/k/ time is of the essence Is $1000 a solid deal on a brand new MPR8?

>>34101663
I've seen em for 800 my dude

>>34101663

>scandium frame
>tacticool rail

You are paying too much no matter what you buy it for

I guess. S&W's website says the MSRP is $1329

>>34101663
1k is not a good deal get something else

>>34101663

Tell them $900, if it is brand spanking new then that is just about worth it even though they do go for around $800 in shops but after taxes and everything you are nearing that $900 mark anyway

>>34101726
>>34101711
>>34101697
>>34101696

lol who buys revolvers anymore besides old collectors?

>>34101878
>current year
>not buying a revolver from your local neighborhood dindus for easy drive-bys without having to pick up the shells
>ISHIGGYDIGGY

>>34101878
Single action Revolvers are fun

>>34101878
Ask L.A. swat, they requested the r8 cause it cant go out of battery and has a large capacity by wheel gun standards. So I guess modern police would be a party who buys revolvers.

>>34101663
If you simply want an 8 shot .357, there are other cheaper models you should probably consider first.

>>34101887

Yeah hoodrats are revolvers only real market anymore

>>34101888

Sure for posterity sake and some plinking entertainment, but no revovler has any real life practical advantage over semi auto

>>34101941

Yeah decent semi automatics do not fuck up when you take care of them besides just the craziest chances, and revolvers can fuck up in that same crazy chance. 8 rounds is still shit compared to 15, especially when the gun is bigger, wider and heavier that the semi auto, and takes forever to load

File: 1495314593666.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

>>34101988
>but no revovler has any real life practical advantage over semi auto

>significantly less prone to ammunition-related failure
>is harder to put out of battery
>longer sight radius
>more ergonomic grip design
>more powerful ammunition

>>34102109

>significantly less prone to ammunition-related failure

Rarely an issue with a maintained semi auto or even just a well built pistol

>is harder to put out of battery

See the last answer

>longer sight radius

Lolwat

>more ergonomic grip design

That can be true, sure, but it usually only matters for women or men with smaller hands

>more powerful ammunition

9mm-45 can hollowpoints can take down anything with two legs as well as .357 magnum can, same amount of shots too. However there are .357 mag semi autos so

For four legs you have 10mm and there really is zero reason to need more "power than that", might as well have a rifle so you have more rounds and control having more "powerful" ammunition is mallninja logic, try not to use it

buy it

File: 1471030987369.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>34102184
>>That can be true, sure, but it usually only matters for women or men with smaller hands

>n-frame
>for women or men with smaller hands

>>34102184
he's not talking about reliability when he says "put out of battery" he's talking about someone grabbing the slide keeping the gun from reloading

>>34101988
>no real life practical advantage

Other than handgun hunting and bear defense I'd generally agree with you.
Also for pocket guns j frames are still a good option. Because of its shape though it prints it doesn't really look like a gun. Smaller semi autos are still not really 100% reliable like their larger siblings. 38+p from a snub (gold dots, buffalo bore lswchp) is about equivalent to 9mm from an equally short barrel - at least in the ballistic gel tests I've seen. S&w offers j frames with night sights and plenty of grip options.

In everything between the smallest pistols and some of the largest, revolvers are outclassed by semis. They still make great range guns and have some of the best double and single action triggers of any gun period when done right

>>34102240
Actually with its roundbutt frame you can get grips in a much wider variance of sizes and shapes than you can with semi autos. It's okay that you don't really understand much about revolvers - I can teach you

>>34102336

If someone gets their hands on your gun even with a revolver you are in trouble because they can easily aim it away from themselves or twist it in your hand, if you pull the trigger there is a chance one of you is getting burned from the gas

>>34102338

Even with bear hunting you have hot 10mm and more rounds than a revolver has to deal with it, not to mention the ability to shoot faster and cleaner in a holy shit situation.

Revolvers make great toys at the range, but that is pretty much their only practical application

>>34101697
Actually the scandium frames are pretty good - it's the titanium cylinders that have problems.

>rail
For one thing it doesn't hurt the aesthetic because it's already a very different looking revolver. Secondly this could be a very viable home defense gun to keep by your bedside if you don't have enough time to reach your rifle/shotgun in your safe. 357 is on par with 10mm from this barrel length, and 8 rounds isn't too shabby either - though I'd rather have a glock 20 personally

>>34102397

I mean if you had nothing else on hand, sure, but if you just prepped a tiny bit you could have a rifle or a handgun near your bed that would outdo the big fucker in every way

>>34102184
>only matters for women and baby men
Actually your wrong, hogue grips are really comfy if you ever get the chance to hold a set

>longer sight radius
This is correct, though it comes at the expense of having a longer gun

>9mm/45 comparable to 357
Nope - underwood 357 125 gold dots produce 800 fucking foot pounds of muzzle energy from a 6 inch - though this would decrease slightly from a 5 inch barrel. 800 ft ilbs is twice the energy of 45 Acp and more than half that of 5.56

>>34101988
t. carries a FN45 tactical with a suppressor and an rmr

>>34102456

I forgot about supressors, another thing that makes revolvers just absolutely archaic

>>34101988
>Yeah decent semi automatics do not fuck up when you take care of them
you have no idea what out of battery means do you? its the action retard, there is no 'taking care of', you push a short recoil against something it will go out of battery and wont fire. can you guess why?

>>34102374
>bears
>10mm
Most agree that 44 magnum is really a much better insurance plan from bears - it's got a different level of energy than even underwood 10mm.

>they're toys
Semi autos certainly have some advantages over revolvers (I don't have a desire to carry them for my use), but to say they're solely for range toys is a gross exaggeration

>>34102336
You can grab the cylinder or hammer and keep a revolver from firing. What he actually means is if you have a guy on top of you, you can shove the gun into them and fire without the slide being pushed out of battery. That can be solved by adding a stand off plate or a flashlight that sticks out past the muzzle.

>>34102497

Already cleared that up above and even below, please keep up.

>>34102508

.44-.500 is absolutely better for big game than a revolver, but in most applications there are loads for 10mm that can get the job done really, but why not carry a rifle in such a case?

And I do not mean to say revolvers are useless guns, they kill just as well as any other firearm, but their practical use compared to a semi auto is considerably limited making them far less useful by comparison to the point of it being silly to pick a revolver on purpose over a semi auto

>>34102542
Id still contend that a 4-6 inch 44 is superior to any 10mm load and is still easier to carry in a shoulder rig/ owb holster (for the 4 inch of course) than a rifle

We're pretty much in agreement other wise

>>34102359
you missed the point so hard i don't even know what to say

>>34102581

.44 beats 10mm in power and everything for sure

But I think in the situation of having a hiking gun or something it would boil down to preference and what you train with the most vs the kind of gun.

File: 1495665805405.jpg (109KB, 506x618px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 506x618px

>>34102374
>bear hunting
>10mm
>doesn't know the difference between reliability and putting a gun out of battery
>doesn't understand sight radius
>doesn't understand why you'd want a powerful handgun in bear country
>uses .357mag semi autos as an argument

n o g u n s
o
g
u
n
s

d e t e c t e d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

>>34102109
Don't forget
>isnt single shot if magazine lost

File: 20170524_203134.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

I have a TRR8 and I like it. I did not care for the fuckhuge M&P logo on the R8, nor do I use the bottom rail.
I got it for ~$1100 after taxes and ffl transfer, but this is in california.

I have well over 1k rounds through it.

Make sure the barrel shroud is on TIGHT, because some of them have loose shrouds. Mine did and I had to retighten it plus add loctite.

You may have light primer strikes because the mainspring isn't tightened all the way, so give it an extra tighten with a screwdriver. I also put a tiny brass shim cut out of a .22 casing between the screw and the mainspring, and the problem went away.

SA trigger is excellent, DA trigger is on the heavy side and it has 3 distinct stages: a heavy pull for the first 20%, light for the middle 70%, then it gets a bit heavy again in the last 10% just before the break, which is very crisp.

>>34101663
>buying new Smith & Wesson

Nope

>>34102542
>Already cleared that up above and even below
No you didn't. The front man would enter with a shield and get his pistol caught up on his own shit during entry, no druggie was flopping on top of him trying to grab his slide, cylinder, hammer or trigger. If some one was attacking the front man the dudes behind him would shoot or start beating him. Glad to help you learn something new today, maybe next time you post in a trr8/r8 thread you wont look like an idiot.

>>34102542
>why not carry a rifle in such a case
>why not carry something that's 5 times larger and requires 2 hands?

>>34102670

No, you.

>>34102696

Stupid ass argument

If you are going to be in fucking bear country with a chance of being caught on a trail by one you had better be well prepared and use what you can use best

File: 1495570387193.jpg (74KB, 807x802px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 807x802px

>>34102783

>why carry a revolver when i can just carry my dads desert eagle

>>34102694
I guess that's why revolvers are used by every single law enforcement agency right?

>>34102807

Summer /k/ in full force

Enjoy your noguns

>>34102797
>better just turn your truck into a technical with a mounted mg and drive it with a gunner every time you encroach on bear land

>>34102843

At least we agree on something

>>34102812
No, just special applications.

>>34102797
so then why are you even using "10mm kills bears" as an argument?

>>34102687
Heck that is one purrdy gun

>>34102852

My argument is that even in the case of bears, 10mm or rifles are just as viable as revolvers so they still have even less real world practical uses compared to semi auto counterparts.

>>34102863
if they're "just as viable" then the revolver is also "just as viable" therefore you literally have no argument.

OP, the R8 is cool but has a major issue. IIRC, the frame is a scandium alloy while the barrel + barrel shroud is made of steel. When the gun heats up from firing, the difference in materials causes the different parts of the gun to cool at different speeds. This creates a tendency for the barrel shroud to unscrew itself and literally fall out every 1000 rounds or so, which requires that you send the gun back to S&W for reattachment. More than one person has had this problem.

In light of this, I'd say that you are a lot better off with a 627 than an R8.

>>34102871

The argument is that revolvers are not as useful compared to semi autos except in some extreme situational circumstances that might as well not be counted.

>>34102885
You're trying to wildly exaggerate that perceived "not as useful" gap because you feel like shitposting.

>>34102846
I accept your apology.

>>34102941

Unless you have something more constructive to ad, my point on revolvers being less useful than semi autos stands

>>34102952

You can accept this dick

Semi autos are still the superior weapon platform and revolvers are just for fun unless you have no other option

>>34102852

>continuing to respond to a noguns retard

>>34102581
>>34102665
well yea. Other than some brainproblemed people, I have never heard anyone unironically claiming a hot loaded 10mm can outperform .44 mag

But I guess the allure of 15+1 of something that borders onto .41 mag and a glock 20 isn't really fuckhuge either might be very attractive. You can also argue that some instances of big bear coming at you, you only have a shot or two to make it count and power is better than capacity in that situation, but truthfully, just take a .45-70 or 12ga with magnum slugs. Shit, I am more afraid of sneaky mountain lions than big loud bears.

>>34102672
well if you somehow lose the cylinder on a wheelgat you have no boom at all

>>34104135
>somehow
Come on. Not even you can type that with a straight face.
It's like saying if you somehow lose the chamber on your semi auto you can't fire it. It's silly.

>>34104342
>It's silly.
yes it is.
i wasn't being serious

>be S&W
>make an AR, a .22 rifle, a semi auto pistol, and a revolver
>call all of them the M&P
>it stands for Military and Police even though guns aren't just for Military or Police

What were they thinking?

>>34104893
That they would sell fast to tatical fags, military wannabes and police academy failures, which they do.

File: 20170419_103258.jpg (238KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 540x540px

>>34104480
>mfw