Jason posted this comment a while back on my What is a Combat Handgun? entry.
When I got out I worked personal security for individuals. I had to take 3 levels of firearms qualification classes. Even with my experience several of my instructors asked me to try the revolver (yes I am going there)
I was skeptical. But in their opinions (all were similar), if I got the **** scared out of me I would be more accurate with a revolver. I went to a gun shop after doing some research and picked up a S&W Model 66. Stainless steel, .357 Magnum, and adjustable sights. Night sights too.
I started practicing with it every night for about an hour during my courses and would shoot both types of firearms. No question I could get two in the chest and a head shot (had to unlearn that per my instructors, though…) even when worked up (we did push ups, sit ups and ran in place and then went into shooting scenarios and drills at the sound of a whistle).
In my very few engagements I felt 100% better with the revolver. Stainless steel doesn’t rust and conceals nicely when not in use. Speed loaders are exceptionally fast to load when taught the right technique. And a .357+P hollow point round will mess the BG up.
Besides aren’t almost all of these engagements where you switched to a pistol for whatever reason CQB. You are going to end up stabbing the BG in the head or chest anyway when the gun is empty, so reloading is unlikely.
I know the instructors who taught me had rarely seen statistics that involved a successful engagement between two combatants where the winner (good or bad) had fired many more than 3–6 rounds. Anything with more shots than that fired usually involved one or more of the combatants retreating and looking for cover with someone or both wounded. All instructors (to my best recollection) had fired their handguns successfully as I remember. That is what made me pay such good attention.
Jasons comment got me to thinking.
Why not?
Fine, revolvers, as battlefield weapons went out of style in the American army a century ago (surviving until recently as aircrew holdout weapons) and they dont carry as many bullets as modern automatics go (6 v. 15) but is the revolver really that bad as a defensive firearm when compared with an automatic?
I would think, from a purely layman perspective, that revolvers would have a number of things going for them, as a mass-produced, mass-issued defensive firearm.
Firstly, they are reliable. Yes, I know that most properly maintained military-grade weapons are reliable, but I would think that a revolver would have an advantage over an automatic in that it has fewer moving parts and its operation isnt dependent upon the effective transfer of energy (be the slide gas or recoil operated.) Theres no energy to be lost, no slide to bind, no failures to extract, eject, or feed. In short, if you can get the hammer to fall, the weapon should function as advertised. Hell, even if you get a misfire, theres no SPORTS to perform, you just pull the trigger again.
Secondly, they are durable. Again, Im not saying that automatics are not durable, but I would think, especially when compared with a polymer-slided auto, the all-metal revolver has a longer working life. Now, to clarify further, when I mean durable, I mean 30–50 years durable. My issue .45 was 40 years old for Petes sake. Yes, I think modern firearms are, for the most part, well built and will provide years of service, but I do believe theres a difference between a sportsman who uses the same handgun for target practice for 10 years and a weapon that gets issued to soldiers for field duty over a 30 year period; in general the Army pistol will see more abuse and have a poorer maintenance program, so soldier-proof weapons are a big plus (now before all you out there bag on me about dissing your weapon maintenance habits, youll notice I didnt mention you by name, so I wasnt talking about you.) How many police officers us hand me down weapons that old, or stick with the dame duty weapon for that period of time? Durability would also translate to maintenance costs as well. With fewer moving parts, there would be fewer parts to replace over the life of the weapon, though this might be negated by the cost of having to replace a barrel (Ive never replaced a revolver barrel, mind you, but its got to be harder to do than swapping out one in an automatic) but then, on the flip side, there are no magazines or magazine springs to replace either.
Finally, there are the politics and training considerations. Revolvers are double action only weapons (okay, sure, if we brought back the Colt SAA, wed have a cool single-action handgun in .45 Colt, but I dont see that happening) which means that they are politically more palatable than are SA weapons (which also dovetails well with the fact that a revolver only has 6 bullets rather than 15.) Mind you, Im not saying that this is a good thing, or that it is even appropriate to entertain such considerations when selecting a piece of life saving equipment, but nonetheless, the fact remains that it does happen, and so it would be a consideration. In addition, in the one-size-fits-all category, a revolver would have the advantage over all the double stacked autos out there, and with the case of the .38 special/.357 magnum combination, youd even have the added bonus of issuing different rounds if you wanted to (yes the same could be said of automatics, but to get an automatic to function reliably with either a different cartridge or lower powered cartridge youd need to swap out some parts to account for the change in slide operating recoil.) Also in the ammunition realm is the discussion of anything other than ball type ammunition. Since we are never going to use anything other than ball ammunition (at least until personal linear accelerators come out) in the rank-and-file military, comparing .357 JHP to .45 WC to .460 Nitro Express is pointless and non-productive. Again, Im not saying this is a good thing, but it is something that those in power seem to focus on, so its worth mentioning.
All this having been said, however, there are a number of huge, real world, realities that a revolver would have to overcome in order to get selected.
First, there is the dearth of revolver ammunition in the military supply system, which is to say theres none at all. Before we all started shooting our new wheel guns, wed need some bullets to shoot first (no, I dont see the Army adopting a 9x19mm revolver, though given how things have been going of late in procurement, I wouldnt be surprised if they did.) I also realize that thered be the issue of overall effectiveness.
Second, all those revolvers would have to be purchased, and those purchases mean money. This issue is further compounded by the fact that revolvers, at least on the free market, appear to be more expensive than automatics (I came to this conclusion by looking at the MSRP for a variety of stock handguns, so it is more an anecdotal conclusion than a scientific one) and that there wouldnt be any commonality offsets associated with the new purchase, meaning a S&W Model 60 and a Beretta 92 FS are not going to have anything in common. This means that all those Berettas still on the books would need to find a home in someone elses army.
Thirdly, there is the fact that revolvers are, well old. While this has absolutely no bearing on the actual merits of the item in question (youll notice farriers still use an anvil and hammer for shaping horseshoes, devices introduced in the early Bronze Age (3300 BC)) in todays, its gotta be digital, carbon fiber, and Land Warrior compatible world, revolvers are looked down upon as being less advanced than automatics, and therefore less effective and ultimately less desirable. Also, as mentioned, while there are very few things that can go wrong with or wear out on a revolver, the things that do wear out, like the barrel, are big-ticket maintenance items. Given the Armys tolerances for equipment wear, and the relative ease of replacing worn parts on an automatic, the revolver, over the long haul, might be the less effective of the two options. There is also the issue of weight. Hands down, revolvers, especially when compared with polymer automatics, are significantly heavier than automatics. Is that weight difference a deal breaker though?
That all having been said, where are we now? Personally I would want a weapon that was firstly reliable (if it doesnt work, what good is it) secondly effective (the purpose of the weapon is to kill or disable the target, not piss it off) and thirdly is everything else; size (smaller is better) capacity (6 v. 15.) and ergonomics (how well does it fit in my hand (allowing for custom grips would be a nice touch) with political considerations last of all. Would I personally select a revolver over an automatic? I dont know, but I certainly not opposed to the idea and wouldnt frown upon a good .357 S&W if that were what the Army issued me.
Smith & Wesson has an 8-round .357 magnum revolver,the Model 327 M&P R8. How different is that compared to how many bullets the old M1911.45-caliber pistol held? Now I know also that the idea of a revolver is limited to logistics in what bullets the regular troops,marines,sailors,& airmen are issued,but maybe this 8-round revolver could be used by special forces in addition to their other hand guns & pistols. It could be used to complement,not replace other hand guns & pistols.
You make the “why not?” argument very well, but asking “why not?” and eliminating some objections doesn’t go far enough to answer “why?”.
IMO, what is more desirable is a durable backup pistol in 9x19 (until the idiots that adopted it realize their mistake and go back to 45) that is compact, cheap, and reliable enough to serve as a reserve weapon in case of a malfunction, if your M4 locks up, better to fight your way to another weapon than just run for it.
At the very least, they should offer cost subsidized (~$250) M-9s to the troops at the exchange and allow them as optional equipment.
From personal experience, I recommend that soldiers continue to carry only automatic pistols as sidearms because if a soldier needs to actually use his sidearm, he will probably need to fire a lot of rounds quickly.
I recommend that police SWAT teams use only automatic sidearms for the same reason.
However I recommend that normal city policemen carry revolvers (.357 Mag only) because a city cop rarely fires his sidearm, & when he does, he rarely fires more than a couple shots. A city cop is also much more prone to “panic” when he must fire his weapon, since he does it so rarely, & a revolver is almost foolproof to fire. No need to work the action to chamber a round (& maybe jam it), when your hand is shaking.
For this same reason I always recommend to private citizens (& especially women) to only buy a revolver to carry for personal protection. If a private citizen suddenly finds himself or herself in serious danger, a shaking hand will seriously impede chambering a round or even removing the safety. With a revolver, just point & squeeze.
A friend once bought an automatic pistol for his wife to keep at home for protection, but it turned out when she took it to a police training course, she was not strong enough to work the action & could never chamber a round. He then bought her a nice Ruger .357 revolver, which she loved.
Also if a private citizen ever needs to fire more than the 5 or 6 rounds in the cylinder of a revolver, he will probably be in such serious danger that even an AK-47 would not help.
Just a question for Ord, why on earth would you have a defensive handgun with an empty chamber? Unless there is a jam, I don’t see why you would need to chamber a round.
“How many police officers us hand me down weapons that old, or stick with the dame duty weapon for that period of time?“
Great column, but you might want to fix that sentence…
There are some nice arguments here for civilian, police, security guard, or special issue usage. IIRC, some of the SEAL units still have revolvers in inventory, as they can be fired under or right out of the water. As I recall, the arguments made here are what gave all the .38s in inventory (and all the .357 Mag and other personal weapons) so much traction, for so long: we only ditched them when we moved to 9mm. But IIRC, revolvers were deemed unsuited for general issue.
The salient argument I remember was fouling in the field; a revolver mechanism is relatively open, and parts of it are more sensitive to crud than you’d think. IIRC, mud was a problem anywhere you didn’t have enough relatively clean water to rinse it out.
After that, I believe maintainability was the issue. I read a post to this effect from an old school NCO armorer somewhere. He said if you have a problem with a semiauto pistol, you swap out some parts, and you’re good to go. With luck and training, it might take him a few minutes to fix a .45 or a 9mm. But if you bend the crane or mess up the internals of a revolver, it might take hours to fix, even if you don’t have to send it back to the factory.
After that, I think it was the 9mm/NATO commonality thing that ended revolver general issue. You can make a 9mm revolver, and some people swear by them, but 9mm’s a conical cartridge, and sometimes that makes it back out of the cylinder, and jam it up.
Apart from that, I think the move away from revolvers was a demographic thing. IIRC, most people shoot auto pistols better than revolvers, at least in rapid fire. IIRC, lining up the sights during a revolver’s double action pull is a skill that maybe 50% of potential recruits can handle. But I’m a little hazy on that. IIRC, the reason that some people shoot DAO weapons better is that it forces them to use a better grip on the weapon. So maybe the demographic thing is a wash. I do remember some of the old revolver targets being keyed to a whole laundry list of marksmanship/trigger control errors. You don’t see that so much, anymore.
IIRC, all that and the ammo capacity thing have pushed most of the world’s militaries to semiauto pistols. I still like revolvers for personal use, but I’m not sure they work for general issue.
I’ve had the same empty chamber discussion with my father on several occasions. He regularly carried a customer M1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer back. Now I’m not advising this, but he didn’t have a problem.
My father was a Sheriff’s officer, range safety instructor, and detective for many years. He taught me a lot about weapon safety and he never had a round chambered in his Sig Sauer 9mm when it was at home. He did however have a small 2″ S&W .38, 5-shot revolver. It was loaded, quick and easy to use too.
As a quick personal defense weapon in close quarters, a revolver might be a good choice, unless you see some of the people that use side-arms primarily. No offense to any officer or NCO in here, but I’ve seen some horrible shooting Officers and senior NCOs with the M9 and having the extra ammunition might just save their lives since they can’t shoot worth anything as it is.
Speed loaders are nice for revolvers and yes with training they can be faster than a semi-auto, however, without any training, even the most afraid of weapons can slide a new magazine into an m9 and get back to firing quickly.
Military usage will always be different than civilian and even police usage, because in most cases, your not trying to subdue the person firing back at you. I think this plays more in the mind.
The revolver does not have fewer moving parts than say, a Glock. Do a parts count some time. The number of clockwork parts inside the frame of that DA revolver is much higher than the number of parts in the Glock, or my even my Springfield XD. Even the 1911 has fewer overal moving parts, and as was shown with the IMPROVED Browning linkless design, some of those parts could be removed.
Revlovers are a nice anachronism, and for cartridges that will not reliably work in an autoloader, they are a good work around, but as a “combat”, or “self-defense” arm, they come up short in the ammo capacity, and long in the parts count.
If you carry a pistol without a round in the chamber you might as well have a car in your driveway without gas. If there are any police depts that order their officers to carry without one in the hole then I would advise those officers to find other employment because their depts want them dead. That is the most assinine thing I have ever heard of. The most important safety is the one that exists between your ears and connects to your trigger finger. Index index index and train train train. If that malfunctions you have bigger problems.
Next up. Fire a few rounds through a revolver and see how that chamber heats up and keeps the brass sucked in when you’re trying to reload. I can keep a Glock going for a whole lot longer and whole lot quicker than a Smith or Colt after a few cylinders.
A revolver is fun, that’s for sure, and I suppose if you were dirty harry you could make good use of it, but I think in combat I would go with 15 bullets and a hair trigger. I think you’d get better accuracy from a revolver than an automatic, but then the soldiers have rifles for that. The sidearm should be able to dump a lot of ammo in a short amount of time, and clips should be 2 or 3 times faster than the revolver speed loaders.
I definitely prefer a big, large caliber revolver at the range though. They’re easy to reload and they feel good in your hand.
Reply to WJS. Actually, a police officer NOT having a round in the chamber of his automatic has proven to save lives — namely his own — on a number of occasions. If a bad guy overpowers an officer & grabs the officer’s own automtic out of his holster, the officer knows his chamber is empty, while the bad guy does not. This gives the officer a major advantage in deciding how to respond. If the bad guy tries to shoot the officer, all that happens is click, click, click, which gives the officer a few precious seconds to attack or to grab his backup, typically a small .38SPL revolver, before the bad guy thinks to rack a round into the chamber. It happens. Ask the next cop you see.
OrdC — good point; IIRC about 20% of police officers shot dead in the US are killed with their own weapons. (In the hands of someone else, that is; not counting accidents or suicides here.) Add to that the number who accidentally shoot themselves or someone else due to a negligent discharge — which would also be reduced by carrying weapons made safe rather than made ready.
And, I’d argue, it would probably save civilian lives in another way — by forcing police officers to think for a second before opening fire.
If you can’t carry an automatic with a round in the chamber safely, you should not be a cop or ever carry a loaded weapon. Follow proper safety procedures and you will never have an accidental discharge.
The fact is that an auto without one in the chamber is essentially unloaded and unable to be put into action in the time it would take to defend youself against any assailant. You literally might as well leave it in your car because you are better off running for cover than remaining exposed as you try to chamber a round.
I don’t even like double action autos, I carry a 1911. Still, a 2x auto with a round in the chamber (like a glock) is no more dangerous than a double action revolver.
Stephen: It was I that stated the parts count, Not WTS
Both schools of thought, one in the chamber, one not in the chamber are valid for various reasons. In Vietnam a pilot was saved because he left two chambers of his issue .38 empty. He shot the guy carrying the loaded AK and while he was turning on the other VC, the VC tried to use the 38 to shoot him. Click, click, huh? Of course the pilot had a backup .22 in his flight suit, and he was using the opportunity provided by an armed US helicopter, but still, the two guys escorting him were out of commission and he escaped capture.
Ahem. That being said, the odds of that actually working, are slim. You are better off with a round in the chamber IN MOST CASES and focusing on RETENTION, not dumb luck and tricks.
joel: “If you can’t carry an automatic with a round in the chamber safely, you should not be a cop or ever carry a loaded weapon. Follow proper safety procedures and you will never have an accidental discharge.“
Yes, well, follow proper driving procedures and you’ll never have a crash. Follow proper ATC procedures and you’ll never cause a midair. Follow the blueprint and you’ll never produce a component that’s the wrong spec. But people make mistakes. And a policy that assumes 100% competence by everyone at all times is an extremely stupid policy. Fail-safe, not fail-deadly.
God forbid you should condone an entirely tactically sound practice that was SOP for the military for 80 years.
“Yes, well, follow proper driving procedures and you’ll never have a crash. Follow proper ATC procedures and you’ll never cause a midair. Follow the blueprint and you’ll never produce a component that’s the wrong spec. But people make mistakes. And a policy that assumes 100% competence by everyone at all times is an extremely stupid policy. Fail-safe, not fail-deadly.“
Bill, carrying without a loaded chamber is exactly the same as driving without shifting out of first gear. Without the ability to draw and fire, you DO NOT HAVE A WEAPON. You are an unarmed person with a paperweight.
You gotta be kidding! When the bad guys start carrying 1891 Moslin’s, Mausers and Krag’s,… I’ll consider a wheel-gun,… but not for long! F-o-r-g-e-t IT! I’m no lover of the 9 x 19 round but AT LOT OF THOSE IS BETTER THAN A FEW OF THESE IN TODAYS ENVIRONMENT!
I still like the .45 ACP! Not so much because of them number of rounds but the reliability of the 1911 design and the repidity of the reload. More modern similar designs have even higher mafazine capacity and that’s even better! Unfortunately, Political Correctness (Females in the Military) & Logistics (9mm = Fits many weapons vs .45 = US .45 only) killed it,.. but it’s coming back,.. I Hope!
I DID CARRY a S & W .38 4″ revolver while I flew with the 1st ID in Viet Nam (68–69). It was a very nice blued civilian type pistol and the nicest gun the Army ever gave me!! It was a status symbol,… not a weapon for combat. I flew with it under my Chicken Plate, but I also had a THUMPER (M-79) & my ’60 if we went down. The pistol was for last efforts only!
NO Thanks. I think Mr. Browning and his gun was and still is the way to go!
JD
Someone already brought this up, but for “Operators” and soldiers, the choice is clear. A automatic handgun wins hands down because it’s modern. And being modern, it can fire all the modern cartridges, be lighter, be smaller, be way way way more ergonomic. Why, pray tell, do you need .357 power as a backup weapon? Shoot 10mm full house rounds if you want that. Any shooter worth his salt will tell you that your round is only as good as you can shoot it.
If the wheel gun is such an amazing fighting piece why do the SEALs use P226s? in 9mm no less? Because the bad guy doesn’t care what caliber you shot him with if he’s bleeding from the head. Why do other special forces units continue to use the 1911? Probably because it’s the best fighting pistol ever made.
This whole post is nonsense. Try lugging around the .357, having it stashed somewhere in your kit, actually pulling out and getting off an aimed shot fast enough. Complete nonsense. The only things a wheelgun can be better for are possibly city cops and as a nightstand gun. But again, these guns fire high caliber rounds (liability), even though you can use similarly cased rounds that are less powerful. They’re not ergonomic in any sense of the word.
They got replaced because THEY AREN’T PRACTICAL. When you select a weapon, you pick the best that fits across all spectrums. Sure, the wheel gun might do 1 or 2 things better than an auto but it’s nothing more than a club in other situations. This is coming from someone who owns a GP101 .357 and thinks it’s one of the finest guns ever produced.
If you think auto’s are unreliable please throw out the Saturday night special and go buy a fine 1911. One that is designed for reliability. It will go bang every time, guaranteed, and there is a VERY good reason why so many people in harms way trust their lives to it.
And not a wheelgun.
I used to have a model 19 (bluesteel 66) good gun, great trigger– but wouldn’t carry it in combat. I also have a Coly 1917 in .45 ACP– a lot of fun– but jams more than it should.
I agree with most of the above posts– but didn’t see two points:
It is VERY time consuming to clean a revolver. I do it while watching ESPN and drinking a cold beverage– I imagine GI’s would cut corners– this could lead to the cylinder binding.
The trigger/revolver mechanism is rather delicate– its hand fitted and has to be adjusted by a competent gunsmith. Compare that with the Glock, Colt, Walther systems which are very simple. Do Glock’s need any maintenance other than a quick cleaning?
Get your revolver and auto and do the WWI test — drop them both in a puddle of mud, pick them up, and see which is ready to fire first. No way the revolver’s cylinder is cleaned up adequately before the auto is.
No way that ALL the great powers replaced their pistols with autos without there being major reasons to do so. I guess the UK was the last to adopt a pistol –Enfield .38 to replace the Wembley. I suspect if there had been any good British made autos they would have been adopted. Its an OK pistol (the round is inadequate)- but really its the exception proving the rule– the Hi-Power was the standard by the time the war was out.