why do so many people say revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders?

When it's moving toward the target, increase pressure. When it's moving away, hold fast.

vern.. it's a 1/4 inch shake.. and a lot faster than I can react. doesn't show up as much if I'm rifle shooting.. thats what slings are for.

How badly does it affect your pistol shooting?

Personally, I think the prohibition on shoulder stocks should be repealed -- I have a great design for a shoulder stock for my Colt Woodsman.

I have been shooting revolvers for many years and can honestly say, I have never had one fail me because of a mechanical problem with the gun. I have gotten ammunition that has failed, but not the revolvers. Even cheaper ones.

PEEPL SAY REVOLVYERS IS MORE RELIEBLE THAN A OTTOLODER BECUZ THEYR GOLLDANG LYERZ! THAY NEED TUH STAWP SIPPIN' ON THAT THAR PURPEL COOLADE AN RECUGNIZ THAT THARS A! GLAWK AN ITS MOAR RELIEBEL THAN ANY WHEELIE GUNNER!


My bad. I wandered into an especially horrific Walmart to buy rounds today, and I'm still trying to get my head right.

Revolvers seem like they have fewer potential areas of failure than autoloaders do. I say this as someone who has never fired a revolver, and as someone who used to own a Kel Tec Perpetual Failure-9.

My view in this matter is 100% speculation.

Rbid - get some quality semi-autos, and some quality revolvers (smith custom shop, both of em).. and I doubt you'll see the revolver break first. It'll be something piddly with the semi-auto, like the recoil spring wearing out, or a mag wearing out. The rest of the issues will be ammo or shooter related. I doubt most "average" shooters would ever push either gun that far.

Both types can fail.Thats why you should carry a back up!

I have a Ruger Security Six that will fire reliably any .38 Spl, .357 mag ammo I feed it, low power lead wadcutters through FMJ magnums.

My autos (.45ACP, .40S&W, 7.62x25mm, 25ACP and .22LR) all require ammo within specific power levels for reliable function.

That is a good point Carl, but if all you shoot is within a specific power range, that auto is going to be just fine.

Scythe, you bring up a good point, but if you're properly maintaining your auto (replace springs when they start to get a little different as opposed to when they start to fail) you probably won't have a problem.

Jhco, my Dad's first revolver locked up while dry firing. It wasn't an ammo issue. It was a Taurus

skribs +1 on the maintenance. I also don't expect that from an average user either.

The hing about revolvers is the design ia old. I have a Colt Army that is around 23 years old. It has never malfunctioned. Hard to find a 20 year old Glock. You can find Colt Army pistols over 50 years old that work just fine. If I was going into combat I would want a Glock. If we get attacked by Zombies I want a Revolver.

scythefwd,

In all honesty, I assume that revolvers are more likely to be reliable. Fewer lemons, at least. No mag issues. No feeding problems.

Of course, I know of many incredibly reliable semis, too. Zero failures = zero failures.

At one time, this was perfectly true, and the revolver makers used it as a selling tool... but the revolver may still have a small edge over the autoloader in reliability, and there is always the fact that in event of a misfire, all you have to do is pull the trigger again for the next shot.
Mostly these days I think it's personal preference...I very seldom carry an auto.


mark

The hing about revolvers is the design ia old. I have a Colt Army that is around 23 years old. It has never malfunctioned. Hard to find a 20 year old Glock. You can find Colt Army pistols over 50 years old that work just fine. If I was going into combat I would want a Glock. If we get attacked by Zombies I want a Revolver.

Click to expand...

Why would you want a revolver against zombies? Zombies are known for travelling in large groups - I'd rather have more ammunition. In either case - combat or zombies - I'd have a long gun.

At one time, this was perfectly true, and the revolver makers used it as a selling tool... but the revolver may still have a small edge over the autoloader in reliability, and there is always the fact that in event of a misfire, all you have to do is pull the trigger again for the next shot.

Click to expand...

I weigh the chance of a misfire vs. the chance of running out of ammunition and having to reload. I can clear a misfire fairly quickly with a pistol, much more quickly than the difference between reloading a pistol and revolver (for me, anyway).

A couple of points from someone who shoots both:

1) Revolvers are more tolerant of neglect than they are of outright abuse; with autoloaders it's the exact opposite. Throw a revolver against a concrete wall and it'll likely be rendered non-functional and never be right again. An autoloader would most likely sustain only cosmetic damage.

OTOH, a loaded revolver that was carried/left in a nightstand/kept under a pillow for years without being fired or cleaned, would probably function just fine. The Autoloader would likely jam after the first shot.

2) The greatest variable in shooting is the ammo. From shot-to-shot, always a different round and sometimes a different load. The revolver will largely take this variable in stride. It's either insensitive to the variation or can ride through outright ammo failures while requiring no more than one functional hand to clear.

The Autoloader is not only sensitive to different loads and the quality of each round, but it also introduces a variable of its own; the magazine. Faulty/damaged magazines can cause as much trouble as the ammo. In addition, ammo/magazine caused jams normally require skill and two functional hands to be quickly cleared.

To me, this makes the autoloader a gun for professionals; trained people whose daily work is, at least in part, directly concerned with the proper use, care, feeding, and maintenance of firearms.

The revolver, OTOH, is the handgun for 'everyman'; the untrained person whose daily work does not involve firearms but who perceives a need for the protection a firearm affords.

The Autoloader is not only sensitive to different loads and the quality of each round, but it also introduces a variable of its own; the magazine. Faulty/damaged magazines can cause as much trouble as the ammo. In addition, ammo/magazine caused jams normally require skill and two functional hands to be quickly cleared.

Click to expand...

Problems with the "magazine" on a revolver are not easily fixed by tap-rack-bang or a reload.

The hing about revolvers is the design ia old. I have a Colt Army that is around 23 years old. It has never malfunctioned. Hard to find a 20 year old Glock. You can find Colt Army pistols over 50 years old that work just fine. If I was going into combat I would want a Glock. If we get attacked by Zombies I want a Revolver.

Click to expand...

My Colt New Service was made in 1906.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Colt M1911s from before the First World War still in people's holsters.

My Colt New Service was made in 1906.

Click to expand...

How can you still call it "New Service" when it's 106 years old?

And there are serviceable revolvers from the 1800's. My old man has one from the 1880's.. Thats only another 26 years older still. There are some antique BP revolvers from before that...

How can you still call it "New Service" when it's 106 years old?

Click to expand...

'Cause the Old Service is even older.

The Army adopted a modern swing-out cylinder Colt in .38 Long Colt in 1892. It was not a happy choice, and Colt developed a stronger revolver in .45 Colt, calling it the New Service to hint to the Army that was what they really needed.

Instead, the Army pulled out the old M1873 SAAs out of storage and issued them during the Philippines Insurrection. They ran out of SAAs and adopted the New Service in 1909 as the Model 1909 -- and it was quickly superceeded by the M1911 automatic.

When we entered WWI, we couldn't produce M1911s fast enough, so the Army contracted with both Smith and Wesson and Colt to produce revolvers chambered for the .45 ACP. Regardless of maker, they were called the M1917. The Colt M1917 was, of course, the New Service.

"How can you still call it "New Service" when it's 106 years old? "



Because it's the name of the gun?