The Gauntlet

[JR24]

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 would be interested to see if other M&P's would fail to fire so impressively when submerged in water, or if it was his specific model.

As I said before, dropping a gun in a puddle is hardly an inconceivable occurrence in a stressful situation.

 

[jjones45]

While these test don't really affect how I feel about the guns or confidence in the guns, I must say it is entertaining. The Arex he tested was pretty impressive and it's going to be extremely hard for any other gun to do what that zero 1S did that day. Does that mean the Arex zero 1S is the best gun ever? No. It does however show that it's a tough gun that can combat elements and perform as intended under extreme conditions. My sig p320c and Walther ppq both pretty much failed his test and I still carry them with confidence because my samples have proven reliable.

 

[barnbwt]

It's all irrelevant YouTube stupidity

Thricely redundant.

The Arex he tested was pretty impressive and it's going to be extremely hard for any other gun to do what that zero 1S did that day

No kidding, including that very same Arex pistol. That's my point about repetitive testing being meaningful vs. playing in the mud for youtube hits.

dropping a gun in a puddle is hardly an inconceivable occurrence in a stressful situation.

I'll go out on a sturdy limb here, and say it really kind of is. Consider how unlikely a defensive use is, how unlikely muddy conditions will be present in such a scenario, how unlikely you are to drop your gun and have it slide waaaay across the floor before a Hollywood fist fight...my point is if you get that far, the gun's ability to perform after submersion in much is no longer the limiting factor (rather, your ability to get your mitts back on a piece you were too incompetent to hang on to before the imminent deadly threat you pulled it out to address ends you). Similar to my feelings about a 1911's grip safety being 'risky' because someone got their thumb-web shot away some where supposedly & it made all the difference.

TCB

 

[jjones45]

No kidding, including that very same Arex pistol. That's my point about repetitive testing being meaningful vs. playing in the mud for youtube hits.




TCB

Does that make it any less impressive? I don't think so. I look at this as entertainment and there really is no meaning in entertainment except entertainment in itself. If any gun including that very same Arex performs like the first test I'd be surprised, especially the zero 1S again. But if it does ace those test again I think that says something. Back when I bought my Glock it came with a torture test sheet that showed the test the Glock passed (salt water, sand, mud, ice,dirt). I don't think they include those anymore because if said gun fails, which any gun can do, it's false advertisement. I haven't bought a Glock in over ten years so I could be wrong about the contents, but in all the unboxings I see online no one seems to show that famous torture test sheet glocks used to include.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I would be interested to see if other M&P's would fail to fire so impressively when submerged in water, or if it was his specific model.

As I said before, dropping a gun in a puddle is hardly an inconceivable occurrence in a stressful situation.

I agree. It would be interesting. And I don't disagree that dropping a gun in a puddle is possible in a scuffle or assault.

All I'm saying is that without repeated testing that actually shows a trend or failure rate of some kind, people shouldn't take torture tests too seriously or worry too much about their outcomes. A sample group of one generates a sample error of 0%, but doesn't necessarily represent a population or any relevant sample size.

 

[sigarms228]

Run the test on 10 identical pistols 10 times and tabulate the results. That would be at least somewhat meaningful. One sample means absolute squat. A lot depends where any dirt ends up being within the internals of the pistol to affect results and such tests make it very difficult to insure the dirt gets into the same places every time. Even different lubricants or ammo used could vastly change results. Low budget entertainment value at best.

 

[JR24]

'll go out on a sturdy limb here, and say it really kind of is. Consider how unlikely a defensive use is, how unlikely muddy conditions will be present in such a scenario, how unlikely you are to drop your gun and have it slide waaaay across the floor before a Hollywood fist fight...

I was more thinking fumbling the draw in the rain. High stress, slippery conditions, etc.

Also, I tend to carry an auto while hunting, hiking, etc. Wet, muddy, sandy conditions could be possible should I slip, or wade across a stream, etc. Or when I carried in the tundra, snow happens, a lot.

Either way, I enjoy watching the mud fly on his last "test". It amuses me.

 

[X-Rap]

Way back before the internet I was running a trap line as a teen and triped while wading a river while carrying my 10-22. Just a quick dip in the mud and sand turned the gun into a single shot until I got home, disassembled and cleaned. Since it was already soaked I rinsed and cycled it under water to flush it out to no avail.
While I didn't try to fire it underwater I do find it comical to read how some just can't imagine how a gun could be exposed to such harsh elements.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Interesting, because here's one of our 10-22s...



It gets cleaned and oiled once a year, but otherwise lives permanently on the mule. Rain, shine, heavy dust in the summer and everything else. It works fine and is still minute of raccoon accurate.

Single incident anecdotal incidents are single incident anecdotal incidents. That's all they are.

There are tens of thousands of M&Ps working professionally every day in the worst conditions that can be thrown at them. If they did regularly fail we would know about it by now.

 

[X-Rap]

Click, posting from my phone I don't think I made my point so I made some corrections to my post and I'll clarify further.
The gun functioned and got me through the day but you could hear the grit when the action was cycled. some 40 yrs and it's still going strong although it looks better than the one in your picture. Not sure how one screws a rifle up that bad.
But again, guns that are used on a day to day basis beyond daily carry under a sport coat are subject to elements that maybe the every day gunner doesn't realize and while I don't intend to submit my favorites to torture tests they do see some rough service and I do feel it gives a little more confidence when they work under less than ideal circumstances.

 

[barnbwt]

I was more thinking fumbling the draw in the rain. High stress, slippery conditions, etc.

Oh, it's entirely possible to drop your gun in the mud during an encounter any number of ways; I'm just skeptical that it's a possibility you could realistically recover from, working gun or otherwise.

Does that make it [the gun continuing to work this one time] any less impressive? I don't think so.

If that gun jams up 9 out of 10 times and MAC just got lucky on this one, does that makes this one positive outcome mean anything? What if the VP9 and every other identical striker-fired SA gun out there also jam 9 out of 10 times? Of what value is the knowledge provided by this one test in that case? Since the test didn't do multiple iterations, we really don't know anything from it. Impressive? Far more likely MAC just got lucky.

TCB