'Ideal' torture test?

[SpookyPistolero]

Given recent discussions, I'm curious as to how m4c would design an m4 torture test? How many rounds, how many samples, environments, etc. Or is the .mil test what folks would suggest?

It seems like we dissect these 'tests' but dont have an objective standard. I'd say long term real-world use with a massive 'n' is ideal, but that is likely a luxury afforded by time.

[kwelz]

Given recent discussions, I'm curious as to how m4c would design an m4 torture test? How many rounds, how many samples, environments, etc. Or is the .mil test what folks would suggest?

It seems like we dissect these 'tests' but dont have an objective standard. I'd say long term real-world use with a massive 'n' is ideal, but that is likely a luxury afforded by time.

I think that LAV did a pretty good job. The only thing I would add is a few magazines between each test instead of just an accuracy test. Get it good and hot before and after each test.

[bsmith_shoot]

I agree kwelz. It would have been good to see a couple mag dumps before and after each test.

[ermac]

Doing the same tests multiple times to see if they are repeatable. Trying with and without lubrication. Bolt held open, etc.

[Jaysop]

I think that LAV did a pretty good job. The only thing I would add is a few magazines between each test instead of just an accuracy test. Get it good and hot before and after each test.

I think the LAV test was a good start, theres a lot more that I would of liked to see.

As for burying it... I would of liked to see a thinner grain sand/ dust used. Shake it around in there let it get real deep. well lubed obviosly.
Just covering it and letting it sit doesnt do that much.

Maybe a mud/wet clay test, similar to the sand test. with a couple hundred rounds in between.

As for the water, I dont know how silty that water was but id like to see a lot of sediment in the system. I wouldn't be bothered even if he used a water bottle to flush it out a bit because that would be a real life solution.

Couple hundred more rounds and throw some lube in there.

I like the drop tests, not much id change about that or the getting run over tests.

I would like to see that rifle left out in the salty air elements for a good amount of time and see what would happen. That would mean a lot to me being from an Island.

I would like to see the barrel take a few good hits as well. See how the accuracy fairs afterwards.

As for the explosion and Birdshot test I dont see much of a point. Maybe some Buckshot.
Cheany shot an old man in the face with bird shot and he survived :p
And the explosion... If my thinking is correct, being that the rifle is so small and narrow the shock wave and concussion wont do much in the structural integrity of the weapon. I feel like most damage to guns in an IED situation is caused by objects hitting the rifle, the rifle being propelled to hit other things, and fire.

Looked cool though.

And after that a mild field strip cleaning and a few thousand rounds to test accuracy and reliability. I say cleaning because and good grunt will keep somewhat of a clean weapon.

I think a lot of the test was a publicity event more than a true endurance torture test. I may be looking at it in the wrong way to I suppose.

[Jake Bauer]

I'd like to see a mud burial test, sand burial too. I know it's not very safe, but a water submersion without a barrel plug would be much more real life like. That HK 416 water test vs. the other AR (Which I thought someone said was a colt) didn't really result in the AR's favor.. (unless that video was faked).

[pleaforwar]

That's a difficult question to answer. Testing, or torture testing, seems to be impossible to impress everyone.

For example, the DD video has many people talking about how it should be replicated. That sounds great, but I have a couple caveats...
1) The parameters are unrealistic, unless you're a bumbling idiot who happens to drop rifles out of humvees, helicopters, boats, hunting stands, and happen to shoot your rifle with Pappy's shotgun from time to time. Not saying it wasn't fun to watch, but I'll echo the sentiments of many... I was more impressed with the Aimpoint results than the rifle results.
2) What was the round count of the rifle? Why wouldn't it be included?

In the long run I am far more impressed by a rifle that has been tested over a long time, has a high round count, been tested in various conditions and by a disinterested party.

Cheers,
Dan

***Disclaimer: I'm not shitting on DD. They make a great product and I own plenty of their shit. Their video is awesome, I just prefer other forms of testing.

[vicious_cb]

A good start would be the DD tests with the dust cover open and without the muzzle taped.

[ache_d]

They get tested everyday in "real world" situations. (think there is a sticky that has some of this in it) Still use them, so must be working good enough. Right? I'm not sure what else we could prove. Until there is a legitimate competitor....

[Jaysop]

They get tested everyday in "real world" situations. (think there is a sticky that has some of this in it) Still use them, so must be working good enough. Right? I'm not sure what else we could prove. Until there is a legitimate competitor....

Im not really sure what any of your comment means. I think the point of a torture test is to see what ONE rifle or a batch of rifles can do with all kinds of tests as opposed to thousands of rifles only being subjected to a specific daily real world situation.


There would of course and always will be a few people who say there is not point or that nothing is being proven, cant please everyone.

[sinlessorrow]

Im not really sure what any of your comment means. I think the point of a torture test is to see what ONE rifle or a batch of rifles can do with all kinds of tests as opposed to thousands of rifles only being subjected to a specific daily real world situation.


There would of course and always will be a few people who say there is not point or that nothing is being proven, cant please everyone.

i think he means that our military puts the rifles through a torture test daily and they pass with flying colors daily

[ache_d]

Thanks for the translation sinlessorrow! And yes this is what I mean. Sure, it may be entertaining to push a rifle past it's limits with all sorts of ridiculous tests but really what would you prove that would cause the decision makers to sit up and throw out the $$ to change it all?

Its not like we have a rifle on the sidelines that would give you that much more, waiting for the results of this hypothetical test, to jump in and replace the M4. (yet at-least) The M4 does have it's short comings but its what we have.

Better yet, how about an efficiency test.......

The OP says "ideal" test and what is done with it daily is 'ideal' torture because that is it's environment.

A good theory based post though, spooky. Yields some good discussion and ideas if you were the one in the lab coat!

[sinlessorrow]

Thanks for the translation sinlessorrow! And yes this is what I mean. Sure, it may be entertaining to push a rifle past it's limits with all sorts of ridiculous tests but really what would you prove that would cause the decision makers to sit up and throw out the $$ to change it all?

Its not like we have a rifle on the sidelines that would give you that much more, waiting for the results of this hypothetical test, to jump in and replace the M4. (yet at-least) The M4 does have it's short comings but its what we have.

Better yet, how about an efficiency test.......

The OP says "ideal" test and what is done with it daily is 'ideal' torture because that is it's environment.

A good theory based post though, spooky. Yields some good discussion and ideas if you were the one in the lab coat!

i agree, there have been so many 10,000-40,000 rounds without cleaning in the desert tests, and we have multiple water and mud tests, and we have LAV test.

i think we honestly have all the extreme never gonna really happen tests covered.

i think we would be better off doing tests to find ways to improve the M4, which there are certainly ways to improve the M4, alot of which have already become a normal thing in the civilian world(FF rails, better magazines, etc)

[RogerinTPA]

Other than what has already been posted, what purpose would another torture test serve? Is this for a new AR coming out or to properly vet your current AR? If the latter, then a 1500 round 3 day carbine course should suffice. For any other reason, it has been done to death and serves to produce no new, real or pertinent information that is not already out there.

[Casull]

To me it's important to build for the desert but prove it in the jungle. I for sure feel it's important to torture test arms in a scientific manner and all, but nothing does what fielding does. I'd want to get a group of guys to carry them around in different terrain along with a few extreme environments in the mix. Safety first of course, lads.

That said, the AR-15 platform has experienced plenty of fielding. Where tests are indeed needed for those are in the manner the LAV did. People underestimate the AR-15 due to some old problems that were fixed by lessons learned in the field.

[Jaysop]

i think he means that our military puts the rifles through a torture test daily and they pass with flying colors daily

In my experience thats simply not true. If you hand over a few M4s to a few Privates and take the NCOs away you'll see how fast a rifle will fail.
I had a few M4s issued to me and I cant say honestly that I truly trusted any of them. From brand new to worn in.


I dont really think its about "proving" anything. Just taking it to its limits. We all know that the system is good enough. Not perfect. I dont think its an unreliable system FWIW. The 249 on the other hand is, I say that because a lot of people have no problems with specific guns and others cant keep the thing together. That varies from operators habits and methods and specific guns. In my opinion, If the masses cant keep it "up" than its not G2G.

Id really be interested in a test involving multiple configurations with multiple clones of each. Just to see what fairs well and what doesn't.

I don't see any reason NOT to except for the major costs. But I wont be the one offering to fund it but ill carry out some tests haha.

The benefits of a controlled experiment wont change life as we know it but it may show weak points in specific configurations. It wont change what the GOV issues but it may affect the LEO and Contractors that supply their own weapons.

What about the BCM Filthy #14 some say it proved nothing and some say it did. Whatever cool to see regardless.

This thread is about what the test would consist of not really justifying its purpose. But hey thats just me.

[Moltke]

More testing is always a good thing unless there is nothing to learn. What are the specific goals of the test, what is being tested, and what will be used as the control measures in the testing?

[SpookyPistolero]

Other than what has already been posted, what purpose would another torture test serve? Is this for a new AR coming out or to properly vet your current AR? If the latter, then a 1500 round 3 day carbine course should suffice. For any other reason, it has been done to death and serves to produce no new, real or pertinent information that is not already out there.

For a personal, specific rifle, then I'd agree with that route of testing. I don't need to dunk it in mud to test a personal rifle.

My real intent was what standards could be applied to new manufacturers who wanted to begin proving the quality of their builds. Sort of the The List in test format, a route to build data rather than accrue anecdotes.

[Moltke]

The problem with torture tests is that they are expensive to put on, and that without a pre-determined labratory environment the controls won't be equal. It would be very hard to ensure that you're pouring the right amount of sand on 10 different rifles while firing underwater and ensuring that it's the same amount of volumetric water flow, same amount of sand, same angle, same duration, same everything - in order to ensure that what is being measured is the operation of the firearm whilst being free of other variables.

What I'm saying is I don't think anyone could put together or replicate that kind of test scenario without some large expense and time involved, additionally, what's the point - gentlemen, we already know what's good and what's junk.

[sinlessorrow]

In my experience thats simply not true. If you hand over a few M4s to a few Privates and take the NCOs away you'll see how fast a rifle will fail.
I had a few M4s issued to me and I cant say honestly that I truly trusted any of them. From brand new to worn in.


I dont really think its about "proving" anything. Just taking it to its limits. We all know that the system is good enough. Not perfect. I dont think its an unreliable system FWIW. The 249 on the other hand is, I say that because a lot of people have no problems with specific guns and others cant keep the thing together. That varies from operators habits and methods and specific guns. In my opinion, If the masses cant keep it "up" than its not G2G.

Id really be interested in a test involving multiple configurations with multiple clones of each. Just to see what fairs well and what doesn't.

I don't see any reason NOT to except for the major costs. But I wont be the one offering to fund it but ill carry out some tests haha.

The benefits of a controlled experiment wont change life as we know it but it may show weak points in specific configurations. It wont change what the GOV issues but it may affect the LEO and Contractors that supply their own weapons.

What about the BCM Filthy #14 some say it proved nothing and some say it did. Whatever cool to see regardless.

This thread is about what the test would consist of not really justifying its purpose. But hey thats just me.

I agree the average joe can screw up anything if thy dont have someone keeping them from it.

I feel though the M4 really has been put through its paces and has been proven to be reliable. Its not perfect but no system is.

I still find extreme tests to be very cool to read about though, like that LMT thread that went 10,000 in the desert.

I think if you had a maintained M4 that had proper parts replacement there shouldnt be a test it could really fail, well unless your scuba diving and wanting to shoot sharks.

Keep it lubed, keep it sprung and itll pass tests with flying colors.

I would like seeing some tests to find flaws and ways to upgrade the system like what the PIP does

[Todd00000]

Desert combat from 2002-Present

[Jaysop]

well unless your scuba diving and wanting to shoot sharks.



:haha: I just laughed out loud for real in public.

[SpookyPistolero]

I'd say long term real-world use with a massive 'n' is ideal, but that is likely a luxury afforded by time.

Please see the last sentence of the original post. I agree that long term real world use is best, but the question is the short term testing of new-make rifles. Putting a new make into work in a real combat area is neither realistic nor ethical.

[johnpuga1982]

If you hand over a few M4s to a few Privates and take the NCOs away you'll see how fast a rifle will fail.

This statement is funny. I'm a PFC and I've seen a lot of NCO's and Officers who think they know it all because they've read the FM. Probably one of the few who owns a weapon system too.