Semi-Auto, why?

[SLG]

Because they are not the guns of the 80's. Modern auto's are extremely reliable, durable, shootable, fast to reload, fast to fix malfunctions, ergonomic and relatively effective.

The old saying that auto's are more rugged but revolvers are more tolerant of neglect, is mostly not true today. (Not taking a swipe at Chuck, though I did watch the video that Nyeti posted just now) I have seen many, many instances of autos being carried in exposed or concealed holsters, and when they get hauled out once a year for quals, or once every few years, they have all worked just fine for all the rounds in the gun and on the person.

Someone else said that revolvers make better clubs. Not in my experience. I have spent weeks upon weeks hitting people full force with guns, and the autos all came out of it just fine. The revolvers I've seen and tried (not nearly as many as the autos) did not survive as nicely and in many cases, were unshootable afterwards. Same from dropping them on the ground. Usually both types are fine, but I have seen more cylinders seriously damaged and no autos damaged at all. Real world dropping, not testing. I know there are examples of autos failing in these circumstances, but they are extremely rare occurrences.

I could keep going on, but I won't. I love revolvers, and will continue to use them a lot. Let's just not forget how superior autos are these days for serious, professional use. I know no one here has forgotten that, but I felt like typing it anyway. Sue me:-)

[BN]

More bullets. That is all.

[Trooper224]

Well, duh.

[pblanc]

Semi-automatic pistols are generally easier to conceal because they lack a thick cylinder. In a self-defense scenario most shots are going to be taken double action. Most folks have more difficulty remaining on-target in double action. I know DA shooting is something that can be mastered (at least by some) with practice, but follow-up shots with a double action revolver are almost certainly going to be slower than with a DA/SA, SA, or striker-fired pistol due to the longer reset.

A big advantage to auto-loaders in my view is the better choice of self-defense calibers. I know that there are revolvers chambered for pistol calibers and I know about .327 Magnum and .45 long Colt, but those aren't what I would consider mainstream. With the common .357 Magnum revolver one has the choice of 38 Special, 38 Special +P, and various .357 Magnum loads. I feel that 38 Special is a bit puny for SD. 38 Special +P is better, but probably not quite as good as the better 9mm Para loads. .357 Magnum is very potent but somewhat difficult for some people (including me) to control well in rapid strings. On the other hand, 9mm Para, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are all quite effective.

[Lon]

Wait. Are you telling me my J frame 357 magnum scandium five shot revolver isn't the best self defense gun? The gun shop guys told me it was just what I needed. That or a judge, or was it the governor?

[Chuck Haggard]

I totally agree. I've seen more jammed up wheelguns on the line during police quals than I ever saw problems with semi-autos. The revolvers also tend to need tools to fix.

[Wheeler]

Semi-automatic pistols are generally easier to conceal because they lack a thick cylinder. In a self-defense scenario most shots are going to be taken double action. Most folks have more difficulty remaining on-target in double action. I know DA shooting is something that can be mastered (at least by some) with practice, but follow-up shots with a double action revolver are almost certainly going to be slower than with a DA/SA, SA, or striker-fired pistol due to the longer reset.

A big advantage to auto-loaders in my view is the better choice of self-defense calibers. I know that there are revolvers chambered for pistol calibers and I know about .327 Magnum and .45 long Colt, but those aren't what I would consider mainstream. With the common .357 Magnum revolver one has the choice of 38 Special, 38 Special +P, and various .357 Magnum loads. I feel that 38 Special is a bit puny for SD. 38 Special +P is better, but probably not quite as good as the better 9mm Para loads. .357 Magnum is very potent but somewhat difficult for some people (including me) to control well in rapid strings. On the other hand, 9mm Para, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are all quite effective.

There's not a single caliber you've mentioned that isn't chambered in a revolver. As far as the .38 goes, folks have been killing each other with it since 1899. Speaking of which, is the goal to kill or to stop an aggressor?

[Nephrology]

Speaking of which, is the goal to kill or to stop an aggressor?

Not to encourage a derail, but the means by which the latter is accomplished is mechanistically dependent on the cartridge's ability to accomplish the former.

.38 Spl +P is probably fine but I do generally agree that it seems that there has been more active development in defensive cartridges chambered in 9mm, .40, and .45 than in the rimmed service calibers.

[Wheeler]

Not to encourage a derail, but the means by which the latter is accomplished is mechanistically dependent on the cartridge's ability to accomplish the former.

.38 Spl +P is probably fine but I do generally agree that it seems that there has been more active development in defensive cartridges chambered in 9mm, .40, and .45 than in the rimmed service calibers.

Is it? Claude Werner has a wealth of data that disagrees with that assumption.

[breakingtime91]

I like revolvers and I agree that most non dedicated gun owners in america would be better off with one. After that, if your dedicated and focused on just defense (big bore revolvers are cool for hunting) there isn't much a revolver offers over a 9mm. With that said, if you like revolvers carry them, but don't act like others are wrong when they bring up their weaknesses.