Expected Frequency of Failure in function

1/200 is unacceptable for anything but a range toy for me. That said, those failures may have been caused by any number of boo-boos one might commit while trying to blitz through a case of ammo as fast as possible.

I have an XD45 that is currently 1/1500-ish, and that one was caused by a brand spanking new shooter limp wristing it. I just bought another XD45, and I am carefully recording the round count on that gun so I can claim exactly what its failure rate is (which I expect to be darned near zero, based on the first XD).

For experienced autoloader aficionados does this seem a reasonable rate – i.e. something close to what you experience and find acceptable in a gun you depend on?


It seems to be a high malfunction rate for a Glock 9mm. I was a LE firearms instructor and my agency issued G17, 19, and 26s. I oversaw about 200 Glocks in my office and malfunctions were very rare and considered an event. These were usually due to a bad magazine and were rare. The G17 I carried must have had 20K+ rounds through it when I passed it on to another agent. It never malfunctioned. I found Glocks absolutely reliable.

Seems quite high to me. I have a Glock 19 with about 15,000 round through it. I can count malfunctions on one hand. A couple of those were a magazine issue. I will probably never figure out how it happened, but I had one of 6 magazines that malfunctioned a few times. I dismantled it and found a dime in it. How it got there I have no idea, but there it was. I removed it and problem all gone.

Way too high for a defence gun, like MrClean mentioned if it was a range toy it doesnt really matter except that its a bit annoying.

I have a ruger p-85 that was my first handgun and ive put many many many many many rounds thru it. Ive had exactly one malfuntion and it was with a CorBon 90gr+P that was a bit too short and fed badly.

Agreed, way too high.

I saw that video. They were using a bazillion magazines and any number of them could be worn out. But although the guy and his helper were tired, they definitely weren't limp wristing the shots. Also, I'm assuming that they're shooting reloads so who knows.

Glock with good mags and factory ammo is prolly a 1/5000 failure rate. My USP fullsize 9 has about 3000 without a single failure.

something else to think about, if your shooting 1000 rounds rapidly, your gun is going to get very hot, which will change the tolerances of the machined parts.

For experienced autoloader aficionados does this seem a reasonable rate – i.e. something close to what you experience and find acceptable in a gun you depend on?

If it isn't, what rate do you expect or find acceptable?

(Posted by someone who still trusts revolvers a bit more than autoloaders ;-)

Click to expand...

0% is reasonable.

Guess the guy should have bought a 1911. 1,000 rounds through a 1911 in 10 min 44 sec without malfunction.

I couldn't help it.

I seen that

video and with a Para to boot even.

Still that being said I would put a G17 up against the best 1911 any day.

Once a gun is broken in, say 400 rounds or so down the pipe worst case, it really shouldn't malfunction at all. If it's kept relatively clean and relatively lubed, what's gonna stop it from functioning? Spring failure / sacking out maybe? Eventually something is going to wear out and fail, but that ought to be after tens of thousands of rounds have been fired.

My PPK/S is past 10,000 rounds and counting without a malfunction after break-in. It's on it's original springs and magazines. I guess technically they aren't the "original" springs as I put in a Bullseye spring kit when the gun was new. But it has gone 10k+ on those springs.

My XD45C is knocking on 7,000 rounds without a single malfunction - no break in required! I think if it ever malfunctions I'll be tempted to buy a new one for CCW. I don't think I'd enjoy the memory of the gun I trust with my life failing to function. It's been so reliable I just don't know if I'd ever trust it again if it failed? Am I nuts?

When you watch that Glock test, there is no way of knowing if the failures were the result of bad ammo, bad mags, or the gun itself. It did melt it's recoil guide rod, so there is the potential that some of the failure was related at least to heat issues.

There is a similar 1000 round test for a Taurus PT1911 that had a few failures, but at least a couple of those supposedly were due to cheap/bad ammo.

Plus it is one Glock and one test. Hard to catagorize an entire type of machine (autoloading pistols) with an n=1 sample.

P.S. Personally, I think these "torture tests" are pointless. People try to read so much into them, and they really are nothing more then a gimmick. Do that same test with 1000 glocks (with some control over mags and ammo - eg. all fresh factory mags and the same factory ammo, from the same production run) and give me an average failure rate, and I might take some interest.

My XD45C is knocking on 7,000 rounds without a single malfunction - no break in required! I think if it ever malfunctions I'll be tempted to buy a new one for CCW. I don't think I'd enjoy the memory of the gun I trust with my life failing to function. It's been so reliable I just don't know if I'd ever trust it again if it failed? Am I nuts?

Click to expand...

I don't think your nuts. I carry a Glock 22 because it has never failed. I ran a similar test on my 1911 to the link in DeepSouth's post without a quench tank and after about 200 rounds it failed to return to battery and required assistance. I no longer consider it a carry option even though I could not duplicate those circumstances in a carry situation.

Meh

If your gun has not failed, you haven't shot it enough.

I generally experience a 1 in 1000 failure. I also reload as cheap and fast as possible with whatever brass I can get my grubby paws on.

maybe i am biased but in my xd i have never had a single issue/ malfunction that was caused by the gun itself, it has been either mag or ammo related, in over 15,000rds i have had 1 training mag that was over 3 years old go down, no problem i took it home change the spring and i was good to go. same with the other mag issues, i had an issue and i change the springs, they are my training mags so i change them when i need to not at yearly intervals like my carry mags.

got an older WWII 1911 with somewhere around 30,000 and NO hiccups - just oil and fire........
others I have cost a grand or more and can't swallow a thousand without burping in some manner.....
waddayagonnado....
.
oh , forgot , I've had TWO glock G21 gems, both had feeding problems; traded them for a computer...

umm way to high, my 19 has had no real problems that wernt a cuase of some outside source i.e. limp wristing, magazine ect.

Out of 500 rounds in PM9 Kahr...2 FTF. (those occurred past the 200 round break-in period)...

From what I'm reading from your previous posts...this is unacceptable!!!!!! (And I thought it was pretty good...now I'm depressed.)
Would you carry this pistol or not?

1 per 200 is horrible for a Glock. Something was wrong. (torture might be that something) I don't allow more than 1 per 300 for any carry gun. But I don't go out of my way to torment my gun. Most Glocks only have 1 failure per 1000.

Some clubs have competitions where they compete like any other event only they aren't allowed to service thier gun between heats and shoot 1000 rounds in one day.

They record reliability as a big part of the points structure. Usually a Glock or two in the top three of that catagory.

The simple rule for carry guns is 500 rds. without malfunction before it can be considered as a CCW weapon. Some people demand a higher number of rounds fired .........

I had a P-99 40 cal. that I could only get about 400 rds down the pipe before a FTF. Finally got rid of that weapon.

I would expect my Glock 17 to shoot 50,000 rounds without a malfunction ......... proper care and cleaning between range sessions of course !!
JF.

Failure Rate

I currently have 5 handguns. Glock Model 19 & 23, Custom 1911 built by 10X and a Les Baer Monolith Heavy 1911, H&K USP LEM .40 cal. Not one of these has bobbled a round in any way. I do not shoot reloads. Not all are shot equally, I spend more range time with the 1911's and the Glock Model 23. The Glock Model 19 is seldom fired. Total rounds through these pistols number in the many thousands. Pistols are really such simple mechanical devices, and generally at least superficially cleaned & maintained. So they should be reliable if they are engineered and built out of the correct quality materials. If a pistol fails regularly to function somethings wrong. If somethings wrong I would not carry it as a personal firearm. If it jams with good ammo, it's gone.

I don't have a definitive answer to your question. This subject is debated quite a bit among users and owners.

However, without belaboring the agency involved, here's a brief discussion of "Malfunction Rate" as considered by a large agency back in the time period of 1987-1988 which they felt suited their needs at that time ...

"For the purpose of this evaluation, any failure to feed, failure to extract, failure to eject, or failure to chamber a round or any other stoppage which prevented firing (but which could have been remedied by the shooter) was considered a malfunction. Any malfunction rate greater than 1 malfunction per 200 hundred rounds (0.5%) was considered unacceptably high."

Naturally, other testing conducted by this, and other agencies, over the subsequent years may have developed different performance criteria and measurements of how malfunction rates were considered for respective testing.

It's also not unreasonable to consider that some manufacturers may have made improvements in their product lines to better meet whatever requirements are stated by various customers, too.

I like to identify any ammunition-related and shooter-related issues as being separate from actual firearm-related issues when evaluating a particular firearm's 'performance'.

FWIW, I also have very little interest in non-professional 'torture tests' ... or even selected manufacturer's 'torture tests', for that matter. Want to impress me? Don't take 1-5 examples of some make/model/caliber and subject them to rigorous testing.

Take 50, 100 or 500 examples and subject them to the same testing. Expensive? Of course. Likely to reveal that if you test a large enough sampling that there's always going to be the potential for functioning issues to occur because of shooter, ammunition or actual firearm related issues? Pretty likely, I'd think.

For example, you know how some tests and advertising sometimes show how such & such make/model pistol can be buried in sand than simply shaken off and fired for 1-2 magazine loads without failure? Well, I have to chuckle when I see an example of that same make of pistol brought to a qualification range where the owner/user drops an empty magazine onto the sand covering that part of the range ... reloads that magazine without disassembling it to remove sand which has entered the magazine body ... and then experiences one or more feeding issues apparently caused by sand being in the magazine.

Things can happen out in the world. I take such things with a grain of salt ... or a grain of sand, as the case may be ...

There is a member that posts here that gets together with friends & they hold a "I Shot 1000" event every year. The first year he posted his results on The High Road this past year he posted them on The Firing Line if I remember right. His screenname is JohnKSA if I remember right. You could probably dig the threads up if you're interested. The first year they did it most guns that failed were from shooting reloads. This year it seems magazine issues caused most of the failures.
My own experience with my XD-40 is no malfunctions in about 2500 rounds-with my Ruger P-944 1 ammo related malfunction in about the same number of rounds-I have lost exact count on these guns but I should be pretty close. I have never had either of them fail with quality self defense ammunition.