Reliability, an observation

[sawdeanz]

The mantra that revolvers are always more reliable than autoloaders has been slowly eroded as handgun design and quality has improved, making autoloaders more reliable than ever before.

However I have noticed one area that still trips up the semi-autos, ammo.

My most recent trip demonstrated this to me for a second time in as many trips. A failure to fire due to a faulty round. This one (wwb 9mm) and the last (some unknown factory reload) had noticeably longer cases, and locked my cz up pretty fairly tight. At least I learned my CZ will not fire even the least bit out of battery…

I have a feeling that the average gun writer and/or fanboy would write it off. "My ____ was had no malfunctions not attributable to ammo" or "____ was completely flawless (those 2 underpowered rounds didn't count).

But isn't that still a failure? By its nature an autoloader is more susceptible to ammo variations. It's easy to add a caveat to make your personal guns sound better, but while I can say that my CZ hasn't itself malfunctioned in it's 1000 rd lifetime, the fact is those 2 or 3 times it choked on out of spec rounds would have still killed me in a gun fight or competition, rounds that would have fired out of a revolver.

As I understand, revolvers would accept a much greater variance in case dimension and cartridge power. I wouldn't say I had written off wheel guns before, but I was definitely sold on the autoloaders. Now my recent experiences have given me some thought, and I am starting to get the "wackos" that check each and every self defense round before loading it up.

Also, what does this mean for the new revolvers that take automatic calibers? Don't those gauge off of the case head rather than the rim and would that be similarly affected?

TL;DR Autoloaders have at least 2 more points of failure than revolvers, attributable to ammo but often glossed over by gun reviewers. Discuss.

P.S. What is with winchester ammo? Each round had a different felt recoil, so much so that I checked my barrel twice to make sure I hadn't fired a squib.

 

[R.W.Dale]

It's not only that revolvers are more tolerant to load and bullet variations but that you also "gauge" each and every round when you load the thing in the morning.

You will discover out of spec rounds there in the convience of your own home instead of as they feed from a mag in the heat of the moment.

Autoloaders are ALL also susceptible to bullet setback, some worse than others but ALL nonetheless. This means if you like to shoot your ccw/HD piece it will eventually ruin your expensive carry ammo weather you shoot the stuff or not. A revolver can load and unload the same ammo ad infinitum with no ill effects

 

[ImperatorGray]

Autoloaders are ALL also susceptible to bullet setback, some worse than others but ALL nonetheless. This means if you like to shoot your ccw/HD piece it will eventually ruin your expensive carry ammo weather you shoot the stuff or not.

Heh. This is why I carry a round-nose in the pipe and at the top of the magazine - they don't get boogered up when I have to clear my weapon and later rechamber.

Whenever I go to the range, those top rounds get replaced and go to the head of the line of what I shoot that day, just so they don't have a chance at getting set back.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Heh. This is why I carry a round-nose in the pipe and at the top of the magazine - they don't get boogered up when I have to clear my weapon and later rechamber.



Whenever I go to the range, those top rounds get replaced and go to the head of the line of what I shoot that day, just so they don't have a chance at getting set back.

So your strategy against setback is to carry less effective ammo for your first two shots?

 

[ImperatorGray]

Depends what the target is wearing whether it is less or more effective.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Depends what the target is wearing whether it is less or more effective.

It is ALWAYS less effective.

When hollow points fail to open from clogging with clothing they act like FMJ

 

[barnbwt]

"Reliability of ammo"
Anybody patent a DA semi-auto that racks the slide with an incredibly heavy, incredibly long trigger pull, yet? I think revolvers have a safe place with the ammo-paranoid and elderly school folks for the time being...

TCB

 

[ImperatorGray]

It is ALWAYS less effective.

There really is no "always" when it comes to how bullets interact with targets in a gunfight. This is why people can cast aspersions at any given ammo based on anecdotal evidence of such-and-such person being practically unaffected by X-number of rounds, while others praise the same ammo to high heaven based on anecdotal evidence of such-and-such a person being stopped cold with a single round that started in some non-vital area.

But you are correct that JHP ammo consistently trends to being more effective.

JHP does not always plug on heavy clothing. Sometimes it is merely slowed. In general, JHP will create a shallower, wider tract where FMJ creates a deeper but otherwise less useful tract. But sometimes deeper is actually the better end of the trade-off.

In any case, I have no problem trusting my life to a combination of the two, and I'd rather have that than destroy my carry ammo and find myself maimed or worse by a round from my own weapon.

 

[herrwalther]

Revolvers are statistically more reliable because they have less moving parts. When a semi-auto goes bad it can be a number of things. In order of likelihood it is magazine, ammo, too much/too little lubrication, break in period, limp wristing, or a part inside. In a revolver, malfunctions are either ammo related or a part inside the firearm. But since there are less parts, makes them more reliable than semi autos and you are back at square one: ammo.

I have only seen one fault on a revolver not caused by ammo. The hammer spring on a S&W 64 had been cut or filed down to make the trigger pull lighter, resulting in misfires now and then. Was easy to diagnose after the ammo was found to be not the problem when a faulty round was fired in my S&W 64.

 

[Schwing]

I was a semi-auto guy for decades... Then I was convinced to buy a revolver and have not purchased anything but revolvers since. I still often carry semi autos, but I probably carry revolvers more often.

To me, reliability is not even the issue. Semi autos have evolved so much over the last 100 years that, with very few exceptions, I think it is safe to say that you could trust your life on almost any modern semi auto in production. I would even make this claim on low-end offerings from companies like Hi Point.

I have also seen revolvers fail. One friend had an LCR that completely locked up and had to be sent back to Ruger to work it over. This is, perhaps, more rare than a semi auto malfunction, but it is far from unheard of.

It is the pure enjoyment factor I get from revolvers that I just don't find in semi autos anymore. I like the look, the feel and the function. There is something just more civilized (if that is really the word) about revolvers that I don't see in semi autos anymore. The fact that I don't have to chase brass with my crumby back is a huge plus as well.

To the OP's question about Winchester ammo: I have not bought Winchester ammo in a long time. I have multiple 9MM guns and carbines. ALL of them have recurring FTFs with Winchester ammo. In fact, my 92FS has only ever had failures with Winchester ammo. I have never been able to determine what the issue is but the fact that it happens with all of them is enough for me to abstain.

I would also like to add my .02 about the back and forth arguing over the merits of one kind of ammo over another. I think it is 99% hype. Sure, do some research and pick self defense ammo that looks like it will be effective but don't put too much stock in it. Any type of ammo in ANY caliber will be effective with proper shot placement and all of it will be useless if you miss.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think someone is FAR more likely to be killed by an empty six shooter than a jammed Glock or other modern pistol. Face it, when fed good ammunition a properly cleaned and lubed Glock is going to be virtually just as reliable as any revolver out there, but the amount of firepower the Glock brings to the fight is so drastically superior to the six shooter that the point is moot as far as reliability goes.

In short, I'm basically saying that in this day and age, any "benefit" of the "more reliable" revolver is simply overplayed. Glocks, Sigs, XDs, they are all almost flawlessly reliable if in good working condition and when using good ammo, but as actual combat (or defense) weapons they simply are on a different plane vs. the antiquated revolver.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Revolvers are not more reliable than the best Semiautomatics. When both are tested under the most adverse of conditions Semiautomatics prove they are more reliable.

 

[peacebutready]

+1 regarding WWB 9mm. Sometimes I seem to have a less powered round. There's better range fodder for the same or even less cost. I'm a fan of their NATO 9mm for range fodder, though.

 

[rcmodel]

Revolvers are statistically more reliable because they have less moving parts

Ever count the parts?

A typical S&W revolver about 78 parts.
(Slightly less on fixed sight guns,)

A 1911 Colt contains about 49.

A Glock, even less, more like half as many parts as a typical DA revolver.

rc

 

[JohnKSa]

Where I've really noticed the difference between autopistols and revolvers is in rimfire. With the availability issues we've been having with rimfire, I've bought some different kinds of rimfire than usual. In addition, it seems like I've seen more quality inconsistency of late.

At any rate, I've started doing most of my rimfire handgun shooting with a revolver. It's a lot more fun to shoot than clear malfunctions.

I suppose the issue is also extant when centerfire ammo is concerned. Just not nearly as pronounced.

 

[il.bill]

Revolvers are statistically more reliable because they have less moving parts ...

Hunh?

My regular old S&W K-frames have a lot more parts, the vast majority of which move in some manner when shooting the revolver, than most of my semi-automatic pistols. Completely detail stripping a Model 10 seems to leave me with more pieces to re-assemble than my 1911, my Hi Power, or my Glock, not to mention my Makarov which has an admirable economy of parts. While a CZ82 is much more difficult to put back together, the K-frame parts list numbers nearly an equal amount.

That first line in your post is hard for me to swallow whole. Am I missing something, or maybe I need to recount my handgun parts ?

rcmodel posted while I was busy collecting my thoughts and typing. Like he asked, have you ever actually counted the parts?

 

[Inebriated]

the fact is those 2 or 3 times it choked on out of spec rounds would have still killed me in a gun fight or competition

Don't trust your life to trash ammo, and get some training to learn how to fix a malfunction...

Revolvers are statistically more reliable because they have less moving parts.

I'd be interested in seeing a DA revolver with an appreciably lower number of moving parts than a Glock... During a firing cycle, a Glock has 16 moving parts, and 2 parts that don't move but could affect function if they did.. the slide stop spring and slide lock spring.

 

[Deaf Smith]

It all depends on what one defines as 'reliability'.

If it's the ability to fire many hundreds of high quality rounds with zero failures then SOME semi-autos do rate at the top. If it's the ability to tolerate copious amounts of mud and sand then SOME semi-autos do rate at the top.

But if it's the ability to guarantee the first six rounds do fire... then SOME revolvers rate at the top.

My S&Ws, Colts, and Ruger revolvers are what I call 'short term umber reliable' runs. But my Glocks and Sigs are better long term reliable in harsh climates.

Each has a place in my armory.

Deaf

 

[R.W.Dale]

I feel that the revolvers ability to function 100% at very close quarters up to contact and not need a malfunction drill that you'll never execute while rolling around on the ground with an assailiaint while your free hand fends off HIS weapon is a vastly more important advantage than capacity that statistically you'll NEVER use

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Usually autos fail during feeding or extraction...a revolver does neither of these so failures are reduced to a fraction.

I'd add that my Beretta Px4 SC and my Glock 26 have never missed a lick in 2K rounds each...most of that is hand loads. My Wife has had multiple failures with both guns using the same ammunition. In my hands these guns are/have been completely 100% reliable - in her hands, not so much.

VooDoo

 

[45_auto]

I feel that the revolvers ability to function 100% at very close quarters up to contact and not need a malfunction drill that you'll never execute while rolling around on the ground with an assailiaint while your free hand fends off HIS weapon is a vastly more important advantage than capacity that statistically you'll NEVER use

You feel that there's a statistically better chance that you'll have to roll around with an assailant while your free hand fends off his weapon than that you'll need more than 6 shots?

Do you have a source for your statistics? If you don't, then it would be a very good idea to re-think your feelings.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Three to five shots at three to five feet are the average.

We are not police. We don't get in the same engagements as the police. Stop training and thinking about SD like you are the police.

Civilian SD encounters are almost always quick, dirty and VERY close.

 

[ATLDave]

Well, revolvers can have ammo-induced/related malfunctions, too. A revolver with a lightened DA trigger might not set off hard-primered ammo. (It's true for semi-autos, too, but far fewer people reduce the strength of the mainspring on a semi.)

And let's not forget bullet jump. Especially if you're shooting heavy-for-caliber bullets in a light gun (158 or 180 grain .357 magnums out of a j-frame, for instance), the bullet might jump the crimp and tie up the gun entirely.

The latter is a fine example of the truism that revolvers jam less frequently than semi's, but when they jam, it's a doozy.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by R. W. Dale: Three to five shots at three to five feet are the average.

Not sure where that came from, but who cares about the average?

There are precious few data points available. Tom Givens' reports on actual incidents showed 3.4 % of the shootings in his sample occurring within 2 yards. Another 86+ % took place out to 15 feet.

We are not police. We don't get in the same engagements as the police. Stop training and thinking about SD like you are the police.

Good advice.

Civilian SD encounters are almost always quick, dirty and VERY close.

Probably true.

 

[sawdeanz]

I just wanted to clarify that I recognize that there are no absolutes to either revolver or auto reliability, and that I would hope anyone would buy quality ammo for carry or self defense. I was just observing that mechanical reliability isn't the same thing as total reliability, and that sometimes you gotta learn stuff yourself before you really understand why revolvers are still relevant.