Revolver Reliability Vs Semi-auto

[easyg]

First, the ground rules:

Let's say that neither the autoloader nor the revolver is defective or faulty in design or manufacture.
There are no broken or defective parts to skew the comparison.

And let's say that none of the bullets are defective or faulty either.
There are no high primers or dented casings or such to skew the comparison.

And let's say that both weapons are well maintained and clean and have been tested and are functioning properly.

And let's say that both weapons were carefully and properly loaded.

And let's say that we are engaging targets beyond arms reach....so the revolver's cylinder will not be grabbed by the target and the autoloader's slide will not be pushed out of battery.

And let's say that we are using a striker-fired autoloader and a concealed-hammer revolver, so nothing can interfer with an external hammer and cause a failure.

And remember, we are talking about reliability....not how quickly a failure can be resolved or how much dirt and crud a weapon can tolerate.



For the first shot....

I don't see any difference in reliability.
So long as nothing interfers with the revolver's cylinder, it will fire.
And so long as nothing interfers with the autoloader's slide, it will fire.
Both the revolver and the autoloader are practically guaranteed to fire that first crucial shot.



Now for the following shots....

This is where the revolver is more reliable than the autoloader.

You can have an otherwise perfectly reliable and functioning autoloader, using perfectly fine and dependable ammo, and it might still have a failure-to-feed or a failure-to-eject event for no clear reason.
Sometimes an autoloaders will choke and no one will ever know why.
This is why we all learn and practice stoppage drills with autoloaders.
There are no stoppage drill for a revolver.

 

[USBP1969]

I sincerely appreciate all the replies to my post. I asked because of what I had witnessed during quarterly qualification. SATT training, Academy training as well as the test my agency conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1993, 1994 and 1995.

I had hoped that semi-auto design technology and manufacturing technology had improved since those experiences and it sounds like they have.

Just some test trivia from that era:

Aberdeen conducted a multitude of tests on the various .40 S&W submissions. There were a total of seven different .40 S&W submissions for the contract that ultimately ended with a 30,000+ handgun purchase.

There were so many tests that I would have to review the video tape we made just to refresh my memory, but the one that stands out the most was the 10,000 round reliability / durability tests. Here are the results from memory:

1) The winner averaged 4 malfunctions* per pistol during the test.

2) The second place pistol averaged 28 malfunctions* during the test.

3) The third place pistol averaged 115 malfunctions* during the test.

4) The fourth place pistol averaged 1500 malfunctions* during the test.

5) The other three suffered catastrophic failures with all test weapons before the 10,000 round test was completed and were disqualified.

* = Attributable to weapon malfunction

Note: Each test weapon was detail stripped for inspection daily after firing 500 rounds. They were then ultra-sonically cleaned and reassembled. (They might have been cleaned and then inspected - I do not remember.) IMO that was a mistake since detail stripping and ultra-sonic cleaning would not occur during the life time of pistol in the field.

It goes without saying which pistol was purchased since 17 or more malfunctions provided the vender with a zero score.

At this time I plan to stick with revolvers for self and family defense. That semi-autos have become more reliable over the years is without doubt. I just trust the revolver more. I remember a quote from Ed Lovette's book, "The Snubby Revolver," that stated that in 6,000 officer involved shootings with the NYPD no revolver malfunction was reported.

Guess it's just a "gut" thing that has been with me a long time.

Thanks again for all the input and insights.

-kent

 

[mbt2001]

Revolvers are more reliable. There might be reliable autos out there, but the plain and simple truth is that for most homeowners, revolvers are the perfect answer. They can be loaded for long periods of time and never jam when put to use. An auto needs to have clip rotations, half loaded clips, etc... to reach that level of reliability.

My point is that most home owners get a gun and put it in a night stand. It might be there for a long time before it is used. An auto can encounter problems over time from that kind of treatment, a revolver never will. If one carries a gun everyday, then an auto might be a good choice, it most likely is; however for most homeowners, the gun is not checked on daily, or inspected monthly, in some cases.

 

[GLOOB]

An auto can encounter problems over time from [sitting on a nightstand in a climate controlled environment], a revolver never will.

Disagree. I have 2 .357 revolvers, and I trust my Glock 27 for home defense duty. Standard mag, 9+1 rounds, loaded all the time. I'll take it out and shoot it every few months, but I've never downloaded or rotated a mag. And all the parts that make a Glock go bang (striker) are not lubed, so it can never dry out. The lube on a revolver hammer can dry out and gum up over time.

Another example of where I'd especially trust a Glock over a revolver in a "sitting around for years, doing nothing contest" is in a humid or otherwise corrosive environment. There's very little metal to metal contact in a Glock, and what little there is aside from the slide rails is nickle plated (Slide rails are nickel plated, actually. But I assume that wears off on most Glocks, eventually). Every part of a revolver is relatively high carbon steel sliding against relatively high carbon steel, with near zero free play. (Even the stainless steels used by S&W are relatively easy to rust).

 

[mbt2001]

I qualified "most" for a reason. I bought a Glock 19 from a friend of mine who was getting rid of his guns because he was having a baby. Anyway, all of the mags had to be rebuilt, they had been loaded to the max for 5+ years and just sitting. I know people like that, I wouldn't think a lot of them are on this board, but that being said, the best and safest option for many are revolvers.

Not that you are wrong, your not. It is the person, not necessarily the equipment I am talking about.

 

[snakyjake]

A semi-auto needs the slide....to slide in order for the next round to be chambered. If the slide isn't lubricated well, dirt, or if something blocks the slide from moving (like putting their hand on it), you won't get a round into the chamber. It's also possible during a fight that someone can push the slide back causing the round to not fire. A semi-auto can fail to load if limp wristed.

Semi-autos can be more picky about ammo too. The pistol needs enough force to push on the spring to cycle the slide. If you are using low/cheap pressure rounds, this can be an issue. A lot of the time that's why you need to test the ammo out with the pistol.

It can basically be summed out that a revolver can mechanically fail, but a semi-auto can fail for a lot more reasons other than mechanical.

 

[Strykervet]

My main experience with shooting any volume from autoloaders comes from the military. At my last command, we qualified 3 times a year with an M9. That's about 160 people, shooting the same 30 or so handguns 2-3 strings of fire to qualify, then eating up the remaining ammo (average about 2000 rounds) in my three years at this command, I saw two M9's malfunction. One stovepipe was cleared with a palm sweep then tap-rack-bang. The other was a double feed caused by the shooter using a worn out M11 sig magazine by mistake, again this was easily cleared. I should add that these guns are WORN OUT, as in almost no checkering left on the plastic grips, finish worn down, some barrels were almost in white metal. Just throwing that in the proverbial ring. I have little experience with revolvers and especially malfunctions of such. My revolvers, a taurus 605 and a model 10 have never hiccuped.

Yeah, well, if you were at Ft. Lewis, I was the one that TRIED to get your command to hit the targets. Now they couldn't shoot straight to save their souls, but the M9's, worn out as you say, no finish, no checkering, shot just fine.

I have seen revolvers fail. And it is more disheartening than you would imagine, because of lore, because of reliance, because it isn't supposed to happen. But it does. Firing pins break, mainsprings weaken (combine with hard primers, well then!) and grit impedes proper cycling. Not to mention a myriad of other problems.

That said, a well maintained revolver CAN be more reliable than a Glock. But so far, I have a Glock that is in the top running, considering my collection, and it is the oldest pistol I own (an original 2gen.) but it is more reliable than just about anything else.

Both have moving parts. Both can be jammed. It all depends on how you use them, really. Keep 'em clean, don't install junk parts, and practice often. You may find reliable for you is different than reliable for him.

 

[NM Mountainman]

So far, most posts have discussed reliability in terms of how likely it is to fire or jam. Under conditions where both handguns are kept clean, well maintained, and dry, modern revolvers and semi-autos are extraordinarily reliable.

I am mostly interested in reliability for wilderness carry under adverse conditions. Which is more likely to be rendered inoperable due to being dropped into the mud, into a puddle or stream, into sand, or into snow? Which is more likely to get damaged or to accidentally fire when dropped on rocks? Which is most likely to be adversely affected by carrying in your hand doing a rainstorm, snowstorm, sandstorm, or dust storm? Which is most likely to be affected by temperature extremes? Which is more likely to corrode or rust when exposed to moisture and extreme temperatures?

The answers to these questions is likely to depend on what kind of holster you carry your handgun in. Assuming you are using a good, protective field holster, for most of the questions above, my Glock 20 is less likely to be damaged or rendered inoperable during adverse conditions when compared to my S&W stainless magnum revolvers.

 

[snakyjake]

"most posts have discussed reliability in terms of how likely it is to fire or jam. Under conditions where both handguns are kept clean, well maintained, and dry, modern revolvers and semi-autos are extraordinarily reliable."

Can't limp wrist a revolver.
If an attacker can push the slide back, the pistol isn't going to fire.
For self-defense, close quarter combat is very probably, as apposed to 7 yards.

For wilderness and being dropped: If the slide is damaged, you're going to have a single shot pistol. If the slide has grit, it won't cycle. If the slide freezes, it won't cycle. If the slide corrodes, it won't cycle. The more reliable pistols have lose tolerances for better reliability, at the expense of accuracy.

 

[Kendal Black]

I have no problem relying on an auto pistol. The better makes are actually quite good. The presumption is there is only one gun on hand. No worries at all; that bulge in my pocket is a .38 snub and no, I'm not happy to see you.

If I'm carrying more than one gun, there will be a revolver somewhere.

 

[oldfool]

objectivity is hard to come by, for all of us I suppose

I do find reference to the Aberdeen interesting, even though >15 years old, and if we all knew more about the details of testing, would no doubt leave room for subjective interpretation

but 3 of 7 having catastrophic failures, and even the 2nd place gun with 28 per 10,000 failures (not deemed attributable to the ammo)... that's more than one failure in just 400 rounds on average, which strikes me as awfully high, not reliable

which is, in itself. a subjective supposition, since they may not have happened at "average' frequency until late in the test

more such 'data' would be 'interesting', but you don't seem to hear much of it, especially not auto vs. revolver. I guess you could say it just gets really expensive to do such tests, because it takes so much time and ammo to get good data.

In guess mode, I would be inclined to say I have had only maybe two revolver failures (none catastrophic) per 10,000 rounds in my revolvers, unrelated to ammo, and only one related to ammo. Cannot prove that to even myself, though, I don't keep round count logs.

Though I do think most of my own autoloaders are highly reliable, I have had stubborn to clear jams at some time or other in probably every one of them at some time or other.. but I cannot really say it was not due to the ammo.
Have personally only seen one catastrophic failure on one auto, though, a buddy's gun, broken internal part.
It takes most of us way too long to burn up 10,000 rounds of ammo to really justify our own chosen beliefs, much less 10,000 per half dozen each in both autos and revolvers.

Ultimately, you put your money down, and place your bets.
Good luck to all.

 

[easyg]

I am mostly interested in reliability for wilderness carry under adverse conditions. Which is more likely to be rendered inoperable due to being dropped into the mud, into a puddle or stream, into sand, or into snow?

The autoloader will definitely be more reliable when dropped in the mud, etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om3KuZFuW_0

Which is more likely to get damaged or to accidentally fire when dropped on rocks?

Neither the revolver nor the autoloader will fire if dropped.
But the revolver is MUCH MUCH more likely to be damaged by a fall than an autoloader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_vu2xEN7kA

Which is most likely to be adversely affected by carrying in your hand doing a rainstorm, snowstorm, sandstorm, or dust storm?

Neither the revolver nor the autoloader will be especially affected by rain, snow, or dust.
Both have been used for decades in the harshest climates around the world.
A slight edge goes to the autoloader because the revolver's cylinder is more exposed to fouling and less self contained than the autoloader (unless you're walking around with the slide locked back).

Which is most likely to be affected by temperature extremes? Which is more likely to corrode or rust when exposed to moisture and extreme temperatures?

Both the revolver and the autoloader will eventually corrode if exposed to the extremes for long periods without any maintenance whatsoever.
But it would take a very long time for such neglect to render either one non-functional.

 

[USBP1969]

Old - the test weapons were fired from inside a trailer out of the windows down range with one TP (Test Person) loading magazines and the others shooting. Behind them at a podium was an engineer who ran the test program. When there was a stoppage, malfunction, or jam (depending on one's like or dislike for semi-autos) the TP would raise his hand and the engineer would respond to make the determination as to whether the problem was weapon or ammunition associated and log it as a FTE, FTC, etc. Not much room, if any, for subjectivity. The TP's were government employees whose function was to shoot weapons for tests. Sounds like fun, but there was nothing down range to shoot at, just a big field. Bummer.

The 10,000 round durability / reliability tests were based on a projected ten year "in the field" life time for the weapon. It was based on how many rounds an Agent would shoot per year during quarterly qualification and quarterly issue of practice ammunition.

Each manufacturer had to provide ten test weapons if they wanted to be included in the tests. Frankly, IMO it was a small price to pay to have their weapons tested by professionals to that degree, even if they didn't win the contract as any weaknesses in their weapon would surface and could be corrected. That's why it took three years since all weapons failed the first two years for one reason or another. The third year was what they call, "Best and Final Offer." Each manufacturer (they call them "venders") had a chance to correct and tweak the weapons for that third year final test.

I tried to get the GP-100 (Our issue .357) into the tests and almost did, but someone got cold feet and said, "Ahh...what it if wins?" And...that was that.

-kent

 

[oldfool]

I tried to get the GP-100 (Our issue .357) into the tests and almost did, but someone got cold feet and said, "Ahh...what it if wins?" And...that was that.

well that does say something, all on it's own, no matter how subjective
too bad, might have been enlightening
( I would have put a friendly bet on the GP100)

 

[USBP1969]

Hello again Old.

The only test that might have given the GP-100 trouble was the "sand and dust" test. It would have sailed through the rest I believe.

I dropped my USBP Model M&P 4" heavy barrel in a sandy creek bed one night while running to cut off group. (I was new and had foolishly unsnapped my Jordan holster.) I had to crawl around in the sand sifting it for the M&P. When I found it I could not open the cylinder. I sneaked up to the wash rack at sector headquarters where there was a high pressure air hose. The hose made made it possible to get the cylinder open and though it was gritty, it would dry fire OK.

I had never taken a revolver apart. These were 4 screw with a low profile Patridge front sight. (great sight) My academy room mate was assigned to the same station and he said that he could take one apart. We took out the screws and pried off the side plate. (I know - but we didn't know the "trick" to getting them off back then.) The problem was that some funny looking thing dropped out when the side plate came off. We were terrified as we tried to figure where it belonged as we had been told at the academy that anyone removing a side plate would be fired and we were on our year probation. Thank God we did figure it out and kept our jobs.

-kent