Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Revolvers more reliable then semi-auto?

Smith Model 19 put through the Gauntlet:




How about the 1911?



Maybe you should just carry a Glock?

I watched it yesterday, as I subscribe to MAC. I was thinking about posting it here, too.

PS There has never been any doubt that most autos (speaking of those adopted by large departments and/or militaries) are far less vulnerable to mud and sand than revolvers. When folks said revolvers are more reliable, they meant those revolvers that are properly maintained, clean, etc., and from the draw. A properly functioning, clean, revolver, loaded with quality ammo, drawn from the holster and fired was, for a very long time in US history, more likely to get through the cylinder without a hitch than was an auto pistol likely to get through a full mag. With modern autos, however (post-1980), that's not the case. Modern autos (those adopted by large departments and/or militaries), under those conditions, are about the same as revolvers in that regard now.

That pretty much says it all...

short answer: NO

That is what the Chicago cop in the elevator told me years back when I asked him why he had a revolver on each hip instead of a semi-auto something. For my .380, 9mm and .45 ACP then sure a semi-auto. For the .22 LR, .38 Special, .357 Magnum or .44 Magnum, nope. A revolver.

What the revolver test showed was not that they are unreliable but that they require a different corrective action drill.

Everyone knows that if a semi-auto fails the first thing to do is tap-rack-bang.


With a revolver it's simply rinse-shake-repeat...

P.S. That test revolver is on gunbroker right now. Description says "Clean".


Although I don't know if that is a certification of its condition or a recommendation to the new owner.

Well, when talking pistol vs. revolver reliability most folks forget that revolver legendary reliability was earned when pistols came out and for period after until ammo quality became very good. In those days revolvers were indeed more reliable then pistols. During WWI if I was given a choice between 1911 (actually more correctly it was 1910) or Coit 1907 I would take the revolver every time. Today we can treat this concept as Americans say "Old Las Tale"?

this is all too funny.

Back in the day I taught Marines bound for embassy duty.

We were shooting S&W M19. Three common stoppages,

1 - broken hammer nose (firing pin). No immediate action for that...other than having a backup. It was an easy fix for the range armorer though.

2 - cylinder lockup from ejector rod backing out. Just need to check in often.

3 - cylinder lockup from unburned powder under ejector star, preventing full seating of the star. A by product of doing combat reloads with ammo that doesn't burn clean.

I don't know about how you measure reliability, but I've personally handled two Glock 19s with much more than 45,000 rounds through them. Both range guns, both fired much, cleaned little.

One gun that I know of from the local range finally had a cracked frame (gen 1 Glock 19) after an estimated 500,000 rounds. You read that right - they keep a log of gun rentals and estimated 100 rounds per rental. Sent back to Glock with a note on rounds fired and "what can we do to fix this?" Came back a new Glock 19, gen 4 and a note from Glock stating "let us know how this one holds up."

If I ever handled a revolver with that round count, I'm unaware of it.

In fact, I'm certain I never held a revolver with upwards of 5,000 rounds through it.

Of course, Jerry Miculek might have one or two.....I wonder how often he has to tune his revolvers up?

I have experienced #3.

Forgive my ignorance of things Glock. What was up with the water failure? Marine cups, I think he said? WTH?

I've had all sorts of failures from revolvers. I've had them lock up when they got hot. I've had pins vibrate out under recoil. I've had bullets in the cylinder pulled from recoil, jamming up the cylinder. I've had the ejector rod backing out. The latter defect was corrected by S&W by switching the direction they unscrew. I think that was fixed by the 1950s.

Water can get in the firing pin channel.
It acts like a shock absorber and slows the firing pin. Causes misfire.

Marine cups allow slop, so the water can be displaced.
But, that opens the channel if you blow a case.

They are used in guns meant for users that might immerse them.

Throw the ammo in the [bleep]...

I would say as a very broad generalization that revolvers are more tolerant of neglect while autos are more tolerant of abuse.

Load a revolver and an auto and leave them in a sock drawer for 30 years with no maintenance. I would guess (just a guess) that the most revolvers would make it through a box of ammo with less trouble than most auto.

Load a revolver and an auto and throw them in the mud and sand and out of a helicopter and all the other stuff that all these ‘torture’ tests do and my guess is most autos would fare better than most revolvers.

’

Well said

I've handled some of those sock drawer revolvers whose internals had all but locked up from accumulated crud to the point where it was near impossible to pull the trigger double action. Some of them had sat in the drawer for a lot less than 30 years.

Those lock up ones where usually soaked in WD 40 or some silly thing though. And that would cause the same issue with a semi