Revolver vs. semi-auto, is one better?

[SoCalEnthusiast]

I know this has probably been discussed time and time again but I'm a newbie and was wondering... Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver? I know the benefits of each, but which one has the edge over the other?

Obviously you have the benefit of having more rounds in a semi-auto, but the reliability isn't there compared to the revolver?

Anyone want to shed some light on this? Would it be a fair statement that a 9mm with 15-17 rds is more superior than lets say a .357 with 6 rds? I know the .357 packs a bigger punch, but does the 9mm outweigh the .357?

[beerman]

Each has their place. LEO would pick the auto due to capacity. Reliability wise
its a toss up. Ballistically wise the 357 has more energy than the 9,but a well placed bullet will kill you,even a 22. In short, the auto lets one put more lead out, faster and with faster reloads. I prefer wheel guns for target shooting

[trigger945]

I think it has a lot to do with the training the operator got and with the operator's comfort level. There are speed loaders and moon clips available for the revolver and there are many videos showing how quickly one can reload a revolver.

There are also .357 mag revolvers that are capable of 8 shots, just like the 627 and the 327. The extra rounds plus the punch of a .357 mag round plus a bunch of moon clips ready to go can make a trained operator very capable - as capable as a trained operator using a semi-auto handgun.

[Scuba951]

No.

[hermosabeach]

I grew up with wheel guns. I tried a Glock in 1994 and fell in love with the platform.

I don't see any advantage in reliability to a revolver to a semi.

If one fell in the mud I can see grit locking up the gap between the cylender as fast with a revolver as with a modern pistol.


Shooting while moving against a moving and shooting opponent has increased rounds fired

Reloading speed for many is faster with a pistol over a revolver


I know that LEO private purchase for a Glock is just under $400 for the 9mm standard versions.
The 34/35 is under $500

I am not sure what the cost is to an agency buying 100-10,00 guns

I am guessing that it is significantly less than a smith 686

[Creampuff]

While a 357 might be more powerful than a 9mm; inherently handgun rounds are all underpowered.

I would easily rather have 6 shotgun slugs/buckshots or 6 .308 rounds vs 15 9mm rounds.

But if I had to pick between reloading every 6 handgun rounds; would you rather have 18 .357 rounds; or 46 9mm rounds. The capacity of the semiauto wins. Plus the design of the newer bonded jacketed hollow points are much better than in the 1980's design.

[ZombieTactics]

Sooner or later, it was clear that you would ask this question. :rolleyes:

LE and military carry modern semi-autos almost exclusively, because they are about as reliable as revolvers, carry more ammo onboard and reload quickly. They are generally easier to shoot, and far easier to fix should something break. A Glock - for instance - can be assembled from raw parts in about 15 minutes. You can replace any broken part in less time than that. Operationally, they are more complex, as you have to deal with magazines, racking, "administrative" procedures, etc.

DA revolvers may have a very slight edge in terms of reliability, but it's very slight. They are mechanically simpler from an operational perspective ... if the gun is loaded, just pull the trigger. If you have a (rare) bad round which does not fire ... just pull the trigger again. There's no such thing as having to be concerned about whether you've racked a round into the chamber, and no such thing as stovepipe or feedway-failure. If something does go wrong with a revolver ... forget fixing it yourself ... it's a trip to the shop. Revolvers have limited ammo capacity, and reloading is more complex and time-consuming. They are inherently more difficult to shoot accurately (with similar amounts of training) owing to a much stronger trigger pull.

Anyone want to shed some light on this? Would it be a fair statement that a 9mm with 15-17 rds is more superior than lets say a .357 with 6 rds? I know the .357 packs a bigger punch, but does the 9mm outweigh the .357?

It's not a "fair statement", and you really have to stop making statements which start with "I know ..." Phrases like "packs a bigger punch" are meaningless when discussing typical handgun calibers and cartridges. Handgun rounds do not "pack a punch" ... they poke holes, period. It's like arguing whether Elton John is "more gay" than Liberace (or a better entertainer, for that matter, lol).

[beerman]

Sooner or later, it was clear that you would ask this question. :rolleyes:

LE and military carry modern semi-autos almost exclusively, because they are about as reliable as revolvers, carry more ammo onboard and reload quickly. They are generally easier to shoot, and far easier to fix should something break. A Glock - for instance - can be assembled from raw parts in about 15 minutes. You can replace any broken part in less time than that. Operationally, they are more complex, as you have to deal with magazines, racking, "administrative" procedures, etc.

DA revolvers may have a very slight edge in terms of reliability, but it's very slight. They are mechanically simpler from an operational perspective ... if the gun is loaded, just pull the trigger. If you have a (rare) bad round which does not fire ... just pull the trigger again. There's no such thing as having to be concerned about whether you've racked a round into the chamber, and no such thing as stovepipe or feedway-failure. If something does go wrong with a revolver ... forget fixing it yourself ... it's a trip to the shop. Revolvers have limited ammo capacity, and reloading is more complex and time-consuming. They are inherently more difficult to shoot accurately (with similar amounts of training) owing to a much stronger trigger pull.



It's not a "fair statement", and you really have to stop making statements which start with "I know ..." Phrases like "packs a bigger punch" are meaningless when discussing typical handgun calibers and cartridges. Handgun rounds do not "pack a punch" ... they poke holes, period. It's like arguing whether Elton John is "more gay" than Liberace (or a better entertainer, for that matter, lol).

Nobody was more gay than Liberace

[SoCalEnthusiast]

A better defense round is what I'm saying. aka packs a bigger punch. You get the jist ZombieTactics, your always trying to bust my nuts.

[Tarn_Helm]

I know this has probably been discussed time and time again but I'm a newbie and was wondering... Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver? I know the benefits of each, but which one has the edge over the other?

Obviously you have the benefit of having more rounds in a semi-auto, but the reliability isn't there compared to the revolver?

Anyone want to shed some light on this? Would it be a fair statement that a 9mm with 15-17 rds is more superior than lets say a .357 with 6 rds? I know the .357 packs a bigger punch, but does the 9mm outweigh the .357?

S&W Model 28-2, "The Highway Patrolman"
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/SWModel28leftprofile.jpg

vs.

Beretta 92 FS (9MM)
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/BERETTA92FSLEFTPROFILE_zpsd094e885.jpg

Some reasons why LEOs carry semi-autos instead of revolvers even though revolvers are more inherently accurate (in single shot scenarios) and better to have in the event that the enemy closes with you and you have to make a "contact shot":

1. qualified immunity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity): “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-751.ZS.html#content)(07-751). Specifically, it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. . . . [article cont'd.]

2. Because they can afford to miss (thanks to qualified immunity) LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) are less accurate in shoot outs than a typical CCWer, so LEOs need more bullets in order to take more shots and hit their intended target.

3. The taxpayer pays for the guns and ammunition, so the cost of a medium-to-high quality semi-auto does not deter LEAs (Law Enforcement Agencies) from switching to semi-auto and/or continuing issuance of semi-autos. (As long as it is almost equally reliable and accurate, all you, the civilian, really need is a Hi-Point C-9 9MM to play the semi-auto game--not a Glock, CZ, Springfield XD, SigSauer, H&K, or other high dollar semi-auto.)

4. Since the taxpayer pays for the switch to semi-auto from revolver and for the ammunition, and since LEOs are legally authorized to carry semi-autos with magazine capacities that are three times larger than a typical six-shooter, the LEO happily embraces the numerous advantages conferred by not having to reload during a shoot out, besides, you are paying the bill whenever he misses (i.e., when he wastes cartridges and innocent bystanders). Being able to reload a revolver quickly and under pressure (i.e., in a real live gunfight) takes a lot of practice and it only gives you an extra six rounds (typically). Being able to reload a semi-auto quickly and under pressure is a lot easier because of the ergonomics involved: a semi-auto's magazine well is a single, wide opening that requires far less fine muscle coordination and thus facilitates rapid magazine insertion even while your fine muscle coordination degrades under the stress of the gun fight, which includes the impact of adrenaline on your nervous system (if you have not experienced or read about the physiological changes your body will undergo in such a situation, read The Ayoob Files (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0936279168/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) and other books that discuss the impact of the experience in real shoot outs: Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense (http://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Had-Gun-Self-Defense/dp/0965678458/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386451700&sr=1-1&keywords=thank+god+i+had+a+gun)).

By contrast, when attempt to insert a speed loader, all of the cartridges have to be sufficiently aligned with the cylinder wholes to permit smooth, rapid, bumble-free insertion.

The more holes in the cylinder--cylinders come in 5-, 6-, 7-, and even 8-shot configurations these days--the more chances there are for failure or delay in reloading your cylinder. Also, speedloaders are bulky. The amount of space on a Sam Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Browne_belt) (the black basketweave tool belt LEOs typically wear (http://www.qmuniforms.com/lawpro-leather-sam-brown-belt)) for a pair of speedloaders is about the same as for a pair of semi-auto magazines, with the difference that two semi-auto magazines carry up to 40 additional cartridges (http://www.berettausa.com/shop-by-department/law-enforcement/accessories/pistol-magazines/)instead of the 12 afforded by a pair of six-shot speedloaders (http://www.cabelas.com/product/HKS-Revolver-Speed-Loader/744558.uts).

5. Semi-autos are easier to shoot. The cylinder on a revolver turns during the trigger pull. This means that a steadier hand is required to hold the revolver motionless during the firing cycle than is required for a semi-auto. Additionally, Glocks can be fired from "reset position," so that the trigger pull can be very short and thus swift, allowing for faster shot-to-shot recovery on a shooting platform that is inherently more stable. The trade-off lies in inherent accuracy. Revolvers have fixed barrels, and thus in my view are more inherently accurate, all things being equal. Revolvers undergo some side-to-side movement during the trigger pull if the shooter does not practice enough to maintain a level shooting platform as the cylinder rotates. So when you factor in the cylinder movement, and the added practice required to hold a revolver motionless during firing as a consequence of this movement, the semi-auto proves to be more idiot proof because it demands less practice from the shooter for the purpose of establishing a stable shooting platform during firing of multiple rounds in rapid succession. And we all know that LEOs practice shooting far less than most non-LEOs (and LEA administrators know this too). So what the semi-auto lacks in single-shot accuracy in comparison to the revolver, it more than makes up for in multiple-shot scenarios and in its comparatively rapid shot-to-shot recovery.

6. Semi-autos are easier to field strip, maintain, and work on. Revolvers use far more complex firing mechanisms that involve "timing" and all sorts of fine tuning. The amount of gunsmithing training/experience required to master the art of revolver repair for S&Ws and Colts is easily ten times more than what it takes to become a "certified Glock armorer."

7. While LEOs do have qualified immunity, and thus in principle can afford to risk overpenetration that hits innocent bystanders, most BGs (bad guys) do not wear protective armor, therefore it is not cost effective to issue .357 magnum-level power. Gun shot wounds typically stop a person by causing exsanguination rather than immediate incapacitation. In order to cause someone to bleed out, you need to poke a lot of holes in him before you hit main veins, arteries, or aortas. So shooting a gun known to inflict inferior penetration (9MM, in comparison to .357 magnum) is preferable to overpenetrating every time but running out of bullets before you have sufficiently ventilated the BG to the extent that he is no longer a threat to the public's safety and security.

8. Semi-autos are typically lighter and thus easier to carry. This matters a lot if you wear 40 lbs. of gear to work every day. Having a 4 lb. revolver on one hip every day for 20 years has ruined the strong side hip joint of many a patrolmen (and women).

Also, LEAs need to be able to issue a one-size-fits-all weapon.

Most LEOs are unable or unwilling to handle the power of a .357 magnum; nor will they practice as much with a cartridge they find unpleasant or scary to shoot.

So if an LEA can get the taxpayer to fund a switch to easy-to-shoot, high-capacity, cheap-and-easy-to-maintain, idiot-proof guns that don't overpenetrate the intended target, it makes sense to do so.

But if you have the time and the discipline to make yourself a proficient gunfighter with a revolver, I would go with revolvers.

In the event of a contact shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_shot), you can fire a revolver.

Semi-autos typically cannot fire when they are out of battery.

Since most gunfights take place at fewer than 21 feet, and since an average man can close that distance faster than you can draw, you always need to be prepared to make a contact shot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill)

You can't rely 100% on doing that with a semi-auto.
:rockon:

Kzo_GZgOiIQ

[Creampuff]

A better defense round is what I'm saying. aka packs a bigger punch. You get the jist ZombieTactics, your always trying to bust my nuts.

I think with the improvements with modern defense rounds in the past two decades - the advantage a 357 has vs a 0.40/9mm - is more on paper than anything else.

Yes, it may penetrate more but is it dramatically better? Say comparing a 9mm vs a 12 gauge slug. Probably not.

[Lugiahua]

Since most gunfights take place at fewer than 21 feet, and since an average man can close that distance faster than you can draw, you always need to be prepared to make a contact shot.

You can't do that with a semi-auto.

Why not? It has been demonstrated numerous times.
Firearm doesn't always go out of battery, even less likely if one is attached to a tactical light.

[ZombieTactics]

A better defense round is what I'm saying. aka packs a bigger punch. You get the jist ZombieTactics, your always trying to bust my nuts.

I'm not trying to bust your nuts, you're just resistant to anyone who actually tries to teach you anything out side of your preconceived notions.

"Packs a bigger punch" has a fairly specific meaning in gun lore. It's one of a few terms like "knockdown power" which refer to well-known myths about the effectiveness of various calibers. There is no such thing as "packs a punch" in the way it's been commonly used, and it's not the same thing as "better defense round".

That's a fact. It may not be a fact that you like having pointed out, but a fact it remains.

It also remains a fact that there is very little difference in the effectiveness of rounds in the .38/.357/9mm/.40ACP/.45ACP range of choices. They all do about the same thing ... punch holes ... period. There isn't one that is especially or generally better than another.

If you consider .357mag vs. 9mm, for instance, you have rounds of almost exactly the same diameter. .357mag is 9.1mm, and 9mm is really 9.01mm, so we are talking about a difference of 9/10ths of a millimeter in diameter.

The weights of the bullets themselves overlap quite a bit, but you can get heavier bullets in .357mag, loaded to higher pressures. All that gets you is more penetration ... which probably means overpenetration, which means it doesn't do any better against your bad guy.

The standard in duty rounds is the IWBA/FBI test protocols. You can get rounds in all of the major calibers which meet those standards nicely. If there is any special reason why someone should choose one over the other (for defensive purposes), it has yet to be demonstrated.

That's probably something you don't want to hear, because it's not an easy answer, to a poorly-formed question, based upon a false premise. I'd rather try to educate you than tickle your ears. If you lived in North CA, I'd happily take you out to the range and let you shoot all of these various guns and calibers, and all I'd ask is a little money to help with the ammo costs.

Pick a gun and a caliber that you can shoot well. Train and practice often, as that's a much better form of preparation than chasing after some imaginary "better caliber".

[Tarn_Helm]

Why not? It has been demonstrated numerous times.
[a semiautomatic] Firearm doesn't always go out of battery, even less likely if one is attached to a tactical light.

You're right.

A semi-auto MIGHT fire even if some pressure is being applied to the crown or muzzle area--that's a big maybe when your life is at stake, or the lives of innocents and/or loved ones.

But a revolver never goes out of battery due to pressure on the muzzle area or crown.

Obstruction to cylinder rotation (or to an exposed hammer) is required.

Who wants to take a contact shot with a firearm that might fire in a contact shot situation?

A revolver will always go off; semi-auto, maybe.

Perhaps you need another analogy.

You can jump off a ten-story building and you might live.

Or you can take the stairs, and you will always reach your destination without falling to your death.

Suit yourself.

:facepalm:

[CK_32]

Yes they carry a semi because it can hold more rounds and is easier to reload.


Other than that not there is no real advantage. Even then its personal preference.

[email]

Thirty secure bravo nova. Apply liberalky

[funnybookz]

I'm not trying to bust your nuts, you're just resistant to anyone who actually tries to teach you anything out side of your preconceived notions.

"Packs a bigger punch" has a fairly specific meaning in gun lore. It's one of a few terms like "knockdown power" which refer to well-known myths about the effectiveness of various calibers. There is no such thing as "packs a punch" in the way it's been commonly used, and it's not the same thing as "better defense round".

That's a fact. It may not be a fact that you like having pointed out, but a fact it remains.

It also remains a fact that there is very little difference in the effectiveness of rounds in the .38/.357/9mm/.40ACP/.45ACP range of choices. They all do about the same thing ... punch holes ... period. There isn't one that is especially or generally better than another.

If you consider .357mag vs. 9mm, for instance, you have rounds of almost exactly the same diameter. .357mag is 9.1mm, and 9mm is really 9.01mm, so we are talking about a difference of 9/10ths of a millimeter in diameter.

The weights of the bullets themselves overlap quite a bit, but you can get heavier bullets in .357mag, loaded to higher pressures. All that gets you is more penetration ... which probably means overpenetration, which means it doesn't do any better against your bad guy.

The standard in duty rounds is the IWBA/FBI test protocols. You can get rounds in all of the major calibers which meet those standards nicely. If there is any special reason why someone should choose one over the other (for defensive purposes), it has yet to be demonstrated.

That's probably something you don't want to hear, because it's not an easy answer, to a poorly-formed question, based upon a false premise. I'd rather try to educate you than tickle your ears. If you lived in North CA, I'd happily take you out to the range and let you shoot all of these various guns and calibers, and all I'd ask is a little money to help with the ammo costs.

Pick a gun and a caliber that you can shoot well. Train and practice often, as that's a much better form of preparation than chasing after some imaginary "better caliber".

Man, you put out some awesome info.

[ScottJames]

I think every good handgun collection should have a mix of 9/40, 357 and 45. Revolvers and semis all have their place and they are all a pleasure to shoot and train with.

[Lugiahua]

You're right.

A semi-auto MIGHT fire even if some pressure is being applied to the crown or muzzle area--that's a big maybe when your life is at stake, or the lives of innocents and/or loved ones.

But a revolver never goes out of battery due to pressure on the muzzle area or crown.

Obstruction to cylinder rotation (or to an exposed hammer) is required.

Who wants to take a contact shot with a firearm that might fire in a contact shot situation?

A revolver will always go off; semi-auto, maybe.

Perhaps you need another analogy.

You can jump off a ten-story building and you might live.

Or you can take the stairs, and you will always reach your destination without falling to your death.

Suit yourself.

:facepalm:


While that is true, but how often does "bad guys push your slide out of battery" happens in real life?

It reminds me old arguments of
"seat-belts might trap us in a burning car, so we shouldn't wear seat belts"
(while in fact the chance you get fatally thrown from the car is far greater than burning or drowning in cars)

I think the ability to quickly reload, easily mount lights and larger capacity outweighs the risk of out of battery by far.

If it is such a big deal, it would be long addressed by gun designer and in training
(that means majority of training would be focusing on counter this problem)
And Semi wouldn't be as popular as is now.

On the other hand, if bad guy was able to push your slide out of battery, he could also grab your cylinder, and some revolvers wouldn't under the this condition.

If such problem really troubles you, maybe you should also carry a knife and train in combative skills.

[Tarn_Helm]

While that is true, but how often does "bad guys push your slide out of battery" happens in real life?

It reminds me . . .

Why do I feel like I am trying to communicate with someone who is arguing with statements I did not make?

Sigh.

First: Please don't use quotation marks when you are not quoting someone but instead merely attributing words to him that he did not write.

You are muddying up the waters.

I did not write that.

Second: Do not imagine specific claims I never made and then reply to them as if I did.

The slide can be pushed out of battery even if the BG never puts his hand on it.

Is that not clear to you?

Did I write that the only way a semi-auto can go out of battery is if the BG manually causes it to do so?

No.

I did not.

Do you comprehend what the phrase "contact shot" means?

Do you know what the Tueller Drill is?

Do you know what the "21-foot rule" is?

Do you understand what the 21-foot rule implies for hand to hand combat even for a defender armed with a firearm?

Did you bother to read my post as carefully as I wrote it?

You can learn a lot by reading things posted in gun forums.

But you have to be willing to absorb information before you fire off thoughts about postings that you have failed to think clearly and deeply about.

Try to let all the information sink in before you start trying to play one-upmanship games.

Fixing the defects in your communication skills is boring and irritating me.

I'm done with you.

Advice:

1. Get some real world experience.

2. Learn to observe the conventions of standard written English and some basic conversational and communicative skills (i.e., listening or otherwise attending to what is actually spoken or written as opposed to what you imagine has been spoken or written).

3. Improve your reading comprehension. You can practice on the books I hyperlinked in my initial posting in this thread.

4. Remember: A mind is like a parachute; it functions best when completely open.

(Oh, and if you're going to argue with me, do your homework first.)

Have a nice day.
:facepalm:

[orangeusa]

Guys, this is another troll thread by OP. Check his/her threads before you go off the deep end here. Just saying. I fell into the 10/22 vs Marlin 60 thread like a fool.

.

[Lugiahua]

For the quotation mark mistake, here I make my most sincere apology to you.
I changed by writing several times and forgot to remove the quotation mark before publishing it. This fault is on my part.

Yes, I understand your argument, and also understand "21 feet" concept.
But no, I still don't agree with your earlier assessment, based on the experience I have.

I pick this issue out of your writing to discuss only because my interest. But I agree with other parts of your writing.

First, I never had a real gun fight, and hopefully never will. So can't speak much about it.
But in any of my training and competition experience, from square range, combative to force on force, I never had an out of battery problem before.

Secondly, most people I know with real world combat experience choose to carry a semi-automatic despite the risk you mentioned above.
Also all my instructors including Chris Costa, Ken Hackathorn, and Bob Vogel recommend semi-automatic pistols over revolvers based on their experience.

These above are my reasons to choose Semi as my primary over revolvers.

Finally thank you for the advice on reading list, I will now spend more time on reading, finishing up four books by Louis Awerbuck and another four by Dave Grossman I bought this week.

[phase1]

revolver < semi-auto... unless your Jerry Miculek, it all depends on whos using it.

[Bill Steele]

... Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver?

For combat? Yes.

[ZombieTactics]

The slide can be pushed out of battery even if the BG never puts his hand on it.

Is that not clear to you?

Did I write that the only way a semi-auto can go out of battery is if the BG manually causes it to do so?

No.

I did not.

Do you comprehend what the phrase "contact shot" means?

Well, let's be fair here for a second. If you are talking about a contact shot, you are likely talking about a gun crown or muzzle pushed up against the BG's body. Whether that's the exact same thing as the BG manually causing it starts to be a matter of semantics or perspective. Rather than argue over those kinds of subtitles, let's address the issue generally.

How often do contact shots (where the muzzle is pressed up against the body of someone) happen? The answer is hardly ever and maybe close to never, if I am to believe those who study these kinds of things.

So, Lugiahua's general point is still pretty spot on, if that was in fact his rhetorical point. It's a theoretical problem nonetheless, and worthy of discussion in that context, no matter how rare. It's still kind of an odd thing to bring up as a disadvantage to using a semi-auto.

Someone trained will be capable of using retention shooting techniques, regardless of whether they are employing a revolver or semi-auto. While they'll do so for retention purposes, they effectively all but eliminate the likelihood that and out-of-battery condition will occur. The "averted 2" position is nearly ideal in this case.

A far more likely problem would be stovepipe or feedway failure malfunctions caused by the slide rubbing up against objects, clothing or bodies.

Do you know what the Tueller Drill is?

Do you know what the "21-foot rule" is?

I know the Tueller Drill and have spoken with Dennis Tueller about it personally. There is no "21 foot rule" per se, or at least that wasn't the point of the his drill.

Regardless of the Tueller drill, his opinion of the 21 foot rule myth, or whether we want to apply the concept anyway, the most it could do is establish that contact distance (not necessarily muzzle-contact shots) fights can occur even in cases where the incident "starts" at greater distances.

[fragthefreaks]

For heavy calibers, your selection in auto pistols falls off sharply around .450".

Auto barrel lengths (and the accuracy that goes along with a longer barrel) drop off steeply around 5 inches.

ergo:
defend with a Pistol
carry a wheelgun (backup cannon) when hunting dangerous game with either rifle or a bow.

[NytWolf]

Everything about semi-auto makes more sense than revolvers in today's age. Capacity, reloading speed, comfort level and adaptability.

And besides, 357 ammo costs more than 9mm, 40S&W, or 45ACP. Makes sense why LEO use semi-auto. Some might say it's not about cost, but in reality, the issue is there.

[bubbagump]

It is all about mindset and training.

A well-trained, wild man with a revolver is more dangerous than some poorly trained, mall ninja with a 17 round gun.

The scenario will go like this.

The mall ninja will stove pipe.

The wild man will shoot all six rounds, and maybe miss his target.

The mall ninja won't know how to correct the stovepipe due to lack of training.

The wild man will bludgeon the mall ninja with the empty revolver.

[Fishslayer]

Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver? I know the benefits of each, but which one has the edge over the other?


Agencies' decisions on issue weapons is more about $$$ than what's "better."

Anybody who think most cops carry Glocks because they're the best pistol on the planet is delusional and uninformed.

[NytWolf]

Agencies' decisions on issue weapons is more about $$$ than what's "better."

Anybody who think most cops carry Glocks because they're the best pistol on the planet is delusional and uninformed.

Think more bang-for-the-buck (no pun intended) than "the best". If you think government buys "the best" ... ever, you're delusional. They buy the best for what their budget is, or whatever is the lowest bid that meets their requirements.

[jarhead714]

It is all about mindset and training.

A well-trained, wild man with a revolver is more dangerous than some poorly trained, mall ninja with a 17 round gun.

The scenario will go like this.

The mall ninja will stove pipe.

The wild man will shoot all six rounds, and maybe miss his target.

The mall ninja won't know how to correct the stovepipe due to lack of training.

The wild man will bludgeon the mall ninja with the empty revolver.

I got a Vaquero in the nightstand drawer I don't even keep loaded. If need be it's still one hell of a blunt instrument.:p

[rm1911]

270 of 30-06
9mm or 45
Less filling or tastes great
Blondes or brunettes
AR or AK
556 or 762x39

[Lead Waster]

Here's a good (but sad) read

The Newhall Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhall_massacre

One of the dead officers was found with his half loaded .357 revolver in his hand or nearby. Back in the day, they didn't issue speedloaders either, so he was single loading his revolver when he was killed.

Nowadays, spring loaded competition speedloaders and slicked up moonclipped revolvers are pretty darn fast. Still not as fast as a "bottom feeder" for your average-skilled cop. I mean, we can't all be Jerry Miculek, right?

One good thing about revolvers is of course ... there is no magazine to lose!

Also of note ... one of the bad guys pulled a 1911, fired one shot, and the gun jammed. However, he had a bunch of guns so he just tossed it and picked up another one.

[Lead Waster]

Agencies' decisions on issue weapons is more about $$$ than what's "better."

Anybody who think most cops carry Glocks because they're the best pistol on the planet is delusional and uninformed.

And I applaud that decision and also the fact that Glocks are fairly reliable. Thus, the taxpayers who are paying for the guns gets to pay a bit less for LEO Glocks plus the cops get a reliable side arm. So thank goodness for Glock and their marketing.

[NewGuy1911]

Glade I stopped by

[Mr. Beretta]

I know this has probably been discussed time and time again but I'm a newbie and was wondering... Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver? I know the benefits of each, but which one has the edge over the other?

Obviously you have the benefit of having more rounds in a semi-auto, but the reliability isn't there compared to the revolver?

Anyone want to shed some light on this? Would it be a fair statement that a 9mm with 15-17 rds is more superior than lets say a .357 with 6 rds? I know the .357 packs a bigger punch, but does the 9mm outweigh the .357?



Nobody ever raped a .38 !

[jg7]

Which is superior depends on what requirement you are measuring against. Semi-autos are better in some areas and revolvers are better in others.

If you want high capacity over anything else, then a semi is probably your best bet. If you want huge energy delivery, then you probably want to look into revolvers.

Try several of each type, find what you like best, and practice with that.

[ZombieTactics]

If you want huge energy delivery, then you probably want to look into revolvers. ...

Not sure what you mean here, as the OP established a context around "what cops use", which can probably be extended too men self-defense as well, but probably not bear hunting.

Sooooo ... what exactly is meant by "huge energy delivery" in this sense?

[ZombieTactics]

Agencies' decisions on issue weapons is more about $$$ than what's "better."

If that were really true, then we'd have a LE force equipped almost exclusively with Hi-Points, or maybe S&W Sigmas for the "rich" departments.

Anybody who think most cops carry Glocks because they're the best pistol on the planet is delusional and uninformed.

It's probably not possible to define "best pistol on the planet", but it's pretty easy to figure out reliability, accuracy, ease-of-maintenance, etc. ... within a range of required standards for duty use.

[jg7]

Not sure what you mean here, as the OP established a context around "what cops use", which can probably be extended too men self-defense as well, but probably not bear hunting.

Sooooo ... what exactly is meant by "huge energy delivery" in this sense?

Just meant that you can generally have a more powerful option with the revolvers (and 10mm semi). If you are just going after unprotected targets, it does not make much difference.

[JoshuaS]

Revolvers only have better "accuracy" when we are talking about longer barrels usually (and full sized revolvers tend to have longer barrels than semis). But a heavy DA trigger will kill that mighty quick. Requires more skilling to shoot it accurately and not jerk it. Can be done. But still.

The extra "reliability" is mostly in the case of ammo. If your ammo is unreliable, easier to pull the trigger again on a revolver, than clear a semi-auto. But if you have quality ammo, not as much of a worry.


Revolvers do require less care often. So if you are talking about a night stand gun that you almost never maintain, a revolver may be better for you. But this isn't a big deal, and when you do clean a revolver it can take forever (ever get a cylinder face and forcing cone fully clean?)


But you want to know why cops have semi-autos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX3uxchO8aU

[jumbopanda]

Revolver reliability is a myth. A Glock or similar modern semi-auto should be every bit as reliable, and more durable. I've never gotten to a point where I absolutely HAD to clean a semi auto for it to continue to function. But I have gotten to that point with a revolver, since the cylinder was really gummed up and would barely rotate. And like JoshuaS said, it's more of a pain to clean a revolver than it is to clean a semi.

[meaty-btz]

Cops carry both, so the argument is strange to me. Each has it's place, even in modern policing.

I still recall the ribbing one cop gave another because he wanted a .380 auto for a backup gun.

Cops carry revolvers as their backup piece because of how they work. As Zombie mentioned, no racking the slide, pull and shoot which when you need a backup gun is exactly what you need. For protracted firefights a cop isn't going to use his backup gun so reloading is irrelevant but zero-thought and instant function is.

Each to their place. For general duty and most situations the modern semi-auto pistol is a real winner.

For the backup gun, revolver. These days the S&W air-frame 38s seem to be the choice.

[jumbopanda]

Cops carry both, so the argument is strange to me. Each has it's place, even in modern policing.

I still recall the ribbing one cop gave another because he wanted a .380 auto for a backup gun.

Cops carry revolvers as their backup piece because of how they work. As Zombie mentioned, no racking the slide, pull and shoot which when you need a backup gun is exactly what you need. For protracted firefights a cop isn't going to use his backup gun so reloading is irrelevant but zero-thought and instant function is.

Each to their place. For general duty and most situations the modern semi-auto pistol is a real winner.

For the backup gun, revolver. These days the S&W air-frame 38s seem to be the choice.

Why should you need to rack the slide when there's already one in the chamber, as any gun that one carries should?

[SoCalEnthusiast]

Guys, this is another troll thread by OP. Check his/her threads before you go off the deep end here. Just saying. I fell into the 10/22 vs Marlin 60 thread like a fool.

.

Troll thread my butt. This is a valid question orangeusa, obviously I spur conversation. Not sure any of your posts have, case in point!

[SoCalEnthusiast]

Cops carry both, so the argument is strange to me. Each has it's place, even in modern policing.

I still recall the ribbing one cop gave another because he wanted a .380 auto for a backup gun.

Cops carry revolvers as their backup piece because of how they work. As Zombie mentioned, no racking the slide, pull and shoot which when you need a backup gun is exactly what you need. For protracted firefights a cop isn't going to use his backup gun so reloading is irrelevant but zero-thought and instant function is.

Each to their place. For general duty and most situations the modern semi-auto pistol is a real winner.

For the backup gun, revolver. These days the S&W air-frame 38s seem to be the choice.k

Almost ALL cops keep one in the chamber, ready to rock. Correct me if I'm wrong but thats the info I've received from pretty much every and any cop modern day societies.

[meaty-btz]

k

Almost ALL cops keep one in the chamber, ready to rock. Correct me if I'm wrong but thats the info I've received from pretty much every and any cop modern day societies.

Aye they do but how many do you know that run a sub-compact auto for a backup gun?

[smittty]

I had a Ruger SP101 jam and couldn't open it at the range. I brought it to the gun shop with a live round in the chamber. You're taught that revolvers are more reliable and probably won't believe otherwise until yours breaks.

I fired far more rounds thru my P226 and never a failure. I don't have as many rounds thru my G19 but I trust either of these more than that revolver.

[ontmark]

IMHO and $.02 worth
I am old school.

I really believe anyone’s first handgun should be
a wheel gun in 357 with a 3 to 4 inch barrel
3 to 4 inch good for the range, packing camping,
and home defense.

Why a wheel gun?
You take so much out of possibilities of error.
1. Very easy to unload when needed
2. A lot easier to clean for the new shooter.
3. Can practice both double action and single trigger pull.
4. A lot less malfunctions to deal with while shooting.
5. When you get older and may suffer with arthritics. One can usually operate a wheel gun when one loses the ability to operate the slide on a Semi-Auto.

The semi auto issues for new shooter
1. Harder to clean
2. Time to shoot. Magazine in, pull slide back off slide stop and let slide forward to load, tries to shoot. Nothing happens. Slide did not go into full battery. So new shooter thinks ok pistol didn’t strip round from Magazine. Cycles slide to load pistol and finds live round being ejected from pistol. First response usually from new shooter is go pick up live round, Sets loaded pistol on shooting bench while looking for live round. This is a no-no.
3. Range officer calls cease fire, magazines out action locked open. New shooter drops magazine opens action and locks it open. Again there is a live round somewhere on the ground, New shooters first response usually is to find live round. Is it in front of the bench, on the bench, or on the ground? None of which is usually behind safety line away from the bench.
4. What do I do if I have a fail to eject (stove pipe)?
5. What do I do if I have a fail to feed?
6. New handgun shooter’s main concern should always be the full control of the loaded weapon that is why I feel it is best to start with a wheel gun!!
7. I have seen all of these through my years of shooting.

Why a 357? 38 special wad cutters can be bought pretty cheap. Practice, Practice, Practice. Wide range of loads to try 38 special, 38 special+P 357 Magnum. Get use to shooting a hand gun. Then let’s get through the Semi Auto issues.

Sorry for the long replay.

[-hanko]

270 of 30-06
9mm or 45
Less filling or tastes great
Blondes or brunettes
AR or AK
556 or 762x39
Fried or baked?

Do your own research, or continue to flood this site with useless questions that have been asked and answered since the dawn of time?

Troll or helpless?



k
Almost ALL cops keep one in the chamber, ready to rock. Correct me if I'm wrong but thats the info I've received from pretty much every and any cop modern day societies.
Try this...

Revolvers v. semi's...neither is "better" (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+Revolver+vs.+semi-auto%2C+is+one+better%3F)

[Deimos887]

^LMAO

[BigPimping]

Omg, not this again.......

[SoCalEnthusiast]

I understand it could be just a matter of opinion, I'm just asking what the board members think, thats all.

[kcheung2]

This particular board member thinks you're trolling

[ap3572001]

Revolver VS Semi-auto is a topic that I remember way back in the 80's

I have carried and STILL carry both .

Here it is:

A quality, full size, duty style pistol (Glock , Beretta , Hk. SIG etc) is a weapon of choice with LE.

They are reliable and hold A LOT OF AMMO.

My duty G22 has 15 and 22rd magazines.

They are also simpler and faster to reload.

S&W , Ruger and Colt revolver with 3-4 inch barrel in 38/357 is about as versatile as a handgun can be.

You can shoot anything form super accurate and mild target 148WC all the way up to full power magnums. And everything in between ( STD 38, 38+p, 38 +p+, Med Vel Rem. 357 mag)

You can carry it concealed with the right holster, shoot it at the range for fun (will all kinds of ammo ), use it for HD, outdoors (158/180 .357 magnum).

When it come to deep concealment , 2 inch S&W J frame revolvers are MUCH more reliable than many small automatics. You can also fire them right from the pocket.

If You want (or need ) to use exotic ammo or simply switch a brand , You don't have to run 200 rounds in Your revolver to make sure that it works.

Just fire a couple of cylinders to check the point of impact (or adjust sights).

No pistol that You would care to carry would offer all the options that You would get with 3-4 inch .44 magnum.

Revolvers are here to stay .

I love to carry my S&W model 65 three inch and a speed loader off duty.

I carry a two inch 642 as back-up or an ankle gun.

I also would feel just fine if I had to carry my 686 on duty with 4 speed loaders again . Like in the good old days.
CCI 140JHP .357's in two , 158 JSP in the other two and six STHP's in the gun.

J frame in the pocket and Remington 870 close by . :)

[-hanko]

I understand it could be just a matter of opinion, I'm just asking what the board members think, thats all.
Are you familiar with the old joke re: "opinions"??

The other board members seem to think about the same as the links in the google I sent on this thread earlier today.

After around 60 posts here, do you have a general vibe yet? :confused:

Or, is it going to be another 8-page over-and-over waste of bandwidth??

[1CavScout]

Aye they do but how many do you know that run a sub-compact auto for a backup gun?

That's all I ever used, and most of the guys I worked with also used semi's. I carried a Sig p230 and then a G27 as a BUG in a vest holster. The G27 was nice because I could use mags from My G22 if I had to.

[Grayblue]

Each has its good things and bad things. The decision is based on risk assessment, making a decision about which risks are accptable and which risks are not.

My assessment is that self-loading pistols are superior to revolvers. Here is why:

The difference in self-loader and revolver that gets the highlight is reiability and capacity.
Even taking multiple malfunctions I have encountered, ones during initial conditioning period ("break in") that did not occur after, the rate of malfunction with all self-loader firing experience I have combined is less than 1%. That is even counting not so good ones I have shot. I will even count ammo related malfunction, since whether if it is the gun's fault or ammo's fault would not matter if my gun jammed in a fight. Even then, the malfunction rate is low. I am counting all malfunctions here, even user induced ones, since in a gun fight, what is to be blamed for the malfunction matters none if I am dead. In that 1%, I also counted the malfunction that would not matter much, such as my thumb accidentally pressing down on the slide lock and the slide not locking back upon gun being empty.

If I just count ones I have that would go thousands of rounds without malfunction, the ones that I actually use for stand by for personal security, the rate woud drop to even less than that.

Revolver puts the user at risk when all 6~8 shots are spent. Also take into account that revolvers can and do malfunction also.

Now compare the risk: Even if I hypothetically assume self-laoder has a 1% malfunction rate, when in gun fight I risk a huge chance that I may have to fire more than 6~8 shots.

So, in a realistic assessment, high risk of running out of 6~8 shot ammo inside the gun vs. less than 1% probablity of malfunctioin puts self-loading pistols in favor.

Also, self-loading pistols are more ergonomic to more people. This is not just my opinions but that of many expert shooters who also teach people, Massad Ayoob being one of them. If I shuffle through all the books I have about the subject, I am sure I can come up with more names.

Self-loaders can provide the shooter with shorter trigger travel distance that has medium resistance in about 3 kg range, with mostly striker fired pistols, and light resistance in about 2 kg range with SAO pistols. With revolvers, you are pretty much stuck with long trigger travel distance DA pull with 5 kg resistance range, unless you do some aftermarket work to tune it to somewhat lower the resistance.

Ammo selection is also a problem with revolvers. 9mm, 357 SIG, 40S&W, and 45ACP are all suitable choices that works in self-loaders. With revolvers it is mostly 38 Special and 357 Magnum(yes, yes I am well aware that there are other ammo, I will get to that in a moment). 38 Special, even in +P, are weaker than 9mm. In a snub noes airweights, they are painful to shoot than more powerful 9mm fired out of a similar sized self-loader. And, I do not see a point in shooting a mediam of full sized gun that are similar in size to 9mm pistol, just to fire a weaker 38 Special, even in +P. And, 9mm medium to full size pistols are plenty controllable. 357 Magnum is a lot better in power, even more so than 40S&W or 45ACP, but it recoils harder. Coupled with a revolver that does not dampen any recoil with the slide movement, 357 Magnum revolvers are harder to control than similar sized 40S&W or 45ACP pistols. Sure, it gives me more power, but I lose numerous benefits self-loaders offer which is not worth the beneit for me.

I know, I know. There are some downloaded 357 Magnum as well as hot loaded 38 Specials. I also know that there are choices like 44 Special, etc. But, if I need one in a well known factory defense load, what are the chances that I'll find it in a store? Not everyone hand loads.

I can find any of the self-loader ammo mentioned in Speer GDHP, Winchester, Federal factory combat ammo. Same cannot be said about a downloaded 357 Magnum, super hotloaded 38 Special +P that equals 9mm power, or 44 Special, etc.

Revolvers also have problems unique to them. One if it rarely gets mentioned, but relevant to combat. Let's say I saw a target that is a deadly threat and pull the trigger, but I abort the trigger pull because the target disappeared or determined that the shot was not feasible. That is a very real possibility in a gun fight. When that happens, with the cylinder with the round that was to be fired with the aborted trigger pull pull clicking into position aligned with the barrel, that round will not fire on the next trigger pull. A round in the next cylinder would be fired. That round, still unfired in the cylinder is pretty much wasted until I pull the trigger another 6~8 times. If that happens on a middle of a 6~8 round string, I will have no idea what position the cylinder that still has the live round would be, and I would likely be forced to reload, wasting the round. Imagine wasting a round because of an aborted trigger pull when I am already limited to 6~8 rounds.

Another problem, this one may be more relevant to police, is that if there is a long gun batte, such as an active shooter, etc., the cylinder can start to bind with contaminants, making the triggger hard to pull in less than 50 rounds, depending on the type of ammo. Not that most revolver totting cops carry more than 3 reloads.

Here are some additional problems with revolvers:

-Revolver users has to rely on gravity for clear casing ejection and dropping in live ammunition when reloading. This requires user to position the gun upward for ejection and downward for loading, which may not be feasible, depending on user's position.

-Nothing on a revolver tells its shooter that the gun is out of ammunition.

-Gas blasted out from the cylinder gap, and any secondary projectiles or debris propelled by it, may cause injuries or distractions, especially when the user need to fire it from unusual position and posture.

-Shaved metal from bullet escaping from cylinder gap causing the same problem as the above.

-Barrel heat causing mirage effect happens more early and the effect is stronger than most self-loaders.

-Caution required during reloading to keep hand from touching the forcing cone area which may cause burn.

Now, even with all this, revolvers still can be an effective combat gun. But, there are many things working against it.

[Grayblue]

Aye they do but how many do you know that run a sub-compact auto for a backup gun?

A lot.

Those Ruger LCP and S&W Bodyguard can go where even M642 cannot.

[Grayblue]

...
Handgun rounds do not "pack a punch" ... they poke holes, period.
...

Actually they do as a matter of fact. They exert force that moves object as well as punching holes.

Just not to the extent that would knock down a person by the force alone. But, to say that the force does not exist is false.

[Grayblue]

....
2. Because they can afford to miss (thanks to qualified immunity) LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) are less accurate in shoot outs than a typical CCWer, so LEOs need more bullets in order to take more shots and hit their intended target.
....


Jim Cirillo of NYPD stakeout squad used a revolver. He was involved in shootings where lot more than the capacity of bullets his and his partner's pistols can hold. It was certainly not because he thought he can afford to miss, and his hit ratio was good.

He carried 3~4 pistols on him. Is that because he missed a lot?

Having a higher capacity gun does not mean low accuracy is acceptable for a shooter.


...
3. The taxpayer pays for the guns and ammunition, so the cost of a medium-to-high quality semi-auto does not deter LEAs (Law Enforcement Agencies) from switching to semi-auto and/or continuing issuance of semi-autos.
...


All guns need replacement sooner or later. Even if an agency keeps the same brand and model, guns themselves to need replacement.

What is your point? When LEA goes with a revolver, taxpayers do not pay for it?



...
7. While LEOs do have qualified immunity, and thus in principle can afford to risk overpenetration that hits innocent bystanders, most BGs (bad guys) do not wear protective armor, therefore it is not cost effective to issue .357 magnum-level power.
...

357 Magnum cannot defeat Level II body armor either.


....
Most LEOs are unable or unwilling to handle the power of a .357 magnum; nor will they practice as much with a cartridge they find unpleasant or scary to shoot.
....

357 Magnum is not the only revolver.

If there was enough demand for a controllable revolver round, ammo manufacturers would have certainly jumped on it. 10mm is as powerful as 357 Magnum, but agencies avoid that too. So, it's evident that the reason why the agencies do not issue revolver is not relevant to 357 Magnum recoil being scary to some.

I have a 357 revolver and a 40S&W self-loader, but my choice of going with the self-loader was all tactical factors, not because I cannot train to shoot a 357 Magnum.



...
In the event of a contact shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_shot), you can fire a revolver.

Semi-autos typically cannot fire when they are out of battery.

Since most gunfights take place at fewer than 21 feet, and since an average man can close that distance faster than you can draw, you always need to be prepared to make a contact shot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill)

You can't rely 100% on doing that with a semi-auto.
:rockon:
...

Opponent closing distance do not mean there will be a contact shot.
Opponent contcting me does not mean I have to contact the opponent with my pistol. Unless a person is an idiot, the person will not train to jam the muzzle on the opponent.

Which is why contact shot, even in those "fewer than 21 feet," in a gun fight is rare.

Even if thers is a contact, that does not mean the slide will always be pushed pack.

Also, contact distance problem is not unique to a self-loader. You cannot pull the trigger on a revolver if the cylinder is grabbed or pinched between something.

[Grayblue]

It is all about mindset and training.

A well-trained, wild man with a revolver is more dangerous than some poorly trained, mall ninja with a 17 round gun.

...

I find it amusing that the comparison brought up is nearly always something to the effect of "A well trained man with whatever I like is better than some poorly trained mall ninja with a XXX."

Means nothing, but amusing none the less.

"A well trained man with A compared to well trained man with B" would be a proper comparison, but that won't help the cause would it?

[2761377]

post # 3 uses the term "operator", which in the context of this discussion may be considered to mean uniformed beat cop.

this usage and the attitude it represents is horrific. the militarization of LE that is currently happening in this country is frightening in it's implications. it started with the despicable usage of "civilian" by LEO's to describe ordinary citizens.

we citizens are not the enemy; rather we are the employer of every LEO in this country. more respect is required.

rant curtailed

[jdben92883]

But those all have easy answers:

.45
tastes great
brunettes
AR
556

270 of 30-06
9mm or 45
Less filling or tastes great
Blondes or brunettes
AR or AK
556 or 762x39

[ZombieTactics]

Actually they do as a matter of fact. They exert force that moves object as well as punching holes.

Just not to the extent that would knock down a person by the force alone. But, to say that the force does not exist is false.

I respect your opinion, but I do scientific testing for a living, and have a very solid grounding in physics.

Perhaps it would better to say that pistol rounds "pack no 'punch' significant to the problem being examined". It's also the case that pistol rounds physically cannot "knock a person down" at all. Frankly, neither can rifle typical rounds.

There isn't even a valid theoretical basis to explain how they could, given the range of forces encountered, against the structures affected. If you can explain how, it would turn everything we know about the structure of the universe on its head, and there would be at least two or three Nobel prizes in it for you.

I'm not trying to bust any chops or play internet know-it-all. It's one of those things that intuitively seems like it should be one way, when it actually turns out differently under close examination. I stubbornly held to the notion "knockdown power" long past the point where I should have known better, and I do this stuff professionally.

It really comes down to "because physics".

[bubbagump]

I find it amusing that the comparison brought up is nearly always something to the effect of "A well trained man with whatever I like is better than some poorly trained mall ninja with a XXX."


Most people would consider the man with the revolver at a disadvantage (that is why I set up the scenario that way). I did not set up the scenario that way because I like this or that firearm. I like Glocks just as much as I like J-frames or 1911's. They all have their place in my world.

How about...

Well-trained, wild man at 21 feet with fixed blade knife vs untrained, mall ninja with holstered 17 round semi or 5 shot revolver.

The mall ninja is going to spring a few leaks. He will be lucky to even get a accurate shot off. Most likely, while drawing his handgun from his Serpa holster, he will light one off into his thigh and assist the wild man in his attack. To be even more realistic, the mall ninja will probably not see the attack coming, and will be disarmed by the police when they load his body up in the coroners van.

[crufflers]

Are you familiar with the old joke re: "opinions"??

The other board members seem to think about the same as the links in the google I sent on this thread earlier today.

After around 60 posts here, do you have a general vibe yet? :confused:

Or, is it going to be another 8-page over-and-over waste of bandwidth??

Are you insinuating that the OP is a big fat TROLL - or maybe stupid? I don't mean just this thread, but all his threads. Just wondering.

[Bruce]

According to the late Col. Jeff Cooper, high capacity semi autos are great if you plan to miss a lot. :D

[Grayblue]

post # 3 uses the term "operator", which in the context of this discussion may be considered to mean uniformed beat cop.

this usage and the attitude it represents is horrific. the militarization of LE that is currently happening in this country is frightening in it's implications. it started with the despicable usage of "civilian" by LEO's to describe ordinary citizens.

we citizens are not the enemy; rather we are the employer of every LEO in this country. more respect is required.

rant curtailed

I use the term to descrive someone engaged in an operation. It's a generic term I use, because I do not know if that subject person is a private person, police officer, or a soldier. By using the term, it can apply to all three.

Does it scare you when a voice on the phone tells you to "press 0 for an operator"?

[hardlyworking]

I find it amusing that the comparison brought up is nearly always something to the effect of "A well trained man with whatever I like is better than some poorly trained mall ninja with a XXX."

Means nothing, but amusing none the less.

"A well trained man with A compared to well trained man with B" would be a proper comparison, but that won't help the cause would it?

I think in THIS case it makes pretty decent sense.

When was the last time you saw your local home-invading thug at the range spending valuable meth money on ammunition and training to clear jams/stovepipes?

It is actually apt for this discussion

[FireArms101]

I carry a HK45 as my primary because it was issued by my agency and a Glock 27 I own on my ankle. The only reason I carry a Glock 27 in .40cal is because there's plenty of .40cal left behind to use because prior to the HK45 we were shooting 40cal. The majority of police officers including federal agents I know that actually carry a back-up seem to carry semi autos in the same caliber as their primary and most cops carry semi autos. Truth be told it's kind of a Hollywood, TV & movies stereotype that all cops carry a backup and said back up is a snub nose. I'd estimate that out of 3 cops only 1 has a backup at all.

If the most interesting man in the world carried he'd say "I don't always carry a back up but when I do it's a semi auto" Shoot Responsibly...Dos Equis

[ZombieTactics]

..."A well trained man with A compared to well trained man with B" would be a proper comparison, but that won't help the cause would it?

That's really a better apples-to-apples comparison.

I prefer to look at it as "with the same number of hours of training and practice", as "well trained" with one weapon may involve a greater investment of time than with another.

[Squidward]

I know this has probably been discussed time and time again but I'm a newbie and was wondering... Do all cops carry a semi-auto these days because they're superior to the revolver? I know the benefits of each, but which one has the edge over the other?
Obviously you have the benefit of having more rounds in a semi-auto, but the reliability isn't there compared to the revolver? Anyone want to shed some light on this? Would it be a fair statement that a 9mm with 15-17 rds is more superior than lets say a .357 with 6 rds? I know the .357 packs a bigger punch, but does the 9mm outweigh the .357?

No. Some agencies allow officers a choice to carry a dept. issue handgun (usually a semi), a revolver or other semi. This last choice is at the officer's expense, and within certain caliber ranges. This also holds true for off-duty.

Way back in the day there were some semis carried on duty but mostly there were revolvers. 1911s were around but they were special duty items carried buy narcs and officers in specialty units.

When semi autos came into vogue they were tauted mostly for their larger ammo capacity (the S&W Model 39 not withstanding) . Many agencies bought S&Ws and other manufacturer's pistols that were DAO and had a "decocking/safety" device. Baby steps into the use of semi autos if you will.

After that milestone, and upon seeing little fallout (such as few on-duty NDs and negative public opinions) police departments began purchasing semis for duty use. Now-a-days its a budgeting issue in that semis are generally less expensive to purchase and maintain. Many departments have in-house police armorers so that pistols can be inspected yearly and quickly repaired.

The caliber componant can yield a multitude of responses but I'll refrain from getting into it because it is too lengthy and complicated to answer. But 17 rounds of 9mm does outweigh 6 rounds of .357... Probably by a few ounces. :D

[JoshuaS]

With available JHP rounds, you get roughly the same effectiveness in any of the standard calibers (38 spl through 45 acp). There are some differences, but really the question is which can you shoot better.

I shoot 357 magnum very well. And 45 acp. But 38 spl I am not as good with, same with 40 S&W and I suck with 9mm. Probably has to do with the fact that for many years (my first years owning a gun) I shot only 357 magnum.

Someone might be different. It is only when you get two calibers that you shoot with roughly the same proficiency that the small differences might matter.



But you know, I am a wheel gun guy myself. But I will be honest. For the most part you can get semis more concealable. They are easier to clean (contrary to one poster above). The accuracy difference between a decent semi and a standard length revolver is negligible in most situations where you would be using a handgun for defense. With the quality of ammo these days (and assuming you save the junk ammo for range trips, and use decent stuff for carry/defense), chances of an ammo problem are negligible...and that is where the revolver beats the semi in "reliability" (being able to pull the trigger rather than clearing). And so on.


But there are three reasons that trump these, though not for LEO reasons.

1. Revolvers are more suitable for long distance shots as would be the case in hunting, or in having fun by making challenging long distance shots. Specifically, you can actually use something like a 44 mag in hunting. And a .357 has better accuracy at longer ranges than most semi calibers.

2. You can gratuitously (or necessarily with SA) cock the hammer for dramatic effect (this is really over striker fires)

3. They are far more beautiful than your ugly Glock.


So it will look better in your casket to have that revolver buried with you.

[-hanko]

Are you insinuating that the OP is a big fat TROLL - or maybe stupid? I don't mean just this thread, but all his threads. Just wondering.
Not a troll.

Not stupid.

Has no one to talk to during the day, so a normal thread becomes a chat session.

What's stupid is feeding the fire.;)

[2761377]

I use the term to descrive someone engaged in an operation. It's a generic term I use, because I do not know if that subject person is a private person, police officer, or a soldier. By using the term, it can apply to all three.

Does it scare you when a voice on the phone tells you to "press 0 for an operator"?

your sopishtry does not change the fact that local, civilian law enforcement is rapidly become militarized in this country. nor does it correlate with the generally accepted undestanding of "Operator"; a specially trained, tactically oriented assault expert.

there are no circumstances under which an ordinary, law abiding citizen justifiably becomes the 'subject' of an operator. that you think so only proves you embrace the typical us v them LE attitude.

since all you have is word games, STFU

[Grayblue]

your sopishtry does not change the fact that local, civilian law enforcement is rapidly become militarized in this country.
...


Not a fact. Only your twisted perception.

Prove how civilian law enforcement is militarized. I have specifically done academic researches that subject, and I concluded the assertion is pretty much a steaming pile of fecal matter.

Go ahead. Please do. I pretty much know what you are going to say, because there is nothing I have not heard before. And, I am just itching to rip apart another bogus logic thrown around in public.

I am just dying to see logic and reason totally decimate another falsehood. Please respond. Please.



...
nor does it correlate with the generally accepted undestanding of "Operator"; a specially trained, tactically oriented assault expert.
...


That is your perception.

Everyone who faces danger needs to use sound tactics to survive, regardless of whether if someone is a soldier, police officer, or a regular citizen. So, why the hell would any of them being "specially trained, tactically oriented" be evil? Because it fits your arbitrary definition of "assault"?


...
there are no circumstances under which an ordinary, law abiding citizen justifiably becomes the 'subject' of an operator.
...


Oh, so a regular citizen or law enforcement officer never get into situations where tactical skills are needed and engages in a task to save their own lives?


...
that you think so only proves you embrace the typical us v them LE attitude.

since all you have is word games, STFU

Oooo, you get cornered with an opponent using logic and reason, and you respond with profanity.

Only way you will shut me up is to defeat my argument with sound logic.

I have done researches specifically on the subject of so called "police militarization." And, my conclusion is 99% of the allegation is pure garbage.

How is U.S. law enforcement militarized compared to the past? Since you are throwing allegation, you prove it.

[Knomad]

If I were seeking an accurate handgun strictly for target shooting at the range, I'd lean toward a revolver with a nice single-action pull and a longer barrel.

If I were looking for a self-defense handgun, I'd be more inclined to go with a semi-auto because of higher capacity and faster reloads. The qualifier for a self-defense gun is that I'd get something with a reputation for reliability, and then I'd run a few hundred rounds through that particular gun to be sure it's reliable.

The short answer is that I own both, but I use them for very different purposes. And my preferences are my own, another person might come up with a different answer and for their needs, that might be perfectly valid.

[Dutch Henry]

The question you asked has been the subject of discussion around campfires for years. The really simple answer is: EITHER IS BEST. Each has merits and each has detractors. You have to be the one to make the decision as to which one is best for you.

I've argued both sides of this dilemma over the years, and no matter how good your arguments are, they will seldom convince those that you are arguing with.

I have autos and revolvers and I shoot them all reasonably well. I wouldn't feel handicapped with either one for a self defense situation. That said, if I had a choice going in, I'd opt for a 4" S&W 686 stoked with 125 grain hollow points and maybe a couple of Safariland speed loaders in each pocket.

Note: That's the choice I made for which is best. It may not be right for you.

[bigbob76]

A lot of first time handgun purchasers will not train/practice. For them I suggest a revolver. One thing is they may not know how or be agile enough under stress to clear a malfunction. Another thing is in a real world violent confrontation firing a semi auto from an unusual position may cause limp wristing by the untrained shooter (or one that doesn't practice).

[Code7inOaktown]

Most people would consider the man with the revolver at a disadvantage (that is why I set up the scenario that way). I did not set up the scenario that way because I like this or that firearm. I like Glocks just as much as I like J-frames or 1911's. They all have their place in my world.

How about...

Well-trained, wild man at 21 feet with fixed blade knife vs untrained, mall ninja with holstered 17 round semi or 5 shot revolver.

The mall ninja is going to spring a few leaks. He will be lucky to even get a accurate shot off. Most likely, while drawing his handgun from his Serpa holster, he will light one off into his thigh and assist the wild man in his attack. To be even more realistic, the mall ninja will probably not see the attack coming, and will be disarmed by the police when they load his body up in the coroners van.

You are under estimating the mall ninja. The Mall Ninja will be wearing a stab vest over his Level IV armor and duct taped hard plate. No need to thank the Mall Ninja. He works in the service of all shoppers.

[SoCalEnthusiast]

A lot of first time handgun purchasers will not train/practice. For them I suggest a revolver. One thing is they may not know how or be agile enough under stress to clear a malfunction. Another thing is in a real world violent confrontation firing a semi auto from an unusual position may cause limp wristing by the untrained shooter (or one that doesn't practice).

I always have thought that a .357 packs more of a punch than lets say a 9mm, less recoil if you will.

[krickett]

I'm surprised somebody mentioned Newhall but nobody mentioned the FBI Shootout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

One of the events that supposedly prompted the development of the 10mm and the subsequent 40 S&W

[catmman]

Revolver!

[bigbob76]

I always have thought that a .357 packs more of a punch than lets say a 9mm, less recoil if you will.

When firing from an unusual position recoil is not the issue. If you don't have a good grip on a semi auto there is a good chance it will malfunction. A limp awkward grip on a revolver won't have any effect on the function of the revolver. Try a few scenarios of firing from down low trying to make use of cover, especially if you have no experience shooting with your weak hand.

[SoCalEnthusiast]

a good grip doesn't equate to a malfunction. so you'll get a stove pipe if you dont have a good grip? doesnt make sense.

[Sunday]

The semi auto is easier to shoot "accurately" than a revolver . It takes less skill.

[bigbob76]

a good grip doesn't equate to a malfunction. so you'll get a stove pipe if you dont have a good grip? doesnt make sense.

It doesn't matter if it sounds like it makes sense. Try it. Myself and countless others have been convinced by personal experience that it is true. Try shooting from a barricade in unusual positions, strong hand and weak hand. After experiencing malfunctions from a weak awkward grip on your semi auto you can learn to contort painfully until you can shoot without malfunctions.

[BigPimping]

Omg.... this again.

[Lead Waster]

a good grip doesn't equate to a malfunction. so you'll get a stove pipe if you dont have a good grip? doesnt make sense.

Sure it does. If you are holding it too loosely (limp wrist) then the whole gun recoils up and back and the slide won't have enough energy to eject the round (since the whole gun is moving). With a firm grip, most of the recoil energy goes to the slide, which moves back with enough force to eject the round.


Revolvers are much easier to be accurate with. The sights are fixed on the barrel directly, not on the side, and the barrel is connected to the frame, which you are holding. Put a revolver in single action mode and you'll be very accurate with it. With a semi, the barrel is not attached to the frame, the sights are on the slide which is also not attached to the frame.

With practice, both are accurate, but with minimal practice, a revolver is simpler and easier to be accurate with ... in my opinion.

[JTROKS]

The semi auto is easier to shoot "accurately" than a revolver . It takes less skill.

I thought it was the other way around in the accuracy department?

I've always prefer shooting revolvers, but semi autos are more compact and holds more rounds for CC. I used to think a cylinder full of 38 or 357s will suffice.

[ap3572001]

I shot PPC matches with DA and DA ONLY revolvers .

We shot at 7/15/25 and 50 yards . Revolvers are VERY accurate.

I also shot Bullseye slow fire with 1911 and Smith and Wesson model 41 (22LR) at 50 yards with one hand .

Both revolvers and pistols can be super accurate with the right ammo and a good shooter.

[rambutan316]

With the advent of new technologies, I think its safe to say that a semi-auto is nearly as reliable as a revolver as long as the user is competent (ex. proper grip, properly racks the slide, knows how to manipulate safety,etc.). A revolver will always have its place though as the most reliable of all. Plus, you don't have to worry about anything else besides pointing the gun at bad guy and pulling the trigger.

[GM4spd]

http://www.fototime.com/F3B80EB5172F75A/large.jpg


Auto of course:D

[crufflers]

I thought it was the other way around in the accuracy department?

I've always prefer shooting revolvers, but semi autos are more compact and holds more rounds for CC. I used to think a cylinder full of 38 or 357s will suffice.

It IS the other way around, especially if shooting single action each shot, I find DA only revolvers more accurate than small autos also.

Autos are way better for more rounds on target, IMHO... I like revolvers but I have never seen one that holds 16, 18, 22, or 31 rounds.

[Sunday]

Nobody ever raped a .38 !
I tried once but is wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

[crufflers]

http://www.fototime.com/F3B80EB5172F75A/large.jpg


Auto of course:D

Be sure to check out SoCalEnthusiast's non-firearms related threads in Internet and Technology:
"PC's VS MACS revistied" and "Hey guys, Should I run Linux or Windows on my office computer?".

[VegasND]

... I like revolvers but I have never seen one that holds 16, 18, 22, or 31 rounds.

http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt242/NFA_FAN/junk/conc-d.jpghttp://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt242/NFA_FAN/junk/conc-c.jpg

[Che762x39]

It is an indiviual thing. Just like men picking out handguns for women. 90% are wrong.

Shoot a variety and see what is best for you. :oji:

[pastureofmuppets]

Claiming one is more accurate than the other. :facepalm:

Claiming it takes less skill to be accurate with a semi-auto :facepalm:

[Timberwolf]

I grew up shooting a revolver and am a better shot with one. Make mine a revolver . . . rather have six well placed shots than 10 - 15 misses.

[sniper5]

I believe it's whatever you are comfortable with and are willing to trust with your life. I grew up shooting 1911's and competed with them and am comfortable with the platform. Now I shoot mostly revolvers because I shoot revolvers because I am married, am on a budget, my wife and I shoot 1000's of rounds and I got tired of chasing my casings around the range. Honestly, I feel as well armed with one as with the other. But since I shoot revolvers more, I keep my GP100 out of the safe along with my shotgun. Given a choice I would probably grab the shotgun first, but I can work with either.

[Bug Splat]

Put me in a ring with a bad guy and offer a revolver or glock I'll take the glock and let the other sap have the stupid wheel.

The only advantage a revolver offers is simplicity to someone who doesn't know how to shoot. A half decent trained monkey with a semi auto will plow over even the best revolver shooters. Fire power wins in a pistol fight, it's not rifles here. Even if I get shot 6 times that is most likely not going to stop me for at least a minute. In that time I'm going to fill you with 17 rounds and be on my second mag of 17 before your moon clip makes it out your pocket.

Those who think a revolver stands a chance with a semi auto in a fight are just crazy. Try training with both and you will see how pathetically slow a revolver is. Jerrys awesome 12 rounds in 3 seconds is easy as pie with a semiauto. Sorry but I don't see anything special there. Great, you just ran a revolver at semi auto speed.

[bigbob76]

How well I remember it, the enthusiasm of my youth. Back then I was bullet proof. The older I get the smarter my dad was.

[mjmagee67]

Which is better a blond or a brunette? You more likely to get a answer on that question.

But all kidding aside how do you really compare? The answer is both, hence I have 7 semi-autos and 6 revolvers, the next handgun I buy will be a revolver.

[bigbob76]

Which is better a blond or a brunette? You more likely to get a answer on that question.

But all kidding aside how do you really compare? The answer is both, hence I have 7 semi-autos and 6 revolvers, the next handgun I buy will be a revolver.

I like the way you think!

[crufflers]

http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt242/NFA_FAN/junk/conc-d.jpghttp://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt242/NFA_FAN/junk/conc-c.jpg

Ok, I've seen one that holds 18 rounds now. Does that shoot three per trigger pull? Reloads must suck.

[crufflers]

Put me in a ring with a bad guy and offer a revolver or glock I'll take the glock and let the other sap have the stupid wheel.

The only advantage a revolver offers is simplicity to someone who doesn't know how to shoot. A half decent trained monkey with a semi auto will plow over even the best revolver shooters. Fire power wins in a pistol fight, it's not rifles here. Even if I get shot 6 times that is most likely not going to stop me for at least a minute. In that time I'm going to fill you with 17 rounds and be on my second mag of 17 before your moon clip makes it out your pocket.

Those who think a revolver stands a chance with a semi auto in a fight are just crazy. Try training with both and you will see how pathetically slow a revolver is. Jerrys awesome 12 rounds in 3 seconds is easy as pie with a semiauto. Sorry but I don't see anything special there. Great, you just ran a revolver at semi auto speed.

Yeah, in a HD situation there are five autos I would grab before I grabbed one of my .357's. The accuracy difference I have always felt was there between the two types of machines is negligible, but slow-fire groups are tighter with a revolver in my hands, and the mechanics of it is similar to rifles - semi-auto vs bolt-gun in my mind. After you pull the trigger and the pin drops, the mechanism isn't doing much in a revolver or bolt gun as the bullet leaves the barrel. Maybe that's all in my head, but I don't think so.

[VegasND]

Doesn't really matter, does it? Obviously the design was not efficacious or it would have been a commercial success.
Ok, I've seen one that holds 18 rounds now. Does that shoot three per trigger pull? Reloads must suck.

[crufflers]

Doesn't really matter, does it? Obviously the design was not efficacious or it would have been a commercial success.

I guess. Sounds like it was a one-off prototype. 18 round moon clips for speedy loading. Interesting anyway.