cheaper revolvers vs cheaper autos

[Dr_2_B]

I'm interested in your responses to this statement:

A cheaper revolver should prove more reliable than a cheaper auto because of its simpler mechanism. A less-well-made revolver is less prone to malfunction than a less-well-made auto.

 

[captain awesome]

I think it has more to do with brand than absolute cheapness, although that does usually follow the same trend. a buddy of mine has a hi point 40 that has never skipped a beat, and that's as cheap as they come. ugly as sin though.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I doubt it's that simple. It will vary in a case-by-case basis. I have seen some very reliable and "cheap" autoloaders... Hi Point and Kel Tec. I have also personally experienced problems with revolvers that cost more... Taurus and S&W.
I am not sure how a revolver is more simple than an auto... just having the sideplate off of my J-frame, it is built like a wristwatch in there.

 

[Phydeaux642]

If I'm going cheap, I'm going auto. Unless you're talking used of course. Kel-tec is hard to beat for an inexpensive auto and I can't think of a new $250 revolver that I would want.

 

[Joe Demko]

Are we talking cheap just in the sense of price or are we using it to describe construction from low grade materials and shoddy workmanship? If the latter, I'd have to give the edge in reliability and durability to cheap automatics.
Consider the type specimen of cheap revolvers: The German-made RG. These were notoriously unreliable. There are plenty of threads here at THR describing 1st hand bad experiences with them. At the same price level and shoddiness of construction, there are cheap autos like the Jennings or the Raven. These often performed better than people expected them to, though they were never going to be confused with an offering from a first-line maker. The main problem with the cheap revolvers seems to have been timing. They went out of time quickly and sometimes even came from the factory that way.