I had a fun conversation the other day with a gun friend of mine – we were talking about firearms reliability in light of “guns break” threads going on over at Tam’s place. I keep a decent sized whack of spare parts on hand for any gun I shoot in competition or carry, because I assume that eventually that gun is going to throw a pin, or a spring will break, or whatever – plus I do regular maintenance to try and avoid that kind of stuff.
However, that brought us around to the topic of ammo reliability; he wanted to know if the gun in question (my Gun Blog 9mm) was “reliable”, to which I asked “well, what do you mean by reliable?” He wanted to know if it would feed 124 grain hollow-points from some maker (I think Speer), and I said “how would I know, I only shoot 147 grain rounds through it.” This followed into a conversation about that I don’t then if my gun is “really” reliable, because I haven’t tested it with all kinds of ammo.
I don’t understand that line of thinking, because to me, if the gun feeds and fires the ammo I want to shoot through it, it’s reliable. If all I shoot through it is Wolf Gold 147 grain HP and Winchester Ranger 147 grain JHP, then I don’t need to know if it feeds 124 grain Golden Dotted SaberBlade hollow points, because I’m not going to shoot them out of that gun.
“Oh Caleb, you’re just an elitist, what about 115 grain ball ammo?” Well, I will say that if I bought a 9mm that wouldn’t feed 115 grain ball ammo I’d send the thing back to the factory because it’s broken. I have shot that out of the Gun Blog 9mm, but for competition and carry, it’s 147 grain all the way. Unless I get my hands on some of those Fiocchi 158 grain subsonic loads, because I’m aching to whack some bowling pins with that round.