rocco490
Pinnacle OPE Member
- Local time
- 3:42 AM
- User ID
- 1158
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Location
- southeast virginia
http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf
Salt Water Corrosion Test While latitude was shown in assessing SACO’s dry mud performance, Army evaluators exercised no such latitude in assessing H&K’s performance after exposure to salt water Salt water immersion, a desirable characteristic in 198 I, was elevated to a mandatory requirement for the 1984 competition In a procedure similar to that used for the mud test, two weapons and a number of magazines were immersed in a saltwater solution of a specrfied salinity Between test firings, which took place over a period of 10 days, the weapons were placed in a hunudity-controlled chamber. Over the lo-day period, H&K experienced 55 malfunctions m 390 rounds fired compared with 2 malfunctions in 210 rounds for the 45-caliber control weapon. As table III.9 demonstrates, many of H&K’s malfunctions occurred after the 5th day of exposure-36 out of 55. The Army systems analysts concluded that for the first 3 days of the test, H&K’s performance was comparable to that of the control weapons. Overall, they found H&K’s performance acceptable because, in their opinion, the lo-day testing cycle was not realistic Their report noted that although no mission scenario is given for the salt water immersion requirement, “one might imagine that landing in the tropics might be simuIated by the 3 day finng cycle.” Table 111.9: 1984 Salt Water immersion Test Results-Percentage Successful Firings System 45 control SAC0 Beretta S&W .I_ -- - After 3 days After 5 days Overall 100 98 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 H&K 97 82 86 Like SACO’s performance in the mud test, H&K’s performance under salt water immersion was not as good as that of its competitors. Consequently, Army evaluators concluded that H&K had failed to meet this
Salt Water Corrosion Test While latitude was shown in assessing SACO’s dry mud performance, Army evaluators exercised no such latitude in assessing H&K’s performance after exposure to salt water Salt water immersion, a desirable characteristic in 198 I, was elevated to a mandatory requirement for the 1984 competition In a procedure similar to that used for the mud test, two weapons and a number of magazines were immersed in a saltwater solution of a specrfied salinity Between test firings, which took place over a period of 10 days, the weapons were placed in a hunudity-controlled chamber. Over the lo-day period, H&K experienced 55 malfunctions m 390 rounds fired compared with 2 malfunctions in 210 rounds for the 45-caliber control weapon. As table III.9 demonstrates, many of H&K’s malfunctions occurred after the 5th day of exposure-36 out of 55. The Army systems analysts concluded that for the first 3 days of the test, H&K’s performance was comparable to that of the control weapons. Overall, they found H&K’s performance acceptable because, in their opinion, the lo-day testing cycle was not realistic Their report noted that although no mission scenario is given for the salt water immersion requirement, “one might imagine that landing in the tropics might be simuIated by the 3 day finng cycle.” Table 111.9: 1984 Salt Water immersion Test Results-Percentage Successful Firings System 45 control SAC0 Beretta S&W .I_ -- - After 3 days After 5 days Overall 100 98 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 H&K 97 82 86 Like SACO’s performance in the mud test, H&K’s performance under salt water immersion was not as good as that of its competitors. Consequently, Army evaluators concluded that H&K had failed to meet this