If you like a revolver great, use it. Just dont expect that everyone is going to agree with you that it is a better weapon for self defense. If might be equal or it could just be that it is different.
I never said that a revolver was a better weapon across the board than a semi-auto, just that it's a better weapon
for me.
If semi autos were so unreliable the military and police would be using revolvers as a primary weapon and the fact is for the most part thats simply untrue. Sure a department here or there might use revolvers and many depatments may allow it as a choice but you really dont see it out on the street that often.
I am neither a soldier nor a cop and my needs are different from those groups of people. A semi-auto probably is the best choice for a soldier or a cop, but a revolver is a better choice for me.
A quality semi auto is hardly a liability and if you cant learn to use a semi auto then you probably have no business handling any firearm. Also although maybe its true that you can reload a revolver faster, I sincerely doubt that is the case for the average revolver carrier. I still have my doubts... Im willing to bet in most cases even a average semi carrier reloads faster...One hole to line up instead of five or six and one button to push and the old mag drops to the floor.
I can't reload a revolver as fast as a semi-auto and never said that I could, but reload speed is pretty far down on my list of priorities when choosing a self-defense gun.
Look, if a semi-auto is the best choice for you, fine carry one. But just because its the best choice for you does not necessarily mean that it is the best choice for everyone.
I own several revolvers and semi-autos and have shot and carried both types quite a bit. I actually started out with semi-autos, but over time and careful consideration of myself and my own circumstances I've decided that a revolver is a better choice for me. As I stated in my initial post, were my circumstances significantly different from what they are currently, I might choose a semi-auto, but they're not so I don't.
Since you feel it necessary to press the issue, I will provide you with a more detailed explanation of my circumstances:
I do not live in a large urban area and, in my area, gang activity and multiple-attacker situations are all but unheard of. There is, however, a fairly prominent methamphetamine problem in my community and the surrounding area. I am also a fairly large individual at 6' 4" and roughly 300lbs and, being relatively young at 24 years old, I do not have any major health problems that would make be particularly vulnerable physically. I also live a relatively low-risk lifestyle as I do not routinely carry large sums of money or valuables, I do not wear overly flashy or expensive clothing, I do not drive a particularly expensive or flashy automobile, and I take particular pains to be polite and not provoke people unnecessarily.
I also feel that I have a fairly keen set of situational awareness skills which, throughout the course of my life, have served me well in recognizing and avoiding potentially dangerous situations and areas. The few times I have found myself in potentially dangerous situations, they have come about very quickly and allowed me very little time to react.
Because of the above information, I have concluded that my most likely attacker will be a large individual, have an altered state of mind, or both and is very unlikely to travel in a large group. I've also concluded that if I were to be attacked, it would most likely happen very quickly and at very short range.
I find a revolver to be the best choice for my individual circumstances for a variety of reasons. Because an attack is likely to occur so quickly and at such short range, a revolver is advantageous because it can be reliably fired multiple times at contact distance without malfunction and because it is less sensitive to being fired with a weak or injured hand if the circumstances require such action. Also, because of the demographic of my most likely attacker, a powerful cartridge that penetrates deeply and more readily breaks bone is advantageous.
As a personal rule, I will not rely on a handgun for self-defense unless I can fairly regularly find ammunition locally, preferably at Wal-Mart, and reliably use that ammunition if need be. Less-common cartridges like .460 Rowland are both more difficult to find and more expensive which are both factors that make keeping a good supply of ammo on hand more difficult (keeping a stock of ammo is something I learned to do after the ammo shortage of 2008-2009). While I do handload ammunition in certain calibers, I still have to have a fairly large supply of cases in order to keep any sort of stock and finding the majority of my spent cases with a semi-automatic doesn't seem to be the easiest thing to do (this is one reason that I don't shoot or carry my 10mm more often, and that cartridge is less expensive and easier to find than .460 Rowland). If I constantly have to buy new cases, then the cost savings of reloading (my main reason for doing so) is greatly diminished.
Ammunition cost and availability notwithstanding, a revolver is still a more reliable and practical handgun for my specific needs. Paying nearly $300 for a conversion to go on an already expensive 1911 when the result will not fill my needs or wants any better, and probably not as well, as the revolvers I already own makes little sense to me. If a .460 Rowland is a good fit for
your lifestyle and circumstances, then by all means buy one but for
me it's an answer in search of a question.
But hey maybe the zombies will give you points for being old school. 
