Establishing reliability.

[JonInWA]

It depends upon the gun; for example, with a contemporary Glock/SIG/Beretta/HK I'm comfortable with 200 rounds of quality factory ammunition, followed by at least a magazine, preferably a box of the carry ammunition of choice.

For any 1911-platform pistol, I really think that prudence calls for an 800-1000 round probationary period, followed by a recoil spring replacement, followed by a further 200 round probationary period-with both probationary periods covering both the gun and all of the magazines- followed by testing of one's carry ammunition of choice in every magazine to be used.

For a revolver, to establish reliable functioning, probably 100 rounds are acceptable, followed by sufficient carry cartridges to accurately zero the gun. Speeedloaders should be tested for fit vis-a-vis the grips used on the revolver also during the probationary period.

Best, Jon

[Ed L]

[QUOTE=JonInWA;2059]It depends upon the gun; for example, with a contemporary Glock/SIG/Beretta/HK I'm comfortable with 200 rounds of quality factory ammunition, followed by at least a magazine, preferably a box of the carry ammunition of choice.[quote]

I pretty much agree with a modern gun with a reputation for reliability. I recently bought a used Glock 17 and ran about 200 rounds of hardball and 100 rounds of HP through it. I used some new and some relatively new magazines rather than the used mags that came with it.

If it is a 1911 I want to fire more rounds before feeling good about it with about 200 rounds of problem-free carry ammo.

I think it is essential to use several different magazines and have them numbered.

If a problem crops up you then have to decide if it was that particular magazine, the ammo, or the gun. I can see the value of firing more rounds before considering the gun good to go. With the S&W M&P9 I would encounter a failure to extract every 300-500 rounds where the rim of the case was just barely out of the chamber. After the first time I thought it was a fluke, then I noticed a pattern that occurred with different ammo and different magazines. Ultimately I found out that S&W uses the same extractor on the 9mm & 40 S&W, and the 9mm sometimes has issues. I replaced it with with an Apex Tactical 9mm extractor and had no further problems. I also encountered a few instances of the rounds getting wedged together inside the magazines so they would not feed due to lack of spring pressure. It happened about 4-5 times over 7000 rounds in different magazines with different ammo. I replaced the followers with newer followers and used stronger extra market springs. I thought I had the issue licked when it resurfaced again in a new mag with an updated follower and spring. I also had the slide release break off on the right side after 6000 rounds.

The above issues are things that would not be discovered by firing firing 200 rounds of hardball and 100 rounds of HPs.

I think we are incredibly lucky these days in terms of what is available and the level of reliability and durability. At one time such guns were not commonly available and most tuned in shooters did not expect the mean rounds between failure as they expect nowadays.

I guess another question would be at what point do you not consider it reliable enough. I guess your perspective would depend on your knowledge level, experience, and what you can afford in terms of firearms and how much you can afford to test them.

[WBower]

On my brand new new P30 LEM I will feel comfortable that the weapon has sufficient reliability for carry after 500 +/- rounds of ball, and 20-40 rounds of JHP carry ammo. I think that while this may prove the mechanical soundness of said weapon, it would only be an applicable trial if the gun in question were a duplicate of a weapon which the shooter is already proficient with.

As was stated earlier in the thread, I fully agree with the assessment that 500 rounds is not enough to reach the level of proficiency which one should be at in order to carry the piece for defensive purposes.

I know for me personally after coming from a M&P9C with a DCAEK to V2 LEM trigger no way would I feel comfortable enough about my competency level to carry the pistol after a mere 5 or 6 hundred rounds down the pipe. Maybe after 1000 - 1500 rounds and successfully passing the numerous timed standardized drills would I consider myself "ready" with the new pistol. YMMV and all that...

[LittleLebowski]

Great first post, WBower. I may have to start a thread using that as inspiration.

[cdunn]

I just want to +1 this about ten thousand times.

yeah, I'll shoot it until I feel confident with myself being able to run the gun efficiently not so much a round count, I mean most guns are going to go bang that I buy,I'm beyond buying something that might or might not work.And I'm a slow learner so most likely several hundred before that happens.

[JodyH]

The thread is reliability not competency, two COMPLETELY different subjects.

[Frank B]

I consider a gun as reliable for ccw/duty, if the gun passes a two day shooting class without malfunctions. If the gun require a break in period, the class should happen after that.

[cdunn]

The thread is reliability not competency, two COMPLETELY different subjects.

maybe I was unclear.with me both happen about the same time with something new,several hundred rds. no set amount.

[JodyH]

maybe I was unclear.with me both happen about the same time with something new,several hundred rds. no set amount.

I wasn't addressing your post specifically, but addressing several posts that were adding competency in to the discussion.
I have around 20k rounds through a P2000 over the past 6 months and have become fairly competent with that platform.
If tomorrow I bought another P2000 or another P2000Sk I'd be 100% comfortable with the new pistols RELIABILITY after a couple magazines of carry ammo and a field strip cleaning and inspection.
My experience with the platform and H&K's reputation are what gives me the confidence in a low round count to establish reliability.
I feel the same way about 2nd and 3rd Gen Glocks.
I'd carry a 3rd Gen Glock 19 with zero reservations after 25 rounds of carry ammo and a field strip inspection.
If I went out and bought a Springfield 1911 it'd be a different story, I can shoot a 1911 but I don't inherently trust the platform.

[MDS]

The thread is reliability not competency, two COMPLETELY different subjects.

I don't know if they're completely different. I know I was causing failures to lock back on empty because of my grip on my USPc. I became more competent with training and practice, and now that pistol reliably locks back. While that doesn't reflect on the purely mechanical reliability of the USPc, you could argue that operator error is just one more source of malfunction. I agree with you - in the absence of operator error, reliability is all about the gun, not the user. But it seems worthwhile to consider competency as some part of the overall reliability equation.