# Semi-Auto Pistol or Revolver



## AIM RIGHT (Jun 19, 2011)

Just want to start a topic on Semi Auto Pistols or Revolvers, which one do you prefer? What are the pros and
cons? me I personally prefer semi auto pistols for the magazine capacity, trigger pull and attachments you can add on them. This post is mainly for members to share there preference on which one they prefer and 
why? That way others can be educated on both firearms based on the members responses.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

*Automatics:*
Pros:
More capacity
Easier to clear a jam
Faster reload

Cons:
Can be limp wristed
More apt to jamming
May not function at contact distacne

*Revolvers:*
Pros:
Can't be limp wristed
Less likely to jam
Functions at contact distance

Cons:
Less capacity
If jams, you're screwed
Slower to reload

I prefer autos for capacity and faster reload. While I love the ruggedness of the revolver, the reloading process can be a PITA, even with speed loaders.

Looking over the list in detail...

Capacity: Don't really need to explain this one, in center fire the most you'll see in a revolver is 8 and it's a beast.

Jam Clearing: Autos for the most part you're looking at Tap, Rack, Bang and while revolvers are less likely to jam, when they do it can take a lot to get it unjammed, you're looking at a tool or two minimum and maybe even gunsmith attention.

Limp wristing is a non-issue for revolver shooters and can plague auto shooters, even experienced ones when doing weak hand manipulations etc.

Reload: Autos are pretty straight forward, remove spent mag, insert new mag, chamber round as needed. With revolvers you've got speed strips, loose rounds, various speed loaders, moon clips, half moon clips...etc.

Operation at Contact Distance. Push the slide out of battery and 90% of autos are not going to fire, with a revolver you just keep pulling the trigger, unless the cylinder is bound up it will fire.

Overall manipulation: Revolver beats semi-auto in my book. If someone is not willing to put forth the effort in manipulating an auto, they are probably better off with a revolver.


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

Automatics wins every time, especially since you can store a glock for years and years and when you pick it up it will fire, can't do that with a revolver (I tried, now they don't shoot at all) unless you clean that bad boy every so often (and by this I mean clean them alot), you can treat these new polymer pistols like shit and they will fire like sons of bitches


----------



## C1 (Sep 25, 2010)

jakeleinen1 said:


> Automatics wins every time, especially since you can store a glock for years and years and when you pick it up it will fire, can't do that with a revolver (I tried, now they don't shoot at all) unless you clean that bad boy every so often (and by this I mean clean them alot), you can treat these new polymer pistols like shit and they will fire like sons of bitches


I disagree with the above. First, if you are going to store any firearm long term, it MUST be cleaned and lubricated properly. Second, a fully loaded revolver with the hammer uncocked has no springs that are at full or near full tension. The same cannot be said for the mag spring of a semi-auto. For long term storage and proper functioning or protection against large, dangerous animals or any close quarters encounter I will take a revolver.

One caution with long term storage is a lubricant may penetrate into the primer and/or powder charge. This is another reason why I do not like penetrating oils.

I did not vote as each has their own set of advantages and disadvantages. It all depends what you purpose you intend to use it.


----------



## ozzy (Apr 16, 2011)

You didn't specify for what reason? If for CCW I'll carry a .40 10+1, If in Bear country then I would go with a 3 digit revolver and my .40 as a bug.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

You left out "Both."
Maybe it should be "All of the above."
But then, there are people whose answer would be "None of the above."


Actually, I prefer women.


----------



## Packard (Aug 24, 2010)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> You left out "Both."
> Maybe it should be "All of the above."
> But then, there are people whose answer would be "None of the above."
> 
> Actually, I prefer women.


Ah, you remember back then, huh?:mrgreen:


----------



## Packard (Aug 24, 2010)

jakeleinen1 said:


> Automatics wins every time, especially since you can store a glock for years and years and when you pick it up it will fire, can't do that with a revolver (I tried, now they don't shoot at all) unless you clean that bad boy every so often (and by this I mean clean them alot), you can treat these new polymer pistols like shit and they will fire like sons of bitches


Why would a revolver fail for storage? Because of corrosion? Corrosion will mess up an automatic too. I had an Airweight and a SS model 60 and you could safely store those as long as you wish and they would still fire (if the ammo was still good).


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Actually, I prefer women.





Packard said:


> Ah, you remember back then, huh?:mrgreen:


As Justice William O. Douglas was heard to say in his 95th year, as a pretty girl walked past, "Oh to be 80 again!"


----------



## Packard (Aug 24, 2010)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> As Justice William O. Douglas was heard to say in his 95th year, as a pretty girl walked past, "Oh to be 80 again!"


A 90 year old gentleman married a 24 year old blond with huge knockers. His best friend of many years asked him, "Don't you worry about a heart attack, with you two having sex."

And the old man said, "If she dies, she dies."


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

And now after my rimshot for *Packard's *post, back to guns. If we have to. :mrgreen:

Last year I carried a S&W stainless covered hammer snubby with CT lasergrips. Five rounds.
This year I'm carrying a Sig P290 (9mm pocket gun) in a belt pouch. 1 + 8rd mag, spare 6 rd mag.
See VAMarine's evaluation, he's got it covered.

Mountain/wilderness hiking. Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan 2 1/2 in. snubby. In .454 Casull.
In a Galco holster and cartridge belt. No CCW required. But, it does help to practice occasionally. :smt1099


----------



## cclaxton (Jul 10, 2011)

*Is there a way to get the reliability of a revolver and the functionality of a auto?*

The thing I don't like about revolvers is the reloading process...having another tumbler is not handy, or a carrier, etc.

Remember the kids guns you could get for caps that had a string of caps and they autofed the string? As you pull the trigger, it pulled a round up into the chamber and then the hammer would hit the cap. Wouldn't something like that work in a handgun?


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

cclaxton said:


> Is there a way to get the reliability of a revolver and the functionality of a auto?
> 
> The thing I don't like about revolvers is the reloading process...having another tumbler is not handy, or a carrier, etc.
> Remember the kids guns you could get for caps that had a string of caps and they autofed the string? As you pull the trigger, it pulled a round up into the chamber and then the hammer would hit the cap. Wouldn't something like that work in a handgun?


Good idea in theory, but ust how would you conceal that string of ammo without fouling it or draw it without fouling it...

And have you ever felt the weight of an ammo belt?

Regarding revolver reliability in an auto, in my opinion some autos come _close. _I've had handguns from Glock, Sig, HK, and a couple different 1911s that have been very, very reliable. My HK has seen almost 3000 rds since Spring and not a single failure thus far, that's not bad but it doesn't mean that it won't ever fail. Now as for revolvers, sure they are a less likely to fail, but they are still capable of failure. As mentioned previously, an auto is generally quicker to recover from a failure than a revolver should one occur. The techniques to clear a stoppage in an auto are not rocket surgery and can be learned pretty easily should one be willing to put forth the effort.

Take a look at these two tests and you can see what a well built auto is capable of.



> *P30 Thursday: Week Forty-Two*
> Friday, March 26th, 2010
> 
> 91,322 rounds 13 stoppages, 0 malfunctions, 5 parts breakages test ended at: 91,622 rounds At 91,300 rounds, the P30 was running strong. Even after a chunk went missing from the frame, the gun had turned in well over five thousand rounds of accurate and reliable service.





> *HK45 Endurance Test*: Week Thirty Seven
> Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010
> 
> 50,000 rounds 1 stoppages 1 (*) malfunctions 1 parts breakages 50,000 rounds in just over eight months.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

The only malfunction I have ever experienced with my well-prepared 1911s was ammunition related, and was the result of my own error: I did not prime one case. It did not fire. "Tap, rack, bang" fixed it in a second.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The only malfunction I have ever experienced with my well-prepared 1911s was ammunition related, and was the result of my own error: I did not prime one case. It did not fire. "Tap, rack, bang" fixed it in a second.


\

Exactly.


----------



## Flyboy_451 (Aug 8, 2008)

*Both!!*

The role a gun is to fulfill can play a large part in the type that is more suitable. In the pros and cons listed for each, one that is absent, unless I missed it is the power to size ratio. Revolvers rule in this category, with little in autos to compete. There are indeed powerful magnum class auto, but they are typically very large. Notable exceptions are the .45 Super and the 460 Roland. Both of these can be had in standard full size autos without going to the size of a Desert Eagle, and provide similar performance to the .44 Mag, but they lack the heavy bullet capability and fall well short of the power level possible with chamberings such as the .475 and .500 Linebaugh type cartridges available in revolvers.

Granted, when you start talking about such large calibers as those mentioned, you are often talking about custom built guns, but I am not aware of any auto available, either factory or custom, that offers this level of performance in a similar size package. For some roles, these portable powerhouses are just the ticket. They are not general use guns, but they were not intended to be.

JW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Since I'm a self-defense pistol shooter, my only reply has to be: "OK, of you like those hugely powerful revolvers, please feel free to carry one every day...but only of you consistently and frequently practice presenting and firing it."

If I have occasion to need a big and super-powerful revolver, I'll bring a rifle instead.


----------



## Flyboy_451 (Aug 8, 2008)

Steve, for typical defensive use, I certainly agree. The role to be filled is the key component, in my opinion. For two legged challenges, I typically carry one of my 1911s (OK, I admit, I do indeed carry a single action .45Colt on occasion), but if I am in the wild, with the potential of coming across potentially dangerous four legged critters, I prefer something a little different. I also admit to having a certain affinity for big bore single action packin revolvers. My personal stash includes guns ranging from .22LR to .475 linebaugh, with only one barrel of 6", with the rest being 4 5/8" to 5 1/2".

I am currently awaiting a .500 Linebaugh built on a Vaquero frame with a 4" barrel. This one is being built by Dustin Linebaugh, and I am very excited to get it back!!

JW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I envy you.
My agéd hands shudder and my antique frame cringes at the thought!

Come to think of it, I never was particularly happy firing a .44 Magnum, either—even when I was a whole lot younger.


----------



## Flyboy_451 (Aug 8, 2008)

Well Steve, 

I will admit that I seldom use full bore loads in any of he big boomers. To me, the advantage of large calibers is to be able to drive heavy weight bullets at respectable velocities without high pressures. The .475 Linebaugh is a good example. The load that I shoot the most is only doing about 850fps and is not unpleasant to shoot at all, but this is with a 420 grain bullet. I will let bullet weight and diameter do the work, rather than velocity and high pressure. Why hot rod my .44s or .41s trying to get that level of power and punish myself and the gun with higher pressures? I am pretty sure that load or something similar will handle any four legged critter I am likely to encounter.

Justin


----------



## dondavis3 (Aug 2, 2009)

@ VAMarine


Good comparison / write-up.

I used to be a revolver man myself

But I've switched over the years to strongly liking the Auto.

:smt1099


----------

