The Gauntlet

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ramey

Ramey

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
64
Howdy folks. Tim on the Military Arms Channel has a new reliability test he calls the gauntlet. Recently he tested the Smith M&P 9mm and it failed. I know it's just one test but it was pretty surprising that it couldn't even fire after being dunked in water. My wife just got a .40 Shield. Should I be worried about its reliability?
 
No you shouldn't be worried. Whatever "the gauntlet" entails Shields (and M&P autoloaders) have proven very reliable for many thousands of users.
 
Unless she's planning to go swimming with it, I wouldn't be concerned. There are a lot so-called "reliability tests" that amount to people abusing weapons and then acting shocked! shocked I tell you! when they don't stand up to that sort of ill-treatment.
 
I wouldn't worry I have had 3 shields and 1 m&p full size all work as they should I still have 1 shield as my carry , the others I sold off didn't
need different calibers they always went bang
 
Everybody knows only H&K pistols will function after being immersed, but only if you have your camo face paint done up properly.
 
Think about the last time you used your gun in a swimming pool. While you're at it remember the last time you kicked it in the sand and rubbed it in a mud puddle. Then think about what would happen if you dropped it in chicken and dumplings. What if you dropped it in the lead pot while making boolits, it bet it would jam then also.

Silly tests may be good for Uncle Sam and a selling point for "operators" but for most of us that aren't idiots silly horsespoot tests like this are just clickbait.
 
What does this "Gauntlet" test entail?

I tried youtubing this, but all the Gauntlet videos hung up in a "visit advertiser" screen and wouldn't play anything. Everybody else's videos play fine, I just can't get the MAC Gauntlet videos to play.
 
You guys are funny....funny but true. My new R 51 has not been dropped in a bucket Of cement or drug behind the Mayflower on it's trip to the new land but it works just the same and I like like it. I watched one of those stupid tests taking a new replica Sharps rifle and dropping a bucket full of decorative rock on top. What were they trying to prove with a 190 year old design...they shoveled it out and beat up as it was ---it fired. Cosmetically ruined a rifle and gained nothing.....how many of us have subjected our replica Sharps to such abuse just too see if it would fire?
 
Say what you want about the gauntlet test, at least he removed the;

"Throw the pistol against the AR500 Target event" then complain that the mag release broke like he did with the HK VP9.....

Chuck
 
Not something I would particularly pay attention too unless your day to day activities include trudging through/rolling in water, sand, soil and mud.

Ive only watched the one on the G17 and it had 4 failures too. Doesn't make me worry about the G17 sitting within arms reach right now.

Personally, I find all these "torture" tests dunking them in this and that humorous and add zero credibility to a particular firearm.

I preferred the late Todd Greens shoot them till they break method of testing.
 
Use to be in times past manufacturers in search of lucrative government contracts would send their products to the armed forces and let them test them out under actual field conditions. Any problems or design flaws that might show up were noted in a report that went back to the manufacturer. So the government agencies would do the dirty work and the manufacturers would gain the benefit of seeing how well or how badly their products fared.

Nowadays were so much more fortunate to have people doing YouTube videos of their over the top and somewhat questionable testing instead of having the government doing it for us.
 
There torture tests are ridiculous. Some are amusing. I get a kick out people freezing AKs and testing them for function.

Most are idiotic. One I saw recently was an FNS dropped into a 6" deep water puddle, then pulled out sopping wet and full of water and immediately fired. The gun didn't go off. The guy talked about how the tolerances were too tight and it was "a shame" because it eliminated it from his carry rotation. Also, it may have fired if he "did something crazy like try to shake the water out of it":rolleyes:

So dropping a pistol into a mud puddle for 40 seconds until it fills with water is reasonable, but taking 1/2 second to shake out the water is "crazy"?:scrutiny:

I think it would be far more likely that if you drop your carry piece into a deep mud puddle, and it takes your over half a minute to retrieve it, you're probably in a world of hurt already.
 
MAC lost most of his credibility with me when he decided to beat the living hell out of a perfectly good VP9, and then acted surprised when it didn't fire. The last bits of credibility went away when he then proceeded to imply that his test, of ONE individual gun, was indicative of a faulty design.

Torture tests are stupid IMO, plain and simple. Field testing guns, as bannockburn pointes out, would be far more useful. I would not abuse ANY model gun and expect it to operate properly. To expect otherwise is silly.
 
I have been carrying a M&P Shield as a backup piece for years now. I have worked in fog, light rain, heavy rain, scary as hell Texas spring thunderstorms, hail, snow and ice... and yet never have I been completely immersed in water. I mean, I guess it's possible that there could be a once in a billion chance of a river rescued going tragically bad and turning into a gun fight.. Or maybe when the zombie apocalypse comes, it will hit firefighters first for some reason and I will have to return fire while being fire hosed... Or maybe...

Aw hell, never mind. This is just silly.
 
While I agree that most torture tests are very silly, there is some merit.

Considering how fine motor skills evaporate when under pressure, there is definitely a not insignificant chance that one could drop their carry gun in a puddle, mud, snow bank, etc. It might be comforting to some to believe that their gun should function after that. Problem is that each situation is unique and "torture tests" won't simulate real life, and therefore are pretty much useless.

That said, I had my Glock 21 and loaded mags get blown into the sand one range trip (sitting on a soft case that caught a gust).

Picked er up and ran both mags just fine. Slide was a little slow for a shot or two but it ran fine. Good enough for me.

Same trip may Hi Power mags took a sand bath as well. Sand got in the mag springs and those two mags caused stoppages until I gave them a detailed cleaning. So there is that.
 
So again...what is this "gauntlet" test? Is is a systematic set of "tests", or does he just randomly heap different kinds of abuse on different guns and see if they fire afterwarss?
 
These striker fired guns are all so functionally similar, and of comparable quality, that it is ridiculous to believe that some 'pass' this 'test' while others 'fail.' I chalk it up to MAC not doing real testing, involving a lot of repetition to extract meaningful data. Every single one of these guns can get junk in the trigger group or striker channel or chamber, at which point they will jam or misfire until cleaned, and every single one has similar ingress paths for said junk. Every single one.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
So again...what is this "gauntlet" test? Is is a systematic set of "tests", or does he just randomly heap different kinds of abuse on different guns and see if they fire afterwarss?
Click to expand...
Here is the link to the video. Basically he submerges a handgun in a series of elements, water, dirt, sand and mud. After each element he tries to run a mag thru the gun to see if it will function.
https://youtu.be/okqt1_GVW5s
 
barnbwt said:
These striker fired guns are all so functionally similar, and of comparable quality, that it is ridiculous to believe that some 'pass' this 'test' while others 'fail.' I chalk it up to MAC not doing real testing, involving a lot of repetition to extract meaningful data. Every single one of these guns can get junk in the trigger group or striker channel or chamber, at which point they will jam or misfire until cleaned, and every single one has similar ingress paths for said junk. Every single one.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A test of one gun is not significant data. It represents an individual, and can not be taken as an indicator of overall quality or reliability of a design. And no standardization of testing makes anything MAC does not truly repeatable. It's all irrelevant YouTube stupidity.
 
I won't buy a Beretta 92FS because in a movie I saw the bad guy remove the slide from it while the good guy was holding it and pointing it at him. Hi Points are the only way to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Official News From Apex Tactical on the M&P Shield - Good News
Replies
10
Views
2K
allaroundhunter
A
the count
  • Locked
How would a revolver do with a Youtube MAC Channel style reliability test
Replies
12
Views
677
Panzerschwein
Panzerschwein
S
  • Locked
Appropriate Number of rounds to test for a CCW
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Shawn Dodson
Shawn Dodson
I
  • Locked
Most reliable combat 9mm – TORTURE TEST!
2
Replies
26
Views
8K
rob45
R
K
  • Locked
Detroit PD Switching to M&P .40's
Replies
9
Views
2K
Rupestris
R
Back
Top