TTAG’s organizing a reliability showdown between the GLOCK 19, FNS-9, and Smith & Wesson M&P. Ten thousand rounds per gun. Even if we get an ammo company to help with the gun food expense and readers to do the trigger and reloading work, it’s going to cost a bomb. We’re considering a Kickstarter campaign to cover the cost. Or maybe FX Hummel could do a Plastic Gun Aid concert. Anyway, the fact that no one’s put the plastic guns through this kind of comparo is FN ridiculous. N’est-ce-pas?

Recommended For You

61 Responses to FX Hummel is FN Funny

    • I don’t see much attention to the PPQ here at TTAG. I hope that it is not due to Walther’s very modest marketing efforts making potential customers unaware of it. I just love mine–it fit my paw much better than the Glocks, and it is scary accurate, easy to maintain, and has a trigger that amazes me every time I’m at the range.

      • I hardly knew about it until I saw all of the reviews on the VP9. From watching the videos the PPQ has an excellent trigger. I still haven’t held one to check it out.

  1. Meh, I’ll stick with my CZ’s. Proven enough for half the world, including Israel and the Delta Force, proven enough for me.

    • I was wondering the same thing, but I think I remember reading that they won’t use the Liberty ammo when testing a gun for reliability, or something to that effect.

      Still seems to defeat the purpose of having an ammo sponsor, though.

    • I think all those other guns already reside at TTAG HQ…that’s probably the determining factor. Though as a Springfield fan, I do feel the injustice.

      • That may be the case, but if you’re dropping the cash for 30,000 rounds of ammo, what’s a few hundred for a gun?

        I’d think that, if you’re going to go to the expense and trouble of such a comparison test, you’d want to pick the three most popular guns in this class, not two of the most popular and one fringe player that most shooters probably haven’t even heard of. The Glock, M&P, and XD seem like the three biggest dogs in the plastic pistol market. Heck, there are probably more Ruger SR9s out there than FNS-9s.

        • “That may be the case, but if you’re dropping the cash for 30,000 rounds of ammo, what’s a few hundred for a gun?”

          Because then it becomes dropping the cash for 40,000 rounds of ammo. And so on, for every pistol added. Not to mention the enlarged time suckage, need for more shooters, etc.

  2. What? No Springfield XD? Outrageous!

    On second thought, that’s okay. Wouldn’t want to make the Glockies feel bad. 🙂

    But seriously, this whole thing sounds pretty cool. If wasn’t so far away from your testing grounds, I’d jump at the chance to load magazines and pull triggers. Don’t think I can justify the 30-hour drive, though.

    I live on the ragged edge of broke, but given an easy way to donate, I’d contribute 5 bucks to the ammo budget.

  3. Why 10000 rounds? Isn’t the Glock brand Glock going to automatically win anyway?Enquiring minds want to know. Sorry I have no interest in an ammo fund.

  4. I cannot justify buying ammo for anyone but me and mine. I don’t see what this is going to accomplish either. Bragging rights?

  5. No HK? No Sig? The big 3 need to be represented for sure. What about xD? Not in the same realm as glock or SW reliability wise, but still a contender. FN has a niche market, although I respectfully accept that they are a big deal around these parts with the staff. If anything you can drop the Glock brand Glock from the list, because no pistol has ever been tested as stringently as the Glock and it always wins for reliability.

    If you guys are using a price point as the qualifier you gotta test an xD as well. It makes no sense not to include that and drop the FN.

    • I agree. Though no fanboy of GLocks, they have without question more than proven themselves. Therefore, one should test their closest competitors, the M&P and the XD, for sure. Whether or not to include the FN product, I’m ambivalent. I would think Rugers’ SR would be better represented as a third-gun.

  6. “Anyway, the fact that no one’s put the plastic guns through this kind of comparo is FN ridiculous”

    You mean…no one other than pretty much everyone on the internet who has disposable funds? I’ve lost count of how many Glock torture tests I’ve seen, and I’ve read about many for the M&P. So just do a single one for FN and call it a day, right? I mean, I finally have discretionary income that I can throw at kickstarts that I like and the such, but…why am I buying ammo for people who ostensibly get paid to shoot already?

  7. What, no Ravens?

    A Raven enduro would be a lot cheaper to do because you wouldn’t need ten thousand rounds. Or ten hundred. Or ten.

    • You’re joking, but a super-cheap shitgun comparison would be a pretty amusing stress test. Raven vs. Lorcin vs. Cobra. Two boxes of ammo ought to be enough for all three.

      Actually, a really interesting and useful test would be to compare several lower-end (price, not necessarily quality) guns that could realistically serve as a self-defense gun on a budget. Set the price limit at $300, say. EAA Witness P, SAR B6, maybe one of the cheap import 1911s, Zastava CZ999, there’s probably something from Tristar or Bersa in that price range, too. Lots of choices.

  8. Ive been going to a lot of IDPA matches recently, and ive noticed a lot of glocks having failures… but never any problems with the M&Ps or springfields. Just saying

  9. Wouldn’t this test be meaningless from the standpoint that you’ll never be sure if the results for that model reflect the entire production run or if you just got one that was particularly well-made or particularly crappy?

    Seems like 3 of each model, from different batches, should be tested for a total of nine guns, to give some idea of how reflective the results will be of the typical gun.

    I know that triples the cost, but it’s going to be easy for people to dismiss the results as a one off otherwise. (“I don’t care what TTAG found, *my* gun never failed me.”)

    • It wouldn’t matter. I’ve seen people claim their 1911 was flawless, then it jams on them not five minutes later. Next day they are claiming it has been flawless again.

      I don’t understand it; I vividly remember every jam that happens to my firearms, and it’s not zero; just close to it. (Other than my nano, which has been an utter piece of crap.)

      I don’t believe a “flawless” statement any more. Either the person is in denial or they haven’t shot the gun much, or they are lying.

    • It would probably cost more to ship a Hi-Point than to just buy one… Does TTAG HQ have a forklift and loading dock?

      • No but they have a powered dolly for moving safes. Should be sufficient. 😀

        If you do test a high point, you can actually shoot tulammo through it; it won’t wreck anything valuable. (That’s the upshot of a conversation I had with a walmart associate once. He found out what kind of gun I was packing and then urged me NOT to buy that ammo. I asked him what gun he would have said “OK” on and the response was “Hi-Point.”)

  10. It does seem like huge numbers of people hare are urging you to test a Springfield instead of the FNS. Others want to add a couple of different models (CZ being the favorite of all the rest). Were I running this test I’d at least consider dropping the FNS for the Springfield.

    • Rather than the FN, I’d drop the Glock. As others have said, their reliability is quite well established already.

      • Unfortunately there are still dingbats out there who insist the Glock is a piece of junk. (Generally 1911 fanboys.) I’d like to see this very same test done with a Glock (*maybe* two) and a succession of 1911s; go to the next one when the prior one jams. That should make the point crystal clear.

        • No one here with a 1911 ever said that Glock was junk. A bunch of us have both. What’s wrong, Steve, you can’t afford a 1911?

  11. Used to do this for a living. Send me an email if you want some standardized testing procedures outlined and some tips on how to do this quickly and efficiently.

  12. now i gotta go out and buy another FN pistol just to make his point more FN valid. oh the joys of being an FN gun owner

    • Funny I could make a similar comment about CZs. There’s a matte stainless probably whining piteously for me to take it home at the LGS… and I already have three CZs.

  13. Glocks and M&Ps (and XDs to a lesser extent) have more than a few durability tests out there (pistol-training.com for one did a couple). It’d be more interesting to see a comparison of three guns that aren’t as widespread. The FNS, Walther PPQ, and SIG P320 would be good ones IMO. And if we open it up to hammer fired guns, the FNX, CZP07, Beretta PX4, or SIG SP2022 maybe

  14. Reliability tests have been done to death. Having someone test a whole bunch of guns won’t change anyone’s minds. I would much rather have ShootingtheBull410 do a defensive ammo super test. Testing all of the popular calibers (semi-auto and revolver), barrel lengths and as many defensive ammo varieties as possible. I live in Texas and if he’s close enough I’d even volunteer my time for what ever grunt work needs to be done.

  15. Glock torture tests have been done to death and they have a well deserved reputation for reliability. To a lesser extent m&p’s and xd(m)’s have also had some good reliability/torture test done.
    I see alot of guys saying I have an xd, glock, m&p test that!
    If you already own one, why do you need to see ANOTHER torture test just to reaffirm your purchase decision. Your choice has been made, what difference will it really make to you?
    This is coming from a guy that has more xd(m)’s than anything else.
    If we want to find out the “Truth about guns” let’s not waste time on data that other reviewers already done to death. If a new buyer is looking for a pistol and is told by the LGS guy that GLOCKS, m&p’s, xd’s are junk, WHEN that person goes on the internet they’ll see good amounts of data showing otherwise.

    What about testing the FNS, Ruger SR, CZ P09, PPQ? We really haven’t seen reliability tests done with these. Also another suggestion, if you’re really doing a reliability test, why not try using the .40 versions of all these pistols if you want to REALLY test them. 10k rounds isn’t really enough in 9mm and I figure it would be better to accelerate the process with the tougher .40

  16. Glock torture tests have been done to death and they have a well deserved reputation for reliability. To a lesser extent m&p’s and xd(m)’s have also had some good reliability/torture test done.
    I see alot of guys saying I have an xd, glock, m&p test that!
    If you already own one, why do you need to see ANOTHER torture test just to reaffirm your purchase decision. Your choice has been made, what difference will it really make to you?
    This is coming from a guy that has more xd(m)’s than anything else.
    If we want to find out the “Truth about guns” let’s not waste time on data that other reviewers already done to death. If a new buyer is looking for a pistol and is told by the LGS guy that GLOCKS, m&p’s, xd’s are junk, WHEN that person goes on the internet they’ll see good amounts of data showing otherwise.
    What about testing the FNS, Ruger SR, CZ P09, PPQ? We really haven’t seen reliability tests done with these and there needs to be some.
    Also another suggestion, if you’re really doing a reliability test, why not try using the .40 versions of all these pistols if you want to REALLY test them. 10k rounds isn’t really enough in 9mm and I figure it would be better to accelerate the process with the tougher .40.
    Not a .40 fanboy (don’t have ANYTHING in .40) just figure that it would bring out any problems faster.

  17. The glock has been done by DHS it didn’t pass on original trials only sig, fn & hk. But it came to price on
    replacements a few years ago. A lot of feds still have Sigs until they can no longer be repaired with parts in stock @ agency armorers or they retire the
    agent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *