SHTF- is there a role for SA pistols AND revolvers?

[CwlCymru]

so you've stocked up on your main SHTF weapons- you got a rifle for range, shotgun for CQB & plenty of ammo.

but choosing a sidearm is tricky. now I dont wana go into a semi-auto vs revolver debate. all Im asking is could you concieve of a role for BOTH weapons

high-capacity pistols in 9mm/.40S&W/ .45ACP have been increasingly popular over the last few decades

what about the revolver?

there's the cheap .38 snubby in an ankle holster or stashed elsewhere for emergencies. could be useful if all elsefails.

then there's the powerful .357 magnum revolver which seems to pop up in many a zombiemovie. good stopping power without excessive recoil.

would you say that there's little point having both types of pistols- choose just 1 or the other. your main weapon afterall will be a shotty or rifle.

[Sig_Ocelot]

Revolvers are dead. They are fun range toys, that's about it. Get a Sig p226r in .357 sig. Same ballistics as most .357 ammo in the 125grn range, but you have faster reloads, more reliability, and better accuracy than a revolver, better sights, and twice the firepower. .38 snubbies are just as dead, get a mini glock with more ammo in 9mm, which is twice as powerful as .38. Ankle holsters are for idiots IMHO.

Sorry, stick with a semi-auto and spend that cash on extra magazines and ammo. So to answer your question, no, there is no role for revolvers. For SA pistols, hell yes there is a place. Google 1911a1.

[6shooter]

more reliability,

That's pretty questionable. I'm not sure how a DA semi-auto is more reliable then a revolver, either SA or DA.


Revolvers are pretty idiot proof, just point and shoot. No safeties, slide releases. Of course, spend a couple minutes with a semi and they're easy to learn, but for someone who's never shot a gun before, and they're in a situation where they need one, a revolver would be a decent choice.

That said, the capacity, ease of loading, and ease of carrying ammunition are pretty major bonus' to having a semi. Reliability isn't much of an issue with most semi's these days.


Weigh out the pro's and cons for yourself, and make your decision based on that, and what's comfortable. IMO, a semi auto would be the way to go, but a revolver does have its place.

[Abacus]

I'm glad Sig had the nerve to take the brunt of the attack. I think revolvers are archaic personally, despite the fact that I own four. My wife asks me to explain why people use them and I don't have a good answer for her.

Ok, now, having said that, I will also say that as long as you can hit your target when it counts, you can carry a freakin' flintlock for all I care. If a revolver is what you shoot and you are good with it, stay with it.

[bae]

what about the revolver?

Handy for hunting.

[Kommander]

Revolvers do have a place. Now I can't see buying a new S&W for the prices they want, but a used one might be just the ticket for someone just starting out with guns. They are also excellent for handling magnum loads, that the utility of that in a SHTF situation is debatable. Their simplicity, reliability, and ease of use makes them viable. However any serious pistolero is going to be packing an automatic.

[Sig_Ocelot]

more reliability,

That's pretty questionable. I'm not sure how a DA semi-auto is more reliable then a revolver, either SA or DA.

I absolutely stand by my statement about Sigs and Glocks being more reliable than revolvers. I've had a 357pd 41mag S&W lock up on me. I've had a Taurus revolver fall out of time, resulting in dud primer strikes. I have never had a jam out of tens of thousands of rounds I've personally shot in any of my Sigs or Glocks.

Here's a youtube vid where the guys from firepower TV shoot, blowup, run over, muddy up, etc a Sig P220 and it keeps on working. Sorry, you couldn't do that with a revolver. I stand by my statement. Autos nowadays have an edge over revolvers in both accuracy and reliability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpl0ZJkikNA

[gelgoog]

lets see no magazine to lose, no mag springs to break, no FTF, no FTE. Having a revolver as your only arm is not a good idea by as a sidearm it should work just fine.

[Sig_Ocelot]

lets see no magazine to lose, no mag springs to break, no FTF, no FTE. Having a revolver as your only arm is not a good idea by as a sidearm it should work just fine.

I've never heard of a magazine spring breaking, you're a fool if you loose your magazine, and revolvers can and do fall to extract from time to time. Especially with a short ejector rod and dirty chambers.

[Jerry in So IL]

For SHTF, I think handguns are best left for backups and that is both pistols and revolvers. Your longgun is the best weapon choice.

As far as wheelguns vs pistols, a VN vet and now Sgt in a local PD said it the best, when you hear a "click" and not a "bang" then all you have to do is pull the trigger again.

I've been trained in the use of both wheelguns and pistols. A pistols offers a quicker reload and more shots fired per load. If that is what you want, then you want a pistol. I personally want to be able to hit what I aim at, so I choose the wheelgun, a 642. All five shots in a card size grouping at 15 yards, everytime.

As far as Sigs, Glocks, or whatever brand not jamming, my response is that you haven't shot enough of them.

Jerry

[kaiservontexas]

I would never disregard the revolver. They are easy to operate. They have a lower failure rate. They last longer in better condition the semi-automatics. Have a large frame and one of your ancestors will inherit it, and odds are it will still work. I would also say revolvers have been defending lives and going into combat a heck of a lot longer then semi-automatics have, and they still do the job.

I happen to like both. I think having both on hand is a good idea. What is the saying if you are serious about defending your life pack a backup? Typically the back up is a revolver.

[Big A]

Okay, I admit to being a S&W revolver fanboy, BUT,

Anyone, ANYONE, saying an auto is inherently more accurate
than a SA/DA revolver has never fired a quality revolver, or
any revolver enough to have a honest opinion.

I mean, please.

Fire a K-framed S&W .38, or a N-framed Model 27, with, say,
a four to six-inch barrel, single OR double-action, and you will
see what I mean.

I have fired, and competed, with some VERY NICE target autos,
and NONE (except maybe for that Hi-Standard Olympic .22 my
Dad owned) were as inherently accurate as the two revolvers
I mentioned above. They consistantly put lead on target EXACTLY
where I wanted with less effort than any auto I have ever fired.

Now, I will also admit to having been shooting handguns since I
was ten years old, and was taught by one of the finest target-
shooting LEO's in New York State (in the '60's and '70's, at least)
but to say auto's are more inherently accurate than revolvers is,
IMHO, ridiculous.

Maybe some of YOU guys shoot an auto better than a revolver,
but NEVER assume that because of this, revolvers are no good;
some of us don't need more than six rounds.

I personally would never feel out-gunned or disadvantaged with my
S&W Model 28. Also, I would MUCH rather shoot a SA auto than
an DAO auto, any day, even though I don't like M1911's.

Excuse my rant, but some of the responses to this thread ticked me
off.

[Browning 35]

Revolvers have their place and that place is generally in the hands of someone who really needs something to defend themselves with that's as simple as possible so they don't screw up during a crisis where their fine motor skills go to shit (like if they're defending themselves) or in the hands of a handgun hunter who's going after large game with that as his primary weapon.

Revolvers excel in those two areas.

People that don't shoot much still need to defend themselves with. They need something as simple as possible, something reliable, something accurate and something that doesn't have a whole bunch of different controls to learn and remember in a crisis. For instance my elderly non-shooting aunt wouldn't know the first thing about clearing a double feed malfunction in a semi-auto pistol, she wouldn't ever take the time to learn how either. With a revolver though generally if one cartridge failed to fire all she would have had to do with a revolver is pull the trigger again. I saw her shoot the thing twice growing up and she shot it well enough to shoot an intruder at 1 to 12 feet, but she wasn't going to be the A+ pupil at an introductory basic pistol course at Gunsite either. I can see a need for a gun like that with the mostly non-shooting public who still have a need to defend themselves since many of them just won't learn to shoot well with a semi-auto pistol other than one or two trips to the range so that they know that they can hit something.

Then that leads me to their other advantage, revolvers are also good for chambering some of the more powerful cartridges out there (.44 Mag, .454 Cas, the .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .500 S&W etc) for handgun hunting. If firearm designers ever tried to chamber a semi-auto pistol for those cartridges the whole thing would be such a monstrocity that it would make the Desert Eagle look slim, graceful and ergonomic by comparison.

So there's still a need for revolvers with at least two types of people and in the right hands it's deadly so I wouldn't discount it altogether, but if you can take the time and if you have the interest in becoming more proficient with your chosen sidearm then a semi-auto pistol has so many advantages over the revolver that it would almost be stupid not to choose it.

[Sig_Ocelot]

"As far as Sigs, Glocks, or whatever brand not jamming, my response is that you haven't shot enough of them."

Really? I shoot several thousand rounds of .40 S&W a year out of my Sigs and Glocks, and probably less than 500 rounds of 9mm. Never had a jam, ever, not once. I've had two revolver fuck up. In terms of accuracy, the Sig GSR 1911 was reported by G&A to have achieved a .88" group. I have achieved sub 1" groups at 25 yards with two of my Sig pistols, both 226s. Find me a revolver that can do that. I'll wait.

Apparently no one has actually read or seen the firepowertv test of Sig's reliability. I will post it again for the closed minded's sake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpl0ZJkikNA

Find me a revolver that can do that... For those that want to get stuck in the 19th century fine, I'm moving on into the 21st.

[by-the-throat]

I personally carry a rather archaic 1911a1 as my carry gun, one of the springfield clones. Most self defense experts advise, including the late Col. Jeff Cooper I believe, carrying it 'cocked and locked'-that is, with one in the chamber and the manual safety engaged-but I've been told by the sheriff that issued my permit that it is illegal to have a round in the chamber during ccw. Heresay and rumor suggests they used it to bust black panthers in the 60's.

I think it (and revolvers) have their place, as long as you recognise the limitations. Me, I practiced my draw-and-chamber motion until I got it down pat, and can now reliably bring the weapon to bear from concealment. Another friend, who dabbles in cowboy action shooting, could clear and fire with his .357 Ruger even faster. Both have functioned reliably with proper care, though anyone that tells you a revolver will never misfire is incorrect.

It's nothing new-it's the skill, not the weapon-but I wouldn't discount SA by any means.

[ista_hota]

All I can tell you is that you wont find an auto chambered in .454 Casul or .500SW.

That might not matter to most folks, but to a mountain man it's a big selling point, heh.

[MacAttack]

The only revolver I would own or carry is a .357.

I can't see the reason for a new revolver to be made in any other caliber unless your hunting with it.


Calibers other than .357 are either to big for everyday personal protection or to small for me to feel the target would go down fast enough.


My auto is a .45 or 9mm.

[pyratemime]

To the question of do handguns have a place in a SHTF/PAW, absolutely. There are going to be times when carrying a rifle or shotgun just is not plausible so having a handgun is better than nothing. Use it to fight your way back to your long gun.

As to choosing between a semi-auto and a revolver I think that each has their advantages. Your semi-auto has higher ammo capacity and ease of reloading where as the revolver has a certain simplicity and as a general rule of thumb (granting there are always exceptions to every rule) a certain inherent reliability. Personally, I would always carry a semi-auto as my back up BUT it is a revolver that I plan to keep in my nightstand.

As I told a friend earlier today when she asked why I wanted so many guns, there is a purpose to every gun and a gun for every purpose. The key is to have the right one at the right time for the right job.

Last thought, the beauty of the .357 is the ability to fire .357 or .38 so you have a great home defense weapon that can be cheaper to practice with.

[jor-el]

Back in 1998 the NYPD authorized off-duty 9MMs as backup guns.
I never got rid of my SW 64 snubby. One thing no auto pistol could do was fire from inside a coat pocket. There were numerous occasions where I wanted a gun in the hand but not visible to passersby or to a possible attacker. Had I picked up a Glock 26 the pistol would have to be exposed to operate reliably.

[kiwilrdg]

Sounds like personal choice is the final word. I know lots of old cops who stick with a wheel gun despite how hard it is to qualify with one and I know lots who switched to regular auto or to tupperware auto. All have their good and bad points.

[Sckitzo]

I love my SP 101 and I use it for my CCW.

I honestly think in a SHTF situation I'm going to want a SA, but I'd be content with a revolver.

They both have their places, and their own Pro's and Con's but what ever you are more comfortable (and better) with I say stick with that.

[Trebor]

Revolvers are dead. They are fun range toys, that's about it. Get a Sig p226r in .357 sig. Same ballistics as most .357 ammo in the 125grn range, but you have faster reloads, more reliability, and better accuracy than a revolver, better sights, and twice the firepower. .38 snubbies are just as dead, get a mini glock with more ammo in 9mm, which is twice as powerful as .38. Ankle holsters are for idiots IMHO.
.

I gotta disagree, both on a general basis and on some specific points.

The advantages a semi-auto pistol has over a revolver of about the same size and weight are:
1. Ammo capacity and 2. Faster reloads. That's it.

If you practice, a good revolver shooter can bring his reload times down consideribly, btw. But, that does take some time and effort, so on the whole I'll give the faster reloads point to the autos.

Ballistics: About the same. You can directly compare .38 Special to 9mm. They are both in the same range. Same for .357 Magnum and any more powerful semi-auto round. I don't know where you get the idea that 9mm is "twice as powerful as .38." Any modern defensive loads for those two calibers are going to be directly comparable. (Not identical, but in the same range. My prefered load for my revolver, for instance, has less velocity then my 9mm load, but also has a heavier bullet)

Reliability: A well made and well maintained revolver is more reliable, in practice, then most semi-autos. There are exceptions on both ends of the bell curve, but they are exceptions.

Btw, I do NOT consider Taurus to be a "well built revolver." Ask Bear B about his experience with them if you want more info. I don't consider Taurus semi-autos to be well built either. I'm amazed at how many malfunction's I've seen with those, especially the plastic Taurus guns.

I teach CCW and other pistol classes for a living and it's amazing how many malfunctions and problems I see with semi-autos on a regular basis.

What's *really* interesting is how often the student tells me, "I don't know why this keeps jamming. I've fired hundreds of rounds through it before and never had a problem..." Some guns run fine for years, on normal range trips, and the problems don't surface until the guns are run hard for a class. Even with a round count as low as 100 rounds, it's amazing how many guns won't go the whole 100 rounds without some malfunction. And I've noted that a gun that malfunctions once is more likely to have multiple malfunctions in that same class. I'm talking about good quality guns here: Glocks and Berrettas and Sigs and Taurus (supposedly good quality) and Rugers and Walther's and Bersa's and such. Not High Points or Jennings or other crap.

Btw, when you said you ran "thousands of rounds" through your Sig and Glocks, where those with FMJ ammo or with defensive JHP's? The true test of semi-auto reliability is how a gun runs with JHP's as most any gun will run well with FMJ's as they are the most "forgiving" ammo type.
(I will say my Sig 239 is probably the most reliable semi-auto I own though. I can't recall any malfunctions in my hands and I've only had one student manage to "limp wrist" it once, and it gets rented out a lot. I've seen plenty of Glocks fail in my classes though)

I have seen some mechanical problems with revolvers. Nothing mechanical is perfect after all. Of all the students in my classes though, I can only recall one instance where a revolver locked up tight and would not fire. I blame the fact that the gun was borrowed, hadn't been fired for at least a couple years, and was bone dry. I have seen light strikes and guns that are out of time, so that does happen, but not as frequently as I've seen semi-auto's jam.

Accuracy: A fixed barrel revolver is going to be more accurate, in general, then a tilting barrel semi-auto. The semi-auto barrel has to go into battery each time and the lockup is never 100% precises. That slight variation gives a fixed barrel revolver a slight edge on accuracy. This is assuming you are comparing a "standard" revolver to a "standard" auto. Match tuned guns are different. (And there are still variations. Some guns do shoot better then others.)

Sights: There are plenty of revolvers with good sights. Just avoid the fixed "U Notch" sight on S&W revolvers. Any S&W with an adjustable sight provides a nice sight picture. There are more options available for hi-viz or night sights for revolvers then before as well. This one is a wash.

Twice the firepower: This one I'll give you. For a gun that is about the same weight and size, you'll get more rounds with the semi-auto.

There are some *advantages* of the revolver that you completely ignored.

Ease of Use: There are no safeties to fail to disengage under stress. There is no decocker to worry about. There is no chance of Failure to Feed, Double Feed, or Failure to Eject malfunctions. The revolver failure drill is simple: Pull the trigger again. Compare this to clearing a double feed in an auto. The trigger pull on a revolver is the same every time, which is an advantage compared to a DA/SA pull, but is a wash when compared to a DAO trigger or a Glock trigger.

Shootability: This really comes into play with the smaller guns. I was able to directly compare a J Frame S&W to a Ruger LCP and a Kahr PM 9 recently. Those are all designed to be "pocket pistols." The S&W had it hand's down on the Ruger. It was *much* easier to shoot, and shoot accurately, then the Ruger. The S&W fired a more powerful round then the Ruger .380. The Ruger held either the same number of rounds or perhaps one more then the S&W. (I can't recall) The Ruger was slimmer, and lighter to carry, but they both disappeared into a pocket with a pocket holster.

The Kahr PM 9 was a more interesting comparasion. The Kahr was very "shootable." The trigger was very "revolver like" in that it was a long DA trigger that was the same for every shot. The Kahr held either 6+1 or 7+1 rounds, depending on the magazine, compared to the S&W 5 rounds. But, the Kahr printed horribly in my pocket. I really felt I needed a belt holster. The S&W slipped neatly into that same pocket in a small pocket holster with only a small lump. (The Kahr looked like a *GUN* in my pocket. The S&W just looked like I had *something* in my pocket, instead of an empty pocket. It could have been anything though and wouldn't have screamed "GUN.")

Oh, and a mini-Glock vs. a J Frame snubbie? No comparision. The Glock is going to hold more rounds and might be easier to shoot. The J frame though is going to conceal *much* better then the Glock. You really can't "pocket carry" a Glock 26, unless you have huge cargo pockets. I can slip a J frame, with a small pocket holster, into the front pocket of my jeans.

I agree with you on ankle holsters though. They are best suited for carrying a second gun as a last ditch hold-out, not a primary gun.

My every day carry gun is a S&W Model 65 with a 3" barrel. I load .38 Special +P loads, although the gun is a .357 Mag. This is six-shot K-frame gun with a standard grip. I shoot this gun as well as any handgun I own, pistol or revolver. I do use a IWB belt holster and so far the Smith has been the most comfortable gun to carry in it's size or class. My Makarov is *slightly* more comfortable, as it is thinner, but fires a less powerfull round. The only thing comparable to the Smith that I own is my Sig 239. The Sig also requires a belt holster and isn't quite as comfortable to carry as the S&W for some reason. The Sig does carry 8+1 rounds instead of six.

Now, if I were going to go into COMBAT (or Zombat) I'd strap on a full-size semi-auto for the greater ammo capacity. But, I wouldn't be concerned with comfort of even conceability at that point. I'd still carry the J Frame as a back up. Short of that, a revolver suits me fine.

So, the revolver is not dead, or even reserved for those "too stupid to shoot automatics." There is a place for an accurate, reliable, easy to shoot handgun for personal defense, and the revolver fills that role nicely.

[bonanacrom]

It sounds like your not picking one as a primary weapon but as a last ditch weapon so you might do better with a revolver as it might help you with some hunting situations better than a large caliber auto. He didn't ask which was more reliable or faster to load but what he might be able to use them for.

[Chef]

it is illegal to have a round in the chamber during ccw

That doesn't sound right-- you almost might as well not carry for all the good it'd do you.. I'd look into it and not just take the sheriff's word.

One overlooked point in all this discussion is that a revolver only spits out one piece of evidence per pull of the trigger, and it goes into the target (at least it should). An auto spits one piece of evidence at the target and where does the other one go?