Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulddraper | Hacker News Reader

I'd describe it as less "borderline fashion" (which any hobby has) more as legal caprice.

Historical examples:

* The Firearm Owners Protection Act banned machineguns manufactured before 1986.

* The Federal Assault Weapons Ban banned certain semi-automatic weapons excluding those manufactured before 1994.

Firearm hobbyists need decade-plus forward thinking predictions. What's today legal is a felony tomorrow, unless steps are taken now.

This makes it a volatile guessing game, even more than other hazardous hobbies (cars, aircraft, martial arts, motorcycles, etc.).

View on HN

I'm not sure I understand.

You see popular revolvers selling well... nobody is buying those based on the law.

Historically, politically-related events do in fact play a large role in gun sales.

There were lengthy and severe shortage of small arms and ammunition following both Obama's election and the Sandy Hook shooting, especially .22 caliber ammunition. [1]

I don't think .22 ammunition is on the chopping block, but there's a general positive feedback loop, like a bank rush.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9313_United_States_...

.22 ammunition uses rimfire priming, which requires unique machinery which as I recall no US company dared to buy more of, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked to. Existing US 3 billion rounds per year + foreign imports couldn't keep up with the demand, which also seems to have included a lot of new gun owners, buying .22 models like their main guns or conversion kits for cheaper practice.

Perhaps related to this scam, I don't remember any company other than Remington building out a major increase in capacity, that article mentions their $32 million plant expansion. Companies were reluctant since they didn't know when demand and supply would get back in sync, I would also wonder if smokeless powder capacity was a factor, there aren't very many companies that make it.

Yeah. Unpredictability in demand yields unpredictability in supply, and vice versa.

Revolvers are absolutely more popular in areas where ammunition capacity is restricted. 7 round .357 is a great option in areas where there is a 10 round max for magazines.

Places out east (NY, NJ) have extremely low limits for capacity, both in effect and proposed. When ammunition capacity is reduced, there is an incentive to go for a (typically) more reliable revolver. Many people would rather have say a 7-shot 357 S&W wheelgun vs a 9-round (maximum) semi-auto magazine.

I ankle-carried a .357 snub for most of my life, and it literally weighed less than the 5 rounds that it held.

> When ammunition capacity is reduced, there is an incentive to go for a (typically) more reliable revolver.

In case anyone isn't reading between the lines:

The chief advantage of a more complicated, less reliable, more expensive semi-auto handgun is its larger capacity in a smaller profile. A semi-auto packs rounds tightly together rather than having an effective chamber around each one.

But if you don't actually get more rounds, might as well opt for a revolver like the parent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com