Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns What makes one pistol more reliable than the next?

A mechanical system functions within certain specifications. Dimensions and clearances, weights, pressures, spring rates, lubrication, temperature, etc.

Reliable works over a broader range of specs. Unreliable works over a narrower range. The width of that range falls almost entirely on the design side.

The execution side can build a gun to tolerances as close as you're willing to pay for but that only lasts as far as the factory doors and even inside them the gun is only part of the system.

I've had more FTF headaches in my small sample size hands on experience than everything else put together. Feed geometry and mag lips. Design side.

I worked scheduling manufacturing of flow control valves, actuators and similar devices for a dozen years. Reliability for purpose is not just one thing, but everything. At the heart of it, though, is certainly the design and material specs. Since few poor designs long make an appearance in the market, it may be an overlooked aspect, but it's the foundation, so is also the key. Of course, proper execution of manufacturing is critical, but that is only as good as quality control procedures at all stages, starting with material specs and verification of specs and tolerances. QA extends into assembly and even packaging.

I took an opportunity to head to the range today to shoot a new Sig 220. It was totally reliable in it's first outing, in that it digested every handload my 1911 likes with out a single issue of failure to feed or fire. A nice way to start out and hope it stays that way.

Two of the loads I had along shot poorly by my expectations although any round fired would have been a fight-stopper or put venison in the freezer, most likely. A load with 800X and 230 XTP's shot a nice 2.5" group (25 yards) with the first 3 going in a nice 1-ish" triangle, and another four shot group of the same went into about 1.5". It's about 1.5-2" low to my point of aim, but it was cold and I was scrunched up on the bench wearing glows and such. Pretty much dead center, though and I like that.

I have another coming in next week, that I'll have to do some loading for.

I know when I see the frame is just bent steel like an AK -47 and the fireing pin block assembly is just pinnned in with a roll pin I think how un John Browning.


Bob

And there was this guy whom wanted a walking around pistol so

he built one ,and the barrel was below the operating spring.

He just wanted a walking around pistol so he built a 32Acp bullet

for it (this was in 1900)or so he called it the Browning 1900.

He then decided around 1899 or 1900 to build the first Auto Shotgun.

And he decided sinse I built the first auto shotgun why not make

my first auto rifle of the same design.

Hince the Mod 8 . So the answer is the design and quality of

the hand fitting and hand machined parts that make up a classic.

You will find a Rossi Mod 92 SRC ,maybe a Miriocki but you won't

find a Rem Mod 8 ,or 81A.

So yes Sigs aren't better or worse than stamp and use modern

tech. Old School may not be better ,But will cost you more!


Bob

I like the old stamped steel SIG 220, I have had a 2 of them. I don't care for the new ones. The two I owned were more accurate than I am, they never failed to shoot. I will not own a new SIG.

In the Beretta 92 series, the feed angle for the bullet from the magazine to the chamber is pretty much like a torpedo into a tube, plus there is not much of a slide to cause a stove pipe type jam.

For me, reliable means it goes bang every single time I pull the trigger. Also, it clearly ejects spent cases every single time.

Nothing more complex than that...


I look for other things in a handgun than mere reliability though.

Why am I not surprised that I agree 100% with you two curmudgeons?

I don't give a rat's azz about design. I'm not a smith. I'm an end-user, not an engineer. If it shoots every time I pull the trigger, and I mean every time, for thousands and thousands of rounds, then it's reliable. Glock and Kahr autopistols as well as Ruger and S&W revolvers meet that criterion.

To me, "reliable" means that whatever the product is, it will perform over-and-over-again as designed, for the life-cycle that was intended.
If the gun was designed for pure target and accuracy, it is reliable if it shoots little tiny groups with the proper bullets, care, and skill, but maybe has to be treated with considerably more care than a glock 17 to stay in great operation.
If the gun was designed for reliable operation in the mud-and-the-blood-and-the-beer, then it is reliable if it performs and goes "bang" in adverse conditions, but it isn't necessarily super-accurate.

Automotive guys talk about "failure modes" - something quits working, due to a failure in the system or interaction between components of the system. Failure modes all have different causes, and symptoms.

A broken extractor is a failure mode that turns the gun into a single shot/quasi muzzleloader.

A firing out of battery might be a scary nuisance with one gun, or a wrecked gun & injury in another.

The gun might run perfectly, but then starts jamming when your granny tries to shoot it, due to limp wristing.

Revolvers are normally highly reliable, unless the cylinder's jammed with mud (which is why the Army switched to the 1911)

My Les Baer started failing to go into battery, and I first blamed the extreme tight fit of components. Then I realized the recoil spring that came in it was a good inch shorter than a normal spring. Replaced it, and it ran fine.

Glocks are highly reliable, unless all you have to shoot are soft lead bullets But it is again if you change the barrel

In my business I often get asked for recommendations on solving a problem, and frequently they aren't ready for all the questions I ask, to dig into the details.

When I was working as a gunsmith, I learned the very hard way to NEVER work on sporting semi-autos. Military�no prob, all you can push my way. But the Remington 760-7600 series, and Browning BAR�s�just forget it; lose money on them every stinking time.

The ONE exception was the Remingtion 8 & 81. And quite honestly, it was rare one was ever brought in. I wanna say I�ve worked on one model 8, and about 6 years ago I picked up an 81 and it didn�t work perfectly, so I fixed it, shot it some and then decided it wasn�t really my thing. But they really are cool.

So design plays an insignificant part in overall reliability?

OK.

The main factor is the intelligence of the operator.

Here is my 2 cents worth (ohhh wait with Obama�s new taxes that will be 37 cents now)
Like with all things in this world the devil is in the details. Attention to those details is the make or break of any gun and its reliability. When speaking of guns that can be broken down to 3 very basic areas. Those areas are as follows
1. Design
2. Materials
3. Production methods and production quality control.

Now it needs to be noted that there is no specific hierarchal in the above 3. There are so many examples where one aspect of gun is poor but then the other 2 were great and the gun was a good gun overall because of that. Here are some examples

1. Sten SMG; Here is where a great design and even better production methods overcame poor to moderate materials.

2. AR-15; Here is where great materials and quality production overcame a lot of design issues.

3. Star Firestar: Here you have good materials, quality design but production QC while not bad is nowhere near that of a SIG or Beretta yet the gun will shoot and shoot.

4. Smith and Wesson Sigma; A vastly unpopular gun amongst gun folk yet it is a very reliable gun on most measures. It has a stolen design element that is proven, the materials are good but the quality and consistency of production leave a lot to be desired�yet design and materials overcame bad QC and production quality. NOTE; this was S&W�s first dive into �Plastic Guns� not something that was in their playbook.

Now I will give you some examples of where one of the 3 primary elements was so bad that the other elements could not overcome and therefore you have a questionable gun.

1. Beretta 92 (M-9); Here you have fantastic materials, great production methods and quality but yet the gun has severe issues in long time durability and serviceability to a flawed design. I am speaking of the locking block (taken from the P-38). M-9�s have serious issues with the hardened steel locking block slamming in and out of an aluminum frame and slide producing cracks and penning. While a great cop gun (they don�t do the round count the military does)� its not a good bad military gun.

2. Sig P220; Once again great materials, German quality production and QC but a design that is not conducive to once again�.long term durability. P220�s are very notorious for frame cracking in what could consider a low round count.

3. M-60 Machine Gun; Here you have great materials, fantastic QC and production methods but the early design was flawed bad so the gun had both long term serviceability issues and reliability issues not seen in a US military MG ever.

But let�s add another wrinkle into this discussion�THE 1911 and Browning High Power.

Both the 1911 design and BHP design have been made by a long list of manufactures in lots of countries. Many places have even tried to �improve� the design morphing the gun to fit a fad or design element to present like DA operation etc. Now both designs in the original configurations have long been the �Reliability� standard in military pistols. This was due to a marriage of all 3 elements listed above.

All of that said once some new manufactures started producing the 1911 or BHP designs the guns and their reliability suffered. The AMT is the best of examples that come to mind in the 1911 arena. AMT had poor QC, inconsistent sub-contractors and a marginal at best stainless steel alloy. The end result was a gun that maybe worked okay or maybe didn�t. The alloy of stainless steel was very grainy and therefore was galling the rails bad if you had too tight of a fit. Here even one of the best pistol designs of all time could not overcome bad production quality and poor materials.

Yet not all new manufactures of 1911 type pistols are bad�.right now there a huge list of good companies producing their version of the 1911 that even John Browning would be proud of. What they all have in common is that time honored marriage of starting with a great design, using great materials and levels of production quality and consistency that has never been seen before.
In the BHP arena there have been both great and bad copies made. FN has licensed the BHP out to many countries and their respected manufactures. As a rule these guns are of the high quality one expects in an FN lic�d product. Now that said there are the issues in the FEG (Hungarian) BHP�s and its variants. Once again the best of designs cannot overcome poor quality control and marginal materials�.well I have talked too much here�.as always�.Shoot safe, shoot often and God Bless