Are Revolvers any more reliable than modern Autos?

[StrikeFire83]

I ask this question not as a troll but as a person who own two modern semi-autos and one revolver.

My Glock 17 just passed the 2500 round mark without a single malfunction.

My XD-45 just passed the 600 round mark without a single malfunction.

This has got me to wondering if the old "revolvers are more reliable than autos" statement no longer holds true.

In the interests of full disclosure, my Ruger SP-101 just passed the 450 round mark, and it has never had a malfunction either.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Well, I have had two malfunctions with my revolvers: tension screw on mainspring was loose on one and the cylinder fell out of the same gun during competition (say what?!).

However, I will have to say that I have seen about 4 revolver malfunctions after 3 years of competition with the International Confederation of Revolver Enthusiasts and working as range officer at two clubs, two of which are those I described as happening to my revolver.

On the other hand I have seen a much larger number of failures with semi autos, including my own. Probably a fair number of failures are due to semis being fussy about ammo and some due to the fact that I was observing race guns that function on the edge.

 

[Baba Louie]

If we hold Murphy's Law to be true, it should be a truth that revolvers, being somewhat simpler in terms of operation, should be more reliable. Less moving parts, feeding rounds from one device into a chamber, ejection and all that (timing is everything). But it does appear that the old axiom about semi's reliability vs revolvers, might be falling by the wayside for casual use.

The US military thought so about 96 years ago and tho' there are instances where revolvers were issued for one reason or another (but reliability wasn't the issue) this seems to be a modern truth in the making.

Provided someone is taking good care of their auto's, replacing springs, magazines, feeding the right rounds, etc.

So maybe we shouldn't say revolvers are "more reliable" but rather 'simpler in operation' and thus less worry for simple minds in times of stress. (Besides that, who wants to bend over and police their brass all the time?)

 

[Preacherman]

Depends on the manufacturing quality. A S&W or Ruger, out of the box, tends to be a fairly reliable revolver (although there are some horror stories, too, as you'll see if you search threads on this forum!). A Glock, or XD, or M&P, tends to be equally reliable out of the box - again, with some horror stories. I'd say it's pretty much a wash with modern, high-quality firearms like these.

Once you drop below the top tier of manufacturers, then all bets are off. You might get a good Kel-Tec - or a bad one. Same for Taurus, Rossi, Hi-Point, etc.

Lorcin? Raven? Jennings? Fuggedabahdit!

 

[Tom C.]

I think the Army handgun trials of 1905 that eventually resulted in the adoption of the 1911 pretty well demonstrated that the best autos are more reliable in severely adverse conditions to the best revolvers. Revolvers tend to be built to tighter clearances and therefore more prone to ingestion of dirt, etc., than autos like the old military 1911s, which sounds like a box of rocks when shaken.
If the conditions aren’t as adverse as the Army’s, then things probably even out some. Revolvers certainly have a simpler manual of arms. That tends to reduce operator induced malfunctions.
Bottom line: buy both.

 

[115grfmj]

one word answer

YES

 

[PX15]

FWIW:

I have revolvers, and I have pistols.. I love 'em both.

Having said that, in over 50 years of firearm ownership I have yet to have a quality revolver malfunction in any way. I don't shoot reloads & such, just factory ammo.

I've had many, many pistols mess up...

I do agree that with current high quality pistols reliability is fantastic. (my Sig P239 w/10yrs history with no malfunctions comes to mind.) I do think for "non-gun" folks a revolver is simply inherently more reliable.

I think for folks who shoot, clean and maintain their quality pistols malfunctions are few and far between.. Generally most of that can be traced to "limpwristing", bad ammo.

For folks who simply are not "gun folks" and do not maintain their firearms well then a revolver is a better choice.

I have full faith and confidence in my Sig P239 or Walther P99c/AS for reliability, just as I do my S&W 638.

 

[Old Fuff]

In harsh environmental conditions (such as the current Sandboxes) a pistol will keep ticking after a revolver stops. I know of no consequental military force in the world that still issues revolvers as their standard sidearm.

But in the other circumstances the revolver may be more reliable. Lubrication is less critical, and the strength of magazine and recoil springs is a moot point. When left laying in a bedside table drawer none of the internal springs are compressed. Last but not least, the revolver does not depend on ammunition to function, nor is feeding/extraction an issue.

That said, as Preacherman noted, the best quality guns of both kinds generally run well, so take your pick.

 

[MechAg94]

IMHO, for someone who never shoots and just wants a gun for self defense, I normally recommend a revolver. A double action revolver is more forgiving of fingers on triggers or other mistakes like that. It is also easy to check if it is loaded for a nube.

IMO, autos require more knowledge and care to function reliably and safely. That may not be universal, but I think it covers most people.


I took my CHL renewal last summer. One guy next to me had an old 1911 that he said was upgraded and fixed up for accuracy. He seemed real proud of it. It malfunctioned several times during the test.
Hell, my ParaOrdnance P14 had never malfunctioned on me, but it managed to fail to extract once. That bugged me since I thought it was a good go-to weapon. Probably needs an overhaul as mentioned above.
The other malfunctions were on High Points that a few people had. I think some were going to use revolvers and had the cheapest auto they could find to qualify with due to Texas CHL test restrictions.


Also, I guess I am assuming high quality manufacturers, such as what Preacherman said.

 

[PX15]

FWIW:

As I descend into seni-senility as a senior citizen, with declining vision and less than steady hands I think my Airweight Centennial Bodyguard w/Crimson Trace Lasergrips will become more and more my cc weapon of choice.

I say that because I think the chances of a malfunction with the Bodyguard are so remote as to be a non-starter.

I have found out that the Crimson Trace Lasergrips have turned my, (for me) questionably accurate snubby, to a tack driver, at self defense range. I only practice now at between 5-7 yards because that is what I consider self defense range.. I can't see the sights and the target further out anyway..

The Airweight Bodyguard is very light, has a great factory wide,smooth, target trigger and if you will place the red laser dot on a target you can indeed create a hole there if you so choose..

I LOVE my Sig P239 & Walther P99c/AS and as long as I can feel competent with them I will cc them when able. But when all's said and done I would feel 100% armed and could protect myself with the Bodyguard.

Best Wishes,

J. Pomeroy

 

[chilly460]

Not quite sure what the definition of reliability is in this case. Are we talking simple failure to fire, or an actual breakdown?

I'm very much a newbie, but my observation from rentals is that the revolver is definitely the more reliable gun as far as dependable firing.

I've rented 7 different pistols, and 3three different revolvers at a range. Understandably, they're rental guns and quite dirty, but 6 of 7 of the pistols had some type of failure to fire or failure to extract at some point. Ruger, Beretta 92fs, Glock 17, Springfield GI 1911, Sig 220 all had issues...an HK USP didn't have any issues. S&W .500Mag, S&W 686 .357Mag, and Ruger Redhawk .44Mag I've rented have never had a failure to fire. Obviously this isn't the most scientific approach, but it shows a pretty good trend. I do think that if the guns are WELL MAINTAINED, the gap would narrow...but the extreme use does indicate a trend that could be used to draw conclusions.

 

[Jim March]

Under CCW or home defense conditions (versus military!) the revolver is the more reliable weapon.

* The wheelgun can feed bizarre shaped ammo without a hitch, and you can vary the power level all over the map as circumstances dictate. (Example: you pack a 357 with full power ammo. You deal with a bout of carpal tunnel syndrome from too much typing. You back down the ammo to moderate 38spl for the duration but at least you're using the same gun, no retraining issue.)

* It won't go out of battery on muzzle contact - think "real close range fight". By putting the muzzle of a 38 snubbie up against an assailant's ribs you up the effective power to 45ACP or beyond, because you're filling his chest cavity with muzzle flash. This trick is impossible with most autos.

* Wheelguns can't be limp wristed. You may say you won't do so, and your grip is firm at the range. How will your grip be if you've taken a round to the knee and off-hand shoulder and you're firing from the ground? With a wheelgun, if you can line up the sights and pull the trigger it WILL function, no matter how screwed up you are.

* At least at the lower end of the price spectrum, wheelguns are more accurate. A $250-$300 used Ruger or S&W with minor holster wear will usually outshoot $500+ Glocks and the like. Somebody just yesterday reported finding a used S&W 586 for $300. Anybody willing to place bets against that gun being more accurate than just about any police-duty-grade "fotay" this side of full custom?

I had great fun one time shooting my 38snub at a torso-sized target 50 yards out and doing better than a guy standing next to me with a full-size Glock .

------------

Military conditions are another matter. Once the round count between serious cleanings goes up, good autos are in better shape. Resistance to mud/snot/sand/etc. is improved in modern police/military grade autos. BUT in case of a "defense while wounded" situation, I would say that police in particular should have a backup snubby wheelgun on them and I can make a case for at least some of the .mil crowd doing the same.

Example: truck convoy drivers aren't normally front-line combat troops but they've seen a lot of action in the sandboxes of late. They usually have a carbine rifle handy and that's it. How many would be well served by a tucked-away SP101 in 9mm with moons, as a "just in case"? They're not all that "combat trained" themselves, and the basic "grab and go" reliability that CCWers stateside enjoy could save their butts too.

 

[PX15]

chilli460:

With all due respect I would suggest you never let the performance of a rental firearm be indicative of what you could reasonably expect from a new firearm of the same model.

About all you get from a rental is a very good idea of whether or not the grip feels good in your hands, whether or not you like the sights, safeties,decocker,etc, (if any), and other such things.. You will get some idea of the pistol/revolver's POTENTIAL accuracy and such, but that's about it.

You certainly cannot consider the reliability of a rental pistol as a measuring stick for that brand or model firearm.

You are generally shooting the equivalent of a vehicle with 200,000 miles on it with probably a very poor maintence history..

That's one reason every time the question comes up on various firearm forums "should I buy a used gun rental firearm" 99.9% of those who reply say, NO WAY.

JMO

Best Wishes,

J. Pomeroy

 

[Confederate]

Glocks are among a new class of ultra reliable automatics. I'd rate their reliability, as well as other autos like the Beretta, Sig, Smith, etc., as being clearly reliable enough to bet one's life on. I would not, however, say the same thing is true of any 1911 out of the box.

There are more moving parts in an auto and jams can happen in both revolvers and autos. Springs also lose tensions, so loading a magazine to capacity and leaving it for months or years is not recommended.

Smith revolvers can have their extracting rods back out, which can cause jams, but Rugers are pretty much impervious to that sort of thing.

 

[YodaVader]

Not quite sure what the definition of reliability is in this case. Are we talking simple failure to fire, or an actual breakdown?

My only semi-auto centerfire pistol is a Sig P239 and it has been 100% relaible in the 9 years I have owned it using factory ammo. Only when using one particular reload did I have any problems. It was a load listed in a published reloading manual but still failed to cycle the slide fully.

The revolver could care less about power levels and will reliable function with any listed load in my experience. My 686 never had and issues in the 12 years I have had it. Although in fairness to the P239 it gets "full power" factory loadings for defensive ammo.

 

[2ndamd]

Yep.
Revolvers still rule the roost where reliability is concerned.

 

[das028]

Nope, I am going to say that a modern reliable auto (glock, sig, SA, etc..) is more reliable than a revolver, at least in my experience.

 

[Arcticfox]

Duh?!

Less moving parts, and if you have a misfire, you just pull the trigger again. try that in an auto (except one extra pull in a 24/7)

 

[das028]

Duh?!

"Less moving parts, and if you have a misfire, you just pull the trigger again. try that in an auto (except one extra pull in a 24/7)"

I'm not sure a revolver does have less moving parts then a Glock. Also any DAO, or TDA auto does have second strike capability.

 

[GunNut]

Yes and no.

All guns can malfunction, and i've had a revolvers ejector rod unscrew before.

My motto is to always be prepared. I clean my carry guns after the range and keep them in top condition to minimize problems.

Steve

 

[Boats]

It must be near Christmas because this hoary old chestnut is being upchucked again.

In these threads we get to see it all. . .

Well, revolvers are this and that. . .

Well, no military issues revolvers anymore. . .

Well, my (Glock, H&K, ubergoober) is ultra reliable. . .

. . .and no 1911A1 out of the box is. . . .

Some observations:

Revolvers have fewer potential malfunctions due to being mechanically simpler between trigger pull and the expected BANG! However, when a revolver does go down, and it is not a dud primer remedied by pulling the trigger again, the revolver goes down hard, as in partial disassemble or wooden dowel time to clear.

Most autopistols are combat reliable, even the much maligned 1911A1. However, autos have greater timing sensitivity than do revolvers. When you think about it, it requires quite a mechanical ballet, all going correctly, for any autopistol to fire more than once. As noted, failures can happen to an autopistol in a larger variety of circumstances from failure to fire, failure to eject, failure to return to battery, failure to feed, and most pistols can be knocked out of battery by hard contact on the muzzle.

I don't seriously believe that the autopistol replaced the revolver on the battlefield following WW2 because of mechanical shortcomings of the revolver. Ease of reloading and higher capacity argue more convincingly for the battlefield auto.

Glock does circus trick level abuse to sell to cops. Ruger used to do circus trick level abuse to sell revolvers to cops when they still bought wheelguns.

Neither form is able to claim absolute mechanical advantage. I do believe that revolvers are more trouble free, but in my gun safe that is a belief grounded in theory as I have several handguns of both types that have never malfunctioned due to gun related issues, only a squib round on my GP-100 and a "rim failure" as the extractor claw on my primary 1911A1 ripped a case are the only two I have encountered among my home defense and CCW handguns.

 

[Deanimator]

Revolvers are inherently less prone to malfunctions that semi-automatic pistols, since they do not rely upon the proper functioning of the ammunition.

That having been said, any malfunction of a revolver is apt to be MUCH harder to reduce than that of a semi-automatic pistol.

The most common revolver malfunction I've seen was the ejector rod unscrewing on S&W revolvers. If this occurs in just the proper way, the revolver can neither be fired nor cleared until the rod is somehow screwed in. During a gun fight this is unlikely at best.

Also, in most instances a stoppage in a semi-automatic handgun can be reduced at most by removing the slide or bolt. A serious mechanical stoppage in a revolver usually requires removal of the sideplate and the exposure of easily lost and hard to reassemble parts.

 

[Boats]

Since my Ruger has no threads in its ejector rod and no side plate with small parts potentially getting loose, I doubt it will ever have a serious malf.

 

[Ralph Bryant]

"Are we talking simple failure to fire, or an actual breakdown?
"

Either / Or can get you DEAD real quick ! Reliability means just that......YOU pull the trigger, IT fires.......first time, every time. No excuses. There are no "alibis" permitted when someone is aiming back.

That said, I've bet my ass on a Glock for almost 20 years. Prior to that, it was a S&W revolver. In all those years, I had one single problem with the Smith in the form of a broken (hammer-mounted) firing pin after thousands of rounds in PPC courses. The Glock has had a hick-up on rare occasions, but I felt very assured with both weapons. Look at the primary sidearms of the majority of police departments in your area, and talk to the guys who carry them, especially so if they are responsible for choosing and buying their own guns. If they have a somewhat lax off-duty carry policy, ask them what they carry off-duty as well. Same gun ? Why ?

Either way, stick with a top-quality firearm, and it will serve you well.

JMO

 

[ronto]

Let me put it this way...If duels were still legal...and my second opened the box containing a revolver with 6 rounds and a semi-auto with 6 rounds...I'd take the revolver.