it can't TAKE the neglect, abuse, debris of the battlefield, as well as can a good autoloader. get sand or mud into a revolver, and it will lock it up so badly that you probably CAN'T clear it, in the field. It's too full of cracks and holes that let in rain, snow, and debris, and its tolerances are too tight. If you have to do so, you can quickly disassemble a good auto, slosh some water thru it from a puddle or a canteen, and get it working again. not true of a revolver, and most guys with some real world experience know that very well.

....and most of them did it a long, long time ago too...it's not like autos are new technology, to be feared until they're refined enough for everyday use...

Good thing I am not in the military! How do you work these smiley faces anyway....

The tang ah dont like about them self commencers is crawling around in the dirt looking for ma empties!

HA! agreed there, i hate scratching around for spent cases to be reloaded, its a real pain!

Personally, I love revolvers. I own...lets see....a Colt New Service in .45 Long Colt, a Blue 25-5 in .45 LC, a 5" 625-5 in .45 LC, a .45 LC Mountain Gun, a Smith 649, a Smith 29-5 3" and a Colt SAA in .45 LC. I just happen to agree with the guy that a revolver's place, for me personally, is not as a self-defense gun given the available alternatives....

Mmmmm.. Mountian gun.. my grandfather's got on in .44 mag... Wonderful and Beautiful guns.

I probably like that one most of all, but it's a very close toss between that and the 3" 29-5 with the unfluted cylinder and would likely carry either one in the field if I were worried about shooting medium-sized things that either crawl or walk on 4 legs. For possible people-shooting, I just like more bullets.....

I shoot 10c 9mm's, and leave them lay where they fall. :-)

Seven
I disagree with your assumption that a revolver will quit in harsh conditions! I had mine in plenty of dusty wet/cold weather conditions and never had one fail to fire when needed. Same goes for my autos so really the only reason the military went auto is for more capacity -not reliablility! And the only reason they wnt from 45 auto to the 9mm is cost of ammo!!

it can't TAKE the neglect, abuse, debris of the battlefield, as well as can a good autoloader. get sand or mud into a revolver, and it will lock it up so badly that you probably CAN'T clear it, in the field. It's too full of cracks and holes that let in rain, snow, and debris, and its tolerances are too tight. If you have to do so, you can quickly disassemble a good auto, slosh some water thru it from a puddle or a canteen, and get it working again. not true of a revolver, and most guys with some real world experience know that very well.

Same reason they don't use bolt-action rifles, or single shots for that matter, or even really effective anti-personnel calibers (anybody really think that the .223 is more effective than a .30-06?). Always want to shoot more bullets than the other guy, reload fast, and carry as much ammo as possible.

That is the trend in military weapons; always has been, always will be.

I think you'd find quite a number of revolvers used in WWI and if they held up in trench warfare conditions, they'll work anywhere, anytime.

Likely there's tens of thousands of 'doughboys' from the Great War who would tell all about real world experience and what works and doesn't, if they could.

virtually nobody used the pistol much, in war, regardless of where or when, and no, they did NOT go to the 9mm for the cost of ammo. they did it for a variety of reasons, one being commonality of ammo with NATO, another being ease of use by female troops, small statured males, another being the ability of those with small hands being able to use a double stack mag in 9mm, vs single stack .45, another being weight andbulk of ammo. Not just for the troop carrying ammo, but for the planes flying BILLIONS of rounds into combat zones. The commonality of pistol and smg ammo was a pretty big issue for NATO. Nobody's ever established that the .45 SMG'S were any more effective than the 9mm smg's, and the tapered case of the 9mm makes for more reliability in 30 rd mags, on full auto. The pistol amounts to virutally NOTHING on the modern battlefield. It's a mere badge of rank, or a suicide tool, or a means of MP's enforcing regulations. Period.

Seven...

Welcome to BTB's Shooter's Forum! Simply amazing... 58 posts in 24 hours, that's got to be some kind of a record, but it sure seems that you come here looking for a fight. Relax, cut back on the coffee, and don't be so abrasive today.

I have both auto loaders and revolvers and personally don't care what NATO or the modern battlefield thinks about either. I'm also willing to bet that the revolver is the tool of choice in the hunting fields of this country.

Mike is correct about the contribution of the individual rifleman in warfare. The British Tommy stopped the German advance at the battle of Mons in August 1914 and determined the eventual outcome of WW I. It took my hard headed ancestors another four years to get the message but well disciplined musketry saved the day for the Allied cause and wrote history. Professional leadership, determination and individual skill with the rifle will always be the most important elements of an army at war. Technology is a wonderful thing but it still takes a man of courage with a rifle in his hands to determine the outcome of a battle.

Imagine flying large quantities of ammunition to war! Technology has changed the meaning of Rapid Response. Wesley Stout wrote a little book: "Bullets by the Billion". It is the story of one WW II munitions plant. This one plant produced over a billion .45 acp cartridges and over half a billion rounds of .30 carbine ammunition. The only thing more remarkable is that we could shoot it up so quickly!

According to a documentary on the History Channel, it was shown that in war, a very simple equation evolved: those who could throw out the most lead the fasted generally prevailed. Therefore the semi-auto and more importantly, the full auto, became essential. Had nothing to do with reliability and mud.

never mind..

never mind..

"Nevermind" was a Curt Cobain song, but he used a shotgun.

Great Nirvana song. i dont see how people think a revolver cant take wear and tear, i dropped one (S&W 629 moutian gun) in a muddle puddle last year, dove on it, cocked it and blew a snake away! no problems there!

"Nevermind" was a Curt Cobain song, but he used a shotgun.

Haa haaa...

As much as I dearly love my revolvers, if there is ever another occasion to investigate a bump in the night, I'll grab my 40SW with 13 rounds of Hydra-shok first, and the leave the 357 with my honey as her backup tool. She also has a shotgun handy, and has been instructed if there are shots fired, grab that FIRST.
Having said that, I work armed, carry a 38, and do not feel undergunned. I am only outgunned if I miss, and my Model 10 and I are very compatible. It's not a magnum, nor does it need to be. I can fire six shots quickly, reload if necessary, and fire twelve more should the situation call for it. I seriously doubt I'll ever need to fire more than six, however. If the first six didn't solve the problem, twelve more won't likely help either.
A good revolver is always better than a bad automatic pistol.

Papajohn

First off...never by cheap hard gun cases...never.

HAd a pistol case with 4 handguns in it...hinge let go, case opened, and all 4 hit the cement. All got a few dings and scars, but only one came up in non-shooting condition...the only revolver in the case.

HAve had revovlers fail during combat matches. Bent full moon clip, blown primer, lead/jackete sliver in the barrel/cylinder gap, jumped crimp, and debris inside the action (and how it got there I haven't a clue)...revolvers can gag. Semi-autos can gag as well...missfeeds, stuck cases, low powered loads, bent feed lips...even had the little detent on a 1911 safety wear out and it would recoil itself onto safe at each shot.

All in all, semi-autos are more dirt tolerant (at least the ones not set up to be super tight) and seem to be more abuse tolerant.

Having tromped the woods a few years, have found all sorts of things stuck to and into the handgun on my hip. Not the same as dropping it in the mud, brushing it off, field cleaning, and seeing if it worked...this is crap that got in there unknown and was there when you drew the gun out of the holster to fire it.

When jammed up with debris, a revovler won't fire at all...no rotation, no bang. When jammed up with crap, the semi-auto will fire ONCE, then usually gag on the feeding cycle. Once is still better than not at all.

I like revolvers..use them often...but even hunting (as opposed to combat situations) will keep them in either (1) full flap holster or (2) iunside my coat by way of a shoulder holster. As much as I like them, they would NOT be my choice to go into combat with..if issued one, would shoot the first guy with a goose-loose .45 I saw and carry his gun.

NEVER had a revolver fail or jam on me; have had semi's jam under normal conditions. Nuff said; I like auto's too, just think revolvers are as or more effective if it's down to handguns only; AFTER your rifle is out or broken.

The military is just as fashion conscious as any group of high tone ladies. The best example I can think of is those silly berets that look like the soldiers are wearing wilted cow flop on their heads.
The generals determine what will be used by the military. Sometimes the generals decide on something useful like the Colt system 45 cal., sometimes the generals decide on something useless like the M-16/M-4 weapons system. The important part of the equation is the generals decide and the consumers, are not given a choice and, are ordered to use the chosen item.
Being of a cynical bent I'd bet some general looked at another country's side arm, the German Lugar, and felt less stylish. :p
Jim

I'm glad to hear that the Army is looking to replace the .223 with a 6.8mm round. Not sure they had to invent a new cartridge but perhaps that's why in my short stay I did not become a General, instead I worked.

In the subject of the thread, I will take the minority opinion that firepower is not everything in combat. I would rather hit the perp on my first shot than have to rely on emptying a clip from a semi-auto and hoped I hit him. A revolver has saved many a LEO (Thank God) and that says it all for me. Yes a revolver is less dirt tolerant, but in the hands of a properly trained professional, makes a fine combat handgun. And besides, speed loaders work quite well! Nothing against autos, just want to make sure revolvers get their just credit, IMHO.

BTW, any votes for leverguns for the Army?? NO?, didn't think so. :(

It has been said many times: a Glock is somewhat (OK, only somewhat) like a revolver fed by a magazine. Pull-trigger-and-bang, no safety, leave it alone for a long time and it still works.

But, it has an awful lot more cartridges in it than a revolver(in most of the world, anyway, where there is no ban on hi-cap mags).

Make the trigger like a revolver's - through the aftermarket springs and connectors - and there you are, kind of.

Yea, buts still no wheel gun not to mention its ugly. (last word edited - DOK)

What was the question again?