Why are ruger/s&w revolvers almost always .38/.357mag/.44mag and not 9mm or .45?

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

Hey guys,

So, a little background first, just so y'all don't get too mad at me for being kind of a n00b lol (if you are impatient though you can skip down to the bottom where I ask about the ammo thing for revolvers compared to auto pistols, no worries):

So, I have a couple of bolt action target shooting rifles, since I used to shoot competitively at the range when I was a kid (when I was 10-11 years old way back 13-14 years ago).

After a long period of not shooting since then, I recently got interested in guns again, except I decided to get some different guns other than just bolt action target shooting rifles to mess with.

However, I have found that unlike bolt action rifles, which I am very familiar with, I know basically nothing about the other types of guns (semi-auto rifles, semi-auto pistols, revolvers, shotguns, etc, I know hardly anything about any of these sorts of guns, relatively speaking, as I don't have shooting experience with them).

So, I already got a little .22lr semi auto ruger to plink around with (ruger 22/45 mk.3) a few years ago, and last year I bought a WASR-10 AK-47 on a whim, just because it looked really cool on the gun shelf, and I always drooled/dreamed of owning an AK, ever since I played counterstrike on my computer as a teen lol, but, admittedly, I have not studied up much on these new types of guns that I have recently ventured into.

of most recent, I am looking to get myself a decent hime defense pistol to have.

I still haven't made my mind up between whether to get a glock/springfieldxd type of pistol, or whether to get a revolver instead, but, given how annoying it has been to try to take my ruger 22/45 .22lr pistol apart and put back together (it's kind of tricky/complicated for my mechanically-clumsy/generally inexperienced/stupid hands to fumble with properly lol), I have been leaning more towards the revolver side of the fence, given how absurdly simple they are, that even my own stupid self is able to easy just pop the cylinder open, and voila, be able to clean the gun just like that, without dealing with all sorts of crazy springs and loose barrels and weird stuff all over the place the way you have to with semi-autos lol.

Anyway, so, now that I've been starting to strongly consider maybe getting a revolver instead, for my first "real" pistol ("real" as in one that you can actually use for home d, unlike my little rimfire target shooter pistol which is kind of a joke by comparison for home defense), I have noticed something which, I am sure, there is some very obvious/simple/beginnerish explanation for, which me, in all my uninitiatedness is clueless to:

All the main revolvers I've seen by the main top revolver brands (ruger and s&w (or at least, that's what the guys at the gun shop told me are the two "good brands" for revolvers, dunno if that's actually true or not, but have assumed this for now I guess)) I've noticed that:

They seem to always be chambered in .357mag/.38 or .44mag

I never hardly ever see them in .45, and NEVER ever saw one in 9mm yet.

What's the deal with this, it seems like all the typical revolvers are pretty much always .357/.38 or .44 and all the autopistols are usually 9mm, .40, or .45

Why aren't there a bunch of typical ruger/s&w revolvers in 9mm?

This is one of the main factors that makes me still not be sure whether I want a revolver or whether to just learn how to deal with all the weird parts of autoloader pistols and go get a glock or something instead so that I can shoot on the much cheaper 9mm ammo instead of .38 or .357 or .44 ammo which costs way more by comparison (even .38 vs 9mm is a pretty major price difference per equivalent brand/quality I noticed).

Can someone please explain what the deal is with all this?

Thanks

 

[Nushif]

All the main revolvers I've seen by the main top revolver brands (ruger and s&w (or at least, that's what the guys at the gun shop told me are the two "good brands" for revolvers, dunno if that's actually true or not, but have assumed this for now I guess))

Hehe. Yeah ... that grain of salt is pretty valuable sometimes.

 

[ugaarguy]

Nothing wrong with being new, and asking questions - that's what THR is for.

First, the Ruger 22/45 and MK I /II /III are not combat pistols. Most of your major pistols marketed for defensive / police / military use are very easy to field strip and maintain. Don't let your current .22 pistol bias you against autos.

Second, is the caliber issue. Revolver cartridges are typically rimmed, without a groove, to allow spent cases to removed by the solid extractor star. Auto cartridges are typically Rimless or at most semi-rimmed for ease of feeding, and have a grove for the pistol's spring loaded extractor to grab to pull the spent case from the chamber. This is why the inverse is true as well - you rarely see semi-autos chambered in rimmed cartridges like .38 spl / .357 mag / .44 mag. 22 LR is the big exception to the rule.

I hope this helps, and keep the questions coming.

 

[wlewisiii]

The ammo thing is pure history. Military & police procurement in ~1900 lead to the .38 being the predominant revolver caliber while 9mm in Europe and .45 here took over the semi-auto stage. Currently, comparatively few buy revolvers - many many many more buy cheap-ish striker fired semi-autos. If you're really that cost sensitive, one of them is going to be better for you unless you reload.

In the real world, all of them kill people regularly.

I think that the first thing I'd suggest you do is go to your nearest range that rents firearms and try a few. The idea is that since you have a low level of experience, you need to find a weapon you'll shoot weekly (to get that experience) because you enjoy shooting it and can trust that it will do what you want it to. A weapon that is very easy to conceal but hurts to shoot so badly that you'd have a hard time hitting the broadside of a barn from the inside will do you no good.

I'd suggest trying, in random order,

Revolvers:
S&W 642 2"
S&W 60 3"
S&W 10 4" (this can be any standard service revolver. Just be sure to try a true full size revolver with at least a 4" barrel.)

Autos:
Ruger P95 (try both Double action only and Double/Single Action verisons if you can.)
Ruger P97
S&W Sigma 9mm
S&W M&P 9mm
Glock 17 & 26 (standard and snubby autos)
A 1911 clone

This may seem like a lot, but it's the variety of styles that's out there doing 99% of the self defense duty. You can choose a different manufacturer for any of these styles though Glock, Ruger, Smith & Wesson will all be on the short list.

Hope this helps.

 

[earplug]

Macho Man

Men tend to buy the more powerful weapon without really thinking about the intended use or need.
I bought the .357, 44 Remington Magnum when I was younger. After about 25 years of shooting such things. I realized that I ended up reloading and shooting loads that mimic the 44 spl, the old black powder 45 LC or 45 ACP target rounds.
I have been very happy with my current choice of S&W 625's in 45 ACP loaded with moon clips.
I haven't hunted Elk, Bear or big hogs. I could if I wanted.
I carry a S&W J frame in 38 Pl. I would be happy if it was a moon clipped 9MM.
For some strange reason there is not a current production 9MM revolver. I would be compelled to buy one or two moon clipped five shot 9 MM if made available. They would be way more practical then the current crop of .357 j frames made by S&W.

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

Thanks for the info and also for the advice, I appreciate it very much.

I think I probably will end up doing that (trying them out first before I actually pick one to buy), since quite a few of them felt nice to hold, and have similar prices thus leaving me unsure which specific one to get.

I guess I'll just have to try em out at the range to know for sure.

Oh, btw one other thing that I was curious about though:

I noticed that the Taurus revolvers were considerably cheaper than the Ruger revolvers on average, and way way cheaper than the s&w's on average, but the guy at the counter basically said not to even bother looking at the Taurus's and was saying that only Ruger and s&w are any good for revolvers.

When I asked him what was wrong with the Taurus he said something like 'Well, it's not necessarily that there's something "wrong" with them per se, but rather, it's just a matter of how much time and effort you're willing to put into your gun to get it to shoot right. He said the Rugers and S&W's I wouldn't have to waste any time messing around with, whereas the Tauruses would just end up being time-pits by comparison.

I don't really understand why this is though...

Do Taurus revolvers come like misaligned from the factory a lot or something compared to ruger/s&w so you have to gunsmith them or something to get them to shoot right or something? Or do they break easily or something? Or what is it that's supposed to be worse about them compared to ruger/s&w, or more time consuming or tricky about them, if anything?

Cuz I mean, if that was all just a bunch of baloney that he was saying just to try to get me to pump a higher amount of money into their store by steering me towards the ones that cost twice as much, without any real legit reasons, then I mean, money doesn't exactly grow on trees or anything, so obviously I don't want to just waste an extra $300-$400 getting an s&w if I can get an identical, same good revolver from whatever Taurus' equivalent model is for whichever revolver I want to get.

Anyone know a lot about Taurus revolvers compared to ruger/s&w (not just the typical sayings/old wives tails/sports-fan type biases, but like, actual structural differences/tolerance differences/metal differences/like actual tangible stuff to know about why the s&w's are supposed to be so much better for that huge extra cost premium on them? Like, if any of u guys are those types who are super duper into revolvers to the extent that you actually take them apart all the way with all the little screws and bolts taken out and springs and all that, where u did all ur research over decades or are a gunsmith type of person and know about that sort of stuff and can give an actual legit answer, that would be cool, cuz the guys at the counter at the gun store obviously didn't get a whole lot into it at all other than just saying like "Ruger/s&w is good, Taurus sucks" and that was about it, lol

 

[918v]

Freedom Arms makes a 9mm revolver.

 

[wlewisiii]

Taurus in the past has had quality control issues. I owned a .357 CIA before selling it to finance my 4" S&W Model 64 revolver. It was a fine, well made revolver but my eyes needed the longer sight radius of a 4" barrel. But gun people have long memories and rely all too heavily on memory rather than current reality all too often.

Odds are that the Taurus will be as good as anything put out by Ruger or S&W these days and if it's not their customer service will take care of it.

YMMV & all that.

 

[Gryffydd]

As to the Taurus thing, A BMW and a Kia will both get you to the store and back. The Taurus revolvers will work, but they're not as nice. But they'll work. I've never bought one because for me the cost difference wasn't worth it.

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

By "less nice" do you mean about stuff that actually matters as far as actual shooting, like, they are less safe from having weaker/unreliable parts etc or do you mean just literally like looks-wise or something that they look less nice, and have a less cool sounding name, but operationally/functionally speaking are identically good?

Cuz, if it's just strictly a looks/namebrand pride/bragging type thing, I don't care at all about that stuff and would happily just save myself a few hundred dollars in that case. But if it's actually a less well-made gun in terms of the actual internals and parts and reliability and all that stuff, and will end up being a headache to own, then obviously I'd happily pay the extra few hundred bucks to get a gun that isn't all messed up.

?

 

[wlewisiii]

These days it's more a name brand thing & I'd suggest it's closer to Toyota vs Kia than BMW vs. Kia. The Taurus I owned was well made and well finished.

But that's a very personal preference kind of thing which is why I say, very emphatically, that YMMV.

 

[BCRider]

I gather from reading around here at THR and other forums that once the bugs are worked out of a Taurus that they are not bad guns. But if you search around here for threads about Taurus guns I think you'll find that there's a significant number relating to the need to send the guns back for warranty work more than once. And that there are more than a few that after they got their guns back for the second or third time just sold them and went with Ruger or S&W. Those that stuck it out end up finally, or through luck of the draw started with, a decent enough gun. The issue appears to be are you willing to gamble?

So your LGS counter guy is right in that if you just want a gun to shoot and that is a known performer that you're wise to spend the extra and get a Ruger or S&W. The guns will function well and consistently for years with little risk of any breakage or other issues with any amount of general care at all.

And from all accounts you'll also end up with a far nicer trigger pull to boot. One that can be tuned to be almost magically light with the simple addtion of a Wolff spring kit in the case of the S&W's. Not that I'd trust this magically light "range only" tune in a defense carry gun. But if you enjoy shooting for sport at the range for fun or competition you can tune these guns to a high degree easily and extremely effectively with little effort.

 

[Magnumite]

FWIW, you may also consider going to the medium frame revolvers while starting out (if you choose the revolver). These include the S&W 14's, 19's, 686's, Ruger Security Sixes and GP100's. They are light enough to be highly manueverable yet heavy enough not to interfere with sound learning. A good home defense and recreational gun.

The last thing a new handgun shooter needs is a small frame gun that is difficult to work through recoil and it is a poor recommendation. These are the Mdl 36, 642, LCR's and similar. Bad habits will develop that could be very difficult to break and even discourage new shooters. When I do handgun instruction, the single biggest thing I notice is people recommending these guns to new shooters...or ladies...because they are small and dainty, or "nice to carry". The shooters typically do not want to fire them after even a few rounds. Virtually every time, male and female, they gravitate toward the medium frame guns with 4 - 6" barrels and sans the high recoil loads. Similar sized guns if in semi auto format.

 

[357 Terms]

I dont think the guy at the counter was trying to steer you toward a higher priced gun, seems like good advice that he gave you. I have never owned a Taurus revolver but I did buy one of their autolloaders. I had to deal with Taurus quality and Taurus customer service, I will never own another. If your only going to own one handgun stick with Smith and Wesson or Ruger- no worries.

 

[RevDerb]

I have a Ruger Blackhawk convertible which gives me the option or .38/.357 or 9mm. It's single action but I generally shoot D/A's in S/A mode anyway. Here it is:

 

[antiquus]

To be fair, the great majority of complaints about Taurus have been about their auto's, the revolvers have had far fewer problems. Taurus seems to have fixed many of their auto problems, but old stories die hard as noted above. 40 years ago you would hear the same complaints about S&W autos, many people seem to forget that.

What is true is the revolvers aren't as refined as the S&W's or the Rugers, the trigger will be a little rougher (not orders of magnitude worse) and they may not last 50k rounds, maybe only 40k, but they are definitely good value for money spent. If I had the budget, I'd buy a S&W, for certain calibers I'd buy a Ruger, but if my budget says 'Taurus' I'd buy one without a worry. I have bought several, and sent some back with issues - they even sent me the Fedex box to ship it to them - and got them back repaired and functioning as expected. They all stand behind their products.

 

[:( I live in Cali :( :(]

You say you had to send in some of your tauruses that had issues. Could you elaborate on what the issues were, and also if they were taurus revolvers, or what type of handgun they were?

 

[sixgunner455]

I would really, really stick with the S&W or Ruger, if you can afford them. That said, lots of people have Taurus guns and like them. I have shot a few, and not had any dreadful problems. But I have a S&W .38 revolver that was built in 1930. It was a police department gun until the mid 1990's. It is now in my father's possession as his home defense weapon, and goes to the range with him regularly. It has fired untold thousands upon thousands of rounds.

The gun is 25 years older than my father. It still works perfectly. No parts replaced, no malfunctions. It just keeps going.

That is why people say to buy S&W - that longevity, that reputation for enduring for decades, and examples such as this old .38 that just don't quit on you. Buy once, cry once, and all that. Ruger, while they are getting that reputation, just haven't built guns for as long as S&W. Taurus and Ruger didn't even exist as a gleam in someone's eye when that old .38 was built, one of thousands, back 81 years ago.

If you can't afford the extra cash outlay, then make sure you check out your Taurus carefully (preferably, have someone knowledgable do it for you), and get one. I've shot them, I've friends who've got some, and 3 out of 4 of them work just fine. The revolvers have fired flawlessly in this small sample size. None are fitted/finished as nicely as the S&W in any case I've seen. They don't compare to the Rugers I have, either.

I also have a .22 Ruger semi auto. It was my first handgun, my only gun at all for several years, and is a great tool to learn to shoot with. There are three S&W revolvers in my safe right now, a Colt, and two Rugers. I'm not trying to tell you to drink the Koolaid, but ... consider carefully.

 

[Guillermo]

Cali,

You are getting a lot of good information.

If this has already been addressed...oops.

The truth of the matter is that Smith, Ruger, Taurus revolvers all have their limitations.

Smith's QC is non existent (but they have great customer service). They are filled with MIM parts (the metal version of particle board) and have the idiotic lock
Taurus had a bad run and while seem to be much better I hear their CS is not fast
Rugers are, from the factory, have relatively unrefined actions

Understand that the "golden age" of revolvers is behind us. That is why some of us are constantly working the used market from 40-80 years ago.

But the conversation seems to be about new revolvers so I will just tell you this. The last 3 Smith revolvers that I shot had factory defects. One of the last 3 Tauruses. (with the exception of the SP101 I am not a Ruger guy...nothing against them)

If I were in the new market...I would not waste a moment looking at Smith. I have observed the same or less quality issues and a MUCH bigger price tag.

 

[Overkilll0084]

I own one Taurus, an ultralite snubbie. It was full of bead blast media when I bought it. I had to pull the side plate off of a NIB gun and clean the grit out of it. Some of the machine work is crude, apparently the new guy worked on mine. It is a functional gun, but that's where it stops.
I just bought a NIB S&W. A PC 627. I have no complaints. It simply is a fantastic gun. Is it up to the finish standards of the early S&Ws? Probably not. But it is a well made and accurate revolver.
IMHO Rugers are probably the best value in a new revolver. Very good, strong guns for a reasonable price. If you are looking for an inexpensive, quality gun, Ruger is probably a good start.

 

[blindhari]

As has been said already, Ruger makes a 357 mag/9mm convertable revolver. This provides loads from 357 mag Buffalo Bore Heavy to cat sneeze 38 special to cheap 9mm auto through one gun. Available from Davidson's right now under $700 with a life time full REPLACEMENT guarantee.

blindhari

Clint Eastwood never had it so good

 

[Guillermo]

BTW
Hopefully your reading skills are good enough to detect the fan boys.

Comparing a "special edition" of one manufacturer with a MSR of $1049 to a snubby that you can pick up at Academy Sports and Outdoors for 350 bucks is a strong evidence of non-judicial thought.

 

[Dimis]

there is nothing wrong with taurus revolvers (or there autos either for that matter)

I own a couple even the dreaded useless judge that everyone tells me i waisted money on but still love to shoot

ive never had a malfunction with any of them unless it was something outside the revolvers control

like for instance i used remington shells in the judge they swell once fired and got stuck in the cylinder definitely NOT the guns fault
i changed ammo to winchesters and never had another issue

never had a jam (yes revolvers can jam as well) missfire or any other malfunction with my tracker either

the only thing i can say about taurus vs. s&w would be that the taurus just have a different feeling about them

its like getting the store brand soda vs. getting a coca-cola
theres a little difference and you can settle for it and be just as quenched but deep down inside you know its not that red labeled goodness your grand daddy used to drink

as for rugers they are built like tanks so they have that going for them
the actions are as others say not as refined but a few gunsmiths exist that can take care of that or if you prefer you can just adapt and overcome the not so perfect triggers

my take on why no .45/9mm revolvers is that they have revolver cartridge equivalents that already meet or exceed those cartridges
i.e .38 slightly weaker than 9mm .357 more powerful than 9mm but "roughly" same size projectile diameter

.44 special or 45 colt roughly same idea as .45acp and of course the dirty harry .44mag being the monster in the big .4x defensive load from hedes

there have been a few good ones throughout the years in .45 from colt and s&w still makes the miculek model thats .45acp

on a side note i also have a taurus 1911 that has been great since day one if you get interested in an autoloader

 

[buck460XVR]

Nothing wrong with being new, and asking questions - that's what THR is for.

Revolver cartridges are typically rimmed, without a groove, to allow spent cases to removed by the solid extractor star. Auto cartridges are typically Rimless or at most semi-rimmed for ease of feeding, and have a grove for the pistol's spring loaded extractor to grab to pull the spent case from the chamber. This is why the inverse is true as well - you rarely see semi-autos chambered in rimmed cartridges like .38 spl / .357 mag / .44 mag. 22 LR is the big exception to the rule.

^...this.

Hehe. Yeah ... that grain of salt is pretty valuable sometimes.

.........especially when it comes to internet forums. Anytime one or two posters aggressively tries to steer you away from a brand/model or towards another, you need to step back. If everyone in the thread does this, then you need to listen. Most modern revolvers are built using modern machinery. Old revolvers were milled by human hands. To some this is a big difference, to others it's a moot point. Fact is, most modern firearms produced today are as accurate and as reliable as any made 60 years ago. In many cases they are better. What usually suffers in today's firearms is fit and finish. As with automobiles, mass produced will never be as pretty or unique as custom. As with autos, better firearms generally cost more. This does not mean inexpensive models aren't any good. As with autos, even the best and most expensive can leave the factory with a defect. This is where customer service comes in.
Customer service is like insurance.....none of us wants to use it, but when we do, we want it to be good. Sometimes the price of a car or firearm reflects this. Having a lifetime warranty to me is worth a little extra upfront than a one year or no warranty. Smith, Ruger, and Taurus all make fine guns within their respective price ranges and all have loyal fans. Part of the fun of buying a new gun is looking....


BTW...I assume when you say no revolvers in .45, you are referring to .45ACP since there are many revolvers chambered in .45Colt. S&W has made and still makes revolvers in .45ACP, i.e the 625 and the 325 for example.

 

[psyshack]

There are 9mm and .45acp revolvers out there. S&W has some very popular .45 acp's both past and present. But let's face it,,, 9mm and .45acp were both purpose built cartridges for semi-auto pistols, carbines/sub-guns as it's worked out. If one wants to mess with conversion cylinders and moon clips get after it. Nothing over all is going to change in that arena.

As for the weapons themselves.

Charter and Tauri/Rossi are cellar dwellers in the modern market. While shootable and safe. There actions are sub par and over all long term quality is suspect. And both company's have a well earned reputation of sorry CS and horrid turn around times. Ruger has earned a good reputation of solid built weapons. With good CS for the most part. But the current sp101 and gp100 are built on a investment cast theory of production. This is why they get the built like a tank reputation. Investment cast has a bad habit of being to brittle or soft at a spec thickness or volume. So,, the way to over come this nasty little issue is to use more of it. Thus the built like a tank moniker. Ruger's have pretty good trigger out of the box and seem to break in good. They will never be Smith SA/DA triggers. Any thing that can be done to a Ruger to improve the trigger and in so many way's can be done to a Smith that had a better over all starting point to begin with. Smith's are know for the best warranty in the business and good CS. I wish I could opt out of the life time warranty for the sake of a cheaper priced pistol. But thats the socialist way. Make everybody pay for the few on new gun purchase's. While carft has suffered at Smith. So has craft in any production business now days. Just ask Colt. Yeah Smith has the idiot lock, as do others. And yes it will have mim parts. But the mim parts are in the same vain as investment cast. No craft make it cheap. And there are not floods of reports of Rugers breaking in two. Nor are there massive reports of mim hammers, triggers, cylinder bolts and other parts failing. Like hammers broke in two. Or sheared off triggers and such. And all parts are subject to wear and replacement if you shoot it enough. Just ask anybody that has honestly shot the crud out of there vaulted Colt.

So get your self a Ruger or Smith out of the new market. If you go used you still have Ruger and Smith then add Colt. If SA turns out to be your love then You ave Ruger and Colt as the go to company's.

Good Luck