^%**^&**$ crappy connection

Quoted: 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!

Miculek shoots a S&W M625 (I believe) that has been modified with a Clark's Custom trigger.
I fired a S&W 686 at the firing range one day that had the same Clark trigger.  It was sweet.

One of the problems with revolvers these days is (IMO) the same as the problem with semiautos.  What is still being made isn't being made as well.  I'm not even going to begin on the subject of the proliferation of "price point semis" like all the $750-$850 1911s out there.  
Let's just look at revolvers.

There was a time, not that long ago, when S&W revolvers had barrels that weren't just threaded into the frame, but pinned as well.  If you look at the cylinder of an older Smith you'll notice that it is counterbored to fully enclose the rim of the case head.  The ejector star is also located into the cylinder with two locating pins.  Nowadays, the cylinders are no longer counterbored and the ejector star is located by machining a flat on the ejector shaft.  This flat can quickly wear out (I know because I wore one out on my 686) and then the star won't locate properly into the back of the cylinder.
It used to be that the factory would proof test every cylinder charge hole. Now they only do (IIRC), three.
Well, the end result of all this cost cutting are disasters like on a previous thread here on arfcom about the State of NC which had fourteen Model 64s with barrels that actually broke and fell off the frames.

Take a look at an older S&W or an older Colt.  Look closely at the construction, the fit and the finish.
These were some very well made handguns.

Don't get me wrong anyone.  I like revolvers and I like semis.  I own both and I handload for both and I shoot both.  I've also made it a point to rent and shoot at least a few examples of most of the major handgun designs out there.  And there are some good new guns out there, too.  I just think that the overall trend is down.

I pity those who've never had the sublime joy of spending an afternoon shooting a long barreled K-frame Smith with a nicely tuned action. A bucket of .38's is all that you need to round it out.

For the ubertactical combat types out there? I defy you to show me a more perfect every-day, all day, anywhere carry pistol than an alloy framed (be it simple Aluminum or a high tech Ti/SC) Smith J-frame. It's the ultimate pocket pistol and has been for decades. Yep, I've got my Sig's and 1911's and they're great when I can carry'em...but they're a pain (literally) when I'm crawling around doing plumbing under the house and have to make a quick visit to the store for parts. BTDT...(and yes, I've hear of Kahr's and such, my experience has been that small autos in real calibers are delicate about what they feed and function with)

For me, I celebrate diversity in this world.

I love my auto pistols,
I delight in my revolvers
I enjoy my rifles
I grin every time I touch off my shotguns
Heck, I seem to get a thrill out of everything I get to shoot....except Glocks
(just kidding, even Glocks need love)

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! 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?

S&W 686-4 with night sights and two speedloaders in a lockbox under my bed also.........

Dorcy flaslight on the nightstand.

...but SigsandGlocks says revolvers are antiquated. He must know because he owns a bunch of them.

I don't like revolvers at all.  

BTW, the Colt Detective Special on the right once served on the Secret Service protective detail.

Cheers,

kk7sm

Quoted: As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun.

I belive Charter Arms still makes the bulldog.

I own my fair share of wheel guns

If you've never fired a really good revolver, you're not really in a position to compare.  

But that branch on the evolutionary tree isn't getting much longer on the tactical tool family.  Specialized branches are sprouting side sprouts but we aren't seeing too much in the general purpose development.  special purpose weapons are still coming out like the big kablooie wham Bam magnums and small light self defense guns with miracle alloys, but those aren't more than refinements on old designs.

Autos are still developing, and primarily because , you can get more bang for your back in a given size than you can out of wheel guns for military and law enforcement purposes.

If I want to show off with long distance pistol shooting, I use a revolver.  If I want to put more rounds on a target quickly, it's an auto.

Most guys here especially in GD are more interested in tactical applications of firearms, hence a bias to better tactical weapons.

I own 7 ARs.

Purchases over the last month:
G21
Marlin 444
S&W 66-6

I'm extremely biased, I like firearms.

Quoted: Quoted: As far as I know, Taurus was the last major manufacturer to make a .44 Special revolver (now discontinued); an outstanding self defense handgun. I belive Charter Arms still makes the bulldog.

I think S&W also makes/made revolvers in 44spl, I have a  5-shot L-frame 3" SS 696, and a 2" Al/Ti 296.  The 296 kicks like a mule even with my mild 44spl hand loads.

Revolvers are also more accurate than most auto-pistols.  At 75', a 5 shot 2" shot group for auto-pistols is considered pretty good; in a revolver, 1" is considered pretty good.  My friend and I were buying our first revovlers 15 years ago, the S&W 686 and the Colt Python could shoot 1" shoot day in, day out.  The Ruger GP100 can do 1.5"

I carry a Glock 23.  I also own a Kimber TLE.  The handgun that I can shoot the best is my Taurus M85 that I got for $175.  I will carry the Taurus every now and then because it makes me happy and i know that it will do what I need it to do.  

My thoughts:

Someone earlier mentioned that revolvers have been in use for over 100 years as effective weapons.  What came before that?  Muzzle loaders.  They have been in use for significantly longer.  Doesn't mean they are better, or even equal to revolvers.  Does this mean Autos are better?  No.  But technology has progressed.  Back around 100 years ago, the revolver was the state of the art in personal defense technology.  As a solution to the shortcomings of revolvers (lack of capacity, slower reloads) autopistols were invented.  Autos are simply the next step in firearms technology.  Doesn't mean revolvers are obsolete.  Hardly.  But today is the age of the auto, no question.

I just thought of another thing.  Revolvers ain't my cup o' tea.  I don't own a single one.  I am also fascinated by mechanical things.  In a operating sense, autos have more stuff going on.  Metal sliding against metal, springs working, moving parts that I can see operate.  I like that kinda stuff.  Probably why I don't get as much of a kick out of boltguns either.  Some say that since autos have more moving parts, there is a better chance that something will go wrong.  That may be true, however, that is part of the quest:  To design and build something more complicated, yet more capable and make it work everytime.  A single malfunction is a failure.  Revolvers are very simple.  There isn't much more that can be done.  The mechanical challenges have basically been overcome.  The auto is still a work in progress to some extent.

Look at the 1911:  The design is nearly 100 years old.  Some still haven't gotten the bugs worked out.  Say you buy a 1911.  You take it to the range and you have some malfunctions.  You take it home, dissassemble it and start tinkering.  Analyzing the mechanism for any signs of the problem.  File here, adjust there, and try again.  After a fashion, you have a detailed understanting of the function of not only each component, but each part of each component, and how they all work together make the whole system of parts work as a whole to achieve the desired result.  Not bashing 1911's either.  I have a Kimber that has run flawlessly right out of the box.

Now look at the Glock.  This is only because this is the hangun I have the most experience with, not to start some flame war.  My glocks have thousands of rounds through them, with so few malfunctions that I can remember each one individually and how it happened.  Glocks are not designed to look pretty.  They are designed with function alone in mind.  The only reason other guns made today are not blocky and rectangular is to prevent them from looking like Glocks.

My train of thought has kindof derailed at this point, but the jist of my argument is that autos are modern and have great appeal to people who are fascinated by mechanical devices and are intrigued by new stuff with an eye toward what the future holds.  Revolvers are common, accepted, and, well, not so new.  Doesn't mean they are bad.  Hell, for the most part, they can't be beat in terms of accuracy or muzzle energy.  But for people like myself, admirers of discovery and innovation, autos are where it's at.