Would you carry a less than reliable auto-loader?

[blarby]

No.

 

[Sport45]

I'm putting another 100 dollars into it and then its going to be a range toy.

I wouldn't do that.

Put the $100 away and carry the Jericho until you've saved another couple hundred. Then buy a used S&W or Ruger revolver to carry.

 

[theicemanmpls]

The op's question is "Would you carry a less than reliable auto-loader?"
I have seen several answers talking about FTF per 100 rounds. I need to ask a question. Would any of you fly on an aircraft that has a major componet failure every 100 cycles? (cycle is 1 takeoff & landing).
I don't see anyone raising their hands.

My answer to the OP question is simple. I don't use a auto-loader for carry. I bring a revolver. IMHO all auto loaders are not at the same reliability level as revolvers.

 

[Ky Larry]

1. Murphy's Law- Anything that can possibly go wrong, will.

2. Murphy's Principal- It will go wrong at the worst possible time.

I would probably carry it, but not for long. I'd replace it as soon as I could.

 

[registrar]

If it offered some sort of power or other advantage, of course I would choose it over a less efficient load. Why settle for a load that is a 1 in 5 failure scenario, against a 1 in 20 failure sort of load, when the odds are that you wont fire at all, and if you do have to fire, the rd in the chamber is the one most likely to save you. So the 1 in 100 risk of failure is well worth it, if it really does offer a significant increase in stopping power, or some other sort of major advantage, like armor piercing capability, for "end of the world" scenarios when all laws are irrelevant, and we won't be worrying about AP ammo being illegal to possess.

 

[scythefwd]

the brakes analogy is broken.

you use your breaks every time you drive. There is a100% chance of needing them or there will be bad things.

unless you are psychotic, your gun will not be used with near that frequency. How many people who carry never pull their gun, let alone use it? Hell, I know cops who have never pulled theirs and their job is more likely to require it. Hell, I go out of the house pretty much every day, so with the above bs 1% pull your gun number, I'd be pulling it out 3-4 times a year. That's a bit high for any one carrying I suspect. Oh, and pulling the gun doesn't mean you have to use it. Sometimes the entrance of a gun into the equasion is enough to end the situation.

if your gun has a failure 1% of the time, and you need it 1% of the time you go out with it, what are the chances your gun is going to fail when you need it? For those smartwr than me... That works out to 1/1000 chance right? I may be missing something mathmatically, but I don't think so.

are the failures cleared with a tap,rack, bang? If so, carry.

 

[x_wrench]

well, if it worked when you need it, it would be fine, but, if it did not work, the attacker would probably be infuriated. i know i would be. how good are you using it as a short club? personally, i would find a way to fix it. whether that means trading ammo at the range, or keeping the gun totally spotless, cleaning it every night. try diagnosing the problem when it occours. feild strip it right at the shooting bench, and check the various parts to see if something is sticking, getting gummed up, if you can find a burr somewhere. a gun will not jam because everything is working correctly. if you could find the problem, it may be quite easy to fix. my wifes gun had a burr on the extractor. most of the time, it would work. but as the shots fired climbed, so did the f.t.e. count. a little gun scrubber, and a small screwdriver at the range helped me figure out what was wrong. once we got home, and i looked at it, 10 minutes with a polishing stone took care of the problem permanantly. it may have eventually worn in. but who wants to chance that.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Short answer, NO!

If it means I go without, then I suppose it depends where I will be going and how much I think I might need it.
More than likely, it would just stay home and I would use my Kimber Guardian Angel double shot pepper sprayer instead.

 

[skoro]

No, not if I had a reliable alternative.

Mr Murphy has been known to apply his law quite often to those situations one least expects/desires to encounter it.

 

[paragrouper]

No. IF you can't trust your equipment then your equipment is a liability.

You may as well loose the weight so you can run faster.

 

[BRE346]

I had an unreliable gun I carried. I couldn't stand that so it went back to the dealer and the factory. It's good now and I'm much relieved.

They are right. Carrying an unreliable gun is like playing Russian roulette. Is it the next pull that's going to get you killed? Lord, son, it isn't worth it. You're better off with fast feet.

 

[JoelSteinbach]

If a defensive weapon is not 110% reliable I would call it a club and get rid of it. I do own some 99% reliable weapons , they are not for carry, but for targrt, plinking, fun, collecting etc

 

[PX15]

AMEN Brother.

Jesse

 

[JohnBiltz]

If I had an alternative then of course not. If it was the only gun I had I'd carry it and try to make it work if I had to. I'd make sure I was up on my immediate action first. You know sometimes circumstances take away the luxury of certainty and you got to do what you got to do.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Would you drive that car and just hope that the brakes will work the next time you need them?

So according to the hypothetical you'd rather go unarmed.

Driving a car with your metaphor is like going through life. One option you have brakes that work most of the time versus having no brakes. See what you're saying?

 

[Tomcat47]

Have you tried a variety of ammo in it?

I cannot see that you have took the minor issues out of the picture!

The most common would be finicky !

A Jericho is on low end but I think you may have a minor issue that could possibly be pin pointed with out a lot of money dropped into it!

I would continue to carry it....do some ammo testing at the range....save up for an upgrade.

I contend that the first round is the most important in self defense....Therefore we even have to rely on the ammo 100% and as of lately it has taken me back to reloading!

not to make light of your issue mind you! But the gun goes bang!

And as stated they are mechanical items! ... And... There is always a chance that the next round will not fire .... I dont care what you carry!

Think preparedness, do some range testing....problem persists it would need replaced to me.

 

[9mmepiphany]

So according to the hypothetical you'd rather go unarmed.

Driving a car with your metaphor is like going through life. One option you have brakes that work most of the time versus having no brakes. See what you're saying?

Actually I'm not.

I'm saying one should have brakes that work (fix or replace the faulty gun) or choose another model of transportation (a different weapon that works)

Being unarmed would be staying at home...out of the game

 

[Sheepdog1968]

For a social plinker, it would be fine. To bet my life on, no.

 

[rugerman]

If it was all I had and I couldn't afford to get it fixed YES. Otherwise NO

 

[GLOOB]

Yes, of course. If you voted otherwise, then I suppose you believe the "tap-rack-bang" drill should be replaced with the "face palm yourself for relying on a mechanical device, drop your gun, and look for the nearest rock while crying like a baby" drill. That first failure has proven your gun is less than 100% reliable, therefore worse than carrying nothing at all.

I'm saying one should have brakes that work (fix or replace the faulty gun) or choose another model of transportation (a different weapon that works)

The hypothetical question says you can't buy another gun. So with that in mind I have a few better analogies. Parachutes don't work 100% of the time. But I'd still use one when jumping out of a plane. Air bags sometimes cause injury. But I'll leave them installed. If my car only starts 99% of the time, I'll still drive it over walking.

 

[Effigy]

Carrying a somewhat unreliable gun is better than carrying nothing (unless "unreliable" means it might blow up and hurt you, or something). Even if it had a 50/50 chance of failure it would be better than nothing. What else can you carry in your pocket that has a 50/50 chance of killing your attacker from a distance? Even presenting a nonfunctional gun may allow you to bluff your way out of a fight.

Obviously you should look into making the gun reliable. If that's not feasible, 97 out of 100 still beats 0 out of 0 everytime.

 

[harmon rabb]

Uh, one failure within 100 rounds? Hell no.

 

[Effigy]

You can't fail something that wasn't attempted. Not carrying will give you both 0% failure rate and 0% success rate, not to mention 100% screwed-if-the-enemy-is-carrying rate.

 

[Tomcat47]

What He Said! ^^^

"Even If The Enemy Was Carrying Your Not So Relaible Gun"

Based On The Numbers ... You Are Still 90% Screwed !

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Why wouldn't you sell it and get something reliable?