So is there even an argument to be made anymore? Besides hoodrats

>>35004683

No Semi auto is the superior weapons platform, that is objective. It is really just up to personal preference as far as style really, but I would not bet my life on that.

>>35004683
revolvers get better ammo options but as a platform for using that ammo, much worse. Sexy semi-auto revolvers are still a thing.

I guess the other half dozen revolver vs. semiauto threads we had this week just weren't enough.

Also, "weapons platform" when talking about a fucking handgun. El oh fucking el.

>>35004922
Bring your weapons platform into your workspace operator.

File: IMG_20170828_014528_811.jpg (692KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1440x2560px

Why not both? You stupid bitch.

>>35004683
I have the unpopular opinion that revolvers are the superior platform but semiautos are much more aesthetically pleasing.

I'm not even trying to be contrarian here, it's just my opinion.
Semiauto's large capacities make aiming a second thought when it should be your first. Revolvers make you actually make your rounds count.
That French team who killed those terrorists with revolvers on entry are a good example.
Also semiauto is more prone to failure than revolvers. Even if semiautos are reliable, this higher likelyhood of failure paired with the downside of large capacity magazines makes it significantly a less effective sidearm.
That said modern revolvers are ugly imo whereas semiautos are gorgeous guns most of the time.

But inb4 some assfucker comes in to tell me shot placement doesn't matter and 9mm is the same as .357 anyway

>>35005112
Depends on what you're really talking about, the firearms or the use of the firearms by organizations and shit. I don't think anyone should have an unreliable firearm/ammo/magazine at all in any form. If that basic requirement isn't met you've got the statistics and niche cases and thats all rather boring anyway. A lot of the this-isnt-useful-for-military part of the use of revolvers has shifted the market to make them much much better target/range/safe guns which maybe aren't as suited for the rugged treatment they'd otherwise get. That's not really an argument towards their mechanical design potential but those particular models' design intent too.

They're all good.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>35004683
>for anti bear work, which is still a stretch when rifles exist but still
Find me something that gets a 220gr copper solid projectile going 1450ft/s and weighs 25oz.

>>35005112
Two words:

Miami. Shoutout.

If you're facing somebody with a semiauto rifle, as you're likely to in a mass shooting or terrorist incident, a revolver is a liability unless you are lucky enough to be able to take a well aimed shot while the assailint is engaging somebody else. Once they know where you are and are trying to suppress or kill you, a semiautomicn handgun is a godsend.

>>35005353
I meant Miami shootout. Oops. Also if you solely carry for defense against muggers or whatever this is less important.

>>35005353
Hey dumbfuck, if you're facing someone with a rifle, bring a rifle and not a plastic peashooter

>>35005353
Fair point, but it reminds me of how full auto is only really used as suppressing fire, too, and in any other situation a semi automatic rifle would be superior.
I can definitely see how being pinned, a semiauto would be more beneficial over a revolver,
but that French team were facing nutjobs with AKs and took them down with 4 revolver shots on entry.

>>35005440 has a fair point though I would have worded it differently.
Comparing a sidearm to a primary firearm defeats the purpose in my opinion.

>>35005440

That's the best option, but if you're in the mall or a movie theater and somebody decides to let loose with an AR-15, you're going to have what you were carrying, and nothing more.

File: angrylaugh.gif (346KB, 500x428px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 500x428px

>>35005384
>I meant Miami shootout.
You do know that the two FBI agents who got killed in that shootout were both carrying semiautos, right?

File: 1502421335872.jpg (67KB, 500x774px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x774px

>>35005059
>hp laptop
>calling anyone else stupid
>posting pictures of it on the internet

>>35005460
They were, but the other six LEOs there were armed with revolvers.


Per American Handgunner:

"Noting the difficulties of reloading a revolver while under fire, the FBI specified that agents should be armed with semiautomatic handguns, and this incident contributed to the increasing trend of law enforcement agencies switching from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols across the nation."

>>35005460
Again. Not an issue.

>>35005112

>You have to aim with a revolver, so it's better
>implying you don't have to aim, or that shot placement is less important in a semi auto.

what the fuck are you smoking?

>>35005454
And if that happens I'm not gonna square off against an AR or AK with my handgun unless there's no other option. I'm gonna GTFO as soon as possible

>>35005484
Knowing you have 20 rounds affects your shooting behavior on a subconscious level, as does knowing you have 6.
If you know you have less shots you are more likely to place them wisely.

>>35005472
Yes, I know that the FBI said that. They blamed the guns involved for their own lack of adequate training and preparation, creating a tornado of fuddlore that's lasted for thirty years. Here's a better analysis of what happened that day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv8cByaVyNQ

>>35005497
You counteract that with training, not by hobbling yourself with a lower capacity gun.

You're literally parroting the arguments armies the world over used to hold back the deployment of, first, magazine fed bolt actions, then semi-autos, then full blown assault rifles. In every case they were wrong.

This kind of threat is useless, as aways.

First, it does not matter as you shouldn't be poor enough to not own many of both.

If first do not apply to you, get a job.

>>35005497

That's absolute bullshit. You're either on target off your draw or you aren't.

And even if it were true, the only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss. If your aim time is significantly more with a revolver, then you're doing something wrong, and you're going to get shot while you make sure you hit 'just so.'

Fucking train, dude.

>>35005512

Also parachutes, if you want to broaden their argument to "better equipment leads to worse soldiers."

>>35005512
>>35005514
Look at videos of people training with semiautos. They often fire 4 shots at a time because capacity isn't an issue and reloading is fast.
Also 20 divided by 4 = 5.

>>35005497

>Wearing body armor just means the soldiers won't take cover as well! So what if it improves 'chances of survival?'

>Parachutes will make pilots cowards! So what if our pilots are essentially single-use?

>Semi auto rifles will make our soldiers miss more! So what if volume of fire matters?

>>35005554
14 extra pistol rounds tops is not equal to pilots having parachutes.

>>35005497
>If you know you have less shots you are more likely to place them wisely.

hey, you make the world a worse place to live in. why? because you just make asinine shit like this up and say it out loud. fuck you, retard.

>>35005535

Yeah. And they're hitting more than once.

People training with revolvers train exactly the same way. Follow up shots are important. The only difference is that a guy with a semi can take significantly more of them and increase volume of fire.

Are you under the impression that in a defensive shooting you're only going to fire once with your revolver?

>>35005564

No, clearly, but the mentality behind the arguments is identical.

>>35005590
>Wow Sherman shouldn't have burnt down civilian villages and massacred women and children just to try and win
>Wow the SS shouldn't have burnt down civilian villages and massacred women and children just to try and win
wtf Union is literally Hitler now?

>>35005454
Yeah and at that point you're only going to take them out if you get the drop on them, you will lose a shootout involving rifles almost guaranteed no matter what with any handgun. And a revolver is just as good at doing the job when you have a clear chance.

>>35005582
>You made up the basic concepts human psychology
Cool I guess, what do I win?

>>35005353
Having a semi-auto is not a replacement for marksmanship. If the agents actually knew what the fuck they were doing, including the jackass that lost his gun and ran away to go find it, that fight could've ended a lot quicker.

More rounds are always an advantage but you can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight.

>>35005612

You know what increases hit probability?

More rounds.

>>35005609
>human psychology
NO, YOU'RE JUST MAKING IT UP

also
>psychology
>science
pick one

>>35005609
Psychology is pseudoscience. It's not STEM.

>>35005112
>But inb4 some assfucker comes in to tell me shot placement doesn't matter and 9mm is the same as .357 anyway

its called .357sig, its a thing.

>>35005600

What exactly is the difference in those two scenarios, if we're grossly oversimplifying both?

This may be an edgy opinion, but I'm going to come down on the side of "war crimes against civilians are bad."

>>35005621
You know what actually increases hit probability?

Aiming.

>>35005633
One side won the other didn't
>war crimes against civilians are bad
So the Union is Nazi Germany

>>35005637

Because, as we all know, each bullet in the magazine reduces your aim stat by 1.

>What is fucking volume of fire?

>>35005612
see paul harrel's video on that

>>35005632
>.357 sig
yes you can get 125gr .357mag ballistics out of a glock19 size gun (glock32.) but the only two ammo producers who make the shit up to proper spec (125gr & 1450fps+) have poor CQ and blow guns up

.t guy who used to g32

I carry a Taurus 617 because I love revolvers. I also sometimes carry a Bersa thunder plus when I am going to a bad area. I trust my life to both, but in a rural area I prefer a more potent round. When I am in a city/urban area I go for ammo capacity.

>>35005645

>The mentality behind two arguments is the same (parachute and handgun equipment vs quality, Union and German atrocities are bad)
>Therefor the two arguments are identical.

You're a fucking moron.

>>35005645
>So the Union is Nazi Germany

They both committed atrocities against civilian populations. I don't understand your point?

>>35005665
>>35005678
you should both kill yourselves literally irl, this is the most sad, autistic, weak argument ever. it is like watching two 400lbs men with broken arms all jacked up on novacane slowly trying to wrestle in a pool of jelly

File: Yes, of course.gif (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>35005709

>>35005112
Revolvers fail plenty actually. Just in different ways.

Look up the lucky gunner, a guy did a series looking at revolvers compared to semi autos.

What it comes down to is shot placement and getting as many shots on target as possible. In a high stress situation you need the largest edge possible because you're not going to be as accurate as you are at the range on stationary paper targets that aren't trying to kill you. You don't get to pick the situation, time, or place. But you can pick your gear and training. The only thing stopping you from "making your rounds count" in a sufficiently quick fashion with a gun with 16 rounds is your training. Deciding to carry is making the best of a bad situation by stacking the deck in your favor by choosing the right gear and preparing yourself.

>>35005112
>the downside of large capacity magazines
but you know this is a retarded thing to say.

File: Real answers for tuff questions.png (34KB, 769x733px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 769x733px

>>35005709

okay.

>>35004683
Who fucking cares, anon. You buy an AR, then you buy a Glock, you get all "squared away" for the habbening... then you realize you just like guns. Wheelguns are sex.

>>35005112
>downside of large capacity magazines

What, do small magazines or fewer chambers in a cylinder give a weapon +3 accuracy? I'm a revolver guy, but stay off my side.

>>35005190
>much much better target/range/safe guns which maybe aren't as suited for the rugged treatment they'd otherwise get.

What's changed specifically? Overall, the mechanisms in revolvers have become more durable, not less. S&W & Ruger offer a plethora of "duty" type weapons.

>>35005505

Underated video

Tl;dr
>auto vs revolver is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion of the incident because most officers missed with all or most of their shots - fatal hits were scored with both autos and a revolver
>ammunition selection is irrelevant for the same reason
>Agents were overall brave as fuck, even when injured
>Agents failed to shoot well while under duress
>Agents failed to equip themselves properly - they knew they were dealing with two violent suspects armed with long guns, but did not don armor, or have long guns at the ready.

Revolver vs auto is a silly debate to have if you also had a Remington 870 and failed to grab it before picking a fight.

>>35006015
>>auto vs revolver is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion of the incident because most officers missed with all or most of their shots - fatal hits were scored with both autos and a revolver
>Agents failed to shoot well while under duress


But that's exactly what makes the discussion so important. Under duress, pure accuracy goes out the window regardless of how trained you are. A trained fighter has BETTER accuracy, but nothing like ideal conditions. This isn't hunting: volume of fire becomes king in a shootout. And that's where semi autos win, regardless of any other benefits or detriments to either system.

>>35004683
They both work just fine. It doesn't matter which one you use.

>>35005651
>every shot i miss improves my aim

>>35006142
again, stupid
>the more rounds you miss, the more likely youll hit and win first
stupid. this was a one in a million, and even the people in the fire fight who had a chance to reload and fired a lot, died, or didnt contribute. the one who won in this freak occurrence walked right at them with a 6 shot and fired at stupidly close ranges

>>35005951
While pressure tolerance is higher there might be design decisions that make them less fault tolerant because of their aim of making them better range guns. Adding another round to your cylinder is great and you've got the metallurgy to back that up but your timing is implicitly placed under tighter restrictions than before. Not that it's probably much of an issue for say police work but with an open frame in a revolver if you're sitting in a desert or something that's could hurt you more.

Combat focused guns tend to have robust idiotproof designs vs. ideal accuracy and other range/target shooting type features.