GlockTalk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Except that revolver was able to keep on shooting with tinkering. When the auto pistols died in his tests, they literally couldn’t be made to shoot or operate in any way.
Yes, but it shows how a revolver can easily fail in sand and mud. Yes, he was able to get it working again. But many semi autos can with malfunction drills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,469 Posts
There is a misconception that revolvers are “simpler” and “cannot jam” and it just isn’t true.

I love revolvers. I have always been a revolver guy, but there are plenty of things that can jam up a revolver.

I personally have had high primers and had a case slip under the extractor star, and you better be carrying a backup gun because you are not fixing that under fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
The WW1 era revolvers used by the US and Britain (M1917 and Webley) remained in service to some degree through the 1960s. The USAF used model 15s up through the Gulf War.
There were more M1917s in service than 1911s in WW1. They served well enough in the muck.
I think the 19 classic did fairly well in the test, but the idea that the revolver was replaced by military forces because of sand and mud isn't true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,246 Posts
The tolerances on my Korth are so tight that the cylinder can bind when it gets too dirty. And since my reloads are not the cleanest it's happened more than once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,085 Posts
There is a misconception that revolvers are “simpler” and “cannot jam” and it just isn’t true.

I love revolvers. I have always been a revolver guy, but there are plenty of things that can jam up a revolver.

I personally have had high primers and had a case slip under the extractor star, and you better be carrying a backup gun because you are not fixing that under fire.
Same. My Vaquero, in particular, is very sensitive to primers that aren't seated property or, with crappy ammo getting the round set back in be cylinder a bit and jamming the whole works up.

Father in law has a Smith model ... 66? That has the cap on the crane work loose under recoil fairly often. Can't get the cylinder out without about 5 minutes of fiddling with it tightening it back up, good luck doing a reload if it did that at the wrong time.

Of course if I carried it I'd get some loktite in there, but still.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
Same. My Vaquero, in particular, is very sensitive to primers that aren't seated property or, with crappy ammo getting the round set back in be cylinder a bit and jamming the whole works up.

Father in law has a Smith model ... 66? That has the cap on the crane work loose under recoil fairly often. Can't get the cylinder out without about 5 minutes of fiddling with it tightening it back up, good luck doing a reload if it did that at the wrong time.

Of course if I carried it I'd get some loktite in there, but still.
Both could be simple fixes. As you said a bit of thread locker would take care of the m66.

With the Vaquero, it sounds like the FP isn't being struck hard enough by the transfer bar? Does it have light strikes? Removing a tiny bit off the top inside surface of the hammer where it impacts the frame would give it a bit of extra contact on the TB.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
I have a test stand in front of this one i will dip in water and some dust and dirt. And attempt to fire one round.
280acc396521935964997026cd2f5a17.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,143 Posts
I shot my Ruger GP100 Match Champion a lot, without ever scrubbing the top and bottom of the cylinder. I just cleaned the barrel and the cylinder bores. One day, I could not rotate the cylinder any more. I thought something was bent. Before taking it to a gunsmith, I scrubbed the top and bottom of the cylinder with a bristle brush and it worked as good as new. :faint:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Kind of obvious. Higher capacity regardless of mag stack and much faster reloads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn’t always so as far as capacity when semi autos were first adopted by a lot of the militaries in Europe . I wondered the reason for the quick adoption over the revolver especially with lesser calibers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
It's why many military revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th century had, and used, lanyards.

So did early military semis.

But then, other than Cavalry, handguns play such a minor role in battle that many European armies didn't even issue a handgun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Based on my experience, not someone else's controlled tests, the revolver is more reliable than the semi auto. I have fired thousands of rounds out of both. Bottom line is more malfunctions with the autos. My guns are kept reasonably clean, usually clean at approx. 200 rounds. I'll point out the even the M-14 rifles we trained with would stop working if sand entered the picture. M-16s were totally turned into single shots if you had a cleaning rod to poke the empty out, totally useless if you didn't have the cleaning rod. Revolvers do fail just not as often as semis. I do have a couple semis that haven't failed(jammed) yet but it's just a matter of time. If nothing else a substandard round will cause it to jam. Dropped magazine at the wrong time, bottom fall out of the mag, ejector break, shock buff will fail(do not use them in a carry gun), ejector break, all the while a revolver will probably fire all the rounds in the cylinder except for a bad round of ammo and then you can usually pull the trigger again and it'll shoot the next round.
The only thing a semi does better than a revolver is that it holds more ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Based on my experience, not someone else's controlled tests, the revolver is more reliable than the semi auto. I have fired thousands of rounds out of both. Bottom line is more malfunctions with the autos. My guns are kept reasonably clean, usually clean at approx. 200 rounds. I'll point out the even the M-14 rifles we trained with would stop working if sand entered the picture. M-16s were totally turned into single shots if you had a cleaning rod to poke the empty out, totally useless if you didn't have the cleaning rod. Revolvers do fail just not as often as semis. I do have a couple semis that haven't failed(jammed) yet but it's just a matter of time. If nothing else a substandard round will cause it to jam. Dropped magazine at the wrong time, bottom fall out of the mag, ejector break, shock buff will fail(do not use them in a carry gun), ejector break, all the while a revolver will probably fire all the rounds in the cylinder except for a bad round of ammo and then you can usually pull the trigger again and it'll shoot the next round.
The only thing a semi does better than a revolver is that it holds more ammo.
Sure the revolvers have less malfunctions in general. Ammo related issues are “solved” by a second pull of the trigger to another cartridge. But on a muddy battlefield in a time that semi autos had less capacity and less powerful cartridges, why the change? And the 1911 is not a good example of this because it was exceptional compared to what else other countries adopted. But go to the mud test “In Range” for the Luger.

View: https://youtu.be/z_IeAaR5AmU


These guys when they decided to go to semi- auto had a lot of revolver experience and how it operated in the field. Was it the make or break in their decision process. But the ability to field strip certain semi autos and get it running again, was a plus. A revolver, not always so easy but C&Rsenal talks about certain revolvers that were chosen because it did have an ability to field strip those revolver to the springs by someone in the field. It was important to the militaries of that day- remember that cavalry was still in use when these “ new fangled “ guns came out. Heck even some of the loading cranes swung the cylinder to the right ( most go to left) so the Calvary man could hold the gun and his horse reins as he put the cartridges into the cylinder.
Quick reload was not a main issue for a lot of semi autos because of the lack of quality control, magazines had to hand filed and fitted to individual gun. Guns of the same model weren’t always interchangeable, hence why deattachable magazines were not commonly used then. They were seen as unreliable.
America was the exception to that and one European arms manufacturer on a tour of American factors noted that the work men did not files to “ fit” the parts. Our tolerances were that tight that the parts were completely interchangeable. It’s one reason why stripper clips with fixed magazines were used in some pistols and rifles.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top