Advantages Of Using A Revoler Over A Semi Automatic.

[TDC]

Revolvers (for me) make sure every round counts. More accurate - longer barrel options.

Barrel length does not dictate accuracy. Velocity does, which is a FUNCTION of barrel length. A poorly timed cylinder will destroy accuracy(deformed projectiles). Autos do not have this problem. All handguns are accurate enough for biped varmint work. The operator is the component that fails more often than not.

TDC

 

[capp325]

To the revolvers bashers, do you remember the incidence in near Montreal where the home owner killed a cop with his .357 magnum? If I remember right, he fired 3 shots vs the police officers multiple shots and they only managed to wound his wife and shoot true is son's bedroom door...

Sometimes (actually, most of the time) it's the indian, not the arrow. The average target shooter is a much better shot than the average cop, as the former spends a lot more time practicing and refining his skills than the latter.

The notion that revolvers are more reliable and accurate than semi-autos comes from the days when most affordable semi-auto guns available to North American consumers were cheap, poorly made blowback compacts. Until the 1970’s, there weren't that many quality semi-auto pistols around, and the ones that were available, like Browning Hi-Power and Colt 1911, were pricy compared to double action revolvers and thus not as popular with the average civilian owner.

 

[capp325]

Most western militaries adopted semi-automatic pistols by the 1930s. Contrary to popular belief, higher capacity was NOT the primary reason for the switch. With the exception of the Browning Hi-Power, all semi-automatic pistols available at the time were of single stack design and did not offer significant capacity advantages over six-shot revolvers.

One major advantage of semi-autos is that they stand up better to "hard use". The revolver's achilles’ heel is the cylinder lock-up. The cylinder stop is a small and relatively fragile part that can be broken easily if the revolver is banged around. Likewise, the cylinder notches can get worn out from rough handling.

Semi-autos are also generally more resistant to adverse environmental conditions. Many modern pistols will function more or less reliably after being exposed to dirt, sand and other small particles. In contrast, most revolvers will quickly stop working if sand manages to make its way into the lockwork.

 

[haywire]

With a revolver you have versatility not found in any semi auto. e.g. a .357 mag can be loaded with 38 wad cutters or a case full of 2400 and a solid bullet that will (some will argue) flatten a grizzly. Also shoot loads.

 

[Riflechair]

Oh give me a break.

I'm talking generalities here.
With all things being equal you get more velocity - more effective powder burn using a longer barrel. So long as the shooter is going their thing peformance improves.

Lets not split hairs here TDC.

Barrel length does not dictate accuracy. Velocity does, which is a FUNCTION of barrel length. A poorly timed cylinder will destroy accuracy(deformed projectiles). Autos do not have this problem. All handguns are accurate enough for biped varmint work. The operator is the component that fails more often than not.

TDC

 

[TheIndifferent1]

Most western militaries adopted semi-automatic pistols by the 1930s. Contrary to popular belief, higher capacity was NOT the primary reason for the switch. With the exception of the Browning Hi-Power, all semi-automatic pistols available at the time were of single stack design and did not offer significant capacity advantages over six-shot revolvers.

Do you have a reference for this? Armies are more likely to be in protracted shootouts than police and civilians are, and thus faster reloads are of importance.

 

[TDC]

Oh give me a break.

I'm talking generalities here.
With all things being equal you get more velocity - more effective powder burn using a longer barrel. So long as the shooter is going their thing peformance improves.

Lets not split hairs here TDC.

I agree. Longer barrels in general produce greater velocities. Longer barrels also destroy the intrinsic value of a handgun; conceal-ability and ease of carry. An increase in shooter performance is not dictated by the equipment. Superior equipment only serves to enhance the abilities of an already accomplished shooter.

TDC

 

[TDC]

With a revolver you have versatility not found in any semi auto. e.g. a .357 mag can be loaded with 38 wad cutters or a case full of 2400 and a solid bullet that will (some will argue) flatten a grizzly. Also shoot loads.

This has been covered earlier in the thread. The advantage of multiple calibre interchangability is not something that carries enough merit to offset the many down sides to revolvers. More to the point, the advantage is not likely to be exploited as frequently nor exploited with such great success as increased mag capacity, faster reloads or greater interchangability of parts to name a few.

TDC

 

[geologist]

I just like revolvers for the FLASH!

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i155/pbgeologist/Img_0859.jpg

 

[870P]

This has been covered earlier in the thread. The advantage of multiple calibre interchangability is not something that carries enough merit to offset the many down sides to revolvers. More to the point, the advantage is not likely to be exploited as frequently nor exploited with such great success as increased mag capacity, faster reloads or greater interchangability of parts to name a few.

TDC

Besides capacity and reload speed most of the negatives listed against revolvers were theoretical or overblown, the only major strike against revolvers that noone really talks about is the declining build/materials quality and the lack of technical innovation for the choices out there right now.

 

[NAA]

Glad to see this thread's still going strong....

 

[johnone]

G37;
I would like to take you to task on your statement "-Revolvers can't be silenced (again, not an issue)." And who told you that ??

-"Revolvers have much more felt recoil than a semi-automatic".
Give me a break, as an example, try the same load in a Ruger Redhawk and a Eesert Eagle then tell me which has "more felt recoil"

Come on fellas a little research before making flat out statements....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
John
__________________

 

[johnone]

P89;
" Semi's are great for busting rounds off in a hurry, revolvers not so much"

May I suggest you read about the late Bill Jordan of the US Border Patrol before you make a rash statement.

Unless you are speaking from personal experience ??
John

 

[johnone]

I AM CURIOUS;
How many of the "expert opinions" expressed here come from personal carry for offensive/defensive use ??

How many have had to carry as a matter of life and death ?

Just curious
John

 

[TDC]

Besides capacity and reload speed most of the negatives listed against revolvers were theoretical or overblown, the only major strike against revolvers that noone really talks about is the declining build/materials quality and the lack of technical innovation for the choices out there right now.

Could you please list and explain which advantages are "theoretical" or "overblown"???

TDC

 

[TDC]

G37;
I would like to take you to task on your statement "-Revolvers can't be silenced (again, not an issue)." And who told you that ??

-"Revolvers have much more felt recoil than a semi-automatic".
Give me a break, as an example, try the same load in a Ruger Redhawk and a Eesert Eagle then tell me which has "more felt recoil"

Come on fellas a little research before making flat out statements....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
John
__________________

There have been suppressed revolvers. The statement that revolvers cannot be suppressed stems from their inability to be READILY suppressed. Autos are far easier to suppress than revolvers. A small advantage yes, bit still an advantage.

Actual recoil is the result of both firearm design as well as bore axis, and mass. perceived/felt recoil is a matter of opinion. In your example I will gladly take the Ruger over that POS called the DE.

TDC

 

[capp325]

Do you have a reference for this? Armies are more likely to be in protracted shootouts than police and civilians are, and thus faster reloads are of importance.

FN GP-35, a.k.a. Browning Hi-Power, was the first ever double stack semi-auto pistol and it came out in 1935 (French military contract). By that time, the Americans, Germans and Russians were all using single stack semi-auto pistols (the Germans had Lugers and Mausers, the Russians used TT-33, and the Americans had their 1911 Government Model, of course). Even the Japanese were using a semi-automatic Nambu. The British were the only major military power that was still using revolvers.

 

[WaltherP38]

Read the whole thread and can't believe no one mentioned the looking good factor.

As much as I prefer autos for any application I can think of, I believe a good old wheelgun has a lot more style to it than most modern autos.

 

[Unregistered]

I've seen too many of these debates. A lot of old-timers recommend revolvers to new pistol shooters. Let me say as a newbie that I found a revolver more counterintuitive than a semi-auto. Maybe it was because most of my toy pistols as a kid were semi-autos, and I started with a Ruger 22/45. But I can usually pick up a semi-auto and figure it out in seconds, while I really had to puzzle over my new Smith and Wesson .357.

Here's some things I found true about revolvers:
-They are easier to shoot accurately, if you take time on your shots
Revolvers don't have moving slides, so that helps in consistent shooting for me. Great single-action triggers help accuracy. Greater barrel length may give a better sight radius.
You can't limp-wrist a revolver
-Revolvers tend to work no matter what you put in them. (BUT I've found some cycling issues in my 686 that may have led to light primer strikes, or just skipping a round. Plus my 686 disassembled itself while firing .357s once! At least IA drills work on my semi-autos.)
-You can use many different bullet weights and ammunition combinations (but what I really want is consistency, so sticking with one weight is best for me! Plus, using .38s in a .357 cylinder leads to major fouling.)

Here are some things I found not true:
-Revolvers are easier to clean (no, cleaning 6 cylinders is like cleaning 6 semi-auto chambers, plus the barrel. It is in fact a pain to clean a revolver, especially since you can't easily remove the barrel for optimum cleaning. On the plus side, you don't have to disassemble a revolver for regular cleaning, so less knowledge of the firearm is required compared to a semi-auto. Once you have the knoweldge, a semi-auto is EASIER to clean. And forget about detail stripping them!)
-They are good for weak people (maybe to avoid limpwristing, but recoil is greater with revolvers, so controllability is actually worse)
-They are good if you don't have as much time to train (actually, you need to train harder because of those horrible double action pulls. As far as I can tell, the supreme asset of the semi-auto, when applicable, is the single-action pull for repeat firing.) Plus, revolvers have more flash, as far as I can tell, and tend to spit out lead. Kind of jarring for the beginner shooter.
-You can get a better grip with a revolver because it is easy to go out and buy the 'perfect' grip. (Bull. Maybe this is just a Smith and Wesson thing, but the grips have to conform to the butt design. You'd think that since there is no magazine in the butt that they could design something more ergonomic than a semi-auto, but no, my 1911 and CZ beat my S&W N and L frames for ergonomics. I still haven't found the perfect grip, and I'm tired of spending $20-40 a shot to do so! Stock semi-auto pistols beat my revolver grips. I like Ruger's idea for the GP-100, though, will have to try one of those out some time.)

All in all, I feel that there is a lot of wasted weight in revolvers. To get a .357to be manageable for a new pistol shooter, and sturdy enough to handle serious loads, you have to use a heavy frame. I can move my CZ-85 around and it feels like an extension of my hand. But it hurts my wrist to maneuver my 686 5-inch with the full underlug. I also find I need a more rigid shooting position for the .357 revolvers than the 9mm and .45 ACP pistols. This is expected, but you start to wonder why you are carrying such a heavy, high recoiling revolver when there are carbines that weigh almost as much and control the round so much better. Why drag a heavy .357 revolver around when a semi-auto is mostly used at the same distances?

I can see the advantages of revolvers for hunting (which we are not allowed to do in Canada), for target shooting, for reloaders (most newbies aren't), and for firing big calibers. For going without maintainance over long periods of time (which is not really necessary in Canada unless you carry for bear defense), or leaving it loaded in a glove compartment (illegal in Canada, so forget most of the U.S. gun advise), revolvers have an advantage. But for fast, close range shooting, semi-autos seem to prevail. Yes, semi-autos require more care and fail occasionally, but so has my 686, the "best" revolver on the market.

Anyway, these are just the thoughts of an amateur pistol shooter who has some experience with revolvers and semi-autos. I find that revolvers have advantages in ease of accuracy and reliability, but that they are overstated. On the other hand, they recoil more, often do not fit the hand, have trigger pulls that require greater practice relative to a semi-auto, excessive flash and lead spitting (and yes, my 686 was in 'time' when it did that), and are unreasonably heavy when you get into the magnum calibers (possibly the primary reason to use a revolver). Revolvers are like a fine watch, they work perfectly and then they don't work at all and you don't know what to do. So I couldn't recommend them to a 'newbie' as easily as some revolver shooters. Many of their advantages come from U.S. laws that allow unlocked storage of revolvers loaded with ammo, and hunting with revolvers. For pistol newbies, I'd recommend a good SIG, CZ, M&P, or the like, after training on a .22.

These are just my impressions in the short term. If I had to train to become proficient with a handgun, perhaps I'd find that revolvers are the better choice, because of the way they aid in promoting ammo conservation and good trigger practice. But for now, revolvers seem an encumbrance.

 

[Unregistered]

A couple of other points and summary in respone to some claims I feel need to be reviewed:

1. I think revolvers may actually require more training than a semi-auto because of the more difficult trigger pull, the grip requirements (on magnums), and the difficulty of reloading (considerable, compared to a semi-auto.)

2. Having .38s for practice in a .357 revolver is a mixed blessing, not just because of the cleaning problems, but because the POI and recoil will differ significantly between a .38 and a .357. Whereas you can buy fancy 115/124/147 ammo for your 9mm, and train with cheap FMJ ball of the same weight, and with the same characteristics.