Reliability, an observation

[murf]

there is no such thing as "total reliability". suggest you start carrying a bug.

murf

 

[herrwalther]

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

I half stand corrected. Revolvers can have more moving parts but are still statistically more reliable based on my experiences vs semi-autos.

 

[jad0110]

As I've often said, number of moving parts doesn't tell you much. What will last longer, a Model T or a new Camry? Which has more parts / components? Perhaps not the best example, but you get the idea.

I carry both platforms, and I've been carrying my 5" 1911 quite frequently lately. But in the end I have more faith in my wheel guns. And it isn't just about ammo sensitivity. As someone else mentioned, violent encounters are frequently just that. They are sudden, confused, messy, terrible. If you had enough time to take a proper stance with a proper grip, you'd possibly have enough warning to retreat and avoid the fight altogether. At times I lie down on the ground at an awkward angle, take a less than perfect grip and fire at a target (with a nice big backstop) and discovered that an otherwise reliable semi auto can be induced to jam up to 75% of the time. That was an eye opener.

Like I said, I still like my semi autos. I have nothing against them. Greater capacity is obviously an advantage. But reliability at the range on a sunny day and reliability on a dark rainy night whilst under attack and under tremendous pressure are 2 completely different things.

Its up to each person to weight the pluses and minuses and come to their own conclusions.

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.

Which is why I always tell folks to test their carry ammo either platform. The only difference is that I don't feel the need to fire as many test rounds in a revolver as I do in a semi auto.

Test for aforementioned bullet jump. Load the same round in the cylinder through many firings, taking measurements along the way. Repeat as needed. This is typically only a concern in flyweight magnum calibers, and some .38+P models, so your testing volume may vary. You'll also be testing for sticky case extraction.

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.

Sometimes, but not always. I've never had a revolver totally fail to function, but had an auto shear its ejector off which became caught between the slide and the frame, locking the gun up solid. Probably a fluke.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

I have only seen one fault on a revolver not caused by ammo.

Then you haven't used enough revolvers. Factory new S&W JM625 had never been shot. Took it to the range and within 200 shots I was having intermittent ignition problems with factory fresh ammunition. Got to the point that 50% of the time the gun would not hit the primer hard enough to ignite the round.

Problem? The strain screw had backed out about 1.5 turns from recoil. Failure not caused by ammunition, a mechanical malfunction. Easy fix? Sure, take the grips off, take out the strain screw, put blue Loctite on the screw and seat the screw firmly back into the gun.

I would also make the observation that if you carry additional ammunition in speed loaders or moon clips that you need to gage every round you put into the speed loader or moon clip. If you don't, and attempt a reload with out-of-spec ammunition - you either won't be able to reload or you will jam the gun to the point you will have to use a tool of some type to clear the jam.

Had that happen with the JM 625 and out-of-spec FACTORY LOADED .45 ACP ammunition in an action pistol event.

Have also locked up a Model 25-5 to the point it took about 2.5 hours and several tools to clear the jam.

Keep telling yourselves that "revolvers are more reliable" using anecdotal and made up data....I'll stick to my semi-autos because my experience is that when and if there is a jam, the semi-auto is far easier to clear.

 

[DC Plumber]

For the last three weeks of IDPA my buddy has had a nearly 50 percent failure to fire with his Smith and Wesson Jerry Miculek 625. He is a seasoned reloaded and has never had a problem until now. We took the ammo that didn't fire and ran it though my SigSauer 1911 XO and all fired and functioned perfectly. He replaced his firing pin as it was discussed elsewhere that they were a problem. Still no go. He bought the gun new.

So, my only point is, revolvers aren't necessarily more reliable, especially in this case. There Seems to be a real hatred fir the quality of SigSauer 1911s, but in this case they work better than a time proven Smith and Wesson.

 

[Deaf Smith]

For the last three weeks of IDPA my buddy has had a nearly 50 percent failure to fire with his Smith and Wesson Jerry Miculek 625. He is a seasoned reloaded and has never had a problem until now. We took the ammo that didn't fire and ran it though my SigSauer 1911 XO and all fired and functioned perfectly. He replaced his firing pin as it was discussed elsewhere that they were a problem. Still no go. He bought the gun new.

So, my only point is, revolvers aren't necessarily more reliable, especially in this case. There Seems to be a real hatred fir the quality of SigSauer 1911s, but in this case they work better than a time proven Smith and Wesson.

Bet it had light primer strikes.

Weakening the mainspring to get super light DA pulls is folly (but done often.)

Add hard primers and you are in misfire country.

Deaf

 

[rskent]

Reliability, an observation

My observation is that I have never owned a handgun that was totally 100% reliable. Not revolver. Not autoloader.
Sometimes ammo related. Sometimes maintenance related. Sometimes broken parts.

It happens.

 

[45_auto]

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

So your own data shows that 50% of the time you require MORE than 3 to 5 shots.

No big deal if you're happy preparing for the average.

The average US citizen needs zero shots over their lifetime.

 

[R.W.Dale]

So your own data shows that 50% of the time you require MORE than 3 to 5 shots.



No big deal if you're happy preparing for the average.



The average US citizen needs zero shots over their lifetime.

I prepare for the likely.

And that is the 90% of encounters happening somewhere from peeing to bad breath distance (5yards or less) That has a HIGH likelyhood of a contact shot and at a distance a malfunction drill simply isn't gonna happen.

 

[jmorris]

What will last longer, a Model T or a new Camry? Which has more parts / components? Perhaps not the best example, but you get the idea.

That is a bad example. Anyone that knows much about modern cars and the Model T understand that in another hundred years there will be 200 year old Model T's running and I bet in larger numbers than 2014 Camry's. Just not much to a T, they don't even have distributors and you can redo the main bearings with an old boot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by R. W. Dale: I prepare for the likely.

That was in reply to a comment about whether one will need more than 3 to 5 shots 50% of the time.

If one assumes a 30% hit rate, that two hits are required to stop, that there are two assailants, and that one will stop shooting immediately upon stopping each assailant, the chances that five shots will suffice are around 3 in 100.

To "prepare for the likely", one should probably have a higher capacity.

And that is the 90% of encounters happening somewhere from peeing to bad breath distance (5yards or less) That has a HIGH likelyhood of a contact shot and at a distance a malfunction drill simply isn't gonna happen.

Probably a good assessment.

 

[Lucky Derby]

I have, enjoy, & carry both platforms. I don't feel undergunned with either. Both have advantages & disavantages.
In my experience both are reliable with GOOD ammo, with a slight edge going to the revolver. Of course the auto has the capacity advantage and is easier to reload quickly, however if you practice, a revolver can be fairly quick to reload.
Carry and use what you prefer and are most comfortable with. Chances are you won't need it at all. If you do, you are far better equipped with the one you train with, regardless if it is a wheelgun or a bottomfeeder.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Guns are individuals and should be treated as such. Every gun needs to be thoroughly tested, and various self defense ammo should be tested in each gun to determine which ammo will work properly and shoot to point of aim. Every gun, if shot enough, will need parts replaced. Every gun needs to be cleaned and lubricated properly as fouling and lack of lubrication are sure fire ways to degrade and eventually stop any mechanism.

Assuming equal quality control is observed, in properly maintained guns, I believe a revolver will always have a better chance to operate successfully. Why is that? As rcmodel and others have pointed out, revolvers in general have more parts. Those parts create a bit more complex internal operation (especially DA revolvers) of a revolver than many, if not all, traditionally designed semi autos. What does that more complex internal operation achieve? It allows human muscle to cycle the gun. Because physical energy expenditure on the part of the shooter is cycling the weapon, if maintained, a revolver is less subject to malfunction due to variability in ammunition. Even an extremely well made semi auto can be stopped by out of spec ammunition because a semi auto relies on the energy of the burning gun powder to cycle the weapon. The human work in cycling a revolver is removed in semi autos, and while you can practice cycling a revolver in a controlled and practiced way that is consistent due to your trigger press, you can not practice trigger control in a semi auto that will have any effect in the proper cycling of that gun.

So to say one is more reliable than the other is simply not a fair comparison as the two guns operate totally differently, and rely on different mechanisms to operate. To say that revolvers have a better chance of operating more reliably seems a little more fair. One is not really better than the other. The tradeoffs and risk with both gun types have been discussed to death on THR so I don't feel a need to discuss them now.

So when it comes to reliability, I think it isn't a matter of one being more reliable than the other. If your gun is well maintained and of good manufacture, it comes down to where do you want to put your faith? Do you want to put it in the ammo maker's hands, or do you want to rely on your own hand and finger to cycle a gun.

Both methods have different merits and downfalls. In either type, maintenance and quality ammunition will increase the chances that the gun will work properly when needed. In some scenarios or environment, one gun type may be better suited to the situation.

Just my thoughts on it. Feel free to feel otherwise.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I think it comes down to this.

If you have a pallet of ammo to get through with as few malfunctions as possible with 0 maintenance in the process then an auto wins.

If the goal is to get through FIVE rounds fired from inside a coat pocket with one hand at a bad angle then the wheelgun wins

 

[1911Tuner]

If one assumes a 30% hit rate, that two hits are required to stop, that there are two assailants, and that one will stop shooting immediately upon stopping each assailant, the chances that five shots will suffice are around 3 in 100.

To "prepare for the likely", one should probably have a higher capacity.

If one assumes that his antagonist is armed and firing back, that assumption is correct.

Then we also have to assume that the attacker(s) is/are highly motivated and determined to press the attack to a conclusion instead of breaking off and headin' for the hills when the bullets start to come back at him/them.

One must also assume that all or most lethal encounters requiring shots fired will be running gunfights. So, let's hear about the most memorable gunfights from non-LEO readers of this thread. In order to keep it at a reasonable number, just include the ones in which the gun ran dry, requiring a fast reload in order for the defender to prevail and survive.

Let's keep it apples to apples and not include military action.

Crickets, I predict.

One must also assume that the defender is both alive and on his feet after the opening salvo and is willing to stay in the fight instead of effecting a (wise) retreat at the first opportunity. I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't intend to stay in a gunfight any longer than it takes me to put distance between me and the other shooter...assuming that I can do so without undue risk.

The dry cleaners lost my super hero costume years ago. I have to get lucky every time he pulls the trigger. He only has to get lucky once.

Or, can we also assume that most potentially deadly encounters for Joe Average will be extremely close and probably involve some grappling and/or defending against a blunt or edged weapon?

A good part of my practice involves the quick, one-handed snap shot while moving in all directions other than toward the sound of gunfire...because if I draw that one in a million short straw on a given day...that's likely how it'll happen.

Just my 2% of a pragmatic buck.

 

[tarosean]

I think someone is FAR more likely to be killed by an empty six shooter than a jammed Glock

Of course... Pistol whipping via polymer just doesn't have the same effect as steel...

 

[short barrel]

There is a reason fail to fire or fail to feed training was not needed before professionals started carrying autos. Autos fail. Those who say they don't simply love autos more than revolvers.

 

[Inebriated]

There is a reason fail to fire or fail to feed training was not needed before professionals started carrying autos. Autos fail. Those who say they don't simply love autos more than revolvers.

Because revolvers never failed to fire? Lol what?

 

[R.W.Dale]

Because revolvers never failed to fire? Lol what?

Do you know what the malfunction drill is for a failure to fire on a DA revolver?

That's right you pull the trigger again and VIOLA! a fresh cartridge. Why I hear some folks can even do it one handed! Sometimes without even breaking sight picture

 

[CZ9shooter]

I'm sticking the revolvers are more reliable train of thought.

Take a perfectly functioning, all parts and everyting as it should be, no play, no slop, revolver. Consider this an unobtainably perfect, fantasy piece. Perfect ammo ammo as well. What can go wrong? Everything that moves, moves the same way everytime.

Now, same senario with a PERFECT autoloader. Even if everything is in proper fuctioning order, ammo included, there is still that operation of extracting and loading another round. While not a terribly complex sequence of events, there is not very much room error. It has to be perfect everytime. But it can't be. There is too much variability in how the new round is stripped and loaded and how the empy case is extracted. Even in a perfect gun and ammo situation, what is happening inside the action (how the bullet contacts the feed ramp, how the extractor contacts the empty case, and then how it hits and spins off the ejector) during that operation is almost certainly never exactly the same cycle to cycle.

Plus, revolvers dont rely on momentum of a slide to fully function. Slide movement could be impeded by close quarters, like in a struggle or being fired from a pocket. The cylinder would be vulnerable to blockage by an outside influence, but something would have to be poked into or along side it, not something just kinda in the way, like a bodypart or clothing might be in a struggle. Lets assume these are carry type guns with no exposed hammer.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Tallball]

I have been shooting for 35 years. I have owned plenty of good autos and revolvers both. I own plenty now and would count on any of the medium or large caliber ones for self defense. That being said, I have never tested a revolver thoroughly and then had it malfunction later. The semiautos will malfunction on the very rare occasion of a bad round of ammo. The semiautos definitely have their advantages, but I would rate revolvers as more reliable overall because of the tiny possibility of a bad round.

In the theoretical "what if" discussion about a world where all of the ammo is perfect, the situation would be different.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, let's hear about the most memorable gunfights from non-LEO readers of this thread.
...
Crickets, I predict.

I predict the same. However, it's important to understand that the silence is because true gunfights among non-military, law-abiding non-LEOs are very rare.

You could ask virtually ANY question about gunfights, stipulating that only those who've been in gunfights that were non-military, non-LEO qualify to respond, and the silence would be the same.

The sample set is so small with the stated restrictions in place that it's impossible to use that sample set to draw any useful conclusions.

 

[gamestalker]

I'm glad this topic has been brought up, this is concern that has influenced multiple aspects of what ammo I carry, as well as what type of firearm I carry for many years.

As I stated above, there re multiple aspects that influence my decisions and opinions, starting with firearm choice. Although as you stated, firearms have come a long way and have no doubt become more and more reliable, and more tolerant to ammunition QC short comings. But even with the "good stuff" ammunition, AL can fail in the heat of the moment, such as when you may not have the time to properly grip the weapon, thus causing a possible limp wrist induced cycling issue. I've personally seen this time and time again, and know of LE that have experienced this as well during life threatening situations, so it's a real deal consideration and concern.

Second is the reliability of mass produced factory ammunition, which is to say, not even the most expensive SD stuff is going to be 100%, which brings me to why I only carry my reloads. I've had exactly zero failures of any type with my own personal reloads in 30+ yrs. in both revolvers and AL pistols. It comes down to ammunition that is loaded and QA one at a time, compared to factory that is mass produced with limited QA. Since I must rely on my reloads to function 100%, I trim every piece of brass, weigh each charge, and seat each batch to perform flawlessly in the firearm it is to be carried in. I know I will get some flack for my take on this, but I truly believe and have confirmed through years of usage, that reloads can be far more reliable than a mass produced product.

As for weapon options, well, even though I've not experienced a single failure with either my wheel guns or AL pistols, I still prefer to carry a revolver based on reliability. Of one sort or another, AL's are susceptible to having some form of failure, be it dirty, limp wrist, magazine unintentionally being released during the heat of the moment, or a worn part, they are far more prone to problems. BTW, even a slightly buckled revolver round will fire if it will chamber, not so much with AL's.

I won't engage the actual self defense situations I've been involved in as a civilian throughout my life, as I'm of the less than 1% on the planet, and have had enough to keep everyone busy reading for a while if I were to go there. But it has been a major determining factor regarding my opinions as out lined above.

Short answer, a revolver, and my personal reloads are my primary carry choices.

GS

 

[Dr.Zubrato]

I can't remember who said it, but it rang very true:
Revolvers tolerate neglect better than abuse, and semi-autos tolerate abuse better than neglect.

I have a revolver as a target pistol, and I run and gun it for fun. I will always pick a semi auto over a revolver, every time.

The part that gets me is the reload. It isn't even how long it takes even with a speed loader, that's a training issue. The problem is extraction. if your cylinder isn't 100% swung out, you can get brass lodged between the frame, cylinder release, and the ejector. Until you finagle that brass out, you're up a certain creek without a paddle.

Malfunctions are a part of weapons manipulation, ANY WEAPON. I can clear semi-auto malfunctions very quickly and efficiently. I cannot say the same for revolvers. When they go down, they go down hard.

 

[RJTravel]

I like both, and each excels for a particular use. I have owned and used firearms for 62 years, and for S/D the auto wins hands down. Primer backout; bullet jerk; powder grains; crane torque; and more can lock up your revolver but won't affect your auto - it will just kick out the case. I realize ammo has come a long way and is not as much of a problem, but there are many more intricate revolver parts that can break. I've had many more revolver failures than autos. You can throw both off a tall building or toss in the mud, and most likely the auto will still function but not the revolver. For me the revolver shines in wilderness use - and I've had plenty. I habitually load my .357 with ultra-light 000 buck 'grouse' loads - more quiet than a .22, and carry B/B+P cast for defense. For this use no auto can compare.
Rich