I see and hear this a lot, usually on forums and usually in response to a newbie's question about which firearm to get. I saw it the other day and got to thinking about it.

I believe the Ogre said "if it fires available ammo, it's not obsolete". And that is right. I myself have a liking for S&W .38 Specials and .357 Magnum revolvers. I like the .44 Special and 45 Colt rounds. Do they work in the modern arena of 17 round 9mm pistols and 45 ACP pistols that carry more rounds and weight less than an old 1911? Yes they certainly do.

But to use the argument that it was good enough for so and so is doing an injustice to anyone asking.

Jim Cirillo did good work with a K-Frame 38 Special. But even he pushed the limits on its ammo to push things in his favor. He was the first to admit that grabbed one of their worked over M1 Carbines or Ithaca 12 gauges. He switched to Glocks when he could.

Frank Hamer went from a Colt Peacemaker and Winchester .30-30 to a S&W Triple Lock them Colt 38 Super and a Remington Model 8.

Texas Rangers, from my research, always kept up with firearms advances. Colt 1911s became the norm relatively quickly with Colt 1903s and 1908s being used as backups pretty much as soon as they started production. Rifles went from Sharps to Winchester 1892s to the 1894 or 1895 to pretty much anything they could get their hands up that upped their fire power quotient.

Skeeter Skelton and Elmer Keith both pushed the limits of cartridges, loads and bullet designs. Skeeter even went to automatics during his undercover stint because they carried more inconspicuously and reloaded quicker.

My long winded point is that yes the classics still work. And if they work best for you then I'm all for it. But I don't dissuade people from the modern. Mainly because I wonder what the Old Breed would carry today. I fancy Skeeter would like something in .357 SIG or maybe a Coonan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said that?
Huh. 

I'm brilliant.

Uh oh...made a mistake...never flatter an Ogre...lol

Kaso you are right. A smooth Smith & Wesson trigger or a well set up 1911 trigger is hard to beat. Which is why I don't try to dissuade new shooters from a K Frame Smith for a first pistol. I believe that if one can master a revolver DA then it'll help with any kind of automatic trigger pull.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now in all reality, how many are actually capable of this? Not very many I'd bet. I believe most shooters, including those who think they're up to the task w/ a revolver, should probably go with a simple autoloader that has very few external controls and carries at least 8 to 9 rds, better yet a baker's dozen or more.

I agree with this, and for that matter, the entirety of your post.  Saying that does not contradict anything in my post.  Very few wheelgunners are capable enough to justify eschewing semi autos in favor of their chosen tools.  Very few.  Yet those who are, are untouchable by those wielding combat tupperware. 



Kaso

It all boils down to what you're comfortable with.  I don't even own a semiauto handgun.

The problem with this topic, as discussed on your typical internet forum (WTA being atypical and superior, in my opinion), is that the straw man arguments begin to fly willy-nilly, and it quickly gets absurd.  The advantages of the semiauto are always portrayed as critical, and the advantages of the revolver, such as they are, are dismissed as irrelevant.  At the end of the day, most people don't carry a gun, and those who do carry whatever they're comfortable with.  Some people worry that they'll get in a spot and run out of ammunition, so they carry a gun that holds more ammunition.  Some people don't worry about that and carry a five-shot snub or a pocket .380 instead.  Plenty, plenty of people carrying little single-stack 9mms with short barrels.  Personally, I don't believe something like a Ruger LC9 or M&P Shield gives you a meaningful advantage over an SP101, but that's just me.  There are guys who carry but don't carry a reload.  There are guys who walk around with 50+ rounds on them and need suspenders to keep their pants up.

None of them are wrong, really.  Each method has advantages and disadvantages.

There is no one worth listening to that is seriously telling people to eschew semiautomatic handguns in favor of revolvers.  There are, however, some people who are apparently of the mind that carrying a revolver is a death sentence, and for some reason they're taken seriously.

Anyone who tries to tell you to get a gun you don't like because it's "good enough for XYZ" is full of crap.  It doesn't matter if "XYZ" is Elmer Kieth or SEAL Team 6.

Is it possible that a revolver-armed person will find himself in a situation which he can't resolve, due to the revolver's limitations?  Yes.  As was said, your supply of ammunition is limited, and reloading takes longer.  I think inside 21 feet to your attacker, reloading any handgun fast enough is going to be dicey, a revolver especially.

It's also possible that he semi-auto-armed person will find himself in a similar situation, because at the end of the day even the biggest-magazined 9mm is still just a handgun, and the user can only shoot in one direction at a time.  I don't think the differences between the two systems make a huge difference in the real world, as evidenced by the nature of the majority of reported self-defense shootings.

(Of course, it's important to bear in mind that you may encounter an atypical situation.  You have to weigh the pros and cons and determine how best to deal with that possibility.)

My personal opinion is that there are a great many things more likely to get you in trouble in a violent encounter than the differences between a semiauto and a revolver, and these things are often ignored by the internet gun community because they're not as fun to argue about.  (More accurately, I think they're glossed over, and people simply assume that all their other bases are covered, when that's not usually a safe assumption.)

Any handgun, you need to be painfully and unflinchingly aware of its limitations, and your own limitations as a user.

It's also important to accept the fact that even if you do everything right, get all the training, carry the best gun, carry plenty of ammo, you can still end up dead, murdered by some punk with a stolen .380 who didn't do any of that.  This is not to say that the training and equipment is pointless, because it absolutely isn't: it can make all the difference in the world.  You still need to face the reality of it, though. 

Me?  I'm not a super high speed handgun badass.  I don't shoot nearly often enough.  Despite that, I don't feel in danger, being limited to my small brace of Ruger revolvers, and I don't feel like I'd be better off if I had three 9mms instead. 

Note that I said "feel".  It really comes down to how you feel about it.  Pragmatism and practicality are as relative and subjective as anything else.

If I run out of ammo defending myself and get shot because of it, I may feel differently.  But then, I may also wish I wore body armor and carried an IFAK around with me, neither of which I'm realistically going to do, so there's that. 

Nightcrawler,

You're point is spot on as are the points previously mentioned. It's been my experience with the force on force training is the most humans can close distance extremely fast. Most times faster than a person can even think to draw. Which brought up a good point in favor of revolvers during an exercise. Had a guy pop out of a closet as I was clearing a room. He grabbed before I could aim. So it devolved into a tussle where I did the natural thing...I pushed the simunition Glock up into his chest and pulled the trigger. Nothing. Pulled the pistol back a hair. Bang.

My instructor pointed out that most self defense shootings happen when you're behind the curve. A revolver is better for that contact shot because the adrenaline is going to cause most people to jam the muzzle into the aggressor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will confess lately that I've been feeling under-armed, though.  I may have to rectify that. 

I normally think Ruger revolvers are chunky and generally unsightly, but those are things of beauty.  I could own those.



Kaso

I would not mind owning a Glock 20, but the current search is for a decent Model 19 K-frame.

If we are being honest, there is a very small window of scenarios in which carrying a revolver will get you killed, but having a semi would have saved your life.  Most of the time, if you are going to die with the one, you will die with the other.  Would you rather go down with a classy piece, or with Combat Tupperware™ in your hand?


This coming from a guy who is currently carrying a Glock 23...



Kaso

I would not mind owning a Glock 20, but the current search is for a decent Model 19 K-frame.

Kaso

Good luck with that Kaso. They have gone up in price and have become few and far between at least around here. But I'm glad I picked up my 66 snub nose when I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would not mind owning a Glock 20, but the current search is for a decent Model 19 K-frame.



Kaso

You mean one like this? You can have it for one meellion dollars.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nightcrawler,

You're point is spot on as are the points previously mentioned. It's been my experience with the force on force training is the most humans can close distance extremely fast. Most times faster than a person can even think to draw. Which brought up a good point in favor of revolvers during an exercise. Had a guy pop out of a closet as I was clearing a room. He grabbed before I could aim. So it devolved into a tussle where I did the natural thing...I pushed the simunition Glock up into his chest and pulled the trigger. Nothing. Pulled the pistol back a hair. Bang.

My instructor pointed out that most self defense shootings happen when you're behind the curve. A revolver is better for that contact shot because the adrenaline is going to cause most people to jam the muzzle into the aggressor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a martial arts instructor, once upon a time, tell me that either the semi - automatic pistol or the revolver could be tied up by directly grabbing the gun with a firm grip and thereby preventing more than one round from being fired.  I agreed that most semi - automatics I was familiar with could thus be rendered inoperable until the slide was returned to battery or cycled again but differed with him on the same technique being an effective disabling strategy on the revolver.  We proceeded to do several slow motion walk-throughs as he demonstrated his technique.  I showed him a couple of draw and fire techniques with a dummy semi - auto that negated his ability to put hands on the weapon until at least one or more shots were fired.  I then did the same thing with a dummy revolver and asked him if he had ever seen what the gas escaping the barrel/cylinder gap of a revolver could do to an unprotected human hand clamped over it.  He said that he had not actually seen it himself so I invited him on a desert shoot to demonstrate.  Wrapping several things with a passing resemblance to human flesh over the top strap of a S&W Model 64 loaded with Remington 125 grain semi-jacketed hollow points convinced him that his understanding of the phenomenon was, shall we say, incomplete.  He no longer teaches those methods.   He did teach me some very slick gung-fu moves though so I consider it an even exchange.   

I think the late Col. Cooper boiled it down to three words :  "Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas"  or  "Accuracy, Power, Speed"