Are Revolvers inferior to a Glock?

I own both. I have an old "hand me down" single action revolver that is much older than I am. It has been used and abused as a field carried gun, yet it is in fine functional shape. With a bit of TLC, I am confident that my grand kids will enjoy it decades from now as well.

I also own Glocks. They will also be handed down. I take a few minutes after every range session to wipe them and they get a few drops of oil per month, but nothing really above that.

Any firearm that is cared for with last several lifetimes. There are still functional Civil War era firearms around and they had no benefit of modern coatings or metals.

klmmicro brings back up a good point: Are we talking about simple longevity of materials or pure round count?

I don't think anyone would argue that any revolver will last longer than a Glock in a "run-till-you-drop" kind of test, or in the hands of a competative shooter who will put 20-30K rounds through it each year.

But for a gun that will see a few hundred rounds a year and a lot of shelf-time? I don't really know. When you get to several generations out, the polymer frame of the Glock might be breaking down after 100-150 years in a way that the steel wouldn't be. Wood stocks can age badly as well, but usually seem to last a long time if cared for.

Who cares? If you need the answer to this question to justify owning and enjoying a revolver, you're going about it the wrong way.

Glocks are service pistols and extremely limited in use. They are application-specific.

You can't have the glass rod perfect 2lb single action trigger in a Glock.

You can't thumb back the hammer, immediately drawing you back to the time that brought you to revolvers in the first place.

Revolvers are time machines and transport me back to the 1880's, campfires, horses, poker and dirty whiskey. Revolvers connect me with John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Jack Palance, Tom Selleck, Clint Walker, Lil Joe, Audie Murphy and Glenn Ford. Glocks transport me back to the 1980's and all I remember is John McClaine saying they had a porcelain frame.

You cannot have an artisan who has spent a lifetime perfecting his craft fit you a set a custom stocks to a Glock.

Likewise with leather, floral carved and stamped leather is wasted on a Glock.

Likewise engraving, an engraved Glock is actually uglier.

A nickel plated Glock is goofy looking.

Nobody cares about putting spiffy target sights on a Glock, they don't have the trigger or accuracy to take advantage of it anyway.

Glocks don't thrive on heavy-for-caliber cast bullets.

You can't hunt big game with a Glock. Mention the G20 10mm and I will throw up.

You can't hunt small game with a Glock.

Glocks cannot be chambered in .22Mag, .25Flea .25-20, .32-20, .38Spl, .357Mag, .38-40, .401Powermag, .375SuperMag, .41Spl, .41Mag, .414SuperMag, .44Colt, .44-40, .44Spl, .44Mag, .445SuperMag, .45S&W, .45Colt, .454Casull, .480Ruger, .475Cooper, .475Linebaugh, .50Spl, .500Linebaugh or .500JRH.

Glocks don't stir my soul, quicken my pulse or haunt my dreams.

fxstchewy said:

Will a Revolver last as long as a Glock?
The reason i ask is as far as round count will it last? you hear about forcing cones cracking, transfer bars and getting out of time, will it last as say as a Glock in 9mm, 17,19 and such? which would you want if they quit making sidearms tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "last". Glock has a lot of time to make up in order to catch up to the longevity of revolvers. Like rcmodel mentioned, there are still many working revolvers over a century old. Will Glock "last" another 150 years? Again... depends on how they are used and cared for same with revolvers.

As far as which I would want if they stop making them tomorrow? Both! But if I had to choose one platform it would be the revolver because I just like them better and no mags to worry about.

JVaughn said:

Typically, revolvers have fewer moving parts, therefore less to screw up in the short run. ...

Click to expand...

Not really true....

Parts in a Glock:


Parts in a Model 10:

Quote:
Will a Revolver last as long as a Glock?
No... Polymer doesn't rust.

Click to expand...

What is the slide and barrel on that Glock made out of? Cheese?

As far as which I would want if they stop making them tomorrow? Both! But if I had to choose one platform it would be the revolver because I just like them better and no mags to worry about.

Click to expand...

That, and if we are talking about TEOTWAWKI, I may even prefer a cap & ball revolver that does not require brass cases.

Craig C said it best, as in "who cares ?"
hey, I own and love some autoloaders, too
and there are some of those which have been around for over 100 years, and still work just fine
That Glock might be around 100 years from now, vs. just 32 years, aka "a good start" (my five great-grandchildren might find out someday)
If they do still work in another 70 years when it's all said and done, Glock and brethren are still just the plastic automobile bumpers of the gun world
(and they are going to have to take the blocky out of the Glocky before they get my attention)

Me, I love my rimfires too... but I would bet the family farm my k-17s will outlast my Ruger MKs on round count, no contest, and they already have a big jump on round count
Whether or not my centerfire k-frames would outlast a Glock on round count... "frankly my dear, I just don't give....."

PS
best thing you can ever do with any high quality handgun, any flavor of, is strive harder to wear 'em out
I ain't got it done yet, but I ain't dead yet either
(mebbe I just own too many of 'em to get it done, but I do have plenty of family volunteers willing to carry on the job)

I would suggest buying both and having fun trying to figure it out.

edmo01 said:

No... Polymer doesn't rust.

Edmo

Click to expand...

No it doesn't rust. But after a century will it weaken or degrade?

Define inferior...

Inferior:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inferior

Just me, but this seems to be another "what trips your trigger" question.
I personally no longer have any plastic semi-auto handguns, and I have only owned one...

One is a plastic double action "revolver" if you will that takes its loading up its butt. The other is (or was until most recent) an all metal gun, that takes its loading into a cylinder.

Which one fits the shooter, affording one quick effective hits and follow up shots. The one you do best is best for you, and perhaps another offering is inferior to your needs, tasks and environment.

Ask again in 100 years and we can have an informed discussion.

For me, the revolver is typically superior for the uses I subject handguns to; mostly, I just like them more.

I am sure that the Glock will be more durable over the long round count hall, but I won't shoot it enough to hit the point of difference. Plus, if I shot a model 64 loose, then I'd figure I'm getting enough use out of one to easily justify ponying up another 250-400 for another minty pre-lock.

Frankly, the guy who put tens of thousands through his Ruger GP got a cost-to-benefit ratio out of it that would embarrass a toothbrush.

"got a cost-to-benefit ratio out of it that would embarrass a toothbrush."

well said

I have an '80's G17 with maybe 100,000 rounds or so, it has had some spring changes and a striker sleeve once over the years, and I have a 686+ from the '90's that has more than 10,000 but much less than the Glock. It has had a couple of springs replaced too, but it also has a loose cylinder and flame cutting will most definitely be an issue by the time it gets to 100,000. Still, it is ready for a new cylinder already.

The Glock will need a few cheaper parts over the long haul, whereas the revolver will need more indepth tuning and parts replacement over the same time, same round count. This is for very high round counts. Short of that, I'd say one is about as good as another, but I'd lean towards Glock just from experience. Most of my pistols are in fact Glocks and Smiths, so I feel pretty comfortable comparing them in this respect.

My carry pieces, a G27, G29 and 340PD and my wife's 649, they don't get shot as much as the range pistols do, that G17 and 686+. But they do get shot, and with the lower round count, they seem to perform and last about the same. Only the high round count will make the Glock better, and it has to do with the fact you don't have to send it in and the parts needing changing or work are much cheaper. That is about it though, it really is that simple to me.

Moot point for me. Glocks are fine weapons, but they feel absolutely terrible in my hands. I don't know that I've ever handled or fired a handgun that felt more awkward to me. Consequently, with a "Block" I can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside with the doors closed.

I have a 686+ from the '90's that has more than 10,000 but much less than the Glock. It has had a couple of springs replaced too, but it also has a loose cylinder and flame cutting will most definitely be an issue by the time it gets to 100,000. Still, it is ready for a new cylinder already.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity what part of the cylinder " is loose" and requires the cylinder be replaced?? Flame cutting stops after a few thousand rounds.

If I am hunting I want a good trigger and hot load I choose 357, 41, or 44 revolver for the job, if I am walking down the street or in my home/car and want a SD gun I want my Glock with 3x +- the capacity of the revolver and a reload that is faster and 3x the capacity again.
Thankfully I can and do have both and yes they can and do the same jobs at times.
Like I said the difference in durability for most is in terms longer than we will care about. The revolvers require much more skill to do major repairs and frankly I believe require more maintenance to get the most longevity out of. The Glock can be rebuilt on your kitchen table with standard parts that are virtually interchangeable.

When it comes to modern combat weapons the revolver is in another galaxy.....even with moon clips.

Frankly, the guy who put tens of thousands through his Ruger GP got a cost-to-benefit ratio out of it that would embarrass a toothbrush.

Click to expand...

That was pure awesome! And I tend to agree. I shoot more than some folks, (a LOT less than others), but I can certainly forsee shooting loose a few guns over my lifetime. The cost of the reloading componants it will take to let me do so VERY far outstrips the cost of the gun...ANY common gun, actually. The cost of either of them, if they last 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever, is (based on a rough calculation) something on the order of 0.5 - 1 cent per shot. Kind of hard to argue about getting value for your money, one vs. the other.

Briefly - The Glock is going to last longer.

If the duty cycle is the same for each gun then there just ain't no beating a Glock. I've owned a lot of revolvers for a lot of years. No wheelgun I own can run shot-for-shot with the thousands and thousands of rounds I've put through two of my Glocks - That just ain't going to happen.

The only place where I'd give a revolver an edge over a Glock is for hunting or other strenous outdoor use; but, that's it.

You cannot reliably fire a Glock, or any other semi-auto, inside a pocket. The slide action will jam on clothing. That is not a problem with a revolver, and I have yet to see a semi-auto design that beats a revolver in that respect.

You cannot reliably fire a Glock, or any other semi-auto, inside a pocket. The slide action will jam on clothing. That is not a problem with a revolver, and I have yet to see a semi-auto design that beats a revolver in that respect.

Click to expand...

That is about the most senseless argument I've ever heard. You are guaranteed 1 shot with a striker fired auto. With a hammer fired gun, (semi or revolver) clothing could get between the frame and hammer preventing the gun from firing. A hammerless revolver would increase your odds, but the same clothing could bind the cylinder preventing any shot being fired.

Overall quality semi's are much more rugged and able to withstand much more abuse than a revolver. Plastic guns have only been around for 30 years or so, but plastics have been used for 60-70 years and they have proven to do just fine. Remember not all plastics are the same. A Glock frame is not made from the same material a Mattel toy is made from.

Kept in a bedside drawer, and given a lot of TLC a revolver will last a long time, but for hard core use in harsh enviornments quality semi's have proven they are the better choice for 100 years now.

"I know people with over 100,000 rounds through Glock 17s"

I've never wanted to shoot a Glock 100,000 times.

I keep coming back to the same thing, who said guns are supposed to last forever? Do we expect tires to last forever? Golf clubs? Skis? A table saw?

No offense GlockDoctor, but "thousands and thousands" is something a lot of folks do with either/both.

Serious competition shooting round counts fairly belong in a whole different class, and most who do that actually expect some rebuilds along the way, whatever they shoot. Most carry a spare to the match, no matter what it is.

But for EDC, CCW, LEOs, and average-joe-once-a-week range days, most any quality built non-race gun, service sidearm handgun, will live up to shooter's ambitions and enthusiasm. Just how many LEOs ever "wore out" either a Glock or a S&W model 10, or a 1911 in the line of duty ?

Too much is made of what will outlast the other, X vs. Y vs. Z
Too little is often acknowledged for what will outlast the shooter.
Any handgun that you have really good reason to believe will outlast your ammo budget ought do. If it don't, then complain.

I've never personally met anyone who has every truly worn out any quality firearm. Sure, sure you might have to replace various parts in each over time, but it takes alot to wear either out.

I only own one high round count centerfire revolver that I can verify the rounds thru. I've put 25k thru it with at least half being hot loads. It's still as tight as new.