Granted, a gun shows what it DOESN'T like quite rapidly. But you're not testing for what it doesn't like. That is usually obvious in the first box of cartridges.
You are testing for what it DOES like. And that takes a lot more ammo to prove.
Now this is interesting - I wonder, here, if we're not speaking of the same thing.
Can we not say that if the gun does not "not like the ammo," that it, in turn, simply does?
Because what is the context of "liking the ammo?"
You wrote in the previous response that "hundreds of rounds" of premium ammunition is an expensive undertaking - and that's where I will go for this line of questioning:
How many hundreds of rounds, in a real-world context, are we likely to run from our defensive handguns, between cleanings?
This is an honest question - I'm not being facetious or disingenuous with this. I'm one of those who believe in vetting one's choices. For my G32, for example, I ran through just under 300 rounds of Speer 125 gr. GDHP through it in one session (four reps of my defensive mags). My defensive handguns have each seen at least 500 of my chosen defensive rounds, without any cleaning or, often, even additional lubrication.
And while I seek this kind of reassurance, I also cannot but think that it is excessive - and perhaps even ridiculous.
Because how likely are we to run through that kind of ammo count in a real-world context?
And does running through this high of a count truly add any value, in the real-world context?
I certainly would not find a gun that jams every 16th round acceptable just because the magazine happens to be 15 rounds. When a gun jams frequently, you don't know exactly WHEN it's going to jam, but you do know that it WILL jam.
But if it jams every time on that 16th round, consistently and unwaveringly?
Then I would definitely trust it to run 15. Why would I not?
I know my vehicle's fuel consumption. Why would I not drive it any
distance, simply because I know it will finish that fuel at X distance?
Rather, it is when the firearm - or, for that matter, the vehicle - shows that it functions erratically that I would no longer trust it.
I would not ever consider carrying a gun/ammo combination that jammed once per 50 round box of cartridges, even though I'd never expect to be firing 50 rounds (I don't even carry that much ammo in the first place).
Again, I think that there is a huge difference based on the manner in which such problems present. An inconsistent and unpredictable manifestation in stoppages would be much more concerning to me than if that same firearm were to simply start showing problems - consistently - at, say, 45, or even 35 rounds out, and were to shut down at 50., especially if I do not usually stow that much ammunition with me.
In what limited experience I have, my observations and experiences have been that just as with this ammo reliability consideration, there is a not-insignificant portion of firearms owners out there who rely upon firearms that are less than "ideally" durable/reliable for a defensive role.
Nevertheless, in the context of real-life usage, I don't necessarily think that their choices are non-viable.
This is a good conversation. Thank you for having it with me.
I try to keep enough ammo on hand, in my primary defensive calibers, to last me "the rest of my life". The rest of my life levels are a mix of high end hollowpoints, FMJ, and components to reload. The combination of all that equals rest of my life. As I shoot these calibers and notice I don't have enough ammo left for the rest of my life, I rapidly replenish it back up to those levels.
My primary defensive calibers are 9mm, .45auto and 7.62x39. I am trying to work .223/5.45nato up to rest of my life level, but I'm not there yet. I'm more of an AK guy than an AR guy anyway. Things like .38special, .40s&w, .45colt, .380auto, etc. could be used for defense as well, but I don't stock these to super high levels. Not yet anyway. .45colt is probably my favorite round of all time. I shoot tons of it. It would be quite effective for self defense. But the slow-to-load SAA revolver I shoot it in may not be a top choice for defense (however, the lever action rifle I also shoot it in would be quite fine!)
I think this is where all newer shooters need to head toward, especially with today's political atmosphere.
This is definitely a good model to work towards.
I think what puts a lot of newer shooters off - and it certainly did, in my own case - is simply the thought of spending "that much" money.
But the truth of the matter is that it's really not that much of an investment
, especially considering the rate at which newcomers to the sport/hobby tend to accumulate firearms.