Revolver Reliability Vs Semi-auto

[351 WINCHESTER]

I had a revolver failure several months ago. It was my second. I was shooting a .38 K frame and I got enough buildup of crud on the crane and frame that it would not lock up (tight tolerances). It would almost lock up, but not enough to fire. I had a broken firing pin in a model 60 decades ago. Other than that a properly maintained revolver gets my nudge.

 

[Kendal Black]

I prefer the revolver, generally speaking. It is not so much a matter of reliability but simpler human factors.

The vaunted reliability of the revolver is only realized if the user knows how to inspect the thing for impending problems. The unscrewing ejector rod has been mentioned already; that's a good example. It is not a problem if you know to watch for it. Likewise worn hand and lagging carry-up, developing end shake, and so on.

But you can keep your eyes open for possible problems on the autoloader too, I suppose. Perhaps it is my lesser familiarity (I do not say unfamiliarity) with the autoloader, but sometimes the first sign of something amiss is the fired cartridge sticking out of the port like a one-finger salute.

Anyhow, human factors. To load the revolver, place a cartridge in each hole. To unload and show clear, make sure there's nothing in the holes. You don't have to take the DA revolver apart for normal cleaning and you can keep all your brass in one place using a coffee can, or your hat. There is no tap-rack-bang drill and certainly no double-shuffle-double-feed procedure. (Slide back, mag out, rack-rack-rack, replace magazine, preferably with a different magazine. Now, recharge and try again.)

In all, I find the revolver a friendlier piece of machinery.

 

[Pyro]

I carry a derringer.
What's reliability?

 

[Nonothing]

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.

 

[L-Frame]

I can only speak of my experiences and that is that while semi's are much better than they used to be, I feel more comfortable putting my life in the hands of my wheelguns.

Taking another tack here, I've taken many combat classes requiring many different positions, angles, using barricades, etc. and under those circumstances I tend to see many more semi-auto malfunctions. People lean the gun against a barricade causing a stovepipe, or hold it too close to their bodies in close quarter drills and short stroke the slide. Revolvers have none of these issues. Now while many will say that is a training issue, and it clearly is, it's impossible to duplicate a real attack situation. And, I want a gun that has the fewest ways of choking up, and I don't care how it happens, whether it's the guns fault or mine. I will never underestimate my ability to do something stupid when it really counts. That is why I choose a revolver. Just my 2 cents

 

[Kendal Black]

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.

A peculiar thought occurs to me, about your Berettas--autoloaders loosened up by use may be all the more reliable: Were they worn out or worn in? Guns carried everywhere can look pretty shabby externally and still work fine.

I'm not saying that's the way it was; I wasn't there and you were, and I certainly did not look inside the guns in question. It's simply what popped into my head when I read about your experiences.

 

[Rexster]

I have several autos that have never malfunctioned, ever. A small number of autos I have formerly owned were quite malfunction-prone.

None of my firearms are large enough to require wheels; no artillery pieces.

As for revolving pistols, some of mine are/were so tight that "crumbs" falling from inside the chambers, landing on the extractor, have prevented the full return of the extractor, which in turn would bind the cylinder. The exact source of these "crumbs" has generated some heated debate in the past, but it should suffice to say that this happened when these sixguns were very, very clean, when using cheap ammo that makes a mess. This is not a brand-specific malfunction, as I have experienced it with both S&W and Ruger revolvers. I used to carry an old toothbrush in a pocket at qual time, and while attending training, during my duty sixgun days.

One way to mitigate this is to hit the ejector rod when the revolver is held at a downward angle greater 45 degrees, but less than vertical, so the crumbs are less likely to land on the extractor. I also keep the extractor DRY; no oil or grease.

My favored go-to sixguns have been the ones without a history of this condition, though to be clear, it does not seem to happen with clean-burning premium defensive ammo.

Ruger used to care enough to machine grooves, that could be termed "grunge grooves," under the extractors of their early GP100 revolvers.

 

[Rexster]

I am comfortable with the reliability of my autos AND revolvers that have proven themselves. I just like revolvers better, as a whole, for aesthetics and hand-fit reasons, plus more revolvers have a personally-pleasing balance and heft. I also like that dry lubes and protectants can be used on revolvers, so I can, if necessary, pull a revolver out of long-term storage, load it, and know it is good to go.

Another thing I like about revolvers is how easy it is to comfortably carry two or three of them, that can share ammo. The ultimate insurance is another weapon. I can easily conceal a SIG P229 and a spare magazine, but a second P229 requires a really full-cut and/or bulky cover garment. I can carry three SP101 revolvers, and as many speed strips as I want, without having to wear a voluminous cover garment.

During the brief period I used a Glock for police duty and some carry, I was very concerned about limp-wrist malfunctions in the event of my being injured during a fight. This was of less concern during my duty 1911 days, and in my present duty SIG days, as these pistols are reputed to be less susceptible to limp-wrist-induced malfunctions. I have fairly regularly toted back-up revolvers with the "primary" autos for many years.

 

[Rexster]

I carry a derringer.
What's reliability?

A street robbery occurred in my neighborhood, with five bad guys involved. One bad guy had a shotgun. I reckon that derringer reliability falls back onto one's ability to dance and reload at the same time.

 

[Nonothing]

A peculiar thought occurs to me, about your Berettas--autoloaders loosened up by use may be all the more reliable: Were they worn out or worn in? Guns carried everywhere can look pretty shabby externally and still work fine.

I'm not saying that's the way it was; I wasn't there and you were, and I certainly did not look inside the guns in question. It's simply what popped into my head when I read about your experiences.






Honestly, that thought had not occurred to me. I am most definitely a firearms enthusiast rather than an expert. I was basing my opinion on the aesthetic appearance of the weapons. Those weapons went with us twice to the middle east and have seen a lot of time in duty holsters there and here in the states. As with most military weapons, they were vigorously and frequently cleaned and maintained. It's quite possible as you said that they are "worn in" rather than "worn out" as I originally stated. In any case, it's an interesting point to ponder in regards to reliable functionality. As much as our weapons were used and abused, and how often the M9 is slighted in popular opinion; I'll say I never felt uncomfortable having one in a thigh rig anywhere I carried it (including the Iraqi oil platforms, and Colon city Panama...)

 

[Kendal Black]

Nonothing,

Anyone who disses the M9 has never shot one.

All I know about the worn out versus ugly looking thing: I bought a horrible looking Smith revolver, a police trade-in that had been carried rain or shine for many years, and it turned out to be a good shooter indeed.

A buddy has an ex-military 1911A1, forties era, that is so loose it rattles, and looks like it rode all over Europe in a box of rocks--and it never skips a beat.

On the other hand, you often see a gun that looks like a piece of crap...and it is.

Welcome aboard the board.

 

[shooting4life]

I teach at a few classes with out instructors (one on one time with students). Every instructor brings their own guns. I always bring revolvers and a lot of others bring auto loaders. Throughout the class I watch them all jam at one point or another. About 20% is gun issues and the other 80% is limp wristing. At my station with revolvers they always work without question no matter the type of ammo or the shooter.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

My experience, and it is only mine and my observation of those around me, so it is a small sampling overall, has been that revlolvers are FAR more reliable than auto loaders. I do carry a 1911 at times and I would carry a Glock, XD, or FN, but most often it is a revolver on my hip. I have good peace of mind with such a tool.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

One of the first things to go in a self defense scenario is fine motor skills. This varies by individual and fine motor skills during stress can be improved with training. Although there are exceptions, most semi-automatics may require one or more steps after drawing in order to be able to fire a round. One may have to rack the slide or disable a number of safety functions which at times compensate for a light trigger pull.

With a double action revolver, one must only aim and fire. A heavy trigger pull is not as dependent on fine motor skills as racking a slide or toggling safeties. That heavy trigger pull could also be considered a safety function, yet one that is automatically disabled when the firearm is deployed for use by the defender.

If you hand me 5 different semi automatics, then I may have to study each individual firearm system to be able to deploy it reliable, and each firearm system may differ by brand and model. Whereas if you hand me 5 different revolvers, I will have a much easier time deploying them since very few revolver manufacturers change the mechanism of operation of a double action revolver. Therefore, by understanding one I also understand the others, as revolver designs tends to be more standardized than their semi-automatic counterparts.

For these reasons and others stated by THR members in the thread, the revolver makes sense for many of those defending a home or practicing ccw with a license.

I am personally biased towards revolvers, but I certainly would not underestimate someone carrying a semi automatic. The revolver has a unique place in firearms history and is a relatively simple machine that is good at doing what it was designed to do.

 

[Warp]

One of the first things to go in a self defense scenario is fine motor skills. This varies by individual and fine motor skills during stress can be improved with training. Although there are exceptions, most semi-automatics may require one or more steps after drawing in order to be able to fire a round. One may have to rack the slide or disable a number of safety functions which at times compensate for a light trigger pull.

There are a ton of excellent semi auto choices that, when loaded, require nothing more than pulling the trigger. In fact, I have never purchased a single handgun with a manual safety...and I only have one revolver. Thus they are the same as a revolver in this sense. Pick it up/draw, aim or point, pull the trigger.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Although there are exceptions...

When the steps to fire a semi-automatic are reduced, the lighter trigger pull becomes a point of concern. The heavy trigger pull of most double action revolvers prevent many negligent discharges.

In the event that you carry a semi automatic with a heavy trigger pull and can fire it as fast as a revolver, I salute you.

 

[oldfool]

"In the event that you carry a semi automatic with a heavy trigger pull and can fire it as fast as a revolver, I salute you."

I would suppose that just depends a whole lot more on the shooters practice level. The Glocksters not being heavily represented in the revolver section here, I guess I should throw one in here on their behalf.

Urban myth or not I dunno, but there is the story about the fellow, who whilst visiting the white throne, decide to hang his striker fired Glock sidearm on the stall door hook. It discharged, and promptly proceeded to fully empty the entire mag in rapid fire fashion, no pause, all by itself. Quick trigger that. Highly reliable, no FTF, no FTE, no tap/rack, just bang, bang, bang until the mag ran dry, pert near full auto
Pretty much gives all new meaning to "hit the fan".

Wonder how many DA or DAO revolvers could match that 'performance'... ??
simple, quick, reliable, no trigger finger required, no practice required, goes bang every time
(no idea what his "group" looked like, though)

Then again, I am not personally volunteering to run that experiment myself with a k-frame.... with an uncocked SA revolver... maybe.

 

[bikemutt]

Seems to me that revolver malfunctions usually have a straightforward cause that once corrected resolves the problem.

Semi-auto malfunctions on the other hand, don't always lend themselves to commonsense troubleshooting.

Of all the semi-autos we've owned, rented, borrowed and shot, the only ones to date that has never failed to fire at least once have been the Glocks. From that limited amount of experience, it's the only only semi-auto I would trust my life with, and I still don't own one.

It's wheel guns for me.

 

[tpelle]

I must respectfully disagree with Bikemutt. A malfunction with a revolver usually takes the revolver out of the fight entirely - normally a broken spring, or perhaps an ejector rod that has come un-screwed.

On the other hand, the most likely malfunction with a semi-auto is a failure-to-feed, perhaps combined with a failure-to-eject the spent round. These are normally cleared with a simple tap-rack-bang, or by ripping out the magazine and clearing, then starting over again with a fresh magazine.

Actually I'll venture to say that most semi-auto malfunctions start out as being the fault of the magazine in the first place. So if you carry a semi-auto you'd better be carrying a spare magazine, and carrying it in a good magazine carrier that protects the feed lips.

However, it's clear, both from my experience and from the experience of others who posted above, that the semi-auto is much much more likely to experience a malfunction than is a revolver.

So, as an aside question, what is better for carry? I'll tell you that 99% of the time I carry a semi-auto, simply because it's more space efficient and easier to conceal, and I admit it's most often a .380 as it's so light and comfortable. I find that a revolver's cylinder is too wide for comfortable concealment. The exception is, I think, my S&W 640, which happily rides in a pocket.

 

[oldfool]

"I'll tell you that 99% of the time I carry a semi-auto, simply because it's more space efficient and easier to conceal, and I admit it's most often a .380 as it's so light and comfortable. I find that a revolver's cylinder is too wide for comfortable concealment."

me too
I love revolvers best of all, but mostly IWB carry a steel Colt 380 acp, same reasons
(real reliable slim/compact very shootable autoloader, but I do test the ammo I carry in it)

 

[Dogguy]

Both designs have weak points. With revolvers, it's the cylinder. With autoloaders, it's the magazines.

Both designs have strong points. Revolvers tend to work fine if neglected and not used for decades whereas an auto can cease to function properly after the lubrication dries out and the springs lose their elasticity. Modern combat autoloaders tend to work when covered with grunge inside and out where the revolver would choke due to debris.

Despite my preference for autoloaders and the fact that I can shoot autos better, I mostly carry a S&W J-frame Airweight. The reason is because it carries well in a pocket holster, has sufficient power and doesn't get in the way of my normal daily activities.

 

[bikemutt]

I must respectfully disagree with Bikemutt. A malfunction with a revolver usually takes the revolver out of the fight entirely - normally a broken spring, or perhaps an ejector rod that has come un-screwed.

On the other hand, the most likely malfunction with a semi-auto is a failure-to-feed, perhaps combined with a failure-to-eject the spent round. These are normally cleared with a simple tap-rack-bang, or by ripping out the magazine and clearing, then starting over again with a fresh magazine.

Actually I'll venture to say that most semi-auto malfunctions start out as being the fault of the magazine in the first place. So if you carry a semi-auto you'd better be carrying a spare magazine, and carrying it in a good magazine carrier that protects the feed lips.

However, it's clear, both from my experience and from the experience of others who posted above, that the semi-auto is much much more likely to experience a malfunction than is a revolver.

So, as an aside question, what is better for carry? I'll tell you that 99% of the time I carry a semi-auto, simply because it's more space efficient and easier to conceal, and I admit it's most often a .380 as it's so light and comfortable. I find that a revolver's cylinder is too wide for comfortable concealment. The exception is, I think, my S&W 640, which happily rides in a pocket.

I agree with you tpelle, when a revolver quits working it's pretty much down for the count. I guess I was thinking more along the line of it being easier to diagnose and fix owing to less moving parts and inter-dependencies than found in an auto. I suppose as long as the bad guy will agree to a re-match at a later time it's all good

I had this CZ auto that was a real mess, it would fail to feed and fail to fire. Everyone had their own theory as to what was wrong with the gun. Anyway, it turned out to be a tiny part responsible for securely holding the clip in the correct position that was worn and needed replacement. But everything else got the blame first; the clips, the ammo, me for not oiling it enough, me for not oiling it in the right place, the slide, you name it, it got blamed.

I suppose a revolver could develop an intractable problem too and I just haven't been around the block enough times to see it yet.

 

[ExMachina]

Nothing new to add but I'll say it anyway

It all depends on how you define reliability.

Definition of reliability #1: A very high probability that the next time you pull the trigger the gun will go BANG

Advantage revolver: revolvers still have a slight advantage here--they are less finicky about ammo type and the fact that you take care of the chambering and ejecting of each and every round gets around the chief failure points of autoloaders.

Definition of reliability #2: A very high probability that when your gun does not go BANG, you can make it go BANG again, soon.

Advantage semi-autos: revolvers have more moving parts that must work together in unison. Those parts can and do fail without warning (I've personally experienced and witnessed this). Semi auto have less parts to fail, and those parts tend to have isolated functions such that the system as a whole can sometimes even tolerate a certain amount of failure. All the FTFs I've seen in autoloaders have been fixable, including a full auto H&K MP5 that still ran kind-of-ok despite having a broken ejector

 

[LTR shooter]

I've been a greater fan of the revolver for all my shooting life but still do not have any problem using a quality semi-auto as a defensive handgun. The only centerfire semi-I have is a Sig P239 and the only malfunction to have occured was with reloaded ammo , even though the ammo was loaded to the book data.

Probably was already mentioned, but the one area where the revolver has the advantage is firing loads of all power ranges with total reliability. I can shoot 600 fps loads or 1300 fps loads and all will fire and the cylinder will cycle. No changing of springs needed.

 

[engineer88]

For the simple fact that an automatic has a slide that is dependent on the cartridge and how well the weapon is held to cycle to the next round says to me that they can never truly be quite as reliable.
All the things I have heard about revolvers drives me nuts sometimes. Especially the often said "when revolvers do have issues they are usually major issues and hard to get back into the fight". That is called a catastrophic failure and when it happens to an automatic the same can be said about getting it back into the fight. That is rather like comparing a phone to a computer. Yeah my computer crashes every so often but I only have to reboot it to get it back up but when my phone is out of service it takes a day or more sometimes. So because the computer crashes more frequently it is somehow better than your phone?

Revolver issues can mostly be avoided, check your carry ammo, make sure the primers are well seated.

Most auto issues can easily be avoided, fire your carry ammo, make sure the bullet profile feeds readily.

I have tons of autos and revolvers. I love all my children. I have automatics that have that have been flawless with shooters of varying skill levels. Heck I even have a chrome PF9 that has close to 1,000 rounds with nary a bobble and seven different people have put 2-3+ magazines through it.

All that said I carry a jframe or other revolver every day. Sometimes as backup gun, sometimes as primary. Heck some days I carry two revolvers. How old fashioned! I know. But they work. As someone stated earlier in the thread an auto can be as reliable as a revolver if maintained well, but it will never be more reliable than a revolver.