View Full Version : Glock torture test
citizensoldier16
10-14-08, 01:28
Found this today...thought it was worth posting. Hence the reason I LOVE them! :D
Glock Torture Test (http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item)
No problem with someone liking Glocks; I don't use them, but their track record of reliability commands respect.
But, without trying to rain on your thread, I sometimes don't get the point of these "torture tests" with pistols (putting them in the freezer, driving over them, putting them in cement, etc.). They don't seem like real-world operating conditions even in harsh environment, so I don't know how they really prove that pistol X is better than pistol Y. To me, much more realistic and useful tests are the more simple and boring ones, like: How many rounds can a pistol fire before you have to clean it, or before you get a parts breakage, or before you need to replace springs? If you knew you'd be using the gun in a certain environment, say a desert, running these tests that give you "mean rounds between failure" in THAT environment might be really useful to.
Anyway, sorry, not trying to wreck the thread. The tests are still interesting, but I just don't know if they tell you that much that would help you to evaluate one pistol compared to another.
I think both types of tests have their place.
A test that shows how much abuse a gun can take under extreme circumstances is legitimate within reason. It also has a high cool-guy marketing factor. But very few people are likely to need a gun that can withstand being frozen in ice or being dropped from a helicopter. Still, it's nice to know the gun is built tough enough to survive such abuse.
A test that shows how a gun handles after a gazillion rounds is legitimate within reason. It also has a high cool-guy marketing factor. But very few people are likely to shoot a gazillion rounds through one gun, or go ten thousand rounds without cleaning. Still, it's nice to know the gun is built well enough to function under such conditions.
In the end, though, you can learn relatively little from a single test gun. Yeah, I know this may sound odd coming from me, but it's true. One gun that works after it's spent a weekend in the freezer, or one gun that goes 50k rounds, only gives you an idea of the possible quality/suitability of the gun. That's why what you really need is to do it with again second gun ... :cool:
OK, I see the point. To the extent that the tests somehow reflect something that you MIGHT encounter in the real world, I can concede that they could have some value. For instance, freezing the pistol to simulate cold-weather conditions. Or dropping in water, mud, or sand. But I have to draw the line at dunking them in baby powder!!! :D
If I ever drop my handgun out of an airplane (I don't have any helicopters) I deserve to have it break into little pieces.
I think both types of tests have their place.
In the end, though, you can learn relatively little from a single test gun. Yeah, I know this may sound odd coming from me, but it's true. One gun that works after it's spent a weekend in the freezer, or one gun that goes 50k rounds, only gives you an idea of the possible quality/suitability of the gun. That's why what you really need is to do it with again second gun ... :cool:
That's darn refreshing to hear and not the usual hype you hear on the internet.
SinnFéinM1911
10-14-08, 16:21
I think both types of tests have their place.
In the end, though, you can learn relatively little from a single test gun. Yeah, I know this may sound odd coming from me, but it's true. One gun that works after it's spent a weekend in the freezer, or one gun that goes 50k rounds, only gives you an idea of the possible quality/suitability of the gun. That's why what you really need is to do it with again second gun ... :cool:
We would usually never run a test without at least 6 weapons, and run each scenario at least a 12 times, or have it operate in that environment for a couple weeks, and most likely run 50-75k per weapon.
But I have to draw the line at dunking them in baby powder!!! :D
I think the baby powder test might have something to do with the fact that the dirt/sand in Iraq has similar qualities and characteristics.
I actually had a buddy bring me back a big bag of genuine Afghanistan sand just so I could use it for some testing. Baby powder is not diamond hard.
CarlosDJackal
10-14-08, 18:09
... But I have to draw the line at dunking them in baby powder!!! :D
How come? Don't you know that next to putting them through a cycle in the dishwasher, dunking them into baby powder is one of the best kept secret for Glock maintenance because it provides the much needed "dry lubrication"? :eek:
citizensoldier16
10-14-08, 22:41
The test is a bit excessive, but I believe that's the point. In order to find the absolute limit of anything, you have to keep pushing beyond what is considered normally acceptable limits. I believe this is true for many things....pistols included. The conclusion I drew was that if the pistol could take an absurd amount of punishment beyond what is considered "reasonable" then it proves a point. That point being that a Glock can take anything we throw at it within and remain a functional offensive or defensive tool.
The conditions to which a duty pistol is subjected may never come close to what is outlined in the test, but its good to know that the Glock can take it.
Just my $.02 Hope ya'll enjoyed the link. I certainly did.
It would need to be an accident that involved actually pulling the trigger, though. It's a possibility during reholstering, etc, but still.
Not knocking any of the other many fine pistols that do have such safeties, mind you.
GastonG-NoVa
10-20-08, 08:39
The safety is ole' number ONE.....your pointer/trigger finger. Keep it away from the trigger, until ready to fire!!.
Great safety there. I could point my weapon anywhere and it is perfectly safe.
YMMV
Cool article, I printed it for work.
The safety is ole' number ONE.....your pointer/trigger finger. Keep it away from the trigger, until ready to fire!!.
That's fine for an enthusiast. Plenty of people with 4-6 months of professional firearms training in various LE academies still manage to have such accidents, though.
The easier a gun is to shoot, the easier it is to shoot accidentally. Everything is a compromise.
John_Wayne777
10-20-08, 10:11
It would need to be an accident that involved actually pulling the trigger, though. It's a possibility during reholstering, etc, but still.
Reholstering is indeed a concern...especially if a piece of gear or the drawstring to a jacket gets hung up in your trigger guard when you try to reholster. It almost happened to me at the November '07 edition of the Vickers/Hackathorn Low Light I class.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.