Why I won’t be doing the 2000 round challenge

[OlongJohnson]

I read various forums, and sometimes questions arise about, for example, “Is this wear normal, I’ve only shot 1000 rounds?” As I shop for the best deals on various firearms, that is always of concern. Even many pistols that appear to have been shot very little have been lubricated even less, with the factory-included lube tube unopened in the box, and disproportionate wear already showing on the rails.

The point being, it’s possible to put a severe amount of wear on a pistol in a relatively short time if it’s not kept properly cleaned and lubed in critical locations. Some pistols are more susceptible than others.

Glocks may not care much, but I’ve still seen chrome flake off the steel “rail” tabs in a very short time.

Sigs want grease, and plenty of it. They’ll go 100k rounds and beyond if properly cleaned and lubed and parts changed on schedule, but they can be killed with a much smaller round count if neglected. I’d definitely have different hot weather and cold weather solutions for a Sig used as a carry piece, and I’d probably have different solutions for one used as a carry piece, that absolutely had to work for a handful of shots if needed, and one used for a high volume practice or competition gun that I wanted to last tens of thousands of rounds.

In my opinion, based on what I hope is still only half a lifetime or so operating, maintaining and repairing mechanical stuff, the ability of a machine to withstand neglect and abuse is not the best measure of performance or reliability. The Lexus that was built to last 1000 years sits in the junk yard for the same reason as the ratted-out crap can next to it: improper maintenance.

You wouldn’t measure the quality of a car by its ability to be driven 20,000 miles without touching the dip stick and not have the engine seize. Some cars may burn a quart of oil every 3000 miles or so. There’s no problem with that, but if you try to go 20k without topping it up and changing it a few times, you will destroy it completely when, with proper maintenance, that car might go 250k miles. Another car might just make it to the 20k line without apparent problems, but being two quarts low for the last 5000 miles of that could cause increased wear that will cause it to begin failing emissions tests 50-100k miles earlier at end of life than if it had been properly maintained from the start.

I'm much more in tune with the guy whose daily driver has 80k miles, with 15k of those on race tracks, and is running as strong as it did after its first oil change and rocking its emissions tests because the best oil is used and changed when it should be, and all the other maintenance is kept up with.

Similarly, while the ability of a pistol to go 2000 rounds without cleaning or lubrication and not choke may provide some indication of its reliability or durability when properly maintained, I’d personally rather know that I’m taking care of it in a way that will maximize its reliability and service life over the lifetime of use I (or the future owners, of whose pistol I am a custodian) will get from it.

In particular, as I’ve searched for some older, out of production models where it hasn’t been possible to just go buy a new one for many years, I appreciate them being in better condition, with less wear and more useful life ahead of them. All firearms eventually become a non-renewable resource.

Some say that more guns are damaged by over cleaning than under cleaning, but I can’t see how wiping a patch down the barrel and cleaning the old lube and grease off the rails and replacing it with new, clean lube can possibly be bad. I am not in the sand box, so attracting the alkali dust (which I know well) is not a worry on the nightstand, the range, at a competition, or under a shirt.

A professional shooter/trainer who may acquire his tools at steeply discounted prices, and may plan to wear them out in a year or less and then move on to the next one, may find comfort in knowing his consumable implement is robust to unreasonable abuse. But looking at them as more of a capital investment, my goal is to obtain the longest possible service from them, or best resale value should it come to that. Because of that, I’ll be keeping my equipment cleaned and lubed much more frequently.

I hope this doesn’t come across as an attitude of pissing on the campfire, but as a new guy around here, I have felt a bit of a cultural mentality that the 2000 round challenge is a normal/standard/necessary rite of passage for a firearm to be regarded as truly trustworthy. I do appreciate seeing the reports where pistols I like do very well, but I don’t really buy into the idea that I should do it with every pistol I own, just to be sure it’s up to snuff. I’m kinda wondering how many people feel more like me when it comes to how they treat their own stuff.

[Jay Cunningham]

In my opinion, based on what I hope is still only half a lifetime or so operating, maintaining and repairing mechanical stuff, the ability of a machine to withstand neglect and abuse is not the best measure of performance or reliability.

I think some of this torture-test stuff has improperly skewed the brains of "normal" "civilian" shooters and their expectations/demands of their gear.

[BehindBlueI's]

While I'm firmly in the camp of not doing it because I don't care if a gun will run 2k rounds without cleaning, I wouldn't harangue anyone who did. Yeah, one of these guns may be the Chevelle SS one day, but most of them are going to be the Dodge Omni. If it's worn out and trashed, it was disposable to begin with.

I blame Glock, though. I imagine the first marketing campaign to a skeptical US market started like this: "Yes, our triggers are butt, and yes we aren't as accurate as the other offerings, and yes we're made of plastic, and yes we're foreigners, and yes we put a safety on the trigger because reasons, and yes we've got no culture cache at the moment...but you can bury our pistols in the mud for thirteen weeks, freeze them in a block of ice, and toss them out of a helicopter and they'll still shoot!"

[rob_s]

I think some of this torture-test stuff has improperly skewed the brains of "normal" "civilian" shooters and their expectations/demands of their gear.

I agree.

However, I also think that something like the 2k challenge can be fun, a learning experience, and perhaps a motivator to get out to the range, none of which are bad things.

the one good thing that has come from all of this, in a more global sense, is that more people have become disavowed of the nonsense that guns are to be detail stripped and polished every time one returns home from the range.

[redbone]

I've never done the 2000 round challenge for the reasons the OP stated.

I'm not sure when a pistols ability to run dry became a thing. Keeping one lubed isn't hard. Tell me again why I should I insist on it working properly while dry?

[Robinson]

I didn't feel like I was abusing the 1911 I put through the 2K challenge. In fact after the test was completed when I cleaned and lubed the gun it looked great.

I also didn't think my test was definitive proof of anything other than that particular pistol ran fine with less than ideal cleaning and lubrication. No big deal. My main carry gun was never put through the 2K challenge and I don't have plans to do so.

[Jay Cunningham]

the one good thing that has come from all of this, in a more global sense, is that more people have become disavowed of the nonsense that guns are to be detail stripped and polished every time one returns home from the range.

Absolutely 100%. For me, it makes a good point of discussion for less experienced shooters. But it's a quick point.

[Dave J]

I care much more about how the gun will do with the three mags I'm carrying, than what happens from 1000 onward.

However, 2000 rounds isn't really that much, and you should be starting with a properly lubed gun. So, IMHO, it's not a "torture test" in any sense of the word, nor is it particularly abusive to a quality service pistol.

If you somehow lost the lube or dropped the gun in a sandblast cabinet by mistake, no one is twisting your arm saying you have to shoot the entire test. For that matter, I don't recall anyone pushing the idea that this needs to be done on every gun you own. Rather, the argument was that a quality service piece should be able to meet that standard. Also, IIRC, Todd chose the 2000 round figure based on common agency procurement requirements. Since lots of people here prefer shooting guns to cleaning them, it didn't take long to get a reasonable data sample that makes for good discussion, and helps overcome the notion that service pistols are delicate flowers that need hours of loving maintenance.

[Hambo]

People really clean their guns with only a few hundred rounds down the pipe? I do that when I shoot my carry gun, but I treat my range gun like a lawnmower: just add oil and bullets.

[JHC]

IIRC TLG started it, not Glock. I have suspected he was inspired by large agency testing protocols. But that's a guess. He was involved with some but stuck tight to his NDAs like a boss.

I did it on a couple Glocks and an M&P when it was the rage. I had fun with it.

[LSP972]

I’m kinda wondering how many people feel more like me when it comes to how they treat their own stuff.

I'm not a "new guy" here, but I agree with you 110%. And The Katar is right, as well. Which is part of the reason I no longer read as many threads/posts here as I used to.

.

[Nephrology]

I don't see it as problematic. I just finished this with my Gen 4 Glock 19 - I thought it was a great way to build both skill and confidence in my new carry gun (replacing a very well worn 3rd gen of the same). It definitely ended up dirty as all get out but it certainly never did anything to the gun that impaired function either short or long term. This gun will not likely be shot a whole lot from here on out, so putting it through its paces gave me the confidence that it has the bare minimum reliability I need i a carry pistol.

Also, I am not sure if I agree with your analogy that it is like putting 20k miles on an engine without doing an oil change - even on more lube-sensitive handguns, 2k without lubrication will at worst induce a stoppage or two, but I have trouble imagining it causing long term damage to anything but the finish. For most well made modern pistols, 2000 rounds is a pretty damn low roundcount. For some people here that is about 3 weeks worth of shooting if not less. Quite frankly, if I had an autoloader that could not make it through this test without a catastrophic failure, well... I'd want to know about it.

Now, if you tried running 20k rounds though a Glock 23 without swapping recoil springs... that might be a better analogy. Not that I would wish that on my worst enemy... my wrists are getting sore just thinking about it.

[JTQ]

I've always found the reports, and the pictures interesting. However, I've often figured I'd never find myself in a place where I wouldn't have access to more lube than ammo,. Even if I found myself in a shootout in the Winchester/Olin factory, I'm pretty sure I'd find plenty of lube laying around the place to keep the gun lubricated. I'm thinking a 4 oz bottle of lube is probably good for 10,000 - 20,000 rounds of shooting, which is another reason I've never gotten into whining about the price of "gun lube's" and the big savings you get from lubing your gun with motor oil. Lube is just not a significant cost in the shooting world.

[JHC]

I don't see it as problematic. I just finished this with my Gen 4 Glock 19 - I thought it was a great way to build both skill and confidence in my new carry gun (replacing a very well worn 3rd gen of the same). It definitely ended up dirty as all get out but it certainly never did anything to the gun that impaired function either short or long term. This gun will not likely be shot a whole lot from here on out, so putting it through its paces gave me the confidence that it has the bare minimum reliability I need i a carry pistol.

Also, I am not sure if I agree with your analogy that it is like putting 20k miles on an engine without doing an oil change - even on more lube-sensitive handguns, 2k without lubrication will at worst induce a stoppage or two, but I have trouble imagining it causing long term damage to anything but the finish. For most well made modern pistols, 2000 rounds is a pretty damn low roundcount. For some people here that is about 3 weeks worth of shooting if not less. Quite frankly, if I had an autoloader that could not make it through this test without a catastrophic failure, well... I'd want to know about it.

Now, if you tried running 20k rounds though a Glock 23 without swapping recoil springs... that might be a better analogy. Not that I would wish that on my worst enemy... my wrists are getting sore just thinking about it.

I got a kick out of finding my pistols were honey badgers.

[CCT125US]

I've done it on multiple P30s and a P2000, multiple times. Not out of torture, but just didn't see the need to clean a gun once a week. My carry gun now stays relatively clean, mainly because I'm just not shooting nearly as much as I used to. I have been using Wilson Combat oil for many years and will reapply if I really get the gun hot. I will wipe the feed ramp and run a bore snake after every session now, and wipe the exterior. But that is more to mitigate lead contamination on my clothes. Whatever floats your boat, no one is your boss.

[MVS]

What are these emissions tests of which you speak?

[psalms144.1]

I got a kick out of finding my pistols were honey badgers.I got a bigger kick out of running nearly 3,000 rounds of gov't provided ammo through my then-brand-new Mk16 (SCAR-L) in 2.5 days without cleaning or lube. Made the Gunny on my team apoplectic.

[serialsolver]

I don't care about the 2000 round challenge. With due respect to those who have done it. What I do deeply care about is will my shooter work when properly cleaned and lubricated with the magazines and ammo that I use for self defense. Rather than the 2000 round challenge I would properly clean and lubricate the shooter, load the carry mags with carry ammo, shoot that combination. then clean load and repeat for several series till my insides tell me it's good to go. Just my humble opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Steaz]

People really clean their guns with only a few hundred rounds down the pipe? I do that when I shoot my carry gun, but I treat my range gun like a lawnmower: just add oil and bullets.


I don't have any range guns. Every one of my pistols in the starting lineup for the carry roster. SO yeah if I shoot a few hundred rounds I probably "clean it" (as in boresnake and some patches, five minutes field stripped).

I'm not going 2k rounds without cleaning why would I do that lol

[JM Campbell]

2k challenge? Hmmm I think I'm on the 8k challenge.

#dirtygunsmatter


Seriously do as you wish, nothing wrong with it. Tools are called tools for a reason, I'm not looking for a talisman to ward off evil. I want to shoot it in the face and know for a fact it worked.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[M2CattleCo]

I enjoy reading all the results, but I like to lube often. I also don't own any guns that aren't very popular and very proven, so everyone kinda knows what a Glock or a Sig can/can't do.

I'm sitting here by a Sig MK25 that has gone at the very least, 3K rounds without cleaning, but it gets lubed every 300 rounds (every day) or so. It's filthy, but runs like a top...

[Tamara]

I don't have any range guns. Every one of my pistols in the starting lineup for the carry roster.

I don't get the "carry roster (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5586)" thing, but I'm not the boss of you, so rock on. :)

[Robinson]

I think maybe some folks are reading too much into the 2K challenge thing. If you don't see a reason for it or whatever, then don't do it. Nobody is telling you that you should do it. I think those who have done the 2K challenge generally understand that the most important thing is that your gun goes bang at the moment you need it. The 2K challenge doesn't take anything away from that. It isn't being upheld as some ultimate standard by which pistols should be measured. I had fun when I did it and I would have shot the rounds anyway. The gun I used, a 9mm 1911, didn't suffer any harsh wear from it.

It's really just not a big deal.

[Clobbersaurus]

The 2K challenge offers a data point, nothing more, nothing less.

I used to think the way the OP did, cleaning my guns religiously after every range session.

As I started to dedicate myself to really learning to shoot my views regarding cleaning and maintenance turned to: is the gun so dirty it is malfunctioning? If yes, clean it! If no, open another box of ammo and get after it!

Once you really start to put 1000's of rounds rounds through your guns you realize they are consumables, not collectables, and you begin to treat them accordingly. Lube, maintain, shoot, repeat.

[Lomshek]

Glocks may not care much, but I’ve still seen chrome flake off the steel “rail” tabs in a very short time.


Glocks have chrome rail tabs?

[Tamara]

Glocks have chrome rail tabs?

Forget it, he's rolling.


https://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI

[JCS]

I tend to be the person who doesn't go more than a few hundred rounds without cleaning but I've decided to do a 2000 round challenge to prove to myself that they aren't some delicate tool. It seems to me if there is any damage from not lubing, the gun will tell you by malfunctioning. If it starts doing that then test is over anyways. Am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nephrology]

I tend to be the person who doesn't go more than a few hundred rounds without cleaning but I've decided to do a 2000 round challenge to prove to myself that they aren't some delicate tool. It seems to me if there is any damage from not lubing, the gun will tell you by malfunctioning. If it starts doing that then test is over anyways. Am I wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can keep going. I had about 5 malfunctions in my most recent test and I kept going (That said, I was able to easily diagnose the source of all 5 malfunctions, too).

Quite frankly, I just don't think the 2k round challenge will be a problem at all for the majority of guns from the majority of big-name manufacturers. If you search through that thread, you will see Glocks, M&Ps, 1911s, SIGs, Berettas, etc. all cruise through the 2k round challenge without difficulty. Assuming you aren't shooting a Borchardt or something, the odds of you doing any damage to your gun are next to 0%.

I will say that I would not do this to any of my S&W revolvers. A Gp100, maybe... but not to my pre-lock smiths. Nope.

[rob_s]

I don't have any range guns. Every one of my pistols in the starting lineup for the carry roster. SO yeah if I shoot a few hundred rounds I probably "clean it" (as in boresnake and some patches, five minutes field stripped).

I'm not going 2k rounds without cleaning why would I do that lol


I don't get the "carry roster (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5586)" thing, but I'm not the boss of you, so rock on. :)

It may be that he only has one or two guns. I know that when I was in college I only could afford to have one carry gun, maybe two, which meant that if I wanted to practice I needed to shoot the carry gun(s).

Now, as a grownup, I'm a firm believer in a carry gun and a training gun(s), set up identically (or as near as will allow depending on circumstances) and used for their intended purposes. So I wouldn't think twice about a 2k challenge on my training gun since it probably already did that without me trying to.

[Steaz]

I don't get the "carry roster (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5586)" thing, but I'm not the boss of you, so rock on. :)

Sports jargon. Starting lineup, roster...thought it was universal lol

All of my handguns are carry guns (on the "carry roster") and all of my handguns get carried (starting lineup).

I know it starts to sound a little scary, like maybe I have to register them or put a select few on a carry permit and only those can be carried, but fortunately I don't live in a stupid state like that.


It may be that he only has one or two guns. I know that when I was in college I only could afford to have one carry gun, maybe two, which meant that if I wanted to practice I needed to shoot the carry gun(s).

Now, as a grownup, I'm a firm believer in a carry gun and a training gun(s), set up identically (or as near as will allow depending on circumstances) and used for their intended purposes. So I wouldn't think twice about a 2k challenge on my training gun since it probably already did that without me trying to.

That used to be the case. I only had one gun at all (which was my EDC) for awhile and I only had one one semi auto handgun for the first 4 years or so (5 shot snub as a backup or deep carry, but strong preference towards carrying the semi).

These days I have more but not to the point where I buy any handguns that I can't/won't carry. I can't be sure what gun I will carry 'tomorrow' so I generally clean (just field strip real quick wipe down takes a couple minutes) whatever I shoot 'today'. If I shot a couple hundred rounds or fewer, and plan to shoot that gun again with oh say a week, I may leave it alone.

[Hambo]

I can't be sure what gun I will carry 'tomorrow'

You will find that most here don't roll like that, but whatever.

[Tamara]

Sports jargon. Starting lineup, roster...thought it was universal lol

All of my handguns are carry guns (on the "carry roster") and all of my handguns get carried (starting lineup).

I know it starts to sound a little scary, like maybe I have to register them or put a select few on a carry permit and only those can be carried, but fortunately I don't live in a stupid state like that.

I understand what it is, and I guess I do understand why people do it; I used to flip flop back and forth between the P7M8 and the Glock 29 and the PC13 depending on my mood that day, too.

It's just that, like Hambo said, it's not really a thing around here. Sadly, I have to spend too much time shooting different guns for work to really focus on one specific gun (http://pistol-training.com/archives/70), but I did stop switching carry guns on a whim. And I'm not going to be one of those writers that holsters up every test gun they're sent. ("I spent a week carrying the Blastomatic 2000 and found it comfortable...")

[Steaz]

You will find that most here don't roll like that, but whatever.

Why is that?

Does it really matter, right now today, to know if you will carry a Glock 26 tomorrow vs a Glock 19? I don't get it.


I understand what it is, and I guess I do understand why people do it; I used to flip flop back and forth between the P7M8 and the Glock 29 and the PC13 depending on my mood that day, too.

It's just that, like Hambo said, it's not really a thing around here. Sadly, I have to spend too much time shooting different guns for work to really focus on one specific gun (http://pistol-training.com/archives/70), but I did stop switching carry guns on a whim. And I'm not going to be one of those writers that holsters up every test gun they're sent. ("I spent a week carrying the Blastomatic 2000 and found it comfortable...")

Is there really that much of a difference between two different size Glocks (or M&Ps or P320's or whatthehellever)? Or even two different striker fired poly pistols, or two different 1911's, or whatever?

Maybe I'm just not high speed enough to benefit from dialing in one vs the other.

[Wobblie]

The OP's post was really, really long. He should have spent that time cleaning his guns.

[rob_s]

Why is that?

Does it really matter, right now today, to know if you will carry a Glock 26 tomorrow vs a Glock 19? I don't get it.



Is there really that much of a difference between two different size Glocks (or M&Ps or P320's or whatthehellever)? Or even two different striker fired poly pistols, or two different 1911's, or whatever?

Maybe I'm just not high speed enough to benefit from dialing in one vs the other.

I'm not sure you're getting what she's saying.

Lot's of people have more than one carry gun. Glocks are great for that, since you can have different sizes for different modes of carry or attire or situations. But, as you point out, there's really not that much difference. I don't need to go shoot my G26 every day/week/month (depending on your practice schedule) to know that I'm still proficient with it. I can shoot my training G19 and feel confident that the training carries over to my nightstand G17, my G26 in my truck, and the G19 on my belt. I might shoot he G26 once a year to make sure it works and I'm still comfortable with it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Why is that?

Does it really matter, right now today, to know if you will carry a Glock 26 tomorrow vs a Glock 19? I don't get it.



Is there really that much of a difference between two different size Glocks (or M&Ps or P320's or whatthehellever)? Or even two different striker fired poly pistols, or two different 1911's, or whatever?

Maybe I'm just not high speed enough to benefit from dialing in one vs the other.

I don't see any issue with staying in the family. Different sized Glocks, etc. Few people can run totally disparate platforms equally well, though. Going from a 1911 to a Sig with a decocker would not work for me. The thumb safety vs decocker, the motion of deactivating the safety on one making me ride the slide release on the other, etc. means I can't flop back and forth between them on a whim. So, I've standardized on Sigs for semi-auto carry. I do carry a Glock a hand full of times a year because of regulations, and I shoot it well enough and there's no down side to "decocking" the ghost decocking lever and riding the non-existent hammer into the holster.

[Tamara]

...and riding the non-existent hammer into the holster.

Soon™.

[Greg]

I really don't get why people think 2000 rounds without cleaning and adding extra lube is some epic torture event that will permanently wreck your pistol.

It is clearly a hurdle for some.

This thread has inspired me to get organized and do the 2000 round challenge. I'll be using handloads (gasp) and Mobil 1 for lube (clutch pearls and faint). :p

[DocGKR]

I've been in training classes where the pace was such that 2000 rounds where shot with no time to clean the firearms. It is not a big deal. Virtually every firearm I own has had to do it at one time or another. My training pistol has not been cleaned in over 8,000 rounds--seems to be working fine....

[donlapalma]

The OP's post was really, really long. He should have spent that time cleaning his guns.
Well, his name IS OlongJohnson so his post has gotta live up to the title right? Just to prove that his posts are longer than yours dude.

[1986s4]

I did find during my 2000 round test of my Colt .38 super that Frog Lube turned into a sticky paste that hindered slide movement. For that it was worth doing, I cleaned all the FL off my firearms.

[jkb4c]

I'll add a data point - I don't think the 2000 round challenge is particularly hard on the gun, either. I did the 2k with a blued Colt 1911, and after wiping the crud off, there was still bluing on the rails. No appreciable wear that I could detect (and this Colt didn't rattle before or after).

[BobLoblaw]

A few points:

1) A dirty gun runs just as well as a clean one so long as there's proper lubrication. The likelihood of it running better due to your frequent scrubbing efforts are very slim. Clean it eventually and don't worry about it. For some, gun cleaning is a type of therapy, a type that I will never understand.

2) Guns are tools. A tool doing its job is not what I would consider "torture" (wallet torture, perhaps).

3) Reliability is important to most of us and 2000 consecutive rounds in one pistol is one measure of that. We should be grateful others are willing to provide that data instead of "fuck that" threads.

[Steaz]

I don't see any issue with staying in the family. Different sized Glocks, etc. Few people can run totally disparate platforms equally well, though. Going from a 1911 to a Sig with a decocker would not work for me. The thumb safety vs decocker, the motion of deactivating the safety on one making me ride the slide release on the other, etc. means I can't flop back and forth between them on a whim. So, I've standardized on Sigs for semi-auto carry. I do carry a Glock a hand full of times a year because of regulations, and I shoot it well enough and there's no down side to "decocking" the ghost decocking lever and riding the non-existent hammer into the holster.

Yeah...I switch between guns and manufacturers and sizes but all the same extended family. All striker no manual safety same sights similar enough grip angles I switch without natural point of aim being substantially different or anything.

I also don't get the going from DA/SA with decocker to DOA to striker, manual safety on some not on others, and God forbid different safety locations or directions of engagement...just seems like a bad idea or at the least giving yourself a lot more work and crap to think about than you need to.

But even within that, in terms of which guns get shot or cleaned, I almost never know what gun I'll carry the next day.


I've been in training classes where the pace was such that 2000 rounds where shot with no time to clean the firearms. It is not a big deal. Virtually every firearm I own has had to do it at one time or another. My training pistol has not been cleaned in over 8,000 rounds--seems to be working fine....

I'm jealous of those classes. 8k rounds...solid.


I did find during my 2000 round test of my Colt .38 super that Frog Lube turned into a sticky paste that hindered slide movement. For that it was worth doing, I cleaned all the FL off my firearms.

I removed Frog Lube as well. I read of the reported problems and tried to duplicate them, just to see. I didn't clean my AR for hundreds of rounds (not a lot I know lol) and then let it sit in the safe for months before putting it outside in freezing weather, then shooting it cold. It completely locked up, light strike failures to fire exclusively. After I field stripped it and manually worked everything loose it fired and kept firing for two magazines, then I let it sit some more, and it went back to not working.

No way I'm letting my frog lube touch anything with moving parts I want to, well, keep moving, now.

[Wobblie]

Well, his name IS OlongJohnson so his post has gotta live up to the title right? Just to prove that his posts are longer than yours dude.
Regardless of his screen name, his post could still be summed up; "I won't do the 2000 round challenge because..wear." To which all responses should have been; "OK..then don't."

[JonInWA]

At this point, thanks in part to members of our community who have done the 2000 round test, I think that it's been pretty well established that a properly prepared pistol will successfully complete it with little undue drama. I fall midway into two camps-the "guns are tools" camp, and the "field-strip/clean/lube apres shooting sessions/matches/training" camp.

Essentially, while my guns aren't unduly babied, they are taken care of in terms of cleaning and lubrication. Annually, I will do a detailed disassembly and cleaning of my Glocks, which are my primary platform. Every 500-100 rounds, I will additionally remove the extractor and firing pin from my 1911s and clean them an their respective tunnels. Depending on use, I'll also remove the extractor on my Beretta 92 and clean it and its cavity.

But that's about it. I think that the 2000 round test (and other similar ones) have pretty effectively established that a quality polymer-framed handgun, with minimal metal-on-metal bearing areas between slide and receiver rails will chug along pretty uneventfully. Guns with greater metal-on-metal bearing areas (think 1911 and many DA/SA semi-autos) will require either a longer-lasting lubricant, or more frequent lube applications. Most revolvers, in my opinion, will only go for a couple of hundred rounds, if that, without having significant issues due to GSR accumulations effecting either cylinder rotation and/or chambeings-not a lubrication issue, but a cleaning one.

A Glock is just about the fastest and easiest gun to expeditiously field-strip, clean and lubricate, and then reassemble. Maybe it's my old school Army background, but to me it's simple, quick, and potentially preclusive of operational problems cropping up from a lack of cleaning and lubing-so why not do it? I'm NOT talking about obsessive, anal-compulsive detailed disassembly and arcane polishing each and every component-just a simple, routine field-strip, decently clean, lube and reassemble protocol.

While in some sense it is gratifying to here that most guns will go the 2K test without incident, I've never personally seen the point for myself in my gun carrying situation/environment. And I've never particularly felt the urge to subject any of my guns to it.

And while I understand the "shoot-lube-shoot" without any cleaning per se school, I'm not an adherent of it. While it may work, I have the minimal time needed to properly maintain my kit, and prefer to do so. If I was stranded in Ass-backwards-stan and cleaning supplies/armorer/echelon support were at the bottom of the resupply/TOE priority list, I might be forced to operate differently-so it's nice to know in that sense which of my platforms are likely to do well in such a scenario (and if I get stuck in one with some equipment choice latitude, it'll bluntly likely be a Glock sorta day). But I'm not, so I choose to follow a simple a simple problem mitigation protocol of shoot-clean-lube. It works for me, and in the communities that I shoot, my guns are noted for their reliability. You're welcome to take what you like out of that ;-)

Best, Jon

[Tamara]

But even within that, in terms of which guns get shot or cleaned, I almost never know what gun I'll carry the next day.

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

[Jay Cunningham]

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

Do not discount the Magic 8 Ball.

[Nephrology]

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

I usually go with "the weather" and "whichever is closest."

To combat laziness, I keep the J frame way in the back of the safe....

[Tamara]

Liking these answers so far. They seem solid. :)

[Kyle Reese]

What's this "gun cleaning" sorcery that everyone is talking about?

[SLG]

I do a 2000 round test on my carry gun at least twice a day. Just because it passed it once, doesn't mean it will when I need it to, so better to just keep checking.

I can afford the time to do so because I already know I'll be carrying the same gun tomorrow, so going with the Einstein theory saves me a lot of brain cells and time.

[Tamara]

I can afford the time to do so because I already know I'll be carrying the same gun tomorrow, so going with the Einstein theory saves me a lot of brain cells and time.

EDC* pocket dump* yesterday:

8165

EDC* pocket dump* today:

8165

And (thanks to my psychic powers) here's my EDC* pocket dump* from tomorrow, as well as next Wednesday:

8165


*DISCLAIMER: I only use the words "EDC" and "pocket dump" ironically, because they make me itch.

[SLG]

Tam,

I think you must have studied at the same school as Couric. After careful analysis at two different cyber labs, I have concluded that not only is your picture actually just crisco, but that you didn't really take three different photos. And I also don't believe that all came out of your pocket. A computer? Really? How dumb do you think we are?

[Steaz]

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

The main point is it really doesn't matter, generally, which one I carry, in that all of them are what I consider satisfactory, and function similarly. They are also nearly universally carried in the same location, although sometimes it's OWB when usually it's IWB, and the OWB holsters do have active retention devices (all the same company)

But what I carry any particular day may depend on one or a combination of these:

What I'm wearing. Some clothing conceals larger pistols better than others, I don't usually plan my clothing the day before, and often don't check the weather forecast for the next day, etc. I may feel like wearing a button up over shirt or a flannel or a vest or whatever, or not.

Time of day I go out. I'm more likely to carry a larger pistol at night, or a pistol with a WML, or one with slightly different sights

Where I'm going. I don't have a crystal ball (not one that works, anyway) which is why I virtually always carry a satisfactory pistol, but if I'm going into the city or something like that, I may take a larger pistol than if I'm going to the local grocery store.

What position I'll be in at my destination(s), my carry method conceals better standing than sitting, and is more comfortable too. If I'm going to be walking around most of the day, maybe a larger pistol gets the nod.

And much more. It's just nice to have choices. Sometimes I'm just feeling this pistol or that pistol, so I carry it. Not that it really matters, they are substantially similar, when it really comes down to it.

Except that if I cleaned and lubed one since the range and not the other, I may take that into consideration, depending on how many rounds it was, etc. I just like a clean gun for carry, even if being properly lubed is all that is necessary. And it takes less time to field strip and wipe down/maybe boresnake than it took to type out and multi-edit this post.

[Jay Cunningham]

After careful analysis at two different cyber labs, I have concluded that not only is your picture actually just crisco, but that you didn't really take three different photos.

That's pretty good.

[Stephanie B]

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

Gotta match the shoes and the purse.... :cool:

[Tamara]

It's just nice to have choices. Sometimes I'm just feeling this pistol or that pistol, so I carry it. Not that it really matters...

Except on those very rare occasions it does. I guess it comes down to the reason you're carrying a gat in the first place?

*shrug* Imma leave this one before I start quoting Gurney Halleck or channeling Todd (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5586).

Like I said upthread, I'm not the boss of you, so rock on. :)

[breakingtime91]

The main point is it really doesn't matter, generally, which one I carry, in that all of them are what I consider satisfactory, and function similarly. They are also nearly universally carried in the same location, although sometimes it's OWB when usually it's IWB, and the OWB holsters do have active retention devices (all the same company)

But what I carry any particular day may depend on one or a combination of these:

What I'm wearing. Some clothing conceals larger pistols better than others, I don't usually plan my clothing the day before, and often don't check the weather forecast for the next day, etc. I may feel like wearing a button up over shirt or a flannel or a vest or whatever, or not.

Time of day I go out. I'm more likely to carry a larger pistol at night, or a pistol with a WML, or one with slightly different sights

Where I'm going. I don't have a crystal ball (not one that works, anyway) which is why I virtually always carry a satisfactory pistol, but if I'm going into the city or something like that, I may take a larger pistol than if I'm going to the local grocery store.

What position I'll be in at my destination(s), my carry method conceals better standing than sitting, and is more comfortable too. If I'm going to be walking around most of the day, maybe a larger pistol gets the nod.

And much more. It's just nice to have choices. Sometimes I'm just feeling this pistol or that pistol, so I carry it. Not that it really matters, they are substantially similar, when it really comes down to it.

Except that if I cleaned and lubed one since the range and not the other, I may take that into consideration, depending on how many rounds it was, etc. I just like a clean gun for carry, even if being properly lubed is all that is necessary. And it takes less time to field strip and wipe down/maybe boresnake than it took to type out and multi-edit this post.

What you are not getting is most people (here) don't do that. We carry the same gun everyday regardless of condition. It matters in the sense that when I draw that gun I won't have to figure out what variant/model I decided to match with my shoes that day. You can keep trying to explain why but most will disagree.

[Jay Cunningham]

*shrug* Imma leave this one before I start quoting Gurney Halleck or channeling Todd (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5586).

I know who Gurney Halleck is. I understand that reference. That's Dune.

[RevolverRob]

With good quality ammo and good quality lube I've never seen a gun get dirtier from 2000 rounds of shooting than it does getting carried in a pocket or inside the waistband against a cotton shirt. Guns are magnets for lint, fuzz, and dirt. To the point earlier, where someone mentioned therapy. A clean gun really makes my internal OCD happy. I like clean guns. I also don't care if they are super dirty as long as the work. I will say, I clean guns on a time schedule not a "rounds shot" schedule. Have I carried this gun everyday for two weeks? Time to inspect it, and clean it of any accrued grode. Everyday for a month? Unload it and inspect it thoroughly and clean and lube it. And since I only carry two different guns chances are high I've been carrying the same gun for a month.

[Robinson]

So...what do you use to decide which gun you'll carry that day? :confused:

Blue grips with blue jeans, black with everything else.

I think I made myself a little sick typing that.

[Steaz]

What you are not getting is most people (here) don't do that. We carry the same gun everyday regardless of condition. It matters in the sense that when I draw that gun I won't have to figure out what variant/model I decided to match with my shoes that day. You can keep trying to explain why but most will disagree.

I won't have to figure out what variant or model I decided to carry that day, either.

IDGAF if I pulled out a Gen3 Glock 19, or a Gen4 Glock 19, or a Gen3 Glock 26, or a Gen4 Glock 26 (remember, this started as me commenting on how I don't have range guns and carry guns where I might go thousands of rounds no cleaning on a range gun, but clean the carry gun, or whatever) , or even some other similar striker fired 9mm poly pistol with no manual safety. And I sure as hell don't have to think "how do I press the trigger on this one again?"



*It might even be a VP9. But it doesn't matter if it's a G26 or a VP9 to me in terms of how to handle it when I draw it, maybe I'm just not good enough yet lol

[Handy]

The 2000 round thing seemed to me like packaging. A more interesting test would be rounds until failure with out maintenance replacement parts, rounds until failure with replacements, etc. But those take tens of thousands of rounds, which isn't very convenient.

I don't think military tests do anything like this - cleaning is expected. They do mud and sand tests, which we aren't going to want to do.

[breakingtime91]

I won't have to figure out what variant or model I decided to carry that day, either.

IDGAF if I pulled out a Gen3 Glock 19, or a Gen4 Glock 19, or a Gen3 Glock 26, or a Gen4 Glock 26 (remember, this started as me commenting on how I don't have range guns and carry guns where I might go thousands of rounds no cleaning on a range gun, but clean the carry gun, or whatever) , or even some other similar striker fired 9mm poly pistol with no manual safety. And I sure as hell don't have to think "how do I press the trigger on this one again?"



*It might even be a VP9. But it doesn't matter if it's a G26 or a VP9 to me in terms of how to handle it when I draw it, maybe I'm just not good enough yet lol

I dont even think you realize you are proving my point for me.

[Steaz]

I dont even think you realize you are proving my point for me.

That a Glock 26 shoots so differently from a Glock 19 that you should never carry one one day, and the other the next, because you'll be overwhelmed thinking about how the controls work? Or that I"ll forget to disengage the safety on the VP9? Perhaps trijicon HD night sights look different when they are on a different gun? You posted something cutsie about matching purses, I don't recall a point of substance.

ETA: So, seriously, what's the big detractor in your eyes from carrying a different but substantially similar pistol on different days? In this case, all polymer frame striker fired 9mm semi autos with standard (similar) factory triggers and the same aftermarket sites carried in the same manner/holster type in the same location.

[breakingtime91]

That a Glock 26 shoots so differently from a Glock 19 that you should never carry one one day, and the other the next, because you'll be overwhelmed thinking about how the controls work? Or that I"ll forget to disengage the safety on the VP9? Perhaps trijicon HD night sights look different when they are on a different gun? You posted something cutsie about matching purses, I don't recall a point of substance.

lol not sure if it was intentional but I'm gonna be kinda of a dick for a second.

1)you were saying that dependent on the time of day, area your going, and what you were wearing would dictate what type of gun or model your carrying. You made a vague comment that I decided probably meant you were the guy that has a carry "rotation" and more often then not you don't carry.
2)Vp9s don't have a safety. Unsure if this was an attempt at a troll but ya. They would be an awesome option for me if they did.
3) If you want to have a carry rotation and yell at everyone else who doesn't go for it. You didn't say you would maybe carry a g19 when u could and had a g26 for when you couldn't. Your original post made it seem like you had a wide variety of pistols without safeties that you matched to your shoes or whatever. I am sorry you got offended and apparently sat around waiting for my response. You would be much better off sticking to maybe a combo of g19/g26 then grabbing whatever flavor you wanted that day. If I pissed you off by just stating what most of us do here, I apologize but that is just how we do stuff.

[Handy]

lol not sure if it was intentional but I'm gonna be kinda of a dick for a second.

1)you were saying that dependent on the time of day, area your going, and what you were wearing would dictate what type of gun or model your carrying. You made a vague comment that I decided probably meant you were the guy that has a carry "rotation" and more often then not you don't carry.
2)Vp9s don't have a safety. Unsure if this was an attempt at a troll but ya. They would be an awesome option for me if they did.
3) If you want to have a carry rotation and yell at everyone else who doesn't go for it. You didn't say you would maybe carry a g19 when u could and had a g26 for when you couldn't. Your original post made it seem like you had a wide variety of pistols without safeties that you matched to your shoes or whatever. I am sorry you got offended and apparently sat around waiting for my response. You would be much better off sticking to maybe a combo of g19/g26 then grabbing whatever flavor you wanted that day. If I pissed you off by just stating what most of us do here, I apologize but that is just how we do stuff.

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

[breakingtime91]

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

no its not and that is kind of the basis of my post. I was literally apologizing for my reaction because that is the norm here.

[Duelist]

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

Well, not everybody carries Glocks. At least, I know I don't.

[breakingtime91]

Well, not everybody carries Glocks. At least, I know I don't.

eh, either do I?

[1slow]

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

Most here train and train up with a carry gun and then carry it for a good while. Many have multiples of the carry gun or similar variations on a theme, GL19, GL17 etc... The choice of guns varies but tends to be a well proven service grade gun.
Most also have something smaller for when they must hide it under less clothing, S&W J frames for example.
The general trend here is to train up with a carry gun, get it reflexive and then carry that gun as much as you can. This includes training with your backup or more concealable variation on your primary pistol.

Some train with multiple types of pistols but they usually shoot a lot.

[breakingtime91]

Most here train and train up with a carry gun and then carry it for a good while. Many have multiples of the carry gun or similar variations on a theme, GL19, GL17 etc... The choice of guns varies but tends to be a well proven service grade gun.
Most also have something smaller for when they must hide it under less clothing, S&W J frames for example.
The general trend here is to train up with a carry gun, get it reflexive and then carry that gun as much as you can. This includes training with your backup or more concealable variation on your primary pistol.

Some train with multiple types of pistols but they usually shoot a lot.

Thanks 1slow, you said it way better then i ever could

[Steaz]

lol not sure if it was intentional but I'm gonna be kinda of a dick for a second.

1)you were saying that dependent on the time of day, area your going, and what you were wearing would dictate what type of gun or model your carrying. You made a vague comment that I decided probably meant you were the guy that has a carry "rotation" and more often then not you don't carry.

Nope. Basically always carry. What it comes down to most is that concealment matters more or less in different situations, and not all of the variables are known a day or more in advance, at least for me.




2)Vp9s don't have a safety. Unsure if this was an attempt at a troll but ya. They would be an awesome option for me if they did.

That was sarcastically (attempt at) making a point and trying to get you to quantify what was supposedly so different between these pistols. As an aside I wouldn't be interested in a manual safety version but that's just me. If I were HK and it were easy to do yeah I'd offer both...get more buyers...like FNH is doing with the FNS, S&W with the Shield, etc. Get more buyers.



3) If you want to have a carry rotation and yell at everyone else who doesn't go for it. You didn't say you would maybe carry a g19 when u could and had a g26 for when you couldn't. Your original post made it seem like you had a wide variety of pistols without safeties that you matched to your shoes or whatever. I am sorry you got offended and apparently sat around waiting for my response. You would be much better off sticking to maybe a combo of g19/g26 then grabbing whatever flavor you wanted that day. If I pissed you off by just stating what most of us do here, I apologize but that is just how we do stuff.

I didn't yell at anyone for not doing anything lol. If it sounded that way it wasn't intended. I am pointing out that I can see no substantial difference in the controls or operation of these different pistols, some prior posts were making it sound like I was suggesting a S&W CS40 one day, a 1911 the next, and then a CZ P-01 on hump day. Lots of poly frame 9mm strikers with no manual safety that shoot pretty similarly and can be fitted with Trijicon HD sights

If other people want to carry the same single gun all the time exclusively, go for it. I did that for four years out of necessity, didn't have any qualms about it then really, wouldn't now, if it really came down to it.



Edited to add: I also just like guns and enjoy having and carrying/using "different" ones, provided that their operation is very similar and that I get enough trigger time with each solely, plus switching between them at the range, and using different ones cold at the range, to be sure there's no issue with grabbing any of them at any given time. G26, G19, FNS9/c, VP9...pretty similar. The VP9 was supposed to be a G17 but I made the mistake of trying one before I brought the G17 home.

[breakingtime91]

Nope. Basically always carry. What it comes down to most is that concealment matters more or less in different situations, and not all of the variables are known a day or more in advance, at least for me.




That was sarcastically (attempt at) making a point and trying to get you to quantify what was supposedly so different between these pistols. As an aside I wouldn't be interested in a manual safety version but that's just me. If I were HK and it were easy to do yeah I'd offer both...get more buyers...like FNH is doing with the FNS, S&W with the Shield, etc. Get more buyers.



I didn't yell at anyone for not doing anything lol. If it sounded that way it wasn't intended. I am pointing out that I can see no substantial difference in the controls or operation of these different pistols, some prior posts were making it sound like I was suggesting a S&W CS40 one day, a 1911 the next, and then a CZ P-01 on hump day.

If other people want to carry the same single gun all the time exclusively, go for it. I did that for four years out of necessity, didn't have any qualms about it then really, wouldn't now, if it really came down to it.

I guess my argument would be that your losing out at pure performance with your carry gun. Despite how close the controls are they are still different and triggers are still different between brands of striker fired guns. I honestly/truly believe you are putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to pure performance or effectiveness.

[Steaz]

I guess my argument would be that your losing out at pure performance with your carry gun. Despite how close the controls are they are still different and triggers are still different between brands of striker fired guns. I honestly/truly believe you are putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to pure performance or effectiveness.

Sure, sure, having the exact same gun/trigger, such as all Glocks (or M&P or P320 or CZ75 variant plus P-01 whatever) only changing models to get a different size when desired would be more consistent, and consistency is very good. But then I shoot the VP9 a little better than I shoot the Glocks, and just have more confidence with it hitting where I want, so when I upsize to carrying it, I think I have an advantage. Now, I haven't been able to compare a G17 to the VP9 side by side or back to back live fire timed/measured (I did extensively shoot a G17 some years ago), but based on prior experience + owning the G19's, I'm confident I am more confident with the VP9 than I would be if that were a G17 instead (circular logic? IDK). Is that advantage worth maybe not being as perfectly in tune with the Glock trigger if I last shot the VP and then holstered up a Glock? I think so, yes, probably because I"ve been shooting the Glocks for a decade and still shoot them regularly.

[Tamara]

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

Didn't you ragequit under a different name last July? :confused:

[Drang]

What's this "gun cleaning" sorcery that everyone is talking about?

Some retired NCOS grow a beard and long hair to show that they are now free, I just blow off cleaning my guns until three or four range sessions are done.

#Stickin'ItToTheMan!

[breakingtime91]

Sure, sure, having the exact same gun/trigger, such as all Glocks (or M&P or P320 or CZ75 variant plus P-01 whatever) only changing models to get a different size when desired would be more consistent, and consistency is very good. But then I shoot the VP9 a little better than I shoot the Glocks, and just have more confidence with it hitting where I want, so when I upsize to carrying it, I think I have an advantage. Now, I haven't been able to compare a G17 to the VP9 side by side or back to back live fire timed/measured (I did extensively shoot a G17 some years ago), but based on prior experience + owning the G19's, I'm confident I am more confident with the VP9 than I would be if that were a G17 instead (circular logic? IDK). Is that advantage worth maybe not being as perfectly in tune with the Glock trigger if I last shot the VP and then holstered up a Glock? I think so, yes, probably because I"ve been shooting the Glocks for a decade and still shoot them regularly.

why wouldn't you just carry the vp9?

[azerious]

I cannot afford 2K rounds of ammo:cool:

[Duelist]

I cannot afford 2K rounds of ammo:cool:

Maybe not *today* ... But over time, sure.

[rob_s]

Is the membership of this site that homogenous?

Sorry - I'm new.

No, it's not, but there's a vocal minority that sets the tone and tenor.

[rob_s]

Sure, sure, having the exact same gun/trigger, such as all Glocks (or M&P or P320 or CZ75 variant plus P-01 whatever) only changing models to get a different size when desired would be more consistent, and consistency is very good. But then I shoot the VP9 a little better than I shoot the Glocks, and just have more confidence with it hitting where I want, so when I upsize to carrying it, I think I have an advantage. Now, I haven't been able to compare a G17 to the VP9 side by side or back to back live fire timed/measured (I did extensively shoot a G17 some years ago), but based on prior experience + owning the G19's, I'm confident I am more confident with the VP9 than I would be if that were a G17 instead (circular logic? IDK). Is that advantage worth maybe not being as perfectly in tune with the Glock trigger if I last shot the VP and then holstered up a Glock? I think so, yes, probably because I"ve been shooting the Glocks for a decade and still shoot them regularly.

You are both over, and under, thinking this.

I don't understand why you don't just buy a G26, two G19s, and a G17. Use one of the two G19s as your training gun, and carry the other three.

[fixer]

A lot of folks here are into training and performance--and have objectives to increase their skill with a pistol. Carrying and training with the same manual of arms is a "pro-tip" on 1) slicing through plateaus, 2) an important lesson learned from folks who compete and kick-doors and lived through violent encounters.

A self-declared carry rotation is a sure sign of derp. Derp is not tolerated here.

[Steaz]

why wouldn't you just carry the vp9?


What it comes down to most is that concealment matters more or less in different situations,

Because I can't always legitimately conceal a full size pistol, even if it is the one I shoot best.


A lot of folks here are into training and performance--and have objectives to increase their skill with a pistol. Carrying and training with the same manual of arms is a "pro-tip" on 1) slicing through plateaus, 2) an important lesson learned from folks who compete and kick-doors and lived through violent encounters.

A self-declared carry rotation is a sure sign of derp. Derp is not tolerated here.

It's simple. I shoot the HK better than I shoot the Glocks, so when I can carry it, I do. When I can't, I fall back on the Glocks for something less big that is still great.


You are both over, and under, thinking this.

I don't understand why you don't just buy a G26, two G19s, and a G17. Use one of the two G19s as your training gun, and carry the other three.


That's basically where I am except I made the mistake of trying a VP9 when I was set to pick up a G17, so the full size option is not currently a Glock.

I don't think shooting the VP9 makes me worse with the Glocks.


What I don't understand is why some people feel the need to dictate what guns other people carry, or how these guns are so different from one another

[newyork]

Have you tried a few different holster options for the VP9 or just 1?

[Steaz]

Have you tried a few different holster options for the VP9 or just 1?

.
I have a white hat max tuck (which is crap), a stealth gear usa onyx (which is awesome), and a safariland GLS or whatever their 'universal' owb is called.

[Greg]

why wouldn't you just carry the vp9?

Maybe it rains where he lives? :cool:

[LittleLebowski]

Some retired NCOS grow a beard and long hair to show that they are now free, I just blow off cleaning my guns until three or four range sessions are done.

#Stickin'ItToTheMan!

Getting out of the military cleaning regimen was truly freeing for me.

[rob_s]

What I don't understand is why some people feel the need to dictate what guns other people carry, or how these guns are so different from one another

I don't see that happening.

What I see is you making statements that don't make sense, or are contradictory, and people asking you for clarification.

On the one hand you're saying that there's functionally no difference between your various carry and training options, but on the other you're saying y can't dedicate one gun to training only. Those are contradictory statements.

But, even if people are picking on you for your carry options, you spoke up on a gun forum and offered up your opinions and thoughts. You're fair game after that. It's not the same thing as someone marching up to you at a range and saying "you're stupid for buying that vp9" unsolicited.

[Steaz]

I don't see that happening.

What I see is you making statements that don't make sense, or are contradictory, and people asking you for clarification.

On the one hand you're saying that there's functionally no difference between your various carry and training options, but on the other you're saying y can't dedicate one gun to training only. Those are contradictory statements.

But, even if people are picking on you for your carry options, you spoke up on a gun forum and offered up your opinions and thoughts. You're fair game after that. It's not the same thing as someone marching up to you at a range and saying "you're stupid for buying that vp9" unsolicited.


Where did I say I could not dedicate one gun to training only? I don't because that is illogical. Why would I sometimes carry a Glock 26 and never train with it? Is that what people do, carry guns they never train with? Not you of course you wouldn't carry a gun that's just role playing, but is that really what you think people are saying? That I should carry a gun without ever training with it because it isn't my one and only dedicated training gun?

[SLG]

Here AT P-F, we try to do things better than the average joe. Shooting, carrying, training, what have you.

To that end, An ideal way to go about this is to carry and shoot the same gun all the time. That leads to the highest performance, generally speaking. High performance is what many of us want. BTW, you cannot buy high performance.

Another way is to get two IDENTICAL guns, and shoot them both for about 1,000 rds. Then carry one and train with the other.

Switching sizes, triggers, brands etc..., is not the way to achieve a high level of unconscious competence. The people who seem able to do that generally learned to shoot A gun at a really high level, then branched out. Nonetheless, switching guns is not ideal for anyone, at any level, when performance is measured in .10's. Certainly, you can argue that those differences don't matter, but please see my first line above.

To help accomplish this, many of us have altered our wardrobe to be able to carry what we want, rather than choose a different gun each day.

None of this should make you feel unwelcome, but if you don't want to learn and improve what you are doing, this site may not be very interesting to you. I learn something new here almost everyday.

[DocGKR]

"Another way is to get two IDENTICAL guns, and shoot them both for about 1,000 rds. Then carry one and train with the other."

Very much this.


"To help accomplish this, many of us have altered our wardrobe to be able to carry what we want, rather than choose a different gun each day."

I can easily carry a G19 every day in a wide variety of clothing ranging from professional suits to shorts and a T-shirt without any trouble...

[SLG]

I can easily carry a G19 every day in a wide variety of clothing ranging from professional suits to shorts and a T-shirt without any trouble...

I do the same with a G22...and as of yesterday, a G17.

I didn't mean to imply that I wear the same clothing all the time in order to conceal the gun. Just that carefully picking your clothing will allow you to carry a real gun pretty easily.

Doc, I have some news from the east to run past you when you have a minute.

[rob_s]

Where did I say I could not dedicate one gun to training only? I don't because that is illogical. Why would I sometimes carry a Glock 26 and never train with it? Is that what people do, carry guns they never train with? Not you of course you wouldn't carry a gun that's just role playing, but is that really what you think people are saying? That I should carry a gun without ever training with it because it isn't my one and only dedicated training gun?

You're reaching, and you're wrong.

By your own admission, the various sizes of Glock are close enough in size for the difference to be relative,y immaterial to training. By my own posts, I have suggested that this means you can train with something like a Glock 26 once or twice a year to maintain size-specific proficiency.

Your assertion that every gun needs to be cleaned every time because:carry-uncertainty is what is being called into question, and you've not really adequately explained that and have, in fact, provided information that pretty clearly refutes that notion.

[rob_s]

I can easily carry a G19 every day in a wide variety of clothing ranging from professional suits to shorts and a T-shirt without any trouble...

I really hate those kinds of posts, because they don't really mean anything to anyone but you.

I don't think anyone should be criticized for having different carry options based on circumstances, dress required, etc. because there is no way of knowing the specifics of their situation. Instead of reverting to the Internet assumption that the guy on the other keyboard is dumber/less-experienced/less-logical/etc than us we should start from the assumption that they have applied intelligence, experience, logic and reason to come to their own conclusions, which may be different than our own.

In my case, I've been involved in shooting, carrying, training, etc rather extensive, yet I've come to largely different conclusions than the vocal minority of this forum on a variety of issues. It's not a situation of wrong/right, but one of opinion and personal circumstances.

[SteveB]

I really hate those kinds of posts, because they don't really mean anything to anyone but you.

Not sure why you would say this, as it is so obviously missing the point. DocGKR made his statement as an agreement with SLG’s prior statement. Both these statements speak to what I think is a fair point. Many experienced people make the commitment to one gun and deal with the daily requirements of that commitment. “Really hate” seems kind of emotional in this context.

[Handy]

From these comments, my question is:

Given the way the nervous system works - is infrequent shooting of non-primary guns better for preserving the muscle memory of the primary, or damaging? Humans can easily do multiple, very similar tasks really well because their differences keep them "filed" in slightly different parts of the brain: Fly a plane, drive a car. They don't interfere with each other, especially if you practice both often, because our big brains evolved to perform at high levels with a wide range of tasks.

For the man that really wants to embrace the one gun philosophy and only owns two G19s, all is well. That's all he'll ever shoot. But given the nature of gun ownership, even true believers are going to spend some time shooting other pistols, and purposely limited that time just makes that experience more novel - and the brain lights up with novel experiences.


So while I get the theory, I could see how cheating on the G19 2% of the time with a SIG could be more disruptive than shooting the SIG 30% of the time and letting that unique set of pathways become well worn. And shooting both still polishes the overlapping skills necessary to do both well.


I don't know what sort of experimental evidence the "Primary gun theory" is based on, but there doesn't appear to be a top athlete in any other sport that doesn't cross train. If the Primary gun thing is 100% true, is an Olympic speed skater damaging themselves as a competitor when they train on a bicycle?

These are questions, not refutations. I agree that you are never going to be amazing with any one gun if you only shoot it 20% of the time, but I can also see how you might be missing something going too far in the other direction.

[SLG]

From these comments, my question is:

Given the way the nervous system works - is infrequent shooting of non-primary guns better for preserving the muscle memory of the primary, or damaging? Humans can easily do multiple, very similar tasks really well because their differences keep them "filed" in slightly different parts of the brain: Fly a plane, drive a car. They don't interfere with each other, especially if you practice both often, because our big brains evolved to perform at high levels with a wide range of tasks.

For the man that really wants to embrace the one gun philosophy and only owns two G19s, all is well. That's all he'll ever shoot. But given the nature of gun ownership, even true believers are going to spend some time shooting other pistols, and purposely limited that time just makes that experience more novel - and the brain lights up with novel experiences.


So while I get the theory, I could see how cheating on the G19 2% of the time with a SIG could be more disruptive than shooting the SIG 30% of the time and letting that unique set of pathways become well worn. And shooting both still polishes the overlapping skills necessary to do both well.


I don't know what sort of experimental evidence the "Primary gun theory" is based on, but there doesn't appear to be a top athlete in any other sport that doesn't cross train. If the Primary gun thing is 100% true, is an Olympic speed skater damaging themselves as a competitor when they train on a bicycle?

These are questions, not refutations. I agree that you are never going to be amazing with any one gun if you only shoot it 20% of the time, but I can also see how you might be missing something going too far in the other direction.

Your analogies are flawed. Biking and speed skating are quite different than skating with one pair of skates, for practice, and then trying a subtly different pair for the race. Same with driving or flying. No one practices in one car and then uses another for race day.

Time wise, almost no one has time to train as much as needed on one gun, then shoot another gun 30% of that time to get good at both. I have basically done this and it has paid off, but at the very highest levels of performance, people are sticking to one gun.

[Handy]

Your analogies are flawed. Biking and speed skating are quite different than skating with one pair of skates, for practice, and then trying a subtly different pair for the race. Same with driving or flying. No one practices in one car and then uses another for race day.

Time wise, almost no one has time to train as much as needed on one gun, then shoot another gun 30% of that time to get good at both. I have basically done this and it has paid off, but at the very highest levels of performance, people are sticking to one gun.
I agree, but the suggestion was made earlier that someone practice 98% with a G19 and 2% with G26, then go to the race with a G26.

[SLG]

I agree, but the suggestion was made earlier that someone practice 98% with a G19 and 2% with G26, then go to the race with a G26.

I think there are several factors at work here. I don't subscribe to the theory of shooting one gun and carrying another, even if they are in the same family. I shoot a full size glock. I can certainly pick up any other glock and shoot it at a level that other people would not be able to discern from my primary gun. I can tell the difference though, so i don't do it.

Other may be more comfortable with the idea, or maybe they have no measurable difference in performance.

[breakingtime91]

I agree, but the suggestion was made earlier that someone practice 98% with a G19 and 2% with G26, then go to the race with a G26.

its all a compromise. If I can make a small compromise by carrying a smaller gun for a certain occasion I want it to be as close to my primary. For example I carry a p2000 the majority of the time but do have a p2000sk set up for a smaller carry package. The p2000sk has a almost identical trigger, same sights, same mag release, same slide stop.

[deputyG23]

Most here train and train up with a carry gun and then carry it for a good while. Many have multiples of the carry gun or similar variations on a theme, GL19, GL17 etc... The choice of guns varies but tends to be a well proven service grade gun.
Most also have something smaller for when they must hide it under less clothing, S&W J frames for example.
The general trend here is to train up with a carry gun, get it reflexive and then carry that gun as much as you can. This includes training with your backup or more concealable variation on your primary pistol.

Some train with multiple types of pistols but they usually shoot a lot.
+1 on this post. Standard Glocks (17, 19, 26 sized and their .40 cousins) is what I have trained with, taught others how to use, and carried for over twenty-five years. G23 is my current issue but often carry my old duty G22 or 27 for off duty. If belt carry is not doable, a J-frame goes in my pants pocket with at least one speed strip. The only time I waist carry something else is when wearing a tux for music jobs, when my old RB 4" M10 .38 in an old Bianchi #6 works better than anything else I have found yet with no belt available.
Since .40 ammo and brass is provided by my work (not much these days due to budget constraints), I shoot the .40 Glocks the most, probably 1.5 K a year and another 1K of 9mm in my old Gen 2 G17 and 19. J-frames and .38 GP-100 might get 500 live fire rounds a year and these are my dry fire at home guns.
I have always thought that practicing with both Glocks and DA revolvers complement each other.
My TDA SIG P228 and Beretta 92 FC , along with my 1911s, are range guns only and are very enjoyable. I only carry Glocks and DA revolvers since I have documented training with both types.

[Handy]

its all a compromise. If I can make a small compromise by carrying a smaller gun for a certain occasion I want it to be as close to my primary. For example I carry a p2000 the majority of the time but do have a p2000sk set up for a smaller carry package. The p2000sk has a almost identical trigger, same sights, same mag release, same slide stop.

Then maybe what I'm missing is what constitutes "race day". Are we talking about achieving the highest levels of performance with a primary gun to shoot a match, or save your life when you're carrying, with whatever you are carrying?

[breakingtime91]

Then maybe what I'm missing is what constitutes "race day". Are we talking about achieving the highest levels of performance with a primary gun to shoot a match, or save your life when you're carrying, with whatever you are carrying?

What ever ur priority is. Mine is defense of myself or my family.

[Handy]

What ever ur priority is. Mine is defense of myself or my family.

Okay. Does that mean you prefer to be an "A" P2000 shooter and settle for being only a B+ P2000SK shooter, or would you prefer to settle for performing at A- levels with either gun, since you carry both and your likelihood of getting in a gun battle is pretty much the same for both?

[breakingtime91]

Okay. Does that mean you prefer to be an "A" P2000 shooter and settle for being only a B+ P2000SK shooter, or would you prefer to settle for performing at A- levels with either gun, since you carry both and your likelihood of getting in a gun battle is pretty much the same for both?

I perform pretty equally with both but as I said, both are sent up identical. I said it's a compromise because I do lose some ability with the sk but then again I hardly carry it. With that said I do train with it more then once or twice a year because it does get worn if I have to tuck my shirt. if I had sucked on any of the drills I shoot way worst with the sk I wouldn't even own it.

[Handy]

I perform pretty equally with both but as I said, both are sent up identical. I said it's a compromise because I do lose some ability with the sk but then again I hardly carry it. With that said I do train with it more then once or twice a year because it does get worn if I have to tuck my shirt. if I had sucked on any of the drills I shoot way worst with the sk I wouldn't even own it.

I guess a lot of this is deciding which way probability works in terms of getting into a fight.

[breakingtime91]

I guess a lot of this is deciding which way probability works in terms of getting into a fight.

I think there is a lot that goes into personal defense and violent encounters. Hardware is just one factor and maybe not even the most important. Simplifying your gear choices leaves room to work on your others skills such as medical, combative, threat analysis, threat mitigation, and cultivating a warrior mindset.

[Sterling Archer]

I’m kinda wondering how many people feel more like me when it comes to how they treat their own stuff.

I was doing a standing ovation in my head after reading this, I completely agree! I was just going to post the same thing on another forum but you took the words out of my mouth.

[Jeep]

I do the same with a G22...and as of yesterday, a G17.


20 years from now your wrists and hands are going to be grateful for that change. Indeed, if you stay with the G17 your wrists and hands may never realize what might otherwise have happened to them.

[SLG]

20 years from now your wrists and hands are going to be grateful for that change. Indeed, if you stay with the G17 your wrists and hands may never realize what might otherwise have happened to them.

I've done most of my shooting with 9mm. Only in the last 8 years have I been heavy on the .40 and .45. Even with 9mm, it took its toll on me after 60,000 rds a year, year in year out.

[GJM]

Sometimes a change in your environment changes your needs. This is my current carry rotation:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslvnrazsd.jpeg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpslvnrazsd.jpeg.html)

[JonInWA]

Remind me not to accidentally stumble into your tent.....

Best, Jon

[Wayne Dobbs]

Remind me not to accidentally stumble into your tent.....

Best, Jon

Especially hairy and on four feet...

[JonInWA]

Especially hairy and on four feet...

And I like the ultimate fall-back weapon in the background-the ported chair, ported for greater wacking speed and increased terminal impact....

Best, Jon

[45dotACP]

Nothing wrong with having a gun around that you shoot for fun..but I have come to realize as I become more mature that shooting well is its own reward. It's why I am starting to thin the herd.

[DacoRoman]

Nothing wrong with having a gun around that you shoot for fun..but I have come to realize as I become more mature that shooting well is its own reward. It's why I am starting to thin the herd.

Yeah I went that way around 2008 I think it was, and mainly due to Todd Green's writing. I consolidated on Glock, centered around the 2 identical gun set up, one as a high round practice gun and one as a carry gun. I get my fulfillment from trying to meet a performance shooting standard with a well known and comfortable shooting tool for me, and couldn't care less about collecting many guns at this point.

[JCS]

Yeah I went that way around 2008 I think it was, and mainly due to Todd Green's writing. I consolidated on Glock, centered around the 2 identical gun set up, one as a high round practice gun and one as a carry gun. I get my fulfillment from trying to meet a performance shooting standard with a well known and comfortable shooting tool for me, and couldn't care less about collecting many guns at this point.

Was there any articles in particular he wrote on this topic? I recently did the same with glocks. Sold all my pistols and bought a 19,26 and 34.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tamara]

Was there any articles in particular he wrote on this topic?

This one (http://pistol-training.com/archives/70) springs to mind.

[JCS]

This one (http://pistol-training.com/archives/70) springs to mind.

Thank you Tamara!

I stumbled upon the simp theory by accident. I had been a simp ever since I got into handguns. I decided at the beginning of the year I wanted to take a class. I knew I was going to use my 19 for the class. Except I mostly carried a single stack xds and was shooting with it more. So I decided to just use the 19 for a couple months and I noticed I was becoming a much more consistent and better shooter. I shot really well in the class and then committed myself to the 19. After hearing Jeff Gonzales speak on carry guns I decided to start making myself carry a gun with at least ten rounds in it. What I found was that I was just being lazy by using a pocket pistol or using a single stack. I made a few minor adjustments to the clothing I wore. I bought another high quality appendix holster and have been carrying the 19 pretty much exclusively the past few months. It's something that is very important for newer shooters I think. It's easy to want gun after gun. But I realized I was spending way more on guns than ammo. And my shooting has taken off since I reversed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Especially hairy and on four feet...

Poor nyeti :(

[DacoRoman]

Was there any articles in particular he wrote on this topic? I recently did the same with glocks. Sold all my pistols and bought a 19,26 and 34.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes the one that Tamara kindly provided (!!!) I distinctly remember as being a lightbulb moment for me, as well as the multitude various discussions in the pistol sub-forum on m4carbine.net where Todd was high profile back then. M4carbine.net is actually how I found out about him and his philosophies which for me at the time was revolutionary. Before then I was possibly entertaining different guns for a carry rotation: DOULE FACEPALM: and going to Gunsite as the ultimate training mecca, well maybe not quite that bad, but maybe a bit too close for comfort. I was visiting P-T.com regularly to read his articles, and then after the big shake up over at m4carbine.net I pretty much stopped going over there for info (except for M4 specific info) and started lurking on P-F.com. Anyway that's when I got into finding good trainers, being more consistent, streamlining, etc. Sadly I never got a chance to take one of Todd classes but he's the one that put me on the road to being more squared away to be sure.

[deputyG23]

I've done most of my shooting with 9mm. Only in the last 8 years have I been heavy on the .40 and .45. Even with 9mm, it took its toll on me after 60,000 rds a year, year in year out.

For those of us that are required to use and train others with .40 compact Glocks, how do we achieve a high standard of performance without wrecking elbows and wrists if we wish to adhere to the one gun theory? The chances of my work getting or approving 9mm are slim to none for the foreseeable future.

[Lex Luthier]

For those of us that are required to use and train others with .40 compact Glocks, how do we achieve a high standard of performance without wrecking elbows and wrists if we wish to adhere to the one gun theory? The chances of my work getting or approving 9mm are slim to none for the foreseeable future.

This is a very pertinent question for me as well- my carry piece is .40 and I will not have the budget to obtain the equivalent pistol in 9mm for at least 6 months. (Gen 1 P99QA)
Additionally, I have carpal tunnel syndrome in my left hand and underwent surgery on my right wrist last September.

[Josh Runkle]

To the original poster:

The 2,000 round challenge is certainly not some requirement to be in a special club or something. There's nothing wrong with choosing whether or not to do it.

What I have found is that, for some people, 2,000 rounds is a year's worth of shooting, and for other people, it might be a weekend's worth of shooting. Using a different example, my in-laws sell their vehicles when they get to 150,000 miles, because they say, "Whoa. That car has a lot of miles on it." My father, on the other hand, has had several vehicles go 300,000, 400,000 and 500,000 miles. To him, 150,000 miles was practically a brand new car.

To me, when someone freaks out about a gun (really, any training gun, not talking about priceless antiques) going 2,000 rounds without cleaning, it shows me three things:

1). They haven't taken a lot of training. If they had, they'd have many weekends where some classes would have high round counts, and they'd be too tired, drunk or lazy to clean their gun before day 2 or 3. If you take a lot of training, then the 2,000 round challenge would naturally happen on a regular occurrence. (Now, personally, I advocate for lower round count classes, because I feel that better learning occurs that way, but regardless, you would still end up in classes with high round counts). To me, the avoidance of the 2,000 round challenge displays a lack of training from the perspective of the shooter.

2). It shows me that the shooter doesn't have any "high round count" guns. The highest round count gun I have is a little over 40k rounds. However, I have friends who have had guns with higher round counts than that. My 40k round gun is my CCW gun, and is functionally perfectly fine. Another friend had a 50k round gun that was also completely fine. Neither gun looks like it's been to hell and back, the barrels don't look stripped out, they're still very accurate, despite whatever hogwash you would be told from a firearms publication. When you have high round count guns that run perfectly fine despite what a gun magazine would tell you, what's a mere 2,000 rounds? So, it shows me that the shooter doesn't have any high round count guns, which leads me to believe that the shooter has never "put in the work" to make measurable gains on a singular firearms platform.

3). It tells me that 2,000 rounds is a lot of rounds for the shooter. Even if you don't take training, and you sell your guns every time they hit 10k rounds or something, it shows me that you don't go to the range and crack open a case and shoot all day long. If you did, you'd eventually realize that as your gun gets to 500 rounds, it's running clean and completely fine, and you'd keep going to 1k before you went home for the day. If you had multiple range sessions of 1k rounds, you'd realize that 2k rounds was nothing, and you wouldn't object to the test. This tells me that the shooter doesn't shoot very much, and that if they do, it is infrequently and in low quantities.

As to the "vocal minority": you have some really smart people here like DocGKR, SLG, Nyetti, and many, many others who are all far more experienced and far wider than I will ever be. Those people do take a lot of classes, they do have high round count guns and they do shoot a lot, often in high volumes. They have subjective experience, that when compared openly with each other becomes a good amount of data that can be formulated to find some really great conclusions.

The one thing that you will see here on this website is a data-driven slant.

Ok, so you have this scientific hypothesis that doing the 2,000 round challenge is bad for your gun. Now, design and implement an experiment to show us why your hypothesis is correct. I will sincerely be open to whatever results you show.

[SLG]

For those of us that are required to use and train others with .40 compact Glocks, how do we achieve a high standard of performance without wrecking elbows and wrists if we wish to adhere to the one gun theory? The chances of my work getting or approving 9mm are slim to none for the foreseeable future.

How many rounds per year are your guys shooting? How many are you shooting?

I never lock my elbows when I shoot, and with full power .40, I can go 500 rds a day before I'm a bit tired. I have hand injuries and other wear and tear that makes me less than my 25 year old version was. I don't think it is an issue in most cases, and probably not worth worrying about for normal healthy people. The 9mm is certainly easier, but 1000 rds a day of 9mm still wears me out. After about 750, I'm where I am with the .40 at 500 rds. Probably not an issue for professional use.

[JTQ]

To me, when someone freaks out about a gun (really, any training gun, not talking about priceless antiques) going 2,000 rounds without cleaning, it shows me three things:
...

For clarity, the challenge on the forum is 2,000 without lubrication or cleaning.

I've read through the challenge thread a few times. Of the guns that didn't make it, some had some legit malfunctions and wouldn't have made it with cleaning and lube, but of those that did have maintenance problems with a lack of lube/cleaning, I suspect simply adding some lube to the gun without cleaning it would have allowed those guns to make it without problems.

My only exposure to the late Pat Rogers was as a SLIP 2000 user. I found his comments and video's on high volume AR15 shooting, that a gun will run dirty, as long as it's lubed.

I also suspect doing the challenge over a weekend is probably easier to successfully accomplish than taking a year to shoot 2,000 rounds, since whatever lube you're using is still probably going to be there after two days rather than after a year.

[Handy]

To the original poster:

The 2,000 round challenge is certainly not some requirement to be in a special club or something. There's nothing wrong with choosing whether or not to do it.

What I have found is that, for some people, 2,000 rounds is a year's worth of shooting, and for other people, it might be a weekend's worth of shooting. Using a different example, my in-laws sell their vehicles when they get to 150,000 miles, because they say, "Whoa. That car has a lot of miles on it." My father, on the other hand, has had several vehicles go 300,000, 400,000 and 500,000 miles. To him, 150,000 miles was practically a brand new car.

To me, when someone freaks out about a gun (really, any training gun, not talking about priceless antiques) going 2,000 rounds without cleaning, it shows me three things:

1). They haven't taken a lot of training. If they had, they'd have many weekends where some classes would have high round counts, and they'd be too tired, drunk or lazy to clean their gun before day 2 or 3. If you take a lot of training, then the 2,000 round challenge would naturally happen on a regular occurrence. (Now, personally, I advocate for lower round count classes, because I feel that better learning occurs that way, but regardless, you would still end up in classes with high round counts). To me, the avoidance of the 2,000 round challenge displays a lack of training from the perspective of the shooter.

2). It shows me that the shooter doesn't have any "high round count" guns. The highest round count gun I have is a little over 40k rounds. However, I have friends who have had guns with higher round counts than that. My 40k round gun is my CCW gun, and is functionally perfectly fine. Another friend had a 50k round gun that was also completely fine. Neither gun looks like it's been to hell and back, the barrels don't look stripped out, they're still very accurate, despite whatever hogwash you would be told from a firearms publication. When you have high round count guns that run perfectly fine despite what a gun magazine would tell you, what's a mere 2,000 rounds? So, it shows me that the shooter doesn't have any high round count guns, which leads me to believe that the shooter has never "put in the work" to make measurable gains on a singular firearms platform.

3). It tells me that 2,000 rounds is a lot of rounds for the shooter. Even if you don't take training, and you sell your guns every time they hit 10k rounds or something, it shows me that you don't go to the range and crack open a case and shoot all day long. If you did, you'd eventually realize that as your gun gets to 500 rounds, it's running clean and completely fine, and you'd keep going to 1k before you went home for the day. If you had multiple range sessions of 1k rounds, you'd realize that 2k rounds was nothing, and you wouldn't object to the test. This tells me that the shooter doesn't shoot very much, and that if they do, it is infrequently and in low quantities.

As to the "vocal minority": you have some really smart people here like DocGKR, SLG, Nyetti, and many, many others who are all far more experienced and far wider than I will ever be. Those people do take a lot of classes, they do have high round count guns and they do shoot a lot, often in high volumes. They have subjective experience, that when compared openly with each other becomes a good amount of data that can be formulated to find some really great conclusions.

The one thing that you will see here on this website is a data-driven slant.

Ok, so you have this scientific hypothesis that doing the 2,000 round challenge is bad for your gun. Now, design and implement an experiment to show us why your hypothesis is correct. I will sincerely be open to whatever results you show.

This reads a bit like you are implying inexperience to shame anyone that feels that the best way to preserve their investment is to lube their firearm periodically. Guns are not cheap, and they don't universally respond to a lack of lubrication in the same way because they have very different amounts of bearing surface and are composed of different materials finished in different ways. What eventually wears a Glock out is different than what wears a P226 out, and if someone wants their P226 frame rails to stay useful for the most number of rounds, they may elect to not skip the lube every 500-1000.

The results are in, and it is pretty clear that all sorts of guns - Berettas, Kahrs, Rugers, 1911 - are capable of performing this unrealistic feat. It is also clear that even the most capable designs can fail. None of which has a clear link to any important activity one might have to perform with a handgun. It is fun stunt.


Mud or sand would be realistic tests, but I'm not going to imply that anyone is inexperienced because they are unwilling to drop their $700 firearm in grit then fire it 500 times.

[Josh Runkle]

This reads a bit like you are implying inexperience to shame anyone that feels that the best way to preserve their investment is to lube their firearm periodically. Guns are not cheap, and they don't universally respond to a lack of lubrication in the same way because they have very different amounts of bearing surface and are composed of different materials finished in different ways. What eventually wears a Glock out is different than what wears a P226 out, and if someone wants their P226 frame rails to stay useful for the most number of rounds, they may elect to not skip the lube every 500-1000.

The results are in, and it is pretty clear that all sorts of guns - Berettas, Kahrs, Rugers, 1911 - are capable of performing this unrealistic feat. It is also clear that even the most capable designs can fail. None of which has a clear link to any important activity one might have to perform with a handgun. It is fun stunt.


Mud or sand would be realistic tests, but I'm not going to imply that anyone is inexperienced because they are unwilling to drop their $700 firearm in grit then fire it 500 times.

So how does one reach a conclusion that such activities are harmful to a firearm, or that they are not harmful?

You could read someone else's opinion and allow it to inform your own opinion, or you could take your hypothesis and then formulate an experiment, publish your results and then follow the results of other peer-reviewed studies.

So, I am simply saying: don't just tell me that you formed an opinion based on irrelevant data that may or may not be proven or disproven...prove or disprove the facts for yourself. If you do not wish to prove or disprove the facts for yourself, then simply citing information that goes against the overwhelming data that has been peer-reviewed on this forum seems like pissing in the wind. To which I would simply ask: if you disagree, and want to be so vocal about it, prove why you disagree.

This is no different than hopping on a racing forum and telling a bunch of race car drivers that their vehicle needs a different maintenance schedule. When the drivers ask why, the person cites a different source of info. The people out there driving the cars say it's incorrect.

I can completely respect someone who disagrees with results I've experienced. To my recollection, I've never participated in the 2k round challenge thread, yet, I have many guns that have done it over the years. I would certainly respect an opinion different than mine if it were informed by some data rather than just someone else's opinion that is being rehashed. If this thread began with: "here's some photos of damage that occurred during a 2k round test, and why people shouldn't do it...", then I would absolutely love to read that information. However, it's more like, "I hang out with gun people in gun shops and I buy lots of guns and read gun magazines, and, word on the street is that doing that to your gun is harmful, so I don't see the point in it."

To me, that smacks of ignorance. Not that someone would make a choice contrary to my own choices, but that their choices are not informed by any data, but merely by hearsay, and that they would try to sway the opinions of those with data on their side with the hearsay as their only evidence.

[SteveB]

For those of us that are required to use and train others with .40 compact Glocks, how do we achieve a high standard of performance without wrecking elbows and wrists if we wish to adhere to the one gun theory? The chances of my work getting or approving 9mm are slim to none for the foreseeable future.

If you reload, shoot mild reloads. If you don't reload, select training ammo that recoils less. For instance, when I was shooting a bunch of .40, I used Federal American Eagle 165 grain flatpoints, which were relatively mild. The AE 155 grain loading was much hotter.

[Handy]

So how does one reach a conclusion that such activities are harmful to a firearm, or that they are not harmful?

You could read someone else's opinion and allow it to inform your own opinion, or you could take your hypothesis and then formulate an experiment, publish your results and then follow the results of other peer-reviewed studies.

So, I am simply saying: don't just tell me that you formed an opinion based on irrelevant data that may or may not be proven or disproven...prove or disprove the facts for yourself. If you do not wish to prove or disprove the facts for yourself, then simply citing information that goes against the overwhelming data that has been peer-reviewed on this forum seems like pissing in the wind. To which I would simply ask: if you disagree, and want to be so vocal about it, prove why you disagree.

This is no different than hopping on a racing forum and telling a bunch of race car drivers that their vehicle needs a different maintenance schedule. When the drivers ask why, the person cites a different source of info. The people out there driving the cars say it's incorrect.

I can completely respect someone who disagrees with results I've experienced. To my recollection, I've never participated in the 2k round challenge thread, yet, I have many guns that have done it over the years. I would certainly respect an opinion different than mine if it were informed by some data rather than just someone else's opinion that is being rehashed. If this thread began with: "here's some photos of damage that occurred during a 2k round test, and why people shouldn't do it...", then I would absolutely love to read that information. However, it's more like, "I hang out with gun people in gun shops and I buy lots of guns and read gun magazines, and, word on the street is that doing that to your gun is harmful, so I don't see the point in it."

To me, that smacks of ignorance. Not that someone would make a choice contrary to my own choices, but that their choices are not informed by any data, but merely by hearsay, and that they would try to sway the opinions of those with data on their side with the hearsay as their only evidence.

It isn't ignorance to simply play it safe and not engage in a potentially damaging activity just to prove a point on an internet forum. Firearms makers recommend regular lubrication, and that is the default procedure for any machinery.

Not to play games, but you are the one taking the contrary position and insisting that those manuals are universally wrong, and you are citing your own limited, unscientific anecdotal experience as evidence. That doesn't mean your experiences don't have value, but it isn't like you have anything on the line if someone else's gun becomes unserviceable prematurely.

[deputyG23]

How many rounds per year are your guys shooting? How many are you shooting?

I never lock my elbows when I shoot, and with full power .40, I can go 500 rds a day before I'm a bit tired. I have hand injuries and other wear and tear that makes me less than my 25 year old version was. I don't think it is an issue in most cases, and probably not worth worrying about for normal healthy people. The 9mm is certainly easier, but 1000 rds a day of 9mm still wears me out. After about 750, I'm where I am with the .40 at 500 rds. Probably not an issue for professional use.

Thanks for the clarification. The overwhelming majority of our deputies serve as jail officers and shoot no more than the two required courses a year, which is eighty-six rounds. A certain percentage seem to always repeat a course for failing to meet the standard. Not surprising at all considering the gun is usually not handled except for secure storage or monthly inspection.
I am not aware of anyone in my agency that subscribes to the "learn one gun well" principle that is emphasized at P-F. Myself included.
My own round count with my three .40 Glocks (23,22,and 27 in round count order) is roughly 1.5K a year. 9mm fired through G19 is about 1K. TDA SIG P228 and Beretta 92 FC get about 1K between the two. .38 revolvers, mostly J Airweight with a little 38 GP-100 thrown in, get about 500 rounds a year. These two are my dry fire practice tools. A pittance compared to some folks who post here.
Most of us that shoot more than average own and shoot various types of firearms.
I figure just practicing with the issue G23 and its personally owned understudy will go a long way toward increasing proficiency and enhancing my diagnostic skills when coaching students. Good reason to thin the herd a little and buy .40 factory practice rounds for the issue gun and reloading components for my PO G23 G2.

[serialsolver]

To the original poster:

The 2,000 round challenge is certainly not some requirement to be in a special club or something. There's nothing wrong with choosing whether or not to do it.

What I have found is that, for some people, 2,000 rounds is a year's worth of shooting, and for other people, it might be a weekend's worth of shooting. Using a different example, my in-laws sell their vehicles when they get to 150,000 miles, because they say, "Whoa. That car has a lot of miles on it." My father, on the other hand, has had several vehicles go 300,000, 400,000 and 500,000 miles. To him, 150,000 miles was practically a brand new car.

To me, when someone freaks out about a gun (really, any training gun, not talking about priceless antiques) going 2,000 rounds without cleaning, it shows me three things:

1). They haven't taken a lot of training. If they had, they'd have many weekends where some classes would have high round counts, and they'd be too tired, drunk or lazy to clean their gun before day 2 or 3. If you take a lot of training, then the 2,000 round challenge would naturally happen on a regular occurrence. (Now, personally, I advocate for lower round count classes, because I feel that better learning occurs that way, but regardless, you would still end up in classes with high round counts). To me, the avoidance of the 2,000 round challenge displays a lack of training from the perspective of the shooter.

2). It shows me that the shooter doesn't have any "high round count" guns. The highest round count gun I have is a little over 40k rounds. However, I have friends who have had guns with higher round counts than that. My 40k round gun is my CCW gun, and is functionally perfectly fine. Another friend had a 50k round gun that was also completely fine. Neither gun looks like it's been to hell and back, the barrels don't look stripped out, they're still very accurate, despite whatever hogwash you would be told from a firearms publication. When you have high round count guns that run perfectly fine despite what a gun magazine would tell you, what's a mere 2,000 rounds? So, it shows me that the shooter doesn't have any high round count guns, which leads me to believe that the shooter has never "put in the work" to make measurable gains on a singular firearms platform.

3). It tells me that 2,000 rounds is a lot of rounds for the shooter. Even if you don't take training, and you sell your guns every time they hit 10k rounds or something, it shows me that you don't go to the range and crack open a case and shoot all day long. If you did, you'd eventually realize that as your gun gets to 500 rounds, it's running clean and completely fine, and you'd keep going to 1k before you went home for the day. If you had multiple range sessions of 1k rounds, you'd realize that 2k rounds was nothing, and you wouldn't object to the test. This tells me that the shooter doesn't shoot very much, and that if they do, it is infrequently and in low quantities.

As to the "vocal minority": you have some really smart people here like DocGKR, SLG, Nyetti, and many, many others who are all far more experienced and far wider than I will ever be. Those people do take a lot of classes, they do have high round count guns and they do shoot a lot, often in high volumes. They have subjective experience, that when compared openly with each other becomes a good amount of data that can be formulated to find some really great conclusions.

The one thing that you will see here on this website is a data-driven slant.

Ok, so you have this scientific hypothesis that doing the 2,000 round challenge is bad for your gun. Now, design and implement an experiment to show us why your hypothesis is correct. I will sincerely be open to whatever results you show.

You're painting with a wide brush.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Josh Runkle]

It isn't ignorance to simply play it safe and not engage in a potentially damaging activity just to prove a point on an internet forum. Firearms makers recommend regular lubrication, and that is the default procedure for any machinery.

Not to play games, but you are the one taking the contrary position and insisting that those manuals are universally wrong, and you are citing your own limited, unscientific anecdotal experience as evidence. That doesn't mean your experiences don't have value, but it isn't like you have anything on the line if someone else's gun becomes unserviceable prematurely.

And who are all these people who's guns have become unserviceable prematurely? Occasionally, there are glocks, berettas and sigs that have had issues right out of the box...you know, checked from the factory...the "supreme, universally-never-wrong, do-everything-they-recommend" factory.

Look, I inspect, lubricate and take care of most of my guns to keep them in working order. I'm not some anti-lubrication/anti-cleaning nazi. But, I don't believe that the occasional failure to do so regularly results in damage to your firearm. I think that the issues I've occasionally seen straight from the factory, where they have QA/QI, are as frequent as failures due to failure to clean or lubricate within 2k rounds with a previously fully functional firearm...that is to say...they're both essentially statistical anomalies, and do not represent the norm.

Again, you're entitled to have a different opinion than me, and form it in whatever way that you choose, but if you wish to sway my opinion, then I would suggest formulating some evidence of your own, which I would be more than happy to listen to.

On the other hand, if your "evidence" is simply the opinions of others that I have already read, then it really does me no good.

Bear in mind that firearms manufacturers make recommendations for optimal performance in all environments, using all types of ammo, with all types of users, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It would be like citing military basic training or an NRA or CCW class as firearms training.

[deputyG23]

As others have stated, a quality handgun with good ammunition and starting from a clean and lubed starting point will probably go much more than 2K before attention is required. I am too anal to do this myself. I am not a high volume shooter and it is rare that one gun will go for more than a couple of hundred rounds before it is cleaned and lubed.
This probably comes from my early years with S&W sixguns and crappy low bid lead practice ammo that pretty much caused the cylinder to stop turning freely at about the two hundred round mark. The few folks that had Ruger Six series guns would gum up around the one fifty round mark.

[Handy]

And who are all these people who's guns have become unserviceable prematurely? Occasionally, there are glocks, berettas and sigs that have had issues right out of the box...you know, checked from the factory...the "supreme, universally-never-wrong, do-everything-they-recommend" factory.

Look, I inspect, lubricate and take care of most of my guns to keep them in working order. I'm not some anti-lubrication/anti-cleaning nazi. But, I don't believe that the occasional failure to do so regularly results in damage to your firearm. I think that the issues I've occasionally seen straight from the factory, where they have QA/QI, are as frequent as failures due to failure to clean or lubricate within 2k rounds with a previously fully functional firearm...that is to say...they're both essentially statistical anomalies, and do not represent the norm.

Again, you're entitled to have a different opinion than me, and form it in whatever way that you choose, but if you wish to sway my opinion, then I would suggest formulating some evidence of your own, which I would be more than happy to listen to.

On the other hand, if your "evidence" is simply the opinions of others that I have already read, then it really does me no good.

Bear in mind that firearms manufacturers make recommendations for optimal performance in all environments, using all types of ammo, with all types of users, dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It would be like citing military basic training or an NRA or CCW class as firearms training.

And I would suggest if you want to sway opinions, you don't make it sound like anyone uninterested in running their gun dry is an inexperienced newb.


As I said earlier, what might be fine for one type of firearm is not for another. Older S&W alloy framed guns, for instance, did not have very hard frame rails. If you're going to suggest that standard practices in lubrication are foolishly liberal, you'll have to come up with a number that is true of all handguns.


There is absolutely no downside to keeping a gun lubed. There is a potential downside to not doing it. It doesn't take a genius to see what the safe choice is.

[RevolverRob]

Nothing wrong with having a gun around that you shoot for fun..but I have come to realize as I become more mature that shooting well is its own reward. It's why I am starting to thin the herd.

I admire your will power. My problem is I like guns. So I buy them, because I like them. I have the same problem with knives and cars. I like them, I buy them. Practicality isn't always my strong point.

That said necessity is the mother of decision - and my big gun safe is a thousand miles away. That tends to curb gun buying, collecting, and severely curbs "rotations". As I said, I have two guns and half a dozen holsters for different situations and that's pretty much my life. Which is sad for a gun fanatic...:rolleyes:

[45dotACP]

I admire your will power. My problem is I like guns. So I buy them, because I like them. I have the same problem with knives and cars. I like them, I buy them. Practicality isn't always my strong point.

That said necessity is the mother of decision - and my big gun safe is a thousand miles away. That tends to curb gun buying, collecting, and severely curbs "rotations". As I said, I have two guns and half a dozen holsters for different situations and that's pretty much my life. Which is sad for a gun fanatic...:rolleyes:
I still flip flop tbh...but the deciding factor is that my safe is also fast running low on space also and I have no more room for a new gigantor safe so there's also that.

I made the call that I will shoot and pursue skill with guns that capture my interest and Glocks don't. I've found that while I like Glocks, they're totally ubiquitous and I don't love them like I do 1911s and Berettas. Some day later on if I want a Glock again, they'll still be there.

[Tamara]

I admire your will power. My problem is I like guns. So I buy them, because I like them. I have the same problem with knives and cars. I like them, I buy them. Practicality isn't always my strong point.

When I bought this thing and put it in the safe, performance with my CCW Glock 19 fell off by an average of 3.141% on timed drills.

8196

Not really. Actually, it's not even shootable in the shape it's in*, but it's fun to hold and make "Pew! Pew!" noises while watching Young Guns 2.

I like guns, too. I have guns I'll probably never shoot, if I'm honest with myself, and others that may only get taken to the range once in a blue moon, like if I have a friend visiting and I ask "Hey, have you ever fired a Colt 1902? Do you want to?"

I think there are points on the scale between "Carries and shoots a different pistol every day because the barometric pressure has changed or it matches my shoes," and "Only owns four identical copies of a Gen2 Glock 17 and never touches anything else."


*Date of manufacture is 1882. The hammer spur was probably bobbed off while the USS Maine was still afloat. I like to imagine some 19th Century equivalent of Mr. White debating the virtues of this with a 19th Century Nyeti on a telegraph-powered gun forum. ;)

[SLG]

Since this thread has wandered all over hell and back, I don't feel bad about continuing to stray.

I love all guns. I own lots of them. Some of them I've never shot. Of those, I intend to shoot most of them. Hopefully. I have a couple or three that I never intend to shoot.

Regardless of the above, when I go to the range to TRAIN, I bring only my carry gun and a spare. That is how skill is acquired.

When I go to the range to SHOOT, I bring whatever I like. Usually it is a long gun or three that I need to zero. Maybe some pistols or revolvers that need ammo tested. A new wood and leather bipod for my Sharps. Whatever. A key difference, besides TRAINING vs. SHOOTING, is that my training days outnumber my shooting days by like 10 or 20 to 1.

Otherwise, you're a SIMP. Nothing wrong with that, but SIMP's can't perform. SLG here cares about performance more than "having".

I get joy from shooting guns I like, but I get more joy from shooting well. If you haven't tried that, give it a whirl. You too may prefer performance to simple ownership. Anyone with money can buy guns. No one can actually buy skill.

[Tamara]

I knew I liked this SLG guy for a reason. :D

[BCL]

It's too bad we can only like a post once.

[SLG]

I knew I liked this SLG guy for a reason. :D

I assume it was because I mentioned the wood and leather bipod for the Sharps?

[RevolverRob]

I still flip flop tbh...but the deciding factor is that my safe is also fast running low on space also and I have no more room for a new gigantor safe so there's also that.

I made the call that I will shoot and pursue skill with guns that capture my interest and Glocks don't. I've found that while I like Glocks, they're totally ubiquitous and I don't love them like I do 1911s and Berettas. Some day later on if I want a Glock again, they'll still be there.

This reminds me - since this thread is so thoroughly derailed anyways - Where are you shooting at these days? I haven't yet found a range that doesn't make my skin crawl in this area.

-R

[breakingtime91]

This reminds me - since this thread is so thoroughly derailed anyways - Where are you shooting at these days? I haven't yet found a range that doesn't make my skin crawl in this area.

-R

I think im kind of in your area now. lets get a shooting session going.

[45dotACP]

This reminds me - since this thread is so thoroughly derailed anyways - Where are you shooting at these days? I haven't yet found a range that doesn't make my skin crawl in this area.

-R
PM is inbound. Sufficed to say, I avoid a lot of public ranges on a lot of days and am talking to various action shooters I know about memberships to clubs and such to see what/where's good.


Also...super in agreement with SLG. Fun guns are fun...but being good with them is all kinds of fun.

Anyhew...sorry about the derailing and such.

[peterb]

For some, gun cleaning is a type of therapy, a type that I will never understand.

If a room at twilight already smells like damp wool and damp Labrador, a bit of Hoppe's #9 and gun oil is necessary for rightness and order to prevail.

It's a Fudd thing. It's how I was raised. Nowadays I'm ok with just putting things back in the safe, but the whole newspapers-on-the-kitchen-table routine is comfortable and familiar.

[LittleLebowski]

I get joy from shooting guns I like, but I get more joy from shooting well. If you haven't tried that, give it a whirl. You too may prefer performance to simple ownership. Anyone with money can buy guns. No one can actually buy skill.

I hit the Like button so hard that I broke my keyboard.

[JM Campbell]

I cannot afford 2K rounds of ammo:cool:
Do what I did, find a sugar momma.
[emoji41]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Jeep]

I've done most of my shooting with 9mm. Only in the last 8 years have I been heavy on the .40 and .45. Even with 9mm, it took its toll on me after 60,000 rds a year, year in year out.

I think it is like running. Different people have different limits, but the human body is only designed to take so much, which makes me wonder about 60,000 round years or 1,000 round days. There is no question that repetitions matter, but at what point does declining marginal effectiveness set in? In other words, does 60,000 rounds per year really make a significant marginal improvement over, say 40,000? And, given the long term wear and tear, is the effectiveness of any marginal difference worth the wear and tear cost?

To get back to the running point, I know a lot of excellent runners who simply put too many miles in too soon, and they reached the ends of their running days in their mid-40s. They had reached their design limits by overdoing it.

I think a similar thing might happen with shooting.

[DocGKR]

"When I go to the range to TRAIN, I bring only my carry gun and a spare.....When I go to the range to SHOOT, I bring whatever I like.....A key difference, besides TRAINING vs. SHOOTING, is that my training days outnumber my shooting days by like 10 or 20 to 1."

Very much this!

I have never intentionally participated in a "2000 round challenge"; however, as I stated on page 1 of this thread, almost every firearm I have carried has gone more than 2000 rounds without maintenance because training evolutions resulted in more than 2000 rounds being fired without time for any cleaning. In addition, I don't frequently clean my training firearms--as noted earlier, my training G19 has now digested more than 8,000 rounds since it's last formal cleaning...

[Handy]

Very much this!

I have never intentionally participated in a "2000 round challenge"; however, as I stated on page 1 of this thread, almost every firearm I have carried has gone more than 2000 rounds without maintenance because training evolutions resulted in more than 2000 rounds being fired without time for any cleaning. In addition, I don't frequently clean my training firearms--as noted earlier, my training G19 has now digested more than 8,000 rounds since it's last formal cleaning...

Cleaning and lubing are arguably very different things. While combat weapons rarely have self lubricating internal finishes, they usually have clearances for grime and foreign matter.

[DocGKR]

"Cleaning and lubing are arguably very different things."

Fully concur.

In an ideal world I would put a couple drops of lube on an AR15 or 1911 every 500-1000 rounds; a Glock or M&P maybe every 2500 rounds or so. Unfortunately the world is not always ideal, so most of my firearms have gone at least 2000 rounds at various times without any lube or cleaning and with no apparent ill effects...

[Josh Runkle]

Cleaning and lubing are arguably very different things. While combat weapons rarely have self lubricating internal finishes, they usually have clearances for grime and foreign matter.

You've gotta be trolling.

[BWT]

I'm going to be as cautious as I can in phrasing this, but the test seems (to me) to have come from the industry standard (cited from the link) of 2,000 MRBS. It's a test to verify the functionality of the gun against the industry standard in a set firing schedule.


That’s almost twice as good as the industry standard 2,000 MRBS.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/8464

I wouldn't read into it beyond that.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Tamara]

I'm going to be as cautious as I can in phrasing this, but the test seems (to me) to have come from the industry standard (cited from the link) of 2,000 MRBS. It's a test to verify the functionality of the gun against the industry standard in a set firing schedule.

It's almost like the guy who wrote that knew something about setting up testing requirements...

[Lomshek]

I agree, but the suggestion was made earlier that someone practice 98% with a G19 and 2% with G26, then go to the race with a G26.

2% isn't enough but the principle can work (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20319-Shooting-my-M-amp-P-Shield-in-USPSA) (at least for me).

Minimize the differences as much as possible (same sights, trigger and POA/POI) and train enough that one doesn't commit some major gunfight faux pas like forget to take a safety off.

I know the Shield holds fewer rounds and is a little slower than a full size M&P but accept those limitations for the much greater concealability in my situation. Since everyone's situation is different there is no blanket statement on what is best beyond the generalities that one wants to prove reliability and competence.

[serialsolver]

Why is 2,000 rounds the magic number?

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url...7&share_type=t (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17239-Why-is-2-000-rounds-the-magic-number)


This thread that I read long ago and forgot, now found and reread, answers my questions on why the challenge and thoughts on reliability. I totally agree with Todd on his comments on reliability put forth in the links. Although I may not put my pistols to the 2000 rd challenge I understand the purpose of it.

Having said that there is a part of me that wants to put one of my colt ds or smith m10 to the challenge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

The last two daily driver cars I sold were well past 200k miles. One a Toyota, one a BMW. Both of them had been on race tracks. I spin the wrenches myself, so I know exactly what it took to get them there. When I wrote about shortening the useful life of a pistol, I wasn't talking about how it's holding up at 40 or 50k rounds.

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-handgun-talk/160710-chat-hk-armorer-must-read.html

This thread has been entertaining. Thanks to all who have participated.

[JCS]

The last two daily driver cars I sold were well past 200k miles. One a Toyota, one a BMW. Both of them had been on race tracks. I spin the wrenches myself, so I know exactly what it took to get them there. When I wrote about shortening the useful life of a pistol, I wasn't talking about how it's holding up at 40 or 50k rounds.

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-handgun-talk/160710-chat-hk-armorer-must-read.html

This thread has been entertaining. Thanks to all who have participated.

Wow thanks for the share. 2,000 rounds is merely 1% of that pistols life. If I ever go away from glocks it'll be to try an hk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Handy]

I followed the link and the links in the link, and I'm still unclear on one point:

2000 MRBS is a minimum average, and Todd demonstrates how you get that average over all the rounds the gun has ever fired. He mentions a P30 with 91,000 rounds, for instance, that was certainly cleaned and lubed many, many times in its life.

If a manufacturer or agency wants to demonstrate a minimum of 2000 MRBS, does that mean that they will also be shooting the pistol in increments of 2000 rounds between clean and lube, or does it just mean that after whatever shooting they do, they just divide shots by stoppages, regardless of the lube/clean schedule?


Ultimately, the point of any test like this is whether the stresses and friction of shooting are going to cause components to change in 2000 rounds that they impact overall function. Does that have anything to do with being dry and/or dirty, or is that just an added complication?


I think it is entirely possible to have a pistol that wouldn't do well in the 2000 round challenge, but would have a higher than average MRBS than a gun that does well dirty. To state this a different way, the very common Bell 206 helicopter has a better safety record than any category of light aircraft in the US, despite its complication and lack of a second engine. I can't imagine that this would be true if it didn't receive all that added maintenance and inspection that simpler aircraft don't receive.

For me, I had a P7M8 that never had any type of stoppage in the 5000+ rounds I fired it. But I never went more than 1000 rounds without scraping the crud out of the piston tube. Does that make the gun unproven?

[Tamara]

When I wrote about shortening the useful life of a pistol, I wasn't talking about how it's holding up at 40 or 50k rounds.

There is a noticeable minority of shooters here for whom that's a middlin' busy year, FWIW. ;)

[StraitR]

People are way overthinking this.

If you find value or enjoyment in the 2k challenge process or end data, then do it, if you do not, then don't.

And for clarity, MRBS is a PT endurance test statistic, not part of the 2k challenge.

[SLG]

The last two daily driver cars I sold were well past 200k miles. One a Toyota, one a BMW. Both of them had been on race tracks. I spin the wrenches myself, so I know exactly what it took to get them there. When I wrote about shortening the useful life of a pistol, I wasn't talking about how it's holding up at 40 or 50k rounds.

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-handgun-talk/160710-chat-hk-armorer-must-read.html

This thread has been entertaining. Thanks to all who have participated.

I think you missed the bigger point contained in that HK thread. $90,000 worth of ammo through that gun. That is probably more ammo than you will shoot in your lifetime. If it isn't, then the gun is the cheapest part of all that range time, and is a replaceable consumable. After all, we're not talking about non registered magnums, or anything like that.

Personally I think its funny how upset you and others here get over this whole issue. Who cares what another guy does with his gun?

[Robinson]

For me, I had a P7M8 that never had any type of stoppage in the 5000+ rounds I fired it. But I never went more than 1000 rounds without scraping the crud out of the piston tube. Does that make the gun unproven?

It seems you still think folks are holding up the 2K challenge as some golden standard by which ALL pistols must be judged. Do what you think constitutes a good proof of function for your guns, maybe with some input from this forum. I did the challenge with a 9mm 1911 because I thought it would be a fun way to just see how well the gun would do. Turns out it did well. That doesn't mean your guns are unreliable because you haven't done the 2K challenge. But as others have pointed out, plenty of modern quality pistols are capable of going through the test without causing them damage.

[Handy]

It seems you still think folks are holding up the 2K challenge as some golden standard by which ALL pistols must be judged. Do what you think constitutes a good proof of function for your guns, maybe with some input from this forum. I did the challenge with a 9mm 1911 because I thought it would be a fun way to just see how well the gun would do. Turns out it did well. That doesn't mean your guns are unreliable because you haven't done the 2K challenge. But as others have pointed out, plenty of modern quality pistols are capable of going through the test without causing them damage.

Not really. I didn't think that before and I don't now. All I'm really interested in is what if the test demonstrates something valid when applied to selecting firearms, or whether it is closer to a stunt that favors certain design principles over others.


And that interest is mainly from tending to look at things scientifically, rather than some concern that my pet gun won't look as good as your pet gun.

The discussion also gives me ideas of other tests I could see using as benchmarks. But is all just discussion, not emotion.

[Handy]

What sort of tests?

I don't see anyone getting into a 2000 round firefight, but I could see falling into a river or flood water. So it would be interesting to do 100-500 rounds through a gun that has been thoroughly hosed out with fresh water.

The military does their sand and mud tests, but those are a bit destructive. Just trying to think of reasonable situations that a civilian/LE pistol could go through that would impact reliability.

Degraded ammunition might be another - start loads, very hard primers.



I think the main thing I get from all of this is that people should track their rounds, their maintenance, lube and type, magazines and failures. That way they'd end up with MRBS that are valid for the way they use the gun, as well as assisting in tracking down problems, which are magazines more often than not.

[scw2]

In other words, does 60,000 rounds per year really make a significant marginal improvement over, say 40,000?

Pretty sure I heard Julie Golob on Mike Seeklander's podcast mention that when she was in the AMU they shot 100K rounds a year, and it helped her pick up on things that she wouldn't have shooting lower volumes. Whether that is marginally big enough of an improvement, I don't know. Will be interesting to see what other high volume and high level shooters have to say...

[SLG]

Pretty sure I heard Julie Golob on Mike Seeklander's podcast mention that when she was in the AMU they shot 100K rounds a year, and it helped her pick up on things that she wouldn't have shooting lower volumes. Whether that is marginally big enough of an improvement, I don't know. Will be interesting to see what other high volume and high level shooters have to say...

That is true.

It is also a point of diminishing returns, an oft misunderstood term. That is, you will benefit from 60,000 more than 40,000. 100,000 rds more still, but you will benefit less and less.

It also depends where in your learning curve you are. A few years of really high volume can do wonders for you, and can be maintained on very few rds a year.

Ultimately, volume is just one aspect. Quality is still way more important.

[OlongJohnson]

I think you missed the bigger point contained in that HK thread. $90,000 worth of ammo through that gun. That is probably more ammo than you will shoot in your lifetime. If it isn't, then the gun is the cheapest part of all that range time, and is a replaceable consumable. After all, we're not talking about non registered magnums, or anything like that.

Personally I think its funny how upset you and others here get over this whole issue. Who cares what another guy does with his gun?

The price of 297,000 rounds of ammo is going to be the same whether you shoot it through one gun that is still going strong or wear out several guns with it. But wearing out several guns costs more than being able to continue using the same one. And that's money you could spend on more cases of ammo, or mo betta training, or fees at better ranges, etc.

I'm not upset. I'm entertained. I had some thoughts about how I intend to approach the care of my firearms and why. I shared them and asked who else felt the same. Lots of people seemed to like them, others not so much. At no point did I say anyone is wrong for doing the 2krc with his or her own gun. I've gone back and reread the OP, and really don't have anything else to say that wasn't touched on there.

[Handy]

Well, since you are done here, may I suggest reading this thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20712-We-have-some-serious)?

ETA:



How much does 3,622 range sessions cost? :)

Is the takeaway that Olong is a dumbass and the topic is stupid? Or is there more nuance than that?

[Josh Runkle]

Currently I think it's that you are humorless and/or insufferable.

Go home, you're drunk ;)

[Nephrology]

Don't make me quote the definition of homeopathy.

I knew there was a reason I had this photo sitting around (in the middle of renovating/moving into my girlfriend's new condo). Also at least 3 of those guns have gone through the 2k round challenge... I'll let y'all know if and when they spontaneously combust from the strain.

http://i.imgur.com/3ZGieqb.jpg

( a peek inside)

http://i.imgur.com/L3GcPmU.jpg

[SLG]

The price of 297,000 rounds of ammo is going to be the same whether you shoot it through one gun that is still going strong or wear out several guns with it. But wearing out several guns costs more than being able to continue using the same one. And that's money you could spend on more cases of ammo, or mo betta training, or fees at better ranges, etc.

I'm not upset. I'm entertained. I had some thoughts about how I intend to approach the care of my firearms and why. I shared them and asked who else felt the same. Lots of people seemed to like them, others not so much. At no point did I say anyone is wrong for doing the 2krc with his or her own gun. I've gone back and reread the OP, and really don't have anything else to say that wasn't touched on there.

Ok, just a different way of looking at it. My point was the money is meaningless, at that level of use.

I enjoy wearing guns out, not because I don't value the guns, but because I learn things that way. I also get to use newer guns more frequently. A friend has a documented # of rounds through a Ruger MK1. I forget the exact number but it is over 150,000. Gun stopped holding a great group at that point, but still shoots just fine. He felt that was fantastic, as it is one of the guns that really taught him to shoot. Now it is a safe queen, other than the occasional odd shot for nostalgia. He maintains his guns better than anyone else I personally know, fwiw.

Like many others here who are ok with it, I have never done the 2,000 rd challenge. I have shot 2,000 rds in two days many, many times. Sometimes I added lube, sometimes I did not. None of those guns suffered for it, but then again they were professional tools, and were viewed as consumables from the start. Todd created the 2,000 rd challenge to make the point that modern guns are pretty amazing. It was a talking point, nothing more. MRBF from federal tests is what spawned the idea, but the idea was not meant to be a rigid yardstick.

[GJM]

I think it is entirely possible to have a pistol that wouldn't do well in the 2000 round challenge, but would have a higher than average MRBS than a gun that does well dirty. To state this a different way, the very common Bell 206 helicopter has a better safety record than any category of light aircraft in the US, despite its complication and lack of a second engine. I can't imagine that this would be true if it didn't receive all that added maintenance and inspection that simpler aircraft don't receive.

The Jet Ranger does not receive "added maintenance and inspection that simpler (certified) aircraft don't receive."

The Bell Jet Ranger has had a fantastic safety record when compared to other single engine fixed and rotor wing aircraft, all of which are subject to the same FAA mandated maintenance schedule. The reason the Jet Ranger has such a good safety record is it was a good design, it is very mature having first been made in the 60's, and every dumb ass ahead of you has figured out what you can screw up and that has been integrated into the pilot training and maintenance program.

[El Cid]

Wow - this thread is off and running. Lol!

Regarding the original post, I used to think that way. Hell when I was 22 and only owned one gun the cost alone of 2,000 rounds would have made me start sweating. I am now older and wiser (and make more money, have paid off college loans, etc.). I also have learned a LOT more about small arms and now understand 2k rounds is nothing to a well made firearm. I understand that most shooters in our great country buy a gun, shoot a couple boxes through it and declare it flawless. This site has the kind of shooters who push themselves and each other to be better and that's why I keep coming back.

Steaz, while I get where you're coming from I do see some differences between Glocks and the VP9 that would keep me from doing what you're doing. Even if the difference in grip angle doesn't bother you (Glocks point higher for me naturally than most other handguns), there is what I consider to be a significant difference in manipulations. That is the paddle mag release on the HK's. While I think it is a great design and for me faster/easier when using the trigger finger - I'd hate to need to reload in a real world event and do the wrong thing because I sometimes carry an HK and sometimes carry a Glock. Hell, even if I'm shooting my Beretta or HK I always make sure to end the range session with a Glock.

I carry a Glock on and off duty (2 Glocks actually) and use them for all my training and competition. That doesn't mean I can't pick up a different gun if the need arises and defend myself. But I'll be less efficient and smooth than I would with a Glock. There are some really gifted shooters who can perform at amazingly high levels with any firearm and little to no practice. I'm not one of those shooters.

Handy, your reference to flying a plane and driving a car doesn't make sense to me. With regard to gunfights we are talking about extreme stress. I can drive a stick shift sports car today and a large SUV tomorrow. But if I was doing that under extreme stress I'd want to have lots of practice and muscle memory with one style - hell with one car. Sure those skills can translate over. Running my Supra at the track and autocross events helped me recover my Jeep Cherokee from a slide in the rain in time to avoid trading paint with another driver. But training with the same system will always be better than changing platforms daily/weekly/monthly/etc. This is a big reason military pilots where their flight hour patches likes badges of honor. I'd rather be riding into the fight in back of a Pave Low with a pilot who has 10,000 hours than one who has 2,000.

[Handy]

The Jet Ranger does not receive "added maintenance and inspection that simpler (certified) aircraft don't receive."

The Bell Jet Ranger has had a fantastic safety record when compared to other single engine fixed and rotor wing aircraft, all of which are subject to the same FAA mandated maintenance schedule. The reason the Jet Ranger has such a good safety record is it was a good design, it is very mature having first been made in the 60's, and every dumb ass ahead of you has figured out what you can screw up and that has been integrated into the pilot training and maintenance program.

It was my impression, flying both helicopters and fixed wing, that helicopters had more moving parts and the FAA maintenance schedule included more inspections and shorter replacement periods for analogous parts, like rotors vs wings. It certainly took longer to preflight a 206 than a King Air. If you know different, that's fine, I was just making an analogy to say that additional attention can yield additional reliability and that simpler machines aren't necessarily better machines.

[Josh Runkle]

It was my impression, flying both helicopters and fixed wing, that helicopters had more moving parts and the FAA maintenance schedule included more inspections and shorter replacement periods for analogous parts, like rotors vs wings. It certainly took longer to preflight a 206 than a King Air. If you know different, that's fine, I was just making an analogy to say that additional attention can yield additional reliability and that simpler machines aren't necessarily better machines.

Using this logic, an M&P needs far, far more attention and maintenance than a GLOCK or a 1911, yet, experience tells me that the 1911 (generically speaking) needs more attention than the other two combined.

Maintenance lessons learned from experience are not necessarily true from a helicopter to a car to a gun.

[Jeep]

Reading this thread caused me to ask myself whether I found out anything useful from putting a pistol through a 2000 round challenge.

I have to say that it did. I 'm someone who keeps guns fairly clean. That was beat into me in the Army, and I still figure that if not taken to excess it is a good idea. But I also figured most modern pistols should be able to go through the 2000 round challenge without harming the pistol and it would be a decent, but not excessive, test.

What I learned wasn't surprising, but useful. First, Glock's--even demon-spawned Glock 23's firing 155 grain rounds (my only excuse for those is that I was able to buy a bunch cheaply)--don't have any problem with it.

A new SIG 226, though, did. As carbon built up on the rails and the pistol passed the 1800 round point, slide velocity noticeably slowed down, and it was barely operating by the 2000 round mark. A small bit of oil changed everything and it was back and running. The fact that SIGs like lube isn't news, of course, but seeing that made me a true believer in running SIGs wet. A Brig Tac, by contrast, had no issues at all.

It isn't scientific, it is by no means necessary, and perhaps it can create some less-than optimal habits. Nevertheless, I think the 2000 round torture test is a good way to get to know more about a new pistol, and they have increased my confidence in modern pistols overall.

But, I do have to give the OP credit for focusing a different light on it--which is a good thing. While I find certain of his points less-than-persuasive or somewhat difficult to follow, bringing a different perspective to a subject can encourage thought, and I think that has happened in this thread. Or at least it has made me think--and I've been known to be resistant to that on too many occasions.

[Handy]

Handy, your reference to flying a plane and driving a car doesn't make sense to me. With regard to gunfights we are talking about extreme stress. I can drive a stick shift sports car today and a large SUV tomorrow. But if I was doing that under extreme stress I'd want to have lots of practice and muscle memory with one style - hell with one car. Sure those skills can translate over. Running my Supra at the track and autocross events helped me recover my Jeep Cherokee from a slide in the rain in time to avoid trading paint with another driver. But training with the same system will always be better than changing platforms daily/weekly/monthly/etc. This is a big reason military pilots where their flight hour patches likes badges of honor. I'd rather be riding into the fight in back of a Pave Low with a pilot who has 10,000 hours than one who has 2,000.

What I was getting at is that learning and practicing a distinct skill does not limit your ability to learn other distinct skills. When I was flying airplanes and helos on alternating days my muscle memory was never confused by the controls of the two aircraft, and my crews didn't think we were less skilled than the single aircraft pilots. Even when I went from US helicopters to French where you use the pedals differently, all the novelty of the French one informed my brain which set of specific model skills I would be using.

None of which means that I think a shooter firing 40,000 rounds per year distributed over 8 guns is going to be as good as 40,000 fired in one. But I do think that someone dedicated 20,000 each to a Beretta and a Glock is going to be pretty nearly on par with either weapon as the one gun man. The similarities in shooting both reinforce each other, while the differences don't confuse because the your hands and eyes cue the right set of motor skills for each. And then you may have an added benefit from the "cross training" part of it.


So I don't disagree that a guy with a bag of guns is probably not amazing with any of them. I just see the possibility that the focus does not need to narrow to just one gun to achieve very high proficiency. That was my experience flying multiple aircraft and alternating between the P7 and a TDA. I never attempted to squeeze cock a TDA gun, even though I was very well practiced with the P7 specifically.

That is why I have reason to think that someone who carries a G17 a lot and a G26 on occasion should not be afraid of dedicating more time to the G26. I could certainly be wrong, and if someone here has tried focusing on two guns more equally could comment, that would be great. I'm not busting a paradigm, just adding a wrinkle.

[BehindBlueI's]

A new SIG 226, though, did. As carbon built up on the rails and the pistol passed the 1800 round point, slide velocity noticeably slowed down, and it was barely operating by the 2000 round mark. A small bit of oil changed everything and it was back and running. The fact that SIGs like lube isn't news, of course, but seeing that made me a true believer in running SIGs wet.

That's part of the reason I don't care to do it myself and take the word of experts who've already explored the limits. I shoot Sigs, I know they like to be lubed, and I've seen plenty of rails that were worn to poo because the previous owner didn't. I clean and relube after roughly 400-500 rounds based on Bruce Gray's recommendations.

http://grayguns.com/lubrication-of-sig-sauer-pistol-rails/

[Jeep]

That's part of the reason I don't care to do it myself and take the word of experts who've already explored the limits. I shoot Sigs, I know they like to be lubed, and I've seen plenty of rails that were worn to poo because the previous owner didn't. I clean and relube after roughly 400-500 rounds based on Bruce Gray's recommendations.

http://grayguns.com/lubrication-of-sig-sauer-pistol-rails/

That makes a lot of sense to me. I usually use grease on them, though I think what one uses is probably a lot less important than putting some sort lube one.

[SLG]

That's part of the reason I don't care to do it myself and take the word of experts who've already explored the limits. I shoot Sigs, I know they like to be lubed, and I've seen plenty of rails that were worn to poo because the previous owner didn't. I clean and relube after roughly 400-500 rounds based on Bruce Gray's recommendations.

http://grayguns.com/lubrication-of-sig-sauer-pistol-rails/

A lot of my high volume shooting was done with sigs. I wore a bunch of them out, and never lubed them as often as you do. None of the rails were ever worn out, or became a problem. I even wore a dovetail out. Rails though? Never.

[Josh Runkle]

A lot of my high volume shooting was done with sigs. I wore a bunch of them out, and never lubed them as often as you do. None of the rails were ever worn out, or became a problem. I even wore a dovetail out. Rails though? Never.

I haven't done a ton of high volume shooting with sigs, but I have had one 226 go 4,500 rds, one 226 go 3,000 rds and a 224 go 2,600 rds without cleaning or additional lube and none of them had a single malfunction or any wear on the rails. All were in 9mm. My limited experience with sigs mirrors SLG's on a smaller scale.

[Tamara]

I've mentioned before about the rental DAO P226 we had at Coal Creek Armory... It was there when we took over from Guncraft and had been in the case many years already. It was the model used by Wackenhut guards up in Oak Ridge, and so every day there was someone in there either practicing for quals or being tutored for the hiring process or otherwise shooting that gun. If a day went by that it didn't fire a box of ammo, it was a rare one, and I'd be comfortable stating that its average was closer to 100rds/day than not. It got maintained like a rental gun, which is to say that it probably got lube glorped on the barrel hood and muzzle and dribbled down the slide rails once a month or so, if the urge hit. If it was cleaned as much as quarterly, I'd be shocked.

'Long about middle of 2006 or so, the plant guards switched to a P226 DAK, and we got one of those and sold the P226 DAO as a used rental. The person who bought it never complained.

That's been years ago, of course, and is pure anecdote, but I remember that gun impressing me mightily with its reliability and durability.

[BehindBlueI's]

A lot of my high volume shooting was done with sigs. I wore a bunch of them out, and never lubed them as often as you do. None of the rails were ever worn out, or became a problem. I even wore a dovetail out. Rails though? Never.

Like I said, I won't harangue anyone who wants to shoot X number of rounds without cleaning or relubing or whatever. I also don't think a Sig will explode at 501 rounds. I just have no desire to do it myself, and see no benefit to doing it myself in my circumstances. I don't shoot more than 500 rounds in a given day, lube is cheap, and I'm not in backassistan where supplies are difficult to source. I've seen rails that were worn deep into the aluminum, and with no burrs or the like in the slide. My P220 looks identical to new on rail surfaces. Does that matter? Maybe, maybe not, but I can't imagine there's a down side. I've no reason to risk it on my guns and with full knowledge it may very well be wasted petroleum and effort, it's worked for me and I'll stick to Gray's recommendations. If nothing else, think of it as lucky game day socks.

[Jeep]

I've mentioned before about the rental DAO P226 we had at Coal Creek Armory... It was there when we took over from Guncraft and had been in the case many years already. It was the model used by Wackenhut guards up in Oak Ridge, and so every day there was someone in there either practicing for quals or being tutored for the hiring process or otherwise shooting that gun. If a day went by that it didn't fire a box of ammo, it was a rare one, and I'd be comfortable stating that its average was closer to 100rds/day than not. It got maintained like a rental gun, which is to say that it probably got lube glorped on the barrel hood and muzzle and dribbled down the slide rails once a month or so, if the urge hit. If it was cleaned as much as quarterly, I'd be shocked.

'Long about middle of 2006 or so, the plant guards switched to a P226 DAK, and we got one of those and sold the P226 DAO as a used rental. The person who bought it never complained.

That's been years ago, of course, and is pure anecdote, but I remember that gun impressing me mightily with its reliability and durability.

Sounds like maybe 25-30,000 rounds per year. How many years do you think it was there?

[Tamara]

Sounds like maybe 25-30,000 rounds per year. How many years do you think it was there?

At least five.

[SLG]

Like I said, I won't harangue anyone who wants to shoot X number of rounds without cleaning or relubing or whatever. I also don't think a Sig will explode at 501 rounds. I just have no desire to do it myself, and see no benefit to doing it myself in my circumstances. I don't shoot more than 500 rounds in a given day, lube is cheap, and I'm not in backassistan where supplies are difficult to source. I've seen rails that were worn deep into the aluminum, and with no burrs or the like in the slide. My P220 looks identical to new on rail surfaces. Does that matter? Maybe, maybe not, but I can't imagine there's a down side. I've no reason to risk it on my guns and with full knowledge it may very well be wasted petroleum and effort, it's worked for me and I'll stick to Gray's recommendations. If nothing else, think of it as lucky game day socks.

BBI,

I certainly wasn't telling you what to do, or trying to change your opinion on maintenance. I was just saying that I hadn't had any rail problems from my form of maintenance either. I don't think it's cool to neglect a gun, I think it's lazy. I don't think it's cool to be lazy, but I can be pretty lazy at times.

[Steaz]

Steaz, while I get where you're coming from I do see some differences between Glocks and the VP9 that would keep me from doing what you're doing. Even if the difference in grip angle doesn't bother you (Glocks point higher for me naturally than most other handguns), there is what I consider to be a significant difference in manipulations. That is the paddle mag release on the HK's. While I think it is a great design and for me faster/easier when using the trigger finger - I'd hate to need to reload in a real world event and do the wrong thing because I sometimes carry an HK and sometimes carry a Glock. Hell, even if I'm shooting my Beretta or HK I always make sure to end the range session with a Glock.





I'm shocked it took that long for somebody to bring up the paddle magazine release.

This is where I'm 'just a guy' and not a high speed low drag operator going on missions or anything, the odds of my needing to use my pistol...then needing to reload the pistol immediately...being able to reload the pistol immediately...having a magazine on me to do so...and then having the difference in magazine release be the deciding factor because I fumble it due to regularly using both...we're getting into some extraordinarily long odds. Compare that to, say, the odds that my shooting better with the VP9 than with a Glock make the difference because I am carrying the gun I shoot better...which is more likely? Seems I'm putting the odds in my favor carrying the gun I shoot better as often as possible even if it means a slightly different magazine release.

Besides that, I'm a sinner and I often don't carry a spare magazine anyway, just the 16 rounds in the gun with a spare in the car, so magazine release for a quick change is probably a moot point. I'm actually as likely to carry a BUG as I am a spare mag, it's almost as easy, and it solves all the problems a spare mag solves plus more.

[El Cid]

I'm shocked it took that long for somebody to bring up the paddle magazine release.

This is where I'm 'just a guy' and not a high speed low drag operator going on missions or anything, the odds of my needing to use my pistol...then needing to reload the pistol immediately...being able to reload the pistol immediately...having a magazine on me to do so...and then having the difference in magazine release be the deciding factor because I fumble it due to regularly using both...we're getting into some extraordinarily long odds. Compare that to, say, the odds that my shooting better with the VP9 than with a Glock make the difference because I am carrying the gun I shoot better...which is more likely? Seems I'm putting the odds in my favor carrying the gun I shoot better as often as possible even if it means a slightly different magazine release.

Besides that, I'm a sinner and I often don't carry a spare magazine anyway, just the 16 rounds in the gun with a spare in the car, so magazine release for a quick change is probably a moot point. I'm actually as likely to carry a BUG as I am a spare mag, it's almost as easy, and it solves all the problems a spare mag solves plus more.

I understand the odds of using your gun are slim to none. One of the things I try to impress upon coworkers is that while all our other tasks (developing CI's, writing reports, surveillance, general investigative case work, etc.) are used constantly. Our skill at arms may likely never be used. But if I don't submit a report on time, or fail to recruit a CI, etc, I still go home to my family. And I can ask for help from colleagues who are better at those tasks. When I need to use a firearm, I have to do so correctly and effectively or it won't matter that I'm a great investigator. The skill we train on a couple times a year (scratch that - qualify on, not necessarily train), because it's unlikely to happen is the one that I can't afford to get wrong.

I say all of that to say all you will have in an incident is what you brought with you. If you don't want to carry a spare magazine then it's your life and that of your loved ones. None of us can make that decision for you. We can only suggest what we have found to work and why we do so. How you handle it is all you. The chances of having to reload in a fight for a private citizen is low as you stated. But there are other reasons to use the mag catch besides running the gun dry. Guns malfunction (even HK's lol!)... Guns get shot... Your hands could be sweaty/bloody resulting in a poor grip... Your ammo could have a problem. We can what-if scenarios all day. There certainly is more in common between a Glock and VP9 than if a person rotates between a Glock and DAO Beretta or a K-frame. The point is there is a cost for switching between weapons with different controls. If that cost is acceptable for you, drive on. It's not for me to say.

[SLG]

I understand the odds of using your gun are slim to none. One of the things I try to impress upon coworkers is that while all our other tasks (developing CI's, writing reports, surveillance, general investigative case work, etc.) are used constantly. Our skill at arms may likely never be used. But if I don't submit a report on time, or fail to recruit a CI, etc, I still go home to my family. And I can ask for help from colleagues who are better at those tasks. When I need to use a firearm, I have to do so correctly and effectively or it won't matter that I'm a great investigator. The skill we train on a couple times a year (scratch that - qualify on, not necessarily train), because it's unlikely to happen is the one that I can't afford to get wrong.

I say all of that to say all you will have in an incident is what you brought with you. If you don't want to carry a spare magazine then it's your life and that of your loved ones. None of us can make that decision for you. We can only suggest what we have found to work and why we do so. How you handle it is all you. The chances of having to reload in a fight for a private citizen is low as you stated. But there are other reasons to use the mag catch besides running the gun dry. Guns malfunction (even HK's lol!)... Guns get shot... Your hands could be sweaty/bloody resulting in a poor grip... Your ammo could have a problem. We can what-if scenarios all day. There certainly is more in common between a Glock and VP9 than if a person rotates between a Glock and DAO Beretta or a K-frame. The point is there is a cost for switching between weapons with different controls. If that cost is acceptable for you, drive on. It's not for me to say.

That's great stuff, and I said almost the exact same thing to a group who had to qual last week. I don't think it mattered to them either.

[El Cid]

That's great stuff, and I said almost the exact same thing to a group who had to qual last week. I don't think it mattered to them either.

Some people you just can't reach.

And thank you.

[Handy]

Everything has a cost. The question isn't if but how much.

[Jeep]

At least five.s

So maybe 125-150,00 rounds and there was resale value at the end! You have to love pre-Cohen (and maybe current) SIGs.

[JCS]

I understand the odds of using your gun are slim to none. One of the things I try to impress upon coworkers is that while all our other tasks (developing CI's, writing reports, surveillance, general investigative case work, etc.) are used constantly. Our skill at arms may likely never be used. But if I don't submit a report on time, or fail to recruit a CI, etc, I still go home to my family. And I can ask for help from colleagues who are better at those tasks. When I need to use a firearm, I have to do so correctly and effectively or it won't matter that I'm a great investigator. The skill we train on a couple times a year (scratch that - qualify on, not necessarily train), because it's unlikely to happen is the one that I can't afford to get wrong.

I say all of that to say all you will have in an incident is what you brought with you. If you don't want to carry a spare magazine then it's your life and that of your loved ones. None of us can make that decision for you. We can only suggest what we have found to work and why we do so. How you handle it is all you. The chances of having to reload in a fight for a private citizen is low as you stated. But there are other reasons to use the mag catch besides running the gun dry. Guns malfunction (even HK's lol!)... Guns get shot... Your hands could be sweaty/bloody resulting in a poor grip... Your ammo could have a problem. We can what-if scenarios all day. There certainly is more in common between a Glock and VP9 than if a person rotates between a Glock and DAO Beretta or a K-frame. The point is there is a cost for switching between weapons with different controls. If that cost is acceptable for you, drive on. It's not for me to say.


https://youtu.be/Og9Usv82CdU

I've seen this video at quite a few fire service conferences and I think there are some great nuggets we can take from it as an Leo or ccw. We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

In the fire service we rarely go on fires (70% is medical) and especially rarely ever fires with trapped victims. Yet we spend a majority of our time training on fires. Why? Because they are extremely high risk and low frequency.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steaz]

Everything has a cost. The question isn't if but how much.

Edit: More to the current sub topic of the thread...everybody has their own level of inconvenient and uncomfortable prep. Many will prepare for a gunfight and carry things because they might need them in a gunfight, for example, but don't ED bulletproof (resistant) vests or have their family members daily wear bullet resistant vests. Everybody draws their line somewhere, and it's their life and their family on the line, and their decision

[Handy]

Edit: More to the current sub topic of the thread...everybody has their own level of inconvenient and uncomfortable prep. Many will prepare for a gunfight and carry things because they might need them in a gunfight, for example, but don't ED bulletproof (resistant) vests or have their family members daily wear bullet resistant vests. Everybody draws their line somewhere, and it's their life and their family on the line, and their decision

Certainly. I was more referencing the idea that we don't have any data points to speak from about the "two gun man" and if that person is actually increasing their risk by any significance or not.

[El Cid]

https://youtu.be/Og9Usv82CdU

I've seen this video at quite a few fire service conferences and I think there are some great nuggets we can take from it as an Leo or ccw. We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

In the fire service we rarely go on fires (70% is medical) and especially rarely ever fires with trapped victims. Yet we spend a majority of our time training on fires. Why? Because they are extremely high risk and low frequency.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I plan to steal it for future training.

[Josh Runkle]

https://youtu.be/Og9Usv82CdU

I've seen this video at quite a few fire service conferences and I think there are some great nuggets we can take from it as an Leo or ccw. We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

In the fire service we rarely go on fires (70% is medical) and especially rarely ever fires with trapped victims. Yet we spend a majority of our time training on fires. Why? Because they are extremely high risk and low frequency.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! 30% of your calls are fire/rescue? That's pretty different than here. Here in Ohio, most places are about 94% EMS and 6% rescue/fire.

[JCS]

Wow! 30% of your calls are fire/rescue? That's pretty different than here. Here in Ohio, most places are about 94% EMS and 6% rescue/fire.

Well that's about how it is here as well. I think 7% of our calls were fire related last month. The other 23% is like car wrecks and public assists (picking up old people that fall down). Of that 7% of fire calls even fewer are actual full blown structure fire calls. I just said 70% medical because most people think it's the other way around and don't realize how much ems we do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SLG]

That is a good video. A lot of it can be summed up in the concept of The Ace.

[TCinVA]

We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.


The BJS records 994,220 instances of aggravated assault, 300,170 instances of rape/sexual assault, 645,650 instances of robbery in 2013. That's 1,940,040 criminal acts that would meet the criteria for the use of lethal force in defense against them.

I don't think that needing a firearm to defend oneself is even a low frequency event. I think it often looks that way because we get focused on the number of homicides related to the size of the overall population, and because we do not routinely hear about defensive use of firearms since so few people are actually routinely armed. Certainly some areas are worse than others...but there are literally millions of opportunities for armed self defense every year. The victims just aren't armed.

To me, the real benefit of the 2,000 round challenge has been for someone to get to know their gun. To get to know their equipment...because it is equipment that is supposed to make the difference between life and death in a critical moment. Sadly people usually do not take the time, trouble, and expense to prove that piece of equipment before betting on it.

I don't believe most people really understand how many defective guns or how many defective rounds of ammunition get shipped on a routine basis.

The need to use a gun in personal defense arises more often than we might like to think...and the weapon/ammunition we reach for in that moment might be less reliable than we like to think.

[SLG]

TC,

Stop me if you know this...

The concept of the HRLF act in relation to defense use of a gun has to do with the individual. It is low frequency for everyone in the U.S. Maybe not LF for many organizations, but for the individual, definitely.

[GJM]

The BJS records 994,220 instances of aggravated assault, 300,170 instances of rape/sexual assault, 645,650 instances of robbery in 2013. That's 1,940,040 criminal acts that would meet the criteria for the use of lethal force in defense against them.

I don't think that needing a firearm to defend oneself is even a low frequency event. I think it often looks that way because we get focused on the number of homicides related to the size of the overall population, and because we do not routinely hear about defensive use of firearms since so few people are actually routinely armed. Certainly some areas are worse than others...but there are literally millions of opportunities for armed self defense every year. The victims just aren't armed.

To me, the real benefit of the 2,000 round challenge has been for someone to get to know their gun. To get to know their equipment...because it is equipment that is supposed to make the difference between life and death in a critical moment. Sadly people usually do not take the time, trouble, and expense to prove that piece of equipment before betting on it.

I don't believe most people really understand how many defective guns or how many defective rounds of ammunition get shipped on a routine basis.

The need to use a gun in personal defense arises more often than we might like to think...and the weapon/ammunition we reach for in that moment might be less reliable than we like to think.


TC, do you mean shoot 2,000 rounds to get to know your gun, or shoot it 2,000 rounds without cleaning/lube to get to know it?

Sometimes, I think people get to know their guns too well, and that can be an equal problem when they have very high round count guns as carry guns. Using aircraft engines as an example, the most dangerous times are the first 50-100 hours after overhaul, and the last few hundred hours before overhaul.

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

[DocGKR]

"I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM."

Yup--that is what I generally do...

[TCinVA]

TC, do you mean shoot 2,000 rounds to get to know your gun, or shoot it 2,000 rounds without cleaning/lube to get to know it?

There is value in either approach. It's good to know that the gun runs reliably over an extended period. It's also good to know how it handles being dirty and lacking lubrication. Racers "shake down" their cars before a race. Ships go through trials before they enter service. Aircraft are subjected to a wide number of tests before they are certified to fly, and even after that certification further testing is usually done.

Having some sort of process where we prove the equipment we are betting on seems prudent to me, especially as it's become clear that quality control is not exactly job 1 in the firearms industry.



Sometimes, I think people get to know their guns too well, and that can be an equal problem when they have very high round count guns as carry guns. Using aircraft engines as an example, the most dangerous times are the first 50-100 hours after overhaul, and the last few hundred hours before overhaul.

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

There's certainly a point of diminishing returns where additional uses of the weapon can degrade reliability due to wear on springs or other small parts...but I'd wager the people who reach that point are motivated statistical outliers who are probably sufficiently familiar with preventative maintenance to keep the machine running.

[JSGlock34]

I try to have two types of guns.

Mm, yes. In your case, two of each model, apparently.

[Tamara]

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

I shoot my actual carry gun in matches and classes. That's when I rotate out the carried ammo as well.

[GJM]

FIFY


Mm, yes. In your case, at least two of each model, apparently.

[psalms144.1]

FIFY


Mm, yes. In your case, two of EVERY model, apparently.Fixed your fix for you...

[rob_s]

https://youtu.be/Og9Usv82CdU

I've seen this video at quite a few fire service conferences and I think there are some great nuggets we can take from it as an Leo or ccw. We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

In the fire service we rarely go on fires (70% is medical) and especially rarely ever fires with trapped victims. Yet we spend a majority of our time training on fires. Why? Because they are extremely high risk and low frequency.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, then, what of the firefighter that trains for the 1% possibility of the building collapse, but fails to get to the gym every day to train for the reality of dragging a hose when they drag a hose on virtually every call, and get a least 5 calls a shift?

[rob_s]

There is value in either approach. It's good to know that the gun runs reliably over an extended period. It's also good to know how it handles being dirty and lacking lubrication. Racers "shake down" their cars before a race. Ships go through trials before they enter service. Aircraft are subjected to a wide number of tests before they are certified to fly, and even after that certification further testing is usually done.

Having some sort of process where we prove the equipment we are betting on seems prudent to me, especially as it's become clear that quality control is not exactly job 1 in the firearms industry.
I agree with this. And, as mentioned earlier, if the challenge gets someone to the range to shoot/train/practice when they otherwise might not have, I think that's a good thing.




There's certainly a point of diminishing returns where additional uses of the weapon can degrade reliability due to wear on springs or other small parts...but I'd wager the people who reach that point are motivated statistical outliers who are probably sufficiently familiar with preventative maintenance to keep the machine running.

Agree here too. I don't think there are truly that many people that would otherwise be shooting 2,000 rounds through their pistols, regardless of cleaning schedule, that wouldn't also have the mindset or means to have two guns with one dedicated to each task; carry and training.

[JCS]

So, then, what of the firefighter that trains for the 1% possibility of the building collapse, but fails to get to the gym every day to train for the reality of dragging a hose when they drag a hose on virtually every call, and get a least 5 calls a shift?

I don't quite understand what you're asking. We don't pull hose very often on the job, except during training. Fires make up a very small portion of our call volume (7% or so). You may go a month without ever getting a fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk