HK VP-9 fails torture test

Thank goodness for YouTube. Without them we would never find our way in life. LOL

Reminds me of a guy on the Mini-14 forum extolling the virtues of his Mini over any Kalashnikov and supported his case by posting a video of some Jihadi over in the ME sandbox blowing up his rifle without any explanation as to why or what may have caused it.

I guess he thought he made his point...

M

 

Identifying the particular why would help evaluate whether these results can reasonably be extrapolated beyond the particular gun. If this gun has a particular gap where the sand is getting in and other VP9's don't, then you have a QC issue. If they all have that gap, then maybe you've identified something in the design that makes it incompatible with wet, sticky sand.

 

I believe that credibility counts. The world of gun reviews is based on opinions and the only that separates them is credibility. As far as sample size well that's a funny thing. I know people that won't own a Beretta because their buddy said his M9 was garbage. Not understanding that particular gun has been used and abused and that there are thousands of M9s in use with no problems. I saw people on Buds gun shop selling guns because of the MAC torture test or passing on buying them because of it. In summary, sample size doesn't matter to some people whether it's thousands or one.

 

OK. This isn't a review. It's a purportedly-objective test. Unless you think the tester was gaming/rigging the test in some way, then no, "credibility" doesn't logically matter. It may emotionally matter, but not logically. This test was all filmed, so you can even see what is happening.

If your point is that a lot of people don't understand statistics or the concepts of reliability and validity in testing, you'll get no argument from me.

 

My point was a rebuttal that these tests are irrelevant or meaningless. They have real world consequences so that makes them meaningful. Probably not enough to make a serious dent in the sales of Hk but still...

 

I'm sorry the realities of the world are inconvenient, but just because we all really wish it was easier to derive meaningful results from limited data, it simply is not the case.

And yes, whether its guns or consumer electronics or any other item: If you test just one of something, then whatever results you get absolutely, positively could be relevant to just that particular unit, which makes such tests useless (except for marketing purposes, perhaps). Just because people buy into them doesn't make them something they should buy into.

Even if this did prove to be an issue with all, or at least the bulk of, VP9s... is it really an issue? Is it necessary every defensive handgun be able to withstand extreme neglect? Generally speaking, most firearms with loose tolerances are more likely to run when dirty, where guns with tighter tolerances may encounter more problems. Is it a design-flaw that the VP9 can't withstand a torture test? Is a custom 1911 that can shoot the wings off a gnat at 25 yards somehow defective because it can't run in the gunk?

So many people these days think that every handgun should shoot groups like a $5000 custom and withstand abuse like a broken-in Glock. And if it doesn't it's junk. These expectations are entirely unreasonable.

 

I agree with this part, and did earlier.

But I don't think testing of consumer items falls under the same sort of strictures as science. Consumer items should be of very high uniformity, and a negative result in a test shows that either the items are all equally likely to fail, or that the uniformity between them is low. The XM9 trials were 30 pistols of each model submitted, and hopefully that's enough to draw some conclusions.

But if I wanted a gun that was good in sand, I would certainly have some doubts about the VP9 after seeing how the single examples of other guns fared. And I don't think that is unrealistic on my part.

 

Do a YouTube search for Nutnfancy's and other videos on Diamondback DB9 problems.
M

 

Yeah not to mention he did actually test 3 or 4 vp9's all together, which people on here fail to mention when they argue sample size. Maybe once MAC test 10,000 vp9's and the majority of them exhibit the same behavior people will finally agree the vp9 just doesn't do well in these conditions. I mean it's not like it's the end of the world. My ppq and sig p320c both failed eventually as well in his test and I still carry them with confidence. Excuses and opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one so let's just get over it

 

If the item of interest has been manufactured, it is not some newly observed phenomena like we have just observed for the first time the mating ritual of the humpbacked whale and the male performed a tail splash after mating so therefore we jump to the conclusion that all male humpbacks do the same.

In the case of the H&K (and S&W, SIG, etc) this is an item that is manufactured using a formalized process with quality controls, inspections, and tests for functionality before the product is shipped. The odds of getting an example that is outside of the companies tolerances are very low if they have a reasonable quality control process. One might argue that it has not been shown that the firearms that have failed have good quality control, but if we go down that path it is more damaging to the perception of the company than the failure to run in the gauntlet.

In every case the firearm was tested for function. In each case the firearm worked. After the firearms failed often they were cleaned and tested for function and the firearm resumed normal operation, and then when ran through the gauntlet the item failed again. If the firearm was broken during the test then cleaning it would not have put it back into operation.

The tests are outside the tests performed by the manufacturers unless the manufacturer has developed the product for such conditions. Firearms that are developed for military contract probably have been at least water tested and drop tested.

Therefore the test is like this, "We don't know if the firearm was designed to work in these conditions or not, but lets see what happens."

The reasons for the failures would be interesting. I have seen video of a semi auto pistol firing and a spent casing fly up in the air, come down and land in the open chamber because a following round had just been fired and the spent casing land right in there. It could be that during firing a piece of sand was lying on the slide and during recoil it went up and down the open chamber and landed on top of the next round such that the extractor picked up the sand, etc. Right, anything could be the reason for the failure. So, what do you do, you run it through the gauntlet again. Did two rare events occur? Do it again. Did three occur? Suddenly what may have seemed rare is starting to show that it is not.

If it is argued that the firearm isn't broken in properly, that has inherit issues as well. If something is functioning properly and you use it, you have changed it. Things typically don't break when not being used. If you are of the paranoid type then consider this, the last time you took your gun to the range and you fired it and think, "I have proven this firearm is ready for use", but in reality that last shot was the use that caused the trigger spring to break and you don't know it.

I had a firearm that would jam all the time. From day one, first magazine. The manufacture told me to break it in. Here is what I was told. The recoil spring needs 200 rounds to properly break it in. Also, the recoil spring has to be replaced every 500 rounds according to our recommendation. I am like, "WHAT?". So, I have to shoot 200 rounds and then I have a window of 300 rounds before I have to replace the spring and do another 200 rounds. You know what that is? A cop-out by the manufacturer not taking responsibility because if they did there would have been a recall. The lawyers and bean-counters ran the statistics and decided that one dissatisfied customer would not be a significant cost to their sales.

The tests have meaning. Conclusions are not made, meaning that if the firearm was studied and was shown that sand enters through here, lands here, and binds up this, and causes that, and we can reproduce the result every time, that would be a conclusion.

If S&W says, "It wasn't designed to run after being submerged into water! Why are you people now requiring it? It will work just fine in your holster, on your night stand, in your glove box, stop being ridiculous!" Well, sorry, customers are fickle things. They have now seen something that performed better in a situation they will never be in, yet they like that it performed better, and if the S&W costs $450 and the Glock costs $475, what is $25 more to get the one that loves water and sand?

I bet MAC gets pushback from the manufacturers, maybe even to the point they try to scare him off from doing these things. I can imagine someone now saying, "Doesn't he own a gun store, make sure none of our distributors sell him anything. We'll see how well his store does with empty shelves. He is being stupid coming up with unrealistic situations and people are now acting as if that is the norm."

Well, who is stupid? The customer? I thought the customer was always right. ;-)

 

Very good explanation of this whole ridiculous matter.
Thanks

 

Personally, results of his testing do not surprise me. Glock is engineered "sloppy." Tiny fore and aft frame rails that have loose fit in the slide and can flex in relation to each other due to plastic frame. Internal mechanisms of stamped steel that slide against each other but nothing actually closely fit. Glock SOLD his gun by showing how you can assemble a gun from random pile of parts, swap parts between guns, and gun will still function.

Gun built with tighter steel-on-steel tolerances is going to get jammed by small, hard particulate. I am sure 3,000.00 match 1911 is going to fail this test......

Test means what it means. Quality and reliability are not necessarily same thing.

Question is... is Glock accurate and durable enough despite the way it is designed? A lot of people find Glock works fine and is accurate as they are.

Is VP-9 reliable enough after dropping it in a muddy creek and stepping on it? A lot of people find this scenario not worth bothering with. Maybe in war it could happen. But sidearms are usually carried in a holster.

I think realistic scenario is someone that doesn't clean/maintain their gun... maybe they are better off with Glock.

My two cents.

and oh.. I bet CZ will fail this "gauntlet" worse than HK. Full length rigid steel rails = marginal chance.

 

Yet it (G17) had multiple failures to in his testing too.. Which is often perceived as the most reliable Glock.

Yet won't change my mind about being one of the only plastic fantastics I'll keep in my safe. Course, I've got a better chance at winning the jackpot in lotto. than my guns falling out of their holsters into similar test mediums, and I live rural on a dirt road!

 

I only saw one, but meh. I mostly trust my Glocks because they're so simple, I actually understand what every part does, how they all work together, and that it is so simple to actually take it apart and put it back together without tweezers and curse words that I can fully maintain it. Yeah, full disclosure: I'm a fan. Only 25% of my handguns are a Glock, but they eat over 95% of my ammo.

I think "perceive" is not giving enough credit where it is due. I haven't closely examined all pistols, but many of the new striker fired Glock 2.0's have "improved" things in ways that don't enhance reliability. Like P230 steel rails that are a block that go into the plastic, fully rigid. Glocks rails are like 4 wheel independent suspension. Most of the failure in this kind of test are due to failure to return to battery, and this is something that most other pistols are improving in the wrong way. Maybe they can't figure out how to get a teeny rail to stick in the plastic as good as Glock. I look at it, and it seems improbable that the rail won't eventually fall out, lol.

Or maybe they're not satisfied with a pistol frame that twists/bends like a garbage can while it's firing. If you want to attach flashlights and stuff to your gun frame, I think Glock loses a lot of its durability/longevity and reliability. That flex is part of the equation.

 

I don't think rails are the answer. VP9's rails are similar to glocks, (just a few tabs)... However glocks are over sprung from factory... So that is probably a considerable +

 

Yes and the gen 4 glocks have a duel spring RSA, I have looked at the vp but
don't understand why they left the slide cover to stricker with such a big hole, looks like an easy way for dirt to get in the stricker channel,