It appears some toes where trampled over on the other thread jwp475 put up with regards to my disagreeing with buggers assumption revolvers being more reliable than autos. I thought maybe we should bring that debate over here before the pissing match detracts too far from jwp475's original post on bullet selection for bear defense ie."hollow point failure".

In my view firearms are first and foremost tools used for a specific job and should perform that job as best they can. The reliability issue to me as to how it pertains to the debate from the other thread is relegated to the backcountry far from resupply and work benchs or gunsmiths ie worst case scenario/which type of mechanism is going to function the longest after the most abuse. I'm not worried about total rnd count either can handle before blowup at the range or which platform can handle the highest cartridge pressures. Its about functioning in crud with no backup and get the gun back to shooting.

Just one look at the internals of a Smith revolver compared to a 1911 or a Glock that has been field stripped, you'll see right off the bat the S&W internals are gonna have bigger issues with tolerances if invaded with crud. If the cylinder bolt gets boogered up or plugged with sand/grit causing lock up or mis-timing that you can't fix with a quick wash in the creek, it could be time to pull that side plate off with tools and hope you don't lose any of the parts while you're keeping the snow flakes off your face. The Glock/1911 can be stripped without tools and washed out and slapped back together and it's going to run 9 times out of 10.

Another example would be differences in continuity of fire between the two, the revolver dependence on cylinder timing actuated by the trigger whereas the auto uses gas pressure from the fired cartridge and inertia from that heavy slide to strip rounds off the mag. into the chamber. If things go south you can slap, beat and yank on the auto slide with much more force than you can a revolver cylinder without fear of damaging it. You can screw up a stuck auto mag. getting it out of an auto and still have a functioning firearm either replacing with a fresh mag or even single loading loose rnds. But a revolver cylinder is another story and carrying a replacement and tools may not be practical. You can break any device with enough force but you're gonna screw up a stuck cylinder long before you do an auto slide banging it against a tree to get it back into battery.

I've never thought of revolvers as unreliable but to claim they are more reliable than a top tier auto used by leo and militaries around the world in my view is a stretch.

Hopefully the experts on the forums will chime in and set me straight if I'm wrong, I'm always willing to learn and be corrected, but till then I'm sticking to opinion.

I think someone that's good at arguing could make a great case for either or.

An auto is confined to specific pressure ammo. So is an M1 Garand. Not necessarily a failing, but ammo versatility can be highly desirable.

A revolver can shoot very powerful ammo. Not necessarily a great accomplishment if the operator can't handle it.

I've never had to change a spring in a revolver. I've needed to change a few in my autos to maintain reliable function.

Not all autos or revolver designs are equal. Swing out cylinders are more fragile than fixed. Autos with partially exposed trigger mechanisms aren't as strong as those that are completely internal.

Personal preference and/or familiarity aren't just matters of convenience. They can be a matter of life and death. Old dogs can learn new tricks, but old habits are ingrained in muscle memory.

Hunting? Give me a 6-8 inch single or double action revolver. Self defense? Give me an auto preferably a Glock or 1911.

I have nearly no real reference with a revolver reliability.

But my practice pistol right now is an M&P 2.0 that has 5700 rounds on it. I've never cleaned or even oiled it, just took it out of the box and started shooting it. It's had 2 stovepipe malfunctions, on two separate days, both of them after the 4000 round mark, both of them shooting support hand only with a soft grip. That's incredibly reliable IMO and is very representative of what those pistols will do.

Revolvers and pump shotguns are mechanically reliable. However, when it comes to practical shooting, I believe a semi-auto is easier for most people to use effectively, especially under stress. Easier reloads, more capacity, softer recoil.

When I saw your post on the other thread I immediately thought of an anecdote from one of Jeff Cooper’s books.

In the story he tells of a raft trip he and a friend took in Mexico. He carried his ever present 1911 and his friend brought a heavily loaded S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman. After a wind storm that blew sand up and down the riverbed and into every nook and cranny of their camp the 1911 was dunked in the river and was functional. The S&W had to be taken apart to clean the sand out of the internal lockwork before the trigger could even be pulled.

I had always bought the “revolvers for reliability” line before reading this. But once I thought about it I realized that he was right, an auto simply has less places for dirt and debris to enter.

I have and regularly use a number of S&W and Ruger revolvers. But I’m open minded enough to see that they aren’t as reliable as a modern auto pistol. The tolerances are too tight and there are too many routes of entry for stuff. Just the way it is.

I also think people’s definition of hard use definitely varies. A guy who takes his favorite handgun to the range and shoots 50 or 100 rounds and then goes home and strips and cleans it is certainly using it. But the gun that is on the hip of a fishing guide on a river in bear country and might get hosed down with a can of WD40 once a season after a fall into the river is seeing harder use IMO even if it’s fired far less.

My dad use to tell me I could tear up a steel ball and I've rendered both platforms useless in the past.

Somebody please PM me and let me know who won.

A quality revolver in good mechanical condition (working right, clean, lubed), with ammo that it's been thoroughly tested with, will generally have a higher probability of getting through six rounds without failure than will a like semi-auto under the same circumstances, but while that difference was significant prior to, say, 1980, it's today infinitesimal, and might even be nonexistent, assuming that both have been proven to be problem free before the test.

I've had plenty of revolver failures in my 45 or so years of handgunning. Had one just the other day. I was shooting an Airweight S&W J-Frame .38, and couldn't get through a cylinder without a major stoppage, i.e., a stoppage that would have gotten me killed in a gunfight.

The issue: The ammo wasn't right for the particular revolver. You see, the revolver was so lightweight, that standard 158 grain lead round nose was slipping out of its crimp due to increased (revolver weight related) recoil. This "inertia bullet pulling" caused the bullets to eventually (after two or three rounds) stick out of the cylinder enough to stop the rotation cold. In fact, you couldn't even swing out the cylinder to dump the bad ammo. It was stuck, and only tapping the bullet back in with a small brass hammer allowed me to open it.

The solution was to exclusively use either lighter weight lead "cowboy" loads, or (at normal pressures) jacketed bullets. But I can imagine someone buying it, stuffing five rounds of standard 158 grain lead round nose in it, sticking it in their sock drawer, and only finding out at the worst possible time.

I have always felt that perhaps a semi auto handgun would take more abuse than a revolver, but that a revolver handled neglect and inattention better than a semi auto.

I have only owned 3 centerfire revolvers but of those, 2 have locked up or failed to function at one time or another. One because of an oversized cartridge rim that sezied the cylinder and the other because it was a Taurus.

The debate of revolver vs auto or 9mm vs 45ACP will never cease. There are too many that have experience and way too many that have no experience that enter these debates.

I have both and use both at different times because of the circumstances, which makes me pick a particular handgun.

They both work well enough for me to not consider reliability when I am going to use a handgun as reliability has been honed to near perfection for either handgun.

Safety is the difference between a revolver and a semi auto. A semi auto is less safe to unfamiliar people and I believe takes more training to use safely. A revolver requires a more dedicated act of cocking the gun with the hammer or pull with the trigger on a double action, where a simple pull of the trigger on a semi auto is all that is needed to fire the gun.

Keeping those differences in mind makes the choice more appropriate to the user and which he can handle for the purpose he requires…

I hear that a lot.

As for me, I've only owned two Taurus products, and both were/are great guns. I used to own a PT92 pistol (a close copy of the Beretta 92 that I sold after I bought a Beretta rendition of the same model), and still own a Taurus Model 63 .22 rifle (semiauto), which is a close copy of a Winchester classic by the same model number. Both were and are super reliable, nicely made, and great functioning guns. That's not to deny that Taurus has likely earned its bad reputation.

I agree. IMO, a revolver is a weapon you can leave in a drawer for 10years and a semi-auto a weapon carried in a coat pocket.

I got into LE for the tail end of revolvers as standard police issue, Most of the problems that cropped up could be traced to non-existent user maintenance or 'improvements'.

However I do recall a batch of Model 15s from which we removed the trigger stops, because one loosened up during a qualification and prevented the revolver from firing. The first batches of S&W 686s also had a gas ring expansion problem that tied up the cylinder when the revolver was fired rapidly with 357 magnums. Smith got on that ASAP and the problem went away.

Semiauto pistols are better now than they used to be and I believe the ammo companies put a lot more effort into producing ammo that runs reliably in them.

I wouldn't take that to the bank. Could be wrong in either direction.

I've had two revolvers jam because of fouling, and they weren't especially dirty. Wouldn't even think of dropping one in a bucket of mud - which has been done by at least one youtube channel (MAC, IIRC) and quickly locked it up tight. Took a lot more to stop the auto. I've seen one of those "built like a tank" SA revolvers down for the count from a broken hand/bolt.

This whole "six for sure" idea as some historicalroots, but any more, it really only is valid in relation to the use of unproven or disproven ammo. For instance, my 10mm Match Champion will run reliably on the wide meplat DT 230gr loads that are known to choke some (maybe most?) 10mm autos. You can put whatever fits in the revolver chamber - even play mix & match and (other than TRH's Airweight) it won't jam. Not so much for autos.

Even the "out of battery in contact" problem isn't universal to all autos.

158s at 700 is alls ya need

Back in the '80s and '90s, I ROed an awful lot of IPSC and NRA Action shooting events, and it was pretty much nip and tuck on which types of handguns would choke and gag at a match. If the shooter kept up with his equipment and knew his stuff, he had no issues with either type, if someone just half-assed and didn't keep up with his shooting gear, he had issues. Nothing new there.

Revolvers would have their ejector rods unscrew and tie up the wheelgun, autopistols would choke with poor extractors. Any and all of them could break or tie themselves up without proper maintenance. It's the same thing today, although S&W HAS reversed the thread on the ejector rod systems on their newer guns, to avoid lockups. Still, you can get a case stuck UNDER the ejector, if you're not doing things right.
Nothing made by mankind is perfect.
Personally, I've had fewer issues with autoloaders, but I can, and do, use wheelguns pretty often. Just day before yesterday, in fact, I was shooting a couple of S&Ws, a 617 and a M27. Guess what? The .357 rattled a couple of screws loose, I almost lost the cylinder release, and the Hogue grips slipped on the frame..............So I guess wheelguns are more problematic, right? It's a good thing I keep up with my equipment...................

I had some factory ammo jump crimp in my FA .454, and that locked it up after the first shot.

SBTCO: Over the decades, here on this forum, fellow CampFirers often get distracted (delusional!) and often compare a low dollar Kahr type semi-auto with a top quality Colt revolver (or Smith & Wesson) and declare the revolvers far superior to the semi-autos! OR..... vice versa - a high dollar semi-auto to a lower quality revolver.
For parts of 29 years I carried "professionally" both high quality revolvers (mostly Smith & Wessons) with top quality ammunition and then later on high quality semi-autos (mostly Glocks) with top quality ammunition.
And I was REQUIRED to shoot them, a LOT!
You might say I bet my life on those guns - because I did.
And I would be, and AM happy, to rely on either option (top quality revolver or top quality semi-auto) for my now, non-professional, self protection and home defense guns.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

In a nutshell:

Semi-autos are more vulnerable to ammunition and less vulnerable to the environment.

Revolvers are more vulnerable to the environment and less vulnerable to ammunition.

Note, that's less vulnerable, not invulnerable.


Both can be vulnerable to mechanical issues or ID-10-T errors, as can everything made by man, from channel lock pliers to the space shuttle.

Well...there ya go.

I had a Ruger Redhawk 44 mag that wouldn’t rebound the hamer when fired. This happened in Alaska on a fly in and drop off hunt.
Revolvers aren't fool proof. Plus if bullets jump crimp Revolvers are then tied up and have had this happen more than once

I have a number of revolvers and a number of autopistols. I use both with pretty good regularity. I know my way around the inside of revolvers and autos pretty well. As a tool and die maker, having built, worked with and on mechanical devices pretty intimately I guess I have my own perspective on these things. I tend to think of double action revolvers as more akin to instruments and automatics as industrial equipment. Both have their particular requirements with regard to proper ammunition. Revolvers, in my experience, require a higher degree of cleanliness and maintenance for complete functional reliability. As also mentioned earlier, You don't do much work on a revolver without tools. Most autopistols can be taken down far enough to get at anything that might be a problem without tools.

In the final analysis, I am perfectly comfortable going forth with any of the handguns I use on a regular basis, revolver or auto. If I were looking at heading out into the boondocks for an extended period of time, living out of a pack, I'd probably take something like my Glock 20 with a few spare springs and parts and whatever few tools necessary to replace about anything conceivably necessary.

I have carried both for work. And spent many a day on the range as an instructor. Either one can fail, but as pointed out may be easier to get a semi=auto back in business with minimal tools.

Yeah, lightweight revolvers are ammo sensitive. Generally speaking, you either have to use mild loads using lead bullets or stick with jacketed bullets only.

Heck, I had a crimp jumping incident once using a four inch, all steel, S&W Combat Masterpiece. It was during a timed, combat style, match, too, so it really ruined my score. Ammo was Sellier & Bellot 158 grain lead round nose. Same stuff that had that issue with my Airweight. I think I've had it with that brand for that load.

Went through 2 pages & got lots of good info, and I agree with about all of it but no one addressed the safety on the plastic guns! Do you carry the gun condition one (loaded hot) with no safety when you are out in the woods bumming around, hiking, fishing, etc. Both of my S&W M&P's have safety's on them, I wouldn't have bought them without a manual safety.
After many years of shooting USPSA revolver I'm pretty sure I witnessed quite a few more jams, malfunctions with semis than I did with revolvers. I think almost all of these lead right back to either gun maintenance or poor reloading practices. Several were observed when the shooter was shooting a stage weak hand only.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/NBlBBqsh.mp4[/img]

Something to think about!!

Dick

I'm with you on the manual safety......

I put a manual safety on my Sig 365......

I have a Sig 320 XTen with a manual safety, didn't come that way. Was pretty easy to add it.

I also have a FN 510, and searching around on the internet I see a fire control manual safety for a FN 509, it's going to cost me $70 to find out if I can add that to my FN 510.

Tell me about adding that safety to the XTen.

https://www.sigtalk.com/threads/manual-safety-x-ten-converted.434127/





https://www.modguns.com/sig-mechanics/sig-mechanics-sig-p320-x-series-manual-safety-jig-kit-2430

https://www.modguns.com/sig-sauer/sig-sauer-p320-manual-safety-parts-kit-720

Cost about $140. $90 for the parts, $50 for the jigs.

If you're not handling your pistol it should be stuffed in a quality holster that covers the trigger guard.
If you're gun is in your hands your trigger finger shouldn't be on the trigger unless your sights are on your target.
Basic gun handling trumps mechanical safeties all day long, regardless of pistol type/design.

Oh, thanks, Captain Obvious. We would have never thought of that!

Thank you, molly.

Well I'm still trying to learn something here, not trying to start an argument in any way. So you more experienced guys with the semi's, take me to school. I was hoping Blue or Mackay would chime in, I know both of them have shot & carried a great deal, and I'm sure several others have as well that I don't know about.
I know of 2 times where the gun handler shot himself in the leg & both times it was on holstering the gun. The gun wasn't empty & the shooter was trying to get his gun back in the holster & neither could see the holster & after poking around a couple of times they managed to grip the trigger & ran a 9mm down their leg.

Dick

That is a people problem, not a gun problem. I worked on an incident in which a guy was drawing his single action Ruger Blackhawk .45 and fired a round which went through his thigh from the outside of the leg and cut the femoral artery as it worked its way through to exit on the inside of his leg. He bled to death while on 9-1-1 trying to makeshift a tourniquet and stop the bleeding. He passed before help arrived. That isn't a firearm issue, that is a gun handler issue.

The semi-autos are so reliable that almost all people on Safari use semi-auto rifles. Same with hunters going after big bears.

Face it. The reason for semi-autos is for large magazine capacity because most can’t hit a side of a barn with a pistol and with enough bullets flying maybe ine will hit close enough.

In the the time I shot pistol silhouette I never saw one person shoot a center fire semi-auto at steel.

It’s like the M-16, pray and spray.

Semi auto rifles are used almost exclusively for hunting the most dangerous game, men.

Besides that obvious fact there is the consideration that they generally aren’t chambered for traditional large bore African “safari” cartridges. Coupled with the fact that they are not legal to bring into many places safari’s take place. As far as big bears go, I saw plenty of people in Alaska using BARs and even a few of the junk Remington autoloaders.

Don’t forget that for the most part semi auto rifles and pistols have vastly different operating systems that make them work. Traditional auto loading pistols are generally much simpler systems than auto rifles.

Shooting pistol silhouette probably didn’t see a large number of auto pistols most likely due to the cartridges they chamber not being good choices for 200 yard shooting. You won’t find many people carrying Contenders or 10” Super Blackhawks for CCW, either. But shooting a bear or a mugger at 15 feet is a little different ball game, mechanical accuracy isn’t nearly so important as mechanical reliability. Also probably no loss of life or limb will result from a FTF at a silhouette match.

What about all the Bullseye guns built on 1911s? Or S&W 52s? Are they for spraying and praying with their huge magazines?

I suppose you are clinging onto your 1873 Springfield Trapdoor .45-70 for a defensive rifle. Good on ya!

Bet you shot bullseye too....

Your welcome...so school me on the why of adding/after market mod. a manual safety.
Better than factory? or...

Again? If you haven't decided it's good for you by now, I'm not going to change your mind - nor do I care to. For me, it's not a disadvantage on some guns. That's all that matters to me. I don't care what matters to you.

Relax, I'm not judging you.
I own firearms with manual safeties and am perfectly happy with the concept. It was an honest question to understand the reasoning in adding an aftermarket safety to a factory gun I'm not familiar with.

Sig P220 for reliability and power.

We're getting a little off track here but still being pretty civil. With a revolver the gun, even still loaded is going to have the hammer down on an empty so holstering isn't going to be too dangerous for the most part. With the semi auto if we holster a hot gun with no safety which is what happened in the 2 cases I'm talking about it's a possibility (maybe rare) that we get an AD while holstering the gun.
I shot with Elgin Gates many times & all he ever shot was Auto Mags & they never lacked for power. One day he tied the existing worlds record with that 44 Auto Mag with that crazy knees up style that he used. Semi Auto's could take those rams down as easy as any gun on the firing line.

Dick

Okay, I'll go with that.

When I tried the P320, the trigger felt to me like it was approaching that of a 1911. If I intended to carry the pistol always in a holster, which I agree is ideal, I wouldn't have a problem with it the way it is. But my particular reason for even considering the X10 includes some other methods of carry some of the time. I'm quite used to wiping the safety off on a 1911, so any similar safety is not a detriment to me. Further, although I strongly doubt the reports of the 320 firing without any pressure on the trigger, a manual safety would add peace of mind. That part may be irrational, but IMO it's also harmless......IF the safety is a well designed one that works as well as the ones I find on my 1911s.

I have several pistols that neither have nor IMO need a manual safety, and find no conflict in using both systems. The safety always gets "wiped off" at the correct time, whether it's there or not.

It's true that the triggers on DA revolvers are less likely to be fully pressed by a foreign object while holstering than those of many autos. But we all should know by now that this is a software problem - which, BTW, has nothing to do with reliability.

A few comments about semi autos and revolvers.

These are generalities and there will always be some notable exception. Revolvers can be left for very long periods of time, loaded. They can have whatever lubrication that was applied to them dry up, and they will still tend to function reasonably well, when pulled from a drawer, or wherever they were stored. There are reliable in that fashion.

Where they fail in terms of operational reliability is when they get shot repeatedly in a somewhat quick succession, without any preventative maintenance.

If you take your basic K Frame Model 19 and 2000 rounds of ammo, and your basic Model 19 Glock 9mm and 2000 rounds of ammo, and shoot them side by side, the odds of the K Frame going the full 2000 rounds before it malfunctions are slim to none. In fact, odds are if you are shooting it in a non stop fashion, such as in a typical training environment, the odds are it will not reach 500 rounds, before it binds up.

Just about any experienced revolver shooter will tell you that they kept a tooth brush for in between shooting stages at a match, and you cleaned the crud out of your gun in between stages. When guys carried wheelguns for work, a toothbrush was pretty much always on the line. Guys cleaned their guns in between practicing and the actual qualifications. If they didn't, there was a good chance of having an issue.

With your typical polymer service auto, as long as it has been properly lubricated, they generally will go 2000 rounds without cleaning. I have seen some absolutely filthy guns that were a testament to both the excellent design and the true laziness of some of the owners.

Where semi autos do take a back seat is their ability to digest various types of ammunition. The revolver, due to its design will simply fire pretty much anything it can chamber. That is certainly not the case with the semi auto. There is a balancing act going on and the ammo has to have sufficient power to complete the cycle of operations that is happening with a semi auto handgun.

Some semi autos are exceedingly reliable though. In the early 2000s, I was asked to go to a training facility to evaluate the place for the owner. He/his organization had multiple .mil contacts on the special warfare side and he needed an honest eval done.

Long story short, I went for 5 days. Took my service gun which at the time was a .45 caliber Glock. In 3.5 days I fired over 5,000 rounds through it. It was cleaned initially but after that the only thing I did was add oil. I wanted to see how long it would take before it would malfunction. Aside from adding oil, the only other thing I did was wipe off the front tritium night sight for the kill house stuff, as the whole front of the gun was black with gunpowder residue. I was shooting very warm 230 grain Blazer ball. The gun never malfunctioned.


Some will say that brand X never malfunctions or breaks, and that they were issued brand y, so it is the best. Personally I have seen literally every major high quality brand fail at one point in time or another. S&W revolvers will tie up. Colt 1911s will choke. Glocks will fail, H&Ks will go down, Ruger revolvers will break. If it is mechanical and made by a man, and you use it long enough, it can and will break.

As far as the odds of that happening, well chances are if you purchase a good quality tool right from the start, and maintain it properly, odds are you will be fine. I have a couple guns that have north of 50K rounds through them. They have parts replaced as needed, and they still run perfectly fine. These days I don't shoot a fraction of the amount of rounds that I used to, as I am not paid to shoot, and there are no connex boxes full of ammo. Plus my hands, wrists and elbows are paying for the abuse of doing that stuff for a living.

Pick a good tool, maintain it, shoot it, shoot it a lot more. Get really really good with it, and don't worry what others think about what is best.

That should be the end of the discussion.

I agree, words to live by.

Well said, and I agree with you.