In the history of the development of firearms technology, there’s a good chunk of the timeline between the debut of Sam Colt’s famous invention and the early 20th century where revolvers were clearly the tool best suited for personal protection. But then semi-automatic pistols came onto the scene and challenged the place of the revolver as the dominant firearm for self-defense. Of course at first, there really was no contest. The early semi-autos weren’t exactly user-friendly, and reliability was a major concern. At least in the U.S., the revolver would remain the favorite for a long time to come.
But gradually, the technology and engineering behind autoloaders improved and now 100 years later, there are fewer obvious advantages to being armed with a revolver over a modern semi-auto. So the same question keeps coming up: “Are semi-autos better than revolvers?” Or phrased another way, “Are revolvers still relevant?” or “Are revolvers obsolete?”
The topic is worth discussing, but I think these are the wrong questions. They’re wrong because they’re vague and overly broad and lead to answers that don’t help anybody. These kinds of questions ask us to focus on the tools and the technology and tell us nothing about the people that will be using them.
For example, a fan of semi-autos might take the question and consider merely the mechanical and technological merits of the options at hand. Taken that way, of course semi-autos are superior. They recoil less. The triggers are easier to manipulate. The sights are usually much bigger and better. Today’s semi-autos are more reliable than ever and no more prone to malfunction and failure than the average wheel gun. And most importantly, semi-autos have two to three times the ammo capacity of a revolver of equal size and weight. More bullets is more better. Game over, autoloaders win.
Revolver aficionados tend to side-step these kinds of arguments and come back with counter-examples that are much more contextualized or personal. They’ll tell you all about Jerry Miculek’s sub 1-second reloads or how many gun fights Jim Cirillo won with six shooters. They’ll point to stories about poorly trained police officers bullet-hosing innocent bystanders during a shootout on a crowded city street as evidence that revolvers are better since they require the shooter to practice more discretion with his shots. And you’ll hear all about how they personally shoot revolvers better or that they don’t “feel under gunned” when they carry a j-frame snub.
In the end nobody changes their mind and nobody learns anything. Fortunately, there are better ways to attack this question of “semi-autos versus revolvers”.
First, we’ll have to get over the assumption that this kind of discussion is the Handgun Super Bowl. There doesn’t have to be a winner and a loser. We can compare these two technologies without implying that the gun with the less optimal “pros and cons” list is completely useless and that everybody who carries one is ignorant.
Similarly, we also have to remember that a new technology doesn’t always completely displace what came before it, even if the new tool is better in many ways. Firearms were a big upgrade over swords and bows but they didn’t completely eliminate the usefulness of hand to hand weapons. To this day, blades are still frequently used as a last ditch self-defense tool when the firearm fails or is not accessible.
Without a doubt, modern semi-auto pistols provide many mechanical advantages over revolvers. High ammo capacity in particular really does provide an edge that at least has the potential to increase your odds of coming out of a fight alive. That fact doesn’t at all contradict the idea that revolvers can still be viable for self-defense today, and may even excel in some areas that semi-autos do not.
Finally, we’ll have an easier time framing the discussion if we keep in mind the human factor — that the right tool for the job depends on the person using the tool. I don’t mean that “it’s the Indian and not the arrow”. In reality, both matter. What I mean is that asking “are semi-autos objectively better self defense tools than revolvers?” can’t be answered in a general sense without a lot of “most of the time” and “probably” and “the average person” kind of assumptions. It’s a vastly different and much more difficult question than “Is a revolver/semi-auto the right tool for person x in situation y.”
So instead of assuming that revolvers have to either enjoy equal status with semi-autos or be completely banished to museums, I’d like to hear a debate that explores the middle ground. If there are some less obvious benefits offered by revolvers, what are they, and in what circumstances do they come into play? What kind of person is better off being armed with a revolver than a semi-auto? Are there ways to overcome some of the major shortcomings of revolvers? What new technologies could be applied to revolvers to make them better?
Of course, I don’t expect the internet to provide the platform for balanced and reasonable debate on these nuanced issues — I’ll have to head out into the “real world” for that. So over the next few months, I’m diving head first into the realm of round guns. I’ll be carrying them, shooting them, and finding out everything there is to know about revolvers and their role as modern self-defense tools. Every once and a while, I’ll pop back in to let you know what I’ve found, so stay tuned…
Ammo versatility is a big win for wheel guns. While most everybody understands a .357mag chambered gun can shoot .38spl, some folks don't realize the massive difference in velocity and pressure that will safely function in the same gun.
e.g. using 158gr cast lead semi-wadcutters, with a few grains of IMR TrailBoss we get ~600ft/sec. Same bullet but loaded with slow burning Hodgdon H110 flys at 1600ft/sec.
Show me a semi-auto that can reliably cycle cartridges with a 1000ft/sec velocity span WITHOUT tuning in between, and I'll be duly impressed.
in my point of view a revoler is better then a auto hand gun
I think revolvers still have a place today for few reasons. 1. Easy to manipulate. Women and men with little to no experience can learn to load, fire, unload, repeat very easy. 2. For the homeowner who never checks his weapon. Load it and leave it for years on the night stand. Will today's semi auto mag springs hold up to that?
Those are just a few. I'm sure others have things to add. Great article! Keep it up!
Any gun with any spring that goes weak and limp with age, wasn't any good to start with. Show me one old car that the springs were changed because they were old? Springs can get corroded from lack of lubrication, but if they were heat treated correctly when they were made, they will always remain same. This is the same old story that you don't keep AR15 mags let's say, loaded and ready to go.. YES WE DO!
They both have their place,, being wakened in middle of the night, half asleep still, yes, I'd grab my old smith 38 in the night stand. If I'm an hour from going to bed, and I hear that noise at the garage, I'm grabbing the Beretta 92.
Remember well aimed shots are the key!
let me just say, i would never carry my 9 shield without my j frame…
I like how you think. Looking forward to reading more.
Why do you need to…?
My Ruger LCR .38 spl is my choice!
Chris, while my first CHOICE of defense pistol is a semi-auto, I keep a loaded 357 Chiappa Rhino in my nightstand just in case a bad guy decides to pay me a visit in the middle of the night. I think in this circumstance a revolver is the better choice, because you don't have to worry about a gun jam if the bad guy is closing in. The Rhino is a FANTASTIC revolver that has some impressive technology behind it. The bullet is discharged from the 6 o'clock position, and because of that, recoil is greatly reduced. So reduced, that a 158 gr. 357 round doesn't have much more recoil than a 9mm round shot out of a semi-auto. And a .38 Special round has even less recoil. If you haven't tried one out (and I'm sure you have), I highly encourage you to do so. If you have, I'd be interested to hear what you think about the Rhino. At the range, I'm more accurate with it at 30 feet than I am with my CZ P09. If you haven't tried one of these out, fight the urge to call it "ugly" or a "space gun" and put 50 rounds through one. I was skeptical too….until I shot it! They make several different barrel lengths (mine is the 6 inch 60DS).
While I agree with your sentiment that semi-autos have seen the most improvement, perhaps it's because they NEEDED the most improvement? Nothing quite as "simple" or as beautiful as a 6 shooter, imo. Thanks!
Ammo versatility is a big win for wheel guns. While most everybody understands a .357mag chambered gun can shoot .38spl, some folks don’t realize the massive difference in velocity and pressure that will safely function in the same gun.
e.g. using 158gr cast lead semi-wadcutters, with a few grains of IMR TrailBoss we get ~600ft/sec. Same bullet but loaded with slow burning Hodgdon H110 flys at 1600ft/sec.
Show me a semi-auto that can reliably cycle cartridges with a 1000ft/sec velocity span WITHOUT tuning in between, and I’ll be duly impressed.
Why do you need to…?
Mark Whelan Ammo loaders like to be able to tailor rounds to specific needs. A competition round doesn’t need to be fired for maximum effect but to meet minimum power levels. No need to send your game hunting .357 mag rounds down range if lite-loads will still get you into the competition and keep recoil manageable.
Peter Wong I understand the differences in the loads and uses, but a revolver has many limitations that you could site as being a similar weakness. Six, maybe seven rounds vs. anywhere from 7-20 in an automatic depending on desired size, caliber and concealability requirements. Size requirements for .357 as opposed to .38 or .380 auto. My point is the .38/.357 combination is a very versatile combination and I think its probably the most useful being able to shoot lighter .38 loads vs. .357 loads, but I really don’t think anh 1 gun revolver or automatic “is the best”. My guess is you have an automatic or two in your safe, right next to your single/double action revolvers. Do you have an opinion on the Ruger SP101, GP 100 or the LCR all in .357..? I’ve been thinking of buying a 357. the LCR would be for concealed carry vs. an LC9s.
Mark Whelan I understand the pros and cons of a wheel gun vs a semi-auto and I lean heavily towards semi-autos for all the same reasons you listed. I thought you were asking why someone would need a gun that could go from a 600 ft/sec projectile to a 1600 ft/sec. I was simply giving an example of why anyone would need a wheel gun based on what Sean Yunt said.
Mark Whelan I really like the .357 LCR, but admit I almost always carry .38+p. I can shoot the light .38spl I mentioned all day long, but it takes some discipline to WANT to shoot more than a box of full house magnums.
I think it carries beautifully in a pocket holster. I probably would only carry magnums if I was in bear country. The .357 frame is heavier, which helps even with .38. I’m a bigger guy and the weight doesn’t bother me at all.
GP100 is one of my favorite range guns. Very accurate, and seems to get BETTER the more I shoot it. As long as civilization doesn’t end, that gun will be around for my great grand kids.
Mark Whelan I’ve carried an SP101 for the past fifteen years and have many thousands of rounds through it without a single fail or complaint. I carry a Glock 17 at work and it has had two FTF in as many years.
I always carry my revolver because if a kangaroo tries to rape me in my ass then I can shoot it
Mark Whelan A 2 inch 357 is about the worst investment you could ever make. Especially one that weighs less than 18 oz.
in my point of view a revoler is better then a auto hand gun
They both have their place,, being wakened in middle of the night, half asleep still, yes, I’d grab my old smith 38 in the night stand. If I’m an hour from going to bed, and I hear that noise at the garage, I’m grabbing the Beretta 92.
I think revolvers still have a place today for few reasons. 1. Easy to manipulate. Women and men with little to no experience can learn to load, fire, unload, repeat very easy. 2. For the homeowner who never checks his weapon. Load it and leave it for years on the night stand. Will today’s semi auto mag springs hold up to that?
Those are just a few. I’m sure others have things to add. Great article! Keep it up!
Any gun with any spring that goes weak and limp with age, wasn’t any good to start with. Show me one old car that the springs were changed because they were old? Springs can get corroded from lack of lubrication, but if they were heat treated correctly when they were made, they will always remain same. This is the same old story that you don’t keep AR15 mags let’s say, loaded and ready to go.. YES WE DO!
Larry Espey and yet another internet hero with the wrong information. When under a constant load springs will and do weaken in strength. And yes I CAN show you MANY old cars where the springs HAD to be changed due to fatigue. I am a Master Mechanic, so your comment is rendered null and void of any useful information. Go back to your mothers basement.
Keith Harbeck, I never cease to be amazed at how big mouthed folks can be miles apart on internet. In my neck of the woods, face to face, you and I would have had this difference of opinion settled real quick. I question, how many of those master monkey mechanics titles did you get out of that cracker jack box? No point in really trying to convince you as you must have limited mental storage, but those with a bit more education than you know, like I said, it is the over compression and stretch beyond their design that wears a spring out. If a spring “weakens” without that abuse, or left to the effects of corrosion/heat, then it was not heat treated correctly. Anyone that suggests changing a spring usually has some interest in selling you a spring, or in your case, ripping someone off to change their springs. Another problem related to cheap guns with cheap springs is the manufacturer maintaining the quality of the tempering process when mass producing springs as cheaply as possible. Just like Saturday night gun makers and quality gun makers, there are good springs and not so good springs out there. Master Mechanic’s,, my Mother didn’t have a basement, but I bet you that you have a shade tree in the back to change springs under. Now shut your disrespectful mouth!
Keith Harbeck, Master Mechanic, apprentice at not coming across as a total doucher on the internet…Learn to communicate with someone with a different opinion than yours without being offensive and you may move up to novice yet
Larry Espey and yet another internet hero with the wrong information. When under a constant load springs will and do weaken in strength. And yes I CAN show you MANY old cars where the springs HAD to be changed due to fatigue. I am a Master Mechanic, so your comment is rendered null and void of any useful information. Go back to your mothers basement.
Remember well aimed shots are the key!
well for my two cents Ill add that personal defense outside the home is considerably different than inside the home. I own several handguns and though some would be horrible choices for defense I have enough of both wheel guns and semi autos to fill that niche with either of the fan favorites. If I had to pick a single home defense gun it would be one of the 410 revolvers, they parent cumbersome to move, simple to operate and deliver arguable the most effective ordinance in the form of the multiple flying ash trays. (does anyone recall that descriptor). the size of the individual, gender, training, income, physical fitness, etc…. are all factors that should be taken into consideration. Though I love my revolvers my goto conceal carry is subcompact .45acp in the form of the Springfield SDX. I have also carried in the same caliber the Sig Sauer P250 a gun that I feel excels in this capacity and when concealment is not a concern my Sig 220 is the goto piece. Ironically in my nearly 40 years carrying guns for defense and duty none of these have ever had to leave their holsters and on the 3 occasions when it was needed my model 29 smith .44 mag, my 645 smith sa/da .45acp and of all things a tec-9 were the big bulky guns that stopped the escalation of violence (no shots fired thank god). These are a lot of words to point out that some questions cant be answered unless painfully boring details are heaped upon us and even in these cases I suspect no answer will be fully agreed upon.
let me just say, i would never carry my 9 shield without my j frame…
I like how you think. Looking forward to reading more.
My Ruger LCR .38 spl is my choice!
That’s what I carry…over my Glock Model 30.
Chris, while my first CHOICE of defense pistol is a semi-auto, I keep a loaded 357 Chiappa Rhino in my nightstand just in case a bad guy decides to pay me a visit in the middle of the night. I think in this circumstance a revolver is the better choice, because you don’t have to worry about a gun jam if the bad guy is closing in. The Rhino is a FANTASTIC revolver that has some impressive technology behind it. The bullet is discharged from the 6 o’clock position, and because of that, recoil is greatly reduced. So reduced, that a 158 gr. 357 round doesn’t have much more recoil than a 9mm round shot out of a semi-auto. And a .38 Special round has even less recoil. If you haven’t tried one out (and I’m sure you have), I highly encourage you to do so. If you have, I’d be interested to hear what you think about the Rhino. At the range, I’m more accurate with it at 30 feet than I am with my CZ P09. If you haven’t tried one of these out, fight the urge to call it “ugly” or a “space gun” and put 50 rounds through one. I was skeptical too….until I shot it! They make several different barrel lengths (mine is the 6 inch 60DS).
While I agree with your sentiment that semi-autos have seen the most improvement, perhaps it’s because they NEEDED the most improvement? Nothing quite as “simple” or as beautiful as a 6 shooter, imo. Thanks!
I’ve always liked the unconventional looks of the Rhino and have watched several videos including Jerry Miculek who seems to like it as well. I can understand the repositioning to the 6 oclock of the barrel and it makes perfect sense to me.
well for my two cents Ill add that personal defense outside the home is considerably different than inside the home. I own several handguns and though some would be horrible choices for defense I have enough of both wheel guns and semi autos to fill that niche with either of the fan favorites. If I had to pick a single home defense gun it would be one of the 410 revolvers, they parent cumbersome to move, simple to operate and deliver arguable the most effective ordinance in the form of the multiple flying ash trays. (does anyone recall that descriptor). the size of the individual, gender, training, income, physical fitness, etc…. are all factors that should be taken into consideration. Though I love my revolvers my goto conceal carry is subcompact .45acp in the form of the Springfield SDX. I have also carried in the same caliber the Sig Sauer P250 a gun that I feel excels in this capacity and when concealment is not a concern my Sig 220 is the goto piece. Ironically in my nearly 40 years carrying guns for defense and duty none of these have ever had to leave their holsters and on the 3 occasions when it was needed my model 29 smith .44 mag, my 645 smith sa/da .45acp and of all things a tec-9 were the big bulky guns that stopped the escalation of violence (no shots fired thank god). These are a lot of words to point out that some questions cant be answered unless painfully boring details are heaped upon us and even in these cases I suspect no answer will be fully agreed upon.
Keith Harbeck, I never cease to be amazed at how big mouthed folks can be miles apart on internet. In my neck of the woods, face to face, you and I would have had this difference of opinion settled real quick. I question, how many of those master monkey mechanics titles did you get out of that cracker jack box? No point in really trying to convince you as you must have limited mental storage, but those with a bit more education than you know, like I said, it is the over compression and stretch beyond their design that wears a spring out. If a spring "weakens" without that abuse, or left to the effects of corrosion/heat, then it was not heat treated correctly. Anyone that suggests changing a spring usually has some interest in selling you a spring, or in your case, ripping someone off to change their springs. Another problem related to cheap guns with cheap springs is the manufacturer maintaining the quality of the tempering process when mass producing springs as cheaply as possible. Just like Saturday night gun makers and quality gun makers, there are good springs and not so good springs out there. Master Mechanic's,, my Mother didn't have a basement, but I bet you that you have a shade tree in the back to change springs under. Now shut your disrespectful mouth!
Maybe, just maybe you will come to realize just how good your friend's Smith and Wesson’s 28-2 Highway Patrolman, chambered in .357 Magnum.(pictured) really is. Remembering that when he asked you if it was any good, you replied, "No".
Mark Whelan Ammo loaders like to be able to tailor rounds to specific needs. A competition round doesn't need to be fired for maximum effect but to meet minimum power levels. No need to send your game hunting .357 mag rounds down range if lite-loads will still get you into the competition and keep recoil manageable.
Also, we are all doing the broader gun community a disservice when we say crap like "easy enough for a woman".
I'm not one to be PC, but we look like cavemen to non gun folks when we say that.
Revolvers, only excel in things like accuracy, reliability, durability, power, versatility, point-ability, balance, speed and ease of use other than those things autos are way better!
Train with both wheel guns and semi autos, even if you normaly pack a semi, you cannot fly with it in most countries as airlines refuse to carry self loading firearms, whereas wheel guns not a problem as long as your permits/ licenses are in order.
Peter Wong I understand the differences in the loads and uses, but a revolver has many limitations that you could site as being a similar weakness. Six, maybe seven rounds vs. anywhere from 7-20 in an automatic depending on desired size, caliber and concealability requirements. Size requirements for .357 as opposed to .38 or .380 auto. My point is the .38/.357 combination is a very versatile combination and I think its probably the most useful being able to shoot lighter .38 loads vs. .357 loads, but I really don't think anh 1 gun revolver or automatic "is the best". My guess is you have an automatic or two in your safe, right next to your single/double action revolvers. Do you have an opinion on the Ruger SP101, GP 100 or the LCR all in .357..? I've been thinking of buying a 357. the LCR would be for concealed carry vs. an LC9s.
Mark Whelan I understand the pros and cons of a wheel gun vs a semi-auto and I lean heavily towards semi-autos for all the same reasons you listed. I thought you were asking why someone would need a gun that could go from a 600 ft/sec projectile to a 1600 ft/sec. I was simply giving an example of why anyone would need a wheel gun based on what Sean Yunt said.
Mark Whelan I really like the .357 LCR, but admit I almost always carry .38+p. I can shoot the light .38spl I mentioned all day long, but it takes some discipline to WANT to shoot more than a box of full house magnums.
I think it carries beautifully in a pocket holster. I probably would only carry magnums if I was in bear country. The .357 frame is heavier, which helps even with .38. I'm a bigger guy and the weight doesn't bother me at all.
GP100 is one of my favorite range guns. Very accurate, and seems to get BETTER the more I shoot it. As long as civilization doesn't end, that gun will be around for my great grand kids.
Also, we are all doing the broader gun community a disservice when we say crap like “easy enough for a woman”.
I’m not one to be PC, but we look like cavemen to non gun folks when we say that.
Mark Whelan I've carried an SP101 for the past fifteen years and have many thousands of rounds through it without a single fail or complaint. I carry a Glock 17 at work and it has had two FTF in as many years.
Revolvers, only excel in things like accuracy, reliability, durability, power, versatility, point-ability, balance, speed and ease of use other than those things autos are way better!
Train with both wheel guns and semi autos, even if you normaly pack a semi, you cannot fly with it in most countries as airlines refuse to carry self loading firearms, whereas wheel guns not a problem as long as your permits/ licenses are in order.
They each have their pluses and minuses and come out equal in the wash I believe it is just a matter of preference.The very first place to look for the answer to this question is our grand system of capitalism and it says they are both good.This argument is no different than…Ford ,Chevy.
my problem with a semi automatic is I am now to weak to get the 1st round chambered. I have plenty of energy to speed load and fire a revolver.
Living in San Francisco, my guns stay in my house unless they're going to the range or the wilderness. Concealed carry is not an option. For my purposes, I need a good, reliable gun that fires a lethal round, but won't over penetrate. The .357 magnum fits the bill for my needs. Living on top of the San Andreas fault, I need something for the inevitable 8.0 earthquake that I can bug out with if my house catches fire, or to hold off the baddies who didn't think to get 3 days of earthquake supplies to wait out the period that it will take the National Guard to get into the city.
So I own a revolver and a bolt action carbine chambered for the .357. I like the option of using .38 specials as well, and I like to keep a little bit of everything on hand. For me, the choice of revolver v. semi-auto was really a matter of preference for the .357 / .38 over the comparable semi-auto rounds. An added bonus is not having to worry about my revolver ever being construed as an assault weapon.
As far as capacity, I work under the theory that people don't like getting shot, and given an opportunity not to get shot, they will usually go find a softer target. Whether they get shot with a revolver or a pistol is an academic argument.
They each have their pluses and minuses and come out equal in the wash I believe it is just a matter of preference.The very first place to look for the answer to this question is our grand system of capitalism and it says they are both good.This argument is no different than…Ford ,Chevy.
Great article,several good points were made. However if you give a person ammo and a gun be it( revolver or semi auto)they will shoot it. But teach them to shoot they will hit what they shoot at no matter which they use. so in the long run its preference that wins out . remember to keep it in a safe direction.
my problem with a semi automatic is I am now to weak to get the 1st round chambered. I have plenty of energy to speed load and fire a revolver.
Living in San Francisco, my guns stay in my house unless they’re going to the range or the wilderness. Concealed carry is not an option. For my purposes, I need a good, reliable gun that fires a lethal round, but won’t over penetrate. The .357 magnum fits the bill for my needs. Living on top of the San Andreas fault, I need something for the inevitable 8.0 earthquake that I can bug out with if my house catches fire, or to hold off the baddies who didn’t think to get 3 days of earthquake supplies to wait out the period that it will take the National Guard to get into the city.
So I own a revolver and a bolt action carbine chambered for the .357. I like the option of using .38 specials as well, and I like to keep a little bit of everything on hand. For me, the choice of revolver v. semi-auto was really a matter of preference for the .357 / .38 over the comparable semi-auto rounds. An added bonus is not having to worry about my revolver ever being construed as an assault weapon.
As far as capacity, I work under the theory that people don’t like getting shot, and given an opportunity not to get shot, they will usually go find a softer target. Whether they get shot with a revolver or a pistol is an academic argument.
Those are some interesting considerations, David. I don’t necessarily agree with all of your conclusions, but you bring up some good issues that I’d like to look at more closely in future posts.
David, have you considered a Sig P229 with interchangeable barrels….357 and .40 cal. maybe…?
Mark, even in 357 or 40 the power ain’t gonna be there like it would in a revolver. I am only 35 and grew up in the age of the semi but realized that old faithful ( revolver) is always got a leg up. I think capacity is just over thinking. Seven is plenty. Any sidearm should only be used as a backup to a long gun or when long gun is not an option or working your way to one (longgun)
Mark Whelan Close. I considered similar platforms using a Glock. I think if I were going with a centerfire pistol, I would probably go for the .40. .357 Sig is a little to expensive and still quite exotic.
Anyhow, as an engineer, I like the simplicity of a wheel gun. There are fewer parts one has to deal with, and I can clean a revolver in half the time. This is a good thing if you are planning for a disaster scenario that likely involves significant portions of a medium to large size city burning to the ground.
San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides. There are three bridges and one light rail tunnel that give access to the city from the north and the east. These will not be operational for at least 24 hours after a quake. The only other way into the city is from the south, transversing about 45 miles of highway or surface streets. These too will be damaged. These means that FEMA won’t be showing up for days, so we’re basically on our own, with a tiny fire department to handle thousands of collapsed wood framed buildings and broken gas lines. That means lots of smoke and ash. Everything will get dirty. In that scenario, do I really want to risk a failure to feed or a failure to eject? The extra rounds aren’t worth it to me. I want something that is simple, reliable, and easy to service. If 7 rounds of .357 mag can’t handle a situation, then I’m retreating.
The 357 mag is comparable to a 30 06. U can put a lighter or heavy load. Its extremely versital. Same with 357 mag. U can make it ok for a 115 pound female by using lite 38,s or go big dog and take down grizzly. That’s one of the things they did when it first came out is use it on grizzly and Idk about you but if it will do that it’s plenty good for my protection needs and then some
Great article,several good points were made. However if you give a person ammo and a gun be it( revolver or semi auto)they will shoot it. But teach them to shoot they will hit what they shoot at no matter which they use. so in the long run its preference that wins out . remember to keep it in a safe direction.
Those are some interesting considerations, David. I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions, but you bring up some good issues that I'd like to look at more closely in future posts.
Ultimately, the best self-defense handgun for anyone will be the one they can shoot most accurately with their intended choice of ammunition. Downsides of any revolver is limited capacity and slower (in most people's hands) reloads. But they have some advantages over autoloading pistols, most of which have been mentioned. They offer simplicity of operation. Once the revolver is loaded, no need to worry about whether a round is chambered. In nearly all cases, no need to remember to disengage the safety. No failures to feed or failures to eject. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens because of a defective round with no powder or a bad primer, no need to eject the dud, just pull the trigger again. I agree with ammunition versatility being an advantage. When fired in dark conditions, .357 Magnum flashes can induce temporary night blindness. I have known some who load the first couple of rounds in the cylinder with 38 Sp or 38 Sp +P and the remainder with .357 Magnum.
Keith Harbeck, Master Mechanic, apprentice at not coming across as a total doucher on the internet…Learn to communicate with someone with a different opinion than yours without being offensive and you may move up to novice yet
I like 'em both!
Ultimately, the best self-defense handgun for anyone will be the one they can shoot most accurately with their intended choice of ammunition. Downsides of any revolver is limited capacity and slower (in most people’s hands) reloads. But they have some advantages over autoloading pistols, most of which have been mentioned. They offer simplicity of operation. Once the revolver is loaded, no need to worry about whether a round is chambered. In nearly all cases, no need to remember to disengage the safety. No failures to feed or failures to eject. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens because of a defective round with no powder or a bad primer, no need to eject the dud, just pull the trigger again. I agree with ammunition versatility being an advantage. When fired in dark conditions, .357 Magnum flashes can induce temporary night blindness. I have known some who load the first couple of rounds in the cylinder with 38 Sp or 38 Sp +P and the remainder with .357 Magnum.
Just as important as the gun and caliper is the round itself..regular ball ammo is definitely not what you want to be carrying in public.
I love automatics.
But I can't deny certain advantages that revolvers have.
1) More accurate
2) Longer range
3) More robust frames and consequently larger calibers.
4) It'll take 3 rds from my SiG to do what 1 .454 Casull will. The knockdown from .41+ magnums don't necessitate repeated firing.
Revolvers are the kinetic transfer masters.
5) Lastly, they never jam.
I like ’em both!
I love automatics.
But I can’t deny certain advantages that revolvers have.
1) More accurate
2) Longer range
3) More robust frames and consequently larger calibers.
4) It’ll take 3 rds from my SiG to do what 1 .454 Casull will. The knockdown from .41+ magnums don’t necessitate repeated firing.
Revolvers are the kinetic transfer masters.
5) Lastly, they never jam.
Of course they jam. Not as often, but they certainly can.
Not worrying much about over penetration or concealability are we…? 😉
Mark Whelan Yeah, whenever someone brings up 454 casull, I immediately peg them for a 16 year old boy.
Or someone in dangerous game country, not all self defense is against 2 legged attackers.
Mark Whelan A 2 inch 357 is about the worst investment you could ever make. Especially one that weighs less than 18 oz.
Of course they jam. Not as often, but they certainly can.
David, have you considered a Sig P229 with interchangeable barrels….357 and .40 cal. maybe…?
I've always liked the unconventional looks of the Rhino and have watched several videos including Jerry Miculek who seems to like it as well. I can understand the repositioning to the 6 oclock of the barrel and it makes perfect sense to me.
Just as important as the gun and caliper is the round itself..regular ball ammo is definitely not what you want to be carrying in public.
Not worrying much about over penetration or concealability are we…? 😉
Mark Whelan Yeah, whenever someone brings up 454 casull, I immediately peg them for a 16 year old boy.
Mark Whelan Close. I considered similar platforms using a Glock. I think if I were going with a centerfire pistol, I would probably go for the .40. .357 Sig is a little to expensive and still quite exotic.
Anyhow, as an engineer, I like the simplicity of a wheel gun. There are fewer parts one has to deal with, and I can clean a revolver in half the time. This is a good thing if you are planning for a disaster scenario that likely involves significant portions of a medium to large size city burning to the ground.
San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides. There are three bridges and one light rail tunnel that give access to the city from the north and the east. These will not be operational for at least 24 hours after a quake. The only other way into the city is from the south, transversing about 45 miles of highway or surface streets. These too will be damaged. These means that FEMA won't be showing up for days, so we're basically on our own, with a tiny fire department to handle thousands of collapsed wood framed buildings and broken gas lines. That means lots of smoke and ash. Everything will get dirty. In that scenario, do I really want to risk a failure to feed or a failure to eject? The extra rounds aren't worth it to me. I want something that is simple, reliable, and easy to service. If 7 rounds of .357 mag can't handle a situation, then I'm retreating.
I personally enjoy both, but teaching my girlfriend on the revolver w/ 38 spl was a simpler task. She can shoot my Semi’s but prefers my SP101. If she is comfy with that guns mechanics /loading and firing, I too, am happy. Which also means she can load and shoot ANY revolver if the need arose, Can’t say that about semi-autos, with many different de-cockers,safeties etc… I myself love my CZ75 and FNP9 but seem to go for the LCR 38 (w/+P’s-of course) when goin’ fishing, Light,easy low profile carry and I don’t feel underpowered with it. As far as my semi-autos, I carry them too, but as I get older simple,easy usually win out… I’m an old school guy like someone else said and have always been a fan of pistol caliber rifles/carbines. My Ruger 77/357 Bolt action took a nice 350+ Boar last year with one well placed shot. Multi-use calibers are a nice simple Idea, effective for MOST situations, and the joy of having multiple guns in same calibers definitely bears consideration. Many decent 9mm carbines out there as well. And 9mm or 357/38 out of a longer barrel improve velocity/accuracy/knockdown quite a bit over handguns…
That said, to each his own. I , for one, see the value in owning/shooting both. They aren’t the only rifles I own, but I find them the most used (useful). And the prices for ammo make it a very viable option if cost is a factor. I will also add that a friend who only has use of 1 hand finds it almost impossible to rack a slide or load a semi auto magazine…he has no problem with revolvers. So they have a definite place, as they always have, and always will. My Mustang will go 135+ mph, but, more often than not, I’m in the pickup !
I try not to bash someones choice, as they chose for their reason, and if they’re comfortable with it, go for it ! Shoot what you have, become comfortable with it, learn it’s quirks, and choose the right tool for the job and I believe you won’t be wrong… I’m sure this question will cause some controversy, But I see most of the comments here are sound. Enjoy, and keep shooting. Practice is the key with ANY tool. Great Question Chris…hope your’e prepared for the answers!
-Johnny NH
Often overlooked is how many times people get injured and can only use one hand. There are many other reasons why revolvers are a better choice for many people . I can honestly tell you that just by watching the incredible number of jams/ malfunctions etc … experienced by people using semi auto pistols on youtube .. Im convinced that revolvers are better for self defense, and hunting. Pistols are better for plinking. It depends on the competition in sports. It depends if you have access to long guns in police work. And both revolvers and pistols are mere temporary emergency backup to full auto/ long distance /grenade launching long guns… in war.
I just read your post from a year ago. You hit the nail on the head. Unless a person is experienced and comfortable with firearms, the revolver is a better choice. It’s safer. And realistically, in a home defense situation, the bad guy or guys will be coming through the door, the range will be very close, and 6 shots will be enough. Most novices who decide that they need a gun to defend their home and family if things go bad, will go to the range once, or twice. Then they will load it, and it will sit in the bedside drawer for years untouched. With a semi auto, if things go south, it will probably, after all that neglect, go bang once and jam. A revolver can be counted on to go bang 6 times.
One advantage of revolvers I don’t ever see brought up; A firearm is only as reliable as the ammo it fires and even with modern technology there will be the occasional misfire, if your in a self defense situation and your gun goes click* with a semi auto you need to break your grip and sight picture to rack the slide and then regain you grip and sight picture. This may only take a second (assuming the misfire doesn’t stun you into pausing which could happen) but in that second the assailant could close the distance between you both or use his own firearm. However with a double action revolver when you experience a misfire all you need to do is pull the trigger and without breaking sight picture or grip you cycle and fire a fresh round. Granted with a double action automatic you could try firing the same round again which sometimes works but there’s no guarantee and if it misfires again your right back to square zero. Despite all advantages an disadvantages I believe it all comes down to training. It doesn’t matter what gun you have if you can’t raw it quickly. It doesn’t matter how many rounds your gun holds or how powerful they are if you miss your target. Pick your poison and train train train.
I think revolver more accurate,
Semi-Autos more firepower.
I appreciate what’s been said. I would like to add a thought, though. You can no more say semi-autos are better than revolvers (or vice versa) 100% of the time. For example, has anyone tried to load a magazine with only one hand? Tried racking a slide with only one hand, especially a .40 or .45. If I were down to one hand, I’d prefer a revolver. If I were being attacked by a hoard of zombies, I’d prefer my Sig P226 Tac-Ops with a fully loaded 20 round magazine – or several fully loaded 20 round magazines, for that matter. So, unless we are statistics historians who have access to an enormous amount of wealth that can be processed by a “super” computer that will tell us the better choice given our age, the area of the country in which we live, the type of ammo used, blah, blah, blah, then it will probably always be personal preference. If you are more comfortable with a revolver and shoot better with it, why force yourself into a semi-auto just because Bill down the street thinks it’s a better choice.
Pick what is good for you and train to live and live to train. None of this discussion matters if you freeze or panic at the wrong moment and your attacker(s) don’t.
I own both and enjoy shooting both. For carry/self-defense, it depends on the situation. A .44 mag for camping is nice – it will work against both two and four legged intruders. You won’t see me carrying that as a daily carry to work, though. Well, you might if I were inspector Callahan.
Howard of zombies, I’m calling in an air strike.
For my wife,although she does practice with the firearms, does nto get thrilled with training and my fear would be that in a moment of hurry she would have to think to hard to clear and reload a semi. the advantage of double action revolver takes that away as she just pulls the trigger again. I also think for someone like her high capacity is less of an issue I would except her to fire and flea if at all poss.
One aspect of revolvers not often mentioned is their lack of springs in the loading mechanism. My bedside table gun is a revolver. Yes I clean it every couple of months but I do not fear the inevitable spring set in an almost fully loaded semi’s magazine failing to load the next round.
In my car I carry a semi auto, leave the mag part full (a couple of loads short of full) and change the spring every year or so. Call me obsessive and I will take that as a compliment. I insist on the next load going into the barrel and not resting or jamming when it needs to do its job.
Arthritis made the choice easy for me. No more Semi’s period. I bought a couple of 357’s one 2″ & one 4.2″‘s. So, even when it hits me real bad, I can still shoot and load and hit what I’m aiming at. Also, I always carry at least one speed loader.
Personally, I favor revolvers. I’ve owned and shot both, and have had good (Glock 19, SIG P220, every S&W I’ve ever owned) and bad (every 1911 I’ve ever fired, Rossi R44) experiences with both. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m of the opinion that the best gun is whatever is the most comfortable for you.
I live in SC and I have found that there is nothing in the southeastern United States that a .357 won’t take down (If there is something, then you probably shouldn’t have shot at it. Now it’s PO’ed. Nice job, Supercop). When I’m out and about in town, I carry my S&W Model 60. When I occasionally go camping or prospecting with my buddies, my 686 takes front seat. I have full confidence in both of these guns and full confidence in my familiarity with them.
While I have no problem handling my full size Springfield XD, my wife has trouble with it, since the grip diameter is rather large, on account of having to hang on to a double stack mag. For her, the reduced grip diameter of her Taurus M85 (.38 sp +P) works much better. Both provide similar ballistics at short range, but her gun is more comfortable for her to shoot. She can use the XD if needed, but she prefers the M85. So, while the points made here are all good ones, I think there is also something to be said for the reduced grip diameter of revolvers for shooters with smaller hands.
How often do gunfights happen, and if so, when six shots are needed. Cops go years without fireing a weapon even ounce.
The question isn’t how often gunfights happen, but how likely you are to need a gun to defend yourself. Most people who find themselves needing a gun don’t carry one, so the number of actual defensive gun uses isn’t that useful for predicting our future need. Over their entire lifetime, the average American has a 1 in 4 chance of being the victim of a personal violent crime. Whether that violence warrants a deadly force response is another matter, but if you want to rely on numbers, the numbers say we’d all better be prepared to deal with violence in one way or another. Number of shots needed is also tricky to determine. Anecdotally, more than six is not common but it’s also not rare. Two or more attackers in a violent encounter *is* a common occurance, and in those cases, I’d certainly want more than just five or six rounds.
I try to put myself mentally in various situations. And unless I have ample warning, In which case id use my 1911.
Most of the time, a revolver seems to be the quicker reactor, simply because I dont have to slide it.
Otherwise both weapons have their perks. Firepower vs. Ballisitcs take your pick.
You dont keep the 1911 cocked and locked? What if your non dominant hand is injured or caught in a dogs jaws or whatever and not free to rack the slide and chamber a round?
Right, which leads in to a big scenario. If I’m awaken by an intruder in my room, say she wants to rape me.
I prefer a water pistol or nerf dart gun.
If on the other hand it’s a p.o.s.
With harmful intent, a double action revolver under my covers makes the most sense for quickest reaction time.
I would think the sheet and blanket would slow down the guns presentation and aiming or possibly get the gun wrapped up in them.If you keep a pistol with a loaded chamber,you only need one hand too. The goal should be to hear them before they make it into your house ,much less your room. Maybe you need a loud barking watchdog or alarm to wake you as soon as they break in ! If you are startled from a dead sleep likely in the dark and they are in your room your chances are pretty slim anyway IMHO.
Then score one for most revolvers because many autos hold only 5-7 shots, one or two more than a revolver and to get a lot more shots usually entails a much heavier gun, something most people are unwilling to do because it means holster carry vs pocket or purse carry. Also, a significant number of events never even reach the “shooting” phase because of the general deterrent nature of just showing a gun. And finally, if needing more shots means a heavier gun that people won’t carry, even a 22MAG is better than nothing. A 22MAG has a muzzle velocity of about 1075 fps vs a 9 mil of maybe 1200 fps and both penetrate ordinance gelatin to about 9″-12″. The advantage of course goes to the 9mm and other rounds because they make a bigger entrance wound, but not if they are left at home. That said, a 22MAG coming at a bad guy at Mach 0.9 is nothing to sneeze at and many of the newer small carry pistols are bigger caliber such as the 380’s, which are still easy to carry.
Bottom line: carrying something, anything, is better than a bigger caliber sitting at home on the shelf…..
Also and most important to me is the revolver only requires 1 hand.
I also have identical sp101 .357 ‘s theirs my 10 rounds ha.
Ripped the rotator cuff off the bone a year ago. Strong side of course. In my 60’s. First handgun was a 1911 issued by the Army. Carried it in combat and as a civilian for the next 44 years. Until a year ago when I fell. Revolver by necessity. Stayed with the revolver for several reasons. Two revolvers in fact. S&W model 21, 44 special and a S&W M&P model 340 (no lock). Someday days it’s two j frames.
The teachable take away; practice with your weak side as much or more than your strong side. Firing and reloading.
sometimes when I go to work I see a few kangaroos then when they see me they try to rape that’s why I prefer a revolver because if they try to rape me in my ass then I just shoot them in there penis
I am fairly new to guns. Someone tried to break into my house 1 night and I heard them and yelled I have a gun and will shoot if you come in. It was a bluff but it did work. I was scared for my family and me. So the next day I looked up and signed up for Carry Permit. So I went and took the class and learned how to shoot,clean, & everything a person should know when being around a gun. After that class I went to have fingerprint done for my permit and I also bought my 1st ever gun. I bought a 3 inch Ruger GP100 357 Magnum. I went with 3 inch over complete snub. Nose or the longer barrels because I planned on carrying it when I got my permit. I decided to go with Wheel gun or Revolver mainly because it seamed like it was alot easier to clean and take proper care of for me 1st because I was newer to guns and 2nd it felt so much easier for me to shoot also everyone I knew told me they are more reliable because revolver won’t jam like semi autos can. I think as far as which is better and more reliable I think alot is up to your preferences. I’m sure each has Pros & Cons. In my case I just liked the revolver better.
I’m 62 and have been shooting firearms since I was 10 yo. Most of what I shot were .22 rifles and shotguns. Never shot a pistol ’til I went into the service and even then it was a very well worn Colt 1911. A couple years later I bought my first pistol, a Llama 1911 in .38 super. I couldn’t hit much with it out past 25 yards, but I was okay with that. The Llama was the only pistol I’d ever owned, then I gave it to an Uncle.
19 years ago, almost to the day, I watched two North Hollywood bank robbers terrorize the populace in a gun battle that went on for 45 minutes. 11 police officers and 7 civilians were wounded before the cops were able to take out the last BG. I was shocked to see, that no one at the scene was able to make a head shot on either of these guys, during those 45 minutes.
I had a new found desire for a decent handgun. I first bought a .22 semi auto pistol, then later a 6” barreled .357 revolver, and eventually a single stack, .45 1911. My main focus all along has been to shoot 6” paper pie plates out to 100 yards. Now, I don’t always hit my mark, but with the more I shoot, the luckier I do get. To me(revolver or pistol), the thing is being able to draw on and hit whatever you’re aiming at. Not just spraying for effect.
One time I had a problem with a used revolver I’d just purchased. It was an overly used and abused S&W 28 that locked up with .357 loads. Opening and closing the cylinder got it to work, ’til it locked up again. My LGS was more than happy to make a trade. The only other problem I had with a revolver was with a used Blackhawk I’d purchased. It locked up because of a broken base pin release latch spring.
My 1911 used to smoke stack until I polished its feed ramp.
An Erma Luger I had was a regular jam-o-matic, so I traded it off to my LGS for a brick of .22s.
My 22/45 won’t run on standard velocity ammo.
I accidentally bumped the extended mag release on a cop’s Glock I was interested in buying. The mag fell into the mud at my feet, so I placed the gun on the table and handed the muddy mag back to the cop.
My ‘like new’ P38 was a lousy shooter with factory ammo of any brand. After slugging the bore, I found out that it had a .358” groove diameter. No wonder it key-holed at 50 yards. My reloads made the accuracy issue disappear.
I trust no factory ammo in calibers of .25 auto or .32 auto. Their powder charges are just too small to be consistent, so in order to achieve reliable performance out of my .32 pocket Colt, CZ27 or Astra Cub, I must reload for them or they too become jam-o-matics.
Of all the semi-auto pistols I’ve owned or fired, the most reliable to date has to be my Yugoslavian M57 in 7.62×25. It is accurate, and the only issue I have with it is that surplus ammo prices have sky-rocketed.
The Achilles tendon with semi-autos seems to be that the ammo must be a perfect match for the gun for it to operate reliably, and even then you have to be okay with your brass hitting the ground. The other thing about semi-autos are the different ways magazines release and the wide peculiarity of their safeties.
With any of my revolvers, it doesn’t matter what collage of ammo I feed them as long as they’re the same caliber stamped on the gun. All I have to do is pull the hammer back and fire with the S/As, or tug on a trigger with the D/As. Spent cases end up in my pocket.
I prefer semi-autos. I was raised in a Marine Corps family and most of my marksmanship lessons that didn’t involve a rifle involved the standard issue 1911. That was naturally the same handgun I picked up for myself when I was old enough to own one. But for the life of me, hitting a target with a semi-auto is not something that feels comfortable or natural. I have to calm down, cradle it like a baby, and work through something bordering on zen if I want to keep them anywhere in the ten range. Conversely, every revolver I’ve picked up I’ve been able to put a round exactly where I want without even glancing down the sights most of the time. The advantages of a semi-auto carry have been explained to me many times, and I agree with them. I believe it’s logically the better choice to carry a semi-auto. But what is more advantageous is carrying a firearm that you can hit your target with every time without doubt or hesitation. It’d be nice if the two were the same thing, but after upwards of four decades of shooting, hundreds of thousands of rounds put downrange, I still couldn’t hit paper to save my life with a semi-auto.