Do revolvers suck?

[jgreiner]

No argument from me on that.

Also, given my ADVANCED age (55), and the fact that I grew up on Westerns......I will always have a love affair with revolvers.

 

[Hopper]

Also, given my ADVANCED age (55), and the fact that I grew up on Westerns......I will always have a love affair with revolvers.

Hahh! Over this summer, I've found myself watching re-runs of "The Rifleman" on AMC every Saturday morning. The cartoons kids watch these days are just awful, and this scratches my "Saturday morning TV" itch.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Also, given my ADVANCED age (55), and the fact that I grew up on Westerns......I will always have a love affair with revolvers.

That's kinda like me only I watched a lot of WW2 movies...which explains the soft spot I have for 1911s, M1 Carbines, and Garands.

 

[Spear Dane]

Nice write up.

 

[lovemachine]

Here's another view...

SUAREZ INTERNATIONAL BLOG - When Your J Frame Isn't Enough

 

[88E30M50]

Thanks BBI. That's really interesting stuff.

 

[kaveman]

So as not to derail a different thread (further) I figured I'd just start a new one and lay out my reasoning a bit on why the answer is "no". As many of you know, I investigate people shot/stabbed/robbed blah blah blah and have for years real world experience impressive resume blah blah blah. So, here's my take away.

If revolvers suck, there should be a statistical difference in who won and lost a gun fight based on who had a revolver and who did not. I have seen no such statistic in my cases. People armed with revolvers tend to prevail as often as their counterparts armed with semi-autos. Why?

Well, because capacity is seldom a deciding factor. I've said it time and time again, but one side runs out of time before either side runs out of ammo in the vast majority of cases. One side or the other is injured and flees, is scared and flees, or is incapacitated and...well, just sort of lays there usually. Even in cases where more than 5-6 shots were fired, it rarely changes the outcome. They are shooting at someone who is fleeing (and often didn't START shooting until the person was fleeing). They are shooting and missing. They are shooting at someone who's already incapacitated and their brain hasn't caught up to the fact the other guy is down and out of the fight just yet.

Next up, is when did a revolver fail and a pistol would have prevailed or vice versa. I can tell you that the shooter's worst enemy is the thumb safety. I have had way more people fail to disengage the thumb safety and get victimized while pulling a dead trigger than have ever died with an empty gun of any kind. Those people would have done better with a revolver. I can think of one incident where the first shot hit the floor plate of the guy's magazine, dumping his cartridges. A revolver would have still been functional, but I think he would have still lost because he got stitched up too fast to react even if he'd had an uzi in his hand.

On the flip side is the myth the revolver is more reliable. Folks, these days if your semi-auto won't run 500-1k rounds with zero maintenance and feed any HP bullet out there then you bought a crap gun. Revolvers can and do fail, but are simpler to maintain. A (no thumb safety) pistol is just as likely to go bang, though.

So, in most real world applications I don't see a significant difference between a revolver and a pistol. Is it the best? Probably not, but few people really carry the "best" as opposed to "the best compromise". Based on what I've seen my recommendations for Mr/Mrs Generic Gun Toter would be:

1) No thumb safety pistol
2) Revolver
3) 1911 style thumb safety equipped pistol
4) Any other thumb safety equipped pistol

And learn to employ it quickly and with the element of surprise...which is significantly more important than weapon selection (as long as you can make it go bang every time...which all to often doesn't happen with a safety equipped gun under stress).

Can I say that overall this is the best post I've read in a dozen years of internet forums? Guess so,...........I just said it.

The intersting thing is that it's not really a post about revolvers. It's a post about how handguns should be as simple to operate as possible. I agree. Afterall, it's 'just' a handgun. Other than vanity, I can find little difference between a $300 handgun and a $3000 handgun,.........as long as we're talking about a 'good' $300 handgun. I'm almost 100% devoted to DAO autos and hammerless revolvers. Point and shoot, point and shoot, point and shoot.

 

[actaeon277]

Here's another view...

SUAREZ INTERNATIONAL BLOG - When Your J Frame Isn't Enough

The revolver "might" not be enough.
Well, the semi-auto "might" not be enough.

Carry what you shoot well.

 

[actaeon277]

Excellent write-up and thoughts, BBI.

It was a bit over a year ago that I got into revolvers, and bought my first one, after swearing I'd never be interested in having anything to do with wheel guns. My younger brother let me shoot his S&W 66-5 (pre-lock), and after a cylinder or two, it was over. What sealed the deal is that within half an hour of unboxing my first revolver, I was hitting a small steel plate at 60+ yards in double action. The accuracy of a good wheel gun is amazing!

I carry a J-frame with 38+P in the summer, often with a speed loader in my spare pocket. I've enjoyed carrying it so much, it may end up being my EDC year 'round. I also have a couple of the NM 66 Combat Magnums that Smith re-introduced last year. With an easy $20 Wilson Combat spring swap, the triggers easily outclass my DW VBob. I mention this because I remember going through some of the same mental exercises... reliability, capacity, accuracy, ease/difficulty of maintenance, etc.

All this to say that after being a die-hard semi-auto guy out of the gate, I could very easily go strictly to wheel guns, and be perfectly happy with that choice. If you're a shooting enthusiast with doubts about revolvers, you do owe it to yourself to give one a try.

I fell in love with my S&W model 19 after shooting semi-autos for decades.

 

[lovemachine]

The revolver "might" not be enough.
Well, the semi-auto "might" not be enough.

Carry what you shoot well.

True, but a semi-auto has more benefits than a revolver. Why set yourself up for failure? Why not take any advantage that you can get? Handguns are already a compromise, why trust your life with something that can fail more often? Or something that just doesn't have the power to get that penetration to stop a fight?

BBI is probably right, 2-4 rounds may be plenty, but why not carry a gun that has double that? JUST IN CASE?

If I can shoot a .380 better than a 1911, should I carry that mouse gun instead? Hell no.

 

[jgreiner]

That's kinda like me only I watched a lot of WW2 movies...which explains the soft spot I have for 1911s, M1 Carbines, and Garands.

Oh, me too. Longest Day, In Harms Way, Flying Leathernecks, etc. And that is why I also have a 1911

 

[indiucky]

Why set yourself up for failure? Why not take any advantage that you can get? Handguns are already a compromise, why trust your life with something that can fail more often? Or something that just doesn't have the power to get that penetration to stop a fight?

That's funny...I thought you like semi autos for defense and yet the reasons you gave for using a semi auto are the exact same reasons I give for carrying a revolver for defense....Sometimes great minds do not think alike...Or do they????

I shoot quite a bit, a couple of hundred rounds a week...I began shooting revolvers when I was 17 and just turned 51...I have never had a revolver fail on me...My revolvers run .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and .45 ACP. I have always thought of these as powerful rounds with good penetration....I have never thought as to whether I will succeed in a gun fight or fail in a gunfight to be based on whether I was carrying a revolver or a semi auto...

It is my belief that the weapon I choose is way down on the list...I am more concerned about possibly taking a human life and how I will deal with that for my remaining days....

IMHO of course.....

 

[gary1960Pwrcruz]

You really hit the mark with your thoughts. I really believe that when under stress of a violent situation, a simple revolver is by far your best bet.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Revolvers are simple. That is part of their elegance. And probably why they have been popular for so long.

If you had ever taken one down for a spring job, I doubt you would have made this statement. There are several pieces to go bad and it actually resembles an old clock / watch.



The principles of marksmanship are the same with a Semi-Auto as with a Revolver... Press the trigger straight to the rear while not disturbing the sight alignment...

 

[GNRPowdeR]

BBI is probably right, 2-4 rounds may be plenty, but why not carry a gun that has double that? JUST IN CASE?

3 Rounds
3 Seconds
3 Yards

This is the AVERAGE self defense shooting... Some have more of these units of measure, while some have less... Could be 15 yards with one shot or 5 ft with 10 shots. These are simply the Average.

 

[lovemachine]

Revolvers, compared to a semi auto, are also more difficult to shoot. Smaller sight radius as well.

Semi autos are also easier to reload.

For a beginner, revolvers are a poor choice. For a defensive weapon, unless you have trained with one for years, a revolver is also a poor choice.

This is also 2015. Semi auto is the better way

 

[indiucky]

This is also 2015. Semi auto is the better way

So now I should ditch the horse and get a vehicle...Man.....

 

[actaeon277]

True, but a semi-auto has more benefits than a revolver. Why set yourself up for failure? Why not take any advantage that you can get? Handguns are already a compromise, why trust your life with something that can fail more often? Or something that just doesn't have the power to get that penetration to stop a fight?

BBI is probably right, 2-4 rounds may be plenty, but why not carry a gun that has double that? JUST IN CASE?

If I can shoot a .380 better than a 1911, should I carry that mouse gun instead? Hell no.

If you're going to use that argument, then why not carry a rifle? It has more benefits than a semi-auto pistol.

 

[lovemachine]

If you're going to use that argument, then why not carry a rifle? It has more benefits than a semi-auto pistol.

Because you can't carry a rifle, or a shotgun, to Walmart and Taco Bell.

 

[lovemachine]

So now I should ditch the horse and get a vehicle...Man.....