Indians For Guns

Very interesting article on revolver reliability and .22 lr for defense

Nice read and quite informative.

Interesting read, but my experiences/opinions are slightly different than the authors.

As an example, this quote:

Of the three pistols I took, the old 1908 Colt Pocket Hammerless ran through 25 rounds without problems, proving again the genious of Jhon Moses Browning.
The Ballester Molina 45 ACP functioned very well too. In spite of the dated small sights its a serious weapon that puts a fair sized chunk of lead on target, fast and accurate. While some consider the BM a poor man´s 1911clone, I think its an upgraded version of the 1911. Now that I gave a heart attack to all 1911 fans reading this, do rememeber that JMB originaly did not want to include a grip safety and only did so becuase of the pistol´s military requirements. The Ballester Molina is the 1911 as Browning would have wanted it except for the trigger which I dont care much about either way. Second heart attack there for the 1911 fans!

A casual reading of this suggests that Mr. Browning had a hand in the design of this gun, which he did not as he had been dead for 10 or so years. Certainly the author is entitled to his opinions but that is different than accepting the same conclusions without making ones own observations.

The criticism he has for revolvers, in my opinion, should be directed at aluminum frames instead of the inherent design. Other than mentioning the frame material, there is no implication that it may have played a bigger role (indeed, light carry guns are usually sold with the understanding they are for light duty use).

Another statement:

A well known fact is that 22LR while cheap when buying bulk also happens to be less reliable.

Of all the pistols I have, the 22's are generally the most reliable and I have never seen a study backing up his statement so I tend to doubt the veracity of it pending more supporting information.

However, all the above are only MY opinions, and you gentlemen should always form your own which may or may not agree. The important thing is they are your own and not what someone else tells you to believe.

Mark:

You have hit the nail on the head. This author took four handguns out to the range on one occasion and had the mishaps he documented. This is hardly the sort of statistical data that anyone can draw a meaningful conclusion from. It represents one outing -- one trial -- and with one gun of each type and one person. Certainly, the author should feel free to draw whatever conclusion he wishes from the data (or lack thereof) that he wishes, but the notion that he has either validated or debunked a myth with this experience is not a bit credible.

For example, I've shot my revolvers and pistols on many many occasions, with a wide array of ammunition and under a number of conditions. My experiences don't mirror his in the least. I don't consider the sum of my experiences to be statistically significant, either, but they certainly provide much more data than his one trip to the range.

You know, I was on the highway the other day. I saw a Ford in an accident. Therefore, I'll never drive a Ford...

timmy wrote:..... Therefore, I'll never drive a Ford...

I don't blame you..

I personally prefer pistols. But that is a personal choice.

however one area I do agree with the author is that fixing a pistol is a lot simpler than a revolver.

What one decides to carry is more of a personal choice than anything.

As far as .22lr reliability goes, he evidently hasnt dealt with the P22 or Mosquito both of which tend to gunk up very easily and start having issues with stovepiping after about a 100 shots.

if s&w can jam,what will happen to an iof?
maybe the usage of different ammo makes the gun sick?
i prefer what i have, no choice though.
regards

dr. ,

A comment from the site

I have several revolvers, one stainless 4 inch .22 S and W "kit gun", model 34 , I think. Like your aluminum gun, these cylinders were badly machined or with poor steel and when the hot shells expand, they are very difficult to extract. The gun has been sent back twice over the years to S and W. It never worked well new from the factory when I got it 30 years ago and still doesn't work. This company has had several owners and variable quality. Maybe it now makes reliable weapons but I've never purchased another one and never will. JMHO.

http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2011/11/myth ... GENTINA%29

Sounds a lot like the IOF .22 revolver

I don't think it is a myth to think of revolvers as reliable, in general compared to most semi autos, they are more reliable. Maybe the author should have titled it "the myth of absolute revolver perfection". If man makes a machine, it can break down. That is why we have repairmen out there. Revolvers need proper care and upkeep, just like anything. And you can't treat them like a Hollywood gun; all that flipping the cylinder open and closed with one hand tears them up. That last sentence is FACT, the rest of this post is just my opinion like the rest of you here.

I carry S&W 2 Inche barrel revolver but my father Webley A SERIES has crossed 5000 rounds without any failure and i would any day prefer carrying this Webley against pistol. Thats my trust and experience and may differ from others.
Regards,James..

Okay, time for me to eat some humble pie.
My beloved 4 inch S&W model 66 choked on REALLY crappy 1970s era Argrentine military ammo. We were out in the woods here in Washington with the family when it happened. I fired a shot, tried to thumb back the hammer for a second shot...hammer no go back! What! I tried opening the cylinder to see the problem....cylinder no open! What! So I looked sideways at the cylinder and could see that the primer had backed out of the primer hole, and had wedged itself against the breech face of the frame. So while holding the cylinder latch, I had to hit the cylinder to mack it pop out. The primer apparently was not set into the primer hole firmly, or it was an excessive charge or the opening from the flash hole in the case was to small, but either way, it backed it out of the cartridge. So the moral of the story is, don't ever use crappy ammo for defense, it can get you killed. Fortunately we were only plinking that day. So there is my one and only mishap with a revolver. Still love that model 66 though. Troy

I personally prefer pistols.

I agree: the pistol is a more sophisticated and advanced firearm than a revolver. It's my belief that revolvers, the most sophisticated of which would be a fine double action revolver (e.g., a Colt Python) are an "evolutionary dead end" with regard to handguns.

In expressing this opinion, I would liken the pistol vs. revolver comparison to the Automatic vs manual transmission comparison with regard to cars. An Automatic simply has more sophistication and the concept can be developed much further than a revolver.

But that is a personal choice.

There is a lot to this statement, as well, although I do believe that, while confidence in the weapon is a very important quality, it is something that must be based on fact, not just wishful thinking or on vague references to magazine articles.

But it is true that, most of the time, where we begin in addressing an issue depends on where we start. For me, it was my Dad, who, as a young man in the US Army before WW2, was on his regimental target team. (In the pre-WW2 era, it was not normal for Division level units to conduct maneuvers together; these were conducted on the regimental level.) Dad considered handguns less than the 1911 unworthy of consideration.

For quite some time, I shared his opinion. I love the way the 1911 fits my hand, and I find it to be the most "natural" handgun for me. However, events conspired to introduce me to double action revolvers, and for a personal protection and carry weapon, I have to give my nod to my Colt Detective Special.

however one area I do agree with the author is that fixing a pistol is a lot simpler than a revolver.

Undoubtedly! Considering the complexity of a good DA revolver's workings and the hand fitting needed to assemble or repair it to give proper operation, this is a true statement.

However, I must point out here that this does not necessarily imply a lack of reliability. The actions of old DA Colt revolvers come from a long line of development, and the actions in the Colt revolvers in particular are known for their robust service lives in police departments for many years.

I shoot my Detective Special for practice and a little fun, never with +P loads, and the revolver is well maintained. I think it has as much probability to go bang when the trigger is pulled as any firearm made. (My other Colt DAs, even though nearly a century old now, are also very reliable themselves, as well as deadly accurate! But a 6" barreled medium frame revolver isn't exactly ideal as a carry weapon!)

Revolvers have more to go wrong with them, but pistols are prone to magazine and feed problems. But in a high quality and well maintained weapon, these issues are very minimal -- they should be, or the gun in question cannot qualify as "high quality." (By "high quality", I mean both design and in manufacture.)

Still, in the end, we all have to be convinced in our own mind of these things as they relate to our individual choices. But, when I read a title that is provocative like this one, obviously intended to attract a degree of attention that the article's content does not justify (as if some groundbreaking fact or discovery was presented that nobody had ever heard about!), I confess that I tend to have an attitude that is dismissive and argumentative toward it, which I think is justified.

My older Son's father-in-law carries a 9mm Kahr (just to cite the other side of the coin) and from my own examination of it and from a shooting outing with him, I'd say that his pistol was an excellent carry weapon. About the only thing I can be dogmatic about on this subject is what I have, what I do, and how I feel about it. These things, I'm pretty expert on. But for the rest, as they say on the WWW, "your milage may vary."