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.

[professor]

If you look in a gun annual, you will find at least two examples of "duty" revolvers that have more than six rounds. We're talking seven and eight here. But, they are both .357, and since ball ammo is mandated, why shoot something that won't get the job done? Go for a .45 cal with moon clips for extraction. There are a few makers of these platforms. What was good for the trenches of WWI and the beaches of WWII, could be just as good for today's soldiers. The revolver is easier to teach, maintain, is more reliable, and .45 in ball does more damage than 9mm in ball. But, I don't see it ever happening, so it's a hypothetical question.

[Conan]

Having "invited" an NVA trooper to leave my fighting position after being persuaded with one shot from my 1911 45 ACP... I truly know the knockdown power of this weapon orginaly conceived as a trench fighting weapon. Gimme the 45 and a few clips as a back-up weapon in a fight.

[Gene Vandiver]

I have always relied on a 357 mag revolver. Still a 1911 has always been a choice too.

[Jeff the Baptist]

"First, there is the dearth of revolver ammunition in the military supply system, which is to say there’s none at all."

Not quite true. The Navy Seals use stainless .357 revolvers in some boarding operations. They take salt water baths better than automatics. The Air Force might still have .38s in its inventory that are left over from before it adopted the m9. I believe some pilots are still issued them.

[Peter]

So, while there are some considerable opportunities to be gained with the use of a revolver, there are opportunities lost as well.

Namely: Sound Suppression

There was only one, I think it was Russian, revolver that was actually silenced, and that was due to its unique cartridge and hand-crafted suppressor.

Where as the auto has a number of muzzle attachments that are easy to attach, while keeping a front sight. If a revolver were to have a threaded barrel for attachments, then the front sight would be useless.

Just my .02

[JJM]

The author comment stainless steel won't rust, but it will! Being in Hawaii, I have seen many S&W/Ruger revolvers rust. The advantage of stainless steel is that it doesn't rust through. Durability of a S&W revolver? Overrated! How can I can claim this? Well having worked as a range/gun shop manager for over 7 years/ 6 days a week, Ive seen my fair share of firearms. The 686/629 series were just horrible when it came to durability. An excellent revolver that was tough was the Ruger GP100/Redhawks. Ugly and bulky, yes, but they could take abuse! For those who claim their guns are tough, you are not shooting enough rounds through them! We cleaned our guns once a week, and they were going through 1000's of rounds each a week! I could go on and on about firearms. The worst one though is the Beretta 92FS. But moving on the main point. One of the reasons why the military/police switched to a high capacity semi-auto is obvious due to ammo count and shooter abilities. It's much faster and reassuring to most shooters knowing they have the ability to reload easier/faster with more rounds(up to 8 in a revolver/up to 30 in some semis). Its much easier to teach a beginner student to reload an auto quickly, especially under stress, then a revolver. Now some will say, what about speedloaders? Well, would you rather be carrying mags that are tucked in close to your body or speedloaders that bulge out? Now lets get to why the military carries a 9mm and not the .45/.357 mag. For one, most military personnel will be lucky to even go to the range once a year. As a former Marine marksmanship instructor teaching the 9mm Beretta and M-16, I know firsthand why we use the 9mm. When it comes to the rifle, most will agree the average Marine is very proficient with it. However, you put a pistol in their hand, and everything goes to hell. Now for shooters with a lot of range time, the 9mm is a baby compared to a .45 ACP. For the average serviceman/woman .45 Colt was too much to handle. When under stress, it was very hard to control and master, especially for those who only got a day to learn it and maybe a few days during the year to be proficient. Sure most of us can shoot well at stationary target, or even those moving across. But for the average pistol shooter in the military, the 9mm is much easier to handle and be proficient with then a .45ACP or 357 Mag, especially when they don't practice much with it. Now, lets put an average shooter under stress by giving him a time limit, shooting/loading while on the move at spinning, rotating, twirling targets(IPSC/IDPA type matches) and I bet over 85% will fail, even with the 9mm. In combat, the average soldier will not be calmly shooting at standing targets without some form of stress.The decision makers at the top see this and this is the main reason why the 9mm is issued. To put a revolver in the average shooter's hand and expect him to hit something with only 6-8 rounds while running, under immense stress, and shooting at moving targets that are trying to kill him, is just plain craziness! Oh, and tell him to reload the revolver every 5-10 seconds also! Of course, some will not agree with what I say. Actually I support the .45ACP fully, (it is the main pistol caliber I use for IPSC matches), but only in the hands of operators who practice constantly, and I don't mean at stationary targets, but stress inducing/problem solving IPSC type competitions. Some of my friends who were former special operators told me this is one of the best ways to practice with a firearm that involves induced stress and problem solving. I know because I would go with them to matches and just stare in amazement at how fast they could blaze through a course, effectively. For the average serviceman/woman the 9mm is the best for their skill level. I did some competition shooting as a Marine, so I was fortunate to have a lot more range time then the average Marine. I used to think I was untouchable! But when I went to my first IPSC match, that world of mine came tumbling down quickly. It was like starting all over again! Shooting under stress is very different, sometimes you don't even have time to aim with your sights, then compared to typical target shooting which is aim, hold breath, take my time, slowly squeeze the trigger. The truth is, to be the master of your weapon, you need to constantly practicing under all types of shooting scenarios. At the peak of my IPSC matches, I was going through at least 8-10,000 rounds a week, practicing 5-6 times a week! However, many of us can't due to cost or time. So my word of advice from over 10 years of teaching and watching people shoot as well as managing a gun shop,if you wanna know how well a particular firearm will work, use it in a scenario that requires you to use it while under immense stress. Go out and try a IPSC or IDPA match with your favorite sidearm. Learn to use your firearm in all types of conditions, scenarios, shoot offhand, weak side, kneeling, prone, on your back,load one handed, the list goes on. Many of you will learn quickly why the military and most major police departments use a 9mm/.40SW semiautomatic. We can all sit here and talk about which one is superior for combat or home defense, but to actually partake in a stress induced scenario in different positions and see the reality of things will open up our minds a lot more! I'm not here to offend anyone,especially those who support using a revolver, I'm just sharing what I have learned through many years with firearms.

[Robert Cowger]

I carried a 32 Colt for 25 years working for the Fed Govt.
In all of that time, I never had to use it but one time and it was much better than a 45 APC and deadly accurate. The 32 is light weight, easy to handle and hold down the trigger and fan the hammer and you get automatic fire without recoil throwing everything off target.
I have a small hand and the big boom of a 357 hurts and the second shot is often off target.

[Brise Bickerton]

My carry piece is aRuger 101. It is always ready for action and safe to have on hand.

[Scott Drumm]

The durability of a revolver is questionable when you take into consideration typical military usage environments involving mud and sand. I have seen revolvers completely seize up (the cylinder fails to rotate) after brief exposure to these elements.

Yes, the revolver is an excellent weapon - especially for home defense. But there are too many crevices and tightly toleranced regions for this weapon to perform well on the modern battlefield.

[Kevin]

To be honest, I like both automatics and revolvers. When I am out "in the back country", I like my .357. I am very accurate with it and I usually have time to take a shot. The need for second and third rounds are minimal. However, when in combat, I like have more rounds to put down range. I never came up short, but it would sure suck if you do. I do not like the 9mm, it doesn't have the knock down power. My opinion is to do away with the 9mm and go back to a .45 or switch to the .40. As for going back to the 1911, as much as I like mine, I think we could find a newer model and designs.

[Kid Stevens]

I was issued a 1911 in 1973. I bought my Ruger Security Six 357 8 years later, The Security 6 had a six inch barrel and was about the lightest revolver you could buy. Six torso hits in under 6 seconds and 12 in under 30 with a speedy loader. I did not buy it for nice groups even my 1911 was not good for nice groups. I bought it for fast reaction and destructive power. This is where it excelled. The 45 ACP knocked targets down but the 357 Magnum tore them up. Shooting a pair of steel toed boots from 30 feet. The hot loaded 45 ACP ball ammo bounced and dented he toe. My 357 146 grain flat nosed FMJ snapped the other boots toe in two and tore it out of the boot. This was at the same initial velocity from both guns.

The 9mm is in my opinion worthless for destructive power. The 357 could crack a cast iron engine block at 50 feet after going through the outer and inner fender. The 9mm and the 45 ACP marked the cast iron block on the same desert(ed) car.

I carried my 357 as backup in a combat hand gun course and when I gout out of the mud my 357 worked and my 45 did not!

[Bull Jones]

A lot has been said both for and against the old revolver. However, for me it comes down to what one is MOST comfortable with and MOST accurate with in all types of situations. For me, it is the single action revolver. My day-to-day CCW weapon is the Ruger New Vaquero in .45 Colt, (which replaced a Ruger Blackhawk in same caliber). I've been shooting SAA's & clones for over thirty years and they are second nature to me. The one and only time I ever HAD to draw my weapon I can promise that the target of my ire was just as impressed with the old hogleg as he would have been with a 1911 (which I am very fond of as well)or a high-cap 9mm. More than that, had I been forced to pull the trigger I KNOW I would have hit my target with round #1 and seriously doubt that round #2 would have been necessary.

[Fred Brown]

"The Navy Seals use stainless .357 revolvers in some boarding operations."

Jeff the Baptist beat me to it, but I was going to mention the afternoon I got to spend training with the Seal pistols and how well they handled...

So there is some revolver ammo out there.

[Byron Myers]

There's no substitute for caliber. I had to shoot a guy once with a .38; lunged him, and HE GOT UP. I had to stop a man -- a big guy -- with a thigh shot with a .45ACP round from a S&W revolver. He didn't need killing but did need stopped. He fell down WHAP, folded his hands in prayer and begged me for his life. You choose.

[ke4sky]

A DA revolver chambered in 9mm NATO or .45 ACP using full-moon type clips for rapid reloading is a viable copmbat option. When I worked at Ruger in the 1980s we made thousands of 9mm revolvers for the French. S&W still makes the J-frame model 942 which ideal for concealed carry and will handle NATO ammunition. The S&W Model 625 in .45 ACP is designed for the CQB close-in personal defense role. Revolvers are more natural pointers and faster to get off the first shot than most auto pistols. For anyone contemplating a revolver who hasn't been trained to use one either at the FBI Academy or the Embassy Guard school at Quantico, I recommend the two books "Bullseyes Don't Shoot Back" by Col. Rex Applegate, and "The Snubby Revolver" by Ed Lovette.

[Jeff the Baptist]

"Where as the auto has a number of muzzle attachments that are easy to attach, while keeping a front sight..."

Revolvers are almost impossible to silence because of the gasses escaping from the barrel-cylinder gap. The exceptions is the Nagant which is designed to seal this gap just prior to firing.

That said, threaded barrels on pistols are overrated. If you start hanging heavy accessories off of a pistol barrel (like a silencer), most of them will stop functioning properly. This is because the barrel of most semi-automatics moves when the gun cycles. Browning actions tilt, the M9 slides back and forth, etc. You can't stick a bunch of weight on the end and expect the gun to cycle properly.

[Richard Turgeon]

In response to the question as to the relivance of revolvers for personal defense. It is my humble opinion that a revolver is better than no firearm at all. That being said, I have carried both, a .38 snubby as well as a 1911 style pistol. If push came to shove, the .45 would win out every time. The round is slow but accurate and packs a big punch. A hit in any part of the body results in an immidiate flooring of the attacker, not so with the .38. A well placed hit with the .38 can stop an attacker cold, but the .45, given the same location of the hit would incapacitate most anyone.
I know this from experience and tried to sway law enforcement away from 9mm when it was the big rage 20 years ago. Remember why the .45 was adopted by the military, in the first place. If you don't know, do some research. Not a great deal of difference between a .357 and a 9mm as far as impact, they both tend to overpenitrate and involve collateral damage to innocents. .45 wins out there too. I suppose that not much else can be said about the value of .45 acp. Thanks to John M. Browning, whose legascy lives on.

[Tommy]

I've personally always preferred the revolver to the autos. But lets face it in battle, the autoa are better. For home defense, I would say a revolver. There you're looking at one or up to 3 targets. In battle you're looking at multiple targets. It's kinda like a bolt action rifle. You may be able to be more accurate, but when you got a lot of angry people comin at ya, more ammo less reloading is better.

[james koshu]

I was a combat vet in Nam 1967-68, and besides my M-16, I carried my own personal .38 caliber 2 inch, that I picked off a dead viet cong. He more than likely got it from a US Officer. When I got out I carried wheel guns on duty as deputy, private investigator, I have owned automatics, and have had stove pipes occasionally at the range, so I prefer carrying a wheel gun.

[Wendell W. Croom]

I work in a retail gun shop and am often asked by first time gun buyers what is right for them. In addition to asking price range etc; I always ask if they intend to really practice with the weapon a great deal. Regardless of answer most seem to opt for the auto loader (most are young buyers and really don't know anything except auto loader) despite the fact that revolvers will always work even if "limp wristed". A good many auto loaders will not because they require a good solid hold to enable an effective energy transfur to operate the action. "wheel guns" arn't ammo sensitive and in the case of the .357 or .44 magnums the lesser cartridges can also be used (.38 Spec/.44 Spec & Russian). Bullet styles are not really an issue as a rule except the rounder profile slugs do work a bit better when rapid reloads are made with speed loaders (or individually for that matter)or with Bianchi "speed strips. That is where the magazine change with an auto loader really shines. Revolvers on the other hand can use sub power loads for initial training with the final result of full power fodder being worked up to for "serious social work" in a defense senerio. As has already been discussed the revolver is more user friendly, has no (or very few) bells and whistles to confuse the novice and always works if given a modicum of maintenance. Here at the gun shop I carry a G-19 on my hip but stashed around the shop are several .357 revolvers that are fully ready for use if that unpleasant situation arises. Wheel guns are very much alive and well.

[Hwlian]

while yes, dirt will jam up a wheel gun, it is also fairly easy to fix. pull/tap out the wheel and dust off.
whereas if a semi gets dirt inside it can also jam, but must be completely disassembled to fix.
also forces the user to shoot slower, making his shots more accurate. shoot the six rounds in six seconds, or shoot the 15 rounds in five seconds? a lot of people tend to spray and pray when in a panic without realizing it (note earlier post about the cops) the revolver makes this more difficult to do.
and a trained person with speed loaders can reload almost as fast as clips.

sturdier, less small breakable pieces.
reliable, given minor cleaning.
tried and true.
the revolver.

[Louis McClain]

During my time in Nam, I ,also, carried a 6" S&W Mod.29. Occasionally, during short firefights, there would be a very short lull from the "opposition". Giving us a brief moment for "thought". By the way, I carried crossdraw in an modified old French (WWI) canvas holster. I had an issue 1911 on my right side.

[Louis McClain]

After, discharging my 44 Mag. Quite accurately I might say. I forgot to include this fact in my earlier posting. I feel our heroes should be given the choice to be issued an additional side. A 50AE would be a good choice with armor piercing rounds and a bit of training on operation of a high recoil firearm. ;>)

[Kevin Hood]

First, there is no such designation as .357 +P. I have fired the LEO 125(?)grain hollow-point and it is quite an impressive round, but it is not designated as +P. But it would certainly do far more than any semi-auto round out there with the exception of maybe a full-house 10mm.

S&W has a new 8 shot .357 that uses moon clips (or not). Reload time is very close to semi-autos. I would feel very well-armed outfitted with that set-up.

[Louis McClain]

After, discharging my 44 Mag. Quite accurately I might say. I forgot to include this fact in my earlier posting. I feel our heroes should be given the choice to be issued an additional side. A 50AE would be a good choice with armor piercing rounds and a bit of training on operation of a high recoil firearm. ;>)