Autoloader or Revolver? Input Needed.

[woad_yurt]

For pure shtf stuff, and if I could have one, I would grudgingly go semi-auto. But, I'd have my maintainance spring/repair stuff pouch, too.

In an average "business" situation, relatively few shots are fired. So, for example, I usually have a Model 10 next to the bed. I find it easier to hit my mark with a good S&W K-frame. But, if it was legitimate anarchy, I'd want more round capacity.

 

[FullEffect1911]

I do tend to agree with skoro that excessive mud and grit will likely tie up a semi faster then a revolver.

I am a huge revolver and 1911 fan, but I just can't seem to carry any revolver bigger then an sp101 comfortably. In a SHTF scenario and every day life, concealed carry is probably a must and you likely won't be rolling in mud.

I begrudgingly say Glock, and I don't like Glocks at all.

 

[spman]

I like the Glocks and the Revolvers, but if it came to pick only one I would pick a S&W 686 357Mag six or four inches. They are great guns, very versatiles

 

[MR.G]

My choice is the S&W 686 Plus, with a 4" barrel.

 

[dpeck]

buy a revolver, they rarely jam and if you hit a dead cartridge, simply pull the trigger again.

 

[goon]

Nothing against Glocks. I've owned two and they both were totally reliable.
But if your requirments are a true do-all handgun, I'd say it's hard to beat a .357.

I'd go with the GP-100 in stainless.

 

[S&Wfan]

i would prefer 4-6 rds of 9mm in the high center chest in less than 2 sec, than 2-3 .357 in the same amount of time.

Huh?

Folks who've taken the time to master that smooth, double action revolver trigger pull, and then have shot both revolvers and semis equally well in matches will usually tell you two things:

1. A double action revolver can usually be shot faster than a 1911!

2. A double action revolver's trigger pull allows one to stage the trigger perfectly, as you roll the cylinder during recoil, so that as soon as you see a perfect sight picture the gun goes "bang." Thus, there's no "milking" a revolver like with a semiauto shooting it single action.

(Milking is when the excited, stressed shooter yanks down on the weapon trying to compensate for the recoil that's coming, just before the hammer falls on a single action pistol. Go to some handgun matches! Better yet, shoot in 'em . . . and watch shooters digging dirt well below their targets as they "milk" their guns and wonder why they aren't hitting anything.

THUS . . . IMHO, a revolver can be shot more accurately, and at speed in a handgun match vs. a semi-auto!

My best time shooting centerfire classes in 10 yard, six pin bowling pin matches was 3.82 seconds (all six pins blown off the back of the table), starting with a random-start timer from the low ready position.

It was shot with this . . . a 3" barrel S&W Model 65-3 revolver in .357 magnum. Literally, as fast as the sights came onto the target the gun was firing, then firing again just as the barrel and sights came down on the next target.

I never touched that time shooting a 9mm Glock or Browning . . . or my tricked out Colt Combat Elite (4.68 sec.) with the 1.25 lb. competition trigger pull. My other revolvers though? Lots of cleared tables in lower times too!


I'm not Jerry Miculek by any means, but I've learned that sometimes the most reliable guns (revolvers) are also the fastest into action . . . and the fastest at getting the job done too!

BTW, I once won a special match at a steel competition with my moonclipped .45ACP revolver against nearly 40 fine competitors . . . all who were shooting Glock 17s in 9mm (w/33 rnd. mags.) or high cap. .45 or .38 super 1911s.

-EIGHTEEN STEEL TARGETS spread out 90 degrees in front, from 8-30 yards away.

-ANY CENTERFIRE, IRON-SIGHTED HANDGUN

-ONE MANDITORY RELOAD (thus all the guys pulling out their high cap. extended magazines)

-GUNS START AT THE BUZZER IN A HANDGUN CASE, UNLOADED!

-FASTEST TIME DROPPING ALL THE STEEL PLATES AND POPPERS WINS THE POT.

This was NOT a match for a 6 shot revolver, and you can see why folks pulled out their high cap. .38 supers and Glock 17s . . . just load once, drop 17, reload fast and drop the final steel.

HOWEVER . . . with the moon clipped 6-shooter I loaded and reloaded really fast . . . and didn't miss . . . thus only needed to load three times. I beat the next fastest competitor by over two seconds.

FLUKE? No, I don't think so! Under the stress of competition folks with lots of extra ammo start rushing, trying to outshoot the speed of others . . . and the more the rush, the more they miss and get shaken! One poor soul emptied FOUR 33 round Glock magazines before it was over. Me? I had NOTHING to lose against those other guys . . . for a six shooter surely couldn't win . . . COULD IT! Gosh, I sure got to rag 'em all that day!!!

MY CHOPPED BARREL )TO 3 1/4"), S&W 25-2 .45ACP USED IN THE MATCH

I would encourage the original poster to try to shoot various types handguns he may be interested in . . . and purchase the one he shoots best!

I would also encourage him to get some fine instruction and practice to master the gun . . . and then start shooting handgun matches to take care of jitters and master your nerves and technique under pressure. Doing so, you will become a formidable and confident handgunner so if you ever need your gun for defense you'll have the confidence and experience to win!

That being said, if the weapon will truly be abused and never taken care of or cleaned (which I doubt will happen), either a S&W .357 revolver or a Glock in 9mm would be most reliable from my experiences.

BTW, I've given all my Glocks away. The best fighting platforms, IMHO are S&W revolvers and 1911 style automatics. My favorite caliber in both types of handguns is the .45ACP round. Once you see what a .45 round does to drive a heavy bowling pin straight back, and off the table, vs. the wimpy 9mm round barely tipping them over, you'll appreciate the authority of the .45ACP round, along with the .45ACP's firm "push" (rather than stinging and snappy) recoil charecteristic!

 

[crebralfix]

Love that M25, S&WFan!!! Blue looks so much better than stainless, especially on a gun with a 3" barrel.

The main problem I see regarding your post is that 95% of people don't bother to become proficient with their weapon. As a range manager, I have a difficult time getting people to sign up for training. We do get many, many repeat customers (even for the level 1 courses), but the ones that really need a two day defense course never sign up no matter how much we harass them!

In the end, it really doesn't matter which reliable gun he gets so long as the caliber is sufficient for self-defense. We can argue all day long about this or that, but in the end, it does him no good if the gun isn't on his belt.

 

[JTQ911]

semi-auto all the way

Semi-autos are reliable. There's a reason PRACTICALLY every miltiary/police dept in the world is using semi-auto's. Semi-auto's are reliable and are much more suitable in a life or death situation where 5-6 rounds may not be enough. Quicker reloads are also another benefit. Plus, it should be mentioned that while revolvers extremely reliable, they can still fail. I have seen cylinders lock and revolvers rendered inoperable. It doesnt happen often, but it does happen.

If you're not set on the Glock, check out the Springfield XD. It passed a 20,000 round torture test. Has the point of a 1911. Ultra reliable. After months of research, it was my first pistol purchase. So yes, my opinion is biased, but do your own research, shoot it, you might be impressed. Check out xdtalk.com

 

[Rmac58]

I went with the revolver, I have a J frame .357, and am getting a 686 later today.

 

[Fishman777]

tough choice...

When faced with the same decision, I went the revolver route and decided on a GP100. In my opinion, they are the most durable, reliable, and "simple" medium-framed .357 magnum ever made. Solid frames, triple locking cylinders, ejector rods that don't unscrew or bend (Ruger ejector rods don't act to secure the cylinder in the "front" of the cylinder), modular grips, and modular trigger mechanism. I really like 686s, but after researching revolvers for about six months, I felt better about the Ruger. I don't think that you could go wrong with a good Ruger or a good Smith and Wesson. I'd recommend going to the Ruger forums and the Smith and Wesson forums and research the guns for yourself.

I think that your autoloader choices were excellent, as well. There are a lot of great autoloaders out there, but I agree with you that glocks would fit your intended use the best. Reliability, accuracy, durability, simplicity of function and design, interchangable magazines, excellent after market products and support. For my money, and for the features and benefits that I value, Glocks are the are the best autoloaders

In my book, I prefer Ruger double action revolvers and Glock autoloaders. It is a tough choice, but I think that revolvers make better home defense guns. I'm not a cop and really don't need capacity. The ease of use and reliability of a good revolver is more important to me than capacity. I also shoot revolvers a lot better than autoloaders. I'd recommend the GP100 and then would recommend that you invest in a glock in the future (either a compact or a full-sized one in the caliber that you feel most comfortable with). For me that second gun would be a G17.

 

[buck460XVR]

Which would be the better "do it all" handgun?

If hunting is in the scenario, than quite simply, the .357. Other than that, given the criteria you're lookin' at, it's pretty much a toss up. Without knowing the primary usage, whether priorities include accuracy at longer ranges, magazine capacity or concealment, and other factors, it's hard to suggest "the right gun" for anyone. That's why you're gonna get a lot of "get what I have" suggestions.

I ain't trying to come across as a jerk, but with the firearms listed that you own, I take it your shooting experience is either as a new shooter or one that does it very seldom. Accuracy and confidence with handguns comes quite simply, with a lot of practice. Shooting a box of shells a year outta it and leaving it to sit in the drawer the rest of the time, it won't matter one smoot which you pick.....and you will never know if you made the right or wrong choice. Without more criteria to go from, I suggest you go to as many gun shops as you can, handle as many handguns as you can and pick the one that feels the most at home in your hand. If you shoot it much, you will soon know if you made the right choice or need to take it back and trade it in on something else.

I have had over the last few years, the opportunity to expose quite a few new shooters to the sport of handgunning. From my experience, I have found that for most new shooters, revolvers tend to be less intimidating and easier to use than autoloaders. You manually put in the shells and manually take the empties out. A box of 50 takes much more time to empty with a revolver as it does for a high capacity autoloader. Brand or type of cartridge does not affect function of a revolver other than accuracy. Many autoloaders have a preference for what they eat. You know for sure if the chamber is empty or not and it's virtually impossible to "limp wrist" a revolver. Most new shooters can shoot reasonably well at ranges under ten yards with a fixed sight autoloader, but once the target moves out to 25 yards, revolvers with barrels of 5'' of more tend to be the easiest for them to hit what they are shooting at. Success breeds confidence. Failure breeds frustration and can lead to new shooters giving up.

Good luck with your decision....keep us updated.

 

[CrankyOldGuy]

To take things back to the OP:

1.) A handgun to add to/compliment his existing firearms collection
2.) Only one for the next ten years
3.) Rugged reliability
4.) SHTF usefulness

With the long arms you have you do not need a hunting handgun, any of your long arms is a better hunting weapon than a handgun. We can immediately dismiss the "good hunting caliber" from the argument.

To be honest, the center fire rifle or the shotgun are better defensive weapons then a handgun, also. (The .22 is more for putting food in the pot in a SHTF equation.)

Now, there is the problem...as far as I can tell you don't need a handgun at all...you want one.

And here is where all of the arguments presented earlier fall apart. Since it's a desire rather then a need, you should get what you want.

I choose a handgun based on a specific, well-defined requirement. Concealed carry for example or a BUG to the long guns for hunting or home defense. Each requirement will have a different best answer. No single action or caliber will be best for all.

A wheel gun is great, so is a semi. They do different things best. What do you intend to DO with it?

Any posted suggestion without this answer from you is simple a plug for a personal favorite.

 

[Rmac58]

^^Well a rifle or shotgun requires two hands, and both can be unwieldy.
Don't get me wrong, I do have a shotgun for HD, handguns also.

 

[model of 1905]

To take things back to the OP:

1.) A handgun to add to/compliment his existing firearms collection
2.) Only one for the next ten years
3.) Rugged reliability
4.) SHTF usefulness

With the long arms you have you do not need a hunting handgun, any of your long arms is a better hunting weapon than a handgun. We can immediately dismiss the "good hunting caliber" from the argument.

To be honest, the center fire rifle or the shotgun are better defensive weapons then a handgun, also. (The .22 is more for putting food in the pot in a SHTF equation.)

Now, there is the problem...as far as I can tell you don't need a handgun at all...you want one.

And here is where all of the arguments presented earlier fall apart. Since it's a desire rather then a need, you should get what you want.

I choose a handgun based on a specific, well-defined requirement. Concealed carry for example or a BUG to the long guns for hunting or home defense. Each requirement will have a different best answer. No single action or caliber will be best for all.

A wheel gun is great, so is a semi. They do different things best. What do you intend to DO with it?

Any posted suggestion without this answer from you is simple a plug for a personal favorite.

Pretty astute observation from a cranky old guy that joined yesterday. Nice!

 

[SrDedosRapidos]

I would say autoloader.

If you want a revolver, don't go smith unless you can find one without the internal lock. I happen to have a 629 with the lock and ive only put around 400 rounds through it without failure (luckily), but that internal lock is one more thing that can go wrong, and we all know Mr. Murphy.

I also own a GP100. GREAT gun. A complete blast to shoot with 38's and a force to be reckoned with loaded with .357.

I love my revolvers, but when radioactive zombies start wandering the streets and i step out my door to flaming APC's im grabbing my Sig 225. Higher round capacity, as accurate as my smith and cheaper to feed. Its also WAY easier to clean and maintain.

Just my experience.

Ive also heard that the 9mm and the .357 are ballistically similar (can anyone verify this?)

 

[goon]

... Now, there is the problem...as far as I can tell you don't need a handgun at all...you want one.

And here is where all of the arguments presented earlier fall apart. Since it's a desire rather then a need, you should get what you want.

I choose a handgun based on a specific, well-defined requirement. Concealed carry for example or a BUG to the long guns for hunting or home defense. Each requirement will have a different best answer. No single action or caliber will be best for all.

...

I have to disagree.
IMO, every single one of us needs at least one handgun.
Handguns can be taken places where it's simply not practical or possible to take a long gun.
A long gun is definitely what you'd want to have if you knew you were going to a fight but a handgun is what you probably will have if you ever need to fight. (Based on this, I actually think that it might make a lot of sense to have two of your primary defensive handguns if you can afford it, but that's another discussion. )

Straight from the OP -

I want something that will be reliable in any situation. Something that will be unaffected if it does not get clean for an extended period of time. Something that can function in snowy and wet to dusty and humid conditions. Something that will still function when dropped and thrown around. Something that will last a lifetime.

...

They are very simple in design and to use and the .357 Magnum is very effective and can be used across the board for numerous applications.

Both have there pros and cons. Which would be the better handgun to go with? Which would you rather have if you were allowed only one, for the next 10 years? Which would be the better "do it all" handgun?

I voted for the .357 revolver just because of the versatility. I have no doubt that a Glock 17 would be a very effective gun for defensive use but it isn't as versatile as a .357.
You can make a .357 behave almost like a .22 (with very light .38 loads), or you can make it behave like a 9mm, or you can make it become an ear splitting teeth rattler capable stopping a reasonable sized bear. I figured that since the OP is asking for one handgun that will cover a lot of bases, the .357 is the better choice.

Actually though, I'd step down to a 3" SP-101. Still most of the capability of the GP-100 but in a more conveniently sized package. They also have fixed sights that simply can't get knocked out of adjustment without basically being completely broken off. Although they're small, anyone who handles an SP-101 can quickly see that they are one hell of a stout little gun. They're mild and fun to shoot with .38's and accurate enough for small game hunting if need be, controllable with .38 +P or mild .357's for defense, and able to handle full power .357 if you'd need to press it into service for very close range hunting (I could make a head shot on a deer with mine at 25 yards - no problem).

You're right that this is a shamless plug for my favorite handgun - can't argue with you there. But it just happens to be my favorite handgun because like the OP, I looked long and hard for the best "do-all" handgun I could find. And I truly think the SP-101 is the best I could possibly do in this regard.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Personally I don't like Glocks...but that's just me. That said, I'd say based on your criteria buy the Glock now. As mentioned before they're squarely in the sights of the anti-gunners who just gained power. 9mm is also vastly cheaper and more commonly available by a large amount.

After that, and you have the handgun disease, go buy yourself a nice revolver. Lots of good deals on the used market so no need to spend retail on a new S&W or Ruger.

 

[chauncey]

I've had three handguns fail on me:
1. Taurus 44 special revolver - cylinder locked up
2. Glock 30 - slide spring broke, slide fell off
3. Sig 220 - failure to extract, required factory service

nothing is impervious to failure, even the back-up gun. i ditched the revolver, fixed the other two.

 

[Doc_Jude]

2. Glock 30 - slide spring broke, slide fell off.

So, easy fix?


AND... so when the hell is the OP going to answer ANY questions that have been put forth to him? Or was this yet ANOTHER meaningless poll/comparison?

 

[chauncey]

yeah, easy fix of an underdesigned part, in a pistol with only about 3000 rounds, through it.

 

[firinginfenton]

EVERYONE needs to have a REAL STEEL revolver!
Shoots 38spl for target and fun, 357 mag for hunting and SHTF.

 

[wep45]

S&W 686

 

[2ndamd]

GP100 for all the reasons others have said.

I have owned many Glocks and now own lots of DA .357 magnums and no Glocks.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Citation?

I know this is from the first page of this, but no one talked about it really.

It's pretty widely quoted that the average self defense shooting incident involves less than 5 rounds and lasts 3-5 seconds.

You can find citations for that all over the place. All the self defense books I own say 3-5 seconds/5 or fewer rounds. That's from Ayoob and many many others.

So high capacity, statistically speaking of averages, is not necessary.