PDA

View Full Version : Looking for torture Test on the SR556



carbine85
06-21-09, 14:55
Do you guys have any links for any torture testing of the Ruger SR556?
I seen a lot of favorable reporting but no real torture testing.

Cohibra45
06-21-09, 15:12
Do you guys have any links for any torture testing of the Ruger SR556?
I seen a lot of favorable reporting but no real torture testing.


I believe that this report is waaaaaaaaay to early since it was just released. Maybe in a few months.

snellkid
06-21-09, 15:18
I just bought one (SR-556) last Friday, I plan to run a few Magazines throuh it this Thursday, Definatley not a torture test, but I'll do what I can to put it through it's paces. I'll report back with my first impressions.

mmike87
06-21-09, 15:26
I handled one yesterday. It was $1799 I think. Does anyone know what RE it comes with? Commercial or correct?

C-Fish
06-21-09, 16:09
I handled one yesterday. It was $1799 I think. Does anyone know what RE it comes with? Commercial or correct?

According to the Ruger rep I talked with at the NRA convention (Phoenix), it has a "correct" RE. Ruger also states this on their website...

Robb Jensen
06-21-09, 17:06
It's a 'mil-spec' sized receiver extension.

Failure2Stop
06-21-09, 18:42
"Torture testing" by an uninformed peon is useless.
I am much more interested in what gotm4 says after his use of the gun.
Don't be distracted from the real issues by shiny distractions.

dcmdon
06-21-09, 21:13
Thats simply wrong.

A review is a review and requires some knowledge.

A torture test is something else. I'm not saying they are all the same. But as long as the conditions are documented (slow fire vs 100 rd beta mag dumps) then 10,000 rounds is 10,000 rounds.

Even if its done by an "uninformed peon" like myself.

Don

p.s. Months ago I asked for any high volume LMP piston users to share their experiences. I've not gotten anything substantial.

Failure2Stop
06-22-09, 01:52
Thats simply wrong.

A review is a review and requires some knowledge.

A torture test is something else. I'm not saying they are all the same. But as long as the conditions are documented (slow fire vs 100 rd beta mag dumps) then 10,000 rounds is 10,000 rounds.

Even if its done by an "uninformed peon" like myself.


I was not referring to the members here as "uninformed peons", but rather was talking about the various gunwriters that conduct "torture" testing by going to a range and burning magazine after magazine with a sample of 1.

Sitting down at a bench and putting a few thousand rounds through a gun does nothing but prove that the gun will fire X number of rounds under Y condition.

The pertinent information is how the gun handles and performs compared to other similar platforms being pushed to their caipability. If something like a trigger spring breaks it is a simple part to replace and not necessarily indicative of a failure of the system, but rather poor small part selection, and could not necessarily be considered to be a consistent failure point simply due to sample size. Should a major part, such as a proprietary piston warp or break, it could be indicative of an issue with material, heat-treat, or workmanship, but would be an issue with that individual gun only, though it could indicate a fundamental flaw of the system. Infortunately, with a sample of 1 it is not possible to really say where the problem lies.

How a gun handles, ergonomics, rail dimensions, clean-up, disassembly/assembly, compatability with aftermarket items, and consistency can be determined and evaluated by a knowledgable and experienced shooter, and to me is much more relevant than proving something that will be seen within a few months of the product being on the market with a much greater sample size at play.

Heavy Metal
06-22-09, 18:42
The other gripe I have with so-called torture tests is no one ever runs a control.

Running such an experiment in the Scientific world without a control would get you laughed-at.

I always find it astounding when a reviewer proclaims product Y is better than old standby product X, yet does not bother to run product X thru the same testing procedure.

dcmdon
06-23-09, 01:43
Heavy, while what you wrote is technically correct, it has nothing to do with the OP's question.

A control would be necessary if you wanted to make direct comparisons to similar rifles However, a control would not be necessary if you wanted to find out what wore out or failed on that specific machine.

And franky, the forces that we as shooters introduce into a firearm (ie specific conditions) are minuscule compared to the forces present during firing.

Granted, "real world" testing can reveal problems with things like sights and stocks. But thats not what the OP is after. He clearly wants to know how the piston system holds up.

And for that, sitting down at a picnic table with a pile of magazines is a reasonable process.

Don

dcmdon
06-23-09, 01:49
The pertinent information is how the gun handles and performs compared to other similar platforms being pushed to their caipability. sounds like review material

If something like a trigger spring breaks it is a simple part to replace and not necessarily indicative of a failure of the system, but rather poor small part selection,agreed

and could not necessarily be considered to be a consistent failure point simply due to sample size. but you are missing the point. testing to failure (aka torture testing) provides insight into what parts should be further investigated. a sample size of 1 is certainly not definitive, but it flushes out things that should be tracked.

Should a major part, such as a proprietary piston warp or break, it could be indicative of an issue with material, heat-treat, or workmanship, but would be an issue with that individual gun only, though it could indicate a fundamental flaw of the system. exactly. it has to be one or the other. Either way, you are making my point for me. A failure would warrant further investigation.


Infortunately, with a sample of 1 it is not possible to really say where the problem lies. Of course not. But thats never stopped internet experts before. Seriously, a single failure is the begining of a data set. You have to start somewhere.

atblis
06-23-09, 10:41
The other gripe I have with so-called torture tests is no one ever runs a control.

Running such an experiment in the Scientific world without a control would get you laughed-at.

I always find it astounding when a reviewer proclaims product Y is better than old standby product X, yet does not bother to run product X thru the same testing procedure.

The other thing too is you need to test more than one example of the same gun.

Failure2Stop
06-23-09, 16:02
I guess that it comes down to the definition of "torture".
Are you talking about a set number of rounds, say 10,000 rounds, or shooting until something critical fails?
I agree that failure points are good to know and therefore prepare for.

Even with this as the goal, there is a problem with a sample size of 1. Take an AR carbine as an example. Somewhere between 5k and 20k you can pretty much bet on a failure of some sort, the question will be what will fail. Will it be the bolt? Throat erosion? Spring fatigue? Bad gas-rings? Loosening carrier key? Worn extractor? Testing only 1 sample would yield only 1 critical failure, and therefore, to the readers, imply an issue with a certain part with no respect to the other potential problems that deserve to be addressed as well.

I consider a real "test" to involve poor conditions during heavy firing schedules. "Torture" testing sounds great,but means very little. Taking a look at Todd Gs 50,000 rounds in 6 months tests is interesting to me not because I want to see what pistol lasts the longest, but because it is a highly proficient shooter becoming intimately familiar with an item over a decent period of time and sharing his and other's experience and opinon of the system. I find that vastly more informative than the "broken trigger spring at round 19,362".

To test durability of a system you need multiple guns on the same firing schedule. Anything else is just playing around and burning ammo. Just because others have done the wrong thing does little to persuade me that it is a route that I should condone or lend credence to.

Anyway, I don't really know what else to say. If someone thinks that pushing a bunch of bullets through a system is more important than anything else there isn't really anything I will say to dissuade you and I see little use in arging semantics.

Heavy Metal
06-23-09, 19:29
The other thing too is you need to test more than one example of the same gun.

Absolutely, your sole sample may be an atypical lemon.

You do not want to unwittingly characterize a population based on the performance of an outlier.

ToddG
06-23-09, 19:42
If I can offer a perspective ...

You'd be surprised just how small a sample size many gun companies use to test new parts or even completely new guns. The reality is that ammo is expensive. Putting ten guns through 20,000 service life tests costs a lot. Contrary to what some may think, manufacturers pay about the same price for ammo as distributors.

A sample size of one, if it has problems which are atypical of others' experiences, should be considered in that light. Right now, I'm testing a HK P30. It's having extraction issues significant enough that I've sent it back to the manufacturer for evaluation. Does that mean the P30 is a gun with a systemic extraction problem? No. If twenty other people come forward and say their P30's are having the same problem, though, then we've got some interesting data to look at.

On the other hand, if a gun does get to a very high round count, even a sample size of just one, it's fairly good odds that the overall design is a good one. Yes, you could just have the most perfect Gun-X ever built, but probably not. Same with the more zany "torture testing" some folks like to do. If your Glock 19 works fine after sitting in a raw sewage drain for three weeks, the odds are the Glock 19 in general will work under those conditions.

Would it be better to have more guns to test? Absolutely. The data would be more meaningful & more reliable.

Having said that, if someone puts 20,000 rounds through a SR556 without a single stoppage, it's a safe bet the SR556 isn't the next Pinto.

dcmdon
06-23-09, 20:43
exactly Todd. You said it better than I have.

Re Failure's comment that a sample of 1 is not useful because you have just tested that part till failure, I disagree again.

If you take your sample size of 1 and run it till failure. Then you replace the failed part and continue the test, you will find the NEXT part fail. and so on etc.

Again, I don't see what the proficiency of the shooter or his level of intimacy with his rifle has to do with the results of a like this. As long as the test is properly documented.

How the rounds are fired is very relevant to the data. For example, if the rounds are fired slowly, the gas tube will last a very very long time. However, if the gun is fired full auto to failure, the gas tube is the item most likely to finally stop it.

Don

carbine85
06-23-09, 21:08
I'm referring more to a dirt and sand type test. A round count goes without saying but I'm curious to see if the SR556 can run like an AK. You can put 1000-2000 round though an AR15 wthout problems until you add the dirt factor.

dcmdon
06-23-09, 21:15
thats a good point. I actually would be more interested if the sand was the fine desert type sand.

I see videos of people burrying an AR in big clumpy dirt and coarse beach sand. Truly useful would be to see how it works after being exposed to the sand they have over in the middle east. fine powdery sand that supposedly gets into everything.

Don

ToddG
06-23-09, 21:26
Again, I don't see what the proficiency of the shooter or his level of intimacy with his rifle has to do with the results of a like this. As long as the test is properly documented.

Not to speak for F2S, but I can certainly see where the shooter's knowledge and proficiency plays a role especially if he's evaluating more than just "x-rounds before failure."

Any bozo can say, "I shoot my Ruger SR556 as well as my M4." That's because the bozo probably shoots them both equally poorly (to paraphrase from our own R Moran). Take someone like F2S or gotm4 and let him put 1,000 rounds through the gun and you'll get a much more detailed, dependable, expert assessment of how the gun works both mechanically and from a rounds-on-target standpoint.


I see videos of people burrying an AR in big clumpy dirt and coarse beach sand. Truly useful would be to see how it works after being exposed to the sand they have over in the middle east. fine powdery sand that supposedly gets into everything.

Do you foresee taking a SR556 to the Middle East? If not, I'd suggest that evaluating how the gun will work under actual conditions it may encounter is far more important than evaluating how it works in an environment it will never be in.

dcmdon
06-23-09, 22:03
todd,

we were specifically speaking of torture testing. I stated in my first reply that skill and knowledge is relevant in a review of a firearm, but pointless above a very basic level when all you are doing is squeezing the trigger and documenting what happens.

I don't plan to take my ARs anywhere other than where I need to go. That sounds pointless, but I'll never be in the middle east.

My ARs live a simple life. They may get shot, but they get a basic cleaning every time they go out, along with a good dose of oil.

With that said. 90% of the people who post on this site would probably be well served by an Oly AR. More accurate than most but not considered top tier.

But yet many people spend for a Colt or a LMT or a Noveski. Why? I don't know. Pride of ownership is certainly a factor.

Even though I will never dump 3 beta mags in a row through my gun, its nice to know if it will survive. And if it fails, I'd like to know where.

Don

ToddG
06-23-09, 22:29
Even though I will never dump 3 beta mags in a row through my gun, its nice to know if it will survive. And if it fails, I'd like to know where.

Can't disagree with that. We all like to know that our cars can withstand punishment we hope they'll never experience, and our guns are certainly no less important in that regard.

mmike87
06-24-09, 08:09
Pride of ownership is certainly a factor.

For me that's big ... I like to own good, quality equipment. And, if you ever have to use the weapon to protect yourself at least you know that you didn't sabotage yourself ahead of time with cheap equipment.

C4IGrant
06-24-09, 09:40
It's a 'mil-spec' sized receiver extension.

Yes, but is it made out of the "correct" material?


C4

C4IGrant
06-24-09, 09:40
"Torture testing" by an uninformed peon is useless.
I am much more interested in what gotm4 says after his use of the gun.
Don't be distracted from the real issues by shiny distractions.

BINGO!


C4

C4IGrant
06-24-09, 09:45
A statistical sampling of ONE really does not interest me (even if it fails).

About that only way we are going to get any kind of "reliability" data on this weapon is for them to start showing up in carbine schools. Then, after several years, we will start to see training guns with 8-10K on them and will see how they are doing.

This is what is going on right now with the other piston guns on the market. If people take the time to read AAR's from carbine schools, you will find all kinds of broken piston AR's.


C4

Cincinnatus
07-02-09, 14:55
I'm referring more to a dirt and sand type test. A round count goes without saying but I'm curious to see if the SR556 can run like an AK. You can put 1000-2000 round though an AR15 wthout problems until you add the dirt factor.

Piston driven it may be but it is obvious it probably won't handle dirt like an AK simply because an AK has loose tolerances and gaps between moving parts whereas the SR556 has tight tolerances and very little internal room for the sand and dirt to go. Piston driven or not, sand will still clog it up just like it does with an FAL (also piston driven--if it does not have "sand cuts" in it.

dcmdon
07-02-09, 15:59
I have limited experience with AKs so take what follows with a couple of grains of salt.

The AK's I've shot have all seemed to be grossly overgassed by AR standards. In other words there is so much gas that the bolt comes flying back and botoms out the recoil spring (if thats the right term) very definitely.

That excess cycling energy goes a long way towards overcoming additional drag or friction caused by dirt, carbon, or sand.

Don
p.s. the only AK I actually own is a Saiga 12 (with the properly sized gas ports) and it cycles pretty hard when set to the largest opening. Its also sloppy loose.

Cincinnatus
09-29-09, 12:27
Has anyone come out with a well-thought out evaluation of this rifle as yet? Maybe not a performance or stress test, but simply an evaluation of the rifle's features: barrel-steel, bolt material, buffer wieght, staking on castle-nut, etc.

Miale
09-29-09, 14:46
A statistical sampling of ONE really does not interest me (even if it fails).

About that only way we are going to get any kind of "reliability" data on this weapon is for them to start showing up in carbine schools. Then, after several years, we will start to see training guns with 8-10K on them and will see how they are doing.

This is what is going on right now with the other piston guns on the market. If people take the time to read AAR's from carbine schools, you will find all kinds of broken piston AR's.


C4

just to be fair, you'll also find all kinds of broken di ar's and they've got 40 years of development on current piston guns.

C4IGrant
09-29-09, 14:53
just to be fair, you'll also find all kinds of broken di ar's and they've got 40 years of development on current piston guns.

Sure. A lot of AR manufacturers also make really cheap parts.

Some items on the AR are MEANT to break after a certain amount of time.


C4

Miale
09-29-09, 15:01
deliberately abusing a weapon to induce failure proves nothing; you may as well run a car engine with no oil - what does it prove other than if you had treated it correctly, it would still be working.

i think grant hit on a good point with regard to aar's. if all of that data could be collected and analyzed, it would give you an idea of how (hopefully) correctly maintained and prepared weapons function in simulated real world conditions and how well they do or do not handle intense firing cycles etc.

Mahk
10-02-09, 06:34
deliberately abusing a weapon to induce failure proves nothing; you may as well run a car engine with no oil - what does it prove other than if you had treated it correctly, it would still be working.

i think grant hit on a good point with regard to aar's. if all of that data could be collected and analyzed, it would give you an idea of how (hopefully) correctly maintained and prepared weapons function in simulated real world conditions and how well they do or do not handle intense firing cycles etc.

Cars are not guns. Cars are not used to kill someone who is attempting to end your life. If your car breaks down when you really need it you call a cab. If your weapon breaks down when you really need it you die. Stop comparing cars and guns.

When I buy guns I evaluate and accessorize them as if I was going to war with them tomorrow. I'm not going to and I know that, but in that off chance that I do I want to have an idea of much it takes to break them. Treating guns like shit and firing large amounts of ammo through them without maintenance gives you the best idea of how they will perform in the field. If a weapon can last for a reasonable amount of time when treated like shit and neglected common sense dictates that it will last an even longer time when treated well and serviced regularly. Torture tests are a very effective evaluation tool.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 11:02
todd,

we were specifically speaking of torture testing. I stated in my first reply that skill and knowledge is relevant in a review of a firearm, but pointless above a very basic level when all you are doing is squeezing the trigger and documenting what happens.

I don't plan to take my ARs anywhere other than where I need to go. That sounds pointless, but I'll never be in the middle east.

My ARs live a simple life. They may get shot, but they get a basic cleaning every time they go out, along with a good dose of oil.

With that said. 90% of the people who post on this site would probably be well served by an Oly AR. More accurate than most but not considered top tier.

But yet many people spend for a Colt or a LMT or a Noveski. Why? I don't know. Pride of ownership is certainly a factor.

Even though I will never dump 3 beta mags in a row through my gun, its nice to know if it will survive. And if it fails, I'd like to know where.

Don

Don,

I have to agree with all of your points. The OP is not asking for a industry professional review or military evaluation versus other weapons; or at least it does not seem to be the case.

The colloquial "torture test" seems to be just simply firing the weapon lots and seeing if anything breaks. To accomplish this test you need-

A weapon.

Lots of ammunition.

Trigger finger.

The assumption is that anyone that can afford the weapon AND all the ammo PROBABLY is not a complete peon when it comes to the weapon system. Which is a common theme on this website, it seems, people either categorize you as Industry Professional or complete moron; with no middle ground.

Back on topic. The individual that does the torture test will at worst be able to describe the symptoms of any noted failures and the round count. Maybe they will actually be able to diagnose/correct some of the failures. Either way, information will be generated.

Though very many valid points about multiple weapons for control, expertise in diagnosing failures, etc.; it is still a worthwhile if limited study to take a SR556 and shoot the crap out of it and see what happens. If anything, it will provide a baseline start for a more refined and scientific study. And if the weapon digest 10,000 rounds with no problems, I think it is a safe bet that the weapon design is fairly solid.

Just my peon input.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 11:04
Treating guns like shit and firing large amounts of ammo through them without maintenance gives you the best idea of how they will perform in the field. If a weapon can last for a reasonable amount of time when treated like shit and neglected common sense dictates that it will last an even longer time when treated well and serviced regularly. Torture tests are a very effective evaluation tool.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Littlelebowski
10-02-09, 11:17
::Sigh:: Quoting FTS since he put it better than I could.


I was not referring to the members here as "uninformed peons", but rather was talking about the various gunwriters that conduct "torture" testing by going to a range and burning magazine after magazine with a sample of 1.

Sitting down at a bench and putting a few thousand rounds through a gun does nothing but prove that the gun will fire X number of rounds under Y condition.

The pertinent information is how the gun handles and performs compared to other similar platforms being pushed to their caipability. If something like a trigger spring breaks it is a simple part to replace and not necessarily indicative of a failure of the system, but rather poor small part selection, and could not necessarily be considered to be a consistent failure point simply due to sample size. Should a major part, such as a proprietary piston warp or break, it could be indicative of an issue with material, heat-treat, or workmanship, but would be an issue with that individual gun only, though it could indicate a fundamental flaw of the system. Infortunately, with a sample of 1 it is not possible to really say where the problem lies.

How a gun handles, ergonomics, rail dimensions, clean-up, disassembly/assembly, compatability with aftermarket items, and consistency can be determined and evaluated by a knowledgable and experienced shooter, and to me is much more relevant than proving something that will be seen within a few months of the product being on the market with a much greater sample size at play.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 12:30
I was not referring to the members here
How a gun handles, ergonomics, rail dimensions, clean-up, disassembly/assembly, compatability with aftermarket items, and consistency can be determined and evaluated by a knowledgable and experienced shooter, and to me is much more relevant than proving something that will be seen within a few months of the product being on the market with a much greater sample size at play.

How it handles? It is an AR15.

Ergonomics? It is an AR15.

Rail dimensions? As far as what? It is standard rail.

Clean up disassembly/assembly? It is a piston driven AR15.

Compatability with aftermarket items? It is an AR15.

Consistency? That is the only one that would require real testing, assuming you are talking about consistent accuracy, reliability, etc.

Not to be a smartass, but the other issues are the vanilla issues gun writers (Guns and Ammo) love to write about. "It has good ergonomics and handles great... blah blah blah". Bottom line, it is an AR15. Most here probably has a good idea of how it feels, handles, and disassembles without having handled a SR556 specifically.

Bottom line, the OP wanted to hear if someone took the rifle out, shot the crap out if, and had any issues to report.

Littlelebowski
10-02-09, 12:33
Egonomics? it weight and balance are different.

Cleanup/assembly/disassembly? It's a gas piston AR15; there's at least 5 designs out on the market.

Compatibility with aftermarket items? There's documented problems on this very site about rails and front sight assemblies not working with gas piston designs.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 12:41
Egonomics? it weight and balance are different.

Cleanup/assembly/disassembly? It's a gas piston AR15; there's at least 5 designs out on the market.

Compatibility with aftermarket items? There's documented problems on this very site about rails and front sight assemblies not working with gas piston designs.

My point being is that the similarities outweight the differences. And the OPs point that he wanted to know if someone shot the hell out of the rifle and reported. Discussing the in the weeds details is not what the OP was asking for.

Littlelebowski
10-02-09, 12:43
A real world evaluation from a professional (http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=403291&postcount=137).

rifleman, I was pointing out the gross differences between this gun and actual AR15s. If you think all gas piston ARs are the same, you should take a look at some of the designs.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 12:50
A real world evaluation from a professional (http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=403291&postcount=137).

rifleman, I was pointing out the gross differences between this gun and actual AR15s. If you think all gas piston ARs are the same, you should take a look at some of the designs.

I don't think they are all the same. You are right about one thing, I have not examined any piston ARs up close and personal and could not comment on their specific differences. I am assuming the basic similarities by virtue of being an AR type rifle.

I do think the OPs main point was lost though, with other posters discussing the pros and cons of the so called torture test. I only chimed in to agree that the torture test is a valid source of information about a weapon, if limited in scope and not very informative about the more specific details of the weapon. I think we can safely assume that informatin is not forthcoming at this point.

Littlelebowski
10-02-09, 12:52
Torture tests are amusing but very limited in scope. Widespread general issue is the only way to really find out what's going on with a weapon, particularly with some manufacturer's wildly oscillating quality control.

However, you can take what gotM4 says to the bank. He's one of the good guys.

rifleman2000
10-02-09, 12:57
Torture tests are amusing but very limited in scope. Widespread general issue is the only way to really find out what's going on with a weapon, particularly with some manufacturer's wildly oscillating quality control.

However, you can take what gotM4 says to the bank. He's one of the good guys.

Roger and agreed. One torture test is not enough for a verified issue. To bad we cannot all go out and torture test our weapons and compare notes. I can't afford it!