This board is biased towards semi-autos!
- Thread starter rock_jock
- Start date
Are you kidding?
The last guns that I'll ever give up is my Colt Python, old S & W Highway patrolman in 5 inch barrel, and my S & W 640 in 2 inch, and I'm fixing to get some single action revolvers. Then I've just ordered my Dan Wesson 1911 and if that's any good, I'll go for Dan Wesson revolvers...it's just that I'm in my semi-auto mode for the time being.
The last guns that I'll ever give up is my Colt Python, old S & W Highway patrolman in 5 inch barrel, and my S & W 640 in 2 inch, and I'm fixing to get some single action revolvers. Then I've just ordered my Dan Wesson 1911 and if that's any good, I'll go for Dan Wesson revolvers...it's just that I'm in my semi-auto mode for the time being.
Mike Irwin
Staff
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tamara:
Indeed... The Webley-Fosbury managed to combine all the faults and none of the virtues of both semis and wheelguns into one cumbersome and awkward package...
[/quote]
Only partially true. The Webley-Fosberry was actually very reliable, not being as prone to jamming as one would think.
It was also EXTREMELY accurate, and was a choice of many top target shooters of the day, to the point that at one time I believe it owned most of the target shooting records in Britain.
I've actually fired one of these critters. Very unique feel, to put it mildly.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
Indeed... The Webley-Fosbury managed to combine all the faults and none of the virtues of both semis and wheelguns into one cumbersome and awkward package...
[/quote]
Only partially true. The Webley-Fosberry was actually very reliable, not being as prone to jamming as one would think.
It was also EXTREMELY accurate, and was a choice of many top target shooters of the day, to the point that at one time I believe it owned most of the target shooting records in Britain.
I've actually fired one of these critters. Very unique feel, to put it mildly.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
GIT_SOME.45
New member
I have 16 handguns; 4 revolvers and 12 autoloaders...
Hadn`t thought about it till now, but I guess I am unbalanced in my collection.
Guess I had better repent of my sins and go buy some more cool revolvers! He he he .
------------------
SHOOT,COMMUNICATE AND MOVE OUT !
[This message has been edited by GIT_SOME.45 (edited October 18, 2000).]
Hadn`t thought about it till now, but I guess I am unbalanced in my collection.
Guess I had better repent of my sins and go buy some more cool revolvers! He he he .
------------------
SHOOT,COMMUNICATE AND MOVE OUT !
[This message has been edited by GIT_SOME.45 (edited October 18, 2000).]
Country Boy
New member
I think part of the reason that semi-autos get so much attention is because there are so many variations. You can move around the manual safety, remove the manual safety, move around the decoker, make it DAO and remove the decoker, add a barrel bushing, remove a barrel bushing, have a two piece guide rod or a one piece guide rod, add extended magazines, extended safeties, extended slide releases,... Also, when operating a semi-auto, you practice your immediate action drills. What should you do if the gun doesn't fire? Pull the trigger again? Rack the slide? When racking the slide, should you ease it forward or let it slam forward? So many variations, so many questions with a semi-auto...
Really, revolvers haven't changed much. Simply point gun and pull trigger. They follow the KISS principle. One revolver shooter can pick up another revolver and transition without much difficulty. One semi-auto shooter picks up another semi-auto and often needs to use a different manual of arms.
/ramble mode off
Really, revolvers haven't changed much. Simply point gun and pull trigger. They follow the KISS principle. One revolver shooter can pick up another revolver and transition without much difficulty. One semi-auto shooter picks up another semi-auto and often needs to use a different manual of arms.
/ramble mode off
Looking in the ol' safe, I see three revolvers, eight autos, and one single-shot. But my favorite handgun is still a revolver, heehee!
http://www.geocities.com/gew98.geo/ppcpropointleftplonk2.jpg
Not particularly a defensive or offensive tool, but it's definitely a keeper!
http://www.geocities.com/gew98.geo/ppcpropointleftplonk2.jpg
Not particularly a defensive or offensive tool, but it's definitely a keeper!
I don't even have a revolver. How can one be be a Gun Nut, pardon me, Gun Enthusiast 
with out a revolver? I will have to remedy this as soon as possible.
On the Webley, there is a new auto-revolver on the market now, called the Mateba. I know almost nothing about them, but they look cool.
with out a revolver? I will have to remedy this as soon as possible.On the Webley, there is a new auto-revolver on the market now, called the Mateba. I know almost nothing about them, but they look cool.
Call me paranoid, but is somebody keeping a blackbook on our arsenal. Oh what the heck.
44 mag SuperBlackHawk
357 mag BlackHawk
44 mag S&W 629 (DA if anyone doesn't know)
38 spl S&W 36 (DA if anyone doesn't know)
22 LR Colt Frontier Scout
25 Raven
45 Ruger P90DC
9mm Tec 9 (which has not jammed or misfed regardless of what I've fed it)
9mm AP9 Target (which has given me no end of misfeeds - likely do to too strong of a spring and cheap aftermarket mags - though likely all mags for this are cheap aftermarket - I'll start a thread on this) http://www.vpc.org/resource/content/aaarms.htm
44 mag SuperBlackHawk
357 mag BlackHawk
44 mag S&W 629 (DA if anyone doesn't know)
38 spl S&W 36 (DA if anyone doesn't know)
22 LR Colt Frontier Scout
25 Raven
45 Ruger P90DC
9mm Tec 9 (which has not jammed or misfed regardless of what I've fed it)
9mm AP9 Target (which has given me no end of misfeeds - likely do to too strong of a spring and cheap aftermarket mags - though likely all mags for this are cheap aftermarket - I'll start a thread on this) http://www.vpc.org/resource/content/aaarms.htm
Robert Foote
New member
Probably about 60/40 in favor of revolvers. They are a classic concept and I shoot them better than any semiauto including my SIG 220. Must be a common phenomenon as a lot of LEOs remember the days of M19 S&Ws with great fondness. A lot of these guys would switch back in a heartbeat if given the choice.
------------------
------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucky085:
"Semi-autos are slimmer, making concealment easier"
I beg to differ, the square back of a semi-auto always prints more than a revolver's curved handle. I carry both revolvers and semiautos, but think revolvers are a little easier to conceal.[/quote]
Stop begging, you're differnt. All kidding aside, I agree that the round butt J frames don't print as readily as a fat double column magazine grip frame in some situations. However, the slimmer overall profile of the semi-auto is easier to carry and conceal. Are you sure that revolvers are easier to conceal, why haven't .32 revolvers caught on like the Seecamp .32acp and .380acp semi-autos? The Seecamp line and the discontinued Colt Mustang and Pocket Nine models are far more concealable than any J frame. JMHO, YMMV, not responsible for flood, famine, act of god, act of war, or anything else for that matter.
------------------
Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!
I hunt, therefore I am.
"Semi-autos are slimmer, making concealment easier"
I beg to differ, the square back of a semi-auto always prints more than a revolver's curved handle. I carry both revolvers and semiautos, but think revolvers are a little easier to conceal.[/quote]
Stop begging, you're differnt.
All kidding aside, I agree that the round butt J frames don't print as readily as a fat double column magazine grip frame in some situations. However, the slimmer overall profile of the semi-auto is easier to carry and conceal. Are you sure that revolvers are easier to conceal, why haven't .32 revolvers caught on like the Seecamp .32acp and .380acp semi-autos? The Seecamp line and the discontinued Colt Mustang and Pocket Nine models are far more concealable than any J frame. JMHO, YMMV, not responsible for flood, famine, act of god, act of war, or anything else for that matter.------------------
Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!
I hunt, therefore I am.
Pat/355Sigfan, "22 autos like the Ruger Mark 2 series and the Browning buck mark are more accurate than any 22 revolver."
Oh really?!
To make such a broad statement makes you not so believable.
More accurate than "any" 22 revolver?
Is this when held by you offhand, or in a Ransom Rest the same hour, in the same wind, and with the same wide selection of ammo?
Furthermore, you are challenging me on something I never said.
When and where did I say that any .22 revo was more accurate than any .22 auto?
Maybe you twisted what I meant by "I also like the mechanical precision of a K-22, something a blowback .22 lacks."
That statement is not directed toward accuracy. What I mean is that it is fairly easy to develop a blowback mechanism on a pistol, especially if the receiver is tubular, ala Ruger. Some pipe, a steel cylinder and some filing and there you have it.
(Yes Pat, I realize it takes some work to incorporate a magazine and the fire control, but the whole system is less precise than the lockwork in ANY revolver.)
Are all Ruger MkII's more accurate than any S&W K-22?
Or vice versa?
Heck no.
Also, I would bet that a big reason some (not all) bullseye shooters use autos is that there is generally less trigger finger movement involved & lower barrel axis.
Oh, and a seriously competative bullseye shooter would not likely shoot the Ruger MkII, and certainly not the Buchmark.
Odds are you would see a Hammerli, Bernadelli, Beretta, S&W M41, or other high-end pistol.
Finally, I thought I made it clear that I have no disdain for autos, or the people that enjoy them.
Heck, I love my 1911, and I even get a kick out of fussing around with the J-22.
So, why are you so hostile towards those of us that love revolvers?
Are you that single-minded?
-Kframe
Oh really?!
To make such a broad statement makes you not so believable.
More accurate than "any" 22 revolver?
Is this when held by you offhand, or in a Ransom Rest the same hour, in the same wind, and with the same wide selection of ammo?
Furthermore, you are challenging me on something I never said.
When and where did I say that any .22 revo was more accurate than any .22 auto?
Maybe you twisted what I meant by "I also like the mechanical precision of a K-22, something a blowback .22 lacks."
That statement is not directed toward accuracy. What I mean is that it is fairly easy to develop a blowback mechanism on a pistol, especially if the receiver is tubular, ala Ruger. Some pipe, a steel cylinder and some filing and there you have it.
(Yes Pat, I realize it takes some work to incorporate a magazine and the fire control, but the whole system is less precise than the lockwork in ANY revolver.)
Are all Ruger MkII's more accurate than any S&W K-22?
Or vice versa?
Heck no.
Also, I would bet that a big reason some (not all) bullseye shooters use autos is that there is generally less trigger finger movement involved & lower barrel axis.
Oh, and a seriously competative bullseye shooter would not likely shoot the Ruger MkII, and certainly not the Buchmark.
Odds are you would see a Hammerli, Bernadelli, Beretta, S&W M41, or other high-end pistol.
Finally, I thought I made it clear that I have no disdain for autos, or the people that enjoy them.
Heck, I love my 1911, and I even get a kick out of fussing around with the J-22.
So, why are you so hostile towards those of us that love revolvers?
Are you that single-minded?
-Kframe
Kframe
I stand by my statement. 22 auto's have a fixed barrel where a revolver has 6 or 10 individual chambers that all have to be lined up the same. I am not saying revolvers are inaccurate. I had a 6 inch 617 10 shot and it was a fun revolver. But was it as accurate as my Ruger bull barrel Mark 2 with a 10 inch barrel no it was not. The only other 22 revolver I owned was a single six and it was not even close to my ruger or buck mark or beniel. Bulleye shooters need accuracy over speed or any other factor. I would have used a revolver when I competed if it was as accurate and as easy to shoot.
I will concede that center fire revolers are i general more accurate than centerfire auto's. I long for a 8 and 3/8 44 mag with a dot scope again so I can bust milk jugs full of water at 100 yards like I used to with my Colt anaconda.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
I stand by my statement. 22 auto's have a fixed barrel where a revolver has 6 or 10 individual chambers that all have to be lined up the same. I am not saying revolvers are inaccurate. I had a 6 inch 617 10 shot and it was a fun revolver. But was it as accurate as my Ruger bull barrel Mark 2 with a 10 inch barrel no it was not. The only other 22 revolver I owned was a single six and it was not even close to my ruger or buck mark or beniel. Bulleye shooters need accuracy over speed or any other factor. I would have used a revolver when I competed if it was as accurate and as easy to shoot.
I will concede that center fire revolers are i general more accurate than centerfire auto's. I long for a 8 and 3/8 44 mag with a dot scope again so I can bust milk jugs full of water at 100 yards like I used to with my Colt anaconda.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
Pat, no flames, but did you do a comparative test between the MkII and the M617?
Probably not, it's a pain in the butt, takes time, and with anything other than a .22 the wrist and the wallet take a beating.
Maybe the Ruger liked that particular ammo, and the S&W didn't?
Yes, a revolver needs to line up all of the chambers the same if good accuracy is possible.
This is a difficult engineering feat, but certainly not impossible.
I've got a stock M17 that used to have a 2-8.5x Weaver on top.
With it, I could NEARLY ALWAYS put the six shots into one inch at 40 yards off a sandbag. This was with Rem Golden Bullets.
It didn't like Eley Tenex or FedGoldUltraMatch.
So, just because a gun doesn't like a certain ammo, even if the ammo is "match grade", it doesn't mean the gun is inaccurate.
I also have shot scoped MkII's (4, 6 7/8 and 10") that couldn't put 5 of any brand into an inch at 25yd.s
And, I would bet that there are factory MkIIs that will shoot Blazers into an inch at 40 yds.
So, don't tell me that all MkII's will outshoot any revolver.
Likewise, I am fully aware that many M17's are not as accurate as mine.
So, there are tackdriving autos, tackdriving revolvers;
and there are minute-of-barn autos and minute-of-barn revolvers.
I have no problem with your preferences, I just can't stand it when people make blanket statements (all, never, always, none) that are clearly not backed up by fact.
-Kframe
[This message has been edited by Kframe (edited October 19, 2000).]
Probably not, it's a pain in the butt, takes time, and with anything other than a .22 the wrist and the wallet take a beating.
Maybe the Ruger liked that particular ammo, and the S&W didn't?
Yes, a revolver needs to line up all of the chambers the same if good accuracy is possible.
This is a difficult engineering feat, but certainly not impossible.
I've got a stock M17 that used to have a 2-8.5x Weaver on top.
With it, I could NEARLY ALWAYS put the six shots into one inch at 40 yards off a sandbag. This was with Rem Golden Bullets.
It didn't like Eley Tenex or FedGoldUltraMatch.
So, just because a gun doesn't like a certain ammo, even if the ammo is "match grade", it doesn't mean the gun is inaccurate.
I also have shot scoped MkII's (4, 6 7/8 and 10") that couldn't put 5 of any brand into an inch at 25yd.s
And, I would bet that there are factory MkIIs that will shoot Blazers into an inch at 40 yds.
So, don't tell me that all MkII's will outshoot any revolver.
Likewise, I am fully aware that many M17's are not as accurate as mine.
So, there are tackdriving autos, tackdriving revolvers;
and there are minute-of-barn autos and minute-of-barn revolvers.
I have no problem with your preferences, I just can't stand it when people make blanket statements (all, never, always, none) that are clearly not backed up by fact.
-Kframe
[This message has been edited by Kframe (edited October 19, 2000).]
Naw, my back up carry gun is a Taurus M605. My primary carry gun is a Glock 26.
------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent
"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
Taurus 605: Five hits of .357 MAG that will just ruin your day, Scumbag!!!!
------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent
"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
Taurus 605: Five hits of .357 MAG that will just ruin your day, Scumbag!!!!
Mike Irwin
Staff
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 355sigfan:
K frame
22 autos like the Ruger Mark 2 series and the Browning buck mark are more accurate than any 22 revolver. Thats why bulleye shooters use auto's. I have owned my share of 22 revolver and auto's and I can attest to this. Now in centerfire revolvers are tend to be more accurate.
PAT
[/quote]
Uh... No, not the case at all.
The general trend away from revolvers for Bullseye shooting happened because shooters wanted to stay with semi-autos for the small- AND large-bore legs.
Accuracy had nothing to do with it.
Also, the Freedom Arms 252 is generally considered to be the most accurate production .22 out there. I've fired several. Off the bench, the would all cut groups of about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch at 25 yards all day long. It was boring.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
K frame
22 autos like the Ruger Mark 2 series and the Browning buck mark are more accurate than any 22 revolver. Thats why bulleye shooters use auto's. I have owned my share of 22 revolver and auto's and I can attest to this. Now in centerfire revolvers are tend to be more accurate.
PAT
[/quote]
Uh... No, not the case at all.
The general trend away from revolvers for Bullseye shooting happened because shooters wanted to stay with semi-autos for the small- AND large-bore legs.
Accuracy had nothing to do with it.
Also, the Freedom Arms 252 is generally considered to be the most accurate production .22 out there. I've fired several. Off the bench, the would all cut groups of about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch at 25 yards all day long. It was boring.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!