What does it take for you to be confident in a gun?

[nickatnite]

I absolutely need more training. Who doesn't?

I practice twice as much off hand. Not as accurate, but no limp-wristing.

Never practiced the last one. How does one practice that?

That is the point I am making...
Scenarios can be infinite when you start thinning "what if's", just like shooting a revolver under stress or stovepipes and FTF on semi-autos. Don't throw out the gun because of ONE FTF, train for it...

Think of the following:
One could "short stroke" the trigger on a revolver and make you wonder what happened, I've done it myself years ago.
What would happen if the trigger return spring on a GLOCK breaks during a course of fire?

Further thinking, jams and mis-fires on your semi-auto, if you are shooting with your buds, do you let them load your mags? I have and guess what one of those guys does? About every 2nd mag, he loads a spent casing in the mix. Talk about mind**ck, especially when we are at the range, just shooting for fun..

 

[sevenpt62]

personally I think that a good evaluation of a carry gun is to shoot a few ipsc or idpa matches with it while shooting cheaper dirtier ammo. The gun, mags, and ammo all get dirty and ran hard, all while shooting from different positions also strong and weak hand. If the gun can go through 4 or 5 matches and not hiccup without cleaning, then I'll run about three mags full of my carry ammo(winchester ranger) through it and then call it good to go. Needles to say this is why I dont have 1911s anymore and carry g17/19/26 which has pass this evaluation with flying colors.

 

[buddy_fuentes]

It is not overboard if it makes you feel better. I wouldn't go that far, but I do occasionally check my carry guns to make sure they work properly...mostly one magazine.

I had a custom gun built for carry and have shot it a fair bit. I bought a box of Speer Gold Dots to change out my carry ammo. I loaded a magazine and tried to chamber a round and it hit the feed ramp and stuck. I cleared it and tried again and got the same results. Needless to say, I'm not carrying the Gold Dots. This just goes to show that you should always check your ammo gun combination to be sure it will feed.

I later found out my problem was a weak magazine spring...LOL, I still don't carry the Gold Dots!

 

[Hardballing]

OP... I applaud your systematic approach, but I think you're a bit over-the-top. Namely, you're going to ditch the piece if it chokes ONE time, in any fashion? That's a bit drastic, eh???

.

Sssshhhhh. WHAT are you thinking Bro?

You're crapping down on a great source of used hardware (perhaps).

Tisk, tisk, tisk, and your post was late enough in the day for you to have had coffee too.

 

[340six]

back in the late 80's early 90's I carried a 3rd gen smith 5906 I was and still am confident in it plus when water was involved it was SS
I liked it so much i got a new in box 6906 former cali state dept corrections gun never issued but marked for them on it.
I am confident in all my pistols or i would not have them.

 

[LACamper]

I'm a bit less stringent. I accept the fact that occasionally a gun will jam and am comfortable enough to clear a jam. There's a reason you do malfunction drills.

That being said, I usually run 250 rounds through a pistol that I'm going to carry. I expect a few malfunctions in the first 100 rounds or so (ie my Keltec) but am pleasantly surprised when I don't get them (ie Springfield 1911). If it were more than a few malfunctions I'd be concerned though.

 

[Sin-ster]

200-500 rounds the moment I pick up the gun, after cleaning a lubing out of the box. 50-100 more of the chosen SD ammo before it's carried. The variance is based on the known/reported reliability of the gun-- the Shield got a longer work out than the M&P 45, for example, because it was a new design.

1k rounds without cleaning breeds true confidence. A 500 round session straight from the holster after a month of carry (dust bunnies and all) breeds even more. 2k+ without cleaning, especially in a class or rough training/short duration practice, still more.

Most of that happens on the way to wearing out the first recoil spring. When it's replaced, I suppose that's when I hit my highest level of confidence.

When the gun crests 10, 20, 30, 40k without a non-ammo-specific failure, I start worrying about being lulled into a sense of over security...

 

[DBMJR1]

I'm much more likely to have an ammunition failure than a firearm failure. Even so, with my 1954 Colt Cobra, I'll just pull the trigger again.

 

[LouisianaMan]

OP,
Wow, I commend your diligence. it seems to give you confidence & you're enjoying it, so keep it up.

But I have to ask--are you so concerned about a possible malfunction that you'll lack confidence in your weapon and ammo in a crisis?

Of the weapons I was assigned in my military career, I never had the remotest opportunity of shooting them under the demanding conditions you & many others are describing. Nor did any of the soldiers I served with. It may well be different in Ranger or Special Ops units, but I doubt that many/any non-Spec Ops guys get to wring out their weapon that thoroughly. And by no means did we have the option of rejecting a weapon every time it malfunctioned, nor could we change brands or lots of ammo, nor magazines. Nobody would have dared run several thousand rounds thru a weapon w/o cleaning or lubing it--unless specifically assigned to a weapons-testing program, any soldier working a weapon that hard would probably have to pay for it if it broke. :-)

Bottom line: if you ever wind up in a "shooting scrape," as they used to call them, your weapons system is tested more thoroughly than 99.9% of the soldiers in the US Army, FWIW. Probably the same goes for concealed carry permit holders. Until very recent times, few weapons systems had the kind of reliability you demand. The 1911 was considered a reliable workhorse for a century, but some of the posters here consider it a toy?? That's either (a) overkill, or (b) indicative of the fact that weapons have been improved so much in recent years that reliability standards simply have reached a heretofore undreamed of order of magnitude. Probably a bit of both, IMO.

 

[Quickdraw22]

Late to the party, but the *ONLY* gun I'm 99% confident with is my Ruger MKIII. Unfortunately, it's main use is a plinker/range/woods toy.

It took me roughly 3K rounds to get "decent", and over 10K rounds to get "good". Once I was semi-consistently hitting 12ga hulls at 35 yards (with irons), I figured I had done about all I could do.

On the other hand, I have about 100 rounds of experience with my Glock. I couldn't hit the ground if I dropped it.

 

[Sin-ster]

OP,
Wow, I commend your diligence. it seems to give you confidence & you're enjoying it, so keep it up.

But I have to ask--are you so concerned about a possible malfunction that you'll lack confidence in your weapon and ammo in a crisis?

Of the weapons I was assigned in my military career, I never had the remotest opportunity of shooting them under the demanding conditions you & many others are describing. Nor did any of the soldiers I served with. It may well be different in Ranger or Special Ops units, but I doubt that many/any non-Spec Ops guys get to wring out their weapon that thoroughly. And by no means did we have the option of rejecting a weapon every time it malfunctioned, nor could we change brands or lots of ammo, nor magazines. Nobody would have dared run several thousand rounds thru a weapon w/o cleaning or lubing it--unless specifically assigned to a weapons-testing program, any soldier working a weapon that hard would probably have to pay for it if it broke. :-)

Bottom line: if you ever wind up in a "shooting scrape," as they used to call them, your weapons system is tested more thoroughly than 99.9% of the soldiers in the US Army, FWIW. Probably the same goes for concealed carry permit holders. Until very recent times, few weapons systems had the kind of reliability you demand. The 1911 was considered a reliable workhorse for a century, but some of the posters here consider it a toy?? That's either (a) overkill, or (b) indicative of the fact that weapons have been improved so much in recent years that reliability standards simply have reached a heretofore undreamed of order of magnitude. Probably a bit of both, IMO.

Very, very, very good post-- thanks for the perspective.

 

[olivs260]

OP,
Wow, I commend your diligence. it seems to give you confidence & you're enjoying it, so keep it up.

But I have to ask--are you so concerned about a possible malfunction that you'll lack confidence in your weapon and ammo in a crisis?

Of the weapons I was assigned in my military career, I never had the remotest opportunity of shooting them under the demanding conditions you & many others are describing. Nor did any of the soldiers I served with. It may well be different in Ranger or Special Ops units, but I doubt that many/any non-Spec Ops guys get to wring out their weapon that thoroughly. And by no means did we have the option of rejecting a weapon every time it malfunctioned, nor could we change brands or lots of ammo, nor magazines. Nobody would have dared run several thousand rounds thru a weapon w/o cleaning or lubing it--unless specifically assigned to a weapons-testing program, any soldier working a weapon that hard would probably have to pay for it if it broke. :-)

Bottom line: if you ever wind up in a "shooting scrape," as they used to call them, your weapons system is tested more thoroughly than 99.9% of the soldiers in the US Army, FWIW. Probably the same goes for concealed carry permit holders. Until very recent times, few weapons systems had the kind of reliability you demand. The 1911 was considered a reliable workhorse for a century, but some of the posters here consider it a toy?? That's either (a) overkill, or (b) indicative of the fact that weapons have been improved so much in recent years that reliability standards simply have reached a heretofore undreamed of order of magnitude. Probably a bit of both, IMO.

Good input, but different criteria. In a military situation, you've got boys to cover your malf. In an armed citizen situation, a malf means your ass. My magic number is 2000, and that's with a "known" quality gun- a few M&P's to date, and currently working on a Glock.

 

[rrussotwo]

Weapons have definitely improved over the years and seem to keep getting better. Metallurgy has improved and modern coatings / finishes are amazing compared to blueing and nickel.

The biggest improvements came with the advent of polymers, CAD, and finite element analysts. You can design and virtually test a gun without machining a part.

Before the advent of computer design and testing, we relied on genius. Genius isn't too common, therefore, neither were amazingly reliable and accurate small arms. There used to be a trade off. You used to have three options; small, reliable, and accurate; and you could only choose two of those three. Sure there were a few exceptions, but they relied on genius, a rare commodity.

I am significantly more comfortable with ANY gun on me than with no gun, but if I'm going to carry, it might as well be with something I am supremely confident in.

I have a Ruger 22/45 that I bought in '96 for plinking that is a 99.5% gun. I routinely set up colored paper clips at 25yds with that bad boy and make them disappear. I love that gun. I also have a .22 slide replacement for one of my Tanfoglios that is more of a 95% gun due to FTEs. It's almost as accurate as the Ruger. I love it too. Reliability (or lack thereof) doesn't matter nearly as much (to me) for toys.

 

[jdindadell]

After reading this I came to a conclusion...

Testing your gun is a good idea. I think running all of the mags for the gun (auto loder of course) fully loaded a few times would be enough to have confidence in both the gun and the mags. So if you had 3 mags and they held 15rd that would be 150 rds or so. More mags equals more rounds thru the gun. Mags are the weak point, I always test mine.

Having another well tested gun for backup (ny reload) would be a great way to attempt to cover the "Murphy's Law" situations. But then you have to carry 2 guns and be profecient at getting them into action.

I guess the best bet is just trusting the gun you have, and let the dice fall where they will. The is no such thing as 100% preparation.

So while your system may seem a bit overkill, if it makes you confident in the equipement then I see nothing wrong with it at all. Plus you are getting trigger time.

All the "what ifs" can make a guy's head hurt.

 

[rrussotwo]

It's also a good excuse to throw a bunch of lead down range.

 

[Sin-ster]

It's also a good excuse to throw a bunch of lead down range.

You must be married, if you need an excuse...

 

[LouisianaMan]

Good input, but different criteria. In a military situation, you've got boys to cover your malf. In an armed citizen situation, a malf means your ass. My magic number is 2000, and that's with a "known" quality gun- a few M&P's to date, and currently working on a Glock.

I definitely get your point--correlation doesn't prove causation, nor does "similar" equal "identical." With that said, however, I would offer this thought: military or civilian, if you're far enough away from the BG to have time to clear malfunctions, you also are likely to be able to maneuver, get your gun shooting again, etc. If you're so close that there's no time to clear a "routine" malfunction, military or civilian, there's a real high likelihood that your number is up. Granted, I agree that it's generally more likely for a soldier to have help available than a concealed-carrying civilian is, but soldiers who experience a jam while face-to-face with the enemy generally have two choices: go hand-to-hand, or get shot.

Anecdotes illustrate, but don't prove, but here's one: my brother fought in "Leatherneck Square" in 1967-68. After one ambush hammered his platoon, the NVA attempted to assault thru the kill zone and finish the job (standard practice for them and us both). As my brother lay on his back, wounded, on the dirt road, he saw the high grass slowly part right in front of him, about 3-5 feet away, revealing an NVA soldier preparing to throw a grenade. The only Marines close by were dead or wounded, and my brother was able to use one hand and both knees to steady his M-16 in that direction, as he'd heard the NVA soldier crawling up on him. Gordon's M-16 worked smoothly that time, so he came home and was able to tell the tale. Had it jammed, we would have gotten a "regret to inform you" telegram and never known the detailed circumstances.

Similarly, when assaulting thru a kill zone--on the winning side this time-- he wound up standing next to two apparently dead NVA soldiers, while "mopping up" came to an end with a few scattered shots. When the "dead" guys moved, Gordon used the machete in his hand rather than his rifle, as he knew that a burst of firing at that tense moment was liable to attract immediate incoming fire from Marines that would hit him. Again, he was in a unit action, but at that moment he was on his own with those 2 NVA.

Ironically for this thread, his original M-16 jammed after each shot and he had to ram out the brass with his cleaning rod each time. One night, a guy in his squad blew his top and sat inside the perimeter, screaming, hollering, and firing magazine after magazine on full auto into the air. When the guy calmed down and was medevacked after sunrise, my brother turned in his single shot and kept the other guy's rifle, which had functioned flawlessly thru hundreds of rounds that night. :-)

 

[LouisianaMan]

Weapons have definitely improved over the years and seem to keep getting better. Metallurgy has improved and modern coatings / finishes are amazing compared to blueing and nickel.

The biggest improvements came with the advent of polymers, CAD, and finite element analysts. You can design and virtually test a gun without machining a part.

Before the advent of computer design and testing, we relied on genius. Genius isn't too common, therefore, neither were amazingly reliable and accurate small arms. There used to be a trade off. You used to have three options; small, reliable, and accurate; and you could only choose two of those three. Sure there were a few exceptions, but they relied on genius, a rare commodity.

I am significantly more comfortable with ANY gun on me than with no gun, but if I'm going to carry, it might as well be with something I am supremely confident in.

Excellent & insightful post--very well-put! (I was with you until I hit "finite element analysts"!) Can only wonder what Browning and Pedersen could have done in our time, eh?

 

[LouisianaMan]

After reading this I came to a conclusion...

Testing your gun is a good idea. I think running all of the mags for the gun (auto loder of course) fully loaded a few times would be enough to have confidence in both the gun and the mags. So if you had 3 mags and they held 15rd that would be 150 rds or so. More mags equals more rounds thru the gun. Mags are the weak point, I always test mine.

Having another well tested gun for backup (ny reload) would be a great way to attempt to cover the "Murphy's Law" situations. But then you have to carry 2 guns and be profecient at getting them into action.

I guess the best bet is just trusting the gun you have, and let the dice fall where they will. The is no such thing as 100% preparation.

So while your system may seem a bit overkill, if it makes you confident in the equipement then I see nothing wrong with it at all. Plus you are getting trigger time.

All the "what ifs" can make a guy's head hurt.

Agree on NUMEROUS counts: mags are the weakest link in the chain; I am a fan of the New York reload for exactly the reason you state, although my two are usually revolvers of the same make/model to benefit from muscle memory & reduce fumbling in a crisis; confidence is a priceless commodity in a tight spot; trigger time is a good thing; "what if's" can drive you nuts if you let 'em!

 

[olivs260]

I definitely get your point--correlation doesn't prove causation, nor does "similar" equal "identical." With that said, however, I would offer this thought: military or civilian, if you're far enough away from the BG to have time to clear malfunctions, you also are likely to be able to maneuver, get your gun shooting again, etc. If you're so close that there's no time to clear a "routine" malfunction, military or civilian, there's a real high likelihood that your number is up. Granted, I agree that it's generally more likely for a soldier to have help available than a concealed-carrying civilian is, but soldiers who experience a jam while face-to-face with the enemy generally have two choices: go hand-to-hand, or get shot.

Anecdotes illustrate, but don't prove, but here's one: my brother fought in "Leatherneck Square" in 1967-68. After one ambush hammered his platoon, the NVA attempted to assault thru the kill zone and finish the job (standard practice for them and us both). As my brother lay on his back, wounded, on the dirt road, he saw the high grass slowly part right in front of him, about 3-5 feet away, revealing an NVA soldier preparing to throw a grenade. The only Marines close by were dead or wounded, and my brother was able to use one hand and both knees to steady his M-16 in that direction, as he'd heard the NVA soldier crawling up on him. Gordon's M-16 worked smoothly that time, so he came home and was able to tell the tale. Had it jammed, we would have gotten a "regret to inform you" telegram and never known the detailed circumstances.

Similarly, when assaulting thru a kill zone--on the winning side this time-- he wound up standing next to two apparently dead NVA soldiers, while "mopping up" came to an end with a few scattered shots. When the "dead" guys moved, Gordon used the machete in his hand rather than his rifle, as he knew that a burst of firing at that tense moment was liable to attract immediate incoming fire from Marines that would hit him. Again, he was in a unit action, but at that moment he was on his own with those 2 NVA.

Ironically for this thread, his original M-16 jammed after each shot and he had to ram out the brass with his cleaning rod each time. One night, a guy in his squad blew his top and sat inside the perimeter, screaming, hollering, and firing magazine after magazine on full auto into the air. When the guy calmed down and was medevacked after sunrise, my brother turned in his single shot and kept the other guy's rifle, which had functioned flawlessly thru hundreds of rounds that night. :-)

Cool stories, man.

On gaining confidence, I know my point is basically this- as armed civilians, unlike in the military, we have the ability to thoroughly vet our weapon. Also unlike in the military, we're far less likely to have backup (or for most people, a backup weapon) if something does go wrong. Some will certainly choose higher standards than others, and those standards may change. I don't know that I'll end up feeding this Glock 2k rounds before I thoroughly trust it, like I did to the M&P's I've used, but part of that is because those guns had aftermarket parts installed (Apex stuff), and honestly I started my shooting career on them so honestly I needed the practice. The whole point of all this testing/vetting is to unveil potential issues so that we hopefully don't have to deal with clearing a malfunction while the S is hitting the F.

In other words, I think we basically agree