There are two subjects that when seen on the cover of a gun magazine annoy me to no end. One is the ever present "9mm vs .45" and the other is "Revolver vs. Auto". It is obvious that the neophyte gun owner asks and needs answers to this question, but I believe that the answers they receive in the gun press only serves to confuse them further.
In most articles, the reader is deluged with "performance data tables", "side by side comparisons", "expert's opinions", and so on ad nauseum. What is not presented are the more plain, boring, but absolutely necessary fundamentals and explanations. I understand the need to make gun articles sexy and full of sexy tables and photos, but can't this be done and still stay close to the original intent of the point?
The double action revolver has many good points: It is easy to load and unload, it is easy to see if it is unloaded, it has a consistent (albeit heavy) trigger pull. It requires less physical actions to operate. It is more affordable. The learning curve is less than that of an auto. There are no magazines to misplace.
Its bad points are few: It is a little wider than an auto, making it a little more difficult to conceal. It is slower to reload than an auto. It takes a little more work to clean.
For most home defense situations, a .38 or .357 magnum revolver is a great defense choice. I favor the .44 special and finally bought one for the house.
Why is the DA (double action) revolver a better choice here? First of all, A revolver can be loaded and remain in that condition for many years without a problem. You need to rotate magazines on Autos as the springs will "set" after being fully loaded for prolonged periods. The gun can be grabbed and be instantly ready for firing. Under stress, one can forget his training and not remember to take off a safety, rack the slide etc. With a revolver, press the trigger and you are ready to go.
Many of the Double Action semi-automatic pistols have an initial long double action trigger pull for the first shot but when the slide is pushed back the hammer is cocked and all SUBSQUENT shots are Single Action, a lighter trigger pull. This "crunchentick" action, makes it hard to shoot for defense; under stress (or not) the shooter can pull the hard trigger for a shot and expecting another hard pull, can accidently fire a second shot when he touches that light trigger. Many police accidents have occured when the police officer fires his pistol and then holsters it- with the hammer cocked. On a revolver the hammer would have been at rest .
The main advantage over revolvers that Semi-Automatics boast is rapid reload & capacity; a semi-auto shooter can fire more before reloading and he can reload the gun faster. While this certainly is an advantage in Combat-style shooting or if you decide to re-enact the Die Hard trilogy, it is not as necessary in the real world where firefights are over in about 2-3 rounds. Do not get me wrong here, there is certainly a place for the auto in self-defense ( I carry one) but I am urging the uninitated, the little trained, and the citizen who does not have the desire to practice often, to consider the Double Action revolver. Semi-Automatic pistols are sexy and fun to shoot, but for the citizen with self defense in mind, I suggest that he goes to a local range and rents/borrows a good revolver.