$500 PSA Torture Test

[RetroRevolver77]

I'm all about torture testing. I watch as many videos as I can or read on what I can along with doing my own testing. Some interesting ones out there for sure. Kalashnikov had to prove his rifle having it dragged from the factory to the test range behind a truck for 7 kilometers in the dead of winter. I think he figured if the rifle failed they'd be dragging him back to the factory in the same manner.

'Rifle Dynamics- Some years ago Eugene Stoner, inventor of the M16, met Mikhail Kalashnikov, who invented the AK47. While discussing their rifle designs, Stoner explained that one of the tests for the M16 was that it had to be dropped from 11 feet over concrete and still function. Kalashnikov started laughing. When asked why he was laughing, Kalashnikov explained "In Mother Russia, if the AK47 design didn't work, they take the designer and drop *him* from 11 feet onto concrete!" '

[GiddyHitch]

Remember that Larry Vickers did a "torture test" on a Double Star rifle and it worked fine...then he DID IT AGAIN on a Daniel Defense rifle...

I just went back and watched LAV's DD test ... and frankly found it lacking.

[_Stormin_]

I just went back and watched LAV's DD test ... and frankly found it lacking.

Really? What on earth did they need to do to the rifle that they didn't?

[Skyyr]

I followed that one from early on, very entertaining. I know people keep saying it's
been done over and over but I somehow missed em. While it's worthwhile to see, baring
in mind i've never seen something so consistent and extensive before, it's obviously
not very real world. But neither is how they test new cars, it's extreme to accelerate
accumulated wear across the expected life of the machine. In theory. Little apples to oranges
and all that but it is nice to see the relatively fragile appearing AR be beat around
and live. Every single dude I ever met that went through basic training has a story
about some big ape breaking an M16 in half or bending it or something along those
lines. It was a fun read and I'd expect any decent AR to perform as well.
Shooting, imo, is sort of a given unless something is specifically wrong with a given
example. All AR's shoot.

When I went through basic, we were issued Colt M-16A1's. Saw some Hydromatic rollmarked ones and even a Colt M-16A1 lower marked "AR-15." They were OLD. None of them had failures, all of them shot decently, and we treated them like crap. The only "event" I recall happening with any of the M-16's concerned a one Private Ferrucci (fairly certain that's how his last name was spelled).

We had just returned from some exercise and had split up with our various drill sergeants to work on disassembling and cleaning our rifles. Pvt. Ferrucci was disassembling his M-16 with the rest of our group and, somehow, managed to lose the bolt. How that happened, no one knows - but he actually lost it. Our drill sergeant (who was actually a very cool guy) had disassembled his M16 and had his BCG laying on the table. He had left, briefly, to tend to something, so Pvt. Ferrucci decides to grab the drill sergeant's BCG and take the bolt out of it, hoping he wouldn't notice.

Drill sergeant returned and it didn't take but a few seconds for him to realize someone took it. A few minutes later and Ferrucci was outed. Ferrucci got smoked, Article 15'd, and then was told he would receive further counseling/punishment for "stealing" government property. I'm pretty sure the "further punishment" was a ruse to scare him into straightening out. However, he didn't take the stress too well and decided to goose another private while he was in the shower. The private he decided to pick on (can't remember his name) was about the worst target he could have picked. The guy was so emotionally fragile, he screamed "rape" and went straight to another drill sergeant, who also happened to be one of the company EO officers. Once he told him, it was an unrestricted report and they turned it into a sexual assault case.

Ferrucci got put on suicide watch for the next several weeks while waiting for an actual court martial. I know - I got stuck on rotation watching him twice a week. Not sure what happened to him, but it wasn't good.

Sorry for the diversion. Carry on.

[Skyyr]

Go visit a Marine Corps or Army Infantry basic or advanced training sight and take a look at their weapons and where the wear is showing up. That might be very instructive and informative.

To be fair, the wear caused by basic training is more reflected by the test in this thread, and is unlike high round-count tests for reliability.

In basic, you carry your rifle a lot and shoot it little. In basic, you're so overwhelmed by just keeping up with the tasks at hand that your rifle is an afterthought, and it gets treated like an afterthought. Dropping it, banging the stock and muzzles into doorways, falling onto your rifle (by accident) muzzle-first into the ground, etc. Wash, rinse, and repeat for the next group of recruits... for the next 30+ years.

Most basic training rifles make the one in the test look like museum piece. That said, they are maintained by an armorer, so they still typically run at 100%.

[Averageman]

When I went through basic, we were issued Colt M-16A1's. Saw some Hydromatic rollmarked ones and even a Colt M-16A1 lower marked "AR-15." They were OLD. None of them had failures, all of them shot decently, and we treated them like crap.

That was a funny story, but I will cut short the full repeat for brevity.
There are a million stories, M4's caught in Turret Rings, run over by Tanks, burnt to a puddle in a fire etc.
From what I have seen, you're not going to ruin them by shooting too much, you'll ruin them by cleaning them too much in an improper way. If you take an overaggressive approach with the desired result of "White Glove" inspections and poor tools and training for the operators, you invite disaster.
Read "The Filthy 14" and then I want to let you in on a secret. That weapon was probably in better shape than had it been fired 31,165 times and cleaned per Military regulation by an 18 year old Private with little supervision and a crappy beat to $#it cleaning kit.
Just sayin'.

[Averageman]

To be fair, the wear caused by basic training is more reflected by the test in this thread, and is unlike high round-count tests for reliability.

In basic, you carry your rifle a lot and shoot it little. In basic, you're so overwhelmed by just keeping up with the tasks at hand that your rifle is an afterthought, and it gets treated like an afterthought. Dropping it, banging the stock and muzzles into doorways, falling onto your rifle (by accident) muzzle-first into the ground, etc. Wash, rinse, and repeat for the next group of recruits... for the next 30+ years.

Most basic training rifles make the one in the test look like museum piece. That said, they are maintained by an armorer, so they still typically run at 100%.

I can remember a road march stopping because someone "dropped" a rifle. What went on for the next half hour would probably be considered a criminal violation under UCMJ today.
Most of the damage I saw as a Soldier and as an Assistant Armorer was due to jacked up cleaning procedures, using poor tools and taking things way past the Operator level in fear of not passing some sort of inspection.
Yeah there were some amazing damage take place in the occasional incident, but honestly, a damaged five section steel cleaning rod is the most likely culprit to ruin an M16.

[Skyyr]

That was a funny story, but I will cut short the full repeat for brevity.
There are a million stories, M4's caught in Turret Rings, run over by Tanks, burnt to a puddle in a fire etc.
From what I have seen, you're not going to ruin them by shooting too much, you'll ruin them by cleaning them too much in an improper way. If you take an overaggressive approach with the desired result of "White Glove" inspections and poor tools and training for the operators, you invite disaster.
Read "The Filthy 14" and then I want to let you in on a secret. That weapon was probably in better shape than had it been fired 31,165 times and cleaned per Military regulation by an 18 year old Private with little supervision and a crappy beat to $#it cleaning kit.
Just sayin'.

Oh, I agree completely. One of the things I've stopped doing is white-glove cleaning on my firearms after using them. A quick wipe-down, add lubricant and rust-preventative, and it goes back up. I only deep-clean now once a year or so.

[Caeser25]

I don't think that the drag tests do much besides abrade the high points on the rifle and jack up the optics (MBUS do well here though), myself. I think that throwing the rifle down the side of a hill would be more instructive. High round count stuff is obviously going to take a lot of money and time, so I understand why those ties of tests are not as common.

Yeah, they aren't so good at building sand castles, but maybe ice sculpting? Lawn aeration?



The rifle still functions, even if it looks a little worse for the wear. I was advocating doing a decent clean and apocalypse lube job with dirty motor oil, and then a 200rd mag dump to assess worse case functionality, but haven't seen any plans for that yet.

I did something along the lines of filthy 14 with my LMT afew years back. With and without lube using Wolf. No issues to report. Ran like a top the whole time.

[GiddyHitch]

Really? What on earth did they need to do to the rifle that they didn't?

Drops were purposefully done on the side of the rifle, very low round counts, glossed over the FTF after going in the water, soft field for the help drop, Aimpoint taking the brunt of the drops. Why was an Aimpoint even on there if they were testing the durability of a DD rifle?