When do you decide not to trust a gun for concealed defense?

I think whenever a new gun with less than 300 rounds through it fails to function then it is time to go. I'll get it fixed by factory warranty and then after a quick test the gun gets sold. I have had two new semi autos in 9mm that met this rejection. Kel-Tec PF9 and Ruger LS9c which are much a like to each other.

Both guns the triggers failed to reset after shooting less than 300 rounds through them. The factory replaced dang near everything in the Kel-Tec gun and I sold it after making sure it did function. The Ruger LS9c semi auto had the same problem but only had a few things replaced by Ruger. I haven't sold it yet but I sure don't have much faith in it to be used as a concealed carry defense gun.

A Ruger Match Champion 357 failed with less than 300 rounds also. The trigger and cylinder both locked up. Ruger replaced the pawl and sent it back to me. It failed again with less than 70 rounds through it this time. Ruger fixed it and sent it back to me. It functioned correctly the second time back. I have to say Ruger has one if the not the best customer service.

Any new gun that has a total failure like these had are totally unacceptable quality control. I think new model guns need a much longer testing before they are offered for sale. Now guns are made as quick as possible and out the door they go.

I am not saying all guns like these are made poorly but I sure got some lemons. I don't buy handguns to end up making lemonade with. They are dependable or they have to go.

Personally I feel any manufacturer that states their guns need a break in period are a joke. So if one of their guns fail within the break in period that is expected and acceptable? I just wonder if I called them about a gun failure would they ask me if I have shot it the suggested 500 round break in period? LOL Will they tell me call back after I met the break in period?

I know I might get flamed over this but I just think quality is lacking these days. I am reading about poor quality in many brands of new guns. That's just wrong. Granted there are thousands of guns made without problems but those won't get me dead.

I don't consider an auto broken in until it has at least 300 rounds thru it. Most problems during that break-in period I would excuse as part of the break-in.

Double action triggers (both auto and revolver) I typically dry fire several hundred times before I consider them broken in.

That said, I have gotten to the point where it's hard for me to trust any auto. From what I've read, the vast majority of civilian "gunfights" are resolved in 5-6 shots, so I'm confident my pair of revolvers will be enough to get me out of there.

While I think there is a loss of professionalism in the assembly Dept. I don't believe a gun that failed once in the initial 300 rounds should be dismissed. No need the problem is positively isolated and repairs are max and it checks out it should be as reliable as any other with the same round count. But YOU must believe in it, when it counts would be a poor time to have any doubts. Only you can decide to trust a gun.

For me the number is 400 to 500 trouble free rounds down range ..

I've seen auto's which would not shoot a certain manufactured round but does ok by all others so a learning curve on the ammo may be needed on some auto's when being first broken in ..

Both my 2 Sigs and S&W have yet to have a failure .. both with several thousand rounds .. ..

I feel comfortable after running 300 rounds through any gun that I'm going to carry.

My 669, bought right after they came out, had to be sent back early on under warranty. It has performed flawlessly through untold number of rounds and abuse ever since.

My 629 bought new in the mid 80s had to be sent back twice under warranty. When they finally got it right it has been rock solid through thousands of rounds since.

Smiths leaving the factory with less than perfect quality control is not new. It also doesn't mean they can't be reliable when properly fixed.

If a gun fails during break in I'm going to have to double the break in period before I'm confident with it. It helps to reload.

1911s are notorious for needing a break-in. I can live with that. Break-ins can be fun.

The econo RIA officers model has amazed me with it's out of box reliability. I think they give up a little accuracy for that but they still have good combat accuracy.

If I need to make a 100 yrd handgun shot I'll take my old 6" 629, although my newer Glock model 40 may have potential, but it hasn't passed that break-in period to have gained my confidence yet. But it is a Glock so I expect it will. I need more 10mm brass.

A gun needing break-in shouldn't be malfunctioning much during break-in. If it is then something else is going wrong. A revolver shouldn't need a break-in to work but it sure may need a break-in to be very shootable.

What was the topic again?

Sometimes I'll trade in a non-player on the way home from the range. I don't like to do it that way, since I prefer to clean anything before I sell it. Best example: 70s era HiPower that I couldn't shoot worth a pickle. I traded it on the way home for a mint 15-3. I bought a Model 50 from Cabela's and the coil spring bound up. They tried to fix it, couldn't and the gun was gone. Another 15-3 was real cranky: loose ejection rod and cylinder binding even after it was tightened. Sold. Beretta 84 trigger return spring broke. Replaced spring and sold, despite it being a sweet .380.
Life is too short to stay invested in firearms that don't function perfectly. Or that don't suit ME perfectly.

AS I HAVE POSTED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, IMHO---THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR QUALITY CONTROL HAS BEEN SHIFTED FROM S&W, TO THE END USERS OF THEIR PRODUCTS. IT MUST BE CHEAPER TO PAY FOR SHIPPING AND REPAIRS UNDER WARRANTY, THAN TO INSPECT EVERY SINGLE REVOLVER, BEFORE IT LEAVES THE FACTORY....

EVIDENTLY, THAT BUSINESS MODEL HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY RUGER AND OTHERS......

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

I will not carry a gun until it shoots at least 200 rounds of a single brand of self-defense ammo without a failure. My main carry gun is an M&P 40c that met that test, and had only four failures in its first 8,500 rounds, one of which was ammo-induced. It then experienced a series of light strikes, which resulted in a trip back to S&W. They replaced every internal part except the extractor, and it came back good as new. But I didn't start carrying it again until it went through my SD ammo testing. It currently has 12,500 rounds on it with no failures since its return, so it's now back as my every day carry.

What did I carry while my 40c was under repair? My Shield .45. I initially experienced multiple failures to feed (as did many other owners), but I otherwise liked it so much, I kept it, hoping things would improve. Fortunately, S&W solved the problem by redesigning the magazine follower. After installing the new followers, my Shield .45 passed the 200 SD round test easily, so when my 40c needed service, I knew I had a reliable backup EDC.

I know that shooting 200 or more SD rounds before ever carrying a gun is expensive, but I figure it's cheap relative to what my life is worth, and a great way to ensure that I have an EDC I can count on.

__________________
What, me worry?

Truth be told, you have to establish a personal comfort level. Look at all of the internet talk about any gun. You will see people advocate for 100, 200, 300....., 1000, etc., rounds for "break in". You will see all ranges of round count failures from single digits to approaching 1000+ rounds. There is no right answer. The fact of the matter is that for every single, subsequent, violent action of the slide which happens upon firing, wear occurs. Each subsequent shot is more likely to cause a mechanical failure than the previous. Each subsequent shot causes more wear, even if ever-so-slight, than the immediately prior shot. That's a fact. There is no "correct" answer. With the benefit of hindsight, you will know at the round count of your failure, you should have stopped breaking it in multiple rounds before that. Hopefully, your "break in" does not stop just one round prior to failure. We can never be that precise. We just have to establish our own comfort level and personal feel.

I sold as Kahr 45 ACP because it treated me to several different failure modes before I had even fired 300 rounds. I believe the model designation was CW45.

I don't think there are any guarantees any weapon will not malfunction. However we can help eliminate some some potential problems. Clean weapon, oiled, magazines checked, ammo check ( I've guys check ammo every which way before a match), as far as break-in I personally shoot my CCW alot. I shoot lights reloads for practice and end up with my carry rounds. If i'm depending on it for protection, I'm dam well going to shoot it. No 300 rd. "safe queen" in a holster for me.
JMHO Jim

I gotta have 300 to 400 rounds down range with no mishaps.

My point is not how many rounds should I shoot through a gun before deciding it is dependable for carry. My point is there are far to many new guns having serious malfunctions that the guns have to be sent back to the factory. I stand by my belief that guns shot under 500 rounds having serious failure should not be happening. Either poor machining or materials, or quality control at each step of the building process is causing these failures. I guess with the cost of labor and production time for greater quality control just can't be paid for with the cost of the guns these days. A $350 semi auto would probably cost over $500 in order to pay costly quality control. Perhaps like was said above make them quick and get them sold then let the buyers inform us of the defective guns.

I just wonder were guns made 30 years ago of better quality than guns produced today? I guess that is a stupid question. Was a defective new gun almost unheard of 30 years ago?

I have a 40 year old Marlin model 60 that goes bang with every pull of the trigger but friend's new Remlin Model 60 is a jamamatic. I guess I answered my own questions.

I'm going to have to disagree.

People have become spoiled. The fact of the matter is that new guns work well straight out of the box that we've come to expect such things.

Not long ago, anybody seriously considering a semiautomatic for self-defense would purchase a pistol, and without even firing a shot, immediately pass it to their gunsmith to be made reliable.

The only difference between then and now is that back then, a lemon was usually a private matter between buyer and gun dealer. Nowadays, every moron that feeds his new $300 pistol Wally-World Tula steel-case 9mm while riding the slide stop immediately takes to the internet to describe what an unreliable hunk of junk it is when it jams twice in a session.

I think guns made today are wildly better than the "good" old days. Are they as good-looking? No. Are the triggers and actions as nice? Nope.

But--I just ordered a rifle online. I paid $360 (free shipping, no tax!), and I have every expectation of it producing a sub-MOA group.

I can remember, in my lifetime--which is nowhere near as long as some here--sub-MOA rifles being spoken of in mystical reverence, with price tags in the $1500-$2500 range.

That's progress.

---

As to the OP--when is a pistol unreliable for carry? Dunno, but I know it when I see it. I think it's less about how many malfunctions, as what they are, and whether they're easily repeatable.

For instance, I recently saw a newish Sig P365 fail-to-fire twice--pretty clear there's an issue, and when I went home and Google'd, sure enough there's a recall.

Other times, I've been able to suggest changes in technique or modest repairs, like new recoil springs.

If a new gun runs 100% on 200rds of ball ammo, all my mags, I am gtg. Then I run a full mag, each carry mag at speed with my carry ammo. Imo, malfs show up sooner than later, at least in a quality gun.
If a gun fails, 1st check ammo then mags. Any gun can fail at any time, especially if you shoot it a lot, stuff breaks. I have 100% confidence in any handgun I carry, still **** happens. One of my 1911 has over 40k rds with the only malfs being ammo or mag related.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

LS9C? Never heard of that one. At first I thought you just got your fingers crossed. Until I saw that you typed it that way twice.

I presume you mean LC9S?

FWIW, I have an LC9 (first gen) and love it. I carry it daily. No problems with it at all - ever.

I had a Glock 23 in .40S&W that ran 5000 rounds before I even cleaned it. I don't have it anymore because I just couldn't get invested in it and didn't like the grip. There are all sorts of reasons to get rid of a gun.

__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36

I FULLY ENDORSE YOUR OUTLOOK swsig. THE FACT THAT AN EDC FIRED 5,000 ROUNDS OR RNFMJ AMMO, WILL NOT IMPACT YOUR SITUATION IF YOUR GUN DOES NOT RUN RELIABLY, WITH YOUR FLYING ASHTRAY SD AMMO, WHEN THE SHTF.......

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

I went through just about all the little 9mm semi autos out there and all had some kind of issues. I Bought a brand new Ruger LC9s the first shot the trigger stuck back.....until I bought a Glock 43 DONE! Oh yea the Sheild was fine I just didn’t care fo it. Break in’s are a waste of time and money. The gun should function right out of the box. Sure you test it to sure it’s fine but that’s it.

My Dan Wesson 1911 required a break-in period, and the instructions even said to clean and heavily lube every 50 rounds up to 400 or so. I have no problem with this, and didn't start carrying it until it had gone through the process. It's made to tolerances that are tight enough to need a bit of wear before being fully dependable, and I knew that before I bought it. The only actual malfunction it had during the break-in was due to a cheap non-factory magazine, so it all worked out just fine.

My Ruger 1911 didn't need such babying, and has never had a problem (other than the front sight snapping off while shooting ), and that's because it wasn't nearly as tight to begin with. It shoots fine, but isn't as accurate as the Wesson, for obvious reasons.

I've never owned a Kimber 1911, but have been told by some who do that if one calls their customer service due to a malfunction, they will indeed ask how many rounds have been fired, and will pretty much ignore you until the break-in is done. It may be that Wesson would do the same, but I haven't had to call, so I don't know.

It used to be that new cars came with instruction on engine break-in-- it's the same idea: Tight tolerances, and a bit of wear will help prevent failure.

On the revolver side of life, I'd agree that it should work right out of the box and continue to do so, although the trigger will improve with a bit of wear as well.

Should a gun require a break-in? Depends on the level of precision with which it was made. I sure wouldn't buy, say, a Colt Gold Cup and expect to be able to carry it right away.

With semis, I like to run them for 1000 rounds to include some carry ammo before I am confident in carrying them. With revolvers, I am usually comfortable after a couple hundred, with some carry ammo. I should mention that all of my revolvers are greater than ten years old.

I’ve never understood any manufacturer that recommended a 200 round break-in BEFORE the gun was reliable when I can buy one that is reliable right away. If I buy a gun that needs to go back for repair I normally sell it too b/c I’ve lost confidence in it.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

I include myself in that equation along with the gun. Like rolling dice, previous performance doesn't mean anything regarding future performance. Will I freeze/choke/miss, even if the gun works fine? Regarding the gun, be it a semi or revolver there is always a possibility of a bad primer, or a mechanical failure HOWEVER SLIM. ANY ftf/jam would be a major concern. When a mfg states there is a 300 break in period, I wouldn't start to worry before then. Plus 1 for a close inspection of the gun & ammo prior to CC with special attention on high primers & smooth loaded cylinder rotation for revo's and a plunk/feed/extract test for semi's.

On 1911s, it's because of how they fit the slide. There are lots of good techniques that result in good function out of the box. The problem is that they're very time-consuming, can be mucked-up, and require a good bit of skill.

Then there are methods that, well, aren't any of those things, but result in a very tight slide until the pistol is broken-in. But once they're broken-in, they shoot decently. The problem is that you shouldn't be relying on a tight slide-to-frame fitting to try and make the gun shoot any better. It's not like wear suddenly stops after 200 or 500 rounds. The end result is a pistol that just doesn't last as long.

I don't give it much thought and certainly don't attach an arbitrary rounds count to it. Either the gun works or it does not.

A friend took the plunge and bought a 9 mm Shield. After a couple hundred rounds the pistol locked up and would not function. He sent it back to S&W and they fixed it. Apparently some little wire spring jumped out of place. He still packs that pistol ... I would have dumped it!!!

Another friend had the same thing happen with a Ruger LCP, that gun was fixed but isn't carried anymore.

Murphy is always there next to you, better safe than sorry.

I have carried an LCP for many years. If it were to vanish I wouldn't hesitate to carry one of the six remaining pistols in my safe.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

If it jams one time and it’s not clearly an ammo fault, the gun is out.

Personally, almost every semi I have purchased brand new has had a FTF of some kind in the first hundred rounds. This includes multiple Glocks, SIGs, Taurus, Walthers, and others I can't think of. I think the only semi-autos I have had that did not malfunction during their break-in were the Glock 43 I had but sold after about 200 rounds, my Tristar C100 (CZ75 copy), and my Para 1911 Expert Commander. One other problem-free break-in was a buddy's Kimber 1911. He got it years back after coming home from a deployment, put it away and forgot about it. He rediscovered it, and knowing I was a "gun guy" loaned it to me for a range session. I ran 200 rounds of a few different brands of ammo thru it without a single hiccup.

Does that mean those last four are better made than my Glock 19, 26, 36, or 42? All of them besides the G26 became reliable after the initial break-in. The G26 was completely unreliable until I upgraded the extractor system. It was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever owned.

I'm a firm believer in the break-in period, and wouldn't consider carrying a semi-auto, regardless of manufacturer, without running it thru its paces.

That said, I have also had perfect functional semi-auto pistols start acting up out of nowhere, which is why I carry revolvers 99% of the time.

I agree with gman51: a good quality gun shouldn't need a break-in period. My Sigs have run great from day one & haven't missed a beat.

My advice, especially if a gun might be used to save your life -bipedal or wild beast- is always buy the best quality you can afford.

I've never experienced a problem with an S&W semi. They were 100% from the first shot.

Were I able, I'd buy an S&W Performance Center 3" 1911 9MM in a heartbeat with complete confidence in its reliability from its first shot.

My 26 is almost frustratingly reliable! Completely stock, and it happily digests low-recoil ammo that gives my 34--which has a reduced-power recoil spring--complete fits!

Much like today the S&Ws and Colts from the 1970s and 80s sometimes had issues. I owned a number of S&Ws from that time. Some were excellent but I guess maybe 10% of these guns major functional issues that should have been obvious to someone with even rudimentary QA skills. Don't even get me started on the Colt Government Model problems I had back then.

In the last year I have purchased two Rugers and my wife bought a Model 67 about two years ago. I would much prefer these three guns to some of those clunkers that I owned in the 70s or 80s. Do I think that the newer guns are better than the old ones? I am not sure.

I think what I would do is understand that there are going to be some bad guns and some good ones. Get rid of the dogs. Then when I found one that shoots good and I liked, hang on to it forever.

From my experiences a good 92 F or Glock are good to go after any initial shooting to familiarize oneself w the weapon, they are rock stock reliable ammo type is a non-issue IMO. 1911's I have one new Government model & no I don't trust it yet...needs mucho more rounds & trust building but it sure shoots great! My EDC is a Glock 27 & I trust it 100% as well as my Berettas.

I don’t trust any mass manufactured, QC compromised, off the assembly line gun to be used stock for self defense.

Somewhere way north of 95% of them function reliably with all ammo.

Some are finicky with ammo.

A very few are lemons, often because of one out-of-spec part, or some stacking of tolerance limits. Sometimes a part was assembled incorrectly, be it a spring, a pin, or whatever.

Guns are machines with complex moving parts designed by people with a profit motive. Cheaper materials (MIM) assembled by less skilled folks with fewer meaningful checks sometimes produce a substandard gun.

Given an out-the-door <$650 gun is not custom fitted with high quality parts, careful assembly and rigorous proof firing, including accuracy, I feel an obligation to prove or even improve my new gun, often even before I shoot it.

Why?

I want my gun to function perfectly right from the beginning. I have had many new guns hiccup in the first 200 rounds. That doesn’t take me back to the zero confidence I have for an unproven gun—it takes me below that confidence level because now I know it is not reliable for EDC. Now the proofing will take even longer. Stress.

So, I detail strip and clean a new gun, inspecting each part for quality, function, finish, fit. Knowing a part is MIM, I’ll just replace it with steel. If a mating part benefits from being smooth, I polish it, and that is a lot of parts. Yes, I sometimes use a Dremel; other times 800 or 1000 grit wet/dry sandpaper by hand. I polish the inside of the barrel with bore paste to get rid of tiny machining burrs. I remove sharp corners and edges. I may enhance the grip.

I may install aftermarket parts that are superior to OEM parts so the gun will be even more reliable, accurate, shootable for me.

I coat the parts with oil that bonds to the metal and put it in a low temp oven for 20 minutes. I reassemble with grease everywhere there are moving parts.

This takes me 3-5 hours depending on the gun and my familiarity with it. I call it bonding. In truth, for a small investment in parts and materials, I am effectively turning a $450 OEM gun into a $1200 custom gun that will shoot more comfortably, reliably and accurately for me from the first shot onward.

Never had a failure because everything is run through extensive dry firing, including with dummy rounds, before live firing. I know and can feel the gun. Yep, I still test it live fire for ~200 ball rounds and then 50 of my carry load.

I hear those of you who say this should not be necessary. I hear if you experience a problem (very unlikely) send it back. BTDT. It’s aggravating, out of my control, often doesn’t work when returned, and you rarely actually find out what they did to fix it. And it takes a silly long time. If a cheap failed part is replaced with another cheap part, what’s gonna happen? If a guy has to repair X guns a day to catch up with the backlog, and he’s the newest guy on the line anyway, has your quality improved—or maybe decreased?

I enjoy getting to know a new gun intimately, and I have an increased pride in ownership because of the way it feels and shoots accurately and reliably. It’s worth it to me.

AUTO-Couple hundred rounds to find the ammo the gun likes, good cleaning, couple hundred more, good cleaning, repeat until 500-700 rounds 100% reliable. THEN, I'll trust the gun and hope the QA/QC of the ammo doesn't go bad. REVOLVER-simply a matter of building trust in your ammo.(BTW, all I'll carry in a defensive handgun is Hornady ).

__________________
John

Agree but for a tuned 1911. They will require a certain amount of losing to reach max reliability imo. Correct, any modern pistol design should be gtg out of the box once cleaned & lubed. Now whether it feeds your chosen jhp ammo is another story all together.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

See I have had the opp exp. Except for a tuned 1911, every pistol I have was 100% out of the box with ball ammo, without exception. Clean it, lube it, shoot it, they should all work with ball ammo. JHP, find one that runs 100% regardless of the current "best",

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Unlike most here, I require a gun to go at least 500 rounds without being cleaned and no failures of any kind before I'll carry it.

This one passed...


It is sitting on the 749 spent casings I fired that day. I got it home, field stripped it, lubed it and went to the range. Unfortunately one of the rounds was damaged during manufacture so it wouldn't go into the chamber. Otherwise it would have been 750.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Been threw that right now with a Springfield X D S 45. I am with those 250 rounds flawless is a go for me for carry. The Springfield would not feed a full magazine till 500. After that it was good till last trip went back to no feed no fire. I called Springfield when I bought it 3 years ago. I got the you need to run 1000 rounds threw it sir for break end. I called after 200 real rough rounds. I then said so when can I expect the 800 break in round to get to my adress ? Dead pin drop from other end of phone. I knew after that call I made a unwise buy. Never again Springfield

__________________
Spin The Wheel

I purposely mix every kind of ammo I can come up with, and am comfortable with it at the 200 round mark. If it won't eat 'em, it's gone. I seem to fall in love with a lot of them after the first mag. Some, are just too ugly to keep!

I just picked up one of the police trade-in USP .40s that Summit was listing. I figure a couple hundred rounds for this one, as it should have been fired in quals quite a bit.

On cleaning it I noticed there was a little lint behind the hammer which tells me it was carried, but after field stripping it I found the insides look absolutely new. No wear on the rails and just the faintest outline where the barrel meets the slide.

Would a cop take a new gun, chamber a round, holster it, and go on patrol? Seriously, that's how good the insides look.

EDIT to add: Once I get a couple hundred rounds through it, and assuming no failures, I will test fire a box of the Underwood rounds I plan to load it with, then I will add it to the carry lineup.

Attached Images

USP01.jpg (178.3 KB, 10 views)

Yes, it happens all the time. I know many that have done just that.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I have several Ed Brown's and have never had any failures in anyone of them.

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

Any new firearm goes through a good cleaning, inspection, and lube before it hits the range. And factory grease is not your friend, especially in the striker channel. It’s there as a preservative not a lubricant. Then it gets a diet of 200-300 rds of decent brass cased fmj’s and a couple of mags of sd ammo.
I feel lucky so far to have no lemons, hope it continues.