Are revolvers inherently more reliable than semi-autos?

[Hangingrock]

Will Terry

I WILL ADD THIS: I known men who's combined gunfights are a bit over one hundred

It would be interesting to read the documentation on that.

 

[MIL-DOT]

As is typical, there's a whole lotta point-missing going on here. :banghead:
Obviously, there are lots of fantastic semi-autos that run nearly forever without a glitch. No argument.
And obviously, a revolver is not immune to glitches. Again, no argument.
Both are generally highly reliable (assuming high quality pistols,ammo, shooter skill,etc.).
But the fact that the statistical difference in reliability between a random high-quality revolver, and a random high-quality auto, is going to be almost indiscernably minute, doesn't negate the fact that the revolver platform IS the more reliable system, regardless of how microscopic this difference may be.
And THAT'S what the OP is asking: "Are revolvers inherently more reliable than semi-autos", and the indisputably accurate answer is "YES, they are".
Now get over it already.

 

[Hangingrock]

MIL-DOT

Are revolvers inherently more reliable than semi-autos", and the indisputably accurate answer is "YES, they are". Now get over it already

Not everyone agrees with your pronouncement!!!!!!

 

[MIL-DOT]

MIL-DOT


Not everyone agrees with your pronouncement!!!!!!

Nobody cares what you "agree with", and it isn't a "pronouncement", it's a factual observation.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I love both systems,nearly equally, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em (which is the reality).

(BTW, are you seriously trying to claim that semi-auto pistols are "inherently more reliable" than revolvers? Seriously? That's simply absurd nonsense.)

 

[Hangingrock]

MIL Dot:

Nobody cares what you "agree with", and it isn't a "pronouncement", it's a factual observation.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I love both systems,nearly equally, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em (which is the reality).

The reality is not everyone agrees with your statement or you. (which is reality) Its a factual statement as far as your concerned and that's your reality but it may not or is not with others that differ with your position on the subject.

In the end we may have to simply agree to disagree>

 

[45_auto]

Mechanically, both systems are as close to perfectly reliable as modern manufacturing methods can make them.

The source of the vast majority of semi-auto's reliability downfalls (recoil operated weapons) is their reliance on the grip of the operator to provide sufficient opposing force to the recoil to allow extracting the current cartridge case while cocking the firing mechanism, then moving the next round from magazine to chamber.

A slight bobble anywhere in this process, which is an ammunition and shooter dependent process that is unique to semi-auto's, means that the next round does not go bang no matter how many times the trigger is pulled.

 

[MIL-DOT]

..In the end we may have to simply agree to disagree>

You see, this is a very common misconception, that all perspectives are equal, just different. It isn't merely my opinion that revolvers are inherently more reliable than semi-autos, it's a well established fact.
The previous post from 45-auto, pedantically aludes to "limp wristing" (as best I can tell), but regsardless of the reason, it is yet another testament to the superior reliability of the revolver over the auto.
And i'll ask you again, hangingrock, are you seriously trying to claim that semi-auto pistols are "inherently more reliable" than revolvers?

 

[Kendal Black]

If you want to carry a revolver as a backup because it's more reliable then wouldn't it make sense to carry the more reliable weapon as your primary?

...

In that tradeoff you lose the higher capacity of the automatic carried as the primary weapon, and the automatic is most often reliable enough--the better ones are more likely to have a problem digesting poor quality ammo than to break mechanically. Carrying a backup revolver (a very common practice) allows you the best of both.

But, as it happens, I do carry a large revolver and a small one, but my reason is other than what you stated. The little snubnose is the constantly carried gun. When I can carry something bigger it makes sense to use something that works just like the small gun with which I have everyday familiarity.

In earlier days I have shot all the usual automatics and some unusual ones, most have done quite well and I've had the usual number of feeding bobbles, tap-rack-bangs and so on. With revolvers, I have had a few dud rounds of ammo. I also had a series of ignition failures due to an overzealous gunsmith trying to lighten the trigger too much. That problem went away when the gunsmith job was unsmithed; I put the revolver back into spec and it worked fine thereafter.

I heard of a broken transfer bar on a Ruger revolver and a couple of Smiths on which the ejector rods had unscrewed part way. These were not malfunctions that happened to me, just things I heard about, sometimes at third or fourth hand, a mere few incidents spanning decades.

 

[Crawfish1]

Only time I have had a failure with a revolver other than a bad primer was when a bullet came unseated from recoil and locked the cylinder up tight. The gun was inoperable.

If I had to chose between an semi that was not maintained or a revolver that was not maintained I would go with the latter.
If both were maintained properly, with good ammo, in a modern firearm I would give them both the same odds for mechanical failure.


Although, I feel a revolver may be more robust when dirty as you can manually force feed it per say.

 

[Hangingrock]

Mil-dot

you see, this is a very common misconception, that all perspectives are equal, just different. It isn't merely my opinion that revolvers are inherently more reliable than semi-autos, it's a well established fact.

In your opinion its a well established fact that revolvers are inherently more reliable than the semiautomatic pistol.

There are differing opinions Tom Givens Fighting Smarter Guide For Surviving Violent Confrontations page number 132 "As a modern fighting pistol the revolver has a number of serious drawbacks" The author explains what those draw backs are. There are other experts I have corresponded with that their perspective based on actual fighting experience differs than yours.

As you stated there is a common misconception, that all perspectives are equal what is your perspective based on?

 

[Kendal Black]

A revolver is a ratchet attached to a trip hammer, manually operated by the user. It is a hugely forgiving system that, merely by the simpler nature of what is going on, has fewer potential things that might go wrong. So even granting equal excellence in design and manufacture, the revolver will always have a slight edge--until such time as all ammo is perfectly consistent and no guns get dirty, and wrists are never limp.

 

[CDW4ME]

I carry pistols, Glocks.
The pistols (Glocks) I carry have fired minimum 150-200+ rounds HP / SD ammo to ensure reliability.
They (Glock pistols) have less parts to potentially break than a revolver.

 

[45_auto]

They (Glock pistols) have less parts to potentially break than a revolver.

Unfortunately for your logic, all parts are NOT equally important to a functioning weapon in either semi-autos or revolvers.

For example, do you really believe that a broken or missing grip alignment pin, or broken grips or grip screws, (some of the parts on a revolver that DO NOT appear on a Glock) will disable a revolver?

 

[Bill B.]

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.

Amen!

 

[Kendal Black]

They (Glock pistols) have less parts to potentially break than a revolver.

It's an interesting comparison, but there are many little pins and screws in a revolver that I have never seen give any trouble, as their role is simply to locate or secure something. They are unstressed parts with a likely MTBF of centuries on end.

According to this page, the Makarov pistol beats everything else examined, with 27 parts. I was surprised that the Browning Hi Power has only three more parts than the Glock.

But, in general, revolvers have lots of fiddly little parts. The relatively recent Ruger LCR beats most other revolvers.

 

[hemiram]

With the exception of my first gun, a Taurus Model 83, which had severe problems out of the box, the revolver failures I've had have all been due to previous owner's modifications (Clipping mainsprings, bent handsprings(Why?) and not due to any actual parts failure. I can't say the same for semiauto problems. Mag followers breaking, extractors breaking, ejectors coming loose, broken recoil spring (Could have been a previous owner messed it up by grabbing it with pliers), have all happened to me, and not just on used guns. On the first shot, I would bet my life that both a revolver and a semiauto will get the first round out, after that, I give the revolver the edge, slightly. The ammo is the cause of most of the issues that I've had anytime recently, seems like every couple of boxes, I find a distorted case, or like last week, an empty case, with no primer! I check all the rounds that go into my carry guns very carefully now. I roll them on a little tray and the bad ones are pretty obvious by the wobbling they do.

 

[Ed Ames]

If there is a fundamental difference in reliability, there must also be a fundamental difference in some intrinsic trait of the two platforms. Can we identify such a difference?

Both types are made on the same tools, of the same materials, using the same general process, so it isn't an issue derived from those things. Both have moving parts, bearing surfaces, metal sliding over metal, etc., so again, it isn't one of those.

If I was called upon to identify the fundamental difference between these systems, I would point to the source of motive power.

The revolver uses animal muscle tissue to power the mechanisms that advance a new cartridge into battery, cock the firing mechanism, release the hammer, etc..

The semi-automatic pistol uses a hybrid system with animal muscle tissue providing some of the power, while energy from the propellant is extracted to power other operations. The exact balance varies depending on starting state, but if we start from a loaded firearm, muscle is used to release the firing mechanism, and may be used to partially (striker fired) or completely (hammer guns) power the firing mechanism. Then propellant energy is used to extract and eject the old round, chamber a new round, and potentially store energy in the firing mechanism.

But that's just me. What fundamental differences do you think are the root cause of such a difference, assuming it exists?

FWIW my experience is that revolvers and semis both have noob traps and an unpracticed user can dig themselves a hole with either one. My favorite is revolvers getting cartridges trapped under the extractor. It is totally preventable user error that an experienced shooter will probably not even acknowledge is a legitimate problem, but I've seen noobs do it to themselves.

 

[CDW4ME]

Unfortunately for your logic, all parts are NOT equally important to a functioning weapon in either semi-autos or revolvers.

For example, do you really believe that a broken or missing grip alignment pin, or broken grips or grip screws, (some of the parts on a revolver that DO NOT appear on a Glock) will disable a revolver?

Not logic. Fact. Glock has less parts.

Okay, what could disable the Glock?
-Firing pin. Revolver has one too.
-Extractor/Ejector. Revolver has to rotate cylinder, # parts associated with this rotation are?
-Recoil spring, it could fail, so could revolver mainspring.
-Trigger spring. Revolver has one too.

Either way several critical parts must function correctly to get past one shot.

 

[Malamute]

This is one thread I regret posting in, though I just recalled I can stop getting notices for new posts from it. GREAT tool.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If I had to chose between an semi that was not maintained or a revolver that was not maintained I would go with the latter.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me pointed out that Army Aviation went with S&W .38 Special revolvers in Viet Nam. I saw a LOT of revolvers that were not maintained, and believe me, you wouldn't want to trust your life to them.

 

[entropy]

I had a lot of them (55 to be exact) that had survived VN, and a few of them Victory models that survived WWII, in my Arms Room. They weren't pretty, you wouldn't be able to shoot expert with them (I tried numerous times, and it wasn't me) , but they went bang when the trigger was pulled, and launched the bullet in the general direction of the target. I really can't imagine even Huey pilots messing them up to where they wouldn't function.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I really can't imagine even Huey pilots messing them up to where they wouldn't function.

I can -- but I don't have to. I SAW them. Many of then went into a holster when issued, and were never taken out until they were turned in a year later. These guns were drenched in monsoons, covered with mold that was just wiped off the holster (but not the gun) now and then, and so on.

When Dock Bahnsen (later a general) was shot down, they kept trying to locate him, but couldn't find him. What was happening was the gunships were making passes at the NVA around him, and Doc, instead of waiting for the slick to pick him up, would charge the NVA, running along under the gunships.

He quit when he got a shot at an NVA and found his gun frozen solid.

 

[45_auto]

Okay, what could disable the Glock?

In my 20 years of teaching pistol classes, the most common stoppages with Glocks (or any semi-automatic, for that matter) are ammo related. A failure to extract followed by a double feed due to insufficient recoil impulse seems to be the most typical. I've also seen high primers and dud rounds shut down Glocks, but the partial failure of the extraction/reload cycle seems most common.

Offhand that I can remember, I've also seen Glock failures due to trigger bars breaking, rear slide cover plates slipping, firing pins sticking, magazines not fully inserted, magazine bottom plates coming off, and slide releases locking up that I can remember. There's been lots of others that I never learned the reason for.

What could disable the revolver?

 

[Warp]

I think so, yes. They are less ammo sensitive, less sensitive to how they are (or are not) held, and don't have the potential issue of something interfering with the reciprocating slide.

 

[Warp]

As stated above I do believe revolvers are inherently more reliable, but a good auto with good ammo and mags is 'reliable enough' that all of the other advantages have me typically going auto.

My top 2 carry guns have a combined 7,200 rounds through them with 1 malfunction, which was a FTRTB in the first 150 rounds with one of them shooting weaker range ammo. Add my third carry gun and it's 8,300 rounds between them with that one malfunction only, otherwise flawless. They are all semi autos.

In my 20 years of teaching pistol classes, the most common stoppages with Glocks (or any semi-automatic, for that matter) are ammo related. A failure to extract followed by a double feed due to insufficient recoil impulse seems to be the most typical. I've also seen high primers and dud rounds shut down Glocks, but the partial failure of the extraction/reload cycle seems most common.

Offhand that I can remember, I've also seen Glock failures due to trigger bars breaking, rear slide cover plates slipping, firing pins sticking, magazines not fully inserted, magazine bottom plates coming off, and slide releases locking up that I can remember. There's been lots of others that I never learned the reason for.

What could disable the revolver?

I don't think issues such as a magazine not being fulling seated really qualify as "disabling" the gun. Malfunctions don't all disable the firearm, really, as most people use the term. To my internal dictionary if a tap-rack-reasses puts the gun back in action, it isn't really disabled.