TexasCHLforum.com

TEX wrote:Contrary to what some may think, revolvers are not necessarily less complicated mechanically than semi-autos. It’s just that that the revolver doesn’t have to depend on recoil to operate and all of the cartridges are already chambered. Each design has its advantages and disadvantages.

In my opinion, what most people forget is that semi-autos come with extra training luggage. If a revolver fails to fire, which is unlikely with factory ammo, most people, even without much training, release the trigger and pull it again - thus moving a fresh cartridge under the firing pin and more often than not solving the problem. If a semi-auto malfunctions, you must have mastered two clearance procedures to get it going again – and I do mean “mastered”. Semi-autos are more prone to malfunctions simply because there are more things that can cause them to malfunction; unseated magazine, weak grip, weak magazine spring, deformed magazine, light primer strike, failure to extract (often called a double feed), not fully in battery due to slide contact, restriction or target contact – I am sure there are more.

That being said, semi-auto are generally easier to shoot accurately because of less trigger travel, usually offer more rounds, and unless you are JM, can usually be reloaded faster. Spare magazines are easier to carry than speed loaders. Depending on the caliber, semi-autos normally deliver less felt recoil than a revolver. However, the revolver does take, in my experience, more trigger time to learn how to shoot it accurately (if fired in DA, which is the way it was intended to be used if needed quickly).

As with most things, it is a personal choice, and many things have to be considered. How much time are you willing to spend leaning the pistol, how to shoot it well and what to do if it quits on you. What does surprise me is the number of people who carry a semi-auto, but no spare magazine, thus giving up one of the semi-auto's best features – that has always been a puzzler to me.