Are revolvers going the route of manual transmissions?

Since I mostly shoot paper targets on an indoor range, I've slowly moved almost exclusively to semi-auto; especially .22lr target pistols (seven at last count). And, I don't know why, except I'm more accurate with them. I sold my two home defense .357 Magnums; now using a Wilson Beretta 92G and keep a SIG p239 SAS by my bed. Still have a S&W 986 and a S&W 929 which go to the range infrequently. My carry gun is a Kimber SOLO, or a HK p7. Sometimes, a SIG p232.

I rode motorcycles for more than 65 years, all manual gearboxes. Started driving sports cars in 1955, all manual gearboxes, until I picked up a 2005 Audi TT 3.2 with a DSG gearbox. DSG is a direct shifting gearbox, uses two clutches; one can shift manually, or let the transmission do the shifting. I believe you'll find that type gearbox in most performance cars today, including Porsche and Ferrari. And, they're also in racing cars. I can't maintain engine control with a DSG as well as I can with a manual gearbox. Otherwise, it does a better job than I can.

I'd love a Combat Masterpiece; the USAF made me qualify with one. Several times I carried one when things were a little dicey. Comforting. As was the M 16.
 
Mister X said:
My primary focus is self-defense and an enclosed hammer snub revolver is my choice more often than not. I do own several Glocks(primarily for home defense), but feel the revolver is the more effective personal defense weapon for most people in most scenarios. The vast majority of civilian self-defense encounters occur at close-quarters and are resolved with very few shots being fired. The hammerless snub has numerous advantages in a close-quarter defense scenario that make it a sensible choice.

I would say the reason for the autoloaders popularity for defensive purposes is most people simply look at what military and police use and follow their lead, but their need differs from that of an armed civilian. Proactive/intentionally engage and pursue vs Reactive/avoid, escape, defend. In matters that are potentially life of death, decisions should be based on logic, facts, stats and common sense and you should be able to articulate why you carry what you do and be able to defend that choice in debate. In my experience, most people who default to "just get a Glock" cannot.

The semi-auto's greatest advantage over the revolver is greater firepower/capacity, but then many people choose a 6 round single stack micro-pistol or a 7 shot M1911 which makes very little sense to me. Quicker reloads are also possible with an autoloader, but reloading it such a rarity in civilian defense scenarios to warrant too much consideration IMO, especially considering more likely and practical pros/cons.
Click to expand...

640-1 with crimson trace laser grips and DeSantis holster. Works for me.
 
I enjoyed reading all the points to ponder. I like them both, but the revolver in my mind is more reliable.

Revolvers are a work of art, what I can't understand is why S&W only seems to put out stainless anymore. I think they are ugly, and like the auto, its more a tool. Yes, I have a few... 625, 629, 637, but they don't compare to the old 14 in deep blue. I don't like stainless autos either, but it looks like they are going that way also. Am I the only one that thinks this way?

As for the transmissions in cars, for me it depends on what you are driving. I wouldn't want a Cadillac with a stick, nor would I want a Jeep with an auto. I guess they put autos in Jeeps because most never leave the road. Mine does a lot of 4 wheeling. I tow with an Duramax/Allison.

A poster said they stamped the CCW with a auto or revolver. That kind of reminds me of when I took my drivers test (in the old days), if you used a (rare) car with an auto trans, your license had a big stamp across it saying "Auto only", in Ohio.

I regress... I took my test in the family car, a '52 Plymouth Cambrook. Back then it was way before stuff like A/C, power windows and such. So, when they had you make a turn, you had to put on the brake, clutch, roll down the window so you could get your arm out the window to signal the turn (few cars had electric turn signals back then). A lot of stuff going on to make a turn. Same thing on my '66 Harley FLH, which I still have.

Back on subject... I carry the 637.
 
stainless has a place. i need one. my guns are working guns that get open carried lots.
for me, a new blued gun will show holster wear in a month.
that's why i buy old beat up guns.
 
Stopsign32v said:
I can carry a 15rd Glock 19 BETTER than I can carry a K or N frame 5rd S&W.

I can carry a 9rd Glock 43 BETTER than I can carry a J frame S&W.

Where is the benefit of the revolver?
Click to expand...

First off, the primarily relevant 5-round revolvers are J-frames, and a K-frame or even an L-frame would be 6 rounds of 38/357 (or 5 rounds of 44 spl/mag in the case of a model 69). Forget N-frames for the purposes of concealed carry, which is obviously what you're getting at, because for the most part it's like trying to pocket a Desert Eagle.

The better point is not whether you can carry a Glock better, but whether you can shoot it better with comparable ammo. As to your question, though, the answer is simple: Long-term reliability, simplicity of operation, and the fact that a typical carry-sized 357 can launch a 125gr/158gr JHP with roughly twice the energy that a similarly sized 9mm can launch a 124gr/147gr JHP. Plus, a revolver can be reloaded nearly as fast as a semi-auto if you practice even a little.

So you like your Glock and it apparently works well for you. Bravo! But there's nothing magical about semi-autos or the false comfort of carrying more moderately-powered ammo. Choosing a revolver over a semi-auto or vice-versa is all about picking your compromises to suit the situation. If you think either one is all pros and no cons, you're misinformed.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to semi-auto vs revolver, the revolver wins when it comes to weight and the power factor. Compare the SW Model 29 with 44 Auto Mag. The Auto Mag is much much heavier. What semi-auto is chambered in the 454 Casual?
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to each. As to the original question, I would characterize it as a chain of events, starting back in the late 70s or early 80s:

--Manufacturing techniques improve, making out-of-the-box factory-made semiautomatic pistols more reliable.
--The quality and standardization of pistol ammunition improves.
--Police begin adopting semiautomatic pistols in large numbers. Among the last holdouts is the LAPD, which issued K-38s well into the mid-80s.
--LE organizations better integrate female officers and agents, and remove height/weight requirements, leading to a demand for handguns which can be easily operated by small-stature individuals.
--The US military adopts the Beretta 92, leading to the crash development of proper 9mm ammunition, advancing small-caliber pistol ammunition yet again.
--The 1986 Miami-Dade shootout spurs LE organizations to modernize their handgun arsenal. .38/.357 revolvers are criticized for being underpowered. The 10mm automatic is developed.
--Polymer-framed pistols are developed and eventually adopted in large numbers by police departments nationwide. They prove to be inexpensive, reliable, and simple to operate.
--Semiautomatic pistols and revolvers become roughly equal in price.
--The 10mm is found to generate too much recoil for LEO use. The .40 S&W is developed to bridge the gap between 9mm and .45 ACP. It is now possible to have a semiautomatic pistol with much more capacity than a 7+1 .45 ACP, but more power than 9mm Luger.
--The first generation of shooters to have never seen a police officer or soldier carrying a revolver is born.
--Ammunition prices begin to climb. Increases in the price of brass, and relative demand, make .38 Spl more expensive than 9mm.

More recently:

--Bullet technology improves, increasing the effectiveness of .40 S&W, 9mm, and .380 ACP.
--Manufacturing of small polymer pistols improves. Cheap, domestically-produced, small-frame semiautomatics flood the market. It is now possible to buy a name-brand CCW pistol for less than $400.
--Revolver prices continue to climb. Or rather, inflate. A quality revolver today costs 150-200% as much as a comparable polymer semiautomatic.
 
SeamasterSig said:
Forget N-frames for the purposes of concealed carry, which is obviously what you're getting at, because for the most part it's like trying to pocket a Desert Eagle.
Click to expand...

Not always true. While some N frames, particularly those made for hunting or competition are bad candidates for concealed carry, there are numerous N frames that are excellent for concealed carry year round such as the 629 .44 Magnum in 2.625" barrel, the same design in .357 Magnum the 627 (my personal favorite for concealed carry), or the scandium/titanium 327 Picture 3.

1. the 627 N Frame 2.625" Barreled 8 Shot (Ultimate Defensive Revolver as marketed by S&W) is 37 oz. 2. The L Frame 586 L-Comp 7 Shot 3" Barrel is 37 oz. 3. The K Frame 686 Plus 3" Barrel (SKU: 164300) weighs in within fractions of an ounce of 37 oz. So, really no difference between these three N, L, and K, frames for carry from weight. The only restriction to carry on this N frame for some including me is IWB carry, as the 627 with it's larger 8-shot cylinder, but all three very nicely conceal in belt holsters such as a Galco High Ride Silhouette or Combat Master (both pictured). If the 627 N Frame still strikes someone as too heavy, there is the scandium/titanium 327 N-Frame 8 Shot in 2" barrel at a mere 23 oz. with is lighter than just about any K frame in steel. Or how about an N Frame .44 Magnum for Fall through Spring carry due to it's 4" barrel but weighing in at 25.2 oz - the 329PD.
 

Attachments

  • 586&627.jpg
    586&627.jpg
    181.9 KB · Views: 18
  • 627-586-686Leather.jpg
    627-586-686Leather.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 16
  • 327 Snub Scandium.jpg
    327 Snub Scandium.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
On a different note, revolvers, lever guns, pumps and bolt actions are the last bastion of hope for the second amendment. They are a part of American history and will be the toughest to make illegal. I am in the quagmire of the left agenda and there currently is no big push to take these away for now. Because they arent black plastic I guess
 
3rdgeargrndrr said:
On a different note, revolvers, lever guns, pumps and bolt actions are the last bastion of hope for the second amendment. They are a part of American history and will be the toughest to make illegal. I am in the quagmire of the left agenda and there currently is no big push to take these away for now. Because they aren't black plastic I guess
Click to expand...

There's great deal of irony in this.

I used to shoot in a lot of practical pistol matches before I transferred to the east coast, in part because both the clubs I belonged to were very active in hosting matches in the area. I discovered that it is impressive how fast you can shoot and reload a revolver with a bit of practice.

In general most LEO Q courses designed for a semi-auto pose no real challenge for a well trained officer with a revolver. For example, I can shoot a 59/60 on the current FBI Q course, designed for semi-auto pistols, with a 6 shot Model 13 revolver, usually dropping that one point because I have problems in stage 3 consistently getting the last shot off under the 8 second limit:

Stage 3: 7 yard line

4 rounds in 4 seconds
4 rounds in 4 seconds

Have two magazines loaded with four rounds each. Fire four rounds, reload, fire another four rounds in 8 seconds.

I miss that last shot by less than half a second. And it would probably be a non issue with a 7 shot 686 as I'd only need to fire one shot after the reload.

Even with a shooter with little practice, I have yet to see a mass shooting where the outcome would have been any different with a revolver versus a semi-auto. The ability to fire 15 or 16 rounds without reloading just doesn't have an impact on the outcome when people "shelter in place" and wait for the gunman to arrive - giving him ample time to reload, even if he doesn't understand things like how to properly use a speed loader.

Thus if the anti gun crowd ever succeeds in banning semi-auto pistols, high capacity magazines and evil black rifles, the death tolls in mass shootings won't change - just the weapons used.

It's far more attractive for the anti-gun crowd to blame the weapons than it is to focus on the root causes that lead to people committing violent acts.
 
Last edited:
SeamasterSig said:
First off, the primarily relevant 5-round revolvers are J-frames, and a K-frame or even an L-frame would be 6 rounds of 38/357 (or 5 rounds of 44 spl/mag in the case of a model 69). Forget N-frames for the purposes of concealed carry, which is obviously what you're getting at, because for the most part it's like trying to pocket a Desert Eagle.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you saying you can pocket carry a Model 69 or a K frame?

SeamasterSig said:
The better point is not whether you can carry a Glock better, but whether you can shoot it better with comparable ammo. As to your question, though, the answer is simple: Long-term reliability, simplicity of operation, and the fact that a typical carry-sized 357 can launch a 125gr/158gr JHP with roughly twice the energy that a similarly sized 9mm can launch a 124gr/147gr JHP. Plus, a revolver can be reloaded nearly as fast as a semi-auto if you practice even a little.
Click to expand...

The better point is whether you can carry a Glock better. Reason is we are human and by nature we (most) are lazy. The world has made us lazy. So when we find something that is easy to carry, we will carry it more. THAT is the point of concealed carry, to always have your firearm on you. So yes, ease of carry is the better point.

But to answer your question, yes...Not only can I shoot equally as good ammo, but I can do it better.

A Glock 32 can shoot 90gr bullet @ 1700fps and has muzzle energy of 578ft lbs...or it can shoot a 125gr bullet @ 1475fps and has muzzle energy of 604ft lbs.

The above are 357 magnum numbers but out of a Glock.

Reliability isn't an issue with Glocks, and even if it is you are talking $15 worth of springs that can be swapped out within seconds.

As far as the magnum vs 9mm thing...I can put many more shots on target faster while not causing permanent hearing damage to myself. Shots on target matter much much much more than velocity. So when I chose a 9mm, it was a simple choice.


SeamasterSig said:
So you like your Glock and it apparently works well for you. Bravo! But there's nothing magical about semi-autos or the false comfort of carrying more moderately-powered ammo. Choosing a revolver over a semi-auto or vice-versa is all about picking your compromises to suit the situation. If you think either one is all pros and no cons, you're misinformed.
Click to expand...

Not misinformed at all. Fact is the semi auto has been around a long long time. Revolvers have been around even longer. And over time slowly you have seen semi autos taking over in the handgun field. This argument is about like arguing bolt action rifles are just as good as semi autos.

One word...technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

biku324
How About Your State?
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
6K
bulletslap
B
chief38
Easy come - easy go
Replies
5
Views
440
pharmer
pharmer
Narragansett
Revolver Saturation
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
3K
Narragansett
Narragansett
CAJUNLAWYER
Tropical fruits
2
Replies
33
Views
935
Krogen
Krogen
rwsmith
This dang 5903 WON'T SHOOT STRAIGHT!
Replies
3
Views
245
cherrypointmarine
cherrypointmarine

Latest posts

Back
Top