The case for the M-29 Smith

imported post

Printed this on another part of forum, but had to share it with those who know me!



At 48 and a former gunsmith and a lifelong shooter, I have seen some stuff.

I wish to make the case for the Model 29/329 DA revolver as simply the best weapon for self defense made.

For the past 5 years I have been carrying a Model 29 S&W above all others. This after 21 years of carrying a variety of pistols and revolvers. For those looking for a lighter weight weapon, the 329 Titanium is a viable alternative. In my experience no automatic can match the S&W N frame revolver for reliability, accuracy, flexibility and power; as well as beautiful trigger pull, highest quality construction and natural pointing ability (with good grips).

I am not alone in this assessment. Recently the famous Thunder Ranch announced that they were going to endorse a weapon as representing the very best self defense option from the average person to the expert. The 1911 crowd began to accept congratulations and write articles that basically said "Of course it is a 1911, after all Col. Cooper was a 1911 freak. We just don't know WHICH 1911 it will be (Kimber, Springfield Armory, etc.)". The G## (Glock) crowd began to write articles which said "Maybe this will be our moment". Several of the smaller manufactures (Sig, eea began to whisper about their .357 Sig being bought by Government agencies and they hoped THEY might be picked).

Thunder Ranch picked a fixed sight 4" S&W N frame in .44 Special!

The reason for choosing this weapon? Utter reliability. The entire concept of feeding jams, magazine spring weakness, double feeds, squib loads, failure to strip a round, failure to eject, stovepipe jams,weak hand jam, malfunction drills, extractor tension, ejector tuning, mag lips, bullet profile, feed ramp smoothness, etc. is irrelevant. There is no need to burn up 200 rounds to make sure a certain load is reliable in you weapon, because they always will be. (Is 200 rounds a good test? What happens when your shooting your $23.00 per 20 = 200 or $230.00 of test Super Zapper ammo and and you jam on round #190? Was it you or the gun? Do you clean and check the weapon for broken or mis-installed parts and then go out and buy another $230 bucks of ammo to re-test? Are you firing from the hip to check weak handed jams? (Try shooting weak handed from the hip and watch it jam).

How many times have you been to the range and seen the bloke next to you “working” to get his weapon to feed or clearing a jam? I see it every time I go. And whilerevolver shootersremove our brass carefully, the pistol sprays hot brass all over (When one goes down your shirt, we snicker).


Reloading speed? Look 99% of the time you are going to finish your opponent in the first 3 rounds. Cases show that if you haven’t gotten your head together by then, you will blaze the mag empty and die. Even then, with speedloaders I can reload my M29 as fast as a regular guy can reload his 1911. If you don’t carry backup ammo and you have an eight round 1911, what is your argument against the S&W eight round .357 Mag revolver? See Picture below.


Accuracy? 2" at fifty yards (Yes, fifty). ‘Nuff said.


Caliber? Compared to a 9mm, the 0.429 bullet is already expanded when it hits the perp. Then it opens, violently.


Flexibility? Bullet profile is entirely irrelevant. LSWC, JHC, JHP, FMJ all fire with equal enthusiasm. Wax loads for indoor practice, shotshells, paintball, blanks, lead, lead jacketed, full copper, everything.


Horsepower?Power can be throttled from 250 grain SWC @750 FPS (Cowboy loads) to a 165 grain JHP @1050fps in .44 Special. The same weapon in 44 magnum will take the same loads in 44 Special as well as a 180 grain bullet @1600 FPS or 320 grain LFP @1000 hunting loads. This flexibility in bullet weight is because the weapon is not relying on recoil slide speed and powder burn rate to operate the mechanisms. Power is also completely adjustable for the same reason. Conversely, +P cartridges in the automatic tend to be less reliable (more prone to jamming the gun) and can even beat some guns to death.


And don’t discount the importance of horsepower. Shocking (Stopping) power is important. An automatic is reliable only within a narrow range of fps and bullet weight and bullet profile. A revolver can take the best bullet and best weight and push it as fast as necessary to be reliable in expansion with literally no consideration to profile or FPS or bullet weight in terms of their effect on reliability.

Horsepower is also a factor in tactics. There is a school of thought that a weapon that makes normal cover transparent (including cars, furniture, doors, interior walls, etc) gives you a powerful edge. Bad guy uses the cover of a wall, and you shoot through the wall[/b][/i]. Bad guy ducks behind car door and you shoot through the door.[/b][/i] By denying the enemy any cover at all, you change the tactical scenario completely.

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

The reason for choosing this weapon? Utter reliability. The entire concept of feeding jams, magazine spring weakness, double feeds, squib loads, failure to strip a round, failure to eject, stovepipe jams,weak hand jam, malfunction drills, extractor tension, ejector tuning, mag lips, bullet profile, feed ramp smoothness, etc. is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Reloading speed? Look 99% of the time you are going to finish your opponent in the first 3 rounds. Cases show that if you haven’t gotten your head together by then, you will blaze the mag empty and die. Even then, I can reload my M29 as fast as a regular guy can reload his 1911. If you don’t carry backup ammo and you have an eight round 1911, what is your argument against the S&W eight round .357 Mag revolver?

Click to expand...

Flexibility? Bullet profile is entirely irrelevant. LSWC, JHC, JHP, FMJ all fire with equal enthusiasm. Wax loads for indoor practice, shotshells, paintball, blanks, lead, lead jacketed, full copper, everything.

Click to expand...

I'm not a revolver guy so FWIW:

I understand that revolvers CAN and DO fail. Perhaps not at the same 'rate' or ratio as semi-autos, but they can.

Timing issues can develop. Springs can break.

Squibs happen, semi-autos do not 'cause' squibs. You'd need a revolving barrel system to compleatly eliminate the potential for a squib causing problems.

Dust and lint can jam up the 'action' where most folks do not regularly clean (under the shroud or grips).

99% of statistics are invented on the spot. Can you cite your 3 round 99% satistic?

If a person is going to "blaze and die," are they 'more likely' to survive by blazing 5 rounds, or blazing 16? If they are the blaze type, then I'd think that 11 extra rounds would at least increase their survival odds just a wee bit.

To 'address' the reloading issue you have to compare revolvers to 1911s: you're stacking the deck in your favor. Compare it instead with a Glock 19, where you gain an extra 11 rounds rather than just 1 or 2 rounds.

And, for the 'average person' with the 'normal level of CCW training' -- it will be far quicker and easier to reload a semi-auto versus a revolver.

There's also never a blanket rule about a 'perfect gun for ______."

A revolver, with it's cylinder bulge, is more apparent when carrying as opposed to a flat and slim semi-auto. Also a revolver (I'd imagine) would be harder and less comfortable to carry IWB, which is usually easier to conceal than OWB.

Slip a revolver in your front pocket and then try slipping in a Khar. Which is 'less noticable?' In most situation I'd bet it was the Khar.

Flexability, for the most part, does not matter. Ball and hollow point, that's all you really 'need' to be able to fire. Paint ball? Blanks? Absolutly no need.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if it 'works best for you' then GREAT. But just because it works best for you, based on your narrow set of critera, does not mean it will work best for me -- based on my narrow set of criteria.

imported post

I am totally biassed towards auto's. As a poor man with only enough for one gun (so far) i laid myself before S&W MP. Even though i didn't get a six gun, i am glad to have at least to have a gun from the same company. They make great SD weapons, and i am super pleased with their customer service.

I also wanted to add, that is one smexxy gun! :celebrate:monkey

imported post

Wow, Did not realize I would have to defendmy dissertationagainst someone who will not use spell check orhas taken basic grammer. Sigh.


99% of statistics are invented on the spot. Can you cite your 3 round 99% satistic?

Before you call me a liar, perhaps you should read. Something. Maybe just for fun.

Please see:

Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes:
a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers
D C Reedy1 and C S Koper2
1 Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland,
College Park
2 Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Correspondence and reprint requests to:
Dr Christopher S Koper, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA;
ckoper@sas.upenn.edu

It is also noted that after the switch to semi auto's police hit the center of mass less, and missed more as compared to a revolver.

Also: NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT

In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police
Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69). In Parti...The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined. In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action. In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

I understand that revolvers CAN and DO fail. Perhaps not at the same 'rate' or ratio as semi-autos, but they can.


I never said that revolvers NEVER fail. I just said IN MY EXPERIENCE (and I am willing to bet this is the consensus for most of the shooting professionals due to my cited selection of the Thunder Ranch 44 special AND the endless use of the phrase: "and a revolver is more reliable if dirty" in handgun magazines). Revolvers are more reliable. If you agree auto's fail much more than revolvers, what is your problem with me pointing it out?

Squibs happen, semi-autos do not 'cause' squibs. You'd need a revolving barrel system to compleatly eliminate the potential for a squib causing problems.


Your squib problem scenario is incorrect AND Proves my point. A squib that exits the barrel jams an semiauto (either a stovepipe or a doublefeed or afailure to eject) but a revolver keeps going. A squib that does not exit the barrel jams both.

If a person is going to "blaze and die," are they 'more likely' to survive by blazing 5 rounds, or blazing 16? If they are the blaze type, then I'd think that 11 extra rounds would at least increase their survival odds just a wee bit.

The weapon is the brain, not the gun. History shows that those who are "blazing" are not even using the sights. Case example: Miami shoot out. One FBI guy emptied his 15 shot S&W, reloaded and emptied, reloaded and died locked back on an empty gun. His gun had lots of bullets, but his brain was not present.

To 'address' the reloading issue you have to compare revolvers to 1911s: you're stacking the deck in your favor. Compare it instead with a Glock 19, where you gain an extra 11 rounds rather than just 1 or 2 rounds. And, for the 'average person' with the 'normal level of CCW training' -- it will be far quicker and easier to reload a semi-auto versus a revolver.


Sorry, the 1911 is one of the most popular weapons. I was showing how an 8 shot .357 magnum revolver compared in firepower with an 8 shot 1911. And you do not address how your average guy is going to deal with a jam. But, yes, compared to a glock 19 a S&W revolver holds less bullets. Wow. You got me there.

There's also never a blanket rule about a 'perfect gun for ______."

I'm sorry, I did not realize you were the rule maker. Please forgive.

A revolver, with it's cylinder bulge, is more apparent when carrying as opposed to a flat and slim semi-auto. Also a revolver (I'd imagine) would be harder and less comfortable to carry IWB, which is usually easier to conceal than OWB.

What a load of dodo. If I put a revolver under a jacket or an auto, I bet you can't tell. Come on. $100 say you can't even tell where I am carrying under my suit jacket. As for comfort, a 329 is lighter than a glockand more reliable.


Slip a revolver in your front pocket and then try slipping in a Khar. Which is 'less noticable?' In most situation I'd bet it was the Khar.

You just jumped from a glock 19to a Khar in comparison to a full sized Smith. There are lots of pocket pistols smaller than a Khar, some that don't jam. Why did you not pick one of them? (See post in this forum "Selecting a handgun" under "My Khar jams"). Funny you should pick that one.


Flexability, for the most part, does not matter. Ball and hollow point, that's all you really 'need' to be able to fire. Paint ball? Blanks? Absolutly no need.

I thought you were the ass with the "no blanket rule", rule? You missed the whole point. OK, restricting ourselves only to the ball and hollow point category there are many different shapes. Some arebetter than others,defensively. They open better after going through shirts, heavy clothing, etc. However, if they don't work in your auto you can't use them. A revolver can take the Best bullet shape, at the best weight in that caliber, and push it as fast as you need it to go. When you get a little more experienced, you might try some force on force training. They use standard weapons with paint-ball cartridges. (See Simunitions)

I guess I'm of the opinion that if it 'works best for you' then GREAT. But just because it works best for you, based on your narrow set of critera, does not mean it will work best for me -- based on my narrow set of criteria.

Actually, you havethe narrow criteria. Iam demonstrating how flexible the revolver is and how it can fulfill a number of different criteria. I notice you don't even address the horsepower issue...

Oh, I forgot to mention, you can hunt game up to Elk here in Washington state with a 44 mag with a 4 inch barrel. Can you do that with your glock? Or is that criteria too narrow?

imported post

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics...

imported post

If it makes you feel better Sportman's has S&W 642s on sale for 349.99. I'm gonna go put on layaway. Never owned a revolver before, but I like the way it feels and it's so damn inexpensive and definitely has good reviews and merits.

imported post

I love double postings.

imported post

I've had misfires and other ignition problems inBOTH revolvers that I've owned (both bought new, by the way) a Smith 442 and a Taurus 605. They were UNRELIABLE. In fact, the only guns that I've yet to have a malfunction in have all been autos (9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP) and have all been marked "KAHR"on the side of the slide. I don't shoot revolvers well, but I have no trouble with autos. Revolvers don't fit my hand, butmy Kahr's and my Kimber 1911feel wonderful in my hand. I prefer nightsights on all of my "serious use" handguns (carry & home defense) and revolvers are hard to find-to-impossible to find withacceptable nightsights.

I would like a large-framed .44mag just to say I have one though. I do appreciate the opinion, but my autos seem to suit mejust fine.

I was under the assumption(and the NRA is to) that a "squib load" by definition, never exits the barrel. Thismeans that both the auto-shooter and the revolver-shooter are screwed!(Exactly why I carry a second gun, in a differentcaliber--meaning a different lot of ammo to feed it--thus all but eliminating the chances for two squibsduring the same fight.)

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

1) 99% of statistics are invented on the spot. Can you cite your 3 round 99% satistic?

2)If a person is going to "blaze and die," are they 'more likely' to survive by blazing 5 rounds, or blazing 16? If they are the blaze type, then I'd think that 11 extra rounds would at least increase their survival odds just a wee bit.

3) To 'address' the reloading issue you have to compare revolvers to 1911s: you're stacking the deck in your favor. Compare it instead with a Glock 19, where you gain an extra 11 rounds rather than just 1 or 2 rounds.

4) A revolver, with it's cylinder bulge, is more apparent when carrying as opposed to a flat and slim semi-auto. Also a revolver (I'd imagine) would be harder and less comfortable to carry IWB, which is usually easier to conceal than OWB.

5) Slip a revolver in your front pocket and then try slipping in a Khar. Which is 'less noticable?' In most situation I'd bet it was the Khar.

6) Flexability, for the most part, does not matter. Ball and hollow point, that's all you really 'need' to be able to fire. Paint ball? Blanks? Absolutly no need.

Click to expand...

I added the numbers above so that I could more easily answer them. Also, for anybody who saw me at this last meeting, you know that I don't carry a revolver, I carry a 1911.

1) Wheelgunner, you seemed to have already beaten me to this one, but I had essentially the same statistics.

2) Jeff Cooper put it best when referring to the argument that a 1911 doesn't hold enough rounds to end a gunfight, "If you can't solve the problem in 7 rounds, you probably can't solve the problem." The biggest problem I see with people who carry Glock 17s and the like isn't that the Glock 17 is incapable of stopping a fight (because it certainly can); the biggest problem is that many of these people have the mindset that sear number of rounds can solve a situation, which they can't. If shear volume of fire won gunfights, then we would have won Vietnam hands down. What wins a gunfight are hits capable of stopping aggressors. That requires skill, not shear volume. I'd trust a skilled person wielding a wheelgun over an untrained person wielding a Glock who thinks that 17 rounds is somehow "better" than 6.

3) A revolver can be reloaded just as fast as a pistol and it doesn't require any more skill, just maybe a little practice. Again though, if you have to reload that means that you're probably in a situation that is beyond your ability to control. Does this mean that I don't carry a spare magazine? Heck no, I carry an extended 10 round magazine for my spare. It's just that your ability to control a fight is only as good as your skill level. If you have 6 rounds in a revolver, then that should be 6 dead bodies before you have to reload. Even if you shoot everybody twice, that's still 3 dead bodies. Considering that if you have to shoot somebody it's probably defensive and they've got the jump on you, you'd have to draw your sidearm and stop between 3 and 6 aggressors, while they're attempting to kill you, before you even have to think about reloading. At this point in a gunfight, whether you're reloading a revolver or still engaging targets with your Glock, you'd better be moving behind cover because you're damn lucky to still be alive given the odds against you. If you can't drop 3 to 6 targets before reloading, then the problem isn't that you don't have enough rounds, the problem is that you aren't trained enough to handle the situation and need to hit the range more often. That's also not forget that most modern handgun courses teach you to shoot your targets at least twice with a modern pistol, sometimes three times, which can negate your large magazine capacity. A single round from a revolver can carry twice the energy of a 9mm round and yet is still controllable.

4) I'll give this one to you. It's true that revolvers are generally wider than pistols but that doesn't mean that they can't be effectively concealed, you just have to work at it a little harder and change some of your carry methods. I can carry my 6" S&W 41 mag IWB and nobody will ever notice, however my 1911 is much more comfortable being carried IWB. On the other hand, I can conceal my .41 in a shoulder rig and it's not only comfortable, but also vanishes from site.

5) The historical problem with pocket pistols is their lack of power. I have a Taurus 2" 45 LC which is pretty small and yet still packs some serious punch. You can drop the Taurus into any pocket and it disappears. Yes, it's a little wider than the Kahr, but the power that it delivers is unbelievable for it's size.

6) Flexibility can and does matter in many situations. With any of the major revolvers (.357 mag, .41 mag, .44 mag, 45 LC) you can load from people to bear in the same firearm. I know of many wheelgunners, Clint Smith included, that load 250gr wide nose flat points around 1000fps for carry. This load will definitely stop a person, it'll go through most barriers, including through a car, will stop most bears, and above all is comfortable to shoot. The advantage of major revolvers is the range over which you can load them. To say "ball and hollowpoint is all you need" suggests that you only plan on target shooting and shooting thin skinned animals (ex deer or people). If this is the case, then that's great, but where I travel there are times when I might need to defend myself against a cougar or bear just as much as against a person. It's nice knowing that my sidearm can do that if need be. There's a huge range of softpoint ammunition that makes it possible to obtain hollowpoint like performance but at much greater speeds (1200 to 1600 fps in most major revolvers) delivering tremendous damage deep into large game. There are hard cast solids that, combined with a wide flat nose, are incredibly good at dropping game from wild boar all the way up to rhino, yet at slower speeds are very effective against people.

Like I said, I carry an auto. For the foreseeable future, I plan on carrying an auto (unless I'm in bear country). If I had the money, I'd probably carry a Glock or XD. However, I do acknowledge the revolver as probably the best all around defensive sidearm that you can own (meaning all threats, human or otherwise).

Wheelgunner, as for your argument for the model 29/329 revolver, I think that you made a very good argument for one, or for a revolver in general. I might argue for a different caliber or different sights, etc, but can't really argue with anything that you said. No offense Dave_pro2a, I wasn't trying to bash you.

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

Wow, Did not realize I would have to defendmy dissertationagainst someone who will not use spell check orhas taken basic grammer. Sigh.


99% of statistics are invented on the spot. Can you cite your 3 round 99% satistic?

Before you call me a liar, perhaps you should read. Something. Maybe just for fun.

Please see:

Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes:
a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers
D C Reedy1 and C S Koper2
1 Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland,
College Park
2 Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Correspondence and reprint requests to:
Dr Christopher S Koper, Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of
Pennsylvania, 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA;
ckoper@sas.upenn.edu

It is also noted that after the switch to semi auto's police hit the center of mass less, and missed more as compared to a revolver.

Also: NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT

In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police
Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69). In Parti...The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined. In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action. In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

I understand that revolvers CAN and DO fail. Perhaps not at the same 'rate' or ratio as semi-autos, but they can.


I never said that revolvers NEVER fail. I just said IN MY EXPERIENCE (and I am willing to bet this is the consensus for most of the shooting professionals due to my cited selection of the Thunder Ranch 44 special AND the endless use of the phrase: "and a revolver is more reliable if dirty" in handgun magazines). Revolvers are more reliable. If you agree auto's fail much more than revolvers, what is your problem with me pointing it out?

Squibs happen, semi-autos do not 'cause' squibs. You'd need a revolving barrel system to compleatly eliminate the potential for a squib causing problems.


Your squib problem scenario is incorrect AND Proves my point. A squib that exits the barrel jams an semiauto (either a stovepipe or a doublefeed or afailure to eject) but a revolver keeps going. A squib that does not exit the barrel jams both.

If a person is going to "blaze and die," are they 'more likely' to survive by blazing 5 rounds, or blazing 16? If they are the blaze type, then I'd think that 11 extra rounds would at least increase their survival odds just a wee bit.

The weapon is the brain, not the gun. History shows that those who are "blazing" are not even using the sights. Case example: Miami shoot out. One FBI guy emptied his 15 shot S&W, reloaded and emptied, reloaded and died locked back on an empty gun. His gun had lots of bullets, but his brain was not present.

To 'address' the reloading issue you have to compare revolvers to 1911s: you're stacking the deck in your favor. Compare it instead with a Glock 19, where you gain an extra 11 rounds rather than just 1 or 2 rounds. And, for the 'average person' with the 'normal level of CCW training' -- it will be far quicker and easier to reload a semi-auto versus a revolver.


Sorry, the 1911 is one of the most popular weapons. I was showing how an 8 shot .357 magnum revolver compared in firepower with an 8 shot 1911. Compared to a glock 19 a S&W revolver holds less bullets. Wow. You got me there.

There's also never a blanket rule about a 'perfect gun for ______."

I'm sorry, I did not realize you were the rule maker. Please forgive.

A revolver, with it's cylinder bulge, is more apparent when carrying as opposed to a flat and slim semi-auto. Also a revolver (I'd imagine) would be harder and less comfortable to carry IWB, which is usually easier to conceal than OWB.

What a load of dodo. If I put a revolver under a jacket or an auto, I bet you can't tell. Come on. $100 say you can't even tell where I am carrying under my suit jacket. As for comfort, a 329 is lighter than a glockand more reliable.


Slip a revolver in your front pocket and then try slipping in a Khar. Which is 'less noticable?' In most situation I'd bet it was the Khar.

You just jumped from a glock 19to a Khar in comparison to a full sized Smith. There are lots of pocket pistols smaller than a Khar, some that don't jam. Why did you not pick one of them? (See post in this forum "Selecting a handgun" under "My Khar jams"). Funny you should pick that one.


Flexability, for the most part, does not matter. Ball and hollow point, that's all you really 'need' to be able to fire. Paint ball? Blanks? Absolutly no need.

I thought you were the ass with the "no blanket rule", rule? You missed the whole point. OK, restricting ourselves only to the ball and hollow point category there are many different shapes. Some arebetter than others,defensively. They open better after going through shirts, heavy clothing, etc. However, if they don't work in your auto you can't use them. A revolver can take the Best bullet shape, at the best weight in that caliber, and push it as fast as you need it to go. When you get a little more experienced, you might try some force on force training. They use standard weapons with paint-ball cartridges. (See Simunitions)

I guess I'm of the opinion that if it 'works best for you' then GREAT. But just because it works best for you, based on your narrow set of critera, does not mean it will work best for me -- based on my narrow set of criteria.

Actually, you havethe narrow criteria. Iam demonstrating how flexible the revolver is and how it can fulfill a number of different criteria. I notice you don't even address the horsepower issue...

Oh, I forgot to mention, you can hunt game up to Elk here in Washington state with a 44 mag with a 4 inch barrel. Can you do that with your glock? Or is that criteria too narrow?

Click to expand...

Quite being so hyper sensative. I did not call you a liar, I said an oft repeated phrase used when people state uncited statistics as 'fact' in an argument.

Great research, you found a 30+ year old study, done by NYC, to back up the claim 'more ammo isn't needed. If ANYBODY is going to argue against more ammo, it'll be NYC (well and the LAPD of course, MA would too)

(gee, the same city that requies the police to put a 'revolver like' trigger on their Glocks lol)

As to people becoming less accurate after switching to revolvers. Umm, whatever.

That's a training/transition issue not a issue with the actual firearm. Sure a guy who "just transitioned to a semi-auto" will probably be less accurate after shooting revolvers for the last 15 years of his service, ******* duh. Too stupid of a point to even respond to, much less make. Blatantly stacked perspective to prop up your favorite position -- stacked information with a easily explained alternative interpertation.

A squib, afaik, is a underpowered cartridge that results in the bullet not leaving the barrel. If it leaves the barrel, then it was simply an underpowerd round.

A squib round CAN indeed cycle the action on a semi-auto without causing either a stovepipe, a doublefeed or afailure to eject --at least sometimes. A squib will not 'necessarily' cause any of those conditions...Thus the risk of firing a second full power round down the barrel and causing damage to the firearm when it encounters the lodged squib round. (this can also happen in a rifle too). If you do not know this, then perhaps you are not qualified to accurately compare revolvers to semi-autos.

I've used revolvers and semi-sutos. I stick by my opinion that a revolver (due to the diameter of the cylinder) can be harder to effectively conceal and less comfortable to carry. You are of course welcome to YOUR opinion. Usually, opinions cannot be universally applied.

But I do agree with your opinion, that all guns conceal better UNDER A JACKET. Do you wear a jacket in the middle of July? Probably not. This should suggest a point that is obvious to anybody who thinks, or who has lived for more than 10 years: circumstances often dictate actions/activity/choices. Circumstances change. Therefore, actions/activity/choices change. To be explicit: a gun that is great for winter carry might not be the 'best' choice for summer carry. ******* DUH. You just can't effectively argue that revolvers and semi-autos conceal equally as well because they are both hard to detect if under a jacket. That is 'proof' that does not pass muster.

Re: the FBI shoot out. Hmm, what do I make of your 'example.' I can find an 'example' of almost anything. I can find an example that 'proves' drinking water kills you. If I try to apply that to all people and all situation it obviously does not pass muster.

Having 16 rounds in a gun fight is better than having 8. That is meant as a 'general' statement. That is my opinion. I'll stick to it. Sure, a proper response/actions is ideal. But I believe that even with proper response, it is ideal to have more ammo versus less ammo. No surprise that wonder nines made revolvers obsolete for a majority ofLEO and combat situations (as indicated by departments and the military switching over to them relatively soon after they hit the market).

As an alternative explanation on your example, the fact 1 FBI guy emptied 4 mags and didn't hit anybody doesn't matter. Maybe, just maybe, since he probably had back up... and bullets were flying in both directions,he could have been laying down supressive fire? Ya think?

Yes I'm sure there's some department somewhere, in "where the hell am I Alabama" that still issues revolvers. Yes I'm sure there's some super top notch unit in the military that still has the option of choosing a revolver, and who has some members who carry them. Those are just exceptions that prove the rule.

Based on your principle tha less is more, try carrying a 1 shot derringer and see how comfortable you feel in dark alleys (Reductio ad absurdum) :uhoh:

BTW I compared a glock 19 to your precious revolver because I can. Revolvers max out at around 8 rounds, unless you have a .22. Semi autos, on the other hand, easily go up to 18.

You compared 2 genres, I used an example from one of the genres. Don't blame me that you intentionally are trying to stack the deck in your favor by saying "gee man, don't look at all the wonder nines... just compare revolvers to the 1911s." If you exalt one genre above another (in an absolute sense) then be prepared for many examples of the 2genres. You're being disingenuous, flat out.

Every Simunitions kit I've seen involves a dedicated upper, or dedicated slide. I would not want to mess around with a stock firearm and Simunitions. That's my preference, you're welcome to point a loaded gun at your head for all I care because I'm not your keeper (loaded with Simunitions of course, maybe, I dunno, did you check it? Double check it? Is the gun blue? No? Oh well, no worries it's probably loaded with Simunitions so go ahead and pull).

Notice that some actors die because they thought the gun was loaded with blanks when it wasn't, and that happens on sets with dedicated safety personnel, chain of custody, double and tripple checks. "Force training" with real firearms, no thanks.

Yes I didn't get into the 'horsepower debate." Is that some new gun term I haven't heard of before? Is that like the caliber debate? Hey semi-autos come in all kinds of calibers. Some of them have can actually fire several different calibers (i.e. 9mm OR .357, 45 OR 45 super, etc.). You can also get them loaded in P, +P. +P+. If you hand load you can also download them too, if you were so inclined. You can even get smi-auto pistols that shoot genuine rifle rounds (if you really want penetration).

Which is better 9mm or 45? Yeah no wonder I didn't talk about your horsepower issue, because there's no 'right' answer.

BTW, great attack on the poster rather than attack the post, with your criticism of my grammer and spelling. If you want to compare sheep skins I can almost guarantee I'll win... but I personally have no need to piss over spelling and grammer on a forum post.

Ahh well, every forum has them:



You have the audacity to accuse me of being the 'rule maker?' WTF was your whole article about? "X is the best."

Who died and made you god. MF, you're trying to express a universal maxim even more than I was -- because I leave room for other people to have equaly valid opinions. You're Mr. Dictator, essentially saying "X is the best for all." I'm simply being Mr. Reasonable, saying "X is best for some, Y is best for others, figure out for yourself what the best is..... for you."

I can happily say that there are times to carry a revolver, where it makes sense to carry a revolver. Just as there are times to carry a semi-auto, where it makes sense to carry a semi auto. I would never say "X is the best, you should use X because I think it's the best."

Group hug, merry Christmas, blah blah blah.

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

To say "ball and hollowpoint is all you need" suggests that you only plan on target shooting and shooting thin skinned animals (ex deer or people). If this is the case, then that's great, but where I travel there are times when I might need to defend myself against a cougar or bear just as much as against a person. It's nice knowing that my sidearm can do that if need be. There's a huge range of softpoint ammunition that makes it possible to obtain hollowpoint like performance but at much greater speeds (1200 to 1600 fps in most major revolvers) delivering tremendous damage deep into large game. There are hard cast solids that, combined with a wide flat nose, are incredibly good at dropping game from wild boar all the way up to rhino, yet at slower speeds are very effective against people.

Click to expand...

Inhis first post Wheelgunner made the claim "revolvers are the best for self defense." That in no way implies hunting, elk, or killing attacking cougars.

Self defense strongly implies defensive shooting that involves bad guys.

In his second post he mentions elk hunting, trying to prop up his falling position. Again, nothing to do with self defense.

Plus, a semi auto pistol can be used to defend against wild animals, provided that a person make choices based on anticipated circumstances.

If you are going into the woods, then obviously you'd select something different than if you were going to down town Tacoma. You would not need to prepare for a potential cougar attack in down town Tacoma. Your mountian lion example. Ball ammo would work, a Glock 21 converted to 45 super should do the trick nicely. Or maybe a nice AK pistol in 7.62 Bad cougar, bad.

But if you're in the woods, worried about lions and tigers and bears, and all you have is a pistol... then you made a very poor choice. A rifle, imho, is better for the woods and a pistol is better for the city. If you are limited to only a pistol in the woods, either a revolver or a semi-auto can work ifyou pick the right one of either.

BTW, no where in his original post does Wheelgunner talk about "Self defense against wild animal attacks." To bring it up later is simply a red herring argument.

Gee, revolvers suck because you can't use them to defend against underwater shark attacks... spear guns reign supreme!How ridiciulous and outlandish does one have to go to try and back up a flawed argument.

Funy stuff though, from best self defense pistol, to hunting elk, to shooting cougars.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

BTW, no where in his original post does Wheelgunner talk about "Self defense against wild animal attacks." To bring it up later is simply a red herring argument.

Gee, revolvers suck because you can't use them to defend against underwater shark attacks... spear guns reign supreme!How ridiciulous and outlandish does one have to go to try and back up a flawed argument.

Click to expand...

Dave, calm down, I'm not trying to throw up a red herring. I simply stated that I felt that a revolver can more easily accomplish a greater number of defensive senerios than a pistol can. And yes, I consider shooting a cougar and bear that is trying to eat me a defensive senerio. I'm not a hardcore revolver person Dave, and I'm not trying to convince you to carry a revolver, I myself carry an auto. I'm just stating that I thought that he made many good points. Does that mean that I'm going to run out a buy another revolver? No. Of course not. I'm not here on this board to bash anybody. I thought that you made several points against carrying revolvers that where flawed, and I attempted to counter them. Everybody carries something different, but that doesn't change that he made many solid arguments for carrying a revolver.

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

I simply stated that I felt that a revolver can more easily accomplish a greater number of defensive senerios than a pistol can.

Click to expand...

The revolver that works best for bear in the woods, probably would not be the best choice for carrying in down town Tacoma. The revovler that works best for defense against bad guys in down town Tacoma probably would not be the best choice for bears in the woods.

"A revolver" will not be ideal in all situations. Different revolvers will suck or excel in different situations. That's just like semi-autos, what is best for the city is not best for the woods and vice versa.

In other words, no "one model" of revolver is 'the best' imho,likewise with semi-autos. It is analogous to the idea that revovlers are not 'better' than semi-autos in an absolute sense -- for all situations.

I don't dispute that Wheelgunner made some "solid arguments for carrying a revolver." I disagree with the absolute nature of his conclusion, and the 'extreme degree' of several of his points/position. (also I disagree with much of his rhetoric)

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

And whilerevolver shootersremove our brass carefully, the pistol sprays hot brass all over (When one goes down your shirt, we snicker).

Click to expand...

Hey, I missed this.

WTF does that have to do with being the best 'defensive' handgun? In a self defense situation, the last thing that matters is spent brass.

Apply your 'logic' to rifles:

a breach loaded rifle must be better than an AR15 or AK47 in a self defense situation... because when praticing at the range the guy with the breech loader can carefully remove his brass while the guy with the semi-autro rifle "sprays hot brass all over!"

BTW, did you copy and paste the phrase "sprays hot brass all over" from the Brady Bunch website?

I think this quote best explains the motive of the original poster: "A general feeling of superiority over those who use semi-auto pistols." "Snickering?" "We?"

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

The revolver that works best for bear in the woods, probably would not be the best choice for carrying in down town Tacoma. The revovler that works best for defense against bad guys in down town Tacoma probably would not be the best choice for bears in the woods.

Click to expand...

That's the great thing about revolvers, you can load them over a large range of velocities with an even larger selection of bullets. A .41mag can be loaded to approximate a .40 or a 10mm for defensive work against humans with a 210 gr at say 900fps, and can be loaded to easily push a 250gr flat point at 1200fps. The same is true for a 44 mag or a 45 LC. They can be loaded over a huge range and don't ever require a change in recoil spring in order to operate effectively. Read some of Clint Smith's recent writings about revolvers. Their extreme versatility comes partially from the fact that the same revolver can be loaded for just about everything that you're going to encounter.

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

The revolver that works best for bear in the woods, probably would not be the best choice for carrying in down town Tacoma. The revovler that works best for defense against bad guys in down town Tacoma probably would not be the best choice for bears in the woods.

Click to expand...

That's the great thing about revolvers, you can load them over a large range of velocities with an even larger selection of bullets. A .41mag can be loaded to approximate a .40 or a 10mm for defensive work against humans with a 210 gr at say 900fps, and can be loaded to easily push a 250gr flat point at 1200fps. The same is true for a 44 mag or a 45 LC. They can be loaded over a huge range and don't ever require a change in recoil spring in order to operate effectively. Read some of Clint Smith's recent writings about revolvers. Their extreme versatility comes partially from the fact that the same revolver can be loaded for just about everything that you're going to encounter.

Click to expand...

Because it's possible doesn't make it the ideal.

From surfing the forums it seems like revolvers like the 642 or 649 are the most popular choices for CCWing a revolver. I can't imagine a way to load that for bear... but due to its weight and size it works great for carrying around a city park at night.

2" for the the pocket, 4" for the belt.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

I think this quote best explains the motive of the original poster: "A general feeling of superiority over those who use semi-auto pistols." "Snickering?" "We?"

Click to expand...

Hey now, no reason to attack the poster. I've meet the guy and I never got the impression from talking with him that he felt superior to me because he carried a revolver and I carried a 1911. I don't think that he's "trying to stack the deck" as you put it, in favor of a revolver. We can all disagree with his points, and we can all argue his points, and he can and should defend his points, but we can be civil about it without attacking each other. People always seem to take offense at somebody declaring that one firearm is superior to another, but I don't think that he meant it in any way to degrade you or to feel superior to you. Wheelgunner can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that he was simply just making a great case for the S&W 29.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Because it's possible doesn't make it the ideal.

From surfing the forums it seems like revolvers like the 642 or 649 are the most popular choices for CCWing a revolver. I can't imagine a way to load that for bear... but due to its weight and size it works great for carrying around a city park at night.

2" for the the pocket, 4" for the belt.

Click to expand...

Using a pistol, no matter what it is isn't ideal. When I was talking about flexability of revolvers, I was talking about full sized revolvers in a major revolver caliber and not a pocket revolver, just like I assume that when you talked about the advantage of a pistol holding 18 rounds, you are talking about a full, or near full sized pistol and not a pocket sized 380.

imported post

GEEZ, let's face it gys...Both have their place and they both CAN have problems specific to their design. I carried a Baretta 96-M9 and then a Sig 229 M9 as duty guns because they were issued and required. I bought a 229 in 40 for off duty personal carry. I have over 15000 rounds through it without a single malfunction of any type.

What do I carry now after retiring? a S&W m49 Bodyguard. 5 round capacity w/2 speed loaders. without a pat down defy you to see them, and No, not an ankle holster.

Let's agree to disagree, no need to get your panties in a wad over personal opinions. Everybody has them and like armpits most of them stink.


And as a side note if it has a 4" barrel and over .24 calibre, it is legal for elk, although not a wisely thought out choice.

imported post

Dave_pro2a, sorry for any confusion, I wasn't ever trying to bash you or your views on the board. Hope there's no hard feelings