So much for revolver reliability...

[BillSWPA]

When I first started carrying a gun in 1996, I was a big believer in 6 for sure.

Then I started noticing that my mean rounds between trips to the factory with revolvers was lower than my mean rounds between malfunctions with semiautos.

[Malamute]

Oh man, this thing is a lot easier:

https://www.brownells.com/tools-clea...d-tool-for-sw/

For torquing the rod, that is. I agree on old wheelies over new, as a general rule, and I absolutely agree that an ounce of prevention like checking all the screws, the rod, etc., is worth kilos of wheelie cure.

I keep saying I should get one of those, but not having one shouldnt keep people from torquing the extractor rod.

[1911Nut]

I've only been shooting handguns with any regularity since 1973 and certainly haven't the extensive experience that many forum members possess.

In my time of shooting matches, attending training classes, practicing, dry firing, and handgun hunting, I estimate I have fired about 7-8% as many rounds downrange from a revolver as I have with an auto pistol

But I have had at least 10 times more functionality issues with revolvers than I have with auto pistols.

On one occasion, I had an auto fail to the level that it was rendered inoperable and I had to call it a day . . . . one.

I'm certain that has happened a minimum of 6-8 times with a revolver.

If I removed the use of "N" and "L" frame S&W revolvers from my data base for this report, I wouldn't have anything to report.

I am currently on a revolver "winning streak" that goes back to 2009, which coincides with the time I completely discontinued shooting revolvers of those models made by that manufacturer.

I fully realize my experiences are only one data point for one person. But although I am a slow learner, I am satisfied my game plan for revolver shooting going forward will perfectly fit my needs.

[Totem Polar]

I keep saying I should get one of those, but not having one shouldnt keep people from torquing the extractor rod.

#fact

[BillSWPA]

Prior to 1985, I think a good argument could have been made that revolvers were more reliable.

As a teenager shooting my Dad’s handguns in the 1980’s, I don’t think I ever got through a single semiauto magazine without at least one failure to feed.

I spent a lot of time reading American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, etc. In the early 1980’s, every semiauto tested had a few malfunctions per 100 rounds. The first test report indicating no failures of any kind was for a Ruger P85. After that, things seemed to improve.

[Oldherkpilot]

There is nobody on this forum who is a bigger revolver nut than I am. Several who equal me, sure, but nobody who’s more of a die-hard wheelie guy.

That said, over the decade that I’ve been a member here, my track record of buying new Glocks and having them work is a lot better than my track record of buying new revolvers and having them work.

#sadpandafacts


I’d trust a new G26 off the shelf a lot more than I’d trust a new S&W (or Taurus, or Colt) wheelie off the shelf.

I wish you were wrong but you're not.

[jetfire]

There is nobody on this forum who is a bigger revolver nut than I am.

The audacity to say that in my presence

[Malamute]

But I have had at least 10 times more functionality issues with revolvers than I have with auto pistols.

I'm certain that has happened a minimum of 6-8 times with a revolver.

If I removed the use of "N" and "L" frame S&W revolvers from my data base for this report, I wouldn't have anything to report.

Could I ask what the issues were youve had with revolvers, the L and Ns in specific as you mentioned?

Im always interested in learning more about them, and perhaps what to be aware of.

[Gun Mutt]

I sent a 642 to S&W a couple of weeks ago with a broken hammer stud, today the action on my LCRX 22 locked up like a bear trap, looks like I'll be calling Ruger this week.

See post 802 in our LCR thread. Don't know about you, but I didn't read the owners manual and found out the hard way that the .22 LCR needs a couple drops of oil or it will lock up. This solved the only issue I've had with an LCR.

[1911Nut]

Could I ask what the issues were youve had with revolvers, the L and Ns in specific as you mentioned?

Im always interested in learning more about them, and perhaps what to be aware of.

Cracked and dented forcing cones

Out of time

Side plates that were so poorly machined that there were significant gaps between the plates and the frame

Barrel installed out of time so the front sight was significantly leaning towards the 1 o'clock position (This was an "L" frame that was returned to S&W. It was returned untouched with a note stating that it was "within "acceptable" specification)

Significant gaps between the frame and cylinder crane

Pinged/deformed hammer noses

Cylinder would not turn reliably (required replacement of sear and sear spring)

Cylinder would not reliably lock into place (required replacement of extractor star)

Variable gap between face of cylinder and forcing cone - differences of up to .005" observed, and cylinder would hang up at "high" spot

That's what I recall. I'm certain I missed a few things. These issues occurred to guns over a period spanning from 1973 to 2009

In addition to the aforementioned "L" frame issue, I returned two separate "N" frame revolvers to S&W for different issues. Neither issue was resolved

I took two different troublesome "N" frame revolvers to Frank Glenn, an outstanding gunsmith who knows a thing or two about S&W revolvers. After examination, he refused to work on either revolver and suggested I return them to S&W

In all cases the revolvers mentioned were either new or were nearly new when the issues were experienced

YMMV