Should a semi-eat all ammo?

Not sure it makes any difference if the should or should not; if they do or do not. I find ammo mine will shoot reliably and that's what I buy and shoot. I have only had issues with Magtech and I now avoid buying it.

Now that ammo availability is no longer an issue I don't consider this to be an issue.
 
I have a glock 30 that won't cycle swc's, and some rn lead bullets depending on their profile.

Reliably feeds everything else.
 
I don't care if my gun will not reliably feed an ammunition type I never shoot.

I care that it will reliably feed the ammunition I do shoot.
 
briandg if the Bodyguard shoots everything other than Winchester reduced recoil rounds, how is it a defective gun?

The failure in your example is the ladies failure to learn and maintain her weapon. That is certainly not the failure of the manufacturer. I don't see how you can characterize as a complete failure since it won't operate properly with reduced recoil ammo. Subcompacts pistols by nature tend to be a little picky about ammo.

For the record I don't own a Bodyguard. I do own and carry an LCP though. If it failed with reduced recoil ammo while covered in pocket lint, I would not blame Ruger.
 
To the OP's question, Yes I believe that one's semi should be able to "eat" all ammo used both SD & practice. My only caveat is that the ammo is American made and not some 2nd or 3rd hand garbage. All of the American made ammo that I've used in my Glock have never misfired or jammed. I only have about 2 yrs. of having a Glock 19, so that's what I base my answer on.
 
K Mac, it also failed to fire certain primers. It stovepiped on Winchester. I got a few failures to feed on blazer brass.

This stuff is mainstream ammo, not an oddball, it's fmj round nose, and if the most basic available ammo doesn't function properly in a self defense weapon, that's not right.

Not everyone can go through the whole process of running hundreds or thousands of rounds through a gun. Goes back to that simple issue. A defensive gun that can't reliably fire nearly anything is not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

So, imagine that your aunt Lucy in Baltimore bought a gun, fired two boxes through it, and damn, the next time she went, there were outages. She couldn't get her regular box and the guy suggested one. Before she could verify that it worked, she had to use it, it failed, and she was hurt. So, is that all her fault?

Winchester probably should put a warning on it. Smith should probably revamp both hammer and slide springs so that it can fire a wider range of ammo, since this particular load may be one of the top five sellers nationwide.

Can we stop blaming the person who had the gun fail?

I wound up with it because it was the only non combat stuff they had. Many other people are going to buy it out of choice.

In many cases, reliability in loading is a very small problem. When your ccw fails it's a matter of life and death, and seriously, that is the only reason to buy one of those things.

The thing should be able to fire any standard ammo reliably. Only one brand in four fired every round perfectly.
 
This sort of reminds me of a long ago lawsuit. A guy went on a long road trip with a new car. He ran the thing in the range of 100 mph for hours. The tires weren't rated for that speed, the factory installed tires that couldn't take the speed that the car was capable of, and a tire catastrophically blew out at high speed.

400 engine, speed capable of over 100, and the tires that the factory installed were not rated for it.

It's absolutely clear where the fault lies if the maker designed a vehicle like that and the factory screwed the pooch when equipping it, it's all right there.
 
It's an interesting question, but I wonder why no one is turning it around. Instead of griping at the gun makers, why not complain to the ammo makers for not making ammo that runs flawlessly in every gun?

Their answer would be simple, and the same one the gunmakers use. Reality.

Simply put, no maker can account for ALL the possible variables in every gun, everywhere.
 
Simply put, no maker can account for ALL the possible variables in every gun, everywhere.
Click to expand...
That's true best everyone can do is try to stick to standards, not load light, and try to stick to a reasonable set of bullet profiles for target use.

some of the calibers date back so old they did not account for the wild JHP profiles on the market today (9mm, 45acp). I've heard of 1911's that choked on anything but G.I ball, and others that could load empty cases (impressive)

New guns I think account for defense rounds even if the gun in question is of older origin.

-My personal philosophy is 300 flawless rounds of FMJ + 100 flawless carry ammo, then it's suitable for carry.

Some will say 4-500 rounds of carry ammo but that gets expensive quick (I know whats my life worth right?)

Magazines are marked and tracked for malfs, usually no more then 3 mags
I may have more mags but they're kept for reserve use.

Often the mag can be the problem so marking your mags is very important imo
I will rotate which mag is carry in the gun after range trips.
I will also say try to use good quality mags, if not factory then Mec-gar is my goto trusted brand.

If you go cheap then give it extra scrutiny before you trust it.

This is just what makes "ME" feel comfortable with a new gun, ymmv
 
A gun that isn't 100% reliable does serve one useful function though. You'll learn how to clear and reload a jam so that the function will be more automatic in an emergency due to lots of practice.
 
44, that is how I feel about it. Saami sets standards for chambers and cartridges that only cover dimensions. Ammo makers need to strive for perfection in performance with basic bullet profiles and power ranges, and if a gun can't work on those same basic parameters, then somewhere, someone did something wrong. A plain ball round that can't make it into a chamber and out again is a huge failure.

Even when you get into hollow point rounds, seriously, most of them still follow the same general profile, and should feed.

You've got two components at work. I am inclined to blame the gun unless that round is off the scale crazy. They should be able to use any saami approved weight and velocity, 115 to 147, in any reasonable profile. A gun maker should provide information regarding the most reliable weights and so forth in the manual.

On the other side, it's hard to blame ammo makers for designing rounds meant for optimal function. But if those screwball rounds show some unreliable performance during the constant testing, then they have, imo, a responsibility to make that absolutely clear.

One of my reasons for looking at the gun first?

If it doesn't work, it can almost always be fixed. Drop in springs and hammers,replacement magazines, tuning of extraction or other feed system, there are plenty of other things.

If a gun won't reliably fire, but a little work on it can fix it, that answers it. If a gun doesn't work right under normal conditions, but it can be fixed, that fits the plain, simple definition of defective. you can't fix something if it is already doing its job properly.
 
I have been carrying the same old Federal 9BP for years.
There are more modern designs with more expansion, etc. but I know this load is reliable to feed, fire, and function in all my 9mms. It would take a lot of time and money to get as confident with a different load.

Hornady 200gr XTP is looking good in .45; a couple hundred more through the Commander and it can graduate from hardball.
 
briandg I would carefully explain to Aunt Lucy that carrying or owning a gun for self-defense requires more than buying one and a box of ammo. I would help her to find a local trainer to help with that process.

I would talk to her about​ the difference between pistols and revolvers and explain the reasons why I would generally recommend a revolver: A subcompact pistol requires more to determine if it works well with the selected ammo, and I would certainly advise against lightly loaded reduced recoil rounds; It requires more careful cleaning and lubrication; It requires training and practice to learn and maintain the skills needed to clear a malfunction. If she was willing to spend the time and money to do all that is necessary to use a pistol then I would tell her to find one she likes.

I know there are plenty of women who carry pistols, and who are quite skilled with them. My above advice would be the same to Uncle Ed.
 
I would concern me, if I were to use semi autos for protection, would be the amount of $$ carry ammo I would want to put through it, before I felt comfortable.


I have a suspect many shoot $20, and call it good. I would want to 2 hundred atleast.


I sent my LCP back to Ruger. They told me 4 FTF in 400 rounds was acceptable. Have you proved your gun is better, or are you comfortable with that?

Only gun I ever got rid of.
 
Kmak, I can't support your contention that every person has absolute responsibility to be the last and only quality control tester that pulls the trigger. That idea is so naive, to believe that everyone can and must consult with experts and wring out a system of gun and ammo that will work, and that the only responsibility you lay on the maker is that the gun has to fire, even if it doesn't work worth a hoot.

A car that starts and rolls is not enough, a furnace that lights but goes out, whatever.

The only fact that matters is that if someone gets bad results, and they contact the maker, they will generally try to fix it. if there was nothing wrong, they won't take it back. if it comes back fixed, then it was defective when it was sent in.

If you really believe that nobody has a right to expect proper performance out of the box, I just can't understand.
 
Last edited:
briandg you make some good points. I do not believe that gun and ammo manufacturers have no responsibility to their customers, especially when marketing guns and ammo for self-defense. I also believe that I have the right to expect a gun to work as advertised.

I am not naive enough to expect a subcompact pistol (or any other) will work flawlessly with reduced recoil ammo though without verification. If it does not I will choose another loading. If after a couple of different choices it does not work flawlessly, then I would contact the manufacturer to have it made right.

And yes, ultimately the user has absolute responsibility to know that what they are carrying works. If Aunt Lucy buys a pistol and box of ammo and assumes she is good to go without consultation with someone who knows how to help her, and her gun fails her when needed, it is her fault. It is also mine for failing to make her understand her responsibility. Blaming the manufacturers of the gun, ammo, or pocket lint won't help Aunt Lucy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top