What To Do With A Broken Gun

If something broke they will likely check everything else out. I would trust it.

Snyper said:

100, 300, 500, a few hundred...........

It seems many like to pick an arbitrary number that magically ensures reliability, when I imagine the gun that broke had met those numbers.

Any mechanical device can break at any time, and more use makes it more likely.

Click to expand...

Exactly...Just because it worked the last time doesn't mean it will the next time. Sometimes you need a little faith. In the OP's case, I would likely shoot a mag or two and put the gun back in service.

Just like you would drive a vehicle to its operating temp for 20-30 minutes to check the function of a new water pump.

Unless I know what broke and why; no I would not trust it.

Most firearms, unlike motor vehicles are simple enough to figure out for the most part anyway however some firearm repairs need special skills and/or tools to properly do the job.

You can know what is wrong with it but not have the skills and or tools for the repair.

With something like a firearm that is carried for personal defense I would want a basic understanding of how it works and will not be comforted by someone telling don't worry I will take of it.

I would want a report of what part/parts failed and why as well as whether the cause of the malfunction is known or unkown.

After all is said and done I would want to put a lot of rounds through it at the range to make sure it functions well.

I'd trust it.

Things wear and break. If you're handy with mechanics you can do a bit of preventive maintainence and check for signs of wear, but somethings things will break down unexpectedly. It's inevitable with enough rounds out of the gun, or with enough miles on a car.

If it's been factory repaired - test it, if it works fine, you're good to go. Will it break down again? Sure will, with enough use. Everything will at some point. 100% reliability is a nice ideal, but understand that it's something impossible to reach in reality.

Good grief. It's just a gun. Get it fixed. Test it a few rounds, your choice of how many, and go on about your business.

It's not cursed or anything. It just broke.

Even Rolls-Royce dealers have a service department.

Fix it. Shoot it. Carry it.

A recurring theme I've seen among trainers is 250 trouble-free rounds for new guns.
A similar standard for a repaired unit would seem to be a reasonable level of prudence.

If a unit was returned from repair with a report like "No problem found" as opposed to "parts replaced included..." I would be much more concerned.

If you trusted the company to build it right the first time, why wouldn't you trust them to fix it?

The problem I have with "no problem found" is that many times this determination seems to be made with a somewhat limited number of firings by the repairing agency.

Which may be perfectly fine, if you have a fault that typically occurs quite frequently.

But not all faults happen on an "every other round" basis, or "last round in the magazine" basis.

Granted, a repair agency has a limited amount of time to work test firings in, so running a hundred or more rounds through a gun isn't always feasible. I get that.


Case in point, I have a bolt action .22WMR rifle that fired cases occasionally tend to get stuck in the firing chamber. They won't eject when I operate the bolt and have to be tapped out with a cleaning rod. No, it doesn't appear to be the ejector. Yes, when the cases are stuck, they are rather firmly stuck. (I wouldn't call them "jammed". Just "tight".)

I took a box of 50 rounds with the rifle to a gunsmith, described my problem to him, and asked him to check it out. Told him he could use up the entire box of ammo, no problem. If he did, he would be SURE to have several instances of the problem.

I came back a week later and he handed me the rifle back. Didn't have any problems at all. Gave me back the 50 round box of ammo with ONE round missing.

ONE ROUND. He used ONE ROUND to determine the rifle didn't have any problems with a fault I described as NOT occurring every time, but frequently enough that a box of 50 would show several instances of.

I never took a gun back to him to be looked at again. Nice guy and all, but...


(Yes, I've changed ammo. Yes, I'm going to change the ejector. But none of my other .22 WMR rifles ever had fired cases this tight in the chamber.)

You can trust it. The XD is normally a very solid pistol. 5,000 rounds isn't a massive number but I've heard of Glocks and various other tough brands breaking in the first few hundred or thousand rounds too.

I've had a couple of hand springs break on Dan Wesson revolvers, all of them bought used, so I don't know their histories. I'm guessing they were "tweaked" and that caused them to fail. I had a hand break on my Python. I trusted them all when they were fixed. I can pretty fix any and all problems on DW small framed revolvers. I have a lot of parts that have been sitting for years, waiting for something to break, but never get used. A few of them have come out and gone into a gun, just to pretty them up, but except for the two hand springs, a main spring to replace one that had been trimmed, they just don't break. At least so far. I hope I haven't jinxed myself now..

There must not be any military veterans here that have been in real combat. If you break a gun, you turn it in and get another one right?
Would you, as a common ass grunt trust it? I don't think our soldiers run to their superior and tell them they don't trust it.

5,000 seems low. Find out which part broke, my guess is a spring, and see if Wolf or another reputable company offers a replacement.
I think a more accurate analogy would be a brake repair on your auto. A part failed that is not scheduled replacement for a long time yet. At what point do you prepare to hit the emergency/parking brake every time you stop? If your temperament is such that you will always think of it, sell and get a different one after competent repair.

for some reason or another, this question just ticked me off a tad bit; "What To Do With A Broken Gun", i own and carry three different pistols, not at the same time, one is a 1911A1 Gvmt. issue that i bought from a WWII navigator in a B-17 about 45 years ago, it has never broken or failed in any way during that time, another is my 30 y.o. "Baby Eagle" 9mm, never a failure, next is my 20 (?) y.o. SIG 9mm Navy SEAL commemorative, E.D.C., even at home, in my shop, yard work etc., i have never had to use one in defense, just general practice and plinking..., NEVER a failure to feed, fire or fit.

how many of you experience failures in your handguns ?
how often ?
what broke/failed ?

If you shoot enough, youre going to have failures, I dont care what it is youre shooting either. Everything Ive shot on a regular basis, has had a failure of some sort, at some point. Thats why you should be regularly practicing your IAD's.

Ammo is usually the culprit for most of the failures, but, over time, sometimes things do break. Most of my problems these days come from worn out brass due to constant reloading. Newer lots generally arent an issue, and older lots tend to give random and varying stopages, which are actually a good thing, at least as it relates to practice. You get to practice failure drills without knowing when they will happen, and having to set them up.

As far as parts breakage from use goes, in close to 60 years of regular shooting, the only ones I can recall offhand are, a firing pin in a heavily used and dry fired M1A, a roller retainer clip in a MP5 (gun still worked with it broken too), a sheared off charging knob and failed upper in a MAC from hot SMG ammo, a couple of S&W 940's that locked up, and just recently, a trigger spring in my one Glock 17 (it too would work with the broken part). There are probably a couple more if I sit a ponder it awhile, but those were the only memorable ones. Considering the bazillions of rounds downrange in all those years, Id say Im way ahead.

Quote:
It seems many like to pick an arbitrary number that magically ensures reliability, when I imagine the gun that broke had met those numbers.

Click to expand...

BSA1
Your problem with that is what?

Click to expand...

The "problem" is there is no logic behind it.

If the gun fires the first magazine without malfunctions, it will likely continue to function as long as the ammo performs as it should, and there are no operator errors

Thinking it takes "X number of rounds" to become "reliable" makes little sense.

Snyper said:

The "problem" is there is no logic behind it.

If the gun fires the first magazine without malfunctions, it will likely continue to function as long as the ammo performs as it should, and there are no operator errors

Thinking it takes "X number of rounds" to become "reliable" makes little sense.

Click to expand...

"likely", however, is not "tested".

And that's the whole point, regardless of the number of rounds one settles on for the testing.

This whole voodoo around treating a gun as if it's tainted by evil spirits if it ever hiccups - even after the problem has been resolved - just smacks of nonsense to me.

Fix it, put a couple boxes of ammo through it, and then carry on.

Click to expand...

I absolutely love this statement.

What we are saying is basically your second statement...."Fix it, put a couple boxes of ammo through it, and then carry on."


Then you reply with "This whole voodoo around treating a gun as if it's tainted by evil spirits if it ever hiccups - even after the problem has been resolved - just smacks of nonsense to me."


The only difference is the amount of ammo, for us it's 300, 500, a few hundred, ect. and for you its "a couple boxes"

Snyper said:

The "problem" is there is no logic behind it.

If the gun fires the first magazine without malfunctions, it will likely continue to function as long as the ammo performs as it should, and there are no operator errors

Thinking it takes "X number of rounds" to become "reliable" makes little sense.

Click to expand...

Never taken statistics have you?

There's a whole concept of "sample size". Generally - the larger a sample size, the more accurate of an estimation can be made. If your sample size is one magazine with no failures, then the rate of failure is 0%, but with that small of a sample size you can't be too sure of it.

If you increase your sample size, you increase the validity in that 0% failure rate.

Nothing is ever certain - you could have fired only 17 rounds through it and it'll never jam again in 30,000 rounds - or you MIGHT have fired 25,000 problem free rounds and the very next one is going to jam - but a higher sample size always indicates a greater probability of your estimate.

Lets look at a real life type example: you're given a collection of 1000 comic books from a major comic collector. You pull out the first five and they're all Batman comics. How certain are you that the next one will be an issue of Batman and not say, Superman? Now consider than you've pulled 900 of them instead of 5 - all have been Batman. Isn't it a now much more reasonable to assume the next one will still be Batman?

So it's up to you to determine an effective sample size. I know for me it's definitely more than one magazine.

The "problem" is there is no logic behind it.

Click to expand...

There is logic behind it. See http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=10163036&postcount=76

Carry two guns?

https://youtu.be/YGG2eSOVXHc

There is logic behind it. See http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....6&postcount=76

Click to expand...

Wow!
A whole fraction of a percent of theoretical advantage.

It doesn't change my mind at all

Snyper said:

Wow!
A whole fraction of a percent of theoretical advantage.

It doesn't change my mind at all

Click to expand...

*facepalm*

That "fraction of a percent" started at what...100 rounds, increasing from there?