REVOLVERS vs Autos-fill in the blank.

[Guest Tenngunner]

Hi, Y'all-

This came up in a (pretty much) unrelated post, so thought I'd let all the revolver fans have a go.

NOTE: Let's not go crazy with this (auto vs revolver fight)-just fill in the blank, please.

The reason I prefer a revolver over an automatic is __________________.

I don't mean (just a) few words; rather, an explanation of your reasons for liking revolvers more.

Feel free to go into detail.

[Guest Tenngunner]

Hi, Y'all-

This came up in a (pretty much) unrelated post, so thought I'd let all the auto fans have a go.

NOTE: Let's not go crazy with this (auto vs revolver fight)-just fill in the blank, please.

The reason I prefer an automatic over a revolver is __________________.

I don't mean (just a) few words; rather, an explanation of your reasons for liking automatics more.

Feel free to go into detail.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Tenngunner
small error/wording

[Guest m4coyote]

Accuracy. Very few sub $1K automatic pistols can match the hand held accuracy of a good S&W or Colt revolver. This is taking into consideration that you manually cock the hammer, and fire the revolver in single action mode.

[BryanP]

I actually carry and like both, but the primary thing I like about a revolver is that there is no wondering whether a round is chambered.

[mhm2a]

Simplicity, Ruggedness, Reliability, and Comfort are a few of the things that come to mind for me. It seems that my S&W J-Frame is carried more often than any other sidearm in my lineup.

[Guest Jamie]

The reason I prefer a revolver over an automatic is __________________.

Accuracy, reliability, simplicity of use, and of carry.

I've shot revolvers more than I have any other type of handgun, and generally shoot them better than autos. They are also one of the best choices to simply drop in a pocket and not have to worry about. Add to that the fact that they generally aren't ammo sensitive and will almost always fire about anything that'll fit in the chamber that's the right caliber ( bullet shape/weight doesn't generally cause problems ), and they make a near-perfect "always" gun.

Revolvers also don't have the liability of needing to have an ejection port clear to operate properly... meaning you can shoot from a pocket or from up against a wall or barricade, from either side of the gun, without a problem.

There's also no magazine to lose or to cause problems... if you have the gun and loose ammunition, you're in business.

J.

[Guest Tenngunner]

BryanP:

I actually carry and like both, but the primary thing I like about a revolver is that there is no wondering whether a round is chambered.

I do, as well-my early training was with revolvers, because my dad (this was in 60's) didn't like/have an auto in his collection. Later, in L.E./military I used autos, exclusively. I like both-there are advantages and disadvantages to either-but I lean a bit more toward the auto side-probably primarily due to the increase in reliability and availability of both the guns, and ammo.

For early-career shooters (particularly female) I tend to recommend wheel guns-it's just simpler to teach them the basics with, and they can always 'graduate' up to an auto, later-if so inclined.

[molonlabetn]

Autos absorb recoil, can be just as accurate as revolvers of similar size, have a higher capacity, are easier to reload, can have a suppressor effectively installed, do not require manual cocking of a hammer in order to achieve a crisp light trigger pull, malfunctions do not commonly require a gunsmith in order to rectify immediately, their shape makes carrying IWB more comfortable and practical... really the only advantages a revolver has are that it can handle more powerful loads, and are easier to mount a scope onto and equip with a long barrel, to achieve some increased accuracy and range potential. So, they are better for hunting... that's about it.

[Guest tlondon]

if a revolver dont go bang, you just pull the trigger again. No tap rack and pull for the revolver. I own both though and enjoy shooting both.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

More rounds in an auto and within the range of where I will probably have to

use my G30 accuracy will be just fine.

[Guest CK1]

Accuracy. Very few sub $1K automatic pistols can match the hand held accuracy of a good S&W or Colt revolver. This is taking into consideration that you manually cock the hammer, and fire the revolver in single action mode.

This doesn't hold true for me. Since trying to find a decent way to grip a revolver with both hands is just about bass ackwards to how a good modern semi-auto grip is done, so shooting a revolver just makes me less accurate.

Dunno, maybe I just haven't found a revolver I like, but I'm not a fan more than just shooting them now and again for fun, the muzzle blast with some of them is pretty awesome though!

[greenego]

I actually carry and like both, but the primary thing I like about a revolver is that there is no wondering whether a round is chambered.

Same Here Kahr PM9, Ruger SP101

[ttocswob]

Revolver - because there is no semi-auto that is legal for hunting during muzzleloader season!

[Guest Jamie]

Autos absorb recoil, can be just as accurate as revolvers of similar size, have a higher capacity, are easier to reload, can have a suppressor effectively installed, do not require manual cocking of a hammer in order to achieve a crisp light trigger pull, malfunctions do not commonly require a gunsmith in order to rectify immediately, their shape makes carrying IWB more comfortable and practical... really the only advantages a revolver has are that it can handle more powerful loads, and are easier to mount a scope onto and equip with a long barrel, to achieve some increased accuracy and range potential. So, they are better for hunting... that's about it.

I think Jerry Miculek might argue that with you.

YouTube - IPSC - Revolver Jerry Miculek

YouTube - Fast Shoot

Remember, "better" is usually entirely subjective.

J.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Jamie

[molonlabetn]

I think Jerry Miculek might argue that with you.

YouTube - IPSC - Revolver Jerry Miculek

YouTube - Fast Shoot

Remember, "better" is usually entirely subjective.

J.

In that case the "better" part of the equation is the shooter not the weapon.

True... there are a handful of guys that can shoot a revolver faster than the average semi-auto can cycle. But, if we remain in the realm of practical applications (ie, excepting parlor tricks) there is nothing that any average shooter using a revolver can do that he couldn't do more easily with a semi-auto, due to reduced recoil, more capacity, equal accuracy and greater ease of reloading... except perhaps chamber a cartridge with massive power for hunting.

[Luckyforward]

A semi-auto jammed on me during a critical incident many, many years ago. I was luckily able to clear the pistol and maintain control of the situation.

I have never had that worry since that time by carrying a revolver.

I still own and enjoy shooting autos, though.

[Guest gcrookston]

I prefer my auto-revolver...

[Guest Jamie]

In that case the "better" part of the equation is the shooter not the weapon.

True... there are a handful of guys that can shoot a revolver faster than the average semi-auto can cycle. But, if we remain in the realm of practical applications (ie, excepting parlor tricks) there is nothing that any average shooter using a revolver can do that he couldn't do more easily with a semi-auto, due to reduced recoil, more capacity, equal accuracy and greater ease of reloading... except perhaps chamber a cartridge with massive power for hunting.

True, however... you have to keep in mind that, these days, the "average shooter" really can't shoot for , and generally rely on capacity, and the ability to sling a lot of rounds down range, to get them by.

Either that, or gadgets like lasers and such.

I shake my head every time I see someone post a pic of a target that was shot at 7 yards, with a full-size pistol or revolver, that has a 3 or 4 inch group on it, that they're PROUD of.

And then there's the people who apparently can't hit a human-sized target in the chest at across-the-room distance or less, without pulling the gun up to eye level and taking careful aim....

It's a sad state of affairs, and one that probably would have folks like Jelly Brice, Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern and Elmer Keith disgusted beyond words, if they were still alive.

J.

[molonlabetn]

A valid point. But, playing devil's advocate, I've personally had a revolver cylinder seize at the range. It was kaput until I could get it home for disassembly. I have never had a semi-auto malfunction end the day. Since there's no guarantee of reliability with either type, I'd personally much rather have a weapon which I know I can clear, and has a redundant feed mechanism (spare magazine).

[Garufa]

It's a sad state of affairs, and one that probably would have folks like Jelly Brice, Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern and Elmer Keith disgusted beyond words, if they were still alive.

All revolver guys.

[Guest Jamie]

A valid point. But, playing devil's advocate, I've personally had a revolver cylinder seize at the range. It was kaput until I could get it home for disassembly. I have never had a semi-auto malfunction end the day. Since there's no guarantee of reliability with either type, I'd personally much rather have a weapon which I know I can clear, and has a redundant feed mechanism (spare magazine).

Spend enough time around other shooters, and you'll see guide rods fail, and tie up the gun, shell casings separate and tie up the gun, various small parts fail and tie up the gun... and in many cases, those failures can't be cleared on the spot.

Sorry, but as with any machine, you never know when either an auto or a revolver is going to have a catastrophe that requires a gunsmith... and neither are any more or less likely than the other to have it, these days. They're just apt to have different ailments is all.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

All revolver guys.

You noticed that huh?

J.

P.S. I can throw Alvin C. York's name in there, if it'll make the auto guys feel better.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Jamie

[McAllyn]

And Robbie Leatham might prove his point correct. Using guys of that calibre to equate to anything we mere mortals can achieve is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I think Jerry Miculek might argue that with you.

YouTube - IPSC - Revolver Jerry Miculek

YouTube - Fast Shoot

Remember, "better" is usually entirely subjective.

J.

[Guest Jamie]

And Robbie Leatham might prove his point correct. Using guys of that calibre to equate to anything we mere mortals can achieve is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Actually, no, those guys only reinforce the point that the gun, or type of gun, doesn't matter.

Each and every one of them are very much mortal, but have spent the time and effort to fully develop their skills, and found the tools that suit(ed)them best. They aren't/weren't a bunch of half-asses that try to make up for the deficit with the latest tacti-cool toys. ( Though I'm sure that the ones that're still among the living have plenty of those too. )( I'm referring to all the people I mentioned earlier here, not just the current/still living ones. )

J.

[Guest Catdaddy]

Personally, I have always owned and carried autos, until now. I have a Judge that I really like, but I'm having to learn how to operate it efficiently, ie, learn to load it with some rapidity.

I think it all comes down to what you're comfortable with.

But my backup is always a pocket-sized auto, since they fit on ankles/pockets/waistbands a bit better.

The Judge hangs under my left armpit sweetly.