Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[RationalGoblin]

Quick question: What kind of warfare, equipment, and tactics did the 950s Kievan Rus use? I'm writing an alternate history story that veers off from real life a few years from those years.

Additionally, if anyone knows anything about Khazar tactics and equipment around the same period, that would be extra-helpful.

Thanks in advance.

[Philistine]

Just like the Allied Landings consumed a huge amount of industrial capacity, any major landing action against any of the world powers of the time was an undertaking most nations just didn't have the industrial output to even attempt. That we managed to launch several is a testament to the vast industrial output differential the axis powers were up against.

If it weren't for the fact that the United States had more than 50% of the worlds industrial capacity at the time, landing attempts launched the by the Allies would have been folly as well.

I don't know that 3rd Reich Germany could have produced the amount and kinds of material needed, without utterly abandoning other important projects and not fighting on any other front.

All excellent points, and the last two taken together are especially interesting. To a much greater extent than any other belligerent power, the US was free to choose "all of the above" when faced with competing priorities - or at least to choose "this, then that" rather than "this instead of that." The US did a lot of things in a very short span of time, from providing a logistical lifeline to embattled Allies, to massively expanding and modernizing our own armed forces, to prosecuting - essentially - two separate wars on opposite sides of the globe, to undertaking staggeringly expensive research and engineering projects. When you look at everything that was achieved, it's really pretty amazing.

Though, ofcourse, this is all hindsight and we shouldn't judge the British people of 1940 for assuming the worst.

Very much this. In this context it's perhaps worth pointing out the fear of Japanese invasion on the US Pacific coast in the first 6 months or so after the Pearl Harbor attack - a fear with even less basis in fact than the British fears of a German invasion a year or so earlier. Germany had already accomplished enough "impossible" things by the fall of 1940 that it's easy to see why people were afraid they'd manage to pull it off just once more.

[MarkusWolfe]

Then there's the whole matter of the enigma machine, which the Germans were using to send all their messages. The UK captured one, then assembled tech experts, chess masters, linguists, crossword fans and maybe a few others I can't remember. They built the first computer, and then proceeded to crack the enigma codes wide open. Once we captured schedules detailing the specific enigma codes on specific days, we actually started getting the messages before even the Fuhrer himself!

Not to mention Britain also had young soldiers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand backing them up, manning their long range aircraft and proving their mettle as tank drivers and infantrymen on the ground. Hitler never once comprehended exactly who he had started a fight with.

[Storm Bringer]

Then there's the whole matter of the enigma machine, which the Germans were using to send all their messages. The UK captured one, then assembled tech experts, chess masters, linguists, crossword fans and maybe a few others I can't remember. They built the first computer, and then proceeded to crack the enigma codes wide open. Once we captured schedules detailing the specific enigma codes on specific days, we actually started getting the messages before even the Fuhrer himself!

Not to mention Britain also had young soldiers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand backing them up, manning their long range aircraft and proving their mettle as tank drivers and infantrymen on the ground. Hitler never once comprehended exactly who he had started a fight with.

the polish, for a start.

they broke the enigma before the war started. On a shoestring budget.

They were a major part of the british/american codebreaking effort, and were only stopped by the germans beefing up sercurity beyond what their budget could counter (they knew how to crack it, but the time and costs rendered it unviable until the computer allowed them to automate the sums.)

edit: this does not diminish the efforts of the codebreakers at Bletchley Park, who effectivly 'broke' the enigma several times, due to changes in the enigma machine and operator practice (the latter was a major scource of leaks, as lazy operators would skip security mesures ("eg don't use the same key twice, don't use your girlfriends initials for a key setting", etc))

[MarkusWolfe]

the polish, for a start.

they broke the enigma before the war started. On a shoestring budget.

They were a major part of the british/american codebreaking effort, and were only stopped by the germans beefing up sercurity beyond what their budget could counter (they knew how to crack it, but the time and costs rendered it unviable until the computer allowed them to automate the sums.)

edit: this does not diminish the efforts of the codebreakers at Bletchley Park, who effectivly 'broke' the enigma several times, due to changes in the enigma machine and operator practice (the latter was a major scource of leaks, as lazy operators would skip security mesures ("eg don't use the same key twice, don't use your girlfriends initials for a key setting", etc))

Heh. I remember a show called 'Secrets of WWII'. They had an episode on the enigma crackers, and I distinctly remember them pointing out one specific case where one guy did that every time.

[Storm Bringer]

that sort of lazy key selection was a major problem for the germans, as it allowed the crackers to shortcut the whole process.

The Birts would know, for example, that the 306th infantry division was currently in the line at, say, Caen (form reports form the Underground, other intercepts reports of unit patches seen at the front, etc). they might also know, for example, that a operator attached to the "306 XX HQ" callsign was a lazy swine who would encrypt his messages with his mothers maiden initials, "XYZ". they get a new message, which radio direction finding places at Caen. while one group of crackers starts the normal, 'blind' cracking attack, one bloke sits down with a copied or captired enigma, plugs in XYZ as the key, and sees if he gets a cohreant message out.

bingo! hes just saved hundreds of man hours of work, and got the message not more than a few hours after the intended recepitant.

[MarkusWolfe]

One of the major things working against the Nazis is that many of Hitler's underlings were Chaotic Evil nutbags who used their power for the purpose of making others suffer, or to work towards their own ends. Heh, those crazy Nazis.

[Thane of Fife]

Quick question: What kind of warfare, equipment, and tactics did the 950s Kievan Rus use? I'm writing an alternate history story that veers off from real life a few years from those years.

Additionally, if anyone knows anything about Khazar tactics and equipment around the same period, that would be extra-helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Ehm, I believe that the Kievan Rus armies were usually divided between local levies and the ruler's Druzhina, or personal retinue. There was probably a chance of mercenaries as well. I would suspect that whether they fought on horseback or on foot would depend where they were and what the local levy possessed. The Druzhina would presumably have been largely mounted, and better equipped than the levies.

As far as equipment goes, I would expect it to be viking-esque, in that the vikings did much of the civilizing of Russia.

You might consider looking through Google's preview of Osprey's Armies of Medival Russia: 750-1250, or picking up a copy if it looks interesting.

Also, I don't know if this is precisely the period you want, but here are some illustrations of early medieval Russian soldiers.

[Galloglaich]

Ehm, I believe that the Kievan Rus armies were usually divided between local levies and the ruler's Druzhina, or personal retinue. There was probably a chance of mercenaries as well. I would suspect that whether they fought on horseback or on foot would depend where they were and what the local levy possessed. The Druzhina would presumably have been largely mounted, and better equipped than the levies.

As far as equipment goes, I would expect it to be viking-esque, in that the vikings did much of the civilizing of Russia.

You might consider looking through Google's preview of Osprey's Armies of Medival Russia: 750-1250, or picking up a copy if it looks interesting.

Also, I don't know if this is precisely the period you want, but here are some illustrations of early medieval Russian soldiers.

What he said...

To add to that a bit: there were the Druzhina who were heavy cavalry associated directly with a "Prince" (or more precisely, the Knyaz which is somewhat analagous to German Konig), they were armored and rode armored horses, and armed with both bows and lances as well as swords and later, sabers. Plus frequently maces, axes, lassos and god knows what else. They were some of the most heavily armed Medieval troops I ever heard of, basically because they had to contend with both Western European style heavy cavalry and eastern Steppe style cavalry archers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

The Druzhina were closely analagous to the Germanic comitatus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitat...cal_meaning%29

Then you had the "Varjag" or "Varjazi" or "Varangians", this term could refer to a Varjag trading group which is kind of the Eastern Norse version of the early Hanse, or to Mercenary outfits. They were also heavily armed, usually on horseback or travelling on those river boats from town to town. But they usually fought on foot like regular Vikings, as heavy infantry.

This is a pretty good sketch of typical Varangian arms and armor in the 11th Century.
http://www.larsbrownworth.com/blog/w...gian_Guard.jpg

This is a good example of a 'Varjag' merchant in civilian attire, this is also how many Swedish Vikings dressed.

The Varjag groups were directly related to the Viking war brotherhoods, in which each member would swear an oath of kinship creating an artificial kin-group or family ('brotherhood'), though the Varjag in Russia could include Norse as well as Finnish, Slavic, Baltic, Central-Asian and Western European members. One good point of comparison is the Jomsvikings which were the archetypical (and semi-legendary) Viking warrior-brotherhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsviking

Rus Varjag bands attacked Byzantine territory many times in the 8th-10th Century and then some of them were later hired by the Byzantines as the Varangian Guard. The Byzantines have records of Varjag bands going back to the 8th Century. One interesting detail is that they recorded women fighters among their ranks, noted among their dead after a defeat by the Byzantines in what is now Bulgaria. Ibn Fadlan also famously visited a Rus band which was probably a Varjag trading group, and complained about their washing out of the same bowl.

Then within each Princely territory you had the rural militia called the Voi, some of which in the 9th -10th Century were still real tough Slavic tribal militia; and well armed, well-trained urban militias in all of the fortified trading towns which were called 'veche' (which is, rather confusingly, also the name for the urban political assembly* which was similar to the Norse 'Ting'). The militia leaders, called Tysatsky were elected by the veche, and were an important military figures in their own right, not just during the Rus but throughout the later Medieval Novgorod Republic.

In an echo of what was to happen later in Western Europe, the urban militias of the Rus towns (particularly Novgorod) were very strong and militarily important in the Rus Kaghanate, and contributed to the growing independence and then dominance of the trading cities like Kiev and Novgorod the Great, which became it's own Republic after the decline of the Kievan Rus (because Novgorod was never conquered by the Mongols, they retained the Veche and their own independent militia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic

I think the Osprey book is pretty good, I have it.

Here is another link on Rus weapons
http://www.inisfail.com/oldsage/ancients/the-rus.html

Here is a website of a French re-enactor group who dress up as Druzhina
http://www.1186-583.org/article.php3?id_article=19

If you want to get really deep into it, there are many good Primary sources for the Rus, the Russian Primary Chronicle, several of the Norse sagas, and numerous surviving Byzantine records are among the most accessible (quite a few having been translated into English).

Now as to the Khazars, that is something I don't know much about but I wish I did. I find them fascinating and enigmatic. The Khazar empire and their relationship to the Rus is like something right out of a Conan novel. I don't know of any really good sources though most of what I've read on them is from Wikipedia.

G.

[Psyx]

The UK captured one

Poland were the first to capture a military one.

I seem to recall that civilian versions were available for purchase before the war, but it was the wiring system rather than the basic mechanical principles that was the crucial part.

No secure comms system is secure if you use the same one-time codes more than once. If you can keep to one-use discipline, one-time codes are as secure as you can get.

The US did a lot of things in a very short span of time

Like stopping the Bank of England from setting the value of the Pound itself, and by wrangling to get the place that set the world's exchange rates in Washington. By those two moves alone the US secured it's Top Dog position in the world after the war.

Quick question: What kind of warfare, equipment, and tactics did the 950s Kievan Rus use?

Awesome question. I have no idea, but am going to have fun reading the replies.

To a much greater extent than any other belligerent power, the US was free to choose "all of the above" when faced with competing priorities

Not as much as you may think, though. Even though the US had massive industrial resources, they were still pushed to near-limit. Just look at the HUGE resources that were piled into the Manhattan Project, for example.

I still have nightmares about it once in a while.

I didn't particularly enjoy being shut in a dingy hut in a noddy suit with a lung-full of tear-gas. That memory wakes me up about once a year, still.

is there some mechanical/practical advantage to the wheelgun over an automatic?

Other way around, I'd expect, although I'm not much of a pistol shooter and have never fired more than about half a dozen shots from a revolver in my life! Although revolvers have a reputation for reliability (which may be based on conservatism rather than facts), there's nothing to damp the recoil at all.
The infamous Desert Eagle even has a gas system instead of a blow-back mechanism which makes it even more recoil-friendly.

the fighters would simply have relocated north of London

If a decent job had been done by the Germans in the BoB, there wouldn't have been any fighters left.

It would still be hard, and it would require effective suppression of the RAF, and some (diplomatic) way to stop the flow of material from America, including lend lease destroyers.

U-Boats were doing a pretty good job. Great Britain was pretty much on it's knees and fighting punch drunk at the time.

Air Superiority could certainly need to have been be gained, and VERY nearly was. VERY nearly.
The Channel is hardly blue-water, so the Germans could rely partially on batteries on land and smaller craft to help against the RN. The RN wanted to retain its battleships as part of a Fleet In Being strategy, but would have tossed almost all of them into a fight for the channel... which may not have gone to well, looking at what was demonstrated to happen in the Pacific when you put capital ships up against dive-bombers.
The Germans had a marvellous ability to make the engineering impossible possible. They'd already attacked Belgium through a manner deemed as 'impossible' and defeated 'impregnable' defences. And GB had already 'impossibly' evacuated troops across the Channel at Dunkirk. The possibility of them getting troops to England could not be discounted. And they had the ability to make fairly organised parachute landings too, which would - if Kent had been the target for landings - nicely established a beach-head. Artillery could have been provided from Navy assets initially. As for armour... Kent isn't exactly tank country, so an armoured thrust was never really viable there. Anglia or the South of England are a lot more conducive to tank warfare, but I don't think that they were really viable targets due to lack of proper marine transportation.

[fusilier]

Speaking as a british soldier who had his annual CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nucular, formerly called just NBC) training last week, their are some nerve agents out thier which, in ideal condictions, you can inhale a leathal doseage of in a single breath.

I don't know much about nerve gasses, but WW1 gasses all come down to concentration levels. Heavy enough concentrations and most gasses would be fatal. Some gasses like diphenylchloroarsine was just as fatal as phosgene or chlorine in the same concentrations, but weren't fielded in those concentrations. Diphenylchloroarsine is a very effective sternatator (sp? sneezing agent) in much much lower concentrations. The idea being that if you could quickly deliver the sternatator in low capacity high-explosive gas shells, then it would make it very uncomfortable to wear a gas mask, and the enemy would be more likely to be hit by the phosgene that was following it up. It may have also been able to penetrate the filters on many masks, although I'm not sure if it could penetrate the late war gauze style masks.

Reliability was a big issue. Weather conditions could make a significant impact, and are often given as the reason why heavy gas attacks were rare on the Italian front (although when used there they seem to have been effective). The first use of gas shells (against the russians in late 1914) failed as the temperatures were so low the gas simply froze. Diphenylchloroarsine may not have been as effective as supposed, because it required a pretty high temperature to vaporize. Finally, your own troops always risked exposure if gas was used in combat areas.

[Subotei]

My earlier post - about Churchill using gas on the invasion beaches (all supposition on my part, but I reckon he would've sanctioned its use) - seems to have spun off a big Operation Sealion debate and whether it was a feasible plan. Some good points have been made - heres my view.

There was no certainty of the outcome of the Battle of Britain - poor tactical choices by the Germans (eg not concentrating on radar or fighter command bases, switching targets etc etc) might not have been made and the whole thing could've been much closer. Removing fighters north of London would've made the south coast and channel a german controlled zone.

The real strength of Fighter Command was the fact if could prevent the German planes attacking the Home Fleet if it was committed - not to attack the landing forces in any meaningful way. Given the poor performance of bomber command in the early part of the war I doubt the airforce woud've been much use offensively if a landing was made. Ships without air cover were useless (see Crete and any number of battles in the Pacific War). No air cover over the channel meant the Home fleet would've been decimated by the Luftwaffe, despite the shortcomings of the main German surface fleet. Thats not to mention the substantial land based artillery, e-boats, mines and subs that could also have been used - as has been mentioned in other posts.

Commiting the Home fleet, even under favorable conditions, would've been a gamble. This was the real weakness of the British position - to risk its use and have it destroyed would've ended British power.

The British defences on land were threadbare - a few partially equipped infantry divisions plus a few dozen tanks were pretty much all there was after Dunkirk. Massive efforts were made to bring this up to a decent level but at no time in 1940 were they a match for the german forces opposing them.

Whether Sealion would've worked is debatable - on the balance of probability it looks dicey in the extreme. However Hitler showed later in the war a willingness to accept massive casualties to achieve his aims, so were he willing to have a go I think it would've been a close call. Most likely a pyrrhic victory for Britain, with both side being mauled. I believe the reason it wasn't attempted was (a) his long term aim of turning East against Russia and (b) the fact that he wasn't able to inflict enough damage on fighter command to give the Luftwaffe a chance to crack the Home fleet.

[holywhippet]

Something I've been wondering for a while. When people fire a machine gun straight up into the air (like at certain middle east weddings) it would seem to be a dangerous move since what goes up, must come down. I'm not sure about that though. Bullets are extremely fast when fired, but they don't have much mass so I was thinking they might not fall overly fast when come back down due to wind resistance.

Any ideas? Are bullets dangerous when in freefall?

[Norsesmithy]

It depends. Bullets are fairly aerodynamic things, so if they are fired at a low enough angle that they remain stabilized, they will come down with lethal power, and in fact, there are a several deaths a year in the States because of such practices, never mind in places where it is more common.

But if bullets are fired at a steep enough angle that they tumble as they fall, they generally don't have the gumption to cause serious injury.

The threshold seems to be ~80 degrees from horizontal, BUT it varies based on bullet, barrel twist, and velocity.

[crazedloon]

there is a rather good mythbusters episode based on this exact question

[RationalGoblin]

What he said...

To add to that a bit....

*awesomeness*

Thank you very much! This will help my alternate history timeline/story a lot!

As for the Khazars, yeah, that's the group I'm focusing on, and yes, there's not a lot of info about them at all. Very enigmatic, and much of what people assume about them is based on half-truths and lies. (I.e., conspiracy theories abound about the Khazars).

[Galloglaich]

Thank you very much! This will help my alternate history timeline/story a lot!

As for the Khazars, yeah, that's the group I'm focusing on, and yes, there's not a lot of info about them at all. Very enigmatic, and much of what people assume about them is based on half-truths and lies. (I.e., conspiracy theories abound about the Khazars).

Yeah I know there are some creepy anti-semitic theories about them because they converted to Judaism. I think all that is B.S. though needless to say. I believe there is some serious academic data about them out there but I've yet to find any really good and also relatively accessible sources, if you do let me know I'd really like to read more about the mysterious Kazhars.

G.

[Galloglaich]

My earlier post - about Churchill using gas on the invasion beaches (all supposition on my part, but I reckon he would've sanctioned its use) - seems to have spun off a big Operation Sealion debate and whether it was a feasible plan. Some good points have been made - heres my view.

There was no certainty of the outcome of the Battle of Britain - poor tactical choices by the Germans (eg not concentrating on radar or fighter command bases, switching targets etc etc) might not have been made and the whole thing could've been much closer. Removing fighters north of London would've made the south coast and channel a german controlled zone.

The real strength of Fighter Command was the fact if could prevent the German planes attacking the Home Fleet if it was committed - not to attack the landing forces in any meaningful way. Given the poor performance of bomber command in the early part of the war I doubt the airforce woud've been much use offensively if a landing was made. Ships without air cover were useless (see Crete and any number of battles in the Pacific War). No air cover over the channel meant the Home fleet would've been decimated by the Luftwaffe, despite the shortcomings of the main German surface fleet. Thats not to mention the substantial land based artillery, e-boats, mines and subs that could also have been used - as has been mentioned in other posts.

Commiting the Home fleet, even under favorable conditions, would've been a gamble. This was the real weakness of the British position - to risk its use and have it destroyed would've ended British power.

The British defences on land were threadbare - a few partially equipped infantry divisions plus a few dozen tanks were pretty much all there was after Dunkirk. Massive efforts were made to bring this up to a decent level but at no time in 1940 were they a match for the german forces opposing them.

Whether Sealion would've worked is debatable - on the balance of probability it looks dicey in the extreme. However Hitler showed later in the war a willingness to accept massive casualties to achieve his aims, so were he willing to have a go I think it would've been a close call. Most likely a pyrrhic victory for Britain, with both side being mauled. I believe the reason it wasn't attempted was (a) his long term aim of turning East against Russia and (b) the fact that he wasn't able to inflict enough damage on fighter command to give the Luftwaffe a chance to crack the Home fleet.

+1 I agree completely with this analysis. The British fleet would have been vulnerable to Stukas and Ju-88s, (and U-boats) but it would have been a brutal slog and they might have been able to smash their way through and wipe out a German invasion fleet (of barges and etc.) before they were neutralized. I don't think it would have been impossible for the Germans to pull it off even with no RAF but very very risky. And the British are tough they would not have just rolled-over in their home turf, especially with the rest of Western Europe already conquered, they would know it was do or die.

G.

[Joran]

there is a rather good mythbusters episode based on this exact question

It was the first ever myth to have all three outcomes: confirmed, busted, and plausible.

It was confirmed because there have been people killed or wounded by bullets fired into the air.

It was busted, because they found that if you fired a gun exactly 90 degrees into the air, the bullet would lose its spiral and tumble, making it not lethal.

It was plausible, because if a person fired the bullet at less than a 90 degree angle, it could still maintain its spin and ballistic trajectory and come in at lethal speeds.

[Psyx]

Any ideas? Are bullets dangerous when in freefall?

People do it because people are stupid.
Yes: Bullets fired into the air can come down and kill people. And they do.
But people are still stupid.

Commiting the Home fleet, even under favorable conditions, would've been a gamble. This was the real weakness of the British position - to risk its use and have it destroyed would've ended British power.

That is essentially the Fleet In Being strategy: If you have a fleet and it's not been sunk, it's a threat. If you use it and it gets destroyed, then you hand dominance of the sea to your foes. It's better to always have a few battleships moored up in docks somewhere than to use them. It's why the RN and KM fleets spent much of the war twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the other fleet to sail.

The Channel is a woefully small place for a fleet action. The RN would have had to oppose the landings, but also would have needed to maintain assets to both threaten the beach-head (even an empty threat means the enemy must allocate assets to counter it) and to ensure that other landings could be opposed. I don't think the RN would have given it their all though for the reasons others have stated: Battleships don't do too well against dive bombers, and they needed to have something left.

But... it didn't happen, because Germany screwed up, and some very young men spent many of their waking hours flying aircraft and getting shot at 70 years ago. A fact that I'll be celebrating tomorrow, on BoB day.

[fusilier]

Mechanically, the mechanism of a double action revolver is more complex and more delicate than the mechanism of a semiautomatic pistol. It is much easier to kill a revolver than a selfloader. It is very easy to disrupt or damage the timing mechanisms on a revolver that advance the cylinder, and a small change can make your bullets start hitting the frame of the revolver instead of the forcing cone, with predictably negative results. Also many revolvers demand a specific brand of ammunition, and if fed the wrong stuff will suffer a primer extrusion that prevents the cylinder from being advanced until you smack it open with a mallet.

A autoloader might have trouble feeding if things aren't properly up to spec, or you are using it wrong, but you are far more likely to turn a gun into a fistload if you drop it, if your gun is a revolver.
They jam LESS, but when they do, you need tools to fix them, not immediate action drills.

I'm a bit surprised by your statement that a double action revolver is mechanically more complex than an automatic pistol. I would think the opposite would be the case, with the various springs and sliding (or toggle) actions of an automatic pistol are necessary to chamber, fire and eject a round/casing.

Robustness and quality of the individual design and build will effect reliability, and I believe that most modern semi-auto pistols are made very well. But I suspect that there are some delicate semi-auto pistols out there that will not suffer abuse as well as some revolvers. I'll concede, however, that a revolvers moving parts are exposed, so a good whack may work directly on them.

[fusilier]

People do it because people are stupid.
Yes: Bullets fired into the air can come down and kill people. And they do.
But people are still stupid.

I second this. Every couple of years someone is wounded or killed by a bullet in my city from New Years "celebrations".

[Raum]

I'm a bit surprised by your statement that a double action revolver is mechanically more complex than an automatic pistol. I would think the opposite would be the case, with the various springs and sliding (or toggle) actions of an automatic pistol are necessary to chamber, fire and eject a round/casing.

Robustness and quality of the individual design and build will effect reliability, and I believe that most modern semi-auto pistols are made very well. But I suspect that there are some delicate semi-auto pistols out there that will not suffer abuse as well as some revolvers. I'll concede, however, that a revolvers moving parts are exposed, so a good whack may work directly on them.

I suspect Norsesmithy and I were approaching the pistol's use from different perspectives. If you want a home defense weapon you can lock away and neglect until you need it, a revolver is probably your best bet. If you're using it in combat or just carrying it where it may take abuse, a semi-auto is probably better. I don't carry a weapon, it's purely for home defense. (And the zombie-apocalypse!) :)

The most succinct summary I've heard was

Revolvers tolerate neglect better than they tolerate abuse.

Semi-autos tolerate abuse better than they tolerate neglect.

Specific failure types:

• Revolvers
  • Jammed cylinder (don't drop it on its side)
  • Failed / fouled ejection either slowing reload or preventing cylinder closure if you force the reload
• Semi-automatics
  • Failure to feed - the round catches when fed into the chamber
  • Failure to eject - the extractor fails to pull the round properly

In general, the semi-auto failures occur far more often but the revolver failures are more serious (often requiring tools to correct). Which is more reliable really depends on how it is used. If you let the pistol sit in a lockbox for years between uses (a home defense weapon), the revolver is more reliable. Simple neglect isn't going to cause many problems. However, if you're running around knocking the pistol against things (think field use), the semi-auto will usually handle the abuse better.

[Mike_G]

If you're going to leave it in a locked box for years, you should sell it and spend the money on something useful.

Even if it's never going to be carried around, just sued for home defense, you should be taking it to the range. Or else, the one time you need it, you and the gun will have so much rust built up, that it's more likely the intruder will take it away from you and pistol whip you than you will actually use it successfully.

It takes a thousand rounds to get good, and a hundred a year to stay good.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This thread has exceeded the 50 page limit. There is now a new thread.