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

I bought a GP100 from a neighbor who had only shot about 2 boxes thru it in the 10 plus years he owned it.
It was damn near impossible to fire double action and you had to work to pull the hammer back for single action.
I took it all apart and cleaned it and reoiled it and works fine now.

I've never had an auto give me that much trouble after so little use.

Of course not, everyone knows that.

I dunno. Carried a revolver for a year in Nam, never jammed, never got cleaned. Carried a 1911 during tour #2 and it never jammed either.

A few years after I left the service I purchased a S&W Model 59. Jamm-o-matic it was. Revolvers never let me down, nor has my little Ruger LCP. I think that stands for Little Chitty Pistol, but it fits in the pocket OK-fine.

I am a huge revolver fan, for multiple reasons but reliability isn't necessarily one of them.

A quality auto with quality ammo doesn't lend itself to jams. Personally I think cheap or bad ammo causes more jams than anything in both autos and revolvers, though I have seen several cheap pot metal pawls and hammer cams cause issues too, as well as early rising bolts.

I don't know if I'd say they have been carried a lot by any stretch-but my Glock 23 has never, EVER jammed. My Springfield Champion Operator 1911 only has jammed when I didn't resize cases properly.

Why in the name of God would anyone use “load it and put it in a drawer for 30 years” as an argument for reliability of anything?

What dumbass would do such a thing?

I guess it depends on what criteria you use to define reliability. As stated, it was provided as an example of tolerance for neglect, as opposed to tolerance for abuse or the general ability to chew through tens of thousands of rounds. My guess is there are more guns than you think sitting around in drawers, desks, glove boxes, purses, etc. that get very little maintenance. I’m also guessing the owners (rightly or wrongly) expect them reliably work when called upon. There are certainly more guns laying around in a drawer than there are going through the ‘Gauntlet’ or whatever else MAC puts them through.

The dictionary defines re·li·a·bil·i·ty
/rəˌlīəˈbilədē/
noun
the quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well.

Sticking something in a drawer for 30 years and using it once has zero to do with reliability.

“Consistently” implies repeated use.

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.

You completely missed his point, twice, which is impressive. I'd try, but it's fairly apparent it won't sink in.

Revolvers are way more reliable than autos when fired inside a bag or coat pocket and if you want your first or second shot to be snake loads, the wheelgun will cycle them with no complaints.

Who's going to volunteer to do the new series of youtube video's.

Store a loaded gun in a sock drawer for 30 years. Take the dresser to the range, pull the gun straightout of the drawer and see if it will fire. Better start loading dressers now so we can start watching video's in 2050.

Autos are ammo sensitive and usually magazine sensitive.
Many auto designs barely work - that is; alter spring tension, feed angle, slide velocity just a little and you get a jam.
A revolver can be proved quicker and with more certainty.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a revolver?


Seriously.....thanks. I didn't even know that was an option.

What's the last semi-auto you bought?

you are either delusional, retarded or just pretending to be stupid in order to start a fight, pick any revolver you want and put it against a g19.

Interesting video and comments. The one issue not addressed is how do you prevent the dirt baths. In the past when men carried handguns or rifles in extreme conditions the guns were cased. THE holster of choice of for militaries and woodman of merit had 2 common features. A closed toe and a full flap. Didn't matter which brand or what material it was made of. This kept the gun as protected as possible till the needed. An open top holster not only invite dirt and debris but allow it to accumulate.

A good modern auto pistol is plenty reliable; just not as reliable as a good revolver.

In general, I am drawn more to revolvers and have used them just a bit more than semi autos (including wearing out a new Model 29), by but I have had more reliability issues with revolvers than autos. I carry and use both, but that’s my experience in using both extensively for almost 50 years.

Neither are perfect. Machines break.

Ammo ends up in the wash more than the entire gun, even when just dicking around.

Never seen a G19 run 700fps wadcutters to 1300 loads without a hobble, but even a cheap ass wheelie does so.

Had a friend bring over a 22 on Sunday, wouldnt go pop....

But of course Glocks always work/100% infallible.

Both mechanisms have their weaknesses and strengths.

*sarcasm*

Watch some westerners sometime and if a six shooter got dropped in the sand it was useless.

True enough but my point was that dirt and grime and plugged barrels can be greatly reduced using a protective holster. Years ago there was a great backlash about using WD-40 on guns. Living in cold country I heard horror stories of police officers whos guns froze up in cold weather and ammo that had been rendered useless as the lubricate had froze the gun up and sullied the primers. Curiosity got the best of me so I did an experiment. I took 12 44 magnums cartridges and a Ruger Blackhawk and I put them in a pan and filled the pan with WD-40. I then put them in our freezer at 25 below zero for 24 hours. I then removed them and the gun and ammo both functioned perfectly without a hiccup. I then sprayed some WD-40 in primed cased and left them for an hour, dumped out any remaining liquid , let them mellow for a few days, loaded them with bullet and powder and went to the range. IIRC most failed to discharged but a few did though kind of slow hand fire scenario. Using your response as a guide my next experiment with be testing different ammo soaked in water for varying time periods to determine ?????? Thanks for the idea.

Dirt, mud and grit, more so than water.

You can tell when ammo wont "feed", because youre the loader.

I didnt miss your point; someone else did.

The Brits often had them on lanyards, tucked under clothing.

This is an interesting thread with good points on both sides. Being older, mid 70’s, when I started shooting and reloading revolvers were definitely more reliable. Today thanks to Mr Glock there is little difference in the two. If maintained both serve equally well.
I think revolvers are easier to trouble shoot and fix should a problem appear, if parts are on hand or available. Thanks to the internet all problems can be figured out. Most weaknesses of different platforms are well known. We are lucky today to have this knowledge available.
Today shooters want different things than a few years ago. Still a revolver is still a great reliable handgun that will shoot factory and reloads, mild to wild, in cartridges weak to powerful, with little fuss. Autoloaders are not as versatile in my opinion. But they work and can be counted on.
I have some revolvers that are more than 50 years old that have never given me a problem. I try not to drop them in the sand.😁

You brought up an interesting subject. Lanyard rings. I recall it was all the rage to remove the lanyard rings from military sidearms so you looked more modern. These were the days you took pristine military rifles and sporterized them. Glad those days are over. Many countries including the US had handguns with lanyard rings. I have them on a few handguns. The Brits used a canvas full flap holster for their WW 2 revolvers and equipped with a lanyard. I think they are one of the most overlooked needs. I try to modify some of my handguns to lanyard ring but it is tough to do on high dollar antique guns. The thought behind the ring and lanyard was gun control. No mater how you stumble and fall, or eject from a snowmobile, or capsize a boat and have to swim to shore, the gun is always there, A second benefit is, properly adjusted, the lanyard will be tight just as your elbows lockup at full arm extension. Thus giving even greater stability in off hand shooting. Working at great height for much of my career, I had lanyards on many tools, from hammers, axes to grease guns. Didn't want to brain someone below or hike back down to retrieve a dropped tool. When I duck hunt from a boat i have a bright pink volleyball attached to a hundred foot rope then attached to my shotgun for those tip over days.

Cop told me about another cop who used a revolver and had a failure to fire when he attempted to shoot a bad guy.

Ok Gents,,,,, I'm going to weigh-in here with my $.02 worth, as I've had some experience with both a Wheel Gun, -[Revolver]- and a Semi-Auto -[Pistol]-, 1st being a Ruger .22 BearCat, -[Revolver]- that my Granddad bought me in 1963 @ 13yrs old, and yea, I've still got that Ruger,
2nd was a Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP, complements of the USMC, during my stay in VietNam, and yea, I carried a 1911 for awhile after I got back, but after awhile in the field, toting a back-pack, sleeping gear, my Rifle,,,,, etc...... it just got alittle to Dam Heavy,,,, so about in the late 70's early 80's, I started looking for a competent carry side arm,,,,, and it ended up being a revolver, and there were several of varying calibers, and manufactures that came and went, currently I'm sporting a Highly Modified S&W 329PD .44Mag, so now for my answer to this Original Post Question,,,, Neither, Either Design has it's own set of potential problems, and weaknesses,,,, and you need to understand those that are applicable to you...
Yep, in the whole scope of things being what they are,,,, it all comes down to what you are "Familiar" and "Comfortable" with, as well as proper maintenance,,,, as my Granddad always said, that Fire Arm will take care of you, as long as you take care of it,,,,, and yea, it's just that simple.
Lj

Sounds about right.

Some of those fabricated torture tests are pretty silly. Watched one not long ago where, so help me Hannah, the guy dumped talcum powder all over the gun to simulate what, combat in a barber shop, nursery, boudoir?

Anyone who really needs a reliable sidearm will choose one based on criteria relevant to their situation and learn to use and take care of it properly.

Just read about how Wild Bill Hickok used to go out every day and empty his Navy revolvers in practice, then clean and reload them so he’d be carrying fresh charges. Cap and ball guns were probably more reliable than early cartridge revolvers when properly maintained, especially the rimfire ones.

Have revolvers and autos. Both work just fine, and I’ve taken the precaution of making certain I have ammo on hand for them, one of the first rules for successful gunfighting.

Interesting information about Navy Colts. I am always interested in history. Do you have any source where you read about Wild Bill and his 1851? By the way, in Germany even cap and ball revolvers need a licence.

And: the M19 failed just because it was made of MIM-parts

Cap & Ball revolvers are high maintenance. They require a good deal of lubrication, and if you're going to keep them loaded for long periods of time, you have the "worry" of if that lubrication has managed to find its way into the chambers...because it happens. So since Wild Bill was in the gunfighting business, and every day is certainly overkill; it probably did give him peace of mind knowing that of all the problems he may encounter, THAT won't be one of them.

No matter how much care you take with a black powder revolver, it is wasted if that revolver is not properly fitted. Most important for sure ignition is the the fit of the arbor and wedge. An example-

"El Californio was long in the arbor, further complicating matters. So I unscrewed the arbor and turned the shoulder back until I achieved an additional half turn into the frame. This set the whole barrel back a substantial distance and other accommodations were needed. I removed 0.011″ from the bottom of the barrel assembly, to set the wedge hole back the proper distance for the shortened arbor. I ordered a hardened Uberti wedge, which required lengthening the wedge opening in the arbor at the front. This is done a few file strokes at a time until the wedge just slipped through the off-side of the frame. This of course set the cylinder back, just a little too far, and I had to file back the corresponding cylinder boss in the frame. Then the cylinder hand wanted to bind up, making cocking difficult and retarding forward motion of the hammer. This was corrected by careful file work on the arbor and frame window. The barrel assembly and cylinder’s relocation 0.011″ to the rear insures the hammer will fire a cap without fail. I reset the arbor in the frame with a generous dose of Loctite Red; and installed the barrel assembly and wedge to keep everything aligned while the Loctite set."

http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/el-californio-the-italian-1860-army/

Properly fitted and maintained, they will fire each and every time the trigger is pulled. The 51's were excellent revolvers. In my opinion, the ultimate evolution of Colt's black powder revolvers came with the 1860.

You can rest assured if I was kicking an old black mustang around the countryside between 1860 and 1872, there would be a brace of ’60 Colts at my side. The last 1860’s were offered in 1873 and many originals are still shootable, some 140 years later. Colt’s reputation, military contracts and future in the marketplace were riding on every gun. Colt understood what parts needed to be hardened, how they needed to be fitted and how to balance the design to keep it from kicking itself apart.

revolvers are so reliable that most modern armies are moving back to them.

Really? Which ones?

I assume that was a joke.

PS Militaries (since the advent of reliable semiautomatic pistols) prefer autos to revolvers because of ease of field maintenance/repair, superior ruggedness under harsh conditions, and quick reloads, more so that due to superior reliability when well maintained and clean. Well maintained and clean, good revolvers are about the equal of good semiautos in the reliability department.

it was sarcasm

That's what I figured.

Interesting. I read that just after Robert E. Lee's death in 1870 his 1851 Navy was taken out and fired. All 6 rounds went off; revolver was loaded in 1863 and stayed that way until his death.
Bob

Paul Harrell had one loaded in his safe for like three years and he took it out and shot it. Same result.

Thanks for posting the videos, more should watch these.


No kidding! They're busting down doors at Ruger and Smith to replace their issued autos.


Just like revolvers, not all autos are created equal.
S&W's are notorious for their quality, and so are Glocks. The videos showed a quality auto smoking a quality revolver(even the base model 1911 kept rolling with a little work) when it comes to reliability in dealing with crud you would find in the field.

The obvious takeaway was the Glock blowing the doors off the Smith. However the important takeaway? When the G17 choked, the ability to get the gun running again without sloshing in water to fix malfunctions should stand out to even the most ardent revolver supporter, unfortunately some wheel guys still have issues with reality.

Yes, quality autos can puke, but if they do you have many more options to fix it while still in the fight where as a revolver is extremely limited in that regard,....unless you carry a bucket of water on your belt.!? and even then...

Most of the forgoing is true for service size handguns but I think not so much for small autos compared to things like the J frame Smith & Wesson and the like. For them it might still be 5 for sure.

Hard to figure Lee having all 6 chambers loaded.

That may have been true in the time of the Walther PPK/s and the ilk. Once we got the G43, LC9, Shield and XDS, that all went away. I carried a J every day for years. I went over to the 43 a few years ago and haven't looked back.

"That may have been true in the time of the Walther PPK/s and the ilk."
Now that you mention it, yeah, exactly. Me and bunch of others were buying all those Airweight 38's in a landscape without
those three guns you mentioned.


"Hard to figure Lee having all 6 chambers loaded."
You ain't figgerin' on all them damn yankees runnin' around.

Yep, my LCP retired my J frame. For the first time in perhaps 30 years, I don't own a J frame.

Even before that. IME, it went away a couple decades earlier when the Kahr came on the scene.

Yeah, Kahr was the first but they didn't have the production capacity to make the switch to 9mm widespread. Keltec was earlier too, but they had their problems.

Yep.