Why Revolvers for woods carry but Autos for defense carry?
- Thread starter Mags
- Start date
- Status
Ed Ames
Member
How much does a raw parts count really matter?
At some point, a thing works well enough. It may be a PITA to reach that point or it may be easy, but when it does, it'll do. A modern car has more parts than a car from 50 years ago... deconstruct it far enough and it has a LOT more, yet modern cars are a fair amount more reliable than older cars were.
If you are comparing modern weapons, it's far more important to talk capabilities than parts counts. The revolver offers one ser of capabilities... ability to fire a wide range of loads from ratshot to grizzley medicine without ammo-induced reliability issues. A modern pistol offers the ability to load more ammo into the gun for the size/weight. There are other pros and cons but that's the heart of the difference. So pick which matters to you.
At some point, a thing works well enough. It may be a PITA to reach that point or it may be easy, but when it does, it'll do. A modern car has more parts than a car from 50 years ago... deconstruct it far enough and it has a LOT more, yet modern cars are a fair amount more reliable than older cars were.
If you are comparing modern weapons, it's far more important to talk capabilities than parts counts. The revolver offers one ser of capabilities... ability to fire a wide range of loads from ratshot to grizzley medicine without ammo-induced reliability issues. A modern pistol offers the ability to load more ammo into the gun for the size/weight. There are other pros and cons but that's the heart of the difference. So pick which matters to you.
Ed Ames
Member
Isn't there something about the exception proving the rule? 
Actually, I think the exception IS the rule.
Revolvers are FAR more popular for Magnum rounds or equivalent, even though semiautos exist. Those are the rounds most often carried in the woods.
Semiautos dominate when one's attacker is likely to shoot back (capacity) but isn't the size of a bear/moose/gorilla/nessie.
The real EXCEPTION would be the ubiquitous light snubbies like J-frames and their Brazilian progeny, and the instantly-popular LCR.
Revolvers are FAR more popular for Magnum rounds or equivalent, even though semiautos exist. Those are the rounds most often carried in the woods.
Semiautos dominate when one's attacker is likely to shoot back (capacity) but isn't the size of a bear/moose/gorilla/nessie.
The real EXCEPTION would be the ubiquitous light snubbies like J-frames and their Brazilian progeny, and the instantly-popular LCR.
I would have chosen revolver until I had some experience with the GLOCK, G20 in 10MM. With proper/safe hand-loads you basically have a self-loading 41 Mag that is just about impossible to break and goes bang every time with pretty descent accuracy even when it has been dropped off a cliff unlike one of my beloved S&W's. Basically like the AK47 of pistolas that doesn't rust which is even better..........
Ed Ames
Member
I don't know about large magnums being the most often carried into the woods. They are arguably the most common for people worried about dangerous animal encounters, sure, but even then I'd bet .357 dominates. I somehow suspect that a .22LR pistol is the gun most often carried into the woods.
The advantage of the revolver is dynamic range... ability to fire anything from very mild, to very wild, rounds that are outside of the design envelope of most semi-auto pistols. Part of that is the mechanism, which doesn't count on the chemical energy of the cartridge to do anything but propel the bullet, and part is that revolvers are more likely to be designed to withstand very high pressures. I have a revolver that is supposedly able to withstand 65KPSI, but it is just as happy in the 10K and under range. Ignoring range toys (AR pistols and the like), no semi-auto I know of is designed for that range.
The advantage of the revolver is dynamic range... ability to fire anything from very mild, to very wild, rounds that are outside of the design envelope of most semi-auto pistols. Part of that is the mechanism, which doesn't count on the chemical energy of the cartridge to do anything but propel the bullet, and part is that revolvers are more likely to be designed to withstand very high pressures. I have a revolver that is supposedly able to withstand 65KPSI, but it is just as happy in the 10K and under range. Ignoring range toys (AR pistols and the like), no semi-auto I know of is designed for that range.
Sir Ed,
In the aforementioned 10MM you can load it to replicate the 40 S&W (short-n-weak) or full house 10MM (41 Mag performance) and carry both in separate magazines appropriately marked of course. With that in mind if it isn't a tactical situation and you are not at a distance where POI is a huge consideration a simple mag change pretty much covers the bases. I love my wheel-guns but modern self-loaders can get the job done just as well (IMO) with better ergonomics.
In the aforementioned 10MM you can load it to replicate the 40 S&W (short-n-weak) or full house 10MM (41 Mag performance) and carry both in separate magazines appropriately marked of course. With that in mind if it isn't a tactical situation and you are not at a distance where POI is a huge consideration a simple mag change pretty much covers the bases. I love my wheel-guns but modern self-loaders can get the job done just as well (IMO) with better ergonomics.
Ed Ames
Member
Yeah, you can load from .40S&W to 10MM... but with my revolver I can load from 160gr 1100fps (about .40S&W) up to 300gr 1700fps (about 100gr heavier and 700fps faster than the heaviest 10MM load in my reloading manual) performance with a side of 500fps 250gr that is lower than .40S&W or even shot capsules, have them all in the same cylinder, and if I pull the trigger six times it'll fire six times.
That's what I call dynamic range.
Note... those are the reloading manual speeds... my little snubby probably can't push anything much past 1400FPS in the real world.
That's what I call dynamic range.
Note... those are the reloading manual speeds... my little snubby probably can't push anything much past 1400FPS in the real world.
A 10mm Glock is easy to limp-wrist.
Again, woods defense is not the range, and I never assume I can use the stance and grip I use for match shooting.
Maybe .22 is common to carry, but I've never seen anyone with a .22 outdoors in Idaho unless they were plinking. I've seen many people carrying .38 and up.
I've never quite figured out what someone would do with a .22 in the woods, other than plink, that would make it worth carrying around. Given that we have moose, badgers, bears, mountain goats (yes, they can kill hikers), elk, rattlesnakes, and BLM-land pot farmers, a .22 is just a toy.
Again, woods defense is not the range, and I never assume I can use the stance and grip I use for match shooting.
Maybe .22 is common to carry, but I've never seen anyone with a .22 outdoors in Idaho unless they were plinking. I've seen many people carrying .38 and up.
I've never quite figured out what someone would do with a .22 in the woods, other than plink, that would make it worth carrying around. Given that we have moose, badgers, bears, mountain goats (yes, they can kill hikers), elk, rattlesnakes, and BLM-land pot farmers, a .22 is just a toy.
Last edited:
The reasons I like self-loaders in most calibers are the low bore axis/less muzzle flip and consistent trigger pull as in the GLOCK vs DA/SA in wheel-guns. They both have there place and I wish I could own at least 10 examples of everything made. The GLOCK is an ugly SOB but dam that thing is what I would take into the wilderness if PMS was impossible and my handgun had to work in both the Arctic or the Sahara after being submerged in salty cold water or camel piss saturated sand pit.
PS I am sorta familiar with failure under adverse conditions......
PS I am sorta familiar with failure under adverse conditions......
MCgunner
Member
The .22 is my choice for squirrel hunting, but I thought we were talking more about hiking guns here? Most times outdoors I'll be carrying some kind of revolver. But, then, I like revolvers and am not dependent on spray and pray tactics. Aimed shots always work better for me. Capacity is simply not an issue in the woods. Hell, I like to tote a .45 Colt/.410 Contender a lot when I'm bummin' around on my property. I shoot starlings and grackles out of the air, rattlers for dinner, running rabbits if I come across one, and if I hear hogs and have the time, I can pull the choke off and load up with a 300 grain, 1200 fps .45 Colt. It's a fun gun for just bummin' around on a spring day.
MCgunner
Member
Hmm, this study seems to think 12 gauge a very poor choice and I agree. The 12 gauge slug has a non-existent SD, especially in foster slugs, but even in Breneke slugs, and slugs tend to be pretty soft. I'd want something with much better penetration, talkin' .338 Win Mag or .375H&H. This study says .458 Win Mag is tops.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=485872
hillbillydelux
Member
Well since reading all these posts I have decided its not good to carry Revolvers or Pistols in the woods. Now I have to go buy some hand grenades incase I get attacked by bears. Now Im sure there will be someone on here who can correct me as to the terrible reliability of certain types of hand grenades and there inefectivness on certain rabbid squirrels.
MCgunner
Member
The only way to see Alaska......
MCgunner
Member
It's gotta friggin' jet engine in it. I think we could figure out how to stay warm.
Ben Shepherd
Member
The 2 biggest reasons hands down:
1. Standard available horsepower levels with a grip sized in such a manner that a normal human can wrap their hand(s) around it.
2. Bullet weight and profile. Big, heavy for caliber, flat-nose bullets are the order of the day here. Most semis don't like anything near a flat-nose profile.
1. Standard available horsepower levels with a grip sized in such a manner that a normal human can wrap their hand(s) around it.
2. Bullet weight and profile. Big, heavy for caliber, flat-nose bullets are the order of the day here. Most semis don't like anything near a flat-nose profile.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I decided to look up "illegal pot growing" in my state and found that there is a problem. I also found that at least one of the operations (20,000 plants) was in the exact area I frequent when I go to the woods. They had guns and ammo, too.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10786118
Once again, this puts high capacity in the forefront.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10786118
Once again, this puts high capacity in the forefront.
Ed Ames
Member
True.
Situational awareness is always key. That includes knowing your threats. Especially when those threats are mutually exclusive. It's a reasonable bet that you aren't going to face both grizzlies and farmers. Maybe there are farmers dumb enough to set up in such an area...but that sort of thing is usually self limiting. Dress for the threats you are most likely to face. Which means read news reports for areas you plan to visit if you can.
OTOH, getting into gunfights with farmers in the woods is high on the list of things to avoid. Unless you have several people and a fair amount of preperation you are going to be out-manned and out-gunned. If you are in an area where they (or black market chemists) are common, keep your eyes open and avoid areas that have obvious signs of human activity.
Doncha love prohibition?
Situational awareness is always key. That includes knowing your threats. Especially when those threats are mutually exclusive. It's a reasonable bet that you aren't going to face both grizzlies and farmers. Maybe there are farmers dumb enough to set up in such an area...but that sort of thing is usually self limiting. Dress for the threats you are most likely to face. Which means read news reports for areas you plan to visit if you can.
OTOH, getting into gunfights with farmers in the woods is high on the list of things to avoid. Unless you have several people and a fair amount of preperation you are going to be out-manned and out-gunned. If you are in an area where they (or black market chemists) are common, keep your eyes open and avoid areas that have obvious signs of human activity.
Doncha love prohibition?
axeman_g
Member
I think the thought "Why Revolvers for woods carry but Autos for defense carry?" is more of conveinence then any actual doctrine. I know people that swear on small revolvers (JFRAMES) for social situations and big hocking autos for woods. I know people that swear on revolvers for their flexibility in the woods as a defensive handgun, as well as a small game or trap running sidearm. It really comes down to your reality. Are bear encounters frequent in your neck of the woods, go high caliber. Are BG encounters frequent in your neck of the woods.... move.
By the way... pepper spray just makes you pre-seasoned to a big bear.
By the way... pepper spray just makes you pre-seasoned to a big bear.
Last edited:
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
No kidding. It's when you CAN'T avoid them that it becomes a problem.
And whilethere are no grizzlies in my area, the black bear population has reached a point to begin a bear season. So while I highly doubt I'd encounter BOTH on the same outting, it is possible I could encounter one of them. Not knowing which one is what prompted the Glock 20, as it can handle either one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
