Congratulations to Kurt Johnson for his guess in the When Will It Stop? contest.
Kurt’s guess of 31,523 was the closest without going over to the actual round count when the HK45 endurance test gun had its first problem at #31,568.
The exact circumstance of the malfunction deserves a bit of explanation:
As reported last week, the pistol received its scheduled parts replacement a little late due to a delay in parts arriving from HK-USA. This past Wednesday, I realized that contrary to the week’s report, I had failed to replace the sear spring. Therefore, I took the gun apart again to rectify my error.
Two hours later, the gun still in pieces, I gave up on trying to get the gun back together. As I’ve mentioned in the past, if HK pistols have a flaw it is the complexity of their assembly procedure. The guns are obviously designed to be worked on only by people who operate in a spotless clean room on an otherwise empty workbench using a vice and specially designed tools. Since I lack said room, said bench, said vice, and said tools… things can get ugly.
For whatever reason, the sear spring kept coming loose once the gun was nearly assembled. In particular, it was getting dislodged when I tried to find the agonizingly necessary perfect alignment of the hammer strut to get that part installed. Then I realized the trigger bar was out of position and while taking the gun back apart again, the trigger bar plunger launched itself out of the gun and flew off to who-knows-where.
Suffice to say that after wrestling with the gun for hours without success, I loaded up a Gen4 Glock 19 and walked over to the nearest Caribou Coffee to send HK a nasty email.
Next morning I combed through my den and found the plunger & spring in one piece hidden behind some books on my bookcase. With plans either to get the gun assembled or toss it in the fireplace, I set down to try once again. Eventually, the gun was in one piece and passed the standard function check.
On Friday, I started my range practice with a F.A.S.T. run. After firing the two 3×5 shots and performing a slidelock reload, the trigger failed to reset to its normal position; instead it went all the way forward and required a very heavy trigger pull (“DA mode”) to fire. After that, the remaining shots were fine. A few test runs and it became clear that the action wasn’t resetting properly some of the time.
I took the slide off the gun and immediately saw that the sear spring had dislodged itself.
Admittedly, there was some debate as to whether this should be counted against the gun. Clearly, there’s a very good chance that user error (in terms of assembly) was the cause of the problem.
However, after discussing the issue with some knowledgeable and disinterested third parties, some facts seemed undeniable:
- once the gun was assembled on Thursday, I specifically checked the sear spring to make sure it wouldn’t fall out or even come out when pulled on; and,
- once assembled, the gun passed a standard function test which included multiple trigger pulls as well as manipulations of the slide and insertion/ejection of magazines.
In other words, the gun appeared perfectly fit for duty and in fact I carried it, loaded, on my way to the range that day. And after all, I am a factory-trained armorer who has disassembled and reassembled HK pistols more than a dozen times in the past year and a half. So while it is true the assembly of the gun may be in question, it was checked as well as possible short of test firing, and passed. In fact, it appeared completely normal and functional.
As such, this incident is being considered a malfunction, which is defined as a failure of the pistol to go through its normal cycle of operation and which requires tools and/or disassembly to repair but which does not require replacement of any part.
Once the problem was identified, I sat down on the floor of the NRA Range and detail stripped most of the frame to get the spring installed again, performed the same “tug test” to verify it was in place, then performed the same function check. Then I fired almost 900 rounds without a single additional problem.
It should be noted that while the dislocation of the sear spring significantly increased the trigger pull weight and reset distance of the HK45, the gun still made it through multiple magazines worth of ammo without failing to fire. Only the quality of the trigger pull was affected.
Odds are there will be some debate as to whether we should count this formally against the pistol for purposes of the ongoing endurance test. Some will argue that the problem only occurred because the part wasn’t installed properly. Others may argue that since the gun could still fire, it never really “stopped.” We are cognizant of those viewpoints and not completely in disagreement. However, it has always been the policy of pistol-training.com‘s endurance tests to report any and all issues rather than take editorial license for the sake of a flawless result. Future weekly HK45 test updates will therefore list this incident as a malfunction, but we will add an asterisk next to the number which will link back to this post for a full explanation. In the end, how each reader interprets these results is completely up to him.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Damn, I was only off by 7
“As I’ve mentioned in the past, if HK pistols have a flaw it is the complexity of their assembly procedure.”
That is a pretty serious flaw to me. No matter how great a gun it is otherwise the fact that there are so many other options that are easier to maintain and otherwise just as accurate and reliable would make me hesitate in choosing a this gun as my serious self defense weapon.
Having been in the guts of enough HK pistols to have developed a twitch at the very thought, all I can say is “This is my surprised face.”
Hey, at least it wasn’t a P7. 🙂
After the frustration I experienced attempting the installation of sights on one of my P30 pistols, I have to admit that I experienced some small measure of satisfaction reading this.
German engineering in ze haus, ya.
IMHO, the HK45 just got hosed.
The gun was improperly assembled. And clearly, the post-assembly testing was insufficient, since the problem was not detected. As they say in legal circles, Res ipsa loquitur.
And even after the improper assembly, the gun still operated properly, with the exception of the trigger not properly resetting “some of the time”.
Honestly, I don’t see any credible path to calling this anything but an operator error. No parts were broken. Nothing had to be replaced to restore the gun to correct function. The only thing it needed was correct assembly.
Just my opinion, feel free to flame away.
I am so looking forward to future P30 maintenance now. Woo hoo. (Not that I didn’t know about the issue prior to jumping on the bandwagon…)
Matt-
“the gun still operated properly, with the exception of the trigger not properly resetting ‘some of the time’.” Did you just say it worked properly except for not working properly?
:p As they say in engineering circles, Dude, what? More seriously, I understand where you’re coming from, just had to laugh about that comment.
Matt, in light of your post, I would be rather interested to hear just what, exactly, would pass as a sufficient function test in your opinion.
Todd – “the pistol received its scheduled parts replacement”
What does that include?
Have you ever considered testing these guns without said replacement?
Are you going for a “Torture Test”? Or just trying to see how long a well maintained HK can run?
Trust me, I am sincere in my questions.
If you can’t disassemble and reassemble a handgun with a reasonable amount of effort and some knowledge without it malfunctioning, I think it should be considered the guns problem. When Glock designed his guns one of the primary objectives was ease of disassembly/reassembly. It won’t always be the case that you have a complete shop to change out simple parts. 1911, Browning HP, M1 Garand were all designed to be worked on in the field. Complexity is not usually a good trait for firearms – HK included.
Thread drift…
Todd, I noticed above you wrote “I loaded up a Gen4 Glock 19 and walked over to the nearest Caribou Coffee…”. As I recall, several months ago you enthusiastically commented that you were going to buy the first one you could get.
So…thoughts, opinions? Next item on the 50,000 round torture list?
LOL
Touche’ – that was poorly worded on my part. 🙂
“Matt, in light of your post, I would be rather interested to hear just what, exactly, would pass as a sufficient function test in your opinion.”
Clearly, it requires something more than the “standard function check”, as the “standard function check” did not in fact identify a pistol that was not functioning properly. The thing speaks for itself, IMHO.
“If you can’t disassemble and reassemble a handgun with a reasonable amount of effort and some knowledge without it malfunctioning, I think it should be considered the guns problem. When Glock designed his guns one of the primary objectives was ease of disassembly/reassembly. It won’t always be the case that you have a complete shop to change out simple parts. 1911, Browning HP, M1 Garand were all designed to be worked on in the field. Complexity is not usually a good trait for firearms – HK included.”
Ah, but the gun was in fact successfully re-assembled on the floor of the range. I suggest that correcting the mis-assembly under those conditions would be more on the “in the field” end of the spectrum than the “complete shop” end.
At the end of the day, we have this timeline:
– The gun worked
– The gun was serviced
– The gun no longer worked
– The gun was re-assembled properly
– The gun worked
I still see no logical path to labeling this as anything other than operator error.
Matt
Wonder how long it would have run if left alone? I’ll mark this one up to human error.
“As I’ve mentioned in the past, if HK pistols have a flaw it is the complexity of their assembly procedure.”
And this is the reason I do not like the HK pistols very much, as much as I like Glocks and CZs. It is more comlicated to put back together than the CZ75 and also it has more space for erors.
Malfunctions: TLG 1, HK45 0?
While I do agree that a firearm’s design being so complex in it’s assembly that even someone experienced can have trouble getting it back together is a short-coming, maybe evan a liability, and no-doubt an undesirable trait in an SD/combat sidearm… in this case, it appears that there is as much if not more likelihood that it was the human who had the malfunction rather than the pistol.
Fanboys… :rolleyes:
In some ways, I think this is kind of analogous to the early failures with the P30 from the bad mainspring last year. It should definitely be scored for the purpose of the test, but I’d also probably consider it a non-typical failure when looking at the final results, just like I was more interested in the period between the main spring replacement and the frame failure on the P30 than the early problems.
But it’s silly for people to want to ignore them entirely. Bad parts slipping through QC and improper assembly happen. That’s life.
And having taken my USPc down to the frame more than a couple of times, Todd’s not exaggerating in saying that HK guns can be a bit tough to get back together at times; though the bulk of my loathing is reserved for getting the trigger return spring back into the gun. 🙂
As I said, I knew there would be some who objected to counting this against the gun, and I cannot say they are completely off base. The decision to proceed as we did, however, was made after careful thought and consideration after input from a number of experienced, disinterested parties.
We can either err on the side of saying “It couldn’t have been a problem with the gun” or we car err on the side of saying “We blame the gun.” Under the circumstances, given that the pistol appeared in every possible way to be properly assembled, and given that it passed as stringent a function test as possible short of live firing the gun, we stand by the decision that was made.
On the other hand, I think those who want to use this as an excuse to bash the HK45 are completely off their rockers. Regardless of the cause, one malfunction in (now) over 33,000 rounds is tremendous performance, completely unmatched by any other pistol I’ve ever used.
Given the durability and reliability that the HKs have shown over the past two years during the pistol-training.com tests, it’s hard to argue that a difficult detail stripping procedure is more than an occasional headache, especially given the very long service life of even the springs and other small parts.
To those who wanted us to declare the gun absolutely beyond perfection and without flaw: sorry.
To those who expected us to throw the gun out the window because of one hassle: sorry.
The test continues. Hope you’ll keep reading.
Sounds like personal problems to me Todd 😉
Keep up the good work and, as always, no compromise.
It sounds like Todd didn’t take this decision lightly and he weighed everything before coming to the conclusion it was a malfunction and not operator error. That’s good enough for me as I’m more of a pistol-training.com fanboi as my knowledge/shooting ability have improved drastically since finding this site then I’m a firearms manufacturer fanboi. The reasons I choose a weapon are going to be different then someone else.
Really impressed with HK’s performance record here either way and learn something with each report even thou it’s not my family’s choice of pistol currently. Only gripe is the only AZ class fell on my daughters birthday =(.
I don’t fault the gun at all. I’d carry one without a qualm.
The Jerries in engineering, however…
(“Vy yoos vun part ven two vill do ze same job yust as vell?”)
I really appreciate all of the detailed and great info Todd! I have a soft spot for HK’s and 1911’s. I am not a “smith” and am in no way trained to work on either firearm, and am thus equally afraid to attempt to fix either. So the complexity of the HK doesn’t hurt me in that regard, the fact that it can go so long without maintenance is a huge bonus for me.
However, i am discouraged to even try to learn to “work” on an HK after hearing that someone as qualified as you had poor results with servicing it.
I will say, that if and when HK releases the striker fired pistol that they have been working on, I would bet that it has the ruggedness and dependability of the HK45, with hopefully the ease of servicing of the other striker fired guns. That could really be the best thing going when it comes out. I hope they start their tests on it with you.
p.s. I will through my hat in with the bunch that wishes you didn’t bother with replacing the springs and just shot until it stopped, there would be a good chance it would still be going. 🙂
I don’t know man, I’d like to see how it handled fire, toss the backup in there. at the very least it would look cool.
I can’t believe there are like 20 posts above discussing gun problem vs. operator’s error.
Who cares? The thing went 32000 rounds without issues, and continued to be shootable even after that malfunction – which is labeled as malfunction only due to Todd’s definition. There was no failure to fire, failure to eject or extract or return to battery or cycle…
As far as complexity vs. simplicity of reassembly, I personally would take a gun that goes 25K and then requires highly skilled servicing over field-expedient gun that hopefully goes 2-3K any time, all other things being equal. Unfortunately, my skill level doesn’t allow things to be equal…
HK gets my respect for designing and producing such bomb-proof, ergonomic and shootable pistol.
Todd gets my question: I can’t imagine you’d carry G-19 without running some rounds through it; just curious of your impressions…
Hey Todd,
Since the gun is broken, can you send it to me? Of course, I will pay for shipping. Thanks for all your hard work and no nonsense posts.
That detail strip and reassembly issue (along with parts availability) is why I don’t have the two HK USP .45 anymore that I used to own.
I like to be my own armorer, those things about made me pop an artery in my head.
Personally, I’d count this against the gun. The Ross rifle of WW I would only blow its bolt back through your face if you assembled it wrong, but no one argued that this wasn’t a defect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_rifle
Those who are complaining about detail stripping a USP have obviously never detail stripped a 1911. The USP is quite simple and only requires 1 punch for disassembly.
I too, would argue that this is an operator error malfunction. On top of this, you said the pistol continued to fire, however it went to double action mode instead of single. How many other pistols would continue to fire when an internal spring became inoperable?
Regardless of how this is categorized, I think it’s yet another testimony of how tough and reliable the HK pistols really are.
As much as I like the HK’s I shoot Glocks partly because of their great simplicity. Add me to the list interested In your Gen 4 Glock impressions. I have four of them and am a big fan.
Well I kinda have to point to operator error here but I guess it’s all debatable.
FWIW I’m not an armorer yet I’ve had my USPc completely dissembled, I didn’t think it was that hard or complicated. Everything had it’s purpose and made complete sense upon reassembly. I doubt anyone here can dissemble a Audi/Honda yet I don’t here that as a fault. If you cannot work on something without messing it up dont work on it.
The whole “HK’s are too complicated” sounds like people reiterating that 223 was meant to wound, AKs are immune to sand, or Glocks KB every other round. If you want to see complicated become a professional engineer.
@JoshM @Aaron
Personally, I think the design itself is great, but that a lot of the complaints about the complexity (including mine) are probably related to the fact that assembly are much more involved than insert tab A into slot B and move on.
Like the trigger bar plunger that gave Todd such a headache – it’s held in place by the trigger bar, but the trigger bar is detented against the bottom of the hammer axle and you have to get hammer hooked over the hammer strut before you can insert the axle into the frame. It’s very easy to have a part slip out of place during this process, and when it happens, you get to disassemble and start over.
Basically my take on HK pistols is that they’re very well engineered, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t considerably more difficult to service than other modern designs. A person that’s fairly mechanically oriented *can* do it, but it’s not what I’d term easy.
Add me to the list that objects to calling this a failure. It was a software issue.
Todd-It’s to the gun’s credit (and HK’s engineering and LAV and Hackthorn’s input)that the gun performed as it did past 30K rounds; it’s to your credit that you so objectively reported the issue, allowing us as individuals to determine the appropriate classification of the problem.
In no small part due to your test, if I were to obtain/have issued an HK45, I would use it with a very high degree of confidence.
I would, however, realize that as the gun approached higher round counts that I’d likely need to send it to HK for appropriate servicing and scheduled component replacement. How feasible that is is a matter of individual/organizational assessment.
While highly durable and reliable, it’s clear that this is accomplished to some extent due to high engineering-rquiring at a certain point a higher skilled level of individual to service the gun-apparently somewhat beyond the level of an average factory-trained armorer.
Realistically, in your test this problem didn’t assert itself until the round count reached a level exceeding many, if not most projected LEO/military projected lifespans.
While I plan on remaining with my Gen 3 G21, this test, and the HK45 in general is impressive.
Best, Jon Stein
Did you really even need to do the maintenance on the pistol? The fact of actually doing a “torture test” would be to go as long as you can without maintenance, right? This test should have a disclaimer stating such. I have gone thousands of round on my HK45c without cleaning, lubrication, etc. Just to see if it will work. I had thought that was what you were doing here. If you are going to do a torture test, do a torture test. Dont mamby pamby the gun through 31k rounds just to say it can do it. Anyone who has an HK knows that taking the gun all the way apart (Sear,Trigger bar, etc) is something that you “might” have to do during YOUR lifetime. Unless you are LE and then you have an armorer at your expense to do this for you. I thought it was a torture test, now to me it has become a commercial. Sad day. You hosed this gun by screwing up the assembly. And if it still shoots, whether DA or SA, did it really fail? In a firefight, would you have survived and been able to keep firing? I think so! So no credit here for your screw up. The HK45 is still the best 45ACP on the market, PERIOD.
Did the gun fire every time the trigger was pulled?
If yes then this pistol is being held to a higher standard than the previous tests.
“If yes then this pistol is being held to a higher standard than the previous tests.”
That is demonstrably untrue. When the sear spring broke in the P30 it had the exact same effect, and was counted against the gun. When the M&P9’s slide broke, it was counted against the gun even though there appeared to be absolutely no effect on the gun’s function; same was true with the breakage of the P30’s firin pin spring.
I would call what happened a plus for the gun and not a malfunction. The gun contined to work without the sear spring. To me it’s nice to know if the sear spring bites the dust, for whatever reason, the gun will continue to function.
But I see where your coming from Todd and won’t argue with your well thought decision. It’s clear you didn’t come to it lightly.
Any S&W revolver will continue to fire just fine if the trigger rebound spring breaks; you just have to manually reset the trigger. Yet I would still count that as a mechanical failure on the part of the gun even though it was still “functional”.
No to belabor the point… but.
I said ‘if’ and I don’t see how ‘broke’ and ‘put together wrong’ add up to the same standard?
That we get no clues about the Gen 4 G19 is a clue itself. 😉
Amazing run for the HK45 and ok by me to count it against the gun. It’s still a supergun.
Add this to the “if it aint broke, don’t fix it” column. Clearly operator error in reassembly. Personally, I don’t see much relevance in this test at this point, anyway. The maintenance and replacement procedures are too arbitrary, and contradict each other. Most people who don’t clean their pistols regularly don’t follow parts replacement recommendations, either.
I personally have a problem with any firearm that cannot be easily stripped down to bare frame and re-assembled by the average shooter.
Guns need a good cleaning and lube every so often, as well as normal wear parts being replaced, if you can’t take it apart and fix the problems it’s a big check mark in the “Bad Points” column in my book.
“How many other pistols would continue to fire when an internal spring became inoperable?”
Any Glock that’s spent long enough in a rental case has probably seen its trigger return spring go Tango Uniform with results similar to what Caleb mentioned vis a vis Smith roundguns.
For that matter, the archaic Colt 1873 is lauded by certain proponents for its ability to function (kinda, sorta) even if every internal spring checks out of the net: Index the cylinder by hand and whack the hammer spur with a handy rock…
Some guns that are easiest to detail strip and/or service at the lowest level (me) are the GLOCK and the FN FNP/X.
For revolvers, the Rugers are hard to beat.
“This is not a malfunction Private Green its an asterisk malfunction. Gimme another 10 miles because those previous 10 dont count.” Thats what a gunny would have said. And it just the start of the ribbing you would have gotten.
This situation is rather unfair to HK with the exception of the fact that the reassembly is not as easy as a Glock. I would ask what the “Eventually, the gun was in one piece and passed the standard function check” was and “once assembled, the gun passed a standard function test which included multiple trigger pulls as well as manipulations of the slide and insertion/ejection of magazines.”
Did this include cycling through every eventuality (permutation) with the LEM action system? There are many in the LEM system. (And being German its complicated.)
To begin: Unco*cked dryfire in full DA with a full reset back without slide cycling gun then repeating. Next unco*cked dry fire in full DA, slide cycling gun, then hitting the shorter reset after doing the dry fire from the short reset both with and without a slide cycle after. Then starting in the partially precocked position with the light takeup. . . The point is did you try all the LEM action permutations (including simulated primer failure) to see if there was an issue–especially after you fugged the thing up. I think this “malfunction” could have at the very least clarified what the “dry” and “live” action tests should be in the HK armorers manual PRIOR to certifying a pistol fit for duty. What does the HK armorers manual say (the German one BTW) in the other older LEM action guns such as the USP, P2000? This could be a learning moment for HK armorers in the US rather than the fault of the pistol. Frankly the engineers in DE should chime in on this malfunction.
Finally the gun failed to “cycle normally” language. Debatable what this means since the gun has two modes. An abnormal cycle would imply that if after you push your finger forward UNTIL THERE WAS A RESET and then pulled back the gun would not go off. BUT IT WOULD HAVE in the LEM ACTION because at the full DA reset point it would function. In fact it did not fail TO reset it failed to reset AT the short position. The description of “failed to reset to its normal position” is not really a fair statement–it makes it sound like a broken trigger return spring. I would describe it not as a failure to cycle (fire and then refire) but an abnormal switching between the two modes of normal operation due to improper reassembly.
“the gun appeared perfectly fit for duty” you were in fact not being very clever when you tore apart a pistol, had problems reassembling it, and then carried it for duty WITHOUT a live fire function testing (which included some dummy rounds) that confirmed proper operation all the LEM possibilities. Again what does the HK armorer manual say and if nothing then more importantly what SHOULD it say regarding duty recertifying tests. If an agency armorer tears my gun apart I would have a GTG BU until I could live fire permutation test the rebuilt gun. Hence in the future if you do any more such endurance tests you should give the gun a box of ammo as a test before you classify the gun good to go. With malfunctioning errors you need to diagnose the problems and fix them before handing out penalty points in an endurance test. These can be rounds prior to the start of the test can be classified as reassembly certification tests.
I could just see HK’s marketing Dept when they read this post. The engineering Dept in DE are probably wondering how they can “Yank” proof their gun’s now. They probaby have hanging on the wall 2 10cm 2×4’s nailed together with one nail with the inscription “ToddG Pistole” and “Holzfeuerung” burned into the wood with a soldering iron. 😉
Problem is HK might actually deserve 50k rounds without a malfunction but we might never know–or will we. If you dont fix this by taking the test for a run of 50k rounds without a malf* to 81,568 then I predict that you can kiss that next HK test goodbye.
BTW I’ll take the number 81,568 if you get a real HK factory armorer from DE to do the stripping and reassembly.
Aaron’s comment is correct. After the maintenance, the gun went into DA mode. LEM is more complicated mechanically and I compare it to Para’s LDA mode. At least it seems like the gun “defaulted” to the simpler DA which is totally amazing to me. Most platforms would just fall apart. As for the “who cares” question – I do. I’ll be following the rest of the test with interest. Maybe somebody at H-K would care to confirm or deny?
-WF
Todd, Thank you, keep up the good work.
25000 rounds for service, and in reality it cant be done by a amature = the frame part must be pretty “gunk up” with dirt (slide is quite easy). This is no good, but on the other hand after 25000 round the gun ought to wisit a trained “doctor”.
As i read your endurance tests i believe you like 9 mm. You liked M&P9 (can this be dissasembeled by anmature ?) and P30, what about testing Glock 19. I fear you have to pay for it by yourself becuse Glock dont want to risk their reputation of “perfect”.
I think this is pretty weak on your part. Do you find it to be a sheer coincidence that the gun failed immediately after you worked on it and the part that failed is directly related to the problems you were having in assembly?
I liked this site but after reading this I have lost a little bit of respect for you and your site.
and you noticed he specifically mentioned all of that obviously, so how does that equate to a loss of respect? if he’d tried to conceal possible reasons behind the malf, then yeah I suppose one could get bitchy. but seriously, Todd documented everything and explains it all. very open and transparent. No loss of respect from me that’s for sure.