When selecting a pistol for defense, a huge emphasis is placed on reliability. This is of course an important trait, but I feel that it gets a little muddy. Many times it is valuable to look at the history of a pistol to see if it has a good record for reliability. But this should not be an all inclusive deciding factor when selecting a reliable pistol. I have owned alot of pistols that have poor track records for reliability, yet they never gave me serious issues. Conversely, the opposite has been true as well. So what is the answer? How can we decide if a pistol is reliable enough for defensive use?
First thing we need to look at is the fact that reliability is not something you can determine or dictate based on a spec sheet or anecdotal accounts. Many times, I have encountered issues with Glocks, AKs, ARs, HKs, etc. This does not mean that they are junk weapons, but it does reveal a solid reality that I think many people think they can predict. You have to get out there and test the weapon first and shoot a good amount through it before declaring it reliable.
Personally, this is kind of unreasonable. Once you get a breakage, a malfunction, or whatever, you are stuck with it until it is resolved. Unless you have several guns to choose from, whining about the problem isn't going to get it fixed. And if you really like the shooting characteristics of the gun, why would you waste time or money to put off repairs or sell it? Unless warranty service has been of no use, or you are not all that pleased with the firearms characteristics, I don't find it logical to just put off repair or get rid of the gun.
In a nutshell, reliability is important, but the only way to guarantee it for sure is to test it yourself. The funny thing is that many people don't realize that for every one unreliable pistol, there are a thousand of the same firearm that are running reliably. It is just that the loudest voices are the most negative. Be logical and be realistic.
RSS Feed