Been practicing.....

[HereWeGoAgain]

As some know here I'm not a big revolver guy but after buying the new S&W 610 that uses moon clips I figured I better get familiar with fast reloads.
I knew fast reloads were possible after watching the Great One Jerry Miculek all these years.
I went with what felt right and practiced. After awhile I figured I'd do a search and see how the pros do it.
You have the strong hand and the weak hand method.I was using the weak hand method ....and low and behold I was using exactly the same method as the Great One and didnt even know it.
I can now load the revolver every bit as fast as my pistols.....Not to Jerry's standards of course but who knows,with time.....yeah I'm dreaming.

 

[Gracie]

How the hell did he load that thing bullet at a time???

 

[WinterBorn]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

 

[miketx]

You guys are wasting your time. I use revolvers like they had in 40's and 50's westerns. They never run dry!

 

[miketx]

As some know here I'm not a big revolver guy but after buying the new S&W 610 that uses moon clips I figured I better get familiar with fast reloads.
I knew fast reloads were possible after watching the Great One Jerry Miculek all these years.
I went with what felt right and practiced. After awhile I figured I'd do a search and see how the pros do it.
You have the strong hand and the weak hand method.I was using the weak hand method ....and low and behold I was using exactly the same method as the Great One and didnt even know it.
I can now load the revolver every bit as fast as my pistols.....Not to Jerry's standards of course but who knows,with time.....yeah I'm dreaming.

I bet he's got a class 3 license for that thing!

 

[Shawnee_b]

Miculek rules. His daughter getting pretty darn good too, may best him.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How the hell did he load that thing bullet at a time???

Moon Clips.
You cant use them on just any revolver it has to either be made that way from the factory or you can have your cylinder machined to accept them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Miculek rules. His daughter getting pretty darn good too, may best him.

Yeah...I've been watching Her channel a bit and she's getting pretty damn good!!!
Of course having the best shooter in the world as your Dad certainly doesnt hurt.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It cracked me up watching youtube videos while trying to learn something from some of the so called "experts" on reloading a revolver fast.
I couldnt believe how many of them were resting the side of their fingers on the forcing cone which of course would be blazing hot after shooting six rounds in quick succession.
Sure would have enjoyed seeing these experts using this technique after actually shooting the gun first.

 

[night_son]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

I agree with most of what you said. My carry gun is a M1911, so it holds more than a revolver, but still not high capacity.

I do, however, have a .357Mag revolver in my night stand, as does my girlfriend. Easy to grab and use, even if you just woke up. Plus, as I have said in other threads, the ability to use specialty ammo is a plus in home defense guns. Both our revolvers have a shotshell as the first round. A snap shot down the hall or across the living room gives enough spread to virtually assure a hit. The hit will not incapacitate, but it will stun and slow them. That allows time for the 158gr MagSafe rounds to follow.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

Yep...
I look at wheel guns and say the lever action rifle as a fun gun and enjoy the history behind them and the nostalgia.
Of course both are fine for hunting where your target isnt shooting back,and you cant beat the hand cannon revolvers in bear country but semi autos are starting to make sense in bear country as well with the desert eagle and the like but they lack the long barrel to make them truly a good choice for hunting.
In the end it's my FNX .45 that rests on my nightstand and the Wife has the 870 shorty leaning in the corner on Her side of the bed because thats what She's comfortable and proficient with.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

My biggest problem with revolvers for self defense are two fold.
One is obviously capacity,the other is pulling the trigger through double action.
While the S&W double action is smooth as far as revolvers go it's not even close to the degree of trigger control I get with the FNX.
I plan on getting a trigger job done on the S&W soon which will bring the pull weight down through double action from 13 or 14 pounds down to 7 or 8 pounds which will make a world of difference and it will smooth it out so you dont feel the annoying start stop of the stock double action.
I do however love the single action trigger on the S&W,it's crisp and predictable.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

Yep...
I look at wheel guns and say the lever action rifle as a fun gun and enjoy the history behind them and the nostalgia.
Of course both are fine for hunting where your target isnt shooting back,and you cant beat the hand cannon revolvers in bear country but semi autos are starting to make sense in bear country as well with the desert eagle and the like but they lack the long barrel to make them truly a good choice for hunting.
In the end it's my FNX .45 that rests on my nightstand and the Wife has the 870 shorty leaning in the corner on Her side of the bed because thats what She's comfortable and proficient with.

The last part is, in my opinion, what counts the most.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As some know here I'm not a big revolver guy but after buying the new S&W 610 that uses moon clips I figured I better get familiar with fast reloads.
I knew fast reloads were possible after watching the Great One Jerry Miculek all these years.
I went with what felt right and practiced. After awhile I figured I'd do a search and see how the pros do it.
You have the strong hand and the weak hand method.I was using the weak hand method ....and low and behold I was using exactly the same method as the Great One and didnt even know it.
I can now load the revolver every bit as fast as my pistols.....Not to Jerry's standards of course but who knows,with time.....yeah I'm dreaming.

I bet he's got a class 3 license for that thing!

I gotta ask....
Why do you have a shower head for you Avi?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

Yep...
I look at wheel guns and say the lever action rifle as a fun gun and enjoy the history behind them and the nostalgia.
Of course both are fine for hunting where your target isnt shooting back,and you cant beat the hand cannon revolvers in bear country but semi autos are starting to make sense in bear country as well with the desert eagle and the like but they lack the long barrel to make them truly a good choice for hunting.
In the end it's my FNX .45 that rests on my nightstand and the Wife has the 870 shorty leaning in the corner on Her side of the bed because thats what She's comfortable and proficient with.

The last part is, in my opinion, what counts the most.

The single action trigger?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have speedloaders for my Ruger Security Six. Like you, I am no where near Miculek speed. But I don't think I am losing anything againt semi auto pistols.

Other than capacity.
I'd have to have one of the 8 shot S&W .357's and i'd still have to reload once to reach the same capacity of the FNX .45...
But being proficient in loading the revolver does make me more comfortable.

The ancient and endless debate between revolvers and auto pistols boils down to what kind of self-defense situation a shooter is planning for versus what kind of self-defense situation he is likely to find himself in—on any kind of regular or even slightly probable basis.

For one thing, and let's just get this out of the way, while serving in the capacity of a cop or soldier I never would have chosen a revolver for either my duty or issue sidearm. Not a chance. If one finds one's self in a situation where confrontation with armed criminals or enemy soldiers is likely and/or common, then the revolver is outmoded and a losing choice.

Law enforcement sidearm doctrine involves putting shots into a threat until that threat (to self or co-worker, or public safety) is down or out of the fight. Crazy as it might sound to most civilian shooters, that can mean putting eight or ten or even fifteen rounds into a violent suspect/offender. Essentially, when no other less-lethal tactic is possible, you shoot and shoot until the threat is inert or immobilized, meaning, more often than not, dead. With a revolver as a sidearm six or even eight possible shots just isn't going to be enough to pull this tactic off, in many situations. Further, higher caliber means nothing in revolvers if shots don't destroy or miss vital organs/body functions.

Military sidearm doctrine is a different animal completely. For the most part, and in the SOP of most military units, sidearms are intended to serve as backup personal defense weapons for a variety of job descriptions, including squad machine gunners, NCO's, Officers and designated marksmen. In those cases a semi or even fully automatic pistol is the only effective sidearm design to choose when facing modern enemy weapons and tactics. You don't want to find yourself armed with a six shot magnum revolver facing down an enemy's submachine gun or hi-capacity semi or full auto pistol.

The other side of military firearm doctrine is the concept of the offensive handgun, which is practiced and implemented only by special operations forces operators who might find themselves actively engaging the enemy, most often silently and from some uncommonly great sidearm distance, and thus require a large-frame, long barreled pistol designed for specialized engagements. Such a firearm must also be a semi or full auto pistol, not a revolver. High capacity magazines are vital in such circumstances.

For home defense—for self-defense inside one's own home, when one is not really anticipating home invasion but nevertheless wants to prepare for such an event, the revolver could be a sufficient defensive sidearm choice—in conjunction with a shotgun or carbine as primary defensive weapon, or a backup to a semi-auto pistol. Personally, a revolver would not be my primary choice of home defense sidearm for many reasons. Magazine capacity, recoil, reloading time are all reasons I would never choose a revolver as my primary home defense capability.

Neither would I choose a revolver for my everyday sidearm carry choice—for many of the same reasons above. However, I have carried for years and continue to do so a Charter Arms .44 Special snub nose revolver as back up to whatever semi-auto pistol is my EDC. If my primary EDC jams or malfunctions in some other way, those five .44 Special rounds hiding out around my ankle ankle holster could mean the difference between life and death.

In the role of concealed carry civilian one must realize he or she could encounter a situation where he or she is facing down a bad guy armed with a carbine or submachine gun or even a high capacity modern sporting rifle. For the safety of my family and any innocent bystanders I would always choose a high capacity semi-auto pistol for EDC to counter all possible threats. A revolver, in my opinion, just doesn't cut it—not when facing down bad guys armed with modern auto-loading weapons.

Lastly, I would absolutely go with various revolvers for hunting (and have). I've hunted small game with a Ruger .22 revolver, deer with a revolver chambered for .45 Colt, and I would like to get my .454 Casull to Alaska one day. I would perhaps even choose a revolver for dangerous game defense while hunting in Alaska or out West, but great arguments are being made these days for pistols like the Glock in .45 ACP and 10mm for such purposes.

Yep...
I look at wheel guns and say the lever action rifle as a fun gun and enjoy the history behind them and the nostalgia.
Of course both are fine for hunting where your target isnt shooting back,and you cant beat the hand cannon revolvers in bear country but semi autos are starting to make sense in bear country as well with the desert eagle and the like but they lack the long barrel to make them truly a good choice for hunting.
In the end it's my FNX .45 that rests on my nightstand and the Wife has the 870 shorty leaning in the corner on Her side of the bed because thats what She's comfortable and proficient with.

The last part is, in my opinion, what counts the most.

The single action trigger?

No, the "...thats what She's comfortable and proficient with." part.

One of the reasons I chose the M1911 years ago was that it fit my hand and felt natural. Being comfortable and proficient with a gun is one of the most important factors.

 

[Chuz Life]

 

[Chuz Life]

Not a revolver but very impressive