Why have revolvers become passť ?


PDA






Center fire
August 4, 2014, 07:09 PM
Over the past 10 years I have seen a dramatic decline in the use of revolvers as well as there availability at gun shops. Why have revolvers become passť? I myself like revolvers over semi-auto pistols. I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why have revolvers become passť ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vodoun da Vinci
August 4, 2014, 07:13 PM
I bought a Ruger LCR last year and I really like it....got a 2 1/2" tube for my Dan Wesson and I shoot and carry that as well as my polymer framed 9mm's. I think the trend for concealed carry has been compact and subcompact semi autos since all 50 states now have concealed carry.

But don't kid yerself. There are a lot of revolver shooters out there and will be for some time.

VooDoo

ljnowell
August 4, 2014, 07:53 PM
In my opinion they haven't. Sure among many keyboard commandos that claim to carry two fullsize autos and two compacts along with a tactical vest and body armor they have.

In the real world, amongst many average conceal carriers they are very popular. Just look at the sales numbers of j-frames, LCRs, etc. they are very popular.

Cooldill
August 4, 2014, 08:01 PM
When did they?

Sure semi-automatic handguns have ebbed into great popularity but I think the revolver is here to stay for some time. The subcompact revolvers like the J-frames are all over. I carry one myself as EDC. I enjoy shooting revolvers slightly more than semis at the range, I try to hit the target as best I can no matter if I'm using a Brown Bess or a .22 target pistol! :D!

skoro
August 4, 2014, 08:05 PM
They're just not as fashionable as high capacity tacticool tupperware, which is what's in fashion currently. And those pistols that are in fashion tend to be pretty darn good, to be honest. Still, I like my wheelguns and usually carry a 38 snub.

Ed Ames
August 4, 2014, 08:06 PM
They haven't, in the corners of the market where they offer a technical advantage.

Semi-auto pistols have a good but not overwhelming presence at the very low power (.22LR) end of the market. They dominate the low power (.25 to .45 ACP) market. They very quickly drop off at intermediate power (.357 and .41 magnum) and they have almost no presence in the high power domain (.44 magnum range). Apart from rifle-receiver (AR and AK "pistols") they have zero presence in the very high power (.454 casull on up) zone.

Revolvers are commercially available across the entire range (.22LR up to .45/70, .50S&W, 7.62x39, etc). They are downright popular in the areas where semi-autos don't play.

Maybe you are really seeing the preferences of your peers and not the market as a whole?

BSA1
August 4, 2014, 08:10 PM
Passť?

While revolvers have fallen out of favor with LEO's they are very popular in the civilian markets. Revolvers are the most common choice for women buying a self-defense gun and the big three gunmakers are constantly adding new models.

With California's new gun laws revolvers will become very more common.

wojownik
August 4, 2014, 08:11 PM
Revolvers have never been passe, IMHO, but they have been overshadowed by semiautos in the mass market, entertainment media, etc...

I think this one goes back decades ... higher capacity, ease/speed of reload, perhaps even the attitude that that revolvers were too "old school" in favor of higher tech. Perhaps this was all nudged along in the 1980s by police acceptance of semi automatics in the 80s, and the increasing use of semis over autos in TV/movies (though the trend started years early, think of the movie "Die Hard" - Bruce Willis and his Beretta, Alan Rickman and his oh-so-cool nickel HK P7, and then the overweight uniformed LAPD cop and his revolver...).

I know I certainly had my own biases in favor of semi autos, for all the above reasons. When looking at my first handgun, I didn't even consider a revolver ...

It wasn't for some years before I was drawn to revolvers as well, first hands on with a Colt SAA, then some other truly old school Colts (Official Police, M1917).

ivankerley
August 4, 2014, 08:26 PM
man if they're passť I wish the prices would come down, least the places I've been locally they're kinda high.
gene

Carl N. Brown
August 4, 2014, 08:30 PM
I must have missed the memo that revolvers are passe, since my prefered SD handgun is a .38 revolver.

frankiestoys
August 4, 2014, 08:40 PM
I like both but , but don't own anything in plastic anymore ,revolvers included ...WTS if its a SHTF situation I want a mag that holds as many rounds possible but as a edc its a J Frame for me.

plexreticle
August 4, 2014, 08:47 PM
If anything there is a resurgence in the revolver market.

MAKster
August 4, 2014, 09:04 PM
Clearly a 4" service revolver in 38 spl or 357 is not very popular today. But I think snubby revolvers are still top sellers.

zerobarrier
August 4, 2014, 09:17 PM
I started out with only semi's but now have found myself liking revolvers a bit more. I mainly carry a 45acp revolver 4" barrel. I have picked up a 44mag, 38spl, and would love to get a 357mag, and that new S&W model 69 in 44mag. My LGS keeps a pretty good stock of revolvers, 2 cases full and 4 cases of semi's

*Kemosabe*
August 4, 2014, 09:28 PM
It costs more to make a revolver than a semi-auto, so the semis generally sell for less.

The lure of lower pricing is also at play in the semis popularity.

twofifty
August 4, 2014, 09:35 PM
Through shear ignorance, I once thought revolvers were passť.

That was until I saw them used in IPSC competition. The revolver guys
were shooting very well and were having lots of fun. So I gave it a try.
When I scrape up the money I will get a nice revolver for competition...another
fun toy to play fast games with.

Bobson
August 4, 2014, 09:43 PM
For the same reason muskets are passe, just to a much lesser degree.

For the untrained/unpracticed everyman, a pistol is much faster than a revolver. For instance, the amount of time I've spent with revolvers could be measured in minutes, on one hand. It probably takes me around 12-15 seconds to empty and reload a Ruger LCR. I've spent considerably more time with a pistol, but even when I was new to them, I could empty and reload an M9 in close to 1/3 that time (or about 4-5 seconds, if my estimate is on). I would expect, too, that given equal amounts of practice, most people can more effectively/quickly manipulate a pistol.

Comrade Mike
August 4, 2014, 09:44 PM
I own two semi autos and four revolvers with no plans to buy any more autos. I must have missed the memo.

SDGlock23
August 4, 2014, 09:58 PM
I guess revolvers don't really fit the bill as being tactical and modular and all that. But fairly recently I bought a BFR in 454 and just bought (another) Blackhawk .45 Colt convertible, love me some single actions.

BullfrogKen
August 4, 2014, 10:05 PM
I own many handguns.

Half of them are revolvers.

Guess I missed the memo, too.

Jorg Nysgerrig
August 4, 2014, 10:06 PM
30 years ago, the number of revolvers produced was awfully close to pistols. Now pistols outnumber revolvers 5 to 1. While some may prefer a revolver, the numbers certainly are skewed in favor of pistols.

Elkins45
August 4, 2014, 10:10 PM
As a reloader I am increasingly appreciative of the ability to recover 100% of my brass without having to hunt for it in the gravel. The ability to retain 100% function at any power level and bullet shape is also a plus.

Revolvers aren't passť among most shooting enthuseasts that I know.

mikemyers
August 4, 2014, 11:03 PM
Very simple answer.

pas∑sť
adjective
1. no longer fashionable, in wide use, etc.; out-of-date; outmoded


Why did this happen? When I grew up, myself and all my friends wanted guns like the TV cowboys had, six-shooters, especially the ones that took "caps" so they went BANG! Anyone raised like that, and who went through the stage of pretending to go around shooting the bad guys, might really be thrilled when they could get the real thing.

Fast forward to today. If you watch on TV, or the movies, or most of the magazines, the guns that most of the heroes have are something that looks much more sinister, and that's what people nowadays are likely to want.


If guns can have "charm", I think that feeling fits revolvers best. Maybe it's just my upbringing. Semi-autos make me think of the military, current entertainment stars, and maybe even with attached accessories such as lasers, flashlights, night vision - all the new stuff, that gets kids and younger people excited - much more so than the old fashioned stuff that was used to protect the good guys from the rustlers and Indians.



Of course, you can apply this to the likely future, when both revolvers and the current semi-automatics will become passe, replaced by computerized guns with electronic ammo that will hit the bullseye every time, won't work for anyone who steals it, and will probably be constantly "on-line". Laugh now, but 50 years from now, that's what I expect will be quite common.....

460Kodiak
August 4, 2014, 11:09 PM
Passť? I don't think that's true.

They offer clear and measurable benefits over semiautos that we revolver shooters acknowledge and value.

Semiautos have benefits over revolvers too, but passť? Not so much.

Of course, the simpler answer is polymer and Hollywood.

rcmodel
August 4, 2014, 11:24 PM
I don't think so either, judging by the number of revolvers vs semi-auto's around my house.

Or judging by the prices fine old S&W's and Colts are bringing lately!

Maybe the video games & action movies are influencing the younger generation in choosing less accurate guns with no soul? And half a box of ammo in every mag.

(Spray & Pray beats Accuracy every time, right?)

But I don't do video games & the latest movies much, so I remain pretty much unenlightened.

(Except for 1911's, old Colt Woodmen, and a few certain S&W & SIG autos built the old school way before plastic.)

rc

gazpacho
August 4, 2014, 11:41 PM
Because revolver buyers normally don't put up with tacti-crap.

There are a LOT of semi-auto buyers that absolutely have to have the latest generation, doublestack tactical tupper-gun.

The guy who invents the double stack semiauto revolver will make a boatload of money.

JohnnyK
August 5, 2014, 12:39 AM
two words: Glock Perfection

460Kodiak
August 5, 2014, 12:53 AM
The guy who invents the double stack semiauto revolver will make a boatload of money.

That was invented well over 100 years ago. ;)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=201287&d=1407214025

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 02:38 AM
It's a simple economics.

For example, Glock 19 is a fine combat pistol. You can get that for about 2/3 price of a 686.

It has more than twice the capacity while still being lighter. Want more power than a 9mm? Then there's Glock 22 or M&P40.

Morern self-loaders are significantly easy to shoot and hit with, compared to revolvers. More training at less cost and more effectiveness.


I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away.

That's not a characteristics of a self-loaders. That's a characteristics of you.

pps
August 5, 2014, 04:07 AM
I have about an equal number of semi-auto pistols as I do revolvers. For super light weight that I can just drop into the front pocket of my shorts, my j-frame sees the most carry, with my M&P Shield being carried when I have to wear business casual.

At the range, as a hunting sidearm, or nightstand duty I still favor revolvers. As a reloader, I LOVE not having to stoop over and chase my brass all over the range. With a revolver I just dump it out into a coffee can or when I do drop them on the range the moonclips (left) keeps the brass in a neat/tidy little bundle.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/pps_2006/Smith%20Wesson%20627-5/model627withhoaguegrips_edited-1_zps2571d607.jpg

JohnBiltz
August 5, 2014, 04:33 AM
two words: Glock Perfection
Man Glock gets blamed for everything. Its not true. Police departments started shifting over to 9mm before Glocks ever came to the USA. What Glock did was make reliability affordable. Once the police switched over then the public followed.

Has anyone considered the possibility that pistols are better than revolvers if you don't need to worry about shooting a bear?

Tcruse
August 5, 2014, 08:21 AM
For me I would never consider owning a revolver, here are my reasons:
1) They are too complicated, in that when they fail it is a serious failure, where when my Glocks fail there are many fewer parts and the parts are much cheaper and much easier to replace without special tools (in the field)
2) Revolvers always leak "hot gas" out the sides of the gun, unacceptable and very distracting for follow up shots
3) They are uncomfortable to grip (even the ones with soft rubber)
4) They are too heavy and not well balanced (nose heavy)
5) I understand that many people claim they are more accurate, however, the vast majority of the people that I observe at the range with revolvers are spraying bullets all over the target, worse than beginners with a service sized semi-automatic. The times that I have shot revolvers, my accuracy was unchanged from my Glocks or 1911.

I always get a "good feeling" when my Glock or 1911 fires. When the revolver fires, all I get is dirt blown around and no sense of doing anything pleasurable. Now, to be fair, most of my shooting friends love their revolvers, but carry Kahr, Kimber, Steyr, and Glock.

The only advantage that I see is easier to mount a red dot or scope.
However, each to what they want.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 08:42 AM
Looking at the original question on its face, one has to assume the OP understands at least some of the fundamental benefits of modern auto pistols. (Capacity, weight, cost, ease of shooting, low bulk, durability, etc.) Having said that ...

Technology is funny. Just because something is archaic, doesn't mean it does not do its job correctly or adequately. It simply means that there now exists something that does the same job faster, easier, or in some other more beneficial way.

As a defensive sidearm, a revolver is archaic.

The design still works just as well as it ever did. It is excelled by other choices. The two statements are not incompatible.

For certain gun games, the revolver is king. That's because that particular game is set up to favor the revolver.

For handling large-bore hunting cartridges, the revolver is king. That's because the geometry of auto pistols is not well suited to handling large cartridges.

For pretty much everything else, the revolver is an aesthetic choice (hey, I just like 'em) or a matter of attitude/pride (the conceit of exclusivity, and/or pride of accomplishment at shooting them well), and sometimes due to lack of training (the questionable belief that a revolver is easier for a new or unskilled shooter to use).

Fortunately, we've got hundreds of wonderful choices in sidearms these days and you don't have to carry and/or shoot anything you don't want to.

If revolvers just hit your sweet spot, great! Practice well and a revolver will probably be plenty good enough in your moment of need.

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 08:51 AM
1) They are too complicated, in that when they fail it is a serious failure, where when my Glocks fail there are many fewer parts and the parts are much cheaper and much easier to replace without special tools (in the field)
2) Revolvers always leak "hot gas" out the sides of the gun, unacceptable and very distracting for follow up shots
3) They are uncomfortable to grip (even the ones with soft rubber)
4) They are too heavy and not well balanced (nose heavy)
5) I understand that many people claim they are more accurate, however, the vast majority of the people that I observe at the range with revolvers are spraying bullets all over the target, worse than beginners with a service sized semi-automatic. The times that I have shot revolvers, my accuracy was unchanged from my Glocks or 1911.


Strange - for most of those points, I see the same thing, but the opposite of what you describe.....

1 - complication - for most people, and me in particular for many years, the problem I had was cleaning. While cleaning a revolver is quite simple, it took me forever to feel comfortable in doing it with a semi-auto. As to shooting, with a revolver, you just pick it up and pull the trigger. Racking the slide, remembering to unlock the gun, and dealing with casings that didn't eject properly was FAR more complicated.

2 - I know that hot gasses can theoretically come out the side, but on a good S&W, I've never noticed that, let alone paid any attention to it. If it's distracting someone, I think it might be a problem with the gun. What DID distract me was the empty shell from my semi-auto flying up into the air, sometimes hitting me along its trajectory to the ground.

3 - Uncomfortable to grip - While my hand feels just as comfortable with one as the other, I've never had the revolver cutting my hand as it cycled, which used to happen to me with semi-automatics before I learned how to hold the gun to avoid it.... For years, I used the soft rubber grips, but then switched back to the original wood. It just felt "more comfortable" in my hands, but that's just me..... Maybe I'll try soft rubber again if I can find a pair that fits my hands better.

4 - As to being too heavy, and nose heavy, all things being equal, I find that a heavy gun (revolver and semi-auto) is more stable in my hands - less "quivering", and less likely to fly up from recoil. I will agree with you though that a lighter gun feels more comfortable. As to nose heavy, the longer the barrel, the better I can shoot. But yeah, the longer the barrel, the more nose heavy the gun gets.....

5 - accuracy..... I think you get all the potential accuracy you can afford (buy a Wilson for $4000, not plastic for $400) and how accurate you will be has far, far, far, far more to do with how much you practice, and how well you follow the advice of those who know better...... than whether it's a revolver or semi-auto. You can't buy accuracy. You have to earn it.



I think you left one thing off your list "image", or "looking cool". For me, when I see a 1954 automobile, I think that's really cool! For a 2014 automobile, I usually think it's a shapeless blob. If I want "cool", I want something that looks "cool". In 1954, all my friends and I wanted toy revolvers. In 2014 (if kids were still allowed to play with toy guns) they would likely be semi-auto handguns, or maybe even something like an AR-15......

RustyShackelford
August 5, 2014, 08:57 AM
In the modern era; 2010s, the semi auto pistol rounds have improved greatly. Misfires, jams, duds etc aren't as common as the older US ammunition lines.
This in turn as led to many more semi auto pistols being used or purchased than the standard J or K frame DA revolvers with 5/6/7 rounds.
It's also a size & weight issue. For what weights the same as a K frame .357magnum 6 shooter, you can buy a polymer/plastic pistol with 15-17 rounds. It's faster & more efficient to reload too. :D
In 2014, I don't go by the "6 for sure" mindset or "you don't need 16-18 rounds" crowd. :rolleyes:
It's true that a well made .44magnum, .45LC or other big caliber wheel gun can defend you, you get a lot more from a semi auto pistol that costs $200-300.00 less.

DA/DAO revolvers still have a place in modern US gun related issues but there time as a main defense or duty sidearm is way over.

Rusty

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 09:01 AM
1) They are too complicated, in that when they fail it is a serious failure, where when my Glocks fail there are many fewer parts and the parts are much cheaper and much easier to replace without special tools (in the field)
Well, you've always got the "6 for sure" ... unless you don't. When a revolver is broken, it's totally broken. There's no fixing it in the field generally. Fortunately, that's a one-in-a-million sort of situation as they are very, very reliable. Autos have about 37 different ways of getting fouled up that range from ammo problems to user-induced malfunctions, magazine problems, and on, and on. It is undeniable that auto pistols malfunction at rates FAR higher than revolver malfunctions -- probably on the order of 100:1 or more -- but those problems are sometimes easy to clear so you can attempt to continue shooting.

2) Revolvers always leak "hot gas" out the sides of the gun, unacceptable and very distracting for follow up shotsThat sort of sounds like the kind of complaint someone would definitely have if they'd never shot a revolver before, but with some experience running one you'll discover that it's pretty impossible to even notice the "hot gas" without special high-speed cameras and lighting tricks.

If you do regularly shoot with high-speed stop-motion photographic equipment that you don't want picking up "hot gas" "leaking" out of your gun, then I would certainly recommend that you avoid revolvers.

As for it being "unacceptable" ... it's been pretty acceptable for about six hundred years (if my recollection of the history of revolving cylinder guns is correct) and is still acceptable today.

3) They are uncomfortable to grip (even the ones with soft rubber)I'm not sure how this would hold true, considering that it is far easier to modify the stocks and whole hand-feel of a revolver than it is almost any auto.

4) They are too heavy and not well balanced (nose heavy)Again...how can this be said universally? There are 14" barreled revolver, and ones with 1" barrels. Steel frame, scandium frame, titanium cylinders, etc., etc. They're going to balance lots of different ways. Don't like a nose-heavy balance? Pick a different revolver.

5) I understand that many people claim they are more accurate, however, the vast majority of the people that I observe at the range with revolvers are spraying bullets all over the target, worse than beginners with a service sized semi-automatic.A well-tuned revolver is very accurate. So is a well-tuned semi. I don't think many people will claim that revolvers are MUCH more inherently accurate than autos, but some large hunting revolvers are pretty easy to get shooting amazingly well, especially with optics.

However, DA shooting can be a challenge to learn. It is a skill that must be studied and practiced. I'd agree that a total neophyte probably won't do quite as well with a DA wheelgun right off the bat. Or rather, will be lightly less BAD with an auto.

When the revolver fires, all I get is dirt blown around and no sense of doing anything pleasurable.DIRT blowing around? WTH? Stand up. You shouldn't be lying on the floor. How else would dirt be blown around by your gun? I'll admit, I'm at a loss to understand this complaint.

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 09:05 AM
.......... Practice well and a revolver will probably be plenty good enough in your moment of need.


I read your reply above, and got to thinking that maybe we need to define the "need" first, before anyone can reply to this thread. Which of the following are we using the gun for:


fun (target shooting, etc.)
competition
self protection
warfare

I probably left others out....

All I know about self protection is what I've read in magazines, read in forums, and been told by friends or family. The only "competition" I've participated in is a "turkey shoot". I've never been a soldier.

For some purposes, a good semi-auto seems like a far better choice to me, if for no other reason that it holds more rounds, and I think I could reload it in far less time than a revolver. For my purpose though, fun, I have all the time in the world, so that's not an issue.

Ed4032
August 5, 2014, 09:07 AM
When you get older, the slide on an automatic becomes difficult to rack. Revolvers will come back to you later in life.

OrangePwrx9
August 5, 2014, 09:12 AM
'Tis the way of the world. Anything "automatic" or even "semi-automatic" gets the nod. Whatever's not perceived as being "automatic" is headed for the dustbin.

I say that as a revolver guy who is old enough that it won't make any difference.

To be honest I mourn the very real demise of 5-speed manual transmissions more than I do the somewhat imaginary decline of revolvers. Can't buy a new F150 with stick shift anymore. What's the world coming to?

OrangePwrx9
August 5, 2014, 09:19 AM
When you get older, the slide on an automatic becomes difficult to rack. Revolvers will come back to you later in life.
Another truism! My K9 is probably my best shooting SA, yet racking that slide is a pain. Come to think of it, fighting to stuff the magazine isn't fun either. Nor is disassembling my tight match-grade DW 1911 which contains a spring waiting to fly across the basement.

Maybe there's a message here. SAs are for people who haven't yet tired of fighting with springs.

They will...eventually.......they will...

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 09:24 AM
What's the need? Well, that's a good question. Of course my statement still stands: revolvers are still just as good today as they ever were, regardless of the need. :)

However, some folks have found that sometimes they'd like something a little better -- a little more optimal -- in one way or another.

Truth is, most of the most popular gun games folks play these days aren't terribly well suited for revolvers. You can compete with your weelgun in USPSA or IDPA but most folks don't seem to enjoy reloading that often.

The big question about defense uses and LEO use is that of capacity. Folks enjoy pontificating about how autos are "spray and pray" devices and revolver are for folks who take their time and place their shots. "Fast is fine but accuracy is final" and all that silly gushing.

The truth is that video footage, simulations training and testing, and the historic record all prove that 99% of us mortals don't have the super-human self-control and jedi-like presence of mind to coldly make one or two or six precise shots at the guys who just jumped us or opened fire. Lethal force encounters tend toward pulling the trigger without cognition of number of shots fired, until there either isn't a target or something induces the shooter to cease fire. Under fairly common conditions, a 6-shot revolver simply means running dry (and going "clicky-click-click-click-click") sooner rather than (a little) later.

Taking stock of the probabilities, most folks will opt for "later."

wrdwrght
August 5, 2014, 10:18 AM
Out of fashion? Then who is keeping the prices up on the secondary market?

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 10:33 AM
I shot both. Not super heavy since I don't own either for myself, but enough to win a few beer off one guy whose mouth was smaller than his group.


1) They are too complicated, in that when they fail it is a serious failure, where when my Glocks fail there are many fewer parts and the parts are much cheaper and much easier to replace without special tools (in the field)

Revolvers hide their complexity. I know a guy who has had the same revolver for years and has never even had the barrel off. With glocks people take the barrel off every time they shoot.

2) Revolvers always leak "hot gas" out the sides of the gun, unacceptable and very distracting for follow up shots

That's training aid, helps you use a proper grip. It's like how slide of a glock whacks thumb if you're dumb.

3) They are uncomfortable to grip (even the ones with soft rubber)

Revolver grip is designed only for ergognomics since it doesn't need to take magazine up bottom. Gives more natural shape, easy to squeeze like a bird neck.

4) They are too heavy and not well balanced (nose heavy)


Grab a plastic or scandalum snub and say again.

5) I understand that many people claim they are more accurate, however, the vast majority of the people that I observe at the range with revolvers are spraying bullets all over the target, worse than beginners with a service sized semi-automatic.

Everybody at the range sucks. Except that guy who brings a full size revolver and doesn't even bother with the pistol range, shooting 2" at the 100 yard rifle range. He is just slow. And a snob, probably. I have never talked to him actually but that just seems like rubbing peoples nose in it.

jim243
August 5, 2014, 10:34 AM
In one word "CAPACITY". Even a 100 year old 1911 carries more ammo then the revolvers of those days. And two more shots is two more chances to stay alive.

Jim

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 10:43 AM
1 - complication - for most people, and me in particular for many years, the problem I had was cleaning. While cleaning a revolver is quite simple, it took me forever to feel comfortable in doing it with a semi-auto. As to shooting, with a revolver, you just pick it up and pull the trigger. Racking the slide, remembering to unlock the gun,


That is simply cherry picking motions needed.

Racking is part of the loading motion, not shooting motion. If you include racking the slide to make self-loaders sound more complicated, then you should also include putting rounds in 6 separate cyliners and closing the slide in revolver too, since that is what self-loader achieves with inserting a magazine and racking the slide.

Also, self-loaders can be had without any thumb levers to be flipped up or down to make it fire.

Again, cherry picking.

Your "feel" of self-loaders being more complicated to clean is just that: YOUR "feel." Nothing more.


and dealing with casings that didn't eject properly was FAR more complicated.

Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.


3 - Uncomfortable to grip - While my hand feels just as comfortable with one as the other, I've never had the revolver cutting my hand as it cycled, which used to happen to me with semi-automatics before I learned how to hold the gun to avoid it.... For years, I used the soft rubber grips, but then switched back to the original wood. It just felt "more comfortable" in my hands, but that's just me..... Maybe I'll try soft rubber again if I can find a pair that fits my hands better.

A lot of revolvers force the user to grip with the index finger coming in front of the middle finger and pulling the trigger toward the middle finger.

No human hand is built that way unless they got a birth defect.

Most self-loaders have trigger above the middle finger.

Due to the cyliner placement, the trigger must be far below the web of hand lcation, so it nearly always force a wrist cranked downward grip, which is not confortable nor particularly helpful for many.

HRnightmare
August 5, 2014, 10:46 AM
I agree that revolvers are not cool anymore because tactial ninja's want the newest with the biggest "hi capacity tactical ninja clips, that hold the most tactical rounds tactically".

But honestly, It is like saying why is...carburated no longer cool? Well because fuel injected runs as well if not better with less work and better. (may be a bad example, I am not mechanically inclined...it is just the best fit example I could think of).

Revolvers do still have a strong following but I would argue that it is mostly with guys who grew up with them. Kind of like most 16 yr olds would rather have the new Camaro or Mustang rather than a 1969 version.

I like revolvers enough but I will admit I only own 2. One in .357MAG and one in .22LR/MAG. They were both bought with very specific purposes. I don't know that I would buy a revolver just because... (oh god, maybe I am becoming a tactical ninja! haha)

HRnightmare
August 5, 2014, 10:50 AM
Also...many revolvers are priced WAY over what you can get a semi auto for!

I guess they produce less revolvers so the price is higher... It almost seems like you are paying "more for less"

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 10:51 AM
A lot of revolvers force the user to grip with the index finger coming in front of the middle finger and pulling the trigger toward the middle finger.

No human hand is built that way unless they got a birth defect.

Most self-loaders have trigger above the middle finger.

To be fair, though, this isn't an ACTUAL problem. It sounds bad and non-ergonomic, but it isn't a real issue for any human with normal hands.

Kind of like the "hot gas leaking" issue -- a good-sounding theoretical problem that fails to produce an actual hindrance of any sort to shooting the gun.

Bullnettles
August 5, 2014, 10:55 AM
Maybe the video games & action movies are influencing the younger generation in choosing less accurate guns with no soul? And half a box of ammo in every mag.

(Spray & Pray beats Accuracy every time, right?)

But I don't do video games & the latest movies much, so I remain pretty much unenlightened.

rc
__________________

RC, I'm a young adult who has played many an hour of video games in the past, and can say quite a few people pick a revolver because it almost always has more power than the M9 (just an example, there's still the DE, etc, but they have drawbacks, as well). Some like to spray and prey, but some get pretty good with the wheel-gun, and some games even have speed-loaders. It's pretty fun.

OP, my buddy and I were discussing this yesterday in the police. We frequent a restaurant that many officers eat at in Houston for lunch, and I've seen more revolvers than Glocks lately. There are a few that pack 1911's, a few Sigs, but not too many Glocks. This is all within the last year of eating there, and I don't see many police on a daily basis outside of their car elsewhere, so take it with a grain of salt. There are still revolver lovers among us, and my 28 yo friend is looking to get a 357 soon. I think semi-autos ARE just the cool thing to have, then once people get into shooting more, they really find out what works for them.

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 11:07 AM
Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.

That can't possibly be true. I have personally had slides fight to hold onto cases. I have never needed 6 or more rounds in a gun fight. I suspect nearly everyone who has shot both types of gun can say the same.

The probability of a case not properly ejected is about 100% if you shoot long enough, the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%. After all, most people never even get into a gun fight, and those that do rarely even fire, and those that do rarely fire more than three times. I'm quoting something I read on that last part, I haven't personally watched every gun fight.

HRnightmare
August 5, 2014, 11:08 AM
The town I used to live in allows officers to carry "any handgun" they can qualify with. I know of one officer personally that carries the Colt Python... and did long before Rick Grimes and the Walking Dead was a thing...haha

Bullnettles
August 5, 2014, 11:10 AM
That can't possibly be true. I have personally had slides fight to hold onto cases. I have never needed 6 or more rounds in a gun fight. I suspect nearly everyone who has shot both types of gun can say the same.

The probability of a case not properly ejected is about 100% if you shoot long enough, the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%. After all, most people never even get into a gun fight, and those that do rarely even fire, and those that do rarely fire more than three times. I'm quoting something I read on that last part, I haven't personally watched every gun fight.

This is why I'm getting another 442 to replace my LCP.

HRnightmare
August 5, 2014, 11:11 AM
FBI stated in 2008 (? Do not quote me on the year) that the average gun fight / crime involves 4 bullets being fired. When a police officer uses a gun to stop someone it averages 8 rounds.

DO NOT turn this into a "cops suck at shooting" contest... Cops likely firearm more than what is "needed" to ensure the threat is stopped and it does NOT continue to threaten or harm others.

----

I remember this statistic because it was posted on one of the gun magazines online articles and it VERY QUICKLY accelerated into a "cops suck at shooting" P'ing match.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 11:18 AM
Several points to ponder:

1) The DOJ's statistics include all sorts of shootings. A significant number of shootings are suicides. Those are going to skew the numbers downward as there aren't that many folks who need more than 3 shots to do the job.

2) Statistical averages are (...woah! Surprise!) ... averages. When considering that a lot of the shootings that went into making up those numbers don't look anything like a self-defense shooting, one may find that their shooting situation falls on entirely the wrong side of the claimed average number. That's a "whoops" kind of day.

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 11:27 AM
The probability of a case not properly ejected is about 100% if you shoot long enough,

Probability of having a failure in any kind of gun is 100% if you shoot long enough.

By the time I have fired enough rounds for the self-loaders to have any failure, I don't know if I can get the cylinder to turn any more on my revolvers if it fired the same number of rounds.


the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%.

"Shootings" and "gun fights" are not the same thing.

BullRunBear
August 5, 2014, 11:28 AM
I don't think revolvers are passť but I believe they have been overtaken by semis in popular perception. The huge increase in handgun sales in the last 6 years, especially for first time gun owners, probably favor semiautomatics for several reasons.

Fashion: The influence of "tacti-cool" ads and gear that make people think they will become instant SWAT members. And so many people, especially younger ones, think "new" has to be better.

Cultural: How often do newcomers see a revolver in movies, TV, or even carried by uniformed LEOs? Very seldom. Semis are seen as the norm.

Economic: A decently accurate (at SD distances) and reliable semi can be had for hundreds less than revolvers, carry more ammo, are faster to reload, and are often easier to conceal. Also, commercial 9mm ammo is relatively inexpensive.

The exception is the small, DA revolver for folks who have trouble racking a slide or want absolute reliability. Just pull the trigger and the gun fires. My wife prefers semiautomatics for targets and recreation. But she is small and can have trouble with the slide if in a hurry. (Yes, she knows the alternate ways to rack a slide.) And she doesn't want to carry cocked and locked. When she carries, it's an SP101 for its five absolutely sure rounds. The same reason applies to the bedside gun, an old Model 10 with four inch barrel.

I prefer revolvers (or Contenders) for careful target work and recreational shooting for many, many reasons. But I usually CC with a M&P Shield or Springfield XD. However, for open carry in the woods I like a 44 Mag. revolver, DA or SA, loaded with 44 Specials.

Jeff

X-Rap
August 5, 2014, 11:43 AM
There is no questioning the reliability of most revolvers but today most of the autos that are carried and issued are very reliable as well. We can find gross failure in anything but all things being equal I prefer the unquestionable capacity of the double stack 9 over most any handgun for social situations.
For woods carry there are so many variables that can dictate choices like being in bear country, hunting small game, stumbling on pot grows all of which make one type or caliber more desirable than the other.
I haven't counted lately but I'd guess I'm close to 50/50 maybe 60/40 in favor of SA pistols and rarely find myself with one in public.
I suppose one could say it is herd mentality but the public often does mimic what those who for one reason or another are considered experts, it's probably because they have put the time and effort into evaluating what the believe is superior for their use and consumption.
We are not all professional chefs but we might use the same pans as the ones we see on TV, same goes for bass boats.

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 11:44 AM
Probability of having a failure in any kind of gun is 100% if you shoot long enough.

Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject. Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

By the time I have fired enough rounds for the self-loaders to have any failure, I don't know if I can get the cylinder to turn any more on my revolvers if it fired the same number of rounds.

I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.



Do not confuse "gun fight" with "shootings."

Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 11:58 AM
Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject.

Yes, and I also experienced cylinder starting to bind. I also experienced an improperly installed revolver barrel. I also experienced revolver skipping round in the cylinder when I decided not to shoot after pulling the trigger to a certain degree.


Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

Wrong.


I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.

Since I was talking about keep shooting with no maintenance what so ever, until there is a problem,

are you saying that you shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver, just one revolver, without cleaning,no maintenance, with no problems?


Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.

There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:11 PM
Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject. Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

:D This would be one of those instances where those not used to critical analysis of statistics are mislead as to what those statistics truly mean.

You can't actually draw useful information from the fact that 99% of society hasn't been in a gun fight, at least not anything worth knowing about failure-to-function rates of firearms.

As Kleanbore has pointed out a few times:

The real issue is conditional probability.

The odds of being in a violent situation are completely divorced from the severity of a violent situation. Should you find yourself in a violent confrontation, that the odds of it happening were 1/1 million, now have no bearing whatsoever on the best tool with which to handle it. (Or in this case, how many malfunctions you might have seen or not seen on the range.)

That is a very basic tenet of risk management.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:13 PM
There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

He probably didn't get around to Post 54 yet.

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 12:14 PM
.......Everybody at the range sucks. Except that guy who brings a full size revolver and doesn't even bother with the pistol range, shooting 2" at the 100 yard rifle range. He is just slow. And a snob, probably. I have never talked to him actually but that just seems like rubbing peoples nose in it.



I enjoyed reading what you wrote, as that is EXACTLY what I'd love to be able to do. I no longer think it's impossible, just improbable, at least for me.

As to being a 'snob', I'd be happier if nobody was watching me shoot - when I go to the range, I get a spot away from everyone, and ignore what they're doing as much as I can. I never thought of it before as "rubbing people's nose in it"..... I watch what Jerry does in his videos, and while I know I'll never even get close to what he would do on his worst day, half asleep, and maybe blindfolded, I still want to try.....

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 12:14 PM
Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject.
Yes, and I also experienced cylinder starting to bind. I also experienced an improperly installed revolver barrel. I also experienced revolver skipping round in the cylinder when I decided not to shoot after pulling the trigger to a certain degree.

Only the last one is really relevant though. Everything breaks, failures to eject are normal enough that you are supposed to train for them.

Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.
The odds are. In reality, you're wrong.

Huh? You said yourself that the odds are, you haven't been. Where do you get that I'm wrong? Just because you have bad luck? Sorry challi, what I said was right.

I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.
You shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver without cleaning?

Sure hope not! Why wouldn't you clean your gun?

Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.
There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.

He probably didn't get around to Post 54 yet.

That's true too. :o

But 3 or 4 doesn't change the idea that a normal condition for an auto is more likely than an extremely rare event for most people.

skoro
August 5, 2014, 12:16 PM
After reading through this thread I've come to think:

It doesn't really matter one little bit.

Sure, autos outsell revolvers these days. So what?

There are plenty of excellent revolvers readily available in very effective calibers for those of us who favor wheelguns. I include myself, because I have a thing for S&W k-frames, so I own more revolvers than autos. But three of the four in my carry rotation are autos, and for good reasons.

If revolvers became scarce, then it would be a concern. But they aren't. They just aren't as popular as autos. And there are boatloads of good revolvers on the used market at decent prices. If you're a revolver guy, maybe you should take advantage of the situation while it lasts, because it won't be there in another decade or so.

And that's OK. Times change. Mostly for the better. :cool:

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:18 PM
Since I was talking about keep shooting with no maintenance what so ever, until there is a problem,

are you saying that you shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver, just one revolver, without cleaning,no maintenance, with no problems?

I think this might need more clarification. You can run a revolver for a long time without a lot of maintenance. But it will need cleaning, just like an auto will. (I usually clean ever 500-750 rds, regardless of which I'm shooting.)

But a more interesting facet of the discussion might be total life span or mean time between overhauls.

Some Glocks have well over 100,000 rounds through them and still work fine. Needed a few springs along the way and maybe another small part or two, but the frame, slide, barrel, etc., are still going strong.

Some revolvers will get to 20,000 rds without needing to be seriously re-worked, but some won't. End-shake, peened bolts and notches, worn hands or teeth, etc will start to make them dangerous to shoot after a while. And there's really only so many times some of those repairs can be done. (Though, like autos, just how far you can push it is a huge question mark.)

Different animals altogether.

Hoppes Love Potion
August 5, 2014, 12:20 PM
All my handguns are revolvers. They do the job just fine. There's a healthy market for snubbies for concealed carry, and prices keep rising for high-condition revolvers from previous eras. I also see revolvers being used more in movies and TV shows, especially when a sense of style is called for.

RetiredUSNChief
August 5, 2014, 12:22 PM
Over the past 10 years I have seen a dramatic decline in the use of revolvers as well as there availability at gun shops. Why have revolvers become passť? I myself like revolvers over semi-auto pistols. I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away.

Actually...the decline started in earnest back in the early to mid 80's, as law enforcement and other government agencies started picking up steam in transitioning to semi-automatics over revolvers.

Over the years, I believe the revolver market has settled into a fairly steady market at a new, lower, level. There probably won't be any serious fluctuations in the revolver market over the long term for a good number of years, probably even decades.

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 12:24 PM
This would be one of those instances where those not used to critical analysis of statistics are mislead as to what those statistics truly mean.

You can't actually draw useful information from the fact that 99% of society hasn't been in a gun fight, at least not anything worth knowing about failure-to-function rates of firearms.


I suspect you are wrong...but not in a bad way, just a "everyone who doesn't agree with whatever I meant when I was typing is wrong, it couldn't possibly be that I was unclear" way. :)

Someone, I've forgotten who, said something about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, that was a pretty cynical thing to say. In this case we have truth, damned truth, and statistics.


Someone said that a fairly normal failure mode for a handgun, something that is probably happening 100 times right now as I type this at shooting ranges across the country, is less common than a condition which can only occur in a gun fight. Gun fights are quite rare. The assertion they made can't possibly be true. Statistics are just a way to make the logic sound important.

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 12:28 PM
...failures to eject are normal enough that you are supposed to train for them.


We train failure eject remedy drills because there is a remedy for that problem, not because failure is common.

According to your twisted logic, every commercial flight crews training for ditching plane would mean airliner crash are common.

Do flight attendants brief passengers on how to use a flotation device because airliner crash is common?



Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.
The odds are. In reality, you're wrong.
Huh? You said yourself that the odds are, you haven't been. Where do you get that I'm wrong? Just because you have bad luck? Sorry challi, what I said was right.

The odds of my getting into a gun fight when I was born was low.

It turned out that I beat that odd.



You shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver without cleaning?

Sure hope not! Why wouldn't you clean your gun?

Because we're talking about malfunctions developing during shooting.


No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.

Let me use YOUR logic to explain what it is flawed:

"Every person experienced a revolver being empty after firing just 6 in their lifetime. So, chances of you running out of ammo with a revolver is infinitely higher than running into fail to eject during a gun fight."

PROPER comparison is between "probability of failure to eject duing a gun fight" vs. "probabliity of firing more than 6 during a gun fight."

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 12:30 PM
That is simply cherry picking motions needed.

Racking is part of the loading motion, not shooting motion. If you include racking the slide to make self-loaders sound more complicated, then you should also include putting rounds in 6 separate cyliners and closing the slide in revolver too, since that is what self-loader achieves with inserting a magazine and racking the slide.

I know what others do, and I only know S&W revolvers, but I don't think I would EVER walk around with a semi "cocked and locked". I know people say it's safe, but the last time I did a search, I found instances of where the gun fired anyway. With the S&W, there is a steel plate preventing the hammer from ever reaching the bullet unless you physically pull back the trigger.

Simplicity - you can probably hand anyone a revolver, and he'll know what to do to make it go Bang! Maybe not with a SA. Maybe.



Your "feel" of self-loaders being more complicated to clean is just that: YOUR "feel." Nothing more.

OK, let me rephrase. For me, cleaning my S&W revolvers is simpler than cleaning my Colt Combat Commander. If I haven't used the Colt for a year or two, as was the case before, I had to figure it all out all over again. With the revolver, I found it more instinctive.


Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.

Just my opinion - with my Colt, there was a good chance that the ejected casing never made it out of the gun (which is now being worked on by Colt). When I visited Colorado last month, I rented a Glock and bought a box of the range ammo. Out of 50 bullets, it jammed six or seven times. The fellow at the range said this was because I wasn't holding the gun tight enough.

It doesn't matter if the gun has 100 rounds - if it jams after one of the first few shots, most people will never get it fixed in time to fire any more.... in my opinion.

I have never yet seen any SA that never jammed. Maybe there's a good reason, that I don't yet know about, but all the friends and family I've been to the range with, who used a SA, and the times I've used one, that was always eventually an issue. Maybe once or twice in a couple of hours, or maybe once or twice every 10 minutes..... I suppose a revolver that wasn't maintained properly might also be able to jam, somehow, but has anyone here had that happen to them personally?

larbear
August 5, 2014, 12:33 PM
I think that popularity is based on certain demographics. The type of firearm is based on a preceived need. In a rural setting where dangerous wild life encounters may occure a large caliber weapon is need and a revolver is best suited. One always under the hammer and no need for stoppage drills dropping mags and all that good stuff.
In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.
I have both but I perfer a reliable wheel gun.
Just saying....

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:34 PM
Mark Twain made that phrase popular, and might have coined it though he claimed not to have.

Someone said that a fairly normal failure mode for a handgun, something that is probably happening 100 times right now as I type this at shooting ranges across the country, is less common than a condition which can only occur in a gun fight. Gun fights are quite rare. The assertion they made can't possibly be true. Statistics are just a way to make the logic sound important.
Ok, said that way, sure. Thing A is more common than thing B by orders of magnitude. That is a total quantity question, rather than a question of rates of those occurrences.

What he said was this:
Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.

What he perhaps SHOULD have clarified was more like this:

"In a gun fight the probability of a case not properly being ejected is far less than the probability of needing to fire more than 6 rounds."

As Kleanbore would say, the conditionality is critically important. WHEN in a gunfight, are you more likely to fire a 7th shot (or 6th if carrying a J-frame), or are you more likely to experience a failure to extract?

I think that very definitively puts the weight of probability on the extra shots fired.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:36 PM
In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.My, what a strange viewpoint!

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 12:39 PM
Posted by The Narrator:
...
Someone, I've forgotten who, said something about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, that was a pretty cynical thing to say. In this case we have truth, damned truth, and statistics.

You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 12:42 PM
No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.
Let me use YOUR logic to explain what it is flawed:

"Every person experienced a revolver being empty after firing just 6 in their lifetime. So, chances of you running out of ammo with a revolver is infinitely higher than running into fail to eject during a gun fight."

I can't stop you from trying, but that example doesn't show a flaw in my reasoning.

I was addressing the specific claim that "probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight" was higher than "probability of case not properly ejected". That is obviously and utterly false. If the claim had been "...case not properly ejected in a gun fight", or "...needing more than 6," we wouldn't be having this specific little talk.

You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

How do you figure?

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."

Yep. I stand beside that 100%. First you must be in a gun fight, which is punishingly rare. Then you must need more than 6 shots.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 12:44 PM
You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."
And that's the conditionality failure. The probability of average guy Jim sitting at home on his couch suddenly needing to fire more than six shots at threats is vanishingly small.

The probability of average guy Jim, who's just been jumped by a couple of thugs and has drawn his sidearm to defend himself, needing to fire more than six shots is much MUCH higher.

I can't stop you from trying, but that example doesn't show a flaw in my reasoning.
Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but it absolutely does. You've mis-applied your reasoning to an inappropriately large set of conditions. Everyone engaging in this conversation would innately understand the implication of "...in a gun fight," and disagreeing with the position based on that misunderstanding or misapplication makes no more sense than claiming that it isn't valid because you've included people who don't own a gun at all, or because you've also included dogs and cats into your calculation.

So let's set this aside.

Henceforth, when considering statistics of what might happen when defending one's self, let's go ahead and stipulate that we're talking about "...IN A GUN FIGHT."

Jaymo
August 5, 2014, 12:51 PM
Have both, like both.
Will NOT sell any of my revolvers.
I cast my own boolits and load my own ammo.
My revolvers function perfectly across the spectrum from mouse fart to ripsnortinloudenboomers. HP, RNL, WC. SWC, WFN, RB, they don't care.
My Kel-Tec .380 used to go everywhere with me.
Then, I bought a S&W 36.
The .380 now collects dust.
Unless I need a backup to the 36.

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 12:54 PM
I was addressing the specific claim that "probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight" was higher than "probability of case not properly ejected". That is obviously and utterly false.

I can list Jim Cirillo and Lance Thomas who fired lot more than 6 during gun fights, just from memory.


There are data available, such as the sources like these:

http://gunssavelives.net/browse-by-gun-type/

How many instances of failure to eject do you find during gun fights in these data?

I am not going to say it never happend.

But, I can find instances of more than 6 rounds fired gun fights with lot more ease than instances of someone losing a gun fight because of a failure to eject or any kind of malfunction for that matter.


How about SWAT and Special forces use? A lot of you can make sarcastic snide comments about "tacticool" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they do not choose a gun that they believe will fail them when it matters, and they know a thing or two about guns.

Old Dog
August 5, 2014, 01:18 PM
I had to go back to the original post to remind myself what this thread was about ...
Why have revolvers become passť? I myself like revolvers over semi-auto pistols. I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away. I don't think revolvers are passe' at all, personally. However, I agree with comments about how shooting revolvers can help one focus better ...

This thread seems to have turned into, once again, the "Is Six Rounds Really Enough?" debate ...

mcappys
August 5, 2014, 01:49 PM
Revolvers don't have capacity for the 8 to 15 rounds that most need
to hit something once.
I hear all the time that I only have 5 shots and it will take too long to reload,
from the guys with 3 or 4 15 round mags on their belt.
I just tell them I only need 5 for 5 and if there is more I'll use one of theirs

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 01:52 PM
And that's the conditionality failure. The probability of average guy Jim sitting at home on his couch suddenly needing to fire more than six shots at threats is vanishingly small.

Not my problem.


The probability of average guy Jim, who's just been jumped by a couple of thugs and has drawn his sidearm to defend himself, needing to fire more than six shots is much MUCH higher.

I haven't argued otherwise.


Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but it absolutely does. You've mis-applied your reasoning to an inappropriately large set of conditions.

Pshaw. It would only be misapplication if I was trying to reach a conclusion not supported by the reasoning I am applying to reach my destination. In this case, that's not the case. I am simply reaching a destination you didn't reach, and therefore your error detection circuitry (of the mental variety) is throwing false positives at you.


Everyone engaging in this conversation would innately understand the implication of "...in a gun fight," and disagreeing with the position based on that misunderstanding or misapplication makes no more sense than claiming that it isn't valid because you've included people who don't own a gun at all, or because you've also included dogs and cats into your calculation.

Bladderdash.

Look at it from a real world perspective....

Normal use case for a gun is at a range of some sort. That's where <some huge percentage> of all bullets come out. Effectively 100%, I suspect.

In the normal use case scenario, glocks have glitches. Those may seem tarmatic or normal depending on your point of view. Of course so do revolvers. However, you can't really count "successfully firing all loaded ammo" as a glitch. There is a qualitative difference between FTF and ABF. Short of ABF conditions, most people seem to report that revolvers have fewer but more severe glitches. In other words, they usually work, but when they don't hoo boyo they really don't.

I think it is a valid life choice to prefer fewer glitches. Of course it is also a valid life choice to prefer something else. I'm not the boss of any of you I hope.

Throwing in corner cases and exceptions such as "in a gun fight" may or may not be relevant. It's like planning car purchases around lightning strikes.

Now, if you are specifically talking about fightin guns, then talking about fights is relevant. As far as I see the fighting market is already owned by glocks of various sorts so if we are talking revolvers then fighting is probably not the first priority and certainly can't be the assumed use.

Sam1911
August 5, 2014, 02:07 PM
Now, if you are specifically talking about fightin guns, then talking about fights is relevant. As far as I see the fighting market is already owned by glocks of various sorts so if we are talking revolvers then fighting is probably not the first priority and certainly can't be the assumed use
Oh. Ok. So you're saying that you might have to occasionally "TRB" an auto, while plinking at the range, and if you shoot for enough years you might someday have a revolver break internally and stop working ... again while plinking at the range.

Yeah, ok, if that's your whole point then sure -- who could argue? (Except for the several millions of folks who own revolver for carry/defensive purposes, but let's ignore them for the moment.)

You took a statement clearly intended to indicate a real NEED -- a life-or-death problem during a gunfight -- and argued against it from a frivolous perspective. You could have dispensed with the argument by simply stating that you had no insights to share on gun-fighting so wouldn't address that point.

Again I will ask, let's drop the debate on this side issue.

460Kodiak
August 5, 2014, 03:14 PM
I know a guy who has had the same revolver for years and has never even had the barrel off. :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Also...many revolvers are priced WAY over what you can get a semi auto for!

Not true. There are high end revolvers and low end revolvers, just as there are high end semi's and low end. Many high end semiautos vastly surpase revolvers in price.

In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.

I sure hope this was a joke. If not, it is in the running for the stupidest thing I've ever heard on THR.

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 04:08 PM
I think we can agree that a lot of people nowadays want SA because it's the "in thing". That's what the guys in the next killer movie will be using; Movies with 6-guns seem to have faded away along with "Dirty Harry.

Back to my trip to Colorado. I wanted to go shooting, and we found an indoor range where I could rent a gun. I rented a Glock, as I wanted to know what it was like, and got a box of the standard ammunition they sell there.

That the gun didn't seem to shoot well is almost certainly my inexperience with the Glock, not a problem in the gun..... I think. But, over six times (I lost count) the gun didn't eject properly, which is over 10% of my bullets. Compare that with revolvers - I don't think I've ever had a revolver that didn't fire when the trigger was pulled.

Nothing is 100.00000% foolproof, and anything can fail, but if I had to have a weapon for self-protection, and the choice was between that 9mm Glock, or a S&W revolver, I would be far more afraid of a potential jam in the gun, compared to running out of ammunition.



Just one photo I want to find, and post here in this discussion, then I'll leave it for other discussions I'm much more interested in.....

HRnightmare
August 5, 2014, 04:14 PM
Also...many revolvers are priced WAY over what you can get a semi auto for!

Not true. There are high end revolvers and low end revolvers, just as there are high end semi's and low end. Many high end semiautos vastly surpase revolvers in price.


Perhaps I can rephrase. Revolvers and SA's of the same "class" seem to be quite different in price range. A Taurus or Rossi revolver seemed to run about the same price as a Glock or M&P... I would NOT call Taurus in the same quality spectrum of either of those semi's... Etc.

mikemyers
August 5, 2014, 04:17 PM
Found it.

NYC seems to be rather anti-gun, and I was amazed to find this picture of a gun on a giant advertising billboard in downtown Manhattan. I set up my camera and waited for the ad to re-appear, so I could take this photo.

If "Dirty Harry" represented handguns 30 or so years ago, I think this image is what represents handguns nowadays:

http://www.sgrid.com/2014/IMG_1272.JPG

(Before anyone asks, the image is 100% real - no Photoshop, no editing, no nothing, just a Canon S120 set up aimed at the scene I wanted, with me waiting for the gun to appear again.)

I have no idea what the ad was for, but I was sort of surprised to see this image.



Like I was thinking earlier, revolvers were THE handgun way back when, semi-autos are THE handgun nowadays, and in my opinion, smart-guns will be THE handgun of the future. :uhoh:

RustyShackelford
August 5, 2014, 04:20 PM
I'd compare shooting a range gun or rental then saying it wasn't a good gun to buying a motel bed then saying it smelled & wasn't very comfortable. :uhoh:

I've rented pistols too over the years & shot some "range provided" ammunition.
Nearly every time I shot, I too had jams, misfires, double feeds etc. :rolleyes:
Mainly it was the cheap reloaded pistol rounds and/or guns that were dirty or not cleaned-oiled correctly. I shot a S&W 3913 9mm that acted this way & in the early 1990s, a early Glock 21 .45acp. I shot a rental HK USP 9mm that worked flawlessly even while dirty & using cheap ammo.

I looked into buying a DA only USP .45acp later around 1997 or so but decided on a sweet Beretta 96D .40S&W with NP3 & Trijicon green sights.

benzy2
August 5, 2014, 04:33 PM
Use what you like for the situations you care to plan for. If you want to use a semi-auto, use a reliable one. If you want to use a revolver, use a reliable one. I don't honestly care what you use, unless I suppose mine breaks and you are beside me.

The argument that Semi-Autos are failure prone is a myth. They may be more likely to have a stoppage, but they are typically easy to clear and on a very low probability of any stoppage happening. I have a Glock 21 that has seen a few thousand rounds without a failure of any kind. I have an STI Trojan that's seen around 1000 rounds with no issues. I have a pair of CZ's that haven't stumbled once (even when trying powder puff loads). I've got 3 M&Ps that have yet to have a single failure of any kind through 3-4 thousand rounds combined. None are overly high use guns, but they are also as reliable as I could ask and something I'd stake my life on if forced to pick. Only one revolver I've owned has had issues, and it was a timing problem. That was a fairly big deal, though an easy fix. If you told me to pick one that had to shoot 6 shots, I'd feel as comfortable with any of the above listed Semi-autos as I would any revolver I own. This is only anecdotal evidence and is certainly not data, but I haven't seen such a high failure rate on most current production semi-auto pistols as people make it out. There have been a few, and they were typically a range toy type gun, that weren't reliable. Still, that's why you shoot them before carrying. Shot long enough, everything will break. Over a small enough sample size, any results could happen and skew the true likelihood of an event. Do whatever lets you sleep best at night.

The Narrator
August 5, 2014, 04:34 PM
Oh. Ok. So you're saying that you might have to occasionally "TRB" an auto, while plinking at the range, and if you shoot for enough years you might someday have a revolver break internally and stop working ... again while plinking at the range.

I'm not sure about the plinking part but is that wrong?

Yeah, ok, if that's your whole point then sure -- who could argue? (Except for the several millions of folks who own revolver for carry/defensive purposes, but let's ignore them for the moment.)

Oh, it wasn't my "whole point".

I don't think it is correct to judge everything by one set of standards. Is my car junk because it won't stop bullets the way an armored van is supposed to? Only if that's why I bought it. If I bought my Fiat to carry payroll around to inner city construction sites and it can't stop bullets I'm going to be cussing up a storm. But if I didn't, if it is actually to drive around the suburbs, then someone popping up to say, "BUT IT WON'T STOP BULLETS" is wasting everyone's time.


You took a statement clearly intended to indicate a real NEED -- a life-or-death problem during a gunfight -- and argued against it from a frivolous perspective. You could have dispensed with the argument by simply stating that you had no insights to share on gun-fighting so wouldn't address that point.

Why? Talking gunfights about .500 S&Ws seems frivolous to me too but I don't see you busting Test Pitot's chips. My insight was that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That the gunfighter's lament about revolvers only holding 5-10 bullets while a glock can hold 15 is only relevant to other gunfighters. Obviously it isn't even relevant to all gunfighters since you point out that many would-be gunfighters choose revolvers anyway.

The question was, why are revolvers out of fashion. I don't think gunfighter concerns about capacity is the answer.


Again I will ask, let's drop the debate on this side issue.

OK.

tarosean
August 5, 2014, 04:47 PM
Revolvers don't have capacity for the 8 to 15 rounds that most need
to hit something once.

several 8 shot 357 revolvers on the market.

Delford
August 5, 2014, 05:29 PM
On the lower priced semi auto spectrum is my beloved Ruger P345, which in the five years I've owned it has never had a failure to fire or eject 230 gr fmj ammo. I shoot with a friend who has several Glocks and several Ruger SAA/western revolvers he's let me shoot. I like .44 magnum and .40 S&W. I don't own a revolver but I don't see them going away any decade soon. I've shot the S&W 1911PD scandium and the RIA 1911 and like them as well. I'm fortunate to have several friends who let me shoot their arsenals but at home the P345 is what is with me and backs up my 870. Lower price may mean less features perhaps but cheaper is still dependable until you get to pot metal "midnight specials".

jimbo555
August 5, 2014, 05:37 PM
It's the indian, not the arrow. Carry what you shoot best!

BullfrogKen
August 5, 2014, 06:05 PM
I must have fallen into a time machine and woken up in the 80's.

35 Whelen
August 5, 2014, 06:17 PM
Video games, shooting sports games, and the fantasy of valiantly protecting ones self from hoards of bad guys with a black plastic framed Smithglocksauerwesson sporting an 836 round magazine filled to capacity with 9mm +P+P+P+P+ ammunition.

35W

45_auto
August 5, 2014, 06:39 PM
How about SWAT and Special forces use? A lot of you can make sarcastic snide comments about "tacticool" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they do not choose a gun that they believe will fail them when it matters, and they know a thing or two about guns.

Does the phrase "Mall Ninja" mean anything to you? :rolleyes:

If you believe that what the FBI and Special Forces use should dictate what you carry, you need to get you an 8 shot 1911 (with thumb safety).

FBI SWAT equipment:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/capabilities/fbi-swat-graphic

Springfield 1911

Marine Special Forces Pistol:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120719/NEWS/207190333/Elite-Marine-Corps-units-field-new-pistols

While standard operating forces throughout the U.S. military use the NATO-standard Beretta M9 pistol, elite military and law enforcement units, including Marine special operations and force recon, have continued to use the 1911.

TestPilot
August 5, 2014, 07:02 PM
Posted by 45_Auto:
Does the phrase "Mall Ninja" mean anything to you?

Yes, it is a catch phrase that is thrown around by people lacking reasoning capability to belittle people who carries anything that appears more prepared for violence than them when they run out of logical reponse.

They tend to manifest inability to comprehend written communicaions and defective inference drawing. For example, when one say Special Forces do not tend to select weapons prone to malfunctions, they accuse the person of saying Special Forces should dictate that person's weapon selection.

"If you believe that what the FBI and Special Forces use should dictate what you carry, you need to get you an 8 shot 1911 (with thumb safety)."

swopjan
August 5, 2014, 07:06 PM
They'll hardly stay passe if we do our part ;)

Last time I was at the range three other shooters got to put rounds downrange with my revolvers, not counting the two guys I went with. One kid, about eleven, asked 'what are those?' and he got the whole spiel about single and double action, loading and unloading, etc and had a big ol' grin after shooting my model 10. Think it was his first time shooting so even the trusty .38 special was a big deal to him.

When I take my revolvers I bring them in a pouch and when I get to the shooting station I take them out and lay them on top where everyone can see. I see the occasional LCR or stainless revolver but none of them get noticed as much as my .357 Blackhawk or my S&W model 10 and 17 and if anyone asks about them I offer them a few rounds. Maybe I should pick up that model 29 at the LGS, that would get some attention too! :D

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 03:06 AM
It's a simple economics.

For example, Glock 19 is a fine combat pistol. You can get that for about 2/3 price of a 686.

It has more than twice the capacity while still being lighter. Want more power than a 9mm? Then there's Glock 22 or M&P40.

Morern self-loaders are significantly easy to shoot and hit with, compared to revolvers. More training at less cost and more effectiveness.




That's not a characteristics of a self-loaders. That's a characteristics of you.


Modern autos, many of which have horrible triggers, are easier to hit a target with than a smith revolver that gas an exquisite single action trigger? You really believe that? Most guys I see shooting modern plastic semi autos don't come close to the groups I see guys shooting with quality revolvers.

As far as 2/3 of the cost, you get what you pay for. You can't compare a Glock price to a S&W revolver. Compare an HK to it. There isn't much price difference.

JohnBiltz
August 6, 2014, 03:20 AM
Modern autos, many of which have horrible triggers, are easier to hit a target with than a smith revolver that gas an exquisite single action trigger? You really believe that? Most guys I see shooting modern plastic semi autos don't come close to the groups I see guys shooting with quality revolvers.

As far as 2/3 of the cost, you get what you pay for. You can't compare a Glock price to a S&W revolver. Compare an HK to it. There isn't much price difference.

Well I don't own any HKs either. I started off with revolvers. First handgun I bought was a S&W 66. I don't own any any more. Were those guys shooting those great groups shooting single action or double action? I'm guessing they were taking the time to cock the hammer every shot. Which is what most people at the range seem to do. Which is not what is going to happen on the street. So what you really need to do when practicing with a revolver is practice double action and single action. Most people don't do this. Most people want to shoot tight groups so they cock the hammer between shots so they can feel good about how well they are shooting. I'd rather have a consistent trigger that I can shoot.

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 03:30 AM
Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.



A lot of revolvers force the user to grip with the index finger coming in front of the middle finger and pulling the trigger toward the middle finger.
.


I would love to see where you found statistics to back up your first quoted statement. First, I am willing to bet that most semi autos will have a malfunction at some point before a few hundred thousand rounds. What's the odds of even being in a self defense shooting? Second , the last time I checked the stat for self defense shooting showed an overwhelming number of them were under six shots fired. In truth semi autos were probably responsible for any rise in number of shots fired.

On the second quote, what revolvers are you referring to? I own Ruger SA and DA, S&W, Colt, Nagant, and have owned a Taurus. None of those required my middle finger to ride up to the height of my pointer finger and require my pointer finger to pull towards my middle finger. That's blatantly false and pretty ridiculous.

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 03:33 AM
Well I don't own any HKs either. I started off with revolvers. First handgun I bought was a S&W 66. I don't own any any more. Were those guys shooting those great groups shooting single action or double action? I'm guessing they were taking the time to cock the hammer every shot. Which is what most people at the range seem to do. Which is not what is going to happen on the street. So what you really need to do when practicing with a revolver is practice double action and single action. Most people don't do this. Most people want to shoot tight groups so they cock the hammer between shots so they can feel good about how well they are shooting. I'd rather have a consistent trigger that I can shoot.


It's called practice. I shoot bullseye comp with a double action revolver. That requires two sets if 5 shots to be fired in 10 seconds. That's at 25 yards, much farther than people practice for self defense. I carry a j frame often(I also carry a 1911 and a Glock sometimes too ) and am quite proficient with it, it just takes practice.

The point of this thread isn't only self defense though. The point was why are they losing popularity. Self defense is only one use of a firearm. It's also the least likely application for most gun owners, as far as actually using the gun.

TestPilot
August 6, 2014, 03:35 AM
Modern autos, many of which have horrible triggers, are easier to hit a target with than a smith revolver that gas an exquisite single action trigger? You really believe that? Most guys I see shooting modern plastic semi autos don't come close to the groups I see guys shooting with quality revolvers.

If I already did not made it clear enough, I am talking about gun fighting effectiveness.

For a revolver, that means DA mode, so how exquisite your SA trigger is would be a moot point.

I can hit far better at speed achieving combat accuracy with my 6.5 lb M&P trigger tham a 10+ lb revolver trigger in DA mode.

That is with stock trigger. There are more striker trigger that are either lighter or smoother available than that, and even the stock trigger can be significantly smoothened with a modification that can be done with minimal skill and moderate cost.

Grupp size? I can make head shots at 35 yards with my M&P 40. I have plenty of accuracy.

Sure, not all self-loaders have great triggers, but let's not pretend that all revolver triggers are "exquisite."

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 03:43 AM
I think this might need more clarification. You can run a revolver for a long time without a lot of maintenance. But it will need cleaning, just like an auto will. (I usually clean ever 500-750 rds, regardless of which I'm shooting.)

But a more interesting facet of the discussion might be total life span or mean time between overhauls.

Some Glocks have well over 100,000 rounds through them and still work fine. Needed a few springs along the way and maybe another small part or two, but the frame, slide, barrel, etc., are still going strong.

Some revolvers will get to 20,000 rds without needing to be seriously re-worked, but some won't. End-shake, peened bolts and notches, worn hands or teeth, etc will start to make them dangerous to shoot after a while. And there's really only so many times some of those repairs can be done. (Though, like autos, just how far you can push it is a huge question mark.)

Different animals altogether.


I shoot 10+ thousand rounds out of my bullseye gun per season. If I shoot winter league add another 5k to that. The only thing I have replaced on the last three seasons(near 50k rounds) is the rebound slide spring bit wasn't replaced for failure, it was replaced to go to one weight heavier.

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 03:44 AM
If I already did not made it clear enough, I am talking about gun fighting effectiveness.

For a revolver, that means DA mode, so how exquisite your SA trigger is would be a moot point.

I can hit far better at speed achieving combat accuracy with my 6.5 lb M&P trigger tham a 10+ lb revolver trigger in DA mode.

That is with stock trigger. There are more striker trigger that are either lighter or smoother available than that, and even the stock trigger can be significantly smoothened with a modification that can be done with minimal skill and moderate cost.

Grupp size? I can make head shots at 35 yards with my M&P 40. I have plenty of accuracy.

Sure, not all self-loaders have great triggers, but let's not pretend that all revolver triggers are "exquisite."


My DA triggers sure are nice, even stock. And a guy that practices can surely shoot every but as good as a guy with an auto loader.

RustyShackelford
August 6, 2014, 07:12 AM
I agree with a few of the recent points but I also take issue with a few;
I don't say there are "lots" of 8 shot revolvers. :confused: I'm aware of only 2 brands, two. The Smith & Wesson M&P R8 series is hardly within reach of most US handgun buyers. :rolleyes:
It would be great for hunting, home protection or maybe target-match use but I could not see anyone lug around a N frame revolver that size all day .
I'd add that there are some recent DA/striker fired duty-defense pistols with less than great triggers but you have to factor in that with a carry pistol, you're shooting at human beings. Not a paper or steel target 50 yards or 100m away. :rolleyes:
Accuracy is important & only hits count, but a violent felon or attacker isn't 3" by 5". A "smooth" trigger is nice but you do not need a $2000.00 "race gun" to defend yourself. There are several well made pistols & DA/DAO wheelguns able to protect you.
Id also repeat that ammunition has improved in the last 20+ years. As more armed citizens & cops/security/PMCs use semi auto pistols, the engineering-designs got better. DA or DA only revolvers can & still get a lot of use but to compare them to a 15/16/18 shot pistol as a serious defense weapon doesn't hold up in 2014. Carrying 26-40 rounds vs 18 rounds isn't really a big dispute for me.

Rusty

45_auto
August 6, 2014, 07:16 AM
Yes, it is a catch phrase that is thrown around by people lacking reasoning capability to belittle people who carries anything that appears more prepared for violence than them when they run out of logical reponse.

Nope, it's actually a term used to mean an unexperienced but enthusiastic weapon owner who pretends to be a seasoned operator. ;)

Definition is here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mall+ninja

tarosean
August 6, 2014, 10:57 AM
I don't say there are "lots" of 8 shot revolvers. I'm aware of only 2 brands, two. The Smith & Wesson M&P R8 series is hardly within reach of most US handgun buyers.
It would be great for hunting, home protection or maybe target-match use but I could not see anyone lug around a N frame revolver that size all day .

If we get down to it there are only 3 major companies competing in the revolver market now-a-days, aside from a few odds and ends and SAA's, and they all produce a 8 round revolver. while Ruger content with their high cap being 22lr. Taurus and S&W produce 357 versions. S&W does put out the 327/627 in 2" barrel form too...

Haywood
August 6, 2014, 11:46 AM
I only carry Revolvers. I have Two Semi-Autos but, I rarely shoot them. Snubs are my favorite to shoot and carry.

benzy2
August 6, 2014, 12:05 PM
If we want to talk about which is easier to shoot quickly stock, it is far and away a semi-auto. A short, medium weight trigger pull with short reset is most certainly going to show good results quicker than a long, heavy trigger pull with long reset. That isn't to say you can't become competent with a stock DA revolver or that some aren't very slick and even moderate in pull weight with a little work. Still, take the new HK VP9 or a Walther PPQ to the range alongside any current production revolver and on a timer I'm willing to bet nearly everyone who isn't a seasoned revolver shooter will shoot faster times with the autos, and even those who are typical revolver guys will be a toss up. From a speed point of view, is there a single game/division where revolvers and autos are grouped together and the revolvers are competitive?

I greatly enjoy my revolvers. Some are stock, some have been mildly slicked up. The SA pull is very good on them and are great for slow fire target shooting, even out of the box. Their DA pull is nowhere close to being equivalent to any decent non-DAO auto made today. Just two different guns that do different things well. If I were forced to use a gun against another person(s), I don't think I'd grab a revolver. For having fun at the range, I'll grab whatever sounds most interesting that day. For shooting itty bitty groups, I'll grab the revolvers.

460Kodiak
August 6, 2014, 01:04 PM
A short, medium weight trigger pull with short reset is most certainly going to show good results quicker than a long, heavy trigger pull with long reset.

True, but I can't figure out why you would make a generalized statement implying that all revolvers have long heavy trigger pulls. My Smith's have triggers that I would wager are just as nice as any stock Sig or fine triggered auto out there (stock triggers). Now typically striker fired guns will have a shorter reset, and often a shorter pull so I see your point there.

From a speed point of view, is there a single game/division where revolvers and autos are grouped together and the revolvers are competitive?
That would be interesting to watch. I honestly think there are a lot of revolver shooters out there who can shoot revolvers just as, or faster than a lot of autos.

Personally, I find myself shooting revolvers faster. My triggers are smooth, and the recoil just feels differently to me. The gun roles in my hand, as apposed to auto's that tend to snap in my hand harder. I find the former to lead to faster front sight reaquisition. I don't have any numbers to back that though. It's just the feeling I get. I tend to put after market grips on my revolvers too, so it's possible my revolvers just fit my hands a little better than my autos. That illustrates a benefit to revolvers again though.

If I were forced to use a gun against another person(s), I don't think I'd grab a revolver. I would. But interestingly enough, an HK45 sits next to my bed, and a 686+ sits in the end table in the living room.

I think both types of guns are very high in utility. But as I said earlier, both types of guns do some things better than each other. However, autos are what most police and military use, and they are prolific in movies, tv, and video games, so that is what is in style.

But that fact does not in any way make revolvers passe'. There are still a lot of us out there that heavily favor revolvers.

Sol
August 6, 2014, 01:07 PM
I thought revolver trend may see an uptick and that's why you aren't seeing as many on the shelves OP.

With today's day and age of "hipsters" and "steampunks", which I see quite frequently, a revolver and a Penny-Farthing would make quite a pairing.

No self-respecting person who uses moustache wax in their handlebar moustache would be caught dead with a Glock.

All speculative of course, but I can see many gun owners (not "gun people")
buying the gun less for "tactical" uses and more so of a fashion statement.

fastbolt
August 6, 2014, 01:45 PM
Why have revolvers become passť ?

Advertising. Movies. Seeing holstered handguns on LE belts transition from revolvers to semiauto pistols. More semiauto pistols in display cases at gun stores. Wanting more capacity. Etc.

I miss the days when handgun shooters (especially LE) developed their foundation shooting skillset using DA revolvers, though.

Some newer/younger LE firearms instructors have looked at me like I'm misguided when I've offered the opinion that a fully rounded instructor ought to be familiar with DA/DAO revolvers, traditional DA pistols (also called DA/SA by a lot of folks) and SA pistols (and shotguns, as well as rifles). Only being able to teach and train with a specific type of plastic pistol, or a limited range of pistols, may be fine for a specific agency's needs, but it also limits the development of the instructor, to a degree.

The older, more experienced instructors usually nod their heads in agreement, and offer an observation that a skilled DA revolver shooter is often a more skilled, all-around handgun shooter.

I remember the first time I watched another instructor cut loose with an issued hi-cap 9mm after we'd transitioned from service revolvers to semiauto pistols. LOTS of fast misses on the intended pepper popper target. Upon being castigated by a couple of other instructors, he offered some lame response about using all the ammo the newer hi-cap pistols offered. :fire:

Precision, skilled handgun shooting is still precision, skilled handgun shooting, regardless of the on-board ammo capacity. It's NOT an area saturation bombardment.

Some folks who like to complain about subtle differences of trigger pulls in different pistols might have a different perspective after having learned to properly perform a revolver DA/DAO trigger stroke. ;)

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 02:30 PM
I agree with a few of the recent points but I also take issue with a few;
I don't say there are "lots" of 8 shot revolvers. :confused: I'm aware of only 2 brands, two. The Smith & Wesson M&P R8 series is hardly within reach of most US handgun buyers. :rolleyes:
It would be great for hunting, home protection or maybe target-match use but I could not see anyone lug around a N frame revolver that size all day .
I'd add that there are some recent DA/striker fired duty-defense pistols with less than great triggers but you have to factor in that with a carry pistol, you're shooting at human beings. Not a paper or steel target 50 yards or 100m away. :rolleyes:
Accuracy is important & only hits count, but a violent felon or attacker isn't 3" by 5". A "smooth" trigger is nice but you do not need a $2000.00 "race gun" to defend yourself. There are several well made pistols & DA/DAO wheelguns able to protect you.
Id also repeat that ammunition has improved in the last 20+ years. As more armed citizens & cops/security/PMCs use semi auto pistols, the engineering-designs got better. DA or DA only revolvers can & still get a lot of use but to compare them to a 15/16/18 shot pistol as a serious defense weapon doesn't hold up in 2014. Carrying 26-40 rounds vs 18 rounds isn't really a big dispute for me.

Rusty


Pretty much agree with everything you said here Rusty.

I will also add, as I said before, self defense isn't the only use of a gun and most will never he used for that purpose(actually fired in self defense). Overall popularity I see lots of revolvers everytime I go to the range.

gamestalker
August 6, 2014, 03:47 PM
There certainly has been a decline in the revolver being a first choice weapon for most. This is simply the result of thee constant development and introduction of an every growing variety of reasonably priced auto loading handguns. A person can go out and find a decent quality NIB AL for about $300 or so. Try to find a decent quality revolver, even a used revolver for $300 is a tough find. I can easily find 2 decent NIB AL's for the price of one decent used S&W M19 or M66.

I myself have quite a few AL's, and although my AL inventory out numbers that of my wheel guns by more than 2 to 1, my weapon of choice has been, and always will be a revolver.

GS

ljnowell
August 6, 2014, 04:27 PM
There certainly has been a decline in the revolver being a first choice weapon for most. This is simply the result of thee constant development and introduction of an every growing variety of reasonably priced auto loading handguns. A person can go out and find a decent quality NIB AL for about $300 or so. Try to find a decent quality revolver, even a used revolver for $300 is a tough find. I can easily find 2 decent NIB AL's for the price of one decent used S&W M19 or M66.



I myself have quite a few AL's, and although my AL inventory out numbers that of my wheel guns by more than 2 to 1, my weapon of choice has been, and always will be a revolver.



GS


Used S&W model 10s and 64s sell at the 300 or lower point all the time. Likewise you can find used S&W j frames in that range frequently. The new ones are only about 50-75 more.

I would also be willing to argue that a 300 dollar NIB semi auto is not of the quality of a S&W revolver. To get a truly quality gun you need to add about 200 dollars to that figure.

And I'm with you, the majority of the time the gun in my holster or in my pocket is a revolver. Some days I feel groggy and load up my Glock or 1911, but usually it's a j-frame or a 686/586.

BSA1
August 6, 2014, 05:02 PM
The O.P. asks why revolvers have become passť?

The simple answer is they have not. In fact revolvers are well on the way to reclaiming the throne as the King.

From a political standpoint sales of new semi-automatics in some States are being restricted and some manufacturers are discontinuing marketing them altogether. When you take away the ammo capacity with magazine bans it narrows the differences a lot.

The revolver is the undisputed King of Power.

The revolver is the undisputed King of Versatility.

The selection of different models is constantly expanding. We have 5 shot 44 L Frame Magnums to lightweight snubbies and all points in between.

Revolvers are a best seller by women.

The revolver is mechanically superior to the semi-auto. A semi-auto can easily be made into a single-shot or a expensive fishing weight merely by loss of it's magazine(I know, carry more than one magazine). But the fact remains is a semi-auto is a two piece firearm which without a good quality magazines is a wall hanger.

With revolvers it is "where did I leave the bullets?" ;-)

Revolvers are more p.c. Gene, Roy, The Duke all tamed the Wild West with a revolver.

For most civilian self-defense situations a revolver is enough gun. Actually as a civilian if you truly need a high capacity handgun you will be better off with a rifle or shotgun.

boom boom
August 6, 2014, 06:56 PM
Like the old joke, I like both kinds of music, country and western. It is the same as I like both kinds of pistols: revolvers and semi-autos. Both fulfill the first rule of a gunfight--have a gun and thus are suitable for self-defense. Both require training and practice to use well. Revolvers are more intuitive to shoot with someone who has 5 minutes of training, semi-autos put more lead on the target accurately with just a bit more training. Shooting a revolver well requires more training than a semi.

This same can be said of bolt actions versus the new semi-autos--and many of the same points apply. Bolts and revolvers are tolerant of a wide range of ammo and power levels--semi autos--both pistols and rifles are not. Both can have problems--when problems happen with bolt actions (apart from ammo problems), they are usually major. More issues can happen with semi's but are not usually major. Most of the time, the lower capacity of either a bolt action or a revolver is not an issue in self defense until becomes one and so on.

FWIW,
Dealing with an older parent, in the past, I taught her to shoot both revolvers and semi-autos (and a pump action shotgun) which made me really come to grips with the benefits and shortcomings of each in order to train her. Teaching generally does that. However, recently as her arthritis has progressed, she has trouble with the heavy trigger on her Security Six in DAO and problems racking the slide of her Bersa 9mm doublestack. She also had trouble remembering which is the slide release and which is the safety, and loading the magazine in the Bersa and remembering to spank the baby in extracting and reloading the Security Six. She did not have problems with either regarding recoil as the Security Six has Pachmyrs and the Bersa's steel frame soaked up recoil. She did marginally better in accuracy with the Security Six in DAO than the DA/SA of the Bersa but firing the Security Six in SA, did fine at combat ranges.

So as my old hometown has become much more dangerous where she needed to carry outside of the home frequently, required a compromise, I persuaded her to get a new pistol for herself--a Sig P238. She has kept the other guns along with a Mossberg 20 gage pump with a pistol grip as home defense only. The Sig for her had the advantages being able to carry outside of the house due to its light weight, ease of racking the slide, a shortstack magazine that was easier to load, the safety was easier to swipe off, and recoil in .380 was slight. Came with good night sights as well. In her case, the right semi-auto was a better choice because it fit her hand, she could operate the controls, load the magazine, and could shoot the pistol accurately. Only disadvantage is the fieldstripping part as it resembles the Smith 3rd Generation takedown. Solution was a boresnake and I'll field strip and more completely clean it when I am there.

However, one thing I will leave persuadeables with, if you want to be a better shot overall, whether you carry a revolver or not, learn to shoot accurately on a revolver because when you master the DA trigger stroker, you can fire just about anything (even cosmolene crusted sears of Mosin Nagant rifles) because you learn to reset the trigger properly and do not have as much problems with a heavy trigger. And one last thing, the .357 Magnum stoked with 125 JHP from any major ammo manufacturer is one of the best man-stopping rounds out there bar none without the risk of overpenetration--the flamethrower effect and the deafening sound is just icing on the case.:D

MIL-DOT
August 6, 2014, 06:59 PM
20-30 years ago I would have laughed in your face if you'd have told me that some day I'd have exactly TWICE as many revolvers as semi-autos :D.

RetiredUSNChief
August 7, 2014, 06:03 AM
If I were forced to use a gun against another person(s), I don't think I'd grab a revolver.

Sure you would. Because ALL self-defense is a "weapon of opportunity" issue.

If you carry a weapon, then the weapon of opportunity is most likely what you're carrying.

If you're not carrying a weapon, then the weapon of opportunity is whatever you can get to in time to be effective. The kid's baseball bat, kitchen cutlery, hammer, or (in the case of firearms), whatever gun presents itself under the circumstances.


No self-respecting person who uses moustache wax in their handlebar moustache would be caught dead with a Glock.

Yes, he will if he needs to as described above.

But of course, what you're talking about is really a matter of personal preference, probably based on esthetics given the example you cited. Which is a perfectly good reason, in my opinion, when it comes to making a personal decision on buying a gun.


The question was, why are revolvers out of fashion. I don't think gunfighter concerns about capacity is the answer.

A MOST excellent point.

The market for firearms, as with most other markets, is driven by public perception far more than actual public performance, or actual public use, with a given product under a given circumstance.

And before people jump on me for this, please note that my use of "public" does not confer specific, individual people within the overall public community.

Market demographics encompasses all types of people, from collectors, casual shooters, military, police, para-military, hunters, competition participants, personal protection, and whatever form of "gun nut" one may also care to include.

Many people who own firearms also carry for personal protection. Most do not.

Some who own firearms for defense actually put in the time, effort, and money to learn how to effectively use their weapon(s). Most do not.

Many who choose a firearm for protection make well informed and educated decisions as to what and why, based on sound evidence and experiences. Sadly...most do not, instead going on hearsay, fads, or what have you.

seeker_two
August 7, 2014, 06:49 AM
Another reason is that revolver ammo tends to be slightly more expensive than autoloader ammo. If manufacturers made as much revolver ammo as auto ammo, demand would be equal with both.

mope540
August 7, 2014, 07:21 AM
Anyone who has any unwanted outdated and no longer 'hip' S&W revolvers can passe them on to me.

pps, i like your V-Comp...and who made the holster??

N frames...
http://static.dyp.im/RmQiejKfyb/large/a67a7d5855c9091f4087a46df03603bd.jpg

RustyShackelford
August 7, 2014, 11:42 AM
I don't really see packing a wheel gun as "hip" or "old school" :rolleyes:.
I also don't see it as trendy or "ironic" either.
In 2014, I see way more armed professionals & private citizens using pistols than DA or DAO revolvers. Especially the Glock line.
Glocks are now tricked out, cut, contoured comped & available in nearly every color or camo pattern you might choose. :D
This wasn't the case, 15-20 years ago. :rolleyes:

I don't see the DA revolver making a "comeback" either. Unless some nuclear tip, super frangible anti-personnel round comes out that requires a Blade Runner(1982, www.imdb.com ) type revolver, pistols will continue to be in vogue.

pps
August 7, 2014, 12:43 PM
Carrying a revolver isn't about "being hip." I carry a revolver as my hunting sidearm because, aside from a Glock 20 in 10mm (Double tap or Buffalo Bore ammo) there isn't much out there in semi-auto offerings that are worth a damn against a pissed off wild boar that is coming towards you and your rifle that you just emptied on his buddy.

I'll keep my 8 round 357 or my 6 round in Ruger Bisley Blackhawk (325 grains at 1100 to 1300fps depending on how I hand load it) for hunting purposes.

BullfrogKen
August 7, 2014, 12:47 PM
In 2014, I see way more armed professionals & private citizens using pistols than DA or DAO revolvers. Especially the Glock line.


Hey, you do realize that "armed professionals" don't get to chose what they carry, don't you? That choice is made for them.

By an administrative bean-counter.

Who isn't a gun person.


When I've had conversations with the training officers for the local departments that use my club for training & annual quals they all complain that Glocks are too big. Not for everyone, but for the men with smaller hands and most of the women.

Glocks are cheap. They're easily supported when they break, and that matters when your department buys them dozens at a time. A Glock armorer doesn't need nearly as much training and experience to do field-grade service & part replacements as other handguns.

It's not ergonomics that make Glock popular in policing. It's economics.

HankR
August 7, 2014, 02:13 PM
The market for firearms, as with most other markets, is driven by public perception far more than actual public performance, or actual public use, with a given product under a given circumstance.

Market is also driven by cost and what you are used to. I wanted to get my nephew a 4 inch or so .22 lr revolver, basically a .22 version of his Dad's .357 and something the kid can use to plink with and both and use to train. You can get a Ruger Mark III for about half the price of a quality .22 lr revolver (or at least that's what I was seeing). He shoots my wheelguns, and likes them, but I'm thinking we'll go with the Ruger (I am quite fond of the earlier 22/45).


Another data point. Locals run a Ladies range day where they invite local women (age 10 and up) to "leave your men at home" and come out for a day at the range. Five bucks buys them earplugs, use of lots of guns, ammo, and lunch. I've helped out in the past, and normally bring a variety of semi-auto and revolvers. I skipped it this year since my wife was going and I had another commitment. She claimed that there was only one revolver present, and lots of semi-auto handguns. When asked what she liked best, she liked the 1911 but the AK-47 (semi, I'm pretty sure) was a close second, since it "looked cool". I'm friends with most of the guys who normally run this, and although we've had some younger help lately I was surprised at the lack of revolvers.

MCgunner
August 7, 2014, 03:31 PM
Passť?

While revolvers have fallen out of favor with LEO's they are very popular in the civilian markets. Revolvers are the most common choice for women buying a self-defense gun and the big three gunmakers are constantly adding new models.



^^^this^^^

They significantly outnumber the autos in my house. Besides, other than the Coonan, they're the only choice in magnum power in a normal sized handgun (excludes the Desert Eagle). Well, there's the 10. Good luck on the ammo.

TestPilot
August 7, 2014, 04:17 PM
Hey, you do realize that "armed professionals" don't get to chose what they carry, don't you? That choice is made for them.

By an administrative bean-counter.


Actually, as far as out side of the military is concerned, transition from revolvers to self-loaders were grudgingly approved by "administrative bean-counter"s due to rank and file voices, not top-down pressure.

Sure, not all armed professionals may get to choose a specific model they want to carry, but as far was self-loaders being prevalent is mostly by choice.

Also, many departments have a prettly long list of what pistols are approved, so a significant portion of them get to carry what they want.

Drail
August 7, 2014, 05:01 PM
Eggzactly right. "the first thing we do - let's kill all the bean counters".

Schwing
August 7, 2014, 06:26 PM
Through shear ignorance, I once thought revolvers were passť.

I did as well. In fact, I owned exclusively semi-autos for more than 30 years. Then I was talked into buying a revolver and have not purchased a semi auto since.

I think that a lot of the arguments that we see here and other places about caliber A vs. caliber B or semi auto vs. revolver are blown WAY out of proportion. Personally, I feel just as confident with my little .38 LCR as I do with my .45 Springfield. I just can't see a realistic scenario in which I am going to be having a multi-magazine shoot out. I also concede that, if that scenario were to arise, I would be screwed.

Another point that I think is nearly always overlooked is WHY we own multiple firearms. Personally, the pleasure and challenge is more of a motivation for me to buy something new than picturing it as a better option to carry around town. For me, revolvers are just more pleasurable to shoot. I also enjoy NOT having to chase my brass:)

460Kodiak
August 7, 2014, 07:17 PM
I just can't see a realistic scenario in which I am going to be having a multi-magazine shoot out. I also concede that, if that scenario were to arise, I would be screwed.


I'm right there with ya.

MCgunner
August 7, 2014, 07:29 PM
I think that a lot of the arguments that we see here and other places about caliber A vs. caliber B or semi auto vs. revolver are blown WAY out of proportion. Personally, I feel just as confident with my little .38 LCR as I do with my .45 Springfield. I just can't see a realistic scenario in which I am going to be having a multi-magazine shoot out. I also concede that, if that scenario were to arise, I would be screwed.

Spoken from realville. However, if I shoot my five, I'll just reach for one of my other 2 five shooters. :D

I admit, I do sometimes get in the mood to carry my .45ACP and back it up with a 12 round .380 pocket gun. I'm usually headed for the big city when I get this paranoid. :D It's silly, though, I admit. I love my revolvers.

Rodentman
August 7, 2014, 07:29 PM
About half of my collection is revolvers, half semi-autos. I like the semis in unique calibers like the 50 AE and the 22 TCM, and well the Coonan too. My go to range guns are usually revolvers and I have several in traditional semi-auto calibers like 45 acp, 10 mm and 9 mm.

Gun Master
August 7, 2014, 08:01 PM
I concede that more semi's than revolvers are "probably" (statistics?) being bought (or stolen) today. That doesn't mean they are no longer "in style" or useful. I'm for letting the passe' idea continue, since that let's me get some really good used gun bargains.

About half mine are semi, and the "smaller" half are revolvers.

The most important thing is that you can protect yourself against violent malefactors. If your can do so, more effectively with a revolver (or semi, etc.), so be it.

Next most important is, can you hit your mark with a potent and accurate first (and continuing) shots, not how many magazines you can tote. The possibility of an extended shoot out are, at least , remote.

Vodoun da Vinci
August 7, 2014, 08:13 PM
Probably because I started with revolvers I recently went back to shooting them and working on my revolver technique when I got my 2 1/2" tube for my Dan Wesson. Then I took what I learned back to the LCR and then discovered that I just shoot revolvers better from an intuitive perspective.

I had to work at point shooting and transitioning to sights amd moving and shooing with my autos. And I'm good at it now.

But moving back to revolvers it just *happened* without thought or modifications. They just point single handed for me and the bullets go where I look. I don't think revolvers will go away for a long, long time yet.

VooDoo

Bezoar
August 7, 2014, 09:12 PM
revolvers are not passe.

you must look at the current buying trends in all firearms to look at revolvers in the right way.

1. teh magazines push semi autos down our throats. if the magazines are correct, only real men use a semi auto. and we allll want to be "real men"?

2. but only week willed purse wearing european sissy boys use a 9mm unless its 9mm+p or +p+.

3. the buying panics have all been based upon 'what the guvmint will ban next is what i must have now'. The focus has been on semi autos, so thats what everyone wants to get now, so that if its grandfathered in, the 300 dollar EAA witness they bought used can hopefully be resold for 900..

TomJ
August 7, 2014, 10:53 PM
When I was a patrolman in the late '80's, our department as well as many others did not trust the reliability of semi automatics. It's not that they weren't reliable, it's just that revolvers were more so. With the increased reliability of semi automatics as well as their increased capacity to address the trend, perceived or real , of more multiple attacker scenarios (at least in the Chicago area), we seem to have seen an increase in semi automatics here. I like and own both, as both have their roles.

psyshack
August 7, 2014, 11:42 PM
For years I blew off the .357 Sig round. I got to studying on it. Looks like some real potential there. Got a good deal on a G31 3gen, my eyes opened. .357 Sig ammo off my bench impressed me. The G31 made my .357 revolvers obsolete for HD/SD work in 124/125gn bullet weights.

CornCod
August 8, 2014, 12:14 AM
An old gun writer, I think it was Wiley Clapp, said that shooters "talk .45, shoot 9mm and carry .38." Still very much true.

460Kodiak
August 8, 2014, 12:22 AM
I admit, I do sometimes get in the mood to carry my .45ACP and back it up with a 12 round .380 pocket gun. I'm usually headed for the big city when I get this paranoid. It's silly, though, I admit. I love my revolvers.
I don't think that's silly MC. Carrying more firepower when your potential to encounter trouble is higher just sounds like good planning to me.

3. the buying panics have all been based upon 'what the guvmint will ban next is what i must have now'. The focus has been on semi autos, so thats what everyone wants to get now, so that if its grandfathered in, the 300 dollar EAA witness they bought used can hopefully be resold for 900... That is a very good point Bezoar.

RetiredUSNChief
August 8, 2014, 06:22 AM
I just can't see a realistic scenario in which I am going to be having a multi-magazine shoot out. I also concede that, if that scenario were to arise, I would be screwed.

No, you're not screwed quite yet. You can still throw the gun at the bad guy. Even Superman ducked when THAT happened!

:neener:


tGf1r8-Snss

skoro
August 8, 2014, 11:31 AM
Chief -

No one can argue with that! :D

Gun Master
August 8, 2014, 03:26 PM
Sadly, he couldn't dodge or deflect the bullet from his own Luger, that he held in his hand, in real life.

SC Shooter
August 8, 2014, 04:15 PM
When I go to the range, I see lots of revolvers, and lots of auto loaders. Revolvers tend to be popular with new shooters, especially with women as they are easier to handle and easier to clean & maintain. Many more experienced shooters will tell you that revolvers are more dependable, so they make a better self defense weapon. I am sure there is an ebb and flow based on current popularity, but I really doubt you will ever see revolvers go away.

Archie
August 8, 2014, 05:03 PM
Revolvers are losing ground in popularity as one can miss more times while looking cooler with a semi-automatic pistol.

tuj
August 8, 2014, 06:40 PM
I think part of this has to do with the increased reliability of modern semiautomatics and the perceived 'greater firepower' from high capacity magazines. Blame Glock.

Cirillo did just fine with a revolver. But his partner used a single stack 1911. Different strokes for different folks; both are legendary gunfighters.

TestPilot
August 8, 2014, 06:43 PM
Cirillo did just fine with a revolver. But his partner used a single stack 1911. Different strokes for different folks; both are legendary gunfighters.

- Cirillo regularly carried 3 guns on him when he was using revolvers for duty.

- One of that pistol was a Walther self-loader, probably against department regulations or Allard's approval(since he was authrized to approve T&E weapons, that's how he was able to carry a 1911).

I read every publication by him, and nothing indicates his choice was a 38 Special revolver because he was satisfied with it. A lot of insights on guns and gun fights in them, but he NEVER said anything to the effect of "6 is enough."

- Cirillo's pistol of choice in his later years was a Glock.

Jaymo
August 8, 2014, 07:28 PM
Using Cirillo as an example of having to fire more than six rounds in a fight, is flawed.
Cirillo was hamstrung by the poor choices of ammo available (and department approved) for .38 Spl at the time.

Besides, as a member of the Stakeout Squad, he was MUCH more likely to be involved in multiple gunfights than the average person.

Besides, If you have enough assailants as to require you to need more than six shots, you're screwed regardless of whether your pistol is of the revolving or semiauto persuasion.
You can only shoot one bad guy at a time.

Mall Ninja is meant to denigrate idiotic goobers who have delusions of grandeur/heroism, and pick their weapons and accessories based upon what their favorite Hollyweird action stars use in a ficticious video depiction of police/military action.
The fact that neither the goobers, nor the Hollyweird actors are qualified to carry Jim Cirillo's (RIP) jockstrap is immaterial to them. They are legends and gun experts in their own minds.
Much like the folks who think Glocks have good triggers and DA revolvers are hard to learn how to shoot accurately.

TestPilot
August 8, 2014, 07:41 PM
Using Cirillo as an example of having to fire more than six rounds in a fight, is flawed.
Cirillo was hamstrung by the poor choices of ammo available (and department approved) for .38 Spl at the time.


He did not obey the department regulations. He refused to use department ammo as mandated and that was one of the reasons he was at odds with his superior.

Also, the issue goes beyond simple ammo performance issue. Some of his suspects kept going after receiving a 00 Buck shot blast. Some people just needs a lot of convincing that he should be down. Do you think Cirillo would have just said "Eh, he got shot 6 times and did not go down. Let's give up. May be it's my time to die."?

Instead of throwing around terms about "idiotic goobers" to allude to people who dare disagree with you, why not try actually doing some research on a person who you are using to make your case?


Besides, as a member of the Stakeout Squad, he was MUCH more likely to be involved in multiple gunfights than the average person.
...


As stated many times before, probability of getting into a gun fight is irrelevant to how much threat you will face when you get in one.

Robbers he faced were the very same ones robbing regular people in NYC.

Do you think Cirillo carried a Glock after his retirement because he planned on doing private stakeouts?



Besides, If you have enough assailants as to require you to need more than six shots, you're screwed regardless of whether your pistol is of the revolving or semiauto persuasion.
You can only shoot one bad guy at a time.


No. You made up that assumption to deny there can be any problem with your position.

There are people who did survive more than one assailants in a gun fight.

Lance Thomas was one of them, and the amount of rounds he had in hand played a very critical role in it.

Twiki357
August 8, 2014, 08:41 PM
Who Said Wheelguns Are Passe'?.... Not me!

My current count is 28 revolvers v 6 semi-auto’s. All I carry is a “J” frame. I don’t expect to get into any North Hollywood bank shoot outs, so I feel comfortable with 5 and a reload.

Jaymo
August 8, 2014, 08:45 PM
Being unable to shoot more than one assailant at a time is not an assumption, it's a fact.
You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
Please explain to me how an auto is going to make you less screwed than a revolver, when being attacked by multiple attackers.
Only Cow Yun Fat and Jackie Chan can fight more than one man at a time, and only in movies (fiction, ever heard of it?).

Jim Cirillo did not have the ammo available to him that we have now.
And, the fact that it was his job to get into gunfights with armed assailants is very relevant. His job was to confront extremely violent pairs/groups of men who were robbing businesses. His involvement in multiple gunfights was a forgone conclusion.
The same is not true for us. We can avoid most situations where a weapon would be required. We can avoid bad areas (most of the time). He could not. It was his JOB to intervene in such situations.By the very nature of his job, he was going to get into gunfights with multiple assailants.
He also was not doing it alone. Had he been doing that job by himself all that time, he would have been dead, regardless of what gun he had, short of full auto and head to toe armor.

Lance Thomas? What does an overpaid athlete have to do with this?
I'm kidding.
In some ways, your example of Lance Thomas is a great one.
In other ways, it's not.
His profession of being a Rolex dealer put him into a high risk situation in any city.
Jewelers tend to have good security for good reason. I knew one who kept an Uzi under the counter. Yes, an actual Israeli Uzi.
Lance's decision to go with autos over revolvers was based on his personal feelings that they would serve him better than his revolvers would. Truth is, they did not.
His revolvers never jammed on him, as did his SIG 9mm.

He ended his first fight with only 3 of 5 rounds from a Chief's Special.
In his fights, he was lucky enough to have had the majority of his assailants not be fully committed to the violent act. Some of them stayed and fought, others had stronger wills to live.

He was an extreme case. An exceedingly rare case. The vast majority of people who get into armed confrontations (among non-LEOs) do not experience what he did.

He also did just as well with his revolvers as he did with his autos, except that he appeared to have to shoot the BGs more times with his autos than with his revolvers.
Could have been ammo choice, but it's damned foolish to try to make an argument against a 125 grain .357 magnum projectile being the top of the heap in terms of handgun manstoppers.

Yes, some men require a lot of killin'. That being the case, how would any handgun fare better than a load of 12 gauge buckshot that failed to stop a BG?
I can see where a 12 gauge slug would fare better, but not a revolver nor autopistol round.


I stand by my factual statement about mall ninjas. I've never met one who didn't fit my description.
You wouldn't be a mall ninja, would you? You protest as though it hits too close to home.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want. It's a free country and you are allowed to do so. But, once I become dictator, you're going to the gulag. ;)

BTW, I have and still do carry autos AND revolvers.
Sometimes I carry a 1911, SR9, PT99, CZ82, CZ52, PT111, TZ75, Witness .45, M45 Firestar. Not all at the same time. Might as well carry a cop, as to carry that much iron.

Sometimes I carry a Colt, Smith, Ruger, Taurus .38, Smith, Ruger, DW .357, Charter .44 Spl, Taurus .44 Mag, Ruger .44 Spl, Ruger .45 Colt, Ruger .44 Mag, Ruger .32 H&R, Smith .32 S&W Long.
Depends on my mood.
My Smith 36 is the one that goes everywhere with me.
Sometimes my Taurus Judge goes loaded with .410 birdshot. It's a snake gun for me, and nothing more.

Anyhoo, have a nice day.

RustyShackelford
August 8, 2014, 09:05 PM
I don't understand some forum members constant use of the media(gun press) or popular culture(novels, films, TV, video games) as the motivation to carry a semi auto pistol over a DA revolver. :confused:
Nobody makes me buy any guns. :rolleyes:
I think pistols are superior to revolvers for a # of reasons but either platform can work for basic carry or protection.
As for James Cirello, he retired from the NYPD & started to teach at www.FLETC.gov in south GA. He was on the cadre of the US Customs Service(now CBP & ICE in the US Department of Homeland Security). I think US Customs was switching from the S&W model 66 2/3" .357magnum to the Glocks while Cirello was a formal trainer. For him to pack a Glock like the students isn't that hard to see.

Rusty

TestPilot
August 8, 2014, 09:14 PM
You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
...

Yet, there are people who survived being attacked by more than one.

You also conveniently ignore ONE opponent requiring more than 6 shots to incapacitate.

There are multiple factors. Even when attacked by multiple opponents, not all of them may have a clear shot at the defender. Not all of them may get a hit even when they did fire.


Please explain to me how an auto is going to make you less screwed than a revolver, when being attacked by multiple attackers.
Simple, if you need to fire more than 6~8, it is done more easily.

And, the fact that it was his job to get into gunfights with armed assailants is very relevant. His job was to confront extremely violent pairs/groups of men who were robbing businesses. His involvement in multiple gunfights was a forgone conclusion.
The same is not true for us. We can avoid most situations where a weapon would be required. We can avoid bad areas (most of the time). He could not.

That only expalins why he got into multiple gun fights. It still does not explain why any particular one a regular citizen may face would be less dangerous.

Those robbers are the very same ones robbing regelar citizens.

Lance's decision to go with autos over revolvers was based on his personal feelings that they would serve him better than his revolvers would.


People in your position's denial that selecting a self-loader is always emotional and revolver is always based on practical decision is based on "personal feelings."


Truth is, they did not.

His revolvers never jammed on him, as did his SIG 9mm.

He ended his first fight with only 3 of 5 rounds from a Chief's Special.
In his fights, he was lucky enough to have had the majority of his assailants not be fully committed to the violent act. Some of them stayed and fought, others had stronger wills to live.

It was a counter point to your false assertion that "If you have enough assailants as to require you to need more than six shots, you're screwed regardless of whether your pistol is of the revolving or semiauto persuasion."

So, youre assertion is proven false.

If he only had six shots and six shots only, like YOU said he would be screwed if he needed more than that, he would have been killed by those opponents who were "not be fully commited to the violent act."

Could have been ammo choice, but it's damned foolish to try to make an argument against a 125 grain .357 magnum projectile being the top of the heap in terms of handgun manstoppers.


Of course 357 Magnum is effective. But, it is not like it is twice as effective that would negate having the advantage of 2~3 times the capacity. It is also not as controllable in a similar weight and size gun.

Who said revolver or 357 Magnum is not effective?

I am not arguing that revolver is not effective.

I am arguing that "you need no more than six, and if you need more than six, you're dead anyway," "capacity is not an advantage" is false.


Yes, some men require a lot of killin'. That being the case, how would any handgun fare better than a load of 12 gauge buckshot that failed to stop a BG?
I can see where a 12 gauge slug would fare better, but not a revolver nor autopistol round.

We cannot carry a shotgun or a rifle. If we could, we would not be arguing about this.

TestPilot
August 8, 2014, 09:27 PM
It's been a long one.

If you were following this post, no one is arguing that revolver is ineffective. No one us arguing that it is wrong to choose a revolver.

The problem is, and as I see it, mostly an emotional response from the other side, that for whatever reason, must deny that self-loaders are chosen for reason other than "tacticool" or "mall ninja" related issues.

They go far as to deny that higher capacity is an advantage no matter what.

They go far as to deny that situations and danger that in fact exists and already manifested does not and cannot occur.

That is irrational.

jimbo555
August 8, 2014, 09:58 PM
Capacity can be an advantage but the revolver reliability advantage under adverse conditions is more important to me. You make your choices and you live with them. If I have to go to bad parts of town, I take 2 revolvers.

RetiredUSNChief
August 8, 2014, 10:37 PM
Being unable to shoot more than one assailant at a time is not an assumption, it's a fact.
You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.

Obviously, you've never seen "Sledge Hammer! Dori Day Afternoon".

"One bullet, two scumsuckers...decisions, decisions, huh? I just have to figure out how to do it."

"Do what?"

"Get them to stand in single file!"

About 10:10

wvFYJ7Bn4Vo

Trent
August 8, 2014, 11:05 PM
I used to be a semi-auto-only type of guy.

http://i.imgur.com/KscBdI8h.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/cpt34uah.jpg

Trent
August 8, 2014, 11:07 PM
If I have to go to bad parts of town, I take 2 revolvers.

c2tAHnb06tU

Heck yeah.

jimbo555
August 9, 2014, 09:36 AM
Now that's too funny Trent! :D

Trent
August 9, 2014, 10:25 AM
Now that's too funny Trent! :D

Well, yes and no. It kind of strikes a little close to home when I think about how (and what) I pack if I'm going on an extended trip far away from home.

I feel a revolver is fine if I'm out raking the yard on a nice autumn day or walking the dogs. (That SP101 revolver basically "lives" in my inside coat pocket all winter)

But, there's times when "more is better."

I've told this story in other threads (usually ST&T) but never in the handgun forum... so here's the short version once again.

A couple of years ago a "crew" out of Peoria started hitting rural homes, specifically going after firearms. They were smart and knew the police response time was horrible in the boonies - 20-30 minutes or more.

Eventually they got in to our neck of the woods, and in one day hit two homes nearby. The first one, they got the guns in the garage, in town (small farm town), in broad daylight. Later that night, they hit another house in the country (just down the road from us). They staked it out until the man left for work (3rd shift at the mitsubishi plant), then went in while the wife and daughters were asleep.

She awoke to find *5* - yes FIVE - armed intruders in her house. They cleaned out the guns, and split. (she was not armed, the guns were locked up in a cabinet).

Now, there's more to the story (such as one of the daughters having a big mouth and the wrong people overhearing about her family's "stockpile"), but it drove home a lesson to me.

You can't assume there'd just be ONE person. And you can't assume that even 5 or 6 well placed shots will stop a single bad guy.

(Further combine the above with the Atlanta incident - where a woman put five 357 shots in to a bad guys face & neck; followed by him leaving, getting in a car, and driving away before he finally passed out from blood loss/shock.. obviously he could have still done her in if he was so inclined, but he was more inclined to leave at that point...)

This being said a gun in the hand is better than nothing.

But there is a strong case to be made about higher capacity guns, given the predisposition to bad guys traveling in packs, and the myth that there is a "man stopper" bullet. They all drill holes, but you can't be guaranteed of a DRT if they miss arteries on the way through.

(This includes head shots - as my own my father survived a 45 caliber ball straight through the brain, and there's been plenty of other botched suicides where headshots haven't been lethal - or incapacitating. Last year I watched a video of a man who'd taken an AK-47 under his chin, he was still conscious and sitting up in the ER afterwards, missing part of his face and an eyeball, but still talking and holding his own bandage to his face, bleeding in to a bucket.)


Anyway yes, I'll still carry revolvers from time to time - because ANY gun is going to be a heck of a deterrent in public if you bring it to bear. Like pack animals, once the "leader" goes down the more timid aggressors are going to flee.

But in my own home?

I'm planning for 5 on 1 odds and I plan to win through superior firepower and superior mindset. :)

Trent
August 9, 2014, 10:30 AM
^^ that all being said, I'd never admonish a man for carrying a revolver as I often do that very thing, even though I'm a little 'out there' and eclectic as far as this fixation on firepower goes. ;)

I do not feel "out gunned" carrying only 5 shots as that's 5 more than I would have otherwise, and I know how to use them.

If you are against multiple assailants (2 or 4 legged), drop the most aggressive first.

The others should turn tail and run.

And you should do the same, as you call authorities ...

jimbo555
August 9, 2014, 11:01 AM
I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. :D My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

ljnowell
August 9, 2014, 11:09 AM
It's been a long one.



If you were following this post, no one is arguing that revolver is ineffective. No one us arguing that it is wrong to choose a revolver.



The problem is, and as I see it, mostly an emotional response from the other side, that for whatever reason, must deny that self-loaders are chosen for reason other than "tacticool" or "mall ninja" related issues.



They go far as to deny that higher capacity is an advantage no matter what.



They go far as to deny that situations and danger that in fact exists and already manifested does not and cannot occur.



That is irrational.


If we really want to lay all the cards on the table, the emotional response cones from both sides.

On side A the revolver guy will argue many points like if you need more than x rounds, or most fights are over in x shots, or even reliability.

On side B the semi auto guys will say capacity, quicker reloads, easier to carry reloads, etc.

In all honesty both sides are right. Both platforms have pros and cons. It's up to the individual to choose what's right for them.

I am happy to argue for either side. On my small hometown I carry a j frame and a speedloader everywhere. When I go to a bigger city I carry a 1911 or Glock with an extra mag AND a J Frame in my pocket.

Trent
August 9, 2014, 11:21 AM
I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. :D My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Despite the 5 on 1 odds and anecdotes I positioned earlier, we still keep a 38 snub nose in the kitchen cabinet. :)

My wife can put all 6 in the 10 ring at 7 yards with that dang snubbie.

So...I'm not going to argue with her on her choice.

She wants to keep a revolver in the kitchen, more power to her.

She catches her own brass with even my softer shooting 9mm's from weak wrists, so semi-auto is not for her.

jimbo555
August 9, 2014, 11:30 AM
My wife is recoil sensitive. The only handgun she'll shoot is a ruger lcr22lr, but she can put all 8shots in the black from 7 yards. That'll have to do.;)

BSA1
August 9, 2014, 12:11 PM
She awoke to find *5* - yes FIVE - armed intruders in her house. They cleaned out the guns, and split. (she was not armed, the guns were locked up in a cabinet).


This story is more about lack of making their home defensible than not having a semi-automatic handgun available. As I understand it the story ends with nobody getting hurt which is a happy ending to me.

For every story like this there are dozens more where use of firearm has driven multiple criminals away. Most of the criminals I have known have a strong survival instinct and a desire to get out of the way of incoming bullets.

I'm out there in the country, living on 32 acres. My home security is in layers starting with noisy dogs. So I won't be surprised by 5 intruders in the house. I'll get some warning. I also have shotguns and rifles besides the revolvers. My stuff don't look good enough to get shot for. My experience has been that quality revolvers never jam, quality semi-autos do jam on occasion. My opinion and I'm sticking to it!

All handguns are poor stoppers and more difficult to shoot accurately in dim light or the dark. A Ruger S.A. 45 Colt hangs on my bedpost. While I don't worry about home invasion, let alone multiple attackers, I hedge my bets with a Remington 870 with 7 rounds in the tube.

Oh a lever action rifle stands in the corner. Country folk think alike.

TestPilot
August 9, 2014, 01:30 PM
If you are against multiple assailants (2 or 4 legged), drop the most aggressive first.

The others should turn tail and run.

Plenty of cases where it did not turn out that way.

Fiv3r
August 9, 2014, 03:23 PM
I see this has turned into one of those hypothetical wheel gun vs. semiauto threads. That's cool. I mean, we all know that there will be some meeting of the minds and both the semi auto and revolver guys will leave with a greater understanding and respect for one another:rolleyes:

I think the main points have already been touched upon:


Revolvers offer shooters a platform for high caliber hunting rounds that a semi auto can't accommodate.

Revolvers have a manual of arms that are (generally) easier for most anyone to deploy.

Revolvers offer a trade off in capacity, but everyone pays their monies and takes their chances on what they prefer to carry or shoot best.


etc etc etc.

For me, I lean more toward being a revolver guy over a semi auto guy. It mostly has to do with the fact that a snub nose .357 is a good compromise for my day to day life. It's powerful yet pocketable. I give up follow up shots for potency. I shoot a revolver better than I shoot a striker fired semi-auto of similar size.

As others have said, semi-auto pistols are cheaper to manufacture than revolvers, semi autos have more of a mainstay in current popular culture, semi autos are the preferred choice of the throngs of internet gun board posters who live in areas where gaggles of tweaked out meth heads flock and converge on anyone foolish enough to be armed with less than 10 rounds in their gun.

I prefer a full size semi-auto most days when I can carry it. I adore my 92fs. I can accurately engage targets with my 1911 faster than any other pistol I own. My nightstand gun is an FNX-9 with a light on it. I really like all of these guns.

Still, unless I am going downtown after dark, I generally carry a 5 shot revolver or a 7 shot .380. Even then, I wouldn't feel undergunned with either of those. Maybe I would be, but it's the risk we take.

TestPilot
August 9, 2014, 03:57 PM
Revolvers have a manual of arms that are (generally) easier for most anyone to deploy.
No.

Revolver: aim and pull the trigger.

Glock, M&P: aim and pull the trigger.

Self-loaders that require anything more is by the choice of the buyer, not because it is a self-loading pistol.

fastbolt
August 9, 2014, 04:16 PM
Handgun sales are predominantly pistols, and by a decent margin. Rifles are close. (At least as far as 2011 figures go, which won't reflect the huge spikes of the last 2-3 years. Guess we'll see what those did later on.)

http://www.atf.gov/files/statistics/download/afmer/2011-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf

It's just a handgun.

Mindset
Skillset
Training
Experience
Knowledge of law
Knowledge of tactics
.
.
.
.
.
.
Equipment selection (based upon a wide variety of influences, conditions, perceived needs, etc)

Regardless of how someone feels about what's holstered at the their side (make, model, caliber, popularity of the moment, "special" ammunition, etc) ... it's the justified, accurate & speedy placement of holes in the identified & intended threat target that starts to tell the real story.

Sometimes I may anticipate finding myself in potential situations which might present a higher perceived risk, and I may choose one of my higher capacity pistols (meaning 8-12 rounds) instead of one of my diminutive 5-shot snubs or my LCP.

I certainly don't expect (or demand) less of myself when running those smaller guns through demanding drills or qual sessions, though.

Carrying a 'lesser capacity' or small caliber weapon doesn't mean expecting, accepting or justifying 'lesser' skills or abilities, or the ability to effectively utilize them.

Dunno how others may feel about their situations.

gbw
August 9, 2014, 04:55 PM
With California's new gun laws revolvers will become very more common.

This is probably very true. Soon thereafter, and after a few well publicized irresponsible / criminal acts involving revolvers, they will also be heavily controlled by Ca. legislature.

fastbolt
August 9, 2014, 05:07 PM
This is probably very true. Soon thereafter, and after a few well publicized irresponsible / criminal acts involving revolvers, they will also be heavily controlled by Ca. legislature.

Revolvers, shotguns (pump & single shot) and small TDA (DA/SA) .380's have already long been established as frequently encountered firearms used in the commission of criminal acts in CA (and other states).

The use of hi-cap pistols, and semiauto rifles which have appearances similar to military-style small arms, have captured the attention of ordinary folks when used in crimes which make the major news, though. Understandable.

45_auto
August 10, 2014, 08:06 AM
No.

Revolver: aim and pull the trigger.

Glock, M&P: aim and pull the trigger.

You'll quickly find that making clicking noises at bad guys is relatively ineffective.

Both types of firearm are MUCH more effective if they're loaded (part of the manual of arms).

RetiredUSNChief
August 10, 2014, 09:42 AM
Despite the 5 on 1 odds and anecdotes I positioned earlier, we still keep a 38 snub nose in the kitchen cabinet. :)

My wife can put all 6 in the 10 ring at 7 yards with that dang snubbie.

So...I'm not going to argue with her on her choice.

She wants to keep a revolver in the kitchen, more power to her.

She catches her own brass with even my softer shooting 9mm's from weak wrists, so semi-auto is not for her.


The father of one of my best friends has a favorite story about his wife and a .22 handgun.

She doesn't like snakes...at all. While she was working the garden one day, she ran across a snake. Went back in the house, got the .22, and stood in the back doorway and emptied the gun at the snake.

He came come, heard the story as part of the "get-rid-of-that-snake-I-shot" husbandly duty. Went out to the garden and found the poor, unfortunate Garter Snake. Which had been shot six times. Out of six shots. Looking across the yard to the back door, he said he decided then that he didn't want to get on his wife's bad side.

:)

Midwest
August 10, 2014, 10:09 AM
Revolvers will still be popular. For instance I don't see how they could make semi automatic black powder guns.
.

Sam1911
August 10, 2014, 10:16 AM
For instance I don't see how they could make semi automatic black powder guns.

Not a worry!

j84J7VQ02CQ

_dQbirKRvgs

5DGgMXl8Fzs

TestPilot
August 10, 2014, 10:17 AM
You'll quickly find that making clicking noises at bad guys is relatively ineffective.

Both types of firearm are MUCH more effective if they're loaded (part of the manual of arms).
What is your point?

At the start of the fight the gun should already be loaded anyway.

The rest of us, we carry our guns loaded, so we only need to aim and pull the trigger, regardless of whether if it is a self-loading Glock or M&P or a revolver.

Even if I take loading into consideration, I do not see why putting rounds in a magazine then insert the magazine and racking the slide would be particularly complex compared to opening a cylinder, putting rounds in, then closing it. Reloading during a fight would be definitely stacked against revolvers.

Beentown
August 10, 2014, 10:22 AM
Passe? No. But i do carry a semi auto.

Size, capacity and ease of reload. Thin is in....

KenW.
August 10, 2014, 10:31 AM
If I were to wake and find 5 armed intruders in my home, I probably wouldn' be able to successfully dominate them regardless of choice of weapon. What's the better part of valor? Discretion.

460Kodiak
August 10, 2014, 11:29 AM
You'll quickly find that making clicking noises at bad guys is relatively ineffective.

Both types of firearm are MUCH more effective if they're loaded (part of the manual of arms).

What is your point?

At the start of the fight the gun should already be loaded anyway.

Yeah, I guess I didn't get the point of that either.

Derry 1946
August 10, 2014, 12:33 PM
I've given a lot of thought to improving my readiness with the best available technology. Still, I've not found a package that beats the round butt Colt DS, for my purposes. It conceals easily in front pocket, IWB, jacket pocket, or (rarely) shoulder holster. It's heavier and less weather-resistant than my 642, but has one more round. Reloads are easy to carry with speed strips or speed loaders. It's extremely reliable with any ammo. All the auto loaders I've tested are harder to conceal and draw -- for me --because they are more angular. I'm also convinced that revolvers have significantly fewer failures than autos (a better click-to-bang ratio). Revolvers will become obsolete (for me) when they stop making .38 and .45 ammo. No disrespect to the many excellent autos out there, or their loyal users, and I try to remain open to additional evidence and the evolving marketplace of tools and knowledge.

Derry

Fiv3r
August 10, 2014, 01:02 PM
No.

Revolver: aim and pull the trigger.

Glock, M&P: aim and pull the trigger.

Self-loaders that require anything more is by the choice of the buyer, not because it is a self-loading pistol.
I didn't go into an overly complicated scenario because I didn't know that this had to be a binary debate.

Specifically, in my case, regarding my wife (or my mom, or my mother in law, or my brother in law) who is not a "gun person":
A revolver is much easier for her "figure out". As is personal preference, I don't keep a chambered striker fired gun in my house. Having a 4 year old, for me, means layers of security in case negligence on my part happens (i.e. I forget to close the door to my bedside safe with my HD pistol in it in the morning).
For my child's safety I prefer to have my pistols in condition 3. It would require her to access the pistol and manipulate the heavy slide. If some has made it into my house without the attack mutt going after them and them making it to me sleeping in my bed, then the 2 seconds it takes to chamber a round probably isn't going to make a lot of difference. Keep in mind, all of my carry guns are kept in condition 2 or 1 depending on what you consider having the hammer down with the safety off a traditional DA/SA pistol. What some may consider unnecessary precaution is due to the fact that the weapon is not on my person 100% of the time.

HOWEVER, when I am going out of town I leave a loaded DAO revolver in the safe, because my wife can shoot it well and it's simple. No slide to pull back, no light triggers to touch off, no confusion on what makes the pistol safe, no confusion on what releases the slide. On top of that, her hands are strong enough to handle the 12# trigger pull. My daughter can't manipulate the gun well enough to easily fire it.

For my needs, the revolver is easier for my wife to safely deploy as she really has no desire to learn about firearms beyond the most basic of point and shoot skills. It's the same reason I leave her the shotgun loaded and unchambered in a high up by accessible point over the Ar I usually keep there. She can work the action easily. She's rides the charge on the Ar too much. It's not a good fit for her comfort and skill level. Long story short, she fumbles with the controls on my pistols and can keep 5 rounds of .38 special in the kill zone at 10 yards out of a revolver.

TestPilot
August 10, 2014, 01:33 PM
I didn't go into an overly complicated scenario because I didn't know that this had to be a binary debate.

Specifically, in my case, regarding my wife (or my mom, or my mother in law, or my brother in law) who is not a "gun person":
A revolver is much easier for her "figure out". As is personal preference, I don't keep a chambered striker fired gun in my house. Having a 4 year old, for me, means layers of security in case negligence on my part happens (i.e. I forget to close the door to my bedside safe with my HD pistol in it in the morning).
For my child's safety I prefer to have my pistols in condition 3. It would require her to access the pistol and manipulate the heavy slide. If some has made it into my house without the attack mutt going after them and them making it to me sleeping in my bed, then the 2 seconds it takes to chamber a round probably isn't going to make a lot of difference. Keep in mind, all of my carry guns are kept in condition 2 or 1 depending on what you consider having the hammer down with the safety off a traditional DA/SA pistol. What some may consider unnecessary precaution is due to the fact that the weapon is not on my person 100% of the time.

HOWEVER, when I am going out of town I leave a loaded DAO revolver in the safe, because my wife can shoot it well and it's simple. No slide to pull back, no light triggers to touch off, no confusion on what makes the pistol safe, no confusion on what releases the slide. On top of that, her hands are strong enough to handle the 12# trigger pull. My daughter can't manipulate the gun well enough to easily fire it.

For my needs, the revolver is easier for my wife to safely deploy as she really has no desire to learn about firearms beyond the most basic of point and shoot skills. It's the same reason I leave her the shotgun loaded and unchambered in a high up by accessible point over the Ar I usually keep there. She can work the action easily. She's rides the charge on the Ar too much. It's not a good fit for her comfort and skill level. Long story short, she fumbles with the controls on my pistols and can keep 5 rounds of .38 special in the kill zone at 10 yards out of a revolver.

My criticism is not toward you prefering a revolver or a revolver working for you.

My criticism is about you using your specific scenario to make a generalized statement and present it as if it's a universal fact.

Some novices who are "not a gun person" do better with self-loaders, some do better with revolvers. Some complete novice might find self-loaders more hard to figure because they cannot see how the feeding mechanism works, but some novice might find revolves harder because the hit better with 5.5~6.5 lb DAO trigger than a 10+ lb ones.

You also cherry pick exapmples like having to manipulate a thumb lever to make the pistol fire when a large portion of self-loading pistols do not require it.

Also, it is you who made this "binary." You did not say revolvers are "easy." You said "easier." When you said "easier" I am pretty sure you did not mean "easier than a musket pistol."


It is not my intent to convince people to change preference.

However, I do find it important, from a constructive standpoint, to stop perpetuating myths. "Revolvers are easier than self-loaders" as a general rule is, as far as I am concerned, a myth.

If there are 100 adults with average intelligence without any knowledge of guns and give them an hour with both a revolver and a self-loader, not all of them will find revolver easier in all aspects. SImply "figuring" it by being able to see the cylinder with bullets rotating is one thing. How effective a shooter one is with having spent only an hour with each system is another matter.

Derry 1946
August 10, 2014, 03:36 PM
When I first got a CCP, I took my revolver to the range portion. Everyone else had autos. The instructor spent a while explaining what to do if you have FTF, FTE, stovepipe, field stripping, limp wristing, ammo finickiness, etc., saying at each step, well, this does not apply to revolvers. Then, to show how easy it is to operate an auto, he racked the slide, and a spring flew out. Just lost a c-ring, he said, no big deal, I know where to get more. I still get a chuckle out of that. I'd like to see a real, scientific study of the reliability of the various platforms. Anecdotally, I hear many more tales of kabooms and failures with autos than with revolvers. But we all know what that is worth, epistemologically.

BSA1
August 10, 2014, 04:19 PM
Without you setting and defining the criteria for "easier" it is merely your opinion and does not make Fiv3r's opinion any less valid than yours.

Gun Master
August 10, 2014, 04:27 PM
When I first got a CCP, I took my revolver to the range portion. Everyone else had autos. The instructor spent a while explaining what to do if you have FTF, FTE, stovepipe, field stripping, limp wristing, ammo finickiness, etc., saying at each step, well, this does not apply to revolvers. Then, to show how easy it is to operate an auto, he racked the slide, and a spring flew out. Just lost a c-ring, he said, no big deal, I know where to get more. I still get a chuckle out of that. I'd like to see a real, scientific study of the reliability of the various platforms. Anecdotally, I hear many more tales of kabooms and failures with autos than with revolvers. But we all know what that is worth, epistemologically.

Bravo, Derry !

"The Scottie" had it by the two dangling orbs.

Gun Master
August 10, 2014, 04:32 PM
Without you setting and defining the criteria for "easier" it is merely your opinion and does not make Fiv3r's opinion any less valid than yours.

Right on BSA1 !

I believe that's within the Moderator's bailiwick.

fastbolt
August 10, 2014, 04:41 PM
Every once in a while I see a new revolver shooter (meaning someone who has only owned or been trained to shoot semiauto pistols) either bring a revolver through a qual/training range, or express an interest in trying one.

It usually means there's a steeper learning curve involved before they can really start running the revolver. Sometimes it's the grip shape, sometimes the heavy DA/DAO trigger, and sometimes it's the lack of a magazine and having to open a cylinder and individually load charge holes.

Lots of folks who transitioned from revolvers to pistols, and then let their revolvers lay neglected in their safes for some years, may require a little bit of a refresher, but those skills seem to quickly return for many of them in short order.

As an instructor, I'd much rather transition a revolver shooter over to pistols than vice versa. ;)

Properly acquired and practiced DA revolver skills seem to often make for "better" all around handgun shooters.

As an armorer, I'd much rather have to detail disassemble & repair many different makes/models of pistols than a S&W DA revolver. :uhoh:

As a S&W revolver armorer, however, there are fewer repairs typically required under normal circumstances and conditions of usage, and fewer wearable parts to inspect and replace as preventive maintenance. Revolver springs, if of factory spec, tend to last a long time.

Owner/shooter neglect may adversely affect the optimal functioning of many types of pistols sooner than with revolvers.

Owner/shooter-induced stoppages related to grip issues seem more likely to occur with pistols than with revolvers. Things like improper slide manipulation, thumbing the slide, freedom of slide travel, etc.

Improper handling & manipulation can introduce problems regardless of whether it's a pistol or a revolver, though.

ugaarguy
August 10, 2014, 04:53 PM
We've beaten the revolver vs. semi-auto horse to death and back with this one. I think fastbolt has made an excellent post on which to close.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why have revolvers become passť ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!