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.