VP9 torture test

[Trooper224]

Hardly scientific or definitive, but Tim usually does a bit more professional job at it than most Youtubers. If nothing else, perhaps some interesting discussion points. Polymer breaks if you throw it at stuff, shocking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOu5ZGfgtVk&feature=youtu.be

[JBP55]

Lots of whining on HK Pro Forum pertaining to this test.

[JodyH]

I'll try not to repeatedly throw my gun at solid objects and avoid swimming in '70's sitcom quicksand.
Anything else I should be aware of?

[breakingtime91]

I'll try not to repeatedly throw my gun at solid objects and avoid swimming in '70's sitcom quicksand.
Anything else I should be aware of?

your magazine release shouldn't be thrown at a log =D

[Trooper224]

your magazine release shouldn't be thrown at a log =D

You never know when you might need to go all ninja with the mag release. It is attached to a "projectile" weapon after all.

[Hauptmann]

Lots of good tests in there. Haven't tried the VP9, but I have run the P30 quite a bit. The P30 had similar problems with going into battery in dirty environments, but it faired better with ignition. There is still something to be said for hammer ignitions.

[davisj]

Meh. I'm not seeing anything that would make me second guess the VP9 as my carry choice. Simply entertainment. I haven't seen anything on his channel that would influence my decisions. Reference his 9mm defensive ammo barrier test video and his fawning over Underwood's "consistent 19 inches of penetration and the stretch cavity."

IMO, click bait Clown shoes.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Throw plastic at steel with force, plastic will lose. Nothing noteworthy, here.

[TheNewbie]

What's the presenter's background ?

[Kennydale]

I tend to baby and respect my Glocks. Its good to know if I fell in dirt or water or snow my Glock would tend to move forward. I have shot the VP9, and the Sig P320 at a range show (Limited) and except for the P320 Sub Compact i wouldn't mind either in my possession. The MAC video though is something to think about. (Current EDC G17 gen 4)

[smithjd]

ToddG's 'torture' tests are still the Gold Standard. None of these others even come close.

[Luke]

ToddG's 'torture' tests are still the Gold Standard. None of these others even come close.

Linky linky? (My phone wanted to change that to "kinky".. I feel dirty)

[Nephrology]

Honestly a more realistic test is the 2k round challenge. i.e. "Do I have to clean my gun all the time for it to work well? or can I get lazy?" I don't envision throwing my glocks into a river any time soon

[SamAdams]

What's the presenter's background ?

Long time experience throwing things, since an infant.

[JSGlock34]

ToddG's 'torture' tests are still the Gold Standard. None of these others even come close.


Linky links?

Look for the 'Range Reports' section in the links on the right hand side of the pistol-training.com (http://pistol-training.com) homepage. Todd extensively tested the M&P9, P30, HK45, G17 GEN4 and Springfield Armory/Warren 1911. Thinking about it, reading the M&P9 test was probably my first introduction to Todd. I've spent many hours reading his tests.


Honestly a more realistic test is the 2k round challenge. i.e. "Do I have to clean my gun all the time for it to work well? or can I get lazy?" I don't envision throwing my glocks into a river any time soon

Both endurance and environmental testing have long been staples of service pistol selection. Certainly such government trials have more scientific rigor and repeatability than the video depicted, but subjecting prospective service weapons to water, sand, mud, extreme temperatures, etc is a common element of the testing protocol. The FBI RFP (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17571-FBI-Request-for-Proposal-(9mm-Pistols))indicates that testing for their new service pistol will not only include a 10,000 round Life Cycle test (increasing to 20,000 and 30,000 rounds for finalists), but sand, salt water corrosion, high and low temperature, and drop testing. In military service I never went 2,000 rounds without cleaning my rifle or pistol, but I certainly exposed it to desert sand and the occasional river crossing. A prospective service weapon should be able to pass both endurance and environmental standards.

I certainly won't be parting with my VP9 due to the depicted 'test' results, but I'm curious to see if this prompts a more scientific evaluation of the VP9's reliability under adverse conditions (preferably with service ammunition). On the other hand, perhaps the video will prompt Larry Vickers to repeat his Glock testing with the VP9, as he is a fan of the HK. I don't think we've begun to explore the VP9s ruggedness until we shoot it with a shotgun, throw it out of a helicopter and blow it up with explosives.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hks2G4Gwom0

[stingray]

I'm guessing if the VP9 had passed this test, owners would be touting this test as being extremely important and a completely viable test, depicting the virtues of the design. Since the gun did not fare well.......not so much.

[babypanther]

My big problem with the video was if you are going to bring up the Glock as the gold standard, that's fine, but have one handy and do the same stuff to one of those alongside the VP9. Yes, I've seen other videos where people abuse a Glock. All I'm saying is abuse it at the same time as the VP9 in the video if you are going to talk about it as the base line for reliability.

[JodyH]

A pistol failed to fire after being stomped in a mud hole!
4794

[Maple Syrup Actual]

now trying to acquire a 9mm double-stack 1911 to replicate these tests for the sake of hilarity

[nwhpfan]

I had never seen that Glock video before but wow, that was impressive.

[Biggy]

Anyone can go to youtube, punch in the torture test of your favorite pistol and watch all of them pass some and fail some tests. That being said, IMHO the reliable functioning of a combat weapon in adverse conditions (you can decide on what conditions) still trump a pistol accuracy or how it feels in your hand when the chips are down.

[Guinnessman]

A couple of years ago, the Glock torture test was a test of how much brass one could take to the face before getting pissed off. :cool:

BTW, I still love Glocks.

[Hauptmann]

Anyone can go to youtube, punch in the torture test of your favorite pistol and watch all of them pass some and fail some tests. That being said, IMHO the reliable functioning of a combat weapon in adverse conditions (you can decide on what conditions) still trump a pistol accuracy or how it feels in your hand when the chips are down.

Absolutely, reliability trumps all other attributes of a defensive pistol. The simple sand and water tests used by most NATO counties, as well as Russia are very viable tests for combat conditions. When the lead starts flying, if your butt isn't prone in the sand and water, then you are likely DRT. The Glock is one of the more reliable striker fired designs in that it is able to keep functioning fairly well with sand in the action, and water in the striker channel. Not quite as reliably as many hammer fired pistols, but better than almost all other striker fired guns out there.

The 2000rd challenge is a decent test for the vast majority of civilian shooters who will likely be using their pistol for CCW purposes. It is not the end all be all for use outside of that sanitized environment.

[Biggy]

I had two VP9's when they first came out but ended up getting rid of both of them after a few months. They were both a little more accurate than my Gen 4 G17 and G19's and I had no problem with their reliability under normal conditions (no mud ,sand or under water). The main things about them that I was not crazy about, were.

1. The finger grooves crowded and very slightly
pinched my fingers.( using a high hold they did not line up with my fingers )
2. The high bore axis had *slightly* more muzzle flip than my Glock 9's and the pistol felt more top heavy and not as fast in my hands.
3. The VP9 has more parts and IMHO a more complex design than the more modular Glock design although the trigger was better on the VP9 out of the box. Kind of like a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry vs a BMW. Status is nice, but I would rather have simplicity and reliability in adverse conditions
4. I just do not care for how little spring pressure holds the VP9's slide in battery. IMO,when it gets real dirty it has a much greater chance of not going fully in battery and causing a dead trigger malfunction.

[JodyH]

I've been shooting and carrying my VP9's a lot lately and the only thing that bugs me is the recoil spring pressure (I should say lack of) for the last 1/4" of slide closing.
I can see it causing problems if the slide gets grungy.
I've used mine pretty hard on our dusty, sandy range both in the dry and the wet with no problems but it's almost all been from concealed.
Next 3 gun season I'll get a better feel for how it runs out of a OWB after rolling around in the dirt/sand/mud.
I've thought about swapping in a VP40 recoil spring to see how that works.

[breakingtime91]

I've been shooting and carrying my VP9's a lot lately and the only thing that bugs me is the recoil spring pressure (I should say lack of) for the last 1/4" of slide closing.
I can see it causing problems if the slide gets grungy.
I've used mine pretty hard on our dusty, sandy range both in the dry and the wet with no problems but it's almost all been from concealed.
Next 3 gun season I'll get a better feel for how it runs out of a OWB after rolling around in the dirt/sand/mud.
I've thought about swapping in a VP40 recoil spring to see how that works.

running it aiwb? or strong side?

[JodyH]

running it aiwb? or strong side?
AIWB in a Garrity In-Victus (http://www.garritysgunleather.com/In-Victus.htm).

[Mjolnir]

I was thinking the same, JodyH: run a VP40 recoil spring in a VP9 to see what affect it has.

Great minds think alike: I don't like how easy it is to get the action out of battery.


-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

[Mike C]

I've thought about swapping in a VP40 recoil spring to see how that works.

Please do let us know how that works out for you I am curious as to what effect that may have good bad or otherwise, especially when looking at variances in ammo. Hopefully it will still prove reliable. Sure sucks that no one is producing various weight recoil springs for the P series pistols. I wouldn't mind having some choices.

[farscott]

I will remember not to throw any of my pistols at logs or steel targets, and I will not drive over any of my pistols.

That being said, I am curious about the sand debris causing the disconnector to stay down. I would like to see a proper sand test with real controls just because I am curious.

[CDFIII]

I will remember not to throw any of my pistols at logs or steel targets, and I will not drive over any of my pistols.

That being said, I am curious about the sand debris causing the disconnector to stay down. I would like to see a proper sand test with real controls just because I am curious.

I just posted a VP9 sandy water test video I found in the other VP9 thread. You might check it out.

[Hauptmann]

I will remember not to throw any of my pistols at logs or steel targets, and I will not drive over any of my pistols.

That being said, I am curious about the sand debris causing the disconnector to stay down. I would like to see a proper sand test with real controls just because I am curious.

His throw test was simply a impact test that would effect as many parts of the pistol as possible. Most impact tests favor the manufacturer in that they do a simply drop test on the flat of the pistol just once, or a handful of times which obviously does not stress much of the gun. It may seem ridiculous, but throwing a pistol 20 times at various materials does a better job of finding the weak points on a pistol design than simply drop tests. After all, if a pistol can be thrown at an object and break a part, then a pistol can certainly be dropped and break the same part if the same area is impacted. Testing a pistol by running over it is a valid LE test in that it happens on duty. When guns come out of holsters due to deadly force situations, they can often end up on the ground either from a hands on encounter, or gun fight. Combine that with constantly moving vehicles, and guns often get picked back up after a tire has run over the top of it. Many guns will still function after that kind of stress, but it remains a valid test for most savvy LE agencies.

As for the debris problem, the USP(and MK23) series was less prone to malfunction due to debris in DOD trials. Two attributes that contribute to this is likely the stronger hammer fired ignition system which is less prone to debris and hydraulic drag on the firing pin/striker, and the internal workings of the design which having looser spacing. From the H&K line, I still favor the USP series for hard use.

[farscott]

Actually there are standards for drop tests, and the MAC test did not follow the standards. As someone who actually has performed and supervised the performance of such tests, I can tell you that the tests do not have a bias for passing. A common standard has three drops from 1-m (or four feet depending upon standard version) meter height per unit under test (UUT) side, edge, and per corner on various surfaces, including a specified concrete/plywood surface. The results from the standardized tests are quite repeatable, which is one of the goals of the testing.

Whipping a pistol at a target with no control of velocity or impact orientation may look good, but it is not a test that is repeatable or indicative of a design's performance in the real world. I do not own a VP9, so I have no dog in this hunt other than experience with drop testing and sand testing of military hardware.

[SecondsCount]

I had kind of forgotten about this but something triggered a reminder in my brain this morning-


"Sand Test"

Just had a chance to do a harsh sand test on few different handguns. This test was not scientific but was very enlightening.

Pistols tested were; HK USP Tactical
Customized 1911
rack grade GI 1911
Glock 21

Test consisted of placing each pistol loaded in a Bianchi GI field holster inside a plastic bag with approx 2 cups of fine/medium grit sand ( North Carolina type). Then the bag was shaken vigorously for 10 seconds while holding onto the pistol butt for safety. The pistol was then taken out and 3 mags were fired through the 1911 and 2 fully loaded mags were fired through the HK and Glock - roughly the same amount of ammo. The sand coverage was very good and uniformly covered the pistols. The pistols were loaded in the mode you would expect in a field environment - condition 3 for the 1911, loaded for the Glock and loaded in DA mode for the USP.A test was done dry and lubed with TW 25B. This test represented EXTREME sand conditions - not normal field use, even in sandy conditions.A brief rundown of the results follow;

1)Carrying your gun dry in this environment is a NO GO despite what some will say. All pistols performed worse dry than lubed.

2)All pistols required some manipulation in order to fire - none would function normally straight out of the holster.

3)Overall the HK USP performed the best - the performance of it dry was roughly the same as the customized 1911 but was definately the best lubed. Overall it performed well.

4)The custom 1911 was second - interestingly enough the trigger track was not a real problem - the sand that went in through the ejection port to the bottom lugs area caused the most problems. Once the sand shifted in this area the pistol functioned better.

5)The rack grade GI 1911 was a distant third - the custom 1911 had an 18 pound recoil spring and that helped with feeding greatly vs the rack grade gun. Swap out the recoil spring and it probably would have done better.

6)The shocker of the day - the Glock 21 FAILED terribly. The big problem was failure of the trigger to reset. Also at times the pistol would not fire due to sand in the trigger mechanism. The dry test could not even be completed with the Glock due to this.This surprised all of us as we expected the Glock to do quite well.

Moral of the story; The 1911, even in its customized mode, can get the job done if you set it up to succeed. Lube it right, carry it in the right holster and in the proper mode, and it won't let you down - just like it hasn't for nearly a 100 years.

The HK USP series are good guns - well designed and well made - for service pistols. The ergonomics hurt the pistol dramatically but for an out of the box service pistol/field gun, they get my endorsement.

The Glock 21 is a dog - always has been. It has the rep of being the worst gun Glock makes. I have a Glock 17 and 19 and like them for what they are - but don't get sucked into the Glock hype - they are not magical guns. Remember what your dad said when you were in 3rd grade; don't believe everything you read.

Hope you guys got something out of this - I did." Larry Vickers

I don't recall when that was posted or where, I think it was Glock Talk, and it was a long time ago.

Item 1, Carrying your gun in this condition is a NO GO, hits a note with me. A gun should run when it is dirty but even the 2000 round challenge doesn't include shaking the gun in a bag of sand or dropping it in the mud. Every firearm has its limitations, the VP9 is no different.

[GardoneVT]

This sort of torture test has similar relevance( read, little) to customer use as a Car and Driver track test . Most BMWs and such are destined for the heated garage and the Starbucks parking lot.

For consumers, a more relevant torture test is putting a handgun in a safe without lube for a year, loading it with the cheapest surplus ammo available,and then handing it to a total newbie with no training in any practical handgun use. Kimbers don't seem to pass this one very often. ;)

[ReverendMeat]

Every firearm has its limitations, the VP9 is no different.

I think it's more than relevant to note that in the MAC video his VP9 failed after simply GETTING WET. That's hardly an extreme torture-test and I think it's a perfectly valid cause for concern. MAC goes into more detail here:

https://blog.full30.com/why-so-serious/

[Hauptmann]

I think it's more than relevant to note that in the MAC video his VP9 failed after simply GETTING WET. That's hardly an extreme torture-test and I think it's a perfectly valid cause for concern. MAC goes into more detail here:

https://blog.full30.com/why-so-serious/

+1

Generally I see a lot of this. One test isn't to the liking of a critic, and thus they discount the entire battery of tests which may or may not be valuable and valid.

[GardoneVT]

+1

Generally I see a lot of this. One test isn't to the liking of a critic, and thus they discount the entire battery of tests which may or may not be valuable and valid.

I'm not going to comment on MACs standard of testing. If his metric for a practical self defense gun includes lava testing , so be it. His money ,his life, his call.


That being said, samples of one don't constitute a reasonable metric for any professional organization. If MAC tested 31 pistols in a demonstrated evaluation with repeated and consistent procedures, then perhaps concern is justified. One pistol being abused on video doesn't count, any more then the Glock 19 I saw fall apart at the 72* dry indoor range means every 9mm Glock is unreliable trash.

[SecondsCount]

I think it's more than relevant to note that in the MAC video his VP9 failed after simply GETTING WET. That's hardly an extreme torture-test and I think it's a perfectly valid cause for concern. MAC goes into more detail here:

https://blog.full30.com/why-so-serious/

You missed my point, and that of Larry Vickers. The VP9 has issues with water, the Glock has issues with sand and stuff in the striker channel, the M&P has striker issues period, and according to the Internet my P30 won't run with aluminum cased ammo.

They ALL have quirks because they are all mechanical devices. If you think the one that you picked is more better than the rest then go shoot it lots and become awesome with it. :cool:

[breakingtime91]

You missed my point, and that of Larry Vickers. The VP9 has issues with water, the Glock has issues with sand and stuff in the striker channel, the M&P has striker issues period, and according to the Internet my P30 won't run with aluminum cased ammo.

They ALL have quirks because they are all mechanical devices. If you think the one that you picked is more better than the rest then go shoot it lots and become awesome with it. :cool:

I like glocks, always have and always will. With that said, they have as many issues as any other gun. They malfunction, suck at certain tests, and have a horrid history for BTF and other ejection issues. Problem is, everyone ignores it or address it and say its not a huge deal. If that same thing happened with a gun "cough cough px4 cough cough", everyone is quick to dismiss it as shit. I was thinking about this a lot the other day, people are always so fast to raise up "perfection" instead of seeing its flaws. We need to shoot again soon, I had a blast that day. :cool:

[EMC]

I like glocks, always have and always will. With that said, they have as many issues as any other gun. They malfunction, suck at certain tests, and have a horrid history for BTF and other ejection issues. Problem is, everyone ignores it or address it and say its not a huge deal. If that same thing happened with a gun "cough cough px4 cough cough", everyone is quick to dismiss it as shit.
Confirmation bias is a powerful human tendency and is more prevalent regarding weapon choice than any other life decision except maybe religion. I find it fascinating. Gun forums could be used to study all sorts of cognitive behavior.

[GardoneVT]

I like glocks, always have and always will. With that said, they have as many issues as any other gun. They malfunction, suck at certain tests, and have a horrid history for BTF and other ejection issues. Problem is, everyone ignores it or address it and say its not a huge deal. If that same thing happened with a gun "cough cough px4 cough cough", everyone is quick to dismiss it as shit.

Behold the power of marketing.

I'll recount the G19 incident as an example. That time I was shooting at a different range then the one I work at. So I checked in, at which point the counter dude noticed I brought a Beretta . The patron next in line behind me fired off a throwaway comment about being careful because of "slides breaking in Iraq. "I guess he felt like serving a combo platter of BS.

I ignore it and hit the line. After ten minutes I burn through my ammo, and resolve to buy some at the counter to finish my reserved 30 minutes.

I wind up behind Slide Man in line. Theres a family of four being checked in at the desk and every shooter has to fill out two page waiver forms, so to kill time I ask him about the leaf spring he's holding in his hand.
" Oh,I was shooting my G19 and the slide just fell off the gun. I tried to put it back and this spring came out ".

I couldn't help myself .

"Glock Perfection,Eh?"



Cue butthurt look on his face .


"Well, you know actually this is the first time it broke in over 500 rounds! Besides a lot of cops and special forces use these, so its a good gun. Anything can break."

Oddly enough not ten minutes prior, he called my Beretta a safety risk. Consumer perception is a funny thing sometimes.

[breakingtime91]

Behold the power of marketing.

I'll recount the G19 incident as an example. That time I was shooting at a different range then the one I work at. So I checked in, at which point the counter dude noticed I brought a Beretta . The patron next in line behind me fired off a throwaway comment about being careful because of "slides breaking in Iraq. "I guess he felt like serving a combo platter of BS.

I ignore it and hit the line. After ten minutes I burn through my ammo, and resolve to buy some at the counter to finish my reserved 30 minutes.

I wind up behind Slide Man in line. Theres a family of four being checked in at the desk and every shooter has to fill out two page waiver forms, so to kill time I ask him about the leaf spring he's holding in his hand.
" Oh,I was shooting my G19 and the slide just fell off the gun. I tried to put it back and this spring came out ".

I couldn't help myself .

"Glock Perfection,Eh?"



Cue butthurt look on his face .


"Well, you know actually this is the first time it broke in over 500 rounds! Besides a lot of cops and special forces use these, so its a good gun. Anything can break."

Oddly enough not ten minutes prior, he called my Beretta a safety risk. Consumer perception is a funny thing sometimes.

I am guilty of calling the beretta m9 shit while I was in the Marine Corps. All of the stories of jamming this, slide breaking, 9mm bull shit got to me. Then I shot one, and kept shooting it. Nothing broke, the gun was accurate as hell, and it was durable. It is like anything in life, I only believe things when it comes from valuable sources, I can account for what they are claiming, or I see it with my own eyes. Hell, I almost got killed because someone told me lubing my rifle in the desert would make it malfunction, imagine my surprise when the opposite was true. I love guns, I love studying them, I love shooting them, but I don't love shifting through all the bull shit.

[LSP972]

...according to the Internet my P30 won't run with aluminum cased ammo.



Right.;)

My two must be Special Snowflakes. They run fine with both Blazer aluminum and the Federal aluminum. We even tried some in one of the wife's .40 S&W P30s… yup, boringly reliable.

These "torture tests" give me gas…

.

[Drang]

... I almost got killed because someone told me lubing my rifle in the desert would make it malfunction, imagine my surprise when the opposite was true.
Acquaintence once observed that the three things that will get you in trouble in the Army are Thinkin', Figurin', and Somebody.

I thought...
We figured...
Somebody said...

I figure (heh) it's the same in the Corps, only with Lance Corporals instead of Specialists.

[breakingtime91]

Acquaintence once observed that the three things that will get you in trouble in the Army are Thinkin', Figurin', and Somebody.

I thought...
We figured...
Somebody said...

I figure (heh) it's the same in the Corps, only with Lance Corporals instead of Specialists.

I figure (:cool:) your right

[JSGlock34]

Since we're citing the Larry Vickers sand test, I think it is important to relate his subsequent comments. Note that Vickers has long been an advocate for using a grip plug on the Glock because of his test findings, and the recent 'Vickers' Glocks come equipped with one.




My take on Glocks

Gents

I see the old sand test I was part of years ago has stirred up a hornet's nest over on another forum - I tried to post this thread there but found out I was banned - not sure why that would be so I decided to post this here - in addition it answers several questions I get in nearly every class about Glocks- here goes;

1) IMO the Glock 19 and 17 are the best Glock's made - both are excellent pistols - I own, use, and recommend both

2) I do not recommend the G22, G23, or G21 - based on my experience these pistols have problems (breakage, won't function with rail mounted lights, etc.) and I feel there are better choices in 40 and 45

3) Glocks as a rule are not as accurate as many other service pistols - partly due to the enlarged chamber - this can be fixed with aftermarket barrels

4) I recommend 3 things for a Glock 19 or 17; good sights (Heinie, Novak, 10-8and Warren are my current favorites) , a buttplug to keep debris out of the trigger mech (cheap insurance), and my mag catch made by Tangodown. Optional but highly recommended is frame texturing by Dave Bowie (I like the finger grooves removed also)

5) They are incredibly forgiving in maintenance and lubrication - amazing

6) Incredibly simple to operate - 2 levers/buttons and 1 is optional

7) Always remember the golden rule with a Glock; keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are ready to shoot - if you don't adhere to this expect a loud noise at some point

Bottom line Glocks in 9mm are excellent pistols - they are not my first choice in other calibers however - the S&W M&P has been called a product improved Glock ; this may be true but the verdict is still out as the M&P is a relatively new handgun vs millions of Glock's in service (mostly in 9mm I might add) and S&W has a spotty record in terms of autoloading pistols - time will tell

hope this helps

Larry Vickers

www.vickerstactical.com



On another note...


...according to the Internet my P30 won't run with aluminum cased ammo.


Right.;)

My two must be Special Snowflakes. They run fine with both Blazer aluminum and the Federal aluminum. We even tried some in one of the wife's .40 S&W P30s… yup, boringly reliable.

Can't blame the masses on the internet for this one. The HK P30 and VP9 manuals explicitly state not to use aluminum cased ammunition. You'll have to ask HK why.

CAUTiON: HK Firearms are designed to function with quality, manufactured brass-cased ammunition. Use of steel or aluminum-cased cartridges is not recommended and could adversely affect safe and reliable functioning. Use of cast-lead bullets is also not recommended.

[Vinh]

This reminds me of an incident in the home audio industry. A single reviewer single-handedly killed the Bowers & Wilkins HTM61 (S1), even though the speaker was not a bad product. I suspect MAC's video will end up severely impacting VP9 sales.

[LSP972]

I suspect MAC's video will end up severely impacting VP9 sales.

Unlikely. I'm sure those who pay rapt attention to YouTube might pass, but most of those folks would probably be better off with a Glock or Serbo Croat Special, anyway.

.

[dookie1481]

Unlikely. I'm sure those who pay rapt attention to YouTube might pass, but most of those folks would probably be better off with a Glock or Serbo Croat Special, anyway.

.

Agreed, people that dwell internet forums VASTLY overestimate the impact of forums and Youtube reviews. The average gun shopper is pretty low-information.

[45dotACP]

This reminds me of an incident in the home audio industry. A single reviewer single-handedly killed the Bowers & Wilkins HTM61 (S1), even though the speaker was not a bad product. I suspect MAC's video will end up severely impacting VP9 sales.

You understimate the strength of the fanbois.


If such a test determined that Glocks were crap, nobody would care....they'd still buy them. If someone said a 1911 was a finicky pistol...well the fanbois would still buy them....and still in fact do. Smith M&P's are inaccurate, Sig has crappy QC, Gen 4 Glocks are unreliable etc....

Fanbois still buy them. Pick a winner and drive on.

[Velo Dog]

New testing from the Military Arms Channel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDMAEwjAeI

[Nephrology]

New testing from the Military Arms Channel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDMAEwjAeI

Saw that. Was a bit surprised honestly. Comparing how this fared to other pistols didn't make it look great. Still not a torture test that matters a lot for me but I don't think you can accuse him of not being rigorous (ish). Especially with a decent pile of other guns he's tested using the exact same methodology as points of comparison.

[Peally]

I unsubbed from MAC a long time ago. Been a while since he turned out anything that wasn't derpy.

[MSparks909]

Well...that was a disappointing performance by the VP. Wonder how a USP/P30/P2000 would do...

[breakingtime91]

Well...that was a disappointing performance by the VP. Wonder how a USP/P30/P2000 would do...

Most likely better. If he tried the vp9 tactical with the heavier recoil spring I would guess that it would of performed much better

[OlongJohnson]

His videos are a massive missed opportunity. If he would actually stop and diagnose the failures, figure out WHY the cycle of operations is not completing each time, there would be an opportunity to learn something about each pistol, which might be generalizeable to understanding all pistols better. By treating them all as black boxes, never bothering to get into what was actually causing the failures, he contributes vastly less to the world than he could.

I thought Darryl's review in the 2017 Guns & Ammo annual was far more useful than this video.

[Sigfan26]

His videos are a massive missed opportunity. If he would actually stop and diagnose the failures, figure out WHY the cycle of operations is not completing each time, there would be an opportunity to learn something about each pistol, which might be generalizeable to understanding all pistols better. By treating them all as black boxes, never bothering to get into what was actually causing the failures, he contributes vastly less to the world than he could.

You get what you pay for. I've never understood why someone would diagnose issues in a company's product for free...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

Why take the time to make the videos without trying to learn as much as you can about the things you're testing? It's just plain intellectually lacking, IMO. Either it never occurs to him to ask the question, or he is too lazy to be bothered to try to figure out the answer. Or he's just whoring for views on his channel and doesn't give a phuque.

As Tom says, it's not about diagnosing it to provide feedback to H&K. They probably aren't going to change how they design, test and manufacture pistols because of what some YouTube reviewer says. It's about learning things for yourself. Understanding strengths and weaknesses of design features so you can better predict the performance of other machines in the future and make better decisions in choosing and using them. And just to know. Because learning more about stuff that's interesting is one of the reasons you get up in the morning every day for 70-100 years, if you're lucky.

[Sigfan26]

Some people just like to figure stuff out and help to make things better. Some people like to have subscribers/followers and views and likes (as well as ad and link affiliate revenue) online. There is nothing mutually exclusive about those things.

To each their own. Personally, I wouldn't do anything for anyone, in the gun industry, where I wasn't getting free guns or a check. I'm a dick, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Indeed, but there is more than one path to a "check". I have thousands of customers and a modest amount of indirect income from diagnosing "problems" for free. :)

Lol. I'll get around to site supporting when I'm not broke. I can respect that outlook. But, if a multi million dollar company that I've bought multiple $600-$1000 pistols from thinks I'm helping for free... They must be breaking some US federal laws with what they're smoking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

However, I've discovered that there are a LOT gun guys with essentially zero mechanical aptitude.

It was a surprise when I started to realize this, as most of the people I knew who were into guns before I was are serious mechanical junkies. Like some of the most talented engineers and machinists I know. And just generally, there's a huge crossover between car or motorcycle people and guns. It's another kind of mechanical awesomeness that appeals to people who are wired for it.

[ReverendMeat]

There's no reason he couldn't whore for views and diagnose the problems. I suspect it would be good for views if he did. However, I've discovered that there are a LOT gun guys with essentially zero mechanical aptitude. He might be one of them and technical diagnosis of the issues might be outside his capability. Or, maybe, he knows his audience better than I do and he's giving them what they want.

Probably just wants to keep his videos at a reasonable length.

Also maybe it's my imagination or faulty memory but it kinda seems to me like after he got laid off from his day job he started doing more populist clickbaity type stuff (which I think he does better than most) that, while less informative will generate more views.

[EVP]

Just goes to show you that these backyard tests were you pour sand and stuff in a pistol anything can happen. Anything can and will fail in different and unsuspecting ways when these backyard "torture tests" are done.

I am more interested in how the pistol behaves over highround counts and what potentially can break or go down as the round counts get higher. This usually is minor components likes springs and such that you can revise your PM.(ex. LEM heavy TRS spring and how it is probably a smart move to replace at around 7500 rounds)

From everything I have seen and read the vp9 is a very reliable pistol. I have not seen or heard any reports that the vp9 is less reliable then other polymer pistols when ran in training class environment and competition.

Also I think the big Texas law enforcement agency that legitimately tested the vp9 concluded that it is a reliable firearm.

[pastaslinger]

Dropping your gun in the sand or mud is not a crazy torture test by any means and it is pretty disappointing that a vp9 can't withstand that.

Would you be displeased if a Glock failed after simply dropping it into mud or sand?

[Peally]

An AK won't function if you get sand in the right spot. They're moronic unscientific tests.

[spinmove_]

Dropping your gun in the sand or mud is not a crazy torture test by any means and it is pretty disappointing that a vp9 can't withstand that.

Would you be displeased if a Glock failed after simply dropping it into mud or sand?

It is disappointing. But it's also a sample of one. Could have been a bad sample, could have been bad luck that just the right amount of schmutz happened to work it's way right into the exact wrong spot. They also stated at the end of the video that there is now a stronger recoil spring out for that pistol that they weren't using, so that could play a factor as well.

I think the take away here is that any one pistol could fail under seemingly not bad circumstances. Another pistol could keep chugging along under seemingly bad circumstances. The videos are always presented with the disclaimer that they are for entertainment purposes only and that their testing isn't scientific due to small (1) sample sizes. I don't think they can really say "hey, ya'll should take this with a huge grain of salt" without actually saying that any louder and as often as they have.

[pastaslinger]

An AK won't function if you get sand in the right spot. They're moronic unscientific tests.

If you pressed an AK or AR into the sand like that they would probably still function unless you did something silly like have the action open and even then it would be a maybe

[GJM]

Dropping your gun in the sand or mud is not a crazy torture test by any means and it is pretty disappointing that a vp9 can't withstand that.

Would you be displeased if a Glock failed after simply dropping it into mud or sand?

I took a quick look at the G17 and 226 tests. Both also choked. Anything he tested, sail right through?

[Talking Monkey]

The Arex Rex Zero 1 did.

[spinmove_]

I took a quick look at the G17 and 226 tests. Both also choked. Anything he tested, sail right through?

I believe the first pistol he tested in this series did, the Arex Rex Zero 1 or something like that. I could have sworn the G17 passed with flying colors, but could be wrong. I haven't watched too many more of them. I think the M&P failed miserably though.

[Nephrology]

I believe the first pistol he tested in this series did, the Arex Rex Zero 1 or something like that. I could have sworn the G17 passed with flying colors, but could be wrong. I haven't watched too many more of them. I think the M&P failed miserably though.

I believe the G17 passed the initial battery of tests (pushing the gun lightly into each medium) without problem. It failed in their 2nd round of testing which they describe as deliberately attempting to induce a stoppage.

[TomV]

Why take the time to make the videos without trying to learn as much as you can about the things you're testing? It's just plain intellectually lacking, IMO. Either it never occurs to him to ask the question, or he is too lazy to be bothered to try to figure out the answer. Or he's just whoring for views on his channel and doesn't give a phuque.

As Tom says, it's not about diagnosing it to provide feedback to H&K. They probably aren't going to change how they design, test and manufacture pistols because of what some YouTube reviewer says. It's about learning things for yourself. Understanding strengths and weaknesses of design features so you can better predict the performance of other machines in the future and make better decisions in choosing and using them. And just to know. Because learning more about stuff that's interesting is one of the reasons you get up in the morning every day for 70-100 years, if you're lucky.

I wouldn't dive too deep in the weeds on this type of analytical thinking you're describing. The honest truth is there are really only so many dudes who have a really good handle on how handguns really work and can take it to the level you're describing. If MAC could design or even diagnose a pistol to help it run all commercial ammo for most shooters and could pass a multitude of adverse conditions he would be one of the top 5-10 pistol engineers in the US.

I personally think what he's doing is pretty good for driving the community to better places. There is at least some consistency and rigor to his "tests". I vote keep it up. Just take it all with a grain of salt. Reality is a grain of sand in the wrong spot will lock up just about every pistol. Just some are better than others.

[MGW]

Didn't Vickers do a torture test on a 17? The one where they chucked it out of a helicopter? I don't remember any failures with it.

Maybe Glocks are more afraid of Vickers than MAC.

[TomV]

Sand test >> 500' drop test when it comes to making machines cry. That said LAV can probably make most pistols scared.

[GardoneVT]

Someone shooting and abusing a perfectly good pistol makes for cool video. In terms of facts, all that does is certify boredom is a universal human constant.

[LockedBreech]

I sometimes watch torture tests while I lovingly take out my impeccably clean, stored firearms to make sure their lubrication hasn't dried or become uneven. Then I give them all a gentle kiss, wipe off the kiss with a microfiber rag, and put them back in their happy little climate-controlled environment.

So yeah I think mine'll probably go bang.

[Peally]

I'll start paying attention when his stupid "torture tests" involve actual round counts. Call me in 300K rounds, MAC.

[Kyle Reese]

So filling up a VP 9 with hot, melted caramel and chocolate sauce isn't a legit test?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[LockedBreech]

So filling up a VP 9 with hot, melted caramel and chocolate sauce isn't a legit test?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

H&K: "Because it's your birthday, and we love you."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

So filling up a VP 9 with hot, melted caramel and chocolate sauce isn't a legit test?
The Willy Wonka Torture Test?

[LockedBreech]

The Willy Wonka Torture Test?

Oompa, loompa, doompity doo
If you want a striker we have one for you
Oompa loompa trinkity teers
It only took us twenty-five years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JSGlock34]

Didn't Vickers do a torture test on a 17? The one where they chucked it out of a helicopter? I don't remember any failures with it.

Maybe Glocks are more afraid of Vickers than MAC.

I'd like to see a VP9 go through the Vickers torture test...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hks2G4Gwom0

[Velo Dog]

I would like MAC to do a torture test on a Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver. I think he should hide the gun and himself in a pile of grain. He could then emerge -gun in hand - like Sean Connery from the beginning of Zardoz.

11656

[pastaslinger]

Sounds like people are hating MAC because they don't like the results

[SecondsCount]

Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn already told me that the VP9 was an excellent choice so I went out and bought one. Anybody else just makes my butt hurt :p

[Jeff S.]

Third test of the VP9, this time with the VP9 Tactical.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUZa_q20Os&t=1027s

[GJM]

Not good.

[Flintsky]

Not good.

Nope. The small amount of debris exposure "should" not effect a deadly force tool that badly. I think part of the blame is the external extractor design which you also see on many Sigs now days. The design pivots on a snail pin, and it depends on a void in the slide to ensure that the extractor is reliable. If that void gets debris in it, then the extractor would not function reliably. I'm guessing that is much of what we are seeing in this video. As far as the magazine getting jammed, again the paddle lever design also depends on a void between the mag well wall and the lever to allow for reliable magazine ejection. No design is perfect obviously, but debris looks like an achilles heel for newer HK handguns.

[GJM]

I would practically send him a USP FS 45, if he would test it.

[breakingtime91]

George are you worried that the usp wouldn't pass?

[breakingtime91]

Nope. The small amount of debris exposure "should" not effect a deadly force tool that badly. I think part of the blame is the external extractor design which you also see on many Sigs now days. The design pivots on a snail pin, and it depends on a void in the slide to ensure that the extractor is reliable. If that void gets debris in it, then the extractor would not function reliably. I'm guessing that is much of what we are seeing in this video. As far as the magazine getting jammed, again the paddle lever design also depends on a void between the mag well wall and the lever to allow for reliable magazine ejection. No design is perfect obviously, but debris looks like an achilles heel for newer HK handguns.


So by newer you mean vp9

[GJM]

George are you worried that the usp wouldn't pass?

The USP FS 45 has been absolutely reliable in all my testing. If I were betting, it would be that the USP would do as well or better than anything he has tested, but we all know how assuming gets one in trouble.

Anyone know if he tested a 92 -- curious how the open slide design would fare?

[breakingtime91]

The USP FS 45 has been absolutely reliable in all my testing. If I were betting, it would be that the USP would do as well or better than anything he has tested, but we all know how assuming gets one in trouble.

Anyone know if he tested a 92 -- curious how the open slide design would fare?

I was thinking the exact same thing about the hk usp. He has not tested the 92 yet

[Peally]

Sounds like people are hating MAC because they don't like the results

I've been hating on MAC long before whatever his latest video is. He's a boring YouTube gun celebrity, one of many ;)

[Sigfan26]

Ok... 3 tests and the outcomes keep getting worse. I'm gonna side with MAC on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JSGlock34]

I'd be curious to see how the P30 fares compared to the VP9.

[Flintsky]

So by newer you mean vp9

Yeah. The older USP design seemed to be able to deal with hazardous environments pretty well......even though it still used the external pivot extractor and paddle mag release.

From my experience the short external extractor with plunger like you find on older generation Sigs and Glocks is the most reliable. Even the much older internal extractors on W. German Sigs worked better. As for magazine release designs, the push button designs tend to handle debris in the action better.

[Jeff S.]

I wonder if the stepped chamber of the VP9 makes it harder for a casing to seat and/or extract.

A lot of the pistol he tests, such as the P320, will have trouble going into battery once it's gone through the mud, but he can palm those pistols into battery. The VP9 seems to really resist being seated into battery.

[Trukinjp13]

I am not big on some of the torture tests done or youtube craziness. But to me this a simple test that like they say the guns should pass the first phase. The vp9 continues to choke in these. It should not fail this bad. I owned one and likes it but at the end of the day it was to big and just did not work out. I have been much happier with my lowly p07 then I was with the vp9. Curious to see when cz tests or 1911s are coming. I have never really beat on my mk25 but I was a lil irritated it choked like it did. Makes me want to see what would happen to mine. The arex has been awesome in every test I have seen and he ran a ton of ammo through it with no failures and no cool down.

[GJM]

Mini test, but today a guy dropped an unloaded SA TRP into sandy dirt at a USPSA match in AZ. He shot the last two stages without wiping it off and it ran fine.

[JAD]

Mini test, but today a guy dropped an unloaded SA TRP into sandy dirt at a USPSA match in AZ. He shot the last two stages without wiping it off and it ran fine.

He didn't even have to tune the extractor?

[Velo Dog]

Sounds like people are hating MAC because they don't like the results

I enjoy these types of videos for a few reasons:

1) I would never abuse my own guns in order to satisfy my curiosities

2) Many people lack access to the results from similar tests performed by law enforcement, military, firearms manufacturers, etc.

3) YouTubers and other amateurs sometimes discover what the professionals don't know or can't/won't share.

[ReverendMeat]

I'm not one of the cool kids so I don't feel the need to shit on everything by default, so two takeaways with the most recent video:

1) FOD didn't just result in stoppages, it deadlined the gun.
2) The gun still had consistent stoppages even after being rinsed off.

I do wish they would try to go more in depth as to the actual specific causes of the stoppages but they're not engineers, or even factory certified armorers, so what can you do.

[Brian T]

Thoughts on the cocking indicator design being a culprit for FOD entering the rear of the gun? I think its superfluous, and that it offers more spaces for debris to enter.

[DocGKR]

These are not valid scientific tests, merely amusing anecdotes.

[MSparks909]

These are not valid scientific tests, merely amusing anecdotes.

Anecdotes or not they still highlight an obvious flaw in the VP9s design...if it can't stay reliable when exposed to a small level of debris then I can't depend on it. Sure, I could do the same tests to my personal VP9s to see but I don't feel like sending them to an armorer afterwards to have them detail stripped.

[breakingtime91]

So he uses CLP in all of these tests. I remember being told by a very intelligent guy on a deployment that military issued CLP sucks and to use something different if possible. His major reasoning is that during recon training they had endless issues with CLP around water. So Idk how true that is but is it atleast possible that most of these pistols are doing so terribly because his lubricaction aspect is lacking or flawed? Almost every single pistol he has tested has had issues...

[spinmove_]

Anecdotes or not they still highlight an obvious flaw in the VP9s design...if it can't stay reliable when exposed to a small level of debris then I can't depend on it. Sure, I could go do the same tests to my personal VP9s to see but I don't feel like sending them to an armored afterwards to have them detail stripped.

Normally I would agree with Doc, but in this case, with a sample size of 3 now (yeah, I know, still not huge, but it's bigger than 1) and all 3 are experiencing the same/similar stoppages, I'd say that's a pattern that is developing. I still think some of their feeding issues are from dirty mags that need to be cleaned out, but it's failure to go into battery after forceably palming it home unsuccessfully is somewhat troubling. I don't plan on subjecting my pistols to dirt, grit, grime, and mud, but it is interesting to see what happens when those things are introduced.

[spinmove_]

So he uses CLP in all of these tests. I remember being told by a very intelligent guy on a deployment that military issued CLP sucks and to use something different if possible. His major reasoning is that during recon training they had endless issues with CLP around water. So Idk how true that is but is it atleast possible that most of these pistols are doing so terribly because his lubricaction aspect is lacking or flawed?

I suppose that's possible. I have no experience with the CLP that MAC is using so I can't speak to that. I do know that high-temp wheel bearing grease, applied conservatively and intelligently, has made all of my guns run like roadrunners.

[breakingtime91]

I suppose that's possible. I have no experience with the CLP that MAC is using so I can't speak to that. I do know that high-temp wheel bearing grease, applied conservatively and intelligently, has made all of my guns run like roadrunners.

We had issues with our M4s in country(also state side) until we learned how to properly lube them with good lube. Well made guns will run dirty and well lubed but they will not run dirty/gritty without lube/lube that washes off

[JAD]

Anecdotes or not they still highlight an obvious flaw in the VP9s design...if it can't stay reliable when exposed to a small level of debris then I can't depend on it. Sure, I could go do the same tests to my personal VP9s to see but I don't feel like sending them to an armored afterwards to have them detail stripped.
Sames.

I also use Hickok45's videos the same way -- saves me all that tedious 25 yard shooting.

[Flintsky]

So he uses CLP in all of these tests. I remember being told by a very intelligent guy on a deployment that military issued CLP sucks and to use something different if possible. His major reasoning is that during recon training they had endless issues with CLP around water. So Idk how true that is but is it atleast possible that most of these pistols are doing so terribly because his lubricaction aspect is lacking or flawed? Almost every single pistol he has tested has had issues...

It looks like he is using Breakfree which is a pretty good CLP(not as good as Weapon Shield). The problem with the VP9 not going into battery, and then being unable to seat a round and remove the magazine likely has nothing to do with lack of lubrication. It is a problem with debris being in places it shouldn't be.

As many of us suspected, the Glock did the best. For Sigs, it looks like the MK25 did better than the Legion which doesn't surprise me. The older style short extractor does not depend on a void in the slide for reliable function, and the non SRT trigger on the MK25 takes up less space in the frame so there is more wiggle room for parts movement.

[JHC]

But the erratic ejection pattern of the G17!!! :O

[LockedBreech]

The most obvious issue I see is the guns being dunked into water, THEN into dirt, THEN into sand, THEN into mud, without anything but cursory rinsing.

What real-world situation does that illustrate? Especially since any residual water/dampness will attract more debris.

Even the G17 and P320 choked multiple times in these tests.

If there's any lesson, it's that enough fouling will clog any machine. If I smash a melty snickers bar into the ejection port of my gun or put a spiral cut ham into my car's engine, it's gonna stop working. Doc is right. Without some ways to ensure methodological soundness, it doesn't prove anything coherent.

My bias: my VP9 is on 900 rounds over 3 range trips, well on its way to beating the 2,000-round challenge flawlessly. I am confident it will run if it falls into some dirt, but I'll avoid gunfights at the mud-dirt-sand-water corral.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

But the erratic ejection pattern of the G17!!! :O

Glock did ok, but not the best. Obviously striker guns aren't as good as many thought ;)

[Trukinjp13]

The most obvious issue I see is the guns being dunked into water, THEN into dirt, THEN into sand, THEN into mud, without anything but cursory rinsing.

What real-world situation does that illustrate? Especially since any residual water/dampness will attract more debris.

Even the G17 and P320 choked multiple times in these tests.

If there's any lesson, it's that enough fouling will clog any machine. If I smash a melty snickers bar into the ejection port of my gun or put a spiral cut ham into my car's engine, it's gonna stop working. Doc is right. Without some ways to ensure methodological soundness, it doesn't prove anything coherent.

My bias: my VP9 is on 900 rounds over 3 range trips, well on its way to beating the 2,000-round challenge flawlessly. I am confident it will run if it falls into some dirt, but I'll avoid gunfights at the mud-dirt-sand-water corral.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The thing is, it choked in every stage not just one to the other. It was clean going into the sand and dirt. Very simple test with poor results. The gun should not choke on the first stage. He still says it is one of his favorite striker guns but he will not carry it. A da/sa gun has been the only one through. Good ol hammer fired.

[Trukinjp13]

I also like the fact that he uses the same lube in every test. And it is one that is available pretty much everywhere. Not super lube 5000 or any of the new stuff out. Yes some guns will run better with grease on the rails or maybe a different lube. But its good to have a control that is a good old fashioned lube. I have used a ton on a lot of my guns in the past and never had a problem. I would be afraid of a grease collecting dirt or sand particles more then a small layer of lube. Imho

[hiro]

I wish, in my extremely limited experience, that I would see any guns at the range half way near as dirty as tests like these suppose they might be.

To think that 99.99% of people would take any valuable information from "tests" like these seems like a fantasy.

The military guys using pistols already test them hard, they know what they need to know for their needs and again, the info is just not relevant for my needs.

This is just internet masturbation to generate views and pay the man's bills. I have no issue with that, it's how he earns some of his crust. But to take the info seriously? Really?

[JonInWA]

I just watched all 3 MAC tests, and read through the entire thread here. While DocGKR's comment on it is well taken-the tests are not conducted to rigidly scientific standards-, we still have what seems to be a reasonably well conducted, objectively performed and discussed testing protocol, with essentially the same results; the VP9 simply does not perform well when exposed to media that a user can expect to encounter in the wilderness or (especially) on a battlefield. To me, that takes the MAC tests well beyond the "amusing anecdote" stage. Nor does it lead me to believe that a more rigidly scientific test protocol would necessarily provide essentially different results. I simply don't think it's all that unreasonable that a defensive weapon be capable of performing after being dumped in a river or a creek, or falling into dirt, mud and/or sand. After all, it was such anecdotal/empirical testing that led to the discovery of inherent flaws in the phosphate crackle-finishing applied to the tube internal surfaces of contract M9 magazines when fine sand/dust particulate matter was introduced into them.

And while the method of cleansing (swishing around in water, and in the final test, exposing to outdoor faucet water, somewhat pressurized as it came through the spigot) wasn't scientific per se, it certainly is reasonably indicative of remedial steps that a user would likely do in the field. Blowing out the components with pressurized/canned air would have been interesting to see if they would have resolved some of the issues before they became repetitive, in that some of the lodged media might have been removed-but that's speculation on my part.

While I really like the ergos, accuracy, component quality, finish quality and recoil-friendliness of my HK VP40, as I commented in a concurrent thread, when I go into the wilderness, it'll be a Glock kind of day-and this, and the Vickers test/commentaries over the years have validated my decision to equip all of my Glocks with a butt plug...

A sample size of 3 is admittedly small, but the repetitive problem occurrences throughout the 3 VP9s tested, and throughout the 3 tests are worthy of note, and certainly should raise a presumptive red flag in my opinion concerning VP use in environments where they could be exposed to environmental media such as experienced in the MAC's testing.

I think that the VPs are a viable handgun, but within limitations. And that's disappointing. And, as I've also discussed previously, the complexity of the design (particularly regarding the receiver components) effectively preclude easy operator detailed disassembly and reassembly-which is demonstrably necessary for cleaning, drying, lubing if and when a VP is exposed to environmental media.

Best, Jon

[LockedBreech]

I'd really like to see a P30 run through the same battery (and the tester mentions the same) to see if hammers really are inherently tougher in debris conditions.

I do still like MAC and am a subscriber, it's a good channel. Perhaps I'm just ticked to see what was going to be my new go-to handgun choke that much.

On the upside, for my nightstand purposes it should still run fine.

Also, anyone watch the 320 Compact test? That was a lot of light primer strikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAD]

While DocGKR's comment on it is well taken-the tests are not conducted to rigidly scientific standards-, we still have what seems to be a reasonably well conducted, objectively performed and discussed testing protocol,

We also have a large body of institutional testing that in some cases is conducted to decent standards. If good information is available from a good source, why do we care about limited information from an unvetted source? As a concrete example, if someone posted a video of gel tests that they had conducted in their backyard, who would seriously care about the results in the context of what we have from tests done by institutions with large sample sizes to a defined protocol?

[JAD]

And if the answer is, "because I want to know more about this special gun that no institutional testing has selected," haven't we answered our own question?

[GJM]

We also have a large body of institutional testing that in some cases is conducted to decent standards. If good information is available from a good source, why do we care about limited information from an unvetted source? As a concrete example, if someone posted a video of gel tests that they had conducted in their backyard, who would seriously care about the results in the context of what we have from tests done by institutions with large sample sizes to a defined protocol?

Is there a link to the VP9 institutional testing?

[spinmove_]

Is there a link to the VP9 institutional testing?

I'd be very interested as well. I get that what MAC is doing isn't purely scientific, but if what he's doing is being dismissed due to there being actual testing protocols that do make MAC's testing look silly, then I'd like to see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAD]

Is there a link to the VP9 institutional testing?
What I figured would be the response, which is why I wrote #126. There have been institutional tests, as I recall, like San Antonio or something, but the results were not published (something else won). There are people who are privy to the results of those tests who carry VP9s, from which I suppose one could draw conclusions.

It is /exactly/ the defensive ammo question. If a new round came out, and Doc said there's no data, would you carry it based on a youtube test?

If you want to not carry a VP9 because some guy threw it in the dirt and it didn't work, knock yourself out. If you want to not carry a VP9 because no large institution has tested and adopted it -- the XD paradigm -- that would seem a little more rational to me.

[GJM]

I own four VP9 pistols, none of which I plan to intentionally throw in the dirt. Still, I am interested in all testing, whether that be institutional or individual.

[JonInWA]

I, and I suspect others of us here would certainly appreciate a link (or a detailed synopsis) of such institutional testing. Obviously a truly scientifically conducted test would have great(er) weight-ASSUMING the test parameters are relevant.

I'm unaware of any such tests pertaining to the HK VPs, perhaps other than HK's (which, if available, I'd certainly be interested in seeing). And the only LEO that I'm aware of at this time that's adapted the VP platform is the Phenix City Alabama PD, and in reading through the open source documentation pertaining to their selection it didn't exactly seem that their testing protocol was all that exhaustive or scientific.

Best, Jon

[spinmove_]

What I figured would be the response, which is why I wrote #126. There have been institutional tests, as I recall, like San Antonio or something, but the results were not published (something else won). There are people who are privy to the results of those tests who carry VP9s, from which I suppose one could draw conclusions.

It is /exactly/ the defensive ammo question. If a new round came out, and Doc said there's no data, would you carry it based on a youtube test?

If you want to not carry a VP9 because some guy threw it in the dirt and it didn't work, knock yourself out. If you want to not carry a VP9 because no large institution has tested and adopted it -- the XD paradigm -- that would seem a little more rational to me.

What I don't get is why protocol testing such as that isn't published and made available to the public. If it benefits our sworn uniformed, surely it could benefit the unsworn civilian. It would also give us a better reason for equipment selection other than "cuz mah local smokeys gots'em!".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonInWA]

And I'd be very interested to know the details behind "something else winning" the San Antonio testing. That "something else won" may be of some intrinsic significance to our discussion here...

Here's a link to apparently what they chose in 2013: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/san-antonio-police-department-converts-to-smith-wesson-mp-pistols/#axzz4Q15q5dTc

Wasn't that before the VP9 became available?

And it certainly was before the VP40 was available, so if SAPD was oriented around .40 the VP would not have been a contender in 2013.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

I own four VP9 pistols, none of which I plan to intentionally throw in the dirt. Still, I am interested in all testing, whether that be institutional or individual.

And I also have no plans at this time of selling or trading my VP40...but I also see information as tools in the toolbox which can impact on my use of said tool...

Best, Jon

[JAD]

I own four VP9 pistols
I am not aware of anything you do not own four of.


Still, I am interested in all testing, whether that be institutional or individual.

There is part of me that wants to say that MAC isn't testing. Persons who would like to know my credentials regarding the topic of test are free to PM me, but it is a professional interest of mine.

What MAC does that bothers me -- more than the lack of controls or useful documentation, and more than the fact that it's a hobbyist and not an institution -- is the same thing that sort of bothered me about the way people interpreted Todd's evaluations (not the evaluations themselves, which were fine). A sample size of one is not a valid measurement of absolutely anything. It is the generation of an anecdote, a single data point which is meaningless without the context of a significant number of other correlating data points. It means exactly what you want it to mean, and any conclusions you draw on it will be the conclusions you carry into it.

[shane45]

What I don't get is why protocol testing such as that isn't published and made available to the public. If it benefits our sworn uniformed, surely it could benefit the unsworn civilian. It would also give us a better reason for equipment selection other than "cuz mah local smokeys gots'em!".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have ever seen the way some trials are done when the fix is in, it could paint an otherwise good vendor in a very bad light. No one will understand that it was contrived. So it would just result in bad PR for participants. So many vendors require non disclosure to protect themselves from such scenarios.

[psalms144.1]

I don't recall the VP9 being in the running for the SAPD selection. It was included in the TX DPS testing, and, from what I've heard from unverified sources, performed exceptionally well. So well that the criteria for the new pistol included a requirement for a 17 round magazine, which obviously took the VP9 out of the running. I'm certain there are others on the forum that could provide additional insight into that selection, but that's the rumor that has been monged to me...

On to the topic of discussion, I like my VP9 a lot. It's incredibly accurate. Having said that, I'm still running my G19 for duty and EDC, for a variety of reasons, none of which include this test. But, as others have pointed out, ease of maintenance and accuracy that's darn near equal to the VP9's if I do my part are significant drivers. Add to that the fact that there's no ankle-sized VP9 equivalent, and darned near no one makes an ankle rig for the hammer fired options (P2000sk or P30sk) make it sort of a non-starter for me.

Having said all that, the test, unscientific as it is, does give me pause. Not sure anything in my safe would keep running after being subjected to all that, and, in fact, when I dropped my G19 into beach-consistency-sand during a qualification last year, it was dead lined until I could detail strip and wipe out enough of the sand to clear it from the connector. Of course, I was able to do that in about 5 minutes with a single tool...

[hiro]

It means exactly what you want it to mean, and any conclusions you draw on it will be the conclusions you carry into it.

Yup and in the meantime we're all clicking that link generating cash/hits for MAC and by inference validating the "test".

Welcome to 21st century living.

[JAD]

It was included in the TX DPS testing...

That's what I was thinking of.

[RJ]

I'm coming from 30+ years of an Integration and Test environment in corporate Aerospace programs.

I think these tests are a valid Operational Evaluation (as opposed to a Functional or Physical Evaluation.)

I looked at several of his videos (P320, M&P, VP9, and G17). He uses the same four media, as well as a consistent approach in fouling the pistol each time. Ok, sure, he is not pressing in with a calibrated 10 Newtons of uniform downward force, but he does do the same actions each time.

I'd say the tests were 'valid', in the sense that they would form a part of the overall evaluation of the item under test. How much of that part would depend on subjectively what weight one would apply to the evaluation criteria.

Would I base a purchase decision on this test of the VP9 alone? No. But I also think it would be a mistake to dismiss these results as irrelevant. He did what he did, and folks can either use it (or not) to make a better, more informed choice.

Side question: it was posed the VP9T with the 40 RSA would be 'better', but it was not. Any thoughts as to why?

[Peally]

Isn't the VP9T a VP9 with bigger sights, a threaded barrel, and possibly overpriced color options? That's basically what constitutes a general "tactical' model of any pistol.

[Flintsky]

Isn't the VP9T a VP9 with bigger sights, a threaded barrel, and possibly overpriced color options? That's basically what constitutes a general "tactical' model of any pistol.

That and a couple of hundred dollar price increase.

[JonInWA]

In answer to Rich_Jenkins' question above, my SWAG would be that particulate matter gummed up the trigger and/or triggerbar movement (or action components), or that water interfered with the striker's movement. I think the likely culprits for entrance points areas are at the opening in the frame bottom for the trigger, and/or the slide's striker backplate.

My further SWAG is that the problems with the chambering and doublefeed stumbles are correspondingly related to inhibited slide velocity from external media, that even the increased recoil spring strength was insufficient to overpower (or dislodge).

Best, Jon

[psalms144.1]

Side question: it was posed the VP9T with the 40 RSA would be 'better', but it was not. Any thoughts as to why?I'm coming from 29 years of service dragging knuckles in a variety of jobs through a bunch of places, so take this with a grain of salt (but not in your action!). I would ASSUME that proper functioning of any semi-auto requires the pistol to operate through it's entire cycle with minimal interruptions. We've already seen plenty of reports that the VP9T is questionable without a can, because there's too much recoil spring for the typical 9mm load. Add to that excessive spring tension a LOT of friction from shit (TM) in the slide rails and other places where you don't want shit (TM) to be, and I'd guess you're going to have a bad day... We saw a lot of funky failures with the first couple of iterations of the Gen4 Glocks, where a dual spring RSA designed to work with .40 S&W was jammed into 9mms, with predictable results...

[MSparks909]

Minor aside: Gen 4 Glock recoil springs do not do well when exposed to dirt/sand/mud. A few years back I dropped my Gen 4 G34 into a pile of mud because, well, derp. It shot 2 rounds then locked up solid. Mud gummed up the dual spring system so badly that I ultimately had to get a new recoil spring. Flushing with water and a detailed cleaning later with a high pressure garden hose and an air compressor still could not rid the dual spring of all the grit.

Take this for what it's worth, probably nothing to many of you, but Gen 3 recoil springs are more reliable than Gen 4 recoil springs when exposed to dirt, sand and mud. Plus they are easy to rinse out and return to 100% function.

[RJ]

I'd really like to see a P30 run through the same battery (and the tester mentions the same) to see if hammers really are inherently tougher in debris conditions.



Crap, reminds me, I forgot to ask this question.

So, a hammer fired pistol, would it have 'less' susceptibility to debris simply by being hammer fired?

What's the mechanism for this?

Reason for question is I just examined my VP9 vs my P30SK LEM.

The VP9:

- Has a takedown lever not on the P30SK.

- Has the protruding rear Striker with some gaps, vs the hammer on the LEM. It looks much more likely for dirt to ingress into the SFA hole than in the SK.

- Has a noticeably larger trigger hinge area. (due to the presence of the trigger safety?). These gaps are not present on the P30SK, as it does not have a trigger safety. The P30SK's hinge area opening is maybe 50% the VP9's, and much more filled by the top of the trigger.

- Has greater surface area gaps below the frame at the very front, and a slotted RSA. The P30SK's front RSA has a fairly flat button, with noticeably fewer and smaller gaps.

Both pistols frame to slide rail gaps seem similar. The ejection ports seem to look the same. The paddle mag release geometry looks alike.

Based on all that ^^^ it would seem less likely for dirt to find its way into a P30/P30SK.

Y'all are much more knowledgeable on guns than I am, does any of this where the P30 could be more reliable (at least to dirt intrusion) sound remotely plausible?

[JonInWA]

Minor aside: Gen 4 Glock recoil springs do not do well when exposed to dirt/sand/mud. A few years back I dropped my Gen 4 G34 into a pile of mud because, well, derp. It shot 2 rounds then locked up solid. Mud gummed up the dual spring system so badly that I ultimately had to get a new recoil spring. Flushing with water and a detailed cleaning later with a high pressure garden hose and an air compressor still could not rid the dual spring of all the grit.

Take this for what it's worth, probably nothing to many of you, but Gen 3 recoil springs are more reliable than Gen 4 recoil springs when exposed to dirt, sand and mud. Plus they are easy to rinse out and return to 100% function.

And that may well be a significant reason why certain high-speed-low-drag organizations of note have chosen to remain with Gen 3 Glocks (along with them already apparently being in the contracting system).

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Crap, reminds me, I forgot to ask this question.

So, a hammer fired pistol, would it have 'less' susceptibility to debris simply by being hammer fired?

What's the mechanism for this?

Reason for question is I just examined my VP9 vs my P30SK LEM.

The VP9:

- Has a takedown lever not on the P30SK.

- Has the protruding rear Striker with some gaps, vs the hammer on the LEM. It looks much more likely for dirt to ingress into the SFA hole than in the SK.

- Has a noticeably larger trigger hinge area. (due to the presence of the trigger safety?). These gaps are not present on the P30SK, as it does not have a trigger safety. The P30SK's hinge area opening is maybe 50% the VP9's, and much more filled by the top of the trigger.

- Has greater surface area gaps below the frame at the very front, and a slotted RSA. The P30SK's front RSA has a fairly flat button, with noticeably fewer and smaller gaps.

Both pistols frame to slide rail gaps seem similar. The ejection ports seem to look the same. The paddle mag release geometry looks alike.

Based on all that ^^^ it would seem less likely for dirt to find its way into a P30/P30SK.

Y'all are much more knowledgeable on guns than I am, does any of this where the P30 could be more reliable (at least to dirt intrusion) sound remotely plausible?

Yup. But I don't recall that the P30 platform is exactly a paradigm of simple detailed disassembly/reassembly, so I'd also be hesitant to jump from a Glock to it, also...

Best, Jon

[GJM]

I'm coming from 29 years of service dragging knuckles in a variety of jobs through a bunch of places, so take this with a grain of salt (but not in your action!). I would ASSUME that proper functioning of any semi-auto requires the pistol to operate through it's entire cycle with minimal interruptions. We've already seen plenty of reports that the VP9T is questionable without a can, because there's too much recoil spring for the typical 9mm load. Add to that excessive spring tension a LOT of friction from shit (TM) in the slide rails and other places where you don't want shit (TM) to be, and I'd guess you're going to have a bad day... We saw a lot of funky failures with the first couple of iterations of the Gen4 Glocks, where a dual spring RSA designed to work with .40 S&W was jammed into 9mms, with predictable results...

Wasn't there discussion on Pro, that the T was shipping with the same spring now as the regular VP 9, or am I remembering wrong?

[JonInWA]

Wasn't there discussion on Pro, that the T was shipping with the same spring now as the regular VP 9, or am I remembering wrong?

You're correct-the discussion there seemed to establish that the VP40 RSA is now the OEM across-the-board VP platform RSA.

Best, Jon

[breakingtime91]

Yup. But I don't recall that the P30 platform is exactly a paradigm of simple detailed disassembly/reassembly, so I'd also be hesitant to jump from a Glock to it, also...

Best, Jon

Jon, why do you need a simple full break down of a pistol? I am really curious about this since you could probably shoot a hk and only change the TRS every 5-7 thousand rounds and reach 15000-20000 easy..

[RJ]

Yup. But I don't recall that the P30 platform is exactly a paradigm of simple detailed disassembly/reassembly, so I'd also be hesitant to jump from a Glock to it, also...

Best, Jon

Gotcha. My main point (which, awkwardly, I neglected to include :cool:) was that there were some observational differences between the VP9 and the P30SK, of which one was the fact the P30SK was hammer fired. So, in and of itself, yes, but there were some other fairly noticeable differences between the SFA VP9 and the hammer fired P30SK.

As to disassembly, the number of field strips I have with my P30SK is probably less than the number of Trump voters at the Huffington Post. There are a quite a few small peculiar-looking items of German elvish magic buried down inside the VP9. But a gunsmith, I am not.

[JSGlock34]

Isn't a VP9 derivative reportedly a MHS entrant?

I'd be curious to see how the P30 - or one of its cousins (such as the HK45CT which I suspect has seen harsher environmental conditions in SOCOM service) - performs in a similar "test".

[JonInWA]

Jon, why do you need a simple full break down of a pistol? I am really curious about this since you could probably shoot a hk and only change the TRS every 5-7 thousand rounds and reach 15000-20000 easy..

For normal use, I (and I strongly suspect, most) do not-field stripping is quite sufficient. Where a detailed disassembly/reassembly can become a requirement is if the weapon becomes immobilized, or potentially immobilized by exposure and infiltration of silty water, sand, dirt, dust or other environmental media intrusions into the action-particularly (but not necessarily exclusively) regarding the receiver and receiver components. And te ability to do so in the field, in a less that sterile setting.

That's kind of the tenor of this particular thread discussion-I don't think any of us are disputing the intrinsic durability or reliability of HK VP pistols and their components per se-it's their susceptibility to being immobilized when external media becomes introduced into their works.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Gotcha. My main point (which, awkwardly, I neglected to include :cool:) was that there were some observational differences between the VP9 and the P30SK, of which one was the fact the P30SK was hammer fired. So, in and of itself, yes, but there were some other fairly noticeable differences between the SFA VP9 and the hammer fired P30SK.

As to disassembly, the number of field strips I have with my P30SK is probably less than the number of Trump voters at the Huffington Post. There are a quite a few small peculiar-looking items of German elvish magic buried down inside the VP9. But a gunsmith, I am not.

Courtesy of HK Pro, I read printed out the detailed disassembly/reassembly of the VPs-it's not for the faint of heart. A Glock, they ain't.... I feel comfortable field-stripping and perhaps doing s slide detailed disassembly, at least to the point of removing the striker assembly. Anything beyond that in my opinion requires either a HK-trained/certified armorer or a gunsmith. It's probably not insignificant that Bruce Gray's lead HK guy (who was and is no novice, both experience-wise and HK-specifically-wise) screwed up the trigger return spring inadvertantly the first tie he took a VP apart, which immobilized the gun.

Best, Jon

[JHC]

Isn't a VP9 derivative reportedly a MHS entrant?

I'd be curious to see how the P30 - or one of its cousins (such as the HK45CT which I suspect has seen harsher environmental conditions in SOCOM service) - performs in a similar "test".

No I don't think HK entered.

[SecondsCount]

Let's not leave out the Larry Vickers Sand Test while we are at it:


Just had a chance to do a harsh sand test on few different handguns. This test was not scientific but was very enlightening.

Pistols tested were; HK USP Tactical
Customized 1911
rack grade GI 1911
Glock 21

Test consisted of placing each pistol loaded in a Bianchi GI field holster inside a plastic bag with approx 2 cups of fine/medium grit sand ( North Carolina type). Then the bag was shaken vigorously for 10 seconds while holding onto the pistol butt for safety. The pistol was then taken out and 3 mags were fired through the 1911 and 2 fully loaded mags were fired through the HK and Glock - roughly the same amount of ammo. The sand coverage was very good and uniformly covered the pistols. The pistols were loaded in the mode you would expect in a field environment - condition 3 for the 1911, loaded for the Glock and loaded in DA mode for the USP.A test was done dry and lubed with TW 25B. This test represented EXTREME sand conditions - not normal field use, even in sandy conditions.A brief rundown of the results follow;

1)Carrying your gun dry in this environment is a NO GO despite what some will say. All pistols performed worse dry than lubed.

2)All pistols required some manipulation in order to fire - none would function normally straight out of the holster.

3)Overall the HK USP performed the best - the performance of it dry was roughly the same as the customized 1911 but was definately the best lubed. Overall it performed well.

4)The custom 1911 was second - interestingly enough the trigger track was not a real problem - the sand that went in through the ejection port to the bottom lugs area caused the most problems. Once the sand shifted in this area the pistol functioned better.

5)The rack grade GI 1911 was a distant third - the custom 1911 had an 18 pound recoil spring and that helped with feeding greatly vs the rack grade gun. Swap out the recoil spring and it probably would have done better.

6)The shocker of the day - the Glock 21 FAILED terribly. The big problem was failure of the trigger to reset. Also at times the pistol would not fire due to sand in the trigger mechanism. The dry test could not even be completed with the Glock due to this.This surprised all of us as we expected the Glock to do quite well.

Moral of the story; The 1911, even in its customized mode, can get the job done if you set it up to succeed. Lube it right, carry it in the right holster and in the proper mode, and it won't let you down - just like it hasn't for nearly a 100 years.

The HK USP series are good guns - well designed and well made - for service pistols. The ergonomics hurt the pistol dramatically but for an out of the box service pistol/field gun, they get my endorsement.

The Glock 21 is a dog - always has been. It has the rep of being the worst gun Glock makes. I have a Glock 17 and 19 and like them for what they are - but don't get sucked into the Glock hype - they are not magical guns. Remember what your dad said when you were in 3rd grade; don't believe everything you read.

Hope you guys got something out of this - I did." Larry Vickers

[LockedBreech]

I've been strongly considering getting a P2000 for months due to the current bargain prices on them. Did they sacrifice ANYTHING reliability or durability related in the USP/USPc design or was it just the rail and ergonomics changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

I've been strongly considering getting a P2000 for months due to the current bargain prices on them. Did they sacrifice ANYTHING reliability or durability related in the USP/USPc design or was it just the rail and ergonomics changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... well shit, the word is out. All Hk pistols suck miserably at reliability now.

[LockedBreech]

... well shit, the word is out. All Hk pistols suck miserably at reliability now.

Haha! No, I'm keeping my VP9, it's one of the best pistols I own. I'm just always looking for an excuse to buy more shit.

[breakingtime91]

Haha! No, I'm keeping my VP9, it's one of the best pistols I own. I'm just always looking for an excuse to buy more shit.

Dude, hk will make you happy in the reliability department. Supposedly its the trigger and sights department that will leave you wanting ;)



ANYONE who wants to know, p2000s suck and I'll take your used p2000s for a fair price. pm me :cool:

[LockedBreech]

Dude, hk will make you happy in the reliability department. Supposedly its the trigger and sights department that will leave you wanting ;)



ANYONE who wants to know, p2000s suck and I'll take your used p2000s for a fair price. pm me :cool:

I own an older-production fullsize M&P.

I'm sure the HK triggers will be fine.

[EVP]

...It's probably not insignificant that Bruce Gray's lead HK guy (who was and is no novice, both experience-wise and HK-specifically-wise) screwed up the trigger return spring inadvertantly the first tie he took a VP apart, which immobilized the gun.

Best, Jon


Not that it matters but just to clarify, Rick Holm later stated he pulled the coiled spring from the bearing and then tried to reinsert it back into the bearing. It is supposed to be be and stay attached to the bearing/trigger bar. I think HK since has put adhesive over that area to prevent people from pulling it out of the bearing.


Also is the vp9 any more involved the detail stripping a beretta 92 or sig?

[Luke]

I've detail stripped a VP9 a few times. Very easy, just don't do dumb things with the long wire spring in question.

Edit: toosixxy on hk pro has some seriously good write ups on detail stripping them.

[Talionis]

I didn't know people took MAC so seriously. I think I watched part of the first VP9 video when it first came out and then got bored and went to the range with my first sample-of-one super reliable VP9.

I am on my second sample-of-one super reliable VP9, and can offer some of my own observations from approximately 35,000 rounds and year and a half of almost exclusive use.

Gun 1 had a single malfunction over the course of ~20,000 rounds. That malfunction was when I shot a .380 that had made it through my reloading press and into a magazine. That resulted in the slide short stroking. I left gun 1 mostly stock, with the exception of Dawson sights and the HKParts match spring kit, which I ultimately removed because they made the trigger too subjectively mushy.

Gun 2 had 0 malfunctions for the first 3000 rounds, at which point I started making it less reliable by screwing around with spring rates. Over the course of testing recoil spring and striker spring rates, I induced multiple malfunctions that I didn't bother to count because they were completely user induced and an expected part of testing, those consisted exclusively of light strikes from a striker spring clipped too far, and failure to return to battery from a recoil spring that was too light. Once I had spring rates dialed in more or less to my liking, gun 2 has had 6 malfunctions over the course of ~12,000 rounds: One light strike that I suspect was a high primer, but probably wouldn't have happened even with the high primer if it was a full power striker spring; three failures to return to battery, generally when shooting from a compromised position or WHO that can sometimes rob inertia from the slide; and finally one really nasty one that wasn't related to the spring changes, a hard lockup failure to go into battery that was due to an obstruction in the chamber that as near as I could tell was a shard of brass from a cracked case (I just shoot those since they cycle and function fine in the VP9).

Since the MAC videos and the concern stemming from watching them isn't related to round count, I'll talk about the general operating environments my own VP9's see:

1) Frequent OWB carry in the Idaho backcountry, hiking, scouting for game, and pretending to hunt. The gun usually comes back from those trips with a nice thick coating of dirt, and can be pretty gritty. I don't generally clean it until after the next practice session at the range.

2) Daily AIWB carry, with associated lint buildup.

3) Frequent OWB carry and use at matches and practice in the desert, with associated exposure to dust and sand, with a healthy sprinkling of rain thrown in. In general, when shooting matches around here, expect the gun to be coated in a fine layer of moon dust by the end of the day, and make crunching noises when pulling the trigger or cycling the slide. Not a big deal, it just speeds up the process of component polishing.

4) At least one accidental drop into fine desert moon dust and gravel, followed by 300 rounds during practice. I don't drop my guns on purpose, but I did manage to bump it out of the holster while playing with my PCC when I ran into a barrier at the start of a session. The gun landed butt-first, so the apparently vulnerable backplate got most of the exposure to moon dust. The trigger was pretty crunchy for the practice session, but it ran fine. I sprayed it out with brake cleaner when I got home and relubed, no issues.

[SecondsCount]

I didn't know people took MAC so seriously. I think I watched part of the first VP9 video when it first came out and then got bored and went to the range with my first sample-of-one super reliable VP9.

.... no issues.

You win the Internets! :cool:

People take things seriously when it confirms that the gun they chose is the right one.

[JonInWA]

I've detail stripped a VP9 a few times. Very easy, just don't do dumb things with the long wire spring in question.

Edit: toosixxy on hk pro has some seriously good write ups on detail stripping them.

TooSixty on hkpro.com does indeed have an excellent, extremely well illustrated description of the VP's detailed disassembly and reassembly. That's the print-out I have on hand too.

I'd say that your calling the process "easy" might be more descriptive of your disassembly/reassembly-foo than mine.

Some of my qualifiers: A VP consists of some 65 parts; a Glock 37. The HK has a number of what I term fiddly small parts and springs, and requires more punches/tools and dexterity (in my opinion) for a detailed disassembly/reassembly. While I don't doubt that someone with TooSixty's printout on hand could successfully perform a VP disassembly and then re-assemble it, it's not something I'd look forward to doing in the field (and frankly, I'm hesitant to do it even in a controlled adminsitrative environment...). While there are some small parts on a Glock, I think they're fewer and more easily kept track of, and easier to handle-and significantly faster and easier to take apart and put back together.

Another poster on the thread also asked how SIGs and Berettas compared viv-a-vis this discussion. My thought are that both platforms have excellent reputations for reliability in the field, and both have undergone significant organizational testing and fielding. While the Beretta has a significant number of components (over 60 as I recall), it also has a reputation for excellent reliability-probably a tribute to the platform's architecture-how the components are encapsulated and protected but the overall pistol's structure, and the innate quality of its components. Beretta has re-designed the OEM trigger return spring years ago, making it stronger and with a better finish, ameliorating a previous weak point (although I personally still prefer the Wolff TCU trigger return set-up).

Given a choice of, say, a VP, Glock, Beretta, or SIG for a field environment, I'd still likely choose the Glock-due to its innate qualities in a number of critical areas, as well as it's ease of detailed disassembly/reassembly.

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Let's not leave out the Larry Vickers Sand Test while we are at it:

LAV's famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint, I suppose) Sand Test was noteworthy in that he went out and did it to some of the prime contenders back in the day-as I recall, he did the test many years ago, and prior to the Gen 3 Glocks being fielded. I discussed his test with him sometime back-I believe on emails between us. He probably (his memory as to the specifics of the Glock had somewhat faded) used an early Glock G21-prior to the Gen 3, prior to the Gen 2 mods Glock subsequently performed on the G21, changing the breach face, extractor, and feed rails, among other components. After the Gen 3 G21 was introduced, Glock also modified the vertical extension of the triggerbar to preclude light primer strikes. Additionally, I found it interesting that the 1911 tested in his sand test was hammer down; If it had been tested cocked-and-locked, as most of us carrying a 1911 as an EDC weapon probably do, I strongly suspect that it would have failed.

The Glock probably would have performed significantly better with a butt plug, which would have significantly helped in preventing media intrusion into the action components. And it's noteworthy that Glock subsequently provided a SF unit with Gen 3 Glock 21s for an extended combat deployment, which, at least according to Glock's publicized accounts performed exceptionally well.

It would be extremely interesting to subject examples of current production HK USP 45, HK 45, Gen 3 Glock 21 SF and Gen4 Glock G21 to testing such as both LAV and MAC have done, and to test the Glocks both with and without butt plugs.

So-where are we? I think that while neither MAC's or LAV's earlier testings were scientific per se, they both provided some extremely valuable insights and inputs for decision-making. I think that there are some qualifiers as to the environments that I'd subject a VP to. I find it hard to believe that HK is orienting the VP to non-LEO use, as was inferentially suggested earlier in the thread, given HK's marketing of the VP platforms, and the specified "LEO" packages providing the tritium sights and additional magazine (although I'm equally sure that they're targeting a non-LEO/military price-point audience lower than their other concurrently manufactured platforms). I think that due to the increased complexity of the VP, it will encounter some tough sledding in obtaining organizational contracts.

Personally, I continue to like, appreciate and use my sample size of 1 VP40. It's literally the weapon I'm carrying as I write this. It excels in its ergos, accuracy, and ease of shootability. However, the MAC testing has raised some concerns in my mind as to its across-the-board applicability, so I'll judiciously choose when I use it, with environmental exposure being a crucial consideration. If I'm going to be in an area/environment where there's a significant possibility of exposure to media such as MAC (and LAV) tested, it'll likely be a "default to Glock" kinda day-which is truly not a particular hardship, in my opinion.

Hopefully, HK will now do some significant further testing and analysis on their own regarding the VP platforms, and come up with some viable (and expeditious) product improvements (or product-improved versions) to the VPs. I think it's a platform of merit and potential, but perhaps still a bit of a work in progress.

Or, alternatively, such further HK testing (or other qualified testing) could reveal that the MAC results were inaccurate, or skewed. That would be great, particularly if they provided details of testing, so we can individually evaluate and decide.

Best, Jon

[SecondsCount]

LAV's famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint, I suppose) Sand Test was noteworthy in that he went out and did it to some of the prime contenders back in the day-as I recall, he did the test many years ago, and prior to the Gen 3 Glocks being fielded. I discussed his test with him sometime back-I believe on emails between us. snip

I don't really care about Glocks as they have their own issues. I just threw the sand test in to show that debris will choke a gun. Keep your gun clean and it will be reliable.



Hopefully, HK will now do some significant further testing and analysis on their own regarding the VP platforms, and come up with some viable (and expeditious) product improvements (or product-improved versions) to the VPs. I think it's a platform of merit and potential, but perhaps still a bit of a work in progress.
Best, Jon


Because HK is so worried about some guy on youtube dropping his gun in a mud puddle and stepping on it? :rolleyes:

How about HK talking to the thousands of customers that own a VP series pistol and asking them about how many issues they are having?

It is no wonder gun companies fail to pay any respect to gun owners.

[breakingtime91]

Does anyone else ponder if MAC can even run a clean FAST under ten seconds?

[Jay Cunningham]

I suspect he can. A 10 second clean FAST is a pretty low bar.

It's a pretty low bar for a PF member.

It's quite a challenge for a huge number of shooters, to include active LE and military.

[GJM]

What does FAST ability have to do with the ability to dunk a pistol into water, sand and mud?

[Wondering Beard]

What does FAST ability have to do with the ability to dunk a pistol into water, sand and mud?

Depends on how fast you do it?

[JonInWA]

I don't really care about Glocks as they have their own issues. I just threw the sand test in to show that debris will choke a gun. Keep your gun clean and it will be reliable.




Because HK is so worried about some guy on youtube dropping his gun in a mud puddle and stepping on it? :rolleyes:

How about HK talking to the thousands of customers that own a VP series pistol and asking them about how many issues they are having?

It is no wonder gun companies fail to pay any respect to gun owners.

SecondsCount, that's a fair riposte. The MAC tester admitted that his first video was a bit over the top in some areas. However, there were 3 different VP9s that all experienced failures in multiple testing areas, and the failures significantly occurred in the less dramatic, but more objective testing areas-and they occurred in all 3 of the tests, strongly suggesting that there may be some systemic issues with the VP platform worthy of further addressing by HK.

I don't doubt that there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of VP owners who have experienced nothing but flawless performances with theirs-mine included. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate the issues raised, as I suspect that the majority (likely the VAST majority) treat their VPs extremely well (or conversely, very, very rarely, if ever exposing their VPs to even a smidgen of the conditions that the MAC testing did-and the MAC testing really didn't seem all that onerous, especially compared to LAV's extensive previous Glock G17 tests that a thread participant provided as a link).

HK models, and positions themselves as manufacturers of "No Compromise" firearms, and there have been details in their catalogs of the aggressive and thorough testing protocols (and their specific testing facilities) they expose their firearms to prior to their introduction into the market stream. Great-then they should have absolutely no problems in providing the specific details of the testing of the VPs-or replicating them to an objective audience. If there truly aren't bugs in the machine, so to speak, and there was a throrough testing program for the VPs, why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity-it's not as if they haven't already spent the R&D dollars, and have a nice opportunity presented to reap some additional benefits, and possibly market positioning from it. They certainly were willing to risk the potential glare of publicity when they and Todd G performed the landmark tests on the P30 and HK45, and didn't seem to flinch or suffer unduly from those tests and exposure.

If there truly AREN'T issues with the VP platform, I'd certainly be happy to see the doubting clouds dispelled, as in this case I do have a dog in the fight. Manufacturers are still coming to grips that the internet can be literal game-changer, and a quick one at that. No longer are consumers beholden to the often captive gun publications, effectively performing as in-house organs, controlled (or constrained) at least potentially by advertising dollars (or the threat of withholding them).

My first exposure to MAC was via this thread. The tester may have had an agenda, but if he did, it's pretty well masked-the testing, and his activities and statements seemed to be pretty balanced and objective. But you're right, there were no oversight controls to his tests, but I do feel that on their face some valid red flags worthy of addressing have been raised. Like the thousands of VP owners you allude to, I also have had zero issues to date (and yes, I've used mine with aluminum-cased ammunition with no adverse results as well)-but the MAC tests have raised my concerns, and probably those of other discerning owners and users.

So it may well be worthwhile in this case for HK to pay some attention and respect to the VP issues raised.

Best, Jon

[Mjolnir]

I've been strongly considering getting a P2000 for months due to the current bargain prices on them. Did they sacrifice ANYTHING reliability or durability related in the USP/USPc design or was it just the rail and ergonomics changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The P2K is good to go. It's an ergonomics and magazine capacity/pistol size difference compared to the full-size and it's more svelte than the blocky USP Compact.

I would recommend LEM with the heavy Trigger Return Spring then replace the Firing Pin Block spring to the light variant. You can also toy with the lighter hammer spring.

Add the sights of your desire and you have a superb pistol.

I'm considering another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I don't really care about Glocks as they have their own issues. I just threw the sand test in to show that debris will choke a gun. Keep your gun clean and it will be reliable.




Because HK is so worried about some guy on youtube dropping his gun in a mud puddle and stepping on it? :rolleyes:

It is no wonder gun companies fail to pay any respect to gun owners.

I don't know about you but I fully expect the pistol to function.

They'd BETTER be paying attention! Only their sales and return on engineering and manufacturing are at stake.

Oh, and MARSOC, SEALs and Rangers are now using... GLOCK 19s.

Yeah, savvy on this you are NOT!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

You get what you pay for. I've never understood why someone would diagnose issues in a company's product for free...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you enjoy Todd Green's testing or did you feel the same way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I'd be curious to see how the P30 fares compared to the VP9.

Hammer fired pistols SHOULD be better just as MAC stated a few times in his latest video with the VP9T.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HopetonBrown]

Does anyone else ponder if MAC can even run a clean FAST under ten seconds?

He'd have to know what it was first.

[Mjolnir]

He'd have to know what it was first.

And that means NOTHING AT ALL to the video he created...

Or perhaps y'all can inform me why it would matter one iota...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I wish, in my extremely limited experience, that I would see any guns at the range half way near as dirty as tests like these suppose they might be.

To think that 99.99% of people would take any valuable information from "tests" like these seems like a fantasy.

The military guys using pistols already test them hard, they know what they need to know for their needs and again, the info is just not relevant for my needs.

This is just internet masturbation to generate views and pay the man's bills. I have no issue with that, it's how he earns some of his crust. But to take the info seriously? Really?

Then why not purchase another brand of pistol if "their needs aren't relevant to me"? I mean there are less expensive pistols that function.

I'll answer for you.

We all are swept up into the "if it's good enough for SMUs it's PERFECT for me!" Myself included.

I suspect if the VP9 walked this test with flying colors many who claim to be non-plussed would have that video on their FB pages.

LOOKING ONLY at the complexity of the VP9 internals tells me that it's not likely to perform as well as, say, a Glock 19 in this kind of test. I know I don't like the exposed firing pin/hole in the rear slide plate. After carrying the pistol for several months the amount of lint inside the slide is considerable - so to HK Parts I go to replace the godforsaken part.

Is it just me or does HK seem to go out of their way to create unnecessarily complex products???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

What does FAST ability have to do with the ability to dunk a pistol into water, sand and mud?

the idea that people care more about his kind of stuff then actually gaining skill as a shooter is the thing I was trying to point out.

[pastaslinger]

the idea that people care more about his kind of stuff then actually gaining skill as a shooter is the thing I was trying to point out.

why are these things mutually exclusive?

[breakingtime91]

why are these things mutually exclusive?

All of the guns he tested failed in one way or another. Well all except one, do you recommend that everyone runs out and buys a Arex? Most of us live pretty comfortable lives and carry a gun concealed for personal safety or the safety of those around us. I/most of us would be hard pressed to find a scenario where my/our ccw is going to be dunked in a puddle and then rolled in dirt. I'm sure some mall ninja will find a scenario but in reality its most likely not going to happen. I don't even own a VP 9 but to watch the videos and see peoples reactions has been fun. Getting to the fundamental question you asked I would say that if your gun is from a good manufacture, it's more important to learn to shoot the gun then worry about if it'll malfunction during your next landing at Omaha Beach.

[Sigfan26]

All of the guns he tested failed in one way or another. Well all except one, do you recommend that everyone runs out and buys a Arex? Most of us live pretty comfortable lives and carry a gun concealed for personal safety or the safety of those around us. I/most of us would be hard pressed to find a scenario where my/our ccw is going to be dunked in a puddle and then rolled in dirt. I'm sure some mall ninja will find a scenario but in reality its most likely not going to happen. I don't even own a VP 9 but to watch the videos and see peoples reactions has been fun. Getting to the fundamental question you asked I would say that if your gun is from a good manufacture, it's more important to learn to shoot the gun then worry about if it'll malfunction during your next landing at Omaha Beach.

The AREX is actually pretty awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

The AREX is actually pretty awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... got it, so we should all go buy them because it passed MACs test?

[Sigfan26]

I never even saw his test... I actually shot and handled one a fair amount and made my judgement...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

... got it, so we should all go buy them because it passed MACs test?

Read the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

I never even saw his test... I actually shot and handled one a fair amount and made my judgement...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I think your taking my comment as bashing the Arex, it wasn't. I think basing someones decision on if a pistol is a viable self defense tool off of one of these tests is silly. I know a lot of us on this forum know this but I had a friend new to guns comment to me the other day "I saw a test where all the sig pistols failed (detailing Mac's), they suck".

[Sigfan26]

So I think your taking my comment as bashing the Arex, it wasn't. I think basing someones decision on if a pistol is a viable self defense tool off of one of these tests is silly. I know a lot of us on this forum know this but I had a friend new to guns comment to me the other day "I saw a test where all the sig pistols failed (detailing Mac's), they suck".

Cool. But, I will say, the VP9 did poorly 3 separate times with 3 separate guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

Cool. But, I will say, the VP9 did poorly 3 separate times with 3 separate guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never said I owned a VP9. I don't think sigs did very well either, sigfan26.

[MSparks909]

So I think your taking my comment as bashing the Arex, it wasn't. I think basing someones decision on if a pistol is a viable self defense tool off of one of these tests is silly. I know a lot of us on this forum know this but I had a friend new to guns comment to me the other day "I saw a test where all the sig pistols failed (detailing Mac's), they suck".

It really depends on what environments a specific individual uses their pistol in. For example, I am a passionate duck hunter. I hunt 3-4 days a week from November through January, and I always have a pistol in my waders. I've ran into several sketchy hunting parties on public lands and have ran into more than a few black bears in some of the impoundments that I hunt. Last year I fell in the water and topped my waders 3-4 times (an especially crappy situation in late January in 20 degree weather :mad:). The water we hunt is full of silt, grit, etc. For me in this *specific* environment I *need* a gun that can take a potential dunking and work with no issues. Based on the MAC test I don't know if the VP would work or not. It works in tap water but in the silty creek water from the first test it did not. I'm not willing to gamble therefore my primary wader gun is my P2000. It's been dunked before on a hunt, and at the end of the hunt I fired the full magazine of carry ammo through it. No issues and no drama.

[Sigfan26]

Never said I owned a VP9. I don't think sigs did very well either, sigfan26.

I never said you did. I never said Sig did well (this is an old screen name. I haven't owned a Sig in 5-6 years). I simply made the statement that the AREX was a pretty good pistol (and also mentioned that I had NEVER watched a review of the gun)... Have you been internetting too hard today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Never said I owned a VP9. I don't think sigs did very well either, sigfan26.

Also, the only reason that I've seen his VP9 videos is because folks keep posting them here...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

I never said you did. I never said Sig did well (this is an old screen name. I haven't owned a Sig in 5-6 years). I simply made the statement that the AREX was a pretty good pistol (and also mentioned that I had NEVER watched a review of the gun)... Have you been internetting too hard today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

your the one being intentionally rude without offering anything meaningful to the conversation. I literally said, in my second response to you, that I never said it was a bad pistol. I honestly find you to be a troll and nothing more.

[breakingtime91]

It really depends on what environments a specific individual uses their pistol in. For example, I am a passionate duck hunter. I hunt 3-4 days a week from November through January, and I always have a pistol in my waders. I've ran into several sketchy hunting parties on public lands and have ran into more than a few black bears in some of the impoundments that I hunt. Last year I fell in the water and topped my waders 3-4 times (an especially crappy situation in late January in 20 degree weather :mad:). The water we hunt is full of silt, grit, etc. For me in this *specific* environment I *need* a gun that can take a potential dunking and work with no issues. Based on the MAC test I don't know if the VP would work or not. It works in tap water but in the silty creek water from the first test it did not. I'm not willing to gamble therefore my primary wader gun is my P2000. It's been dunked before on a hunt, and at the end of the hunt I fired the full magazine of carry ammo through it. No issues and no drama.

I carry a p2000 also. I have my own reasons but I find that hammer fired HKs and Beretta to be extremely reliable.

[Sigfan26]

your the one being intentionally rude without offering anything meaningful to the conversation. I literally said, in my second response to you, that I never said it was a bad pistol. I honestly find you to be a troll and nothing more.

Dude, chill the F out. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm not trying to offend you (yet). You are, so far, intentionally trying to be offended. Let me be very blunt: what you carry and think are of no consequence to me. I. Don't. Care. But no, I am not trying to troll. I am not trying to offend. So, let's try to get back on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

Dude, chill the F out. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm not trying to offend you (yet). You are, so far, intentionally trying to be offended. Let me be very blunt: what you carry and think are of no consequence to me. I. Don't. Care. But no, I am not trying to troll. I am not trying to offend. So, let's try to get back on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is the second time tonight that you have told another member to "chill out". Whats that saying, you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, your the asshole? May apply here

[Sigfan26]

this is the second time tonight that you have told another member to "chill out". Whats that saying, you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, your the asshole? May apply here

Whatever dude. Have fun being triggered by strong winds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

Whatever dude. Have fun being triggered by strong winds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, fuck you too.