I'm thinking of doing a poll on this, but I'm curious...  Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot?

The thread with the revolver from the S&W performance center with the aimpoint and the surfire light on it is a good example...  If those same goodies had been added to a 1911 no one would have batted an eyelid.  To me it appeared to be a perfect home defense weapon.  The red dot works in any light, and even for people with less than perfect eyes.  I wouldn't want to carry that behemoth, but it would make me feel warm and fuzzy residing in my nightstand!

btw... I have a stainless s&w 686 in my nightstand along with a couple HKS speedloaders!

I admit to loving revolvers and I happen to think they are fine weapons for just about any use you may wish to put them to, including self-defense and as a duty sidearm for LEO's, etc...

IMHO the revolver had reached a state of near perfection long before semi-autos were even seriously considered for police or self-defense carry by most shooters.  They are capable of superb accuracy, are easy to reload, and chamber some of the most effective pistol rounds available.  I know the .357 magnum was long considered the MOST effective combat round in existence.  I imagine if it isn't still the king of the hill it has been eclipsed by a semi-auto round that duplicates its ballistics very closely.

Nowadays our modern metallurgy allows us to pack .357 and .44 magnum punch into platforms previously reserved for their smaller "special" brethren.  So I think the revolver is better than ever as a defensive arm.

So how about it?  Are we biased against the venerable wheelgun?  And if so, why?

ETA:  How do you add a poll to this thread?

I have a Colt King Kobra and a Taurus both in .357. Wheelguns rock!

Oh, forgot about my S&W .38, gotta have a companion for the .22

www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/forum.html?b=5&f=33

Quoted: www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/forum.html?b=5&f=33

Quoted: www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/forum.html?b=5&f=33

Thanks for the link.  I need to get out of the GD once in a while!  

Quoted: ...........  Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot? .............................

I don't..

I'm a revolver fan... I've got 38s, 357s and 44s...

I've been shooting 38 regularly since 1973.....

I only have two...but I love them both...a 1915 Webley Mk VI in .455 and a Webley No. 1, War Finish WWII in .38

But I do want to get a US WWI 1917 in .45 too!

So I am not biased....

Just read an old Time-Life Western book, "The Scouts" that talked about Buffalo Bill Cody taking a Russian Prince buffalo hunting on horseback and using revolvers.  

" The Duke killed a buffalo at a distance of 100 yards with a heavy navy revolver. Buffalo Bill ranked this shot as a 'marvelous scratch.' "

Revolvers are cool.

I'm a huge revolver fan!  I have a S&W Model 66 2 1/2", Model 36 and a Colt Det. Spcl.

I'd own a heckuva lot more if I had the money!

HH

I love them, carry them on occasion.  I have more chamberings in revolvers than I do in autos.

No lasers here though, I've never understood why it's necessary to hang all that crap on any weapon.

After all, it came with sights didn't it?

I just got to shoot a .44 magnum for the first time and it made me realize I NEED a big ass revolver! They are fun to shoot.

Quoted: ... ... I need to get out of the GD once in a while!

That says it all right there.  General Discussion is like the Hotel bar at some professional convention.  yeah, there but be useful info to pick up, but if you judge this board by General Discussion, you would think we were all a bunch of loud drunks who stayed up all hours of the night.  Coming to the regular forums is like actually attending the conferences during the day.

With 99,000 + members, I think it would be hard for "this board" as an entity to show bias towards any one thing, other than guns.  Heck, we even have anti-ar15 types here in the AK forums.

I think that there is something of a preoccupation with "semiauto bling".
But I think that this is not just a characteristic of arfcom, but of the gun buying public as a whole.  And this is a reason why a number of very good revolvers are no longer being made.  They're just not "sexy" enough to be fully appreciated by a gun buying public that is just not that knowedgeable.
As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun.
S&W has significantly cut back on its offerings in .38 Special.  This cartridge is a very under appreciated classic and in the hands of a competant handloader is capable of doing anything any other medium caliber cartridge is capable of; in some cases it can do it better, such as launch heavier bullets.

I don't think that there is any doubt that the concept of "firepower" has to a certain extent eclipsed the traditional revolver with its six shots.  The reality that the first shot fired in a gunfight is the most important one is being forgotten by a lot of folks.

Just my two cents, not intended in any way to be negatively critical of anyone in particular.

Yeah, I was not trying to label the membership of the board as anti anything.  It was more an attempt to gauge the GD crowd's feelings towards wheelguns and have interesting conversation.

I had just noticed a few negative comments regarding older gun designs recently and thought I'd try to put my finger on the board's pulse.  The recent thread regarding winchester firearms is a good example.  I saw posts that were downright nasty in their opinion of lever guns and bolt guns...

To each their own though.  There are guns to please anyone's tastes.

I think part of the reason the 38 seems to be fading a bit is that a lot of platforms that were traditionally the territory of the 38 special, such as the S&W J frame, will now handle .357 loads thanks to improved metallurgy, etc.  I bet the 38 cartridge is as popular as ever, but they are just being used more and more in .357 mag revolvers rather than standard 38's...

I'm not a big fan of bling either, but a light and a red dot on a home defense gun that might be used in a low light situation seems reasonable to me.

I would say people on this site prefer pistols to revolvers. And I think the concealed carry people have an even bigger bias for pistols.

I did buy a couple new revolvers after selling all mine a couple years ago. A Russian Nagant and a Scofield, they are fun, especially the Scofield.

Revolvers are great weapons!  I have a S&W 637 that I intend to carry (when I get my dang CHL), and a Ruger GP100.   They're great guns, and shoot very well.  The GP100 is pretty dang accurate, with both .38spl and .357 Mag loads.  

The great thing about wheelguns is... you pull the trigger, and they go bang.  If they don't go bang, you just pull the trigger again.  


I plan on trying to find a few 6 shot .38s to place in strategic locations around the house to be my 'gun to get me to my safe and grab a bigger gun'.  

I think everyone should have a wheel gun or two.  

Quoted: I think that there is something of a preoccupation with "semiauto bling". But I think that this is not just a characteristic of arfcom, but of the gun buying public as a whole.  And this is a reason why a number of very good revolvers are no longer being made.  They're just not "sexy" enough to be fully appreciated by a gun buying public that is just not that knowedgeable. As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun. S&W has significantly cut back on its offerings in .38 Special.  This cartridge is a very under appreciated classic and in the hands of a competant handloader is capable of doing anything any other medium caliber cartridge is capable of; in some cases it can do it better, such as launch heavier bullets. I don't think that there is any doubt that the concept of "firepower" has to a certain extent eclipsed the traditional revolver with its six shots.  The reality that the first shot fired in a gunfight is the most important one is being forgotten by a lot of folks. Just my two cents, not intended in any way to be negatively critical of anyone in particular.

I don't relate to semis as bling.  Fire power is not bling.  There is a reason why the military does not carry revolvers these days.  For concealed carry, semis are flatter and have more fire power.  I have a S&W 3" 44mag from the custom shop, and SAA in 45 Colt and a Colt Commando in 38. love them all but view them as secondary in terms of self and home protection.  That being said, in all cases I would prefer a long gun.

Whats a Revolver......?
      Im not the biggest fan of them but I have to say I reallly like the PD stuff from S&W, the 327

 


Yep... really biased against revolvers here.

No, modern combat is biased against revolvers.

As modern semi autos became superbly reliable, the need for revolvers as a fighting tool dwindled. Now, a 4" 9mm with a capacity of 16 rounds no larger than a less powerful,  3" .38spl that only holds 6 rounds and is much slower to reload. While revolvers still have their place, most members here are more defensive oriented and not as interested in handgun hunting and other activities where revolers really shine.

I have been trained in Diversity where I work.  I like autos, single shots, and revolvers in both DA and SA.  I am not biased!

Quoted: Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot? ETA:  How do you add a poll to this thread?

Hmm, revolver boy can't even add a poll..........




I don't like revolvers.   I think they are antiquated.   I think they are vastly overrated.   They don't hold many rounds, they are slow to reload, they are bulky to carry, as are the speedclips.   They DO jam, and often to the point where you need a gunsmith to fix them.


However, if you like them, that's fine - free country

Quoted: No, modern combat is biased against revolvers. As modern semi autos became superbly reliable, the need for revolvers as a fighting tool dwindled. Now, a 4" 9mm with a capacity of 16 rounds no larger than a less powerful,  3" .38spl that only holds 6 rounds and is much slower to reload. While revolvers still have their place, most members here are more defensive oriented and not as interested in handgun hunting and other activities where revolers really shine.

Well said.  

Quoted: Quoted: Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot? ETA:  How do you add a poll to this thread? Hmm, revolver boy can't even add a poll.......... I don't like revolvers.   I think they are antiquated.   I think they are vastly overrated.   They don't hold many rounds, they are slow to reload, they are bulky to carry, as are the speedclips.   They DO jam, and often to the point where you need a gunsmith to fix them. However, if you like them, that's fine - free country

I actually only own one wheelgun and several semi-autos.    I like both, and I agree that a good semi is a more effective weapon for most concealed carry/personal defense scenarios.  But... I do think revolvers are very effective and are perhaps unfairly dismissed as archaic or unsuitable.  I know they jam, but the odds of it are FAR lower than with your average semi-auto.

And you guys STILL haven't told me how to do a poll!

Actually, not having at least 1 wheelgun is a bannable offense.

Quoted: No, modern combat is biased against revolvers.

Ahh. The old "If it isn't combat/tactical it isn't sh#t" mindset.

There ARE other reasons to own firearms aside from zombie banzai charges.

Never mind the fact the closest the majority of the folks on here will get to combat is being blocked by another shopper's cart in the beer isle.

I  reload .357 by the five-gallon bucket.  I don't feel undergunned at all.  

Quoted: Heck, we even have anti-ar15 types here in the AK forums.

and in the AR forum there's rabbid anti-ak people.

in the 1911 forum there's anti-glock people.

that's the nature of this forum.

Quoted: Quoted: I think that there is something of a preoccupation with "semiauto bling". But I think that this is not just a characteristic of arfcom, but of the gun buying public as a whole.  And this is a reason why a number of very good revolvers are no longer being made.  They're just not "sexy" enough to be fully appreciated by a gun buying public that is just not that knowedgeable. As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun. S&W has significantly cut back on its offerings in .38 Special.  This cartridge is a very under appreciated classic and in the hands of a competant handloader is capable of doing anything any other medium caliber cartridge is capable of; in some cases it can do it better, such as launch heavier bullets. I don't think that there is any doubt that the concept of "firepower" has to a certain extent eclipsed the traditional revolver with its six shots.  The reality that the first shot fired in a gunfight is the most important one is being forgotten by a lot of folks. Just my two cents, not intended in any way to be negatively critical of anyone in particular. I don't relate to semis as bling.  Fire power is not bling.  There is a reason why the military does not carry revolvers these days.  For concealed carry, semis are flatter and have more fire power.  I have a S&W 3" 44mag from the custom shop, and SAA in 45 Colt and a Colt Commando in 38. love them all but view them as secondary in terms of self and home protection.  That being said, in all cases I would prefer a long gun.

Absolutely firepower is not bling.
That wasn't what I was referring to.
What I was referring to is the trend I see in handgun design (with most emphasis in the area of semiauto design) to develope the handgun in ways that are somewhat questionable from the standpoint of actually improving the handgun as a weapon.
There is a lot of marketing hype over features like, polymer frames, "safety features" like DAO, mag disconnect safetes and loaded chamber indicators.  All of these "new" features are the current stock in trade of "state of the art" semiauto design, but do these things REALLY increase the effectiveness of the handgun as a weapon?  Or are they more intended to cut production costs and satisfy litigation minded bureaucrats within police and military organizations and politicians and lawyers?

When was the last time a new "old fashioned" single action only semiauto was introduced?
If the 1911 is by large measure considered such a good design (and it indeed is) then why don't we see more firearms being introduced along those lines?

These are questions that bother me.
I see a move away from some very effective basic handgun designs in favour of stuff that I have real reservations about purchasing for myself.

There are people who don't like revolvers?!

Here's a question for the revolver lovers:


Why?


Is it a throwback to childhood, seeing Dirty Harry, cowboy flicks,  etc....?    

I love good revolvers, I happen to have 4 of them

Quoted: I don't like revolvers.   I think they are antiquated.   I think they are vastly overrated.   They don't hold many rounds, they are slow to reload, they are bulky to carry, as are the speedclips.   They DO jam, and often to the point where you need a gunsmith to fix them. However, if you like them, that's fine - free country

+1

My Glock 19 is as compact and reliable as any revolver with better sights, larger mag capacity and very reliable.  I can tap/rack on a malfunction almost as fast as it might take someone shooting a wheelgun to pull the trigger again.


ETA:  I DO think that a pocket revolver may make a great backup gun, however.  That being said, I carry a Pocket-sized Beretta and 2 spare mags in my pocket, and that is smaller than most revolvers...

You guys all make good points.  The important thing is you own and shoot what you enjoy and feel comfortable with.  Let's not start flaming each other's opinions, mmkay?  

Quoted: I'm thinking of doing a poll on this, but I'm curious...  Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot? The thread with the revolver from the S&W performance center with the aimpoint and the surfire light on it is a good example...  If those same goodies had been added to a 1911 no one would have batted an eyelid.  To me it appeared to be a perfect home defense weapon.  The red dot works in any light, and even for people with less than perfect eyes.  I wouldn't want to carry that behemoth, but it would make me feel warm and fuzzy residing in my nightstand!

I love wheel guns......

But I'm not crazy about the new "tactical" S&W performance center Model 327 TRR8 Revolver. Just doesn't look right with the light rail, but heck it's still not a bad idea though.

Quoted: Cause revolvers just can't keep up. myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/twoglocks.wmv

You HAVE heard of Jerry Miculek (spelling?) and Ed McGivern, right?

Quoted: Here's a question for the revolver lovers: Why?

Easy.  I like shooting.

I like shooting revolvers.
I like shooting semi-autos.
I like shooting bolt-action rifles.
I like shooting AR15s.
I like shooting battle rifles.
I like shooting lever actions.
I like shooting muzzle-loaders.

I don't like shooting Glocks.  

Cheers,

kk7sm

Quoted: Here's a question for the revolver lovers: Why? Is it a throwback to childhood, seeing Dirty Harry, cowboy flicks,  etc....?

Aside from the Desert Eagle and a few oddballs (AutoMag, Wildey, Grizzly), it's hard to shoot things like .41 mag, .44 mag. .45 Colt, etc out of automatics. For true, sheer power, out of a repeting handgun, revolvers rule! I really don't care about the small frame ones, but for sheer, pure fun, try a large frame monster revolver.

Didn't we just have a thread about somebody's colt python turn into a revolver appreciation thread?

I don't see any bias.

Quoted: Quoted: Cause revolvers just can't keep up. myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/twoglocks.wmv You HAVE heard of Jerry Miculek (spelling?) and Ed McGivern, right?

Apparently, you didn't watch the video.

Quoted: Quoted: Heck, we even have anti-ar15 types here in the AK forums. and in the AR forum there's rabbid anti-ak people. in the 1911 forum there's anti-glock people. that's the nature of this forum.

Ahh, but this forum is primarily known as ar15.com, not glock.com or ak.com.  Though I realize we now have several different options to reach this place, it is what it is.

Quoted: Quoted: No, modern combat is biased against revolvers. Ahh. The old "If it isn't combat/tactical it isn't sh#t" mindset. There ARE other reasons to own firearms aside from zombie banzai charges. Never mind the fact the closest the majority of the folks on here will get to combat is being blocked by another shopper's cart in the beer isle. I  reload .357 by the five-gallon bucket.  I don't feel undergunned at all.

Oh, now you've done it - picked on the tactical Ninjas.  They're gonna suit up and come hunt you down if they ever get the enrgy to come out from Mom's basement.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cause revolvers just can't keep up. myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/twoglocks.wmv You HAVE heard of Jerry Miculek (spelling?) and Ed McGivern, right? Apparently, you didn't watch the video.

Yes I have.   That is an awesome video!  I'm just saying....

Have you ever heard about the exploits of Ed McGivern?  He could accurately shoot six shots into one hole in well under one second with a box stock S&W revolver!  The man was obviously in a class of his own and maybe a shooter like him only comes along once every 100 years, but it's still damn cool to read about!

Jerry Miculek could routinely give the 1911 guys a serious run for their money in IPSC competition.

I'm not saying that makes the wheelgun the equal of a semi-auto (or full auto) in every situation, but it does show what a wheelgun can do in the hands of a truly exceptional shooter!

Quoted: I'm thinking of doing a poll on this, but I'm curious...  Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot?

Smith and Wesson Model 19 Combat Magnum.

Everyone needs a few good revolvers...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think that there is something of a preoccupation with "semiauto bling". But I think that this is not just a characteristic of arfcom, but of the gun buying public as a whole.  And this is a reason why a number of very good revolvers are no longer being made.  They're just not "sexy" enough to be fully appreciated by a gun buying public that is just not that knowedgeable. As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun. S&W has significantly cut back on its offerings in .38 Special.  This cartridge is a very under appreciated classic and in the hands of a competant handloader is capable of doing anything any other medium caliber cartridge is capable of; in some cases it can do it better, such as launch heavier bullets. I don't think that there is any doubt that the concept of "firepower" has to a certain extent eclipsed the traditional revolver with its six shots.  The reality that the first shot fired in a gunfight is the most important one is being forgotten by a lot of folks. Just my two cents, not intended in any way to be negatively critical of anyone in particular. I don't relate to semis as bling.  Fire power is not bling.  There is a reason why the military does not carry revolvers these days.  For concealed carry, semis are flatter and have more fire power.  I have a S&W 3" 44mag from the custom shop, and SAA in 45 Colt and a Colt Commando in 38. love them all but view them as secondary in terms of self and home protection.  That being said, in all cases I would prefer a long gun. Absolutely firepower is not bling. That wasn't what I was referring to. What I was referring to is the trend I see in handgun design (with most emphasis in the area of semiauto design) to develope the handgun in ways that are somewhat questionable from the standpoint of actually improving the handgun as a weapon. There is a lot of marketing hype over features like, polymer frames, "safety features" like DAO, mag disconnect safetes and loaded chamber indicators.  All of these "new" features are the current stock in trade of "state of the art" semiauto design, but do these things REALLY increase the effectiveness of the handgun as a weapon?  Or are they more intended to cut production costs and satisfy litigation minded bureaucrats within police and military organizations and politicians and lawyers? When was the last time a new "old fashioned" single action only semiauto was introduced? If the 1911 is by large measure considered such a good design (and it indeed is) then why don't we see more firearms being introduced along those lines? These are questions that bother me. I see a move away from some very effective basic handgun designs in favour of stuff that I have real reservations about purchasing for myself.

Sig just introduced a single action P220.

I am partial to carring a 1911 and I don't own a revolver at this time.

I find what I have most advantageous to my tastes and situation therefore I am partial to the auto over the revolver.

HOWEVER, I love the aesthetics & feel of a good 4" .357 with a smooth trigger pull, and I am a huge advocate of the 5 shot snubs for women who want to carry for the 1st time (as well as others), and aren't leisurely invested into shooting.

For some of us, guns are more than just tools.  I own a Glock and a Sig, but they just don't "do" anything for me; frankly, neither does an AR (most of the time).  Blasphemy, I know.  However, blued Smith N-frames make me all tingly.  So do 1911's, if they aren't stainless.  Same thing with Garands.  I don't really know why; I mean, why do I also like redheads?  Why does steak taste so much better when it's bloody?  Why is scotch the greatest of all alcoholic beverages?

It's one of God's mysteries.  But if you think that a blued Smith .357 with stag grips isn't gorgeous, then you might not even be a human being.  That's just my two cents worth.  

Quoted: I'm thinking of doing a poll on this, but I'm curious...  Why does it seem like so many people on this site think that anyone who likes revolvers is an old-fashioned idiot?

Because there are a lot of kiddies on here who are too young to remember that revolvers have been protecting and serving for a lot longer than auto-pistols.

The thread with the revolver from the S&W performance center with the aimpoint and the surfire light on it is a good example...

Actually, it isn't. That revolver was just uber-tacticaled to death. It made me laugh.

Why?

Well, Bill Jordan and Elmer Kieth wouldn't be caught dead with such a thing.

If those same goodies had been added to a 1911 no one would have batted an eyelid.  To me it appeared to be a perfect home defense weapon.  The red dot works in any light, and even for people with less than perfect eyes.  I wouldn't want to carry that behemoth, but it would make me feel warm and fuzzy residing in my nightstand!

The light isn't a bad choice. Personally I wouldn't want one on my revolver, but add the aimpoint too and the whole setup becomes too clever by half in my opinion.

The point of a revolver is simplicity, and adding all those doo-dads doesn't fit with the main point of the weapon. It is like having a 5 pound snub-nosed revolver......It defeats the point.

btw... I have a stainless s&w 686 in my nightstand along with a couple HKS speedloaders! I admit to loving revolvers and I happen to think they are fine weapons for just about any use you may wish to put them to, including self-defense and as a duty sidearm for LEO's, etc...

Revolvers are still very viable defensive options. I am particularly fond of the revolver in the role of a backup gun, as they are about as reliable as you can get anything.

IMHO the revolver had reached a state of near perfection long before semi-autos were even seriously considered for police or self-defense carry by most shooters.

That is due to the inherent advantage of a revolver: It doesn't depend on a lot of tricky physics to work. They have fewer moving parts, and the gun moves around the cartridges to allow for repeating capability, rather than trying to move the cartridges around. That makes for a simple and robust system that is almost impervious to crud and gunk.

They are capable of superb accuracy, are easy to reload, and chamber some of the most effective pistol rounds available.

They are capable of being very accurate and they have a demonstrated ability to perform in a gunfight. Modern bullet design makes caliber selection almost moot, as good performing rounds can be found in any serious caliber. (.38 special +P and up)

I know the .357 magnum was long considered the MOST effective combat round in existence.  I imagine if it isn't still the king of the hill it has been eclipsed by a semi-auto round that duplicates its ballistics very closely.

Good bullet designs like the Speer Gold Dot perform about the same across various calibers. As far as bullet performance goes, there is less difference between the calibers than there has ever been. (I pack .45s and 9mms most of the time as primarys...)

Nowadays our modern metallurgy allows us to pack .357 and .44 magnum punch into platforms previously reserved for their smaller "special" brethren.  So I think the revolver is better than ever as a defensive arm.

The technology of the revolver is amazing today. My little aluminum framed S&W 442 can pack quite a whollop. I don't really like the titanium and scandium revolvers, as it hurts almost as much to shoot them as it does to be shot by them.

But they have almost reached a point where the rounds you put in the revolver weigh more than the revolver does empty. That is quite a feat.

So how about it?  Are we biased against the venerable wheelgun?  And if so, why?

Some may be, but I personally am not. I own several revolvers and want to own a lot more. There's nothing quite as nice as a nicely blued revolver, and few weapons are as handy as my little 442.

I carry a 1911 or a hicap 9mm as a primary weapon most of the time because they are easier to reload and they carry more ammunition before needing a reload. The flatter profile of the autopistol also makes it easier to carry concealed. Extra ammunition is easier to conceal too.

I think it's kind of ironic that a lot of the new handgun designs have attempted to emulate the positive attributes of the revolver in regards to how they function.

Double action only is a prime example of this.  Revolvers were so popular for so long with PD's and other government agencies because the learning curve on them was so easy.  You pull the trigger it goes bang.  If you cock it it goes bang with less effort.  No safeties, no gizmos, just load it and pull the trigger...

Look at most of the semi-autos that are all the rage right now....  Pretty darn similar other than you have to chamber a round from the magazine and know where the mag release button is located...