semi auto loads in revolvers & vice versa?
- Thread starter wogpotter
- Start date
jtmckinney
New member
My next firearm purchase will probably be a Blakchawk convertible 45 Colt and 45 ACP.
Only point needed is I want one.
Have a great day!
James
Only point needed is I want one.
Have a great day!
James
I am a semi-auto guy but I got an itch for a revolver (just because). I have tons of 9mm and .45 ammo on hand so it only made sense (to me) to consider a revolver in the same caliber (instead of buying additional .38, .357 etc. ammo). However, once I priced them and found they were rather exorbitant (for me), I passed. So outside of ammo practicality (or just because) i also can not see the point (except that life is too short so take advantage of it while you are here).
-Cheers
-Cheers
Here's an example. I have lots of revolvers, many 38s, so why do I need a 38 Semi Auto.
I use to shoot a lot of bullseye. Three gun, 22, center fire and 45. Of course we know there are plenty of good semi auto target 22s and 45s. So what do I do. I don't want to shoot a semi 22, and a semi 45, then use a revolver for center fire. It's screw me up big time. So I decide to get a semi in 38 for the center fire stage. Hard to compete with a revolver against a Smith Model 52 in 38 Special.
There is a need for both semi and revolvers in the same caliber.
I use to shoot a lot of bullseye. Three gun, 22, center fire and 45. Of course we know there are plenty of good semi auto target 22s and 45s. So what do I do. I don't want to shoot a semi 22, and a semi 45, then use a revolver for center fire. It's screw me up big time. So I decide to get a semi in 38 for the center fire stage. Hard to compete with a revolver against a Smith Model 52 in 38 Special.
There is a need for both semi and revolvers in the same caliber.
The one that gets me is the gun manufacturers persistent desire to produce an autoloader in .22WMR. The latest being Kel-tec. The cartridge just doesn't lend itself well to an autoloader, now costs about the same as 9mm. The only benefit is that you can have a very high capacity magazine. I like the .22WMR in both revolvers and rifles but I will not be buying an autoloader in the caliber.
Well first of all guns don't have to be practical, they're fun.
I wish Glock would make a 17L sized pistol that fired 380 Auto... just because I want one.
9mm revolvers are cool, they are practical for a backup, although there are micromatics out there now that are smaller than snub-nosed revolvers. Isn't the 9mm revolver slightly more compact than the 38spl because the cylinder is shorter?
I wish Glock would make a 17L sized pistol that fired 380 Auto... just because I want one.
9mm revolvers are cool, they are practical for a backup, although there are micromatics out there now that are smaller than snub-nosed revolvers. Isn't the 9mm revolver slightly more compact than the 38spl because the cylinder is shorter?
Perhaps a bit off the general theme, but DO NOT use .32 ACP in old revolvers chambered for .32 S&W or .32 Colt, or .38 ACP or .38 Super in revolvers chambered for .38 S&W. The auto pistol rounds may fire OK because they are semi-rimmed, but they run at least twice the pressures those old breaktops and solid frame revolvers were made for. In the case of .38 Super, the pressures run 37k psi where the old .38 S&W runs only 14k.
Jim
Jim
Shotgun693
New member
You might find a S&W 1917 lying around somewhere at a decent price. Ruger used to make a SA .357/9mm convertible but I haven't seen one in awhile. Keep looking, you never know.
carguychris
New member
Theoretically yes, but the problem is that AFAIK no major gunmaker has marketed a revolver with the cylinder and frame shortened to take advantage of the shorter 9mm cartridge. Most of these guns are standard .38Spl length, negating the potential size advantage.
I would like to add a slightly off-topic clarification.
IIRC .32 Long Colt and .32 Short Colt used a 0.313"-diameter case, usually with an outside-lubricated heeled .313-caliber bullet. .32ACP cartridges will not chamber in .32LC or .32SC firearms because the 0.337"-diameter case is too large.OTOH .32 Colt New Police is essentially the same thing as .32 S&W Long. .32ACP will chamber in these firearms.
All that being said, I agree with the general gist of the post: .32ACP should NEVER be fired in top-break or tip-up revolvers!
My brother once bought a smith in 45 acp. I thought it was kind of stupid at first, because he hated revolvers. During the conversation, I asked him if he had any speedloaders yet. He asked me if I was an idiot, of course, I got offended, and said "HUHH!?"
He pointed out that a guy using full moons and a DA revolver has the power and bore diameter of a .45, with 6 rounds, and the ability to reload in about the same time as he would with a 1911. he could load any type of ammunition in that thing, any hollow point, any profile, and never, ever, would that revolver choke on a round.
So, the .45 revolver does have a place, IMO. They all do, I figure. I'd take one in 10 mm any day as a between level round for .357 and .44 magnum.
He pointed out that a guy using full moons and a DA revolver has the power and bore diameter of a .45, with 6 rounds, and the ability to reload in about the same time as he would with a 1911. he could load any type of ammunition in that thing, any hollow point, any profile, and never, ever, would that revolver choke on a round.
So, the .45 revolver does have a place, IMO. They all do, I figure. I'd take one in 10 mm any day as a between level round for .357 and .44 magnum.
The point depends on the gun. The first revolvers to use semi-auto cartridges were made for a very logical reason. During WWI, the U.S. army wasn't able to procure enough 1911's to meet their needs. Because S&W and Colt were already tooled up to make their proven large frame revolvers (N-Frames and New Services respectively) they seemed like a logical choice as substitute standard. The army insisted, however, that these revolvers be chambered for the standard .45 ACP cartridge in order to prevent logistical problems. The ingenious solution was the half-moon clip which allow reliable extraction of the rimless cartridge.
After the war, both surplus revolvers and ammunition were widely available and inexpensive and thus became popular enough for new revolvers to be manufactured when the supply of surplus guns dried up. It was also discovered that moonclips provided a much more positive and speedy method of extraction and reloading than loose cartridges or later speedloaders. As such, .45 ACP revolvers eventually became popular for the action-shooting competitions due to their speed advantage.
A 9mm revolver offers the same advantages as one in .45 ACP along with the advantage of inexpensive ammunition (9mm is the least expensive centerfire handgun ammunition available). I admit, however, that I can't really see what the advantage of a .380 ACP revolver is.
Revolver-cartridge semi-autos are also usually made for a very specific purpose. The S&W Model 52, for example, was created specifically to be a target gun as .38 Special HBWC is considered to be one of the most accurate handgun loadings available.
Others like the Desert Eagle were designed as hunting handguns which give you the ballistics of a magnum revolver cartridge with the recoil reduction of a semi-auto. To be perfectly honest, however, Hollywood and the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality have probably sold as many or more Desert Eagles than the real-world advantages of the handgun itself.
After the war, both surplus revolvers and ammunition were widely available and inexpensive and thus became popular enough for new revolvers to be manufactured when the supply of surplus guns dried up. It was also discovered that moonclips provided a much more positive and speedy method of extraction and reloading than loose cartridges or later speedloaders. As such, .45 ACP revolvers eventually became popular for the action-shooting competitions due to their speed advantage.
A 9mm revolver offers the same advantages as one in .45 ACP along with the advantage of inexpensive ammunition (9mm is the least expensive centerfire handgun ammunition available). I admit, however, that I can't really see what the advantage of a .380 ACP revolver is.
Revolver-cartridge semi-autos are also usually made for a very specific purpose. The S&W Model 52, for example, was created specifically to be a target gun as .38 Special HBWC is considered to be one of the most accurate handgun loadings available.
Others like the Desert Eagle were designed as hunting handguns which give you the ballistics of a magnum revolver cartridge with the recoil reduction of a semi-auto. To be perfectly honest, however, Hollywood and the "mine is bigger than yours" mentality have probably sold as many or more Desert Eagles than the real-world advantages of the handgun itself.
I've never heard of a revolver chambered in .380 ACP but something tells me I will by the end of the day. However, there are some good reasons for revolvers chambered in auto pistol cartridges, provided you like revolvers.
The chief reason is that the differences in performance are anything but identical. A 9mm Luger will (or should) out erform a .38 special. It won't outperform a .357 by any means but if you have fired revolvers in those three calibers, you know there's a difference is the price you pay for the performance. I'd even say a 9mm revolver is easier to shoot than any .38 special combat cartridge.
I think maybe the .45 ACP is the only other cartridge commonly chambered in revolvers and again, I believe the .45ACP will outperform a .45 Colt in most factory loads, unless you go in for custom loaded bear killer ammunition, which in any case might not be the best for combat use.
Having said all that, the perceived differences in recoil and blast from alternative cartridges may not be as great as I'm suggesting but there is a difference.
As far as revolver cartridges, meaning only that the cartridge has a rim or flange, it is interesting to speculate on why the more powerful auto cartridges have not been more popular (but don't ask me how popular they actually are--haven't a clue), given as how the Desert Eagle is chambered in both the .357 and .44 magnum cartridges. I don't think any other similiar automatic was anywhere near as popular.
In an old edition of Small Arms of the World, which I do not have in front of me, the author makes reference to an early very powerful handgun, which I think was the Mars pistol. Evidently just because it fired a powerful round, the writer had the nerve to call it a "freak" cartridge, a term he uses more than once in his book.
The chief reason is that the differences in performance are anything but identical. A 9mm Luger will (or should) out erform a .38 special. It won't outperform a .357 by any means but if you have fired revolvers in those three calibers, you know there's a difference is the price you pay for the performance. I'd even say a 9mm revolver is easier to shoot than any .38 special combat cartridge.
I think maybe the .45 ACP is the only other cartridge commonly chambered in revolvers and again, I believe the .45ACP will outperform a .45 Colt in most factory loads, unless you go in for custom loaded bear killer ammunition, which in any case might not be the best for combat use.
Having said all that, the perceived differences in recoil and blast from alternative cartridges may not be as great as I'm suggesting but there is a difference.
As far as revolver cartridges, meaning only that the cartridge has a rim or flange, it is interesting to speculate on why the more powerful auto cartridges have not been more popular (but don't ask me how popular they actually are--haven't a clue), given as how the Desert Eagle is chambered in both the .357 and .44 magnum cartridges. I don't think any other similiar automatic was anywhere near as popular.
In an old edition of Small Arms of the World, which I do not have in front of me, the author makes reference to an early very powerful handgun, which I think was the Mars pistol. Evidently just because it fired a powerful round, the writer had the nerve to call it a "freak" cartridge, a term he uses more than once in his book.
cougar gt-e
New member
Does there need to be a reason for a certain gun? If people are willing to buy it and companies are willing to make it --> that's good enough for me! Variety is the spice of life as they say.
Stressfire
New member
And you would be right
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=461213&highlight=taurus+380+revolver
Not really sure I understand it either, but, hey, why not?
I once watched a bowling pin match with one competitor using a .45 ACP revolver. He did a reload faster than any of those using .45 autos and unlike at least one of the others, he didn't have a stoppage.
Fifty or sixty years ago, someone probably would have been using a pair of .45 Colt single action revolvers.
Fifty or sixty years ago, someone probably would have been using a pair of .45 Colt single action revolvers.
The reason S&W made 9mm revolvers was that the French police wanted to use revolvers for political reasons (less "miliaristic") but could get tons of free 9mm ammo from the military. Performance had nothing to do with it.
The same rationale drives a mild interest in 9mm revolvers among American police. Some old-time detectives (growing fewer by the day) would like to continue using revolvers, but must conform to a department policy mandating ammunition commonality with the uniforms. Again, performance is mostly irrelevant.
Jim
The same rationale drives a mild interest in 9mm revolvers among American police. Some old-time detectives (growing fewer by the day) would like to continue using revolvers, but must conform to a department policy mandating ammunition commonality with the uniforms. Again, performance is mostly irrelevant.
Jim