I think a 4" - 6" barrel with a full-sized grip is the best aesthetically-speaking.
A really long barrel can seem almost cartoonish, and a slim grip just looks odd overall.
A snub nose with a thick grip can look cool, provided it's in a magnum caliber, otherwise the cylinder can look small by comparison. Shrouded hammers instantly ruin the lines of any revolver.
made in france isnt really a mark of shame like made in turkey would be imo, and more rare than made in germany or italy and such. if you're shooting and some dude sees you and thinks you're just shooting some S&W with a trigger/hammer job but then sees that its made in france you could get a free opportunity to flex
The most important thing is the action. DAO is the most important function IMO you can bob the hammer also. SAO you have to move your hand around on the gun to manipulate things, you want a steady position to shoot.
Next I'd say sights and ammo, you want to be consistent. Fixed sights with a Trench on the back are at least consistent but if you're going to change ammo brands or loads all the time and use one consistently for a few months or years over time fixed sights are probably better. If you're just going to shove random ammo brands in of different power factors I don't think it matters that much.
I think it depends to how much you want to stick to fundamentals of shooting, to me that covers steady position and sight picture trigger control. YMMV
I feel like if you're getting a revolver you might as well lean into their main advantage over modern semi-autos and get the most cartoonishly oversized ammunition you can.
You'd struggle to find an autoloader ammo that outperforms 357 mag
Keep in mind that most modern 357 factory ammo is using the castrated pressure standard of 36,000 cup which still outperforms nearly every autoloader, but when you move to 40000 cup or higher (which is what the ammo used to be before s&w shit the bed) it becomes a superb pistol caliber with manageable recoil and carbine-like energy and performance
10mm is an excellent auto loader caliber, but consider the fact that hand loading autoloader ammo is a hassle (I do this, so I have firsthand experience) and the ammo does not have good availability, and double stack 10mm magwell sizes make the guns bulky and difficult to handle for people of average hand size.
revolvers chambered in 357 mag you can easily handload and/or shoot readily available 38 spl ammunition for tasks that do not require as much power (like shooting paper). There are downsides to 10mm but I would not feel undergunned using it facing a dangerous predator
From my own experience the difference in velocity between 4" and 6" barrels is pretty minor. 4" looks like the magic sweet spot in terms of 357 mag
Idk where this meme came from, if you look through ballistics charts for factory 357 mag ammo it seems like there are rapidly diminishing returns past 4", meanwhile .44 mag still gets significant boosts all the way out to 8"
What do you mean "outperform"?
Every legitimate authority has known for 40 years that round for round, pistol rounds do the same thing until you get to 44 mag +p and crazier.
Still too slow.
You don't see any added wounding effects from projectiles under 2200-2400fps (unless the frontal area of the projectile is pretty big, like .458+)
One of the first major systemic reviews of ballistics was a DOJ report in like 1985, and to quote them "energy does not wound"
The bullet needs to reach vital structures, while retaining enough velocity to damage them.
Beyond that, more bullets on target = better.
7.5FK usually under penetrates.
It's not legal to hunt deer with a gun with less than 500 energy ft lbs (this includes the vast majority of autoloaders, notably not 10mm) in my state (and others), because it is considered unethical to shoot animals of that size with such a weak cartridge. Don't you suppose this is a case of an authority directly contradicting your stupid ass narrative?
>I base my ballistics knowledge on gudd regulations put in effect by a board of morons appointed to the position by the governor
Yes, because they know more than every systemic review of handgun ballistics and wounding ever made.
>a comparison between 9mm and .45
Anon, they're both underpowered as frick and don't belong in a discussion about bullets that are generating double the velocity and energy of either caliber
>4" >K frame or similarly sized frame >Half-lug
If we can all agree the model 10 is the greatest revolver ever, then all of the above must be the elements that make a good revolver
Energy doesn’t wound. Penetration of organs do. A baseball at thrown velocities has no penetration, but can still kill through blunt trauma if only to the head.
>get shot in the leg, severing the femoral artery, and go unconscious due to blood pressure in 15 seconds, dying a minute later >only getting shot in the organs kills
???
A fast ball has nearly the same energy as a .22lr, and it rarely kills or seriously injures people unless they get hit in the head.
Obviously energy isn't the factor
A 101mph fastball has ~120 ftlbs, a 22lr has ~ 130 ftlbs
Literally have a nice day.
Also Bella twin killed the world record Grizzly bear with a .22 long, weaker than Lr, it's was a lead round nose, producing 95 ftlbs of energy
A fast ball has nearly the same energy as a .22lr, and it rarely kills or seriously injures people unless they get hit in the head.
Obviously energy isn't the factor
Ideally your barrel should be thin, your cylinder should be fricking massive for more power and more bullets, and your frame/grip should be thin. These are the ideal proportions that I call the inverted hourglass.
4" for 357 Magnum. Optimal ballistics and reasonably short barrel for carry and rapid drawing.
fpbp as usual
long enough to spin and be balanced. snubs have their place as carry pieces, but a nice long barrel is great for aesthetics as well as handloading.
tbh morons whining about maximizing velocity from your powder charge in a pistol cartridge should be using a lever carbine and not a handgat.
Depends entirely on the application.
5” barrel, .357, k-frame.
Wow
As long as possible in the larger caliber possible.
No
I think a 4" - 6" barrel with a full-sized grip is the best aesthetically-speaking.
A really long barrel can seem almost cartoonish, and a slim grip just looks odd overall.
A snub nose with a thick grip can look cool, provided it's in a magnum caliber, otherwise the cylinder can look small by comparison. Shrouded hammers instantly ruin the lines of any revolver.
That being said, I love my 8 3/8" model 29
8 3/8" is patrician's choice of N frame
Short grip with a 3.5 inch barrel
Surely there must have been a less conspicuous place to put "made in France," or at least a nicer looking font. The thing costs, what, 3 grand?
made in france isnt really a mark of shame like made in turkey would be imo, and more rare than made in germany or italy and such. if you're shooting and some dude sees you and thinks you're just shooting some S&W with a trigger/hammer job but then sees that its made in france you could get a free opportunity to flex
I can't even imagine how mushy and full of holes your brain must be to think like this
I wouldn't pay 3 grand for it. they went for far not too many years ago.
Should match the length of the shooter's member
anything less is a cope.
The most important thing is the action. DAO is the most important function IMO you can bob the hammer also. SAO you have to move your hand around on the gun to manipulate things, you want a steady position to shoot.
Next I'd say sights and ammo, you want to be consistent. Fixed sights with a Trench on the back are at least consistent but if you're going to change ammo brands or loads all the time and use one consistently for a few months or years over time fixed sights are probably better. If you're just going to shove random ammo brands in of different power factors I don't think it matters that much.
I think it depends to how much you want to stick to fundamentals of shooting, to me that covers steady position and sight picture trigger control. YMMV
5" barrel
Full underlug
All other answers are false.
Half underlugs are just gross. I don't like any of them.
>birds head grip
>3" barrel
>.460 mag
I prefer my revolver in 500 mag, mag fed.
Wtf woah. That’s freakin disturbing man,
I feel like if you're getting a revolver you might as well lean into their main advantage over modern semi-autos and get the most cartoonishly oversized ammunition you can.
You'd struggle to find an autoloader ammo that outperforms 357 mag
Keep in mind that most modern 357 factory ammo is using the castrated pressure standard of 36,000 cup which still outperforms nearly every autoloader, but when you move to 40000 cup or higher (which is what the ammo used to be before s&w shit the bed) it becomes a superb pistol caliber with manageable recoil and carbine-like energy and performance
Anything larger is a shitty novelty gun
10mm is superior. To get good ballistics from 357 you need a long barrel. Rarely see a 357 with longer than a 4" barrel.
10mm is an excellent auto loader caliber, but consider the fact that hand loading autoloader ammo is a hassle (I do this, so I have firsthand experience) and the ammo does not have good availability, and double stack 10mm magwell sizes make the guns bulky and difficult to handle for people of average hand size.
revolvers chambered in 357 mag you can easily handload and/or shoot readily available 38 spl ammunition for tasks that do not require as much power (like shooting paper). There are downsides to 10mm but I would not feel undergunned using it facing a dangerous predator
From my own experience the difference in velocity between 4" and 6" barrels is pretty minor. 4" looks like the magic sweet spot in terms of 357 mag
>10mm is superior. To get good ballistics from 357 you need a long barrel.
Wrong.
Idk where this meme came from, if you look through ballistics charts for factory 357 mag ammo it seems like there are rapidly diminishing returns past 4", meanwhile .44 mag still gets significant boosts all the way out to 8"
Even 44 mag it's pretty diminishing.
I would guess because of the cylinder gap, blowing gas out the side more than behind the bullet
What do you mean "outperform"?
Every legitimate authority has known for 40 years that round for round, pistol rounds do the same thing until you get to 44 mag +p and crazier.
I'd like to see 7.5 FK ballistics tests. 2000 fps should make it capable of doing more than punching 7.5mm holes
Still too slow.
You don't see any added wounding effects from projectiles under 2200-2400fps (unless the frontal area of the projectile is pretty big, like .458+)
One of the first major systemic reviews of ballistics was a DOJ report in like 1985, and to quote them "energy does not wound"
The bullet needs to reach vital structures, while retaining enough velocity to damage them.
Beyond that, more bullets on target = better.
7.5FK usually under penetrates.
What the absolute frick do you mean 7.5 FK under penetrates. They’re solid copper projectiles going 2k fps.
You're fricking moronic dude
It's not legal to hunt deer with a gun with less than 500 energy ft lbs (this includes the vast majority of autoloaders, notably not 10mm) in my state (and others), because it is considered unethical to shoot animals of that size with such a weak cartridge. Don't you suppose this is a case of an authority directly contradicting your stupid ass narrative?
>underage moron thinks his states hunting laws are everyone's
Black person you can use 25 ACP for deer and bear in my state.
32 auto for elk.
Oh shit I forgot, you can use the 25 auto on elk also
>I base my ballistics knowledge on gudd regulations put in effect by a board of morons appointed to the position by the governor
Yes, because they know more than every systemic review of handgun ballistics and wounding ever made.
Backpedal harder, dunce
>underage fudd autistically screeching about energy
>a comparison between 9mm and .45
Anon, they're both underpowered as frick and don't belong in a discussion about bullets that are generating double the velocity and energy of either caliber
L frame? 4 inch
N frame? 5 inch
Comically large
>2" J frame
>4" K and L frame
>5" N frame
>6.5" X frame
>4"
>K frame or similarly sized frame
>Half-lug
If we can all agree the model 10 is the greatest revolver ever, then all of the above must be the elements that make a good revolver
>2 inch J frame
>3 inch round butt K frame
>4 inch square butt K Frame
>6 inch L/N frame
4-5".
All of them. Revolvers are joy.
44 magnum. 8 inches. No exceptions.
8inch .308
4" K Frame.
>energy doesn't wound
Let's all just throw baseballs at each other in that case, since they're way larger caliber than any bullet
I don't want to wound, I want to kill.
Energy doesn’t wound. Penetration of organs do. A baseball at thrown velocities has no penetration, but can still kill through blunt trauma if only to the head.
>get shot in the leg, severing the femoral artery, and go unconscious due to blood pressure in 15 seconds, dying a minute later
>only getting shot in the organs kills
???
You’re trying to play semantics but doesn’t know arteries are organs.
In that case, everything is an organ, including skin and muscle tissue, but not all gunshot wounds are fatal.
No Black person. An artery is literally a organ. Google it.
>skin
your skin IS an organ
Okay, then the criterion listed earlier for a killing wound is moronic and my point is made
Energy is a byproduct of wounding factors, not the metric on which wounding effectiveness should be based.
Fricking dunce.
Considering a baseball can have the energy of bullets, but still not as fatal proves his fricking point you reeee-tard.
>a fastball has less than 100 energy ft lbs
???
A baseball with bullet levels of energy would absolutely kill my dude
A 101mph fastball has ~120 ftlbs, a 22lr has ~ 130 ftlbs
Literally have a nice day.
Also Bella twin killed the world record Grizzly bear with a .22 long, weaker than Lr, it's was a lead round nose, producing 95 ftlbs of energy
Not even. 22 long has 67ftlbs.
And killed a record Grizzly bear.
moron shot himself in the foot with his baseball comparison
And yet, nobody thinks that 22lr is a suitable caliber for hunting or self defense.
On the reverse, people have been killed by fastballs, both with head and chest trauma.
Do you think that baseballs might be more lethal if they were going 2 or 3 times faster?
Baseballs are okay for conceal carry, but if concealing is not an issue, I'd go for an atlatl
A fast ball has nearly the same energy as a .22lr, and it rarely kills or seriously injures people unless they get hit in the head.
Obviously energy isn't the factor
Do you think that a baseball travelling 2 or 3 times as fast might kill somebody?
I appreciate the artistry of this weapon, but its objectively fricking moronic
Peak anti-cyborg performance
That looks like the rhino which actually makes some sense from a design standpoint
The gun above doesn't even have a barrel?
It's the Mateba 2006M, which is real and from the same designer as the Rhino. Weirdly, I find the Mateba sexy and the Rhino hideous.
I think its the ugly cutouts above the barrel. People complain about the seam but those holes look like shit
If that’s the case then why is the Unica 6 so sexy?
>but its objectively fricking moronic
why?
Not him, but I imagine barrel length
yeah it's short/nonexistant
still works just fine
imagine a snub nose
I really like the 3" SP101 but they don't make a hammerless version.
Yeah that's hammerless but the caliber's all wrong.
Everything's a compromise.
BIG
2–100–2
Ideally your barrel should be thin, your cylinder should be fricking massive for more power and more bullets, and your frame/grip should be thin. These are the ideal proportions that I call the inverted hourglass.