do gun owners have inflated standards in regard to ammo reliability?

[carlrodd]

there are countless threads on this and other gun discussion boards in regard to what people expect as far as reliability is concerned with their ammunition. i understand the idea of having extremely high expectations when it comes to handgun ammunition, as handguns are more frequently used in a defensive capacity....i.e. you need to be able to rely on them working at a second's notice. but i don't understand inflated expectations when it comes to longarm ammunition, namely through semi-autos.

my approach to firearms is rooted i military experience. the first thing you are taught when it comes to your weapon, is how to handle it when it does not function.....immediate action. frequently, either ammo is not completely reliable, or a weapon might be finnicky with what it eats. the idea is that if you maintain your weapon properly, it will be much less likely to malfunction, but know that it is a machine, and is sure to have failures. quickly and decisively dealing with malfunctions is taught as being just as important as knowing the basics of marksmanship. so, when i experience occassional malfunctions with my guns, due to ammo, i don't sweat it. if i had a dollar for everytime i had to apply immediate action on m16s in the army, i would be well on my way to being able to afford a few guns i really want. weapons malfunctions, especially due to ammunition, or expected.

i'm interested to know if others feel similarly, or if you feel that your guns should be functioning near perfectly, if not perfectly, every time you use them. especially when considering your guns in a defensive capacity(namely longarms), do you search for ammunition you feel to be perfectly reliable, or are you confident in your abilities to quickly adjust, and deal with malfunctions as they come? i like wolf through my guns. it's cheap, and i think it's sufficiently reliable. if i have just a couple of malfunctions every hundred rounds or so with my battle rifles, i feel i'm doing pretty ok. thoughts?

 

[carterbeauford]

There is a heavy psychological aspect, the loudest sound in a gunfight is "click"

IMO, I want ammunition to be the last thing I am going to have to worry about if I have to use any of my gun guns in self defense. If I have a bad primer in my 30/30 it's one thing, a bad primer in my 9MM is another.

 

[shield20]

My handguns HAVE to be 100% reliable. I would expect my defensive long arms to be the same, or they don't remain my defensive longarms. Only once was I positive that my gun jammed specifically due to ammo choice, and that XSE wasn't 100% anyway. Both the gun and the ammo (Blazer Brass .45) are gone now.

I have fired a couple M4s, and 1 was definitely hiccuping - atleast the last few mags for whatever reason. I would not have liked to take that combo into combat. I couldn't tell you whether it was the ammo, the mags, or the weapon though.

Maybe I tend to be over-expectant, but if I do my part in keeping them in good shape, I think they should function perfectly.

 

[Geronimo45]

In the military, you can tap, rack, and fire again, as you probably have backup with you. In a CC situation, since distances can be very close, a jam can be a serious problem.
As for long guns, they might be needed in a HD scenario, as they're a lot better than handguns, in general. If it jams after the first shot, you may, again, be killed (may be backup, may not be). Very reliable ammo for HD/SD weapons is not a bad idea.

 

[benEzra]

i understand the idea of having extremely high expectations when it comes to handgun ammunition, as handguns are more frequently used in a defensive capacity....i.e. you need to be able to rely on them working at a second's notice. but i don't understand inflated expectations when it comes to longarm ammunition, namely through semi-autos.

A lot of people (including me) use carbines in the same defensive capacity as handguns, and hence expect exactly the same ammunition reliability. And a handgun is arguably somewhat easier to get going again after an ammunition related malfunction than a rifle.

IMHO, ammunition from the best manufacturers has a failure rate not significantly different from zero. For defensive ammunition, why not use the best?

 

[Crosshair]

Yea, I am pulling my hair out right now with my Hi-Power. All the 9mm I have loaded for my 995 and C9 is completly unreliable in this gun. The problem is powder residue in the chamber resulting in failure to extract. I need to load up some 9mm with AA#5 to test this out. Drives me nuts.

 

[sm]

Good points made on Reliability , knowing how to run the gun and keeping it running.

Just my thoughts, I see wrinkles today, that have somethings to do with expectations.

1. Folks used to grow up learning to shoot, and doing so was just part of growing up. Firearm offerings and ammo choices are not what they are today.

2. Folks not growing up with firearms in the home today, nobody to teach them, or encourage them to do so. In fact more discouragement from Media and Society.

3. Enhancements in Firearms and ammo. By this I mean, folks do not buy "stock" guns. If they do, they immediately , alter it, change it in some way in original configuration. I am not referring to stocks, I mean change something about the gun which affects how it runs.
Ammo, we have advanced, and gone backwards at the same time. Some of this ammo is nothing more than wallet flushes.

Lots of platforms made to specs, with ammo they designed for, will run. Anytime something is changed, it can affect something else. Fix that problem, now another problem arises - Domino Principle.

Clones fall into this as well as they are not always made to specs and this applies to mags, as mags are part of what makes the gun run reliably .

Ammo? Yes I think some ammo has been "dumbed down" , check the specs for ammo 20 years ago , and how it differs with the same/similar offering today. If the ammo does not have the "oomph" - it can affect cycling. If out of spec, it will affect chambering and extraction.

Inflated standards ? No, not really. I do feel what WE what is the Standards we "had" brought back in Metallurgy, Craftsmanship, Quality Control and In Specs.

Teach another how to shoot a spec'd gun with spec'd ammo, and how to run the gun, keep it running, to maintain it, and that person will not only be a better shooter, also have confidence in his skills, firearm and ammo.

We read all the time, the equipment lists of training schools. Many will for example will suggest to not bring a match trigger on a AR, instead bring a stock trigger, and other spare parts.

 

[Wakal]

I expect factory ammo to go "bang" every time.

That means I expect factory ammo to have the primers in the right way, flash holes in the brass, powder in the case, and the bullet seated facing the correct direction.

For this I am willing to pay between double and ten times (sigh) what it costs me to reload same.

However, I have had all of the faults mentioned with factory ammo from real manufacturers (not counting Bob's Down Home Ammo Inc., and similar "get what you pay for, even if you pay WAY too much" homebrew pseudo-companies operated by some fat retired idiot with a fuzzy dream and no job skills, but I digress).

If my sillyvilian rifle malfunctions, I probably won't win the match, kill that deer or blow the head off that prairie dog. But I load ammo for all that, and it is my fault.

If my competition pistols don't work, I'll lose the match. But I load ammo for that, and it is my fault.

If my sillyvilian carry pistol doesn't work, I may die. Which is why I no longer carry factory rounds in my totin' -around gun, Mas advise to the contrary. I know my handloads all have a primer, bullet, brass with flash hole, and powder in the correct quanties and in the correct arrangement. I cannot say the same for any major brand of ammo, but then, I shoot a lot more than most folks and the odds (however small) probably caught up with me. Repeatedly

I expect factory ammo to work. I don't expect superior accuracy, and I don't expect it to run my high-zoot spaceguns in the manner to which I would like to become accustomed, but I do expect it to go "bang" every time.



Alex

 

[Dienekes]

I want the best I can get, and that is usually pretty darned good. As an instructor I drew and expended new factory handgun ammo by the case. Occasionally--not often--I would find a defective round; primer missing, inserted upside down, a crushed case mough, even a bullet inserted upside down. I still have the small collection of these specimens as a reminder that just because it comes in a factory sealed box it may not be quite right.

In 45 or so years of handloading I can count the number of defective rounds I have produced on the fingers of one hand and have some fingers left over. Not to bash progressive loaders, but when you work with a C press, eyeball each case at every step, and gauge the trimmed, resized brass and the loaded round, you are going to get pretty fair consistency.

Immediate action drills are all well and good, but if there is a way to get a weapon and ammo combination that approaches 100%, I want it. With some effort, it's within reach.

 

[strambo]

I think the "fire 200-250 rds of your defensive ammo before carrying it" is overinflated and unrealistically expensive for most people. 200-250 total rounds to include about 50 of your actual carry load sounds reasonable to me as a minimum before carrying that gun. Both my carry guns have been 100% in over a 1000 rds each with all sorts of ammo. I haven't put 250 Gold Dots through either. If they would have had 1-2 malfs in those 1000 rds, I wouldn't freak out and sell them. Ironically, considering my above statement, I actually did buy 250 rounds of factory 124g +P Gold Dots...got them as a LE return/closeout I think I paid $45 for them.

I had a Para P13, that was never realiable, got rid of it. I'm talking 1 malf every other magazine with all sorts of ammo and after gunsmith attention. That was unacceptable.

 

[DRMMR02]

No machine ever devised by man will be 100% reliable. EVER. This is why we practice failure drills. Ammo and weapons can and will fail, no matter how well designed. Not preparing for it is foolish.

 

[Soybomb]

Is it as much of a concern with the military when you might have other people helping you out? The average gun owner probably plans to be the only person on "his side" shooting and probably in a much more unexpected and sudden fashion. malfunctions seem like a much bigger deal.

With premium .223 defensive rounds going from anywhere from like $.50 to a $1 per round I don't think its an entirely unreasonable demand either. A dollar per round for .223 should buy you some pretty good QC.

 

[sacp81170a]

if i have just a couple of malfunctions every hundred rounds or so with my battle rifles, i feel i'm doing pretty ok. thoughts?

You need to get your rifles fixed!!!! I looked at each malfunction I ever had with an issued weapon as a serious flaw and analyzed the situation to see what corrective action was needed, whether it was my fault, the ammo, the weapon or the magazine. Every hundred rounds or so? Back for depot maintenance at least!

 

[justashooter]

i think gun owners will have a higher standard than non gun owners.

 

[Lou629]

Every one of my centerfire rifles, shotguns & handguns have been 100% reliable with factory ammo. I always use that, since i never got into reloading, and i could never bring myself to trust some 'bubba' and his handloads. I have never had a single FTF with a factory centerfire cartridge in 34 years of shooting. I guess you could say that i've come to expect that kind of performance, and with the amount of money one has to pay for ammo these days, you'd be correct. My theory nowadays is that there better not be any problems, with what we're being gouged for ammo lately.

 

[Firethorn]

Why do we demand such reliability, even for non-self defense ammo?

Because we can get it. And, like for many computer products, once you have the high reliability premium primer line developed, making a premium primer doesn't cost significantly more than a 'standard' primer.

And realistically, do you think the guy who's willing to pay extra for 'GameKiller MkIV' bullets isn't also willing to pay a bit more for a round guarenteed to go bang? After all, he doesn't want to miss that 'perfect shot'. He might get only one chance, not have time to cycle another round into the chamber. Then you have competition shooters, where a single failure to fire could be the difference between first and last place.

So, the only ammo that's allowed to have more than the 'minimum possible' failure rate would be cheap practice ammo. On the other hand, because of competition between primer makers, all primers* are pretty good. The industrial equipment has been developed to make the premium ammo, might as well use it for the standard stuff as well.

You might as well as why we demand our fruit so fresh, our restraunts so free of e-coli? A couple incidents and we essentially throw away our entire spinach crop. We demand reliability because we don't have to stand it. There's plenty of ammo brands out there. Guns can be fixed, magazines repaired or replaced.

*yes, you get the occasional batch, or shady third-world manufacturer.

 

[Wes Janson]

Don't forget magazines and/or springs.

 

[benEzra]

if i have just a couple of malfunctions every hundred rounds or so with my battle rifles, i feel i'm doing pretty ok. thoughts?

Either something's wrong with your rifle, your ammunition, or your magazine, or your rifle doesn't like your ammunition. My SAR-1 has never malfunctioned since I've had it (got it three years ago), and my mini-14 has never malfunctioned with factory ammunition in 15 years and a few thousand rounds of shooting. I have had two malfunctions with some .223 reloads that someone accidentally gave me, that he said were "five grains over" (locked the bolt up tight and I had to whack the charging handle hard to get the bolt unlocked), but none with factory ammo.