Most un-reliable handgun you've ever owned...

[SquarePizza]

Desert Eagle, Mark I, 357

Its not that it is a bad pistol, its just a picky bitch on powders. Its not just enough to load to max charge, but some powders don't produce the right pressure to operate it. Which sadly, as the powders I have the most of. =(

[oldtexan]

Most unreliable handgun I ever owned was a Kimber TLE RLII (with the external extractor), bought new back in 2002 or 2003. The gun had frequent feed, extraction, and ejection failures ( as in 1 or more per magazine) even when properly lubed, and fed good factory ball from a variety of good quality magazines. I took it to Alan Tillman of ART Enterprises, a noted 1911 smith in Austin, TX, and even he couldn't make it run reliably. IIRC its factory thumb safety broke after just a few hundred rds, also.

[RHINOWSO]

Been lucky, I have never dumpster dived for a handgun.

Only real issue I had was a S&W 65-3 3" with a boogered strain screw (bought used) which made it light strike. Quick replacement fixed it right up,

[Firefly]

I never owned it but was issued a S&W M&P .40 for a year and a half. I had zero confidence in the gun.

1. I dont like .40 (I own one .40 but it is/was purely for IPSC)
2. It had a lot of problems with the slide release and the trigger group. Scary problems. I know people like to cry wolf and blame the gun but it really had some reset issues and nobody believed me until I showed them then they still didnt want to accept it. Granted these are coffee drinking chair jockeys but dammit man. The pistol was unsatisfactory.

3. Accuracy. It was just not accurate. Even in a rest. It was good enough for 3 yards and in but at 25 would be a bit spotty. S&W has admitted and addressed this but in 2007-8 nobody believed me.

4. Novak sights. On a modern fighting pistol; novak ramps really dont help if you had to do one handed slide manipulation. Every fighting pistol should have a step or a post rear sight.

5. The mag disconnector. I have been instructed that this could potentially be a good thing but if it is that bad then I'm screwed already. If a mag gets detached in a fight and I have just the one chambered round that I cant use then what?
I'd sooner take my chances without it.

I had to fight and campaign to carry my personal G21 and it was worth it. Then word got out on the M&P. I know it is still popular with the "I just dont like Glock" crowd, but I am soured to it.

I will admit that the ergos weren't bad and the Sig style takedown lever was good but not a pistol I would spend my own money on.

I had a few hiccups with a Gen 3 S&W in the day. But once it was finally serviced; it was a lazer beam of a .45. The trigger was stupid long and heavy but that single stack was just as good as any 1911 for accuracy. You just had to practice the trigger.

But the M&P? Never again.

[BPDKar98k]

A 2011 Exeter made P226 that I bought used. Constant failure to feeds. Changed mags and recoil spring with same results, ended up trading it in for a new Glock 19.

[teksid]

When I was new to pistols and carry I bought a CW40. I was super paranoid about printing. I really liked how thin it was and it had a decent trigger. After I wasted 500 rounds trying to break it in, I got rid of it and got a CW9 thinking about how the .40 has the flat face and 9mm should inherently feed better. It was junk too.

[Cashflow]

Ruger LCP and runner-up was a Ruger Speed Six in 9mm. The LCP was a jam-o-matic POS and was one those that was recalled. I sent a letter with it to Ruger telling them to just keep it if they couldn't fix it. Ironically it has been perfect since it came back. The Speed Six used those stupid half moon clips and would barely fire brand new factory ammo. I got rid of it but I own two other Speed Sixes in .357 magnum and they are some of the best guns I have.

[CDR_Glock]

When I was new to pistols and carry I bought a CW40. I was super paranoid about printing. I really liked how thin it was and it had a decent trigger. After I wasted 500 rounds trying to break it in, I got rid of it and got a CW9 thinking about how the .40 has the flat face and 9mm should inherently feed better. It was junk too.

I considered a CM40 for a "Good deal". I don't think 40 S&W Micro guns fare for reliability or probably durability hence the lack of a Micro gun manufactured in that round (lack of a Sig 938 or Glock 43 equivalent in 40).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[DirectTo]

I don't think 40 S&W Micro guns fare for reliability or probably durability hence the lack of a Micro gun manufactured in that round (lack of a Sig 938 or Glock 43 equivalent in 40).

The M&P Shield 40 gets good reviews and seems to be holding up well for years now.

I only put 600 rounds through mine before giving it to my dad but it fed and shot everything I put in it and carried excellently. I liked it.

[Glock9mm1990]

Early Glock 23 Gen 4, was fine for the first 200 or so rounds then I got numerous FTF I couldn't go 100 rounds before it would fail to feed. I just couldn't trust it as a carry gun so I sold it at a loss to a LGS and I replaced it with a Glock 21 Gen 4 and a Glock 17 Gen 3. The G23 was my first handgun and it was a lemon, I don't like .40 anyways once I educated myself on modern ammunition.