BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,897
- 113
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).
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).