"Testing"
as proposed in post #89 a non-starter and you know it.
Those that will never accept fact will continue to trumpet the same "show me the testing" line because they either are educated enough to know that it will never, and pragmatically could never, happen or are ignorant enough that they don't grasp this fact.
To do the math, again...
10 makes/models, 10 examples of each (which is still statistically insignificant) is 100 rifles. Figure on an average cost of $1,000 per rifle means a $100,000 cash outlay in firearms only.
Now how many rounds do you want to fire per rifle? According to the sidebar in the article "Malfunction Reduction Part II" by Pat Rogers in the January issue of SWAT magazine (page 71), "Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, states in an Engineering Bulletin to consider swapping the bolt out at 6,000 rounds, and definitely by 10,000 rounds." Based on this, I'd propose that you'd need to fire at least that 10,000 rounds per rifle in order to reach a relatively certain failure point for all guns. That's 10,000 rounds per rifle over 100 rifles, or 1,000,000 rounds total, or 1,000 cases.
At $400/case (let's assume you can get a discount for ordering 1,000 of them) that's $400,000 in ammunition for the test.
Now you're up to a $500,000 cash outlay just to even start the test, and that doesn't include magazines, lube, and hourly wages for shooters. Which brings us to...
1,000,000 rounds at 1 round per second is 277 hours of shooting. That's optimistic as hell. Figuring in magazine changes etc. you'd be lucky to average 1 round per every 5 seconds. That's 1,385 hours of shooting. Ten man team, that's 139 hours of team shooting, or just over seventeen 8-hour work days. At $20/hour that's another $27,700 in labor costs.
So what people want is some mysterious benefactor to step up, put out $600k+ of their own money, and 3 weeks of their time with a squad of 10 shooters, just to "prove" something that they would ultimately STILL want to argue about.
People should educate themselves as to what drives the cost of the more expensive guns, and decide for themselves if they think that the benefits are real or not, or if those benefits apply to their type of shooting or not, and buy what best meets their needs. This ain't rocket surgery.