Single vs Double action

[thetoad45]

First off I like all handguns but revolvers are my favorite. I have owned many over the decades but at the moment all I have is a Taurus 65 in .357 magnum. It seems to be a solid no frills gun. Works good.
Awhile back I decided I would like another handgun. I have read ALL of the "survivalist" sites and while most appear to lean towards semi auto guns I am still, and alway will be, a revolver fan. Some of the concerns brought up by the semi auto crowd was that the revolver is too fragile. One guy said a good drop could mess up the timing of the cylinder. I suppose an argument could be made for that point of view. But when one compares a double action and single action revolver is there one that could be considered more "sturdy" than the other? I have owned Ruger single actions in the past and "stout" would be an understatement. The double action Smiths, Colts and Taurus revolvers I have owned in the past all seemed robust. These are not combat guns and comparing them that way is a bit unfair in my opinion. I look at a revolver as a basic defensive type of tool. I have decided my next gun will again be another .357 magnum due to the fact that I have one already and also a rifle in the same caliber and tons of reloading equipment and components. But I am wondering which to buy. Another double or a single action. (I am unconcered with reloading speed. I know that always comes up) I am more interested in opinions on design. Thank you..

 

[roaddog28]

Hi,
I will put my money on a revolver anytime versus a semi-auto for a survival gun. As far as DA versus SA. A single action would be the simplest and most reliable handgun to have. And a Ruger Blackhawk in my opinion would be the best. If a person wants a DA/SA revolver then I would still go Ruger. Any of their DA/SA revolvers can be field strip with almost no tools and are simple to work on. Its up to you on which one you prefer.

1. Single action: Blackhawk
2. Double action/Single action: GP100, Redhawk and Security Six.

Good luck,
Howard

 

[tinygnat219]

A revolver is a good choice for a "survival" gun. As they are typically able to handle stouter loads, there's no need to worry about whether the action will cycle with your load, and no silly magazines to worry about. However, I have some reservations about them that'll make me choose a bottom feeder over a revolver 100 times out of 100: Capacity and size. I have a 610 S&W Revolver that I love. It's a gun that makes me giggle with glee anytime I shoot it. Full power 10MM loads are easily handled. The ability to shoot .40 S&W with the moon clips is also appealing. It's never failed me.

However, for the same size and weight, I can carry a Glock 20 with almost 3 times the ammunition in an easier package to conceal. Throw in 2-3 magazines and I've got between 30-45 rounds immediately available. I can also carry a spare barrel for .40 S&W and use the same magazines. With a simple barrel swap I have another gun.

Granted, if you are looking for something more powerful than 10MM, the revolver is essentially your only choice unless you want one of those silly looking Desert Eagle guns and the whole carry / capacity argument goes out the window for the auto.

In short, if you are packing in the woods for a "survival" gun, minimum caliber I'd choose is a 4 inch .357 TDA Magnum. It's light enough to carry, good ammo is easy to find, and the 4 inch barrel provides enough sight radius for longer range shots, and won't poke the back of your knee if carried in a wierd manner.

 

[MachIVshooter]

There are benefits and detractors to the revolver for these purposes. The upside is that they are generally more reliable (though quality autoloaders have virtually 100% reliability these days). The down side? When a revolver does fail, it's usually a broken part.

Also, though less true for modern revolvers, parts replacement requires more fitting than an auto. Except for precision applications, autoloader parts replacement is almost always plug-n-play. The mechanics of an auto are simpler.

I love my wheelguns, but if I can only take one gun, it'll be an automatic.

 

[Prosser]

Hmmm. First off, the Ruger SA's are very sturdy, way over built. They are only exceeded by BFR's guns, and, Freedom Arms.

Survival? If you are thinking chaos theory, and Red Dawn, I think I might have to go with an auto. Common calibers are important at that point.

Survival wilderness? Seems to me it should be two guns. One for food, some sort of 22lr, like maybe a Ruger Single Six that kills, but does little meat damage,
and, something big, to put away large animals, or meth lab guys. .357 should work for the second.

You'll have to decide if the lack of reload speed in an SA is going to get you killed, or the lack of capacity.

I can't imagine much sturdier then a 17-4 all stainless Freedom Arms, or, a 17-4 Magnum Research BFR. They are both built like bank vaults.

Many autos screw up brass, and, that will not be a problem with the SA's.
Plus, you'll have all your brass to reload, if need be, and it might well be.

Also consider a Super Redhawk, another bank vault built gun, if you want a quicker reload, and DA. The Rock puts one to good use in Faster.

I also like the idea of a heavier caliber in a revolver, capable of going through a level III vest if necessary, since bad guys in survival situations might be so protected.

Your question deals in generalities, and, which gun is the strongest needs to be dealt with on individual guns, and, the specific purpose you are using it for.

 

[Meeteetse]

If you buy quality handguns and you know how to keep them running properly, IMO either are just fine for most scenarios. If you are talking "survivalist situations" then perhaps there is an advantage to the semi-auto because of capacity, BUT. . .if you are in a real "situation" then you should be better armed than just a handgun. Once you get your hands on your rifle, the handgun becomes less important. I say buy what you like and what you want and learn to shoot it well. Ammo capacity becomes less important if you can put your shots on target.

The worst thing the military did was endorse the spray and pray mentality and get away from the true rifleman, because it plagues all our shooting now. . . .instead of aiming we just throw lead down range. That now seems to be the same attitude with handguns. Interestingly, many in the military are now going back to the 7 shot 1911, so capacity doesn't mean as much as it did just a few years ago.

If you are talking "survival situations" almost anything will do that you have ammo for, but I have no problems using a revolver over a semi-auto. If you want to reload a little quicker, get a DA like a Ruger GP-100, otherwise I feel very comfortable with a Ruger SA that I know I can hit my target with. If you are out numbered and they do a "bonzi" charge, save the last bullet for yourself because no handgun will do the job.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The worst thing the military did was endorse the spray and pray mentality and get away from the true rifleman, because it plagues all our shooting now.

Think tactics might have played some small role in the decision to increase firepower? Just a thought, but I don't think the military wanting to waste ammunition factored into that decision.

For the record, semi auto use of the M16/M4 is still the doctrine whenever possible.

 

[Ole Coot]

My Ruger Blackhawk is tough, accurate and dependable. It is only open carried when I am in the woods or need the range and firepower for hunting. I agree it is the best I can think of.

 

[thetoad45]

Not really worried about capacity and reloading speed for the revolver. I live in rural Arizona. In a "situation" I have many various firearms all of which out-range my revolver. These would be my first choice. A handgun to me is just a last resort type of tool.
Been thinking about things. I think my best choice would be to get a small Taurus 85 (Hope they still make them with a 3" barrel) in 38 special. That would give me a gun I would be able to conceal. Had one years ago and really liked it. Gives me another layer of defense.

 

[Rexster]

Why the "vs" stuff? I carry DA now; my chief wants me to shoot bad guys with approved weapons, on or off the clock, and I cannot qual with an SA, by PD rules. I carry an SP101 virtually everywhere, and usually tote a P229 or a larger DA sixgun, too. When I retire, I will have the option of the larger gun being SA. No versus, no conflict; little DA, big SA; life is good.

 

[easyg]

A revolver can handle neglect much better than an autoloader...load them and forget about them.
Come back 200 years later and they will still work.

But an autoloader can handle abuse much better than a revolver...they can be dropped from great heights, thrown against a wall, dragged behind a car, etc....and they will usually still work.


Which would be better for survival?

Either would perform just fine IMO.

The worst thing the military did was endorse the spray and pray mentality and get away from the true rifleman,

When did this happen?
I was a soldier from 1986 till 1992 and we were not taught "spray and pray".
We were trained and qualified under the principle of one shot per target.

Interestingly, many in the military are now going back to the 7 shot 1911, so capacity doesn't mean as much as it did just a few years ago.

Not true.
The vast majority of military personnel will never even hold a handgun during their entire career.
And the vast majority of those who do use handguns will continue to use the Beretta 9mm.

Yeah, the MEU(SOC) might carry them, but that is a very small part of the military as a whole.

 

[gamestalker]

I have quite a few AL's and revolver's. But my favorite carry gun, and as well favorite shooting gun is a revolver. My all time favorite is the model 66 S&W. I have a 66-2 and a 66-5 and both are so sweet and smooth I have trouble putting them down at the range to shoot the other's.
The Ruger's are unquestionably a stronger weapon in my opinion, but they don't have that special smooth action that the upper quality S&W's are so well known for. But be it a Ruger, S&W or some other top shelf wheel gun, you simply can't go wrong. Reliability, accuracy, and no frills operation beats an AL hands down every time in my personal opinion.

 

[MCgunner]

I like my blackhawks for hunting and sometimes outdoors. I do carry a light little 3" .38 or a 4" M66 Taurus .357 magnum while hiking, too, for the light weight. My stainless 4/58" .45 colt Blackhawk isn't a LOT heavier than the 66, though, but a little. Weight does count when hiking and I don't normally feel much threat outdoors. My fav little hiking gun is actually a little Rossi M68 3" gun. Light, reliable, accurate and packs enough punch where i hike. I don't worry about black bears. Mountain lions are a little more worry, but not much. I have pepper spray for both. It's people I worry about.

It has occured to me that a good outdoor survival type carry would be a Smith M60 3" with adjustable sights. I don't have one, just thought about it some. It would be handy sized. I did have a Ruger SP101 and a 3" version would be great except that .38 often shoots lower than .357 magnum. I'd want to be able to adjust as I have takein small game with a handgun while hunting out west, for camp meat, using a .38. That's one of my ourdoor uses for handguns. But, I'm pretty happy with what I've got.

 

[malpaismike]

Hello the camp! This is as old as the .38 vs .45 debate. My take, it's what you get used to. In the bad old days, my co. had an in-house pistol league, NRA .22 gallery course, shot on a 6-point indoor range in Phx. Of interest is the building was the last remaining barracks from a wwll pow camp, and became a historical site. One of the shooters used a K22; he had bobbed the hammer making single-action an iffy proposition if not rapid at all. However, it had a glass-like da and crystal crisp release. As he described it to me, he over-fingered the trigger; when his fingertip touched the back of the trigger bow, he was milligrams from let-off. He was in the top-10 of 100+ shooters, with '60s vintage pistol against Mkl & Mkll, Woodsmans, High Standards and a 41 or 2.
While I only own one da now, a M19, I used a M13 Dan Wesson to qualify for my first 3 CCWs. Except for my kaboy guns, I'm pretty much a .45acp auto kinda dude. My .02; this is a gas. See ya round the campfire. mm

 

[golden]

S&W L FRAME for me

TOAD,

I would buy a S&W 686 + if I were to buy a new revolver for possible defense. In real life, my ONLY CHOICE would be a reliable auto. I have found the advantages of a high capacity magazine, quick reload and light weight are just too much to ignore.

When I stared in law enforcement, we carried .357 magnum revolvers.

I carried a S&W 681 for several years. It is a fixed sight, 4 inch barreled L frame and has been very reliable and shot well for me.
I also carried a model 13, this was a blue K frame with a 3 inch barrel which was issued to me. The 13 was much easier to carry, but they had quality problems and later on some had the forcing cone burst when using the 125 grain load.

I also own a 586 with a 6 inch barrel, which is the nicest and most accurate revolver I have ever shot. The previous owner had an action tune and MAGNA PORTS added.

I have shot the RUGER Security Six and preferred it over the S&W K frame revolvers. The RUGER was stronger, but of a similar size and weight.

Since personal defense is part of this equation, I would not even consider a single action. If the reloading speed is not an issue to you and it really should be in a defense gun, the try shooting some qualification drills with a single action.
The advantage of a modern double action is really noticeable when you are trying to get multiple hits on a target or you are trying to engage multiple targets which can happen in a survival situation.

The biggest problems with the COLT revolvers is that they are getting expensive. Even the OFFICIAL POLICE, the fixed sight, plain jane .38 Special police revolver is often going for is going for 500 to 600 dollars. I can get a good 686 in stainless steel with adjustable sights chambered for the .357 magnum for that much.

I have not shot the RUGER GP100, so I cannot comment on it, but all of the people who I know who have one, think highly of it.

I would go to a range that rents guns and try several different models and makes if I could.

Jim

 

[buttrap]

Revolvers SA or DA I really dont have much or a opinion as they both suck vs a auto in rough use. The SA gun will do much better though but still wont be as reliable as a self loader. Wreck a horse and roll down hill into a mud mess guess is after you wipe the mud of a SA revolver will still run and punch spent brass out though.