Question for Die-Hard Revolver Fans

If not on this forum but certainly on others,
I've stated that the Models 27/28 are guns
for Bozos. And I so stated years and years
ago. So does that mean you agree
with me?

However, your comment on the Python
methinks is tied to only one thing, the
cylinder release. That's. pure doodle
mush on your part. In time you will
learn better. Or not. :neener:

My objections are:

The 27/28 should be an 8-shooter, six shots of 357 mag on an N-frame is silly (setting historic significance aside). And they are over priced.

Pythons are savagely overpriced for what they are... And the cylinder release goes the wrong way.

The whole dang cylinder turns backward....

Of course maybe Colt patented his pistol before smith though. Idk. Needs research .

I'm curious. Please explain.

Probably because the N frame is a big heavy frame for 6 rounds of 357 mag when the smaller lighter L frame handles 357 indefinitely and holds 7 to boot. No reason for the weight/size of the N frame, especially if your only cutting 6 holes in the much larger cylinder

But I'm no revolver expert on Smith guns. I just hunt with them
 
The whole dang cylinder turns backward....
In the event of a close encounter where the perp grabs your revolver effectively preventing the cylinder from turning, you may have a chance if you give a sharp twist while pulling the trigger. Which cylinder rotation is better for that? It would have to be an inward twist as that is a much more powerful twist than an outward twist. Further if one has guns of both directional turn, they better only carry one kind. I think it is more natural to twist inward so that is likely the twist that will happen in an intense situation, so that makes the S&W better for lefties and the Colt better for righties? Just wondering. I am a rightie and carry a S&W so....
 
Last edited:
We all know WHEEL GUNS ARE REAL GUNS, but the most fascinating semi to me is the Wlather PPK & PPK/s. Here my 30+ year carry gun, now retired.


index.php
 
I'm curious. Please explain.

Without going through all the history. The model 27/28 was originally built on what would become known as the N-frame (evolved from the 44 Special triple lock). This was done because at the time with the material commonly available they needed the larger size frame and cylinder to with stand the stresses the high pressures of the new 357 Magnum cartridge produced. Since the Model 27's introduction back in 1935 metallurgy has advance quiet a bit, especially during WWII and the availability of higher strength alloy increased even as the costs went down. Making a long story short with the stronger materials we got the much smaller K-frames in 357 Magnum with 6-shots. They proved good but with a weakness in their forcing cone that got exploited when shooting light weight and hot 357 Mag ammo. So to address that weakens we got the L-frame that solved that minor problem. A while after the L-frame introduction they figure out that you could put 7-rds of 357 Magnum in the larger L-frame and not compromise its strength. They then returned to the N-frame and realized that if you moved the barrel and firing pin up in the frame ~.035 inches you could get 8-round of 357 Magnum in the N-frame, again without compromising its strength or safety. So to sum up with modern materials a revolver in 357 magnum should be IMHO:
J-frame = 5-shooter (and a mean little revolver at that)
K-frame = 6-shooter (and the newest K-frames have address the forcing cone issue)
L-frame = 7-shooter
N-frame = 8-shooter

ETA: looking a bit more I am not sure which came first the 686-plus or the 627. The both appear in the mid/early 1990s. The 686-plus might have come after the 627 not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
51926837294_2e14605b51_c.jpg

The 3.5" Model 27 is still the best looking, meanest, most business-like looking revolver to ever come along, whether it has 6 or 60 shots. :neener:

Other than the Royal Blue finish, Pythons look clunky and awkward, with a useless vent-rib that requires additional cleaning...no thanks.
 
View attachment 1118769

The 3.5" Model 27 is still the best looking, meanest, most business-like looking revolver to ever come along, whether it has 6 or 60 shots. :neener:

Other than the Royal Blue finish, Pythons look clunky and awkward, with a useless vent-rib that requires additional cleaning...no thanks.

Would a 4” Model 28 Highway Patrolman get close enough?

99764B42-54E0-407F-BF7C-2AA20A4EFA01.jpeg
 
Something hammer fired with a DAO trigger. Sadly, almost none are in production.
 
Revolvers lack all that engineering.
Bill Ruger would disagree. As would most custom gunsmiths. Do you know how difficult it is to get six or more different chambers, contained in a totally separate contraption from the barrel, to all shoot to within fractions of an inch to each other? The modern semi-auto is a very simple device.


No reason for the weight/size of the N frame, especially if your only cutting 6 holes in the much larger cylinder
A 4" 586 weighs 41.3oz. My 4" Highway Patrolman weighs 42oz. A 6" 586 weighs 46.3oz. My 6" model 27 weighs 46oz. The weight is virtually the same, it's just in a different place.
 
Last edited:
Everybody knows I'm a certifiable revolver nut but I also like a little bit of everything. I have a weakness for 1911's, which is probably predictable.

IMG_5566b.jpg

I also like Berettas.

Beretta%2092qus%2001.jpg

IMG_5457b.jpg

And about 15yrs ago I jumped the Glock ship in favor of the XD.

4051E2D2-2A4E-44F7-BEBD-D9ACA082A51C.jpg

XD%2001.jpg

IMG_0631.jpg

Only to come full circle with more Glocks.

001_1.jpg

I love a good .22 auto.

IMG_7227b.jpg

001.jpg

And sometimes go for something silly. Probably too much Chuck Norris as a kid.

4B7E7BA1-365F-41DB-9658-09BE5A034110.jpg
 
Striker fired plastic pistols …

I purchased my first polymer pistol in 1997 a …Ruger P95 … The first striker fired was a HS2000 .. probably in 2002 ..other than a few P90s and 1911’s a few others , my pistols have been polymer and most striker … alot of Glocks .. XD’s and now Taurus since they have gotten it together ..
 
This is in no way an attempt to denigrate revolvers. I, for one, love and prefer revolvers (both SA and DA). But I am curious what semi-auto pistol is there, if any, that you find as fascinating as a revolver. For me, its the 1911. Ever since I bought my 1911 I can't stop playing with it and shooting with it every time I get a chance to go to the range (4 trips and 500 rounds since I purchased it 6 weeks ago and planning to run another 100 next Monday). I am curious to hear what semi-autos you die-hard revolver fans really appreciate.

The ergonomically-shaped grips of the Browning Hi-Power and the newer Walther automatics fit my hand as if they were designed for me personally. Lord only knows how many rounds I've put through my Hi-Power (thousands). It rattles if you shake it, nevertheless it still shoots like a dream. I can hit 20-ounce Gator-Aide / Power-Aid / whatever bottles with it at 40-50 yards. These bottles are great size to shoot when filled with water and frozen -- ice explosions are fun. I've had it for decades and now my fingerprints are permanently recorded on the Parkerized finish on the front of the grips -- Shroud of Turin-ish looking, except just the middle of my fingers. Human skin is acid and salty -- that auto of mine proves it.:D

The following Walther is a .22 I think, but their 9mm handguns look the same. I don't own either. It's just that when I pick up a new Walther auto, it always fits my hand perfectly. Some come with various grip shapes to make sure it will fit your hand.

upload_2022-12-4_22-6-38.png
 
I can answer this, but with a bit of a twist as it's not just for semi autos, but all the handguns in general and it's Russian/Soviet handguns. The Nagant, Tokarev, Makarov, and PSM pistols are all interesting guns all from the same country. The Nagant for obvious reasons, the Tokarev is just a 1911 that Fedor copied and altered as he thought of ways to modify it to make is easier and cheaper to manufacture and I think the 7.62x25 is an underrated pistol caliber that is quite practical for field use, the Makarov is one of the early DA/SA semi autos to be issued in a military, and the PSM is a bottleneck .22 that zips thru soft armor in a pistol the size of an LCP.
 
...and the PSM is a bottleneck .22 that zips thru soft armor in a pistol the size of an LCP.
I wasn't familiar with this one, so looked it up. While it's 5.45mm spitzer bullets will penetrate a vest at close range, it's still considered pretty weak, a .25acp was possibly more powerful. Interesting little gun though.


1287754917.jpg

PSM pistol, presentation model





Caliber 5,45×18 mm
Overall length 155 mm
Barrel length 85 mm
Weight: 460 g empty


 
Last edited:
Bill Ruger would disagree. As would most custom gunsmiths. Do you know how difficult it is to get six or more different chambers, contained in a totally separate contraption from the barrel, to all shoot to within fractions of an inch to each other? The modern semi-auto is a very simple device.



A 4" 586 weighs 41.3oz. My 4" Highway Patrolman weighs 42oz. A 6" 586 weighs 46.3oz. My 6" model 27 weighs 46oz. The weight is virtually the same, it's just in a different place.

I didn't know on the weights. My n frames are bigger hunting guns. My only 686 is a snub. 44/45 and up is my niche. You have forgot more about revolvers than I will know im sure. I know your an accomplished revolver shooter. Ive hunted with handguns for 20 years. Enjoy reading your work.

But Building a fine 1911, precision model 700 rifle, or setting ring gap or bearing clearance to spec on a race 350 Aren't considered engineering either. . The engineering on the model 29 or redhawk or SAA (or small block) was finished many years ago. But aligning the cylinders is still difficult today because it's a manufacturing issue. Not engineering. Ive been involved and around the engineering and manufacture of everything from new threads for BDU to aircraft engine parts to EV, automatic vacuums and automation robotics. The engineer tells you how the first one work and sets specs. Manufacturing has to make it do so. At times Ive been the builder, ive been manager of 50 people doing the work, and ive been the Engineer at times as well.

With semi automatics we still see a lot of engineering. Different locking designs. Different trigger/ transfer bar/ safety designs. With revolvers (excluding the rhino) we rarely even see a tweak.

I still say the revolver was easier to engineer. No dwell times to consider, no waiting for pressure to drop to unlock the barrel etc. The manufacture is harder.
 
Beretta PX4. Just about everything else out there is a variant of Browning’s tilt-locking design. There’s a used one for sale at the LGS I’ve got my eye on

Ruger Mk. II is close. I just think it’s so elegant, with its tubular receiver that stays fixed with the barrel, and only the slide moves.

The P08 Luger, with it toggle lock, is right up there too.
 
Beretta PX4. Just about everything else out there is a variant of Browning’s tilt-locking design. There’s a used one for sale at the LGS I’ve got my eye on

Ruger Mk. II is close. I just think it’s so elegant, with its tubular receiver that stays fixed with the barrel, and only the slide moves.

The P08 Luger, with it toggle lock, is right up there too.

The list of different locking systems is longer ...

Walther-P38.jpg
HK-P7-M13-89641.jpg
IMG_1642.jpg
IMG_8709.jpg
... and this is just from my humble armory.
 
Beretta PX4. Just about everything else out there is a variant of Browning’s tilt-locking design. There’s a used one for sale at the LGS I’ve got my eye on

Ruger Mk. II is close. I just think it’s so elegant, with its tubular receiver that stays fixed with the barrel, and only the slide moves.

The P08 Luger, with it toggle lock, is right up there too.

You have so many though. The simple Glock etc design. The Beretta 92/97 wings on the locking block. The dessert eagle. The Luger. The px4 is unique as you mentioned. The 1911 and hi-power lockup is different with the slide being recessed and the barrel bushing on the 1911. Some use a toggle link from 1911 to some Ruger p series..some of those used a pin through the RSA and no link. Some like CZ used a horizontal pin and a groove but no actual swinging toggle (cz 75 ish) . 0 rings Have been used to help. Cz52 and its roller locking. Etc etc etc. Still new ones being designed. Why? Idk. The simple Glock/ HK/Sig etc variant with few moving parts gets my vote.

Other than the rhino, Mateba, maybe the nagant, very little has been done with the revolver since the early DA other than getting bigger, better metal, moving the bolt lug offset to the holes, using coil vs leaf springs and vice versa. The action was pretty much engineered after Bill Ruger and Sefried (from high standard) in 79 and he was largely just tweaking/ borrowing (many would say copying ) old designs. His big advantage was more in manufacturing genius, not engineering. The biggest news we get in revolvers is when colt adds a removable front sight or Ruger and Smith add 4 new holes in a 22 cylinder or use gain twist rifling.

The early engineers who designed and made them from scratch still amaze me. Hand cutting and fitting every piece, test firing... etc.
 
Last edited:
I have to come back to the "Luger" that was mentioned several times here. That gun is properly called the Parabellum pistol and associated with Germany but that is not entirely correct. The toggle system goes back to the Volcanic pistol and was then later used in the Henry rifles, on top of that Hugo Borchardt who had every bit as much to do with the development of the Parabellum, had emigrated to the U.S. with his family at age 16, making the parents of the Parabellum as much American as German.

As to the revolver evolution, it is a grave mistake to overlook Willi Korth's design, which completely differs from S&W and Colt. The MR73 is incorporating design features the S&W and also the Korth but looking at a High Standard Sentinel it is clear that Weihrauch picked up that design for the HW Arminius revolver line.

Despite the fact, that this is the revolver section of the forum, I want to share one more photo of a pistol with masterfully executed craftsmanship, the Swiss Sphinx. In my safe this does not look shabby right next to the finest revolvers I own and on the range, it can also hold its place!

IMG-3816.jpg
 
Back
Top