Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by Flechette, Dec 30, 2015.
Wanna do the math to bump that up to match the capacity of my xDM?
Sure, it's 3.15" for a 19 round revolver.
Unless you have two rings of chambers and two barrels like some of the 19th century Belgian monstrosities.
Thanks for covering for me, Sam.
I have been involved with or at least present for arming several women and it is a very difficult proposition. There is no simple answer.
I recently got one moved from an Airweight Centennial to a Military & Police revolver. Something she can get some proficiency with and have for home defense. We will have to see about a carry gun... if her workplace even allows her to be able to fight her way through the parking lot.
Her daughter has a S&W Plastic .380. It is hard kicking and hard to manipulate. Unfortunately she does not live nearby and is out of reach for consultation.
Another bought a Shield mit laser guide beam on somebody's recommendation. It was the right choice for her. She can hold that red spot amazingly steady and is not at all bothered by 9mm recoil. She is interested in recreational shooting, maybe even competition. I am going to hand her my full size Plastic M&P after the ice age is over.
One, when shown a variety of handguns said of popular striker fired pistols "Why would anybody want to shoot one of THOSE?" The Python got a second look but not a third. Her husband is really missing his heavily customized Colt 9mm.
Another's hubby considerately provided her with said Airweight .38. She learned a bit and now carries a Ruger .380 for concealment and shoots a Glock 17 for fun; shopping for a G34.
Her sister is happy with the Charter .38 her Father armed her with long ago. She can shoot bigger guns better, in the usual manner of a woman who takes instruction well, but she doesn't care.
Too many women have the attitude that their Fathers or husbands know all about manly stuff like guns and will provide something suitable. They don't want to be bothered with study and testing.
Hey, a little range time and you won't have to carry around those bottom feeders. How many shots do you need at 30 feet for self defense anyway?
I figure at 30 feet I'm going to get 6 hits for 6 shots. I'm working on 50 yards for self defense against active shooters in malls and theaters.
Those statements could only be made by someone wholly inexperienced in firing a handgun under pressure and stress, in practical situations. The overwhelming evidence of actual gun fights says it is naieve to think you'll do anywhere near so well.
I'd not discount a revolver for defense, but it is very important to understand just how limited six shots is likely to be.
I sure hope this is a joke.
I'll echo Sam1911.
You can "figure" all you want, but the reality is often quite a bit different, even for competent shooters. For example, even under the relatively mild stress of competition, I've seen good shooter completely miss a stationary 18"x24" cardboard target at 5 yards. Stress certainly plays a role, but so does a "5 yards? pshaw, can't miss" attitude. You sure can miss, especially when time (or your rear) is on the line. Stage designers sometimes use these "sucker targets" for this very reason.
Yes, I am joking to rib a semi-fan.
The most pressure I've ever been under is competition so unless I'm in the situation I have no idea how I will respond. That's why I depend on a Mossberg 500 around the home--easier to hold steady while dirtying my britches.
However, it will always be a revolver so I hope they will always be available. My experiences with semi-autos have not made me a fan.
The only changes over current offerings I would find interesting would be constantly increasing quality. Increased capacity is neither here nor there for a number of possible situations that would only be proved under critical conditions. I already have a seven and eight shot that I use in competition.
By the way, one gunsmith gent in ICORE had at one time planed to build a 10 shot in .32 H&R magnum. I did not see that gun in use so don't know where that went or whether it could be set up to accept .327 Magnum. It would be interesting to find out.
Nope, at that size cylinder it's one ring of 19. However, if you want two rings and two barrels, I have a design for 37.
My wife tried everything, and ended up with an LCR. She does carry a few others with well broken in triggers, but what she wanted - her choice - was a revolver for the simplicity. Me too.
ive had an idea for a simplified revolver mechanism.. barrel on the 6 o'clock position, cams on the cylinder like a webley fosbery and striker fired, but in this one the striker is also part of an action bar underneath the cylinder itself that when cocked will also index and lock the cylinder, this would mean the entire double-action revolver would have only about 4 moving parts and thats including the cylinder
not too dissimilar from the revolver is the tround cartridges, triangular shaped cartridges that slide into the cylinder from the side rather than from behind and part of the chamber is fixed to the barrel that covers up the outside edge of the cylinder as the next cartridges index, cartridges are fed into the cylinder from a box magazine.. ive always speculated with this system you could use the triangular shaped cartridges being pushed up by an off-set magazine to automatically index the cylinder like a rack and pinion system
the concept of trounds have been successfully demonstrated to work on the scale of small pistols up to full size 50 caliber machine guns.. a military rifle could be built on this system to match 5.56 or better ballistics and achieve a semi-automatic rate of fire without any gas system at all, no extractors, no ejectors, no pistons, no gas blocks, no tuning the gas system
so.. revolvers can be much improved from where they are, the technology you see on them now is over 100 years old.. development stalled about the same time autos came out and the designs for revolving chamber firearms wasnt even close to its peak.. keep in mind revolvers only had about 60 years of development before this happened, before they really stopped being developed, we've been using autos now for 120 years, but development on that stalled decades ago too as all thats changed in modern pistols is material choices mostly as by time WWII came around just about every feature on an auto youd consier to be modern was already on a pistol in one form or another
Revolvers typically are harder to manufacture, use more metal (6 chambers,) don't lend themselves to mass production methods as well as autoloading pistols, they require more quality control (timing, chamber to bore alignment, end shake, cylinder gap etc....)
They hold less rounds and are typically slower and harder to reload. Although they MAY be more reliable than autos, todays autos are reliable enough to make that issue moot.
Lets face it the only thing keeping revolvers alive are the many people who love them despite their shortcommings. I find them to be classic works of art and I am sure glad they are still being made because they are such a pleasure to handle, admire, and shoot.
There is an exception however it seems revolvers are still practicle choices when very powerful handguns are needed (.454 casul and .500 SW magnum for example) in places like Alaska where bears and other wild animals are a real threat.
This is just my amatuer laymans opinion off the top of my head so maybe an expert can chime in.
If you have a semi-auto with a spare magazine ready to go, yes it is faster to reload the semi-auto. If you are working from a box or pocket full of loose rounds, the revolver is much faster to reload and as a bonus only requires 2 hands instead of the 3 required to load a semi-auto.
I think revolvers will continue to be a significant portion, well into the future. There's an aesthetic to them that cannot ever be matched with a pistol, but beyond that, there are physical factors that will continue to be relevant.
For some, racking a slide on some of the pocket wonders is plain tough. not every pocket wonder can be carried condition one.
Triggers can be another issue. due to grip geometry, my wife moves the J frame trigger far more easily and consistently than on my P938.
i also think it's fair to say that there are no pocket autopistols that pack the same potential punch as a revolver can in a similar size package. 357 is still a 357, and the 327mag is quite the performer as well. Granted. hitting your target is far more important than the power of the round. a miss with a 50 cal is the same as a miss with a 22.
Then again, perhaps I'm just old fashioned. I still am of the opinion that a revolver is potentially more reliable than an auto. I grant that in the modern world, statistically 100% of ammo goes bang.
while it is true revolvers are about the only solution for the more powerful cartridges which generally speaking are too long to fit comfortably in a pistol grip, i feel for large, open carry or range guns that the old forward magazine automatics should make a comeback, im talking old pistols like the C96 mauser and one of my favorites, the bergmann bayard..
the ratio of these compared to the overall length of the pistol is about the same as any revolver when you consider the location of the chamber on these pistols in relation to the location of the chamber on more modern pistols is actually about he same location, but these kind of pistols in my opinion offer advantages neither the revolver nor modern semi-automatics have
compared to revolvers, forward magazine pistols are no longer limited to a certain length or width cartridge, they typically also run with more robust actions that can handle more power as well like revolvers, but what they do differently is theres no cylinder gap or timing and there are no limitations to capacity, a single barrel/chamber and the ability to suppress... where they offer an advantage over modern pistols is allowing bigger more powerful cartridge but generally speaking these older designs used a fixed barrel/slide assembly with an internal bolt mechanism, this meant your sights were on a body fixed with the barrel at all times, they were very accurate (like a revolver)
The future of revolvers will be decided by.......Hollywood :banghead:
As one who transitioned from a high capacity 9mm (CZ-75) to a low-capacity .357 revolver (Ruger Police Service Six), I am struck as to why we even bother having a revolver section on this forum. Frankly, it seems no real reason. The mods on this forum firmly seek to cast their wisdom upon us with graven tablets that our choices are foolish and that we should all transition to polymer-framed autos. We must also bow our heads in what we use, seek penitence, and thus sin no more.
Okay. I'm one of the idiots who feels well-armed by 6 lousy rounds of .357. One more round in a 1911 is magical, I know, but real lightning from the outstretched arm of Thor comes from 72 rounds in a plastic fantastic - and being striker fired, 71 of 72 rounds would naturally be center-of-mass hits. Yeah, I'm foaming at the mouth right now, blithering in a corner in a hopelessly lost stupor, blissfully ignorant that the hoard of home invaders, street thugs, woods thugs, are going to descend upon me and, once I fire off my paltry six rounds into the sky as my ability to aim has gone away, kill me and rape my dog. If only I had my AR...
The revolver remains a competent and capable self-defense firearm. It is no less valuable than the pocket .380's that folks espouse, and vastly more compact than any foreword-magazine design can ever hope to be. I know my knowledgeable betters will correct my choice soon enough.
In time, Utopia might just be reached, where every person has a striker-fired high capacity handgun along with a suitable AR and all other outmoded and obsolete arms will be relegated to a rusty heap for those to pass by and bow in shame at the notion that they could ever have considered using them.
Yes! And by the way, I note you're still a bit in arrears on your penance. Can we schedule your groveling session for sometime early next week?
I have two legal forum thrashings and a troll beheading scheduled for today, so I'm a bit booked up. And I like to take it easy over the weekend. Monday could work, but 'cmon, everybody likes to ease into the week and save the heavy lifting for mid-week.
So, Tuesday work for you? I'll prepare the prostratin' mats and your new hair shirt.
New materials, advanced manufacturing techniques, and the adaptation of "easily" changed fixed/adjustable sights to revolvers (it's already happening) will be about the only changes I can see happening.
One of my new officers asked me why I was still carrying "that antique," the S&W Model 686-6 that rides in my duty holster, because his Glock 22 holds 16 rounds ready to go. One of my older Glocksketeers told him to ask that question when he outshot me at qualification. I just smiled and told the new kid that I, too, had "16 rounds ready to go." I don't think he's put 6+5+5* together yet.
*(M686-6, M642-2, & M37. The best part is that I can access at least one of them no matter what's happening.)
As for "little guns for the ladies," my wife carries a 4 inch S&W Model 681 .357 Magnum with Crimson Trace Grip.
would that be the same utopia in which malfunctions can be cleared one-handed without interruption of fire?.. until then i'll stick with a revolver that keeps shooting even if the primer fails to go off
I hate the term "millennial" because it has such negative connotations. As a 24 year old, I have to say that my S&W 642 with five rounds of .38 special suits me just fine.
I am not proud of my generation, please do not lump all people in that age group as belonging to the "millennial" culture. I certainly do not.
well, to be fair millenials are not responsible as most werent alive or old enough to vote when things like the 68 GCA, 86 FOPA, brady bill, AWB, and patriot act were all signed... if someone talks down to you about your age simply point out all of the above happened under THEIR watch
Whatever the case revolvers are still my favorite. I love them. I would love to see that Russian break open .357 magnum (Izhmech MP412 REX)
revolver sold here.
Has anyone shot one, how is the tigger pull, can it handle hot loads ?
Although I love wood and steel this one still looks interesting.
In today's world of limited magazine capacity in many states and negative press, revolvers are making a comeback. They are nearly as concealable as very small auto's; 38+p's are sufficient for most needs and 357's are available if you like the recoil. Revolvers are almost impossible to jam, stove pipe or fail to cycle. They are "environmentally friendly" and do not leave those dirty casings around at the scene of a shooting to be picked up by CSI types. If you are involved in a shooting where charges against you are under consideration, carrying a 5 or 6 shot revolver may seem less culpable than some 17 shot clip. (Many prosecutors have limited gun knowledge) And last but not least, revolvers will be the last type of handgun banned.
Add a nice revolver to you gun safe now.
so.. lets go with revolvers instead because the press would look more favorably on us and it wont hurt as much when autos get banned?.. i think ill continue to carry what i want for better reasons than what a bunch of blowhard "reporters" and politicians think of me
As an old fart and grandfather to more than a dozen millennials, I don't have any issues with your generation. They are like any generation, they adapt, work with what they are taught, hugely adopt new technologies and try to figure out where to go from here. 50 years ago, it was the same story.
But their opinions on guns are made watching True Detective, combat videos on Youtube, and playing Call of Duty. In all those scenarios, magazine capacity is very important, so they logically believe capacity is important. They are joined by a huge amount of both gen Y and X folks in this belief.
What research I did before getting a CCW convinced me capacity isn't important, but ease of use and reliability is important when in a situation of surprise and speed, and also that over 99% of self-defense gun uses are over in 4 shots total, even if more than one gun is involved. Since I am comfortable with revolvers, I didn't have to look any further.
But I do think more capacity is important for revolvers, even for those of us not too concerned about capacity.
Separate names with a comma.