Why did it take so long to get the general public on board with automatics?
We had military adoption and combat use in the 1910's, but revolvers remained popular for decades.
Was public opinion unwarranted, or were 'early' automatics truly unreliable?
>tl;dr Why did revolvers maintain such prevalence among the public for so long after the invention autoloaders?
>>29760012
Quality semi autos were more expensive than revolvers for many years. With modern manufacturing techniques (60s onwards) cost came down, and then it was just a matter of overcoming inertia. (For the US Market) By the nineties, prices were down enough that competing against surplus revolvers and whatnot was feasible, and that's when it really took off. Oh, and seeing police use those affordable semis convinced people that they were reliable enough for general use.
>>29760012
>you will never have a bin full of tok's
Boltguns were not very popular among american citizens either until world war 1. Lever actions were the primary sporting rifle of the american public.
>>29760157
want to be more hopeless?
>>29760157
>>29760184
>>29760012
A lot of semi-auto handguns hit the civilian market before they got to military contracts. The 1903 and Savage are good examples. Revolvers remained popular because people already had them and they worked.
>>29760184
Why do you do this
>>29760207
Also early semi-autos were less reliable by means of less consistency in manufacturing both of the firearms and ammunition.
>>29760228
Let me try to cheer you up.
If you learn to machine, then you can make crates of guns for pennies on the dollar.
>>29760197
>tfw you realize that's salvageable
