SA Revolvers

[ncpatriot]

I saw a post on another forum seeming to praise single action revolvers as the best choice for survival handguns. I see the advantages of a revolver in general; simple, reliable, versatile with ammunition. But the few SA's I have shot were tedious to load and reload, with having to roll the cylinder and load or unload 1 round at a time. A double action revolver seems a much better choice, with faster unloading and being able to use speedloaders.

Is there some advantage to SA's that I am missing? BTW I am no expert by any means, this is just my observation.

 

[Bob Wright]

Admittedly, there is no real advantage of the Single Action over the double action revolver. However, for a wildnerness gun, speed of loading/reloading is of very little consequence.

The Single Action revolver is somewhat more robust than a similar double action revolver, however even that is overblown in practical terms.

So far as I'm concerned, either would be a good choice. I choose the Single Action because I have shot them since childhood and they just seem to fit my hand much better.

And, they are just so pleasing to the eye.

Bob Wright

 

[Hawg]

What Bob said.

 

[SaxonPig]

"I saw a post on another forum seeming to praise single action revolvers as the best choice for survival handguns."

This is a joke, right?

The SA was the king of defensive sidearms...in 1873. Not today.

Some people on these forums crack me up.

 

[James K]

When the only quality guns readily available in SA were Colts and the only DA's were the older S&W's and Colts, concerns about durability were valid. But the DA's are now modern S&W's and Rugers, and I see no real durability problems with any of them. Plus Ruger SA's are far more rugged than any Colt SAA or clone ever made. The idea that only an SA is rugged enough for tough times is 1900 thinking. But it is not 1900 any more and we need to stop 1900 thinking and repeating 1900 advice.

Jim

 

[qwiksdraw]

I prefer a single action revolver because that's the way John Wayne would have done it.

 

[James K]

FWIW, the supposed ruggedness of the Colt SAA was not because parts didn't break, because they did, all the time. But the SAA is so simple that the gun could often be made to work even with parts broken.

Break a bolt spring? Hold the cylinder in place with the left hand.

Break a hand or hand spring? Point the gun down when cocking or turn the cylinder by hand.

Break a main spring? Hit the hammer with a rock.

Of course if all three springs break, you might need three or four hands, but, hey, it works for John Wayne.

Jim

P.S. It was said that Wayne won all his gun battles not because he was fast, or accurate, or had a good gun. The real secret was that the script writer was on his side.

JK

 

[SmokinTom]

James,you just made my day !!!!!

 

[highpower3006]

I personally don't like the way single actions fit in my hand. To me they seem awkward and clumsy and I HATE the way they feel under recoil. OTH, I really like the way a double action feels, points and shoots.

If I was going to have a revolver for wilderness survival I would much rather have a double action in my holster than any single action.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I saw a post on another forum seeming to praise single action revolvers as the best choice for survival handguns.

Howdy

I think you have to define 'survival handgun' better.

Taking game in the woods with a single shot, it probably does not matter.

Defending yourself against zombies in an urban environment, you probably want all the firepower you can get. A 1911 with an extended magazine.

By the way, not all single action revolvers are tedious to reload. Some you break them open and they automatically eject all the empties, then you reload real quick while it is open. I could probably even use a speed loader if I found one that fit. But I don't think I would take my New Model Number Three with me if I expected to encounter zombies.

 

[roaddog28]

I have both single and double action revolvers. I have always been a revolver man. They suit me better than semi autos.

 

[Branko]

I love the single action plow handle grip style.

That said for almost all situations the double action is better. The only real advantage of the single action is safety; the gun will absolutely not fire unless the hammer is consciously cocked back, and if you're a regular old style cowboy riding on a horse then this is actually a desirable trait.

They're just fun to shoot, and if you like them, they'll work almost as well as any other revolver. Provided you don't count on reloading in a hurry.

 

[BigJimP]

Not all single action revolvers are equal in terms of reliability, durability, grip angle, feel...etc.../ there is a huge difference in guns today made by Freedom Arms ( some of the best Single Action revolvers built in my view )...and the SAA or single action guns from companies like Ruger, Uberti, etc .../ whether you pick the mid size frame or the large frame in the Freedom Arms - they are true pieces of craftmanship in my view / and extremely durable.

But firing a high quality double action revolver ...like a S&W N frame ( model 27 or 29 as an example in .357 or .44 mag ) ...over even a Freedom Arms revolver made in the same calibers...does not favor the single action in terms of durability or reliability. Both the Freedom Arms and the S&W N frames are very good guns - solid, reliable, etc...and will hold up to heavy use in the woods, etc / and reloading the double action is quicker....but they will both do the job.

Where guns like Freedom Arms shine...is in calibers like .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh or 500 Wyoming Express....heavier calibers capable of bringing down big game..../ especially with longer barrels....and I wouldn't expect my N frame guns to be capable of that job except at very close range. So in some calibers...in the woods...guns like the single action Freedom Arms would be an advantage.

 

[James K]

"...the gun will absolutely not fire unless the hammer is consciously cocked back..."

Well, no. The old single actions, and many clones, will fire if there is a round under the hammer and the hammer is struck or the gun dropped on it. Only in recent years have SA's been made that can be safely carried with a full cylinder, and some of those require manual action by the shooter.

DA revolvers for many years have had automatic safeties (hammer blocks or transfer bars) that allow "full up" carry. (Colt's positive safety came out c. 1909, S&W's current and best in 1945 (though S&W had hammer block safeties prior to that.)

Jim

 

[44 AMP]

"Survival" handgun is usually taken to mean a living off the land gun, and/or a general wilderness defense piece.

All modern guns are sufficiently rugged and durable. Accurate enough for small game (camp meat), and defensively capable of repelling a rabid raccoon or a beligerant bear.

Situations where speed & ease of reloading is irrelevant. Situations were a DA function is also largely irrelevant. We aren't talking about what is most efficient against humans here, but about the OTHER uses of a handgun in a wilderness setting.

You can certainly do it all, and well with a suitable DA revolver. Other than personal preference of grip, etc, the "advantage" of the SA over the DA revolver is that in the same calibers and barrel lengths, the SA designs tend to be a few ounces lighter. There are, of course, exceptions, but in general, SA guns weigh a little less than DA guns in the same calibers.

This makes them a little easier to wear constantly, which is one of the other requirements of a survival gun, it has to be there, at all times.

 

[Grant D]

I guess whatever floats your boat would work.
Either one would work fine I guess, but for me it would be my 4" S&W Model 19, unless...
there's zombies about and they would see the sun reflect off the nickel plating!

I do have a Remington 1875 45 cal. single action ( reproduction ) but the DA revolver, for me would work better.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[GeauxTide]

Have owned multiple Smith N Frames in .357, 41, and 44mag. Still own a 28 and a 657. Have owned multiple Rugers, SA and DA. Still own five Blackhawks in 22, 41mag, 44 spl, 44mag, and 45 Colt. I can shoot the Ruger SA much better because there is no recoil shoulder to bust the web of my hand in a large caliber. I couldn't shoot a Smith 44mag, 6" or 8", as comfortably as the SBH or Bisley. If you're shooting large animals that are coming to eat you, SA or DA won't make any difference. You won't be cranking more than 3 shots.

 

[SIGSHR]

IIRC when Bullseye shooters mainly used revolvers there some S&W Model 14s (?) available in SA only for the slow fire phases and those who preferred to fire SA in the timed and rapid fire phases.

 

[Hammerhead]

Plus Ruger SA's are far more rugged than any Colt SAA or clone ever made.

Ruger DA's are pretty rugged too.
I think you would have a hard time finding a more rugged gun than the GP100 or Redhawk.

 

[tallball]

I have five SA Rugers. They are my favorites for the range or for plinking. My hands like the plow handle grip very much.

The best "survival" gun would be a long gun anyway. Maybe one of the double-barreled ones with a rifle barrel and a shotgun barrel.