Are revolvers obsolete?
-
Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
untrained?
JayStr
- wrote:
#
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
# untrained?
I'm a revolver man. Here's why:
Firstly, you can't throw an autoloader -- much less a loaded one --
under the car seat or on the bedside stand and leave it there and be
totally confident that it will work in six months. It'll pick up too
much dust, grit & lint to function reliably in an emergency. Not so the
revolver. They have fewer moving parts, and are hence more intrinsically
reliable. Period.
(Now before you WonderNiners and custom .45 artists get all mad at me --
come on now! Be honest. Your autoloader has never, ever jammed ONCE?
What if that had been a life-threatening situation? OK, so my Ruger
10/22 has never jammed, so I know it's possible; and one jam in several
thousand rounds puts you at miniscule risk at best; and I know everybody
who's likely to read this takes good regular care of their guns. It was
probably because of the brand of ammo or your buddy didn't clean the gun
properly or something explainable; nothing wrong to do with the gun, no,
not at all...
(But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'. They jam about as aften as
bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason. Do bolt-action rifles jam?
I guess they might, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it and have a
rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
In addition, revolvers are instrinsically safe. You can unload one
chamber and carry the hammer down on air and be sublimely aware that
there is no way that gun on your hip can or will go off, ever -- not
even if you fall off a cliff. Again, this is good for when you want to
have a gun around for unforseen emergencies, which hopefully occur only
once in awhile, in which case workaday safety is paramount. If you want
to carry an autoloader without a round chambered, you need two hands to
rack the slide, instead of one functional thumb -- but that starts to
get into tradeoffs of safety versus readiness versus being aware enough
to get your gun out in the first place, and I've never had a job where I
might get shot at, so... I'll let the police officers & military folks
handle the whole issue of loaded carry, and take their honest word for
it. Personally, I think it's a bad habit, and the idea makes my feet
itch.
Lastly, revolvers can use more powerful cartridges. It takes an unwieldy
behemoth like the Desert Eagle or the cantankerous Automag to handle the
cartridges (.44, .357, etc.) that most comfortably mid-sized revolvers
take for granted. That's why, even though autoloaders are more reliable
and powerful than ever (witness the .40 S&W chambered in Bill Ruger's
excellent P94), all the handgun hunters still use revolvers. And if you
believe that it is shot placement -- not sheer firepower -- that wins
gunfights, you can make a good case for the revolver right there.
Fact is, if I even thought I was going into a potential combat
situation, if I was a cop or a soldier or lived in a horrible
neighborhood or travelled with large amounts of cash, I'd want a Colt
Commander .45 and about three clips of the hottest ammo that gun would
reliably eat. I admit that readily & without complaint. It'd be the
better tool for the job I'd have to do -- defend myself against other
people at close range, and very possibly against more than one of them
at a time.
But I don't, and I'm not, and I have better things to do than lovingly
clean and primp a gun with 5,000 little doo-dad part-thingies every
other weekend -- just to make AAAAAB-SOLUTELY sure, because my life
depends on it on a regular basis -- and load and unload the clips so the
springs don't wear out, and fret about the headspacing or the shape of
the bullet on the ammo I buy because the gun simply might not like it,
and sit there in my hand and sulk and not shoot and be a $400
paperweight when some guy is bashing in my car window or a mountain lion
has decided it wants my ham sandwich, and that I would make a nice
dessert.
So I'll keep my revolver. In the civilian market, it'll simply outlast
any dent that any fad for autoloaders might put into it. It's a better
camp gun and a better hunting companion. It'll digest any kind of cheapo
wierdo ammunition without complaint. It's simpler, more apt to work that
one time in my life I might really need it to... and it's been taking
care of business for a long, long time.
Did I miss anything?
-- Jay Stranahan
Walter Taylor
dav...@ix.netcom.com (-) wrote:
#
#
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
#Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
#untrained?
#
I would not mark the grave of the revolver yet. There are many advantages
to using this old tech. Being able to fire any load I am able to devise
from primer only to maximum chamber pressure and have the weapon function
is something that can not be duplicated in any auto-loader I have ever
seen. The maximum power cartrages can only be developed in this "old
design". Capacity alone has little value to me, I have been shooting
more than 50 years now and have never unintentionally run a weapon out
of amunition. I, for one, will stick with my wheel guns and single shots
for center fire and my old 1911 Colt will gather spider webs in the
bottom of my safe. I do have a couple of rim fire auto-loaders I do
enjoy shooting, tin cans are the proper targets for spray & pray.
Have fun with what ever you have in hand and do not worry what fad the
cops are demonstrating. Remember, many of them carry what was select by
politions.;-)
wait
Ryan Carlos Fernandez
- (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
: now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
: Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
: untrained?
Definetly not.
--
_____
/___ _/ | Join hands with me as we walk
/ / __ __ __ _ _ --o-- through the valley of the dead
/ /_ |___ / |__| / \ o | | | and ye shalt be immortal in the
/____/ /____| /___ | | | | |_| | face of god.
John Ross
On 14 Dec 1996 20:24:32 -0500, dav...@ix.netcom.com (-) wrote:
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore?
Yes, I do.
#Or are they obsolete now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders?
Not if you want target accuracy (6" at 100 yards or better) and/or
serious muzzle energy.
#Every cop I see has a Glock or a some other high capacity gun.
#Are revolvers just for the untrained?
More like the other way around. Years ago, people with military
and/or hunting experience gravitated toward law enforcement. Now,
such people are actively screened out of many departments with
psychological testing.
We now have entire police departments without a single officer in the
"gun culture," and the result is that no one on the force fires any
handgun except when he/she has to. In many cases this is 50 rounds a
year. In some cases, where range facilities have closed, or where
there is a friendly supervisor, officers go years without firing a
single practice shot. Get a police instructor's certificate, train
some officers, and get an eye-opening education.
For this reason, cops want the highest capacity weapons possible.
Here in St. Louis, a black female officer recently attempted to shoot
a felon, and managed to fire two full magazines out of her
double-stack 9mm without getting a hit. After 30+ rounds without
success, she demanded another officer (white male) toss her his spare
mag. He refused, and she later filed a discrimination suit against
him (not sure if it was racial or gender, or both). I don't think the
white guy was any better (the bad guy got away) but he didn't pull the
trigger as fast.
Such results are not limited to local departments. The famous 1986
FBI shootout in Miami caused that agency to rethink their entire
weapons strategy. One of the agents fired his S&W 59 twenty-nine
times at Michael Platt from less than 20 feet away. He hit Platt
once, and Platt killed him with his Mini-14. The agent died with the
slide locked back on the empty second magazine. The FBI concluded
that their guns weren't powerful enough, and the agency adopted the
.40 caliber.
If you want a good description of this shootout and an interesting
analysis of it, read the novel UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Check
http//www.amazon.com for reviews.
Police training is comprised mostly of investigative techniques,
interrogation, report writing, radar gun operation, etc. Firearms
training is last on the list. This often works fine, for there are
many officers who go 20+ years without ever drawing their duty weapon.
When there is a gunfight, though, the low skills of the police become
spectacularly apparent, and there is an immediate search for an
"equipment cure." There is no way that a department comprised of
officers who have no interest in greater proficiency can ever approach
the skill level of the private sector. That is why we have seen higher
and higher capacity coupled with DA-only (simpler to use), no
safeties, and attempts to "idiot proof" the triggers. (Glock with "New
York" trigger a case in point.)
I should mention that the Secret Service train a lot and have good
combat shooting skills. From what I have seen I believe they would
all place in the top half of the field at a typical combat match or on
a cinema range.
JR
John Gross
Or are they obsolete
#now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? NO.
Every cop I see has a
#Glock or a some other high capacity gun. TRUE.
Are revolvers just for the
#untrained? NO.
#
John Gross confe...@worldnet.att.net
Blair Garber
In article <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, dav...@ix.netcom.com (-) wrote:
#Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore?
Yes.
#Or are they obsolete now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders?
No.
#Every cop I see has a Glock or a some other high capacity gun.
Scary isn't it?
#Are revolvers just for the untrained?
Quite the opposite really.
aeat...@flash.net
In <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, dav...@ix.netcom.com (-) writes:
#
#
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
#now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
#Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
#untrained?
#
For _paper punching_, NRA-style, revolvers are pretty much obsolete. If I
_knew_ every day I was walking into a meat grinder, I would be packing a
Colt 1911 .45. If you are not a police officer or a soldier, a revolver will
serve just as well (and usually leave you a lot more money to spend on practice
ammo). I would also feel a long way from under-gunned with a .38, .357, .45
Colt, or .41/44 maggie with very moderate loads in the same situation.
The better grade OTS revolvers will shoot circles around the typical OTS autos
as far as accuracy goes,and are far more reliable. I'm talking about staying
on a one-gallon milk jug at 100 yds. Yes, autos _can_ be very reliable,
but I would put at least 500 rds of the chosen service load through one with
no malfunctions before I would trust it with my life.
Revolvers are chambered for far more powerful rounds than autos, although
whether this is actually needed is a matter of opinion. I am of the Elmer
Keith (moment of reverent silence) school that says "If you're fixin' to put
a hole in something, then pardner, make it a hole to remember!"
No autos out there (that you would carry on your hip, anyway) will stay with
a .44 Mag, .41 mag, or even a .357 with 158 gr. or heavier bullets. You
_can_ just equal .45 Colt ballistics out of the ACP case with 240-250 gr.
bullets and Unique powder. That's factory ballistics, 750-800 fps with a
250 gr. bullet.
The answer to surviving a shooting encounter is shot placement, shot placement,
shot placement. As long as this is true, revolvers will have parity with
autos. You can spend $500-$1000 on customizing an auto, and I'll spend the
same on primers, powder, and lead.
Alan
OldTownSta
I strongly prefer revolvers for nearly all handgun applications, but then
I'm considered obsolete by many. However, I do notice that over the past
five years, once everyone got over the "golly gee whiz glock" syndrome,
there has been a strong revolver resurgence in the gun magazines,
especially for personal defense applications, and especially after the 10
round magazine ban.
Based on personal experience & reading, I give double action revolvers the
edge in reliability, safety, and versatility. I especially rate them
higher for ease of effective use when under severe stress or by personnel
who are less than fully dedicated to training and regular practice.
I give semi-autos the edge in ammunition capacity before a reload, and
ability to compete in play-pretend combat shooting games. Some would also
note semi's ease of concealment, but I find this to apply primarily with
inside the waistband holsters which I personally dislike.
I call it a tie in effectiveness when used with properly selected
ammunition and in practical accuracy.
Weight those factors as you see fit, and come to your own conclusions.
Jim
Bill Oertell
Revolvers have one distinct advantage over self-chuckers. If a pull
of the trigger accomplishes nothing, all it takes to fix it is another
pull of the trigger, assuming the gun isn't broken or empty, of course.
--
Bill
------------------------------------
| If everything is possible, |
| nothing is knowable. Be skeptical.|
------------------------------------
Dan Brown
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
# revolver. They have fewer moving parts, and are hence more intrinsically
# reliable. Period.
Your premise is incorrect, and your conclusion doesn't follow
from it. My Ruger GP100 has more moving parts than either my 1911 or
my Glock. Further, a gun with a few, poorly designed, poorly machined
moving parts will not be as reliable as a gun with many moving parts,
which are well made and properly designed. See the Germans--they're
well known for designed intricate pieces of machinery ("Why make it
simple, when it could be complicated?" seems to be their motto), which
usually work very well.
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, da...@value.net
Finger bro...@holmes.uchastings.edu for public key & Geek Code
E-Mail published at my discretion.
Timothy Houser
Short answer, NO. Long answer to follow:
From my perspective, ALL firearms are tools (but also art to some
degree), and like other tools, some are better suited to particular
tasks. I would not want to hunt Kodiak Brown Bears with a .22LR
(although one or two may have been killed with that calibur by someone
who did not have something more adequate and/or the ability to
escape!), nor would I hunt rabbits with a .375H&H (although that round
would certainly handle anything but the largest of the Texas bunnies).
I own and have owned and/or shot extensively many revolvers, 2 inch to
7 1/2+ inch barrels, single action and double action, .22LR to .44mag;
and also nearly an equal number of semi-auto handguns, hi-cap and low
cap; .22LR to .45acp. I CCW a stainless Walther PPK/S in the .380ACP
calibur because it is compact, reliable, accurate, and holds a couple
or three more rounds than a similar size S&W or Colt .38Spcl. In this
size package, I like the Walther better than the little revolvers for
MY use, but the snubbies are certainly good little guns, and the
advantages over them I percieve is admittedly slight, by comparison.
Now, moving up the scale, to mid size and larger autos, and mid size
wheel guns, my favorite is a S&W 686 with a 4 inch barrel, or a Colt
Python with a 6 inch barrel (why the difference in barrel length
preferences is almost a mystery, and food for another lengthy
disertation). The .357magnum is unsurpassed, in my opinion, for all
around use, short of hunting or defending against the largest of wild
animals. The versatility of shooting .38Spcl for practice (with
reduced rcoil and expense) is not found "off the shelf" in other guns
(although the .44mag/.44Spcl. setup is a close second, in a larger
package).
I also shoot some 9mm, these days in a comparably "mid" sized Beretta
92FS Compact, with hi-cap mags. A variety of bullet weights are
available for the 9mm, and it is relatively high in velocity with the
lighter bullets. Cheaper practice ammo is also available in the form
of some milatary surplus.
I wouldn't pick my 9mm as first choice for "woods carry" where longer
shots and encounters with wild animals are more likely, although I
would think twice about leaving it at home because it is just plain
comforting to have around and fun to shoot. I would carry a .357Mag.
Alternatively, if I was to have to fight it out with multiple
assailants in an urban setting, I would much prefer my 9mm, because of
the higher capacity and the quicker reloading from spare magazines.
Not that the .357Mag isn't capable of doing the job, because with
its accuracy and powerful roun it would certainly be most excellent in
both the shot placement and "stopping power" departments. Just might
not have the chance to make clean shots on six or twelve people
shooting at me at the same time.
Now, a LE officer, or a combat soldier, is much more likely to
experience the multiple assailant scenario than I am, because they
often cannot choose not to be placed in such situations where that
could happen, but I usually do have that choice in steering clear of
more dangerous areas. Again, most likely the weapon I would have with
me if such an occasion did present itself would be the little Walther,
with maybe a couple of spare mags, because that is what I carry most
often, not because it would be the "best."
As one moves up the spectrum to larger calibur handguns, one begins to
escape a handgun's primary purpose, ie. portability. Of course, the
357Sig, .40S&W, and .45ACP semi-auto fans, and the .44Spcl. short
revolver people, all have excellent caliburs for defense and other
purposes, which fit better in the medium size discussion. We're
talking here about Bren-Tens, Desert Eagles, Auto-Mags, etc. for
semi-autos, and Colt Annacondas, S&W Model 29/629, Ruger Redhawks,
etc. for the revolvers. These guns are not as common for
defense/combat situations, primarily because of size, but are power
house rounds in handgun packages for a variety of purposes from
hunting to long range target shooting. For versatility, the .44Mag is
unsurpassed, IMHO (although the .41mag; .45Colt and exotics like the
454Casul find favor with some), and the revolvers designed for it are
the best proved method of delivery .
Having sorted through all of this, I recall the recent article form
Sheriff Wilson (Shooting Times I think on the "Shooters" web page),
where he laments the move by LE to semi-autos (although he seems to
often favor a Colt 1911 .45ACP for himself). I think there is merit
to his revolver argument, and I, for one, think that any shooter,
target, personal defense, LE, anyone, would be better served to start
out on a nice quality revolvee in .357mag/.38Spcl. and perfect their
marksmanship to the point of hitting what they are shooting at, before
placing too much reliance on a semi-auto, of any kind. Once one
learns how to use this "tool," AND studies the trade offs and/or
advantages in another weapon, including the ballistics involved, then
if they think a different weapon fits their holster better, an
informed decision can be made. What "everyone else" is using is not
the smartest way to pick a weapon. Some have no choice, or even the
ability to make a knowledgeable one. The revolver is THE starting
point for a handgun, and whether an advantage can be found with
something else depends upon the situation, the preferences of the
individual, and of course ultimately how well you and the particular
weapon perform.
Tim Houser
Not an "authority," just opinionated.
Bruce Perathaner
DA> Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
DA>now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
DA>Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
DA>untrained?
I do, and if I were a Cop I would want a revolver. Don't forget, most
Cops (or civilians) never use their piece. The revolver is still more
reliable. FWIW!
-- ========================================================================
Keep Shooting!
Bruce
InterNet: Bruce.Pe...@fileconn.org RIME : ->495
AOL: Bru...@aol.com FidoNet : 1:273/408
===========================================================================
* SLMR 2.1a * Limit Congressmen to two terms; 1 in office, 1 in jail.
Kelly Klaas
- <dav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
#
#
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
# untrained?
#
# I have three revolvers. All Smith & Wesson.
a Model 29 44 mag, a model 686 357 Mag and a Model 36 38 spl. for
concealed carry. I though hard and long on a concealed carry before I
chose the model 36. I wanted something larger than a .25 but not something
I had to worry about working in a real bind. If a semi-auto misfires when
you really need it, you're screwed. With a revolver, you just pull the
trigger again to bypass the misfire. One of my recent gun magazines had an
article on the status of the revolver and stated that revolvers are coming
back. I'd like to have a nice semi-auto for shooting but when it comes to
self-defense, I'll grab the revolver first!!!!
Kelly Klaas
kela...@magiclink.com
http://www.magiclink.com/web/kelamigo
John Gross
One more interesting note on this. When Ed McGiven set his world speed
shooting record 50-60 years ago, he used revolvers because the cycling
action of the auto could not keep up with him.
I'm not sure if the record has been broken yet or not. Something like five
shots into a baseball card at 15 feet in 2/5 of a second. I think he had
to do it a zillion times until he finally got it.
Oh, to answer your question. No.
John Gross confe...@worldnet.att.net
k9...@aol.com
I was trained on a revolver and would never consider using a Matel Plastic
Pistol
My department, from which I am now retired, went to the Glock and are they
sorry.
More range accidents now than we ever had with the revolver.
Greater firepower. Hogwash. Sure the officers are carrying 15 round
magazines. Three of them in fact. When I was on the street we had 18
rounds of 38 special +P+. 6 in the gun and 12 in two six round speed
loaders. Today these officers use the 40 cal S&W as scatter guns. They
would be better off with the standard 12 gauge 00 buck shotgun.
As far as I'm concerned, Glock had a damn good salesman here in the U.S.
Just check with the Austrian Police. Check what weapon they use. No it's
not a revolver but it's not a Glock either.
I was tought that shot placement was the thing. In a gunfight, and I was
in a few, the pressure of the moment is the thing you cannot train for.
I use a revolver and would nerver consider a plastic pistol.
John.....Milwaukee Police Officer.....(Retired)
Nosy
<In article <5910so$n...@xring.cs.umd.edu> gt5...@acmey.gatech.edu (Ryan Carlos Fernandez) writes:
< - (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
< : Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
< : now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
< : Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
< : untrained?
< Definetly not.
Indeed not. Revolvers have many advantages over autoloaders;
ease of unloading, ease of checking load status, able to shoot
a wide variety of ammunition, able to shoot very powerful
ammunition, simplicity of operation, a trigger that is the
*same* for *every* shot.
IMHO, there are many police agencies that would be better
served with revolvers in the holsters of officers over the
WunderNines currently therein.
Kyle Heeter
On 14 Dec 1996, - wrote:
# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
# untrained?
The fact that the police don't use them as much doesn't mean anything.
The push for high-capacity 9mms is based largely on a stupid concept, to
me; "The bad guys [in movies, mostly] have high-firepower weaponry; we
want high-firepower weaponry." Nonsense. The problem is that most cops
don't shoot too well, and aren't even required to (their "qualification"
requirements are a JOKE, and most of them, at least around here, fail
them). So, they are given the childhood security blanket of a big fat
magazine. What do they do? They hose the general area down rather than
taking a quarter second to AIM. So they put a whole bunch of projectiles
out which will eventually hit SOMETHING, probably not the perp, and maybe
some innocent bystanders.
I like revolvers a lot. They still work. They still push out effective
loads. To become obsolete, something has to be ineffective- less reliable,
effective, inefficient, etc. Revolvers are none of these.
Most of the people that I know that are hard-core gun types prefer
revolvers, because that's what they're best with. Because it's not as
shiny and new as something else doesn't make it obsolete.
============
k...@u.washington.edu ... http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kqh
"Orphan in a family / And a sole survivor / He's a living fossil. /
Reptilian? Mammalian. He's a bird-beaked, beaver-butted Australian.
Amphibious? Paradox wearing plaid socks. / Furry beatle? A bugbear,
& a paleozoologist's nightmare. / Symmetric physique of disbelief. /
Someone shipped him to the blokes who said he was a hoax / So they
cut him to pieces; wrote a thesis. / A cranium of deceit, he's prone
to lie and cheat; / it's no wonder- a blunder from down under.
"Duckbill, watermole, duckmole!"
- Mr. Bungle, "Platypus"
David Putnam
JayStr wrote:
<CLIPPED>
# (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
# risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
# tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
I have a Taurus model 608 8-shot 357 Magnum that jammed several times.
When I say jam I mean at some point during double action operation,
the action refuses to cycle.(the cylinder will not rotate, the hammer
cannot be cocked, and the trigger will not pull)
This was a clear indication to me that something was wrong.
I sent the gun to Taurus to be looked at and I've haven't
recieved it back yet.
This might just be a design flaw in this model, Or it could be something
that would happen from normal wear on a revolver.
I definitly trust my Glock 21 more than my Taurus Revolver.
David Putnam
dpu...@allencomm.com
Jason and Heather
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
#
# But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
# risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody
# who can tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
I've had a revolver jam. A Ruger SP101 in .357mag. Got a round with
a high primer that wedged the case head between the frame and cylinder
so hard that it took a mallet to get it open again. I had another
jam with a Taurus .44 magnum. The recoil jarred the extractor rod
loose, again locking the cylinder until I managed to release it with
a screwdriver. Had the same thing happen with a S&W 686. (This is
one of the reasons I'll only carry a Ruger revolver for self-defense,
despite his barfulous politics. They're immune to this type of
malfunction, and since my life is on the line, I'll buy the Ruger and
send a few extra $ to GOA as penance.)
You can send the $3 you owe me to GOA as well.
The problem with revolvers is that when they malfunction, they
_really_ malfunction. Expect to pull out the toolbox. Lew Awerbuck
recommends carrying a thin piece of steel on your keychain to open
locked cylinders if you carry a revolver for self defense. Yes, self-
loaders fail more frequently, but most jams can be solved with a
simple tap-rack-bang.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Mark Yaworski
- wrote:
#
# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
# untrained?
Nay!!
The high cap, polymer guns are for the untrained who cannot hit the
target.
I shoot bowling pin matches with a revolver and I rarely need that sixth
shot. If I do need it, I've generally scared one of the pins enough to
make it mess it's pants.
Revolvers are great and are a much more versatile gun than any single
semi-auto. As an example I present my my Dan Wesson 15-2H6 which has
had NO work done on it at all and I use it in bulls eye matches with .38
Wadcutters (I've managed to score 100 on a 50 yard slow fire stage), I
use it on pins with .357 mag loads and if I needed to I could use it for
hunting or defense.
Robert Mooberry
John Ross wrote:
#
# Yes, I do.
#
# #Or are they obsolete now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders?
#
# Not if you want target accuracy (6" at 100 yards or better) and/or
# serious muzzle energy.
#
# #Every cop I see has a Glock or a some other high capacity gun.
# #Are revolvers just for the untrained?
#
# More like the other way around. Years ago, people with military
# and/or hunting experience gravitated toward law enforcement. Now,
# such people are actively screened out of many departments with
# psychological testing.
#
# We now have entire police departments without a single officer in the
# "gun culture," and the result is that no one on the force fires any
# handgun except when he/she has to. In many cases this is 50 rounds a
# year. In some cases, where range facilities have closed, or where
# there is a friendly supervisor, officers go years without firing a
# single practice shot. Get a police instructor's certificate, train
# some officers, and get an eye-opening education.
#
# For this reason, cops want the highest capacity weapons possible.
# Here in St. Louis, a black female officer recently attempted to shoot
# a felon, and managed to fire two full magazines out of her
# double-stack 9mm without getting a hit. After 30+ rounds without
# success, she demanded another officer (white male) toss her his spare
# mag. He refused, and she later filed a discrimination suit against
# him (not sure if it was racial or gender, or both). I don't think the
# white guy was any better (the bad guy got away) but he didn't pull the
# trigger as fast.
#
# Such results are not limited to local departments. The famous 1986
# FBI shootout in Miami caused that agency to rethink their entire
# weapons strategy. One of the agents fired his S&W 59 twenty-nine
# times at Michael Platt from less than 20 feet away. He hit Platt
# once, and Platt killed him with his Mini-14. The agent died with the
# slide locked back on the empty second magazine. The FBI concluded
# that their guns weren't powerful enough, and the agency adopted the
# .40 caliber.
#
# If you want a good description of this shootout and an interesting
# analysis of it, read the novel UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Check
# http//www.amazon.com for reviews.
#
# Police training is comprised mostly of investigative techniques,
# interrogation, report writing, radar gun operation, etc. Firearms
# training is last on the list. This often works fine, for there are
# many officers who go 20+ years without ever drawing their duty weapon.
#
# When there is a gunfight, though, the low skills of the police become
# spectacularly apparent, and there is an immediate search for an
# "equipment cure." There is no way that a department comprised of
# officers who have no interest in greater proficiency can ever approach
# the skill level of the private sector. That is why we have seen higher
# and higher capacity coupled with DA-only (simpler to use), no
# safeties, and attempts to "idiot proof" the triggers. (Glock with "New
# York" trigger a case in point.)
#
# I should mention that the Secret Service train a lot and have good
# combat shooting skills. From what I have seen I believe they would
# all place in the top half of the field at a typical combat match or on
# a cinema range.
#
# JR
This all gives me great comfort, NOT. I'm glad we have concealed carry
here in TX. As a former Air Force Security Policeman and a firearm
enthusiast you have only recomfirmed what I already knew. I'm the best
gaurdian of my own safety that any person could possible have.
Texas cops might be a bit better than cops in most states, but they have
no legal obligation to protect individuals and some show little interest
in doing the same. To many of them all we "Civilians" are are criminals
who have not been caught yet.
--
Robert
Ex USAF Security Policeman and Graduate Nurse
TS-1 #650039
Militia groups make the FBI's job easier. Instead of chasing
several thousand two to four man cells, all they have to do is
keep their eyes on a few dozen large groups.
ebae...@hospvd.ch
# (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
# risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
# tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'. They jam about as aften as
# bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason. Do bolt-action rifles jam?
# I guess they might, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it and have a
# rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
Although they are rarer, revolvers have their problems too. One of mine
has trouble with the Remington High velocity ammo. After three or four
cylinders of 125Gn SJHP, is starts showing pressure problem: the primer
gets partially extracted once in a few shots. There's no danger, this
revolver is extremely strong, and it's probably a consequence of its
tight chambers, which make it so accurate. But it limits cylinder
rotation anyway.
Emmanuel Baechler
Chemin du Stade 4
1007 Lausanne
Switzerland
James Hedman
dave150 wrote:
#
# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
# untrained?
Gee, I don't know. I don't have any problem keeping 7 shots of .357
magnum 110 grain Federal hollowpoint in the black at 25 yards in under 4
seconds from my S&W 686 Plus. Does that mean I'm untrained or obsolete?
--
Regards,
Jim H.
http://www.csra.net/lrand/wsj_main.htm
Gary
JayStr wrote:
#
# Firstly, you can't throw an autoloader -- much less a loaded one --
# under the car seat or on the bedside stand and leave it there and be
# totally confident that it will work in six months.
Nonsense, modern COMBAT autoloaders are made to do JUST that, sit
on a hip, for months at a time in the event the CQ combat is
upon you. As far as dirt goes any government agency REQUIRES
they pass many more tests DIRTY than ANT revolver is capable of.
IO have 8 revolvers, I compete with them, BUT just ONE ball of
completely unburned powder under the extractor star will lock up
any of my very reliable revolvers.
Yes, in the great scheme of things odds are that over 10000 rounds
a revolver has the ability to perform better than an auto, an auto
fed ammo that the gun works with IMO is just as reliable as any of
my revolvers.
# (Now before you WonderNiners and custom .45 artists get all mad at me > come on now! Be honest. Your autoloader has never, ever jammed ONCE?
As I implied, COMBAT guns (like SIGS, Berettas etc.) are FAR from custom
.45's and are as reliable as any revolver I ever had... Period.
# (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
# risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who
# can tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
Send me some bucks. I quoted an extractor star problem, AND heat
causes tight fitting guns to lock from dirt in front of the cylinder
after just a few rounds, depending on ammo. Mainsprings, AND cylinder
latch springs CAN and DO go bad. Saying they don't will not make it
true. Also the odd extractor rod bending from fatigue is not unheard
of.
# In addition, revolvers are instrinsically safe. You can unload one
# chamber and carry the hammer down on air and be sublimely aware that
# there is no way that gun on your hip can or will go off, ever -- not
# even if you fall off a cliff.
As I said I own revolvers, but own enough autos to prove that's
incorrect. Ever heard of a firing pin lock, or magazine disconnector?
With a firing pin lock like all Colts, S&W's, and SIG's to name just
a VERY few, these guns can be dropped and ARE REQUIRED to pass loaded
drop tests before going public for so many PD's and military orgs.
# Lastly, revolvers can use more powerful cartridges. It takes an
# unwieldy...
Uh, I have a Coonan Cadet that's just 2lbs 8oz. My 66 is 2lbs.1 ounce.
My Coonan clocks the EXACT ammo used in the 66 at nearly 200 FPS higher
velocity. BTW, my GC Delta elite 10mm can easily launch a 200 grain
bullet at over 1200 FPS. Statistically, the FACT is that many auto's
loadings are just as effective in real life. More powerful, smaller?
REVOLVERS? I'll take an auto any day.
At any rate, I'm an Instructor, and I encourage students to use
revolvers, BUT, unless YOU get to decide the rules of engagement
like number of bad guys, lighting, determination of the foe, and cover
availability, the tactical edge goes to higher capacity, reasonably
powered cartridges like a .40, with night sights... IF you have the
skills, and use a fault tolerant automatic. My Sig's and S&W's will
shoot if I snatch them from the holster, and get a grip 1" below my
normal non-stress grip which WILL happen under extreme stress.
Combat reloads are impractical, with revolvers AND autos, because only
a VERY few actually carry spare ammo (I never carry spare ammo). So
HC in the neighborhood of 12 rounds is just the ticket.
While your views ARE valuable, insightful, and in many ways correct,
they are somewhat myopic, and you should soften the rhetoric.
Nosy
<In article <59111k$n...@xring.cs.umd.edu> JayStr <jay...@best.com> writes:
< - wrote:
< #
< # Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
< # now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
< # Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
< # untrained?
< I'm a revolver man. Here's why:
< Firstly, you can't throw an autoloader -- much less a loaded one --
< under the car seat or on the bedside stand and leave it there and be
< totally confident that it will work in six months. It'll pick up too
< much dust, grit & lint to function reliably in an emergency. Not so the
< revolver. They have fewer moving parts, and are hence more intrinsically
< reliable. Period.
More intrinsically reliable? I can't even begin to quantify that,
so I'll point out that revolvers can and do jam, that the parts
inside the frame of a revolver such as the hand can and do rust
in place, and that anyone who "throws" a firearm under a car seat
and expects it to work 6 months later with no maintenance is a
fool.
< (Now before you WonderNiners and custom .45 artists get all mad at me --
< come on now! Be honest. Your autoloader has never, ever jammed ONCE?
Sure, I've seen autoloaders jam, due to bad ammunition.
I *also* was present when a "car gun", a .357 revolver, jammed
on the second shot of six; a squib load stopped halfway in
the cylinder & halfway in the forcing cone. That was a jammed
revolver...and the ammo was *factory*.
Seems the owner had put the loaded firearm in a truck glove
box and left it there for, oh, 6 months or more...
< What if that had been a life-threatening situation?
Exactly. What if?
< OK, so my Ruger
< 10/22 has never jammed, so I know it's possible; and one jam in several
< thousand rounds puts you at miniscule risk at best; and I know everybody
< who's likely to read this takes good regular care of their guns. It was
< probably because of the brand of ammo or your buddy didn't clean the gun
< properly or something explainable; nothing wrong to do with the gun, no,
< not at all...
Shrug. Maybe the factory round was a dud to start with.
Maybe 6 or more months of heating and cooling didn't do the
primer or powder any favors?
< (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
< risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
< tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
One dollar, huh? I guess that someone's not too willing to
put serious money down on the myth that 'revolvers don't jam'.
<They jam about as aften as bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason.
Been there, done that, got the bullets with rifling marks
begun to show for it.
|< Do bolt-action rifles jam?
Yup.
< I guess they might, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it and have a
< rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
Sorta like what might happen in a damp climate if one
just "threw" it under a car seat and left it for 6 months?
< In addition, revolvers are instrinsically safe. You can unload one
< chamber and carry the hammer down on air and be sublimely aware that
< there is no way that gun on your hip can or will go off, ever -- not
< even if you fall off a cliff. Again, this is good for when you want to
< have a gun around for unforseen emergencies, which hopefully occur only
< once in awhile, in which case workaday safety is paramount. If you want
< to carry an autoloader without a round chambered, you need two hands to
< rack the slide, instead of one functional thumb -- but that starts to
True. So what?
< get into tradeoffs of safety versus readiness versus being aware enough
< to get your gun out in the first place, and I've never had a job where I
< might get shot at, so... I'll let the police officers & military folks
< handle the whole issue of loaded carry, and take their honest word for
< it. Personally, I think it's a bad habit, and the idea makes my feet
< itch.
Loaded carry may seem to be a bad habit to some, but at best
it is a matter of taste and preference. At worst, it's a lack
of training.
< Lastly, revolvers can use more powerful cartridges.
THIS is, at last, a real point with a factual basis.
It's one reason I'm shopping for a .41 Magnum.
< It takes an unwieldy
< behemoth like the Desert Eagle or the cantankerous Automag to handle the
< cartridges (.44, .357, etc.) that most comfortably mid-sized revolvers
< take for granted.
Um, no, that's not it. The *rims* of the cartridge cases
are what make for certain problems. It is possible to fire
rather powerful cartridges out of autoloaders without
building huge hunks of metal, but at this time it seems
to be difficult to do.
<That's why, even though autoloaders are more reliable
< and powerful than ever (witness the .40 S&W chambered in Bill Ruger's
< excellent P94), all the handgun hunters still use revolvers.
Mhh....makes me wanna get a 1006 and go deer hunting.
< And if you
< believe that it is shot placement -- not sheer firepower -- that wins
< gunfights, you can make a good case for the revolver right there.
IMHO the Republic would be well served if most city cops
went back to .38/.357 revovlers, IMHO, because they could
do less damage to the surrounding environment than we
currently see with WunderNines.
< Fact is, if I even thought I was going into a potential combat
< situation, if I was a cop or a soldier or lived in a horrible
< neighborhood or travelled with large amounts of cash, I'd want a Colt
< Commander .45 and about three clips of the hottest ammo that gun would
< reliably eat.
Well, that shows a significant set of, um, lack of knowledge.
A handgun, *any* handgun, isn't a very good tool for a fight;
if I were to *know* that I was going to get into a fight,
and that I couldn't avoid it in any way, I'd want a rifle,
or a shotgun, or just about any firearm more powerful than
a handgun.
Oh, and what kind of Colt uses clips? All the ones I've seen
use magazines....
<I admit that readily & without complaint. It'd be the
< better tool for the job I'd have to do -- defend myself against other
< people at close range, and very possibly against more than one of them
< at a time.
< But I don't, and I'm not, and I have better things to do than lovingly
< clean and primp a gun with 5,000 little doo-dad part-thingies every
< other weekend -- just to make AAAAAB-SOLUTELY sure, because my life
< depends on it on a regular basis -
ROFL! Compare the number of parts in a typical S&W revolver
with the number of parts in a M1911A1 type pistol.
Take that cylinder and crane off of the frame of a S&W revolver
and clean the ejector star...tell me there are no "part thingies"
in there that can get bent (making it impossible to reload)
or jammed (ditto) or encrusted with burnt powder (ditto).
NO handgun or other firearm is a 'zero maintenance' firearm;
the revolver is a good sidearm for those that "carry much
and shoot little", it is easily unloaded, it is easy to
check for load status, it is easy to shoot...there are many
good qualities about revolvers.
But the ain't maintenance-free, and they can & do jam.
<- and load and unload the clips so the
Magazines. "Clips" and "magazines" are not the same thing.
Please make a note of it.
< springs don't wear out, and fret about the headspacing or the shape of
< the bullet on the ammo I buy because the gun simply might not like it,
< and sit there in my hand and sulk and not shoot and be a $400
< paperweight when some guy is bashing in my car window or a mountain lion
< has decided it wants my ham sandwich, and that I would make a nice
< dessert.
Uh huh. So someone's gonna pull out a revolver that's been
sitting under a car seat for 6 months that's full of rust
& pull the trigger and wonder why the cylinder won't turn...
or pull out a revolver that's been in a leather holster on
a top shelf for a year, and wonder what all that red fuzz
all over the cylinder is, as Mr. Lion starts chomping...but
I forgot, revolvers don't jam, and don't need any cleaning
or oil, is that right?
< So I'll keep my revolver. In the civilian market, it'll simply outlast
< any dent that any fad for autoloaders might put into it. It's a better
< camp gun and a better hunting companion. It'll digest any kind of cheapo
< wierdo ammunition without complaint. It's simpler, more apt to work that
< one time in my life I might really need it to... and it's been taking
< care of business for a long, long time.
< Did I miss anything?
Sorta, yeah, something was missed.
Michael O'Gara
Oh, yes. And for very practical reasons.
At our Action Pistol matches, about 2 years ago, about 2/3 of the
shooters used semi-autos - 45s, 9mms, etc.
Today it's back to almost 100% revolvers. *All* the top shooters
(Master and High Master class) use revolvers, without exception.
Why? Well...revolvers are:
- More reliable. We call the autos "jammomatics". Partly this is
because
we require lead bullets for shooting steel plates, and lead bullets
tend
to jam autos.
- We only shoot 6 rounds per stage, large-cap magazines are no help.
- More accurate.
- Easier to maintain. Need less cleaning to keep operational.
- Can handle light loads or heavy loads without modification.
- Easier to mount red-dot sights to the top of the gun.
-- Mike
Barry Miller
#- <dav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
##
##
## Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
## now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
## Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
## untrained?
Not in my book, they aren't. I own a Colt Anaconda (45LC), a Ruger
Blackhawk (45LC) and a S & W 686 (357 Mag). I also own a semi auto
Ruger P89 (9m). For pure firepower and fun, the Ruger P89 is great,
but I have always been far more accurate with the revolvers then with
the auto. Besides, there is something about single action revolvers
that is timeless. I guess that is why they have survived over 120
years.
Barry
G.Sears
On 15 Dec 1996 09:10:32 -0500, gt5...@acmey.gatech.edu (Ryan Carlos
Fernandez) wrote:
#- (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
#
#
#: Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
#: now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
#: Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
#: untrained?
#
It is my opinion that revolver owners are a "silent majority". No
malfunctions, no questions, and no complaints.
Geo
Mark Yaworski
# (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
# risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
# tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'. They jam about as aften as
# bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason. Do bolt-action rifles jam?
# rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
I'm a revolver man too but I'll take your offer. I was recently
teaching a student who was using a S&W 686 which quit working. Couldn't
cock it, couldn't pull the trigger also discovered that we couldn't open
the cylinder. Found that a bullet had lodged in the gap between the
cylinder and barrel. Somewhat fortunate that it lodged there and
prevented a second shot slamming into the first. Ouch!
Second case, during a pin match my Dan Wesson just locked up tight as a
drum and I couldn't cock it or move the trigger. I opened the cylinder
and closed it again and everything worked fine.
Third case, my wife was shooting her S&W Chief's Special and found that
she couldn't open the cylinder. The problem? The ejector rod had
started to unscrew and wouldn't let the cylinder open.
Send my dollar to me at... Nah, better yet use it to buy a drink for a
leggy redhead with green eyes.
Horseman
In article <59111k$n...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
#- wrote:
#(But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
#risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
#tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'. They jam about as aften as
#bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason. Do bolt-action rifles jam?
#I guess they might, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it and have a
#rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
A couple of months ago, I was at the range with some friends. One of them
was shooting a Rossi 5-shot snubnose revolver (.38 special). After a
while, it failed to rotate the cylinder. Close inspection didn't reveal
anything, and it cycled fine when we got it home and worked the action. So
far, he still hasn't figured out where the failure is. We just don't use
that one anymore at the range...
Even so, I agree about the reliablility. The other revolvers in the party
have all worked splendidly since we started our shooting hobby. (started
in October)
TM
--
****** Horseman *** aka: Pasty Yellow Banana Peels *** aka: Tingling Zen ******
***** gt6...@prism.gatech.edu *** tz...@cc.gatech.edu *****
"Do not show your wounded finger, for everything will knock up against it."
-Balthasar Gracian, _The_Art_of_Worldly_Wisdom_
Adam C. Bryant
On 16 Dec 1996 21:08:07 -0500, Mark Yaworski <yawo...@erols.com>
mumbled to the Universe:
> ...
Maybe the high cap, polymer guns are for the trained who can hit the
target many more times than the trained with a revolver. I can't
believe it when people argue against having more rounds. Within
reason, having more rounds does not make an autoloader more difficult
to carry and can mean the difference between life and death in a drawn
out firefight. If your aim is so sure, why carry six rounds or even
five in a revolver? Just get a single or double shot Derringer.
No flame intended, Mark. Just perplexed.
_______________________________________________________________________
( | )
( Adam C. Bryant (Ad...@zahadum.com) | http://adambryant.home.ml.org )
( http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5369 (this one may change) )
(-----------------------------------------------------------------------)
( Member of Dogbert's New Ruling Class )
(_______________________________________________________________________)
Ken Grubb
dav...@ix.netcom.com (-) wrote:
> ...
Absolutely.
> ...
Colt has been producing revolvers for about 160 years.
Metal cartridge revolvers have existed for about 140 years.
The most popular .45 auto on the market is an 85 year old design.
Obsolete? I think not.
Almost every issue of every gun rag tells of the latest and greatest
gun, ammo, combo, etc. Within those same pages you'll read of the
demise of X, Y and Z. Don't count on ANYTHING in the world of
firearms becoming obsolete ANYTIME soon. I expect revolver sales to
be doing just fine well into the 21st century - assuming the sale of
ANY firearm remains legal, and even then ... ;->
> ...
And I'd be snatching up new high-capacity guns and magazines myself
were it not for a bit of unConstitutional legislation enacted two
years back. But with 10-round mag limits likely to be the law of the
land for at least four more years, expect revolver sales to rise.
> ...
Revolvers are for us pessimists - usually two or three revolvers at a
time to boot.
I recall Col. Jeff Cooper's writing in G&A a few years back. He
observed the success of the Zulus armed with low-tech weapons over the
British and their high-tech weapons at Isandlwana. Later, I believe
at Rorke's Drift, the Brits defeated the Zulus who had armed
themselves with those new-fangled bangsticks. The Colonel noted that
mere position of superior weaponry does not success on the battlefield
make. In support of his position, he pointed out that after issuing
Glock 17s to District of Columbia police officers, one of seven
shooting incidents was an accidental discharge.
**
** When Americans elected Bill Clinton, we hit rock bottom
** When Americans re-elected Bill Clinton, we started to dig.
**
Aaron Smith
- (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
:
hi capacity guns are for people who can't hit anything!
gimmie a wheel gun over a glock any day.
aaron
---My ever growing rotating .signature file.
Rosco Benson
> ...
Revolvers are far from obsolete. The fact that most police
organizations are moving to autopistols is based, primarily,
on fashion (and asset seizure "windfall" money burning a
hole in their pockets). There is also the human tendency
to try to "buy" skill, rather than "earn" it through practice.
The autopistol, in the better examples, can be a bit more
efficient than the revolver. The revolver demands a bit
more effort in training. The revolver is a tiny bit safer in
the hands of an untrained person...but, frankly, a fool
will manage to have an accident with anything.
Don't count the revolver out, just because the fickle and
ignorant masses think it old-fashioned. Well handled, it
will get you through any situation that you can handle
with a handgun of any configuration.
Rosco S. Benson
NCR Customer Information Services
My opinions...not my employer's
Ryan Carlos Fernandez
- (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
: now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
: Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
: untrained?
Even though I already posted a response, here's another. The mechanism of
any revolver, with FEW exceptions has been unchanged since the mid 1800's.
This gives us around 150 years to get it down. You always know if a
revolver is loaded, and you have a hell of a time jamming a revolver.
Revolvers pack a lot more punch than an autoloader. I love my .38 and can
reload that as fast if not faster than any autoloader with mi little
speedloader.
--
But I try,
-David Bowie
Jim Perkins
I like revolvers, but I`ve never owned an
automatic. Anyways, mine has jammed. It was
the fault of the ammo, but it did jam. The
gun was a .357 . The FACTORY made ammo was
not crimped correctly and I think may have
been over charged. I was at the range. I took
the first six rounds out of the box and put
them in the cylinder. I fired the first round.
The recoil forced the the bullets out of the
cases on the rounds beside the round I fired.
The unseated bullets would not let the cylinder
rotate. Pack up, go home. I'll admit I bought
a revolver because they 'never jam'. I just
like revolvers. BTW, I talked to a NYC cop
for awhile this weekend and he carries a
.38 special.
So what is the difference between a magazine
and a clip?
Thanks,
Jim
Edmund H. Rowe
James Hedman (hed...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: dave150 wrote:
: #
: # Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
: # now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
: # Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
: # untrained?
: Gee, I don't know. I don't have any problem keeping 7 shots of .357
: magnum 110 grain Federal hollowpoint in the black at 25 yards in under 4
: seconds from my S&W 686 Plus. Does that mean I'm untrained or obsolete?
: --
: Regards,
: Jim H.
:
: http://www.csra.net/lrand/wsj_main.htm
Rec.gunners:
My own experience:
-ANY handgun can malfunction. It may be mechanical in origin or just
the operator fumbled something, but everything can malfunction. It's
not the wheelgun/auto's fault if you didn't seat the mag or close the
cylinder completely, but it's still not going to function as
advertised.
-Good shooters, and I mean really well practiced pistoleros, can shoot
either wheel guns or autos very well. They may have preferences, but
they can do fine with whatever is on hand when the fit hits the shan.
With the above in mind, the carry gun is the one the owner likes best.
Not what I or anyone else says.
for
BEsides, isn't it more fun to try several different models over the
years???
Edmund Rowe
Neil Dickey
Adam C. Bryant wrote:
> ...
And no flame here, either, Adam, I'm just thinking out loud.
My opinions are influenced somewhat by what I've read of Jeff Cooper's
ideas regarding pistols and their use, and I acknowledge that debt.
It matters a great deal less how much lead you can put in the air
than it does what you hit with it. It isn't the noise and muzzle
flash that stops the BadGuy(TM), it's the impact of the lead the weapon
spits. The pistol is fundamentally a self-defense weapon, and one
which is neither designed for nor capable of the engagement of large
numbers of adversaries. It is furthermore a short-range weapon, and
the great weight of opinion has it that most pistol combat is carried
out at ranges of 5 to 25 feet. If one is in a situation in which all
14 rounds of a high-capacity magazine are necessary in order to survive
the fight, then one is very much in over his head unless he has the
competent assistance of a few armed friends.
The whole trick, as I see it, in successful defense, is shot placement.
To stop an aggressor quickly and completely, it is imperative to do
massive central nervous system damage. That doesn't require many
rounds *if* the shots are carefully placed, and a high-capacity
magazine may simply encourage poor marksmanship by providing a large
number of rounds in reserve with which to miss the target. Successful
combat pistol shooters don't get rattled when the fight starts, they
get busy, and they don't waste ammunition.
About 5 years ago or so, there was an incident in Chicago in which
some bad actor shot it out with the police. The Chicago Tribune
reported breathlessly that over 300 rounds of 9mm ammunition had been
expended in the exchange of fire. One person was slightly injured,
the perp, who was grazed in the leg. There were no marksmen at that
scene.
Another disadvantage of the staggered high-capacity magazines is that
the grip of the pistol must be made considerably wider in order to
accomodate it. To shoot well, an extension of the axis of the pistol
barrel must extend directly down the forearm of the shooter's grip
hand. Most people don't have hands large enough to hold the high-
capacity pistols properly, with the result that their shots will
drop low and left (for a right-handed shooter), and marksmanship
suffers. My thought is that it's better to get hits with a pistol
one can control than misses with one he can't.
The high-capacity magazine provides an illusion of great firepower,
whatever that is, which beguiles the inexperienced into a feeling of
security. It is my position that the high-capacity magazine is not
for the "trained who can hit the target many more times," as you
suggest, but for the untrained, who couldn't hit the broad side of a
barn if he were inside it and the doors and windows were closed.
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
-woods b.
In article <594vac$3...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
Robert Mooberry <rmoo...@iadfw.net> wrote:
> ...
In addition to John's Ross' discussion of th Miami Shootout in Unintended
Consequences, another excellent write-up was Mas Ayoob's article in Ameri-
can Handgunner a couple of years back. BTW, the FBI conclusion was to
adopt the 10mm (partly the aftermath of this incident); later, of course,
the FBI changed course a couple of times and has now adopted .40's, .45ACP,
and...depending on which unit.
BDW
Keith Gallie
> ...
JayStr> NNTP-Posting-Host: xring.cs.umd.edu
JayStr> NNTP-Posting-User: magnum
JayStr> (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
JayStr> risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who can
JayStr> tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'. They jam about as aften as
JayStr> bolt-action rifles, and for the same reason. Do bolt-action rifles jam?
JayStr> I guess they might, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it and have a
JayStr> rifle in some kind of godawful condition of rusty neglect).
Donate my $2 to the NRA.
I was out of town at a range with no ammo and a 686.
The only thing the range sold was reloads. Ugh.
From what I can gather the cases bulged and jammed up against the frame. I had
to smack the cylinder to get it open. While finishing the box it happened
again. I tried putting the empty brass back into the cylinder. They wouldn't go
in due to the bulge. The suspect cases looked like nickel plated remingtons.
I guess I'll never shoot range reloads again...
E.G. Clayton
On 16 Dec 1996, Gary wrote:
> ...
I think his point may have been that a revolver can sit around loaded
indefinitely without freezing up the magazine spring. I carry a Glock,
but I rotate the magazines frequently to prevent this. I don't mind
doing this with my carry gun, but I also have a couple of revolvers
in the house and car that sit around loaded at all times and require
no maintenance whatsoever beyond shooting them once in a while and
cleaning them afterwards.
I don't know why some auto shooters here are bristling at the statement
that revolvers are more intrinsically reliable than autopistols. A
design that requires the cartridges to be fed by a magazine, lifted
up over a feed ramp and slammed into a chamber, then pulled back out
and thrown out through a small ejection port before it closes and
jams on the case, has a lot more that can go wrong than one in which
the cartridges sit in a rotating cylinder and don't have to be fed
or ejected. All things being equal in terms of ammunition quality
and reputability of the manufacturer, revolvers are more reliable
than auto pistols. The margin of difference is small enough that
that other advantages lead me to carry a Glock, while my .357 stays
in my car. But I also think I know enough about my Glock that I
could clear a jam if I had to.
Whenever I recommend a first handgun to a novice, I always recommend
revolvers, not only because of reliability, but also because they
are simpler to use. And considering how unlikely it is that a
civilian will ever fire more than six shots, lots of experienced
shooters stick with their revolvers, too.
Oh, you can also get a top-quality S&W, Colt, or Ruger revolver for
$200-300 less than you'll spend for a SIG or Beretta. In most cases
I do not think that extra money spent will make you any safer on
the street.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Clayton
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Dale E. Hoyle
I am pretty much new to guns and don't know much about them. Except
how to fire them which I have done on many occasions and enjoy it. But
now I would like to get some guns of my own, and I need to learn the
internal workings of a gun and how to clean them and stuff is there any
suggessted reading or something?
Next I have a friend who I am going with to look at guns with
Thursday. I was thinking of getting an SKS mainly cause I always
thought they were cool looking with all the mods. So I was wondering If
that was really a good gun to get or what? Also what does anyone
suggest for a lower caliber handgun?
Thanks,
Dale Hoyle
Pete Prunskunas
> ...
Sure you don't want to retract that statement? In my earlier days,
before I completely understood the role of crimping, I'd use a medium
speed powder like Blue Dot without a crimp. These were medium .44
Magnum loads, nothing to write home about. After 50 or so rounds
were fired, the cylinder would stick. Sometimes it would be so bad
that it would be hard (almost impossible) to cock the hammer. The
next time I went to the range I brought along a can of the spray-&-
blast cleaner, which solved the problem for a while. After I started
crimping my loads, the problem disappeared. Unburnt powder residue
was collecting in the mechanism, jamming the revolver.
Another story. One of the range officers had a S&W 629 that had a
minor problem. The cylinder stopped revolving when you cocked the
hammer (did that change it from a revolver to a stationary-er?).
If you rephrased your statement to read: "If a revolver is clean and
contains no broken parts, it rarely jams.", I'd agree with you.
Pete
JayStr
Horseman wrote:
> ...
Ha! Aside from one pretty snotty email, I stirred things up as much --
and got as much well-informed feedback -- as I figured I might. I now
owe some folks some money... although most all have told me to forward
the money to some worthy cause or other (gun magazines & leggy redheads
& so forth). With everybody's permission, I will spend about $10 on a
box of easy-shooting.44 Specials for my uncle's stainless Ruger Vaquero
for Christmas & cover all debts. Is that a worthy cause, or what? ;)
By the by, is it just me, or is there something a bit odd going on with
Brazilian revolvers? It sort of seems like all the actual mysterious
mechanical ailments (see above) have involved either Rossi or Taurus
revolvers. No Smith & Wessons and only one Ruger revolver had troubles,
if I recall correctly. All the rest were ammo-related complaints... or
Brazilian wheeelguns. Is it the quality control, the quality of the
steel, or just a rash of bad luck? Comments on this?
Good shooting & season's greetings!
-- Jay
Paul Lung
- (dav...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
: now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
: Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
: untrained?
Nope, revolvers are not obsolete by any means. They're not necessarily
for the "untrained," but since revolvers are easier to operate than
autos, it's suggested that untrained people start out with revolvers.
Personally, I do not have a lot of experience with revolvers, but I
have rented & shot a few of them, and I can't say that I like them all
that much. The biggest problem(for me) with revolvers is their double
action pull. Even with the smooth trigger of a S&W 686, my finger starts
to hurt after 100 rounds or so from pulling the DA trigger. With an auto
however, I can and do stick around the range for hours & put hundreds of
rounds down range(What can I say. I love to shoot). As the golden rule
says, practice makes perfect. Unfortunately, I just can't practice with
a revolver.
Paul Lung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__#______________________o_ | Paul Lung
@/ / / / / (===|____| | | psl...@best.com
/_/_/_/_/_/-----------------/| |
\___ ____@_=========_| | Assault Cars: cars capable of reaching
\ / (( // | 90+ mph. Favorites of criminals.
/ /___((__// |
/ / | Cars kill 40,000 people a year.
/ / HK USP 45 | Guns kill 2000 people a year.
|________| | Let's ban cars and save lives!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sgt.. William C. Kennedy III
Revolvers are not obsolete. The high-capacity semi-auto pistol has been
around for
a long time (the Browning high-power 9mm was offered in 1935, 61 years
ago). The
double action semi-auto has been around as long (the p-38 was adopted in
1938), and
the .45 was adopted in 1911 (hence the name).
Officers have simply found that the auto pistol, properly maintained and
fed, is a better
gun for the streets than the revolver, provided that you learn how to use
it. This last
part is the crux of the matter. The revolver is very simple and straight
forward, so most
people think.
The revolver is an excellent choice for many applications, including
carrying most
calibers not capable of being readily used in the semi's. (Yeah, I know,
you can get
a pistol chambered in damn near anything if you want to pay for it, I'm
talking about the real world here.) The revolver will handle ammo designs
that the semi's don't cope with very well, many revolvers handle more than
one round (e.g. .38 spl. and .357 Mag), and the revolver is available with
many barrel lengths, while the semi's are usually restricted to the factory
standard.
I could go on, but I believe that you get the picture. The car and the
truck are both
here to stay. They are intended to accomplish different tasks. Either
will get you
from point a to point b, but the car will usually carry more people, and
the truck will
carry your camper and pull your boat. Anything that will carry a bunch of
passengers
and carry your camper and pull your boat is not economical transportation
for just
getting to work.
Good shooting
Bill
Vincent DeSanto
Mark Yaworski wrote:
> ...
Aw, Mark. I didn't know you were such a romantic. ;)
Vince.
JayStr
Dale E. Hoyle wrote:
> ...
You are probably going to get a helpful, healthy earful of advice on
cartridges, manufacturers, actions, etc., so I will let everybody else
handle that.
What I'd like to do is help you philosophy-wise. Since you are a novice,
the paramount concern is safe handling and storage. A bolt-action with a
removeable clip is ideal -- pull out the bolt, remove the clip, and you
know you have an inert object. Same principle is at work with handguns;
get a .22 revolver, either single-action or double-action. If you want
to get a .38 or .44 later, get one similar to the .22; you will already
be used to it by then. Harrington & Richardson make a fine little
break-top .22 double-action revolver for well under $200.
I'd also counsel the obvious, which is that even if you don't plan to go
hunting, get a hunter's safety certificate. It will take an afternoon &
cost about $20. And whatever kind of gun you get, go out at once and buy
$100 worth of ammo and shoot until you are ass-deep in brass, as the
saying goes. This will let you get used to the gun and if anything is
going to go wrong with it, it is better to find out now rather than
later.
Last, don't be tempted to go overboard & get some kind of super-powerful
gun that will kick & bellow & hurt your shoulder. Shot placement kills
game & ends gunfights. Get something with a mild recoil to learn on. I
may justly be accused of being a Swedish Mauser enthusiast, but I think
the M38 (the shorter one) would be a great beginner's gun for you. It
runs about $150-$200 for a good one, is of very high quality, is a
bolt-action (although it does not have a detachable clip), is highly
accurate, and recoil is minimal. It is chambered for the 6.5x55mm round,
which is available from Remington, and it is a good solid deer rifle if
you decide to use it for that. The only drawback is that if you want to
put a scope on it, you will have to take it to a gunsmith and pay him
about $50-$75 to drill & tap it.
(And if you want to get an SKS and stack it with all sorts of poor-man's
-SWAT-team accesories & go out and strafe rows of tin cans with it, you
will have enough money left over to do so).
Always treat your gun as though it were loaded. Never point it at
anything you do not want to destroy. Pretend it is a laser rifle or
something that might start spitting death rays at any minute and drill
holes in whatever you have the muzzle towards, whether it is the wall,
the refrigerator, the dog, or your friend's foot. With guns, you gotta
love 'em enough to be a little bit scared of them... and vice versa.
Good luck & good shooting!
-- Jay
Mark Yaworski
Dale E. Hoyle wrote:
> ...
Any cleaning kit that you buy will come with instructions on how to use
the kit and the guns owners manual will tell you how to take it apart
for cleaning.
When I was first interested in guns, I read every gun rag on the
newstand and did so for about three years until I started reading stuff
that they had already published (1995 - "Comparison of 9mm vs. 45 ACP",
1996 - "Comparision of 45 aCP vs. 9mm")
You'll glean a little bit of new information from every magazine.
Join NRA, they have a decent magazine that is comes with the membership
and they have a technical question section that can help you (you write
to them and they write back). I'm and NRA Recruiter and I can sign you
up at right now. NRA is having a dues sale until Dec 31st, right now it
is $25 on Jan 1 it will go back up to $35.
> ...
It is a great gun for informal shooting and you can trick it out for not
much money. I've sold dozens of them this year. Ammo is fairly cheap
too. All of the big distributors are out of SKSs so they might be hard
to find. I still have two that I have priced at $120, including
shipping to your dealer.
> ...
Start off with a .22 or a .38 Spl/.357 mag. The .22 is cheap to shoot,
you can shoot all day for $3, very little recoil and it is fun. The
.38/.357 is a good choice because you can buy inexpensive target grade
reloads for practicing and use more powerful ammo for defense or
hunting.
Mark Yaworski
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Recruiter
Gun Dealer
Moses Fridman
> ...
At the range one day, I took a shot with a Ruger GP100. When I tried to
take the next shot, I couldn't work the trigger; turned out a primer had
knocked loose with the first shot, and bound the cylinder against the
back wall. To fix it, I had to release the cylinder.
Please send my $1 to either the NRA, or any humanitarian charity of your
choice, such as The Salvation Army. :)
Moses
mmila...@aol.com
Alright. Got your dollar ready? While stationed in Idaho Falls, Idaho, I
privately purchased(when it was still legal to do so) a used Rossi
stainless revolver w/ six inch heavy lugged barrel, pachmyr-style rubber
combat grips in .357 magnum. The gun worked great while I shot my way
through the two boxes of .38 special that came w/ it. Then, deciding that
since I had a .357, why not try some .357 magnum loads (novel concept, I
know). Here the problems arose. About the second shot, the cylinder
jammed. Hard. I had to literally beat the cylinder open w/ the flat of
my hand. The unfired rounds fell unassisted from their chambers, while I
had to press the ejector rod against a handy fence post to eject the other
two cases. Inspection revealed nothing out of round, nothing jamming the
barrel/cylinder gap, or anything else. The cylinder now spun normally,
even when the cylinder was shut. Befuddled, I wrote it off to gremlins
and filled the cylinder again, again w/ factory .357 loads. First shot,
and again the cylinder was jammed, and no amount of coercion or brute
force short of damaging the gun was going to open that cylinder this time.
Imagine the local gunsmith's joy at being asked to unjam a loaded .357!
After basically dismantling the cylinder swingarm assy., he got the
cylinder out. After clearing the chambers, he inspected them w/ a 6x bore
scope. Turns out that the previous had shot the heck out of the gun, but
only w/ .38 Specials. W/ the shorter case length of a .38, it had eroded
the chamber just forward of the case mouth in a manner so that a .357
magnum round, when touched off, would force back against the (for lack of
better term) surface around the firing pin, while the case mouth belled
out into the eroded area. Afterwards, w/ no way to reverse this, the case
effectively locked the cylinder shut. The gunsmith's advise was to either
a) sell it to some unknowing soul (like myself), b)sell it at a lower
price and inform them that the cylinder needed replaced, c) replace the
cylinder and sell it, or d)replace the cylinder and keep it. I chose (b).
There's my story, send my money to your local NSSF/NRA youth shooting
program.
On the other hand, I recently did my security/reaction force requals (one
of those silly things where they expect you to defend a nuclear Fast
Attack submarine w/ your life. Firing a .45 or M-16 or 12 guage in a
steel pipe is not my idea of a good plan, but it may be what it takes)
The .45 I was handed was a standard 1911A1 Gov't model, and it proceeded
to jam about every second or third round, as well as every time I inserted
a new magazine and released the slide. Seems the magazine lips got in the
way of the slide somehow. Needless to say, it was rather embarassing to
have to raise my hand so the rangemaster could clear my weapon. It got to
the point that I would raise my hand to let him know, and he would nod and
watch me as I either smacked the back of the slide forward, or, if that
didn't work, drop the magazine about an inch, smack the slide forward, and
reinsert the magazine. Not a very good first impression of an old
'warhorse'.
For those of you who say that revolvers 'tossed' in the truck won't work,
try this. Dad had a Colt SAA .22 revolver that stayed in a open holster
hung on the brake release of his truck. Not entirely legal, even in
Nebraska, but then, the local cops knew about it and knew what it was
for(coyotes/rattlesnakes). That gun stayed there 24/7, 52 weeks a year,
and outlasted many a pickup. It was there as early as I can recall, and
is probably still there. The only person who ever cared for that poor
little gun is me, after I used it. That gun has never, to my knowledge,
missed a lick. I just hope that when I get a revolver for home, that w/
care it will perform as well.
Monte
M.E.Milanuk
nuclear electrical operator/technician
USS PHILADELPHIA SSN 690
As my old XO used to say, "If you're not having fun, lower your
standards!" ;)
The Polymath
JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
|But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
|risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody
|who can tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
If you've got any money left you can send the buck you're about to owe me
to the NRA/ILA, GOA, or any other pro-gun group.
I was a fellow student of a woman who brought a Ruger SP-101 to a John
Farnam class. At some point she fired a squib round that jammed the bullet
half in the forcing cone and half in the cylinder. It took Farnam upwards
of half an hour to clear the jam. When the bullet couldn't be driven back
into the cartridge he resorted to hitting the cylinder with a piece of
scrap wood and a hammer until it opened and the lead was literally sheared
in half. (My respect for Ruger's revolvers was vindicated when the woman
finished the class with that one).
If that had been a life critical situation she'd have been dead dead dead
long before that jam was cleared. An autoloader with a similar problem
could be cleared in seconds.
No matter how or what you count, Glock pistols have less than 40 parts.
Try detail stripping a revolver some time. Take particular note of the
delicate, clockwork nature of the many parts you're trusting your life to.
( :-) Lay down a sheet before you start disassembling. That way, when you
take the gun to the gunsmith for reassembly, you can be reasonably sure all
the parts are there (-: ).
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP)
poly...@pacbell.net
http://www.babcom.com/polymath
(818) 882-6309
das...@enter.net
> ...
Yes, the revolver is the weapon of choice of novices like Elmer Keith, Ed
McGivern and Bill Jordan. Those of you who think IPSC is so cool might
want to consider Jerry Miculek. Without exception, the most astonishing
accomplishments in the history of handgunning have been performed with the
DA revolver. The high capacity self-loading pistol (complete with its $75
magazines, without which it is worthless) is the tool of the masses. And
the greatest irony of all is that the best self-loader out there, the Colt
1911, isn't worth a damn unless it is subject to $1000 worth of labor
intensive modifications.
Dave
Sebastien Kupiec
NO
All weapons serve some intrinsic purpose. And revolvers do fill a
particular niche of the gun purchasing public.
So in answere to your question -- "Are revolvers obsolete?"
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Salut
- wrote:
> ...
--
sa...@earthlink.net
"keep the rubber side down"
93 CBR1000F
The Polymath
Dale E. Hoyle <ho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<596srm$7...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
| I am pretty much new to guns and don't know much about them. Except
|how to fire them which I have done on many occasions and enjoy it. But
|now I would like to get some guns of my own, and I need to learn the
|internal workings of a gun and how to clean them and stuff is there any
|suggessted reading or something?
Thing one: Take a firearm safety class. Most ranges offer them. This is
very important. Do it before you purchase a gun.
Having done that, there are lots of books and videos on gun cleaning. One
of the easiest solutions is to purchase a complete kit, read the
instructions that come with it and do what they say. Everyone has their
pet tricks, tools and solvents, but the basics are all pretty much of a
muchness.
When you purchase your new gun it will come with an owner's manual. That
will tell you all you need to know about as much disassembling of it as
you'll need to do. If you really want to know the nitty-gritty details
there are plenty of books about that, too. (The FAQ for rec.guns is a
great fount of information. If you can't find what you need there, ask
here. We wrote the FAQ).
| Next I have a friend who I am going with to look at guns with
|Thursday. I was thinking of getting an SKS mainly cause I always
|thought they were cool looking with all the mods. So I was wondering If
|that was really a good gun to get or what? Also what does anyone
|suggest for a lower caliber handgun?
An SKS in good condition is a solid, reliable firearm, but you need to
understand what you're getting.
Cleaning an SKS properly requires taking it apart (and, of course, getting
it back together again). This is not all that difficult, but neither is it
a task for an unsupervised novice (it's possible to reassemble them
incorrectly and create a very dangerous condition).
The SKS was designed as a military rifle. It is capable of hitting some
part of a man sized target at 300 yards. It is not a bullseye target rifle
and, IMHO, can't realistically be made into one. Most of the aftermarket
modifications you can get for them are just someone's idea to separate you
from your money.
If you want something that looks cool, buy an air conditioner. At least
you'll get benefit from it and it's unlikely to hurt you.
Andrew Walls
For what it is worth the Norwegian police, when they tool up (they do
not carry a gun normally) use a Smith & Wesson Revolver in .38 special
(I think that it is the "Military & Police" model). However the Counter
Terrorist Squads who are more highly trained use Glock 17 pistols (9 mm)
and H&K MP5 sub machine guns. The policemen that I have spoken to here
all prefer a long gun of some sort when apprehending an armed suspect,
even if it is a bolt action Mauser rifle in .30-06.
I think the conclusion is that semi-auto pistols are for experts, while
revolvers are best for those who do not get enough practice.
Andrew Walls
Near the arctic circle
Norway
Pete Prunskunas
Michael O'Gara wrote:
> ...
How about some details? I assume S&W is the revolver of choice.
What barrel length is most popular?
Pete
Vvmfuno
The gun I prefer for defense is a .38 w a 4 inch barrell. Shoots accurate.
Never jams. Safe. I keep six extra rounds in a speedloader.
If I were a paratrooper jumping into combat I would get a high capacity
9MM. But no plans to jump into combat any time soon.
BTW I saw two guys in Nam get .45s in their leg, foot merely by chambering
a round into the gun. The only guy in my unit who actually fired his .45
at a VC had it jam on the 2nd round. It was an old .45, but still. And he
missed on the first round. The VC is probably now a marketing rep for
PEPSI COLA and has a house in the Saigon Suburbs. I wish him well....
Anywho....
Colt45
The object to the statement because it is not true!
Revolver Malfunction
1. A smal object( piece of unburnt powder, human hair, dust, dirt, lint,
wd40 residue) under the extractor star of a well made revolver will lock
the cylinder.
2. lead or foriegn matter sticking to the cylinder face will lock the
cylinder.
3.screws comeing lose from the frame can cause a malfuction.
4. bullets moving forward under recoil in the cylider can lock the
cylinder.
5. Any number of things can cause a reduction in the energy transfer
from fireing pin to primer there by causeing a malfuction.
6. short stroking the trigger in a panic will cause a malfunction.
This is just quick list. ANYONE who shoots a revolver enough to be
skilled in its use will run in to these problems. Further more NONE of
them can be addressed in a combat situation. All represent a lethal
failure of the gun.
Autoloaders when properly tuned and useing ammunition that has been
fired hundreads of times with no problems in the hands of a skill
shooter just like the revolver approach 100% percent reliability.
Best of all 99% percent of autoloader Malfunctions can be cleared in a
flash( less that 1 secound) in combat leaving you in the fight!
Capacity can be advantage if in a likely no win situation your only
chance is to unleash a hail of fire to get everyones head down for a
secound to escape or achieve a tactical advantage.
Reloads and topping off are faster with a autoloader. It is easyier to
retain unused ammo when topping off during a lull in the party.
I understand your love for revolvers I share it. But the smaller
lighter combat effective autoloaders are the way to go for both
professionals and cilvilians who are interested in a serious carry gun.
James Fletcher
(colt)
E.G. Clayton wrote:
> ...
--
********2000*************************************************
*Jack Kemp/Liddy Dole* I want to keep my money for me. *
* For President * I did not make you poor. You did. *
********2000*************************************************
* Prosperity through growth * Freedom means responsibility *
Robert Christman
The Polymath wrote:
> ...
A friend had the same problem (squib load) in a 1911. The bullet
cleared the case and stuck. Couldn't load another round (good thing
too, he tried!) so he stopped shooting. Had to get a rod and a mallet
and tap the bullet out of the barrel, not a couple of second fix!
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Robert Christman
das...@enter.net wrote:
> ...
Love my revolvers but my carry gun is a Combat Commander with a total of
about $200 worth of work done over 20 some years (all mods done because
I wanted to, not because the gun needed it). If I don't have to worry
about concealment, I will carry my Python but the Commander is my first
choice if I want to conceal the gun. The Model 29 is out as a carry
gun, no possibility of concealment and I don't really want to carry it
around all day!
Urocyon
The Polymath wrote:
<slight snip>
> ...
Boy, clearing a barrel-stuck bullet from an auto in seconds sure would be something to
see ;-). I think a squib-stuck round would put almost any gun out of action for the
duration of most defensive situations.
Nosy
<In article <594ude$2...@xring.cs.umd.edu> Gary <gna...@icanect.net> writes:
< JayStr wrote:
< #
< # Firstly, you can't throw an autoloader -- much less a loaded one --
< # under the car seat or on the bedside stand and leave it there and be
< # totally confident that it will work in six months.
< Nonsense, modern COMBAT autoloaders are made to do JUST that, sit
< on a hip, for months at a time in the event the CQ combat is
< upon you.
Please show me where in the specifications for the M9
autopistol I can find this requirement.
I state again, anyone who "throws" ANY firearm "under the
car seat" and expects it to work 6 months later is a fool.
< As far as dirt goes any government agency REQUIRES
< they pass many more tests DIRTY than ANT revolver is capable of.
Possibly. But all firearms require routine maintenance
to be safe.
< IO have 8 revolvers, I compete with them, BUT just ONE ball of
< completely unburned powder under the extractor star will lock up
< any of my very reliable revolvers.
This is true, it is a known flaw of revolvers, and it is
a telling point against those that do not clean their
firearms.
< Yes, in the great scheme of things odds are that over 10000 rounds
< a revolver has the ability to perform better than an auto, an auto
< fed ammo that the gun works with IMO is just as reliable as any of
< my revolvers.
As a person who owns both kinds of handguns, I would say
that I find them to be approximately equally reliable.
< # (Now before you WonderNiners and custom .45 artists get all mad at me > come on now! Be honest. Your autoloader has never, ever jammed ONCE?
< As I implied, COMBAT guns (like SIGS, Berettas etc.) are FAR from custom
< .45's and are as reliable as any revolver I ever had... Period.
< # (But being the cautious fellow that I am, I'd just as soon reduce the
< # risk to absolutely nothing. I'll mail one dollar cash to anybody who
< # can tell me a story about a revolver 'jamming'.
< Send me some bucks. I quoted an extractor star problem, AND heat
< causes tight fitting guns to lock from dirt in front of the cylinder
< after just a few rounds, depending on ammo. Mainsprings, AND cylinder
< latch springs CAN and DO go bad. Saying they don't will not make it
< true. Also the odd extractor rod bending from fatigue is not unheard
< of.
AH! There's another one I forgot; the bent extractor rod.
I've seen far, far too many revolvers with bent extractor
rods, which means the cylinder no longer rotates true, which
can mean anything from lead "spitting" to jams.
I suspect that more than a few of these rods were bent by
careless/ignorant handling of the firearm; flipping the
cylinder open and snapping it shut, like Joe Friday.
Be that as it may, an extractor rod that is bent badly
enough makes a revolver unreliable; another reason for
proper care and maintenance.
< # Lastly, revolvers can use more powerful cartridges. It takes an
< # unwieldy...
< Uh, I have a Coonan Cadet that's just 2lbs 8oz. My 66 is 2lbs.1 ounce.
< My Coonan clocks the EXACT ammo used in the 66 at nearly 200 FPS higher
< velocity. BTW, my GC Delta elite 10mm can easily launch a 200 grain
< bullet at over 1200 FPS.
That's nice. I know of .41 Magnum shooters that launch 210
grain bullets at over 1600 FPS for silhouette shooting.
Sorry about that.
<Statistically, the FACT is that many auto's loadings are just as effective
<in real life.
For self defense against humans, this is true. For hunting
game, this ain't so true.
Seen any autoloaders chambered in .454 Casull lately?
< At any rate, I'm an Instructor, and I encourage students to use
< revolvers, BUT, unless YOU get to decide the rules of engagement
< like number of bad guys, lighting, determination of the foe, and cover
< availability, the tactical edge goes to higher capacity, reasonably
< powered cartridges like a .40, with night sights...
Oh, come on. How many misses from a .40 or any other
cartridge does it take to make up for one solid hit with
a .38 or .357 or .41?
There's plenty to be said for both kinds of handguns for
self defense purposes.
< IF you have the
< skills, and use a fault tolerant automatic. My Sig's and S&W's will
< shoot if I snatch them from the holster, and get a grip 1" below my
< normal non-stress grip which WILL happen under extreme stress.
< Combat reloads are impractical, with revolvers AND autos, because only
< a VERY few actually carry spare ammo (I never carry spare ammo). So
< HC in the neighborhood of 12 rounds is just the ticket.
Alas, all new handguns are limited to 10 rounds in the US,
and one can find revolvers that shoot 7 or even 8 rounds.
< While your views ARE valuable, insightful, and in many ways correct,
< they are somewhat myopic, and you should soften the rhetoric.
Agreed.
Nosy
<In article <594vck$3...@xring.cs.umd.edu> do...@instanet.com (Don) writes:
< On 14 Dec 1996 20:24:32 -0500, in rec.guns, dav...@ix.netcom.com (-)
< wrote:<<
< #
< #
< # Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
< #now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
< #Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
< #untrained?
< Negatore - revolvers are a better choice than ever.
They are as good as they ever were.
< The new 10 round limit for semi-auto magazines reduces the previous
< 300% firepower advantage of the wonder-nines over the six-shooter to
< only 66% extra capacity.
I don't really consider "capacity" to be a major issue;
most folks will be well served by 6 or 7 cartridges of
a major caliber if they can *hit* with them, over an
infinite amount of misses.
< You may now choose between a flawless six rounds or an additional four
Flawless, eh? Another fan of the "revolvers never jam" myth,
I see.
< rounds which require advance consideration of model type, safety
< features, and "condition 3, 2, 1 or 0" prior to use in an emergency.
Another person who's not heard of DAO pistols.
< After all this is considered, you may then worry about dud primers,
< stovepipe jams, "tap-n-rack drills", and other assorted VARIABLES not
< present in the venerable six-shooter.
No dud primers in 6-shooters? Man, that's news to me, how
did I wind up with a bullet halfway into the forcing cone
of a revolver a couple of years back, I wonder, if not
due to a dud FACTORY load, hmmm?
< Now, others will chime in about equal simplicity & reliability in
< semi-autos, but few will bet "pink slips" in a reliability shoot-out
< of 500 consecutive rounds of mixed ammo against the same in a
< revolver. First gun to malfunction belongs to the other guy....!
The ability of a revolver to shoot different kinds of ammunition
with a lower probability of failure is indeed a plus for
that design.
< I own an equal number of semi's & wheelguns, but my latest acquisition
< is a S&W 696 five-shot revolver in .44 special. Simplicity,
< reliability, and POWER in a small package! Pull the trigger, and it
< fires - no questions, condition #s or missing magazines to think
< about.
Unless, of course, there's a grain of sand under the extractor
star, or a high primer...
Look, this is a STUPID debate. Revolvers are good firearms.
Autoloaders are good firearms.
Each person should make up their own mind, based on their
own preference, skill level, intended use, etc.
Nosy
<In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.961217...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu> "E.G. Clayton" <cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu> writes:
< I don't know why some auto shooters here are bristling at the statement
< that revolvers are more intrinsically reliable than autopistols.
Well, speaking as someone who's seen revolvers jam due to
crud under the ejector star and squib loads, I find the
claim that "revolvers NEVER jam" to be laughable, as well
as utterly false.
< Whenever I recommend a first handgun to a novice, I always recommend
< revolvers, not only because of reliability, but also because they
< are simpler to use.
Simplicity of use is a clear feature of revolvers, and is the
reason that many police departments used to issue them.
< And considering how unlikely it is that a
< civilian will ever fire more than six shots, lots of experienced
< shooters stick with their revolvers, too.
Yes, this is absolutely true.
< Oh, you can also get a top-quality S&W, Colt, or Ruger revolver for
< $200-300 less than you'll spend for a SIG or Beretta. In most cases
< I do not think that extra money spent will make you any safer on
< the street.
Spending the extra money on PRACTICE, otoh, will make one
safer.
Ed
JayStr wrote:
> ...
contribute my two cents worth. Earlier this year I bought a Rossi Mod.
877 .357. Upon twst firing it I found that I had a beautiful group at 15
yds. The only problem was that it was 3 inches to the right of aim
point. After testing it with several different types of ammo, both .357
and .38 spl. and having other people shoot it I sent it back to Rossi.
In 2 1/2 weeks I had a new pistol. I tried it out and at 7 yds. I shot a
five round group of 3/4 inch wide by 1 1/2 inches high. The only problem
was that it was 1 1/2 inches right of aim point. I haven't yet decided
what I'm going to do with the pistol but I am not happy. If anybody has
any advice I would like to hear it.
Ed Lee
NRA Life Member
Nosy
<In article <594va7$3...@xring.cs.umd.edu> Mark Yaworski <yawo...@erols.com> writes:
< - wrote:
< #
< # Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
< # Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
< # untrained?
< Nay!!
< The high cap, polymer guns are for the untrained who cannot hit the
< target.
Sigh. I guess Sgt. York was "untrained" and could not "hit
the target", is that right?
< I shoot bowling pin matches with a revolver and I rarely need that sixth
< shot. If I do need it, I've generally scared one of the pins enough to
< make it mess it's pants.
Revolvers are ideal for pin matches, that's been shown time
and time again.
Autoloaders are very good for pin matches as well.
There is no "perfect gun under heaven".
< Revolvers are great and are a much more versatile gun than any single
< semi-auto. As an example I present my my Dan Wesson 15-2H6 which has
< had NO work done on it at all and I use it in bulls eye matches with .38
< Wadcutters (I've managed to score 100 on a 50 yard slow fire stage), I
< use it on pins with .357 mag loads and if I needed to I could use it for
< hunting or defense.
Dan Wesson firearms are very good; I wish that someone
would start making them again, at the quality level of the
old days.
That said, the "revolver vs. autoloader" debate properly
belongs in /dev/null.
John Gross
"The Polymath" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ...
> ...
An autoloader with a similar problem
> ...
Assuming one carries a cleaning rod on them at all times. Not a snipe, but
how else would you clear a bullet lodged half an inch down the barrel of
an auto? I know it would take less time with an auto, but the big if is IF
you have a cleaning rod handy at the approiate time. Suffice to say that
either situation (auto or revolver) on the street would be a not so good
situation.
John Gross confe...@worldnet.att.net
The Polymath
Vvmfuno <vvm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19961218174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
|... The only guy in my unit who actually fired his .45
|at a VC had it jam on the 2nd round. It was an old .45, but still. And he
|missed on the first round. The VC is probably now a marketing rep for
|PEPSI COLA and has a house in the Saigon Suburbs. I wish him well....
Counter example:
A friend has had to shoot two people in his life. One was a North Viet
Namese sapper trying to sneak up on his foxhole. The other was a Viet
Namese of unknown affiliation who attacked with a knife. Old Slab Sides
saved his life both times. His attackers did not survive.
Mark Yaworski
Vincent DeSanto wrote:
> ...
Hey, get me talking about guns or redhead and I get all misty eyed,
mention readheads with guns and I'll start sobbing in my beer. Too many
memories. ;-)
Mark Yaworski
Nosy wrote:
> ...
I beg your pardon but Alvin York used neither a plastic gun nor a high
capacity gun, he used a steel gun of reasonable capacity. ;-)
> ...
Wesson Firearms is back in business and plans to start production in
January. The new owner has a background in CNC machining and should be
able to make something decent.
Mark Yaworski
> ...
Sounds like you needed a new magazine. All magazine have a finite life,
I have some 50 year old (yes fifty) 1911 mags that won't even hold a
round in place. I keep them for collector interest, not for use.
Frank Bergren
The Polymath wrote:
> ...
Well perhaps not dead, just rearranged. A few years ago, our local
Outdoors Column writer went moose hunting with his 454 Casull.
When a brown bear charged, he got off one shot. It seems that he
didn't have a good crimp on his handloads and one or more of
the bullets crept out under recoil. This jammed his big 5 shot SA at a
most
inopportune time. After the bear rearranged a few of his body parts, he
managed to crawl out to a highway, get hauled to a hospital, and sewn
up.
Bottom line: 1) Revolvers can jam. 2) If you use handloads in critical
situations,
make darn sure they are going to function properly. 3) When hunting in
potentially
dangerous territory, consider hunting with a buddy.
Grant Cunningham
> ...
> ...
POI: According to the NRA competition newspaper, SHOOTING SPORTS USA, the
ration of revolvers to autos at this year's Bianchi Cup was 65:45.
There's still an awful lot of life left in the ol' wheelguns.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The Polymath
Robert Christman <rjch...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<59a7il$f...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
|A friend had the same problem (squib load) in a 1911. The bullet
|cleared the case and stuck. Couldn't load another round (good thing
|too, he tried!) so he stopped shooting. Had to get a rod and a mallet
|and tap the bullet out of the barrel, not a couple of second fix!
I'll bet it took much less than a minute once he had the rod and mallet in
hand. Farnam was beating on that revolver for about 20 minutes before he
got the cylinder opened. Some LEOs I know, including Farnam, carry a slim
rod for clearing such jams from autoloaders. I'm in the market for one
myself.
Mark Yaworski
> ...
long before that jam was cleared. An autoloader with a similar problem
could be cleared in seconds.<<
Not so! If you have a squib in an autoloader, you still have to hunt up
a long stick and a hammer to wack the bullet out of the barrel. While
you are looking for the stick, the bad guy shoots you.
Mark Yaworski
> ...
Revolvers never leave incriminating pieces of brass lying about.
Mark Yaworski
> ...
My $300 Norinco 1911A1 shoots all day long without a jam, hits what I
point it at and basically works without a hitch. On the other hand the
guys at the range with their custom 1911s are constantly clearing jams
while I'm just knocking down the plates.
Neil Dickey
Nosy wrote:
N> That said, the "revolver vs. autoloader" debate properly
N> belongs in /dev/null.
I disagree. I think we can have a good-natured debate between
devotees of both types of handguns, as well as those with no
particular allegiance. The conclusion may be foregone, that both
are good, useful, and the choice remains with the shooter, but
in the meantime useful points remain to be made so long as those
involved remember to be civil.
I, for one, have learned a few ways that a revolver can be jammed
that I didn't know before, and will add one more to the ever-growing
list: A Ruger Redhawk .44 mag I know of, will jam such that the
cylinder will not rotate when the shooter attempts to cock the piece
if Winchester factory rounds loaded with the 240-grain FPJ are used.
Recoil and backblast in the chamber, which gets the spent case dirty,
appear to be responsible. The spent case in the chamber adjacent to
the one just fired is set back against a shoulder machined into the
breech block, and prevents the cylinder from rotating until it is
wiggled free with the hand. The owner of the pistol has tried other
types of ammunition, and they don't give this fault.
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
Best regards,
Neil Dickey
-woods b.
In article <59a7n2$f...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
> ...
Well stated. Also, if you want to insure that you get plenty
of stretching and bending over exercise, get a centerfire pistol.
[where did that seventh piece of brass go anyway?]
BDW
vntr...@vnet.ibm.com
Neil Dickey <ne...@geol.niu.edu> writes:
[snip]
> ...
It is only an illusion for those who don't practice. To those of us
that do, I asure you the HC magazine does allow us to hit the target
many more times.
Your suggestion that only incompetent boobs use HC autoloaders is
just as absurd as the idea that the revolver is obsolete. I say
make your choice, revolver or autoloader, and become proficient
with it. When someone says that a revolver (or an autoloader) is
the only choice for skilled shooters, they're displaying their
ignorance. Either one is a fine choice, and they both require
practice to use effectively.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Dan Campbell | I'm a ventriloquist -- |
| NRA Life Member | I can speak for anyone! |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Any unsolicited e-mail advertisements will be received at the
rate of (USD) $25 for the use of my time in your business.
Michael F. Berney
I have never had a squib load in an automatic pistol, but I assume that
the definition of a squib load is one where the bullet leaves the
cartridge case but fails to exit the barrel. In this case I fail to see
how you can assume that the problem could be corrected in seconds. You
would still need a cleaning rod or other tool to force the bullet out of
the bore. This would require removing the magazine ,at the least, and
might require field stripping, a vise, hammer ect. In this case you are
still "dead dead dead". No single barrel firearm is significantly better
than any other under these circumstances.
Mike
E.G. Clayton
On 18 Dec 1996, Nosy wrote:
# Well, speaking as someone who's seen revolvers jam due to
# crud under the ejector star and squib loads, I find the
# claim that "revolvers NEVER jam" to be laughable, as well
# as utterly false.
There's nothing under the sun that NEVER happens, but most of the
revolver failures I've seen listed in this thread seem to come from
either severe abuse (i.e., bent ejector rods) or extreme fouling.
No wonder I've never seen them; I clean my guns once in a while.
But most of my semi-autos will stovepipe on a spent case or fail
to feed a certain fraction of the time, with factory ammunition,
when they are spanking clean and in perfect working order. It seems
fairly simple and obvious to me that the mechanics of feeding,
chambering, extraction and ejection are less controllable, require
greater tolerances, are more dependent on the characteristics of
the ammunition, and are therefore more failure-prone than any
of the moving-part operations in a revolver. Many modern autos
can approach revolver reliability without any gunsmithing, once you
find the ballistic load and bullet shape they like to cycle. These
are non-issues with a revolver. That's all I'm saying.
For the record, I consider my Glock 23 reliable enough for me. So are
my 1911 pistols, but only because I sent each to a gunsmith one or
more times to make them that way. I have other auto pistols that are
also quite reliable, but not as much so as my revolvers. I've never
done anything to any of my revolvers except clean them, and in a couple
of cases replace worn out parts.
[Revolvers cheaper than autos]
# Spending the extra money on PRACTICE, otoh, will make one
# safer.
Yes, and since my revolvers are not the least bit picky about feeding
my reloads without regard to bullet shape, lead vs jacketed, powder
charge (within safe limits), overall length, etc., handloading is
easier and I can practice with them all the more!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Clayton
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
DsrtTravlr
Dear Dave and All:
As with most firearms, you need to pick the right one for the use. I like
the autoloaders, but recently bought a revolver for a special purpose. I
bought it for a snake gun - to shoot snake shot only. I was not sure
about shooting shot through my Ruger .22 Mark II. I was not sure if it
would eject cleanly, and if that type of shell would be good for the gun
over the long haul. I bought another Ruger, which is smaller than the Mk.
II, and has a shorter barrell, thus giving the shot a little better
spread. Then there is just the difference in looks and the way the two
types of guns shoot.
IMHO, the revolver will never go out of production or demand, because of
the inherent differences in the two. Autos have higher maintenance, more
frequent jamming, heavier weight, and larger size ( Not in all cases,
though ). Revolvers will never go out, although the numbers relative to
autoloaders may vascillate.
Just my $.02 - no change
DsrtTravlr
ata...@nmsu.edu
Mark Yaworski writes:
> Nosy wrote:
> >
> > <In article <594va7$3...@xring.cs.umd.edu> Mark Yaworski <yawo...@erols.com> writes:
> > < - wrote:
> > < The high cap, polymer guns are for the untrained who cannot hit the
> > < target.
> >
> > Sigh. I guess Sgt. York was "untrained" and could not "hit
> > the target", is that right?
>
> capacity gun, he used a steel gun of reasonable capacity. ;-)
I'm sure it seemed "high cap" at the time, and it was not
a revolver.
> > Dan Wesson firearms are very good; I wish that someone
> > would start making them again, at the quality level of the
> > old days.
>
> Wesson Firearms is back in business and plans to start production in
> January.
Uh huh. This has been claimed before...I wrote that I hope
someone would start making them again at the quality level of
the old days, not just that someone would start making something
called "wesson".
> The new owner has a background in CNC machining and should be
> able to make something decent.
We'll see.
Ralph
Dale E. Hoyle wrote:
> ...
If you are genuinely interested in guns and shooting sports in general,
I think one of the first things you should consider is a membership in
the NRA. I am convinced that if not for the NRA and the people who
suppert it, you would not be asking this question right now.
Have fun, and be safe,
Ralph
Nosy
I used to think this, too, until I had my very own factory
squib round that wedged half in the cylinder and half in the
forcing cone of a .357 revolver.
After much fretting, fuming, attempting to saw the bullet in
half, etc. I was told by an old rangemaster "Just get a wooden
dowel rod, drop it in the barrel and gently push the bullet
back into the cylinder, then crane the cylinder out & clear
it".
With a lot of trepidation, I tried it, and found that with
nothing more than firm finger pressure I could indeed push
the bullet back into the cylinder far enough to enable the
cylinder to crane out. I then cleared everything out.
Now, I suppose that if the bullet had gotten into the barrel
far enough, it might have taken more force to push it out;
a metal rod would be required instead of a woodend dowel,
and more force would be needed.
So, hmm, I guess in a Real Serious Emergency with no other
firearm to hand, I'd unload the firearm, put that metal rod
into the muzzle as far as it would go and push REAL HARD
against any nearby surface with no "give" to it, such as
a brick wall or concrete curb or big rock or truck wheel....
and if I had to, I'd bang against that object until either
the squib popped out the rear of the barrel or my metal
rod broke, or something bad happened to me.
This just might be an interesting experiment to conduct; how
much force does it take to push a squib load out of a barrel?
kyrie...@aol.com
in article <59111k$n...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, JayStr <jay...@best.com> wrote:
<snip>
> ...
> ...
Gads, talk about flame bait <g>. Here's my own experience...
S&W M19, Ruger Security Six
Round w/o powder, bullet stuck in the forcing cone, pistol jammed up
until I could get a dowel rod down the bore and pound the bullet back into
the cylinder.
S&W M64
Extractor rid came unscrewed and prevented the cylinder from closing
S&W M57, S&W M64
Pistol locked up, unable to open cylinder or cock hammer. Fiddled with
it for about fifteen minutes before it I could finally get the cylinder
open. Never did figure out what happened.
S&W M57
During firing, the crimp on one of the cartridges broke loose and the
bullet came forward out of the cylinder face far enough to prevent the
cylinder from turning or being opened.
S&W M19, Ruger Security Six, S&W M57, S&W M64, S&W M60, S&W M34, Colt
Official Police
During ejection of expended cases, one case slipped under the extractor
star. This one is a royal pain in the arse - it takes three hands to hold
the pistol, hold the extractor star back, and fish the case out. It's
especially difficult with revolvers which have short throws on the ejector
rod like the S&W M60.
S&W M19, S&W M57
During firing, a case slipped back from the cylinder against the back
plate locking up the pistol. Unable to rotate or open the cylinder until I
could get a shim between the case head and back plate to force the case
back into the cylinder.
S&W M64, S&W M66, Ruger Security Six
Firing light target loads (148 gr. HBWC over light charge of Bullseye),
primer backed out of a case up against the back plate. Pistols locked up,
unable to get a shim between expended primer and backplate, had to pound
open cylinder.
S&W M64
Dropped into muddy creek during reloading. The pistol picked up enough
gunk to freeze the cylinder pawl. Had to pull the side plate and clean out
the lock work before it was usable. As an aside, had exactly the same
thing happen, in the same place, with a Walther P-38 some years earlier.
Field stripped the P-38, swished the slide, barrel, and frame in the same
stream, made sure the bore was clear, and continued shooting.
S&W M57, S&W M19
Unburned powder residue built up under the ejector star, unable to
close cylinder until residue removed.
Yes, Virginia, revolvers do jam <g>.
I've also found revolvers to be generally more delicate and prone to
parts breakage than self-loaders. I've had problems with bent extractor
rods, bent cranes, broken cylinder pawls, timing problems, split forcing
cones, and screws loosening up during firing. The only parts I can recall
breaking during normal usage with self-loaders are the safeties on three
(very well used) Walthers and the firing pins on one C96 Mauser, one PPK,
and one Ortiges. As usual, YMMV.
Regards,
Kyrie
kyrie...@aol.com
in article <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, dav...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> ...
Prefer to use for what? I still do quite a bit of target shooting with
revolvers, and a lot of plinking. OTOH, I rarely carry a revolver for the
purposes of self-defense anymore. Self-loaders are, IMHO, better suited to
that task.
> ...
If we use the word "obsolete" to mean "superseded or fallen into
disuse", then the answer is a qualified "yes". There has been very little
military use of revolvers in the last half century, and the majority of
police departments around the world have used self-loaders in preference
to revolvers for about as long. The U.S. law enforcement folks seem to be
headed in the same direction.
In terms of sporting use, it's a little less black and white. Revolvers
have a loyal (and very vocal <g>) following amongst the pin shooting set.
Self-loaders have the same kind of following among the ipsy crowd. There
are folks who swear that the majority of handgun hunting is done with
revolvers, but that strikes me as debatable; most of the people I've know
who hunted with pistols preferred TCs or bolt action pistols.
OTOH, if we use "obsolete" in the sense of "ineffective" then the
answer would be "no". The advent of self-loaders has not made revolvers
stop working <g>.
> ...
Yup.
> ...
I'd say "no". I've found that it's a bit easier to teach a newbie the
fundamentals of firearm safety and shooting technique with a revolver than
with a self-loader, but it seems to be just as easy to have an accident
with a revolver as a self-loader. IMO, it's inattention and lack of
knowledge which are at the bottom of most accidents rather than the type
of firearm involved.
Anyway, that my $0.02 worth...
Regards,
Kyrie
kyrie...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.961217...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu>,
"E.G. Clayton" <cla...@rouge.phys.lsu.edu> writes:
> ...
In the last thirty odd years I've exactly 2 magazine springs take a set
while loaded. One of these was a Ruger 10/22 magazine and the other was a
Norinco magazine for their bolt action rifle.
OTOH, I have two Luger magazines which were left fully loaded from some
time in the 1920's until the late 1980's and two P-38 Magazines which had
been loaded sometime during WWII and left that way until the early 1990's.
All four of these magazines still function flawlessly. And then there is
the Glock M17 magazine I loaded in 1987 and lost until 1992. It, too,
still functions flawlessly.
As I have a tendency to load magazines and forget about them, I could
go on at length <g>. But suffice it to say that, IME, magazines "freezing
up" due to being left loaded for long periods of time is a rare event.
About like having brass revolver cases corrode in the chamber of a
revolver :-)
Just my $0.02 worth.
Regards,
Kyrie
djl
On 15 Dec 1996 19:30:07 -0500, "Kelly Klaas" <kela...@magiclink.com> wrote:
~
~
~- <dav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article <58vk0g$m...@xring.cs.umd.edu>...
~#
~#
~# Does anyone prefer to use revolvers anymore? Or are they obsolete
~# now with all the high tech polymer autoloaders? Every cop I see has a
~# Glock or a some other high capacity gun. Are revolvers just for the
~# untrained?
~#
~# I have three revolvers. All Smith & Wesson.
I'd like to have a nice semi-auto for shooting but when it comes to
~self-defense, I'll grab the revolver first!!!!
~
I have several revolvers, mostly in .45 Colt, some in .45ACP (Using moon clips).
Big bore revolvers are very satisfying to shoot. My home defense gun is a S&W
25-2 in .45ACP that was shortened to <3" by some previous owner. I had it
tuned up, ranged up, fitted with a nite sight. My first choice for a woods
gun is one of my 25-5's either 4" or 6" depending on how far I need to carry it,
and a robust handload behind a 250g XTP. I should not need more than six
shots to adjust some perps attitude.
djl
d...@removethis.sirius.com <Address antispamed>
--
Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for
pretty much the same reasons.
Robert Christman
The Polymath wrote:
> ...
Actually, I had the exact same problem with a Colt Trooper Mk III.
Primer, no powder. Bullet lodged in barrel but did clear cylinder, time
to fix, less than the 1911. (of course I took the time to remove the
barrel from the 1911 before tapping the bullet out, didn't have to but
it was easier since I was already at the workbench) Depends on just
what the failure is. I have seen a semi-auto (M92) jam solid because
sand got down in the open top frame. Didn't think I would ever get that
one apart (and still don't understand how it passed the military testing
to get accepted!) Any gun can jam, or fail. Proper maintenance and
good ammo are critical for all firearms. Both revolvers and semi-autos
have their weak and strong points. Either make an excellent defensive
weapon for a trained user. An untrained shooter is dangerous with
either.
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN(Ret)
mat...@aol.com
Yes. Revolvers are obsolete. Please clean out your old single action
Colts, 3-screw Rugers, and N-Frame Smiths (the older the better) and send
them to me. They aren't worth the scrap steel they are made of. I'll pay
the shipping charges, though, just to help you get rid of those pieces of
junk....MatQuig/aol
Burt Mitchell
The Polymath wrote:
#
# I'll bet it took much less than a minute once he had the rod and mallet in
# hand. Farnam was beating on that revolver for about 20 minutes before he
# got the cylinder opened. Some LEOs I know, including Farnam, carry a slim
# rod for clearing such jams from autoloaders. I'm in the market for one
# myself.
#
# --
# The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP)
# poly...@pacbell.net
# http://www.babcom.com/polymath
# (818) 882-6309
Jerry,
Massad Ayoob's business catalog (Police Bookshelf/Armor of New Hampshire/
Lethal Force Institute) has something called a "Dejammer". It's essentially
a smaller diameter kubotan made of aircraft aluminum. It was especially
designed to do exactly what you want. One end of it is even threaded for
a bore brush. It costs $9.95. I bought one, but, I don't carry it all the
time.
Contact their order department at: 800-624-9049. Ask for a catalog to be
sent to you while you're at it.
Burt
--
| Burt Mitchell | Illegitimus non carborundum est |
| bfm...@frontiernet.net | |
Julius Chang
In article <59aadn$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Gross <confe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#"The Polymath" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
..
# An autoloader with a similar problem
# > ...
..
#Assuming one carries a cleaning rod on them at all times. Not a snipe, but
#how else would you clear a bullet lodged half an inch down the barrel of
#an auto? I know it would take less time with an auto, but the big if is IF
You carry a Monadnock Dejammer, which also acts as a keyring,
Kubotan, and cleaning rod.
-Julius
The Polymath
John Gross <confe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<59aadn$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
| "The Polymath" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| An autoloader with a similar problem
|Assuming one carries a cleaning rod on them at all times. Not a snipe, but
|how else would you clear a bullet lodged half an inch down the barrel of
|an auto? I know it would take less time with an auto, but the big if is IF
|you have a cleaning rod handy at the approiate time. Suffice to say that
|either situation (auto or revolver) on the street would be a not so good
|situation.
Absolutely true, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. They make those
clearing rods in the form of key chains and many people do carry them. I'm
told Ayoob's Police Bookshelf sells them and plan to get one for myself.
In the event, of course, drawing the backup and/or finding cover would be
the first priority.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP)
Frank Silbermann
<599p7j$d...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, Colt45 <col...@redshift.com> wrote:
#
#Revolver Malfunction
# ...
#This is just quick list. ANYONE who shoots a revolver enough to be
#skilled in its use will run in to these problems. Further more NONE of
#them can be addressed in a combat situation. All represent a lethal
#failure of the gun.
#
#Autoloaders when properly tuned and useing ammunition that has been
#fired hundreads of times with no problems in the hands of a skill
#shooter just like the revolver approach 100% percent reliability.
Unless for a few months you forget to lubricate it
and let it get dusty (e.g. carried in an ankle holster).
Or, if you're in close quarter combat and press the muzzle
against the chest of your target (with a revolver, this will
maximize its stopping power, but would cause an autoloader
to go out of battery and misfire).
I agree with Massad Ayoob's preference: a serious autoloader
as the primary weapon, and a small .38sp revolver for backup.
#I understand your love for revolvers I share it. But the smaller
#lighter combat effective autoloaders are the way to go for both
#professionals and cilvilians who are interested in a serious carry gun.
I tend to agree, though I think a service revolver
in the right hands should always be _adequate_.
If I were a cop who had practiced seriously for
twenty years, but only with revolvers, I'd be reluctant to switch.
Likewise, I'd have more chance of successfully evading
an auto accident in a mediocre car I'd driven for years
than in a much better-handling car I'd only driven for
a couple of months.
Frank Silbermann f...@eecs.tulane.edu
BORDEN1000
what is a revolver ???
Gary
JayStr wrote:
# It sort of seems like all the actual mysterious
# mechanical ailments (see above) have involved either Rossi or Taurus
# revolvers. No Smith & Wessons and only one Ruger revolver had
# troubles, if I recall correctly. All the rest were ammo-related
# complaints... or Brazilian wheeelguns. Is it the quality control, the > quality of the steel, or just a rash of bad luck? Comments on this?
My problems all occurred with real S&W's, and Rugers, so while the
South American guns MAY be more problematical, they do not have
the market cornered. But, IMO, Smiths are the only way to go, no
revolver champion I know of shoots anything else.
I did read the bits about ammo problems, but a reliable gun is one
that is fault tolerant of poorly made ammo, and will shoot almost
anything with powder, like the S&W 625 .45 ACP will.