easyg
Member
First, the ground rules:
Let's say that neither the autoloader nor the revolver is defective or faulty in design or manufacture.
There are no broken or defective parts to skew the comparison.
And let's say that none of the bullets are defective or faulty either.
There are no high primers or dented casings or such to skew the comparison.
And let's say that both weapons are well maintained and clean and have been tested and are functioning properly.
And let's say that both weapons were carefully and properly loaded.
And let's say that we are engaging targets beyond arms reach....so the revolver's cylinder will not be grabbed by the target and the autoloader's slide will not be pushed out of battery.
And let's say that we are using a striker-fired autoloader and a concealed-hammer revolver, so nothing can interfer with an external hammer and cause a failure.
And remember, we are talking about reliability....not how quickly a failure can be resolved or how much dirt and crud a weapon can tolerate.
For the first shot....
I don't see any difference in reliability.
So long as nothing interfers with the revolver's cylinder, it will fire.
And so long as nothing interfers with the autoloader's slide, it will fire.
Both the revolver and the autoloader are practically guaranteed to fire that first crucial shot.
Now for the following shots....
This is where the revolver is more reliable than the autoloader.
You can have an otherwise perfectly reliable and functioning autoloader, using perfectly fine and dependable ammo, and it might still have a failure-to-feed or a failure-to-eject event for no clear reason.
Sometimes an autoloaders will choke and no one will ever know why.
This is why we all learn and practice stoppage drills with autoloaders.
There are no stoppage drill for a revolver.
Let's say that neither the autoloader nor the revolver is defective or faulty in design or manufacture.
There are no broken or defective parts to skew the comparison.
And let's say that none of the bullets are defective or faulty either.
There are no high primers or dented casings or such to skew the comparison.
And let's say that both weapons are well maintained and clean and have been tested and are functioning properly.
And let's say that both weapons were carefully and properly loaded.
And let's say that we are engaging targets beyond arms reach....so the revolver's cylinder will not be grabbed by the target and the autoloader's slide will not be pushed out of battery.
And let's say that we are using a striker-fired autoloader and a concealed-hammer revolver, so nothing can interfer with an external hammer and cause a failure.
And remember, we are talking about reliability....not how quickly a failure can be resolved or how much dirt and crud a weapon can tolerate.
For the first shot....
I don't see any difference in reliability.
So long as nothing interfers with the revolver's cylinder, it will fire.
And so long as nothing interfers with the autoloader's slide, it will fire.
Both the revolver and the autoloader are practically guaranteed to fire that first crucial shot.
Now for the following shots....
This is where the revolver is more reliable than the autoloader.
You can have an otherwise perfectly reliable and functioning autoloader, using perfectly fine and dependable ammo, and it might still have a failure-to-feed or a failure-to-eject event for no clear reason.
Sometimes an autoloaders will choke and no one will ever know why.
This is why we all learn and practice stoppage drills with autoloaders.
There are no stoppage drill for a revolver.
Last edited: