My favorite thing about revolvers (over semiautos)
- Thread starter TennJed
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"autos have another advantage; they are much LIGHTER, esp the plastic guns."
Oh?
A Desert Eagle weighs about 4 pounds on average.
A Smith & Wesson 340PD weighs in at 11 ounces.
Ya gotta narrow your comparisons just a bit.
OK. Keeping the 340PD, let's compare it with the 9mm Glock compact, the G26, which weighs in at just shy of 20 ounces.
Yes, it has double the capacity, but five 9mm rounds don't cut the Glock's weight by 9 ounces.
If you compare a full-size Glock 17 against a Smith 4" 19, there's only a few ounces difference in weight there, too.
Oh?
A Desert Eagle weighs about 4 pounds on average.
A Smith & Wesson 340PD weighs in at 11 ounces.
Ya gotta narrow your comparisons just a bit.
OK. Keeping the 340PD, let's compare it with the 9mm Glock compact, the G26, which weighs in at just shy of 20 ounces.
Yes, it has double the capacity, but five 9mm rounds don't cut the Glock's weight by 9 ounces.
If you compare a full-size Glock 17 against a Smith 4" 19, there's only a few ounces difference in weight there, too.
Not entirely an ammunition problem at all but a difference in chambers, too. The casemouth of a 9x19 is usually finding its limits at the end of the chamber, this is why a roll crimp on a 9mm is not the best idea.
Even if the described incident is considered an ammunition problem by you, the occurence in a proper pistol calibre chamber is even rarer than in a revolver, given that both have properly cut chambers.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Not entirely an ammunition problem at all but a difference in chambers, too. The casemouth of a 9x19 is usually finding its limits at the end of the chamber, this is why a roll crimp on a 9mm is not the best idea."
What?
In order for what happened to have been a problem with the chamber, the chamber would have to have been grossly oversized to the point that you wouldn't have been able to eject the case because it was swollen so badly.
What I THINK you're saying is that the case separation was caused by a chamber that was shouldered too deeply, allowing the case to be unsupported and causing the separation.
Sorry, that's not the case. In a revolver, the cases headspace on the rim. The case body isn't supported by the shoulder in the cylinder, it's not designed to be, and it's not a problem. That's why you can roll crimp the living hell out of hard-kicking magnum rounds without any headspace issues at all.
A case separation with a revolver is possible due to headspace issues, but that almost universally happens at the case head (just as with a bottleneck rifle round) and it happens normally because the gun is so badly out of whack that the cylinder is slopping back and forth a noticable amount.
In fact, a revolver that has headspace issues to that degree often simply won't fire because the firing pin no longer hits the primer with enough force.
I've seen one handgun abused to that degree - an early 1900s Colt in .38 Special through which the jackass owner had been shooting a steady diet of .38 +P. He brought it into the local gun shop wondering why it was misfiring. The simple answer was that he had stretched the living hell out of the frame.
Semi-auto handgun rounds do generally headspace on the case mouth, but once again, headspace issues in a handgun generally cause ignition reliability problems, but not case separation issues.
What?
In order for what happened to have been a problem with the chamber, the chamber would have to have been grossly oversized to the point that you wouldn't have been able to eject the case because it was swollen so badly.
What I THINK you're saying is that the case separation was caused by a chamber that was shouldered too deeply, allowing the case to be unsupported and causing the separation.
Sorry, that's not the case. In a revolver, the cases headspace on the rim. The case body isn't supported by the shoulder in the cylinder, it's not designed to be, and it's not a problem. That's why you can roll crimp the living hell out of hard-kicking magnum rounds without any headspace issues at all.
A case separation with a revolver is possible due to headspace issues, but that almost universally happens at the case head (just as with a bottleneck rifle round) and it happens normally because the gun is so badly out of whack that the cylinder is slopping back and forth a noticable amount.
In fact, a revolver that has headspace issues to that degree often simply won't fire because the firing pin no longer hits the primer with enough force.
I've seen one handgun abused to that degree - an early 1900s Colt in .38 Special through which the jackass owner had been shooting a steady diet of .38 +P. He brought it into the local gun shop wondering why it was misfiring. The simple answer was that he had stretched the living hell out of the frame.
Semi-auto handgun rounds do generally headspace on the case mouth, but once again, headspace issues in a handgun generally cause ignition reliability problems, but not case separation issues.
Great discussion, much food for thought here.
Fond memories of shooting a handgun for the very first time - my Dad's Ruger .22 Single Six revolver.
Fond memories of my first encounter with a semiauto - 4 yrs. Navy, quals / ribbon quals with the .45 1911.
Never a problem / misfire / feed / eject issue with either one, thoroughly enjoyed shooting both of them.
Revolver safety note: Just remember to stay away (fingers / hands / bystanders) from the "bullet shaving" zone. If the cylinder / bullet is not perfectly aligned with the barrel, once you fire the round there will be bullet shavings that exit perpendicular to the gun and will injure fingers, hands, or bystanders that are in this zone.
Semiauto safety note: Be aware of "slide bite". Before you fire a round, be aware of the path of the reciprocating slide. If the web of your firing or support hand is in the path of the reciprocation, you will injure your hand.
Fond memories of shooting a handgun for the very first time - my Dad's Ruger .22 Single Six revolver.
Fond memories of my first encounter with a semiauto - 4 yrs. Navy, quals / ribbon quals with the .45 1911.
Never a problem / misfire / feed / eject issue with either one, thoroughly enjoyed shooting both of them.
Revolver safety note: Just remember to stay away (fingers / hands / bystanders) from the "bullet shaving" zone. If the cylinder / bullet is not perfectly aligned with the barrel, once you fire the round there will be bullet shavings that exit perpendicular to the gun and will injure fingers, hands, or bystanders that are in this zone.
Semiauto safety note: Be aware of "slide bite". Before you fire a round, be aware of the path of the reciprocating slide. If the web of your firing or support hand is in the path of the reciprocation, you will injure your hand.
Jason, I can assure you that a primer charge will not push a bullet completely through the barrel. I have had to clear a great many squib plugged barrels for other people at several ranges I worked at. Many times the primer will only push it far enough to lock the cylinder to the forcing cone. Game over. If it makes it past the forcing cone and into the barrel the next round will blow or bulge the barrel if you're not paying attention to recoil or the fact that there is no hole in the target from the last shot. On a semi auto most people shooting rapidly when it happens don't even notice the difference in recoil or assume it was just a dud round and immediately jack another round in and proceed to bulge or blow the barrel before you can stop them. Removing a bulged barrel from a slide is lots of fun. It generally happens to guys that just started reloading for the first time and usually involves a progressive press being used by someone who's not paying close attention. It's not at all rare though I believe you when you say you have never seen one. The worst revolver malfunctions I have personally had on my guns were certain brands of cases that were out of spec enough to allow one to slip past the extractor and leave the case in the chamber. The extractor will not pull out far enough to get the case out and cannot reseat itself because the case head is holding it off the cylinder. When that happens you are well and truly up the creek as they say. It happened to me in the middle of a match. I no longer use that brand of case.
Last edited:
Excellent, I'll be sure to tell this to my wife! I just bought a CZ and she had been telling me no new guns for a while. But I don't have any revolvers at this time and since we all need one of each. You don't mind if I quote you?
My Taurus 605 ( 2 inch barrel 357 mag) did develop a peculiar lack of bang when I pulled the trigger. It was fixable after I took it to a gun smith. He adjusted the hammer spring I think. After that it was very reliable but my hand would ache after 100 rounds. Unlike 9mm or 45 acp where I can go through 200 or 300 rounds a session.
" Bad comparison given that revolvers and semi-autos are very comparably mechanically, but an ax and a log splitter aren't even remotely similar in that sense."
...and I disagree with that. A revolver is purely mechanical and a semi is actuated by blowback or gas. Completely different.
...and I disagree with that. A revolver is purely mechanical and a semi is actuated by blowback or gas. Completely different.
There is a need for both. Each has it's advantages. Autos have more fire power and reload faster (if you have loaded spare magazines) Revolvers are popular because you don't have to bend over looking for and picking up brass.(not to mention lost brass) I usually target practice with a revolver and I use a Glock 19 for home protection(along with s&w MODEL 13) Really, it is your choice as to which is best for your needs. A lot of shooters have and are happy with both types.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"and I disagree with that. A revolver is purely mechanical and a semi is actuated by blowback or gas. Completely different."
Mode of operation is different, of course, but both a revolver and a semi-automatic are complex machines, as is a log splitter. Complex machines use varied combinations of simple machines to effect an outcome.
In handguns, these include wedges, wheels and axles, inclined planes and lots and lots of levers, all of which must act together in a predictable and repeatable manner. If any point in that interaction fails, it's a pretty good bet that the entire system will break down.
An ax is a simple machine -- an inclined plane and, IIRC, a first class lever. Even though an axe is a combination of two simple machines, it still doesn't qualify as a complex machine because there's no interaction between the simple machines.
So, the analogy that was being made simply doesn't hold at all.
Mode of operation is different, of course, but both a revolver and a semi-automatic are complex machines, as is a log splitter. Complex machines use varied combinations of simple machines to effect an outcome.
In handguns, these include wedges, wheels and axles, inclined planes and lots and lots of levers, all of which must act together in a predictable and repeatable manner. If any point in that interaction fails, it's a pretty good bet that the entire system will break down.
An ax is a simple machine -- an inclined plane and, IIRC, a first class lever. Even though an axe is a combination of two simple machines, it still doesn't qualify as a complex machine because there's no interaction between the simple machines.
So, the analogy that was being made simply doesn't hold at all.
I do get a kick out of these debates, because bottom line, you are all argueing generalities. And for each one, I can show you an example of failure both in revolvers or autopistols.
I don't have exact figures (no one does) but I would estimate that 90%+ of all the failures of both types are ammuntion issues more than any other single thing.
I notice also that the auto pistol guys tend to focus heavily on service style autos with their arguments and examples. They almost conpletely ignore the other auto pistols, including that most finicky of creatures, the .22LR auto pistol.
One thing it comes down to is that all auto pistols are balancing acts. There are a number of factors that must be in balance, or the gun will malfuntion. You can build a auto to run flawlessly on any kind of ammo, but building one that runs flawlessly on ALL kinds of ammo is a much tougher task.
Original design 1911s don't like hollowpoints much. Nor do Lugers. When these guns were designed, JHP ammo simply didn't exist. Can they be made or modified to run well on JHP? Yes. But thats not the way they came from the factory. More modern designs take into account that the shooter is going to use JHPs, at least part of the time, and angles and tolerances are made to allow for this.
I do get a kick from people who get a good gun, and run crap ammo in it, and then complain about the "gun's" problems. Run your Porsche/Corvette/whatever on 65 octane fuel full of impurities, and wonder why you don't get smooth performance or good milage!
Some problems are simple to fix, some tie up the gun. Happens with both.
Different problems affect the different designs differently. Got a jam with your auto? Tap, rack, bang. Unless....you have a squib, or a separated case head. I have had two complete case head separations (over 21 years) in the same autopistol, and each time, shooting was over, right then.
Get a case head separation in a revolver, and if necessary, you still have five chambers to use. Never had a problem with feed ramp, weak mag spring or feed lips with a revolver, either.
Never had a bullet jump crimp with an autoloader. I can go on, but you know the score, admit it. Each design has advantages over the other in some things and weaknesses in others.
I have a collection of magnum caliber autopistols. Its the best, and worst, of both worlds.
Also no fair taking the drawbacks of specially tuned guns and making them endemic to the type. If you are getting 5% misfires from your revolver, it need repair (assuming quality ammo, shoot crap ammo and its literally a crap shoot
).
You simply cannot run a top fuel dragster on ethanol blend and exect to get good numbers in the quarter mile. Guns do the same thing, if not to such an obvious degree. Why do you expect them to be otherwise?
We have so much that works so well that we have become spoiled, and have developed expectations that often exceed reality. Its nice if your gun works flawlessly with everything, but as long as it works flawlessly with something, I don't think it fair to say the gun is junk.
Also interesting is the advice given to problems with rimfires, versus centerfires. Almost without exception, if you have trouble with a centerfire, the advice is do this, or that to the gun to get it to work. And maybe try some different ammo. With a rimfire, its always "try differnt ammo". Nobody seems to talk about extractor tuning, feed ramp polishing, etc., for your Ruger Mk III or Buckmark.
Sure revolvers are 19th century technology. So what. Pencils are still quite popular and useful too.
Anyway, it fun to watch, so go ahead.
I don't have exact figures (no one does) but I would estimate that 90%+ of all the failures of both types are ammuntion issues more than any other single thing.
I notice also that the auto pistol guys tend to focus heavily on service style autos with their arguments and examples. They almost conpletely ignore the other auto pistols, including that most finicky of creatures, the .22LR auto pistol.
One thing it comes down to is that all auto pistols are balancing acts. There are a number of factors that must be in balance, or the gun will malfuntion. You can build a auto to run flawlessly on any kind of ammo, but building one that runs flawlessly on ALL kinds of ammo is a much tougher task.
Original design 1911s don't like hollowpoints much. Nor do Lugers. When these guns were designed, JHP ammo simply didn't exist. Can they be made or modified to run well on JHP? Yes. But thats not the way they came from the factory. More modern designs take into account that the shooter is going to use JHPs, at least part of the time, and angles and tolerances are made to allow for this.
I do get a kick from people who get a good gun, and run crap ammo in it, and then complain about the "gun's" problems. Run your Porsche/Corvette/whatever on 65 octane fuel full of impurities, and wonder why you don't get smooth performance or good milage!
Some problems are simple to fix, some tie up the gun. Happens with both.
Different problems affect the different designs differently. Got a jam with your auto? Tap, rack, bang. Unless....you have a squib, or a separated case head. I have had two complete case head separations (over 21 years) in the same autopistol, and each time, shooting was over, right then.
Get a case head separation in a revolver, and if necessary, you still have five chambers to use. Never had a problem with feed ramp, weak mag spring or feed lips with a revolver, either.
Never had a bullet jump crimp with an autoloader. I can go on, but you know the score, admit it. Each design has advantages over the other in some things and weaknesses in others.
I have a collection of magnum caliber autopistols. Its the best, and worst, of both worlds.
Also no fair taking the drawbacks of specially tuned guns and making them endemic to the type. If you are getting 5% misfires from your revolver, it need repair (assuming quality ammo, shoot crap ammo and its literally a crap shoot
). You simply cannot run a top fuel dragster on ethanol blend and exect to get good numbers in the quarter mile. Guns do the same thing, if not to such an obvious degree. Why do you expect them to be otherwise?
We have so much that works so well that we have become spoiled, and have developed expectations that often exceed reality. Its nice if your gun works flawlessly with everything, but as long as it works flawlessly with something, I don't think it fair to say the gun is junk.
Also interesting is the advice given to problems with rimfires, versus centerfires. Almost without exception, if you have trouble with a centerfire, the advice is do this, or that to the gun to get it to work. And maybe try some different ammo. With a rimfire, its always "try differnt ammo". Nobody seems to talk about extractor tuning, feed ramp polishing, etc., for your Ruger Mk III or Buckmark.
Sure revolvers are 19th century technology. So what. Pencils are still quite popular and useful too.
Anyway, it fun to watch, so go ahead.
There are less things to malfunction on a revolver , than a semi.
Personally, I carry one of each ... a semi and a revolver.
Sometimes the 7-shot revolver, is the primary and a smaller 9mm for b/up.
Sometimes a larger capacity semi, with a 5-shot revolver as b/up.
I figure one of them will work when I need it most, and hopefully both.
But I too, shoot better with a revolver and do better with a revolver.
That may come from some years carrying one and never ever had a revolver fail me.
Personally, I carry one of each ... a semi and a revolver.
Sometimes the 7-shot revolver, is the primary and a smaller 9mm for b/up.
Sometimes a larger capacity semi, with a 5-shot revolver as b/up.
I figure one of them will work when I need it most, and hopefully both.
But I too, shoot better with a revolver and do better with a revolver.
That may come from some years carrying one and never ever had a revolver fail me.
" Mode of operation is different, of course, but both a revolver and a semi-automatic are complex machines, as is a log splitter. Complex machines use varied combinations of simple machines to effect an outcome.
In handguns, these include wedges, wheels and axles, inclined planes and lots and lots of levers, all of which must act together in a predictable and repeatable manner. If any point in that interaction fails, it's a pretty good bet that the entire system will break down.
An ax is a simple machine -- an inclined plane and, IIRC, a first class lever. Even though an axe is a combination of two simple machines, it still doesn't qualify as a complex machine because there's no interaction between the simple machines.
So, the analogy that was being made simply doesn't hold at all. "
I would have never guessed my comment would generate this much interest. It was a simple comment meant only to highlight the simplicity of a lever operated gun versus a more complex gas operated pistol. Perhaps a bicycle/motorcycle comparison would be more analogous. I didn’t have an engineering manual on hand when I wrote it. It was a conversational quip and not necessarily a statement meant to be challenged or an invite to be disproven…of course you must know what that's about because, your initial response was equally ‘off the cuff ’.
In handguns, these include wedges, wheels and axles, inclined planes and lots and lots of levers, all of which must act together in a predictable and repeatable manner. If any point in that interaction fails, it's a pretty good bet that the entire system will break down.
An ax is a simple machine -- an inclined plane and, IIRC, a first class lever. Even though an axe is a combination of two simple machines, it still doesn't qualify as a complex machine because there's no interaction between the simple machines.
So, the analogy that was being made simply doesn't hold at all. "
I would have never guessed my comment would generate this much interest. It was a simple comment meant only to highlight the simplicity of a lever operated gun versus a more complex gas operated pistol. Perhaps a bicycle/motorcycle comparison would be more analogous. I didn’t have an engineering manual on hand when I wrote it. It was a conversational quip and not necessarily a statement meant to be challenged or an invite to be disproven…of course you must know what that's about because, your initial response was equally ‘off the cuff ’.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Sure revolvers are 19th century technology. So what. Pencils are still quite popular and useful too."
Let's see... When were the first commercially successful semi-automatics designed...
The 19th Century.
So, semi-automatics are 19th century technology too, 44 AMP.
Let's see... When were the first commercially successful semi-automatics designed...
The 19th Century.
So, semi-automatics are 19th century technology too, 44 AMP.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"not necessarily a statement meant to be challenged or an invite to be disproven…"
And yet you posted it at TFL? Land of the challenge to disprove?
You'll learn quickly enough.
And yet you posted it at TFL? Land of the challenge to disprove?
You'll learn quickly enough.
Edward429451
Moderator
For awhile there I thought I was a semi auto guy, but when I took stock of my hand gun collection I seen revolvers clearly dominate the numbers. In fact, the only semi auto handguns I own are a Colt 45 and a Ruger MKII.
Revolvers have the edge over semis in so many ways. Reliability is a given. In over 30 years of reloading, I never have loaded a dud revolver round. Someone mentioned that semis have a capacity edge, and to that I say that revolvers have the horsepower edge! It is a fair trade off, the round count for sheer horsepower. Especially in single action revolvers. You get so much gun for the size that it is phenomenal.
Revolvers have the edge over semis in so many ways. Reliability is a given. In over 30 years of reloading, I never have loaded a dud revolver round. Someone mentioned that semis have a capacity edge, and to that I say that revolvers have the horsepower edge! It is a fair trade off, the round count for sheer horsepower. Especially in single action revolvers. You get so much gun for the size that it is phenomenal.
Since the revolver versus semi-auto debate really comes down to the issue of reliability in defense situations, how nice would it be to have a study of police gunfights/shootings which included whether or not there was a weapon malfunction. Of course any comparative study would be non-experimental since there are so many factors involved. However, I think if you narrowed it down to similar variables, we could get at least some empirical evidence as to the functional performance of either handgun type. For example, if you could find incident data on the police revolver from say 1970 to 1990, and then autoloader from 1990 to present, you could then determine the number malfunctions per certain amount of gunfights. Maybe some sort of sampling method could be used if someone was motivated to conduct such as study. Probably not, since it is a moot point now for law enforcement. It's just wishful thinking on my part.
My hypothesis is that there is a higher number of malfunctions involving autoloaders in police shooting incidents. Wish I could prove or disprove it.
My hypothesis is that there is a higher number of malfunctions involving autoloaders in police shooting incidents. Wish I could prove or disprove it.
Well, I'm kind of glad most of the homeboys use autoloaders. Why? We've all heard/read about one of them being captured or gunned down when his handgun jammed. Poor maintenance or lubrication? Bad ammo? Gun won't shoot reliably when held sideways? May all of their guns jam before they shoot more bystanders, especially kids.
Chuck
Chuck