If you had to choose one revolver that "was less likely to let you down" for long term use ... and you had both a SA and DA revolver, which would you choose as being the most reliable and less likely to have "issues" with? I'm not talking about personal preferences here... which you prefer... I'm talking about which is more robust and reliable with extended use?
SA or Double Action revolver ... with regards to durability long term
- Thread starter cdncowboy
- Start date
just having some fun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I think it all depend on the model of gun some SA have lots of rounds and I have also seen some people using DA relvolver in IPSC for many years
SA you can use in SASS DA you can not
Depends on how heavy its built and how well it is built
If you watch Hickock45 I think he used a DA for many years in long range Steel target shooting in 44cal
SA you can use in SASS DA you can not
Depends on how heavy its built and how well it is built
If you watch Hickock45 I think he used a DA for many years in long range Steel target shooting in 44cal
Having both and having look inside both I'd go with a DA. At least the S&W DA's that I've got.
The SA style that follows the original Colt pattern from the 1800's has fewer parts. But some of those parts are flat springs or are made to work as flat springs. These tend to be a little iffy over the long term and can break. The cylinder bolt/stop in the old Colt actions are a perfect example. A cut is made to let the one side act as a spring. But over time these can simply break due to fatigue. The old style leaf hand springs are another spring that just fatigues and fails now and then due to being a leaf style flat spring.
Now if we get into a modern SA revolvers like the Ruger Blackhawk, New Vaquero and Super Blackhawk that's another story. The springs are all made from round wire. But in this case there are as many parts as you find in a DA revolver. So I'd call the long term reliability a wash on that count.
The SA style that follows the original Colt pattern from the 1800's has fewer parts. But some of those parts are flat springs or are made to work as flat springs. These tend to be a little iffy over the long term and can break. The cylinder bolt/stop in the old Colt actions are a perfect example. A cut is made to let the one side act as a spring. But over time these can simply break due to fatigue. The old style leaf hand springs are another spring that just fatigues and fails now and then due to being a leaf style flat spring.
Now if we get into a modern SA revolvers like the Ruger Blackhawk, New Vaquero and Super Blackhawk that's another story. The springs are all made from round wire. But in this case there are as many parts as you find in a DA revolver. So I'd call the long term reliability a wash on that count.
Not sure about other revolvers, but on my Project Alpha - the single action and double action triggers use different sear/hammer engagement points. So if single action gets messed up, you have double action trigger pull to fall back on.
lejarretnoir
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- 162km from Connaught
Tough call and more of an engineering question. Don't know anyone who buys a revolver based on longevity of use alone. Most buy because of looks or feel.
I think BC Rider has nailed most points. Heavy duty frame, fewer parts and stainless steel without flat springs will be more enduring.
Last edited:
My instinct would be a single action - but I had an S&W Mod 10 that I bought when I was on WCB for a year and a bit with a spinal injury. I shot 30,000 rounds through that gun in a single year and it looked as good at the end of the year as it did at the beginning.
- Location
- West Quebec
I'd take a single action if I had a choice..
the freedom arms 83 or 97 are probably the best built single actions ever available.
i know you don't want a brand discussion but it is a factor. I bet a solid DA like a ruger would be more reliable long term than a substandard SA. materials and workmanship matter
i know you don't want a brand discussion but it is a factor. I bet a solid DA like a ruger would be more reliable long term than a substandard SA. materials and workmanship matter
Last edited:
I agree that the brand of the firearm matters. As you put it, some companies use different materials and have better workmanship and quality standards.
That said, let's assume we are comparing the best SA revolver available with the best DA revolver available. They may or may not be made by the same manufacturer.
This is a good point. Let's also assume that we are talking about modern revolvers. If they have similar number of parts and so an equal opportunity to fail, in that regard, does one then have a design weakness that the other does not? Would the double action sear internals fail more often then the sear internals of the SA given that there are more parts involved in this area?
When DA revolvers start to wear, they tend to go out of time - this isn't the end of the world if you're shooting, normally the cylinder has enough momentum to overcome the fact that the hand isn't feeding up all the way. A broken spring on the other hand is fatal. I've never seen a factory S&W flat spring fail, even the old WW2 Victory models generally have their original mainspring. Then again, a factory Smith DA mainspring is about 1/16t thick.
- Location
- West Quebec
All things being equal I would guess the firearm with the most parts has a higher "probability" of failure..
Exactly, but it is an impossible discussion without throwing in the manufacturer. A Colt S.A.A. is a beautiful thing, but throw it 'stoc'k into C.A.S. & I'm sure it will fail faster than a Ruger, but it may live longer than a cheap off shore reproduction... The manufacture would play more of an equation now a days than the action. I'd take some semi autos over some S.A.'s for longevity if quality of build was taken into fact.
Agreed, but in this case the action with the least parts is the old "4 click" Colt style. It has the least parts but uses the least reliable forms of springs.
Wear that leads to timing slop was also mentioned. But both SA and DA/SA revolvers rely on the same sort of parts to move and lock the cylinder. So I don't see an advantage one way or the other. With wear or peening both will produce a bit of rotational cylinder shake.
Axial shake is also of concern. Of the DA/SA hand ejector styles I've seen there are a lot more parts in the cylinder arbor assembly and an often surprisingly delicate crane that supports the cylinder. The SA style dumps all this for a nice solid pin held in a nice solid frame. So advantage SA in this case.
That leaves us with the internal action components. But in looking at the internal schematics of various revolvers other than the old style original Colt action it's clear that the parts count is pretty much the same.
So all in all if the guns are handled with normal care I don't see one being better over the other. But if we include rough handling and possible crushing or drop strength then I'd say the nod goes to the more solid construction of a SA revolver. In particular the models with the shorter barrels since that gives any forces a shorter lever to work with.
For simple parts reliability I'd say the materials and techniques used by the maker over the actual design are more important. And with that sort of care comes a higher cost. So all in all I'd say if you bought USFA or Freedom Arms you'd be getting about as reliable a gun as you'll find. It's just a coincidence that these are both SA styles.
Or perhaps a Korth? Another gun with a stratospheric price which by rights SHOULD mean that they use only the best materials and best control over the heat treating and fit.
On the other hand how many shots have been taken from the lowly S&W model 10's over many, many decades of use? Can one of these even become worn out from shooting the fairly gentle .38Spl loads? What about the round count through various S&W Model 17 and K22 revolvers? How would these compare to guns that shoot a steady diet of larger Magnum rounds?
And then there's the issue of how the guns are used. It's no secret that rapid firing of DA revolvers involves a high impact force on the cylinder stop bolt and the hand as the cylinder is quickly indexed and stopped with a SNAP. It's also pretty well known that holding the trigger down and fanning an old style SA revolver is a good way to beat the action out of proper timing. So perhaps we need to factor in the power of the cartridge and how the gun is used?
For example I don't see a big difference in the stop bolt and hand used in a K frame S&W to a N frame. But the cylinder on a Model 27 or 28 is bigger and has a lot more metal in it than a K frame model 10 or 19. So that poor stop bolt, frame and cylinder notches have to suffer through far greater impact forces when being shot in a rapid fire DA mode than the smaller and lighter K frame parts.
If the cylinder is anything but perfectly timed and locks up with anything less than perfection the cylinder notches, bolt and hand will also see some impact loads. So shooting lower power ammo such as .38S&W, .38Spl and .44Spl should result in less deformation damage over time. So this could also come into the picture.
So all in all perhaps we need to look at the WHOLE picture. In which case there's a lot to be said for a Model 10 or Model 14 in .38Spl shooting a steady diet of 148gn HBWC loads. Such a gun shot with that sort of ammo would easily outlast any one owner. Or the .22LR Model 17 or K22. Lots of examples of these are still in like new condition even though they might be 30 to 40 years old and have seen many thousands of rounds sent downrange.
