Do revolvers suck?

[VERT]

Do..... they suk?......d'pends on if yer know whut'cha do'n..... or don't ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

Yeah but Jerry isn't human.

 

[wagyu52]

No they don't suck, I'm just gonna leave this 586 here.

 

[RustyHornet]

I LIKE GUNS! Don't care how it fires or what it's coming out of...

 

[VERT]

No they don't suck, I'm just gonna leave this 586 here.


View attachment 41545

Again context. This thread started because of a remark made in another thread. A well known instructor mentioned the limitations of revolvers in a training class. Basically the opinion given was the limitations of small revolvers that are commonly carried for self defense. Nobody has ever said a beautiful K/L frame revolver sucks.

edit: Everybody go back and read Powder's post #15 on page one

 

[tbhausen]

Card-carrying member of the Curmudgeonous Revolver Club right here!

 

[Snapdragon]

I guess that makes me a curmudgeonette.

 

[Leadeye]

Only thing I've carried longer than my 1911AI has been my S&W 49.

 

[SSGSAD]

Go visit these folks, and tell them that Revolvers are NOT top notch .....

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ub-september-27th-2015-a.html?highlight=icore

 

[Twangbanger]

They do not suck. But they have proven to be inferior as weapons, which is why police and military entities generally don't issue them anymore. Multiple assailants are, unfortunately, a fact of life. And revolvers flat-out suck at that.

However, I will say: the Ruger LCP 9mm, with short-stroke trigger and clipped ammo, is a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Snapdragon]

Proven?

 

[451_Detonics]

They do not suck. But they have proven to be inferior as weapons, which is why police and military entities generally don't issue them anymore.

However, I will say: the Ruger LCP 9mm, with short-stroke trigger and clipped ammo, is a huge step in the right direction.

no...police and military have proven they can't hit what they shoot at so they need to carry more rounds in the gun to have a hope in hell of hitting anything.

 

[Twangbanger]

Proven?

Yes, I would tend to say so. Every department and entity who made the switch has gone through their own evaluation process. Go ask them.

Or if you want to narrow down the work-scope, you can just ask one of the ones that still issues revolvers.

 

[Twangbanger]

no...police and military have proven they can't hit what they shoot at so they need to carry more rounds in the gun to have a hope in hell of hitting anything.

They have proven that they have a need to deal with MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS. And revolvers suck at that.

 

[Leadeye]

Multiple assailants? Not an every day problem, but if that's the case I have that covered.

 

[Twangbanger]

Multiple assailants? Not an every day problem, but if that's the case I have that covered.

F'in awesome!

 

[eldirector]

I'm not going to take sides, but I find it interesting that everyone argues the pros/cons but misses the crux of BBI's post:

I'm going to use part of Coach's list as an example. Not to pick on him (wouldn't dare!), but it illustrates my point:

3) Low capacity. BBI's experience is that the fight is over in 3 rounds average, or 5 rounds w/in one standard deviation. Type of gun not relevant.
4) Accuracy at distance is difficult and takes much more practice that semi auto again, experience is that there is no difference to "first hit" between gun types
6) Reloads take days and not seconds. again, experience is that reloads simply do not happen, regardless of gun type
7) Most lack good sights. no difference (again) between who gets the first hit

So, personal preferences beside, and even professional opinions aside, my take away was: GET THE FIRST HIT with just about anything. Put 3-5 shots on target before your opponent gets his/her 3-5 shots off. Any reasonable caliber will do. Any reliable cartridge type will so. Any reliable gun will do. As long as you are both quick, and accurate.

It's like arguing over what kind of smoke detector is best, while have ANY working smoke detector makes you (and your family) orders of magnitude more likely to escape a home fire.

Since ware all enthusiasts on here, we will argue the finer details until the cows come home, I am sure!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you carry one at work as your primary gun?

Funny you should ask. I went in yesterday on my day off to lock up someone coming to a probation meeting. I wore my 4" .357 as my primary.

 

[Drail]

Do revolvers suck? Ever seen Jerry Miculek shoot one? Seriously though, revolvers DO NOT suck. (plastic double stack pistols suck). Far too many people today are not willing to put in the time and work necessary to shoot one well. It's well worth the time and effort. Trust me on that.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Nicely done. What about DA/SA?

It's what all the cool kids carry when they carry a semi-auto pistol.

Really, I think the DA/SA has a lot going for it when not handicapped with thumb safety as well. A carry gun needs to be easy to shoot, but it also needs to be easy to not shoot.

Revolvers don't suck, but they are different. Like any tool, they have a place in the toolbox. You just have to know how to use it.

Wait, you mean you need to have some training and practice? Well, poo, forget that then.

Everyone should start with a revolver.

I'm inclined to agree. I started on a rimfire revolver, and I'm starting my son on a rimfire. Even the cool Glock Kids have reported shooting their Glocks better after spending some time with a DA revolver. Go figure.

A thought though. How many of the incidents that you're basing this on are those that involve "non-gun" people? How many of them are folks that got any gun they could to ply their trade and never practice with it to become proficient? I'm thinking in your trade, that should be a large percentage.

Nearly all of them that weren't cops or vets, and some of them. That plays into my point a bit, though. Real Cool Gun Guys generally fall in to one of two categories. Tactical Timmy or Gary Gamer, or some hybrid. Those are the people that get really good, put in a lot of time, etc. Because of that they tend to think in terms of Tactical Timmies and Gary Gamers, and what they consider "good" is based on those perspectives. I see Gamers especially placing a MUCH higher value on capacity than it deserves. Timmy may care if you can hang a light on it, or if you can spend a 800 round range day without stoving your wrists in and breaking the piggy bank. Joe Average doesn't really need to value any of that. He's not going to shoot 800 rounds a year, let alone in one practice session. He's not going to shoot 12 targets at varying distances and heights. He's not going to kick in the door at the local Ninja Death Squad Club House. Things that are very important to Timmy and Gary...don't matter to Joe. More on that later.

An oft-overlooked point, I feel. A revolver doesn't care one whit about what power factor load you've put in it, nor if you're not giving it a stable platform to operate from. My wife carries a 640-3 J-frame 357 mag loaded up with 38's. We'll eventually try 357 loads (light ones, I'm sure), but I don't have to worry about whether the ammo she's running will cycle an action, or if she'll limp-wrist it. I even take the kids out and let them shoot it with 38 wadcutters. Most autos will choke big time on light loads - a wheel gun doesn't care a bit.

Yup. Plus you can practice with wax bullets in your basement. If you're so inclined.

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.

There's no reason not to if you shoot it just as well. Why carry a 1911 when you can carry a 2011, though? Why carry a Shield when you can carry a M9? Do you wear concealable body armor daily? Do you think that would increase your survivability more than stepping up from a capacity of 6 to a capacity of 9 would? Wouldn't armor be best? Why handicap yourself?

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

A horse is a vehicle. And a good one will get you home when you're asleep.


Now, let's clear up some misconceptions.

Revolvers have bad sights? WTF? Revolvers come with a variety of sights. My 4" has a fiber optic front and Novak rear. My 3" has a brass bead patridge sight...which is something often seen on high end 1911s. What's the difference between a S&W white square outline rear and an orange insert front sight vs a Glock white square outline rear and a white dot front sight? So..SOME revolvers have bad sights. SOME semi-autos to, too. Let's compare apples to apples.

Sight radius? LOLWUT? Revolvers come in different sizes and lengths. So do semi-autos.

Capacity? Yup, semi-autos win.

1) They have a crappy trigger. Remind me to bring my LCR for you to shoot. Or my my Match Champion.
2) A high primer disables the gun. No tap rack and bang solution What's a double feed do to a magazine fed gun? In thousands and thousands of rounds of revolver shooting, I've never had a primer back out during shooting, even with my reloads. When I load my gun, I rotate the cylinder and make sure it works properly. Non-issue.
3) Low capacity. Yup. Same can be said of the single stack 9mms and .380s that make up the majority of carry guns, though.
4) Accuracy at distance is difficult and takes much more practice that semi auto Debatable, I suppose. I could hit a 100y target with a revolver before I could with a Glock
5) Semi-autos do not have to have thumb safeties. Right.
6) Reloads take days and not seconds. Practice. How many civilians ever reload during a shooting?
7) Most lack good sights. Buy one with good sights.
8) Shape makes concealment more difficult and less comfortable. Eh?
9) Recoil makes practice unlikely. Eh? You're assuming many people practice enough for it to matter, and also apparently assuming that all revolvers are recoil heavy. Firing my 4" Gp100 is no more fatiguing than firing a .40 Glock.

Will they kill. Sure. Were they a good choice at one time? Sure. Then the 20th century rolled around. If you want to carry one carry it. I am not a liberal I don't care what you do with your life. I am not going to agree that it is a good choice. I am going to suggest that new gun owner go with something better. There's a lot of distance between "best" and "sucks". People can and do prevail with revolvers, and in roughly the same numbers as they do with semi-autos. If all the down sides were so terribly, the survival rates for revolver shooters should be notably lower than equivalent people armed with semi-autos. Where are those numbers?

Yes .38 targets rounds are too much for many people
Anybody who can't shoot a .38 target load out of a Model 10 can't shoot a .40 Shield, either.


I have had many dozens of people bring one to a basic class that required shooting 150 rounds and refuse to shoot more than 10 rounds from the gun they brought. Only with revolvers has that happened. How many NDs have you seen from students with revolvers vs semi-autos?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not going to take sides, but I find it interesting that everyone argues the pros/cons but misses the crux of BBI's post:

I'm going to use part of Coach's list as an example. Not to pick on him (wouldn't dare!), but it illustrates my point:

3) Low capacity. BBI's experience is that the fight is over in 3 rounds average, or 5 rounds w/in one standard deviation. Type of gun not relevant.
4) Accuracy at distance is difficult and takes much more practice that semi auto again, experience is that there is no difference to "first hit" between gun types
6) Reloads take days and not seconds. again, experience is that reloads simply do not happen, regardless of gun type
7) Most lack good sights. no difference (again) between who gets the first hit

So, personal preferences beside, and even professional opinions aside, my take away was: GET THE FIRST HIT with just about anything. Put 3-5 shots on target before your opponent gets his/her 3-5 shots off. Any reasonable caliber will do. Any reliable cartridge type will so. Any reliable gun will do. As long as you are both quick, and accurate.

It's like arguing over what kind of smoke detector is best, while have ANY working smoke detector makes you (and your family) orders of magnitude more likely to escape a home fire.

Since ware all enthusiasts on here, we will argue the finer details until the cows come home, I am sure!

That's pretty much it. It's not that semi-autos don't have advantages. They certainly do. Revolvers have a few as well, but the point is that none of them matter very much.

I was driving down to see Indiucky today and there was Corvette behind me. I love Corvettes and have owned an older one in the past. This was a fairly new one, was silver, and if sex were made of fiberglass it would look a lot like that car. I figure top speed is, what, 170mph or better? Way faster than my truck for sure. Now my truck is rated to tow a bit over 10k lbs. What's a Corvette rated for? If anything, probably 1500 lbs or so? So, both vehicles have unique capabilities the other lacks. What were they both doing? Hauling one guy's backside down US 31 at about 55mph. And that's what they are both going to do most of the time. He's probably not doing track days and taking advantage of his unique capability. I never haul anything heavier than a bit of plywood and lumber, so I sure ain't taking advantage of mine. We can argue which is better all day long, and both be right and both be wrong...but at the end of the day none of that matters because we're both hauling one guy and we're both going the same speed, and that's what we're going to be doing 99% of the time.