# Guns that are picky with ammo are really just poor quality guns: Yes/No



## PhillyCheese

Poll: Guns that are picky with ammo are really just poor quality guns: Yes/No

I would like to get the take of this community on this question.
I am finding in my research of looking to purchase a handgun what appears to be a common denominator.
I am attempting to further my research to determine if this is just the appearance of a common denominator, or a true pattern.

In my research efforts following several reviews of all handgun makes and models, I am seeing a parallel between guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" and guns that are just poor quality.
Poor quality could be across the board with that specific gun make and/or gun model.
It could also be just a quality control issue of a specific gun, and not reflective of the brand or that brand's model as a whole.
None the less, that would still make that specific gun a poor quality gun.

Poor quality can have a broad definition.
It is a definition of function and performance that matters, or just matters to you most.
I will list a few definitions for the sake of clarity.
I find that guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" seem to have problems across the board with some, or even all, of the following.
- Failure to Feed
- Failure to Fire
- Failure to Extract.
- Failure to Eject.
- Stove Pipe Jams
- Jamming in general.

There are certainly more definitions that can apply.
Everything from accuracy, high maintenance, performance, function and durability, etc...
What are your thoughts as a community on this subject?


----------



## Cait43

The answer can be yes or no..... Granted cheaply made firearms leave a lot to be desired.......

Example: Taurus semi autos have gotten a bad rap by many....... On the other hand there are many that rave about it....

Unfortunately most of us have to purchase a firearm in order to find out if it performs properly and is suited for our specific purposes...... 

Sorta like asking Pepsi or Coke........


----------



## Spike12

I have read a lot of posts on the Ruger forum and many of those are from newbie gun owners with new guns. Many of those posts are b/c of problems vs. praise. 

Leaving out those that are caused by failing to clean the gun prior to the first range visit and user error (limp wristing), issues with guns that don't 'like' a particular ammo when new do happen. Usually it's with Russian or other 3rd world ammo of questionable quality. The second area to look at is bullet type. I've read of and had guns (pistols) that just didn't like some kinds of hollow points. I'm sure the answer was there someplace but I just didn't take the time. 

Then there is the definition of "doesn't like". Does that mean it groups poorly? Does that mean unreliable feeding? To say some gun doesn't like a given ammo is pretty damn vague. 

Bottom line: guns that are 'broken in' usually like a wider range of ammo than brand new ones. This is in relationship to feeding and reliability. 

Rifles may have the same story with feeding, but as far as grouping success; rifles are individuals. Some will do really good with ammo that will another rifle, same model, 'won't like' and group poorly. 

So in order to answer the 'doesn't like' you have to define the term more closely. You can't find the answer if you don't define the problem.


----------



## PhillyCheese

Cait43:
You are exactly right.
For all the research one can do, you really just have to make the best decision you can.
The gun can be hit or miss for your specific needs, and sometimes you will just never know until you make a purchase.

Spike12:
Thank you for your thoughts.
I edited the OP to include some definitions of a poor quality gun.
That definition can be as broad as the Grand Canyon, but I made an effort to be more clear.
Hopefully I was successful.

I also agree with you 100% that a gun broken in is a lot less picky with ammo.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Most .22 rimfires are "ammunition specific." That is, a specific brand and type of ammunition delivers both reliability and accuracy.
Many highly-tuned, custom-gunsmithed rifles and pistols are also ammunition specific, particularly those set-up for high-level competition.
Firearms like those will frequently "choke," in one way or another, on unfamiliar ammunition.

Some very highly regarded, very "practical" guns will also become cranky, when fed the wrong stuff.
Think of the run-of-the-mill, G.I., M1911A1: Use round-nose, full-metal-jacket ammunition only, please. But with this proper ammunition, those pistols are completely reliable, and accurate enough.
Think of the Garand and the M14, both of which need a pretty exact quantity of combustion gasses, in order to function happily every time. Bullet weight is also an issue with these renowned rifles.

Failures to feed are frequently magazine related, rather than necessarily the fault of the gun - assuming appropriate ammunition, of course.
Many pistols have trouble digesting hollow-point ammunition, until you find the right one.

Failures to extract and eject, and stove-pipe jams, might be the fault of the shooter's technique, rather than necessarily the fault of the gun.
They can also be the result of underloaded or deteriorating ammunition.

Failures to fire might be caused by accumulated, polymerized lubrication oil, or even accumulated dirt. The problem could be caused by one or more broken parts. Rarely is the problem built-into the design.

Generally speaking, I suggest that just about any rifle or pistol you might buy, if it has been made by a reputable manufacturer (_e.g._, not Taurus), will function completely reliably when it is fed appropriate ammunition from properly functioning magazines. That's not to say that all the ammunition from which you might choose is "appropriate" (see my note about the M1911A1, above).
I further suggest that, if you want your pistol (_i.e._, _any_ pistol) to work completely reliably with hollow-point ammunition, you would do best to have it "tuned" for that purpose by a well-qualified pistolsmith.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Recall my post about the three criteria of a self defense handgun? The first of those is reliability. There are some expensive handguns that have a penchant for being somewhat finicky with certain ammunition. Kahr Arms is one of these. They have some fine handguns but it has been my experience that because of their VERY tight tolerances, they can be limited in their ammunition selection. This is not good since your defensive arm should be one that can digest the widest possible ammo selection in order to lay a claim to reliability. Of the guns I have in my carry stable, my Glocks and my Smith & Wesson M&P's do fit this bill. Some others I have would include the my CZ 75B, my CZ 75D PCR, and my Taurus PT92AF. There are a few others as well but you get the picture.

Reliability is the single most important criteria of a defensive arm. That is why it is first on the list. A gun that doesn't go bang when it needs to is useless and can get you killed. "Click" is the loudest sound you don't want to hear when the SHTF.


----------



## joepeat

Steve,

Great post. Thanks.


----------



## PhillyCheese

*Steve M1911A1:*
Wow man!
That was very educational.
I appreciate the time you took to write your post and the information shared.
Thank you very much.

*SouthernBoy:*
Great information as well.
Can always count on you to offer substance and quality to the conversation.

*Note:*
I have owned two Beretta's.
92fs and PX4 Storm .40cal.
I could put anything and everything into these guns with no issues.
The PX4 Storm never had one jam in the years I owned it and shot it.
I put a lot more rounds through the 92fs than the PX4 Storm.
Other than a rare and occasional jam, the gun never skipped a beat.


----------



## desertman

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Most .22 rimfires are "ammunition specific." That is, a specific brand and type of ammunition delivers both reliability and accuracy.
> Many highly-tuned, custom-gunsmithed rifles and pistols are also ammunition specific, particularly those set-up for high-level competition.
> Firearms like those will frequently "choke," in one way or another, on unfamiliar ammunition.
> 
> Some very highly regarded, very "practical" guns will also become cranky, when fed the wrong stuff.
> Think of the run-of-the-mill, G.I., M1911A1: Use round-nose, full-metal-jacket ammunition only, please. But with this proper ammunition, those pistols are completely reliable, and accurate enough.
> Think of the Garand and the M14, both of which need a pretty exact quantity of combustion gasses, in order to function happily every time. Bullet weight is also an issue with these renowned rifles.
> 
> Failures to feed are frequently magazine related, rather than necessarily the fault of the gun - assuming appropriate ammunition, of course.
> Many pistols have trouble digesting hollow-point ammunition, until you find the right one.
> 
> Failures to extract and eject, and stove-pipe jams, might be the fault of the shooter's technique, rather than necessarily the fault of the gun.
> They can also be the result of underloaded or deteriorating ammunition.
> 
> Failures to fire might be caused by accumulated, polymerized lubrication oil, or even accumulated dirt. The problem could be caused by one or more broken parts. Rarely is the problem built-into the design.
> 
> *Generally speaking, I suggest that just about any rifle or pistol you might buy, if it has been made by a reputable manufacturer (e.g., not Taurus), will function completely reliably when it is fed appropriate ammunition from properly functioning magazines. That's not to say that all the ammunition from which you might choose is "appropriate" (see my note about the M1911A1, above).
> I further suggest that, if you want your pistol (i.e., any pistol) to work completely reliably with hollow-point ammunition, you would do best to have it "tuned" for that purpose by a well-qualified pistolsmith.*


Well done Steve! When I think of quality, I often look at the fit and finish of a gun. The machining of parts and absence of tool marks. It's like comparing Harbor Freight Tools to Snap On. *You do get what you pay for.* If a gun is roughly machined not enough care was put into it's manufacture. Rough machining also creates more friction which causes the gun to work harder in order to function correctly. The quality of the steel or materials also has to be taken into consideration. Cheaper steels, aluminum alloys and polymers are inherently weak and will wear out faster. Parts will fail earlier. Obviously semi auto's are more mechanically complex than revolvers and are more prone to having a malfunction. Just because a semi auto has a malfunction does not mean it is a cheaply made gun. Many have close tolerances in order to achieve better accuracy. Then again a guns accuracy mostly depends on who is pulling the trigger. The downside with close tolerances is that dirt and heat can affect their reliability. I can see why pin point accuracy would be more important amongst competitive shooters and the need for those types of guns. But for the average shooter who can put all of their rounds in a 6 inch circle at 25 yards that kind of accuracy is not important as most commercially available guns are capable of that.

I find that if you can slowly hand cycle "snap caps" both chambering and ejecting them and not feel any resistance. Chances are that the gun will function fine. If it feels gritty even while clean and freshly oiled or there is any hesitation while chambering or ejecting you can expect to have problems. Everything should operate smoothly and effortlessly. I love working on guns and vehicles. Even when I buy a new gun I often like to polish things up making them a little more "slicker". Whether they need it or not. It's kind of like breaking them in without having to spend a lot on ammo. Of course not all people are capable of doing this and do not know the difference between polishing and removing metal. In which case they could end up screwing up an otherwise good gun. You also need to know where to polish, avoiding any sear engagement surfaces unless you have a specifically designed jig that is made for that purpose. I find it best to leave that area alone as no one really needs a hair trigger which could get you into trouble later on.

Sorry to all you Taurus fans out there but they are cheaply made guns of inferior materials. Not all but a lot of people that buy them are not really into guns, don't want to spend any more than they have to for one, and will usually just throw it in a drawer and forget about it. I know quite a few people who have done just that. What they really are buying is a false sense of security as they will have to practice with that gun in order to become proficient with it. This will require at the least a few thousand rounds or more at which time the gun could be at the end of it's useful life by then. That is if problems haven't already arisen. A few thousand rounds translates into at least a thousand dollars on ammo alone. Does another hundred or so dollars for a better gun really going to break the bank?

Sure FMJ ammo is cheaper and great to practice with. Round nose FMJ bullets will tend to function better. But you have to make sure that the gun will function well with the type of ammo that you choose for self defense, typically hollow points. Meaning that you will have to fire a few hundred of them also. At about a dollar a round every time you squeeze the trigger a dollar bill goes flying out the barrel. Forget about hand loads. If something goes wrong and you damage the gun you are shit out of luck. Unless you load your own and really know what you are doing purchasing them from an unknown entity is never a good idea.


----------



## Goldwing

The man who pays for quality only has to cry once. Buy a good gun and feed it quality ammo. You won't regret it.

GW


----------



## Bisley

When CZ first came out with their RAMI model, an all steel double-stack subcompact based on the very reliable CZ-75, quite a few of the early models slipped into the American market that would not reliably cycle hollow point ammo. I bought a used one cheap, because of this, and sent it back for the factory 'fluff and buff.' They buffed out the feed ramp and rails and sent it back, and it has worked fine, since. It is still the most accurate subcompact I have ever fired, and is now completely reliable, despite it's early reputation as a jam-o-matic that is still hanging on in some circles.


----------



## DJ Niner

Steve and the others make some excellent points (as usual), and 30 years ago, I would have agreed with Steve 100% and clicked to the next page.

But nowadays, there is a lot of strange/revolutionary/cheap-o/"hinky" ammo on the market, and to expect even a well-made-and-maintained pistol with quality magazines to reliably run ALL of it is just asking a bit too much, in my opinion. Examples: strangely-coated steel-cased import ammo with chipped-cow-manure gunpowder (that's what it smells like, at least), revolutionary polymer/partially-polymer casings, super-light mach-1.5-or-more flyweight bullets, saw-toothed hollowpoints, light-but-long solid metal or polymer projectiles, fused polymer/metal bullet frangible loads, "capped" hollowpoints, waterproof primer/bullet sealants thick enough to leave chips of red crud in the action, and "target/range" factory ammo loaded so light that it barely functions in a clean and well-lubed pistol that has run trouble-free for decades. Out-of-the-ordinary ammo has always been available to those who knew where to look for it, but lately, it has become so mainstream that it can be found in every gunshop and on the shelves at the mart-mart or big-box sporting goods stores, and our poor economy has pushed many shooters towards buying the cheapest possible ammo to stretch their meager practice-ammo budget.

Poor quality pistols and mags will always be with us, and the occasional lemon probably escapes from the best gunmakers' factories on Friday afternoons or Monday mornings, but these days, when a person tells me their new pistol is having functioning problems, the first questions I ask are "What ammo are you using, and have you tried at least 2-3 other quality ammunition types/loads?" If the answer is "no", then I tell them not to panic until it shows problems with more than one or two common/non-exotic loads. We'll also go into cleaning/lube requirements, proper grip, and perhaps a few other things, but I miss the days of yore when a person could assume that factory ammo was the least of our potential problems when it came to basic functioning.

And don't EVEN get me started on bulk-plastic-bagged gunshow reloads...


----------



## Steve M1911A1

With apologies, I herewith quote myself:


Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Generally speaking, I suggest that just about any rifle or pistol you might buy, if it has been made by a reputable manufacturer (_e.g._, not Taurus), will function completely reliably *when it is fed appropriate ammunition* from properly functioning magazines. *That's not to say that all the ammunition from which you might choose is "appropriate"*...[emphasis added]


----------



## packrat

I'm guilty of shooting up the wolf and tula black box ammo. My 1911 will run on steel case and my 
Ruger P95 will run through two boxes before it starts to get cranky from the goo build up. I shoot steel case in my AR and my SKS also with no ill effects. 7.62x54r and 8mm are military surplus steel. DJ hit the nail on the head with the cost. I do not reload and have no plans to start so for range ammo it's the cheapest that i can find. Federal .22 bulk ammo (if you can find it) is not what it used to be either. My hunting rifle's get Federal fusion. The only pistol i have a feeding issue with jams on everything.


----------



## RK3369

you would expect any currently made automobile or light truck sold in this country to run properly on standardly available 87 octane fuel, correct? If it didn't most people would think the car was junk. Why would anyone consider a gun ok that did not work correctly on all standard commercially made ammunition in the appropriate caliber for the gun? We're talking about a machine which is manufactured to produce a certain result when properly operated. Why would we expect it to not operate properly unless we fed it only components which it "liked" ? I'm confused as to why we are even having this discussion? If it won't reliably shoot standard manufactured ammunition in the correct caliber and specifications for the weapon, it is junk, imo.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

To continue your analogy, some unscrupulous gas stations may be selling watered, or otherwise adulterated, gasoline.
That really used to happen, 50 years ago!
So the thoughtful car owner, who wanted his car to run well, would only buy gasoline from the "big brands."
("You can trust your car to the man who wears the star: The big, red, Texaco star.")

The gun owner who wants his gun to run well will buy only known-to-be-high-quality ammunition.


----------



## DJ Niner

Steve, I read that part about "appropriate ammunition", but the ability to define what is appropriate and what is not, is usually arrived at in a handful of ways; from guidance at the store, from seeing what is generally available and/or popular, and lastly, from personal experience. With most ammo today being sold by big-box retailers or online, the knowledgeable gun store clerk who could help guide a new shooter in choosing ammo is mostly gone, never to be seen again. Even if asked, the mart-mart or big-box store clerk will often tell the buyer that "Cheap ammo is all the same", even though we know from experience that isn't the case. When a store puts the brightly-colored boxes of cheap-o import crap ammo right next to the domestic-produced brass-cased ammo in the plain white or mono-color boxes, often the crappier ammo with better marketing/packaging will win-out over the more-pedestrian-but-more-reliable-and-accurate loads. Finally, to get experience by actually test-firing different loads in your personal gun costs money, and often the new shooter may not be willing to roll the dice over and over again to find the always-elusive "best" ammo for their gun. Even with domestic-produced ammo, the accuracy difference between premium defensive ammo (or even middling-priced conventional hollow-point ammo) and the least-expensive target/range practice ammo can be night-and-day. And new shooters may simply not have the skill to evaluate how well certain ammo actually shoots in their new pistol.

As a basic guide, I tell folks to initially feed their new pistol with brass-cased domestic-manufactured (or licensed by a domestic manufacturer; some of their stuff is made under license in other countries) ammo, found locally at a medium price-point (not the cheapest, but not nearly the most expensive, either). After they have established that their pistol works well with this ammo, and they have learned to shoot well enough to repeatedly shoot the same decent-sized shot group at a given distance, then I tell them they can branch-out and try some different brands/types, with the confidence that they'll be able to tell if it groups or functions poorly, that it is a problem with the ammo, and not the pistol or the shooter.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Good points. I agree.
I withdraw my quibble.


----------



## Kennydale

It took a trip to Smyrna, GA and about 300-400 rounds to make my G42 run 100%. I won it in a raffle. I had a young lady with a disability interested in it. She wanted it to shoot in a league competition, at their national get together last April. I told her all the Failure To Feed problems I had and which ammo ran the best. Just after Tax Day we met for lunch and she showed me her TX CHL and i sold her the G42. Her disability SHE IS BLIND, not total darkness but a complete blur. And she can shoot. The Main reason I sold it. I already had a Ruger LCP as a BUG to my then G19 (Now G17). I did not really need the G42.


----------



## DLYskes1976

i'd say no... 

now i've been trying a few different kinds of ammo, just to see if my two hand guns would jam up or anything.... and sunday i bought a couple boxes of the Tulammo steel cased bullets.... 

well today at the range i found out that in my Taurus PT111 9mm, if i loaded more than 6 rounds into a mag, it wouldnt feed properly.... and this happened in both magazines... basically the only way to explain it, is after X amount of rounds, the bullets would sit flat, instead of at the slight angle in the mag like it should.. so while the first round would fire and eject, the next one wouldnt feed properly... but if i only loaded 6 rounds of the Tulammo steel, it was fine...... 

yet all of the brass ammo i've fed through this gun has run flawlessly!!!! i've used Remington, winchester, Tulammo brassmaxx, aguila so far with probably close to 1000 rounds... so no steel cased ammo for the Taurus...

now with my Canik TP9v2 9mm, it has eaten everything even the Tulammo steel case stuff.. no issues at all... which i have run the same ammo through it as the Taurus... and has about the same amount of rounds through it as my Taurus... so i seriously can not complain


----------



## dalto

Sometimes yes , sometimes no.

Some guns are designed to be fired with higher powered loads and struggle with some of the current super-light loads.

Some are not intended to be defensive pistols or are older designs and do not support modern defensive ammo.

Some are just crappy guns.

Whenever someone says "what kind should I buy?" I always recommend they start with what is the purpose of the firearm so they can find one that meets their needs.


----------



## PT111Pro

Since I am not going to do a world cup competition shoot out with my daily carry gun, I buy a Name brand gun and fill it with name brand ammo. That must do it. If I go on a world cup shoot out I get me a competition gun that shoots only that one brass from that one manufacturer.


----------



## Steven

I've shot a lot of .22s and some ammo will work flawlessly, others have problems. With the right ammo all of my 22s will fire all the time, but there are some bricks I keep in the closet because they will FTF. Even with my revolver, a 617, there are some brands that will no go off. I'm now shooting Federal Auto Match. It works perfectly in all of my guns.

Wolf was my favorite but my 617 will not fire about 1/3 or the rounds.

There is nothing wrong with the gun, just some brands of ammo. You've got to test ammo for function and accuracy..


----------



## Kennydale

My Glock G42 took a factory upgrade and 300 rounds to break in. Sold it to a young lady that needed a good Defensive Firearm that she coould also compete in Girls And A Gun League.


----------



## olafhardt

PhillyCheese said:


> Poll: Guns that are picky with ammo are really just poor quality guns: Yes/No
> 
> I would like to get the take of this community on this question.
> I am finding in my research of looking to purchase a handgun what appears to be a common denominator.
> I am attempting to further my research to determine if this is just the appearance of a common denominator, or a true pattern.
> 
> In my research efforts following several reviews of all handgun makes and models, I am seeing a parallel between guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" and guns that are just poor quality.
> Poor quality could be across the board with that specific gun make and/or gun model.
> It could also be just a quality control issue of a specific gun, and not reflective of the brand or that brand's model as a whole.
> None the less, that would still make that specific gun a poor quality gun.
> 
> Poor quality can have a broad definition.
> It is a definition of function and performance that matters, or just matters to you most.
> I will list a few definitions for the sake of clarity.
> I find that guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" seem to have problems across the board with some, or even all, of the following.
> - Failure to Feed
> - Failure to Fire
> - Failure to Extract.
> - Failure to Eject.
> - Stove Pipe Jams
> - Jamming in general.
> 
> There are certainly more definitions that can apply.
> Everything from accuracy, high maintenance, performance, function and durability, etc...
> What are your thoughts as a community on this subject?


It doesn't seem to me that an old flatus with a Ruger Service Six, Winchester 94, and a Mossburg 500 has to worry about all this. Iguess I ought to add in any one various 22 revolvers.


----------



## DJ Niner

olafhardt said:


> It doesn't seem to me that an old flatus with a Ruger Service Six, Winchester 94, and a Mossburg 500 has to worry about all this. Iguess I ought to add in any one various 22 revolvers.


I don't know about that; I've personally seen two broken Winchester 94 leverguns (one extractor, and the other, something in the lifter mechanism), and one Mossberg 500 with a broken extractor in my life, and I'm sure I didn't see all of those models that have ever busted.

I would agree that ammo-related reliability problems are probably less common with well-maintained manually-operated firearms, but I've also seen a lot of folks "short-stroke" a pump shotgun or lever-action rifle, and I think it's even possible to "jam" a Ruger Service-Six (when firing DA) by not letting the trigger return all the way forward before starting the next trigger pull (I don't currently own/carry one, but I did many years ago, and I remember training hard to prevent this problem). I think any increase in the reliability of the mechanism is at least partially offset by the increased possibility of user-caused reliability problems, especially when employed in stressful situations.


----------



## GlockGen4

Poor Quality or 1911's!


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Someone who would say that "1911's" [_sic_] are "picky with ammo" could only have come to that conclusion by using SWC or HP bullets in a pistol with a stock and unpolished feed ramp.
The 1911 is almost notorious for digesting anything with a round nose without a stutter. Think, if you will, of WW2, _et sec._, even unto Vietnam.

And if you do a really good polish job on one, it'll feed empty cases from a new magazine.


----------



## denner

Ya, i don't know about poor quality, but if a shooting firearm is continually unreliable with at least the ammunition it's designed to shoot, I definately would have no need for it. Reliabilty is #1 in my book all else comes in second.

The "ole" .45's in the US Army's arsenal were perhaps some of the most reliable handguns of the time. However, as Steve has mentioned they were originally designed for hardball. 

On an interesting sidenote, the service Colt .45 was more reliable in the Army's dry mud test beating out both the Beretta 92 and Sig 226 in that category.


----------



## maddog

just poor design...


PhillyCheese said:


> Poll: Guns that are picky with ammo are really just poor quality guns: Yes/No
> 
> I would like to get the take of this community on this question.
> I am finding in my research of looking to purchase a handgun what appears to be a common denominator.
> I am attempting to further my research to determine if this is just the appearance of a common denominator, or a true pattern.
> 
> In my research efforts following several reviews of all handgun makes and models, I am seeing a parallel between guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" and guns that are just poor quality.
> Poor quality could be across the board with that specific gun make and/or gun model.
> It could also be just a quality control issue of a specific gun, and not reflective of the brand or that brand's model as a whole.
> None the less, that would still make that specific gun a poor quality gun.
> 
> Poor quality can have a broad definition.
> It is a definition of function and performance that matters, or just matters to you most.
> I will list a few definitions for the sake of clarity.
> I find that guns that claim to be "picky with ammo" seem to have problems across the board with some, or even all, of the following.
> - Failure to Feed
> - Failure to Fire
> - Failure to Extract.
> - Failure to Eject.
> - Stove Pipe Jams
> - Jamming in general.
> 
> There are certainly more definitions that can apply.
> Everything from accuracy, high maintenance, performance, function and durability, etc...
> What are your thoughts as a community on this subject?


----------

