[bg226]

So I hear that a couple drops on the pavement and a revolver needs gunsmithing, but you can drive your truck over a glock and it will still go bang.

I believe revolvers and semiautos were used in Vietnam by US forces, I wonder how they performed.

In terms of fragility, how do revolvers and semiautos compare?

[MCgunner]

I don't know. I take care of my guns.

[bg226]

I don't know. I take care of my guns.

That's nice. :rolleyes:

[jungle]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos. For the most part they have completely vanished from the holsters of people who rely on a weapon to function under all conditions. The stoutest revolvers produced for military service in the last century proved to offer poor resistence to adverse conditions, were difficult to repair in the field, and would never be considered for current military or police use except under a few very specialized conditions. Their durability is much lower than a modern service pistol firing the same ammo.
I am sure there will be a difference of opinion, but I say show me a current large scale user of revolvers who made the choice because of superior durability.

[Mooseman]

I agree that pistols are more popular than revolvers but I wouldn't chalk it up to reliability alone. Modern types of both are in general well made and not very damage prone. I think the pistol wins due to its higher shot capacity and ease of reloading. That said I'm not real worried that my Ruger sp101 is especially fragile.:)

[Majic]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos. For the most part they have completely vanished from the holsters of people who rely on a weapon to function under all conditions.
Then explain why far more revolvers are in holsters of people going afield? Why are a lot of BUGs revolvers?

[Euclidean]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos

Which is why autos can handle cartridges like .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, and .500 S&W Magnum and revolvers can't.

My answer: six of one half dozen of the other.

[Crimson]

Revolvers would have an advantage in dealing with fouling (or they did), but some semis like the XD would be better against impact damage due to the enclosed construction

[jungle]

Fragility is not a matter of the size of the round the weapon is chambered for, but the weapon's ability to withstand dirt, abuse, weather and wear. The revolver has it's own advantages in BUGs in that it makes a very compact package for it's caliber in a snubbie, but many 9mm auto BUGs are now issued that rival the snubbie for size and beat it in capacity while being more durable.
As to how many revolvers are taken afield, I would venture that among those paid to go afield against the most dangerous animal in the world one would be hard pressed to find a revolver carried by any of them.
A modern revolver can withstand quite a bit, but drop it in soupy mud and it stops. Run it for 30,000 rounds and it goes out of time. Shoot it 2,000 rounds and it will foul to the point of stoppage. Try replacing the barrel in the field. Aside from capacity, rapid reload, durability, maintainability, ease of use, and ergonomics it's obvious the autopistol has no advantage.

[wally]

Revolvers would have an advantage in dealing with fouling

Not in my experience, takes very little fouling to interfere with the cylinder rotation.

A clean revolver carried close to the body by someone not crawling thru the mud, or as a BUG is very reliable. Under battlefield conditions autos have proven far more reliable than revolvers which why the worlds armies switched to autos ASAP. None of this matters to civilians, but most choose autos for their higher capacity and faster reloads.

I find autos need cleaning far less frequently than revolvers and are generally much easier to clean.

--wally.

[Jenrick]

Jungle: If you're out for actual dangerous big game, most will carry a wheel gun. It will be chambered in .454, .500 etc. A cape buffalo isn't going to stop with 16rds of .45. A. 454 might do the trick under stress, since with a good shot it can drop them.

-Jenrick

[Terrierman]

I don't think he is talking about big game. Other men are most definitely the most dangerous animals on this earth, and for that sort of hunting, he's right.

[jungle]

Terrierman understands. No four leg will set up an ambush with belt feds, booby trap the road, or hunt you for years.
In the sporting world we look to dispatch as humanely as possible, elsewhere there aren't any rules.
The skinniest little guy in the world with an AK is much more of a threat than a whole herd of Buff.

[BigG]

six of one half dozen of the other. This man understands the question. :)

Meaningless speculative horsepucky. :neener:

[jungle]

Meaningless to most, a matter of life and death to some.

[MCgunner]

I'm not so sure a Ruger Blackhawk can't take anything the best autos can and more. I can see where a DA could get its crane damaged, etc, if you were so inconsiderate of the gun as to run it over with a D3 Caterpillar or something. But, a Blackhawk is really strong. It does, of course, have that delicately timed lock work, I suppose.

As to outdoor use, revolver every time for me. I said I take care of my guns, means I don't abuse them. I ain't goin' to war and if I did, I wouldn't stop takin' care of the tool that keeps me alive. :rolleyes: Revolvers can handle a lot hotter cartridge than a normal sized auto. I'll take a 44 mag over any .357 sig. against a toothy predator, for instance. Revolvers are also more accurate in hunting guns.

Autos have their place, firepower, speed of reloading, etc. Revolvers are not an anachronism in self defense, however, no matter what your personal preference is. A DA service revolver in the hands of a man who knows how to use it is still a dangerous adversary to a man armed with a wonder 9. Don't ever under estimate a revolver's capability. It all depends on who's shooting it and how good he/she is with it.

IOW, I really don't care which one is "tougher". It doesn't apply to me so I don't care.

[_N4Z_]

hmmmmm, never really thought of putting the word fragile in the same sentence as my stainless full lug ruger gp100 .357mag...

:scrutiny:

failure to function because of fouling ? ? :confused:

nope, sorry, not seen that happen yet and it gets used alot. of course i clean my tools when done using them.

harder to clean than a semi? my gp cleans up way faster than my beretta96 ever did. in all fairness though that beretta had a very rough bore that required extra scrubbing.

[bg226]

Revolvers require much precision to properly work:

- Each chamber needs to be perfectly aligned with the barrel.

- Cylinder/barrel gap needs to be precise and perfect. Precisely .006" or less.

- Timing must be perfect.

All three of the above must be perfectly precise and work perfectly synchronous with each other for a revolver to function properly.


failure to function because of fouling ? ?

I've seen it happen with a S&W Model 19. After ~250 rounds, the cylinder would not turn because of fouling buildup at the gap.

[Master Blaster]

Get in a close struggle with a bad guy and if the slide of your semi auto gets pushed slightly out of battery it can jam and faile to fire. Thats one problem a revolver doesnt have. I carry and trust a j frame revolver due to the close combat nature of a situation I may encounter as a CCW holding civilian.

[jungle]

If you are in a struggle and someone is getting a grip on your weapon or you are pressing you weapon against you opponent you have already made a mistake.
Revolvers can also be disabled by grabbing the cylinder/hammer area.

I agree that Ruger revolvers are very tough examples of the breed, but if they were truly superior to autos in durability or resistence to hard use they would be in more widespread use by people who rely on their weapons to stay alive.

[wheelgunslinger]

On average, a civilian gunbattle will not require a person to use suppressive fire techniques. Nor will it require a person to fire ~250 rounds that will foul a wheelgun.
I'd say that any encounter you have will be over in less time than it takes to read this post. So, the round count til fouling argument doesn't seem to hold much merit.
It seems like what we're mixing here are two different needs. The needs of an armed professional operator in the field conducting a mission are very different from a Joe sixpack carrying concealed. So, their requirements for a handgun are much less stringent.
On average, the CC guy carries maybe one reload, if that. That's hardly enough to create a fouling issue in a revolver. It's also not enough to melt the barrel in a CZ52.
In fact, all that matters is how the average joe does with those crucial one or two first shots. I know that I can draw, cock, and discharge my Single Action .45 in less time than I can draw, unsafety, and discharge my CZ.
If I were signing up with some security outfit to stand armed over six year olds in a diamond mine to make sure they weren't eating diamonds, I'd probably want an m249 (study where your diamonds come from: Down with DeBeers). But, I'm not. I'm just a guy who may have to draw on a chucklehead in a Barnes and Noble parking lot because he's trying to hold up a reader with a carpet knife. Or whatever.
Working in a professional environment leaves no room for nostalgia and/or personal choice. CC does.
In my personal life though, I'm am evolving into a pistol guy.

[MCgunner]

Ah, anything to argue about, I guess.:rolleyes: Debate, I'm sorry, debate is what we're doin', I guess.:D

harder to clean than a semi? my gp cleans up way faster than my beretta96 ever did. in all fairness though that beretta had a very rough bore that required extra scrubbing.

I think if you're going to be all thorough and pop the side plate off a Smith or Taurus or drop the trigger group out of a Ruger, the revolver is more a pain. But, who the heck does that???? When I clean my revolvers, open the cylinder or drop the cylinder in a single action, scrub the bore and cylinder chambers with the brush, squirt some lube, maybe, down the hammer innards, occasionally I'll take the cylinder crane off and lube it, but not when I'm doing a routine after range cleaning. I'll polish the face of the forcing cone and cylinder and get the fouling off. When I clean my autos, I pull it apart and it takes longer. I never have problems with my revolvers working.

If your gun is fouling significantly at the forcing cone gap, you ain't cleanin' that area very often or it's set up too tight.

I happen to think few guns are as capable as a J frame lightweight .38 for discrete personal defense. I carry a 9mm pocket auto a lot, but I don't feel I need it. I'm happy with my revolver, a speed loader, and a Bianchi speed strip.

[Croyance]

If we are talking about the abuse that the average concealed carry license holder puts their gun through, we are talking about some lint and merely sporadic cleaning. For that either is sufficient.

I would say that any revolver takes longer to clean than a semi-auto. I'm not going to stress the crane by cleaning the chambers without removing the crane from the frame. There are six (or five) chambers to clean.
A semi-auto fieldstrips faster, often without the need for a tool.

Now the fact that average CCW use does not involve enough rounds to foul a gun really doesn't address the issue of which is more fragile, it only says that each will do the job.

[Euclidean]

"If X goes wrong with Y platform, then Y platform will be worthless."

"If Y platform experiences condition Z, then Y platform will fail to function properly."

People people people... we can spend all day on the internet going on and on constructing infinitely many scenarios wherein something will fail. It's a waste of time.

"Fragility" means nothing here without establishing some kind of criteria by which something can be considered fragile.

Is it the inherent limitations of how much power and pressure the firing platform can take?

Is it longevity?

Is it ease of field maintenance?

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Ultimately we're all going to apply some arbitrary set of personal criteria to the question as we all think of different things when we think of what is "Fragile".

I agree that Ruger revolvers are very tough examples of the breed, but if they were truly superior to autos in durability or resistence to hard use they would be in more widespread use by people who rely on their weapons to stay alive.

So corrections officers, rural police officers, CHL permit holders, armored truck personnel and professional security guards don't depend on their weapons daily to stay alive?

[jungle]

Lowest bidder wins out over user preference on occasion.

[Minator]

A revolver is fragile compared to auto on structural abuse it can take, but on standard function it can outlast any auto with full power loads before it jams or needs a part replaced.

[Euclidean]

Lowest bidder wins out over user preference on occasion.

Therefore we should all bash Glocks as they usually occupy that slot. I would speculate that if a police agency priced revolvers from any major maker against Glock pistols, the Glocks would probably still be cheaper.

The question is vague, any and all answers to it are arbitrary because they will conform to whatever the poster thinks of as "fragile". You can argue this all day either way by constructing defeatist scenarios which work against whichever platform you don't want to win out.

[jungle]

Then let's just confine our discussion to actual worldwide use and ignore any feeling or speculation.
I enjoy these discussions, don't really think of them as arguments and realize that we will all pick what works best for us. I enjoy many of the posters comments and their way of framing the answer.
I didn't ask the question, I don't know how others may answer, but I can always learn and hopefully do so from other's experience.

[gezzer]

Is Gunkid back?

[Crosshair]

A revolver is more fragile because of it's lockwork.

An auto is more fragile because it may be ammo sensitive.

A revolver may be more fragile because of fouling.

An auto may be more fragile because of a bad magazine.

A revolver can chamber more powerfull cartridges.

An Auto can hold more rounds in its magazine.

A revolver can be loaded from a box of cartridges very easily.

People with weak hands may have trouble loading an auto magazine. (I met an older person who had this problem.)

Revolvers can have a scope mounted without much trouble.

Special mounts are often needed to mount a scope to an auto.

A revolver can break, an auto can break. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Personaly, I prefer revolvers. However I do own several autos. Each has their place.

[Croyance]

Is the question vague? The rest of the post indicates this is more about external physical beating and environmental conditions than about which can handle more powerful rounds.
Since battleship main guns are single shots that function after going through tropical storms, it is clear neither revolvers or semi-autos are the answer.

[Richard.Howe]

Meaningless to most, a matter of life and death to some

Absolutely right...though the "some" might comprise 1% of this board's readers. Keep your guns clean between firings, take care of them for the tools they are, and you won't have to stay awake at night worrying about what happens if you go 2,000 rounds between cleanings.

Rich

[mnrivrat]

It's a rather often addressed issue and there is always opinions both ways - very predictable split of opinions I might add.

I think the truth is closer to a draw than many want to admitt. I've been shooting both for a lot of years ,and either can be reliable ,and either can give you a function problem.

The qlitches are just different between them, NOT non-existant in either. A good gun that is properly maintained is generaly reliable, wether it be an auto or a revolver.

My 2 Cents Worth

[MCgunner]

I would say that any revolver takes longer to clean than a semi-auto. I'm not going to stress the crane by cleaning the chambers without removing the crane from the frame. There are six (or five) chambers to clean.
A semi-auto fieldstrips faster, often without the need for a tool.

Brushing the cylinder chamber bores out on the gun is not harmful. Hold the cylinder, not the frame of the gun. Actually, when I'm doing this I loop a finger through the frame and hold the cylinder, so I'm holding both still as I brush. I don't take anything off the gun, but removing the cylinder is just a matter of one screw. I do that occasionally on my revolvers just to lube the yoke with some outter's gun grease. It's not part of my after range trip routine, though. Once in a great while, I'll pop the side plate off for an inspection and lube the hammer pivot and such. That's not routine, either. I don't take anything off to clean it up after shooting.

So, I guess is sorta depends on your cleaning routine which takes longer. If you were in the field, at war, and needed to pull a revolver down, it wouldn't be as easy to do what with the things that can get lost in the grass/dirt/mud. An autochucker is the best weapon for a soldier, don't think anyone here will argue with that. There are different uses for firearms, though. I carry a revolver quite a lot as a CCW. I enjoy shooting revolvers and when I'm afield, I rarely have an auto, always a revolver unless I'm hunting with my Contender.

One thing to think about, you'll spend a heck of a lot more energy chasing your cases at the range with a revolver than you will spend cleaning up your revolver at home even if you take it apart. :neener: That assumes you reload and I do. My .45ACP and 9mms I don't have a problem at the range with brass, though. Heck, I can come home with five times as much brass as I fired if I want to. :D I wish .357 and .38 were that popular. I have to buy brass for those when needed. I've got at least 2000 rounds of .38 brass, but .357 is sorta thin, about 500 and all loaded at the moment. I've got less than that of .45 colt. I need to buy some brass.

[Wes Janson]

I think a lot of people are getting away from the primary question at issue here, which is this: how much physical abuse can a revolver or a pistol withstand before they cease functioning? Which is more susceptible to stoppage due to physical abuse?

If I take a Glock and throw it up into the air, and let it hit the pavement, that's abuse. The question is, will the Glock still function? If I throw a S&W up in the same way, will it still function? Whichever doesn't is more fragile.

Personally, while I can see how revolvers might be more prone to damage, I'm really curious as to what forces are necessary to render a semiauto inoperable. How high of a height would you need to drop a 1911 to cause things to break? Or to shatter a polymer handgun's frame?

[Majic]

One small point in reloading:
The semi-auto is the fastest to reload ONLY if you have another preloaded magazine. If you don't have another preloaded magazine then even the single action revolver can be faster to reload.

[Minator]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=13658

Here you go, A Glock 21 being tortured they also have a video of it vs an HK a CZ and a I think a Springfeild 1911. The only thing that broke on a synthetic handgun being dropped was ironically a metal peice on the back but it still functioned.

The CZ was the only auto other than the Glock that functioned correctly after being dunked in wet sand. The CZ fired 3-4 rounds before it jammed the Springer or kimber lasted 1, the hk wouldnt even go into battery.

Also there is another video somewhere of a Sig being hit by a baseball bat and still functioning if it was a revolver you would have a 50 percent chance of it working. If you put a revolver into any of these test it would be garbage.

And no Im not a glockophile I just remembered this thread and its semi useful to this thread.

Also btw if you read it after this guy did all of this dropping it out of a plane running it over he cleaned it up and still uses it in ispca shoots.

[swampdog]

I too think we are getting away from the original question. First let me say that I'm a wheelgunner from way back. I shoot them better, I shoot them more often and I carry one daily. I like them better for all the reasons that have been mentioned here for the purpose and manner in which I use them. I feel that jungle is correct, though. The US army pretty much put and end to this discussion when they tested and adopted the 1911. It consistantly performed after being subjected to abuse that would almost never happen in the real world.

That being said, I still like my wheelguns. Like McGunner said, I take care of my guns. I certainly wouldn't feel handicapped with my 1911, though, and it would more than likely hold up better under extremely harsh conditions. My beautiful mod 19 would be pretty sad after sitting in a muddy fighting hole for a week or so.

[mnrivrat]

If I take a Glock and throw it up into the air, and let it hit the pavement, that's abuse. The question is, will the Glock still function? If I throw a S&W up in the same way, will it still function? Whichever doesn't is more fragile.

Sorry but I can't agree with that at all. Even if you did that to a 100 of each type trying to draw a statistical conclusion there are variables that aren't being controled that make the outcome irrelevant . You can't predict where on the firearm the landing impact is going to be for example.

The US army pretty much put and end to this discussion when they tested and adopted the 1911.

To the best of my knowledge the military tests adopting the 1911 were not comparison tests between revolvers and autos. They tested auto against auto as I recall.

Where can I find a study ,or series of tests done where the revolver and auto were run through a side by side durability/reliability procedure ?

[Cosmoline]

Every year more and more new shooters seem to get fed these absurd myths about revolvers going out of time if you drop them, revolvers falling apart in your hands, etc. etc. It's a bunch of bravo sierra. Revolvers have been replaced by semis as service sidearms for police because of the push for higher capacity and the feeling that wheelguns were old fashioned. Reliability issues have never been a factor. Any handgun can and will have problems after enough rounds go through it.

Wheelguns can have problems with timing, though these rarely make them stop functioning. The coil springs of modern revolvers are extremely tough, but the arms inside that actuate the mechanism can get rusty enough to break. For a little J frame Smith this is going to happen sooner than with a Super Redhawk. Semis are not immune from damage, and like wheelguns some are tougher than others. The 1911 design is very good, but it relies on parts which can and eventually will fall apart. The same is true of any firearm.

As far as which design is more resistant to dust and debris, that again depends more on the individual model than the class. A finely tuned wheelgun with very tight tolerances will have more problems with grit than one with plenty of slop, and the exact same thing is true with semis. So a mil spec 1911 with nice loose fitting parts and plenty of extra wiggle room will do better in filth than a 1911 that's been tightened up to the max to ensure the best possible accuracy.

I've owned and shot many dozens of different handguns over the years. In general the semis have given me more problems than the wheelguns, but that doesn't mean they're worse. I would say in general you can get a better value for your dollar with wheelguns, perhaps because there are a lot of idiot kids who think revolvers don't really work so the price is nice and low. I've owned several wheelguns which have NEVER had a failure of any kind in spite of thousands of rounds of ammunition through them. I'm sure I could get a semi which would match that record, but I'd have to pay top dollar for it. Even the reliable inexpensive blowbacks such as maks and Walther PP's will often have ammo and magazine-related failures.

If I take a Glock and throw it up into the air, and let it hit the pavement, that's abuse. The question is, will the Glock still function? If I throw a S&W up in the same way, will it still function? Whichever doesn't is more fragile.

What if I take a Super Redhawk and beat a Glock with it. Whichever breaks first is more fragile! These are stupid tests.

[KINGMAX]

Different guns, same purpose. :uhoh: Six one way - half a dozen the other, no truer a statement for a gun. A well built tool is a well built tool, no two ways about it. :fire: I think the level of fire power is the main issue for me in choosing my GLOCK 21, (w/ a ten round & 3 -13 round magazines) over my 686 S&W to carry on road trips. :confused: There is no thought of the 686 being 'FRAGLE'. :rolleyes: When I carry the 686 (a .357 - plus four speed loaders of six rounds each), it is normally in the woods, or when I am going to be around town. :scrutiny: The GLOCK 21 was purchased because of the reliability issue and the 13 round magazine. (When you run out of ammo all you have is a high dollor rock in your hand.) :eek: That is where my preference for use is at. :what: A good grade gun is made to use, not to be looked at and showed off when you drag it out of hiding from the gun safe. A GLOCK is made to be SHOT. A lot of Lawmen and Warriors have placed their lives in the decision to carry a S&W, Colt or some other good grade wheel gun into close quarters combat.

REMEMBER: Take a girl shooting - she will love you for it.

[jc2]

The 1917s (both the Colt and S&W) proved tough and reliable enough for the trenches in WW1.

The Webley proved tough and reliable enough for the trenches--so impressively that the Brits hung onto it for WW2 (and into 50s).

Even today when I'm in an abusive environment (dusty, dirty, muddy and/or a chance for hard knocks), I grab a large frame revolver because I've found they work better. Of course, this is in the school of the real world--not publicity stunts.

[griz]

Both platforms are well over 100 years old. It seems in that time somebody would have done a side by side test to see which one was better at surviving abuse. I would rather see the results of that rather than speculation on what would happen.

That said, here is my speculation. I have seen two revolvers dropped. One on pavement and one on sand. Both continued working. I have seen magazines dropped and damaged. I think that fragility is a non issue unless you make a habit of leaving your gun laying around in the back yard.

[Pug Puppy]

1. Buy Quality.
2. Shoot quality ammo.
3. Use quality magazines.
4. Clean your weapon after every firing session.
5. Store in a relatively safe place after 4.
6. Don't deliberately mistreat a weapon.
7. It won't fail you, wheelgun or automatic.

[MCgunner]

If I take a Glock and throw it up into the air, and let it hit the pavement, that's abuse. The question is, will the Glock still function? If I throw a S&W up in the same way, will it still function? Whichever doesn't is more fragile.

Show of hands, how many here have felt compelled to toss their carry gun up in the air and let it hit the pavement and for what reason???? Just wondering.

[Wes Janson]

Show of hands, how many here have felt compelled to toss their carry gun up in the air and let it hit the pavement and for what reason???? Just wondering.

None, hopefully. But ask yourself how many sidearms in the military have been dropped from helicopters, run over by vehicles, dumped in mud, shot, and used as hammers, over the years. The military doesn't train its soldiers to do those things, but they happen. Which is why new weapons are always tested so harshly, to see how well the hold up under the inevitable abuse. No one ever said anything about concealed carry here.

[Terrierman]

Show of hands, how many here have felt compelled to toss their carry gun up in the air and let it hit the pavement and for what reason???? Just wondering.

While I did not toss Lovey's Tomcat into the air, I do admit to dropping it (in front of her, regrettably) onto the concrete floor of the shop,immediately after cleaning it. It survived intact with no detectable damage to function or finish. Thankfully. I'll try not to do that again.

[dispatch]

6 for sure(or 5 for a snubby revolver) is an old adage. A "fairly well maintained" concealabe revolver is more likely to discharge all rounds than a "fairly wel maintained" concealable semi-auto.
If you are going into a threat situation daily, you will probably spend the requisite time to insure your weapon is in top notch condition daily. If, like most of us, you carry because there is a very remote chance you may need it, human nature dictates that other activities may delay firearm maintenace. Revolvers can and do break, as do semi-autos, but my experience has been that an ill mantained revolver almost always still works. An ill mainted semi- auto seldom does.
I am not suggesting that any weapon you bet your life on should be negected, but if your not committed to the regular maintenance- 6 for sure.

[WeedWhacker]

Again, this is HIGHLY dependent on the initial quality of the firearm. From my own personal experience, I've owned (and maintained) a good-quality semi-auto for five years, no problems. I've also owned a small good-quality revolver for the past two months... broken hand spring already, which happened at the range.

Reliability, quality, fit, then the rest. Don't just pick up any old revolver (or semi-auto!) just because "they're more reliable".

[IV Troop]

Jungle wrote:

"I didn't ask the question, I don't know how others may answer, but I can always learn and hopefully do so from other's experience."

Good statement. That being said, I am not sure how much you are going to learn with this thread.

How many people that have posted have actually used a handgun in a fight?:rolleyes: If some have I would be genuinely interested to hear their comments in regards to the subject

Kind of like "bear defense" threads

[JohnBT]

After reading so many posts on how fragile revolvers are, I only have one thing to say.

When Ruger introduced the Speed Six/Security Six/Police Six liine of revolvers their salesmen demonstrated the durability of the guns by throwing them around the range, driving vehicles over them and then shooting them.

All are revolvers this sturdy? I don't know, but to say that all revolvers are sensitive, tempermental, fragile and outdated is inaccurate and just plain wrong.

John

[MCgunner]

I agree with JohnBT on this one. I just fail to see the issue here. Beyond that, as a CCW permitted civilian, I really don't CARE what issues the military has with revolvers or about their needs. My needs are not of a military nature and I don't fancy myself as a 21st century ninja or something. Revolvers have advantages in civilian carry that often outweigh any advantages autoloaders have. That said, the majority of my carry is with an auto as a primary.

Regards to hearing about folks that have used a handgun in a fight, unless you go out and have a shoot out twice a week for 20 years, what good is one data point????? :rolleyes: I find competition to be a pretty good determiner of reliability, too. Go to an IDPA shoot and you'll see jams, autos jamming. You'll rarely see a revolver ever have a problem. However, take a look at whose guns are jamming. It ain't the expert or master class shooters, it's the marksman class, the lesser experienced guys and gals. The higher skilled shooters know more about feeding and maintaining their guns and they tend to take it a little more seriously. This is why I always recommend a revolver to a new shooter or for long, unmaintained stays in a dresser drawer in a bedroom. You need to know your gun and maintain it and shoot it a lot and know how to feed it if you're going to tote an auto. Borrowing from another thread, you don't just buy magsafe frangibles, stick 'em in your 1911 without ever trying them at the range, and go defend yourself. The gun has to be 100% reliable with the ammo and that you have to test. I have ultimate confidence in my carry autos, just as much as my revolvers, but I do maintain them. They do require a little more attention, but it ain't like I spend one day a week cleaning 'em. :rolleyes:

[Jim March]

For those with minimal training buying a budget handgun, the DA revolver is king. Period, end of discussion.

In a fight it is "grab and go" and it is impossible to jam it due to limp wristing or failure to feed some funky shaped ammo.

How many newbie shooters are REALLY going to run 200 rounds of their carry ammo through their auto to check for feed compatibility before trusting their lives to it? For that matter, is *every* auto user reading this carrying a round that they've tested 200 of? I rather doubt it. It's possible they're smart enough to use a round with an excellent rep for smooth feeding, like the Cor-Bon Pow'r'ball or Federal EFMJ and that's fine...but is that the norm? Hell no.

How many newbie shooters are going to forget to sweep a safety off in their first fight? It does happen, a lot. "Grab and go" is a damned fine operating drill.

The DA has another huge advantage. The buyer can work their way up in performance as they're comfortable. Newbies with a standard 357 mid-range size gun can shoot 38spl target wadcutters and get felt recoil almost down near 22LR levels, and slowly work up to stomper 180gr full-house magnums, or stop somewhere in between. With modern 38+Ps and a 3" to 4" barrel their net performance level in a fight is at least as good as the 9s and a few I believe exceed it by running much bigget JHP cavities that resist clothes-clogs, including the Speer 135 and the Buffalo Bore 158.

My personal snubbie is a lowly late-70s Charter Arms Undercover I paid less than $200 for. I can hit a torso-sized target at 50 yards 100% of the time. That same range session I embarassed a guy with a full-size Glock 40, he was batting about .500 :D. It has a small gap down near .002" and yeah, it will get wonky after about 40 rounds. So? I carry it clean, I check the screws after every range session with good hollow-ground screwdriver bits and can trust my life to it no problemo. I see no reason to invest in another daily carry gun, that old Charter is all I need.

At close range the snubbie is the top self defense answer. It is difficult to grab away from you and it can't go out of battery on contact.

There is no way a small autopistol in that price range will be as reliable with quality JHP ammo.

Spend $500+ and test 200 rounds of your carry ammo and sure, you'll approach that level of reliability.

But the street reality is that most CCW guns cost their owner less than $300 - $400 tops, and often a lot less. There are scads of Davis/Lorcin/Jennings class critters in people's pockets, or very old European mini-autos never meant for anything other than hardball. Or Makarovs also made originally for hardball. Or weird stuff like Argentine Hi-Powers and God only knows what else.

It's not the Glocks or Sigs or whatever that I worry about, it's the previously mentioned critters that range from "barely adequate" to "freakshow" that worry me. Their owners would be far better served with a basic revolver from Taurus, used S&W or whatever else that's decent and passes a checkout.

The people on this forum with their CZs, Berettas, Glocks, Sigs, etc. are NOT THE NORM. Most CCW permits don't go to hobbyists, they go to basic people looking for basic self defense with little knowledge to start with. So they go to one of the people here and if that person is into autos and starts singing their praises without asking some real basic questions about skill levels and budgets, they're doing that newbie a very grave disservice.

Possibly literally.

(PS: do recall that I've gone though almost 1,000 California CCW applications via public records inquiry, which list the make/model of gun on the permit. I'm not just blowing smoke regarding what sorts of things are really being carried...and a lot of those permits reviewed were for upper-class folk in places where permits are issued on an elitist basis. I suspect the general class of gun carried is even lower in areas where permits are handled equitably.)

[BigG]

Hi guys, back from fishing.

I think Mr. March made some valid points, particularly about the shooting carry ammo to insure reliability of the CCW auto.

I have just read too many threads where guys ask for the "cheapest and best" whatever to believe somebody is going to invest $300 in the gun and burn up close to $200 worth of premium ammo to "prove it reliable." Just don't ring true to me, despite the advice of the "gurus."

:D

[SAWBONES]

"So, I guess is sorta depends on your cleaning routine which takes longer."

Not really. To get both both types of guns EQUIVALENTLY clean, regardless of routine, it takes LOTS longer for any revolver than for just about any semiauto, though the HK P7 is one semiauto that is a bear to clean really thoroughly.

Revolvers have many more nooks and crannies and ledges and corners to clean than semiautos. Firing residue accumulates in 5 or 6 (or even 7 or 8) chambers and on the cylinder face in the revolver, the barrel doesn't come out and must be cleaned from the muzzle (don't tell me about "bore snakes"; they're a joke for anything but the most cursory sort of cleaning), and the forcing cone is difficult to clean since it can't be reached as easily as a barrel chamber and breechface on a semiauto.
A semiauto generally disassembles into major separate parts ("field strips") easily, while DA revolvers involve at least the removal of a delicate slot-headed screw in order to even disassemble the cylinder from the frame; not the sort of thing you want to do a hundred times, since you'll eventually bugger the screw.

Which is sturdier? The semiauto, usually, if the comparison involves throwing the guns repeatedly from a truck, letting them sit in mud or banging them against a brick wall.
This is not at all the same thing as general reliability, however, especially if reliability means "likelihood of the gun going bang even when left unattended, unlubricated, uncleaned and loaded in a drawer for 20 years." I'd bet on the average revolver over the average semiauto in that circumstance.

[jc2]

Revolvers have many more nooks and crannies and ledges and corners to clean than semiautos.
I detailed stripped enough autoloaders to know that there are all types "nooks and crannies and ledges" in autoloaders that remain filthy because you can't see them and/or reach them to clean them. Most of the fouling in revolvers is surface fouling.
A semiauto generally disassembles into major separate parts ("field strips") easily, while DA revolvers involve at least the removal of a delicate slot-headed screw in order to even disassemble the cylinder from the frame; not the sort of thing you want to do a hundred times, since you'll eventually bugger the screw.
I take it you have rather limited experience with Ruger revolvers. You don't even necessarily need a screw driver to disassemble the cylinder from the (now, of course, with the more antiquated designs, you are correct).

[meef]

In terms of fragility, how do revolvers and semiautos compare?
About the same as apples and oranges.

:rolleyes:

Which revolver? Which semiauto?

Blanket statement question with no useful points of reference.

Who would win in a fight between a boxer and a wrestler?

Same question.

[4v50 Gary]

In the days before revolvers were replaced as the standard sidearm of most police agencies, one Texas agency tied a rope to a S&W, a Colt and a Ruger. Only the Ruger revolver survived and could be fired (all 6 cylinders) after being dragged across the dirt (rocks, brush, dirt, etc.). Not that a P-08 could survive such a test, but I would hazard to guess that most modern service pistols would hold up much better than a revolver. Why? Fewer critical parts are exposed. I'm thinking of cylinder, crane, sideplate (with screws coming loose), cylinder stop, ejector rod (especially if not shrouded) the hand/pawl or even the star extractor/ejector.

However, I still love shooting revolvers and even taught one fellow how to open the cylinder to reload when his ejector rod (on his S&W) starting working itself loose.

[Croyance]

How do you open up a cylinder when the ejector rod works itself loose?

If a semi-auto is being dragged in the dirt, isn't a large concern any denting of the slide on the parts opposite the frame rails? Get that out of alignment and I bet there are problems.

[Blacklabman]

I own currently four semi-auto's and have bought/sold/traded more than a few over the years. I also currently own 7 S&W revolvers of various calibers. The Sig's are used for fun range time, IDPA.and USPSA.
The revolvers are used for the range, IDPA,USPSA, ICORE, CCW, and hunting.
Both have been, and are reliable. The revolvers more so. They have never, let me down.
If I had to choose one hadgun, it would be the 4" 686P with speedloaders.
I'm 38. Like others here, I shot my Fathers, Uncles etc hadguns, before I owned my own.
Revolvers for the last 25 years have earned my trust. They have worked dirty or clean, wet or dry, with good anmmo or not.
The same cannot be said, for the semi-auto.

[MCgunner]

Revolvers for the last 25 years have earned my trust. They have worked dirty or clean, wet or dry, with good anmmo or not.
The same cannot be said, for the semi-auto.

Yeah, but if your main mode of transporting them is to tie 'em to your bumper and drag 'em to the range, you'd better stick with the autoloaders. :D

[jungle]

Good points from all posters.

Here is my question, anyone with a very high round count on a revolver? I have seen quite a few autos with high to VERY high round counts but no revolvers. I am talking 50K plus rounds with no repairs.
This is unlikely for most, but does speak to the durability/fragility issue.

[MCgunner]

I don't think my M10 has that many round though it though it was built in the 50s. I know my grandpa didn't shoot it much at all and I've probably got no more'n 5K in it, mostly wadcutter loads. It belonged to a Sheriff in Fort Bend county Texas, friend of my grandpas. It was probably carried a lot and shot a little.

I had probably around 20K in my old Ruger Security Six when it started to loosen up a bit. It was still functioning fine, had a little head shake, not bad. I fired a LOT of HOT .357s in that thing. It was never that accurate with .38s. I could have just sent it to Ruger to tighten up (I hear that's not expensive), but I traded it for a Blackhawk in .357 because I was in a quest for a .357 that would shoot .38s AND .357 hot loads accurately. The Blackhawk and a certain Taurus M66 fit that bill.

I think you could put 50K rounds of hot loads through that Blackhawk and it'd STILL be tight, but I haven't done it, sorry. It probably has no more'n a thousand rounds total through it and most are .38s. I haven't shot it in quite a while, but it is a very nice gun. I need to get it out and play with it again next range trip, just thinkin' about it.

[jungle]

Maybe some PPC shooters have done it. Has anyone here put 50k+ rounds through a revolver without having to retime, adjust endshake, or other repairs?



It got awful quiet after this question was asked.