1000 round torture test

[TheProf]

What do you guys think of the Para PXT 1911 torture test?
http://www.downrange.tv/show1/

The guy fired 1000 rounds non-stop (around 10 minutes 40 seconds).

1. Any other brands out there known to be this reliable?

2. Do you guys think that this is THE test for reliability? (versus dunking it in mud, sand, being thrown from a two-story window, run over by a semi truck, etc.?)

3. What do you think of Para USA (I'm assuming that's the company) as a gun maker?

 

[redneck2]

There was a member here that did something similar a few years ago. You had to go 1k straight with no FTF. No clearing any type of malfunction. Maybe 2 of 20+ made it.

 

[m2steven]

I saw it a few days ago. I had to laugh a bit at the shooter's forced enthusiasm late in the test. I was wondering why he didn't have enough magazines loaded to complete the task. Perhaps Para couldn't furnish them, or maybe the 'record' he was going for required that some magazines be hand loaded.

In any event, it was a fairly impressive demo. I found the test after I'd handled a Para at Academy Sports. It felt very nice. Looked to be very well manufactured. I wound up getting a Smith and Wesson, but the
Para line looked pretty good. Their "Hawg" series is decently designed
in spite of that horrible name (which is emblazoned on every weapon).

 

[B BRI]

I was impressed, never had that much luck with my 1911's without spending money at the 'smith to get em right. I ordered that exact pistol after watching the video. Wanted a reliable 1911 without having to spend $1000+. I am picking it up tomorrow. I'll let you know.

 

[possum]

That is Todd Jarrett(sp?) great shooter, and great instructor, he has many great instructional vids on youtube, he is very impressive to say the least. the gun gets really hot when shooting that fast and that much in that little amount of time.

to answer the op.
1) i would do that with my xd service model any day of the week, and have no worries of having any issues. i have shot over 700-800rds in my xd in one range trip/ training courses on many occasions, however not in 10 minutes and 40 sec, however that is little to no training value for me.

i would also put a glock to that challenge and it would have no issue doing as well.

2) i think it is a great test. why? that pistol had more rounds through it in less than 11 minutes, than most guns will have in their entire time of being owned. it is accelerated use. if a gun will run that good for that amount of rounds and that hard and have no issues i would have no problem carrying it for defense, however every gun is different, and i wouldn't just go buy an exact model off the shelf without testing it myself. would it be a 1000rds? yes and then some but not in less than 11 minutes.
3) i think that they are a great company with many innovations in the 1911 platform. i have had nothing but great experiences with para 1911's.

 

[flyboy1788]

1. That is kind of a wierd question.... Im sure you can get find a high point that can go 1000 rounds without jamming. In no way does that mean they all are that reliable. Thats why I get a kick out of videos like these, because it makes people assume that they are all that good. But to answer your question, yes there are other brands that produce 1911s that can pass this test. Although Id say the guns that would most likely pass this test consistantly would probobly be glocks, m&ps, and xds.

2.) No. 1000 rounds is fantastic, but unfortunately, as POSSUM stated, ESPECIALLY with 1911s, there is a lot of hand fitting involved, so as a result, they will not all be identical and some will be more problematic than others. What I mean by that is not every 1911 from the Para factory will be this reliable, period. Now, take glock for example, where there is almost NO hand fitting involved from the factory, and you get an out of the box pistol that would CONSISTANTLY be this reliable. I am not 1911 bashing, I am a 1911 guy at heart, but all of this knowledge is accepted as fact.

3.) I would research the topic a lot more before you form your opinion instead of just taking whatever comments are posted on this thread as fact. Surprisingly I have actually heard quite a few negative things about Para ordnance from people who actually put a significant amount of ammo down range each year. Even still, para sells a lot of 1911s, and there are a lot of happy para owners. Take all these posts with a grain of salt and please, Do some serious research. Also, learn to decipher the credible sources from the non credible ones.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

i would also put a glock to that challenge and it would have no issue doing as well.

We see Glocks fail all the time in these tests. Several make it, but we see a lot that fail, even seen a few break (along with 1911s as well).

Littlemac has hosted several 1000 round matches just outside of OKC. Here are the results from one that started me hosting the ISHOT1000 series... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=310567&highlight=1000+round+match

ISHOT1000
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4446774#post4446774

IISHOT1000
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324738&page=2&highlight=iishot1000

What is always great is to hear the excuses people come up with to explain why their gun malfunctioned...which almost never involves blaming the gun. Some are valid, some not. Sometimes, it really is the gun. Contrary to the beliefs, the recoil spring, lube, magazines, and extractor are all part of a functioning semi-auto pistol that is fueled by the ammo.

So is a 1000 round test valid for determining if a gun is reliable? It all depends on how you classify reliable. I figure that for a gun to be reliable for my circumstances, it needs to be able to fire 3 magazines (25 rounds of carry ammo) with no problems after being carried around for up to 4 weeks with no maintenance. Since I don't usually carry more than that amount of ammo, then anything over 25 is moot. Since I usually don't have the chance to clean and lube my gun before being in a fight, it has to work right off the belt. That is my personal standard for reliability.

 

[possum]

spy,
good points, indeed and yes the glocks do have issues, as with James Yeager's glock 19. actually in the video that 19 is his carry pistol, and it did have some issues. i think mine would make it maybe not, however i know the gun is "reliable" enough for defensive use. is it "reliable" enough for a 1000rd test i don't know.

as far as guns breaking, i have come to the understanding that everything man made will break eventually.

 

[geronimo509]

I figure that for a gun to be reliable for my circumstances, it needs to be able to fire 3 magazines (25 rounds of carry ammo) with no problems after being carried around for up to 4 weeks with no maintenance. Since I don't usually carry more than that amount of ammo, then anything over 25 is moot. Since I usually don't have the chance to clean and lube my gun before being in a fight, it has to work right off the belt. That is my personal standard for reliability.

+1!!! To me that is the only way to test for reliability, well that and limp wristing. I purposely limp wrist my carry guns to make sure they can function. You never know when you might be injured and not very strong and still need to fire.

This para double stacked Gun Rights model functions just perfectly! I wouldn't hesitate to put it through that torture test.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

spy,
good points, indeed and yes the glocks do have issues, as with James Yeager's glock 19. actually in the video that 19 is his carry pistol, and it did have some issues.

Well I said I liked the excuses and since you mentioned Yeager, the video is here, part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_JuF23qazI and part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyZxQfIBXDc

The gun, however, is not at fault in the video. Yeager is quick to blame the "cheap ammo" for the problems he had (S&B, I recall). Interestingly, the other shooter had no problems with the same gun and ammo. Ergo, it ain't the ammo. Its the shooter. Yeager apparently limp wristed or otherwise failed to handle his Glock properly and it caused him problems. However, there wasn't any way in the world he would blame the gun or the shooter for the problem and instead opted for the ammo. Why? Simple. It was HIS carry gun and so he would not suggest his preferred tool was flawed. Nor would he suggest that he was flawed in the use of the tool. And the reason why I mention this isn't to harp on Yeager. He simply has a nifty video that demonstrates my point. That is, shooters will come up with all sorts of excuses to distance their gun and themselves from problems. My guess is that it is an ego issue.

I also liked how they made a big deal out of the recoil spring guide rod melting and flying off, demonstrating the reliability of Glocks since the gun still functioned without a guide rod. The gun should be able to function without the guide rod, so no big deal there. The spring remained in place within the gun. Lots of guns don't have guide rods.

as far as guns breaking, i have come to the understanding that everything man made will break eventually.

Right, but this plays into reliability as well. Of course things will break eventually. People love to say how their guns will go 1000 rounds with no problems, and then it breaks. Wow. That is a pretty major problem, yes? People don't seem to consider that aspect when boasting.

 

[ScareyH22A]

With modern defensive pistols, 1000rds doesn't prove much except to show that the metals will get extremely hot and plastics will melt.

Someone should make a company that provides data to consumers with a seal of approval. Manufacturers could send their samples in for the seal because if a firearm received that UL type seal, it could potentially increase sales.

Some testing criteria could start off with 10 examples of each firearm, sand, mud, water, heat, and cold tests as well as many many rounds. The manufacturers would have to pay for their services ofcourse for the potential of receiving this quality seal. The results could be published for people to see.. much like a J.D.Powers award or something.

 

[jocko]

who set the criteria of 1000 rounds being the "true" test of a great gun. Why not 10,000 rounds, or 15,000. Why not 500 rounds then also.

the videos are cool, the competition was nice, and expensive and really to me only proves that particular gun either did or didn't pass the stress tests. Nothing more. Would not be my criteria for buying or not buying either. A 1000 rounds in 10 minutes is cool to but maybe "dumb" also. Just not a real even close to life scenario.
I wonder why no shooters were wearing a shooting glove to help with the heat thing????
Just my 2 cents worth and again, a fun video ...

The best gun in the world :"can break on the very next round".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

With modern defensive pistols, 1000rds doesn't prove much except to show that the metals will get extremely hot and plastics will melt.

It has been my experience that it proves a lot of guns won't go the distance.

who set the criteria of 1000 rounds being the "true" test of a great gun. Why not 10,000 rounds, or 15,000. Why not 500 rounds then also.

Well, when you hold your tests, you determine the criteria. I followed Littlemac who followed the Glock v. 1911 matches at TDSA in Texas. Simply put for the matches, 1000 rounds was about as much as could be reasonable shot by a group of shooters in one day, keeping up with stage changes, number of magazines owned, etc. Not everyone has 1000 rounds of magazines for a given gun. So you deal with real people and their real guns.

Another way of looking at it is that 1000 rounds is several times more rounds than a person would ever need for a handgun in a defensive situation. The idea is that you want a gun that will exceed your expected needs, not just meet them.

Lastly, very few people ever shoot 1000 rounds in a day. So it was a chance for folks to test their guns to a point beyond which they had never done it previously.

 

[possum]

The gun, however, is not at fault in the video. Yeager is quick to blame the "cheap ammo" for the problems he had (S&B, I recall). Interestingly, the other shooter had no problems with the same gun and ammo. Ergo, it ain't the ammo. Its the shooter. Yeager apparently limp wristed or otherwise failed to handle his Glock properly and it caused him problems. However, there wasn't any way in the world he would blame the gun or the shooter for the problem and instead opted for the ammo. Why? Simple. It was HIS carry gun and so he would not suggest his preferred tool was flawed. Nor would he suggest that he was flawed in the use of the tool. And the reason why I mention this isn't to harp on Yeager. He simply has a nifty video that demonstrates my point. That is, shooters will come up with all sorts of excuses to distance their gun and themselves from problems. My guess is that it is an ego issue.

perfectly said, i was actually there when that was recorded,after 4 days of training there and i will leave my Yeager comments out of this thread, as they are no very highroadish, some of them.

 

[gwnorth]

I think these torture tests are interesting, but largely meaningless marketing gimics. An n=1 does not tell you anything about a manufactureres nor a particular models reliablity. It merely tells you that this particular gun, on this particular day, shot reliably.

I've seen this one, a couple now for Glocks, one for a Taurus PT1911, and so on....

To all of them I say, so what? Even the worst stamped steel piece of crud can have a good day every now and then. And even the best manufacuterer can turn out lemons from time to time. One gun on one day does not tell me anything substantial, but it looks impressive on youtube.

 

[wditto]

may sound nit-picking, but that test , although fun , is not indicative of the reliability of said pistol; it only shows what the one pistol does under THOSE EXACT CONDITIONS only.....change a couple of the conditions, it may not have performed the same - just like any other pistol

 

[Pizzagunner]

What I have never understood is entrants who want to go the whole 1000 relying upon remanufactured ammunition. Seems to undercut the potential to finish rather mightily. Were I going to the trouble and expense of sending 1000 rounds down range in a day, I'd be using the most consistent new factory FMJ I could lay hands on.

My other quibble with going for 1000 in a day with no maintenance is that it primarily exposes which examples of a firearm run best when bone dry because most lubes are probably shot and burned off the firearm well before round 300 or so. A pistol that runs "wet" is at a disadvantage in the tests that it does not really face in reality.

 

[burningsquirrels]

beats me. i ran 22,500 before my 40b had a problem, and it was on a home made part. most i ran through a day was one of the state matches, about 600 i think. in terms of the pistol doing its thing, it ran solid.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Y'all got something better to suggest for this sort of testing, or just complaints?

If you can come up with a form of testing that won't suffer the complaints of gun-board gurus who claim it to be invalid, I am sure we could implement them.

 

[burningsquirrels]

basically run it throuhg everything we can think of. Thousand round test, daily carry, and competitive shooting.

most of the serious shooters do 20-30k a year, but some will complain "oh they're not factory" or "they're cleaned all the time"..... i know i hardly clean mine, lol. my sp-01 is still bone stock, runs fine. if it gets really dirty i had a stovepipe a couple times. cleaned the ejector and it worked fine again.

but if it's man-made, it's gonna break. i agree with that.

also can't just use one gun, gotta use a nice sized sample. i've heard of hi-points that run great, and the occasional troublesome (insert high dollar gun here).

 

[JohnBT]

Ever read about the old timers on the fair and show circuits? They would have laughed at the thought of 1,000 shots proving anything.

www.traphof.org/topperwein-bio.htm

"If any one man proved the efficiency of the repeating cartridge firearm, it was Ad Topperwein who for 68 ½ hours averaged more than a thousand shots an hour. In 1959, Tom Frye, a Remington gun salesman,` girded up his loins, loaded up his Nylon 66 autos and shooting for 14 straight days succeeded in banging away at 100,010 wooden blocks. He hit all but six."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't know that they would have thought poorly of such tests. They don't tell you how many guns they went through in order to find makes and models that would work for them.

Shooting .22s generates a lot less heat than bigger centerfire cartridges.

 

[donato]

Well, the Todd Jarrett 1000 round demonstration is certainly a testament to the gun, which I believe is a production gun - not juiced. But, of equal significance, if not more so, is what the test says about the lubricant he used. Looks like a bottle of Gun Butter laying on the table as he preps for the shoot. What ever lube he used, it must have been good stuff to survive the heat and keep the gun shooting.

 

[JohnBT]

Okay, if that won't do, how about high volume dove shooting in South America? 1k to 3k shots per day.

www.argentinadovehunting.com/argentinadovehunting.htm

"the combination of food source and roost has produced a population of Zenaida Auriculata estimated to be over 20 million birds - Argentina doves that do not migrate, reproduce up to four times annually and provide literally year-round shooting. "

Heck, I shot my Kimber Stainless Gold Match 5,000 times before I detail stripped it. Sure, I added oil, but it was a tight, new gun.

John

 

[donato]

Follow on to my previous post: Todd Jarrett didn't stop to re-oil during the 1000 round test.