Are revolvers dying out?

[jks9199]

This is (drum roll please...) incorrect.
Glock firearms have a trigger safety, a firing pin safety and a drop safety.
That's three. Not one. Three. Three is more than one. It's actually three times as many as one.

Or, one Glock SafeAction system, if you wanna use their name for the 3 working together.

I know some folks have concerns with no external safety on handguns. The biggest danger with the Glock SafeAction system is that if anything crosses that trigger, it can be enough to allow the trigger to move. If the trigger moves back far enough, the gun is gonna go BANG. There have been documented cases of trigger drawstrings and other stuff doing the job. You can reduce the risk with a heavier trigger spring assembly -- but it's still there.

That said, I'd still like some actual documentation rather than "someone says so." And, if it were necessary, a manufacturer could easily incorporate a manual safety on a striker fired handgun... If it made the difference in getting the US military contracts and not... Yeah, I bet it'd be done in a New York minute.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Considering they have used revolvers for this use, at least since the 1970's, one would think they know what they are doing.

This isn't the 70s.

Technology changes with times and that includes firearm technology. It stands to reason that today they would be using semi autos as they're more advanced although if they are using revolvers good for them. Revolvers still do have their advantages.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Or, one Glock SafeAction system, if you wanna use their name for the 3 working together.

Sure, but it's still three safeties. Your brakes, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, etc all forms part of the safety system in your car.
It's still not one.

I know some folks have concerns with no external safety on handguns. The biggest danger with the Glock SafeAction system is that if anything crosses that trigger, it can be enough to allow the trigger to move. If the trigger moves back far enough, the gun is gonna go BANG. There have been documented cases of trigger drawstrings and other stuff doing the job. You can reduce the risk with a heavier trigger spring assembly -- but it's still there.

Which is, I suspect, one reason why the Glock trigger (from the factory) is no lightweight.

That said, I'd still like some actual documentation rather than "someone says so." And, if it were necessary, a manufacturer could easily incorporate a manual safety on a striker fired handgun... If it made the difference in getting the US military contracts and not... Yeah, I bet it'd be done in a New York minute.

There are plenty of striker fired pistols with thumb safeties. The Taurus PT111 G2 that I reviewed elsewhere is one.

 

[Chrisoro]

This isn't the 70s.

Did you read the post I responded to when I said that they had been using revolvers since the seventies? As in since then, and still do according to the two sites i refered to? Because in that context, your answer that this isn't the 70s doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Apparently, they are using revolvers for some amphibious operations since in that setting, the 686 revolver handles being constantly drenched and drained of saltwater much better than most semi autos.

Technology changes with times and that includes firearm technology. It stands to reason that today they would be using semi autos as they're more advanced although if they are using revolvers good for them. Revolvers still do have their advantages.

Thank you so much for the insightfull lechture on the changing nature of technology. I would never have known unless you told me. Guess it's time to throw away my bicycles, as they're, you know, far less advanced than my neighbours segway. And people were using bicycles in the seventhies! Talk about ancient technology!

Time to exit this train wreck of a thread, I guess.

 

[Tgace]

In regards to SEALS, the 686 was/is pretty much a specialty weapon used in dive operations.

Much like revolvers have become in general...niche weapons.

 

[elder999]

Impressive.

But, with the Army in the USA the standard officer's sidearm is the Beretta 92 which is a 9mm. Before that they carried the Colt 1911 in .45. And from what I've seen lots of police officers also carry a 9mm, usually a semi auto of some sort although not always a Beretta. True, soldier's jobs are quite different from police and security guards, you don't see police and security guards on the front line where they need all the heavy artillery shown in the link you provided, but soldiers do carry sidearms which are often the same, or similar to the sidearms carried by police officers and security personnel.

In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms.

And what I meant was, police officers and security guards aren't going to need anything as big as what was in the previous link. I couldn't imagine even a SWAT team using something like that. But, police officers, lots of security guards, and people in the Army do use handguns, so they've got that in common.

Firstly:
Efforts Continue to Replace Army Air Force Small Arms

Special Forces have begun to migrate away from the M9 and have carried the P226, a .40-caliber handgun built by Sig Sauer that is more concealable than the M9. Some have begun to carry the Glock 19, a 9 mm pistol with a polymer frame that cuts down weight and size

From the same article:

“I have seen a lot of Glock 19s floating around the military recently,” the Special Forces captain said. “Of course, Special Forces uses them, but I have seen both Air Force and Navy personnel with them

Lastly, there's this- a 1st Infantry soldier deployed in Afghanistan. Please note what's on his body armor?

I say again:

 

[Tgace]

What the Army issues and what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield) can be two different things.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

What the Army issues and what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield) can be two different things.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Words have meaning. When someone says, "In the USA officers carry sidearms although Im not sure about enlisted personnel. They also don't use Glocks since they're striker pin fired sidearms."

without adding "what local commanders may authorize (especially on the battlefield),etc." then it becomes, like most posts from that source, spurious, incomplete, or a completely meaningless statement.

MARINE:

(This guy was an MP in Iraq)

ARMY:

 

[Tez3]

Go on, hands up who doesn't actually care who carries revolvers! Weapon discussions are interesting but this isn't a discussion is it, it's one of the OPs interminable threads where we all post our tuppence worth and have a laugh, admit it, we are amused.

 

[Tgace]

Well...like many general statements, Photon has some grains of fact in his points.

The US military (Army in particular) did reject Glock for a service pistol, and it being striker fired was one of the reasons, but not primarily because of safety concerns.

For a rationale that I can't explain, the military wanted double/single pistols with external hammers and external safeties. The powers that be wanted soldiers to be able to "second strike" misfires by pulling the trigger a second time instead of "tap.rack.bang". Can't do that with a striker fired pistol.

And in general, pistols are not usually issued to many enlisted MOS's. Some job slots do indeed have handguns as part of their MTOE.

A somewhat accurate list...from an Infantry perspective would include Medics, Machine gunners, Company CDR, 1SG, XO, Higher HQ staff types etc...then there's tankers, MPs, flight crews etc.


"Issued" and "acquired" can be different issues on deployments though....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Tgace, there is no reason second strike can't be done with a striker fired pistol. The Taurus PT111 I reviewed elsewhere has this, as well as a thumb safety.
So while Glock may not have chosen to include second strike, your statement that it can't be done is incorrect.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah. True...engineers and weapon designers can make most anything possible. But the PT111 is an oddity (altgough I think some HK models and maybe Walther have the feature). Perhaps I should have said "most" striker fired pistols.

And I don't know that any striker fired handgun in the running had that feature when the military was doing their last trial....by and large, most striker fired pistols can't be "refired" w/o running the slide.

Of course, demanding "second strike" from a service pistol seems like a solution in search of a problem....but it is what it is.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk