How many

[ttarp]

rounds do you shoot before you call your gun reliable? I read a post on another forum that basically said 80,000 is how many it took for your gun to be claimed "reliable". That number is ludicrous, and I think it must have been a hastily written math error on his part, but it got me wondering what the majority of folks consider the bench mark round count for reliability.

I do realize this is highly subjective and if this topic comes up ofter I haven't noticed it and apologize for beating the proverbial horse and what not.

Your thoughts please.

[TXAZ]

It depends:
If it's a cheap 'pop gun' for plinking, not many, maybe 1 or 2.
If I'm likely to defend my family with it or hunt bears with it in a remote area, a lot, could easily be 100's to 1,000's.

[Nick_C_S]

One cylinder full

[JohnKSa]

I want at least a couple of 50 round boxes of the carry/self-defense ammo to run through the gun with NO malfunctions. On top of that, I'd like it to run reliably for 100-200 hundred rounds of at least one kind of practice ammo.

I say "at least one kind of practice ammo" because I have a few guns which simply won't work reliably with certain kinds of practice ammo. I don't hold that against the gun as long as I can find at least one kind of practice ammo that it's 100% reliable with AND as long as it's 100% reliable with my carry/self-defense ammo.

In other words, I don't mind it when I find an ammo/gun incompatibility issue as long as I can satisfy myself that it's not an inherent problem with the gun that will show up with any kind of ammo.

So to answer your question, I'd say that somewhere around 200-300 rounds is a good number as long as at least 1/2 to 1/3 of that total number is the actual loading that will be used for self-defense.

[Cyanide971]

My requirement is firing a minimum of 100 rounds of my carry ammo with zero malfunctions (HST or Gold Dots), then a much lower count of 25 rounds for my "backup" ammo (Ranger T, XTP, Critical Duty). Pricey? From a $$$ standpoint perhaps to some but to me, there's no price on ensuring my weapon goes "BANG!" if and when I ever need it to.

On top of that I run a ton of plain old ball ammo at the range through all of my pistols, with my three favorite getting the majority of it. I'm guilty of not keeping an exact round count, but I can tell you I go through a minimum of 500-600 rounds easily every time I'm on home time from work.

[Glockstar .40]

I run a couple mags of carry ammo and 1-200 fmj's. If it's flawless through that then I consider it a reliable gun.

[5RWill]

Honestly 500-1000+ Don't get me wrong it's unrealistic to think your ever going to shoot 1000 rounds in a fight/match etc. That said realistically it shouldn't be that hard for your handgun to handle 1000 rounds reliably if taken care of.

I have 650rds through my G21 with 1 malfunction, 1000+ through my M&P 0 malfunctions.

Accidently voted 1000+

[WESHOOT2]

I have one 9x19 I'm past 100K on, but I still ain't totally convinced, so I'm gonna keep shootin' it to confirm reliable function........

[dayman]

If it goes through a couple hundred rounds without a hicup I generally consider it good to go.
If it has any issues in those first few hundred rounds I attempt to fix the issue then re-start.

I pretty much only buy new guns from reputable manufactures, and I shoot factory ammo. So, I figure it's safe to assume that any issues that are going to come up will come up relatively quickly.
I had a 1911 where I had to cherry pick magazines, and my G19 had one stovepipe the first or second time I took it out to shoot. Other than that I've never actually had a problem with a handgun that I can remember.
I also shoot my carry gun on a regular basis, so if it does develop a problem later in life, odds are I'll catch it on the range.

[AK103K]

I tend to go with around 500 rounds of assorted ammo.

You usually know within the first couple of mags if theres going to be trouble, and its been a number of years since Ive had any trouble (I did myself a favor and stopped buying Springfields and Kimbers. )

Assuming good quality ammo and reasonable maintenance and hygiene, I would say if you stick to the major brands/models of known quality, except for the occasional dog, youre likely not to have much trouble.

[Hook686]

One cylinder and I am comfortable with the S&W revolver.

[wpsdlrg]

For me, somewhere between 500 and 1000....closer to 1000. No particular technical reason.....it just feels right. I can't trust a carry gun (or myself being any good with it)....with only a couple hundred or fewer rounds through it.

[Nathan]

I said 100-500, but in my experience, I can add a couple of things:

1) revolvers are almost always reliable....a box of 50 is fine
2) with an auto, usually a problem can be found in a box of 50, but meaningful numbers to diagnose may take 200 + rounds.
3) 1:200 failures are generally very hard to diagnose and show why training is so important.
4) always shoot quality, name brand, brass case, FMJ or HP ammo for score when measuring reliability.

It is great if your gun chews up your reloads and it should, but don't hold the gun to task when reloads are giving you fits. The only exception is that some guns may need a recoil spring adjustment to shoot your reloads of choice.

On a competition gun, more gun tuning may be required since it will likely always run reloads, cast bullets and odd bullet weights at less than or over max pressure.

[jmr40]

Once through with each magazine and I'm good.

[PatientWolf]

I am going with 100-500, but like like AK103K and JMR40, I make sure I test all mags and a variety of ammo-both manufacturer, bullet weight and bullet type.

[Crankgrinder]

ive been told at least 500 rounds by most instructors and such, I feel like its a good number and also think its the best advice someone can give as to the question. I know all of my guns have at least 500 through them all of assorted kinds of ammo so id say they are reliable. Truth is I don't think there is a number there its just however many it takes for the owner to be convinced that it will function properly. For me if it goes a couple hundred without fail then I think its likely it will work the next couple hundred.

[AK103K]

I think another thing to consider here, really has nothing to do with the gun itself, but with the shooter.

That "break in" round count helps you become familiar with the gun, as much as it tests its reliability. You will always have the possible issue of user induced unreliability, until the user becomes acquainted with the gun.

[Kreyzhorse]

Once I run a couple of boxes through a semi auto, I am satisfied that it is ready to accept CCW duty.

[madmo44mag]

I bought a SR40c knowing some had light strike issues.
With in 500 rounds I started to experience light strikes.
Replaced the striker spring with a Wolf spring. Fired another 500 rounds and never had another issue with light strikes.

[P5 Guy]

Actually it's closer to 100 than 500. Revolvers especially but after a few boxes thru a semi-auto and I'm good to go.

[ttarp]

I probably should have set the poll up with a few more choices, oh well. Interesting results though, I expected to see more "Box of 50" 's. Thanks for your participation.

[jasmith85]

I'm usually good somewhere between 50 and 100 rounds as long as the gun is completely flawless throughout those rounds. One issue and it requires a lot more shooting for me to trust it though.

[Bennyfatsack]

For me never completely reliable. Too many unknown factors, quality of components, flaws in manufacturing of both gun components and ammunition, weather dust exposure, moving parts wearing, fouling, oxidation, corrosion, over lubrication, under lubrication..... I've had three seperate rifles fail, one brand new lever action .22 never fed rounds into chamber always jammed, side by side 12g hammer shot gun fired uncountable rounds 4000+ , handed to me from my grand father failed, worn mushroomed firing pins and loose latching shears. Ruger .233 mkII not so much a fail but an example of becoming unreliable after 200+ rounds scope mounts came loose, something minor but crucial to reliability, so I've had failures at each end of the spectrum. By the time you've proven above doubt you can rely on the guns manufacturing and quality you've rendered it less reliable as you have been wearing it out, detensioning springs, hot cold cycles loosing fixtures. Maintainance obviously prolongs but not all can be maintained or prevented.Very pessimistic approach but simple and obvious.

[trigger643]

I shoot until I have a problem.

In this way, one of my P226's has been reliable for over 25 years and 30,000+ rounds, a Ruger 10/22 of mine has been reliable for over 40 years and umpteen-kay-drillion rounds. Another P226 was reliable for 20+ years and 20,000+ rounds until it was reliable no more with a broken frame rail.

On the other hand, a Sig Mosquito I once owned was completely reliable for 3 rounds. This was repeatable. 3 rounds. Jam. 3 rounds. Jam. 3 rounds. Fix, Repeat. Toss.

Replaced with Walther P22. The Walther was reliable. The P22 magazines were not. 3 rounds. Jam. 5 rounds. FTF. Fix, Repeat. ... Toss.

I have no unreliable guns. Unreliables get fixed or tossed.

[lee n. field]

I do realize this is highly subjective

Past a box or two, it's mostly a psychological thing. If a magazine fed autoloading pistol hasn't given me any trouble in a couple boxes or so of ammo, I'll call it good.

The first order of business, within a week or two, with a newly acquired piece is to clean and lube per the manual and run enough ammo through it.

and if this topic comes up ofter I haven't noticed it

"oin Date: January 4, 2013"

Yeah, it comes up once in a while. Not quite the frequency of "Taurus sux" or "9 v. .45 v. .40" or ".40 sux", but it does come up.