The revolver vs autoloader debate will go on longer than any of us will. In my experience, the difference in reliability has been absolutely moot. Modern guns of either variety, from reputable manufacturers, are virtually 100% reliable if kept clean and fed good ammunition. I would stake my life on either without hesitation.
The real difference for me, as a hunter and outdoorsman, is in the difference caliber selection available for them. My "outdoors" guns are all revolvers, from the ones I hunt with to the ones I carry when back packing, hiking, and fishing in the wilderness. My "social" guns are, for the most part, autoloaders of the 1911 variety. They are simply easier to carry, and hold more rounds.
Where revolvers really shine, for me, is in the outdoors. We can pack one hell of a lot more power in a truly portable revolver than we can in even the biggest, most ungainly autoloaders. My favorites, as most of you know by now, are my variety of .45 Colt chambered single actions. A close second are my various .44 mag revolvers. I have both in "hunting" barrel lengths and in "general woods bumming" barrel lengths. The longer ones afford a bit more sight radius, and in some cases (but certainly not all), more velocity. My only complaint is they make them harder to carry when all you want is some level of protection, and you are not actively hunting with it. The shorter ones are much better for that, out of the way and forgotten until you might need it. Oh, and none are inherently more accurate than the others - barrel length has nothing to do with that, it just makes them easier to shoot well.
Hunting revolvers and "defensive" revolvers, .45 Colt and .44 Mag:
