Which do you prefer and which would you rather have if you really needed it.

For me it would be according to the situation. Though I prefer the .357 Colt Revolver to any other gun mainly because it is very dependable and very accurate. It will also put anyone down if they are hit by it no matter where they are hit.

I like the revolvers.

My everyday gun is a .38 caliber Detective Special. They are easy to carry concealed all day long. The Colt Detective Special is surprisingly accurate and the .38 Special round will get the job done if the shooter does his part.


I have had two Colt 357 revolvers, which are very uncommon as that particular model were produced back in the 1950's. It was a working man's gun, the same size and internal workings as the Python, but without the vent rib, underlug, and without the polish. Colt stopped producing this model sometime in the early 1960's.

I also owned a Colt Trooper Mk III revolver, it too was chambered in .357 Magnum. Like the Colt 357, this model was a working man's gun, it did not have the polish of the Colt Python.

Some day I am going to get the Colt Python, it is the Cadillac of handguns. Top of the line. The parts are hand polished, hand fitted as these guns are assembled. But you certainly pay for it.

I prefer the semi-auto like a Taurus or a Desert Eagle.
But then again what do I know about guns.

I like revolvers, but they dont hold as much ammo as Id like.

I also prefer semi-auto. What can I say, nothing beats the speed and power of a .50 cal. Desert Eagle.

1911 A1 45. ACP

The perfect weapon that held as the military's sidearm for over 50 years. The problems with accuracy it incountered were equalized by the weapons job.

The weapons barrel was not properly secured to the body so as rounds fired it would move a fraction. Yet, it would hold up to the harshest conditions. Mud was reported cleared from the barrel simply by fireing.

My opinion is that handguns are sidearms. Durable goto's when out of ammo, injured, or in close quarters, and the 1911 A1 is perfect for any of those jobs. The .45 acp, a big round, would be only second to a shotgun blast in a tunnel. If a soldier is injured he will most likely be seeking shelter or refuge, a place where he, or i, would be back propped aganst something staring a clear plane or vantage point where it would be difficault for an enemy to strike, therein lay the range apect of the weapon. In the case of ammo, in close quarters combat, forced or intentional a heavy caliber is in order to kill a combatant with one blow/shot, again a shotgun or a very dependable piece of vintage firepower.

revolvers are so pretty.


But - I prefer black powder- and that's not an option.

I prefer rifles myself, but they arent practical outside of a warzone or civil unrest. I carry a glock 29 with me whereever I go. Its only a 9mm. But thats better in my opinion than a .45 because shot placement counts more than force. Of course I am assuming I would be calm enough to shoot accurately under duress, of course I probably wouldnt be. But thats why the fucker holds 10 rounds. the other problem I have with .45s and whatnot are where the rounds will go. You may not go to jail for shooting a guy trying to rape your girlfriend or kill you with a knife, but you will if the bullet passes through him and hits a bystander.

Billy,

The .45 acp round is slower velocity than the 9mm parabellum and it has a larger frontal area. I think it is less likely to overpenetrate.

Of course you can get around the problem of overpenetration by using hollowpoints as they expand on impact. The bullet is more likely to stop inside the target.

I too am on the darkside. You know that "blackpowder" was called gunpowder for 400yrs before they invented that smokeless gunpowder.

Heck, that smokeless stuff is just a passing fad.

BTW, the early cartridge firearms use blackpowder. The 1873 Colt single action army revolver was chambered in .45 Colt and they had not yet invented smokeless powder until 1886.

Remmington 870P for home defense and shopping malls!