The validity/usefulness of "torture tests"

[shootist26]

I am specifically referring to the types of torture tests people post about online where they cram the guns full of sand/mud/twinkies/whatever and see if they still shoot. I have seen threads on various forums dealing with these tests, and have seen known reliable guns like HKs, M&Ps, Glocks, and Beretta 92s all fail.

At what point does a torture test go from realistic/useful to ridiculous/expecting-too-much-from-a-handgun? How do we determine this? Is cramming a semi-auto with foreign matter a realistic test? If not, how much foreign matter is reasonable?

[Josh Runkle]

I am specifically referring to the types of torture tests people post about online where they cram the guns full of sand/mud/twinkies/whatever and see if they still shoot. I have seen threads on various forums dealing with these tests, and have seen known reliable guns like HKs, M&Ps, Glocks, and Beretta 92s all fail.

At what point does a torture test go from realistic/useful to ridiculous/expecting-too-much-from-a-handgun? How do we determine this? Is cramming a semi-auto with foreign matter a realistic test? If not, how much foreign matter is reasonable?

I think it really depends on what the gun is being used to or being marketed to. There's a vast difference between marketing to a guy who keeps a gun in the home full time, versus a special forces guy who might not know the days ahead, and may want something to last through salt water or a sandstorm, and then not be cleaned for a week, then be used very heavily. Unfortunately, most gun buyers all see themselves as having the same needs/wants as special forces guys. They can live hundreds of miles from salt water but still want something that has a salt-water corrosion resistant finish.

The issue is less with gun companies and tests and more with who the average gun buyer sees him/herself to be. For the sake of R&D of any product, especially one marketed to such vast audiences, like a beretta, hk, sig, block, etc...I find it highly useful to see failure points in any number of scenarios. The vast differences in scenarios represents the vast differences in audiences, and all scenarios together represent relatively few individuals, like special forces perhaps, but, as stated: the 99% of gun owners feel they need the same capabilities of the other 1%.

[rob_s]

In most cases I think it's just newer shooters that are amazed that the machine will work after that. And they are oozing with pride in their new purchase. I remember when we were first getting into guns one of our guys threw his Glock into the mud, ran it over with his truck, and took it out and shot it. I'm sure that had camera phones been around, and youstube, we would have videoed it and posted it.

That, and everyone seems to be a gun reviewer these days, in some weird quest for fame and free shit.

[DanH]

In most cases I think it's just newer shooters that are amazed that the machine will work after that. And they are oozing with pride in their new purchase. I remember when we were first getting into guns one of our guys threw his Glock into the mud, ran it over with his truck, and took it out and shot it. I'm sure that had camera phones been around, and youstube, we would have videoed it and posted it.

That, and everyone seems to be a gun reviewer these days, in some weird quest for fame and free shit.

funny you should mention that. I saw a video of someone doing the same thing with a HiPoint :p

[BLR]

At what point does a torture test go from realistic/useful to ridiculous/expecting-too-much-from-a-handgun? How do we determine this? Is cramming a semi-auto with foreign matter a realistic test? If not, how much foreign matter is reasonable?

To build a scientifically valid and valuable test you need to:
1. Define the variables
2. Define the test matrix
3. Define the test procedure
4. Do the the test
5. Report the results
6. Interpret the results

As an example, one could test the size of sand needed to impede function of a Glock trigger mechanism, lubricated and unlubricated. Chances are 2000 grit may act as a lubricant, while 800 may lock it up solid. You could pour in x grams of sand into the trigger mechanism of the assembled gun and fire 100 rounds to ensure proper operation.

Or something along those lines. At any rate, that is approximately what is needed to make a true test, twinkies notwithstanding.

[Zhurdan]

I figure if someones got that kinda cash laying around and they enjoy doing it, have at it.

On the flip side, if someone is limited in funds and they are doing it simply to garner youtube hits... fail.

The worst part of most of the tests, at least for me, is watching them expend copious amounts of ammo that is just going into a dirt berm that could be used for actual training, but again, if they've got the coin...

[ToddG]

I don't know. All those Hilux torture episodes of Top Gear certainly impressed me...

[BaiHu]

I don't know. All those Hilux torture episodes of Top Gear certainly impressed me...

Loved those episodes!

[jstyer]

I don't know. All those Hilux torture episodes of Top Gear certainly impressed me...

Along with north pole in a hilux, and greatest roads in the world episodes... those constitute some of the greatest stuff ever on TV.

[Mjolnir]

I enjoy reading any knowledgeable, insightful, well-written person who chooses to torture a pistol, rifle or any machine, for that matter.

What may be irrelevant to one may be pertinent to another.

In short: everything is not for everyone.

Much is anecdotal but that's okay.

[STS]

That, and everyone seems to be a gun reviewer these days, in some weird quest for fame and free shit.

Aren't you a "gun reviewer"?

[BWT]

Aren't you a "gun reviewer"?

I was about to say.

As a side note.

I figure, more data the better.

I personally like all the information I can get. I'm in the vast minority that enjoys nutnfancy's videos for a lot of the detail/background. That being said, some gripes out there I feel are valid, some aren't.

Example, some people are upset that when fully loaded some Glock magazines when violently shaken, have a clicking sound. Do they load fine? Yeah. Do they feed fine? Yes. Do they maintain spring tension for pretty much their entire service life? Yes. Do they have problems with feed lip spread and double feeds or some other malfunction, after leaving them loaded for sometimes years on end? No. But it clicks when you shake it.

I view some torture testing the same, it's nice to know, but you're right, to some degree, it doesn't matter. I did swap out my Glock Factory Extended Slide Release to a Vickers Tactical Slide Release, specifically because of the findings of ToddG on this site. So that was useful, to me anyway. The fact I have a Lonewolf Connector, knowing his broke, does slightly nag at me because of this site as well.

I would say contextualize the information you read to your uses, and that's how important you should view it. I don't feel the need to throw solvents on my Glock, throw it an oven, bury it my back yard, drag it behind my car with a rope tied in the trigger guard, to feel okay about it's reliability with just firing 400-500 without cleaning.

That being said, there is absolute merit to knowing from testing when certain parts need to be replaced and when certain parts will fail, and trying to anticipate those failures and preemptively address them, endurance testing provides that information, it's out there to find the limits. The more examples, the more conclusions that can be drawn.

[fuse]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Many would likely consider the 2000 round challenge torture.

What would these folks think about 7 or 8k rounds without cleaning? A moral crime, for sure.

[jslaker]

Torture is in the eye of the beholder.

Many would likely consider the 2000 round challenge torture.

What would these folks think about 7 or 8k rounds without cleaning? A moral crime, for sure.

I recently had a gunsmith tell me I was an idiot that was going to break my gun in very short order -- in as many words -- because I don't even think about cleaning my M&P until the 500-1k round mark.

[ToddG]

I recently had a gunsmith tell me I was an idiot that was going to break my gun in very short order -- in as many words -- because I don't even think about cleaning my M&P until the 500-1k round mark.

I had the gunsmiths at both Beretta and SIG insist I was "ruining" my guns when I worked at those companies... because I would shoot the gun when it was dirty.

[jslaker]

I had the gunsmiths at both Beretta and SIG insist I was "ruining" my guns when I worked at those companies... because I would shoot the gun when it was dirty.

What was interesting/frustrating/amusing with this guy was that there just was no questioning "you clean your gun thoroughly every single time you shoot it" whatsoever. I tried pretty hard to suss a solid "why" out of him, and through the shifting goal posts, the best answer I could ever get was essentially to inspect for damage and fouling prevents you from doing so.

Okay, fair enough. But I could quite literally show him the gun as it sat at 600 rounds since its last cleaning - there were powder flecks on some of the internals, but nothing that would obscure anything in any substantial way. Didn't matter. Neither did the fact that the gun was still running fine and had run through far worse. Or that it was still wet with lubricant. Or that that it's shot twice a week, dry-fired nearly every day, and actually checked for function and wear in that span. Or that it gets replacement of springs and other wear parts at or before the factory-recommended intervals. None of that made a bit of difference. I'm an idiot and I'm going to break my gun and learn my lesson.

Getting him to define a lower bound for when a gun needs to be cleaned didn't work any better. I asked if I should thoroughly clean after 5 rounds fired? 10? 20? 50? I got a non-sequitur about cleaning a black powder gun after even one round (and I had actually brought up corrosives and their role in cleaning earlier in the conversation).

Basically, all I really learned is that trying to get some people to apply logic to some beliefs accomplishes little more than pissing them off. :)

(Oh, and the reaction to the idea that I viewed this gun as something I'll put around 50k or so rounds through over the course of a few years and then replace it with another one? That it was utterly disposable to me? That did not go over well at all. :cool:)

[Kyle Reese]

I had the gunsmiths at both Beretta and SIG insist I was "ruining" my guns when I worked at those companies... because I would shoot the gun when it was dirty.

In that case, my M4's, AK's and Glock handguns are all "ruined". :cool:

[rob_s]

Aren't you a "gun reviewer"?

Not really. I'm a writer, and I've done a few gun reviews, but I don't keep free guns that I write wbout and buy a lot of my own guns & hardware that I do write about. In general I'd rather write about training and topics other than guns & gear as well.

My comment was based on the numerous emails I receive from people that make the same mistake you did, many of whom are asking me outright how they can get into writing for the "free stuff".

[Chuck Haggard]

Every once in awhile I feel the need to debate with retards in the intardweb. So, I was on the Kel Tec forum and saw a thread ref cleaning every single time you shoot your gun and saw one post after another where people seemed to feel morally superior to others who don't clean their guns after every single range session.

I pointed out stuff like Todd's testing, and Pat Roger's Filthy 14 and was met with jihad like posting by people who I just knew were gnashing their teeth as they banged really hard on the computer keyboard due to my heresy.

Lots of "I was taught how to properly clean a gun in the Marines/Army/Air Force...". I had the audacity to point out how many guys like Pat make the point that the services tend to do retarded stuff, like clean guns to death.

More gnashing and wailing.

I have come to the conclusion that for some people this is a religious opinion, or just a really F'd form of OCD, and that NO amount of logic will change their mind.

[Jay Cunningham]

I've come to find a generally inverse relationship between how much one actually shoots vs. how much one actually cleans.

Sort of makes sense, if you think about it.

[Kyle Reese]

I recently had a gunsmith tell me I was an idiot that was going to break my gun in very short order -- in as many words -- because I don't even think about cleaning my M&P until the 500-1k round mark.

I've shot my M&P's in classes and training sessions for up to 2,000 rds without cleaning. Your gunsmith would probably tell me I was destroying the ozone layer or something. :cool:

I'd find another gunsmith. Polymer framed service handguns aren't meant to be treated like a date to the spring formal.

[Zhurdan]

I don't clean my guns every time, but I rather enjoy cleaning them after going shooting. Kind of a "wind down" time in the man cave. Listen to the radio, think about what I gained from that shooting session while I clean the gun.

Other obvious times are when I shoot corrosives thru the 47 and 74's. When you drop $1800 on a Bulgarian Krinkov SBR, it get's cleaned no matter how neurotic it may seem. :D

Torturing a gun that's new to the market kinda sorta makes sense, but like most of the Youtube stars do, it's just for bragging rights.

[Tamara]

I've come to find a generally inverse relationship between how much one actually shoots vs. how much one actually cleans.

Well, tpd223 did say he was on a Kel Tec forum. :p

EDITED TO ADD: I place the blame for a lot of this torture test silliness on those little circulars Glock was handing out through stocking dealers back in the '90s that showed one of their guns getting frozen and dunked in mud and thrown out of a helicopter into a volcano after being run over with a tank... That, and Chuck Taylor's 1,000,000,000 (or however many) round G17 torture test from around the same time period. I was a Glock koolaid drinker at the time and ate that stuff up and spouted it off to anybody who would listen. I was That Gun Shop Clerk.

[NickA]

As an average dude who's not LEO or military, I have to wonder: if things have gotten so bad that I don't have the means to clean my gun even occasionally, then where in the hell am I going to get enough ammo to run several thousand rounds through it anyways? Do people really stockpile pallets of ammo and MRE's but not even include a few patches and some oil?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[Kyle Reese]

As an average dude who's not LEO or military, I have to wonder: if things have gotten so bad that I don't have the means to clean my gun even occasionally, then where in the hell am I going to get enough ammo to run several thousand rounds through it anyways? Do people really stockpile pallets of ammo and MRE's but not even include a few patches and some oil?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Some people probably do, yea. They're the ones who will never actually-

-Shoot enough rounds thru any of their weapons to wear out critical components.

-Attend a formal class and sort out any kit/weapons issues that they have.

What they WILL do is postulate on various gun forums about the "fit and finish" of their AR that they never train with, argue the merits of 1/7 vs a 1/9 twist rate in their AR and other nonsense.

[peterb]

I don't clean my guns every time, but I rather enjoy cleaning them after going shooting. Kind of a "wind down" time in the man cave. Listen to the radio, think about what I gained from that shooting session while I clean the gun.

Yup. For some folks, "cleaning the gun after shooting" evokes a sort of Norman Rockwell scene, where Dad cleans the old shotgun while a fire blazes in the corner and the smell of damp Labrador mingles with the aroma of Hoppe's #9. There's a powerful emotional attachment there.

[ToddG]

\Do people really stockpile pallets of ammo and MRE's but not even include a few patches and some oil?

:cool:

[ford.304]

Is there actually an advantage to not cleaning your guns, other than "now I don't have to spend any time cleaning my guns"?

[Kyle Reese]

Is there actually an advantage to not cleaning your guns, other than "now I don't have to spend any time cleaning my guns"?

Not really advantageous, but modern service / duty handguns aren't dainty maidens, and should not be required to be babied. Lube em, shoot, and clean as necessary.

JV & I were at lunch one day, and it had been about 2000 or so rounds since my concealed carry piece had been cleaned. When it got to the point where my M&P 9 stank the joint up, I decided to give it a wash when I got home. :cool:

I prefer to spend my free time shooting more and cleaning when necessary.

[fuse]

I don't clean my guns every time, but I rather enjoy cleaning them after going shooting. Kind of a "wind down" time in the man cave. Listen to the radio, think about what I gained from that shooting session while I clean the gun.

This is what handloading is to me, sometimes. My guns pretty much never get cleaned.

[jslaker]

Is there actually an advantage to not cleaning your guns, other than "now I don't have to spend any time cleaning my guns"?

Is there actually an advantage to not changing the oil in your car every 200 miles other than "now I don't have to spent any time changing my oil?"


I've shot my M&P's in classes and training sessions for up to 2,000 rds without cleaning. Your gunsmith would probably tell me I was destroying the ozone layer or something. :cool:

Yeah, the whole thing was prompted because I'd just run my M&P through a 2KRC for the hell of it.


I'd find another gunsmith.

This was actually on another, small forum. I've actually heard the guy does good work, but, yeah, that conversation would be enough to turn me off, unfortunately.

[ToddG]

Is there actually an advantage to not cleaning your guns, other than "now I don't have to spend any time cleaning my guns"?

No, and all else being equal there is probably some truth to the idea that a well maintained gun will run better and/or longer. A filthy gun shouldn't be a badge of honor any more than it should be a badge of dishonor.

[Odin Bravo One]

No, and all else being equal there is probably some truth to the idea that a well maintained gun will run better and/or longer. A filthy gun shouldn't be a badge of honor any more than it should be a badge of dishonor.

That said...........for a rifle, particularly one that has MOA type accuracy, the fact that people DO NOT know how to properly clean said firearm can, and does lead to scratched and permanently damaged bores, crowns, chambers, etc., which will promptly begin to degrade accuracy, which will worsen over time.

"I learned to clean my rifle in the (Fill in the blank)" crowd are generally the worst offenders. Especially the Marines. Cleaning a firearm until they are nickel in appearance may satisfy the white glove rifle inspection, but has little practical application. The fact that the services still use multi-section cleaning rods made of metal screams that they have no real clue as to what is necessary to maintain accuracy. That type of cleaning will prematurely erode accuracy and barrel life faster than simply blazing away and letting the fouling sit.

Since I have to travel a lot, and often unexpectedly, I do tend to at least wipe things down, especially if it is something I don't shoot as often as I should, or would like. I am admittedly a "hobby shooter", so I own and shoot a variety of guns. However, for the guns I consider to be "working guns", they will usually get cleaned on January 1st when I replace light and optic batteries, wipe down and re-lube everything in the safe, and watch football.

For the actual "work guns", they get cleaned every two years, unless they get wet. If they go in the drink, they get a cleaning. Beyond that, they get cleaned when it is time for their inspection and passed on to the next guy. I just see no need to get all USMC about it and clean it simply for the sake of cleaning it.

[Chuck Haggard]

Well, tpd223 did say he was on a Kel Tec forum. :p
.

This is where I have to admit to owning a sub2000.

It's a neat little gun, and that forum can be useful if you can stand the signal to noise ratio.

[TGS]

Polymer framed service handguns aren't meant to be treated like a date to the spring formal.

Well, I guess that depends on how you think dates to the spring formal should be treated.

:D


Cleaning a firearm until they are nickel in appearance may satisfy the white glove rifle inspection, but has little practical application.

Witness the awesomeness of bores in old Swiss rifles. Only the squad leaders were issued what we consider a cleaning kit, and it was only used infrequently (i.e. once a year or before long term storage). Routine care of their bore after shooting was nothing more than greasing the bore, and then swabbing out the grease right before your next range session.

[Failure2Stop]

Witness the awesomeness of bores in old Swiss rifles.

Is that to say that they are good or bad?
I really have no idea.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TGS]

Is that to say that they are good or bad?
I really have no idea.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

They're superb.....most Swiss K31 rifles have bores that look new, yet they were shot often. Most surplus K31 rifles can hold 1 MOA with standard surplus Swiss GP11 cartridges.

[Kyle Reese]

Is that to say that they are good or bad?
I really have no idea.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I love mine.