Pistol reliability

The Guy of South America,
My load is only recommended for Ruger revolvers and Thomson Contenders because it is based on the higher pressure loads that were initially released by SAAMI for the original large frame Smiths.

The current limit for a 140 grain Sierra JHC bullet is 18.0 grains of H110 with a magnum pistol primer. My load is 0.5 grains below the original maximum loading of 19.6 grains of H110 at 19.1 grains with a magnum primer and a heavy crimp. Using this load in a lesser gun will rattle the side plates loose and possibly twist the frame. I have been using this load in my Ruger Security-Six for 45 years with no detectable wear anywhere. In the three year period that I competed in Hunter's Pistol Silhouette I fired over 30000 rounds in practice and competition. Add to that the extraneous trips plinking and hunting and the 40 or so years since then, the gun has had a lot of rounds through it. It has never seen a gunsmith and is still in time and shoots 1 inch average groups at 25 yards for me. I added sights that I made, and a grip that I bought, to the gun. I found out that plated cases split at the mouth from the crimp but haven't had problems with the brass cases.
I repeat that this load is for Rugers and Thompson Contenders only because it is above the now standard SAAMI pressures
 
Shootist.

Man I have not even the remotest possibility to replicate your load.
I was thinking you used a powder inthe ballpark of VV N330.

Which velocity you get with your load?
 
In the 4" revolver I get 1464 fps average velocity and in the 6 inch I get just under 1500 fps. That is what I used in Hunter's Pistol so I didn't have to hold over out to 100 yards or make sight adjustments.
 
Wow.
That is an 666 ft-lbs pill. Just rigth out the number of the Antichrist according to the Bible (which is true).

I get a meager 1000 fps for my 148 Wadcutter just short of halfof your energy.
 
There is more than enough energy to kill a deer with a heart/lung shot out to 75 yards but I have never taken a deer with it much beyond 50 yards. Like Jim Bowie's knife its a bit of heaven or hell depending on how it is used.
I have never felt "under gunned" when carrying it. If I lived in grizzly country I would have a 44 magnum or a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt. but for the area I live in and have back-packed in the 357 is just fine.
 
Here you can't hunt game with a rimfire - only pests. Deer get pretty big - not unusual to see Mule deer close to 300 pounds. Elk are the largest native deer that I have hunted and they are normally near 500 pounds. (Mature Males - the females are noticeably smaller)
Black bear are normally from 300 to 400 pounds but can get to be slightly over 500 pounds. The black bears, on the Olympic peninsula, are always larger due, at least in part, to their diet and the nearly unbounded area in which they live. In the rest of Washington state their size is limited because of the stress from living in close proximity to mankind and the encroachment of our population into their habitat. In some rural areas it is common to see them in the back yard or on the highway.
 
question

110 posts of arguing and techno-geek jargon and I still have no idea which pistol is the most reliable.
Click to expand...

And you are not going to get that answer......your question is way too general. If you want to know what are the most reliable pistols that I have used....that I can tell you....a Colt 1911 Gold Cup Series 80. (99.999875% reliable) and a Russian Makarov (100%).
That is the best kind of answer you can expect - answers based on personal experience.
The definitive answer to your question would require experience with every pistol ever made.
 
darkgael said:
And you are not going to get that answer......your question is way too general. If you want to know what are the most reliable pistols that I have used....that I can tell you....a Colt 1911 Gold Cup Series 80. (99.999875% reliable) and a Russian Makarov (100%).
That is the best kind of answer you can expect - answers based on personal experience.
The definitive answer to your question would require experience with every pistol ever made.
Click to expand...

I never asked the question to which I already know that there is no answer. I was just being sarcastic.
 
I wonder...

If the Makarov is so superior reliable as in most posts is stated then why that pistol is not copied by US or European manufacturers.

I once had a chance to have an Baikal Margo made in Russia in 22 lr but wasnt that much impressed of the gun. But it was way superior to the plastik Sig Mosquito.
 
In reality a pistol will alkways be more prone to jam than a revolver.
Click to expand...

I agree.
But in my experience, most autopistol "jams" can be reduced with the bare hands and the pistol returned to service. If a revolver malfunctions, tools are likelier to be required, even if only a toothbrush to clean out from under the extractor.
 
Went to the range today with a gun that had run perfectly for thirteen years!
I can't claim 100%, as it had failed to feed twice in the first 200 rounds, but not since . . . maybe 2000 rounds?
I had a failure to extract that required a squib rod and a large rock to clear, then had a failure to feed about ten rounds later.
But, the gun is now 100% . . . for twenty rounds.
 
Quote:
In reality a pistol will alkways be more prone to jam than a revolver.

I agree.
But in my experience, most autopistol "jams" can be reduced with the bare hands and the pistol returned to service. If a revolver malfunctions, tools are likelier to be required, even if only a toothbrush to clean out from under the extractor.
Click to expand...

I agree too; especially with Jim Watson's admonition. Before retiring, for 26 years I fired revolvers and, later, semi-autos in required bi-annual re-qualification courses of fire. For the first decade or so, I qualified with Smith & Wesson K-frame revolvers. After my agency transitioned to autos, I qualified with a "Third Generation" Smith & Wesson Model 6906. Over those many years, I experienced only one occasion when a handgun malfunctioned and that was with a Smith Model 13 revolver. The cylinder became harder and harder to turn in da pulls until it became impossible. As I'm sure Mr. Watson has guessed by now, it turns out that flecks of powder had gotten under the extractor, tying the revolver up. And no fast and practiced clearing drills was going to fix the problem-tooth brushes are hard to acquire quickly :).

But all that conceded, I would still make the argument that, everything else being equal, nothing beats a revolver for complete reliability for those first series of shots. No compressed magazine springs and the condition of magazine lips and followers to worry about; the ability to fire different ammunition/bullet types with impunity and the simple pull of a trigger moving a recalcitrant round away from the chamber and a new one rotated into its place, makes a revolver a weapon you can trust with your life.
Click to expand...
 
Unreliable auto pistol...

I started buying and shooting handguns for fun in 1971 when I got out of the Army...I have had MANY and varied auto loading pistols and revolvers since then. The ONLY pistol I can recall that was so un-reliable that I would not recommend buying one was the Beretta M21 .22 LR pocket pistol...I bought 3 of them at various times hoping to find one that worked regularly, but I could not.

If I needed to name a most reliable pistol, I would say my various Government Models, and BHP's, but also my OTHER Berettas, M92, the Panther .380 and even the Beretta .25 ACP I still have somewhere...and my Stoeger Cougar, a semi-Beretta. My pocket pistols are both S&W Bodyguard .380's, and both are flawless shooters.
I can't comment on reliability of the Clock, because I'm not fond of plastic.
 
. . . .Basically put an John Moses Browning-Petterson or Walther style breech System in the pistol and the Thing is combat proven reliable. Bugs have since 1900 all ironed out for self loader pistols (nor turning bolt pistols, nor gas operated nor Luger-toggle , nor blow back System based semiauto pistols have made it to the modern market due to inherent unreliability for various reasons).

Only John Moses Browning-Petterson or Walther style breech System has made it.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with this a bit. I'm thinking there's enough time passed and rounds downrange fired that if we exclude the monsterously badly engineered and executed Colt AA 2000, the rotating barrel system is a third approach that has proven ultra reliable since the dawn of automatic pistols.

Family tree starts with JMB's never produced 1897 rotating bolt pistol. Savage 1907 was next, Steyr Hahn 1912 the first on a battlefield. CZ24 was rotating barrel too, but only in .380.

Leaping past the wretched Colt AA, Beretta has fielded two series of rotating barrel pistols for decades now, the Cougar 8000, 8040, and 8045 and the PX4 in 9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP. There is also that contemporary GP series of pistols from Slovakia.

Have rotating barrel pistols been all time market leaders? No. However, the concept has proven to be extraordinarily reliable when properly designed and made. My PX49G has been every bit the equal in reliability to any Beretta 92, CZ 75/85, or any striker gun I've ever had. It also has the advantage of no barrel tilting through use of its cam block, a trait it shares with the 92 and that pistol's oscillating locking block. This means the PX4 features direct feeding, with a very minimalist feed ramp, and straight back extraction.

If one is worried about the PX4 needing a constantly lubed cam tooth/barrel interface, Beretta sells a DLC coated cam block to address that fear
 
I have a lot of auto pistols and some of them have malfunctioned at times. The one I have owned the longest is my Russian Makarov that I bought brand-new in the late 1980's. I don't believe that it has ever malfunctioned, and I used to shoot it quite often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top