The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 9, 2012, 01:50 AM   #126
Jbotto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 356
I noticed that same thing in my Permit to Carry class this summer. I was the one closest to my 21st birthday, still being 21, and was the only one with a wheel gun. Everyone else was lugging around plastic boxes with plastic guns inside. M&P's, XD's and Glocks for the most part as far as I saw. I pulled out my SP101 and loved some of the double takes. I got to see about half the group shoot, and will say that I was in the top 10% as far as small/consistent groups went. Everyone passed, but there sure seemed to be alot of "patterns" rather than groups. Made my day!
Jbotto is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 12:29 PM   #127
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,121
^ I'm proud of you! lol

Must have been a good feeling.

Post a pic of that puppy will ya?
__________________
Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium. Ímperet ílli Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps milítiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Ámen
Constantine is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 03:37 PM   #128
moisanfan11
Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2012
Location: flagstaff, az
Posts: 58
All I shoot when it comes to handguns are revolvers they're all I trust
moisanfan11 is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 08:00 PM   #129
Potsy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2011
Posts: 8
I'll throw my 2 cents in here and say, I've carried both semi & wheel guns. I have a .380, & a mdl 10 S&W and a mdl 85 .38+P. I do a lot of shooting with them all but really get my jollies off with the Mdl 10-6 and mdl 85. I do my own reloading , so it's pretty cheap for me to be able to shoot more often. It also seems , every time out at the range 'plinking' with them, someone comes over and wants to see the .38 Mdl 10-6 wheel gun. Most have never fired a wheel gun. I let them have a few rounds go down range and they are tickled. I love my mdl 85 revolver and only carry it every where. I trust it. It's a personal choice, but after 45 yrs of carrying a side arm, there's nothing like it for close deterance.
Potsy is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 08:18 PM   #130
Theophilus
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2011
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 88
This must have been said already - I have not read all six pages of this post to find out - but in my state, if you qualify with a revolver, a revolver is all you can carry. So just in case I choose to get one in the future, I rented a .22 auto for the day and I looked like every other plinkster in the classroom. But all I own are revolvers!
Theophilus is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 08:35 PM   #131
B.L.E.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 1,836
In TX, you can't qualify with a .22 for CHL, it's gotta be a centerfire of a minimum caliber which I don't remember.
B.L.E. is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 10:41 PM   #132
klyph3
Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
I suppose obsolete was the wrong word. Outdated, less capable, or technologically inferior would all have been more accurate.
klyph3 is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 10:41 PM   #133
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 17,947
Quote:
In TX, you can't qualify with a .22 for CHL, it's gotta be a centerfire of a minimum caliber which I don't remember.
.32 caliber or greater.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 9, 2012, 11:14 PM   #134
405FileFound
Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2012
Posts: 26
Good ideas for revolvers

I can get to the range a max of 2-3 times a year. Budget limits, the job doesnt pay too well... ANyway, I own a SW 649 and a 22. revolver. The complex nature of operating a pistol effectively are accomplished by frequent trips to a range; which isnt somehting I can afford to do. I am partial to revolvers, especially since a freind of mine told me about what happened to his mom. A while back she was working in a deli mart. There was a ruckus in the parking lot that had spread into the store. I was told that mom "ran to the back where the gun was kept and ran it up front to hand to the owner." So a) the gun was kept in the storage area (not good) and b) she had no idea how to use it (it was a semi-auto).
The fight simmered down and the disagreeing parties left, but what if it was a robbery or something? would she have been able to use the weapon before getting to the owner? To retain it if lunged at? This brings up topics of revolver or semi, who's familiar with the weapon, is there a plan in place, etc. I figure as well that if Bad Person breaks into your place, you and BG scuffle, and your gun is knocked from your possession and skids across the floor. It lands at the feet of your Mom/Daughter/Girlfriend/roommate - will they know how to bring a Semi to action and save the day? Revolvers may take longer to reload than a semi, but a jammed auto takes longer to shake free than to pull the trigger on a revovler with a bad round.
405FileFound is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 03:41 AM   #135
Jbotto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 356
Quote:
Constantine : I'm proud of you! lol

Must have been a good feeling.

Post a pic of that puppy will ya?
When I took the class it was still in factory form. As a carry gun, I just couldn't stand the grips. So I upgraded. It's a bit different in the angle of the grips, but nothing a few hundred rounds of good practice can't help you with. I reload .357's with cast bullets on the cheap for good practice ammo. I've put a picture up in the revolver forum recently, but since you asked, I'm more than happy to oblige.
Jbotto is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 06:04 AM   #136
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,242
"Outdated, less capable, or technologically inferior would all have been more accurate."

You're still picking the wrong words, but you're trying.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; December 10, 2012 at 08:53 AM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 07:27 AM   #137
Yung.gunr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2010
Location: Phoenix area
Posts: 1,305
I think that one of the biggest reasons you see more plastic out there is because of price. A nice quality revolver will cost quite a bit more than a quality plastic semi auto. For that matter an all metal/alloy framed semi auto will cost more than a plastic framed semi.

I used to not like revolvers, even though my Dad's old H&R .22mag was the first handgun I shot. My wife wouldn't shoot a semi so we got her an inexpensive Rough Rider. I understand the quality is not there compared to a S&W or other nicer revolver, but that gun is really growing on me. That trigger sure feels nice, even with it being an inexpensive gun.

I think if there were more quality revolvers available at the same prices as Glocks & XDs you would be seeing more revolvers. People are not going to drop so much $$$ on their first of anything, especially when they are unfamiliar with it.

Please also understand my above statements are based on prices of new guns. NOT a used revolver vs a new polymer.
Yung.gunr is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 12:21 PM   #138
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
"Outdated, less capable, or technologically inferior would all have been more accurate."

You're still picking the wrong words, but you're trying.
You beat me to it.........

Its not the bow, its the Indian.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 12:58 PM   #139
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
Outdated, less capable, or technologically inferior would all have been more accurate.
I'd like to see some empirical proof of any of those three points.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 05:21 PM   #140
TrueTexan
Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2012
Posts: 37
I would like to state i am not against Semi Automatics. I happen to own two, a Sig P220 and Sig 1911 XO one is an alloy frame the other steel frame. I also own three S&W revolvers all Steel frame. I love shooting them all, I just don't like the Plastic guns. I go along with the idea that plastic guns don't have a soul. When you grip a metal frame revoler or Semi you know the feel you got a gun in you hands. Grip a Tacicool Tupperware gun you might as well be gripping a child's Lego Blocks.
TrueTexan is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 06:24 PM   #141
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Grip a Tacicool Tupperware gun you might as well be gripping a child's Lego Blocks.
Except that with my Glock 31 I have 16 of what my 6" 686 has 6 of with 125 Grain bullets in a smaller lighter package.

They all have uses.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 09:59 PM   #142
klyph3
Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
Quote:
I'd like to see some empirical proof of any of those three points.
It seems to be obvious if viewed objectively. The revolver design is less technologically advanced. Which one is faster and easier to reload? Which one is lighter? Which one balances in the hand more ergonomically? Which uses more advanced materials? Which has a simpler method of operation (I'll give you a hint, it's not a revolver despite perceptions to the contrary). Listen, I love revolvers, muzzle loaders, crossbows, and atlatls, but it shouldn't require a dissertation of empirical data to recognize the hierarchy.
klyph3 is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 10:34 PM   #143
Theophilus
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2011
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 88
Which is easier to get jammed? Which is easier to have a safety get sticky? Which is easier to have a ND because you forgot you left one in the chamber?
Theophilus is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 10:34 PM   #144
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
The revolver design is less technologically advanced.
That doesn't translate into inferiority, however.

Quote:
Which one is faster and easier to reload?
With training and practice, that difference becomes quite meager and sometimes nonexistent.

Quote:
Which uses more advanced materials?
Aluminum and polymers are also used extensively with modern revolvers. In fact, I can't think of an alloy or material used for automatics that isn't used for some examples. Furthermore, a reliance on steel isn't a hindrance.

Quote:
Which has a simpler method of operation (I'll give you a hint, it's not a revolver despite perceptions to the contrary).
I must confess to some difficulty understanding this one. I've never found an automatic that has a simpler manual of arms, particularly when it comes to loading and unloading.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:40 AM   #145
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by klyph3 View Post
It seems to be obvious if viewed objectively.
Sounds good, objectivity is key when comparing things. Full disclosure, I'm mainly an auto guy but I do carry a revolver as backup.

Quote:
The revolver design is less technologically advanced.
As in older? Knives are about as ancient a design as you can find, yet I bet you and most people on this board carry/use one daily. The wheel is the opposite of technologically advanced, yet this world we know would cease to function without them. This has no relevance in a discussion of whether an auto or revolver are better.

Quote:
Which one is faster and easier to reload?
+1 for the auto. But two things to consider. 1) With practice, a revolver can be almost as fast to reload as an auto (watch videos of Jerry Miculek). 2) Most (not all, of course) gun fights end with 3 or fewer shots fired, let alone the need for a reload. We can still give this to the auto.

Quote:
Which one is lighter?
Depends. S&W Model 340PD is 11.4oz empty. Ruger LCP is 10oz, but you're limited to .380 (and I'll take 5 .357 or .38 SPL over 7 .380 any day of the week). If we move up to an LC9 (more or less equivalent round as .38 SPL) is 17oz. Kahr PM9 (typically regarded as one of the lightest reliable 9mm) weighs 15.9oz empty.

Looks like if you are considering the power of a round, revolvers are lighter by 3 or 4 ounces. If you're not, autos have a slight edge, by about an ounce. Since, for me, the minimum auto round I'm willing to carry is 9mm, revolver wins this one.

Quote:
Which one balances in the hand more ergonomically?
You said you wanted to be objective. This is subjective. I love how my Glock feels. Some people hate it. I don't like how most Sigs fit my hand, others love it. Some people love how revolvers feel. I like how my LCR feels, even though its a J Frame sized revolver...almost as much as my Glock.

Quote:
Which uses more advanced materials?
Um, both? Honestly, there isn't any materials used on autos that isn't used on revolvers today. Heck there are 3 polymer revolvers on the market today.

Quote:
Which has a simpler method of operation (I'll give you a hint, it's not a revolver despite perceptions to the contrary).
It doesn't get more simple than point and pull trigger, and that's how a revolver works. There's fewer moving parts in a revolver, making it simpler. Most autos have more controls and are far more complex than a revolver.

Quote:
Listen, I love revolvers, muzzle loaders, crossbows, and atlatls, but it shouldn't require a dissertation of empirical data to recognize the hierarchy.
Both types go bang when you pull the trigger and make a metal projectile come out the end at a very high rate of speed. Empirical data will show both are deadly. Empirical data will also show the revolver to be more reliable than the auto...something your "objective" comparison left out. Which is exactly why I carry a revolver as backup.

Again I'm mostly an auto guy who loves his Glockerware. But I can also look at this objectively and realize that revolvers are still very relevant, and are most certainly not obsolete, outdated or underpowered.
Gaerek is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:29 AM   #146
klyph3
Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2012
Posts: 59
My phone just ate my verbose and well punctuated comment with diligent quote tags and everything, so I'll summarize.

I'm not Jerry miculek, neither are you. Compare Jerry's reload time to the fastest auto reloader. Grab ten people off the street and time them with both.

If you use averaging to make a generalization, revolvers are heavier.

A revolver has the ammo and more of the gun's weight above and forward of the hand than an auto. The bore is generally higher above the grip. Ergonomics are an objective subject, individual preference may not be.

When referring to simplicity of operation, I was referring to the mechanical operation of the mechanism, not the task imposed on the operator. Revolvers are more complex mechanically.

I need to be more diligent about my vocabulary.
klyph3 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 07:33 AM   #147
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,242
"A revolver has the ammo and more of the gun's weight above and forward of the hand than an auto."

Once again you're discarding subjectivity and resorting to expansive generalizations to "prove" a point, and that is where your arguments fail.

Which gun has more of the gun's weight above and forward of the hand?

A Ruger LCR, or a Glock 20?

The answer is the Glock 20, with its very large slide and barrel (that combination is, IIRC, about 2 ounces HEAVIER than the entire LCR).

"If you use averaging to make a generalization, revolvers are heavier."

You really sure about that? What data sets are you using to arrive at that conclusion? Have you tabulated the weights of all available revolver models vs. all available semi-auto models to arrive at an average weight?

Or is that very non subjective guess?


"Ergonomics are an objective subject."

Actually, ergonomics are an objective subject when compared against a derivative mean example, an "industry standard model" of the "average" human.

Walking up and down the corridors at my office and looking at the people I work with, though, it's painfully obvious that the industry standard model is just that, a model, with not a lot of useful application when it comes to individuals.

If it did have validity across wide groups of people, we wouldn't see so many different grip makers offering replacement grips, panels, sleeves, etc., for all types of handguns.

Nor would we see an increasing number of semi-autos coming standard from the factory with two, three, or more sets of backstraps and grip panels that allow a decidedly non-industry standard person to customize the fit and feel of the gun.



"Revolvers are more complex mechanically."

Uhm... no. They're not. Please, though, tell us how you've arrived at that conclusion, and remember, "Because I think so" isn't a valid data set to support your hypothesis.


"I need to be more diligent about my vocabulary."

No offense, but you actually need to be a lot more diligent in providing verifiable data to support your claims, especially when you're speaking, as you often are in this thread, in absolutes and as if it is a foregone conclusion that you're correct and backed up with scads of data and information.

They people here aren't exactly dumbasses. They can chew up and spit out postulations given as proof without raising a sweat.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; December 11, 2012 at 08:15 AM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 08:10 AM   #148
micromontenegro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 466
Re. ergonomics: A revolver's grip is designed with a single purpose in mind: to provide the best hold. A semiauto's grip is designed to hold... ammo.
micromontenegro is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 10:44 AM   #149
Dennis6474
Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2011
Location: Florida Panhandle
Posts: 49
I am going to jump in here because no one has mentioned the reason that I carry a SP101 .357.

I carry the gun I shoot the best and that is a revolver because I shoot it the most. I shoot it the most because I reload all my practice ammo. I reload the .357 because I don't have to crawl around on the ground hunting empty brass.

The revolver dumps all fired brass into my hand. I can spend more time shooting and less time on the ground looking. At my age that becomes a major consideration. At my backyard range you will never find all the brass without a metal detector. Pain in the behind
Dennis6474 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 11:29 AM   #150
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
I'm not Jerry miculek, neither are you. Compare Jerry's reload time to the fastest auto reloader. Grab ten people off the street and time them with both.
Never said you were or I was. My point was that with practice, anyone can reload a revolver very quickly. Quick enough that it's only maybe 30% slower than an auto. Certainly not negligible, but we're talking the extra time is less than a second. The key, just like everything, is practice.

And again, statistics show that in a gun fight, you will almost certainly not have to reload, with a revolver or an auto.

Quote:
If you use averaging to make a generalization, revolvers are heavier.
Ok, I can accept that. But for people who care about weight, they are going to go for the lightest they can. The scandium framed S&W J-Frame can hold 5 rounds of .357 Magnum, and is in a package of just under 12oz. Show me an auto with equivalent power in that weight. Most people don't care about weight. I don't. I carry a G19 that is 21oz unloaded, and about 30oz loaded. The reason I went with the 19 and not the 17 had nothing to do with weight. I wanted a smaller frame. I could just as easily carry a K frame revolver. The extra few ounces of weight wouldn't bother me.

Again, for those that weight does matter, revolvers are lighter. For most, weight is a secondary or even tertiary issue. And light and powerful guns are the realm of revolvers...not autos.

Quote:
A revolver has the ammo and more of the gun's weight above and forward of the hand than an auto. The bore is generally higher above the grip. Ergonomics are an objective subject, individual preference may not be.
I'll quote micromontenegro on this one, as he has the right idea, since ergonomics is also about grip design as well:

Quote:
A revolver's grip is designed with a single purpose in mind: to provide the best hold. A semiauto's grip is designed to hold... ammo.
My Glock's grip's #1 purpose is to hold a double stack magazine. The ergonomics of the grip are limited by this fact. This is one reason why many people hate the Glock grip. I have big hands, so it doesn't bother me, personally. A nice Hogue or Pachmyr grip on a revolver kills anything that can be done to a Glock to make it more comfortable.

As far as the weight issue, well, some people see the weight of a revolver being forward of center a good thing. It helps with recoil. This is why raceguns typically are as heavy up front as possible. Ergonomics is important if you're doing something for a long time, several times a week. It's why my wife got a $1400 chair in her office. It's cheaper for them to pay for an expensive chair than for them to pay for sick leave and insurance costs because she gets back trouble. When you're in a shooting situation, the last thing that matters is how well the gun feels, ESPECIALLY if you've been practicing with what you're carrying, be it an auto or revolver.

In other words, if you like the feel of your gun, the ergo's don't really matter all that much. Making this issue subjective.

Quote:
When referring to simplicity of operation, I was referring to the mechanical operation of the mechanism, not the task imposed on the operator. Revolvers are more complex mechanically.
I know several gunsmiths that would greatly disagree with you. It's the mechanical complexity of an automatic that makes them more prone to malfunction than a revolver. Think about everything that happens in an auto when you pull the trigger. For a Glock, here's basically (there's more that happens, I know, but I'm trying to keep it simple) what happens:

1) Striker spring is compressed the rest of the way
2) Striker is released
3) Striker hits primer of round
4) Round is propelled out of the barrel
5) Slide begins to move back
6) After about 1/4in (I can't remember now), barrel locks up, slide continues to move back
7) Extractor that must be able to grip spent casing pushes casing again ejector causing spent casing to be ejected
8) On return trip, slide grabs next round in magazine and pushes it into chamber.
9) As slide moves forward, trigger is reset and gun is back into battery, ready for next trigger squeeze.

For a revolver:

1) As trigger is pulled, hammer is pulled back
2) As trigger is pulled, cylinder is rotated to next chamber
3) Hammer is released, and falls on the firing pin
4) Firing pin strikes round primer
5) Round is propelled out of the barrel
6) As trigger is released, trigger is reset for next shot

I've left out some steps for simplicity purposes, but I've left out more for the auto than for the revolver. I'm sorry, a revolver is more simple mechanically than an auto.

I thought of another +1 to revolvers (besides being less prone to malfuncton, which you haven't mentioned at all). At contact distance, if you have your gun pressed against someone's body, a revolver will go bang. An auto could easily be pushed out of battery and won't fire. You have to be cognizant of this fact with an auto and not press the gun against your target.

Quote:
I need to be more diligent about my facts.
Fixed it for you.

Here's the thing, it's obvious that you're a semiauto guy. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I am too. It's not worth it to take it personally that people disagree with you that you think autos are better. It's all personal preference. You've also not shown anything conclusive that shows why autos are better than revolvers. All things considered, they both have their benefits and drawbacks. It's why I carry one of each. I get the capacity and other benefits of an auto, with the reliability of the revolver.
Gaerek is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13463 seconds with 7 queries