Are revolvers inherently more reliable than semi-autos?

[hi-impact]

I've only owned and carried semi-autos. I carry a semi-auto backup to my semi-auto. I'm thinking maybe a revolver would be a better backup to my main carry semi-auto. I don't want to replace my main semi-auto but possible backup replacement with a revolver. Therefore, my question is, are revolvers more reliable than semi-autos? Would a revolver make a better backup? This question is for those that own and carry both revolvers and semi-autos.

If a revolver would make a better backup, what would be some good options for a revolver, make and model?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JTQ]

Tom Givens has some comments on revolver reliability in this Lucky Gunner article http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/revolvers-ideal-obsolete/

 

[jmr40]

They are very different in how they malfunction. Overall it is a wash, most problems with either are ammo related. Shoot good ammo in either, keep them clean and you'll likely never have a problem. FWIW, over the years I've had more revolvers fail to function than semi's, but that is more about how they are used than anything else. Reliability and durability aren't the same either and some confuse the two.

Semi's are more durable. They have fewer moving parts and most of them are enclosed where they are less likely to be damaged or gummed up by dirt and debris. Especially the newer striker fired handguns. They will withstand more hard use and abuse and most of the time a malfunction can be taken care of and be back in action within seconds.

The exposed cylinder and other moving parts of a revolver are more easily damaged if dropped. Revolvers have far more moving parts and many of them are quite small requiring close tolerances that can more easily be damaged or affected by dirt or debris. They can be very reliable, but will require more attention and cleaning. If you experience a malfunction you won't be back in action until some serious work or cleaning is done.

Kept in a nightstand or carried in a holster in a situation where they aren't exposed to a lot of dirt or abuse I'd give a very slight edge to a revolver. For duty use by LE or military where dirt, water, and possible hard use come into play a semi is more reliable and durable.

 

[entropy]

All mechanical devices can fail. Let's just say that due to their simplicity, revolvers are much less likely to fail mechanically. Ironically, most revolver failures are, like many semi-auto failures, caused by ammunition. More irony: Such revolver failures are more likely to render the pistol (Yes, a revolver is still a pistol) inoperative until repair can be made.

Simple ammunition failure, such as a dud round, is easily solved: pull the trigger again.

The ammunition caused failures that can render one inoperable are: squib load lodging in the barrel, overloaded round causing rounds to bind against recoil plate or causing primer to back out and do the same. I had one cause a firing pin to break once.

True mechanical failures are less common, but one I see frequently is the ejector rod unscrewing itself under recoil and binding the cylinder upon attempting to open. Most of the rest come from gross neglect, and are very rare. A revolver can sit in a sock drawer for 50 years, be pulled out and do what it needs to.

To answer the question, yes; revolvers are more reliable than semi-autos. Some good candidates are: S&W J-frames, pick your style there. (442), Ruger LCR, Ruger SP101, Charter Arms (A plus with these is they are available in semi-auto rounds), Colts, though not made any more and becoming more expensive due to collectors, are still excellent guns. (DS, Agent, Cobra, Python, Police Positive, Trooper, Lawman, etc.)

 

[Zaydok Allen]

This question comes up frequently on gun forums.

The bottom line as I see it:

Revolvers seem to have a smaller chance of malfunctioning during use, if they are properly maintained, and lack any deviation from desirable specifications when built. However, they are harder to reload fast than semi autos, and if a revolver binds up, breaks, or malfunctions in some way, it typically requires a trip to a gun smith to get it operational again.

Semi autos seem a bit more finicky on ammo choice, and due to more dependence on spring loaded parts doing the job of chambering and cycling the gun for you, as opposed to a revolver, where you do that job by pulling the trigger, they seem a little more prone to failure. However, there are a number of manufacturers building semi autos that are extremely reliable and well made, that simply do not malfunction if they are properly maintained, and certain key springs are replaced periodically. When viewed opposite revolvers, a jam or malfunction is much easier to clear on a semi auto than on a revolver, so should something go wrong, you are likely to be back in the fight much faster. In addition, they are faster to reload, and typically carry more ammo than a revolver of similar size.

So the answer in my book is, it's six of one, and a half dozen of another. Either way, you have potential problems that can arise with either system. Are revolvers inherently more reliable than semi autos? I think we could say it's a qualified yes, if the gun is built properly and maintained properly. But that answer doesn't really reflect on whether or not they are more desirable for carry or backup.

 

[Predator55]

How many times have you had or seen a revolver malfunctions? I have revolvers from 44 down to 22 and in thousands of rounds not one malfunction. Your talking about a backup, if you need a backup things have gone really bad and a revolver is the way to go. I carry a LCR 357 and its a great shooting reliable lightweight revolver. I don't carry a backup, LCR is my primary and I have every confidence in it and as far as reloading, practice.

 

[jmace57]

I have NEVER had a failure with a revolver in 40 years of shooting, other than ammo related 22 rimfire. I have had FTF, FTE and jams occasionally in SA. That's why my EDC is a revolver. That's a statistic one one, I guess.

 

[Sistema1927]

I have never needed to "break in" a revolver.

That said, I have had malfunctions with revolvers, and even though they are few and far between they tend to be much harder to clear than those with a semi-auto.

I will keep both types of tools in my chest.

 

[hi-impact]

Thanks for your informative replies so far. Another question. I'm not a fan of locks that require a key, for example: modern S&W revolvers that have the lock by the cylinder release that requires a special key. Therefore, what make and model revolvers don't have locks on them?

 

[MIL-DOT]

While there are admitedly lots of super-reliable semi-autos around (I do and have owned many of them that have never,ever jammed), the fact remains that revolvers (though hardly infallible) ARE the more reliable platform. This is simply undeniable, and citing some exception doesn't disprove the rule.
Also, the contention that most semi-auto malfuctions are ammo related is debatable, a good case can be made that most issues are in fact magazine related.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Also, the contention that most semi-auto malfuctions are ammo related is debatable, a good case can be made that most issues are in fact magazine related.

That's true, and the bottom line is, does the cause of the malfunction matter? I'd say in the middle of a fire fight, the answer is no. If a gun jams, and it is the ammo's fault, and not the gun, you can get killed just as easily as if it were the gun's fault.

If that were to happen, having the words "It was the ammo that got him killed, not the gun." engraved on your tombstone will be little comfort to your loved ones.

Revolvers seem to work with fewer hiccups than semi autos do if they are of decent quality and maintained. I wish some of our current, and former gun smiths would chime in here with their opinions.

I feel a poll idea brewing in my head.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

They are very different in how they malfunction. Overall it is a wash, most problems with either are ammo related. Shoot good ammo in either, keep them clean and you'll likely never have a problem. FWIW, over the years I've had more revolvers fail to function than semi's, but that is more about how they are used than anything else. Reliability and durability aren't the same either and some confuse the two.

Semi's are more durable. They have fewer moving parts and most of them are enclosed where they are less likely to be damaged or gummed up by dirt and debris. Especially the newer striker fired handguns. They will withstand more hard use and abuse and most of the time a malfunction can be taken care of and be back in action within seconds.

The exposed cylinder and other moving parts of a revolver are more easily damaged if dropped. Revolvers have far more moving parts and many of them are quite small requiring close tolerances that can more easily be damaged or affected by dirt or debris. They can be very reliable, but will require more attention and cleaning. If you experience a malfunction you won't be back in action until some serious work or cleaning is done.

Kept in a nightstand or carried in a holster in a situation where they aren't exposed to a lot of dirt or abuse I'd give a very slight edge to a revolver. For duty use by LE or military where dirt, water, and possible hard use come into play a semi is more reliable and durable.

Well put.

Are revolvers inherently more reliable?
Maybe.

Are semis reliable enough that I am not worried about their reliability?
Yes.

In my mind J frame revolvers make great backup guns for the same reason they make great pocket guns:
They are small, reliable and reasonably powerful.

If you are looking for a backup, you would be hard pressed to find a better choice than the J frame revolver.

 

[jmorris]

With a revolver there is less chance of having a magazine issue causing feeding issues or bullet shape causing feeding issues. You don't have to rack the slide to get to the next round if a round does not fire.

After that they are both mechanical devices and either can break at any point. There are also different designs of both and some are better than others.

 

[Hangingrock]

If we accept the fact that the Revolver is mechanically superior to the Semiautomatic Pistol apparently the military and law enforcement haven't gotten the word. That said most of the concealed carry citizen market hasn't grasped that fact either.

To say that the revolver is superior is like spitting into the wind. Revolvers have their place in concealed carry applications.

I did in my younger days 13 months and 15 days with a 1911A1 and employed it effectively but as everyone acknowledges as some point its a supplement to a rifle.

I have a long-long history with S&W J-K-L&N frame revolvers but my primary EDC is a semiautomatic pistol.

 

[Malamute]

These discussions often go in circles.

Some staunchly maintain that revolvers NEVER fail, which is false, based on real life evidence of people that have had them fail, including some large LE departments that had more trouble keeping large groups of revolvers functioning than autos. Tom Givens piece linked above is a good read.

Im a fan of revolvers, but don't for a minute think they NEVER fail. Ive had several fail for various reasons, some of which are preventable, like torqueing the extractor rod and cleaning under the extractor star (and using an ejection technique that helps reduce the crud getting under the star). Still, parts both break, and fail to function adequately in any machine.

As has been mentioned already, most of the stoppages that happen in autos are remediable with instant action (and why many practice those drills), when revolvers stop, its generally a show stopper on the spot, or at least not instantly remediable.

I cant fault either side too much if they base their conclusion on realistic data and expectations, but to say neither ever fail is unrealistic.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If we accept the fact that the Revolver is mechanically superior to the Semiautomatic Pistol apparently the military and law enforcement haven't gotten the word. That said most of the concealed carry citizen market hasn't grasped that fact either.

To say that the revolver is superior is like spitting into the wind. Revolvers have their place in concealed carry applications.

I did in my younger days 13 months and 15 days with a 1911A1 and employed it effectively but as everyone acknowledges as some point its a supplement to a rifle.

I have a long-long history with S&W J-K-L&N frame revolvers but my primary EDC is a semiautomatic pistol.

Note however that the OP said reliable, not superior. A valid argument can and has been made many times that semi autos are "superior" for many reasons like capacity, ease of maintenance, ease of clearing jams and malfunctions.

When I hear reliability, I think of it this way, if we sat down and had 40 people fire the exact same number of rounds out of 20 different revolvers built by reputable manufacturers (debatable list of course), and the exact same number of rounds through 20 different semi autos built by reputable manufactures, say 50,000 rounds out of each and every gun, with a cleaning every 2000 rounds, between the revolvers and the semi autos how many stoppages would we see? The semi autos would win hands down in speed for their capability to be loaded faster and their ability to typically hold more rounds, but I really truly believe we would see fewer stoppages in the revolvers.

That does not however make them "superior" for self defense. It only makes them more reliable.

For the record, as several folks are aware, my passion is with revolvers. However, I acknowledge their shortcomings, and choose to carry a semi auto for a variety of reasons. I believe the difference in reliability in the two, given the quality of my semi auto carry gun and it's track record make it a better carry option for me.

However if someone wanted to test my XDs and my SP101 in the above mentioned scenario, I'd put my money on the Ruger.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If a revolver would make a better backup, what would be some good options for a revolver, make and model?

I think a question you need to answer is, better than what? The backup gun you are already carrying and you know works? If the gun you have works, why do you need a change, or is there something that has shaken your confidence in that gun?

If you just want a revolver, then go for it. There are a host of great shooters out there.

For a backup gun though, I'd suggest a S&W J frame in a cartridge you like. Personally I gravitate towards the 640. Or, the 2" barreled DA only Ruger SP101 in 357 could work. Or, you could jam an extra shot in the gun and go with the LCR from Ruger in 327 Federal Magnum. There are other choices, but IMO, Smith and Ruger are making the best 5 shot revolvers on the market currently. Good luck.

 

[Schwing]

I can only speak for my own experiences. This topic comes up a lot and people get really riled up about it on both sides so, before anyone gets offended, read my first sentence. I own many revolvers and many semi-autos and here are my experiences:

I have never once had a single mechanical malfunction with any of my revolvers. None of my shooting friends has ever had a mechanical issue with any of their revolvers. I have never personally witnessed any mechanical malfunction with any revolver when shooting at ranges etc. I HAVE had a revolver cylinder bind up because of a primer that was not seated all of the way. This was my own fault as it was my reload.

Among all of my semi-autos, only one has not had at least 1 malfunction of some kind over the years(My 92fs). It doesn't happen very often in any of them or I wouldn't keep them but 1 or 2 ftf's in say 10,000 rounds.

I own both, I like both but if you are speaking solely about reliability and no other factors are considered, IMHO the revolver wins hands down.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

If you decide to carry a revolver as a backup take a look at the S&W M442 or M642 in .38 Special. Both have concealed hammers and weigh only 15oz. I carry a M442 daily and forget it's there.

 

[bannockburn]

If I were to carry both a semi-auto and a revolver as backup I would go with my Kahr CM9 and my S&W Model 638. Basic reasoning would be they both have decent double action triggers on them.

 

[Jim K]

In my experience, revolvers rarely fail but when they do, it is catastrophic. With an auto pistol, most problems are either ammunition or magazine related and can be cleared by manually operating the pistol to feed another round ("tap, rack,bang"). But I have had two high quality revolvers fail completely, an S&W with a broken hammer stud, and a Colt with the entire top of the hammer broken off. Both were completely disabling and were repaired only by a gunsmith (me, but that is irrelevant).

FWIW, I believe both those revolver failures were the result of extensive dry firing without snap caps, something many of us do routinely.

Jim

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The way Tom puts it is that, “People who say revolvers never malfunction never shoot their revolvers.” And I couldn’t agree with that more.

Hang around this board a while, and you'll run into plenty of stories about revolver malfunctions -- and read plenty of posts explaining why those malfunctions "don't count."

Personally, my experience is that automatics are highly reliable, carry more ammo, are quicker to reload and MUCH faster to clear a stoppage.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I love revolvers, but taking into account the extreme reliability and durability of the best service sized semi-autos today I'd say the semi-auto pistol is just as reliable if not more reliable. When you see documented cases of torture tests on Glocks, HK's, SIG's, and even carefully made 1911's where they go tens of thousands of rounds with little care and very few if any weapon related malfunctions it is hard to argue with them.

As has been stated when you do experience the extremely rare malfunction/jam with a semi-auto pistol it is usually easily rectified by immediate action on the spot by the shooter and can be performed quickly even under stress. Furthermore the high tolerance manufacturing employed on most service semi-autos allows the end user to maintain the weapon to include major component replacements as needed with few if any tools or training.

The reliability and durability of service sized semi-autos does not in my opinion or observation extend to the smaller sub compact semi-autos. When you get a pistol much smaller than a Glock 19 or Commander sized 1911, service life and mean rounds between failures will decrease. Sometimes dramatically. Smaller autos are much more ammo sensitive, maintenance sensitive, and shooter competency sensitive.

Revolvers that are well made, using good ammunition will be extremely reliable as well, particularly medium and large frame guns that are built to take a lot of use. Both the revolver and the auto pistol, given equal quality, are then dependent on quality ammunition. The quality of ammunition is more vital for semi-autos under normal circumstances, but it becomes more vital for revolvers that are exceptionally powerful. The big bores must use extremely high quality ammunition that will not jump crimps and tie up the cylinder, and that are carefully loaded so they don't go over pressure and cause extraction issues. However these are loads at the ragged edge of what is safe and prudent so quality control is vital. Dropping back to normal power levels and the revolver is going to be more forgiving of a wider range of ammunition power levels and quality of manufacture.

Revolvers as noted (not to beat a dead horse) are not as user friendly to work on if you have a part break, or a serious malfunction occur. Not many of us can change the barrel on most revolvers by ourselves, or time a cylinder, or replace and fit internal lock work. Yet any ham fisted moron can change all the guts out of a Glock and have it up and running again in short order with nothing more than a punch. Same for an HK with a few more tools and a bit more mechanical aptitude. Fortunately most good revolvers (just like good auto pistols) are so over built that parts failures are extremely rare.

 

[hi-impact]

Based on everyone's feedback, I don't really feel compelled to get a revolver as a backup. That's why I carry semi-autos because of higher capacity, quicker reload, etc.

I'm not sure where I get the belief that all things being equal that revolvers are a little more reliable. Since, I've never owned a revolver before. So, my belief is not coming from personal experience. But your responses confirms that revolvers can be more reliable than semi-autos.

I just asked the original question because if I ever had to go to my backup, I would want the most reliable firearm, whether it's a revolver or semi-auto.

Bottom line. Use high quality guns with high quality ammo regardless of the type of handgun, which I do.

 

[Fiv3r]

I don't see revolvers as more reliable than semi autos. Barring bad ammo, both can still fail. Be it a bound cylinder or a worn recoil spring, they can both be taken out of action PDQ.

When it comes ammo related failures, the revolver may have a slight edge. An under powered round that would cause a stove pipe and misfeed wouldn't bother the revolver as long as it has enough gusto to get down the barrel.

A dud round that would require a tap and rack drill in a semi is simply clicked past on the rotation.

However, what can cause a revolver to fail usually causes it to fail substantially as others have pointed out.

I would say that as long as you have a well taken care of handgun of good quality, either is going to serve you well. The universe would really have to have it out for you to put you in a situation where the average Joe needed his gun AND caused it to fail.