Why do So Many People Shun Revolvers?

But revolvers arent "Tactical.!! They don't have plastic frames and under barrell lighting mount grooves to hang bulky unconcealable junk off of!
How can you swim up river to take out a hostile sentry and gun it out with 25 terorrists with a three inch model 19?

LOL...
Thats what the Chairborn Rangers, Mail Order Ninjas and Walter Mitty types keep bellyaching about as they continue to brag about how their latest tactical tupperwear can be thrown out of a helicopter, tossed off a mountain in Afghanistan, and frozen in a block of ice!
Never realising that none of that crap ever happens in a real world pistol fight.
 
How can you swim up river to take out a hostile sentry and gun it out with 25 terorrists with a three inch model 19?
Click to expand...

Thats what the Chairborn Rangers, Mail Order Ninjas and Walter Mitty types keep bellyaching about as they continue to brag about how their latest tactical tupperwear can be thrown out of a helicopter, tossed off a mountain in Afghanistan, and frozen in a block of ice!
Click to expand...

Never realising that none of that crap ever happens in a real world pistol fight.
Click to expand...

I get that all the time too from people my age. Not only do these things not happen in real world pistol fights, HANDGUNS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS. They are DEFENSIVE weapons. If these people wanna go gun down 50 terrorists and play G.I. Joe, get an AR 15 or M1 Carbine. Rifles are OFFENSIVE not pistols or revolvers.
 
Jack Malloy,

I'll PayPal you a shiny American nickel if you can make ten consecutive posts that aren't rewrites of the Same Ol' Rant. :rolleyes:
 
"Outside of capacity/reloading speed, I see no reason to favor one over the other."

Given good working equipment and quality ammo (which I have), I'm of the same mindset, at least for us civilians. I figure that the 5, 6, or 7 rounds in a revolver is enough to defend myself and my loved ones should it come down to it. There are 6 in mine.
 
I look at the new Smiths and I feel the way a museum curator would feel I guess if somebody came in and painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa....

The hump under the hammer...
The ugly lock on the side....
The "frame bolster" under the cylinder that makes the gun look like it was not finished.
The cheesy looking case hardened investment cast hammer on a stainless gun.


These are "improvements?"
Stop the world, I wanna get off.
 
Jack Malloy,

The cheesy looking case hardened investment cast hammer on a stainless gun.
Click to expand...

Since you are a Smith scholar, you no doubt realize that the flash-chromed hammers & triggers on stainless guns didn't start until the late '60s (early guns had case-coloured ones just like current models) and that the hammers and triggers on current guns aren't "investment cast", but rather produced via the Metal Injection Molding process...
 
I don't have a problem at all with the look of the new Smiths. I think they look just fine. I just don't want the internal lock.
At least they're not Colts, with the smart gun "improvement" they're working on.
 
I don't have a problem at all with the look of the new Smiths. I think they look just fine. I just don't want the internal lock.
Click to expand...

I suppose. From what I gather, there is no way that those locks are going to prevent a discharge (unless it's locked on purpose ;) ) because the design of it is fairly fail safe. True, the lock does take away from the minimalism that is some of the revolver's appeal (in my opinion) but it's not enough to keep me from choosing Smith's. I'll take a Smith with a lock zit on it any day over a Taurus with no locks at all.
 
I'm just joining this thread, but Tamara's post on the 19th was right on - the Lethal Weapon movie I think did major damage with ol' Danny G. fumbling around with his "little .38" vs (I think) Mel's "big" Beretta 9. (since when is a 9mm "big" I don't know (big in capacity/firepower I guess is the point), but the mil-spec Beretta sure looks it next to the .38 snubby Danny was wielding! That said, as many posts have also said so eloquently, it's what you need and feel most comfortable with in a variety of conditions. I have both and am partial to the wheelguns for all the reasons indicated (have .32M SA, .38 DA, .44M SA) but also have a .40 S&W Auto - Daewoo "tri-action." All great guns for their purposes. In the house it's always the .38 6 shot Taurus with appropriate HD rounds, trail fun/plinking and camping where not likely to encounter mt. lions or bears, the .32M, and .44M where I likely will. The .40 Auto is mostly "just because" (I got caught up in the craze too), but I like it at least theoretically for that situation caught vs some gang-bangers. It is a cool gun and (reasonably) reliable shooter/feeder after reworking by a good g.s., But I always have my trusty, never-jam .38 which can be loaded up or down...close at hand just in case. Oh yes, a mid-generation Ruger Mark something-or-other .22 Auto for plinking fun and also "just because."
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed that so many people like revolvers and carry them for protection. It's a tribute to the basic design that they are still so popular - they still hold their own and probably will be around for a long time to come.


Mark :cool:
 
they don't know better

most folks buy a handgun without a clue...I own both revolvers and semi-autos...if I had one chance..one shot...I'd prefer to have my best revolver at hand...my favorite semi-autos are a seecamp 32...a ppk (not ppks) 380...
and the grand old 1911A1 and I have a new found affection for a broening hp IN 40 s&w caliber.....BUT, my gun by my bedside, THE ONE IF I WAS ASLEEP AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE...? A k frame S&W double action revolver...Need I say more?....
 
1. Plenty of semi-autos have second strike capability.
2. More diverse ammo? Mmmm Nope.
3. Glock feed anything too. So do my Sigs. Never had a problem with either. Never even had a problem with 1911's once they were broken in.

I can see that revolvers might be better for hunting if you are not willing to use 10mm semi-auto.

Most of the revolver people I know use them because thats what they started shooting with, or because they have some specialized hunting need, or they just plain like revolvers. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

On the other hand revolvers are about the most unergonomic grip to be found and it is much more difficult to load and unload a revolver quickly plus the low round count. Thats why the semi-auto is a much bigger seller and why military and police forces went semi-auto years ago.


1) they are generally more reliable that semi-autos (clearing a "jam" is as easy as pulling the trigger again);
2) many revolver platforms offer much more diverse ammo choices than semis; and
3) revolvers will shoot just about anything because they don't have to feed ammo.
 
On the other hand revolvers are about the most unergonomic grip to be found and it is much more difficult to load and unload a revolver quickly plus the low round count.
Click to expand...

Except for the capacity issue I have found the opposite to be true. The grip of a revolver is made to fit your hand, rather than accomodate a magazine. Notice that there were few if any straight gripped handguns before they started using that space to store magazines. Really, a revolver grip can be virtually any shape you want since it makes little contribution to the functioning of the firearm, as long as you can figure out a way to put a spring in there. One COULD have a revolver grip that was the same as that of a semi (ugh) but noone makes such a grip simply because few people actually want that shape.

With practice one can shoot a wheelgun just as fast as an auto. Theoretically they can be shot even faster than the cyclic rate of a semi, however you have to be some kind of freakish superhuman to pull that off.

With that said I carry a semi. Its not because I LIKE it (i own more revolver than semis, and I spend more time drooling over new ones at the store) but the semi just carries better for because of how flat and thin they tend to be. If I could get away with carrying a revolver more often, i would do so.
 
why revolvers?

Maybe some folks like myself had an ejection problem such as my berreta 9000 9mm not expelling the spent case. Guess what if this happenedin a defensive shoot out bad. Malloy that name is on one of my shooting books either gun bible or john malloy "complete guide to guns and shooting". one of my favorite high school teacher's mr. malloy i belive dick malloy social studies teacher twisted mustach duck hunter to the fullest mossburg man. I had him for two classes great teacher former marine.

I like my dan wesson 15-2 monson pistol pack, ruger 9.5" super redhawk 44mag, ruger super single six 22lr/22win mag conv.
 
I've been around a lot of autos. Prior to my .40, have had experience either shooting or witnessing a variety of 9s, .40s, 45s., 380s. All of them stove-piped or otherwise wouldn't eject or feed a round correctly, etc., at some point, bad ammo, poor cleaning, something--even a buddy's very expensive (think Brown territory) custom .45 g.s.'d by one of the best around that I admit is pretty much otherwise 99.9% reliable--still didn't like a batch of ammo fed it once or twice. (ok you revolver naysayers "so only put premo ammo in it" but, hey but for defending your/loved ones' life you shouldn't have to rely on...) But I digress...point is, never had that with a decent (Ruger, Colt, S&W, etc., "even" Rossi) revolver. I have had a dud round--once, so then just cycled it out to next round (and got rid of dud quickly!!).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top