[Captain BB]

Of course,, here we go again.

I am at a class many years ago. A Glock fails. Everyone crowds around. It turns out that the owner bought it used, didn't know how to break down a Glock into parts, and had never cleaned it. Gee! This is like the guy who never changes the oil in his car. There are plenty of people like that.

So, someone gets 300,000 rounds through his firearm. Are you going to fire 300,000 rounds in your lifetime? It is like the person who buys a knife with a lifetime guarantee and assumes that the company will be there forever, and especially after civilization collapses. I have lifetime alignment with Firestone and used it 6 times. I had somewhat lifetime brakes with a company with multiple locations that went out of business - and still got my money's worth.

So, look at your firearms. Have you bothered researching which parts wear out and purchased spares? That is a lot better approach than worrying about the longevity of the firearm. Have you noticed how many gun companies have gone out of business and sold off their inventory of spare parts??

I think you make a valid point. I suspect I’m probably in the 99th percentile in terms of volume of shooting on this forum (about 9,000 rounds a year) and it would take me about 33 years to get to 300,000 rounds.

Having said that my Ruger Vaquero’s probably have close to 50,000 rounds through each, only get cleaned about once every 1,000 rounds and have never failed.

Glock’s reliability should be taken for granted. A quality gun should be reliable for several lifetimes.

 

[racer88]

About a year ago he started having light strikes, so he gave it to me to check out. I cleaned it - the striker channel was full of vegetation, dirt and brass chips. No rust.

I detail stripped my first pistol, a Gen 2 Glock 19 for the first time ever (since I bought it in 1996) and fired probably over 10k rounds through it. I posted about it with photos here (and the following comment). But here are a couple of teaser photos:

 

[Vito]

I'm not a gun expert by any means, but reliability is the foremost value in a handgun in my opinion. I have been carrying a concealed gun for over a decade now, and have never had to fire a round in anger or self defense, but if I ever do have the need to do so, more than accuracy, or smoothness of the trigger, or any other factor is that I want to count on it going bang when I pull that trigger. Before I ever bought my first Glock I watched a video with Hickock 45, a person with credibility for me. He said that the ONLY brand of gun he would trust his life to, brand new right out of the box, was a Glock. That convinced me to take another look at this somewhat disparaged gun by some in the gun community. My Glock 17 is and has been my primary home defense gun. My Glock 26 has been my primary concealed carry gun for the last few years. I have a few Rugers that have never, ever had a failure to work as advertised but for now I am sticking with my Glocks to meet my needs.

 

[k3nny173]

To me reliability has two components

1. The design has to be proven reliable - Glock checks that box (Taurs PT24/7 does not)
2. You have to confirm your individual model is built correctly and the parts are all in place and in spec

#2 is where a lot of people fail. Put 500-1000 rounds down it without issue, then call box #2 checked

I do not assume every glock out of the box is as reliable as every other, I know the design is solid, but the individual parts may or may not be, can only know by testing.

I also know that a glock that doesn't work is an indivdual gun problem problem that can 100% be fixed because we know the design is proven.

Some people see a problem from #2 and make false assumptions about #1

 

[Danke Glock]

To me reliability has two components

1. The design has to be proven reliable - Glock checks that box (Taurs PT24/7 does not)
2. You have to confirm your individual model is built correctly and the parts are all in place and in spec

#2 is where a lot of people fail. Put 500-1000 rounds down it without issue, then call box #2 checked

I do not assume every glock out of the box is as reliable as every other, I know the design is solid, but the individual parts may or may not be, can only know by testing.

I also know that a glock that doesn't work is an indivdual gun problem problem that can 100% be fixed because we know the design is proven.

Some people see a problem from #2 and make false assumptions about #1

Well said.

 

[fastbolt]

I was once told by one of the gun companies that once their guns leave the factory there are some things beyond the control of the gun companies.

-Shooter influence
-Ammunition (quality, power, etc)
-Shooter maintenance practices
-Environmental conditions in which used

While it's not impossible for a defect or materials problem to slip out the door in any particular gun, it's those potential 'beyond the control of the gun company' factors that usually seem to cause owners & users to experience what they wish to blame as being 'gun problems'.

The old adage of 95% of 'gun problems' actually being shooter-induced problems has some merit.

As an instructor and armorer, the significant bulk of the 'gun problems' that were reported to me were actually identified and resolve as being something related to the owner/user. Every once in a great while it might be an ammunition problem. Even rarer was it an actual problem with a gun ... although as guns became older and well-worn, the potential for worn parts and assemblies could come along.

 

[k3nny173]

I was once told by one of the gun companies that once their guns leave the factory there are some things beyond the control of the gun companies.

-Shooter influence
-Ammunition (quality, power, etc)
-Shooter maintenance practices
-Environmental conditions in which used

While it's not impossible for a defect or materials problem to slip out the door in any particular gun, it's those potential 'beyond the control of the gun company' factors that usually seem to cause owners & users to experience what they wish to blame as being 'gun problems'.

The old adage of 95% of 'gun problems' actually being shooter-induced problems has some merit.

As an instructor and armorer, the significant bulk of the 'gun problems' that were reported to me were actually identified and resolve as being something related to the owner/user. Every once in a great while it might be an ammunition problem. Even rarer was it an actual problem with a gun ... although as guns became older and well-worn, the potential for worn parts and assemblies could come along.

I am a career IT person, in my industry we call this the ID 10 T errror
said out loud, Eye D Ten T

spelled out it is
idiot



Holds true everywhere, people are idiots, many reported glock problems are just idiot owners
How do we know this?
Those of us that are not complete idiots have a Glock that run flawlessly (and there are a lot of us)

 

[dennis-s]

For reliability, durability and ease of maintenance a Glock is hard to beat and this from a guy that is very fond of 1911's

 

[Stantheman86]

I own 11 Glocks and I just bought a Sarsilmaz SAR9, just because they seemed solid

Reportedly the SAR9 passed a 150,000 round torture test but I'll probably never put close to that through the gun

Technology has made making durable, reliable $300 pistols possible

 

[Goldengun]

I chuckle at the occasional post about problems only to read the details and find out the gun has many aftermarket parts, homemade modifications, or is built with non-Glock frame or slide.

 

[Deputydave]

I think you make a valid point. I suspect I’m probably in the 99th percentile in terms of volume of shooting on this forum (about 9,000 rounds a year) and it would take me about 33 years to get to 300,000 rounds.

Good post. In the past, for reference, I've stated that a person would have to shoot 100 rounds each and every month for 17 years to put 20k rounds on their pistol. Having a pistol that has demonstrated itself to be capable of high round counts is great, but it has to be put into perspective of how many rounds the average person will actually put on a pistol.

 

[magnum2117]

Of course,, here we go again.

I am at a class many years ago. A Glock fails. Everyone crowds around. It turns out that the owner bought it used, didn't know how to break down a Glock into parts, and had never cleaned it. Gee! This is like the guy who never changes the oil in his car. There are plenty of people like that.

So, someone gets 300,000 rounds through his firearm. Are you going to fire 300,000 rounds in your lifetime? It is like the person who buys a knife with a lifetime guarantee and assumes that the company will be there forever, and especially after civilization collapses. I have lifetime alignment with Firestone and used it 6 times. I had somewhat lifetime brakes with a company with multiple locations that went out of business - and still got my money's worth.

So, look at your firearms. Have you bothered researching which parts wear out and purchased spares? That is a lot better approach than worrying about the longevity of the firearm. Have you noticed how many gun companies have gone out of business and sold off their inventory of spare parts??

On the note of spare parts, another thing to consider is if a company changes or stops making a certain model. Ruger will not service the Security Six or it's variants because it's been discontinued for so long. The only option is buying spare parts and knowing how to change them. I believe some of the really old S&Ws are like that too but I'm not 100% on that one. That being said a Glock is a Glock even though there have been updates but I'm sure other companies have had models they discontinued and no longer have parts to make repairs with.

 

[magnum2117]

There's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said. The only thing I can add is I went back to Glocks for a reason and that reason is reliability. Not just based off reputation but my own experience with them.

 

[SargeMO]

Glock earned its reputation for reliability but it has by no means cornered the market on it. They also weren't the first maker who took it seriously. The Beretta 92, the Sig 22x series and others were every bit as reliable.

They also had been better ergos, great SA triggers and excellent, OEM barrels. But some Y2K related voodoo afflicted our youth, insuring they'd never have the cognitive skill to operate DA/SA autos again.

Correcting Glock's deficiencies in those areas has generated a multi-million dollar market.

Glock was simply the first successful designer and marketer of striker fired pistols, achieving reliability in the process.

 

[Richfrmphilly]

My Glock last better then my car note so I say yes it very reliable

 

[Tuner Sandwich]

Glocks are like Mac computers. User friendly even an idiot like me can use it.

 

[tomrkba]

Your question does not matter much. The answer is: All handguns that are used for any sort of fighting MUST be reliable. If a handgun is proven unreliable for the purpose, then I apply this rule:

If a handgun is not reliable, then it must be repaired. If after "repair" it is still not reliable, then either the problem was not corrected or the gun cannot be repaired such that it can be made reliable. Troubleshooting is dependent upon my budget and patience. If I run out of either, the gun goes into the safe for storage or is sold.

 

[MathewJohnson]

Glocks are like Mac computers. User friendly even an idiot like me can use it.

Besides Mac computers as you suggest, I would also include iPhones.

 

[MarkCO]

Taken for granted.

 

[sparky-kb]

I've never had a failure unless you count Gen 4's slinging brass towards my face