According to Chris Baker, Lever Action Rifles reputation for ruggedness/reliability is undeserved.

[gb_in_ga]

From just a basic perspective, the more moving parts, the more things that can fail. It would make sense to me that a lever gun would be more prone to failure as it does have a lot going on.

FWIW, revolvers are considered to be pretty reliable. Their mechanisms are actually complex. But they are "mature". Oh, and the number of parts and complexity of a pump shotgun and a lever action rifle are about the same. They work on similar principles. Nobody really questions the reliability of pump shotguns. Both pump action shotguns and lever action rifles are now able to be considered "mature". OTOH, autoloaders have their own reliability issues, and in many cases have a high degree of complexity.

Parts count and complexity really aren't all that relevant regarding reliability. The maturity of the design is more important.

 

[perpster]

One thing drummed into our heads when I started at my agency was how reliable revolvers are, and unreliable semi-autos are. In general, that may be true, but it seems that when a revolver fails in the field, it usually becomes pretty much a weighted throwing weapon, but when a semi-auto fails in the field, it can often be remedied and back in action in seconds.

Of course, couple of decades later, the drumming changed to how reliable semi-autos are, as the agency switched over to semi-autos.

I realize the dimensions and physics are different between a longarm and sidearm, but since I'm posting here anyway... Once saw a Glock 19 or Glock 26 hit a ceramic tile floor from table-height. The Glock let out a small Tupperware burp. The tile got permanently chipped.