The Perfect Fighting Revolver

"I'd like to see the owner's manual that instructs them on how to do that!"

I suspect it starts with "Hold my beer and watch this!"

I know one guy who did have to built up the front sight on a Model 37 or something similar.

Previous owner decided that he wanted a "slick" gun and pretty much removed the front sight entirely with a file.
 
Going back to the definition of what a fighting revolver is...

In MY mind, a fighting revolver is a mid- to full-size revolver.

S&W's K, L, and N frame guns.

Those guns offer capabilities for both offensive AND defensive use. Offensive isn't as much of a consideration to use at TFL, but it's something that should be considered.


The J frames, with their small barrels and sight radius, to me aren't fighting revolvers, they're purely defensive revolvers -- close range propositions only that are, by their very nature, a lot more difficult to use proficiently than their larger cousins.
 
IMO anything bigger than a K frame would be too heavy for comfort. Every ounce counts when loaded up and on your feet a long time.
 
That would depend a lot on the kind of holster you have, other stuff you also carry, and whether or not you're actually carrying the revolver for long periods of time vs using it in a more home base kind of situation.

The advantage to a heavier revolver, as I noted earlier, is that when chambered for .357 or .38, they go a long way toward taming recoil and making follow on shots faster.
 
Exactly. Although I never minded shooting magnums through the Model 19 2.5" equipped with small Magna grips and a T-grip, the GP100 3" is a real pussycat with full power 357.
 
We seem to want to examine the word "fighting" from every angle. It seems to me that smaller guns are intended to avoid a "fight". At least they are practical enough to bring along. The trick is not to use them for a false sense of security and bravado and wind up in a "fight".
 
When you define fighting revolver as larger than I believe most would carry, I think you move the discussion to LEOs as the only people who can get in a "fight".
 
"When you define fighting revolver as larger than I believe most would carry"

Then that becomes a case of relegating even S&W K frames to the same category as being a revolver that is larger than most would carry.

I'm not focusing on whether or not someone would carry a particular gun of a particular size as an EDC revolver, I'm focusing on the revolver's size imbuing it with a certain set of characteristics.

Portability is but one of those criteria, and in the context of a discussion of "fighting revolvers," I personally believe that it isn't really a criteria that is all that important.
 
Are we really implying that "most" are not prepared for a "fight"? Discounting all those real world CCW folks, is a fight then only in theory, wherein we can fantasize about what gun we brought to the fight?
 
"Are we really implying that "most" are not prepared for a "fight"?"

I'm not at all sure where, why, or how you're coming to that conclusion. The simple fact is that very few people are ever truly prepared for potentially deadly encounters in which they find themselves. That's just one of those things, and part of it can be making the best of the situation with what you've got.

Obviously my comments about "knowing if I'm going into a social situation, I'll pick XXX" fall into a category of exceptionally unlikely to ain't never, ever gonna happen.


"Discounting all those real world CCW folks, is a fight then only in theory, wherein we can fantasize about what gun we brought to the fight?"

Fantasizing would be imagining you're Roland Deschaine and on a quest to the Dark Tower with your trusty gunslinger iron on your hip (I can't wait for this movie to hit the theaters!!!)

What we are doing here, or at least SHOULD be doing here, is discussing the guns and their capabilities first and foremost.

That said, I think most CCW people, myself included, carry revolvers that aren't fighting revolvers, they're the small defensive revolvers -- J Frames -- that I talked about earlier.

If I were ever to get into an encounter where I needed a gun outside my home, I'd almost certainly do so with what I term a defensive revolver, not a fighting revolver.
 
An S&W N frame with comfortable grips is a pleasure to shoot, a proper carrying rig-like proper footwear-will make a big difference. 100 years ago our Doughboy ancestors carried N frames and Colt New Services and full sized M1911s under rough circumstances. In my case as a more or less muscular 200+ pounder and a Life Member of SNM a few extra ounces doesn't bother me.
 
I realize that my gut reaction was correct. I don't own the perfect fighting revolver. Closest I come is this Model 10-7 with a 4" barrel. Swap the ivories for some checkered walnut and remove the hammer spur and it would do. If I could use my 38 Special carry load of a 125 JHP at 1150 FPS I would feel confident in its stopping power.

Pretty simple, huh? Maybe S&W knew what they were doing when they designed the 4" Model 10. Maybe all those tens of thousands of cops who packed one back in the day knew what they were doing, too.
Click to expand...

That revolver is very close to the Victory Model which is a real military fighting revolver.

I wouldn't hesitate to take that revolver to war.
 
Why do so many people take this thread on retarded tangents?
Click to expand...

You must be new to the Internet, Pilgrim. :p

Seriously, though, it's been this way in online forums since people were dialing into Compuserve/Prodigy, their local BBS, or getting onto Usenet.
 
986

Once I retire and have more time, my answer might change, but for now if a new revolver is desired (not a used classic), the S&W 986 7-shot 5 inch barrel (or choose the 2 1/2 inch) 35 ounce L-frame is my choice. I very much like loading with moon clips. Traditionalists will object to 9 mm ammo in a revolver, but it offers a good compromise of power, availability, selection, and affordability for those that don't reload.
 
I know I'm late to the party but I feel like those old-fashioned grips are more conducive to single-action firing. I prefer a grip shape that keeps my trigger finger in better alignment for double-action use. I was happy to see this come up in an article on Lucky Gunner back in February. I don't necessarily think they should all be DAO but it was an interesting read. Here is a link:

http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/double-action-only-revolvers
 
Mike Irwin said:
Going back to the definition of what a fighting revolver is...

In MY mind, a fighting revolver is a mid- to full-size revolver.

S&W's K, L, and N frame guns.

Those guns offer capabilities for both offensive AND defensive use. Offensive isn't as much of a consideration to use at TFL, but it's something that should be considered.
Click to expand...

Yep, same here. I see a "fighting handgun" (revolver or semi-auto) as one that you would purposely choose if it was your only weapon and you were going out looking for trouble, i.e., police or military.

Smaller CCW weapons are much better than nothing, but they sacrifice several desirable attributes to achieve their smaller size and lighter weight. There are valid reasons that standard issue revolvers were primarily S&W K, L, and N frames.
 
I'm still a little lost on the whole concept.
It's a "fighting revolver", but one you have to hide,
according to experts here.

So bringing anything with authoritative MV is out, and
still wondering about how you hide the rifle you are
bringing to this "fight"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top