Durability of a semi-auto vs. a revolver

[Bill in Oregon]

I was reading a thread on the S&W forum this morning about how many rounds various semi-autos can be expected to last before springs and parts fail or slides crack. Focus was on 1911s and the S&W Shields. But I got to wondering how long a single or double action revolver is likely to last before something breaks or wears out. My guess is longer, maybe a lot longer.

[JimT]

Depends on the caliber and the loads. All revolvers wear the cylinder because the recoil makes the cylinder move rearward and raise up in the front. Just a few thousandths. But over time they will wear. End-shake .. excessive barrel/cylinder gap. We shot my Dad's 1960 Single Six .22 for over 30 years ... many thousands of rounds .. before I had Hamilton Bowen set the barrel back, tighten the end shake etc.

My Dad's 586 S&W .357 has had over 350,000 rounds through it. It's had the end-shake tightened up twice. A new hammer. A new trigger. And a new barrel due to a stoppage in the middle of a rapid-fire session that left a nice egg in the middle of the barrel. But the gun is still going strong. My brother has it and other than worn blueing, it has no issues. 90% of the loads were 38 Special.

How many a sixgun will take before they need repair is basically dependent upon the ammo that is used.

[Lastmohecken]

When I was a young man, I wore out 4 revolvers that I recall. I don't know how many rounds, but it was a lot. The first one I wore out as a teenager, was a new model Ruger single Six, stainless. 22 shells were dirt cheap back then, and I shot 500 rounds to a 1housnand a week. I hunted a lot of small game with it and also did a lot of fast draw practice and even fanning. I know the fanning was hard on the gun. I had to have some pins replaced, and the timing and cylinder gap got pretty sloppy. It still worked but I had got the best out of it. I eventually sold it to a friend. The next gun I wore out was Smith and Wesson K22 revolver. With that gun, I did a lot of small game hunting and a lot of fast double action shooting. Eventually after a few years, the cylinder would rub and drag on the barrel, and I had to have it shimmed. The timing was getting bad on it and I was having problems with it and the fine accuracy was not there anymore. I eventually traded it to a Gunsmith, and he basically rebuilt it, and I even bought it back later, and gave it to a friend of mine who wanted it. I think he still owns it, but he doesn't shoot that much.

Shooting IPSC back in the old Jeff Cooper days of the early to mid 1980's, I eventually wore out a Smith and Wesson 586 shooting very hot 38 specials, to make major in that competition. Moist of us shot 38 speicals loaded hot, as opposed to 357 because the cases cleared faster during reloads. I really hammered that gun and had to have it shimmed. And I done so much fast double action shooting with it, that the timing eventually got sloppy. It needed more extensive rebuilding, but I traded it off for a new one.

I wore out a Smith and Wesson 25-2 N frame, 45acp revolver, after that. I had to have it shimmed also, and I had beat it to death, with fast double action shooting, also. It got pretty sloppy, and I eventually traded it off. I loved that old gun, though, I have a newer model now, basically just like it, but I will never shoot enough again to hurt it.

On a side not, I have a Colt 1911 that was customized, which I shot extensively, for many years and all I have done to it is replace magazines, one extractor, maybe a firing pin, and several sets of grips. The finish on the frame is pretty much gone, but the gun shoots and works as good as it ever did.

I love revolvers, but I personally think that a good Colt 1911, or Smith and Wesson model 41, .22 semi-auto will outlast most revolvers by a wide margin. Cheap made semi-autos, not so much.

[Lastmohecken]

I thought I might add, based on my personal experience, I think a revolver can hold up for a very long time, shot normally, and by normally, I mean slow, smooth cocking, and or smooth rolling through while double action shooting, and not hammering it, like one would when he is trying to shoot as fast as possible. Because when that cylinder rotates around to the next chamber, and you are really slinging lead super fast, it beats up the lock bolt and the notches in the cylinder, especially a big N-frame, because that big cylinder flies about there quick and has to be stopped suddenly by the lock bolt catching the notch on the cylinder. It hits hard if you are really smoking it.

But a 1911 semi, can handle a lot more of that, cause that's what they are made for. Just my opinion, based on a lifetime of shooting. You will have to replace magazines, and maybe a few small parts on the 1911, but for me anyway, I can keep one of those running pretty much for a lifetime of heavy shooting and do all of the gunsmithing myself. So, it sounds like I really love the semi-auto, and I do love the 1911, but as I sit here, after coming back home for breakfast, from checking the cows and hay, I am wearing a Smith and Wesson model 629 with a 5 inch barrel in 44 mag. And it will last me the rest of my life, because I am not hammering it, shooting hundreds of rounds a week, like i did when I was young.

[Malamute]

Edit: Just saw the post above ^^^ and agree with it. I also feel that whatever theoretical advantages autos have, Ive never been able to shoot any of them as consistently well as revolvers, and strongly prefer revolvers for all my normal use.


I think we should keep in mind both need or should have some maintenance with regard to wear parts replaced as needed. I think of longevity as being when major parts start to wear beyond redemption and/or the gun fails to basically function. replacing springs in autos, and hands and shimming end shake etc in DA revolvers isnt a strike against them.

The 1982 4" 29 has had hands replaced several times, end shake shimmed a couple times, and I consider it good to go as is. Its probably only had 5k-ish magnums fired in it, and many more medium level loads or specials, maybe 20-somek total. the 1971-2 K-22 has somewhere between 2-300k rds with zero work or parts besides a lost thumbpiece nut. Its a little loose, but shoots very well, I also consider it good to go as is. I used to shoot some moderately fast DA with it, but perhaps not to the level some have. I have enough internal parts to keep it and other smiths running for several lifetimes, just stuff I picked up here and there on ebay or gun shows.

Todd Green shot a g-19 about 80,000 rds, at which point it had a crack in the slide i believe, but he and the glock rep felt it was probably ok for another 10k rds without issue. He did some tests on several other guns, of which i dont recall the details. The rental place in Vegas used to post on some forums regarding how many rounds various guns lasted and what parts were needed as maintenance to keep them going, it was pretty interesting. I believe AKs started cracking receivers around 100k rds, ARs lasted longer as far as the receivers go, of course barrels are consumable items as are most other parts at that point, but the receivers were still usable. The gun called "Filthy 14" (Bravo Company AR carbine) ran around 30-some K rds with I think 2 or 3 cleanings and some minor parts replacements, and it was still being used for classes. Oil them heavily and they run seems to be the takeaway.

[Sarge]

Glocks are mud-fence ugly but there are reliable accounts of them chugging 50,000+ rounds with nothing but a fresh recoil spring. I only have one, a 45 Auto, but it shoots as well at 100 yards as I am capable of holding- these days.

[GunnyMack]

When I was in school, a classmates Dad was a higher-up at Glock, at the offices in Georgia was a model 19 that was a torture test gun. It was shot 1000 rounds per day going on ten years at the time. I don't remember exactly but just a few things were replaced, extractor, recoil springs. Magazine springs weren't considered if I remember correctly.

The Tool Room at school had a Ruger Security Six that was absolutely amazingly smooth. It started its life as a trainer for C.L.E.T.A. the Colorado law enforcement training academy. At some point in its life a squib bulged the barrel taking it out of service. At that point it came to the gunsmith school. It was found out that at one point a student at CLETA was responsible for doing a 'trigger job' by hooking the hammer on top of a steel door while hanging his body weight off the hammer spur and pulling the trigger burnishing the surfaces. That action was as smooth as greased glass.

When Beretta came to give us their 5 day armor's course we were told the 92 had a lifespan of not more than 5000 rounds. Some slides broke/cracked at 2k others went past 5k. The US Military said 5k and change the top end.

All springs can go bad, steel can crack, exactly when those parts can fail is a WAG at best. Due diligence on the operators part, keep thing tight, lube regularly and things can go for a long time.

[Lastmohecken]

Yep, I remember hearing about the 92's failing and the Tarus had some issues eventually, also. Although, I had a Tarus 92 for a while and I always liked it better than the Beretta. I do own an M9 now, but it doesn't get much use. Good shooting gun, however.