Discussion in 'Firearms' started by scottman, Jul 12, 2018.
1. your needs
2. your wants
What say you?
Needs? Yes. Specifically one .357 Magnum will do everything for me. Fortunately I have one
However, there are other hand guns that will do certain jobs better and I'm glad I'm not restricted to just one.
1. your needs Are few
2. your wants Are many
What say you? No
I could fill my needs with just two if needed. My 629MG is easily carried concealed off work and my Charter Arms "Boomer" serves ankle duty everyday anyway. As a long time revolver shooter I have no problem relying on one in any situation from all out fighting to hunting for food if need be. Overall I view firearms as tools, I try to use the most appropriate one for the job but don't think I won't hammer a nail with a crescent wrench if need be.
I could easily get by with a GP100 and either a J-Frame or an LCR.
Sometimes that level of simplicity is really attractive.
No, because 1911.
No. I do like revolvers though
Wants no joe
How many revolvers?
Yes...absolutely with no reservations. Wheelguns are cool. I do, however, have and use several semiauto pistols regularly.
Small Jframe for carry. Mid size 22 for hunting
But why would I
If I take the question very literally then yes I could, a K or J frame is great. For self defense though I'd rather not for very practical and actual reasons. Probably even some of my informal plinking too.
I could certainly "make do" without issue if I had to, but with the exception of large caliber magnum cartridges, the revolver really does nothing a semi-auto pistol can't do better.
But having just said that, the simple truth remains that a lot of folks can't/won't/don't benefit from the advantages offered by the more modern pistol design. That fact alone will insure the revolver will never become obsolete.
As a live long 1911 guy, yes, for me a . 357 mag will meet all the checks in the box. Do I carry a .357 every day? No. Sometimes some other small auto or revolver just works better for a variety of reasons. Kinda like different tools for different purposes. Can't always carry my choice of .357 revolver. To answer your question honestly however, yes, a good .357 magnum does meet ot exceed my needs in a concealable handgun.
I am a revolver guy for the most part!
S&W 629 Classic 44 magnum
S&W 617 22lr
S&W 442 38 special
If I could have only one gun for everything it would be a S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum. But I'd never be happy without a 1911.
GP 100 Wiley Clapp 3 inch barrel. I carry I everyday in a HPG kit bag. I don't always wear it on my chest, but I carry it like a messenger bag in town. I have other pistols but if I had to get down to one this would be it. If i find a good deal on a 22 GP I will buy it and the sell the others.
1) my odds of needing a handgun in earnest approach zero; I don't live in a bad neighborhood or big bear country. One handgun never drawn in anger is as good as the next.
2) my wants include fast followup shots, lots of followup shots, and fast reloading for even more followup shots. A wheelgun is at odds with nearly all of my wants.
If for any reason I was forced to have only a revolver it would be something like a chiappa rhino, of all my complaints about revolvers, bore axis is one of the chief ones. I was seriously considering a small hammerless for a pocket gun for a long time, being able to shoot from the pocket would be nice and they do fit very comfortably IWB appendix, but I couldn't get over my dislikes.
Not necessarily. Revolvers for many of us are simply vastly easier to shoot much better with far less work than autos to achieve or maintain a given level. The one auto Ive had (besides 22s) that was truly extremely mechanically accurate was a Colt National Match made in the 60s. I was never able to shoot it as consistently well as most Smith revolvers or good examples of Ruger single actions though. I had more odd fliers and shots wandering much father out of groups than Id get with revolvers. With large amounts of regular practice, I could do fairly good work accuracy wise, and for many people they could be considered "good enough" accuracy wise, even if not to the level most good revolvers can, but,...when life takes turns that one is unable to put that regular work in to keep in tune, Ive still been able to shoot the revolvers better than i was ever able to shoot the glock 19 or gov model grade 1911s or Smith 469s or other various guns Ive owned or shot. For me, if I had to count on being able to shoot well at this point totally cold, not having shot much for the past 5 or 6 years or so due to health issues, the revolver gives me hugely more confidence I can do it. Anyone elses mileage may vary of course, thats how it works for me.
Whatever perceived advantages an auto has, there are some real differences, and the auto doesnt have all the advantages. I could easily do all I need with revolvers, and mostly do.
Can, and do.
Needs? Yes, absolutely.
Wants? You gotta be kidding.
Sorry - I have to call you on that too. One thing the revolver does better than an auto is it will fire and cycle any round that fits the chamber. No need to test an unproven load for reliability as you should in every auto. For people on an ammo budget or who don't live near a shooting range, this can be a big deal. You may find a pistol that can be counted on to fire and cycle your average appropriate round without testing, but it won't do it better than a revolver, and it may not do it at all with specialty rounds (heavy for caliber, light for caliber, long for caliber, unconventional ogive, etc).
Yes, but glad I don't have to. If I did, maybe a S&W 686, and S&W M65. Could also be Ruger GP 100 and LCR
Needs; I can fill most of my needs with a revolver. I find them much more useful in the fields and woods due to their flexibility in loads. Less so for a concealed carry weapon.
A seven shot Ti .357 4 in and a snubby S&W 638 Bodyguard .38 Special +P would meet most of my needs and did for a time.
A 4 in .22LR Kit gun, a .22 WRM Kit gun, a 4 in Redhawk .45 Colt/.45 ACP and a 6.5 in .41 Magnum fill in as do others.
Semi autos are generally easier to reload, have larger capacities, commonly have night sights available, are easier to mount with lights-optics-lasers, easier to convert to other chamberings and can usually be suppressed. Also, contrary to popular opinion I believe some semi autos - especially Glocks-are more reliable and have a longer useful life than revolvers.
Wants; Of course not.
I would say yes not just for my handgun needs but for my gun needs. As much as I enjoy playing with lever actions, muzzleloaders and single shots (rifles and handguns) I use revolvers more than anything. Between both big and small game I can't begin to guess how many pounds of meat my revolvers have put in the freezer. I also carry a revolver for defense when I'm in the woods. I would not feel under gunned if I were only allowed to keep my 5" scoped .44 mag BFR (hunting), 4" .44 mag Redhawk (hunting & defense) and a 5.5" 22lr Single Six (hunting & practice).
Needs:no to wheel guns
They just make too much darn much noise. Other thsn a mosin All most impossible to put a suppressor on.
Wants: an semi fills all my needs and wants. From defence to hunting to just fun shooting stuff. And I can do it quietly and discreetly on every account if wanted and needed
Sure can and do because that's all I have , a .22 and a 38.
In some fantasy scenario where semi-autos are banned but revolvers are still legal, I could get by.
I enjoy shooting both but prefer to carry a modern plastic fantastic.
Yes, I could fill all my needs with just my Ruger GP100 revolver, but "variety is the spice of life"...
I keep my Colt 1911 at home for protection.
Conceal carry a S&W 340PD revolver.
My woods gun is a S&W 329NG revolver.
I should have used the word "objectively" in my posts somewhere - not that it would have necessarily made any difference.
I'm not ignorant to the fact that we all have our anecdotal influences and personal preferences, but this fact remains; The revolver is not as advanced (by design) as the semi-auto and that is the reason its universal use by most LE and the military end-users has been discontinued.
No, though I have one and haven't shot it in 25 years.
The semi's get all the range and carry fun.
But, I wouldn't mind finding a sweet deal on a late 50s S&W Model 28 4" in mint condition.
The one thing revolvers do better is allow you to load a round or two of special ammo (like snake shot) easily when necessary. For a personal self defense weapon that can be pretty important. But there's no doubt, in my opinion, that a semi auto is a better machine. But once you load it, and its magazines, it's slow and tricky to change your ammo. Also, and this is just my own experience, my S&W .357 revolver is more accurate than my 1911. If I had to make 50 yd shots at a small target (or a small spot on a big target) I would rather have the revolver. If I had to feed myself with a pistol, the revolver would be my choice. If I had to go to war, the semi auto would be better.
For practical, day to day use, yes. For the "what-if" scenarios, definitely not. The ability for me to carry a semi auto with 15 rounds and an additional 3 magazines gives me over 60 rounds to work with, and I can reload very quickly. I just can't do that with a revolver.
But aesthetically, and for power, you can't beat the revolver. The 357 is an extremely versatile round, and so is the 45 colt. To me, this is really an apples and oranges discussion, although there are plenty of people that are totally satisfied with nothing but revolvers. The same can be said for guys that only like autos (although I think they lack in power for big fun).
So, my answer is no. For fun and load development, hunting, etc., I choose revolvers every time. For self defense, I prefer autos. Same as my method on long guns. If I'm hunting, my go-to is a lever in 30-30, for defense, I choose the AR-15.
As a target shooter...Nope! The last time someone with a revolver won (many of the events I shoot) or even placed or showed was almost before I was born. But for all my other needs I have found revolvers to be ideal.
No. For what I do a revolver is a hindrance. I can do more with a semi auto than I can with a revolver.
I certainly prefer an auto for the things it does better, which is most of the time - and for the same reasons LE and military do, even if they really aren't issues for me. I would not propose that autos are more reliable in theory, but modern autos are less prone to being disabled by rough handling in the field...and of course, they hold more rounds. Add to that, the better ones are easier to shoot well than a DA revolver, and it's easy to see why they are the choice for anyone likely to enter any kind of combat with a handgun.
I am not likely to though. So I perceive no "need" for an auto if I can have a good revolver. In today's reality (which admittedly is subject to change) any fight I might be involved in will likely be over - one way or another - before the gun is empty or disabled. And I can shoot revolvers quite well, thank you. BUT....I prefer to have the auto most of the time. I see nothing wrong with having more firepower than you need, and being familiar with the auto could possibly be important in the future (just sayin').
I think I could cover all of my needs with just one revolver. Give me two and I'd be happy as a clam. I love my SP101 snubbie and my 6" GP100! My wants are a little harder to satisfy, but an 8 shot .357 Redhawk would come pretty close to rounding things out with its capacity. I'd just like something a little faster to reload for my competition shooting, but I could hold my own with a little practice
Revolvers have worked for plenty of people in frontier settings, so they'd work for me. That being said, I'd still take an auto for any serious handgun needs.
absolutely revolvers would suffice. ruger single six 22lr/wmr stands on its own as the all around handgun, a 38 snubbie for ccw, ruger blackhawk in 357/38/9 or 45lc/acp for going heavy.
Could I manage with a revolver? Yes. for most general purpose use a .45 long cold / .44 acp convertable blackhawk suits.
For self defense I always have my 1911.
If I were getting started and needed a first handgun a ruger in .357 like the gps or a S&W or Colt would cover most things.
If you are familiar with larger bore handguns then a model 25 using half moon clips or long colt calibers are nice revolvers. There are places in south america and central america where they frown on semi autos and don't look twice at revolvers. Same for military calibers vs not militarily calibers in those places.
1. Not unless they've suddenly invented a revolver with a capacity of 15+ rounds
2. Ha, ha, ha!!!!!!! You don't know me very well, do you?
I love revolvers. But limiting myself just to revolvers would be like eating the same meal every day for the rest of your life. You can survive that way, but why would you want to?
NOPE. While I love all my revolvers, five or six rounds at a time may not always cut it. I'm a mechanic and while you can in theory substitute one crescent wrench for a slew of combination wrenches, it's silly on its face. Better to have the best tools for each situation.
I am one of those that like to have both a hand gun and rifle the same cartridge . it is easier to do it in revolvers than semi autos and they both have their place.
I have both semi auto and single and double action weapons .
IMO single action weapons are for fun, target, entertainment .Good for experimentation with odd loads , but crummy for unloading and reloading.
Double action revolvers are good hunting weapons giving one great unloading and reloading capabilities and variations in ammo no semi auto can perform . Load variations that can require more attention to what's in the chamber. I tend to mix it up .
Semi auto are IMO most precisely a defensive tool, for dealing with animal/human aggression . Limited in specific loads , with minimal practice comparatively , due to it's load limitations the performance is predictable for the novice shooter .
I'd gladly trade my single action Ruger .22 .22 mag convertible for a Ruger double action revolver .
An or a .17 HMR double action revolver , seeing I am so happy with my marlin .17 HMR .
Now that I have a Rossi Puma .454 lever gun , I'd like an Ruger Alaskan .454 or at least a Ruger .45 DA revolver , seeing they share the same ammo .
I suppose I could get by but I passed the needs long ago and focused on the wants for many years now.
If I did have a need for a really powerful handgun like a .454 Casull or .500 Linebaugh then I would definitely go with a revolver.
Yes, and yes.
IF someone else is paying. until then I'll enjoy the autos I have that fill the niches I can't afford revolvers for.
I prefer revolvers. Mostly just asthetics and nostalgia.
But I do have opinions too;
Wheel guns are less moving parts to break, less parts to plug up with gunk. No safety to turn off. And even with a single action, cocking a big easy to reach hammer is faster and easier than finding a little safety button on the auto. And while no safety to turn off, it's never "cocked and locked" or cocked and "disconnected" like some autos, both of which are a recipe for your own gun shooting you.
But applicably in my life, those things are null.. I just like wheel guns, and I could live perfectly fine without autos.
But then again I'm not giving up my autos unless you, as they say, pry them from my cold dead hands.
I find it interesting that so many responses hinge on having a 15 round shooter. If they are limited to carrying less than 60 rounds they feel under gunned.
A five shot snubbie for close up self-defense and a six round large frame large caliber for the woods will fill any need!!
With one caveat...they must be in the hands of an experienced trained shooter!!
I am a big fan of revolvers, I spent the early years of my career carrying K frame and L frame smiths, I had a total of 30 rounds available on my person and never felt under gunned, I also carried a Winchester Model 94 as my rifle on patrol, I had six in the tube and 9 more on the stock and felt like I had plenty of ammo for what I might encounter. Advance 30 years and now I am told I must carry a Glock and at least 2 extra magazines, my rifle is an AR with a 20 round magazine and another 30 rounder on the stock, I have a chest rig with extra rifle and pistol mags ready to go as I exit my patrol vehicle if it is a particularly serious call, my times have changed.
But to answer your question, I could fill all my handgun needs with a revolver but not as well as I can with being able to insert semi-autos in the mix, I really like being able to slip a Ruger LCP in my pocket when it is not practical to carry a larger/bulkier handgun, my Glock 19 is easier to conceal than my Smith 66 or 686. Plus I really like shooting my 1911s, Glocks, and Ruger 22 semi-autos.
I have more but right now all of my gun needs are taken care of with a Blackhawk 45 Colt