Why Not?

Submitted by Eric Daniel

Jason posted this comment a while back on my “What is a Combat Handgun?” entry.

When I got out I worked personal security for individuals.  I had to take 3 levels of firearms qualification classes.  Even with my experience several of my instructors asked me to try the revolver (yes I am going there)

I was skeptical.  But in their opinions (all were similar), if I got the **** scared out of me I would be more accurate with a revolver.  I went to a gun shop after doing some research and picked up a S&W Model 66.  Stainless steel, .357 Magnum, and adjustable sights.  Night sights too.

I started practicing with it every night for about an hour during my courses and would shoot both types of firearms.  No question I could get two in the chest and a head shot (had to unlearn that per my instructors, though...) even when worked up (we did push ups, sit ups and ran in place and then went into shooting scenarios and drills at the sound of a whistle).

In my very few engagements I felt 100% better with the revolver.  Stainless steel doesn't rust and conceals nicely when not in use.  Speed loaders are exceptionally fast to load when taught the right technique.  And a .357+P hollow point round will mess the BG up.

Besides aren't almost all of these engagements where you switched to a pistol for whatever reason CQB.  You are going to end up stabbing the BG in the head or chest anyway when the gun is empty, so reloading is unlikely.

I know the instructors who taught me had rarely seen statistics that involved a successful engagement between two combatants where the winner (good or bad) had fired many more than 3-6 rounds.  Anything with more shots than that fired usually involved one or more of the combatants retreating and looking for cover with someone or both wounded.  All instructors (to my best recollection) had fired their handguns successfully as I remember.  That is what made me pay such good attention.

Jason’s comment got me to thinking.

“Why not?” 

Fine, revolvers, as battlefield weapons went out of style in the American army a century ago (surviving until recently as aircrew holdout weapons) and they don’t carry as many bullets as modern automatics go (6 v. 15) but is the revolver really that bad as a defensive firearm when compared with an automatic?

I would think, from a purely layman perspective, that revolvers would have a number of things going for them, as a mass-produced, mass-issued defensive firearm. 

Firstly, they are reliable.  Yes, I know that most properly maintained military-grade weapons are reliable, but I would think that a revolver would have an advantage over an automatic in that it has fewer moving parts and it’s operation isn’t dependent upon the effective transfer of energy (be the slide gas or recoil operated.)  There’s no energy to be lost, no slide to bind, no failures to extract, eject, or feed.  In short, if you can get the hammer to fall, the weapon should function as advertised.  Hell, even if you get a misfire, there’s no SPORTS to perform, you just pull the trigger again. 

Secondly, they are durable.  Again, I’m not saying that automatics are not durable, but I would think, especially when compared with a polymer-slided auto, the all-metal revolver has a longer working life.  Now, to clarify further, when I mean durable, I mean 30-50 years durable.  My issue .45 was 40 years old for Pete’s sake.  Yes, I think modern firearms are, for the most part, well built and will provide years of service, but I do believe there’s a difference between a sportsman who uses the same handgun for target practice for 10 years and a weapon that gets issued to soldiers for field duty over a 30 year period; in general the Army pistol will see more abuse and have a poorer maintenance program, so “soldier-proof” weapons are a big plus (now before all you out there bag on me about dissing “your” weapon maintenance habits, you’ll notice I didn’t mention you by name, so I wasn’t talking about you.)  How many police officers us hand me down weapons that old, or stick with the dame duty weapon for that period of time?  Durability would also translate to maintenance costs as well.  With fewer moving parts, there would be fewer parts to replace over the life of the weapon, though this might be negated by the cost of having to replace a barrel (I’ve never replaced a revolver barrel, mind you, but it’s got to be harder to do than swapping out one in an automatic) but then, on the flip side, there are no magazines or magazine springs to replace either. 

Finally, there are the politics and training considerations.  Revolvers are double action only weapons (okay, sure, if we brought back the Colt SAA, we’d have a cool single-action handgun in .45 Colt, but I don’t see that happening) which means that they are politically more palatable than are SA weapons (which also dovetails well with the fact that a revolver only has 6 bullets rather than 15.)  Mind you, I’m not saying that this is a good thing, or that it is even appropriate to entertain such considerations when selecting a piece of life saving equipment, but nonetheless, the fact remains that it does happen, and so it would be a consideration.  In addition, in the one-size-fits-all category, a revolver would have the advantage over all the double stacked autos out there, and with the case of the .38 special/.357 magnum combination, you’d even have the added bonus of issuing different rounds if you wanted to (yes the same could be said of automatics, but to get an automatic to function reliably with either a different cartridge or lower powered cartridge you’d need to swap out some parts to account for the change in slide operating recoil.)  Also in the ammunition realm is the discussion of anything other than ball type ammunition.  Since we are never going to use anything other than ball ammunition (at least until personal linear accelerators come out) in the rank-and-file military, comparing .357 JHP to .45 WC to .460 Nitro Express is pointless and non-productive.  Again, I’m not saying this is a good thing, but it is something that those in power seem to focus on, so it’s worth mentioning.

All this having been said, however, there are a number of huge, real world, realities that a revolver would have to overcome in order to get selected. 

First, there is the dearth of revolver ammunition in the military supply system, which is to say there’s none at all.  Before we all started shooting our new wheel guns, we’d need some bullets to shoot first (no, I don’t see the Army adopting a 9x19mm revolver, though given how things have been going of late in procurement, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.)  I also realize that there’d be the issue of overall effectiveness. 

Second, all those revolvers would have to be purchased, and those purchases mean money.  This issue is further compounded by the fact that revolvers, at least on the free market, appear to be more expensive than automatics (I came to this conclusion by looking at the MSRP for a variety of “stock” handguns, so it is more an anecdotal conclusion than a scientific one) and that there wouldn’t be any commonality offsets associated with the new purchase, meaning a S&W Model 60 and a Beretta 92 FS are not going to have anything in common.  This means that all those Berettas still on the books would need to find a home in someone else’s army.

Thirdly, there is the fact that revolvers are, well… old.  While this has absolutely no bearing on the actual merits of the item in question (you’ll notice farriers still use an anvil and hammer for shaping horseshoes, devices introduced in the early Bronze Age (3300 BC)) in today’s, “it’s gotta be digital, carbon fiber, and Land Warrior compatible” world, revolvers are looked down upon as being less advanced than automatics, and therefore less effective and ultimately less desirable.  Also, as mentioned, while there are very few things that can go wrong with or wear out on a revolver, the things that do wear out, like the barrel, are big-ticket maintenance items.  Given the Army’s tolerances for equipment wear, and the relative ease of replacing worn parts on an automatic, the revolver, over the long haul, might be the less effective of the two options.  There is also the issue of weight.  Hands down, revolvers, especially when compared with polymer automatics, are significantly heavier than automatics.  Is that weight difference a deal breaker though?

That all having been said, where are we now?  Personally I would want a weapon that was firstly reliable (if it doesn’t work, what good is it) secondly effective (the purpose of the weapon is to kill or disable the target, not piss it off) and thirdly is everything else; size (smaller is better) capacity (6 v. 15.) and ergonomics (how well does it fit in my hand (allowing for custom grips would be a nice touch) with political considerations last of all.  Would I personally select a revolver over an automatic?  I don’t know, but I certainly not opposed to the idea and wouldn’t frown upon a good .357 S&W if that were what the Army issued me.

Comments

[Larry]

model 97 12ga pump w/ extended tube. alternating double ott and dimes.

[Col. T. Rust]

I gotta tell ya, I've been carrying a 1911 for close to 35 years, but in all that time, in nearly every situation, there has been a revolver tucked away someplace "JUST IN CASE". A S&W M-40 is just perfect for summer carry of duty in killer heat, and tucks very nicely into a jumpsuit pocket along with a aircrew shoulder holster for the .45! Lately though, I have been backing up the old warhorse with a short barrel "N" frame with +p 357's.

And just for notice, in a fight I have usually emptied the mag on the .45 to slidelock when the heat got real high. yeah, t may only be 7=8=9 rounds, but flying pierplates non the less.

Aim High

USAF

[Billy]

Are soldiers allowed to bring revolvers along with them (In addition to the Army issue) if they choose to?

[dave]

The article about revolvers is all true. My Security Six, bought in 1978, has never required a gunsmith to repair - a claim that my custom 1911 can't make.

However, I have one handicap that makes them a "six shots and then throw it away" proposition - I am left handed.

There is no way for a lefty to reload most revolvers without transferring it to the right hand. During that transfer, neither hand has a firm grip and it is quite possible to fumble or drop the thing under stress.

Therefore, I carry a revolver in the back country but reach for my 1911 for defense.

[Dave]

As a soldier (first time) I carried a 1911 Colt. As a cop, I carried S&W Mod. 19 and 686 .357 revolvers, followed by Sig P226, Glock 9mm, Kimber .45, and Glock .40. I'm retired, so now carry a compact .45 ACP Glock. My USAR CID issue is a 9mm Sig P228. I've had a fair amount of experience with both revolvers and semi-auto pistols, and agree with the author's premise that a .357 revolver would be a satisfactory military sidearm, compared with the 9mm issue handgun. Revolvers are generally heavier, and speedloaders are more cumbersome and bulky. The key flaw in the argument is that the 9mm round, esp. military ball ammo, is a poor performer when compared to the .45 ACP. If the military returns to the .45 cal. handgun,(rumors persist that this'll happen relatively soon) that'd pretty much rule out a return to revolvers.

[Phil]

The revolver had its history and still has a good future!!
Besides its better than throwing stones!!

[Chris Smith]

I myself am not a revolver kind of guy. I have shot many calibers of revolvers though. My main thing is I do not like the way the feel in my hands. A pistol feels, so more secure in my hand. Yes I realize that autos have more moving parts. I have seen revolvers not function either do to being dirty. Either they would not fire, and or the cylinder would not function. Yes the 9mm is a joke. I wanted to throw mine in the water anytime we were doing boardings. Luckily the CoastGuard wised up, and went with a .40. That's all you really need. On the other hand a .38 snuby makes a good back up gun. In my opinion it all comes down to prefrence. Any unmaintained weapon will fail. Also adding into consideration user eror when under stress.

[Ulf Joronen]

Revolvers work, and with practice are fine weapons.

That being said, for some folks the typically rounded handle of a hog leg does not fit well in the hand, nor does the wrist position lend itself to "off sides" shooters who are right handed, but left eye dominant.

There is some evidence that the same round will come out of the same length barrel automatic somewhat faster, yielding more range and downrange impact energy. This is due to the direct coupling of the chamber and the barrel.

I am one of those oddballs who actually liked the 9mm Beretta. Not counting the occasional (and typical) empty magazine stovepipe jams, I only had it jam once due to a split casing. Say what you will about a 9mm, but I have never had a round bounce off a forehead.

As a civilian I still use a modified and accurized Taurus PT-99 to good effect, though this design is not so good in the close quarters typical in modern law enforcement / personal protection service.

Your mileage will vary. This is a fact of life and any opinion must be verified with your own experience before this opinion can be trusted in combat. As my old sergeant used to say "Do what works and make the other guy pay for his error in judgment."

[B.Holzrichter]

I carried a Colt S.A.A. for over thirty years and still have it. I also have a D.A. Colt revolver in .45 "long Colt" (the same cartridge) Until the advent the .44 mag. there was nothing that could penetrate the horn boss of a ticked off bull or cow. The mag is uncontrollable except in the hands of an expert. The Colt though is equipped with a four inch bar. and I with the old S.A.A. and the D.A. have beaten all comers with auto's and super tuned comp. revolvers. A few hundred K's of rounds helps of course!! Revolvers almost never cause accidents and if a person is left handed buy Ayoobs Stress Fire book there is a technique for using speed loaders in there that works!! I am a southpaw too.

Big bullets make people fall down...NOW!!!

[John L Peterson US Army (ret)]

Anyone who doubts the combat capability of the modern revolver should read Jim Cirillo's book,he survived something like 15 or 20 firefights while serving on the NYPD stakeout squad and he was armed with a mod 10 S&W most of the time,a 38 special at that! I carried a mod 10 most of the time in Nam as a back-up to a carbine,I have used one in combat and found it to be very effective.Limited only by the speed of reloading(we didn't have "speedloaders" available back then)now there is available from S&W an eight-that is "8" shot model 627 in .357Magnum with a 5.5" barrel and speedloaders are available for it.I would go into battle anywhere,anytime armed with one. With a 5.5" barrel the 357 will kill out to a hundred yards the M9 will not.Nor any other 9mm for that matter.Well possibly the Sig P210?? Revolvers have not gone by the wayside as some would have us believe,they are alive and doing quite well.Some LE Officers are carrying them again-surprise,surprise.And many are converting to 1911 style 45 cal. because the 9mm "Wonder Guns" have turned out to be B.S. BUT!! Having said all that,it is still primarily a matter of personal choice,and there is certainly something to be said when a trend is reversed and older tried and true weapons make a comback.

[KertP]

While I love revolvers, and think a N-Frame S&W revolver, such as the Model 327 TRR8 would be perfect, I also realize that it isn't going to happen. The military considers a sidearm to be superficial and unnecessary as a weapon. The primary use of the M9 these days is as a status symbol amongst the locals. Don't get me wrong, I carried the M1911A1 for half of my military career, and would have gladly kept it instead of accepting the M9. And, unlike a custom, tricked-out M1911, the Government one actually worked 100% of the time. I don't know about the M9, but mine never failed. Then again, I never had to use my M9 in combat...
Having said all that, I would prefer a M1911 if given the choice. If not that, then I would take M327 TRR8. Why the M1911 over the revolver? Because carrying extra magazines is much easier that carrying speedloaders for a revolver - any revolver.
Don't hold you breath for the military to adopt a revolver as standard issue. Before that happens, you would more likely see them return to officers being allowed to carry their own POW with approved ammo.

[Jess]

Revolvers,

Lord knows I love my K and N frames and my webley is smoother than a good bourbon but comparing police work using revolvers and military operations is like apples and oranges.

Here are the issues off the top of my head:

1.) Ergonomics, as was stated lefties would have a problem. And shooters with different sized hands. How much additional time and training would they need, and is it there? Money and time are two things that are ALWAYS in SHORT SUPPLY in the military training schedule.

2.) Revlver for CQB work, for police it is okay, they may have one room of badguys or one house and they have a whole police force usualy outside to back them up. A military unit well you may be on the other side of town, or have to clear a whole house of badies, and have more in the next room. Basicaly in a combat enviroment the chances of having to need more than 6 rounds is greater than police work.

3.) Commonality of ammo with NATO. It started with the 7.62X51 or .308, then the 5.56, and we in the 80s relented and went with the 9mm thus allowing for a standardized ammo with our allies. It would such if we were operating and had to resupply from allied forces and lo and behold they didn't have any .38 ammo, what to do then?

4.) Rounds used durring an engagement, it is common in police and military to not keep track of the rounds used in action. Often police will empty their magazine when they think they fired just a round or two. Fog of war does that.

5.) Weight, it is a factor. If you are humping 100lbs of gear up a hill then yes weight does matter. So does bulk. And all but the smallest stubbie tends to be a touch bulky, whereas an autoloader is more streamlined and usualy have a thinner profile which is a comfort issue which can be a factor in operations.

6.) Training, the need to develope a new training regimen as well as revamping the TO&E as to who gets what and how much when it comes to a wheelgun.

7.) Supply train, contracts, testing and aquisition so how do they determine what wheelgun is the new sidearm, how long before testing is complete, and how much longer before they are available in suficient numbers to actualy issue to any units?

Those are some of the items off the top of my head. Now, if you are asking me why not adopt a standard issue snubby as a hold out for each trooper as a last ditch weapon then sure, a five shot snubbie will have a low profile, light weight to be carried without much problem, and as a last ditch weapon the engagement ranges would be zero to about three meters so accuracy at distance wouldn't be the overriding factor.

Oh yeah, revolvers are prone to damage in the following areas:

some smith models have the habit of the cylinder release comming loose.

the ejector rod becomes bent making it very difficult to operate.

Firing pin on the smith models with the fixed pin on the hammer wearing or breaking.

Cylinder comming out of timming making it not line with the forcing cone so the weapon is out of battery.

Forcing cone gets gummed up with dirt or carbone making the weapon hang up and basicaly jam.

And one near and dear to my heart, on some revolvers or with some ammo slivers of the projectile can be sheared off as it fired and goes through the forcing cone into the barrel often sending them to the man on the left or the right i have had it happen more than once.

Oh, yeah, revolvers also tend to have a louder report and a larger muzzleflash than autoloaders.

[ROBERT GIFT]

I have a Taurus 357 mangum ultra-lite and by far it is more accurate and so easy to conceal. It is my choice over a S&W 40 or 9MM that I have. I also have a 380ACP semi liteweight that is extremely accurate for a pocket size weapon. I vote revolver.

[Ken Irvine]

Well everyone has an oppinion and most seem to make good sense since some don't like the auto and some don't like the revolver! The long and short of it is 2 things first the 1911 has seen action in every major operation we were in it is reliable and does what you want it to do put the chump on the ground and keeps him there! The 357 will also put him on the ground but you'll have all the tree huggers and it's inhuman treatment screaming their lungs out because it's a magnum! So why not stay with the weapon that has been around for close to 100 years keep the 1911 in service!

[Leonard]

No firearm is any good if you don't know how to use it! A 12 Gauge with double-0 if you can't hit anything. An automatic with a 15-round clip if you occasionally hit. A revolver if you know where your shots are going. Just look at the news and their reporting of shootouts. "Police fire 50 rounds at suspect." "Suspect hit twice, receiving minor injuries." There are times for "spray and pray", but more occasions when a single shot is much more appropriate.

[DanB]

Seems that this argument has been going on for a long time. And I love it! I enjoy both types of pistolas. I suppose if I just wanted to "look cool", I'd want a Colt SAA 45 LC in my hand. No better hand cannon in the world. But, my Colt 1911 in 45 ACP is what I worked with, and still keep around for personal protection. In any case...Shoot well, and shoot OFTEN. Enjoy the debate people, and on the streets in the USA, or the badlands of Iraq, be safe!

[Jeff82]

Revolvers can't be maintained (speaking of higher than operator) in the field like semi-autos can. Most revolver parts require some amount of handfitting to get them to operate properly. This requires specialized training and tools. So there won't be any "drop in" part swaps. Revolvers can't take the same level of abuse and still function. If a semi and a revolver are tested equally the semi will operate longer than the wheelie. Nothing else really matters at that point.

[Gordon]

I'll take a weapon that holds the most ammo. Quick loads on a revolver are okay but it is much easier to just slip a clip into a pistol ala the .45...

I'm also left handed and found a clip loaded weapon much easier and quicker to reload and still do in civilian life. And there were a few times in Nam when my M-60 would jam while under fire (I was a crew chief on 34's) and I used my trusty .45 1911 and a .45 Grease Gun just so I could continue throwing some fire out there...know it was far from accurate but many times the enemy was right next door in an LZ.

Based upon my own combat experiences, I vote for clip loaded pistola's.

S/F to all of my fellow Marines here.

Gordo

[Wiccanwolf]

I have used the M-1911a1 when I was in the Army back from 1972 - 1982. It was a reliable weapon, accurate at close range and would settle an argument with 1 or 2 rounds. While the M-92 9mm fiasco you have to use most of the rounds in the magazine just to drop one enemy.

Now about a revolver, I am partial to the .357 magnum with hollow points. The revolver is a good weapon, but, alas, it carries only 6 rounds. Still if one knows how to accurately shoot, that can put down 4 -6 enemy, then to reload.

Now if you have to break out a hand gun in a tight situation ,your defenses have been seriously breached. Then close quarter fighting is just that face to face knife to knife and an ugly brawl to say the least.

A revolver is better than nothing, but make it a "Man Breaker", like a .357 magnum or a .44 Magnum, not a wimpy 9mm!

[KenS&W.357]

My S&W.357 is the only handgun I will carry. It is well balanced, shoots true, and is not politically correct.

[Jeff Dulin]

Don't be silly. When the world goes back to Moslen-Negants & Krag's,... I'll consider a wheel gun,... but not for long.

Long live the 1911-A1 and someone should hang the guy that decided it need to be "fixed" by replacing it with the M-9.

JD

[Willie Aguayo]

The military will never leave the automatic. Remember during inspections how you slid the mag out pulled the slide back and held the auto and mag in your hand. You would not look sharp doing that with a revolver. They have to keep up the tradition of looking good.

[DC]

I have to say that I was skeptical at first (when learning how to use a revolver), however, the accuracy and reliability of a revolver is second to none. My personal chioce of handgun is the Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum. It is very accurate and I can empty all 6 rounds inside of 6 seconds with accuracy at 25 yards. I would use my S&W 9mil as backup only.

[Jerry G]

I believe it was S&W who recent created a .357 Magnum revolver for police SWAT.

The rationale is the shield man runs the risk of having the slide of the semi-auto pistol hit the shield, jamming the pistol.

The new revolver is an eight-shot handgun with the formidable .357 Magnum round, giving it more rounds that the standard M1911-type .45 caliber pistol.

Carrying the shield, if there is a misfire of the revolver, just pull the trigger again. No TAP, RACK, SQUEEZE needed.

[SSG LEM]

Nothing will replace a well maintained M1911 .45 ACP that has an operator/shooter well versed in placing rounds in a tight shot group at 25 yards
on a combat shoot & maneuver course.
Maintenance in environments like Vietnam, Iraq & AFGN is crucial for any firearm. STOPPING power is crucial for a side arm in a "up close & personal" tactical situation. My confidence level the few times I had to convoy in the Delta back in 1971 was always better with a .45 strapped on my flak jacket.
A 30 round clip in the M-16 and that
old Colt pistol broadcasted loud and clear I meant business to the locals in the villages we drove by on those missions.
The old Marine gunnies never let go of them for a reason. They are world class weapons like the venerable M1919A2 .50 cal machine gun.