Reliability: Revolver vs. Semi-Auto

[Surefire]

This is just my opinion and observations. I don't claim one is more reliable than the other OVERALL...


From my experience:

Semi-autos seem more prone to ammunition-related reliability issues. Examples: underpowered / faulty ammo (not enough power to fully cycle the slide), bullet shapes (can cause jams), etc. I've experienced this in the past with lower quality ammo. In most cases, a semi-auto can get one shot off even if the cartridge has issues (underloading), its the next round that will fail.


Revolvers seem more prone to mechanical malfunction. Example: cylinder getting locked up. I've never had this happen with one of my own revolvers, but have had it happen with an old beat-up rental. If a revolver cylinder cannot rotate (such as if someone grabs and holds the cylinder), it won't even fire one shot (assuming it is in double action mode). OTOH, I've never experienced a revolver actually stop working due to ammo (such as underloadings or bullet shape).


Have your experiences been similar or do they differ?

 

[ribbonstone]

Agree...revolvers malfuction less often, but when they do it's not a quick fix. Semi-autos make have a higher rate of malfunction (usullay ammo related) but are more likely to cure it with bare hands.

 

[Mooseman]

I Think revolvers are more reliable hands down. I've only had one malfunction from a revolver, ever. I had a firing pin break on a Rossi .357 while dry firing it. My fault. I think semiautos are great though with their greater capacity and lighter recoil. Still, for CCW I carry a revolver and I doubt that'll change anytime soon.

 

[Euclidean]

I feel like it depends on what kind of quality and price bracket we're talking about.

If we're dealing with very to moderately inexpensive guns, my experience has been that you get a better quality firearm when you purchase a revolver. This is somewhat logical: provided nothing fouls up the mechanism, a revolver that's properly constructed should deliver a very long life of service. And thankfully, MOST specimens made by good makers do.

I think at some nebulous point on the spectrum though, we cross a point where the kinds of semiautos you can get aren't Sigma .380s or Jennings or first or second generation Keltecs... Now I'm sure you the reader have all of those guns and yours are all rock solid reliable, but I had to pick on something so please forgive me.

There's all sorts of exceptions though, and I don't think this general trend is as true as it used to be. The CZ I bought for $225 has been rock solid for instance and it's a semiauto.

I think there was a time where semiautos were notoriously problematic, but they've just gotten so good at making them work now I think that the overall reliability of both platforms is about the same.

 

[mr.trooper]

Revolvers ARE less prone to malfunction. BUT, If they do go down (cylinder lock-up, timing problem, internal gum-up) you will NOT be fixing it in the field.

With a piece of tactical tuperware, you just Rinse it off, and you TAP-RACK-BANG.

 

[sgt127]

I have long held that revolvers are just plain more reliable. But....I think that applies to the range more than the street.

A revolver is very reliable. However, its prone to damage fairly easily. A friend of mine dropped a S&W M-28 about 3 feet on a hardwood floor...sheered the center pin. Several people I know have dropped S&W revolvers on the hammer and it bent back far enough to keep the gun from cycling. I've had several primers flow back into the firing pin hole, locking up a Smith revolver. Grit under the extractor star, dirty cylinder face...Barrel Cylinder gap too tight and expands when it gets hot etc.

When I think about how much time, money and energy I have spent beating a Government model into submission and making it reliable, it scares me.

However, I just bought a brand new Sig P239 .40. It has gone over 1200 rounds without a single burp in less than 2 months.

If I had to drop it, beat it, throw it in sand, hit somebody with it, shoot it until its filthy, shoot it until its too hot to hold...I think the reliabilty nod would go to a CURRENT semi auto by a major manufacturer.

If I could carry it in a proper holster, keep it clean and load it with good ammo, I would place the odds at 99.999 percent that a good quality Smith and Wesson revolver will go bang six times.

I think with the quality that we see nowadays from the big boys, the reliability issue is pretty much a wash. I can come up with a scenario where the revolver will fail the test, and, then change the criteria and show the auto to be woefully unreliable.

That said, I have to carry my issue Glock 35 in uniform now. Prior to that, I carried a Wilson Master grade 1911...but, for the last 12 years, I have carried the same 642 .38 special as a back up.

And, off duty, I now carry the Sig 239 that replaced the S&W 65 3". And, I could easily be talked back into the 65....

 

[gudel]

Have your experiences been similar or do they differ?

Differ. I purchased a brand new 686, I had light strike problems. About 11 rounds out of 50 would not fire. Although cylinder would turn, hammer falls as trigger is pulled, I consider fail to fire is a failure, regardless how the mechanical parts do what it supposed to do. Like the other guy said, couldn't be fixed in the field. I had to send it back to S&W.
I bought 4 brand new HK, semi auto, all have been 100% out of the box, regardless ammo. I shot wolf, wwb, rem green box, rem yellow box, win nato ammo, +p ammo, hp, jhp, these things just work.

 

[LightningJoe]

An automatic pistol in good mechanical condition can malfunction whereas a revolver will not malfunction unless it is broken (not including ammunition-related problems). But the types of malfunctions to which an automatic is vulnerable and to which a revolver is not (e.g. FTF,FTE) are quickly and easily cleared. In a bad auto, these may occur once every few hundred rounds. Even with a jammomatic auto, you will virtually without fail be able to get off half a magazine with no glitches. If you do have a malfunction, you can clear it very quickly. But a revolver is guaranteed to malfunction after 5 or 6 rounds. The revolver will always experience an out-of-ammo malfunction after just the number of rounds that is equal to the number of chambers in the cylinder. This malfunction will take a long time to clear. The argument that revolvers are more reliable than autos I think is not convincing. Revolvers have some virtues, but I wouldn't carry one with the idea it was more reliable than an automatic.

 

[albanian]

Let just compare a good quality revolver in good shape with a good quality auto in good shape. You can put names on them if you like, call the revolver a Ruger GP-100 and the auto a SIG 220.

Above are two of the best guns in their class. If the GP-100 is not broken, it will never malfunction. I have owned a SIG 220 that was nearly 100% reliable but in the years I owned it, I had maybe 3 malfunctions. One was ammo related, I was shooting up some old carry ammo and one round failed to operate the slide. One round may have been during break-in. One round I have no explaination for. I had a FTE for no apparent reason. Keep in mind this is only three jams over several years and several thousand rounds but at least one time, I had a jam that couldn't have been predicted or avoided. Had that one jam occured in a gun fight, I may have died. I carried my SIG 220 on duty so I trusted my life to it.

A good quality revolver will NEVER jam unless something goes wrong with it. I keep a Beretta 92FS by the bed for HD because it holds 20rds and in the many years that I have owned it, it has never jammed. I know it can and will jam someday but it has been so reliable that I think the capacity helps to offset the downside that it is an auto and it may jam someday.

 

[doublebarrel]

I read an article before that said an auto would malfunction more because of neglect, while a revolver would more because of abuse. He gave some examples I remember. If you put a loaded gun in a drawer for years, and one day you take it out and shoot right after, an auto is more likely to jam. When all the lube become dried up, a revolver will be more likely to work. But if you drop them, step on them, run a truck over them, etc., an auto is more likely to survive, while the revolver's cyliner will probably become damaged...

 

[Rickstir]

I have both. Carry both (not at the same time). My Beretta 92FS is over 10 years old, fired over 5K at least and NEVER had any problems coming or going. Same with my Taurus 650 CIA 2" .357 magnum. I have confidence in both of them.

 

[Ala Dan]

If I'm caught in the field with a armed BG who is doing his best
to kill me and my firearm lays down; I would rather it be a good
quality semi-auto, than a revolver. As someone just has
pointed out, many times a problem with a semi-auto is ammo
related; if not, most of the time it can be fixed in the
field. Shooter's don't need too be fooled into thinking that even
good quality revolvers won't ever lay down~! I once had a 2"
Smith & Wesson model 15 .38 Special that I shot so much that
it wore the "hand" out, that rotates the cylinder. Needless to
say, I was done for the day with that firearm; as I hurried over
to Mr. Glasgow (well known 'smith in my area) for some much
needed help.

 

[James T Thomas]

perspective

Dear Sir:

Your faithful and true friend, the model 15, never did fail you.
It just served you flawlessly through all those years and thousands of rounds until the poor old boy just wore out and died right there in your hands.

 

[Ala Dan]

You're so right, Mr. Thomas my friend.

It was a good ole' boy, having bought it brand NIB 'bout 1970
for the total of $97.50. Very hard too find today, in any condition.

 

[James T Thomas]

friendship

Dear Ala Dan:

You sound like a man who has been around the would a few times.

In life there are only a few companions who will be there when we need them; true "blue," though I have a few stainless too.

I value them and my human friends also.

Recently, I've found myself in need of replacement parts or refurbishment, but I hope I have many more days at the range left in me.

Hope you and yours do too.

Jim Thomas

 

[RyanM]

Automatics are also more prone to operator error. Can't put rounds backwards in a revolver, but you can in an auto magazine. Can't limp-wrist a revolver. If you don't oil a revolver, it may squeak, but it won't jam. Etc.

 

[Surefire]

I'm impressed by the arguments on both sides...well thought out and argued, folks.

For the record, I prefer revolvers, but some of the arguments are making me rethink my strategy.

 

[Highland Ranger]

All depends on the brand/design.

Assuming function out of the box isn't an issue and you have two good specimens, I feel equally comfortable with an HK USP or a Smith 586, or Model 60.

Compare a Model 60 to a 1911, (any!) and the nod goes to the revolver.

 

[grendelbane]

When it comes to comparing the reliability of revolvers and automatics, I think that old devil "cognitive dissonance" raises his ugly head.

I know a fellow who claims a revolver has never failed him, even though I have personally seen him suffer 2 mis-fires out of 5, due to a weak hammer spring.

People just don't seem to remember the problems that they have had with revolvers, but do remember every little problem that occurs with automatics.

It may be a generational thing, as most of the younger shooters I know do not suffer from this condition.

As for myself, I think that they are about equally reliable. I think that doublebarrel got it right with his comments about neglect and abuse. I would rather have my .45 Gov't model if I were crawling through mud and blood and beer. If I had to depend on a handgun that had been laying in a drawer for the last 10 years, I would prefer it to be my model 58.

Because so many people have cut or substituted springs I am leary of any used revolver until I have given it a through work out. Of coure, I am also leary of any used auto. The same goes for new guns, too. I guess you can say I am just leary of all of them, until I have tested them.

 

[Ala Dan]

Many, many thanks there Mr. Thomas My Friend-

Yes, I have many miles behind me in my nearly 59 years. I'll have to
say, most have certainly been very pleasant experiences, even in my
day's as a LEO. I have met some out-standing persons along the way,
but you know what? None, have been better than the folk's that call
THR home. I consider us very fortunate to have such a broad base of
knowledgeable folk's on board. Friendships that I've made here will be'
taken too my grave with me~!

 

[Roadkill]

I gave up trying to decide years ago. I just keep a mix of both handy. I finally settled on a couple of 1911A1s and a Beretta 96 for semi, and a Colt357 Trooper, S&W Mod 10-6, and a .357 Blackhawk for revolvers. I leave the revolvers loaded and rotate the magazines on the others every three weeks or so.

rk

 

[BHPshooter]

Personally, All things considered, I would say that they are about equivalent.
You should probably ask yourself whether your gun will see more ABUSE or more NEGLECT. If your gun may see more abuse, go with a semiautomatic. If your gun may see more neglect, go with a revolver.

I think it's all been said in this thread, I'll just rearrange it.

Revolver Pros:

• nearly impervious to most ammunition problems
• no magazines to get lost
• they deal well with neglect (meaning that they've been in the dresser drawer, untouched, for a decade)
• Revolvers don't rely on a stong grip for the gun to function.

Revolver Cons:

• If/When a revolver goes down, it goes down hard. You may not be able to fix it "right there."
• They aren't as well suited to exposure to lint, dirt, dust, mud, grime, etc.
• Some "tighter" revolvers cannot go as far between cleanings before the action gunks up and the gun becomes gritty, and may become much harder to use, or even lock up.
• Revolvers can suffer damage comparatively easily (from being dropped, etc).
• Capacity is limited and will never change; Reloading can be difficult in a serious situation, and can be time consuming.

Semiautomatic Pros:

• Generally higher capacity than a revolver, as well as the ability to reload faster (Jerry Miculek excepted).
• More resistant to dirt, mud, dust, carbon, etc.
• Semiautos can usually go hundreds, if not thousands of rounds between cleaning with minimal effect to the function of the gun.
• If a malfunction occurs, you can almost always fix it by hand, and quickly.
• Autos are comparatively less prone to damage if abused (dropped, etc).

Semiautomatic Cons:

• Sensitive to ammunition problems, such as overall length, bluntness of the projectile, loads that are too light to work the slide, etc.
• Semiautos like regular care over time -- a semi in a dresser for 10 years probably needs to be lubed.
• Magazines cause a lot of malfunctions if cheaply made, dented, loaded improperly, or dirty; They can also be lost.
• Users of semiautomatic pistols generally need to have a stiffer grip (than on a revolver) to ensure function of the pistol.

That should more or less nail it down. I don't look at it as an either/or situation, I think that each is better suited to a different purpose.

Wes

 

[Jim March]

The revolver is immune to "limp wristing". You may think you'll never do that - are you so sure that'll be the case if you're returning fire wounded, one-handed or even off-handed?

Revolvers also can't be pressed out of battery on muzzle contact. They *thrive* on muzzle contact, it can be used to massively increase damage.

-----------

For those on a budget, the revolver is king. You don't have to run 200 rounds of high-grade ammo though to check reliability. $250 worth of used Ruger or new Taurus will outshoot and be more reliable than any auto this side of $400 and there's few available streetworthy autos below $400, new or used.

 

[jc2]

If/When a revolver goes down, it goes down hard. You may not be able to fix it "right there."

I've seen this or something similar repeated a number of times. While it is a true statement, what needs to be added is that an autoloader can "go down hard" too. "Going down hard" is not a strictly a revolver phenomenum. Autoloaders can and do "go down hard," and in my experience at about the same rate (very infrequently) as revolvers.

Revolvers can suffer damage comparatively easily (from being dropped, etc).

This is another one I see frequently trumpeted in these types threads that might just a little overblown. I think this is another one of those "factoids" that apply equally to autoloaders, and damage depends moreso on a number of factors other than whether its an autoloader or revolver including how it lands (probably most important) and the surface on which it lands.

 

[355sigfan]

Assuming your talking quality autos vs quality revolvers (not junk for either side) and quality ammunition (again no junk) then their equal. I have had revolvers malfunctions its not common but it happens. Bullets can jump crimp (ammo problem usually) or cases can get stuck under the extractor star (operator error). The most common revolver malfunction I have had is miss fires relating to the revolvers going out of time. My good autos have been very reliable. I have had lemon autos. I have also had some that would shoot toe to toe with any revolver in a reliability battle.

I will say pocket revolvers have a definate edge over pocket autos in reliability. As you shrink autos they lose their reliability. While revolvers seem to do fine when made small.
Pat