Is it prudent to put 1000 rounds through a carry gun?

1000 rounds does not seem at all to me to be a "high round count". Why would you even purchase a weapon that you thought would be prone to failure after such a very short shooting life? And if you can't shoot something a lot, how do you expect to get really competent with it?
 
"But wouldn't replacing parts cause the whole "validation" process start all over again since you are now testing new parts?"

Playboy, I work in the aircraft industry. Just because we replace a defective or worn part doesn't mean we have to test the whole aircraft. By replacing the part we've improved reliability by at least that much.

Of course we do our best to determine when to replace things before they wear out. Failures can still occur. In any case, I don't have a problem with relying on a gun that has thousands of rounds through it as long as it checks out mechanically.
 
But wouldn't replacing parts cause the whole "validation" process start all over again since you are now testing new parts?
Click to expand...

PBP, it depends on the gun and the part.

For instance I have a cheap, rebuilt 1911 that has run flawlessly through more than 2000 LSWC reloads, at least a 1000 each of WW/USA FMJ's & JHP's and 600-800 odd & end .45 ACP loads . I won't be changing any parts on that gun until something falls off of it.

Then there is my issue Glock 22 which jammed twice as many times in one range outing, than the 1911 has with the entire litany of stuff named above. It only took one part to cure that- a magazine. That gun has run perfectly otherwise and I don't see any need to burn 500 rounds to reprove it.

My son had another G22 that had light-strike issues related to the firing pin safety plunger getting battered. A good Glock armorer rebuilt the whole slide w/o resolving the issue. It was a factory reconditioned gun and the company was good enough to send him a shipping label- and fix it on the first trip.

In the end I believe there are too many variables from gun to gun, to give your original question a definitive answer.
 
One thing I should clarify...I am not talking about putting 1000+ rounds through them as you own them. All carry guns will amass way more than that during a lifetime of being practiced with. I am simply saying "does it make sense to not trust one until they have that many rounds through them or is that overkill?"
 
With as many guns as you own, putting 1000 rounds through each would put most of us in the poorhouse :)

I'm working on having the same problem, but I have a long way to go.
 
Just my humble opinion, but you did ask....

I think that if you think you need to run 1,000 rnds through a gun before you can trust it, then you need to drive 10,000 miles before being certain your brakes will work.

I am an old guy, and maybe times they are a changin', but generations of shooters have put their trust in their guns, without running nearly so much ammo through them. I see no reason to think they were all wrong.

Since this kind of question is almost always directed toward duty/ccw type autopistols, I will assume those are the ones under discussion. For many decades, the standard advice was 100-200 rnds through a new gun to verify proper function, before considering it reliable with a particular ammo type and brand. Another 100 or two without any trouble was just icing on the cake.

And, any problems had to be problems with the gun, not the ammo. A couple hundred rnds of the cheapest stuff available and having a problem or two was automatically a failure on the part of the gun.

There are today at least one maker that recommends a number of rounds as a break in period. Prudence dictates that all serious defense guns be tested and "broken in" to assure reliable functioning. But a 1,000 rnd minimum before trusting the gun? Seems excessive to me.
 
I wonder if anyone ever takes into consideration that putting such a high number of rounds through a gun first might be counter productive. You might actually be causing the gun to be many times "more" likely to experience a failure.
Click to expand...

I don't wish to get into an argument, but the more I shoot a gun of mine that continues to function reliably, the more I trust it. Broken in parts are more reliable, and worn parts can be inspected before breakage--at least mush of the time.

Sounds like you're suggesting that it's going to crash all at once.

Never met a good instructor who didn't believe in running them long and hard in training, especially AR's, but pistols, too.

Since I have two of most any pistol I carry, and can shoot the H#%% out of one, and shoot the other sparingly (after it's been run hard), that concept works well for me.

And the best attitude of all: Wear it out and buy another one.
 
I am going to agree with the, "Run a few boxes through and most likely any obvious problems are going to rear their ugly heads."

Additional trigger time is time for the shooter to get more familiar with the gun.

At this point possible future failures will hopefully be detected during time spent stripping, cleaning, and lubricating; and allow one to reveal and take care of any up and coming concerns.
 
Defctive parts do not take 1000 rounds to manifest themselves.
Quality guns don't need "breaking in".
I on the other hand, need quite an amount of ammo to get to know any new gun well enough to be any good with it.
 
Wouldn't trust my Kimber to shoot my dinner

I've got 5,000 rounds through my Sig 228, just 500 through my XD45C (both flawless) My brother topped 11,000 through his P226. Quality guns like Sigs, Glocks, Smiths, Springfields etc. are good for thousands and thousands of rounds.

If the history of the gun is failure free after a couple, three hundred rounds, I see no reason to go to a thousand rounds in order to PROVE the gun.

On the other hand, My Kimber Pro TLE/RLII was a PITA for a long time. By the time I sent it back three times, had the gun replaced, sent THAT one back once, got IT back, installed a Nowlin extractor, had a JP industries elevated mag catch fitted, replaced the cracked plastic mainspring housing, fixed a loose front sight, re-staked the loose plunger tube, got a Wolff XP recoil spring (for 4 inch Kimbers) and throated and polished the chamber and ramp . . . . I had 1600 rounds through it.

Now it works great, so I don't shoot it as much. But until I had 400 consecutive flawless rounds through it, I wouldn't have trusted it to shoot my dinner.

(The issues were FTFs nose diving on the ramp, stove pipes, and the above mentioned foibles)
 
Last edited:
How can someone predict at what round count any gun will fail?. They can't. If you shoot a gun a lot (1,000+) simply replace parts as they become worn. The more you shoot a piece, the more familiar you are with it, and the problems it may develop later. I shoot my carry piece just enough to stay in practice with it - maybe 25 rounds weekly.
 
Off the top of my head, I've experienced and observed others experience three points where pistols fail:

1. Prior to 200 rounds (1911s, Glocks, HKs, Sigs, Kahrs.)
2. Between 500 and 800 rounds (HKs, Sigs)
3. When something needs repair or replacing (Any pistol shot enough.)

I think the 1,000 round mark, advocated as it is, was put forth by folks with similar experiences, who then added the 200 round buffer mentioned earlier; 800 plus 200 = 1,000.

As it turns out I had a S&W 340 M&P fail at approximately 800 rounds earlier in the year; one minute it worked, the next it seized up. The factory repaired it, replacing a broken yoke according to the paperwork. No, I don't trust it to the extent I'd like to. No, I probably won't until I run another 800 rounds (the point of the first failure) through it.
 
Many of you are talking failure of the gun, a broken part for example. Another thing to consider is a failure to eject, failure to feed, problems caused by 'limp wristing' etc. One of my first handguns was my Glock 21 and at first I carried it with NO rounds through it, mainly because it was all I had and didn't have the time or money yet to go to the range. But over time I shot as much as I could find the time and money. The more I shot the more confidence I had in the gun. I wouldn't say not to carry a new gun because it hasn't been proven, or not carry a gun with hundreds of thousands of rounds through it because its old and worn. I would surely say NOT to carry a gun that you shoot and find to be unreliable with ANY malfunctions at all. One single malfunction at the wrong time could cost you your life.

:D

But in general, I totally agree with this statement:

Since this kind of question is almost always directed toward duty/ccw type autopistols, I will assume those are the ones under discussion. For many decades, the standard advice was 100-200 rnds through a new gun to verify proper function, before considering it reliable with a particular ammo type and brand. Another 100 or two without any trouble was just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
 
As I bang apon the key board my Springfield Mil-Spec sits on the desk next to me. After 2-300 round break in all is ok in my book and as stated if you can put 50 rounds through any given CCW of choice WITHOUT A PROBLEM then in my opinion you ( I ) am good to go. Yes I think 1000 rounds is a bit extreme before trusting any given gun. As far as Spiff's comment on the MIM parts replacement I must be flirting with danger because that Mil-Spec sitting besides me has all the MIM parts in it with over 5,000 rounds through it.:eek:
Maybe I got one of the good ones with good MIM parts:confused: Just another way for the parts people to make a buck faulting the MIM parts, but what do I know I got sunburned Sunday riding the motorsickel
 
Don P:
Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've had two thumb safeties and a slide stop break on two Kimbers(total 3 parts, two guns).

I've also had a 360PD auto-lock after 150 rounds, and about 3000 dry fires.

The Kimber thumb safeties looked like someone got a little too artsy, and, not enough functional meat to the part, coupled with not the best MIM production. I think some companies are better at MIM then others...
 
From what Ive read here, along with countless hundreds of other threads/posts, the only way to truly keep ANY weapon from failing, at any point in time, is to not fire it at all!! I mean, these are man-made objects, right? Now, its obvious that some are better made than others and have better "track" records. But, as shown many, many times before, even the "best" are capable of failiing, even within a relatively short period of time.

I guess my over-all point would be this....There is only so much that can be done to "try" insuring a weapon will encounter as few, if any, malfunctions as possible. Things such as proper handling, good maintenance practices, regular function testing, using "proper" ammo, purchasing quality weapons to begin with, etc., etc.

Ive shot (only) 500 rounds or so through my Sig without issue. Now, if I run into something later on down the road (I expect I will), say, around the 700-1000 round mark...does this mean I automatically start believing that this gun is unreliable? Heck no.

Frankly, I think Mr.Murphy can show up anytime, anywhere. All you can do is try to decrease the odds that this will happen at the worst possible time. Short of keeping yourself constantly armed with 2 or more weapons (not necessarily practical when speaking of HD), what else can you really do?
 
Last edited:
Yea, but, many and I'm among them wouldn't begin to believe your Sig to be reliable at the 500 mark, or even the 700-1000 mark, which is the point (in part, at least) many advocating the "at least a 1000 rounds make."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top