The Revolver as an Offensive Tool

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using a handgun of any type as a sole "offensive" weapon is probably right up there with using lead sheeting to make balloon envelopes on the all-time Bad Ideas List.

As an adjunct to a longarm? Well, I'll note that the current favorite secondary weapon amongst the door-kicking cognoscenti isn't real long on capacity either. As a backup to an M4 or MP5, I don't see where a 625 or 627 would be at too terrible a disadvantage to a TLE or Professional.

Personally, though, the idea of "offensive" and "handgun" in the same sentence makes me cringe, because I'm a coward. Handgun, schmandgun: Can't we just take off and nuke the site from orbit?
 
I think a high capacity magazine has nothing to do with how good someone shoots.
Click to expand...
Yes Handy, I know that is what you think, that's why I said what I did. I don't know why your being condescending to me. I'm only talking to and reading about like-minded people and ideas on this fine forum like you, except I use alittle thought in my replies.
In general, their are people who are good shots and those that are not. Is that silly too?

I bet your a big Lee Marvin fan.
 
As an adjunct to a longarm? Well, I'll note that the current favorite secondary weapon amongst the door-kicking cognoscenti isn't real long on capacity either.
Click to expand...

You should edit that to "amongst SOME of the door-kicking cognoscenti." There are plenty of teams within the US (both uniformed civilians and military) and around the world who do not use single-stacks and are being quite effective.
 
If this, if that...

If IF was a fifth, we'd all be drunk. :D

One of my instuctors at SOI was kind enough to share that with my class. One can what if the seven or eight or platoon of enemies all day. Let me share a little something, IF there are seven enemies standing (when I go through the door) and I run dry (with my A4), my fireteam or squad SHOULD be able to handle that while I go for the wheelgun. That was what I was wanting to know:
Would you feel confident in that type of weapon?

As for 6shooter's comment on the hi-caps repleacing GOOD shooting, I'm taken aback! My grandfather taught me how to shoot the 1911 that saved his life in WWII, but the revolver appealed to me! I got a SW 686-6 at age 16, then a CZ75, then a Witness .45, then a MRI Baby Eagle. Those last three are all hi-caps, yet I've always treated them as more rounds to place accurately, not as an replacement for skills.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to patch up my eye and tape my ribs...this place is getting rough! :p
 
Personally, though, the idea of "offensive" and "handgun" in the same sentence makes me cringe, because I'm a coward. Handgun, schmandgun: Can't we just take off and nuke the site from orbit?
Click to expand...

<CRSam voice>

Yep!

:D
 
It only took less than a page to turn this thread into a "PI$$ING CONTE$T" and get sideways into MAGAZINES, which has NOTHING TO DO with a REVOLVER... :rolleyes:
Don't ya just love the internet forums? ;)

If I understood the original question correctly, it asked if a revolver had a place as an OFFENSIVE weapon.
OFFENSE implies "ATTACK", so, depending on the attack scenario, I would venture to say "YES" in anwer to the question.

IF the time and distance are short, then a 'transition' to another, higher-capacity firearm may be the best of answers.
If the time and distance provide for alternative firearm choices or reloading, then again, the answer is "YES".

There's no doubt that appropriate power and accuracy can be garnered by using a revolver, but the exact scenario must be established to decide whether or not this firearm is appropriate given the circumstances.

Then again, if the ONLY firearm IS the revolver, no matter WHAT the scenario, then you've got a loaded gun, so GO FOR IT! :D
 
6shooter,

The "condescension" occurred when you libeled a bunch of shooters based on their weapon choice - hiding behind a tired wive's tale that insists that only revolver shooters have any sort of self control.
In general, their are people who are good shots and those that are not. Is that silly too?
Click to expand...
No, since that's what I was telling you.

I'm not much of a Lee Marvin fan, but I do own 3 revolvers and only one double stack auto. I am a big fan of rational thought, rather than prejudices.
 
Getting back to offensive use of the revolver.

I still think an offensive situation where a revolver would be superior to the brass spitter is for dog and sentry elimination. As I stated earlier in the thread, a suppressor equiped gas-sealed revolver of modern design would eliminate the sound of a recipoicating slide, the sound of bouncing brass, and the sound of an inadvertantly dropped magazine, while maintaining the rapid fire capability of a shell shucker. Using heavy, very slow bullets would further reduce the firing signature. Does anyone on TFL have any comments on this idea?

Speaking of offensive revolvers, I find RGs offensive.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
Webley-Fosbery

Well Webley, I don't know about modern machines, but according to Wikipedia, your namesake company produced the first automatic revolver back in 1901, something called the "Webley Fosbery automatic revolver". It was chambered in .455 Webley and was recoil operated.
WebleyFosbery1.jpg
 
I'm confused CarbineCaleb.

Why do you mention the Fosbury? Though I am glad to see you've been studying up on Webleys. An admirable pursuit.

What do you think of the idea of the Dog and Sentry removal suppressed gas-sealed revolver?

Stay warm up there in the White Mountains.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set up Webley (not a Webley-Fosbury) is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
Hey Lucky 7, I love the 1911, I have one myself but, it's not a hi-cap mag at 7rounds. I glad you've taken the time to practice and become good at shooting semi-autos because alot of people don't take the time and subsitute more rounds in the mag for good shooting. Cheers.

As for you Handy, are you going to add anything to this talk other than bent sarcasm? I'm not here to slap keyboards with you or anyone. Sorry you don't like my opinion about this subject but, that's all it is as far as you're concerned, so why worry so much? I read some stuff on here that makes me wonder what they're thinking when they write it.
.
I shoot bullseye competition, I don't know if you're familiar with this but, most everyone that shoots in this uses semi-autos (by the way it's in .22 calibre) with nice red-dot scopes and there is rapid fire sequence and it's fun but my point is I am one of five people out of 50 who use a revolver against the autos. I won the event last year, another wheel gun won the year before. It's all about shooting....and the shooter.
A revolver as an offensive weapon? In my hands it can be and so can a semi-auto if people willing to practice at it. Or you could just carry a bunch of 15 or 17 round mags and spray lead in the bad guys direction. Maybe you'll get lucky and hit one of 'em. Is that rational enough fer ya?
 
I still think an offensive situation where a revolver would be superior to the brass spitter is for dog and sentry elimination.
Click to expand...

Webley: I think if your dog and sentry are having difficulties with elimination, you should just administer a bowl and a glass of prune juice for each of them, respectively. Then just wait about 8 hours and I believe everything will come out alright.

Stay clean down in the land of suppressed elimination. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Or you could just carry a bunch of 15 or 17 round mags and spray lead in the bad guys direction.
Click to expand...
No, that is not rational. Maybe you could use a 15 round mag, hit what you're aiming at, and not be killed while reloading. Maybe you could eventually understand that the existance of a 15 round mag has nothing to do with the shooter's ability, since you seem to be confusing equipment and people.

Since you obviously missed my first two posts, I'll summerize:
1. Handguns are poor offensive weapons.
2. If you had to use one, power, accuracy and capacity are all going to be key. The revolver will only do the first two. Some autos will cover all three. But an auto of limited capacity suffers the same as the revolver.


WW,
Using a modern Nagant with a suppresor would certainly work, but so would other solutions, like a pepperbox or 4 barrel derringer. Given the level of specialization, would it pay to engineer such a costly design (gas seal) for such a limited purpose? I'm just thinking that one of the other methods might work just as well with less cost.
 
Loudest suppressed handgun?

Webley: Ok, sorry, I shouldn't be making light of this - there are serious matters of national security at stake here!

I suppose a suppressed revolver might be quieter than a suppressed semi-automatic. Having never fired a supressed handgun of either type, I have no idea what they sound like. What I am getting at is that my instinct is that after the explosion itself is no longer the loudest sound, we should focus on the *next* loudest sound associated with firing. What would that be? If it is the hammer - perhaps they would still be about the same?
 
No, it's the movement of the bolt or slide. The hammer gets lost in the light cough of the cartridge firing.
 
CarbineCaleb and Handy

CarbineCaleb,

Ha, ha, you funny! Now that you've got that excrement out of your system, how about an opinion like Handy's that has some analytical value?


Handy,

Thanks for the analysis of the proposal. I think the weapon I am proposing is a limited special purpose weapon. It is not intended to replace the standard sidearm. This special purpose weapon should be light and semi-disposable after use. In fact firing a specialize ammunition would contribute to disposability since the enemy could not readily use it. In order to stay light I think a multi-barrel system would weigh more than a revolver. I also think 6 to 8 round capacity is desirable and probably more than enough. Engagements would be not be an IPSC multi-target assualt pistol stage.The engineering work is pretty much done. The mechanics of gas-sealing are really very simple. It would not take much to scale up a Nagant with some modern refinements and chambered in a more effective cartridge. Considering how much the military spends on developing other gadgets of questionable necessity, M4 Carbines for instance, I don't think the costs would be unreasonable. I think the biggest stumbling block to the concept would be the typical military attitude of not reverting to previously abandoned technology, even when it is more appropriate for the mission, until the death toll becomes unacceptably high. Perhaps the fact the Soviets used suppressed Nagants would bias the decision making process of the Brass Hats.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top