Pistol Rounds vs. Revolver Rounds

[lamarw]

Thanks Folks, I can certainly appreciate the mention of not having to crawl around on your hands and knees looking for brass. I shoot outside and it is a pain when shooting pistols particularly with my Sig P220 ST. It throws brass into the next County.

I can also see the advantage of speed loading .45 ACP into a revolver.

The way I compensate for ammunition prices is as mentioned through reloading. Then someone mentioned not having to change over the reloading press. I have also compensated in this area by, as the other poster mentioned, having separate turrets with all the components for each caliber. Pictures of my reloading bench are attached. It is a working man's reloading bench and not an eye candy bench.

I have set-ups ready and two presses for .38 S&W, .32 ACP, .380, 9mm, .38 Special/.357 Magnum, .45 ACP and .45 Colt. The turrets with dies inserted and adjusted for my rifle rounds are also on the bench in the gray compartment cabinet. The three shotgun presses are for 12, 20 and .410.

[Webleymkv]

While I don't own one and don't really have a burning desire for one, I can kind of understand the allure of a .45 ACP revolver.

The whole semi-auto caliber revolver was born out of wartime expediency. During WWI, the U.S. found that they simply couldn't produce the then relatively new 1911 pistol fast enough to meet wartime demands. As a substitute standard, they contracted with both Colt and S&W to make their New Service and Second Model .44 Hand Ejectors for issue to the doughboys, guns from both makers were designated the M1917. One stipulation, however, was that the revolvers had to fire the standard-issue .45 ACP ammunition to avoid logistical problems. S&W came up with half-moon clips to allow extraction of the rimless cartridges though most of the revolvers could still chamber and fire .45 ACP without the clips (early Colt 1917's had their chambers bored straight through and thus require clips for headspacing).

After the war, .45 ACP revolvers became popular because both the guns and ammunition were available quite inexpensively on the surplus market. Eventually, S&W began producing commercial revolvers in .45 ACP because the demand for such continued even after the surplus 1917's dried up (likely because cheap surplus ammunition continued to be available). Ruger eventually followed with their .45 LC/ACP convertible Blackhawk, also likely trying to capitalize on the cheap surplus .45 ACP ammo (I suspect this is the same reason that the Blackhawk was also made in .30 Carbine).

Even today, despite the surplus .45 ACP ammo having long since dried up, I can still see why someone might like a so-chambered revolver. Most would agree that the .45 ACP is generally a more effective cartridge than .38 Special yet it usually does not produce the unpleasant recoil or blast of a Magnum revolver cartridge. Likewise, .45 ACP is more widely available and less expensive than other bigbore revolver cartridges like .44 Special or .45 Long Colt. Finally, .45 ACP has benefited from all of the recent advancements in JHP bullets while most of the offerings in .44 Special and .45 Long Colt are rather dated.

Also, for a handloader, the .45 ACP can do things in a revolver that simply cannot be accomplished in a semi-automatic. The OAL of the cartridge is less critical as is the shape and weight of the bullet. Heavier 250+ gr SWC bullets which likely would not reliably function in many semi-autos can be used very easily in a .45 ACP revolver and have been shown to be quite effective hunting rounds. I could understand why someone would like the idea of a single handgun that can be loaded with both premium commercial JHP's like Winchester Ranger or Federal HST for carry/HD and heavy SWC bullets for hunting/woodsbumming.

Now, I don't quite understand the allure of a semi-auto chambered for a revolver cartridge beyond a curiosity or conversation piece. Because revolver caliber ammunition is not made with semi-autos in mind, it's often difficult to get it to work reliably in that platform. Even in the semi-autos that do work reliably with revolver ammo, the gun is usually larger, heavier, and/or more cumbersome than a revolver of the same chambering or a semi-auto in one of the more common calibers. Finally, revolver-caliber semi-autos are almost always quite expensive often costing 2-3 times as much as a comparable quality revolver or non-revolver caliber semi-auto.

[44 AMP]

Another factor in S&W's decision to make .45ACP revolvers was the popularity of NRA match shooting and a gun like the 1955 Target was a good fit under the rules of the time.

And while I'm sure the availability of cheap surplus ammo played a part, I have always felt that the Blackhawk convertible was aimed at the shooter who was interested in the .45 Colt, and already had a .45 ACP.

The 250gr .45 cal bullet, especially the SWC has a long track record of being very effective, over a good range of velocities. What case it gets launched from only matters to the gun, not the target.

Absolutely a benefit to be able to run equally well with commercial JHP or handload SWC, something a revolver excels at.

Now, I don't quite understand the allure of a semi-auto chambered for a revolver cartridge beyond a curiosity or conversation piece.

They aren't for everyone, or every use, but they have an appeal for me.

the gun is usually larger, heavier, and/or more cumbersome than a revolver of the same chambering or a semi-auto in one of the more common calibers.

Yep. No argument there.

revolver-caliber semi-autos are almost always quite expensive often costing 2-3 times as much as a comparable quality revolver or non-revolver caliber semi-auto.

Can't argue they aren't expensive, either. On the other hand, people regularly pay $2K+ for 1911s from "name" shops, so I don't think the price of a magnum autopistol (those still in production, anyway) is too out of line.

They aren't a duty pistol, and they aren't a revolver. And it isn't fair to expect them to be either one. For me, one thing they have over the revolver is the shape of the grip, and the feel of the recoil. Much different from a revolver.

Getting the same power, and accuracy (and sometimes better accuracy) as a revolver, with a different grip and milder feeling recoil is, for me, worthwhile.

I don't consider a higher round count than a revolver to be a huge advantage, but it is nice. I put up with the bulk and complexity, compared to a revolver, for the feel a revolver doesn't give me shooting the same ammo.

And sometimes they have their uses, for me, at least. Best time I ever turned in shooting bowling pins was done with a .357 Desert Eagle. Second personal best was with a .44 Auto Mag. 5.36 seconds, 5 shots. No, not even good enough to place 3rd in that local match, but they didn't get to reuse those particular pins!

The .44 Desert Eagle turns rounds that are painful to shoot out of my M29 into something that feels like a snappy .45auto, with a huge muzzle blast.

They aren't for everyone and everyone isn't able to master them well, but I think they do have a place. I do like the recent Coonan ad, that says, "if you're looking for your first pistol, this ISN"T it!" or something like that...

Myself, other than if its the only ammo you can have, I've never understood a 9mm DA revolver. But, that's just me...

[Bob Wright]

Many, many years ago, I bought a Colt Gold Cup .45 Auto. Beautiful pistol, very accurate. I had a load using the 185 gr. Sierra Jacketed Hollow Cavity bullet that absolutely vaporized (O.K. a little excessive) crows out to about 75 yards. But then, where did my brass go? So swapped it off on a Colt New Frontier in .45 Colt.

I bought a Ruger Blackhawk, had an auxilliary .45 ACP cylinder made, Ruger not offering convertibles at the time. I still had a plentiful supply of ACP brass on hand, so, why not?

The first thousand rounds or so through that gun were .45 ACP, but then I hit a .45 Colt combination that, well, never went back to the .45 ACP. Oh, the empties punch out of a Single Action nicely. But I really love the old .45 Colt.

Bob Wright

[Snyper]

Thanks Folks, I can certainly appreciate the mention of not having to crawl around on your hands and knees looking for brass. I shoot outside and it is a pain when shooting pistols particularly with my Sig P220 ST. It throws brass into the next County.

Carry a tarp to put down where it's throwing most of the brass

[NateKirk]

Well, for carry purposes, one might like a certain pistol caliber, but prefer the generally superior reliability of a revolver...

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44AMP
Quote:
revolver-caliber semi-autos are almost always quite expensive often costing 2-3 times as much as a comparable quality revolver or non-revolver caliber semi-auto.

Can't argue they aren't expensive, either. On the other hand, people regularly pay $2K+ for 1911s from "name" shops, so I don't think the price of a magnum autopistol (those still in production, anyway) is too out of line.

That's a valid point. I guess I'm just one of those people who's never been sophisticated enough to appreciate what a $2K+ 1911 will do for me that a $700-1000 one won't

They aren't a duty pistol, and they aren't a revolver. And it isn't fair to expect them to be either one. For me, one thing they have over the revolver is the shape of the grip, and the feel of the recoil. Much different from a revolver.

Getting the same power, and accuracy (and sometimes better accuracy) as a revolver, with a different grip and milder feeling recoil is, for me, worthwhile.

I don't consider a higher round count than a revolver to be a huge advantage, but it is nice. I put up with the bulk and complexity, compared to a revolver, for the feel a revolver doesn't give me shooting the same ammo.

OK, I can understand that. I've not shot many of the guns you have, so I'll take you word on it that they have a different feel.

And sometimes they have their uses, for me, at least. Best time I ever turned in shooting bowling pins was done with a .357 Desert Eagle. Second personal best was with a .44 Auto Mag. 5.36 seconds, 5 shots. No, not even good enough to place 3rd in that local match, but they didn't get to reuse those particular pins!

Fair enough, but I think we can probably agree that's a pretty specialized use.

They aren't for everyone and everyone isn't able to master them well, but I think they do have a place. I do like the recent Coonan ad, that says, "if you're looking for your first pistol, this ISN"T it!" or something like that...

I admit that I'm also intrigued by the Coonan as it's one of the only magnum semi-autos that seems very practical for my needs/wants. The thing of it is, I've only ever found a Coonan in stock once and, while I could have afforded it if I'd wanted it badly enough, there were/are other guns that pique my interest more.

If magnum semi-autos are your thing (and they obviously are) more the power to you. I know that my gun buying choices have drawn more that a few puzzled looks

[Model12Win]

I like the S&W 10mm revolvers.

.357 mag punch but reloads with moon clips, and the fatter shorter 10mm round go in a lot easier than those long skinny .357 rounds in .357 guns that can take moon clips.

Plus they can shoot .40 S&W which is super cool!

I think dedicated .45 ACP revolvers are neat as well, but they are especially cool if one has a .45 Colt revolver and also has a .45 ACP replacement cylinder for it ala Ruger special edition Vaqueros (I think) and blackhawks. MUCH cheaper to shoot factory .45 ACP than .45 Colt factory fodder and hits nearly as hard.

[Deja vu]

I only shoot revolver rounds for actual handguns rounds. I shoot the 357 magnum. I also have it in a few rifles. The 357 magnum is awesome both in the Desert Eagle and the Coonan. It is also great in my S&W 640 and 627. IT is also very mule deer capable in my Marlin and my Ruger 77/357 carbines. I also have a Derringer in 357 magnum. I also have a Silencer waiting on the ATF to approve that works in 357 magnum (liberty Mystic X)

If you only shoot 1 round then its always fun to get as many different kinds of guns as you can in that round.

[Sevens]

If you only shoot 14 different rounds then its always fun to get as many different kinds of guns as you can in those rounds.

I just wanted to quote this, adjusted to fit my style.

[orionengnr]

A lot of good replies here, which represent a lot of different experiences.

I bought and tried an M25 in .45acp once (a neat little 3 1/2" barreled thing, might-or-might-not have been a Jovino or similar). Shot great, carried pretty nice, and was about as handy as a revolver could be for reloading.

But I ended up selling it after about a year. Why?

1. I did not shoot it as well as a 3" alloy framed 1911.
2. It was a fair bit heavier and wider than said 3" 1911.
3. It held two fewer rounds than said 3" 1911, and (even with moon clips) was significantly slower to reload...and carrying moon clips in my pocket was an "is that a golf ball in your pocket or are you happy to see me?" proposition.

Going the other direction, I have been fascinated by the Coonan for quite a while and came within hand-on-the-wallet to buying an A model several years ago.

But again...why? I already have a 10mm 1911, which fires an equally potent round, carries one more round than the Coonan and has an actual 1911-sized grip.

So I've put my Coonan lust on hold until they build a .41 Mag version.

As far as revolvers shooting pistol cartridges...nah, I'm pretty sure my 4" .45LC Mountain Gun will give me adequate versatility, and I have a bunch of brass for it already...

[44 AMP]

There have been rumors of a prototype .41Mag Coonan for some time. So far, nothing on its production status.

I just did a quick check between my Coonan Model A and a Government Model 1911A1. Lined up muzzles even, the triggers are even, the slide height is even.

The Coonan slide is a bit under 1/2" longer, and the grip is 1/2" longer. Empty weight (no scale handy, sorry) the Coonan is slightly heavier than the 1911A1, but not hugely so.

SO, slightly heavier, and approximately 1/2" longer (5"barrel) and 1/2" taller than a full size 1911A1. AND it shoots the .357 Magnum.

I don't see that as a significant hindrance in doing anything one normally does with a full size 1911A1, and doing it with .357 Mag power. But, that's just me.
I will admit that the recoil in the Coonan is noticeably more than the .45 (or the 9mm) No idea how a compensated Coonan would feel, probably pretty nice...
I mention shooting magnum autos at bowling pins, simply because I did it once, as a stunt. More to have fun than anything else. Kind of like driving your pickup truck in a NASCAR race. No, you ain't gonna win, but you can have fun, and none of those race cars can carry what your truck can.

[BigJimP]

All good thoughts....

I also reload .....9mm, .40 S&W, .45 acp ....and .38 spl, .357 Mag and .44 Mag
and 12ga, 20ga, 28ga and .410 ... so ammo cost or availability is no big deal to me.

Getting a revolver in 9mm or .45 acp ...won't simplify anything like components for me...( because I'd still want a 9mm & .45 acp in a 1911, etc as well )...

So what works for me...is I tend to keep my collection of revolvers within traditional revolver calibers ... / and not mix them ( like a .45 acp revolver )...

But as an example...my wife looked in my safe a few months ago...and all of my S&W revolvers were lined up on shelves ( and she knows little to nothing about guns )...but she asked if they were all different - because they looked the same...( and there are about a dozen revolvers in .357 Mag...in model 19's, 27's, 28's, 66's, 686's -- and finishes in nickel, blued and stainless...and some round butt frames, mostly sq butt frames --- and barrel lengths in 2 1/2", 4" and 6"....) .....and she's right, they are all sort of the same...but in my mind they're very different....( and she doesn't really care ) ...she was just curious..../ and as I started to talk, she didn't get it ...nor will she ever...

but I think having traditional looking revolvers ...like the S&W model 25 or 625 ...in .45 acp / ....are kind of the same issue as why I have a dozen of them in .357 mag..../ it may not make a lot of sense to someone else, but it makes sense to the shooter that likes them in .45 acp....and cost of ammo, ammo availability, etc are not really part of the decision...