How many perfect feeds="carry reliable"?

[Vodoun da Vinci]

LOL...

I carry what I train with so for me it's 250 or so flawless rounds....that said my main carry pistols all have 1K+ flawless downrange deliveries and that's what I am personally looking for.

Flawless, consistent and precision delivery. I get that from several guns and if I don't get it from a gun over the long haul it gets sold or moved along to the back of the safe.

Luckily I have no guns that do not function perfectly nso it's an easy choice for me.

VooDoo

 

[X-Rap]

More important is how you shoot it.
Strong hand, weak hand, both hands, sideways and upside down, moving, static, from a bench or barricade, freezing cold or death valley hot, wet or dry. If shot under the above conditions I doubt there will be many large count flawless guns. Better to know how to keep it running than how many rounds can cycle under ideal range conditions.

 

[herrwalther]

If it's a glock 1.

If it's anything else 2-5 thousand before you should even think about carrying it, and then only if it's a BUG to a glock.

I hope you are being sarcastic. Glocks are indeed fallible and can fail. I have seen a Glock magazine catch FALL OUT of a new G22 during a magazine change.

 

[MICHAEL T]

I count the round in chamber The only reliable round in a semi auto. Any after that is luck.

That's why we have clearance drills All my semi autos have been reliable but theirs always that 1 time.

 

[JohnKSa]

From what I can tell, the overall malfunction rate of a good quality pistol shooting good quality practice ammunition but in a variety of conditions (normal/strong hand/weak hand, rapid/slow, etc.) should be less than 0.5%.

That includes absolutely any situation where the gun does not perform as intended. Fails to lock open when empty, fails to chamber the round when the slide is racked manually, fails to chamber the round when the slide is dropped using the slide release. Any reason at all, shooter error included. Some want to know why shooter error should be included and the answer is simple--because the shooter will be part of the equation in a real-world scenario. It's a fact that some designs are less tolerant of shooter error (e.g. very small light guns in heavy calibers are more prone to malfunctioning due to an improper grip) so it's important not to discount any malfunctions at all in the evaluation.

0.5% is fewer than 5 malfunctions out of 1000 rounds. If the malfunction rate is higher than that, then it's probably time to look for a different gun--either due to problems with the gun itself or because the gun and you don't work well together.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

If it's a glock 1.

If it's anything else 2-5 thousand before you should even think about carrying it, and then only if it's a BUG to a glock.

Riiiiiiight...

And considering many people would also recommend that the function test should be with one's chosen self-defense round, your recommendation would mean $2,000 to $5,000 investment in ammunition.

And even if it were WWB ammo, that would be anywhere from $400 on the low end to $2,000 on the high end, depending on chosen caliber and pricing.

That coupled with the totally unrealistic "1" round to reliability check of a Glock places this recommendation well into the "absurd" category.


One has hopes, though, that there was a modicum of sarcasm in that posting.

 

[Hangingrock]

JohnKSa:From what I can tell, the overall malfunction rate of a good quality pistol shooting good quality practice ammunition but in a variety of conditions (normal/strong hand/weak hand, rapid/slow, etc.) should be less than 0.5%.

I'm not asking this to be confrontational. How was the less than 0.5% percentage malfunction rate established?

 

[ACP]

herrwalther -- so someone did some kitchen gunsmithing on a revolver, and that made it unreliable. understood. I don't count that as "unreliable" since the gun has no control over what is done to it after it leaves the factory. if someone tensioned their own Glock extractor, polished the feed ramp and put in a target-only spring, and the Glock was then unreliable, whose fault would that be? the factory gun? no.

burk -- the Taurus I had was in the late 90's -- I haven't shot a Taurus in over a decade. would I buy one today? probably not

Bottom line for me is, I always see people talk about breaking in and reliability testing semiautos. always. so does everyone on this board. then there is the talk about swapping out substandard ("MIM") parts for tool steel, and polishing this, and adjusting that, and replacing this and that, and they're so pleased when it runs right. That NEVER happens with revolvers. No one replaces a hand or an ejector rod or a barrel or a cylinder or a mainspring. They just take it and shoot it.

I have carried semiautos and will continue to do so. I mostly carry revolvers now. I have no argument with semiautos. I just demand more "reliability" testing of semis than I do revolvers. I believe that is the case for most people.

 

[fedlaw]

My carry gun is always on probation.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Box of ball ammo followed by 50 rounds of SD ammo. I'm good to go.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm not asking this to be confrontational. How was the less than 0.5% percentage malfunction rate established?

It's from eyeballing the results of a couple of 1000 round reliability matches that I kept records for. Admittedly the sample set was not large, but it's the only sample set I have to work from.

The results fell into 3 main groups.

1. Good guns in good repair shooting good ammo. This group had 5 or fewer malfunctions in 1000 rounds. Average malfunction rate in this group was 1.6 rounds per 1000.

2. Guns improperly maintained or guns shooting ammunition that is generally accepted to be lower quality (e.g. steel-cased import ammo, etc.). This group had 10 or more (generally a lot more) malfunctions in 1000 rounds.

3. Guns shooting reloads. This class had 25 or more (again, usually a lot more) malfunctions in 1000 rounds.

 

[herrwalther]

herrwalther -- so someone did some kitchen gunsmithing on a revolver, and that made it unreliable. understood. I don't count that as "unreliable" since the gun has no control over what is done to it after it leaves the factory. if someone tensioned their own Glock extractor, polished the feed ramp and put in a target-only spring, and the Glock was then unreliable, whose fault would that be? the factory gun? no.

Do you buy all your firearms new? Must be expensive. Some of us buy used to keep costs down. Sometimes you get a gun rarely messed with, inside or out. Sometimes you get a bubba gunsmith special. And even coming from the factory, something may be out of spec. Point of my story is, every firearm should be tested. Revolvers and Glocks included.

 

[nettlle]

If a person shoots a lot of rounds through a semi auto they will learn how to do maintenance on them if they expect any kind of reliability from them.

 

[jamesinalaska]

ColtPythonElite

Thank you ColtPythonElite for your replies. I think your answers are good advice and well taken.

I also had a problem with a revolver which was a mother to solve. My fault though, I did something funky with the trigger (I don't know, I think I was playing Fast Draw Cowboy that day) and it jammed the timing spur. I was at the range when it happened but I learned that day that even good revolvers can go bad. (Video on Sale Now)

Thanks again ColtPythonElite. Good advice.

 

[shepsan]

With a new sidearm, it takes me about 200 rounds of mixed types and weights of ammunition to “get the feel” of the gun. Once I do and determine which brand and weight of defensive ammunition the gun best handles and the one with which I am most accurate, I concentrate shooting an entire box of that ammunition.

If no failures occur during that session, I accept the pistol and that specific ammunition as a carry piece and round.

When carrying, I am on the alert and ready to clear any round feed failure or general malfunction with an un-holstered sidearm.

 

[Kiln]

herrwalther -- so someone did some kitchen gunsmithing on a revolver, and that made it unreliable. understood. I don't count that as "unreliable" since the gun has no control over what is done to it after it leaves the factory. if someone tensioned their own Glock extractor, polished the feed ramp and put in a target-only spring, and the Glock was then unreliable, whose fault would that be? the factory gun? no.

burk -- the Taurus I had was in the late 90's -- I haven't shot a Taurus in over a decade. would I buy one today? probably not

Bottom line for me is, I always see people talk about breaking in and reliability testing semiautos. always. so does everyone on this board. then there is the talk about swapping out substandard ("MIM") parts for tool steel, and polishing this, and adjusting that, and replacing this and that, and they're so pleased when it runs right. That NEVER happens with revolvers. No one replaces a hand or an ejector rod or a barrel or a cylinder or a mainspring. They just take it and shoot it.

I have carried semiautos and will continue to do so. I mostly carry revolvers now. I have no argument with semiautos. I just demand more "reliability" testing of semis than I do revolvers. I believe that is the case for most people.

I think you have an unrealistic understanding of revolvers. If the parts are worn inside of a revolver it isn't guaranteed to work at all. I've seen out of time revolvers made by S&W and Ruger before alongside those old Rossi and Taurus guns.

The reasoning that revolvers are simpler isn't exactly true. If the internals are slightly out of spec you'll have clinder lock ups, the double action can fail to catch, and it can be unsafe to fire because of the cylinder/barrel alignment. Most people don't tune up their revolvers because modifying the parts much at all can make your gun dangerous if you're inexperienced.

I've heard it said that a failure with a semi auto requires a clearance drill. A failure with a revolver requires a gunsmith. I've found this to be spot on.

 

[JRWhit]

Say u live in a city of 200000. Every year there is 5 situations of a forceable felony that justifies use of force. That is five situations of people being victomized by another unknown person randomly. So there is a one in 40000 chance you will need to defend yourself. So if you have a fire arm that has a failure rate of 1 in 500.

With the most prabable use of one magazine holding say 10 rds, that is a .002% failure rate. So in a .000025% chance you will need your firearm there is a .002% chance your gun will fail. So that would mean there is a .00000005% chance your gun will fail you in a defense situation.

After all that I hope my math is right. If not I'll get the crow ready, but I think it at least gets my point accross.

 

[bscott29]

In my opinion if you buy a new Glock, M&P or Sig I would shoot all mags to make sure they function well. Next I would pick a good defense ammo. Shoot a mag of said defense ammo to check poi then shoot a mag as fast as you can pull the trigger to check function . Clean it and oil it and you "should" be good.

 

[george burns]

2 boxes or 100 rounds of both carry and standard, with 4 or 5 different loads. If it runs perfect, it probably will forever. Sometimes shooting a small carry gun too much results in spring, extractor, or other problems. When I go to the range, I usually like to clean out my loaded mags and start fresh. That means another 21 or so rounds each time, if it works right, I clean it and test it with a pencil with an eraser down the barrel. And put it back into service. Honestly I am not going to spend the 3-500 dollars to shoot expensive defensive hollow points, at a dollar or more a round, into paper, if the 100-200 rounds fire, then the likelihood of an fte is the same as it would be with a thousand rounds, as the more you use something the more likely it is to malfunction, and with sub compact guns firing full 230 grain loads, 1000 rounds is a lot of wear on a 4-500 dollar gun.
Now if you are carrying a $1000.00 +, pistol, I would say go right ahead and shoot the hell out of it, as these guns should be good for at least 10,000 rounds before something needs replacing. Now if you don't have a lot of guns, and this is you do everything pistol, then obviously it's going to see more action.
But most of us carry a small gun when not either on duty, or home relaxing. So it's meant for very limited use anyway.
But shooting it every time you go is still important, as your life may depend on it.
I have not been lucky with PPK's as I carried one for many years, "almost 20" but in NY it's a pain in the ass" to switch guns on your license, so when allowed I picked up a 5 shot revolver, #36, and carried that and left the Walther by the bed after 10 yrs, when it started misbehaving.
A revolver is the most reliable gun you can carry, if you don't mind the capacity.
That was what I was talking about, finding out by shooting only 1 gun, that it was not feeding ball ammo or anything else reliably due to the slide loosening, and being fixed twice.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

If it's a glock 1.

If it's anything else 2-5 thousand before you should even think about carrying it, and then only if it's a BUG to a glock.

I guess I am piling on at this point but I just have to ask: if it's a Glock and you get 1 round off before a malfunction your still good to go because it's a Glock Everything else has to be proven because they are less superior? Oh that and it has to be uglier right?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Three magazines loaded with your chosen carry load. If you have any feeding problems or cycling problems it will be quickly evident that the ammo is not compatible with your pistol.

 

[PRM]

With all the posts about mandatory flawless performance and thousands of rounds required... some of you folks must spend a lot of money in order to feel good. I would also suspect you don't keep a gun very long.

I've owned some really nice and dependable guns, but have never had a semi-auto that didn't have a malfunction at some point. Be it ammo or parts related, sooner or later they will all hiccup. Maybe clearing a malfunction and staying in the fight is a more realistic approach than the search for absolute perfection.

 

[seeker_two]

Three magazines loaded with your chosen carry load. If you have any feeding problems or cycling problems it will be quickly evident that the ammo is not compatible with your pistol.

^^^This. As long as your gun can function flawlessly with your carry load-out, you're golden.

 

[royal barnes]

Two or three mags of carry ammo in my carry mags trouble free and I'm good. I have a number of practice mags for the range but they are not carried for defense. I'm always amused by those who say they shoot 200, 300, 500, or 1000 rounds through a pistol before they carry it. What happens if you have an undiagnosed failure two rounds prior to your magic number. Do you start all over again?

 

[VA27]

Three magazines loaded with your chosen carry load. If you have any feeding problems or cycling problems it will be quickly evident that the ammo is not compatible with your pistol.

This, with a duty gun. Starting with a clean and properly lubed pistol, if it will make it through three mags full it's good to go. Clean and lube it, load and carry it.

A CC gun is a little different. Some just carry the gun with no reload (I hope you are current on your malfunction drills), some will carry one spare mag. In those cases, a clean and properly lubed (see what I'm harping on here?) pistol that will make it through two mags full of the chosen load is good to go.