Results are as I would expect although I am sure it won't change the views of people.

 

 

I'd like to see them repeat the test with Glock 19, S&W M&P, Walther PPQ, Springfield Armory XD etc

 

:-)

 

TheWombat

He's wrong about the M1911 design. They are very reliable as designed by Browning. The U.S. Army wouldn't have adopted it in 1911 if it wasn't.

 

I also wouldn't call that a "torture test". Tossing pistols into dirt will cause them to malfunction. Big surprise.

This proves nothing. Even real world tests are repeated several hundred if not thousands of times for statistical results.

I would definitely want to see the test of glock, smith, walther and Springfield

Cool video...

I agree though...

It proves that I still have no desire to own a Glock!

He's wrong about the M1911 design. They are very reliable as designed by Browning. The U.S. Army wouldn't have adopted it in 1911 if it wasn't.

 

Even if one holds the view that the 1911 represented the most reliable semiautomatic design available at the time of its adoption, it reliability relative to other available options has changed a lot since then. I'm not arguing that it's useless, or that anything definitive is demonstrated by this video, but a decision the army made 101 years ago doesn't have much relevance to how a 1911 compares to glocks, sigs, XDs, CZs, etc.

Not really a torture test, just shows that a gun may jam if filled with dirt.

Really?

 

These two chuckleheads, for lack of a better term, are a joke. Pass

It proves that I still have no desire to own a Glock!

ding ding ding

And we have a winner!!!!

I love self proclaimed experts.

 

Not to mention their from MA. I can't stand a Boston accent.

It proves that I still have no desire to own a Glock!

 

 

same. never wanted one, probably never will.

It proves that I still have no desire to own a Glock!

 

I love Glocks. I can't stand youtube commandos/experts.

Who's a Glock fanboy?

Please raise your hands now

Maybe instead of a "target" 1911 they should of used a mil-spec one.

Even if one holds the view that the 1911 represented the most reliable semiautomatic design available at the time of its adoption, it reliability relative to other available options has changed a lot since then. I'm not arguing that it's useless, or that anything definitive is demonstrated by this video, but a decision the army made 101 years ago doesn't have much relevance to how a 1911 compares to glocks, sigs, XDs, CZs, etc.

 

Overall firearm design really hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. Three of the biggest advancements in firearms design came in the 19th century. These were the self-contained brass cartridge, the invention of high velocity smokeless powder, and the invention of automatic weapons. The 20th century didn't see huge advancements like that at all. Just fine-tuning of the basic concept and overall package, such as the introduction of aluminum and plastic in place of wood and steel for the construction of firearms. The biggest invention of the 20th century, the caseless cartridge, never went past the R&D stage. Apparently it isn't viable yet.

 

The fact that Browning's design is still wildly popular, and remains in service with the military in a limited capacity over 100 years after its invention is a testament to the soundness of its design. John Browning was a firearms genius. You might be surprised how reliable a real M1911 is. They are loose, and rattle a lot. Not a tight design.

 

Full disclosure: I own a Springfield Mil-Spec M1911A1. I dislike plastic guns. All the stuff I own is made of wood and steel. Blued or Parkerized are the finishes. The newest firearms I own are copied from 100+ year old designs (my M1911 and my M1897). I might be a bit of an anomaly in this day and age of "tacticool" firearms.

I feel dumber for watching that...I'm never gonna get those six minutes back...

Oh, and the first handgun I bought, was a then newly released Glock 17, Gen Two. I daily carried a Glock 22 for five years off duty before moving to a Glock 35 for another five years or so. It remains in my safe, but my primary off duty gun for the last four years or so has been a ParaOrd P14.45 LDA Limited, supplemented with a ParaOrd PX6.45 LDA PDA. Just for information puposes, I carried a SigSauer P229 for a few years prior to all of these, and a Sig P228 before that. All of which proves...absolutely nothing...

This video and "test" is just stupid.

 

They threw a gun in the dirt with the chamber empty, then tried to shake the dirt off. How is this a torture test?

 

A torture test would be which gun lasts 25,000 on stock internals, with any type of ammo you may run across, lead, fmj, jhp, reloads, commercial, etc.

Full disclosure: I own a Springfield Mil-Spec M1911A1. I dislike plastic guns. All the stuff I own is made of wood and steel. Blued or Parkerized are the finishes. The newest firearms I own are copied from 100+ year old designs (my M1911 and my M1897). I might be a bit of an anomaly in this day and age of "tacticool" firearms.

 

Not really. The 1911 guy that writes off all modern designs as plastic toys for posers is a pretty standard message board cliché.

I'll never get those 5 minutes back. What a waste of time.

From an editorial standpoint , if you are going to make a video, load your magazines before hand. I don't want to hear about the weather while I watch you feed them.

 

This video would have been better if they could not find where they buried the one or both of the guns.

Wow... everybody gave the humurous bashes already and left me with almost nothing to say.

 

That vid is dribble. If it was on paper I would wipe my a** with it.

1)These guys actually have no idea what a real world ccw is supposed to be.

2) If their concept of safety and proper testing is to be believed, then a jeep is a better overall automobile then a bmw.

3) I hope nobody EVER thinks it is a good idea to shoot a weapon that has been in the dirt without first completing a field strip. All these sand and water tests on firearms are stupid, irrellevant and just plain unsafe.

4) A SIG Target model is a hell of a different beast from a Military 1911 as designed by JMB. Tolerances are much tighter for accuracy shooting. That SIG is not intended for a dirt role.... my TACOPS might be. The Glock is deisgned for it. So is a Beretta, should they have not tested the G19 vs the M9.

Who's a Glock fanboy?

Please raise your hands now

 

That vid is dribble.

 

I think you meant "drivel", but "dribble" certainly works if you think long and hard about it.

This guy has no clue...............a video clown ....IMO.

I own both glock 30sf and Colt 1911 Series 70........first, my US Army Gov't Model is loose as a Goose.....you can shake it and it will rattle...it eats anything I feed it and passed Government muster when adopted.....my othe Colts run like the Tax Man is chasin' them.....my Glock runs well too...no problems so far.

As far as a Sig 1911...........don't know it, don't want, don't like it...........If It Dosen't Have A Horse On It, It's Not A .45.

 

P.S. Bought the Glock 'cause I liked it's carrying capacity....10+1....that's some Serious Business....in a .45acp.

"That vid is dribble. If it was on paper I would wipe my a** with it."

 

THIS!!!!

"If It Dosen't Have A Horse On It, It's Not A .45"

 

Funny, that pretty much all the best 45's made dont have a prancing pony on the side

Crunchy guitar intro. I appreciate what they’re trying to do, but if we're doing semi-pointless tests, I'd be more interested which one shoots underwater:

 

 

Or which one will blend.

I'm so tired of Glock fanboy'ism. Sure they are good reliable guns, just like many other brands, makes, and models.