Saw this on the Military Arms Channel and was amazed. Now the question: Could the Glock 19 match (survive) this?
https://youtu.be/IAEbbhRJNYw
https://youtu.be/IAEbbhRJNYw
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can even the vaunted Glock 19 survive this test?
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
That video was in 2013. He's actually done the Glock as of two years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYUz5jahjFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYUz5jahjFs
Right. You're comparing a straight blowback design to a Browning tilting barrel. I'd expect the blowback pistol to do better.
The Makarov is very reliable. It also only holds half the capacity of a weaker cartridge than many modern designs. There are tradeoffs.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The Makarov is very reliable. It also only holds half the capacity of a weaker cartridge than many modern designs. There are tradeoffs.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
sigarms228
New member
The guy that does those "tests" admits they are not scientific and for entertainment purposes so take it with a big grain of salt.
I can't recall ever hearing or reading about someone having a problem with a Glock 17/19 because their magazine was packed with sand other than an abuse test. So I really don't see the point of wondering if a Glock 19 or any other pistol would do as well as the particular pistol and that particular test which he does not use methods to accurately repeat the test anyhow.
I can't recall ever hearing or reading about someone having a problem with a Glock 17/19 because their magazine was packed with sand other than an abuse test. So I really don't see the point of wondering if a Glock 19 or any other pistol would do as well as the particular pistol and that particular test which he does not use methods to accurately repeat the test anyhow.
You posted the same thing on THR and didn't like the answers you got so after the thread is locked you come over here and ask the same question. I'll offer the same evidence here. These guys abused a G21 far worse, and documented it over a period of years and thousands of rounds. Not just one day and a few magazines.
http://www.survival-spot.com/survival-blog/glock-21-torture-test/
They did all the same tests plus:
*Buried the gun in dirt and sand with the slide open and closed. Not just closed.
*Immersed it in salt water for a week.
*Dragged it behind a truck on both grass and pavement.
*Shot the slide 10 times with a 22 rifle.
*Dunked it in both baby powder and bead blasting media which is much finer than sand.
*Dropped a loaded gun and magazine from the roof of a house.
*Dropped the gun from an airplane at 500' elevation and 100 mph into a field.
The only failure the Glock had was after being dropped loaded from the roof of a house. The tester placed a primed, but unloaded cartridge in the chamber to see if the gun would discharge along with a fully loaded magazine. The gun did not discharge, but the ammo in the magazine was deformed by the landing and would no longer chamber. The gun didn't fail, but the ammo did.
And yes, he placed both a G21 magazine an HK magazine in a bucket of sand just as the Mak was tested. The HK and Mak failed, the Glock worked.
Both the Glock and Mak performed very well, better than most, but I'd choose the Glock for many reasons. The exposed hammer on the Mak is the weak point and where it failed by allowing dirt between the hammer and firing pin. The lack of an exposed hammer, and the enclosed magazines on the Glock do a better job of keeping debris out of places where it shouldn't be. And these tests prove that.
http://www.survival-spot.com/survival-blog/glock-21-torture-test/
They did all the same tests plus:
*Buried the gun in dirt and sand with the slide open and closed. Not just closed.
*Immersed it in salt water for a week.
*Dragged it behind a truck on both grass and pavement.
*Shot the slide 10 times with a 22 rifle.
*Dunked it in both baby powder and bead blasting media which is much finer than sand.
*Dropped a loaded gun and magazine from the roof of a house.
*Dropped the gun from an airplane at 500' elevation and 100 mph into a field.
The only failure the Glock had was after being dropped loaded from the roof of a house. The tester placed a primed, but unloaded cartridge in the chamber to see if the gun would discharge along with a fully loaded magazine. The gun did not discharge, but the ammo in the magazine was deformed by the landing and would no longer chamber. The gun didn't fail, but the ammo did.
And yes, he placed both a G21 magazine an HK magazine in a bucket of sand just as the Mak was tested. The HK and Mak failed, the Glock worked.
Both the Glock and Mak performed very well, better than most, but I'd choose the Glock for many reasons. The exposed hammer on the Mak is the weak point and where it failed by allowing dirt between the hammer and firing pin. The lack of an exposed hammer, and the enclosed magazines on the Glock do a better job of keeping debris out of places where it shouldn't be. And these tests prove that.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
It's no secret anymore. Glock being over and done with a little over a decade of solitary success. They were the only ones to make a successful striker-fired pistol for a long time. Until the big dogs woke up. Heckler and Koch, SIG Sauer (wonky though), Smith and Wesson, Beretta, CZ, and so on.
A lot of top tier manufacturers make a striker fired pistol now.
Granted, this is in no way dismissing Glock. They are one of the best pistol manufacturers in the world. They are just not the best. The best is subjective and matter of opinion. There is nothing concrete in showing that Glock is better in every way, shape, or form compared to other pistols.
It's that run time of being the only one in the race that had lead that illusion. Those days are over with.
Now as for the Mak, well yeah. Blowback designs.
It's still an outdated 9x18 non-NATO round that acts more like a .380. So I'd take a 19 over it any day. Seeing as I don't believe I'd be finding myself in situations jamming my gun into the sand with the slide open or anything. If things are that bad I have a plan for that already. It doesn't involve a Mak.
A lot of top tier manufacturers make a striker fired pistol now.
Granted, this is in no way dismissing Glock. They are one of the best pistol manufacturers in the world. They are just not the best. The best is subjective and matter of opinion. There is nothing concrete in showing that Glock is better in every way, shape, or form compared to other pistols.
It's that run time of being the only one in the race that had lead that illusion. Those days are over with.
Now as for the Mak, well yeah. Blowback designs.
It's still an outdated 9x18 non-NATO round that acts more like a .380. So I'd take a 19 over it any day. Seeing as I don't believe I'd be finding myself in situations jamming my gun into the sand with the slide open or anything. If things are that bad I have a plan for that already. It doesn't involve a Mak.
jmr40, different people, different points of view.
BTW, it's made of high impact plastic + stainless steel. I'd expect it to survive salt; I'd expect it to survive a drop of 500' into soft dirt. But I have to admit, when all is said and done, Glock makes one of the best pistols... but not the best.
BTW, it's made of high impact plastic + stainless steel. I'd expect it to survive salt; I'd expect it to survive a drop of 500' into soft dirt. But I have to admit, when all is said and done, Glock makes one of the best pistols... but not the best.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Asked and answered.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.