Inherently reliable/unreliable auto pistol cartridges?

J

JD0x0

New member
Which cartridges are generally the most inherently reliable auto pistol cartridges?

I know that most all of the auto pistol cartridges can be reliable, and a cruddy gun can make even the most reliable cartridge choke up, but which ones are almost always the most reliable in feeding and firing?

On the contrary, which auto pistol cartridges are generally regarded as the least reliable? I've heard .32acp can suffer from 'rimlock' on occasion. Is there truth in that, or is it perhaps just a flaw of certain guns made in .32acp
Some people claim PPK's can be jam-O-matics, while others claim to never have an issue.

So which cartridges are generally the most and least inherently reliable?

I think I have a good basic idea of what the answers will be, but I'm interested in knowing based on other people's wisdom and experience, as well as solid data, if we can find any...
 
All opinion, of course, but I think the .45 ACP is more inherently reliable than most of the others. It is a straight, rimless (not semi-rimmed) case, thus avoiding the complications of both the taper of the 9mm Parabellum and the vestigal rim of the .32 ACP and .38 ACP. In the 9mm group, again IMHO, the 9mm Largo and 9mm Steyr should be more reliable than the 9mm P. The 9mm Short (.380 ACP) should also be more reliable than the the .32 ACP, but it suffers from being forced into platforms too short for it because they were designed for the .32 ACP.

Now, as a practical matter, the 9mm P. is reliable in spite of its taper, because the guns that use it are designed for it. Still, it would be better as a straight case. (There is a bit of a story there, but it is not relevant at this point.)

Jim
 
I think its more about the gun than it is the round.

If it were the round, then all of the guns chambered for it would be having troubles, would they not?
 
Not necessarily. Guns can be designed to fire cartridges that, in theory, should be nearly impossible to fire in those guns. Good examples are auto pistols made to fire .38 Special, .32 S&W Long, and .44 Magnum, not to mention all of the many pistols made for the .22 Long Rifle.

Incidentally, before someone asks, I overlooked the .40 S&W and 10mm in my previous comments. Both should be reliable, but the .40 S&W is handicapped by being used in platforms designed for the 9mm P., so it has to be stubbier than it should be. The 10mm has good potential but its problem is that it is forced into platforms made for the .45 ACP, which are overweight and oversize.

Jim
 
I don't have any personal experience but I've seen it stated many times, on reliable websites, that rimfire cartridges inherently less reliable than centerfire ones.

I can't attest to the veracity of that claim, but I'm very interested to hear people's opinions.
 
AS far as rimfire is concerned:

Rimfire can have ignition issues if the primer compound is not done properly in the rim. This is a reliability issue, directly tied to the cartridge.

While I personally have never had premium rimfire ammo that did not fire when struck, cheap and bulk stuff has had issues, requiring multiple hits in different areas, or sometimes complete duds..

So I would say that premium rimfire ammo should be near as reliable for ignition as centerfire. The rimmed case and nature of the firearms it is used in has more to do with the reliability in that case. So a revolver with premium ammo would be very reliable... an autoloader not so much. Though, all my rimfire semis have proven very reliable, with only a mag issue causing me issues with one.


The 9mm's slight taper has been stated as a problem area. That while a well designed firearm will have no issues, the taper is more prone to nose dive and feeding issues. So the design of the magazine and firearm need to be well thought out together.

I have seen specs for a new round based on the 9x19mm... Called the 9mm auto, basically its dimensionally identical but the taper is removed. Is is supposed to function in all current 9x19 firearms if I am remembering right.


As I understand things...

Rimmed and semi rimmed rounds do require careful design to be reliable in a semi auto.

Straight cased rounds are said to feed well.

Bottleneck rounds are said to feed the best.
 
Something to keep in mind is that it's going to be really difficult to call a difference. Getting a definitive scientific answer would take many thousands of rounds with a whole lot of individual firearms. Otherwise, we're just taking a whole bunch of scattered information and trying to make sense out of it.

Sort of like asking a thousand people: "ford, dodge, or chevy?"
 
Can't say what is the most "inherently" reliable, and I won't even try.

The least reliable, based on decades of observed results, is the .22LR. The combination of narrow, for length, case, lead (or plated) heel type bullets (generally fairly soft) and a LARGE (for case size) rim, makes it the one most likely to jam.

Also the rimfire ignition's built in issues just add to the over all mess.

Not saying you can't have a .22LR that tis reliable, just that the .22s are more prone to ammo issues than centerfire guns.

.22s are ..finicky...like some cats. Gobble down their favorite brand like candy but turn up their noses and walk away from a different brand, even if it has all the same stuff in it.
 
I believe the 9mm is the most reliable over a broad range of form factor (pistol sizes) than any other cartridge. Like any auto loader the ME (muzzle energy) and PF (power factor, largely bullet weight) plays into how well it cycles under adverse conditions like not having the proper hold on the pistol.

The 22LR was designed as a low cost alternative to center fire, IMO. Extraction is the biggest issue with the rim being rather rounded. My Beretta 71 is far more reliable with varying brands of ammo than any High Standard I’ve ever owned.

45ACP is a touchy cartridge. Works well in full pistols but noticeably less so in smaller form factors.
 
The 22LR was designed as a low cost alternative to center fire, IMO.
Click to expand...

I believe your opinion is in error. The .22LR is in the direct line of rimfire rounds that began with the .22BB cap (1845) and became the .22 Short in 1857. The .22 short is the oldest American commercial self contained metallic cartridge. It was followed in 1871 by the .22 Long, and the .22Long Rifle (LR) in 1887.

The .22LR was not designed as a low cost version of anything.
 
Is the failure of 22LR a result of "inherent" factors in the round, or due to bulk production methods? I don't have any sort of dog in the fight - Just throwing it out there as food for thought.
 
I wouldn't use the word failure. I said least reliable (in terms of feeding/firing etc), which is not the same as failure. When you look at a group of things (pistol rounds) and make a list, based on a specific set of criteria, someone always has to be last.

There are two main factors involved, the guns, and the ammo. Centerfire ammo is very reliable. Generally is goes bang nearly every single time. Bulk .22LR is the cheapest ammo, in terms of both cost, and quality. But the high end .22LR generally matches centerfire ammo in terms of "going bang nearly every time."

All the other "reliability" issues are due to the gun being used, or the gun/ammo "fit". Not the "inherent" features of the cartridge design.

The .22LR is unique as a handgun round, in that it is chambered in ALL handgun designs, from the cheap POS pocket auto to the high end match pistols. And there is often a .22LR version of most centerfire pistols as well.

So, since you are looking at the broadest range of pistols, both in design, AND in quality, it is logical that you find the greatest number of malfunctions there.

There are no cheap blowback pocket autos in 9mm, .38Super, .45ACP. And there are no service size pistols (1911, HiPower, Glock, etc.) in .25, .32, or .380ACP (that I know of, anyway). So, right there, the lowly .22LR covers a broader range of pistols.

I have a Jennings .22 (accepted it as payment for a small debt), and I keep it, as an example of what not to use. That gun, no matter what ammo you feed it, jams. Getting 6 shots out of it without a jam is a rare day. I've got Ruger, Luger, and Browning .22LR that only jam on crap ammo. (and by crap ammo I mean defective individual rounds. Not a brand)

AND while the quality of the gun does matter, what also matters is the "fit" or compatibility between the gun and the ammo.

As an example, a friend's S&W M41 (often called the Cadillac of .22s) was experiencing nearly 50% misfires with some CCI Blazer ammo. That same ammo, including his misfired round ran through my Ruger MkI flawlessly.

In that case, it was the combination of the gun and that particular batch of ammo that caused the problem. The (relatively) light firing pin strike of that gun simply wasn't enough to reliably fire that batch of ammo. (that S&W ran like a sewing machine on a different brand of ammo).

SO, is that a failure of the .22LR round due to some "inherent" features? Not to me.
 
James K said:
Now, as a practical matter, the 9mm P. is reliable in spite of its taper, because the guns that use it are designed for it. Still, it would be better as a straight case. (There is a bit of a story there, but it is not relevant at this point.)
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why a straight case would be better. The 9mm round has only a modest taper that really doesn't create problems in the magazine, and other tapered/stepped rounds (like .357 SIG) seem to feed at least as well as similar straight-cased rounds. I've always heard that such rounds FEED better.

Maybe you've heard something different that I've not heard?
 
44 AMP said:
In that case, it was the combination of the gun and that particular batch of ammo that caused the problem. The (relatively) light firing pin strike of that gun simply wasn't enough to reliably fire that batch of ammo. (that S&W ran like a sewing machine on a different brand of ammo).

SO, is that a failure of the .22LR round due to some "inherent" features? Not to me.
Click to expand...

Your point, I think, is that it's too easy to blame the ammo when the gun might be at fault... That's true, but the case you seem to be making isn't entirely convincing, either...

Over the years I've experienced MANY MORE ignition failures with .22 rounds than with centerfire ammo. Most of them came with reliable, quality weapons -- including rifles...

I've had .22 rounds that can be struck many times butnever ignite; the impressions on the case rim were deep and sharp. Moving the non-igniting rounds to another weapon didn't change the outcome. That sort of failure seems far less common with centerfire ammo -- but still possible.

I've had many squib (i.e., incomplete ignition) factory loads over the years with centerfire ammo but have NEVER experienced a squib round when using .22 ammo. Reliability has more than one appearance.

Your point, I think, that the more expensive .22 ammo is more reliable is probably true -- but that may be a factor in centerfire ammo, as well. And NONE of it is cheap, nowadays -- centefire or rimfire.

44 AMP said:
So {with .22s}, since you are looking at the broadest range of pistols, both in design, AND in quality, it is logical that you find the greatest number of malfunctions there.

There are no cheap blowback pocket autos in 9mm, .38Super, .45ACP. And there are no service size pistols (1911, HiPower, Glock, etc.) in .25, .32, or .380ACP (that I know of, anyway). So, right there, the lowly .22LR covers a broader range of pistols..
Click to expand...

Why focus on "pocket autos?" You seem to be arguing that the gun's design (locked breech or blowback) and size are key factors in assuring reliability. I would argue, however, that even cheap guns can be reliable, as the relatively small Makarov in 9x18 and the massive Hi-Point .45 -- are both blowback and inexpensive -- but have demonstrated good reliability (and accuracy) over the years . Most of us don't want a blowback .38 Super or .45 handgun, as such a weapon is not likely to be easily carried or used. That, and not reliability, seems to be the controlling factor.

There were a lot of smaller caliber LARGER pistols in use by police and militaries around the world until (or maybe after) WWII. The Japanese and French seemed to have a unique knack for creating anemic smaller-caliber rounds for their handguns. The French commissioned the design of the 9mm BHP and then decided not use use it, going with a 7.65 handgun instead. (SIG later bought rights to that basic design, upgraded it to 9mm, and used it to create the P-210...)

The subsequent move by shooters (both police, military, and civilian) to larger calibers seemed to to be focused on more "stopping power" than reliability concerns -- the smaller calibers didn't work well in the stopping power department when used against human targets.
 
Last edited:
“The .22LR was not designed as a low cost version of anything.”

Issue noted. I really didn’t do any looking into the matter of its history.

Today and the past within my experience the rim fire have some characteristics not desirable. Every so often there is a pop sound at the various gun shows. I believe the most common reason is a cartridge or box of 22LR dropped to the hard floor/ground.
 
I would think a round like the 357 Sig would be the least likely to not feed properly. .35" going into a +.40" chamber.
 
I agree a bottle neck cartridge would enter the chamber with greater ease but beyond that I think the 9mm is superior. The main body of 357 Sig is about the same as the 40S&W, the more surface area of the cartridge makes for higher force needed to chamber IMO. The mass/weight of the slide and other components of the pistol are generally about the same as the 9mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top