The Revolver as an Offensive Tool
- Thread starter Lucky 7
- Start date
- Status
GunsnRovers
New member
There will be some that will say ANY handgun is defensive and simply a means to get to a proper long gun.
CarbineCaleb
New member
I am not quite sure what you mean by "offensive tool"... since for civilians at least, going on offense with a gun equals murder.
Maybe you're asking about whether a revolver (or handgun) is the best appropriate weapon if one (theoretically) were in a a certain offensive situation.
At least IMO, a compact long gun is much more lethal than a handgun, even at close range. Purely in terms of fighting effectiveness, I'd take a short, light-chambered (say .40S&W or .223) semiauto carbine or a short, light-chambered (20 gauge) high cap. semiauto shotgun over a handgun any day. I don't buy the handgun speed arguement - if you are at "high ready position" with a carbine, you are there, and you can shoot much more accurately. The only advantage I can possibly see for the handgun is if the attacker is literally already on top of you.
As to handguns vs handguns, although I prefer shooting revolvers
, if I knew 100% that I was going to be in a gunfight, I'd rather be holding a semiauto pistol, no doubt.
Maybe you're asking about whether a revolver (or handgun) is the best appropriate weapon if one (theoretically) were in a a certain offensive situation.
At least IMO, a compact long gun is much more lethal than a handgun, even at close range. Purely in terms of fighting effectiveness, I'd take a short, light-chambered (say .40S&W or .223) semiauto carbine or a short, light-chambered (20 gauge) high cap. semiauto shotgun over a handgun any day. I don't buy the handgun speed arguement - if you are at "high ready position" with a carbine, you are there, and you can shoot much more accurately. The only advantage I can possibly see for the handgun is if the attacker is literally already on top of you.
As to handguns vs handguns, although I prefer shooting revolvers
, if I knew 100% that I was going to be in a gunfight, I'd rather be holding a semiauto pistol, no doubt.juliet charley
New member
I don't know. While any handgun--revolver or pistol--probably serves better as a defensive tool than an offensive tool, there are quite a few view knives as offensive tools and use them quite effecively that way. Frankly, I would much prefer a good revolver. I guess, when you get right down to it, it's kind of a silly question, isn't it? --just a good way to start a fight.
just one question
New member
no
I would get a long gun... If i couldnt get that then i would get an semi auto over a revolver. Preferably both a full size auto (beretta 92) and one of those taurus snubby 9mm revolvers.(never shot the taurus 9mm but i have shot revolvers. and it would be good to have them use the same ammo)
I would get a long gun... If i couldnt get that then i would get an semi auto over a revolver. Preferably both a full size auto (beretta 92) and one of those taurus snubby 9mm revolvers.(never shot the taurus 9mm but i have shot revolvers. and it would be good to have them use the same ammo)
Webleywielder
Moderator
CarbineCaleb I think it can be.
Handguns can certainly be offensive weapons. The PX4 can be used offensively. I apparently used it to offend a few people while discussing it in another of your threads. It was all just a little head butting in good fun. Keeps us pointy-headed arrogant know-it-alls from being mistaken for 6 foot tall traffic cones.
A suppressed gas-sealed revolver firing heavy subsonic bullets would be a good small offensive weapon for use against sentry dogs and personnel. It would not have the noise of a reciprocating slide or bouncing brass. It is my understanding that the M1895 Nagant was suppressed by the frequently changing initials of Soviet intelligence.
Of course there are offensive revolvers in use, certain automatic cannons have revolving barrels or chambers.
"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
Handguns can certainly be offensive weapons. The PX4 can be used offensively. I apparently used it to offend a few people while discussing it in another of your threads. It was all just a little head butting in good fun. Keeps us pointy-headed arrogant know-it-alls from being mistaken for 6 foot tall traffic cones.
A suppressed gas-sealed revolver firing heavy subsonic bullets would be a good small offensive weapon for use against sentry dogs and personnel. It would not have the noise of a reciprocating slide or bouncing brass. It is my understanding that the M1895 Nagant was suppressed by the frequently changing initials of Soviet intelligence.
Of course there are offensive revolvers in use, certain automatic cannons have revolving barrels or chambers.
"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
CarbineCaleb
New member
Webley - I have noticed that you seem to have a certain talent (not accidental I suspect) for rubbing people the wrong way. I guess you enjoy verbal combat. 
Me, I prefer communication to altercation, but, to each their own. En garde!
Me, I prefer communication to altercation, but, to each their own. En garde! It depends on the situation. As far as self defense goes anything at hand that will stop the attacker should be used. As for combat which is different -any handgun is a last ditch effort along with your knife. Remember what George Patton said - There is one tactical principle which is not subject to change. That is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds,death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.
All right, I think it is a weird question, but what would you want in an offensive handgun?
1. Accuracy - offense means longer shots. Revolver - check.
2. Power - if we are aspiring to replace a rifle, it better put out like a rifle. Revolver - check.
3. Size - doesn't matter, but bigger is easier to handle recoil and sights. Revolver - check.
4. Capacity - would you attack with a gun that will need to be reloaded soon into the fight? Revolver sucks for capacity, and is slower to reload.
5. Trigger - DA triggers are there for safe transition from carry to shooting. Completely unnecessary if you know you'll be shooting and have gun unholstered. Also makes long shots much harder. Revolvers don't cock themselves, either.
In the balance, a large, high capacity auto shooting a magnum level round is your best "offensive" handgun. Compare to a 10mm widebody 1911, a Glock 20 or Mk 23 with +P or Super rounds. None of those guns give up anything to the revolver, but add capacity and lighter trigger.
So, no, IMHO the right auto would make a BETTER offensive handgun than the best revolver. But both make terrible rifles.
1. Accuracy - offense means longer shots. Revolver - check.
2. Power - if we are aspiring to replace a rifle, it better put out like a rifle. Revolver - check.
3. Size - doesn't matter, but bigger is easier to handle recoil and sights. Revolver - check.
4. Capacity - would you attack with a gun that will need to be reloaded soon into the fight? Revolver sucks for capacity, and is slower to reload.
5. Trigger - DA triggers are there for safe transition from carry to shooting. Completely unnecessary if you know you'll be shooting and have gun unholstered. Also makes long shots much harder. Revolvers don't cock themselves, either.
In the balance, a large, high capacity auto shooting a magnum level round is your best "offensive" handgun. Compare to a 10mm widebody 1911, a Glock 20 or Mk 23 with +P or Super rounds. None of those guns give up anything to the revolver, but add capacity and lighter trigger.
So, no, IMHO the right auto would make a BETTER offensive handgun than the best revolver. But both make terrible rifles.
Purely an academic question as pointed out by jc...
But I'll bite.
I think if semi-autos hadn't been invented, we'd be shooting revolvers that rival the capabilities of today's semis. For example, a good quality top-break auto-ejector, 8 shot, self-cocking (like the Mateba), full caliber revolver made from modern materials and equipped with appropriate speed loaders would be pretty much the equal of a 1911, IMO.
As it stands, semi-autos have been evolving steadily, while revolver technology came to a near standstill around 60 years ago.
Quite frankly, I'm kind of surprised that no-one capitalized on the AWB capacity restrictions by making a "tactical" revolver similar to what I mentioned above.
But I'll bite.
I think if semi-autos hadn't been invented, we'd be shooting revolvers that rival the capabilities of today's semis. For example, a good quality top-break auto-ejector, 8 shot, self-cocking (like the Mateba), full caliber revolver made from modern materials and equipped with appropriate speed loaders would be pretty much the equal of a 1911, IMO.
As it stands, semi-autos have been evolving steadily, while revolver technology came to a near standstill around 60 years ago.
Quite frankly, I'm kind of surprised that no-one capitalized on the AWB capacity restrictions by making a "tactical" revolver similar to what I mentioned above.
I think too many place too much emphasis on capacity. One great offensive weapon of the military today and in the past has been the sniper who typically fires one shot from a bolt action. It depends on the role being played out. In that light the revolver can still be a viable offensive weapon. Like any other platform you don't employ it where it's disadvatages can be compromised.
The break in the top strap with the locking mechanism of a Top-break is where the problem will crop up. S&W learned that when they developed the Hand Ejector. The No. 3 was an excellent revolver, but the design wouldn't hold up to the newer higher pressure cartridges.
Top-breaks are a weak design. Modern materials can't compensate for design. Example is the Trapdoor rifle. Today it is still made and with modern materials, but it still has to be loaded light because it is the weakest action using the .45-70 cartridge.
The break in the top strap with the locking mechanism of a Top-break is where the problem will crop up. S&W learned that when they developed the Hand Ejector. The No. 3 was an excellent revolver, but the design wouldn't hold up to the newer higher pressure cartridges.
Top breaks are weaker than solid top strap revolvers all else being equal. That doesn't mean that they can't be durable and safe.
Lever actions that lock at the rear of the bolt are weaker than bolt actions but that doesn't mean they're not a workable design.
Top-break actions may not be a good solution for a .454 Casull or a .44 Mag revolver, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't work fine for a .38Spl +p or perhaps a .45ACP level round.
If you stop and think about it, there are many modern revolvers with solid top-straps that aren't suitable for use with "newer high pressure cartridges." Any revolver marked .38spl, for example.
Lever actions that lock at the rear of the bolt are weaker than bolt actions but that doesn't mean they're not a workable design.
Top-break actions may not be a good solution for a .454 Casull or a .44 Mag revolver, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't work fine for a .38Spl +p or perhaps a .45ACP level round.
If you stop and think about it, there are many modern revolvers with solid top-straps that aren't suitable for use with "newer high pressure cartridges." Any revolver marked .38spl, for example.
Last edited:
If they were workable they would have been chambered in the higher pressured cartridges along with the bolt guns. The real locking bolts simply aren't as strong as the front locking bolts.
Yet they are still of the same design (a solid top strap). The .38spl revolvers have been beefed up to handle the .357magnum. You can't expect a revolver designed for a lower pressure cartridge to handle a higher pressure cartridge, but if the design is strong then a bigger, sturdier model certainly can.
The same thing applied to the open top black powder revolvers. When the higher pressure centerfire cartridges came out the design was noted to be to weak and the solid top strap was used. Any break in the frame constitutes weakness in a revolver.
But have it your way. Maybe someone will design a lock that will allow the top break design to work with modern cartidges. Untill then that will be the problem.
Don't kid yourself - if someone wanted to make a strong break action revolver, they could. The fact that you can make a .357 out of scandium reinforced aluminum should make this very clear: The frame just isn't under that much stress.
And isn't the Browning BLR a .300 Win. lever action?
Don't believe everything you hear from turn of the century engineers.
And isn't the Browning BLR a .300 Win. lever action?
Don't believe everything you hear from turn of the century engineers.
They're obviously workable since many thousands are sold every year.
Clearly not everyone wants to shoot the highest pressure cartridges on the market. Sales of 30-30 and .38spl cartridges should be ample proof of that. People like that are well served by lever action rifles and would be similarly well served by top-break revolvers.
The fact that a revolver design won't handle .44 mag isn't proof that it's totally useless--only that it has limitations.
Very reasonable question and the answer is quite logical; assuming you have good reason to go on the offensive with a handgun - and do not think the circumstances favor a long gun - a revolver would be the appropriate choice for anyone who prefers it to the pistol.
What's that? Any handgun is the wrong choice? Then why does anyone choose a handgun over a long gun on the defensive when their and or other lives are at stake?
What's that? Any handgun is the wrong choice? Then why does anyone choose a handgun over a long gun on the defensive when their and or other lives are at stake?
- Status