PDA

View Full Version : Revolver or semi-auto?


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
10-06-2008, 07:36 AM
When it comes to handguns, which do you prefer - a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol?

I own both, but prefer semi-automatic pistols because of their (generally) greater ammunition capacity and faster/easier reloading. But revolvers have simplicity - and reliability/durability - on their side.

In a gunfight situation, you probably would not need more than the typical revolver's 5-6 rounds anyhow. But on a firing range, it's nice to be able to just pop in a fresh magazine vs. ejecting your spent casings and (one by one - unless you have a speed loader) manually reloading.

What are your preferences/thoughts on this?

chiph
10-06-2008, 07:04 PM
It's a tradeoff. For a defensive gun, you can't beat the reliability of a revolver. However their cylinder makes them bulky, and thus less concealable.

In my case, I have the worst of both worlds -- I have a S&W model 610, which is a revolver that takes a semi-auto cartridge (the 10mm Auto). You need to use moon-clips to keep the rounds from falling out the front of the gun...

(but, they *do* make reloading faster)

Chip H.

jdm124
10-06-2008, 07:38 PM
My personal preference (prejudice, if you will) is for the revolver although I have found considerable happiness in the Ruger Mark II heavy bbl as well as a High Standard .22 with a heavy bbl.

For a nice pocket gun, the Model 60 Smith is fine: .38 Spl, 2 1/2" bbl and all stainless. I've had both a 1911 A1 and Model 25 (N frame) Smith, both in .45 ACP although the Smith would take .35 auto-rim. The government model seemed a better all round gun than the Model 25 but my accuracy (sad that it was) was marginally better with the Smith.

Jim Rose
10-06-2008, 09:21 PM
Automatic over the revolver--- the automatic will fire slightly faster with less trigger effort. Stopping them means that you have to fill them with more lead than they can carry!

jdm124
10-06-2008, 10:53 PM
Automatic over the revolver--- the automatic will fire slightly faster with less trigger effort. Stopping them means that you have to fill them with more lead than they can carry!


That's true if you're using some wimpy-ass nine.

DonTom
10-07-2008, 12:05 AM
"When it comes to handguns, which do you prefer - a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol?"

I like .45 automatics, but perhaps only because I was trained with them in the army.

However, handguns without magazines, such as revolvers, seem to be more reliable, unless you need a fast reload.

Which is best depends on what you want to use it for.

-Don-

Jim Rose
10-07-2008, 12:57 AM
Automatic over the revolver--- the automatic will fire slightly faster with less trigger effort. Stopping them means that you have to fill them with more lead than they can carry!


That's true if you're using some wimpy-ass nine.


It ain't the size of the slug-- it's where the slug goes---More people are killed with a .22 than any other size gun. Accuracy my man--- accuracy. It ain't a nuke.

Eric
10-07-2008, 06:44 AM
Automatic over the revolver--- the automatic will fire slightly faster with less trigger effort. Stopping them means that you have to fill them with more lead than they can carry!


This is why the smallest caliber I'd carry is a .38 (with +P hollow points). I like the .45 ACP best because it's a big, heavy bullet designed specifically to knock a man down. Hit a guy center mass with even a single .45 round and he is probably not going to bother you any more. But a coked-up thug can take several .22s, or .380s - even 9 mms.

I told Pete that the best reason not to own a 9 mm is Mehmet Ali Agca. Remember him? Shot the old pope five times at close range, with a 9 mm. The pope lived. If he'd used a .45 we'd have had a different pope....

Eric
10-07-2008, 06:49 AM
Automatic over the revolver--- the automatic will fire slightly faster with less trigger effort. Stopping them means that you have to fill them with more lead than they can carry!


That's true if you're using some wimpy-ass nine.


It ain't the size of the slug-- it's where the slug goes---More people are killed with a .22 than any other size gun. Accuracy my man--- accuracy. It ain't a nuke.


Absolutely. But a .22 has far less stopping power. You better hit something vital (try to shoot through the eye, for example). But if you miss....

Meanwhile, a body shot with a .45 - anywhere - will cause devastating damage and heavy bleeding. Shoot a guy in the shoulder or leg with a .22 (you might only get one shot off before he's on top of you) and he is only going to be enraged; hit the same guy in the shoulder or leg with a hollow point .45 and you will have destroyed his shoulder or leg, severely impaired his ability to move and caused severe bleeding, as well as physically pushed the guy back via the force of the impact.

Accuracy is important. But for personal defense, firepower can be even more decisive.

Eric
10-07-2008, 06:55 AM
"When it comes to handguns, which do you prefer - a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol?"

I like .45 automatics, but perhaps only because I was trained with them in the army.

However, handguns without magazines, such as revolvers, seem to be more reliable, unless you need a fast reload.

Which is best depends on what you want to use it for.

-Don-



I wonder about the reliability issue. I have yet to have a malfunction with a semi-auto pistol. With high-quality guns (for example, Sigs) my understanding is that mechanical problems are extremely rare - provided the gun is kept clean/used properly.

My suspicion is that revolvers are more "idiot proof." Even if they're not cared for properly, they will probably always still function - unless they're rusted shut!

Jim Rose
10-07-2008, 11:00 AM
>>as well as physically pushed the guy back via the force of the impact. <<

You've been watching too many movies--- Remember this--- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The slug will only push someone back as far as the recoil pushes you back.

Eric
10-07-2008, 01:24 PM
>>as well as physically pushed the guy back via the force of the impact. <<

You've been watching too many movies--- Remember this--- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The slug will only push someone back as far as the recoil pushes you back.



I'm not a physics major, so I can't be the Deeeecider on this one. But just anecdotally, when I shoot logs with my .45, they seem to be taking a lot more force than the recoil I feel in my hand. Isn't their more energy in the bullet than recoil?

chiph
10-07-2008, 02:01 PM
One difference is that when a bullet hits a log, it's energy is transferred over a shorter period of time, so there's more "Yank" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yank_(physics) ) than what you feel when you fire the gun where the powder burns fairly slowly and the recoil spring takes up much of the felt recoil.

But it's not a huge difference -- what you see in Hollywood movies is simply not possible in the real world.

Chip H.

edit: You'll need to copy/paste that URL -- the forum software is dropping the closing parenthesis.

Jim Rose
10-07-2008, 02:52 PM
>>as well as physically pushed the guy back via the force of the impact. <<

You've been watching too many movies--- Remember this--- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The slug will only push someone back as far as the recoil pushes you back.



I'm not a physics major, so I can't be the Deeeecider on this one. But just anecdotally, when I shoot logs with my .45, they seem to be taking a lot more force than the recoil I feel in my hand. Isn't their more energy in the bullet than recoil?


Take a look at some hunting videos where they shoot a deer with a high powered rifle--- the deer drops right where it was standing. A person running towards you will continue on course after being shot--- untill a vital organ is struck. At close range, my .22 with hollow points is pretty effictive. Both of us will have to shoot accurately enough to hit a vital organ
http://www.myoutdoortv.com/video/video.php?v=UrZsZyZT9TnnZ6yv3zIxBQ_zwrtTJ0o9