Revolver v Pistol or Ford v Chevy

But there is more than just the speed of cycling involved. Its things like trigger reset, and feel as well. Once the slide closes, the trigger group has to move enough to reset, and the shooter has to time the release and next pull differently than on a DA revolver.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement to hold the trigger and then release it after the slide closes. If you're fast enough (no one is even close) you can release it during the slide cycle.

There is no reason that a semi-auto couldn't be shot at a rate very close to the cyclic rate of the pistol if the shooter can move his trigger finger that fast. To do so he would have to shoot about twice as fast as Jerry Miculek's DA revolver record and about 50% faster than the fastest splits being recorded today with autopistols.
The top speed shooters are not faster than the auto is mechanically, but they are faster than the auto is functionally, compared with a tuned DA revolver, in their hands.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. 0.10 second splits (and even faster) are not unheard of in competitions using autopistols but Jerry Miculek's record with a DA revolver is about 20% slower than that. Since it's a world record it's a reasonably safe bet that no one is shooting DA revolvers faster than that.

This is really the crux of the matter. You can poke around on the web and find folks talking about documented splits with autopistols down around 0.1 and even 0.09 seconds. No one has ever been documented pulling the trigger on a DA revolver anywhere near that fast. Not even Ed McGivern or Jerrry Miculek.

The bottom line is that as long as a human is pulling the trigger an autopistol is going to shoot faster than a revolver. There is simply no evidence that a human can pull a DA revolver trigger fast enough to outpace what a human can do pulling an autopistol trigger.

Furthermore, based on the cyclic rates of autopistols, it is apparent that no humans are coming even close to shooting as fast as an autopistol is actually capable of. They would need to go about 50% faster than what is being done today.

So yes. THEORETICALLY a revolver's mechanism could be driven faster than an autopistol can cycle but no one has ever been able to demonstrate that they can shoot one that fast. Even the two revolver shooters who are universally accepted to be the best and fastest over the last century couldn't do it.

For those who STILL doubt this, there was a History Channel show awhile back called Extreme Marksman. On it, Jerry Miculek bumpfired a 1911 demonstrating conclusively that he could operate the the autopistol's mechanism faster than he was able to fire a DA revolver when he set his revolver record.
 
Maybe it's not just the cycle speed. Maybe the fast revolver shooters find it easier to stay on target with the revolving mass of the cylinder vs the axial momentum imparted by a cycling slide. Not that a properly tuned auto won't put itself back on target on slide closure but different strokes for different folks...
 
There may be folks out there who find that it's easier for them to make fast hits with a DA revolver. That probably has a lot to do with what they practice with.

No matter how you slice or dice it, the top autopistol shooters are shooting considerably faster than the fastest revolver shooter in the world. And NO ONE is even coming close to shooting as fast as a typical autopistol can cycle.
 
Was not aware of the facts you listed. Seems that the semi-auto will shoot faster than a double action revolver but not as you imply for single action which can be double-shot faster than can be seen/heard. When you talk about "splits" is that drawing the gun from a holster and shooting two or more rounds or is that done with gun in-hand ready to shoot? No one can draw and shoot a gun faster than a single action reolver.
 
A "split" is the interval between two shots, measured with a shot timer.

I haven't looked at the time comparisons for drawing and firing various different kinds of handguns.
...not as you imply for single action which can be double-shot faster than can be seen/heard.
Click to expand...
I don't think I implied that--I didn't mean to anyway. That's why I specifically excepted fanning in my first post. You are correct that it is possible to fan a revolver and achieve incredibly fast splits. I haven't checked to see if they are faster than an autopistol cycle time, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were.

I do agree that it should be possible to drive a revolver mechanism faster than an autopistol slide can cycle. The problem is that so far no one has been able to do it with their trigger finger. Fanning may be able to achieve what is theoretically possible, but we also learn from fanning that even though a revolver mechanism can be driven very fast, it won't stand up to the amount of force that must be applied to achieve that speed without reinforcement and modification.
 
How about this - draw and shoot five targets in .88 seconds
http://www.c00lstuff.com/382/Fastest_Gun_Shooter_Video__Definetly_the_fastest_shooter_in_the_world_/
Or two shots so fast - draw and shoot so fast you can't tell it's a double shot.
http://www.c00lstuff.com/382/Fastest_Gun_Shooter_Video__Definetly_the_fastest_shooter_in_the_world_/
I've watched video of IPSC etc and yes any given couple shots may be fast but they cannot touch these guy drawing, aiming, and shooting. When I watch the IPSC contestants shoot 5 target stages it looks like slow motion compared to the guy shooting the single action.
 
Last edited:
That's definitely some impressive shooting, however it's not quite fair to compare IPSC shooters firing live ammunition with loads which must make a given power factor to someone shooting wax bullets that only have to be loaded hot enough to break a balloon.
 
That's definitely some impressive shooting, however it's not quite fair to compare IPSC shooters firing live ammunition with loads which must make a given power factor to someone shooting wax bullets that only have to be loaded hot enough to break a balloon.
Click to expand...

It does seem to me that partisans of one platform over the other will go to extraordinary lengths to concoct "advantages" that aren't actually there. The OP notes both "...fastest handgun shooters in the world all use revolvers." and
"Which one would you grab in an emergency?"

In an emergency, I'd grab the one not loaded with wax bullets.

We can probably all agree that the shooter is the more important element given DA revolver vs. semi-auto. It's trivially easy to track down a History Channel video of Jerry doing impressive stuff with a 1911. However, the portion of the video with the 625 probably gets posted at a ratio better than 100-to-1 vs. the 1911.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OPHq7NR8w4
He's even staying on target with what I believe is "bump firing".

My wild guess as to "why" there's a massive disparity in postings of 625 vs. 1911 is that the revolver speed is "news" whilst most would expect Jerry to perform quickly with a semi-auto.

Even leaving power factor out of the equation, as in Olympic rapid fire, one does not exactly see the field dominated by revolvers though there's nothing preventing their use. Nothing, that is, apart from the competitors that see no point in what the philosopher Snipes refers to as "trying to ice-skate uphill".

I can't recall any real world events with actual mortals involved where the objective of combining speed with accuracy favors a revolver as the first choice - I'm sure there are some but I'm not recalling any at the moment. Certainly not IHMSA - accuracy yes, speed not so much.

Air-cooled V-twins and revolvers are American classics with a well-deserved fan base. However, such bikes and firearms run in their own classes for much the same reasons - they'd get clobbered raw speed-wise if they opened up participation to the latest and greatest. (Ducati's "L" notwithstanding).

On a tangential note, one of my favorite rants by one of my favorite revolver gurus can be found here:
http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/b91e1e7e6db256349d93093093b7b034-417.html
Not even Mr. Revolver suggests one show up at the summer games with a 617.

I have an appreciation of both V-twin motorcycles and revolvers. Neither is due to raw speed. The OP, I conjecture, is correct that revolver vs. semi is a thoroughly tenderized dead horse. I believe the "fastest shooters use revolvers" observation to be fresh and unique in the context - however it's contortionist grade "reaching".

I suspect that, in the never ending revolver / semi wars, that what is true isn't new and what is new isn't true.
 
This was an interesting thread.

Just one thought. I think if any of us picked up a 50 year old semi today vs picking up a brand new semi manufactured today 50 years from now, that there would most assuredly be a difference. Todays guns and ammo is so much more advanced than they were 50 years ago.

Said another way, the odds of a gun made today working relaibly 50 years from now are much better than trusting one produced 50 years ago to function safley.

Either way, I wouldn't like the odds of standing in front of either one that was fired!:eek:
 
Okay now...

As far as choosing a weapon in 50 years... if you select anything but the revolver, you are in danger of being called a fanboy right out. It's what revolvers are good at. Working no matter what. It's like asking someone, in 50 years if you have to install a shingle, would you want the 50 year old nailgun, or the composite and steel hammer?

As far as the semi-auto being limited in speed by function or design, let me pose a question; and the question will sound more like a statement, and a poorly gramatical statement at that...

"... the Glock 18."

You want to see an autoloader in all it's glory? Move your selector on your Glock 18 to semi-auto and see how fast you can fire. I don't care if you are just any old shooter or the Outlaw Josey Wales himself (who I know would never use a Glock... but what a concept); once you switch it to full-auto and start to fire, there will be no one in their right mind who thinks that their ability to fire as quickly as possible is limited by the tool that they are firing.
The G18 has been recorded as putting about 1300 rounds per minute downrange, which equates to around 20-22 rounds per second or approximately 0.05 splits with the same firing mechanisms as shooting semi-auto without the "trigger reset" whose measurement in time relies completely on the ability of the operator.

I think that's enough said on that one.

~LT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top