Anyone Know How Many Moving Parts?

[florida1098]

Just wondering if anybody knows how many moving parts there are on a revolver. I imagine Ruger, Smith, Taurus, Dan Wesson, etc etc all have varying amounts of different parts and springs.
So for the thread's sake, Does anybody knoe how many moving parts there are on a Smith 642. Which parts that move like springs, sears, hammer pins, main spring, etc, etc could possibly fail. How does that compare to a semi auto Glock?
Thanks

 

[rcmodel]

No, but you can count them if you want too and let us know.

Schematics for most common revolvers & autos.

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/schematics/SchemMFG.aspx


BTW: What can "possibly" fail, and what actually does fail are not the same thing at all.

Unlike any semi-auto, no spring in a modern revolver is stressed until you pull the trigger. And they don't get beat to death like auto pistol mag and recoil springs. It is not at all uncommon to see 100 year old well-used revolvers with the original springs in them still working perfectly.

rc

 

[Hawk]

I'll offer that, on average, a revolver has more moving parts than a semi if you promise not to turn it into a "versus" thread.

I counted some once but found it to be mostly of academic interest. The pre-MIM S&W hammers and triggers were pretty well festooned with pins - never considered these to be moving parts though they are in parts which move. Rather interesting how they jettisoned a pin or two in the MIM hammer though 8 out of 10 forum participants would prefer the part with the pins.

I always liked the way Ruger got rid of screws although, on my "six" series, they managed to get rid of one stationary plate and three screws in exchange for two moving parts - a spring and a plunger. That's probably "break-even" to an engineering type.

I'm intimidated by Python diagrams and lose count after I subtract the quantity associated with the adjustable sight.

Having side-by-side schematics was handy back in the day when there were folks that had, shall we say, "intuited" that revolvers had less parts and should therefore cost less but their numbers have dwindled and I now seldom have use for such diagrams.

 

[jad0110]

I'll offer that, on average, a revolver has more moving parts than a semi if you promise not to turn it into a "versus" thread.

I believe this is correct.

Any part, moving or otherwise, can break. But keep in mind # of moving parts alone does not determine reliability (cars today are more complex than ever, but will easily last 200k miles with proper maintenance). The quality of the materials, workmanship, etc are all factors.

 

[Jim K]

Just counting parts, without regard to whether they move or not, a glance at the GPC diagrams shows an S&W fixed sight at 66 parts, an old type Colt DA at 42, a Ruger 101 fixed sight at 60, and a new type Colt Det. Special at 35. That includes frame and such parts as grips and grip screws.

Note that within reason the number of parts does not relate to either ease of maintenance or reliability/durability. The old Colt had few parts, but their interrelationship resulted in a complexity that confuses gunsmiths to this day. An S&W has more parts, but each part performs one function, making problem diagnosis and correction easier.

Jim

 

[MrBorland]

I just went through Sylvan-Forge's link (below) showing the disassembly of a model 10, and I came up with 28 moving parts. Please don't make me list them.

I Googled "1911 exploded view", and saw 48 parts listed. My uneducated eye saw a fair number of obvious non-moving parts, including a multitude of pins (that would undoubtedly end up under the refrigerator in my house). Take these away, and looks to me like a Model 10 and a 1911 might be roughly similar. Whoodathunk?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=397027

http://www.okiegunsmithshop.com/Colt1911Gov.jpg

 

[Hawk]

Likely so.

Back in the day when I thrived on "versus" threads, I'd post Python schematics opposite Glock.

I'll stick with the "on average" and assume that pins aren't moving parts. I once cracked the grip on my P7 and shrank from the sight roughly the same as when I opened my Python - neither looked like fun.

What baffled me were the "revolvers are simpler and have fewer parts" that sometimes showed up in the "love" and "versus" threads - these were great fun to dismantle but I felt strangely unfulfilled - revolvers typically have a few more parts but I've given up on refuting the claim of "simpler" - just doesn't seem to matter much.

I'm in an uncharacteristic kumbaya mood - must be that I'm moving to Florida over the weekend.


It'll probably pass and when it does I'll be back to pointing out that the average revolver has more parts than the average semi. Exceptions certainly exist in abundance.

 

[florida1098]

The reason I brought this up was I was fingerprinting an individual applying for her CCW in Florida. She informed me she was going to purchase a revolver because her friend advised her revolvers had hundreds of less moving parts than a semi-pistol. I think a revolver for her is probably a great decision, I simply began thinking though of how many moving parts each type of gun had that could wear out. Also, even though a part moves, that does not make it a likely candidate to wear out and break. I was just trying to compare actual parts on revolver vs. semi that can break, for discussion reasons.
RCMODEL, I am sorry to have bothered you, I obviously asked something ignorant and got the correct response from you, ( to count them on my own) I hope to never bother you again. I was just trying to have an intelligent discussion here. Obviously this is not the place. I would also add I never beat the death out of my mag's and recoil springs. I use them as intended, nothing more or less. You won't have to worry about me asking questions that obviously are a waste of your time anymore. From now on I will get the schematics on everything first and that will be the final say.

 

[florida1098]

To anyone reading my above post . I was just trying to have a discussion that might have been interesting compared to the "which gun is best?" threads.
What bothers me about RC's reply is simply, imagine you came up to me in my patrol car and asked directions for lets say Miami Beach. If I handed you a map and told you I don't know but when you find it on the map let me know, that would be rude and probably unacceptable to you. It was pretty much the same response I got, that's all
To all, be safe

 

[Hawk]

The reason I brought this up was I was fingerprinting an individual applying for her CCW in Florida. She informed me she was going to purchase a revolver because her friend advised her revolvers had hundreds of less moving parts than a semi-pistol.

There's really no cure for idiocy and, for the most part, it's harmless.

I'm pretty much with RC - it's easy stuff to find. In fact I've found it and plowed into any number of versus threads where folks had mis-intuited the parts counts between the two platforms.

I'm largely cured of "versus" threads and sympathize with those that find them tiresome.

RC provided a link where the schematics could be found which, I submit, would be more effective with the individual you reference than simply stating "random internet posters at THR say your friend is FoS". It's always more effective to verify these things for oneself and that would presumably include your friend.

An example of me in the dark times:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2962472&postcount=42

Nothing worse than a couple of schematics after someone has posted that they prefer machines with the fewest moving parts possible (in a revolver love thread).

Still, your friend would benefit from personal debunking - it "takes" better than simply accepting an alternative opinion - it's probably past time she was forming her own.

IMHO.

 

[Hawk]

To anyone reading my above post . I was just trying to have a discussion that might have been interesting compared to the "which gun is best?" threads.
What bothers me about RC's reply is simply, imagine you came up to me in my patrol car and asked directions for lets say Miami Beach. If I handed you a map and told you I don't know but when you find it on the map let me know, that would be rude and probably unacceptable to you. It was pretty much the same response I got, that's all
To all, be safe

We're cross-posting because I don't type all that fast.

It's not the same thing.

If someone walked up to your patrol car in Miami and told you Orlando was due South it'd be closer to an analogy. Debunking a false premise is best assigned to the holder of the bogus opinion.

I suppose you could tell her that Orlando was due North but then what happens when she tells you her friend said it was South of Key Largo? You can get in the mud, remotely, with her ill-informed friend or hand her the map.

Differing personal outlooks, no doubt. No harm.