Model12Win
Moderator
I like revolvers. I need one now.
Reliability Spells Revolver!
- Thread starter Skeets
- Start date
Revolvers vs Semiautomatics
It is interesting to note how long it took so many LE departments to transition from revolvers to semiautomatic sidearms, the N.Y.C.P.D. is a good example, finally transitioning to Glocks as the mainstay sidearm.
The main difference between revolvers and semiautomatic pistol lies in critical functions, the revolver does not have as many potential critical issues, there is much less margin for error in a revolver as there is in a semiautomatic, you will probably fire 6 shots before you encounter major issues with a revolver.
With a semiautomatic every time you fire, there are major events occuring, although you may not ever experience trouble, there is a greater potential for trouble as more critical events occur.
A revolver has a more passive action as compared to a semiautomatic that has a more dynamic action, a semiautomatic relies more on the proper functioning of ammunition in order to funtion, if you encounter a dud round in a revolver, you can pull the trigger again,
With a semiautomatic, you have to clear the dud in order to chamber a fresh round.
A revolver has 5-6 chambers, or 7 in some S&W revolvers, this gives a mathematical edge to revolvers, a passive device is inherently more reliable in nature due to its design being more reliant on passive mechanical mechanisms.
While after tallying, all things being equal, both revolvers and semiautomatics are both reliable, some models being more durable or reliable due to design and materials of manufacture.
I have always been partial to S&W or Ruger revolvers as opposed to Taurus which are often problematic, Colt revolvers are great but not as sturdy by comparison.
The 1911 and clones or copies are great and offshoots by S&W etc have had certain design weaknesses eliminated, the link and internal extractor.
Glock having such uniformity of manufacture as to have eliminated most design problems inherent in the design of semiautomatics.
It is interesting to note how long it took so many LE departments to transition from revolvers to semiautomatic sidearms, the N.Y.C.P.D. is a good example, finally transitioning to Glocks as the mainstay sidearm.
The main difference between revolvers and semiautomatic pistol lies in critical functions, the revolver does not have as many potential critical issues, there is much less margin for error in a revolver as there is in a semiautomatic, you will probably fire 6 shots before you encounter major issues with a revolver.
With a semiautomatic every time you fire, there are major events occuring, although you may not ever experience trouble, there is a greater potential for trouble as more critical events occur.
A revolver has a more passive action as compared to a semiautomatic that has a more dynamic action, a semiautomatic relies more on the proper functioning of ammunition in order to funtion, if you encounter a dud round in a revolver, you can pull the trigger again,
With a semiautomatic, you have to clear the dud in order to chamber a fresh round.
A revolver has 5-6 chambers, or 7 in some S&W revolvers, this gives a mathematical edge to revolvers, a passive device is inherently more reliable in nature due to its design being more reliant on passive mechanical mechanisms.
While after tallying, all things being equal, both revolvers and semiautomatics are both reliable, some models being more durable or reliable due to design and materials of manufacture.
I have always been partial to S&W or Ruger revolvers as opposed to Taurus which are often problematic, Colt revolvers are great but not as sturdy by comparison.
The 1911 and clones or copies are great and offshoots by S&W etc have had certain design weaknesses eliminated, the link and internal extractor.
Glock having such uniformity of manufacture as to have eliminated most design problems inherent in the design of semiautomatics.
Last edited:
Revolvers
Revolvers, S&W for instance, that is to say, properly designed revolvers, do not have what I would consider to be "Reliability Issues" I do not consider parts breaking or user induced failures to have anything to do with reliability per say.
Revolvers are reliable, but like any other machine, the parts they are composed of can break or fail.
Revolvers, S&W for instance, that is to say, properly designed revolvers, do not have what I would consider to be "Reliability Issues" I do not consider parts breaking or user induced failures to have anything to do with reliability per say.
Revolvers are reliable, but like any other machine, the parts they are composed of can break or fail.
Most people dont drive their cars like they "can" be driven. When you do drive them like that, you tend to find their weak points.
If you shoot any of them long and hard enough, sooner or later, youre going to find out their weak points. The glaring difference between the two when you do is, the revolvers are usually DRT when something goes wrong, and require time and often outside help to get them back in the game. Autos, not so much. Most problems can be resolved with a TRB.
Oh, I dont know. A good many of the horses in the WWII pics Ive seen, were dead on the ground, while the "machines" were driving past.
If you shoot a revolver long enough, and especially if youre shooting one realistically, youll get to experience all sorts of ugly things. Those "things" will give you a whole new outlook on revolvers too.
Doc Holliday 1950
New member
Hi Skeets,
How are you doing?
As to your question, the only semi I ever owned was the Taurus Millennium .
It jammed every once in awhile and then I got good old "Uncle Arthuritice".
I switched back to what I learned on, a 357 mag, and only problem was with certain foreign Ammo.
Since then, never had a misfire with American Ammo and since I'm semi retired I shoot 2 to 3 times/month firing 100 to 200 rounds every time.
Of course I don't just use one 357. I rotate my 357's. Trust is a very subjective concept. If you really trust something then usually it's going to be very reliable.
If you have even the smallest doubt, that could put you in a bad situation.
So, I trust my 357's 100%.
Hope this helps you on this "DEAD HORSE ISSUE".
Your friend,
Doc
How are you doing?
As to your question, the only semi I ever owned was the Taurus Millennium .
It jammed every once in awhile and then I got good old "Uncle Arthuritice".
I switched back to what I learned on, a 357 mag, and only problem was with certain foreign Ammo.
Since then, never had a misfire with American Ammo and since I'm semi retired I shoot 2 to 3 times/month firing 100 to 200 rounds every time.
Of course I don't just use one 357. I rotate my 357's. Trust is a very subjective concept. If you really trust something then usually it's going to be very reliable.
If you have even the smallest doubt, that could put you in a bad situation.
So, I trust my 357's 100%.
Hope this helps you on this "DEAD HORSE ISSUE".
Your friend,
Doc
I'm at "twilight time" now, but I was a gunsmith for quite a few years, and have had both autos and revolvers come across my bench for repair. I learned a lot about what seemed to be good and what didn't. I've shot many types of guns, and given my personal (as in "me, myself and I") experiences, I will still take that Smith 10 revolver over an auto in a last ditch situation.
I have lots of autos, and I truly enjoy shooting them, building them (1911s), working on them, fixing them, and many are first class, highly reliable weapons; Many are not (historical types).
But, as I said, "Make mine Smith."
Cheapshooter
New member
Except when it doesn't!
Like when there is a primer that protrudes from thecase.
Some sort of debris gets in the cylinder gap.
An ejector rod gets bent.
Or the shooter "short strokes" the trigger not letting it fully reset.
You know, I see this repeated again and again, but having shot, owned, and had issues with both types of gun, I've only once had a revolver be "DRT" and that was from a broken firing pin which could afflict a semi-auto just as easily. In my experience, a revolver will usually give advance warning before going "DRT" and, so long as you stop and investigate the issue, you can usually head things off before you get to the point of "DRT".
For example, one of the more common revolver issues is a backed-out extractor rod. I've experienced this before, but I always noticed that the cylinder was getting a bit sticky to open and retightened the ejector before it got to the point of locking up the gun. Likewise, the dreaded gunk under the extractor has, in my experience, always provided the advance warning of a rough and heavy trigger pull before it seized the action. Also, neither of these issues, in my experience, has progressed quickly enough to prevent me from firing all the ammunition in the gun.
Conversely, autos can experience "DRT" malfunctions as well. I once had an out-of-spec cartridge jam in the chamber of my CZ-75 so tightly that I had to disassemble the gun to remove it (a nerve-racing procedure with a live round in the chamber). I've seen firing pins break, worn mag catches that would release the magazine with every shot, and recoil spring/guide rods go sailing downrange. In my experience, a "DRT" failure is usually a broken or severely worn part and a semi-auto is no less susceptible to that than a revolver.
I will say this, while I've experienced problems with both, I've had much more frequent problems with semi-autos than revolvers. Now, to be fair most were ammo or magazine related, but good magazines and ammo aren't always easy to get or particularly affordable. For example, try finding anything besides a Triple K magazine for a Beretta Model 70s at anything less than scalper's prices. Likewise, if the ammo shortages of 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 taught us anything it's that you can't count on your chosen ammo always being available.
Now please don't misunderstand me, I don't think that modern semi-autos are particularly unreliable. I own several that have displayed excellent reliability so long as they're fed good ammo from good magazines and, so long as I stay within those parameters, I can and often do trust my life to them. I am, however, aware of their limitations and take precautions to have multiple good magazines and a decent stock of good ammo on hand should those become unavailable. Also, in the event that ammo/magazine selection becomes severely limited, it is comforting to know that I have my revolvers to fall back on since they are much more tolerant of such a situation.
turkeestalker
New member
You meant it gives a mathematical edge to semi-auto pistols right?
I'm a wheelgun guy, always have been and always will be.
Though I won't say that pistols can't be made to go bang ever time the trigger is pulled the same as a revolver, either can malfunction, but I will say that a revolver seems a bit more idiot proof. That said, just making it go bang isn't worth much without proficiency with contacting what you're banging at.
Use what works for you and let the next guy do the same.
Not always. A couple of months back, I had a bullet jump its crimp in my S&W model 28, and that was that, until I fished the hammer and drift out of my box and pounded it back. Until that was done, the gun was DRT, and the cylinder could not be opened.
Ive had poorly constructed rounds in autos caused stoppages as well, but they were cleared in the moment and without tools.
I also had the cylinder fall off the gun with a model 29, when the side plate screw that held the cylinder in place backed out and left the gun, as did the cylinder when it was opened for the reload.
As long as youre aware of the issues with the revolvers, you can usually head off most of the issues. But if you dont know to LocTite a few things, werent taught to reload the gun properly, check your ammo for issues, etc, youre chances of trouble go up a good bit.
Autos arent really much different, its just they usually arent usually DRT, nor do they normally require tools to get them back into action.
Regardless what you choose, you need to understand what might could go wrong, and address anything before hand if need be, and/or try and replicate the problems in practice, so you can deal with them. Assuming its possible to do so, in the moment.
I've had rounds jump crimp in my S&W 629 before too (had one of the slightly shorter cases from Hornady LeverEvolution ammo sneak into my brass and miss getting crimped) but I found a way to clear it relatively easily. If you pull the hammer back just far enough for the cylinder stop to drop down into the frame, you can rotate the cylinder backward to the point that it can be opened and the offending round ejected.
They usually can be, but not always as was the case with my CZ. Not only did the offending round cause so much trouble, but it was a round of factory ammo (albeit cheapo Silver Bear ammo that I've never bought again since).
Now, to be fair, you could have just picked up the cylinder, loaded it, put it back on the gun, and closed the action and the gun would have likely worked
Now the same could be said of semi-autos too. For example, if you don't know that chambering and rechambering the same round over and over again as you load and unload your gun is a bad idea, you could run into some very serious problems that can't be fixed with or without tools.
Pretty much anything with moving parts will eventually stop working if it doesn't receive some basic maintenance. Honestly, I find the possibility of a "DRT" failure to be a more convincing argument for a BUG than for one action type over another.
This I agree with 100%. It's important to educate yourself about your chosen handgun and its basic maintenance/routine repairs regardless of what type of gun you choose.
Quote: "You just have not shot them enough."
Agreed, especially with the "lightweight" 5-holers. In just the past year alone, I have had cylinders fail to turn to chamber number 5 due to bullets "slipping the crimp." Not at all uncommon with Smith and Wessons 15 ounces and under. And just last month with Ruger LCR in 9mm.
Agreed, especially with the "lightweight" 5-holers. In just the past year alone, I have had cylinders fail to turn to chamber number 5 due to bullets "slipping the crimp." Not at all uncommon with Smith and Wessons 15 ounces and under. And just last month with Ruger LCR in 9mm.
If the round jumps on the starboard side of the frame, the cylinder is not coming open until you drive the bullet back into the case. Take a loose bullet and a fired case and give it a try, you'll see what Im referring to.
Youre probably right, it most likely would have, but its not a real awe-inspiring thing. Best to find out about it at the range too, if you have to fnd out about it at all.Now, to be fair, you could have just picked up the cylinder, loaded it, put it back on the gun, and closed the action and the gun would have likely worked
If I didn't think my revolvers were "reliable enough" to stake my life upon the ones I own (and the lives of others), I wouldn't be carrying them.
The same can be said for the pistols I own and use.
Both benefit from occasional owner inspection to make sure nothing untoward is happening to them, and both work best when good quality ammunition is used. Any ammunition warnings made by a gun manufacturer ought to be carefully considered, too.
This is all pretty much common sense.
Now, when it comes to shotguns and AR's? My experience as a firearms instructor and armorer are still called upon frequently enough to make me consider them reliable, but to also remember that nothing made by people, and used by people, especially under difficult conditions (nothing mechanical likes sand) is completely foolproof.
I favor both revolvers and pistols. I own and use both.
If I were to return to full-time/active uniform duty tomorrow, and was told I'd be carrying a revolver, I'd not lose any sleep over it. I'd hope that it could be one of the 8-shot .357 Magnum S&W 627 Scandium-framed wheelies. Decent caliber and capacity. Light weight. A bit bulky, perhaps, but have you looked at LE equipment belts nowadays? You know, the things we used to call gun belts, back in the day?
As it is, I only do some occasional reserve duties, and while I could choose to carry my own duty weapon from a generous list of approved makes/models/calibers, I just asked them to give me one of whatever was most available in the new inventory last summer. The 9's & .45's were going like hot cakes among the regulars, and the .45's were the hot choice for the reserves ... so I told them to just give me a .40 (we had plenty of them available) and call it a day. No biggie.
I'd hope that someone thinking to choose between a modern pistol or a revolver for a dedicated defensive weapon, would give at least as much serious thought to their own skillset, knowledge and experience as they do the equipment.
The same can be said for the pistols I own and use.
Both benefit from occasional owner inspection to make sure nothing untoward is happening to them, and both work best when good quality ammunition is used. Any ammunition warnings made by a gun manufacturer ought to be carefully considered, too.
This is all pretty much common sense.
Now, when it comes to shotguns and AR's? My experience as a firearms instructor and armorer are still called upon frequently enough to make me consider them reliable, but to also remember that nothing made by people, and used by people, especially under difficult conditions (nothing mechanical likes sand) is completely foolproof.
I favor both revolvers and pistols. I own and use both.
If I were to return to full-time/active uniform duty tomorrow, and was told I'd be carrying a revolver, I'd not lose any sleep over it. I'd hope that it could be one of the 8-shot .357 Magnum S&W 627 Scandium-framed wheelies. Decent caliber and capacity. Light weight. A bit bulky, perhaps, but have you looked at LE equipment belts nowadays? You know, the things we used to call gun belts, back in the day?
As it is, I only do some occasional reserve duties, and while I could choose to carry my own duty weapon from a generous list of approved makes/models/calibers, I just asked them to give me one of whatever was most available in the new inventory last summer. The 9's & .45's were going like hot cakes among the regulars, and the .45's were the hot choice for the reserves ... so I told them to just give me a .40 (we had plenty of them available) and call it a day. No biggie.
I'd hope that someone thinking to choose between a modern pistol or a revolver for a dedicated defensive weapon, would give at least as much serious thought to their own skillset, knowledge and experience as they do the equipment.
I don't have any concern over the reliability of either type of handgun itself. My thought has always been having to use the firearm in a self defense situation in less than ideal circumstances. Having to fire weak handed, quickly, or from an awkward position would seem to favor the revolver, not having to worry about limp wristing.