So much depends on the make in question. George C. Nonte said his first DA revolver was an H&R In 38 S&W, he soon found out it was not up to prolonged DA shooting. I bought a small letter Colt MKIV slide for my Mark IV-I had to use valve grniding compound to get it to fit and function.
DA Revolver vs. 1911A1 Reliability
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
- Status
"A quality 1911 with quality magazines shooting quality ammo is just as reliable as..." my other good service pistols (semiautomatic).
I don't even have a Colt or any fancy ones. Mine are Filipino, Turkish, Spanish, etc. and were inexpensive. My recently purchased NiB RIA replaced a Turkish one. It has nice sights, beavertail, two-tone, $400 OTD, and it shoots and functions better than I do.
One was a lemon brand-new from the factory. I don't remember if any of the others have malfunctioned or not. If so, very rarely and due to poor ammo or a limp wrist or something like that.
I generally prefer revolvers for SD, but I have a lot of respect for the 1911 and would certainly not feel unarmed with one.
I don't even have a Colt or any fancy ones. Mine are Filipino, Turkish, Spanish, etc. and were inexpensive. My recently purchased NiB RIA replaced a Turkish one. It has nice sights, beavertail, two-tone, $400 OTD, and it shoots and functions better than I do.
One was a lemon brand-new from the factory. I don't remember if any of the others have malfunctioned or not. If so, very rarely and due to poor ammo or a limp wrist or something like that.
I generally prefer revolvers for SD, but I have a lot of respect for the 1911 and would certainly not feel unarmed with one.
Since this "test" starts with shooting loaded guns to empty, start shooting together with one of the revolvers and the Glock. Which one is still shooting, while the other has to stop and be reloaded? And reloaded three to four times too.
I have a number of both, revolvers and autos, and I dont keep my spare/reload ammo for them "in a box", I keep that ammo in speed loaders and mags. From empty, both are loaded in about the same time.
Whats the real purpose of this "test", other than to show, that you can load the revolver faster from the box?
Perttty much...
In particular it was to illustrate the point that, without accessories it is not a universal truth that the semi auto is faster to reload than a revolver.
I read once that a true expert can drive a manual transmission car with greater fuel efficiency than a car with an automatic transmission.
But, nobody drives that way in the real world, and almost nobody deliberately carries a gun without those "accessories", but a few have, and I don't doubt a few still do. Either way rapidity of reload is irrelevant to reliability. Efficiency in combat, and tactics for gunfighting is not the point of this thread, we have another forum for those discussions.
The original point of this thread was to discuss a claim that a DA revolver was less reliable than a 1911A1, because it has "far more moving parts".
(and not a general semi vs revolver reliability thread)
I don't think a DA revolver is less reliable than a 1911A1, and I'm positive the 1911A1 has more moving parts.
People have pointed out the ways a DA revolver can fail, and how they have had some failures. People have pointed out how usually a revolver fail ties up the gun and a semi auto fail USUALLY can be easily cleared. And, people, being people, have also pointed out a number of things not really related to the original question. (myself included in responding to some of them)
HOWEVER, so far, NO ONE has posted supporting the claim that a DA revolver is less reliable than a 1911A1 because it has far more moving parts.
SO, I'm beginning to think most agree with me that the claim of less reliability due to far more moving parts is BS. If you've got an argument supporting that claim, specific to the question asked, I'd love to hear it.
stinkeypete
New member
I think the original post was about someone taking a fairly good generalized rule and misapplying it.
In general, more parts are more expensive in a mass production environment. In general.
In general, more moving parts are less reliable. In general.
In the specific case of handgun reliability, I would say “don’t overgeneralize.”
For military combat arms, no army is still using a revolver.
For large game hunting, it’s the rare fellow in the field with a Desert Eagle rather than a Big bore sixgun.
For .22 pistols (or .380 or other small calibers) my blowback pistols might stovepipe once in a while but clear in seconds or a minute or so of fussing for some rare jam but serous crud in a revolver can lock it up until it sees the workbench.
So... what is “reliable”? My single shot Contender never once failed. Not because of “fewer parts” but because the parts had a simple job.
Let’s say a bicycle chain has around 464 moving parts. There are belt driven bicycles (or motorcycles) and they have one loop of jet age material, yet they are a solution looking for a problem, no more reliable than the chain.
General rules work generally, often not down in the fine details.
In general, more parts are more expensive in a mass production environment. In general.
In general, more moving parts are less reliable. In general.
In the specific case of handgun reliability, I would say “don’t overgeneralize.”
For military combat arms, no army is still using a revolver.
For large game hunting, it’s the rare fellow in the field with a Desert Eagle rather than a Big bore sixgun.
For .22 pistols (or .380 or other small calibers) my blowback pistols might stovepipe once in a while but clear in seconds or a minute or so of fussing for some rare jam but serous crud in a revolver can lock it up until it sees the workbench.
So... what is “reliable”? My single shot Contender never once failed. Not because of “fewer parts” but because the parts had a simple job.
Let’s say a bicycle chain has around 464 moving parts. There are belt driven bicycles (or motorcycles) and they have one loop of jet age material, yet they are a solution looking for a problem, no more reliable than the chain.
General rules work generally, often not down in the fine details.
A small but essential point: In a semi a magazine is not an accessory. It is integral to the proper functioning of the gun. The guns are not single shot pistols that, with an accessory or modification, become self loading guns. No the magazine is essential. The relationship of the magazine to the pistol is not the same as the relationship of a speed loader to the DA revolver.
A better "test" would be to take a 1911 and put all the spare ammo in an old smelly unwashed sock. Carry that sock in the left hand coat pocket.
Now take a speed loader with 6 fresh rounds of 38 Spl. and carry that in the right hand pocket of the same coat.
Wear that coat, rain or shine, for a month.
At the end of the month which side of the coat smells like old sock? This test will tell you as much about the reliability of the 1911 vs. a da revolver as the previous "test".
tipoc
A better "test" would be to take a 1911 and put all the spare ammo in an old smelly unwashed sock. Carry that sock in the left hand coat pocket.
Now take a speed loader with 6 fresh rounds of 38 Spl. and carry that in the right hand pocket of the same coat.
Wear that coat, rain or shine, for a month.
At the end of the month which side of the coat smells like old sock? This test will tell you as much about the reliability of the 1911 vs. a da revolver as the previous "test".
tipoc
I agree. A (or The) magazine is not an accessory. A SPARE magazine, however, is an accessory.
Today, it is usual to have a spare included, just as it was once usual for a (qualtity) pistol to come with a cleaning kit (rod, brush, swab) and I always thought S&Ws with not just the cleaning kit but also a cool screwdriver that properly fit the gun screws was a class act.
But there's still a lot of new guns out there that don't come with a spare mag included. Most duty class guns do, because its what people expect these days, but the makers aren't obligated to include a spare, because it's an accessory.
Spare = extra
Not sure what youre buying, but any of the new, and used autos Ive bought over the past decade or so, have all come with at least two mags, and many of them, three.
I dont consider the spare mag as an accessory either. Since the mags tend to be the weakest link in the autos, the back up is a necessity, at least if youre smart about it.
I dont consider the spare mag as an accessory either. Since the mags tend to be the weakest link in the autos, the back up is a necessity, at least if youre smart about it.
A spare mag is not an accessory either. It's a reload. What is below is also true.
Without an extra magazine you may be stuck with a single shot pistol should the initial mag be lost or damaged.
We may say "extra" or "spare" but again they are an essential part of the gun. If a gun is sold with a single mag (a cheap move by the maker) then the first thing a shooter does is go get at least 2 more mags.
tipoc
Without an extra magazine you may be stuck with a single shot pistol should the initial mag be lost or damaged.
We may say "extra" or "spare" but again they are an essential part of the gun. If a gun is sold with a single mag (a cheap move by the maker) then the first thing a shooter does is go get at least 2 more mags.
tipoc
Pretty sure we're not buying the same things...
I agree that getting extra mags are something we do if possible. I disagree that that a spare *(extra) magazine is an essential part of the gun.
Don't confuse a highly desirable enhancement with an essential part. ONE magazine is essential, the rest are just an improvement.
Now, don't think I'm saying I only want one magazine, all I'm saying is that if the pistol has the one it is supposed to have, it is complete and usable. Its just not as combat effective without extra loaded magazines.
I've bought a lot of pistols over the last 40 years. A few new, most used. Some of the new ones only had one magazine, many of the used ones only had one magazine. Quite a few pistols in the old days only came with one mag, especially if they weren't "duty class" type guns. When I bought (new) a Ruger Mk I it came with one mag. Browning BDA .45 (new) one mag. Heck, when I bought my first Desert Eagle, it only came with one magazine (though there was a spot in the box for another).
Lots of the used pistols I've bought only had one mag with them, One of them, a Mauser HSc I've gotten two spares and neither worked!
My main focus isn't on "combat" class pistols, though I have had dozens of 1911A1s a few Browning HiPowers, Sig P220s and some others, along with p.08 Lugers P.38 and such. One mag in the gun and its good. Additional mags with the gun are gravy.
So, yes its really nice when you get a spare or two with the gun. But they aren't essential, just valuable and desirable.
IF you only had one gun and no spare mags would you NOT carry it or keep it for home defense or hunt with it??
You might be surprised.Pretty sure we're not buying the same things...
I wouldnt carry it any more than Id carry a revolver without a couple of speed loaders.
Folks sometimes speak of splitting hairs to make a point (or give one the satisfaction of being the "winner") and this is a good example of that. One mag is essential but a second mag is just gravy, "valuable and desirable" but not really needed.
All of which is just a round about way of proving that it's faster to reload a revolver from a box of ammo off a table top than it is to reload a magazine for a 1911, and then load it in the gun, from a box of ammo also sitting on a table top. An important question of course which many users of weed debate at 3 am.
"Yeah man, but what if the first mag is the third mag and what happens if the second mag is the third mag. What then man? Then is the third mag essential? What if the esse mag is left at home then what's the gravy man?"
"Brah, you've blown my mind man! Hey, what's that smell?"
tipoc
All of which is just a round about way of proving that it's faster to reload a revolver from a box of ammo off a table top than it is to reload a magazine for a 1911, and then load it in the gun, from a box of ammo also sitting on a table top. An important question of course which many users of weed debate at 3 am.
"Yeah man, but what if the first mag is the third mag and what happens if the second mag is the third mag. What then man? Then is the third mag essential? What if the esse mag is left at home then what's the gravy man?"
"Brah, you've blown my mind man! Hey, what's that smell?"
tipoc
I thought about this thread in the last few days.....
I have a Kimber 1911 stainless - which works and shoots as any Kimber should be expected to (well and very accurate).
Recently, a "need" developed....
A tenant in one of our rentals contacted us from the hospital.
She told us that - she had to move out ASAP - her boyfriend had beat her half to death and he was stalking her.
Good chance he was going to show up and cause a lot of trouble for all concerned when we met her for the walk through & to collect the keys.
I/we never really met the guy, but, from her description he's big - real big - and can be really mean....& possibly armed...
The .45acp Shield, 9mm SIG 938 & Ruger LCP - all of a sudden felt - inadequate...
Having no holster for the Kimber - I decided to run out and pick one up.
While at the gun store, I was admiring a nice old S&W M28 they had. The sales guy mentioned it would make a great gun to go along with me on the walk through.
I told him, "Maybe, but, I'd feel a lot better with one of those S&W M69 snub noses"...
He pointed to a far counter and told me go over there for that!!!
Soooooo---early Christmas present for me & my personal answer to this thread & the whole issue of reliability...
I consider a 240 grain JHP @ roughly 1100 fps - out of a platform I have complete confidence in (D/a S&W revolver) to be the most reliable thing - - I can take into harm's way....
Sometimes - there's just more to the question of something than what meets the eye.
I have a Kimber 1911 stainless - which works and shoots as any Kimber should be expected to (well and very accurate).
Recently, a "need" developed....
A tenant in one of our rentals contacted us from the hospital.
She told us that - she had to move out ASAP - her boyfriend had beat her half to death and he was stalking her.
Good chance he was going to show up and cause a lot of trouble for all concerned when we met her for the walk through & to collect the keys.
I/we never really met the guy, but, from her description he's big - real big - and can be really mean....& possibly armed...
The .45acp Shield, 9mm SIG 938 & Ruger LCP - all of a sudden felt - inadequate...
Having no holster for the Kimber - I decided to run out and pick one up.
While at the gun store, I was admiring a nice old S&W M28 they had. The sales guy mentioned it would make a great gun to go along with me on the walk through.
I told him, "Maybe, but, I'd feel a lot better with one of those S&W M69 snub noses"...
He pointed to a far counter and told me go over there for that!!!
Soooooo---early Christmas present for me & my personal answer to this thread & the whole issue of reliability...
I consider a 240 grain JHP @ roughly 1100 fps - out of a platform I have complete confidence in (D/a S&W revolver) to be the most reliable thing - - I can take into harm's way....
Sometimes - there's just more to the question of something than what meets the eye.
Only real failure i've had on a revolver that took it totally out of action was when the hand broke on my Python soon after I bought it, used. Other than that, leaded up barrels was the worst issue.
The 3 1911's I've had would have been doing well to be anywhere near as good as the second worst of my revolvers.
The 3 1911's I've had would have been doing well to be anywhere near as good as the second worst of my revolvers.
- Status