Random observations concerning reliability/accuracy

[boogalou]

Just some observations concerning the "best" pistol or reliability/accuracy threads that I've seen recently.....

First question I have is to ask ourselves how many times a quality 9mm pistol will fail to fire with the first round in the chamber?

Keeping the above statement in mind, how many times have any of us had to draw our firearm on an assailant? And in what percentage of those cases did the person actually need to fire their pistol? 1, 10, 100 times? How many who believe in 100% reliability even carry on a regular basis? From a statistical point of view, it kind of makes the whole percentage failure rate irrelevant, doesn't it?

Has there ever been a study that shows that policemen who carry a specific handgun die in the line of duty less frequently then those that don't carry that specific handgun?

Why do folks abuse or not clean their guns to the extreme degree and then talk or make reference about it on the internet? This practice baffles me, especially if they carry this gun on a regular basis. Unless you live in a cave, it takes 15 minutes to clean a gun. Why do some of these same people not participate in survival and/or fitness training for themselves, or at least go to handgun training schools instead of burying their firearm in a sandbox.

How many of us could put our handgun in a ransom rest, fire say 10 rounds at 10 yards, and then duplicate what the ransom rest did using a standing two-handed hold?

How come some of us are not willing to put up with a 1% failure rate with our firearms given the fact that being aware of your surroundings and avoiding areas you know are unsafe will keep you far safer then the knowledge that 5+ rounds didn't fire for you the last time you shot off 20 boxes of WWB at the local range. Ask yourself what constitutes more reasonable thinking in personal safety in the practical environment that you now inhabit.

Now ask yourself if the way you perceive things are exactly the same as everyone else you know, and then look at the physical characteristics of yourself versus others. Is there any logical reason to believe that your personal choice in a handgun should trump the body style and personnel perceptions of your neighbor?

Now, in the spirit of irrelevance, let's see if I can figure out how many angels can dance on the head on a pin......

 

[sb350hp]

Hmmmm. What do you say to a logical post such as this. My feelings is that you will not get much of a response becuase it calls into question the reasoning behind purchasing a $2000.oo dollar handgun from the "reliability arguement when my 500 dollar handgun goes bang everytime I pull the trigger.
The reliability arguement is null and void since I would guess that 95+ % of CHL'ers never have the need to actual fire thier weapons in an emergency/panic situation.

Well stated Boogalou

 

[HammerBite]

The other 5% might argue with that.

 

[siglite]

I've drawn twice, never fired. But either of those times, if I'd needed to fire, I would have been in a REAL s### sandwich if it went click, because in both cases the assailant was charging me until they saw the firearm and stopped. If they had not stopped, I would've had real problems if it didn't go bang. Thank god however, they saw the error of their ways, stopped, and in one case the assailant retreated (I could not) and in the other I was able to retreat.

I harp on reliability as crucial. I can't think of anything more scary than needing it, and hearing *click*. Stuff happens fast. Real fast. *click* is unacceptable, even though I've never had to press the trigger. I hope like hell I never have to in the future either. Just having to draw was plenty scary for me.

As far as accuracy, my only requirement is that the pistol outshoot me. Considering my accuracy skill with pistols, this leaves a wide selection on accuracy alone.

But I want it to be reliable. As reliable as it possibly can be.

 

[Katana8869]

I've been driving over 22 years and I have never had an accident. With those kind of odds, I should never worry about putting on my seatbelt right?

Seriously though, 3 years ago, my then 2 year old daughter was attacked by a pair of stray dogs while she was playing in the back yard of my parents house.

When I ran to her aid and shot the lead dog and turned to face the second one, it would have sure sucked to have that 1% failure rate show up. It does matter. It matters alot.

I carry every day. What if that day had been the one that I choose to be complacent because I had never had to draw and fire in self defense? How would I explain complacency to my little girl? How would I explain it to my wife if I had decided that a gun that only failed once in awhile was good enough since it really seemed like I would never need to use it anyway?

Fortunately, I diligently carry my CCW and I do expect my carry weapon to be 100% reliable. After the above incident happened I didn't have to have either of those conversations.

Edit to add, my pistol that I carrying at the time was my Glock 27. I agree that reliability is often found in a $500 (and sometimes less than that!) pistol. It's not the price tag that counts.

 

[orionengnr]

How come some of us are not willing to put up with a 1% failure rate with our firearms...?

Because there is no need to put up with it.

Do you settle for a phone that usually works?

Do you drive a car that starts more often than not?

I don't...and I can't see a reason why anyone would.

 

[boogalou]

Interesting comments but I think some of you are missing the point.....

My feelings is that you will not get much of a response becuase it calls into question the reasoning behind purchasing a $2000.oo dollar handgun from the "reliability arguement when my 500 dollar handgun goes bang everytime I pull the trigger.

My post really doesn't have anything to do with how much someone wants to spend on a firearm, that's a personal preference that can be influenced by numerous factors.

The other 5% might argue with that.

But given my arbitrary failure rate, their choice in a handgun will almost always work, but there is no guarantee it will.

Siglite - You didn't have to pull the trigger, but like I said in my original post, the odds of a quality handgun not firing are almost non-existent with the first round in the chamber.

Katana - Congrats on your driving record, it beats mine all to hell! And the timely response to saving your daughter from harm is commendable. But the fact is, your Glock did work, and if the same scenario happened again for the next 30 days, you can be confident that it would end the same way. But the fact remains, that there is no guarantee that any handgun will always be 100% reliable, Perfection doesn't exist in nature, and we shouldn't expect it to exist in a handgun.

Do you settle for a phone that usually works?

Do you drive a car that starts more often than not?

I don't...and I can't see a reason why anyone would.

I also wouldn't settle for a phone or car like that, but what kind of failure rate are you talking about. Do you put new tires on your car based on expense, what the local police use, or because you think Harvey Firestone was a genius? Do you honestly believe that a piece of machinery that requires some preventive maintenance and uses a explosive device to operate and is affordable to the masses will never fail? I wish I lived in such a perfect world.

What I'm getting at is this - Take 5 quality handguns, Glock17, Browning HP, CZ75, Springfield XD, & Beretta 92. Arguing over which of these handguns is the "best" according to reliability/accuracy issues usually becomes nothing more then a pi**ing match. In practical real world conditions, the difference in performance between these 5 firearms is statistically irrelevant. What matters more is how the firearm fits the individual, and how comfortable he feels in using it. And yes, the above 5 guns are all capable of failing at the most inopportune time, but there are no guarantees in life, and the best we can do is to lower the risk assessment to ourselves and family, and let fate deal with the rest.

 

[siglite]

What I'm getting at is this - Take 5 quality handguns, Glock17, Browning HP, CZ75, Springfield XD, & Beretta 92. Arguing over which of these handguns is the "best" according to reliability/accuracy issues usually becomes nothing more then a pi**ing match.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. While I place a great deal of value on reliability, I don't think you have to look too hard to find it these days.

I'm kind of reading between the lines here, and getting the impression that your gripe is with gun snobbery in general. If I'm reading that right, we're once again in 100% agreement.

 

[NCTexan]

Interesting discussion. Everybody has to make the decision that's right for them... in their environment.

Is your home or work environment for like the Red Zone in Baghdad or upper middle class suburbia? Do you work as a SWAT member or an accountant? Are you single or have a family with 15 kids running around? What can you afford? Are you a risk taker and how much do you worry about 'things'?

I accept a degree of risk of death every day... I drive a car (even sober and with a seat belt).

Everyone has to make the decision that's right for them, and should not judge others' individual choices.

By the way, I don't carry but I have a double barrel 12 gauge that I keep loaded for home defense. I never keep my handguns loaded at home as I practice with them a lot.

I realize the risks even living in 'safe suburbia'... Three years ago I went down stairs to my kitchen one night, to look up and see a 'crack-head' illegal standing outside the kitchen door with a screwdriver in the lock... looking in about 10 feet from me. The best that I could come up with quickly was grabbing the biggest butcher knife from the magnetic holder over the stove and going up to the glass while yelling for my wife to call 911. Fortunately he ran and the police got here quickly... and tackled him a couple houses down.

Even with that still pretty fresh in my mind, I am comfortable with my choices.

 

[ravencon]

The line between legitimate concern and obsession is not a bright line. Opinions will vary as to where that line is.

I know the chances of having a fire in my house is quite small. But, I still pay the premium on my insurance policy and check my smoke detectors from time to time.

I hold my carry guns and "go to" guns to a more rigorous standard of reliability than my range guns.

 

[strat81]

What I'm getting at is this - Take 5 quality handguns, Glock17, Browning HP, CZ75, Springfield XD, & Beretta 92. Arguing over which of these handguns is the "best" according to reliability/accuracy issues usually becomes nothing more then a pi**ing match. In practical real world conditions, the difference in performance between these 5 firearms is statistically irrelevant.

I agree. And that's why I won't fault someone who carries a Taurus Mil-Pro or S&W 642 even though I have a Glock 26. All three are reputed to be very reliable and will do the job if you point it at the right place. Of the guns you mentioned, I can't recall anyone here saying that any one of them was an unreliable piece of junk (in stock form).

But what about guns that have a less than sterling reputation for reliability? Kel-tecs come to mind, as do some 1911s. What about guns that are an unknown quantity since they are new?

I would raise the reliability issue to someone who bought a new Kel-Tec P3AT and just stuck it in their pocket and called it good to go. This doesn't make it a bad gun, but some (plenty) folks have gotten bad ones. Some folks have needed to run a few boxes of ammo through them. Others have had to do a fluff 'n buff.

 

[Striker]

Ahh...but what about the ammo variable.

I've had 2 first round FTFs with name brand premium ammo (two different occasions and different brands) in the last 5 years. Fortunately they both occured on the range.

I've also had several FTFs with shotgun commercial ammo on the skeet/trap field for what its worth.

Bottom line is nothing man-made is infallible.

 

[mitch256]

I guess I am an exception to the rule.

I have owned probably 50 different handguns over the last 15 years. Sold some, traded some, still have some. I have owned Glocks, Sigs, Colt, Springfield, Taurus, S&W.....just to name a few. In that time period, I suppose I have sent thousands of rounds downrange and I honestly cannot say that I have ever gotten a "bad" or "unreliable" gun.

Everytime I pull the trigger, whatever I was shooting went **BANG**. Now sure, I have had an occasionaly FTF but that was with some reloads from my local shooting range. I blame that on the ammo, not on the gun and I would never use reloads for self defense. My SD ammo is factory fresh, new ammo.

I'm sure some would disagree but as far as I am concerned, most pistols from the major, well known manufacturs should be reliable when used as intended and in my case, most every gun I have owned has shot exactly where I pointed it. Any accuracy problems were almost exclusively attributable to ME, not the the gun.

Personally, I don't believe that a $500 gun with $2000 worth of custom work translates into a measurable amount of increase in reliablity or accuracy. I think that anyone that believes it does is simply trying to justifiy the cost of their decision.