Most reliable (cont'd):
"What's the most reliable pistol you've had":
With several thousand rounds downrange, have yet to have a single malfunction with my CZ-75 (though admittedly, I do actually clean the thing every so often [;)]). Never had a malfunction with my SW99 either, though that one doesn't quite have the same round count.
Speaking in general, think this is pretty much the standard with ALL service type pistols nowadays: Glock, Sig, Beretta, CZ (+ clones). . . So long as you're running "normal" ammo, and good quality magazines, all of these will basically run dirty or clean with thousands of rounds of ammo without malfunction.
1911s have this reputation too, though depending on the specific build/model, some of them only run 100% with ball ammo.
If you're going to expand the definition of "pistol" to include "revolver", I don't think I've ever had a malfunction with ANY stock modern 1st tier manufacturer (Smith, Ruger, Colt) revolver. (If you buy South American. . .watch out).
The VERY rare instances a round didn't go off was because the round itself was a dud.
I've shot revolvers that were so crudded with dirt and fouling from never having been cleaned that it was difficult to advance the cylinder, but I don't think you can really fault the gun for that. Guns with super-tight forcing cones can have this issue if the forcing cone gets dirty, but production guns rarely leave the factory that way.
I've seen revolvers fail when the gun in question was customized to have an extra light trigger pull (leading to ligher than normal hammer strike), but this is a recognized side-effect of doing that, and one of the reasons why you don't try to lighten the DA pull on service guns too much.
I've also seen older Smiths with the reverse threaded ejector rod that would come loose after a lot of shooting and again jam the cylinder, but Smith fixed this issue years ago, and its not a problem in current guns.
I have seen .22LR revolvers not be 100% reliable, but that's also a bit of a different thing. I've heard of older aluminum alloy frame carry revolvers eventually developing frame stretching and binding up the cylinder, but again, this is a recognized problem with these older Colt and Smith revolvers. The current manufacture ones are built much tougher, and this isn't an issue.
Edit: On Glock, the overall simplicity of design here (ie few moving parts) does help ensure mechanical reliability. As above, I'm not entirely convinced that in the real world Glocks are truly "more" reliable than several other highly reliable designs that are also fairly dirt and malfunction resistant. But if you otherwise like the gun, I think you can feel pretty good with a Glock that its going to be about as reliable as it gets in a semi-auto pistol, plus fairly abuse resistant.
For what its worth, I have actually seen a Glock fail right out of the box. Like every other gun, it needed to be cleaned prior to use, and after an initial breakdown, cleaning, and lube it ran fine. I've heard of individual "dud" pistols coming from the factory that have not worked well. (EG, there were initial issues with the newer Gen 4 Glocks). Not to pick on Glock, because you can see this sort of thing from any of the manufacturers, but I don't think you can just assume you can take ANY Glock from anywhere and every single one of these will always run like a top no matter what. . .there are individual bad ones out there.
In contrast, I know a guy who bought an original Glock 17 in the 80s and has made it a point to NEVER CLEAN THE THING EVER. I don't know if he ever had any misfires, but 30,000+ rounds later, its still going OK and he still uses it for (informal) competition.
With several thousand rounds downrange, have yet to have a single malfunction with my CZ-75 (though admittedly, I do actually clean the thing every so often [;)]). Never had a malfunction with my SW99 either, though that one doesn't quite have the same round count.
Speaking in general, think this is pretty much the standard with ALL service type pistols nowadays: Glock, Sig, Beretta, CZ (+ clones). . . So long as you're running "normal" ammo, and good quality magazines, all of these will basically run dirty or clean with thousands of rounds of ammo without malfunction.
1911s have this reputation too, though depending on the specific build/model, some of them only run 100% with ball ammo.
If you're going to expand the definition of "pistol" to include "revolver", I don't think I've ever had a malfunction with ANY stock modern 1st tier manufacturer (Smith, Ruger, Colt) revolver. (If you buy South American. . .watch out).
The VERY rare instances a round didn't go off was because the round itself was a dud.
I've shot revolvers that were so crudded with dirt and fouling from never having been cleaned that it was difficult to advance the cylinder, but I don't think you can really fault the gun for that. Guns with super-tight forcing cones can have this issue if the forcing cone gets dirty, but production guns rarely leave the factory that way.
I've seen revolvers fail when the gun in question was customized to have an extra light trigger pull (leading to ligher than normal hammer strike), but this is a recognized side-effect of doing that, and one of the reasons why you don't try to lighten the DA pull on service guns too much.
I've also seen older Smiths with the reverse threaded ejector rod that would come loose after a lot of shooting and again jam the cylinder, but Smith fixed this issue years ago, and its not a problem in current guns.
I have seen .22LR revolvers not be 100% reliable, but that's also a bit of a different thing. I've heard of older aluminum alloy frame carry revolvers eventually developing frame stretching and binding up the cylinder, but again, this is a recognized problem with these older Colt and Smith revolvers. The current manufacture ones are built much tougher, and this isn't an issue.
Edit: On Glock, the overall simplicity of design here (ie few moving parts) does help ensure mechanical reliability. As above, I'm not entirely convinced that in the real world Glocks are truly "more" reliable than several other highly reliable designs that are also fairly dirt and malfunction resistant. But if you otherwise like the gun, I think you can feel pretty good with a Glock that its going to be about as reliable as it gets in a semi-auto pistol, plus fairly abuse resistant.
For what its worth, I have actually seen a Glock fail right out of the box. Like every other gun, it needed to be cleaned prior to use, and after an initial breakdown, cleaning, and lube it ran fine. I've heard of individual "dud" pistols coming from the factory that have not worked well. (EG, there were initial issues with the newer Gen 4 Glocks). Not to pick on Glock, because you can see this sort of thing from any of the manufacturers, but I don't think you can just assume you can take ANY Glock from anywhere and every single one of these will always run like a top no matter what. . .there are individual bad ones out there.
In contrast, I know a guy who bought an original Glock 17 in the 80s and has made it a point to NEVER CLEAN THE THING EVER. I don't know if he ever had any misfires, but 30,000+ rounds later, its still going OK and he still uses it for (informal) competition.
0
-
I have a few [;)]
EAA witness Sport 9mm.
Three Browning HP,s.
Kimber, Caspian, Springfield 1911,s.
Kahr P-9.
Glock 17+19.
Sig 226+228.0 -
I have to say that GLOCK, has that perfected in most of their models. I currently own one of the first Model 20's in 10mm, that I have had for 20 years, and never had one hick up. I have a Model 29 in 10mm, the same, and a 3rd gen Model 19, with about 20,000 rounds thru it, the same.
I also have 3 Wilson 1911's that toe the mark, also. But I vote for GLOCK.
As described, revolver's have been ruling reliability for the last 125 years.
Best0 -
I vote for Glock and Browning P35 as functioning with most bullet types and not breaking down mechanically.
The HiPower has a better grip for my hand.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments