Revolver vs semi auto for CCW

[sipowicz]

Most people will shoot an auto a little better. Especially newbies. That said, I carry snubs 99% of the time. I find grabbing the grip of a revo just feels more natural to me in a stressful situation.

 

[Ranger514]

In all my years, I've never experienced a short stroke failure while rapid firing revolvers. Perhaps Jerry Miculek might be able to clarify the subject for us. IMO, short stroking is an operator error, not a mechanical error, and I've observed something similar happen with students using semi-autos who fail to release the trigger far enough to reset before resuming trigger pull for a follow up shot that never happens.

Just my personal opinion, but all things being equal regarding firearm quality, proper maintenance, and use of standard manufactured ammo, I agree with Daniel W. that the revolver has fewer issues than semi-autos in a close quarters encounters. It's simply a matter of mechanics. I carry both. My 8-shot 9mm semi auto is DAO, which complements the snubby J Frame I carry for backup. I trust both, but a snubby revolver is a great concealed carry option for either primary or backup duty. The current crop of .38 Special +P HP ammo is more than sufficient for personal SD. If I didn't love my Sig P290RS as much as I do, I'd carry two J Frames.

 

[chele519]

This is an interesting subject to me as I just traded in my 442 for a Shield. For me, as a woman with small hands, practicing with the 442 was brutal on my hands and I hated shooting it so stopped carrying and going to the range. If I ever had to use it I would probably have a hard time getting back on target after the first shot. With the shield I already shoot much better and enjoy shooting it so will go much more often to practice.

 

[Rastoff]

I agree to a point, but think we must also consider the vast majority of civilian encounters occur at extremely close distances(usually 3 yards or under).

At first I didn't understand what you were getting at, but reading the subsequent posts has clarified it for me.

This falls in to the vast chasm of, "Yeah, but what if..." You may insert any scenario into that statement and any counter will be countered with yet another what if.

For me, if the fight is hands on, I probably won't even present the gun. I'm going to deal with the assailant as best I can, create space, then present the gun.

Back to my previous comment. If you have to shoot, don't you want the gun you shoot best? I do.

As far as slides getting tangled up etc., yeah, it can happen. Cylinders can get tangled too. However, I refer you to the afore mentioned George Zimmerman. He was engaged in hand to hand combat, was on the ground and the assailant was on to of him slamming his head into the ground. He was able to present his semi-auto and dispatch his assailant.

Yes, there are scenarios where each gun has its strengths and weaknesses. You've made some valid points. However, they are not relevant to how well you shoot a particular gun.

 

[Nix45]

Over time I've shifted from carrying small (and medium) semi-auto's to snubbies. I can shoot snubbies fairly well and have confidence in them when loaded with .38+P or .357 Mag. Revolvers have been more reliable in my experience (zero malfunctions with revolvers, not true with multiple semi-auto's.). I don't see the need for more firepower or faster reloads, so a snubbie fits my "needs" well.

 

[hardluk1]

Sounds more like a school yards full of children arguing about how There BLANK is better there your BLANK . fill in the BLANK!!

Heck I wonder how many here have really had a serious fight with any to even know how you ill react or if you react ..

It does not matter if you have a semi-auto or a revolver as both can be stopped from functioning at least momentarily and even turned on you . Nothing here is to be proven .

 

[Ranger514]

Sounds like a cranky curmudgeon woke from his nap. "You kids get off my lawn!"

 

[Doc Hollywood]

I carry a revolver. My 2.5" m19 was lost to an evidence locker after a CCW engagement so now I carry a Taurus 605 because it is easily replaceable. It has fixed sights that tritium tubes were inserted into with 5 minutes on my drill press $5.00 for the tubes from eBay and a couple dabs of epoxy it has nice larger wooden grips and a trigger job. I practice religiously and don't feel under gunned with its 5 rounds.
As for the comment about .38 special being a holdover from the black powder/smokeless transition and being weaker than a 9mm; while 9mm is a fine cartrige I get somewhere around 400 ft/lbs from my 38 special chronographed from a 2" barrell with stellar performance on hogs and swimming pools. Aside from selected buffalo bore loadings I've never seen a 9mm perform anywhere close to that even out of my high power. A revolver saved my hide once and will be in my hand when they scrape my mortal remains into a bag should it fail me.

 

[Kifaru]

It does not matter if you have a semi-auto or a revolver as both can be stopped from functioning at least momentarily and even turned on you . Nothing here is to be proven .

Of course, the other side of that coin is that every day people successfully defend themselves with pistols made by High Point, Jennings, and Raven to name a few. Some prevail having only their wits and a strong command voice available to them. But regardless of how instructive and ultimately useful it may be, there is no "Command Voice Forum" because, well, it just wouldn't be that entertaining. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt that anyone has been truly upset by this thread. I posted because there are people on this forum whom I respect, and I am interested in their opinions. They have doubtless considered things I have not.

In addition to the above, it's really just a form of bench racing. True, it ultimately serves no practical purpose, but if the people participating are interesting enough, it can be a lot of fun!

 

[Old cop]

In 1974 I was in a gun battle with three bad guys who just held up a liquor store. As a plain clothes detective my service weapon was a Colt DS and I emptied it twice before coming out on top, but this was luck as much as skill. Until this past Feb. I carried a J frame but recently switched to an M&P .380 b/c it's just easier to carry, at least for me (I pocket carry in a holster). The gun has been 100% w/everything at the range so I have confidence in it. My daily travels are pretty safe, I no longer go to bad areas knowingly and I don't "engage" anyone. As has been said carry what you shoot best and hope you never have to employ this skill set but practice regularly.

 

[Florida J Frame]

In 1974 I was in a gun battle with three bad guys who just held up a liquor store. As a plain clothes detective my service weapon was a Colt DS and I emptied it twice before coming out on top, but this was luck as much as skill. Until this past Feb. I carried a J frame but recently switched to an M&P .380 b/c it's just easier to carry, at least for me (I pocket carry in a holster). The gun has been 100% w/everything at the range so I have confidence in it. My daily travels are pretty safe, I no longer go to bad areas knowingly and I don't "engage" anyone. As has been said carry what you shoot best and hope you never have to employ this skill set but practice regularly.

Old Cop,
Do you feel the current .380 ammo is the equal of the .38 you were carrying?

 

[Deadeye Dick]

I love shooting revolvers... at the range. I'm not crazy about carrying one as a CCW tho I have on many occasions in the past.

Why would I intentionally carry something that holds fewer rounds, weighs, more and is more difficult to conceal than most any polymer framed compact or sub-compact semi-automatic pistol in the same power class.

Claims that a semi-auto is easily jammed or pushed out of battery in a close contact situation are highly exaggerated. Proper close quarter contact training and weapons retention techniques. (i.e.; learning how to hold & fire the weapon against your side with your strong hand while holding your assailant off with your off hand for instance negates most of that.) Wouldn't it be just as easy for someone to grab a revolver's cylinder and keep it from turning as it would be to grab the slide of a semi-automatic to keep it from cycling?

As some have already pointed out when a revolver jams there is usually no quick fixes where as with a semi auto a tap, rack, bang will often suffice.

Many of today's striker fired semi-automatics also have "second strike" capabilities similar to that of a revolver only you don't get the benefit of having a fresh round in the chamber like with a revolver.

Buy a good quality pistol, take the time to learn to shoot it well and you can't go wrong in my opinion.

Tupperware guns may not look as classy as a finely made steel and wood revolver but they have the advantage in every other area. When you CC nobody is supposed to see your gun anyway.
__________________

 

[Mister X]

Claims that a semi-auto is easily jammed or pushed out of battery in a close contact situation are highly exaggerated. Proper close quarter contact training and weapons retention techniques. (i.e.; learning how to hold & fire the weapon against your side with your strong hand while holding your assailant off with your off hand for instance negates most of that.) Wouldn't it be just as easy for someone to grab a revolver's cylinder and keep it from turning as it would be to grab the slide of a semi-automatic to keep it from cycling?
__________________

On what information and/or experience do you base your comments?

Proper weapon retention skills are vital and go a long way to mitigate potential problems, but that in no way negates the advantages of the enclosed hammer snub-nose revolver in an ECQ scenario. And I'm just specifically referring only to ECQ as that is what I know and what I've taught for the last three decades. And no, I don't believe it's just as easy to grab the cylinder on a snub revolver as it is for an autoloader to be pushed out of battery or the slide fouled during a violent ECQ entanglement. It can happen, but it pretty much takes a two handed grip on the revolver to maintain it. I've seen many people who practice firing from retention and going through some basic retention techniques thinking they will be prepared for real-world CQ scenarios, but such training is analogous to taking a no-contact martial art class performing a lot of kata and pre-arranged partner drills and light structured sparring thinking they are prepared for the rigors of MMA competition.
The best way to find out what actually works is by pressure testing your skills via participating in properly conducted contact Force on Force training. There are many lessons to be learned and heeded there. I'm not trying to be abrasive or argue, I just want to see more good people better trained and prepared.

Consider this video from Gracie's. I actually teach officers this specific technique, but I reserve it in context as a last resort option or transitory/temporary technique rather than as an immediate or go-to method. His points about what's often taught in DT being inadequate once it's fully pressure tested is right on the money.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stBfi_iru5M

 

[ABPOS]

What I don't get is that for a long long long time, the Military has been using autos as the primary sidearm. And there have been a few hand to hand combat and CQB situations where they were/ are employed. And LEO's have moved to mainly autos for what...... 30 years now?

So you guys are pretty much saying it wasn't a wise move? A revolver has proved itself more effective in close quarters situations than an auto?

Look, I like revolvers and I like their upsides. But I don't want to dismiss the effectiveness and the attributes of an auto either. I understand the slide going out of battery thing. But I'm just not understanding that it somehow has proven itself better than an auto over time. All kinds of crazy stuff can happen in a gunfight with whatever you're carrying. Sure, it makes sense to look at the trends and I'm sure there is a pertinent point. But it seems like autos have a good track record too. Somebody pointed out the zimmerman case as one where it went out of battery. I didn't read the whole account, but AFAIK, he shot the assailant in the end.

 

[Mister X]

What I don't get is that for a long long long time, the Military has been using autos as the primary sidearm. And there have been a few hand to hand combat and CQB situations where they were/ are employed. And LEO's have moved to mainly autos for what...... 30 years now?

So you guys are pretty much saying it wasn't a wise move? A revolver has proved itself more effective in close quarters situations than an auto?

Look, I like revolvers and I like their upsides. But I don't want to dismiss the effectiveness and the attributes of an auto either. I understand the slide going out of battery thing. But I'm just not understanding that it somehow has proven itself better than an auto over time. All kinds of crazy stuff can happen in a gunfight with whatever you're carrying. Sure, it makes sense to look at the trends and I'm sure there is a pertinent point. But it seems like autos have a good track record too. Somebody pointed out the zimmerman case as one where it went out of battery. I didn't read the whole account, but AFAIK, he shot the assailant in the end.

I don't think they were wrong going to auto's, but there are some very glaring differences. Civilian self-defense is completely reactive/defensive in nature with disengagement/avoidance, escape being the primary objective. Military/Police is usually proactive/offensive with intentional engagement/pursuit being an essential part of the job(although there is more crossover with Law Enforcement and Civilian defense than with the military.)
Therefore, capacity is generally not as big of a consideration in civilian self-defense. IMO marksmanship shouldn't have as high priority as close-quarter skills since you likely won't be able engage a threat from any relatively lengthy distances for legal reasons or even if you wanted to with the majority of civilian scenarios being responses to up close ambush style attacks. An active shooter would be the exception, but it's an extremely rare occurrence comparatively and you shouldn't sacrifice capability to deal with the likely to be prepared for the I probable. I don't think an auto is a bad choice for a civilian, I just believe there are many tactical points most overlook that can be mitigated with proper training, but most don't seek out the instruction.

Auto's do often jam in ECQ fights and you can't count on one shot to stop a big, aggressive and determined attacker. These are things you really should consider in your training and when choosing your weapon(s). Consider the following video as an illustration of these points... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23c7ovuSd2U

 

[Deadeye Dick]

Mister X,
Thanks for sharing those videos. The first was very informative... excellent weapon protection/retention techniques. I absolutely agree, the more training and the more realistic the training the better.

Which brings us to the second video. I felt bad for the LEO. It was obvious to me that he was woefully under-trained for ECQ combat and not at all prepared for that encounter physically or mentally. I'ld be putting up a whole lot more of a counter attack if I thought I was about to get killed wouldn't you? It wouldn't be pretty and he would know I wasn't playing by any boxing rules. It would be a no holds barred, knee to the groin, thumbs in the eye sockets, forehead to the nose, whatever I could lay on him fight. 2nd place is not an option in a deadly confrontation.

 

[Elliot45]

I prefer my Shield over a revolver for CCW. One reason is capacity. I recently had to be in a bad part of town for a short time but I felt secure knowing I had 9 shots plus another 7 handy in the second magazine. The revolver I would carry only holds 5, no comparison. I find the 9mm to be a very good caliber and I practice with it often. A friend of mine has a Model 640, one of the heavier small frame guns and even he doesn't like to shoot .357s out of it at the range and I don't blame him. It also feels heavier and bulkier. After shooting about 1,200 rounds in my Shield without a jam or misfeed, I don't see any reason not to have complete confidence with it. Regards, Elliot45

 

[wogentry]

Wow, 30 years ago I remember reading this same debate when most law enforcement agencies were switching over to semi-autos for duty weapons. 30 years later and the argument rages on. Same point/counter points. Amazing. Use what works best for your situation and skill level. Whatever platform you go with know its strengths and weakness. Train with it, and improve your situational awareness.

 

[Otreb]

Auto pistols jam frequently in gunfights, it's a fact. Unlike the square range scenario, people don't always get a perfect grip on their weapon, in fact it may be a weak one handed grip, not clear of clothing, thumb not clear of slide, or release. With pocket autos, mag releases get depressed, come out of pocket as a single shot....big issues in a gunfight.
Revolver jams seem to be overstated here, as squibs or bullets stuck in bore are going to hose any pistol too.
IMO people aren't realistic to accept an occasional FTE or FTF as part of the experience in especially small autos, considering range conditions are near ideal vs a gunfight. Revolvers historically WORK in gunfights. They are a mechanical repeater requiring one only successfully negotiate pulling the trigger and allowing it it to fully return. Grip and clothing aren't nearly as likely to foul a revolver as small pistols.
Larger service sized pistols have a lot more going for them with more slide mass, more forgiving spring balances and slide velocity which helps insure reliable transition of cartridge from mag to chamber vs tiny lightweight pistols.
I've tried small pistols for pocket use, returned to the revolver every time and not looking back. For belt, an auto pistol like my 3913, G20 or 1911 might make more sense over the revolver.
A 442-2 loaded with 9mm+p equivalent .38sp ammo goes in my pocket or waistband everyday.

 

[Rastoff]

Auto pistols jam frequently in gunfights, it's a fact.

A fact? Where did you get this fact?