When the SHTF, I'm not sure how many rounds I may have to fire but if it is over a couple of mags, then I probably need something with a little more firepower or some backup because I'm obviously in deep doo-doo. I had problems with my SA Mil-Tech until I figured out it was the cheap 8-round mags I had bought years ago; they would usually FTF somewhere along the way with each mag. So, I 4 more 8-round mags from 4 different "manufacturers". Out of the 4 mags, 3 of them have been flawless so far and I have figured the 4th probably has a problem with the configuration of the follower.
I have never put more than a box of rounds through my gun at one time I don't think; it's just me but I don't really have the bucks to burn through $100 of .45 in one outing. I put 50 rds through the .45 and then I shoot about 200 rds through the Ruger Mark II. I clean both guns after each outing; maybe one day I'll buy more than a box of .45 and see just how many rounds I can put downrange before it needs a couple of drops of oil on the rails and wipe off the feed ramp.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm only worried about the first 3 mags running reliably because that's the most I ever carry. If I'm worried about it failing after 100 or 200 rounds, maybe I'd better oil it or get another competition piece.
I for one have usually fired several hundred rounds through a gun before I carry it. This is for 2 reasons:
1) I grew up with out of the box 1911's and most manufactures, my Kimber included, state that a break in period of about 300 rounds is recommended for the gun. My RIA 1911 would still FTF after almost 600 rounds.
2) I fire between 300 and 500 rounds when training and working on a skill. So 300 rounds is just a day at the range.
I mostly carry Glocks these days for various reasons, but I still take them on a couple of range trips before carry. As for carry ammo, usually 2 boxes of SD are part of my routine for a new, or new to me, gun.
As for trusting a gun, it is a mechanical piece of hardware that could fail at any moment. Most mechanical, and non mechanical, things work better after they're broken in. Cars, boots, and guns, they all feel better to me after some time on the job.
You need to shoot your carry firearm enough so that if it malfs you can determine what exactly is causing that malfunction.
EXAMPLE: If as stated above a person knows that his carry firearm is fine but, after 100 rounds it begins to malf due to the frame/slide rails running dry then he would know to make certain that they are well lubed before carrying it.
If you shhot your "carry" 500 times and then it malfs with a "failure to feed" and you get it home and discover a ton of crud under the extractor then you know that before you trust it for carry it had better be squeaky clean in the extractor area.
BTW and just as a general FYI - I would never judge the reliability of any firearm based solely on how it functions with Winchester White Box.
So...just let common sense rule the day when it comes to the firearm that you decide to carry.
Some individual guns ARE (for a myriad or reasons) "function problematic" so if you buy a gun and you are shooting it enough to know that you are having an abnormal number of malfs - then best get the "jamomatic" to a qualified gun smith because then you chances of suffering a malfunction when you really need it are greatly increased....even if the gun will sometimes make it through a few magazines without a stoppage.
I think this standard is different from gun to gun. I don't think you need even 100 rounds cycled through a good shotgun to gain confidence in its reliability. Same with a quality revolver. I have also found that Glocks seem very reliable right from the start. I would worry, however, with a small .380 auto. I have a SW Bodyguard 380; have fired approx 150 through it with no failures, but still not totally convinced of its reliability.
With all my handguns, I like to try to shoot 500 rounds per year; to make sure the working parts are "broken in" and I keep them very clean. Also, do not forget to rub a little lubrication in the area of the chamber, to include the feed ramp, to prevent misfeeds...
I generally agree that shooting hundreds of rounds to ensure reliability is not needed to validate a carry pistol. Having said that, there are certain types of failures that are not easily cleared. I had a Kahr P380 that would give me a serious stove pipe. A couple of times I had to borrow a screwdriver at the range to work the spent shell out of the chamber. If I had been in a defensive situation and that kind of jam happened, I would have been in deep sh-t. For that reason, I won't buy a pistol where you can't lock back the slide. Sometimes you need to be able to lock the slide to clear a serious jam. It does give me quite an assurance if a handgun has no failures over thousands of rounds though......
I get into a similar argument with a friend of mine over gambling odds. The key is to know the difference between independent and dependent trials. A roulette wheel is a good example of an independent trial, the odds of a particular outcome is not dependent at all on past outcomes. You could go 10000 rounds without hitting 19, but the next spin, the odds of hitting a 19 are the same as all 10000 other times the wheel has spun. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about a firearm... Though it almost doesn't matter because to make any accurate assessment you would have to know the exact state of the firearm after each round, and asses based on those things that might influence its reliability, which would be exceedingly difficult, hehe
It's amazing how reliable a firearm can be when kept scrupulously and properly cleaned and lubricated.
Much unreliability and aggravation may be avoided by attending to the guns after the range trip. Make it a habit and rest easy rather than hosting that annoying, niggling doubt about dependability because you can't recall the last time you cleaned and lubricated the handgun in which you've chosen to rely.
They've seemed to run their course on most firearms forums but disregard entirely any posts you run across that brag about high-round counts before cleaning, no matter what brand of firearms are being touted as bullet-proof. The posters are lazy and are not using good sense. Don't be like them.
Personally, I have absolutely no concerns about any of my concealed carry choices. They will work in a time of critical need if ever they are called upon to do so.
Using the logic of only needing a couple of mags, why would you need to even fire it if it came from the factory already test fired and had a brass case to prove it?
What's to say the failure wouldn't occur on the first round out of mag 3?
Personally I like to go through a few hundred rounds because that gives me the chance to try many different shooting situations such as slow fire, pairs, rapid fire, full mag, partial mags, etc. Just gives me a warm and fuzzy to know it handles different situations and if a problem does arise, decide on a course of action that will avoid it if needed.
Being handguns are mechanical they can fail. Personally I have not seen many news articles of someone that was in a self defense situation that had their weapon fail them.
Oh...there have been some. :yup:
Originally Posted by Crowman
and then some others are probably dead and so cannot post on the Internet and tell about it.
Because there's a difference between practice and reliability/trustworthiness. If you're practicing and go through 300 rounds of ammo and you get a failure to feed, that is not indicative that your weapon is not trustworthy or reliable.
Originally Posted by NC Bullseye
If my gun malfunctions I need to find out why,since I shoot a lot of my own reloads,there have been times I have had bad/hard primers that required 2 hits to fire,I buy quality SD ammo and all of it has run 100% in my guns
I completely agree with OP. Lots of people think they need to put hundreds/thousands of rounds through a new gun before they can trust it at all, and even then don't trust it much. What they aren't realizing is they put their life in the hands of MANY mechanical devices every single day regardless if they carry a gun or not. The vehicle you drive every day is only one example of the many things that can easily fail, you risk your life to mechanical devices many times every day and don't even realize it, and yet everyone worries if their gun will shoot, when the chances you actually need to shoot it in your lifetime for SD are very slim.
I'm more concerned about the magazines being functional than anything else. I don't carry a new one until it's had two or three trips to the range.
i prefer SD guns that have functioned perfectly for me. of the dozen or so gun that i own that i consider possible SD guns, i have seven that have never failed to function the way they were supposed to (except for one operator error). my carry guns are chosen from among these weapons.
of the others, one revolver broke during shooting and had to be sent to the factory for repair. i trust it now because it has proved reliable through perhaps 100 consecutive rounds, but it would be low on my list of preferences because of its caliber (38Special). two semi-autos have had a few failures to feed. these would not willingly be carried until i found a SD round that didn't jam them through perhaps 50 straight rounds. the fourth often fails to lock its slide back after the last round has been fired. this one needs a trip to the factory, although i would carry it in a pinch because it has been otherwise reliable and i consider its failure a minor one. a fifth has not been shot enough to trust.
i maintain my guns well, and use only quality factory ammunition. since i have so many that have been perfect for me, I feel no pressure to use one of the "non-perfects" until i'm satisfied in my own mind that i'm comfortable carrying it. four of the "perfects" are S&W DA revolvers. two of the "perfect" semi-autos are Sig P-series guns, and the other one is a Kahr. one of the failure to feed "non-perfects" is a Kimber Gold Match, and the other is a Sig P-220 Super Match SAO. the other "non-perfect" gun is a Sig P-229 Elite Dark, which is the one which often fails to lock its slide back. these three are among the most expensive guns i own, so at least for me, neither cost nor reputation (Sig's) correlated consistently with reliability.