Why are the WWI era revolvers (1917, model 10) so much better looking than the cowboy revolvers or the post WWII revolvers?
>>65639377i like the pencil barrels, i hate the big rib on top of modern revolvers
>>65639377I'm hoping the new 1917s S&W is doing turn out nice. Such a nice looking pistol. I've heard the new 22s don't run 45 ACP well though, which dosn't surprise me at all.
>>65639377Thats your opinion, also kill yourself you pointless slide thread making faggot
>>65639396>slide threadit's a gun thread on a gun board, fatso? what the fuck is there even to slide? the thread about deer hunting?>>65639383I wish they made the 1917s or the 22s in 9mm
>>65639377I find the 1851 to be peak aesthetic, its one of the very rare instamnces when US gunmakers produced something both good and nice looking. IU appreciate bulldogs too but I never liked the webley or the swiss revolver etc, just does not point for me at all. Why there was not a light a brass cartridge sawn off double barrel howdah style gun for the trench clearing in mass issue baffles me
>>65639383>nu-smith qc>we made it different and shittier, because we just have to okay>india-tier buffing wheel polish job
That's just your taste anon.
>>65639399yuropoors didn't see shotguns are weapons of war, they were for the landed gentry to hunt birds and shit. Whereas American military tradition used buck and ball up through the civil war and from basically the jamestown through 1918 or 1920 the majority of guns owned in the US would have been smoothbores/shotguns so Americans would have been more ready to use a shotgun to fight since they were fighting injuns with them, to some extent
I think the Colt 1860 Army is the most beautiful revolver
>>65639379Theyre not pencil barrels, the barrels are the same on modern revolvers just the barrel shroud is choady now and they all have fugly lugs for the ejector rod
>>65639383Even if it winds up needing to be sent back for bad timing or something as a result of their CQ, I'm gonna pick one up next year. I love my Colt 1917 and think it's a bit superior aesthetically and for shooting with their sight design compared to the S&W 1917's. But it's over a hundred years old and replacing anything on it that wears out is gonna be a pain in the ass if not near impossible, especially if it's something on the cylinder. I want a 1917 I can shoot without worry of it getting permanently deadlined from parts breakage
>>65639413Not him but I don't like the ribs on top of the barrels either. The under barrel shroud also sucks
>>65639413oh that makes sense, i thought pencil barrel just meant a very narrow barrel
>>65639405Euros used smoothbore muskets and buck and ball (how common the use of which is greatly exaggerated) just as long as we did
>>65639414Youll be permanently deadlined from parts breakage when S&W discontinues it in less than a decade/they finally go out of business when brand recognition from days gone by runs out and people simply stop buying their shitty products
>>65639425I think he'd rather turn a gun made in 2026 into a paperweight than one made in 1917>>65639420>yuropoors>guns
>>65639437Yes, European militaries use guns.....
>>65639377 Because its the last point in history where they were THE pinnacle of sidearm design and thus needed to be robust, accurate, practical pieces of equipment that a man's life may come down to, rather than everything after where they are obsolete fashion statements. Form follows function and back then, they HAD to function, not be ornaments or dickwaving tool.
>>65639463I was going to point out how they were used as cop guns into the 80s because old semi autos couldn't feed hollow points, but those were also model 10s
>>65639377because they're pure kino, especially 357 since it was specifically designed to blow holes in bulletproof cars. 38spl in a model 10 sized gun was definitely more useful overall though, it was the glock 19 of its day>>65639463this guy gets it>everything before was black powder, usually fragile with flawed designs (SAA """safety""" notch)>everything after became a tiny air weight or massive superhypergiganigga magnum (both are absolutely horrific to shoot)the fact it took glock BTFOing the gun market in the 80s to replace them is telling
>>65639379It’s this. New revolvers with their chonky grips and chonky barrel shrouds just look gross. No elegance. Yeah a big hogue grip might feel better in the hand but at what cost?
>>65639377idk. i like the look of my gp100 (RIP)
>>65639377They all look like they were made to execute deserters, probably because they were.
>>65640261Very strange line of thinking you have
>>65639532$125.00 back in 1932 is nearly $2800.00 now.
>>65639396>slide threadDo we start posting anime cat grrls now?
>>65640261When you think of WW1 you think of Europeans and their little .30cal Double Actions were for little more than adorning an officers belt and shooting cowards who didn’t wanna die for the Balfour Declaration.
>>65639383Oh damn thats dope they are making more 1917s
>>65640424>>65640268Basically yes. And continued proud tradition of executing unarmed men with the continued service of the Nagant with the Cheka/NKVD. This is that rare case for me when a pistol literally has no other association or realistic historic use I can imagine. How many officers ever got close enough to fire their revolver at the enemy with the amount of artillery, rifle defilades and machinegun fire? Maybe a couple of crashed fly boys, before offing themselves with the same cursed revolver.I’m not a fan.
>>65639420Buck and Ball was extremely efficient in the Civil War and extensive enough in usage.
>>65639377I like revolvers in general, but particularly cowboy revolvers like the Remington 1875 and the s&w model 3. I also like modern revolver aesthetics like full lug barrels, top ribs, massive barrel shrouds, and filled-in double action grips. OP's examples are cool I guess, but over all they are my least favorite.
>>65640431and the post war civilian model
>>65639532>BASED Jelly tempting fate...
>>65639383>shit and wesson
>>65639377"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." The form of these revolvers follows the function, and strips away anything unnecessary. There is strange beauty in minimalism. maybe that is what attracts you?(they are pretty damn cool, I can't argue. Like if you'd need to arm a police force or military officers with a sidearms in the very early years of 1900's, that's your go-to pistol)
>>65639425>they finally go out of business when brand recognition from days gone by runs outThat will never happen. Even if they go out of business, they'll just get bought by someone else seeking to capitalize on the name, much like the multiple zombie gun brands still around today.
>>65639377Related question to OP's picture:Which cylinder release YOU like the best? I know this is mostly an issue of personal preference, but what do you think is the most intuitive way to do it?1) Pull-back release (Colt-style)2) Push-forwards release (S&W style)3) Press-inwards (Ruger-style)For me, it's 3) Ruger style. It's an obvous button, you press it down. The next best thing is 2) S&W style push-worwards because it's fairly intuitive. The colt-style pull-backwards style is awkward and unintuitive. If you put it in the hands of someone who has never used a gun like that, they may struggle to figure it out. In this sense, the Ruger style button is the most obvious choise.
>>65640442I don't think the Nagant is all that bad honestly. The loading gate makes it useless after the cylinder is emptied but that's broadly true of all military revolvers. It's not even that bad in SA but the DA is frankly unusable t. Eurofag
>>65640841Webley style lever
>>65640877Webley style has kinda-sorta become obsolete with the magnum-powered loads. The gun frame just can't handle the pressures involved, which is why all the other producers have shifted to solid-frame construction.I guess the Webley style would classify as type 2) S&W "push forwards" -style release? I have actually used one of these, and they are extremely intuitive to use. But, like said, modern magnum loads just put too much pressure on the gun for this style of construction to remain feasible. I do like it, though.
>>65640868I can allow it functions just fine, but the 1941 stamp does make it prime Blue Cap Boy territory.
>>65640261>>65640442Model 10s and 1917s were used all the way up to Vietnam.
>>65640899I like the S&W style best when it comes to magnum revolvers too
>>65640899>The gun frame just can't handle the pressures involved, which is why all the other producers have shifted to solid-frame construction.Not a problem with modern metallurgy. The only thing stopping new top-breaks is cost and lack of demand.
>>65640938>cost and lack of demandBingo! Yeah. And that is the short and long of it. You COULD technically make a top-breaking revolver that can handle magnum loads. But it would be so prohibitably costly that almost nobody could buy it. And those who would be able to buy it are such a niche customer group that... it's just not worth it. You can't run a business like that unless you go to like "Swiss custom-made clockmaker -level artisanal workshop bullshit. Sure, you COULD try to market your products to Saudi oil sheikhs or something, but anyone who does not have multiple millions on their fun-time-account is not going to buy your revolvers. Metallurgy is not the problem. The level of entry to buy one is.
>>65640442>>65640424What the fuck are you on about retard? There's tons of documented use of pistols in trench warfare.
>>65640967At least we have the Schofield replica in .45LC, no magnum but it's also more substantial than the original
WHY WILL NOBODY MAKE A MODERN TOP BREAK DAMMIT
>>65640990>25 roundweird that it's a multiple of 5 and not 6
>>65640990>>65640424>>65640261>>65640442Not a revolver, but Sgt. York used a 1911 during his medal of honor action>>65641044clinton stopped the russians from making and selling one and it's been a meme gun ever since the 90s
>>65641131They leave one chamber unloaded as a safety precaution.
>>65641146They did not.Pistol ammo came in boxes of 25 or 50, same as commercially available, or in paper packs of 12.
>>65641146Isn't that more of an old BP revolver thingNot that all WW1 era revolvers used smokeless powder
>>65641151>>65641156I was just memeing
>>65641156It's a modern CAS thing. Military orders were fully loaded, manufacturer recommendation was fully loaded. Safeties existed.
>>65640442Read a book on the development of tactics during WWI and then come back to me, preferably with an essay-length post summarizing your findings.Then think carefully and soberly before posting on a topic you have a woefully inadequate understanding of ever again.
>>65639414Based. Please post about your experience with it in /hg/. I want one too but refuse to purchase from S&W without seeing some non-shill, non-reddit, reviews first.
>>65639377>"so much better looking than the cowboy revolvers-"They're nice looking, don't get me wrong, but they'll never be better looking than the cowboy revolvers with all due respect.
>>65640899There was a modern run of Webley revolvers in .357 years ago, it's just such a low demand item that no manufacturer is going to produce something niche for what is probably about 23 autists total
>>65641475They made one prototype and the company folded.
>>65639377revolvers from that era scream "I gun down brownoids for fun" and it's based as fuck
>>65641806>literally wasn’t good enough to do thatContemporary Larp gun. Maybe Indians but that’s it.
>>65639377Luv me pencil barrel. Killed a deer with it this weekend.
>>65641928Badass. Nice work, anon.
>>65641903buck status: BROKEN
>>65641171Safeties which were fairly widely agreed to have been unreliable and thus the gun should be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber, which was a common practice in the 1800s, pic related.
>>65642567This is from the original 1888 publication, where no mention of the empty chamber is made. This show us that a number of people read his first edition book and then wrote to the publisher to say that the safety notch is unreliable and thus should be carried with an empty chamber, so he included that feedback in the second edition. This really shatters the notion that "load one skip one load four" is a CAS invention.
>>65640524Something I’ve been wondering about lately is if there was any connection to black powder shooting and cancer. Both Paul Harrell and most recently Dulest1954 (Mike Beliveau) have past away from cancer. Apparently they were both avid powder shooters.
>>65643073I could be lead exposure more than black powder itself, i.e. handling loose round balls and whatnot.
>>65642567>WWI>1800s
>>65643073lead poisoning is unironically why 99% of guntubers and boomer fudds are obnoxious faggots
>>65643178They'd've used 1800s handgun doctrine, along with revolvers designed in the 1800s, so a document from 1894 is effectively identical to what people in 1916 were doing
>>65639377A piece of history
>>65643263different guns, fatso. they made the 1917 in 1917
>>65642567>>65642573why would you need a safety cock and a half cock?
>>65643323Half cock allows the cylinder to rotate so you can load. Safety keeps everything locked in position.
>>65643318The gun always reminds me of Miller's Crossing. It's what Eddie Dane uses.
>>65643320Functionally identical to hand ejectors of the late 1880s and 1890s
I realize this might belong in the stupid questions thread, but can anyone with more knowledge on s&w revolvers confirm if this is a model 11? Got it a few days ago and was curious to know more about it. It's chambered in 38 s&w and looks close enough to what I found when googling. It also has a couple of V's and a P stamped on it.
>>656439431936-48 production based on sideplate logo and no 'MARCAS REGISTRADAS'. When made it was a .38 S&W K-Frame and thus a pre-Model 11. Very few 'actual' Model 11s were made after the 1957 introduction of model numbers across the range.Cool gun, watch out for the ejector rod potentially unscrewing itself while shooting as I think that one is from before they switched to reverse thread.
>>65643178They still had a fair few 1800s revolvers around
>>65644742>implying Russians practiced hand nugget safety
>>65644127Neat, thanks for the info.
>>65639377Because, they simply are.My best explanation is that it’s a blend of both modern revolvers and cowboy revolvers. >>65639383My buddy bought a 22, every thing runs fine. We are happy with it. It won’t do well at 200 yards but who cares.
>>65647814>My buddy bought a 22,>We are happy with it.are you homosexual life partners?also what was that knife before it became a knife?
>>65647836>we are both happy Because we both shot the gun and examined it quite a bit. Comparing it to the original models it meant to be and how ever fits and how accurate it is at normal distances.Do you not have friends?That’s a Robbin’s of Dudley knife. WWI stuff
