Major virtue of a revolver

[GEM]

The police did go to a gun shop in the North Hollywood shoot out. However, the guns were never used.

In my life, I've seen situations with 4 potential bad guys. Luckily, they were resolved with violence. However, the J frame seemed a little low capacity after that. Like I said, the field - fine. Pocket because of circumstance, ok. Choice if free - Glock and a mag.

 

[Miami_JBT]

The police did go to a gun shop in the North Hollywood shoot out. However, the guns were never used.

In my life, I've seen situations with 4 potential bad guys. Luckily, they were resolved with violence. However, the J frame seemed a little low capacity after that. Like I said, the field - fine. Pocket because of circumstance, ok. Choice if free - Glock and a mag.

B&B Gun Shop.

 

[P5 Guy]

The not needing to balance the work of a moving slide, magazine spring and recoil spring to a power level and projectile weight. In other words, one can fire any power level or weight bullet in a revolver, even mix them from butterfly sneeze to roaring fire breathing dragon and not worry about failed extraction.
Some woods walkers like to load a shot load in the revolver for snake encounters. I've never seen 9mm shot rounds, not that I looked for them.

 

[Sistema1927]

To me, the major virtue is the simplicity of the manual of arms. So easy, a caveman can do it."

 

[GRIZ22]

To me, the major virtue is the simplicity of the manual of arms. So easy, a caveman can do it."

Many don't remember those commercials.

 

[Targa]

Ok. I get it. I really don't train. I just enjoy shooting

I’m with you, I just enjoy shooting as well. I’m the guy that takes his time, empties the cylinder and places the spent brass back in the box. .

 

[Tallball]

They're more fun to shoot. I shoot semiautos, too, but all in all I enjoy my revolvers more.

I don't spin them just for fun, but I like hearing and feeling the cylinder turning.

They always point more naturally for me.

I used to practice with them more equally, but I shoot semiautos a lot less than revolvers as I'm getting older and doing as I please.

Ruger GP100 357

• Tallball
• Feb 12, 2023

 

[Derek Zeanah]

B&B Gun Shop.

Yep. My first shotgun came from there waaaaay back when.

 

[Walkalong]

I love revolvers and autos, both can be very accurate, both can break, both have virtues.

 

[bdickens]

Where do you live, and what illegal activities
are you involved in where you are being attacked by a pack of armed bad guys intent on seeing you dead? Newsflash, a 17 rounder isn't going to save your butt either going against several armed attackers intent on killing you. I assure you that you'll run out of ammo before they do, especially being many carry Glocks with 33 round mags and AK/AR pistols.

Internet gun forum Rambo rhetoric aside, most bad guys will run. They are typically only interested in obtaining an inanimate object and aren't interested in a long, drawn-out gun fight with the goal being to put us 6ft under. They only will put forth that effort to kill a rival or someone they have a grudge against. Most, if not all, of us don't even live in or around the drug infested high crime Democrat hellholds that these bad guys live in.

For realistic scenarios I will be in that don't involve taking on armies, drug cartels, and several heavily armed thugs, I think revolvers have a great advantage. Two of those advantages are the ability to fire multiple rounds from the pocket. I can have my hand on my firearm in my pocket at the ready as soon as I perceive a threat without catching a brandishing charge. I can get a shot off first and faster well before a bad guy knows what happened, even if they got the drop on me first. I feel better with a revolver in my had in those situations vs a Glock 17 in a holster.

Next is that many fights and altercations are at bad breath distances and involve a struggle, and even many end up on the ground. With a revolver, I can make contact shots without a malfunction. I can also make multiple shots while in a struggle with a weaker grip on the gun without inducing a limp-wrist malfunction.

Strawman
Bare assertion
Apeal to ridicule
Argument from incredulity
Poisoning the well

Did I miss any?

 

[shoebox1.1]

Not only have I chosen the revolver as my personal defense sidearm, but the Single Action revolver at that. And this a Ruger Blackhawk. Why?

Because it is the firearm with which I am most familiar. Reaching and grasping the butt, my hand naturally curls around the grip, thumb on the hammer, trigger finger near the trigger. My draw is smooth, fast and brings my gun up level, hammer cocked, finger pressing the trigger as the gun comes level. I've practiced this enough, and at times used it with live ammunition. No pistol fits my hand like a Single Action revolver. And, the Ruger does indeed allow six shots to be carried safely. I have carried oldder types with five without any problem.

So, if you can pull your auto pistol with the same speed and accuracy, and its like an extension of your hand, then that sjuits you fine. But, as for me, its this set-up:




Bob Wright

Bob that’s just darn tootin’ good lookin’

 

[Pat Riot]

Revolvers are special to me. I like semiautos, but I love my revolvers.

 

[tws3b2]

There is so much more to a pistol than a revolver. And that's exactly why I stick with my revolver.

 

[Kleanbore]

Where do you live, and what illegal activities
are you involved in where you are being attacked by a pack of armed bad guys intent on seeing you dead?

Why would tht be relevant here?

Newsflash, a 17 rounder isn't going to save your butt either going against several armed attackers intent on killing you.

And five or six round may prove inadequate againts one or two. We have seen cases where twleve were requiired. I don't lke carrying less than eight.

I assure you that you'll run out of ammo before they do, especially being many carry Glocks with 33 round mags and AK/AR pistols.

Do you think that that is a meaningful measure of merit?

Internet gun forum Rambo rhetoric aside, most bad guys will run

What about those who will not?

They are typically only interested in obtaining an inanimate object and aren't interested in a long, drawn-out gun fight with the goal being to put us 6ft under. They only will put forth that effort to kill a rival or someone they have a grudge against.

Does that come from credible research on crime and vioence, or are you projecting somehing from your imagination?

Most, if not all, of us don't even live in or around the drug infested high crime [deleted] hellholds that these bad guys live in.

How could that influence what we would have to do to defend ourselves?

Knock off the politics.

Two of those advantages are the ability to fire multiple rounds from the pocket.

Do you really think that you could hit a fast-charging attacker several times effecively while firing from your pocket?

 

[Styx]

Why would tht be relevant here?

Because threat level and lifestyle are relevant. What I would carry as L.E., a drug dealer, gang member, or if I knew someone was out to kill me, or if I lived in a Chicago ghetto would be different than what I would carry where I currently live.

And five or six round may prove inadequate againts one or two. We have seen cases where twleve were requiired. I don't lke carrying less than eight.

You most likely seen cases where 12 were fired. Revolvers have been in use and carried by civilians for over a century till this very day. During that time, multiple attackers existed. During much of that time, semiauto handguns existed in single and double stack. With that said, cite a self-defense situation where someone was found dead next to their empty revolver.

Do you think that that is a meaningful measure of merit?

Yes, I believe it's a logical conclusion and "meaningful measure of merit. Why else would I have meaned it?

What about those who will not?

You cherrypick a sentence out. Refer to the rest of the paragraph and everything else I wrote.

Does that come from credible research on crime and vioence, or are you projecting somehing from your imagination?

It comes from common sense and my lifetime of seeing real-life crimes reported and discussed in depth on firearm forums, local news, national news, and caught on video. I don't recall criminals getting what they came for, not being detained, and sticking around to stay in a gun fight to go above and beyond to kill a stranger. I've seen them kill someone they've robbed who had already surrendered, but I have never seen them have what they came for and stick around to stay in a gun fight with an armed citizen. I've always seen them flee in these situations. I can post examples of the latter.

How could that influence what we would have to do to defend ourselves?

Knock off the politics.

It's not politically. It's a fact. Most high crime areas where most of the shootings, robberies, murders, etc happen happen in states and cities ran by Democrats. It's because they're soft of crime and often catch and release. It is only logical and common sense for the crime rate and threat level in one's environment to influence the level of protection they would need.

Do you really think that you could hit a fast-charging attacker several times effecively while firing from your pocket?

I've seen cases where officers were stabbed by a charging attacker before the could draw and get a shot off FYI. I believe that I can get hits on a fast-charging attacker while firing from the pocket, whereas I might not have the time to draw and get the gun up in time otherwise. If I have time to draw, I have the option to draw. In either case, with a revolver in the pocket, I have more options.

 

[Kleanbore]

Because threat level and lifestyle are relevant. What I would carry as L.E., a drug dealer, gang member, or if I knew someone was out to kill me, or if I lived in a Chicago ghetto would be different than what I would carry where I currently live.

What would be required to handle a deadly force threat, should it occur, is not a funciton the likelihood of occurrence assessed beforehand.

That is a fundamental precept of risk management.

Revolvers have been in use and carried by civilians for over a century till this very day.

What might that have to do with anything?

I believe that I can get hits on a fast-charging attacker while firing from the pocket, whereas I might not have the time to draw and get the gun up in time otherwise.

Have you tried that isn any realistic exercises? Hitting a srather small fast moving target from a pocket?

whereas I might not have the time to draw and get the gun up in time otherwise. If I have time to draw, I have the option to draw.

Many people have a greaat idea of trouvle sdeawing and mking even a single hit on an assailant moving from 21 feet. Try it several times with different attackers.

 

[ChiefTJS]

I have never taken a revolver to the range only to find I left the magazines at home. Major benefit to a revolver.

 

[Kleanbore]

There are numerous advantages to revolvers. Most of them have been mentioned here.

I generally prefer revolvers for recreational shooting.

My preference is a medium-frame double action in .38 Special--Colt, Ruger or Smith, almost equally. On someone else's nickel, I'm sure I would like a Korth or Manurhin.

One exception: I prefer .22 semiautos over revolvers. And I do really like a Colt .45 God Cup.

If necessary, I would certainly use a revolver for self defense.

I have found, however, that I can do better in defensive shooting drills with a semiautomatic, but I realize that that is not true for some people.

For SD, I prefer higher capacity.

For all-day concealed carry, I find a single-column semi auto much more comfortable than a revolver, and than a service-sized double column semiauto., for that matter.

I really like my five inch 686+ and its El Paso Saddlery Tom Threeperson's holster, but I cannot conceal it well.

I have a Kimber K6s. Every so often, problems with a bone spur recur and prevent me from racking a slide for a while. That's where the Kimber comes in. The new Colt six-shooters with their excellent triggers were not available when I bought it.

 

[mcb]

If your not using moonclips you're not using your revolver right. Moonclips rule!

 

[Styx]

What would be required to handle a deadly force threat, should it occur, is not a funciton the likelihood of occurrence assessed beforehand.

That is a fundamental precept of risk management.

I disagree and believe you're wrong.

What might that have to do with anything?

If you stop cherrypicking one sentence as a way to find something to argue about while completely disregarding the context, you wouldn't have to ask. It matters because people have been carrying revolvers for over a century. During most of that time, multiple attackers and semiautos existed. Where are all the examples of revolvers owners being found dead next to empty revolvers?

You noticed how I've answered your questions, but you ignore mine? It's like we aren't having a real discussion, but rather, you're only responding to be argumentative. You're simply cherrypicking and quoting a sentence at a time while purposely ignoring the context and the entire point I'm trying to make.

Have you tried that isn any realistic exercises? Hitting a srather small fast moving target from a pocket?

A human sized target coming straight at me isn't that small of a target to hit. Since you believe it's an impossible or improbable feat, their are many examples on YouTube. In any event, I like make chances as apposed to being a sitting duck.

Many people have a greaat idea of trouvle sdeawing and mking even a single hit on an assailant moving from 21 feet. Try it several times with different attackers.

Please spell check. Obviously someone charging at me will be closing the distance. It's a situation of just allowing myself to be stabbed or attacked or getting a shot off in from the pocket in this scenario. My choices are binary. If I have the option to fully draw or to create distance and draw, I will.

Other scenarios are if a robber or attacker is close and NOT charging running in a zigzag pattern from 21 feet away. I can get shots off before they can react, and without having to clear my cover garment, reach, and draw first. I'm sure you'll find a reason to argue against this too, so I'll wait for it....

 

[Kleanbore]

I disagree and believe you're wrong.

Well, I'm not wrong. Risk management was my profession. I performed it, tsught it, wrote prcedures for it, and discussed it with auditors, attorneys. and regulatory agencies.

This issue has been discussed hare many times. "If I'm only going to get milk".... When it happens, the likelihood doesn't matter.

A human sized target coming straight at me isn't that small of a target to hit.

Your target is not "human sized". To effect a timely stop, you will want to make several hits in an area the size of, say, the upper chest. And you will have very little time to do it.

It's a situation of just allowing myself to be stabbed or attacked or getting a shot off in from the pocket in this scenario.

How much have you practiced shooting from a pocket?

Look: many people find it a tough challenge to hit the upper of a chest of a target moving at, say, five meters per second when using sights.

As I and others have said, there are many "virtues" of a revolver. I prefer one, except for defensive carry. For some people, and in some circumstances, revolvers are the most practical choice for self defense. But realistically, the semi-auto is usually the better choice for that purpose.

To test that, avail yourself of some really good defensive shooting training.

And if you intend to practice shooting from a pocket, do be sure that the materials of you clothing are not flammable, and that your body is shielded from the jet from the barrel-cylinder gap.

 

[Kleanbore]

One more that just occurred to me: I think the modern DA revolver, or a break-open revolver, is inherently just a bit safer than other handguns.

It is extremely easy to unload. There cannot be a cartridge left in the chamber.

When it is open, everyone can see from a distance that it is safe.

Not having to rack a slide should reduce the risk of someone's inadvertently sweeping others.

These advantages are important, I think, and they make the swing-open or break-open revolver the handgun of choice when shooting at an informal range on private property.

 

[Styx]

There are numerous advantages to revolvers. Most of them have been mentioned here.

What makes you think that?

I generally prefer revolvers for recreational shooting.

So you don't believe revolvers are useful for non-recreational shooting.

For all-day concealed carry, I find a single-column semi auto much more comfortable than a revolver, and than a service-sized double column semiauto., for that matter.

Have you tried all different types of holsters and all carry methods? I suggest you try all types of holsters that's on the market before making that claim.

I really like my five inch 686+ and its El Paso Saddlery Tom Threeperson's holster, but I cannot conceal it well.

Then change how you dress.

I have a Kimber K6s. Every so often, problems with a bone spur recur and prevent me from racking a slide for a while. That's where the Kimber comes in. The new Colt six-shooters with their excellent triggers.....

What does Colt have to do with anything?

 

[Styx]

One more that just occurred to me: I think the modern DA revolver, or a break-open revolver, is inherently just a bit safer than other handguns.

Based on what? Your imagination?

It is extremely easy to unload. There cannot be a cartridge left in the chamber.

A semiauto doesn't have to be unloaded.

When it is open, everyone can see from a distance that it is safe.

What does that matter? You can see semiauto that's locked back without a magazine is unloaded and/or a flag is safe too.

Not having to rack a slide should reduce the risk of someone's inadvertently sweeping others.

So can simply not pointing the muzzle at others and the gun in a safe distance.

These advantages are important, I think, and they make the swing-open or break-open revolver the handgun of choice when shooting at an informal range on private property.

Based on your opinion only and not fact.

 

[Kleanbore]

What makes you think that?

I should have said "many".

Have you tried all different types of holsters and all carry methods? I suggest you try all types of holsters that's on the market before making that claim.

The claim is "for all-day concealed carry, I find a single-column semi auto much more comfortable than a revolver, and than a service-sized double column semiauto, for that matter."

I have tried a number of handguns and a number of holsters, but of course my opinion is personal.

I carry an EZ9, OWB, all day. It is light and thin and easy to conceal. It is cnduciive to drawing quickly., it has a good trigger pull, good sights, and capacity on the low end of my preference. The type of OWB holster that I use spreads the load--loads, in all axes--which contributes to comfort.

Many here have chosen different defensive pistols--the P365, for example--and different holsters. Fine. One carries a Glock. except when dress requirements lead him to carry a six-shot .32 J-Frame.

Then change how you dress.

Do you think I should wear a long topcoat all day? How would you dress to conceal an L-Frame revolver with a five inch barrel?

NO!

What does Colt have to do with anything?

Colt now sells a six shot snub with an excellent trigger pull, which is what I wanted.

Based on what? Your imagination?

A rather simple, basic human factors engineering analysis. Or, one could try using common sense.

A semiauto doesn't have to be unloaded.

What????

I am trying to rationally discuss pros and cons for different purposes as I see them, allowing for differences in people's needs and abilities, etc.. I have undertaken enough defensive training to know what has worked best for me in the drills. You seem intent upon arguing for the sake of argument. I would never suggest that anyone change how one dresses unless I thought it helpful.

I know many people sho carry revolvers for defense, but the preponderance of informed opinion today is that there are better choices.

How is your quest for training going?

Let's remember that there is a lot more to handguns than concealed carry and defensive shooting. In my opinion, it is in those areas where the revolver really shines.

I would suggest that we concentrate our discussion on those.