Personal endorsement of a handgun...

[JohnKSa]

One thing that I've wondered about over the years is what it takes to get a person to state that they recommend a particular handgun.

I want this thread to be focused on particular handgun MODELS rather than brands as that is yet another can of worms.

So here's the question.

What would it take to get you to state that a handgun works well and is problem free?

I'm not talking about the times you write a complete review of a handgun, I'm talking about the times when you give a short answer or a one/two line response to a question.

You can pick as many choices as apply.

Please be honest--the poll is anonymous.

 

[Dwight55]

The exact same handgun, . . . several different times shooting it, . . . more than 100 trouble free rounds: I'd recommend it.

More than two "incidents" (ftf, stove pipe, jam, etc.) in 100 rounds gets me inside that puppy with both hands and a bunch of tools trying to figure what is going on.

And, no, . . . I would not recommend the second one.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[KyJim]

What I think I do is to make a personal recommendation based upon a reasonable amount of actual usage. I checked 1,000 rounds (with minor problems), several range trips, and extensive carry. I will consider minor model variations as the same gun (blue vs. stainless, fixed vs. adjustable sights, etc.). I will then sometimes say Brand X, Model Y has an excellent reputation or the Model Z's I have seen had excellent fit and finish, etc.

Sometimes reputation is enough to warrant a recommendation so long as you disclose the basis for the recommendation. I've never put 1,000 rounds total through Glocks and probably won't in my lifetime. I just don't like them, but I would recommend them based on their reputation for reliability.

 

[Firepower!]

1000 rounds and flawless operation would get my personal endorsement in the sense I would simply state: I like this particular gun and endorse its reliability.

 

[Dannyl]

HI,
I also voted "fired at least 1000 rounds trouble free".
Although you may want to add a category that states " firearm has proven track record in military / LE"

For instance, I used to have a Beretta 92 from a company where I worked
( I was the security and mining ops manager in an offshore diamond mining company) I did shoot less than 1000 rounds in that particular gun, but that does not mean that I would not recommend this particular model, based on it's track record.
BTW, that gun was lost when the ship sank (I am not kidding.it did, on the 20th of April 2000, the gun was in the safe)

At the same time, the fact that a particular gun digests one type of ammo better than others does not make it necessarily unreliable. as long as a gun is consistently reliable and accurate (to a practical degree, not necessarily for shooting tin cans at 200m) with ammo that is readily available, it is good enough for me.

Brgds,

Danny

 

[gyvel]

"Other Criteria"

My experiences as a gunsmith were the criteria I used; Seeing how many of a particular model are brought in for repair, and being able to examine in depth a large number of different makes/models both externally and internally.

I was fortunate to be working in a large metropolitan gun shop and saw many different makes and models that came across my bench. I was able so see makes/models whose parts frequently broke. I was able to test fire many makes/models and see if they were reliable or required major adjustments to ensure reliability.

In short, I was lucky enough to get hands on experience with both the gems and the turkeys without having to buy them.

 

[imthegrumpyone]

Have fired thousands of rounds, nothing in a .22,,25 failed. Nothing in my 9mm, nor my .38s. Have had a few "less than 12-15 maybe in all my years of handling guns" fail. Cause in my determination was ammo not the gun. I don't like or would I buy some brands of guns, some are vary "popular". As for my Karh and Kel-Tec 40s, S&W .38, my little 1918 .25, Mossberg .22 bolt action and my High Standard riot 12 ga pump, I would recommend anyone of them. Mama's also has a .380 Kel-Tec that has never failed, and a .32 revolver she gave to her daughter.

 

[mega twin]

I wouldn't endorse anything that had minimal problems in 100 rounds, though I may own one myself.
1000 rounds with no problems would get my endorsement.

 

[alloy]

I've owned several 686s, if I buy one, it dry fires fine, 20 rounds at the range...I'll say I like it. Colt .45 auto, might take several hundred rounds trouble free. Partly based on lengthy cumulative reputations and previous use of a sampling of each. I know those basic designs are sound.

Some unknown pistol, new type thing etc...it's gonna take me a lot more experience and maybe more than one pistol before I tell a friend it's worth money.
Most don't need more than 5 with a Fender Telecaster to verify it...but others hate them so it's kinda useless...it's more realistic for a buyer to make his own personal assessment of any given firearm.

A singular endorsement is just reading material without hands on so I leave liability to the buyer, especially on some forum and more specifically since I dont claim to be a pro with a super valuable opinion. Caveat emptor...Ophra gives endorsements, not me.

 

[Russ5924]

I personally try not to endorse to many guns. Except a few that I really like and shoot a lot. If I say it is a great gun and they buy it and it's a lemon I feel it would reflect back on me. But then most people who ask for advice on this forum ignore it and do what they want anyway right or wrong

 

[mavracer]

I usually qualify my endorsements with the amount of experiance I have with that model.

 

[CWPinSC]

Reliability. I might buy a gun from a friend's recommendation, less so from a magazine review. Either way, I'd have to see and handle it in person before buying. After the purchase, a good cleaning and trip to the range is in order. After at least 250 rounds through it with NO problems, I'll call it reliable and carry it for SD. I realize there may be a FEW problems in a spanking new gun. Let's say it jams twice in the first 50 rounds. The 250 round count starts after that.

 

[zukiphile]

The basis on which I would recommend an item would necessarily have somethig to do with the inquiry.

What would it take to get you to state that a handgun works well and is problem free?

I don't think I would say that about any model, since any model can have a bad example. I would also have reservations about representing that to someone asking about one of my guns. What is perfect for me may not work at all for another. Like any other consumer good, fitting a specific item to an individual (what people are so often asking for) requires some knowledge of the item and the consumer.

I've recommended Ruger's P95 to a couple of people even though Ruger's QC left me with a new one that wouldn't shoot. Once Ruger fixed it, it's been impressive.

I've taken the time to sing the praises of Ruger's P345 even though I think the magazine disconnect safety is outrageously stupid. The people I recommended it to were competent to heed the warning about dry firing w/o the magazine.

On the other hand, I pretty freely express my reservations about the Taurus/Beretta 92 design on which the breach block has broken. It is great otherwise, but I don't know what to make of an arm that disables itself so completely without any warning.

 

[chris in va]

In my case, it's a combination of owning and testing the gun personally along with reading similar reports. I can have a perfect gun that doesn't skip a beat, but if others on the board say their firearm has been back to the shop numerous times, then I scale back my asessment.

For example, my HiPoint carbine. Many people love them and have zero issues after thousands of rounds, but mine has been back to the factory three times.

Or my CZ. Again, the vast majority report zero malfunctions...but my 75 had a bad FTE issue that was only recently resolved.

 

[bikerbill]

The only way I could recommend a particular weapon is if I owned one and had fired at least 100 trouble-free rounds through it. I might tell somebody who's asking that I've READ about a gun they might like, or that I was TOLD a particular gun is pretty good, or I've read a REVIEW that recommended the weapon. But my personal endorsement comes only when I own the gun and have used it trouble-free ...

 

[Beentown71]

My usual recommendations are from my own personal experience (500 mixed rounds with no/very minimal problems).

I did recommend CZ's before owning one. I didn't hear of any bad reports on the 75b before I recommended it. So I guess if a certain firearm is held highly by people that I am comfortable with...I am comfortable passing that along (read: personal affiliations not the net boards). But I do take them into consideration.

One thing that gets me recommending a firearm more than anything is the companies CS rep.

Beentown

 

[BigJimP]

1,000 rounds with 3 different types of ammo - either "very minimal" or no problems - is the only standard I would use personally to recommend a gun.

I try to avoid commenting on guns I don't own / unless I have a friend who is knowledgeable that has had one for a few years.

 

[Delaware_Dan]

I would recomend a Ruger P95, even though I have never fired one. Based on the guns reputation for reliability alone.

 

[Firepower!]

I would recomend a Ruger P95, even though I have never fired one. Based on the guns reputation for reliability alone.

I am very surprised by the above statement.

 

[Yankee Traveler]

If I have put at least 100 rounds down range, be it rental, freinds or mine without failure. Usually, a trip to the range is several hundred rounds.
Or if a freind has a fire arm that I know for sure that he (or she) has put +/- 1000 rounds through reliably)