Hi Everyone,

I don't know for certain....and don't want to make suppositions, (nor am I faulting anyones logic here).....but let me take a crack at what I think dep214 meant when he said revolvers are more difficult to shoot.

Remember....this is only supposition. (But here goes......and dep214 if I got it wrong....let me know.) When we are referring to defensive handgunning we need to make some assumptions. (And I know what ASSUME means......so please let's not go there.) Defensive handgunning as is taught in nearly every agency, (Law Enforcement, military, or civilian combat shooting courses), is taught using double action.....on DA revolvers and pistols where applicable. (And I'm not talking about SA revolvers....because any knowledgeable handgunner knows you can't fire a SA revolver double action. And in truth.....most people don't choose a SA only revolver for that purpose. If you do......that's fine, I'm not trying to turn this into an "argument" about the merits of SA revolvers for today's combat shooting.) And of course we also know that you can not fire a SA auto......double action. And we also know that a number of today's guns are not "traditional double or single actions".....(though the law may recognize them as such as the Glock is).....and several examples of these are the Glock, the Springfield XD, and a number of other "striker fired" auto loaders. But I diverge.......

When we normally fire a DA revolver defensively.....we shoot it DA only. Not single action. Most revolvers when fired in single action.....have a relatively short, light, easy to manipulate trigger pull. That same revolver when fired DA only.....the trigger pull is usually much longer, much heavier, sometimes they stack, and in general......are not as easy to shoot accurately as when fired single action. And a double action revolver can indeed be shot very accurately.....but it usually requires considerable practice and experience to obtain the same level as accuracy obtainable with a single action trigger. And also generally speaking......the smaller the revolver......the harder to shoot it accurately during rapid double action drills.

But, if you take that same person, and start them on a single action auto, (or one of the newer hybrid triggers...like Glock.....or the XD), and give them the same amount of practice, especially when they are less experienced, they will have "less difficulty" obtaining reasonable defensive accuracy. By their very design.....single action autos, as well as the Glock and XD triggers, are easier to shoot well during combat drills. Particularly when you have less experience. The trigger pulls are relatively short, light, even (as in not stacking), and can be more precisely manipulated accurately. Especially compared to DA revolvers. And this is part of the same exact argument people like Jeff Cooper, and many others, have made against DA/SA autos. Inconsitant trigger pull when making the transition from the relatively long, heavy, double action pull.......to the light, short, single action pull.

Now for someone with alot of double action revolver work with Smith & Wessons......yes they can take that trigger pull slack just short of release....pause double check good sight picture....and finish the squeeze. But many people do not have that kind of practice. (And Colts feel different than Smiths'....but they can be manipulated similarly.) But again in truth....many people lack that experience. One of the results of many of the LE agencies converting to autos.....was that they found after the initial familiarization period was over.....qualification scores on the whole........improved. And a significant factor was attributed to the triggers on most service autos being more readily manipulated. A single action trigger pull in most cases (and for the sake of this argument I am including Glocks and XD triggers because of their mechanical nature) is much easier to shoot well with.....than a double action trigger. (I know....this is where someone brings up ParaOrdnance's new LDA.)

If you doubt that......please instead of arguing with me.....get on line and do the research. Not to mention the many publications directed to exactly that market. (Or just call one of the nation's recognized combat shooting academies.) Yes, revolvers are still effective. And they are mechanically more "idiot proof"....(if there is such a thing.....usually an idiot will find a way to screw up something). And yes, there are many reasons why a revolver might make a better choice for many people. (My wife's primary carry gun is a model 642 S&W.....and her primary house gun is a model 66 S&W "Ladysmith". The former in .38 Special....the latter in .357 Magnum. And in case you may wonder why...after my little dissertation above....because she doesn't practice the manual of arms enough with an auto. IE. if the auto has either a malfunction or a stoppage.....she isn't as comfortable clearing it! She prefers a revolver because there is less to go mechanically wrong. That's why.....not because the trigger is easier to manipulate. Because it's not. She actually shoots several of our autos better.....but she doesn't quite trust her ability to clear and resume battery in event of a stoppage or malfunction.) So in my wife's case she carries a revolver because it's easier to put into battery....and there is less chance of something going wrong. But she actually doesn't shoot it as well as several of the autos. And to a large degree that is attributable to the trigger. (She actually shoots her revolver very accurately single action. But I do not let her shoot any of the defensive drills in single action. And I purposely bought the 642 because it eliminates the possibility altogether...both for her's.....and litigious lawyer's sakes. All defensive drills are just that......"drilled" double action.)

So, that is my supposition!

Dave

P.S. I'm done. Okay....now beat me up!