Is the revolver inherently more reliable than the modern semi?

[snubnose]

At the risk of driving those here with trichinellosis over the edge I present the following for intelligent discussion-

www.luckygunner.com/lounge/magazine-springs-and-ammo-cycling/

www.personaldefenseworld.com/2012/10/revolver-vs-auto/#ra_07_phatchfinal-2

When all is said and done is there a compelling reason to select one over the other-or perhaps another way, when all was said and done why did you select one over the other?

If permitted-I welcome all mutant subtopics, especially caliber/brand postings IF you can back up your posts with facts.

As for me, when I had to carry Gaston had not yet begun to work his magic; the wheel was IT so naturally it was what I/we learned on, depended on and became comfortable with.

Function over form or form over function?

I'll try to get the link fixed

 

[thormx538]

Revolvers probably are more reliable.

They can be fired with the muzzle pressed hard up against something (striker fired guns cannot, for example), no magazine issues to worry about. Simpler mechanically which means fewer failure points.

Semi-autos offer obvious advantages though -- size/shape, capacity and ease of reloading, sights, split times, ammunition choices, etc...

 

[kalash]

Revolvers can and do malfunction, however rarely, and when that happens you're stuck with a paperweight. A semi-auto may malfunction more frequently but it is far easier to address the problem and get back in the fight. Also, properly maintained modern semi-autos don't really malfunction - I've put thousands of rounds through my Glock 19 without issue, and who knows how many rounds this ~22 year old gun had seen before I bought it.

For tiny guns, I prefer revolvers, mainly because I hate the tiny controls that come with tiny semi-autos. For anything bigger than a pocket gun, I will pick semi-auto every time, primarily due to capacity.

 

[tk421991]

Revolvers were more reliable than semi autos for a very long time, as in pre-Glock, pre-Beretta 92. If you read some stuff from the WW1 era, guys who wanted reliability and stopping power would go with a .45 or .455 caliber revolver. Jeff Cooper went into combat with a .45 Colt SAA because he listened to the gun trainers of his day in 1941 and promptly dumped it upon making contact with the Japs.

When something goes wrong with a revolver, it's worse than with a semi auto, i.e. if for some reason the cylinder isn't lined up right and the gun can fire. The cylinder is the basis of the revolver. You can do your own research into this on revolver forums like the S&W forum (it's blue) or say a Ruger forum or a C&R forum.

Revolvers were the Glocks or Beretta 92s of their day - intermediate 9mm caliber (a .38 is .357", a 9x19 is .355"). They didn't have safeties until recently and the modern safeties aren't the same concept as a semi auto's thumb safety since they require a key. SA/DA revolvers also had the DA trigger pull versus a SAO trigger pull with a 1911 or a BHP.

Each has their own merits and shoot and buy the ones you like.

 

[snubnose]

https://us.glock.com/documents/gun_maintenance.pdf

magazine cleaning/maint, -yearly- armorer checks?

 

[kalash]

https://us.glock.com/documents/gun_maintenance.pdf

magazine cleaning/maint, -yearly- armorer checks?

It says that's for law enforcement and I guarantee you it's a legal CYA type thing. Revolvers also need to be maintained.

 

[pj150]

Try dry firing the revolver in DA with a hand holding the cylinder. You can't. Probably the biggest downfall there.

 

[Supermoto]

I had a 642 lock up solid because of the lawyer lock. Stupid S&W

 

[MisterHappy]

Dillinger had the (for him ) final word:

http://www.johndillingerhistoricalmuseum.4t.com/custom_1.html

Why do people carry (not counting cops and army guys)? For the extremely remote chance that they'll need it.

Now, in the event that you do need it, what is the chance that when you do, it won't work? Think about it....how often do you have an issue with your carry piece(s), when you're frequently at the range, practicing?


Take the likelihood that you'll need it, and multiply that by the chance that it won't go bang in that instance. Now, you can make an informed decision.


Carry what you have the most confidence in.

 

[highlander]

In my 40+years of owning both revolvers and semi autos only 1 semi auto gave me fits an AMT hardball and they were dogs to begin with.
Revolvers had 3 that had a problem that need factory service or DIY repair,a Colt Anaconda less than 100 rds broken firing pin,S&W 625 strain screw kept coming loose blue loctite to the rescue and a,Ruger SA that the transfer bar broke . In my experience if kept properly maintainted both pistol types are very reliable the question really should be which type for a given situation.

 

[Pilgrim]

They didn't have safeties until recently and the modern safeties aren't the same concept as a semi auto's thumb safety since they require a key.

the keyed lock on a revolver is not a safety, it a storage lock. Some few revolvers have/had grip safeties, very much like the M1911 safeties, eg the S&W safety hammerless models.If I'm not mistaken, some company is still making this style of grip safety revolvers. A couple of SW models are shown here. They were made for many years and came in several calibers.

 

[just jim]

Useually turns to an arguement when it comes to which is better on anything from which gun is better to which way to hold it. Problem is the questions are black and white questions rather than thinking questions. I would have asked in novice hands what is the most reliable auto and what is the most reliable revolver. There are a lot of models of each and some work well and some dont.

Best way to truly find out is go to the gunsmith and ask which models need the most repairs. On a board you will get anecdotal evidence that this is good or bad by each persons expearience and most folkes don't handle a lot of guns. The gunsmith sees every broken piece of crap the makers put out and can tell you the factory service you will get.

Last point is reliability rest heavily on the shooter. If he is a good machine operator that knows what to put in it and how it runs then reliability will be as good as the gun and shooter can be. Everything does break, have a spare.

 

[drgrant]

Douse a revolver in some sand/grit and tell me how well it works after that. A revolver is more reliable in a human mechanics sense, eg, they're immune to limp wristing, and as long as the cylinder can rotate, the gun will fire.. but beyond that.... risitas land.

-Mike

 

[just jim]

Douse a revolver in some sand/grit and tell me how well it works after that. A revolver is more reliable in a human mechanics sense, eg, they're immune to limp wristing, and as long as the cylinder can rotate, the gun will fire.. but beyond that.... risitas land.

-Mike

Chuck Taylor used to write for the magazines and his knowledge and expearience far outweighed most in the business. I remember him doing those test and from what he wrote at the time a good revolver could pass the test. Last of his stuff I read was he picked a Glock to carry as the best gun, knowing his long standing credentials I would think he knows best.

 

[drgrant]

Chuck Taylor used to write for the magazines and his knowledge and expearience far outweighed most in the business. I remember him doing those test and from what he wrote at the time a good revolver could pass the test. Last of his stuff I read was he picked a Glock to carry as the best gun, knowing his long standing credentials I would think he knows best.

Ultimately though for average carry use none of it matters because most of us aren't dousing our guns in sand, admittedly, but it's worth knowing when you're carrying a thing that's like a swiss watch internally.

-Mike

 

[kalash]

Chuck Taylor used to write for the magazines and his knowledge and expearience far outweighed most in the business. I remember him doing those test and from what he wrote at the time a good revolver could pass the test. Last of his stuff I read was he picked a Glock to carry as the best gun, knowing his long standing credentials I would think he knows best.

Well that's the thing, back in the day semi-autos were complicated, finicky, etc. Then Glock came along and changed the game.

 

[just jim]

Ultimately though for average carry use none of it matters because most of us aren't dousing our guns in sand, admittedly, but it's worth knowing when you're carrying a thing that's like a swiss watch internally.

-Mike

Ultimately it is the shooter if both style of guns are of equal manufacture. Just like an automobile you have a machine that needs to be operated by a good operator with good fuel in it and regular maintanence. Just opinion but in good guns it's the operator that causes the jam.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well that's the thing, back in the day semi-autos were complicated, finicky, etc. Then Glock came along and changed the game.

I'd argue that the game was changed long before Glock came along. The milspec M1911a1 was/is a very reliable firearm.

 

[just jim]

Well that's the thing, back in the day semi-autos were complicated, finicky, etc. Then Glock came along and changed the game.

People are far smarter on machinery today. Back when the population was first turning to autos most really didn't understand them. Revolvers were simple in those days and any newbie could run one. Glock came along and put the simple into autos.

 

[tk421991]

Well that's the thing, back in the day semi-autos were complicated, finicky, etc. Then Glock came along and changed the game.

I think it comes down to which semi auto and which revolver we're talking about and when. Semi autos and revolvers co-existed starting in the 1890s. Making generalizations is ok but not when you really want to break this down.

Take four WW2 era pistols, the Luger, the 1911A1, the BHP and the P38. The Luger was sort of an evolutionary dead end and was known to not function well when thrown into dirt or mud or sand, but it kicked off the idea of semi auto military pistols. The 1911A1, in military form, usually gets good praise from people who carried them in WW2, Korea and Vietnam because the looser tolerances made the gun less prone to dust/sand issues. I have talked to a guy who shot 1911s in the 80s and the Gulf War era and he said that the 1911A1s were worn out by then. The BHP is still in military service and they're not known as unreliable. Both the BHP and the 1911 were inspirations for guns like the Tokarev, the wz. 35, the CZ 75, etc.

The P38 is also known for being reliable and the P1 sold into the 80s and was issued into the 80s/90s. It sort of inspired the 92, which I can say is a reliable pistol assuming the slide doesn't crack (92F issue). On the other hand, some WW2 semi autos were crap like the Japanese pistols. I owned two Tokarevs and both weren't reliable enough that I'd trust my life with - granted they were Zastavas and not Soviet but...

The revolvers issued in WW2 were older designs by 1939. The M1895 came out in... 1895 and was technically obsolete due to the Tokarev. Webley MkVIs were also obsolete and were replaced by either the Enfield No. 2 in .38/200 or BHPs or 1911s (Royal Navy 1911s in .455 Webley Auto, RAF, Spec Ops, Paras). Same thing with the Type 26.

I'd argue that the game was changed long before Glock came along. The milspec M1911a1 was/is a very reliable firearm.

What he said.

 

[CaseHardened]

It's too bad no one manufactures a small .32 S&W Revolver anymore.

Prior to WWII they were extremely popular for CC. Then, not.

Somehow everyone became convinced a Moro Tribesman is going to be just around the next corner, and a big honkin' 1911 had best be carried. (They could be right)

Yeah, I know there are small Semi-Autos, etc. There's always the Seecamp.

But if there was a small, modern .32 Revolver, it would be on my list.

 

[Howland]

My personal opinion is that fewer things can go wrong with a revolver - until you go; empty, in the dark, while under fire, with questionable cover, and have to fumble with a speedloader.

Most autos - with proper care and feeding - are very reliable. I'd rather have to change mags in the dark than dump a cylinder full of spent brass and align the cartridges in the speedloader.

 

[just jim]

It's too bad no one manufactures a small .32 S&W Revolver anymore.

Prior to WWII they were extremely popular for CC. Then, not.

Somehow everyone became convinced a Moro Tribesman is going to be just around the next corner, and a big honkin' 1911 had best be carried. (They could be right)

Yeah, I know there are small Semi-Autos, etc. There's always the Seecamp.

But if there was a small, modern .32 Revolver, it would be on my list.

Smith should make their airweight model 37 in 32 short, 32 is an extremely accurate caliber. I have a Hamerli 280 target pistol that shoots 32 that is outstanding.

 

[spt_1955]

Revolvers probably are more reliable.

They can be fired with the muzzle pressed hard up against something (striker fired guns cannot, for example), .....

I have no idea what this means. Striker fired guns cannot be fired with the muzzle hard against something?

 

[MisterHappy]

Some autos, when pressed against something, will push the slide back enough to take it out of battery, and, therefore, not fire.

revolvers don't have that problem (mostly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_revolver)

 

[drgrant]

Well that's the thing, back in the day semi-autos were complicated, finicky, etc. Then Glock came along and changed the game.

Not really though, like Pigrim and others have mentioned, you have guns like the 1911 and the BHP being around, and those were always at least somewhat reliable. I think a lot of people originally avoided autos because they were intimidated by them or they just weren't familiar with them. "Legacy" buying habits and customs etc take a lonnnnnnnng time to die off. The fact that single action revolvers are still being produced today is perfect evidence of this. They don't really have a reason to exist but people have a soft spot for the things and still buy them.

I have no idea what this means. Striker fired guns cannot be fired with the muzzle hard against something?

It's not just striker fired guns but pretty much any auto with a disconnector in it (which is probably the majority outside of some weird ghetto life or really old pieces) that keeps it from firing out of battery. You take the gun out of battery and the gun doesn't fire.

-Mike

 

[kalash]

I'm not sure that the 1911 was (or is) as reliable as a revolver. In terms of just plain running without stoppages or without being cleaned often, I don't consider the 1911 to be especially impressive. Then again, back then they had loose enough tolerances to work well... idk.

 

[Pilgrim]

It's too bad no one manufactures a small .32 S&W Revolver anymore.

.............................

But if there was a small, modern .32 Revolver, it would be on my list.

small lightweight .32mag. Will shoot reg .32 as well.

SW332

sw331

 

[tk421991]

Not really though, like Pigrim and others have mentioned, you have guns like the 1911 and the BHP being around, and those were always at least somewhat reliable. I think a lot of people originally avoided autos because they were intimidated by them or they just weren't familiar with them. "Legacy" buying habits and customs etc take a lonnnnnnnng time to die off. The fact that single action revolvers are still being produced today is perfect evidence of this. They don't really have a reason to exist but people have a soft spot for the things and still buy them.

It's not just striker fired guns but pretty much any auto with a disconnector in it (which is probably the majority outside of some weird ghetto life or really old pieces) that keeps it from firing out of battery. You take the gun out of battery and the gun doesn't fire.

-Mike

I think SAA Colts and other SA revolvers exist because of two things:

1: Colt kept making the SAA until 1941 when they had to switch over to wartime production levels. It came back in 1956. Ruger came out with the Single-Six in 1953. Both guns came out at a time when the movies and TV people (specifically boys) watched was stuff like Gunsmoke, the Lone Ranger, John Wayne, etc. Westerns in TV and movies brought back the SA revolver. Some people do carry SA revolvers as woods guns or out West if you read online but that's talking about one guy out of thousands.

These days if you watch TV or action movies, you have SIGs, Glocks and Berettas. The 70s took the Model 29 and .44 Magnum from being Elmer Keith's gun into being "the most powerful handgun in the world", despite the fact that Harry actually carried a "light special."

2: Cowboy Action Shooting.

I'm not sure that the 1911 was (or is) as reliable as a revolver. In terms of just plain running without stoppages or without being cleaned often, I don't consider the 1911 to be especially impressive. Then again, back then they had loose enough tolerances to work well... idk.

Buy a Browning or FN Hi Power. You have sooo many 1911s out there. A Tisas isn't going to be a Colt from 1942 and isn't going to be a STI.

 

[mg42doc]

a revolver is more reliable in the hands of an untrained user.

i think semiautos require a bit more knowledge, such as proper feeding, cleaning and possibly mag choice.