Fragility: Revolver vs Semiauto

[bg226]

So I hear that a couple drops on the pavement and a revolver needs gunsmithing, but you can drive your truck over a glock and it will still go bang.

I believe revolvers and semiautos were used in Vietnam by US forces, I wonder how they performed.

In terms of fragility, how do revolvers and semiautos compare?

 

[MCgunner]

I don't know. I take care of my guns.

 

[bg226]

I don't know. I take care of my guns.

That's nice.

 

[jungle]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos. For the most part they have completely vanished from the holsters of people who rely on a weapon to function under all conditions. The stoutest revolvers produced for military service in the last century proved to offer poor resistence to adverse conditions, were difficult to repair in the field, and would never be considered for current military or police use except under a few very specialized conditions. Their durability is much lower than a modern service pistol firing the same ammo.
I am sure there will be a difference of opinion, but I say show me a current large scale user of revolvers who made the choice because of superior durability.

 

[Mooseman]

I agree that pistols are more popular than revolvers but I wouldn't chalk it up to reliability alone. Modern types of both are in general well made and not very damage prone. I think the pistol wins due to its higher shot capacity and ease of reloading. That said I'm not real worried that my Ruger sp101 is especially fragile.

 

[Majic]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos. For the most part they have completely vanished from the holsters of people who rely on a weapon to function under all conditions.

Then explain why far more revolvers are in holsters of people going afield? Why are a lot of BUGs revolvers?

 

[Euclidean]

Revolvers are clearly more fragile than autos

Which is why autos can handle cartridges like .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, and .500 S&W Magnum and revolvers can't.

My answer: six of one half dozen of the other.

 

[Crimson]

Revolvers would have an advantage in dealing with fouling (or they did), but some semis like the XD would be better against impact damage due to the enclosed construction

 

[jungle]

Fragility is not a matter of the size of the round the weapon is chambered for, but the weapon's ability to withstand dirt, abuse, weather and wear. The revolver has it's own advantages in BUGs in that it makes a very compact package for it's caliber in a snubbie, but many 9mm auto BUGs are now issued that rival the snubbie for size and beat it in capacity while being more durable.
As to how many revolvers are taken afield, I would venture that among those paid to go afield against the most dangerous animal in the world one would be hard pressed to find a revolver carried by any of them.
A modern revolver can withstand quite a bit, but drop it in soupy mud and it stops. Run it for 30,000 rounds and it goes out of time. Shoot it 2,000 rounds and it will foul to the point of stoppage. Try replacing the barrel in the field. Aside from capacity, rapid reload, durability, maintainability, ease of use, and ergonomics it's obvious the autopistol has no advantage.

 

[wally]

Revolvers would have an advantage in dealing with fouling

Not in my experience, takes very little fouling to interfere with the cylinder rotation.

A clean revolver carried close to the body by someone not crawling thru the mud, or as a BUG is very reliable. Under battlefield conditions autos have proven far more reliable than revolvers which why the worlds armies switched to autos ASAP. None of this matters to civilians, but most choose autos for their higher capacity and faster reloads.

I find autos need cleaning far less frequently than revolvers and are generally much easier to clean.

--wally.

 

[Jenrick]

Jungle: If you're out for actual dangerous big game, most will carry a wheel gun. It will be chambered in .454, .500 etc. A cape buffalo isn't going to stop with 16rds of .45. A. 454 might do the trick under stress, since with a good shot it can drop them.

-Jenrick

 

[Terrierman]

I don't think he is talking about big game. Other men are most definitely the most dangerous animals on this earth, and for that sort of hunting, he's right.

 

[jungle]

Terrierman understands. No four leg will set up an ambush with belt feds, booby trap the road, or hunt you for years.
In the sporting world we look to dispatch as humanely as possible, elsewhere there aren't any rules.
The skinniest little guy in the world with an AK is much more of a threat than a whole herd of Buff.

 

[BigG]

six of one half dozen of the other.

This man understands the question.

Meaningless speculative horsepucky.

 

[jungle]

Meaningless to most, a matter of life and death to some.

 

[MCgunner]

I'm not so sure a Ruger Blackhawk can't take anything the best autos can and more. I can see where a DA could get its crane damaged, etc, if you were so inconsiderate of the gun as to run it over with a D3 Caterpillar or something. But, a Blackhawk is really strong. It does, of course, have that delicately timed lock work, I suppose.

As to outdoor use, revolver every time for me. I said I take care of my guns, means I don't abuse them. I ain't goin' to war and if I did, I wouldn't stop takin' care of the tool that keeps me alive. Revolvers can handle a lot hotter cartridge than a normal sized auto. I'll take a 44 mag over any .357 sig. against a toothy predator, for instance. Revolvers are also more accurate in hunting guns.

Autos have their place, firepower, speed of reloading, etc. Revolvers are not an anachronism in self defense, however, no matter what your personal preference is. A DA service revolver in the hands of a man who knows how to use it is still a dangerous adversary to a man armed with a wonder 9. Don't ever under estimate a revolver's capability. It all depends on who's shooting it and how good he/she is with it.

IOW, I really don't care which one is "tougher". It doesn't apply to me so I don't care.

 

[_N4Z_]

...

hmmmmm, never really thought of putting the word fragile in the same sentence as my stainless full lug ruger gp100 .357mag...



failure to function because of fouling ? ?

nope, sorry, not seen that happen yet and it gets used alot. of course i clean my tools when done using them.

harder to clean than a semi? my gp cleans up way faster than my beretta96 ever did. in all fairness though that beretta had a very rough bore that required extra scrubbing.

 

[bg226]

Revolvers require much precision to properly work:

- Each chamber needs to be perfectly aligned with the barrel.

- Cylinder/barrel gap needs to be precise and perfect. Precisely .006" or less.

- Timing must be perfect.

All three of the above must be perfectly precise and work perfectly synchronous with each other for a revolver to function properly.

failure to function because of fouling ? ?

I've seen it happen with a S&W Model 19. After ~250 rounds, the cylinder would not turn because of fouling buildup at the gap.

 

[Master Blaster]

Get in a close struggle with a bad guy and if the slide of your semi auto gets pushed slightly out of battery it can jam and faile to fire. Thats one problem a revolver doesnt have. I carry and trust a j frame revolver due to the close combat nature of a situation I may encounter as a CCW holding civilian.

 

[jungle]

If you are in a struggle and someone is getting a grip on your weapon or you are pressing you weapon against you opponent you have already made a mistake.
Revolvers can also be disabled by grabbing the cylinder/hammer area.

I agree that Ruger revolvers are very tough examples of the breed, but if they were truly superior to autos in durability or resistence to hard use they would be in more widespread use by people who rely on their weapons to stay alive.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

On average, a civilian gunbattle will not require a person to use suppressive fire techniques. Nor will it require a person to fire ~250 rounds that will foul a wheelgun.
I'd say that any encounter you have will be over in less time than it takes to read this post. So, the round count til fouling argument doesn't seem to hold much merit.
It seems like what we're mixing here are two different needs. The needs of an armed professional operator in the field conducting a mission are very different from a Joe sixpack carrying concealed. So, their requirements for a handgun are much less stringent.
On average, the CC guy carries maybe one reload, if that. That's hardly enough to create a fouling issue in a revolver. It's also not enough to melt the barrel in a CZ52.
In fact, all that matters is how the average joe does with those crucial one or two first shots. I know that I can draw, cock, and discharge my Single Action .45 in less time than I can draw, unsafety, and discharge my CZ.
If I were signing up with some security outfit to stand armed over six year olds in a diamond mine to make sure they weren't eating diamonds, I'd probably want an m249 (study where your diamonds come from: Down with DeBeers). But, I'm not. I'm just a guy who may have to draw on a chucklehead in a Barnes and Noble parking lot because he's trying to hold up a reader with a carpet knife. Or whatever.
Working in a professional environment leaves no room for nostalgia and/or personal choice. CC does.
In my personal life though, I'm am evolving into a pistol guy.

 

[MCgunner]

Ah, anything to argue about, I guess. Debate, I'm sorry, debate is what we're doin', I guess.

harder to clean than a semi? my gp cleans up way faster than my beretta96 ever did. in all fairness though that beretta had a very rough bore that required extra scrubbing.

I think if you're going to be all thorough and pop the side plate off a Smith or Taurus or drop the trigger group out of a Ruger, the revolver is more a pain. But, who the heck does that???? When I clean my revolvers, open the cylinder or drop the cylinder in a single action, scrub the bore and cylinder chambers with the brush, squirt some lube, maybe, down the hammer innards, occasionally I'll take the cylinder crane off and lube it, but not when I'm doing a routine after range cleaning. I'll polish the face of the forcing cone and cylinder and get the fouling off. When I clean my autos, I pull it apart and it takes longer. I never have problems with my revolvers working.

If your gun is fouling significantly at the forcing cone gap, you ain't cleanin' that area very often or it's set up too tight.

I happen to think few guns are as capable as a J frame lightweight .38 for discrete personal defense. I carry a 9mm pocket auto a lot, but I don't feel I need it. I'm happy with my revolver, a speed loader, and a Bianchi speed strip.

 

[Croyance]

If we are talking about the abuse that the average concealed carry license holder puts their gun through, we are talking about some lint and merely sporadic cleaning. For that either is sufficient.

I would say that any revolver takes longer to clean than a semi-auto. I'm not going to stress the crane by cleaning the chambers without removing the crane from the frame. There are six (or five) chambers to clean.
A semi-auto fieldstrips faster, often without the need for a tool.

Now the fact that average CCW use does not involve enough rounds to foul a gun really doesn't address the issue of which is more fragile, it only says that each will do the job.

 

[Euclidean]

"If X goes wrong with Y platform, then Y platform will be worthless."

"If Y platform experiences condition Z, then Y platform will fail to function properly."

People people people... we can spend all day on the internet going on and on constructing infinitely many scenarios wherein something will fail. It's a waste of time.

"Fragility" means nothing here without establishing some kind of criteria by which something can be considered fragile.

Is it the inherent limitations of how much power and pressure the firing platform can take?

Is it longevity?

Is it ease of field maintenance?

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Ultimately we're all going to apply some arbitrary set of personal criteria to the question as we all think of different things when we think of what is "Fragile".

I agree that Ruger revolvers are very tough examples of the breed, but if they were truly superior to autos in durability or resistence to hard use they would be in more widespread use by people who rely on their weapons to stay alive.

So corrections officers, rural police officers, CHL permit holders, armored truck personnel and professional security guards don't depend on their weapons daily to stay alive?

 

[jungle]

Lowest bidder wins out over user preference on occasion.