Actual numbers (malfunction rates and such) are missing in the posted article. Not a good idea: the decision to select this or that sidearm can hinge critically on comparisons of quantifiable attributes.
Feed reliability is the most critical attribute of a self-defense handgun: a user will want a high probability that the second shot will go bang when needed.
From the introduction of the autoloading pistol until about 1980, the best that could be coaxed out of an autoloader was a feed failure rate about 5000 times higher than that of a revolver. And this could be maintained only when using full metal jacket round-nose bullets - not the best design for effectiveness.
Around 1980, better bullet design and better autoloader feed-system engineering began to make themselves felt. The discrepancy shrank to its present level: individual bullets are now more effective, but revolvers are still 100 times more reliable than autoloaders. This is not a fixed situation: to get the discrepancy down this far, autoloader parts must have rather loose tolerances, which degrades accuracy. Tighten up the tolerances, and accuracy may rise, but reliability will decline.
Another advantage of a revolver is that any bullet size or configuration can be used, loaded to any velocity up to the max allowed, and the revolver will function. It depends only on mechanical movement with energy supplied by the users themselves.
Since autoloaders utilize a small amount of energy from the cartridge to cause them to work, cartridges for autoloaders must keep within rather strict limits of size, bullet shape, and velocity; straying outside these limits results in a malfunction.
Shot for shot, revolver cartridges - magnums and such - can be quite powerful, far beyond what any practical autoloader is capable of taking. The chief drawback is that these powerful revolver rounds can be very hard on the user.
The trigger pull on a revolver is generally better than that on an autoloader, or can be. The chief reason for this is that the revolver’s trigger/sear mechanism does not have to withstand the vibration and shock caused by high-speed movement of the slide and other parts on an autoloader, which cannot be avoided if the autoloader is to function at all. Not that all revolver triggers are that wonderful out of the box; but they generally respond to polishing and stoning better than does an autoloader.
Not sure why the authors faulted only the revolver for light primer strikes; they can happen in double-action (trigger cocking) mode, but autoloaders are not immune to this problem. Springs typically weaken over time.
There’s definitely a tradeoff between lightness of trigger pull and ignition reliability; weight of pull depends in part on the stiffness of the spring driving the hammer, and a less-stiff spring will make pulling the trigger easier. But that lighter hammer spring can adversely affect feed reliability in an autoloader: most depend on a combination of the recoil spring and the hammer spring to make everything work. And the smallest, most concealable autoloaders use smaller, lighter parts (especially the slide and breechblock) and thus depend on yet-stiffer springs to make them function.
When confronted with an unacceptably heavy trigger pull, the reaction of the neophyte is to demand a lighter hammer spring. Pistolsmiths do not approach the problem in the same way: in performing a “trigger job,” they stone the engagement surfaces, refining the angles where sear and hammer meet, and even out roughness introduced during manufacturing. They polish the hammer, trigger, frame, and other internal surfaces where all these parts rub against each other as the gun functions.
The result is a crisp-feeling trigger pull that smoothly moves only a short distance before letoff, which feels much lighter than one that is mushy, gritty, and moves farther, no matter the spring power for either.
Revolvers can be left loaded for extended periods, without having any springs compressed. In autoloaders, having the gun ready requires that the magazine be loaded, which can weaken the magazine spring over time.
And a revolver is simpler: safety systems are typically internal and automatic, functioning without conscious user input; this is not true of many autoloaders, which can have external safeties demanding manual operation. One simply picks up a revolver, aims, and squeezes: nothing to remember, nothing to forget. Since the introduction of the Glock, and many copycat autoloader designs, this latter difference has come to mean less.
Paradoxically, many stoppages of an autoloader can be cleared with immediate action, easy to perform. But if a revolver does malfunction, some stoppages can be very serious and involved, and may require the services of a skilled pistol smith to unravel, working for numerous hours. If a light charge forces the bullet part way out of the case, in a revolver it may come to a stop part way into the forcing cone. This halts all cylinder movement. Sometimes it proves impossible to drive that bullet back into the cylinder far enough to allow the cylinder to spin. Then the ingenuity of the smith gets a real test: it can require a jeweler’s saw inserted in the barrel-cylinder gap to cut the bullet apart, or other techniques that deform, grind, or cut down the bullet to get it out of the way.
Tradeoffs must be made. Each design offers advantages and each has drawbacks. Determine exactly what you want to do and choose accordingly.
Although I don’t carry it as often as my Glock 43, I’ll never give up my .38 S&W J-Frame.
You’ll never get more reliable than a wheelgun.
Bulkier but way more reliable. One handed when necessary. For that reason, I rate them above pistols for self defense.
Revolvers are what they are. Try one to find out. They work. One simply needs to practice properly with one.
The main problem I see for people with pistols now is lack of proper trigger squeeze. Triggers are getting stupid-light in efforts to please them, and there will be many accidents. Those who are too lazy to practice properly are too lazy to be safe or effective enough in other ways (mainly lazy minded).
Recently handled a popular production striker fire pistol with 4.5 lbs. of pull and no manual safety. What the...? And it was called “The Pro.” What’s the matter with people now? Have the mindless, girlish fan boys taken over?
Are they weak, uncoordinated or what? Long ago, Back in the Stone Age, I qualified 100% within 2 sessions as a newbie on a range that included rapid fire from the holster with a revolver then the same with the old Glock 17. That was from 25 yards, then 15 yards (if I remember correctly) then 7 yards. It’s not that hard to learn proper technique and have an adequate amount of grip strength and spacial-visual coordination to make it second nature.
(Apologies to anyone who really does this, but really, how can one GAF about you and not say something? Shoot one of them at a time and use your sights. You'll meet more girls at the shooting range.)
I have a 1st gen Colt Agent with an alloy frame. It has 6 shots weighs less than a typical 5 shot S&W snubbie in an imperceptively larger package. Probably the best combination of size and capacity available. They have been out of production for a long time but they can still be found.
Not perfect...but i used to own a few till my boat exploded.
I liked them.
from the linked article “Just in the past year, had I’ve had plenty of revolvers malfunction on me and I’ve also seen people on the range have problems, too.
Problems like…”
This guy must be an animal! Shoots a lot of guns that malfunction.
Given the list of problems, most never happen to those that take at least a tiny bit of care of their firearms. Makes you wonder how an auto-loader would fare with those individuals. I say this as an individual that runs 10,000 + rounds/year through a revolver.