More Reliable

[Kendal Black]

For a long while it was taken for granted that revolvers were "more reliable" than auto pistols. Auto pistols of improved design, and their rise to general use for police and military purposes, led some people to dispute the "more reliable" claim. There are lots of things that can go wrong with a revolver. Some of them require a bench rebuild to correct. Any problem a Glock has, short of a catastrophic detonation, can be fixed with a pin punch. Yadda, etc.

I think what should be said is the revolver is more predictable. If you know what to look for, most malfunctions can be detected in their incipient state and the gun mailed off for service rather than carried into harm's way. That is the reliability advantage revolver enthusiasts should have claimed all along. That, and the ability of almost all revolvers to function with any ammunition that even approximates the relevant SAAMI or milspec for the cartridge name stamped on the side... You can do a preflight inspection and say to a high degree of likelihood that the revolver is going to work next time it is used.

 

[Speedo66]

Revolvers reliable? I had a S&W Chief Spl. that would lock up from thermal expansion before a box of 50 rounds was fired. Had another S&W stainless Chief that came from the factory with 6 glaring defects, rendering it inoperable. My Glock 26 worked perfectly out of the box and continues to do so with minimal (and rare) cleaning.

 

[Kendal Black]

Revolvers reliable? I had a S&W Chief Spl. that would lock up from thermal expansion before a box of 50 rounds was fired. Had another S&W stainless Chief that came from the factory with 6 glaring defects, rendering it inoperable. My Glock 26 worked perfectly out of the box and continues to do so with minimal (and rare) cleaning.

If you like, you may frame my remarks as referring to revolvers that work in the first place.

Getting two bad Chiefs in a row sounds like extraordinarily hard luck. My sympathies, but it does not really bear upon my point. A careful preflight of either gun would, I think, have pointed up the problems. Did the thermally challenged gun rub at the b/c gap? That's an easy problem to spot.

 

[Zendude]

I think that there are more ways for a user error failure in a semiauto than a revolver (limp wristing, thumbing the slide or slidestop, hitting the mag release button etc). That said, no gun is foolproof.

 

[Speedo66]

I had those guns in the middle of my career, long time ago, I don't recall where the rub was on the blued model. On the stainless Chief, one of the defects was a spiral piece of metal from the machining process was inside the grip area. It interfered with the main spring, would not allow it to reach full cock. I guess my comments are more a testament to S&W's poor quality control rather than the reliability of all revolvers.

Even though I had to pay for it myself from our meager annual equipment allowance, I was not unhappy when we transitioned to Glocks.

 

[Kendal Black]

That said, no gun is foolproof.

I would have said the Thompson Center Contender was foolproof, but then fortune sent me a new and improved fool.

Me: "No, actually it's contrary to what you are thinking. Yes, I am sure of it. Yes, you have always set the firing pin that way for .22's before, but .22 Hornet is actually centerfire..."

 

[Zendude]

Revolvers reliable? I had a S&W Chief Spl. that would lock up from thermal expansion before a box of 50 rounds was fired. Had another S&W stainless Chief that came from the factory with 6 glaring defects, rendering it inoperable. My Glock 26 worked perfectly out of the box and continues to do so with minimal (and rare) cleaning.

That's why i have a problem with the high price tags on S&W revolvers.

 

[Kendal Black]

That's why i have a problem with the high price tags on S&W revolvers.

Oh, I get what you and Speedo66 are saying. I have a Smith AirLite that is a little hesitant to open. I can just hear the thoughts of the factory guy: "Eh, good enough, it'll get better with use."

Likely it will. I've put only a few boxes through it so far. It's still frustrating.

 

[Sistema1927]

Anything made by man can fail.

That said, I believe that the mean time between failures is much greater with revolvers than it is for semi-autos, especially as the "average" person uses them. At the same time, you can expect that a revolver left in the drawer for decades will go bang when you pull the trigger, that might not be the case for a semi-auto.

Revolvers do fail, and they fail spectacularly when they do.

 

[Saleen322]

I trained firearms in LE for 30 years. When I started, it was almost exclusively revolvers; Smith model 10s, 64s, and 65s in that order. Then came the switch to semiautomatics mostly Glock 17s with a few Glock 21s. All of the firearms were maintained by factory trained personnel. While there were some revolver issues on the range with the most common being the extractor rod backing out and binding the cylinder, the semiautomatics failed at least 3 times as often and I am being kind to the semis with that number. The ammunition used was mostly Federal 9mm 124 FMJ and Speer brass cased 147 FMJ. This is across decades of shooting. So all other things being equal, the revolver shown itself as being more reliable. But when you step back and look big picture they both do the job acceptably well and I still usually carry a semiautomatic simply because it is smaller and flatter. YMMV

 

[cp1969]

Other than .22's, I've never been able to shoot automatics as accurately as revolvers. That and the fact that I reload has pretty much made me a fan of revolvers.

 

[FROGO207]

With all my handguns the revolvers seem to have less things go wrong with them even though I collectively shoot them a substantial amount more. It depends on what you use the most as to which you feel is reliable IMHO. That said at 3AM with somebody kicking in your front door, grabbing a revolver and having to shoot it is going to be more successful than using a semiauto for the average gun owner. Not everyone trains often to do this so those that don't fall to their level of learning/memory when things go south. The revolver is basically point and click then, no need to worry about safeties, hitting the MAG release, or running the slide first if needed. That is where the reliable part comes into the picture to me.

 

[Tallball]

Me too. My revolvers have only failed because the firing pin broke or something like that. Limp wristing a semiautomatic pistol or giving it ammo it doesn't like is easy as falling off a log.

 

[Comrade Mike]

Comments on S&W's quality control issues since the 90ies, I tend to agree that revolvers are more idiot proof and will have a higher mean time between failures.

That being said, I have had revolvers fail on me, and when they do fail they fail spectacularly. When your revolver locks up, it usually means a trip to the bench to check under the hood where a semi auto would nominally be fixed by a quick tap and rack.

Given all that. Both platforms well maintained in trained hands will server their users reliably.

 

[PO2Hammer]

In my shooting I've found autos more reliable, but revolvers to be more satisfying target guns.

 

[bannockburn]

I have had a number of "dud" revolvers as well as semi-autos over the years. Dud as being the gun wouldn't function at some point, like the cylinder locking up after 6 rounds fired through it (Colt Agent), or various frame pins and screws backing out (Charter Arms Undercover), causing the cylinder to be out of alignment with the frame.

And I had a couple of dud pistols too, namely a Sterling Model 302 and a Kahr CW40, both given to only functioning properly on rare occasions and essentially having more than their fair share of problems.

But I must say that all of the guns I have bought within the last 10 years or so, both revolvers and semi-autos, have all been trouble free (knock on wood), and as such, fine examples of the gun maker's art to build a reliable and dependable handgun.

 

[Panzerschwein]

One can also "short stroke" the trigger on a revolver. No technically it is not a malfunction, but can lead to the gun not going bang when you want it to.

That and a powder grain under the ejector star, cases not falling from the chambers, and a number of other things, can cause a revolver to stop going or slow down. I've had it happen personally.

The truth is police and law enforcement asked themselves finally in the 80s whether the semi-autos benefit of firepower was worth it, and said yes. For civilians, revolver still get the job done but they are not the fail proof weapons some claim.

 

[huntsman]

Well if it’s as you propose OP that revolvers are more reliable and consumers vote with their wallets sales of semiautos would indictate reliability isn’t of great concern to the customer.

 

[BSA1]

Well the Colt Single Action Army is noted for it's simplicity, few number of parts, reliability and ruggedness. It's design is so simple it can be shot missing parts like the trigger! However as handgun cartridges became more powerful it was found to be on the light side for shooting heavy loads.

Then Bill Ruger came along, updated the action with coil springs, the size and strength of the gun with modern steel and alloy and created a Single Action Revolver that handles most all practical handgun cartridges. The Ruger Blackhawk has proven to be darn near impossible to wear out with common sense loads and even with some OMG loads. Maintenance is simple as is parts replacement.

Even today the Single Action Revolver is a effective gun for self-defense.

 

[SteadyD]

My revolvers have been more reliable than my semi autos. I've been able to discover any of their issues before ever hitting the range, or any issues that ever cropped up weren't the type that would prevent the gun firing. I know they can and do have issues, but my own personal experience has always been good.

I have had double feeds on several autos that required more time to clear than one would want in a defensive scenario, which has always left me a bit gun shy of them. The autos I currently own are all solid performers, but it's still in the back of my mind.

 

[Varminterror]

Abuse vs. neglect, blah blah, all that cliche' stuff....

Pistols and revolvers are all machines, they all have moving parts, and all of their parts have failure modes. If a person understands the mechanisms, then the failure modes are self-revealing, and neither really have a significant advantage for reliability.

The popular cliche' "More moving parts means more things which can go wrong," really isn't appropriate, when many of the moving parts have proven they DON'T go wrong. Not many folks worry about the mainspring in their Ruger revolver breaking - but that's a potential failure mode for that particular design. Folks don't worry about the heads of hammers breaking off, but that's a potential failure mode... Folks don't worry about the barrel bushing shearing in a 1911 and firing the recoil spring down range, but that's a potential failure mode... None are really realistic, if you follow a spectrum of Possible, Plausible, Probable, so when we compare what can and does happen to cause failures in pistols and revolvers, any of them can be terribly unreliable, or any of them can be perfectly reliable. It's just a matter of proving them out and tuning into reliability.

 

[Kendal Black]

I am personally aware of two revolver breakdowns in the field, neither of which happened to me. 1.) A Ruger NMB of early make broke its transfer bar. Obviously the gun was then useless. 2.) A Smith, un-noticed by its owner, loosened in its ejector rod and in that way gummed the works. Obviously the owner was useless. If you see that problem, it takes two seconds and two fingers to fix.

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

The main reason I like d/a revolvers is my fear of bad primers/ammo getting wet. I carry revolvers hunting in the rain and filth alot, and havent had an issue yet, but i like that if a round doesnt fire for any reason I can pull the trigger again. I know it wouldnt take long to clear the action on a glock, but not as quickly or naturally as you can pull a trigger. I also prefer d/a semi autos for the same reason, hard primers/light strikes. That all being said, in my experience modern ammo is quite reliable and waterproof, even without sealing the primers. Bullets jumping crimp and protruding out the front of the cylinder locking up the gun is another example of how ammo can affect reliability in a revolver, but that falls on the user, not the revolver, and is generally only a problem with magnum calibers in light revolvers. The user should thoroughly test his ammo and watch for crimp jump.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well if it’s as you propose OP that revolvers are more reliable and consumers vote with their wallets sales of semiautos would indictate reliability isn’t of great concern to the customer.

...and apparently, neither is punctuation.

There is always going to be a trade off when it comes to SD/HD weapons. Could be reliability vs capacity. Could be ease of concealment vs knock down power. Could be expansion vs penetration. In the case of revolvers vs pistols, many times it's cost. Take two very popular models sold for CWC. A S&W 637 vs a Ruger LCP. The lil' Ruger holds two more rounds, is thinner and lighter, but fires a more anemic round, and most folks will claim it's less reliable than a 637 outta the box, using various, random types of ammo. OTD, one can buy it for about half the price of the Smith. Lots of pro and cons for either entry level EDC, but price tag is probably as big of determining factor as anything, especially for first time gun buyers. Plus, one needs to realize, the LCP just looks more tactical.

Newer bullet design and modern manufacturing processes have made semi's much more reliable and affordable. In the hands of an experienced shooter they are faster to shoot, faster to reload, and quite reliable. That doesn't mean in today's world, revolvers are no better than throwing a rock. For the majority of folks that need a firearm for SD/HD either will work and work very well. I myself use both, and feel just as comfortable with either, altho I prefer a revolver platform. IMHO, the reliability of either, when it comes to those manufactured with equal quality, ain't worth arguing over.

 

[beag_nut]

The main reason I like d/a revolvers is my fear of bad primers/ammo getting wet. I carry revolvers hunting in the rain and filth alot, and havent had an issue yet, but i like that if a round doesnt fire for any reason I can pull the trigger again. I know it wouldnt take long to clear the action on a glock, but not as quickly or naturally as you can pull a trigger. I also prefer d/a semi autos for the same reason, hard primers/light strikes. That all being said, in my experience modern ammo is quite reliable and waterproof, even without sealing the primers..

There ya go!: beating me to the punch. If a DA revolver has a bad cartridge, one simply pulls the trigger again. And the threat can literally be in one's face, and the trigger can be pulled again, with one hand! The threatening person/animal would need to be an enthusiast to know to grab the cylinder, and few bad guys are that smart. (unless one's view of reality is through the lens of a Tom Cruise character, or similar)