To me shooting 10000 rounds eithout cleaning shows evidence toward reliability. I dont think its meant to show that you will shoot 10000 rounds at any one incident
Why aren't today's semi-auto pistols more reliable?
- Thread starter ezmiraldo
- Start date
Everything eventually fails. I think what “x” number of rounds with “x” number of failures tells us is that there is or isn't a critical flaw in the assembly/execution of a particular sample of one. Like it has been said, that doesn't mean that it won't fail on the next round but it does tell you (after an acceptable number of rounds down range) that your magazine probably isn't out of spec.
Modern semi autos are extremely reliable as are modern revolvers.
But it's an error to expect 100% reliability. First because it's impossible and a meaningless goal and second because it's poor practice to not expect and anticipate a malfunction of some sort due either to the gun or the operator of said device.
We practice malfunction drills with both revolver and pistol because they can both have problems at inconvenient times and we need to know how to get them back into the action quickly. For this reason we anticipate that they will go wrong, it's best to expect it at the most at the worst of times. That way it is not a shock when they do and you don't panic, but move on according to plan.
Why be the fella who claims "my guns are always reliable" when you can be the one who says "I can clear a malf cleanly and quickly".
We learn how to change a tire and carry the tools for it in our vehicles because no matter how reliable a modern tire is we know we will get a flat someday. It's the nature of road travel and tires. It's the nature of pistols and revolvers that somethings go wrong sometimes. So you clear it and go on.
If a person claims that with a range of pistols they have constant problems it's most likely the shooter to blame. I can say this because most folks don't have that problem, at least not with name guns.
Guns these days are remarkably reliable. But don't expect 100%, plan on them going wrong, learn to get them straight and you'll live long and prosper.
tipoc
But it's an error to expect 100% reliability. First because it's impossible and a meaningless goal and second because it's poor practice to not expect and anticipate a malfunction of some sort due either to the gun or the operator of said device.
We practice malfunction drills with both revolver and pistol because they can both have problems at inconvenient times and we need to know how to get them back into the action quickly. For this reason we anticipate that they will go wrong, it's best to expect it at the most at the worst of times. That way it is not a shock when they do and you don't panic, but move on according to plan.
Why be the fella who claims "my guns are always reliable" when you can be the one who says "I can clear a malf cleanly and quickly".
We learn how to change a tire and carry the tools for it in our vehicles because no matter how reliable a modern tire is we know we will get a flat someday. It's the nature of road travel and tires. It's the nature of pistols and revolvers that somethings go wrong sometimes. So you clear it and go on.
If a person claims that with a range of pistols they have constant problems it's most likely the shooter to blame. I can say this because most folks don't have that problem, at least not with name guns.
Guns these days are remarkably reliable. But don't expect 100%, plan on them going wrong, learn to get them straight and you'll live long and prosper.
tipoc
I don't think 95% of guns will ever be shot enough to wear out. I traded for an old Taurus 38 special revolver from the 70s the other day that still looked and shot like a new one. I know a lot of people with both handguns and long guns that shoot them very little or not at all. Only us gun nuts wear out guns.
None of the above unless you count an occasional primer not igniting, which isn't something I consider a "gun" problem unless it happens quite frequently with various ammo.
Maybe my experience isn't typical since my Dad was a certified rifle and pistol instructor and I can't remember not shooting some type of guns.
For a while he was a LEO, and during that time I got a chance to shoot a lot at the local Sheriff's Dept range with some of the deputies.
I suspect the OP has far less gun handling time than I do since I pretty much grew up with a gun of some sort in my hand
Yes, a lot of you guys are probably more experienced than I'm when it comes to semi-autos. I'm sure many of you are.
But, I also wonder: How many semi-auto pistol problems are swept under the rug or dismissed as "user errors," as opposed to inherent design imperfections? Slide got out of battery? User error -- shouldn't have touched BG's body! Slide didn't lock back after last round? User error -- shouldn't have touched the slide release button! Slide doesn't stay back even when thumb is nowhere near slide lock button. User error -- probably doing something else wrong! Failure to chamber a round? User error -- shouldn't have limpwristed, or shouldn't have put WML on polymer frame, or shouldn't have put too little (or too much) lube, or shouldn't be using +p or +p+ loads! Slide fell off the frame? User error -- shouldn't have ... had a bad gun (?!) Gun or mag fell on the ground and sand prevents rounds from moving up the mag well? User error -- should have been more careful with one's mags. etc. etc. etc... At what point do we stop calling these problems "user errors" and start trying to improve the reliability of the semi-auto platform design? It seems pretty much anything can be called a "user error", perhaps with the exception of parts breakage (although, I'm sure some will still call this user error because user didn't preemptively replace all fragile parts).
To clarify, malfunctions haven't been happening constantly w. my guns (sig, especially, according to many of your guys' standards, was near perfect). But, when problems did happen, it was a source of concern. Not because I don't know how to clear the malfunctions (I do, both, two-handed and one-handed with either hand, and I can do it quicker than most people I've observed during classes I've taken), but because I visualize a life-or-death shootout and then I have a double-feed while BG is pointing .357 revolver between my eyes from 10 feet away... What's that saying we all know: When seconds count, police are only minutes away? How about we change it up a little: When micro-seconds count, cleared semi-auto malfunction is only seconds away...
Anyhoo, thanks for playing! I do appreciate everyone's perspective.
But, I also wonder: How many semi-auto pistol problems are swept under the rug or dismissed as "user errors," as opposed to inherent design imperfections? Slide got out of battery? User error -- shouldn't have touched BG's body! Slide didn't lock back after last round? User error -- shouldn't have touched the slide release button! Slide doesn't stay back even when thumb is nowhere near slide lock button. User error -- probably doing something else wrong! Failure to chamber a round? User error -- shouldn't have limpwristed, or shouldn't have put WML on polymer frame, or shouldn't have put too little (or too much) lube, or shouldn't be using +p or +p+ loads! Slide fell off the frame? User error -- shouldn't have ... had a bad gun (?!) Gun or mag fell on the ground and sand prevents rounds from moving up the mag well? User error -- should have been more careful with one's mags. etc. etc. etc... At what point do we stop calling these problems "user errors" and start trying to improve the reliability of the semi-auto platform design? It seems pretty much anything can be called a "user error", perhaps with the exception of parts breakage (although, I'm sure some will still call this user error because user didn't preemptively replace all fragile parts).
To clarify, malfunctions haven't been happening constantly w. my guns (sig, especially, according to many of your guys' standards, was near perfect). But, when problems did happen, it was a source of concern. Not because I don't know how to clear the malfunctions (I do, both, two-handed and one-handed with either hand, and I can do it quicker than most people I've observed during classes I've taken), but because I visualize a life-or-death shootout and then I have a double-feed while BG is pointing .357 revolver between my eyes from 10 feet away... What's that saying we all know: When seconds count, police are only minutes away? How about we change it up a little: When micro-seconds count, cleared semi-auto malfunction is only seconds away...
Anyhoo, thanks for playing! I do appreciate everyone's perspective.
Last edited:
I think you should buy 2 revolvers and wear them both. You can use the NY reload if you do get a malfunction on the first one and your life will be saved. Unfortunately at some point I imagine it is possible to have 2 revolvers malfunction in series and we are right back to not sleeping at night.
polyphemus
New member
OP,please take a deep breath,no BG is gonna be pointing a .357 revolver
between your eyes from ten feet because revolvers don't have such long barrels.If it moves it breaks that's the bottom line,you had some bad pieces,
and got a lot of feed back here on that account,a few good nuggets buried in the exchange see them as a folk wisdom and then move on.
between your eyes from ten feet because revolvers don't have such long barrels.If it moves it breaks that's the bottom line,you had some bad pieces,
and got a lot of feed back here on that account,a few good nuggets buried in the exchange see them as a folk wisdom and then move on.
Cheapshooter
New member
It's obvious that the OP's intentions are simply to flame on semi-autos. He is a revolver guy, and is looking for a way to slam automakers. With the positive experience of millions of shooters with semi-auto pistols the OP is either the most unlucky gun buyer in history, doesn't know how to maintain firearms, or just wants to flame on the platform with a bunch of ridiculous, and unlikely scenarios.
To answer the original question "Why aren't today's semi-auto pistols more reliable?"
Because they don't need to be. If they are used and maintained properly they are as close to 100% reliable as any other gun.
To answer the original question "Why aren't today's semi-auto pistols more reliable?"
Because they don't need to be. If they are used and maintained properly they are as close to 100% reliable as any other gun.
ezmiraldo said:
What you are calling design imperfections in many of your examples are actually design limitations for example.
ezmiraldo said:
This is the case with many Semi autos like Glocks because of the design. It is not a imperfection is a limitation of the design.
Many of the other issues you bring up are ergonomics issues. They are issues with the individual interfacing with the gun. They are subjective not inherent issues with the gun itself.
ezmiraldo said:
If you ride the slide lock it is not the guns fault. This is 100% user error.
ezmiraldo said:
If you put a WML on the gun in a manner that prevents the gun from functioning it is not a manufacturers error. Wrong lube or wrong ammo again you cannot blame the gun. 99% of the time it is not a defect in the gun that causes these types of issues it is the interaction of the gun with the person, the ammo, the conditions etc....
ezmiraldo said:
OK with this gun it should have been replaced. Did you send it to the factory to have it checked out or did you simply keep assembling it and shooting it. Insanity is often described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I would guess something was out of spec and the gun should have been repaired or replaced by Glock.
ezmiraldo said:
If there is so much sand in the action of the gun that it fails to function it is not the gun that is defective. Again it is the interaction of the gun with real world conditions which have caused a failure. Do you blame a cars brakes for not working when you slide on the ice and snow?
ezmiraldo said:
Man I really think you are blowing this out of proportion. When a gun is defective 99% of the people here on this board say get it fixed by the manufacturer under warranty if you can there is no excuse for having to pay to fix a new defective gun. Used guns are a different story.
As for replacing wear parts on a gun to prevent failures I will again go back to a car analogy. I assume you change your oil and replace your brakes from time to time? If you didn't ever change your oil and your engine ceased up do you have a defective engine?
ezmiraldo said:
What exactly were the malfunctions. Under what conditions did they occur? Did they happen regardless of who was shooting? Did the malfunctions simply correct themselves or did the gun go back to Exter? Did you have a Sig armorer look at the gun?
ezmiraldo said:
Sometimes you are being the eight ball sometimes you are not. You cannot expect a mechanical device to function 100% 100% of the time. You cannot expect you to function at that high a level so how can you expect something that was built by other human beings to. In the end the best you can do is buy the equipment that suits you best. That you can run and run reliably and train for when it doesn't. Expecting it to be different is simply asking too much.
Last edited:
Please tell me how you figured you have used a faucet 10,000 times without any problems. Also a smartphone besides touch screen useage. Both of just those 2 items are used with the delicacy reserved for butterflies when compared to the stresses involved with a handgun. If you have evidence that you have used your microwave 10,000 times without issue I will buy one of them as well. Light switch, car, toaster, or computer (hah) will fail way before the 10000th instance of anything.
That being said, everything has an expected reliability time frame. Handguns are lower on average than many other items.
That being said, everything has an expected reliability time frame. Handguns are lower on average than many other items.
Well this forum has a search function which is handy and you can use that. Google is also helpful, You Tube will show examples.
Semi-autos require a stable platform for the slide to react to a fired round, retract, extract the fired case, eject the empty case and load a new one in the chamber. The frame of the pistol has to be held relatively stable for this to happen. If it's held too loosely this may interfere with proper operation.
If the gun is held too loosely in the hand or the wrist breaks when shooting the piece may malfunction. The term "limp wristing" came about decades before the internet to described this practice.
tipoc
I like revolvers, I like autos.
My experience shooting and owning various pistols ranging from classic war veterans to modern name brands has been extreme reliability..
I have also witnessed revolver jams...like my friend who had a squib load in a box of factory ammo that left the bullet lodged in the barrel throat. That could ruin your day. At the range last year, the shooter next to me discovered what bullet creep is, when his LCR stopped mid cylinder. A few grains of powder under the ejector star will shut you down as easily as an autos magazine dropped in the sand. Revolvers don't respond to dropping in sand, either.
My experience shooting and owning various pistols ranging from classic war veterans to modern name brands has been extreme reliability..
I have also witnessed revolver jams...like my friend who had a squib load in a box of factory ammo that left the bullet lodged in the barrel throat. That could ruin your day. At the range last year, the shooter next to me discovered what bullet creep is, when his LCR stopped mid cylinder. A few grains of powder under the ejector star will shut you down as easily as an autos magazine dropped in the sand. Revolvers don't respond to dropping in sand, either.
Independent George
New member
I believe the old expression was called "GI-Proofing"; you can't make anything perfect or indestructible, but you can make it so that it will work under the usual levels of misuse and abuse you'd see in the field. Sometimes, a machine is fundamentally flawed (the original, Vietnam-era M-16). Sometimes, it just needs to be GI-proofed (the current M-16A3, though many would argue it's either still fundamentally flawed, or still underestimates a GI's ingenuity).
As the replies here have indicated, the OP's experience is extremely atypical. Every mechanical device can and will fail, but if the OP has had regular failures with multiple models of semi-autos, while the dozens of others here have not across thousands of rounds fired, then the question becomes: which is the most likely point of failure?
1. The OP is extremely unlucky to experience regular catastrophic failures across multiple makes and models of semi-autos, or
2. There something fundamentally wrong with all semi-autos, and it's only a matter of time before all of the others posting here experience the same catastrophic failures, or
3. It was operator error.
As the replies here have indicated, the OP's experience is extremely atypical. Every mechanical device can and will fail, but if the OP has had regular failures with multiple models of semi-autos, while the dozens of others here have not across thousands of rounds fired, then the question becomes: which is the most likely point of failure?
1. The OP is extremely unlucky to experience regular catastrophic failures across multiple makes and models of semi-autos, or
2. There something fundamentally wrong with all semi-autos, and it's only a matter of time before all of the others posting here experience the same catastrophic failures, or
3. It was operator error.