Arguments against NOT carrying a revolver - Page 11
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Arguments against NOT carrying a revolver

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-23-2013, 08:39 AM   #101
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,763
Liked 1161 Times on 644 Posts
Likes Given: 499

Default

I tend to think that these kinds of questions are people seeking validation of an invalid argument.

There's are several very good reasons why virtually all militaries and police agencies worth mentioning carry semi-autos.

Off-hand:

1. Modern semi-autos function very reliably.

1911's, BHP's, Glock, SiG, S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Makarov, and too many others to mention have been getting the job done for the past 100 years or so. In decades past, mass production machining tolerances and metallurgy were not as good as they are today and sometimes semi-automatics had issues due to these mass production related issues.

2. Modern semi-autos hold 25%-50% more ammunition than a revolver.

S&W TRR8 - 8 rounds of .357 Magnum
Glock 20 - 16 rounds of 10MM

3. Semi-automatics are faster to reload for the overwhelming majority of shooters. If your name is Jerry Mickulek, you are the exception to the rule. Travis Tomasie is every bit as fast as Jerry Mickulek and Travis' 1911 still holds more bullets than Jerry's S&W.

4. Modern semi-automatics are generally lighter and more controllable than a revolver. Yes, there are Scandium frame revolvers now thanks to modern metallurgy but they're also not much fun to shoot with full power ammunition. With respect to controllability, there's simple physics involved with that. Yes, the Chiappa Rhino is the exception to that rule.

5. Modern revolvers with modern metallurgy that make a revolver comparable in terms of weight to a semi-auto are relatively expensive. Economy plays into the value equation. Simply put revolvers are more expensive than semi-autos because they require more machining and, in some cases, more intricate machining and hand-fitment of parts for optimal function.

All other things being equal, having a firearm is better than not having a firearm. If you want to purchase a revolver because you like revolvers or because that's what's legal or PC in your area, fine. It's an older technology and has its share of drawbacks, but it's better than harsh words and rocks.

Don't expect anyone to tout the superiority of the technology over a semi-auto because reliable semi-automatic pistols have been in constant manufacture for over a century now.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
Mason609 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 09:23 AM   #102
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 892
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512
I tend to think that these kinds of questions are people seeking validation of an invalid argument. There's are several very good reasons why virtually all militaries and police agencies worth mentioning carry semi-autos. Off-hand: 1. Modern semi-autos function very reliably. 1911's, BHP's, Glock, SiG, S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Makarov, and too many others to mention have been getting the job done for the past 100 years or so. In decades past, mass production machining tolerances and metallurgy were not as good as they are today and sometimes semi-automatics had issues due to these mass production related issues. 2. Modern semi-autos hold 25%-50% more ammunition than a revolver. S&W TRR8 - 8 rounds of .357 Magnum Glock 20 - 16 rounds of 10MM 3. Semi-automatics are faster to reload for the overwhelming majority of shooters. If your name is Jerry Mickulek, you are the exception to the rule. Travis Tomasie is every bit as fast as Jerry Mickulek and Travis' 1911 still holds more bullets than Jerry's S&W. 4. Modern semi-automatics are generally lighter and more controllable than a revolver. Yes, there are Scandium frame revolvers now thanks to modern metallurgy but they're also not much fun to shoot with full power ammunition. With respect to controllability, there's simple physics involved with that. Yes, the Chiappa Rhino is the exception to that rule. 5. Modern revolvers with modern metallurgy that make a revolver comparable in terms of weight to a semi-auto are relatively expensive. Economy plays into the value equation. Simply put revolvers are more expensive than semi-autos because they require more machining and, in some cases, more intricate machining and hand-fitment of parts for optimal function. All other things being equal, having a firearm is better than not having a firearm. If you want to purchase a revolver because you like revolvers or because that's what's legal or PC in your area, fine. It's an older technology and has its share of drawbacks, but it's better than harsh words and rocks. Don't expect anyone to tout the superiority of the technology over a semi-auto because reliable semi-automatic pistols have been in constant manufacture for over a century now.
Well said! I love Revolvers and there are some gorgeous revolves out there! But my passion for there beauty and even reliability does not override my knowledge of efficiency! Thanks for your thoughts!
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 09:54 AM   #103
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,680
Liked 1847 Times on 1265 Posts
Likes Given: 675

Default

Here is one point that no one thought to cover. Most revolvers make a damn good club. Not every self defense situation requires the use of deadly force, unless you happen to be NYPD. I have knocked some 300 lb football players cold with a roll of dimes. I am an old freak now. I need a little more help. I can take my old charter and knock a young buck to his knees. If he wants to get back up we can play whack a mole. Between being blinded with his own blood and the knot on his head the odds are good he will stay down.

Another area where revolvers rule is large calibers. If you have the money and the ass to hang on to the revolver there is someone out there that will build a revolver in just about any caliber with a short case. There is a limit to the caliber that a semi auto can be built in. At some point the recoil spring is going to be to heavy to pull the slide back. Think about it, if a semi auto could be built in a large caliber S&W would not have bothered with building the X frame. In small calibers the semi auto has it's place. If you need a large caliber to secure your safety you have to get a revolver.

People think you can't conceal a large revolver are certainly wrong. I have concealed my DW 15-2 with a 10" barrel wearing nothing but a charlie sheen looking bowling shirt and a pair of shorts. Would I want to do it every day? No! If my life depended on it, you bet I would carry a big gun until the threat passed.

__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 10:32 AM   #104
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6573 Times on 3638 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
Well said! I love Revolvers and there are some gorgeous revolves out there! But my passion for there beauty and even reliability does not override my knowledge of efficiency! Thanks for your thoughts!
What's not efficient about a revolver? There are not many things that could survive 6 rounds of 357 Magnum, and it was used for years by the police, and is still being used by civilians. I call that efficient.

Having a higher capacity is nice, but it's not a necessity. The vast majority of self defense situations end when the gun is drawn. Few will have to actually fire their weapon. Fewer still will have to empty more than 2-3 rounds into a BG.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 10:54 AM   #105
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 892
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker
What's not efficient about a revolver? There are not many things that could survive 6 rounds of 357 Magnum, and it was used for years by the police, and is still being used by civilians. I call that efficient. Having a higher capacity is nice, but it's not a necessity. The vast majority of self defense situations end when the gun is drawn. Few will have to actually fire their weapon. Fewer still will have to empty more than 2-3 rounds into a BG.
Maybe I'm just deceived at thinking 15 is better than 6 and that is better to have more than enough than wishing I had more!! And I agree, most situations 6 would be plenty! But what about the situations that arise outside of the norm! Wouldn't it be better to have an extra 10 rounds in case it's needed?? Oh this is so turning into a capacity debate! But it's hard not to talk about capacity when comparing the two!
__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 12:24 PM   #106
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,680
Liked 1847 Times on 1265 Posts
Likes Given: 675

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
Maybe I'm just deceived at thinking 15 is better than 6 and that is better to have more than enough than wishing I had more!! And I agree, most situations 6 would be plenty! But what about the situations that arise outside of the norm! Wouldn't it be better to have an extra 10 rounds in case it's needed?? Oh this is so turning into a capacity debate! But it's hard not to talk about capacity when comparing the two!
That is why long guns were invented. I keep a shotgun in my toolbox in case I am attacked by skeet or any unusual situation arises. If I am going to have a James Bond type shootout on the street I am going to use a long gun.
__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
DrumJunkie Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 01:02 PM   #107
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JW357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,724
Liked 3726 Times on 2283 Posts
Likes Given: 1224

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512
I tend to think that these kinds of questions are people seeking validation of an invalid argument. There's are several very good reasons why virtually all militaries and police agencies worth mentioning carry semi-autos. Off-hand: 1. Modern semi-autos function very reliably. 1911's, BHP's, Glock, SiG, S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Makarov, and too many others to mention have been getting the job done for the past 100 years or so. In decades past, mass production machining tolerances and metallurgy were not as good as they are today and sometimes semi-automatics had issues due to these mass production related issues. 2. Modern semi-autos hold 25%-50% more ammunition than a revolver. S&W TRR8 - 8 rounds of .357 Magnum Glock 20 - 16 rounds of 10MM 3. Semi-automatics are faster to reload for the overwhelming majority of shooters. If your name is Jerry Mickulek, you are the exception to the rule. Travis Tomasie is every bit as fast as Jerry Mickulek and Travis' 1911 still holds more bullets than Jerry's S&W. 4. Modern semi-automatics are generally lighter and more controllable than a revolver. Yes, there are Scandium frame revolvers now thanks to modern metallurgy but they're also not much fun to shoot with full power ammunition. With respect to controllability, there's simple physics involved with that. Yes, the Chiappa Rhino is the exception to that rule. 5. Modern revolvers with modern metallurgy that make a revolver comparable in terms of weight to a semi-auto are relatively expensive. Economy plays into the value equation. Simply put revolvers are more expensive than semi-autos because they require more machining and, in some cases, more intricate machining and hand-fitment of parts for optimal function. All other things being equal, having a firearm is better than not having a firearm. If you want to purchase a revolver because you like revolvers or because that's what's legal or PC in your area, fine. It's an older technology and has its share of drawbacks, but it's better than harsh words and rocks. Don't expect anyone to tout the superiority of the technology over a semi-auto because reliable semi-automatic pistols have been in constant manufacture for over a century now.
As for #1, yes modern semi-autos function reliably. I'm not arguing that. But guess what? Revolvers STILL function reliably. So that's a bit of a moot point.

Points #2, 3, 4 - I addressed all those in my original post so I don't see the need to do so again.

#5 - I disagree about the expense aspect. Sure, a plastic gun is always going to be cheaper, but MSRP on a Ruger LCR chambered in .357 Magnum is $599, I'd say that's pretty comparable to a large number of guns in the same class (IE - pocket pistol). And who pays MSRP? So we're talking 600 bucks on the high end. How about a Taurus Protector 651? Its MSRP is $625.

Maybe in the past wheel guns we're more expensive. And I'll grant you, there are plenty today that still are. S&W for example, tends to be pricier. So does Sig Sauer. But it certainly seems some companies are figuring out how to make wheel guns for less money. Also, my S&W model 66 ran me $450. If you shop on the used market you can find terrific deals on them. I am yet to see a Sig for less than $600 at any LGS's near me.
__________________

Always have clean socks.

JW357 is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 01:07 PM   #108
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JW357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6,724
Liked 3726 Times on 2283 Posts
Likes Given: 1224

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall
Maybe I'm just deceived at thinking 15 is better than 6 and that is better to have more than enough than wishing I had more!! And I agree, most situations 6 would be plenty! But what about the situations that arise outside of the norm! Wouldn't it be better to have an extra 10 rounds in case it's needed?? Oh this is so turning into a capacity debate! But it's hard not to talk about capacity when comparing the two!
This is bordering on a capacity debate, and I simply won't allow it on this thread. That was never its intended purpose. However, you say: "But what about the situations that arise outside of the norm!" I'll excuse your use of an exclamation mark, when a question mark should obviously have been used, but I'd like to ask how many of those situations have ever arisen for you? For any of us who are not "in the line of duty?" Meaning, LEOs and Military deployed to a combat zone? Personally, I don't even know anyone outside of the interwebs who has had to use a weapon in self defense (again, excluding my deployed brothers) AT ALL.

Mass shooting are not on the rise, contrary to what the media would have you think. That being said, running into a drug addled punk who wouldn't give a second thought in the world to killing you on the spot, is also not on the rise.
__________________

Always have clean socks.

JW357 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 01:12 PM   #109
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,574
Liked 2049 Times on 1072 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

well my argument against NOT carrying a revolver is the same (for me) as my argument against not carrying at all: don't like the feel of a handgun on my body. Just for the record, I don't wear a watch, a wedding ring (tattoo works just as well and harder to take off), jewelry of any kind. So I've always been a 'gun close at hand' kind of guy or open carry

__________________
chloeshooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 01:23 PM   #110
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Northeast San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,665
Liked 760 Times on 510 Posts
Likes Given: 49

Default

There are pros and cons on each side of the argument
Semi auto pros
Larger ammo capacity
Slimmer design
Ease of reload

Semi auto cons
Body contact shots can cause slide to go out of battery causing misfire
More prone to failure due to more moving parts

Revolver pros
Body contact shots no problem
Ease of reload with practice and speed loaders
Simplicity in design less prone to failure except with faulty ammo
Ease of use

Revolver cons
Smaller ammo capacity
Heavy trigger pull in most
Usually heftier than semi autos
Finding retention holsters more difficult

That's just a few pros and cons of each it all boils down to what you are most comfortable carrying and what you have the most faith in

__________________

this message was sent using my Barrett 50 straight to your brain.

seancslaughter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Gun control debate: what arguments the left will use and how to answer them FullautoUSA Legal and Activism 0 01-01-2013 03:27 PM
Refresher Course on Gun Control Arguments RJMercer Legal and Activism 0 12-31-2012 10:40 PM
Supreme Court has heard the Arguments Kelly J Legal and Activism 0 03-02-2010 07:20 PM
arguments? Braeden Ammunition & Reloading 10 07-28-2008 02:24 PM
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment sculker The Club House 3 01-19-2008 03:30 PM