Posted: 2/4/2005 7:49:02 AM EDT
|
There has been quite the advance in revolver technology over the years. The Neutral Observer purchased a GP-100 to replace his worn out Security-Six recently. They had .357 revolvers with 8 shot cylinders, monster revolvers in 10 mm and the .45 ACP, featherweight large-caliber revolvers, and all kinds of new grip types and sights. It seems the wheelguns are back in fashion. A lot of the plastic stuff, too. The Neutral Observer supposes that is the way of the future. The Neutral Observer has a Glock, but it'll be a shame if all of the manufacturers go that way. |
One word, RELIABLITY. Most gun fights are short with no reloads. The important thing is for the weapon to go bang. If you are really paranoid carry a primary 8 shot like a .357 Smith snub with a 5 round back up .357. My snub is quite accurate out to 15 yards and with a laser grip would be more so. |
|
Well, if you look at the basic internal designs of a lot revolvers they date back to the late 1890s. The Smiths and Colt Pythons are from that era. In terms of reliabity, I think the auto-pistols have an edge. Have anybody every got a granule of unburnt powder under the extractor star of a DA/SA revolvers? Revolvers are good, but they do have their limitations, but I personally still love them. |
I disagree with you there. I think an autopistol has a lot more things that can go wrong for it to fail. There are many more parts. From extractors, magazines springs and lips, and slides. |
|
lemme see....... The current count is 18 firearms (I think), 7 of which are handguns. These include Tactical Tupperware (Glock), Kimber Stainless Gold Match, Colt Mustang Plus II, and a handful of other goodies. And my favorite gun is.................. S&W model 63 in plain old .22 LR. Small, stainless little beauty. It's hard to beat a nice revolver. What's with the "neutral observes" notes this and the "neutral observer' says that? Sounds like the royal "we" bullshit......... |
Probably not on a regular production basis, which is unfortunate. S&W for the past few years have been trying to prune their product line. Notice how fat the S&W catalogue was in 10-15 years ago, and the total slimmer one today. Today S&W has switched their auto-pistols to aluminum frames(easier and faster to machine), and stainless steel, and most of their revolver offerings are stainless steel. |
+1 on that. With a revolver, you can't have a failure to feed or failure to eject, or a bum magazine. You pull the trigger and it goes bang. If it doesn't go bang, you pull the trigger again. For dead-nuts reliability, the revolver will win. Mine keeps on ticking even when it's absolutely filthy. |
I made the mistake of nut buying a Model 29 Mountain Gun this spring, one of the 1,000 made in .44 mag last year. Good price too, like $650 IIRC  I've got a model 13, and I sure like that. I understand it's a business decision, but, they always gotta cut what I like 
|
|
I would think that with all the available technology, we could see another attempt at a semi-auto revolver pretty soon. It seems that since all of the revolvers are going to a "transfer bar" type of mechanism anyway, there is little need for a massive hammer. How tough would it be to just bleed off a little gas to reset the "hammer" after every trigger pull? The trigger mechanism could still be used to turn the cylinder. That said, I'm currently considering reducing my revolver inventory by 50%. I'm going to sell my S&W 686+, leaving me only with a Single-Six in .22. If I do ever add another wheel gun, it'll be a single-action "cowboy" gun anyway. |
|
A true story that happened to me the first time I ever qual'ed for LE. This was in '86 and just prior to transitioning to SA's. My brand new Ruger security six on the first string of the first stage. Draw, fire 2 rounds in 2 seconds. You did this 3 times. After the first 2 shots that fucker locked up tighter than Dick's hat band. We had to pound the cylinder open just to unload it. I finished the qual with one of the RO's S&W. Later, I found there was not enough space bewteen the cylinder and barrel. Moral of the story, revolvers don't always go bang with the reliability some might like to think. There is NO dead nutz reliability. Less likely? Yes, but not absolute. |
|
When we first got our nickel plated S&W 586s, I thought they were pretty heavy, but as good as anything else. At the time, S&W was owned by Bangor Punta. That 586 and 2 after that were the only revolvers I've ever had that would lock up and fail to fire. They were probably the worst guns we were ever issued. After that, we got 686s and they worked fine. We made the transition to sig Sauer P226s after that. I found an older blued S&W model 25 with a 6 1/2" barrel in .45 Colt. The same gun used in the first Dirty Harry movie because the bore was the biggest they could find. That gun is probably one of my most favorite guns of all and it would take an emergency to get me to sell it. I would have no problem at all taking it to war. I love semi autos, but when ever a new shooter wants a gun for protection, I always recommend a S&W revolver. |
|
I just got this piece of revolver technology. Haven't fired it yet, but probably has some interesting recoil - gonna start out with 44SPL. S&W 329PD/44MAG/6-shot: - scandium frame - titanium cylinder - stainless-steel barrel - 26-oz unloaded www.lhup.edu/dfisher/sw329pd01.jpg |
I don't care for the fiber optik front sights they are using, but I've been told you can just drift the pin out and use a standard S&W front sight for that type of revolver...
|
Yep, upon futher examination, that looks to be true. In fact, you can see the roll-pin in the picture. |