Pistols V Revolvers

[bigted]

Kinda a generalized statement I know. I find that shooting my auto's generally to be a very fun and capable platform. To be honest ... if I could retrieve all or at least most of my brass ... this would be a total no-brainer.

I find that in a long range proposition ... the hands down favorite would be the revolver with a very fine trigger and 6 to 8 inch barrel combined with a generally good long range chambering. Hunting and small game is very high in my opinion. I like the deliberate mode of fire a revolver gives and while the auto works very well in this department (hunting) I hate with a vengence having to search around for brass. Generally the revolvers have taller sights for shooting at various ranges with precision. The revolver also has for me a better grip options for rubber recoil absorbing comfort so shooting hotter and heavier boolits in general hunting rounds. I am fond of revolvers in the guise of from cap-n-ball up through modern double action. I have a very much higher round count with revolvers ... BUT ...

Auto's are sooo fun. As long as I find myself in a shooting area with a paved or cement floor and sometimes a wall for the empty's to be corralled in ... then I find relaxing and fun as well as accurate shooting is a great time. HOWEVER ... if I go afield in search of table fair ... confidence is disturbed what with the certain knowledge that brass will be lost ... and for me leastwise ... I run on the ragged edge of being a poor boy ... continual purchase of brass seems very defeating to this shooter that reloads ALL my firearms to be enabled to shoot as much as I can without certain knowledge that while out walkin round ... every shot out there gets expensive with near total loss of brass. I really like the grip and general gentle recoil that does not detract from obtaining very fine accuracy with seemingly not a bunch of repeat practice. The grip frames generally feel perfect to me with an ergonomics that just fits. Then there is the possible confrontation with a group of bad guys [ oops PEOPLE] . The confidence in large capacity auto's is indeed a comfortable feeling. I have lived in and around tougher neighborhoods where the auto found its way on my person a lot of times.

Sooo ... that is my initial feelings and impressions of the subject. There is lots more points to be made ... but ... this is a start of a discussion on this subject.

Lotsa emotional points to be made but I think that I would like to hear others opinions on the old " REVOLVER V PISTOL " reasoning and stands. I would like to discover more options to the brass loss with auto's. Truely if I did not dread losing brass ... my auto's would find their way with me on woods walks.

[elmacgyver0]

First of all, they are all pistols, only some are revolvers.

[bmortell]

id only have semi autos if i lived someplace sketchy or was a cop ect. blocky grip shape, brass everywhere, and handloads needing to meet several criteria to not jam are too much a deterrent for me.

especially the last one. i wanna be able to shoot whatever bullet design i want at whatever speed i want, thats the main reason i make bullets at all

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Ted- My feelings are that they are both useful for different purposes, with some overlap. I'd be much more likely to carry a semi-auto for self defense against people, but a large caliber revolver for self defense against large hungry animals. The overlap is that either can be used for either purpose, but for people the semi-auto gets the nod because of large capacity magazines, and for animals the revolver gets my approval for such calibers as .45 Colt, .41 Mag., .44 Mag. Again, for hunting, one can hunt with a semi-auto, but the longer barrel lengths of revolvers made for that purpose are probably better to shoot accurately at longer ranges. So, I think you should choose the
best tool for the job at hand.

[Cargo]

Maybe buy once fired brass? For the range possibly one of the pop up tabletop brass catchers? I haven't used one of the brass catchers yet but I've started window shopping for one.

In general I prefer revolvers but being in an urban environment quite a bit, a semi-auto is usually on the list for edc.

[Drm50]

Let me see, I got 56 center fire handguns. 55 of them are Revolvers. 53 of them are S&W. One Colt 455 NS and one Ruger SBH 44mg. Rim fire handguns I own 9 revolvers , 7 S&W and 2 Ruger s-6s. and 4 autos, 2 S&Ws and 2 Hi standards.

I have one center fire auto, a Browning HP 9mm Target.

By old standards they would advertise Pistols & Revolvers. Pistol being handgun other than revolver. If I’m hunting you will find me with a revolver, from squirrel 22 to deer in 44mg.

[elmacgyver0]

You can call them whatever you want but pistol is correct for revolvers and self loading (semi-auto) hand guns and the old single shot guns (dueling pistol).
The term "pistol" has been around longer than than either revolvers or semi-auto handguns.

[Bazoo]

I prefer revolvers in general. For self defense I carry a 1911 in 45 ACP. That negates the high capacity argument for me. I have carried a glock 22 some and I felt well armed. But I still feel well armed with my 1911.

I'd carry a revolver if I could conceal it. I don't mean conceal at Walmart, I mean conceal at hospitals and drs offices that have a no firearms sign. Under my law, if I carry on private property that has a no ccdw sign, I've not committed a crime. I, in theory could open carry there but places like U of L medical centers won't allow it.

I would like a J frame 38 for those places, but since I can conceal a 1911 I probably wouldn't carry it. I certainly ain't going to carry a snub nose 24/7 like I do my 1911. I occasionally carry a revolver at the house but I don't have any provisions for a reload so never carry one in town. Once I get a suitable reload options, then I may carry revolvers more.

I'm looking for a desantis 3x3 pouch for 44 caliber so I can carry my SBH. And a 2x2x2 so I can carry the GP100.

[Hick]

I have both and really enjoy both. My major observation is that for me, my revolvers are more accurate-- but it's not a huge difference. It could just be me, but I think the fact that the barrel is rigidly attached to the frame in my revolvers, instead of moving when fired, helps the accuracy.

[labradigger1]

I enjoy both but only have revolvers, all D/A, some reasons why

Generally more powerful calibers in revolvers. I like powerful revolvers.
I reload and get all my brass back quickly.
If and when you get a dud in a revolver you pull the trigger again and bang. Try that with a semi auto.
Longer barrels available = longer sight radius.
No magazines to loose or keep track of.

[VariableRecall]

I've chosen my revolver as a first firearm (A S&W Model 10-5) mainly for its renowned quality of craftsmanship, but also because of its relative simplicity. Sure, the innards underneath the side plate are full of tiny, hand-fitted pieces built to last a lifetime or more, but the method of operation is quite straightforward.

Trigger aligns cylinder and gives it a smack, bullet goes out, move onto next chamber. While it can't match modern designs in term of capacity, it's good to have its moving parts relying only on the springs within.

Lower pressure, less liable to vaporize my hearing in a life or death situation, not exactly concealable, but concealment won't matter much when it's happily resting at home.

I really like autos as well, with my short term experience with them, but my revolver is just the right size to take good care of.

[poppy42]

Hey if the brass flying really bothers you that much you could always make or buy a brass catcher. Pistol brass doesn’t bother me but I did get one for my AR. I’ve seen them for pistols, and I think I might have plans some place to make one. If you’re interested shoot me a PM and I’ll see if I can find it

[shooting on a shoestring]

Yep they’re all pistols. It’s revolvers v reciprocators.

Often I won’t shoot a reciprocator at an indoor range bc I don’t want to lose my brass. Usually that’s calibers like 10mm, 32acp or any I consider expensive brass. I don’t mind losing 9mm brass bc I literally have buckets of it. So I shoot my reciprocators at an outdoor range where I can police up my spent brass.

Revolvers are my favorite. Largely bc I can dump the spent brass right into my hand then directly into a box or bag without getting dust or debris on them. At the loading bench they flow straight into the resizing die already lubed with boolit lube residue. For brass that hits the ground there’s a washing and drying routine before loading. That coupled with brass loss does put a damper on the fun.

[elmacgyver0]

I tend to like single action revolvers more and more.
Still like my autos though, mind you.

[Bazoo]

One thing I think, is I really like the way a revolver looks. I like the way some automatics look, to include a broom handled Mauser, High Power, 1911, Smith 39 series. Most of them though, not so much.

[Piedmont]

You can call them whatever you want but pistol is correct for revolvers and self loading (semi-auto) hand guns and the old single shot guns (dueling pistol).
The term "pistol" has been around longer than than either revolvers or semi-auto handguns.

The term pistol may have been around for longer, but I believe otherwise you are mistaken. Language morphs over time and we are all nit-picking, but technically the way I learned this years ago, pistols have the chamber and barrel as one unit. Therefor, all the single shots are pistols (well except the Ruger oddity from the 1960s in .256 Winchester)
and all semiautos are pistols. But revolvers are revolvers. That is why you had titles of books like Pistol and Revolver Digest.

Most everybody calls them all pistols, though.

[frkelly74]

I do not mind at all when shooters who shoot before me use autos and don't find all their brass, or don't want it. I am pretty good at crawling around to find my own. I am learning to like a revolver at the moment . It was not like at first shot.

[Cargo]

I am learning to like a revolver at the moment . It was not like at first shot.

My wife fought tooth and nail against buying a revolver. I kept telling her we needed to start loading our own so I bought a few wheelguns and a 77/357 in Feb and a week later she decided she'd buy a little J frame. About a week later she went to pick up chinese food and came home with a beautiful 10-8 lol I started reloading in March and ammo pretty much dried completely up. We jumped in just in time before the run on components hit. I won't be without a revolver and a matched carbine again.

BTW, that little J frame now gets more carry time than her Shield.

[dverna]

Use the right tool for the job.

That depends on your needs and abilities.

I carry a Glock most of the time but I know how to clear a jam. Weaker and/or less experienced shooters may be better off with a revolver.

I prefer a revolver for target shooting and plinking so I do not need to chase brass.

I do not hunt with a pistol.

[Texas by God]

I like them all except the ridiculously big and heavy ones. And if they aren't accurate enough to get me a meal, they go down the road. I'm rural, I have killed a squirrel with a Raven .25 auto( I couldn't find the brass[emoji16])

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[dtknowles]

I am sad for those who have to choose one or the other. Me, I can clean a plate rack faster with a semi-auto than a revolver but maybe others shoot DA revolvers better than I. I don't own and probably would not put out the money for a semi-auto that can outrange my Dan Wesson 357 Mag. I guess there are .22 lr revolvers that shoot better than my Ruger MKII hunter but again not for the money and they won't hold 10 rounds. I think you can carry more firepower concealed with a semi-auto and for true combat the semi-auto is the choice of all the major militaries. For fun revolvers are the best.

Tim

[Pete44mag]

I use a 1911 for EDC (New Yorkistan limits to a 10 round mag.) in late fall, winter, and early spring when it is easier to conceal. Carry a J frame .357 the rest of the year. Use revolvers for hunting because of longer barrels and reliable semi- autos don't come in .41 or .44 mag.

[dverna]

Aren’t we lucky to have choices?

Hope it stays that way.

[Outpost75]

The thread below began as a dialogue between career police firearms instructors reacting to an Internet article on a popular blog, entitled "Why Semi-Autos Are More Reliable than Revolvers"

Comment from Outpost75:

What he says is correct only as far as it goes. Proper handling, using quality ammunition, routine care and maintenance addresses ALL of those issues, as does buying a quality gun to start with and having a factory-trained armorer “touch it” as needed during annual requals. The civilian who carries a revolver must either learn to maintain it himself; or have it LTI’ed annually by a competent (factory-trained) gunsmith. All training issues are aided by application of good basic common sense.

People think that Glocks and AKs will function for eternity being dragged through the desert with no cleaning or attention, but while more forgiving, when used by idiots no firearm is 100% reliable and you neglect maintaining it properly at your peril.

Comment from a retired LE instructor, and well known trainer in FL:

My experience as a small arms instructor in the Marines was no help. I have seen a little when helping out at local ranges. Generally new guns function quite reliably. The few that do not are usually cheap autos. Inexpensive revolvers usually go bang bang...Things change when the gun is dragged out of the sock drawer and brought to the range. Many neglected autos if left loaded go bang once and quit. Most owners do not then know what to do. These problems seem inversely related to caliber but even 45’s are not immune Revolvers continue to go bang even when covered with sock lint. Most of the discussion is about the gun owner. However the spouse and major children are just as likely to be the emergency users. The revolver’s simple “point gun-pull trigger” works every time. This is why my father kept a loaded revolver as the house gun. Yet, he always carried an automatic.

Reply from Mike Wood of Police One Staff:

Context is important! What environment and what kind of user? If we’re talking about a soldier in combat, the expectations are very different than for a police officer, or for an armed citizen.

Let’s assume we’re talking about the “average” armed citizen for a moment. Your average guy is pretty lax about maintenance (which is a kind way of saying he doesn’t do any) and doesn’t have a very high level of competence or skill, because he hardly shoots his gun. We used to joke about the little old lady with the .32 caliber Iver Johnson top break in the sock drawer, but the modern equivalent is some urbanite with an unfired/mostly-unfired autopistol in the closet. All those people who have been standing in long lines the past 2 or 3 months, to buy their first gun? Yeah, we’re talking about them. Is that guy any better off with an auto than a revolver from a reliability standpoint? I doubt it.

Consider:

1. It’s likely the auto hasn’t been fired enough to “break it in”—particularly in the current environment, where a new owner might be lucky to come home from the store with a single 20 or 50 round box of ammo for his new blaster. Some designs are more inherently reliable “from the box” than others of course, but a good number of autos being sold still need to make it through those first few hundred rounds before they get the kinks worked out, and the “average” gun probably never gets there;

2. The shooter’s lack of training and skill is an issue. The shooter will probably induce stoppages when he tries to shoot it, because he doesn’t know how to operate it properly—thumbs interfering with slides, weak platforms, failure to properly cycle the slide on initial loading, inadvertent magazine release due to poor grip, etc. We don’t see those kinds of problems with a revolver, by virtue of the design;

3. Improper maintenance. The lack of proper cleaning and lubrication could cause a stoppage as well. This will be a bigger problem for some designs than others, but all of the autos will eventually balk if they’re not properly lubricated and cleaned—especially during that early “break in” period.

So, Joe Average might actually be better off with a new revolver than a new auto, because it stands a greater chance of going bang in the hands of a poorly-skilled shooter who has neglected it. If you can pull the trigger, it will discharge (absent an ammunition problem, or a mechanical breakage—factors which effect autos equally, as well).

Note that almost all of the pitfalls the author addressed in the article are connected to relatively high round counts. Yes, revolvers go out of time, parts can wear, fouling can build up inside the action, ejector rods can unscrew, strain screws can back out, etc . . . but it takes a fair amount of shooting before these become an issue—probably more rounds than the average gun is ever likely to see. One would hope that by the time our shooter reaches the 500 or 1000 round mark, they would have also learned a little something about basic maintenance—how to clean, lubricate, and inspect the gun, how to tighten a screw . . . at what point does this switch from being a problem with the gun, to a problem with the shooter, hmm?

By the time all the revolver boogeymen listed by the author start to raise their head, our owner has sent hundreds or thousands of rounds down range and is well on their way to becoming a “shooter.” They need to accept the responsibilities that come with that, like taking care of their equipment.

As it turns out, even some people who carry a gun for a living do a pretty poor job of accepting those responsibilities, as I wrote about recently: https://www.police1.com/police-products ... CdvtDm5UZ/ I daresay that even the most neglected revolver would probably go bang more reliably than some autos with their striker channels and extractors full of goo. They all burp, they all break. Some are better at certain things than others, and are better suited for certain types of owners.

Related: Recently tested a version of Kimber’s K6s for RevolverGuy, I ran it without any maintenance to see how long it would go. I got to 464 rounds before the gun was just too dirty to keep running. I had a bunch of crud built up under the extractor, and it was interfering with operation.

I have to note that the gun was delivered from Kimber with a sloppy excess of white grease under the extractor. Someone had over-lubricated the ejector rod, where it passed through the cylinder. I decided to leave it in place, and I have no doubt that it rapidly accelerated the collection of other debris under the extractor. I’ve got a feeling that if I had simply wiped away the excess before I started shooting, we could have pushed the gun past 750 rounds without a cleaning. Meaningful? No. Nobody should go that long without cleaning their gun, but it betrays the belief that a revolver will be hopelessly fouled before you finish a box of ammo. https://revolverguy.com/kimber-k6s-dc-notes-field/

And since we’re talking maintenance, this poll I conducted at P1 might be of interest to the group...

Keep in mind that our P1 audience is not representative of the “average cop,” so the poll numbers will be skewed. The types of officers who read a police magazine like PoliceOne are usually much more motivated than the average officer, so we can assume they have a higher level of training, skill and enthusiasm, and perhaps their agency culture is partly responsible for that. Now, of that group, the kinds who will answer a series of poll questions are even more selective, so when we look at poll results like these, we have to keep in mind that we’re only looking at the responses from a small cross-section of cops, and that cross-section is probably stacked more towards the higher end of ability and performance—more professional officers, from more professional agencies.

That said, it’s telling when you see things like this:

-More than a third of officers never received any formal instruction from their agency on how to clean and maintain their firearm;

-Only 40% work for an agency that provides refresher training on how to maintain a firearm;

-Almost half (48%) of the officers work at an agency that does NOT conduct mandatory firearm inspections.

If this is what the “sharp” agencies are doing, just think what the “bad” ones look like!

- Mike Wood

A SoCalRangemaster from a large municipal department chimes in:

This article reminds me of discussions I’ve had with friend Tim (a cop and shooter). People have a habit of coming to a conclusion about something by applying their habits, experiences (range drills), behavior instead of applying the majority or “most likely persons” behavior and how they would do something.

It also reminds me of experts saying “a newbie should never get a snubbie for home defense…” i.e. Most can’t hit with a snubbie past 10 feet, but a vast majority of SD problems (especially in the home) are closer than 10 feet. A lot of times (from my experience) at the front door.

‘Expert’ – “the gun does not need to be concealed so you don’t need a gun that small get a 6”, which only works until until the front door bell rings and you need to answer it at the same time concealing a gun (probably with no holster for most) just in case. Maybe a gas or electric Co. employee that needs access to the home. Wouldn’t it be nice to scoop up a 5 shot revolver that is very safe and slip it into your back pocket (nice and discreet) in case the “employee” turns out not to be an employee? My wife just had to do this and walked around behind the electric co employee that needed access to the backyard and the side of the house (she needed to let him into the locked backyard) with a J frame in her back pocket.

Do we think if this guy attacked she would have difficulty pushing the gun into this guy and pulling the trigger 5 times ?
Would she have been better off with a 15 shot G19 and a Trijicon RMR ??? I mean seriously, on the range doing range “drills” she will shoot MUCH better at farther distances with the G19. That means the G19 is the best tool for the job...right?

Or the day (after dark) my doorbell rang and a guy I’d never seen before said he was a new neighbor that had locked himself out. I helped him out (gave him an old jacket to wear since it was cold while he waited for his sister to get home and let him in) and since I carry while home not a real problem if things went sideways. Again, another solved “problem“ with a small easily and safely concealed revolver stuffed in a pocket or waistband without a holster. But Roscoe, what if the 5th dismounted Hell’s Angels conducted a home invasion...?...sigh...

There I was on surveillance in a residential area when the resident of the house I was parked in front of walked out to find out what I was doing. After the initial difficulties (the usual sniffing each others *** until we felt comfortable as to who we both were) he tells me he is retired from an OGA and shows me the butt of his 2” Det. Special in his pocket since he thought I might be a burglar. I didn’t want ruin his day and show him my snubbie (that I had palmed out of my ankle rig as he approached) pointed towards him I had been concealing under the magazine I had been reading. Both discreet use that worked well.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I answered my front door with a snubbie concealed by a magazine (that I keep by the front door. I had a favorite Newsweek with Obama/Biden on the cover until my wife tossed it!) that allowed me to have the muzzle directed forward discreetly. So many times I don’t even think about it. One of my guys needed to ask me a question when I was off (no camera and he was to the side of my peephole, good for him) and knew of my habit. While I’m answering some question he had he stops me and says, can you point that “magazine” somewhere else !
Ha! Sorry...

For a reasonably well trained individual you can cant a SA weapon and keep it clear of clothing and the targets body for an ECQB (almost) contact shot (although I’ve seen more than one fail this range drill and foul the gun). Would the average shooter that only has occasional access to a public indoor range (No drawing, no close range targets, 1 round a second...) be better off with the G19 (+2 floor plate of course) and an RMR and back up suppressor night sights OR a 2-3” revolver...?? - SoCalRangeMaster

Suggestions from a retired LE instructor and factory-trained S&W armorer from a large city in Texas:

One of the things that has always stood out in my from my training at S&W is that under most circumstances their revolvers should be run dry or nearly so. Only a drop of lube on the crane and another on the cylinder yoke is all that was needed. Lube attracts dust and other contaminants which can lead to a failure to function. Even in the gulf coast, high humidity weather of the Houston area this was adequate. As a matter of fact running completely dry on a service revolver is a good thing. Lubrication is really only needed when firing many rounds in between cleaning, such as on a day at the range firing hundreds of rounds.

The Bottom Line Summary from yet another retired SoCal police firearms instructor:

My experiences after 22 years in LE instruction is that the skill set required to capably manipulate autopistols is far more perishable than that required to capably run a D/A wheelgun. Running a S&W Model 64 x 4" (our old issued sidearm) is like riding a bicycle--once you "know" the system, it stays with you. GOOD autopistol skills are not as intuitive or as well-retained without refreshment… The weak link in the chain of reliability is “The Nut Behind The Backstrap.” You gotta put in the hours and keep putting the hours in to keep the edges sharp. I survived being shot in August, 1981 largely because EVEN IN THE REVOLVER ERA--using a mediocre caliber--I practiced firing under less-than-ideal conditions and returned fire to good effect.

[cp1969]

I can make do with either but if I had to choose only one kind, it would be a DA revolver.

Every day the ground is getting farther away and I don't like looking for or bending over to pick up brass.

[samari46]

I started shooting with a handgun when I moved to Louisiana. When I lived in NYC Shot a gold cup 45 acp so had experience with the semi auto and none with a revolver. Sold the gold cup for more than what I paid for it. My other 45 is/was a 1943 Ithaca 1911A1 ans shot steel plate matches with it. Had to go back to NYC and bummed a copy of my dealers FFL. Went straight to an old friends gun shop and asked if he had any model 10's for sale. At that time you couldn't handle a handgun without a permit. So showed him my Louisiana Concealed handgun permit. The guy working the counter pulls out a cardboard box full of model 10's and says take your pick. Half hour later down to two. So picked the best one that felt good it me. Cost was $100 and shipped to my buddy's shop. the gun made it to his shop before I got home. Shot the heck out of it for about 6 weeks and got pretty fair with it. My assortment of handguns is more semi autos than revolvers. But every so often will drag out the model 10 or 14 or 15 and see what if anything will show up on the target. Course the 44 magnum Redhawk sees little use since I have 3 44 specials nesting in the safe. Only one 357 and that is an old Colt Trooper III. That old Colt has taught me a thing or two about shooting a revolver. Wouldn't win any beauty prizes but neither will I. Frank

[Rodfac]

Good comments by Outpost 75...whose post above, brings out several good points by experts in the field. I'd point out that virtually all of us reading this thread are shooters of the experienced kind...and are often asked by those inexperienced in firearms to comment on guns suitable for home/personal defense...revolver simplicity of operation should be a vital component of any such discussion with neophytes. Ed's comments are well worth reviewing in that regard.

In my case (a civilian but with extensive military & combat experience), I've recommended a revolver 95% of the time to new gun owners. Personally, I've been involved in several front door encounters while armed, with unknown individuals, two of which knew I was carrying. Thankfully, none of these resulted in a shooting incident. My wife, DIL, two nieces, and a friend's wife have all been confronted by sketchy characters at the front door, and fortunately, thus far, have not been accosted. All of the preceding women, have since changed their opinions on gun availability in the home, albeit reluctantly.

We live on a semi-secluded farm, 25 minutes from police help in the best of circumstances. And I'll opine that these types of encounters are far too common, even more so in the last six months. They deserve careful thought & discussion as well as some considered preparation. Best regards, Rod

[sharps4590]

Matter of taste and as some have posted, proficiency. IF I had to choose I'd take a DA revolver. Fortunately I don't. I have semi-auto's and they are purely tools. I've been shooting them enough over more than 50 years that I'm comfortable....and proficient....with any of the 3-4 I might carry. I carry a couple revolvers just as much, dividing the time between semi's and revolvers, depending on situation.

Of them all I prefer SA revolvers. But they are no more suitable for every situation than any of the above are. Make you choice and be happy with it....and don't look down your nose at someone who chose differently.

[Drm50]

I can’t remember the last time I fired a revolver DA. I know I have, the 22s at least. When I was a kid I had a Ruger Single -6. Compared to my buddies H&Rs, IJs and imports it was target grade. About this time I got into a trade and got a S&W K22 NIB. Having no interest in “police type DA” I didn’t want to shoot it and make a used gun out of it. A buddy harassed me into shooting it. I was amazed. That was 1964, and most people didn’t have $100 to spend on a 22. That same K22 is still my main serious 22 in the woods. I have target autos that I can shoot better on the range but in the woods all targets aren’t stationary.

[Froogal]

First of all, they are all pistols, only some are revolvers.

Correct. Pistols, handguns, whatever you want to call them. Some are revolvers, and some are semi-autos.

[Baltimoreed]

As long as the grips fit my long fingers I can shoot it fine, revolver or auto. N frames, .455 Webleys and New Services along with full sized 1911s work for me. I have a few more cf revolvers than cf autos. But have a lot more rf autos than rf wheelguns. They’re all good.

[bigted]

Thanks to ALMOST all who have given opinion and thoughts on this subject. I have lived 64 years and own many of both REVOLVERS AS WELL AS AUTO'S and am proficient with either. Am pleased with the various comments as well as the reasoning attached to each.

I really do not think the "EDUCATION" is needed nor solicited as to the proper nomenclature of pistol versus auto. Thanks just the same. Please stay with the subject at hand ... and that is stands and opinions as well as choice between what I call a revolver versus an autoloader. Many opology's concerning auto's versus pistols. Please consider me EDUCATED.

[Win94ae]

I like revolvers more, mainly because I don't lose my brass. :/

[tazman]

I enjoy shooting my revolvers and my semi-autos both. It took me a while to adjust, but now I can shoot my semi-autos just as accurately as my revolvers.
By getting better with my semi-autos, I also got better with my revolvers. Win win as it were.
For whatever reason, I have never been able to shoot a single action revolver as well as I can my other handguns. They just don't work for me.

[charlie b]

I 'grew up' with the 1911. Dad never said where he got it but it was a civilian 1911 (not a1). Then went in the Army and used them a LOT. Funny thing was I never had a malfunction with one while in the military. Most of those pistols rattled a lot and some had a hard time hitting a man target at 50yd.

Father-in-law had a Colt National Match. It was the first time I had malfunction problems as it did not like the cast SWC bullets that the old 1911 swallowed easily. Got a RN mold and it was fine.

Then I got my own and it was 'fixed up' by a decent gunsmith. I had a heavy spring put in it for the hotter loads I was shooting at the time. Anything less than full factory loads and it would hang up. With proper ammo it never burped.

Revolvers. Had a few. They are my number one recommendation to new shooters. Brother and his wife both have them. My wife started shooting with one. Kids both started with them. The only one I have left is my father-in-law's Python (yes he had good taste in guns).

I kinda chuckle when people say a revolver can be fired easily after a dud round. The only 'dud' rounds I have had in revolvers were squibs. That is the nastiest thing I have had to deal with in gun malfunctions. Several loaded chambers and a bullet lodged in the throat locking up the cylinder. At least with a semi-auto I can remove the magazine and safely disassemble to remove the bullet.

Another story was a government security force had revolvers. I knew their training supervisor. No maintenance? He said more than a few would show up for quals with revolvers that would not shoot. Some rusted. One had the cylinder fall off the crane (the guard didn't know how to put it back together after cleaning). One had enough dirt in it it would not rotate the cylinder. A couple were bound up by frequent 'cleaning' with WD40.

FWIW, my wife 'converted' to semi-autos many years ago. She still likes shooting the Python but loves her Colt Commander.

Forgot, one time just for grins I didn't clean the 1911 after firing. It had over 400 rounds through it before I finally decided it was too filthy for me to pick up and shoot. No malfunctions at all. The match 1911 needed to be cleaned more often (as does the Python).

[koyote]

I get more use out of a revolver. I still carry an auto because of red dot and light. I plan to fix that in revolver terms shortly.

I butcher livestock, take snakes, coyotes, skunk, jacks and cottontails (in season) with revolvers. Definitely more utility. For me.

But I do like a light at night, and a red dot is getting more useful these days. Guess i'll have to fix that up on a revolver soon.

[Mr_Sheesh]

One nice thing about revolvers is that you can run most any round from mouse fart to truck stopper, wadcutter to RN, in successive cylinders, it's easier in some revolvers to run 2 shotshells then the rest full bore for example, if in snake country. (I can get 1911s to do that too, in 45ACP, haven't managed it in other calibers - yet.) And some semis don't like SWCs until worked over to feed them; Not everyone will spend "tonsabucks"on their handguns.

Semi autos are faster for most users to reload than revolvers, a 12 round course of fire like the "El Presidente" tends to run 7 sec for autos and 11 sec for revolvers. This may or may not be an issue, depends on what you're doing.

I enjoy both; I use revolvers more for hunting and semis for EDC, and both for fun plinking.

Also some people have a lot easier time with one platform or the other, due to hand size,experience in only one platform, etc.; Friend couldn't hit much with my Commander but was shooting very small groups with their revolver - We are all a bit different. :)

[monkey wrangler]

I enjoy the semi auto pistol's more than the revolvers mostly because my revolver's have a very heavy trigger pull. I don't plan on doing a trigger job on them to lighten the pull any time soon. I also have trained almost exclusively with semi auto on loading and clearing jams. The semi auto is a little smaller to conceal for me as well. I do enjoy shooting the revolvers at the range some times and the brass is definitely easier to roundup.

[RU shooter]

Just like any other tool there are proper ones for each job that needs done . A crescent wrench can be a hammer and a screwdriver can be a prybar if needed in a pinch same with the wheel gun and the semi auto . All depends on the job at hand . I like them both if I'm just target shooting I'll take the much more accurate smith 686 if I'm carrying I'll take the lighter and slimmer semi auto .

[charlie b]

..... And some semis don't like SWCs until worked over to feed them; Not everyone will spend "tonsabucks"on their handguns.....

I only had experience with one semi-auto (out of about 20) that would not feed SWC's when seated properly. That was the 1911 National Match (an early model). All it needed was the ramp widened up a tad. Gunsmith charged a couple beers.

I do agree to the idea that revolvers will feed everything from light plinkers to full bore stuff.

[Idaho45guy]

If you eschew the 100% increase in capacity of a semi-auto for self-defense because you are worried about not being able to find a $.10 piece of brass, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what is truly important.

I like revolvers. Do I own any? Nope. I did the math. I have a couple of single-actions that are fun toys, but for the real world of self-defense, the semi-auto is king. I carry a firearm that is the same size as a J-frame, yet is capable of 2" groups at 25 yards and has 100% more capacity.

Why on earth would I choose to carry an inferior weapon when defending my life or the lives of my loved ones? Nostalgia is fine until it gets you or your family killed.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

I like and cast for both. During the winter I favor revolvers because they retain the brass. My semi auto nines have had no functioning issues with powder coated cast boolits. Getting the accuracy is more work than with revolvers. I find revolvers more enjoyable to shoot. And revolvers are generally capable of much greater horsepower than semi autos so they are the first choice for hunting.

[koyote]

Personally, when I go to the range I shoot more than one 10 cent piece of brass.

I also do not live in Mogadishu

[Petrol & Powder]

Pistol = A Handgun with a chamber that is integral with the barrel.
Revolver= A Handgun with a single barrel and a separate cylinder containing multiple chambers.

A pistol may be a single shot, such as a flintlock pistol OR it may be semi-automatic pistol (self-loading) but the key is the chamber is integral with the barrel.

A revolver may be a handgun but it is not a pistol.

[Petrol & Powder]

If you eschew the 100% increase in capacity of a semi-auto for self-defense because you are worried about not being able to find a $.10 piece of brass, then perhaps you should re-evaluate what is truly important.

I like revolvers. Do I own any? Nope. I did the math. I have a couple of single-actions that are fun toys, but for the real world of self-defense, the semi-auto is king. I carry a firearm that is the same size as a J-frame, yet is capable of 2" groups at 25 yards and has 100% more capacity.

Why on earth would I choose to carry an inferior weapon when defending my life or the lives of my loved ones? Nostalgia is fine until it gets you or your family killed.

I can find no fault with any of the above with one minor exception.
The process of selecting a revolver over a semi-auto pistol is not absolutely driven by nostalgia. It is entirely possible that a person could select a revolver over a pistol for reasons that have nothing to do with a nostalgic affinity for wheelguns.

I don't think the selection of a revolver over a pistol would be the deciding difference between getting you or your family killed or not killed. I believe that a double action revolver is an adequate tool for self defense. And while there is no doubt that within a given size, a pistol will generally have a greater capacity that a similar revolver; I'm not certain that capacity is a critical criteria.

[Art in Colorado]

I have no trouble finding most of my 45 ACP brass. Maybe loose a couple out of a box of 50 hand loads. Back in the Obama years I did reload 9MM but with my large hands and fingers found this a tedious task and stoped. Saying that I love my 44 Ruger Bisley Flat Top and S&W 357 886-3. They would be the last I would give up but I still love P220 and M11A1 Sigs. I guess I can't decide.

[curioushooter]

To me pistols (auto-pistols) are almost useless. I recognize that they are the best handgun for killing the most people as effectively as possible. There is no doubt about that. The millitaries of the world concluded this a century ago. I have a CZ75 loaded with the best anti-personell ammo available. Practicing with it I consider a chore.

When it comes to working handguns, revolvers win hands down for a number of reasons.

First is the fact they are chambered in cartridges that are legal to hunt deer with in my state. Though cartridges like 10mm and 45 Super are indeed adequate ballistically and could be delivered with reasonable accuracy by a nicely tuned 1911 they do no meet Indiana's 1.16" case length requirement.

Second reason why revolvers win is they can be downloaded and uploaded from basically mousefart to handcannon level and will work without messing with springs, etc. Granted your sights will probably need to be adjusted. I routinley carry combo loads in my model 19. I carry very low powered round ball loads that are great for nailing a rabbit when I cut wood in the winter and don't mess up meat. But the last three chambers I load with 158 XTPs pushed by 2400.

Most good revolvers have very good adjustable sights.

Revolvers' barrels are rigidly aligned with the sights and barrel.

Revolvers generally have superior single action triggers and almost always have better double action triggers.

Revolvers don't throw your brass everywhere.

Full case support and generally cylindrical cases means basically indefinite case longevity. I have 44 special cases that are on their 20th loading with almost no stretch or appreciable wear. If I can locate a 9mm case in grass I consider it an accomplishment. And after you see a 9mm case come through a in a cow pie you really stop to think if auto pistols are such a great idea. Having to drag a tarp or brass catcher of some sort is a bore.

Headspacing on rim is more reliable and consistent.

Heavy roll crimping is more reliable and consistent and is just more rugged.

Basically any bullet nose profile works in a revolver from wadcutter to round to SWCs to gaping hollowpoints.

Revolvers don't have magazines to lose, break, get filthy. They don't become extremely awkward single shots if mag is lost or malfunctions.

Revolvers have curves and look better, well except for some of those Rhinos.

Since revolver handles don't need to accommodate a magazine of some sort they can be shaped however you like and customized to whatever you desire. Most auto pistols feel like you are holding a 2x4 to me, especially the highly-esteemed 1911.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

Who was it that said "if you can't get it done with six you better run"? I live in a reasonably crime free area so I feel fine with my 5 shot model 60. When I travel I have a couple auto loaders and the 870 in the trunk. I have six revolvers and 4 autos.

[frkelly74]

To increase your round count with a revolver , all you have to do is carry 2 of them ... or three. I can rattle off all 5 from the cylinder in about two seconds, but then what do you do. The fight better be well and truly over by that time.

[jonp]

I own a few semi autos and carry one but revolvers just seem "right" in my hand and it doesn't matter the caliber or maker. Ruger single six, SW Combat Masterpiece? Just right and brings a smile to my face that any plastic fantastic never will. One is a tool, the other a work of art. The only exception to this is the 1911. That gun fits my hand like it was meant to be there.

[Petrol & Powder]

curioushooter, you bring up valid points but at the risk of getting into a Ford v. Chevy debate; allow me to counter a few of those points.

You stated: "...I recognize that they are the best handgun for killing the most people as effectively as possible. There is no doubt about that. The militaries of the world concluded this a century ago. .....". I think the motivation behind that switch had more motivation than just pure efficiency, Militaries view handguns as almost pure defensive tools. A personal weapon carried by someone whose job is something other than an infantry soldier (such as a: pilot, truck driver, clerk, artillery crewmember, etc.) It is generally a last ditch weapon. So the capacity may be a plus. As an officer's sidearm it is a symbol of rank and maybe if needed, a tool to maintain order.
But a pistol has another advantage over a revolver and it is one that may seem counter intuitive - A pistol can take a tremendous amount of abuse and still function. While many regard a revolver as being more reliable than a semi-auto pistol, it doesn't take much to render a revolver inoperative. A bent crane, bent ejector rod, mud packed in the cylinder notches or dirt inside the action; will put a revolver completely out of action. A pistol may be rendered temporarily inoperative, it is often possible to correct the issue.

The British and the Russians were some of the last major powers to abandon the revolver for military service. Most other militaries switched to pistols before WWII. I don't believe that switch was solely due to the efficiency of a pistol. There were other factors at play.

Revolvers may have good adjustable sights but pistols can have excellent sights as well. Good sights are not a domain exclusive to revolvers.

"Revolvers' barrels are rigidly aligned with the sights and barrel." - So are the sights on my Ruger MKII ;)

You speak about revolvers being capable of handling loads of varying power and I must agree with that 100%. The action of a revolver is powered entirely by the operator and not the cartridge (with the exception of the Webley-Fosbery :) ).

As for the quality of the single action trigger mode, I don't think pistols are at a disadvantage in that department. Pistols are capable of excellent single action operation (when the design permits).

Revolvers don't throw brass everywhere - You win that one hands down!

I'm not sure I agree that head spacing on a rim is more consistent than head spacing on a case mouth. Nor do I agree that roll crimping is more reliable and consistent than a taper crimp.

Fully supported chambers - I tend to lose casings fired from semi-auto pistols long before the casings are beyond their life expectancy. I do get a LOT of reloading cycles out of rimmed, straight-walled revolver cartridges but because semi-auto casings are more prone to loss; I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

Bullet nose profile - Revolvers win that one too. A revolver will shoot just about any bullet that can be safely loaded and fit in the cylinder.

Revolvers don't have magazines to break, get lost or dirty. Well, yes but they also don't hold 15+ rounds and they tend to be a bit slower to reload. And while revolvers don't have magazines to get dirty, the gun will still get dirty. So I'm going to call the magazine issue a draw.

And - "....Since revolver handles don't need to accommodate a magazine of some sort they can be shaped however you like and customized to whatever you desire....."
While it is true that a revolver grip is just a grip - that is NOT an advantage at all.
Because a pistol often combines the grip and the magazine well - the overall length of the gun can be reduced. A revolver has to have a grip and in front of that, a cylinder and then you get to the barrel. This arrangement adds considerable length to the overall gun. A pistol with the magazine in the grip and a 3" barrel will be considerably shorter than a revolver with a 3" barrel.

Yes, the grips of a pistol must be designed around a magazine but it's not a horrible compromise.

So there you have it.

I think revolvers and pistols all have strengths and weaknesses.

[charlie b]

If you compare barrel lengths. A semi-auto includes the chamber length with the barrel length. So a 4" barrel revolver is comparable in length to a ~5.5" semi-auto barrel (yes, I am aware the performance is different due to cyl/barrel gap).

Sights not fixed to barrel. I have found that to not be an issue in accuracy in most cases (Olympic quality shooters can take issue with that). I've had at least three semi-autos (with slides and 'moving' barrels) that were as accurate or more so than some target quality revolvers. What I have found to be an issue in many cases is that very accurate semi-autos are more sensitive to dirt and grit getting in the mechanism, to the extent that some will not cycle properly when the wind is blowing dust around. OTOH, I would probably not pull my target revolver out of the box in such conditions either.

If I need more than 5 or 6 rounds to finish the job I have let myself get into a situation way over my head.

[tazman]

I own a few semi autos and carry one but revolvers just seem "right" in my hand and it doesn't matter the caliber or maker. Ruger single six, SW Combat Masterpiece? Just right and brings a smile to my face that any plastic fantastic never will. One is a tool, the other a work of art. The only exception to this is the 1911. That gun fits my hand like it was meant to be there.

I love the feel and balance of single action revolvers in my hand and how they point. Right up until I pull the trigger and the pain starts when the trigger guard bites my knuckles.

[Petrol & Powder]

I find handguns to be both useful tools and interesting examples of mechanical works of art. I appreciate the engineering that goes into both pistols and revolvers.

I collect both pistols and revolvers and find strengths in both types.

I'm not a big fan of single action revolvers. I don't dislike SA revolvers but they just don't do anything for me. To each his own, not passing judgement.

I will say that my collecting habits slightly favor DA revolvers over semi-auto pistols but that has nothing to do with the performance of the guns themselves.

[10-x]

Thinking both are tools, pick the one that will do the best job. Locally, carry a J- frame with 2-3 speed loaders, going to town .45 ACP. Target shooting, always match 1911 although have a few K- frames that do very well.

[curioushooter]

"Revolvers' barrels are rigidly aligned with the sights and barrel." - So are the sights on my Ruger MKII

I am not talking about 22s here. Talking center-fire. While there are centerfire pistols that don't wiggle the sighs or barrel or both around with every shot, there aren't many, and none that are reasonably priced, sized, or available. Whereas I just bought a $500 Blackhawk that I full expect to be able to hit a paper dinner plate at 100 yards with using cast boolits that will arrive with sufficient power to perforate a deer. I know my $600 S&W can do it.

Notice I NEVER said revolvers are more reliable. In my experience a good revolver and good steel autopistol of the same price are about equal in overall reliability. They just have different troubles. Autos have most of their problems with their mechanism not working right, jams, magazine problems of various kinds, springs not being right, things not going into battery. Revolvers have problems like bound up cylinders, bent ejector rods, and and broken parts (particularly with brands other than S&W and Ruger). Anything mechanical will break down and/or deliver substandard performance if you don't maintain and use it properly.

[koyote]

I suppose I just dislike the conceit (which is almost always NOT based on experience ) of "DOUBLE THE AMMO OR YOU DIE" arguments.

I've had a LOT more tap rack squeeze moments than I have cylinder jams. and if you are REALLY that worried about the Ultimate Combat Performance in your Super Combat Life (sorry, i'm being snarky) - then if you have to tap and rack, you just died. end of story. ammo capacity no longer matters.

But that logic is SO FLAWED it's unbelievable- completely unrealistic. Which is how I feel about people who tell me I'm "killing myself" or "cheating myself" by having 6 (or 8, or 5) rounds in a cylnder instead of 12 (or 6, or 17) in a magazine.

yes. 6. in a magazine. I realize that super combat operator NEVER carries a small concealable pistol because he's going into some less permissive environment- and always carries a glock 17. With 3 extra magazines.

Still being snarky? yeah, but also not. My local DA is a great guy, but he does, in fact, carry a glock 21 with three spare mags. Everywhere. More power to him. But he also doesn't tell me I'm suicidal for owning a sp101. (and he likes my P32, in fact)

I do carry a BUG. that is my primary reload strategy. I also carry a 365 quite often. and my reload strategy is STILL a backup gun. I've got this farm and outdoors thing. I don't sit at a keyboard all day. I can't actually trust open top competition range magazine carriers- I have snaps. My holsters have snaps, too. (I must be super duper extra suicidal since I don't have the quick draw holster, right? snark. so much snark) - and yes, i practice transitions.

I STILL get more use out of revolvers- and I use my guns for more than dropping mags on rubber mats at the range.

- Oh, hey- Petrol & Powder - I hear you on the SA thing. I find that I've come to enjoy single action revolvers as trail guns (noting that I rarely if ever carry just that) . Generally high accuracy, good triggers, and most often much less cost for a given caliber. a .32H&R ruger single action is every bit of a $900 S&W, for less than half the price (for a given single action shot on a small game animal)

[curioushooter]

Revolvers may have good adjustable sights but pistols can have excellent sights as well. Good sights are not a domain exclusive to revolvers.

Frankly, they pretty much are. I spend over $100 to get some decent sights for my CZ75, the only auto-pistol I presently own after having about a dozen different ones over the years. And they still wiggle around with every shot. They will never be of the same accuracy potential as garden variety S&W sights or the sights on my Blackhawk which are stock sights.

Show my an centerfire autopistol (other than a Lahti, Wildly or some other exotic) that doesn't have at least one of the sights move in relation to the barrel with every cycling of the action.

The reason why you see few (I've never seen ANY) auto-pistols in 200 meter silhouette is for this reason. That and the numerous reloading advantages of revolvers, begining with the fact they don't fling brass in the dirt, and ending with the minimal case distortion they cause due to having fully supported chambers.

Another reason I don't care for auto-pistols is the restrictions placed on case length due to generally having to fit in a magazine that has to fit in a human hand. I like the ballistic potential of the magnums, which can be excellent rifle cartridges, unlike auto-pistol cartridges. There's just no getting excited about 7.62x25, 9mm, 45 to me or even 10mm all of which I've messed with. They are all well under a powerlevel I consider exciting in a rifle.

There is basically no advantage to an auto-pistol besides capacity to hold ammunition within the firearm (how much ammo you carry really depends upon pockets and how much weight you will tolerate). Which makes me wonder why people like low-capacity autos like Kahrs and 1911s. You are largely forfeiting the platform's most significant advantage. which is indeed a signifgant advantage if you anticipate being outnumbered in any way (such as LEOs or military). Personally, I don't think about killing people, and certainly not more than a one or two at a time. I don't plan on going to war with any of my firearms and I lack a statutory duty or right to enforce the law. My concern is chiefly with killing deer and use of a firearm in the gravest extreme in a defensive situation, which I've read rarely involves more than three shots and hopefully involves NO SHOTS.


Another thing that gets me is how people say auto-pistols reload faster? Well if you consider inserting a magazine into the mag-well, then yes. They are nominally faster than a speedloader in a DA revolver perhaps, and frankly I am surprised at how fast I can unload and reload my Blackhawk. But I personally consider loading the magazine part of the exercise, don't you? I'm not in the habit of leaving firearms or magazines loaded unless they are on my person or in a locked safe (I have many young children that live with me). Magazines can be pain to load (especially those enormous double stacks that needs truck springs to feed reliably) and I can get an empty revolver into action a whole lot faster with a handful of ammo. The magazine is a double edged sword. It enables superior packaging of the ammo and greater capacity but it introduces a new part that can be faulty or lost. If I were to write action shooting rules I would require the policing of all magazines. Any reload exercise would require the stowing of the empty mag and you woun't be allowed to go pick them up afterwards. I would also force competitors to take boxed or loose ammo and load their mags to start the match. I think it would be interesting to see the outcome vs revolvers. I know for a fact that if policing of brass were made a requirement then autos would ALWAYS LOSE.

Another thing that is prehaps snobbery but I've generally observed is that 20-something mall ninja commando wannabes, criminals, and gangsters seem to gravitate to the plastic doublestacks while men of superior culture seem to like wood and steel revolvers.

[Mr_Sheesh]

1911 owners tend to buy 20 or so good magazines, that solves the reloading time question for a while.

[onelight]

I likum all and carry both revolvers and autos I shoot revolvers better than autos and the autos I carry most are 6 to 7 shot 45s so I don't give up mulch with a 5 shot 44 special or 357. I also have a few double stack 9s 40s and 45s but don't carry them often.
The slimmer grips are less bulky to carry for me . nice to have a lot of good choices :)

[Old School Big Bore]

As long as I was a two-hatted LEO/grunt, and a competitive shooter/firearms instructor under both hats, I have enjoyed shooting both designs just about equally. Given, the revolver was my go-to for Siluetas Metalicas and the auto for Steel Challenge and bowling pins, but on the whole I can switch-hit with ease. On duty, my LEO sidearm went from 4" M29 to 1911 to 5" M27 to 5" XD45 (love the light rail and 13-rd mags) to 4" M625-8JM (love the moon clips and the way two of them fit in a speedloader pouch), and my GI beltgun from my beloved 1911 to the cordially despised M9, the adoption of which delayed my Distinguished badge for about three extra years, but since when I had to carry in BDUs it was counter-terrorist or ammo shipment security, and not subject to Geneva protocols, and it was a while after Speer came out with the Gold Dots, so I was never undergunned with the 'subcal' boolit launcher. I can identify with the brass-chasing aspect of shooting the autos, especially since Father Time has seen fit to interdict my bending over, but two things help me with that: one, I bought a nut-gatherer that works great on ejected brass, and two, I have carte blanche where I shoot and usually either pick a spot of hardpan or stake down a tarp to help me find the little boogers. I also keep a battery powered weed eater and leaf blower in the pickup and if a yardage consideration puts me in the vegetation, I just do a little scorched-earth ground clearing before staking out the tarp and erecting the pop-up. Diverging slightly, I have bought a couple of Caldwell velcro-on net brass catchers for the ARs, but have not tried them out yet. I'm hoping one of those will help with the .44 brass from the DeerStalker.
Hope this helps, Ed <><

[bigted]

All interesting reading. Thank you one and all for your position, drathers and personal opinions.

Myself ... my auto's outnumber my revolvers ... leastwise in cartridge guns. If every weapon is counted, then revolvers far outnumber my auto's.

I like and am proficient with every weapon in my stable. Were I my enemy, I would tread softly around me. BUT, having said this ... I still would be perfectly comfy with either weapon style in my hands when in a tight spot.

I have practiced high stress shooting with both styles and believe my talent and attack posture would be just slightly different with an auto compared to a revolver. I have confidence in both systems ... however ... I have found myself in positions where no question a stout revolver is my choice 100% of the time. You never breath so clearly nor think so fast then when in close proximity to a thousand pound bear that is snapping his jaws and snorting gobs of snot in anger at being disturbed. No auto would be found in my possession under ANY circumstance where this scenario is possible. You gotta know that these huge predators can and have absorbed a ton of punishment before laying down for good. Also weather is considered where this is possible.

Any rate ... a full house 300+ grain load in a 4 inch 44 Mag model 29 or Redhawk are no fun to practice with 2 or 3 times a week for the time spent in old grizz back yard. They hurt and worth every ounce of horse power when the need arrives.

Love the passion of all reply's found here. Don't stop and do keep em comin.

[Three44s]

A time and a place for both!

I ranch and farm. There, the revolver reigns supreme!

In town I can go with my SP 101 or my Kel Tech PF9

I like the flat sided auto for it’s easy carry. I like the 357 SP 101 for the added power.

At home on the ranch, there is nothing like my 629 MG in .44 Mag, unless it’s the 7.5” Redhawk or that SRH of the same length in the 480.

I think a shooter just needs to gravitate to what they really like. They will likely have to shoot several guns to that “one” that tickles their fancy and still have to buy some more than one and develop their opinions as it comes to them and then carry as they are allowed by law and personal preference.

I am glad we are endowed with so many choices.

Lets fight like hell so it stays that way, our enemies and not amongst ourselves.

Viva the 2A

Three44s

[snowwolfe]

My preferences are as follows:

I like a small 5 shot snubbie in 38+ for carrying in the vehicles and on my person.
For home protection my choice is a DA semi auto with an exposed hammer. These remain loaded with the hammer down.
Target shooting - either
Hunting - revolvers

It’s nice we still have so many choices

[tazman]

My preferences are as follows:

I like a small 5 shot snubbie in 38+ for carrying in the vehicles and on my person.
For home protection my choice is a DA semi auto with an exposed hammer. These remain loaded with the hammer down.
Target shooting - either
Hunting - revolvers

It’s nice we still have so many choices


I agree with one correction. I want a full size semi auto in the car since it is easier to conceal there. Thinking about the possibility of getting stuck in a “mostly peaceful “ protest. I might need more than 5 rounds very quickly.

[fatelk]

How do you choose? I never gave it much thought. I like them both. I can see arguments extolling the virtues of one over the other for specific things, but one being inherently better than the other in general and as a whole? Not buying it.

As to brass, I shoot at an outdoor club range. I can typically pick up all the 9mm, .40S&W, .45acp, and .380 brass I'll ever need. If I don't find the auto brass that I shot in any given day, no big deal. It's cheap and plentiful. I always come home with more than I shot.

Revolver brass, on the other hand, is a scarce commodity. It's rare to find any rimmed brass at the range: 38 Special occasionally, but anything else is exceedingly rare. One old timer that I was talking with at the range one day told me that revolvers are not near as scarce at the range as the levels of range brass might indicate, it's just that revolver shooters are "cleaner". Their brass is on the bench in front of them, so if they don't reload, they just pick it up and toss it in the dumpster with any other garbage. :( I wish they were a little less neat and tidy, and just leave it for us reloaders.

[Eddie Southgate]

By far prefer a revolver to the autos but have, carry and use both .

[Geezer in NH]

I like revolvers! I have 2 that count here one a S&W M19 , one a 642 no lock. The 642 is a daily carry at times. The 19 is my woods gun. Both get shot mostly with wadcutter loads.

Mostly since my Department went to autos I and my family carry semi-autos. My son who is 33 years old does not own or want a revolver. He has big hands and uses a Glock 17 for carry.

My wife uses a Glock 26 and like it the best. Her choice

Mostly I carry a Glock 26. I carry Glock 17 mags as back up.

My job changed to semi-auto in the 90's so I had no choice. Now I do after training in semi-auto go that way. More rounds and more on target helps keep us even with evil IMHO