MAC does more torture testing, this time angers SIG fans

[GardoneVT]

In this case, sample sizes of one each is sufficient. The test is not looking for random variation among items understood to be similar or intended to be the same. It is comparing significant and fundamental design differences and how they interact with the environment. I'd expect very similar results 30 out of 30 times, especially as he demonstrated through repeated trials that the outcome was repeatable. It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the product produced by the two manufacturers, it was just comparing two significantly different designs in a particular set of operating conditions.

Uhh, no.

Random variation matters. Especially when it comes to lifesaving equipment with legal and financial penalties attached to the product.



Now if your goal is just to screw around with two different guns and video the results, so be it. But let's cut to the chase; most casual viewers will see this as "scientific" and decide maybe they should opt for the Mushroom Brand Gun instead of a tried and proven model. If the S never meets the F they'll be alright. Should the moment of terrible truth happen and their shiny Mushroom Brand Gun fail , will MAC be there to save them?

[Peally]

In this case, sample sizes of one each is sufficient. The test is not looking for random variation among items understood to be similar or intended to be the same. It is comparing significant and fundamental design differences and how they interact with the environment. I'd expect very similar results 30 out of 30 times, especially as he demonstrated through repeated trials that the outcome was repeatable. It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the product produced by the two manufacturers, it was just comparing two significantly different designs in a particular set of operating conditions.

The test is looking for YouTube views and likes. Nothing else. It's pretty damn retarded but "average" shooters love it.

[Nephrology]

Uhh, no.

Random variation matters....

most casual viewers will see this as "scientific"

To be fair, there seems to be little if any truly scientific procedure in most firearms testing, even (and perhaps especially) at the institutional level.

This is also confounded by variance in tolerance, manufacturer tooling, and OEM parts suppliers that occurs over the years; the easy example being the well described problems with 9mm or .40 caliber Glocks that can be described as peaking around specific dates of production but are hardly absolute.

So, I don't know that we would get better information if he repeated this 30x in a row with 30 different copies of each pistol (especially given that we haven't even done the chi squared power calculation). Is this test 'scientific'? no. But to say the test is 100% meaningless strikes me as a little disingenuous... he did a test, transparently posted the process and provided us a result. What conclusions you can draw from it are largely in the eye of the beholder...

edit: if anything the best criticism of this kind of test is that how well a gun performs after you drop it in the mud is not nearly as important for the average consumer as small parts availability, overall durability over time, factory support, reliability with different kinds of ammunition, etc etc....

[ReverendMeat]

This is far from a ridiculous "torture test". I've had guns fall into dirt and mud before, it'd be nice to know that they won't become COMPLETELY NON-FUNCTIONAL if that happens, like that 226 did. I'm pretty solid on the mechanics of most pistols but I just don't see how a little bit of dirt could cause it to lock up like it did halfway through the video. Anyone have an idea?

[guymontag]

The test is looking for YouTube views and likes. Nothing else. It's pretty damn retarded but "average" shooters love it.

And it even gets "Teachers and Students of the Pistol" talking about it too!

I know I'll get shit for saying I watch (and like watching) Nutnfancy videos but I find them more informative than most everything from MAC.

[Sammy1]

I'm not denying the results but just because a pistol has loose tolerances and functions with mud inside doesn't make it a better handgun. How about putting both firearms out to rent at a range for three years and then coming back and see how they held up.

[OlongJohnson]

Uhh, no.

Random variation matters. Especially when it comes to lifesaving equipment with legal and financial penalties attached to the product.

No debate on that. But IMO, the differences shown between the two pistols are almost certainly not a result of random variation, but a result of a fundamental and significant (in the test conditions) design difference. Hence the consistent repeatability of "one works, one doesn't work" through his multiple trials.

This is far from a ridiculous "torture test". I've had guns fall into dirt and mud before, it'd be nice to know that they won't become COMPLETELY NON-FUNCTIONAL if that happens, like that 226 did. I'm pretty solid on the mechanics of most pistols but I just don't see how a little bit of dirt could cause it to lock up like it did halfway through the video. Anyone have an idea?

I think the clue is toward the end where he's showing the accelerated wear on the top of the P226 rails. The part of the slide that extends forward of the dust cover has a concave nook/cranny where sticky debris can stick and be drawn back into the rails, and would then contact the top of the rails where that wear is seen. It doesn't take a very big piece of grit to close up that gap and make it hard for the rails to slide against each other.

My point is that the test doesn't show us anything about the relative quality of the two pistols. There's nothing in it to suggest that if the knockoff company made a pistol where the slide and dust cover looked like those of the P226 that it would fare any better than the Sig did.

[ReverendMeat]

That makes more sense than what I was thinking. Didn't SIGs used to have scalloped frame rails to deal with that sort of issue?

[Trooper224]

The Arex Rex Zero is in stock on Copper Custom's (aka Mac's) website in case anybody here wants one

Surely not, inconceivable.

These "torture" tests are the current hotness with the Goobertube crowd, as they've run out of other stuff and need to keep the lemmings entranced. I started watching one yesterday in which clown shoes was going to show everyone how to slick up the action on an S&W revolver. I mouse clicked him off into the ether as soon as he pried up the sideplate with a screw driver.

If I drop my heater in the mud, sand, yogurt, hummus, whatever, I just assume I'm going to have a problem. You dump enough crap inside any machine and it will cease function. I don't understand why this shocks so many people.

[LockedBreech]

In my early gun-geek days I would watch those sorts of torture tests with a rapt fascination, until reading quality forums and books taught me that they mean and prove literally nothing.

That a gun can survive a drop and mud bath doesn't mean the trigger springs won't break, or that accuracy won't break up when the barrel gets hot, or that the magazine feed lips won't crack, or that the feed ramp won't have poor metallurgy that, over time, leads to deformation. It won't prove anything I actually need to know.

Do I know if my 92, P220, or VP9 will survive the modern YouTube-variant torture test? I don't know. Probably. Maybe not. But I do know that if I keep them cleaned, lubricated, with maintained springs and magazines, they'll fire a cartridge reliably.

Which seems more important...