OT: Wheelguns disappearing....
- Thread starter Kismet
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 11, 1999
- Messages
- 1,525
Bobwhite said:
Hey Bobwhite, no pappers on this baby...in Kommiefornia you can purchase a black powder gun without having to wait 10 days and no paperwork to fill out, just like purchasing a pack of gum from 7-11...then like this Uberti 1858 Remington pictured you pick up a R&D cylinder which is considered an accessory by the DOJ, swap out the original b.p cylinder for the R&D 45 LC cylinder and now you have a single action b.p 44 revolver able to shoot 45 LC (cowboy loads 200gr to 250gr)
Or a Pietta Remington 1859
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,322
Munk,
The revolver is analogous, in many ways, to the shotgun. The shotgun, properly loaded, at the right range, can take any land animal. Revolvers can, as you mention, be used with heavy hunting loads, on down to light loads suitable for small game, and light/medium (for very powerful calibers) loads suitable for quick repeat defensive shots.
I love shotguns. I grew up hunting with one. I've made shots that are hard to believe with shotguns.
If I knew I was going to need a weapon to defend myself, I would choose a rifle, because it is indeed better for that purpose. Could a shotgun be useful for defense? Sure. Is it as useful as a good rifle for this mission? No.
There are indeed other problems wheelguns can have. I've seen revolvers fire, but throw potentially dangerous fragments that could have blinded a shooter not wearing eye pro. Lightweight revolvers also are ammo selective, in that the wrong loads can have the bullets in the cylinder become unseated, jamming the weapon. (A jam, as opposed to a malfunction, requires tools to clear.)
Are revolvers useless? Hell, no. They're great for hunting. Just like the wooden-stocked bolt rifles I love now. I could use either for defense, but I know in a really bad situation, I wouldn't be as well armed with either as with a good autoloading pistol in a duty caliber, and a good autoloading rifle or carbine, respectively.
Regards,
John Shirley
The revolver is analogous, in many ways, to the shotgun. The shotgun, properly loaded, at the right range, can take any land animal. Revolvers can, as you mention, be used with heavy hunting loads, on down to light loads suitable for small game, and light/medium (for very powerful calibers) loads suitable for quick repeat defensive shots.
I love shotguns. I grew up hunting with one. I've made shots that are hard to believe with shotguns.
If I knew I was going to need a weapon to defend myself, I would choose a rifle, because it is indeed better for that purpose. Could a shotgun be useful for defense? Sure. Is it as useful as a good rifle for this mission? No.
There are indeed other problems wheelguns can have. I've seen revolvers fire, but throw potentially dangerous fragments that could have blinded a shooter not wearing eye pro. Lightweight revolvers also are ammo selective, in that the wrong loads can have the bullets in the cylinder become unseated, jamming the weapon. (A jam, as opposed to a malfunction, requires tools to clear.)
Are revolvers useless? Hell, no. They're great for hunting. Just like the wooden-stocked bolt rifles I love now. I could use either for defense, but I know in a really bad situation, I wouldn't be as well armed with either as with a good autoloading pistol in a duty caliber, and a good autoloading rifle or carbine, respectively.
Regards,
John Shirley
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 243
I'm gonna get a ruger snubnose in 357 mag in July, when I turn 21.
Edit: and a nice 1911
I think at close ranges a shotgun is more devastating to a human assailant, when compared to a rifle.
I think revolvers are neato, you can fire one from a coat pocket or press the muzzle against something... and shoot without it jamming.
the only disadvantages that I can see is that they aren't as concealable as a really compact semi-auto and you generally get less shots, and reloads are slower, but not that much slower with speed loaders...
Edit: and a nice 1911
I think at close ranges a shotgun is more devastating to a human assailant, when compared to a rifle.
I think revolvers are neato, you can fire one from a coat pocket or press the muzzle against something... and shoot without it jamming.
the only disadvantages that I can see is that they aren't as concealable as a really compact semi-auto and you generally get less shots, and reloads are slower, but not that much slower with speed loaders...
The spitting cylinder and blindness is about the craziest thing I've heard so far in this thread.
I have many many revolvers, have fired untold amounts of rounds, and am not blind. No one I know is blind. No one I've ever heard of in the High desert of Ca went blind. I suggest the spitting powder blindness theory is best used by semi auto fans to discredit the revolver, probably along the line of dangerous, 'obsolete' design!!
LOL Let's see drop it, and it's broken. Now I'm blind.
It's OK. Life goes on. I thought of Rusty last night, what he might say- and he was more diplomatic than I on my best day. He loved wheelguns- and lived in the desert- does that remind anyone of what I've been saying all along????/!!!!
Revolvers are not simply relegated to hunting. No more bones thrown to the poor, breakable, blinding revolver, please!!
Spectre, a example of a few very small revolvers that might be ammo sensitive is the exception that proves the rule. If you have to go that far, think about what the premise is. Yes folks, the Revolver is still more reliable than the semi auto. It can take a wide range of ammo, is more useful at the high power ends, is more accurate and for most people who are not City Police or military, remains as good a choice as the semi auto, and for a lot of us outdoor-boony folks, the best choice!!
Now, let the REVOLVER ZEALOT offer this bridge: I've been defending the revolver. It is not outdated, its time is not numbered. It has reached the zenith of production and with modern cartridges is simply beyond the semi auto. It is about as obsolete as a hammer or khukuri.
BUT; why must the revolver be limited in order for the semi auto to be accepted and liked? I like semi autos. I even love semi autos. I really love semi auto rifles. I'm not attacking semi autos. I know they have their own pros and cons, just like the revolver.
Satori and Spectre and others, if you guys really believe the revolver is passe; fine. I don't have to put down semi autos to love revolvers.
I know you don't mean it; that is, it's not personal, it's just your 'facts'. I have shown over and over again your facts do not mesh with reality. That is my opinion. And it's OK!
I think the analogy to the shotgun is good, but still incomplete. Until such time as we have some electrical device, or particle beam, the revolver will be here.
munk
I have many many revolvers, have fired untold amounts of rounds, and am not blind. No one I know is blind. No one I've ever heard of in the High desert of Ca went blind. I suggest the spitting powder blindness theory is best used by semi auto fans to discredit the revolver, probably along the line of dangerous, 'obsolete' design!!
LOL Let's see drop it, and it's broken. Now I'm blind.
It's OK. Life goes on. I thought of Rusty last night, what he might say- and he was more diplomatic than I on my best day. He loved wheelguns- and lived in the desert- does that remind anyone of what I've been saying all along????/!!!!
Revolvers are not simply relegated to hunting. No more bones thrown to the poor, breakable, blinding revolver, please!!
Spectre, a example of a few very small revolvers that might be ammo sensitive is the exception that proves the rule. If you have to go that far, think about what the premise is. Yes folks, the Revolver is still more reliable than the semi auto. It can take a wide range of ammo, is more useful at the high power ends, is more accurate and for most people who are not City Police or military, remains as good a choice as the semi auto, and for a lot of us outdoor-boony folks, the best choice!!
Now, let the REVOLVER ZEALOT offer this bridge: I've been defending the revolver. It is not outdated, its time is not numbered. It has reached the zenith of production and with modern cartridges is simply beyond the semi auto. It is about as obsolete as a hammer or khukuri.
BUT; why must the revolver be limited in order for the semi auto to be accepted and liked? I like semi autos. I even love semi autos. I really love semi auto rifles. I'm not attacking semi autos. I know they have their own pros and cons, just like the revolver.
Satori and Spectre and others, if you guys really believe the revolver is passe; fine. I don't have to put down semi autos to love revolvers.
I know you don't mean it; that is, it's not personal, it's just your 'facts'. I have shown over and over again your facts do not mesh with reality. That is my opinion. And it's OK!
I think the analogy to the shotgun is good, but still incomplete. Until such time as we have some electrical device, or particle beam, the revolver will be here.
munk
- Joined
- Nov 30, 1999
- Messages
- 2,913
The revolver will still be there. They are just plain liked by some people, and that alone will keep them alive. Saying one is better than another really depends on your operating definitions. We all seem to have different ones. But the revolver is not obsolete, it has not been rendered useless. It gets the job done, still; and will continue to do so. Autos and revolvers can co-exist and do in many collections. Sweet, I am going to have to look into your option in more detail. Seems a great way to pick up some nice old school single actions.
"The spitting cylinder and blindness is about the craziest thing I've heard so far in this thread.
I have many many revolvers, have fired untold amounts of rounds, and am not blind. No one I know is blind. No one I've ever heard of in the High desert of Ca went blind. I suggest the spitting powder blindness theory is best used by semi auto fans to discredit the revolver, probably along the line of dangerous, 'obsolete' design!!"
I have a S&W 686 that "peppers" me pretty good with full-house .357 125gr. loads and while eye protection is required at my club, I am thankful to be wearing safety glasses when shooting that wheelgun.
Is it a timing problem, or just lots of unburned powder spraying about with Remington 125 gr. JHP? Dunno. Shouldn't be a timing problem as the revolver was purchased new. But, some of them "spit" a bit. Blind. Probably not. A buddy did have a case let go on his 1903 MS 6.5x54 one time while shooting from the bench. He wore glasses and had cartridge brass fragments embedded in his cheek from the incident. Weak old brass and too much headspace probably. Always wear eye protection if you can.
Jeff
I have many many revolvers, have fired untold amounts of rounds, and am not blind. No one I know is blind. No one I've ever heard of in the High desert of Ca went blind. I suggest the spitting powder blindness theory is best used by semi auto fans to discredit the revolver, probably along the line of dangerous, 'obsolete' design!!"
I have a S&W 686 that "peppers" me pretty good with full-house .357 125gr. loads and while eye protection is required at my club, I am thankful to be wearing safety glasses when shooting that wheelgun.
Is it a timing problem, or just lots of unburned powder spraying about with Remington 125 gr. JHP? Dunno. Shouldn't be a timing problem as the revolver was purchased new. But, some of them "spit" a bit. Blind. Probably not. A buddy did have a case let go on his 1903 MS 6.5x54 one time while shooting from the bench. He wore glasses and had cartridge brass fragments embedded in his cheek from the incident. Weak old brass and too much headspace probably. Always wear eye protection if you can.
Jeff
The 125 gr 357 at full house is a notorious spitter. Heavier rounds in all calibres don't spit as bad, probably because loose debris is related to heat and speed. Heavy bullets don't go as fast. For that matter, they are often of tougher construction.
Spectre mentioned throwing both guns down on the concrete. I hadn't thought of that, but I'm betting the new semi autos, half plastic and such, will do better at impact. You aren't going to throw a revolver out of time doing it if it is closed, though. It would have to be one heck of an impact. I mostly wouldn't want to do it to a handsome revolver and see it marred. Point given to the plastic semi auto.
The semi auto just keeps getting better and better. That it has come so close to the revolver in reliability says a lot. I even think the average 25 yard groups are shrinking too.
munk
Spectre mentioned throwing both guns down on the concrete. I hadn't thought of that, but I'm betting the new semi autos, half plastic and such, will do better at impact. You aren't going to throw a revolver out of time doing it if it is closed, though. It would have to be one heck of an impact. I mostly wouldn't want to do it to a handsome revolver and see it marred. Point given to the plastic semi auto.
The semi auto just keeps getting better and better. That it has come so close to the revolver in reliability says a lot. I even think the average 25 yard groups are shrinking too.
munk
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 3,548
I'm looking to get my first 1911, but if I can't find one for a decent price I will just get a nice .357 again. I like the relative simplicity of the big-frame revolver. It exudes reliability and confidence. While I have "heard" of shells jamming under the star ejector, or sliding too far forward in a cylinder, I never had one occur. I've had stovepipes with an H&K "super reliable" auto though.
If I were allowed to carry for defense, I'd probably get a hammerless DA revolver. Pretty foolproof.
If I were allowed to carry for defense, I'd probably get a hammerless DA revolver. Pretty foolproof.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 243
Devo,
maybe it's a cylinder to barrel gap problem?
wheelguns are stronger, built for higher pressured cartridges. I haven't heard of an auto-loading 454 casull.
And they are way less finicky with ammo, if a round fits into the cylinder it'll shoot.
has anyone ever seen Jerry Miculek shoot a revolver?
maybe it's a cylinder to barrel gap problem?
wheelguns are stronger, built for higher pressured cartridges. I haven't heard of an auto-loading 454 casull.
And they are way less finicky with ammo, if a round fits into the cylinder it'll shoot.
has anyone ever seen Jerry Miculek shoot a revolver?
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,322
munk, I hope you weren't suggesting that I was being less than honest with what I personally observed. The revolver in question- a beautiful 4" P&R S&W Model 57- had to go back to S&W. It left burn marks and small cuts on Byron's face. Fortunately, he was wearing shooting glasses.
Tamara dropped a nice 1911 into the mud then stomped on it. Then picked it up and fired it. I think many wheelguns would have difficulty doing that, and it could in fact be dangerous.
As I said, I like revolvers. At the same time, I believe I understand their place. Just because a certain person or persons is *capable* of doing extraordinary things with a straw (just to pick an absurb example), doesn't mean that most can, or should try.
Revolvers are okay defensively, but their use handicaps the shooter in certain ways, especially with regards to reload speed. I know *some* of us never miss, and one shot always fells the giant, but then, there's the rest of us.
John
Tamara dropped a nice 1911 into the mud then stomped on it. Then picked it up and fired it. I think many wheelguns would have difficulty doing that, and it could in fact be dangerous.
As I said, I like revolvers. At the same time, I believe I understand their place. Just because a certain person or persons is *capable* of doing extraordinary things with a straw (just to pick an absurb example), doesn't mean that most can, or should try.
Revolvers are okay defensively, but their use handicaps the shooter in certain ways, especially with regards to reload speed. I know *some* of us never miss, and one shot always fells the giant, but then, there's the rest of us.
John
There appears to be something wrong with BF and my post did not take.
OK- I'll make this fast as I don't trust the forum program right now.
I'm glad Byron was OK and that the wheelgun that was spitting was obviously defective. I won't use defective semiautos to suggest all semi autos are defective..
Military/police weapon development used to be almost parallel to the civilian market but no more. It's nice to have more shots. We've been wanted more since the Frontloader. But the 1911 you mention so often only holds 7 or 8 rounds. If I have to keep reloading as a civilian I've hit a statistical improbability. You've given up off the shelf accuracy, the entire high power end, and greater reliability for more shots. I understand, more shots are good; especially if you have to hit the target 3 or 4 times instead of once!
How many guns should the average joe buy? A semi for self protection and hitting multiple targets, a hunting handgun, and a target gun? A good revolver can do all those things. Beware the man who owns and or uses only one gun because he knows how to use it!
munk
OK- I'll make this fast as I don't trust the forum program right now.
I'm glad Byron was OK and that the wheelgun that was spitting was obviously defective. I won't use defective semiautos to suggest all semi autos are defective..
Military/police weapon development used to be almost parallel to the civilian market but no more. It's nice to have more shots. We've been wanted more since the Frontloader. But the 1911 you mention so often only holds 7 or 8 rounds. If I have to keep reloading as a civilian I've hit a statistical improbability. You've given up off the shelf accuracy, the entire high power end, and greater reliability for more shots. I understand, more shots are good; especially if you have to hit the target 3 or 4 times instead of once!
How many guns should the average joe buy? A semi for self protection and hitting multiple targets, a hunting handgun, and a target gun? A good revolver can do all those things. Beware the man who owns and or uses only one gun because he knows how to use it!
munk
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,322
Well, your last is very true. A revolver is probably most useful for those who have several things they want to do, and limited funds. Same with a shotgun. Again, though, if one had the funds and *only* was interested in defensive capability, an autoloading pistol and rifle would be the way to go. 2 or 3 rounds? Well, look at it this way- that's at least 30% more, and I know you're not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the .45 ACP as a defensive round.
Let's not be disingenuous. Potential problems WERE MENTIONED as reasons why wheelies were better. I just mentioned some potential problems with revolvers, too. Here's another- unconventional firing positions. That cylinder gap can be hell in the wrong place.
Heh. Quite true. But being attacked is somewhat statistically improbable, too- you're already planning for one unlikely probability- why not another?
*Who says* you have to hit the target once? You, of almost all people here, should know better. If you fire a lightweight, high velocity round from a .44 Magnum- say, a 180 JHP @ 1600 fps- this may be true, since you're essentially firing a rifle round (though I "controlled pair" with them, too). If you do this, though, good luck on quick acquisition of another target.
Great reliability? Eh. For the percentage of rounds from each I've fired, revolvers have been no more reliable for me. (NOT always the fault of the gun.) Which lasts longer?
Once more, which lasts longer? I know of cases of over 20,000 rounds fired from the least expensive, lightweight aluminum framed 9mm semiauto out there. Show me the equivalent -20,000 duty rounds- in a useful defensive revolver for the same price ($200).
Go up to the high end. Show me a $500 revolver that has fired over 200,000 rounds with nothing more than spring changes.
It ain't quite as clear-cut, munk. Revolvers have their place, but defensively, top-of-the-line, they ain't.
John
Let's not be disingenuous. Potential problems WERE MENTIONED as reasons why wheelies were better. I just mentioned some potential problems with revolvers, too. Here's another- unconventional firing positions. That cylinder gap can be hell in the wrong place.
Heh. Quite true. But being attacked is somewhat statistically improbable, too- you're already planning for one unlikely probability- why not another?
*Who says* you have to hit the target once? You, of almost all people here, should know better. If you fire a lightweight, high velocity round from a .44 Magnum- say, a 180 JHP @ 1600 fps- this may be true, since you're essentially firing a rifle round (though I "controlled pair" with them, too). If you do this, though, good luck on quick acquisition of another target.
Great reliability? Eh. For the percentage of rounds from each I've fired, revolvers have been no more reliable for me. (NOT always the fault of the gun.) Which lasts longer?
Once more, which lasts longer? I know of cases of over 20,000 rounds fired from the least expensive, lightweight aluminum framed 9mm semiauto out there. Show me the equivalent -20,000 duty rounds- in a useful defensive revolver for the same price ($200).
Go up to the high end. Show me a $500 revolver that has fired over 200,000 rounds with nothing more than spring changes.
It ain't quite as clear-cut, munk. Revolvers have their place, but defensively, top-of-the-line, they ain't.
John
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
I DO love you guys.
The initial article was mostly about the changing of the guard in NYC, and the attendent changing of weaponry. Kind of a "the times, they are a'changing" piece.
I learn so much from folks here.
I think I mentioned something about "endless discussion" in the first post. Nice to see life goes on. I miss Rusty's posts, but this has been wonderful. Thanks.
The initial article was mostly about the changing of the guard in NYC, and the attendent changing of weaponry. Kind of a "the times, they are a'changing" piece.
I learn so much from folks here.
I think I mentioned something about "endless discussion" in the first post. Nice to see life goes on. I miss Rusty's posts, but this has been wonderful. Thanks.
I don' know what your comparing, Spectre, but a revolver is a big machine designed to handle much higher pressure and perfomance than a semi auto. Take the foot pounds of energy shot by each weapon and then tell me some cheap little 9 mill lasts longer. If I fired just human defense ammo in one of my Mag revolvers, it would last my lifetime and I know you will agree.
As for the one shot stuff, no one knows nuttin and we can't count on anything either, but best chance is always going to be the most energy you can deliver with the greatest frontal diameter and the most penetration and expansion. Big guns do this best.
Do I have to listen to Kismet since he never even bought that SKS?
munk
As for the one shot stuff, no one knows nuttin and we can't count on anything either, but best chance is always going to be the most energy you can deliver with the greatest frontal diameter and the most penetration and expansion. Big guns do this best.
Do I have to listen to Kismet since he never even bought that SKS?
munk
You know, if all I worried about was shooting human targets, and I didn't worry (nor have any Departmental permission to do so) about penetrating walls and peircing cars and other hard barriors, I'd probably get a semi auto too. I own a 1911 and a Colt Delta elite. The 10mm is the closest to a revolver round you can get.
I may just give this to you- if all you want to do is shoot people the semi auto has some advantages.
munk
I may just give this to you- if all you want to do is shoot people the semi auto has some advantages.
munk
Spectre:
You used a broken revolver to suggest revolvers can cause blindness through spitting. Turns out the gun needed to be sent to the factory for repair- hardly a fair comparison to use a broken example to paint the whole field. I'd also like to find an individual somewhere who has been blinded by spitting. IF there is one, you really don't want to compare him to all the semi autos that have blown and injured their shooters.
Now you want to use the smalled, lightest revolver to suggest they're not as strong as semi autos. That's ridiculous, isn't it? Why don't I use a Raven semi auto to generalize about all semi autos? A Jennings, yeah, that would be good. The J frame revolvers are quality, but they are not intended for shooting down hordes coming over the ridge. They are made that they can be concealed and when needed work. They work. Many many Cops prefer the little J frame revolver as their back up or deep concealment gun. The last ditch that always works.
Revolvers are stronger than semi autos, and they are more reliable. You brought up an interesting point; number of rounds fired. That's one way to measure strength. In a sense, a big bore revolver is a hot rod. Look at the normal SAAMI specs for semi autos; usually at least 10,000 CUP below a magnum revolver.
If you want performance you gotta pay. It's true in cars, rocket ships, handguns and women. If I fired modest 'man killing' loads in my big bores, which I do most often, my revolvers should last longer than your semi autos. But I admit I haven't read any stats on this for some time.
As a civilian I have more leeway than an Officer in my ordinance and where I can use it. In an apartment complex, a penetrating round would not be a good idea. If I lived in a heavily populated area, I'd probably have a semi auto. I'd want more shots. I figure there's more bad guys and they don't travel alone.
But a home owner in Suburbia, or on a ranch in the country, would be well served by a revolver.
munk
You used a broken revolver to suggest revolvers can cause blindness through spitting. Turns out the gun needed to be sent to the factory for repair- hardly a fair comparison to use a broken example to paint the whole field. I'd also like to find an individual somewhere who has been blinded by spitting. IF there is one, you really don't want to compare him to all the semi autos that have blown and injured their shooters.
Now you want to use the smalled, lightest revolver to suggest they're not as strong as semi autos. That's ridiculous, isn't it? Why don't I use a Raven semi auto to generalize about all semi autos? A Jennings, yeah, that would be good. The J frame revolvers are quality, but they are not intended for shooting down hordes coming over the ridge. They are made that they can be concealed and when needed work. They work. Many many Cops prefer the little J frame revolver as their back up or deep concealment gun. The last ditch that always works.
Revolvers are stronger than semi autos, and they are more reliable. You brought up an interesting point; number of rounds fired. That's one way to measure strength. In a sense, a big bore revolver is a hot rod. Look at the normal SAAMI specs for semi autos; usually at least 10,000 CUP below a magnum revolver.
If you want performance you gotta pay. It's true in cars, rocket ships, handguns and women. If I fired modest 'man killing' loads in my big bores, which I do most often, my revolvers should last longer than your semi autos. But I admit I haven't read any stats on this for some time.
As a civilian I have more leeway than an Officer in my ordinance and where I can use it. In an apartment complex, a penetrating round would not be a good idea. If I lived in a heavily populated area, I'd probably have a semi auto. I'd want more shots. I figure there's more bad guys and they don't travel alone.
But a home owner in Suburbia, or on a ranch in the country, would be well served by a revolver.
munk