Folks, I have no problem with firearms manufacturers wanting to sell their products to Us, The People. Matter of fact, I heartily encourage it. :-)

However, I am yet again seeing these nonsense "articles", both online and in gun magazines, about how revolvers are supposed to be obsolete. They end up sounding like a revolver is useless in a self-defense situation. "Buy a semi-auto!", they say. "The semi-auto is the only thing that will protect you in the modern day!", they cry out. "Revolvers are a relic of a bygone era!", they crow. And then they recommend all sorts of semi-auto pistols.

I know why they do this. It's because the gun companies are coming out with all these new "wonder models" that will do everything including cook for you, and ad revenue matters to gun writers. And yes, there's a Ford/Chevy/Dodge component to it as well.

To that, I suppose the easy and obvious quip/soundbite-type response would be, "OK, then why do a whole lot of cops use revolvers as their backup guns?"

But I think it goes beyond a mere quip-type approach.

For the record, I happen to own, like, and enjoy both semi-auto pistols and revolvers. They each have their cool points about them, and I have no trouble shooting either style of handgun. Both are fun to punch paper with at the range.

And that's the point, I think: they each have their cool points about them.

I see people all the time who have trouble with semi-auto pistols for various reasons. It might be as simple as, they don't like the feel of the slide going back and forth (my wife is among this group). It might be that they cannot rack the slide due to hand strength or whatever else. It might be that they just haven't found a semi-auto pistol that feels good in their hands. Whatever the case, semi-autos simply don't work as well as revolvers for these folks.

We talk about the need for diversity in so many areas. Well, that matters here, too. It basically boils down to, the handgun that you get should be the one that you shoot best. For my wife, that's her revolver. She *can* shoot the .45 ACP 1911, but she finds that wheelgun to be easier to handle.

One of my carry pieces is a Springfield XD-s in .45 ACP. It's a 5+1 pocket pistol. Fine little carry gun, and I actually like shooting that little .45; Springfield did a remarkable job mitigating felt recoil in such a small package. My wife doesn't want to go anywhere near it unless it's a DIRE emergency, though! So I had her try my late father's S&W J-frame .38 Special, all stainless. Still feels a bit snappy to her, but it's much better than that .45. So, Dad's carry gun became her carry gun.

So, are revolvers "obsolete"? Nope. They're not. It's like cars, SUV's, trucks, and the various brands therein. There's something for everyone.

I love revolvers, and at last count I think I own 9?
They are an outstanding choice for a few situations.

That being said, that while they make sense for some special defensive situations, or certain people, generally speaking & for the most part, I carry and train with semi-auto pistols. (I do shoot revolvers just as much, I just don’t do reload drills, etc.)

I agree there are exceptions. My big EDC exception, being my S&W j-frame. It’s my only truly small, lightweight pistol that I can shoot well at defensive distances. It does suffer for capacity compared to lightweight .380s and .32s but for me, I just shoot it better in that weight class pistol. That’s the gun I wear when it’s too hot to conceal even a subcompact, or I’m doing strenuous exercise. Purely personal prererence.

However is someone is willing to go up just a few more ounces to 20-24 then there are abundant, relatively, affordable options for CCW in semi auto pistols with far greater capacity than a 5-shooter. Something like a S&W shield 2.0, if one chooses to spend the time mastering a subcompact 9mm is a vast improvement for a self defensive pistol over my S&W 5 shooter. Greater capacity, better sights, ease and speed of reloading, better trigger, .. The list goes on. For the majority of people in every day situations these are hard to beat.

One situation where I find a wheel gun to be superior is the rare, generally field, occasions where I do feel that I do need the extra oomph of a .357. That would be situations like hiking, kayaking or backpacking in areas with predator animals. Then I bring along my Ruger SP-101 to be the ticket. It’s lightweight, and powerful. Yet I have a load dialed in at my personal accuracy maximum. Many people do not have the time and resources to relaid ammo to exact specifications for niche applications. However, I’ve hiked these same areas many times with a S&W shield as well; as based in the laws of probability a dangerous human encounter on the trail is statistically far more likely even in remote areas.

The other strike against revolvers is that they are hardly affordable these days. Yes, I have a few that I picked up for around $300, but that’s hard to achieve now. There are abundant, good semi automatic pistols in that price range.

There’s no right answer for every single person. Train with what you feel comfortable with using and is fun to shoot. If it’s not fun, you generally won’t do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have both, but I really only carry snubnose revolvers. It’s my preference.

Today I am carrying my 1926 Colt Pocket Positive with the 3.5" barrel chambered in 32 Police CTG (can't have 32S&W Long roll marked on the barrel of a Colt).

Writers even gun ones are always desperate to find something to write about, not surprised they're attacking revolvers. Revolvers like semi autos depend on a shooters accuracy, some shooters can hit their target with five or 6 rounds. For others including some cops it could take 10 plus rounds to hit the perp.

Technologies drive doctrines when it comes to military and defensive training. Think Revolutionary War, here rifles allowed guerrilla-style hit-and-run attacks to succeed against less accurate muskets that depended upon massed volley fire for effect. Swords were relegated to ceremonial use after reliable repeating arms came into widespread use, and bayonets followed as 20+ round magazines became standard.

A sword will still take your head.

Current self-defense doctrine is adapted to the widespread availability of readily-concealed automatic pistols loaded with 10+ rounds of modern 9mm JHPs, not to mention red-dots or tritium night sights and tactical lights. The balance of capacity, capability, speed, accuracy, reliability and concealability lend themselves to a doctrine where you draw and shoot as quickly as you can accurately get sights on target and then keep shooting until the threat goes down, while still being ready to confront further attackers. Revolvers aren't ideal for that doctrine, but wheelgun doctrine is obviously different.

Have fun shooting that pocket 9 from a pocket.

I would consider revolvers less than ideal for most people in most situations. However for some, it’s the perfect weapon for their needs. Its an individual choice, and sometimes a revolver is just the ticket. Although I generally carry auto pistols, there’s nothing I’d rather shoot over my revolvers. When I’m in the field I’m almost always carrying a revolver, often a Colt SAA.

I have 2 revolvers for the simple reason that if the fanatics outlaw semi-auto handguns, revolvers will be left. And, in NJ, a 7 round revolver is only 3 rounds lighter due to the 10 round mag limit. Both shoot .357 mag/ ..38 special and one can shoot 9mm, too, making it versatile.

If I'm ever in a gunfight, I can only hope my opponent has a revolver.

It just seems like so much to hope for...

Well put, Wings.

The tech-doctrine also falsely assumes that optimal training for new tech is a given rather than the reality that regular training of the carry pistol is more often treated as an afterthought. This tendency to view the newest and best tech as superior in all situations also ignores the “good enough” principle of human psychology which has always relegated new inventions which didn’t pass the bar of human laziness to the dustbin of history (see Dvorak or Colemak keyboards’ superiority over QWERTY).

Most enthusiasts like us do shoot standing targets on a regular basis for hobby. Many licensed carriers for their jobs like the police actually shoot their firearms less than we do. Yet is is rare for the firearm enthusiast to actually train for defensive shooting situations. Many do not even shoot at moving targets much less train to fire from cover because the targets are theoretically shooting back. I would wager that the average defensive shooter would actually perform better with a DAO revolver, deal with less risks of ND’s or failures to fire due to locked safeties or jammed actions, generally perform better at sending slugs in the general direction of a moving target as intended in a defensive shooting situation. I’d wager that any theoretical rounds in an semi-auto’s spare magazine carried in the pocket is simply as fanciful as Jerry Miculek’s speed reloads in an actual firefight for 98% of the daily carry public.
No, the pistol is only as good as the first set of rounds contained, then it becomes a glorified brick for the average lazy American who watch too many John Wick movies to actually go to an obstacle range and train with their chosen wunder-weapons.

My conceal-carry is a DAO Chiappa Rhino snubbie .357. Mainly to befuddle fanboys at the range.

Bisbee wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:55 am I’d wager that any theoretical rounds in an semi-auto’s spare magazine carried in the pocket is simply as fanciful as Jerry Miculek’s speed reloads in an actual firefight for 98% of the daily carry public. No, the pistol is only as good as the first set of rounds contained, then it becomes a glorified brick for the average lazy American who watch too many John Wick movies to actually go to an obstacle range and train with their chosen wunder-weapons.

I think that's a solid point. I don't own guns with the intention of carrying or self defense. But clearly they could always be used for that in the right situation. My handguns are all low capacity -- a 1911 and two revolvers. I shoot targets and occasionally hunt, so these are appropriate for me because I like the way they shoot. If, god forbid, I needed to defend myself with a firearm, I'm of the opinion that if the firefight is so bad that my first 5 rounds of 357 mag don't give me a chance to escape, I might as well use the 6th round on myself.

Obviously, this is all keyboard speculation and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee, but people think they need at least 15+1 and two reloads to defend themselves. I think that's fantasy. Same goes for rifles. Shoot an AR if that's your thing -- very good rifle from what I read. But realistically if 10 rounds of 357 mag from a lever gun can't stop a threat to one's home, then that threat wasn't going to be stopped by the average person. If you are ex special ops or something, then of course it's different. But I'm not.

Anyhoo, I think I've said on here before that I'm not a guy who thinks there's always a threat and stays armed. My guns are always unloaded and locked up unless in my hand.

Honestly, in 50+ years I can't say that I've ever felt unsafe without a gun. I think that's another point to keep in mind. I think people overestimate the threats of real life.

LOL. Gotta go run errands in the city today, so just my luck I'll get murdered at Aldi after saying all this.

BTW, I'm not anti-carry or anything. Carry if that's your thing. In my particular situation, I don't feel the need.

As noted, there’s nothing that stop a snubbie from being fired inside a coat pocket. That means the assailant won’t ever see the weapon and there’s no time loss on drawing. A snubnose is a pretty simple tool and easily concealed. Mine, one has a concealed hammer and another two shrouded. Not much possibility of failure to fire under any condition or chance an attacker could try to grab the gun and prevent slide movement. It’s a pretty practical solution. Also as noted, it’s the first few rounds that matter and having more doesn’t make it better. The semi-automatic wonder nine type handguns shine in combat situations, robbery or an attack by an assailant is not a combat situation. I don’t need ten seventeen round magazines in pouches ready for action. I need a few well placed shots that break the assailant off and allows me to get me and mine to safety. Just my perspective and preference.

Some of us grew up with revolvers and after shooting almost any format fairly consistently for over a half century tend to become comfortable with that format. I don't feel any less protected or capable when carrying my S&W 22LR Kit Gun than when carrying a 1911 45acp, or when carrying my Colt Pocket Positive 2.5" barrel 32 Police CTG (AkA 32S&W Long) or my Tisas 17 + 1 round 9mm Luger Zigana K.

In the almost 70 years I've carried a handgun I've actually fired perhaps six rounds in actual self defense. And those have all been at poisonous snakes in places where they were a risk (under the open porch steps once and another under a friends house that was raised off the ground but a place his kids played) or once several round at a pack of feral dogs.

There have been perhaps two incidents where simply being seen to be armed avoided a possible confrontation. I've never felt the need to even draw my handgun but as mentioned there have been a very few cases where I considered it possible.

There are things I do practice with my revolvers that I do not emphasis with my pistols. One is blind reloads, emptying the cylinder and reloading while eyes are down range and attention outwards rather than on the loading. It takes practice, lots of practice but it is possible. I prefer using HKS speed loaders, not because they are fast bur rather they are secure. Also different calibers require different skill sets and training; 32S&W Long and 38S&W and far faster and far easier than 38S&W Special while 45acp in moon clips can be as fast and reliable as any semiautomatic magazine swap.

True, most folk don't practice that but then most folk don't practice defensive driving and let's face it, we are all at greater risk from the average driver on the road than from armed felons.

To cooper’s point, life experiences definitely affect the choice to carry or not. The likelihood of being a victim is small, but for those of us that have experienced violence toward us the choice to carry becomes a logical choice. We don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is respected and people’s right to exist is acknowledged by all. Stay safe and awareness is key even if you don’t carry, learn how to carry yourself in a way that says you’re not a target.

sikacz wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:42 am To cooper’s point, life experiences definitely affect the choice to carry or not. The likelihood of being a victim is small, but for those of us that have experienced violence toward us the choice to carry becomes a logical choice. We don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is respected and people’s right to exist is acknowledged by all. Stay safe and awareness is key even if you don’t carry, learn how to carry yourself in a way that says you’re not a target.

Yes. Absolutely. Each one has their own experience and situation and needs to act accordingly.

I realize I used a lot of language about how threats are overrated etc. I should have qualified that with “in my life experience.” And remembering that my life experience is that of a healthy middle aged white straight cis-male with a modicum of affluence living in a very small town. The world was made to protect me.

cooper wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:06 am

sikacz wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:42 am To cooper’s point, life experiences definitely affect the choice to carry or not. The likelihood of being a victim is small, but for those of us that have experienced violence toward us the choice to carry becomes a logical choice. We don’t live in a perfect world where everyone is respected and people’s right to exist is acknowledged by all. Stay safe and awareness is key even if you don’t carry, learn how to carry yourself in a way that says you’re not a target.

Yes. Absolutely. Each one has their own experience and situation and needs to act accordingly.

I realize I used a lot of language about how threats are overrated etc. I should have qualified that with “in my life experience.” And remembering that my life experience is that of a healthy middle aged white straight cis-male with a modicum of affluence living in a very small town. The world was made to protect me.

I read it as your life experience, no worries. I sincerely hope your experiences do not change. With love, stay safe.

To further dovetail with Cooper’s point, we are sold that fantasy of guns being the end-all of self-defense as well as masculinity. The ones doing the selling are more than just firearm companies, it is in popular culture of movies and TV. Guns have become the superhero powers that we can buy if we have enough money; powers apparently conferred upon ownership, not gained through long practice like the Kung-fu/martial art movies of the past. We rarely see anyone growing in gun centric stories like we do, “The Karate Kid”. And so guns have become another fetish of masculinity they can sell the same way they sell us cars and expensive watches (the James Bond franchise sells us all three).

But yes, this describes the average White suburban existence where mall ninjas are the norm, not the drug infested inner cities where addicts may be looking at you as their quick score for hit. Certainly not as a bodyguard for an oil executive on a tour of Iraq. The online warrior who argue the benefits of low bore axis for quick follow-up shots who are not competitive shooters, these are generally the one’s who have been sold a bill of goods. And to a degree, most of us hold that mentality to some degree if only because we grew up on a steady diet of Hollywood films (and have not detoxed through whatever form as adults). I am pointing toward the indoctrination of fear and intimidation that firearms imply mastery over. Our range practice should have shown us that this is a lie if only because hitting any target with a gun is actually as hard as any martial arts practice we must grow into over time.

I don't see it. Revolvers are just as relevant as they've ever been, in my eyes.

Whether they suit ME is an entirely different question. I have one revolver, purchased to be a "range toy," and I like it for what I bought it to do. I've tried a Smith & Wesson Airweight, and I didn't enjoy it, but I think that with practice, I could at least be proficient with it to similar degree as my M&P Shield 9 (I shot a dozen or so rounds with that thing today, and was NOT good, but close enough for self-defense purposes).

Still, I see some attributes of some revolvers that make them better for some self-defense situations, and I readily see why some folks would prefer them.

I guess I don't have time to hate on any handgun that is reliable and easy for its owner to use.

I thought about airweight versions of my snubnoses, and having fired a few I didn’t see the point in having one. A snubnose is never that heavy even an all steel one. So I recommend the full steel versions when asked.

Most ALL civilian incidents where a gun is actually fired show that only 1 or 2 shots are fired, regardless of magazine capacity or caliber. Semi-autos are not required. Hell, two from a Bond Arms derringer or a NAA .22 are as effective as almost anything else. You're not likely to get into a TV/Movie style shootout. Most police never do that. If that does happen, and you haven't had live fire training, you likely aren't going to survive. Deal with the real. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alterna ... ping-power

Airweight J-frame is a firearm that requires a excessive practice In my experience. It comes with me every range trip. For me - it’s a 5 yard gun with +P ammunition, even then. I would not reccomend it to anyone. For a little more weight you can get a gun with much better sights and much easier to shoot. However the Airweight has the virtue that it’s an excellent pistol for those who are willing to spend the time with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INVICTVS138 wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:59 pm Airweight J-frame is a firearm that requires a excessive practice In my experience. It comes with me every range trip. For me - it’s a 5 yard gun with +P ammunition, even then. I would not reccomend it to anyone. For a little more weight you can get a gun with much better sights and much easier to shoot. However the Airweight has the virtue that it’s an excellent pistol for those who are willing to spend the time with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some it may work, but I have exact versions of the airweight versions in steel and my hand thanks me. Excellent sights for what’s needed and the extra weight to handle more potent ammo. I have on 38 Special and two 357 Magnums. Even the 357 is manageable in the j-frame as long as you have the right grips for your hand and the slightly heavier steel variant. Personally I see the airweight as a marketing gimmick, a gun that small is not going to be excessively heavy regardless of the material. I just can’t see a reason I would buy or recommend an an airweight except as a collector piece.

All fights are asymmetric. Even duels, designed to be as equal as possible, cannot account for differences in physique, skill, or mindset. If I'm ever in a gunfight, my hope is to get out, but I'd take no comfort in my opponent wielding revolvers - even percussion cap types. Someone comes at you with one these days, odds are they know how to use it - I'm less certain of that with a semiauto, and they have more ways to jam up.

Nothing's obsolete that will kill you. Swords still have utility for home defense.

That's an interesting point wings. A revolver is an intentional choice, so possibly a serious shooter?

In a gun fight, doctrine holds that long gun > pistol > revolver > knife.

Grappling, that order is reversed.

Doctrine develops to accentuate the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of a technology - and technology evolves to fit a doctrine. Hunters pursue a humane, one-shot kill from a concealed position, enabled by powerful, accurate long guns, revolvers - or bows. Let's talk about supposedly obsolete technologies!

Unless you're packing a Desert Eagle or something in 10mm, a defensive pistol typically won't knock down a feral hog or drug crazed attacker in one shot. Same is true for a pocket revolver, but there's reasons all the handgun hunting rounds come in revolvers instead. If most handgun cartridges will only poke holes, but poke them sufficiently deep, then the doctrine of "more holes, more fastly" is a compromise to make up for insufficient power.