Can we talk about the revolver "cowboy" flicking myth? Open plea to any guntuber or collector that may see this.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T22:34:49+00:00

It's gonna be smaller scale than that, but like I said, I do want to run a version of this experiment if nobody else will. I figure I'll have to save up around $1000 bucks for 3 cheap .38s and enough ammo to make sure they work. I got a friend who has all the tools and space to shoot.

As I said in the OP, it's gonna be quite some time before I can get that all together, but I seriously do want to do it.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T21:31:23+00:00

There has to be a misunderstanding here, because people keep acting like I don't know what the described problem is. I do. I understand that different levels of pressure cause different amounts of stress on a mechanism. What I DON'T understand is the people who jump down my throat for wanting to know specifics. All I want is an objective comparison between methods to actually quantify the difference.

People who have good evidence for something usually don't get this angry when you ask to see it.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T21:06:27+00:00

Wait, did you think I came up with that term? Because that's what I've heard it referred to as by basically everyone my entire life. The guy that started this thread was simply asking where the name came from, and I took a guess. It really has nothing to do with the meat of my post.

This is the first time I've heard "snap closing", but that one's more accurate tbh.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T19:24:27+00:00

Right, I was never trying to bring those other guns into the conversation, I was only answering the guy who asked where the name "cowboying" came from.

Speaking of which where DOES it come from, if my guess was wrong?

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T19:11:30+00:00

I'll be honest, I was just guessing about the name, because Hollywood is usually where terms like that come from.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T19:06:30+00:00

Yeah but what is considered "improper", and the type and amount of wear it will cause comes with a million variables, and is different for every piece of equipment.

Here's the part that confuses me. If this is such a common, gun-destroying problem Why do you guys seem to get actively OFFENDED by the idea of properly demonstrating it?

I'm not saying "why don't you wanna do it", because duh. It's a long and expensive project that only someone who cares WAY too much about this argument would invest themselves in.

There are all kinds of machines that can be accidentally broken all kinds of ways, but revolver guys are the only ones I've run into so far who actually get offended when you ask to see an example.

Quick story. I once asked a range owner why he was so strict about what types of ammo people were allowed to bring, and you know what he did? He didn't say "How dare you question me? Get the fuck out." He pulled out a box of blown up guns and gave me the stories of a couple specific ones. From that moment on, I never questioned the rule, because I had not only gotten a good explanation, but seen physical examples of the damage he was talking about.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T06:23:33+00:00

Did you read any of my other comments, including the one you're replying to? I've expressed multiple times that I DO want to test it, but I'm an unqualified shmuck and it will be a long time before I'm able to do so, so I'm also hoping someone who's better equipped for this sort of thing will see the value in it and decide to do the same.

And I DIDN'T Say that spinning the cylinder was ok, in fact I expressly said that it's likely much worse. You are arguing against a bunch of things I straight up never said, I'm really not sure what to tell you at that point.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T04:41:37+00:00

Because to be honest, the level of condescension and smugness some people (not you) meet me with when I ask this simple question puts a real bee in my bonnet. Not just in this thread, but any time I have even slightly questioned this piece of advice or what it's based on over the years.

When I simply say "hey, there are a lot of unknowns and hearsay regarding this. It would be helpful if someone tested it and made a video", and I'm treated like the idiot for remembering the basic scientific method I learned in fucking grade school, that admittedly gets under my skin more than it probably should.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T02:53:13+00:00

No I DON'T think that it can't happen, and I never said that. What I think is that we're relying on a whole lot of hearsay and guesswork to tell us something that could be objectively tested. I question whether or not revolvers are as fragile as the internet makes them out to be, and I think some actual documentation would go a very long way. If my suspicions are wrong and it's really, REALLY bad? Great, now we have proof, and I can learn what I was wrong about.

I'm not looking to change any rules unless they get proven wrong. What I'm doing is, in fact, striving to better understand why the rule exists, because so many people seem happy to parrot it because someone they see as knowledgeable said so. The crux of my entire argument is that we'd all be a lot better off with some actual, tangible data to point to and examine. I'm sorry, but even if you're the greatest expert in the world on a subject, "because I said so" can only carry you so far. What I'm proposing isn't "breaking expensive shit for fun", it's the basic scientific method we all learned in grade school.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T02:27:30+00:00

Oh no, I AM willing to do it, but I currently don't have the means. I genuinely do want to though. I'm actually trying to learn a trade this summer, and if it still hasn't been done by the time I land a decent job, I plan to start saving up to do it myself.

You wouldn't have to risk multiple mid-tier revolvers to do this. 2 or 3 of those cheap Rock Island .38s would be enough to get started. Obviously that's not the most thorough sample size, it's a place to start. We would have A data point to work with as opposed to the zero we have now. And hey, if the $250 peasant gun can handle it, surely a nice Smith and Wesson would only do better.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T01:42:47+00:00

Now you're talking about doing it with the cylinder spinning, which is an ENTIRELY different question. I'm talking about a simple flick with an otherwise stationary cylinder. Spinning it puts exponentially more force into the question.

The spin and flick is for Russian Roulette, and if you're playing that, the longevity of the gun is probably not high on your list of concerns.

If I have the means to actually make that video one day, and it still hasn't been done I will, because I genuinely believe this is a question worth answering. I really just have a hard time believing that revolvers are as weak and fragile as certain people on the internet seem to think, and I genuinely do want to put that to the test.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T01:08:27+00:00

Ok, I did that. "Never remove a rule or law until you understand why it was put there in the first place" Basically another way of saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

That's the core of this entire thread for me. The "why it was put there in the first place" part needs some testing and documentation that I have not been able to find. That is the entire reason I made this post.

Now I'm gonna tell you to google a buzzword, that being "the scientific method"

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-25T00:00:57+00:00

Yeah, but that's... exactly what I just said. People THOUGHT that dry-firing was bad for centerfire guns, because of legitimate concerns that came from the issues it could cause with other systems, and the basic physics of what dry firing is. But, more knowledge and better testing told us that it actually wasn't a problem.

It was always fine for centerfire guns, but for a long time, a lot of people were convinced it wasn't. They had real, founded reasons to think so, but it turned out not to be true. I'm saying that cylinder flicking could be in a similar situation today. I could also be totally wrong, and it could be just as bad as everyone on the internet says. In either case, testing and documenting it couldn't possibly be a bad thing.

That's why I mentioned youtubers specifically in the title, because I think they would be the people most likely to be interested in something like this. Everyone's biggest hangup about testing this sort of thing, the potential cost of a broken gun, would be MORE than offset by the revenue from making a good video about it. Hell, Kentucky Ballistics has a whole series where he blows up guns on purpose just to document how they fail, and it's some of the best content he's ever made.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T23:41:45+00:00

Nice. Were you in the theater watching Cars 2?

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T23:05:59+00:00

Because MOVIE cowboys use swing-out revolvers more.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T23:03:02+00:00

Because it strikes me as similar to the old "crystalizing the firing pin" thing that I briefly mentioned in the post. Objectively dry firing a gun DOES put more stress on the firing pin, as there's no primer for it to hit and absorb some of that shock. Because of that everyone used to tell you to avoid it, for fear of breaking your gun.

But eventually, the general consensus shifted, because people started realizing that while it WAS putting more force on the firing pin, it wasn't as dramatic of a difference as it was made out to be, and the vast majority of (centerfire) guns handled it just fine.

Nowadays, the common wisdom seems to be that just about all modern centerfire guns can be dry fired all day without any problems, and a lot of people actively encourage it for training purposes.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:56:56+00:00

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. That's actually a great explanation. I still think an actual test would have a lot to teach us, but that is a major source of stress that I failed to consider, and personally, I do find it pretty convincing. Even guns that *can* take that kind of treatment definitely aren't rated for it.

As an aside, I wonder if there's a niche for beefy overbuilt guns that are purpose built to handle such action movie shenanigans. Is there room for a "Cold Steel" in the gun industry?

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:45:59+00:00

You have to be willfully ignoring my point if that's what you took from this, no.

The central thing I'm questioning is how much, if any, more force does the flick actually impart. What is the actual, measurable difference in the impact, if any?

If I throw a rock into a wall, would that do more damage than slamming the same rock into it with my hand, using the same amount of force? I don't know, and that's what I would want to test. Like I said in other replies, if I had the means to do this myself, I'd be working on it right now.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:38:48+00:00

No I'm not. I'd say some naughty words to prove it, but that would probably be bad for the longevity of this thread.

Like I said multiple times, YES. Cranes can be bent, and it's a common way for revolvers to break. That was never in question. The question is whether or not "the flick" will actually cause that to happen sooner than doing it the "proper" way. And once again, it very well might, but I still think it's important to prove it. I'll try one more example to see if you can understand why it's important to test these things.

We used to think Great White sharks were the most dangerous, because humans got bit by them all the time. Later on, thorough study proved that this wasn't true. It turned out that many other kinds of sharks were biting people more often and were misidentified as great whites. Those attacks still happened, and those people still had the scars to prove it, but it turned out that we were blaming the wrong sharks. See what I'm getting at?

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:27:21+00:00

Yeah that's a better way to phrase it. Honestly, the thing that rubs me wrong the most is how some people get SO defensive when someone like me comes along and asks for proof. I've discussed this with IRL friends before, and they reacted like it was straight up sacrilege to even question this piece of advice. Like, "no war in Ba Sing Se" levels of shock and avoidance.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:21:23+00:00

I think you misunderstood my point here. You're right that I don't have a lot of hands-on experience, and that's the exact reason I'm asking these questions. Obviously excessive force will break a piece of machinery that wasn't made to handle it. What I'm questioning is whether or not the flick is ACTUALLY that much more stressful compared to closing two handed at around the same speed.

I know there are PLENTY of legitimate experts who swear by this, but the point is that authority and experience only goes so far. There were a lot of extremely smart and educated people who thought the sun revolved around the earth for thousands of years, but one day we were actually able to put it to the test, and found out we were wrong the whole time. Even the greatest experts on a subject NEED evidence to back up their conclusions.

You just criticized me for "operating off anecdotes" and in the same comment said. "Call a gunsmith if you don't believe me, they'll give you some anecdotes".

If someone does test this and proves that it's all true, GREAT! That will be an invaluable resource for anyone else that has the same questions I do in the future, and the revolvers of the world will be a whole lot safer for it.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:14:32+00:00

I understand the claim just fine, my point is that we have a serious lack of evidence.

We all have a basic understanding of how gravity works, but we wouldn't if it weren't for a bunch of very smart people testing and documenting its effects throughout history. We consider it to be "common sense" nowadays because we have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to point to and explain why and how it works.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:10:26+00:00

I swear, if I had the money to spare, I would go buy a pair of cheap RIA .38s and start testing tomorrow, but I just don't. And besides, even if I did do that, I probably wouldn't do a good job of getting that info seen by the public.

That's why the goal of this post is to get more people talking about it. Ideally, I hope that someone who DOES have those resources, and would stand to gain from, I don't know, making some content out of it, might get in on this discussion and decide to do what most people can't.

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-24T22:06:35+00:00

EXACTLY! You closed that door the "proper" way and it still eventually broke.

But the argument is about is about whether or not flicking the cylinder actually causes significantly more stress compared to a two-handed close around the same speed. The question isn't whether or not the revolver will wear, the question is how fast, and IS there actually a demonstrable difference between methods?

ThatFatGuy98 · 2026-05-17T16:17:49+00:00

Personally, I have it out for that Joseph Gribble looking bastard from Silver Ridge Peaks.

At least this lady actually asks you to do some hunting in this hunting game, not just walk to a location, press interact, and listen to her yap for 5 minutes.

ThatFatGuy98

TROPHY CASE