You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Revolver vs semi auto
- Thread starter AL45
- Start date
Why not both/and instead of either/or
OK, maybe I'm weird, but I like, and carry, both revolvers and semiautomatics, in various sizes and shapes. My current list of carry guns includes:
CZ 75 BD
S&W Model 65-3 (3")
Kahr CW9
CZ 75 PCR*** (Recently purchased, only 200 rounds fired, just need to test it with HP rounds and get my holster in).
S&W 640*** (Brand new to me, traded a 642 in for it, but I still need to put it through it's paces first).
I find both types of guns have important roles to play, and perform certain tasks well. I keep a revolver in my car safe, as they are very well designed to sit until they are needed with relatively little attention. I tend to like carrying autoloaders when out and about due to the easy of reload with 1-2 spare magazines and the increased capacity. I tend to carry my J frame revolver, however, when concealment is a most important, because my body hides a J frame more easily.
That said, I think quality is much more important that whether you have a revolver or a semi. As has been stated before, I would rather trust my life to a gun of reputable make and manufacture than one of questionable reputation or quality. I make sure to test every firearm before I carry it. In the end, what matters most is it's ability to go bang as many times as you need it to, not the mechanics of what makes it go bang. In that regard, quality for quality, there isn't much of a difference.
OK, maybe I'm weird, but I like, and carry, both revolvers and semiautomatics, in various sizes and shapes. My current list of carry guns includes:
CZ 75 BD
S&W Model 65-3 (3")
Kahr CW9
CZ 75 PCR*** (Recently purchased, only 200 rounds fired, just need to test it with HP rounds and get my holster in).
S&W 640*** (Brand new to me, traded a 642 in for it, but I still need to put it through it's paces first).
I find both types of guns have important roles to play, and perform certain tasks well. I keep a revolver in my car safe, as they are very well designed to sit until they are needed with relatively little attention. I tend to like carrying autoloaders when out and about due to the easy of reload with 1-2 spare magazines and the increased capacity. I tend to carry my J frame revolver, however, when concealment is a most important, because my body hides a J frame more easily.
That said, I think quality is much more important that whether you have a revolver or a semi. As has been stated before, I would rather trust my life to a gun of reputable make and manufacture than one of questionable reputation or quality. I make sure to test every firearm before I carry it. In the end, what matters most is it's ability to go bang as many times as you need it to, not the mechanics of what makes it go bang. In that regard, quality for quality, there isn't much of a difference.
Pond James Pond
New member
It seems to me that perhaps there are fewer types of revolver because that platform needed less improvement than semi-autos did/do.
Or that a variety of designs all achieve similar performance while each having different advantages Striker/Hammer being one example.
I imagine the current, longstanding design of DA revolvers is because that is worked best and lots of variation didn't yield the same performance across the board.
As said earlier, for me fashions and trends govern the gun market just as they do most other consumer markets.
This is one of those threads and issues that have been argued quite a bit over the years. History has settled the question long ago but fellas can't live with that and can't believe that their favorites are ignored, so it stumbles on.
Tells us it was a good basic design. Fact, if we add in the Colt da guns of similar size and vintage we get a whole lot of good guns. These guns changed quite a bit over the decades however, and the K frame Model 10 of today is not identical to the 38 Hand Ejector of over a century ago. A point that should be noted. Improvements in metallurgy and a number of refinements kept the M&P S&W's flagship handgun.
Revolvers have changed very little? Since 1898 we have added a good many more calibers, frame sizes, and metal alloys like aluminum, scandium, and stainless steels unknown in 1898. Casting, forging, mim and other modern processes and plastics form a part of what revolvers are today. Different from 1898.
The internals of wheelguns have changed quite a bit as well. Consider the internals of the strength and simplicity of teh Ruger Redhawk vs. the complexity of the S&W or Colt da revolver of 1901. Revolvers of 1898 or 1948 could not handle the pounding that one can see in modern revolver competitions and not fall to disrepair rapidly.
Even the excellent Model 19 Combat Magnum was not strong enough for the pounding, wear and ill treatment that modern shooters and the .357 Magnum gave it. The K frame .357s gave way to L frames.
There are modern 7, 8 and 10 shot revolvers in calibers more powerful than those of 1898.
We have revolvers for 460 Rowland, 454 Casull and calibers and power levels unthinkable even 50 years ago.
Scoped revolvers, revolvers with rails and led optics, etc.
We can also mention the rebirth of the single action revolver in iterations and power which could not have been in 1898.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "What story does it tell" that revolvers of 1898 were too weak to handle the volume of shooting and power of modern wheelguns?
It just tells us that things have evolved with both revolvers and pistols.
Semis were the handgun of choice in Europe over revolvers from early on in the 20th century and several decades before they became dominant in the U.S. Factually outside of the U.S. and the UK pistols dominated before the Second World War in most countries.
The U.S. was a nation of wheelgunners till the 1980s. Semis were considered military weapons by the broad mass of shooters and non shooters and less useful than revolvers for most purposes. There was not much more than ball ammo available. Outside of Colt no one made pistols in a service caliber in the U.S. till the post war period. While the 1911 was used in bullseye shooting and some in law enforcement (in 38 Super and 45acp) it was no where near as common as wheelguns.
Colt was the first U.S. manufacturer to produce a gun in 9mm and that was in 1948.
It had more to do with cultural, social and political factors than the superiority of one over the other.
tipoc
Yes, the numbers do tell a story. What story does the fact that the S&W M&P revolver has been in continuous production for 116 years and had in excess of 6 million units made tell?
Tells us it was a good basic design. Fact, if we add in the Colt da guns of similar size and vintage we get a whole lot of good guns. These guns changed quite a bit over the decades however, and the K frame Model 10 of today is not identical to the 38 Hand Ejector of over a century ago. A point that should be noted. Improvements in metallurgy and a number of refinements kept the M&P S&W's flagship handgun.
What story does it tell that despite the fact that semi-autos and swing-out cylinder DA revolvers were developed at roughly the same time (late 19th and early 20th Century) the semi-autos have changed so much while the revolvers have changed very little?
Revolvers have changed very little? Since 1898 we have added a good many more calibers, frame sizes, and metal alloys like aluminum, scandium, and stainless steels unknown in 1898. Casting, forging, mim and other modern processes and plastics form a part of what revolvers are today. Different from 1898.
The internals of wheelguns have changed quite a bit as well. Consider the internals of the strength and simplicity of teh Ruger Redhawk vs. the complexity of the S&W or Colt da revolver of 1901. Revolvers of 1898 or 1948 could not handle the pounding that one can see in modern revolver competitions and not fall to disrepair rapidly.
Even the excellent Model 19 Combat Magnum was not strong enough for the pounding, wear and ill treatment that modern shooters and the .357 Magnum gave it. The K frame .357s gave way to L frames.
There are modern 7, 8 and 10 shot revolvers in calibers more powerful than those of 1898.
We have revolvers for 460 Rowland, 454 Casull and calibers and power levels unthinkable even 50 years ago.
Scoped revolvers, revolvers with rails and led optics, etc.
We can also mention the rebirth of the single action revolver in iterations and power which could not have been in 1898.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "What story does it tell" that revolvers of 1898 were too weak to handle the volume of shooting and power of modern wheelguns?
It just tells us that things have evolved with both revolvers and pistols.
What story does it tell that, despite the fact that successful semi-autos have been available since the 1890's, it took until the 1980's and 1990's before they were able to equal or exceed the popularity of revolvers outside the military?
Semis were the handgun of choice in Europe over revolvers from early on in the 20th century and several decades before they became dominant in the U.S. Factually outside of the U.S. and the UK pistols dominated before the Second World War in most countries.
The U.S. was a nation of wheelgunners till the 1980s. Semis were considered military weapons by the broad mass of shooters and non shooters and less useful than revolvers for most purposes. There was not much more than ball ammo available. Outside of Colt no one made pistols in a service caliber in the U.S. till the post war period. While the 1911 was used in bullseye shooting and some in law enforcement (in 38 Super and 45acp) it was no where near as common as wheelguns.
Colt was the first U.S. manufacturer to produce a gun in 9mm and that was in 1948.
It had more to do with cultural, social and political factors than the superiority of one over the other.
tipoc
Last edited: