Yippee! Finally! A semi auto that works out of the box!

[Uni-Vibe]

Smith M&P 2.0, 9mm, Full size, 17+1.

Got it brand new. Cleaned it, a dash of CLP, took it to the range.

Ammo was:

Federal American eagle 124 grain fmj
RP JHP 115
Federal American eagle 147 fmj
Winchester Q4318 NATO
Federal champion 115 fmj

Fired almost 250 rounds of the above. Not a stutter. Accuracy was 4 inch patterns at 7 yards. Minute of thug in a robbery attempt. No ammo was more accurate than any other. (Not shooter's fault either. Groups tightened when I switched to .22 target pistol).

Another session like this, and it's my new packing piece. I'm used to sending new guns back so they can finish building them. Not this one.

This is really an improved Glock. Proper grip angle, thumb safety. Pretty cool.

[Slater]

I have a cheap ($290) Walther PPX that is 100% reliable and surprisingly accurate out of the box, so reliable handguns are out there.

[YVK]

I'm used to sending new guns back so they can finish building them.

Tough luck. Last duty/carry purpose gun that I had bought and it didn't run was a 2011 full size M&P. Since then 5 HKs, 6 Berettas, 6 Glocks, three CZs and one Ruger shot everything I asked them to.

Smith M&P 2.0, 9mm, Full size, 17+1.

Accuracy was 4 inch patterns at 7 yards... (Not shooter's fault either...)

4 inch group at 7 yards that is not a shooter fault would send a pistol straight to a junkyard if it was my pistol. YMMV.

[Uni-Vibe]

The dirty secret of the firearms industry is the abysmal failure rate of brand new guns.

Over the years I've bought brand new

CZ American .22 bolt action rifle
Kel Tec .32 pocket pistol
Springfield Operator 10mm
Ruger 9e
Remington 870 20 gauge
Colt Defender compact 1911 .40 S&W

There might be more, if I could remember. Each of these failed right out of the box.

The CZ rifle's bolt would not fit into the receiver, due apparently to mis-machining of the receiver. CZ wanted me to send a deposit for repair. I put the gun in the trash bin where it belonged, and bought a 10-22. I never saw it fire a shot.

The Kel Tec failed to feed and to eject. After two trips to Kel-Tec, they issued me a check for a refund.

The Sprg. Operator 10mm is right now at Sprg. for the second time. These guns are not cheap. Perhaps they'll finish building it into something that can function and hit a target.

The Ruger 9e suffered extraction failures. They replaced the barrel and extractor. I haven't tested it yet.

The 870's action was apparently mis-machined such that the bolt refused to move back and forth in the receiver. It never did fire a shot.

The Colt Defender suffered failure to feed, failure to extract, and sometimes shot unfired cartridges out of the ejection port. It would have been hilarious if it hadn't cost me real money. I sent it to Colt at my expense. After two months, they sent it back. It suffered the same problems. I sent it back again to Colt at my expense (UPS Air ain't cheap). They kept it almost three months. I couldn't get anybody on the phone. I sent faxes. No response. I wrote a letter to the president of Colt's Firearms. I got a call from somebody promising me a totally hand-tested and repaired gun. They finally sent it back. It failed again. I sent it back a third time at my expense. They replaced it with a .45 ACP version of the same gun. I traded that off new in box.

Can anybody think of a consumer product that has a higher failure rate right out of the box? I'm not talking Bryco or Jennings. These are firearms made by respected old names. Even weed-eaters are more reliable than new firearms. If any other manufacturers put out crap like this, they'd be out of business. But gun companies get away with it. Why? I partly blame gun writers and the NRA. They know the manufacturers give them specially-prepared hand polished test pieces, and sell us the rough stuff. How many "reviews" have we seen where the guns stovepipe and fail to feed in the first 100 rounds, and the "reviewer" brushes this off with a comment about "break in time?"


When you buy a gun, you are essentially buying a combination lottery ticket / warranty claim, not a functioning firearm. I call this "gun control by product failure."

[Wake27]

The dirty secret of the firearms industry is the abysmal failure rate of brand new guns.

Over the years I've bought brand new

CZ American .22 bolt action rifle
Kel Tec .32 pocket pistol
Springfield Operator 10mm
Ruger 9e
Remington 870 20 gauge
Colt Defender compact 1911 .40 S&W

There might be more, if I could remember. Each of these failed right out of the box.

The CZ rifle's bolt would not fit into the receiver, due apparently to mis-machining of the receiver. CZ wanted me to send a deposit for repair. I put the gun in the trash bin where it belonged, and bought a 10-22. I never saw it fire a shot.

The Kel Tec failed to feed and to eject. After two trips to Kel-Tec, they issued me a check for a refund.

The Sprg. Operator 10mm is right now at Sprg. for the second time. These guns are not cheap. Perhaps they'll finish building it into something that can function and hit a target.

The Ruger 9e suffered extraction failures. They replaced the barrel and extractor. I haven't tested it yet.

The 870's action was apparently mis-machined such that the bolt refused to move back and forth in the receiver. It never did fire a shot.

The Colt Defender suffered failure to feed, failure to extract, and sometimes shot unfired cartridges out of the ejection port. It would have been hilarious if it hadn't cost me real money. I sent it to Colt at my expense. After two months, they sent it back. It suffered the same problems. I sent it back again to Colt at my expense (UPS Air ain't cheap). They kept it almost three months. I couldn't get anybody on the phone. I sent faxes. No response. I wrote a letter to the president of Colt's Firearms. I got a call from somebody promising me a totally hand-tested and repaired gun. They finally sent it back. It failed again. I sent it back a third time at my expense. They replaced it with a .45 ACP version of the same gun. I traded that off new in box.

Can anybody think of a consumer product that has a higher failure rate right out of the box? I'm not talking Bryco or Jennings. These are firearms made by respected old names. Even weed-eaters are more reliable than new firearms. If any other manufacturers put out crap like this, they'd be out of business. But gun companies get away with it. Why? I partly blame gun writers and the NRA. They know the manufacturers give them specially-prepared hand polished test pieces, and sell us the rough stuff. How many "reviews" have we seen where the guns stovepipe and fail to feed in the first 100 rounds, and the "reviewer" brushes this off with a comment about "break in time?"


When you buy a gun, you are essentially buying a combination lottery ticket / warranty claim, not a functioning firearm. I call this "gun control by product failure."

I wouldn't really expect any of those to work.

CZ: .22s are known to be finicky.
Kel Tec: Its a Kel Tec. And its in .32.
Springfield: 10mm is a new platform for them and puts a lot of stress on a gun.
Ruger: its a Ruger. The 10/22 is one of their few major success stories.
Remington: known issues (especially with the express line) since Freedom Group took over.
Colt: compact 1911s are known to be finicky, and .40 isn't a heavily vetted caliber for them.

I will say that the Springfield is a bummer, but go try any of the large number of firearms that are generally accepted as reliable and I'd be surprised if you didn't have better luck.

[Uni-Vibe]

I wouldn't really expect any of those to work.

CZ: .22s are known to be finicky.
Kel Tec: Its a Kel Tec. And its in .32.
Springfield: 10mm is a new platform for them and puts a lot of stress on a gun.
Ruger: its a Ruger. The 10/22 is one of their few major success stories.
Remington: known issues (especially with the express line) since Freedom Group took over.
Colt: compact 1911s are known to be finicky, and .40 isn't a heavily vetted caliber for them.

I will say that the Springfield is a bummer, but go try any of the large number of firearms that are generally accepted as reliable and I'd be surprised if you didn't have better luck.

I need a list of these.

[Pappabear]

The dirty secret of the firearms industry is the abysmal failure rate of brand new guns.

Over the years I've bought brand new

CZ American .22 bolt action rifle
Kel Tec .32 pocket pistol
Springfield Operator 10mm
Ruger 9e
Remington 870 20 gauge
Colt Defender compact 1911 .40 S&W

There might be more, if I could remember. Each of these failed right out of the box.

The CZ rifle's bolt would not fit into the receiver, due apparently to mis-machining of the receiver. CZ wanted me to send a deposit for repair. I put the gun in the trash bin where it belonged, and bought a 10-22. I never saw it fire a shot.

The Kel Tec failed to feed and to eject. After two trips to Kel-Tec, they issued me a check for a refund.

The Sprg. Operator 10mm is right now at Sprg. for the second time. These guns are not cheap. Perhaps they'll finish building it into something that can function and hit a target.

The Ruger 9e suffered extraction failures. They replaced the barrel and extractor. I haven't tested it yet.

The 870's action was apparently mis-machined such that the bolt refused to move back and forth in the receiver. It never did fire a shot.

The Colt Defender suffered failure to feed, failure to extract, and sometimes shot unfired cartridges out of the ejection port. It would have been hilarious if it hadn't cost me real money. I sent it to Colt at my expense. After two months, they sent it back. It suffered the same problems. I sent it back again to Colt at my expense (UPS Air ain't cheap). They kept it almost three months. I couldn't get anybody on the phone. I sent faxes. No response. I wrote a letter to the president of Colt's Firearms. I got a call from somebody promising me a totally hand-tested and repaired gun. They finally sent it back. It failed again. I sent it back a third time at my expense. They replaced it with a .45 ACP version of the same gun. I traded that off new in box.

Can anybody think of a consumer product that has a higher failure rate right out of the box? I'm not talking Bryco or Jennings. These are firearms made by respected old names. Even weed-eaters are more reliable than new firearms. If any other manufacturers put out crap like this, they'd be out of business. But gun companies get away with it. Why? I partly blame gun writers and the NRA. They know the manufacturers give them specially-prepared hand polished test pieces, and sell us the rough stuff. How many "reviews" have we seen where the guns stovepipe and fail to feed in the first 100 rounds, and the "reviewer" brushes this off with a comment about "break in time?"


When you buy a gun, you are essentially buying a combination lottery ticket / warranty claim, not a functioning firearm. I call this "gun control by product failure."

Boy you can really pick them. Ive only had a couple handguns or guns period that didn't run. As stated, your choice of guns is moving in the right direction. That is one list of doozies!

PB

[markm]

Boy you can really pick them. Ive only had a couple handguns or guns period that didn't run.

He needs to get a KIMBER!!

[Todd.K]

Are you familiar with the CZ bolt release?

Other than that the list you have is also a list of guns likely to have problems.

[26 Inf]

He needs to get a KIMBER!!

Yeah those POS!

My wife bought me the Kimber Classic Golden Match for my 45th birthday. The first three rounds I fired out of mine clover leafed at 25 yards. I used to have a Gold Cup for such things, now I have a Kimber and the Gold Cup is gone.

I haven't shot it more than a hundred or so rounds a year for the last 10 years or so, but I used it hard for a couple of years and it never needed anything but springs and slide glide.

ETA: Yeah, I know, sample of one.