Do you trust a gun for carry after it fails on the range?

This is a discussion on Do you trust a gun for carry after it fails on the range? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by xXxplosive No confidence in it.............get rid of it. I agree with the subtlety of this answer. I wouldn't necessarily get rid of ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Do you trust a gun for carry after it fails on the range?

  1. #46
    Member Array pilgrimshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by xXxplosive View Post
    No confidence in it.............get rid of it.
    I agree with the subtlety of this answer. I wouldn't necessarily get rid of a gun just because it failed at the range, but I would get rid of it if I lost confidence in it. It's possible to have one failure--or more--but still have confidence in your gun.
    Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...unless it's strapped to a gun.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array GentlemanJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    877
    As a general rule (there are exceptions) the people that won't carry a gun because it has "failed" at some point don't shoot enough. People that shoot a lot expect failures now and again.

    Jim

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array pogo2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    3,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan6406 View Post
    taurus 738 perfect little pocket gun but I think its going to get replaced with a ruger. It snapped right off
    I have only had one extractor break in 40 years, having owned about 30 semiautos that fired maybe 50,000 rounds in total. That was a S&W model 39 that I bought new in 1968. These were known for that problem and the gun was redesigned by S&W to correct the issue. But I still have and use the repaired gun, although not for defense.

    I don't think I would trust a Taurus that showed this problem after 100 rounds. I'd assume it was a design flaw.
    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." - George Washington

  5. #49
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by nframe357 View Post
    Personally no, it'd be sold. You have to have complete faith in a wep that you defend your life with, period.
    If I took that advice, I'd just carry my knife and nothing else. Everything man made/mechanical fails. I have had Smiths, Rugers, Taurus, Colts, a Glock, Winchesters, Remingtons and a Browning all fail-or appear to do so, in at least one of those cases it was Ammo related, but it was still a failure of the weapon. The ONLY thing I have never had a problem with has been my knife.
    Billb1960 likes this.

  6. #50
    Ex Member Array Stan6406's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    107
    Strange thing as I was cleaning it after the range. The new extractor looks much different. The old one looked porous (not sure if I spelled that right) the new one looks like solid metal

  7. #51
    Member Array Billb1960's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by MJK View Post
    A failure at the range can be corrected and is merely an inconvenience. A failure during a lethal force encounter may mean that you don't survive.

    Does one foreshadow the other? I don't have the stats but my gut tells me that failures which prevent the weapon from functioning on the range may be an indicator of poor quality in other parts. At the very least I would perform a detailed inspection and increase the break-in period following part replacement in order to garner confidence that I don't have a lemon.

    Also consider this...if it's a new weapon then most manufacturers recommend anywhere from 100-500 rounds be fired to break it in. Generally speaking the failure rate during this period is higher than during mid-life due to infant mortality (the weapon is on the front-end of the bathtub curve). That's one of the reasons we have a break-in period - to "stress" the system and wrangle out any weaknesses carried over from the manufacturing process. The other purpose of a break-in period is to allow parts to wear against one-another and decrease friction due to tight tolerances/material differences.

    It would be interesting to contact the manufacturer and ask if they have experienced significant numbers of warranty replacements for this part. If so, it could indicate a manufacturing, material or design flaw.
    Took 30 posts to get to a reasonable, well thought out post. Nice job, I hope the OP pays attention and ignores the typical "We'll it's a Taurus what did you expect?" crowd.

  8. #52
    Distinguished Member Array Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan6406 View Post
    Strange thing as I was cleaning it after the range. The new extractor looks much different. The old one looked porous (not sure if I spelled that right) the new one looks like solid metal
    Well ain't that something! The 3rd time my 85UL died it was due to a broken transfer bar. When I got it back I swore the new part looked heavier than the broken one.

    To be fair, I have friends who have Taurus' that they are happy with and have had no problems. But they do not shoot as much as me and I really don't get to do so enough. It's been said here before, there's nothing wrong with most Taurus designs, it's really a problem with quality control. You may get a good one, then again...
    ...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
    USN/VET; NRA; GOA, jpfo.org
    Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project www.irenasendler.com

  9. #53
    New Member Array thunderdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    10
    [QUOTE]As a general rule (there are exceptions) the people that won't carry a gun because it has "failed" at some point don't shoot enough. People that shoot a lot expect failures now and again./QUOTE]

    I have seen just about every type of gun fail at one time or another while at the range, even Glocks (gasp)!! If you shoot a gun enough, it will eventually have some problem. Could be gun related, could be ammo related. Diagnose the problem, fix the problem, and "carry" on.
    Ogre likes this.

  10. #54
    Senior Member Array GentlemanJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    877
    Carry a BUG. Problem solved.

    Jim

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array mastercapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    502
    For all my guns:
    revolvers get 200 rounds "breakin" and autos 300.
    Then I test with carry ammo. A full mag or cylinder, pull the trigger as fast as you can.. Reload and do it again. No misfires? Carry it.

    I had a Rossi 38 a while back. Theres a little lever called a bolt which engages the slot on the cylinder to line it up with the barrel. It would not engage with hard trigger pulls, and teh cylinder would stop between two holes. This was a new gun. The store gunsmith called the factory and they said some of these got out with the wrong spring under the bolt. They aired in the right one and paid the gunsmith to install it.
    After 100 rounds, rapid fire, and no misfires, I carried it.
    more than likely, the concensus of this group would have said "Its a Rossi, trade it"

    Being an engineer if I understand a problem and the cure, the gun gives me confidence. If the gunsmith said "I don't know, but I'll work on it", it would have been returned or traded.

    Also, being in the manufacturing end, you can get bad components from a supplier that you have used and trusted for years. It happens... Most manufacturers won't admit to bad parts, however, a beefed up replacement magically appears....

    I do not fault a man for making an error. It what happens right after the discovery that I use to rate him.

  12. #56
    Ex Member Array gunslingergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    162
    Remember there is a difference between firing 2-300 rounds at the range without cleaning or lubricating a gun, and perhaps firing from 1 to perhaps 15 rounds in a gunfight. I rely on my guns for protection in a dangerous business (low income property management). Therefore I carry two. If I find a gun that is having FTF trouble during practice I will take it out of service until fixed. Once fixed if it fired 50-200 rounds OK, then I feel comfortable with it. It's like a car, sometimes things need replacing.

    On the other hand if it's a gun with known issues, well, hopefully one doesn't buy the model in the first place, or you sell it at a loss and move on.

    I should mention I CC a Taurus PT145, Gen1 from around 2002. Mine has been flawless. Smallest 11 round .45 there is.

  13. #57
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,485
    Why did you drop it? Just asking. Apoloiges if this has already been covered.....

    Oh, if 'failed'.................. Then you shoud just drop it. Nuff Said!
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  14. #58
    Member Array LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    382
    My RIA GI 1911 had numerous problems early on, but the owner's manual clearly stated that the gun (1) required a 500-round break-in, and (2) was intended for use with FMJ RN ammo. I was shooting a lot of factory ball, but also lots of reloads with a truncated cone bullet that has a hefty meplat, plus external lube (LLA--somewhat sticky). Subsequent chronography also showed me that my handloaded powder charge was giving vels of only 650-725 or thereabouts--weaker than I'd thought.

    At the 500+ mark, it stopped having any gun-related problems, even gobbling up my light loads with aplomb. The only problems it's had since then were last-round lockback problems with one specific type of mag that sports a convex follower. I limit those mags to range use only. Otherwise, the gun has gone about 400-500 rounds without a hiccup, so I trust it completely. All it needed was break-in and any other mags besides those with the convex follower.

    In the final analysis, however, you have choices, and if YOU aren't confident the gun will function, you will be laboring under a huge psychological handicap if you ever have to use it in a crisis. You'll have enough problems without having to wonder, "Jesus, will this thing go bang?"

    Like another poster said, I feel comfortable if I can isolate a gun's problem, fix it, and then have it function as designed. If I can't, it's gone. If I were to have lingering doubts about its materials, design, or inherent quality, it's gone--certainly for defense use.

  15. #59
    Member Array Sgt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    236
    I just put my Kimber Pro Carry II HD back in service. Took it to the range yesterday and fired 150 rounds with no problem other than my weak thumb flopping around and hitting the slide release twice and locking the slide back part way through the magazine.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

do you trust new magazine for carry

,

shooting fails

,

walther p22 aftermarket spring guide pin

,

what breaks extractors in guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.