Why have revolvers become passé ?

[HRnightmare]

The town I used to live in allows officers to carry "any handgun" they can qualify with. I know of one officer personally that carries the Colt Python... and did long before Rick Grimes and the Walking Dead was a thing...haha

 

[Bullnettles]

That can't possibly be true. I have personally had slides fight to hold onto cases. I have never needed 6 or more rounds in a gun fight. I suspect nearly everyone who has shot both types of gun can say the same.

The probability of a case not properly ejected is about 100% if you shoot long enough, the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%. After all, most people never even get into a gun fight, and those that do rarely even fire, and those that do rarely fire more than three times. I'm quoting something I read on that last part, I haven't personally watched every gun fight.

This is why I'm getting another 442 to replace my LCP.

 

[HRnightmare]

FBI stated in 2008 (? Do not quote me on the year) that the average gun fight / crime involves 4 bullets being fired. When a police officer uses a gun to stop someone it averages 8 rounds.

DO NOT turn this into a "cops suck at shooting" contest... Cops likely firearm more than what is "needed" to ensure the threat is stopped and it does NOT continue to threaten or harm others.

----

I remember this statistic because it was posted on one of the gun magazines online articles and it VERY QUICKLY accelerated into a "cops suck at shooting" P'ing match.

 

[Sam1911]

Several points to ponder:

1) The DOJ's statistics include all sorts of shootings. A significant number of shootings are suicides. Those are going to skew the numbers downward as there aren't that many folks who need more than 3 shots to do the job.

2) Statistical averages are (...woah! Surprise!) ... averages. When considering that a lot of the shootings that went into making up those numbers don't look anything like a self-defense shooting, one may find that their shooting situation falls on entirely the wrong side of the claimed average number. That's a "whoops" kind of day.

 

[TestPilot]

The probability of a case not properly ejected is about 100% if you shoot long enough,

Probability of having a failure in any kind of gun is 100% if you shoot long enough.

By the time I have fired enough rounds for the self-loaders to have any failure, I don't know if I can get the cylinder to turn any more on my revolvers if it fired the same number of rounds.

the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%.

"Shootings" and "gun fights" are not the same thing.

 

[BullRunBear]

I don't think revolvers are passé but I believe they have been overtaken by semis in popular perception. The huge increase in handgun sales in the last 6 years, especially for first time gun owners, probably favor semiautomatics for several reasons.

Fashion: The influence of "tacti-cool" ads and gear that make people think they will become instant SWAT members. And so many people, especially younger ones, think "new" has to be better.

Cultural: How often do newcomers see a revolver in movies, TV, or even carried by uniformed LEOs? Very seldom. Semis are seen as the norm.

Economic: A decently accurate (at SD distances) and reliable semi can be had for hundreds less than revolvers, carry more ammo, are faster to reload, and are often easier to conceal. Also, commercial 9mm ammo is relatively inexpensive.

The exception is the small, DA revolver for folks who have trouble racking a slide or want absolute reliability. Just pull the trigger and the gun fires. My wife prefers semiautomatics for targets and recreation. But she is small and can have trouble with the slide if in a hurry. (Yes, she knows the alternate ways to rack a slide.) And she doesn't want to carry cocked and locked. When she carries, it's an SP101 for its five absolutely sure rounds. The same reason applies to the bedside gun, an old Model 10 with four inch barrel.

I prefer revolvers (or Contenders) for careful target work and recreational shooting for many, many reasons. But I usually CC with a M&P Shield or Springfield XD. However, for open carry in the woods I like a 44 Mag. revolver, DA or SA, loaded with 44 Specials.

Jeff

 

[X-Rap]

There is no questioning the reliability of most revolvers but today most of the autos that are carried and issued are very reliable as well. We can find gross failure in anything but all things being equal I prefer the unquestionable capacity of the double stack 9 over most any handgun for social situations.
For woods carry there are so many variables that can dictate choices like being in bear country, hunting small game, stumbling on pot grows all of which make one type or caliber more desirable than the other.
I haven't counted lately but I'd guess I'm close to 50/50 maybe 60/40 in favor of SA pistols and rarely find myself with one in public.
I suppose one could say it is herd mentality but the public often does mimic what those who for one reason or another are considered experts, it's probably because they have put the time and effort into evaluating what the believe is superior for their use and consumption.
We are not all professional chefs but we might use the same pans as the ones we see on TV, same goes for bass boats.

 

[The Narrator]

Probability of having a failure in any kind of gun is 100% if you shoot long enough.

Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject. Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

By the time I have fired enough rounds for the self-loaders to have any failure, I don't know if I can get the cylinder to turn any more on my revolvers if it fired the same number of rounds.

I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.

Do not confuse "gun fight" with "shootings."

Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.

 

[TestPilot]

Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject.

Yes, and I also experienced cylinder starting to bind. I also experienced an improperly installed revolver barrel. I also experienced revolver skipping round in the cylinder when I decided not to shoot after pulling the trigger to a certain degree.

Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

Wrong.

I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.

Since I was talking about keep shooting with no maintenance what so ever, until there is a problem,

are you saying that you shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver, just one revolver, without cleaning,no maintenance, with no problems?

Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.

There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject. Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

This would be one of those instances where those not used to critical analysis of statistics are mislead as to what those statistics truly mean.

You can't actually draw useful information from the fact that 99% of society hasn't been in a gun fight, at least not anything worth knowing about failure-to-function rates of firearms.

As Kleanbore has pointed out a few times:

The real issue is conditional probability.

The odds of being in a violent situation are completely divorced from the severity of a violent situation. Should you find yourself in a violent confrontation, that the odds of it happening were 1/1 million, now have no bearing whatsoever on the best tool with which to handle it. (Or in this case, how many malfunctions you might have seen or not seen on the range.)

That is a very basic tenet of risk management.

 

[Sam1911]

There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

He probably didn't get around to Post 54 yet.

 

[mikemyers]

.......Everybody at the range sucks. Except that guy who brings a full size revolver and doesn't even bother with the pistol range, shooting 2" at the 100 yard rifle range. He is just slow. And a snob, probably. I have never talked to him actually but that just seems like rubbing peoples nose in it.

I enjoyed reading what you wrote, as that is EXACTLY what I'd love to be able to do. I no longer think it's impossible, just improbable, at least for me.

As to being a 'snob', I'd be happier if nobody was watching me shoot - when I go to the range, I get a spot away from everyone, and ignore what they're doing as much as I can. I never thought of it before as "rubbing people's nose in it"..... I watch what Jerry does in his videos, and while I know I'll never even get close to what he would do on his worst day, half asleep, and maybe blindfolded, I still want to try.....

 

[The Narrator]

Yeah, but odds are you have personally experienced a failure to eject.

Yes, and I also experienced cylinder starting to bind. I also experienced an improperly installed revolver barrel. I also experienced revolver skipping round in the cylinder when I decided not to shoot after pulling the trigger to a certain degree.

Only the last one is really relevant though. Everything breaks, failures to eject are normal enough that you are supposed to train for them.

Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.

The odds are. In reality, you're wrong.

Huh? You said yourself that the odds are, you haven't been. Where do you get that I'm wrong? Just because you have bad luck? Sorry challi, what I said was right.

I shot a revolver I was told was made in the 20th century and had over 50,000 rounds through it. It didn't have any trouble with the cylinder turning. I think you must be doing something wrong lol.

You shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver without cleaning?

Sure hope not! Why wouldn't you clean your gun?

Huh? This is basic maths stuff. Go out at lunch today and ask everyone you see if they have been in a gun fight in the US (that last bit to exclude Iraq types), and I doubt you will hear a single "yes". They are very rare outside of the military. Far rarer than failures to eject.

There is no distiction between a "a shooting" and "gun fight" because people you met at lunch did not experience one?

No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.

He probably didn't get around to Post 54 yet.

That's true too.

But 3 or 4 doesn't change the idea that a normal condition for an auto is more likely than an extremely rare event for most people.

 

[skoro]

After reading through this thread I've come to think:

It doesn't really matter one little bit.

Sure, autos outsell revolvers these days. So what?

There are plenty of excellent revolvers readily available in very effective calibers for those of us who favor wheelguns. I include myself, because I have a thing for S&W k-frames, so I own more revolvers than autos. But three of the four in my carry rotation are autos, and for good reasons.

If revolvers became scarce, then it would be a concern. But they aren't. They just aren't as popular as autos. And there are boatloads of good revolvers on the used market at decent prices. If you're a revolver guy, maybe you should take advantage of the situation while it lasts, because it won't be there in another decade or so.

And that's OK. Times change. Mostly for the better.

 

[Sam1911]

Since I was talking about keep shooting with no maintenance what so ever, until there is a problem,

are you saying that you shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver, just one revolver, without cleaning,no maintenance, with no problems?

I think this might need more clarification. You can run a revolver for a long time without a lot of maintenance. But it will need cleaning, just like an auto will. (I usually clean ever 500-750 rds, regardless of which I'm shooting.)

But a more interesting facet of the discussion might be total life span or mean time between overhauls.

Some Glocks have well over 100,000 rounds through them and still work fine. Needed a few springs along the way and maybe another small part or two, but the frame, slide, barrel, etc., are still going strong.

Some revolvers will get to 20,000 rds without needing to be seriously re-worked, but some won't. End-shake, peened bolts and notches, worn hands or teeth, etc will start to make them dangerous to shoot after a while. And there's really only so many times some of those repairs can be done. (Though, like autos, just how far you can push it is a huge question mark.)

Different animals altogether.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

All my handguns are revolvers. They do the job just fine. There's a healthy market for snubbies for concealed carry, and prices keep rising for high-condition revolvers from previous eras. I also see revolvers being used more in movies and TV shows, especially when a sense of style is called for.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Over the past 10 years I have seen a dramatic decline in the use of revolvers as well as there availability at gun shops. Why have revolvers become passé? I myself like revolvers over semi-auto pistols. I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away.

Actually...the decline started in earnest back in the early to mid 80's, as law enforcement and other government agencies started picking up steam in transitioning to semi-automatics over revolvers.

Over the years, I believe the revolver market has settled into a fairly steady market at a new, lower, level. There probably won't be any serious fluctuations in the revolver market over the long term for a good number of years, probably even decades.

 

[The Narrator]

This would be one of those instances where those not used to critical analysis of statistics are mislead as to what those statistics truly mean.

You can't actually draw useful information from the fact that 99% of society hasn't been in a gun fight, at least not anything worth knowing about failure-to-function rates of firearms.

I suspect you are wrong...but not in a bad way, just a "everyone who doesn't agree with whatever I meant when I was typing is wrong, it couldn't possibly be that I was unclear" way.

Someone, I've forgotten who, said something about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, that was a pretty cynical thing to say. In this case we have truth, damned truth, and statistics.


Someone said that a fairly normal failure mode for a handgun, something that is probably happening 100 times right now as I type this at shooting ranges across the country, is less common than a condition which can only occur in a gun fight. Gun fights are quite rare. The assertion they made can't possibly be true. Statistics are just a way to make the logic sound important.

 

[TestPilot]

...failures to eject are normal enough that you are supposed to train for them.

We train failure eject remedy drills because there is a remedy for that problem, not because failure is common.

According to your twisted logic, every commercial flight crews training for ditching plane would mean airliner crash are common.

Do flight attendants brief passengers on how to use a flotation device because airliner crash is common?

Odds are you have never been in a gun fight.
The odds are. In reality, you're wrong.
Huh? You said yourself that the odds are, you haven't been. Where do you get that I'm wrong? Just because you have bad luck? Sorry challi, what I said was right.

The odds of my getting into a gun fight when I was born was low.

It turned out that I beat that odd.

You shot 50000 rounds 357 Magnum out of a revolver without cleaning?

Sure hope not! Why wouldn't you clean your gun?

Because we're talking about malfunctions developing during shooting.

No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.

Let me use YOUR logic to explain what it is flawed:

"Every person experienced a revolver being empty after firing just 6 in their lifetime. So, chances of you running out of ammo with a revolver is infinitely higher than running into fail to eject during a gun fight."

PROPER comparison is between "probability of failure to eject duing a gun fight" vs. "probabliity of firing more than 6 during a gun fight."

 

[mikemyers]

That is simply cherry picking motions needed.

Racking is part of the loading motion, not shooting motion. If you include racking the slide to make self-loaders sound more complicated, then you should also include putting rounds in 6 separate cyliners and closing the slide in revolver too, since that is what self-loader achieves with inserting a magazine and racking the slide.

I know what others do, and I only know S&W revolvers, but I don't think I would EVER walk around with a semi "cocked and locked". I know people say it's safe, but the last time I did a search, I found instances of where the gun fired anyway. With the S&W, there is a steel plate preventing the hammer from ever reaching the bullet unless you physically pull back the trigger.

Simplicity - you can probably hand anyone a revolver, and he'll know what to do to make it go Bang! Maybe not with a SA. Maybe.

Your "feel" of self-loaders being more complicated to clean is just that: YOUR "feel." Nothing more.

OK, let me rephrase. For me, cleaning my S&W revolvers is simpler than cleaning my Colt Combat Commander. If I haven't used the Colt for a year or two, as was the case before, I had to figure it all out all over again. With the revolver, I found it more instinctive.

Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.

Just my opinion - with my Colt, there was a good chance that the ejected casing never made it out of the gun (which is now being worked on by Colt). When I visited Colorado last month, I rented a Glock and bought a box of the range ammo. Out of 50 bullets, it jammed six or seven times. The fellow at the range said this was because I wasn't holding the gun tight enough.

It doesn't matter if the gun has 100 rounds - if it jams after one of the first few shots, most people will never get it fixed in time to fire any more.... in my opinion.

I have never yet seen any SA that never jammed. Maybe there's a good reason, that I don't yet know about, but all the friends and family I've been to the range with, who used a SA, and the times I've used one, that was always eventually an issue. Maybe once or twice in a couple of hours, or maybe once or twice every 10 minutes..... I suppose a revolver that wasn't maintained properly might also be able to jam, somehow, but has anyone here had that happen to them personally?

 

[larbear]

I think that popularity is based on certain demographics. The type of firearm is based on a preceived need. In a rural setting where dangerous wild life encounters may occure a large caliber weapon is need and a revolver is best suited. One always under the hammer and no need for stoppage drills dropping mags and all that good stuff.
In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.
I have both but I perfer a reliable wheel gun.
Just saying....

 

[Sam1911]

Mark Twain made that phrase popular, and might have coined it though he claimed not to have.

Someone said that a fairly normal failure mode for a handgun, something that is probably happening 100 times right now as I type this at shooting ranges across the country, is less common than a condition which can only occur in a gun fight. Gun fights are quite rare. The assertion they made can't possibly be true. Statistics are just a way to make the logic sound important.

Ok, said that way, sure. Thing A is more common than thing B by orders of magnitude. That is a total quantity question, rather than a question of rates of those occurrences.

What he said was this:

Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.

What he perhaps SHOULD have clarified was more like this:

"In a gun fight the probability of a case not properly being ejected is far less than the probability of needing to fire more than 6 rounds."

As Kleanbore would say, the conditionality is critically important. WHEN in a gunfight, are you more likely to fire a 7th shot (or 6th if carrying a J-frame), or are you more likely to experience a failure to extract?

I think that very definitively puts the weight of probability on the extra shots fired.

 

[Sam1911]

In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.

My, what a strange viewpoint!

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by The Narrator:
...
Someone, I've forgotten who, said something about lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, that was a pretty cynical thing to say. In this case we have truth, damned truth, and statistics.

You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."

 

[The Narrator]

No, the distinction between "a shooting" and "gun fight" is irrelevant to what I said, which is that failures to eject are astronomically more likely than running out of ammo during a gun fight because being in a gun fight is astronomically unlikely.

Let me use YOUR logic to explain what it is flawed:

"Every person experienced a revolver being empty after firing just 6 in their lifetime. So, chances of you running out of ammo with a revolver is infinitely higher than running into fail to eject during a gun fight."

I can't stop you from trying, but that example doesn't show a flaw in my reasoning.

I was addressing the specific claim that "probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight" was higher than "probability of case not properly ejected". That is obviously and utterly false. If the claim had been "...case not properly ejected in a gun fight", or "...needing more than 6," we wouldn't be having this specific little talk.

You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

How do you figure?

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."

Yep. I stand beside that 100%. First you must be in a gun fight, which is punishingly rare. Then you must need more than 6 shots.