So, you trust your centerfire semi-auto EXPLICITLY?

[DoubleJ]

Well, I'll be there......draggin in early in the morning on a saturday. Can you put me down a few shooters on the first stage?

so how'd ya do??

[TxD]

Well, I'll be there......draggin in early in the morning on a saturday. Can you put me down a few shooters on the first stage?

so how'd ya do??

Not Age Ranger but the results are here and Blazer aluminum won the day on ammo.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/att ... 1209468793

[brewster]

I love the idea, and thanks for doing it.

However, I wonder what percentage of us has 7 mags for a single gun and disposable income for 1000 rounds. That's a $200 minimum investment, most likely more, not counting gas. I applaud those of you who were willing to blow than kind of dough for the benefit of the rest of us.

[age_ranger]

I did very well. My Beretta PX4, on the other hand, did not. I learned allot during the match though. I'm not going to make any excuses as I brought ammunition I thought would go the distance. I went in thinking I was set up for success and made a less that stellar showing. However, I will be back next year with factory loaded ammo, my PX4 and hopefully a big grin again at the end of the match.

It did give me a chance to learn allot about my grip, the pistol and my gear. I recommend everyone do something like this at least once.

[brewster]

However, I will be back next year with factory loaded ammo, my PX4 and hopefully a big grin again at the end of the match. It did give me a chance to learn allot about my grip, the pistol and my gear. I recommend everyone do something like this at least once.

I assume this means you shot reloads? I am not against reloading (prices might force us all to do it, plus make our own gasoline) or shooting reloads, but I've never had the same statistical reliability with them that I've had with the factory stuff. As for the Px4, I have one in the .40S&W. Never a single malfunction (same with my M&Ps and even my Sigma), so I'm surprised at your results. I think one comment earlier said something to the effect that many malfunctions are magazine or ammo related than the gun itself. For personal protection, it doesn't matter where the point of failure is. So this is a good exercise to "bring your best", which is presumably what we all do when we carry.

Knowing how reliable Px4s are in general, I would not only be interested in how many failures it had, but also if the cause of some of those failures could be pinpointed. First, were your mags numbered? For each failure, did you record which mag and which round number the failure occurred? If failures could be pinpointed consistently to a particular magazine, or even a particular part of a magazine, then it probably wasn't the gun. If is was random, then it's probably the gun or the ammo. I realize the purpose if this test one was to bring the most reliable components and ammo that you've tried with your most reliable gun, and see how it does in the 1000 rounder. Truth is, the results can depend as much on the ammo, the mags, and the maintenance of the gun as much as the gun itself.

[Double Naught Spy]

Knowing how reliable Px4s are in general, I would not only be interested in how many failures it had, but also if the cause of some of those failures could be pinpointed. First, were your mags numbered? For each failure, did you record which mag and which round number the failure occurred? If failures could be pinpointed consistently to a particular magazine, or even a particular part of a magazine, then it probably wasn't the gun. If is was random, then it's probably the gun or the ammo. I realize the purpose if this test one was to bring the most reliable components and ammo that you've tried with your most reliable gun, and see how it does in the 1000 rounder. Truth is, the results can depend as much on the ammo, the mags, and the maintenance of the gun as much as the gun itself.

The ISHOT1000 was setup as a test of guns owned by regular people, especially those claiming to have reliable guns and were prone to bragging that their guns could easily do the match. This was a spinoff from the Glock vs. 1911 matches in Texas and Oklahoma.

Sure, it is a package deal as to what can cause a malfunction. Shooters only had 90 seconds to shoot their 50 rounds and in some cases, it was all that the record keeper could do to keep up with the information. Each shooter was supervised by a RO and by a record keeper. Malfunctions were identified as fast as possible as they occurred (a couple of shooters with repeated problems just called them out as they happened). We tried to track the round number, but not individual magazines. Then again, shooters were supposed to bring equipment that worked, right?

As with the previous Glock vs. 1911 matches, only a small percentage of guns went the distance. None broke in this match as has happened at several of the Glock vs. 1911 matches, fortunately, but otherwise the pattern was comparable - especially with the big talk about how 'my' gun will go the distance before the match by some folks whose guns most definitely did not go the distance. LOL!

[brewster]

Great test idea. Although it pushes the gun past its practical limits, it sure does make for great bragging rights or to silence the know-it-alls. Sounds like fun; wish I could have made it with my M&P .45.

[red2000vette]

Open to CZ's???

[Double Naught Spy]

Yep, open to semi-autos with mag capacities of at least 7 rounds. Want to participate next year, PM me with your email information and I will put you on the contact list for the match.