I've always liked Revolvers best. When it came time for CCW I tried several semi-Autos but always went back to Revolvers. I like having a gun I can shove against someone without worry of moving the slide out of lockup causing the gun not to fire. I also don't want to worry about the slide being blocked by me or an object turning the gun into a single shot. Also if I don't have a good grip on a semi-Auto during a attack it could cause a malfunction. I am just more comfortable and confident with a Revolver. I like Snubs. I shoot them well. They are not for everyone.
Revolver vs. Pistol
- Thread starter Doc Holliday 1950
- Start date
sdb321
Member
Rastoff
US Veteran
Finally someone gets it. Thank you for that.
Far too often people pick their carry gun for the wrong reason. The two most common are size (ease of carry) and price (they don't want an expensive gun confiscated). Both of these reasons should be far down the list.
The first and most important quality in a defensive firearm is functional reliability. If it doesn't work, it's useless. If this isn't at the top of your reasons for your carry gun, rewrite your list.
The second is effectiveness. This has nothing to do with caliber or capacity. It's all about how easy it is for the owner to put rounds on target under stress. If you can't hit the assailant, you can't stop the assailant (I could write a book based on that last sentence).
Based on the two guns listed in the OP, the first choice could be the revolver. Revolvers are not immune to malfunctions, but they are far more reliable than any semi-auto. But you can't forget shooter effectiveness. If the owner can shoot the G19 better under stress, and his G19 proves to be reliable, then it's the better choice.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
I think revolvers are far more reliable than semi-autos when your talking about shooter induced malfunctions, but not mechanical failures.
Mechanically, my G19 has been more reliable than my 642. Actually, my LCP has been mechanically more reliable than my 642. Not long after I got my 642, I had a cylinder lockup that had to go back to S&W for repair. Now it's 3 years old with a couple thousand rounds through it and today the hammer stud broke.
Welllll..from my experience, I've not had any spent shells flipping down the front of my shirt while shooting a revolver..
Which weapon is better???? I suppose it depends on what a person is planning on shooting, and how many of times they want to kill it.
WuzzFuzz
Which weapon is better???? I suppose it depends on what a person is planning on shooting, and how many of times they want to kill it.
WuzzFuzz
Revolver if I really expect trouble
Redirect Notice
Redirect Notice
Rastoff
US Veteran
Interesting. You're the first I've heard of that has had more issues, of any kind, than semi-autos. I have a few revolvers and none have ever failed in any way. Can't say that for the semi-autos. Of course I don't have as many rounds through the revolvers. Maybe I should step up my revolver game?
Heh. The pain level in my lower back and hips dictates what I'm carrying at any given time.
Now, I'm not whining. I had a GREAT time getting in this bad of shape. Just recognizing that comfort's got to come first these days.
As such, the gun I have on me most often is the little Kahr 380 in my pocket. If the meds are working right, then one of the 640s, or either the 9 or 45 Shield, or even a K-frame if I'll be sitting more than standing. Point is, work with your situation, not against it. Something is always better than nothing. And so on.
Now, I'm not whining. I had a GREAT time getting in this bad of shape. Just recognizing that comfort's got to come first these days.
As such, the gun I have on me most often is the little Kahr 380 in my pocket. If the meds are working right, then one of the 640s, or either the 9 or 45 Shield, or even a K-frame if I'll be sitting more than standing. Point is, work with your situation, not against it. Something is always better than nothing. And so on.
Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,068
- Reaction score
- 7,907
I'm honestly pleasantly surprised to see so many folks agree with me here, guess I've just gotten so used to seeing wannabe experts on various forums who somehow feel qualified to dictate what everyone ought to carry with blatant disregard for circumstances/preferences which may render their arbitrary definition of the perfect, one-size-fits-all platform/caliber combination uncomfortable, unwieldy, or even utterly ineffective in the hands of folks other than themselves.
For example, my EDC is a Smith & Wesson manufactured Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP and my Home Defense firearm is a Taurus Judge Magnum, and boy oh boy have I ever gotten an earful on how poor of a choice I have made with that combination... Never mind that it works for me, it deviates too far from the status-quo in just about every camp/school of thought there is, and therefore it must be responded to with the utmost snobbery and even hostility.
I've heard it all and then some, yet it never ceases to leave me utterly bewildered. What is this odd obsession with attempting to force others to reconsider their choice of firearms? I seriously doubt that it was born of legitimate concern when the folks who do it are so needlessly rude/imposing on the matter, most often presented as a demand or even a threat-by-proxy rather than a simple suggestion, which is needless to say a terribly ineffective way to convince someone to reconsider their decision.
Just saying, "If you value your life then you should dump that pea-shooter and pick up a real man's gun like the one I carry!" or worse, "You must really hate yourself and your family if you carry that piece of junk." doesn't exactly make for a convincing argument, let alone a positive suggestion that one is likely to accept, yet you see stuff to that affect quite often on the internet.
Ah, but then again... I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that folks here are more laid back and friendly, seeing as Smith & Wesson isn't exactly in with the overcompensating, tacticool, Mall Ninja/Armchair Commando crowd, nor would I still be an active poster on these forums if the userbase was compromised of such *ahem* characters.
For example, my EDC is a Smith & Wesson manufactured Walther PPK/S in .380 ACP and my Home Defense firearm is a Taurus Judge Magnum, and boy oh boy have I ever gotten an earful on how poor of a choice I have made with that combination... Never mind that it works for me, it deviates too far from the status-quo in just about every camp/school of thought there is, and therefore it must be responded to with the utmost snobbery and even hostility.
I've heard it all and then some, yet it never ceases to leave me utterly bewildered. What is this odd obsession with attempting to force others to reconsider their choice of firearms? I seriously doubt that it was born of legitimate concern when the folks who do it are so needlessly rude/imposing on the matter, most often presented as a demand or even a threat-by-proxy rather than a simple suggestion, which is needless to say a terribly ineffective way to convince someone to reconsider their decision.
Just saying, "If you value your life then you should dump that pea-shooter and pick up a real man's gun like the one I carry!" or worse, "You must really hate yourself and your family if you carry that piece of junk." doesn't exactly make for a convincing argument, let alone a positive suggestion that one is likely to accept, yet you see stuff to that affect quite often on the internet.
Ah, but then again... I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that folks here are more laid back and friendly, seeing as Smith & Wesson isn't exactly in with the overcompensating, tacticool, Mall Ninja/Armchair Commando crowd, nor would I still be an active poster on these forums if the userbase was compromised of such *ahem* characters.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
If you feel confident and adequately protected with your .25 ACP or your 629 with five reloads, I'm happy for you and won't try to sway you to my carry choice.
If you carry an eleven ounce .357 Magnum or a .50AE Desert Eagle, I reserve the right to say "Better you than me," but I won't call you an idiot for not carrying what I choose.
Inspector Callahan is right: I don't see a lot of that kind of arrogance here. That might be partly because our average age is well past the Wally World Commando bracket and we have a lot of retired and active LEO's with street experience. I think it's also due to a culture of civility on this forum, maintained by the members as well as the moderators.
If you carry an eleven ounce .357 Magnum or a .50AE Desert Eagle, I reserve the right to say "Better you than me," but I won't call you an idiot for not carrying what I choose.
Inspector Callahan is right: I don't see a lot of that kind of arrogance here. That might be partly because our average age is well past the Wally World Commando bracket and we have a lot of retired and active LEO's with street experience. I think it's also due to a culture of civility on this forum, maintained by the members as well as the moderators.
Unspeakable
Frankly the older Smith's were of higher quality. I personally would pay more for S&W revolvers with the workmanship of yesteryear. I see so many new revolvers with canted barrels and poor workmanship. I wish smith would get the message, people will pay a higher price for quality.
I still buy some of the news ones but not without an intense inspection with the reading glasses and a flashlight.
I love S&W and I don't want them to go the way of Colt.
Frankly the older Smith's were of higher quality. I personally would pay more for S&W revolvers with the workmanship of yesteryear. I see so many new revolvers with canted barrels and poor workmanship. I wish smith would get the message, people will pay a higher price for quality.
I still buy some of the news ones but not without an intense inspection with the reading glasses and a flashlight.
I love S&W and I don't want them to go the way of Colt.
Whitwabit
US Veteran
Much to do about a revolver or an auto .. either one you carry you should be proficient with it ..
I believe a lot should depend on the area you live in and the type of crime that is prevalent in that area !!
someone living in a sleepy country town a revolver might well be appropriate for the expected crime .. now someone living near/in a large city an auto with over 10 rounds may be more appropriate for them ..
You have to look at all the variables and go with which ever you feel is most appropriate for your personnel safety !! Everyone has differing needs !!
I believe a lot should depend on the area you live in and the type of crime that is prevalent in that area !!
someone living in a sleepy country town a revolver might well be appropriate for the expected crime .. now someone living near/in a large city an auto with over 10 rounds may be more appropriate for them ..
You have to look at all the variables and go with which ever you feel is most appropriate for your personnel safety !! Everyone has differing needs !!
Lot to be said about where and when alright. We had a murder here just 18 years ago! I have been here 9 years and no armed robberies in that time. I feel fine walking around with a revolver. I am more apt to encounter a mountain lion or a bear in the middle of town, than a 2 legged problem.
Now, if I lived in somewhere with a high crime rate I might well change my carry gun. Na, I would move.
Now, if I lived in somewhere with a high crime rate I might well change my carry gun. Na, I would move.
Chief Wiggums
Member
is this the 9mm vs .45 thread?
Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,068
- Reaction score
- 7,907
is this the 9mm vs .45 thread?
Nope, it's a Bear Defense thread.
Triggernosis
Member
Bingo! While I own three Smiths and carry a J-Frame, my newly ordered Kimber K6S arrives this Wednesday!
My reason for going non-Smith is that my last two, a 642 and 627PC, both showed up with QC issues and I had to re-work the triggers on each. My 32yr old 686, bought new, is/was a much better gun then as well as now. Don't get me wrong, I love S&W revolvers, but have soured on having to do my own DIY "tuning" after paying premium price$.
Please do a report on your K6S.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
For me it is really simple, any gun I own that is accurate, and reliable. I carry both pistol, and revolver. Depends on my mood, weather, location.
Both make holes, and bad guys most times do not want to be on the wrong end of either.
Both make holes, and bad guys most times do not want to be on the wrong end of either.
I believe in choosing the right tool for the job and not every tool is equally capable and appropriately well-suited for a particular task. It makes little sense choosing a flat head screwdriver when the task calls for a Philips
There is always the seemingly straight-forward and sensible advice of choosing your weapon based on what you're "most proficient with" or "what works for you" given on threads such as these. Proficient at what? And how does that particular gun "work for you"? In the context of how most people shoot at the range, there is no doubt I shoot my Glock 19 better than I do my snub. Reloading speed and efficiency is no contest. However, I don't see that being a reason to choose to carry the Glock since I just do not see it being the best tool for the job. Each tool has certain attributes and when weighing those of the Glock vs a snub revolver, I come to the conclusion that the latter makes the most sense as a carry weapon. That doesn't mean I'm actually correct since the problem is not as simple as choosing the proper screwdriver, but you should be able to articulate why your choice makes sense with logical assertions backed up by facts and statistics. There will be trade-offs no matter what you choose and you can't prepare for every contingency, but I think it is logical to choose based on what is best suited for what is most probable.
As such, not every choice is equally valid, just as every opinion doesn't carry equal merit. With self-defense based martial arts, you'll see countless opinions as to what the best styles and techniques are with some saying it's simply a matter of what's best suited for you as an individual. There is a degree of merit to that thinking, but the parameters are not nearly as broad as some make them out to be since some systems are obviously not very effective in any circumstances. With experience and facts, comes a substantial narrowing of acceptable choices. A key component is determining what it is that you will have to defend against. Regardless of what someone may think or wish to be true, having to counter an overhand right is much more likely than having to do so against a jumping, spinning, reverse crescent kick, so it makes sense to allocate a greater percentage of your training time and finding effective techniques for defending against the punch.
The autoloaders primary advantage is capacity and ease of reloading, but I have yet to see evidence that demonstrates those attributes will likely be of any advantage for the civilian carrying concealed in all but the rarest of circumstances. In a high round count, ranged gunfight against multiple armed assailants, there's no doubt I would want my Glock 17 or 19 over my snub, but where is the proof that such a scenario is a reasonably likely occurrence or that it is more or even close to being as probable as the reactive, close-quarter or contact scenarios in which the snub revolver excels?
There is always the seemingly straight-forward and sensible advice of choosing your weapon based on what you're "most proficient with" or "what works for you" given on threads such as these. Proficient at what? And how does that particular gun "work for you"? In the context of how most people shoot at the range, there is no doubt I shoot my Glock 19 better than I do my snub. Reloading speed and efficiency is no contest. However, I don't see that being a reason to choose to carry the Glock since I just do not see it being the best tool for the job. Each tool has certain attributes and when weighing those of the Glock vs a snub revolver, I come to the conclusion that the latter makes the most sense as a carry weapon. That doesn't mean I'm actually correct since the problem is not as simple as choosing the proper screwdriver, but you should be able to articulate why your choice makes sense with logical assertions backed up by facts and statistics. There will be trade-offs no matter what you choose and you can't prepare for every contingency, but I think it is logical to choose based on what is best suited for what is most probable.
As such, not every choice is equally valid, just as every opinion doesn't carry equal merit. With self-defense based martial arts, you'll see countless opinions as to what the best styles and techniques are with some saying it's simply a matter of what's best suited for you as an individual. There is a degree of merit to that thinking, but the parameters are not nearly as broad as some make them out to be since some systems are obviously not very effective in any circumstances. With experience and facts, comes a substantial narrowing of acceptable choices. A key component is determining what it is that you will have to defend against. Regardless of what someone may think or wish to be true, having to counter an overhand right is much more likely than having to do so against a jumping, spinning, reverse crescent kick, so it makes sense to allocate a greater percentage of your training time and finding effective techniques for defending against the punch.
The autoloaders primary advantage is capacity and ease of reloading, but I have yet to see evidence that demonstrates those attributes will likely be of any advantage for the civilian carrying concealed in all but the rarest of circumstances. In a high round count, ranged gunfight against multiple armed assailants, there's no doubt I would want my Glock 17 or 19 over my snub, but where is the proof that such a scenario is a reasonably likely occurrence or that it is more or even close to being as probable as the reactive, close-quarter or contact scenarios in which the snub revolver excels?
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
My choices are always valid for me. Don't much care about others unless they are breaking the law, then my go to tool is my phone if the law breakers are not a direct threat. As far as Philips to flat head they both have been used as effective stabbing instruments. Golf clubs, and steel rods both have been used as effective blunt objects. Being run over by a bus, or a commercial truck is probably going to end the same way.
Similar threads
