Revolvers VS Pistols

I think revolvers got their reliable reputation 80 years ago when the only real competition was 1911s. I don't think the situation with 1911s has changed in 100 years; unless you are dedicated to your pistol and spend time learning it's function and quirks, you are better off with a model 27 Smith.

For a gun meant to be kept for emergencies only and shot little, a revolver is more reliable.
 
AK said:
A revolver will never stovepipe. A revolver will never fail to feed. A revolver will never fail to eject. A revolver will never have magazine issues. A revolver requires just another trigger pull to solve a failure to fire.

An auto will never lock up the cylinder. An auto will never get sloppy lockup or lose timing. An auto will hold more rounds than a revolver. An auto can be faster to reload for most people.

Pick which one works best for you. For me it's the former.
Click to expand...

This just about sums up what I was thinking. I can't decide which I prefer though.
 
The thing I like about revolvers is no failure to feed/failure to eject problems. In pistols, I find the mag is the most common cause of these problems. Eliminate the mag, eliminate the problem. Also, no fishing for brass after firing off a cylinder. I also find I'm more consistent shooting revolvers, and I'm a bit more accurate.

But with pistols, you get more rounds. Easier reloading. Better ergonomics (that's a subjective thing). And while they do break, it's usually a spring or a recoil buffer or something user-replaceable. In a revolver, it's the cylinder timing - gunsmith required. I wouldn't even know where to start with a 6-gun. Semi? Break it down on the spot and start digging around no problem.
 
I find my revolvers put more rounds on target. And as far as ergonomics's it's an even split IMO.
Revolvers can be had in MUCH larger calibers afford ably than pistols. Desert Eagles are out of the affordable range. But wheelgun .357's and .44 mag's are still within range, not to mention 45 LC's.
And if you reload there is no lost brass as well. Big cost difference right there
 
The pistol tends to be more reliable because it relies on a less precise mechanism to feed, and that mechanism is internal and more protected. It is also linear and harder to jam up. A revolver relies on precise timing of the cylinder rotation, which requires tighter tolerances in machining, and is more prone to problems. A recoil operated Browning style pistol can be loose and very difficult to foul or damage to the point of being inoperative, yet still function. Drop a 1911 on a concrete floor and you will likely only dent the metal, bend the sights or chip the grips. Drop a revolver and you might damage the cylinder, crane, indexing mechanism and render it inoperative.
 
tokguy said:
I find my revolvers put more rounds on target. And as far as ergonomics's it's an even split IMO.
Revolvers can be had in MUCH larger calibers afford ably than pistols. Desert Eagles are out of the affordable range. But wheelgun .357's and .44 mag's are still within range, not to mention 45 LC's.
And if you reload there is no lost brass as well. Big cost difference right there
Click to expand...


This is an awesome point. I agree.
 
Grizzlypeg said:
The pistol tends to be more reliable because it relies on a less precise mechanism to feed, and that mechanism is internal and more protected. It is also linear and harder to jam up. A revolver relies on precise timing of the cylinder rotation, which requires tighter tolerances in machining, and is more prone to problems. A recoil operated Browning style pistol can be loose and very difficult to foul or damage to the point of being inoperative, yet still function. Drop a 1911 on a concrete floor and you will likely only dent the metal, bend the sights or chip the grips. Drop a revolver and you might damage the cylinder, crane, indexing mechanism and render it inoperative.
Click to expand...

:agree: *** best comment on this "pistol vs revolver" thread!
 
I've read it previously (I forget where) that pistols are more resistant to abuse, and revolvers are more resistant to neglect. The explanation was basically that that physical damage is more likely to screw up a revolver (bent crane, ejector, etc), whereas neglect of cleaning/maintenance is more likely to foul up a pistol.
 
Load both up to capacity and stick them both in a safe for 20 years. Ill take the revolver. Mag springs will wear out. Not much to wear out on a revolver. Under ideal conditions anyways.
 
AK said:
A revolver will never stovepipe. A revolver will never fail to feed. A revolver will never fail to eject. A revolver will never have magazine issues. A revolver requires just another trigger pull to solve a failure to fire.

An auto will never lock up the cylinder. An auto will never get sloppy lockup or lose timing. An auto will hold more rounds than a revolver. An auto can be faster to reload for most people.

Pick which one works best for you. For me it's the former.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I'll add just one thing. I think the choice depends on the ultimate purpose of the gun. For example, if the primary purpose is self-defense (which it cannot legally be unless you have a permit) and the gun is going to be kept clean until use, do you absolutely want to have a second shot? If so, get a revolver. If it's a range gun, who cares if it misfires (unless you're a competitive shooter and time matters)?

My wife and I both had concealed-carry permits in Florida, where we used to have a winter home. We and a friend of ours used to go shooting every week at an indoor range. He carried a 1911 in a shoulder holster and also brought to the range a Beretta 92 as well as various S&W revolvers (the guy was a true gun nut). Others at the range had autos of all types. It was a great experience. Everybody used to shoot everyone else's guns.

Over a period of about three years, my wife and I never had a single malfunction/failure to fire in our four revolvers, and we fired a lot of rounds through those guns.

OTOH, not a week went by when either our friend or other auto shooters were not cursing at their guns for misfiring for one reason or another, and there are lots and lots of reasons why autos sometimes don't fire or feed.

After we acquired our permits and started shooting at the range, but before buying anything, it didn't take me very long to decide that for our purpose a revolver was the most sensible thing to buy. It was then a matter of chosing the right size and caliber.

Yes, autos are very ###y, but they can be very touchy beasts that need to be fed just the right diet of ammo, held the right way, cleaned and lubricated a certain way, etc. etc. forever. As long as you accept that, you'll have fun. If you can't, you know what to do.
 
Dietz said:
100% horses**t.
Click to expand...

Ya Im really digging for that one. But an auto still requires a spring for feeding and any mechanical device can wear out. My old man has a 100+ year old S&W and all the springs inside are worn out. You can still turn the cylinder by hand and pull the hammer back manually. Not very safe but It will still fire after 100 years. Is an auto capable of doing that?
 
I am starting to find the esthetics of guns as important as they type of gun, Having had a variety of plastic guns, I am now back to hard cold steel, specifically 1911's and revolvers. I am not suggesting they are a replacement for duty guns, but they make for a more quality trip to the range.
 
SectionSeven said:
I am starting to find the esthetics of guns as important as they type of gun, Having had a variety of plastic guns, I am now back to hard cold steel, specifically 1911's and revolvers. I am not suggesting they are a replacement for duty guns, but they make for a more quality trip to the range.
Click to expand...

me too, I love glocks, but from a ###y esthetics standpoint, they dont do it for me. Seeing as all i can do with them is go to the range, im leaning more towards revolvers these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom