Originally posted by Sans Souci
Yes, I did notice malfunctions. However, I also noticed various ammo brands. I've used only issued ammo, which was always good quality, W-W, I believe. Due ammo was W-W and then Federal HST. Moreover, I can't recall if any of the failures were due to reloaded rounds. Semiautos can be pretty darn persnickety when loaded with reloads. An indoor range not too far from me sells reloads. While I've never used them, I have heard other shooters complain about them.
Ok, so by your own admission, semi-autos can be persnickety with certain types of ammunition. While it would certainly be preferable to shoot top-quality ammo all the time, those of us who aren't issued ammunition don't always have that luxury.
We've seen some pretty severe ammo droughts over the last decade and oftentimes those of us who have to procure our own ammo are forced to settle for whatever is available. In my area during the '09 ammo shortage, the only box of .380 Auto ammunition to be found within 100 miles was an off-brand (and it was $60 a box at that). If your semi-auto doesn't run with the only type of ammunition that is available, you're in a rather nasty pickle.
A revolver, by its design, is much more tolerant of ammunition. The bullet shape is of no consequence because there is no feed cycle that it must go through and the minimum power threshold is much more generous (get the bullet out of the barrel vs. cycle the slide). The only ammunition which I've ever encountered that would not run in a revolver was either so grossly out-of-spec that it would not fit in the chamber or a squib which lodged its bullet in the barrel. While cheap, off-brand ammo certainly wouldn't be my first choice to defend myself with, I'd certainly take it over no ammo at all and, for many people, that has been a very real choice in the recent past.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Also, revolver failures are almost always catastrophic whereas almost all semiauto malfunctions can be cleared within seconds.
Again with the same old saw, but let's stop and consider it for a moment. Revolvers are almost purely mechanical firearms as they rely on the shooter to manually operate them. As such, the majority of issues that would cause them to cease to work correctly will be parts related. On almost any firearm, a worn, broken, or out-of-spec part is much more likely to be a "catastrophic" failure than a different problem. Because of this, the revolver is more likely to experience a "catastrophic" failure
if it fails at all because most of the factors which cause a "non-catastrophic" failure in a semi-auto simply are not present.
Semi-autos can and do have "catastrophic" failures from worn, broken, and out-of-spec parts too. I've personally seen broken firing pins cause all sorts of problems in both semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles ranging anywhere from a gun that won't fire to going full-auto until the magazine is empty. While I don't argue that a "non-catastrophic" failure is more common in a semi-auto, I've yet to see any evidence that a "catastrophic" failure is any more likely in a revolver.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
When it comes to defensive handguns, I'm 100% objective. That's because I like being above ground.
Just a friendly suggestion, but saying things like "That's because I like being above ground" don't really add to your argument and, in fact, damages your credibility with many. I think it's safe to say that most of us would prefer to survive a shooting and statements like that suggest, whether you intend them to or not, that those who make different choices than you don't take matters as seriously as we should. If you want to be taken seriously, it would probably be wise to omit the hyperbole.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Double action revolvers have somewhere around 20% more parts than a semiauto. More parts = ???
A parts count, on its own, is really pretty meaningless when discussing the reliability of one firearm over another. A Jennings J-22 has far fewer parts than a CZ-75 does, but I doubt that many people would consider the Jennings to be the more reliable firearm.
Also, when you have two different mechanical devices which do the same basic thing, but one has substantially fewer parts, the one with fewer parts generally relies on many of those parts to do multiple tasks. While there may be fewer parts to potentially fail, if one that performs multiple tasks does fail it will likely affect the operation of the device in a more drastic way. For example, many semi-autos rely on the slide stop to both hold the slide open when all the cartridges in the magazine have been fired as well as holding the slide/barrel assembly together with the frame. If the slide stop breaks, not only will the slide probably not lock open on an empty magazine like it's supposed to, but the slide/barrel assembly may very well fall off the frame.
Originally posted by Sans Souci
Heck, I can completely disassemble a Sig in less that 15 seconds.
I'm going to have to go with 44 AMP on this one, the only way you could
completely disassemble a Sig (or any other common handgun for that matter) is with high explosives. Now, because I don't want you to think I'm calling you a liar, let me explain that, to me,
completely disassembling a gun means a detail strip down to the bare frame. I could buy that you can field strip your Sig in 15 seconds, perhaps that's what you meant to say.
).