Just curious.  For me I run it and run it then I try and see what it will take to get it to malf, run it dirty, run crap mags, crap ammo, limpwrist etc.  For me it is a matter of getting to know a gun rather than an absolute round count of any sort.  

My 92fs inox has been stupid reliable and predictable through around 2500 rounds or so.  Almost to the point where I have become complacent I think.  A couple fail to fires due to cheap ammo (pmp) and a couple stovepipes due to purposeful severe limpwristing, but everything else has fed and fired fine, even out of cheap mags.

I have deemed it reliable but I may be missing something, I dunno.  I know most folks just buy a gun, run a mag through it and call it good, some don't like it when there is a failure every 1k of any sort.  What are your standards?

I shoot until I have a failure.

No matter what the failure is, I immediately blame the gun.

I've narrowed my selection of firearms to almost exclusively Glock with only a Ruger MkIII and a Taurus .357 for variety using this method.


If it isnt 100% for my personal use and habits/nuances, then I dont want it.   I dont want to learn the subtle ways of particular guns, I want guns that work with MY subtle ways.

This is a great topic.  Like you've suggested, there is no magical number out there that settles the reliability issue for all time.  However, I tend to feel more confident in a new weapon once I've crossed the 1000 round mark.  As for ammo, I like to start off as "hot" as possible with any new gun...for example, I fed my three month-old P226 Navy a steady diet of 9mm NATO-spec for the first three range trips.  At first, she wouldn't function well with the more sedate commercial loads (i.e., Winchester "white box" Q4172, 115 gr. FMJ) and several horizontal stovepipe failures occured (5 total stovepipes with "weak" ammo during the first 300 rounds, no failures of any kind occurred with the "hotter" 9mm NATO ammo).  

After running 350 total rounds of 9mm NATO through the new Sig, she got to the point that she'd function with any load I tried (including Win. Q4172, Remington UMC 115 gr., Sellier & Bellot 115 gr., Fiocchi 115 gr., etc.).  Today, I just topped the 1200 round mark, and I haven't had any malfunctions since the few that occurred during the first 300 rounds through the gun.  

I've also mixed in some JHP Ammo here and there with no feeding issues (100 total rounds total of Ranger-T 127 gr. +P+ and Federal HST 124 gr. +P).  It probably helped that I waited until I had 500 rounds down-range before trying any JHP ammo.

Forget the chat-room hype, most new guns do require a break-in or wear-in period of several hundred rounds in order to settle down and perform.  Getting the slide/frame, springs, extractor, bore, etc. "worn-in" a little seems to aid overall function.    

My Beretta 92FS is extremly reliable. I've never had any jams after the break-in period with several years of hard use. I don't trust my other pistols as much just because i haven't used them nearly as much. But i'll carry a weapon after shooting 300 rounds of the ammo i intend on carrying if there are no probs and feel confident with it.

Depends on the firearm...

For my Kahr, as recommended by the factory, 200 rounds.

Since its a carry gun, it then gets 50 rounds of carry ammo through it.  

For Glocks or HK's, I could quite literally put 50 rounds through them and feel comfortable relying on them if I had to.

1911- Same as Kahr, and if it has any issues (or even if it doesnt) it will still go to Robert Miller for a once over and a trigger job.

With a 1911 graced by Robert Miller, I have yet to have a failure of any kind.  Equally as reliable as my Glocks and HK's.

for my HK/Glock/Beretta, out of the box I'd declare reliable. For 1911, that's something else, I wouldn't use it for defense.

I have carried guns that I only ran like 4 or 5 rounds of whatever ammo I planned on using in it. Just to make sure it worked. I recommend further testing than that ofcourse. I`ve read on the Internet that you can`t trust it until you fire a couple thousand rounds of the carry ammo you intend to use. That is probably the best thing to do, but I just never spent a $1,000 for a case of ammo before to do that.

varies on each user and firearm

for me, its "200" as a good min.; usually enough for a break in and for initial insight to how it potentially will work out

just keep all your 'wear and tear' parts up to spec (Like springs, etc)

Normaly 200-300 rounds of "normal" ammo, meaning WWB or Blazer Brass etc..  Then 50-100 of the type of rounds I would use in a carry gun.  If nothing major that I couldn't reasonably explain as my fault then I consider it realiable for carry duty.  With new guns (or if I get a new mag for an existing gun) I will make sure I run all the magazines through 3-4 times minimum before I consider the mag good-to-go also.

A break in of 2 or 3 hundred rounds of the cheap stuff and then 200 rounds of my carry ammo before I carry it.

Forgot to add that if there is a failure of any kind, I will not carry it.

Depends.  If it goes through the first couple of hundred rounds without a single hitch, I have no trouble carrying it.  If it requires any tweaking or gives me any trouble, it'll take me at least 1000 rounds or so trouble-free before I have faith in it.  Truthfully though, any pistol that ever required any tweaking I've traded in because I could never get faith in it again.

One box + 37 rounds per gun.

800-1,000 rounds.

500 rounds with no cleaning.

1911 and G19 both passed the test.

I try to run at least 800 rounds of the cheap stuff threw a new gun, and then 200 of what I plan to carry in it before it gets to ride with me. My Kimber Pro CDP II had all kinds of problems during the initial phase and finally went to get fixed after 532 rounds.

I started the test over again once I got it back and weekend before last it finally passed the final 200 rounds of carry ammo test, so it has been getting to tag along with me. It has eatin' another 600 rounds since then perfectly.

My other carry gun, a Glock 26, did the whole 1000 round test in one weekend, with no failure or hiccup of any kind. I did the 800 round test on Saturday, went home, didn't clean the gun, just checked under the hood for anything weird and threw a little more oil on the rails, and went back Sunday for the last 200. Perfect.

I generally call it good after a single range trip. However, if I take a new pistol to the range, its going to get seriously abused. If it can survive a abusive first range trip, with about 500 rounds through it, I will call it good enough to carry.

Of the pistols I own, only my PT1911 has had any failures. And the PT1911 failures were mainly FTE after half a case of WWB being range through it non-stop, filthy as hell. Needless to say, I still won't carry it. I know it will work flawlessly for the first 300 rounds after cleaning, but it starts getting iffy after that.

With that being said, 1911s are range toys IMHO. I will take my XDs or my SW 442 over any 1911 for a carry piece.

Quoted: I generally call it good after a single range trip. However, if I take a new pistol to the range, its going to get seriously abused. If it can survive a abusive first range trip, with about 500 rounds through it, I will call it good enough to carry. Of the pistols I own, only my PT1911 has had any failures. And the PT1911 failures were mainly FTE after half a case of WWB being range through it non-stop, filthy as hell. Needless to say, I still won't carry it. I know it will work flawlessly for the first 300 rounds after cleaning, but it starts getting iffy after that. With that being said, 1911s are range toys IMHO. I will take my XDs or my SW 442 over any 1911 for a carry piece.

 You buy a POS, and then are surprised when it acts like a POS?


I don't even begin to trust any semiauto until it's fired at least 500 consecutive trouble-free rounds, and that includes both rifles and pistols.  

These guys who buy a box of ammo with a new gun, take it out and fire a couple of magazines, and then proclaim the gun 'absolutely reliable' fucking crack me up.

Quoted: varies on each user and firearm for me, its "200" as a good min.; usually enough for a break in and for initial insight to how it potentially will work out just keep all your 'wear and tear' parts up to spec (Like springs, etc)

+1 A couple hundred rounds after brand new works for me.  WTF is going to happen with a Glock in the next couple hundred???  In fact, my carry guns are all fired less than 1000 times so nothing will be worn too much - just enough to break in good - I think that makes them more reliable than guns that are used for high volume at the range and then carried daily as well.  I have same/similar guns to my carry guns that get used as high volume range whores.

437

FWIW, I never had a failure to feed or extract in well over 10K rounds on my P226, which I have since had to turn in for a .40.  Only malfunctions were either dummy rounds or solid primer strikes that didn't ignite.

Joe

I fit says Walther then it is reliable nuff said

200-300 for me to get the feel of the action, trigger, and magazine.  If it works good, then I get used to how it functions.

I only shoot Glocks....so the question is irrelevant.