Why a Revolver?
- Thread starter Citiboy289
- Start date
Revolvers don't dump empty brass all over the place... They allow you to remove the brass where and when you want to - no mess or fuss. Environmentally or situationally - that's a good deal.
AND... revolvers can be made that are VERY light!
John
AND... revolvers can be made that are VERY light!
John
Last edited:
Ole Joe Clark
Absent Comrade
I love a good Smith & Wesson revolver, but I am real close to a S&W Shield at the moment. Why a revolver or pistol? Because I want too.
Hey Jimmyj and Old Cop, I want both of you on my side in a confrontation, man card or not!
Have a blessed day,
Leon
Hey Jimmyj and Old Cop, I want both of you on my side in a confrontation, man card or not!
Have a blessed day,
Leon
While there are many answers above that I agreed with I "liked" just three, especially this one (after all, consider who I am!).
Pistols can be beautiful, too, if they are highly polished, blue or nickel especially, great stocks, etc. But, for the most part, no matter how well made, absent special attention to detail they are just flat and inelegant, kind of like hammers and screwdrivers. Tools that are perfect for what they were developed for but not especially aesthetic.
Revolvers have flowing lines, curves, turns, roundness, they can have the look of rapidly flowing water or the wake of a ship, they speak of elegant dining, fine wines, candlelight, and romance.
OTOH, I love BOTH pistols and revolvers anyway. Revolvers are just sexier.
Birdgun
Member
Unlike my autoloaders, my revolvers have soul; my S&W revolvers have soul the most soul.
Isn't it sad there are folks who don't understand that soul thing?
No soul. S&W Shield in 9mm
Soul. S&W Model 15 "Combat Masterpiece" in 38 Special
See what I mean?
God bless,
Birdgun
PS: I mostly carry the one with no soul.
Isn't it sad there are folks who don't understand that soul thing?
No soul. S&W Shield in 9mm
Soul. S&W Model 15 "Combat Masterpiece" in 38 Special
See what I mean?
God bless,
Birdgun
PS: I mostly carry the one with no soul.
Last edited:
jtcarm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,317
Why not?
Besides, the OP didn't specify what type of magazines? If he means detachable, autos could be built with box magazines like the Steyr-Hahn.
There's a lot of reasons to carry revolvers, but fear of a magazine ban seems a bit silly.
Besides, the OP didn't specify what type of magazines? If he means detachable, autos could be built with box magazines like the Steyr-Hahn.
There's a lot of reasons to carry revolvers, but fear of a magazine ban seems a bit silly.
Birdgun
Member
Paul, I fully understand. Below, is my retirement gift.
A Napoleonic light cavalry officer's saber.
God bless,
Birdgun
Attachments
Kframerbluvr
Member
I started my career in '81 with a M64 .38 and have always had a few round guns around the house even after being issued Austrian Tupperware in '89. I envision relying on revolvers as my LEOSA travel guns after retirement. No asinine magazine restrictions to deal with and most armed encounters take place in about a car length and around three rounds expended to solve the problem.
NYPD did a study some years ago over a ten year period encompassing about 6,000 armed confrontations and found that they never had an officer's revolver fail to fire its initial load in a combat situation if called upon to do so.
NYPD did a study some years ago over a ten year period encompassing about 6,000 armed confrontations and found that they never had an officer's revolver fail to fire its initial load in a combat situation if called upon to do so.
Last edited:
Tried. True. Simple. Classic. Reliable.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,283
- Reaction score
- 3,755
WheelGunMagic
Member
Another advantage to pistols that hasn't been discussed - they sell readily when I need to raise the money for another revolver....
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
There was a time when my answer would have been six points: reliability, reliability, simplicity, trigger, reliability and reliability.
I readily grant the point that automatics have come a very long way in the reliability department. The Glocks I owned simply would not fail with decent ammo and a reasonable grip. But if an automatic does malfunction--bad ammo, less than optimal grip, or some other failure--in most cases recovering and getting the gun back into action is a hell of a lot more complicated than just squeezing the trigger again.
I love the looks and feel of revolvers; but in old age I have another reason for preferring them. My hands are in bad shape due to arthritis. Racking the slide of an autoloader is difficult to impossible, but I can still move a revolver trigger through its arc. If the cow pie hit the fan in a life-threatening situation and I had to do a tap-rack-bang to clear an automatic I would be in deep guacamole.
For my needs, I simply trust revolvers and have carried one every day for twenty years.
I readily grant the point that automatics have come a very long way in the reliability department. The Glocks I owned simply would not fail with decent ammo and a reasonable grip. But if an automatic does malfunction--bad ammo, less than optimal grip, or some other failure--in most cases recovering and getting the gun back into action is a hell of a lot more complicated than just squeezing the trigger again.
I love the looks and feel of revolvers; but in old age I have another reason for preferring them. My hands are in bad shape due to arthritis. Racking the slide of an autoloader is difficult to impossible, but I can still move a revolver trigger through its arc. If the cow pie hit the fan in a life-threatening situation and I had to do a tap-rack-bang to clear an automatic I would be in deep guacamole.
For my needs, I simply trust revolvers and have carried one every day for twenty years.
Last edited:
jmr986
Member
Like 'em both. But I do have a preference for blued revolvers. Although I do own one plastic Walther PPQ, the rest of my semi's are steel. Whatever the type they must be steel and wood. Ok maybe rubber on the .357s.
For a CCW I keep going back and forth between the revolver and semi. Weighing rounds vs reliability. But if I have to pick a favorite it is the revolver.
Going to the range tomorrow
For a CCW I keep going back and forth between the revolver and semi. Weighing rounds vs reliability. But if I have to pick a favorite it is the revolver.
Going to the range tomorrow
Last edited:
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
Paul, I fully understand. Below, is my retirement gift.
A Napoleonic light cavalry officer's saber.
God bless,
Birdgun
That is a thing of beauty. Simply stunning.
TomkinsSP
Member
The Mauser in post #50
^^A semi that ACTUALLY uses clips!^^
^^A semi that ACTUALLY uses clips!^^
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
Also hit the target twice as often per round fired which erases the only advantage a semi has.
A couple of answers to the OP's original question:
1. Under stress, revolvers are generally easier to operate.
2. Typically easier to operate with weakened or injured hands or compromised gripping ability.
3. Inherently more accurate (slights attached to barrel on a revolver; aligned with the barrel but attached to the slide on a semi-auto).
4. Ammo, #1: Precise overall length of the round not as much of a factor as with semi-autos (revolver rounds headspace on the rim, semis on front of the chamber)
5. Ammo, #2: Major revolver calibers (.38, .357, .44, etc.) have larger case capacity than major semi-auto calibers (9mm, .40, .45).
6. Ammo, #3: More variability possible in ammo; rounds can be very low to very high power, and will work; unlike semi-auto, where rounds have to be within a certain range of power to operate the recoil-driven mechanism properly.
7. Ammo, #4: Bullets of almost any design will function in a revolver, whereas most semi-autos require a properly ogived bullet of the right material, for proper feeding.
8. Ammo, #5: Higher power rounds are more practical in a revolver than a semi-auto.
9. Ammo, #6: Revolver ammo will not suffer bullet setback from repeated loading, as bullets in semi-autos can if chambered repeatedly (this can lead to dangerously high pressures in rounds, esp. 9mm and 40). Bullet setback can occur in revolvers from recoil, but is less dangerous (see para 5, above).
10. Revolvers have more choice for grips, in terms of fit and aesthetics.
11. Greater functional reliability than semi-autos, especially small semi-autos; fewer malfunctions and stoppages than semi-autos.
12. Easier to operate from inside a jacket pocket, especially "hammerless" models. Hard to operate a pistol with a reciprocating slide inside a pocket.
13. Revolvers don't leave shell casings on the ground.
14. Revolvers have a soul; semi-autos are tools.* *Certain semi-autos designed by JMB may be an exception to this observation.
15. Long, heavy DA trigger press makes handling most revolvers safer in practice than most semi-autos, especially striker-fired, pre-cocked, light-triggered semi-autos.
16. Revolvers are more amenable to mounting of scopes (an advantage that is lessening a bit with new technology, e.g., RMR sights now available for many semi-autos).
Do these things outweigh the greatest advantage semi-autos have to offer, e.g., increased firepower? That's up to the user and his or her TTP for use and degree of training. I've got small revolvers for carry; large revolvers for serious shooting and for the range; and 17 round semi-autos for the zombie apocalypse.
1. Under stress, revolvers are generally easier to operate.
2. Typically easier to operate with weakened or injured hands or compromised gripping ability.
3. Inherently more accurate (slights attached to barrel on a revolver; aligned with the barrel but attached to the slide on a semi-auto).
4. Ammo, #1: Precise overall length of the round not as much of a factor as with semi-autos (revolver rounds headspace on the rim, semis on front of the chamber)
5. Ammo, #2: Major revolver calibers (.38, .357, .44, etc.) have larger case capacity than major semi-auto calibers (9mm, .40, .45).
6. Ammo, #3: More variability possible in ammo; rounds can be very low to very high power, and will work; unlike semi-auto, where rounds have to be within a certain range of power to operate the recoil-driven mechanism properly.
7. Ammo, #4: Bullets of almost any design will function in a revolver, whereas most semi-autos require a properly ogived bullet of the right material, for proper feeding.
8. Ammo, #5: Higher power rounds are more practical in a revolver than a semi-auto.
9. Ammo, #6: Revolver ammo will not suffer bullet setback from repeated loading, as bullets in semi-autos can if chambered repeatedly (this can lead to dangerously high pressures in rounds, esp. 9mm and 40). Bullet setback can occur in revolvers from recoil, but is less dangerous (see para 5, above).
10. Revolvers have more choice for grips, in terms of fit and aesthetics.
11. Greater functional reliability than semi-autos, especially small semi-autos; fewer malfunctions and stoppages than semi-autos.
12. Easier to operate from inside a jacket pocket, especially "hammerless" models. Hard to operate a pistol with a reciprocating slide inside a pocket.
13. Revolvers don't leave shell casings on the ground.
14. Revolvers have a soul; semi-autos are tools.* *Certain semi-autos designed by JMB may be an exception to this observation.
15. Long, heavy DA trigger press makes handling most revolvers safer in practice than most semi-autos, especially striker-fired, pre-cocked, light-triggered semi-autos.
16. Revolvers are more amenable to mounting of scopes (an advantage that is lessening a bit with new technology, e.g., RMR sights now available for many semi-autos).
Do these things outweigh the greatest advantage semi-autos have to offer, e.g., increased firepower? That's up to the user and his or her TTP for use and degree of training. I've got small revolvers for carry; large revolvers for serious shooting and for the range; and 17 round semi-autos for the zombie apocalypse.
Last edited:
