Revolver or Semi-Auto for EDC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^
Labguy47:

Well, he was driving a newer model Mercedes and foolishly, I paid zero attention to him until he slapped me upside the head so hard I saw stars. I am 5' 10" tall, swim laps daily and run and hike when I can. Self defense lessons taught me to be vigilant of my surroundings and to trust my gut and never judge a book. I am ever careful now and I know for a fact that men are stronger than women.

I am learning to use a gun for personal safety, to feel and be less vulnerable and to enable effective actions should the need arise. My competitive nature makes me want to shoot well and accurately.

I like semi automatics and I like revolvers. I think that dark revolvers are beautiful. Some semi automatics are also beautiful to me. I will carry either - on my person - as personal need determines.

The "newer model Mercedes" was stolen.
 
Revolver vs. semiautomatic is apples vs. oranges. They are not the same kind of machine.

The revolver is older and less sophisticated. The operator directly loads the cartridges into the chamber, and his actions more-or-less put the next cartridge in front of the firing pin. It is slowish to reload and not well suited to large volumes of fire.

The semiautomatic is newer and more sophisticated. It loads the cartridges into the chamber by itself and then puts the next cartridge into the chamber by itself. It is well-suited to firing a lot of rounds in a hurry and reloading in a hurry.

One is not better than the other; they both have certain advantages and disadvantages.

One example is loading the rounds into the chamber by hand, or mechanically. Mechanically (via magazine) is much faster. However, a round that is misshapen enough to cause a malfunction can often be loaded into a magazine and will cause a malfunction when the mechanism loads (or attempts to load) it. When loaded by hand, a similarly misshapen round will either be impossible to load, or will be noticed and not loaded by a reasonably experienced operator.

Another example is loading the next cartridge into the chamber and/or under the firing pin. With a revolver, the operator must more-or-less do this by himself by pulling the trigger or perhaps cocking the hammer. If one round will not discharge (due to a faulty primer or something similar) , putting the next round in firing position is a rapid and simple repetition. If the same thing happens with a semiautomatic, some time and two-handed manipulation is required to rectify the situation.

(Note: If a certain amount of time is necessary to manipulate the handgun with two hands because of misshapen brass or a faulty primer, the operator may be shot, stabbed, or otherwise inconvenienced as a result.)

IMHO, either firearm is equally like to suffer a catastrophic failure to due to something like a firing pin or some other major part failing. If the operator pays careful attention to cylinders wanting to bind, triggers feeling "funny", slides racking "a little too slow", etc. AND carefully cleans and inspects the handgun frequently, most catastrophic failures can be averted.

Thus, IMHO, they are apples and oranges.

The revolver is slower to reload and other than the first 5-6 rounds has a significantly slower rate of fire (due to significantly slower reloads). However, it is less affected by defective ammunition.

The semiautomatic is faster to reload after the magazine is empty. However, its short-term reliability is more dependent on its ammunition.

IMHO, a catastrophic mechanical failure is equally unlikely with either handgun, if it is well-maintained (including careful inspection and lubrication).

This, I feel that they both have advantages and disadvantages for SD:

1) If you are diligent, they are equally likely or unlikely to have a catastrophic failure.

2) If only 5-6 (or zero) rounds are needed in an encounter, they are equally effective as long as the ammunition is good. If there is an ammunition problem, the revolver is probably superior.

3) If more than six or so rounds are needed in an encounter, and the ammunition is good, the semiautomatic is probably superior.

Maybe it boils down to whether needing a lot of rounds or having a defective round is more likely.

(There are also the issues about limp-wristing, contact firing, firing from within a pocket, lint, difficulty of maintenance, and probably various others that I'm not thinking just now.)

My main point is that I don't necessarily feel that one is "better" or "worse". They are just different machines with different characteristics.
 
Last edited:
That is a crucial statement - it parses like this:

1. You realize this and accept the risk that an encounter will be more intense than 1 or 2 guys and you may not be effective with limited rounds
2. You are in denial this could happen as you believer a measure of central tendency means it always happens, you ignore the extremes and you over estimate your shooting ability and/or stopping power (this has been done in this thread).

The serious J or revolver folks I know - will state that they are in category #1. They are not in denial.

I sincerely believe this to be true. I am category #1. I do, however, plan on making every shot count once I start firing.
 
Historically speaking, without getting into trivia, I suppose we could agree the single-action revolver was widely adopted as a repeating side arm before the semiautomatic was, but the double-action revolver that's in common use today originated about the same time as the semi-automatic pistol. As for "sophistication," it's not clear what's meant by that. A double-action revolver's mechanism is significantly more complex than a striker-fired pistol and contains far more parts. But there are also complex autoloaders.

Revolvers are not limited to loading cartridges one at a time. They can be loaded with clips. As such, a single reload is not slower with a revolver than it is with a magazine-loaded semiautomatic. However, the lower capacity of most revolvers compared to semi-automatics with greater capacity magazines does affect the continuity of fire when large volumes of fire are considered. In a race to discharge 100 rounds, an 8 shot revolver would require 13 reloads, whereas a pistol with 17 round magazines would only require 6. But comparing a 7 or 8 shot revolver to a 7 or 8 shot 1911, the reload speed and overall continuity of fire is about the same.

My experience inclines me to believe revolvers are more likely to suffer failures that result in a long duration stoppage than modern semiautomatics. Semiautomatics are more likely than revolvers to suffer malfunctions that are quick and easy to clear. In my experience, revolvers fail less frequently than pistols but when they do the failure is usually more serious, whereas pistols fail more frequently -- although that greater frequency can easily be attributed to operator or ammo-induced malfunctions -- and those malfunctions can almost always be cleared in a few seconds at most.
 
Last edited:
Historically speaking, without getting into trivia, I suppose we could agree the single-action revolver was widely adopted as a repeating side arm before the semiautomatic was, but the double-action revolver that's in common use today originated about the same time as the semi-automatic pistol. As for "sophistication," it's not clear what's meant by that. A double-action revolver's mechanism is significantly more complex than a striker-fired pistol and contains far more parts. But there are also complex autoloaders.

Revolvers are not limited to loading cartridges one at a time. They can be loaded with clips. As such, a single reload is not slower with a revolver than it is with a magazine-loaded semiautomatic. However, the lower capacity of most revolvers compared to semi-automatics with greater capacity magazines does affect the continuity of fire when large volumes of fire are considered. In a race to discharge 100 rounds, an 8 shot revolver would require 13 reloads, whereas a pistol with 17 round magazines would only require 6. But comparing a 7 or 8 shot revolver to a 7 or 8 shot 1911, the reload speed and overall continuity of fire is about the same.

My experience inclines me to believe revolvers are more likely to suffer failures that result in a long duration stoppage than modern semiautomatics. Semiautomatics are more likely than revolvers to suffer malfunctions that are quick and easy to clear. In my experience, revolvers fail less frequently than pistols but when they do the failure is usually more serious, whereas pistols fail more frequently -- although that greater frequency can easily be attributed to operator or ammo-induced malfunctions -- and those malfunctions can almost always be cleared in a few seconds at most.
I believe that by "sophistication", Tallball wasn't talking about internal parts but rather all the entire process/mechanics that goes into firing a round or more successfully... In that respect, semiautos are much more "sophisticated" which in turn introduces more protential problems. As far as failures are concerned, I wonder what are the statistics and probabilities between how often and prevalent a mantained semiautos may experience a failures vs how often a revolver will ever experience a stoppage. If in all reality, the likely hood that a reputable revolver that's mantained is a victim of a stoppage is so low that it's more of an anomaly vs a semi which is relatively common, then that is a huge relative difference that should be taken into account. Especially when even though semiautos maybe able to be cleared, that won't matter much if/when it's life or death that it must work at that very moment, and if not, you won't be alive to have the chance to clear the malfunction...

Like I said, if semiautos could do everything a revolver could do and then some, I'd agree that revolvers were old obsolete technology. As in the analogy of comparing the old much larger flip phones of the past to the smaller phones we have today that have longer battery life, are smaller, faster, and do everything a flip phone did and more. That analogy does not hold water when comparing revolvers to semiautos because revolvers can do things and have advantages that semiautos do not have and via versa... A flip phone offers no benefits over the phones we have today...

In short, each have their place and pros and cons, and no, revolvers aren't obsolete. They're very prevalent, are still selling well, and are still be carried by millions of Americans..
 
Last edited:
I feel that revolvers are less sophisticated in that they are based on old-fashioned technology. A semiautomatic cannot function without both smokeless propellant and cartridges (though there have been attempts to make them even more technologically advanced, such as electronic ignition and/or "caseless cartridges").

There were black powder rim-fire and center fire revolvers, cap and ball revolvers, and I have even seen pictures of flintlock revolvers.

That's why I view semiautomatics as being more modern and "sophisticated". They are the kinds of handguns that modern military forces and police forces use pretty much exclusively.

Revolvers were what military forces and police forces used starting in the mid to late 1800's, after they graduated from single-shot muzzle loaders.

I would never argue that revolvers are "better". They are a different kind of machine, and no longer suitable for widespread military or law enforcement use, but they can still be useful in certain circumstances.
 
5 -10 seconds {(to draw and fire three to five shots into the chest area of a charging assailant)]with an NAA SAO

If he started at 7 meters away and ran at 5 meters per second, he would have taken you out well before you had fired more than one shot, if you had been able to do that.
 
I have both, train with both, been shooting all my life and so make my own choices rather than rely on the internet. I know my limitations, know my guns well. Yesterday went into a remote wet environment and choose the LCR9mm with 3 moonclips packed in a dry container.
PS I hate waiting in a line watching other people shoot. Drives me crazy.

. J7qrhbe.jpg
 
Last edited:
I guess we just have to disagree. I don't care if you have only an hour to train or weeks. For a given amount of time spent training/practicing most shooters will advance faster and be more proficient training with a semi auto than a revolver.

View attachment 865187
We don't disagree. We are saying the same thing. IF a person will take the time and expense to train the SA is the best way to go. But If they only want a firearm for SD and they DO NOT wish to get the training and continue the training and practice the revolver is the LOGICAL choice. Do you not admit that the learning curve, to become safe and proficient for a non shooter, is MUCH greater for a SA over that for a revolver??????o_O
 
We don't disagree. We are saying the same thing. IF a person will take the time and expense to train the SA is the best way to go. But If they only want a firearm for SD and they DO NOT wish to get the training and continue the training and practice the revolver is the LOGICAL choice. Do you not admit that the learning curve, to become safe and proficient for a non shooter, is MUCH greater for a SA over that for a revolver??????o_O
not for a glock or a lcp; just pull it out and pull the trigger, same as a revolver. "safe" is superfluous here; being proficient is the operative word.

dry practice should be a part of everyone's training but, sadly, no one seems to place much importance on this "free" aspect of self-defense shooter training.

luck to the op,

murf
 
We don't disagree. We are saying the same thing. IF a person will take the time and expense to train the SA is the best way to go. But If they only want a firearm for SD and they DO NOT wish to get the training and continue the training and practice the revolver is the LOGICAL choice. Do you not admit that the learning curve, to become safe and proficient for a non shooter, is MUCH greater for a SA over that for a revolver??????o_O
Speaking from personal experience, you are correct. A person can pull out a revolver and shoot w/o worrying about all the possible malfunctions that can happen with semoautos. When everything is going as planned on the range and the semoauto is functioning perfectly, as most do, it's all good. As soon as a limpwrist, slide ride, the mag isn't inserted all the way, an ammo induced malfunction occurs, so on and so forth happens, most people I see at the range and family and friends I've been shooting with, no matter how many times they been to the range, get this confused look on their face. It then takes them a little time to figure out what went wrong...
 
Speaking from personal experience, you are correct. A person can pull out a revolver and shoot w/o worrying about all the possible malfunctions that can happen with semoautos. When everything is going as planned on the range and the semoauto is functioning perfectly, as most do, it's all good. As soon as a limpwrist, slide ride, the mag isn't inserted all the way, an ammo induced malfunction occurs, so on and so forth happens, most people I see at the range and family and friends I've been shooting with, no matter how many times they been to the range, get this confused look on their face. It then takes them a little time to figure out what went wrong...

I went and did more scouting for hunting yesterday, but left early to go to the nearby outdoor range. Some instructor was blasting out some much internet jumbo stuff to this new group it was amazing. I could just see their head spinning. And then they all started shooting semi- automatics. It was interesting to watch them trying to reload mags, rack slides, load mags release mag and on and on. I could not help to think how simple it would be to just pull out a revolver, load it and shoot it.
The internet has made every one feel they have to have the lightest trigger, the gun with the most rounds, and on and on. Yet in the most simple of ways a DAO is just that Simple and easy. And loading is about as simple as you can get. Heck, even the semi auto I love the most does not even have a slide release and is DAO.
If I were to be transformed back in time and the Gun Gods came down and told me, I only could own one gun, and it would be a small revolver, but would have all the ammo I wanted to train with, then that would be fine with me. And you can bet that I would be very good with it.
And will say this, all most all the guns I now own are DAO and I shoot them with full confidence, love them, do not want a light trigger nor do I need one. The more I read and learn over so many years seems to bring me back to the original starting point.

KISS, in your carry and your training. Frequent and Diligent Training with the gun you own.
 
Last edited:
Those are good points. For someone who isn't a training and competition person (like me), the revolver and its 5 or 6 rounds is a viable solution most of the time. If you want to compare what is the best handgun on your belt, if you want to come up to speed and worry about more than the average incident, you can't beat the good semi with a revolver. Recall my friend who is national champ level and second to Jerry at times, carries a semi for EDC.

Of course, I am dogmatic and say to train up. But that's me.
 
I went and did more scouting for hunting yesterday, but left early to go to the nearby outdoor range. Some instructor was blasting out some much internet jumbo stuff to this new group it was amazing. I could just see their head spinning. And then they all started shooting semi- automatics. It was interesting to watch them trying to reload mags, rack slides, load mags release mag and on and on. I could not help to think how simple it would be to just pull out a revolver, load it and shoot it.
The internet has made every one feel they have to have the lightest trigger, the gun with the most rounds, and on and on. Yet in the most simple of ways a DAO is just that Simple and easy. And loading is about as simple as you can get. Heck, even the semi auto I love the most does not even have a slide release.
If I were to be transformed back in time and the Gun Gods came down and told me, I only could own one gun, and it would be a small revolver, but would have all the ammo I wanted to train with, then that would be fine with me. And you can bet that I would be very good with it.
And will say this, all most all the guns I now own are DAO and I shoot them with full confidence, love them, do not want a light trigger nor do I need one. The more I read and learn over so many years seems to bring me back to the original starting point.

KISS, in your carry and your training. Frequent and Diligent Training with the gun you own.
It use to be that the gun community was happy if you carried, period. Many welcomed smaller firearms because the saying "used" to be that "the gun you carry is better than the gun left at home." Revolvers also we're seen as being just fine for carry and home defense especially for new shooters... Nowadays, a small percentage of hard core types in the gun community are pushing the narrative that if it isn't a Glock or a close second or third, if it isn't G19 sized, if it doesn't have the greatest trigger, and/or if it doesn't have a high round count, you're going to die by the hands of gangs, terrorist, drug Lord's, and the like.... The inet and 24/7 365 for profit media convencing everyone that the world is coming to a violent end doesn't help either...
 
It use to be that the gun community was happy if you carried, period. Many welcomed smaller firearms because the saying "used" to be that "the gun you carry is better than the gun left at home." Revolvers also we're seen as being just fine for carry and home defense especially for new shooters... Nowadays, a small percentage of hard core types in the gun community are pushing the narrative that if it isn't a Glock or a close second or third, if it isn't G19 sized, if it doesn't have the greatest trigger, and/or if it doesn't have a high round count, you're going to die by the hands of gangs, terrorist, drug Lord's, and the like.... The inet and 24/7 365 for profit media convencing everyone that the world is coming to a violent end doesn't help either...

That is so funny and so true. The power of the internet and marketing. It has always been. "Sell the sizzle and NOT the steak"
 
It use to be that the gun community was happy if you carried, period. Many welcomed smaller firearms because the saying "used" to be that "the gun you carry is better than the gun left at home." Revolvers also we're seen as being just fine for carry and home defense especially for new shooters... Nowadays, a small percentage of hard core types in the gun community are pushing the narrative that if it isn't a Glock or a close second or third, if it isn't G19 sized, if it doesn't have the greatest trigger, and/or if it doesn't have a high round count, you're going to die by the hands of gangs, terrorist, drug Lord's, and the like.... The inet and 24/7 365 for profit media convencing everyone that the world is coming to a violent end doesn't help either...

I think part of what gets lost is the fact that we're carrying as citizens for self defense. If you're in law enforcement you're trying to subdue a person and end a threat to the community. Having a lot of rounds in a duty level caliber is a pretty important part of being able to accomplish those goals. Me, I'm just trying to protect my family and/or myself and just want the bad guy to go away. Reality is a 380 in a pocket pistol (or less) is going to make a big bang and it's going to hurt a lot, and I have to think that's going to be enough to convince a bad guy to run away nearly all the time in a citizen involved shooting. I carry larger handguns quite often but I don't feel under prepared if all I have with me is my LCP. I'm 41 and haven't ever needed any kind defensive firearm. Odds are I never will, and in the unlikely even I ever do that LCP will probably do just fine.
 
I just picked up a sub 2000 to EDC in my backpack along with 3x33rd magazines. I'm probably in the minority EDCing a semiautomatic rifle but I can CCW my glock 26 and I've got BIG reloads, or the Sub 2000 if needed. It fits so easily in a normal sized backpack and I had the spare room in my daily pack so why not?

I'm a bus commuter so my backpack carries stuff like laptop, etc. but it also doubles as a bug-out-bag-lite. I keep a first aid kit, a life straw, and one day of food in there in addition to my work stuff and my gun.
 
It use to be that the gun community was happy if you carried, period. Many welcomed smaller firearms because the saying "used" to be that "the gun you carry is better than the gun left at home." Revolvers also we're seen as being just fine for carry and home defense especially for new shooters... Nowadays, a small percentage of hard core types in the gun community are pushing the narrative that if it isn't a Glock or a close second or third, if it isn't G19 sized, if it doesn't have the greatest trigger, and/or if it doesn't have a high round count, you're going to die by the hands of gangs, terrorist, drug Lord's, and the like.... The inet and 24/7 365 for profit media convencing everyone that the world is coming to a violent end doesn't help either...

People can always find a way to justify sub-optimal choices
 
It use to be that the gun community was happy if you carried, period. Many welcomed smaller firearms because the saying "used" to be that "the gun you carry is better than the gun left at home." Revolvers also we're seen as being just fine for carry and home defense especially for new shooters... Nowadays, a small percentage of hard core types in the gun community are pushing the narrative that if it isn't a Glock or a close second or third, if it isn't G19 sized, if it doesn't have the greatest trigger, and/or if it doesn't have a high round count, you're going to die by the hands of gangs, terrorist, drug Lord's, and the like.... The inet and 24/7 365 for profit media convencing everyone that the world is coming to a violent end doesn't help either...

My uncle ran a small country convenience store in the 70's and 80's. He kept a .357 model 19 S&W under the counter but he also kept a Colt .25 ACP in his back pocket, wrapped in a handkerchief (he showed me one day). He carried with a round chambered and hammer down. So when he was away from the register to pump gas or make a sandwich for a customer, that was what he had to use if things went bad. He never once had to use it.

As you say, it's the psychology of being armed, of being able to defend yourself (although perhaps not "quickly" in the case of my uncle) that mattered to him.
 
If he started at 7 meters away and ran at 5 meters per second, he would have taken you out well before you had fired more than one shot, if you had been able to do that.

Not if you maintain a modicum of personal space by moving back and not being static. Even though in Florida you have no duty to retreat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top