Originally Posted by
Sanch
As a type 2 diabetic I'm familiar with the glycemic index of foods whereby it's measured from 0 to 100 where 100 is by definition, just pure raw sugar since you can't get sweeter than that!
I have been interested in the concept of "reliable enough" because of the crop of pistol caliber carbines like the Ruger PCC. I hear mixed reviews about reliability. Previously I was interested in the Keltec Sub 2000 guns but also heard mixed reviews about reliability. Many people swear by them, but I'm not sure if they are "reliable enough" for me.
If I apply the glycemic index to guns, perhaps a 3rd gen Glock or a good Combloc AK would be 100. Not that they are perfect and they can certainly have a malfunction but they seem to be the pinnacle of reliability in modern guns, at least in my limited personal experience and what the common wisdom of a lot of the internet community seems to be. And I know a lot of people hate Glocks and reliability may have decreased over time since the third gen. I'm not trying to argue Glocks and AKs are the best, just using them as an example to describe my idea for a framework.
Perhaps a good AR might fall in the 95 to 99 range. For me, using good ammo and good mags I'd rate my AR experience at around 99 on this arbitrary reliability scale with AK at 100. Personally, I prefer ARs to AKs because reliability isn't the only metric I'm concerned with. Accuracy and usability are also important the AR is vastly superior to the AK than me. I don't mean to turn this into an AK versus AR thread, the community here seems very reasonable to know both are good. I like both.
From what I've read about the Ruger PCC, maybe that falls around 80 to 90 on this scale. I'm just making numbers up. I don't mean that to be it jams 10% to 20% of the time. But I don't think the "reliability index" should refer to malfunction rate, because then the AK might be 99.999% and the AR might be 99.99% and the Ruger PCC might be 99.9% reliable. Meaning the AK might jam 1 in 100k, the AR might jam 1 in 10k and the Ruger PCC might jam 1 in 1,000. But, those numbers are not as easy to compare in that linear scale, as compared too using something like a logarithmic scale where the difference of 10 units is 100x more or less reliable.
All of these numbers are arbitrary. I really don't care if you think ARs are more reliable than AKs. It would have to be tested scientifically to know for sure. What I do care about is the question of "what is reliable enough?"
If the Ruger PCC jams 1 in 1000 times, is it reliable to use for home defense? That's pretty damn good odds that you'll survive without a jam. But the stakes are high (death). I think that's Claude Werners line, it's not the odds, it's the stakes.
My concern with the Ruger PCC reviews (And I don't mean to turn this into a Ruger bashing thread either, just using it as an example for the concept I'd like to discuss), is that it has a small break in period, and then works great for a few thousand rounds, and then starts to malfunction. So what if it's working great, flawless, and you need to use it for a self defense scenario at the margin where it starts to malfunction due to whatever mechanical reason the guns seem to be malfunctioning at higher round counts?
The Beretta 1301 is very interesting to me. Semi auto shotguns didn't catch my interest for a long time because they were thought to be less reliable. However, the 1301s are reported to be extremely reliable. Not perfect. Maybe a 95 to 99 on my arbitrary reliability index? But to the point where the liklihood of operator error by short stroking a pump action (that might be 100 on the reliability scale) exceeds the liklihood of mechanical failure of the 1301, so you're better off with a 1301.
By all accounts, the 1301 is "reliable enough" according to SMEs. The Ruger PCC, I'm not sure. It seems the jury is still out.
Rather than bash any particular gun, I'm curious to develop a mental framework for what "reliable enough" means that I can apply for the next 50 years to new guns as they come out. Does it just involve some type of standardized test like the Military SOCOM test shooting X rounds in Y time frame under Z conditions without failure? Is it purely subjective, because maybe the AR is marginally less reliable than the best AK, but most would still choose the AR because the shortcomings of the AK platform on other fronts do not make up for the very small reliability increase and quite frankly the AR is "reliable enough" so the marginal increase to reliability of the AK doesn't really matter?
What is the minimal level of reliability a gun must have for you to say it's good enough?
Reply With Quote