Carry situations and your example is a 6" 357?
No, I am not comparing a 6 inch 357 for carry, that's why those sentences were sperated.
If you are going to compare a sub compact single stack 9mm you should probably compare it to a snub nose revolver. A full size 9mm with +p will not have more snap than a 6" 357 with magnum loads. A sub compact 9 won't snap more than a snub nose 357.
You are wrong about a 6 inch 357 having more 'snap'. It depends on the shooter, and how well the gun itself is made. A 6 inch 357 is typically designed with these characteristics in mind and many higher end models have very little 'snap' when firing them. 6 inch 357 are typically all steel frames and have more weight to absorb the recoil, especially well balanced ones. Compared to shorter barreled polymer 9 mills (most 9 mills are shorter than a 6 inch 357) they can, and many times do, handle better in that area. And lets keep in mind you can load 357s with .38's too which is even more manageable.
And still, a lot of this depends on the shooter themselves.
Again, I'm questioning how much experience with all these firearms you actually have.
Looks like my last sentence summed up your post. The only reason to use it is you just like it.
No it doesn't. You're simply trying to pass your opinon as a fact, which it isn't. there are too many variables, human element included that make this specific discussion more complicated than simply waving everything about a revolver off.
Look on paper and in practice with equal skill be tween platforms, etc a semi auto is superior.
Where are you getting this information from? This is nothing but you making a statement and trying to pass it off as a fact. What variables are we talking about, who's doing the shooting ect. ect. ?
Are you telling me a highly practiced and trained guy like Jerry Miculek can't shoot his revolvers equally well or better than other things he shoots?
You take a blank slate (TS for example) and train them in both I have no doubt in my mind the semi auto 9 will have more rounds down range accurately than the revolver with 3x more rounds available. Btw when I say accuracy I'm talking from a defensive point, so A zone hits. Not shooting small groups where a 6" with a single action trigger would have the clear advantage
This is hogwash. There is no way on Earth for you to know or claim that with equal training any given person can't still be better with a revolver than a semi-auto. And even the 'better' part of the equation breaks down into more than 1 category. Speed? Accuracy.. these are all different things and the results on each can change depending on the situation and the person involved.
Youre also working in the 'more rounds down range' argument which to me bypasses a self defense situation, seems more like combat to me. So what are we talking about here.. combat, or personal defense?
Capacity is pretty much the only actual 'superior' argument you have for semi-auto. After that, the playing field levels and changes. I'll also throw in the fact that a 357 can accept a different variant of ammo (.38) which adds a different element to the performance of the gun that a 9 mill will not also be able to exploit.
I'd argue reliability should be the #1 concern for anyone using a firearm in a defense situation. And with a revolver, you're pretty much guaranteed every shot its loaded with. Semi-autos will have a higher FTF (both failure to fire, and failure to feed) probability than a revolver (typically stemming from mag issues, but there can be other problems too), so right there is one major argument in favor of a revolver over a semi auto for protection.
I'm not being ridiculous at all nor am I calling anyone an idiot. I'm just stating that all things equal semi autos are better in near every way for defensive use.
Yes you are, youre consistently trying to pass off objective opinions onto a subjective argument. And you are consistently trying to pass subjective thoughts on the matter as objective.
No that isn't what I'm doing.
If your post said the AR15 is vastly superior to a glock, because it is, that is what I'm doing.
Its exactly what you're doing.
War/Combat, profession (Police), can change a discussion like this based on probability of what they'll face, and whats required of them to be prepared for.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a citizen waking up out of a dead sleep and reaching in his sock drawer because they heard something go bump in the night, or a late night trip to Walmart to grab a gallon of milk. In these common self defense scenarios there is nothing wrong with carrying your preference. One is not superior to the next in those basic scenarios. You can type until your fingers bleed about this all you want, but you are not right about a lot of things you've posted.
The most superior choice in this specific situation (defense) is the gun that suits the individual best. And there are many factors that go into deciding what that is. There isn't just one thing.
Carrying/keeping a revolver over a semi-auto for protection isn't only to be done because 'you like it'. Theres eveidence that suggest they are more reliable, one may be a better shot with it, they are much more simple to operate.. and so on.
I'll conclude this by adding -unlike you, I am not trying to say the revolver is superior to a semi-auto, while you are very clearly trying to claim that a semi-auto is superior to a revolver. We are not having a discussion about controlled environments with highly trained subjects and how they perform with one Vs another. This is a much more organic scenario that includes every variable and level of expertise and novice imaginable. In that theatre of discussion you cannot decide whats going to work better for everyone involved because you cannot remove the human element from this discussion, no matter how much you want to try to. A gun is a tool, and that tool is only as good as the person using it -and different people will see different results with different tools than one another.
