Plausible Torture Tests

[David E]

Torture testing came up in another thread and I had just done a search for a few at YouTube. I was amused and irritated by what I found.

It's stupid to bake a Glock cake, or submerge it in a water bucket then freeze it.

I find it tedious to submerge the gun in maple syrup, eggs and whatnot.

Likewise, to scrape the gun into loose dirt with the slide locked open, or burying each field stripped part into the same dirt.

Now, if you want to toss a loaded gun into the dirt or mud to simulate dropping a gun, then fine. But subjecting the gun to trials and tribulations it would never encounter in the real world serves no purpose to my way of thinking.

With that in mind, what realistic testing protocols do you think are reasonable?

.

 

[Robert]

Shooting it till parts break or it fails.

 

[rcmodel]

Shoot it, clean it, shoot it some more.
That's what I did in the Army for years, with never a gun problem due to C-Rat pound-cake crumbs or mud jamming it up.

Mud & C-Rats jammed me up several times.
But I never let a weapon get in that position ahead of me getting there first to protect it.

Most handguns like the Glock, SIG, 1911, Beretta, etc, have already passed more military acceptance tests over the years and passed with flying colors then any idjit on the You-Tube could dream up.

These guys are posers trying to get attention.
Nothing more.

They are not proving anything to anyone that knows anything about firearms and combat field conditions.

rc

 

[JTQ]

Todd Green at pistol-training.com does a good job with his pistol endurance tests. They are maintained as the typical guy would do, but are shot a lot, and the parts breakages are listed.

Here is one of his later posts on a test he did with Springfield 1911 in 9MM.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/8685

 

[Sam1911]

As a marketing ploy, I suppose I could see companies doing "extreme" damage testing to prove their guns can "take it." Whatever "it" is that their guns can withstand while still looking impressive.

Otherwise, the only "torture" tests that make any impression on me are long-term shooting tests showing what the durability of that model is in the sort of uses I'd put it to. I do need to know that my handgun has retained its accuracy and reliability even with 1,000 or even 2,000 rounds through it between cleanings. And that it needed only springs to still be going strong at 100,000 rounds. That's useful.

I don't need to know that it supported the weight of a fully loaded Mack ready-mix truck for 28 days and then withstood being used as a hammer to chip out the 3,500 psi mud once it had reached full hardness. That's not useful to me and I neither ask, nor expect, any gun I buy to be able to stand up to that.

I don't need to know that my AR can still function after being run over by an M1 Abrams or a D11. If I do that to my AR, I'm perfectly ok with it going ahead and breaking. It's all right -- I'd be totally unreasonable to expect it to stand up to that.

This is a big issue with knife tests, too. Can you apply 2 tons of force to the locking mechanism without it failing? Oh, is that important? With all my strength I might be able to put a couple hundred pounds on it. Will my fillet knife survive batonning a spiral-growth chunk of white oak? Heavens! The world needs to know!

 

[Missionary]

Greetings
The best revolver torture test I know of is the Metalic Sillouete challange. Stoke up any revolver with enough of whatever powder and bullets to accurately and reliably knock down a 50 pound ram at 200 meters. The 150 meter "turkeys" do not require alot of wack but do require good accuracy. Then there are the shoot off targets. Extreme accuracy must be had. All with the same revolver.
Not to many double action brand revolvers can hold up to that punishment week after week for thousands of competition and practice rounds. Most brands do OK for a couple matches but soon shoot loose and there goes accuracy.
Some single actions brands hold together with "ram smashing" loads. But few have good enough accuracy to win consistently. So at the end of the shooting season the total wins tells a very definitive story.
So to me that sets a good pattern. High performance ammo shot alot. Handgun must still hold accurate. Must be totaly reliable to do the task without any fuss. If it needs alot of repairs to complete the mission it is not to be trusted. So in the end I just need to look at what has a long history of success.
The hype that gets attached to new weapons means very little to me. I easily can stick to what has been proven over the years and trust in what has a well established track record.
Mike in Peru

 

[M2 Carbine]

Now, if you want to toss a loaded gun into the dirt or mud to simulate dropping a gun, then fine.

A while back I tried to make a Makarov fail, within 1,000 rounds. The idea was to test the gun's reliability by subjecting it to "normal" things that might happen.

For instance,
Pocket lint. I filled the gun's insides with "pocket lint". Actually lint from the dryer after washing the cat's blankets.



You carry your Makarov with a round in the chamber and hammer cocked.
You pull your gun to return fire but drop it in the mud.


You pick up the gun but only have time to shake it once, then pull the trigger.
Mud blocks the hammer on the first trigger pull but on the next DA trigger pull the gun fires and you empty the magazine into the BG.



You live up North and leave your Mak in the cold car 24/7.
You also believe in using a lot of grease to lube your guns.
When entering your car, after a bad freezing night, you have to grab the gun and return fire.
No problem for the gun but your bare hand might stick to it.



I ran other tests like this and each time the Makarov took it in stride.


After a thousand rounds I finished up with a accuracy test. Still seemed OK.