Correlation of weight to longevity in small guns. Do you consider this?

P

Pond James Pond

New member
Long post: sorry...:o

A couple of things got me thinking recently. That in itself is an acheivement!

Those things were a discussion about the perception of what should be a gun's lifespan (round-count wise), another was about the purpose of training with guns that are or aren't one's EDC and finally my own enquiries into the real world build of Taurus guns (namely snubbies).

I agree with the statement that, whilst any training is better than none, training regularly with your EDC will pay greater dividends should you ever need it. So that means putting a respectable amount of lead down range, through your EDC.

I can also see that pocket revolvers and pistols are far easier to carry around than something bigger and, invariably, lighter will make that even more convenient. So now we might have a lighter firearm putting a lot of lead downrange.

Thirdly, I can see that a gun made to be light-weight, eg the LCR, LCP, small Kahr models or S&W J frame airweights might not be as resilient as a beefier cousins.
So now we might have a lighter firearm putting a lot of lead downrange whose maximum round count may be significantly lower than a beefier cousin.

A case study: Right now I have an itch for a snub. Could be a used Taurus Model 85, a used S&W Model 60 or, if I save up for a decade or so, a new Ruger LCR.

However, I find myself wondering that, if I decided to practice with it a fair amount (say 30 % or my range time/ >1000 per annum), should I be thinking in terms of which gun will handle the most shooting into the equation, and not just which do I like most, or which is lightest?

In other words will the training I put into my EDC, were I to buy one, adversely affect its longevity and so reliability in that role, over the medium to long-term? If so, can I afford to ignore that?

I'm curious, do those of you choosing a smaller, pocket-type, EDC try to factor in training time and the possible affect that might have on reliability, or do you purely think about whether it will go bang when you need it to in an SD scenario?

My worry would be the training to give me the skill-set needed would take away from that gun's own dependability over time.
A viable concern?
 
I hear ya' James. I basically have two sets of guns...

1. Shoot-a-lot range guns (heavier, beefier, steel).
and
2. Shoot-little carry guns (lighter, thinner, more polymer-y).

I've shot my carry guns enough to be VERY confident with them... Enough that I don't worry at all that I've lost touch with them... I'll still run one mag (or cylinder) through occasionally but not often... (And they all operate exactly the same simple way... Just point and shoot... no safeties... So the familiarity thing runs through them and is down-to-earth simple.)

PS: My suggestion... Don't buy a Taurus revolver... It's a dice roll.
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted to mention that Zamak is heavier than most commonly-used aluminum alloys, but I won't.






Like [...] I won't. :)



More to your point, I share concerns about a heavy round count through an alloy handgun. And that's the reason I own only one, and rarely carry or shoot it. My only pocket pistol is an all-steel Colt Pony .380.
 
Most of my range/shooters are all steel to soak up recoil for extended shooting sessions.

I have no problem shooting my lightweight carry guns as much as I can stand. Since the lightweight's don't soak up as much recoil they get shot less.

I sure don't worry about round count with my EDC, I want to be as sharp as I can. I carry a S&W 638 with CT lasers but when I go to shoot 50 to a 100 rounds through it I change over to Pachmayr Compac grips. See if you can find one of these as it's SA/DA and weights in at 15 oz.

4242403499_7a84c7c4dc_z.jpg


OR one of these a S&W Mod 60 with a 3 inch barrel all steel and gets shot quite a bit.

3145038472_659ee05597_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
So, particularly to CWKahrFan and Bossman (as AB seems to agree with me): do you worry about your ECC round count impacting the reliability of your smaller EDC/pocket carry?

I get the impression that Bossman lets comfort temper his EDC use.

Off Topic side note to CWKF:
That aspect of Taurus is a real quandry.
It is the cheapest and easiest purchase here, but some margin. It came up trumps when I gave it the once over, using the revolver checklist that is posted on here. The only iffy bits on inspection were the slightest of endshake on the cylinder (.5mm), a slightly gritty ejector rod and scratched but intact star.... If it weren't for the brand, I'd be far more confident of a purchase
Back on topic...
 
Ultra flyweight handguns are easier to carry but considerably more difficult to shoot rapidly. It will take more practice time for most people to become proficient with. Most people are prone to developing a flinch when shooting flyweights (especially in .357 Mag.). They can be perfectly usable but take more effort. They will NOT last as long as an all steel gun. Personally I would always rather deal with the weight of a steel gun in a quality carry rig rather than deal with having to shoot a flyweight carried in a pocket. Guns should not be considered a "convenience" item. They're a tool. Use cheap tools for a while and at some point you will understand why good ones cost more money and last longer.
 
Last edited:
do you worry about your ECC round count impacting the reliability of your smaller EDC/pocket carry?
Click to expand...

It's a factor... I feel really good about the fact that all the components of my EDC's have been lightly used and are therefore at a high strength-level.
 
Ultra flyweight handguns are easier to carry but considerably more difficult to shoot rapidly. It will take more practice time for most people to become proficient with. Most people are prone to developing a flinch when shooting flyweights (especially in .357 Mag.). They can be perfectly usable but take more effort. They will NOT last as long as an all steel gun.
Click to expand...

This sums up my point/query. One is putting more ammo, and hence more strain, through through a lighter weapon to get to the same standard. Surely, this makes that gun potentially more unreliable.

How real that potential is, is what I'm interested in. And whether pocket gun owners factor it in to their choices.

Going back to my earlier example. Despite its reputation, the little .38 LCR is titanium, aluminium and polymer (IIRR). If I were to shoot it enough to get good, would I overly weaken it to the point of not being so reliable?
A question worth asking, considering their retail value.
 
Well, if you can't tell I love to shoot and I wouldn't own a gun if I expect to wear it out with real world useage. The Star PD 45 acp is where this whole made to be carry a lot and shot little came from. It was one of the first alloy lightweight guns in 45 auto. I bought one new in 1980 and it still makes my carry rotation. One of my all time favorite guns. I don't shoot it near as much as an all steel gun but it still gets shot today, I'd hate to guess how many rounds have gone though it.

3145032216_d37c4d03f5_z.jpg


I guess is what I'm saying is buy the gun and shoot it. It will work or it won't. If I ever shoot a gun out, hell I'd be ready for something else anyway.;)
 
Yep, Star builds guns like Ruger. HEAVY DUTY. The Star PD was one of Jeff Cooper's favorite carry guns. Those old Firestars are GREAT little guns also. No cheap little stamped tin parts in there. For the money it's an amazingly solid gun.
 
A couple years ago, I read of a guy who had put 26,000 full power .357 Mag load though an S&W 340.
Having owned two of those, I cannot imagine what it took to do that...my wrist wouldn't handle more than ten rounds of .357 or 25 rounds of .38+p at one session.

Where am I going with this? If I still had a 340, I would carry it with .38 Spl +p, and be confident that I could shoot 50 rounds per day, every day for three lifetimes and not worry about it.

Or I could buy a 642 with a plain old alloy frame, and shoot 50 rounds per week for my lifetime without worrying.

My suggestion is to look at the 642, or its pedecessor, the M37.

I have olso owned an M49 (steel frame snub). While a bit heavier, I would have no doubts about its durability whatsoever.
 
I have thought about it, but don't worry about it. I will probably take extra precautions like changing out springs before they fail (they are cheap). But another aspect to look at is if you shoot it frequently, chances are highly likely that if it does fail, it will do so on the range. I don't think well-made guns should fail in your lifetime, that includes the Ruger LCR.
 
Supposedly, longevity is why Colt introduced the Combat Commander, the steel framed version of what then became the Lightweight Commander. Apparently some people shot their commander models enough for them to crack or something. Skeeter Skelton fired 5,000 rounds through a Lightweight Commander model at the same time he was doing a similiar test with a Gold Cup. The original idea was test the rumor that Gold Cups were not as "heavy duty" as a standard model. That was probably 30 years ago.

As it turned out, the frame cracked and several parts broke or became loose, although the gun did not fail.

I once owned a Star BKM, which had an aluminium frame. The BK model is all steel. I never managed to crack the frame (wasn't trying to) but a couple of parts became loose. I never put anywhere near 5,000 rounds through it. And that was probably 15 years ago or more. Supposedly it was one of the last BKMs Interarms had in stock. It came from Potomac Arms in Alexandria, Virginia, which was on the same block on Prince Street as Interarms. They's both gone now.

So it is very likely that lightweight models will not last as long as a regular model. These days, guns tend to be both lighter and chambered in more powerful cartridges. The theory used to that these guns weren't going to be shot a great deal. I guess that's no longer the case.

Remember in the old cowboy movies when the sheriff would use his sixgun to nail up a wanted poster?
 
Here's another thought (second one today!). The word resiliant was used in the original post, the suggestion being that small guns aren't as resiliant as beefier guns, which I assume meant all steel.

"Plastic" guns are common now. When I read descriptions of 10mm Glocks and such like, I seem to remember reviewers mentioning that the plastic frame absorbs more of the shock of firing. That's what resiliant actually is. I don't know if it does or not, never having fired any 10mm, and when I did have a Glock, I don't remember the recoil being noticeably different.

Resiliant or not, one does not read much about plastic frames having a shorter lifespan than metal frames. The manuals for some plastic framed pistols caution against the use of +P or +P+ ammunition or don't permit it altogether. That must say something right there. But otherwise, comments about the longevity of the frames are scarce.

Chances are, very lightweight guns that are almost painful to shoot are not going to be shot very much anyway. However, neither the lightweight Commander .45 or the 9mm Star BKM were the least bit painful to shoot.
 
The lightest pistol I ever carry is a Kel-Tec P3AT. Kel-Tec advertises that their pistols have a 6,000 round life; I will likely never shoot that much through the pistol.

I have a pre-lock S&W airweight that I bought new in the early - mid 1990's and I doubt it has passed 300 rounds. I don't feel the need to shoot a bunch through a seldom carried gun that I know works just fine.

The prior two guns I mentioned are not my idea of a primary gun; if I carry one of them it is a compromise due to ____ . They are more likely to be used as a 2nd gun in pocket (tactical advantage more than back up) to what I consider to be an acceptable gun for SD.

Edit: the rest of the post doesn't directly apply to pocket carry, if I had to just pocket carry, and nothing more, I would just use the P3AT or a LCP. By the time you shoot 6,000 rounds through it you will have spent more on ammo than the price of the pistol. The Ruger LCP might have a longer service life than the Kel-Tec, don't know. I think follow up shots are quicker with the 380 vs the snub and it's lighter, hence my preference for it.


Acceptable for SD begins with subcompact Glocks 26, 27, 33 (for me) they are chambered for more powerful calibers than smaller, lighter guns, easy to shoot well, reliable, and durable. This is my "no compromise" minimum level of protection. I'm not worried about how many rounds I shoot through one. Ever hear of someone "wearing out" a subcompact Glock? I haven't.
 
Last edited:
Personally I would go for the Taurus. If it does not work out then you can have it fixed lifetime Warranty and all. But my personal account with Taurus is great gun for a great price. I love my 617 .357 and the fact it has 7 shots was the clincher for me. I did all the searching I could for the 617 . Pricing, specs and reviews. And decided to go for it.At at 28.3oz or I think you use grams ... 802.291 g. To me was not too heavy for conceal carry. Took it to the range same day and popped off nearly 150 . 357 loads and hand and wrist felt good. If it passed the test then good to go.
 
Well, I usually have light weight revolvers and carry guns, and I have yet to wear one out. However, I suppose it's possible. By the time you wore out an alloy smith with standard pressure loads, would you be able to afford another?
 
By the time you wore out an alloy smith with standard pressure loads, would you be able to afford another?
Click to expand...

When I initially posted this question I wanted to make it as generic as possible to get the most input and perhaps give others, an aspect to consider before they buy.

However, the whole question was borne from the fact that, whilst I have sort of discounted the S&W I listed earlier, due to the distance I am sort of considering, despite some dire warnings, the local, cheap Taurus, but I have not discounted taking the plunge and getting an LCR in .38.

If I got the latter, I would NOT want to have to buy another, anytime soon. Where I live, those retail at €700, or $900. I can also say that average monthly salaries here are not what they are in the US. :(

So basically, if I got an LCR, I would want it to last a looooong time, and I expect I'd be shooting anything from 500-1500 rounds through it per year. I probably should not expect the same round count as my Redhawk or Glock might acheive, but it has to be a decent figure.

Not so much, people may say, but if that gun is, say, 4 years and 5000 rounds old, and I happen to need it in the street, can I depend on it to do what is needed, or will it be a gamble?

That is my problem, rather than "if the gun wears out, I'll get another one" as some have said. Problem is, what if it wears out just as you draw to defend your life?

Am I over thinking this?
Am I being unrealistic about what I should expect any pocket/snub gun to be capable of?
 
Not so much, people may say, but if that gun is, say, 4 years and 5000 rounds old, and I happen to need it in the street, can I depend on it to do what is needed, or will it be a gamble?

That is my problem, rather than "if the gun wears out, I'll get another one" as some have said. Problem is, what if it wears out just as you draw to defend your life?

Am I over thinking this?
Am I being unrealistic about what I should expect any pocket/snub gun to be capable of?
Click to expand...
To be honest anytime you buy something man made you are taking a gamble. I don't care how good a name is you still run the gambit of having a mechanical devise made by human hands failing on you. It could happen at the range or while trying to protect your life. But either way you have to make your own decision. I will not be shooting it nor anyone else on this forum. I don't think though you are being unrealistic you are trying to gather as much information as possible as I did. All anyone on here can tell you is what gun they had good luck with. Or with what they had bad luck with. So to speak if you buy a S&W it could fail you just as a Ruger, Taurus. And of course this covers cars, tvs, watches or anything man made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top