Are Revolvers Really More Dependable than Semi-automatic Pistols for Defense?

While semi-automatic pistols continually proved themselves suitable for military service in ordnance tests and combat during much of the Twentieth Century, revolvers remained weapons of choice for the majority of American police who seemed reluctant to depend on "jam-a-matics" that could fail at a critical moment.  Even now, though the transition to semi-automatics, which began in the 1980s, is largely complete, a few law enforcement agencies still permit revolvers to be carried on duty while a smattering still issue them.  Are double action
revolvers truly more dependable than semi-automatic pistols when the chips are down?

In theory, semi-automatic pistols offer greater mechanical reliability than revolvers due to simpler actions with fewer moving parts.  Though this has been well substantiated by numerous torture tests under extreme conditions, this quality has not always been practically demonstrated, often due to ammunition.  In the past, many semi-autos, being designed for full metal jacketed ammunition, did not perform well with expanding bullet profiles used with modern, defensive rounds and some did not function well with American ammunition that did not meet hotter, European specifications.  Thus, the perception that semi-automatic pistols were unreliable was not unfounded.

However, by virtue of progress, technology, and the continual improvements thereof, modern semi-automatic pistols generally function well with most ammunition, including defensive loads which are more sophisticated than ever.  Such refinement, in addition to the innate mechanical reliability provided by many designs, make semi-autos anything but unreliable "jam-a-matics".  As a matter of fact, they are more dependable than ever and many have distinguished service records that prove it.

Of course, there is more to dependability than mechanical reliability and the ability to properly cycle a wide variety of ammunition.  Most "malfunctions" can be traced to errors on the part of the shooter that originate from improper (or mistaken) operation and poor maintenance.  With semi-automatic pistols, common problems include failures to fire resulting from shooters forgetting to release the safety or accidentally applying it while shooting, double feeds caused by riding the slide with the hand rather than briskly releasing it when chambering a round, stove pipes and empty chambers caused by unseated or accidentally released magazines, and jams due to "limp wristing" (not locking the wrist while shooting) the pistol.  Less frequent issues that are worthy of mentioning are jams caused by bad or damaged magazines and failures to feed resulting from dirty extractors and rounds with rims buggered from frequent loading and unloading.

With revolvers, the most common user induced failures to fire are caused by pulling triggers enough to index cylinders but not enough to fire the weapons and loose mainspring strain screws that prevent hammers from falling hard enough to detonate the primers of cartridges.  Other common problems resulting from operator error tend to disrupt loading or reloading rather than the firing process.  These include loose extractor rods that bind actions, loose cylinder releases that impede opening the actions, fouled chambers that interfere with loading live rounds and extracting empties, forgetting to use the extractor rod to empty the chambers, and failure to release the extractor rod before reloading (this can allow individual cartridges to be loaded under the extractor, rendering revolvers inoperable until the chambers are cleared).  Though uncommon, loose extractor rods and significant accumulation of debris under extractors can bind actions to the point that normal operation is disrupted.

The aforementioned "malfunctions", which result from operator error and poor maintenance (including the ones that seem laughable, such as forgetting to release the safeties on semi-automatic pistols or forgetting to use the extractor rods on revolvers), are not just the venue of novices.  Experienced shooters with high levels of skill make mistakes, especially when faced with the stress of a timed course of fire or when switching from one type of handgun to another.  Fortunately, training, regular practice, and attention to routine maintenance will minimize these types of "malfunctions", regardless of whether one uses a semi-automatic pistol or a revolver.

When operator errors and lack of routine maintenance are minimized, semi-automatic pistols are very dependable and well proven but so are revolvers.  Although semi-automatic pistols are theoretically more mechanically reliable, that which is theoretical can have little bearing during practical applications.  Catastrophic part failures do occur and no firearm design is immune from them; but, they are infrequent within the parameters in which semi-automatic pistols and revolvers of good quality are typically employed. 

When the totality for potential malfunctions is evaluated, semi-automatic pistols are more likely to fail at a critical moment than are revolvers, especially when employed by those with only minimum skills and familiarity with the weapon.  This is because most of the problems that can affect semi-autos will disrupt the firing process while most of those that are likely suffered with revolvers tend to impede the reloading process.  Thus, with less potential for a stoppage in the midst of delivering rounds to a target, revolvers really are more dependable than semi-automatic pistols when the chips are down, especially for those who neither routinely practice nor effectively execute malfunction drills.