Recently I've seen a lot of posts/videos online about the reliability of certain handguns over others. For example, there was a recent website linked on INGO that showed a guy who put his Glock 21 through all kinds of torture tests (mud, sand, freezing, baby powder, shooting it, dropping from an airplane etc) alongside an HK USP. The Glock fired and cycled pretty much in every condition, while the other did not. I realize that there are certain design elements that affect things like feeding and extracting reliability, such as the feed ramp or the extractor. But why is it that a certain gun would fire and cycle a whole mag under extreme circumstances (buried in muddy goop and sand) while another won't even cycle the second round? What design elements make this possible? Why does James Yeager always say that 1911s, among other guns, fail in his classes more often than Glocks and M&Ps etc (aside from being a Glock guy)? If there are certain things that enhance reliability, why aren't more manufacturers using them?
I'm not looking for generic answers like "Glock's design is just better." I'm also not looking to start a "this gun's better than that gun" war. I just want to know if anyone knows of specific design features that promote firing and cycling under adverse conditions.
I'm not looking for generic answers like "Glock's design is just better." I'm also not looking to start a "this gun's better than that gun" war. I just want to know if anyone knows of specific design features that promote firing and cycling under adverse conditions.