The DA revolver malfunctioned more than the Luger, the Tokarov, the 1911, the Radom Vis, the BHP, the P38, etc. this is what occurred. Sure revolvers were used but they also proved less rugged than semis.
From Webley;
Do you have any documentation of that because it is not consistent with anything I've read about weapons of the Great War over the years. During WWI, revolvers were still pretty highly thought of and many such as the S&W and Colt M1917's and Webley Mk. V and Mk. VI were liked very well by the troops. By comparison, many of the early semi-autos, the P-08 Luger in particular, had reputations for being finicky about mud and grit.
When I said above that the da revolver malfunctioned
more than the pistols I mentioned, I went too far and was wrong...they malfunctioned about as much.
When it comes to revolvers of the period of the first World War we tend to remember and speak of the best of the breed, the Webley (likely the most rugged and dependable) the Colts and Smith and Wesson's. But there were many others there as well, from France, Belgium, Russia, Montenegro, Spain that did not make the cut. They broke too often and were too delicate. The cartridges were underpowered, dirt fouled them too easily, etc. Many of these proved more delicate than the Luger. The latter survived them as a service weapon by years.
In his book "The Handgun", Geoffrey Boothroyd points out page 320 (Crown edition) how even one of the great revolvers of the last century the Smith and Wesson "Triple Lock" ran into problems...
"In the .455 Mark II Hand Ejector the third lock and the casing round the ejector rod were discarded. Experience in the appalling conditions of the First World War had shown, on the Triple Lock models supplied to the British Government, that the ejector rod casing caused difficulty in closing the cylinder when it became choked with mud."
Elsewhere Boothroyd speaks of the ruggedness of the Colt New Service in the the War and elsewhere and compares it favorable to Smith and Wessons M1917 revolvers for reliability in brutal conditions. This largely due to the beefier build of the Colt and the cylinder lock up of the S&W which relied on it's ejector rod properly fitting into the forward barrel underlug. If grit got in the way or the rod backed out the revolver was tied up. The New Service was widely used by commonwealth countries for decades, a favorite of the Canadian Mounties for example.
As I and others said here before, revolvers continued to be used by various armies for decades in the last century and sometimes even now. The dominance of the semi in military service was a process that began in the late 1890s and continued and accelerated though. When the U.S. chose the 1911 it was as it's primary combat sidearm it continued to use wheelguns. When not enough 1911s could be produced revolvers were called on to fill the gap in two major wars and supplied a few other countries as well.
My point is not that the semi rules and wheelguns drool. Nope it's just that the question of which is more reliable has been settled by history. The 1911 carried into war in 1916 was the equal or better than many revolvers in the same war when it came to reliability. It most certainly was not worse. The same is true of the Luger. A process began then and improved, through the BHP, Makarov, etc. to the Glock and many offerings of today. In general today most quality semis are the equal or better than quality wheelguns in terms of reliability. They don't suit everyone and for some one or another is a better choice.
tipoc
