rounds with post-ban magazines), whereas the revolvers have a six shot capacity. My analysis suggests, however, that the probability of my requiring more than six rounds in a defensive scenario approaches zero. Therefore, six rounds are enough.

c) LETHALITY
.357 magnum loads are proven defensive "super stars". I am not criticizing any other handgun rounds -- especially the .45 ACP -- but the .357 magnum has a peerless performance record. The wide variety of .357 magnum loads available, all with superb muzzle velocity, provides many options suited for varying defensive circumstances. Compatibility with the .38 Special adds to this flexibility and certainly makes practice far more economical.

d) CONCEALMENT
My three revolvers are heavier and bulkier than my semiautomatics (even the full-size 1911A1s). However, I am able to carry them concealed. Without doubt, smaller (2.5 inch barrel, for example) .357 magnums would make concealment even easier. I am willing to tolerate the larger revolvers to gain the potency of the .357 round fired from a 4 or 5 inch barrel.

e) ACCURACY
Torpedo made an excellent point regarding shot placement. We all know accuracy is THE most important variable in defensive shooting. I am able to place shots with greater precision with my revolvers (particularly the Smiths) than with any of my semiautomatics.

To summarize I do not feel poorly armed with any of my autoloaders, however, I feel even more secure with my revolvers. I stress the fact that this conclusion applies only to my unique circumstances (if, for example, I were an LEO, I would likely opt for the greater capacity of my Sig P-226). The primary reasons for this finding are the reliability, accuracy, and proven potency of my .357 magnum revolvers.

Warm regards.
 
I started out with a revolver and that gun is still the one I use for open carry and for keeping under the bed. But after months and months of practice with my .45's I feel just as comfortable with them. The revolver probably wouldn't be as finicky if it got a bit of desert sand in it somewhere. The .45's, though, conceal better on my skinny frame.

Different tools for different jobs, I guess.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
I own both, and will keep and use them all. But a important point often ignored on this topic is single action vs double action. One of the reasons most law enforcement agencies switched from service revolvers to semi-automatics is the finding that SA shooting is empirically more accurate than DA in high stress situations. A Police Foundation study found that LEOs in street fights using revolvers hit their targets with about 25% of their shots. I have seen estimates that the hit rate for semi-autos is 65-75%. Except the first shot out of a magazine, which is shot DA, which has a hit rate of about 25%, same as DA revolver. The exception to the exception is the first shot from a 1911. Carried cocked and locked, the first shot is SA, and has the same 65-75% hit rate.

I have 2 wheel guns that I really like. I shoot them fairly well, but haven't had them long enough to say whether or not I can shoot them as accurately as I shoot with a semi-automatic. For now, I do not rely on them for self-defence. I use semi-autos for that.
A wheel gun can be fired SA fairly quickly (cocking with the weak-side thumb without breaking the classic two-handed grip). I don't know if any studies have been done to see if the increased accuracy of SA offsets the slower shooting rate. Something to try at a future practice session.
 
DorGunR, the "Dragon's Breath" is basically a flame thrower from a 12 gauge shot shell. They advertise them in Shotgun News from a supplier somewhere down south along with "Bird Bombs," noisy exploding rounds (again 12 guage). In addition, these folks have all kinds of pyrotechnic variants for your shotgun in lieu of 00 Buck. There is a photo of a guy shooting off a "Dragon's Breath" at night. What a sight!! Talk about scaring the livin' bajeezuz out a ya! Not a good round to shoot off inside your residence, however.

"Yes, officer, the guy came right through the bathroom window at me and I, well, encouraged him to leave with my 870. The Fire Department didn't arrive until the house was almost gone. I'm sure his dental records will show he was just another one of those perps on parole. Now, where did I put those insurance records?"

p.s. illegal in CA




------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
Another thing to consider is that autos are used primarily by agencies or the military where CASUALTIES are EXPECTED.

They may not acknowledge that fact, but the commanders want lots of bullets going against the enemy. And while casualties are deplored, it is expected that firepower will overcome the enemy even at the expense of a line duty person.

I like autos. I use em. 2 are on my carry permit. But the one I ....ALWAYS...have is the revolver.

The revolver will fire EVERY time. And if it doesn't, there is no "clearing routine" other than pulling the trigger again. And of course, in most instances, revolvers may be more powerful than an auto.

The ammo can be dirty, of any power that will get it out the barrel, any shape and the only drawback is volume of fire.

IMHO that is why most will choose the revolver to pack out in the woods.

Autos are for those who can afford casualties. Revolvers are for those who can't.
 
"Hi-cap" autos, in my humble opinion, are intended for real combat where the concept of "suppresive" fire comes into play. I think for most situations, 6-shots are adequate. Having said that, I like both autos and revolvers. For a home defense scenario, I like the .357 mag for power and absolute reliability. Failure to fire? Pull the trigger again and it moves out of the way. I had 2 Corbon rounds (.40) fail to fire in my auto and I had to cycle the auto to get them out. No big deal at the range, but a HUGE issue if my wife is facing a bipedal varmint in a panic situation.

Both have their place, but only one is loaded and in reach at night.

My .02
 
They both have their place.
My first handgun was a 1911. My second acquisition was a .22 conversion for it.
I spent the next 10 years becoming familiar with John Browning's work of art. My second love, later in life, was a 4" model 19.
I would pick a .45 auto for close in work, but if I thought I might have to reach across a parking lot or shoot any kind of distance, I'd go for the .357 revolver.
I find I'm much more accurate with a good revolver, not to mention the reliability.
I'm better and faster with a 1911 though.
I consistently shot the qualification course 20 points higher with a 1911 than I do with a 4" 686, so I normally carried the auto as a duty gun.
Out in the hills though, it's always the .357 or the .44 revolvers. Hard to beat them.
My recommendation is. . . . . . . .have one of each.
It's the only answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top