Handgun testing

[ap3572001]

Years ago ,I liked reading magazine articles about different service pistols being tested by the gun authors.

I would always read about using factory magazines , quality duty/carry ammunition and guns tested in its original factory condition. That is how I evaluate every single handgun I carried or currently carry.

Lately , watching certain YouTube videos and reading some articles on the internet , I noticed some people are using substandard ( in my opinion ) or reloaded ammunition , trying aftermarket magazines and sometimes even the guns were "worked on" , trigger been changed , etc.

To ME , a test like that does not tell me anything about the pistol.

When I test a factory stock handgun , for duty or off duty , I make sure it has proper amount of lubrication , have factory original magazines and use known quality ammunition and then shoot it with premium carry ammo to get an idea how well the gun functions and how accurate it is .

For example , I see no point of testing a new Glock 17 , with Pmag magazines , Wolf ammo or some reloads and "improved" striker or trigger installed.

A "test" like that would not give me any idea how well the gun works.

Hope this makes sense .

[RAMCLAP]

You are correct. Testing means that you must eliminate as much randomness as possible. The weapon being tested should be the weapon being tested. If you want to test triggers or ammo state that specifically and the weapon should be used for that purpose.

[tomrkba]

For example , I see no point of testing a new Glock 17 , with Pmag magazines , Wolf ammo or some reloads and "improved" striker or trigger installed.

A "test" like that would not give me any idea how well the gun works.

Hope this makes sense .

No, it does not make sense. Wolf Ammo is legitimate, but cheap, ammunition. It's probably very similar to what you'd find in many corners of the globe. Testing the gun with PMags means you're testing the gun with PMags. We all know a Glock 17 will last 350,000+ rounds on Glock mags loaded to 15 rounds on original mag springs. Maybe it'll do the same with PMags.

As for the trigger, okay, maybe. But you're really testing durability and longevity of the new part. So long as the part stays in the gun for the duration of the test, then it's fine. There's nothing wrong with starting a new test with a different trigger system.

[static2126]

Wolf is cheap but shoots fine. Tula too. Not as reliable though

Both will score a 90 on a b8 at 25 freestyle if shooter does their part

[sigfan91]

For example , I see no point of testing a new Glock 17 , with Pmag magazines , Wolf ammo or some reloads and "improved" striker or trigger installed.

A "test" like that would not give me any idea how well the gun works.

Hope this makes sense .

The guy is not testing a Glock 17. The guy is testing the modified trigger/striker on a Glock 17. He?s also testing the Pmag and Wolf ammo.

Glock 17 is fine. I want to know if I can modify it and still be fine. It?s a completely legitimate test.

We all like to modify our guns. Some go crazy with it. Some just change out the grip. We all test our modified guns to make sure what we did is still good to go.

[ap3572001]

The guy is not testing a Glock 17. The guy is testing the modified trigger/striker on a Glock 17. He?s also testing the Pmag and Wolf ammo.

Glock 17 is fine. I want to know if I can modify it and still be fine. It?s a completely legitimate test.

We all like to modify our guns. Some go crazy with it. Some just change out the grip. We all test our modified guns to make sure what we did is still good to go.

Ok. Maybe I am looking at from a different perspective. When I would break out few brand new Gen5 G17's that are going to be issued, my main concern that they work flawlessly with 3 magazines that are in the box and Federal 147HST ammunition.

[sigstroker]

Ok. Maybe I am looking at from a different perspective. When I would break out few brand new Gen5 G17's that are going to be issued, my main concern that they work flawlessly with 3 magazines that are in the box and Federal 147HST ammunition.

If that's what you're issued, your concerns are irrelevant. That's what you use, or find another job.

[eaglemike]

I've wondered about a lot of "tests" or "reviews" on YouTube for a long time. Not just firearms. A lot of them shouldn't really be there IMHO. Some of the authors just want attention, or hope to get some sort of compensation. Some people really don't have true technical knowledge to evaluate the item. Your opinion may vary of course. I've had guys want to "review" my stuff in exchange for free parts. I did it a few times then quit, as it never really helped sales.
Use your own knowledge to see if the "review" passes the sniff test.

Some of the funny stuff includes the long overused term "billet." One guy years ago said an item was "machined from billet" when I could clearly see casting marks.

OP, agree with you about a lot of it. When they say they are reviewing the firearm, but are making changes, they aren't reviewing the firearm. they are reviewing what they did to the gun, a different thing. Lots of crapeaux reloads out there too. Some companies understand quality work, and some don't.

[splithoof]

Occasionally I will do a couple pages of writing of a gun test for the newsletter I produce for a shooting club. I usually compile data on the weapon and use it for a few range sessions, take some pictures, etc., all with the factory configuration.

After that, I will make whatever enhancements I prefer (if it is mine to keep) and then repeat the process as before as a comparison. I do this because very few of the commonly available weapons are what I define as suitable for my particular needs.

As to ammunition, I test with a variety of loadings depending on the use of said weapon. I will test any 9mm weapon with Federal HST, brass-cased ball, a frangible loading, and lastly inexpensive Russian steel-cased ball, because that represents what the majority of my readers will likely use, and carry. It covers all the bases that a particular weapon will likely be used in.

For some others such as precision rifles, all I have written about are weapons carefully assembled from quality parts by good, reputable gunsmiths. The ammunition for those is always my own, usually crafted from virgin brass, etc., and made to a very high standard for low SD, consistent velocity, and accuracy.

[stevec223]

Ok. Maybe I am looking at from a different perspective. When I would break out few brand new Gen5 G17's that are going to be issued, my main concern that they work flawlessly with 3 magazines that are in the box and Federal 147HST ammunition.

Yes I would want a ?new from the box? comparison if shopping for a new gun..
Their are probably a few online.. I don?t really trust them much..
The aftermarket with new parts videos are for the CZ and Glock fan bois ..
Who have to add parts-money to their new pistols to get rid of the squirt gun triggers.. Oh ya I said it !!!! Perfection my azz ? 😁😁😁. 45acp >9mm ,, while we?re at it ?
Happy New Year?
Cheers ?

[naz]

Years ago ,I liked reading magazine articles about different service pistols being tested by the gun authors.

I would always read about using factory magazines , quality duty/carry ammunition and guns tested in its original factory condition. That is how I evaluate every single handgun I carried or currently carry.

Lately , watching certain YouTube videos and reading some articles on the internet , I noticed some people are using substandard ( in my opinion ) or reloaded ammunition , trying aftermarket magazines and sometimes even the guns were "worked on" , trigger been changed , etc.

To ME , a test like that does not tell me anything about the pistol.

When I test a factory stock handgun , for duty or off duty , I make sure it has proper amount of lubrication , have factory original magazines and use known quality ammunition and then shoot it with premium carry ammo to get an idea how well the gun functions and how accurate it is .

For example , I see no point of testing a new Glock 17 , with Pmag magazines , Wolf ammo or some reloads and "improved" striker or trigger installed.

A "test" like that would not give me any idea how well the gun works.

Hope this makes sense .

Just depends on what you?re looking for. I use handguns for competition so I want the guns tested with the mods and mags relevant to that division. Why would I test with 10rd mags if the competition uses 140mm 24rd mags


Likewise, I don?t know why you think reloads are somehow low quality. It?s only that way if the reloader is careless or incompetent. I?ll take my reloads over factory ammo any day. The only reason I use factory is when it?s bulk training ammo and I don?t have time to reload that much


To each their own bro! Happy holidays

[hambam105]

It is not about testing. Nope! It is about never arriving at a conclusion about the testing so you don't work yourself out of a job.

[Batman]

https://www.gun-tests.com

They don't take advertising, and if a gun fails, they tell you it fails. They're a subscription and an actual magazine, which means they're not worried about getting clicks off a YouTube video.

[stormvet]

If we are talking an individual test for one person and not a department wide test. To me I test the gun the way I’m gonna carry it, that means carry ammo, mags that I will be carrying, sights I will use(always aftermarket on a Glock) and with whatever trigger mods I’ll won’t already in place. For a Glock that would be a minus connector, trigger spring and on some Glocks a flat trigger.

A little over a year ago I got a G48 MOS, before I ever shot it I replaced the iron sights, mounted the RD, replaced the trigger shoe and connector. I also used nothing but Shield Arms mags. I knew this was the setup I preferred on a 48 as I’ve had a none MOS 48 with the same setup. What’s the point of testing it bone stock just to test it again after the mods are added, it’s a Glock the guns gonna work fine stock that’s a given.

[splithoof]

https://www.gun-tests.com

They don't take advertising, and if a gun fails, they tell you it fails. They're a subscription and an actual magazine, which means they're not worried about getting clicks off a YouTube video.

My favorite aspect of that publication is the DO NOT BUY recommendations. Not something you see in the MSM of gun culture. While I have not always agreed with some of their assessments, it is still interesting. I wish their circulation was larger; it might actually get major manufacturers to fix some of the crap that they produce.