Nope. I wouldn't even take a stock Glock out of the box and stuff it in a holster unless I were in a literal life and death situation.

Minimum for me:
300 rounds of the hottest range ammo I can find.
150 of carry ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGfourme:
Brand new Ed Brown Evo 9.
Took it to the range. Fired 1 shot-slide would not cycle. Manually cycled the slide, making in a single shot for the next 49 rounds.
Ed Brown customer service is still bad. Brought it back to the gun store--the problem was Ed Brown put a 38 super spring in a 9 mm pistol.
You need to shoot it before you carry it.

Wow. Holy smokes. I thought they test fired all their pistols before they left the factory. Guess not.

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by SIGfourme:
Brand new Ed Brown Evo 9.
Took it to the range. Fired 1 shot-slide would not cycle. Manually cycled the slide, making in a single shot for the next 49 rounds.
Ed Brown customer service is still bad. Brought it back to the gun store--the problem was Ed Brown put a 38 super spring in a 9 mm pistol.
You need to shoot it before you carry it.

Wow. Holy smokes. I thought they test fired all their pistols before they left the factory. Guess not.

They did. With one round in each mag.

I might trust a revolver without shooting it, but not an auto. With a revolver I can visually inspect and test every operational aspect without bullets and actually shooting it. I'd still prefer to shoot even a revolver a lot of times, but there have been some not-fun-to-shoot ultra lightweight snubbies that I have depended on in a carry role even though they got VERY FEW actual rounds shot through them.

I'd feel okay after around ~150 rounds.

Carry ammo comprising half that total.

A Beretta or Glock I'd trust after 50.

Big thing is you gotta use the same mags you 'test' with.

You're testing the gun AND the mags.

--------------------------------

I'm comfy with a couple hundred round of ball and 2 boxes of carry ammo.

Rinse and repeat after a few thousand and changing of the recoil spring.

quote:

Originally posted by Xer0:
I might trust a revolver without shooting it, but not an auto. With a revolver I can visually inspect and test every operational aspect without bullets and actually shooting it. I'd still prefer to shoot even a revolver a lot of times, but there have been some not-fun-to-shoot ultra lightweight snubbies that I have depended on in a carry role even though they got VERY FEW actual rounds shot through them.

I've had a brand new 454 Casull snub revolver that jammed up and completely locked the cylinder due to heavy and hot buffalo bore ammo that jumped crimp due to recoil. Gun was mechanically fine, just didn't like that particular load, or that batch of ammo had issues with the crimp.

I can't believe this is even a question. The only circumstance I would do that would be if I owned no other guns and this was my first purchase.

My new gun test:

500 rounds ball
100 rounds HST
100 rounds other random SD ammo I have accumulated.

Anything other than 100% reliable test starts over with ball until it can make it through with zero problems. Only had two ever fail the test, one is fixed and I am confident in, the other I sold, but not until after an abbreviated version of above testing. For me that's about a 10% rate of failure among guns I have purchased. Of the two failures, one was a SIG, the other a CZ, two highly reliable and trusted guns.

All questions are good. It is a good learning experience for the OP.

You would have to be quite desperate to carry something you haven't tested. I'm not saying that if some zombies are chasing me and I ran out of ammo I wouldn't grab that gun on the ground and try it. but that's the level of this. not a good idea except in unusual circumstances. As an aside at a statistical level the number of rounds needed is much higher than your voting choices.

I have never carried one without having shot it, at least to ensure it works correctly.

As another poster said, maybe, big maybe, if the gun was a revolver (as he says, one can pretty much check a revolver out for function without shooting it).

But not a pistol-no way. Not a chance in the world of me doing that. And I confess, I've done some pretty dumb things in my life-but not that.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Nismo:

quote:

Originally posted by Xer0:
I might trust a revolver without shooting it, but not an auto. With a revolver I can visually inspect and test every operational aspect without bullets and actually shooting it. I'd still prefer to shoot even a revolver a lot of times, but there have been some not-fun-to-shoot ultra lightweight snubbies that I have depended on in a carry role even though they got VERY FEW actual rounds shot through them.

I've had a brand new 454 Casull snub revolver that jammed up and completely locked the cylinder due to heavy and hot buffalo bore ammo that jumped crimp due to recoil. Gun was mechanically fine, just didn't like that particular load, or that batch of ammo had issues with the crimp.

Hehe, that 454 with heavy loads is kind of outside the scope of normal self defense calibers though! Although I guess I have read that 9mm Snubs like to jump the crimp too sometimes. Just said I might trust a revolver "more" than an auto without shooting!

I would only feel comfortable after a couple hundred trouble free rounds of my intended carry ammo.

Not me. It's not just testing the gun, but training with the gun. Matters even more that I work well with it and not just that the gun goes bang each and every time, which of course is also important considering the gun's infamous early history. I've put well over 2500 rounds between my two P365s before I finally carried one of them (only a couple times to date since I still prefer my bigger, chunkier G23 throwing dem fotay boolits).

If given a choice, I would want to put 500 rounds through anything that I would carry. But, if I were to buy a new gun at the LGS(having left my normal carry gun at home)and while walking back to the car thought I might have to use it(assuming I had ammo available), then I hope I had just purchased a classic P-series Sig(220/226/229) or a Glock 9mm. Interestingly, the only gun that I can remember malfunctioning on its first trip was a Glock 36 that failed to feed after the fourth round because the magazine follower broke, and a piece jammed the spring. But I did get the first four shots!
So, to answer the OP, No, I would not consider carrying an untested gun, unless the only other option was to carry a big stick. In which case, I would carry both.

Many years ago I bought a Tiger brand 38 snubbie at a show. Only had 5 rds of 38 spl on hand, so I loaded it, and carried it in some rather iffy places for a while. When I finally decided to shoot it, I discovered the maker had bored a 32 cylinder out to 38. The gun functioned great when empty, but the hand jammed against the case heads if you tried to shoot it when loaded..... That pos went to the next show. When I thought of some of the places I had carried it, my butt was biting holes in the car seat....

Yes, ammo is expensive.

Gents,

You're nuts if you carry an untested gun and that includes all your magazines with your duty load.
I've had three Glocks fail in the first magazine in the past year. Glock Perfection? Yeah!

Test them! All it costs is a little time and money and it may save your life.

Wes

quote:

Originally posted by Weshowe:

I've had three Glocks fail in the first magazine in the past year. Glock Perfection? Yeah!

would love to hear more details on this

-------------------------------------