would you trust youre life on it?

[drgrant]

I wouldn't give the cartridge a second chance, but that is personal preference. TRB, no time to spend on analysis. My TRB is kinda slow right now but I am working on it.

+1. IMO, "2nd strike" is way overrated. If you ever need to 2nd strike a
centerfire cartridge, the ammo is junk or something is seriously wrong
with the firearm. The vast majority of fire failures I've seen have all
been gun related. (eg, the mainspring is too weak, etc. )

-Mike

 

[LORD of WAR]

well im glad im not alone in thinking the guy didnt know what he was talking about

i dont doubt his knowledge about revolvers though...i was shooting my SW 627 PC as well as my kimber custom and he came over to admire both...we chatted for a little and he told me which loads work best in the 627, which ones fit too tight to use properly with moon clips and and which will produce the biggest fireball...knowing little about revolvers i just took in everything he was saying in hope to remember for future reference...he then went on to talk about his custom wheel gun collection

after that he watched me shoot the 1911...he had commented about it being a nice gun and that i shot well with it but told me that 1911s arent reliable and the littlest piece of dirt or sand in the action jams em up and that hed never trust one

i figured he had a pretty good knowledge of revolvers but probably didnt own many autos...let alone shoot em

 

[Fooped]

OK

Next time I edit the picture, I'll make it say,

9mm and .40 S&W is for women and pansies.

.40 S&W is not a pansy round. By any stretch.

 

[bpm990d]

Some guys that work at shops are super-knowledgable.

No doubt there are some knowledgeable gun store employees, but in my experience they are the exception rather than the rule.

The most important standard is that they are not obnoxious or condescending.

B

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I've been carrying pistols since the 70s. Early in my career, I fell under the evil influence of Bill Jordan and his classic book NO SECOND PLACE WINNER.

A statement that he made in the book, "I'll Take A Revolver, YOU Take Your Chances." became my mantra.

I worked for quite a few years as an armored car guard. I carried a Ruger Security Six in 357 mag. I was doing this during the eighties, when the police began their big switch to high cap 9mm semi-autos the second generation S&W's, The Beretta 92, and the Browning Hi-Power. Naturally, the armored car guards started following suit. I can't tell you the number of times somebody showed up at our monthly range training session with a new semi-auto (THAT THEY HAD BEEN CARRYING ON THE JOB FOR WEEKS) only to have one jam after another with it.

I KNOW IT SCARED THE HELL OUT OF ME, BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DEPEND ON YOUR PARTNERS!

Anyway, That was twenty years ago. I've finally accepted that these new-fangled flat guns aren't just a passing fad, and these days I carry either a Glock or a Kahr in 40 caliber. Both have been dead-nuts reliable for many thousands of rounds.

But I can definitely see where the wheelguns got their rep for being more reliable in the old days.

Regards
John

 

[Xak]

My P99AS has NEVER jammed with close to 1000 rounds of many brands of ammo through it. The Sig P220 went through a 10,000 round marathon, there was an article about it somewhere. Some semi-autos are that reliable. I have had my Ruger GP-100 cylinder stuck shut when trying to re-load it.

My P99 goes boom like 16 times in a row. Funny, my snubby never goes bang on that 6th pull of the trigger (but I still carry it anyway).

 

[RKG]

This debate has been going on since the beginning of time, and most likely it will still be going on at the end of time. That said, here are some observations:

1. Nothing in this world is perfectly safe or perfectlly reliable. Once you've decided to leave the house you've decided (at least implicitly) to accept some level of risk. So the real question is along the lines of: What are the practical comparative risks of unavailability when needed of a pistol vs. a revolver?

2. Empirically, a revolver will be more reliable than a pistol, for two reasons. First, the sequence successfully to fire two rounds out of a pistol is far more complicated, which means that there are more failure modes, which means that the combined probability that ANY of the modes will occur is higher. Second, the pistol, unlike the revolver, is dependent upon the ammunition in order to cycle, thus adding an entire class of failure modes that revolvers do not experience. Note that the probability that a locked and cocked pistol will fire the first round is much higher than that it will fire the second round, so if one round will do, the reliability of a pistol and a revolver probably converge.

3. In general, pistols require more frequency maintenance and surveillance than revolvers. In the scenario where you load, carry for a year, and then fire once, the reliability of the pistol varies (generally decays) over the carry time because of the migration of lube, the incursion of dust, dirt and debris, and the like, while the reliability of the revolver stays constant. At the same time, the reliability of the pistol that gets regularly fired (and, therefore, regularly cleaned, inspected and lubed) is higher than the reliability of the pistol that is "carried forever, shot once."

4. I once personally observed a very impressive demonstration. A Model 10 (and old, ratty one) was loaded and dropped into a five gallon plastic pail of mud. It was then put away for a month. After that, the pail was inverted; the mud, which had solidified, was prised out and whacked with a hammer to break it up, and the revolver recovered. Without doing anything to it, the revolver was pointed down range and fired. All six rounds went off. While I never saw the same test performed with an auto, I have no doubt that the most you'd get off would be the first round, and even that may be doubted.

5. On the other hand, what does this test tell you? Well, it tells you that if you're going to put your handgun in long term storage in mud, you should probably have a revolver. On the other hand, if you take your carry gun out of the holster religiously every week, cycle out the rounds and clean, inspect it and lube it, and then reload it with fresh factory rounds, this test tells you a lot less.

5A. Then from time to time you'll hear someone say, "Well, I've fired upteen zillion rounds out of my Suchandsuch auto, and only had two failures to go into battery." What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that his Suchandsuch, maintained the way he maintains it, is pretty reliable when engaged in sustained firing and maintenance. It tells you far less about how well a Suchandsuch performs as a carry forever, shoot once defensive device.

6. So the bottom line is that the question (which is more reliable: pistol or revolver) is not only difficut (if not impossible) to answer, it is also difficult (if not impossible) even to define the question. More to the point, "reliability" in strictly scientific, statistically definable terms, is probably irrelevant. The better question, as originally posed in this thread, is whether a qualified expert would trust his life on firearm X.

7. For what it may be worth, I have two handguns that, together, probably account for way over 90% of my carry. One is a stainless S&W revolver; the other is a SIG auto. I am qualified to work on both and I take good care of my guns (all of them), and both of these handguns are fired on a regular basis. Would I trust my life on either of them. Yup.

 

[EddieCoyle]

7. For what it may be worth, I have two handguns that, together, probably account for way over 90% of my carry. One is a stainless S&W revolver; the other is a SIG auto. I am qualified to work on both and I take good care of my guns (all of them), and both of these handguns are fired on a regular basis. Would I trust my life on either of them. Yup.

Great post. Mine are a S&W 642 and a G29.

 

[Fooped]

This debate has been going on since the beginning of time, and most likely it will still be going on at the end of time. That said, here are some observations:

1. Nothing in this world is perfectly safe or perfectlly reliable. Once you've decided to leave the house you've decided (at least implicitly) to accept some level of risk. So the real question is along the lines of: What are the practical comparative risks of unavailability when needed of a pistol vs. a revolver?

2. Empirically, a revolver will be more reliable than a pistol, for two reasons. First, the sequence successfully to fire two rounds out of a pistol is far more complicated, which means that there are more failure modes, which means that the combined probability that ANY of the modes will occur is higher. Second, the pistol, unlike the revolver, is dependent upon the ammunition in order to cycle, thus adding an entire class of failure modes that revolvers do not experience. Note that the probability that a locked and cocked pistol will fire the first round is much higher than that it will fire the second round, so if one round will do, the reliability of a pistol and a revolver probably converge.

3. In general, pistols require more frequency maintenance and surveillance than revolvers. In the scenario where you load, carry for a year, and then fire once, the reliability of the pistol varies (generally decays) over the carry time because of the migration of lube, the incursion of dust, dirt and debris, and the like, while the reliability of the revolver stays constant. At the same time, the reliability of the pistol that gets regularly fired (and, therefore, regularly cleaned, inspected and lubed) is higher than the reliability of the pistol that is "carried forever, shot once."

4. I once personally observed a very impressive demonstration. A Model 10 (and old, ratty one) was loaded and dropped into a five gallon plastic pail of mud. It was then put away for a month. After that, the pail was inverted; the mud, which had solidified, was prised out and whacked with a hammer to break it up, and the revolver recovered. Without doing anything to it, the revolver was pointed down range and fired. All six rounds went off. While I never saw the same test performed with an auto, I have no doubt that the most you'd get off would be the first round, and even that may be doubted.

5. On the other hand, what does this test tell you? Well, it tells you that if you're going to put your handgun in long term storage in mud, you should probably have a revolver. On the other hand, if you take your carry gun out of the holster religiously every week, cycle out the rounds and clean, inspect it and lube it, and then reload it with fresh factory rounds, this test tells you a lot less.

5A. Then from time to time you'll hear someone say, "Well, I've fired upteen zillion rounds out of my Suchandsuch auto, and only had two failures to go into battery." What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that his Suchandsuch, maintained the way he maintains it, is pretty reliable when engaged in sustained firing and maintenance. It tells you far less about how well a Suchandsuch performs as a carry forever, shoot once defensive device.

6. So the bottom line is that the question (which is more reliable: pistol or revolver) is not only difficut (if not impossible) to answer, it is also difficult (if not impossible) even to define the question. More to the point, "reliability" in strictly scientific, statistically definable terms, is probably irrelevant. The better question, as originally posed in this thread, is whether a qualified expert would trust his life on firearm X.

7. For what it may be worth, I have two handguns that, together, probably account for way over 90% of my carry. One is a stainless S&W revolver; the other is a SIG auto. I am qualified to work on both and I take good care of my guns (all of them), and both of these handguns are fired on a regular basis. Would I trust my life on either of them. Yup.

Well written and well thought out post. A pleasure to read.

 

[LORD of WAR]

7. For what it may be worth, I have two handguns that, together, probably account for way over 90% of my carry. One is a stainless S&W revolver; the other is a SIG auto. I am qualified to work on both and I take good care of my guns (all of them), and both of these handguns are fired on a regular basis. Would I trust my life on either of them. Yup.

Great post. Mine are a S&W 642 and a G29.

+1000...sw 642 and glock 36

 

[vellnueve]

G22 IWB and a SW 317 in case the six mags of .40 don't stop him.

 

[PistolPete]

If revolvers were best for self defense then why did all the police departments switch from revolvers to autos then?

 

[Dirtypacman]

More rounds to put down the criminal I would guess.

I believe some departments give you the option.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

If revolvers were best for self defense then why did all the police departments switch from revolvers to autos then?

There was a fairly well reported case back in the eighties of a NJ State Trooper who was killed in a gun battle on the NJ Turnpike after pulling over a car driven by a wanted black militant.

The trooper was carrying a six shot revolver, the black militant a high capacity 9mm. The battle took place at close range. The trooper fired all six rounds, and missed with every one of them. The black militant finally hit the trooper and killed him with about his eighth or ninth round.

The police response was NOT "Gee, we really ought to improve our marksmanship training and qualification program!", it was "Gee, we really need guns that hold more rounds, we're losing the firepower race!"

Does that answer your question?

Regards
John

 

[vellnueve]

It's the spray and pray mentality.

 

[LORD of WAR]

there was an article in guns and ammo not too far back by masaad ayoob

he was comparing and contrasting the revolver and auto pistol for duty carry

it was something like cops carried 5 or 6 shot revolvers with usually only 2 extra moon clips of ammo...a total of 15-18 rounds

now cops carry full size autos with 13+1 in the gun and 3 extra mags

triple what was once carried...as in the case stated above by optimistic paranoid cops were severely outgunned...especially in high crime areas where gangs control the turf and had encountered too many situations where multiple shots were needed to take down a subject

however ayoob was also quick to mention that alot of cops do carry snub revolvers as backups

 

[tele_mark]

If revolvers were best for self defense then why did all the police departments switch from revolvers to autos then?

Apples and oranges. A LEO's requirements for a gun are usually much different from a civilian's. While I'm not about to give up my semi auto's for carry, most of the time, in my dull, boring existence, I feel and am probably more than adequately armed with just my 637 and a couple speed strips worth.

 

[RKG]

There was a fairly well reported case back in the eighties of a NJ State Trooper who was killed in a gun battle on the NJ Turnpike after pulling over a car driven by a wanted black militant.

The trooper was carrying a six shot revolver, the black militant a high capacity 9mm. The battle took place at close range. The trooper fired all six rounds, and missed with every one of them. The black militant finally hit the trooper and killed him with about his eighth or ninth round.

The police response was NOT "Gee, we really ought to improve our marksmanship training and qualification program!", it was "Gee, we really need guns that hold more rounds, we're losing the firepower race!"

Does that answer your question?

Regards
John

The Trooper's name was Philip Lamonico. The shooters were not members of a black militant group, but members of the Jaan Laaman/Raymond Lavesseur group, a bunch of white anti-government radicals. Lamonico never got his sidearm out of his holster, and the type of weapon he was carrying played no part in the outcome. The incident happened in 1981.

The shooters in this case were later indicted and tried in Boston for sedition. Other members of the group were responsible for the bombing of some Eastern Airlines aircraft at Logan and the Suffolk County courthouse in April, 1976. (Yours truly was in the building (but on a different floor) when the device exploded.)

The movement from revolvers to pistols for uniformed police service was instigated by the manufacturers, primarily S&W. In fact, the Illinois State Police had switched from .357 S&W revolvers to 9 mm Model 39s in 1967; they almost switched back after an incident in 1976 in which a trooper was shot in the right elbow as he exited his cruiser in a MV stop, drew his M39 with his left hand and fired once, and suffered a stovepipe. It was later concluded that this was the result of the pistol having been fired limp-wristed.

In any event, S&W was more successful at convincing police brass to switch to autos than they were at convincing them to purchase S&W autos. Enter Glock et al.

 

[TY43215]

If revolvers were best for self defense then why did all the police departments switch from revolvers to autos then?

It's called marketing Pete. RKG Gave an excellent explanation but the short of it is Glock went to Police Agencies and said we will sell you G17s for X amount. Then we will make arrangements to outfit you with new holsters and mag holders for X amount additional. We will then arrange to take your service revolvers and leather in trade giving you new firearms at almost no cost to the department. Next we will train your department armorers to service the firearms at no charge.

It was the best marketing plan I have ever seen and it worked. The people making the decisions had little knowledge of the firearms but new the budget. Very few Officers knew or cared what they carried as long as the department paid for them.

After the transition went through, many said "If it's good enough for the COPS it must be the best" So the general public started buying Glocks. That is how the marketing worked. It had absolutely nothing to do with what is better. It was what is cheaper.

As for the Model 39 RKG mentioned, I carried one in 1974. I went back to my Model 19 in '75 I just didn't like that mag disconnect even though I liked the 39.

 

[RKG]

The Model 39, which I believe dates from the early 1960s, was S&W's attempt to mate a Browning-style lockup with a Walther-style DA/SA trigger. A later variant, the Model 59, was essentially the same pistol with a double stack magazine and a 1911-style grip.

In addition to the Illinois State Police, I believe the Wrentham PD actually carried Model 39s for a while in the early 1970s.

Though the concept was interesting -- indeed, we now know, before its time -- the execution was poor and doomed these pistols. They were not very accurate or accurizable; they were terribly ammo sensitive (at a time when the offerings in 9mm Parabellum were limited); the trigger was not smooth or crisp (and was confounded by its interaction with the magazine disconnector); and the Walther-type safety, which S&W insisted be used whenever the pistol was holstered in order to avoid a muzzle-drop AD, was awkward and slow to release. Smith could have overcome these issues with some more product development but never made the effort. Interestingly, a sister pistol, the SA-only Model 52 in .38 Special, was a superbly reliable and accurate pistol designed for the three-gun National Match Course.

 

[Scrivener]

In addition to the Illinois State Police, I believe the Wrentham PD actually carried Model 39s for a while in the early 1970s.

Correct. It was, per Massad Ayoob, the first Massachusetts municipality to adopt a semi-auto. Last time I looked, the Wrentham PD carried S&W 4006s and has since about the mid-nineties.