They are a tool for fun, and other uses. On a business trip my friend and I were going out to grab some dinner. I put my holstered edc on and he asked, do you thing you are going to need that? I replied, if I thought I was going to need it, I would not be going there. I told him I am not going to a gun fight, you never know if you will safely get back home. This is if, so that I can at least have a chance to get back home. I remember when 357 mag was the #1 fight stopper of all handguns. Revolvers are very relevant today.
Carry guns are like insurance. Do I want to have to use it? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean I won't have it just in case. It's funny how people think carrying a gun means a person wants to go to war all the time.
@@triplefshooting there is actually a gunsmith who builds custom da revolver carbines and yeah you're about right but that's because it's a custom one by one thing if it was mass-produced it'd be less.
People tend to conflate obsolescence, which is a question of what is and isn't adequate (though there are different types of obsolescence), with what's optimal, which is a question of what is and isn't best. What really matters if we're limiting ourselves to obsolescence is functional obsolescence and that just plain depends on the use case and adequacy of training. You mention of training new shooters is a good use case where revolvers are certainly not obsolete. Big revolvers are obviously not functionally obsolete for people in big bear country in Alaska. They're highly confident the threat mode they'll face is a daylight attack from a big, predatory animal that requires hard-hitting, deep penetrating rounds to stop from eating them. If you can be highly confident that your threat mode is going to be one person hooked on benzos getting denied a prescription at the well-lit hospital clinic, or one person whose windshield you need to punch through to stop in the well-lit parking lot, and your training level is adequate, a service-sized .357 with 7 rounds might be perfectly adequate and not obsolete at all.
Great video and thanks for such detailed comparisons. As a revolver guy myself and as a owner of the 686 plus with the 6inch barrel I can attest that revolvers are still relevant in 2023/21st century. Yes my EDC rotates between my Glock 17 Gen4 and/or my Beretta M9A3 G model, however should the apocalypse happen, I'm going with my S&W 686 because it's arguably the best all round handgun there is. You just gotta have a lots of reloads and train, train, train, train on your quickness when it comes to reloading. Keep them revolver videos coming brother 👍
The next videos will most likely be much older subjects, but I love them all the same. I have far more revolvers in the collection than autos. I enjoy them more, but understand the utility of a good auto in our current environment. Cheers
Always enjoy your videos,glad that your boy is OK. Revolver reloading is no more difficult than an auto provided that you hit the ejector rod with the thumb of your left hand holding the piece vertically to ensure the brass falls clear,that allows you to simultaneously reach for your speedloader which should preferably be carried in an open top pouch.I don't have big hands but had no problem using a 4" S&W M-28 for police pistol matches (The only thing I ever 'won' was a competitor's badge!).
I was born in 1963, and until the 1980s' virtually all police officers wore revolvers. There were exceptions--my hometown LVMPD adopted the S&W 59 and 659 early on. From what I observed, the old show, "Miami Vice" hurried along the move to autos, and let's face it, the reliability of Glocks convinced many officers who were reluctant to adopt autos to make the switch. Having said all that, I've say that there is no handgun that I shoot as well as the 686+. It uses the gold standard fighting caliber--the .357 Magnum. The problem for most of us who carry is that the 686 simply weighs too much. I've got a 386+ Mountain Light, but as a civilian, I prefer the 327 Nightguard because it holds 8 shots, reloads quickly with moonclips, and is "light but not too light." All that said, the 686+ is an excellent revolver, and with the 4" barrel, it is close to being perfect.
Too many people think the 9mm semi auto handgun should be fired like it is a machine gun in that one should pull the trigger as fast as one can sending multiple bullets at a bad guy. That may well be the only advantage that the semi auto has. Revolvers required quite a bit of practice to master the long double action trigger pull. That is the biggest problem. However Revolvers usually are way more powerful than the 9mm so it does not need to take as many shots as possible because the 9mm has woeful power compared to the .357 and 44 Magnums. Careful aiming and hitting with a way more powerful bullet makes the Revolver much more than relevant today. In fact when you have only one shot to stop the threat it is the 9mm that is irrelevant today!!
Smith and Wesson 686+ Are Revolvers Obsolete? I agree. No. Outdated yes, obsolete no. Obsolete means no longer useful but outdated means not up to modern designs but still useful. There are lots of folks that are still carrying snub nosed revolvers in pocket holsters or on or inside the waistband or in an ankle holster. Whatever is said about the capacity deficiency of revolvers, revolvers are still more reliable and easier to operate than autoloaders. Add the longer trigger pull of the double action and they are safer than single action pistols. BTW, the Kaztac Wrapid speed loader revolutionizes standard non-moon clip revolvers since it lays flat in the pocket holster until drawn where it coils allowing for fast snap off cylinder reloads. Moon clip revolvers are on a much higher level of reloading and for sure can hang with autoloader mag reloads and even beat them on time. I have seen that happen in combat matches.
Thanks for the info, I'm going to have to check out the Kaztac speed loaders. I often carry a 442 when my attire dictates, and still trust the gun very much. If I had something better than a typical speed strip for concealed carry that would be awesome
Imagine only ever having a Glock 19 but you’re backpacking through the woods. That is the only reason I wouldn’t want to be limited to a 9mm. There’s a lot 9 can’t do but .357 can
I just began my revolver journey and I am enjoying it quite a bit. That said, with the prevalence of multiple bad actors needing to be faced at once, I agree with a semi auto for EDC. Still, the power of revolver ammunition is not to be overlooked. This is the second video of your I have seen. Looking forward to watching more.
Engaging multiple threats who have the drop on you is a losing proposition no matter the handgun you have. If you have the drop on multiple threats and engage, your success will be determined more so by your accuracy with whatever handgun you have, and even more so by your tactics (use of cover, distance, priority, aggression). Use what you are most comfortable and accurate with. Comfort is often overlooked, but the intuition and confidence factor of a weapon has a disproportionate effect on your ability to apply force with the weapon. Comfort and confidence for me is often in the form of one of my revolvers. I can shoot them faster and with more accuracy than my autos. That’s just me. 5-6 rounds plus reloads is plenty for most conceivable threats. Regardless of how you feel about him, Rittenhouse successfully defended himself from a multiple attackers and a mob, and he only fired 7 rounds. He also had to clear a contact induced malfunction and almost paid for it. Lord willing we won’t be in a situation like that though.
They are still good for people with arthritis or hand injuries that cannot manipulate a slide. Otherwise i agree, i like to shoot revolvers and carry a semi auto...
In certain contexts an axe is obsolete, yet they are still needed and are indispensable in certain roles. I have been carrying guns for +15 years in capacities ranging from looking for mushrooms in the woods, to looking for armed felons in the woods, and from walking down the street to get milk, to walking down the street to get a guy who kept lobbing RPGs at the local ANA guys. I carry a handgun because I either can’t carry my rifle, or my rifle is out of play for whatever reason. As much as I like my autos, my revolvers serve ME better for the role I (emphasis I) have a handgun in. If my agency would allow it I’d probably swap my G45 out for a 686 or N frame .357, and my G43 for a 442. I have found out that I (again, emphasis I) shoot much faster and more accurately with a revolver than I do an auto, and there is an intangible comfort/confidence factor with them that stems from my performance with them. My experience has shown that slow hits matter more than fast misses, but of course fast hits are better than slow hits. It doesn’t matter what we use, striving for accuracy in all conditions is paramount to success, and it’s absence is a harbinger of failure. If people trained to hit with the same fervor and tenacity that they trained to reload with, the reload would often be unnecessary. For ME, the auto looks better on the specification paper, but the revolver looks better on the score paper. Only hits matter and contact shots are a thing.
Excellent points. I very often. Carry a 442 when clothing dictates. I feel just as good with it on my person as my shield+ for all practical purposes. I've been debating going to a full(er) sized revolver for everyday use, but I do generally shoot the shield+ faster and as accurately with more ammo. As you said, it's more about what you are confident with than anything else. Thanks
