Best combat revolver?

[yarply]

Well brian, thanks for your statement but I have had gunsmiths and competition shooters tell otherwise. Plus it definitely explained to me why my 2 year old 45 which I always leave loaded was having feed issues until I bought new ones.
I will use your statement to re-question them about it though.

 

[rswartsell]

I believe Brian's right on that one.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

My life rests on an S&W M686 7-shooter with a 3-inch barrel. Great combat hangun, even if a hint heavy.......

 

[yarply]

I believe Brian's right on that one.

He may be right. I failed to mention that I have had others tell me the same as he did. Of course I was also told it was recommended to replace normally kept loaded clips and clips that are used regularly about every 6 months and my clips were the ones that came with the gun. (So that everything is kept fresh, ready and reliable.) True? false? It made sense to me. I fell into the better safe than sorry area. And went out and bought a revolver where the issue is a non issue. Now I keep it loaded but keep my semi's unloaded. Thanks guys I will definitely keep this in mind in any future post and will put a,lol, disclaimer that this is a debated issue. lol...

 

[madstabber]

the s&w 627 pro series because of the great trigger 4 inch barrel is perfect length and 8-shots. not to mention great sights, grip, and stainless steel so it can take the abuse and lack of cleaning encountered in combat situations.

 

[JShirley]

Sharps,

My statement was technically and historically accurate. Machining 6 or more chambers vs. 1, timing issues, an open system...the revolver is unsuited for genuine combat.

John

 

[rswartsell]

George Patton carried revolvers into "combat",

At least as iconic props (if you believe the movie he at least shot a jackass with one). One as we all know was a Smith Registered Magnum (his "killing" gun). Bet he would have been thrilled with a no lock 686+ for it's equal cartridge power, greater "firepower" and handier platform.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I'm always amazed at how a tool that has worked in a designated role for over 100 years can all of a sudden not function in that role (revolver in combat). Prolonged pistol fighting in real combat? I think the weapon (revolver or auto) will survive longer than the users. If I were a soldier in the heat of a modern battle (Iraq or Afghanistan), and forced to use a pistol against enemy with rifles, etc, I think I had better quickly shoot an enemy, and get my hands on a rifle. If six or so shots doesn't do it, I am already in trouble, aren't I? I really don't think it matters, revolver or auto, both are on the weak and inefficient side, but MAY get you into a better weapon, or safer place. For what it's worth, I think my stainless Ruger Sheriff's Model .44 Special would stand up to combat conditions, with reasonable care and maintenance, as well as a Beretta M9, and maybe even a Colt 1911 or Glock. Shy of willful neglect or freak damage, I think it can function with the best.

 

[Hawk]

Best combat revolver?


Whoever said "oxymoron" nailed it.

They're plenty adequate but arguing over which is "best" is akin to taking sides in the "buggy whip wars".

Before anybody piles on, please note the "They're plenty adequate" part.

 

[rswartsell]

Did you miss #167?

Thanks anyway for informing all of us that revolvers are poor primary military weapons (again).

 

[yarply]

But a revolver is just a tool and different tools have different advantages that some find desirable. As backup. Or in that rare or not so rare time you get sent down a hole to see if anyone is at the end of it.
A pistol is the proper tool for this situation so it is the desired weapon for combat. Now may be the time to debate a semi over a revolver or vice versa.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sharps,

My statement was technically and historically accurate. Machining 6 or more chambers vs. 1, timing issues, an open system...the revolver is unsuited for genuine combat.

John

Best go check what chopper pilots carried in Vietnam. Even after Vietnam revolvers were issued for quite a while. And tunnel rats used .38s as well as 1911 .45s.

Now that does not mean revolvers are good as primary armament. In fact I don't think any handgun is good for primary armament!

And it does not mean a simi-auto fails to outclass a revolver. It does on most issues past the first six rounds, but for a secondary weapon to be carried a well thought out revolver is not at all bad. It's only when you expect the handgun to be more than just a close range defensive weapon on the battlefield do you run into problems.

Deaf

 

[clance]

Rhino 20DS , 357Mag, 2" barrel, 6 shots, Single & double action, 25 oz.




Comparison to S&W 640.

I own one and just love it. Little to no muzzle flip with .357s, .38 +P are like shooting a 22LR. Accuracy out of a 2" inch is very good.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

1. S&W Model 610

2. S&W Model 57 or 58

3. S&W Model 25-2

4. S&W Model 29

5. Colt New Service in 44-40

 

[yarply]

I have a 200DS and it is sweet... So what is the difference between the 20DS and The 200?

 

[yarply]

1. S&W Model 610

2. S&W Model 57 or 58

3. S&W Model 25-2

4. S&W Model 29

5. Colt New Service in 44-40

I wonder if the 410 pistols will ever make it on a preferred list. I almost bought one. The S&W Governor. A rather versatile weapon to say the least.

 

[JShirley]

Deaf,

You're talking about someone flying a system armed with (at a minimum) crew-served machine guns. Pilots needed a smaller, lighter sidearm than the 1911a1. It was better than a dirty look. Barely.

Among many other issues, reload complexity and speed dictate the revolver- while capable of killing- is unsuited as even a serious backup.

Using Gen Patton as an example is just silly. He also had himself driven in a luxury car a lot of the time- perhaps a Cadillac Model 75 with sirens would have been good soldier transport around European battlefields instead of Jeeps and trucks?

John

 

[ofitg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker1911
1917 Smith and Wesson in .45acp. Full moon clips, please.

Agreed!

I'll go along with that.... I wouldn't sneeze at a clip-loaded .357 or 9mm revolver either.

 

[cane]

A long time ago, I was issued a S&W M-15, it was light weight, very accurate, and easy to shoot, as are most K frames. I really liked it, until one night when I tried to reload it in the dark with wet hands, and loose cartridges. Went and drew a 1911 the next day.

 

[CraigC]

I didn't realize that the term "combat" was exclusive to military applications.

 

[JShirley]

It would be "defensive" or "police" otherwise.

John

 

[rswartsell]

JShirley,

My tounge was firmly planted in my cheek in invoking Patton, catch that part about the jackass? Lighten up man!

 

[rswartsell]

BTW JShirley,

Pilot sidearms have not one thing to do with the armament of the aircraft. They are contemplated for downed pilot scenarios during escape and evade. IMHO it's just plain silly that you thought a pilot would have the collective in one hand and the model 15 in the other whooping and shooting out the side door.

 

[rswartsell]

Things devolve quickly if we start getting a bit too literal with each other and trying to tamp down everything that strikes you as just plain silly.

 

[Claude Clay]

if did not have, and am very happy with, a S&W M60 Pro 3" than id vote the M65 in 3".
the Pro carries 158 gr +P LSWC's though it is a 357. with arthritis i load what i shot best.

the S&W 332 2" ties 2nd place with a 642 loaded with 158gr LSWC's