Parts, Mods, & Priorities

[Phrog107]

A friend said he liked 5 as the magic number, because: "One in your holster, one in the safe, one at the local gunsmith getting something done, one back at the manufacturer for an overhaul, and one stored off-site someplace."

This can get 'spensive if your carry gat is a Les Baer TRS...

I may be in a different tax bracket, because to me five of just about anything is probably out of my price range. Two of a kind, with like upgrades is plenty pricey for me at this point. Not to mention the ammo costs associated.

[Slavex]

This is similar to how I run my match guns. I get a new gun each year, it is my practice gun until somewhere around 5000 rounds (less if I like how it feels, more if I don't, very subjective). The old match gun then becomes the backup gun, and the old backup gun becomes the practice gun. Although my current plan is to run my old match gun as my practice and backup gun due to the differences between the Shadows and Shadowmates I'm now running. Once I get a 3rd Shadowmate the original cycle will be reestablished.

[hossb7]

So, where does one find out if xyz part is insured by this unnamed independent company? I've never seen any company using this insurance as validation in their marketing.

Also interested in this answer. I've never heard of any aftermarket company advertising it being insured by an independent company. Where would you even find that info?

How about a specific example of part or company?

[breakingtime91]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. Only thing I have to add being a college student, I can't afford more than one pistol or the time and money to train with more than one gun. At first I was upset by that but I like the fact the gun I shoot is my home defense gun and the one riding aiwb. Also like how the finish is wearing of, makes me feel like I'm doing something right.

[Phrog107]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

I can appreciate this viewpoint.

Eight or nine years ago, I was just about to load my one and only carry pistol at the time after a bit of dry practice. I was all done, then decided to do one last trigger pull before loading up. Trigger return spring failed.

Two ways to look at it.

What if hadn't done that last trigger pull? I would have been (unknowingly) carrying around a pistol with only 1 good trigger pull left in it.

On the flip side, what if I hadn't been doing so much dry practice on that poor little pistol? Would that spring have broken at all?

It's a catch-22.

The only way to be confident in the mechanical integrity of a firearm is to shoot it. But by shooting it, we are wearing down the components that might eventually fail.

[Chuck Haggard]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

I pretty much do this^ as well.

[farscott]

[snip]

If the most profitable companies with the best engineers can make mistakes, wouldn't you at least be open to the realization that small shops without engineers (or their own production, QC, etc.) are more likely to have problems?
[snip]

As an engineer who has worked for very small (as in one person, me) and several Fortune 50 companies, I would say that larger companies come with distractions and issues that can cause design compromises and smaller companies tend to perform less testing. An example of the former is forced parts commonality and "working the system" so that a good design ends up being compromised (manufacturing wants this change for operator ergonomics) to receive organizational approval and an example of the latter is not performing accelerated life testing due to the expense and time. I have also seen large companies employ engineers who did not understand the systems for which they were designing components. Net result: The likelihood of an issue is not dependent upon company size. Culture is a much bigger deal. I rather have John Harrison build me parts than Kimber as John takes his reputation and his customer's satisfaction with his product personally.

My personal rule is to avoid being a beta tester for something in my holster.

[ToddG]

farscott -- I don't disagree with you one bit. That why, as I said, I'd have such faith in the Gray SIG trigger. But the number of those guys, with that knowledge, experience, dedication, and reputation is far outnumbered by the new smiths or less detail-obsessed guys who are churning out parts based on "go faster!" than really understanding what's needed for something to work reliably and durably under the conditions for which the base gun was (or should have been) built to begin with.

[BLR]

Here is why I don't roll that way. I believe total round count is important, as a risk management strategy for your carry gun, to try to reduce the chance of a mechanical breakage. By putting 500-1,000 rounds on a pistol, and then just shooting it sparingly, while putting the bulk of my training rounds on another pistol, I feel like I am less likely to encounter a premature mechanical breakage than by splitting the rounds evenly.

And your feeling is definitely grounded in reality. But needs data to be valid. Is 1k in the "infant mortality" area or in the "random failure" area? And how do you know? Is it possible to articulate the assumptions made?

And also, a great illustration of why I suggested more methodical tests than a simple xy,000 round endurance test. Those tests might reveal a problem part. But you might have a huge spread in failures such that it is impossible to actually make an educated conclusion based on the test. Testing 100 handguns to xy,000 rounds might not actually develop much in the way of quantifiable information, depending on the premise of the test, the methodology, assumptions, and interpretation of results.

[Slavex]

In regards to the CZs mentioned in this thread, the number of people who manufacture parts for them is extremely small and they are all very well known and respected manufacturers. To the level that CZ apparently uses some of their bits and pieces themselves.
churning out parts for "go faster" is just as reasonable as any other reason for aftermarket parts and probably spurs more development money than most others too. While some people can certainly take "go faster" to extremes and suffer when they do, the same can be said for people wanting the latest and greatest tactical accessory or "improved" bit on their gun. Most guns will run just fine in their factory condition, anything we do to them outside of that falls into the realm "my preferred thing"