The only Dillon Blue Press article I’ve ever read was a passioned defense of the revolver, which criticized automatics for being finicky and unreliable. Revolvers were described as essentially perfect, although the author conceded that automatics could carry more rounds between reloads. I have since thrown away all the Blue Presses I get, with the exception of the one that had Julie Goloski-Golob on the cover (she’s no fake “gun girl”), and the one with my friend Meredith on the cover with one of her 50 BMGs (she’s also no fake “gun girl,” and she’s my friend).
Revolver maniacs don’t just exist in the print media world. I was at the range several years ago when I overheard a few competition shooters arguing about whether revolvers or automatics were more reliable. After about half an hour of mostly useless back and forth discussion, I interjected with a simple statement: during the final US Army pistol trials which resulted in the selection of the Model 1911 pistol, the Colt 1911 fired all six thousand rounds without a malfunction, while the service revolver had several malfunctions in the same number of rounds (this was the first and last time a 1911 didn’t malfunction). Unfortunately, my interjection of fact only stimulated more vigorous (and useless) debate.
The common belief among a few diehard revolver fanatics is that because the revolver does not have to feed or eject cartridges in the same manner that automatic pistols do, or because the revolver is somehow “simpler” than the automatic, it is better than the auto. Their idea of “better” is, of course, esoteric.
Revolvers remain mechanical objects, and are subject to problems arising from manufacturing defects, parts failures, ammunition failures, improper maintenance, and user abuse – just like pistols. While the casual observer might believe that because the revolver does not appear to have as many moving parts as the automatic, inferring from this that the revolver is therefore more reliable, the revolver is in fact a fairly intricate design, the proper function of which is based on a number of small, moving parts.
Abuse of a revolver, including spinning the cylinder and then slamming or snapping it shut, can cause damage and render the weapon nonfunctional. Similarly, dropping a revolver with the cylinder open can render it nonfunctional. I would go so far as to say that when it comes to physical abuse, revolvers are significantly more susceptible to damage than automatics.
Poorly made revolvers can have all sorts of issues that one would normally not ever conceive of. I have personally seen a revolver with a barrel which fractured just forward of the topstrap and separated from the rest of the weapon. The owner said it flew about fifteen feet downrange after he fired a few hundred rounds. Yes, it was a Taurus.
I have owned, carried, and depended on revolvers. I still carry a Smith & Wesson J-frame quite often. I do so for specific purposes, knowing the limitations of the platform. I also think revolvers look cool and thoroughly enjoy target shooting with a revolver that has a very nice single action trigger.
I would urge anyone who still believes, in the 21st century, that revolvers are superior to automatics as defensive or fighting handguns to strongly consider the facts about revolvers and the state of automatic pistols today. Also, you’re insane.
Best ending sentence ever. (and agree)
Thanks dude
I’ve probably sent more rounds down range with my S&W 686 (that’s revolver for you young’uns *grin*) than I have any other firearm I own. I most certainly do not think they are superior to automatics as I have had my revolver go down hard on me during a match. Something I have yet to experience with an automatic that wasn’t a Taurus. Sure I’ve had to limp an automatic through a match stage, but my rate of fire was much higher than it was with a revolver that required tools to unjam. Still there are situations where I prefer a revolver. Maybe I’m just that old.
I agree. Those “Wheelgun or nothin’!” guys are obstinate in the extreme. Unless revolvers turn every owner into Jerry Miculek then their arguments are fairly weak.
That said;
“Abuse of a revolver, including spinning the cylinder and then slamming or snapping it shut, can cause damage and render the weapon nonfunctional.”
Ahhh, like they do in the movies. Well, no serious revolver owner ever does that.
Revolvers don’t double feed, stovepipe or fail to extract/eject. Well, the latter it’s possbile between reloading, but not during the act of defending yourself.
And do you expect those who carry .44 mag for defense to carry a Desert Eagle over a 2.5-4″ revolver?
But you are generally correct. Today’s semi-auto’s hold an edge. I, myself carry a semi-auto more than revolvers. If L.A.R. (or someone) made Grizzly’s again I would buy one in .45 Winmag and convert it to .44 Automag and then I would carry revolvers even less.
Statistics do lean a little in the revolvers favor. But just because “they” say that most incidents entail the dicharge of 6 or fewer rounds doesn’t mean you won’t need more. Not having to reload is nice when you are facing death. But it still doesn’t keep me from carrying my revolvers when the mood strikes me.
For those revolver extremists who love to quote the above stat I always ask them if they carry a speedloader or two. They usually don’t like the one word question I ask after their reply.
Two of the most difficult handgun jams I’ve had were with revolvers – a .357 mag Ruger GP100, and a .22 LR Ruger Single Six. In each case some tiny bit of grit got somewhere in the mechanism and locked it up completely until several minutes of shaking and manipulation dislodged it. Both times were at the range, doing casual target shooting, and the guns were clean. The GP100 was subsequently sold for being a 12″ long, 50oz gun doing the same work as a 8.5″ long, 27oz gun, while the Single Six remains as a fun target gun.
I have several semiauto pistols that have never jammed once, ever, including a Glock, a couple Ruger 9mms, and two Springfield Armory 1911s. So my experience is similar to yours.
“I would go so far as to say that when it comes to physical abuse, revolvers are significantly more susceptible to damage than automatics.”
I agree with that 100%
I love shooting revolvers and carried a j-frame for a few years. However, I think percentage wise, I’ve had more problems with quality, name-brand revolvers than with reputable autos (if I include the off-brand autos that have had problems, the number evens out). Here’s a non-exhaustive list of the types of malfunctions I’ve personally experienced while shooting revolvers:
– frozen action from excess fouling on the cylinder face
– frozen action from excess fouling under the extractor star
– failure to extract (without the use of tools)
– shell casing stuck under extractor star during reload
– light primer strikes
– improper timing resulting in being hit with lead fragments
– frozen action from improperly reassembled S&W trigger lock
– cylinder that would not open due to ejector rod working itself loose
– adjustable rear sight that would not stay put
– fiber optic insert fell out of front sight
All these happened with Ruger and S&W revolvers (and one Dan Wesson) and most of them have happened on multiple occasions. It’s just anecdotal evidence and it doesn’t “prove” anything, but revolver devotees often overlook potential problems like the above. You could probably argue that a brand new revolver out of the box would be more likely to successfully complete a 2000 round challenge than any given auto. But if you shoot that revolver a lot, fail to clean it properly, use the wrong brand of ammo, or really do *anything* to modify it, the potential certainly exists for failures. And don’t get me started on the S&W locks…
Another thing to note is that most of these issues could not be fixed by simply pulling the trigger again. Aside from light strikes, when a revolver goes down, there is no “tap, rack, bang” quick fix… it’s going to take some time and maybe tools to get it running again.
Side note: For what it’s worth, I’ve never experienced, or even seen any hint of a problem with any fixed sight Ruger GP-100. I’m convinced those things are nigh-indestructible.
I still occasionally recommend revolvers to people. Just yesterday a friend was asking about a centerfire handgun that would be fun at the range and “maybe for self defense but not concealed carry” and his budget was $300. I recommended a used K-frame S&W. Revolvers have their place, but I think a lot of people that boast about their merits are either unaware of the potential issues, or ignore them.
Revolvers, like 1911s, are very easy to become emotionally attached to. There’s some kind of romance about them. They look and feel dangerous and powerful. They’re versatile, fun to shoot, and attractive. I *want* them to be as practical as autos. But they just aren’t.
For a more balanced view from a revolver fanatic, I really enjoy the writings of renowned revolversmith Grant Cunningham. The gun-related content on his blog has waned recently, but there are some excellent articles in the archives, and his recent book, Gun Digest Book of the Revolver is really good too.
“Side note: For what itâs worth, Iâve never experienced, or even seen any hint of a problem with any fixed sight Ruger GP-100. Iâm convinced those things are nigh-indestructible.”
Got one on layaway that I’ll be picking up before month end. Closest thing to the 3″ Speed Six I shot when I was a teenager in the police explorers.
Going to keep it in .357 for a little while until I save up the $650 for the 10mm conversion (Clement’s Custom).
I’ve been a S&W 629 man for many, many years. Until they improve their triggers and dump that lock I’m done with their revolvers. I’m a Ruger fan now. I also plan on getting a 4.2″ Redhawk and having Mag-Na-Port make a 3″ out of it.
The anti-revolver argument is a bit like arguing a 2012 Hyundai Elantra is “better” than 1972 Ford Mustang Mach I. Arguing about what gun is “better” is not a logical argument. It’s totally emotional and subjective.
Until there is a modern equivalent of the Dirty Harry movies where the hero preaches the merits of his M&P9, revolvers will always be cooler. Just like 1911s will always be cooler.
If you’re a fan of the plastic fantastic, count your blessings. You’ll never run across some vintage S&W or Colt that you absolutely MUST buy on the spot, whether you can afford it or not. You’ll never get to know any high end gunsmiths that create shootable art that might cost more than your car is worth. It’s not logical. It’s beautiful.
I hope I can watch that movie sooner rather than later.
The Browning action autoloading pistol. An elegant weapon for a more civilized age. 🙂
Sometimes I wonder if people actually read and comprehend my articles, and then I read comments like this, and I know the answer is a resounding “no.”
LOL, nice.
All I was gonna add was I was shooting my dads LCP (I think that was what it was, but hell, it’s a revolver so I really didn’t care!) and the cylinder was locking up after every couple of shots… Now that is reliable! By the way my 1991 has thousands of rounds with no malfunctions at all. Nor does my P226 with close to 5000 rounds 😉
So take your emotion and movies, ah never mind.
If you were comparing a Hi-Point semi-auto against a S&W revolver, your analogy might make sense.
Unfortunately, even the lackluster Glock compared to the age old revolver design would demand the analogy of a twin turbo charged Subaru WRX STi vs a 1972 Ford Mustang Mach I. Yeah, the old fart of a car will instill a sense of nostalgia, but the Subaru will mop the asphalt, and an off-road trail, with your obsolete engineering of an automobile when it comes time to perform.
The modern equivalent of the Dirty Harry movies today are video games, like Call of Duty, where so many of the new generation gets their entertainment industry version of gun education in an interactive form. And 1911s will always be cooler as a hobby gun.
As for your final statement… where to start. How about seeing the fruit of so much more man hours of precise and purposeful engineering, to include the plastic you call fantastic, that results in a pistol that’s lighter, thinner, higher in capacity, more durable, and far more reliable than a revolver or a 1911? All at fraction of the price of your car? Yeah, its logical AND beautiful.
I’m an artist at heart and I truly appreciate seeing an original John Singer Sargent… in a museum. But I also appreciate how representational art has progressed and the talented modern artists who have evolved the art for the better.
I’d like to add, everything you said is what a Hipster Gun Enthusiast would say.
Typo: Supra should be Subaru.
I’ve shot revolvers in IDPA and Steel Challenge, and in both types of shooting, I would say the major cause of problems is poorly reloaded ammo. I had several hundred rounds that my neighbor gave me from when he dabbled in reloading in the 80’s. You know how people say don’t use reloads you don’t trust? Well, I didn’t listen. The cases were all improperly sized, if they were sized at all, and they would go into my chambers and stick HARD. The rollcrimps were over-zealous and would also stick, and refuse to seat, preventing the cylinder from closing, or worse, preventing it from TURNING. At least none of them blew my gun up, and I got to reuse the brass.
I’ve had light strikes with all but Federal Primers (even with extended firing pins and extra-power mainsprings) in two of the four S&W’s I’ve used in competition (I have a Dan Wesson, but I’ve never competed with it) which is something I’ve only regularly experienced in Glocks with when using small rifle primers, which are obviously much harder.
All that being said, I’ve always carried semi autos because they’re flat. Capacity isn’t a factor to me, but concealability is. Plus, I’ve had to switch to semi-autos in IDPA because their rules are intentionally stupid.
Apart from being inherently more accurate (non tilting barrel), packing more punch than a 10mm in a std 4 inch 357, being easily manipulated under stress, absorbing recoil better due to weight, being easier to reload for, being easier to conceal due to a rounded shape, and not looking like sin, I can see your point.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, stupid.
“easily manipulated under stress”
What? Seriously?
“absorbing recoil better due to weight”
I am sorry, come again?
“being easier to reload for”
You talking about reloading ammo or the gun, either way, now you must be high or drunk?
“being easier to conceal due to a rounded shape”
Because the round shape under your shirt is just a fat roll?
“and not looking like sin”
I just don’t even know what to say…
I am wondering if you have ever shot either?
What on Earth? Revolvers don’t absorb recoil better than autoloaders. The action absorbs some of the kinetic energy, remember? And I don’t know what you mean by “more easily manipulated under stress.” I have read the writings of female shooters about how male gun store workers tell them the same thing. They don’t buy it, and neither do I.
>_O
I shoot a lot of 10mm. There are many factory loads available that beat out factory .357 loads (loads from Buffalo Bore, Underwood, and Cor-Bon jump to mind). Most 10mm-chambered guns also have 1.5-3x the capacity, and my Glock 20SF holds 21 rounds with Arredondo extension. Read more about rounds before comparing them.
I am sure you are just baiting here, but okay, i will bite. Most of this has been beaten to death, so I will try to not to harp on the obvious (action reducing recoil, etc).
I am not going to argue the accuracy deal here, because that part is pointless and impossible to compare apples to apples. Both platforms can be made VERY accurate, and will normally be limited by ammunition and most importantly shooter skill, not because it is an auto or revolver.
The only advantage I can even think of in terms of a revolver being easier to manipulate under stress is the lack of a safety. Again, this only comes in to play when you are talking about carrying against an auto that has one, and not against something like a Glock that doesn’t have a traditional safety. Or if you are talking about being able to carry it without a holster, and no safety……like in your pocket? I am just guessing here, but most people jerk the shit out of a revolver trigger when they are on the clock and under a little stress, i would love to see the stats under REAL stress.
Reload- not sure what it could be better other than cheaper with lead, non-jacketed bullets
Conceal? hahahahhaha, the only ones that you can conceal better than an auto are the super-light snubbies and I have one, but would not want to be in a gun fight with that.
Not looking like sin? not sure if you are saying autos are ugly or look like something tactical, aggressive, or what. I will say the revolver if anything looks much more intimidating than something like a Glock.
Bottom line, triggers are better for most shooters, there is less to snag for carry, they are normally lighter, carry more ammo, faster to reload, the list goes on and on.
I like them, but just because they are fun and look cool, not the pistol I would choose to save my life.
Revolvers are indeed too prone to failure. That’s why I carry a .45 Colt Bond Arms derringer as my primary sidearm. Very reliable. I do usually carry a Walther P99 as a backup just in case the Bond is not sufficient.
I once heard a wise woman say “the less someone knows about firearms, the more they want a derringer.”
“I once heard a wise woman say âthe less someone knows about firearms, the more they want a derringer.â”
I don’t know as much as Tam knows about firearms…but I do know that if you happen to buy a Bond Arms derringer because a friend is selling it then you won’t ever regret it.
Sure, why would I regret spending money on a handgun that weighs as much as a Glock 19, is very nearly as big, holds an eighth the quantity of ammunition, is harder to shoot, more liable to break, has a worse trigger, and has few quality holsters available for it?
Stop trying to sell your pigshit. No one’s buying.
That is funny, i say you won’t ever regret not carrying a gun at all if you never needed one……mostly likely the same is true for the derringer. This guy is just pulling our chains.
Been cribbing notes from my many rants on the subject, I see. 😉
People who think revolvers are better than automatics are like people who think the katana was the best sword ever made. They live vicariously, through the experiences of (often mythical) better men than they. They don’t actually care about what’s practical, they care about looking like Kuwabatake Sanjuro or Dirty Harry.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Just please, for your ancestor’s sake, don’t pretend that you’re the figure of practicality.
Also the best sword ever made was the rapier, unless you were on horseback, then it was probably the sabre.
That is a can of worms of epic proportions my friend, but do bear in mind that there is no “best sword” because swords were not made in a vacuum; they were a part of systems in constant flux with changing modes of war. Context, context, context.
lightsaber.
FTW!!
Pretty sure I know the article you’re talking about. If I’m right, it was written by Marko Kloos, who has a blog over here: http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/
There is a reason that semi’s are more widely sold than the outdated revolver.
I just find all these comments to be very hurtful. I thought the hate was just between 1911 and Glocks factions.
I carried a Ruger GP100 for several years along with two additional HKS Speed-loaders using .357 158 gr. hollow points as a police officer in a medium-sized department back in the 1980s before we transitioned to S&W4516’s .45ACP semi-autos… http://godgalsgunsgrub.blogspot.com/2011/12/packin-eighteen-rounds-of-357-magnum.html
I had full confidence in that gun, it’s reliability, and my abilities with it…
BUT I WOULD NEVER GO BACK TO CARRYING A REVOLVER AS MY PRIMARY EDC CARRY GUN!
…with the current crop of reliable semi-auto choices… I still carry a Ruger LCR as a back-up from time to time and I still love shooting revolvers… but I mostly carry a semi-auto these days…
Dann in Ohio
Though I don’t cary a revolver for my EDC (except some some summertime JFrame days), I do appreciate the versatility of a revolver in .357. It’s something that I like over most auto-loaders, and I do often carry a revolver in the woods hunting/fishing or when I am camping.
Things evolve. The uses and preferences become more diverse as the roles of certain types of firearms change. A revolver to me is a specialty gun that can take loads most semi automatic designs would not suit. It has a new role, and the semi-auto handgun has one too.
I had to repair a customer’s 1851 Navy the other day… With a brass hammer. I’ve seen Rugers and Smith and Wessons jam on factory loads. I’ve seen a mainspring break. Revolvers, even quality ones, break down.
1. You say “… anyone who still believes, in the 21st century, that revolvers are superior to automatics as defensive or fighting handguns … you’re insane.”
And yet, you yourself say “I still carry a Smith & Wesson J-frame quite often.”
Please explain this contradiction:
a) Is there some reason you cannot carry a semi-automatic in those frequent situation where you carry a revolver?
b) Why do you intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage? Are you “insane?”
Or could it be that revolvers and semis each have situations for which each is best suited? Could it be that for certain defensive scenarios a revolver is the best choice?
2. How can one possibly make a choice for a typical defensive scenario, without knowing what a typical defensive scenario is? So I ask, what have you concluded is a typical defensive scenario, and on what basis have you made that conclusion? And based on that evidence, how many rounds are typically fired in self defense? Is the defender sometimes injured from being shot, disoriented and bloody? Or is the defender in full control of their faculties and able to assume an optimal grip and stance with the weapon?
[HINT: Think George Zimmerman. You’re hurt, on the ground, somehow got your hand on your gun, one shot, bad breath range. Even home invasions are typically 3 shots or less from less than optimal positions at very close range. Revolver=no jams due to poor grip, no failure to return to battery by interference with the slide. Why are the advantages of a semi-auto, capacity and lighter trigger ever significantly relevant in a typical civilian defense scenario? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot about the tacticool crowd who thinks their 1 bedroom apartment will be raided by a band of ninjas.]
3. What were the historical tactical reasons given for the development and proliferation of the semi-auto as a sidearm for military and police? Are those tactical reasons necessarily relevant for purely defensive civilian use? Or do military and police encounter threats distinct from the typical civilian defensive scenario?
[HINT: Extended firefights (your job is to stay and fight, not run!), ability to share magazines, quick reloads (remember, extended firefights), spray and pray (for military). None of these are relevant for civilian defense.]
4. What economics drive the gun manufacturers to market particular platforms? Are particular platforms more profitable than others? Do economies of scale come into play, whereby manufacturers already tooled to produce massive amounts of a particular platform for military and police use can produce such platforms at far lower cost and thus greater profit? And wouldn’t the manufacturers tend to market the platforms that are most profitable?
[HINT: When government is your customer and orders massive amounts of anything, you learn to make it cheaply, and your profit margins in the civilian market are much higher. You market appropriately, and the market adjusts accordingly.]
Based on my analysis of my defensive handgun needs as a civilian, a revolver is the superior choice. I guess I am insane.
No, it’s because he wants to, you witless c***.
I carry my .38ti in the summer when I am wearing shorts, because it is all i can carry without completely dressing around carrying. That being said, it is a big trade off in terms of ammo, range, reload, etc. It is more of a better than nothing.
Also, most of the people I know that have shot pistols in the line of duty or in defense shoot a lot more rounds than you think. Doesn’t matter if it is a rifle or a pistol, when the blood is pumping you don’t normally shoot the standard hammer or failure drill, statistically well trained shooters point and “let er eat”. And this is what you should do. Just cause you shoot a guy dead, doesn’t mean he can’t kill you before he knows he’s dead. More bullets is a good thing. I never feel too comfortable with only 5 rounds.
There has to be some more people on here that have had to shoot before…..how many rounds? There must be some officers or other military guys that have either had to return fire or at least read the AAR at their department when another officer was in a shooting.
Proof is in the pudding…..
Former Army dude here. Honestly, it really depends. The first time I shot someone he was less than 50 meters away but I was so amped up I missed him three times (with an M4 and iron sights in broad daylight and not taking any well aimed fire myself) before I managed to hit him. At least two other times I know I went through a full magazine before I managed to get a hit. Once I finally learned to settle the eff down and properly apply fundamentals I managed to start getting first or second round hits most of the time. The biggest thing was learning to take the extra second to take an all important deep breath.
But, there are so many factors involved and, of course, the plural of anecdote is not data. I will say that I carry with 10+1 rounds every day now and a reload of 13 more but am still a little worried about whether that’s enough. The main consolation I have is that I would be far more careful about where (and how) I’m slinging lead here in America versus on the two way range in Diyala.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve been shooting since I was 8, scored expert on all of the weapons organic to my team and was SOF when I was in the Army. Folks can laugh or judge if they want… shooting becomes several orders of magnitude more difficult when your body is humming with adrenaline and people are actively trying to make you dead.
“Calm down…have some dip.”
“Based on my analysis of my defensive handgun needs as a civilian, a revolver is the superior choice. I guess I am insane”
You probably are insane.
Why carry six when you can carry 15 rounds?
Do you “need” 15 rounds statistically? probably not. Never have I ever hear anybody bitch about “being left with all this ammo” after a firefight.
“None of these are relevant for civilian defense.”
In response to the purpose of semi-auto handguns, you can find yourself in a post Hurricane Katrina or Watts riots situation, where a handgun is a good tool to have to fight to a long gun. I disagree with your statement strongly.
Since all gun owners are members of the informal militia (excluding those already in the National Guard technically, as that is formal militia), yes, semi-automatics fulfill their intended purpose far better than a revolver.
Revolvers are cool as hell. They have a ton of style much like the Katana. Style is also bullshit when the rubber meets the road and youll quickly see me ditch that shiny six gun or a plastic 9mm that holds 15 rounds.
Ah, revolvers.
Are there any reliable autos that shoot the equivalent of the .44mag that isn’t a Desert Eagle boat anchor?
Yep
Jewish Marskman: I am not Andrew, but I am offering a rebuttal, speaking for myself alone.
 1.
 A) There are times when a semi might not be the best option; ankle carry immediately comes to mind.  While a semi could certainly be ankle carried, a small revolver would be easier to conceal under a pant leg (being less boxy) and probably pack more punch than an equally sized semi.
 B) I would only carry a revolver in such a manner as a backup (to a larger, primary semi) or in a non-permissive environment.
 2. I don’t know what a typical defensive engagement entails, and as such, I would prefer to have a weapon that covers a wide range of possible scenarios; a revolver is limited by its capacity (or lack thereof), slow(er) reloads, fatter profile, the blast that comes in the area between the cylinder and chamber (which all but precludes the use of a suppressor, should I be so inclined), the lack of availability of weapon-mounted lights and optics (should I choose to utilize them), and the likelihood that if a revolver does fail, I won’t be able to fix it.  A semi is limited by (potentially) more complex controls, larger overall size (but a different profile) for a given caliber and barrel length), and is less forgiving of user error (limp wrist, not seating a magazine fully, etc).
 I am willing to bear with the downsides of semis (two of which can be all but completely ameliorated by training) in exhange for the increased versatility and better ergonomics (in my opinion).  In response to your hypothetical home invasion scenario, the assailants clothes, or a bracelet on your wrist, or a twig left on the floor by the dog might all jam the cylinder of a revolver. Â
 As to your question on capacity and triggers, it’s admittedly unlikely I’ll have to clear a house against multiple bad guys, making nigh-on-impossible shots that require a great trigger and superb marksmanship.  But what if I wanted to use my handgun to compete in local IDPA or IPSC matches?  Wouldn’t higher capacity and a trigger more conducive to accuracy be beneficial then?  And it wouldn’t hurt in a home defense situation, would it?
 3. You’re correct, it’s highly unlikely someone will get into an extended firefight, but are any of the features you mentioned (capacity, quick reloads, quick shooting) ever going to be detrimental to a trained user?  I don’t think so, it’s added capability.  That’s like trying to buy a Jeep Wrangler, and having a tricked out one with all the bells and whistles (off-road suspension and tires, skid plates, reinforced roll cage, etc) offered to you for the same price as a bare bones stock Wrangler, and choosing the stock one … why would you turn down increased capability and potential for the same cost?
 4. I don’t see how what manufacturers market is cogent to this discussion, at all.  I’m assuming you are doing your own research, weighing the pro’s and con’s, and determining the best choice given your needs, price range, level of training, etc.  What marketing is for is to persuade the unthinking consumer to purchase brand “y” instead of brand “x” because of stupid, inane reason “z.”
 Also, why does it matter if a company is set up to produce large runs of a product?  If said product is of superior (or even equal) quality and better price, wouldn’t it make more sense to buy it rather than an inferior (or equal) more expensive product (even if the second product was made by hand)?  Andrew was not discussing whether capitalism (which is basically what you are arguing against) is wrong or if there is a better system, he was stating his opinion that semis are more practical/useful in more situations than a revolver.
Maybe you are insane
You say, “There are times when a semi might not be the best option” Great, that statement proves you have critical thinking ability.
You say, “I donât know what a typical defensive engagement entails,” and yet you appear to comfortably opine on the appropriateness of one weapons platform over another. History has shown the disastrous results of weapons procurement decisions made without knowledge of the actual circumstances.
You say, ” In response to your hypothetical home invasion scenario,” but the scenario is no hypothetical. It is based on actual statistics readily available from the FBI and other law enforcement sources.
You say, “the assailants clothes, or a bracelet on your wrist, or a twig left on the floor by the dog might all jam the cylinder of a revolver,” yet you neglect to mention that an asteroid might also fall from the sky and wedge itself in the cylinder as well. None of these things happen with any significant frequency to justify labeling a revolver as unreliable, and in fact, decades of law enforcement carry prior to the rise of semi-autos have proven revolvers to be reliable in the field.
You offer no response to the highly likely scenario that compromised strength and position creates a significant problem with a semi-auto returning to battery. This is no imaginary scenario. Spend a day at any public range and observe the line…there is a very high probability that you will witness failures to return to battery: failure to feed, stove pipe, “limp wristing,” etc. You will also see an occasional shooter forget to disengage a safety before shooting, on those pistols that have safeties. That is the cold hard reality that for reasons I will never understand, the anti-revolver crowd fails to admit. As a revolver fan, I am not ignorant of revolver failures, but I am also not ignorant of the infrequency with which those failures occur.
You say, “I am willing to bear with the downsides of semis (two of which can be all but completely ameliorated by training),” but even assuming your amelioration argument is true, I and many other hand gun owners are not interested or willing to devote time to learning and practicing to clear semi-auto malfunctions. My daily practice and range time is for rifle competition training. Further, semi-auto malfunction clearing nearly always requires 2 hands to be done with speed and reliability. Civilian self-defense scenarios typically involve reacting to an initial attack which has already occurred, and as such, the probability of having two capable hands to clear a malfunction is compromised.
You say, “itâs admittedly unlikely Iâll have to clear a house against multiple bad guys, making nigh-on-impossible shots that require a great trigger and superb marksmanship.” You are correct.
You ask, “But what if I wanted to use my handgun to compete in local IDPA or IPSC matches? Wouldnât higher capacity and a trigger more conducive to accuracy be beneficial then?” Of course. It is 100% likely that you will attend the match and have fun. It is close to 0% that you will have to defend yourself with the same gun. So in that case, if you had to have just 1 gun, get the gun that best suits what you actually have to use it for. It’s not rocket science.
You ask, “And it wouldnât hurt in a home defense situation, would it?” and “…are any of the features you mentioned (capacity, quick reloads, quick shooting) ever going to be detrimental to a trained user?” Nobody argues that *theoretically*, greater capacity and rate of fire are advantages. The argument is whether these things are likely to be relevant in a civilian defense scenario, and empirically, they are not. (in the moves and tv they are, but my life is not an action movie, is yours?) And nobody argues that a gun is better than no gun. The most critical question for a civilian defense scenario, empirically, is the resistance of the platform to stoppage where grip and position are compromised. Neither platform is immune, but the revolver less so. Simple as that.
You say, “I donât see how what manufacturers market is cogent to this discussion, at all.” Andrew did not make the point, but other commentators above proffered that because semis are more popular, they must, somehow, be superior to revolvers (see rodger “There is a reason that semiâs are more widely sold than the outdated revolver.”) My point is that most gun purchases, especially first time purchases, are made on the advice of a salesman or literature financed by the manufacturer (if you don’t believe most gun magazines and a significant number of gun blogs are biased fronts for the manufacturers, you’re naive). Sorry if you overpaid for an iPhone, but on a functional level, other phones using the Android platform are superior and superior values for any consumer who cares about anything other than image. And yet, iPhones sell like hotcakes. Sorry, but a significant number of gun purchases are made on image, impulse and marketing as well. Perhaps not by the readers of this blog, but enough to render the popularity argument irrelevant. And remember, Glock built its empire convincing law enforcement that its platform was superior to revolvers, and why would you assume that Glock’s marketing arms and tentacles have stopped disseminating anti-revolver propaganda?
The argument is whether these things are likely to be relevant in a civilian defense scenario, and empirically, they are not.
Source Please……
Jim, start here: http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html
and read the comments which discuss and debate the study. Very few civilian self-defense situations exceed 3 rounds fired, and occur at distances which render precision accuracy irrelevant. TV and movies are not accurate portrayals of reality.
It’s really funny that you don’t know the background of the person you’re talking to.
You are completely out of your league here.
And the “study” you quote started with incomplete data and ended with incomplete results. What a surprise.
Don’t bother commenting any further on this site.
you sparked a good one here Andrew, people really draw lines in the sand when it comes to their choice of firearms.
I think it is good to think about likely scenarios, but I also think it is sign of ignorance to take such a hard line on something if you are only doing research, but have little or no experience in. I am not sure if you have been shot at or shot at anyone else, but I will tell you that people that shoot only a few rounds, normally do so because they are not being shot at.
I tried to attach a bunch of statistics online (mostly are police related shootings), and you are correct in that most engagements are around 3 rounds. But also over 3/4 of those are against people that were not shooting. Once officers were on the 2-way range, and being shot at their hit percentage goes down to 13% (NY Times), basic math will tell you that statistically that is zero hits from a 5-6 shot revolver, let alone a killing shot.
Furthermore, most statistics don’t say if the engagement was successful, i.e. the guy shot 2 times before being killed.
I am not going to say revolvers are useless, but I think you would be hard to find to many people that have actually been in a firefight/ shooting etc, that at the moment of truth would have chose a 5-6 shot revolver over a Glock the same size with 14-16 rounds of .40 cal in it.
I wasn’t asking for a lesson in shootings, I was just asking you to state where you info came from since it is obviously not from personal experience…….
“Also, you’re insane.”
I like that. Insane people should not be allowed to own guns much less carry one.
Bottom line, if your guns runs, and you can run your gun, good great and grand.
But don’t lie to yourself if you can’t run the gun you have, or if the gun you have is unreliable.
Wow.
I think arguing that a revolver is better than an auto is akin to arguing whether a No. 2 pencil or a dull butter knife is better for defense. Neither the revolver or the auto is a long gun, and neither is artillery, both of which are preferred for killing violent bipedal type creatures. Silly internets.
The gun you have is always better than the one you left at home no matter what it is.
(I carry a Glock AND a J-frame at work so there!)
Andrew don’t know if you know but you have been named 😉
http://centermassgroup.com/2012/06/blogs-to-focus-your-sights-on/#comment-4487
Opps, this is a better link:
http://centermassgroup.com/2012/06/blogs-to-focus-your-sights-on/
Thank goodness I live in a state that is not part of America. Here CCW is non existent for it’s subjects, and on top of that, self defense with a firearm is basically illegal. While some folks might balk at the idea of living in a hell on earth, the upside is simple, I don’t have to worry about getting involved with any of these types of debates.
Awesome photo by the way…..it’s extremely difficult to get a good photo of a revolver going off. Seeing flames and gases from modern smokeless power is quit interesting…..different colors and textures….looks like nebula in deep space.
Hi Andrew,
This is only slightly related to your post, but what do you think of “restrike capability” in DA/SA semi-automatic pistols? Is it a valuable feature, or is it simply a marketing gimmick? I have been wondering what your opinion on this hotly contested topic is.
Regards,
Four String
I think it’s a decent option for when you’re at the range and have all the time in the world. I think it’s a very bad idea to try to keep pulling the trigger (which only has a small chance of fixing the problem) when racking the slide will definitely fix the problem.
Another massively tangential question:
What do you think of manual safeties on pistols? Have they ever gotten in your way whilst firing a pistol in a high stress situation (particularly on the Beretta 92/M9 that you used overseas)? Personally, I prefer safeties, but that’s because I grew up with them.
Also, not to pry, but how do you typically carry? With one in the chamber and no safety, none in the chamber, cocked and locked, or one in the chamber and the hammer down?
Just wondering,
Four String
Amen brother, amen. You just made the firearm equivalent of nailing the 95 theses to the door on the church at Wittenburg. For a long time I was among the pure at heart and I still carry my S&W J frame. Yet, I secretly practiced heresy with polymer pistols in 9mm and .40 S&W manufactured by a certain Austrian. Alas, I have sinned, and will continue my path of eternal damnation…..just as soon as I can get my hands on a Walther PPQ.
I would hesitate to carry a revolver for another reason: Cylinder gap. At ‘bad-breath range’, I learned to shoot with my shooting hand against my torso, or as soon as the gun cleared the holster. This would be a Bad Idea with a revolver.
On the other hand, pig hunting with a matching lever action and revolver in .357 is a lot of fun!
The revolver is no better or any worse than an autoloader.
Both have their weaknesses.
That being said I think alot of people dismiss the wheel gun off ghe bat due to ammo capacity. Its more practical and more common to buy the gun that holds more rounds because we can. What if we are faced with another 10 round magazine limit in the future?
The auto is generally easier to shoot easier to acquire (cost) and again holds more rounds.
But to suggest the gun is not a worthy defensive tool is just simply incorrect.
I am intrigued by some of clint smiths revolver training videos as if he can do it any of us humans can as well. But they dont sell in a hi-cap,magpul dynamics HSLD firearm world.
Nice article! I’m a revolver fanatic but nevertheless I own a semiauto (EAA Witness, or Tanfoglio Combat Sport, as it’s named here in Italy) that never failed to shoot, while I had a few issues with my S&W.
However, for fun shooting at the range I still favour the revolvers for a few reasons:
-S&W triggers are usually great. Single action on my 40 years old wheelguns is a shooter’s dream come true
-no spent cartridges ejection. Sometimes at the range is nice not having hot pieces of brass councing over your face. Furthermore, you don’ta have to fumble with your mags
-huge ammo versatility. A .357 can swallow any kind of cartridge from the soft shooting wad-cutters to the mighty high speed .357
-.357 in my own humble opinion is the most versatile ammo ever designed. Just a few semiautos can deliver its brute power and a Desert Eagle is actually a bit oversized!
That said, a XXIst century soldier armed with a revolver would be seriously undergunned, but for civilian use a revolver still has its perks!
Cheers!