So I have seen a few how long will it last threads recently on several boards and invariably several people will chime in that any decent handgun will last at least 15,000-20,000 rounds at a minimum and that equates into X dollars and therefore it doesn't matter because you can buy a new handgun X times over if needed.

While I don't inherently disagree with this train of thought I do however offer up the following.

If you have been shooting or in the fold for any length of time you should be aware that no matter where you live there are always attempts at new and "innovative" firearms regulations in an attempt to remove, limit or simply attack through attrition firearms and firearms rights.

It is not OUT of the question that some regulation suddenly makes buying a new handgun of a certain type illegal or difficult. It is not out of the question that some legislation suddenly makes parts an FFL item or illegal etc.

So with that said having a firearm that is known to be both durable and long lasting in use and storage isn't the worst thing in the world and having some idea of which ones seem to stack up better in this regard then others is good info to have.

Now in my experience the great majority of firearms, when given a modicum of preventative maintenance and care, will last a VERY long time. That said here are some other observations I have made over the years for folks new to this world.

Polymer framed handguns tend to be FAR more durable in the short term in terms of round count and abuse then alloy or steel framed counterparts.

Steel framed firearms with a modicum of care will last basically FOREVER in terms of storage but will wear out faster through use and high round counts.

Alloy framed handguns are the weakest in terms of durability in high round counts but much like steel framed guns will last basically forever with a modicum of care.

Polymer is still a bit of a wildcard in LONG LONG LONG term thoughts. It will most certainly last 50+ years but we simply don't have 150-200 year old polymer framed handguns to know if the polymer chains will eventually break down enough to render them inoperable. I have seen OLD Glock frames get brittle and crack/chip around the mag wells.

So all that said if I, personally, wanted a firearm likely to last the longest amount of time with the least amount of preventative maintenance over the largest round counts I would roll my dice on one of the following.

The Glock 17 - Let face it many folks have gone out of their way destroy Glock 17s through both round counts and abuse and.....well its possible but probably involves a Sawzall and a blowtorch.

The HK USP/P series family - There are USP 45's out there with eleventy billion rounds through them that were made 25 years ago and just keep on chugging like its nothing. HK also tend to rate their recoil springs for a very high number of rounds.

If I was worried about polymer not lasting generations I would probably just go with any of the modern metal firearms (Beretta/SIG etc.) and make sure I had the common PM parts squirreled away with them. Ohh and a Makarov....those damn things my even break Mr. Murphy’s will.

All in all most firearms will last way past you, even with lots of abuse or lack of care. High round counts WILL wear a firearm, ANY firearm and yes some do better then others in this regard. +P or defensive ammo will accelerate this, plinking or low powered stuff will slow this.

So there you have it my complete some damn idjit on the web's guide to why somebody might want a super durable firearm and what I think some of those might be.

One more thing....NEVER, NEVER forget about Mr. Murphy......he will break your brand new anvil out of spite.

Take care, shoot safe,
Chris

I wasn’t going to get involved in that other thread, but now that you’ve brought up the point, I absolutely agree. I will point out, though, it’s not only possible legal developments that might affect future replacement of a favored firearm. What’s actually more likely is that the gun will be discontinued and despite the ridiculous “Check around and you can find them” advice that is so often offered up by people who have no financial constraints and live within a 15 minute drive of forty-eleven gun stores and pawn shops with huge inventories, a replacement may simply be unavailable.

For example, how easy (and cheap) would it be for me to replace my pinned and recessed S&W 3" model 65, my model 547, the model 25 chambered for 45 ACP/Auto Rim, or my HK P7 PSP with no import marks? Even when something could conceivably be replaced, who would I deal with to replace the barrels of my TRG-22 rifles? Assuming I knew the answer to that question, the process would be neither inexpensive nor easy.

The price I pay for a gun and the amount of money I spend shooting it have absolutely no relevance to each other. In fact, if I’ve spent a fortune on ammunition, the last thing I may want to do is buy a new gun. And even if I wasn’t deterred by the cost, why would I want to replace a gun that I’ve fired a gazillion times? The fact I had done that would be a clue to most people that I might want to keep it.

I get the issue of a gun you can't replace. But in my lifetime I've lived through the so call AW ban during which with enough money it was possible to get every single thing I needed. And a State ban that extended the end of that, with exactly the same result.
But also in my lifetime SIG has orphaned a ridiculous number of guns that I own and killed the spare parts pipeline. Other mfg maybe not as bad as SIG but same outcome for lots of guns. Stuff I would like to buy again (replacement) or keep running (spare parts) is not killed by legislation but the mfg. My safe has a lot of stuff I don't shoot since there is no way to fix it and I have an emotional problem selling stuff...
So my strategy is simply if I expect to use something perhaps to end of life is to have way more than one.

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.

AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc. Most of these guns will have non-proprietary interchangeable parts with other similar guns, which will make the likelihood of repair parts being unavailable highly unlikely.

For example, if semi-auto pistols are outlawed, I'd rather have a 1911 buried in the back yard than a Boberg.

Parts for common guns will be available, and if they are not, there will be CAD versions on the internet for a machinist to build from.

Proprietary stuff is far less likely to be available.

I haven't built my collection around these concerns, but it has entered my thought process. As a consequence, I have Sigs, 1911s, Smith Revolvers, Ruger revolvers, ARs, M14 clones, and other stuff that is either out in the wild, or very widely available. I have a stock of spare parts, and duplicate guns of those that I consider most useful to me.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
[I]f I expect to use something perhaps to end of life ....

And how would you know if you might use something to the end of life?
.
.
.
By asking, “How long will it last?”

Interesting subject, however outside of firearms and their "life span" imagine that most of the ones in my safe will live much longer than I will. Take for instance my neighbors early 1900's Luger, 9mm still works, or my other friends 1911 his father carried in WW2, early 40's edition both metal, both show wear, both fire.

Biggest challenge will probably be ammo, even if you reload, finding the supplies to keep reloading will be the problem.

Reminds me of a line from Lethal Weapon 3, "I need ammo, I'm out of business without ammo, I need the good stuff"

I’m not all that sure about the claim that polymer guns are more durable than alloy.

Pick a quality gun, take care of it, and it’ll run forever.

quote:

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc.

Agree. I mean, add the CZ75 and Makarov pistols, but all the rest of it . . . yes!

quote:

And how would you know if you might use something to the end of life?

Well for me that means I know the rate I'm shooting it will likely exceed any reasonable life span based on available data. If the military gets people to sell them vast quantities of guns with a minimum service life of 35K rounds and if I'm doing 20K per year on a gun I'm pretty sure it won't last till I'm end of lifed. So spares are required, just in case. I'm not saying the army has any great ideas, but they are probably one of the few willing to expend ammo to actually measure service life.
As I said in the other thread absent a real world durability test NOBODY knows how long something will last. So asking is actually silly.

quote:

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.

AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc. Most of these guns will have non-proprietary interchangeable parts with other similar guns, which will make the likelihood of repair parts being unavailable highly unlikely.

I get the concept. BUT if the situation is they outlaw AR15's then its likely parts are part of that, otherwise you can just assemble one. See the example that CA is trying to go after 80% guns. I don't see your strategy actually being meaningful.
On the other hand if you are actually serious in a war then having guns that will be available by having your opponent supply the spares and ammunition because that's what they use would be useful...

An N Or L frame Smith shooting only .38’s should last until steel is obsolete.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.

AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc. Most of these guns will have non-proprietary interchangeable parts with other similar guns, which will make the likelihood of repair parts being unavailable highly unlikely.

I get the concept. BUT if the situation is they outlaw AR15's then its likely parts are part of that, otherwise you can just assemble one. See the example that CA is trying to go after 80% guns. I don't see your strategy actually being meaningful.
On the other hand if you are actually serious in a war then having guns that will be available by having your opponent supply the spares and ammunition because that's what they use would be useful...

Sun Su

To me the "how long will it last" is often over-shadowed because most will sell, change, "change course", "take another direction" over time - be it days, weeks, months... but another byproduct of these continual changes is you are (1) always learning a new gun and (2) it doesn't preclude itself to buying the right spares for a weapon, buying a spare firearm itself, etc to keep them running / shooting for a long time.

For me, I think carefully and my ARs, SCARs, Glock 19s, Beretta 92s, and most other firearms have a supply of often broken, worn, and sometimes more importantly lost when cleaning items - so I don't need to spend an hour looking for a detent that launched across the room. And I have enough spares that if a firearm goes down or needs to be sidelined for something, the next one up just needs to be loaded and holstered.

But that's me.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
[I]f I expect to use something perhaps to end of life ....

And how would you know if you might use something to the end of life?
.
.
.
By asking, “How long will it last?”

I am willing to bet that 98% of gun owners that have bought a new gun, have never worn a gun out.

Even for us crazy enthusiasts, we spread the wealth of blowing up ammo through multiple guns, so the chances of most of us wearing out A gun is still pretty slim. There was a time when I was shooting 700 rounds a week,(including 22.LR, and 3-400 of those centerfire, every single week, for about 5 years, up until the Obama ammo shortage and running through my most of my ammo stockpile before I switched hobbies (trap shooting etc.). Sure, if I shot ALL of those rounds through 1 gun I probably would've wore it out......but between 15+ guns, I can't find a single one that points to being close to worn out (rattling slides, worn barrel, etc.)

Look at how many times a US Army 1911 has been rebuilt and how many decades they kept them in service and God only knows how many thousands of rounds each one has had through it. You can track down most parts for guns that haven't been made in 50+ years, pretty easily nowadays....that is unless is was an obscure gun when it was new.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.

AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc. Most of these guns will have non-proprietary interchangeable parts with other similar guns, which will make the likelihood of repair parts being unavailable highly unlikely.

I get the concept. BUT if the situation is they outlaw AR15's then its likely parts are part of that, otherwise you can just assemble one. See the example that CA is trying to go after 80% guns. I don't see your strategy actually being meaningful.
On the other hand if you are actually serious in a war then having guns that will be available by having your opponent supply the spares and ammunition because that's what they use would be useful...

I see what you are saying, and no solution is bullet proof, but my point is this: I have downloaded the specs for those firearms that are out there. I have them on a flash drive, and while I never expect to need them, I have them.

Second, I have two non-functional 1911s. One is from 1919, and has had a rough life and isn't safe to fire. However, a number of parts, including the frame and slide are still good. The other is a parts gun given to me by a friend that was home made and has never run right. It will fire and eject but not load the next round. This is probably fixable with some feed ramp work, but even if it isn't, here's another donor gun of parts that will work on any number of 1911s.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of these parts guns out there, and there are millions of parts for these kinds of guns in the supply chain of both the military and civilian markets. If banned, they will be stolen or "lost" in vast numbers. When I was in Germany, we still had M-4 Sherman parts in our supply inventory. When they did a clean out, I got a handful of 1911 parts delivered to me by the supply sergeant who found them in the bottom of a drawer and knew I had a couple.

As you also note, if it comes to it, there is an advantage to owning arms that share parts with your potential enemy.

Hmmm, by that logic, mebbe I should buy a Glock...

I tend to like old classics have lots of 70 plus year old guns that continue to run perfectly. I even have some guns from the 1870’s that still get shot a few times a year and are holding up fine. I generally try to have at least 2 guns that fill the same role should one break and with that approach the functional guns will be around long after I am not.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

One solution to this problem is to have a certain number of guns that are past their patent date, and in wide use.

AK, AR, 1911, Beretta 92 series, etc. Most of these guns will have non-proprietary interchangeable parts with other similar guns, which will make the likelihood of repair parts being unavailable highly unlikely.

I get the concept. BUT if the situation is they outlaw AR15's then its likely parts are part of that, otherwise you can just assemble one. See the example that CA is trying to go after 80% guns. I don't see your strategy actually being meaningful.
On the other hand if you are actually serious in a war then having guns that will be available by having your opponent supply the spares and ammunition because that's what they use would be useful...

I don't believe that. If they outlawed/banned the gun (AR 15), you wouldn't be able to buy any new recievers. BUT, all other parts are not considered a firearm and are not tracked, nor banned. So barrels, furniture, sights, etc. etc. should still be able to be produced and bought/found.

That's one view of what a new law might look like. But its not the only possibility. I suggest you might look at CA where a law covers 80% receivers, which are after all just a gun part.
There have been a number of proposals to update the Fed assault ban that have included the idea that no new parts can be sold so that over time the stockpile of these guns is reduced.
I give no forecast of the future, but it clearly can be different than your version.

hrcjon, Along those same lines, there were proposals by the Left some years ago to require every gun part to be "registered" as a separate firearm. Just think, every spring, pin, screw, grip (left grip=1 firearm, right grip=another firearm), every recoil spring plug, recoil spring guide, magazine follower and on and on, another firearm that must be registered, with appropriate restrictions of course. Elimination of the "gun culture" in it's entirety is a cause very close to the Left's heart. Like rust, the Left never sleeps on this issue....