Does More Expensive equal Reliability ?

[okc-zee]

Lately I've been looking into adding a 45 to my CC mix...I've checked a few different ones out,all prices all sizes...For me, a 1911 is too big to carry...I would prefer something lighter,and a little smaller...I was going to settle on a Kahr CW45 but decided to hold off and think on it a bit more...I've checked on the XD45c,Kahr CW45,PM45 Sig 220 Glock 36and even the Taurus PT145...Of course as much as I try not to,as I research them all it's easy to get drawn into all of the horror stories about each model experienced by different owners...I know everyone has their preferences,and when you buy something new,it's always a crap shoot...allmost everyone gets stuck with a dog at some point...I was set on the CW45 and now I'm wondering if I have to go at least twice the price to get a more reliable and dependable hand gun...I wasn't planning on spending 800 plus dollars on this and if it came down to it I probably won't...Just wondering if the more you spend gives you a more reliable handgun...

 

[wbwanzer]

No.

The only semi-auto that I have ever had a problem with is the one I spent the most money on. It's a SIG and I really do love the pistol, but it's got the only problem I've ever had out of eight semi-autos that I still have. Other less espensive semi-autos have left my stable and they were trouble free also. Maybe I've just been lucky.

 

[yittidee]

I carried an xd45 for a year without notice. I've switched to a sig 1911 cco model in .45. The best advice these guys gave me was to get a good holdster and belt. Maybe my size plays a factor in this also but I find the 1911 very easy to conceal compared to a double stack. To answer your question though I go by the theory you get what you pay for.

 

[sigarms228]

IMO not necessarily. It is best to investigate various models to see what info you can find. I am a huge SIG fan and for me they have all been 100 percent but based on what you are looking for I would recommend you highly consider the HK45C. I have heard of nothing but great things about it including extremely high reliability.

 

[1911Tuner]

Odds favor it with a more expensive gun, but it's no guarantee.

 

[BossHogg]

My Glock-36 is dependable and so is my 30 some year old Star PD. Just get a gun you like and make sure you can depend on it, if you can't get it working trade it.

Money don't make greatness but it sure helps.

 

[Magnumite]

More expensive will get you better performance to a point. After that performance point is reached it is mostly highly detailed refinement and aesthetics which is garnered from increased cost.
One must consider the platform and basis design then go from there to establish a point of diminishing returms.

 

[yittidee]

Magnumite is right. I chose the 1911 because of the 100 year mark and the great trigger break. All jokes aside though test the gun you want and make sure you can trust your life with it.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

No, just look at Kimber, they have their fair share of $1500 jammo-mattic turds, lol. My $460 Ruger SR9-C will run better than some of those guns.

Out of the choices you mentioned, I'd go with the XD-45C.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Does More Expensive equal Reliability ?

No. One of the worst handguns I ever had cost over $900.

 

[mgmorden]

As 1911tuner indicates, the ODDS are with you that a higher priced pistol tends to have less trouble, but odds are never guarantees.

A $1000 pistol with a 1% problem rate will have one person out of a hundred that gets a lemon.

A $250 pistol with a 20% problem rate will have 80 people out of one hundred that get a gun that will be on the internet claiming that those guns work fine.

In reality it's only the overall data that can be trusted.

 

[DeepSouth]

Not always, but generally "You get what you pay for" holds true.

That said buy the KAHR, you'll love it.

 

[Steve C]

I'm wondering if I have to go at least twice the price to get a more reliable and dependable hand gun...I wasn't planning on spending 800 plus dollars on this

Reliable: giving the same result on successive trials

Beyond about $450 money doesn't buy reliability, it buys features and sometimes accuracy. If you want reliability buy guns used by military or law enforcement organizations; Glocks, Smith and Wesson, Beretta to name a few as they get the most real world testing.

 

[Shadow 7D]

no
and let me say it again so the system will take the reply
no

 

[REAPER4206969]

No.

 

[rule303]

Is a Mercedes more reliable than a Toyota? Same thing with guns, while you can get a lemon from any manufacturer, there are a lot of good choices out there from under $400 to many thousands.

 

[GWARGHOUL]

Is a Mercedes more reliable than a Toyota?

No.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is a classic psychological study on placebos (inert milk sugar pills that do nothing for you.) In the study, one group is told the pills cost 1 cent apiece. The other group is told they cost a dollar apiece.

Guess which group gets well and which one doesn't?

It's the same with M1911s -- there are people who believe if it costs two or three times as much, it has to be better.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't think the more expensive gun are always more reliable...you have to find the Sweet Spot in the different platforms.

In a 1911, I think the Sweet Spot is in the mid-priced range of $1200-$1500. But there isn't much to choose from between a nice Sig 220 or H&K HK45 other than frame material, just as there isn't much to choose between the Glock 30, Springfield XDm45 or the S&W M&P45.

It would be hard to find a nicer compact .45ACP than the Kahr CW45, if you are looking for a polymer framed, striker fired DA gun

 

[Miracle]

For what it's worth, my Metro Arms 1911, even with my OWN reloads (and I just started reloading this year), after about 5,000 rounds, I've had maybe 4 or 5 hiccups. And it's a $425 gun.