Revolvers versus Semi-autos

R

Rogervzv

New member
To me, this is a subject with an endless fascination.

I was brought up on semi-autos. In the Army, my personal firearm as a Captain of Artillery was a Colt 45 1911. Automatics can put more lead downrange quicker than revolvers, which is probably why the Army likes them.

On the other hand, revolvers almost never suffer mechanical problems serious enough to prevent them from firing. Revolvers can handle any round of the proper caliber, while semi-autos can have feeding problems with wadcutters or hollowpoint rounds. (My Colt Gold Cup is the poster child for this problem, although it is presently being looked at by a Smith who will likely correct this problem.) Revolvers are much easier to field strip and clean than many semi-autos.

Bottom line is that increasingly, as a civilian I find myself drawn more and more to revolvers. How can you watch a "Dirty Harry" flick and not want to own a good revolver?

A friend of mine and I recently had this conversation, and when I defended revolvers versus semi-autos per the above, he scoffed that the newer semis such as the Glock make the above arguments in favor of revolvers invalid.

Is that true?
 
eh? auto vs revolver is older than David and Goliath:D My first handgun was a S&W 642 airweight .38 spl. Truth be told, I do miss it but not for me but for my wife. I'm actually happier carrying a Glock 39 .45GAP, 6+1 of a caliber that I shoot better than anything else....:cool: as for my wife, thats a different story. Me thinks a Ruger LCP is in the near future for her.
 
Semi Autos are very reliable... neither is perfect....

Its like do you like vanilla ice cream or choclate ice cream.... Its more whats your flavor than whats better.
 
You know, I really like revolvers and carry them often. I shoot revolvers for practice and matches often also. In the last couple months, I've had two revolvers quit on me at the range. One was a 686 that's about a year old and another was a k22 about 60 years old. Neither quit from broken parts. Both quit because on the 686, I shot about 75 rounds after cleaning it and got to much lead built up on the forcing cone and the cylinder bound. Yes I was shooting lead. The k22 had about 300 rounds through it when it did the same thing with jacketed bullets. Both instances required cleaning with a scraper and brush to make functional again for continued shooting. I also shoot a colt 1911 that I routinely shoot between 500 and a thousand rounds through between cleanings and hardly ever have an issue. When I doi, it's a simple feed or eject issue that is easily cleared, and that's not many in thousands of rounds of lead.

Again, I love revolvers but to anyone who thinks they are foolproof, think again.
 
Personally I like and use both. For CCW I tend to the auto loader, I find a full sized 1911 comfortable and easy to hide. For home defense, besides the shotgun I use revolvers. They don't have spring compression problems, dry out and malfunction from having been left to long to gather dust, and what ever other problems you might get. Face it with the revolver as long as its loaded and you can pull the trigger it's gonna go boom.
 
I got into shooting because I love shooting. So my perspective on gun choices, at least early in my shooting career, had a lot less to do with the typical self-defense/tactical arguments for or against revolvers and autopistols.


I started out shooting revolvers but switched to autopistols for the following reasons.

1. Autopistols are easier to take down and clean/maintain than revolvers.

2. Autopistols are much cleaner to shoot at the range because you don't load the gun itself, you load the magazine and magazines stay a lot cleaner than cylinders do. In addition you stay cleaner because there's no barrel/cylinder gap to blow fouling out and onto your hands.

3. If you have a lot of magazines you can do your loading at home and not spend time doing it at the range.

When I started shooting, concealed carry wasn't legal in my state, so that wasn't an issue, but as things have changed over the years, now concealed carry has affected some of my buying decisions. When I carry, I carry centerfire autopistols for the following reasons.

1. They are flatter and typically smaller than revolvers of the same (or similar) caliber.

2. They hold more rounds than revolvers of roughly the same size and caliber.

3. A spare magazine is easier to carry than a revolver speedloader. I just put it into my weak hand pocket which means I don't have to worry about concealment or belt space.

4. Small autopistols tend to be easier to shoot and easier to shoot fast than small revolvers of roughly the same size and caliber.

There are certainly some drawbacks to small autopistols--especially as caliber increases the very light autopistols can become quite grip sensitive. Given that a person may not be able to take the ideal grip in a fluid self-defense encounter, it's important to understand that limitation and make sure that the gun will function properly even with a less than ideal hold on the pistol.
 
I'm a firm believer in which ever one you are better with or more comforable with is the one you should use. Some people seem to think that only high capacity semi autos are viable weapons. Those people are wrong. I have seen guys that are unbelievably profficient with revolvers. I own and use both revolvers and semi autos and would trust my life to either.
 
Ah.... The old revolver versus semi-auto dichotomy. What can one do that the other can’t??

Well.... I’ve never seen a a revolver smokestack an empty..........
 
not

I have found, as a revolver guy starting in 1976, that semi-automatic pistols are more reliable in general overall terms.
I currently own six revolvers.
And six autos.



My 'always' is a wheel'; it's back-ups are autos.
 
I like shooting revolvers. Why? Lessee...in no particular order:

1. Ammo versatility:
a. From my 686, I can shoot everything from full-house .357s to target wadcutters to standard Short Colt to Speer primer-only rubber bullets with no FTFs, FTEs or cycling issues.
b. I can experiment with powder charges, crimps, OALs, and bullet style with no FTFs, FTEs or cycling issues.
c. Due to the relatively low pressure, I can reload my brass a bunch of times.

2. Chasing brass: A non-issue.

3. The double action trigger:
a. It's tough to master (we never really master it), but there's a certain Zen to it.
b. It's not easy to shoot a DA revolver accurately in DA. It's not easy to shoot a DA revolver fast in DA. And it's definitely not east to shoot a DA revolver fast and accurately in DA. I enjoy the challenge and feel a sense of accomplishment when I'm doing well. It's also not something a lot of people can do, which adds to the sense of accomplishment.

4. Reloads: Same as the double action trigger. See 3a and 3b.

5. Dry fire: Revolvers are very amenable to dry fire and reloading practice.

6. Aesthetics: They just look right to me.

7. Grips: For at least popular models, there are plenty of grip options, so it's possible to fine-tune the gun to me, rather than the other way around.

8. Competition: Watching a good wheelgunner in a match is like poetry. With few exceptions, every stage must be treated as "limited", i.e. no makeup shots. And yet, their final time often hangs with semi-auto shooters of the same class.


revolvers almost never suffer mechanical problems serious enough to prevent them from firing.
Click to expand...

Notice this didn't make the list? :D
 
The one thing that will jam a revolver is a squib load or a cartridge loaded without powder and the primer has just enough power to put the bullet into the forcing cone.
 
I could make the argument either way.

But I will say this: My wifes nephews (fine young men) showed me some of their collection not too long ago. They had glocks, xd's, flashlights, knives, lasors, dozens of extra "clips" and carry holsters, ankle straps etc.. They were indeed cool! After all, when you grow up on CSI television shows, how can you safely go to the grocery store with anything less than all this?

When I pulled out my Blackhawk, they looked at each other and smiled as if to say "Uncle is from the twilight zone", he's totally defenseless! LOL! One of them asked "does that thing hold 6 rounds, how quickly can you load it"?

Don't get me wrong, I love my autos, but the mindset of today is changing with the times. Think of some of the threads here; is 9mm enough? that pocket auto only holds 8, not enough? how many extra "clips do I need"? I need 357 in a snubby in order to penetrate, right??? etc...

Both are awesome and have their place; it's just personal preference based on your likes and your needs.

It is what it is!
 
I have both and shoot both. I hunt with SA Revolvers and Carry a Full Size Auto. There is no best for everyone. Your best is what you prefer. Both will do what they are designed to do.
 
"The one thing that will jam a revolver is a squib load or a cartridge loaded without powder and the primer has just enough power to put the bullet into the forcing cone."

A squib load will also jam a semi-automatic to the point of uselessness by lodging a bullet in the barrel.

The single weakest point in virtually every semi-auto's design is the magazine.

You screw up the feed lips on the magazine and you're out of luck in most instances.

About the only exception to that rule is the Soviet Tokarev design, which makes the feed lips part of the gun, not the magazine, making them far more impervious to magazine issues. It's a great design concept that unfortunately never really caught on.
 
Whatcha gonna do with it?

For me, it has always been an issue of what I'm going to do with it. If I'm carrying IWB in a bad city, it's usually an auto. If I'm going to stuff it in my pocket and subject it to lint, banging into stuff, etc, it is usually a pocket revolver, such as my Smith 637. I usually feel better with a revolver when the conditions are kind of ugly. I'm not saying that a pocket auto can't be reliable, etc, but a revolver is kind of comforting when the gun isn't going to be covered by a jacket or protected from most of the elements. My woods gun is a revolver when I'm not carrying a shotgun.
 
Both John and MrBorland did a good job of summing up the advantages and disadvantages. My choice to only own centerfire revolvers stems from 10% looks, 20% hunting, 10% ability to shoot various loads and 60% hate chasin brass. The only way I can afford to shoot centerfires is to reload. Another plus of revolvers in my case is ammo tend to take longer to burn thru when plinkin and at the range. Another cost saving measure. If ammo was cheaper would I own some semis? More than likely.

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