Failed Glock torture test - Page 5
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > Glock Forum > Failed Glock torture test

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-10-2013, 10:37 PM   #41
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 18,028
Liked 5985 Times on 3131 Posts
Likes Given: 427

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Down_Town_Dalton View Post
After watching multiple videos of glock torture tests, I got the bright idea to just try my own quick little test. I was shooting at my farm when my buddy told me to bury it. So I laid the gen 3 glock 19 with a full mag of American eagle brass, nothing in the pipe on the ground and covered it in dirt. I picked it up , racked the slide and it wouldn't release. Can anyone have any ideas on why my glock petered out? Thanks in advance.
those videos you see of so called torture tests are simply propoganda and much like proffessional wrestling heavily edited made for tv scripted fiction.

put dirt and junk in a gun and they probably will not function. simple as that
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 10:40 PM   #42
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1768 Times on 989 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumJunkie View Post

BTW, did you know a 1911 can save a child form a burning building?
Yes, but it only works if it's .38 Super. Da da daaaaa!
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 10:41 PM   #43
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 18,028
Liked 5985 Times on 3131 Posts
Likes Given: 427

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
Just break it down, run it through the dishwasher (top rack), get it warm but not melty, and lube it well.



(some people do use this method on BP revolvers)
if you do this dont use the dry cycle soon as the heated rinse is done get it out shake it out oil the crap out of it.

the heated dry cycle will rust the internals solid
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
Doc3402 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 10:44 PM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 102
Liked 13 Times on 10 Posts

Default

I am an old HK fan and once saw a demonstration of shooting a second round after a squib load in a USP.
I don't see any need to test that with my pistol. I also have watched guys jump a creek on a 4 wheeler. I have two Glock pistols. They are very well made.
My advice is to choose friends advice with the thought that "would he do it with his pistol?"

__________________
hkhunter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 12:21 AM   #45
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjfuller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: a place between here and there.
Posts: 4,489
Liked 1177 Times on 767 Posts
Likes Given: 706

Default

I would definitely clean your pistols trigger group thoroughly. And. Never do dumb shlt again. Do more research next time.

__________________
I have been a silent witness
to all of America's finest hours.
But my finest hour comes
when I am torn into strips and used as bandages
for my wounded comrades on the battlefield,
When I fly at half-mast to honor my soldiers,
Or when I lie in the trembling arms
of a grieving mother
at the graveside of her fallen son.
jjfuller1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 12:28 AM   #46
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,155
Liked 5734 Times on 3360 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjfuller1 View Post
...And. Never do dumb shlt again. Do more research next time.
Truly though, poorly thought-out experimentation does keep life interesting doesn't it? The most interesting dates I've been on were with women I neeeever should have been alone with.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 03:31 AM   #47
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Fathead00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 2,922
Liked 1098 Times on 658 Posts
Likes Given: 55

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM
those videos you see of so called torture tests are simply propoganda and much like proffessional wrestling heavily edited made for tv scripted fiction. put dirt and junk in a gun and they probably will not function. simple as that
Hey wrestling is the real deal!!! It's not edited or scripted!!!
__________________
Fathead00 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 06:46 PM   #48
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 174
Liked 38 Times on 26 Posts

Default

Let me preface this with the fact that I currently carry a Glock 23 as my primary PDW.

When I watched the video I came up with a few questions, including:

Who are the two guys and what are their qualifications for testing firearms?

How do we know the 1911 in question was reliable in the first place?
Was it always a "lemon?"
Were they firing ammo it was known to balk at?
Was it modified (read "butchered by an armchair gunsmith") in any way?

Did they both get truly the same dirt treatment?
The Glock came out of the dirt pretty quick but, they had to "fish" for the 1911 a bit.

How many times did they "rinse and repeat" to achieve statistical validity? Or, are we supposed to just accept an data set of one as definitive?

I thought it interesting that they referred to the 1911 as a "target gun" with tolerances that were "too tight." Tell that to any of the American GIs who used them successfully in battle and in the worst "torture" conditions imaginable since before WWI. They won't agree. The 1911 was designed with intentionally loose tolerances to allow for battlefield reliability and was expected to produce 3"-4" @ 25 yds. groups. It did it's job as well or better than any sidearm before or (arguably) since.

People for decades bought 1911s and, knowing they wouldn't be slogging through muddy trenches or sandy deserts, immediately sent them to gunsmiths to tune and tighten so that they would shoot better than the normal 3"-4" at 25 yds battle standard. Now manufacturers put out "factory-custom" guns with all those bells and whistles standard giving guns that are phenomenally accurate and we now get guys whining that they are "too tight?" If you want to make a fair comparison, test the Glock against and original, Mil-Spec 1911. I'd bet you'll see them perform pretty much the same in both reliability and accuracy.

The Glock (and any similar striker-fired gun) does have a small advantage in such "tests" because its firing mechanism is, comparatively speaking, "closed" - whereas the 1911s (and similar, hammer-fired guns) are more "open" and could allow more dirt into the mechanism. I know of no actual, scientifically-valid testing to see the real difference but, I would be very surprised to see it prove significant.

__________________

Last edited by lucznik; 10-11-2013 at 07:02 PM.
lucznik is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2013, 09:11 PM   #49
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21994 Times on 12402 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucznik View Post
Let me preface this with the fact that I currently carry a Glock 23 as my primary PDW.

When I watched the video I came up with a few questions, including:

Who are the two guys and what are their qualifications for testing firearms?

How do we know the 1911 in question was reliable in the first place?
Was it always a "lemon?"
Were they firing ammo it was known to balk at?
Was it modified (read "butchered by an armchair gunsmith") in any way?

Did they both get truly the same dirt treatment?
The Glock came out of the dirt pretty quick but, they had to "fish" for the 1911 a bit.

How many times did they "rinse and repeat" to achieve statistical validity? Or, are we supposed to just accept an data set of one as definitive?

I thought it interesting that they referred to the 1911 as a "target gun" with tolerances that were "too tight." Tell that to any of the American GIs who used them successfully in battle and in the worst "torture" conditions imaginable since before WWI. They won't agree. The 1911 was designed with intentionally loose tolerances to allow for battlefield reliability and was expected to produce 3"-4" @ 25 yds. groups. It did it's job as well or better than any sidearm before or (arguably) since.

People for decades bought 1911s and, knowing they wouldn't be slogging through muddy trenches or sandy deserts, immediately sent them to gunsmiths to tune and tighten so that they would shoot better than the normal 3"-4" at 25 yds battle standard. Now manufacturers put out "factory-custom" guns with all those bells and whistles standard giving guns that are phenomenally accurate and we now get guys whining that they are "too tight?" If you want to make a fair comparison, test the Glock against and original, Mil-Spec 1911. I'd bet you'll see them perform pretty much the same in both reliability and accuracy.

The Glock (and any similar striker-fired gun) does have a small advantage in such "tests" because its firing mechanism is, comparatively speaking, "closed" - whereas the 1911s (and similar, hammer-fired guns) are more "open" and could allow more dirt into the mechanism. I know of no actual, scientifically-valid testing to see the real difference but, I would be very surprised to see it prove significant.
this is very well said. this is why any bozo can put up a YouTube video and make up his own test and make his firearm seem to be the best. uncontrolled testing. and editing, a person can do just about anything.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2013, 04:13 PM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjones45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 555
Liked 113 Times on 85 Posts

Default

Like I said before I would be more interested in how many rounds a gun can fire before parts break than some ridiculous torture test. You ever see that fps Russia dudes glock torture test on youtube? That's how I feel about all torture test, pointless. If you neglect and abuse any tool it will eventually fail.

__________________
jjones45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
PSA Torture Test trailer... More to come Quentin AR-15 Discussion 30 06-08-2013 03:59 AM
Another Glock Torture Test MoreAltitude Glock Forum 4 12-01-2012 04:29 AM
Brutal Glock 21 torture test indyfan Glock Forum 27 08-02-2012 07:36 AM
Sig SP2022 torture test Poink88 Semi-Auto Handguns 6 09-29-2011 05:28 AM
Amazing torture test General_lee Glock Forum 7 03-10-2011 06:22 AM