Reliability: Revolver vs. SemiAuto
- Thread starter wacki
- Start date
- Status
jad0110
Member
I haven't even dropped a gun off my work bench, much less out of a plane. 
But I can induce a 50% failure rate in a Glock or XD by limp wristing (well, more like limp fore-arming) it without too much effort.
But I can induce a 50% failure rate in a Glock or XD by limp wristing (well, more like limp fore-arming) it without too much effort.
jad0110
Member
Speaking of which, I like this quote by Jorg, a moderator here on THR which stated the following in response to an OP's question about what would happen if you submerged a Glock in Drano (of all things). I laughed hysterically for about 3 minutes the first time I saw this one...
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=264379
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=264379
Jorg said:
Hawk
Member
An admirably balanced and civil thread.
However, this just isn't so:
Go to Brownell's or egunparts and check out a few schematics.
My personal conjecture is that the widespread misconception that revolvers have fewer moving parts is roughly related to why some folks believe an automatic watch to be simple - they've never opened one up.
A perhaps unfair but memorable comparison is putting a Python schematic adjacent to a Glock schematic.
I haven't conducted the same experiment with an RG vs. a P210 but that would presumably get us closer to parity. The newer S&Ws have shed a number of parts in the MIM trigger group but not many here view that as a good thing. Nevertheless, as a generality, the canard that revolvers have fewer parts just doesn't work.
To the extent revolvers are reliable it's in spite of the parts count rather than because of it.
However, this just isn't so:
Go to Brownell's or egunparts and check out a few schematics.
My personal conjecture is that the widespread misconception that revolvers have fewer moving parts is roughly related to why some folks believe an automatic watch to be simple - they've never opened one up.
A perhaps unfair but memorable comparison is putting a Python schematic adjacent to a Glock schematic.
I haven't conducted the same experiment with an RG vs. a P210 but that would presumably get us closer to parity. The newer S&Ws have shed a number of parts in the MIM trigger group but not many here view that as a good thing. Nevertheless, as a generality, the canard that revolvers have fewer parts just doesn't work.
To the extent revolvers are reliable it's in spite of the parts count rather than because of it.
Hawk
Member
The GP-100, as I understand it, benefited from a "clean sheet of paper" design that gave us the six series. I'd concur it's probably more applicable as a comparison against a modern service semi-auto.
But it still has a bunch of moving parts, perhaps somewhat more than a current service semi-auto, doesn't it?
The misconception that revolvers have fewer parts as a blanket statement is, I suppose, a testimony to the execution of the clockwork which operates well enough that its complexity doesn't generally intrude on the operator.
A number of old canards can be made accurate without losing their meaning but "Revolvers are more reliable because they have fewer moving parts" is not one of them.
But it still has a bunch of moving parts, perhaps somewhat more than a current service semi-auto, doesn't it?
The misconception that revolvers have fewer parts as a blanket statement is, I suppose, a testimony to the execution of the clockwork which operates well enough that its complexity doesn't generally intrude on the operator.
A number of old canards can be made accurate without losing their meaning but "Revolvers are more reliable because they have fewer moving parts" is not one of them.
Just because the schematics show a lot of parts doesn't prove - or mean - anything. The more important consideration is what these parts do and how they operate. The majority of parts that make a revolver complex involve the operation of the trigger assembly. Most revolver owners will not access that part of the gun throughout the ownership of the weapon.
When it comes to general cleaning and maintenance, we enter no-brainer territory. The revolver is a far simpler mechanism. It's more reliable because in most cases it's "pull trigger and shoot." No magazines, issues with "feed ramp" and zero ammunition concerns - whereas the semi-autos are often finicky and arguably delicate with respect to what they will shoot reliably.
When it comes to general cleaning and maintenance, we enter no-brainer territory. The revolver is a far simpler mechanism. It's more reliable because in most cases it's "pull trigger and shoot." No magazines, issues with "feed ramp" and zero ammunition concerns - whereas the semi-autos are often finicky and arguably delicate with respect to what they will shoot reliably.
Hawk
Member
Sure it does.
It means that a blanket statement that revolvers have fewer parts doesn't comport well with mathematics.
The parts are still there whether one chooses to deal with them or not.
Note that I'm not saying that having more parts compromises a revolver's reliability. I'm merely pointing out that no portion of that reliability is derived from a low parts count.
Shadow 7D
Member
Um, it really depends
For me a semi is more reliable, of course I grew up shooting semis, so I'm biased, but I have seen plenty of revolvers with timing or what ever it's called issues, where most semis I can fix.
For me a semi is more reliable, of course I grew up shooting semis, so I'm biased, but I have seen plenty of revolvers with timing or what ever it's called issues, where most semis I can fix.
Agreed. Also, though, the diagram seems to show complexity where, in fact, it's just a lot of screws and things that aren't going to catastrophically fail.
Ultimately, I have to go by my own experience - which is a long history of watching semi-autos jam and fail, both in my hands and in those of others. Whereas in a very long shooting career I have never witnessed one single revolver problem. Ever.
When the question is "which platform is more reliable?" it isn't even a question. They tend to balance out over the range of characteristics, but those who choose revolvers do have reliability on their side.
Shadow 7D
Member
Ok and should I compare the 'simple' revolver against a Makarov with it's legendary 27 parts?
jad0110
Member
I agree as well. If the # of parts determining reliability was as important as some seem to think it is, then a Wright Brothers Flyer should be a lot more reliable than a Boeing 737.
What matters most is the quality of the design/engineering, and the materials used. Therefore, I fully expect either platform to be reliable if designed thoughtfully and put together with high quality materials. Granted, as semi autos shrink in size, their reliability typically drops (not always, sometimes).
Also very true.
And lets not forget both platforms are subject to reliability issues resulting from user error.
Bogarting the cylinder of a revolver is a great way to bend the crane and mis-align the cylinder and bore. Ejecting empty cartridges vertically so that the unburned powder gets under the extractor star is another. And on some revolvers, such as pre 1959-ish S&Ws, one should put a dab of blue loctite on the ejector rod so that it doesn't unscrew itself with shooting. Note that I've never experienced even the slightest hint of that with post '59 S&Ws with the reverse threaded ejector rods, where turning of the cylinder actually tightens the rod.
Semis, particularly polymer framed examples can be quite sensitive in my experience to firmness of hold and firing angle (ie, firing on your back up at an angle with a less than perfect grip). Shoving the magazine in backwards under stress is another one I've seen occur very frequently lately. One gal managed to shove a magazine into a Glock (backwards) so forcefully that tools were required to unstick it. That same day, I saw a Taurus 908 9mm (I think that was the model) shatter it's ejector and completely tie up the gun. Fatal gun-to-club events aren't just native to wheel guns.
Best advice I can offer is to pick a quality gun that works for you and maintain it. Simple as that.
Alchymist
Member
So, the bottom line in reliability -
1) Keep it clean and lubed
2) Be proficient
3) Wear the pistol on one hip and the revolver on the other.
(Personal preference decides which to reach for first).
There - best of both worlds. No worries, mate!
1) Keep it clean and lubed
2) Be proficient
3) Wear the pistol on one hip and the revolver on the other.
(Personal preference decides which to reach for first).
There - best of both worlds. No worries, mate!
Team Amish 1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 4
A revolver, when kept clean and reasonably maintained, can be as reliable as Teutonic Combat Tupperware. For a while.
Elmer, ever see a top strap blown off a Smith? I have.
Any jackelope can blow up a fine gun with an ignorant handload or by not noticing a squib.
Elmer, ever see a top strap blown off a Smith? I have.
Any jackelope can blow up a fine gun with an ignorant handload or by not noticing a squib.
Last edited:
IME / IMO....
I've only had one revolver fail, and it was a catastrophic failure (cylinder lockup) on a brand new GP 100. The Gun Smith I took it to said it was a factory defect - which he was able to fix by replacing a part and re-aligning another part. Given the large amount of revolvers I've shot / owned, this one failure was a drop in the bucket.
I've experienced MANY semi-auto failures, but they are generally minor and easy to fix in the field. FTEs and FTFs... all fixable by usually racking the slide and clearing the jam.
Asuming no factory defects or abuse, I would put my money on a revolver. Having said that, it seems in general revolver failures, although far less common, seem more serious. I think the key is, no matter which type you carry, is to have a backup.
I've only had one revolver fail, and it was a catastrophic failure (cylinder lockup) on a brand new GP 100. The Gun Smith I took it to said it was a factory defect - which he was able to fix by replacing a part and re-aligning another part. Given the large amount of revolvers I've shot / owned, this one failure was a drop in the bucket.
I've experienced MANY semi-auto failures, but they are generally minor and easy to fix in the field. FTEs and FTFs... all fixable by usually racking the slide and clearing the jam.
Asuming no factory defects or abuse, I would put my money on a revolver. Having said that, it seems in general revolver failures, although far less common, seem more serious. I think the key is, no matter which type you carry, is to have a backup.
hemiram
Member
I've had about a dozen revolvers, and about 3 dozen semiautos. With the exception of the first revolver, a Taurus 83 in nickel, I have never had a failure in a revolver (Except when I bulged a barrel when I didn't realize the weak cartridge I just fired had left a bullet in the barrel) that wasn't instantly correctible by pulling the trigger again, and firing the next cartridge.
I had a number of semiautos that weren't able to fire more than one shot in a row very often without work.
I have a 9mm as a house gun now, but eventually, that will change to a Dan Wesson Model 15 that is rough enough looking that I won't worry about handling marks making it look bad. I had one a while back, but I sold it to get money.
I had a number of semiautos that weren't able to fire more than one shot in a row very often without work.
I have a 9mm as a house gun now, but eventually, that will change to a Dan Wesson Model 15 that is rough enough looking that I won't worry about handling marks making it look bad. I had one a while back, but I sold it to get money.
Waywatcher
Member
I have seen both jam. I have seen both blow up.
I have and use both.
If you have tested it and you take care of it, it will work well enough.
I have and use both.
If you have tested it and you take care of it, it will work well enough.
OrangePwrx9
Member
Ummm....a revolver is more reliable because its parts don't move very fast or very far.
Seriously, using David E's response as a basis; if you're in the habit of caring for your guns, you'll probably be better off with a Semi-auto. The neglect, which the revolver tolerates, won't be an issue while both types will be equal candidates for any accidental abuse...though the revolver will be most likely to find it disabling.
Seriously, using David E's response as a basis; if you're in the habit of caring for your guns, you'll probably be better off with a Semi-auto. The neglect, which the revolver tolerates, won't be an issue while both types will be equal candidates for any accidental abuse...though the revolver will be most likely to find it disabling.
- Status
