Years And Years

Way back when I asked, "what are you trying to prove by firing thousands of rounds without cleaning or lubrication?"

I got a lot of shit for asking that.

But the question still stands.

We know the testing protocol, and the results of the test.  What we don't know is the provable hypothesis which leads to the test itself.

I took more shit when I stated that it doesn't matter if the gun chokes on the +1 round past the ammo I am willing to carry because I will be out of ammo and very worried if the fight is still ongoing.

Here's the deal, though:

I have yet to encounter the gun which cannot fire the basic load.

Can an M1911A1 fire the 7+1 in the gun and two spare 7 round magazines without cleaning?

Yes.

I've asked before, "How many rounds are you lugging around?"

I've rarely encountered the person who's carrying more than one reload.  Most commonly, the people who respond are carrying ZERO reloads.

It's a very rare, and very crappy, gun which can't fire a single magazine without a malfunction.  And we tend to know which guns those are before firing a shot now.

Most new made guns, even the cheapest anymore, can pass this test.

It comes down to risk assessment.

I don't plan on getting into a firefight.  If I did, I am not carrying concealed and I am not carrying a pistol as my primary arm.

A firefight might find me, but it's not the way to bet.

Nearly all armed interactions don't involve firing a shot.  Most don't even require you actually have a firearm, you just need to warn the potential assailant that you are armed and they back down.  Look it up!  It's about 90% of the interactions.

90% of the remaining 10% require you have a gun, or something that is believably a gun.  Brandishing will end the interaction and you can depart unmolested.

Now we're into the small numbers.  90% of the 10% of the 10% (0.1%) of the time you're going to have to fire a shot.  You don't even need to hit your assailant!

90% of the remainder (0.01%) of the time you're going to have to hit them.

The rest of the time your hits are going to have to hit something vital and NOW which gun, how reliable it is, how well does your ammunition perform and did you bring enough ammo will actually matter to the equation.

So?  What gun and how much ammo are you bringing to the 0.001% chance you're in a real firefight with your carry gun?

Think hard on that.

I don't carry an armored briefcase on the off chance I hit the big number on a scratch-off lottery ticket to carry my winnings.

I don't take classes on money management to deal with the vast fortunes from winning the powerball either.

The truth is, I'm very unlikely to end up needing a gun at all.

But...

It is also true that it's far better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

You just need to learn to assess the odds.

By the way, you're far better served buying some concealable body armor than carrying a gun if you're really worried about the 0.001% scenario; but I so rarely see gunwriters advocating for that.

I wonder why?

Is it because they can't shill for classes on how to wear a vest?