Revolvers: Ideal or Obsolete?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2016
- A few thoughts on how revolvers can be among both the best and worst options for personal protection.
If you liked this one, be sure to check out the full Wheel Gun Wednesday series on our blog: www.luckygunner.com/lounge/cat...
Support our channel, buy ammo from Lucky Gunner! - บันเทิง
We had a home invasion in our city some years ago where an elderly lady (80s) rectified it with a 38 that her son gave her +30 years before. It sat in her night stand fully loaded for +30 years until that night.
She was funny, she said "I don’t know if I hit him, I just kept pulling the trigger and he started running and screaming".There are no perfect guns (tools) some just are just better at certain jobs than others.
+Frank L Awesome story. A medium size revolver can be a great "granny" gun. Unfortunately, many of them eventually lose the hand strength required to operate the trigger.
On the other hand, if it has single action mode, then even a 90 year old lady can operate the trigger. Another often overlooked advantage of revolvers.
@@praevasc4299 They would still need to work the hammer... which requires decent hand strength. The only exception to this is automatic revolvers, which are few and far between, as well as quite expensive.
One could use the whole other hand (instead of just the thumb of the main hand) to pull back the hammer. Much easier than pulling the trigger with only the strength of a single arthritis-laden finger.
@@praevasc4299 So an old woman with weak strength is going to not only work the hammer with her entire hand (which is not as easy as it sounds, but granted, doable), but she is going to do this after every shot?
I love revolvers so much. I guess if I want to solve the ammo issue I'll carry 2 revolvers
Anthony Bell EXACTLY what I was thinking lmao 😂
My friend has a S&W 627, it is a snub nose .357 magnum that holds 8 rounds. Most conceal carry compact pistols are 7 round magazines. So I don’t really see the capacity problem
How about 3
Just make sure it’s legal in your state, it’s not legal in most.
Still dont get the 15 most semi autos get
The biggest problem I have with revolvers is price. Semi-autos are much cheaper to make.
Keith Larsen Some prefer power and craftsmanship with steel over affordable plastic. Old school is shown to be more reliable and that’s why people, including myself, prefer them.
That's more to do with "Saturday Night Special" laws that make cheap cast frame revolvers mostly illegal. Imagine what semi-auto pistols would cost if polymer frames were banned due to their "low melting point" or "cheap materiel used in construction"? That's what revolver makers have to deal with.
If you HAVE to make the frame out of steel, then you might as well put the work in to make a higher end product.
@@Crosshair84 That law only effects import which is irrelevant seeing how the two most prolific revolver manufacturers S&W and Ruger are US based and that law is for every type of gun pistol rifle revolver shotgun doesn’t matter they all fall under it
And in the case of ammo...a .38/.357 or .44/44 mag, ammo is very expensive. And even harder to find now! Where as 9mm is cheaper and plentiful, even in these trying times.
That being said I wouldn’t say no to carrying my 3inch 686 Plus anywhere!
@@20cameron1 there's 10x more craftsmanship and reliability in the massive wave of innovation of striker-fired handguns that have come about in the last few decades, compared to the same tired, unoriginal revolver designs that are made to sell to boomers lmao
During my career as a gunsmith, I usually found these problems affecting handguns.
With semi-autos, two things: 1) Dry slide rails. People think a few drops of oil will stay in place forever, and when the gun fails to cycle properly, can't figure out why. I would use gun grease in them, and always told the owners to do the same, though most ignored my advice. 2) Failures to feed were usually caused by weakened mag springs because of being left fully loaded, often for several years.
With revolvers, the most common trouble was caused by bent cranes due to the owners "flicking" the cylinders closed like the buffoons in the movies do it. Once in a while, I'd get one with a dragging/binding cylinder due to burned powder and lead buildup on the front of the cylinder.
Owner neglect is the most common factor in handgun function failures, not the gun itself.
Leaving mags loaded is a myth
Leaving mags loaded is a myth, the only thing that will wear any spring is repeated use, it can stay coiled or compressed indefinitely without consequence, the advice above gun grease is solid though.
@@eancola6111 most people who have had problems with mags left loaded is that the magazine was probably dirty as fuck and the gunk hardened
@@Dcm193 I can attest to that, I cleaned my dad’s pistol after probably 15 years of him carrying it, the magazine was stuck together internally from rust and corrosion, good thing he never needed it
After several years of shooting, my dad’s 686 wouldn’t cock the hammer back into SA, and would sometimes lock up when firing in DA. I took the gun apart, detail cleaned it, and now it runs like new again. We make a habit of detailing it once a year now so it shouldn’t be a problem anymore.
I hate it when my revolver gets a double-feed.
Lol right?
How???? what the hell are you talking about. I've shot revolvers for 55 years and no idea in hell what you're talking about. Never ever had any malfunction with a revolver.
@@williamgilpin3693 it's a joke grandpa
@@williamgilpin3693I've been shooting revolvers about 40 years. And I've had a
S/W 686 lock up the cylinder after shooting it. S/W had a recall for that on the early 686 models.
Ruger single six. Out of time and spit lead shavings when fired.
Ruger Blackhawk in 44 mag. I fired it and the ejector rod housing went flying into the sagebrush.
Ruger SP101. Trigger way too sensitive to short stroking. You have to be extra careful to let the trigger go ALL the way forward or the trigger won't move at all.
Inter arms Virginia Dragoon, went down with a broken flat Spring. It couldn't be shot without a new spring.
Just a couple of weeks ago. I was showing one of the Church ladies how to use her Ruger LCR revolver. It had something loose inside of it and tended to bind up?
These are just the examples I can think of.
A revolver is a machine. Machines sometimes have issues.
Best Wishes! M.H.
@@3v4073 I'm an idiot? Even though I am clearly going along with the joke? You sure you're not projecting there bud?
Lucky Gunner: Makes an unbiased, detailed, and well thought out analysis of revolvers in a practical world.
Yankee Marshal: *Autistic Screeching*
Lifted_Above I think the purpose was to focus on revolvers and explain what flaws they have.
Lifted_Above Life or death analisis are made because that is what matters. For everything else? Like niche things such as handgun hunting go ahead and do what you fucking want. Except you are hunting bears or any predatory animal it doesnt't matter. Man is still the most dangerous game. And the only one who can pick lock a door.
@@exothermal.sprocket You don't need a lot of practicality in order to hunt bears, when you hunt you only have to look about the gun's accuracy and the bullet's power (and maybe the bullet weight as well, for the "brush" calibers), hell, you can bring a muzzle-loaded cannon to hunt elephants and still bring a victory home (I believe someone actually did this).
@2012 Faggot Aleks then you don't shoot revolver's much, and a semi auto that does that is the exception not the rule. It isn't an argument. The fact is in human combat scenario's a semi auto is better in every way ( excluding the load, leave in nightstand and forget about it niche), if it wasn't the military and police wouldn't use them almost exclusively. Even if your'e semi fails to eject after every shot, you can rack the slide and fire again. If your revolver's cylinder locks up, that's it your'e out of the fight, and possibly dead. Revolver's are great, just in the way swords, mace's and muskets are great. If you get all butt hurt about there use in large defense, there are much better options in that field as well. Coonan makes a semi auto in 357. Any big bore guide gun. Any 12 gauge shotgun. It's not that I think they're bad for that purpose, they just aren't as good as the other option's.
Aw, Yankee Marshall has a delivery that CAN grate, but he often has good info, and is often funny. I cut him slack.
I couldn't agree more. The thought of my girlfriend using a j-frame in a stressful situation is much more comforting than her forgetting how to clear a malfunction on a pocket 9mm.
No doubt less capacity and capabilities but her confidence trumps that in my opinion.
The ONLY revolver failures I have ever had after thousands upon thousands of rounds is a broken transfer bar on a Taurus 94 after about 25,000 rounds and an empty case getting stuck under an ejector every now and then...I can't ever figure out how that happens but it does on occasion.
A gun is a gun I don't understand why people categorize certain things, just do what you want and carry what you feel comfortable with. If I carry a desert eagle .50 AE or a .22 black widow and am successful in a self defense scenario. Does it matter? Get what you want. Train with your gun and become competent to build confidence.
Thank you.
That's like saying that a car is car. Different things have different purposes for different people.
@@stefanwolf8558 Yeah, exactly, thank you friend. I agree with the guy insofar as, if you need to take what you can get, you take what you get. If my friend offered me a .22, I'd gladly accept, but right now I'm after a 12 gauge, because my shooting is not yet at par to where I want it to be, I don't have the chance to train as much as I want yet, so I desire the 12 gauge because a halfway accurate hit to the hip, the body, the shoulder, whatever, is probably going to be a fightstopper, like, I'd figure one blast of 00 buck would yield better results on a home invader than a shot of .223 in the same place, and without the risk of overpenetration. I'd love a 30-06 if I didn't have neighbors, I'd prefer to limit collateral damage to a few errant pellets at reduced speed bouncing off of the carport, as opposed to a rifle round ripping through someone's plumbing, or worse, their head.
I've been a fan of revolvers since buying my first one in 1974. They are no more obsolete than an incandescent light bulb, not exactly modern but still plenty usable
Thoughtful video. I'm a revolver guy at heart. I've been shooting revolvers and semi-autos for decades. I've never had a revolver fail. I've had many semi-auto's malfunction, some quite badly. YMMV. While semi-autos have an advantage in terms of ammo capacity and reloading speed, these are not as significant to me as the reliability and ease of use/carry that a revolver affords.
I have watched and “re-watched” this video numerous times; it is factual, lucid, articulate, entirely reasonable and excellent. I’m a six-decade shooter, having started with Smith K and N frames in the early 1960’s, but now I principally carry autoloaders.
In the video, Chris delineates “Why Revolver Suck.” With GREAT respect for Mr. Baker, I take minor exception to this, only because I believe no logical evaluation of any equipment - not just firearms - should be made without serious consideration of the likely usage scenario(s). To illustrate this, both a “5 series” BMW and a tractor-trailer are vehicles, but one is designed to haul very large loads over long distances, while the other is an outstanding personal automobile. Both perform their tasks quite well, but few of us would use the BWMer to haul tons of freight or the truck to drive our family to Aunt Mini’s for Thanksgiving dinner.
Similarly, I understand the huge advantages (especially, capacity and ease/speed of reloading) inherent in semiautomatics for law enforcement, military and some other applications. Realistically, however, VERY few non-LEO everyday carriers will ever be involved in a violent, firearms confrontation. Furthermore, VERY few of those who are will require more than five shots to resolve the situation (Paul Harrell does an outstanding job of documenting and explaining this in TH-cam videos). Consequently, I’d guess that well over 99 percent of TRAINED everyday carriers will be adequately equipped with an SP-101, a 686, a GP-100, a 627, Chris’ beloved S&W Model 66, (etc).
The problem I have with the “more is always better approach” is it has no common sense “end point.” If Glock 43’s 6+1 is good, why not an M&P’s 16+1? If 9x19mm is good, why not 10mm? Taken to the extreme, a theoretical .50 autoloader, with 24+1 capacity, would be ideal . . . but, of course, it isn’t for MANY obvious reasons.
I’m not criticizing autoloaders - one is in my belt right now - however I am respectfully suggesting that common sense be applied. For the overwhelming majority of us, five (or a couple more) rounds will be plenty - regardless of the “launch platform” - IF WE ARE PROFICIENT AND SAFE marksmen. Of course, during the Winter I often carry 12+1 of .45 ACP - because I love my H&K USP, it is extraordinary reliable and durable, and I shoot it well - BUT I believe the probability of needing it is small and of firing more than a few rounds in absolutely minuscule.
I have to admit a decent poly gun seems to just work. I love revolvers, plan on always carry one as backup. (Or primary)
@@tonyromano6220
Not always; I have been shooting for 60+ years and I have experienced many failures to cycle with my two (G23C and G36) Glocks. These clearly are shooter-caused failures (“poor grip,” due to Glocks’ ergonomics), and they definitely are not the fault of Glock’s design or quality. BUT when it comes right down to it, any cyclic failure (regardless of the cause) could easily be catastrophic in a defensive situation.
Your revolver "malfuctions" are actually broken revolvers and it is indeed very rare. I have never had a revolver break or malfunction in 30 years. Ammo not going bang is usually the ammo. Sure it happens but it is rare. We are talking about a malfunction not a defective firearm right? Just in case I am not clear a broken gun and a simple malfunction are not the same thing. Not sure what revolvers you and your friends are using to have all these issues so frequently.
+mx5ish Of course a revolver will work as intended when it is clean and in perfect condition. But the very definition of "malfunction" implies that something has gone wrong. And guns, like all machines, sometimes have things that go wrong. Have you never had a case that failed to fully extract on a reload? Or a case get stuck under the extractor star? You've never had a trigger that started to hang or drag after crud built up under the extractor star? These are not signs of broken revolvers -- they are just things that tend to happen when you shoot revolvers a lot and don't clean them after every 100 rounds.
I sent about 7000 rounds down range through various revolvers last year alone, and was present when probably another 20K rounds were fired by others. That's a lot of opportunities for stuff to go wrong. Some of the problems were with defective revolvers, some were user-induced, and some were due to lack of maintenance. But they all occurred unexpectedly and without warning, and they interrupted a string of fire on the range, just as they could interrupt a string of fire in a real world defensive encounter. I never meant to imply that revolver malfunctions are especially common, only that they are possible, and when they happen, they are often not easily fixed. These are just things that revolver owners need to be aware of and know how to recognize.
Perpetuating the old "revolvers can't malfunction" myth gives people a false belief that their gun is incapable of ever breaking, and that doesn't do anyone any favors.
Yeah I get your point. But no I have never had a case get stuck under the extractor star. I have had crude build up that made cycling the revolver more difficult but it still went bang. And surely I knew enough to clean it. But I have never had a revolver fail while firing. Faulty ammo sure. But the machine itself, the revolver, never. BUT I am sure it happens. Firing pins break no matter what the gun. But catastrophic failures such as these are not the main culprit of semi-auto failures. The oh so common failure to feed, failure to extract, stove piping etc. FAR FAR more common that breakages. One bullet, one gun, one shot, I'd take a revolver.
BTW - I don't want to neglect to say thanks for your videos. Good stuff.
mx5ish Yep. Revolvers don't jam. If you have a dud just pull the trigger again.
I've been shooting revolvers since the 60s, Colt, Smith, Ruger, and everyone of them has had malfunctions at one time or other. So have my semi-autos, just not as frequently. My point being, I don't care what you shoot, it's going to eventually malfunction, especially a revolver. Single action are even worse than DA.
A good revolver and a maintained revolver works!
If I could keep only one of my current handguns it would be my 4" 686 Plus. (Interestingly, Yankee Marshal once named it "the best all around handgun." Yes, I've seen the comments.) I see the merits of what you're talking about here, but one of the most compelling things for me in this platform is that the recoil of a stout .357 makes me giggle like a little girl. It never gets old and I can never get enough. For that reason alone I might be a better shot with the 686 than I am with say, my plastic 9mm.
Revolvers will be obsolete when bolt action rifles are; they generally chamber more powerful rounds than autos of a similar size.
@@therion5458 don't know about that my 500 magnum is significantly more powerful than any standard semi auto I've shot and owned. It's so strong the concussion brings bits of the ceiling down per shot in the gun range. It's powerful enough to stop your attacker with one shot even if you don't hit his heart or head.
@@therion5458 You seem to be making the assumption that velocity is desired. I use an AR-15 in .300 blk for the very defining feature of a heavier load at a much lower velocity. Its the same reason I carry revolvers. I do not want a high penetration rate. A high velocity and penetration rate is used by the police and military because its cheap, and they don't care who it hits behind their target in combat.
If I am using a gun as a civilian in virtually any context, I do not want a high penetration rate. I am not trying to machine gun holes through 3 layers of walls and riddle my neighbor's car or dog with holes. A heavy bullet traveling at a lower velocity is better for close range, it will only hit what I am shooting and dump all of its energy there.
A light, high velocity bullet just punches a hole through someone, its not effective unless its a kill shot. With a heavier load even if it doesn't land a kill shot the bullet is more likely to be felt for a number of reasons such as muzzle flash, actually knocking them over, or getting stuck inside them. When people realize they are being hit by bullets, they tend to stop attacking.
@@therion5458 You need to add almost 2" to revolver barrels for BBTI barrel lengths. BBTI measures from crown to breech on all their tests. A 357 cylinder is almost 2" of that measurement. Those 2" velocities you're looking at are how fast the bullet would come out of the cylinder with no barrel.
Here is some 125 gr. 357 from a snubbie at 1250 fps.
th-cam.com/video/27wDLjY5JSs/w-d-xo.html
The same brand of 124 gr. 9mm can't break 1100 fps in a full size pistol:
th-cam.com/video/QntZr9PGET8/w-d-xo.html
@@alfey318 I use hollow points for both, but even with a .38 Spl or 300 BLK there is a potential for penetration. It is not extremely likely that every single round fired in a home invasion scenario will hit your target, some of them will be hitting your walls.
Even with a .38 Spl hollow point, it is fairly likely a round that misses its target will punch right through the walls. It will at least not travel as far as a 9mm or 5.56 though. Having a large amount of light ammo can mean you have more chances to hit your opponent, but it also means riddling the home you are protecting with wasted ammo. Its better to learn to take your time with more powerful ammo than to machine gun it with light bullets with high penetration.
Indra Therion 5” barrel 9mm: 1100fps. 4” barrel .357 mag: 1500fps.
Revolvers can be more than just an 'everyman's gun', if that implies that revolvers are best suited to the underexperienced, and that autoloaders are best suited to more experienced shooters.
An experienced shooter with his revolver is as formidable in almost all scenarios, short of a Hollywood movie shootout situation, as a semi automatic operator.
I know that I'm no John Wayne, but this ain't John Wick, either.
I agree. IMO, revolvers are for those with even MORE experience because it’s more difficult to master the DA trigger pull, and reloading quickly takes a lot of practice, even with a speedloader.
Can't play Russian roulette with a semi
Anon Amos sure you can justuse a taurus
I wouldn't be so sure darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2000-04.html
Yes you can. Snap caps false ammo.
Yes you can. Just go first and shoot the guy you're playing against...
make a blindfolded man load blanks with one live round, or use a zip-22.
I legally carried every day since 1994. I carry both semi-autos and revolvers. My preference is revolvers. When I carry a semi-auto, I always have in the back of my mind that something could go wrong. I never have that feeling when I carry a revolver. I am confident that if I need to pull the trigger it is going to go bang. And frankly, the elitist in me simply prefers the aesthetics of a revolver. That alone would not inform my preference, but consider that I used a revolver to stop a home intruder in 1994. That has a lot to do with my preference. And considering aesthetics, I would rather write with a Mont Blanc fountain pen than a disposable gel pen. They both get the basic job of writing done, but one gives me more pleasure than the other.
Spot on!
I've carried a striker fire, a DA/SA and a revolver. I think this hits the nail on the head. I'm equally comfortable with any of them, but I think they are a wonderful newbies choice. I personally like them cause that gun, so long as it isn't broken, will just work. If the ammo sucks, just pull the trigger again. No safety to worry about. Just aim Prep and press the trigger. Yes the reload is slow. But I'm more concerned with getting a good effective first few shots than anything else.
Having a nice revolver is like having a good old fashioned '68 Mustang fastback. It's beautiful, effective, comfortable to use and has a hell of a bang. While auto pistols are like well tuned race cars: effective, fast, and are intrinsically better. But dammit it's hard to hate a Mustang.
Love autos and they were my go to for 40 years - then, my wrists started to really bug me. The .40 was out first, then the .45 became iffy as did the .38 Super. I'm still OK with a 9mm but I've found that a .357 or .44 magnum even though it has more recoil, it's a different type of recoil and it doesn't hurt my wrist - it pushes rather than torques my hand up. Whatever the reason revolvers work for me better than any but a 9mm. All of the negatives are there for sure and reloads suck. On the flip side I feel that one hit with a .44 magnum will probably stop an attacker quicker than a 9mm and accuracy with a good revolver is superb. I've put about 2000 rounds through 2 44 mag revolvers in the last two months and I'm getting to the point where I'm feeling better about carrying one (either a M 69 or 629 V-comp). I still have a LONG way to go but for me at 73 years old they are working.
Americans: Make detailed videos about self defence guns and practicing them frequently
Europeans: Wait what are guns?
There's one gun for every third person in several major European countries (France, Sweden, Switzerland...). Hunting tradition.
@@chahineyalla4838 Yeah but how many of those nations allow you to carry a pistol? How many recognize castle doctrine? It's not so cut and dry.
@@chahineyalla4838 hunting culture doesn’t equal self defense culture
I started shoting handguns at age 18 and now I'm older than the hills. I don't prefer revolvers over pistols, but in my experience a pistol could fail 20 times for each revolver failure. For defence I'll take a revolver any day! Regards
Lazarus0357 Agreed. This guy's source of info is based on hearsay.
@@Username-2 "Revolvers malfunction equally as much". Got any evidence of that? "Revolvers are less accurate". No that one is certifiably FALSE. No professional shooter will tell you that semi autos are more accurate than revolvers. Simply not true.
Brandon Lee revolvers less accurate- I think its about DAO 2inch barrel revolvers. 6 inch are great but not for EDC.
@@skittykitty1000 I'm late and not actually answering your question but my main hangup with a revolver is that if a revolver fails it's just done. You can easily clear most common malfunctions in a semi-auto with the right drills. As noted in this video, multiple revolver-specific failures are catastrophic to the operation of the firearm.
@@ZRFehr I'm not against semi autos at all I prefer them just pointing out incorrect statements and stated "facts" that are not facts regarding revolvers vs semi autos. To your point I guess it depends on the quality of the firearm. They both can have minor malfunctions or complete failures due to user error which is more common in semi auto or mechanical failure which comes down to the quality of each individual handgun. Blanket ideas like "when revolvers fails it's more catastrophic" I'm not too sure about.
I think your channel is so far the most professional gun related I’ve come across. I really like the way you explain the information.
Really enjoy your videos, great content and well presented. Thanks for taking the time to put them together.
Casey
Paul Harrell makes a strong case that semi auto's are NOT more inherently unreliable than revolvers. His argument is that semi auto's have more USER failures than revolvers. Specifically, in the heat of the moment, with adrenaline pumping like Niagara Falls, semi auto users (even well trained LE officers) often completely forget to rack the slide, or disengage the safety. With revolvers, you just pull the trigger.
That's why Glocks are so popular: You just pull the trigger.
Ok, but what difference does it make in the end? A failure is a failure, and could lead to death in real life.
A well-trained shooter that adequately maintains their weapon has little to worry about, whether they're carrying a semi-auto or revolver.
Any modern day double/single action or striker fired semi-auto: just pull the trigger
I'll take my smith 686 plus 7 round over any semi
Everybody should own a 686+ or three. I have the 3", 4", 5" and 6", and wish I had the 2.5".
Biff Dinkley I just bought my first gun now that's not to say that I don't know how to shoot I've been around Guns my whole life but my new gun is a 4" 686 plus
I'll take my Glock 17 over your 7 round wheel gun, if it's a defensive situation.
ubcroel I’ll take my G20 over your 17 if it’s a defensive situation.
👍👍
Outstanding breakdown. You guys have quietly (and almost completely subconsciously) become my favorite gun channel; certainly the channel with the most influence over me. Your videos helped me pick my PX4 Subcompact as my new carry gun and possibly favorite pistol ever.
These are incredible prospectives and opinions. They are well informed and meticulously researched. I didn't subscribe early on because I assumed it would be a bunch of ammo commercials. I was wrong. Thanks for everything, guys!
only time i seen a revolver fail to fire was a single action 44 mag that was caried without cleaning for so long that it built up enough dust on the hammer to slow the fall. i repaired it with a kleenex tissue.
@Anne Frank semi autos malfunction every 1-2 rounds across the board
@@813GC Did you pull these numbers out of your ass? Clean your gun, idiot.
The only outdated and antiquated defense tools in this are all the old overweight instructors.
Thanks for the chuckle this morning with my coffee.
Yeah. Imagine them trying to move as quick as a 22 year old armed attacker.
@@mmabagain Only a fool would underestimate an old guy well trained with a gun.
Super well thought out presentation. You're one of the best!
I'm always going to prefer my super blackhawk. Not because of reliability, although I've never had a problem with it, and not because of anything that most people would consider detrimental for an automatic. I will prefer it simply because it's what I know. It was the first handgun I'd ever shot, I keep it clean and in good repair, and it's just my all time favorite gun.
It's almost a shame that my sbh just won't work for carrying lol. It's kind of hard to conceal it with a 7.5" barrel, and being single action.
Yeah, but if you live in the right sort of place, there are open carry laws.
+John Wardell my state is an open carry state, but the chances of somebody calling the police because they see it out are high. I rarely open carry.
You're going to train more with what you like. No matter what gun(s) I'm bringing to the range, my revolver is always one of them.
WOW! Wheel Gun Wednesdays may almost trump Thumpin' Thursdays at Norman's Rare Guitars.
I have been shooting revolvers for over 15 years, l have seven of them with thousands of fired rounds through them and not one jam , I can't say the same for my semi autos.
I'm in the, " I like to shoot every now and then, plus I think revolvers are cool af" category. Have a glock for safety, but I love revolvers
I think it really comes down to what YOU feel comfortable and what you can get quick accurate hits with, a 25 acp to the head or chest is better than a 9mm to the leg, just use what YOU can shoot good
Excellent video. The best I've seen on this topic.
This was a really good video and you speak very well and explain just the perfect amount. Keep it up!
that was a really good look at the pros and cons of revolvers (vs semis). great job.
to me, it seems (and this is pure theory on my part), that a revolver could be easier to draw quickly, since the handle fits the hand better. then if you needed more shots, switch to the semi - sort of a reverse backup thing (minds out of the gutter, folks).
Great Video. I really like how you present.
I really enjoyed your balanced and insightful review.
Great presentation of the pro's and cons. Definitely for someone who has never shot a gun, it is far easier to figure out and remember how to fire a revolver. Just loading a magazine for some is difficult. Confidence in your ability to use your weapon is paramount. On point about reliability also. Reliability is not black and white. Some guns do better in some conditions and situations and worse in others.
Revolvers are NOT obsolete.
Preach!
This was a very informative and honest video. Thx for posting LG.
This guy does very good videos.
Does not seem to be bias in any way and has deep experience.
I carry a revolver because they’re simple, easy, and I feel totally comfortable with them. I keep my j frame loaded and trust it completely. I have trouble even loading a magazine in a semi auto and I don’t feel comfortable or safe with them. My dad is 82 and his whole life has kept a Smith and Wesson .38 for self and home defense. He’s never had a problem with it. He won’t even touch a semi auto. Props to those who like semi autos, and maybe in time if I get more used to them I’ll purchase one, but in a life or death situation, I know I can grab my revolver and pull the trigger and not worry about any malfunctions and I don’t want to be worrying about racking a slide or if a magazine is loaded right at 3 in the morning when I just need to grab my weapon and defend myself.
Thankyou, you just solved my problems. I have been debating semi auto vs revolver for almost a week now.
I love semi-autos, and I own more semi-autos than revolvers. However, your comments on revolver malfunctions are hard for me to accept. I have shot more than 20,000 rounds through revolvers over 36 years and have never had a malfunction. S&W 13, 19, and 686 - Colt Python - Ruger Security Six. 36 years, zero malfunctions. Now, my semi-autos are a different story. Stove pipes, fail to eject, fail to feed happen, very rarely but they do happen. It has happened with my Beretta 92 fs, Ruger P85, Walther P99, CZ 75, Springfield P9. Okay, never (that I can remember) with my Glock 17 or Sig 226....nevertheless it happens. Night stand gun?...revolver any day. In the field in, say, Waziristan, semi-auto. However I never, ever, expect to be in Waziristan.
Ross, would you credit the 36 years of revolver reliability to your ability to maintain the weapons diligently and using high quality ammo?
Ross Henderson
Really not one bad bullet...ever. I find you to be disingenuous. I have had malfunctions with every weapon I own if you spend enough time shooting with it. Your revolver shot for 36 years and you had no problems...nope. Every gun has to be maintained. If you shot with any amount of time your weapon will eventually need some kind of attention. I have seen loyalty in a certain weapon type before but you take the cake.
My only consistent issue with revolvers is sticky cases on ejection, and really only with cheap tula range ammo anyway.
Anything else I would just consider the gun to be broken.
@@JusticeForSome Same here. I have hunted all my life and shot many types of guns. Only ones that I had problems with were semi-auto's and a lever action 30-30 rifle. Muzzle loader too but that is a totally different animal. I have had zero problems with revolvers and don't know anyone that has had problems with them as far as malfunctions, aside from poorly made Taurus models in the past.
That sounds right. And yes I was thinking that most of the problems and malfunctions he mentioned in this video with revolvers seemed preventable through preventative maintenance, but I could be wrong because I'm not an expert.
Great vid! And probably the best on the subject!
Very informative! Thanks a lot.
The pros and cons are well considered and presented. Good vid. Thanks.
For the first time gun owner, I always recommend a revolver. It's simpler to use and way simpler to clean.
Revolvers jam much less than semi-autos. All guns require cleaning and maintenance.
Great analysis. Got my daughter a Taurus 605.
Another advantage of revolvers is that you can never have a limp wrist malfunction. Semi autos are especially prone to that for people with a weak wrist or can't grip the firearm very firmly which older people or people with hand injuries is more likely to experience.
These are very well made videos.
Thanks for your perspective.
Thank you and Bless you for you're honesty on this matter. Neither design is outdated, it's just that the revolver is more appropriate for those with the low maintanance with the mentality of buy it and load it with no intention of training with it between loading it up and storing it away until they have to use it. The sccy is a perfect blend between the two for recomending a gun with the safety featured/simplicity reasons for having either pistol platform I.E. revolvers and autoloaders, and their benefits.
Realistically speaking a pistol requires a high level of proficiency to use under stress.
Sure things will go well if the pistol does not malfunction and if it does not have a safety to confuse you, but try to grab it too low or put your thumb against the slide and it will fail. I would not trust myself to get it right as I wake up to a noise in the middle of night.
I think people who buy revolvers are simply realistic about their skills.
and i think anyone can throw 15 rounds down range and hope they hit something, but shooting a revolver with 6 rounds takes a bit of skill to master
@Aaron Because if you're putting all your shots on target, you'll never realistically need 15 rounds. 7 rounds should be enough for 1 or 2 assailants.
Exactly!
to quote a wise man. Its the greatest gun ever made. the single action army. 6 shots. more than enough to kill anything that moves
While more complex handguns like the semi autos seen seem to make sense for those of us who like to shoot as a hobby, there is something to be said about a simpler design like a double action revolver, for those of us who want a gun for personal protection, but aren't so interested in how the gun works. You just pick it up and pull the trigger, basically. An armed altercation is likely to happen when you're not prepared, and keeping things simple is a good thing. Thanks for the video.
Excellent video - lots of sense.
love revolvers about to buy my 2nd one soon!!
The revolvers i have handled for years never failed once. I bought one recently as a main defense weapon and i only had one issue- my own short strike of the trigger.. Thats the only issue ive had in the thousands of rounds i have ran through it. Little EAA Windicator pistols are the best.
I love that Chris approaches this from both sides. I used to have all semi-autos until I got my hands on my first S&W revolver. Quite apart from the mechanical differences, I could shoot that medium-frame 357 magnum more accurately than any 9mm or 380 that I ever owned. To this day I have no idea why, but all the centerfire semi-autos in the safe have been replaced by revolvers now. I couldn't be happier with the choice, they are hands down more effective in my hands than even the premium bottom feeders like my H&K P2000.
Interestingly, that first S&W had some kind of issue that caused it to bind every once and a while, and rather than struggle with it I sold it back to the guy I got it from. It was replaced by a pair of modern J-frames, both of which have been literally flawless. I have never encountered any failure which could not be corrected with a squeeze of the trigger and which was not later traced to the ammunition - either a deeply-seated primer that is likely the result of a worn primer pocket, or a dud 22LR, depending on which gun it was.
I like in a safe place where a higher capacity is not likely to be meaningfully beneficial if I have to pull the gun, and the benefits of dry fire and brass retention mean that I am much better able to practice than I would with my semi-autos.
That being said, if for some unfortunate reason I had to move to a city, I would probably pick up a P365 380. I wouldn't be shooting in the backyard at that point, so the brass would be collecting on the floor of a concrete stall, and my inability to practice frequently would mean that more rounds would be of greater utility even without the worsened threat environment.
Great video, a revolver is usually the best choice for your average/novice gun owner. They are simple and intuitive!
I love your TH-cam Channel and The Lucky Gunner Website. I particularly love the ammo testing section! I will look to purchase ammo from your site in the future. Best of luck and please keep the outstanding videos coming.
+Barry Justice Thanks!
Interesting. I suppose that I wasted my day at the range yesterday with my revolvers. Qualifications are coming up, and we get free range time, so we load up our duty gear and get practice and refresher training. I did miss almost an hour of training because my S&W 686-6 and 642-2 don't double feed, stovepipe, or fail to cycle because I grip them wrong. The younglings have stopped asking why "in this day and age" I still carry a revolver. I told them when they can outshoot me I'll consider changing over to a Glock like they are issued. Hasn't happened yet.
I have a snub nose 38 as my main and a little 22 auto for backup (with Yellow Jackets). Carry both one way or another.
Great video.
Revolvers are out dated for sure, that's why I own one ; )
Truth. And the day lever guns stop being able to take game, I'll start the clock on when revolvers will stop being able to put down a threat. Not planning on holding my breath for either.
When lever guns, bolt guns, and revolvers become obsolete, Hell will freeze over
can't unload on a bad guy from pocket jacket with semi auto pistol
Very nice video. I'm a newbie and was trying out revolvers at the range, and I got a frozen cylinder. I brought it to the range attendant and he didn't really believe me; he just put the gun away and said he would look at it later. Now I know what happened!
I also had two LLAMA semi autos, one in 9mm and one in 45 acp and they never ever had issues. I used kimber and old surplus magazines and neither the 9 mm or 45 acp had issues. It was mind blowing! I sold both.
Your videos are great. You are very interesting
Revolvers are definitely more noob friendly.
My wife started routinely plinking for the first time in her life last year, and I got no doubt the simplicity of the s&w .22 she started on reduced initial anxiety that comes with handling a gun for the first time.
I took the Revolver Course at Thunder Ranch taught by Clint Smith some years back. EVERYONE in the class had S&W revolvers, EVERYONE experienced malfunctions. I brought two Smith revolvers, both snubs. A 442 Airweight in .38 & a 940 in 9mm that used moon clips. The 940 was most prone to binding cylinder from bent moon clips. The 442 gave me no problems.
I've taken most all of the pistol courses offered by Gunsite ranch (250, 350, 499 - some even taught by Cooper himself), & 260 Shotgun. I took Revolver, Urban Rifle, Shotgun & Advanced Pistol at Thunder Ranch. After all my training I feel adequately armed with two snubs on my person. I'm not police or military, & the most valuable lessons I've learned is situational awareness & conflict avoidance. After 40 years as an armed citizen I've only once encountered a potential threat & it was resolved with facing off & unbuttoning my coat. I displayed no weapon. The threat went away.
My wife has a S&W 325 in 45 acp. I have a 1911. We are preppers I love that we have the same caliber. I love both guns. Keep making videos. Great quality
one with obsolete other with obsolescent. you guys fit each other well. Are you driving ford model T as well?
When I started working in law enforcement, I carried a S&W model 10. After a few years, I started working in plane clothes, and then transitioned to semiautomatics (I had carried them in military service) but carried a revolver as back-up. After 30+ years of service, I choose to carry a revolver as my CCW. I feel it is adequate for me as a civilian.
In the context of Mr. Givens statement - "People who say revolvers never malfunction never shoot their revolvers." - How many rounds is he talking about?
I've taken this video very much to heart and have worked over the past few months to *try* to induce a failure in my revolvers. Obviously, it takes a long time to run a lot of rounds through one, but I've been taking just one revolver to the range each week and running 200 - 250 rounds of .357 through it.
So far, I haven't seen any problems. Is he talking about a thousand rounds or more over the course of a weekend?
If your revolvers work, then they work. The point is that they *can* malfunction, and people who have been around a lot of revolvers that have had a lot of rounds through them get to see all kinds of spectacular malfunctions. A lot of these problems arise only under certain circumstances, particularly if you start doing a lot of rapid manipulations and reloads. Some makes and models are more susceptible to issues than others, but none of them are problem free 100% of the time. Keep the guns clean, check the screws and ejector rod and anything else that can come lose. They are typically very reliable, but not infallible.
Very thoughtful video.
I've been shooting revolvers for 28 years now, currently own over a dozen. I haven't had an S&W or Ruger revolver experience a failure.
I did have a Taurus rimfire shave a hypervelocity jacketed .22 WMR, the little bits of gilding metal stuck between the cylinder and the crane arm, and the cylinder locked up. I had to knock it free with a rubber hammer. I cleaned it, lubed it, and have never had another problem with it.
I also don't put thousands of rounds through a revolver over a weekend, either. My typical use is, once a week, pick out two of my revolvers I want to work with, along with two semis to take to the range. I probably put 200 rounds through the two revolvers, 100 rounds each, plus shooting up last month's carry ammunition.
So I will take what the experts say here to heart and make an honest effort to shoot a revolver to failure. Today, I put 250 rounds of mixed .38 and .357 through a single 686+.
I like your enthusiasm for revolvers, and I'm glad that you constantly revisit the debate of revolvers and semi-autos. Most debates of personal defense firearms and calibers almost always take place with the assumption that the sole adversary one is likely to face is against human enemies. However, there are two types of personal defense: defense against humans and defense against big/dangerous game (hogs, deer, elk, buffalo, moose, coyotes, black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, or even aggressive dogs). Yes, the likelihood of ever having to use a firearm against any of these creatures is rare. However, .38 S&W/.357 Mag, .40 S&W/10mm, or .44 S&W/.44 Mag revolvers are probably the most versatile "one gun platforms" against all of these creatures, and unfortunately, the topic of "versatility" or the discussion of a "one gun platform" is largely omitted from firearm discussions, too. Compared to semi-autos, revolvers are not without their disadvantages (e.g. have less ammo capacity, take longer to reload, are typically heavier and longer, less tolerant to abuse, generate more recoil - due to no slide operation - and are typically more expensive). The main arguments in favor of revolvers, however, are "firepower" and "versatility," where the latter point is not stressed enough. In my limited experience, it seems that most people who have to consider these two kinds of personal defense seem to always own at least two different gun platforms: one for defense against humans (e.g. .38 S&W, 9mm, .40 S&W, .44 S&W, .45 ACP), the other for dangerous game (10mm, .357 Mag, .41 Mag, .45 Colt, .44 Mag, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 Mag), and almost always the big game firearm is used secondarily and only on occasion. Despite all of the different platforms of semi-autos, finding one that can serve the dual purposes of a human/big game defense is challenging and highly debatable, but those who favor semi-auto platforms typically try to buy two guns with similar platforms/manual of arms (e.g. 1911 in 9mm and 1911 in 10mm, or a Glock 17 and Glock 20), even though, no matter how similar, the draw, grip, sight alignment, and trigger control will never be the same for two different semi-autos of similar platforms with different calibers. And, a disadvantage of owning more than one firearm is that it undoubtedly leads to increases in 1) costs (e.g. buying two different firearms plus magazines, holsters, grips, accessories, equipment), 2) training (e.g. fundamentals of sights and trigger control, recoil control, learning different manual of arms, draws from holster/carry position, etc.), 3) maintenance (e.g. cleaning, parts, etc.), 4) storage (i.e. space for the firearms, gun safe, guns cases, accessories, and equipment alike), and the list goes on.
The advantage of a revolver is that carrying a variety of cartridges in "speed" strips is easier (in concealability, storage, and weight) than having to constantly consider and choose between or carry two different gun platforms plus the respective spare magazines/ammunition before leaving one's home. The versatility of the revolver means that it requires less mental dexterity and foresight than owning two different gun platforms and having to plan one's day, to imagine the possible threats one might encounter, and then to choose the appropriate firearm based on that forecast, only to still have doubts about whether one's training or firearm choice are going to be adequate in the event a situation that requires the use of the firearm arises. Instead, one could load a revolver with .38 S&W/.40S&W/.44 S&W when venturing to the city, or load with .357 Mag/10mm/.44 Mag when exploring the backcountry, and an easy swap of the ammunition in the cylinder is all that is required to be prepared for different animal threats. Another advantage of owning a dual caliber revolver is that the same firearm can be adequate for different threats while also being the same platform, which means having the same draw, same grip, same sight alignment, and same trigger control while only having to adapt to change in recoil.
I think arguments in favor of ammo capacity are overrated for personal, self-defense situations. The problem with the reasoning behind ammo capacity is that it stems too closely from military strategy and tactics that are often out of place in personal defense situations. The line of reasoning is that more ammo capacity means an increase in superiority of fire, which can lead one to have both offensive and defensive advantages over enemy forces. Superiority of fire allows one to 1) engage multiple targets, 2) destroy more enemy forces or equipment, 3) suppress/disrupt enemy force movements, or 4) strengthen friendly force movements (i.e. advance, flanking, retreat, etc.). These advantages are clearly necessary to win battles and wars, but the problem is that superiority of fire is rarely necessary in personal self-defense situations, and I say this leaving statistics aside and simply thinking through this point strategically and tactically. In a self-defense situation, an individual who is attacked and trying to defend himself will likely be at two disadvantages: first, he will likely be surprised and have to react to the threat without complete awareness/information (whereas the assailant will likely have this advantage), and he will likely not have back up support from other team members or units (whereas the assailant may have this support). If an individual faces an attack from only one other individual, perhaps superiority of fire can be an advantage and deciding factor of the gun fight. However, so can marksmanship, accuracy, and the firepower of the cartridge. In other words, increased ammo capacity or superior rate of fire in a personal defense situation may not necessarily lead to victory. While "superiority of fire" and "firepower" are often used interchangeably, I use "superiority of fire" to mean the ability to maintain a sustained volume of fire at either high or low rates, whereas I take "firepower" to mean the destructiveness of a weapon system. The real question is, when can anyone ever truly know that they have the superiority of fire in a self-defense situation? What if the assailant is wearing body armor, has several extended magazines, multiple firearms, or even NVGs? Even if someone is likely to carry two spare mags for self-defense, is engaging and staying in the firefight to see who has the most ammo capacity ever a risk worth taking? No, the best strategy is to engage only enough to either eliminate the enemy, provide suppressive fire for a retreat or to flee, or worst case, take a defensive position, call 911, and wait for 911 to arrive. Moreover, every shooter has to legally account for every round that is fired in a criminal or civil case. The more rounds that are fired, the more difficulty one faces accounting for them. And, even if one is justified in the shooting, if one round hurts an innocent bystander, one's case will likely be lost. If one is outgunned in firepower and not sure he or she has the skill or firepower to eliminate the enemy, then the best strategy is to retreat/flee. If one is attacked by multiple assailants, then increased ammo capacity/superiority of fire is not going to give one enough of an advantage to overcome the surprise of the attack, the lack of backup support, and being outnumbered, so the best strategy would be to retreat/flee.
As far as revolvers vs semi-autos, yes, semi-autos are lighter than revolvers, but the need to carry a full spare mag almost negates the weight advantage. And as outlined above, the advantage of the faster semi-auto reload compared to a revolver is tactically hardly necessary except to clear a malfunction.
It all boils down to this; Use what you want and are effective with. One solid hit is all it takes, 15 near misses.....missed.
As an avid shooter, I have to say I disagree with almost everything said on here. I've personally shot hundreds of rounds with a revolver and thousands with pistols. I've had numerous pistol malfunctions. I've never had a revolver malfunction; not once.
Pistols are very susceptible to limp wristing, for people with a weaker grip. Revolvers don't have this issue. I've seen a reliable pistol jam about half the rounds in its magazine from someone limp wristing it.
Just love the charm of a revolver.
Tho the older semi's have charm too.
Even if technically semi's are more suitable for combat scenario's doesn't mean it's obsolete.
In the right/trained hands something as ancient as a bow can still be plenty to kill you.
I reject gun snobbery that states revolvers are garbage. Every different kind of tool has its place. I knew a woman who bought a semi auto and let it sit in her drawer for a year or so, and when she pulled it out to load, she couldn't remember which way the bullets pointed in the magazine. If you don't shoot often, have limited hand strength or arthritis, or semi autos confuse you, the simplicity of the revolver might make it a better tool for you.
Great video as always man. Both guns have ups and downs. So many people hate on revolvers unnecessarily though. If it works for you I say go ahead and use it. If they're not tactical enough or too low capacity for you then stick with autos.
FANTASTIC video. Hit it out of the ball park.
This is probably the most informative video for the semi vs revolver debate. Thanks guys!
Chris, after a bit more than 40 years of carrying a gun, teaching guns, and using guns for work, I've come to the conclusion that you run the "Thinking Man's Gun Channel". I always appreciate your reasoned analysis, even when I disagree with some points you make. You usually have a cogent argument for your position and I appreciate that.
I used to own a training school for 21 years that specialized in teaching brand new people in their very first defensive firearms experience. I rather quickly learned how little dedication most of the students had to mastering equipment or regular practice. I also came to the conclusion that most of them, in that setting as new folks, were well served by the double action revolver. Also, in the context of doing weekly classes and owning our own range, neither I nor my instructors noticed very many failures with revolvers. There were a few, to be sure, but very few. However, we were not running 1,000 round classes either, since we considered them educationally unsound for new people (think drinking from a fire hose). By contrast, we did see a much higher number of problems with semi-auto pistols, very few of which were the gun's fault. To put it short, when we rarely had a revolver failure, it was a broken gun. When we had a semi-auto failure, it was most often operator error. I'm not sure that an environment in which you run 1,000 rounds of full-power ammo through a gun in less than a week is really indicative of typical use patterns of the average gun owner, and I think you can probably make anything malfunction if you try hard enough. Ken Hackathorn once said, "I carry 24 rounds on me when I carry my 1911. So my gun needs to be reliable for 24 rounds, I don't care if it will go 500 rounds without a cleaning." I thought that to be an interesting perspective on "torture testing".
Most of the folks who left our class were going to get a concealed carry permit, and never again participate in any form of organized training, ever again. Sad, but true. For them I used to apply what I called "The sock drawer test", in which I imagined each student hearing their front door being broken through in the middle of the night one year after training, and them having to recover the loaded gun from the sock drawer where they left it loaded. Which would they be better off with? For a large number, it would be the revolver. For some, with the semi-auto they would be just fine, and clearly have a higher level of capability. But for many of those people, the event would not be the first time the gun had come out of the drawer. Some took to semi-autos like ducks to water, others were clearly uncomfortable with them and let it be known that they weren't going to get comfortable any time soon. Those folks are "revolver people" and there are a lot of them.
We confirmed this by running "family range days" where people who had taken our introductory class could come back later to our range for some structured practice under supervision. A high percentage of them who had been convinced by well-meaning friends that a semi-auto pistol was a "must have" for defense could not reliably operate their pistol without coaching when they came back to the range, as little as three months later. This is not the gun's fault, it is the operator, but speaks to the point. A smaller group would come back having added another pistol, usually a semi-auto, that they had already learned for themselves how to operate, and were eager to schedule more advanced training. Once again, "Revolver people vs. semi-auto people".
Another thing that has changed with the passage of time is the general reliability of modern semi-auto pistols and modern ammunition. Unless you have gray or no hair, you probably don't remember the days of the "Jammo-Matic" even from big-named manufacturers. It was not a given in the old days that you could buy a high quality automatic, and buy high quality ammunition of the proper caliber, and that the two were going to work together properly. Gun designs matured with looser tolerances for defense guns, fewer long metal to metal bearing surfaces that simply wouldn't work when dirty or in the absence of lubrication. In short, in the old days, revolvers looked very good, because a lot of semi-autos looked so bad. People who got into shooting in the pre-Glock era never experienced the "bad old days" of semi-autos in which, if you wanted one to work, you carried a military-style Colt 1911 loaded with ball, or you paid big bucks for a Beretta or a SIG and then went looking for a hollow point that would work. Or you just skipped it and put up with the revolver's limitations.By the same token, as semi-auto pistols have gotten better, I've seen a clear decline in the manufacturing quality of modern revolvers in recent years, starting with the use of inferior materials to maintain price points. If one doubts this, they only have to pop the hood on a current production S&W revolver and compare it to the same model made 30 years ago. This may account, in part, for a reported increased incidence of revolver parts failure.
I would have to agree with Tom Givens that the semi-auto pistol is a superior fighting tool, for a person who intends to learn to fight. But I also agree with my dear friend Claude Werner that for the rest of the gun owners out there, the revolver may still be more appropriate. A fully equipped fire engine is a superior fire fighting tool, IF you have trained in how to use everything on it, and practiced a bit. If not, a fire extinguisher may be more appropriate. Both sides can be right.
Sorry for the long comment. Keep up the good work. I personally try to buy ammo from Lucky Gunner whenever I can, even when you are not the least expensive alternative, because you put out such interesting content which I feel adds value to my purchase.
Thanks for this video.
Great Video
In my experience, I think the J frame (or similar) revolver is great. Medium frames and larger frames are the ones that are going obsolete for self defense. When I make the decision to carry a J frame, i'm choosing to sacrifice firepower, capacity and sight radius for concealment. When I compare my LCR to a similar auto, my p365 or m&p shield, the LCR has fewer malfunctions at the range. A tiny 9mm is just too small for my hands, and I induce user error that affects locking the slide back, and feeding/going into battery. Sometimes I'll have a jam with my micro autos. These issues happen maybe once every 500 - 1000 rounds (I shoot a lot, nearly every day or every other day most weeks). It's so rare, but they never happen with a J Frame. In fact, I've never had any malfunctions with my LCR, yet. So instead of making it sound like revolvers are only for untrained, inexperienced or poor shooters, you can add that the right revolver is a good choice based on the application for a trained and experienced shooter depending on whether or not he/she can easily manage a micro auto. I have no problems with larger compacts and full size autos, but sometimes I don't want to wear my carry attire.
Haha I remember when my trigger spring broke in my revolver I had nightmares afterwards. It works now but that feeling of the spring breaking while I pulled the trigger is unforgettable
I totally agree with the statements above in this video clip with Chris. I carry a Glock 17 on duty, but I trust my J frame S&W .38 special as my backup weapon. I enjoy shooting both revolvers and semi autos but have the most confidence in the high capacity semi automatics. Keep safe and practice at the range when you can!
I think this video was fair. Worthwhile information to consider here, and worthy of a subscribe.
I just bought a 5 round j frame revolver. For weeks I debated with myself on what would be best but I just couldn’t pass on the revolvers nostalgic feel and reliability.
Love that subtle Paul Harrel background music
Revolvers are easy for beginners; but they are not just for beginners. If you take the time to learn how to rapidly reload a revolver, and to learn both single action and double action trigger pulls, you will be in good shape if/when you need it for protection. I have had far more problems with semi-automatics at the range (failure to feed, failure to cycle the action fully, stovepipes, etc.) than I have had with revolvers (even though I tend to shoot a revolver a little more). All the issues I have had with a revolver have been related to the ammunition, which can equally plague semi-automatics.
Wheelguns will be with us until phasers are available to the common citizen.
Just came across this-Great info! The only revolver problem I've encountered so far has been short stroking, a user error. I haven't fired quite as many rounds as a semi auto, but so far not any real major errors. It sounds like having a backup revolver to a semi auto should be a reversed situation, having a semi auto backup to a revolver. The one thing I know for sure is that a jam with a revolver can be more catastrophic than with a semi auto. Give up my revolvers? No way.
Two thoughts: 1. Every defense lawyer I've ever known has said, "Never" carry a weapon with a round in the chamber. Well, that's not an issue with a revolver due to the long trigger pull and rotating cylinder. 2. In an anti-gun climate, I'd rather have the prosecuting attorney hold up my revolver than the latest military grade coyote tan/camouflaged striker fired semi-auto with the mounted light. The tactical guys go on and on about fast shooting and reloads, but never seem to be around for the aftermath and have no advice for paying your legal bills.
You've been talking to the wrong defense lawyers.
In any political climate, using a gun for defense will always have legal troubles following the use.
This is why everyone needs to get USCCA or CCW Safe to protect them. They got pro gun lawyers that know what they're talking about and money to cover your expenses depending on how much you pay a month. You have insurance for your car and house, why not for defense gun use?
Don't limit yourself because you are afraid of the consequences. The mindset is everything.
Great comment!!
Total myth. Just read a rant about this the other day from a lawyer who worked for a prosecutor as well. The only thing they care about *if* you go to trial for a defensive shooting is whether or not you were justified in shooting. And that comes down to whether or not you were in fear for your life. The type of gun you used isn't germane to the case.
wheel guns will never go away deapite it short comings