Revolver Prices vs "Automatics"

[edwardh1]

Seems revolvers would be less expensive than they are? Or do they have lots of hidden parts?
i am no expert- seems the "automatics" would have more parts and should be more expensive? but many are not?
are revolvers built "better"? hence higher prices like S & W ?

[BlkHawk73]

Two factors you may have forgotten about... Supply and demand and "you get what you pay for". Materials also are an important factor of cost one would think too. If that's the cae all the polymer handguns should be much less too right? Again, supply and deamnd and quality. Compare...a Hi-Point to the Hk USP's...both polymer/steel but then compare prices. You're buying the quality behind them. Now compare the Rossis to the Korths. Same materials, basically the same design but thousands of dollars diffeence in price. Why? The quality behind the product.

[MachIVshooter]

Seems revolvers would be less expensive than they are? Or do they have lots of hidden parts?
i am no expert- seems the "automatics" would have more parts and should be more expensive? but many are not?
are revolvers built "better"? hence higher prices like S & W ?

Generally speaking, revolvers actually have more moving parts than automatics. And the lockwork is more intricate. But that is seldom a factor in price. Quality is usually the principle reason. Paying for the name is another (Colt, for example).

Since you sighted S&W as an example, I will point out that their steel or alloy auto's are more expensive than most of their revolvers, save PC models and the .500/.460. And their PC auto's are very exclusively priced:what:

[357wheelgunner]

I have 3 quality made 4" S&W K-frames, and I have the same invested in my 3 guns as my friend has dumped into one 1911....

[whm1974]

am no expert- seems the "automatics" would have more parts and should be more expensive? but many are not?

Revolvers have higher labor cost then autos.

-Bill

[Drifter721]

Revolvers are not as popular as semi's.....at the moment.

[brokendreams]

Around here, it seems to be a little different.

Revolvers are, on average, at least 200 dollars less than a similiarly reputed automatic. Meaning: A Sig P220 goes for about 700 while a very nice S&W or Ruger .357 goes for about 400 or so. Unless you go airweight or something, revolvers are almost always less expensive.

[scubie02]

as others have said, its a "what the market commands" sort of deal, not a question of complexity or quality of materials. If anything, most revolver's are MORE complex than most auto's, and although S&W quality has obviously declined over the past years, traditionally quality might have been argued to have been higher on revolvers as well IMO.

Its similar to the situation in long guns for comparisons--I am thinking here of the average bolt gun vs the lever action. Again, things have been getting cheapened up more recently, but look at the average Model 94 Winchester or Marlin 36 lever gun--they were all steel (and machined steel at that once upon a time), tended to have real walnut stocks, a more complex design, etc--yet you could but a brand new one for around half what you'd pay for the average bolt action these days, which might well have a polymer stock, plastic parts, cast parts including frames, bolt handles, etc, and a simpler design. But people see lever guns as "old fashioned", and want the latest wizz bangy cartridges, so they'll pay more for, and companies will happily charge more for, what is an easier, cheaper gun to make. Sad but true...

[BluesBear]

Many automatic pistols can be either stamped or molded.

A good revolver still needs to be machined.

[MrAcheson]

A good revolver still needs to be machined.Or cast to some extent.

With an automatic you have to "time" a single barrel. With a revolver you have to worry about the alignment and lockup of five to eight chambers. That and you have to turn back and forth motions like the trigger and hammer into rotational motions of the cylinder.

[BluesBear]

Even if you cast a revolver you still have to do the final machining.

In a revolver, the trigger and hammer are already rotational movements.

There's really not much to timing a revolver. It's not as if you have to make adjustments for each individual chamber. That's all done in the original machining. It's even easier with todays CNC machines. One the revolver "guts" are set to index one chamber all of the others should be good to go as well.

In a revolver all the lockwork has to do is rotate the cylinder and fire.
In an automatic there is also a loading and ejection sequence that has to be balanced.

In a traditional single action revolver the number of moving parts is very low.
Yet they are not always priced lower.

[MrAcheson]

Even if you cast a revolver you still have to do the final machining.Depends on how close the tolerances on your castings are. If they're near net, you won't have to do much. It is the same with automatics constructed using the same manufacturing methods. You may still have to clean up a cast slide, etc.

In a revolver, the trigger and hammer are already rotational movements.Yes you're right, but they're still rotating in different planes compared to the cylinder which is the point in terms of mechanical complexity. In an automatic the trigger and hammer both rotate in the same plane (if at all). I explained that very poorly.

There's really not much to timing a revolver. It's not as if you have to make adjustments for each individual chamber. That's all done in the original machining. It's even easier with todays CNC machines. One the revolver "guts" are set to index one chamber all of the others should be good to go as well.You may only time one chamber on the actual gun, but you are still timing all six chambers. That is because the original tooling is essentially set up to time each of the six chambers against each other. You are just moving the timing problem around and automating it. You don't make it disappear. If the tolerances of the tooling are off enough, then you have problems with one or more chambers. This is why some chambers line up better than others on most revolvers.

With an automatic you don't have to worry about any of this because there is only one chamber. Depending on the action type it may not even be a moving part. You do have to worry about feeding/extraction.

[MachIVshooter]

Depends on how close the tolerances on your castings are. If they're near net, you won't have to do much. It is the same with automatics constructed using the same manufacturing methods. You may still have to clean up a cast slide, etc.


Hence the economic price of Ruger handguns. Ruger's investment casting almost removes the need for milling. They just do some polishing and viola! Well, not quite, but you get the point.

Just think of it this way:

If you were charged with bulding a gun from scratch (except barrel) using average tools (a small mill, drill press, grinders, files, taps, etc) which would you rather attempt? Being someone that works with metals quite a bit, I would definitely go for the autoloader. It is a whole lot less work. The only thing that makes auto's more complex is the mathematics involved in timing everything correctly for proper cycling. But as far as actual labor to produce, they are much simpler.

[Moonclip]

Depends on the manufacturer it seems though a similar quality revolver compared to an auto it sems the revolver sells for less which always amazed me. For example, Glocks can sell for over $500 but I have a hard time paying $450-500 for some S&W revolvers of similar chamberings and size. I'm sure the revolver was harder to make and required more time and more expensive materials though in fairness if MR.Glock can charge so much and get it all power to him and I'm sure the initial tooling and machines and such were costly.

Ruger for one example though, the P series autos tend to sell for a good bit less than the GP 100. And I've always been amazed that decent quality pump shotguns like Rem 870 and Win 1300 and such can be had for low $200's, much less than quality revolvers or autos generally.

[Boss Spearman]

I keep reading and hearing that semis are all the rage and fewer people are purchasing revolvers. If that were true you'd think their prices would be going down. At the last Indy 1500 show, I saw more revolvers for sale at the booths than semi autos.

[popeye]

Most of the gun shops around here devote about two thirds of their display to autos, and one third to revolvers. My meager collection used to be about three quarters auto's (when I went through a very expensive Colt 1911 frenzy) and one quarter revolvers. About ten years ago I started buying Smith revolvers again, and slowly selling or trading off the Colts. So now I'm down to 6-8 autos and quite a few Smiths. Generaly when I'm in the shops, the younger guys are hanging out around the autos, and the old farts like me are fighting it out with our canes over the used Smths.:)