revolver vs. pistol

[USSR]

I'll take the 19. Oh, but it's a S&W, not a Glock.

Don

[rc]

Try the SP01CZ in your hand, then plunk down the cash. Done.

[pete2]

I pocket carry a 642 revolver. Bought an LC9, I shoot it slightly better than the 642. I can draw the 642 from my pocket, can't draw the LC9. Put my hand around the handle of the LC9 and can't get it out of my pocket. The fact that I can shoot it faster than the 642 is a moot point if I can't get it into action.
If I'm gonna use a holster, might as well carry the lightweight Commander or S&W 19.

[WV_gunner]

I like both and if I had the money I would have both. Years back I went to go buy a snub .38 but they had a Baby Eagle in 9mm for a pretty good deal. I’d like to find a H&R vest gun in 38 S&W. My Baby Eagle is nice but it’s close to the size of a 1911 and quite hefty. I almost never carry though. No permits required here but I live 15 minutes from another state, I’m either home or in a different state usually.

[PatientWolf]

I will limit my response to the calibers described in the OP.

In my case, the answer is both. Not at the same time, but if I am hiking where I may run into bear (yes, I know-bear spray), I prefer a .357. When I don’t expect to run into large 4-legged potential aggressors, I like the higher capacity of the 9mm pistol.

[Longhorn1986]

I don't think anyone has ever been in a life-threatening shooting situation and said "Gee, I wish I had something less powerful than my .357"

[Capt Rick Hiott]

,,,,Im wondering when they are gonna close this thread...…….

[K_Mac]

Capt Rick I'm guessing we are getting close.

Longhorn do you reckon there have been folks who have wished they were carrying a higher capacity handgun and would have happily traded their magic .357 revolver for a Glock? Your argument has little merit.

[Cosmodragoon]

I pocket carry a 642 revolver. Bought an LC9, I shoot it slightly better than the 642. I can draw the 642 from my pocket, can't draw the LC9. Put my hand around the handle of the LC9 and can't get it out of my pocket. The fact that I can shoot it faster than the 642 is a moot point if I can't get it into action.

If I'm gonna use a holster, might as well carry the lightweight Commander or S&W 19.

The revolvers are more of a smooth boomerang shape whereas the semi-autos are more of a hard L-shape. I think that's why the LCR and hammerless J-frames work better in pocket than the 9mm semi-autos. A good pocket holster helps to preserve orientation in addition to protecting the trigger guard and helping to limit sweat and lint exposure.

[Auto5]

My LCP with Magguts kit (7+1) has been seeing more frequent use than my 642 as of late for short errands. My EDC is still a Kimber Solo, but my camping gun is still a 3" SP101.
Not sure where I fit into any of these semi v. revolver threads.

[9mm]

Why not both? Glock 19 on hip, small ankle gun like a LCR 357

[O4L]

Right now I'm carrying a G43 and a S&W 640.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Oh, the Glock 19. Hands down.

[amd6547]

While I grew up liking and shooting auto pistols, I’ve come to rely upon a 3” GP100 for my home defense handgun.

[rodfac]

Surshot, great post...seems like for CC purposes, we civilians often get fixated on a defense scenario that includes distance from one's attackers...be it 3,5, 7, or 10 yards,...and neglect the greater likelihood of an extremely short range, body on body type attack.

This latter, in my opinion is where the revolver has a distinct edge. It's just more reliable for both the first shot as well as subsequent shots. No out battery stoppages, no failures to fire due to slide delay/interruption after contact with clothing or the attacker...etc. And I'll sum up by saying that in 50+ years of extensive use with both revolvers and autos from nationally recognized manufacturers, I can count the wheel-gun malfunctions on one hand....not so with the autos... YMMV, Rod

[Doc Holliday 1950]

This post was very well answered buy Sureshot & Rodfac & so many others. It's for these reasons & others that I posed the questions in the first place. Much to the dismay of a couple of responses just before this. If you are that bored, don't answer or try offering a knowledgeable response that most of us could use.

[RickB]

revolver has a distinct edge. It's just more reliable for both the first shot as well as subsequent shots.

There's little controversy in that statement.

If reliability prior to the necessity of a reload were the only requirement of a handgun, DA revolvers would still probably reign supreme for duty and carry use.

[rodfac]

If reliability prior to the necessity of a reload were the only requirement of a handgun, DA revolvers would still probably reign supreme for duty and carry use.

Maybe...but...I'd add that capacity, size of the grip for small stature'd shooters, unit costs, training to proficiency costs, and FBI transition to auto's due to the Miami? shootout played a greater role in the transition. Too, the influence of movie and TV use of handguns on a younger generation of shooters, plus the advent of shooting games slanted towards autos can't be discounted.

As always, the needs of the individual civilian shooter are paramount and he/she'll pick the one that fulfills those perceived needs...all of the above notwithstanding. That LEO's successfully made the transition, can't be argued, but some of them did so kicking and screaming all the way to the range!

YMMV, Rod

[jackstrawIII]

Give me a .357 revolver over any pistol. No magazine failures,ability to shoot mild to wild and a flatter trajectory for a long shot.

I mean no offense toward the original poster and you're more than welcome to your opinion, but I could not agree with this post any less and I think that this sort of mindset is reallllly out of date.

- When's the last time you've had a mag failure with a decent semi auto using decently new, decent quality mags?
- Why would you need to shoot mild loads? This is a self defense gun.
- Why would you need a flat trajectory for long shots? Long shots taken by a civilian against other human beings is no no.

Conversely, the advantages of a semi auto are many:

- Greater capacity (in most cases)
- Better triggers (in most cases)
- Easier to conceal (in most cases)
- Quicker reloads (in most cases)

That's my opinion, at least

[Cosmodragoon]

- Easier to conceal (in most cases)

This is generally true with full-sized guns but there is a place in the spectrum where revolvers can still shine. Compare the LCR or a hammerless J-frame to the smaller 9mm guns like a Shield or PPS. The revolvers are generally easier for me to pocket carry due to shape. Yes, the semi can get smaller with .380 but with .357 magnum or the more shootable .327 Federal offering so much more power in pocket size, I think revolver gets the win.

Of course, when I can carry a full-sized gun I almost always choose semi-auto. With high-capacity options available in .357 Sig and 10mm, I have a hard time justifying my old steel .357 wheel guns for woods carry these days. If I lived in a place with big bears, I might choose a big-bore revolver for woods carry. I don't.

[peacefulgary]

Glock 19 all the way.

[Auto5]

My EDC is a semi auto, but during the cold winter months I sometimes slip a 642 into the my coat or jacket pocket. Put me out in the woods, though, and it's a revolver all the time.

[jr24]

In a less than 3" barrel I find the .357 mag less impressive than 4 or more. Plus so much louder and heavier recoil.

For defense against 2 legged critters I'll take 9mm every day. In the woods my go to is .357 mag with a 4"+ barrel.

[USSR]

In a less than 3" barrel I find the .357 mag less impressive than 4 or more. Plus so much louder and heavier recoil.

And that's exactly why I shoot the .38 +P FBI Load in my 2.5 inch Model 19, along with the fact that the .38 brass extracts easier than .357 brass, what with it's shorter ejector rod.

Don

[craddleshooter]

I shoot both and have always found I shoot the revolvers more precisely, from a pure accuracy standpoint. My revolver groups are always tighter, and thats shooting them DAO. Thats not saying the autos are slackers either.

I think the reason I shoot tighter with the revolvers is, Im focusing harder on the sights and holding their alignment while I stroke the trigger.

Shooting both more reactively, I really dont see a whole lot of difference in the hits on target, until the range starts to open up. At that point, the revolvers again, seem to do better.

I think the more you handle and get used to the auto, things will settle down, and youll see improvement. Dry fire is your friend too, and will likely accelerate things here too. Pay more attention to the sights, and less to the trigger when you are shooting.

As with anything, you only get better and progress, as well as maintain your skills, through constant practice.