Are Revolvers inferior to a Glock?

[jad0110]

When a wheel gun can take this and keep rockin get back to me.

LOL!

You do know that us wheel gun guys think these kinda things, these torture tests, are totally retarded, right? We aren't in the habit of dunking our guns in wet baby powder, dropping them out of airplanes or running them over with bulldozers. So these sorts of tests are rather irrelevant in my book, and rather silly.

OTH, refer back to my earlier post. Hold a Glock or Springer XD at a less than perfect angle with a limp forearm and fire off a shot. I've done this, and found that there is at least a 50/50 chance of a FTE with each shot fired. I think this is a much more realistic test than seeing if the gun can survive the blast of a 500 IED. Kind of ironic actually, a gun that can still fire after getting run over and thrown out of a plane can still function, but hold it improperly and it has crap outs.

BTW, I'm really not knocking autos. I'm just pointing out that like revolvers, or any tool, they are not without their weaknesses.

 

[X-Rap]

fatcat makes a pretty good point

 

[fatcat4620]

Jab0110, anyone can make a gun not work if you try. This is about how long a gun can last and when the stuff hits the blades we all know glock has it won. I dont see how this could be about how long a gun could sit in a box never touched since our grandkids would be long gone before you could find out.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Although I have a bunch of semi-automatic pistols, I am a die hard revolver man. So of course I am biased towards revolvers, both Single Action and Double Action.

I collect Smith & Wesson revolvers, I have lost count of how many I own, well over two dozen at this point, probably closer to three dozen. My oldest Smith was made in 1870, and I have at least one from every decade since then.

I read with interest the comments about cracked forcing cones, peened bolt stops, and loose cylinders. I can honestly say that I have never bought a Smith that was unshootable. The only one I own that had a stretched frame is a Double Action 44 made in 1881, that was shot loose by too many Smokeless loads. Other than that, every single one of my Smiths is completely shootable. They vary from my pristine Model 27 to some well worn and well shot K frames, and several Top Break pocket pistols. Many of my Smiths are ex-police guns. Just yesterday I took my latest acquisition, a Military and Police from the early 1930s, to the range for the first time. Despite some slight peening on the cylinder stops it performed just as well as all of my other Smiths. Flawlessly. My oldest M&P was made in 1908, over 100 years ago, and it too performs flawlessly today. I doubt if any of these guns had any special care, they were just typical S&W products, carried daily and shot regularly.

I agree with those who say buy a quality revolver, and it will last for more than a lifetime.

Regarding a revolver being simpler inside than a semi-auto, this photo speaks for itself.

 

[Sam1911]

I read with interest the comments about cracked forcing cones, peened bolt stops, and loose cylinders. I can honestly say that I have never bought a Smith that was unshootable.

Certainly true, and common enough. Most handguns -- nearly ALL handguns, in truth -- are hardly fired enough in their owners' lifetimes to "break them in" so to speak. If such a thing was possible to actually know, I'd wager that 90% of firearms owned by law enforcement or private citizens never see 10,000 rounds -- a number any quality sidearm should handle without issue.

The point does still stand, though, that a revolver is more susceptible to the ravages of high-round-count than modern autos like the Glock. So, if your metric of "inferior/superior" is based on high round count, the auto pulls ahead.

As others have pointed out, maybe a valuable metric might be shear longevity of materials -- the "sitting on a shelf for a century" test, as it were. While we don't know for sure, many of us suspect that even the polymers used in a Glock will age in negative ways given several generations of time passing. So maybe the steel revolver will last longer. But then, who buys a gun with the honest expectation that anyone they know or care about will still be using it 150 years from now? That's an odd way to measure quality.

Others have tests of "inferiority/superiority" which measure completely separate factors. Good factors, too, like how well they shoot one gun vs. another -- or how it makes them "feel" to hold it and gaze at it.

Kind of hard to make any case for either one when none of us are answering exactly the same question.

 

[2ifbyC]

This thread is insightful, albeit amusing, since it brings out the complexity of the question (inferiority) vis-à-vis the opinion of the poster as he narrows the framework to respond. Everything from lost brass, bullet type, caliber, plane dropping, ease of maintenance, carry weight, lack of maintenance, tenure, P+ loads, personal gunsmithing, reliability, rust, cartridge capacity, shooting skill, ad nauseam, has been covered.

And the winner is? Whatever you are most comfortable with and makes you enjoy the sport of shooting.

 

[jad0110]

Jab0110, anyone can make a gun not work if you try. This is about how long a gun can last and when the stuff hits the blades we all know glock has it won.

For the record, it took very, very little effort to induce the stove pipe failures. I guess I have a knack for it.

As for the Glock winning, winning what? I agree that Glock will likely make it 100,000 rounds with fewer repair expenses than a revolver, typically. Then again, I don't plan to shoot 1,000s of rounds during a fight, God forbid I'm ever involved in one. And wear issues due to high round counts in revolvers usually occur over time, and are quite detectable. I do inspect mine frequently, though I have so many revolvers that my round count gets spread out among them so much so that I doubt anything other than my .22s will see such high round counts in my lifetime.

Can my revolvers still break unexpectedly? Absolutely. Can a Glock break? Same deal, absolutely. For the record, I have experienced more failures with autos (not counting the intentionally induced failures), with the most severe gun stopping crap out also happening with an auto (for the record, a Taurus 908 9mm). So naturally, I am more at ease with my trusty wheel guns.

BTW, I can't hit jack crap with a Glock, the thing feels friggin terrible in my hands. It's a great gun, for sure, but it is not a winner for me. I can manage slightly better, more consistent accurace with a J Frame S&W than a full sized Glock, to say nothing of K, L and N frames. Yes, I'm definitly the exception there, but it is what it is.

In the end, the best point so far is ...

And the winner is? Whatever you are most comfortable with and makes you enjoy the sport of shooting

 

[420Stainless]

Posted by Sam1911

The point does still stand, though, that a revolver is more susceptible to the ravages of high-round-count than modern autos like the Glock. So, if your metric of "inferior/superior" is based on high round count, the auto pulls ahead.

I'm inclined to agree that this statement is likely to be true (based upon intuition - not actual use on my part), particularly in the case of a 9mm Glock. However, I still don't think that round count beyond a certain point is of much merit to an individual gun owner and would only be meaningful if stocking an armory. An individual who loves to shoot that much will likely want to move with technology and will almost certainly be changing and upgrading equipment. Even many groups such as law enforcement agencies will switch their equipment out long before many see the wear out point. Some military training centers might not though.

 

[Sam1911]

However, I still don't think that round count beyond a certain point is of much merit to an individual gun owner

Well, it sure depends on which gun owner. A competitive shooter may put 10,000 a year through a competition gun just shooting casually. I know one staff member here who would hit 100,000 rounds in a little over three years with his current rate of practice and match shooting.

An individual who loves to shoot that much will likely want to move with technology and will almost certainly be changing and upgrading equipment.

Ahhh, but if you're a revolver shooter, there's not much new technology out there! But many competition shooters do have a stable full of guns that they use in different disciplines, and some shift their focus each year or two and so spread out the "damage."

Even many groups such as law enforcement agencies will switch their equipment out long before many see the wear out point.

Certainly many of us have been the recipients of good gun bargains, based on the common law-enforcement policy of "carried a lot, shot a little."

 

[TennJed]

QUICK ANSWER:

There is an episode of the First 48 in which two drug dealers get into a shootout in a hotel in Texas. One dealer had a large caliber revolver either a 357 or .44 I cant remember which...the other guy had a 9mm.

The prelim investigation revealed that the drug dealer with the revolver ran out of rounds after his 6th and last shot and was killed by the other shooter with the 9mm.

It really is your personal preference. But common sense will tell you that more bullets in your gun is better in the chance that you get into a shoot out.

People make comments like real man carries a revolver ect...

Your tombstone will read, "Here lies a real man."

I would suggest skipping the First 48 reruns and practice shooting some. Accuracy would have helped either of the gentlemen more than number of rounds.

If you lose a gunfight because you ran out of rounds your tombstone should read.

"Here lies a bad shot"

 

[76shuvlinoff]

If you lose a gunfight because you ran out of rounds your tombstone should read.

"Here lies a bad shot"

I don't have a dog in this fight but I gotta admit I like that.

 

[fatcat4620]

jad, so you base all of your auto experienced off of a taurus?

 

[DWFan]

You select a Glock as the representative of semi-auto durability.
I counter with the Manurhin MR 73....
Each chamber is proof fired with ammunition developing double the CIP standard (46,400 psi) maximum allowable pressure of the .357 Magnum cartridge. During durability testing, the testing was abandoned after 170,000 full power Norma .357 were shot. So, the real lifetime of this revolver is not known. Pistols not achieving a sub one inch group at 25M are not permitted to leave the factory. It is the only .357 Magnum revolver that can safely handle the same ultra pressure .357 Magnum loads used in the Freedom Arms 353.
Even if the Glock can match the durability, (and that's doubtful if both are limited to current 35 kpsi SAAMI loads since the Manurhin required NO parts replacement for those 170,000 46 kpsi rounds),it can't come close to the accuracy and power the Manurhin is capable of harnessing.
In the real world for the majority of the handguns available, it's the maintenance of the weapon that determines it's longevity.

 

[fatcat4620]

DW where can I purchase one of these fine revolvers NIB for testing?

 

[Frank V]

Are revolvers inferior to a Glock? Well they are different, I don't think inferior or superior. Different, both will serve for defense & hunting though revolvers can be had in more powerful ctgs.

Now will they last as long??? I think so, I've seen Colt Single Actions made in the early part of the 1900s that still function just fine. Are they as durable? Well I'll bet almost no one used a handgun harder & with less maintenance than the U.S. Calvary in the early 1870s.
I'll bet some DA revolvers would last just as long, look at the Colt & S&W 1917s in .45ACP. They went through WW1 & WW2 & there are a lot of them still working just fine.

Better? Better for different purposes, but can we say catigorily better overall for either the Glock or a revolver? I don't think so.

Now don't think I don't like the Glock. I was issued a G22 & carried it on duty for a number of years before I retired. I also helped teach firearms at our dept. & I still carry a Glock when I go into the big cities where predators tend to run in packs. I got to like it so well that before I retired I bought my own at the LE discount for when I retired. When I'm in the hills, I carry a revolver that is more powerful as we have Grizzlys here.

I LIKE THEM BOTH!
Thanks.
Frank

 

[JohnBT]

"Did the military switch to the high capacity M-9 from the revolver and/or 1911 because of the same problems in accuracy and reloads?"

Politics. NATO politics. Of course Beretta had to build a plant in the U.S...

Military handguns have always been an afterthought to the primary weapons.

 

[JohnBT]

" This is about how long a gun can last and when the stuff hits the blades we all know glock has it won."

The Glock is too new to be able to say how long it will last. Who is to say if the polymer will degrade after 50 or 100 years of exposure to acid rain, UV light, ozone or even the constant microwave bombardment we're all exposed to day in and day out. The first Glock isn't but what, 25 or 30 years old. That's not old.

And you want to declare it proven? :banghead:

 

[Sam1911]

The first Glock isn't but what, 25 or 30 years old. That's not old.

And you want to declare it proven?

Uh...YEAH. I'd say that's "proven."

This is a service weapon. Most departments and agencies replace all their firearms three times in that amount of time. We don't really know just how long the polymers Glock uses will last, but we can without any question say, "plenty long enough."

Like I said before:

...maybe a valuable metric might be shear longevity of materials -- the "sitting on a shelf for a century" test, as it were. While we don't know for sure, many of us suspect that even the polymers used in a Glock will age in negative ways given several generations of time passing. So maybe the steel revolver will last longer. But then, who buys a gun with the honest expectation that anyone they know or care about will still be using it 150 years from now? That's an odd way to measure quality.

So we only know for sure that a Glock will still be functional in 35 years or so. But we can extrapolate that there seems to be no reason to assume that it will suddenly fail in another 10. Maybe another 20 years? Maybe?

So what if it only lasts 50 measly years? Did it "prove" itself by running however hundreds of thousands of rounds over the course of 5 decades?

What else in life work that well, for that long? How's that TV doing that you bought in 1962?

 

[CraigC]

Firearms are the very rare consumer product, in that folks expect them to last forever yet want to pay as little as possible for them.

How many here have ever actually worn a good gun out? Rest assured, if you ever manage to wear one out, you will have surely gotten your money's worth. Though I think it may be safe to say that old revolvers get rebuilt. Some folks actually make a living out of making 150yr old revolvers like new again. Old Glocks will get recycled.

 

[fatcat4620]

So how long can the revolver last before it has to be rebuilt or have the timing corrected?

 

[Sam1911]

So how long can the revolver last before it has to be rebuilt or have the timing corrected?

Well, DWFan mentioned a very expensive and unusual French revolver that was tested to 170,000 rounds and hadn't failed by then.

Another member is mad at Ruger because they won't repair his GP100 (a revolver commonly believed to be tank-tread tough) because it was too worn out after "25-50,000" rds. of target ammo.

Some revolvers won't last that long.

So it's kind of hard to say.

 

[RationalGun]

Which one has less moving parts? Which one one is harder to replace parts on and work on? Which one is the police and military using (Delta and SF use GLocks)?

 

[LTR shooter]

which would you want if they quit making sidearms tomorrow?

Easy - another revolver.

I never have chosen any firearm based on supposed longevity. I choose guns that I enjoy shooting. In this regard Glocks hold no appeal to me in the least. I could care less if Glocks can be dropped from Earth orbit and still remain intact upon impact and ready to fire. Or if they have gone a million rounds.

Shooting a nice Smith/Colt/Ruger revolver is something I look forward to. I can shoot loads that far exceed any power level you can achieve from Glock or loads so mild that a Glock would not even function. And with great accuracy. For me the revolver is far and away superior.

 

[horsearcherwannabe]

Easy answer for me. Put a pissed off large bear and you in the sme place at the same time. Now which pistol do you want? A dead reliable ruger 44 mag or any glock?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

So how long can the revolver last before it has to be rebuilt or have the timing corrected?

It is all a matter of how much use (or abuse)they are subjected to.

Here is a photo of the coolest revolver I own, a Smith and Wesson Double Action 44 chambered for 44 Russian. It was made in 1881. The bore is old and pitted, and the frame was stretched from too many Smokeless loads. But it functions just fine and is still in time. A very good smith tightened up the frame for me, so now it locks up as tight as new. And yes, I do shoot it, but only with Black Powder loads.





As I said earlier, I collect Smiths from almost every decade they were made. I buy most of them on my C&R license these days, so they are almost always at least 50 years old. Some are a lot older. Yes, the bolt stops are often slightly peened from years and years of shooting. Yet I have never yet encountered one that was not shootable.

In my years of S&W collecting the only one I have come across with a broken part inside was a 38/44 Heavy Duty made in the 1930. It functioned fine, but when I took it apart the rebound slide spring came out in two pieces. Even with a broken spring inside, it had functioned and fired just fine. I put it back together again with a replacement spring and it continues to function just fine, with no further attention needed.




Just the other day I took a K22 made in 1932 to the range for a little bit of accuracy testing. This was no night table gun, it had belonged to the Providence RI pistol team. Functioned fine, just as I expected, and it shot more accurately than I am capable of taking advantage of.



I could go on and on. There has always been a certain percentage of junk made, but I don't buy junk. When I buy an old Smith, I look them over pretty carefully at the dealer or at the gunshow. I have very seldom come across one that I think to be unshootable. These things were built to last, and as long as they have not been abused, they will take a licking and keep right on ticking, as John Cameron Swayze use to say.