Reliability, an observation

One shot breech load pistol may even fail less than a revolver, but is anyone going to argue that a single shot breech loader is superior? How about a two shot Derringer? Anyone going to argue "2 shot for sure" than "may be 6 rounds"?

There is no one thing that is most important. Reliability is impoartant, but it is not the single most important factor. If reliabliity is important over everything, then soldiers would be carrying single shot rifles.

What my decisions are based on is the total package. What is more likely to get the job done.

I don't prepare fights with "A sound of a gun shot, and they all ran" kind of opponents. If you have those opponents in mind, then you might as well carry a starter pistol and call it good.

As I have said in these threads before, do not confuse a "shooting incident" wtih a "gun fight." Those two are nothing like each other.

As far as my examinations and research on actual gun fights, when determined fighters are involved, as soon as opponents' number go over 1, my chances with only 6 shots look really grim.

People with no clue about the dynamics of gun fight have a hard time understanding why 6 shots can dry up very fast. Let's say you are attacked at "bad breath" distance by a mugger armed with a knife. As you pull the gun, he tries to jab his knife, you grab his arm, and struggle follows. He is on top of you.

Bang!
"Is he hit?"
Bang!
"Is he hit? Is he falling? I can't tell. Is he forcing me down, or is this just his body weight? I can't see his other hand. Is it dangling down or is it trying to jab a knife?"
By the time you thought through the above sentence, your snubby is empty, unless you intend to hold fire to see if you feel a knife digging into your gut that is.

Your opponent may have been dead at the first shot. Your opponent may be just stunned, but would try to kill you in a moment. Now, Imagine there is a second opponent.

I am not even talking about misses. In the above scenario, you had a 100% hit.


Another issue some fail to take into account is the advances in training methods. If you shoot once, assess, then decide to shoot again, then you might be able to get 1 shot per one opponent. Are you seriously going to do "Bang! Umm, yeah he is still standing. Bang!" when your opponent at "bad breath" distance is shooting a gun or swinging a knife at you?

Modern traning method is to maintain continuous fire until you perceive the opponent dropping beyond the view of your sights. Even if the first shot did its job, you may have fired off 3 shots before you noticed it took effect. Even assuming 100% hits and first shot incapacitation, now you're down to 3 shots.

 

Seems to me that the biggest issue I've had with semiautos that I own has been magazines, with ammo a distant second.

 

I thought the original scope of this discussion was reliability. ONE particular facet of a firearm. I dont feel that ammo capacity, self defense encouters, multiple attackers and whatnot is relavent here.

 

The merits of a revolver or semiautomatic pistol that's up to the individual end user.

 

How do you define and measure handgun reliability? I suggest that when defining and measuring handgun reliability the only important definition and point of measurement is how much you rely on the handgun ensuring you survive a gun fight. Since most people want to survive a gun fight, anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of people agree the semiautomatic is more reliable at ensuring survival than the revolver because they carry semiautomatics. Why is this? I don’t think it is just the usually greater ammunition capacity of semiautomatics. There are many reasons I can think of for most people deciding the semiautomatic is more reliable than the revolver. We can all debate the mechanical reliability attributes of revolvers and semiautomatic influenced by total number of parts that could fail, durability of parts, ammunition induced malfunctions, user error induced malfunctions, and malfunction clearance procedures, but in the 21st century the semiautomatic is what most people have decided is most reliably at ensuring their survival.

 

As a wise, old Master Gunny once noted:

"Expect your weapon to malfunction."

Makes a note of that for future conflagrations.

As a general rule, that's true...but all rules are subject to exceptions. It depends on exactly what causes the malfunction. I've seen autos that locked up so hard, it took nearly an hour to get'em apart.

 

A wise man once said, " If you think you need to carry a gun you probably should carry two." Or something to that effect. Carry one of each type. Cover your bases!

 

You pay your money, and you take your chances. I've been competing with handguns for nearly 30 years, and I've seen just about every kind of failure there is. I am comfortable carrying an auto, or a revolver, but if the question is sheer reliability, I'll give the edge to the wheelgun, at least in the world of civilian self defense use. It comes out on top if for no other reason there is little its operator can do to cause it to malfunction, limp wrist etc. a bad round is cleared with a pull of the trigger, they are more complex mechanically, but simple to operate. I made SSP Master in IDPA with a Glock, I carry a K-Frame .38 , in all fairness, neither have ever malfunctioned.

 

What is the most reliable single shot pistol? It could be one that has no external hammer that can be obstructed when the trigger is pulled from inside a coat pocket. That description applies to a Glock and other striker fired pistols for at least the first shot and maybe more. The only revolver I have trusted to function within a coat pocket is a S&W M38 Bodyguard and even that is not as foolproof as a completely enclosed hammer revolver design and both still have the possibility of cylinder obstruction preventing firing (Did you forget to take that penny out of your coat pocket?).

 

Never a stove pipe or slide lock on the Glock, or a short stroke or high primer on the K-Frame? Amazingly good luck! You sir are a fugitive from The Law of Averages. Let us hope if you are apprehended it occurs in competition and not when defending your life.

 

Nom de Forum said

Nom You sir have a striking way with the word. Thank you for not just saying BS.

 

Agreed there are no absolutes. There are apocryphal stories about gun failures of every type, all of it completely true.....

However I decided to base what I carry on my understanding of likely self defense scenarios for civilians. This means 3 shots, inside 7 yards, little warning, potentially so close that wrestling becomes a real possibility. That covers 97%+ of self defense cases. I'm also assuming one handed use, that's the way I practice and I assume the other hand is to push the assailant and keep the gun out of reach.

Auto's can be disabled with one hand in 3 ways. Push the slide out of battery, drop the mag as most all autos have a mag block, and fire the gun with someone's hand on the slide, leading to a FTE to clear.

Revolvers can be disabled one handed in one manner, hold the cylinder. However there's one good grip on a revolver (moreso with a snubbie) and that grip is in my hand. If I can get you to release, the gun is instantly useable.

 

This is an oversimplification, and makes several assumptions...one or more of which have been proven over time to be untrue.

Revolvers may malfunction less frequently than semi autos...however, when a revolver malfunctions, it is far more likely to be a hard stoppage.

One must make up his own mind which way to go, based on some quantifiable data or experience.

Most of us have, but many others read internet lore and make their decisions based on what they read and interpret as "fact", rather than any real experience.

Hence, many people believe that revolvers "can not malfunction"...or if they do, "one pull of trigger solves all".

Anyone who has spent some time shooting understands the fallacy of this statement.

 

Does EVERY failure to fire render a handgun completely inoperable?

No of course not.

Sometimes ammunition just doesn't go off and in those instances a new round is just a trigger pull away

 

My autos have no mag disconnect, and do have double-strike capability. Any revolvers with double-strike capability? I have a suggestion for those who cannot decide - obtain a semi-auto revolver.

 

Um only like EVERY REVOLVER EVER MADE


You can double strike. You just get to shoot all the other GOOD ammo first before you come back to the offending cartridge to hit it a second time.

More of a "we'll come back to that one later" rather than a "if this doesn't work this time..."

 

The only trouble with double strike is that if the primer crapped out on the first hit, it'll likely do it on the 2nd and 3rd, too...wasting critical time that could be better used in getting the dud out and chambering another round.

Done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webley-Fosbery_Automatic_Revolver

 

Maybe - maybe not. Every time (in my experience) it has been headspace due to imperfect o/a length (headspacing on case mouth) - not a 'bad' primer. The second strike has always detonated for me due to then solid headspace seating without a cushion. Modern ammo seems to have overcome the lack of uniformity. NO revolver has second strike capability - period. Could be an issue if a hand/star/bolt malfunction - has happened to me. OK, it was an Iver Johnson break-top. Still, I like the certainty of the second strike. To each his own.

Now that I think about it, a S&W M&P (model 10) .38 locked up on me due to crane torque - and I was miles out in the boonies. Couldn't hammer open the cylinder - needed a trip to the gunsmith. Failures are not limited to the cheaply made Iver genre.