The only real advantage to a revolver over an auto pistol is that the slide vs. cylinder action is less likely to be caught and fouled in loose clothing/hair/concealment/cover garments/fouled by a grapple or improper grip. Auto pistols are superior as a self defense pistol in reliability (due to simplicity of functionality and low amount of moving parts), ease of malfunction clearances, reload speed and ease, concealment for the amount of rounds due to size, primarily thickness) and CHIEFLY capacity. Revolvers have many more problems then people care to remember or think about, debris/fauna/garments getting caught in the cylinder, primers walking out of cartridges, incorrect timing, internal malfunctions and fragility of their mechanisms (revolvers are fucking swiss watches), short stroking trigger pulls (muh training issues), excessive case wall expansion locking up the ejection rod, among countless other problems. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that WHEN (not if) the pistol jams 9/10 the malfunction with an auto pistol can be cleared manually. When the revolver malfunctions, 9/10 you're better off using it as an impact weapon. In addition to this, capacity is paramount in a self defense pistol. More rounds = more time in the fight, and the one benefit that a revolver offers no where near out weighs the element of a good semi-auto fighting pistol, let alone the totality that all the elements that a good semi-auto fighting pistol brings to the table.
A revolver will kill you just as dead just as any good as any good auto pistol would. But in a world where the Glock 19/26/43 exists, why would you bother using anything else?"
> But in a world where the Glock 19/26/43 exists, why would you bother using anything else?
because there are people here who hate glock fanboys so much that they refuse to buy them
>why would you bother using anything else?"
Not a dude that carries revolvers but why the fuck do you even care if some guy wants to carry what he thinks is cool, and what suits him perfectly. Seriously fuck you guy, stop shitting on peoples preferences.
sweet christ, OP. this is literally the most autistic thing I've seen in months and FUCK my eyes that formatting.
The hammer on the revolver will hook on your clothing.
Look at this idiot on the right
Revolvers are cool but they are for animals and not dropping shells on the ground.
Well, I think you're confusing self defense with full fledged combat. There are statistics that show the average number of rounds fired in each. Hell, there are videos on the internet that back this up too on liveleak or even YT for example. I haven't seen a video when someone needed to reload or fire more than a few. Revolvers are fucking cool, especially the snubbies, so go slobber elsewhere you dick.
Also I've never seen a revolver malfunction but I'm pretty new so eh.
Please tell me this is pasta and you didn't seriously write all that shit out.
Your chances of actually using your gun for self defense are basically zero and when you do, literally every caliber and gun is capable of putting down a dindu.
You fags miss out of so many good funs because of brand loyalty/hate
Blocks don't conceal well, even the small ones. My employer has a no tolerance policy and my work is largely physical so I need to conceal to a larger degree. Blocks fucking suck for concealment. Also tablet is auto correcting but its funny and am lazy so whatever.
OP, let me help you with your wrong.
Fucking lol loser
>The only real advantage to a revolver over an auto pistol is that the slide vs. cylinder action is less likely to be caught and fouled in loose clothing/hair/concealment/cover garments
>Auto pistols are superior as a self defense pistol in reliability (due to simplicity of functionality and low amount of moving parts), ease of malfunction clearances, reload speed and ease, concealment for the amount of rounds due to size, primarily thickness)
That's a fine opinion, kind of agree.
>and CHIEFLY capacity.
statistically a disproved statement, see >>28446649
>Revolvers have many more problems then people care to remember or think about, debris/fauna/garments getting caught in the cylinder, primers walking out of cartridges, incorrect timing, internal malfunctions and fragility of their mechanisms (revolvers are fucking swiss watches),
These aren't really problems and don't really happen.
>short stroking trigger pulls (muh training issues),
All guns need to be training and rapid fire, you get a similar problem but it is more an issue with Ruger, not S&W (aka the superior revolver) because of the internals
In winter I carry a .357 Ruger LCR. The only reason I do so is so I can fire it from the pocket of my winter coats, it has a huge trigger guard, and I won't ever have to futz with a slide with heavy winter gloves on.
Otherwise, I carry a Glock.
The main point of conceal carry is to have options for carry dependent upon season, clothing, and weather.
>excessive case wall expansion locking up the ejection rod, among countless other problems.
Revolvers are not meant to be employed for that kind of combat scenario.
>The biggest thing to keep in mind is that WHEN (not if) the pistol jams 9/10 the malfunction with an auto pistol can be cleared manually.
In well over 20k rounds put through Glocks, I've had exactly 1 jam. It was a defective casing that folded over itself when chambered and wedged into that chamber like a mother fucker. It took a hammer and a bench to clear it.
>When the revolver malfunctions, 9/10 you're better off using it as an impact weapon.
Ironically, pistols are sturdier to use as impact weapons because of the nature of their frames. Revolvers are more likely to be bent.
>In addition to this, capacity is paramount in a self defense pistol. More rounds = more time in the fight,
Now you're repeating yourself and have been proven wrong by, like, the real world, man.
>and the one benefit that a revolver offers no where near out weighs the element of a good semi-auto fighting pistol, let alone the totality that all the elements that a good semi-auto fighting pistol brings to the table.
For personal defense you're right.
>A revolver will kill you just as dead just as any good as any good auto pistol would. But in a world where the Glock 19/26/43 exists, why would you bother using anything else?"
There are a few reasons. Generally revolvers are a way to get a magnum round into a smaller package for hiking where there are dangerous animals, a point you never mention. Some criminals may also prefer revolvers because they don't leave shells laying around. Hand loaders also prefer revolvers because they have more options for hand loading (don't have to worry about feeding the ammo or tuning the ammo to a recoil spring) and don't have to pick the ammo up off the ground which some ranges don't even allow.
Hope that helps.
Seconded, it makes more sense to get the .357mag for the flexibility and added strength.
I do think snub nose guns are stupid though, gimping the round to 9mm levels of energy, just carry a 9mm. The only exception being exactly what you are doing, pocket carry, where the shape of the revolver and lack of slide may offer some advantages.
Then again I also think pocket carry is stupid.
I think snubs and pocket carry are stupid, sue me.
Pocket carry is good for carrying at work where I can't risk my shirt stretching up when lifting crates of vegetables. Guy got fired for just that last year while I was pocketing and he was IWB like a toon.
I have a M&P 9mm compact... and the M&P Bodyguard.
My PewPew Bro has a Glock 19... and the M&P Bodyguard.
We would prefer to be proficient with the M&P BG and Concealed Carry that. Its a hammerless revolver and its a pretty damn good gun.
We don't need to elect Trump anymore, all we have to do is get OP to shit another one of these out along the border.
I'm going to tl;dr most of this thread, but in my opinion the advantage of revolvers is that they're a lot more practical for high-powered magnum cartridges than semiautos (my secret love for the Coonan and Deagle notwithstanding). Revolvers that aren't at minimum chambered in .357mag seem rather pointless to me. Get a .357mag, .44mag, a supermag, or a double-stack semiauto - or else you're only getting a range toy, not a self-defense weapon.
(I'd also add as an addendum that supermags are probably pointless as well because rifle-caliber "pistols" exist, and while even larger than an X-frame they're just ridiculously more practical.)
Hello OP! I see you nade a bait thread... what a poor bait.
(In case it is not bait and you legitimately believe what you said then i regret to information that almost all of your listed negatives for wheel gun are not applicable or false)
For example primer popping out. Primer doesn't even have enough room to pop out halfway. And this doesn't happen due to inspec ammo used not brass that have been reloaded over 20 time have primer pocket loose like whore's pussy and corrective action have not been take such as using glue,paint,nail polish to seal and make primer stay in. Im talking about round thats sitting unfired as another round get fired in another chamber. If you are taking about the firing one this cannot happen due to brass backing into primer.
Many of your negative obviously incorrect and shoen you do not know wheel guns or heard negative of poorly made wheel gun or certain models and blindly applied it to all wheel gun.
Its likes if guy heard how shitty Jimenez or hipoint are and applied those negatives he heard to all semi auto made ever
>the advantage of revolvers is that they're a lot more practical for high-powered magnum cartridges than semiautos (my secret love for the Coonan and Deagle notwithstanding)
>Revolvers that aren't at minimum chambered in .357mag seem rather pointless to me.
I disagree, but it's your opinion. Fair enough.
>Get a .357mag, .44mag, a supermag, or a double-stack semiauto - or else you're only getting a range toy, not a self-defense weapon.
Yyyyeahno. Single-stacks and .38 snubbys are way more concealable than their big brothers, 9 times out of 10. Unless you are Big Guy-tier and regularly wear clothing that facilitates that kind of concealment, in which case this is sorta null. It's a kind of trade-off: do you want performance and capacity, or concealment and less weight?
Revolvers are bad because low cap, and malfunctions are fatal
Moderns semi auto's are better because capacity and less chance for slide to fuck up on shit. The malfunctions are easier to clear so why are you using a revolver ?
>striker fired triggers
>GLOCK striker fired triggers
are tupperfags just masochists or something?
>More rounds = more time in the fight
This is why revolvers won't go out of style and I'd love to have one.
Fight time shouldn't happen in the first place. If it does revolvers are not the worse choice.
Capable? As in "able to achieve efficiently whatever one has to do; competent" or "having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing"?
Glocks are certainly capable. I prefer different pistols however, which is why I think they are terrible. Oh, and glock is damn near a meme all by itself.
But I will say that I think my XDs is better. It is slimmer than most, if not all glocks, and I just plain shoot it better than any glock I've tried to date. Grip safety being a danger is just a meme and makes sure I won't get glock leg.
This is CCW specific. If you're talking about a duty pistol then I'm a complete 1911 fan boy. They are just plain fun to shoot and the chances of me needing more than seven rounds is minuscule. I also like the full size USP for duty pistols. They are also fun.
>grip safety keeps me safe from my incompetence so I won't get le glock leg.
I said NO memes
>the chances of me needing more than seven rounds are slim. 1 shot from Muh 45 and it's all over.
If you follow this retarded line of resoning, then why carry a gun at all? Its statistically unlikely to ever be fired in anger. And by the way when people say that the average number of rounds fired in a defensive situation is 1 or 2 or whatever, that takes into account the great majority of presentations where no rounds are fired at all. If you do end up actually having to pull the trigger, odds are it'll take more shots than that.
I want to believe the OP since I got an auto pistol for my 21st birthday/Christmas present. But I like revolvers for the same reason as bolt, pump, lever action guns, they shoot any ammo loading. But I think any 9mm should work in auto pistols so the issue is moot. The problem with revolvers is the rimless cartridge issue which makes 9mm require moon clips or other workarounds. I see no reason to buy .38 Special vs 9x19mm. 9mm is so much cheaper. The other reason I like manual action guns is the gas seal, but this doesn't exist in most revolvers, and the one exception shoots snowflake ammo and has a hefty trigger pull. Is there any difference in accuracy? If you spend under $400 you can't really get any decent length barreled revolvers in a centerfire caliber. I don't like OP's glock endorsement.
More than seven rounds to stop a human? I hope not. If it takes more than seven rounds of pretty much anything over .22 lr then I'd start running. Bullets obviously aren't going to work in that situation.
Glock leg isn't a meme. It is something that legitimately happens.
I also like how you decided that I was not only incompetent but bought into the 1 round of fuddyfive for anything meme. I just plain like 1911s in .45 ACP. Get over yourself fan boy.
The idea that one should prepare for the absolute craziest batshit situation or else not bother defending themselves at all is pure fallacy.
There is a very real, broad middle ground of what is actually statistically likely and worth training/preparing for.
>More than seven rounds to stop a human? I hope not.
And that's also assuming you're not going to miss. And it's assuming you're only facing one assailant.
>glock leg isn't a meme. It's something that legitimately happens. Yeah it does. You know what else happens? 1911leg. And hkleg and fnleg and yes, even xdleg. The reason glock leg is a more of a meme than those brands is because glocks enjoy much wider usage, and so are more likely to be involved in ND's. But if you have a good holster and have a triple digit iq, the odds of you having one are no higher than any other type of handgun, with the added bonus of not having as many points of failure.
And pointing out these benefits does not make one a fanboy
Did you read more than the title? A suspect was hit 14 times with a .45 before succumbing. Yeah I know fug do bolis XDDD or whatever but the person pulling the trigger doesn't really matter if the rounds were on target.
>one specific scenario that is clearly an outlier/anomaly
>everyone should base their self-defense plans around this!
By that logic guns themselves are useless since at least one person has survived a railroad spike being blown through their head, we all should be carrying high explosives with us.
Why don't you both go suck each other off so you have a reason to shut the fuck up until you do some homework and have something worth talking about.
>dont have a discussion just get asspained
>bring up dick sucking out of nowhere
After some google-fu the p2000 and 19 are pretty much the same. The HK is 4mm thicker and the height is identical, glock has a longer barrel. capacity is better from the glock though.
My point wasnt that carrying 7 or 8 rounds was useless or something. Just that more rounds is always preferable, assuming you actually carry it, and assuming you can shoot them as well as you could out of a single stack or whatever. Yes it is an outlier, but it shows that a couple rounds isn't enough for every situation, even with just one attacker who you hit with every shot.
>>Revolvers have many more problems then people care to remember or think about, debris/fauna/garments getting caught in the cylinder, primers walking out of cartridges, incorrect timing, internal malfunctions and fragility of their mechanisms (revolvers are fucking swiss watches),
>These aren't really problems and don't really happen.
Yes, they do happen. If you don't think so, you haven't carried and shot revolvers enough. I had to carry a revolver for years (yes, I'm old) and that shit DID happen.
>>excessive case wall expansion locking up the ejection rod, among countless other problems.
>Revolvers are not meant to be employed for that kind of combat scenario.
Says who? Back before semi-auto pistols became so commonplace like today, revolvers were regularly carried in the police and military. And once again, as I said in my previous post, these kinds of malfunctions DO happen with revolvers, and when revolvers jam, holy shit... much of the time they are locked up TIGHT.
>>The biggest thing to keep in mind is that WHEN (not if) the pistol jams 9/10 the malfunction with an auto pistol can be cleared manually.
>In well over 20k rounds put through Glocks, I've had exactly 1 jam. It was a defective casing that folded over itself when chambered and wedged into that chamber like a mother fucker. It took a hammer and a bench to clear it.
Ok, so you have anecdotal evidence of that 1-in-10 malfunction where you DO need tools to clear a malfunction on a semi-auto, but MOST of the time, they aren't that hard to clear.
You made some very good points in your posts, but in going overboard in trying to disprove every statement this guy posted, you're starting to reveal the limitations of your own knowledge, particularly in the area of revolvers, if not other areas as well.
You have over 20K rounds through Glocks. That's excellent. Probably more pistol shooting experience than most gun owners get in their lifetime. But it doesn't necessarily make you an expert.
I don't have all the answers, and my opinions are just that, opinions. I'm sure someone with more experience could dissect what I'm saying and find flaws in it. However, I have over 100,000 rounds through just ONE of my Glocks. I've worked with and carried firearms in my personal life, the gun and ammo sales/commercial/R&D areas, security, law enforcement, military, private contractor for well over 30 years. I do NOT have all the answers. Not even close. But I have a reasonable amount of experience
Because nobody ever caught in a shooting/mugging/old fashioned raping ever said
>"God damnit, I brought too much ammo!"
I love the idiots who try to justify their shit choices while also dancing around admitting that a semi auto 9mm is vastly superior to any revolver they can get.
Cops don't maintain their weapons for shit. If you properly maintain your revolver, don't polish off the seer, don't cowboy the cylinder and don't shoot 10,000 heavy +p+ loads through it without reacting to frame fatigue, then those problems really don't happen except perhaps in some super rare freak event.
I'm saying that it doesn't happen in terms of it being worthwhile consideration in comparison with other semi-auto choices.
I also don't think that jams in reputable semi-autos are a valid consideration in comparison of semi-autos to revolvers. I've plenty of jams in other guns such as the p22. Most jams are easy to clear like you said, a bad magazine can cause jams but honestly, I've had one jam ever in a Glock and it totally shut the firearm down. For someone to make the statement that "Revolver jams are catastrophic and pistol jams aren't" just isn't a valid opinion. That's all.
Sorry for the late reply, had work.
>more than seven rounds!
Like I said, if it takes more than seven rounds of anything but .22 lr, then I'm booking it and hoping they bleed out before they catch me. I carry a XDs in 9 mm and it only holds 7+1 (at least in the summer when I want max concealment, in the winter I use the extended mag for 9+1). If there is multiple assailants then I'll probably be fucked anyway unless the simple threat of me having a gun scares them off. At average self-defense distance, I doubt I'll be able to reload fast enough for the mag in my pocket to count (a 9 round one, just in case).
>You can ND into your leg with other pistols!
Sure, you can ND with any gun. But glock has only a trigger safety. This makes it more likely for you to ND, especially into your leg. That is why I like my XDs, the grip safety makes it less likely for me to ND. As for competence, I simply admit that I am human and I could make a mistake. I most likely never will but it is nice knowing that if I do there is a lower chance that my mistake will result in some HST going through my leg. One "oops" will erase a lifetime of "good job".
No, it's not because you are pointing out advantages. It's because you keep insulting anyone who doesn't think glocks are good. Such as myself. So far you've said that I am incompetent and stated in multiple ways that I am stupid/retarded. You also ignore any disadvantages that it has. That is what makes you a fan boy.
Describe to me the scenario in which you accidentally press the trigger but don't have your palm depressing the grip safety. I am genuinely curious. The only thing I can think of is some soft leather holster and not paying attention while holstering and getting a bit of holster on the trigger or you get some cord of your jacket caught in the trigger area while holstering, in either situation i blame the operator and I don't see a grip safety giving you appreciably less chance of a ND what with you needing to push the grip down to holster it with sufficient force to depress the trigger in both cases. Maybe an old holster and the gun is moving in and out as you move around and a piece of holster goes in the trigger guard then some part of you presses the gun back down. Get a better holster in that case I say.
Only time I can imagine a grip safety working in your favor is if you are spinning the thing around like a cowboy.
You're right, I was being mean. Sorry. But really, those extra safeties should NEVER be the difference between shooting yourself and not shooting yourself. If they end up saving your leg/dick someday then that's great, and you were smart and forward-thinking to go with that option, but that situation happening at all would point to carelessness or a lack of familiarity with weapon handling rules.
The prevailing modern view is that user-actuated safeties are a liability in a defense situation and aren't at all helpful to a person who can keep their finger off the trigger and has a somewhat ok holster (This guy summarizes my thoughts on the XD's backstrap safety pretty well >>28459216). If it gives you peace of mind for whatever reason though, then so be it. At least it's not as bad as the people who carry with an empty chamber.
Really though your XD will probably be fine. Especially since you said you carry a spare mag, which alot of people with sub-compacts don't do. I still disagree strongly with your claim that Glocks are more prone to prone to ND's as a result of the lack of safeties though.
>Cops don't maintain their weapons for shit. If you properly maintain your revolver... don't cowboy the cylinder...
What are you basing this upon? First of all, it's a gross generalization to claim that all 800,000 (approx) officers in the USA fail to maintain their weapons. A poor and amateurish argument. Police officers are individuals, just like any other profession or category of people. You'll get some who practice a lot and properly care for their gear, and some who don't. Some who are assholes, some who aren't.
Having worked as a PD armorer, out of a PD of about 200 officers using Glocks, during annual weapon checks I'd find around one per year in a condition which MAY cause it to fail to function properly. Back with revolvers the percentage was noticeably larger, perhaps low double digits, most commonly due to timing issues which is often caused by abuse (cowboy or hollywood the cylinder), but not necessarily always the cause.
> ...don't polish off the seer...
As for polishing the sear (not spelled seer), most officers were smart enough not to perform their own gunsmithing.
>don't shoot 10,000 heavy +p+ loads through it...
When agencies issue +P for carry, about the only time it was ever fired was when rotating ammo during annual qualification, so around 50 rounds per weapon per year, give or take. Some agencies fire as many as 150 rounds during qual, but that's uncommon. It's a cost issue, most agencies did (and still do) fire inexpensive practice ammo for training and general practice and only issue +P ammo for carry. There are exceptions, but they are VERY rare.
I don't know many private gun owners who shoot much +P ammo either due to the cost. Even competition shooters who reload and shoot insanely large amounts of ammo per year usually shoot lighter loads, not +P. At least the ones I've known. I also don't know where you're getting this random number of 10,000 rounds from.
>then those problems really don't happen except perhaps in some super rare freak event. I'm saying that it doesn't happen in terms of it being worthwhile consideration in comparison with other semi-auto choices.
Also, once again what are you basing this on? Because in my experience it's just plain incorrect. While they certainly aren't a common event, in both my personal and professional experience I ran into them often enough to consider them a valid consideration when choosing a weapon and ammo.
Just one example: poor quality ammo is a very common cause of malfunctions listed by OP. I count reloads, some surplus ammo and a significant percentage of imported ammo to fall into this category. In stores most people just buy whatever box is cheapest on the shelf with their caliber. I've literally sold millions of rounds of ammo, I've seen it happen thousands of times. Just look at the ammo threads on this forum, many seem focused on where to get it the cheapest ammo in a given caliber.
A lot of private individuals use reloads, and back in revolver days, even a lot of police agencies did too, even for duty use. I still find some who use them for practice ammo, but it's becoming less and less common.
2/3 (sorry, didn't type it out first and realize the length)
>Most jams are easy to clear like you said, a bad magazine can cause jams but honestly, I've had one jam ever in a Glock and it totally shut the firearm down. For someone to make the statement that "Revolver jams are catastrophic and pistol jams aren't" just isn't a valid opinion. That's all.
Isn't valid, or isn't accurate?
I think your opinion is perfectly valid. You're free to voice your opinion, it's how we share ideas. Even someone of very limited experience can sometimes teach something to an old salt.
However, what you wrote is just plain WRONG. As far as I recall, neither myself nor OP ever said "Revolver jams are catastrophic and pistol jams aren't" yet you put it in quotes to lend credibility to your statement. It appears to me to be your interpretation of what was said, which does NOT merit to be listed as a quote.
The original argument was, and I'm paraphrasing here, that MOST revolver jams put the weapon out of service, MOST semi-auto jams can be cleared by hand. You seem to be basing your ONE experience with a semi-auto jam in a Glock to completely refute the opposing statement, but it's anecdotal and only references a single instance. Hardly an authoritative refutation of the earlier comments.
I find your opinion to be amateurish in SOME respects, and on a number of points completely inaccurate. That's just MY opinion as well. You made some very good points, but in some areas it appears to me you're spouting ideas based on only one person's limited experience, and that you're clinging to those opinions like a drowning man to a life preserver. I think your experience has value, but you can't apply one instance as representative of the whole.
I don't touch the grip safety while holstering. And once the gun is in hand I take full responsibility for anything that happens.
But still, at the end of the day I just plain don't like shooting glocks. Which is my main point. It's my opinion that glocks aren't good because they don't work the way I want them too and they aren't as comfortable as other pistols.
Like I said earlier, glocks are perfectly capable and they are popular for a reason. They just aren't for me.
The ammo comment was directed at hand loaders.
The cop comment was a result of handling the guns carried by several different officers, they're always full of lint and pocket sand. I've seen cops manage to break the block in the Glock frame too, not sure how.
The argument i was trying to articulate is that a properly maintained revolver that isn't suffering from excessive wear /abuse, will only have problems under rare freak circumstances; a sentiment I maintain.
Again that argument about the relative ease of clearing potential jams being a concern when discussing merits of revolvers vs. semi autos isn't valid. Maintained and properly implemented guns of a reputable make like Glock or s&w don't generally have issues and to imply that pistols have the advantage of it were an issue is laughable do to the problems of limp wristing, bent feeding lips and underpowered ammo alone.
>debris/fauna/garments getting caught in the cylinder
Do you know what fauna means? It means animals. What the fuck animal could get caught in the cylinder and prevent it from rotating?
Looking at .38s vs 9mm or .40 autos: OK, I'll go with the auto. But get up into the .357 or .44 mag area and tell me how the autos do.
Revolvers just handle high power loads better. If you can afford to give up the power, then autos are just fine.