Are Revolvers Actually better than Autos?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

"THAT" is the problem. You DON'T realize that this is a totally different universe. Not everybody buys a pistol to train for the gunfight that never happens. Some of us actually USE them for other things.

If "Statement A" is claimed to be true all of the time, and an instance can be found were "Statement A" is not true, than the claim has been successfully refuted.

The initial post of the thread is claiming that revolvers are better than autos. It does not say "in some instances that are not related to gunfighting". It just says "better".

That's the premise. That's "Statement A". And an instance has been found where that premise is wrong, ie: actual gun fighting in combat. Therefore to answer the question "are revolvers actually better than autos?" is...NO there are some instances where revolvers might be preferred, and some instances where autos might be preferred. One or the other is not better for everything.


<sarcasm>
\Logic
\\How does it work?
</sarcasm>

Also, why are you so angry? Do you need someone to talk to, maybe vent about some things going on that are heating you up. Despite memes to the contrary, the internet is not serious business.

 

[sirsloop]

That's a pretty sloppy fit barrel in that auto. I could look around and find revolvers with sloppy cylinder lock up too.

I'm just saying.

My 3 old as hills design 1911's lock up the barrel way tighter than that. I'll say, nicely snug.

Well considering the fact that semi-auto barrels are not securely attached to the frame or the sights... just by the plain fact that the sight is attached to the barrel of a revolver it should be more accurate. Yeah there is lockup on a revolver too, but its not like the barrel can move around. Besides whats side makes more of a difference? If you move the cylinder a few mm and it wont be bad... move the end of a semi auto a few mm and it could shoot all over the place!

I've nailed 200 yard shots on steel with my 8-3/8" 686 with a weaver 2.5x8 scope off a range bag. I wouldn't even attempt that with my semi auto.

 

[History.Doc]

The barrel of my cz 83 doesn't move

 

[Stevie-Ray]

To the poster who said that revolvers are ugly well first you need new glasses thier is no more of a beatiful gun made that a stainlees Ruger Super Redhawk

Sure there is, the original Redhawk. It's the only revolver I own and it's because of it's classic looks that I even own it. That being said, all the rest of my handguns, other than one single-shot, are autos. I prefer them greatly and I'll put up several of them up against any revolvers in the accuracy dept. I find my autos immensely better than revolvers in all respects.

 

[GLOOB]

I've nailed 200 yard shots on steel with my 8-3/8" 686 with a weaver 2.5x8 scope off a range bag. I wouldn't even attempt that with my semi auto.

I'm sure you could do the same with a Desert Eagle with a 10" barrel and scope.

The barrel and sights of a semiauto are also pretty well locked together. And with a semiauto, you get exactly the same chamber every time, with no variation in chamber walls, cylinder gap, or alignment/lockup. All for $500.00. If you drop it, abuse it, or when it gets worn down, it will remain consistent shot-to-shot. You can get the same kind of precision on a revolver if you pay $5000, keep it in the box, and never shoot it.

 

[tomrkba]

I like, and use, both types of guns.

Revolvers and semi-autos have different problems. You're just trading one for the other.

The world has moved on to semi-automatic pistols. We'll be arguing over semi-auto firearms versus semi-auto energy weapons in 30 years. Then it will be "Should I get a 1.2M watt plasma blaster or a 1.21M watt one?" Then manufacturers will muddy the waters and come out with a revolving cylinder plasma blaster. S&W will call it their Model 27 and Colt will have their Python.

The tactics will be the same.

 

[CraigC]

Also, why are you so angry?

No anger whatsoever but if you can't understand how "this" is a different world, with wildly different needs than we have nothing further to discuss. Although I can't imagine why I would show any overt hostility towards you.

"Also, if you think anyone on here but you cares about making your heart flutter, you're mistaken."

I don't give a damn if you care or not. I CARE and that was the point. Not everybody thinks handguns are simple tools for combat. Like I said, some folks actually USE them, every day, for things other than combat, or practice for combat.......that most shooters will never see. Some of us actually appreciate them as more than tools but apparently this concept is totally lost on you. So yes, I have a bit of an issue with condescension coming from someone who doesn't "get it".

You can get the same kind of precision on a revolver if you pay $5000, keep it in the box, and never shoot it.

Hogwash! Despite the six revolving chambers, no $500 auto will hang with a $500 revolver for accuracy. A $1500 revolver will shoot better than any $2000 auto.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Since you seem to have missed it the first time =)

If "Statement A" is claimed to be true all of the time, and an instance can be found were "Statement A" is not true, than the claim has been successfully refuted.

The initial post of the thread is claiming that revolvers are better than autos. It does not say "in some instances that are not related to gunfighting". It just says "better".

That's the premise. That's "Statement A". And an instance has been found where that premise is wrong, ie: actual gun fighting in combat. Therefore to answer the question "are revolvers actually better than autos?" is...NO there are some instances where revolvers might be preferred, and some instances where autos might be preferred. One or the other is not better for everything.

The OP asked a question. "Are revolvers better". An instance has been found where they are not. So the answer to the question is "No, not always". What else is there to "get"?

Perhaps you need to go back and brush up on your understanding of logic. IF THEN ELSE and all that. Your passion for revolvers is touching, but ultimately irrelevant in the face of reality.

 

[Greg528iT]

Well considering the fact that semi-auto barrels are not securely attached to the frame or the sights.

I wouldn't use the word "securely" as the bushing to barrel alignment can be very snug, the pin or lugs near the breech are VERY secure. The word you want is permanently.

As I am just getting into revolvers, I understand that the lock up / alignment of the cylinder to the barrel is very critical. Even if the cylinder is very tight, the alignment between them can be OFF causing accuracy issues. This is why Freedom Arms supposedly line bores each cylinder hole using the assembled revolver . As I remember the video it looked like a Beretta 92????? If any of my autos were that sloppy, I'd FIX it or replace it.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Hogwash: Despite the six revolving chambers, no $500 auto will hang with a $500 revolver for accuracy. A $1500 revolver will shoot better than any $2000 auto.

Fixed it for you.

 

[jad0110]

On average, your typical revolver will probably be slightly more accurate than your typical floating barrel semi auto. But not enough that most of us will notice the difference. I shoot revolvers better, you may shoot autos better.

Shut up, shoot and smile!

 

[Kiln]

I've owned both revolvers and autos. All this auto vs revolver junk is kinda like AR vs AK...everyone has their own opinion about them and you're just going to hear from each side that their preference is better.

I personally enjoy both of them greatly. I've had broken revolvers and autos, both have their share of issues no matter what the brand is...if you don't believe me google search Ruger and recall. Even high dollar revolvers sometimes suffer timing issues and even sturdy milsurp autos break small parts hell I broke two .32 pistols last weekend (CZ70 and FEG .32 and both trigger issues).

Basically what I'm saying is you should always choose what you're more comfortable with and to hell with what a bunch of guys on a gun forum say. Buy a gun with a decent reputation and shoot the crap out of it to make sure it is reliable before trusting it for personal defense.

 

[scythefwd]

the barrels of a revovler aren't permanently attached either. They are immobile, but some semi-autos also have fixed barrels. I won't chime in on the accuracy, especially since there are fixed barrel semi-autos.

 

[j1]

After reading for a while the answer is obvious. Have both. Be happy.

 

[Rexster]

I like both. Either can be as reliable as a mechanical device can be, and either can be built to a high standard of accuracy. I started handgunning in 1982 or 1983 with a 1911, but when I started wearing a PD badge in 1984, I was required to carry a revolver for my first full year of service. Though I considered revolvers to be quaint, I made it a a priority to learn how to shoot revolvers well, and found I really liked them.

 

[jungle]

Revolvers shine in two areas-compact .38/.357s for carry and large magnums for hunting or sport. You really can't build a magnum auto in a normal configuration and make it ergonomic for the average human.

Autos have captured the entire police/military market because they can be built to fit humans, carry two or three times the ammo(of adequate power) ready to go and are somewhat more tolerant of rough handling and conditions.