why do so many people say revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders?

[jmr40]

Also, I've had multiple high end revolvers lock up on me during firing, not allowing for a simple second trigger pull to advance to the next round

Same with me. Overall I've had far more issues with revolvers not working than semi's. Ejector rods backing out, unburned powder under the ejector jamming up the cylinder. Out of spec cylinders, worn out parts. etc. Seen it with Rugers, Smith's and Colts.

The only 9mm pistols I've ever had a single malfunction with was CZ. Every single Glock, S&W, Ruger, Sig, FN, Beretta, or any other semi I've owned in 9mm has run 100% of the time.

I've had a few 40 pistols have the occasional FTF.

Every Glock, Ruger, Sig, FN, or S&W pistol I've ever owned in 45 has run 100% of the time.

My only 10mm experience is with a Glock 20, once again it has been 100%.

Very few 1911's I've ever owned were 100% reliable. The current 4 that I own are S&W X 2, Kimber and Colt. Those 4 have never malfunctioned. That is why those were kept and the others sent down the road. If you buy a quality semi and feed it quality ammo, they are very reliable. If you don't you may have issues

Basically if you take a quality revolver, keep it clean, take it to the range and shoot it, clean it, and keep it in the safe, you may well shoot a lifetime with zero issues. With a semi, you may well run into the rare malfunction that is almost always because of sub standard ammo.

But if you take a gun out and use it in harsh conditions where the gun will get dirty, dropped, and otherwise abused any of them will eventually stop working. But the semi will not only work far longer, it will be quicker to get back in action when it does go down.

Many of the revolvers major parts are outside the gun, exposed to weather, dirt and abuse. A semi's main moving parts are enclosed where they are better protected. Semi's are much easier to strip, clean and repair in the field. When a revolver goes down, it is out until it can be repaired with tools not usually available in the field.

 

[B!ngo]

Factoring the problem:

So, lets try to factor this problem a bit and document some assumptions. I am by no means a handgun expert, but I am a bit of a scientific method and probability expert and some of this, I would argue, would apply:

I have to assume that both weapons are properly maintained and loaded with high-quality ammo. If this is not true, then the shooter is just not trying to succeed here. And yes, though each piece could be dragged through the mud, dropped from 25' onto concrete, and/or dry-fired 10K times, I'm assuming these are not in the equation;

With this factored, one component of the comparison is that the revolver has less complexity (moving parts, timing requirements, tolerances, etc.) than does the semi. Rules of entropy state that the one with more parts, and the accumulated tolerance failure will favor the revolver;

Additionally, though both could fail due to ammo problems, there are protocols to address each, that a good shooter can exercise, to mitigate such an issue (i.e. pull the trigger again or tap/rack/bang);

However (and this is a very important point that obviates most issues that others may take with the assumptions above), that the goal of this exercise is not just to have the weapon fire, but to hit the desired target.

So, let's assume that the failures from the issues above (entropy, ammo, quality care, quality of manufacturing) lead to a failure of 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000;

Looking at shooting statistics, the 'hit' rate of LEO's (for example) in a gunfight fall below 1 in 2. That is, they hit their desired target well less that 1/2 the time;

So, comparing all of this, the overwhelming metric is the one that allows more shots, or more rounds on target. That is, the failure to hit the target so overwhelms mechanical issues (assuming that hitting the target is the goal of this question) that only the semi-, with loads of 8-33 rounds, can ever prevail.

 

[allaroundhunter]

With this factored, one component of the comparison is that the revolver has less complexity (moving parts, timing requirements, tolerances, etc.) than does the semi. Rules of entropy state that the one with more parts, and the accumulated tolerance failure will favor the revolver

This is not always true. Some revolvers have less parts than some autos, some have more.

 

[jcooper9099]

Well I have never experienced a failure to load or a failure to eject with any revolver. It's something about their design.

 

[Steve C]

People who don't know any better say revolvers are more reliable vs. autos because they think they are more reliable.

The only people who think semi auto's are as reliable as a revolver are those that haven't had a lot of experience with both platforms. I own many revolvers and semi auto's and have put tens of thousands of rounds through both types over more years than I ant to admit. I can count the number of times I've had a revolver fail including ammo caused failure on the fingers of one hand. The number of times I have experienced semi autos fail numbers in the 100's.

Regardless of the reliability difference the semi auto platform is reliable enough to be carried for self defense, military and law enforcement purposes.

 

[B!ngo]

This is not always true. Some revolvers have less parts than some autos, some have more.

Fair point, but I believe it's generally true. And since the question is general in nature, I thought it applies.

 

[45_auto]

I own many revolvers and semi auto's and have put tens of thousands of rounds through both types over more years than I ant to admit. I can count the number of times I've had a revolver fail including ammo caused failure on the fingers of one hand.

So if you google something like "Taurus revolver problem" then you believe that most of those people are lying?

 

[scythefwd]

45..no, they carry semi auto hand guns in case they ever need one they have more ammo. I cqb, like a military hand guunner will see..there will be more enemies than you have ammo. A failure rate of 1 in 200 is fine...the need for extra capacity trumps all. It takes more time to reload a revolver than a tap/rap/bang most of the time. Semi auto handguns are the militaries last choice of weapons. Nobody inferred the semi is unreliable...we say they arent as reliable as a revolver. 45 1 revolver is what you are basing your argument on? Google kimber problem...who has more hits?

 

[harmon rabb]

All modern militaries and police forces issue semi-autos, not revolvers. If the darn things didn't work, I somehow don't think that stat would be true.

That said... I have never personally experienced or seen someone else experience a revolver malfunction. I have, however, had multiple semi-autos and witnessed multiple semi-autos malfunction.

Note: 95% of the time I carry a semi-auto.

 

[JohnBT]

It's about ammo capacity. Read the post before yours.

 

[Smokin Gator]

"Munden has fired 12 round (6 shots, reload and six more from the same gun) in 3 seconds."


In a later post you mentioned that you could have mentioned Jerry Miculek instead of Bob Munden. When you mentioned Munden firing 6 shots reload and 6 more shots in 3 seconds, are you sure you're not confusing it with Miculek's famous 2.99 second 12 rounds including reload. Munden usually shoots single action revolvers but could have done something fast with a double action. I don't think he could do this with 1 single action revolver.


"why do so many people say revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders?"



"Because so few run them hard enough."

I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. A lot of guys I know will shoot plenty with their semi autos and then maybe shoot a couple cylinders full through a revolver, if any at all. We do have an ICORE club, so I am around a bunch of revolver shooters who do put a lot of rounds downrange too.

Mark

 

[MCgunner]

Why I sorta prefer revolvers....

1) Don't have to pick up brass off the ground and don't lose any.

2) Generally a lot more accurate.

3) More powerful calibers in carryable packages.

4) 10 rounds of a new carry load tells me all I need to know whether to carry it or not. At a dollar a pop, that can be important.

5) More versatility in the field and can shoot frangibles without reliability problems if that's a preferred option.

6) Less chance of any sort of failure when it's needed the most. Yes, a revolver CAN fail, but it's not as common as with autochuckers.

That said, most of the time, my primary carry is an auto. The 9x19 subcompacts have advantages of their own for the CCW carrier that, IMHO, if proven reliable, outweigh the negatives of the autochucker.

 

[coalman]

Also, to add, key to any comparison is ensuring it's apples-to-apples. Otherwise, it's just biased.

So, here, you don't compare the S&W 642 shooting +p loads to the Glock 17 shooting bunny farts in a 10,000 round challenge. Nor the Beretta Nano running +p+ to the Ruger GP100 launching .38spl. Or, IMO/experience, anything Taurus (flame suit on) to a Glock 9mm. You, for example, compare the Glock 17 to the Ruger GP100 both shooting comparable loads in each caliber. The S&W 642 gets compared, for example, to the Beretta Nano, Ruger LCP, Kahr PM9, etc. You get the idea.

Basically, you compare quality brand/make/model to comparable quality brand/make/model, size to relative size, proper representative loadings in each, and so on. Very, very often it all changes when this is done.

And so, my comment earlier (revolver > semi-auto) is based on actual first-hand experience in both platforms, with multiple brands and sizes, over many years, including reloading for each. Take that for what it's worth.

p.s. And, semi-autos displaced wheelguns due to mainly to capacity, as well as the speed of reloads and the nifty containment of spare ammo. Seriously, let's keep this discussion somewhat sensical.

 

[Lost Sheep]

"Munden has fired 12 round (6 shots, reload and six more from the same gun) in 3 seconds."


In a later post you mentioned that you could have mentioned Jerry Miculek instead of Bob Munden. When you mentioned Munden firing 6 shots reload and 6 more shots in 3 seconds, are you sure you're not confusing it with Miculek's famous 2.99 second 12 rounds including reload. Munden usually shoots single action revolvers but could have done something fast with a double action. I don't think he could do this with 1 single action revolver.


"why do so many people say revolvers are more reliable than autoloaders?"



"Because so few run them hard enough."

I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. A lot of guys I know will shoot plenty with their semi autos and then maybe shoot a couple cylinders full through a revolver, if any at all. We do have an ICORE club, so I am around a bunch of revolver shooters who do put a lot of rounds downrange too.

Mark

You're right. I got the two names mixed up. I will fix my posts. Thanks for catching that.

Lost Sheep

 

[45_auto]

p.s. And, semi-autos displaced wheelguns due to mainly to capacity, as well as the speed of reloads and the nifty containment of spare ammo.

How many police departments changed from revolvers to 1911's between say 1911 and 1985, and how changed from revolvers to Browning High Powers between 1935 and 1985? Heck, how many even allowed semi-autos to be carried before the late 80's?

You really think that it took them over 50 years to realize that the semi-autos held more rounds and reloaded faster?

 

[JohnBT]

The 1911 isn't high capacity.

LE stuck with what worked - revolvers - until the crooks started using high capacity weapons. When was it the crack epidemic and turf wars started - 1983?

John

 

[45_auto]

The 1911 isn't high capacity

That would be relative to what you were comparing it to. How many major caliber revolvers do you know of that will hold more ammo?

 

[brnmuenchow]

Most quality modern day handguns "revolvers or autoloaders" are all going to be very reliable on avg. but it is true that if you take a simple revolver design and put it up against say an inexpensive simple auto design using many different types of ammo as a test mule I will put money & "my life" on the revolver any day of the week. Now you take a S&W model 586 or Colt "Python" vs. say a Sig Sauer P226 or H&K USP that would in theory still go with the revolver but if there were any problems with the autoloaders I would venture to say it's an ammo problem. (All just mentioned are top notch quality reliable type guns: And yes that includes Glock before I start getting ridiculed for leaving them out.)

 

[scythefwd]

It is higher capacity.. but the early 1911 and semiauto's weren't as reliable as new ones. It took them a very long time to switch for logistical reasons as well as distrust of the new platform. The early handguns weren't as reliable as older revolvers, period. At that time, the distrust of the new platform was enough to overcome the added capacity. Once they became reliable enough for duty (again, never said they aren't reliable, I say they aren't as reliable as a revolver.. both are plenty reliable for carry) that there was a real benefit to the larger capacity... they started switching them out.

 

[BSA1]

The most important reason the revolver is superior is in close quarter battle. I am not talking about the make believe stuff of hiding behind cover, using tactical reloads, tec. I am talking about when you are in a physical confrontation, use of sights is impossible and your only chance of survival is too somehow get your gun out, jam the gun into his body and pull the trigger.

The semi-auto is dicey. It is possible to push the slide of of battery far enough to cause it not to fire. If it does fire then there is the likely it will jam on the clothes of your attacker so their will not be second shot.

A revolver......jam the barrel into his gut and keep pulling the trigger until he does not want to play anymore.

 

[jrdolall]

I prefer auto. I carry an auto. I can fire more rounds more quickly from an auto. I own 20+ autos of various caliber and manufacturer. Every single one of my autos has had an issue at some point with an FTF, FTE etc, every one. Virtually all of these have been a result of either the gun being finicky about ammo or a magazine issue. I do not drag my pistols through mud and quicksand and then fire them. I have not fired 20,000 rounds through any pistol I own. That would be $800 in bulk .22 ammo and a cajillion dollars in .45. I know a lot of people will cringe when I say this but my Hi-Point C9 has never had an issue when I use the original factory magazine. Hundreds of rounds with no problems but the new magazines I got from Hi Point have caused a lot of problems so I keep the old mag in the gun loaded with JHP.

I only own three modern revolvers and all of them are from the 50s and 60's. Colt Trooper .357, a S&W .38 and a Ruger .22. All of these guns have been 100% reliable. They have never had a FTF of any sort with any ammo so I personally have to give the edge in reliability to the revolver.

This opinion is based on many years of firing these guns at stationary targets that were not shooting back. I am not a combat vet nor am I an LEO. I hope I never need to shoot anyone and I hope no one ever shoots at me. If they do I will probably mess my pants and scream like a woman while emptying my magazine in their direction.

Why do I carry a semi when, in my experience, the revolver is more dependable? The .357 is not a good conceal gun and I like more oomph than the .38s give me. The .357 stays in my nightstand and my wife keeps a S&W .38 in her nightstand as well as carrying in her ourse.

 

[22-rimfire]

With 22's, revolvers are kind of handy as you do get FTF's and you can simply pull the trigger again. Clearing a jammed (FTF or FTE) 22 round from a semi-auto pistol is not always a rack the slide kind of thing.

My assumption here is that the owner maintains the handgun and does not abuse it environmentally or drops it from a two-story building. In which case, I would take a revolver 8 out of 10 times over a semi-auto (any caliber).

Revolvers also have more ammo flexibility.

Semi-auto pistols are a simpler design which is why they cost less overall.

All guns can fail. But overall, I think a revolver is more reliable mechanically than a semi-auto pistol and that gets compounded in a self defense situation.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

good post.
I have many pistols also and on my night stand is a revolver. I have seen it said many times for someone looking for a pistol for a inexperienced shooter or someones wife or daughter that just wants sometime they can feel confident with without worrying about clearing a jam or stove pipe in the middle of the night and without all those trips to the range.

I like the fact I can just pick it up and pull the trigger while its pitch dark and I was just waken up. I carry both as a ccw and actually have a auto today. LOL

 

[JohnBT]

"The 1911 isn't high capacity" - me

"That would be relative to what you were comparing it to. How many major caliber revolvers do you know of that will hold more ammo?" - you

Sigh. Are you making stuff up as you go? The facts are clear. The 1911 has never been considered a high capacity handgun. The BHP with 13 rounds, yes. The 1911, no.

John

 

[Teachu2]

I've had primers back out and jam up the cylinder on a revolver - when I was working up loads for a Highway Patrolman. I don't know if many semi-autos would have survived the pressure involved... Those few were the only failures I'v encountered with any revolvers.
I used to be the Range Stooge for a very experienced gunsmith. Every gun that needed a test-fire was handed to me for a trip to the range. NEVER had a revolver need to go back for further work. Semis? About 15%, as I recall.
One other point - some have mentioned timing issues on revolvers. Many times, those develop over hundreds or thousands of rounds. They don't fall in the failure category so much as in maintenance - it's pretty rare to have a sudden timing issue. Even when they shave a bullet, they still fire.

I'm also ex-LEO, from the mid-1980's. Sheriff's Department I worked for issued Model 19s and +P ammo, but you could qualify with and subsequently carry just about anything w/o Magnum ammo. Lots of S&W K, L, and N frames in 38, 357, 41, 44, and even 45acp were on the street, as well as 1911s, 59s, and some 39s. I qualified my custom 1911 as soon as I finished the academy, when told I'd be working the area where I'd be most likely to encounter violent druggies.
The local PD (who only allowed department-issued equipment) went from issuing Model 59s to Colt 1911s, as the 9mm loads of the day proved inadequate when faced with armed PCP abusers.
The California Highway Patrol learned some painful lessons in the '70s and '80s about the need to bring enough gun to the fight, and especially about training officers in better tactics. They went from revolvers to semis, but discovered that it didn't matter what you were shooting if you couldn't hit the target.
Glock was the game-changer for many LE agencies. Glock owes their success in LE circles to two things: an extremely reliable design, and a revolutionary understanding of how to market to governmental agencies. It's debatable which was the larger factor, but I believe that both were required to so thoroughly dominate the LE market - which led to a huge (and hugely profitable) civilian market. Glock's design is about as reliable as any semi-auto, and far more so than most. The marketing schemes they used to get LE agencies to buy were awesome - they got samples into the hands of agency armorers, administrators, anyone who had influence. They bought lunches, dinners, and trips to ranges in prime vacation spots to get those decision-makers comfortable with Glock products. Then they hit them with pricing so low, they'd have been fools not to give them a try. They tailored deals to pretty much whatever it took to get Glocks issued to the entire agency. For agencies that had not standardized their sidearm, this was irresistable - everyone on their force carrying truly identical sidearms is a smart tactic, as long as you choose the RIGHT sidearm! When you can do that on the cheap, it's probably going to happen.
LE agencies are attracted to high-cap weapons, and when Glock and others started producing semi-autos that approached revolvers in reliability, the changeover was inevitable. Not long ago, a local nutcase slumlord decided to murder the health inspector who has shut down his rental, and her family. He then led LEOs on a merry chase, driving nearly 100 miles in a Lincoln full of phone books. He was finally forced to a stop, and died of a self-inflicted gunshot. The LEOs had collectively fired nearly 800 rounds at that point. With that kind of shooting, high capacity is a dominating factor.