Revolver Torture Test

4

405FileFound

New member
I was just watching the 10000th GLOCK or SIg torture test on youtube, there's so many out there. In one I saw a GLOCK function somewhat well after the mud and sand test, while the M1911 in the same test jammed completely.
Now what about revolvers? They are always touted as being "rugged and reliable" and more resistant to neglect but not abuse. One time I left my S&W 649 locked up in a basement for three months. When I retrieved it the trigger wouldnt budge due to some corrosion, and it took some TLC to get it back to functioning. Now wheelgunners have heard everywhere how "you can leave a revolver in a drawer for 20 years and it will still fire", but that day that idea was seriously challenged.
WHat kind of torture tests have ever been documented to wheelguns? I dont think Ive come across a single one, not in magazines or on youtube. There is a video of handguns being fired underwater, and a S&W 317 .22 rev outdid a series of GLOCKs, Sigs, and Springfields semi's.
But realistically, how would a new S&W, Ruger, or Charter Arms stand up to being dropped 3 ft onto concrete, dumped into sand, etc? I'm sure not nearly to the extent that modern semi's can, but what are the tolerances of a revolver? I'd like to hear personal experiences and ideas, etc.
 
Last edited:
The video I saw was not a torture test but shooting underwater. Glock 9mm fired 1 out of 4 and S&W M&P fired 2 out of 4 and .22 LR S&W revolver fired 7 out of 8.
 
I've never subjected any of my revovler to a torture test, nor do I intend to. But this Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt has run through the course. It's standing at near 20,000 rounds fired. These have run the range from 185 gr. JHP at around 1500~1600 fps, to 350 gr. cast slugs as around 1300 fps.

101_0009.jpg


Its been frozen, filled with dust and debris from pine needles. I've never dunked any of my guns in sand, mud or water, accidentally nor intentionally.

It did suffer one breakdown, at about 5,000 rounds the transfer bar broke. Simple repair I was able to replace myself. And the breakage occurred after returning home from a hunt, so really was not disabled.

And this is my "second favorite" gun!

Bob Wright
 
All those torture tests are completely meaningless unless of course you plan on doing the same with your gun.
 
Please don't put a revolver in sand, at least if you do let me offer to take it off your hands first. Just imagine all those exposed parts around the hammer all full of sand as well as the five cylinders that are gaping open like little sand scoops waiting to wedge grit into the cylinder gap and totally locking up the action. Or maby it would revolve if you forced the timing as hard as you could, I'm sure a few hundred extra grains of sand wouldn't cause a pressure spike completely blowing the gun to bits. Imagine a frozen revolver... water in each cylinder locking the cylinder. If that didn't do it the wear on the timing would eventually cause an off time revolver which is inaccurate and potentially dangerous situation.
I LOVE revolvers but the only thing that makes them tough and rugged is their superior streingth reguarding load capability and the fact that if you get a missfire or failure to extract you just pull the trigger again. Or when a cowboy riding a white horse carrys it.
Revolvers are great defensive guns for home and cc but keep that thing oiled and fire it from time to time.
A revolver torture test would ultimately be testing the shooters ability to keep all his fingers on.
 
All those torture tests are completely meaningless unless of course you plan on doing the same with your gun.
Click to expand...
Torture tests originated with the military in an attempt to determine which of several guns would more likely still function on the battlefield. It is very unlikely that a revolver would ever be considered for such duty now, but torture tests were not meaningless in that context. Nevertheless, it seems pointless to consider doing that to a revolver nowadays.
 
Years ago Chuck Taylor wrote up his experiences when testing some semi's and a revolver in extreme conditions. I am sure the article can be found online somewhere. I remember the revolver was a stainless Model 27 Smith. The revolver was the only one to pass with 100% reliability. Sand was not one of the conditions. If I remember correctly, he was still in the 1911 camp at the time and had not yet switched to the Glock. I do not always remember correctly though. Don't tell my wife I said that.
 
how would a new S&W, Ruger, or Charter Arms stand up to being dropped 3 ft onto concrete, dumped into sand, etc?
Click to expand...

They'd be non-functional in short order.

more resistant to neglect but not abuse
Click to expand...

Means they can sit untouched in a sock drawer, or under your bed, for 30 years, and likely the revolver will still function.
 
I must have seen a hundred of these silly torture tests. Some doofus flushes his down a toilet then shoots it. The Glockbots are probably the most guilty in this regard. Doing all manner of utterly preposterous things to try and PROVE their supposed superiority.
Personally I've NEVER allowed any gun of mine to be abused like that, and with only a reasonable amount of maintenance, all work perfectly.
If you want to do those stupid things to your guns by all means go for it.
As for me. I take CARE of mine, and they take care of me.
 
These guys are right. no sense in messing up a perfectly good gun on purpose only to cause it to fail when it would have worked flawlessly if only youd taken care of it however, i read once i believe in a book by ayoob about a gp100 being tested for police service way back when. The gun supposedly was thrown in the dirt, smashed against a brick wall, ran over with a patrol car front to back, then the front wheel placed on the gun itself, steered lock to lock a few times now the gun was reportedly banged up and missing its sights but still fired. Thats the only "torture test" on a revolver ive read about. Personally if it happens to mine which it wont, my babys going to the smith before i shoot it again.:)
 
No personal experiences with so-called Torture Tests, but if I may interject a personal opinion ...BIGGEST BUNCH OF B...... EVER DEVISED !!!
Look at Bob Wright message (Post # 3) and tell me that the man has fired almost 20K of rounds and that is not a true picture of what a revolver can stand up to with reasonable care. No mud tests, no dropped from a tall building, no run over by a herd of stampeding kangaroos just doing what it is supposed to within reason. Oh but I forgot, it did have a transfer bar break after ONLY 5K rounds. Forget the BS Tests, that revolver is an tank, and I'm sure that Bob Wright's grandkids will still be using it years from now. Keep 'em clean and keep 'em shooting.
 
I'd have thought the trenches of WWI alone would have been sufficient to prove a revolver is perfectly capable of surviving the rigors of extreme field conditions. How many troops carried Gasser's, Nagant's, Webley's, S&W's, Modele's & MAS's, Reichsrevolver's (sp ?) and others I've probably never heard of?

Plus, I think internet torture tests make for some okay entertainment, but are pretty meaningless otherwise. Unless someone is willing to provide a sample of at least a few hundred identical guns, and control the conditions for all the tests, all they tell you is how that one, single gun performed in that one, single test.
 
Around WW1, possibly earlier, infantry weapons designs were tested by submerging the weapon in a mixture of very loose mud and pea gravel, sometimes for up to 48 hours. They then took the weapon out of the mud and opening the action they sluiced away as much mud as possible from bore bd action using one or two canteens of water. They then tested how well the weapon would fire, and if an autoloader kept a record of any malfunctions.

I rather doubt that a milspec 1911 would fail any mud and sand test that a Glock would pass. A commercial clone of the 1911 or a 1911 pistol smithed for matchgrade accuracy might, since these are already well known to be less reliable than the milspec pistols.

As for revolvers, the only time I've heard of a S&W revolver failing in combat was when a friend took a tumble down a mud bank. He was a medic and carried a old police .38 in a old style open topped police holster and gunbelt, his dad had bought it at a garage sale and mailed it to him.
When he tried to fire the revolver at two approaching NVA mud from around the frame fell into the hammer opening blocking the firing pin hole. Luckily mortar rounds dropping all around sent the NVA scurrying or he'd have been dead meat.
Had he carried a cocked and locked 1911 in a similar open top holster the result would have been the same.
There was a 1911 style prototype with enclosed hammer, but they did not pursue that.

Theres alot of places that mud can get into a revolver.
The chamber mouths can collect crud as well.

If properly cleaned and oiled a revolver can lay in a drawer for decades and be perfectly safe to fire.
If not properly cleaned and oiled almost any revolver or autoloader will rust up or be glued shut by a mixture of fouling and congealed oil.
I've cleaned up pump shotguns that were glued shut by old fouling and congealed oil, had to soak them in carburetor cleaner before the bolt would retract. The stuff inside was like half dry black paint.

With modern lubricants congealed crud is less likely, but back in the old days they were not so lucky in available lubes.

PS
If you check old outdoor catalogs you'll see many sporting type hunter's holsters with full or half flap.
A gun intended for carry in the woods was well protected from debris. Now days most seem to think that an outdoor revolver or auto should be carried in a gunfighter type rig then wonder why the pistol ends up rusty or gummed up.
In Canada the mounted police found that tree sap and pine needles could jam a Winchester lever action tight, and even the Lee Enfield failed its first outdoor testing by Canadian militia in sub zero weather due to lack of proper lubricants.
 
Last edited:
So called "torture tests" make some sense for the military where a gun (regardless of type) is expected to function in heat or cold, snowstorm or sandstorm, dry prairie or dripping jungle. For most of us, they are meaningless; I have never carried a gun in a desert or a jungle and, at close to my eighth decade don't expect to.

Still, one does hope that dropping one's gun into a mud puddle or a snow drift won't put it out of commission. So, I would say that some tests are valid, while others are just something to write about, if someone else is providing the gun(s) and ammunition.

Jim
 
I will say this, I think my double action only SP101 would fare better than some of my other revolvers. Additionally any enclosed hammer models like the 642/442, 340, 640, etc would hold up better than most as far as drop tests and less places to get gunk in.
 
the torture tests are gimmicks.

its like buying a good quality 4x4, putting on 32 inch tires, and having no issues driving through a foot of stagnant water. and then comparings the results to driving a toyata prius though the same water.
 
Some Texas agency tortured a Ruger Security Six. It still worked.
The Colorado State Troopers tried the same with a Ruger revolver they had to destroy. So they abused it, dragged it and even ran over it. It still worked.

Ruger are like Russian tractors. In Mother Russia, Ruger shoot you.
 
I'd have thought the trenches of WWI alone would have been sufficient to prove a revolver is perfectly capable of surviving the rigors of extreme field conditions. How many troops carried Gasser's, Nagant's, Webley's, S&W's, Modele's & MAS's, Reichsrevolver's (sp ?) and others I've probably never heard of?

Plus, I think internet torture tests make for some okay entertainment, but are pretty meaningless otherwise. Unless someone is willing to provide a sample of at least a few hundred identical guns, and control the conditions for all the tests, all they tell you is how that one, single gun performed in that one, single test.

Thats why revolvers went out ot style as they did not do well there.
 
Not by accounts I've heard. The Webley and Nagant, for example,were renowned for their durability under field conditions. Revolvers went out of style because auto-loaders offer more firepower and faster reloads, not because they are more reliable or durable.

If anything, some military's resisted giving up revolvers because of perceived lack of reliability in auto-loaders. Magazines could be clogged by dirt and debris was one complaint, and the (perceived) need for constant or frequent cleaning and lubrication being another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top