Autos can be "iffy"
- Thread starter Smaug
- Start date
I used to be in federal law enforcement for many years before I retired. When I carried revolvers (yes, I'm that old!) I carried a S&W model 528. It was an N frame .357 magnum revolver. I shot it a lot. Once, when I went to qualify, the cylinder wouldn't turn and I could not shoot it. Luckily, I found that out at qualification. It turns out that the hand had worn down and wouldn't turn the cylinder. A friend on the PD who was a gunsmith repaired it for me.
For 3 years, I carried a Colt 1911 that I used to reload for for qualification. I always checked the loads closely. I reloaded with Bullseye and used 230 gr. cast lead hardball with it. I never had a jam or failure to feed with that load.
Over the years, I carried Berettas, HKs, and Glocks. I never had any problems with any of them. Of course, in those weapons, we always were issued and used high velocity full power loads.
I think it's humorous that the revolver I carried jammed but the autos never did. I now carry an HK in 45ACP, and no longer reload. I have to purchase all of my ammo now and always try and purchase good quality stuff. I only carry Federal HST 230 gr. +p in my carry loads, and I've never had a problem with the HK.
I do realize that I was extremely fortunate in my weapons in that I had no problems with them. Some of the other agents I worked with were not so fortunate, so I consider myself blessed. Naturally, anything mechanical can malfunction, no matter how much one pays for a weapon or anything else. I think the best one can do is carry what you're comfortable with, what you can bet your life on, and hope the law of averages is on your side if something occurs.
For 3 years, I carried a Colt 1911 that I used to reload for for qualification. I always checked the loads closely. I reloaded with Bullseye and used 230 gr. cast lead hardball with it. I never had a jam or failure to feed with that load.
Over the years, I carried Berettas, HKs, and Glocks. I never had any problems with any of them. Of course, in those weapons, we always were issued and used high velocity full power loads.
I think it's humorous that the revolver I carried jammed but the autos never did. I now carry an HK in 45ACP, and no longer reload. I have to purchase all of my ammo now and always try and purchase good quality stuff. I only carry Federal HST 230 gr. +p in my carry loads, and I've never had a problem with the HK.
I do realize that I was extremely fortunate in my weapons in that I had no problems with them. Some of the other agents I worked with were not so fortunate, so I consider myself blessed. Naturally, anything mechanical can malfunction, no matter how much one pays for a weapon or anything else. I think the best one can do is carry what you're comfortable with, what you can bet your life on, and hope the law of averages is on your side if something occurs.
Any hard data/evidence on that? I haven't really seen that to be true. I've had a few problematic guns, both auto and wheelgun, but in both cases their problems made themselves known fairly early in the game.
Just lends itself to an apples/oranges comprison. It would depend on the manufacturers of the firearm in question... suppose you put 10,000 Rohms against 10,000 Glocks. Wouldn't prove much, would it? Fact is, these days there's a lot more autos than there revolvers being made, which is why there are more unreliable autos out there as well.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Myth.Smaug said:
A properly set up 1911 (which the Para GI Expert is) does not care about "limp wristing." Various people have proved this by taking GI-issue M1911A1s and firing standard 230-grain ball ammo while holding the pistol using just the thumb and trigger finger of one hand. If you have a 1911 that stumbles due to "limp wristing," get it tuned up by a competent 1911-smith.
Smaug,
What it had to do with the scenario is that those three rounds (to the head) were rounds 12, 13, and 14 from the officer's gun.
They wouldn't have been available from a revolver. Neither would rounds 9, 10, or 11. 8 would have been possible with an N frame, and 7 with an L frame.
The officer was probably not in good shape for a quick reload (shot in the weak hand elbow).
On a different note, seems that of the three rounds to the head, it's likely that one or two of them would not have been fatal. Pass through on the mouth, if I read correctly, on at least one of them.
What it had to do with the scenario is that those three rounds (to the head) were rounds 12, 13, and 14 from the officer's gun.
They wouldn't have been available from a revolver. Neither would rounds 9, 10, or 11. 8 would have been possible with an N frame, and 7 with an L frame.
The officer was probably not in good shape for a quick reload (shot in the weak hand elbow).
On a different note, seems that of the three rounds to the head, it's likely that one or two of them would not have been fatal. Pass through on the mouth, if I read correctly, on at least one of them.
Ringolevio
Moderator
An NYPD "tradition"
oneounceload:
I have great respect and fondness for the NYPD, and I don't mean to slam 'em, but...
Back when they carried .38 spl. revolvers, typical NYPD cops only fired their guns when they went up to the pistol range at Rodman's Neck in The Bronx to re-qualify, just twice a year if I recall correctly. They weren't big on practice, and it was not unusual for a cop to reach retirement without ever drawing his gun in the line of duty.
What the cops themselves used to say back then may very well still be true today:
"When an NYPD cop draws his gun, the safest place to be is right in front of him!"
oneounceload:
I have great respect and fondness for the NYPD, and I don't mean to slam 'em, but...
Back when they carried .38 spl. revolvers, typical NYPD cops only fired their guns when they went up to the pistol range at Rodman's Neck in The Bronx to re-qualify, just twice a year if I recall correctly. They weren't big on practice, and it was not unusual for a cop to reach retirement without ever drawing his gun in the line of duty.
What the cops themselves used to say back then may very well still be true today:
"When an NYPD cop draws his gun, the safest place to be is right in front of him!"
OK, let's be honest with ourselves, guys.
To those of you who have a good amount of shoot experience with both autos and revolvers, which one has given you more stoppages?
If we're being honest, autos have more stoppages. Whether they are fast to clear or whether they can be avoided is not the point here.
By contrast, my Redhawk has NEVER jammed. My S&W 625 has NEVER jammed. My SP-101 has NEVER jammed. All of my autos have, at some point, and they were/are all good reliable autos.
Yes.
The jams were stovepipes, failures to eject. Bullet choice had nothing to do with it; they fed fine. It was too little powder to cycle the action. Again, the point is not to troubleshoot the failure. I was just pointing out that it would not cause the revolver to fail.
I have two different types of mags, they both work fine. Again, we're talking about failures to eject, so what the heck do the mags have to do with anything?
So if it were a Colt, it would fire low powered loads OK? How about a Brown? Baer? Wilson? Springfield Armory? Again, it has nothing to do with the specific gun.
Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it is a revolver or an auto. Either way, it is a lower recoil round. The lower recoil is felt either way, and probably more so in the revolver, since all he recoil goes to the shooter and none into a spring.
I've had it happen to an auto of mine. Ruger P90. It bulged the barrel and I had to send it off to Ruger to be fixed, as I could no longer get it apart.
All the other failures you've mentioned in your post have never happened to me. I have never had to loc-tite a screw on a revolver for the ejector rod to stay in place, but I did have a S&W 29 whose side plate screws backed out all the time with magnums, even with blue loctite. (very few autos can even handle magnums...)
My point was not that revolvers don't also have their disadvantages. My point was just that these disadvantages don't tend to cause failures in times of stress. For example, if I get knocked down or have to shoot a guy who is right in front of me, I can do it with a revolver and it won't jam from being limp-wristed. It is easy enough to say: "Don't do it." Not so easy when you're on the ground and only the weak hand to work the gun.
Ayoob (I think it was him) brought up the stat that cops started hitting their targets more in gunfights when they switched to autos. Whether that is because they now carry 3X the ammo, or because the 2-x shots are easier to squeeze off, due to them being single action.
Everyone has their favorites, and the number of forum members viewing the auto forum outnumbers the revolver forum viewers at least 3:1 at any given time, so I expect all these ruffled feathers.
But I came up on autos. I still like them, too. But for a gun I can rely on in a high stress situation, it's going to be a revolver. Even if the autos are clean and have good, full power factory ammo.
To those of you who have a good amount of shoot experience with both autos and revolvers, which one has given you more stoppages?
If we're being honest, autos have more stoppages. Whether they are fast to clear or whether they can be avoided is not the point here.
By contrast, my Redhawk has NEVER jammed. My S&W 625 has NEVER jammed. My SP-101 has NEVER jammed. All of my autos have, at some point, and they were/are all good reliable autos.
peacefulgary said:
Yes.
SauerGrapes said:
The jams were stovepipes, failures to eject. Bullet choice had nothing to do with it; they fed fine. It was too little powder to cycle the action. Again, the point is not to troubleshoot the failure. I was just pointing out that it would not cause the revolver to fail.
I have two different types of mags, they both work fine. Again, we're talking about failures to eject, so what the heck do the mags have to do with anything?
Sauer Grapes said:
So if it were a Colt, it would fire low powered loads OK? How about a Brown? Baer? Wilson? Springfield Armory? Again, it has nothing to do with the specific gun.
AK103K said:
Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it is a revolver or an auto. Either way, it is a lower recoil round. The lower recoil is felt either way, and probably more so in the revolver, since all he recoil goes to the shooter and none into a spring.
I've had it happen to an auto of mine. Ruger P90. It bulged the barrel and I had to send it off to Ruger to be fixed, as I could no longer get it apart.
All the other failures you've mentioned in your post have never happened to me. I have never had to loc-tite a screw on a revolver for the ejector rod to stay in place, but I did have a S&W 29 whose side plate screws backed out all the time with magnums, even with blue loctite. (very few autos can even handle magnums...)
My point was not that revolvers don't also have their disadvantages. My point was just that these disadvantages don't tend to cause failures in times of stress. For example, if I get knocked down or have to shoot a guy who is right in front of me, I can do it with a revolver and it won't jam from being limp-wristed. It is easy enough to say: "Don't do it." Not so easy when you're on the ground and only the weak hand to work the gun.
Ayoob (I think it was him) brought up the stat that cops started hitting their targets more in gunfights when they switched to autos. Whether that is because they now carry 3X the ammo, or because the 2-x shots are easier to squeeze off, due to them being single action.
Everyone has their favorites, and the number of forum members viewing the auto forum outnumbers the revolver forum viewers at least 3:1 at any given time, so I expect all these ruffled feathers.
But I came up on autos. I still like them, too. But for a gun I can rely on in a high stress situation, it's going to be a revolver. Even if the autos are clean and have good, full power factory ammo.
The autos "usually" dont cycle with a squib load, so you have to do something with the gun to get it back in action. With the revolvers, you dont. At the range, its not to much of a big deal, if youre paying attention, under stress, its probably going to be ugly with either, but at least the auto usually gives you a warning and chance. The revolver, chances are, you'll have probably already sent the next round.
You may not have "yet" got to experience them, but that doesnt mean you wont. One advantage to having experienced them is, you probably wont have to stand there and try and diagnose the problem the next time and can go to plan b with less hesitation.
From experience, I Loc Tite the ejector rod on any revolver I buy, and I usually do the side plate screws as well. I had the cylinder drop off on my first Model 29 at the range because that screw fell out. Somehow, I found that screw too. Live and learn, and hopefully, the lessons are learned at the range, and you dont have to wing it elsewhere.
Hey, I suppose anything can and will happen, especially at the worst possible moment, and that is what it is.
Ive yet to have a limp wrist issue with any of my auto's, even my Glocks, and even when I tried to make them happen, so for now, I dont worry to much about that. You do have other issues, like pushing the slide out of battery, but then again, a grab on the cylinder can also stop the revolver from shooting, so youre back to "it is what it is". Maintain and practice with whatever it is you use, and you'll always be ahead of the curve.
I think if you practice on a regular basis, it really doenst matter shooting wise, although the extra capacity of the autos lets you work at the problem longer if it becomes complicated.
The trigger on either is only an issue if you make it one. I personally actually shoot better with the heavier DA triggers than I do the SA's, and that goes for either type gun. Other than my SA revolvers, I havent thumb cocked any of the others since the late 70's, early 80's.
Youre right, everyone does have their favorites, and these days, the trend is more towards the autos than it is the revolvers, so youre going to get the feather ruffling simply because of the experience (or lack of it) base.
I came up on both, and I still shoot both on a regular basis, although these days, the autos get more attention, and the revolvers are getting more and more safe time.
Again, from experience, the autos have been just as reliable in practice as the revolvers, so Im not to worried. Since I got away from the 1911's (certain ones anyway), the only stoppages Ive had with my autos have been induced stoppages to practice for those moments that things "might" go wrong.
I practice for the revolver stoppages with an equally weighted "rock".
"Autos can be iffy". Sure they can, especially if you don't take care of them or know how to properly keep them running.
For about 100 years now, more in some places, every army on the globe has issued semi-auto hand guns to their troops. Too bad had they spoken to Smaug they would have avoided handing such "iffy" items to the boys.
Whoops I just realized if the semi handguns are "iffy" those even more complex rifles and carbines are gonna be worse! Down with the AR and the AK! Back to the reliable bolt actions! Back to the Mauser and the Enfield! You never get a jam, a double stack, or a bad mag with them. Oh Smaug, ye prophet, if only the armies of the world listened to you!
tipoc
For about 100 years now, more in some places, every army on the globe has issued semi-auto hand guns to their troops. Too bad had they spoken to Smaug they would have avoided handing such "iffy" items to the boys.
Whoops I just realized if the semi handguns are "iffy" those even more complex rifles and carbines are gonna be worse! Down with the AR and the AK! Back to the reliable bolt actions! Back to the Mauser and the Enfield! You never get a jam, a double stack, or a bad mag with them. Oh Smaug, ye prophet, if only the armies of the world listened to you!
tipoc
I am 50% with my automatics.
My wifes Sig P238 Jams all the time. It has been to the factory several times and it still does not work right. All the other sigs I have shot work well but the P238 has been trouble from the start.
On the other hand my Coonan Classic 357 magnum has not failed on any of the factory ammo I have fed it. From 125 grain white box to 180 grain buffalo bore.
I have many revolvers in my home and only 1 has ever failed and that was a Taurus Judge. It went back to the shop and has not failed after the trip.
My wifes Sig P238 Jams all the time. It has been to the factory several times and it still does not work right. All the other sigs I have shot work well but the P238 has been trouble from the start.
On the other hand my Coonan Classic 357 magnum has not failed on any of the factory ammo I have fed it. From 125 grain white box to 180 grain buffalo bore.
I have many revolvers in my home and only 1 has ever failed and that was a Taurus Judge. It went back to the shop and has not failed after the trip.
I think the OP has a point here. I don't think he's saying that autos are crap and revolvers are the way to go, but that there is a bit more care required in bullet selection, powder charges, etc. in firing an auto. I have both, and my autos have been ultra-reliable. When it comes to reloading, though, I don't worry about overall length as much. I can also vary loads greatly according to application in a revolver with no changing springs or worrying about bullet shape. I often carry a box of .357/.38 camping with me that has wadcutters for low-noise solutions, .38 SWC or plated FP for general use, and .357 LSWC hard cast for when I'm planning on going into an area where the wildlife may be unfriendly.
I think the revolver has some versatility over the auto, especially when it comes to bullet shape, bullet type, and powder charges. However, if I had to pick a handgun for a gun fight, it would be an auto.
I think the revolver has some versatility over the auto, especially when it comes to bullet shape, bullet type, and powder charges. However, if I had to pick a handgun for a gun fight, it would be an auto.
Smaug, you never said if that explanation (rounds used well in excess of revolver capacity) answered your question; you also haven't offered a counter for it.
Edit: FWIW, Mas Ayoob posted on the ".45 as a show stopper" thread, and said he knows Deputy Reston, and that the Deputy is an excellent shot and a good guy.
Point being, if an excellent shot scores 50% hits in a dynamic engagement, how will most people do? (True, Reston had already taken hits, but 50% is higher than the norm for police shootings.)
Edit: FWIW, Mas Ayoob posted on the ".45 as a show stopper" thread, and said he knows Deputy Reston, and that the Deputy is an excellent shot and a good guy.
Point being, if an excellent shot scores 50% hits in a dynamic engagement, how will most people do? (True, Reston had already taken hits, but 50% is higher than the norm for police shootings.)
Obambulate
New member
I just go with a Keep It Simple philosophy. For self-defense, I like the revolver's simpler manual-of-arms and inherent reliability.
Ah yet again the oldest argument in handguns: revolver vs. auto. While I feel that both types have their advantages and disadvantages for certain situations, there are many of the same old fallacies being thrown around here.
1. An auto jam can be cleared while a revolver one cannot: This is not always the case. My CZ-75 once jammed so tightly that I had to disassemble the gun in order to clear it. The problem jurned out to be a round of Silver Bear 145grn JHP that was so far out of spec that it got stuck partway into the chamber. My dad's Ruger SP101, on the other hand, recently experienced a jam that was easily cleared. While firing Remington 125grn JHP's the primer on one of the cartridges backed out and tied up the cylinder. Simply opening the cylinder and ejecting the offending cartridge cured the problem.
2. Revolvers aren't reliable, look at my insert cheap revolver brand here: This usually isn't an apples to apples comparison because all too often people will compare a cheap revolver to a first-rate semi-auto like a Glock, Sig, or HK. Sure, an RG revolver is junk, but I'd still trust one over a Jennings auto.
3. My gun passed XX torture test, so it's the best type: Sorry but with the exception of very limited circumstances torture tests are silly. I suppose I can't speak for the rest of you, but I've never set any of my guns on fire, run them over with a vehicle, frozen them in a block of ice, whacked them with a baseball bat, or thrown them out of an aircraft (these are all things I've seen done in various torture tests over the years).
4. All the cops carry autos, so they must be better: This one is partly true. Autos are better for cops. Too many people seem to forget that not all of us (or even the majority of us) are cops and that what a cop needs and what a private citizen needs are not necessarily the same thing. A cop needs a handgun for both a defensive and offensive weapon whilst I need a handgun purely as a defensive weapon.
5. If your gun doesn't like XX ammo, just use something else: This only works if you can get something else. For example, my Walther PP does not like Winchester White Box 71grn FMJ. Usually, this isn't a problem as I can just use Prvi Partizan, S&B, or Fiocchi. However, during the Great Ammo Shortage of 2009, .32 ACP ammo got difficult to find. Unfortunately for me, the only ammo of that caliber I could readily find was Winchester White Box 71grn FMJ. My S&W M66, however, seems to work just fine with any factory .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammo I put in the cylinder.
6. Limp wristing isn't an issue if you use the proper technique: When you're punching paper at the range, this may be true. However, limp wristing may be a very real issue if you were forced to shoot with your weak hand or an injured hand.
I think the OP's comparison is more fair than many are giving him credit for. Both Para Ordinance and S&W have good reputations and make quality firearms. He was shooting the exact same ammo in both guns and the S&W revolver worked when the Para Ordinance did not. Would the Para have worked better with different ammo? Perhaps, but I'm confident that the S&W would have worked just as well with any ammo that worked in the Para.
1. An auto jam can be cleared while a revolver one cannot: This is not always the case. My CZ-75 once jammed so tightly that I had to disassemble the gun in order to clear it. The problem jurned out to be a round of Silver Bear 145grn JHP that was so far out of spec that it got stuck partway into the chamber. My dad's Ruger SP101, on the other hand, recently experienced a jam that was easily cleared. While firing Remington 125grn JHP's the primer on one of the cartridges backed out and tied up the cylinder. Simply opening the cylinder and ejecting the offending cartridge cured the problem.
2. Revolvers aren't reliable, look at my insert cheap revolver brand here: This usually isn't an apples to apples comparison because all too often people will compare a cheap revolver to a first-rate semi-auto like a Glock, Sig, or HK. Sure, an RG revolver is junk, but I'd still trust one over a Jennings auto.
3. My gun passed XX torture test, so it's the best type: Sorry but with the exception of very limited circumstances torture tests are silly. I suppose I can't speak for the rest of you, but I've never set any of my guns on fire, run them over with a vehicle, frozen them in a block of ice, whacked them with a baseball bat, or thrown them out of an aircraft (these are all things I've seen done in various torture tests over the years).
4. All the cops carry autos, so they must be better: This one is partly true. Autos are better for cops. Too many people seem to forget that not all of us (or even the majority of us) are cops and that what a cop needs and what a private citizen needs are not necessarily the same thing. A cop needs a handgun for both a defensive and offensive weapon whilst I need a handgun purely as a defensive weapon.
5. If your gun doesn't like XX ammo, just use something else: This only works if you can get something else. For example, my Walther PP does not like Winchester White Box 71grn FMJ. Usually, this isn't a problem as I can just use Prvi Partizan, S&B, or Fiocchi. However, during the Great Ammo Shortage of 2009, .32 ACP ammo got difficult to find. Unfortunately for me, the only ammo of that caliber I could readily find was Winchester White Box 71grn FMJ. My S&W M66, however, seems to work just fine with any factory .38 Special or .357 Magnum ammo I put in the cylinder.
6. Limp wristing isn't an issue if you use the proper technique: When you're punching paper at the range, this may be true. However, limp wristing may be a very real issue if you were forced to shoot with your weak hand or an injured hand.
I think the OP's comparison is more fair than many are giving him credit for. Both Para Ordinance and S&W have good reputations and make quality firearms. He was shooting the exact same ammo in both guns and the S&W revolver worked when the Para Ordinance did not. Would the Para have worked better with different ammo? Perhaps, but I'm confident that the S&W would have worked just as well with any ammo that worked in the Para.
Dragline45
New member
The reason they carry autos is because of the larger capacity it has nothing to do with reliability
Neither revolvers nor pistols are perfect in their reliability, but most modern pistols from reputable builders with modern ammunition from major manufacturers appear to have good records when we consider large groups of data.
With full respect to the OP, my gripe with that post is that he reported on the performance of two pistols at the range, one of which worked flawlessly and the other of which had frequent failures. From that he concluded that semis are unreliable. In doing so, he essentially decided that the good-functioning pistol was an aberration and that the poor-functioning pistol was the norm. There is no logical/statistical reason to support that conclusion, since he had only one example of each in front of him. Small sample sizes - in this case two pistols - lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the same in any test. With a sample size of two and one failure, you have no idea if the overall failure rate is 99% or 1% - you only know that you experienced one failure, whether you are testing handguns, drugs, paper towels, or any other product.
Not to pile on, but to reach a broad conclusion like "revolvers are more reliable than pistols" by testing only pistols, without testing revolvers in the same way, is also unsupportable from a logic/statistics standpoint. If one took a single dirty revolver to the range and got a light primer strike once in the first cylinder or two, would one conclude that all revolvers are unreliable?
Obviously a pet peeve of mine, but only because I deal with people who turn down a valid medical treatment for their pet because their cousin's best friend's girl friend's stepfather's dog did not tolerate a particular drug well. They completely discount the fact that the side effect occurs in maybe one in a thousand dogs.
If you want me to treat your pet only with drugs (or herbal remedies or anything else) that has no conceivable side effects, I can't help you. In the same way, if you are determined to only carry a gun that cannot fail, there just isn't one. You have to decide if you are safer with or without currently produced models.
Climbing down from soap box, chopping it up into little pieces, and burning it.
With full respect to the OP, my gripe with that post is that he reported on the performance of two pistols at the range, one of which worked flawlessly and the other of which had frequent failures. From that he concluded that semis are unreliable. In doing so, he essentially decided that the good-functioning pistol was an aberration and that the poor-functioning pistol was the norm. There is no logical/statistical reason to support that conclusion, since he had only one example of each in front of him. Small sample sizes - in this case two pistols - lead to erroneous conclusions. It is the same in any test. With a sample size of two and one failure, you have no idea if the overall failure rate is 99% or 1% - you only know that you experienced one failure, whether you are testing handguns, drugs, paper towels, or any other product.
Not to pile on, but to reach a broad conclusion like "revolvers are more reliable than pistols" by testing only pistols, without testing revolvers in the same way, is also unsupportable from a logic/statistics standpoint. If one took a single dirty revolver to the range and got a light primer strike once in the first cylinder or two, would one conclude that all revolvers are unreliable?
Obviously a pet peeve of mine, but only because I deal with people who turn down a valid medical treatment for their pet because their cousin's best friend's girl friend's stepfather's dog did not tolerate a particular drug well. They completely discount the fact that the side effect occurs in maybe one in a thousand dogs.
If you want me to treat your pet only with drugs (or herbal remedies or anything else) that has no conceivable side effects, I can't help you. In the same way, if you are determined to only carry a gun that cannot fail, there just isn't one. You have to decide if you are safer with or without currently produced models.
Climbing down from soap box, chopping it up into little pieces, and burning it.
webleymkv,
The OP's comparison wasn't really all that good. He was shooting underpowered loads. It's not surprising they wouldn't cycle the auto; recoil springs are set for a certain power band, and his rounds didn't make the low end.
Had he gone much lower, he might have had problems with squibs in his revolver, too.
Practical reliability should use the loads one would actually carry, or range loads at similar power levels. Anybody who carries an auto for defense without first verifying what loads it likes is foolish. But once those loads have been identified, reliability is generally not an issue.
Bullet configuration may cause feed issues, but those can be pretty quickly identified and eliminated (either by polishing, or by selection of bullet types that feed without handgun modification).
Bad magazine springs are really the only problem that autos might encounter that would not affect a revolver, assuming one has found a reliable bullet and load combo for the auto.
Now, if you want to say that a revolver will feed a wider range of ammunition, that's a no-brainer.
If you want to say that, picked up off the shelf, and before ammo has been tested and selected, the odds are higher that the revolver will run without problem than will the auto, that's fine, too.
But once one has found ammo that works reliably, and assuming one does at least the minimum required maintenance, a good auto will match revolver reliability, or come so close as to be a statistical wash.
The OP's comparison wasn't really all that good. He was shooting underpowered loads. It's not surprising they wouldn't cycle the auto; recoil springs are set for a certain power band, and his rounds didn't make the low end.
Had he gone much lower, he might have had problems with squibs in his revolver, too.
Practical reliability should use the loads one would actually carry, or range loads at similar power levels. Anybody who carries an auto for defense without first verifying what loads it likes is foolish. But once those loads have been identified, reliability is generally not an issue.
Bullet configuration may cause feed issues, but those can be pretty quickly identified and eliminated (either by polishing, or by selection of bullet types that feed without handgun modification).
Bad magazine springs are really the only problem that autos might encounter that would not affect a revolver, assuming one has found a reliable bullet and load combo for the auto.
Now, if you want to say that a revolver will feed a wider range of ammunition, that's a no-brainer.
If you want to say that, picked up off the shelf, and before ammo has been tested and selected, the odds are higher that the revolver will run without problem than will the auto, that's fine, too.
But once one has found ammo that works reliably, and assuming one does at least the minimum required maintenance, a good auto will match revolver reliability, or come so close as to be a statistical wash.
Willie Lowman
New member
sounds like the carpenter is blaming his tools
My truck will run if I put gasoline in it.
It will stay on the road if I drive with my hands on the steering wheel.
It will run if the gas doesn't have water in it.
It will run if I change the oil and air filter every once in a while.
It will run if it hasn't locked up from sitting in a field for years on end.
It's funny the parallels we can draw, isn't it?
My truck will run if I put gasoline in it.
It will stay on the road if I drive with my hands on the steering wheel.
It will run if the gas doesn't have water in it.
It will run if I change the oil and air filter every once in a while.
It will run if it hasn't locked up from sitting in a field for years on end.
It's funny the parallels we can draw, isn't it?
I did read Mas Ayoob's account of the Jared Reston shooting, and I think only one of those last 3 rounds went into Joel Abner's brain.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_4_34/ai_n56222291/?tag=content;col1
That's another thing that you don't have to worry about with a revolver...
Who knows which one? The last round Reston fired? The third from last? I don't think anyone knows. I think Reston himself was relying on feel - he had the weopn pressed up against Abner's head. Another point here that Ayoob makes is that the flashlight that Reston had attached to his pistol helped keep the pistol functional at point-blank range:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_4_34/ai_n56222291/?tag=content;col1
That's another thing that you don't have to worry about with a revolver...
If they are close enough that you have battery issues with an auto, they are close enough to grab your revolver around the cylinder and cause the gun not to fire as well. Unless its a SA or already cocked, of course, both of which for the most part, fall into the not likely category.