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

[SSGN_Doc]

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? The internet is awash in threads stating revolvers are more reliable than auto loaders and it is taken as established fact.

What kind of vulnerabilities do revolvers suffer from with high round counts? Sure ammo load/spectrum tolerance is touted as an advantage due to not being bullet profile sensitive. But, what about large quantities of lead projectile use? Carbon ring build-up, cylinder bore leading, etc. how many rounds before feeding effort needs to be increased? Extraction issues or increased extraction effort being required?

I will admit my revolver experience is lacking and I want to address this void in my handgunning.

Just curious if the challenge would be useful or not? Also curious if criteria should be a bit different when applied to defensive revolver context.

[Totem Polar]

Apples to oranges, IMHO, and not terribly useful, given the different missions of the tools and test. I have several revolvers in my stable that have gone a lot more than 2k rounds with no failures whatsoever. Stone reliable.

But they sure didn’t do it with no maintenance. If, for some insane or sandy reason, you want to go 2k with no PM at all, do it with a modern service pistol.

If you don’t mind “rendering unto ceasar,” and adhering to long-standing wheelie PM protocols, with bore snakes in every hole, and toothbrushes under the star, as needed, then yeah, the old round guns of yore will easily do 2k. JMO.

[Outpost75]

The USBP test and evaluations of Ruger Six series vs. S&W speak volumes and are in the public domain. PM me with an email address which can accept 20MB of .pdf attachments and I can send them to you.

[SSGN_Doc]

Apples to oranges, IMHO, and not terribly useful, given the different missions of the tools and test. I have several revolvers in my stable that have gone a lot more than 2k rounds with no failures whatsoever. Stone reliable.

But they sure didn’t do it with no maintenance. If, for some insane or sandy reason, you want to go 2k with no PM, do it with a modern service pistol.

If you don’t mind “rendering unto ceasar,” and adhering to long-standing wheelie PM protocols, with bore snakes in every hole, and toothbrushes under the star, then yeah, the old round guns of yore will easily do 2k. JMO.

And this is kind of my point. Modern autos and revolvers alike will tend to chug along and perform reliably I think the 2k challenge was partly established to bring vulnerabilities or sensitivities to light. I’ve got a few autos that passed the 2k challenge with no problems.

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.

This forum seems to be one of the most reasonable and least emotionally driven when it comes to really trying to learn and explore handgun performance. This forum seems to be tolerant of challenging the “accepted facts” posed on the internet.

It’s why I posed the question here.

Then the follow up is, are some brands really better than others from the standpoint of reliability, in any practical sense?
(Saw a thread on one forum stating reasons why their Charter Arms was better than a S&W. Is there a practical and impartial way to prove or challenge that posted theory with regard to performance?)

I understand the answer may ultimately be, that there is no practical equivalent or need for such a test for revolvers.
I can respect that. 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.

[SSGN_Doc]

The USBP test and evaluations of Ruger Six series vs. S&W speak volumes and are in the public domain. PM me with an email address which can accept 20MB of .pdf attachments and I can send them to you.

Much appreciated. PM sent.

[JCN]

I understand the answer may ultimately be, that there is no practical equivalent or need for such a test for revolvers.
I can respect that. 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 don’t generally clean my guns unless they fail (exception being competition guns before important matches and dedicated carry gun that stays ultra low round count).

I haven’t had to do any maintenance to revolvers for their working parts except for cylinder cleaning.

That doesn’t bother me from a reliability standpoint as a defensive gun would be clean when carried and the inside of the cylinder would stay clean and be unaffected by this issue.

I could probably do 2k rounds without cleaning if I didn’t mind poking out empties with a squib stick.

So I guess the question is “what are you looking to test reliability wise?”

For the action, sure. But for internal cylinder cleanness it doesn’t factor into my carry decision.

Hope that helps!

[revchuck38]

I think a 2k test for revolvers would have zero usefulness since by their nature they just require more maintenance and cleaning than autoloaders. Revolvers have threaded things (ejector rods, sideplate screws, etc.) that naturally come loose from the vibration of firing that most current autoloaders lack. Revolvers rely on gravity and the weight of the round for successful loading into the chamber while autoloaders have the weight of the slide powered by a 13-20 lb. spring to push the round into the chamber, plus IME most autoloader chambers are on the generous side of specs to aid in this. Much factory revolver ammo is made with uncoated lead bullets which leave a good bit of gummy residue when fired, while most factory autoloader ammo is made with jacketed bullets.

Those of us who like and carry revolvers are aware of these shortcomings and clean and maintain them accordingly. When you take care of them appropriately, they're exceedingly reliable. You just can't treat them like a Glock and expect them to work.

[JCN]

You just can't treat them like a Glock and expect them to work.

Funny you should say that. Because part of what make a Glock reliable is the slop in the tolerances that also makes them not as accurate with wobbly slide to frame fit and floppy barrels.

Some of us with Glocks choose to reduce those tolerances with aftermarket equipment that takes a little more maintenance but yield better precision.

Everything is a double edged sword. Which is fine as long as people make educated decisions of the trade offs.

My EDC X9 did >2k without cleaning and is super accurate as well.

[OlongJohnson]

DB's Shooting Adventures on Facebook has written extensively about revolver vs. semi-auto reliability. Pretty much lays out how it is. Maybe as far back as late 2019, time flies. Dagga Boy has also written much of the same material here if you search.

[BN]

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.