Which one is more reliable: a revolver or a semi-auto?
revolver
Revolver. However, the difference is very small if you purchase a quality semi-auto and is more than worth it for the extra capacity/reload speed.
>>28489192
What revolver and what autoloader?
Revolver.
It is literally either broken or working.
>>28489192
Semiauto.
Bend the crane on a revolver and its fucked.
>>28489192
Revoler, but it also comes in at a third the capacity. So I would say the favor goes to the semi.
>>28489192
Revolvers are both idiot proof & reliable imo
A good semi is literally almost as good as a good revolver, a shit semi built tight is worse than a shit revolver. But a semi can handle 12+1 .45, or 20+1 9mm and reload faster.
Both are fine if you clean them, if you are torture testing them get a revolver.
>>28489218
>revolver
They're like clockwork on the inside... to many parts that get out of whack if you drop it.
>>28489192
Semi auto. If I pull the trigger on a Glock 19 fifteen times, it goes bang fifteen times. If I pull the trigger on a Smith and Wesson 629 fifteen times, it only goes bang six times. That's nine fewer.
>>28489279
Pew, pew, pew
IF AMMUNITION IS THE LIMITING FACTOR IN RELIABILITY THEN THE REVOLVER IS MORE RELIABLE
IF AMMUNITION IS NOT THEN THE SEMI-AUTOMATIC IS MORE RELIABLE
Lets ignore the reliability of revolvers meme and assume we're not talking about some shit auto.
We should actually discuss the more important factors.
How important is reloading in a pistol?
theoretical accuracy?
In hand accuracy?
trigger pull?
barrel length including chamber?
ammunition types?
resistance to foreign debris and elements?
Did and how did these factors affect your choice in a sidearm between revolver and auto?
>Wish I purchased a single stack .380 for CC instead. Because I didn't factor weight and size for carry.
The simplicity of revolvers make them more reliable per shot. Semi autos are more practical though factoring in reload time and capacity
>>28489192
Diet Pepsi
>>28489192
Depends on the brand, desu senpai.
>>28490138
>simplicity of revolvers
WAT? Semi-autos have fewer parts than revolvers and tolerances are looser too. That's why you can build a cheap & reliable semi-auto and you can't build a cheap & reliable revolver.
>>28489192
Both
>>28490182
Yes, but on a semi auto the parts that are moving leave more room to have failure, the whole top half of the gun is moving back and forth vs a small hammer smacking a primer
>>28490246
fug :DDDDD
>>28490280
Those parts are captive.
Would a pistol or a revolver do better in a mud test?
>>28489192
short recoil is more reliable than revolving chambers since it has less internal moving parts.
semiautomatic pistols have more advantages over a wheel gun in all aspects except for large bore rounds and magnum rounds
inb4 .50 AE
>>28490571
pistol with a magazine in or with the action closed. it would fail instantly with the action open.
Somebody put it pretty well in another thread (not exactly like this), when your revolver malfunctions, it requires a gunsmith to fix; failure can be more catastrophic.
When your semi-auto malfunctions, you drop mag and power stroke.
>>28490612
Pistol has chamber closed, bullet in the chamber, magazine in the mag well.
Revolver has all the chambers loaded.
It's fucking common sense dude. Take a handgun how you'd carry it and drop it in some mud. Quit making up scenarios for a revolver to win.
To me, it's obvious that a pistol would win and would werk while a revolver would lock up on maybe even on the first round and most likely on the second round.
>>28490667
yeah thats what im saying, a semiautomatic pistol in combat condition would pass the shit out of a mud test.
>>28490351
He's saying the greater amount of movement results in more opportunities for the weapon to fail to cycle, IE outside forces acting on the slide, things like limp wristing causing a FTF, etc. While revolvers have a large number of moving parts, they move relatively little and are completely enclosed. Additionally, revolvers do not rely on ammunition to cycle which eliminates a significant source of potential failures.
>>28491367
Get one of those youtube faggots to do a glock and S&W revolver mud test.
So basically
revolvers don't fail often but when they do they fail hard or catastrophically (like frame damage)
>>28491572
remedial action of a revolver is throw it as hard as you can.
protip: The gun does not matter...
Just make sure that first bullet hits the fuck in his head...
Game finished...
>>28489192
Neither, so long as you maintain your weapon and don't use shit ammo you'll be fine. Revolvers are not simple and they can jam, people who say otherwise are full of crap.
>>28491729
How many revolvers have you seen malfunction and how many autos have you seen malfunction?
>>28489192
A better question would be is that added punch of a revolver worth the smaller capacity?
>>28491863
I've seen both equally stop buying jimenez.
God, everyone on this board is fucking idiotic now. How can anyone think a revolver is LESS reliable or somehow fragile?
This board has gone full mall-ninja and autistic.
>>28492498
This
>>28491670
Ellipsis overuse indicates idiotic statements, every fucking time.
>>28492498
Pretty much. You can hammer tent pegs into the frozen ground with a ruger and it won't have any timing issues
If you're a pimp, you can pistol whip your hoes and still shoot straight.
For the "oh god it's like clockwork inside" crowd, you've never taken on apart have you?
>>28492783
>heavy is good
>heavy is reliable
>and
>if it does not work
>you can always hit them with it
The point is that revolvers can't jam
>>28491863
Both of my revolvers and all of my semi-autos have malfunctioned at least once. That question is noguns as fuck.
>>28493084
Yes, they can.
>>28489192
It is not that one is more reliable then the other in my opinion (any system can fail) they reliability are about equal. Its that the 2 work of completely different systems of cycling,
The semi auto is using the power the fired cartridge to push the slide back cycling the gun, if anything happens to the slide (limp wrist, shoot to close to chest and slide hits your chest half way through a cycle) or the ammunition supply the gun can jam. If you are properly trained and have a good ammo supply it shouldn't be an issue and you are able to get faster reloads (i know the world record for fastest shot and reload was with a double action revolver) but we aren't all Jerry Miculek.
A Revolver is like clockwork so its a purely mechanical system, it is all powered by the pulling of the trigger or cocking of the hammer. so as long as the bullet leaves the barrel and nothing wrong inside the gun the gun will fire for as many shoots you have in the gun, minus grabbing the cylinder or sticking you hand in between the hammer and the frame but how many people have the guts to grab the gun that's drawn on them. This makes them able to do things the semiauto cant like shoot from a pocket.
I like both and i think a G19/43 with a 9mm LCR as a backup, hell or high high water you will have a gun that will function and you will have plenty of ammo for.
>>28494841
o yeah few things i forgot.
*Semi autos typically have higher capacity(not always true but typically) Easier and more concealable to carrier magazines over speed loader/moonclip and speed strips. Jams are usually fixed with Tap, Rack, Bang.
*Revolvers can accommodate larger rounds like the .357 mag (.44mag-.460mag-.500mag) If that's to much kick for you that same chambering can also chamber .38 special that is equal (more or less) to a 9x19mm (Extreme case of this is Phillips and Rogers Medusa, if you don't know it look it up),Reloads are typically more difficult for a revolver. Then if the gun jams and it wasn't caused by not fully resetting the trigger there really isn't a way to quickly fix it.
>>28492498
No gunz as fuck.
The revolvers can't jam meme is only alive now because most duty guns are semi auto and most revolvers are safe queens. Revolvers will absolutely jam if exposed to dust or mud.
>>28489284
>clockwork
When was the last time you opened up a GP100 or a Redhawk? Shit's built like a Nokia.
>>28489417
>How important is reloading in a pistol?
For my CC I really don't worry about it.
>theoretical accuracy?
I can hit a person dead center from a cross the room with a derringer, so fuckit
>In hand accuracy?
I like me some big grips
>trigger pull?
Other factors are more important
>barrel length including chamber?
I like 3"+
>ammunition types?
Cheap
>resistance to foreign debris and elements?
An absolute necessity
God damnit I should add got a hi-point
>>28489192
Last range trip my dad had a .22 semi (some kind of luger) and I had my .22 single six. He had 2 jams and I had zero. To be fair though I've never seen his jam before it may have been the cheap ammo.
>>28489417
>>Wish I purchased a single stack .380 for CC instead. Because I didn't factor weight and size for carry.
Those are the most important parts of concealed carry so you didn't give it much thought. There's lightweight revolvers for CC like the 642 and LCR, both lighter than single stack 9mms in the same size class and lighter than many 380s, all in the pocket carry class of guns.
Reliability is somewhat related to why I carry a revolver. Ammo failures happen. Not often, but they can happen. If it's a high stress situation are you trained enough to clear it on an automatic before getting stabbed by a guy after your wallet? Maybe, I'm sure it's possible and more power to you, but on a revolver its as simple as pulling the trigger again and you'd probably be doing that anyway.
I don't begrudge people their CC gun. It's probably the most personal gun choice you can make and I can respect someone choosing a glock 43. What I can't respect is people who claim to carry 1911s as their CC gun. You don't, you leave it at home or in the car.
>>28489253
Break the extractor on an auto and its fucked. What's your point shit lord
>>28489284
wut?
>>28495413
No gunz here, what makes the 1911 a poor concealed carry option?
>>28489417
Clean your nails
>>28495547
Heavy weight, lower capacity, complexity/not drop-safe hammer style (considered to be fudd lord but it is a ptebtial concern), .45acp has "dump truck" ballistics with high kinetic energy but low muzzle velocity and generally poor extended ballistics.
Terninal ballistics are nearly the same as 9mm, so it's certainly not a bad round at close range, but the 1911 platform itself is not great for CC.
>>28495736
>ptebtial
*potential
>>28489192
A revolver is no respecter man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BUOz6K8q_U#t=132
>>28492819
it is the American way
>>28489192
If you are seriously asking, you're Nogunz
>>28489192
you tell me
>>28497971
>square butt
>.32
could be worse I guess
>>28498007
> 32
it´s 38
>>28498040
Box looks like it says 32
>>28489192
generally speaking
>revolvo
more moving parts internally, but generally reliable.
Timing issues and jams will take serious work to fix.
>automatics
Potentially sensitive to ammo, limpwristing, and so on
Jams are almost always fixable via simple tap-rack-bang.
>>28490246
Translation for you niggers in case you're interested:
Engineer Landstad's "automatic revolver" from 1900, manufactured at Hovedarsenalet (The Main Arsenal). Only a very few shots were fired during trials, and the revolver must be considered a complete failure. The "automatic revolver" was, however, the first Norwegian construct which was tested with the eventual future semi-automatic service pistol in mind. The Revolver is preserved in England (Dr. Geoffrey Sturgess' collection and photo).
