my glocks go thousands of rounds between stoppages, and so far every single stoppage has been fixed with a tap-rack.
If I get one stoppage per 10,000 rounds, say, and get into a situation which requires 10 rounds to resolve, I have a 0.1% chance of needing to do a tap-rack to continue firing.
The GP100 has a 100% chance of requiring a reload to get through 10 rounds, and very few people can reload a revolver as fast as they could tap-rack with a bit of practise.
There is also, of course, the possibility that you will get a malfunction that cannot be cleared with a tap-rack. Since that's never happened to me in thousands and thousands of rounds, I think it's fair to conclude that there is no more than a 0.01% chance of this occurring.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a 0.01% that a revolver could, for example, back a primer out enough to lock up the cylinder, which puts it out of the fight for at least as long.
So you are trading one extremely improbable occurrence for another...but also giving up the 17 rounds mags and the easy reloads.
And if you figure you'd have to practise your manual of arms more with a glock...well, I guess that could be true if you know for a fact that you will not even attempt to reload the revolver. But in my experience revolvers take a lot more practise to reload quickly. So either way, if you want to be effective, you need to put the time in.
I think it's hard to rationally conclude that there is not a major advantage to going with the Glock.
Speaking of reloads...
Let's go with that 10,000 rounds you mentioned. With a 17 round mag, that's around 588 reloads (give or take, if you keep one in the chamber, etc). With the Ruger, that's almost 1,667 reloads.
'Tis better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.
Disasters are terrifying, but people are stupid.
wee drop o' bush wrote:
THE EVIL MONKEY HAS WON THE INTERNETS!