Reliability: Revolver vs. SemiAuto

[wacki]

Another post said this:

Revolvers are intricate machines and they do not tolerate sand/dirt/mud/dust/Etc. well at all. The revolvers poor performance in austere conditions is one of the primary reasons it has been obsolete in military use the world over for ~100~ years.

Modern American pistols and revolvers By Arthur Corbin Gould implies the opposite.

This thread is full of stores that explicitly state the opposite.

What do you think of the original quote? Is there any hard data out there?

 

[David E]

Revolvers tolerate neglect better than they tolerate abuse.

Semi-autos tolerate abuse better than they tolerate neglect.

 

[oldbear]

Dave E. Very well put, I hope you don't mind if I use that line when needed.

 

[Rexster]

Quoting David E: "Revolvers tolerate neglect better than they tolerate abuse.

Semi-autos tolerate abuse better than they tolerate neglect."

Agreed! FWIW, though, I read these words, or very similar, as far back the 1980's, written by another member of this forum, in magazine articles, before THR existed.

Some autoloaders are more reliable than others, and some revolvers are more reliable than others, but in general, the abuse/neglect factors are true as quoted.

Faulty ammo can be the downfall of either system.

 

[230therapy]

Neither type is perfect. Therefore, assume they will both perform badly.

Shooters should train in common methods for clearing malfunctions regardless of action type. This is where formal training is important; most people have no idea how to really run their gun. Sure...they can do the basics: load and unload it, operate the safeties, handle it safely and so forth. But as soon as it jams, the vast majority of people have to stop and think about the problem. They don't have an action plan already in their head and they certainly have not practiced it. This may not be a problem on the range (other than possible gun safety violations), but it could be a huge problem on the street.

Those who keep up their training tend to have a far different reaction. You'll see their hands automatically begin the remediation process. Their movements will be quick and sure. If their first reaction doesn't fix the problem, the shooter will adapt and try to solve the problem in a different way.

 

[shockwave]

The notion that revolvers fail with equal frequency as semi-autos, and that a revolver will be rendered useless by a tiny speck of dust are basically myths promoted by the semi-auto crew who are wedded to the belief that a semi-auto is equal to the revolver in reliability.

No well-maintained high-quality firearm should fail to fire when needed. Most of the issues regarding both platforms stem from their being poorly maintained or low-quality to begin with, and in the case of semi-autos, handloads seem to be less reliable than high-grade factory ammo.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be a group consensus on this question and I doubt there will be any vigorous exchange of opinion on this topic. (Heh)

 

[Slamfire]

The notion that revolvers fail with equal frequency as semi-autos, and that a revolver will be rendered useless by a tiny speck of dust are basically myths promoted by the semi-auto crew who are wedded to the belief that a semi-auto is equal to the revolver in reliability.

Fanboys creating a mytholog to justify their choices. Happens time and again.

Semi autos outnumber revolvers in military service because of capacity.

I would never call a Webley unreliable. This pistol model was used in the mud of Ypres to the deserts of Africa.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I would roughly guess that in 50 years of shooting revolvers and semi auto pistols, about the same amount, I can count the number of gun caused revolver malfunctions I've had on my fingers, with a couple toes thrown in.
Whereas I couldn't EVEN BEGIN to estimate the hundreds of malfunctions I've had, and still have, with the semi autos. 4 failures to extract/eject just yesterday.

Let me think, I shoot revolvers a lot and the last malfunction was............I honestly do not remember.

 

[David E]

I read these words, or very similar, as far back the 1980's

I probably read the same article. I adjusted the words slightly, but it's pretty much what the writer said in the article.

I didn't see where anyone said the malfunction rate is the same between both types, given equal treatment.

But I also think that the word "abuse" is being perceived as different things to different people, thereby skewing the conclusions.

To some, "abuse" might mean looking at their gun disdainfully. To others, it might mean accidentally dropping it flat onto concrete. The former won't affect either one negatively, while the latter will be extremely hard on a revolver, possibly bending the crane and prevent the gun from firing a single shot. Most quality semi-autos won't care.

 

[Nushif]

I think the difference largely lies in the nature of a failure.

I have had tons more minor failures of whatever kind on my semis, but only one failure in my revolvers. And I do include crappy ammo here.
The difference though is that my semis take a tap rack bang drill. While my revolver is down for the duration.

Both are mechanical devices and all mechanical devices will fail. I think it's the nature of the failure that matters.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I'm a dyed in the wool semi-auto guy, but if I absolutely had to count on a handgun going "bang" I'd choose a revolver. There are lots of reasons to choose semi's - capacity, concealability, faster reloads, etc, but if reliability is the main criteria, then then the nod has to go to a revolver.

 

[Rexster]

Quote: "I probably read the same article. I adjusted the words slightly, but it's pretty much what the writer said in the article."

Yes; those words are now general knowledge. I was not being critical. When officers at my PD, in the days before 1997, when we could carry both autoloaders and revolvers as primary street duty weapons, asked me to recommend which was the more reliable option, I used those general words myself.

One cannot neglect autos. I used to ask my inquiring co-workers if they changed their vehicles' oil and sparks plugs themselves, or paid someone to do it for them. (Keep in mind that this pre-dated the dominance of such easy-to-strip pistols as the Glock.) I figured that someone who couldn't change their engine oil probably couldn't/wouldn't keep their pistol lubricated, or change the springs every 3000 rounds.

 

[kris7047th]

Reliability in a semi auto = Glock 19. I have seen on two occassions where a revolver failed to operate. My LCR jammed with Fiocchi .38 ammo, and a S&W when the lady had not cleaned her gun from 6 months prior use. The cylinder seized up from the oil that she had used when she used the gun (brand spanking new at the time of her class) She met with me to shoot and her gun would not operate at all, just could not open up that cylinder till she got it home and reoiled it. (a good reason to use a synthetic lube )

My daily carry is my M&P9C. I have no worries that it will perform properly should I need to use it to protect my life. I never fail to LUBE my semis after each usage at the range.

 

[rcmodel]

Let me think, I shoot revolvers a lot and the last malfunction was............I honestly do not remember.

Same here.
I can't even remember the last revovler malfunction either.
Not so much with semi-auto's.

But I think my last revolver malfunction might have been a bolt/trigger spring that finally gave up the ghost on a 100 year old Colt SAA about 20 some years ago.

Still, I could have continued shooting it by pushing the trigger foreward every shot with my finger.

rc

 

[TheProf]

With the big picture in mind...

1. There are more malfunctions with a semi-auto. However, when they do occur, there are usually quick fixes that one can perform. Example: The popular "tap, rack, and fire" routine.

2. Revolver for all practical purposes "almost always goes bang" when the trigger is pulled. But...like all mechanical devices, it is possible for them to malfunction. When they do, they are more serious in nature and may require a trip to the gunsmith.

3. Get yourself a Glock....It's really a 17-shot revolver in disguise.

 

[Nushif]

3. Get yourself a Glock....It's really a 17-shot revolver in disguise.

I really hate to say it, because it horribly sounds like I'm a fanboi ... but it's true. >.<
My 26 is stupidly reliable. I've not managed jamming it yet.

But I'll agree with that whole big picture post, too. Revolvers are awesome guns, but todays semiautos can definitely keep up with the best of them in the big picture.

 

[MR.G]

David E put it very well.

 

[Ankeny]

I had a Les Baer PII with some additional work by Benny Hill, and hard chrome by Tripp that I shot in USPSA and in IDPA. I put somewhere between 50,000-60,000 rounds through it and at the time I sold it I could not recall a malfunction other than a "click" sound on a primer that was seated backwards. My open pistol (a 2011 by Matt McClearn) has around 30,000 rounds through it with the only malfunctions being three or four duds from primers that were not fully seated.

On the flip side, I have seen IPSC/IDPA/steel competitors who have malfunctions on a regular basis. I have no idea why anyone would tolerate a pistol that doesn't run.

 

[Wolfeye]

Handgun age might also be a factor. I don't know of other people's experiences, but when I shoot revolvers that belonged to my grandfather, they still function smoothly. On the other hand, when I shoot my father's autos (modern when he bought them), they tend to malfunction at least occasionally.

If a gun is old and I want it to fire, I'd prefer it to be a revolver. If it's new, I don't think it matters quite as much, but I'm still prejudiced that autos will malfunction fractionally more often.

 

[jmr40]

I've never had a malfunction with either semi's or revolvers if.

A. I was using a quality gun, clean and in good mechanical condition.

B. I was using good ammo.

I have had several malfunctions with both types when using a gun that was a POS. I got rid of those.

I have had several malfunctions with both types when I did not properly clean the gun, or if a part was broken or out of spec.

Same with getting bad ammo.


My conclusion is that as long as the gun is clean and in good working order, and you use good ammo both types are just fine. That is why revolvers are just fine for home defense. That is why they remained popular for so long in police officers holsters.

But if you want a gun to be reliable in down and dirty conditions where you may not have the ability to keep the gun perfectly clean, or it is likely to be abused and still need to work the semi is a much better choice.

A revolvers weak point is the cylinder. If it won't turn, open, or close, you have a paper weight and it is quite easy to get it in a bind. Use 2 fingers on your left hand to very lightly grasp the cylinder of your revolver and try to pull the trigger or cock the hammer. It takes very little resistance to keep it from moving.

Take your revolver out and toss it up in to the air and let it land hard on the cylinder on a concrete sidewalk and see if it still works with a bent ejector rod. Toss it into some mud and see if the cylinder will turn with mud caked between the cylinder and the frame. Look closely, you have only about .005 to .010 inch between the cylinder and the frame on 4 sides. Front, back, top and bottom. It won't take much mud, sand or grit to keep the cylinder from moving. Just a small bit of mud or sand and the cylinder won't even close.

The semi's parts are enclosed inside the gun where it is much harder for mud and other junk into get into the moving parts. And if they do semi's can be field stripped without tools, cleaned and back in action fairly quickly. The revolver is more likely to need the services of a gunsmith.

I'm sure many of you will say that you would never abuse a gun like that, but the fact is that sometimes "stuff" happens. To paraphase the famous bumper sticker. And if it happens to you, the semi is the better choice. With a lot of TLC to the gun, it does not matter which type you prefer.

By the way I have as many revolvers as semi's and shoot both a lot. Like both types a lot, but for different reasons. I've used both enough to understand the strengths and weakness' of each.

 

[1911Tuner]

A clean, high quality revolver is as reliable as an anvil....assuming that there are no internal defects. Drag it through the mud for a few days, and it starts to show it weaknesses. Here is where the autopistol outshines the revolver, assuming that it has had no functional issues when clean. This is especially true of the auto that was designed with military use in mind and that nobody has dinked around with it chasing bughole accuracy at impractical distances.

Of course, it goes without saying that a well-designed holster that covers as much of the gun as possible without making it difficult to bring into action is a great help for both. The problem is that full coverage leather makes the gun slower to get at...and that brings compromise into the equation.

 

[fastbolt]

Here are a couple of lines from a couple of different armorer manuals ...

In a S&W revolver armorer manual it states, "A revolver that is well maintained will be practically trouble free and have a much longer service time than one that is not."

Of course, it also recommends that a revolver in service use be given an armorer cleaning at least every six months, and once a year be completely disassembled by a qualified armorer for inspection. Regular cleaning depends upon frequency of shooting, climate, etc. A nice, conservative, safe recommendation.

Then, in a Sig Sauer pistol armorer manual it states, "In a well kept and properly maintained weapon, malfunctions or stoppages rarely occur." This prefaced a 4 full paged section entitled "Stoppages, Malfunctions and Their Correction." (Okay, I raised an eyebrow while reading that for the first time in the armorer class, myself. )

I've seen revolvers tend to function better after being neglected by people who seldom shoot, and pistols not so well under similar circumstances. But who can really know if it's the same conditions?

I've watched folks drop a magazine in the sand and then use it again in their pistol, only to have the pistol start to exhibit malfunctions & stoppages afterward where it wasn't doing so before sand was introduced via the magazine. Well, I don't do as well when contaminated with sand, myself.

There's also the consideration of the condition of the firearm as it's first being used, too. I like to inspect new guns before using them. I like to look for anything which appears out of the ordinary and which might have been missed during final production. Bit's of debris, metal shavings, excess oil, etc. Things that ought not to be there, but sometimes slip by during production.

Just yesterday I was looking at a NIB J-frame for a friend. I found the cylinder wasn't tightened (easily turned under light finger pressure) and found a few metal shavings inside the frame, as well as around where the barrel had been installed. (Yes, the revolver functioned normally when bench checked before disassembly, with normal trigger function & recovery, carry up, etc.) It felt better once I'd cleaned it up, removed some burrs and made sure everything was to factory spec, though. Maybe if the J-frames weren't one of the hottest selling products they make, they might have more time to spend on each one during production. Dunno.

At some point fouling and adverse environmental conditions can take their toll on any firearm.

I trust my revolvers (SA, DA & DAO) and my pistols (SA, TDA & DAO) equally the same, and I maintain them so they'll justify my trust.

 

[TexasBill]

David E put it very nicely, but I think we're counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. How many of us take such poor care of our handguns that they would fail? I clean mine every time they are fired and check them if they haven't been fired in a while. That goes for revolvers and pistols. With that in mind, I would probably give my revolvers the nod, but honesty requires me to note that none of my centerfire pistols have ever given me any reason not to have faith in their ability to perform when needed. If I do my part; they will do their part.

And I would take issue with the quote in the original post: "Revolvers are intricate machines and they do not tolerate sand/dirt/mud/dust/Etc. well at all. The revolver's poor performance in austere conditions is one of the primary reasons it has been obsolete in military use the world over for ~100~ years."

T'ain't so, even for the U.S. millitary! For example, the .45 Colt M1911 wasn't used against the Moros, the .45 used was the Colt M1909 revolver. Revolvers continued to be used in both World War I and World War II. Depending on the service and duty, military personnel were issued Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolvers into the 1970s.

 

[gun guy]

The main reason, the 45 auto replaced the s8 s&w round was stopping power. As auto pistols found their place in the military, their superior firepower took center stage. I am not aware of any reliability issues. Sounds like a slanted article designed to prove the writers point, rather than present hard facts. Simple fact, revolvers are generally more reliable, automatics excell in firepower and ease of reloading. In military engagements this is far more important. I suspect the writer was parroting ideas, rather than basing his statements on observation.

 

[1911Tuner]

Simple fact, revolvers are generally more reliable, automatics excell in firepower and ease of reloading.

I'll beg to differ on a few points, and state that firepower and speed reloading weren't the only reasons. They weren't even the main reasons. They were strong considerations, but there were others that were equally important.

The revolver is statistically more reliable as long as it's clean. Dirty...the edge goes to the autopistol. I've fired both extensively over the course of nearly 5 decades, and as the round count gets high between cleanings, the revolver starts to show it more readily than the auto. I have several unmodified 1911 pistols that haven't had a malfunction or parts failure in literally tens of thousands of rounds...clean or dirty...dry or oiled.

When malfunctions do occur, the auto is usually much faster to clear and put back into action than the revolver.

Autopistols lend themselves to easier service, being designed to be quickly field-stripped for cleaning and lubrication. Revolvers...not so easy. In the case of the M1911, the gun was designed to be detail-stripped without the need for tools of any kind, other than its own parts. The 1911 was literally its own tool box, and that was one of the important factors in the Colt being adopted rather than the Savage offering. Without any sort of specialty tool, and in its original guise, the 1911 can be completely disassembled...minus the grips and ejector...in under a minute, and it can be reassembled in about 2 minutes if one is practiced and in a hurry. You can't relieve the tension on the mainspring and get the sideplate screws out of a revolver in that amount of time...and you stand a good chance of losing them in a rushed field disassembly when you do get'em out.