Reliability gets referenced a lot in a wide range of forums/threads. I'd like to see some objective data. Do gun manufacturers typically provide reliability data for their guns? If so, are there industry standards for determining and comparing reliability? If manufacturers don't provide this are there any independent entities that do?
Other than the results from a large .mil or large .gov testing process, I have never seen a manufacturer provide reliability data. Here's the best place I've seen for unbiased (read: not done by the manufacturer of the pistol) reliability testing.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...ound-Challenge
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
The closest entity that I can think of would be European proof houses, and they only test firearms with a limited number of overpressure rounds. Better then nothing, but not the same as a long term test.Originally Posted by Fon1961
Way I see it, setting up a "Consumer Reports" type test has several major logistical issues.One, who has the motivation to set it up? Guns and Ammo wont do it, because theyre an advertising vehicle for the industry.
Manufacturers wont do it on a mass scale, for obvious reasons. The only way this works is if a wealthy individual writes off millions of dollars . Testing one 9mm pistol for 50K rounds would cost $15,000 , and that doesnt include range costs and labor compensation for the time of the shooter-because guys like TLG are hard to find, and Cleetus aint qualified for this kind of work.
Thats 15K+ per GUN; and HKs variants alone would run up the bill fast. Multiply $15,000 times every modern 9mm produced today, and that's one heckuva ammo bill. Talk about lead poisoning.....
Then follows the challenge of updating the list due to parts changes, so that people dont accidentally buy a turd because last year it topped the ranking . As TLG observed years back, gun companies change parts all the time without public notice-and any one of them can turn a reliable machine into a bucket of Taurus.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
This thread is awesome, thx for posting it....skimmed the entire thing....need to go back and read the details now lol
I agree with you in general, however, don't you think every new weapon design would have to go through some type of a formal qualification/validation which would include both non operational and operational testing. Not just for performance assessment but also for liability reasons....? In addition can a mfg really afford to take a chance mass producing parts that may not function together? Maybe a lot of it's done by modeling and simulation?Manufacturers wont do it on a mass scale, for obvious reasons. ...
The main concern I hear about pistols is reliability, I'd just like to see data.
Tanfoglio has youtube videos showing their QC process, but not every manufacturer is that forthcoming .Some firms operate on a business model which says if only 2 people in 10 actually shoot their guns enough to see a problem,it makes more sense financially to deal with the rare warranty claims then to invest in QC which drains profits and goes unnoticed by their customers.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I could buy that some companies would take a gamble from a warrantee perspective...but not one of the major manufacturers. I also think that liability is a huge factor. I would also like to believe that this data could be used to objectively demonstrate the superiority of their product or highlight what changes that were needed to make it so. I've been trying internet searches to learn more but mostly just get posts that make claims with very limited or unscientific data/rationale.
Maybe it would be possible to look at the problem from the other direction, i.e. What are the requirements?
For example, for the original Glock pistol, what were the reliability figures it had to meet?
I realize wiki is not authoritative, but a quick search shows this entry:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
"No more than 20 malfunctions are permitted during the first 10,000 rounds fired, not even minor jams that can be cleared without the use of any tools.
After firing 15,000 rounds of standard ammunition, the pistol will be inspected for wear. The pistol will then be used to fire an overpressure test cartridge generating 5,000 bar (500 MPa; 73,000 psi). (The normal maximum operating pressure Pmax for the 9 mm NATO is rated at 2,520 bar (252 MPa; 36,500 psi).)[11] The critical components must continue to function properly and be up to specifications, otherwise the pistol will be disqualified."
Would it make sense that this is an objective measure of 'reliability'?
The problems that Glock has had with a couple model variants over time would indicate that they were willing to live with sending guns out that weren't up to their usual reliability parameters. ISP's guns being one of those problems. I don't think they ever admitted that there was actually a problem, even though they took a fair sized lot of guns back that they were unable to get to run right. Just an example of a generally accepted high standard of reliability that doesn't always extend across the board on all their products.
I think establishing your acceptable baseline is going to be necessary to make judgments on reliability. One persons "outstanding!" or "flawless" level of shooting and reliability acceptance may be anothers weekend practice level, and barely register on their radar.
Test of the firearm, sure, but also the ammo.
Reply With Quote