Can revolvers be used as effective combat sidearms, or are revolvers nowadays only good for recreation and hunting?

S&W 19-3 primarily.
It's pretty easy to lock up the action with a few rounds of shit dirty ammo, I have never seen that happen with an auto loader.

revolvers are severely obsolete in the face of modern semi-automatics.

Yes, revolvers are highly finnicky by nature. They have so many things that could go wrong that are completely exclusive to revolvers its ridiculous. Saying revolvers are less prone to jams because they're simpler is completely false.

I have a Taurus 605 and have gotten through nearly 5000 rounds with no issues.

I haven’t even cleaned it that well. Maybe it’s just your revolver?

pretty sure my classic Smith is better than your beaner blaster.

Not him but

>multiple malfunctions
>better

Pick one and only one

>revolvers are more reliable and don't jam!

youtu.be/6_hF-C1Dl_0?t=124

>this retarded question every single day
Yes, guns still kill people.

Attached: images.png (231x219, 7K)

I least I didn't lie on the internet about a taurus revolver lasting more than 500 rounds.

stop lying on the internet

It has a 4.8/5 on buds.

They work.

Attached: BAE76F30-C288-439F-9D7B-0DDB573C0F28.png (420x420, 61K)

abc13.com/warrant-informant-didnt-buy-drugs-from-couple-killed-in-raid/5140341/

4 out of 6.

Hi-point as a fucking 4.8/5 on buds.

Your mom is a 4.8 on buds

Hi points also work.

I wasn’t shooting magnum rounds out of it. Just some 38 special wad cutters.

>Hi points also work.
Not in the long term.
Stop justifying your poor life decisions

Hey man, I just use my Taurus to test my hand loads because it’s rated for 357 magnum.

I'm gonna be honest if you're pulling your sidearm for some reason in a military/combat scenario, you're probably fucked anyway and the difference between a 6 round revolver and a 15 round 9mm probably won't make a difference

Make sure your ejection rod isn't bent and the yolk screw isn't coming loose. Big reasons for lockup right there.

Never had a jam on any of my rugers and I've put thousands of rounds through them and I've used plenty of shitty ammo including cheap reloads. YMMV I guess.

>revolvers are highly finnicky by nature
They aren't 100% reliable but I definitely wouldn't go that far.
>They have so many things that could go wrong that are completely exclusive to revolvers its ridiculous
You can say the same thing about autos

Nothing lasts forever. Hi points are combat proven.

"Revolvers are inherently unreliable because I bought a brand new dogshit S&W/Ruger/etc instead of a quality old revolver."

That's like saying all autoloaders are inherently unreliable because Taurus. Revolvers, when made properly, are objectively more reliable than autoloaders in the much same way break action shotguns are objectively more reliable than autoloading shotguns. Autoloading pistols must, through an automated process that can fail, extract a spent casing, eject the spent casing from the firearm, and then feed the next round from the magazine into the chamber. There are possible issues with all three of these processes, none of which exist for revolvers as each chamber is manually loaded before it's ever needed to be used and after it has already been used.

There are a few unique ways which revolvers can fail, but they are 1: less common than autoloading failures and 2: caused almost exclusively by garbage ammunition such as Winchester or bubba's reoloads. A properly made revolver (Anything made at least 20 years+ ago) + at least decent quality ammunition = an objectively more reliable handgun than an autoloader.

Sounds like you're the one doing the justifying. All these anons bringing up facts and tests and you keep falling back on "muh s&w"

Attached: 1550451317362m.jpg (1024x1024, 76K)

>you must get a mythical revolver from a specific date for it to be functional

So what you're saying is that revolvers are shit and outdated?

You are dumb as fuck see

It cost me $0, so no.
>All these anons bringing up facts and tests
Nothing but anecdotes my dude

>1: less common than autoloading failures and 2: caused almost exclusively by garbage ammunition such as Winchester or bubba's reoloads. A properly made revolver (Anything made at least 20 years+ ago) + at least decent quality ammunition = an objectively more reliable handgun than an autoloader.
This isn't true at all. Saying they're more reliable is dumb and nonce. There is no proof they're more reliable and saying "they're simpler" just proves you have a shitty understanding of how they work. A machine being simple doesn't make it less prone to failure.

I bet neither of you two fags even know how to shoot properly.

I've seen that already. I'm willing to bet the majority of people on that range had new dogshit revolvers with dogshit MIM internals.

The failures he listed are caused by one of two things: shitty, souless new revolvers made by corporations that cut costs and quality to increase the bottom line, and shitty ammo. Frozen cylinder - cheap MIM internals or bad ammo letting the primer pop out. Failures to fire - not unique to revolvers, but revolvers have the unique advantage of skipping a dud round anyways. Broken (fill in part here) - shit new revolvers made without quality. Unexplained trigger drag - MIM internals. Again, properly made gun + properly made ammo = an objectively more reliable gun than an autoloader. Also note that I'm not nor have I ever suggested that revolvers are immune to failure, just that they are less prone to it than autoloaders.

This.

Attached: c0e292ba75b7dc81c6036ec32ab8efef46a77112e13a72c26d57772d3bbd18a7.jpg (400x386, 30K)

>I bet they bought new revolvers made with mim
boy are you the epitome of fudd and you blame all the problems on stupid shit like MIM when you're completely ignoring how many of these issues come around. MIM parts aren't going to magically fall out of spec and theres nothing wrong with MIM. MIM has been used for decades and many entities like Ruger have mastered castings and other molding techniques. In fact S&W and Ruger revolvers are more cast than they are MIM and MIM is known to have the stronger tolerances just FYI because it shows what you don't know.

You are dumb and you wrote up all this word vomit to basically prove you don't know anything about the guns you're talking about.

I'm not going to pretend I'm a sharpshooter. I'm just calling an user out on repsonding to a YMMV argument with a "lol no ur a beaner".

Attached: 1549397001699.png (852x944, 70K)

>this fucking thread again
Look for the last time, revolvers have their place as a backup/reserve weapon cemented because of the reliability of revolvers. If you are forced to use it, odds are you are fighting defensively or are attempting retreat. It has its place here, semis have theirs. End of story for non specialists.

>dogshit revolvers with dogshit MIM internals.
What's funny, is that my souless Glock, which is filled to the brim with MIM parts, works amazingly.
It's almost as though revolvers aren't that great.

For the last time:
Revolvers are great in two fields: Big guns and tiny guns.
That is because they lend themselves better to large calibers and because they are less prone to user-induced malfuntion like pocket automatics are.
Both of these fields do not involve shooting the gun a lot, you won't shoot 1000 rounds of .44 Magnum every weekend or a steady diet of .357 Magnum out of your airweight J-Frame.
They are meant to be carried a lot and shot little. They are the "just in case" gun that you can pick up and shoot a bad guy with even if you put it in your drawer and forgot about it 30 years ago.
This is exactly why they would lend themselves well to military service. I doubt any soldier regularly shoots his sidearm. It's just there riding in the holster day in and day out.
When he draws it, it won't be for any high speed low drag action, but in a stress filled last ditch situation and when that situation comes around the gun has to fire a few shots reliably.

That said Model 19s exaggerate revolver problems since they are almost too small for regular shooting with .357 Magnum. The comparatively harsh recoil can cause the ejector rod to unscrew and high pressures can crack the forcing cone.
Compare that to something like a Model 27 or a 586 and you have a frame that can easily last you upwards of 10000 rounds, even with supposedly bad new guns.

Attached: 1546994431389.png (582x582, 264K)

>can last 10000 rounds
thats it? My gen 2 glock has easily 40k rounds through it on stock shit with nothing broken and thats full of MIM shit you retards spew because you're all engineers or something.

They make 8 shot .357s and capacity is countered by stopping power and reliability.

>>this fucking thread again
>again
This thread has cropped up daily for at least 6 years

Are you retarded or trolling? Have you shoot a modern revolver? They are more reliable than slide operated pistols. The draw back is low round count and longer reload time.

>stopping power

woah there elmer fudd

No they aren't, not in any capacity.
You have no proof that a revolver will go far and beyond a semi-auto without jamming of any kind. You are fucking retarded and I bet your next response will be "its so simple mechanically it has to bee reliable" Its not. Simple things does not mean Reliable things. see

>Stopping power is a myth

>Absolutely no one advocates carrying a .22 for personal defense

9Mm Is JuSt As GoOd detected

youtube.com/watch?v=CEHtRkyTe-0

Attached: 1518127295418.png (600x700, 386K)

Attached: MR73.jpg (1066x482, 67K)

Attached: RevolvervsSemi.jpg (968x718, 212K)

Nobody uses sidearms and in almost every case you're better off carrying more magazines for your primary weapon.

Compromise and carry a PC carbine

>muh stopping power.

see

stopping power isn't real you stupid fuck, this isn't Cowadooty.

Attached: 1535764157909.png (1416x1593, 2.19M)

>limp-wristing
Don't limp-wrist.
>muzzle against target takes slide out of battery
This shouldn't happen under normal circumstances, check your springs.
>magazine problems
Don't buy shitty magazines.
>Feeding problems
Know your gun and don't feed it shitty ammo.
>internal parts failure
Know your gun and maintain it.
>malfunction
Ever seen a revolver lock up? It's bad.
>retains brass
Bend over and pick it up fatass.
>shoots low or high-powered ammo without feed problems
This is a legitimate argument.
>shoots multiple types of rounds without swapping parts
This is a legitimate argument.
>forget to turn off safety
GLOCK

Stopping power is the opposite of "isn't real"

It is, in fact, very real. It's physics

Double mass, double energy

Double velocity, quadruple energy

Ehh. Probably, yeah. But if I'm down to my sidearm 15 rounds > 6.
Esp since in that situation I need to run like hell.

I love revolvers, but i like them in their ideal environment -larping as a cowboy and theoretical ranged combat where you can break contact. Midwest SHTF 50 years after the event kinda thing

Door kicking in fallujah? No thanks.

Then why not just go for 30 rounds of .22 mag?

Get a PMR 30

I'd rather have a semiautomatic with 17 rounds in the magazine and one in the pipe.

but you do you

this guy gets it.

I'd further this by saying if you run hot ammo, like +p, the effects of limp wristing can be negated.

Like most reasonable anons said, revolves can still be used and are still used as personal side arm in combat scenarios. In a firefight, you only really need your handgun in order to get to your rifle or retreat from a hostile area. In a scenario if it does happen, you can still use a revolver efficiently to defend your life to do the two things mentioned above. Here is a small list of pros and cons.
cons
>limited capacity
>harder one handed follow up shots
>reload time
>weight (if full size)
pros
>hotter heavier loads for defense against animals , armor or vehicles
>more reliability
>excellent in a case of hand to hand situation
>more versatile ammo (Magnum vs SPL reloads)
>smaller weight and frame (snubbies)

At the end of the day, it's about preferance and what works for you, when I was a machine gunner I carried the M9 while also hauling the 240B and learned by the book the uses and importance of a sidearm. I came to the conclusion that if you happen to resort to a side arm well, then more than likely you're fucked anyway and I would personally use what's more reliable , accurate and works for me. For me? that would be a snub in 38SPL instead of an auto loader in 9mm because autos get dirty and jammed alot depending on terrain while a wheelboi will go bang every time and will be effective If an attacker tackles me and is on top of me.

No it isn't. See there isn't some magic propensity of bigger bullets to stop an offender. Fuck off with this shit you dumb fudd. A 223 will kill a deer just as well as a 308 will.

That graph is bullshit
>A 223 will kill a deer just as well as a 308 will.

Did you miss

>Double velocity, quadruple energy

A 9mm is the same size as and SLOWER than a .357 mag. A .40 is the same size as and SLOWER than a 10mm etc.

I never said just increase size. In fact I basically said the opposite. Increasing speed is a much more effective way of increasing energy

>that graph isn't real

congrats you're on par with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and ancient mayan conspirators. You deny evidence right in front of you in substitute for your own bullshit

>double energy double velocity
it doesn't matter its bullshit. For all intents and purposes, 9mm, 40acp, 45acp and 44mag all have the same propensity to kill and stop an attacker.

Stopping power is a myth, but penetration and expansion is very real as well as shot placement. Ultimately every gun and caliber have their own purpose and reason to be used. they're only tools at the end of the day, but if I'm trying to get the fuck out of a hostile area with attackers that may or may not have body armor then I'd prefer a 357 or a 44 any day of the week over a 9mm or 45ACP. Obviously we could argue that if that's the case then 10mm is king and best of both worlds in an old argument.

>A 9mm is the same size as and SLOWER than a .357 mag. A .40 is the same size as and SLOWER than a 10mm etc.
and yet they have the same effectiveness.

But they don't though
>You're a conspiracy theorist for not accepting some random graph on Jow Forums

>but penetration and expansion is very real as well as shot placement.
shot placement matters more. There is no evidence that more kinetic energy or velocity matters at all in any capacity.

>But they don't though
looking at the graph the 9mm has an 87% success rate while 44 mag has a 13% failure rate which in turn is 87% success. Thats the same

>>You're a conspiracy theorist for not accepting some random graph on Jow Forums
>He can't read the fucking source and go read the paper himself with all its data, results, and conclusions and sources.

So if I make a graph that says .357 mag has a 99% success rate will you accept that?

Human body does not care about a 10% difference in muzzle velocity. It cannot tell the difference and neither can the coroner.

Only if you provide a source that thoroughly describes its data collection, analysis, results and conclusions.

I guess it matters depending on the target. I would never kill or confront anyone with body armor or a bear with a 9mm or 45ACP, sure...if it's the a human target it will hurt and bump them down if I hit center mass but I wouldnt fully penetrate or kill them, same goes with an animal with hide and muscle tissue such as a bear. Would I be able to use it? absolutely...I mean..some dude in Alaska apparently killed a bear using a Taurus in 9mm a few years back, would I do it knowing I have other options? absofuckinglutely not. Hence why I said, different calibers for different situations. It's all about METC-C which is something almost no one on this thread is taking into consideration. We are not talking about which caliber is best or which gun is better ...we are talking about if a revolver is still a reliable combat side arm and the answer is yes.

He's right. Autoloaders are damn near infallible with decent ammo if you exclude user induced error, and their rare issues are solved by racking the slide.

Revolvers can be finnicky and if a cylinder or fire control issue rises, send it to your gunsmith.

>I guess it matters depending on the target.
Well not really

>attacker with body armor
lmao when has this ever happened. I'm sure jamal with his stolen s&w 19 with a mix match of ammo is going to go and find some 500 dollar body armor too.

>same goes with an animal
and yet hundreds of thousands of people with 223 guns take deer every year. The same as a multitude of other calibers. There is no propensity that somehow a higher velocity or mass with better kinetic energy will take down any animal better.

So they’re useless? Yeah I figured, just a training toy.

We are literally talking about a combat side arm , not personal defense use for conceal carry. Your reading comprehension totally sucks and you also totally suck at arguing with strangers on the internet. Please read OPs question all over again and get back to me.

>combat side arm
lmao what fucking larp universe are you coming from where you think your 357 will be more effective than a 9mm in some sort of ridiculous combat scenario you'll never be in.

You are a fucking retard.

>MIM parts aren't going to magically fall out of spec and theres nothing wrong with MIM.

What often happens with revolvers made these days is they make the MIM parts, pull the trigger only enough times to test-fire the handgun, then then send it to be sold. Much, much, much more often than you think these MIM parts are not heat treated properly (or at all) and therefore undergo somewhat serious wear from normal use. Depending on how bad your luck is, what can happen is that the revolver operates for a few hundred pulls until a part becomes so worn down that it, due to either the MIM part completely breaking or just because of stacking tolerances that stack even more due to the parts wearing in, stops functioning entirely. MIM isn't inherently a bad thing (objectively lower quality than forged parts, obviously, but that's a different subject); the issues are with modern revolver makers having drunk people heat treat their shit. Some companies (glock) are competent enough to always heat treat their MIM parts so it's not a problem. Ruger and S&W seem to not be as competent.

> MIM has been used for decades and many entities like Ruger have mastered castings

MIM =/= investment casting. Ruger's great at casting good frames, but they're shit at making MIM parts (or at least remembering to heat treat them).

>you'll never be in

actually I have, never used a side arm but looking back and thinking about it by 9mm would have worked just fine if I were to get fucked by goat fuckers but if I was fighting a bigger more capable army with better soldiers such as idk...Russians or chinese I would pick a 357 any day of the week over a 9mm piece of shit. The military issues 9mm not because they're effect side arms but because it's cheap, easy to produce and easier to shoot for women and medical personnel. I am literally giving you guys this information from a professional standpoint wether you agree with it or not but then again, this is Jow Forums.

Revolvers require craftsmanship and actually giving a fuck to make properly. A properly made revolver is going to be inherently more reliable than an autoloader, but if you're buying exclusively brand new guns then I'd buy a new autoloader over a new revolver any day of the week.

>What often happens with revolvers made these days is they make the MIM parts, pull the trigger only enough times to test-fire the handgun, then then send it to be sold. Much, much, much more often than you think these MIM parts are not heat treated properly (or at all) and therefore undergo somewhat serious wear from normal use.
If this was true then regular castings that Ruger uses as a major component of their guns. There is no forging (never was) and there aren't any MIM parts.

>Depending on how bad your luck is, what can happen is that the revolver operates for a few hundred pulls until a part becomes so worn down that it, due to either the MIM part completely breaking or just because of stacking tolerances that stack even more due to the parts wearing in, stops functioning entirely.
If this was true then the traditional castings would go first, MIM is a molding technique that has taken over traditional castings because it creates a superior product but its also more expensive to produce vs traditional castings. This also assumes you're using some weak ass metal like 316 that doesn't have enough carbon, chromium or molybdenum for added strength and resistance. Again assuming the same metals are used in MIM vs traditional casting, traditional castings are cheaper to produce. So you don't actually have a conniption about MIM parts because in actuality Ruger doesn't use MIM for much at all in their revolvers.

>MIM =/= investment casting.

MIM is a form of casting you stupid fuck.

>ruger is shit at making MIM
THEY DONT USE MIM LMAO

Because the PMR 30 sucks
If someone made it and had it fire something better than 22WMR (hell I'd take a .32ACP version) than maybe. The grip still sucks.

The FN 5.7 maybe.

>If this was true then regular castings that Ruger uses as a major component of their guns.

Where is the other half of of this sentence? Also, they're obviously not going to forget to heat treat frames/cylinders/etc. Those would make the gun blow up if they didn't. Small internal components, however, sometimes get forgotten.

>If this was true then the traditional castings would go first,

Again, MIM and what Ruger calls "investment casting" are NOT the same thing. Similar concept? Yes. The same exact thing? No.

>MIM is a molding technique that has taken over traditional castings because it creates a superior product but its also more expensive to produce vs traditional castings.

Where on Earth did you get this idea? MIM only exists as a cost cutting measure because it's significantly less expensive than forging or traditional casting. Have you ever shot a pistol with a MIM slide? What about a MIM barrel? You will never find a gun with MIM critical components because MIM makes more or less garbage pot metal that's only decent enough to use for smaller parts that don't take any serious stress.

>THEY DONT USE MIM LMAO

Do you think that Ruger uses their "investment casting" process on each and every single internal component of their revolvers? You can't actually be this stupid.

Any revolver is inherently less reliable and more prone to failure in a smaller number of rounds fired than any semi auto in any given combat situation, and the semi auto pistol will be easier to correct for any jams or malfunctions that occur.

If you simply drop a revolver in the sand, it’s toast, not the same with an auto-loader, give it a shake and it should be good to go. Apparently you guys haven’t shot a revolver enough to make the cylinder gritty as fuck, but most revolvers become unusable in 500 rounds or less.

The French police still use Manurin revolvers in certain SWAT scenarios. Basically the lead man with the ballistic shield uses a revolver because if he has a failure to feed or fire with an autoloader, he can't effectively clear it. With a revolver you simply pull the trigger again.

>Also, they're obviously not going to forget to heat treat frames/cylinders/etc
Their frames, trigger groups, trigger components and hammers are all castings. None of the internals are MIM.
>Again, MIM and what Ruger calls "investment casting" are NOT the same thing
Yes this is what I said, its what I've been calling "traditional casting" because ruger has been doing it since their inception. They don't use MIM in any of their modern revolvers like the GP100 or Redhawk/blackhawk.

>Where on Earth did you get this idea? MIM only exists as a cost cutting measure because it's significantly less expensive than forging or traditional casting.
Its not, MIM is far cheaper than forging, MIM is not cheaper than regular casting.

>Do you think that Ruger uses their "investment casting" process on each and every single internal component of their revolvers? You can't actually be this stupid.
They don't use MIM in their revolvers.

You have this dumb fuck conniption over MIM being to blame for any and all revolver failures, you're fucking delusional, you're not an engineer and you don't know what you're talking about so you jumped on the anti-mim bandwagon.

Glock, H&K, Walther, Beretta, Sig They all use MIM and they all make great products. You're a fucking moron if you think MIM is responsible for all the fucking failures when every single maker today is doing MIM and have reputations for quality and performance that they've effectively upheld.

Please tell me how unreliable a glock is when the trigger group and striker system is all MIM?

>On Jow Forums
>Complaining about the what-if brigade

Attached: 1542198183663.png (362x314, 56K)

fucking noguns please stop spewing nonsense

>>Don't limp wrist.
Okay i'll be sure to remember that when I'm shooting from behind cover under duress
>>This shouldn't happen under normal circumstances.
Yea neither should getting mugged.
>>Don't buy shitty mags.
You're right, lemons don't exist. At all.
I'm not even going through the rest of your post. Fuck you, you stupid faggot.

Given their general irrelevancy in modern combat, I don't see why not. The biggest large-scale disadvantage is not sharing ammo with a submachine gun, but a modern SMG would benefit from a special-purpose cartridge like that KAC 6x35mm PDW.