and to bump it up a notch it should be able to do this with inadequate lubrication.
Originally Posted by BrianB
and to bump it up a notch it should be able to do this with inadequate lubrication.
That helps. So for now I would say high round counts in adverse enviroments capable of sustained fire with inadequate lubrication and extreme reliability.
That would mean my 1100 with 10's of thousands of range rounds through it would not qualify. The forays into the field to hunt for quail dove and geese would maybe bump it into the category of hard used gun however.
edit to add Only the Goose hunting would bump it into that category. Dove and quail didn't involve adverse weather conditions.
A few years ago I used to hear the term thrown around and concluded to ignore it. The context I saw it in was usually to discount the equipment or experience with equipment in any other than the rigors of current mil combat or in very "tactical" oriented training classes. Because of course shooting high round counts in all weather and dropping magazines in clay, sand, etc on your range is nowhere near the hard use of training with a top trainer for a weekend.
It's really a marketing term (which does not make it a bad thing, said the marketing guy), so defining it is going to be grabbing smoke to some extent. However, I will point out that I usually see it used as a term of differentiation, and therefore the best way to define it is by identifying what it is not. Certainly, that's a collector environment; a sock drawer environment; a concealed carry environment. Where it gets interesting, and where it is most typically used to my impression, is that most people mean that it's not a competition gun or a range gun. With the proximity of this forum to action pistol competition and its round counts, and >400 round range sessions, that's hard to swallow; but even in those circumstances, what makes a competition gun not 'hard use' in the minds of those who use the term is that after that high round count abuse, the gun is not depended on without significant care. Those on this forum know of lots of exceptions to that idea, but I think that's the idea.
Personally I don't use the term because I'm not trying to sell anything in this industry. But if I was, I probably would.
Does high round counts actually need to be in here? Maybe it only needs to be capable of single shots or strings of fire. Or capable of delivering the amount of firepower needed for the situation
How about this ....capable of delivering the amount of firepower needed for the situation, capable of sustained fire with inadequate lubrication and cleaning,, and extreme reliability in adverse enviroments.
Last edited by UNK; 09-23-2014 at 09:33 AM. Reason: to add " and cleaning"
I see what you are saying. It depends what type of practice I guess. With my 1100 it was always in good weather, perhaps a light mist, always detail cleaned thoroughly every week.
Get yourself a Russian capture K98 or a run of the mill M91/30. While manually operated, both rifles can dish out a world of hate w/ very little TLC. Neither of these rifles are sexy or modern, but have been used in extremely harsh and demanding conditions.
I'd like to think that WWII's Eastern Front counts as some of the most hellish ground combat in modern history, and should these rifles fail, they can be used as makeshift impact weapons.
Again the point is not what is a hard use gun. It is what is A used hard gun. An ar bench rested cleaned regularly and kept in a safe when not in use wouldnt qualify even though it may be a mil-spec weapon.
When I was in the Marines the buttstocks were fixed. I have no idea how those would have held up when used as an impact weapon. I wonder how the multi position buttstock would hold up.
I can't buy into your requirement of "inadequate lubrication". Although your shotguns and my Glocks may be able to do so, plenty of ARs have proven themselves to be rugged and dependable weapons, but the design does benefit from being wet. Dumping in copious amounts of lube then thousands of rounds in any conditions with infrequent maint otherwise would seem to qualify for being used hard.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I see your point. The 2000 round test is what I was thinking of when I put that in. I'm not saying it has to be run like that. I wouldn't ever run my personal weapons like that for a test. Thats what we have Todd G forIm saying it needs to be capable of that if the situation devolved to that point. But maybe you are right. Maybe that should be taken out. Whats your final decision on that?
How about this ....capable of delivering the amount of firepower needed for the situation, capable of sustained fire with inadequate cleaning, and extreme reliability in adverse enviroments.
Reply With Quote
