http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
"one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
Revolver vs Auto for Civilian defensive use
- Thread starter WildBill45
- Start date
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
"one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force"
I don't think there's a cookie-cutter answer for this, it depends on the individual and his/her circumstances.
Personally, I find a revolver to be a better choice. My most likely attacker is a very large individual or one with an altered state of mind thus making a powerful, deep penetrating cartridge a good choice. Multiple-attacker scenarios are extremely rare in my area but needing a gun at very close range, even contact distance, is not particularly unlikely.
If, on the other hand, I lived in an urban area where gang activity was high, a high-capacity auto might make more sense.
There are a couple of things that I think need to be addressed:
I've seen it stated many times before that both types can jam but a semi-auto jam can be corrected in the field while a revolver jam will need the attention of a gunsmith. This is not universally true as autos can also malfunction badly enough that they can't be brought back into the fight quickly. Something like a broken firing pin or squib load that leave a bullet stuck in the barrel will render an auto a club just as quickly as a revolver. I have personally experienced a jam so severe (out-of-spec ammo) in my CZ-75 that the gun had to be disassembled in order to clear it. Likewise, my dad's new (to him) Walther PPK/S sometimes refuses to reset it's DA trigger and frequently fails to feed and eject due to a poorly fitting set of aftermarket grips (a different set is on order).
Also, it's been stated that a semi-auto offers faster follow up shots than a revolver. While it's true that I can yank a single-action trigger faster than that of a DA revolver, I can't do it faster and maintain the same level of accuracy. I find myself having to consciously slow down when shooting one of my semi-autos because if find myself pulling the SA trigger again before I've quite gotten my sights realigned. A DA revolver forces me to slow down just enough to realign my sights Remember, you can't miss fast enough to win a fight.
Personally, I find a revolver to be a better choice. My most likely attacker is a very large individual or one with an altered state of mind thus making a powerful, deep penetrating cartridge a good choice. Multiple-attacker scenarios are extremely rare in my area but needing a gun at very close range, even contact distance, is not particularly unlikely.
If, on the other hand, I lived in an urban area where gang activity was high, a high-capacity auto might make more sense.
There are a couple of things that I think need to be addressed:
I've seen it stated many times before that both types can jam but a semi-auto jam can be corrected in the field while a revolver jam will need the attention of a gunsmith. This is not universally true as autos can also malfunction badly enough that they can't be brought back into the fight quickly. Something like a broken firing pin or squib load that leave a bullet stuck in the barrel will render an auto a club just as quickly as a revolver. I have personally experienced a jam so severe (out-of-spec ammo) in my CZ-75 that the gun had to be disassembled in order to clear it. Likewise, my dad's new (to him) Walther PPK/S sometimes refuses to reset it's DA trigger and frequently fails to feed and eject due to a poorly fitting set of aftermarket grips (a different set is on order).
Also, it's been stated that a semi-auto offers faster follow up shots than a revolver. While it's true that I can yank a single-action trigger faster than that of a DA revolver, I can't do it faster and maintain the same level of accuracy. I find myself having to consciously slow down when shooting one of my semi-autos because if find myself pulling the SA trigger again before I've quite gotten my sights realigned. A DA revolver forces me to slow down just enough to realign my sights Remember, you can't miss fast enough to win a fight.
WildBill45
New member
A lot of sloppy & misleading information is being slung around here today
I do not accept the premise that revolvers and autoloaders have the same percentage of jams, failures, etc. This is not true ... period.
The only revolvers that compare to the autoloader failure rate are competitive revolvers, because they set their springs too light for speed, as reliability on a shooting match course is not life & death. Street fighting revolvers do not, and never have been as unreliable as autos, although autos are reliable in most cases. Do not let someone tell you such, that premise is untrue, as well as statements as such. STOCK REVOLVERS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN STOCK AUTOS!
The big argument made for autoloaders, and I love them remember, is they have high capacity … but I am a realist, and have owned as many or more autoloaders than most folks. I stipulated in this poll that this is not about police work, which is where high capacity comes into its own. That is aggressive gun work, necessary gun work, where cops must run to trouble, whilst civilians should run away from trouble. The high capacity guys are not part of this poll standing on that premise only. You know what Sigmund Freud said about guys with long barrels, and high capacity magazines, don't you?
In a real world defensive scenario, in most cases without the 500 cheerleader girls (how silly some are in such serious discussions), if you are even able to clear leather you are doing good, and if you get any shots off that is even better! Even then if you get one shot or two max you are dead, or he is dead; no time for multiple mags here. This gang-banger crap for civilians is bunk and you know it. They carry Uzis and other rifles, and outnumber you and all your high capacity mags ... again not a part of this equation. Most real, bad guys are not going to let you clear leather, ask any street cop! And you are not going to let him clear leather either, so it comes down to a fight in some cases, contrary to all that BS stated here about that. Those who say fighting skills and a fighter's mentality are not a part of close up civilian confrontations have never been in one, or close to one. The cops who survive a whole career are fighters; let no one tell you different. The others quit, die, or promote to get off of the street. Fighters are quicker, stay on balance, and move fast … they are not easy targets to hit, or disable and take their weapon. They see things others do not, and in this way avoid the fight in the first place! Fights or gun fights are real life combat, not some video game…
A friend of mine from Colorado Springs, had a dude ranch in Tarryall Colorado, and was a well known African Pro Hunter. He could have used a BAR auto rifle of high capacity, or some bolt gun of higher capacity, but when he had to track, and convince some wounded dangerous species to take a nap, especially Loxodonta africana, or even the Lion, he used a double rifle, I believe it was a Holland & Holland. He and many others have used doubles for over a century, and this applies here. Dangerous game, beast or man, in an all out attack, up close and personal, high capacity has nothing to do with it. It is quick, deadly, and no time to pull out your 400 round magazines ... you will be lucky to get one shot off, and it better be deadly! Two shots that work and are dependable is what double rifles are all about! This is beyond contestation, they have worked for 100 years, as have revolvers.
So, when you consider such limitations, revolvers are not a bad choice, and even though some think they are not relevant, they are crazy to think so.
Old men, like some here who belong to the Geriatric Gun Fighters Association
, would do well to consider revolvers. A J-frame Smith, hammerless in design, can shoot through a pocket, reliably, and many times! Since older shooters may not do as well fighting to defend their gun, they only have to have hands on their reliable pocket-rocket .357, which is in their pocket out of sight ... which is not threatening from the outside, but ready to fire through that pocket unbeknownst to the bad guy, or girl! Try that with your high capacity, make the insure feel good, magazine gun!
Auto loaders and high capacity have their place in police work, and I carried more than one at a time for many years, and also in the military, and for civilians too, but it may not be necessarily the best for some, hence the poll question here! You can buy a good revolver tomorrow and leave it sit on your bed stand for 20 years, pick it up and shoot an intruder. An autoloader, please check mag springs, recoil springs, yada, yada, yada…
Second shot speed recovery theory:
If you live near Western Pa, and you want to bring your auto, and shoot against my revolver and me for two shot speed, tightest group—ON TARGET—a Silver Dollar, we will film it on camera! Then switch guns, and film it again!
Seriously, don’t underestimate the value of a revolver for the everyday guy defending himself. It is simple, fast, and effective, and natural.
One person here said autos have better ergonomics … you must be on drugs! A autoloader feels like a slab of steel beside my Model 19 with custom made Jordan Trooper grips that fit my hand like my girlfriend’s … Oh, never mind!
OH, I forgot, you can’t get such nice grips on that flat handle, can you? Not and still shoot fast at least…
An autoloader is flat, cold, and has stuff flying back & forth in front of your face, hot cases are going down the front of your shirt or bra—remember what Sigmund said—and it jams … my, my, what do I do while the bad guy is pointing his reliable revolver at me??? Oh my! Do we wipe it clear, rip out the magazine and then rack and tap, or throw it at him and pull out your backup pocket revolver and shoot him???
No handgun points as nice with such ergonomics, fast, and deadly as a Colt S.A.A. Revolver, none! A S&W model 19 is second, but a 1911 may be third in my hands, but not all!
I will carry my revolver, and on some occasions an auto or two. Both do work well, if you carry quality stuff, but if I had to decide right now to pick up a handgun because someone is coming to get me … it would be my revolver.
If I had to pick a rifle for the same reason, it would be my O3’A3 in ought-six!
That is all…………..
I do not accept the premise that revolvers and autoloaders have the same percentage of jams, failures, etc. This is not true ... period.
The only revolvers that compare to the autoloader failure rate are competitive revolvers, because they set their springs too light for speed, as reliability on a shooting match course is not life & death. Street fighting revolvers do not, and never have been as unreliable as autos, although autos are reliable in most cases. Do not let someone tell you such, that premise is untrue, as well as statements as such. STOCK REVOLVERS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN STOCK AUTOS!
The big argument made for autoloaders, and I love them remember, is they have high capacity … but I am a realist, and have owned as many or more autoloaders than most folks. I stipulated in this poll that this is not about police work, which is where high capacity comes into its own. That is aggressive gun work, necessary gun work, where cops must run to trouble, whilst civilians should run away from trouble. The high capacity guys are not part of this poll standing on that premise only. You know what Sigmund Freud said about guys with long barrels, and high capacity magazines, don't you?
In a real world defensive scenario, in most cases without the 500 cheerleader girls (how silly some are in such serious discussions), if you are even able to clear leather you are doing good, and if you get any shots off that is even better! Even then if you get one shot or two max you are dead, or he is dead; no time for multiple mags here. This gang-banger crap for civilians is bunk and you know it. They carry Uzis and other rifles, and outnumber you and all your high capacity mags ... again not a part of this equation. Most real, bad guys are not going to let you clear leather, ask any street cop! And you are not going to let him clear leather either, so it comes down to a fight in some cases, contrary to all that BS stated here about that. Those who say fighting skills and a fighter's mentality are not a part of close up civilian confrontations have never been in one, or close to one. The cops who survive a whole career are fighters; let no one tell you different. The others quit, die, or promote to get off of the street. Fighters are quicker, stay on balance, and move fast … they are not easy targets to hit, or disable and take their weapon. They see things others do not, and in this way avoid the fight in the first place! Fights or gun fights are real life combat, not some video game…
A friend of mine from Colorado Springs, had a dude ranch in Tarryall Colorado, and was a well known African Pro Hunter. He could have used a BAR auto rifle of high capacity, or some bolt gun of higher capacity, but when he had to track, and convince some wounded dangerous species to take a nap, especially Loxodonta africana, or even the Lion, he used a double rifle, I believe it was a Holland & Holland. He and many others have used doubles for over a century, and this applies here. Dangerous game, beast or man, in an all out attack, up close and personal, high capacity has nothing to do with it. It is quick, deadly, and no time to pull out your 400 round magazines ... you will be lucky to get one shot off, and it better be deadly! Two shots that work and are dependable is what double rifles are all about! This is beyond contestation, they have worked for 100 years, as have revolvers.
So, when you consider such limitations, revolvers are not a bad choice, and even though some think they are not relevant, they are crazy to think so.
Old men, like some here who belong to the Geriatric Gun Fighters Association
, would do well to consider revolvers. A J-frame Smith, hammerless in design, can shoot through a pocket, reliably, and many times! Since older shooters may not do as well fighting to defend their gun, they only have to have hands on their reliable pocket-rocket .357, which is in their pocket out of sight ... which is not threatening from the outside, but ready to fire through that pocket unbeknownst to the bad guy, or girl! Try that with your high capacity, make the insure feel good, magazine gun!Auto loaders and high capacity have their place in police work, and I carried more than one at a time for many years, and also in the military, and for civilians too, but it may not be necessarily the best for some, hence the poll question here! You can buy a good revolver tomorrow and leave it sit on your bed stand for 20 years, pick it up and shoot an intruder. An autoloader, please check mag springs, recoil springs, yada, yada, yada…
Second shot speed recovery theory:
If you live near Western Pa, and you want to bring your auto, and shoot against my revolver and me for two shot speed, tightest group—ON TARGET—a Silver Dollar, we will film it on camera! Then switch guns, and film it again!
Seriously, don’t underestimate the value of a revolver for the everyday guy defending himself. It is simple, fast, and effective, and natural.
One person here said autos have better ergonomics … you must be on drugs! A autoloader feels like a slab of steel beside my Model 19 with custom made Jordan Trooper grips that fit my hand like my girlfriend’s … Oh, never mind!
OH, I forgot, you can’t get such nice grips on that flat handle, can you? Not and still shoot fast at least… An autoloader is flat, cold, and has stuff flying back & forth in front of your face, hot cases are going down the front of your shirt or bra—remember what Sigmund said—and it jams … my, my, what do I do while the bad guy is pointing his reliable revolver at me??? Oh my! Do we wipe it clear, rip out the magazine and then rack and tap, or throw it at him and pull out your backup pocket revolver and shoot him???
No handgun points as nice with such ergonomics, fast, and deadly as a Colt S.A.A. Revolver, none! A S&W model 19 is second, but a 1911 may be third in my hands, but not all!
I will carry my revolver, and on some occasions an auto or two. Both do work well, if you carry quality stuff, but if I had to decide right now to pick up a handgun because someone is coming to get me … it would be my revolver.
If I had to pick a rifle for the same reason, it would be my O3’A3 in ought-six!
That is all…………..
Last edited:
Meh, virtually any advantage a revolver has can be negative by choosing the right semi-auto.
A DA/SA pistol will be able to strike a round a 2nd time if it doesn't go off. Additionally, this argument doesn't hold much water as the odds of a new production centerfire round misfiring are pretty miniscule. I have never experienced a misfire with any centerfire cartridges with any firearm... EVER, not even with the 50-year-old Polish surplus I shoot from my Tokarev and PPS-43. Nor with cheap steel-cased imported ammo, not with any kind of centerfire ammo. That's thousands upon thousands of rounds, and dozens of firearms
Biased perspective. You argue one doesn't need the capacity offered by a semi-auto for defensive use, but does need the power of a .44? One could argue a more potent round helps get the job done, but then so doesn't a larger capacity, doesn't it?
Sort of, but not really. DA revolvers have longer and heavier triggers than SA semi-autos or good DA/SA semi-autos, and many DAO's have better, lighter triggers too. This can lend itself to superior accuracy.
I've had plenty of semi-autos that have never once failed even after thousands of rounds, if a revolver is more reliable than that, it's all moot anyways. It's like deciding whether you'd rather get eaten by a 990 pound bear or a 1000 pound bear.
A DA/SA pistol will be able to strike a round a 2nd time if it doesn't go off. Additionally, this argument doesn't hold much water as the odds of a new production centerfire round misfiring are pretty miniscule. I have never experienced a misfire with any centerfire cartridges with any firearm... EVER, not even with the 50-year-old Polish surplus I shoot from my Tokarev and PPS-43. Nor with cheap steel-cased imported ammo, not with any kind of centerfire ammo. That's thousands upon thousands of rounds, and dozens of firearms
Biased perspective. You argue one doesn't need the capacity offered by a semi-auto for defensive use, but does need the power of a .44? One could argue a more potent round helps get the job done, but then so doesn't a larger capacity, doesn't it?
Sort of, but not really. DA revolvers have longer and heavier triggers than SA semi-autos or good DA/SA semi-autos, and many DAO's have better, lighter triggers too. This can lend itself to superior accuracy.
I've had plenty of semi-autos that have never once failed even after thousands of rounds, if a revolver is more reliable than that, it's all moot anyways. It's like deciding whether you'd rather get eaten by a 990 pound bear or a 1000 pound bear.
Actually, the statement that a semi-auto can be shot faster is false.
In really fast shooting, one would technically have to wait for the slide to cycle before another shot can be taken.
With a DA revolver, the speed at which it can be shot is dependant only upon the speed that the shooter can pull the trigger.
So, if you're fast enough on the trigger, a revolver can be shot faster. Most can't shoot either fast enough with adequate accuracy for this point to even matter.
Daryl
As a general statement, I'd agree. Over the years, I've had more problems wtih various autoloaders than revolvers.
However, the ones I had problems with didn't stay with me long. The ones I own now are just as reliable as revolvers, or have been so far. Zero problems from either makes each just as reliable as the other.
If I can shoot 1000, or 2000 rounds through a semi-auto without a single issue, what are the chances of it failing in the few shots I may have to take in a defensive situation? I'm more likely to be struck by lighning in a snowstorm.
Yes, there are far more unreliable semi-autos than revolvers, but then who'd want to carry an unreliable firearm of either kind for self-defense? Not me.
WildBill45
New member
Daryl
Now, I agree with this 100%!
This is the reason I owned so many autos; not that I am rich with gun money, but I searched until I found reliable autos like my Wilson, S&W M&P, Sig, etc.
An unreliable gun of any type is a paper weight!
Now, I agree with this 100%!
This is the reason I owned so many autos; not that I am rich with gun money, but I searched until I found reliable autos like my Wilson, S&W M&P, Sig, etc.
An unreliable gun of any type is a paper weight!
WildBill,
I voted, then read this thread in it's entirety. In reading it, as an objective observer, it really seems like you started this thread in order to rant about how revolvers are so much better than semi-auto handguns. And before you deny that, go back to the OP and just look at the quantity of information you provided in the sections listing pros and cons of both.
It is obvious that your opinion in QUITE polar when it comes to this issue, which is your prerogative. You have the right to think whatever you want. But in listing the downfall of semi-autos and singing the wheel-gun praises, you've really listed a lot of inaccurate information about modern semi-auto handguns. To correct just a few:
1. Magazine springs will work after years of sitting. It isn't constant pressure that fatigues the metal spring. It is repetitive compression and release that decreases life. A fully loaded magazine will still function perfectly provided it was not previously broken.
2. Yes, all handgun calibers are underpowered, but there is nothing inadequate about the 9mm, 10mm, .357sig, .40S&W, or .45ACP. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that suggests a single or even double hit with any of these calibers, service revolver calibers included, will end a fight quicker than another.
3. Semi-Auto's are built to tolerances that more than adequately stand up to repetitive use for multiple thousands of rounds (sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions CT's G17). This is not an issue, and is poorly used as a "Con".
4. Yes sometimes auto's jam. But I've had my Glock for years. Fired thousands of rounds through it from cheap reloads to premium defense ammo. I've had one "jam" that was a squib in a box of Winchester Wal Mart ammo. I cleared the spent cartridge, inspected the barrel, loaded another round and was back to shooting in less than 5 seconds. And you know what? I was excited. I got my first jam after 2 years and got to run the drill I've been practicing. I've never had a jam with quality ammo.
5. It needs to be said that, Yes, semi-autos have a few more steps you must learn in order to operate it efficiently. They are simple things that one can learn in 60 seconds or less. And yes the revolver can be employed/reloaded/utilized in comparable time to a semi-auto. But in doing so, this requires the addition of the same steps that make a semi-auto "more complicated". You have to use a speed loader which is exactly like a magazine.
6. The speed of deployment and reloading by the VAST MAJORITY of shooters will be much faster with a semi-auto (please run a search engine on this before you decide you have your mind made up). Yes a revolver may be "more simple", but that extra step you learn with an auto makes it incredibly easier to learn to do it efficiently and more quickly (And less often).
7. Arguing ergonomics while spamming exclamation points and the caps lock doesn't make this particular issue any less ambiguous or subjective. Everyone's hands are different. Things feel more/less comfortable to everyone. It is foolish to even try to argue about this.
For "civilian" purposes, you'd be adequately armed in the vast majority of situations with anything from a 5-shot snubbie to a 19+1 Glock 17. Carry what you shoot well. It's the shooting well part that most greatly matters anyway.
I carry either one depending on clothing circumstances or what mood I'm in. This is me not having a horse in the race.
~LT
I voted, then read this thread in it's entirety. In reading it, as an objective observer, it really seems like you started this thread in order to rant about how revolvers are so much better than semi-auto handguns. And before you deny that, go back to the OP and just look at the quantity of information you provided in the sections listing pros and cons of both.
It is obvious that your opinion in QUITE polar when it comes to this issue, which is your prerogative. You have the right to think whatever you want. But in listing the downfall of semi-autos and singing the wheel-gun praises, you've really listed a lot of inaccurate information about modern semi-auto handguns. To correct just a few:
1. Magazine springs will work after years of sitting. It isn't constant pressure that fatigues the metal spring. It is repetitive compression and release that decreases life. A fully loaded magazine will still function perfectly provided it was not previously broken.
2. Yes, all handgun calibers are underpowered, but there is nothing inadequate about the 9mm, 10mm, .357sig, .40S&W, or .45ACP. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that suggests a single or even double hit with any of these calibers, service revolver calibers included, will end a fight quicker than another.
3. Semi-Auto's are built to tolerances that more than adequately stand up to repetitive use for multiple thousands of rounds (sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions CT's G17). This is not an issue, and is poorly used as a "Con".
4. Yes sometimes auto's jam. But I've had my Glock for years. Fired thousands of rounds through it from cheap reloads to premium defense ammo. I've had one "jam" that was a squib in a box of Winchester Wal Mart ammo. I cleared the spent cartridge, inspected the barrel, loaded another round and was back to shooting in less than 5 seconds. And you know what? I was excited. I got my first jam after 2 years and got to run the drill I've been practicing. I've never had a jam with quality ammo.
5. It needs to be said that, Yes, semi-autos have a few more steps you must learn in order to operate it efficiently. They are simple things that one can learn in 60 seconds or less. And yes the revolver can be employed/reloaded/utilized in comparable time to a semi-auto. But in doing so, this requires the addition of the same steps that make a semi-auto "more complicated". You have to use a speed loader which is exactly like a magazine.
6. The speed of deployment and reloading by the VAST MAJORITY of shooters will be much faster with a semi-auto (please run a search engine on this before you decide you have your mind made up). Yes a revolver may be "more simple", but that extra step you learn with an auto makes it incredibly easier to learn to do it efficiently and more quickly (And less often).
7. Arguing ergonomics while spamming exclamation points and the caps lock doesn't make this particular issue any less ambiguous or subjective. Everyone's hands are different. Things feel more/less comfortable to everyone. It is foolish to even try to argue about this.
For "civilian" purposes, you'd be adequately armed in the vast majority of situations with anything from a 5-shot snubbie to a 19+1 Glock 17. Carry what you shoot well. It's the shooting well part that most greatly matters anyway.
I carry either one depending on clothing circumstances or what mood I'm in. This is me not having a horse in the race.
~LT
Last edited:
glockcompact
New member
^^^^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself ^^^^^^
What Wild Bill said. Everything he said.
We all comment based on our own experiences, and research. Unlike many I believe that Wild Bill's comes from more experience. Experience being the best teacher I'd think his comments shouldnt be taken lightly.
As for myself I also have a bit of experience walking a similar path as Wild Bill. For the purpose of this thread I will personally endorse Wild Bills Comments. This isnt a rant about Revolvers. It's also not T.V. It's not some imaginary scenario involving a set number of attackers. It's not some scenario with a predetermined outcome.
People tend to look to self defense scenario's that fit their own imagination. While using one's imagination in practice and training is healthy IMO. One probably should keep an open mind.
As Bill has said... And based on my own experience too... If and when it happens it will be fast, very fast, it'll come as a complete surprise, It will be very very violent, and I'll add this... You will probably lose.
I know thats not what the big trainers teach... and thats not what anyone wants to hear. But thats the truth as I've experienced it.
In fact Both weapons will probably work equally well. IMO a compact K frame sized, J frame sized D frame sized, SP sized frame, of GP sized frame revolver is the optimum weapon .
Glenn D.
We all comment based on our own experiences, and research. Unlike many I believe that Wild Bill's comes from more experience. Experience being the best teacher I'd think his comments shouldnt be taken lightly.
As for myself I also have a bit of experience walking a similar path as Wild Bill. For the purpose of this thread I will personally endorse Wild Bills Comments. This isnt a rant about Revolvers. It's also not T.V. It's not some imaginary scenario involving a set number of attackers. It's not some scenario with a predetermined outcome.
People tend to look to self defense scenario's that fit their own imagination. While using one's imagination in practice and training is healthy IMO. One probably should keep an open mind.
As Bill has said... And based on my own experience too... If and when it happens it will be fast, very fast, it'll come as a complete surprise, It will be very very violent, and I'll add this... You will probably lose.
I know thats not what the big trainers teach... and thats not what anyone wants to hear. But thats the truth as I've experienced it.
In fact Both weapons will probably work equally well. IMO a compact K frame sized, J frame sized D frame sized, SP sized frame, of GP sized frame revolver is the optimum weapon .
Glenn D.
Last edited:
As of now, the poll reads 93:21 against that sentiment for those who have a horse in the race. Not that I'm saying it's wrong, but failing acknowledging the different skill-bases, ergonomic needs, personal ability, inaccurate stress response, need for ease of concealment, and personal manual safety requirements of the entire demographic of people who wield weapons for civilian safety takes a lot of the wind out of your argument and starts to warm up the fan-boy spotlight.
Different things work for different people for different reasons. That's why there are different things. If there was a substantially better choice, then that'd be the choice that the vast majority of the demographic would decide upon. As a demographic, we haven't settled on a substantially better choice, as indicated by these poll results. Deductive reasoning tells us that attempting to derive a superior rating for either side is groundless at best.
Neither is better. Both are different. Just like us.
~LT