Firearm Reliability
A matter of trust
duction process, as in the P08 Luger, and a first class design like the Colt 1911.
It is interesting to digress a little into the field of reliability engineering to see how this relates to firearms, if at all. Sometimes in other technologies a contractual requirement will specify a number to be put to the reliability of a new design and in this event the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) is often used. In a destructive test, a number of samples are cycled through exceptionally abusive temperature extremes, bumps, vibration, operator misuse and many other harmful influences which are relevant to the article’s intended use. An elaborate mathematical projection into the future is done on an analysis of the intervals between any faults and their nature which occurred during the fault-accelerating process. The tests may last for many months or longer to capture sufficient data. The study is costly but often vital. A typical forecast figure for a large turbofan aircraft engine is one per 370 000 flight hours. Other high-powered machines having exceptionally long MTBF factors are the giant high voltage transformers one sees in switchyards, possibly because they have no moving parts. But I suppose this is of little comfort to Eskom.
NEW FIREARM DESIGNS also undergo vigorous testing which will be relevant to their use in service. However, these are more pragmatic with no theoretical processing of the information and thus no published figures are given to quantify the expected reliability. Instead just a simple caveat may be given such as “no stoppage or other malfunction in one thousand rounds was observed”. Yet, serious faults still escape such trials. The Remington 700 had a dangerous trigger fault allowing the rifle to sometimes discharge without touching the trigger. Many lawsuits, a hasty recall and redesign followed. So, while MTBF or similar figures are mandatory for many critical items in aviation, military systems, nuclear and other fields where reliable operation is a matter of life or death, there are no such figures for firearms, military or civilian! The reason is simple. The commercial, military and law-enforcement markets do not require it because it is costly and, extraneous influences such as the quality of the ammunition, could be difficult to factor in.
This is surprising when infantry soldiers depend so heavily on their rifles. It is estimated that about 70% of the soldiers killed in combat in the Second World War were in the infantry. In the smaller conflicts of today this is estimated to be as high as 80%. Since the introduction of the M16 rifle and later, its M4 carbine variant to the US Army, there has been a relentless and unresolved controversy with regard to their reliability in battle. But this does not imply that their acceptance was lax. Many submissions for government firearm contracts fail during arduous operational trials which are usually in the form of competitions between several contenders for a lucrative contract. In 2011 the US Army compared eight new, state of
At the close of the 19th Century a double-action revolver was likely to be more reliable than a contemporary semi-automatic pistol
the art carbines against the M4. These included submissions from Beretta, Colt, Heckler & Koch and Remington. All the contenders failed in the first phase of the test and the funding for further investigating was withdrawn.
Firearms have two classes of failure, mechanical breakages and malfunctions. Mechanical breakages in modern guns are infrequent. The causes may be wear and tear, metallurgical deficiencies or damage due to corrosion. Extraction claws in many early designs were weak and inclined to break. Even Mauser action extractors have been known to chip when the correct controlled feed is not used and the cartridge is pushed by the bolt face into the chamber thus causing the extractor to ride over the cartridge rim.
Malfunctions on the other hand are much more common, particularly in semiautomatic weapons where feed and extraction jams are sometimes recurrent. This is much less so in repeating systems like bolt-actions and lever-actions where a malfunction is more often attributed to unsuitable ammunition, cartridge overall length (COL) being one offender. Civilian shooters will most likely encounter malfunctions in semi-automatic pistols so it is best to focus on the more prevalent of these.
Perhaps the most common is a failure to eject (FTE). Ejected cartridge cases may fail to clear the action and be caught in a nose-up position called a smoke-stack or be jammed inline between the bolt face and the breech. This may be due to weakened springs or a loosely held gun. Failure to feed (FTF) is another classic jam. This occurs when the top cartridge in the magazine fails to ramp up correctly and move forward into the chamber or fails to elevate in the magazine or, alternatively, when two cartridges pop up. This is often caused by faulty cartridgeguiding surfaces at the mouth of the magazine or a soft recoil spring. Many of these jams may not be attributed to a faulty weapon but to under-charged ammunition, incorrect cartridge overall lengths (COL) or bullet shapes that are not compatible with the ramp at the entrance to the chamber.
SOMETIMES THE RELIABILITY ofa firearm may be in conflict with a safety feature, the concern being a perceived compromise which adversely affects the speedy use of the weapon. The Smith & Wesson J-frame revolver and the Browning 1911 pistol had early implementations of a squeeze-grip idea to unlock the piece before firing. Several modern handguns incorporate this feature. Possibly it is more effective than many other safety systems in preventing an accidental discharge but this is open for debate.
In defence of gun reliability and the trust due to them, one should be reminded that the quality of ammunition is an equal player in this. Moreover, malfunctions and, in particular, an accidental discharge (AD), is seldom a fault in the design. Such accidents are invariably due to mishandling. Surely it is time for the ‘accidental discharge’ term to be changed to ‘negligent discharge’? A closer look at a modern firearm will reveal much ingenuity and the reliability therein certainly has to be admired.
Malfunctions on the other hand are much more common, particularly in semi-automatic weapons where feed and extraction jams are sometimes recurrent
AFTER T HE DEATH of master gunmaker Bruce Highman, I wrote an obituary (Fe b2 019 edition) in which I mentioned th ath e’d once made a to-scale miniature working model of a complex Wor ld War II breech-loading twinbarrelled 4.7-inch naval artillery piece (turret gun) which fired .22 rim-fire cartridges. It was correct down to the smallest detail, including elevation and lateral pivoting, with all the adjustment wheels and crank-handles being operational. It took him five years to make (while he was living in Durban) and he completed it around 1968. You simply cannot put a price on so many hours of skilled work. The barrels measured 8 inches (20cm) in length, and the overall length of the entire structure, including the base on which it swivelled, was about 24 inches (61cm). Tragically, it was stolen out of the boot of his car in Johannesburg.
Model making was Bruce’s hobby, and in 1980/81, he began work on another twin-barrelled breech-loading 4-inch naval turret gun, only he intended this one to fire .303 cartridges! I heard nothing further of this project, but at that time Bruce joined Suburban Guns in Cape Town; his reputation as a master gunsmith spread rapidly and he was kept very busy. It wasn’t long before he decided to specialise in custom rifle making, and went into partnership with master stockmaker Bennie Laubscher in Paarl. Again, demand for his skills apparently kept him too busy to indulge in his favourite hobby. During this period he built my custom .375H&H on a commercial Mauser 98 action taken off a Westley Richards (an article on this rifle appeared in Magnum’s August 1998 edition). I visited Bruce at his workshop in Paarl, and we also socialised, but he made no mention of building miniature model guns.
Bruce retired from gun-making when he turned 80 in 2005. At the time, he announced his intention to become a custom knife-maker, but that was not all Bruce did after retiring. He went back to miniature model-building! In February 2007, Bruce mailed me a handwritten letter enclosing two photos (one is seen here). His letter reads, Dear Gregor, I packed up the gunsmithing game when I turned 80 a couple of years back, the hassles became too tiresome. Am now indulging my model making interests. Enclosed snaps are of recently finished scale model of twin 4'' naval piece. If you know of anyone with similar interests I would like to be put in touch with them. Hope this finds you in good health and things going well. Best regards, Bruce.
As the letter was addressed to me personally, and Bruce had no interest in selling such pieces, he was not looking for exposure in Magnum. Nevertheless, I am quite certain my own intention was to publish the photos for reader interest, since they revealed the most extraordinary metal-working skill I had ever seen. However, I have no further recollection of the photos – that is, until just a few days before writing this. All I can put it down to, is that by 2007, I had entered an intensely busy and stressful period at Magnum. Ron Anger’s health was failing and I was taking over more and more of his workload. March 2007 was also the time when I had to renew my twelve firearm licences under the new Firearms Control Act, which proved a nightmare, because the day after I submitted my 12 applications, together with a 2-inch thick dossier of original references, certificates and other documents to motivate them, my local police station switched DFOS and my entire dossier went missing! Clearly, in the chaotic weeks and months that followed, Bruce’s letter and photos became buried beneath the mountain of paperwork heaping up on my desk and I forgot about them.
IN 2016, I had to transfer the contents of my Magnum office in Durban to my home, as the head office moved to Pretoria. All these files and papers got pushed into any and every available space, and I have been kept so busy during these past four years that it was not until this recent Christmas/new Year break that I got a chance to start sorting through them. And to my shock and surprise, I found Bruce’s 2007 letter and photos. I just had to share one with Magnum readers, as this is a truly astonishing representation of Bruce’s technical skill and attention to detail. I do not know if this is the completion of the twin-barrelled naval turret gun that Bruce began making in 1980-81, or an entirely new piece. The ‘artillery shells’ in the photos look like .303 rounds dimensionally, but I suspect these are latheturned dummies for safe demonstration. However, given Bruce’s 1981 statement of intent, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a fully working model with rifled barrels cut from actual .303 barrels and turned down to scale. If any reader knows where this model is now, I’d love to hear about it. What a marvellous testimony of that extraordinary man’s skill and dedication.