Are revolvers going the route of manual transmissions?

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

My father-in-law owns a 442 J frame and literally cannot hit a large person size target from 10 feet away. He can at least hit it with his Glock. The only time I'd feel safe with him unholstered is with his Glock.

Does that help you any?

No . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Mister X]

This thread has pretty much jumped the rails. How a revolver somehow equals a manual transmission and a semi-auto an automatic one isn't a very valid comparison. I don't even think that was even the OP's intention. If we were only talking single action revolvers, it might have a small degree of merit, but with double action revolvers, it just doesn't make much sense.

If anything, I would say a pistol requires more overall manual labor involved in using it.

-It requires more work to load a magazine and rack slide on an autoloader than it does to swing out, load and close the cylinder on a revolver. Ask any arthritic elderly woman which one is more difficult and involves more physical effort. Not to mention the greater mental focus and attention an autoloader requires for safe handling, unloading etc.

-You can teach a beginner how to use a revolver in less than a minute. Not true with an autoloader.

-At the range, you have to pick up brass with an auto. Magazines as well. No such manual labor is needed with a revolver. Then there's the occasional clearing of malfunctions.

-And consider the maintenance involved. You can leave a loaded revolver in a dresser drawer without any maintenance for decades and be confidant it would still function fine. The same cannot readily be said about autos. Disassembling, cleaning and reassembling an auto is more labor extensive compared with a revolver.

And the notion that revolvers are old technology simply isn't very accurate from my perspective. I haven't looked into the history, but it wouldn't surprise me if double action revolvers actually came after the invention of semi-automatics. And I consider a S&W DAO scandium J-frame or a Ruger LCR modern, technological and engineering marvels, but many portray them as being the equivelant of a wheelgun from the 1800's.

And FWIW... I own more semi-automatics(Glocks no less) than I do revolvers.

 

[NYlakesider]

This thread has pretty much jumped the rails. How a revolver somehow equals a manual transmission and a semi-auto an automatic one isn't a very valid comparison. I don't even think that was even the OP's intention. If we were only talking single action revolvers, it might have a small degree of merit, but with double action revolvers, it just doesn't make much sense.

If anything, I would say a pistol requires more overall manual labor involved in using it.

-It requires more work to load a magazine and rack slide on an autoloader than it does to swing out, load and close the cylinder on a revolver. Ask any arthritic elderly woman which one is more difficult and involves more physical effort. Not to mention the greater mental focus and attention an autoloader requires for safe handling, unloading etc.

-You can teach a beginner how to use a revolver in less than a minute. Not true with an autoloader.

-At the range, you have to pick up brass with an auto. Magazines as well. No such manual labor is needed with a revolver. Then there's the occasional clearing of malfunctions.

-And consider the maintenance involved. You can leave a loaded revolver in a dresser drawer without any maintenance for decades and be confidant it would still function fine. The same cannot readily be said about autos. Disassembling, cleaning and reassembling an auto is more labor extensive compared with a revolver.

And the notion that revolvers are old technology simply isn't very accurate from my perspective. I haven't looked into the history, but it wouldn't surprise me if double action revolvers actually came after the invention of semi-automatics. And I consider a S&W DAO scandium J-frame or a Ruger LCR modern, technological and engineering marvels, but many portray them as being the equivelant of a wheelgun from the 1800's.

And FWIW... I own more semi-automatics(Glocks no less) than I do revolvers.

Well, right off the top of my head the The Colt M1877 was a double-action revolver that came out in 1877! Good chance there were others before but I'm too lazy to look it up!

 

[Krogen]

Well, I like revolvers and manual transmissions. Both my vehicles have manual transmissions. One is about to be traded in for (you guessed it) another one with a manual transmission. It's because I like the control of a manual. Somebody once said "I want to drive a car, not just ride in it."

The major difference between transmissions and revolvers is that transmissions are being improved. I should say "improved" as some would argue they've de-volved. Still, work is being done to make design changes. Revolvers, not so much. They're still pretty dated technology. Design efforts are being focused on semi-autos these days.

I like manual transmissions because I want to be involved with he driving experience. With firearms, I am involved; doesn't matter if it's a revolver, semi-auto, bolt rifle, single-shot or whatever. Same reason I enjoy handloading.

The OP's question is interesting, but for me it's tough to draw a parallel. I don't see revolvers going away any time soon. However, manual transmissions probably are going away. Gasoline engines will give way to electric vehicles. Even driving your own vehicle will eventually go away.

The only constant is change, except maybe for revolvers.

 

[USARMYSPEC4]

I must say that. I am old school and will continue to shoot my revolvers as long as I am able. I do carry a bottom feeder for SD as it will hide a lot easier than most of my wheel guns. I will continue to buy wheel guns as I love shooting them.
My feeling is they will continue making and selling them for a long time to come. Just my dimes worth.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

3 points of information here in this very long thread....

1. I carry a K frame 2" every day, they're harder to find than hen's teeth so, no, I do not think revolvers going away.

Never mind that so many companies still make and sell them.

2. I drive a 5-speed manual transmission pickup truck. I'm pretty sure they still make them, too. (Okay, my other car is an automatic transmission, but that's not the point!).

3. Texas still mandates that CHL instructors take two shooting tests, a pistol and a revolver. So they must know something about who is still carrying wheel guns.

ICBW BIDTS

 

[Brian in Oregon]

At the rate things are going, it's only a matter of time until mags are restricted to 10 rounds. At that point the playing field between revolvers and autos might be evened out.

Ruger has even gone further in this thinking by introducing a (ugh) plastic frame pocket revolver to cut costs.

 

[craig from ga]

.... not sure about the comparison ... whether you use a revolver or an automatic you still have to pull the trigger to make it work so .... they're both manual ...

 

[Brian in Oregon]

Regarding early double actions....

The 1858 Starr DA revolver was a cap and ball double action. It served in the Civil War in its .36 Navy and .44 Army versions. (They also made an 1863 single action .44 version that was about half the price.) I've held an 1858 Starr .44 DA, but never fired one. Trivia: This is the revolver William Munny (Clint Eastwood) uses to try to shoot the bucket in the beginning of "Unforgiven".

And before that, Adams made a double action only revolver in 1851 which used combustible cartridges.

 

[SeamasterSig]

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

Some people can pull it off at least some of the time (seasonally), but any N-frame is significantly bulkier than any K-frame – irregardless of weight or barrel length. N-frame concealed carry is a niche market at best.

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

Absolutely not. If you misunderstood me, then I didn't express myself clearly enough. I dislike carrying even sub-compact pistols in my front pants pocket. I only meant to say that N-frames are impractical as concealed-carry firearms for most people and shouldn't be referenced as average concealed carry examples.

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

I can't help it if you're lazy. But if you are, the world didn't make you that way. You got lazy based on a series of personal choices.

I'm a medium-sized person living in SW Florida and I don't consider a K-frame revolver to be too difficult to lug around concealed at any time of the year. I own and carry a mix of semi-autos and revolvers depending on the situation and my mood. Nobody carries a weapon simply because it is easy to carry; they carry it as a form of insurance because they might actually have to use it. We each have to decide for ourselves how much gun we are willing to carry. But that is a different issue that has little or nothing to do with semi-autos vs. revolvers.

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

You might be able to shoot a Glock better, but the first half of that statement is simply nonsense. You can't shoot anything out of a 9mm pistol (which was what I referenced) that exits the barrel with an excess of 700 foot pounds of energy. Not even close. You quote figures for a .357 Glock 32, but I bet you don't carry one. And I wouldn't blame you. There are good reasons why almost no one actually carries a semi-automatic pistol chambered in a true revolver round.

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.

Fair enough. Glocks don't ever experience FTFs or FTEs. I'll take you at your word. But in the extremely rare event that the spring lets you down, do you carry a spare on your person? We aren't talking about seconds if you have to call "time out" and go home or call Midway to fetch a spring.

Shots on target matter much much much more than velocity. So when I chose a 9mm, it was a simple choice.

If you can learn to hit with 9mm, you can learn to hit with 40... or 357 or 44 or 45. What you're really saying is that 9mm is plenty of power as far as you're concerned. In reality, it depends heavily on the situation, your skill level, and your (recoil) comfort level. But as I said before: Bravo! You found a caliber and platform that suits you well.

Not misinformed at all. Fact is the semi auto has been around a long long time. Revolvers have been around even longer.

So what? New technology doesn't necessarily improve on performance or elevate the original purpose of the thing in the first place. Granted, it presumably offers some advantages, but invariably entails new disadvantages as well. And you have to accept the disadvantages with the advantages: they're a package deal.

We all choose to carry (or at least own) smokeless powder firearms, but a simple sling shot might suffice in many situations. Hell, I cut the bejeesus out of my hand the other day with a lowly knife. And those things have been around a lot longer than guns. It didn't take a laser beam to render my right hand practically useless foreseeably for the next couple of weeks.

This argument is about like arguing bolt action rifles are just as good as semi autos.

No, it's exactly like arguing that revolvers are equal to and better than semi-autos in some situations, while being not as good in others. And I can think of a couple situations in which a bolt action rifle beats the **** out of a semi-auto.

One word...technology.

Two words: Blind faith.

 

[Grayfox]

In my lifetime I've driven three-on-the-tree, four-on-the-floor, Road Rangers and even the twin stick Qudra-Plex in 4, 6, 10 and 18 wheeled vehicles with out any problems at all. Throw in a few motorcycles for good measure.

I own probably three times as many revolvers as I do semi-autos and have carried them with no worries.

My current vehicle is a F-150 with an automatic transmission and my EDC is a lightweight Commander 1911 in .45acp.

So what does this all mean? Not a damned thing really. Well, maybe it just means I'm gettin' old.

 

[deputy584]

I carry a semi auto on duty(M&P45), prior to switching to the M&P we carried the S&W 4586 and all the glock fanboys cried because it was heavy and had a single stack magazine. You can't make them happy, for them revolvers are "old guy guns" I have heard them say this when they saw me carrying one off duty

I like guns, hell I might even love them.... ALL of them not just one type or another. I own several and carry several different ones according to how I dress and what I choose to carry at that time.

I own more revolvers than I do semi-auto's. I carry a revolver and sometimes I carry a semi off duty. The only ones that think revolvers are going the way of the manual transmission are the ones who have never driven one.

No one (in my opinion and experience) ever drools over a still functioning engraved 100-year-old semiautomatic....

Just my .02, not based on anything such as ballistics or foot pounds of energy on target or shot placement. Just based on my own somewhat biased self-subscribing theory that guns are good and we should own as many as our wives will let us or as many as she doesn't know about lol

 

[shotguntom]

In my lifetime I've driven three-on-the-tree, four-on-the-floor, Road Rangers and even the twin stick Qudra-Plex in 4, 6, 10 and 18 wheeled vehicles with out any problems at all. Throw in a few motorcycles for good measure.

I own probably three times as many revolvers as I do semi-autos and have carried them with no worries.

My current vehicle is a F-150 with an automatic transmission and my EDC is a lightweight Commander 1911 in .45acp.

So what does this all mean? Not a damned thing really. Well, maybe it just means I'm gettin' old.

Best damm reply of them all. Lol

 

[Jaymo]

We must be related.

I carry a semi auto on duty(M&P45), prior to switching to the M&P we carried the S&W 4586 and all the glock fanboys cried because it was heavy and had a single stack magazine. You can't make them happy, for them revolvers are "old guy guns" I have heard them say this when they saw me carrying one off duty

I like guns, hell I might even love them.... ALL of them not just one type or another. I own several and carry several different ones according to how I dress and what I choose to carry at that time.

I own more revolvers than I do semi-auto's. I carry a revolver and sometimes I carry a semi off duty. The only ones that think revolvers are going the way of the manual transmission are the ones who have never driven one.

No one (in my opinion and experience) ever drools over a still functioning engraved 100-year-old semiautomatic....

Just my .02, not based on anything such as ballistics or foot pounds of energy on target or shot placement. Just based on my own somewhat biased self-subscribing theory that guns are good and we should own as many as our wives will let us or as many as she doesn't know about lol

 

[Jaymo]

Kinda like motorcycles......how many automatic transmission motorcycles do you see?

Very, very few, and they were all Hondas. I like Honda (like Yamaha better), but I could never wrap my head around an automatic transmissision moto. Shifting gears on a motorcycle is way too easy (and fun), for me to ever want a slushbox on my motos.

 

[Jaymo]

There's this new invention, called the clutch. You hold that pedal down when stuck in traffic, and it keeps you from having to shift out of gear. Been doing that for years. The one place that I actually do like an automatic better than a manual is at a stop, on a hill. It is easier with the auto. Of course, autos break more often. They are electronically shifted (solenoids) and have plastic parts in them now. When the auto in my Mustang GT went out, it was because the plastic sprag stripped out. That, in turn, caused the clutch packs to barf their guts up. It cost me a lot of money to get it built the way it should have been from the factory. At work, the most common transmission failures we encounter are failures with the solenoids, wires, and clutch packs. In order for automatics to shift smoothly, the clutches have to be allowed to slip. That causes heat and wear. If you want an automatic to last, you need hard shifting. Hard shifting comes from rapid, positive clutch engagement. Most people don't want that because it doesn't feel smooth.
When we used GM service vans, the autos had bad problems with slipping, and late engagement when starting from a stop. Now that we have Promasters (Fix It Again Tony), we have problems with hill holding not working, transmissions allowing coasting when they should be engine braking, and engine braking when they should be coasting. Also, in traffic, they have a habit of shifting under part throttle, in such a manner that it feels like you just got rear-ended.

Auto trans are creature comforts too. After sitting in traffic for an hour going between 1st and neutral I realized I really don't need that deep of a connection with the car. Has nothing to do with laziness.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Arik]

There's this new invention, called the clutch. You hold that pedal down when stuck in traffic, and it keeps you from having to shift out of gear. [emoji14] Been doing that for years. The one place that I actually do like an automatic better than a manual is at a stop, on a hill. It is easier with the auto. Of course, autos break more often. They are electronically shifted (solenoids) and have plastic parts in them now. When the auto in my Mustang GT went out, it was because the plastic sprag stripped out. That, in turn, caused the clutch packs to barf their guts up. It cost me a lot of money to get it built the way it should have been from the factory. At work, the most common transmission failures we encounter are failures with the solenoids, wires, and clutch packs. In order for automatics to shift smoothly, the clutches have to be allowed to slip. That causes heat and wear. If you want an automatic to last, you need hard shifting. Hard shifting comes from rapid, positive clutch engagement. Most people don't want that because it doesn't feel smooth.
When we used GM service vans, the autos had bad problems with slipping, and late engagement when starting from a stop. Now that we have Promasters (Fix It Again Tony), we have problems with hill holding not working, transmissions allowing coasting when they should be engine braking, and engine braking when they should be coasting. Also, in traffic, they have a habit of shifting under part throttle, in such a manner that it feels like you just got rear-ended.

I know what it is and yet I still have to sit there holding it in.

Depends on the car and how you/your company drives them. My last car went 300k miles on the original transmission. Car ran fine but started to slowly nickel and dime me. Shocks, radiator, timing belt, water pump, which is ok, at that mileage repairs are understandable. However, when the catalytic converter needed replacing .....it wasn't worth it. Either way 300k and never touched the transmission. I don't baby my cars but I also don't drive them like I stole then and I don't remember ever having transmission problems in any of my cars and many were higher mileage.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I know what it is and yet I still have to sit there holding it in.

Never had that much problem shifting into neutral. My first car was an A-H Sprite with a graphite bushing as a throw-out bearing, so good habits were born from what I was told was a necessity. In constant stop-and-go traffic, like a 3mph traffic jam on the highway, an auto trans is clearly easier to operate. A manual is still acceptable.