Reliability Test IV: M&P 9mm
- Thread starter Melnibonean
- Start date
Of note, this model has the marine spring cup to eliminate hydrolock. A non marine Glock will also hydrolock. Strip out the firing pin and note the round spring cup, this is the nexus of hydrolock. The marine version has cut outs on the spring cup so only 4 points at 90 degrees make contact with the firing gun pin tube allowing water to pass around the spring cup.
Didnt know about this, thanks for the info
- Location
- The Orion Arm
Tim mentions that the Glock he tested prior to this M&P didn't have the marine cups, so was not surprised it hydrolocked. I had posted that link here a while ago
EDIT: Here it is:
On the topic of water, I made a mistake earlier when I mentioned the PPQ can fire underwater. What I should have said is that the PPQ Navy is designed to fire underwater, with firing pin spring cups that are similar to the marine spring cups available for the Glock. They are shaped to allow more space in the firing pin channel for water to move out of the way faster so it could function under water.
The Navy also has a drain hole in the bottom of the slide, as is standard on all Glocks too now, IIRC. Advantage is it allows water to drain out. Disadvantage is it allows dirt to be blown in. Take your pick.
EDIT: Here it is:
On the topic of water, I made a mistake earlier when I mentioned the PPQ can fire underwater. What I should have said is that the PPQ Navy is designed to fire underwater, with firing pin spring cups that are similar to the marine spring cups available for the Glock. They are shaped to allow more space in the firing pin channel for water to move out of the way faster so it could function under water.
The Navy also has a drain hole in the bottom of the slide, as is standard on all Glocks too now, IIRC. Advantage is it allows water to drain out. Disadvantage is it allows dirt to be blown in. Take your pick.
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
kinda makes me wanna drill a hole in my M&P.
Well maybe you should wait til spring. Pretty cold to go swimming with it now is it not?
Take Care
Bob
I want to see him do the same test, the same way, with any AR - leave some water in the barrel, that'll be entertaining. As with any specialized situation using a firearm, there are things you need to do, he doesn't. People who swim with guns that they're going to use do these things reflexively. Dumb test.
I feel like people who call the tests stupid or meaningless are usually fans of the guns that didn't hold up well. It's a test, it is what it is. It measures gun's performance under certain conditions and whether or not their likelihood is relevant to ones chances of it happening is irrelevant , but the low probability doesn't make it stupid.
Let's keep in mind he's not testing match grade .22s designed to be used used under pristine range conditions. These manufacturers make these guns to target military and police markes (hence M&P name...) where rough conditions are quite possible.
Let's keep in mind he's not testing match grade .22s designed to be used used under pristine range conditions. These manufacturers make these guns to target military and police markes (hence M&P name...) where rough conditions are quite possible.
Last edited:
I know, that any test that involves a sample size of one, does not provide any reliable information about the population as a whole. If you want to seriously look at the reliability of a firearm in field conditions look to how the US Army is choosing its next pistol.It's a dramatic test, but it's not scientific or particularly useful in determining the reliability of a type of gun. I guess some people are easily impressed, others are a bit more analytical about what they see on the internet.
And how does one determine the consistency of the manufacturing process? Answer, with a representative sample. You can deny it all you want, anyone capable of critical thought will not put much value in these tests.
Unless one is employed by a particular company the only way of knowing their quality control is from consistency of other users feedback. Since there aren't many reports from people complaining about their lemon M&P, the logical thing to do is give them the benefit of the doubt. (Also having 4 M&Ps over the years myself I did not notice anything different between them)
Now that we established the low risk of x pistol being better or worse than y pistol of the same make and model (M&p in this case) it's safe to conclude that biggest variable of doing a large scale test like that would be the consistency of the test itself - ensuring each gun gets same exposure to the elements used.
Now that we established the low risk of x pistol being better or worse than y pistol of the same make and model (M&p in this case) it's safe to conclude that biggest variable of doing a large scale test like that would be the consistency of the test itself - ensuring each gun gets same exposure to the elements used.
Back in 1907, when the US army adopted the Colt .45 pistol, they required 200 of each pistol for testing. Why? Because they knew that to make a good decision, they needed a statistically representative sample to do so. The only way a test that uses a sample size of one, could be considered useful would be if there was zero variance in the population. This is not the case.
Like many things on the internet, those videos are a waste of time and bandwidth.
Like many things on the internet, those videos are a waste of time and bandwidth.
Last edited:
I have no argument with the test other than who in hell would drop their gun in mud and expect it to function? It might but in the civilian context I would suggest most would thoroughly clean their blaster before trying to fire it if for no other reason to ensure nothing is stuck in the barrel that might cause things to come apart in a hurry. Ignoring that, most public swimming pools really frown on swimming with a gun on your belt.
Maybe there are instances when someone in the military might feel these tests have some validity but I doubt even they would put much faith in the tests. The issue with the water seems to be basic hydraulics. If I expected to need my M&P to operate after I went for a swim with it I would see to it that the striker was modified with a part that would allow the water to pass through it.
It seems to me the phrase, "what can go wrong will go wrong" comes to mind. I think I would spend more time ensuring my gun didn't fall in soupy mud myself. Besides why screw up a perfectly good gun by running sand through it's mating parts, just saying.
Given how meaningless the tests appear to be, by my definition then they fall to being stupid. I am sure at least one of my gun models I own will past the test. Does anyone know of the military uses this type of testing before they settle on a gun. I don't recall anyone ever posting this type of testing.
Take Care
Bob
Maybe there are instances when someone in the military might feel these tests have some validity but I doubt even they would put much faith in the tests. The issue with the water seems to be basic hydraulics. If I expected to need my M&P to operate after I went for a swim with it I would see to it that the striker was modified with a part that would allow the water to pass through it.
It seems to me the phrase, "what can go wrong will go wrong" comes to mind. I think I would spend more time ensuring my gun didn't fall in soupy mud myself. Besides why screw up a perfectly good gun by running sand through it's mating parts, just saying.
Given how meaningless the tests appear to be, by my definition then they fall to being stupid. I am sure at least one of my gun models I own will past the test. Does anyone know of the military uses this type of testing before they settle on a gun. I don't recall anyone ever posting this type of testing.
Take Care
Bob
Last edited:
wayupnorth
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Alberta
if im crawling through sand and dirt and mud and swimming and having to fire my pistol the entire time than i have other things i need to worry about.
things like;
when will the fall out cloud from the tactical nucular strike fall over me?
how long will the nucular winter last?
will the aliens colonize us or just disintegrate us?
can we eat zombies if we cook them long enough?
things like;
when will the fall out cloud from the tactical nucular strike fall over me?
how long will the nucular winter last?
will the aliens colonize us or just disintegrate us?
can we eat zombies if we cook them long enough?
Glock did great.......While this test does not really have much relevance to most of us if you are marketing it as a combat firearm it does. Having spent some time in the military these sort of tests while being pretty artificial do have some merit. I have crawled through mud, done ship boardings in miserable weather etc. The interesting thing about this test is that even though there may be a few misfires it is usually pretty easy to get the gun shooting again. So to me this gun passes the test as in a combat situation you are very rarely alone and solely dependent on one fire arm. You always have to be ready to rack the slide on a misfire and if that is all you have to do things are pretty good.
Perhaps but I am not aware that any of these tests are used when selecting a handgun by the military. Things like stoppage rates per thousand, parts inter changeability, the infamous drop test, ability to withstand heat and cold seem to dominate the testing along with the key selection criteria.....How much will the system cost and how many jobs will the purchase generate?
If they are not used by the military and have no relevance to the civilian environment...what value do they have? You are right though it is a measurement tool. Imluger is right as well when he indicates it will justify ones purchase if your gun passes and sets up howls of consternation if your pet blaster fails.
wayupnorth pretty much sums it up though in his recent post....
Take Care
Bob
