Second stirke Or hammer/no hammer?

[PaladinX13]

With all due respect, the revolver "failures" being mentioned are as a way of contrasting platforms is borderline absurd and do not, in my opinion, present autoloaders in a better light.

If you want to try and suggest that the breaking of transfer bars is anywhere as common-place as ammo-related failures, I'm afraid you've lost all credibility. Even accepting that transfer bars do break, that says nothing about the platform, only that things made by Man can break whether revolver or auto.

P3ATs- probably one of the most carried guns period- have had cases of broken and completely disconnect triggers... you don't even have a "funny-looking club" when the 11 oz. auto fails to go bang. CZ75s- renown for their durability, had a couple cases of broken slide stops. 1911's have had hammers snap and safeties (grip or thumb) which have refused to disengage. This kind of failure can strike any platform and is equally catastrophic whether auto or wheelgun and it's meaningless to pretend it only happens to revolvers.

Crud outside an ejector represents a maintenance failure. Someone not doing due diligence in cleaning, maintaining, and checking their weapon and selecting their ammo. Again, this is irrelevant to platform. If you are not maintaining your auto, checking your magazines, rotating your ammo, etc. the failures are just as possible and just as crippling depending on the make.

A sloppy reload also assumes the need for a reload, which most will agree is the rarest of circumstances (of already rare circumstances). If we're assuming things, then why not assume you've been ambushed or tackled to the ground, body to body and shooting at odd angles and contact distances which aren't conducive to firm holds and careful grips that- say a pocket auto- could demand or operate under.

Finally, a sloppy reload is user error. If we're introducing user error, I think the autos have a litany of opportunities to introduce failure. When holstering your weapon (especially towards your back) did you remember to press your thumb against the slide? If not, a tight holster could push your slide out of battery meaning your gun will not fire when you pull the trigger. If you need to rack the slide, you could do it too fast, too slow, or incompletely resulting in a jam. If you hold it wrong, you could get slide bite or prematurely engage the slide-lock or or eject your magazine or limp wrist it. You could fail to disengage the safety. When it comes time to reload, you could fail to seat the magazine fully.

Am I saying the auto is a bad platform? Not at all! But it's silly to pick on exceptional cases of material failure, user negligence, or user error for one platform while ignoring them for the other.

To me, it's a little like saying: Abe get beat up but will heal! Remmy will die [of old age]! While ignoring Abe gets beat up, can heal, but will ALSO die of old age....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No need to get all wrapped around the axel. Many people assume revolvers are totally reliable -- they are not. Many people assume automatics are "jam-o-matics" and they are not.

Revolver failures are more common than most revolver afficionados would like to admit, and usually they are more serious and difficult to correct than a failure in an automatic.

Having seen both revolvers and automatics used in combat in some very nasty country, I understand why the Army went with the M1911.

 

[PaladinX13]

Revolver failures are more common than most revolver afficionados would like to admit, and usually they are more serious and difficult to correct than a failure in an automatic.

1. You're tilting at windmills, I don't see anyone attributing more reliability to the revolver than it actually has. If a round fails to fire, you pull the trigger again. This is a fact, not an imagined advantage of some [imagined, on your part] zealous faction.

2. You've failed [no pun intended] to prove that failures are more serious or difficult to correct than in an automatic. You've only repeated that the TYPE of failure a revolver experiences is more serious than the type autos experience, while neglecting that the SAME TYPE of failures in autos are JUST AS serious.

By way of illustration (not accurate figures):
Revolver - experiences 1 in 1000 transfer bar breakage that's hard to correct
Auto - experiences 1 in 1000 slide stop breakage that's hard to correct AND 200 in 1000 ammo related failures that are "easily" (at the range, sure, in defense- who knows?) corrected

You're conveniently, ignoring the SAME TYPE of failure in the autos.

As for what the military uses, I've already qualified my statements as relating to civilian use. If your needs are the same as the military, then I suppose their endorsement is relevant. So you want something low cost, low maintenance, and the lowest-common denominator in terms of training and high tolerance to environmental conditions that plays a supporting role to a primary long-gun.

There are plenty of good reasons to pick an auto over a revolver for your personal use, but just because the military does... well... it's a reason. But more akin to picking up a PPK because James Bond does than a good one necessarily.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Geeeze, I hate arguing with a True Believer.

I invited you to check these forums for stories of reolver failures -- there are plenty of them, and they are mostly non-recoverable.

 

[PaladinX13]

Wow, here is a perfect example of "Software" error. Here we both have keyboards, computers, and access to the board in the attempt to make reasonable and logical posts, but you're experiencing a disconnect between what's on screen and what's in your head.

Again:

1. Windmills. I have yet to see anyone attribute anything to the revolver that it does not have. That includes unbreakability. NO ONE in this thread has attributed the revolver with that EXCEPT your imaginary zealots, none of which have appeared in this thread. What we DO have is you REPEATEDLY ignoring the fact autos fail in the SAME ways as the revolver failures you're so focused upon.

2. True Believer. Talk about an uncritical or rationally thought out bias... from YOU we have the unequal comparison of "trivial" ammo failures to "critical" structural failures while ignoring that revolvers are largely free of the first and autos just as susceptible to the second. And then a "wink wink, nudge nudge" implication of what's the better platform due to committee endorsement without actually specifying any specific traits or things relevant to the individual citizen!

I hate rhetoric devoid of any actual arguments!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Cool down.

 

[PaladinX13]

There's no heat, only a parody of your nonsense.

You're the first to pull trigger on an ad hominem attack by trying to discredit with your "True Believer" snark.

Then I mirror your feigned frustration at "arguing" by illustrating your lack of actual arguments.

There's no reason to abide people picking on a platform using fallacious "arguments", whether it's by painting folks as irrational zealots (again, NO ONE said the revolver is infallible), making illogical/unequal comparisons, or unsubstantiated suggestions when it's easily exposed with rational facts.

 

[PedalBiker]

I have 12 years in the Army and have been reloading for over 20 years, and I've never had a centerfire cartridge fail to fire - factory or reload - rifle, pistol or shotgun (or grenade or artillery for that matter).

I'm in the don't mess with second strikes camp, so all my training for ftf is with snap caps and emphasizes getting a fresh round loaded ASAP.

My auto has second strike capability, my worry is that if I train to use it I'll just keep pulling for a 2nd 3rd, 4th... Stress does wierd things to people, I like to keep it simple.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My auto has second strike capability, my worry is that if I train to use it I'll just keep pulling for a 2nd 3rd, 4th... Stress does wierd things to people, I like to keep it simple.

Amen!

My rule of thumb is, expect a 90% degradation of performance in combat. And don't commit to repetitive action -- because you'll keep doing in long after it's obviously inappropriate.

One example I used to use was Civil War ordnance reports -- repairmen would comment on finding two to ten charges in muskets picked up on the battlefield. Repetitive action under stress -- load and snap, forgot the cap!

 

[jon_in_wv]

Second strike capability is "nice" on the range. I hate pulling a round with a dented primer out and handling it. It just gives me the willies. On the other hand I believe in a standardized stoppage drill. If it doesn't go bang the chances are just as likely that a round was not chambered as a roiund failed to ignite. Racking the slide covers both possibilities. Just a thought.