No trust in a gun for CC

[gman51]

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.

 

[dr. mordo]

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.

 

[steelslaver]

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.

 

[Whitwabit]

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 .. ..

 

[Jim1392]

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

 

[oink]

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?

 

[Yankeeshooter]

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.

 

[one eye joe]

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.

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......

 

[swsig]

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.

 

[BigSky!]

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.

 

[andyo5]

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.

 

[jim lock]

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

 

[lkabug]

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

 

[gman51]

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.

 

[Wise_A]

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.

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?

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.

 

[fredj338]

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.

 

[BC38]

,,,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...

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.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

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.

 

[one eye joe]

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.

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.......

 

[slabside2]

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.