Anyone else get rid of a CCW after 1 malf?

[mfree]

A weapons malf is one thing.

Having a weapons malf and not having practiced enough to clear and continue, that's a shooter malf.

[redlevel42]

if the gun can go 200-250 MRBF, it is probably good enough to carry


I've been shooting nigh on to fifty years now. I had to google MRBF.

Is that a military term? Mean Rounds Before Failure?

Are you saying that you would carry a gun that failed every 250 rounds?

Possibly I am misinterpreting your statement, and what you mean is that 200-250 failure free rounds in a new gun are enough to prove reliability sufficiently for a carry gun. I agree, although I think 500-1000 rounds would be better. In any case, I am not trying to pick a fight. Just trying to learn.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with semi-autos. I have owned a WWII era 1911A1 for about 35 years, and have probably fired a couple of thousand rounds in that time, all factory and all hardball. No failures. My Norinco failed to fire once because I had not slapped home the magazine hard enough. It was practically new when that happened, and after everything "wore in," I have had no more problems. Incidentally, I have used cheap, gun show purchased mags in these two and never had any problems.

I owned, and carried on duty, a S&W Model 39-2 in the early 70's. I probably fired 2500 rounds through it in a couple of years. I had one stovepipe jam, for no apparent reason. Again, all factory ammo, and mostly hardball, although I fired several boxes of a couple of different hollow-point rounds. I always carried hardball on duty.

It sounds like many of you are expecting your semi-automatics to fail. I wouldn't be really shocked if the next time I shot one of my 1911s that I had a failure. I don't expect it every 200-250 rounds, though, and certainly wouldn't trust my life to a gun that failed that often.

With my S&W revolvers, I realize that a failure is theoretically going to eventually happen, but I will be surprised if it does. I have had one gun related failure in a j-frame that locked up the cylinder and called for gunsmithing. Another time, I had a factory hollow-point 125 gr bullet jump the crimp and tie up the cylinder in a Model 36. It seems like it might have been a Super-Vel round that was the culprit.

I would bet you a month's salary that you could select any center-fire S&W revolver from my safe, and that I could fire a thousand rounds of factory .38 sp +p rounds without a failure. I would be extremely surprised if I had a failure. These guns are all box-stock with no polishing or "reliability packages" or anything. My Chief's Special does have a bobbed hammer. A thousand rounds of +p would probably loosen up a j-frame a lot, but I wouldn't expect it to fail.

As you can tell, I am a revolver man, specifically S&W. I have carried my 1911s concealed, but won't any more for several reasons. Reliability is a small part of it. Ease of concealment is next, but most of all, the older I get, the more I have come to appreciate the simplicity of a double action revolver.

[Deet]

It isn't that a semi messes up from time to time, its really how fast you can clear it and get back on target. My carry gun must handle 500 rounds without a miscue, or it won't be my carry gun.

[csmsss]

Here's the thing. Revolvers, in general, should be much less prone to malfunction than pistols. The fly in the ointment is that when a revolver fails, it tends to be an "oh, [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], my pistol is now completely useless" type of failure, whereas when a semi-auto fails, in most cases the failure can be cleared fairly easily.

[CARGUY2244]

g-l-o-c-k

[gb_in_ga]

Me? Of course not. I'd attempt to find out just why the failure occurred. If it is my fault, or the fault of the ammo, then it would be stupid to get rid of it. If it is the fault of the gun itself, and yet that problem is easily repaired, then I'd be stupid to get rid of it.

Only if it is an "inherent" problem with the gun -- one that happens with enough frequency as to cast doubt on practical reliability and is not easily repairable. For instance, I once carried a gun that would begin to have feeding issues after it had been shot about 50 rounds after a good cleaning. I had no problem with this since it was always clean when I carried it, and I had nowhere near that much ammo on hand.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by natjohnb

Call me a snob if you want.

I don't think you need to worry about me calling you that.

Originally Posted by CARGUY2244

g-l-o-c-k

I'll be dropping by the old shop to visit friends over Christmas. If you'll give me a mailing address, I'll see if I can't scare up a pile of barrels with sheared feet, broken trigger return springs, extractors with missing claws, and other parts you can arrange into a little shrine whose feng shui will help you meditate on Glock perfection.

Originally Posted by gb_in_ga

Me? Of course not. I'd attempt to find out just why the failure occurred. If it is my fault, or the fault of the ammo, then it would be stupid to get rid of it. If it is the fault of the gun itself, and yet that problem is easily repaired, then I'd be stupid to get rid of it.

Only if it is an "inherent" problem with the gun -- one that happens with enough frequency as to cast doubt on practical reliability and is not easily repairable.

Stop making sense! This is a gun forum on teh intarw3bz! You're not allowed to do that here!

[B.N.Real]

Get you a Smith lightweight compact double action only revolver without a lock (preferably a 442 or like it)then.

Forget semi autos.

Otherwise,learn to do gun clearing drills with your semi auto's.

Every semi auto can jam.

Even some Smith revolvers with locks on them have locked up tight.

And just because you did your part by buying premium ammo,does'nt mean that one round did'nt get through that was slightly out of spec.

[ragingbullpa]

has over 1,000 rounds through it alternating between rem 230gr hp golden sabers and 230 fmj umc no malfunction i use nothing but Kano Silikroil to clean it and lube it , functions flawlessly

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by B.N. Real

Even some Smith revolvers with locks on them have locked up tight.

...and pre-lock revolvers have ejector rods back out, cylinder release thumbpieces fall off, grains of powder or the rims of spent cases get caught under the ejector star, firing pins break, sights fall off...

Guns break. Guns malf. It's what they do. There are no magic swords.

[Webleymkv]

Guns break. Guns malf. It's what they do. There are no magic swords.

SHHHH! Tamara! Don't tell them that! All these people selling guns after 1 malfunction makes for good prices on very lightly used guns that may only need a small part replace or a good cleaning.

[natjohnb]

Get you a Smith lightweight compact double action only revolver without a lock (preferably a 442 or like it)then.

The sad thing is, the reason I bought the Kel-tec in the first place was to replace the S&W 642 I sold to my dad (he really wanted it). I should have just bought another J-frame.

And as far as getting rid of a pistol after a single malf, look, I'm just a blue-collar guy with a wife, a kid on the way, and a lot of bills... I can't afford to have a collection; every one of my guns has a role to fulfill, and if I have a problem with it, and can't trust it, (especially an EDC gun) I have to replace it. If it had been my 1911 that had a failure, it would be worth my while to fix/figure out the problem. The Kel-tec, however, isn't worth the effort, IMO.

Could I be wrong condemning the Kel-tec? Possible.
Ammo out of spec? Again, possible.
User-induced malfunction? Possible, but not likely. I've been shooting a long time and I've been pretty good at spotting a user malf. In this instance, the mag was seated firmly, good/secure 2-hand grip, no digits engaging/touching the slide/lever/mag release, etc.

I was on-the-fence about Kel-tec's quality and this incident just made my mind up. So it's now gone. Am I wrong? Maybe.

And after more than a decade, I am once again a Glock-owner. Today I picked up a Glock 26 w/ night sites...

I am no Glock fan, but at least they TEND to be reliable.

<resisting urge to take Dremmel tool to yucky grip-frame>

[EVOIXGSR]

give it enough time and use, and eventually something as simple as a toothbrush is bound to fail.

[Elvishead]

For real???!!

[imthegrumpyone]

natjohnb it's man made, it's not going to work perfect 100% of the time. I have P40 that I carry as well as a CW40, my wife, son in law and several others carry Kel-Tec's we all trust them with our lives.

[oldandslow]

nat, 12/22/08

Nothing wrong with a Glock- as reliable or more so than most other quality brands. More important is that you now have confidence in your carry piece, something you had lost with your prior pistol. Now go out and shoot it and have fun. Merry Christmas.

oldandslow

[Tamara]

Okay, that I understand. It makes a lot more sense than a quest for non-existent perfection.

Just make sure you practice your malf drills with the Glock, too.

[normal]

Has anybody even brought up the fact that this happened during the break in period? 200 rounds through a pistol is too low a number to be saying that it is unreliable. Most people recommend 300-500 rounds for proper break in.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by normal

Has anybody even brought up the fact that this happened during the break in period? 200 rounds through a pistol is too low a number to be saying that it is unreliable. Most people recommend 300-500 rounds for proper break in.

True, but most handgun owners just really aren't shooters. Three to five hundred rounds is probably about as much as your average handgun owner shoots through a centerfire pistol in the entire time they own it.

Competition shooters or gun school junkies put much higher round counts through weapons and (surprise!) report a lot more breakage and malfunctions.

(Think about it: Range trip every other month, 50-rd box of FMJ per visit, it would take two years to shoot 600 rounds. For a serious IPSC or IDPA competitor, that's a heavy weekend before a big match.)

[bds32]

I own a glock 26 and I have to say that it has been very reliable. However, I don't carry it anymore in favor of a model 60 revolver.

I've heard of and witnessed malfunctions with the Kel Tec. I saw an officer shoot a qual course with his back up pistol, a Kel Tec .32. It jammed multiple times during the 50 round course. There is absolutely no way I would have carried that pistol on or off duty.

I think it's all about confidence in your defensive pistol. I agree that there is no "majic sword" but I also believe that not all pistols are created equal. Some are more reliable than others.

However, the reality is that all pistols can jam up. And, they seem susceptible to jam up in the dynamic conditions of a gunfight. There are a number of documented cases (just perusing the web) of police officer's pistols malfunctioning in a gunfight (one would assume police pistols and ammo are of high quality). Luckily, most of the time, the officer is able to clear the jam before being killed or injured. There are even more examples of bad guy's semi auto's jamming up, probably because of poor quality, poor maintenance and poor ammo. And, it's a blessing that most of the bad guy's never get their gun back into action because they don't practice clearing malfunctions.

Practice clearing those jams until it becomes second nature. This is one of the best free videos I've seen teaching this important skill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfyULpEhmug

[gb_in_ga]

I've heard of and witnessed malfunctions with the Kel Tec. I saw an officer shoot a qual course with his back up pistol, a Kel Tec .32. It jammed multiple times during the 50 round course. There is absolutely no way I would have carried that pistol on or off duty.

No, I wouldn't go that far. Just saying that it jammed multiple times during a 50 round course doesn't mean that the gun itself is irrevocably unreliable. There are more than 1 reasons why this could happen, any of which are quick fixes and could result in a reliable arm.

Was it a user error? Bad technique? Small guns are prone to this, and you can't blame the gun for that.

Was it due to a critically cruddy gun? What kind of maintainence was done on it?

Was it an ammo related issue? That is easy to fix, just try other brands of ammo.

Was it related to a bad magazine, or a bad mag spring? Both of those are trivial to fix.

Being a KelTec P32, did he take into account the tendency of that platform towards rim lock? There is an easy fix for that problem.

Is this something that could be fixed with a F&B? That costs essentially nothing, just a little effort.

Did this officer just buy the gun, load it up, and try qualifying with it without going through the 100 to 200 rounds of break-in that KTs usually require?

Failing that, did the officer think to send it back to KT? They've got a lifetime warranty and a reputation of making things right for the user.

My KT PF-9 was absolutely horrible during its first 100 rounds of break-in and I didn't really expect that it wouldn't be, knowing beforehand that KTs usually are that way when NIB. After that 100 round break-in and a good cleaning, it hasn't missed a lick since (with good maintainence). And yes, I'm carrying it, right now. It is my EDC. Good thing for me that I'm not one of those "1 bad session and it's gotta go" types, I've got realistic expectations.

[vox rationis]

if the gun can go 200-250 MRBF, it is probably good enough to carry


I've been shooting nigh on to fifty years now. I had to google MRBF.

Is that a military term? Mean Rounds Before Failure?

Are you saying that you would carry a gun that failed every 250 rounds?

Possibly I am misinterpreting your statement, and what you mean is that 200-250 failure free rounds in a new gun are enough to prove reliability sufficiently for a carry gun. I agree, although I think 500-1000 rounds would be better. In any case, I am not trying to pick a fight. Just trying to learn.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with semi-autos. I have owned a WWII era 1911A1 for about 35 years, and have probably fired a couple of thousand rounds in that time, all factory and all hardball. No failures. My Norinco failed to fire once because I had not slapped home the magazine hard enough. It was practically new when that happened, and after everything "wore in," I have had no more problems. Incidentally, I have used cheap, gun show purchased mags in these two and never had any problems.

I owned, and carried on duty, a S&W Model 39-2 in the early 70's. I probably fired 2500 rounds through it in a couple of years. I had one stovepipe jam, for no apparent reason. Again, all factory ammo, and mostly hardball, although I fired several boxes of a couple of different hollow-point rounds. I always carried hardball on duty.

It sounds like many of you are expecting your semi-automatics to fail. I wouldn't be really shocked if the next time I shot one of my 1911s that I had a failure. I don't expect it every 200-250 rounds, though, and certainly wouldn't trust my life to a gun that failed that often.

With my S&W revolvers, I realize that a failure is theoretically going to eventually happen, but I will be surprised if it does. I have had one gun related failure in a j-frame that locked up the cylinder and called for gunsmithing. Another time, I had a factory hollow-point 125 gr bullet jump the crimp and tie up the cylinder in a Model 36. It seems like it might have been a Super-Vel round that was the culprit.

I would bet you a month's salary that you could select any center-fire S&W revolver from my safe, and that I could fire a thousand rounds of factory .38 sp +p rounds without a failure. I would be extremely surprised if I had a failure. These guns are all box-stock with no polishing or "reliability packages" or anything. My Chief's Special does have a bobbed hammer. A thousand rounds of +p would probably loosen up a j-frame a lot, but I wouldn't expect it to fail.

As you can tell, I am a revolver man, specifically S&W. I have carried my 1911s concealed, but won't any more for several reasons. Reliability is a small part of it. Ease of concealment is next, but most of all, the older I get, the more I have come to appreciate the simplicity of a double action revolver.
__________________

I'm sorry yes MRBF is mean rounds between failure.

Well, I stuck my neck out and said that one failure every 250 rounds is probably OK for a CCW. Now would I like my CCW to go 1000 MRBF or more? Sure, I would, and as a matter of fact my carry weapons, a USPc, a 638 and a G17 can probably go much more than that before having a failure. The most I've ever shot at any one time was around 550 rounds at a pistol course. This was with a USP on a very hot day, with a straight out of the box pistol, and had zero malfunctions. Usually I'll shoot 100-250 rounds, occasionally 350, during a practice session, per gun.

So my point is that if a gun can consistently give you 250 rounds before failure, that is probably good enough. I mean shoot, if you carry on the average of say, 10 rounds, in your CCW, that is 25 carry loads you'd have to go through before approaching a potential malfunction.

Now if you are some high speed low drag type crawling through quick sand and eating snakes, than a gun that can only go 250 MRBF under clean civilian CCW conditions might not be the best, especially if it is your primary weapon! But for CCW, I'll stick my foot out and say that 250 MRBF is probably good enough. Again though, my particular choices can probably go at least 5 times that and still be running, but I think that sometimes we might get a little too mall ninja about expected reliability in our CCW, although, all things considered, it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have a gun that can go 2000 MRBF.

[Cliff47]

I've had the occasional frain bart, that doesn't stop me from (now, what was the rest of my thought). Most annoying when you stop to think, and forget to restart.