Reliability of a mechanical device is a complex issue.
Engineers in developmental test and evalution positions view it as a series of functions termed sub-component reliablility. The operational test and evaluation communities view it as a system, or a collection of linked functions, which often include the operator.
In our previous thread there were many experiences, anecdotal reports and opinions expressed in which some incorrectly related general utility as a function of reliability.
The baseline reference point for determining reliability of a firearm is to determine a measure of failure, referred to as MTBF (mean time between failure. The threshold criteria for success and failure, plus the conditions for operation during the testing must be carefully pre-determined. Even the term failure may have sub-categories, depending on the impact the failure has on the system's ability to continue to fullfil its primary role.
All of the rifles mentioned in the previous thread are well designed and well tested firearms. However, it is unreasonable to ascribe fault to the firearm if the range of conditions change without ensuring that the appropriate changes to components, maintenance, storage, and operator protocols have been effected to ensure the required level reliability is realized.
One of the primary ingredients of success with small arms in diverse environments is the effective training and discipline of the operators. Placinge the system (firearm and operator) in a drastically different environment (changing conditions) without appropriate training in "adjustments" to the components, maintenance & preparation of the firearm, specific for the new environment is a recipe for disaster and increased reliability problems.
Whether military, LE, competitor, hunter, or recreational shooter, the same fundamental precepts apply. Use the right tool for the job, and prepare the tools and the operator for the conditions under which the job must be done!!
[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited August 01, 2000).]
Engineers in developmental test and evalution positions view it as a series of functions termed sub-component reliablility. The operational test and evaluation communities view it as a system, or a collection of linked functions, which often include the operator.
In our previous thread there were many experiences, anecdotal reports and opinions expressed in which some incorrectly related general utility as a function of reliability.
The baseline reference point for determining reliability of a firearm is to determine a measure of failure, referred to as MTBF (mean time between failure. The threshold criteria for success and failure, plus the conditions for operation during the testing must be carefully pre-determined. Even the term failure may have sub-categories, depending on the impact the failure has on the system's ability to continue to fullfil its primary role.
All of the rifles mentioned in the previous thread are well designed and well tested firearms. However, it is unreasonable to ascribe fault to the firearm if the range of conditions change without ensuring that the appropriate changes to components, maintenance, storage, and operator protocols have been effected to ensure the required level reliability is realized.
One of the primary ingredients of success with small arms in diverse environments is the effective training and discipline of the operators. Placinge the system (firearm and operator) in a drastically different environment (changing conditions) without appropriate training in "adjustments" to the components, maintenance & preparation of the firearm, specific for the new environment is a recipe for disaster and increased reliability problems.
Whether military, LE, competitor, hunter, or recreational shooter, the same fundamental precepts apply. Use the right tool for the job, and prepare the tools and the operator for the conditions under which the job must be done!!
[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited August 01, 2000).]