What is the future of revolvers?

Jim Watson said:

As long as the Internet keeps advising small light revolvers for Wives and other non-enthusiasts, the revolver industry is safe.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. Small and light guns are hard to shoot and have more felt recoil. Putting one in the hands of an inexperience shooter is a great way to turn them off shooting entirely.

Ha ha. I don't think you are actually disagreeing with Jim.

Indeed, as long as folks keep telling the "lil' women" and other neophytes that the perfect gun for them is a hard to shoot and hard recoiling little lightweight J-frame, then there will probably be a market for wheel guns.

It isn't right and is certainly a stumbling block to their enthusiasm and success with shooting, but it is very common advice.

I think a replaceable cylinder carry a spare on your belt, hit the release, roll the used on out, put a new one in. If you carry 2 spares, you have 15 shots (double stack pistol capacity), and the reliability of a revolver. Seems this would be much faster for the average person than open, dump, reload, close.

And yes, I have seen Jerry Miculek reload, but he is an anomoly


d

Not sure the speed would be any better than with moon clips, and you sure would be slowed down by the fact that nobody'd be throwing a used CYLINDER on the ground, but rather would be carefully pocketing it.

I know that old cap&ball blackpowder revolvers were sometimes fitted with spare cylinders since loading one took so long, but being able to dump just your brass (and maybe a moon clip) seems better.

Sam1911 said:

Ha ha. I don't think you are actually disagreeing with Jim.

Indeed, as long as folks keep telling the "lil' women" and other neophytes that the perfect gun for them is a hard to shoot and hard recoiling little lightweight J-frame, then there will probably be a market for wheel guns.

It isn't right and is certainly a stumbling block to their enthusiasm and success with shooting, but it is very common advice.

Click to expand...

As a tangent on this issue, it seems to me that a small-but-heavy revolver is vastly superior suggestion for this demographic. I've shot an Airweight, an LCR, and an SP101, and the SP101 fits a small hand just as well but is infinitely more comfortable to shoot (and easier to shoot accurately). And particularly if we're talking purse carry instead of, say, ankle carry, the extra 10 oz doesn't seem like a big detriment.

OK, if the tiny bit of extra weight doesn't matter, try a S&W J frame (all steel) 3 " Chief Special model 36 square butt. You'll love it. I have one, and others are out there, although they're no longer made.

I have been encouraged by Ruger's LCR in a 3 ", and look forward to their expansion into further expansion of choices, especially caliber ( i.e., .327 Fed., 6 shot, 4 " , etc.) ?

Semi-auto magazines are consumable. Any revolver cylinder that is designed as a quik-swap cylinder will need to be the same. New materials can allow cylinders to be used X number of times and tossed. Also, a quik-swap cylinder doesn't have to have gear teeth; which would make its design simpler. I've always been the mindset that if it can be thought, it can be done at some point in time when technology catches up.

.
I first read the thread title as,

What is the allure of revolvers?

Click to expand...

And this is how I composed that reply:

Nostalgia, simplicity and one-handed operation if the other hand is out of commission.

I seem to be devoted solely to 1911-pattern pistols. I was born this way; I cannot help it. But a sweet little J-frame is calling my name, mostly to dispose of a metric ton of .38 in a big box over there.


As to the future of revolvers? They're here to stay.

I know it's probably heresy but since we're just speculating...could a striker firing pin set up replace the hammer in a revolver? If it could be made compact enough could it possibly reduce the overall length? There might be cost to manufacture benefits to it and possible trigger pull advantages as well. Just a thought. I'd also like to see Ruger or Smith take a swing at the Rhino concept.

I think underbarrel revolvers might catch on still. An underbarrel revolver is readily accomplished by merely rearranging conventional revolver parts. It doesn't need to be a luxury clockwork nightmare like the Rhino. Sooner or later, Taurus will release one, as they are the only manufacturer bold enough. If they get the price, design, and marketing right, it could sweep the market Judge style. Then, we might see a domestic response like the Governor.

Modular revolvers could see a resurgence. A Ruger style stub grip allows for a wide variety of grip shapes and sizes. Combine that with a modular barrel assembly, and things start to get real interesting. I'm picturing something resembling an LCRx that can be configured anywhere between a 10" silhouette pistol and the current snubbie. Or maybe even an underbarrel version of that.

Where is Jim March? I'm having visions of a 9mm semiauto belt-fed revolving carbine.

Well as some states become increasingly restrictive the revolver might find itself returning in popularity though with technological changes. I like revolvers. Almost all of my handguns are revolvers, but the revolver is old technology. I don't like it, but it's a fact. At best the revolver is probably on it's way to being a boutique handgun.

throwing a used CYLINDER on the ground, but rather would be carefully pocketing it.

Click to expand...

A traditional cylinder, sure. How about one w/o teeth and made from poly or metal/poly hybrid? I really need to win the Powerball so I can retire and buy myself a machine shop.

Ok...but what is the benefit of making semi-disposable (equivalent to auto magazines) revolver cylinders? Seems the market of folks looking for a revolver that worked like an auto would be small.

Sam1911 said:

Ha ha. I don't think you are actually disagreeing with Jim.

Indeed, as long as folks keep telling the "lil' women" and other neophytes that the perfect gun for them is a hard to shoot and hard recoiling little lightweight J-frame, then there will probably be a market for wheel guns.

It isn't right and is certainly a stumbling block to their enthusiasm and success with shooting, but it is very common advice.

Click to expand...

Condescension is unbecoming, especially from a Moderator of The High Road. You managed to insult quite a few lady shooters as well as a fine group of revolvers.

My missus shot another lady's J-Frame and liked it so I bought her one. I believe you painted with a brush too broad.

Good grief, how did you miss my point and my intent so widely?

I said, JH1 wasn't really disagreeing with Jim. That's because Jim was being a bit sarcastic in his statement. He was saying that as long as the wide-spread common knowledge spread over the internet is that men should buy their women little lightweight revolvers, the market will stay strong for revolvers like that. JH1 took that as if Jim was supporting that old POOR advice. And I understood that neither of them was in support of that old chestnut at all. JH1 took umbrage because he didn't catch Jim's meaning.

It is, after all, generally BAD advice. Give any smaller-framed new-to-shooting person a hard kicking lightweight gun with a stiff trigger and they're not going to have much fun with it, probably.

My use of the phrase "lil women" was entirely tongue-in-cheek as not only do I know lots of FANTASTIC female shooters, I was taught competitive smallbore shooting by one many years ago. You'll never find a lick of disrespect for women in my posts.

Thanks for the clarification.

Speed. Plugging 6 rounds into 6 chambers using a speedloader versus snapping 1 cylinder into 1 frame cradle. For someone right handed, I envision titling the gun left, hit a button, cylinder drops free, snap in new cylinder with left hand.

Probably wouldn't make a difference with Jerry Miculek but for mere mortals it will likely shorten reload time. I've been shooting revolvers since my early 20's and I still find speedloaders cumbersome, especially anything with more than 5 rounds.

I was thinking more along the lines of "if you're going to carry spare cylinders ... how many folks would still choose a revolver over an auto?"

A hot swap cylinder would be interesting. but a bit more bulky than a magazine, and prone to more issues with fit due to the nature of what a cylinder is in terms of the firearm. 6 individual chambers and 6 individual throats. there's enough variation with ammo the way it is. I would think it would magnify it.

However, with the aid of CNC machining it might indeed be possible to minimize variations, but still a fair bit more bulk than a magazine.

All factors being equal, I think revolvers have evolved into their full mature state. Only materials and manufacturing processes remain to be explored. The cartridges are mature, and still effective, with a plethora of variations and metallurgy available. The only variable left is physics, which cannot be ignored. There are sweet spots well explored and known between recoil, weight, and effectiveness.

indeed, in the case of some manufacturing methods now employed - their aesthetics may have already jumped the proverbial shark.

I have hardly seen any western type movies. I grew up watching movies and playing video games that primarily feature 20th century auto loading weapons, and the occasional futuristic or otherwise fictional weapon. Yet, I appreciate and own, even carry, revolvers. I dont think they are going anywhere any time soon.

I was thinking more along the lines of "if you're going to carry spare cylinders ... how many folks would still choose a revolver over an auto?"

Click to expand...

Maybe the dinosaurs who still carry 5-Shot J-Frames?

but a bit more bulky than a magazine, and prone to more issues with fit due to the nature of what a cylinder is in terms of the firearm.

Click to expand...

Not if it doesn't have teeth. The cradle would have the teeth for the hand & cylinder stop. Anyway, it's just ideas...I lack the hands on design experience. I'm nothing but a glorified paper pusher in real life.

I own "many different revolvers", as well as "many different semi's", all in a variety of calibers/mm's, sizes, shapes, lengths, and all for different functions and occasions.

I can't imagine voluntarily surrendering any of these.

IMHO, the revolver (and semi) will be around for a great while, beyond my tenure on earth. I favor new ideas being explored and invented for all guns, including revolvers.

Well I'm hoping they stick around for the next 30 years while I'm here. The only handgun on my shopping list is a Ruger LCR for those up close and personal situations. Backup gun.

For the foreseeable future I will continue concealed carry with my 4" S&W M66 K-frame and two moonclips as backup. Great for reaching out and touching baddies at a distance and, though I'm nowhere near Jerry on reloads, I have done better than 1/3 of the semi-auto shooters in local matches.

I tried an M&P Shield in 9 mm in order to try out three dot sights and that just convinced me all over again I don't want to deal with a bottom feeder.

Practice, practice, practice.

You can get 12 rounds of .327 into a cylinder of 2.04" diameter. If you are going to sell revolvers to millennials who think a carry piece should have enough ammo for an extended firefight, you had better start thinking along those lines.