Why have revolvers become passé ?

[Sam1911]

You're really not in a good position to bring that up.

"...the probability of needing more than 6 shots in a gun fight must be close to 0.00001%."

And that's the conditionality failure. The probability of average guy Jim sitting at home on his couch suddenly needing to fire more than six shots at threats is vanishingly small.

The probability of average guy Jim, who's just been jumped by a couple of thugs and has drawn his sidearm to defend himself, needing to fire more than six shots is much MUCH higher.

I can't stop you from trying, but that example doesn't show a flaw in my reasoning.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but it absolutely does. You've mis-applied your reasoning to an inappropriately large set of conditions. Everyone engaging in this conversation would innately understand the implication of "...in a gun fight," and disagreeing with the position based on that misunderstanding or misapplication makes no more sense than claiming that it isn't valid because you've included people who don't own a gun at all, or because you've also included dogs and cats into your calculation.

So let's set this aside.

Henceforth, when considering statistics of what might happen when defending one's self, let's go ahead and stipulate that we're talking about "...IN A GUN FIGHT."

 

[Jaymo]

Have both, like both.
Will NOT sell any of my revolvers.
I cast my own boolits and load my own ammo.
My revolvers function perfectly across the spectrum from mouse fart to ripsnortinloudenboomers. HP, RNL, WC. SWC, WFN, RB, they don't care.
My Kel-Tec .380 used to go everywhere with me.
Then, I bought a S&W 36.
The .380 now collects dust.
Unless I need a backup to the 36.

 

[TestPilot]

I was addressing the specific claim that "probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight" was higher than "probability of case not properly ejected". That is obviously and utterly false.

I can list Jim Cirillo and Lance Thomas who fired lot more than 6 during gun fights, just from memory.


There are data available, such as the sources like these:

http://gunssavelives.net/browse-by-gun-type/

How many instances of failure to eject do you find during gun fights in these data?

I am not going to say it never happend.

But, I can find instances of more than 6 rounds fired gun fights with lot more ease than instances of someone losing a gun fight because of a failure to eject or any kind of malfunction for that matter.


How about SWAT and Special forces use? A lot of you can make sarcastic snide comments about "tacticool" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they do not choose a gun that they believe will fail them when it matters, and they know a thing or two about guns.

 

[Old Dog]

I had to go back to the original post to remind myself what this thread was about ...

Why have revolvers become passé? I myself like revolvers over semi-auto pistols. I find my shooting to be more purposeful when shooting a revolver over a semi-auto. I find with a revolver I want to make ever shot count. I tend to get sloppy with semi-autos and just fire away.

I don't think revolvers are passe' at all, personally. However, I agree with comments about how shooting revolvers can help one focus better ...

This thread seems to have turned into, once again, the "Is Six Rounds Really Enough?" debate ...

 

[mcappys]

Revolvers don't have capacity for the 8 to 15 rounds that most need
to hit something once.
I hear all the time that I only have 5 shots and it will take too long to reload,
from the guys with 3 or 4 15 round mags on their belt.
I just tell them I only need 5 for 5 and if there is more I'll use one of theirs

 

[The Narrator]

And that's the conditionality failure. The probability of average guy Jim sitting at home on his couch suddenly needing to fire more than six shots at threats is vanishingly small.

Not my problem.

The probability of average guy Jim, who's just been jumped by a couple of thugs and has drawn his sidearm to defend himself, needing to fire more than six shots is much MUCH higher.

I haven't argued otherwise.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but it absolutely does. You've mis-applied your reasoning to an inappropriately large set of conditions.

Pshaw. It would only be misapplication if I was trying to reach a conclusion not supported by the reasoning I am applying to reach my destination. In this case, that's not the case. I am simply reaching a destination you didn't reach, and therefore your error detection circuitry (of the mental variety) is throwing false positives at you.

Everyone engaging in this conversation would innately understand the implication of "...in a gun fight," and disagreeing with the position based on that misunderstanding or misapplication makes no more sense than claiming that it isn't valid because you've included people who don't own a gun at all, or because you've also included dogs and cats into your calculation.

Bladderdash.

Look at it from a real world perspective....

Normal use case for a gun is at a range of some sort. That's where <some huge percentage> of all bullets come out. Effectively 100%, I suspect.

In the normal use case scenario, glocks have glitches. Those may seem tarmatic or normal depending on your point of view. Of course so do revolvers. However, you can't really count "successfully firing all loaded ammo" as a glitch. There is a qualitative difference between FTF and ABF. Short of ABF conditions, most people seem to report that revolvers have fewer but more severe glitches. In other words, they usually work, but when they don't hoo boyo they really don't.

I think it is a valid life choice to prefer fewer glitches. Of course it is also a valid life choice to prefer something else. I'm not the boss of any of you I hope.

Throwing in corner cases and exceptions such as "in a gun fight" may or may not be relevant. It's like planning car purchases around lightning strikes.

Now, if you are specifically talking about fightin guns, then talking about fights is relevant. As far as I see the fighting market is already owned by glocks of various sorts so if we are talking revolvers then fighting is probably not the first priority and certainly can't be the assumed use.

 

[Sam1911]

Now, if you are specifically talking about fightin guns, then talking about fights is relevant. As far as I see the fighting market is already owned by glocks of various sorts so if we are talking revolvers then fighting is probably not the first priority and certainly can't be the assumed use

Oh. Ok. So you're saying that you might have to occasionally "TRB" an auto, while plinking at the range, and if you shoot for enough years you might someday have a revolver break internally and stop working ... again while plinking at the range.

Yeah, ok, if that's your whole point then sure -- who could argue? (Except for the several millions of folks who own revolver for carry/defensive purposes, but let's ignore them for the moment.)

You took a statement clearly intended to indicate a real NEED -- a life-or-death problem during a gunfight -- and argued against it from a frivolous perspective. You could have dispensed with the argument by simply stating that you had no insights to share on gun-fighting so wouldn't address that point.

Again I will ask, let's drop the debate on this side issue.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I know a guy who has had the same revolver for years and has never even had the barrel off.

Also...many revolvers are priced WAY over what you can get a semi auto for!

Not true. There are high end revolvers and low end revolvers, just as there are high end semi's and low end. Many high end semiautos vastly surpase revolvers in price.

In a urban setting a high capacity firearm is need so that the air can be filled with lead in the hope of hitting something. Shot placement is not as important as it once was.

I sure hope this was a joke. If not, it is in the running for the stupidest thing I've ever heard on THR.

 

[mikemyers]

I think we can agree that a lot of people nowadays want SA because it's the "in thing". That's what the guys in the next killer movie will be using; Movies with 6-guns seem to have faded away along with "Dirty Harry.

Back to my trip to Colorado. I wanted to go shooting, and we found an indoor range where I could rent a gun. I rented a Glock, as I wanted to know what it was like, and got a box of the standard ammunition they sell there.

That the gun didn't seem to shoot well is almost certainly my inexperience with the Glock, not a problem in the gun..... I think. But, over six times (I lost count) the gun didn't eject properly, which is over 10% of my bullets. Compare that with revolvers - I don't think I've ever had a revolver that didn't fire when the trigger was pulled.

Nothing is 100.00000% foolproof, and anything can fail, but if I had to have a weapon for self-protection, and the choice was between that 9mm Glock, or a S&W revolver, I would be far more afraid of a potential jam in the gun, compared to running out of ammunition.



Just one photo I want to find, and post here in this discussion, then I'll leave it for other discussions I'm much more interested in.....

 

[HRnightmare]

Also...many revolvers are priced WAY over what you can get a semi auto for!

Not true. There are high end revolvers and low end revolvers, just as there are high end semi's and low end. Many high end semiautos vastly surpase revolvers in price.

Perhaps I can rephrase. Revolvers and SA's of the same "class" seem to be quite different in price range. A Taurus or Rossi revolver seemed to run about the same price as a Glock or M&P... I would NOT call Taurus in the same quality spectrum of either of those semi's... Etc.

 

[mikemyers]

Found it.

NYC seems to be rather anti-gun, and I was amazed to find this picture of a gun on a giant advertising billboard in downtown Manhattan. I set up my camera and waited for the ad to re-appear, so I could take this photo.

If "Dirty Harry" represented handguns 30 or so years ago, I think this image is what represents handguns nowadays:

http://www.sgrid.com/2014/IMG_1272.JPG

(Before anyone asks, the image is 100% real - no Photoshop, no editing, no nothing, just a Canon S120 set up aimed at the scene I wanted, with me waiting for the gun to appear again.)

I have no idea what the ad was for, but I was sort of surprised to see this image.



Like I was thinking earlier, revolvers were THE handgun way back when, semi-autos are THE handgun nowadays, and in my opinion, smart-guns will be THE handgun of the future.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Range ammo; rental guns.....

I'd compare shooting a range gun or rental then saying it wasn't a good gun to buying a motel bed then saying it smelled & wasn't very comfortable.

I've rented pistols too over the years & shot some "range provided" ammunition.
Nearly every time I shot, I too had jams, misfires, double feeds etc.
Mainly it was the cheap reloaded pistol rounds and/or guns that were dirty or not cleaned-oiled correctly. I shot a S&W 3913 9mm that acted this way & in the early 1990s, a early Glock 21 .45acp. I shot a rental HK USP 9mm that worked flawlessly even while dirty & using cheap ammo.

I looked into buying a DA only USP .45acp later around 1997 or so but decided on a sweet Beretta 96D .40S&W with NP3 & Trijicon green sights.

 

[benzy2]

Use what you like for the situations you care to plan for. If you want to use a semi-auto, use a reliable one. If you want to use a revolver, use a reliable one. I don't honestly care what you use, unless I suppose mine breaks and you are beside me.

The argument that Semi-Autos are failure prone is a myth. They may be more likely to have a stoppage, but they are typically easy to clear and on a very low probability of any stoppage happening. I have a Glock 21 that has seen a few thousand rounds without a failure of any kind. I have an STI Trojan that's seen around 1000 rounds with no issues. I have a pair of CZ's that haven't stumbled once (even when trying powder puff loads). I've got 3 M&Ps that have yet to have a single failure of any kind through 3-4 thousand rounds combined. None are overly high use guns, but they are also as reliable as I could ask and something I'd stake my life on if forced to pick. Only one revolver I've owned has had issues, and it was a timing problem. That was a fairly big deal, though an easy fix. If you told me to pick one that had to shoot 6 shots, I'd feel as comfortable with any of the above listed Semi-autos as I would any revolver I own. This is only anecdotal evidence and is certainly not data, but I haven't seen such a high failure rate on most current production semi-auto pistols as people make it out. There have been a few, and they were typically a range toy type gun, that weren't reliable. Still, that's why you shoot them before carrying. Shot long enough, everything will break. Over a small enough sample size, any results could happen and skew the true likelihood of an event. Do whatever lets you sleep best at night.

 

[The Narrator]

Oh. Ok. So you're saying that you might have to occasionally "TRB" an auto, while plinking at the range, and if you shoot for enough years you might someday have a revolver break internally and stop working ... again while plinking at the range.

I'm not sure about the plinking part but is that wrong?

Yeah, ok, if that's your whole point then sure -- who could argue? (Except for the several millions of folks who own revolver for carry/defensive purposes, but let's ignore them for the moment.)

Oh, it wasn't my "whole point".

I don't think it is correct to judge everything by one set of standards. Is my car junk because it won't stop bullets the way an armored van is supposed to? Only if that's why I bought it. If I bought my Fiat to carry payroll around to inner city construction sites and it can't stop bullets I'm going to be cussing up a storm. But if I didn't, if it is actually to drive around the suburbs, then someone popping up to say, "BUT IT WON'T STOP BULLETS" is wasting everyone's time.

You took a statement clearly intended to indicate a real NEED -- a life-or-death problem during a gunfight -- and argued against it from a frivolous perspective. You could have dispensed with the argument by simply stating that you had no insights to share on gun-fighting so wouldn't address that point.

Why? Talking gunfights about .500 S&Ws seems frivolous to me too but I don't see you busting Test Pitot's chips. My insight was that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That the gunfighter's lament about revolvers only holding 5-10 bullets while a glock can hold 15 is only relevant to other gunfighters. Obviously it isn't even relevant to all gunfighters since you point out that many would-be gunfighters choose revolvers anyway.

The question was, why are revolvers out of fashion. I don't think gunfighter concerns about capacity is the answer.

Again I will ask, let's drop the debate on this side issue.

OK.

 

[tarosean]

Revolvers don't have capacity for the 8 to 15 rounds that most need
to hit something once.

several 8 shot 357 revolvers on the market.

 

[Delford]

On the lower priced semi auto spectrum is my beloved Ruger P345, which in the five years I've owned it has never had a failure to fire or eject 230 gr fmj ammo. I shoot with a friend who has several Glocks and several Ruger SAA/western revolvers he's let me shoot. I like .44 magnum and .40 S&W. I don't own a revolver but I don't see them going away any decade soon. I've shot the S&W 1911PD scandium and the RIA 1911 and like them as well. I'm fortunate to have several friends who let me shoot their arsenals but at home the P345 is what is with me and backs up my 870. Lower price may mean less features perhaps but cheaper is still dependable until you get to pot metal "midnight specials".

 

[jimbo555]

It's the indian, not the arrow. Carry what you shoot best!

 

[BullfrogKen]

I must have fallen into a time machine and woken up in the 80's.

 

[35 Whelen]

Video games, shooting sports games, and the fantasy of valiantly protecting ones self from hoards of bad guys with a black plastic framed Smithglocksauerwesson sporting an 836 round magazine filled to capacity with 9mm +P+P+P+P+ ammunition.

35W

 

[45_auto]

How about SWAT and Special forces use? A lot of you can make sarcastic snide comments about "tacticool" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they do not choose a gun that they believe will fail them when it matters, and they know a thing or two about guns.

Does the phrase "Mall Ninja" mean anything to you?

If you believe that what the FBI and Special Forces use should dictate what you carry, you need to get you an 8 shot 1911 (with thumb safety).

FBI SWAT equipment:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/capabilities/fbi-swat-graphic

Springfield 1911

Marine Special Forces Pistol:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...33/Elite-Marine-Corps-units-field-new-pistols

While standard operating forces throughout the U.S. military use the NATO-standard Beretta M9 pistol, elite military and law enforcement units, including Marine special operations and force recon, have continued to use the 1911.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by 45_Auto:
Does the phrase "Mall Ninja" mean anything to you?

Yes, it is a catch phrase that is thrown around by people lacking reasoning capability to belittle people who carries anything that appears more prepared for violence than them when they run out of logical reponse.

They tend to manifest inability to comprehend written communicaions and defective inference drawing. For example, when one say Special Forces do not tend to select weapons prone to malfunctions, they accuse the person of saying Special Forces should dictate that person's weapon selection.

"If you believe that what the FBI and Special Forces use should dictate what you carry, you need to get you an 8 shot 1911 (with thumb safety)."

 

[swopjan]

They'll hardly stay passe if we do our part

Last time I was at the range three other shooters got to put rounds downrange with my revolvers, not counting the two guys I went with. One kid, about eleven, asked 'what are those?' and he got the whole spiel about single and double action, loading and unloading, etc and had a big ol' grin after shooting my model 10. Think it was his first time shooting so even the trusty .38 special was a big deal to him.

When I take my revolvers I bring them in a pouch and when I get to the shooting station I take them out and lay them on top where everyone can see. I see the occasional LCR or stainless revolver but none of them get noticed as much as my .357 Blackhawk or my S&W model 10 and 17 and if anyone asks about them I offer them a few rounds. Maybe I should pick up that model 29 at the LGS, that would get some attention too!

 

[ljnowell]

It's a simple economics.

For example, Glock 19 is a fine combat pistol. You can get that for about 2/3 price of a 686.

It has more than twice the capacity while still being lighter. Want more power than a 9mm? Then there's Glock 22 or M&P40.

Morern self-loaders are significantly easy to shoot and hit with, compared to revolvers. More training at less cost and more effectiveness.




That's not a characteristics of a self-loaders. That's a characteristics of you.

Modern autos, many of which have horrible triggers, are easier to hit a target with than a smith revolver that gas an exquisite single action trigger? You really believe that? Most guys I see shooting modern plastic semi autos don't come close to the groups I see guys shooting with quality revolvers.

As far as 2/3 of the cost, you get what you pay for. You can't compare a Glock price to a S&W revolver. Compare an HK to it. There isn't much price difference.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Modern autos, many of which have horrible triggers, are easier to hit a target with than a smith revolver that gas an exquisite single action trigger? You really believe that? Most guys I see shooting modern plastic semi autos don't come close to the groups I see guys shooting with quality revolvers.

As far as 2/3 of the cost, you get what you pay for. You can't compare a Glock price to a S&W revolver. Compare an HK to it. There isn't much price difference.

Well I don't own any HKs either. I started off with revolvers. First handgun I bought was a S&W 66. I don't own any any more. Were those guys shooting those great groups shooting single action or double action? I'm guessing they were taking the time to cock the hammer every shot. Which is what most people at the range seem to do. Which is not what is going to happen on the street. So what you really need to do when practicing with a revolver is practice double action and single action. Most people don't do this. Most people want to shoot tight groups so they cock the hammer between shots so they can feel good about how well they are shooting. I'd rather have a consistent trigger that I can shoot.

 

[ljnowell]

Probability of case not properly ejected is far less than probability of needing more than 6 in a gun fight.



A lot of revolvers force the user to grip with the index finger coming in front of the middle finger and pulling the trigger toward the middle finger.
.

I would love to see where you found statistics to back up your first quoted statement. First, I am willing to bet that most semi autos will have a malfunction at some point before a few hundred thousand rounds. What's the odds of even being in a self defense shooting? Second , the last time I checked the stat for self defense shooting showed an overwhelming number of them were under six shots fired. In truth semi autos were probably responsible for any rise in number of shots fired.

On the second quote, what revolvers are you referring to? I own Ruger SA and DA, S&W, Colt, Nagant, and have owned a Taurus. None of those required my middle finger to ride up to the height of my pointer finger and require my pointer finger to pull towards my middle finger. That's blatantly false and pretty ridiculous.