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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Been awhile since I posted this. My thoughts:

I started out shooting revolvers many years ago. Revolvers were quite reliable to work with and then along came the autos with new improved designs, better ammunition performance and greater capacity. In truth, I felt that the reliability of the auto finally came up to a level of what I felt was the tactical equivalency of well maintained revolvers and so I began to carry an auto.

Here are some random observations I have discovered about the two weapon systems. Revolvers will occasionally malfunction and so will autos. I accept the fact that a high quality auto is just as likely, or unlikely, to break a part that stops the gun from functioning, just as any high quality revolver would should it experience catastrophic failure of a particular part. I have actually broken more parts in autos than revolvers, but I can attribute that to sheer luck. Slide stops have broken, firing pins have broken, but statistically, I would argue that neither one is likely to just "break" when you need it.

On the few occasions that I have had a revolver stop working, it was a cumulative effect of shooting. It started to get dirty, crap under the extractor star, the barrel cylinder gap got lead and powder residue, the chambers got sticky from lots of .38's and then having to force a .357 into the chamber. In other words, most of the problems came on slowly. I knew eventually the gun was going to stop working because of the indicators it gave; such as the trigger pull beginning to feel heavy or the bind I felt when attempting to close the cylinder.

However, there were times that for no apparent reason, a clean, well-lubed auto, would sometimes just not feed, fire, or eject a round. The bullet nose would catch on the feed-ramp, an empty round would fail to get out of the way of the next round, or there would be some other type of failure that seemed to occur randomly, and without warning.

Standing on the line, at the range, neither gun failed very often. Nice firm grip, dry hands, locked wrists, all is well in the world of hand-gunning. But, in the neat world of tactical hand-gunning when a deadly force confrontation erupts, we know that it is anything but a static situation or under perfect conditions!

Recently, I have watched a few episodes of "Under Fire" on Court TV. Autos, good quality (and, hopefully) well maintained autos, sometimes crap out in the middle of a gunfight. These incidents can be attributed to such things as: a weak one-handed grip, or perhaps coming out of battery when rolling around on the ground, or when the weapon is shoved against the bad guy, or whatever else that can impact a weapon system in a serious close quarter fight. The auto needs a solid platform to work off of. In the real world of close quarter fighting you must remember this should your weapon malfunction!

At distances where the Officer could maneuver, even though it was still in close proximity to the suspect, the auto rarely seemed to jam. But, if the fight closed all the way down to contact distance, then there is the chance that the auto could turn into a single shot weapon.

As an example of this, there is one particular episode that comes to mind involving an Officer fighting with an experienced, no-nonsense boxer, that was about to beat the Officer to death. Finally, the Officer drew his pistol and got off one shot into the BG's midsection with little effect, and, the gun jammed on the first shot! The BG then grabbed the gun and beat the Officer with it and tossed it. The Officer was able to pick it back up later in the fight. (Interesting video if you ever get a chance to see it.)

On duty, I have to carry a Glock 35. And, I'm not sure I am ready to give up the general reliability, magazine capacity, and ease of shooting of a good auto for the vast majority of shooting situations. But, as a backup, I carry a 642. And, it seems a lot of others are big fans of the little revolvers as backup guns as well.

Off duty, I find myself carrying a 3" S&W M65 more and more. I envision an off duty encounter being a very fast fight that turns into a gunfight. Bad guy rushing you with a knife, BG jumping you, knocking you down and attacking you, two guys pinning you into a corner and the fight is on. Capacity becomes secondary to utter reliability for me at that point. I can still get good hits with a revolver out to 25 yards or so, if I have to, but it's not really something I see happening. Truth be known, the odds of needing a gun at all are pretty remote, but if we are the kind of individual with the right tactical mindset, then we should plan for those unexpected events and be ready for it.

So, what are some other's thoughts? Have you taken your favorite defense auto out to the range, held it with your left hand, bent your wrist and elbow and tried getting off as many shots as you could? Have you held it upside down, or covered your hands in soapy water and then tried to shoot through an entire magazine? Have you tried shoving it into the target to see if it gets pushed out of battery? The question then is - did it jam after the first shot? I have personally done all those things and found that the reliability of a quality auto weapon went downhill.

It seems that most autos jam during the feeding and ejecting cycle. That's the one part that you do manually before and after the festivities with a revolver. During a gunfight, a revolver cannot have a feeding malfunction or an ejection malfunction. I realize that clearing an auto jam is a lot faster than clearing a revolver jam. But, that really cool "Tap-rack-bang" that you practice on the range really needs that off hand to work. If that off hand is keeping a box cutter off your throat, things go downhill in a hurry.

This is not to say if you are carrying a revolver that you couldn't experience a malfunction with it as well. As an example, I am talking about something like a high primer, making it difficult to pull through on the trigger. To combat this effect - pull the trigger REALLY hard, it just may go bang again! There are pros and cons to both of these weapon systems.

If these thoughts get a few people to thinking, and helps you to become more aware of your own abilities as well as your weapon's capabilities and limitations, then great. If it just makes you train harder, for what YOU consider a real world gunfight, even better. Remember: practice hard, practice often and be safe. Best regard to you all.
 
But, that really cool "Tap-rack-bang" that you practice on the range really needs that off hand to work.

Great post, and I do agree with most of it. I will point out though, that you do not have to have two hands to perform a "tap-rack-bang" drill. You can also use your belt. I do recommend it, especially as you are (I assume since you mentioned "on duty") an LEO. If you do (God forbid) ever have to use your weapon and a malfunction happens, it does help to know how to (and to have practiced) clearing double-feeds and FTF's one-handed in case your off hand is for some reason inoperable or otherwise engaged.
 
As a kid I shot many revolvers, the only problem I ever remember was my dad lost the ejector rod off a single action Ruger .30 cal. I believe that it is still in his gun room without the rod.

My first semi was a Smith model 59 if I remember correctly in about 1978, I was shooting the second mag when it quit working. The mag ejector button was gone, never did find it. After waiting for 6 months for Smith to send the new parts I sold it to my brother in law.
These are both examples of lack of maintainence or poor factory assembly which caused the issue. While the .30 cal Ruger was still usable the model 59 was useless.

I have never experienced any other failures with revolvers, semi autos though I have had many problems, magazine related through FTF FTE etc. If you included .22 there would be no doubts. Quality of the firearm, ammunition, maintainance and circumstance all factor into the reliability equation. Given that all the above factors are equal the revolver will work more reliably than a semi.

Today we are lucky to have semi auto guns that have evolved into extremely reliable machines. Most problems with either platform are environmental or ammo related so in my opinion both are fine to depend on as long as you do what you can to limit failures from crappy ammo or environmental influences. The revolver just slightly more so because it will keep working without needing a Tap & Rack drill.
 
I will point out though, that you do not have to have two hands to perform a "tap-rack-bang" drill. You can also use your belt. I do recommend it, especially as you are (I assume since you mentioned "on duty") an LEO. If you do (God forbid) ever have to use your weapon and a malfunction happens, it does help to know how to (and to have practiced) clearing double-feeds and FTF's one-handed in case your off hand is for some reason inoperable or otherwise engaged.

You are, of course, correct. I've caught the rear sight on the heel of my boot, the edge of a table and the upright arm of a barricade (among other things) to rack the slide of an auto to get it back in operation in practice. I also discoverd I am more likely to practice stuff like that with an issue Glock as opposed to my Wilson .45! :)
 
I say wheel guns are more reliable because in my years of shooting I have never, not once, seen a revolver fail to fire because of some failure with the gun itself. Not counting rim fire revolvers were the gun doesn't go pow because of the ammo. :p


I've seen... well I don't know how many autos mess up in some form or fashion.
 
Revolver Failure!

Don't get me wrong, I love revolvers, but I had an experience that taught me that nothing is perfect.

While at the Range one day I decided to get a little extra practice with my S&W 637 airweight. Now to save money I generally shoot cheap .38s out of it for most of the paractice and then occasionally run the +P stuff just to stay familiar. Well, that day I decided to shoot the +P ammo that I had been carrying in the gun for some time (6 months or more). After the second round was fired the revlover locked up and refused to function!

I couldn't pull the trigger, I couldn't cock the hammer, I couldn't even eject the cylinder. What had happend, was the recoil from the second round had un-seated the bullets of two of the round still in the cylinder. They had slid forward and jammed on the crane, locking up the whole gun and rendering it useless. I had to get a screwdriver and take the gun apart to fix it.

Now obviously this was the fault of bad ammo, but in an auto it would have been solved by a simple mag dump and clear. So revolvers DO fail and when they do...THEY FAIL HARD.
 
Thank you for telling of your experience. Do you think that shooting fresh ammo would have done the same thing?
 
I am thinking if you were shooting a load in an auto that would unseat a bullet than maybe you would do damage to the ejector or maybe (if a polymer frame) crack the frame. wonder how well the gun would function then?
 
Once you shoot a revolver a bit and develop some trust on its functionality, I think they are more reliable. Semi-autos can develop problems (usually small problems) sometimes without rhyme or reason. I suggest you shoot factory ammo for home defense and carry.
 
The fact is with good quality factory ammo a semi-auto can and often do jam whether due to mechancial (feedway issue) or shooter induced (limp wristing, improper grip).

My M&P 9c has well over 10,000 rounds through it with 2 FTF. One was when I first bought it and the other was when someone else was shooting it so I have no idea what happened. I used to own a S&W 686 and the trigger locked one time when my glove jammed in front of the trigger, I had the gun lock up twice shooting reloads. All three malfunctions completely disabled the weapon and would have take me out of the fight. The two FTFs with the M&P were cleared by racking the slide and it was back in action.

Both can be extremely reliable platforms but to clearly declare one better than the other is a little disingenuous to me. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. There are time I would prefer a revolver and times I would prefer a semi-auto. Its like arguing bolt action rifle versus semi-auto.
 
Do you think that shooting fresh ammo would have done the same thing?

Probably not, unless it was a manufacturing defect. I haven't had any problems since then with that gun, just now I make a point to regularly change out my carry ammo.

I am thinking if you were shooting a load in an auto that would unseat a bullet than maybe you would do damage to the ejector or maybe (if a polymer frame) crack the frame. wonder how well the gun would function then?

IIRC I was shooting Corbon .38 +P that was a few years old, but the gun was designed and rated to handle +P rounds. Either the bullets were improperly seated when they were made, or more likely had work loose after being handled, loaded, unloaded for some time.

In an auto, a standard load in a gun made to handle it should not damage the gun (with the exception of a squib load). If the first round fired and one of the subsequent rounds in the magazine unseated a bullet, I think the most likely result would be a fail to feed, and maybe the rounds in the magazine jamming. This could be sloved quickly by droping the mag, clearing the action, and loading a fresh mag. Much faster than it took me to clear my revolver.


Edit to add: In my opinion, an auto is more likely to jam (FTF, FTE, etc.) but it is also usually easier to get working again. Jams in a revolver are much rarer, but are usually more serious.
 
a tap-rack-bang drill i do not want to experience with a threat within 3 feet of me...which according to stats is the most frequent self-defense shooting distance.

To go "bang", (mechanically), the gun is 50% of the equation. the ammo is the other 50%.

today's autos are light years ahead of the past offerings and very nearly rival the revolver for reliability. However, ammo is still ammo, a dud is still a dud. and i have sure encountered the rare bad primer before in the form of federal and winchester ammo.

i'll take the revolver with the immediate 2nd strike capability coupled with the rotation of a fresh round into position and leave the tap-rack-bang drills at hand-shake distances for more qualified individuals.

People generally will say bad ammo/primers are rare. Yet i am constantly reading various gun reviews on internet boards and in the gun rags about autoloader testing and some infrequent mentions of bad ammo during the tests. Often with the mention of:
1. a light strike and the round is chambered and fired again with a hard primer blamed..
2. a heavy good strike and the round is a dud and the primer blamed.

these problems are declared as ammo related (rightly so) and not gun related. Frequently, these ammo stoppages are the only negative shooting reports/experiences during gun testing it seems.

Ammo is the wildcard. and murphy's law is always on my mind. Especially since ammo companies are having a difficult time keeping up with demand.
 
Last edited:
I think the "bad ammo" thing so often mentioned in gun magazines is just a nice way of saying the gun jams. Kinda like when they say "acceptable combat accuracy", meaning the pistol shoots a shotgun like pattern at 10 yards.
 
Small autos are less reliable than revolvers. If I can't carry a service quality auto stay with a revolver.
 
They are not ammunition reliant to the degree of an auto and you just pull the trigger to make it go bang, unlike many autopistols. A lot of it is tit for tat but that's pretty much it in the final analysis.

Now if you get into a "military" setting, where there is silt and gunk and stuff, and the operator knows his elbow from a hole in the ground, the auto is functionally superior.
 
You can purchase excellent samples of both. The revolver design is a little more reliable, but it usually allows for fewer rounds in the gun.

In my house the revolvers are more reliable because I didn't purchase good autos. I owned an XD 9 mm once and it was very reliable.

To a small extent our experience with each weapon creates reliability. How you hold, load, and maintain a gun leads to its performance. I've met guys who could not make an auto work right simply because they didn't hold it right.

Same goes for revolvers. Dork up the trigger pull and a revolver can act weird too.
 
Wheel versus Auto

It's well known that autos can have more issues than revolvers, BUT well said above that if you buy quality guns and amma you'll have few problems either way. There are some guns out there that I wouldn't own even if it meant going without. Just spend the money and get quality & go shoot!
 
On the other hand, if you hang out here long enough, you will read a lot of posts about revolvers failing -- everything from broken transfer bars to crud under the ejector star.

Having carried a revolver (privately owned Colt M357) my first tour in Viet Nam, and seen a lot of S&W Model 10s turn into junk in the jungle environment, I don't think revolvers have any special claim to reliability. If you take good care of them, they will work -- but that's true of automatics, too.
 
On the other hand, if you hang out here long enough, you will read a lot of posts about revolvers failing -- everything from broken transfer bars to crud under the ejector star.

Having carried a revolver (privately owned Colt M357) my first tour in Viet Nam, and seen a lot of S&W Model 10s turn into junk in the jungle environment, I don't think revolvers have any special claim to reliability. If you take good care of them, they will work -- but that's true of automatics, too.
Exactly, I've experienced a few problems with revolvers locking up myself. I've also had autos break small parts that rendered them useless as well. What is important in a defensive weapon is proper testing. Revolver vs automatic is a debate that won't be won in just a few lines so I won't even try.

Fire it enough to ensure that it works properly and clean it often enough to ensure that it continues to do so. You've just got to hope that the time you need the gun isn't the time that a trigger spring breaks.
 
I think the "bad ammo" thing so often mentioned in gun magazines is just a nice way of saying the gun jams. Kinda like when they say "acceptable combat accuracy", meaning the pistol shoots a shotgun like pattern at 10 yards.

I wish I could shoot that well. At 10m, a shotgun will put out a 2-3" pattern if you are using a full choke. Smaller with a flight control wad in conjunction with a x-full choke. I know I'm not capable of that grouping at 10m.. I shake too much.
 
I wish I could shoot that well. At 10m, a shotgun will put out a 2-3" pattern if you are using a full choke. Smaller with a flight control wad in conjunction with a x-full choke. I know I'm not capable of that grouping at 10m.. I shake too much.
As Uncle Billy Tilghman said to my Uncle Carroll, "You don't have to hold it steady, boy. It just has to be on target <BANG!> when it goes off."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top