Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
I finally reached the 1000 round plateau with it this weekend, and still works great.

I would hope so. I don't think anyone reputable would recommend a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds. Are there any guns out there with a listed "expiration" or limit after x number of rounds are pumped through it? Assuming the shooter isn't deliberately trying to melt the barrel here.

 Breotan wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I finally reached the 1000 round plateau with it this weekend, and still works great.

I would hope so. I don't think anyone reputable would recommend a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds. Are there any guns out there with a listed "expiration" or limit after x number of rounds are pumped through it? Assuming the shooter isn't deliberately trying to melt the barrel here.

Exactly what I was thinking

 Alex C wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I finally reached the 1000 round plateau with it this weekend, and still works great.

I would hope so. I don't think anyone reputable would recommend a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds. Are there any guns out there with a listed "expiration" or limit after x number of rounds are pumped through it? Assuming the shooter isn't deliberately trying to melt the barrel here.

Exactly what I was thinking

be nice now. If it were a Kimber, he would have to change the main springs on it at this point. If it were a brick er Glock ( ) this would be the point he realizes he needs to get a real trigger, front and rear sights and maybe half decent barrel.

My bad...I wasn't trying to show surprise. It's my first firearm I've put 1000 through, so I was pretty excited.

I'm probably close on my O/U, but I didn't shoot a ton of skeet last season because of the baby.

I've put about a thousand rounds through my 1911, and I haven't replaced anything yet. I do have a spare extractor in my bag, though.

I've put just about 2500 rounds though my AK, which means it's nearly time to clean it.

 Breotan wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I finally reached the 1000 round plateau with it this weekend, and still works great.

I would hope so. I don't think anyone reputable would recommend a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds. Are there any guns out there with a listed "expiration" or limit after x number of rounds are pumped through it? Assuming the shooter isn't deliberately trying to melt the barrel here.

I think 20000 is more the ballpark for replacing the barrel on most firearms, give or take depending on type of ammo, caliber, etc. As for other parts breaking, they should either last as long or longer, or be easily replaceable.

I don't have a link, but theres an interesting set of articles I've read which interview a particular gun store owner who operates a very popular shooting range where you can rent basically any gun, including some fully automatic firearms. They put hundreds of thousands of rounds through dozens of different types of firearms, and it's interesting to see the exact limits of the different guns. For example, apparently most AK's upper recievers will fracture in a specific spot at about 80,000 rounds. Piston driven ARs actually have a significantly shorter life than oldschool DI ARs, with the exception of the 416 which lasts roughly as long. Stuff like that.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I finally reached the 1000 round plateau with it this weekend, and still works great.

I would hope so. I don't think anyone reputable would recommend a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds. Are there any guns out there with a listed "expiration" or limit after x number of rounds are pumped through it? Assuming the shooter isn't deliberately trying to melt the barrel here.

I think 20000 is more the ballpark for replacing the barrel on most firearms, give or take depending on type of ammo, caliber, etc. As for other parts breaking, they should either last as long or longer, or be easily replaceable.

I don't have a link, but theres an interesting set of articles I've read which interview a particular gun store owner who operates a very popular shooting range where you can rent basically any gun, including some fully automatic firearms. They put hundreds of thousands of rounds through dozens of different types of firearms, and it's interesting to see the exact limits of the different guns. For example, apparently most AK's upper recievers will fracture in a specific spot at about 80,000 rounds. Piston driven ARs actually have a significantly shorter life than oldschool DI ARs, with the exception of the 416 which lasts roughly as long. Stuff like that.

I shattered the frame, trigger, and bolt assembly on my first Ruger target pistol after about 100,000 rounds and ten years. I keep it because its family.

 DarkLink wrote:
For example, apparently most AK's upper recievers will fracture in a specific spot at about 80,000 rounds. Piston driven ARs actually have a significantly shorter life than oldschool DI ARs, with the exception of the 416 which lasts roughly as long. Stuff like that.

AK's do not have an upper receiver; did you mean an AR? I understand you may not remember exactly what you read though, you made that pretty clear.

The barrel on an AK will probably be shot out in about 20k rounds but even then I think it's still probably going to be man-accurate at the ranges that the AK is intended to be used at. Ultimately what will kill them will be the corrosive, military surplus ammunition used in the parts of the world that actually use AK's so hard they eventually fail. If you're in the first world shooting semi-auto I expect an AK will long, long outlive it's owner even with regular shooting and virtually no maintenance.

 Alex C wrote:
To each their own, but just because a "manual" safety is not visible doesn't mean the pistol is unsafe.

Carry whatever you are comfortable with and can shoot well. Everyone is different.

 DarkLink wrote:
I think 20000 is more the ballpark for replacing the barrel on most firearms, give or take depending on type of ammo, caliber, etc. As for other parts breaking, they should either last as long or longer, or be easily replaceable.

As long as you take proper care of your firearm and perform routine maintenance, you should be able to put as much as 100,000 rounds through it. Antiques might not make it this far but modern stuff sure has hell should. I mean, unless you go to the range and spray fire like Rambo, burning through several thousand rounds in a single day, there's no reason for your barrel to fail that soon.

Your barrel will definitely not last 100k rounds and still maintain any accuracy. Mil requirements are pretty generous and don't even approach that type of expected lifespan.

AK's do not have an upper receiver; did you mean an AR? I understand you may not remember exactly what you read though, you made that pretty clear.

Yeah, I was typing on my phone. It was a part on the AK, just didn't mean to say upper receiver.

After some digging, I found one of the articles (it has links to more related stuff as well): http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/09/16/handgun-experiences-from-battlefield-las-vegas/

 Breotan wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
I think 20000 is more the ballpark for replacing the barrel on most firearms, give or take depending on type of ammo, caliber, etc. As for other parts breaking, they should either last as long or longer, or be easily replaceable.

As long as you take proper care of your firearm and perform routine maintenance, you should be able to put as much as 100,000 rounds through it. Antiques might not make it this far but modern stuff sure has hell should. I mean, unless you go to the range and spray fire like Rambo, burning through several thousand rounds in a single day, there's no reason for your barrel to fail that soon.

It could be because I'm basing that number off of something I recall about the service life of military firearms, in which case they can burn through a lot of rounds in one sitting.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Your barrel will definitely not last 100k rounds and still maintain any accuracy. Mil requirements are pretty generous and don't even approach that type of expected lifespan.

My gun is a 2" snub so I think we're already past the idea maintaining any sort of accuracy.

 DarkLink wrote:
After some digging, I found one of the articles

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting read. I was quite surprised to read how reliable the M4 was.

DarkLink, very interesting read, thanks for that.

Definitely have to agree on the P22s. A friend of mine experienced a slide crack on his P22. To be fair though, the pistol had been fired so much it was basically a smoothbore handgun (the rifling was completely shot out).

 Ouze wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
After some digging, I found one of the articles

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting read. I was quite surprised to read how reliable the M4 was.

Yeah. The M4 has a bad rep because it was basically an unfinished design when it was rushed into service, but after 50 years of continuous improvements, the rifle itself actually performs extremely well. Even in the army reliability testing, most of the M4 malfunctions were magazine related, not the rifle itself.

I found it interesting that the DI AR's last longer than the piston equivalents. Weren't the piston AR's originally made to try to get the reliability of an AK but with the better accuracy of the M4/AR.

yellowfever wrote:
I found it interesting that the DI AR's last longer than the piston equivalents. Weren't the piston AR's originally made to try to get the reliability of an AK but with the better accuracy of the M4/AR.

I thought piston AR's were originally made because mall ninjas decreed the DI system was bad, for some reason.

The problem I think with many piston AR designs is that they're trying to hamfist a different method of operation onto a weapon that wasn't designed to function in that way, especially when they try to stick to the exact same dimensions/profile. Some work, some don't.

More to the point, most were designed for civilian semi-automatic weapons, not automatic weapons at what is effectively a tourist center where they're going to be experiencing far more intensive use in full auto-matic than even battlefield weapons in most instances, which is likely to account for many of the failures in this instance. What might work fine for 200,000 rounds of casual semo-auto fire might fail at 4,000 rounds of intensive automatic fire.

DI has its advantages and disadvantages.no weapon is perfect, but, as noted, most of the big problems with AR's have come from the weapons not being deployed properly.

 DarkLink wrote:
Yeah. The M4 has a bad rep because it was basically an unfinished design when it was rushed into service, but after 50 years of continuous improvements, the rifle itself actually performs extremely well. Even in the army reliability testing, most of the M4 malfunctions were magazine related, not the rifle itself.

I've seen something similar in my AR, although it's not "magazine related" and more "user error" - I had some magazines that would fail to lock into place, sometimes. I was worried they were crap mags, or that there was a problem with the catch, but what it actually turned to be was - ahem - you could load 31 rounds into the mag, if you weren't keeping count, and it would then sort-of lock, but not reliably. Just stupid people gun things.

 Alex C wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I found it interesting that the DI AR's last longer than the piston equivalents. Weren't the piston AR's originally made to try to get the reliability of an AK but with the better accuracy of the M4/AR.

I thought piston AR's were originally made because mall ninjas decreed the DI system was bad, for some reason.

Basically. And it certainly didn't help that early versions would eat their own buffer rubes due to carrier tilt.

I've shot my piston gun 3 times now and it's definitely easier to clean the bolt.

yellowfever wrote:
I've shot my piston gun 3 times now and it's definitely easier to clean the bolt.

Yeah, the bolt should be significantly less fouled in a piston gun, and with the AR's array of tiny lugs that can be appreciated.

Was at a Tier 4 match Saturday. They had some Wilson Combat guys with what looked like their new version of the Brigadier. Sweet!

I was looking into what I am going to get next and it was a debated between a Spikes Compressor or making my own suppressed rifle using a BCM 11.5'" upper. After reading about the Spikes I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in it. The rifle is really short coming in at 25" with the stock full retracted and suppressor were as the BCM will be 30" without the can. But the Spikes suppressor is really subpar to a Silencerco that I will already have for my 6.8 SPC.

Anyway, with the money I save with the BCM, not only am I getting a better rifle that will not required a lightened bolt carrier it will also be a lot more quite and I can shoot it right away and not have to wait for the whole upper to get out of NFA jail. I won't have to get another suppressor and I have enough money left over to buy a HK VP 45 when it, hopefully, comes out next year. Then I can send it to SSVI for a custom paint job and suppress it to .

 Ruberu wrote:
I was looking into what I am going to get next and it was a debated between a Spikes Compressor or making my own suppressed rifle using a BCM 11.5'" upper. After reading about the Spikes I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in it. The rifle is really short coming in at 25" with the stock full retracted and suppressor were as the BCM will be 30" without the can. But the Spikes suppressor is really subpar to a Silencerco that I will already have for my 6.8 SPC.

Anyway, with the money I save with the BCM, not only am I getting a better rifle that will not required a lightened bolt carrier it will also be a lot more quite and I can shoot it right away and not have to wait for the whole upper to get out of NFA jail. I won't have to get another suppressor and I have enough money left over to buy a HK VP 45 when it, hopefully, comes out next year. Then I can send it to SSVI for a custom paint job and suppress it to .

Not really surprised that Spike's failed to deliver. I bought one of their .22 BCGs and it was pretty awful. I picked up a CMMG kit and never looked back - no jams at all, no gas in my face, better machining, etc. BCM is great though...you'll be happy with it.

Anyone tried the Ruger Precision Rifle? I saw one at a show and have read great reviews. Looking at getting one in 6.5 Creedmore.

Col. Dash wrote:
Anyone tried the Ruger Precision Rifle? I saw one at a show and have read great reviews. Looking at getting one in 6.5 Creedmore.

I've been dying to shoot one. I got to fiddle with one but didn't get the chance to actually shoot it. Without actually getting any trigger time on it, I can't tell you too much, but I was really impressed, everything felt great.

On a side note, I finally got to try some .357 through my LCR. One cylinder was...enough. The rest of the box fed the levergat which shot beautifully.

Hopefully not necro'ing this thread too bad, have something relevant for it.

Got a new toy this week, a CZ Scorpion Evo3 S1



I will probably soon form-1 it and slap a stock on there, need to get to a range and put some rounds through it

Nice!

I've been eyeing one but my monies have been allocated elsewhere lately.

Thought about putting a brace on it while you wait for the SBR paperwork?