LCP

[Charger22]

Just a poor over all article. A lot of these guns need a little break in which he states then goes and only fires 100 rounds or so through each. It was a lame attempt at a good idea. Maybe if they dedicated a whole issue with detaild testing of each firearm!!! But minus a very few(walther and Taurus) I did find myself looking at a pretty cool collection Maybe someday...

 

[CZReverend]

One of the most worthless articles I have ever read. Sorry, if all of those guns were failing, the big variable is the ammo or the shooter.

 

[kraigster414]

Regarding the "American Rifleman" Feb 2010 Concealed Carry article...one shooter, one style, one brand new, unfired gun off the line, a single 100 round test, and not a whole lot of time to get to know the weapon or its personality - and yes some of these little guns (most actually) do benefit from a little break-in, the Kahr P380 in particular. Hardly a complete and exhaustive evaluation as far as functionality, and if memory serves, he experienced malfunctions with all the guns except the Rohrbaugh. That's a little unusual.

A 100 round test in a new pocket .380 may or may not be a true indicator of permanent problems assuming the shooter did everything else right. Yes, for sure .380 factory ammo is expensive and many of us can't afford to fire 200+ rounds through our guns to make sure they work but that's really what you need to do to sleep good at night. This may not apply to larger caliber modern semi autos, but it's a good rule of thumb with today's pocket 380s even when they are fine right out of the box.

I own three of the nine guns he tested and after thousands of rounds, all three are "carryable", albeit admittedly I have not tested them with every brand of .380 and two of the three did require some break-in and/or polishing of the feed ramp and throat (the Kahr and the Keltec) before I gained complete trust.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that if these same guns were tested by most of the folks here, were sufficiently oiled (and I like grease on the rails for the first hundred rounds or so) combined with a little polishing of the feed ramp and throat which anyone can do right from the get-go the early malfunctions would have been reduced. I'd also guess that had he tested another hundred rounds in each gun, re-cleaned and lubed, his failure rate would have been reduced significantly (he did indicate t hat the more rounds he fired, the less malfunctions he experienced in each gun, and his comment, "shoot until malfunctions stop" IMHO says it all. 9 times out of 10 they will stop. I wish he had said that in his opening paragraph.

So put Mr. Clapp's tests in perspective. What's important is how YOUR gun performs and how you maintain it. I now have 1500 rounds through my LCP and it's still going strong. And my Kahr P380 today is as reliable as the day is long, ditto for my Keltec 2G P3AT. I carry (and have tested) Corbon DPX, Hornady Critical Defense, HydraShok, and Gold Dot. At the range I fire my own reloads - 95 grain hard cast RN. No problems with any of them.

I have always said (for what it's worth), that if one wants to limit the opportunity for failure to the max extent possible, he/she might be better off with a good .38 wheel gun despite its extra weight, girth and reduced fire power. Pocket .380s do (as a general rule but not always) require a bit more investment in time, money, and care to ensure they perform optimally. But when they shine and the law of averages with most of the guns tested is on your side, you have an ideal platform for concealed carry - light, flat, small and increased firepower over a typical J frame or .38 Special clone. It's all about choices and what's best for you. I would love to conduct a second hundred round test with those same guns. I think the results would be a lot different. Cheers.

PS: Hillbilly Jim, I would not completely rule it out. You never know.

 

[10MMGary]

Just imagine how I felt when on Sat. I come home with a LCP and a NAA Guardian then on the following Wed. the American Rifleman magazine tells me that both are prone to jams and very ammo sensitive. I was just a little worried to say the least. Well yesterday the lovely Wife and I each put 100rds through both without the first issue. This ammo was very old Federal ball and sure seemed to have plenty of zip. I do agree with the author on putting several hundred rounds through the gun before counting on it in a crisis.

Neither of these guns are what I would call fun to shoot past the third magazine, but we bought these for those no matter what we are wearing or where we are going as long as legal we both will be carrying a gun times. She carries a Colt Cobra in her purse and will now have the LCP on her person somewhere. I have a primary that at times is really not suitable for discreet carry and now will always have the NAA somewhere on me.

I also agree that 380 ammo is hard to find and when able to be found it is not inexpensive. But none the less we will put several hundred rds through both these great concealed carry pieces before trusting them with our safety.

BTW any of you veteran LCP owner feel free to step in with any tips or advice for a newbie owner.

 

[wefski70]

Don't believe what you read in the article in American Rifleman. I was disappointed in the review. I have a prefix 372 and about 300 rounds down the tube and so far it is flawless. At 7 yds. I am pleased at its accuracy.

 

[slippingaway]

I'm disappointed in the review as well, especially considering the SAME AUTHOR gave it a glowing review when he tested it right after Ruger introduced it, in the exact same magazine.

If you read through all the reviews, it seems that all but 1 pistol experienced the same type of malfunctions, some much more frequently. I also looked at the ammo that he used, and I didn't recognize any of them as types recommended by other LCP owners. All .380s are ammunition sensitive, it's a trade-off for their small size. Use some Golden Sabers in your LCP, maybe throw a little heavier Wolff recoil spring kit on there, and you'll never have another malfunction. I know I haven't.

 

[Charon]

I am afraid I will have to disagree with some posters here. All small guns like these have sights that are poor at best. The writer would have been remiss had he not mentioned that. These guns are going to have a "snappy" recoil. It goes with the territory of a light-weight gun firing a cartridge with a little power. The writer would have been remiss had he not mentioned that, too. And he should have mentioned, as he did, any malfunctions. It would have been slightly better had he mentioned with which ammunition the guns malfunctioned, particularly if the same ammunition gave grief with all of them. From the article I would have to assume that all of them acted up with all of the ammunition used - which isn't much of a recommendation.

NO GUN SHOULD REQUIRE BREAK-IN. They should be manufactured to work, right out of the box, reliably. I realize there will be a lot of people who will want to modify them, but they still should work, right out of the box. If they are sensitive to some ammunition, say hollow-points, that should be mentioned in the manual. If, like the Ruger LCP, +P ammunition is not recommended, that should be in the manual and maybe even stamped on the gun. It is not amiss for a gun owner to fire a couple of boxes of ammunition to reassure himself that the gun works, but it should not be a requirement. THE GUN SHOULD WORK RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. Every time.

 

[WAYNO]

Cars should work right out of the box, too. They very often don't.

I have an extensive background in military ordnance. We would never send a weapon into the field, or strap it on an aircraft, without going through a break-in process, which may be as simple as shooting it enough times to get the heavy factory preservative out of all the nooks and crannies, which may not be totally removed by normal, routine cleaning.

In many cases, a new weapon malfunctions early-on, only because of the remaining heavy grease, slowing down the moving parts. So again, it may require repeated cleanings, between initial shooting sessions, to get all this gunk cleaned out. Doesn't mean the gun is inferior.

WAYNO.

 

[slippingaway]

Cars should work right out of the box, too. They very often don't.

I agree with Wayno.

If you buy a new car, and actually read the manual, you'll see that the manufacturers all recommend a break-in period, as well.

Guns have a lot of machined parts. These parts rest on each other, slide against each other, etc. These surfaces are sometimes very hard to get to with polishing tools, for example the inside of the channel on the slide.

There are gunmakers that pay manufacturing workers to polish all these parts to the point that friction is as low as possible. Their guns are very expensive. There are gunmakers that don't pay people to do that, because once you shoot a couple hundred rounds, the sliding surfaces wear any burrs or high points off of each other, accomplishing the same thing. Their guns are cheaper.

If you want to pay twice as much (or more) for an LCP that's been treated so that it won't need break-in, go tell Ruger and see if they'll market it. You think there's a market for a $700 LCP?

Better yet, I'll sell you one that's already been broken in. Otherwise, buy a bulk pack of Magtech ammo, hit the range, have some fun, and break your pistol in.

 

[Charon]

Further thoughts, with which some may disagree. The NRA does not generally buy the guns it reviews. Those guns are lent to the NRA by the makers. The makers know the NRA will review them, and print the results. One would presume the makers would at least make sure the guns were functional before sending them for review. Even so, eight of nine guns in the .380 article had failures. The NRA usually doesn't have much bad to say about guns it reviews, no doubt in part because those same makers pay for advertising space in the magazine. However I can remember some reviews where it was commented that the first gun didn't work, was returned, another supplied, and the second one worked.

The manufacturers have pretty much complete control over the guns they make. This extends from the design through manufacture. The designers know what machinery will be used, know the capabilities of that machinery, and can specify fit and finish. The guns must be fired at least once to supply the mandatory fired case for those states requiring it. That may not be a complete function check, but it at least makes the gun cycle once. I realize moving parts will wear in somewhat, but that wear-in should not be required to make the gun functional. The gun should work, right out of the box.

Comment was made that some makers pay to have their guns polished, and that those guns are expensive. The guns that come to mind are competition versions of the 1911, by whatever maker. By most accounts those guns are considerably less reliable than a GI Colt 1911. I used to compete locally (somewhat informally) in a rapid-fire game using .22 autoloaders. My box stock 22/45 generally seemed more reliable than some pretty expensive competition pistols. And that, using Remington bulk pack ammo.

The people testing guns at the NRA are not neophytes. It isn't clear whether they clean their guns before starting their review. I imagine that they at least look into the accessible openings to make sure nothing untoward is in the guns. I wonder how many people, buying a .380 for concealed carry, are going to go out to the range - if they even have a range accessible - and fire 200 or so shots to "break in the gun." Let alone fire boxes of several different brands of ammunition to find which one works best. Judging by the article, these little .380s are not especially pleasant shooters. I imagine the vast majority of concealed-carry weapons are purchased with one box of whatever ammunition the store has in stock. They are then loaded up, and perhaps one magazine full is fired. They are then cleaned (maybe), reloaded, and carried. Manufacturers undoubtedly know this pattern. I think it approaches negligence on the part of the manufacturer if the guns do not work out of the box.

 

[slippingaway]

Charon, I see your points. I think the manufacturers all should have been a little more careful in what pistols they sent out for evaluation.

As far as your last sentence, I don't care how careful the manufacturer is or how much they test guns to ensure they work right out of the box, I won't trust them with my life. If I buy a gun for concealed carry, that means I'm going to trust it to defend my life if needed. I think it's a lot more negligent for a CCW holder to buy a gun and start carrying it without doing some proper function testing. My idea of proper function testing is at least a couple hundred rounds with no failures, including a box or two of whatever I plan on carrying. There's no way I'm going to start carrying a gun if I can't do that. But, that's just me.