I did that to my USP Tactical a few months ago minus the mud. I just dropped it in the dirt, slide open, magazine out and shake and baked it on the ground. Picked it up, the first press of the trigger was a no-go. The second went fine. Full magazine went boom no problems. BUT the gun would not decock after that. I sent it back to HK for a full cleaning and it came back fine.
Since then I haven’t cared to toss my guns in the dirt. All it proved to me was that it worked fine and I should take an armorer’s course sooner than later. Right now I’d rather shoot my guns with a very relaxed cleaning schedule. Like once every 3k rds.
But of that’s what floats your boat, rock on. Thanks for posting.
The first stoppage on the HK45 was a failure to go into battery which caused a failure to fire. Cycling the slide pulled out the un-spent round and then tapped the slide and put in a fresh round into the chamber. The pistol fired a few more rounds and then the slide became locked up and the trigger mechanism wouldn’t function either.
Once I was able to get both my paws on the pistol I just used brute strength to retract the slide.
The gunk was so heavy that you can hear the metal megazine scrapping the small particulate aganist the inside of the magazine well when the megazine is pulled out of the HK45.
Oh and we didn’t dunk the X300’s because we figured we would ruin the lights. Our goal wasn’t to damage or ruin the pistols. They have had many rounds through them so they have been well used. But like I said we didn’t want to actually permanently ruin anything. We figured the X300’s would be toast in water.
By the time we got to the USP we didn’t figure like tossing it into the mud. The first three pistol were enough to clean out :D.
Overall an interesting experience and it certainly let us know that these pistols do have limitations just like anything else mechanical. Mud and heavy grit can cause a pistol to fail.
Well, SA, I don’t throw my new guns in dirt before I carry them. But if they can’t digest several hundred rounds, they’re gone. Anyone who takes a brand new shiny gun of ANY make out of the box and tosses it in the holster for CCW is asking for probs.
And of course, let’s make a stupid comparison like a car engine. I thought the kids hung out over on GT.
As BP said, you’ve got to define reasonable standards of performance.
We ALL want the gun that is going to run after being dropped into the center of the earth but the fact is, its impossible to have a gun that will run 100% of the time.
For MY uses, i would not regard a gun being dropped into a mud bath as a reasonable standard of performance. It is a machine, it is GOING to have issues digesting foreign materials and still operating normally.
Some guns are better than others but HOW do we qualify that?
I have done some pretty dumb things to a G22 i used to own, things that i would never, ever experience as a ccw holder but the gun still ran. I never really mention these tests as a benchmark of performance as i regard other things as being far more important such as:
Average life cycle of parts.
This ties into #1 ie suggested maintenance schedule of parts
Ability to run dirty, i dont clean my guns, ccw pieces included as often as i probably should.
Ability to digest a variety of ammo, ball, hollow point, all manner of bullet weights included.
Mean time between failures that are not magazine related. Light strikes are a no go, type 3 malfunctions are a deal breaker.
If the gun can run, it is good enough for me.
I think we take for granted the amount of “common” knowledge out there. For the most part, we all know that MOST modern polymer guns run and run fairly well. This is due to the fact that they’re mass produced, sloppy guns. Throw a three thousand dollar “hard fit” baer into a mud puddle and its probably not going to run. Throw a rattle trap Glock into a mud puddle and it will most likely run. Still, most likely is the key term here and a bad one at that since it offers no guarantees.
Bottom line, its a machine, it is going to fail at some point in either a clear sunny skies situation or a torrential downpour. Shrug. I would rather shoot my guns and gauge their performance on known quantities rather than hope my gun will run if it is dropped into a random mud puddle because someone on the internet said it would.
i have to agree with some of the others. how is dunk, scrub around in mud, flip, dunk and scrub again a “normal” or realistic circumstance?!
I can understand if you dropped it… let it sit for a couple seconds and picked it up and went at it(much more realistic circumstance). and unless i’m in some kind of wild firefight in the mud with no cover or time to properly clear the weapon before firing it(1 in a 1000000000000 chance of ever happening) i call it an unrealistic wish on any level.
if at all possible and you aren’t “taking fire” you should have more than enough time to pick it up, eject mag, shake off mag, lock slide, shake gun and rack slide multiple times to clear as much gunk as possible before slamming mag back in and firing…
It’s pretty clear to me the OP didn’t intend for his fun little test to become an ACTUAL torture test. So all the talk about how could this happen in real life is sorta overkill anyway.
I wouldn’t “torture” test any of my guns, but they’re going to be broken in before they are carried. Guaranteed.
Real life scenario: I was at a Tac Rifle Course in very hot, dirty conditions. My shooting partner was prone putting rounds on 100 yard steel. I looked over and noticed his Kimber Pro Carry was scooping sand up the beaver tail and under the hammer as he changed firing positions and loaded etc. I was wearing a G23 that day. It didn’t scoop any dirt, but it got pretty dirty. It worked all day long. We both quit carrying 1911s except for in-town use. That’s a real life torture test that measures something that actually COULD happen. Much more practical than throwing sand in your gun or freezing it in a block of ice.
Does that make you the pot or the kettle? You started throwing the tough guy lingo. I have no problem if you want to exercise your right to free speech and get a little sharp, just don’t try to call someone else out for the same.
I read the first post and see a guy curious about what how his pistols would do after thrown in some dirt. They didn’t fair so well.
Unfortunately for him that he picked two of the sacred cows, the HK and the M&P. The rest of the thread I is a bunch of butt hurt sycophants upset because the Mighty Casey struck out.
If the pistols had done great, would the test be considered BS or would you all be rejoicing in your choice to shoot/carry brand X? If the OP had run a Ruger, Caracal, and CZ this thread would have been all “that is why I shoot/carry an HK/M&P/Glock”.
If the same test had been performed by <insert celebrity ex-military gun shooter’s name> then it have been soaked up as dogma, pondered over, theorized, and been spread all over the internet.
My only “issue” with the test was that they didn’t have a Glock to try.