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

[03RN]

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.

If someone gave me a g19, M9, Springfield milspec/loaded. I'd feel completely comfortable carrying it after 50rds. Same with any good revolver.

I can drive my car 20k miles without changing the oil

[SSGN_Doc]

Thanks for the input, everyone. Seems the consensus is that the 2k challenge is of little merit unless one may have already run into an issue and is trying to reestablish trust in a particular handgun. Even then it may be if limited value.

I too, kind of figured MOST folks will clean a carry gun on some established routine because a well maintained tool is the best baseline condition we can give ourselves.

I guess I just got burned out by hyperbolic statements regarding revolver reliability where folks seemed to just take for granted that you can neglect a revolver and it will out perform an as if that is established fact. When I would press a bit and ask about maintenance intervals to attain that reliability in each platform most responses I would get on other forums were essentially “Anyone with any real experience around revolvers KNOWS they are more reliable and simpler than autos”.


One of my first trail, guns was a S&W K frame .22 and I know for a fact, when back packing I got that thing fouled from trail dust to the point that it was rough to get the cylinder to turn in DA. I’d have to give it at minimum a good wipe and brushing once I got to a camp site. But I was told revolvers make better trail and woods guns. If I countered with my experience between the K-frame and a Glock 17 beater that I carried later in life and that I found the Glock to be less hassle, I’d get told, I just don’t know what I’m talking about.

On the point of putting a revolver In a drawer for years and knowing it will work, I’m going to say probably true most of the time. I did recently take the slide plate off of a revolver from the mid 90s which basically had been in just such a condition with likely fewer than 200 total round count. It was cleaned oiled (maybe too heavily) loaded and put in a night stand drawer probably for more than a decade. The trigger was sluggish, as was the cylinder. Under the slide plate I found dried oil basically acting somewhere between paste and wax. Cleaning that out set things right. It would have fired, but it was less than ideal.

At any rate you have all stepped up, and answered the question in a very reasonable manner and I thank you for your valued input and experience. It’s what I love about this forum.

[dogcaller]

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

Hmm, that surprised me. Not trying to start a war, but I really would have expected the Glunk, Sig, and Beretta to be more reliable than the Colt.

[OlongJohnson]

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.

I'd be interested to know what the Beretta and Sig malfunctions were. Wonder if it was somehow differential shrinking of the aluminum frame and steel slide vs. the steel/steel of the guns that made it clean. Even the Glock has steel "rails" inside the polymer frame.

My first thought was the full-length rails of the Beretta and Sig holding more surface area of oil and causing enough drag to slow them down vs. the tabs of the Glock, but the 1911 and BHP also have full-length rails, so that doesn't support the idea.

Hmm, that surprised me. Not trying to start a war, but I really would have expected the Glunk, Sig, and Beretta to be more reliable than the Colt.

It's not uncommon for these "extreme environmental" tests to yield results one wouldn't expect, based on experience and anecdata with the guns used in more normal conditions. Like when the Rex Zero outdoes actual Sigs in a mud test, it doesn't show that the Rex is a better gun overall. It just has a full length dust cover that keeps mud from sticking to the slide and getting jammed into the rails when the slide cycles. It's important to look at the details and ask, "Why?"

Similarly, I'd want to know more about the GD 1997 test to draw a conclusion. Does anyone know where one might find a PDF/scan?

[03RN]

One of my first trail, guns was a S&W K frame .22 and I know for a fact, when back packing I got that thing fouled from trail dust to the point that it was rough to get the cylinder to turn in DA. I’d have to give it at minimum a good wipe and brushing once I got to a camp site. But I was told revolvers make better trail and woods guns. If I countered with my experience between the K-frame and a Glock 17 beater that I carried later in life and that I found the Glock to be less hassle, I’d get told, I just don’t know what I’m talking about.

Wiping down a revolver while smoking a pipe at the fire is a feature, not a flaw. Imo.

[JonInWA]

Hmm, that surprised me. Not trying to start a war, but I really would have expected the Glunk, Sig, and Beretta to be more reliable than the Colt.

I've got the book, so in the next day or so I'll try to post a copy of the article. Taylor is a bit sketchy on some details; for example, all that we know about the 1911 is that it's a "Colt Model 1911 .45 ACP" that was "either new or in mint condition." The only photo in the article is a somewhat burry one of the Model 27 revolver being pulled out of the snow. My assumption is that the 1911 he used was either a military-issue or commercial equivalent M1911A1, but that's supposition on my part.

Acting on that assumption, it's not really a surprise to me that the 1911 successfully passed the test; after all, for military acceptance, John Browning and Colt's test sample had to survive a 6,000 round test, which the final test variant did successfully without malfunctions. THe "original" (and by that I mean military and commercial Model 0/1911 and 1911A1s were 1) had fitted, but 2) looser tolerenced than many, if not most of the contempory 1911s we see today. While I don't intend to do it, I'd assume my 2015 vintage Series 70 Reproduction 1911A1 woulld probably perform quite well in such, or a similar test.

Best, Jon

[jh9]

I guess I just got burned out by hyperbolic statements regarding revolver reliability where folks seemed to just take for granted that you can neglect a revolver and it will out perform an as if that is established fact. When I would press a bit and ask about maintenance intervals to attain that reliability in each platform most responses I would get on other forums were essentially “Anyone with any real experience around revolvers KNOWS they are more reliable and simpler than autos”.

Nobody in this thread is saying that, though.

One of my first trail, guns was a S&W K frame .22 and I know for a fact, when back packing I got that thing fouled from trail dust to the point that it was rough to get the cylinder to turn in DA. I’d have to give it at minimum a good wipe and brushing once I got to a camp site. But I was told revolvers make better trail and woods guns. If I countered with my experience between the K-frame and a Glock 17 beater that I carried later in life and that I found the Glock to be less hassle, I’d get told, I just don’t know what I’m talking about.

One thing worth mentioning is that just because S&W sent it out the door doesn't mean that they should have. Unless you're backpacking in Afghanistan that "trail dust fouling" is something that probably shouldn't be an issue.

I think a lot of problems people have with revolvers acting up are due to the fact that they were defective in subtle ways out of the box and had that been corrected they would have been less troublesome. Just identifying the whats and hows of that takes some experience, and even with experience you can miss things.

I also don't think it's a controversial statement to say that S&W has shipped a lot of guns over the years that weren't quite right. That includes rough patches long before MIM was a thing. There's no shortage of Lear-Siegler or Bangor Punta era guns that should never have left Springfield. For that matter there are plenty of pre-war guns that looked awful nice on the outside but had gremlins under the sideplate. They were still building Monday hangover guns even back in the good ol days.

Just because you had first hand experience with something being problematic doesn't mean it's endemic to the design.

[SSGN_Doc]

Nobody in this thread is saying that, though.

I know, and I appreciate that about this forum. The statement about hyperbolic replies was directed at threads I’ve encountered in other forums.

And, yes I realize that each individual firearm from any manufacturer could have quirks due to variation in manufacturing or QA misses.

Where I get frustrated is that those folks in other threads on other forums won’t even acknowledge that. Their position is just “Revolvers are always better” in terms of reliability. I can’t get them to establish their definition. Is reliability measured by:

Ability to function with the widest variety of loads?
Mean number of rounds fired before function is negatively impacted requiring cleaning or maintenance to restore function?
Mean number of rounds before parts failures or tools are required to restore function?
Field fixable problems vs bench, armory, gunsmith level failures?
Susceptibility or resistance to failure due to environmental element ingress?
Simply required maintenance interval frequency?

I just get crickets when I ask this on other forums. Or a reply that, “you obviously don’t have enough experience with revolvers if you think revolvers fail.”

I’m not sure that I’ve ever caught myself saying they “fail” at a greater rate than autos, but that revolvers are not failure free. But, I’m met with I don’t know what I’m talking about and “anyone who has A LOT of revolver experience, just knows they are more reliable than autos”. Still never getting any answer as to what their measure of reliability is.

I don’t get those responses here on this forum. I get qualified statements. I get honest answers that reflect the areas a revolver can be vulnerable. I get answers that include statements of what folks do with regard to maintenance to ensure the reliability of their revolvers. They acknowledge dirty rounds can indeed cause ammo induced problems with a revolver. They offer to send me government study reports that include successes and failures of revolvers that include what and where those vulnerabilities and failures existed.

So, indeed I’m appreciative of the discussion in this forum and willingness to not adopt emotional unbacked or unqualified statements with regard to responses to questions raised.

[OlongJohnson]

THe "original" (and by that I mean military and commercial Model 0/1911 and 1911A1s were 1) had fitted, but 2) looser tolerenced than many, if not most of the contempory 1911s we see today.

I'm not that old and haven't served, but I've many times read something along the lines of, "Shake it, and if it rattles, it'll run."

Pedantic engineer says: "I think you mean clearance, not tolerance." Large tolerances can lead to very tight clearances or very large ones. Tight tolerances should provide greater consistence (less variation), but the resulting clearances can be small or large.

One thing worth mentioning is that just because S&W sent it out the door doesn't mean that they should have.

X1000

[BN]

Where I get frustrated is that those folks in other threads on other forums won’t even acknowledge that.

Just stop going to other forums. I did and I'm a much happier person.