This is a discussion on CCW reliability is No.1. What are the other requirements that are paramount for you? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by gig I find this discussion rather interesting, if not intriguing....... If "reliability" is truely the No. 1 concern; then why is not ...
As far as the No 1 you got it!
The rest for me is how I feel about the gun I carry. I think if I know I was going to need a gun today what gun do I want in my hand. I always carry my Glock 22 always. It is not the easiest gun to conceal but I manage.
My dad and 99% of my friends carry (99% being LEO or Military or both) I am the only one who carrys a Glock. most carry a SIG p226 (it is not small either), and a few 1911's and one 357 S&W wheel gun.. but they all are happy and feel good about the choice..
Reliability, and the way the trigger feels, I have resold guns because I hated their triggers. After that it is all about looks, I only have one gun I think is sort of ugly and thats my XDM, other than that I have two Smith and Wesson revolvers I carry, and a 1911. Those three are all beautiful in my opinion and thats what matters to me
"The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."
I agree revolvers are not 100% fail proof; however I do feel the "perception" is based in fact coming from many folk's experience.
Again, I agree; but can we not assume that the "error" and "maintenance" factors are somewhat negated by the assumption that each individual will operate on the same level whether they are handling a revolver or semi?Anything mechanical will eventually fail. If you factor in human error and gross maintenance negligence, revolvers will be susceptible to failure, too.
In other words, if the eventual failure is because of human error or maintenance negligence, I submit the failure will come sooner with a semi than with a revolver.
Yes; however, in general, a quality revolver has less moving parts than a semi, therefore is less susceptible to design flaws.The platform that has a greater propensity for failure is usually traced back to design flaws, misuse and neglect.
Please, don't get me wrong. I prefer a semi-auto; but not because of reliability.
You have, with your OP, made me think as to exactly why I have this preference.
It is not because of caliber because a 357mag would out-weigh a 45acp.
I suppose it is mainly based on size (which could translate into comfort) and ease of re-loading.
(I hate revolver speed loaders and they don't carry as flat as extra mag.)
Once I decided on a semi because of the above; then reliability does become a huge factor.
For myself, I have chosen to let the size and reloadability factors out-weigh the reliability factor by self limiting human error and maintenance neglect.
And this is the reason I always recommend a revolver to someone new to guns because I have no control over how much they practice or clean their weapon.
I would pose the question to the table:
Did you select a semi-auto over a revolver because of reliability?
I've not read all the responses so maybe someone else has said this.
Reliability is not number one for me. As a new cc'er going into the LGS to get a carry weapon, I am looking for something first that 1) I WILL CARRY everyday, rain or shine so to speak wardrobe wise. This can be a melding of size, thinness, action, safety, and just my mental clicking with the firearm.
Then when that short list gets put together, I would probably rank them by price with notes on reliability. Certainly I would not pick a crappy cheap gun that was not reliable. But, between two very reliable models, price comes into play.....ergo I do not YET have an H&K P2000SK.
SO, can I wear the thing every day and operate it safely and effectively? Then if so what's it gonna cost me for the ones that are field proven for my set of requirements.
Can you name a quality revolver that has never encountered reliability issues..?
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Seriously, Folks. NOT making Reliability #1 is a scary thought, for me.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
If one does hold reliability as the No. 1 requirement and carries a semi; then one is saying semi's are more reliable than revolvers.
Granted, within each sub-set there is much variability of reliability; however I am assuming quality vs quality.
I see many positive and good reasons for LEO's to carry Glocks; but I also see them being sent to the armor regularly for a check up to maintain reliability.
Sometimes I fear the avg Joe might think his Glock is invincible because of the record of those Glocks which receive proper maintenance and weak part replacement.
The factor I am using is the assumption that if a person owns a revolver and a semi-auto, then that person will give both the same degree of protocol and maintenance.I wish I had that data. What factors are you utilizing to make that conclusion?
Therefore the variables of human error and maintenance neglect are eliminated as variables because they are held constant.
Yes, I would agree; but I also am familiar with the KISS principal.In mechanical engineering, Less isn't always better. Fair Statement?
Please, I have not said there is a quality revolver that has never encountered a reliability issue. Everything will fail in time.Can you name a quality revolver that has never encountered reliability issues..?
The question is, with all things held constant such as human error and maintenance, which is more likely to fail first, a quality revolver or quality semi-auto.
In response to the question raised in the OP, I will admit that my chosen carry gun is a semi-auto, and I have given a few reasons for this choice; but I have also admitted that reliability is not my #1 reason because I am of the opinion that a quality revolver is most likely more reliable than a quality semi over time.
However I have chosen to attempt to negate my perceived reliability discrepancy through proper maintenance and timely replacement of questionable parts.
gig, your comments are very much appreciated and I'm pleased for your participation.
Let me see if I have this right.
It's your opinion and conclusion that a semi-automatic pistol has a much greater propensity for failure or malfunction, than a revolver. You base this solely on the fact that most revolvers have less moving mechanical parts. Furthermore, your opinion is that anyone who chooses Reliability above all other factors, for the specific purpose of self-defense carry, should therefore choose to carry a revolver.
Is that a correct synopsis..?
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
A gun that I can wear comfortably and not give myself away due to constant repositioning.
One more step and it's on!
I agree on reliability, and to me this also means being able to shoot it reliably, so:
# 1 - reliability (it has to go bang every time with a good self-defense load - I have no use for a self defense gun that only works with FMJ)
# 2 - concealability (it has to be thin enough to conceal IWB with pants/shorts, etc. in the summer)
# 3 - action (for me it has to be DA/SA w/ decocker- always have a first shot, no worries about a safety or having to cock it, much easier follow-up shots if needed)
# 4 - sights (I need real sights if I'm going to hit anything more than 4 ft away)
# 5 - capacity (minimum of 6+1 with the ability to reload quickly)
Caliber is not as important although I would not go with less than a .380.
Can you guess my favorite carry?
Last edited by m287452; April 13th, 2011 at 05:05 PM.
I don't think I have a "much" greater; but it does seem to have been the feeling of most from my reading that taken as a group, revolvers have less problems than semi's.It's your opinion and conclusion that a semi-automatic pistol has a much greater propensity for failure or malfunction, than a revolver.
(When it comes to self-defense, even a nosed down round requiring only a mag tap does speak to reliability.)
I would base it more on the history of use of quality revolvers. There are many revolvers out there with limited moving parts that I would not trust.You base this solely on the fact that most revolvers have less moving mechanical parts.
If you seek documented proof, I have none; but neither have I seen documented proof that semi-auto's are more reliable than revolvers.
I am saying in answer to the question posed in the OP that reliability is not my #1 because if it was, I would only carry my S&W 638 or Ruger 101 and never carry my Kahr PM9.Furthermore, your opinion is that anyone who chooses Reliability above all other factors, for the specific purpose of self-defense carry, should therefore choose to carry a revolver.
Because I have less doubt that either revolver will fire everytime than I do for the semi.
I don't think of it a #1, 2, etc, I think of it as pieces of a pie. If any piece is missing it ain't a whole pie.
Power factor/capacity ratio. Smaller power factor more rounds. With a 9mm (I don't carry anything smaller) I want more rounds (15ish), with a ,357 mag I'll settle for six.
Ergonomics, shootability for me. Fast and accurate close, slower and accurate far.
Must have a hammer and DA/SA capability, auto or revolver.
Size and weight are pretty much non-issues, I prefer larger/heavier.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
2. Stopping power (no caliber wars, please)
5. Feel in the hand
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
Sadly "Training" and "practice" which is "reliabilty of shooter" and at a minimum is equal to reliability of firearm, seems to have been mostly overlooked here.