"I have X number of flawless rounds through Y gun!" But why do we care?

trackskippy said:

Just watch people at the range when something does go wrong and watch what they are doing. $100 says they are standing there staring at the gun with that stupid, deer in the headlights look, instead of immediately remedying the problem and moving on. Your malfunction drills should be as ingrained as anything else you do with the gun, and done immediately without thought.

Click to expand...

I agree for the most part. But sometimes it's prudent to stop; examine and evaluate the cause of a stoppage.

SwampWolf said:

I agree for the most part. But sometimes it's prudent to stop; examine and evaluate the cause of a stoppage.

Click to expand...

I agree. Not every stoppage is the same, and some do require more control on your part, especially with a revolver, as they are much easier to send the next round if you aren't paying attention.

I had a stovepipe in my Commander this morning, and simply swiped it clear and moved on. I know the round went off and it sounded normal, the empty just didn't clear. If it had sounded off, Id have stopped after clearing it and checked. I still always at least go through the motions though.

Slamfire said:

I won't deny, that I am denial most of the time.

However, if you ever get involved in acceptance testing or reliability scoring, the exact cause of the failure is very important. And potentially hazardous to the Quality Assurance representatives health! And when failure definition criteria is developed, the equipment developer wants to define all failure events as "acts of God!"

You are defining failure criteria in your own way. Lets just say, when my spring fails, it is a failure of my gun, the failure of industry, the white establishment, and of course, ultimately, Vladimir Putin. And now we are all good little Progressive Democrats.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are making some sort of point, but I have no idea what it is.

mcb said:

It technically malfunctions on the last round of every magazine but I trust it to work for me when I need it to.

Click to expand...

Second to the last round's a tracer - old school

herrwalther said:

This is partly why I don't keep track of the number of rounds I shoot. Some are easy to remember such as my safe queen commemorative 1911 has fired exactly 42 rounds. Is there something special about that number? No. It is how much 45 I had that day at the range. My oldest carry gun has over 125,000 rounds through it. And that is an estimate based off how many matches I shot with it in college.

Click to expand...

I normally do not keep an accurate round count for most of my firearms. I do it with the Glock G44 since it got a somewhat bad reputation when first released and I am trying to see what it takes to wear one out. I have yet to have any failures caused by the pistol itself to include springs wearing out or parts breaking. While using quality ammo, I have only had a handful of failures to fire due to the primers. Otherwise any malfunction has been shooter induced such as a bad grip.

SwampWolf said:

I agree for the most part. But sometimes it's prudent to stop; examine and evaluate the cause of a stoppage.

Click to expand...

So true, also some people at the range are just shooting for fun! I have guns that I have never and will never do a clearance drill with, because I never carry them and never will.
They are simply to shoot and enjoy, if they jam occasionally I don’t really care. Not every range trip, or every gun, is for practice. Some people apparently never do that, and to be honest that mostly what I do. Fortunately my range is literally my front yard.

Double Naught Spy said:

Some people really don't want to admit that their gun has done something that would be considered less than 100% reliable, which was my point. The recoil spring is part of the operating system of the gun as are the mags, ammo, etc.

Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone here, truly believes that their gun, or any gun for that matter, is 100% reliable. But, being reliable is not always 100%. Even those Timex watches that take a licking and keep on ticking.....fail at some point. Same with that disinfectant that claims to kill 99.9% of germs. Not a 100%, yet still pretty dam reliable. What round count vs failures does, is determine how reliable a firearm is. Then the owner determines if that is reliable enough. Don't matter if it's a field gun, a trap gun or a SD firearm. IMHO, detachable mags are not part of a gun. Many of us have had a gun FTF and the fix was to get a different mag. IMHO, the problem was the mag, not the gun. Same with ammo. Some ammo won't cycle a bottom feeder and some ammo is difficult to eject in a revolver. Change ammo and the gun is fine. Is the problem the gun or the ammo, when a simple change in ammo makes the issue disappear? For the most part, the piece of the puzzle that is most likely to fail or is most unreliable, are the hands it is in, at the time. Far too many times on these forums I read threads where there is a myriad of blame for the wounded deer not being recovered. It's the bullet or the gun or a blade of grass, cause it sure wasn't my poor shot.

If I have some form of failure, for the most part, I want to know why. So I too do not go into full tactical mode and do a WOT clear every time. Maybe there's a bullet stuck in the barrel along with the stovepipe. I have time to check. Sometimes, I know in certain scenarios, or with certain ammo(cheap .22 for example) that I will have issues. While I do practice clearing drills with my SD firearms, I don't see a real need to go all Bruce Willis with my fun range guns loaded with mouse fart loads, because the bolt does not close.

If there is the rare person out there that thinks his gun has never failed or never will fail, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. Maybe he's in denial, maybe he's forgetful or maybe he feels the need to boast. Who cares?

If you dont practice your malfunction drills with some level of realism, how are you going to deal with them when they happen when you need them? If you think they arent ever going to happen at some point, youre deluding yourself.

This isnt about being tactical or cool, its about knowing the gun youre using and to the point of not having to think about working it in a time of need. The skills translate to most of the other guns of the same type too, so its not wasted time or effort, regardless of when it happens and with what.

You dont "have" to do it every time, with everything youre shooting, but why waste the opportunity to stay sharp if and when it presents itself? Especially if you dont get to do it often.

Ive had a few squibs while shooting "quickly", all of them with revolvers, and I have yet to send another round behind it. Knock on wood. Even while moving and shooting quickly, I knew something wasnt right as soon as I pulled the trigger, and knew enough to stop. If youre accustomed to shooting while multitasking, and are paying attention, even if its only in the background, you still know when something isnt right, and its pretty obvious, and you do have the luxury of stopping and checking. And I do that if I feel the need, just after Ive done the clearance drill.

If youre shooting a new gun and having the same repetitive failures, of course, you try and figure out whats going on. If that's whats happening, something isnt right. You should always shoot a new gun until you're comfortable with it running OK. You also have to be realistic about things too, and understand that NOTHING is perfect, for whatever reason, and you need to be prepared to deal with it, if it should stop. You dont get there, if you dont practice that.

If the gun is reasonably well made and youve basically proved it in shooting it in practice, youre likely not going to have any problems with it. Most guns with good ammo are usually pretty/very reliable. Same goes for a duplicate gun you might carry that isnt shot all the time.

Even when I shoot ammo that I know is likely to have a higher rate of failures, the failures are still a much smaller number than all the other "flawless" rounds fired in between. The failures are usually sporadic and unexpected when they happen, and that's the "plus". I learn something from both of them every time I shoot too.

Look, if you think a high round count with no failures is good, great. I dont think youre being realistic in believing that really means anything, but if it makes you happy, youre good. All Im saying is, that those few that give you trouble, especially in a time of need, need ALL of your attention when they do, and if youre not well versed and comfortable in dealing with it, stopping and staring at the gun, isnt a good thing.

buck460XVR said:

I doubt that anyone here, truly believes that their gun, or any gun for that matter, is 100% reliable.

Click to expand...

I don't know if they believe it or not, but they will claim it as a statement of fact by saying their gun never malfunctions. People have claimed this on this forum.

Double Naught Spy said:

I am sure you are making some sort of point, but I have no idea what it is.

Click to expand...

The "system" can be defined in many different ways and your analysis, that regardless of the failure, "the gun is at fault" (basically) is in my opinion, too simplistic.

These documents, easily found, show creating failure definitions is a complicated process, and then from that, it is a lot of work determining the adequacy of a system in meeting purchase requirements:

Draft Failure Definitions and Scoring Criteria for the Gun Safety Technology Challenge

DOT&E Reliability Course 1/10/2018

Just skip everything and get to page 13 which has this title:

Failures come in different levels of severity, which should be clearly defined by the Failure Definition Scoring Criteria

This document, starting Chapter 3, shows the complexity of failure definitions used in evaluating expensive equipment.

Attachment 0009- Failure Definition and Scoring Criteria (FDSC).docx

Slamfire said:

Failures come in different levels of severity, which should be clearly defined by the Failure Definition Scoring Criteria

Click to expand...

...buuut, we can only go as far as BubbaTech!

Double Naught Spy said:

I don't know if they believe it or not, but they will claim it as a statement of fact by saying their gun never malfunctions. People have claimed this on this forum.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's true. My Glock 26 went approximately 5000 rounds without a failure or hiccup of any kind. No "well I blame it on the ammo." No "well, I was riding the slide lock." Nothing. If I hadn't had to sell it due to physical infirmity, I suppose it would have failed at some point, but it didn't while I owned it.

Slamfire said:

The "system" can be defined in many different ways and your analysis, that regardless of the failure, "the gun is at fault" (basically) is in my opinion, too simplistic.

These documents, easily found, show creating failure definitions is a complicated process, and then from that, it is a lot of work determining the adequacy of a system in meeting purchase requirements:

Draft Failure Definitions and Scoring Criteria for the Gun Safety Technology Challenge

DOT&E Reliability Course 1/10/2018

Just skip everything and get to page 13 which has this title:

Failures come in different levels of severity, which should be clearly defined by the Failure Definition Scoring Criteria

This document, starting Chapter 3, shows the complexity of failure definitions used in evaluating expensive equipment.

Attachment 0009- Failure Definition and Scoring Criteria (FDSC).docx

Click to expand...

LOL, AGAIN, bottom line is either the gun had a malfunction, or it ran correctly. The issue of the claim isn't diagnostics, just whether or not it malfunctioned.

Everything breaks, sooner or later.
Even the sun has an expiration date.
Accept that anything that has moving parts will occasionally fail and make plans accordingly.

Double Naught Spy said:

LOL, AGAIN, bottom line is either the gun had a malfunction, or it ran correctly. The issue of the claim isn't diagnostics, just whether or not it malfunctioned.

Click to expand...

For the guy whose boom stick no go bangey, the cause is irrelevant! The rest is semantics.

Slamfire said:

For the guy whose boom stick no go bangey, the cause is irrelevant! The rest is semantics.

Click to expand...

Yea for the most part. As long as the no go bangey part isnt repetitively repetitive.

Might want to look into that.

Well your post seems unnecessarily critical and negative, and it addresses many posts including mine. Some of which are just conversational.

For many of us, it absolutely matters which makes and models seem to be known for reliability in the first 300-1000 rounds, versus those that aren’t. A LOT of guns can’t even meet that requirement and possibly shouldn’t be carried. For many, a reasonable standard is 300 rounds without failure. Then keep shooting it. Because many guns turn out not to be reliable, absolutely it’s a relief when a new acquisition is.

Now, is there an actual point to your post beyond complaining about others’ discussion posts about testing their firearms?

Well, to me a gun that runs extremely reliably is the one I want to have with me when I go out or if I had to defend my home. To not care about a gun's reliability record, doesn't make sense to me. Or it means you're so in love with a particular gun you will overlook its flaws. Reliability is the most important factor in a self defense gun. If its ammo has to be just right, or it has to be super clean to run right, I lose trust in it, and won't count on it to defend my life. I would rather carry a super reliable .22 than a 9mm that can't run 2 or 3 magazines before it jams.

A gun is a machine and nothing more.... it can be made to run flawless.

I work with and build tools that have 100,000 plus part cycles and they run with out a hitch due to their design and proper maintenance.

Guns fails because of 3 things

1. Poor quality ammo(drop check the ammo in gauge and catch it)

2. dirty and no lube ( if it doesn't bleed oil your going to fail)

3. Worn/improper adjusted parts

My 1911 pistols run like Champs because I maintain magizens, extractors and tension, springs, and lube them HEAVY.

yet everyone else in the world says a KIMBER 1911 is a jamomatic

I can't fix stupid

mcb said:

I personally think if you have a gun that has run flawless you probably have not shot it enough and in enough difficult situations. What do you guys think? Does running flawless mean something to you and does a gun's broken flawless streak also mean something to you?

Click to expand...

I think most postings and conversations about this have to do with reliability concerns for a personal protection carry choice.

That every gun will eventually have some problem due to any number of issues is understood by most such people. They just want to be reasonably assured that it's very unlikely for a given firearm, ammunition, and reasonable care/maintenance.

And, of course, they still train on dealing with common issues, like rapidly clearing the weapon of malfunctions and returning to service.

Then, of course, there are always those who purport to have "magic" firearms that never malfunction.

And yes, I silently insert a "yet" in the claims of such people.

Malfunctions WILL occur occasionally, if only because the occasional round from the ammo factory is slightly out of spec on something, like powder charge, bad primer, etc.

Springs wear eventually, magazines have issues, grip screws sometimes loosen/fall out allowing a grip panel to contact the slide, hands get tired/sore resulting in "limp-wristing", etc.

KY DAN said:

yet everyone else in the world says a KIMBER 1911 is a jamomatic

I can't fix stupid

Click to expand...

There is, or at least was a trend there when I had mine, and it was common enough to be common.

And in my case, an early Ultra Carry, even Kimber couldnt seem to fix Kimber. If I still had it, Id give you a run at it. About the only thing it did have going for it, was it was pretty.

Some may view it as "bragging" but for others, it's helpful feedback to those that may be considering the model being referenced as one that has potential to be reliable and trustworthy. Granted the opposite can happen as well, wherein someone uses bad ammo or accessories (mags) or uses bad handling practices and reports the pistol as being a piece of junk, when there's really nothing wrong with it at all. Factors have to weighed across a range of user reports.

buck460XVR said:

I doubt that anyone here, truly believes that their gun, or any gun for that matter, is 100% reliable.

Click to expand...

The three guns mentioned in my post have been 100% reliable for me. As I pointed out, I have no idea if the 400 and C-96 were reliable for their previous owners.

buck460XVR said:

If there is the rare person out there that thinks his gun has never failed or never will fail, so be it.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm that rare person, insofar as the "has never failed" part goes. The three guns I mentioned have never failed to function perfectly for me. Maybe all three will blow up tomorrow, but for now, they have a perfect record.