Reply to post:

for what intended "purpose" does a GPS need to survive being hit by a sledgehammer? If you dismiss a GPS device for this reason rather than it's ability to perform the function it was designed for, your testing priorities are clearly wrong.

How about, a GPS where as part of its design that is required to be operated in extreme conditions (winter in northern Scandinavia, Sahara Desert in summer, Jungles of SE Asia during the wet season, bottom of a squaddies foot locker) by soldiers in combat situations, with bullets and shrapnel whizzing around, bits of buildings collapsing on them, and so on.

Or, do you expect a soldier to refuse to go out cause it's raining and that'll short the GPS? Or can't dive into a foxhole when under fire, has to gingerly climb into it and make sure they don't lie on it because it might break? Or can't toss their webbing into a corner because that might break the GPS attached to it?

This kit is (was) intended to be used by soldiers in combat. Bullets flying around, IEDs/artillery sending shrapnel out, bits of masonry falling, being dropped, heavy kit being thrown on it accidentally (e.g. a crate being put in the corner) and so on.

So while specifically not a sledgehammer, certainly very rough and high impact treatment. Therefore a sledgehammer is probably not a bad substitute to simulate the most extreme effects it might be subject to. If it survives a sledgehammer, it'll survive anything likely to be thrown at in a harsh environment.