varmint243
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 516
- Reaction score
- 372
Are revolvers going the route of manual transmissions?
- Thread starter jmr986
- Start date
DD357
Member
I have read more than one firearms instructor post that new shooters get up to speed faster with striker fired guns than any other kinds. Not a scientific study but they are in a position to have an opinion worth listening to. That has been my experience as well with new shooters. I personally prefer my snub K's, they are nicely rounded for concealment, have an external hammer that I can put my thumb on when reholstering, and I have well over 100K rounds through a wheelgun so there is a comfort/familiarity level there for me; and with that many rounds I can shoot them. Kind of opposite what is usually stated but I think if someone is going to carry a wheelgun they need to be willing to invest in the additional range time it takes to learn to shoot the weapon. I suppose one could argue that the lack of an external hammer and the lighter & shorter trigger gives the novice a bit less of a margin for doing something negligent and not getting away with it, but revolvers have had ND's as well. No doubt the semiauto's are more popular today but for hunting and small hideout (J frame) type guns wheelguns are not going away.
Last edited:
Stopsign32v
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 838
There is reliable scientific data to back up what I said, its called physics.
Ferrari announced they are eliminating the manual transmission but are they really? Dual clutch self shifting (automatic) manual transmissions, i.e. an automatic manual, has been used by Ferrari and other high performance manufacturers the past few years so everything is presumably going to be offered in a automatic manual by Ferrari going forward.
So ...... how about an automatic revolver? Well here it is ......
The Mateba Auto Revolver Model 6 Dynamic Sportiva uses the energy from a fired round to automatically rotate the cylinder.
So ...... how about an automatic revolver? Well here it is ......
The Mateba Auto Revolver Model 6 Dynamic Sportiva uses the energy from a fired round to automatically rotate the cylinder.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure of that. I once had a stuck throttle going down a mountain in PA. The engine had barely started to rev up before I was in neutral (manual transmission) and working on the throttle problem (as I recall, it only took one good stomp-and-release to fix it, and I have never had trouble since). This would not have been true with an auto trans, because I would not have had a constant and close relationship with the shift lever like I do with my manual trans. I know this, because I also drive some auto trans vehicles.
Auto trans vehicles are a little easier to drive in stop-and-go traffic. Other than that, they are NOT the last word in any driving I do.
Longhorn1986
Member
Automatic Tranny? Isn't that a cross-dressing robot? 
Stopsign32v
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 838
Technology has eliminated throttle cables and you can bump an automatic in neutral just as well.
Not true. Drop one in fine eastern NC dirt and you'll find out what it takes to DETAIL DISASSEMBLE a revolver. Fortunately, mine was a SA that time, and tolerable, but it sure taught me a lesson on the superiority of The 1911 whenever mud, blood and beer are involved.
Fly-by-wire throttle systems have apparently failed, also, and aren't quite as easy to fix while barreling down a mountain.
No, I cannot bump an automatic into neutral just as well. While some autos may be almost as fast as a manual, others aren't, but none compare to operating a stick that I use hundreds of times a day.
I carry a gun every day. Barring a possible incident with a dog or coyote or human that hasn't happened yet, I do so needlessly. I am not willing to accept a lot of risk in carrying, because I don't see a lot of risk in not carrying. As a result, I have allowed myself to be heavily influenced by safety factors involved in the choice of firearm types.
I ask each of you who participates in this discussion to look at his own way of handling a handgun, perhaps on a daily basis, and in view of The Four Rules:
Feel free to call me anything you want. Words don't hurt me very much.
I ask each of you who participates in this discussion to look at his own way of handling a handgun, perhaps on a daily basis, and in view of The Four Rules:
- All guns are always loaded.
- Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
- Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
- Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Feel free to call me anything you want. Words don't hurt me very much.
I have had 4 Vettes starting with 1998 with FBW and no problems. No one I know of with FBW has reported a problem. I have had throttle cables break many times.
Many autos are faster, much faster than a manual, they have come a long way.
I too have a lot of experience with sticks since early 60s from street to drag racing, off road, huge dump trucks to the many geared trans of 18 wheedlers . My son who drives double bottoms tractor trailers, their whole fleet is now Volvo automatics
Back on guns I have no problem with the operating systems that are now available with hand guns. Revs will always be popular by shooters with a open mind.
Stopsign32v
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 838
Yes, you absolutely can.
OP
jmr986
Member
Pardon my drool, but your 3 PC's are what I'm considering for my CCW. Do you have a favorite? Or is it asking to pick your favorite child? I'm kind of old school and leaning towards that 586.
Of course not. My hand is not sitting on it like it is on the stick. And you don't even know where the shift lever for the auto is, so how could you say?
Have fun trying to turn the handle. Most people can't even start a chainsaw
Arik
Member
Well I'm not going to be hiring people so i don't think I'd have to much trouble turning the handle or starting a chainsaw but that statement was sarcasm
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
No one I know of with a throttle cable has reported a problem to me. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened. There have been at least a couple of recalls for runaway cars, although the most famous, that of the Audi, was probably a fraud perpetrated by a competitor.
AFAIK, no one is discussing throttle cables breaking. We were discussing runaway cars, as in throttles sticking. If I am not mistaken, a broken throttle cable would usually result in a closed throttle, not an open one.
In the end, however, I don't care to bet my life on anything mechanical or electrical or electronic. Of course, I can't avoid doing that whether I like it or not. However, I feel I have a safer bet with a manual trans. I don't expect to change your choices. I hope you're smart enough not to expect to change mine.
Last edited:
In addition to blindly looking to what Military and Police use, there is also a fair amount of influence by what sport shooters use and what performs well in IDPA and the like. The problem is these sports have little similarity and relevance to what a civilian will encounter in an actual defense situation. It's a nice thought that you can simply go participate in these fun and challenging games, train hard for them at the range and as an end result be extremely well prepared defensively, but it's just not factual. I also repeatedly see decisions based on "what you shoot better" without any explanation of what that really means in the context of self-defense.
I know I would definately carry one of my Glocks if I thought a scenario that resembled a sport shooting stage or even how some conduct their Force on Force drills was likely. I'm a huge believer and advocate for FoF when it's done right, but how many run them, it is not anymore relevant than participating in a paintball match.
Consider stats. I love stats, but they must be analyzed properly.There are are several stats out there on civilian armed defense encounters although there is no detailed national database. Many are extremely small and not so conclusive, so look at as many as possible to get best a better picture of what occurs. Using common sense helps as well. The largest study I'm aware of is The armed citizen 5 year study. The one thing about stats is that you have to look at what is being documented. The armed citizens study only documented cases where the defender had and was able to access and effectively use their weapon. As one instructor put it...
"The armed citizen only recounts the takes with happy endings, never the ones where people got their heads stove in with tire irons while their derringer was still in their purse. It's like stating auto crashes are rarely fatal because 100% of the people you interviewed had survived them."
The majority of likely civilian self-defense scenarios are reactive. The majority of documented successful use of firearms in self-defense by civilians is not. The reason being is very few Americans carry a firearm. Roughly 10 million out of 300 million Americans even have a permit and only a portion of those carry regularly. And then there would the cases where an individual did have a firearm, but was not able to access it and effectively use it. Simply compare the relatively low number of defensive uses of a firearm by civilians with the number of violent crime victims. And look at the specific nature of the crimes themselves. Now look at the armed citizens stats of "non-reactive" incidents in which nearly all of those were resolved with 1-3 shots being fired and having taken place inside 3 yards. Reloads took place in only one half of one percent! How is a high capacity autoloader an advantage even in just these scenarios, irregardless of considering the more common ECQ reactive ones? It isn't and a more in-depth analysis actually favors the snub revolver even more so.
Bottom line is that civilian encounters almost always take place at close-quarters and involve very few shots being fired and I assert that a snub revolver is the most effective weapon in a reactive ECQ defensive scenario. I've outlined my reasons in previous posts. If an individual's defensive firearm training is limited to just range shooting, I imagine it would hard for most to understand the dynamics. Anyone is free to disagree, but I would ask they share how they came to their conclusions. I would love to hear an explanation as to how an M1911 or a Glock 17/19(I own both BTW) offers equivelant operational functionality and weapon retention capable as a hammerless snub revolver in ECQ. Did they(or anyone they can reference) thoroughly test it to reach that conclusion and if so how did they test it?
I know I would definately carry one of my Glocks if I thought a scenario that resembled a sport shooting stage or even how some conduct their Force on Force drills was likely. I'm a huge believer and advocate for FoF when it's done right, but how many run them, it is not anymore relevant than participating in a paintball match.
Consider stats. I love stats, but they must be analyzed properly.There are are several stats out there on civilian armed defense encounters although there is no detailed national database. Many are extremely small and not so conclusive, so look at as many as possible to get best a better picture of what occurs. Using common sense helps as well. The largest study I'm aware of is The armed citizen 5 year study. The one thing about stats is that you have to look at what is being documented. The armed citizens study only documented cases where the defender had and was able to access and effectively use their weapon. As one instructor put it...
"The armed citizen only recounts the takes with happy endings, never the ones where people got their heads stove in with tire irons while their derringer was still in their purse. It's like stating auto crashes are rarely fatal because 100% of the people you interviewed had survived them."
The majority of likely civilian self-defense scenarios are reactive. The majority of documented successful use of firearms in self-defense by civilians is not. The reason being is very few Americans carry a firearm. Roughly 10 million out of 300 million Americans even have a permit and only a portion of those carry regularly. And then there would the cases where an individual did have a firearm, but was not able to access it and effectively use it. Simply compare the relatively low number of defensive uses of a firearm by civilians with the number of violent crime victims. And look at the specific nature of the crimes themselves. Now look at the armed citizens stats of "non-reactive" incidents in which nearly all of those were resolved with 1-3 shots being fired and having taken place inside 3 yards. Reloads took place in only one half of one percent! How is a high capacity autoloader an advantage even in just these scenarios, irregardless of considering the more common ECQ reactive ones? It isn't and a more in-depth analysis actually favors the snub revolver even more so.
Bottom line is that civilian encounters almost always take place at close-quarters and involve very few shots being fired and I assert that a snub revolver is the most effective weapon in a reactive ECQ defensive scenario. I've outlined my reasons in previous posts. If an individual's defensive firearm training is limited to just range shooting, I imagine it would hard for most to understand the dynamics. Anyone is free to disagree, but I would ask they share how they came to their conclusions. I would love to hear an explanation as to how an M1911 or a Glock 17/19(I own both BTW) offers equivelant operational functionality and weapon retention capable as a hammerless snub revolver in ECQ. Did they(or anyone they can reference) thoroughly test it to reach that conclusion and if so how did they test it?
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 5,574
Well put. Generally speaking, it's more likely that an accident will occur with a striker-fired pistol than with my DA-only revolver. Or even a DA auto. I sacrifice a small amount of accuracy for a larger amount of safety. The amount of times I've drawn my gun in self-defense pales in comparison to the amount of times I've re-holstered it.
Similar threads
