I had the opportunity to attend a refresher class for my concealed carry (CCW) permit recently, and walked away with a few quick observations I wanted to share with you. It seems like these biannual classes always provide something interesting and relevant to comment on, when you’re a RevolverGuy.
Good news
I went to a new vendor for the state-mandated, eight hour class this year, and was honestly quite happy with the program. Longtime readers will recall I was quite unimpressed with the previous vendor from the last several cycles, but this one ran a very professional operation. I was happy with their safety protocols, how they managed the live fire range, and the quality of the classroom instruction.
As an instructor myself, there were certainly some things I would have said or done differently if it were my class to run, but I was generally pleased with the operation, and think the typical student would certainly benefit a lot from the experience. I considered it time well spent.
Where’s all the revolvers?
So, the new company’s program was a definite change from the past, but one thing that was very familiar was the dearth of revolvers in the hands of students. My class had about two dozen students, and most all of them had their three guns to qualify with [our state requires you to list the serial number of the gun(s) you will carry on your permit, and prohibits you from carrying a gun that’s not listed. The state generally limits you to three guns total on the permit, and you’re required to qualify with each of them]. We had somewhere in the vicinity of 60-70 guns being fired, and I’m pretty sure I had the only revolver in the crowd. There may have been another, but I didn’t see one, and didn’t hear anyone else identify as a revolver shooter when the instructor asked.
I never expect to see a lot of revolvers in a class like this, but I do expect to see more than one. One gun out of sixty or seventy is a pretty poor showing for our team.
The near total absence of revolvers tells me a few things:
1.) They’re not being effectively marketed as self defense tools. Even the largest makers of revolvers don’t spend much effort promoting them, and when they do, they’re often portrayed as recreational tools, not defensive ones. Sadly, some of these marketing teams don’t even understand their own revolver products well enough to promote them.
2.) The people who have the greatest influence on buyers (friends, family, sales staff, instructors, social media “influencers,” etc.) aren’t steering them towards revolvers. I’d venture to say that most of the potential influencers don’t have much revolver experience themselves, so they’re unlikely to suggest them to others.
3.) I don’t need to feel bad about writing the occasional article that promotes revolvers, because there’s apparently a large number of people in our gun culture who could still benefit from it. Our readers are “the choir” that I don’t need to “preach” to, but there’s still plenty of room, and need, for a defense of the revolver in these pages.
Alternatives
Another entry in the, “I’ve seen this movie before” category: I saw a few shooters in the class who were struggling with the subcompact autos they’d brought to qualify with. In some cases, the manual of arms seemed a little overwhelming to them, and in other cases, they were just having a hard time shooting the little guns well.
It was interesting to see that some of the students were complaining about the manual safeties on their autos, because they were difficult to operate. The Kalifornia-approved versions of guns like the S&W Shield-series or Ruger Max-9 have tiny safety levers that are difficult to disengage, and even more difficult to engage, because the control has such a low profile and often requires more force than the shooter can generate (with a reduced purchase) to run them. Other guns, like the Sig Sauer P238 have adequately-sized levers, but they’re located in places where the reach is awkward to work them, on the small frame guns. Even the otherwise excellent Sig P365 pistol can be a little awkward to Off/On-safe, in Kalifornia drag, depending on the size and flexibility (arthritis, anyone?) of the shooter’s hand.
Our instructor acknowledged the problem, and admitted most students ran the guns like the Shields and 365s without using the safety at all. To the instructor’s credit, they did admit this could cause a problem for a shooter who was habituated to ignoring the manual safety, if it was unknowingly bumped to the On-Safe position, but didn’t really offer any workable solutions for dealing with the problem.
To my way of thinking, the problem and solution were clear–you’ve got the wrong gun if you can’t work the manual safety, and it needs to be replaced with one you can properly operate. As a RevolverGuy, I’d be quick to note this is one of the principal advantages of a gun like a snub revolver, that it can be safely carried and put into action without concern for the operation of a manual safety lever. Long before the computer mouse was a thing, revolvers had perfected the “point and click” user interface!
Operating an autopistol’s slide can be tough for many shooters, and the process is more difficult with the subcompacts because the recoil spring has to be so much stronger, and there’s less slide for the hand to get a purchase on. I saw a few folks “doing the dance” and really working hard to get this task accomplished, and thought to myself they’d be better off with a revolver that didn’t require any feats of strength to load, unload, or clear a stoppage.
Too, some of the same shooters had difficulty shooting their 9mm subcompacts accurately, because the recoil was too substantial for them. How many of them, I thought, would be better off shooting a smaller caliber or a reduced recoil loading? These are things the revolver excels at, but many autos struggle with, because the revolvers don’t use the recoil generated by the cartridge to work the action of the gun.
Capacity Craze
I suspect many of these shooters were led to believe that they needed the enhanced capacity of an autoloader, and the ability to quickly reload it, for self defense. How many salesmen, do you think, turned up their nose at a mere five or six-shot revolver, because it didn’t hold enough ammo, and steered their customer towards a gun they couldn’t operate or shoot properly?
I’ve got nothing against capacity, and think it’s pretty helpful to have more ammo on board, but I also think it’s useless to chase capacity at the sake of being able to get your gun into play with safety and efficiency, and getting good hits on target. All the ammo in the world won’t help you if you flinch and miss, or can’t get the gun to work, methinks.
But I guess RevolverGuys can be silly like that.
Prejudice
One thing that stood out to me at the class was the subtle autopistol bias that permeated the instruction.
In discussing the various types of handgun actions, for instance, there was zero discussion of revolvers. Striker-fired, single action, and traditional double action autos were all discussed, but there was no mention of revolvers, for example.
The same carried on into the discussions about shooting techniques like grip (thumbs forward was the recommendation), trigger management (riding the sear was recommended), and getting the gun running again when it stopped (Tap-Rack, of course!).
Round guns need not apply.
A written exam was administered at the end of class, and the bias showed in the test questions, as well. One of the questions that sticks in my mind was based around the presumption that you would always be shooting an auto, and would need to angle the ejection port away from cover that you were shooting around.
Another that raised a cynical chuckle from yours truly read like this:
Only ________ ammunition is recommended for self-defense.
A. Full Metal Jacket
B. Wadcutter
C. Hollowpoint
D. None of the above
Obviously (!) the correct answer was C . . . and there I was, feeling silly, because I thought a wadcutter from a snub would do the job nicely. ; ^ )
I suppose it makes little sense to dedicate much effort to providing revolver-relevant instruction if nobody is actually showing up to class with the things, but I have to wonder if the auto-centric instruction guarantees that result? Is there a chicken-egg argument, here?
Furthermore, I do fear that a novice shooter armed with a revolver would fail to get any useful advice on how to run the gun from the program. I suppose that’s job insurance for us RevolverFest instructors, but it is a shame that these excellent self defense guns, and their users, are being ignored.
Comparisons
One thing I found interesting was that I shot my S&W 640 as accurately as I did my Glock 26 on my county’s mandated course of fire. Now, the course only requires the shooter to shoot out to 15 yards, with over half of the rounds fired at 10 yards, but at these close distances, the snub gave up nothing in terms of practical accuracy.
The sights on the Glock 26 were better, and allowed me to acquire them a little faster (particularly between shots fired), but I was capable of the same level of precision with the snub, which is so frequently derided as an “inaccurate” gun by those who haven’t learned to shoot them well.
Onward!
It’s an autopistol world, for sure, and I don’t expect that will ever change, as long as we’re shooting gunpowder.
However, a quality revolver still has a place in our defensive preparations, and I think it does some jobs better than anything else. All guns have Pros and Cons, and our revolvers are not exempt from the rule, but they’ve got a lot going for them and don’t deserve a second-class treatment.
It’s up to us to educate our friends and family about them, and keep them an active part of the conversation. As friend Grant Cunningham once advised:
As usual, you really hit the nail on the head here.
1) Manufacturers not taking revolvers seriously as defensive handguns is a big problem. Aside from zero marketing, the lack of QC and questionable design changes add fuel to the fire. For example, Smith & Wesson now produces multiple medium frame revolvers without gas rings. This would have never been accepted in a time where police were still carrying revolvers. Why should it be tolerated for civilian self defense tools?
2) It’s difficult to steer newbies to revolvers in an era where many out of the box wheelguns can no longer be trusted. The QC concerns have spread like wildfire. Just take a look at the top comments on any revolver video that Smith posts on its YouTube channel.
A lack of options is another problem. The revolver equivalent of a “micro 9” would likely be a D frame sized .38 six shooter, with an alloy frame. Yet Ruger, Smith, and Colt offer nothing that fills this obvious void. Some industry folks are pushing niche options like .32, but that’s not the real answer.
3) Regardless of these current problems, a quality revolver still makes a ton of sense for the average civilian in 2026. For me, their advantages (not being grip sensitive, capable of being fired when pressed against an attacker, size having zero impact on reliability, being able to just pull the trigger again in the event of a light primer strike, etc…) greatly outweigh the capacity disadvantage in a civilian self defense scenario.
This is why this website is so valuable today. More people need to be aware that the bottom feeder isn’t their only option.
Yes, the QC issues are killing us, aren’t they? It’s hard to recommend a revolver for serious use when most of the products are questionable. We’ve had this renaissance of great fighting revolver designs in the past several years, but none of them can be counted on to work right from the box. The Glock wins, hands down.
I’m still waiting for Colt to give us a true Cobra. I expected it last year, but it didn’t come. I’m hoping it will arrive in January. In the meantime, the Diamondback SDR-A is a serious contender, if you don’t mind the humpback.
It’s an interesting landscape, in that sense for sure. Colt is offering middling quality 1911s for the most part, but their revolver offerings are quite good. All the newer Colt wheelguns I own have run perfectly with everything I’ve put through them.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy and I certainly wouldn’t carry any new S&W revolver, without extensive vetting. I’ve been bitten too many times by S&W lately to want to bother putting enough rounds through another one to know if I can trust it or not.
The renaissance of the “fighting revolver” has gotten a lot of attention in recent years, and much of that has had to do with the involvement of Lipsey’s and S&W. But from what I’ve seen, S&W doesn’t know how to build a proper revolver anymore, and they dragging Lipsey’s and the “fighting revolver” advocates down with it.
Yes, I really feel bad for my pal Jason. He’s inspired some wonderful projects, but I don’t think he’s found a partner that can reliably achieve the vision. Very disappointing, for all of us.
I have a feeling that, because if the nature of the internet and social media now, you hear a disproportionally high number of complaints and an equally disproportionate low number of comments from satisfied customers when it comes to revolvers. There is no doubt quality control had slipped on everything new, from automobiles to guns. But with a super easy way to post complaints now we probably hear about every single lemon that hits the market.
I buy new and used revolvers and seem to find an equal number of problems with the older ones that I do with the new ones. There again, I am extremely discerning, picky, and know what to look for, even by brand.
I just bought a brand new S&W 627 PC 5 inch to shoot in Steel Challenge that is absolutely perfect in every way. I mean it is a jewel. So the manufacturers still put out good ones. But there is little to no incentive for folks who are happy with their purchase to post about it. So we typically only hear or read about the bad ones.
Ultimately, inspect closely before you buy. I will not buy a revolver in today’s world without a through inspection and right of refusal if it doesn’t pass.
Ben, I agree, in part, that the electronic media can exaggerate problems. That’s something I’ve discussed frequently in these pages. I also agree that there are some great guns in the mix coming from the industry.
However, my personal experience confirms that we’re experiencing elevated QC issues in the industry.
In the past three years, I’ve experienced issues with seven new revolvers that I’ve purchased from Colt, Ruger, Taurus and S&W. In three cases, the revolvers had to be returned to the factory. In three cases, I elected to fix the minor problems myself. In one case, I simply sold the gun (with a declaration of the issue) instead of dealing with it.
In the same period, I purchased another three guns from those makers that were problem-free. That’s not a great track record, if you compare the Wins and Losses.
I’ve also personally observed issues with a number of guns owned by my students, my fellow students, my writers, other writers, and other shooters on the ranges I frequent and work at. I’ve also seen problems with “pool guns” delivered for industry events and training, and have spoken to industry professionals at a number of companies who’ve shared insights on what they’re seeing.
So, I base my opinion on much more than the latest internet chatter, and all sources point towards an elevated QC crisis in the revolver-making industry. It’s more acute at some companies than others, as we’ve discussed.
It’s especially frustrating that “Brand X” can ship a great product on one day, and a piece of junk on the next, but that’s the nature of systemic QC failures–you never know what you’ll get in the box of chocolates these days. Might be a winner, might be a loser.
We’re doing what we can to help encourage reforms, but it’s a tough battle. There are many pressures on these companies, and it’s not always easy to get things done. We’ll continue to advocate for RevolverGuys, though.
I do think you provide excellent advice about doing a good inspection before you buy. Some issues can’t be detected until you put rounds downrange, but many can be discovered with a thorough inspection, as you suggested.
Thanks for reading!
Spot on, I own both new Night Guards, the 396 went back after two cylinder fulls and now that it’s back I’m not real happy either…
I’m sorry to hear thst, Gerald. I’ve got a buddy who just received his back from S&W, and I’ve got my fingers crossed that it will work properly. There’s so much promise in that design!
Maybe he should try the Henry Bigboy for the next Lipsey’s project!
It can be hard for revolver guys to accept, but the reality is that a lot of the arguments that used to exist for supposed advantages that a wheelgun has over a semi-auto have simply fallen by the wayside. New revolvers aren’t “more reliable” than new semi-autos – in fact, many new revolvers are less notably reliable than a Glock, M&P or PDP. They are more expensive. They don’t hold much ammo. The DA trigger takes more practice to be accurate with. The ammo is generally more expensive.
It isn’t surprising to me at all that most people aren’t choosing revolvers in today’s market – they offer few, if any advantages if we’re being honest with ourselves. They are an aficionado’s choice. That’s not a bad thing, it just is what it is.
Hammer, I generally agree with your points. You’re right that revolvers no longer enjoy many of the traditional advantages that they used to, and like you, I’m not surprised that most folks default to them.
I do think the reliability issue is nuanced. I see it as a three-legged stool, made up of Gun-Ammo-Shooter. In the era of the Glock (and atrocious QC from Smith and Ruger), the revolver no longer succeeds on the first leg. The only exception might be when we consider maintenance, as a neglected revolver generally performs better than a neglected auto. We did have a student whose auto kept choking because it had no lubrication (a few drops in the right places solved it).
The ammo is a bit of a toss-up, but probably favors the auto because so much of the training ammo we shoot these days is foreign made and not that great. I do wish the supply of quality revolver ammo was more plentiful, and more affordable.
It’s the Shooter leg of the stool where the revolver has a fighting chance. I saw several folks at class who had self-induced stoppages that had to be fixed, and none of them would have happened with a revolver. The non-dedicated shooter might actually be much better off, from a reliability perspective, with a revolver, as long as they have a quality sample that’s been fed quality ammo.
I think revolvers still fill an important niche. They aren’t the first, or even the best, choice for most folks, but I think they’re the best choice for more people than we realize. A lot of folks who carry autos would be better off with a revolver, even if they don’t know it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mike and I generally agree. The reality is that a reliable revolver has become an expensive and iffy proposition in many cases these days. Even .38 Special costs a fair bit more than 9mm, while not performing better in any way. And with the current lack of QC, one should be putting a lot of ammo through a new revolver before trusting it enough to carry.
Revolvers don’t tend to have “better” triggers than many new semi-autos, unless one is going to put the time in to really learn how to run one. But the flipside of that is, imo, one of the biggest continued advantages for new shooters – it’s a lot hard to have a negligent discharge with a 12lb long travel trigger than it is with a modern short, crisp semi trigger. And learning that DA trigger will make one a better shooter overall, imo.
It’s funny that we’ve seen such a reversal in such a relatively short period of time – from “reliability” being one of the biggest advantages the wheelgun had over semi-autos, to the present, when the average semi-auto is very reliable out of the box, and revolver reliability has become something of a crapshoot.
I have to agree with your points also.
I have to agree.
Mike that make me feel real old.
It is a perfect segway for someone of musical ability to take that Country song by George Jones aka “Possum” and change the lyrics a bit to , “Whats going to fill my holster ? “Who’s going to shoot that good? , and on and on.
Got to see George in concert before he passed.
Since my singin’ voice sounds like possum roadkill, I’ll have to leave that challenge on the table, buddy. Maybe Sheriff Jim Wilson can rescue us? 😁
I grew up in the revolver era when the only “automatic” pistols that were seen in my area were 1911s and those new Ruger 22s. I still routinely carry a revolver, probably always will.
Nothing wrong with that, Steve. Why mess with success? I carry both, but wouldn’t feel handicapped if I was restricted to the revolver.
I agree with most of the commenters here. I bought my first S&W revolvers in 1976, but now the QC is so bad I’m scared to buy another one. It seems to me that, since most J-frame buyers buy them for personal defense, S&W would have a legal and moral obligation to make sure they work. (But I’m not a lawyer, and I’m only a part-time philosopher.)
Regarding your shooting as well with the revolver s with the auto, I noticed the same thing. I shoot my LEOSA quals with a compact striker-fired auto and a J-frame, and both guns are fired on the same 36-round course, going from 3 to 25 yards. Last year I shot marginally better with the J-frame than with the auto, and this year I got the same score for each. (And I shot the J-frame with the new S&W Enhanced Boot Grips you turned me on to instead of the Pachmayr Compacs I’ve had on the gun for 25 years now. They make the gun shoot a little higher [it’s certainly not me] and brought my score down a little, since I’m not quite used to them yet.)
And as a side note, just for grins I went back and reread your previous articles about your CCW recerts, and reread the comments. In your later one (January 2025, if I recall), I posted a question whether the top-mounted cylinder release on the S&W Bodyguard 38 can be accidentally activated drawing from a pocket. A reader answered me (he’s carried one for several years and never had it happen), but the interesting part was, his answer was dated about a month ago. So not only do your readers take the time to answer questions, your old columns are being read over a year after they’re posted. That must mean A) there is a lot of interest in revolvers out there, and B) people are interested in what this column has to say.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you Sir, that’s kind of you to point out, even though I sabotaged your gun with those high-shootin’ grips. 😉 Incidentally, I hope yours have been holding up better than some of the others that have been reported–it seems the rubber is delaminating from the plastic skeleton when they’re carried a bunch. Another frustrating example of manufacturing deficiency.
Kevin has been working with the 2.0 version of the M&P Bodyguard revolver and reports there have been no problems with the cylinder release being activated by mistake, so that’s two positive data points to consider.
I hope the near-decade of material we’ve provided will continue to help shooters and the industry that serves them. It’s been awful quiet in the comments lately, so the engagement on this present article is sincerely appreciated.
At what I’d call a second layer inside my home is a metal sign showing a pair of crossed, 19th-centtury S&W single-action revolvers, with the words “Smith & Wesson spoken here.” Despite that, I’d be reluctant to recommend a new S&W revolver to someone who either was not capable of doing his own maintenance on it or who did not live near enough for me to do it for him.
Over the last decade or so, I recall replacing a broken hammer and, later, a broken hammer block on one Model 60 with a 3″ barrel. More recently, I had to repalce broken trigger links on two different 432-UC’s. To boot, in past years, I could phone S&W and request free repalcement of broken parts. When the first of the trigger links broke, I was told that they will not longer ship parts associated with the trigger and that I could return the gun for repair. Fortunately, when I went elsewhere to purchase the replacement parts, I ordered three of them so there was no delay when the second one broke.
Have other folks had better or worse luck with other brands?
Stephen, I’ve heard so many stories about QC issues from trusted sources in the past few years, and have seen or suffered so many on my own, that I don’t think any of the makers are performing as they should. S&W, Ruger, Colt and Taurus have all been represented. Of those “Big Four,” I think Colt and Taurus are probably doing the best job of building quality guns, but neither are immune from problems.
S&W has disappointed me on the Lipseys launches–UC, Mountain Gun, and Night Guard. The ideas are great, the designs are mostly there, but the execution has been problematic. They’re building some excellent plastic autos these days, but the revolvers are much more of a crap shoot–a good one can be exciting and rewarding, but a bad one will cause lots of frustration, and you’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting the right door, it seems.
I’d have to rate Colt as the best bet, right now, mostly on the strength of the Pythons and Anacondas, which are generally very, very good (minus the sticky cylinder release on the Python, which continues to plague the ones I’ve run across). I will note that one of our regular readers has a Python that’s been giving him fits, so it seems no product line is immune from the “Monday Gun Syndrome,” but the Pythons are probably as safe a bet as you can find in the revolver market. Unfortunately, they’re too big and heavy to merit consideration for carry, and remain a “house gun” at best, or a recreational gun.
The Cobras and King Cobras seem to be pretty good, but it appears the MIM hammers have been the weak spot, with several concerning reports (in these pages, and elsewhere) of them breaking. I’ll note the Python hammers are not MIM, and that’s probably a useful clue. Good MIM can give excellent service, but bad MIM can spoil the rest of the effort. Hopefully Colt is working on this, because the guns are otherwise very compelling, and deserve a chance to shine.
I had an LCR and a Super Wrangler that gave me problems in the last few years. I’ve heard many complaints about LCRs and have seen lots of GP100s with crooked barrels. The Lipseys SP101s in .327 had a rough go of it. The Blackhawks seem to have dried up. Like S&W, I think Ruger is making some great plastic autos, but the revolvers are a crap shoot, right now.
If I were buying a small frame gun, my attention would be directed to Taurus. Even when they stumble, they do a good job of fixing it right away–the FIRST time–under warranty. The 66 Combats I’ve seen have been winners. They seem to be doing a better job than S&W and Ruger these days. I wish the 850 was available for sale, here.
Kimber is now out of the game, and wouldn’t normally rate a comment because of it, but I would say it’s a shame that they quit when they finally started to get the revolver recipe right with the K6xs.
The new player in the market, Diamondback, is worth watching. I’ve been generally impressed with the quality of manufacture, but would like to work with them more before I get too excited. They seem to be paying more attention to manufacturing and QC than most of the others. I’d trust a new, sight-unseen, Diamondback more than the equivalent gun from S&W these days.
Now that I’ve rained on everyone’s parade, I’ll have to see if I can find a stash of last year’s Christmas cards, because I probably won’t get any this year.
Incidentally, I have to give S&W a pass for not wanting to send you fire control parts. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable policy in this litigious age.
Because for years there have been so many negative reviews about certain American manufacturers of new centerfire revolvers, I refuse to own or carry one. But I regularly pack my vintage, 45-plus-years-old revolvers with confidence. Coupled with quality ammo and good maintenance, they’ve never failed me, though that doesn’t mean it could never happen. No mechanical device is 100% breakdown proof.
The only semi-auto pistol I occasionally carry is a third generation, double-action .45 Smith that’s always been reliable. Still, I have more faith in my older double-action revolvers.
Amen, brother. I’ve heard many say they want to preserve theirs, by not shooting them. Frankly, I’m not willing to bench them–they’re the only ones I’m really confident in, anymore.
Thank you for the great article Sir, and the equally as important comments. I have flip flopped a little and decided to give a Ruger SP101 357 with a shaved hanmer a chance instead of buying one of the new Sniths. I haven’t put a lot of rounds through it yet but have fired 150 rnds of magnum ammo of different makers and so far it has functioned fine. I added an XS tritium front sight to it and I hope to build enough confidence with it to trust it regularly.
Glad you won the lottery, Sir! Enjoy it!
As someone who loves revolvers, I understand why revolvers have fallen by the wayside.
First of all, revolvers don’t have a “universal” and “balanced” cartridge that every military/law enforcement/gangsta/bubba/etc uses. 9mm is widely available, and you can get it cheaper than any other centerfire handgun cartridge. That in and of itself is a major selling point.
When I say “balanced”, I mean that 9mm is just the right balance of power, capacity, and recoil. Pretty much anyone who’s not physically compromised in some way can learn to shoot 9mm; even in a smaller handgun like a Hellcat. This is one of the reasons the FBI dropped .40.
Lastly, almost every new semi-auto pistol these days comes cut for optics. Like it or not, optics on handguns aren’t a fad, and more and more people are seeing the advantage of them. Myself included.
I acquired a Taurus 66 Combat over a month ago, and ended up putting an Osight SE on it due to my positive experience trying a red dot. Now, I’m not going to get rid of all my non-optic handguns, and my Beretta 92 is still my go-to 9mm. However, any new defensive handgun I buy, excluding a pocket gun, I would prefer to have an optic if possible.
On the topic of durability, it was explained to me that, “Revolvers are more tolerant of neglect, while semi-autos are more tolerant of abuse”. I don’t know where I read that, it might have be an article here, but I think it’s accurate. You can take a Glock, drop it on the ground multiple times in a an action movie fight, bash someone’s head in with it, and throw it in a muddy swamp and it should still work. A S&W Model 10, Ruger GP100, or Colt King Cobra? I’m not so sure. Too many hard drops might (MIGHT, I’m not entirely sure) affect the timing, and I’m pretty sure mud would take it out of the fight. Even my Beretta 92 could handle mud better.
TL;DR, semi-autos are the most popular and choice, but I will continue using revolvers because I like them too much.
Problem with buying revolvers nowadays is that now I’m paranoid about buying new ones. Particularly after my Colt Python, whose recent issues I’ve described in another comment section. That was a $1400 firearm after tax, and even more if you include the D&L night sights I bought for it. If I’m spending that much on a firearm, issues like that are absolutely unacceptable. Even if the gunsmith gets it 100%, my trust in Colt is currently lost; where I’m not even sure I’d want to keep my Colts that work fine. THAT’S how bitter I am right now. The QC issues I had with new S&W revolvers in the past pale in comparison to the Python. I might even toss my Colt AR and get a Springfield Hellion depending on how tomorrow’s range session goes.
All that being said, I will end on a positive note by saying that I acquired an older Taurus 941 snub in .22WMR and it is reliable and very fun to shoot. Ignoring the weight, I even think it’s a good pocket carry. 8 rounds of .22 Magnum is, IN MY OPINION, nothing to sneeze at.
Axel, I’m glad to see you here, as I was just making a reference to you and your Python experience in a previous reply.
From the standpoint of striking a balance between performance and control, the .38 Special is a winner, but it certainly doesn’t enjoy the 9mm’s economy and availability anymore (and the 9mm outperforms it, ballistically, as well).
Optics capability has not been important to me, so it doesn’t figure in my personal calculus, but I fully understand its importance to others, and don’t think a manufacturer can ignore it in the current market. Revolvers are definitely playing catch up, here.
We’ve written a lot about the Abuse vs Neglect comparison in these pages, so I wouldn’t be surprised if “you heard it here, first.”
Thanks for writing. I hope that gunsmith has figured out your Python issue, or will soon. Did he report back on the headspace, yet?
The only reason I knocked .38 Special compared to 9mm is because .38 Special can get very unpleasant in small, lighweight revolvers. A small 9mm can be snappy, but the reciprocating slide helps make them more manageable (at least for me) than a small .38. For all intents and purposes though, yeah, .38 Special is the “9mm of Revolvers”.
I apologize if I came across forcefully on optics. For me, I’ve just been really impressed at how they let me shoot with both eyes open for a change. I’m cross dominant, so I’ve always closed my left eye when shooting (still do for long guns); and a red dot renders this unnecessary. That said, while they solve the issue, it will take continued practice for me to get accustomed to having both eyes open. It helps that my cross dominance is not as bad as it was when I started shooting back in 2017.
No, I have no heard from the gunsmith yet. I intend to reach out to him sometime this week, both to inquire about the Python, and also to set up another time for practicing reloading. He’s been helping me learn to reload .45-70.
No apologies necessary, Axel! I really do get it, about the optics. The market demands it, and it can’t be ignored, Revolver makers will definitely have to consider accommodating them.
Keep me posted on the Python. Good luck!
Hey sir, I did reach out to the gunsmith. He said he reached out to Colt about my Python, and that they’d repair it for free. Already on its way. I really like my Colt revolvers, such as my Cobra and King Cobra .22, so I hope things work out.
The other revolver that had issues, the older Taurus 66, was sent back to Taurus. However, consider its age, I’m fairly certain Taurus will just replace it with a new one. Which is fine, although this older 66 had a 3″barrel; which Taurus doesn’t make anymore outside the 66 Combat (which I already have).
Glad to hear Colt is taking care of you, Axel. I imagine Taurus will, as well. It will be nice to get those taken care of!
Hi Mike,
Your essay and everyone’s comments are spot on, as usual. I have very little to add, except as applies to quality.
One way to get a revolver “like they used to make in the old days” is to shop used and buy a wheel gun actually made in the old days. These were assembled by gunsmiths working in a factory where initial quality was a given, rather than parts fitters working to meet production quotas for a firm that’s decided rework is cheaper than assuring out of the box readiness. My M&P (the real one), M15, M17, M19, and M49 all date from the late 1940s to early 1980s. Most of these shooter grade guns cost me half as much as their modern equivalents. I’ve never had a lick of trouble from any of them that wasn’t the result of flawed ammunition.
Just sayin’…
Michael
Michael, there are market forces here in Kalifornia that others don’t have to deal with, courtesy of our stoooopid laws. The supply of the older guns you speak of is constantly shrinking, as guns get moved out of state, with no allowable imports to replace them. As a result, I’m used to paying more for the old guns than my neighbors in America do.
I’d like to pay AZ prices, instead of CA prices, but I’m willing to pay the premium for the older guns, because they’re just better, as you pointed out.
I’m happy to see that wadcutter ammunition was at least mentioned in the class. See RG article about WC being so unusual now that some mistake them for blanks.
(That’s the inverse of a basic class back when shooting WC .38 exclusively with the only mention of auto pistols was that there existed something called a Browning that held 13 shots. And that was in Illinois where the state police had been carrying the M-39 for a few years already.)
Yes, the juxtaposition is fascinating, isn’t it? The march of time changes all , . .
The bias you observed in the class certainly feels widespread, Mike. I see it everywhere I go, except here at RevolverGuy, gatherings like The Pat Rogers Memorial Revolver Roundup, and by a few industry folks (people like Greg Ellifritz and Caleb Giddings). This lack of QC in new guns is maddening because it makes us qualify recommendations for a revolver as an EDC gun. If the individual specimen is trouble free, the revolver remains a solid choice for a lifesaving tool. Six-shot snubs make sense to me for carry guns, like Taurus 856’s or Kimber’s K6XS in .38 Special or .32 caliber versions of J frame Smiths or Ruger LCRs. Contrary to the contemporary view of being “elegant weapons for a more civilized age”, proven revolvers work well today as fighting tools. Yes sir, preaching to the choir here, but revolvers hide well and carry easy. They can be carried in close proximity to the body safely- including drawing and holstering. The “real world” reliability that revolvers possess when Murphy plays his cards cannot be overvalued when you really need your gun to work.
Commuting to a new gig finds me with lots of windshield time. My small revolver rides AIWB for hours with no discomfort, it’s there if I need it and I know it will work. An electric gun that holds double digit BB’s rides shotgun, but for me, the revolver always gets the nod as the onboard gun. I’m in good company here, we will continue to spread the love for the revolver.
You expressed it better in a few paragraphs than I did in an entire article, pal. Are you sure you don’t want to take my job? The pay and benefits are . . . unspeakable. 😆
Yes, “living with the gun” is very different when comparing autos and revolvers–something few folks truly appreciate. I think it’s accurate to say the vast majority of CCW holders don’t actually carry on a routine basis (you can tell that, just from the holsters), and I have a suspicion that the snub owners carry a lot more than the guys with the autos, because the guns just make it easier.
Kevin, me, and the rest of the RG team will continue to do our part, but we need the manufacturers to Cowboy Up!
I’d like to point out that outside the home, the huge majority of legitimate self defense scenarios are going to involve contact or near contact distances (how can you take my wallet from 25 yards- or anything else!) where those contact shots may be a factor. No slide battery issues with my EDC. I’ll continue to rescue classic revolvers from glass shelves whenever I can afford it. I like Diamondback but they are not approved for my agency.
Indeed, my friend. Another excellent argument for them, that we can all appreciate.
I was impressed by the Diamondbacks at RevolverFest last year. I think we had to bench a few (including a prototype) for some issues, and several guns lost their fiber optic sight inserts, but the rest ran strong through a high round count, with little rest. I’ll be working with some more samples in a few months at the next RevFest, and I’m excited to see how they do. They seem to be focused on building a good gun, right out of the chute, and that’s encouraging.
I read a large amount of the post about S W sorry quality control for a while now. I have never had problems with it so far. I almost let it keep me from purchasing a new 3″ 686 + last year. Went ahead and purchased it and have not been disappointed. I have had it out on 5 occasions now and have around 500 rounds through it. Rapid fire, slow fire, no problems. Fit, finish, is good as well as reliability so far. Sights are good and it shoots to sights. Heers to hoping I lucked out and I got a good one guys.
There’s some good ones being made, for sure, and I’m glad you got one! Even many of the “bad” ones can be rescued, via warranty service or independent gunsmithing.
The big problem is, we can no longer assume that we’ll get a good one, from the start. A customer should be able to buy a widget–any widget–with a firm expectation that he’ll get what he’s paid for. Sadly, I don’t think some of the industry’s makers are living up to that expectation, right now.
Mike, once again a very insightful analysis, and critique, of the state of the revolver in the self defense realm. Everyone who has posted on this subject has made excellent observations and these opinions should be given their due weight.
Manufacturers learned the hard way that polymer injection molded receivers cost less to manufacture than coffee at Starbucks, and are slightly more ‘labor intensive’ than blow mold plastic products. Autoloader slides are easily machined from bar stock and have all the personality and allure of a mushroom. The mechanics of striker fired pistols are stamped with monotonous reliability with little to no finishing touches. The realistic cost is in the materials used for the slide and striker firing mechanisms. Glock taught the world this lesson.
Compare the cost of manufacturing combat tupperware to the cost of forging, machining and finishing of a revolver frame, cylinder and barrel. Then the fabrication of all the internal parts, presumably controlling tolerances and quality control, and assembling them into what is presumably a functional firearm. The cost of this exceeds that of any polymer striker fired wonder, which explains what a GP-100, S&W J,K,L frame or the new Colt revolvers have prices to make one’s nose bleed.
I’ve come across so many current generation revolvers (2000-2026) that are best relegated to range toys. The fit and finish, externally and internally, leave much to be desired. I consider myself fortunate to have grown up around revolvers from the 1970s and earlier when they not only felt solid, but their performance was never really in doubt. Today, I’d be very leery in acquiring any recently made revolver. The quality control is just not there. I can not in good conscience recommend any current production revolvers to anyone for their first line of defense.
Thankfully, with two exceptions of early MIM production, ALL of my other S&W revolvers predate MIM and locks, and have been shot enough to ensure reliabilty with anything stuffed in their chambers.
Meanwhile, back in the day, the only remotely reliable autoloaders were guns like the M1911A1, the Browning/FN High Power, Walther’s P38, and Beretta’s M1951. Even new autoloaders of that era had to have a ‘break in period’ before I’d consider carrying one (especially the problematic S&W M59).
Today, that situation in reversed. An out of the box Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta 92, Springfield Hellcat comes in a plastic case with no pride of ownership (except for the Beretta) – however, out of the box, you can load them up and they will function with such monotonous reliability that they humiliate autos of past generations. My M9 came out of the box and has yet to malfunction after all these years. Good luck with finding a new in box revolver that is 100% functional.
When bulk 9m/m is 20 cents a round compared to 50 cents a round (or more) for .38 Special, it’s not a difficult decision to make for anyone who values practice time. A Springfield Hellcat 9m/m is much easier to control and get followup shots compared to trying that in an airweight J frame even with wadcutter loads.
Add to this the internet / social media, where we are bombarded with everything semi auto and very little on revolvers. And given the state of society, especially in large population centers, where the feral creatures travel in packs, carrying 31 rounds of 9m/m is a tad more comforting (not necessarily comfortable) than 10 rounds of .38 Special.
The autoloader reigns supreme in only two significant areas: rapidity of reloading, and ammunition capacity.
Ammunition manufacturers don’t seem too concerned at the disparity of price between 9m/m ammunition and .38 Special, or .357 Magnum, or any revolver cartridges for that matter. They make too much money on military and LE contracts for the 9m/m Parabellum.
Time for a Diet Coke.
Oh, for the days when the cheapest centerfire ammo in the gun shop was .38 Spl, and 9mm was expensive, by comparison! It doesn’t seem like that long ago, even though it was.
As you expertly pointed out, there’s simply no comparison between building striker-fired guns and revolvers. You can build a half-dozen of them for the same price as a revolver, so the economics are not in our favor. In the revolver’s heyday, skilled labor was cheap and materials were expensive, but we’ve got the opposite conditions today.
Ruger has shown, with their Wranglers, that a good quality revolver can be built for an affordable price, using modern manufacturing methods. They lack the refinements of the revolvers made by craftsmen, but they work.
I think the future of the DA revolver will probably be a Tale of Two Cities–A small number of guns made by skilled craftsmen, and a larger number of guns made by CNC, MIM, and robotics. Two very different levels of fit, finish, features, and price. We’re witnessing the swan song of traditional revolver manufacture, but nobody’s ready to make the full jump to the new method, yet. Once industry cracks the code, we should see prices come down, and quality go up.
Mike, you certainly struck a chord with this current article!
Here’s a few recent observations of my own. I had my LEOSA qualification here in Georgia this past spring and every retired officer used a semi-auto. After the first qualification round half of us stayed and repeated the course of fire with our revolvers. I’ve been told that the current Georgia Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) cards state “Semi-Auto” or “Revolver.” However, if the retiree qualifies with both types of firearms the POST card is stamped: “Handgun.” Apparently many of my colleagues started their careers when revolvers were common and many of these guys still want the ability to carry their revolvers.
A slightly different scenario was encountered a few weeks earlier when I enrolled in an advanced combat concealed carry course taught by GPSTC, GA Public Safety Training Center. Great course! Officers were exposed to close encounters (bad breath distance) that sights were not able to be utilized. Multiple opponents (rubber dummies that give a 3-D experience that paper targets can’t replicate.) We fired approximately 300 rounds in one afternoon under the direction of very competent and experienced instructors. Of the 25-30 officers in my class, I was one of only three retirees and the only guy with a revolver, my S&W Model 10.
The young officer immediately to my right experienced several malfunctions due to the slide being out of battery during a close combat drill. Another officer struggled to change magazines and rack the slide on her semi-auto once it ran dry. I kept thinking that a revolver would be superior for these up close and personal drills simulating an ambush or armed robbery. Capacity was mentioned as one of many factors to consider. I felt that double tapping three armed felons with my six shooter followed by a speedy reload would be infinitely better than an inoperable wonder nine that goes out of battery in close contact.
In my opinion, a service caliber revolver, properly maintained with reliable support equipment (ammunition, holsters, etc…) coupled with a regular training regimen will give one more than a fighting chance to survive most threats of deadly force.
Mike, you should consider writing a book based upon all the knowledge shared by my fellow RevolverGuys on these pages. What a wealth of experience you have created here!
Thanks again.
We’re so fortunate to have such an engaged, educated, experienced and eloquent audience! The comments are often twice as good as the article that prompted them, and I’m grateful for all the readers who have been so generous with their time and inputs.
Your description of the real-world conditions and threats that your training replicated is a perfect example of when the revolver shines. It’s not the gun you want to fight the 5th Dismounted Hell’s Angels (h/t Michael Harries) with, but in a close quarters fight with a few attackers? There’s no better gun.
But I’m not telling you anything that you (and Stuart, and Riley, and Kevin, and Tony, and all the other veteran coppers that are regulars ’round here) don’t already know. You’ve lived it, and I’ll trust that experience over anyone else’s theory of how it works. Thanks again for sharing your experience!
FWIW here are my observations: Colt King Cobras are generally spot-on, but availability is in batches. The Smith Revolvers, the 586 is generally decent as is the 610, but its about 60-40 OK to issues. As in poor barrelt to frame fit, canted barrels, gaps between the barrel and frame, poor crane to frame fit.
The Ruger GP100 seems to be better fit with the blued version than the stainless. Don’t know why. Perhaps like the 586 the less “gummy” carbon steel frames lend themselves to better fitment.
Colt is in my opinion killing it, I find fewer defects in Colts than the the Rugers or Smiths. FWIW. After the widely publicized ND with a dude with a glock seriously injuring himself the double action revolver has a lot going for it.
Again, just a SoCal observation. Love revolvers for the Admin simplicitiy. Also holstering and unholstering. Just so much safer. I cannot afford an ND. Period. Color me revolver first.
Floyd, thanks for the excellent data points. I think you’re onto something about the carbon vs. stainless–the stainless definitely has different properties, and I can see machines/workers running out of steam before they reach TDC on the stainless barrels. Great stuff, thanks.
I spend my summers in N. Georgia, an open carry state. In the last two weeks I’ve seen an unusually prolific number of practitioners, believe it or not every one I saw was a 4” revolver. Last year it was 1911 clones. Word is spreading.
Interesting. You don’t think it’s the “green Volkswagen theory,” either? (where you notice things more frequently, because you’re looking for them, even though they were always there)
I’m not generally a fan of open carry, and particularly not in populated areas, but if I did choose to carry that way, I’d like a gun with a manual safety, to possibly slow down an attacker who’s disarmed me, but is unfamiliar with the manual of arms. A 4″ revolver would not be my first choice!
The comments here are better than the articles on most other sites. Thanks so much for defending the wheel gun.
Thanks Bob! You can count on both, around here!
Mike:
Thanks for another great article. I am glad your experience with the new vendor is better than past vendors.
I think there are several factors that unfortunately contribute to a lack of seeing more revolvers in defensive applications.
First, quality control, as has been mentioned throughout the comments here, is spotty at best. QC issues affect plastic guns too, but not at the rate of revolvers.
Second, a lack of reasonably priced ammo is a real driver that is limiting sales/use of revolvers. You can generally find decent 9mm training ball for $225 per case of 1,000. 38 Special is double that. Magnum ammo is 2.5 times the price of 9mm ball. Until someone starts manufacturing inexpensive ammo for the 38 Special (say under $300 per case), revolver use will always lag behind autos. The problem with that idea is that component costs are being driven up and manufacturers have to produce what makes a profit. Thankfully we have folks like high Desert Cartridge Company and Lost River Ammo Company that make high-quality revolver ammo. Unfortunately, the younger generation of shooters apparently do not reload which also hinders acceptance of revolvers.
Third, GWOT. The Government War on Terror and the nearly complete switch by law enforcement away from revolvers has produced a generation or two of shooters who have no real-world experience with revolvers. This includes highly experienced instructors who may be exceptional teaching ARs and plastic guns but have little or no real-world experience with revolvers (or shotguns or MP5s for that matter). Like it or not, we now live in a world that is ruled by ARs and plastic striker fired pistols. Even older favorites such as 1911s and Browning Hi Powers and Beretta 9s are being looked upon as old fashioned. While nothing could be further from the truth, folks view these guns as “old fashioned”.
Fourth, a big chunk of the instructor community has no experience with revolvers and thus cannot provide any direction to those who might be best served by revolvers. We can’t expect instructors to teach something they know nothing about.
Fifth, I suspect that revolver manufacturers see less profit from a revolver than a plastic pistol. It costs more to machine a revolver and requires greater expertise to assemble them. Couple that with lackluster sales and it spells long term trouble for the industry. My understanding is that Kimber just shut down their entire revolver line (Hope I am wrong). Things like that don’t bode well for us.
There are a couple of bright spots: Revolver Guy being the first. It’s nice to have a meeting place for revolver folks. The Revolver Round Up and Revolver Fest are great ways to advertise the use of revolvers. Lastly, some of the younger shooters are figuring out that ARs and plastic pistols, while incredibly useful, might not be the end all, be all in “cool” firearms.
I am not sure what the answer is other than to teach revolver centric courses and support manufacturers still making round guns.
Bruce, it’s wonderful to hear from you on this, and get your detailed analysis of our predicament. As one of the most respected revolver instructors out there, and a guy who’s actively training the next generation of instructors, your opinion is highly valued.
Despite our concerted efforts, it seems the greater shooting public isn’t getting the message about the benefits and advantages of using a revolver. I think it’s critical for us to continue promoting them, because all the other issues (QC, ammo supply, image, the supply of qualified instructors, profit margins) hinge on consumer demand–if the demand is there, the rest of the problems will get fixed!
So, we press on, and try to pump up the signal, to defeat the noise. I’m glad to be your partner in this effort!
Another data point in the wheelgun versus auto discussion, from my own experience:
If your new revolver will experience a case of “infant mortality”, a handful of snap caps and a few hundred dry-fire cycles in the comfort of home may be enough to induce it. Doing this killed a brand new compact revolver I’d just bought, without paying a dime for ammo or range fees.
It won’t be quite so easy or inexpensive to discover your fancy new Officer 1911 is a colicky baby.
Been there, seen that…it’s a bummer!
That’s an interesting point, Ricky! Love the analogy, too.
Excellent article and a most excellent discussion following the article. Myriad astute observations here. Very enjoyable to read through all of this.
I occasionally will retake a local pistol level one course just to revisit the fundamentals. These classes usually have plenty of brand new shooters practically 100% of whom are using auto loaders. When asked by the instructor I am happy to assist some of these newer shooters. Some things I’ve observed new shooters struggling to become accustomed to with the auto loading pistols are proper grip and how it relates to recoil management, secondary sight picture, trigger control and definitely stoppage clearances. Kudos for these people for coming out to class and getting hands on training. There is a lot to learn and I think some people just get overloaded with “semi automatic stimuli.” I don’t see very many of the same faces for refresher training as the years go by, however. There are nuances to being able to safely handle handguns, perhaps more specifically auto loading handguns. It does take repetition and lots of cognitive practice to become safe and effective. I’ve often wondered if starting on revolvers wouldn’t help people slide into their handgun learning experiences with less difficulty.
Thanks Dan, appreciate the kind words. Sounds like you’ve seen it plenty, too–folks who struggle with an auto, who could benefit from trying a simpler system.
With all the quality control problems you discuss here, is there a revolver you would recommend to someone interested in joining the revolver guy tribe? You mention ammo availability and price — are there any decent options in 9mm revolvers? Mostly, I’m just curious, but I’d like to have better answers to give when I discuss revolvers with my friends. Many thanks for your excellent articles — and comments.
Bob, my experience with 9mm revolvers tells me they’re not a great option for a first-timer. While the ammo logistics look attractive, at first, the added complication of the moon clips and bullet pull kinda rains on the parade. Too, the 9mm kicks pretty hard in small frame guns like the LCR, somewhere north of .38+P and knocking on .357’s door.
I suppose a medium or large frame gun might be a better choice in the caliber. I haven’t fired the Taurus 692 yet, but it looks like an attractive package, and I’d be willing to bet on Taurus, these days.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Absolutely, Sir!
While I generally carry Glocks, I do carry a revolver when I am in big bear country. Therefore, I took a class with a revolver at the same place I take my classes with the Glocks. Speed and accuracy were essentially the same. The only drawback was reloading. The class made me better at this but still a lot slower than just swapping a mag. I did get some speed strips for partial reloads. Depends on how important you think capacity is. I would see some guys with revolvers in the classes including a triple amputee. He did qualify on a course of fire more difficult than CCW or even POST.
Richard, the revolvers suitable for bear defense have a lot of horsepower, and if you’re shooting them on par with your Glocks, then I’d say you’ve got little to worry about.
I’m no authority on the subject, but I think it’s much more likely that you will run out of time in a bear attack, than you will run out of ammo. All that capacity is great, but if you can’t make a good fight-stopping hit in the short window of time you have, the bear will be on top of you. In that terrible event, I’d rather be armed with a revolver than an auto, because the revolver is less likely to suffer a stoppage, particularly on a contact shot.
A good hit from a powerful revolver, early in the attack, will do more than a flurry of poorly aimed shots from an auto. In the end, I think success hinges more on the shooter’s abilities and composure than the equipment.
One thing I’ll add is that it seems common to read of outdoorsmen firing warning shots to ward off the attack, and the revolver definitely has a disadvantage here. If you think you’ll need to fire a warning shot, you’ll have to either be very judicious with the number you fire, or you’ll have to be prepared to make a quick reload under great stress. A 10mm Glock has the advantage here.
Just a youngish guy at 32. Revolvers are still the easiest platform to learn and I can tell you that family and friends that struggled with an auto were immediately making good hits with a revolver. I’ve been a Ruger man all my life but QC has certainly tainted every manufacturer in regards to revolvers. I’ve been through several standard and Match Champion GP100’s and on all but one that barrel has been canted, there’s been very poor crane to frame finishing, or had an exceptionally loose barrel/cylinder gap.
I’ve given up completely on new Rugers and went back and bought a like new in box stainless Service Six with an ’85 serial to compliment my ’82 blued 38 only model. I’ve put thousands of rounds through the old blued and the barrel cylinder gap is still tighter than an out of the box Match Champion. Make it make sense! Barrels are straight as an arrow too. I wish Ruger would just mirror the Colt Custom shop and allow customers to pay whatever it required to make one that was worth a damn. Tough times for us wheelie fans. They certainly don’t make em like they used too! Sucks cause my father’s new Python is immaculate and shoots great!
Hard to recommend revolvers when I have to hand them a laundry list of things to check to a prospective wheelgun buyer!
Buying vintage, low-mileage, quality revolvers appears to be the only way to fly in my opinion. Never had a lick of trouble with mine but am aware of the numerous horror stories about brand new wheel guns.
Perhaps when enough potential customers pass on the new stuff the manufacturers will improve their quality control and produce decent guns.
Cole, thanks for sharing your valuable experience here. I had a friend show up with a grossly misaligned GP100 that had the sights pushed all the way over to the side, and he still couldn’t get his groups centered. I had him send it back, to get it corrected, but wish it had been unnecessary.
There’s a dearth of Sixes on the market around here, and I’d love to add some to my collection, because they’re great guns. I’m not surprised they’ve given you such great service! I’ve been calling for Ruger to bring them back in some form for well over a decade, but the truth is that the guns would disappoint, if they were built to current standards. I’d like to see Ruger get a handle on the QC problem, THEN give us a true medium frame gun that’s worthy of the storied label.
Howdy Mike, it’s certainly been an exercise in futility finding a good GP these days. I wish they’d just charge whatever they needed to produce a quality product. I’d pay any price to have one that was made by someone who loved his job. Atleast we still have the Six Series! I also agree that if they brought them back they’d be a massive disappointment. Really depressing and there’s probably no end in sight to improve QC on a gun that sells at triple the prixe but sells a fraction the rate of the autos! I’d pay any price though Ruger! I’m foolishly loyal!
Mike:
It’s probably too early to determine if Ruger’s improved manufacturing and quality control measures introduced in its Prescott plant (explained in detail in your “Ruger Factory Tour Report” in April) have led to better quality products, though I’m cautiously optimistic they will.
And as far as I can tell, the lever guns coming out of Ruger’s Marlin North Carolina and New Hampshire factories seem to be considerably better made than those built by Remington and the late-stage Marlin facility. My newish Marlin SBL rifle is a good example, and it shows excellent fit and finish, though I need to put more rounds through it to be certain of its dependability.
Spencer, I have confidence in the Marlin rifles and the handguns coming out of the Prescott facility–primarily RXM pistols, Mark IVs, 1911s and Super/Wranglers. I’ve been disappointed by the Newport-produced guns that I’ve been seeing lately (especially the GP and SP, but also a little disappointed with some of the LCRs). I don’t think Newport has caught the ball from Prescott, based on what I’m seeing. I hope that will change–we need Ruger back to fighting strength!
Spencer and Mike, I have handled plenty of Marlins over the years and more to this point I have handled quite a few of the new Ruger/Marlins, own several of the Ruger/Marlins and have to say the QC on these is what all companies should strive to achieve in QC with all products. I saying they are 100% perfect, but the QC does indeed stand out waaaaay above the new industry standard we see on revolvers. Ruger has proven they can get QC correct, now please Ruger, adopt that same practice to your revolvers. That said, I have had to send a new Ruger back for work and it was returned to me quickly and working as it should. Ruger customer service is plenty good, as is Colt’s in my experience but Smith… ugh. I have digressed. Back to the Ruger/Marlin… a fantastic offering. Buy one, you will be happy you did.
Thanks for your thoughts on the “new” Marlin rifles, Dan, which mirror mine. In fact, my Marlin/Ruger lever rifle’s fit and finish are comparable to pre-WWII Marlin guns. If Ruger continues to improve the quality control at all their manufacturing facilities then the other companies might be forced to do the same–or go under.
Yep, been impressed with the one I have!