Okay, so I've narrowed down my two top choices for a "nightstand" home defense gun. I already have A Glock, and Ruger, but I like them 100% equally, therefore I can't decide which is better to pick as a secondary back-up! From already trying them both out plenty of times, AND from online research to hear other people stories, I've gathered the following "plus and minuses" for each gun. Hopefully these plus and minuses will HELP me decide on which one is worthy being the secondary back-up.
The two I'm thinking of:
Glock 19
OR
Ruger SP101, WITH the exposed hammer. I like SA/DA option on Revolvers. (I've never fired the one with an exposed hammer too, so that's part of it)
I'm going for sheer reliability here. One has gotta have a EDGE over the other!! From what I GATHER: A Glock obviously is more likely to experience MORE jams, but those jams can be easily cleared (tap/rack/bang). While a Revolver, if it exepericnes a jam it's "gone and out". I've had a Revolver cylinder jam up completely and it would not turn or open at all. So it spent a few days (maybe a week) at the gunsmith to get fixed. Imagine that in a self-defense situtation, it kinda made me wonder about revolvers... But anyways:
The pluses AND downsides for a Glock:
(remember this is a BRAND new Glock that is just test fired 50 to 100 times over the course of a couple months to ensure it works right, so all it's parts and springs will be in basically brand new condition, and since the Glock will only have 50 to 100 rounds through it grand total, it will very very very unlikely there will be any part related issues)
--No need to worry about a cylinder locking up as a Glock doesn't have a "cylinder", therefore it doesn't have to worry about having a cylinder locking up like a revolver does. Or timing issues with the cylinder. Or any cylinder related issues.
--Almost all Glock jams can be cleared in a few seconds with a tap/rap/bang. Remember: this is a NEW Glock, so there should be zero issues with any parts like springs breaking, etc. The only possible issues that I can think of occuring in a NEW Glock would be a FTE, stovepipe, etc, which can be fixed quickly with a tap/rack/bang. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I can't think of any other type of jams a NEW Glock would experience besides a FTE/stovepipe/feeding problem/etc. That seems to be all you'd have to worry about, and can be easily fixed with a tap/rack/bang. So that's a plus. Any issue can be solved in 5-10 seconds with T/R/B.
--A Glock has less moving parts than a Ruger SP101, and is less "delicate" than a revolver. A revolver needs a lot of things to go perfectly right to work, while a Semi-auto not so much.
--A Glock has less OVERALL parts than a Ruger SP101. Does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose less parts = less chance of something going wrong, but that could just be a myth.
--Glock can fire even with broken parts. I've seen the video where the Guide rod melted, yet the Glock STILL continued to fire... Also I've heard that a Glock can still fire if other parts like the extractor break. Of course I'm not talking long term here, but in an emergency where you just need to get a few shots off, this is a huge plus for the Glock. While a Revolver, from what I read if even one minor part breaks, the whole thing stops working. True?
--Glock has less "exposed" parts. Just like most other semiautos, almost nothing is exposed. There is no hammer exposed like on some revolvers. There is no cylinder exposed like on revolvers. This "closed design" protects the important parts from getting dirt, crud, etc on them, and in general helps keep it from getting less dirty.
Now, pluses AND downsides to a RugerSP101:
(remember this is BRAND NEW Ruger SP101, tested fire maybe 50 times over the course of a few months to ensure it works right)
--No need to worry about FTE, stovepipe, etc. Just pull trigger again.
--No magazine on a revolver. By not having a magaizine, that's one extra relaibility plus already for the revolver. Instead it has a cylinder, but an issue with a cylinder is a lot worse than a magazine problem I'd imagine.
--The revolver has a cylinder, which can lock-up and make it completely useless. This can supposedly even happen to new revolvers. If the cylinder gets completely locked up for whatever reason in a self-defense situtation, then you are toast. I've read about a cylinder that locked up "randomly, for no reason" for a guy with a pretty new S&W revolver. I read another story where some guy had his Ruger revolver cylinder completely seize/lock up because I *believe* he said he simply had crud/dirt under the ejector area, and it caused his Revolver to totally jam up and become 100% useless, until he figured out what was causing it. So sometimes it's something minor that can be fixed in a few minutes (like something very minor binding up/locking up the cylinder) or it can be completely locked up beyond repair where it needs to go to a gunsmith.
--A cylinder locking up seems like a HUGE HUGE reliability downside, which right now seems like the Glock is now winning the reliability edge. I've seen the videos of people putting Glock buried in dirt for a year then picking it up and then firing them hundreds of rounds, YET from what I read from some online stories a Revolver can be rendered 100% inoperable by dirt or something simply getting in the wrong spot, which causes the cylinder to completey jam up? Is that true? That doesn't seem very good for the revolver reliability. I'm starting to wonder if the "Revolver is the most reliable, and simple" is more of a myth now. If those stories are true, then there is nothing simple about the revolver especially if a little dirt in the wrong spot can cause it to seize up completely..
--A revolver has more "exposed", I believe. What I mean is things like the cylinder, the hammer area (unless it's inclosed), etc. More "exposed" areas can lead to more dirt/gunk/ANYTHING getting into it, and if any of those items getting into a revolver can truly cause it to "seize up the cylinder" then that's not good.
So after thinking of all the pluses and minuses of a NEW Glock 19 as a home self-defense gun vs a NEW RugerSP101 as a home self-defense gun or a "Truck gun", to me it seems like the edge would go to the Glock, no? With the Glock it has less parts, and any issues can be fixed in seconds with a tap/rack/bang. But with a Revolver, IF it happened to experience a jam, like a cylinder locking up, you cannot fix it in a self-defense situtation. I've heard of revolver cylinders jamming up for minor reasons, but luckily it was when people where at the range, not sure how common this is or what causes it. So basically, if a Glock jams it's an easy fix. If a revolver jams, well, it's going to likely need to go to the gun-smith. So with all the "plus and minuses" I pointed out for both the Glock and the Ruger revolver, wouldn't the Glock probably take the edge in reliability? In conclusion: I know that a Glock is more likely to experience a FTE more likely than a Revolver is likely to experience a cylinder jam. BUT, since a FTE is easy to clear, while a Cylinder jam can often be impossible to clear, that means that a Glock jamming is more reliable than a Revolver jamming -- if that makes sense.
The two I'm thinking of:
Glock 19
OR
Ruger SP101, WITH the exposed hammer. I like SA/DA option on Revolvers. (I've never fired the one with an exposed hammer too, so that's part of it)
I'm going for sheer reliability here. One has gotta have a EDGE over the other!! From what I GATHER: A Glock obviously is more likely to experience MORE jams, but those jams can be easily cleared (tap/rack/bang). While a Revolver, if it exepericnes a jam it's "gone and out". I've had a Revolver cylinder jam up completely and it would not turn or open at all. So it spent a few days (maybe a week) at the gunsmith to get fixed. Imagine that in a self-defense situtation, it kinda made me wonder about revolvers... But anyways:
The pluses AND downsides for a Glock:
(remember this is a BRAND new Glock that is just test fired 50 to 100 times over the course of a couple months to ensure it works right, so all it's parts and springs will be in basically brand new condition, and since the Glock will only have 50 to 100 rounds through it grand total, it will very very very unlikely there will be any part related issues)
--No need to worry about a cylinder locking up as a Glock doesn't have a "cylinder", therefore it doesn't have to worry about having a cylinder locking up like a revolver does. Or timing issues with the cylinder. Or any cylinder related issues.
--Almost all Glock jams can be cleared in a few seconds with a tap/rap/bang. Remember: this is a NEW Glock, so there should be zero issues with any parts like springs breaking, etc. The only possible issues that I can think of occuring in a NEW Glock would be a FTE, stovepipe, etc, which can be fixed quickly with a tap/rack/bang. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I can't think of any other type of jams a NEW Glock would experience besides a FTE/stovepipe/feeding problem/etc. That seems to be all you'd have to worry about, and can be easily fixed with a tap/rack/bang. So that's a plus. Any issue can be solved in 5-10 seconds with T/R/B.
--A Glock has less moving parts than a Ruger SP101, and is less "delicate" than a revolver. A revolver needs a lot of things to go perfectly right to work, while a Semi-auto not so much.
--A Glock has less OVERALL parts than a Ruger SP101. Does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose less parts = less chance of something going wrong, but that could just be a myth.
--Glock can fire even with broken parts. I've seen the video where the Guide rod melted, yet the Glock STILL continued to fire... Also I've heard that a Glock can still fire if other parts like the extractor break. Of course I'm not talking long term here, but in an emergency where you just need to get a few shots off, this is a huge plus for the Glock. While a Revolver, from what I read if even one minor part breaks, the whole thing stops working. True?
--Glock has less "exposed" parts. Just like most other semiautos, almost nothing is exposed. There is no hammer exposed like on some revolvers. There is no cylinder exposed like on revolvers. This "closed design" protects the important parts from getting dirt, crud, etc on them, and in general helps keep it from getting less dirty.
Now, pluses AND downsides to a RugerSP101:
(remember this is BRAND NEW Ruger SP101, tested fire maybe 50 times over the course of a few months to ensure it works right)
--No need to worry about FTE, stovepipe, etc. Just pull trigger again.
--No magazine on a revolver. By not having a magaizine, that's one extra relaibility plus already for the revolver. Instead it has a cylinder, but an issue with a cylinder is a lot worse than a magazine problem I'd imagine.
--The revolver has a cylinder, which can lock-up and make it completely useless. This can supposedly even happen to new revolvers. If the cylinder gets completely locked up for whatever reason in a self-defense situtation, then you are toast. I've read about a cylinder that locked up "randomly, for no reason" for a guy with a pretty new S&W revolver. I read another story where some guy had his Ruger revolver cylinder completely seize/lock up because I *believe* he said he simply had crud/dirt under the ejector area, and it caused his Revolver to totally jam up and become 100% useless, until he figured out what was causing it. So sometimes it's something minor that can be fixed in a few minutes (like something very minor binding up/locking up the cylinder) or it can be completely locked up beyond repair where it needs to go to a gunsmith.
--A cylinder locking up seems like a HUGE HUGE reliability downside, which right now seems like the Glock is now winning the reliability edge. I've seen the videos of people putting Glock buried in dirt for a year then picking it up and then firing them hundreds of rounds, YET from what I read from some online stories a Revolver can be rendered 100% inoperable by dirt or something simply getting in the wrong spot, which causes the cylinder to completey jam up? Is that true? That doesn't seem very good for the revolver reliability. I'm starting to wonder if the "Revolver is the most reliable, and simple" is more of a myth now. If those stories are true, then there is nothing simple about the revolver especially if a little dirt in the wrong spot can cause it to seize up completely..
--A revolver has more "exposed", I believe. What I mean is things like the cylinder, the hammer area (unless it's inclosed), etc. More "exposed" areas can lead to more dirt/gunk/ANYTHING getting into it, and if any of those items getting into a revolver can truly cause it to "seize up the cylinder" then that's not good.
So after thinking of all the pluses and minuses of a NEW Glock 19 as a home self-defense gun vs a NEW RugerSP101 as a home self-defense gun or a "Truck gun", to me it seems like the edge would go to the Glock, no? With the Glock it has less parts, and any issues can be fixed in seconds with a tap/rack/bang. But with a Revolver, IF it happened to experience a jam, like a cylinder locking up, you cannot fix it in a self-defense situtation. I've heard of revolver cylinders jamming up for minor reasons, but luckily it was when people where at the range, not sure how common this is or what causes it. So basically, if a Glock jams it's an easy fix. If a revolver jams, well, it's going to likely need to go to the gun-smith. So with all the "plus and minuses" I pointed out for both the Glock and the Ruger revolver, wouldn't the Glock probably take the edge in reliability? In conclusion: I know that a Glock is more likely to experience a FTE more likely than a Revolver is likely to experience a cylinder jam. BUT, since a FTE is easy to clear, while a Cylinder jam can often be impossible to clear, that means that a Glock jamming is more reliable than a Revolver jamming -- if that makes sense.
Last edited:
