This would be my greatest decider, either home use or professionally. I’ve had many times that using crappy range ammo has dudded. In a real shooting situation, I wouldn’t want to be a victim of the dud-round lottery in a semi-auto.
I was about to mention the Webley Fosburybut I see I was ninja’d. I didn’t even know this was a thing until last week when an acquaintance at work mentioned he has two of them. I’d like to try shooting it if I ever get the chance.His are early 20s models, .455 I believe.
Another pistol I’d be curious to try and shoot would be the Taurus Judge. Home defence indeed.
9mm allows for a ‘double stacked’ magazine, but that also makes the grip fairly bulky. You can get an M1911 chambered for 9mm, but it still has a single-stacked magazine and only holds 8 or 9 rounds depending on the model.
The M1911 isn’t popular anymore with police because it was designed to be carried ‘cocked and locked’, but seeing a gun in a holster with the hammer cocked back tended to alarm the citizens.
A revolver makes perfect sense for someone like a security guard who has very little training and whose gun will likely never be removed from its holster except at the range. Revolvers aren’t finicky about being properly cleaned, they are harder to shoot by accident, and they are fine for the primary purpose of being a visual deterrent.
Boris the Blade: Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn’t work, you can always hit him with it.
Revolvers have a distinct advantage over auto pistols. When I was assigned to my battalion’s .45 ACP team, the senior NCO coach, also the battalion armorer, showed us the correct way to hold the pistol. He held it in his left hand, fingers on grip, thumb down. “Like this.” He raised his thumb behind the slide. “Not like this.” He held up his right hand - which lacked a thumb. “First time I fired this, it took the sucker right off.” I think we all learned.
Revolvers offer less chance of traumatic amputation. Hurried security guards might forget and get sloppy. Sad.
A revolver can still hurt you quite severely if you hold it wrong. The cylinder on a revolver needs to be able to rotate freely, so it can’t make too tight of a seal against the barrel. As a result, hot gases and bits of powder and lead come spewing out of the cylinder gap at extremely high velocities. Put your finger over the cylinder gap and you can lose your finger.
There have been a few revolvers over the years that move the cylinder forward when firing, so that it makes a better seal. This is done more to put more energy into moving the bullet downrange instead (no wasted energy spewing out the sides of the cylinder gap) than for safety reasons, but as a side benefit these pistols won’t remove digits so easily. The Russian Model 1895 Nagant is probably the most widely known of this type and is commonly cited as such.
A video from youtuber hickok45 with a good demonstration of the issue:
Mythbusters also tested this “myth” and found it Confirmed. If I remember correctly I think they used a piece of chicken to simulate your fingers.
A similar video from the same youtuber about semi-autos:
ETA: The important lesson here is that no matter what type of weapon you are firing, go to the range and practice often so that proper use of the weapon becomes muscle memory, and you just instinctively use it in a manner that you won’t accidentally hurt yourself with it. In the heat of the moment, you’re not going to have time to stop and think.
He may have told you that, but he was fibbin’. See, e.g., this video of a guy shooting a Glock 20 in 10mm Auto with his thumb behind the slide: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tnfkCFnaUZg
No traumatic amputation, though I think you could break your thumb that way, especially if you were frail. The author of the video did admit his thumb was sore a few days later. But it’s not something like an Abrams’ main gun breechblock in recoil.
Or the flame gap on a large revolver, which can cause serious wounds, as e_c_g notes above. I wouldn’t doubt that the flame gap on something like a .460 S&W Magnum could take a finger tip off. I wouldn’t even want to be near the gap on even a .38 Special.
There’s just something wrong about a revolver having a cylinder longer than its barrel. 
(ETA: although some models do have a longer barrel).
My .02 worth as someone who did a little competitive shooting.
as others have implied
A revolver is pretty much idiotproof. A security guard is a ton less likely to fire their weapon in the line of duty than a cop and most cops never do.
They are way more reliable, and for the gun you will probably only pull once in your career, you want to make for damn sure its going to fire when you need it.
You can neglect the hell out of them, and they still work. if anyone is going to get complacent about caring for their weapon, a guard who spends most of his career wandering apartment complexes and office parks at night is going to be high on that list.
some folks find ejecting brass distracting, unless you shoot alot it can be, not an issue with a revolver.
I dont find the “intimidation” factor a compelling argument. Most revolvers are about the same size as their semi-auto cousins. you can buy “big ass” revolvers, but they are far less comfortable to carry all day. Practical carry needs are a bigger deal for people who carry guns every day than one shot stopping power.
Nobody with 3 firing brain cells casually dismisses even a little .22 . They are plenty capable of killing and way more likely to put multiple rounds on target because they are very easy to control.
I saw a recent police bodycam video where an officer had a guy cornered, and the guy came running at him, ignoring the repeated orders to stop.
The officer fired one fatal shot, then his gun jammed (stovepipe). (no link because…fatal)
The comments in the video were all going on about the non-stock slide on his Glock, his wrist position, the sketchy ammo that he presumably was using and so on. They also were saying he would have nightmares the rest of his life about that jam-at-the-worst-moment.
At that moment, a revolver would have been pretty handy–nevertheless the single shot took care of the immediate danger.
I can see why there is an eternal debate over revolvers vs. pistols–plenty of merits on both sides.