As a fellow revolver lover, I can tell you that the generation gap has served me well. As an example, a couple of years ago I traded away an average Glock 21 for a 5" 95% S&W Model 10-5 manufactured in 1967. There is no shortage of folks younger than me who are willing to trade away "Daddy's old revolver" for the latest and greatest wonder pistol. I'm going to continue to take advantage of it.
Is the revolver now a 'hobby gun'?
- Thread starter American1776
- Start date
OP
American1776
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 4,269
Thanks for all the comments. I think some folks misinterpreted what I meant by ‘hobby gun’. My post was NOT to argue that the technology is obsolete.
Instead, my point is, the new models being made today have not been my most reliable guns (due to the many mechanical and QA issues I’ve documented on these boards). I’m having a hard time feeling good enough to carry a *new* revolver over a new Beretta 92, HK USP, or Colt 1911, given that so many of these auto loading models I’ve owned were stone cold reliable.
Since the new revolvers seem to have real documented issues out of the box, my thoughts are, they really aren’t defense guns anymore; just a range gun.
Instead, my point is, the new models being made today have not been my most reliable guns (due to the many mechanical and QA issues I’ve documented on these boards). I’m having a hard time feeling good enough to carry a *new* revolver over a new Beretta 92, HK USP, or Colt 1911, given that so many of these auto loading models I’ve owned were stone cold reliable.
Since the new revolvers seem to have real documented issues out of the box, my thoughts are, they really aren’t defense guns anymore; just a range gun.
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
Not really. A Wheel Gun is far more inherently susceptible to failure due to its design and lockwork. I'm a huge wheel gun fan, but the modern automatic is far more relivable than a revolver. There is a reason why every institution that remotely deals with gun fighting has gone to the automatic.
The revolver is capable as a self defense tool. While obsolescence has slowly slithered its grimy paws on the revolver. That doesn't mean the revolver is any less capable today than it was back in 1921. A Remington Beals 1858 will still put a man six feet under just as it did in 1863. The difference between then and now is the simple fact that there are better choices.
Same goes for the modern revolver. There are better choices for most tasks. But a revolver is still capable and a viable choice if you understand its strengths and weaknesses.
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
I personally don't like the stuff Big Blue is pushing out. I find the quality as decreased. But that measurement of quality is based on my perceived desires based on looks and such.
Design wise, the guns coming out today are capable and somewhat better. Take the modern Model 66 for example. It has a strengthened forcing cone so it can eat a steady diet of full power .357 Magnum loads, while the original Model 66 was always recommended to shoot regularly with powder puff .38 Special loads and only carry .357 Magnum loads when on duty.
The newer guns are more utilitarian and cost management has gone into their production. But their ability to function for the most part hasn't decreased.
I'm just a purist and stuck in my ways. I like one piece barrels, no locks, and firing pins on hammers.
Justin T
Member
New or old has nothing to do with the thought of a revolver as a “hobby gun”. I don’t think revolvers (new or old) are hobby guns at all. They are serious tools meant to be used. But I do think, outside of range use, revolvers are generally not seen as the universal benchmark they once were.
I believe revolvers are experiencing a resurgence in popularity as states above and won’t be killed off anytime soon. However, in general, I do think most of the general population see revolvers as still relevant, but quaint, tools that are not “the best” tools for self-defense. Think about it. In an LTC qualification class when someone qualifies with a revolver they’re seen as an amusing odd duck. The shooting portion of the class is usually designed around magazines, loaded on instructors’ commands. Special allowances are made for those who wish to use a revolver. Most mainline training is also set up the same way. Look at popular training schools like Front Sight. The overwhelming majority of training done there is with autoloaders. I know there are more than one of you (one I know of specifically in this board) that have shot courses at FS with a revolver and done exceedingly well. But this sort of success requires a devoted commitment to the revolver as the tool of choice. Grandma can’t roll up with her model 36 nightstand special and do the same thing. Of course, a similar level of dedication os required to shoot at Front Sight with any auto, but lower levels of tool-specific training are much, much easier to access if you start out with an auto these days.
The same argument is made for the movement away from revolvers in law enforcement.
Serious users of the revolver and the revolver’s biggest fans prove that the revolver is still a relevant and quite useful tool even today. But the fact of the matter is this demographic is in the minority. The wide/vast majority of handgun users will be found with autos, unless there are legislative restrictions in place preventing them.
Look, I love revolvers, even though I only have a couple of them. And I have no problem carrying them, or trusting them for serious work. But we are the exception now. We choose what we see as the best tool for the job, given the conditions in whoch we think we will use it. Autos rule at the moment.
I believe revolvers are experiencing a resurgence in popularity as states above and won’t be killed off anytime soon. However, in general, I do think most of the general population see revolvers as still relevant, but quaint, tools that are not “the best” tools for self-defense. Think about it. In an LTC qualification class when someone qualifies with a revolver they’re seen as an amusing odd duck. The shooting portion of the class is usually designed around magazines, loaded on instructors’ commands. Special allowances are made for those who wish to use a revolver. Most mainline training is also set up the same way. Look at popular training schools like Front Sight. The overwhelming majority of training done there is with autoloaders. I know there are more than one of you (one I know of specifically in this board) that have shot courses at FS with a revolver and done exceedingly well. But this sort of success requires a devoted commitment to the revolver as the tool of choice. Grandma can’t roll up with her model 36 nightstand special and do the same thing. Of course, a similar level of dedication os required to shoot at Front Sight with any auto, but lower levels of tool-specific training are much, much easier to access if you start out with an auto these days.
The same argument is made for the movement away from revolvers in law enforcement.
Serious users of the revolver and the revolver’s biggest fans prove that the revolver is still a relevant and quite useful tool even today. But the fact of the matter is this demographic is in the minority. The wide/vast majority of handgun users will be found with autos, unless there are legislative restrictions in place preventing them.
Look, I love revolvers, even though I only have a couple of them. And I have no problem carrying them, or trusting them for serious work. But we are the exception now. We choose what we see as the best tool for the job, given the conditions in whoch we think we will use it. Autos rule at the moment.
This is a very intriguing thread. It actually forced me to give serious thought to the question before I could put together an answer.
Capacity, for me is a non-issue, since the largest capacity magazine I can possess without facing prison time is ten rounds. For me, the biggest determining factor for me between a revolver and a semi-auto is reload speed. Being disabled, the semi-auto gets the advantage.
However, the OP seems to question the popularity of the wheel gun, and it's current level of reliability. There appears to be a number of contributing factors.
First, how often does Hollywierd put out a modern action movie utilizing the revolver? Semi-auto and full-auto will sell more tickets and catch the attention of the more impressionable audience.
Noting reliability issues and quality control problems in the most recent examples of revolvers can be attributed to the retiring of the masters that built the revolvers that we know and love. Back in the early '90s, I had a failure arise in my 27-2. The extractor star separated from the extractor rod. My 'smith declared that the part had been a press fit. Because the -2 had been superseded, S&W wanted almost $400 for repairs, since -3 parts were alleged to be the only parts available for the repair. On the flip side, I haven't exercised my 686-6 as much as that 27, so I don't know if it will ultimately experience a failure. I can safely say, the extractor failure would have slowed me down if I found myself in a firefight. Concerning the 686-6, I haven't found any QC issues, but I have to admit, it has the smoothest double action pull of any S&W that I own.
When you look at the majority of the current popular handgun shooting sports, revolvers tend to put the shooter at a disadvantage. Courses of fire which are scored "time plus" usually mandate a revolver reload, which adds crucial time. Even when revolvers and semi-autos are on an equal playing field, the revolver still requires a higher degree of skill in order to be competitive.
While I do like my revolvers, I will rely on my semi-autos for CCW considering the instability of society, and the fact that I don't have a Gypsy fortune-teller in my employ.
Capacity, for me is a non-issue, since the largest capacity magazine I can possess without facing prison time is ten rounds. For me, the biggest determining factor for me between a revolver and a semi-auto is reload speed. Being disabled, the semi-auto gets the advantage.
However, the OP seems to question the popularity of the wheel gun, and it's current level of reliability. There appears to be a number of contributing factors.
First, how often does Hollywierd put out a modern action movie utilizing the revolver? Semi-auto and full-auto will sell more tickets and catch the attention of the more impressionable audience.
Noting reliability issues and quality control problems in the most recent examples of revolvers can be attributed to the retiring of the masters that built the revolvers that we know and love. Back in the early '90s, I had a failure arise in my 27-2. The extractor star separated from the extractor rod. My 'smith declared that the part had been a press fit. Because the -2 had been superseded, S&W wanted almost $400 for repairs, since -3 parts were alleged to be the only parts available for the repair. On the flip side, I haven't exercised my 686-6 as much as that 27, so I don't know if it will ultimately experience a failure. I can safely say, the extractor failure would have slowed me down if I found myself in a firefight. Concerning the 686-6, I haven't found any QC issues, but I have to admit, it has the smoothest double action pull of any S&W that I own.
When you look at the majority of the current popular handgun shooting sports, revolvers tend to put the shooter at a disadvantage. Courses of fire which are scored "time plus" usually mandate a revolver reload, which adds crucial time. Even when revolvers and semi-autos are on an equal playing field, the revolver still requires a higher degree of skill in order to be competitive.
While I do like my revolvers, I will rely on my semi-autos for CCW considering the instability of society, and the fact that I don't have a Gypsy fortune-teller in my employ.
Since 1962 all it takes is one good movie or TV Show to make a gun popular.........think
From Bond and his PPK...... to
Dirty Harry
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon..... finally
The Walking Dead.....which brought the Python back to general popularity........
From Bond and his PPK...... to
Dirty Harry
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon..... finally
The Walking Dead.....which brought the Python back to general popularity........
All of my handguns are hobby guns, revolver or semi-auto. I haven't actually needed to own one in two decades now. Now that I think of it, not since the last century. 
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
Since 1962 all it takes is one good movie or TV Show to make a gun popular.........think
From Bond and his PPK...... to
Dirty Harry
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon..... finally
The Walking Dead.....which brought the Python back to general popularity........
Great Western and Ruger made SAA clones due to Big and Small screen Westerns being aired back then and that was in the 1950s.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,987
- Reaction score
- 11,136
As I read many of the comments in this thread, it is basically a continuation of an identical thread with a different title ("Is the revolver obsolete" or similar wording) from a few weeks ago.
I enjoy shooting traditional semi-autos and revolvers, the ones that look like traditional semi-autos and revolvers, and usually as they come from the box without adornment or molestation in the forms of alleged "improvements".
It seems everything changed due to three factors: law enforcement transitioned to semi-automatic pistols, civilian concealed carry, and the Internet. There are always exceptions, but revolver shooters and carriers are often among the older folks, the ones that have been shooting for a long time, but many of them have had experience with traditional semi-autos as well. There are fewer of the older folks daily.
The concealed carriers can be divided into two general groups: the ones that carry the same gun daily, shoot occasionally, and carry an ammo that works well in their guns and that they can consistently hit a target with. They care all about practicality and nothing about shooting jello. They have no interest in the gospel of YouTube "experts". They don't obsess over gadgetry, in fact, have no need for it, but they are reasonably prepared as a concealed carrier.
The other group is the hobbyist concealed carriers. They're equipped with speedloaders, extra magazines, laser sights, flashlights, custom grips, holster collections, extra guns, and are familiar with the specs of every ammo of current manufacture that will chamber in their gun(s) of the day. That goes beyond reasonable preparedness. They shoot briefly at the range on a regular basis at short distances only because gunfights occur "up close". They obsess over every facet of concealed carry and its accoutrements. Some of these are revolver shooters, but I'll bet most shoot semi-automatics. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems doubtful the revolver will ever regain the prominence it once held.
Many of the new schoolers have never owned or even fired a revolver and have no interest. That's something that's unlikely to change. It's their choice and nothing to criticize.
I enjoy shooting traditional semi-autos and revolvers, the ones that look like traditional semi-autos and revolvers, and usually as they come from the box without adornment or molestation in the forms of alleged "improvements".
It seems everything changed due to three factors: law enforcement transitioned to semi-automatic pistols, civilian concealed carry, and the Internet. There are always exceptions, but revolver shooters and carriers are often among the older folks, the ones that have been shooting for a long time, but many of them have had experience with traditional semi-autos as well. There are fewer of the older folks daily.
The concealed carriers can be divided into two general groups: the ones that carry the same gun daily, shoot occasionally, and carry an ammo that works well in their guns and that they can consistently hit a target with. They care all about practicality and nothing about shooting jello. They have no interest in the gospel of YouTube "experts". They don't obsess over gadgetry, in fact, have no need for it, but they are reasonably prepared as a concealed carrier.
The other group is the hobbyist concealed carriers. They're equipped with speedloaders, extra magazines, laser sights, flashlights, custom grips, holster collections, extra guns, and are familiar with the specs of every ammo of current manufacture that will chamber in their gun(s) of the day. That goes beyond reasonable preparedness. They shoot briefly at the range on a regular basis at short distances only because gunfights occur "up close". They obsess over every facet of concealed carry and its accoutrements. Some of these are revolver shooters, but I'll bet most shoot semi-automatics. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems doubtful the revolver will ever regain the prominence it once held.
Many of the new schoolers have never owned or even fired a revolver and have no interest. That's something that's unlikely to change. It's their choice and nothing to criticize.
Last edited:
The defensive shooting perspective is certainly a valid perspective, but it's only one perspective.
There are different horses for different courses.
Here's an example, not related to firearms. Way back in the day (1930s) when the Aresti scoring system was developed for aerobatic competition, the Bucker Jungmeister was the aircraft to beat. Consequently, what it did well, or rather what was easy to do in it, was scored low, while the things it did not do well or were hard to do with it were scored high.
However, when the next generation of aerobatic aircraft came along the Jungmeister was no longer competitive. Aircraft like the Pitts Special were designed to do those high scoring maneuvers really well.
In turn a generation later, the competition aircraft that replaced the Pitts were better at maneuvers will long vertical lines and those that required lots of power and gyroscopic precession.
However, both the Jungmeister and the Pitts are still superb aerobatic aircraft.
----
Taking this back to your defensive handgun course example, those courses seldom reflect the reality of an armed citizen or law enforcement officer involved self defense shoot where it is over and done with in 5 rounds or less in 5 seconds or less, usually at 5 yards or less.
The FBI found that in 75% of its agent involved shoots, they were done in 3 shots or less in 3 seconds or less.
In those most frequent shoots the higher capacity of a the average issued semi-auto plays no role at all.
A DA/SA pistol will have an edge over a revolver or DAO pistol in double taps and controlled pairs, but an SA pistol will beat a DA/SA pistol at that same game.
Which one works best for a particular course of fire, depends entirely on the course of fire and what it is biased toward.
However, people also lose sight of the fact that the shooter also matters. For example I can shoot both the current (2019) and prior (2014) FBI Q courses - courses designed for high capacity semi-autos - and score 59/60 and 98/100 respectively on them with a six shot, 3" Model 13, a 2 1/2" six shot Model 66, or a 7 shot 3" 686+. Where I drop the points is the last shot here (the same in both Q courses):
From the 7 yards line;
- From the Ready, fire 4 rounds, conduct an empty gun reload, and fire 4 more rounds, all in 8 seconds.
I need about 8 1/2 seconds with the slower DA trigger pull combined with the slightly longer speed loader reload.
However, that 59/60 is far above the 48/60 needed for a passing score on the 2014 course, and the 98/100 on the 2019 course is way above the 90 points needed for an *instructor* to pass. And that's with an "obsolete" revolver.
Interestingly I can shoot the courses cleanly about 50% of the time with a Ruger Speed 6 in 9mm. The full moon clips load just enough faster that I can beat the target turning at the 8 second mark about half the time.
Short of no knock raids on crack houses or similar situations where you roll up with a lot of people and more firepower than a service pistol, the revolver will still get it done.
But that's not how defensive pistol courses are conducted. They inevitably focus on things that are well outside the norm and they play to a large capacity semi-auto's strengths.
----
For armed citizen concealed carry - where you won't being doing no knock dynamic entries or getting yourself into situations with multiple armed assailants, I'll argue the revolver is still a good choice.
Consider my mother, who called me at age 85 stating she was getting a concealed carry permit and wanted to know what she should get for a handgun. Given her hand strength, low probability of doing anything more than basic firearms training and how she planned to carry it a 5 shot S&W Model 36 made perfect sense. Not too heavy, not too light, controllable for her in .38 Special, and no issues with racking a slide with arthritic hands.
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
There are many folks who cling to their revolvers for self defense but I am not one of them. I haven't relied on a revolver for many years. There are simply too many advantages to a good semi auto pistol. Not even debatable in my book.
I love my revolvers and have a bunch of them. Can one be used for SD? Sure. I just say it's not the best choice. I want the best choice when protecting my loved ones.
I am mocked when I say I want the same gun all the time. I want it to be instantly familiar in my hand. Just common sense to me. I do not understand guys talking about putting a gun "In the rotation." Frankly, I consider that lunacy.
I love my revolvers and have a bunch of them. Can one be used for SD? Sure. I just say it's not the best choice. I want the best choice when protecting my loved ones.
I am mocked when I say I want the same gun all the time. I want it to be instantly familiar in my hand. Just common sense to me. I do not understand guys talking about putting a gun "In the rotation." Frankly, I consider that lunacy.
Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. Shooting in the comfort of a range is one thing. Target shooting tolerances are not the same as combat tolerances. Take your handgun of whatever persuasion, run it through a rain storm, drop it inthe mud and see what can happen on the possibly worst day of your life. Ask the sandbox guys about blowing sand as an alternative. Any gun can fail with the right combination. JMHO
Having had to stalk Gunbroker for quite some time to eventually pay the price I did for a 627 2.625" a couple days ago. Nowadays, I'm pretty sure people are buying revolvers (or anything they can get their hands on based on budget and availability) for other-than-hobby purposes.
Shooting itself is a hobby for me, but it's a hobby with a very serious purpose. I just happen to really enjoy it.
I've grown into the idea of the revolver as a serious defense option. I don't get to shoot, practice and train as much as I'd like, so I want something simple to use that I have confidence in. It took a lot of hand-wringing and consideration of platforms to get here, but I believe that for my own situation a revolver is every bit as practical as a semi.
I do still have a designated HD 19 +1 9mm plastic gun, mainly because I can hang a decent light off it and it's large enough to control effectively. But I know based on my environment that having to use more than a cylinder's worth of ammo - or any ammo at all - at one time is extraordinarily unlikely.
Shooting itself is a hobby for me, but it's a hobby with a very serious purpose. I just happen to really enjoy it.
I've grown into the idea of the revolver as a serious defense option. I don't get to shoot, practice and train as much as I'd like, so I want something simple to use that I have confidence in. It took a lot of hand-wringing and consideration of platforms to get here, but I believe that for my own situation a revolver is every bit as practical as a semi.
I do still have a designated HD 19 +1 9mm plastic gun, mainly because I can hang a decent light off it and it's large enough to control effectively. But I know based on my environment that having to use more than a cylinder's worth of ammo - or any ammo at all - at one time is extraordinarily unlikely.
A well worn path, right up there with the caliber debate. What someone chooses to carry is up to them. The new generation of auto loaders are reliable to a fault, (yes, I carry one, a Shield 45). That said, speaking strictly in terms of civilian EDC, not on-duty LEO's, if one is proficient with a DA revolver, to include doing a stress reload, he/she's every bit as formidable as anyone packing an 18+1 auto pistol.
Last edited:
500SNW
Member
gregintenn
Member
I like magnums and rimfires.Well, if you do that, you limit yourself to magnums and rimfires.
ggibson511960
Member
Once upon a time I worked in the nuclear power industry. We scoured and scrubbed the technology to find and eliminate what we called a "common mode failure", that is the single trait that described a collective group of failures. The common mode failure in your bad experience with handguns is age. That's a long and windy way of saying they don't make 'em like they used to. More important than action type.
