I notice now most of us older guys (50+)

Status
Not open for further replies.
One less semi auto, one more revolver (as I hinted I might do today)....Can't wait to run a box through her:

S&W 686 4" barrel 6 shot capacity cylinder

SW686.jpg
 
MtnSpur said:
One less semi auto, one more revolver (as I hinted I might do today)....Can't wait to run a box through her:

S&W 686 4" barrel 6 shot capacity cylinder
Click to expand...

Excellent, excellent... A full size .357 Magnum is the most useful handgun you can own, and Smith knows a thing or two about making .357's.
 
I am in my my early 30s and I love revolvers so much. I own like four revolvers and two semi auto pistols now. Is there something wrong with me? Am I aging too fast?? :uhoh:
 
I'm 67 also. My first two pistols were revolvers. Still have them . Still reload for them and shoot them, but I do have a preference for the bottom feeders now. Specifically the 1911. I think it's mostly about the difference in triggers for me.
 
New 686

gmh1013 said:
Congrats on the new Smith .357
thats love at first sight!
Click to expand...

It was and then some (love at first sight) :) and thank you. Owning a few S&W's I have never been disappointed by their beautiful lines, handling and overall accuracy. Have a few Ruger revolvers and can't complain about them either (though I'm still a Smith man by nature). Then we get into a good lever action 30-30 by Winchester or the 25-06 700 Classic bolt action and I'm a happy camper. Of course the Mini-14 has taken her share of coyote out on the ranch and wondering just how good I'll be at 25-35 yards with this new 4" 686 :uhoh: I'm tempted to at least let her rip at one ;) .
 
There's another thing going on here too. Older folks can afford what they want. We don't have to "settle" for what works, but is not what we want exactly. That makes a difference to many of the younger ones.
 
Getting older. When I go shooting, unless it's a rifle, I'm not using a Reddot, scope, or other stuff on my revolvers or autos.

Result is I do a lot of shooting at 15 yards instead of 25.

I like BIG holes. I can see them on the target without having to use a spotter scope all the time.

Lee Jurras, one of the top .44 Magnum guys of all time once wrote if he had only one gun, it would be a .475 Linebaugh, with 420 grain bullets, at around 950 fps. I resemble that remark, though the last gun I bought was a stainless Single Six.
 
Years ago, I read about the article in which Skeeter Skelton said that if he could only have one gun when the SHTF and he headed for the Texas hills with his family, it would be a .357 revolver. IIRC, Skeeter's favorite .357 was the Smith & Wesson Model 27.

When I first read that, I thought it was a bit nutty, but the longer I'm acquainted with revolvers and the .357, the more I think that Skeeter had a pretty good idea there. I'm hard pressed to come up with a single handgun I'd rather have than a full-size .357, although I'd probably take either a 4" or a 6" GP100. It's easier to reload for with primitive tools (Skeeter liked the Lyman Tong Tool, I think) than some other calibers, and Skeeter's favorite load -- a 150-grain SWCHP at around 1200 fps, IIRC, loaded in a .38 Special case -- was a mid-range .357 Magnum load and very manageable in just about any good .357 revolver.

I'll qualify this with the fact that I'm in the same part of the country as Skeeter was, with no bears at all to worry about, and only the faintest chance of encountering a mountain lion (although I did encounter one in the Point Reyes National Seashore as a teenager). No game around here bigger than a deer, and no threat bigger than a human.

My favorite carry gun is a bit smaller than what Skeeter chose. I've gone with the Ruger SP101 with a 3-1/16" barrel, in a Kholster Crescent holster, backed up by two HKS speedloaders and either a S&W 642 or a Kel-Tec P-11.

Great thread that is aging very well.

All my best,
Dirty Bob
 
Last edited:
55 now 53 When 1st Posted

And I like revolvers and pistols.
I recently traded two Walthers for three Glocks. And I have four S&W revolvers. I'm pretty sure that if it makes loud noise and a flash that makes a lead cored projectile go down range at high velocity I like it!
 
I'll jump in on this. I'm not ready yet to change over from Autos to Revolvers, but I know there will come a time. Eventually, once I get to the point where it becomes difficult to pull the slide back, when it becomes difficult to see those tiny front sites, when it becomes difficult to tear down for cleaning, that's when I'll sell the Autos and buy Revolvers. Age eventually catches up to us all, its an unavoidable fact of life. :uhoh:
 
Let's just face the facts. Excepting the sexier autoloaders like the Walther PP series, most semi-automatics (including old slabsides.) look like they were Shop Class assignments, whereas most revolvers look like they were made by world-class tradesmen.

Sort of like the comparison between a nice Mannlicher-style walnut-stocked bolt-action rifle and an AR. (We won't mention AKs, which look like they were turned out by the same folks who made those horrid made-in-Japan sheet metal toy cars in the '50s)

I won't bring shotguns into this, being a Model 12 fan, but I have to admit there are few guns as good-looking as a well-made over-and-under.

Oh yes, I have a bunch of autoloaders, but the guns that give me (mental) crotch-creep all have cylinders and are made out of steel.
 
Geezer story

(My oldest daughter is over 60....)

I began just a few months ago with an auto because it hides easy and I'm still curious how guns work. The good guys at the store advised a revolver 'cause it's simple and I look old and feeble. (Well, they're right.)

The hard part about using the auto ... racking the slide
The hard part about using the revolver...pulling the trigger.

I have both now. When I can no longer work the slide I can still pull the trigger, I hope.

Every gun I have has been apart so I can polish the parts and lube for smoother action. That's almost as much fun as shooting.

I remember Tom Mix, Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers. :D
 
When I got started carrying guns, there were not many desirable choices in autos. The sexiest number of the day was the Smith 39 and it was reputed, fairly or not, to have reliabity issues. 1911s and Hipowers did not have the refinements that one finds today. Nor were there any departments that would allow you to carry one.

The 'wet dream' gun of most folks was a shiny Colt Python, however most could not afford one.

Here is my everyday carry package from 1970.

HPIM1926-1.jpg
[/IMG]

I spent many year walking beats in some nasty neighborhoods and never felt undergunned.

The Model 10 works as well today as it did 40 years ago except the trigger is smoother and I have figured out POA by now.
 
I think one of the reasons that older fans prefer/like revolvers is that modern automatics just don't LOOK as good as they used to. Think of the smooth lines of the old Brownings and the classic lines of the Colt .45 auto, and the Colt woodsman and Hi-Standard .22's. There weren't many revolvers that looked better than those guns - they were ELEGANT, or CLASSIC in appearance, but those types of designs are a thing of the past.

Why? Why can't modern gun makers style their semi-automatic firearms so that they have smooth, flowing lines like they used to? Now the lines are all angular and JAGGED and ABRUPT with no smoothness what-so-ever. I think they're trying to make their guns look ultra-functional and "tool-like", and are using the Glock aesthetic as a standard. Maybe they're trying for that assault rifle look, only in a pistol.

Don't get me wrong, I bought a Ruger semi-auto last year and it's great. My intention was to buy something with high capacity before Big Brother says "No" to that kind of thing. I DIDN'T buy it because I thought it looked great. I bought it in SPITE of it's looks, though the looks have grown on me and there are certainly worse looking guns out there.

Revolvers are a different story. I saw a great looking new revolver at the store today (again, a Ruger.) It didn't look like a knock-off of a Colt or Smith and Wesson, it was it's own thing. It has that nice smooth look, that makes you want to pick it up.

I'm not saying they should design pistols with the #1 priority on looks. They should just pay more attention to looks than they currently are.
 
I'm 56 and I still use a 45 Auto


I fired 250 rounds in 1 hour Saturday, as did my oldest son and his Girl Friend and none of us had any jams or stove pipes.

And I can’t remember the last time my sig or either of 1911s jammed.
 
I think Jim NE is spot on! The sense of what constitues an "aesthetic" has certainly changed. I can go along to a point because I like the idea of form following function (after all I love my Jeep Wrangler) but, still, the idea of something deadly also being elegant seems to have fallen out of fashion in favor of things which seem to be intent on merely looking functional - and mean. Another factor is marketing and the desire to continue adding "features" whether needed or not. Some pistols are becoming so over-engineered as to be hand-held Rube Goldberg machines. Whatever else the earlier versions of the Glock may have been, they were wonderfully elegant in design. Personally, I no longer own any semi-automatics and prefer revolvers, primarily single-action revolvers. If that puts me at a defensive disadvantage in our Brave New World, well...I never planned on living forever. But, while I'm here I want to follow a path with heart.

To paraphrase (and perhaps abuse) Obi-Wan Kenobi, many older weapons (particularly single-action revolvers, in my view) are "not as clumsy or as random as a blaster. Elegant weapon(s) for a more civilized age..."
 
I think one of the reasons that older fans prefer/like revolvers is that modern automatics just don't LOOK as good as they used to. Think of the smooth lines of the old Brownings and the classic lines of the Colt .45 auto, and the Colt woodsman and Hi-Standard .22's. There weren't many revolvers that looked better than those guns - they were ELEGANT, or CLASSIC in appearance, but those types of designs are a thing of the past.

Why? Why can't modern gun makers style their semi-automatic firearms so that they have smooth, flowing lines like they used to? Now the lines are all angular and JAGGED and ABRUPT with no smoothness what-so-ever. I think they're trying to make their guns look ultra-functional and "tool-like", and are using the Glock aesthetic as a standard. Maybe they're trying for that assault rifle look, only in a pistol.

. . .

I'm not saying they should design pistols with the #1 priority on looks. They should just pay more attention to looks than they currently are.
Click to expand...

You're making this mistake of assuming that a subjective item (looks) is somehow a straightforward and measurable thing.

How attractive a pistol looks is completely a matter of opinion, and just like cars or clothes, what seems attractive will change over time. Your opinion here seems particularly perplexing to me because to me (being young-ish, but not THAT young - 29), visual aesthetics is one of the things that they have completely down pact on modern guns versus old ones. If anything they pay too much attention to making them look good and not enough attention on other areas.

Glocks, not so much (I DO think they are ugly, but they are also a 30 year old design), but honestly most guns these days put the guns of yesteryear to shame. The Beretta PX4 is about the best looking handgun I've ever seen, but the Ruger SR9, S&W M&P, and the Caracal F all look mighty nice to my eyes too.

Again, that's an opinion and so it's not any more or less wrong than any other opinion, but I do think you're mistaken when you say they're not paying attention to the aesthetics. I think instead, they are paying quite a bit of attention, but the current "fashion" on what constitutes good aesthetics has simply shifted.
 
Last edited:
"You're making this mistake of assuming that a subjective item (looks) is somehow a straightforward and measurable thing."

I'm certainly not saying that my opinion or tastes are representative of (or better than) everyone else's. You're absolutely right that looks shouldn't be the first, or even AMONG the first considerations, for a firearm. Safety first, then function, etc...

I'm totally in agreement with Gary A that form should follow function - that's why the old lever action Winchesters are so beautiful to me...not fancy, just beautiful. But as far as explaining why SOME older guys don't like automatic pistols, looks may be part of the answer. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

There's no question that the engineering is better now than ever. Automatic guns are better than ever. So are automobiles. But be honest, as great looking as new Corvettes are, can they really compare visually with a 1963 Stingray split window coupe? Or a 1957 straight axle roadster? No, they can't. Yes, that's my opinion, but it's the opinion of many millions of other people, too. That's why there's a HUGE vintage vehicle market where those old Vettes bring up to $150,000, even though the new ones are WAY better cars. A 1980's Vette now qualifies as an "antique" car, too, but has little value because it doesn't have the looks of the older ones (tho it still looks good, and is also a better car.)

In fact, several models of cars have resurrected their old looks from 40 years ago to try and capitalize on that lost era of styling. If technology and ergonomics and capacity and function were the only consideration in the firearms industry - the only things that people paid attention to - then there really shouldn't be any new single action revolvers or lever action rifles or black powder guns being made today, as that stuff is (metalurgy aside) 19th century technology. But there's a lot of that stuff being made 'cause it looks so good, or at least has an appeal beyond what it offers in technology.

But yes, you're right...it's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
First 25 rounds at 50 feet

MtnSpur said:
One less semi auto, one more revolver (as I hinted I might do today)....Can't wait to run a box through her:

S&W 686 4" barrel 6 shot capacity cylinder
Click to expand...

Warmed up enough to hit the outside range. I certainly won't win any awards for marksmanship but my overall impression...."Yep, I love this gun". Shooting Win 130gr target FMJ .38 special in both SA and DA mode, offhand, I managed to be "respectable" even with a few flyers and yes this is 50 feet not yards. Opinions will vary:

target4.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have carried a revolver most of my life, but now with the reliability of some of the new semi's I usually carry an Ulra Raptor and a J-frame bug in my pocket. At the range I shoot everything from a S&W 500 mag to a S&W 41, I love my 1911's in both 10mm & 45ACP. 10 years ago I owned about 80% revolvers today its only about 60%, perhaps by the time I hit 78 it will be 50/50
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
I notice that most revolver and 1911 guys are older.
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
4K
Sean Smith
S
Charlie Martinez
  • Locked
How I found my Colt Python
Replies
17
Views
629
entropy
entropy
Ranger Roberts
  • Locked
Is this guy pulling my leg? Black bear hunting with a .44 cap & ball
2 3
Replies
53
Views
8K
zimmerstutzen
Z
C
  • Locked
I got the ol stiffy today
Replies
14
Views
949
Mal H
Mal H
C
  • Locked
The dumbest thing you ever saw anybody do with a gun
Replies
10
Views
688
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top