Yes. Trustworthy. That’s the word. In the definition you provided the word ‘or’ is used to imply an alternative (you can look that up too up if you wish). As in, trustworthy *or* performing consistently well. Not trustworthy *and* performing consistently well. But, we are arguing semantics.
The point is, reliable as defined under under what set of conditions? Sitting in a sock drawer for 3 decades? Under water after being frozen in a block of ice and dropped from a helicopter? At the rental counter of a high-volume range? In the hands of a skilled user who routinely applies proper maintenance and lubrication? In the hands of a total neophyte who applies zero maintenance whatsoever? With substandard ammunition? Buried in mud and sand? Etc, etc, etc.
I believe that most autos are more reliable than most revolvers under conditions of *physical* abuse. Sand, mud, abusive handling, corrosive conditions, etc. I believe that most revolvers tolerate a lack of lubrication/maintenance and substandard ammunition better than most autos. The word *most* is different than the word *all*.
I have had troubles out of both types. I have had zero malfunctions out of several high round count revolvers and autos. I have had persistent (until fixed) problems out of both revolvers and autos. Then again, I don’t leave them in a sock drawer for 30 years, I don’t fill them with mud or sand, and I don’t shoot 10,000 rounds between cleaning. I guess it would be a toss up for me based on personal experience. I guess I would go Glock 17 (gen 3) first and a bunch of other stuff second.
As a follow-up, suppose you had to select one brand new handgun with which to defend your life with no prior testing or range time. As in, load it, walk out the door, and expect it to work. What would it be? Based on my experience I would struggle to pick between a G17 and a Smith and Wesson 586/687.
