Why aren't there rails on revolvers?

[raindog]

It occurred to me that my 4" .357 Mag revolver would be a great bedside-safe home defense gun...except it has no rail for a light.

Leaving aside the debate about gun lights (some say it's better to have the flashlight separate), I wish revolvers came with rails.

Read More

 

[Nwcid]

Not sure, why not?

 

[Solomon]

Not sure, why not?

I was going to post the same thing. I mean, if he wants a light it will work just fine.

<broken link removed>

 

[raftman]

This is pure speculation, but I'd guess one reason why rails on revolvers aren't common is that revolvers are somewhat old-school (no, I am not saying they're outdated) and with anything old school there tends a "purist" element that basically says it was effective for over 100 years the way it was, no need for any real changes. Just like people dislike the safeties on the Marlin lever action rifles, or why you rarely see tacticool lever action rifles.

Of course not everyone thinks that way; so maybe it also has something to with with the fact the on a revolver, the rail would pretty much have be attached to the barrel, whereas with semi-autos the rail is generally on the frame. So maybe there's some issue with barrel harmonics, or heating and expansion, or the fact that it would just be more costly and add a lot of weight/heft to machine a barrel with a rail, as opposed to making a polymer-framed semi-auto with a rail.

 

[MountainBear]

Not sure, why not?

That rail puts the light way too far forward to be overly useful. I ran a shoot-house with one last year and it was easier to run with a flashlight in the other hand.

 

[iamme]

This is my first thought whenever I see this

 

[just dan]

'cause revolvers are for old dudes (like me) who don't like rails

not really sure if the old dude thing is why, but might just be.

 

[Kimber Custom]

Maybe
- nobody has asked/thought about it yet
- ergonomic issues between the width and length of the cylinder
- interfearance with the empty shell plunger
- damage done to accessories from gas escaping from the cylinder

and most likely
- it would look ridiculous (see pic above for example *yuck*)

 

[cwegga]

Because revolvers are less functional than semi autos...Personally I like the S&W revolvers with rails. What it comes down to in my opinion though is that people who want lights want a better defensive tool. Generally people that want that sort of increased effectiveness will want more capacity, easier reloads and other things that increase effectiveness also. So while 6-8 rounds of .357 are most likely sufficient, the people who will go and buy lights are the same people that aren't satisfied with "likely sufficient." At least that's my take on it.

 

[jonn5335]

Because they are ugly as SH*T I would'nt put a rail on one of my wheelguns if you payed me.

 

[jakk586]

As seen in the photo above the light/ rail has to be mounted far forward to clear the ejector rod. also most revolvers still use a one piece steel barrel that screws into the frame. machining a rail into a barrel blank would make it very heavy defeating the purpose of a short barrel revolver. on the trr8 and some others s&w has started using a two piece barrel design that makes it easy to add a rail without greatly increasing the weight or expense of the gun.

 

[ronin223]

I have that revolver and it has a great trigger

the insight M6 does not stick out that much, but I really only use the upper rail for red dot sights.

I read they build this gun for the shield guy on an entry team so he can brace the gun against the shield and fire which may cause a jam with a semi auto due to the slide movement.

 

[just dan]

I read they build this gun for the shield guy on an entry team so he can brace the gun against the shield and fire which may cause a jam with a semi auto due to the slide movement.

from what a CZ engineer told me, they went with the square trigger guard on the 75-b semi auto for that use... no jamming there.

 

[jordanvraptor]

I love my revolvers but I think cwegga hit it on the head. People who want a light on a rail will want a more "tactical" (yes, I said it, sue me) firearm.

Now bayonets are another story...

 

[raindog]

I'm willing to bet that if we went back in military history, there was some service revolver somewhere that had a bayonet.

 

[not nipsy]

Not to mention, anything requiring a finger in front of the cylinder is a pretty bad idea.

 

[GuyBMeredith]

When Smith and Wesson first came out with a revolver with rails there was much grumbling amongst revolver enthusiasts. I dunno how well it is actually selling.

Then there is this:
<broken link removed>

 

[acp]

I'm with kimber custom on this, his list is right on!

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

With a light on a gun you are giving your opponent a clear shot to center of your body. He knows your body is directly behind the light. About like painting a target on yourself. I guess everyone nowadays is too busy looking tacticool and having the in thing to worry about survival. If you have a separate flashlight in hand and holding it off to the side of your body he has to guess as to which side of the light your body is on. You automatically have a 50% better chance of survival. I will take survival over looks any day.

 

[Hook686]

Personally I think a rail on a handgun is pretty silly for home defense situations. I don't need a scope in my home, and I don't like the idea of a light broadcasting where I am in the dark. I have motion activated lights to light up the zone where the motion is while keeping me in darkness. I have night sights that help in low lighting situations. Why hinder my revolver with a bunch of useless stuff ?