pretty darn fast

[deerslayer]

Whatever the case, I hope people don't start using this video to argue that revolvers are just as good or better than semi-autos. If you're Jerry Miculek, this is true; if you're one of the other five or six billion earthlings, you won't be able to do this with a revolver.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

I don't mean to kick anyone's pet goldfish here, but it is not 1917 any more and most autos made by QUALITY manufacturers are as reliable as any revolver and MORE robust.

Revolvers are still 19th century technology. It is a fairly complex "watch" like mechanism that dirt and unburnt powder can bind the mechanism. They can and do go out of time and have to have the cylinder retimed. I know, I've had it happen. I've also had one bind up to the point it had to have a wooden mallet beat the cylinder open. These were not rusty old 1903 Smiths, these were a 1990s manufactured 642 (bound up cylinder) and a 1990s vintage SW625. My Glocks, Sig 226, Wilson 1911, Colt 1911 (made in 1921), nor any other auto I have ever owned has ever had any kind of catastrophic failure like this. So much for more reliable.....

The "reliability issue" with revolvers comes from the early years of the 20th century when there were a bunch of new european autos (and some early american designs) becoming available and the american market was heavily entrenched with the revolver. Most of these autos were of questionable reliability especially if black powder loads -which they were not designed around-were used. The revolver however would still fire if you could pull the trigger. So the buying public came to view the revolver as more reliable.

But oddly enough EVERY major army in the world would dump their wheel guns for autos by the mid 1920s. If these autos were "unreliable" does anyone really think they would have switched? For military combat where the guns are likely to get filthy and maybe be used as clubs (which can easily damage a revolver) revolvers were dumped 90 years ago! The reason we went to war in 1917 with a .45acp revolver is because Colt couldn't make enough 1911s FAST ENOUGH to arm everyone with and they already had tooling in place to make the revolver and so did Smith and Wesson. It was a matter of expedience NOT a matter of reliability!

So after WWII when they began looking to improve ammo for autos -sp and hp- some things would feed well and some would not. But due to its design, a revolver could even shoot the flat full Wadcutter shaped stuff. Autos still were designed around FMJ round nose stuff and early soft and hollow point stuff did not feed as well as the FMJ did. So again we get the notion that the revolver is more "reliable" but it is not a apples to apples comparison. If I ask a 5'2 guy to dunk a basketball on a 10 foot goal in a dunk contest against a 6'10 guy is that a fair comparison of ability? Of course not. One is more well built to do that particular activity and the other is not.

If I put unleaded gas in a diesel engine and try to drive cross country does the breakdown of the vehicle mean it is an unreliable vehicle? No. It means we fed it something it was not DESIGNED to use.So it is NOT that the autos were less reliable, they were less reliable with ammo that at the time was never intended to be used in those autos by their designers!

So no, revolvers are not more reliable. They are a 19th century technology that in the hands of a competent revolver shooter CAN be very effective (for the first 6 shots) but they are not as robust as autos, they do not have the capacity of any decent sized auto, they are harder to shoot (neither you nor I are Jerry Miculek and I don't care WHO you are a 4lb Single action trigger is easier to get good hits with than a 10-12lb DA trigger) and they are MUCH slower to reload.

Before anyone brands me a revolver hater , consider this. I won 7 consecutive Cowboy Action shooting yearly club championships between 2 clubs in SE Tn (TN Mountain Marauders in Chattanooga and Ocoee Rangers in Cleveland) in 5 years- 5 consecutive with one club and 2 consecutive with another at the same time. So I know a little about how to sling a wheel gun. And I CARRY a SW342 as my auxiliary (or "backup" if you must call it that) pocket gun ...BUT I also carry a Glock 34 in an IWB holster as my REAL gun. The SW is not carried because of any perceived reliability issue. It is carried simply because due to its size and shape it is not as obvious in my front pocket as a Glock 26 is and due to its shape I can draw it from my jeans faster than I can draw my G26. It is the derringer of the 21st century. But when I am wearing looser fitting cargo shorts I often go with the small auto.......The J frame fits a niche...but that niche is not "reliability".

Edited February 17, 2008 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Guest jackdog]

Well, I carry the G23 most of the time, but I still think revolvers have a place in the carry market. Yes most semi's are reliable, some more than others. But a revolver is only a trigger pull away from the next round if you have a dud. In a defense situation that could easily save your life.

[deerslayer]

I still like revolvers and am actually considering a SW 442 for a CCW. I just get tired of people referring to the Miculek video when they claim a revolver can be emptied and reloaded more quickly than an auto. Yes, it technically can, but who (except that guy) can actually do it?

[Guest Grout]

Broken strikers in Glocks are considered "catastrophic" .

[bteague2]

In the first video at the end when they show it in super slow motion is the last shot a squib round? There wasn't muzzle blast like the first two and you can see a round or something almost fall out the end? (maybe I'm wrong and it was the case being ejected?)

[Guest DVC]

I don't mean to kick anyone's pet goldfish here, but it is not 1917 any more and most autos made by QUALITY manufacturers are as reliable as any revolver and MORE robust.

Revolvers are still 19th century technology. It is a fairly complex "watch" like mechanism that dirt and unburnt powder can bind the mechanism. They can and do go out of time and have to have the cylinder retimed. I know, I've had it happen. I've also had one bind up to the point it had to have a wooden mallet beat the cylinder open. These were not rusty old 1903 Smiths, these were a 1990s manufactured 642 (bound up cylinder) and a 1990s vintage SW625. My Glocks, Sig 226, Wilson 1911, Colt 1911 (made in 1921), nor any other auto I have ever owned has ever had any kind of catastrophic failure like this. So much for more reliable.....

!

You were saying?

[BJB]

Thats INSANE

[AH1356]

"objects fall 33.3ft/sec so 1/10 the height = 1/10th the time."

This is not correct. Objects accelerate when they fall at about 32 feet per second per second. In a full second an object starting at rest will fall 16 feet (starting speed = 0, end speed = 32 FPS, average speed = 16, time = 1, rate X time = distance, 1 X 16 = 16). It will take almost a half of a second the coin to fall 3 feet if it starts at a dead stop.

Gravity - it's not just a good idea. It's the LAW.

[BrasilNuts]

OK......Who had 2 years 11 months and 10 days?

[Guest DaG]

If you want to learn to shoot fast and accurately start shooting USPSA matches. The "assasin" was an old school IPSC shooter.

DaG

[bulm540]

Yup he was a GM in USPSA. His name is Jim Zubiena if I recall correctly.

Edited January 27, 2011 by bulm540

[bulm540]

If you want to learn to shoot fast and accurately start shooting USPSA matches. The "assasin" was an old school IPSC shooter.

DaG

Ditto!!!!!

[timcalhoun]

Yup he was a GM in USPSA. His name is Jim Zubienna if I recall correctly.

I figured that was probably the case.

[RWF]

+1 on him being a GM, this same discussion was out a few years ago.

the scarey part to me is this GM and a few others can REALLY do this!

if i am not mistaken Rob (the great one) did something like this to some officers in a training program. do not remember if he got them all or the last one got him.

[RWF]

"objects fall 33.3ft/sec so 1/10 the height = 1/10th the time."

This is not correct. Objects accelerate when they fall at about 32 feet per second per second. In a full second an object starting at rest will fall 16 feet (starting speed = 0, end speed = 32 FPS, average speed = 16, time = 1, rate X time = distance, 1 X 16 = 16). It will take almost a half of a second the coin to fall 3 feet if it starts at a dead stop.

Gravity - it's not just a good idea. It's the LAW.

damn i had to go back 2 pages to figure out where that came from

[Guest DVC]

Yup he was a GM in USPSA. His name is Jim Zubiena if I recall correctly.

Who later fell on hard times and was involved in a robbery years later IIRC.

[Guest DaG]

Who later fell on hard times and was involved in a robbery years later IIRC.

Damn! I did not know that one. But, still, if you wanna shoot fast and accurately, USPSA/IPSC is the game to play !!

DaG

[bulm540]

Who later fell on hard times and was involved in a robbery years later IIRC.

Urban Legend

The Gun Zone -- Jim Zubiena

he still shoots SASS.

Make Ready Forum

Edited January 29, 2011 by bulm540

[Guest DVC]

Good to hear.

[bulm540]

ditto!!!!