Stupid question re: revolvers

[scott]

I need smarter people than I to tell me if I'm being stupid.
Generally when I carry it's either while I'm working or else it's in the woods. Work doesn't smile on guns, so that's generally a pair of j frames. The woods I usually carry a 45 redhawk. On the rare occasion when I'm concealing a full size gun it's generally a k frame because they have the same manual of arms as the others and I shoot bullseye with k frames, which is my main shooting sport.
The revolvers are great in the bigger and smaller than service size categories I think, but not up to par compared to a double stack 9mm of some kind when I can dress to conceal a full size gun.
Basically, am I being stupid by sticking to revolvers for full sized carry guns? Should I just not even worry about it because usually I'm not carrying a service sized gun anyway and just train more with the j frame? Or should I go to automatics for everything and retrain because of the capacity advantage? (the problem here is really that I haven't found a subcompact I like as much as a j frame. A 1006 or something would be fine in the field. Also that bullseye is my excuse to own beautiful old smith and wessons so I'll probably keep shooting wheel guns for that)

I'm putting it on this board because I feel like it's kind of a silly moment of self doubt. The obvious choice is, when I can carry a full size gun, make it a k frame. I shoot them well, I own a shitload, and I reload 38. But for whatever reason I can't shake the feeling that I'm being a stubborn luddite.

[ACP230]

Most likely it will not matter too much either way.

I have carried several different guns, including nines with lotsorounds on board. So far, I've
always come back to a J-frame. The few times I really thought I was going to need a gun involved
single dogs acting stupid. I think the snub I was carrying would have handled the problem. As it turned out I didn't
even have to draw, although once I got about half way there.
The owner suddenly got real serious about reeling in her Rott "puppy" that had decided it was offended that
I was using my own driveway.

[1slow]

IMHO
Revolvers excel as:
Pocket/ECQC pistols. Enclosed hammer J frames are especially nice.
Large dangerous animal pistols in heavy calibers such as .44 Mag, hot .45 colt, .454, 475 Linebaugh, .500 Linebaugh, .500 S&W.
Autos excel as belt carried sidearms in 9mm and up. More ammo in the gun, easier to reload fast. I find them easier to shoot fast and adequately accurate. I believe they hold up better over high round count (10,000+/year) training schedules.

K frames are easier to shoot well and fast than J frames. Headhunter would be my go to guy on the subject of revolvers (and much else).
For 30+ years I have used J frames, service auto belt guns, and .44 mag and up woods guns.

If you are willing to train for it I believe a high capacity 9mm auto will give you real gains in capability. On the other hand, I do not think you would be stupid to stick with K frames, you are used to them.

[Malamute]

IMHO
Revolvers excel as:
Pocket/ECQC pistols. Enclosed hammer J frames are especially nice.
Large dangerous animal pistols in heavy calibers such as .44 Mag, hot .45 colt, .454, 475 Linebaugh, .500 Linebaugh, .500 S&W.
Autos excel as belt carried sidearms in 9mm and up. More ammo in the gun, easier to reload fast. I find them easier to shoot fast and adequately accurate. I believe they hold up better over high round count (10,000+/year) training schedules.

K frames are easier to shoot well and fast than J frames. Headhunter would be my go to guy on the subject of revolvers (and much else).
For 30+ years I have used J frames, service auto belt guns, and .44 mag and up woods guns.

If you are willing to train for it I believe a high capacity 9mm auto will give you real gains in capability. On the other hand, I do not think you would be stupid to stick with K frames, you are used to them.

Well said. I was trying to think of a good way to word pretty much all of this.

[RevolverRob]

Carry two K-Frames. Problem solved.

So, I honestly, don't shoot double-stack 9mms as well as I do revolvers. The end result is, I carry a revolver, because I have confidence in my abilities to put bullets where I want/need them under a lot of different scenarios. I have no problem riding through the south side of Chicago, with a GP100 on my hip and a J-Frame in my pocket.

The question, to my mind, is not whether the double-stack gun is better overall, it's whether it is better for you. Given your circumstances (regularly carrying J-Frames, rarely K-Frame, bullseye shooting K-Frames, woods gun is also a revolver) I would NOT bother switching my manual of arms. Keeping it consistent across what you are regularly training and carrying is more important, in my opinion, than gains made in capacity or speed. Especially, if you're not going to regularly carry the double-stack gun.

-Rob

[Chuck Haggard]

I started on the job in the revolver days, carried a Security Six and a Cobra as a BUG, magnum rounds in the Ruger, 158gr "FBI" loads in the Colt, 125gr +P Remington SJHPs in the speedloaders on my belt so that I could load either gun. I really had zero worries about being able to handle whatever I ran in to, and I was being paid to go looking for trouble.



I think your current battery is fine, especially considering your shooting activities and lifestyle.

[LSP972]

I started on the job in the revolver days, carried a Security Six and a Cobra as a BUG, magnum rounds in the Ruger, 158gr "FBI" loads in the Colt, 125gr +P Remington SJHPs in the speedloaders on my belt so that I could load either gun. I really had zero worries about being able to handle whatever I ran in to, and I was being paid to go looking for trouble.



I think your current battery is fine, especially considering your shooting activities and lifestyle.

Ditto, except it was a stainless Combat Magnum (M-66) and J frame for me.

Surviving a gun fight is only partially equipment-related; a small part, actually. Mindset and competence are the two main ingredients. You have the competence with your revolvers; why give that up and start over with a bottom feeder?

.

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm *still* qualified on a 2" LCR, 3" GP100, and 4" GP100 for my department. In plainclothes, we are still allowed to carry a revolver as a duty weapon. The vast, vast majority of shootings are resolved one way or the other before you'd run a j-frame dry. A bigger gun and more capacity is more options, but if you shoot what you've got fine, don't overthink it.

The only reason I gave up carrying a revolver on duty was night sights and one handed manipulation ease.

[Dagga Boy]

Given your life and priorities I would say it is a good choice.

[Robinson]

Heck I still carry a 4" K Frame pretty often, when I'm not carrying a 5" 1911. The K Frames strike a good balance between easy to shoot and easy to carry. What you are giving up compared to a semi-auto is capacity and speed to reload. From a purely objective standpoint there are lots of advantages to the modern polymer framed striker fired high capacity semi-automatic pistol. I don't own any. I make my choices fully knowing both the advantages and disadvantages.

It's not too difficult to equip a S&W revolver with night sights if you want them. There are some good choices for .38Spl defensive ammunition.

[Trooper224]

I started as a copper with a 4 inch S&W Model 27. While it wouldn't be my first choice for self defense in the here and now, I wouldn't lose sleep if I had to carry it again. I think your choices are adequate.

[scott]

Thank you everyone. Lots of good input, I really appreciate it. I'll stick to the revolvers and rationalize the next pistol course I attend by thinking of all the money I saved not buying a couple glocks and all the accoutrements (never mind that savings is about to go out the window now that I saw chuck haggard's link to used DAO model 10s.)

[Lester Polfus]

I was just thinking the other day that the modern revolver shines in the "smaller than a service pistol" niche, and is really the only realistic option in the "much more powerful than a service pistol" niche. I guess great minds think alike.

I'm right there with you man, I'm actually selling autos to fund a revolver purchase. My Glock 19 isn't going anywhere, but soon probably 90% of my carry will be a J-frame (town, turn right and end of driveway) or a 4" Redhawk (National Forest, turn left at end of driveway).

[Hambo]

My 4" 586 had a really sweet trigger job and I could shoot it as fast as a semiauto. In your shoes I'd carry the K frame and J frame as a BUG and drive on.

Out in the woods or swamp I carry a .44 Blackhawk with 1-2 shot loads first up, followed by 4-5 of handloads with H110+hollowpoints.

[Chuck Haggard]

Dorky mental exercise;
If we ended up with some silly assed law like they have in some countries (real places have laws like; nothing bigger than a .32 or .380, no military calibers, etc....) as a compromise, lets say we got unlimited nationwide CCW but no semi-autos because "assault weapon", I'd happily carry a wheelgun or two everywhere while I was travelling and lose zero sleep over the matter.

I would work my revolver skills a bit more than I do now, although they ain't bad at any time due to carrying a 642 or two as a BUG on a very regular basis.

[LSP972]

If we ended up with some silly assed law like they have in some countries ...

Nothing dorky about that line of thought; it could happen. And that possibility is why I still have a M-242 and a cherry M-12 2" RB, even though I have been offered stupid money for each of them. Nobody is making revolvers like those anymore, and if you gotta pack one around all day in mufti, they make it as painless as its gonna get.

Ditto me hanging on to my 3953. I would not be the least bit surprised, post coronation, to see some sort of re-emergence of a capacity ban/limit. And that is why I'm glad my wife elected to use her GSSF free gun award to select a G43.

.

[scott]

Even with nothing bigger than a 32, you could do okay with a model 16-4 and a 432pd. Also you would be the coolest person within a three mile radius; maybe five miles if you had a really nice holster for the 16.

[Malamute]

Dorky mental exercise;
If we ended up with some silly assed law like they have in some countries (real places have laws like; nothing bigger than a .32 or .380, no military calibers, etc....) as a compromise, lets say we got unlimited nationwide CCW but no semi-autos because "assault weapon", I'd happily carry a wheelgun or two everywhere while I was travelling and lose zero sleep over the matter.

I would work my revolver skills a bit more than I do now, although they ain't bad at any time due to carrying a 642 or two as a BUG on a very regular basis.

I wouldnt lose any sleep over that either.

One other thing that went through my mind in the past, if there was a barrel length law. I picked up several longer barrels for my favorites. Take-offs from gunsmiths building sport guns.

Was reading that in Mexico they dont allow magnums. Theres a small cottage industry remarking calibers on barrels and swapping 38 spl barrels onto magnum guns where available.

[HCM]

Thank you everyone. Lots of good input, I really appreciate it. I'll stick to the revolvers and rationalize the next pistol course I attend by thinking of all the money I saved not buying a couple glocks and all the accoutrements (never mind that savings is about to go out the window now that I saw chuck haggard's link to used DAO model 10s.)

Where the favor revolvers or semi autos, the answer to how many guns is enough is always "one more " :cool:

[HCM]

I wouldnt lose any sleep over that either.

One other thing that went through my mind in the past, if there was a barrel length law. I picked up several longer barrels for my favorites. Take-offs from gunsmiths building sport guns.

Was reading that in Mexico they dont allow magnums. Theres a small cottage industry remarking calibers on barrels and swapping 38 spl barrels onto magnum guns where available.

Any idea on the source for this? I ask because I've seen both Mexican coppers and civilians with magnum revolvers. Of course in Mexico that is no guarantee they were legal under Mexican law. There are plenty of revolvers and 38 supers floating around Mexico but for Mexican law-enforcement officers who buy their own guns, semi autos in 40, 10 mm, and 357 sig seem to be the most popular.

[Malamute]

Any idea on the source for this? I ask because I've seen both Mexican coppers and civilians with magnum revolvers. Of course in Mexico that is no guarantee they were legal under Mexican law. There are plenty of revolvers and 38 supers floating around Mexico but for Mexican law-enforcement officers who buy their own guns, semi autos in 40, 10 mm, and 357 sig seem to be the most popular.



I think I saw it in a thread on the Smith&Wesson forum. It was about a retired American .mil and CIA guy that lived in Mexico and his Smith N frame 357 that he gave to a younger guy before he died. I'll see if I can find it. Nyeti may remember it. I sent a link to Tam also. The computer I had at the time died, so I dont think I have a bookmark of it.

ETA: I found either the original thread or its linked in this one. I didnt read it in detail but its the gun and guy I recall.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/87247-penultimate-pre-postwar-magnum-mexico.html

[HCM]

I think I saw it in a thread on the Smith&Wesson forum. It was about a retired American .mil and CIA guy that lived in Mexico and his Smith N frame 357 that he gave to a younger guy before he died. I'll see if I can find it. Nyeti may remember it. I sent a link to Tam also. The computer I had at the time died, so I dont think I have a bookmark of it.

Actually you are correct for legal civilian guns .380 / 38 special max. The civilian cops in Mexico fall into a kind of gray area.

[Malamute]

Actually you are correct for legal civilian guns .380 / 38 special max. The civilian cops in Mexico fall into a kind of gray area.

I've been re-reading the thread on the Smith-Wesson forum, its pretty interesting. It spans a number of years.

Short clip from page one (totally off topic to our thread, but perhaps very interesting to revolver fans)


I sent you an email with two photos I have here of the gun. The gun was presented to Phil Roettinger by S & W in early 1942 for winning a match in Floriday, and it is engraved on the gun. He landed with the gun at Guadalcanal and later used it on Bouganville. He kept the gun through those actions -- place names (engraved by him) are on the gun as to where he used it in action. Later he became Station Chief for the C.I.A./Latin America, and kept the gun with him. He even arranged to have the gun registered here in Mexico as a "legal" firearm, which the .357 Magnum does not qualify for.


Remarking guns was discussed on page 4 post 195.

[theJanitor]

With increasing regularity, the 1911 is being grouped with the revolver, separately than the modern service gun. They're big, heavy, and have limited capacity. But, I still use a 1911 for 99.9% of my pistol needs, because I'm the most confident with it. If I were you, I wouldn't change anything.

[1slow]

With increasing regularity, the 1911 is being grouped with the revolver, separately than the modern service gun. They're big, heavy, and have limited capacity. But, I still use a 1911 for 99.9% of my pistol needs, because I'm the most confident with it. If I were you, I wouldn't change anything.

When I went through Colonel Cooper's in 1982 we would have laughed at grouping 1911 and revolvers as the same class. Competition showed differences. I like both though.

[LtDave]

Having shot the Gunsite Alumni shoot a few times, including once with a 3" Model 10, IMHO a revolver cannot compete on equal footing with autopistols, unless Jerry Miculek is shooting the revolver. You can not reload fast enough to keep up in any course of fire longer than 6 rounds. Fortunately, those first six are likely to be sufficient 97% of the time. I made that last part up, but real world civilian armed encounters are workable with a good revolver.

[Wheeler]

The ability to accurately place rounds on a threat supersede the capacity and ease of reloading. Period. Dot. If
You're comfortable with a resolver, stick with it.

[MickAK]

I had a S&W 66 that was and still is the best firearm I have ever shot and my favorite. I was accurate with it in a way I thought I could never hope to be with a Glock, a model of firearm I hated for numerous reasons.

It was sold for 9mm ammo 2 years ago and I miss it daily. These things we practice are life and death. There really isn't room for aesthetics, 'feel', or sentiment.

If you have a rig you can get a large caliber revolver out of quickly enough to make multiple accurate shots on a charging dangerous animal while still being secure during a strenuous hike, good for you. I can't and I couldn't find one. I have seen it done, but in a 99/100 ratio to people who think they can do it and people who actually can. I switched my woods rig to a G29 and I'm glad I did so. I've had far less issues with debris/grit getting where it shouldn't.

I do miss my 66 though.

[LSP972]

I've had far less issues with debris/grit getting where it shouldn't.



This is something one seldom sees discussed. I have often wondered about it, because:

1. The fact that you DON't hear practically anything about it, coupled with the fact that a lot of folks DO carry revolvers as "woods guns"… well, do the math (of course, one wonders how many of those revolvers might not have worked if needed, due to crud accumulation, and the owners simply weren't observant enough to notice?).

2. I am very well-versed in openly carrying a revolver in adverse weather conditions, and never had any issues; no doubt due to prompt maintenance (cleaning the piece after getting home from a rain-soaked shift, etc.). However, I have never carried a revolver "in the bush", nor in a sandy environment.

In his narrative of the Rio Balsas expedition, undertaken in rural Mexico back in the 60s, Cooper wrote that they were actually IN the river almost every day, due to numerous portages, and every one's sidearm was immersed each time. The river silt, suspended in the water, managed to regularly tie up the one revolver among the party, and Cooper wrote that he was forced to detail disassemble and clean it almost daily to get it working again. The semi-autos required a quick field-strip and wipe down, and all was good.

I was never much of a hunter, and my days of cavorting around in the wilderness on company business are long done, so this is somewhat of an academic issue to me… but an interesting one, nonetheless. I'm thinking that, if you carry a revolver in a desert/sandy or salt air environment, you had better pay very close attention to its condition. Otherwise, maybe not so much.

Its really an individual thing, I suppose; I have seen revolvers so crudded-up from lack of cleaning/general neglect, that the cylinder would barely turn… but it WOULD turn when muscled through via the DA trigger, and it would fire. OTOH, I have seen a well-cared-for revolver rendered totally inoperative by a few grains of unburnt powder under the extractor star.

Some days you get chicken; some days, you get feathers.

.

[Chuck Haggard]

My observations on revolver vs semi-auto reliability in very adverse conditions mirrors what LSP972 wrote. Thankfully most people don't have to deal with such issues on a daily basis.

[Dagga Boy]

In my experience, revolvers are very much happier in the urban environment. The problem one finds in the outdoors is that you are generally prepping for four legged critters and the ballistics and ammunition revolvers shoot tend to be better for them. On the other hand, revolvers don't like dirt, water, and filth in general. I tend to use Hill People gear chest packs for these environments to protect the gun. I spent a lot of fishing time with my .44 magnum super Blackhawk Ina crossdraw rig, but I also was not submerged and took good care of it. I switched to a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in.454 (with some Bowen work) as my go to outdoors gun and I think this is the best compromise for ruggedness, corrosion resistance, and caliber for a woods gun out there. The one bear event I had I was carrying my Super Alaskan. Luckily, I did not have to use it as I would have felt bad because the guy the bear was after was an idiot. With that said, I had no doubt the .454 would have been up to the task. I would not have felt that good in the situation with any autoloading service pistol.

[Robinson]

On the other hand, revolvers don't like dirt, water, and filth in general.

I always thought it curious that the SEAL teams kept S&W revolvers in inventory supposedly for operations in silty water. Chances are I have no idea what their real purpose was.

[Lester Polfus]

I always thought it curious that the SEAL teams kept S&W revolvers in inventory supposedly for operations in silty water. Chances are I have no idea what their real purpose was.

I always kinda wondered about that myself.

One observation I would make is that it's really difficult to "field strip" a Smith revolver, or at least I think it is. If you need to take a revolver apart on the tail gate of your truck, and then lube it back up with oil from the engine dipstick for example, the Ruger double actions are a better choice.

[BehindBlueI's]

I had a snake problem on my rural property. I used to carry a single action revolver loaded with snake shot while working near the water after my dog got bit and died. Even running a chain saw and the like, there's not much to clog a SAO. No extractor star, etc. With .44 snake shot capsules, you didn't need to get real close for it to be effective, either.

Sometimes the answer is less tech. Or a flap holster. Or both.

[RevolverRob]

I always thought it curious that the SEAL teams kept S&W revolvers in inventory supposedly for operations in silty water. Chances are I have no idea what their real purpose was.


I always kinda wondered about that myself.

One observation I would make is that it's really difficult to "field strip" a Smith revolver, or at least I think it is. If you need to take a revolver apart on the tail gate of your truck, and then lube it back up with oil from the engine dipstick for example, the Ruger double actions are a better choice.

I am conjecturing, but I always thought they kept revolvers on hand for longer range accurate shots (<100m) and for instances in which you didn't want to clean up brass. I'm thinking about that prototype KAC Ruger Super Redhawk carbine that was suppressed and was to be used for <100m shots in instances where they didn't want to have to police brass.

[MickAK]

I am conjecturing, but I always thought they kept revolvers on hand for longer range accurate shots (<100m) and for instances in which you didn't want to clean up brass. I'm thinking about that prototype KAC Ruger Super Redhawk carbine that was suppressed and was to be used for <100m shots in instances where they didn't want to have to police brass.

My understanding (source is a conversation in a bar in San Diego so salt, grains, etc.) is that they originally had horrible corrosion problems with the issued pistols and the revolvers were the best option at the time. After a few material changes they were rarely used but there was no reason to take them out of inventory as they worked perfectly fine. I doubt they would be deployed currently.

Oddly enough I have to be more careful with rust prevention on the G29. Very small, and not in any sort of functional damage way, but the design of the firearm does invite potential nightmares if not taken care of. The revolver seemed more prone to a sudden failure, but more accepting of general neglect.

I've heard too many stories of a difficult draw from flap/hammer strap/etc. revolver holsters to trust them. The square box design of an auto seems better suited to a good retention system. I'm open to seeing a diagram where the increased penetration of a solid rimmed round will improve a shot on a North America dangerous animal. Haven't seen anything yet. Hunting is a different story. I was one of those who felt they shot more accurately with a revolver. Practice is practice and will dispel all myths

[1slow]

Look at Ross Seyfried's articles in the 1990s on revolvers for big game.

[scott]

I can't speak to diagrams of penetration, etc ; I'm not really up on 10mm terminal ballistics. But on the hot end a ruger only 45 load is pushing a ~325 gr hard cast round at 1200-1300 fps. I can't think of any circumstance where I'd want more handgun. A 10mm is probably about 180gr going about as fast, and, although I'm not speaking from experience, I've heard of reliability problems using cast kieth type bullets at max velocities, which is what I'd want to be using. I'm not sure the capacity advantage and possible reliability benefit (although I haven't ever run into a problem with my redhawk, and I don't coddle it) is worth that much of a sacrifice in ballistics.
I don't claim to be an expert though, and don't at all think a 10mm is a poor choice, depending on what you're concerned about.

[Chuck Haggard]

I wrote this bit earlier this year, it seems germane to the discussion since mode of carry and help or hinder handgun reliability quite a bit IMHO;


"Can Your CCW Gun Survive?"
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/specials/ccse2015/feature.php?id=229662

[serialsolver]

That link says "bad gateway". I'd like to read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scott]

Worked fine on this end

[Chuck Haggard]

That link says "bad gateway". I'd like to read it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just worked for me as well.

[MickAK]

I can't speak to diagrams of penetration, etc ; I'm not really up on 10mm terminal ballistics. But on the hot end a ruger only 45 load is pushing a ~325 gr hard cast round at 1200-1300 fps. I can't think of any circumstance where I'd want more handgun. A 10mm is probably about 180gr going about as fast, and, although I'm not speaking from experience, I've heard of reliability problems using cast kieth type bullets at max velocities, which is what I'd want to be using. I'm not sure the capacity advantage and possible reliability benefit (although I haven't ever run into a problem with my redhawk, and I don't coddle it) is worth that much of a sacrifice in ballistics.
I don't claim to be an expert though, and don't at all think a 10mm is a poor choice, depending on what you're concerned about.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/files/insets/GRTE-Charging%20Bear%20680%20NPS.jpg
http://www.greatalaska.com/filebin/images/header/right/alaska/image2.jpg

The only advantage I see coming from the increased penetration of that class of handgun is possibly breaking a shoulder down if you muff a shot. I personally can't make decent follow up shots with that large of a revolver, nor can I get it out of a chest rig and pointed as fast, nor can I handle it well with one hand with bear spray in the other hand. Some people flat out enjoy shooting large revolvers, and are damn good with them as a result. I don't, and practicing with the .454 Casull I had briefly was a chore and not a nice one. I don't particularly think capacity is an issue in that situation. I think the reliability question has more to do with what kind of country you're covering and how you're covering it. I go on multi-day backpack trips in temperate rainforest where a considerable amount of bushwacking is often involved. A different sort of country or a different transportation method would change things.

I think there's a lot of good information out there showing how small revolvers shine in the pocket gun/easily concealable category. As far as carrying a full size, you might see some benefits from an auto. It's up to you to decide whether the retraining and expense involved is worth it. Maybe rent a few, you might find one you just flat out enjoy shooting and practicing with as a result.

[LSP972]

My understanding (source is a conversation in a bar in San Diego so salt, grains, etc.) is that they originally had horrible corrosion problems with the issued pistols and the revolvers were the best option at the time. After a few material changes they were rarely used but there was no reason to take them out of inventory as they worked perfectly fine. I doubt they would be deployed currently.



This^. One of the east coast teams trained down here in the early 80s, on vacant offshore oil platforms, and a few of us played aggressors (bad guys). Every "operator" had a 4" M-66 as their sidearm, and when I asked them why, was told the issue semi-autos (whatever they were at the time; that wasn't mentioned that I recall), in a salt environment, would rust before they un-assed the helicopter. I was also told that the revolvers were strictly for quick "in and out" missions, because it didn't take long for them to get gunked up and quit working in a field environment.

I had completely forgotten about that, until somebody mentioned it up-thread. You would think I would remember getting deck-slammed several times; those guys don't play.

.

[Hambo]

This^. One of the east coast teams trained down here in the early 80s, on vacant offshore oil platforms, and a few of us played aggressors (bad guys). Every "operator" had a 4" M-66 as their sidearm, and when I asked them why, was told the issue semi-autos (whatever they were at the time; that wasn't mentioned that I recall), in a salt environment, would rust before they un-assed the helicopter. I was also told that the revolvers were strictly for quick "in and out" missions, because it didn't take long for them to get gunked up and quit working in a field environment.

I had completely forgotten about that, until somebody mentioned it up-thread. You would think I would remember getting deck-slammed several times; those guys don't play.

.

According a friend who was in a team during the '80s, there weren't reliable Sim rounds for autos in that era. He said they used revolvers in training for that reason.

[serialsolver]

The link works for me also. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LSP972]

According a friend who was in a team during the '80s, there weren't reliable Sim rounds for autos in that era. He said they used revolvers in training for that reason.

That could have been a factor as well. All I know is what they told us on the rig. When they came back for urban training some ten years later, they were using P226s.

.