Benchmark for reliability

bluesclues

bluesclues

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Location
Alberta
I have been doing some reading on the GlockTalk and XD forums lately about the reliability of these pistols. (I am in the market for one of these)

What I keep finding is these "awsome reliability" range reports of 200-300 round counts. Like "wow, 300 rounds and not one malfunction" and the like.

Is it just me or isn't a 1000 rounds just the break-in period. Where I expect NO problems from factory ammunition. Heck, my Norinco didn't have a hick up in nearly 4000 rounds until I started playing around with bullet seat length in my re-loads.

I am in the market for either an XD 9 or a Glock 17. IMO, both of these pistols are fine reliable guns, from what I have read and seen.

So what I am asking here is at what point do you consider your pistol a "go to reliable workhorse"? Or, what does "reliable" mean to you?
 
i couldnt say that abt. my p99 :( My 92fs was very reliabe...

Ryan
wobbles99 said:
Realistically I would expect from a quality pistol no problems for at least 5000 rounds. When I say no problems I would exclude any ammunition or operator related issues.
Click to expand...
 
The problem with information on the internet is that not everyone who provides it has the same level of experience. To someone out there firing 10 shots in a row might be great. To others, there is no room for compromise. Then there are the armchair commandos that don't even own a gun but feel free to pass on internet rumours as fact.
Any current manufacture service pistol that is in general use will be reliable. Some are cheaper than others, some are more durable. But for sporting use any should provide good service.
 
I know of a fellow who claims he put over 48,000 rounds through his Gen 1 Glock 17 without replacing any major parts. If his claim is true then I am truly impressed.

Reliability, for me, means that the gun will function properly when called upon and is different than durability even though some may lump the two together. My most reliable and durable handguns have been my Sig 220's and S&W 686 for centrefire and the Ruger Mark II for rimfire.
 
To me, ultimate reliability means that a gun should be capable of firing thousands of rounds without cleaning or any additional lubrication and without experiencing ANY failures to feed or eject/extract. After all, guns are designed to be used as weapons, first and foremost. You should be able to rely on a weapon even in circumstances where proper care and maintenance are impossible.
 
Reliability has to be defined within parameters. Virtually all of the issues I've had with my two 1911's, for instance, have been related to cartridge problems because I reload (usually dinged case mouths that stick in the chamber), or magazine feed lips bent from IPSC shooting, or (rarely because I do clean the gun when it needs it) fouling. The first two, it seems to me, have nothing to do with the reliability of the gun itself. And how many of us judge our personal firearms by their ability to fire 1,000+ rounds between cleanings? Is it a criteria that actually matters to us? If I take out the malfunctions caused by reloads and magazines, I can't recall them ever giving me problems. Okay, I lie. I've had the rear sight come apart on both of them. They could still shoot, but the accuracy left something to be desired. It was after a very high round count, though.
 
According to a Berettas recent press release 92FS "averaged only one malfunction every 21,000 rounds fired". I consider that to be reliable.
 
Almost all of your problems will be magazine or ammo related. After that it will be user error (limp-wristing the pistol, not maintaining it properly). Most modern pistols are well made...

Some are more willing to accept abuse that others though, such as the Glock... unless you do serious tactical training where you are crawling in the dirt it should not be an issue for most civy shooters.
 
IM_Lugger said:
According to a Berettas recent press release 92FS "averaged only one malfunction every 21,000 rounds fired". I consider that to be reliable.
Click to expand...
When they say "malfunction", do they mean stoppage or breakage? There's a big difference there. If they are referring to stoppages, I'm impressed. Something tells me that they aren't though.
 
IM_Lugger said:
According to a Berettas recent press release 92FS "averaged only one malfunction every 21,000 rounds fired". I consider that to be reliable.
Click to expand...
I doubt that stat as well..sounds way to good to be true. I have never had any problems with ANY of my handguns but 21000 is a lot of rounds
 
IM_Lugger said:
According to a Berettas recent press release 92FS "averaged only one malfunction every 21,000 rounds fired". I consider that to be reliable.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, those numbers were from the US army's trials. And the 21 000 mark was the average for a major part breakage. Still, those numbers are pretty impressive. I'll let you know if my NP 29 makes it that far:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom