Revolvers: Perfect or Out-Dated for Personal Defense?

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 7/16/20 | C Baker

[libertylover]

On his old radio show G. Gordon Liddy always advised that novices us a revolver and not an automatic because they are safer.

[mac_truck]

The cylinder cannot turn (and the gun can't fire) if the cylinder is gripped with the slightest amount of pressure; with just a thumb and forefinger.

That is an interesting fact.

[Wayne07]

"You don’t get fifteen shots"

solved!

[throwthebumsout]

I don't own a revolver, though I have borrowed and shot a few. Never really cared for them, but that is just my personal preference.

The bottom line is that any (functioning) gun is better than no gun at all. And, as others have stated, maintain what you have and practice, practice, PRACTICE! Get familiar and comfortable with it and it will be ready when you need it.

[Big Red Badger]

I’ll be Your
Huckleberry.

[crz]

I once knew a fellow from Scotland who was a colonel in WW2 with some India regiment fighting the Japanese in the jungles of SE Asia.

He carried a colt revolver. Told me that is was a sure thing the dam thing would go off if he needed it. Unlike the auto side arms.

[windsorknot]

I wouldn’t want to be at the wrong end of such an “outdated” weapon.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Just so happens I was not commenting on my own behalf as I am not so narcissistic to think just about my own situation.

[OldGoatCPO]

Thanks, I have been debating this with myself lately. I have semi-autos, but have been debating on a .357. Because I can also shoot .38 special with it. The article had some very good points. I have a little antique .22 short that sprays debris. Feels like a lot of little bug bites, .357 debris would probably feel like a snake bite. Oddly, the .22 short used to be a cops back up to his back up pistol. He was a friend of my father. It has a little leather holster that sits very comfortably in the small of the back. This was when cops carried revolvers so he carried three guns. Imagine a little .22 short as your last resort in a shootout!

The article made me do some more research. With the changes to modern ammo my .40 S&W is more then a match for the .357. Surprisingly one test indicate the .357 had less recoil then a .40 S&W. Using modern defense rounds, the 9 mm has characteristics equal to a .357 in gel tests. The only advantage is the muzzle velocity that makes the .357 more accurate at 100 yards then the 9 mm or the .40 S&W. The .357 maintains a flatter trajectory. At close range it is arguable that the .357's velocity delivers more kinetic energy which causes more damage. But that along with penetration is up for debate.

As liberals push more restrictive gun laws there may be advantages to a revolver in the future. They do not eject rounds, they carry six rounds so magazines are not an issue and they are not considered scary military looking guns. But right now unless you like revolvers and shoot them a lot for fun, modern gun and ammo technology are leaving them behind.

[spetznaz]

My thoughts:

- Most gun-related self-defense situations will require maybe 2-3 shots, in which case a revolver works quite well.

- Most defense situations occur at a relatively short range, meaning even a snub-nosed concealable revolver is more than appropriate.

- Unlike semi-autos that can go out of battery, even if the muzzle is in contact with the perp the revolver will still fire.

Now, I personally don’t carry a revolver. At any given time I will have a Glock 17 with (at least) three magazines if the finest hollow point I can get (currently 147 gr Gold Dot, but I’ve carried 147gr HST and 127gr Winchester T). At times I will carry five magazines. Why? Because I live in a country with a history of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists attack public places, and consequently I need not just more gun than a revolver would afford me, but serious training.

However, if I lived in some nice suburb in America I’d probably be ok with a revolver. (Unless it’s Chicago, in which case I’d want an M4 with several magazines filled with .300 Blackout ....and that’s for bathroom defense. Maybe a DShK 12.7mm on a tripod for main defense)

[desertfreedom765]

That’s why the old west gunmen carried 2.

Revolvers are fine for personal defense, but not for going to war.

[leaning conservative]

Bkmk

[philman_36]

My biggest point for revolvers is there is no brass (evidence) to clean up.
/criminal mind

[Dutch Boy]

At a picnic a few years ago, a bunch of use were sitting around talking about carry pistols. There was talk of which caliber was better then which brand we preferred. One of the guys was an ex Border Patrol officer. He carried a .357 revolver while the rest of us had a variety of semiautos. We asked why the revolver. His response was that if he had to shoot someone, it wouldn’t leave a spent cartridge on the ground.

[BlackbirdSST]

When your first instinct is to cower, your 2a isn't going to protect you and yours from doodly squat -- Signed, Cowboy.

8 weeks +1 day ago. I went to town @ 0630, got back home @ 0800 to see my front door kicked in. I pulled my .357 and cleared my house, dialed 911 to report it and the first question from the operator was, "Have you cleared the house?"

[newfreep]

I've always liked this revolver...among other revolvers

[IndispensableDestiny]

I find single action shooting at steel targets to be extremely relaxing.

[captain_dave]

“You may be very fast, but a crowd of 500 or more is faster”

Those moments are perfect for a gatling gun

[Mariner]

FBI shows the .357 as the most effective man killer in history.

The highest percentage of one shot stops of any caliber.

But through a 4in barrel.