Stopped at the gun store this afternoon to pickup my AR-10 lower!!

dreher

You know how it goes, the BS always flows wide and deep at any good gun store I've ever been in.  I expressed my personal opinion that if I have to defend myself with a hand gun, given a choice, I would always choose a double action revolver.  This is assuming I couldn't get to Mr. 870, or my AR or the lever action 30-30 first.   My way of saying any hand gun is a second class weapon if my old wrinkled butt is on the line.  Having said that, my S+W 16 would be my first choice if I have to use a hand gun to shoot my way to Mr. 870, etc.

At some point the conversation took a turn and we started wondering why, for instance, are low end revolvers usually higher priced than low end autos.  Why does a good quality revolver sell for $700, $800 or higher?  I mean we are talking pretty much a 150+ year old plus design so logic dictates revolvers wouldn't all that high.  So the simple fact was that none of the four of us could answer the question.  I'm guessing one of you GB guys actually knows the why of this.  So what is the reason??

mark christian

Revolvers are more complex than automatics. There are (I think) 34 parts in a Glock 17, but I'm guessing double that number in a (say) S&W Model 60. Engineers can easily calculate the weight of the operating spring on an automatic, but revolvers need to be mechanically "timed" or else they won't fire. Anyone who has ever had a timing issue with a wheelgun knows that it can be nightmare to solve. Revolvers have all sorts of linkages to the hammer, while a current automatic usually has a simple striker. Add in the fact that revolvers are made of real metal which must be cast at the minimum, or forged and or machined and not molded polymer and you get the idea.

shootuadeal

Metal vs. Polymer materials would be the biggest factor.

Mr. Perfect

The materials and method of manufacture are the main drivers of difference of cost in any gun or any sold good, for that matter. Labor is the most expensive piece currently, but that can vary considerably depending on where the item is manufactured.

drobs

I have a Winchester Model 70 bolt action in 300 Win Mag and frequently wonder to myself why was this gun so expensive. Bolt action technology is another 150 year old design that is outdated by semi-auto rifles. There's nothing in that M70 Winchester that made it worth the $600 I gave for it used. There's a company making an AR10 in 300 Win Mag.

select-fire

Revolvers are more reliable. You also get the true barrel length.. a 4" revolver has a 4" barrel whereas the automatic just deduct the cartridge length from the stated barrel length. They also make better clubs if one would have to use it that way.

iceracerx

mark christian said:

Revolvers are more complex than automatics. There are (I think) 34 parts in a Glock 17, but I'm guessing double that number in a (say) S&W Model 60. Engineers can easily calculate the weight of the operating spring on an automatic, but revolvers need to be mechanically "timed" or else they won't fire. Anyone who has ever had a timing issue with a wheelgun knows that it can be nightmare to solve. Revolvers have all sorts of linkages to the hammer, while a current automatic usually has a simple striker. Add in the fact that revolvers are made of real metal which must be cast at the minimum, or forged and or machined and not molded polymer and you get the idea.

It's a challenge to come up with more than 35 'parts' in a fixed sighted revolver, at least using my S&W Mdl 60 as an example. 

mark christian

That's my first ever disagree. I should have checked an S&W schematic.

savage170

mark christian

I'm seeing part numbers to go up to 86 components on what appears to be a fixed sight model 60. I also see that i charged Glock with 34 parts rather than 33.

Mr. Perfect

@mark christian  disagrees are a dime a dozen round here.

mark christian

By the way, thank you for the schematics, Savage.