Carrying a gun you've never shot? WTF?

[WebHobbit]

I've been noticing a rather disturbing trend lately. I've seen several ads in the INGO handguns selling forum where people say stuff like "only 14 rounds fired...only carried for a few weeks" or "carried a bit but never shot".

W-T-F?????

I been carrying for over 25 years so I guess that either makes me OLD or OLD SCHOOL or maybe both. I've never had any formal training but I have read a LOT and shot a LOT. I got into guns before the web was a thing so I read THOUSANDS of gun magazines - American Handgunner and Combat Handguns were my favorites. Massad Ayoob is probably my favorite gun author. (incidentally I am reading his latest book now and highly recommend "Deadly Force: Understanding your right of Self-Defense" (2014) ) All these experts always stressed to TEST your carry gun with your carry ammo (as well as range ammo) for several things BEFORE you consider carrying a gun:

1) Is it reliable?

2) Is it reliable with your carry load?

3) Can you hit with it?

4) If it's an auto are ALL your magazines reliable?

The minimum amount of rounds fired before it's "good to go" is debatable and varies from expert to expert. If you are carrying a wheel-gun the answer is NOT MUCH. If you are carrying a semi-auto my personal standard is 200+ range ammo (ball) and at least 50 rounds of your carry ammo.

So I'm wondering are the new generation of gun people not getting the information they need? I guess I should have saved all those gun magazines!

 

[Snapdragon]

I totally agree. I bought a Smith M10 snubby a couple of months ago to use as my Jeep gun, but I haven't been able to get it to the range and shoot it. As badly as I want to get it into the Jeep and as sure I am that it will shoot fine, I will not put it into service until I've shot it and practiced with it.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Plenty of gangbangers get dead by gats fools only carried once.

Sorry, but the data doesn't support your position. Sure, there are likely misfeeds and malfs but, for the most part, they work "good enough." I know that's not the scenario I want to stake my life on (and apparently you don't either) but guns are plenty reliable when acquired "as is."

 

[Sylvain]

When it's a Glock you know it's gonna work, no need to waste ammo before carrying it.

 

[in625shooter]

While not ideal look at how many general issue guns are issued to Mitary or LE that they themselves haven't shot. Several and they have used them for defense successfully.

And as far as shooting so many rounds, the days of needing to shoot 200 or so duty type loads while not a bad idea with better quality off the shelf autos as long as it works with a few your probably OK.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

Yeah people are nuts for relying on a machine with their life, without putting it through its paces first. I've had several handguns that did not function correctly, and refuse to carry a gun that has not been tested thoroughly at the range with fmj practice ammo for a hundred+ rounds and at least 1-2 mags of self defense ammo (I can't afford much at $1 a round). The more the better obviously!

 

[flatlander]

To many brand new guns slip by the QC that don't work. Too many people break guns or sell defective guns for me to trust my life to them with out test firing them to my own satisfaction. It could be just pure laziness To do less is just putting the odds against you by one more point.
Proper
Prior
Planning
Prevents
****
Poor
Performance

Or death.

Bob

 

[Cameramonkey]

I too see these and shake my head.

Its to all I can do to not pm them and ask "carried but never shot it? Are you a fool or a liar?"

 

[kawtech87]

My fiance's uncle is very bad about this. He'll buy a new gun and a holster and strap up without ever taking it to the range. He's also one of those guy's who carries an auto on an empty chamber. I've tried to tell him several times how many mistakes he is making and he just laughs about it and says that how he was trained. So I quit trying.

Oh, did I mention he is a security guard? Yeah he's a security guard.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Plenty of people carry a gun as a talisman. They don't really think they'll need it, or that it's mere presence will keep evil at bay. Add in a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger (people who know very little tend to be much more confident because they don't know what they don't know) and you wind up with people carrying unproven guns. You run in to people carrying AIR SOFT guns, including uniformed security guards...and robbers robbing uniformed security guards of their real guns (yeah).

A lot of my robbers were using this CO2 revolver a few years ago: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Ignite-B...tor-Pistol-Professional-Grade-BB-Gun/33492216 because it looks real, looks intimidating, and was easy to shoplift at Wal-mart.

I ran across this awhile back and while I've not kept my own stats, it seems quite likely to jive with local experience: Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training

Out of 85 weapons seized:

– 24 are not loaded

– 2 are not loaded with the correct ammunition

– 9 are completely broken

Combine those facts and you will see that 41% of the weapons we seize from criminals are completely non-functional!

Now include the four guns that weren’t fully loaded and the 17 with extremely limited function (no magazines, malfunctioned within 1st 3 rounds, etc.) and take a look at the results. In total, 66% of the guns we took from criminals were unable to be fired or could be fired for fewer than three rounds before being empty or experiencing a malfunction!

The stolen ones tend to have the better ammunition.

 

[cosermann]

Oh, did I mention he is a security guard? Yeah he's a security guard.

More like an insecurity guard.

 

[OakRiver]

When I got my first handgun I ran 400 rounds through it as a reliability check, with no more lube than what came from the factory. An untested carry gun is just inviting Murphy to make a visit.

 

[l1n5c0tt]

I'm going with their lying just like every car I've bought that wasn't brand new was owned by an old lady that didn't smoke. Salesman even stuck to that story on one of them that had the rental registration still on the visor. They all think it's going to help the sale. But still could be people are just plan dumb. I like to put a few hundred rounds through mine before I carry.

 

[churchmouse]

Plenty of gangbangers get dead by gats fools only carried once.

Sorry, but the data doesn't support your position. Sure, there are likely misfeeds and malfs but, for the most part, they work "good enough." I know that's not the scenario I want to stake my life on (and apparently you don't either) but guns are plenty reliable when acquired "as is."

There are a few brands I would not stake my life on.

 

[WebHobbit]

I can give one recent example of my own. I few weeks ago I switched from the XDm platform to the S&W Shield. I like to have two identical carry guns so they can be rotated in and out of carry/practice. When one is being carried the other is the range gun, etc. It's part of my mild case of OCD I guess. I wont holster a dirty gun. But that's not the point of this story.

So I bought Shield #01 and ran 200 rounds of 9mm ball through it. No issues (other than my own learning curve with accuracy coming from a larger/heavier gun in the same caliber). I then ran 50 rounds of HST through it. Again no mechanical problems whatsoever. So I then bought Shield #02 (both guns were purchased NEW). I took it out to Redbrush Rifle Range for the same test and 3 rounds in the slide locks back as if the magazine is EMPTY. I'm all W-T-F!?! So I struggle for several minutes and finally get the slide released...2-3 rounds later same thing happens again! So I switch out magazines and ammo and every other thing I can think of.....added more lube....examined all parts..etc. The gun simply will not fire more than 3 rounds before it locks the slide back for NO APPARENT REASON. I contacted S&W and sent it right back to the factory ASAP. It's been there a couple of weeks now. No word on what the issue was or when it will be fixed.

So this was a Smith & Wesson Shield -one of the hottest selling guns of the last 5-6 years. It is widely respected and regarded by most knowledgeable gun people. My point is if one had bought, loaded and started carrying Shield#02 with no testing and a defensive situation was to occur requiring more than 3 rounds.....you would have been in deep dark trouble!

 

[Hawkeye]

To me, it's not about the firearm but the user. The firearm will probably work as intended right out of the box. But if I'm carrying it for defense or hunting, I want to be somewhat proficient with it. Probably not the firearm that will fail under stressful usage. It's probably me.

To to those of you worried about whether the tool will fail to function, consider this. When the hammer drops, you never really know if the primer will ignite! And you can't test one-use components for future use!

 

[WebHobbit]

To me, it's not about the firearm but the user. The firearm will probably work as intended right out of the box. But if I'm carrying it for defense or hunting, I want to be somewhat proficient with it. Probably not the firearm that will fail under stressful usage. It's probably me.

And that is usually true....except for my example just above your post!

 

[Hawkeye]

And that is usually true....except for my example just above your post!

you did see I said PROBABLY? There are always outliers on the bell curve. You anecdote has no impact on what I said. In fact, it supports my underlying theory that the USER should be proficient. As you are.

 

[MarkC]

To me, it's not about the firearm but the user. The firearm will probably work as intended right out of the box. But if I'm carrying it for defense or hunting, I want to be somewhat proficient with it. Probably not the firearm that will fail under stressful usage. It's probably me.

To to those of you worried about whether the tool will fail to function, consider this. When the hammer drops, you never really know if the primer will ignite! And you can't test one-use components for future use!

And that is usually true....except for my example just above your post!

You both are right; it is both about the firearm, and the user.

In my years in the military and law enforcement, I have been issued a firearm across the counter that I was was fairly confident would work, and that I had been trained on. However, today, as a retiree from both, I want to fire a weapon on the range significantly before carrying. If it is new, I want to make sure it isn't defective, as WebHobbit discovered. If it is out of the safe and hasn't been fired in a while, I want to make sure that wear or failure has not rendered it unreliable.

All that being said, I limit my EDC to one of two weapons, depending on the level of concealability I need.

 

[Snapdragon]

You both are right; it is both about the firearm, and the user.

In my years in the military and law enforcement, I have been issued a firearm across the counter that I was was fairly confident would work, and that I had been trained on. However, today, as a retiree from both, I want to fire a weapon on the range significantly before carrying. If it is new, I want to make sure it isn't defective, as WebHobbit discovered. If it is out of the safe and hasn't been fired in a while, I want to make sure that wear or failure has not rendered it unreliable.

All that being said, I limit my EDC to one of two weapons, depending on the level of concealability I need.

And if it is previously-owned, you need to make sure that someone didn't unload a lemon on you.