Portability and Reliability versus Spray and Pray

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebailey

Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
69
Concerning the threads I see knocking revolvers because they only have 6 or 7 shots I would like to address that issue. You and I have both heard the automatic boys say that they need to shoot 400 or 500 rounds through their autos to make sure they are reliable. One shot out of a good revolver says it is reliable. What say ye to this, autos?
 
Last edited:
This is going to get interesting :uhoh: .

I am a revolver nut, and I'd say you still have to fire more than one shot to verify reliability. I bought a NIB Taurus 94 that I didn't know had a reliability problem until about round # 100.

I would say that a revolver doesn't need to be tested as extensively as an auto, but turd revolvers (like turd autos) do exist so it is wise to find out for yourself if it works before you rely on it.

Two big things I like to test for in my revolver carry load are:

1. Ensure the empties don't get stuck in the cylinder. I had a Taurus 66 that refused to eject Winchester SuperX 357 Magnums with anything but an icepick and careful crack of a small hammer. Liked everything else just fine.

2. Ensure that the bullets in a given SD load have a tight enough crimp that they don't come "uncrimped" and tie up the gun at the worst possible time. I've not yet experienced any issues with loads I've tested, but I still plan on testing in this manner before I adopt a new load.
 
A handgun is just another portable tool in the tool box one can choose to use in one's activities of daily living, (ADLs)

Just because something is portable, does not make it reliable, or effective for task.
In the same token, just because something has been, and has proven up to a point to be reliable, does not mean it will when called upon for use again.

Nothing is absolute, and being as life is constant, too many variables come into play to suggest any tool design, in this case revolver, or semi-auto, is a better tool.

Some tracking of tools and tool use can assist one in a starting point for them, as they investigate and verify for their ADLs.

Revolvers are not dependent on magazines as part of the function of the tool, nor are they ammo dependent to run the gun.
One can also track back to the history of revolvers, that quality dry fire practice, and quality practice with mild loads, instills skill sets which are useful and suggested.

Police back in the day used to shoot qualifications out to 50 yards, not feet, yards.
Revolvers can also be tracked to lasting a long time, and while they wear, breakage in the context as many use use the term, does not occur.
Meaning some revolvers are still original that are even 100 years old.

Take a Model 10, designed about 1898 if memory serves me correctly, it was designed to shoot 158 gr bullets to point of aim/ point of impact (POA/POI).
This was a issued weapon to many LEOs for one example and it is proven, it simply put 158 grain bullets where they needed to go.

Be the firstest with the mostest
- Gen. Bedford Forrest, CSA.

Officer is first with getting gun out, and putting the 158 gr where is needs to go and threat is stopped.
Pretty simple and straightforward concept.

-
Semi-Autos are dependent on magazines to operate, as firearm has to feed, extract, repeat, and shoot POA/POI in order to get shot placement.

1911 for example is another old proven design, as it was originally designed to be a combat weapon.
This gun holds 7 rounds total, and originally loading was a 200 gr bullet and was changed to 230 gr.

The reliability of this 1911 as originally designed coupled with being combat accurate, afforded again , being firstest with the mostest with shot placement.

European countries, with smaller guns, in small calibers, with only 6 or 7 rounds were the same way.
Portable, Reliable tools, that fed, extracted, repeated and put bullets where they needed to go.
It did not matter if these were .22, 25ACP, or 32ACP, this is what these guns did , will still do, and have a proven history of doing so.

What has happened is, marketing and myths have precluded common sense and proven history.
Life is real, and folks do not want to deal with reality, instead escapism is a coping mechanism.
If one shuts their eyes, sticks fingers in ears, and utters nay sayer phrases, then they don't have to deal with reality.

Ego, and Pride kills, always has, always will.

So the glitch in the get-a-long is, society has been dumbed down and indoctrinated by everything from restricted laws, that benefit criminals and hinders law abiding to eroding common sense and free thinking.

One can buy skill and targets - today.

One does not have to earn skill sets, and the old school common sense of having a gun, is dumbed down, as evidenced by enacted laws, surveillance cameras and the like.

One does not have to learn correct basic fundamentals of shooting well enough to place bullets.

They have guns now , that the mere ownership keeps evil away, and if...if one still has to use that gun, the evil will run from how it makes noises being employed, and the hi round count of bullets that do mean and nasty things to media shot, is going to automatically keep evil away, all one has to do keep tripping trigger and if bullets hit what it is supposed to, it will guarantee a one shot stop.

Or,
One has to use what a gun school instructor says, to take that class they offer as the instructor hates revolvers, they do not hold many rounds, and there is always the threat of needing more bullets.

Gun school sez the student has to have this make, model or caliber of semi auto handgun, because...and it varies from they failed miserably in the real world but they can make a living doing gun school stuff now to ...
...they have only been shooting a short time, but have really neat writing skills, and they can be a notable person on Internet.
to...to many others examples to name.

Gun manufactures forgot what got them to where they might have been, if they are a old company.

It is about them, money, ego, pride and image for them.
So they "clone" a gun to get a piece of a already small slice of pie for that firearm related gun, ammo or whatever.

New companies come to be, to cash in on that slice of pie too.
All they have to do is get a retired military person to shoot that gun one time, and the way marketing works and legal definitions work is "This gun was fired by a Navy Seals that served in Bum Steersville in '87"

Or, "This instructor assists part time with a guy that was a cop for 14 years in City that made the news with riots in some year.".

My take, old guns are better, metallurgy is better, and proven bullets designs will still work as the human body is still the same as it always has been.
Revolvers have advantages in being reliable and working.
Semi-Auto designs that are original in design, metals and all still work with bullets they were designed to use.

Shot placement and being first is the key, always was, always will be.

In order to do this on has to have a portable and reliable firearm, either revolver, or semi auto, that fits them, and they will carry, and get correct basic fundamentals with, and continue quality practice with - so they will have a gun, they can use if evil shows up during ADLs.

The reality is, we are all dying, when it is your time to die, you die.
There will always be more BGs than one can carry ammo, there will always be a wish for having a bigger gun, with more powerful ammo.

The faster one accepts, they will die someday, and it does not matter revolver, or semi, round count, or caliber, the faster they can quit wasting valuable energy on that which does not matter, the worry and instead use that energy for confidence .

If one has confidence, there is no room for worry.
If one has worry, there is no room for confidence.

Pick which one which makes one feels best and stick with it.
 
I've since I was little had preached to me"if you don't take time to do it right, you'll have to find time to do it over"
In a gunfight you will run out of time to do it over.
the first times I was taken hunting I was given a single shot to teach marksmanship.

You can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight.

get what you shoot well and make every shot count.and

practice practice practice
 
One shot out of a good revolver says it is reliable. What say ye to this, autos?
Any gun is only as reliable as it's last shot.

All mechanical devices can fail. The real difference is when a semi-auto fails, the shooter can usually get it back into action with a tap rack and bang. When a revolver fails, it usually takes tools.

FWIW this truth bears repeating........
Shot placement and being first is the key, always was, always will be.

No amount of whizbang gizmos can beat a faster and more accurate shot..........Given the willingness to make it.
 
I've carried and shot both. Never been in a gunfight though. I do see one common misconception here though. The fact that a gun carries more rounds (I carry a beretta 90-two with hi-cap mags) doesn't necessarily mean the guy can't shoot it well.
 
1. 400~500 shot "break in" not required for self loaders from good manufactureres.

2. If it's reliable, I'd still prefer a self loader, even if I do have to test fire 400~500 round, because it meets one of the operation requirements I set: Not having to reload before shooting at least 10 rounds.

3. Even if I bought a revolver, I would still test fire hundreds of rounds through it. Even if I bought a bolt action rifle, I'd do the same for that matter.

4. One shot out of a revolver says it's reliable? Probably 99.999% revolvers that ever jammed fired at least 1 round before it did.
 
Spray and Pray

Seems like I struck a nerve with the ''Spray and Pray'' crowd. When I said ''one shot with a GOOD revolver (ie Smith, Ruger, etc.) deems it reliable'' I was stating a fact that is shared by thousands of homeowners who buy GOOD Revolvers, shoot them one or two times and then stick them in dresser drawers or nightstands until they need them. Most of these novices don't have the time or range access to fire hundreds of rounds of ammo to prove their guns to be reliable. Therefore they buy GOOD revolvers and rely on the reputation of the manufacturers to protect them when needed. With any weapon you can have an ammo malfunction. All I'm saying is that 90% of the people buying guns now are not going to the range and firing hundreds of rounds of ammo. With that in mind I still contend they are better off with a GOOD brand of revolver than with an automatic.
 
If you want to compare objective merits, fine.

But, the mere fact that you want to brand all self loader users as "spray and pray crowd" shows that you are not mature enough for a serious discussion.
 
In my experience, a malfunction with an auto is fairly predictable. Once you run a thousand rounds through it, you are reasonably sure that it will go bang when you want it to. A revolver on the other hand will tend to have a (very rare) catastrophic malfunction right out of the blue. Thus, a high round count test is unnecessary.
 
One shot out of a good revolver says it is reliable. What say ye to this, autos?
Balderdash. Patently absurd.

But, congratulations on never having an extractor rod unscrew itself, a bullet unseat under recoil, a light load tieing up against the recoil shield and never having a screw back out or a flag pop up.

I would also submit that "spray and pray" is a mindset quite independent of the tool at hand. Having 5 shots doesn't mean one is exempt - just means they're done earlier. Having fewer rounds at one's disposal doesn't magically turn one into a better shot.
 
In the 6th edition of COMBAT HANDGUNNERY by Mas Ayoob, there is a chapter on Combat handgun Controversies. On page 78, commenting on the autoloader's advantages was the high hit potentail under stress. Mas cited the ISP findings that their hit ratio went from 25% with revolvers to 65% with the S&W M39 9mm pistol.

In the same column, Mas states that the best hit potentials in the field have been with SINGLE STACKED (8-9 shot) pistols. When ISP went to the higher capacity guns for MORE FIREPOWER, the hit percentages in the field went down.

So having only 6 shots in a revolver doesn't make you a better shot, and either does having 15 or more in a pistol.

Personally, I want the "fight" to be over in two or three shots. And the stats show that it SHOULD be in MAJORITY of the cases. So I'm happy with my S&W 642 or Glock 36.

22lr
 
One does not

need to shoot 400 or 500 rounds through their autos to make sure they are reliable.

Having said that, why would you
think One shot out of a good revolver says it is reliable
?

Now...why am I even responding to what is certainly a Troll thread? Bye
 
I shoot for quality,not quantity.Being a wheelie-man has gotten me away from the "I've-got-15-rds-so-I-can-miss-a-few"mindset that I had in my younger auto days.Plus,like others have alluded to,I don't always have the time,nor the the money to run 100's of rds through my guns,especially with today's prices:(.

Having both autos and wheelies,the only problem I ever had was with a S&W 681,when the firing pin stuck in the round.This was a factory defect that resulted in a recall and was repaired in good order and time.I've never had an auto problem yet,knock on wood;).

I know barrels are rated for so many rounds before they fail or wear out,and never saw the need to hasten that with 100's or 1000's of rds.Don't want it to fail when I need it most:).Let the manufacturers do that testing and may the best win.While Rebailey and TestPilot both make good statements,it all boils down to self-comfort;which one feels most comfortable and confident to you?
 
Last edited:
One doesn't need to test ammunition in your combat revolver?

What about light primer strikes or uncommonly hard primers? What about potential forcing cone issues? What about extraction?

Plus, shooting is a perishable skill.
 
Preferring an autoloader does not mean that one also prefers the "spray and pray method" of shooting.
I've seen more than one person empty a revolver in an uncontrolled panic stricken manner....having few rounds in one's handgun does not make one immune from panic and the "spray and pray" mindset.
It has also been my experience that most folks are much more accurate when firing an autoloader rapidly under stress vs firing a revolver rapidly under stress.
 
Seems like I struck a nerve with the ''Spray and Pray'' crowd. When I said ''one shot with a GOOD revolver (ie Smith, Ruger, etc.) deems it reliable'' I was stating a fact that is shared by thousands of homeowners who buy GOOD Revolvers, shoot them one or two times and then stick them in dresser drawers or nightstands until they need them. Most of these novices don't have the time or range access to fire hundreds of rounds of ammo to prove their guns to be reliable. Therefore they buy GOOD revolvers and rely on the reputation of the manufacturers to protect them when needed. With any weapon you can have an ammo malfunction. All I'm saying is that 90% of the people buying guns now are not going to the range and firing hundreds of rounds of ammo. With that in mind I still contend they are better off with a GOOD brand of revolver than with an automatic.

If someone is buying a revolver, regardless of the make, and firing it a couple of times before sticking in a dresser or nightstand drawer and then expecting that they will be safe because they have a gun handy, they are are simply screwing up!

Nothing about manufacturer's reputation or reliability can make up for practice. The people who do what you are saying are the same ones we hear about who are killed with their own weapons because they never understood the basic premise that bullets don't go where you want them to; they go where they are aimed!.

You're basic statement that revolvers are simply more reliable because so many people do as you have suggested is "fact" is completely flawed. Just because so many people do something so stupid, doesn't mean that it is a good way to do it. Many people prefer to drink Pepsie rather than Coke. Not only does that not make Pepsie the the best drink available, it doesn't take into account that both are simply sugar water loaded with artificial color, and both contribute to diabetes. I prefer to drink club soda with no additives, or plain water. Does that mean that I am wrong? Well, I guess we will see when I'm don't need to inject insulin when I'm seventy, and they do.

I've carried and used both revolvers and semi's over the years. I like both, and have never had a major problem with the lower capacity of revolvers. I also know many people who have high cap semi's who can darn near punch one hole in target with all fifteen to seventeen rounds at fifty or more feet. Does that mean I should give up my trusty revolver and get a Glock? No, it doesn't. Does me carrying and having confidence in a 1911 mean that Glock owners should give up their trusted pistol because I think Glock's are just plain pug ugly? Again, no.

A person who is going to carry responsibly should buy and carry what he/she is comfortable with. Then that person should practice until drawing and aiming are automatic, and practice firing until he/she achieves a degree of accuracy that he/she is also comfortable with.

This whole debate over revolver vs. semi is starting to get old.:rolleyes:
 
I love revolvers, but autos are easier to carry and to carry reloads for and faster to reload if it's ever necessary. I ain't saying 99 percent of the fights don't involve a couple of shots. I know this. I'm just sayin' it's good to be prepared.

It's just plain easier to carry and conceal an auto, though. Ever notice how BIG 9mm revolvers are vs subcompact 9mm autos or how bulky the moon clips are and easy to damage?

Not going to dis the revolver or your choice to carry one. I often do, myself. I own 20 handguns and only 4 centerfire autos. Even my favorite .22 plinker is a revolver.
 
But, the mere fact that you want to brand all self loader users as "spray and pray crowd" shows that you are not mature enough for a serious discussion.

Thank you was thinking the same thing.

I guess the threads of "I hate Glocks", "9mm is for girls" and "revolvers are tHe Sux" will never end. Ever.
 
Never really count the number of rds but I always shoot a gun enough to convince me it's gonna work. As a civilian going about my daily business I refuse to load myself down with enough ammo and gear for a war. I always watch where I go and what's going on where I am. Sometimes an auto without an extra mag, other times a .38 revolver with one reload. Hope I'm never proved wrong but if I need more I'm in the wrong place anyway.
I've seen people with handcuffs, extra guns, 3 or 4 extra mags for a high cap pistol or as many as 4 speed loaders for a .357 or larger revolver. If that's your choice, I say more power to you but I'm too danged old to carry all that stuff around on a daily basis:p
 
Now I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I always chuckle at the "revolver is more reliable than the auto" crowd. I've got Glocks, H&K, Sig, and Beretta auto hanguns to name just a few that have fired thousands of rounds (BTW, Dillion is a true lifesaver!!!!) and none of these autos have had a stoppage or malfunction...ever! My S&W 586 on the other hand has had a few instances of binding up the cylinder to the point it had to be hammered open. I also owned a S&W Model 10 that went out of time and would skip chambers on a routine bases. Yeah, revolvers sure are reliable when compared to autos.:rolleyes:
 
One shot out of a good revolver says it is reliable. What say ye to this, autos?

That one shot better not be a squib, otherwise you're in for a surprise next time you use it!
 
Some tuff answers in this crowd, but

...

For me, it came down to several factors, mainly trigger-pull, both DA for safety (with decocker-only) along with 9 or 10 more SA pulls and staying on target, rather than any light but more trigger movement thru a worked DAO or revolver trigger, even a semi-revolver/ round count (same for SAO as well)

The other factor is, for me, in any gun battle, when you don't get the first shot, but rather, react, one may depend on living by means of quick suppression fire, while getting to a better defensive position or just getting out of Dodge to live another day..

And all I know is round count (more) works in my favor, along with, being far more accurate with SA pulls, and most important, while on the move, dropping an empty mag, and inserting the next backup, while on the move, is far easier an accomplishment (under fire and on the run) than opening up a revolver, dumping the empties, and trying to insert the next lessor round/count with a speed loader and then getting the revolver buttoned back up and back on target..

Nothing against anyone's choice of gun or type, rather, in weighing in with a worst case scenario, which offers the more-forgiving use, both in time and in round counts, that is why I choose semi-auto's.

Suppression fire is just that, a lot of lead in the direction of the BG/s and most humans duck, change their concentration.. it buys time that could mean a big difference in surviving, if caught off guard, or out gunned from the get-go..

What are the chances in HD/SD? Should be minimal with on-going SA, but there are no guarantees in perfection if caught off guard looking one way as a distraction, for some other to get a first shot advantage.

In that case, more, faster, longer, easier, is better.. IMHO


Ls
 
Last edited:
And Test Pilot

Quote: If you want to compare objective merits, fine.

But, the mere fact that you want to brand all self loader users as "spray and pray crowd" shows that you are not mature enough for a serious discussion.
-----------------
...

I think the only "nerve" struck here is yours, and your views of semi's users vs revolvers users, to his last statement, which I found great merit in, and no offense, while reading it.. I thought the thread Caption was rather "eye catchy" nothing else, from the get go..

As I often do, I chk individual profiles out when I think I need to see if there is any information there that can help me with replying to a post, or not replying, based on what I read or don't see, information-wise, given or not given.

Seems Rebailey is 78yrs young, and been around the block a few times, or up the road of life, some 78 times around the sun, and your above statement, along with what I have read of his post-inquiry and last statement, is on the up and up, and not saying that all semi-users use spray & pray tactics only, or lack of knowledge of such a tactic's actual use with their guns, least that is how this 20yrs younger, than him, Pilot for real, reads them/him.

His (mature) posted words are, sure, used with a term, maybe not the best, but in no-way did I get the impression any mature gun owner with a semi is gonna use his gun only that way, quite the opposite. But you gave a knee-jerk response, as though it somehow got under your skin and hit a big nerve..

Relax a bit, do a little research of anyone you may have a, or some, doubt, about, as it really makes for far better communication skills all the way around.

As I think his thoughts on how many just buy a gun, any type, shoot it a few times, then put it in the drawer for HD/SD and that's about it, is very true, and IMO, as well, this favors the revolver without question.. feed jams come to mind, for starters.

I know you don't show your age in your profile, and that's fine, but 78 is not inmature in any way.. And that you state you're really "Not a real Pilot".. as maybe that is what you hope to be..?



Ls
 
As I think his thoughts on how many just buy a gun, any type, shoot it a few times, then put it in the drawer for HD/SD and that's about it, is very true, and IMO, as well, this favors the revolver without question.. feed jams come to mind, for starters.

Unfortunately you are completely correct. True on all counts. Many, many people do this, and for them the revolver is probably a much better choice over the autoloader. In fact you left out at least one point when it comes to reliability. The one that comes most readily to mind is that if the gun sits, fully loaded, for several years in a drawer without being serviced (which is not unusual either) the magazine spring could fail and the weapon fail to feed at all.

However, I still stand by my opinion that someone doing that is screwing up. I feel badly that someone will put their life on the line trusting a piece of equipment that they are not thoroughly familiar with, and experienced at firing. The possibility of drastic failure is then transfered away from the tool and onto the person wielding it.

In such an instance, IMNSHO the person in question would be better off with a trusty double barrel shotgun in a rack on the wall, rather than a revolver in the dresser drawer. Add a nice, big dog sleeping at the foot of the bed and they would be safer all around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top