Contrary to Glockheads, Gaston Glock did not invent either the polymer pistol (HK VP70, 1970, 14 years before Glock) nor the torture test. Long before Glock was even born, torture tests were done on weapons of all shapes and sizes. Even in 1910, the U.S. Army did a 6000 round torture test of the soon-to-be M1911. I am sure we can did through the internet and find even early tests of this sort.
The torture test, while it seems exciting, if not a valid test of a weapons durability under normal circumstances. What's the point in shooting 3000 to 5000 rounds in a single day when most people will not shoot that many rounds through a weapon in their entire lives? The weapon gets incredibly hot and the wear and tear on it is far beyond normal usage. This is equivalent to the difference between running a car at 65 mph for 100,000 miles over 6 years or that same car at 130 mph nonstop for 100,000 miles. The car simply was not designed for the latter.
Freezing, superheating, running the gun over with a vehicle, etc etc etc are just silly distractions to the real testing of a gun. I want to know it's accuracy, ergonomics, and simple reliability. I call simple reliability the ability of a gun to, after a break in period, to make it through a reasonable amount of firing, without jams or breakages. Reasonable amount would be 100 to 150 rounds, through several magazines. Intentionally trying to break a gun is just plan silly.
