Reliability, an observation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again EVERY revolver has the ability to hit the same primers as often as you like.

I cannot fathom why you'd want to stand there dropping the hammer on a dud with a hope and a prayer instead of moving to the next round.


Which are all "fully seated" because you checked that when you stuck them in the chamber


I can't think of ANY instances I've had where a FTF has gone off after the second third or 11th strike
 
Almost all competition shooters case gauge their ammo. While it won't solve a squib or underpowered round, you at least know the ammo is dimensionally ok.

If that's important to you there's no reason why you couldn't do the same on your carry ammo.

Besides - while I've had some reloads using cheap bullets that didn't always gauge right - I've never had an incident with factory ammo. Then again I shoot probably 20 reloaded rounds to every 1 factory, but still :).
 
Posted by antiquus: However I decided to base what I carry on my understanding of likely self defense scenarios for civilians. This means 3 shots, inside 7 yards, little warning, potentially so close that wrestling becomes a real possibility. That covers 97%+ of self defense cases.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you get your idea that three shots will cover 97 % of all shooting encounters for civilians.

Think about it. The defenders would have to have an extremely high hit percentage.

And have only one attacker. What data we have indicate that, more often than not, when one is attacked, he will face two or more attackers.

For more on that, see Post # 36.

Now, many people like to believe--or more accurately, I think, hope--that a second attacker will be inclined to turn and run at the sound of gunfire. That assumption assumes that a violent criminal actor will be of a similar mind-set to a peaceful defender. That's not a safe assumption. If you listen to any of William Aprill's discussions on violent criminal actors, you will be wary of making any assumptions about them at all.

It also assumes the following:
  • The second gunman will have time to react to the sound of shooting
  • The second gunman will realize that the shots were fired by the defender and not by an accomplice; that did not happen in one of Tom Givens' incidents
  • The attacker will believe that running will give him a bettter chance of survival than attacking
  • The second assailant will believe that running will give him a better chance of escape than would the defender's automobile

I wouldn't bank on it.

I'm also assuming one handed use, that's the way I practice and I assume the other hand is to push the assailant and keep the gun out of reach.
Click to expand...
It's an excellent idea to practice shooting strong handed and weak handed as well as two handed. And train for a two handed response, and for drawing while moving.
 
Kleanbore said:
It's an excellent idea to practice shooting strong handed and weak handed as well as two handed. And train for a two handed response, and for drawing while moving.
Click to expand...

Very good points. One thing I would add, before practicing shooting with your support hand DROP THE GUN, and practice picking it up from the ground with your support hand to better simulate an injury.
Not to mention weapon manipulations such as malfunctions, reloads, and drawing from your holster with your support hand.


Look guys, please. Stop dragging out statistics. They will not replace real firearms training, they will NOT SAVE YOU!
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

YOU are the master of your destiny, act like it.
 
All else equal a revolver is more reliable than a semi auto. It isn't that big of a difference when comparing quality stuff (as in, it's not really 6 for sure vs 15 maybe), but semi autos are where you are more likely to encounter a stoppage during firing due to a failure to feed, failure to extract, failure to eject, "limp wrist", etc)

Of course, other factors beyond reliability come into play, and account for why, overall, semi autos are more common and popular.
 
"...EVERY revolver has the ability to hit the same primers as often as you like...dropping the hammer on a dud with...are all "fully seated" because you checked that…I can't think of ANY instances...after the second third or 11th strike…"

Are you for real? 'Second-strike' is just that, not revolving all cylinders or inserting a mag and cycling. That is passing absurd. No functioning revolver has 'second-strike'.
We are to believe you run a 'check' every time you reload - even in urgent need? OK, but I don't believe it. You would rather restrike 11 times? Again - absurd. Have you ever shot anything bigger than a rabbit with a handgun? I have - from grouse to bear - and there is not time to make the checks and strikes you employ. I have never ever had an auto centerfire second-strike fail due to the solid case seating upon second strike - and that is a lot of years.

For others - there is another reason I prefer auto for SD. I'm getting a bit long in the tooth and still have some young grandkids. They are properly trained but this is too serious to trust in that. I had a LEO neighbor who just one time forgot. His approx 3 year old got ahold of it with tragic fatal results. A double layer of protection is to carry an LCP, 3AT, etc loaded and unchambered. I tested a number of youngsters and none has come close to ability to cycle the slide. Many think unchambered is an error but I am well-practiced and can (and have) take care of myself well. I am comfortable with it.
 
I'm not nearly the experienced shooter or gun expert that many are on this thread so I have to approach it from a math/statistics/engineering perspective. So feel free to dispute the following. But:
It seems to me that the predominant root cause of failures in semi-autos are 1) ammo-based; 2) mag/mag-insertion-based and 3) at least with some people it is improper or insufficient support of the handgun (i.e. limp wrist'ing).
So though semi-autos, by a number of claims on this thread, have fewer moving parts (that was actually news to me; I just assumed that a revolver had fewer moving parts) I get a sense that part-failure-based issues with semi-autos are quite a bit further down the list.
Presuming that is so, it would imply that revolvers, despite the fact that semi-autos have improved over the years, are still the more reliable devices. They can execute 'out of order' (i.e. if a round doesn't fire, you can just 'jump over it' and on to the next), they have nothing like a mag, and you can't limp wrist them. Or at least I don't think you can.
So when people say that semi-autos are just as reliable, quite literally they may be right. That is, the gun mechanism per se does not fail. But because of the items listed above, they would seem less likely to fire when required when compared to a revolver.
B
 
Are YOU for real RJ?

Who drops rounds into the cylinder of a revolver in the morning and doesn't give even the most cursory glance to see if they fully chamber?

The fact is I can hit a primer as many times as I want with a revolver. THAT IS A SECOND STRIKE capability. But it's better than an auto because you move onto the GOOD round FIRST!

As to reload in an SD situation. We have covered that extensively and the conclusion is always the same. It's a complete unfounded fantasy. IT DOESNT HAPPEN


Let me see if I get you straight.

You don't have time for a malfunction drill to clear a dud but you DO have time to carry an auto without one in the pipe?


A second strike is kinda like the FA on an ar. It's primary purpose is to take a bad situation and make it MUCH worse.
 
As to reload in an SD situation. We have covered that extensively and the conclusion is always the same. It's a complete unfounded fantasy. IT DOESNT HAPPEN
Click to expand...

Stop spreading lies that comforts you.

There has been documented incidents where a person either reloaded or grabbed and fired more than one guns during a gun fight.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-iss...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

Before someone say "But, that's a police story, not civilian...." Whether you have a badge or not does not change laws of physics. A suspect who does not stop trying to kill a cop after getting 6 fatal hits by 45ACP does not magically go down by one 38 special when you tell them you are not a cop.

Again, do not confuse "shooting incidents " with "gun fights."
 
Last edited:
The first test of my (then new) S&W 627 revolver revealed a 20# gritty DA pull, which took S&W 3 weeks to fix, at their cost(excellent customer service, but it better damn well be good customer service on a Performance Center gun that should not have had problems out of the box). Since then, over 30k rounds with no mechanical malfunctions.

S&W 340PD 2500 rounds, approx, lockd up 3 times. Twice from bullets jumping the crimp, and once from the internal lock that seized up the gun.

CZ83 over 2k rounds without any type of ftf/fte or any other malfunctions.

Colt 1911 over 2k with no malfunctions, I just replaced the recoil spring.

Brand spanking new Sig P238 with 150 rounds and one light primer strike. Some of the brass I collected also didn't have much of a dent, although it went boom. Re-cleaned gun, including firing pin and firing pin hole, and will retest to make sure it's not just a maintenance/cleaning issue...if I still get light strikes I'll send back to Sig for a look.

Guns are wonderful mechanical things. As such, nothing will be 100% perfect.
 
Posted by RJTRavel: A double layer of protection is to carry an LCP, 3AT, etc loaded and unchambered.
Click to expand...
Until a round has been chambered, it provides no protection at all. None.

I tested a number of youngsters and none has come close to ability to cycle the slide.
Click to expand...
If you are carrying it, how would anyone have the ability to do anything with it?

Many think unchambered is an error but I am well-practiced and can (and have) take care of myself well.
Click to expand...
Have you ever tried a Tueller drill, with a training gun, of course?

Someone around seven yards away whom you are expecting to attack and for whom you are ready will have an even chance of slashing you before you shoot if you draw and fire from an open carry holster. That's based on having a loaded chamber.

I am comfortable with it.
Click to expand...
I have to question whether your "comfort" is well founded.

I carry a semi-auto fully loaded; it requires no additional step to disengage a safety; I try to keep my eyes wide open and to avoid letting my mind wander. I have availed myself of some of the best training.

Frankly, I am not really all that "comfortable" with my ability to draw and fire, timely and effectively, and to reliably stop an ambush every time.
 
I tested a number of youngsters and none has come close to ability to cycle the slide.
Click to expand...

I would say most youngsters probably don't have the strength to cycle the slide. However, I am aware of a 2-3 year old in my area that could do it, don't recall what the gun was, it must have been thin/small though.

Some little ones are stronger than we expect.

When I was about 3 1/2 I got a hold of my dad's lug nut wrench and started removing lug nuts from his car! He caught me as I was removing the last one :eek: . Good for him, and me!

I was also a crib escape artist. My father (an engineer), extended the side rails of my crib to within a foot of the ceiling. It wasn't high enough, I climbed it and fell out the other side (thud ... that might explain a lot :eek:) when I was around 18 to 24 months.

So never underestimate them. Though I trust my 8 year old as well, unless I'm actually carrying the gun it gets secured. Just my 2 cents ... be ever careful.
 
I get a sense that part-failure-based issues with semi-autos are quite a bit further down the list.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Parts failure will be less likely assuming quality materials, workmanship and design. And of course proper care by the owner. Number of parts isn't as big a concern to me. Springs do wear out in both platforms, and I have experienced just that. My 1959 manufacture S&W K-22 had a weak mainspring that caused numerous failures to fire. OTH, I've had a number of issues with autos with weak recoil springs and magazine springs. My CZ-75B came with a slightly weak recoil spring from the factory. Many otherwise good factory 1911 mags also come with springs that are on the weak side (Springfield's Metalform mags had that issue a while back, don't know if that is true today). I even had an unusual dud recoil spring made by Wolff for my 5" 1911, caused all sorts of issues. A gunsmith friend measured the spring tension at something like 10 to 12 lbs. Oops! I had a 3 or 4 others from the same batch, but they all measured within spec. Change 'em often with quality components, either Wolff or OEM.

Note that I still like Wolff, everyone turns out a turd now and then. I ordered one of their Service Packs for my DWM P.08 Luger recently and those springs made a big improvement in reliability.
 
Last edited:
TestPilot said:
Stop spreading lies that comforts you.



There has been documented incidents where a person either reloaded or grabbed and fired more than one guns during a gun fight.



http://www.policeone.com/patrol-iss...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/



Before someone say "But, that's a police story, not civilian...." Whether you have a badge or not does not change laws of physics. A suspect who does not stop trying to kill a cop after getting 6 fatal hits by 45ACP does not magically go down by one 38 special when you tell them you are not a cop.



Again, do not confuse "shooting incidents " with "gun fights."
Click to expand...


Again cite one instance that doesn't involve the police or the Rolex dealer from NYC

Being worried about something doesn't = statistical fact. A CCW shooting is far far more likely to go down like the Treyvon incident than it is some variation of the LA shoot out.

In fact the law and threshold for deadly force in many instances all but dictate that you will be close and already well on the way towards the losing end of an attack.

QUIT THINKING LIKE A COP and think like a ccw holder. You don't need a 18rd capacity and super low split times. You need a gun that will work one handed in awkward positions possibly entangled in clothing at ranges from the other end of a car to poked into a belly on the ground with you on bottom.
 
Last edited:
Again cite one instance that doesn't involve the police or the Rolex dealer from NYC
Click to expand...
Why exclue "Rolex dealer from NYC"? Because that civilian incident is inconvenient for you?

Also, it's not NYC. It's Los Angeles.

You want statistics, but a faulty one that excludes any data you don't like.

QUIT THINKING LIKE A COP and think like a ccw holder.
Click to expand...

Why? Because in your world, a perpetrator that cops need 10 rounds to stop suddenly get stopped by 1 shot when you're a CCW holder by some miracle magic?

Being worried about something doesn't = statistical fact.
Click to expand...
Claiming somthing that did happen does not happen = Lie.

A CCW shooting is far far more likely to go down like the Treyvon incident than it is some variation of the LA shoot out.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman did fine with a self-loader.

You need a gun that will work one handed in awkward positions possibly entangled in clothing at ranges from the other end of a car to poked into a belly on the ground with you on bottom.
Click to expand...

I can find a way to make a self-loader work in that scenario.

I cannot make a revolver spawn more rounds in the cylinder from thin air.
 
Last edited:
Philosophical question, since I highly doubt there is anything resembling reliable data for this:

Why is reloading so uncommon for private citizens carrying handguns?

(the answer is surely a combination of these, in some unknown ranking from most to least common)


*Most who carry do not carry a reload
*Most victims don't have time to execute a reload, both because the event happens so quickly and, perhaps, because they are not well versed/trained/practiced in reloading from their carry configuration
*Most instances do not involve shots being fired
*When shots are fired, it is usually fewer rounds than their handgun contains
 
I also have another question Mr. R.W.Dale.

People on your side never fails to argue "It's not fair using police examples."

As a person who can legally carry a gun, when I am attacked in the close quarters scenario you love to bring up, I would draw and fire.

A cop would do the exact same thing.

Why should police examples be excluded when there is no difference in what I would do and what regular cops would do?

Cops get attacked at close range just as any other civilians can.

Exactly what is it that you'd do that is so different from what a cop would do when bullets are flying?
 
Posted by Warp:
Philosophical question, since I highly doubt there is anything resembling reliable data for this:

Why is reloading so uncommon for private citizens carrying handguns?

(the answer is surely a combination of these, in some unknown ranking from most to least common)


*Most who carry do not carry a reload
*Most victims don't have time to execute a reload, both because the event happens so quickly and, perhaps, because they are not well versed/trained/practiced in reloading from their carry configuration
*Most instances do not involve shots being fired
*When shots are fired, it is usually fewer rounds than their handgun contains
__________________
Click to expand...

Well, the reason is actually quite simple.

Most of those incidents are "shooting incidents."

"Shooting incidents" are just confrontations that ended up in a gun fight. The shooting is incidental at best, and no one who took part of the incident wanted it, at least the shooting that went in one's own direction that is.

"Gun fights" are mostly totally intended result of two or more parties with at least one determined to kill the other.

The above two are nothing alike.
 
TestPilot said:
Well, the reason is actually quite simple.

Most of those incidents are "shooting incidents."

"Shooting incidents" are just confrontations that ended up in a gun fight. The shooting is incidental at best, and no one who took part of the incident wanted it, at least the shooting that went in one's own direction that is.

"Gun fights" are mostly totally intended result of two or more parties with at least one determined to kill the other.

The above two are nothing alike.
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that you for some reason are only talking about "gun fights" which are even more uncommon for private citizens than are 'defensive gun uses' in general?
 
So, what you are saying is that you for some reason are only talking about "gun fights" which are even more uncommon for private citizens than are 'defensive gun uses' in general?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Why limit yourself to only being eqipped for "shooting incidents" when you can be equipped for "gun fights" with no price difference?

Also, that "uncommon" may not be so uncommon as you might think.

Remember that the so called "statistics" includes data from a long time span. Criminal culutre and dynamics of gun fights are not the same from the era when police carried 6 shot guns.
 
TestPilot said:
Sure.

Why limit yourself to only being eqipped for "shooting incidents" when you can be equipped for "gun fights" with no price difference?

Also, that "uncommon" may not be so uncommon as you might think.

Remember that the so called "statistics" includes data from a long time span. Criminal culutre and dynamics of gun fights are not the same from the era when police carried 6 shot guns.
Click to expand...

That line of thought always makes me wonder why virtually nobody wears concealable soft body armour or similar. So much emphasis on shooting the guy who is trying to shoot you, but virtually nothing about protecting yourself from those incoming rounds.

I guess it's just too inconvenient or most people.
 
TestPilot said:
I also have another question Mr. R.W.Dale.

People on your side never fails to argue "It's not fair using police examples."

As a person who can legally carry a gun, when I am attacked in the close quarters scenario you love to bring up, I would draw and fire.

A cop would do the exact same thing.

Why should police examples be excluded when there is no difference in what I would do and what regular cops would do?

Cops get attacked at close range just as any other civilians can.

Exactly what is it that you'd do that is so different from what a cop would do when bullets are flying?
Click to expand...


Do the police have a tendency do get stalked up on and attacked with the element of surprise on their side?

Do criminals assume the police are armed when engaging in violence against them do they make the same assumption when casing a perspective victim?

Do the police have a duty to de escalate a situation prior to a threshold for lethal force is met?

You are not the police. The engagement you are likely to encounter is just as different as if you were citing shootings in an active war zone to support your assertions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dwstone1227
  • Locked
Autoload Reliability
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
fastbolt
fastbolt
B
  • Locked
why do so many people say revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
10K
JohnBT
J
unclenunzie
  • Locked
Handgun observations from a relatively new owner/shooter
Replies
11
Views
1K
Zerodefect
Z
A
  • Locked
I want a new gun!
Replies
11
Views
471
blackcash88
B
Dave T
  • Locked
Revolver Reliability
Replies
21
Views
1K
jc2
J
Back
Top