I seem to recall a poster referencing an article by Bill Jordan, with a title along the lines of "It Must Be a Revolver," or "Why it Must be a Revolver."

Anyway, it was supposed to be a point-by-point analysis by Jordan of why he preferred a revolver.

Does this ring any bells?

Where can I get a copy of this article?

Thanks!

I seem to recall a poster referencing an article by Bill Jordan, with a title along the lines of "It Must Be a Revolver," or "Why it Must be a Revolver."

Anyway, it was supposed to be a point-by-point analysis by Jordan of why he preferred a revolver.

Does this ring any bells?

Where can I get a copy of this article?

Thanks!

I can't help with the article but if you don't find it, the subject is covered in his book "No Second Place Winner". A whole chapter is dedicated to the sidearm. But, and a big but, a lot of his arguments for the revolver and against the semi-auto are not valid with today's guns and ammo. There's just been too much progress since the book was written.

Bob

Just finished reading "No Second Place Winner" again (one of the books in my library I drag out every two or three years and peruse), and I was struck by how dated the material is in relation to that point. No doubt many of Jordan's experience and recommendations are still relevant, but much of it also no longer applies. Technology has moved on.

__________________
Qui plantavit curabit

I remember that article, I think it was a rebuttal to Col. Chas. Askins. He & Mr Jordan had a toung in cheek disagreement over which is best for defence (still going on today) that was actually never resolved. Thanks Frank

__________________
US RIDE FOR THE BRAND OR LEAVE

You are correct. But I once saw Bill with a 9mm S&W M-59 as his carry gun. Still, he usually did prefer the revolver.

T-Star

It was debateable even when first written. I have always been a strong fan of the revolver and feel they have gotten a bum rap over the years by many of the famous authorities and even worse by the non-authorities, but even I felt he was giving a lop-sided argument when I first read it. My favorite handguns are S&W revolvers but my second choice is Brownings 1911 and BHP style pistols, which were both available at the time.

Come now charlie! Was the article.

Surely nobody thinks that Ol Bill would have done anything to stir up Charlie, or vice versa.

After spending an afternoon shooting with Jordan, I never felt I was under gunned with a revolver.

I went through the pistol phase along with the rest, but I returned to packing arevolver and feel adequately armed.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

IIRC Charlie Askins wrote an article entitled "The Sixgun is a clunker!" and Jordan's rebuttal article was entitled "Come Now, Charlie!" Both appeared in Shooting Times in the 1960s IIRC.
Jordan made the valid point that Askins became an advocate of the semiauto AFTER his gunfighting days were over.
Technology moving on? It seems every "new" defensive handgun is merely a version of the M1911.

I am not sure if this is the one you mean, but I recall a sort of point/counter-point in a magazine like Guns or something back in the late 70s or early 80s where Bill Jordan went head to head with our own Massad Ayoob in a side by side sort of article where each wrote why they preferred a certain action for LE duty (Jordan for revolvers and Mas for autos).

The article was well done, in good taste with no name calling. It is too bad that our politicians and, for that matter, certain members of this forum cannot have "good manners" and conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen when advancing a particular point. I am not referring to anyone in this particular thread.

My congratulations to Mas and Bill for showing us how a debate should be handled in print all those years ago.

If only Mike Conti of Massachusetts and Gabriel Suarez of parts southwest would stop blaming Jeff Cooper for all of the failings in the shooting skills of our current generation of policemen brought about, if you can believe those two, by the modern technique and specifically Cooper's teaching that you should use the sights if you can.

I can appreciate the fact that these two trainers believe more in the unsighted fire method than in the use of the sights, but it is not necessary to misquote Col. Cooper, to misrepresent his actual teachings or to otherwise demean his good name just to make their respective points.

Sorry for the rant, but just read an outrageous piece by Mr. Suarez yesterday and am still sort of fuming. I did not read an outrageous piece by Conti yesterday, but I did read one months ago on strangely shaped sights, (hexagonal instead of round ghost ring, I think - anyway he thought they were a new idea) and after reflection, his negative comments about Cooper still cause me to fume.