Design elements that make pistols more reliable?

[rbMPSH12]

Recently I've seen a lot of posts/videos online about the reliability of certain handguns over others. For example, there was a recent website linked on INGO that showed a guy who put his Glock 21 through all kinds of torture tests (mud, sand, freezing, baby powder, shooting it, dropping from an airplane etc) alongside an HK USP. The Glock fired and cycled pretty much in every condition, while the other did not. I realize that there are certain design elements that affect things like feeding and extracting reliability, such as the feed ramp or the extractor. But why is it that a certain gun would fire and cycle a whole mag under extreme circumstances (buried in muddy goop and sand) while another won't even cycle the second round? What design elements make this possible? Why does James Yeager always say that 1911s, among other guns, fail in his classes more often than Glocks and M&Ps etc (aside from being a Glock guy)? If there are certain things that enhance reliability, why aren't more manufacturers using them?

I'm not looking for generic answers like "Glock's design is just better." I'm also not looking to start a "this gun's better than that gun" war. I just want to know if anyone knows of specific design features that promote firing and cycling under adverse conditions.

 

[Lammchop93]

For me, it's the less small moving parts inside, the better.

 

[jhaynes]

Partly unsupported chamber (such as Glocks). Where a small bevel is cut at the lower rear of the chamber where it meets the feed ramp. This is what allows those guns to feed, camber, and fire any brand of any style bullet every time.

 

[cwillour]

Partly unsupported chamber (such as Glocks). Where a small bevel is cut at the lower rear of the chamber where it meets the feed ramp. This is what allows those guns to feed, camber, and fire any brand of any style bullet every time.

^^^^This^^^ seems like a near-perfect example of the trade-offs required in engineering. The same partially unsupported chamber that seems to help feeding reliability seems to be cited in many of the "Glocks-go-boom" cases (whether the partially unsupported chamber is actually part of the issue or not, I cannot say.)

OTOH, the Ruger P95 seems to be nearly indestructible and my old one digested everything from under-powered ammo to surplus German +P+ without a hick-up, but the things are massive, heavy, and relatively inaccurate compared to other pistols with similar capabilities. Once again, just trade-offs.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

"Loose tolerances" vs tight ones.

Granted, the difference between tight, loose, and too loose is still very small.

Combine that with few moving parts like in the Glock and M&P can certainly equal very very good reliability.

 

[throttletony]

"Loose tolerances" vs tight ones.

Granted, the difference between tight, loose, and too loose is still very small.

Combine that with few moving parts like in the Glock and M&P can certainly equal very very good reliability.

These guys beat me to it. Glock's "sloppy" chambers and AK's bolts/chambers/springs are good examples of loose tolerances (relatively speaking) that have reputations for high reliability.
I also agree with the K.I.S.S. principal - fewer and simpler parts are generally more reliable. BUT, there certainly is a difference between functionality/reliability (will it go bang) and accuracy. Most production pistols and semi-auto rifles have to find a balance between the two. That's my $.02 anyways.

 

[Tombs]

The secret to reliability on anything is the proper chamber dimension, throating, feed ramp, and magazine geometry.

Some companies get it right, others mess it up. An excessively loose chamber can cause a lot of issues as well.

I think the thing that helps glocks survive so much is the slide mass, personally. They cycle fairly slow but with a lot of inertia so they can't easily out-run the magazine, but can still crush debris.

 

[LARGrizzly]

The glock has an open rail system allowing it to blow debris out of the action, a 1911 doesn't. Both are fine pistols and I own multiples of both.

 

[rbMPSH12]

Thanks for the responses. Those things make sense.

 

[palerider0485]

one factor that hasnt been talked about much is the size of the gun. the 1911 is designed to have a 5 inch barrel, and alot of companies have made these 3 inch models. when you do that the slide dosnt have as long to slow down when under recoil and heaver recoil springs are placed in the gun. the slide must strip the round from the mag sooner. alot of problums happen when you shortin barrels on handguns or rifles.

 

[ryknoll3]

The glock has an open rail system allowing it to blow debris out of the action, a 1911 doesn't. Both are fine pistols and I own multiples of both.

I think this ^ is a big part of the boost in reliability of new handgun designs. The interface between the slide and frame is much smaller and looser than that of older guns. I think this is particularly helpful in situations where mud and gunk gets into the gun because there's not as much that needs to slide together that can be subject to interference. Also, I would think a striker-fired design is going to fire more reliably in mud and adverse conditions because there are fewer parts than a hammer-fired gun and those parts are usually contained pretty tightly in the slide. An exposed hammer gives lots of room for junk to clog or slow its function.

 

[Daggy]

I watched an interview with the late Kalashnikov himself. He said that a reliable gun has to be loose enough that when you throw a handful of sand into it, it wouldn't get obstructed enough to jam. Simpler is better. The Soviets had to design their guns this way because their troops were drawn mostly from peasant conscripts, who had zero experience with firearms.

 

[88E30M50]

I agree with the open rail design of the Glocks adding to their reliability. When you look at a Glock, it really had no rails, but more like locator tabs instead. All those locator tabs do is to keep the slide aligned and attached. It uses enough material to get that job done, but no more. That could be said of just about every other part of the Glock. Just enough material to do the job, but no more. The trigger assembly is fairly open and remarkably simple in it's design. The parts that require precision and tight fitting tolerances seem to be positioned in a protected manner that helps them retain their reliability. For instance, the design of the connector puts it at the rear corner of the frame and the design itself is done in a way that the top angled piece gives a bit of protection to the connector contact surface in how it's shaped.

The 1911 has a lot more complexity to it internally, but is still relatively simply in function. There is a lot more precision required in the fitting of the 1911 than a Glock and a 1911 would not stand the torture test that a Glock would. One of the things that gives a 1911 a soul is how right the gun feels when all things come together in harmony, but that comes at the cost of a lessor ability to withstand outstanding levels of abuse. Each of my 1911s has a personality that's a bit different from every other one. That's one of the reasons I love 1911s. You can tune them to be whatever you want it to be but it will always retain a distinct character.

Now, CZs are interesting in themselves since they add even more complexity to the mix. With a stock double action CZ, you have two separate sears in there. One is for single action and the other is double action only. The double action sear operates similar to how a striker fired pistol works but instead of pulling the striker back, it pulls the hammer back. Both operate in a way that as spring tension is built, and the trigger comes back, eventually it encounters a bump that pulls the trigger bar down releasing the hammer or striker. I really don't know if this adds to reliability or not. The CZ has a huge amount of slide to frame contact with maybe double that of a 1911 and many times that of a Glock. While that helps with accuracy, it also can contribute to a malfunction if something gets into the slide track. When I tried Froglube, I found that the reliability of my CZs dropped due to the increased surface tension that Froglube added. On the other hand, A CZ is a fairly closed up gun. The internal parts are pretty well protected inside the frame without a lot of openings large enough for sand to get inside.

An interesting question to ask is: How reliable is reliable enough? Glocks can go way over the top in terms of accepting abuse while still functioning but CZs are accepted as one of the outstanding firearms available in our generation. Would the CZ survive a Glock style torture test? I don't think so, but I don't think it needs to either. I think my CZ would do well in some of the tests but not all. The 1911 has had enough real world torture tests over the last 100 years to convince me that they are good to go given realistic conditions.