handgun reliability test. (spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't find these tests to be very useful for choosing a personal firearm. They are interesting for evaluating the handguns under harsh military environments though, which is the purpose of this series of videos.
 
most of this world is still sand, dirt, and mud. i would like to see test with handguns dropped on concrete too. like the ak guy does.
 
IMO, these tests aren't that useful. How many folks are going to let any gun
get ground into the mud, dirt, and sand? Overall safety, and usage should
be factors, in these "reliability tests" and they are not.
 
One a scale of 1 to 10 I'd rate a test like this somewhere around a 1. Firearms with tighter tolerances will be more likely fail tests like this. Personally I'd prefer tighter tolerances and better accuracy over looser tolerances and a sloppy fit.

My idea of a torture test would be how many rounds downrange before accuracy goes downhill or a major failure.
 
These tests are cool. It's neat to see what make em choke. But it's not practical at all. Care and maintenance is key with anything.

My idea of a torture test is to subject a pistol to Kimber's average customer base. They attract tons of people with unrealistic expectations. (magazine adds?)
 
"Endurance Tests" or "Reliability Tests" based on one specimen of a particular firearm are nearly completely useless in my opinion, and have no statistical relevance what so ever.

"Torture Tests" that involve purposely abusing a machine are a complete and utter waste of time. Try hard enough, and you will make any machine fail. They are not consistent enough to matter to me.

But for those who like them, enjoy.
 
These tests are silly and someone shouldn't choose a handgun based on these videos. You can get any gun or machine to malfunction under the right conditions. No reasonable gun owner is going to bury their gun in mud and then carry it.
 
Well as soon as I am in a situation where I can't protect my firearms from
mud, dirt, sand and water, I'll start granting these test results some
relevance. Until then, it's a lot like mixing a bunch of paints colors, just to see you
wind up with dull dark green, or brown. Sure, now you know what would
happen, but so what?
 
Last edited:
460Shooter said:
"Endurance Tests" or "Reliability Tests" based on one specimen of a particular firearm are nearly completely useless in my opinion, and have no statistical relevance what so ever.

"Torture Tests" that involve purposely abusing a machine are a complete and utter waste of time. Try hard enough, and you will make any machine fail. They are not consistent enough to matter to me.

But for those who like them, enjoy.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a contrarian, but pulling a random "specimen" off an assembly line and testing it is pretty much how every product produced is tested for quality assurance. I can't possibly see how this is any different. I like seeing how a pistol performs during testing...is that indicative to the results I'll get with other guns off the same line? No. But what you basically said negates anyone's review of anything since it isn't the particular one in your hands.
 
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a Sig P226 Legion SAO, and I love it...

I also am not a big fan of these tests, and I am not sure that they really evaluate the guns to determine which gun is most reliable. I does show which guns seem to run better when caked in mud and sand.

They are interesting, but not particularly useful for me.
 
Hanzo581 said:
Not trying to be a contrarian, but pulling a random "specimen" off an assembly line and testing it is pretty much how every product produced is tested for quality assurance. I can't possibly see how this is any different.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference. When a manufacturer is building a particular model gun they SHOULD be pulling multiple examples periodically from their assembly line and function checking them. Every gun needs a look certainly before heading out the door, but I HOPE they are actually function testing a specified sample size. As tooling and manufacturing equipment ages and shows signs of wear, they should be checking very frequently to ensure tolerances of the original design is being carried forward. If they don't do that, then I guess I have higher than reasonable expectations, and there definitely seems to be some companies that use their customers as beta testers.

Individual reviews are indicative of the quality and functionality of one example. Collectively as we share our experiences and issues, it can create a statistically relevant sample size. It can give us an overall impression. That's a big part of online forums.

My gripe is when any Youtube posting "gun reviewer", or gun forum poster, starts portraying their one particular example of a gun as an indicator of that model's quality or reliability. MAC does that all the time. Then he abuses a gun and acts like it matters. If he acquired many examples (how many is many?) and they all failed in some way after a reasonable test, I would view his testing as a great contribution to the collective quality assessment of that model. As he does it, his impressions are no more relevant than anyone else's who has one example of a gun. The ONLY difference, is he posts his impressions on Youtube. And unfortunately, people take it as gospel.

I choose very carefully who I watch. If a shooter shares their impressions of a gun, that's cool. If they act like anyone should make a decision based on their limited experience with one individual gun, or act like an abused gun shouldn't function like it was abused, they have no credibility in my eyes.

If viewers take it for what it is, entertainment only, then cool. Enjoy.

I like seeing how a pistol performs during testing...is that indicative to the results I'll get with other guns off the same line? No. But what you basically said negates anyone's review of anything since it isn't the particular one in your hands.
Click to expand...

You just basically confirmed you agree with my assertion, and no, it doesn't negate anyone's reviews. My comment negates the relevance of their experience, as it relates to my gun buying choices. Collective facts from the shooting community need to be taken from a variety of sources before any sort of relevant assertions can be made.

Everyone has an opinion, and they are flexible. Function and reliability are fact based. No one gun writer or Youtuber should ever be considered a reliable sole source information provider.
 
Me too. I would rather see someone start with ten of each gun and shoot them normally (with occasional cleaning) until they fail. To me that is a much better reliability test. It would be very expensive and time-consuming, though, so it's probably not going to happen.
 
Hanzo581 said:
I love MACs tests. It's always good to know if I accidentally roll around in water, sand, dirt and mud in a self defense situation that my pistol will still function.
Click to expand...

23ee091f2b7f19aae24582503180828a6b68b3c840c6292aa2b52ecc9341cade.jpg
 
I got tired of these people in youtube doing their so called "tests." Maybe they have more resources than the military who did extensive testing on different weapons. Or they just have enough time and resources to waste. My pistols always reside on my waist, or my car, or my safe or somewhere hidden in my house where I am the only one can have access to it. I'm not a guy who will just roll in the sand, mud or exotic dirt. I just load my guns with ammo and shoot with it on the range and hope not on any other place in the world. My gun gets t be carried once I made sure they have fired about a thousand rounds without any problems.

The mods that I made is always minimal. Probably just a change in sights or grips and nothing on the internals. So far, the biggest expense is only for the ammo and the range fees. When I was younger, the expenses always go to the mods even the unnecessary ones. Only the people I sold them to get the most benefit (they get the mods as freebies).

Just my rant.
 
Dolphins are stupid. I put one on the beach and it couldn't even walk in a straight line. It just laid there screaming like an idiot.

Torture tests are useless data. Even the military ones are a bit odd. Is it really that hard to just use the pistol hard under normal circumstances? We see plenty of failures during 3gun or USPSA. Doesn't take long to figure out what works, and how much you can mess up a pistol before it gets unreliable.

Lately it seems like 3gun is the closest thing to a valid torture test. Shooters go out of their way to tune the guns with weak ammo, compromised gas systems, weaker springs, faster triggers, slower action cycling, etc. etc. A perfect storm for unreliability.
 
Never ceases to amaze me the how much some people over value "tests" that don't have any kind of meaningful controls and are a sample size of 1. They are interesting data points and may carry some entertainment value but hardly a good basis for choosing A over B. Their main purpose, true design and what they do best is get views so the tester can make money. When the are controversial and people get worked up about them (see the VP9 test video) they seem to do an even better job.
 
I do kinda like seeing that my model of gun probably will fire if I fumble it into a puddle without submerging my gun. But that's about all its good for.

My guns go bang with my torture test, which is dust and lint from carrying. Good enough for my uses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jjones45
  • Locked
Arex Rex Zero 1S outperforms the Sig p226 Legion
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Okiegunner
O
sisyphus
  • Locked
In Praise of Arex
Replies
13
Views
991
jhb
jhb
K
  • Locked
A List of all manufactures with DA/SA Pistols currently in Production
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
27K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
D
  • Locked
Getting a first gun is very stressfull!
2
Replies
28
Views
911
bigfatdave
B
U
  • Locked
looking for a good carry 9mm
Replies
15
Views
520
Mudinyeri
M
Back
Top