Massad Ayoob: "Are revolvers still relevant?"

What about the non-typical?

So many people seem so convinced that all they will be expected to have to deal with, is close range, "typical" things, with a very narrow scope of skills necessary, and even then, most are still woefully unprepared to deal with just that.

The whole point of being prepared is to "be prepared", at least to the best of your abilities. And this isnt about preparing for the easiest things, that you might do well at, and what youre always told to expect, its about working on all the hard stuff, so you actually gain some skill and confidence and, so Todd forbid, you might actually be the one that gets the "non-typical", you at least have a chance to maybe come out OK on the other side.

And either typical, or non-typical, youre still going to be lightyears ahead of those who think all they need to do, is pop a gun in their pocket, and consider themselves, armed.
 
If you accept the premise that the purpose of a defensive handgun is to simply allow you to break contact with your attacker, that most gunfights are settled with three or fewer rounds, that the .38 was perfectly viable as an effective handgun cartridge for many decades, and that consistently carrying a particular firearm is often dependent on convenience, then an ultra lightweight 5 shot hammerless revolver that fits in virtually any pocket is not only pertinent but even the preferred solution for many under most circumstances. And then there's the comforting feeling of a .44 magnum on your hip when you're walking through the woods....
 
Tallball said:
"Reloading any handgun during a fight is statistically not a thing."


Yep. Unfortunately, most of us know quite a few people who have been mugged or sexually assaulted.

I guarantee that none of those cases involved someone opening fire on the victim from 25 yards away with a handgun, and then a gun battle ensued that consumed dozens of rounds. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Someone is going to grab you by the throat as you walk around a corner and start beating the snot out of you. That's how assault works.

I keep myself aware and armed (mostly aware) so that is unlikely to happen to me. Here are some things more important to me than a 15-round magazine:

Paying attention and not looking at my phone are the two most important things. I wear work boots or hiking boots because I'm harder to knock down and they are useful for kicking or stomping. A fixed-blade knife is faster than any reload and is helpful when encouraging others to bleed faster. My dog cost $35 at the pound (how much is your life worth?). He is around 120 pounds now. He's almost impossible to surprise, and no one who sees him is going to seriously consider assaulting me. Those things are all much more useful than two extra 15-round mags, IMHO.

It's great if you enjoy shooting competitions. They look really fun. I'm sure they're good training for LEO and military. Fast reloading is an interesting skill. Unfortunately, most of it seems irrelevant for civilians trying to protect themselves from typical violent crimes.
Click to expand...
too bad there is no "double like" button! Good advise when at school, hospital, state or federal building, or any establishment that deprives one of their right to carry.

stay yellow,

murf
 
P89DCSS said:
Within the first minute he says revolvers aren't obsolete then it turns into a CZ revolver advertisement. I made it two minutes before turning it off. Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was really surprised to see a free corporate sponsored video push the corporation's product. Couldn't have seen that one coming.

Yes, you missed it. The bulk of the video explained several advantages to revolvers.

I think if your only interest in a handgun is for defensive purposes, and you're willing to understand how your semi-auto works, a semi-auto is for you.

If you had one handgun for hunting, target practice, and self defense, the revolver has some advantages. A 357 is probably the most versatile handgun there is. It cycles anything from heavy hunting loads, to self defense, to wadcutters, to primer fired rubber bullets. You can dry fire it without having to rack the slide. You clear a malfunction by pulling the trigger again. You don't have to field strip it to clean it.

Someone pointed out that you can lock up a revolver by grabbing the cylinder in a fight. Sure, and you can push a semi auto out of battery, too.

The long heavy trigger can be a disadvantage, but it's no worse than double action only autos.

The disadvantages are that it's a pain to detail strip, low capacity, slow to reload, bulky. None of that matters in hunting. None of it matters in target shooting. There's just one specific use in which the disadvantages make a difference- self defense. And even then, it's only a difference in a specific set of circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes carry a Colt Detective Special -- for example, at the gym, when my regular M1911 would be too obvious. And I often carry a Colt New Service in the woods. But if I could only have one handgun, it would be an M1911 with a .22 conversion kit.
 
upptick said:
If you accept the premise that the purpose of a defensive handgun is to simply allow you to break contact with your attacker, that most gunfights are settled with three or fewer rounds, that the .38 was perfectly viable as an effective handgun cartridge for many decades, and that consistently carrying a particular firearm is often dependent on convenience, then an ultra lightweight 5 shot hammerless revolver that fits in virtually any pocket is not only pertinent but even the preferred solution for many under most circumstances. And then there's the comforting feeling of a .44 magnum on your hip when you're walking through the woods....
Click to expand...

Yep and in town the .38 J-frame is easily concealed where in the woods one can just as well open carry the big .44! However, there are some "animals" in the city where one might just desire a .44 if confronted.
 
35 Whelen said:
Most shooters simply rely on, or plan to rely on volume of fire rather than learning to shoot accurately.
Click to expand...
That indicates a lack of understanding of defensive shooing.

The realities are (1) that to have a reasonable chance of stopping an attacker by hitting something vital, several hits may well be needed, and (2) there will be little time in which to score those hits.

That's where "volume" comes in. It does no imply a lack of accuracy, but it does demand a balance of speed and precision.
 
I’d like to point out that Mas answered the question “are they still relevant today” which is a very specific question, not interchangeable with “should everyone carry one today.” He outlined a few use-cases where they’re very good, such as learning trigger control, for some new shooters where the simple manual of arms is appreciated, for load flexibility and for reloaders, etc. Therefore by definition they’re not irrelevant and outmoded as such.

As someone who is shooting more revolvers these days I did appreciate the video, though I found the comments frustrating because everybody hears some praise and either immediately reacts with “no, revolvers are outdated” or “yes, revolvers are the best.” He said neither. There are definitely distinctions that need to be made. As a firearm for frugal private civilian usage, where someone is reloading, needs great load flexibility, wants to use the same firearm for training, practice, recreation, hunting, etc, a revolver has some serious advantages to recommend it. As a duty weapon it has some undeniable drawbacks compared to the autoloaders available today.
 
wayneinFL said:
Yeah, I was really surprised to see a free corporate sponsored video push the corporation's product. Couldn't have seen that one coming.....
Click to expand...
When it comes to free YouTube videos, the old line about "you get what you paid" for has never been more relevant. Rehashed revolver points from a blow hard fits YouTube perfectly.
 
upptick said:
If you accept the premise that the purpose of a defensive handgun is to simply allow you to break contact with your attacker,
that most gunfights are settled with three or fewer rounds,
that the .38 was perfectly viable as an effective handgun cartridge for many decades,
and that consistently carrying a particular firearm is often dependent on convenience,
then an ultra lightweight 5 shot hammerless revolver that fits in virtually any pocket
is not only pertinent but even the preferred solution for many under most circumstances.
Click to expand...

I don't. Attacker(s) may have goals other than breaking contact.
I've seen multiple incidents where 5 hits failed to quickly incapacitate a single attacker.
There are .38 Special loads that can penetrate at least 12'' and consistently expand; the shortcoming is capacity.
There is the truth for some; others are able & willing to wear a holster on belt.
BINGO. Being able to put it in pocket and not have to "dress around" a gun is why many select a snub, they just don't easily admit it. (Like you did)
As you said, it is preferred for convenience of carry; not because it is actually the handgun* they would prefer in hand to defend themself, IMO.

Sig 365, Hellcat or Glock 26 versus Snub: The snub is easy to carry in pocket; the Sig 365, Hellcat or Glock 26 is more advantageous otherwise.
Also, a handgun in pocket is slower to draw versus one on belt, if time starts with hand out of pocket; but, that is 2nd fiddle to convenience. amiright.

*A shotgun or rifle might be preferred but it is not easily concealed in shorts & shirt, lots of 11+ round handguns are. (For those that don't find it inconvenient)
 
Interesting thread. I've only had one encounter where ANY gun would have been helpful. This being NJ, a CCW was, at that time, a pipe dream. Had I had a gun he might have run away and things might have ended differently.
 
P89DCSS said:
When it comes to free YouTube videos, the old line about "you get what you paid" for has never been more relevant. Rehashed revolver points from a blow hard fits YouTube perfectly.
Click to expand...
That he is
 
jeepnik said:
Seems to me Mas has never been in a fire fight.

I’d rather follow Bill Jordan’s advice.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why so many people act like his word and opinions are gospel and that he knows it all. Then quote his opinion on a subject during a debate as if because he thinks it true, it's certified fact.
 
Revolvers are NOT obsolete. To be obsolete would mean they were replaced and/or no longer useful. Semiautos aren't a replacement for revolvers because revolvers have several useful benefits that semiautos don't have.
  1. Revolvers can be fired from the pocket. You can even have a revolver trained on a perceived threat ahead of time without being at risk of a brandishing charge.
  2. They can be fired via contact shots without malfunctioning.
  3. Someone mentioned that you can grab the cylinder of a revolver to stop it from indexing to fire the next round, but it's much, much more problematic and probable to knock a semiauto out of battery. You can even introduce a jam while doing so which will require physically pushing the slide back into battery and/or clearing a jam during a self defense situation with a two or four legged create. With a revolver, you're good to immediately fire a round without having to take any other steps after contact with the cylinder is broken.
  4. Revolvers aren't ammo sensitive therefore you could fire light or heavy ammo without having to worry about malfunctions or playing with recoil spring weights. Revolvers are also less likely to jam or requires extraction of a bad round during a life threatening situation.
  5. Revolvers are limp wrist proof. Whether you're in an altercation, have weak grip strength, are injured, etc, a revolver can still be fired without malfunctioning on the next shots.
  6. Revolvers are generally much more reliable than semiautos and have far less points of failure from the ammo, extractor, recoil spring, magazine, feed ramp, proper grip, not riding the slide or inadvertently hitting the slide stop or mag release, etc all having to be perfect and align on each and every shot to avoid having a malfunction.
  7. IMHO, revolver conceal better. The frame and overall profile of a revolver is much thinner than semiautos, and revolvers don't have the footprint of what most would recognize as a handgun if it printed irregardless of the width of the cylinder.
As far as I know, all of the aforementioned points I've mentioned are still valuable, usable, and haven't been surpassed or replaced by the use of semiauto handguns. Until that changes and as long as revolvers still have pros (and not only cons) vs semiautos, revolvers won't be obsolete.
 
CDW4ME said:
Being able to put it in pocket and not have to "dress around" a gun is why many select a snub, they just don't easily admit it...

Sig 365, Hellcat or Glock 26 versus Snub: The snub is easy to carry in pocket; the Sig 365, Hellcat or Glock 26 is more advantageous otherwise.
Click to expand...
Umm, last I checked the Hellcat and P365 are slightly smaller, and can also just as easily be pocket carried. You're assertions people are choosing J-frames over micro 9mm or even 380acp semiautos ONLY because they can pocket carry J-frames and then going on to accuse them of being dishonest about it when they tell you that's that the case is completely wrong on your part.
sNWWyYv.jpg
 
Last edited:
Styx said:
Revolvers are NOT obsolete. To be obsolete would mean they were replaced and/or no longer useful. Semiautos aren't a replacement for revolvers because revolvers have several useful benefits that semiautos don't have.
  1. Revolvers can be fired from the pocket. You can even have a revolver trained on a perceived threat ahead of time without being at risk of a brandishing charge.
  2. They can be fired via contact shots without malfunctioning.
  3. Someone mentioned that you can grab the cylinder of a revolver to stop it from indexing to fire the next round, but it's much, much more problematic and probable to knock a semiauto out of battery. You can even introduce a jam while doing so which will require physically pushing the slide back into battery and/or clearing a jam during a self defense situation with a two or four legged create. With a revolver, you're good to immediately fire a round without having to take any other steps after contact with the cylinder is broken.
  4. Revolvers aren't ammo sensitive therefore you could fire light or heavy ammo without having to worry about malfunctions or playing with recoil spring weights. Revolvers are also less likely to jam or requires extraction of a bad round during a life threatening situation.
  5. Revolvers are limp wrist proof. Whether you're in an altercation, have weak grip strength, are injured, etc, a revolver can still be fired without malfunctioning on the next shots.
  6. Revolvers are generally much more reliable than semiautos and have far less points of failure from the ammo, extractor, recoil spring, magazine, feed ramp, proper grip, not riding the slide or inadvertently hitting the slide stop or mag release, etc all having to be perfect and align on each and every shot to avoid having a malfunction.
  7. IMHO, revolver conceal better. The frame and overall profile of a revolver is much thinner than semiautos, and revolvers don't have the footprint of what most would recognize as a handgun if it printed irregardless of the width of the cylinder.
As far as I know, all of the aforementioned points I've mentioned are still valuable, usable, and haven't been surpassed or replaced by the use of semiauto handguns. Until that changes and as long as revolvers still have pros (and not only cons) vs semiautos, revolvers won't be obsolete.
Click to expand...

I am with you 100 percent but for point 7. It seems to me the one disadvantage of pocket carry with a revolver is the cylinder is generally fatter than most comparable sized semi-autos. Also the cylinder is inline with the barrel which makes the barrel and top of the frame tend to cant out away from your leg. Nonetheless, I carry a revolver as my primary and a semi-auto as my BUG. I have to be careful how I carry the semi as a couple times I found the magazine loose from the button being bumped in my pocket.
 
Styx said:
Revolvers are NOT obsolete. To be obsolete would mean they were replaced and/or no longer useful. Semiautos aren't a replacement for revolvers because revolvers have several useful benefits that semiautos don't have.
  1. Revolvers can be fired from the pocket. You can even have a revolver trained on a perceived threat ahead of time without being at risk of a brandishing charge.
  2. They can be fired via contact shots without malfunctioning.
  3. Someone mentioned that you can grab the cylinder of a revolver to stop it from indexing to fire the next round, but it's much, much more problematic and probable to knock a semiauto out of battery. You can even introduce a jam while doing so which will require physically pushing the slide back into battery and/or clearing a jam during a self defense situation with a two or four legged create. With a revolver, you're good to immediately fire a round without having to take any other steps after contact with the cylinder is broken.
  4. Revolvers aren't ammo sensitive therefore you could fire light or heavy ammo without having to worry about malfunctions or playing with recoil spring weights. Revolvers are also less likely to jam or requires extraction of a bad round during a life threatening situation.
  5. Revolvers are limp wrist proof. Whether you're in an altercation, have weak grip strength, are injured, etc, a revolver can still be fired without malfunctioning on the next shots.
  6. Revolvers are generally much more reliable than semiautos and have far less points of failure from the ammo, extractor, recoil spring, magazine, feed ramp, proper grip, not riding the slide or inadvertently hitting the slide stop or mag release, etc all having to be perfect and align on each and every shot to avoid having a malfunction.
  7. IMHO, revolver conceal better. The frame and overall profile of a revolver is much thinner than semiautos, and revolvers don't have the footprint of what most would recognize as a handgun if it printed irregardless of the width of the cylinder.
As far as I know, all of the aforementioned points I've mentioned are still valuable, usable, and haven't been surpassed or replaced by the use of semiauto handguns. Until that changes and as long as revolvers still have pros (and not only cons) vs semiautos, revolvers won't be obsolete.
Click to expand...

Context matters. Many of you points are valid and have bearing several possible handgun applications. But they also are over shadowed by other factors in some applications.

As a military side arm the revolver are obsolete. It could be the poster child for the word obsolete in the dictionary.

As a LEO side arms the are obsolete except for the niches like the BUG application.

As a hunting handgun they are still the dominate configuration for many handgun hunters.

Context matters.

I will take issue with point 6. With quality handguns from reputable makers the failure rate is so vanishing low with both semi-autos and revolvers that as far as picking a CCW weapon, reliability is at best a secondary if not a tertiary consideration when selecting a sidearm. Once tested past the infantile failure point I would trust a Glock, SIG, S&W, Ruger etc, revolver or semi auto with the same confidence. In the many tens of thousands of round I fire in USPSA and IDPA competition I can count the number of gun dead mechanical failures of my revolvers and semi-autos on one hand for each. Buy quality and reliability is a non issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Massad Ayoob on short barrels vs long barrels
Replies
11
Views
2K
Valkman
Valkman
L
  • Locked
MAG-40 Massad Ayoob School
Replies
2
Views
207
bikerdoc
bikerdoc
S
  • Locked
articles by Massad Ayoob
Replies
5
Views
1K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
T
  • Locked
Massad Ayoob?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
10K
Japle
Japle
F
  • Locked
"Combat Shooting" by Massad Ayoob
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
4K
rwilson37643
R
Back
Top