[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Most Reliable Handgun? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/15/2010 5:23:48 PM EDT
|
Two Questions here guys...
What is one of the most reliable handguns out there? If the Glock is the handgun of choice then would the 19 or 23 be more reliable? I was thinking of the 19 because I like the size and it's probably something the wife could shoot as well but the 23 is the same caliber as my Springfield XD subcompact and that would cut down on the cost for ammo. Thanks in advance for the suggestions! |
|
I own a 23 and in maybe 500 rounds Ive had 2 Failed to eject and from what I have read it's probably the least reliable Glock.
I also have S & W 4013 which is a single stack and quite a bit older than the 23 and in probably 2000 rounds it has never failed to function. I still carry the 23 most for the simple reason I shoot the 23 way more accurately. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I own a 23 and in maybe 500 rounds Ive had 2 Failed to eject and from what I have read it's probably the least reliable Glock. O'rly? Is that why it's Glock's best seller? Maybe you should inform the FBI of this while you strengthen your wrists. Really? |
|
Quoted: What do you base your info on? Not starting shit just wondering. I would think it would be the 17 or 22. That is what I've seen/heard from various Glock reps. Best sellers go like this:23/22/19/17. Worst selling full-time production model is the 36. It's been awhile, so call Glock USA and ask. |
|
Allright, here's where I get called an idiot:
Shortly after Katrina I got offered a free trip to visit friends in NC via airplane. I owned nothing but the clothes on my back, a few spare socks, and 80% of my gun collection that I was able to cram into the trunk of my cruiser right before the storm rolled in, and which I had been able to stow at my aunt's place in Denham Springs. I did not want to expose any of my surviving possessions to the risk of loss or theft by TSA, so I went to Shooter's in Metairie and bought a Glock 19, figuring that a new gun would be no loss if lost, and knowing that they were reliable, though I did not like Glocks at the time (I was issued a G22 and was not a fan.) So I flew to NC with the new G19 I didn't care about. It arrived with me, and I shot it quite a bit over the three days I was there. It functioned flawlessly. It functioned so well, I started carrying it, and shooting it. As in, for three years I shot it every other week, 500 rounds or so per session, and for the last couple years maybe twice a month, 300-600 rounds per session, a mix of mostly FMJ with a few hundred of assorted JHPs in there for good measure, to include 500 or so 147 grain Gold Dots. All without a hitch. Of any kind. Seriously, this weapon, that sits on my side even as I type this, has never had a single failure, whatever ammo it is fed, for 50K+ rounds. And here is where I get (rightly) called an idiot: I have not ever, not once, not at all, seriously, and no fooling, ever, and I do mean ever, cleaned this weapon. I have never even taken it apart since I first bought it. I know it is stupid, but there it is. And it still works. Take that for what you will. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want 100% reliable then you need to sell your XD and buy yourself a few S&W K-Frames. Anyone that thinks a revolver is 100% reliable has never really used a revolver. To me the biggest thing about a revolver advantage wise is that they can handle different power levels of ammo and still be reliable unlike a semiauto that needs ammo within a certain power range to function. I have had a revolver jam up tight, with factory ammo. A spent primer backed out slightly, locked that fucker up tight. IMO it would be harder for a semiauto to lock up to the point that you cant at least perform immediate action on it. OP, if I were going strictly for reliability, I would go with a beretta 92 with beretta mags. Not the most concealable pistol out there but a very reliable pistol. |
|
Springfield 1911's (nope never had issues and have 1500 + throug my GI and 800 through the Milspec and neither have been sent back or tinkered with) and all 3 of my XD's. Good with the Glock 23.
Only issue was a S&W MP40.....no longer own it. (FTF, FTE and had a tendancy to fire when releasing the slide on a round.) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Popularity does not equal quality. See 08 election.  Are you suggesting the 23 is of poor quality? 
Not at all. Are you suggesting the 23 is of better quality than a 19 because you say they sell more? I'm suggesting that you're just pulling shit out of your ass now to just continue a stupid red herring argument that you started. Give it a rest. At any point during this discussion, you're more than welcome to call Glock and verify his claim, though I will tell you that when it comes to what Glockreaper mentions about Glocks, I have yet to find him post something that wasn't accurate or true. I have found Glock and HK to be very reliable from personal experience. My 92fs has also never had a failure, and its been beaten quite handily, but also maintained properly...as all of my handguns have been. |
|
there are lots of "reliable" guns
imo, while revolvers are known to be renowned for simplicity in operation and relaibility ("6 for sure"), inside, they can be as complex and finiky as most modern autos and i've seen more than one revolver not fire imo, the most reliable brands/models of production grade handguns include: Glock (*namely, the 9mm models, esp the G17), HK (USP series), Sig (P228/9 series), and so forth if reliability is measured though time/service, simplicity, durability, the least number of mechanical moving parts, and quality, manf., and assembly of those parts, then, imo, a G17 seems to epitomize "reliable" in the end, ANYTHING man-made will eventually fail; your job is to determine what you want from what is offered that fits your needs and determine for yourself if its reliable enough for you to trust YOUR life to YMMV |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Popularity does not equal quality. See 08 election. Are you suggesting the 23 is of poor quality?
Not at all. Are you suggesting the 23 is of better quality than a 19 because you say they sell more? I'm suggesting that you're just pulling shit out of your ass now to just continue a stupid red herring argument that you started. Give it a rest. At any point during this discussion, you're more than welcome to call Glock and verify his claim, though I will tell you that when it comes to what Glockreaper mentions about Glocks, I have yet to find him post something that wasn't accurate or true. I have found Glock and HK to be very reliable from personal experience. My 92fs has also never had a failure, and its been beaten quite handily, but also maintained properly...as all of my handguns have been. Chill out Beavis. I was simply making the point that just because something is the most popular (or purchased by the FBI) that doesn't make it the best. I have no reason to doubt what Glockreaper says or care enough to call Glock about it. Why not go watch some episodes of Friends or something. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Popularity does not equal quality. See 08 election. Are you suggesting the 23 is of poor quality?
Not at all. Are you suggesting the 23 is of better quality than a 19 because you say they sell more? I'm suggesting that you're just pulling shit out of your ass now to just continue a stupid red herring argument that you started. Give it a rest. At any point during this discussion, you're more than welcome to call Glock and verify his claim, though I will tell you that when it comes to what Glockreaper mentions about Glocks, I have yet to find him post something that wasn't accurate or true. I have found Glock and HK to be very reliable from personal experience. My 92fs has also never had a failure, and its been beaten quite handily, but also maintained properly...as all of my handguns have been. Chill out Beavis. I was simply making the point that just because something is the most popular (or purchased by the FBI) that doesn't make it the best. I have no reason to doubt what Glockreaper says or care enough to call Glock about it. Why not go watch some episodes of Friends or something. Really?
|
|
Quoted: There is much less to go wrong as it is a simple machine. This is a common misconception. A double action revolver is a relatively complex and finely tuned machine. There is a reason why the major militaries of the world went to auto loading pistols more than one hundred years ago. Revolvers do not fare well in austere conditions. |
|
Quoted: At any point during this discussion, you're more than welcome to call Glock and verify his claim, though I will tell you that when it comes to what Glockreaper mentions about Glocks, I have yet to find him post something that wasn't accurate or true. Thank you.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A quality revolver all the way. There is much less to go wrong as it is a simple machine. So is a Glock 
You've never seen a revolver go tits up? The problem with a revolver is when something goes wrong, its a lot harder to un-fuck. Not nearly as often as a Glock! Now that's not to say that a Glock is not a fine firearm but if I had a dollar for every time I've witnessed one hiccup, I could buy a quality revolver. The post was about a reliable handgun. My experience, which is far from limited, is that a revolver wins that contest hands down. To be fair, you make a valid point concerning the revolver, I just belive that is far less likely to happen with a revolver than with a semi-auto anything. Machines malfunction from time to time, it's inevitable. Just my .02 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is much less to go wrong as it is a simple machine. This is a common misconception. A double action revolver is a relatively complex and finely tuned machine. There is a reason why the major militaries of the world went to auto loading pistols more than one hundred years ago. Revolvers do not fare well in austere conditions. I have to disagree, Militaries changed to auto loading pistols for many reasons, not the least of which were capacity, rate of fire and ease of reloading. This is also the first time I've learned of a revolver not fairing well in austere conditions. I'm not here to run you down, I just don't agree with your viewpoint. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A quality revolver all the way. There is much less to go wrong as it is a simple machine. So is a Glock
You've never seen a revolver go tits up? The problem with a revolver is when something goes wrong, its a lot harder to un-fuck. Not nearly as often as a Glock! Now that's not to say that a Glock is not a fine firearm but if I had a dollar for every time I've witnessed one hiccup, I could buy a quality revolver. The post was about a reliable handgun. My experience, which is far from limited, is that a revolver wins that contest hands down. To be fair, you make a valid point concerning the revolver, I just belive that is far less likely to happen with a revolver than with a semi-auto anything. Machines malfunction from time to time, it's inevitable. Just my .02 Wel, I can't argue that revolvers are immune to limpwristing and random low-powered catridges, which can easily account for nearly 95% of failures I've seen with modern handguns. In regards to that, I can definitely understand a revolver being more "reliable". With quality ammo, as in the type most people use to defend themselves, I personally would still take a 9mm glock if reliability was the biggest concern but then again that's just what I'd do and not really what the topic is about 
|