Explain the "revolver always goes bang" theory

[Houndkeeper]

As you may remember, I have only been into handguns since January when I bought my M&P .40 for home defense. Always liked the look of semi auto's in the movies and in showcases. Revolvers are pretty, if you will, and always remind me of cowboys, Lenny Briscoes (Law & Order) snubby or Dirty Harrys big ass Magnum (or whatever it was). Just choose to go the semi route to protect from any zombies looking for trouble.

Now, I have learned a ton of stuff from this forum and I mean ALOT. I have heard so many times that while it is awesome to have a crap load of rounds, like 15 +1 in my Smith & Wessons case, that the reliability of a wheel gun is a huge comfort regardless of the 5,6,7 round max capacity.

So, my question is this: What is it about revolvers that makes them so Mothers Homemade Chicken Soup to have in the night stand? Is it that there are less moving parts? A semi has a slide and all that other fancy stuff that makes it a semi and a wheel gun has fewer moving parts? Is it an ammo thing? Both?

On a side note, I have rented a few revolvers at the range and have several standing offers from some helpful folks on this site to shoot theirs. The couple of times I have rented one I have to say, I was damned accurate (for me!) with them. They always look so top heavy but I found them pretty easy to use. I did notice that the trigger pull distance in the revolvers I shot did seem really far, though.

 

[amish]

I can't comment on semi-auto vs. revolver for defense.. but I think some people associate revolvers as 'quick to use' meaning there are no safeties to remove. Now of course we all know that a lot of semi-auto's don't have external safeties. I'm just talking peoples conceptions.

The couple of times I have rented one I have to say, I was damned accurate (for me!) with them. They always look so top heavy but I found them pretty easy to use. I did notice that the trigger pull distance in the revolvers I shot did seem really far, though.

This isn't on topic but...
Lets just say I routinely shoot a S&W 500, 8-3/8" barrel. Now that thing is front heavy! I am still working on a way to grip it so I can balance it, w/o moving around all over the place. But I am still surprisingly accurate. The trigger pull (double action) is pretty far, but it is very smooth (for mine). When I cock it, I barely have to breath on the trigger to release the hammer. Oh, and I've noticed I am horrible at not 'anticipating the shot' with that gun. Something I need to work on... but in my defense, that has some kick to it.

Would love to get a 686 and try something more reasonable .

 

[mikec]

Dirty Harrys big ass Magnum (or whatever it was).

REPEAT AFTER me, S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum. Thank you.

Now, I have learned a ton of stuff from this forum and I mean ALOT. I have heard so many times that while it is awesome to have a crap load of rounds, like 15 +1 in my Smith & Wessons case, that the reliability of a wheel gun is a huge comfort regardless of the 5,6,7 round max capacity.

So, my question is this: What is it about revolvers that makes them so Mothers Homemade Chicken Soup to have in the night stand? Is it that there are less moving parts? A semi has a slide and all that other fancy stuff that makes it a semi and a wheel gun has fewer moving parts? Is it an ammo thing? Both?

In the days before computer design and synthetic frames one would have to seriously break in a semi auto. I would also have to look at the angle that ammo is fed by the magazines but I would probably have to guess that the older "classic" semi autos had a steeper angle then the newer plastic guns. (Older guns like the 1911, the Browning High Power or the original S&W Models 39&59.) These possible issues, along with the fact that hollow points were rather new, around '72 or so, made for some reliability issues.

Is a revolver always more reliable then a semi auto, no. In fact Col Cooper argued against that.

My '82 Colt 1911 had some serious teething issues, the XD I own has had none. Once the 1911 was broken in it has been reliable. I just think it is the advances in design and tighter tolerances. (I would love to know how many humans touch an XD in the manufacturing process.)

If you shoot the S&W well and it is reliable, go for it. No need to think otherwise.

 

[novus collectus]

YOu can shoot almost any loading and any bullet in a cartridge in a revolver for that caliber, but some semi autos can be finicky with hot or weaker loads, hollow points, wadcutters, hard primers, poor crimp, etc.
Also, if the rare (especially with today's ammo technology it is rare) fail to fire occurs because of a dud round, then with a revolver all you have to do is pull the trigger again, but with a semi auto you have to use your second hand to clear it from the chamber before you can fire another shot.

With a revolver you do not get a fail to eject, fail to feed, fail to close, falling out magazine, out of battery kaboom like you can with a semi.

A modern, properly made and properly maintained semi auto using the type of ammo it likes nowadays though, it should be just as reliable as the modern revolver regardless of the above mentioned problems.

 

[Simon Yu]

Novus covered the big one, the ease with which you deal with a round that doesn't go off. Another is that a revolver won't stovepipe jam (the casing being ejected getting caught by the slide if it doesn't clear the gun when the slide comes back). Either can usually be dealt with by racking the slide again, but newer gun owners may not remember that in a high stress situation. One of the reasons the LA armored gunmen bank robber firefight ended when it did was because one of the perps's rifle stovepiped and he discarded it instead of clearing it.

 

[smores]

Also, in close quarters or if wearing loose-fitting clothing you can get things interfering with the operation of a semi, preventing it from returning to battery.

In a revolver, you can get a snag-free, ultra-reliable weapon. If I had to CC I would seriously consider a small "hammerless" (shrouded/internal hammer) as a primary, and definitely as a back up! A semi has more firepower, but a revolver will work in a pinch!

 

[novus collectus]

Also, in close quarters or if wearing loose-fitting clothing you can get things interfering with the operation of a semi, preventing it from returning to battery.

In a revolver, you can get a snag-free, ultra-reliable weapon. If I had to CC I would seriously consider a small "hammerless" (shrouded/internal hammer) as a primary, and definitely as a back up! A semi has more firepower, but a revolver will work in a pinch!

Good point! A hammerless revolver can be fired from the pocket even.
While may be so rare as to be a fluke, in the dark home at nightime who knows what may be able to get into the action or get stuck between the slide and the frame of a semi, but the loose clothing is definitely conceivable.

By the way, some revolvers have as much firepower as a full size semi.

 

[AKbythebay]

Two reasons - a revolver can't jam because it doesn't automatically eject spent shells and load the next round, and no safety to mess with

 

[novus collectus]

Two reasons - a revolver can't jam because it doesn't automatically eject spent shells and load the next round, and no safety to mess with

Revolvers can jam, it is just much harder for them to jam is all.

By the way, some revolvers do eject the shells and some revolvers have a safety.

 

[smores]

By the way, some revolvers have as much firepower as a full size semi.

Oh, by "firepower" I meant higher capacity... should have been more clear. I know the 686+ isn't small by any means, but with a capacity of 7 rounds it competes well with a single-stack gun such as the 1911 or SIG P220.

However with a full-size double stack you can get 12 rounds or more of .40 S&W or .357 SIG, and 15 to almost 20 rounds in many 9mm pistols.

The only disadvatage to a revolver is the capacity of the cylinder, but if you practice enough, and take some defensive training courses using your weapon(s) (which you should do whether keeping any type of gun for defense), you should do ok.

 

[trbon8r]

In the days before computer design and synthetic frames one would have to seriously break in a semi auto.

My '82 Colt 1911 had some serious teething issues, the XD I own has had none. Once the 1911 was broken in it has been reliable. I just think it is the advances in design and tighter tolerances. (I would love to know how many humans touch an XD in the manufacturing process.)

I would respectfully disagree that the cure for most problem 1911s, or any autoloader for that matter is "break in." The cure would be for the manufacturers to have something resembling a quality control program, and to start making their parts to print and to specs. GI contract 1911s didn't require break in. They were sent directly from Colt or Remington Rand to the battlefields of WW1 and WW2. They were expected to work right out of the box. The difference between the Colt factory then, and the Colt factory now, is that back then there were Army Ordnance inspectors overseeing production of 1911s, gaging and inspecting parts, and test firing guns to make sure they worked properly.

Colt currently makes some great guns, and they are my choice as the best bang for the buck in a 1911. It's just that like every other commercial venture making guns for the civilian market, the quality control is often left to the end user these days. It is a less than ideal situation, but that's the way it is.

To answer Houndkeeper's question, the conventional wisdom is that revolvers "don't jam" while an autoloader can suffer the occasional malfunction. While revolvers may not jam in the same sense as an autoloader, revolvers do have their own issues that affect reliability. If it's a mechanical device it can break. I even managed to break an AK-47 at the range this week.

 

[novus collectus]

Oh, by "firepower" I meant higher capacity... should have been more clear. I know the 686+ isn't small by any means, but with a capacity of 7 rounds it competes well with a single-stack gun such as the 1911 or SIG P220.

However with a full-size double stack you can get 12 rounds or more of .40 S&W or .357 SIG, and 15 to almost 20 rounds in many 9mm pistols.

The only disadvatage to a revolver is the capacity of the cylinder, but if you practice enough, and take some defensive training courses using your weapon(s) (which you should do whether keeping any type of gun for defense), you should do ok.

Oh I knew exactly what you meant.

 

[Houndkeeper]

Oh, sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph!! What in the heck is that, Novus?

 

[NittanyLion]

holy crap!

 

[alucard0822]

Reliability between a decent revolver and decent modern auto is just about an even match nowadays, both will fire tens of thousands of rounds without any problems for the most part. The difference is in versatility. An auto can hold more than a dozen rounds, but will only feed rounds of a certain exact dimention, and only at a relatively small velocity range reliably. A revolver will fire anything from plastic training bullets (propelled only by the primer) to full power handloads, and everything in between, the rounds are also "chambered" at the same time they are loaded, so there are no feed issues with HP or even wadcutter bullets. Revolvers also do not enclose the ammo in the grip, so you can have a very long round with a small grip, impossible with most autos. Revolvers can also be reloaded just as fast as an auto through the use of moonclips or speedloaders, and tend to have more powr for their size, and are easier to shoot with that power than autos. In fact the only downsides are capacity, and in most cases the hammer is not cocked by recoil forces, so the trigger pull can be long and heavy compared to an auto.

Becoming skillful with a revolver takes practice, and IMO is easier to master than an auto, and in many cases you can fire 6, reload and fire 6 more with a revolver faster than with an auto. If you or Amish wants to try out my 686, 442, ruger single actions or colt detective special at the shoot let me know, and I will be happy to oblige. The odd thing is that a long smooth trigger, and uncluttered narrow top strap make trigger control and sight alignment easier to master and can help you learn skills that translate well to autos, and become a better shot with ANY handgun.

in the meantime here is a short video of the wheelgun God Jerry Miculek

 

[AKbythebay]

Revolvers can jam, it is just much harder for them to jam is all.

By the way, some revolvers do eject the shells and some revolvers have a safety.

Sheeze Novus, take it easy on me. I was saying that GENERALLY revolvers are prefered over semi autos due to rarely ever jamming and usually not being equipped with any safety devise. Is that better Novus?

 

[amish]

If you or Amish wants to try out my 686, 442, ruger single actions or colt detective special at the shoot let me know, and I will be happy to oblige.

in the meantime here is a short video of the wheelgun God Jerry Miculek

Thanks for the offer, unfortunately I already have long standing plans western PA that weekend :-\.

And wow, that is impressive shooting.

 

[joppaj]

Heather,

You know me to be devoted to my revolvers but Novus and alucard pretty well summed it up. They're not ammo picky and they're very, very hard to jam. As alucard said, I also find that they aim more naturally for me and being "heard hitting" calibres I'm quite content with them. People always tell you to practice with what you choose, and I do. Unless I'm attacked by several very dedicated attackers at once, I'm comfortable with the capacity limts of my .357 figuring that if 6 didn't do it, it should slow them down enough to get to another weapon or reload.

 

[alucard0822]

Heather,

As alucard said, I also find that they aim more naturally for me and being "heard hitting" calibres I'm quite content with them.

A big autoloader might be reffered to as a manstopper, but when you are talking about putting down an entire heard, a wheelgun is the only way to go

 

[joppaj]

Yup, a "heard hitter", the whole heard, every last one of those antlered, Grandma running over b@stards. That's precisly what I meant...