# Are revolvers dying out?



## PhotonGuy

It seems the vast majority is using, or switching to semi autos over revolvers. In most of the shooting classes I've taken I would say at least 90 percent of the people have semi autos and its very rare to find revolvers. Also, the police and military supposedly don't use revolvers anymore in favor of semi autos. It wasn't common to see a police officer with a revolver since the 80s.


----------



## Chrisoro

Considering that large firearms manufacturers like Ruger, Taurus and Smith & Wesson are still developing and offering new revolver models to the public over the last couple of years(e.g. Single Ten, Single Nine, LCR), I would say that there is definately a still an interest for revolvers among people interested in firearms. It might not be the same group of people who are buying revolvers these days, but they are still selling, or the companies wouldn't spend resources on development and marketing. 

8 New Revolvers for 2014 - Shooting Times


----------



## Orange Lightning

Disclaimer - I don't know almost anything about guns. 

Do revolvers pose any advantages to semi autos besides being more reliable? If they don't, then it isn't surprising. Less ammo, more reload time. 

A friend of mine got into guns for a while and told me about the Chiappa Rhino revolver design. It's primary unique characteristic being that the barrel is bottom cylinder instead of the top. I've read it was quite the big deal.

Gun Review The Ugliest Coolest Gun Ever Chiappa Rhino The Dental Warrior A Blog for Dentists


----------



## Dirty Dog

Orange Lightning said:


> Disclaimer - I don't know almost anything about guns.
> 
> Do revolvers pose any advantages to semi autos besides being more reliable? If they don't, then it isn't surprising. Less ammo, more reload time.
> 
> A friend of mine got into guns for a while and told me about the Chiappa Rhino revolver design. It's primary unique characteristic being that the barrel is bottom cylinder instead of the top. I've read it was quite the big deal.
> 
> Gun Review The Ugliest Coolest Gun Ever Chiappa Rhino The Dental Warrior A Blog for Dentists



More reliable?
I shoot 10,000-15,000 rounds per year through semi-auto handguns. I've had bad ammo a couple times when I've cheaped out, and I've posted about that. 
But with decent quality ammo, I can count the malfunctions I've had on the fingers of one foot. 
With high quality ammo, such as I carry on a day to day basis, I have never had a single malfunction. Not one. 
So where does "more reliable" come from?


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Orange Lightning

Dirty Dog said:


> More reliable?
> I shoot 10,000-15,000 rounds per year through semi-auto handguns. I've had bad ammo a couple times when I've cheaped out, and I've posted about that.
> But with decent quality ammo, I can count the malfunctions I've had on the fingers of one foot.
> With high quality ammo, such as I carry on a day to day basis, I have never had a single malfunction. Not one.
> So where does "more reliable" come from?
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



Disclaimer? 

I've heard that semi auto handguns are liable to jam if you don't clean them and maintain them. Is that untrue? I've also heard, based on that assertion, that handguns are more reliable because they mechanically can't have those malfunctions.

Any comment on the Chiappa Rhino? Was it a big deal or wasn't it? 

Sidenote, why this attitude? I just said I don't know anything about guns. My comment was my one fifth of a penny contribution. Surely you've heard these assertions before?  Can you not just explain something I'm wrong about in an informative manner instead of busting out your "air quotes"?


----------



## Tgace

Law Enforcement and the Military switched to autoloaders for a reason.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> More reliable?
> I shoot 10,000-15,000 rounds per year through semi-auto handguns. I've had bad ammo a couple times when I've cheaped out, and I've posted about that.
> But with decent quality ammo, I can count the malfunctions I've had on the fingers of one foot.
> With high quality ammo, such as I carry on a day to day basis, I have never had a single malfunction. Not one.
> So where does "more reliable" come from?
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.



Based on the idea that it is simpler and so less prone to failure

Which is of course also not the case.


----------



## drop bear

Orange Lightning said:


> Disclaimer?
> 
> I've heard that semi auto handguns are liable to jam if you don't clean them and maintain them. Is that untrue? I've also heard, based on that assertion, that handguns are more reliable because they mechanically can't have those malfunctions.
> 
> Any comment on the Chiappa Rhino? Was it a big deal or wasn't it?
> 
> Sidenote, why this attitude? I just said I don't know anything about guns. My comment was my one fifth of a penny contribution. Surely you've heard these assertions before?  Can you not just explain something I'm wrong about in an informative manner instead of busting out your "air quotes"?








It is about 4 bits. There is really not much to go wrong in there.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Blindside

I carry a glock, but a friend who does undercover narcotics work has been convincing me of the merits of a 5 shot .357 hammerless snub as a pocket gun, he makes a persuasive argument.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Orange Lightning said:


> Disclaimer?
> 
> I've heard that semi auto handguns are liable to jam if you don't clean them and maintain them. Is that untrue?



I've heard that Elvis is alive and well and helping aliens abduct bored housewives in Ohio.

ANY mechanical device that is not properly maintained will fail. That s one of those "duh" statements. You might as well "prove" that a Chevy is more reliable than a Ford, because after all, if you maintain the Chevy and don't maintain the Ford, the Chevy will probably run longer.



Orange Lightning said:


> Any comment on the Chiappa Rhino? Was it a big deal or wasn't it?



It is a small deal. Lowering the barrel makes it marginally easier to recover your sight picture after each round, since muzzle flip will be marginally less.
You get better results from more range time, though.



Orange Lightning said:


> Sidenote, why this attitude? I just said I don't know anything about guns. My comment was my one fifth of a penny contribution. Surely you've heard these assertions before?  Can you not just explain something I'm wrong about in an informative manner instead of busting out your "air quotes"?



What attitude? You said revolvers are more reliable. I provided one sample that shows differently. If you don't like being wrong, research before you post.
And those were not air quotes. I was, in case you missed it, directly quoting you. That means quotation marks were indicated, and used.
Maybe you should brush up on your grammar rules before you gripe?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Blindside said:


> I carry a glock, but a friend who does undercover narcotics work has been convincing me of the merits of a 5 shot .357 hammerless snub as a pocket gun, he makes a persuasive argument.



I carry a variety of semi-auto pistols. I'm big enough that the Bersa Thunder 380 can be used as a pocket gun, but there is certainly a place for smaller guns as hide outs. I wouldn't bother with the .357 magnum, personally, since from a snubby 2" barrel there's no real difference in power between the .357 magnum and the .38 special. Just more recoil.


----------



## Chrisoro

I think the main claim about (double action) revolvers being more reliable is that if you get a dud round, you can simply pull the trigger again, and fire the next round. On a semiauto pistol, you first need to rack the slide to obtain the same result, something that generally requires the use of both hands, and consists of two steps as opposed to one. In a close quarters life or death situation, where you may not have both hands available, I can certainly see why a revolver would have an advantage. With the overall reliability of modern centerfire rounds, you can ofcourse argue that the chance of this happening is close to zero, but it is still not zero.

If you want handguns chambered in the heaviest handgun calibers available (.454 casull, .500 s&w), you are pretty much confined to revolvers, enabled by a simpler overall mechanism in revolvers. A semi auto handgun in .500 s&w would probably have to involve a pretty beefy slide and spring, and would probably not be as durable as a revolver firing the same rounds.


----------



## Chrisoro

drop bear said:


> It is about 4 bits. There is really not much to go wrong in there.



And by the same logic, my car consists of about five bits(main body + four wheels). However, if by "about four", you mean "about thirtyfour" you would be correct.

How many parts does a Glock have?
According to the current manual the Glock has about 34 parts. They are:
# Part
1 Slide
2 Barrel
3 Recoil spring assembly
4 inapplicable, incorporated in part 3
5 Firing pin
6 Spacer sleeve
7 Firing pin spring
8 Spring cups
9 Firing pin safety
10 Firing pin safety spring
11 Extractor
12 Extractor depressor plunger
13 Extractor depressor plunger spring
14 Spring-loaded bearing
15 Slide cover plate
16 Rear sight
16a Front sight
17 Receiver
18 Magazine catch spring
19 Magazine catch
20 Slide lock spring
21 Slide lock
22 Locking block
23 Trigger mechanism housing with ejector
24 Connector
25 Trigger spring
26 Trigger with trigger bar
27 Slide stop lever
28 Trigger pin
29 Trigger housing pin
30 Follower
31 Magazine spring
32 Magazine floor plate
32a Magazine insert
33 Magazine tube
34 Locking block pin (some models)
35 Channel Liner

The actual total number is open to a great deal of interpretation:
- #3: the 'Recoil spring assembly' is made of several parts
- #8: the 'Spring cups' are 2 parts
- #16 & 16a: the 'Front and Rear sight' are 2 parts
- #23: the 'Trigger mechanism housing with ejector' is made of several parts
- #26: the 'Trigger with trigger bar' is made of several parts
- #34 the 'Locking block pin' is not found on some models
- #32 & 32a: the 'Magazine floor plate and Magazine insert' are 2 parts
- Adjustable sights have a lot of individual parts


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> I shoot 10,000-15,000 rounds per year through semi-auto handguns. .



That's quite expensive. And that's partially why I often prefer to do lots of dry practice in addition to using live rounds.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> It is about 4 bits. There is really not much to go wrong in there.


Actually, 35 parts.  Field strip of a Glock is 4 parts: receiver, slide, barrel, and spring.  Detail strip goes a bit farther, but there's damn little that can go wrong mechanically with a Glock because it's so simple a design.

Revolvers are mechanically a LOT more complicated than even a complicated semi-auto like a Sig or even the 1911...  And when a revolver does suffer a malfunction, odds are that you've got a paperweight until a smith takes it apart.  There's more you can do in the press of the moment to possibly resolve a malfunction with a semi-auto.

But which is more reliable?  Both?  Neither?  No real way to answer that; too many variables.  Revolvers are easier to learn (no malfunction drills other than keep a squib load pointed down range...) and generally less expensive, which is why a lot of security firms still use them.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> But which is more reliable?  Both?  Neither?  No real way to answer that; too many variables.  Revolvers are easier to learn (no malfunction drills other than keep a squib load pointed down range...) and generally less expensive, which is why a lot of security firms still use them.


From what I see at most shops, a good revolver or a good semi auto will both cost around $500 to $600. A good Ruger revolver or a good Glock semi auto will both be in that price range and both are excellent brands. Now, if you really do want to break the bank than you could buy a Kimber or a Coonan or a Wilson Combat. Those are all semi autos but as I said you can get a good semi auto, such as a Glock or a 1911, for much less than any of those. 

As for ammo costs, where it can really get expensive if you do lots of shooting, aside from the .22 one of the least expensive and most widely rounds is the 9mm which I've only seen in semi autos. I've yet to see a revolver that's a 9mm.


----------



## Chrisoro

PhotonGuy said:


> As for ammo costs, where it can really get expensive if you do lots of shooting, aside from the .22 one of the least expensive and most widely rounds is the 9mm which I've only seen in semi autos. *I've yet to see a revolver that's a 9mm.*



Actually... 

Ruger LCR Double-Action Revolver Model 5456

Product Model 929

Product Model 986

Ruger New Model Blackhawk Convertible Single-Action Revolver Models

Taurus 905SS2 Revolver 9mm 5 Rounds Stainless Steel Finish


----------



## Chrisoro

Here's a good article on the pros and cons of revolvers and autoloaders in Personaldefenseworld. Very informative for those interested in what an internationally recognized defensive firearms instructor thinks on the matter:

Revolver vs. Auto


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chrisoro said:


> Actually...
> 
> Ruger LCR Double-Action Revolver Model 5456
> 
> Product Model 929
> 
> Product Model 986
> 
> Ruger New Model Blackhawk Convertible Single-Action Revolver Models
> 
> Taurus 905SS2 Revolver 9mm 5 Rounds Stainless Steel Finish


Wow I've never seen those before. Some of them are quite expensive.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well how about what this guy has to say about revolvers vs semi-autos?


----------



## Chrisoro

Watched it, and still think the Mas Ayoob-article I posted earlier is far more balanced and relevant in regard to this issue. And I think he hit the nail on the head with this statement:


> The reason the debate persists is that there are some very solid arguments on either side of the debate. Anyone who thinks the matter is cut and dried for everyone has probably oversimplified the matter and missed a few points.



You may of course listen to whoever you want, but I'm willing to bet that Mas Ayoob has several degrees of more relevant experience and knowledge on the use of handguns in real life situations than random youtubeguy linked to above. I also saw far better argued points in regard to the pros and cons of both revolvers and autoloaders, than what I saw in the video above.


----------



## K50Marine

I love revolvers! I'm a Cop and I carry a Glock 21 as my primary duty weapon. I own three different Smith and Wesson revolvers. I carry a S&W Model  "Airweight" .38 with a crimson trace laser sight mounted on it as both an off duty weapon and a back up weapon inside my vest when I am on patrol. I love the simplicity and reliability of revolvers and my Airweight is very easy to conceal when I am out and about wearing a t-shirt and shorts. In the cooler months when I'm wearing heavier clothing, I like to carry a Glock Model 19 9mm as my off duty weapon. Of course the bad part is only having 5 rounds. Revolvers have pretty much been phased out of service by most if not all police departments in the US and Canada. Many state correctional agencies still equip their officers with .38 or .357 magnum revolvers. Correctional Officers (CO) generally only carry firearms when they are assigned to armed posts away from the general population (i.e. watch towers, perimeter vehicles, control rooms, or on outside transportation details to courts and hospitals). CO's generally receive less firearms training than most police officers,therefore training and equipping officers to use a revolver that is issued from a prison armory is generally more cost effective. I believe the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation still equips their officers with revolvers. I think their specialists such as correctional investigators, K-9 officers, and SERT Team officers are issued semi-autos. They are one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the nation with over 30,000 peace officers.


----------



## Chrisoro

A few more articles that may or may not contribute to answer the questions OP asked:

CCW Revolver or Autoloader Gun Digest

Unappreciated Advantages of a Self Defense Revolver

The Revolver In the age of the autoloader some say revolvers are obsolete. The Daily Caller


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chrisoro said:


> You may of course listen to whoever you want, but I'm willing to bet that Mas Ayoob has several degrees of more relevant experience and knowledge on the use of handguns in real life situations than random youtubeguy linked to above. I also saw far better argued points in regard to the pros and cons of both revolvers and autoloaders, than what I saw in the video above.


I will take anything that Mas Ayoob says over what most other people say in regards to firearms. The guy in the video I posted has good experience as a police officer and soldier but I've read some of Ayoob's books and articles and I must say he knows his stuff better than most people in the shooting world.


----------



## Tgace

Chrisoro said:


> Watched it, and still think the Mas Ayoob-article I posted earlier is far more balanced and relevant in regard to this issue. And I think he hit the nail on the head with this statement:
> 
> 
> You may of course listen to whoever you want, but I'm willing to bet that Mas Ayoob has several degrees of more relevant experience and knowledge on the use of handguns in real life situations than random youtubeguy linked to above. I also saw far better argued points in regard to the pros and cons of both revolvers and autoloaders, than what I saw in the video above.



What exactly is Ayoobs "experience"? To my knowledge he was a reserve cop who managed to garner himself some noteriety. He writes well...is published and recognized...and makes valid points. But I'm unsure he can make the "been there, done that" argument.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chrisoro

Tgace said:


> What exactly is Ayoobs "experience"? To my knowledge he was a reserve cop who managed to garner himself some noteriety. He writes well...is published and recognized...and makes valid points. But I'm unsure he can make the "been there, done that" argument.



According to several sources, he has been at least a part time police officer since about 1972, and holds the rank of captain. I don't have much information on what exactly this entails, or what experiences he has had trough this job, but I don't believe police departments give out honorary ranks, so he must have had some relevant experience i believe. Also, considering that he has had extensive and well documented coursing in the field of firearm tactics and training over the years, must be expected to have performed quite a lot of research considering how high his numerous books are regarded, that he has been used as an expert witness on firearms in numerous trails,  and that he is also considered an expert instructor by a lot of police departments, considering they has been willing to employ him, I personally at least, wouldn't just disregard anything he says on tactical use of handguns on the basis that he is "just a reserve cop who managed to gain himself some notority."

Note: the following table is presented here as it provides an easy overview over most of Mas Ayoob's claims to credibility, and is not meant, from me atleast, as bashing of Jeff Cooper. The source I have taken this table from is listed below, and includes documentation of all claims within the table. Take it for what it's worth.







To sum up: If so many people who trust their lives on firearms in their job as well as a lot of people within the legal system decides to put their trust in what Ayoob says and teaches, I see no reason as to why I should not, as long as I consider his points valid and well argued.

Sources:

Shooting Instructors So to Speak Jeff Cooper vs. Massad Ayoob - The Truth About Guns

Massad Ayoob - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

About Massad


----------



## Tgace

I think Ayoob is a valid source. 

I'm just experienced enough with expert witnesses and what and who PDs bring in for trainers so that I'm less impressed with those points than others may be.


----------



## Tgace

Personally...I'm more interested in what modern gunfighters like Mike Pannone, Larry Vickers and Kyle Lamb have to say.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Well how about what this guy has to say about revolvers vs semi-autos?


Don't want to spend another 3+ minutes on this guy.  Maybe you can tell us what he says and if you agree?


----------



## jks9199

Chrisoro said:


> According to several sources, he has been at least a part time police officer since about 1972, and holds the rank of captain. I don't have much information on what exactly this entails, or what experiences he has had trough this job, but* I don't believe police departments give out honorary ranks, so he must have had some relevant experience i believe*. Also, considering that he has had extensive and well documented coursing in the field of firearm tactics and training over the years, must be expected to have performed quite a lot of research considering how high his numerous books are regarded, that he has been used as an expert witness on firearms in numerous trails,  and that he is also considered an expert instructor by a lot of police departments, considering they has been willing to employ him, I personally at least, wouldn't just disregard anything he says on tactical use of handguns on the basis that he is "just a reserve cop who managed to gain himself some notority."
> 
> OK -- back to "experts."  A military dogfighting Ace generally is about 5 kills.  Most police officers don't face an actual shooting situation (not counting putting injured critters down, range time, etc) more than once or twice in a career.  Even those, like SWAT units, that do pull their guns a lot, and actually point them at folks, seldom actually shoot.  And even fewer of of those instances are actually gunfights, like out of a movie, with exchanges and reloads, etc.  Most police shootings are inside of 10 yards, and are quick responses to a sudden threat.  So, most of the so-called LE experts on shooting are really more experts on NOT shooting (discerning the don't shoot in a shoot/don't shoot), shooting on the range (even tactical scenarios are range time...), or the tactics around them.



I don't know the specifics of Ayoob's experience.  He's recognized by many as an expert, but let's be real: there aren't that many cops out there, of any stripe, who really are "experts" in gunfighting because very few cops have more than a couple of actual incidents of shooting someone in their career, and those are seldom really "gunfights" rather than responding to a lethal thread.  Not as clear as I want to be with that statement...  Let me expand on that in a minute.

But the honorary ranks...  Yeah, that happens.  More so in sheriff's agencies, but it can happen in a PD.  Reserves, part-time rank because of favors of one stripe or another done...  It happens.  Shaquille O'Neal served as a reserve with the Port of Los Angeles rather than LAPD because LAPD simply wanted to use him for community relations/photo ops... and he wanted to, as much as possible, do "real" work.  (Source on that is personal communication from a now retired chief in that area... who was peripherally involved.)


----------



## Chrisoro

As I said above, I don't have the specifics on Ayoob's real life experience with handguns in live situations, or the nature of his PD rank, and unless you do, all of this is speculation and not really relevant. What I do know, is that a lot of knowledgable and well respected people seems to think that his credidentals are legit and that what he says has merit, and I also know that he has ademonstrated way above normal ability to handle firearms in competitions that attempts to mimic real life situations, such as practical shooting and similar forms of competition. His formal competence and education on firearms is also without question and well documented, and his books and articles generally seems well researched, employs good methodology and give very well elaborated conclusions, so while I don't know the degree of actual "firefights" he has experienced (if any), I personally have no problems seeing him as an expert and someone to listen to when he speeks about firearms in practical situations.


----------



## Brian King

I like revolvers because my wife likes revolvers. She has a difficult time racking auto's due to medical issues. I like revolvers as they can (the models we have) be fired right from the pocket and more than once should that be needed. They do not look as threatening should things end up in court. I do not think that they will be dying out anytime soon. Any handgun is a compromise in my opinion.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Brian King said:


> I like revolvers because my wife likes revolvers.



At least we know who's in charge. 



Brian King said:


> She has a difficult time racking auto's due to medical issues.



That can certainly be a problem. There are work arounds, but like anything else there's no one size fits all answer, and if you can operate the slide, then you can't operate the slide.



Brian King said:


> I like revolvers as they can (the models we have) be fired right from the pocket and more than once should that be needed.



Um... OK... tell me something. Why would you do this? 



Brian King said:


> They do not look as threatening should things end up in court.



What makes you think they're less threatening?



Brian King said:


> I do not think that they will be dying out anytime soon. Any handgun is a compromise in my opinion.



They're already being relegated to a niche role, although I don't think they'll ever go completely away. 
The simple reality is that the vast majority of people who choose a gun for personal defense or their profession choose a semi-auto. Other than the fairly rare case of a person who simply cannot operate a slide, there are no real good reasons to choose a revolver. 
Unless you want that S&W 500 Magnum for your next bear hunt...


----------



## jks9199

Dirty Dog said:


> They're already being relegated to a niche role, although I don't think they'll ever go completely away.
> The simple reality is that the vast majority of people who choose a gun for personal defense or their profession choose a semi-auto. Other than the fairly rare case of a person who simply cannot operate a slide, there are no real good reasons to choose a revolver.
> Unless you want that S&W 500 Magnum for your next bear hunt...



They often don't print as badly in concealed carry.  There's one reason...


----------



## Dirty Dog

jks9199 said:


> They often don't print as badly in concealed carry.  There's one reason...



There are wwaaayyy too many variables to make that claim. I can carry a Glock 26 and have more firepower in a smaller package than most revolvers. And if I'm willing to limit myself to 8 rounds, my Bersa Thunder 380 will print less than pretty much any revolver. 
Hell, I can stick that in a wallet holster or one of the "cell phone pouch" holsters on my belt. 



Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Brian King

[


Dirty Dog said:


> At least we know who's in charge.
> 
> LOL, yup. AND I am thrilled that my wife found a handgun that she likes, can efficiently operate and can shoot well, and is willing to carry. Out of curiosity what is your wife's carry?
> 
> That can certainly be a problem. There are work arounds, but like anything else there's no one size fits all answer, and if you can operate the slide, then you can't operate the slide.
> 
> yup
> 
> Um... OK... tell me something. Why would you do this?
> 
> There are some situations where brandishing is not the wise thing to do, yet, having immediate access to (by having hand on it) to your weapon is the wise and prudent thing. There are other combative situations where you need to immediately access and deploy your weapon, a hand in the jacket pocket beats a hand on your holstered Bersa every time. There are some situations when in very close contact (ground) that yanking out your blaster is not feasible but you still need to get your shot off. In some situations contact shots might be the choice of action. Revolvers rock at these, semi-s, not so much as they can easily go out of battery. A couple of years ago my wife was attacked by two off leash Rotts while walking our Pyr. My wife, all of 5'2, weighed less than any of the combating animals. You are what 250lbs DD? Imagine being attacked by two 250 pound animals while trying to control a third 250 pound animal. My wife was unarmed other than our dog and she suffered a neck injury taking a bad fall. Our dog kept the other two from mauling either. She was all in all very lucky. It will never happen again.
> 
> 
> What makes you think they're less threatening?
> 
> Common sense. Please name which Rambo episode where he single handedly wiped out the gang of bad guys with his 2" 38? Which modern cop show has the hero cop with a 38 in each shoulder holster wiping out the mafia and drug lords? Which thug, was it 75 cents or lil' wha his name that was holding the other drug lord at bay with his thug gripped 38? Was a Kadafy or Bin Ladin or Mohammad Mohammad  who made sure that their might revolver was in each threatening video? Modern culture sees semi's in the hands of renegade vigilantly cops in the movies and on tv, they see them in the hands of the bad guys, and on the side of evil military caricature. On the nightly news if there is a shooting that isn't an assault rifle they put up a graphic of a semi. On the radio, the music that the young folks listen to, what firearm and calibre do the rap about? Seems to me that Semi's are seen as threatening while revolvers are seen as antiquated tools that grandpa had in his dresser drawer. You have served on Juries before right DD? I was on one where one of the charges was a serious assault as the thug knocked the victim about the head with a rock. One of the jurors said" but, it is just a rock" as she voted no. We had the rock brought in and were passing it around the table to view before taking another vote, and I accidentally dropped the rock on the table. Scared the heck out of few of the jurors (including the 'it is just a rock' lady). The next vote was unanimous and the young man was found guilty on that charge as well as several others, including firearms charges. The good thing about juries in that the jurors are our neighbors and folks we work with, the scary thing about juries is that the jurors are our neighbors and coworkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're already being relegated to a niche role, although I don't think they'll ever go completely away.
> The simple reality is that the vast majority of people who choose a gun for personal defense or their profession choose a semi-auto. Other than the fairly rare case of a person who simply cannot operate a slide, there are no real good reasons to choose a revolver.
> 
> When I feel the need to carry and am limited to a handgun it is usually my Glock. Sometimes, the Sig or Colt Commander, and every now and then the little desert eagle .40, sometimes if I am with my wife it is one of the 38's. The wife choses to carry the 38 and I like the idea of both guns being the same calibre and same operating systems. That you have you mind made up about your semi's is great. Your condensing attitude sucks, but that is often the case in my gun is bigger and badder than your gun discussions. We made our decisions based on factors in *our* lives. All handguns are a compromise, that is a fact. In our house our handguns will get us to other tools. We have chosen to sacrifice capacity and calibre for what we feel are sound, educated and practical reasons.
> 
> Unless you want that S&W 500 Magnum for your next bear hunt...



Ah, yes. Besides capacity and calibre there is also the umm errr... need to compensate with a large inanimate phallic tool to make up for umm...inadequate tool insecurity issues. Semi's fit that role perfectly. Good choice LOL

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tgace

Personally, the only think revolvers do for me is give me an appreciation for the "art" in a well made machine.


----------



## ballen0351

Blindside said:


> hammerless snub as a pocket gun, he makes a persuasive argument.


This ......When I worked undercover I wanted to carry a hammerless revolver as a last resort gun. I would be able to fire inside my coat or pocket and not worry about clothing getting caught in the slide.  Sadly I wasnt allowed its against our policy we had to carry a semiauto.  I dont know if a semiauto slide would get caught in clothing in a pocket when fired because I never tried it and I have however shot a revolver in a pocket and it did fire with no problems.  Ill have to try a semiauto one of these days.


----------



## Brian King

I find retention is easier with short snubbies then with weapons with long flat slides.

If a person travels, knowing the operating system on revolvers is handy, very popular still in some places. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Um... OK... tell me something. Why would you do this?


For me alot of the UC buys I did were in a vehicle.  Usually with the dealer at my window in a position of advantage on me.  If I were seated in a vehicle with a gun pointed at me being robbed which is what happened to alot of the white guys that bought dope in my area I wanted to reach in my pocket for my "wallet" and start sending rounds before he ever saw a gun.  But thats all theory because I was never robbed and I wasnt allowed to have a revolver


----------



## ballen0351

Brian King said:


> If a person travels, knowing the operating system on revolvers is handy, very popular still in some places.


Yeah Ive seen younger cops not know how to unload revolvers.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> This ......When I worked undercover I wanted to carry a hammerless revolver as a last resort gun. I would be able to fire inside my coat or pocket and not worry about clothing getting caught in the slide.  Sadly I wasnt allowed its against our policy we had to carry a semiauto.  I dont know if a semiauto slide would get caught in clothing in a pocket when fired because I never tried it and I have however shot a revolver in a pocket and it did fire with no problems.  Ill have to try a semiauto one of these days.



I can buy situations like this, if we're going to get down to the hair-splitting stage. But, realistically, in the VAST majority of cases, there is no real advantage to a revolver over a semi-auto.



Brian King said:


> I find retention is easier with short snubbies then with weapons with long flat slides.
> 
> If a person travels, knowing the operating system on revolvers is handy, very popular still in some places.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



I agree with this, too. But that's as much because I'm just generally in favor of learning as much as you can as anything else.

As far as retention goes... compare apples to apples. It's easier to retain a short auto than a long barrel revolver.

Brian, you asked about Sue earlier. She generally carries a Glock 26 with 3-round magazine extensions.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I can buy situations like this, if we're going to get down to the hair-splitting stage. But, realistically, in the VAST majority of cases, there is no real advantage to a revolver over a semi-auto.


Not so much hair splitting and more so a reality for me at the time but my scenario was not normal most people dont go out buying dope in dangerous neighborhoods everyday for a living.  And in my opinion defensive shooting of a weapon from a jacket pocket  for example Im taken down mounted and getting my head based in I might just reach in and start shooting to create distance to get him off so I can draw and fully extend or even pulled from the pocket but close body shooting where clothing count interfere with the slide in that case a revolver has the advantage.  But In everyday use for most people it doesnt matter they both work fine


----------



## Tgace

I like the ability to have 46 rounds on me...easily reparable....

Sure the average shooting wont require that many, but all the same.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tgace said:


> I like the ability to have 46 rounds on me...easily reparable....
> 
> Sure the average shooting wont require that many, but all the same.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



When I'm carrying my Glock 19, I will often carry a couple of G17 mags as backup. That gives me a nice, even 50 rounds.


----------



## Tgace

Reparable? I meant reloadable... Damn autocorrect.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Revolvers are not dying out simply because people are still using them*.  They can certainly fill a need for concealed carry as there are times when they simply do not print as easily as a semi-auto. Like K50Marine I live in Las Vegas so there are simply times in a t-shirt environment when it is hard to carry a semi-auto on a slim frame.  So that is one reason to utilize a revolver.  However, if I can carry a full size semi-auto with good concealment I always will!  There is a reason why simply every military and almost all police agencies have gone to the semi-auto.  Great functionality, lots of rounds and it is also simple to use with some basic training. 

On a side note I have a lot of revolvers and even more semi-autos.   My semi-auto 1911 Smith and Wesson jams once in a blue moon.  Glocks, simply I have only seen one malfunction and that was when my wife limp-wristed it.  Personally, I have never had a malfunction with a Glock and I shoot at the very least every other week.  Revolvers have been flawless except for one .357 which fails repeatedly when at the range.  About 2 to 3 times every twenty shots or so.  It has been looked by a gunsmith and he can't figure out what is wrong.  It is just a crappy gun.


----------



## Dr.Smith

[QUOTE="PhotonGuy, post: 1709836, member: 30963went  seems the vast majority is using, or switching to semi autos over revolvers. In most of the shooting classes I've taken I would say at least 90 percent of the people have semi autos and its very rare to find revolvers. Also, the police and military supposedly don't use revolvers anymore in favor of semi autos. It wasn't common to see a police officer with a revolver since the 80s.[/QUOTE]
There will always be a revolving firearm, they arnt going anywhere, relax. And go to a gun show.


----------



## jks9199

Brian R. VanCise said:


> On a side note I have a lot of revolvers and even more semi-autos.   My semi-auto 1911 Smith and Wesson jams once in a blue moon.  Glocks, simply I have only seen one malfunction and that was when my wife limp-wristed it.  Personally, I have never had a malfunction with a Glock and I shoot at the very least every other week.  Revolvers have been flawless except for one .357 which fails repeatedly when at the range.  About 2 to 3 times every twenty shots or so.  It has been looked by a gunsmith and he can't figure out what is wrong.  It is just a crappy gun.



Seen a few malfunctions in Glock shooters.  Mostly shooter induced, usually by limp-wristing.  Glocks most definitely do not approve of being limp-wristed...  (Make of that what you will...  a wink is as good as a knudge, aye?  )   Just had a really weird misfeed the other day; something led it to misfeed after ejecting the spent round, almost like it stovepiped the new round.  One round out of a couple hundred fired...  It happens...  And I've seen one blow up; best guess there is a hot load from the factory, though we had some discussion that it was dirty.  Loud bang, extractor rod assembly pushed out of the gun...  But overall, if it's loaded, and you pull the trigger -- a Glock is going to shoot.  Seen Sigs malfunction more from disrepair and poor maintenance...  But that's still rare.

But, no matter how solid the reputation, sometimes, the parts just don't come together right.  Something just a hair off here, another there... and you get a couple parts that are all within tolerance separately, but together... it's too much.


----------



## Chrisoro

When I served in the RNoAF, I also saw several incidents of glocks malfunction from limp wristing when shot by fresh recruits. I love glocks, but stuff like that won't happen at all with revolvers.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> When I served in the RNoAF, I also saw several incidents of glocks malfunction from limp wristing when shot by fresh recruits. I love glocks, but stuff like that won't happen at all with revolvers.



I'm going to say that it's not a gun malfunction if the shooter is limp wristing. That's a shooter malfunction...


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm going to say that it's not a gun malfunction if the shooter is limp wristing. That's a shooter malfunction...


doesnt make  the point less valid.  that doesn't happen with revolvers.  Shooters flaw or design limitation either way thats a + for team revolver


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> doesnt make  the point less valid.  that doesn't happen with revolvers.  Shooters flaw or design limitation either way thats a + for team revolver



So is it a malfunction when someone doesn't know how to reload a revolver, or the difference between a DA/SA and a SA only revolver?

I've owned revolvers in the past, and I wouldn't hesitate to own another (but don't currently have any). I just don't see them as a great choice for the vast majority of carry situations. At this point, they're a niche item.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> So is it a malfunction when someone doesn't know how to reload a revolver, or the difference between a DA/SA and a SA only revolver?
> .


A malfunction no but a drawback perhaps.  Limp wristing is a drawback to a weapon that uses energy from the rounds firing to cycle the weapon.  You don't need that for a revolver it uses mechanical force to turn the cylinder.  
Every gun is a niche item it all comes down to personal preference


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> A malfunction no but a drawback perhaps.  Limp wristing is a drawback to a weapon that uses energy from the rounds firing to cycle the weapon.  You don't need that for a revolver it uses mechanical force to turn the cylinder.



So sometimes a shooter problem is a malfunction and sometimes it's not? OK...
Speaking specifically of limp wristing, though, that's strictly a training issue. Sue had an issue with it when she first started shooting, as do many new shooters. A little experience, and less flinching, and it eliminates itself.
Sort of like how the average shooter trying to reload a revolver might as well order a pizza, considering how long it will take. With experience, this can be improved. Not really to the speed of reloading a semi-auto (million round a year professionals excepted...) but much faster.
So are slow reloads a malfunction?



ballen0351 said:


> Every gun is a niche item it all comes down to personal preference



OK... so revolvers fill a tiny niche in todays world. Semi-autos fill a giant niche.


----------



## Tez3

What are theses revolvers you speak of? Has my weapon been superseded and no-one told me, damn!


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> So sometimes a shooter problem is a malfunction and sometimes it's not? OK...


There is a difference between a malfunction and a design shortfall.  


> Speaking specifically of limp wristing, though, that's strictly a training issue. Sue had an issue with it when she first started shooting, as do many new shooters. A little experience, and less flinching, and it eliminates itself.[\quote]
> And a switch to a revolver also eliminates it
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how the average shooter trying to reload a revolver might as well order a pizza, considering how long it will take. With experience, this can be improved. Not really to the speed of reloading a semi-auto (million round a year professionals excepted...) but much faster.
> So are slow reloads a malfunction?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope slow reloads are are design shortfall
> 
> 
> 
> OK... so revolvers fill a tiny niche in todays world. Semi-autos fill a giant niche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever floats your boat.  Your kinda taking this revolver thing personal ok you win semi autos are the bestest of the bestest.  In the end a gun is a gun is a gun and if I need one I don't care how it works as long as it does
Click to expand...


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Sort of like how the average shooter trying to reload a revolver might as well order a pizza, considering how long it will take. With experience, this can be improved. Not really to the speed of reloading a semi-auto (million round a year professionals excepted...) but much faster.
> So are slow reloads a malfunction?


Try a speed loader. With a little practice you can reload almost as fast as with a semi auto.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> There is a difference between a malfunction and a design shortfall.


 
I thought we were talking about limp wristing? Limp wristing is nor a design shortfall. The Glock, which is admittedly prone to stovepiping as a result of limp wristing, is intended to be light. Light guns, since they have less inertia, are more prone to limp wristed stovepipes.
It's purely a shooter error. Same as the other things I mentioned.
And I do not think it's reasonable to blame the tool when it's the users problem.



PhotonGuy said:


> Try a speed loader. With a little practice you can reload almost as fast as with a semi auto.


 
"Almost as fast" is not "as fast", and for a defensive weapon, speed and frequency of reloads are a huge issue. Both of which factors which the semi-auto wins, hands down.


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> I thought we were talking about limp wristing? Limp wristing is nor a design shortfall. The Glock, which is admittedly prone to stovepiping as a result of limp wristing, is intended to be light. Light guns, since they have less inertia, are more prone to limp wristed stovepipes.
> It's purely a shooter error.



Yes, but as mentioned above, the chances of this shooter error happening is non existant with revolvers. And in live situations, especially in a close quarters struggle with limited room for movement, or if one is fatigued or injured, one cannot always expect to be able to do everything with perfect form or exactly as taught. In such situations, the design of semi autos such as glock, with the posibility of limp-wristing, is at a disadvantage compared to the design of revolvers. And if one takes into consideration the ability of revolvers to fire reliably if the barrel is pressed into the opponent, something else that semi autos generally have problems with, or the need for two hands to clear a dud round in a semi auto vs just pulling the trigger again in a DA revolver, one can easily make the case that the revolver is superior in terms of reliability in certain situations. There is simply less things that can go wrong with a revolver in such situations, user induced or not.

If your are a superman who expect to be able to always shoot with perfect form when using your weapons, in any kind of condition, situation or environment, or if you are 100% sure of never enter into a close range fight with a gun involved, this does of course not apply to you.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Let's not make "limp wristing" a big issue.  I have seen one limp wristed malfunction in literally hundreds of times at the range with other people shooting my Glocks.  I have actually had more malfunctions with revolvers than I have with this issue. (because that 357 has issues)  The design of the modern semi-auto is simply superior to that of the revolver.  That is why every military, police, etc. has pretty much gone over to the semi-auto.  Why is it superior: more ammo, easier reloading, more manageable recoil, etc.  However, that doesn't mean the revolver is dying out or doesn't have a place like Balleen, K50Marine or myself mentioned for certain situations in concealment.


----------



## Tgace

PhotonGuy said:


> Try a speed loader. With a little practice you can reload almost as fast as with a semi auto.


No way....not for the average shooter, and not with the same volume of rounds. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Absolutely Tgace there is no way you can reload with a speed loader at the same rate someone can on a semi-auto.


----------



## Chrisoro

I agree that it isn't _as fast, _but with training, the gap in the speed of reloading isn't as big as most people think. And for civillian self defense, one have to ask exactly how much ammo capacity is generally needed. It's not like assault by hordes of orcs is very common. 

But I have no problems accepting speed of reloading, managable recoil and ammo capacity as clear advantages for semi auto postols. But at the same time, I can also see clear advantages for revolvers in certain kinds of self defense scenarios, as described above. My point is only that this isn't a case where one platform is superior to the other in all settings, and that while semi autos have clear advantages in many cases(some mights say _most), _there are still some situations where revolvers are superior.

The good thing is that each of us (at least in countries that alllow citizens to own handguns) are free to choose the design that we feel fit the best to our uses, and that our prefered platform doesn't get any better or worse as a result of other people's opinions of it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> I agree that it isn't _as fast, _but with training, the gap in the speed of reloading isn't as big as most people think. And for civillian self defense, one have to ask exactly how much ammo capacity is generally needed. It's not like assault by hordes of orcs is very common.



Considering that police records indicate 70-80% of rounds miss, combined with the fact that the "one shot stop" is a myth, I'd say the more ammo the better. Empty a 5 shot revolver and, statistically, you'll hit once. And it likely won't stop them. And you haven't even considered their buddy over there...

As far as speed loaders go, with the exception of professional shooters, the difference in reload speed is significant. Now add in the fact that your 5 shot revolver will need to be reloaded twice before my Glock 19 empties it's first magazine. Now consider how much more difficult it is to conceal a decent speed loader, compared to a magazine - unless you're carrying the strips, in which case you'll still be doing your first reload when I've fired 15 rounds and have loaded the next magazine.


----------



## Chrisoro

True, true. Also, most police statistics shows that most incidents involving a firearms tend to be solved without a single shot being fired, and also that most civillian incidents involving shooting tend to happen at not much more than arms lenght distance. Anyhow, considering that it's much harder to miss when holding the revolver barrel in direct contact with an opponent, and considering that doing this with a glock turns it into a 1-shot pistol untill you're able to rack the slide again, I maintain my claim that a revolver is superior in certain curcumstances. Also, comparing the pistols with the highest ammo capacity available with the revolvers with the lowest capacity available in order to make a point, kind of makes it look like you are deliberately skewing things a bit. Most single stack pistols made specifically for concealed carry (as nearly all 5shot revolvers also are) tend to have magazines of between six and eight rounds.

But yes, as I agreed with above, pistols generally tend to have a higher capacity and are easier to reload, and that is certainly an advantage with pistols over revolvers. I'm not contesting that.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I thought we were talking about limp wristing? Limp wristing is nor a design shortfall. The Glock, which is admittedly prone to stovepiping as a result of limp wristing, is intended to be light. Light guns, since they have less inertia, are more prone to limp wristed stovepipes.
> It's purely a shooter error. Same as the other things I mentioned.
> And I do not think it's reasonable to blame the tool when it's the users problem.
> .


We will just have to disagree I believe its a design drawback that a revolver doesn't have. You can limp wrist a revolver it will still shoot the next round. Every weapon has its benefits and draw backs.  This is one for semiauto handguns. Along with double feeds, fail to feeds, weak mag springs, more moving parts to jam up or wear out. I even had a Beretta M9 freeze shut on me in the mountains of Bridgeport Cali during cold weather warfare training.  I could not move budge the slide at all.    Design draw backs to revolvers would be limited ammo numbers, enhanced recoil, powder flash between the cylinder and barrel.  It just is what it is every gun has flaws


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> True, true. Also, most police statistics shows that most incidents involving a firearms tend to be solved without a single shot being fired, and also that most civillian incidents involving shooting tend to happen at not much more than arms lenght distance. Anyhow, considering that it's much harder to miss when holding the revolver barrel in direct contact with an opponent, and considering that doing this with a glock turns it into a 1-shot pistol untill you're able to rack the slide again,



Where did you get the (completely incorrect) idea that holding the muzzle of a semi-auto against the target will prevent the slide from working?



Chrisoro said:


> I maintain my claim that a revolver is superior in certain curcumstances.



Sure, and I agree. I just think that those circumstances are a teeny tiny fraction of the circumstances under which you'd use a handgun for defense.



Chrisoro said:


> Also, comparing the pistols with the highest ammo capacity available with the revolvers with the lowest capacity available in order to make a point, kind of makes it look like you are deliberately skewing things a bit.



Highest capacity? A Glock 19??? You do know that the Glock 19 is a COMPACT pistol, as well as the worlds most popular concealed carry choice, right?
If I were comparing it to highest capacity, I'd have a 30+ round magazine in the gun. If you'd like to compare that to the highest capacity revolvers (which, if memory serves, hold 7 rounds) feel free.



Chrisoro said:


> Most single stack pistols made specifically for concealed carry (as nearly all 5shot revolvers also are) tend to have magazines of between six and eight rounds.



Well, no, not really. A quick application of google-fu shows that of the ten most popular choices for concealed carry, only three (the Glock 42, Springsfield XDS and S&W Shield) fall into this capacity range, And those are primarily pocket pistols. The most common choice for concealed carry is the 15 round Compact Glock 19. Which will, of course, accept much larger magazines. I usually carry my G19 with a 15 round magazine in place, and a pair of 17 round magazines in a pouch or pocket. That gives me a nice even 50 rounds, with only two reloads. I've got some 33 round magazines, which fit nicely in my back pocket. And there are 100 round drum magazines available, but I discount those as being unconcealable.  Hell, even my little Glock 26 will accept the 33 round magazines. It doesn't really get any more concealable than a Glock 26. Put one of those in your favorite concealment holster, tuck some 33 round magazines in your hip pocket, and you can reload next week...


----------



## ballen0351

You carry 50 rounds around with you?  I don't even have 50 rounds in my on duty gun belt.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> You carry 50 rounds around with you?  I don't even have 50 rounds in my on duty gun belt.



Maybe you should move into the 21st Century and get rid of the revolver. 
Most of the officers that I know carry at LEAST two spare magazines. And usually a spare gun, too. Many of them carry the Glock because (among other good reasons) their spare gun (say, a Glock 26) will use the same magazines as their service gun (say, a Glock 17).

I do not carry that much all the time, no. But it's only two spare magazines, after all. Easy to carry. Easy to conceal. Easy to reload...


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Maybe you should move into the 21st Century and get rid of the revolver.


  Naa Im not allowed to carry them


> Most of the officers that I know carry at LEAST two spare magazines.


I have two mags on my dutybelt.  But thats only 24 on my belt and 13 in the gun. I do have another 6 mags in the trunk of the car


> And usually a spare gun,


I dont know many officers that carry two around here some do but not most


> Many of them carry the Glock because (among other good reasons) their spare gun (say, a Glock 26) will use the same magazines as their service gun (say, a Glock 17).


Thats silly Glocks are junk and since I carry a SIG glock mags are no help


> I do not carry that much all the time, no. But it's only two spare magazines, after all. Easy to carry. Easy to conceal. Easy to reload...


I guess


----------



## Tgace

I have 3 mags on me at all times..one in the gun and 2 spares..with an extra round in the pipe. 46 rounds.


----------



## Tgace

Dirty Dog said:


> Where did you get the (completely incorrect) idea that holding the muzzle of a semi-auto against the target will prevent the slide from working?



He's talking about the slide being pushed out of battery.

Of course he forgets that in a grappling situation, grabbing the cylinder on a revolver will likewise keep it from firing. As can getting a finger or web of thumb in front of the hammer.

In a fight over an autopistol, there are some techniques to have in the tool box.

Video Firearms Training for Contact Shots


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> Where did you get the (completely incorrect) idea that holding the muzzle of a semi-auto against the target will prevent the slide from working?



In this article in Personaldefenseworld, Mas Ayoob states the following:



			
				Massas Ayoob said:
			
		

> CQB muzzle contact shots definitely favor the revolver, as a rule of thumb. When the gun’s muzzle must be pressed against the attacker’s body in a truly desperate self-defense situation, most autopistols will have their barrel-slide assemblies pushed out of battery, and will not fire. (The service-size Springfield Armory XD and the pocket size Beretta Nano are rare exceptions to this.) Any modern revolver, however, will fire five for five or six for six in that situation, and the only side effect will be that the muzzle blast will be directed into our would-be murder-er’s body, magnifying his wound(s) and stopping him all the sooner.



No offence, but unless you can prove this is wrong, I think I'll prefer to listen to Mas Ayoob over you.



Dirty Dog said:


> Sure, and I agree. I just think that those circumstances are a teeny tiny fraction of the circumstances under which you'd use a handgun for defense.



And yet the statistics I cited above shows otherwise.




Dirty Dog said:


> Highest capacity? A Glock 19??? You do know that the Glock 19 is a COMPACT pistol, as well as the worlds most popular concealed carry choice, right?
> If I were comparing it to highest capacity, I'd have a 30+ round magazine in the gun. If you'd like to compare that to the highest capacity revolvers (which, if memory serves, hold 7 rounds) feel free.



Yes, I know that Glock 19 is a technically a "compact" glock(well, more compact than Glock 17 at least), but with a 15 round double stack magazine, it is still in the upper tier when we are talking about general capacity in carry pistols, and concealability wasn't the single most important factor when Glock designed it, as opposed to snubnose revolvers. Therefore, comparing it with snub nose five shot revolvers where concealability was the absolute priotity in the design is still unfair, regardless of what most people decides to carry, as it is still comparing apples and oranges. A more fair comparison would be the glock 43, or other semi auto pistols designed to compete directly with five shot snub nose revolvers.

By the way, there are several 10 shot revolvers available out there. However, if you want something in a substantial caliber and designed specifically for self defense, I think the eight shot S&W 627 with a 2.7" barrel is the highest available. Same capacity as a single stack 1911 with a non-extended magazine, and cut for full moon clips (which are faster than speedloaders).


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> I have 3 mags on me at all times..one in the gun and 2 spares..with an extra round in the pipe. 46 rounds.


Yeah thats what I had with the M & P with the Sig I only have room for 37 total


----------



## Tgace

The "thing" with "the average gunfight only takes X rounds" argument is that many shootings go like this:

Ammo How Much Is Enough 



> One year ago this month, a man named Paul Slater broke into a Georgia woman’s house while her husband was at work and chased her and her two children into a crawl space leading to their attic. When he opened the access door and attempted to enter the attic after them, she emptied her .38 revolver in his direction, hitting her attacker five times in the face and torso. That’s pretty good shooting by anyone’s standards, much less for a frightened woman crouching in a confined space trying to protect her two young boys. That didn’t kill him. She told him to stop or she would shoot him again, knowing that it was an idle threat as her gun was now empty. But fortunately for the family he did stop his attack that day, and after the mother and her sons ran past him to get away he was able to leave the house and drive away. He lived to stand trial. But what if she had not been as accurate? What if he hadn’t stopped his attack? What if he hadn’t been alone?



So sure that shoot "only took five rounds"....






Im guessing he fired 8 rounds of so there. That first guy took like 4 rounds to the torso and ran off (he died later so I've heard). If those guys wanted to stand and fight....


----------



## Chrisoro

Yes, extremes cases and anecdotes is definately what one should base ones strategy on. Last week I read about someone stopped by a single .22lr to the pelvis. We should all switch to guns in .22lr, and train to aim for the pelvis.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> I have two mags on my dutybelt.  But thats only 24 on my belt and 13 in the gun.



Poor guy. Even my little Glock 26 has 13 round magazines.



ballen0351 said:


> I do have another 6 mags in the trunk of the car



I have a whole pile of mags in my gun safe. They'll be about as useful as the ones in your trunk... 



ballen0351 said:


> I dont know many officers that carry two around here some do but not most



Different environment... and I don't say that most cops carry two, just those that I know well enough to ask about backup guns.



ballen0351 said:


> Thats silly Glocks are junk and since I carry a SIG glock mags are no help



Too bad your agency restricts you so much.

The only SigSauer I currently own is a 1911 Target. I don't carry it much, though. With two spare mags, that only gives me 25 rounds. My other options for .45ACP are a Para P14-45 (45 rounds) or a Glock 41 (40 rounds).


----------



## Tgace

Not to say that revolvers "have no place". I actually like Ballens plan to have a hammerless revolver in a pocket as a "shoot through" deep cover gun. For big game hunters who like to use pistols, you can't get those whopping large calibers in autos.

But for a "carry gun"...I just couldn't recommend a wheel gun for the average person. IMO, capacity and ease of reloading make my choice clear.


----------



## Chrisoro

Here's what's _possible_ with an eight shot revolver and full moon clips. Granted, most people will never reach that kind of proficiency, but it certainly proves that both fast and easy reloads with a revolver is real posibility with some training.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tgace said:


> I have 3 mags on me at all times..one in the gun and 2 spares..with an extra round in the pipe. 46 rounds.



Same basic setup I usually carry, I'm guessing. Except I've got a 15 round in the gun and two 17 round (Glock 17) mags as backup. 




Tgace said:


> He's talking about the slide being pushed out of battery.



I can accept that as an argument, but I don't consider it proven by any means. I've treated too many contact wounds from semi-autos to believe it. Most recently, a woman who fell while carrying her Springfield XD. She reported that she tucked her arms in to try and roll. The muzzle pushed into her belly with enough force to create significant bruising around the entry wound (FYI, there is little or no bruising typically) and discharged. No, I cannot quote a large enough study to reliably predict the odds of the slide being pushed out of battery. I doubt Mr Ayoob can, either. Sure, it's a _*possibility*_, but it's a far from certain occurrence.



Tgace said:


> Of course he forgets that in a grappling situation, grabbing the cylinder on a revolver will likewise keep it from firing. As can getting a finger or web of thumb in front of the hammer.



And you can grab the slide on a semi-auto. That _*does*_ prevent the slide from functioning, if you get a good grip on it. Semi-autos with hammers are vulnerable to the same hammer-block as revolvers.


----------



## Tgace

Chrisoro said:


> Yes, extremes cases and anecdotes is definately what one should base ones strategy on. Last week I read about someone stopped by a single .22lr to the pelvis. We should all switch to guns in .22lr, and train to aim for the pelvis.



Pistol rounds of any caliber are anemic "manstoppers". Pistols are a compromise of portability vs lethality. Cases of people taking multiple hits and continuing to fight, or at least surviving vastly outnumber "one shot kill" stories. More gunfights "end" due to one person or another fleeing or giving up fighting vs dying on the spot. That's all I personally need to know to choose capacity and reloadability (reloading another 15 rounds vs 6) as my important characteristics.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> Yes, extremes cases and anecdotes is definately what one should base ones strategy on. Last week I read about someone stopped by a single .22lr to the pelvis. We should all switch to guns in .22lr, and train to aim for the pelvis.



Sorry, but are you claiming that you're NOT doing exactly what you mock, here?


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Poor guy. Even my little Glock 26 has 13 round magazines.


except the glock will malfunction after the 3rd round so 



> I have a whole pile of mags in my gun safe. They'll be about as useful as the ones in your trunk...


They are in a "go" bag or my purse along with 10 AR mags.  So when I grab the AR out of the trunk I grab my purse and it has 6 pistol mags 10 AR mags, medical supplies, extra flash light, and other goodies so it works I guess hopefully Ill never need it anyway



> Different environment... and I don't say that most cops carry two, just those that I know well enough to ask about backup guns.


I think about carrying another one but Im not sure where Id put it yet.  I dont want an ankle holster or in my pocket.  Im thinking about strapping it to my vest but have not done it yet.  We are allowed I just have not put forth the effort.  



> Too bad your agency restricts you so much.


Not really they only require us to carry our issued gun on duty in uniform for road patrol.  Detectives, Special ops guys, off duty carry,unifoms while in court off duty and secondary/back up guns can be anything  you want as long as its at least a 9mm.  A Bunch of guys have glocks for off duty guns I just dont like glocks and my off duty is a Sig 



> The only SigSauer I currently own is a 1911 Target..


did you ever shoot that thing yet


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> Sorry, but are you claiming that you're NOT doing exactly what you mock, here?



I was using irony. Foreign concept to you?


----------



## Tgace

Chrisoro said:


> Here's what's _possible_ with an eight shot revolver and full moon clips. Granted, most people will never reach that kind of proficiency, but it certainly proves that fast reloads with a revolver is real posibility with some training.



It took a reload to fire 12 shots.

He fired more than twice that without having to reload here:


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> Here's what's _possible_ with an eight shot revolver and full moon clips. Granted, most people will never reach that kind of proficiency, but it certainly proves that fast reloads with a revolver is real posibility with some training.



No, that is not anything remotely resembling a example of what the average shooter can do with even a LOT of practice. Jerry Miculek is one of the worlds best million-round-a-year professional shooters and widely considered to be just about the fastest shooter alive. Nor do most revolver advocates carry a competition gun around on their belt.

You might as well post a clip of Michael Jordan in his heyday and claim it's an example of how people could play basketball "with some training".


----------



## ballen0351

By the way before the Glock goons show up Im just kidding glocks are fine guns I carried one for several years


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tgace said:


> It took a reload to fire 12 shots.
> 
> He fired more than twice that without having to reload here:



Assuming he could pull off two more perfect reloads on his revolver, since it took 2.9 seconds (and one reload) to fire 12 rounds, it would be upwards of 6 seconds to fire 24 rounds.
Compared to 27 rounds in 3.7 seconds. That's about a 30% difference...
I call that significant.

Since the rest of the world isn't Jerry Miculek, the difference will be far greater.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> They are in a "go" bag or my purse along with 10 AR mags.  So when I grab the AR out of the trunk I grab my purse and it has 6 pistol mags 10 AR mags, medical supplies, extra flash light, and other goodies so it works I guess hopefully Ill never need it anyway.



We do the "go-bag" thing too. If money were no object, I'd prefer a loaded up plate carrier in the trunk.

But money is an object.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> By the way before the Glock goons show up Im just kidding glocks are fine guns I carried one for several years



I think the accepted insult is to call us Glocktards...


----------



## Chrisoro

Tgace said:


> It took a reload to fire 12 shots.



Watch the full video. After the initial 12 shots, he used an eight shot revolver with full moon clips to fire sixteen shots.

And no, I'm still not contesting that semi autos is _faster_. I just posted the video to show that fast and easy reloads with a revolver isn't as impossible as some people would have it.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I think the accepted insult is to call us Glocktards...


Oh I have much better things to call them but its a PG rated forum


----------



## Tgace

Chrisoro said:


> Watch the full video. After the initial 12 shots, he used an eight shot revolver with full moon clips to fire sixteen shots.
> 
> And no, I'm still not contesting that semi autos is _faster_. I just posted the video to show that fast and easy reloads with a revolver isn't as impossible as some people would have it.



Try running and gunning with reloads on the move with a revolver and then with an auto and let me know your opinion on ease of reloadibility. 

Not to mention the BULK issue with speed loaders. To have 30 rounds of spare bullets I'd have to ring my waist with em....


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> We do the "go-bag" thing too. If money were no object, I'd prefer a loaded up plate carrier in the trunk.
> 
> But money is an object.


our swat guys have them.  Patrol gets outer carriers with more mag pouches I just dont have one yet my new vest isnt in


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> No, that is not anything remotely resembling a example of what the average shooter can do with even a LOT of practice.



Which I never claimed it was anyway. Most trained shooters, regardsles of platform, would have serious trouble even coming close to that guys speed. My point in posting that video, was primarily to show mechanics of how full moon clips works, and that considering how it works, fast reloads with revolvers isn't as impossible as some people here seem to think. As fast as that guy, sure, but I never claimed that he was representative of an average shooter. Done with the strawmen yet?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> Watch the full video. After the initial 12 shots, he used an eight shot revolver with full moon clips to fire sixteen shots.
> 
> And no, I'm still not contesting that semi autos is _faster_. I just posted the video to show that fast and easy reloads with a revolver isn't as impossible as some people would have it.



So let's see something OTHER than the fastest man alive, shall we?






Or we can carry a speedloader tied to our wrist...






A representative of a gun training organization...


----------



## Dirty Dog

And compared to random (not Jerry Miculek) Glock 19 reloads...






A trainer, so equivalent to the last video of a revolver I posted...






Another random non-professional...







So... tell me again about how fast you can reload your revolver...


----------



## Tgace

When Six Is Not Enough - Myths of the Self-Defense Revolver - LuckyGunner.com Lounge

Worth the read.....

And even if your mind is closed on this issue...read Myth #3 at least.



> if you carried a backup revolver you’d also be in good company with the late Jim Cirillo of the NYPD who probably survived more gunfights than any other cop in the latter half of 20th century. In _Tales of the Stakeout Squad_, Massad Ayoob relates that Cirillo did carry spare ammo in belt loops and speed loaders. However, Ayoob also says, “I don’t think he ever reloaded until after a firefight was over. He and his favorite partner, Bill Allard, both told me that when they ran one gun dry, they’d drop it and grab another. It was from that that I coined the term ‘New York reload.'” At times, *Cirillo would carry three six-shot revolvers and a Walther PPK while on duty* (though it’s worth noting that he completely switched over to semi-autos of various calibers in his later years).
> 
> Of course, hunting thieves and killers in the slums of New York City in the 1970s comes with some job hazards that probably don’t apply to the average armed citizen. Nevertheless, we can see a track record of success for the multi-gun approach whereas the historical support for success with a revolver reload is slim.


----------



## Chrisoro

I can assure you that my mind isn't closed on this issue, and I'm still not sure why several of you are seemingly still trying to prove that semi autos is faster to reload than revolvers, considering that I have stated several times that I agree with that. The thing I disagree with, is the degree of inferiority of the revolver compared to the semi auto in ease and speed of reloads, and the relevance of this for likely civilian self defense scenarios. I have no problems with you guys carrying glocks and the like, and being happy with that. I am well familiar with Glocks myself, as I was issued a Glock 17 when I served in the RNoAF. My point is only that I don't think revolvers are as inferior in every way as it seems that many others here think, and that is what I'm arguing for. Maybe I've been unclear or something, as English isn't my primary language.

As I live in Norway, any kind of carry, exept to and from a gunshop, hunt or shooting range is illegal anyway, and if I were forced to defend my home with a firearm, I would most likely use my Remington 870.


----------



## Tgace

Chrisoro said:


> The thing I disagree with, is the degree of inferiority of the revolver compared to the semi auto in ease and speed of reloads,



I'm just enjoying the conversation.

But in that part you are simply wrong. The revolver is a fine weapon in many regards, but the inferiority of a revolver vs an auto in terms of ease and speed of reloads is pretty much fact, and is one of the primary reasons why the revolver has been replaced by the auto in "almost" every LE and military force in the world.


----------



## Chrisoro

Tgace said:


> Im just enjoying the conversation.
> 
> But in that part you are simply wrong. The revolver is a fine weapon in many regards, but the inferiority of a revolver in terms of ease and speed of reloads is pretty much fact.



Considering that I have stated several times that I agree with the fact that semi autos are superior when it comes to speed and ease of reloading, I'm not really sure what you consider I'm wrong at here? Maybe you should read what I wrote above one more time?

My point is not that revolvers are equal or superior to semi autos when it comes to ease and speed of reloading, but that while I agree that they are inferior in that aspect, I don't agree that they are as difficult and slow to reload for the average guy compared to semi autos as I get the impression that some of you think. Yes, semi autos are faster and easier, no revolvers are not as slow and difficult to reload as you think, while still slower than a semi auto. Am I expressing myself very unclear here?


----------



## Tgace

On the contrary. I believe that for the "Average Guy" the ability to reload a handgun under any form of stress will be FAR easier with an auto than with a revolver.

And as that article I linked stated. There is evidence that even experienced gunfighters like Cirillo wouldn't reload a revolver in a fight. He carried several revolvers and just dropped the entire empty gun and drew another vs even attempting it. That says volumes IMO.


----------



## Chrisoro

Yeah, I read the article you posted, and it has several good points. I'm not sure about the validity of generalizing from such an extreme case as the situations Cirillo found himself in to more likely civillian self defense scenarios, though. It may be that he did it the way he did simply because that was the absolute fastest of any solution, and that he chose the best possible solution just because of that, not because other solutions weren't possible.

In either case, I may be overestimating the ability of the average revolver shooter based on how easy I personally feel revolver reloads are, but I've been training this since about 2001, so I may not be representative. So far(and hopefully never), I haven't tested this in real life, adrenaline filled situations either, so I'm fully aware that I may be wrong here.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I would have to agree with Tgace.  Revolvers have their place in certain situations like deep cover an environment that is t-shirts and shorts all the time.   Or as a backup ankle gun supporting your regular edc of a semi-auto.  However, I wouldn't recommend it as a first choice as the semi-auto advantages are very clear and far outweigh any negatives.


----------



## ballen0351

I'd recommend a person just carry a gun period.  I don't care what kind as long as you have it.  It's personal preference on what you like.  A civilian carry for defense purposes isn't going out looking for a gun fight so the chances of needing to reload are pretty slim no matter what.  I've personally been involved in 1 shooting, I've been the first backup officer to arrive on 2 more and have studied hundreds more police shootings.  A vast majority are 6 rounds or less.  So i don't care what gun people choose chances are they won't ever use it anyway


----------



## Tgace

Just for conversation....an interesting tidbit on the statistics regarding average number of rounds expended.

John Farnam - Enough Ammunition



> SOP-9, as it is called, is NYPD's ongoing statistical study of lethal-force incidents in which MOSs (Members of Service) are involved. It dates from the 1860s to the present and is a credible source of information, one of the few available.
> 
> For years, we were all told SOP-9 established the "average" number of rounds fired by an MOS during a lethal encounter was two to three. We later learned that figure was incorrect and was actually the result of sloppy statistical analysis. Naive statisticians simply took the total of all rounds fired outside of the firing range and divided it by the total number of shooting "incidents." Unhappily, "incidents" included accidents and suicides!
> 
> A more careful analysis of the data (which included only intentional shootings) revealed the actual figure to be very close to six rounds. What that said to us all was that officers, when threatened with lethal violence, were firing every round they had in their six-shot revolvers. After six shots, there was a mandatory pause for a conventional reload or a "NY reload," which consisted of producing a second revolver! After the reload, additional shooting was rarely necessary.
> 
> That was prior to 1994. In 1994 autoloading pistols were introduced to the NYPD system.
> 
> When autoloaders (mostly Glocks, with an occasional S&W and Beretta) came into the NYPD system, we all expected that figure (six) to go up into the teens, fully expecting officers to continue to fire every round they have. The latest data has shown our expectations to be incorrect!
> 
> The new "average" number of rounds fired is eight. Subsequent data may alter that number, but that is what we have now. What jumps out at me is that, after eight rounds are fired, the parties separate or accommodate to the point where additional shooting is not necessary, at least in the short term, even though the officer is fully capable of firing more rounds. NYPD shooting accuracy has improved steadily, but the average hit percentage is still below twenty, so, out of eight rounds fired, only one or two are likely to impact anywhere on the suspect. In most cases, hit or not, the suspect disengages and runs away.
> 
> If you're wondering if there is a point lurking in all this:
> 
> If you have enough rounds in your magazine to get you through the initial exchange and still have some rounds left, you can then reload at your leisure. If you go to slide lock prior to the fight ending, then you'll have to reload and resume firing on an emergency basis. We teach students to reload on an emergency basis in any event, but having enough rounds to get you through the fight without the necessity of a reload bringing about an inconvenient interruption would appear to provide a genuine advantage.
> 
> Debates about calibers, accuracy, and ammunition aside, a fifteen-shooter or even an eleven-shooter would appear to be a better choice than a seven or eight-shooter, at least in New York City!
> 
> John


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Just for conversation....an interesting tidbit on the statistics regarding average number of rounds expended.
> 
> John Farnam - Enough Ammunition


Interesting Id like to stats on non police defensive use of a weapon.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> Interesting Id like to stats on non police defensive use of a weapon.


I dunno if such stats are even kept. Hell...the total of police shootings is even an elusive number to tally. The NYPD stats are unique in that a large agency kept such numbers for so long.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> I'd recommend a person just carry a gun period.  I don't care what kind as long as you have it.



I'd qualify this by adding "and practice with it regularly". 



ballen0351 said:


> It's personal preference on what you like.



True enough, but it's also important to make these decisions based on facts, not myths, such as the myth that a revolver is more reliable than a semi-auto. It's simply not true.
Yes, there may be some extremely rare situations (many of which would not even apply to personal carry, such as your deep undercover pocket pistol suggestion) in which  a revolver might have an advantage. But it the VAST majority of cases, the semi-auto is the better choice.



ballen0351 said:


> A civilian carry for defense purposes isn't going out looking for a gun fight so the chances of needing to reload are pretty slim no matter what.



I hope (and believe) that police officers aren't going out looking for a gun fight either. And I have always understood that the vast majority of officers will never discharge their weapon in the line of duty. Just like civilians.

But civilian or police, the highest capacity, best shooting gun you can reasonably carry is a good choice.



ballen0351 said:


> I've personally been involved in 1 shooting, I've been the first backup officer to arrive on 2 more and have studied hundreds more police shootings.



I've never been involved in a shooting. But had I been allowed to carry at 17, I might well still have two eyes. His knife vs me unarmed, compared to his knife vs my gun.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd qualify this by adding "and practice with it regularly".


Ok but we are not filming a public service announcement  If you like we could list 20 add ons to a simple statement




> True enough, but it's also important to make these decisions based on facts, not myths, such as the myth that a revolver is more reliable than a semi-auto. It's simply not true.
> Yes, there may be some extremely rare situations (many of which would not even apply to personal carry, such as your deep undercover pocket pistol suggestion) in which  a revolver might have an advantage. But it the VAST majority of cases, the semi-auto is the better choice.


No matter how hard you campaign against it a revolver is just as good as any other pistol for everyday carry THAT is the only fact that matters.


> I hope (and believe) that police officers aren't going out looking for a gun fight either. And I have always understood that the vast majority of officers will never discharge their weapon in the line of duty. Just like civilians.


True but police are out looking for crime where civilians are not thats what I meant by looking for a gun fight.  A vast Majority of officers will draw a weapon at some point  multiple times during a career  where a civilian will not.


> But civilian or police, the highest capacity, best shooting gun you can reasonably carry is a good choice.


Highest capacity not so much but the rest I agree with



> I've never been involved in a shooting. But had I been allowed to carry at 17, I might well still have two eyes. His knife vs me unarmed, compared to his knife vs my gun.


And I bet at that point you wouldnt have cared if it were a revolver or semiauto as long as it worked


----------



## Chrisoro

Something that hasn't recieved as much attention in this thread as use of handguns in self defense, is handgun hunting or wilderness survival in a light package. If your goal is to hunt with your hangun, or use it as a survival weapon, a revolver is generally far more effective and versatile than a semi-auto, simply because of the much wider range of loadings and bullet types available in the same caliber, without any effect on reliability(unless you are using handloads that far exceeds the SAAMI-specifications of course).

In a .357 magnum revolver for example, one can use everything from whimpy loadings with light bullets in .38 special, all the way up to very powerfull and heavy .357 loadings meant for black bear defense(think Buffalo Bore), which far surpasses most rounds available for semi autos. If you go up to heavier calibers like .44mag., you can fire anything from light .44 specials to hot loaded .44magnums(where certain ammo gives you comparable muzzle energy from a 6inch. revolver as you get from a 14.5 inch M4 carbine firing 5.56NATO ammo. Source.) Then you have the even more powerfull .454 casull which exeeds most common millitary service rifles(e.g. 5.56mm Nato, 7.62x39) muzzle energies, while still being capable of also shooting light .45 LC loadings if needed, even from the same cylinder if one wish to do so.

And then you have beasts such as the .500 S&W revolvers, with possible muzzle energies that even surpassed 7.62NATO muzzle energies from a service rifle. Hell, there is even revolvers in .45-70 i you really love recoil and blast. The largest semi auto handgun caliber I'm aware of is the .50 AE from the MR Desert Eagle, which isn't exactly known for reliability, and where the heaviest loads are just comparable to the heaviest .44magnums in power, and this from a somewhat unreliable pistol that isn't capable of shooting lighter loads, as these wouldn't cycle the mechanism., and which has comparable ammo capacity as revolvers.

And if you go the other way, a .22lr revolver is capable of reliably firing anything from .22short, .22long, .22lr and .22 shotshells(ratshot & snakeshot) from the same cylinder reliably, if wanted. Good luck doing anything like that with a semi auto.

Another factor to consider is that revolver ammo is generally loaded to a higher pressure than semi auto pistol ammo, so shooting the samme revolver ammo from a rifle, generally gives you a much bigger rise in velocity/energy than shooting semi auto pistol ammo from a rifle. Pairing a .357 revolver with a 18inch Marlin 1894c lever gun in the same caliber, for example, gives a drastic rise in energy output(comparable to a similary length 5.56 Nato rifle at the muzzle. Source.), higher ammo capacity, and longer effective distance than a handgun, while still using the same ammunition, easing logistics considerably. A 9mm or .45 acp carbine gives you nowhere near the same rise in energy/velocity over a similarly chambered handgun.

So while one can argue that the semi auto pistol is better for self defense because of a generally higher ammo capacity and faster reloads, there are other areas in which the the revolver have some very clear advantages.


----------



## Tez3

'Are revolvers dying out'? I have this vision of an endangered species struggling to survive, with nature groups rushing to breed them in zoos to ensure the survival of the species, other revolvers of course will be lying on their backs with their little legs up in the air, dead as a dodo.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Revolvers aren't bred in zoos, they're produced in factories. And from what I see, they're still being produced in great quantity, you just don't see them that much in police and military use.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Revolvers aren't bred in zoos, they're produced in factories. And from what I see, they're still being produced in great quantity, you just don't see them that much in police and military use.


It was a joke lighten up


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> It was a joke lighten up


I know that. My response isn't meant to be taken too seriously.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> And from what I see, they're still being produced in great quantity



You answered your own question here, they can't be 'dying out' then can they?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You answered your own question here, they can't be 'dying out' then can they?


No but their popularity can be dying out.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> No but their popularity can be dying out.




Ok, how does that work out? the manufacturers are businesses, they aren't going to make things they can't sell therefore if they are  producing them in great numbers they are still selling so their popularity isn't in danger yet.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> Ok, how does that work out? the manufacturers are businesses, they aren't going to make things they can't sell therefore if they are  producing them in great numbers they are still selling so their popularity isn't in danger yet.



It works the same way cars work. The manufacturers make more than one model. While they may not make enough on the revolvers - which in this day and age are very much a niche market, like black powder muzzle loaders - they do make a small profit on them. Or they sell them at a small loss (again, just like car companies) to satisfy the niche market. If you buy a S&W revolver and like it, when you decide to buy a 1911, you might be more inclined towards another S&W product.
The vast majority of the market is semi-autos. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the companies effort to continue to sell products in the niche markets.
You don't think GM makes enough off the Corvette to stay in business, do you?
In fact, as the revolver becomes more and more of a niche item, it may well become more profitable, because people buying them will be buying them as collectibles, and will be more likely to dole out some cash for pretties (polish, coatings, engraving...) that someone buying a gun to shoot isn't likely to choose.


----------



## Tez3

To be honest I've no idea whether they sell loads of revolvers or just a few but when the OP ask if they are dying out and then says the manufacturers are making great numbers of them it sort of defeats the object of asking the question lol. 

As far as collectors go, this is probably worth looking at. Anderson Wheeler - Shotgun - London - Rifle - Revolver Makers UK


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> It works the same way cars work. The manufacturers make more than one model. While they may not make enough on the revolvers - which in this day and age are very much a niche market, like black powder muzzle loaders - they do make a small profit on them. Or they sell them at a small loss (again, just like car companies) to satisfy the niche market. If you buy a S&W revolver and like it, when you decide to buy a 1911, you might be more inclined towards another S&W product.
> The vast majority of the market is semi-autos. But that doesn't mean it's not worth the companies effort to continue to sell products in the niche markets.
> You don't think GM makes enough off the Corvette to stay in business, do you?
> In fact, as the revolver becomes more and more of a niche item, it may well become more profitable, because people buying them will be buying them as collectibles, and will be more likely to dole out some cash for pretties (polish, coatings, engraving...) that someone buying a gun to shoot isn't likely to choose.


Im not sure what you consider a niche market.  At work I see just as many revolvers as I do any other handgun.  There still pretty plentiful


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure what you consider a niche market.  At work I see just as many revolvers as I do any other handgun.  There still pretty plentiful



Well, I did a brief search and found some stats for 2012. 
They report just over 6 million handguns being sold in the US that year, with not quite 670K being revolvers. So revolvers, in that year, made up basically 10% of the market.
90% semi-auto. 10% revolvers.
Sounds like a niche market to me...

If your department really has as many people carrying revolvers as semi-autos, you'll probably just have to accept that you've somehow fallen through a time warp and landed in the 1970's. Enjoy the leisure suits...


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, I did a brief search and found some stats for 2012.
> They report just over 6 million handguns being sold in the US that year, with not quite 670K being revolvers. So revolvers, in that year, made up basically 10% of the market.
> 90% semi-auto. 10% revolvers.
> Sounds like a niche market to me...


600K niche huh ok.


> If your department really has as many people carrying revolvers as semi-autos, you'll probably just have to accept that you've somehow fallen through a time warp and landed in the 1970's. Enjoy the leisure suits...


Not my department Im talking about out on the streets, the criminals, the guns we take off the streets.


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, I did a brief search and found some stats for 2012.
> They report just over 6 million handguns being sold in the US that year, with not quite 670K being revolvers. So revolvers, in that year, made up basically 10% of the market.
> 90% semi-auto. 10% revolvers.



source?


----------



## ballen0351

Actually I was wrong.  I just pulled up all my cases from 2015. Ive seized 11 guns only 3 were revolvers.  4 semi autos 1 Sks and 2 shotguns 1 hunting rifle


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Actually I was wrong.  I just pulled up all my cases from 2015. Ive seized 11 guns only 3 were revolvers.  4 semi autos 1 Sks and 2 shotguns 1 hunting rifle



Perhaps people who own revolvers are more law abiding.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> source?



The ATF, for one.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> 600K niche huh ok.



Out of over six MILLION. Yes. That is a niche.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Out of over six MILLION. Yes. That is a niche.


ok


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Ok, how does that work out? the manufacturers are businesses, they aren't going to make things they can't sell therefore if they are  producing them in great numbers they are still selling so their popularity isn't in danger yet.



Revolvers aren't used that much, if at all, in police and military fields and from what I've seen even civilians mostly use semi autos. There certainly is the crowd that likes and uses revolvers, there is enough of a cult demand for revolvers to keep production up and to keep the revolver market going but what I've seen the vast majority of people who use handguns do prefer semi autos.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> *Revolvers aren't used that much*, if at all, in police and military fields and from what I've seen even civilians mostly use semi autos. There certainly is the crowd that likes and uses revolvers, there is enough of a cult demand for revolvers to keep production up and to keep the revolver market going but what I've seen the vast majority of people who use handguns do prefer semi autos.




Then again you have answered your own question haven't you albeit the opposite way to the answer you gave before.


----------



## Chrisoro

Dirty Dog said:


> The ATF, for one.



Can you reproduce the exact report, please? Because the newest annual statistical update on firearms commerce in the US I could find published by the ATF was the 2014 one, and it only included sales data from 1986 to 2012.

That report actually shows a general trend of increasesing revolver sales from 1990->2012, after a fall in sales in the late 1980's, and with over twice as many revolvers sold in 2012(667.357 sold), as in 2000(318.260 sold). Also, the 2007-2012 data shows a very fast rise in semi auto pistol sales the last five years prior to 2012(with 3.487.883 pistols sold that year) and a general trend of a steady rise in sales after a low point in 2001(626.836 sold) that coincided with the low point in revolver sales.

What this tells me isn't neccisarily that revolver popularity is sinking, but that the various firearms manufacturers might have either broken into new market segments with semi auto pistols over the last 10 years, for example as a result of CCW laws becomming more common, and/or the general interest in semi autos has increased. Considering the fluctuations in sales of several of the types of firearms evident in the data, I certainly don't see anything that indicates a very big fall in popularity for the revolver over the past ~30 years, as the 2012 revolver sales, according to that report is just a little under 100k less than they were in 1986, back when the revolver had the advantage of being prefered by law enforcement and security operators to a much higher degree that today.

If anything, the data shows increasing demand for semi autos, not decreasing demands for revolvers. To put the above numbers in perspective, total shotgun sales in 1992 was 1.018.204, and they were 949.010 twenty years later, in 2012. This is proof of normal market fluctuations, not a sign of a general fall in popularity for shotguns, and just as with the revolver sales data in the report, I see no signs of shotgun demand falling to the point of failing to be profitable anytime soon.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well you see, there will always be a market for revolvers, or at least there always will be in the immediate future. Just as there still is a market for muzzle loading single shot firearms. There is the crowd who likes muzzle loaders and who uses them for historical re-enactments and for sport target shooting. However, I don't know of anybody today who would use a muzzle loader in self defense unless its in a pinch and that's all they have at hand. Same thing with revolvers, people still use revolvers for sporting uses such as target shooting but today I practically never see revolvers being used for professional uses. With a few exceptions, its been a long time since I've seen a police officer with a revolver and from what I know the Army doesn't use revolvers either. As for private citizens, from what I see most of them won't even use revolvers for practical uses such as self defense or concealed carry. Even private citizens are shifting to semi automatics as law enforcement and the military has already done. So, although there is still a market for revolvers, just as there is a market for muzzle loaders, I see them dying out in terms of practical and professional use.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Well you see, there will always be a market for revolvers, or at least there always will be in the immediate future.



so why are you putting up a thread that asks if they are dying out? You've answered your own question three different times and ways now.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Well you see, there will always be a market for revolvers, or at least there always will be in the immediate future. Just as there still is a market for muzzle loading single shot firearms. There is the crowd who likes muzzle loaders and who uses them for historical re-enactments and for sport target shooting. However, I don't know of anybody today who would use a muzzle loader in self defense unless its in a pinch and that's all they have at hand. Same thing with revolvers, people still use revolvers for sporting uses such as target shooting but today I practically never see revolvers being used for professional uses. With a few exceptions, its been a long time since I've seen a police officer with a revolver and from what I know the Army doesn't use revolvers either. As for private citizens, from what I see most of them won't even use revolvers for practical uses such as self defense or concealed carry. Even private citizens are shifting to semi automatics as law enforcement and the military has already done. So, although there is still a market for revolvers, just as there is a market for muzzle loaders, I see them dying out in terms of practical and professional use.


You do realize there are still law enforcement and security agencies that carry revolvers.  Our jail guards have revolvers for there prisoner transport units.  And the private security firm at the court house has revolvers.  Every time I see the armor car guys at the local banks around here they have revolvers


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> from what I know the Army doesn't use revolvers either



Why would they when they have these to play with? Support weapons - British Army Website

Soldiers have a different job to do from police officers and security guards.


----------



## ballen0351

Also the summer part time cops in the beach towns give them revolvers. The full time guys have semiautos thats how you can tell the seasonal officers from the real cops


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> You do realize there are still law enforcement and security agencies that carry revolvers.  Our jail guards have revolvers for there prisoner transport units.  And the private security firm at the court house has revolvers.  Every time I see the armor car guys at the local banks around here they have revolvers



That strikes me as odd. My mother and her department were carrying semi-autos in the 80's. A couple uncles on the State Patrol have been carrying semi-autos as long. 
And I'm happy to say that my stepson carries a Glock 22 for his job at the Max Security prison where he works. On transports, they all carry the G22 plus there are shotguns and such.
In this day and age, I'd question the wisdom of any department or company that chose revolvers as the primary carry weapon.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> That strikes me as odd. My mother and her department were carrying semi-autos in the 80's. A couple uncles on the State Patrol have been carrying semi-autos as long.
> And I'm happy to say that my stepson carries a Glock 22 for his job at the Max Security prison where he works. On transports, they all carry the G22 plus there are shotguns and such.
> In this day and age, I'd question the wisdom of any department or company that chose revolvers as the primary carry weapon.


I assume its $$$$. They already own the revolvers,holsters, rounds.  Already have the training programs in place.  Whats really strange is the detention center uses our range and our instructors so you would think we would all have the same guns but they have the old stainless S&W 357


----------



## ballen0351

Ive never really looked at what our State DOC guys carry I know a few years ago it was revolvers because a prisoner beat up a guard and took her gun at the court house and I was working when it happened


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Why would they when they have these to play with? Support weapons - British Army Website
> 
> Soldiers have a different job to do from police officers and security guards.



Impressive.

But, with the Army in the USA the standard officer's sidearm is the Beretta 92 which is a 9mm. Before that they carried the Colt 1911 in .45. And from what I've seen lots of police officers also carry a 9mm, usually a semi auto of some sort although not always a Beretta. True, soldier's jobs are quite different from police and security guards, you don't see police and security guards on the front line where they need all the heavy artillery shown in the link you provided, but soldiers do carry sidearms which are often the same, or similar to the sidearms carried by police officers and security personnel.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> You do realize there are still law enforcement and security agencies that carry revolvers.  Our jail guards have revolvers for there prisoner transport units.  And the private security firm at the court house has revolvers.  Every time I see the armor car guys at the local banks around here they have revolvers



Well I've also seen revolvers, quite often, as a sidearm carried by armored car guards, those guys who transport large amounts of cash in those big armored trucks. I have seen some of the guards with semi autos but I've also seen lots of them with revolvers.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Impressive.
> 
> But, with the Army in the USA the standard officer's sidearm is the Beretta 92 which is a 9mm. Before that they carried the Colt 1911 in .45. And from what I've seen lots of police officers also carry a 9mm, usually a semi auto of some sort although not always a Beretta. True, soldier's jobs are quite different from police and security guards, you don't see police and security guards on the front line where they need all the heavy artillery shown in the link you provided, but soldiers do carry sidearms which are often the same, or similar to the sidearms carried by police officers and security personnel.



Only those who are rear echelon here are likely to carry sidearms here and they will be Glocks. That's not 'heavy artillery' in the link I posted by the way, that's weapons carried by soldiers this is heavy artillery  The Royal Artillery - British Army Website


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Only those who are rear echelon here are likely to carry sidearms here and they will be Glocks. That's not 'heavy artillery' in the link I posted by the way, that's weapons carried by soldiers this is heavy artillery  The Royal Artillery - British Army Website



In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms.

And what I meant was, police officers and security guards aren't going to need anything as big as what was in the previous link. I couldn't imagine even a SWAT team using something like that. But, police officers, lots of security guards, and people in the Army do use handguns, so they've got that in common.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms.
> 
> .



What *plane*t are you on? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Some of the biggest PDs in the country carry Glocks: Philadelphia, Washington D.C.,Baltimore....until 2002, LA issued Berettas,,,,,now, they can choose from a variety of sidearms, including Glocks.

Seriously, you need to get out more....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




EDIT: @PhotonGuy  Got a riddle for you: Even though they all eat grass, rabbits poop pellets, cows poop patties, horses poop little grass balls, and elk poop looks like big milk-duds......can you tell me why?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> That's not 'heavy artillery' in the link I posted by the way, that's weapons carried by soldiers this is heavy artillery  The Royal Artillery - British Army Website



[Crocodile Dundee ON] That's not heavy artillery. _*This*_ is heavy artillery...




[Crocodile Dundee OFF]


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms.



Seriously. Do you think for even one second before you post this tripe?


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> What *plane*t are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the biggest PDs in the country carry Glocks: Philadelphia, Washington D.C.,Baltimore....until 2002, LA issued Berettas,,,,,now, they can choose from a variety of sidearms, including Glocks.


I meant military officers not police officers.

Yes, I am well aware that police officers in the USA use Glocks, quite often as a matter of fact, but in the US Military they don't use striker fired handguns, and that includes Glocks.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Seriously. Do you think for even one second before you post this tripe?



Seriously, do your research. The military does not use striker fired handguns, they use hammer fired handguns instead. At least in the USA that's how it is.


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> EDIT: @PhotonGuy  Got a riddle for you: Even though they all eat grass, rabbits poop pellets, cows poop patties, horses poop little grass balls, and elk poop looks like big milk-duds......can you tell me why?



I wouldn't know. I don't spend much time thinking about animal dung.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> I meant military officers not police officers.
> 
> Yes, I am well aware that police officers in the USA use Glocks, quite often as a matter of fact, but in the US Military they don't use striker fired handguns, and that includes Glocks.



That would seem to be incorrect...

At least according to articles here and here and here...



> Seriously, do your research.



Excellent advice. You really should consider following it...


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> I meant military officers not police officers.
> 
> Yes, I am well aware that police officers in the USA use Glocks, quite often as a matter of fact, but in the US Military they don't use striker fired handguns, and that includes Glocks.



I'm not expert on what the American forces use but it says here..... Glock 19 (9×19mm) (USASOC, DEVGRU, MARSOC, USAF)

From List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> I wouldn't know. I don't spend much time thinking about animal dung.



Well, what makes you qualified to discuss firearms, or anything else for that matter, when, by your own admission, _you don't know ******?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> Seriously, do your research. The military does not use striker fired handguns, they use hammer fired handguns instead. At least in the USA that's how it is.



Glock pistols approved for special operations Marines

I believe the Glock 19 is used by a variety of special operations groups in the U.S. military


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Excellent advice. You really should consider following it...



I do, thank you very much.


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> Well, what makes you qualified to discuss firearms, or anything else for that matter, when, by your own admission, _you don't know ******?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Im not one of those people who would come up with some weird relationship between firearms and animal dung.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> I'm not expert on what the American forces use but it says here..... Glock 19 (9×19mm) (USASOC, DEVGRU, MARSOC, USAF)
> 
> From List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Maybe the Glock is sometimes used but from what I know in most branches and with most servicemen, they don't use striker fired handguns including Glocks, its a safety issue. I've known and spoken with many people who have served or are currently serving in the US Military.


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> Glock pistols approved for special operations Marines
> 
> I believe the Glock 19 is used by a variety of special operations groups in the U.S. military


But not the vast majority. And the article you provided is a relatively recent one.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> I do, thank you very much.



Huh. Coulda fooled me...


----------



## PhotonGuy

Dirty Dog said:


> Huh. Coulda fooled me...


Somehow Im not surprised.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Somehow Im not surprised.



Well, you know, if we judge by your posting record here, it would sure seem that you do NOT follow your own advice.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> Im not one of those people who would come up with some weird relationship between firearms and animal dung.



Well, it's like most of the things you post: you don't know **** about it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> Well, it's like most of the things you post: you don't know **** about it.


I will have you know that I am quite knowledgable and I've got quite a background with firearms, do you?


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> I will have you know that I am quite knowledgable and I've got quite a background with firearms, do you?









....just 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I will have you know that I'm the rightful Emperor of Fredonia!!


----------



## Chrisoro

Back to topic. Aparently the US Navy Seals is using S&W 686 revolvers(.357 mag) for some operations, because of its reliability when constantly being in and out of water. Several of Richard Marchinko non-fiction books feature Seals with stainless model 66 and 686 revolvers, for those interested.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Maybe the Glock is sometimes used but from what I know in most branches and with most servicemen, they don't use striker fired handguns including Glocks, its a safety issue. I've known and spoken with many people who have served or are currently serving in the US Military.


so in one post you admit they are used "sometimes" and then still claim they dont use them?  Well if you have actually "known AND spoken" someone who are we to say anything


----------



## PhotonGuy

elder999 said:


> ....just
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will have you know that I'm the rightful Emperor of Fredonia!!


And you thought I was referring to police officers and not military officers in my post back at 146


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Maybe the Glock is sometimes used but from what I know in most branches and with most servicemen, they don't use striker fired handguns including Glocks, its a safety issue. I've known and spoken with many people who have served or are currently serving in the US Military.


OK, what is the supposed "safety issue" of a striker fired handgun?

You do, perhaps, know that the Glock pistol was designed specifically to meet the requirements of an Austrian military contract?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chrisoro said:


> Back to topic. Aparently the US Navy Seals is using S&W 686 revolvers(.357 mag) for some operations, because of its reliability when constantly being in and out of water. Several of Richard Marchinko non-fiction books feature Seals with stainless model 66 and 686 revolvers, for those interested.


Sure they did, back in the 80s. Richard Marcinko's non-fiction books and the events he describes in them take place in the 80s and earlier. Do they still use revolvers today?


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> so in one post you admit they are used "sometimes" and then still claim they dont use them?  Well if you have actually "known AND spoken" someone who are we to say anything


What Im claiming is most of the time they still don't use them. The links provided by other posters talk about relatively recent events where Glocks have been approved for use by small specific groups in the military such as Marines special forces. I wasn't aware of those current changes but from what I've been told the vast majority of the people in the military still don't use Glocks on the job.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> And you thought I was referring to police officers and not military officers in my post back at 146



No, I knew perfectly well you were referring to the military. I just knew that you were (once again) wrong.

So what is the "safety issue" you apparently also "know" exists with striker fired pistols?
I bet it's every bit as real as your claim that the US Military does not use Glocks...


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> I will have you know that I am quite knowledgable




Huh. Allow me to repeat myself.
Coulda fooled me...
What is it about which you consider yourself "quite knowledgable [sic]?"


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> OK, what is the supposed "safety issue" of a striker fired handgun?
> 
> You do, perhaps, know that the Glock pistol was designed specifically to meet the requirements of an Austrian military contract?



The Glock only has one safety locater right in the trigger. From what I've been told the U.S. military doesn't consider that to be safe enough and the risk of an accidental discharge is too great. There might be some exceptions such as the Marines Special Forces but most of the military doesn't like Glocks for that reason. As for the Austrian military requirements those would be different.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> The Glock only has one safety locater right in the trigger



This is (drum roll please...) incorrect.
Glock firearms have a trigger safety, a firing pin safety and a drop safety.
That's three. Not one. Three. Three is more than one. It's actually three times as many as one.


----------



## Chrisoro

PhotonGuy said:


> Sure they did, back in the 80s. Richard Marcinko's non-fiction books and the events he describes in them take place in the 80s and earlier. Do they still use revolvers today?



The reference to Marcinko's book was for the pictures, if anyone was interested in that. The link I gave in the preceding sentence, which refered to current use, refers to weapons used by Seals today. I also found another reference to revolvers being used in some operations today in the list of modern seal weapons on navyseals.com with the following description:

_"Smith & Wesson 686 .357. This is an excellent 7 shot  revolver that is used primarily for Over The Beach or Dive Operations for its reliability in and out of the water."
_
Of course, as those sites appear to be civilian, I don't know how accurate or updated they are.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Chrisoro said:


> The reference to Marcinko's book was for the pictures, if anyone was interested in that. The link I gave in the preceding sentence, which refered to current use, refers to weapons used by Seals today. I also found another reference to revolvers being used in some operations today in the list of modern seal weapons on navyseals.com with the following description:
> 
> _"Smith & Wesson 686 .357. This is an excellent 7 shot  revolver that is used primarily for Over The Beach or Dive Operations for its reliability in and out of the water."
> _
> Of course, as those sites appear to be civilian, I don't know how accurate or updated they are.



Which supports the statement that revolvers have begun a niche weapon.
On the other hand, reliability after being immersed in water (it's pointless to fire a gun underwater) is a function of the ammunition. Modern ammunition is not prone to leaking. I'd be interested in seeing any facts that support the idea that a revolver is more reliable after immersion.


----------



## Chrisoro

Considering they have used revolvers for this use, at least since the 1970's, one would think they know what they are doing.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> As for the Austrian military requirements those would be different.



I believe the Austrian Navy uses SUB machine guns........


----------



## jks9199

Dirty Dog said:


> This is (drum roll please...) incorrect.
> Glock firearms have a trigger safety, a firing pin safety and a drop safety.
> That's three. Not one. Three. Three is more than one. It's actually three times as many as one.


Or, one Glock SafeAction system, if you wanna use their name for the 3 working together.

I know some folks have concerns with no external safety on handguns.  The biggest danger with the Glock SafeAction system is that if anything crosses that trigger, it can be enough to allow the trigger to move.  If the trigger moves back far enough, the gun is gonna go BANG.  There have been documented cases of trigger drawstrings and other stuff doing the job.  You can reduce the risk with a heavier trigger spring assembly -- but it's still there. 

That said, I'd still like some actual documentation rather than "someone says so."  And, if it were necessary, a manufacturer could easily incorporate a manual safety on a striker fired handgun... If it made the difference in getting the US military contracts and not... Yeah, I bet it'd be done in a New York minute.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chrisoro said:


> Considering they have used revolvers for this use, at least since the 1970's, one would think they know what they are doing.



This isn't the 70s.

Technology changes with times and that includes firearm technology. It stands to reason that today they would be using semi autos as they're more advanced although if they are using revolvers good for them. Revolvers still do have their advantages.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jks9199 said:


> Or, one Glock SafeAction system, if you wanna use their name for the 3 working together.



Sure, but it's still three safeties. Your brakes, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc all forms part of the safety system in your car. 
It's still not one.



jks9199 said:


> I know some folks have concerns with no external safety on handguns.  The biggest danger with the Glock SafeAction system is that if anything crosses that trigger, it can be enough to allow the trigger to move.  If the trigger moves back far enough, the gun is gonna go BANG.  There have been documented cases of trigger drawstrings and other stuff doing the job.  You can reduce the risk with a heavier trigger spring assembly -- but it's still there.



Which is, I suspect, one reason why the Glock trigger (from the factory) is no lightweight.



jks9199 said:


> That said, I'd still like some actual documentation rather than "someone says so."  And, if it were necessary, a manufacturer could easily incorporate a manual safety on a striker fired handgun... If it made the difference in getting the US military contracts and not... Yeah, I bet it'd be done in a New York minute.



There are plenty of striker fired pistols with thumb safeties. The Taurus PT111 G2 that I reviewed elsewhere is one.


----------



## Chrisoro

PhotonGuy said:


> This isn't the 70s.


Did you read the post I responded to when I said that they had been using revolvers since the seventies? As in _since then, and still do_ according to the two sites i refered to?  Because in that context, your answer that this isn't the 70s doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

Apparently, they are using revolvers for some amphibious operations since in that setting, the 686 revolver handles being constantly drenched and drained of saltwater much better than most semi autos. 



> Technology changes with times and that includes firearm technology. It stands to reason that today they would be using semi autos as they're more advanced although if they are using revolvers good for them. Revolvers still do have their advantages.



Thank you so much for the insightfull lechture on the changing nature of technology. I would never have known unless you told me. Guess it's time to throw away my bicycles, as they're, you know, far less advanced than my neighbours segway. And people were using bicycles in the seventhies! Talk about ancient technology!

Time to exit this train wreck of a thread, I guess.


----------



## Tgace

In regards to SEALS, the 686 was/is pretty much a specialty weapon used in dive operations.

Much like revolvers have become in general...niche weapons.


----------



## elder999

PhotonGuy said:


> Impressive.
> 
> But, with the Army in the USA the standard officer's sidearm is the Beretta 92 which is a 9mm. Before that they carried the Colt 1911 in .45. And from what I've seen lots of police officers also carry a 9mm, usually a semi auto of some sort although not always a Beretta. True, soldier's jobs are quite different from police and security guards, you don't see police and security guards on the front line where they need all the heavy artillery shown in the link you provided, but soldiers do carry sidearms which are often the same, or similar to the sidearms carried by police officers and security personnel.





PhotonGuy said:


> In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms.
> 
> And what I meant was, police officers and security guards aren't going to need anything as big as what was in the previous link. I couldn't imagine even a SWAT team using something like that. But, police officers, lots of security guards, and people in the Army do use handguns, so they've got that in common.



Firstly:
Efforts Continue to Replace Army Air Force Small Arms



> Special Forces have begun to migrate away from the M9 and have carried the P226, a .40-caliber handgun built by Sig Sauer that is more concealable than the M9. Some have begun to carry the Glock 19, a 9 mm pistol with a polymer frame that cuts down weight and size


From the same article:



> “I have seen a lot of Glock 19s floating around the military recently,” the Special Forces captain said. “Of course, Special Forces uses them, but I have seen both Air Force and Navy personnel with them



Lastly, there's this- a 1st Infantry soldier deployed in Afghanistan. Please note what's on his body armor?






I say again:


----------



## Tgace

What the Army issues and what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield) can be two different things.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

Tgace said:


> What the Army issues and what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield) can be two different things.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk




Words have meaning. When someone says, _"In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms."_

without adding "what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield),etc." then it becomes, like most posts from that source, spurious, incomplete, or _a completely *meaningless* statement._

MARINE:




(This guy was an MP in Iraq)

ARMY:


----------



## Tez3

Go on, hands up who doesn't actually care who carries revolvers! Weapon discussions are interesting but this isn't a discussion is it, it's one of the OPs interminable threads  where we all post our tuppence worth and have a laugh, admit it, we are amused.


----------



## Tgace

Well...like many general statements, Photon has some grains of fact in his points.

The US military (Army in particular) did reject Glock for a service pistol, and it being striker fired was one of the reasons, but not primarily because of safety concerns.

For a rationale that I can't explain, the military wanted double/single pistols with external hammers and external safeties. The powers that be wanted soldiers to be able to "second strike" misfires by pulling the trigger a second time instead of "tap.rack.bang". Can't do that with a striker fired pistol.

And in general, pistols are not usually issued to many enlisted MOS's. Some job slots do indeed have handguns as part of their MTOE.

A somewhat accurate list...from an Infantry perspective would include Medics, Machine gunners, Company CDR, 1SG, XO, Higher HQ staff types etc...then there's tankers, MPs, flight crews etc.


"Issued" and "acquired" can be different issues on deployments though.... 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tgace, there is no reason second strike can't be done with a striker fired pistol. The Taurus PT111 I reviewed elsewhere has this, as well as a thumb safety. 
So while Glock may not have chosen to include second strike, your statement that it can't be done is incorrect. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Tgace

Yeah. True...engineers and weapon designers can make most anything possible. But the PT111 is an oddity (altgough I think some HK models and maybe Walther have the feature). Perhaps I should have said "most" striker fired pistols. 

And I don't know that any striker fired handgun in the running had that feature when the military was doing their last trial....by and large, most striker fired pistols can't be "refired" w/o running the slide.

Of course, demanding "second strike" from a service pistol seems like a solution in search of a problem....but it is what it is.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------

