Round count how much is too much

[NEOCON]

A recent post got me to thinking about how many rounds through a handgun before it startes to become a factor in buying or pricing. I'm not talking about safe queens or old collector handguns but a typical Glock, Sig or other basic good quality weapon.
Myself I don't worry about it even though I do try to keep count of how many rounds each weapon has had run through it. I like to have at least 500 or s even 1000 trouble free rounds through a weapon before I can trust it to be reliable. I know most start to shoot better after 500 rounds and continue to get better. I know I lost track around 20,000 with my 220 Sig several years ago. It shoots better today than the day I got it, used by the way.
So what do you guys think? Am I wrong?

 

[rhino]

Depends on the caliber, methinks. A Sig in .357 sig might have throat erosion a lot sooner than the same gun in 9mm. A Sig P220 converted from .38 super to 9x23mm will probably also need a new barrel long before the same gun in .45ACP.

I don't think you can trust a seller's round count anyway, unless you know them and know they keep good records. I just go by the condition of the gun and if I'm concerned, I'll look in the bore, especially near the chamber.

 

[obijohn]

there are those here on the forum that are not the norm, but MOST handguns barely see enough ammo for the all the parts to be friendly with each other. like rhino posts, the "higher tech" rounds will likely erode the chamber/leade faster, but in the long run, it will be tough for the average shooter to wear a handgun out if it is maintained even close to how it should be. i've got an old series 70 colt that is going on 50,000+rounds, and it still has the collet bushing and the springs that were in it when it was acquired.

 

[NEOCON]

I see the reasoning with the caliber. I've never had a .357sig, I pretty much stick to the norm .45acp, 9mm.