Revolver reliability and the 2,000 round challenge. Useful?

[revchuck38]

This would be entirely dependent on the ammo used. If you shoot only jacketed bullets with a very clean burning powder it might make 2K. If you use lead bullet ammo, you won't get there at all.

I've shot a lot of revolver in IDPA. I used to run an oversize brush through each chamber and brush under the star before each match and then practice without any other attention until the next match.

What he said. @BN and I know each other from the IDPA Forum from way back. My IDPA match load was a Rainier 158-grain plated RN over 4.3 grains of Titegroup, which was accurate, burned cleanly, and made the then-power factor of 125 (it was closer to 135). Thankfully, IDPA CoFs are only 18 rounds, otherwise, I might've ended up with second-degree burns during reloads. That load might've made it to 2k rounds...with lots of time for cooling down.

Going off on a tangent, I'm in the process of loading some of my remaining Rainier RNs over 5.2 grains of BE-86. About the same velocity, and burns cooler and somewhat dirtier.

[Totem Polar]

I remember range rental revolvers would get pretty gummy and sluggish after a few hundred rounds. Is that an issue of concern?

Some snub nosed revolvers get pocket carried and get exposed to lint and picket debris. Some of this stuff in the wrong place on a revolver could have a negative impact. How serious? I don’t know.

…

There are arguments to be made that the information gained from the 2k reliability test for auto loaders isn’t really that useful since most folks will do maintenance more frequently than that on a carry gun.

I have owned several revolvers with close barrel to cylinder tolerances that would gum up in a couple hundred rounds. It’s a concern if one doesn’t keep the cylinder face squeaky clean, for sure. Those tools require a ton of maintenance, relatively speaking, true. Most of my revolvers get a little sluggish after a good weekend class—if time permits, I like to clean class guns at the end of each day. OMMV, of course.

As to the pocket carry, for sure, lint can stack up. Same with ankle carry and dust and crud. No less a luminary than @Mas ayoob has written a fair amount on this, noting that the snubs are traditionally *more* forgiving than the small autos that would also be eligible for those roles, size-wise. Crud and lint is part and parcel of those types of deeper carry, and a savvy practitioner will take this into account in terms of preventative maintenance.

Somewhat tangential, but some good number of decades ago, Chuck Taylor wrote up a series of torture tests he did on the semi-autos of the day. He also included an S&W M27–which passed all the tests, IIRC. Hopefully someone here can dig up the article in the old wayback machine, as it was interesting reading.

[JonInWA]

I have owned several revolvers with close barrel to cylinder tolerances that would gum up in a couple hundred rounds. It’s a concern if one doesn’t keep the cylinder face squeaky clean, for sure. Those tools require a ton of maintenance, relatively speaking, true. Most of my revolvers get a little sluggish after a good weekend class—if time permits, I like to clean class guns at the end of each day. OMMV, of course.

As to the pocket carry, for sure, lint can stack up. Same with ankle carry and dust and crud. No less a luminary than @Mas ayoob has written a fair amount on this, noting that the snubs are traditionally *more* forgiving than the small autos that would also be eligible for those roles, size-wise. Crud and lint is part and parcel of those types of deeper carry, and a savvy practitioner will take this into account in terms of preventative maintenance.

Somewhat tangential, but some good number of decades ago, Chuck Taylor wrote up a series of torture tests he did on the semi-autos of the day. He also included an S&W M27–which passed all the tests, IIRC. Hopefully someone here can dig up the article in the old wayback machine, as it was interesting reading.

It was a cold-weater reliability test between a Glock G17, Browning P-35 Hi Power, SIG-Sauer P226, S&W P39-2, Beretta 92F, Colt 1911A1, and S&W Model 27. The test and discussion was in Taylor's "The Gun Digest of Combat Handgunnery, 4th Edition" in 1997, pp. 39-41.

The guns were all detail disassembled, cleaned, and lightly lubricated with Rem-Oil, loaded, fired reloaded, placed in snow for 15 minutes and repeated until 750 rounds per gun was completed. The testing was done in Alaska in -40 degree farenheit temperature.

The S&W M-39 failed the test, and had 13 malfunctions. The Beretta completed the test, but had 5 malfunctions. The SIG P-226 completed the test, but had 3 malfunctions. The Glock G17, Hi Power, Colt 1911A1, and S&W Model 27 completed the test with zero malfunctions.

Interesting test. The Hi Power and Glock G17's success come as no surprise; assuming the Colt 1911 was a standard 1911A1, that is also no real surprise. I personally would have expected the Beretta and the SIG to have done better, but that's me and my expereince. I am surprised that the Model 27 was able to sucessfully fire 750 rounds without gumming up. At the end of the test the Hi Power, SIG and Model 27 showed the most powder fouling, and the Glock shot the cleanest with the least fouling-but all of these guns successfully completed his test with no malfunctions.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

A year or so back, someone here on p-f intiated a 2K revolver test, until Dagga Boy told us to knock it off, that the test was inappropriate and irrelevant to the revolver. I agree, historically the semi-auto's preeminence in the military came about specifically to mitigate against the issues revolvers suffered under hard use in challenging environments.

Revolvers are great machines, and I like mine. But there are generally specific parameters for their successful performance and use that they need to adhere to-primarily, limited extended firing, more frequent cleanings, and limited exposures in hostile environmental conditions.

Best, Jon

[Stephanie B]

A year or so back, someone here on p-f intiated a 2K revolver test, until Dagga Boy told us to knock it off, that the test was inappropriate and irrelevant to the revolver. I agree, historically the semi-auto's preeminence in the military came about specifically to mitigate against the issues revolvers suffered under hard use in challenging environments.

I concur, for what little it's worth. The revolver's strengths are a simple manual-of-arms (doesn't get any simpler than a DAO revolver) and the ability, if not over-lubed, to sit in a sock drawer for two decades and then go *bang* when needed. The automatic's strengths are fast reloading and the ability to tolerate abuse.

Which gun is better for military use was pretty much settled on the Western Front over a century ago. It's been a very long time since I read "A Rifleman Went to War," but my impression was that he clearly preferred a 1911 over a Webley during his service with the Canadian Army in the trenches.

[jetfire]

Pistol Forum has a fairly established protocol that many have adopted as a baseline reliability with regard to semi-auto pistols. In the context of revolvers, would a 2,000 round challenge be useful?

No.

I've done it a couple of times, once on purpose and once on accident. On purpose: a Colt Python that I was sent for T&E, that I intentionally shot the piss out of to try and break it. It didn't. However, even that wasn't a "true" 2000 round challenge since I would routinely brush out under the star in between strings of fire. Mechanically the gun was fine, but revolvers get dirty, and "crud under the star" is the #1 thing that makes revolver stop going bang. On accident, I did it with a Ruger GP100 10mm, but shooting 40 S&W. I just shot it and trained with it a lot and kind of forgot to clean it, and when I looked at my logs it was over 2000 rounds.

But here's why it doesn't matter, in my opinion. Aside from crud under the star, what breaks revolvers isn't so much "shooting a lot" as it is "shooting (and dry firing) fast." There are old threads in the revolver sub-forum on Enos about wheelguns dying when dudes are trying to push them down to sub 0.20 splits, and hell I broke the cylinder stop in the legendarily tough Manurhin MR73 doing the same thing. But you can slow fire 100,000 rounds of magnum through an MR73 and it will be fine, because you're not slamming the metal engagement parts into each other as fast as physically possible. It's the difference between hypermiling a car for 500 miles at 60mph and driving 10 miles where you accelerate to 100mph then slam on the brakes and then repeat that until you reach 10 miles.

A revolver going 2000 rounds without cleaning it doesn't really tell me anything, because it doesn't tell me how those 2000 rounds were fired, if there was dry fire, etc. I still carry a brush to clean under the extractor star at matches, and I run an oversize bore snake through the chambers about halfway through the match.

[okie john]

Having done the 2k challenge on several different plastic pistols, I'm beginning to doubt its utility. The only time I took any comfort from it was when I had fitted a Wilson barrel to a G17.

Pretty much everything runs these days unless you mess with it. You'll know within 500 rounds if it doesn't.


Okie John

[Joe Mac]

You'll know within 500 rounds if it doesn't.

Yup. Having owned well over 100 handguns in the past three decades, and serving as armorer/troubleshooter for many more than that, I'd say that if a proven model from a reputable maker is going to exhibit problems, you'll probably know early on. (The sole exception to this among my personal guns was an issued G23 gen 4 that ran perfectly for the first 2500 rounds or so, then started malfunctioning -- turned out that someone at Smyrna had installed a 9mm extractor in a .40, which worked fine until it got some wear on it...)

Now, I wouldn't apply this thinking to second-tier manufacturers and/or new models; when the G43X/48 came out, we ran the hell out them with duty ammo until we were satisfied they worked. But I would absolutely pull a new G17/19/26 etc. out of the box, run several hundred rounds through it, and carry it without worry after just one range session.

[03RN]

No.

I've done it a couple of times, once on purpose and once on accident. On purpose: a Colt Python that I was sent for T&E, that I intentionally shot the piss out of to try and break it. It didn't. However, even that wasn't a "true" 2000 round challenge since I would routinely brush out under the star in between strings of fire. Mechanically the gun was fine, but revolvers get dirty, and "crud under the star" is the #1 thing that makes revolver stop going bang. On accident, I did it with a Ruger GP100 10mm, but shooting 40 S&W. I just shot it and trained with it a lot and kind of forgot to clean it, and when I looked at my logs it was over 2000 rounds.

But here's why it doesn't matter, in my opinion. Aside from crud under the star, what breaks revolvers isn't so much "shooting a lot" as it is "shooting (and dry firing) fast." There are old threads in the revolver sub-forum on Enos about wheelguns dying when dudes are trying to push them down to sub 0.20 splits, and hell I broke the cylinder stop in the legendarily tough Manurhin MR73 doing the same thing. But you can slow fire 100,000 rounds of magnum through an MR73 and it will be fine, because you're not slamming the metal engagement parts into each other as fast as physically possible. It's the difference between hypermiling a car for 500 miles at 60mph and driving 10 miles where you accelerate to 100mph then slam on the brakes and then repeat that until you reach 10 miles.

A revolver going 2000 rounds without cleaning it doesn't really tell me anything, because it doesn't tell me how those 2000 rounds were fired, if there was dry fire, etc. I still carry a brush to clean under the extractor star at matches, and I run an oversize bore snake through the chambers about halfway through the match.

That's a really good point. Someone brought up that if you had been firing magnums the slightly slower splits may have slowed the gun and you down enough that your never have seen a problem.

That would be an interesting test to do.

Give 2 shooters a mr73 and give one 20k rounds of .357 and the other 20k rounds of .38 and see if one starts having issues first.

[AzShooter]

2000 rounds is just barely getting started with a revolver. I regularly shoot over 50K rounds from my revolvers each year. The only thing they need is a patch to clean under the forcing cone and occasionally a brush through.

I find my revolvers much more reliable than any automatic I've every owned.