S&W Revolver vs 1911 - Sand and Swamp Use

J

Jackal11

Inactive
What has been your experience with handgun reliability in sand and swamp muck?

Specifically comparing a S&W revolver to a 1911:
1) Reliability: Would you think the revolver or the 1911 would be more reliable in a tropical jungle, mud swamps and saltwater mangrove sand islands while amidst rain and sand storms?
2) Field Cleaning: Which is easier to field clean in a swamp puddle?

The informal 'Sand Experiment' says the 1911 was reliable in sand whereas some of the commenters said revolvers are not...

Sand Trial #1:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457569&highlight=beach

Sand Trial #2:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=459877&highlight=beach


My thought is it kind of comes down to comparing the likelihood of getting grit in the semiauto magazine to the likelihood of getting grit in a revolvers clockwork jamming it up, vs which is easier to clean in a small swamp puddle.

Thank you for your thoughts and experience.
 
1911, not even close, and modern semi's are better than the 1911. This was a big part of why the military chose semi's over revolvers over 100 years ago. For LE or home defense use where guns are kept reasonably clean there is a lot to be said for a revolvers reliability. At least for the 1st cylinder. But for harsh, gritty dirty duty semis are more rugged and reliable.

If you go back 50+ years there was the idea that semi's were less reliable, but this was more ammo related than firearm related. Reliable ammo that functions in a semi hasn't been a problem in a very long time.

Revolvers, particularly S&W, have a lot of small parts with close tolerances that must be pretty clean to work. Plus many of the moving parts are outside the gun exposed to the dirt and susceptible if the gun is dropped.

Virtually all of the semi's moving parts are enclosed and better protected. Especially striker fired guns with no exposed hammer. And in the event something does tie up a semi they are a lot easier to break down, clean and get back up and running.
 
Changing the revolver to something like a Ruger gp100 may change the equation.

But changing the semi auto to some modern polymer pistol would also change things.

I like wheel guns for field work.

No mags to loose, etc.
 
1911’s have been through the mud, grit, and grime of 2 major wars. A time and war tested design. I’d trust it over any revolver I can think of.
 
First point, EVERYTHING jams when abused.

Including the 1911A1.

Next point, the Myth that the 1911 is capable of working under all conditions. It is not.

I have read several first person accounts from WWII where it is clearly stated their .45 jammed. It happens. The 1911 got its reputation for working not because it never jammed, but because it could be counted on to jam less often than the guns it faced.

unfortunately, over time, this fact has become legend, and legend has become myth, and the myth isn't in line with reality.

here's another point to consider, individual guns and gunk. That "test" pistol you jam in the mud then rinse off (not clean, rinse off) in a swamp puddle and it returns to firing capability is a single example. The very next gun of the same make and model, given the "same" treatment might not behave the same way.

No question the 1911 has the reputation and is preferred over the revolver for surviving abuse and staying in working order, but that' s not a guarantee that the gun in your hands will do the same thing.

This was a big part of why the military chose semi's over revolvers over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, since at the time when we decided our next pistol would be a semi auto, the military had about zero field experience with them. They didn't KNOW a semi would be better under harsh field conditions. If a semi worked at least as well as a revolver, that would have been enough.

But for harsh, gritty dirty duty semis are more rugged and reliable.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Luger?? :rolleyes:

SOME semi auto designs are rugged and reliable under harsh duty conditions. Others are ...less so...:D
 
If it’s a loose and rattling 1911, all day. Otherwise, I’ll stick with my Smith. But I also hunt with a 629. I highly doubt you’ll see someone in the woods/swamps carrying a Nighthawk but a Rock Island on the other hand.
 
Ive gone into a couple of muddy rivers wearing a 1911 while canoeing/kayaking. Everything that wasnt bagged had a lot of crap in it, including the gun.

The one time, I flushed it out in a side stream that was running a bit clearer when we stopped to eat, and then later that night, field stripped it and flushed it out with clean water, shook out what I could and gave the parts I couldnt dry a shot of WD40, and relubed and reassembled the gun.

I never shot the gun during the trip, but it always seemed fine after I flushed/cleaned it, and I always just cleaned the gun real well when I got home after the trip.

Prior to those initial flushes, you could feel grit in the gun when you worked the slide and the one time I had to wait until we camped and cleaned/flushed it, you could really see a lot of crap come out when first flushed.

I know I wouldnt want to have to deal with that with a revolver. Not saying the gun wouldnt work, but its just a lot harder to deal with things, especially in the field.

Id probably do the same drill, flush it as well as I could and then spray the insides with WD40 until I could clean it properly. I think "most" of the autos are just a lot easier in that respect.
 
I own more smith and wesson revolvers than anything in my gun collection. With that said id have to pick a 1911 due to the ease of disassembly without tools. However, I’d rather have my P320 than any 1911.
 
If it’s a loose and rattling 1911, all day. Otherwise, I’ll stick with my Smith. But I also hunt with a 629. I highly doubt you’ll see someone in the woods/swamps carrying a Nighthawk but a Rock Island on the other hand.
Click to expand...

There's nothing loose and rattly about a Rock Island.
 
You all are being very helpful, thank you!

AK that is a perfect example.

Hawg, I think mxsailor was simply trying to convey two different thoughts: (1) a rattly looser toleranced 1911 will handle the muck better, and (2) most people leave their fancy custom handguns at home and take the more affordable one into the field.
 
The late Jeff Cooper in his book Another Country, describes an expedition he embarked on down the Rio Balsas River in Mexico. One of his comrades took along a 38-44 Smith and Wesson Outdoorsman. Cooper brought his 38 Super 1911.

Cooper explains that they wore their pistols all the time because of the inherent dangers of the region and that they frequently stumbled and got soaked in the river. Cooper says:

I learned then one of the distinct advantages of a well made self loading pistol over a revolver. Every evening when we made camp I would examine Barney's Outdoorsman to see if it would operate. Most of the time it would not, because small particles of grit and mud in the action would hold everything up. Therefore almost every day I had the additional chore of stripping that revolver right down to its component parts, washing everything off, cleaning and assembling it. My old Super 38, by contrast, could be pretty well counted on simply to drip dry. I fired it seventy-four times on that expedition without a single malfunction.
 
Hawg said:
If it’s a loose and rattling 1911, all day. Otherwise, I’ll stick with my Smith. But I also hunt with a 629. I highly doubt you’ll see someone in the woods/swamps carrying a Nighthawk but a Rock Island on the other hand.
Click to expand...
There's nothing loose and rattly about a Rock Island.
Click to expand...
Probably not compared to a USGI surplus mixmaster, but compared to a semi-custom pistol pistol like a Nighthawk?

Remember that the ability to function when dirty was part of the selection process when the Ordnance Department first adopted the M1911.

http://sightm1911.com/1911-History.htm

Browning was determined to prove the superiority of its handgun, so he went to Hartford to personally supervise the production of the gun. There he met Fred Moore, a young Colt employee with whom he worked in close cooperation trying to make sure that each part that was produced for the test guns was simply the best possible. The guns produced were submitted again for evaluation to the committee. A torture test was conducted on March 3rd, 1911. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted.
Click to expand...
 
There's nothing loose and rattly about a Rock Island.
Click to expand...


Probably not compared to a USGI surplus mixmaster, but compared to a semi-custom pistol pistol like a Nighthawk?

Remember that the ability to function when dirty was part of the selection process when the Ordnance Department first adopted the M1911.
Click to expand...

there was nothing loose and rattly about the USGI "Mixmaster" guns either, when they were new....

Few people have had the opportunity to examine a "like new" condition 1911 from the WW I era. I have (though no firing). They were not sloppy and loose, they didn't rattle. And the "survive abuse and keeps working" was with guns which had their original (GI spec) tolerances. The same ones Colt used until the design changes of the 70s & 80s, and most of them weren't changed, even then.

The last bulk purchase of 1911A1s by the Govt was 1945 shortly before the end of WWII and that's 75 years ago now...

Some of them literally saw daily carry from the time they entered service until the 80s when we retired them for the 9mm.

Leaving aside the wear and tear of actual combat, multiple generations of GIs literally carried the same guns for decades. Think about that. How many times do you think those guns were cycled, dry fired, stripped and reassembled, etc, in the over 50 years some of them were on active duty???

In the mid 70s I personally saw 3 actual 1911s, NOT 1911A1s in service in the arms rooms I supported. If I saw 3 there were more...(I only looked at 2 Army divisions guns..)

There's no GI spec on "rattle", only an serviceability.

It was an article of faith, as well as observed reality that when custom smiths began "tightening up" 1911A1s for target grade accuracy, some reliability was lost.

There is no free lunch.
 
44 AMP said:
there was nothing loose and rattly about the USGI "Mixmaster" guns either, when they were new....
Click to expand...
Well, strictly speaking they weren't mixmasters when they were new.

THe Ordnance Department and Springfield Armory came up with tolerances to ensure that mass-produced parts would all fit together and make functional firearms. My understanding is that the creation of the blueprints was done entirely by Springfield Armory; I don't know if Colt and/or John Browning was/were involved at all.

Let's just look at the slide-to-frame fit. The frame rail width is specified as .751-.003 inches, and the grooves are specified at .628-.003 inches. Going to the slide drawing, the corresponding dimensions are .753+.006 and .629+.005.

So a new M1911A1 could (theoretically) have a slide-to-frame fit of .002 at the frame rails and .001 at the frame groove. That would be a pretty tight firearm, by anyone's standards. BUT ... the fit could also be as loose as .011 at the frame rails and .009 at the groove, and still be within tolerances. That's pretty loose by anyone's standards.

It was an article of faith, as well as observed reality that when custom smiths began "tightening up" 1911A1s for target grade accuracy, some reliability was lost.
Click to expand...
Understood and accepted. In order to function with sand in the works, the works have to have spaces bigger than the grains of sand.
 
My Colt Custom Carry Commander - a special run Colt produced back in 1998 - 2000, rattles when you shake it.
The thing is as accurate as can be.

I was - surprised - since I always equated a loose fit as not being capable of producing precision accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top