|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OP was about .308's which are a different ball game due to lack of a standard design and most having proprietary parts.
The only designs that will have the kind of rigorous testing you seek are those that have been accepted for military use. Manufacturers sometimes test their rifles in this fashion, but are not going to divulge any negative results... only positive.
"This motto may adorn their tombs
(Let tyrants come and view):
We rather seek these silent rooms
Than live as slaves to you."
Lemuel Haynes, 1775
Google "Advanced Combat Rifle". It was a program to replace the M4 and there's A LOT of info in there.
Government acquisitions generally have performance requirements associated with submissions, first article testing, lot testing, and in some cases, individual item testing. These documents are generally available open source.
From Tapatalk:
Jack
This is always an interesting thought to me over the years as I see people engage in this conversation from range to range, friends of friends, email chain etc.
Here is one for you to ponder. This past summer I watched a guy pounding Russian steel cased ammo through his Palmetto at a frenetic pace w/o so much as a hiccup while my friend sorted out an issue that turned out to require a trip back to the manufacturer(for a second time on the same problem). I won't mention the name of the rifle that has been a non-stop headache so as not to inflame the topic or draw the ire of similar owners. I will just say it's a make and model that has been used by a lot of people who look through scopes for a living. The PSA rifle was sub $600 build. My pals AR approaches 5x that cost. YMMV.
That doesn't mean either rifle is stellar or bad. Rifles are made by humans and maintained by the same imperfect humans. I will say out of my stable of AR's if I had to stand in front of an adversary I'd take one particular setup in particular. Partly b/c it's been tested and proven by military in real scenarios, but also b/c it's worked great for me. That said I have not had a mal/failure of any kind for 15 years on rifles varying in cost from 400 used to ~ 3,000 new. I am a clean neat freak and always clean and maintain them like my life depends on it.
Last edited by sasquatchoslav; 12-28-15 at 06:55.
"Scientific" data of the type the OP seems to want would be expensive and fraught with arguments over the study controls used. I doubt you'd find any private companies wanting to be involved. The ones that expect to perform at the top know they'd be hounded over details; the ones that expect to perform at the bottom wouldn't want anyone to find out and so would be doing the hounding.
Iraqgunz statement about checking out the patterns uncovered by carbine classes is likely the closest we'll get to "scientific" data.
I've brought this sort of thing up before, if not here than on the TOS. I'm sure you and I and a few others are not the only
one's that are at least mildly frustrated by the lack of hard data in 2015 on such relatively simple and old devices compared to
the plethora of detailed information available about dramatically more complex devices like a smartphone or a laptop or a car or what have you.
For whatever reason, guns are just different. I still think it's crap and I wish I could do something with it but it's
beyond my budget, gumption, time and ability. Ammo cost so damn much it's hard to even find very many high round
tests, which is why you get people saying run some classes with your gear and observe and pay attention to the people that do so(if
you decide they aren't in someone's wallet). It's good advice. It's not ideal, but the community has become adept at weeding out those
that don't cut it based on what a technically inclined person of my age-group (mid-30's) would call surprisingly wobbly data points
compared to what the rest of the tech/machine enthusiast world is working from at this point. The amount of BS is mighty frustrating to
weed through, but there is some good info out there, just takes a lot more work than usual to find it. I suspect this is at least partly why there
are so many fiercely loyal followers of someone like BCM that practically never screws up and can be trusted, in the absence of data you have to have faith.
Betting your ass(and/or money) on faith sucks imo.
Shoot your gun a lot.
Bookmarks