Competition Gun Reliability

[ToddG]

Didn't want to mess up the other thread by rehashing, but thought this FB post by Chuck Anderson this morning was quite telling in light of the claims "competition shooters care as much about reliability as anyone" stuff from a while back:


Home now from the 3 Gun Nation Pro Series Qualifier march. Managed to finish in 5th place among a group of very talented shooters. The top 16 would be a very different group if not for gun malfunctions. I saw guys that I know have the skills end up falling short due to gun or ammo problems. I learned a long time ago to not go cheap on my equipment when something important is on the line. Both at work and on the range.

[GJM]

Without knowing all the details of what failed and why, my take away would be some competition shooters spent less money than necessary on their various 3 Gun equipment, and did poorly as a result. Obvious solution -- spend more money, assuming that is available, or don't shoot a shooting sport that requires so much expensive equipment!

Looking at the Wiki definition from another thread you started this morning, it would appear that you are trying to provoke an emotional reaction from competition shooters? :)

I have shot three USPSA matches in the last month. What I noted is that almost all the gun problems were with open guns. I saw a number of problems induced by poor gun handling skills, and those problems seemed to track with USPSA classification, meaning D shooters were hosing themselves up a lot more than the top shooters.

[jetfire]

I will say this: competition shooters tend to suffer from malfunction blindness in a pretty spectacular way. I've seen guys go to great mental gyrations to make a malfunction "not count" against the gun.

[Chuck Haggard]

I once dominated a local one day USPSA match, in both rifle and pistol, against some really decent shooters including a couple of nationally ranked dudes, being a noob and using a 5906 and a stock Mini 14, because it was the only guy who didn't have a stoppage the entire match.

I've also been able to keep up (we all at times have had ammo issues I note) in a couple of IDPA matches because I can clear a stoppage reflexively instead of having brain flatulence and staring at or beating on the gun ineffectively.

Just a couple of observations I have noted over the years. Reliability being REALLY important, and knowing what to do it that fails also being a very good idea.

[ford.304]

I dunno, it makes sense to me.

You've got a bunch of guys of similar skill, every tenth you can pull out matters.

If it's just one on one, you'd have a high incentive for reliability, because if you fail you lose.

But in a group of 10-20 guys, only one guy has to have a good day with his uber-tweaked but slightly less reliable gun to make your reliable day a loss.

If your goal is just to place every time, you go for reliable. If your goal is to win you take every minor advantage you can and hope you get lucky, because *someone* is going to get lucky.

Not to mention the psychological tricks you can do on yourself that "you would have won if it weren't for that malfunction. Maybe you'll get lucky next time."

[Leroy]

The majority of competition shooters place a lower emphasis on reliability to shootability. This relationship changes as competitors become better (most high competing shooters will put more emphasis on reliability). Now 3 gun is a whole new game when it comes to reliability. It is so much money, and so much shit to keep working it can be diificult. Guys want to run the cheapest ammo there is (especially an issue in shotguns) that often local 3 gun matches can be won just by keeping your stuff running (wether from a mechanical or operator error standpoint).
Another problem is that a large portition of competition shooters reload their own ammo and a large portion of that large portition cannot make a decent batch of ammo.

[ST911]

I RO local matches and see the same folks, having the same problems, making the same excuses, match after match. It's easier to buy gear than work hard.

[cclaxton]

1) Not everything is predictable with gun reliability. I recently shot a Mossberg JMpro 930 at an outside match in 25 degree weather. It was a used Mossberg that I had shot at two other matches without a single failure or misfire. But, whoever owned the gun before me didn't use low-temp lube and it locked-up the trigger mechanism and the trigger wouldn't reset. I was able to take it home and cure the problem with thorough cleaning and low-temp lube. It was unpredictable....at least for me.
2) Ammo is harder to find these days and competitors are shooting whatever they can get...and prices are higher so some people are shooting cheaper ammo;
3) Competitors like to tweak their guns for lighter springs, lighter hammers, inventive trigger jobs, special mods, etc., and sometimes they push that edge too far or haven't shot it enough to assess its reliability;
4) Hand reloading generally results in less consistency and a higher failure rate than commercial or factory reloaded ammunition.
5) When you combine those who love to tweak their guns with hand reloading, reliability seems to suffer more.
6) The thing I like about my CZ's (and I assume this is true of many guns) is when it's broke or something is worn out....it is easy to figure out and fix. With some guns that can be more difficult to diagnose the root causes and they can be intermittent. (i.e.- Saiga shotguns gas adjustment or 1911's, for example)

To me hand reloading is the biggest factor because, especially in the beginning, because there is a learning curve, humans make errors, and it is both science and art.

Cody

[PPGMD]

Didn't want to mess up the other thread by rehashing, but thought this FB post by Chuck Anderson this morning was quite telling in light of the claims "competition shooters care as much about reliability as anyone" stuff from a while back:

If you are in the running for a national level match and your equipment isn't reliable you don't deserve to win.

That is part of the reason I don't screw with the recoil spring, replace the springs in my guns regularly, and I keep a separate well maintained set of a dozen competition magazines (cleaned before matches, springs replaced regularly, and I won't hesitate to downgrade one to range use). Because of this I have a grand total of two stoppages during matches in three years (both completely different).

I also clean and lube my gun before a major match too.

[GJM]

If you are in the running for a national level match and your equipment isn't reliable you don't deserve to win.

Todd is trolling, and probably you in particular -- don't take the bait! I think his sense of humor has expanded as of late, and we are going to see a lot more funny stuff on PF.

[Chris Rhines]

I will say this: competition shooters tend to suffer from malfunction blindness in a pretty spectacular way. I've seen guys go to great mental gyrations to make a malfunction "not count" against the gun.
Been there, done that. :D


The majority of competition shooters place a lower emphasis on reliability to shootability. This relationship changes as competitors become better (most high competing shooters will put more emphasis on reliability). Now 3 gun is a whole new game when it comes to reliability. It is so much money, and so much shit to keep working it can be diificult. Guys want to run the cheapest ammo there is (especially an issue in shotguns) that often local 3 gun matches can be won just by keeping your stuff running (wether from a mechanical or operator error standpoint).
Another problem is that a large portition of competition shooters reload their own ammo and a large portion of that large portition cannot make a decent batch of ammo.
Very true, especially about shotguns. Yeek. Getting a shotgun to do what 3-gun competitors are asking *REQUIRES* extensive modifications and a level of PM that would be inconceivable in, for instance, an AR-15. It doesn't help that there are maybe five people in the world who really understand what it takes to keep a 3-gun shotgun running, and only one of them works for a major manufacturer.

I only use name-brand ammo in my shotguns, no promo loads, and I test the hell out of whatever I'm using (the number of 3-gun competitors who don't pattern their shotguns is amazing.) Oddly, I have very few shotgun malfunctions. I've also given up reloading for my ARs, as I never got the performance out of my handloads that I do from factory stuff. I still load my pistol ammo and don't plan on giving that up, but I gauge and inspect every single round that I shoot in a major match. Oddly, I don't get many rifle or pistol malfunctions either.


I RO local matches and see the same folks, having the same problems, making the same excuses, match after match. It's easier to buy gear than work hard.
No, it's not. A lot of people think so, but buying gear and training are really exactly the same thing.

That said, I see the same things at the local matches (rarely at majors.) Fact is, there are plenty of competition shooters out there who really don't care much about winning, or even advancing as a shooter. They shoot entirely for recreation, and a few malfunctions, or languishing forever in MM/D-class, aren't interfering with their enjoyment of the game. I'm far too type-A a personality to agree with this outlook, but it's not hurting me, so I try not to judge.

[JV_]

4) Hand reloading generally results in less consistency and a higher failure rate than commercial or factory reloaded ammunition.It doesn't have to.

[45dotACP]

This thread means basically nothing to me. I shoot a Glock, thus reliability is no issue. If I wanted to be a top level competitor, there is obviously a lot more holding me back than my equipment. Although I do find a certain sense of humor in the guy who previously shot a 9mm 1911 (oft snickered at for reliabilty) having some form of moral aversion to CZ (also oft snickered at for reliability) and is now going to be shooting a SIG (which as of late have also been, you guessed it! Oft snickered at for reliability)

This forum was less complicated when everybody was shooting HK's :D

[ToddG]

1) Not everything is predictable with gun reliability. I recently shot a Mossberg JMpro 930 at an outside match in 25 degree weather. It was a used Mossberg that I had shot at two other matches without a single failure or misfire. But, whoever owned the gun before me didn't use low-temp lube and it locked-up the trigger mechanism and the trigger wouldn't reset. I was able to take it home and cure the problem with thorough cleaning and low-temp lube. It was unpredictable....at least for me.

How the heck is that not predictable? Shooting gun in 25-degree weather with inappropriate lube... Seems pretty darn predictable to me. And not something a smart person would allow to happen.


2) Ammo is harder to find these days and competitors are shooting whatever they can get...and prices are higher so some people are shooting cheaper ammo;

Proving my point again... compromises people are willing to make in games are, contrary to previous debate, a lot different than they are (or should be) willing to make with their first line life-support gear.


3) Competitors like to tweak their guns for lighter springs, lighter hammers, inventive trigger jobs, special mods, etc., and sometimes they push that edge too far or haven't shot it enough to assess its reliability;

My. Point. To. Begin. With.


6) The thing I like about my CZ's (and I assume this is true of many guns) is when it's broke or something is worn out....it is easy to figure out and fix. With some guns that can be more difficult to diagnose the root causes and they can be intermittent. (i.e.- Saiga shotguns gas adjustment or 1911's, for example)

If my gun breaks when someone is trying to hurt my wife, the ability to enjoy figuring out why it broke afterwards will be far less comfort to me than you, it seems.


If you are in the running for a national level match and your equipment isn't reliable you don't deserve to win.

That is perfectly fair. And I'd agree 100%. But again, as others have said, having been to an awful lot of big matches there are big name, big sponsor shooters who gamble and lose. And that kind of gambling isn't something a smart person does on a gun he carries for self-defense. So we have a disparity and that's my point.


That is part of the reason I don't screw with the recoil spring, replace the springs in my guns regularly, and I keep a separate well maintained set of a dozen competition magazines (cleaned before matches, springs replaced regularly, and I won't hesitate to downgrade one to range use). Because of this I have a grand total of two stoppages during matches in three years (both completely different).

I happen to think you're a bigger outlier than you do, though. I think you're (a) smart enough to know tiny little differences in the gun aren't likely to add up to meaningful change to your score and (b) smart enough to realize that reliability failures in some games can outweigh even slightly meaningful performance gains.


I also clean and lube my gun before a major match too.

OK that's just crazy talk!

[ToddG]

This thread means basically nothing to me.

The time you took to write a response fooled me into thinking otherwise. Good one! :cool:


I shoot a Glock, thus reliability is no issue.

Because none of us has ever seen a stock Glock suffer a stoppage. Or break. Hey Fred, tell that story about your slide flying off the gun in class again!


Although I do find a certain sense of humor in the guy who previously shot a 9mm 1911 (oft snickered at for reliabilty) having some form of moral aversion to CZ (also oft snickered at for reliability) and is now going to be shooting a SIG (which as of late have also been, you guessed it! Oft snickered at for reliability)

(a) I was the most surprised by my 1911's performance of anyone, and I'm genuinely glad I took the time and expense to experience it.
(b) Reports here at PF have definitely begun to push my feelings about CZ reliability, but in fairness let's remember the guns being discussed are almost all custom shop guns from the get go. I'd have seriously considered doing a CZ instead of the SIG and may very well do a CZ some day. But it would almost certainly come from a custom shop. Mine would need a decocker, a firing pin stop, and a slide release I can reliably reach with my (short) right hand thumb. And ideally it would have to be a model for which Lasergrips are available.
(c) My confidence in SIG, while not where it was when I was first hired more than a decade ago and they were still essentially the Mercedes of pistols, is far higher today than it has been over the past ten years. We'll see if that's warranted or not, though in fairness mine has maybe a slight leg up because it, too, is essentially coming from a custom shop at this point.


This forum was less complicated when everybody was shooting HK's :D

Truth.

[JonInWA]

Since all of my 9mm/.38 Special and higher caliber guns are expected to be utilized without hiccup as either carry or competition guns (yeah, even my John Martz-restored 1938 P.80 Luger-hey, with late war milled magazines, it actually will reliably feed 115gr Winchester Silvertips....just sayin'), my set-ups are obviously primarily geared towards carry.

What I've observed lately, particularly regarding 230 gr generic-end (Federal Champion/WWB) ball ammunition is that QC has slipped, particularly regarding proper bullet insertion/crimping in the cartridge case, resulting in a higher proportion of bullet setback on chambering. While over-pressurization isn't a huge concern with .45 ACP, feed/chambering reliability can suffer, particularly in 1911 platform guns (and more specifically, at least in my empirical universe, with sub-Government sized 1911s.

The upshot is that sufficient strength magazine and recoil springs are crucial, as may be magazine follower selection. Forget about going towards the lighter end of the springing envelope-a bit of the sledgehammer-to-kill-the-mosquito approach may be necessary to overcome potential chambering issues emanating from bullet setback chambering geometry issues-at least until adequate ammunition QC re-asserts itself...

Best, Jon

[Leroy]

This thread means basically nothing to me. I shoot a Glock, thus reliability is no issue. If I wanted to be a top level competitor, there is obviously a lot more holding me back than my equipment. Although I do find a certain sense of humor in the guy who previously shot a 9mm 1911 (oft snickered at for reliabilty) having some form of moral aversion to CZ (also oft snickered at for reliability) and is now going to be shooting a SIG (which as of late have also been, you guessed it! Oft snickered at for reliability)

This forum was less complicated when everybody was shooting HK's :D
Either your doing good preventative maintenance or you just haven't shot your gun(s) enough. At some point you will see some sort of failure in a glock. I have been shooting them exclusively for years, the big things to remember are recoil springs, mag springs, and some Glocks will see some extraction ejection issues as the guns wear in like 20,000 rounds +(not the recent late GEN 3 & Gen 4 stuff but early Gen 3).

[PPGMD]

That is perfectly fair. And I'd agree 100%. But again, as others have said, having been to an awful lot of big matches there are big name, big sponsor shooters who gamble and lose. And that kind of gambling isn't something a smart person does on a gun he carries for self-defense. So we have a disparity and that's my point.

I certainly agree. Which is why I have an experimental gun, and two each for both defensive use, and competition. Only after a modification has proven itself both to other long term and to myself does it get applied to my defensive guns.


I happen to think you're a bigger outlier than you do, though. I think you're (a) smart enough to know tiny little differences in the gun aren't likely to add up to meaningful change to your score and (b) smart enough to realize that reliability failures in some games can outweigh even slightly meaningful performance gains.

OK that's just crazy talk!

I've saw enough good shooters lose matches in my early days to realize that I didn't want my disappointment from losing to be caused by anything but my shooting ability (or lack there of).

But OTOH I don't think I am as much of an outlier in that the desire is there in some of the shooters that have issues, just I'm probably more willing to give up that last measure of tuning to obtain the reliability. I see it because some are very OCD about cleaning and I mean OCD, at the steel nationals some dudes would spend an hour at the cleaning area every day totally stripping their gun apart. They would never meet us up at the bar because by the time they were done cleaning we were on our way to dinner. OTOH I only spent five minutes cleaning off the old lube and applying new lube the night before I shoot for score. But on the other side of the coin they are much more willing to try different comps, springs, and such. While my gear has been fixed for the better part of the last three years (as I haven't found anything new that improves on it enough to be worth it).

[45dotACP]

Either your doing good preventative maintenance or you just haven't shot your gun(s) enough. At some point you will see some sort of failure in a glock. I have been shooting them exclusively for years, the big things to remember are recoil springs, mag springs, and some Glocks will see some extraction ejection issues as the guns wear in like 20,000 rounds +(not the recent late GEN 3 & Gen 4 stuff but early Gen 3).

A little of both really. I play with a 1911, so preventative maintenance is sort of a mindset. As for Glock, I'm starting to get the brass to the face thing from my 34, so I just swapped extractors, but I don't have 20k through it (yet) :D

My point was mostly facetious though. I've had malfunctions with my glocks, with my 1911 and even with my very first gun ever, an old police trade in model 64 (yep, revolvers malfunction). Most every gun will have a point where there is a jam, stoppage, malfunction or whatever and even if you shoot the most reliable gun in the world, you will at some point, pay the piper.

I do agree that using small cottage industry parts and bolting them on your carry gun is a Bad Thing and I've even experienced firsthand the woes of "trying to make a glock trigger better" and paying for it with light strikes, a worse trigger, and the general headache/frustration of spending money on parts only to go back to stock. But done professionally, I can see nothing wrong with carrying a custom pistol (like a Wilson, something from CZ's custom shop or a glock/M&P tricked up by Salient.) but that's mostly because those guns will be more reliable than something bubba put together in the garage.

[1slow]

Back in the day Ross Seyfried wrote that he had 2 identical Pachmayr 1911 .45 s and 1 load that he shot in competition. H concentrated on driving the gun not messing with his gun, ammo etc...
This was when en he was competing and winning at the world level.

[rob_s]

I don't get it.

There is some sort of revelation that competition shooters fiddle-fart with their guns/ammo/gear to try and win?

But the quote in the OP seems to be more about buying cheap gear than fiddle-farting. I wasn't aware George Zimmerman shot Martin with a Sig...

[Kyle Reese]

I shoot a Glock, thus reliability is no issue.

Yea... About that..... I thought the same thing until the slide of my Glock 19 Gen 3 flew off the frame into a dirt berm during AFHF (or was it SOM?) several years ago. I thought that the Glock was 10 feet tall and bullet-proof until that moment in time when the eyes of the class were on me and the mud caked Glock 19 slide.

Lesson learned - no gun is "flawless" or totally reliable. Bring a spare gun, or parts kit.

[ToddG]

I don't get it.

There is some sort of revelation that competition shooters fiddle-fart with their guns/ammo/gear to try and win?

It's a carryover from a discussion in another thread.


But the quote in the OP seems to be more about buying cheap gear than fiddle-farting. I wasn't aware George Zimmerman shot Martin with a Sig...

I didn't read anything in the quote about Zimmerman or SIG...

[45dotACP]

Yea... About that..... I thought the same thing until the slide of my Glock 19 Gen 3 flew off the frame into a dirt berm during AFHF (or was it SOM?) several years ago. I thought that the Glock was 10 feet tall and bullet-proof until that moment in time when the eyes of the class were on me and the mud caked Glock 19 slide.

Lesson learned - no gun is "flawless" or totally reliable. Bring a spare gun, or parts kit.

Yikes! Point taken. What kind of parts failure would cause that?

[ToddG]

Failure of the takedown spring, which used to be fairly common before Glock changed it and smart folks began adding it to regular maintenance replacement lists.

[Slavex]

Would that have been a part from some untested vendor?