EDIT: Thanks to BattleRifle, I found what I was looking for, and edited it for humor and practicality for an civillian who has to buy his  own ammo.  See my post several pages down.

-Original Question-
Hey everyone.  Is there any sort of  semi-official 500-1000 rd. torture and reliability testing conducted by .MIL, .GOV or reputable private organization?

I'm interested in evaluating my rifle and soon-to-be carbine build:
Stoppages (FTF/FTE)
Durability of a two-stage trigger
Operation w/o cleaning
Cooling
Accuracy (last for a reason, expect 2-3 MOA with irons, 1-2 better)

Help me out here, I remember seeing something.

Just from 'feel', I guess I would  accept 0.5% failures that can be rectified by immediate action and 0 failures that need field stripping (or worse), all without cleaning - is this realistic?

I'm willing to leave a weapon outside overnight and simulate dusty and dirty conditions, but I'm not going to submerse or bury it

Here one that was done awhile back...



www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html

not much of a torture test.  I've used colt based ARs in a couple of classes where i put 400 rds a day through them, so there's 400 rounds without cleaning.  I suspect you have some idea that the AR is fragile or something?  Hell my glocks could do a 1000 rounds without a stoppage.

spend $100 and do your own 1000 round reliability test, you'll have fun and your weapons reliability is all that matter anyway.

My new Colt m4 has now had exactly 1000 rds of the old wolf ammo, zero ftf and no I have not cleaned it. As soon as sportsmans guide delivers my 6 wolf sardine cans I will continue.

I've easily gone through 1000 rounds without any malfunctions or cleaning.  The way my carbine was running I'm sure I could've went a lot further.

Here's a cut and paste from the thread I posted.

Not too long ago I purchased a CMMG/DPMS Pre-ban M4A3 upper. This upper has a 16", 4150, 1/7 barrel with a 5.56 chamber, fully chrome lined chamber/bore and M4 feed ramps.

See the project details here ->www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=162739

I just finished doing a reliability test on this upper using 5 types of ammo. I fired 200 rounds each of the following ammo.

1.Federal XM193
2.Hot Shot SS109
3.Winchester Q3131a
4.South African M1A3
5.Wolf 55 gr

I let the barrel cool off in between ammo changes also there was no cleaning during the test. I also fired Wolf last to see how it performs when it was already dirty.

Results - 1000 rounds fired with NO malfunctions and that nasty Wolf ammo just flew right through!

The chamber seems truly 5.56 and mil-spec! The only thing different I have is the Wolff extra power extractor spring which I also run in my other carbine upper.

Afterwards without cleaning it, and using sand bags I shot 50 rounds of Black Hills remanufactured 77 gr. I was pleseantly surprised that shooting 1 MOA 5 shot groups was not difficult and if I did my part I was even able to get several 3/4 MOA groups. I have no doubt that this barrel can outshoot me and with someone more capable it could probably shoot sub-MOA all day long.

I'm very happy with this upper and barrel and would not hesitate to buy another one!

That being said I've also noticed a couple of posts about unreliable DPMS uppers and barrels and I was not too impressed with th answers given by the DPMS support people. DPMS mentioned having tighter chambers yet still being 5.56 and a special list of ammo that will work reliably, etc, etc... I don't know why the barrels made for CMMG seem so much better but IMHO the only DPMS barrels I would ever buy would be the ones specially made for CMMG.

Please note I have no business affiliation with CMMG, I'm just a happy and very satisfied customer!

Nothing official as far as I know, but if you ask David Hineline (member of this board), he'll tell you he's had over 5K through his class III ARs, with no cleaning and no malfunctions. Seeing him shoot I don't doubt his claim. I have personally fired 2K rounds (with no cleaning) of Wolf with my AR (chrome lined) with no malfuntions at all. I only cleaned it because the chamber was so filty it was disgusting, not because of any reliability issues.

Maybe Troy or Kevin B can add to this, but if I remember, the Danish army put about 15K rounds through a C7 (Diemaco M16 clone) with no cleaning, and the thing worked perfectly.

Those that say that the direct-gas system of the AR is crap because "it is so unreliable" have no clue what they are talking about...

Quoted: ... I suspect you have some idea that the AR is fragile or something?... spend $100 and do your own 1000 round reliability test, you'll have fun and your weapons reliability is all that matter anyway.

No, I've owned ARs for  years of course, but I just want to evaluate the no-shit-reliability of it in a method that is just a bit more scientific than just I've shot xxx rounds with no malfs.

I recall that there was an Army or Marine torture test for  some ten or more thousand rounds and there were failures allowed.  I just want to be a little more realistic for a civiallian and (hence the 1000 rd. limit) yet scientific at the same time.

Quoted: Here one that was done awhile back... www.valmet-weapons.com/Torture_Test_Page1.html

Yes, something like this!  But I don't live in extreme cold weather  so this test is a little unrealistic (at the least) for  me.  Pour water in action and freeze  overnight and see if it works I don't think so!

Quoted: Maybe Troy or Kevin B can add to this, but if I remember, the Danish army put about 15K rounds through a C7 (Diemaco M16 clone) with no cleaning, and the thing worked perfectly. Those that say that the direct-gas system of the AR is crap because "it is so unreliable" have no clue what they are talking about...

I don't doubt it, but I would sure like to see the report that followed. Anyone have any more information on the C-7 test?

GUNS magazine did a 10,000 torture test a couple of years ago for their magazine. Logged training rifles at Fort Benning supposedly had 50,000 rounds through them (with repairs I'm sure) rental rifles at a local gunshop that shhot full auto, are rumored ot have better than 50k through them with minor repairs...my own AR's are in the 7 to 10 k range with 0 failures of any kind.

How about THIS test!

www.galleryofguns.com/ShootingTimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=1205

A TEN THOUSAND round test.

1000 round torture test?  Son, we call that a good day of shooting.  I've been to AR competitions where it was not uncommon to shoot 500-1000 rounds in a MORNING.

If you have any problems with that kind of round count either you bought a REALLY crappy AR-15 or you are not maintaining it properly.

Fight4YourRights ran 1200 rounds one afternoon just blasting away (no problems).  Ask Troy about his 9000 round 'torture' test w/o cleaning.

We have often gone well over 1000 rnds without cleaning, just dropping a few drops of oil in the weepholes on the side of the carrier, and some on the bolt lugs thru the ejection port about halfway through.

No parts breakages, no other problems, just shooting.

I don't shoot Wolf.  Brass cased ammo only.  I only shoot ammo made in USA, SA, or Israel.

I only have one rifle with chrome-lined bore/chamber.

Some of my rifles have stainless Oly barrels.

All of my mags are USGI 30's (50/50 green and black followers) and SA-80's (with chr-sil springs and green followers).

Quoted: I recall that there was an Army or Marine torture test for  some ten or more thousand rounds and there were failures allowed.  I just want to be a little more realistic for a civiallian and (hence the 1000 rd. limit) yet scientific at the same time.

Perhaps you are thinking of the 6000 round endurance test that is part of lot acceptance testing.  For every batch of 1000 rifles a contractor turns out, they must randomly select four rifles and give each the 6000 round test.  There is a table of acceptable malfunction rates.  This is contained in the MILSPEC for the rifles, which you can find by going to the "Information" menu at the top of this page, and looking for "manuals and downloads".

I don't know that you could shorten this test down to 1000 rounds and have any sort of statistcal significance, but you can try it.  As other posters have indicated, it really should handle this amount of ammo without incident.  It might be a good way to check for obvious problems with the gun, though.

Great, that's what I was searching for!!

I guess yes, I agree that 1000 may  be too few.

I think for  my test, I would make the following changes:

MIL-C-70599A(AR)
Dirty Limp-Wristed Wet Noodle Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey Test
Annex NES-1

NES 1.1  Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey Test:
In order to simulate repetitive dropping of a rifle, place three tablespoons of local range dirt into a trash bag.  Insert rifle to be tested and agitate vigerously for thirty seconds to ensure a reliable coating of the test rifle.  Remove from bag and brush off  any loose dirt.  
(!) Ensure that the barrel is unobstructed and immediately continue with 1.2  below with NO cleaning.

NES 1.2 Wet Noodling Test:
Fire the maximum sustained ROF for five minutes and perform section 3.4.6

NES 1.3 Limp-wrist Test:
Allow a five minute cooling period.
Bump fire two (2) thirty (30) round magazines and repeat section 3.4.6

NES 1.4 USA Mag Rejection Test:
Perform section 3.4.7 with a reduced round count to 2000. The rounds from 1.2 and 1.3 count as part of this reliability test. No cleaning is to be performed.  No failures are allowed except where noted below:

# of failures                    Description:
2                                   Failure to feed (from magazine)
1                                   Failure to eject
1                                   Failure to chamber

--END Annex NES--

Extract from MIL-C-70599A(AR):

3.4.6 Targeting and accuracy. A series of 10 rounds fired
from each carbine at a range of 91.4 meters shall be within the
extreme spread and targeting area (heavy outline) specified in
Figure I when the front and rear sights are set as follows. The
normal rear sight peep (sight rotated fully rearward) shall be
used with the rear sight set centrally in the slot for windage
within plus or minus five (5) clicks. The top edge of the front
sight post flange shall be set flush to .030 inch below the
bottom surface of the front sight slot. Ammunition shall be
Government standard M855, 5.56mm ball cartridges conforming to
Drawing 9342868 and shall have been certified by the Government
to be of a quality that will have an average horizontal and
vertical standard deviation of 3.4 inches to 4.0 inches at 600
yards as measured in accordance with MIL-C-63989.

<image>

3.4.7 Endurance. Carbines shall be capable of withstanding
the firing of 6,000 rounds for endurance with not more than the
number of malfunctions and unserviceable parts allowed for both
single carbine and four carbines combined as allowed in TABLE I.
The cyclic rate of fire of not more than one reading on a single
carbine or not more than two readings on four carbines combined,
shall fall outside of 700 to 1025 rounds per minute. Ammunition
used shall be Government standard M855, 5.56mm ball cartridges
conforming to Drawing 9342868.

# of failures                    Description:
2                                   Failure of bolt to lock
2                                   Failure to fire
4                                   Failure to feed (from magazine)
2                                   Failure to eject
3                                   Failure to chamber
1                                   Failure to extract
3                                   Bolts fails/hold rear
0                                   All other malfunctions

Thanks for the help!!

Quoted: Nothing official as far as I know, but if you ask David Hineline (member of this board), he'll tell you he's had over 5K through his class III ARs, with no cleaning and no malfunctions. Seeing him shoot I don't doubt his claim.

He isn't kidding

Do it for the title... and the children

none of these failure tests mean shit lots of guns will shoot thousands of rounds in these conditions.did anyone during these test pour and i mean pour fine sand in the reciever then insert a mag and see if it failed.i bet our boys overseas are getting sand in there recievers and you dont always have time to call a time out to clean your weapon."time out ali my weapon jammed"dont think so!how but dirt or mudd?the ar has never handled fine sand just look at after action reports from desert storm.im not doggin the ar i carried one in the army i like the gun or i wouldnt own one now.i just remember seeing the late Uzi Gal in a range in Israel on the history channel taking a galil inserting a full mag and dunking the whole gun in a 55gal. drum filled with sand,mudd and water(it looked like soup)and pulling it out and blazing a full mag down range.now thats reliability!i know all weapons have thier drawbacks but i dont think placing a gun on a clean bench at a range and feeding it ammo all day makes it reliable.just my .02 thanx.Bently

God gave man the "enter" key on his keyboard for a reason.

Use it.

Quoted: none of these failure tests mean shit lots of guns will shoot thousands of rounds in these conditions...

Bently, I think you are missing the point of the 6000 endurance test.

Ability to function in adverse conditions is a product of design.  Power factors, cam angles, clearance between moving parts etc. all affect the ability of a rifle to function with garbage in the mechanism.  As you said, the M16 has never excelled in sandy environments, and NESurvival's rifle won't be any different, because that is inherent in the design.  And he doesn't need to test those things, because the US Army has fired millions of rounds in water, mud, sand, etc. to test the soundness of the design.

The endurance test is supposed to find problems with the quality of manufacture of an individual rifle.  The idea is that poorly heat treated parts will break, unpolished working surfaces will create too much friction, poorly dimensioned parts will lead to malfunctions.  The action doesn't need to be filled with crap to bring these problems to the fore.  If his rifle passes a 1500 round trial without major problems, then he has reason to believe his AR-15 is as good as an AR-15 can be.  Whatever that is.

battlerifle,i see what your saying and i understand the idea behind his test.i didnt mean to get hostile toward the ar it just gets under my skin when people do these test then say "look it fired this  many rounds and no malfunctions its so reliable"you see it in magazines from time to time.i wasnt trying to start anything. like i said before i love my ar im just clearly aware of its limitations.sorry if i offended anyone. Bently

Quoted: Do it for the title... and the children www.mattandpamazon.com/images/matt/IBTL.gif

What's wrong with the title?  It was toungue-in-cheek to simulate a test that tries to d uplicate a rifle that is dirty and/or has been dropped, bump fired etc. for reliability testing.

See  my post for details.

Quoted: My test was about 7,500 rounds over an 8-9 month period.  The gun was not cleaned, but it was lubed (a squirt of BreakFree on the bolt every 5-600 rounds).  Towards the end, cycling was kind of sluggish, and the gun was positively filthy inside, and the tail of the bolt was hard to clean.  But the only malfunctions were due to a known-bad magazine, which I was testing during the middle of the test at some point.  This is the same rifle I've brought to shoots and let people shoot all day.  It will certainly be the first rifle I own that wears out a barrel. -Troy

That's amazing.  I don't recall if this was a factory rifle or a home-build?

Quoted: not much of a torture test.  I've used colt based ARs in a couple of classes where i put 400 rds a day through them, so there's 400 rounds without cleaning.  I suspect you have some idea that the AR is fragile or something?  Hell my glocks could do a 1000 rounds without a stoppage. spend $100 and do your own 1000 round reliability test, you'll have fun and your weapons reliability is all that matter anyway.

I know Jeff Hall, and your comments are without merit.  If you are unable to understand why his test was conducted, or if you are unable to gather usable information from it, that is your fault, and not the fault of his testing.

I have no idea what you are talking about...please don't bother to respond though as i don't care.