It seems the vast majority is using, or switching to semi autos over revolvers. In most of the shooting classes I've taken I would say at least 90 percent of the people have semi autos and its very rare to find revolvers. Also, the police and military supposedly don't use revolvers anymore in favor of semi autos. It wasn't common to see a police officer with a revolver since the 80s.
Are revolvers dying out?
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Considering that large firearms manufacturers like Ruger, Taurus and Smith & Wesson are still developing and offering new revolver models to the public over the last couple of years(e.g. Single Ten, Single Nine, LCR), I would say that there is definately a still an interest for revolvers among people interested in firearms. It might not be the same group of people who are buying revolvers these days, but they are still selling, or the companies wouldn't spend resources on development and marketing.
8 New Revolvers for 2014 - Shooting Times
8 New Revolvers for 2014 - Shooting Times
Orange Lightning
Purple Belt
Disclaimer - I don't know almost anything about guns.
Do revolvers pose any advantages to semi autos besides being more reliable? If they don't, then it isn't surprising. Less ammo, more reload time.
A friend of mine got into guns for a while and told me about the Chiappa Rhino revolver design. It's primary unique characteristic being that the barrel is bottom cylinder instead of the top. I've read it was quite the big deal.
Gun Review The Ugliest Coolest Gun Ever Chiappa Rhino The Dental Warrior A Blog for Dentists
Do revolvers pose any advantages to semi autos besides being more reliable? If they don't, then it isn't surprising. Less ammo, more reload time.
A friend of mine got into guns for a while and told me about the Chiappa Rhino revolver design. It's primary unique characteristic being that the barrel is bottom cylinder instead of the top. I've read it was quite the big deal.
Gun Review The Ugliest Coolest Gun Ever Chiappa Rhino The Dental Warrior A Blog for Dentists
More reliable?
I shoot 10,000-15,000 rounds per year through semi-auto handguns. I've had bad ammo a couple times when I've cheaped out, and I've posted about that.
But with decent quality ammo, I can count the malfunctions I've had on the fingers of one foot.
With high quality ammo, such as I carry on a day to day basis, I have never had a single malfunction. Not one.
So where does "more reliable" come from?
Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.
Orange Lightning
Purple Belt
Disclaimer?
I've heard that semi auto handguns are liable to jam if you don't clean them and maintain them. Is that untrue? I've also heard, based on that assertion, that handguns are more reliable because they mechanically can't have those malfunctions.
Any comment on the Chiappa Rhino? Was it a big deal or wasn't it?
Sidenote, why this attitude? I just said I don't know anything about guns. My comment was my one fifth of a penny contribution. Surely you've heard these assertions before? Can you not just explain something I'm wrong about in an informative manner instead of busting out your "air quotes"?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Based on the idea that it is simpler and so less prone to failure
Which is of course also not the case.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
I've heard that Elvis is alive and well and helping aliens abduct bored housewives in Ohio.
ANY mechanical device that is not properly maintained will fail. That s one of those "duh" statements. You might as well "prove" that a Chevy is more reliable than a Ford, because after all, if you maintain the Chevy and don't maintain the Ford, the Chevy will probably run longer.
It is a small deal. Lowering the barrel makes it marginally easier to recover your sight picture after each round, since muzzle flip will be marginally less.
You get better results from more range time, though.
What attitude? You said revolvers are more reliable. I provided one sample that shows differently. If you don't like being wrong, research before you post.
And those were not air quotes. I was, in case you missed it, directly quoting you. That means quotation marks were indicated, and used.
Maybe you should brush up on your grammar rules before you gripe?
I carry a variety of semi-auto pistols. I'm big enough that the Bersa Thunder 380 can be used as a pocket gun, but there is certainly a place for smaller guns as hide outs. I wouldn't bother with the .357 magnum, personally, since from a snubby 2" barrel there's no real difference in power between the .357 magnum and the .38 special. Just more recoil.
I think the main claim about (double action) revolvers being more reliable is that if you get a dud round, you can simply pull the trigger again, and fire the next round. On a semiauto pistol, you first need to rack the slide to obtain the same result, something that generally requires the use of both hands, and consists of two steps as opposed to one. In a close quarters life or death situation, where you may not have both hands available, I can certainly see why a revolver would have an advantage. With the overall reliability of modern centerfire rounds, you can ofcourse argue that the chance of this happening is close to zero, but it is still not zero.
If you want handguns chambered in the heaviest handgun calibers available (.454 casull, .500 s&w), you are pretty much confined to revolvers, enabled by a simpler overall mechanism in revolvers. A semi auto handgun in .500 s&w would probably have to involve a pretty beefy slide and spring, and would probably not be as durable as a revolver firing the same rounds.
If you want handguns chambered in the heaviest handgun calibers available (.454 casull, .500 s&w), you are pretty much confined to revolvers, enabled by a simpler overall mechanism in revolvers. A semi auto handgun in .500 s&w would probably have to involve a pretty beefy slide and spring, and would probably not be as durable as a revolver firing the same rounds.
Last edited:
And by the same logic, my car consists of about five bits(main body + four wheels). However, if by "about four", you mean "about thirtyfour" you would be correct.
How many parts does a Glock have?
According to the current manual the Glock has about 34 parts. They are:
# Part
1 Slide
2 Barrel
3 Recoil spring assembly
4 inapplicable, incorporated in part 3
5 Firing pin
6 Spacer sleeve
7 Firing pin spring
8 Spring cups
9 Firing pin safety
10 Firing pin safety spring
11 Extractor
12 Extractor depressor plunger
13 Extractor depressor plunger spring
14 Spring-loaded bearing
15 Slide cover plate
16 Rear sight
16a Front sight
17 Receiver
18 Magazine catch spring
19 Magazine catch
20 Slide lock spring
21 Slide lock
22 Locking block
23 Trigger mechanism housing with ejector
24 Connector
25 Trigger spring
26 Trigger with trigger bar
27 Slide stop lever
28 Trigger pin
29 Trigger housing pin
30 Follower
31 Magazine spring
32 Magazine floor plate
32a Magazine insert
33 Magazine tube
34 Locking block pin (some models)
35 Channel Liner
The actual total number is open to a great deal of interpretation:
- #3: the 'Recoil spring assembly' is made of several parts
- #8: the 'Spring cups' are 2 parts
- #16 & 16a: the 'Front and Rear sight' are 2 parts
- #23: the 'Trigger mechanism housing with ejector' is made of several parts
- #26: the 'Trigger with trigger bar' is made of several parts
- #34 the 'Locking block pin' is not found on some models
- #32 & 32a: the 'Magazine floor plate and Magazine insert' are 2 parts
- Adjustable sights have a lot of individual parts
That's quite expensive. And that's partially why I often prefer to do lots of dry practice in addition to using live rounds.
Actually, 35 parts. Field strip of a Glock is 4 parts: receiver, slide, barrel, and spring. Detail strip goes a bit farther, but there's damn little that can go wrong mechanically with a Glock because it's so simple a design.
Revolvers are mechanically a LOT more complicated than even a complicated semi-auto like a Sig or even the 1911... And when a revolver does suffer a malfunction, odds are that you've got a paperweight until a smith takes it apart. There's more you can do in the press of the moment to possibly resolve a malfunction with a semi-auto.
But which is more reliable? Both? Neither? No real way to answer that; too many variables. Revolvers are easier to learn (no malfunction drills other than keep a squib load pointed down range...) and generally less expensive, which is why a lot of security firms still use them.
From what I see at most shops, a good revolver or a good semi auto will both cost around $500 to $600. A good Ruger revolver or a good Glock semi auto will both be in that price range and both are excellent brands. Now, if you really do want to break the bank than you could buy a Kimber or a Coonan or a Wilson Combat. Those are all semi autos but as I said you can get a good semi auto, such as a Glock or a 1911, for much less than any of those.
As for ammo costs, where it can really get expensive if you do lots of shooting, aside from the .22 one of the least expensive and most widely rounds is the 9mm which I've only seen in semi autos. I've yet to see a revolver that's a 9mm.
Here's a good article on the pros and cons of revolvers and autoloaders in Personaldefenseworld. Very informative for those interested in what an internationally recognized defensive firearms instructor thinks on the matter:
Revolver vs. Auto
Revolver vs. Auto
Wow I've never seen those before. Some of them are quite expensive.
Similar threads
