What's new

More CCW questions from the noob to you old timers

Status
Not open for further replies.

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
Usually failure to feed, but not all that often. But often enough that I couldn't shoot reloads in any informal competition events, not without the time penalty of clearing malfunctions. I suspect the great accuracy of the P365 is partially due to a minimally dimensioned chamber. I would not hesitate to shoot reloads in target practice if the malfunction rate was low. YMMV

Of the 2,500 rounds I put thru mine, I might mention none of them were reloads. But I did shoot a ton of WWB and BB and various HP’s.
 

nortac

"Can't Raise an Eyebrow"
I hinted at this above. The mags need break in, too. Some 365 12 mags can exhibit a stiffer spring than the other capacities when new, depending on COO. A little too tight brand new for a smooth feed. Keep running rounds though it and/or let it sit fully loaded for a couple weeks, and the spring tension should permanently relax to where it needs to be. If you contact Sig, they'll tell you this.

If after a couple hundred rounds, any mag is still jamming up, they'll probably exchange it for you ... but then you'll have to break in again :001_smile.
I hadn't considered that it might be the magazines since I didn't have any issues with factory loads. I may revisit using reloads when clearing malfs is not a problem.
 
There’s a few patents on the 365 mags, so they apparently pushed some design innovations into them.

But at the end of the day, they’re still stamped steel, plastic and springs, just like any other magazine, and need some exercise to relax and settle in those new parts.

If you’re committed to a particular cartridge, load up a mag with it, let it sit for a month, and then see how it behaves.
 
While all or most polymer guns aren’t as pretty as steel guns, Sig’s line of polymers are probably the best looking of the bunch. :)

That’s a tallest midget discussion right there. All kidding aside, there are so many wonderful carry guns on the market right now, it’s really the golden era of carry guns.
 

jar_

Too Fugly For Free.
There’s a few patents on the 365 mags, so they apparently pushed some design innovations into them.

But at the end of the day, they’re still stamped steel, plastic and springs, just like any other magazine, and need some exercise to relax and settle in those new parts.

If you’re committed to a particular cartridge, load up a mag with it, let it sit for a month, and then see how it behaves.
If the patent are on the follower and/or baseplate they are likely CheckMate's patents since I think CheckMate makes Sigs magazines now.
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
That’s a tallest midget discussion right there. All kidding aside, there are so many wonderful carry guns on the market right now, it’s really the golden era of carry guns.

It really is, but I’m just referring to polymers that would be considered the best looking of the bunch.

Glock ain’t winning any beauty contests for sure. :)
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
There’s a few patents on the 365 mags, so they apparently pushed some design innovations into them.

But at the end of the day, they’re still stamped steel, plastic and springs, just like any other magazine, and need some exercise to relax and settle in those new parts.

If you’re committed to a particular cartridge, load up a mag with it, let it sit for a month, and then see how it behaves.

Sig’s 365 magazines were a patented design because the bottom of the magazine is a double stack design, which then tapers off at the top to a single stack design. This allows them to design the 365 smaller and thinner at the top of the frame and slide. Respectfully, I don’t know if I agree with the logic of having to let new magazines and springs ‘ break themselves’ in or the springs need to set for a month? My Glock and magazines work brand new straight from the box with most any kind of ammunition.

If Glock can do it, so can and should every other pistol maker on the planet. I get that older 1911’s and the metallurgies they used in their magazine springs were finicky, but in today’s world of modern manufacturing technology and better science in metallurgical advancements, it’s inexcusable for any pistol company to take our hard earned money and give us stuff that doesn’t work straight from the box. I got a Springfield 1911 who’s OEM magazines would not work with the gun. Not only did I insist Springfield take the pistol back and their Techs reworked that pistol with a custom quality workmanship, but I tossed the Checkmate brand magazines that just wouldn’t work and picked up some Wilson Combat ETM magazines and they work on every kind of ammo I feed it.

Just my opinion. :)
 
Sig’s 365 magazines were a patented design because the bottom of the magazine is a double stack design, which then tapers off at the top to a single stack design. This allows them to design the 365 smaller and thinner at the top of the frame and slide. Respectfully, I don’t know if I agree with the logic of having to let new magazines and springs ‘ break themselves’ in or the springs need to set for a month? My Glock and magazines work brand new straight from the box with most any kind of ammunition.

If Glock can do it, so can and should every other pistol maker on the planet. I get that older 1911’s and the metallurgies they used in their magazine springs were finicky, but in today’s world of modern manufacturing technology and better science in metallurgical advancements, it’s inexcusable for any pistol company to take our hard earned money and give us stuff that doesn’t work straight from the box. I got a Springfield 1911 who’s OEM magazines would not work with the gun. Not only did I insist Springfield take the pistol back and their Techs reworked that pistol with a custom quality workmanship, but I tossed the Checkmate brand magazines that just wouldn’t work and picked up some Wilson Combat ETM magazines and they work on every kind of ammo I feed it.

Just my opinion. :)

I hate to break it to you, but even Bill Wilson recommends the above method to break in a magazine and its spring. A functioning magazine and a smoothly operating one are sometimes different things, same as the gun itself can be.

It's ultimately all a matter of opinions. And reasonable minds have always differed on some of those.
 
If the patent are on the follower and/or baseplate they are likely CheckMate's patents since I think CheckMate makes Sigs magazines now.

They do make some. I have a mix of Sig branded ones, some US, others Italian made. They all work well, and I've never had any problems with any of them. They all have a lot of loads on them.

I have seen a few guys have issues with the aftermarket gun show mags. They also tend to shoot a lot of reloads. It's like everything else, you get what you pay for.
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
I hate to break it to you, but even Bill Wilson recommends the above method to break in a magazine and its spring. A functioning magazine and a smoothly operating one are sometimes different things, same as the gun itself can be.

It's ultimately all a matter of opinions. And reasonable minds have always differed on some of those.
You can break it to me, I have thick skin. :)
Oh Bill Wilson may give that advice, but it doesn’t change the fact, that if modern pistol companies want to sell their products for hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars they SHOULD make sure their stuff works out of the box.

Do you disagree? I bet ole Bill Wilson agrees with me, that they should work out of the box. :)
 
Perhaps I was unclear. Bill Wilson recommends the above break in methods for HIS magazines. So does Sig and a number of other gunmakers. Tight springs are common with brand new magazines. The springs on the 12 round 365 magazines, and on Bill Wilson’s magazines, are more highly tensioned than some others. That is factored into the design, as the design contemplates their entire service life.

And so it is with plastic followers and base plates that haven’t yet fully micro polished to their adjoining parts. On every magazine. The same as the moving parts in a newly manufactured gun, or any other mechanical device for that matter.

Working “out of the box“, and working at full mechanical efficiency, are two different things. Almost all of them “work out the box”. And almost all of them work even better with some initial use on them. Again, that’s built into the design.

Do you break in your new guns? If so, why? No need to respond. Study metallurgy, particularly as it applies to spring steels, and what these manufacturers recommend is just common sense.
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
Perhaps I was unclear. Bill Wilson recommends the above break in methods for HIS magazines. So does Sig and a number of other gunmakers.

Are you able to provide us a link, showing Sig Arms suggestions on the magazine springs and where it is in their Owners Manual? :)

And while tight springs are common sir, my point remains. There are no tighter magazine springs then Glock magazines. Yet Glock magazines work 100% from the box. While I’m not attempting to debate that, my point is still viable, yes? If Glock can be reliable with tight springs, then so should everyone else’s? :)




Working “out of the box“, and working at full mechanical efficiency, are two different things. Almost all of them “work out the box”. And almost all of them work even better with some initial use on them. Again, that’s built into the design.
Do you break in your new guns? If so, why? No need to respond. Study metallurgy, particularly as it applies to spring steels, and what these manufacturers recommend is just common sense.

That’s the question, isn’t it? When I myself, or most others, purchase a brand new pistol and we take it to the range the first time? Why are we doing that? Why are we there?

1. Are we wanting to break it in?

2. Are we seeing if it’s going to work reliably?

3. Are we taking it to the range to just enjoy shooting it and full filling the very purpose of why we bought it?

Probably all three of these? However, when I take my new Glock, am I already mentally expecting it to work 100%? Yes I am. Are you doing the same with your new Sig? Yes you are. :)

And if they don’t? Are we surprised? Yes. Are we pi$$ed? Probably. Why? Because they didn’t work as we expected? Is it a wrong expectation that they should work with a ‘break in’ needed?

For the money we spent, shouldn’t they break it in at the factory and then send it to us? Where does it say in any gun owners manual, that so many rounds need to be fired for their pistol to be reliable?

When I purchase a new Glock, it comes with two empty shell casings in the box with the pistol. When it’s taken to the range; unless it’s a brand new edition with the bugs worked out, they work 100%. Magazines included.

Bill Wilson can downplay the short comings of certain pistol manufacturers selling is stuff that’s not already reliable and working if he wants too, by giving us advice on how to break in magazines that they should have already done for us? If they have the equipment to make those magazines, maybe they should have the equipment to break in the springs also instead of expect customers to do it?

Cuz guns ain’t getting cheaper? :)
 
Are you able to provide us a link, showing Sig Arms suggestions on the magazine springs and where it is in their Owners Manual? :)

And while tight springs are common sir, my point remains. There are no tighter magazine springs then Glock magazines. Yet Glock magazines work 100% from the box. While I’m not attempting to debate that, my point is still viable, yes? If Glock can be reliable with tight springs, then so should everyone else’s? :)







That’s the question, isn’t it? When I myself, or most others, purchase a brand new pistol and we take it to the range the first time? Why are we doing that? Why are we there?

1. Are we wanting to break it in?

2. Are we seeing if it’s going to work reliably?

3. Are we taking it to the range to just enjoy shooting it and full filling the very purpose of why we bought it?

Probably all three of these? However, when I take my new Glock, am I already mentally expecting it to work 100%? Yes I am. Are you doing the same with your new Sig? Yes you are. :)

And if they don’t? Are we surprised? Yes. Are we pi$$ed? Probably. Why? Because they didn’t work as we expected? Is it a wrong expectation that they should work with a ‘break in’ needed?

For the money we spent, shouldn’t they break it in at the factory and then send it to us? Where does it say in any gun owners manual, that so many rounds need to be fired for their pistol to be reliable?

When I purchase a new Glock, it comes with two empty shell casings in the box with the pistol. When it’s taken to the range; unless it’s a brand new edition with the bugs worked out, they work 100%. Magazines included.

Bill Wilson can downplay the short comings of certain pistol manufacturers selling is stuff that’s not already reliable and working if he wants too, by giving us advice on how to break in magazines that they should have already done for us? If they have the equipment to make those magazines, maybe they should have the equipment to break in the springs also instead of expect customers to do it?

Cuz guns ain’t getting cheaper? :)

I have a very different opinion than you do regarding the break in of new machines. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you want to hear it from Sig, you need to give them a call. They'll tell you what I stated above. Bill Wilson puts it right in his FAQs. It's a well-discussed topic at this point, and has been so for many years.

The owners manual is not a substitute for decades of experience.
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
I have a very different opinion than you do regarding the break in of new machines. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you want to hear it from Sig, you need to give them a call. They'll tell you what I stated above. Bill Wilson puts it right in his FAQs. It's a well-discussed topic at this point, and has been so for many years.

The owners manual is not a substitute for decades of experience.

It’s ok to be of a difference in opinion, but You still didn’t answer the obvious question.

Do you agree with me, that for all of the money we spend on new guns, do you personally think, they should be already reliable, in the box straight from the manufacturer?

Yes or no? :)
 
It’s ok to be of a difference in opinion, but You still didn’t answer the obvious question.

Do you agree with me, that for all of the money we spend on new guns, do you personally think, they should be already reliable, in the box straight from the manufacturer?

Yes or no? :)

You keep asking a question that's already been answered.

They are reliable. Breaking them in to improve their mechanical efficiency makes them even more reliable.

"Reliability" is not a quantifiable term that is universally agreed upon in many industries. It is a qualitative one. That is why it is used so much in advertising.

Is it one FTF event every 2,000 rounds? Or one FTF every 577.5 rounds? Or is it never a single FTF ever, throughout the entire service life of the firearm?

What is the measurable threshold between "reliable" and "unreliable" for any machine?

If the 1 in 2,500 FTF event finally occurs as you are attempting to fend off an armed attacker, was the gun still reliable?

You turning it into a "when did you stop beating your wife" question doesn't transform it into a black and white or "yes or no" calculus.

The designers would tell you normal usage and resultant mechanical break in is foreseeable, and that the enhanced reliability that follows is therefore inherent, and contemplated, in the original design.
 

OkieStubble

Dirty Donuts are so Good.
You keep asking a question that's already been answered.

They are reliable. Breaking them in to improve their mechanical efficiency makes them even more reliable.

"Reliability" is not a quantifiable term that is universally agreed upon in many industries. It is a qualitative one. That is why it is used so much in advertising.

Is it one FTF event every 2,000 rounds? Or one FTF every 577.5 rounds? Or is it never a single FTF ever, throughout the entire service life of the firearm?

What is the measurable threshold between "reliable" and "unreliable" for any machine?

If the 1 in 2,500 FTF event finally occurs as you are attempting to fend off an armed attacker, was the gun still reliable?

You turning it into a "when did you stop beating your wife" question doesn't transform it into a black and white or "yes or no" calculus.

The designers would tell you normal usage and resultant mechanical break in is foreseeable, and that the enhanced reliability that follows is therefore inherent, and contemplated, in the original design.

Modern magazines and their springs do not have to be broken in before they can be considered reliable or not. Other then an initial lubrication of the pistol, I want my pistols and their magazines to be 100% from the box. If they show not to be, I’m not loading the magazines for a month and waiting for them to become reliable or not, I’m sending the pistol and the magazines back. Regardless of Bill Wilson’s advice. :)
 
Modern magazines and their springs do not have to be broken in before they can be considered reliable or not. Other then an initial lubrication of the pistol, I want my pistols and their magazines to be 100% from the box. If they show not to be, I’m not loading the magazines for a month and waiting for them to become reliable or not, I’m sending the pistol and the magazines back. Regardless of Bill Wilson’s advice. :)

Now you're not answering my questions defining what constitutes "reliable". ;)
 
Modern magazines and their springs do not have to be broken in before they can be considered reliable or not. Other then an initial lubrication of the pistol, I want my pistols and their magazines to be 100% from the box. If they show not to be, I’m not loading the magazines for a month and waiting for them to become reliable or not, I’m sending the pistol and the magazines back. Regardless of Bill Wilson’s advice. :)

Bear in mind that I didn't want to continue this conversation. But since you insisted, it's only fair that we clarify the context of earlier remarks, since you keep repeating "loading the magazines for a month" as some sort of recommended standard practice.

That specific advice was in the context of Mr. Nortac's comments that he was experiencing FTFs with reloads in his 365, and was contemplating going back to reloads in the future in a competitive application.

Reloads notoriously suffer from high out of tolerance manufacturing standards, and are the cause of many problems in an otherwise well-functioning gun and magazine when loaded with dimensionally-tolerant factory rounds.

And 9mm reloads in particular, as are used in the 365, have particularly infamous problems, as demonstrated by the exploding Glock that I mentioned elsewhere. I would personally never shoot 9mm reloads in the present ammo market based on what I know.

But if someone is insistent on running ammunition with higher than acceptable manufacturing tolerances, then the recommendation is a conservative measure to allow the weapon and its feed mechanism to accommodate themselves to the irregularity. It was not a blanket recommendation for every situation. Or one that is customarily needed when factory rounds are involved.

What I also stated more generally is what the manufacturers generally echo for firearms and their feed mechanisms: continue to cycle ammunition though them, or leave them loaded for a considerably shorter period, and any incidences of malfunction will steadily diminish to a statistically acceptable level.

The core issue is what rate of malfunction is statistically acceptable ... or what you keep calling "reliable".

Whether a FTF rate of 3 in 300 rounds constitutes "reliable" or "unreliable" for a gun or magazine is in the eye of the operator, unless agreed to standards are in play. But if the FTF rate then drops to 1 in 3,000 rounds after 300 rounds, that same person may have a very different opinion of the reliability of the mechanism.

A FTF rate of 1/3,000 is fairly reliable by my personal standards. That is a 0.00033 malfunction rate.

And that is no reason to condemn or return the brand new mechanism. It will not be brand new for long.

If your expectation is that your guns, magazines and ammunition will have a 0.00% malfunction rate from out of the box, for their entire design lives (or as you put it "100%"), then you have patently unreasonable expectations. No machine operates at that level of perfect reliability from cradle to grave.

Even the very finest LE grade rounds have been known to misfire on exceedingly rare occasion. Hardly ever is not never.

Now we can agree to disagree.
 

simon1

Self Ignored by Vista
If your expectation is that your guns, magazines and ammunition will have a 0.00% malfunction rate from out of the box, for their entire design lives (or as you put it "100%"), then you have patently unreasonable expectations. No machine operates at that level of perfect reliability from cradle to grave.

I have seen Glocks malfunction...two that come to mind real quick. The P.D. Lt. over firearms training's duty one and the sniper's duty one. They never did figure out what caused them to malfunction several times.

I'm never buying another Glock...they are unreliable. :001_tongu
 
I have seen Glocks malfunction...two that come to mind real quick. The P.D. Lt. over firearms training's duty one and the sniper's duty one. They never did figure out what caused them to malfunction several times.

I'm never buying another Glock...they are unreliable. :001_tongu
If those examples had more than a few hundred rounds on them, I would consider them unreliable, too.

My long-winded comments above were more about teething pains with brand new gear. Most all of it is dependable even brand new. But they all get a little better, even in accuracy, once they’ve settled in after a few hundred rounds.

Reloads cause a lot of avoidable headaches with the newer pistols, particularly the micro models.

I’m sometimes glad that I’m not as active with this stuff as in years past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom