Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns SELF-DEFENSE RELIABILITY

There was once a time when handgun reliability precluded semiautomatic weapons. But with significant technological advancement, semiautos have made unrivaled strides. When it comes to reliability necessary for self-defense, I reach only for my Sig P-229. I have had two of my revolvers fail, and I have seen God knows how many more do the same. But I have never had my Sig P-229 fail nor my S&W1911A1. I used to carry a Model 5904 that had literally thousands of rounds through it and it never failed. So for self-defense reliability, what handgun design do YOU prefer?

I have had revolvers fail as well. The cylinders lock up as the cartridge head comes around. I don't buy or own cheap stuff so they were quality firearms.

For the time being until I get my loads working for the 1911 my Browning 40 is the got defense gun. Simple, serious and effective.

Ill carry any gun that will pass a function test. For me that means after 200 rounds of break in it has to go 500 without failure of any kind using the carry ammo and magazines. The second part of the test is to clean and lube for carry every 50 rounds and repeat it five times. This is probably the most realistic because you should be carrying a clean/lubed gun to start with. I have seen more guns fail the second test than the first.

loaded

varmintsinc,

Before we were issued the Model 5904 a copy was subjected to an extreme torture test during which our armorer put ten thousands rounds through it w/o any semblance of a cleaning and it never ever failed to fire. I'd say it passed a function test.

lewis perkins,

I'd opine right along with you: the only way to prefer a self-defense weapon is loaded!

Lets see...1911's have had 196 years of torture tests.

"Lets see...1911's have had 196 years of torture tests."

1911's have been around almost 200 years? Nah....

I sure do like 'em though. Several times this year I put over 500 rounds downrange in a single day - with no opportunity to clean my .45 Kimber. It never let me down.

Regards, Guy

1911's have been around almost 200 years? Nah....

Just seems that long

You make a good point about revolvers. I've made the very same point many times, in contradiction to the folks who say, "I'd rather have six rounds of a sure thing than 16 rounds of maybe."

When I started shooting handguns, back around 1980, it was double action revolvers only, for me. I've had dozens of them, and about a quarter of them have failed for one reason or another, one time or another. It can be a light primer strike, a timing issue, a broken part, heating and expansion issues, etc.

Once you have a revolver, though, that was well made to start with, and has had all the kinks worked out, or never had any kinks, they are pretty dependable weapons. More than enough to depend on it to save your life, but you are correct. You cannot just pick up any revolver and assume it will always work, 100% of the time. You have to thoroughly test out any weapon you are going to depend on, revolver or auto.

I have lots of such revolvers, and lots of such auto pistols. Of those that are tested out, I would not hesitate to choose either format. I go back and forth, nowadays, between a Colt Detective Special .38 revolver and a 1911 .45 auto pistol (Springfield Armory TRP). Both carry fine in Milt Sparks VM II IWB holsters, and are plenty dependable to count on when the chips are down.

I've owned two versions of the S&W Model 59. Both were extremely reliable workhorses that never let me down. Only problem I had with them regarded what I considered poor ergonomics. I also just didn't shoot them particularly well. The grip frame shape was such that it didn't naturally index for me in a consistent manner. Sold both of them for that reason, but super reliable guns.

Good point about a good revolver... Although I carry the 1911 .45 most of the time, for many years now, I still put a lot of trust in two S&W revolvers; a 2.5" .357 mag Model 19, and a .38 Model 36 snubbie. They've shown me that they're very, very reliable.

That .357 is often on my belt when I'm out cruising the trails, winter or summer.

Regards, Guy

musta been before my time...

I think if you can get through 200 rds without any sort of a malfunction you are good to go.
I have never had a revolver stovepipe, and I have never heard of a revolver having to be fired with a locked wrist in order for the gun to function. I did have a Ruger that would pop out the trigger group when fired with 357 magnums though.
(I don't buy Rugers)
Even a Contender can malfunction and that is a single shot.
whelennut

They are all machines and as such are subject to failure. IMHO, ya gotta buy quality first and foremost, feed it good quality ammo it likes, wring it out by test shooting several hundred rounds through it of the ammo you intend to carry, stay up on the maintenance, and, practice malfunction drills so they are second nature. A handy backup weapon isn't a bad idea either...

I am a revolver guy.

44 mag and speed loaders will do fine.

BMT

As a range officer we kept track of malfunctions for stat purposes. The 5906 averaged a little over 13,000 rounds between failures. Not saying a single gun did that but with 100 officers shooting a little over 150,000 rounds a year that was the average. Compare that to the SW99's that replaced them averaged 32 (not a typo, less than two full mags) between failure....

varmintsinc,

that S&W design, the 5904/06, seems to have been a winner. I have no experience with the SW99. Sig weapons are renown for their reliability. I would grab a 5904 or Sig for self-defense reliability than a revolver, but that's just me. Other are more comfortable with revolvers. BTW, my S&W 1911A1 has demonstrated itself to be as reliable as my Sig.

Yeah, I have an S&W 1911Sc Commander too, and, after at least a thousand rounds, its not had a failure of any kind.

Pretty much all I carry anymore are S&W revolvers or S&W 3rd generation autos, but if the world were coming to an end I might be tempted to strap on my Ruger P95DC.