Are revolvers for amateurs?

If you only have 5-6 rounds, best to be a pro.
 
A revolver is an amateur's AND pro's gun.

A revolver will give the best results for the most people with the least training of any handgun design ever made.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we only qualified twice a year @ my agency. I carried a revolver for the first 20 years of my career & it served me well. When we transitioned to the Glock I was all for it b/c of the superior amount of ammo, AND it put us on even footing w/the bad guys we had to face.

Right. Qualification twice annually. At which time the scores painted a fairly accurate picture of which officers only shot at qualification and which actually used the 100 rounds per month of practice ammo we were issued. Then there were a few who not only used their own practice ammo but bought or bartered for the ammo of the first group.
 
Yes, we only qualified twice a year @ my agency. I carried a revolver for the first 20 years of my career & it served me well. When we transitioned to the Glock I was all for it b/c of the superior amount of ammo, AND it put us on even footing w/the bad guys we had to face.

If your department was one that was in involved in shootings from time to time, did the hit ratio go down with automatics?
 
If your department was one that was in involved in shootings from time to time, did the hit ratio go down with automatics?

On average we had less than five OIS a year so in answer to your Q I doubt there was much difference.
 
Someone posted about their department issuing 100 rounds of practice ammo a year. No such luck @ my agency but some of us did shoot more often on our own & at our own expense.
 
If you want real practice use your revolvers or automatics in matches, ipsc, uspsa, idpa, zsa, wb/cas. Shooting against the clock and against other shooters is an excellent way to learn how to run your gun as opposed to standing still and banging away on a static range. Shot my cas clubs monthly shoot yesterday using a pair of Webley MkVI .455s, shot it clean. I have more revolvers than cf semis. Revolvers are more interesting imo. Have no plastic at all.
 
I know this, while I am not fond of any guns being pointed at me, at this point in time I would be more worried if someone was pointing a quality revolver or for that matter a 1911, than a new style semi auto. The chances that the owner of those "old outdated guns" actually knowing how to shoot it are considerably higher. I bet the number of people buying their first gun and picking plastic semi autos is about 100 semis for every revolver. Of course then I also get real nervous around people with no experience handling guns of any type. So, there is that.
 
I get the American Rifleman and read the Armed Citizen, the Dope Bag, and This Old Gun. Then it is off to recycling
Mine never makes it into the house any more. I thumb through it as I walk up the driveway from the mailbox, look to see "this old gun" and whatever the newest and best pistol/rifle the magazine is advertising for the manufacturer, and into the trash bin it goes as I pass it, walking to the back door.

I don't think that you can limp wrist a revolver, but they are often more difficult for beginners in regards to accuracy and follow up shots. Considering the accuracy issue, capacity plays into things. My take has always been that a beginner should stick to a reliable compact semiautomatic pistol, and get the necessary training and practice time.
You can't limp wrist a revolver, it doesn't depend on momentum to reload itself. A beginner should start off with something simple and work into something more complex, whether it's a firearm or a car or a power tool. Get the hang of the basics first, then get into something more complex. Proper training and practice should occur with whatever you choose, and is a continuous process for as long as you own it.

I'm entirely comfortable switching back and forth from a revolver to a semiauto for carry, because I regularly practice with both. You could blindfold me, and place any handgun I own in my hand, and I'll tell you within 5 seconds which one it is. I own 20 different handguns.
 
1968 to 1972 I used the US Army Model 1911A-1 extensively, including combat in Vietnam. Then I joined the cops and carried the required 4" blued steel S&W or Colt .38Spl or .357 magnum until the "great enlightenment" period of late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in a general switch to semi-autos. After a few years with SA/DA automatics in 9mm and .45 I went back to the 1911-style. Continued with that after retirement.

Wrist surgery, elbow surgery, shoulder surgery, arthritis, cataracts in both eyes left me a bit challenged in confidently handling the semi-autos. Reached in the gun safe and retrieved my old 1979 S&W Model 64 2" round-butt .38 Spl. Much less effort in operating, manageable recoil, plenty of muscle memory from earlier years of training and experience.

I don't feel under-gunned for everyday civilian needs. I am very glad to have had the experiences that allowed me to make these transitions as life demanded.
 
I know this, while I am not fond of any guns being pointed at me, at this point in time I would be more worried if someone was pointing a quality revolver or for that matter a 1911, than a new style semi auto. The chances that the owner of those "old outdated guns" actually knowing how to shoot it are considerably higher. I bet the number of people buying their first gun and picking plastic semi autos is about 100 semis for every revolver. Of course then I also get real nervous around people with no experience handling guns of any type. So, there is that.

I agree. I am a revolver guy, but I have a significant number of semi-auto pistols. None are plastic. None are striker fired. When I go the range with a wheel gun, I'm generally the only one there with one and chances are excellent that every other shooter has a plastic, striker fired pistol. This is not anecdotal, but based on real observations. Also observed was varying degrees of competence, and lots of mag dumping. I'm no expert, but my shooting skills are above average, and I'm competent with almost any handgun. I guess I'm an amateur because I'm not currently being paid for shooting, but I can live with that.
 
Last edited:
Its not that professionals don't or can't use revolvers, they are just a better choice for novices, IMHO.

No mags to load, no jams to clear, no slides to rack.

NRA had an article not too long about where they had a bunch of women test revolvers and semi-autos. As I recall, the women prefered the semis and it seemed like the preference was because they were smaller, easier to load, and were "easier" to shoot. I'm sure that no one being stressed to clear jams while being yelled at.
 
Yes, and no.

For the average homeowner, non-gun enthusiast, who is simply going to leave it in the nightstand until they need it, the simplicity is a benefit. They are the definition of amateur.

If you are going to use a revolver professionally, you'd better be darn good with it, and that requires a little more dedication and skill than the average semi-auto. Not an amateur.

Having spent nearly 30 years teaching cops to shoot, I don't believe the 'spray and pray' changed much over the years, though the supply of bullets in the gun got larger... ;)

Very well put. As the number of rounds in magazines go up, the emphasis on developing skill seems to go down .
 
Sometimes I wonder if it would be better if most police departments went back to revolvers. They miss over 70% of the time anyway, and a more limited capacity might cut back on the spray and pray shooting situations with all the liability issues that come from innocent bystanders being hit.

I do not agree. Most of my LE career was during the revolver era. My recollection is that the miss rate with revolvers was very high then too. As many generals have stated: "No plan survives contact with the enemy".

Have you done research that proves the miss rate is over 70%? And if so, what is the miss rate with revolvers during that era compared to the miss rate with semi-autos now? A percentage is meaningless until the two are compared.

When my department transitioned from revolvers to semi-autos, we did see a fair amount of spray/pray, from newer shooters. The veterans were accustomed to shot discipline from decades of revolver use. So that became a training issue. There was ample opportunity for this. We shot each month. Four shoots were mandatory, two day and two night. If one wanted to wear a qualification badge, and the attendant bragging rights, one had to have ten scores per year towards that award. There was the necessary added incentive.

That put the pressure on to exercise shot discipline, and how one is trained has been proven to be how one will react under pressure. It is that training and discipline that allows one to survive contact with an enemy. (Note: Let me be unequivocal here. When one is an LEO, and someone is attempting to kill you, that assailant is the enemy. I see no point in sugar coating this.).

I strongly believe LEOs should continue to be armed with semi-autos. Most assailants are, and LEOs have enough other issues to contend with without being undergunned. Many LEOs, myself included, work(ed) areas with gangs. Gangs travel in packs; it is how they derive their courage. Thus the LEOs must be prepared for multiple attackers.

Given that all this applies to LE, it also applies to non-LE. Once a person qualifies for CCW, they should have the choice to be as well armed as LE. I so strongly advocate this that I taught the CA CCW course for almost twenty years in our mountain community.

I still have my last personally owned duty revolver (S&W 27), plus my PPC revolvers, plus a couple of others (DA and SA). Recreationally I enjoy them all.

But my EDC is a semi-auto. My wife, who has been at my side most of my LE career, has shot both revolvers and semi-autos. Her preference has always been the semi-auto. She is extremely competent.

I think each of us has to assess what we individually believe will best serve us, and that becomes the tool for the job

I would never restrict LE (nor citizen CCW) from carrying semi-autos as was the speculative suggestion here.
 
Last edited:
As the number of rounds in magazines go up, the emphasis on developing skill seems to go down .

The emphasis (from those of us who are instructors) on skill development has not changed (if anything, it's stronger), but there will always be those who listen, and work on their skills, and those who don't.

For those who don't, issue LE firearms today simply offer a more abundant supply of ammunition than they did in revolver days.
 
I know this, while I am not fond of any guns being pointed at me, at this point in time I would be more worried if someone was pointing a quality revolver or for that matter a 1911, than a new style semi auto. The chances that the owner of those "old outdated guns" actually knowing how to shoot it are considerably higher.

All depends on how stolen the gun is. ;)
 
The emphasis (from those of us who are instructors) on skill development has not changed (if anything, it's stronger), but there will always be those who listen, and work on their skills, and those who don't.

I find that most people don't bother even shooting after they get basic instruction. I know a retired state trooper who has never shot his current carry gun.
 
A DA revolver, a snub in particular, is a gun for an experienced shooter. Even then, it takes time and practice to get proficient, and you've gotta be good. With 5-6 shots on board, a heavy DA trigger pull, and difficult stress reload, you can't afford to miss. The time it would take to teach revolver skills to a neophyte would be better spent on how to operate a modern autoloader. MHO you understand.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top