Testing of durability

[Oldnamvet]

You hear of guns failing after 1000, 5000, etc rounds put through. Do the manufacturers test their guns for the failure rate and point where things wear out or break down? From the sounds of things you can almost predict when a Silver Reserve will have firing pin problems. Then you hear of 870's going on, and on, and on.......... hundreds of thousands of rounds. I just wondered what the various firearms QA/QC departments have set as their specification for rounds without a problem. Or is there even a spec?

 

[Ed/Pa]

Great question. I dont think it has a great deal to do with price either, as you see a lot of new guns comanding large prices that have virtually no track record to base reliability on. A for instance (like the 870) would be the browning citori which has been made now for years with a great track record as opposed to a lot of new italian guns with no track record at all for their particular models.

 

[Scoupe]

Italian manufacturers may not be the best of example. Some have been at it for a few years now. Beretta was established in something like 1546. OTOH the Turks have been knocking off firearms designs for almost the same amount of time. I guess it comes down to what price a manufacturer puts on their reputation and their business philosophy. Do you make a price point in a popular configuration, or do you purely sell quality?

Good question ONV!

 

[TheDingy]

Good question, but if you want to really look for reliability go and talk to the guys that shoot registered competition trap or skeet, they may shoot 5k rounds at one of the larger state shoots, and this is in just a short time frame. The 870's etc don't stand up to that constant beating.

 

[Dave McCracken]

DIngy, please cite a source for saying 870s do not stand up.....

 

[Dave McCracken]

I doubt there's a spec. Different designs, different price points. A couple measures picked off the Net.

Mossie 500s, 60-75K.

870s, 250K or so before the receivers crack. Some need an oversized bolt before that.

Beretta 680 series, some small part replacements needed at 85-100 K.

A-5s, friction rings and springs every 10K. Nothing else seems to wear out.

Model 12 Winchesters, some rebuilding needed after 100K rounds.

Model 97s, pretty much the same.

1100s, with parts replaced as needed, indefinitely. W/o replacements, 50K.

Superposeds, if anyone's ever worn one out I haven't heard.

HTH....

 

[TheDingy]

Dave,

I don't have any personal sources, but just look at how many trap guns they put out there. The mechanical guns last for a while, but can't stand the constant beating. Various parts break often, also the gas recoil reduction system that was in the single shot models didn't work that well. When you really get to it, they are a good gun, but don't stand up nearly as well as an O/U. Just too many parts to wear out. I shouldn't say just an 870, but those do stand out as I had more than one, and always had to carry a backup gun. At times carried two fo them, one year had to use both. Anything wears out, but a breach loader usually lasts much longer.

 

[GRIZ22]

The only item I ever saw concerning a shotgun's durability was an article where the author (trap and skeet competitor) said he sent his 870 for a rebuild after 500,000 rounds of trap and skeet loads. More than a couple of lifetimes for most of us.

 

[Dave McCracken]

"Various parts break often".....

Not in my experience. Besides the thousands of rounds I've put through mine, I was responsible for the upkeep of 32 870s at a Correctional Facility. Our spare parts inventory fit in a shoebox.

Rudy Etchen's 870, one of the first 12 made, has been reblued twice and ahd new wood twice, but it keeps ticking on.

 

[mswestfall]

Shotguns wear out. Well maintained shotguns wear out slower than abused ones. Shotguns with light loads shot through them wear out slower than those using heavy loads.

The only guns that I've personally seen with a durability problem is SKB. They were parts in the trigger group and a lifter. They seem to break faster than other brands. I would still consider buying an SKB. It is a very good value for shooting trap.

I've seen a broken cocking cam in a Perazzi MX2000. Also problems with Kreigoffs and other "fine" guns.

Also consider the cost of fixing a gun. Refacing a break action gun is a lot more expensive than putting a new bolt in an 870 or 500.

I think that if you buy a gun that fits, learn how to shoot it properly, shoot it often and take care of it, you will enjoy just about any manufacturers' product out there.

 

[Man With A Gun]

Military Shotgun Tests

I seem to recall an endurance test done by or for the military to select shotguns for service.

No details on how they tested but I do recall the 870 went down on broken parts and MOSSBERG got the contract. I remember the Marines carried the Mossbergs for a long time until the new Benelli got the nod.

Perhaps this grain of recollection may lead someone to finding the whole story.

I have used 870's for over 40 years and love them BUT the new ones are not as good. I keep hearing they are made by Norinco in China but no real proof other than they seem to be poor quality.

I am waiting for the new ITHACA guns to hit the market.

 

[Owen]

I keep hearing they are made by Norinco in China but no real proof other than they seem to be poor quality.

Hearing from who? Considering they say Ilion NY on them, that's a farily major accusation that requires some evidence.

 

[Regolith]

No details on how they tested but I do recall the 870 went down on broken parts and MOSSBERG got the contract. I remember the Marines carried the Mossbergs for a long time until the new Benelli got the nod.

Actually, Remington didn't submit the 870 for testing. They didn't really have anything to gain out of it, where as Mossberg did. Its very likely the Remington would have held up just as well as the Mossbergs.

 

[sm]

Bookmark This : Military Contract : 870 vs Mossberg.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=712955&postcount=2

dfariswheel wrote:

First, I'd do a search on this forum for info on the 870/590. There's a BUNCH of info from both sides.

Now to unload something off my chest:

The government chose Mossberg for two reasons:
1. PRICE. (always the main thing).
2. Mossberg passed the famous required government shotgun test.

The government shotgun test is what I want to unload on.

The inference, (pushed by Mossberg) is that the only gun that could pass the "grueling" test was Mossberg, and therefore Mossberg makes the best, most durable shotgun.

Here's the truth.
Remington OWNS the pump shotgun market, civilian, police, and most military units that get to CHOOSE the guns they use.

With 90% Plus of the police market, and the vast majority of the commercial market, Remington simply decided not to submit a gun for testing.

WHY?

Two reasons: Realistic outcome of the bid, and risk to market share for no real gain.

Look at it from a manufacturers stand point.
You have nothing much to gain, and a lot to loose.
Remington's market is the commercial and police market. The military never bought that many shotguns anyway.

If you submit a gun for testing in an attempt to sell a limited number of guns, you run the risk of mis-adventure.
Bad luck, bad karma, or a hidden, one-in a million flaw COULD cause even an 870 to fail during testing.

You can write you own Mossberg advertising in that event. "Mossberg, the world's best shotgun, that passed the test Remington FAILED".

"Mossberg, the choice of PROs, proven by the US government to be a better gun than the weaker Remington".

And on, and on.

The second reason, is a realistic appraisal of the government bid.
Simply put, it costs less to make a Mossberg with it's stamped parts and cast aluminum receiver, than it costs Remington to build a steel framed gun with heavier parts.

In truth, most any good quality shotgun could pass the government test.
This means that in the final analysis, Mossberg could under price Remington, and would get the bid, irrespective of how much better the 870 preformed in the test.
All that's required is that the gun PASS the test, not better the other gun.

If two makers pass the test the cheaper priced gun gets the bid.

Remington never had a chance of getting the bid, the amount of guns at rock-bottom pricing would not be a money-making affair for Remington, and the possible damage to their reputation and through it their market share, just wasn't worth the potential trouble.

So, the Mossberg government test hype is just that....hype.

Bottom line: As I've said in a number of posts: The police voted with their dollars in the shotgun market dispute. 90% Plus of law enforcement agencies use the 870, even though the other guns are cheaper.

The reason is, an unequaled reputation of durability, quality, and reliability, that ISN'T hype.
Mossberg and everyone else can only dream about that reputation.

As a "civilian" it really doesn't make much difference which gun you buy, you're unlikely to shoot it enough to wear it out, or have problems in a life time of shooting.

Since you have to pay for your own gun. you likely won't subject it to the kind of abusive treatment street cops give their guns.

The police DO abuse their guns, and so far, the only modern gun that will stand up to that treatment is the 870.

When 90% of pros are using one specific gun, that should tell you something.

You're choice.