PDA

View Full Version : Defining "Reliable"



ToddG
04-06-2011, 12:10 PM
SLG and I were having this discussion last week and it seemed worthy of a thread.

How do you define reliable?

None of us is likely to carry a pistol we consider unreliable. But where do you draw the line? For me, ideally I like to see a MRBS of no less than 5,000. That's about twice the industry standard (which is 2,000-2,500 depending upon whom you ask) but well within the bounds of pistols I've shot -- and abused -- heavily over the past decade.

I have a hard time seeing a 50,000 round gun with 20-25 gun induced stoppages as "reliable."

JDM
04-06-2011, 12:22 PM
My standards are set to what the PTC guns are doing. I base this off the idea that modern defensive guns from reputable manufactures should all perform to the same level. that is

SIG=GLOCK=Hk etc.

Quite frankly, I don't shoot nearly the round count you do, and won't for some time, or until ammo is free. Thus, if I'm seeing more stoppages over the same number of rounds (over a longer period of time
Obviously) there is a problem.

My 9mm M&P is reliable. It's passed the "New gun test" of 500 and 200, and has not Had a stoppage in 2500 rounds or so.

If over the next few years, it exhibits more issues than the PTC test M&P, or P30 or whatever maybe I have a problem

Reliability is defined for me by the standards set in your tests. They are real world, high round count, fair, and well documented. If my gun is making the PARs set by your pistols over it's lifespan, it's reliable.

VolGrad
04-06-2011, 12:49 PM
That’s a very interesting question; one that couldn’t be answered on a “regular” forum. I value the opinions that will be posted here as most on this sight are what I would consider “shooters” rather than “gun owners”.

My idea of “reliable” has changed as I have moved farther along the learning curve. My first handgun was a Gen2 G22 LEO trade-in. My second was a Gen2.5 G26. With this as a start I never even considered a gun would/could malfunction. I just assumed all guns worked out of the box because mine did.

As I started getting more “into” guns I experimented with other manufacturers (SIG, Beretta, S&W, HK, etc.) and started to realize guns can/do have issues from time to time, some more than others. Over time I came back to GLOCK as other guns not only didn’t “fit” me as well as GLOCK; they just didn’t seem to be as dead-nuts reliable as GLOCK. During my time away from GLOCK (I always had GLOCKs still but they weren’t my go-to guns) I got really into 1911s. I actually stopped carrying a 1911 after taking a 2-day 1911 class from LAV. Not because mine had issues (the opposite actually). I stopped because LAV pretty much said “we” had no business carrying them. Who am I to question the King of the 1911? I’m now back to all GLOCK (although I recently picked up a P30).

What is so odd about it all is my last remaining 1911 (EB 5” Special Forces with a bobtail job) has never once that I can recall had a gun induced malfunction, including 2 or 3 classes and easily in excess of 5k+ rounds fired, while I have had issues with 3 different GLOCKs over the past 6 months, 2 of them purchased NIB. In fact, I am FedEx’ing one back to Smyrna this afternoon on the way home from work.

Another fly in the butter for many of us less knowledgeable as you Todd is knowing exactly what is gun vs user vs ammo induced. I have prob let a couple of malfunctions slide because I just figured I’d done something to cause it. Same prob goes the other way. I’ve prob blamed some guns for things I was doing wrong.

I have only been what I would call a serious shooter (carry, range, IDPA, GSSF, classes, etc.) for a few years but I can already say, “I remember when a malfunction was almost unheard of from a quality gun manufacturer.”. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

jetfire
04-06-2011, 01:14 PM
I used to think that a gun that would go 500 rounds without a stoppage was reliable. Then I started shooting more, and that got up to 1000 rounds. Then I started shooting more, and now reliability is more along the lines of "can this gun pass the 2000 round challenge." I don't think that I'd compete with a gun that couldn't do at least that. I've really gotten my "reliability" meter screwed up by shooting revolvers, because as long as I stay on top of spring changes, they'll just go and go and go.

JHC
04-06-2011, 02:30 PM
Since the 2K round challenge was launched on a few websites and I ran 3 pistols through it, I've been considering that the benchmark to "prove" a gun is dead nuts reliable. OTOH, I haven't and don't currently mind carrying a Glock 9mm that makes it to 300-500 rounds error free. Largely because across several copies of them and about 15K rounds last year I only saw 3 minor stoppages, quickly cleared - and all them; one each, in trustworthy (to me) Gen 3 guns.

I look at stoppages somewhat based on my long ago military experience and more recent echoes of the same mentality from more recent military members - which is along the lines that yes of course I want the most reliable weapon but I cannot assume it; in fact I expect it to have a stoppage at some point and when it does, I must clear it and press on.

I think the modern designs and the championing of the hyper large volumes of reliable functioning has inspired a bit of an "OCD" condition whereby many gun folk on the Net are seeking and in some cases hyping guns that WILL NEVER have a stoppage. Even HK or Wilson don't build that gun, I don't believe.

If I had one stoppage per 1000 rounds which was not easily explained but not replicated over the next couple hundred rounds - say a FTE with 115 gr fmj training ammo; I would not worry about it. I can't get that fired round back to see how it chronographed, etc. I'd just inspect the gun, keep shooting and pay close attention.

And FWIW (nil) I consider the most trustworthy guns are those that have run well since last disassembly and cleaning which have been fired 50-500 rounds. This is against a battery of Glocks and a TRP that could match my Glocks for reliability. I would not apply this to any revolver.

John Ralston
04-06-2011, 02:56 PM
Since the 2K Challenge has been brought up as a benchmark, I do have one question in that regards.

How are shooter errors logged? For example - riding the slide stop, inducing a failure to lock back on the last round. Surely can't fault the gun, ammo or mags on that one. Also not something that would keep me from carrying the piece, but one that could create a bit of a pucker if unresolved by modifiying the shooters grip during practice.

JodyH
04-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Mehhh... if it'll shoot every round I carry on my person with absolute reliability it's good enough.

If my P2000 is absolutely 100% reliable for the first 27 rounds, but jams constantly on round 28, that's better than if it constantly jams on round 1 or 2 but then will go 3000 rounds until it's next hiccup.

Then you have the bell curve that most mechanical objects have for their reliability.
You want to shoot enough rounds to hit the reliability plateau but not trend so far over that you are on the down slope where parts are more susceptible to breakage.

Establishing that confidence in the absolute reliability for those 27 rounds is the hard part.

It's a zen, chicken or the egg thing.
:cool:

YVK
04-06-2011, 06:22 PM
How do you define reliable?



99.9% functional reliability is my definition. Which 5 times more liberal than yours, and 2-2.5 times more liberal than industry standards.

Definitions in absolute numbers are biased by shooter's volume, as shown in Caleb's post. That's why I like percentages. The above number of 99.9% comes from a professional side of me, where we routinely make very important decisions based on p value less than 0.05, or, in simplistic way, 95% accuracy (again, very simplistic way). I figured that if current science and society allowed me to be potentially wrong 5% of the time, then perhaps I can allow my pistol skip a bit once in a thousand rounds.

P.S. Standing by for comments how inventive 1911 owners can be to lay down a scientific backing why their guns don't run :)

cdunn
04-06-2011, 06:26 PM
I've had 2 pistols that were not 100% reliable a cz compact .40, and a kimber,both are now history.I have alot of faith in what I now own,glocks with no issues, a new to me sig, 229 sas,a new stoeger cougar with about 500rds.and a nighthawk.right now I'm mostly shooting the cougar to see how its going to do.I'm not going to keep a pistol that might work.

gtmtnbiker98
04-06-2011, 07:30 PM
I've had 2 pistols that were not 100% reliable a cz compact .40, and a kimber,both are now history.I have alot of faith in what I now own,glocks with no issues, a new to me sig, 229 sas,a new stoeger cougar with about 500rds.and a nighthawk.right now I'm mostly shooting the cougar to see how its going to do.I'm not going to keep a pistol that might work.1,000 rounds without failure and lubrication satisfies my needs.

Comedian
04-06-2011, 09:32 PM
Mehhh... if it'll shoot every round I carry on my person with absolute reliability it's good enough.

If my P2000 is absolutely 100% reliable for the first 27 rounds, but jams constantly on round 28, that's better than if it constantly jams on round 1 or 2 but then will go 3000 rounds until it's next hiccup.

Then you have the bell curve that most mechanical objects have for their reliability.
You want to shoot enough rounds to hit the reliability plateau but not trend so far over that you are on the down slope where parts are more susceptible to breakage.

Establishing that confidence in the absolute reliability for those 27 rounds is the hard part.

It's a zen, chicken or the egg thing.
:cool:

Good points.

TDA
04-06-2011, 10:40 PM
Last April I bought a police trade in 5906, and after one failure to extract at an IDPA match, it went off to S&W for a complete spring replacement. I put 3,301 rounds through it in the rest of 2010 with no issues of any kind and was pretty impressed. No malfunctions yet in 2011, but that round count is in a different notebook. I only shot 2,118 rounds of everything else combined in calendar year 2010, so at the moment that's the standout.

ToddG
04-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Jody hit on what I think is the most important concept, but one that is essentially impossible to measure: the ability to go through current loadout without a stoppage. There's a huge difference between MRBS of 28 (which is horrible) and a MRBS so high that you're statistically near-certain that 27 rounds will fire without a stoppage.

Someone else will have to do the math, but what would the MRBS have to be in order to have a 1:1000 chance of seeing a stoppage in 27 rounds?

WDW
04-07-2011, 03:52 AM
I feel that if a gun is in use by a major organization (M9, 226, G22, G17...) then it is reliable. You may get a lemon, but you probably won't. Stoppages don't bother me alot because there are drills to address those. Now obviously, if I get a gun that had probs like the Gen4 G17 test gun, something is up and the gun needs to be looked at.

Frank B
04-07-2011, 05:17 AM
Interesting question! IMO, there is no easy answer.
"Reliable" means to me, the gun goes bang for sure if I´ve to pull the trigger.
At least, if I need to empty a hole mag and do a reload.


@Todd
Please excuse my ignorance, but what means "MRBS".

There is another point to consider. A gun is a mechanical device engineered by human beings. It can fail every time, even, if it run flawless for 5000/25000/50000 rounds.

JDM
04-07-2011, 05:33 AM
Interesting question! IMO, there is no easy answer.
"Reliable" means to me, the gun goes bang for sure if I´ve to pull the trigger.
At least, if I need to empty a hole mag and do a reload.


@Todd
Please excuse my ignorance, but what means "MRBS".

There is another point to consider. A gun is a mechanical device engineered by human beings. It can fail every time, even, if it run flawless for 5000/25000/50000 rounds.

Mean Rounds Between Stoppages.

I believe.

zRxz
04-07-2011, 06:57 AM
I believe reliability is totally dependent upon the platform you're using. For a full-sized to compact-sized carry pistol, I believe 2000 MRBS is acceptable, but 5000 is ideal. What practical aspect this has on an actual engagement and the reliability your platform exhibits as it cycles through what ammunition you carry on your person is a bit dicey for the reasons Jody and Todd pointed out. However, for alternative weapons for carry (i.e., Rohrbaugh's pocket pistols, TPI's Old Man Gun), I would say that such standards would leave otherwise smart options (dependent upon how permissive the environment is) in the wind. Perhaps your Glock 19/P30/M&P has over five-thou repetitions of uninterrupted discharges behind it, sans a cleaning. All that reliability means bunk if the thing that prevents you from firing it is that it isn't on you, and you lack other options for carry. After that, a pocket 9 that goes a hundred rounds problem free (but one-oh-one is always up in the air) looks like a much better offering than even the stalwart P30.

Just saying, it's all relative.

TAP
04-07-2011, 07:03 AM
Then you have the bell curve that most mechanical objects have for their reliability.
You want to shoot enough rounds to hit the reliability plateau but not trend so far over that you are on the down slope where parts are more susceptible to breakage.



This is a very important point.

Slavex
04-07-2011, 07:03 AM
for me a gun has to be able to eat 500 rounds (typical range session) with no problems. I obviously don't count high primers or other reloading issues (no primers for example) against the gun. As Todd can attest I've had a gun not make it through 100 rounds without isses, once diagnosed (broken extractor) I then ran it through the 2000 round challenge, which is the next benchmark I set for my guns. I'm a competition shooter only, so I'll admit I actually treat my guns worse than I would if I was allowed to carry one. I do not keep up on spring changes, although I am going to try with my new Shadow that I picked up today.

Chuck Haggard
04-07-2011, 08:27 AM
Depends on the context I guess.

When we had all of our issues with the Glock 22s in 2006 I went and found a G17 that had the new 3rd gen frame style and flogged it hard to be sure that they hadn't also compromised the reliability of the 9mms when the .40s were so unreliable.

That gun saw 5700+ rounds through it in one day. We shot it clean and lubed, dirty, with every ammo I could get or dig out of my stash, from some old 88gr Remington to the Aquila IQ crap, to 147gr subsonic, to 127gr +P+ and some of the Hirtenberger "SMG only" 124gr stuff.

That gun ran without any stoppages, lights mounted or no, shooting sideways, "limp wrist", dirty, dirt dumped on it, jammed into the barricade to flex the dust cover, dunked in water to cool down and keep going, etc.


I would say in a .mil or police service context this was a very reliable gun.

I kept that gun BTW.


For other guns, it depends. Other reliable guns might not be in similar circumstances (you can't throw a K frame S&W in the dirt/sand and expect it to keep shooting, but you can load it and leave it in a drawer for 50 years and expect it to work).

Example; A particular PM9 vs J frame S&W

I would expect that the Kahrs can be shot more in something like the 2000 round challenge and one could expect them to run without parts breakage, or through abuse like dumping sand on the gun, than you could with a J frame.

Yet in a specific mission, in this case as a pocket gun, I know a guy who gave up on the Kahrs as his experience was that if he carried the gun in the pocket for more than a week or two, and then pulled it to test fire, he consistently got a bang and a fails-to-feed, then tap>roll/rack>bang fixed the problem.
He theorized that his Kahr was not very tolerant of pocket lint, or the lube drying out, as he never had stoppages except when he carried it in the pocket and then tried to fire it as he had been carrying it, as one would in a defensive scenario.
BTW, This gun easily passed his test fire standard that many other people use, 200-500 rounds of ball ammo, 200 of carry ammo, all without stoppages.

The gun was range reliable but mission unreliable.

Now he carries a J frame for a pocket gun even though he is now carrying a gun with a worse trigger, less capacity, slower reload, more recoil, less "powerful" cartridge.

His reasoning is that he has proven the J frame to actually work after being carried as he carries the gun, and it has never failed to perform in the mission that he has set for it.

Reliability trumps everything else IMHO when we are carrying the gun for serious use.

Rverdi
04-07-2011, 12:25 PM
I've never kept round counts on any gun and would have no idea what the count is between mals.
My rather un-scientific means of handling this has always been that if the gun chokes enough to disrupt my training and get my attention, it's a problem.
I can't remember the last time my current carry gun mal'd and I've been using it awhile, that works for me.
I've got a new pistol coming in that I intend to keep track of. We'll see.

David Armstrong
04-07-2011, 12:39 PM
I'm going to build off of Rich's post and offer the idea that I don't focus on reliable, I'm concerned with "unreliable." My carry guns work. I've shot them all a lot and I expect them to go bang every time I pull the trigger. If that stops happening then I try to ID the problem. If it is ammo or something else I fix it. If it is not something else, or the problem continues to the point that I am aware of the problem (I like Rich's "chokes enough to disrupt my training and get my attention" phrase) then it is no longer a carry gun. FWIW my two main autoloader carries are a Gen 2 Glock 17 and 19. The 17 has well over 100,000 rounds through it and only 1 malfunction that I rate as a gun problem. The G19 has never had a gun-related malfunction over 20K+.

Mitchell, Esq.
04-07-2011, 01:50 PM
I'm satisfied when a weapon will handle a 2 day, 500 to 1000 round class without weapon induced stopages, with magazines being dropped in the dust, ammo being less than clean from the environment and minimal lube/TLC during the course of the 2 days.

If it will do that, I'm good.

I figure that's running a weapon harder than 90% of the people who will ever have that weapon, and within the limits of my finances.

ToddG
04-07-2011, 09:48 PM
I asked Ken Hackathorn about this at dinner tonight and with his permission, his answer was: 1,000 rounds without a stoppage before he'd trust a gun for carry use.

He also had some pointed and unkind things to say about people who carry guns that haven't been cleaned or lubricated in 2,000 rounds... :cool:

JDM
04-07-2011, 10:28 PM
He also had some pointed and unkind things to say about people who carry guns that haven't been cleaned or lubricated in 2,000 rounds... :cool:

What kind of sick, twisted individual would do such a thing :cool:

wicked_police
04-07-2011, 11:42 PM
Me......

:D

Slavex
04-08-2011, 02:37 AM
so Todd, did he make you clean the gun in the mens room before he'd continue talking to you at dinner?

ToddG
04-08-2011, 08:36 AM
I'm fairly certain Ken wasn't relying on me as his security plan. :cool:

Slavex
04-08-2011, 03:20 PM
hahaha

Bill Lance
04-09-2011, 09:09 AM
I'm fairly certain Ken wasn't relying on me as his security plan. :cool:

Now, that's funny right there---I don't care who you are!!!
:p

JodyH
04-09-2011, 09:24 AM
I'm fairly certain Ken wasn't relying on me as his security plan.
Cannon fodder aka "bullet sponge".
When I dined with you that was part of my security plan.
Let you draw fire while I skipped out.
It would help the plan if you'd wear an orange shirt.
:cool:

MikeO
05-05-2011, 11:58 AM
Define it the same way I define sharp, beautiful, and close enough; it depends.

My old Ruger Speed Sixes are. The only HK P30 I've tried was NOT, every S&W SD (2) and Ruger SR (3) I have tried WAS; ya never really know?

You want reliable, put a bowie in one hand and a hawk in the other... ;)

BWT
05-05-2011, 10:43 PM
So here's another question.

To add fuel to the discussion, how many rounds with your carry ammo?

If you're shooting +P+ 9mm 147 Gr ammo for SD, and shooting 115 gr FMJ for practice, there's a significant difference.

What say you guys? The Gen 4 Glocks IIRC were having an issue with WWB 9mm, where do you guys draw the line on that?

When purchasing new magazines, do you have any routine with your magazines before you regulate them to carry, or do you just throw them in the gun?

Thinking about it, Semi autos are only as reliable as their magazines, as critical as the gun running, are the magazines, does anyone function test/log their magazines?

And I mean, let's be honest, I just know I can't afford to shoot 2,000 rounds, I mean if I get the job I want tomorrow, possibly I could, but still, I guess I'd need to belong to a range where I could practice drills before I'd feel terrible shooting 2,000 rounds down range at a static range. I'd have to do different drills, and span it over time.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, but I don't want to do something to the point of I don't feel it's productive. Which also the 2k torture test has provisions for that in that you can span it out over a multiple range sessions.

Interesting discussion.

I look forward to the replies on magazines, I know a lot of people number them, but do you track your magazines like you track your guns as far as round counts?

ToddG
05-05-2011, 11:10 PM
Carry ammo: I like to put 200 rounds of my carry ammo through the gun before I'll trust it. While it may be a little expensive, it should be something you only do rarely. After all, if you can afford to buy a different carry gun every six months you should be able to afford four boxes of JHP to go with it.

Mags: "bad" magazines are so uncommon on most quality modern (non-1911) pistols that I wouldn't worry about it too much. I do try to use my carry mags (which are separate from my practice and teaching mags) for that 200rd JHP testing, though.

BWT
05-05-2011, 11:26 PM
Carry ammo: I like to put 200 rounds of my carry ammo through the gun before I'll trust it. While it may be a little expensive, it should be something you only do rarely. After all, if you can afford to buy a different carry gun every six months you should be able to afford four boxes of JHP to go with it.

Mags: "bad" magazines are so uncommon on most quality modern (non-1911) pistols that I wouldn't worry about it too much. I do try to use my carry mags (which are separate from my practice and teaching mags) for that 200rd JHP testing, though.

Sounds good, what kind of service life do you give those magazines? I assume the practice/teaching until destruction, but anything you subscribe to for the self-defense magazines?

I'd agree, I'm saving for a new carry pistol.

ETA: I've had the pistol I carry for over a year, I'm not looking to replace it because I'm bored with it, more of, I just find the platform lacking. (1911, I laughed when I read your comment)

ToddG
05-05-2011, 11:28 PM
My carry mags rarely get fired and rarely get exposed to the elements. Since I end up switching carry guns every year or so, I've never had a need to change them. Range mags get used until they show signs of potential trouble; then they get thrown in the garbage. I am not a big fan of repairing mags piecemeal. A mag that has gone bad probably has other parts that may go bad soon and unless you live somewhere that restricts your ability to get new ones, it's better to destroy the questionable magazine and replace it.

MikeO
05-06-2011, 11:22 AM
I know folks who switch out recoil spring/guide rod units!? Have proven new one for carry, train w another. Also some who weigh every round, and drop each one into the bbl for a chamber fit check before it goes in their mags...

BWT
05-06-2011, 11:47 PM
I know folks who switch out recoil spring/guide rod units!? Have proven new one for carry, train w another. Also some who weigh every round, and drop each one into the bbl for a chamber fit check before it goes in their mags...

I think one can make firearm ownership/usage as unfun as the imagination is creative.

Personally, I ball park spring replacements, and inspect for parts wear when I clean them... and I never thought I'd say this, these days, I really don't clean guns I should as much as I should. I mean... I just don't care, if that AR-15's got 150 rounds through it, whatever (That one's not a big deal, except I shoot Wolf Ammo through rifles, and honestly, 500 rounds is about the round count of starting to see stuck cases, even in an BCM AR, it's just the way the polymer coating is), if my EDC gun has a 100-200 rounds through it, wipe off the carbon so it doesn't get on your shirt and put that back in the holster.

I'd say number magazines, keep an somewhat accurate round count, inspect for broken parts/clean at whatever interval lets you sleep at night and buy quality firearms, and one should have reasonable peace of mind.

I asked more to just see what people would say, Thanks for the replies.

This forum is such a gift, it really is.

JodyH
05-08-2011, 01:56 PM
I know folks who switch out recoil spring/guide rod units!? Have proven new one for carry, train w another. Also some who weigh every round, and drop each one into the bbl for a chamber fit check before it goes in their mags...
I'd rather spend my time practicing malfunction drills, transitions to a back-up gun, unarmed combatives, knife fighting and other skills.