DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 Draft Failure Definitions and Scoring Criteria

22 for the Gun Safety Technology Challenge 

23

24 National Institute of Justice

25

26 June 2016

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

2

45 Introduction

46

47 This document has been developed for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Gun Safety 

48 Technology Challenge. It describes the failure definition (FD) and scoring criteria (SC) that 

49 will be used to “score” test events that occur during the testing of handguns, such as pistols 

50 and revolvers, in the Challenge. These firearms or firearms accessories can be understood 

51 to use integrated components that exclusively permit an authorized user or set of users to 

52 operate or fire the gun and automatically deactivate it under a set of specific circumstances, 

53 reducing the chances of accidental or purposeful use by an unauthorized user. The 

54 integrated gun safety technology may include different authentication technologies such as

55 radio frequency identification and fingerprint sensors.

56

57 This document follows the testing methodology published in Draft Test Procedures for the 

58 Gun Safety Technology Challenge to provide meaningful comparison between similar 

59 firearms in order to determine whether the reliability of the tested firearms differs 

60 significantly based on performance. Testing and evaluation is designed to prioritize the 

61 collection and use of data that can substantiate conclusions about the relative performance 

62 of firearms such that firearms with and without advanced gun safety technology that are 

63 similar with respect to type, form factor, caliber, and other physical characteristics are 

64 tested and evaluated using a common methodology and equivalent ammunition. Testing 

65 and evaluation is not designed to provide comparison of test results against absolute 

66 performance requirements or safety criteria, but rather to provide a meaningful 

67 comparison of test results of one firearm against another, similar firearm, or a firearm with 

68 and without a relevant safety accessory. The end result of the scoring process is to provide

69 “scored” data points in order to form a basis to determine whether the addition of a smart 

70 gun technology does or does not significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm system 

71 compared to existing firearms. 

72

73 Together, the FD and SC serve as a tool for guiding a reliability scoring panel through the

74 test event scoring process, with the intent of eliminating as much subjectivity from the

75 process as possible. The purpose of the FD is to define degraded handgun performance or 

76 functionality which is considered a failure when evidenced by a malfunction. The purpose 

77 of the SC is to define a specific and agreed upon process for scoring test events which occur 

78 during firearm testing. The scoring process involves the characterization of each test event 

79 into the proper category based upon its impact on the firearm’s operational performance

80 or functionality, followed by attributing the cause of the test event to a particular cause. 

81 The content of this FDSC follows U.S. Army guidance, such as Guidelines for Developing 

82 Reliability Failure Definition and Scoring Criteria, to characterize the impact of malfunctions 

83 on the handguns tested in the Challenge, consistent with the failure definitions that have

84 traditionally been applied to small arms.

85

86 Please direct any feedback on this document by email to gunsafetytechnology@usdoj.gov.

87

88

89

90
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

3

91 1 Scope

92

93 1.1 This document describes the failure definition (FD) and scoring criteria (SC) that 

94 will be used to “score” test events that occur during the testing of handguns, such as pistols 

95 and revolvers, in the Challenge.

96

97 1.2 This document follows the testing methodology published in Draft Test Procedures 

98 for the Gun Safety Technology Challenge to provide meaningful comparison between similar 

99 firearms in order to determine whether the reliability of the tested firearms differs 

100 significantly based on performance.

101

102 1.3 Testing and evaluation is designed to determine whether the addition of a smart gun 

103 technology does or does not significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm system, as

104 compared to existing firearms.

105

106 1.4 Reliability shall be assessed by a panel of qualified experts familiar with testing and 

107 evaluation of firearms using the FDSC in this document.

108

109 1.5 Inherent hardware failures shall be recorded and appropriately scored according to 

110 the FDSC. 

111

112 1.6 Induced failures attributable to the operator, technical documentation, 

113 maintenance, training, and applicable support equipment shall be recorded and 

114 appropriately scored according to the FDSC. Induced failures are included in the overall 

115 evaluation to capture and convey the impact of deficiencies which are rooted in sources 

116 other than hardware, but which ultimately manifest themselves in the form of equipment 

117 malfunctions, in order to provide a more complete picture of performance to the end user.

118

119 1.7 Malfunctions of the firearms induced by ammunition failure shall be recorded and 

120 appropriately scored according to the FD, however further separate assessment of 

121 ammunition reliability is outside the scope of this document.

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

4

137 2 References

138

139 Draft Test Procedures for the Gun Safety Technology Challenge, National Institute of Justice, 

140 Washington, DC, April 2016, http://www.nij.gov/funding/pages/fy16-gun-safety141 challenge.aspx.

142

143 Guidelines for Developing Reliability Failure Definition and Scoring Criteria, 3rd ed., U.S. 

144 Army Training and Doctrine Command, Army Capabilities Integration Center, April 2012.

145

146 Charles E. Ebeling, An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering, 2nd ed., 

147 (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press), 2010.

148

149 Siegmund Halpern, The Assurance Sciences: An Introduction to Quality Control

150 and Reliability (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), 1978.

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

5

183 3 Terms and definitions

184

185 Reliability

186 The probability that a device will perform its intended function for a specified period of 

time under stated conditions. 187 1

188

189 Maintainability

190 The probability that a failed component or system will be restored or repaired to a 

191 specified condition within a period of time when maintenance is performed in accordance 

with prescribed procedures. 192 2

193

194 Malfunction

195 A test event where the firearm does not perform its intended function properly.

196

197 Test event

198 Any occurrence during testing, whether expected or unexpected, that requires the operator 

199 to make an adjustment or take corrective action.

200

201 Operator

202 Individual person using the firearm.

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

 

1 Halpern, p. 7. Ebeling provides a similar definition on p. 5.

2 Ebeling, p. 6.
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

6

226 4 Failure definition

227

228 The failure definition formally defines what constitutes a failure as it relates to testing the 

229 firearm’s essential functions.

230

231 4.1 General considerations

232

233 4.1.1 Observed test events are divided into three general categories:

234

235 — “Failure” events related to reliability;

236

237 — “Non-failure” events related to maintainability; and

238

239 — Events or failures not related to reliability or maintainability.

240

241 4.1.2 A failure related to reliability is characterized by a malfunction in which the

242 firearm fails to perform its intended function properly.

243

244 4.1.3 Any test event that involves a malfunction of the firearm shall be scored as a

245 “failure” for the purpose of evaluating reliability.

246

247 4.1.4 The cause shall be assigned after the failure has been scored by referencing the

248 established event chargeability categories.

249

250 4.1.5 As failures generate maintenance demands, a test event should still be classified 

251 as a failure even if “corrective” action to address the malfunction may be deferred until 

252 testing has been completed.

253

254 4.1.6 Any observed problem that does not require immediate corrective action and 

255 which can be remedied through the execution of a routine operating procedure, such as an 

256 adjustment, prescribed in the firearm’s instructional materials should not be scored as a 

257 failure.

258

259 4.1.7 Any expected test events that can be considered exceptions to exclude from 

260 scoring as a failure shall be documented in writing prior to testing.

261

262 4.1.8 Any test methods that may not conform to, may deviate significantly from, or

263 may be obviously in conflict with the acceptable range of test firearm use shall be identified 

264 and documented in writing prior to testing.

265

266 4.1.9 In order for a deficiency of the firearm to be included in the evaluation of 

267 reliability, the firearm must first be capable of performing the function to which the 

268 deficiency pertains.

269

270 4.1.10 If the firearm is incapable of performing a particular function, then a malfunction 

271 related to that function cannot have occurred.
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

7

272

273 4.1.11 Performance limitations caused by design deficiencies where no malfunction has 

274 occurred shall not be scored as failures related to reliability, and should be evaluated as a 

275 performance limitation.

276

277 4.1.12 Failure to observe this protocol will result in the firearm being penalized twice 

278 for the same test event by improperly charging the firearm with a reliability-related failure

279 in addition to a performance-type failure event.

280

281 4.2 Failure events related to reliability

282

283 4.2.1 A test event meeting the definition of a “failure” related to reliability shall be

284 scored in accordance with the failure categories in this section.

285

286 4.2.2 Failures related to reliability are divided into three general categories: 

287

288 — Essential function failures (EFF);

289

290 — Non-essential function failures (NEFF); and

291

292 — Dependent malfunctions (DM).

293

294 4.2.3 Essential function failure (EFF)

295

296 An EFF is a failure that renders the firearm incapable of performing one or more essential 

297 functions, or which degrades the ability to properly perform an essential function to the

298 point where the residual utility of the function is deemed “operationally” inadequate. 

299

300 Essential function failures are further characterized into three subcategories by level of

301 criticality in accordance with the following historical small arms failure definitions:

302

303 — A Class I EFF is an immediately clearable failure or stoppage of the firearm adversely 

304 impacting one or more essential functions that the operator can correct in 

305 approximately 10 seconds or less through the execution of immediate action 

306 procedures, such as removal and reinstallation of the magazine or manually removing

307 an ammunition round or empty casing;

308

309 — A Class II EFF is an operator clearable failure or stoppage of the firearm adversely 

310 impacting one or more essential functions which requires the operator to take more

311 than 10 seconds to correct through execution of prescribed operator level 

312 troubleshooting and corrective action procedures, either with or without the use of 

313 common tools or cleaning kit components; and

314

315 — A Class III EFF is a severe failure or stoppage of the firearm that the operator is unable

316 to correct through execution of prescribed operator level troubleshooting and

317 corrective action procedures, either because the malfunction requires higher level 
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

8

318 maintenance that is non-deferrable, or the need for tools, equipment, or parts go 

319 beyond common tools or cleaning kit components.

320

321 4.2.4 Non-essential function failure (NEFF)

322

323 A NEFF is a failure that renders the firearm incapable of performing one or more non324 essential functions, but which does not adversely or significantly impact the ability of the 

325 firearm to perform an essential function.

326

327 A NEFF may be assigned to a group of recurring operator actions of a particular type that,

328 while they may fit in the category of routine operating procedures [in section 4.x], have

329 become so frequent that the constant interruption becomes a significant problem.

330

331 4.2.5 Dependent malfunction (DM)

332

333 A DM is a failure caused by or directly attributable to another “primary” test event, such as 

334 a preceding or prior malfunction of the firearm. To characterize a malfunction as a DM, 

335 analysis of the failure shall positively confirm that it occurred as the direct result of a

336 specified primary event.

337

338 The score ultimately assigned to the primary event shall be based on the overall impact or

339 severity of both test events on system functionality. If the impact of the dependent 

340 malfunction was greater than that of the primary event, then the score assigned to the 

341 primary event should reflect that level of severity, based on the secondary failure’s 

342 functional impact.

343

344 4.2.6 Reliability-related failure event chargeability categories

345

346 Primary failure

347 This category is used to identify the cause of failure events that are classified as DM. The 

348 chargeability for each confirmed DM should be assigned to the primary failure category.

349

350 Quality control

351 This category is used to address failure events that are attributable to inadequate quality

352 control in the equipment manufacturing, production, or assembly process.

353

354 Manufacturer furnished hardware

355 This category is used for malfunctioning hardware developed or furnished by the

356 equipment manufacturer and operator-related test events attributable to the hardware

357 design that may lead to malfunctions. This is distinct from a performance limitation

358 described in 4.3.7, in that the hardware is the cause of a malfunction.

359

360 Operator

361 This category is used for failure events induced by the operator that are not rooted in 

362 hardware design problems, inadequate training, deficiencies or errors in the technical 
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

9

363 documentation, or the result of abuse.

364

365 Technical documentation

366 This category is used for failure events attributable to misleading, incorrect, or nonexistent

367 information in technical documentation provided with the firearm. Inadequate 

368 instructional materials may cause operator or maintenance errors, and in such cases the 

369 failure event should be charged to the technical documentation.

370

371 Maintenance personnel

372 This category is used for failure events attributable to errors caused by maintenance

373 personnel, such as not adhering to the established repair procedures.

374

375 Training

376 This category is used for failure events that can be directly attributed to inadequacies in 

377 training due to omitted or incorrect training procedures, inappropriate training material, 

378 or inadequate or insufficient training time.

379

380 Manufacturer furnished support equipment

381 This category is used for failure events directly attributable to tools and external test, 

382 measurement, and diagnostic equipment furnished by the manufacturer.

383

384 Laboratory furnished support equipment

385 This category is used for failure events directly attributable to tools and external tests, 

386 measurements, and diagnostic equipment furnished by the laboratory.

387

388 Accident

389 This category is used only for those failure events resulting from accidents which are not 

390 attributed to the design of the firearm. However, accidents due to inadequate training, 

391 inadequate warnings in the technical documentation, careless operation, or failure to 

392 perform preventative maintenance should not be charged as an “accident” but rather to the 

393 appropriate root cause of the accident.

394

395 Unknown

396 This category is used only for those failure events for which the cause or source cannot be 

397 determined.

398

399 4.3 “Non-failure” events related to maintainability

400

401 This includes test events leading to maintenance actions that are performed for reasons

402 other than to correct failures or malfunctions related to reliability.

403

404 Maintenance type actions in this category include:

405

406 — Preventive maintenance;

407

408 — Scheduled maintenance;
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

10

409

410 — On-condition maintenance;

411

412 — Cosmetic maintenance; 

413

414 — Routine operating procedures;

415

416 — Malfunctions or maintenance induced by the ammunition; and 

417

418 — Performance limitation.

419

420 4.3.1 Preventive maintenance

421

422 Actions that the operator is required to perform which are necessary to maintain the 

423 system in proper working condition in accordance with procedures defined as 

424 preventative maintenance in the applicable technical documentation. This does not 

425 include corrective type maintenance that is performed to correct firearm deficiencies 

426 detected during preventative maintenance, as such actions are required either to remedy a

427 “failure” or execute a routine operating procedure.

428

429 4.3.2 Scheduled maintenance

430

431 This includes any periodic preventive maintenance defined in the firearm’s technical 

432 documentation that is to be performed at prescribed intervals by dedicated maintenance

433 personnel in order to keep the firearm in proper operational condition, and that are

434 considered to be scheduled maintenance. To qualify as scheduled maintenance, an event 

435 must be consistent with the prescribed service interval, such as rounds fired, operating

436 hours, or calendar time.

437

438 This does not include corrective type maintenance that is performed to correct firearm

439 deficiencies detected during scheduled maintenance, as such actions are required to either 

440 remedy a “failure” or execute a routine operating procedure. This category does not 

441 include corrective maintenance that is performed during the scheduled maintenance

442 period to fix known deficiencies.

443

444 4.3.3 On-condition maintenance

445

446 This includes maintenance not related to a failure executed in order to replace worn parts

447 or components which have met their expected service life. For such actions to be

448 characterized as on-condition maintenance, the part or component must have been 

449 functioning at the time of its replacement.

450

451 A test event in which a part or component physically fails almost immediately after its 

452 expected service life may not be characterized as a “non-failure” depending on a number 

453 of factors, including monitoring accuracy of the part or component by cognizant 
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

11

454 personnel, shortcomings in the technical documentation, or periodic maintenance 

455 schedules.

456

457 Parts or components that continue to exhibit gradual degradation after meeting their 

458 expected service life that do not experience sudden or catastrophic physical failure should 

459 not be scored as a reliability-related failure, if they continue to be used for an extended 

460 period of time prior to replacement, and consequently show excessive wear at the time of 

461 replacement.

462

463 Parts or components that experience sudden or catastrophic physical failure if they

464 continue to be used for an extended period of time after meeting their expected service life 

465 should not be scored as a reliability-related failure, but attributed to another cause, such as 

466 abuse due to excessive use.

467

468 4.3.4 Cosmetic maintenance

469

470 This includes any maintenance not related to a malfunction that is undertaken to correct a 

471 cosmetic deficiency or anomaly, such as deburring a rough external surface or sharp edge

472 to prevent personal injury, rather than for the purpose of restoring lost or degraded 

473 functions.

474

475 4.3.5 Routine operating procedures

476

477 This includes tasks that can be performed quickly and readily, such as those prescribed in 

478 firearm instructional materials, which are not considered immediate corrective action. 

479 This is to prevent the system from being penalized for needing a minor operator action that

480 is considered a normal, routine operating procedure, such as an adjustment. A task to 

481 correct a malfunction does not constitute a routine operating procedure nor should an

482 immediate action such as clearing a stoppage be considered routine.

483

484 4.3.6 Malfunction or maintenance induced by the ammunition

485

486 This includes malfunctions or stoppages caused by the ammunition. These test events

487 could be due to improper physical dimensions of the cartridge which prevents it from 

488 being properly fed or chambered, failure of the ammunition to fire when adequately struck 

489 by the firing pin, or an improper powder charge causing inadequate gas pressure or recoil

490 force that may lead to an extraction or ejection failure. Should a malfunction be due to 

491 excessive carbon build-up in the firearm, the failure may be attributed to inadequate 

492 preventative maintenance. 

493

494 4.3.7 Performance limitation

495

496 The inability of a firearm to meet a specified performance criterion where no malfunction 

497 has occurred should be considered a performance limitation attributable to a design 

498 deficiency, rather than a failure related to reliability. A design deficiency generally cannot 

499 be eliminated through typical maintenance or repair actions. Instead, some form of 
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

12

500 equipment redesign or modification will be required to remedy the problem that is causing

501 the limitation in performance.

502

503 An indicator of a design deficiency would be the inability of the firearm to perform a

504 particular function at any time where no maintenance action can be performed to correct 

505 the problem. In order for a design deficiency to be scored as a performance limitation 

506 instead of a failure related to reliability, a definitive numeric performance criterion shall

507 exist with regard to the affected area of performance.

508

509 4.4 Test events not applicable to reliability or maintainability

510

511 This includes test events that are not related to and have no impact on the reliability or

512 maintainability of the firearm. The assignment of events to this category should in no way

513 be construed to imply that they are invalid or insignificant, as they can impact on other 

514 functional areas of system evaluation. This category includes:

515

516 — Pretest inspection;

517

518 — Equipment modifications;

519

520 — Test-peculiar events;

521

522 — Abuse; 

523

524 — Unrelated damage; and

525

526 — Other test events not applicable to reliability or maintainability.

527

528 4.4.1 Pretest inspection

529

530 This includes test events observed or detected during pretest inspection or other

531 designated pretest activities. Pretest events are not scored against the reliability or 

532 maintainability of system as they have occurred outside of the actual testing “phase,” 

533 however all events detected after the pretest period will be scored on their own merit.

534

535 4.4.2 Equipment modifications

536

537 This includes test events involving maintenance actions associated with the installation or 

538 incorporation of modified or upgraded firearm hardware. These events have no

539 applicability to reliability or maintainability unless the original hardware item was

540 nonfunctional, or was malfunctioning prior to being upgraded or replaced as part of the

541 modification. In those cases where there is applicability to reliability or maintainability, 

542 the event of removing and replacing a faulty item will be scored on its own merit.

543

544

545
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

13

546 4.4.3 Test-peculiar events

547

548 This includes test events consisting of malfunctions and maintenance efforts caused by

549 equipment that is not part of the system being tested, such as tools or instrumentation

550 peculiar to the test, or by people who are not official test participants, such as people other 

551 than operators or maintenance personnel. Test-peculiar events are not attributable to the

552 system being tested, and have no applicability to its reliability or maintainability.

553

554 4.4.4 Abuse

555

556 This includes test events in which official test participants, such as operators or

557 maintenance personnel, cause damage to the system either willfully or through gross

558 carelessness or negligence. This category also includes any events in which the test

559 personnel directs the deliberate abuse of the system, such as a test excursion to over-stress

560 or exceed the performance limits of the system for investigative purposes, whether called 

561 for by the test plan or not. 

562

563 4.4.5 Unrelated damage

564

565 This includes test events in which damage is caused by natural phenomena or other 

566 influences that are beyond the control of official test participants. Because the source of 

567 these events is external to the system being tested, they should not be included in the

568 evaluation of reliability and maintainability.

569

570 4.4.6 Other test events not applicable to reliability or maintainability

571

572 This includes test events which have no bearing on reliability and maintainability that do not 

573 fit into other categories. Examples may include suggested improvements, reports of

574 inadequate test procedures, recommended improvements to technical manuals, unusable 

575 or unacceptable replacement parts discovered prior to or during installation, test delays,

576 general information regarding the condition of equipment or components where no failure

577 related to reliability has occurred, and suggested human factors improvements.

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

14

592 5 Essential functions

593

594 Essential functions represent the core operational functions that the firearms shall be

595 capable of performing. Five essential functions are enumerated below and described more 

596 in 5.1 through 5.5:

597

598 — The operator shall be able to install a full load of rounds into the ammunition magazine 

599 and subsequently both insert the magazine into and remove it from the firearm;

600

601 — Safety mechanisms shall function properly and remain in the selected state until 

602 actuated by the operator;

603

604 — The firearm shall feed and properly chamber each individual round/cartridge without 

605 inducing a stoppage that requires corrective action;

606

607 — The firearm shall fire chambered rounds by properly striking the primer of each 

608 individual cartridge with sufficient impact to initiate firing in all firing modes available 

609 on the firearm without inducing a stoppage that requires corrective action; and

610

611 — The firearm shall extract and eject empty casings and unfired cartridges without 

612 inducing a stoppage that requires corrective action.

613

614 5.1 Essential function 1

615

616 The operator shall be able to install a full load of rounds into the ammunition magazine and 

617 subsequently insert the magazine into and remove it from the firearm.

618

619 5.1.1 Essential function failure

620

621 This function is considered seriously degraded and results in an EFF with regard to the 

622 scoring of firearm reliability when there is a significant reduction on the ability to install a 

623 full load of rounds into the ammunition magazine and subsequently insert the magazine 

624 into and remove it from the firearm.

625

626 5.1.2 Non-essential function failure

627

628 This function is not considered degraded and results in a NEFF with regard to the scoring 

629 of firearm reliability when there is at most a minimal reduction of the ability to install a full 

630 load of rounds into the ammunition magazine and subsequently insert the magazine into 

631 and remove it from the firearm.

632

633 5.2 Essential function 2

634

635 Safety mechanisms shall function properly and remain in the selected state until actuated

636 by the operator.

637
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

15

638 5.2.1 Essential function failure

639

640 This function is considered seriously degraded and results in an EFF with regard to the 

641 scoring of firearm reliability when safety mechanisms fail to remain in the proper 

642 operator-selected state, including both mechanical safeties and integrated gun safety 

643 technology that may include different authentication technologies like radio frequency 

644 identification and fingerprint sensors. Examples may include the firearm discharging with 

645 the safety “on” or the operator not being able to toggle from “safe” to “fire” or vice versa.

646

647 5.2.2 Non-essential function failure

648

649 This function is not considered degraded and results in a NEFF with regard to the scoring 

650 of firearm reliability when there is at most a minimal impact on safety mechanisms

651 remaining in the proper operator-selected state, such as when a mechanism is difficult to 

652 manipulate but the operator can actuate it to the desired state with no significant delay.

653

654 5.3 Essential function 3

655

656 The firearm shall feed and properly chamber each individual round/cartridge without 

657 inducing a stoppage that requires corrective action.

658

659 5.3.1 Essential function failure

660

661 This function is considered seriously degraded and results in an EFF with regard to the 

662 scoring of weapon reliability when there is a failure to feed or properly chamber a round, 

663 however a failure or stoppage due to bad ammunition shall not be considered an EFF of the 

664 firearm.

665

666 5.3.2 Non-essential function failure

667

668 This function is not considered degraded and results in a NEFF with regard to the scoring 

669 of firearm reliability when there is no adverse impact to feed or properly chamber a round, 

670 such as damaged or worn components that do not degrade essential functionality of the 

671 firearm to any appreciable degree.

672

673 5.4 Essential function 4

674

675 The firearm shall fire chambered rounds by properly striking the primer of each individual 

676 cartridge with sufficient impact to initiate firing in all firing modes available on the firearm 

677 without inducing a stoppage that requires corrective action.

678

679 5.4.1 Essential function failure

680

681 This function is considered seriously degraded and results in an EFF with regard to the 

682 scoring of weapon reliability when there is a failure to fire a properly chambered round, 
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

16

683 however a failure due to bad ammunition shall not be considered an EFF of the firearm.

684

685 5.4.2 Non-essential function failure

686

687 This function is not considered degraded and results in a NEFF with regard to the scoring 

688 of firearm reliability when there is at most a minimal impact to fire a properly chambered

689 round, such as damaged or worn components that do not degrade essential functionality of

690 the firearm to any appreciable degree.

691

692 5.5 Essential function 5

693

694 The firearm shall extract and eject empty casings and unfired cartridges without inducing a 

695 stoppage that requires corrective action.

696

697 5.5.1 Essential function failure

698

699 This function is considered seriously degraded and results in an EFF with regard to the 

700 scoring of weapon reliability when there is a failure to extract and eject the cartridge casing

701 from any ammunition round, as well as when the firearm is unable to extract and eject an 

702 unfired cartridge, however a failure due to bad ammunition shall not be considered an EFF 

703 of the firearm.

704

705 5.5.2 Non-essential function failure

706

707 This function is not considered degraded and results in a NEFF with regard to the scoring 

708 of firearm reliability when there is at most a minimal impact to extract and eject the 

709 cartridge casing from any ammunition round, such as damaged or worn components that 

710 do not degrade essential functionality of the firearm to any appreciable degree.

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

17

729 6 Scoring criteria

730

731 The scoring criteria outlines the process that is to be used to classify test events into proper 

732 categories based upon their impact on firearm functionality, and to subsequently charge

733 the cause of the test event to a particular source.

734

735 6.1 The scoring panel should know and understand the definitions and explanations of 

736 scoring process terms before scoring is initiated. 

737

738 6.2 The scoring panel shall have access to all test results.

739

740 6.3 All scoring decisions shall be recorded in electronic format.

741

742 6.4 The scoring panel shall use the scoring procedure defined below by reading the

743 applicable statements, choosing the appropriate option, and then executing the associated 

744 directives.

745

746 6.4.1 The panel shall select the appropriate category below that applies to the test 

747 event being scored, then proceed as directed.

748

749 — If the test event is not applicable to reliability or maintainability in accordance with 4.4, 

750 the scoring panel shall proceed to 6.4.2.

751

752 — If the test event is a “non-failure” related to maintainability in accordance with 4.3, the 

753 scoring panel shall proceed to 6.4.3.

754

755 — If the test event is a failure related to reliability in accordance with 4.2, the scoring 

756 panel shall proceed to 6.4.4.

757

758 6.4.2 The panel shall assign the test event to the appropriate category below, then 

759 proceed to the next test event.

760

761 — Pretest inspection;

762

763 — Equipment modifications;

764

765 — Test-peculiar events;

766

767 — Abuse; 

768

769 — Unrelated damage; or

770

771 — Other test events not applicable to reliability or maintainability.

772

773

774
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

18

775 6.4.3 The panel shall assign the test event to the appropriate category below, then 

776 proceed to the next test event.

777

778 — Preventive maintenance;

779

780 — Scheduled maintenance;

781

782 — On-condition maintenance;

783

784 — Cosmetic maintenance; 

785

786 — Routine operating procedures;

787

788 — Malfunctions or maintenance induced by the ammunition; or

789

790 — Performance limitations.

791

792 6.4.4 The panel shall assign the test event to the appropriate category below, then 

793 proceed to 6.4.5.

794

795 — Class I EFF;

796

797 — Class II EFF;

798

799 — Class II EFF;

800

801 — NEFF; or

802

803 — DM.

804

805 6.4.5 The panel shall assign the test event to the appropriate category below, then 

806 proceed to the next test event.

807

808 — Primary failure;

809

810 — Quality control;

811

812 — Manufacturer furnished hardware;

813

814 — Operator;

815

816 — Technical documentation;

817

818 — Maintenance personnel;

819

820 — Training;
DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

19

821

822 — Manufacturer furnished support equipment;

823

824 — Laboratory furnished support equipment;

825

826 — Accident; or

827

828 — Unknown.

829