Revolver Reliability - a function of size?

[Flashman]

Primary-Secondary's recent podcast on nonstandard weapons discussed the shortcomings of the revolver. Essentially it was felt to be a "get out of trouble" weapon, not a fighting gun, due to various design shortcomings (mainly double action revolvers): delicate, screws backing out, sensitive to primer height, inability to reliably function in sustained fire as the round increases. This is consistent with my experience but a main functionality issue may be related to caliber size in my view.

Powder/shooting debris build up in a 38/357 cylinder can make it difficult to properly seat new cartridges using a speedloader without added help of manual push of a protruding cartridge so the cylinder will close. There are a lot of factors affecting this including the initial cleanliness of the cylinder, bore size, polish, the ammo/powder type, number of rounds fired, etc. The other element of reliability is shooting/powder debris ending up behind the ejector/star--hence the inevitable "shooting toothbrush." Can one shoot a match of 200 rounds without cleaning cylinder bores or brushing away debris?

However, in my experience, as the 38/357 caliber is susceptible to these problems, it seems the larger the caliber, the less prone a revolver is to these type of reliability issues. I shoot GP's and K-frames in matches but have never experienced these kind of problems with an N-frame (44) (although my N-frame has never had 200 rounds in one session it thousands of rounds through it). In matches, it doesn't seem other shooters' N-frames have these kind of problems and appear more prone to mechanical breakages and unseated screws.

Stack tolerance is probably not the right term but it might that bigger caliber tolerates more debris and better reliability (at least in this area).

[Half Moon]

That is totally at variance with my experience. Mostly a revolver shooter using J, K, and N frames. Usually one gun per trip at 150 to 250 rounds per range session. Thoughts on possible variance causes:

1) I use the vertical reload.

2) I generally only use jacketed or plated ammunition (this may be the big difference considering rapid lead build up at the forcing cone I've seen when using lead).

3) I clean, lube, and check screws etc after every range session.

4) I'm shooting pre-2000's revolvers.

Can't discount your experiences are different so trying to think through why.

[Rex G]

Debris from the chambers can fall onto the extractor, while the weapon is muzzle-up vertical, during extraction. Ruger used to machine grunge grooves, to accommodate this debris, when Ruger still cared enough to do so, which is why I consider my two early-Nineties GP100 revolvers to have an edge, in this regard.

[OlongJohnson]

Obviously, I've known this, but I've never thought of it in this context before. The GP100 doesn't have any screws holding it together, except usually one holding the grip or stocks on. Hence, no screws to back out.

I reckon grunge grooves could be added to an extractor if one was motivated. Maybe even with a Dremel, if you were particularly skilled or didn't really care what it looked like.

[Rex G]

A larger weapon’s cylinder is farther from the frame, when the cylinder assembly is in the fully outward position. All else being equal, this is more available space, for empties to fall free, and more room for the reload to be performed expeditiously. I do not normally carry speed loaders, for five-shot weapons, as a second/third weapon makes more sense, when there is a hurry. Bianchi Slow Strips are only true Speed Strips for a one-/two-round “tactical” load.

When I carry a K-Frame, Speed Six, or GP100, I am more likely to carry one or more speed loaders, and see the speed-loader-reload as being tactically viable.

[Rex G]

A sixgun’s sixth round is “more-reliable” than a fivegun’s sixth round. Yes, it is stating the obvious, but, unless something breaks, upon firing the fifth round, or the sixth cartridge is a dud/squib, the sixgun will reliably launch the sixth bullet.

Those with seven-shot revolvers enjoy a similar advantage, over sixgunners and fivegunners.

My 8-shot Super GP100, actually built on the Super Redhawk frame, adds yet another reliable shot.

[Dagga Boy]

That is totally at variance with my experience. Mostly a revolver shooter using J, K, and N frames. Usually one gun per trip at 150 to 250 rounds per range session. Thoughts on possible variance causes:

1) I use the vertical reload.

2) I generally only use jacketed or plated ammunition (this may be the big difference considering rapid lead build up at the forcing cone I've seen when using lead).

3) I clean, lube, and check screws etc after every range session.

4) I'm shooting pre-2000's revolvers.

Can't discount your experiences are different so trying to think through why.

All of this is why we tend to have very few issues at revolver round up every year. Even with J frames. I have also found that the prettier, more polished guns have less build up issues than the rougher surface guns.
Also agree that the modern Rugers are better for longer sustained shooting work due to how they are constructed.

People will notice when I talk about revolver reliability it is with the added language of clean, well maintained using premium ammunition and the first load and likely a couple reloads are a fairly sure thing in actual street conditions.

[Totem Polar]

I feel that preventative maintenance is a lot more important than size, when it comes to wheelgun reliability. My 5-shot J-frames have, to a gun, been boringly reliable.

That said, exceeding the design constraints of the platform’s original intention can also cause issues; I’m thinking of guns like the 8-shot 43c j-frame here—less tolerance for modern production techniques and QC. I’ve never had an issue with 6-shot kit guns—even from Taurus. JMO.


ETA: now that DB is here, what he said.

[jetfire]

I hate cleaning guns.

I hate it even more when my guns fail me when I need them to work. As such, I clean my working revolvers every 250 rounds or so with a "quick" clean that removes debris and keeps the chambers clear. Every 2k rounds I do a full ass clean, that's when the bronze brushes and solvents come out.

[okie john]

That is totally at variance with my experience. Mostly a revolver shooter using J, K, and N frames. Usually one gun per trip at 150 to 250 rounds per range session. Thoughts on possible variance causes:

1) I use the vertical reload.

2) I generally only use jacketed or plated ammunition (this may be the big difference considering rapid lead build up at the forcing cone I've seen when using lead).

3) I clean, lube, and check screws etc after every range session.

4) I'm shooting pre-2000's revolvers.

Can't discount your experiences are different so trying to think through why.

Half Moon, your experience generally squares with mine. Almost all of my revolver shooting has been with pre-1980 S&W products plus a few custom Ruger single-actions, which are another beast entirely. In those days, I'd shoot 150-200 rounds per session with K- or N-frame guns. I'd shoot centerfire J-frames a bit less and rimfire J-frames a lot more. 99% of the CF ammo was hand-loaded cast wadcutters over Bullseye at target velocities or cast semi-wadcutters over Unique or 2400 at less-than-magnum velocities. Either is a pretty good recipe for fouling if I remember correctly.

I cleaned my guns after every range session, focusing on frame and cylinder. (Cast shooters generally leave the bore alone once they get a good load worked up.) Cleaning involved wiping off powder fouling with a rag soaked in Hoppe's and hitting heavy fouling with a worn-out toothbrush. A lot of times I'd do this at the range. At that point, I'd also check and tighten all screws, squirt a little lube into the lockwork, wipe everything down, and put the gun away. About every 1,000 rounds I'd take the cylinder group apart and deep clean it. When the lockwork got gritty, which was pretty common in central Oklahoma, I'd pull the sideplate and clean the guts.

The big exception was the S&W rimfire revolver—those should have had toothbrushes built into the grips so you can clean the extractor star every cylinder or so.

Primary-Secondary's recent podcast on nonstandard weapons discussed the shortcomings of the revolver. Essentially it was felt to be a "get out of trouble" weapon, not a fighting gun, due to various design shortcomings (mainly double action revolvers): delicate, screws backing out, sensitive to primer height, inability to reliably function in sustained fire as the round increases.

I haven’t heard this podcast, but those comments strike me as coming from someone who hasn’t spent much time with revolvers and who is used to treating a Glock like a lawnmower. As for delicacy, I’d refer you to the tooth marks on the trigger guard of The Hebrew Hammer. I’m also unsure how often anyone gets into a sustained-fire situation with a revolver. I’ve heard of police officers tying revolvers up shooting dirty ammo in training, but that’s about it. The other issues that you cited can be addressed with good maintenance.

Can one shoot a match of 200 rounds without cleaning cylinder bores or brushing away debris?

Depends on the load and how clean the gun was when you started.


Okie John