- Oct 25, 2004
munk said:Satori, I think it's a little arrogant of you to speak of revolvers in the way you have. (and that's OK- Friends are allowed a little chuzpah, right?) But you picked the number one issue between the revolver vs semiauto as reliability. You're right- a modern, well kept auto is reliable. But that's not the number one issue, and does not answer the question. You've dismissed the revolver without a complete examination.
I don't think that it's arrogant at all. If we're talking power, we're talking caliber. The weapon can be built around the caliber.
I know that you're a fan of the .41, and with good reason. It's one of those calibers that's skirting the area where small compromises make for large improvements. The only reason that I don't own one myself is that I already have a .44, already have the dies and brass for .44, and am well accustomed to .44. Otherwise, it would be .41.
But...if there was a commonly available rimless version of .44 - or .41 - with weapons available to chamber it, would I stick with that revolver? No. I would not. I rarely use it now, preferring a 10mm auto. Please, do not judge the platform by what's available for it because that can (and has done so in the past) change at a moment's notice.
The car door is a bad example. A .22 LR will do it, sometimes. (I've tried it. Luck is a factor.) Any commonly issued centerfire ought to do it more often than not.
Stopping an engine with pistol fire is an exceedingly poor example for a variety of reasons. There is not a pistol made today, that I can comfortably shoot, that I would trust to stop a vehicle. (Driver, yes. Engine, no.) There are many long guns I wouldn't trust for it, either. Our gate guards carry an M14 for the purpose; I consider this marginal, but appropriate under the circumstances. This is just my experience.
It's not about "us civilians." "Us civilians" can carry whatever we like (within the limits of the law) which simplifies or complicates the issue as we prefer.