Military Weapons Trial, only the Kalashnikov AK 103 finishes the torture tests.

[noonesshowmonkey]

Again, the magazine design is good. It is the quality of the product that again sucks. Have you ever even delt with AKs that are actually in use with armies around the world? The weapons might work but the mags sucks ass and that is the point of failure.

I am just going to point out the yellow SME title. This guy has operational experience in countries that most people can't find on a map, handling these weapons, dealing with them as battlefield pickups, with indigenous forces, and in the hands of his enemies.

That might not be as compelling to the armchair engineers of the world as some sub-continental 'tests'. But, considering that these are weapons of war, and that Doc has spent more time at war than most people spent on their education, I am compelled to listen to his opinions.

If these weapons are suffering from poor maintenance, or aren't the best examples of the platform, or have outdated and hard used magazines, or or or or or I don't care. It is the real shit, from the real nasty places on this planet.

[RetroRevolver77]

I am just going to point out the yellow SME title. This guy has operational experience in countries that most people can't find on a map, handling these weapons, dealing with them as battlefield pickups, with indigenous forces, and in the hands of his enemies.

That might not be as compelling to the armchair engineers of the world as some sub-continental 'tests'. But, considering that these are weapons of war, and that Doc has spent more time at war than most people spent on their education, I am compelled to listen to his opinions.

If these weapons are suffering from poor maintenance, or aren't the best examples of the platform, or have outdated and hard used magazines, or or or or or I don't care. It is the real shit, from the real nasty places on this planet.

Yet even those fifty year old AK's that have been used for decades of fighting, likely could still pass the extreme environmental tests where the AR would not. It comes down to the engineering of the weapons, clearances for debris- which is the point of this thread. No one is advocating for replacing the M4 with an AK. It's just that we do have the technological capabilities to design a more reliable rifle and many European countries are currently updating their infantry weapons. It's about not wanting to fall behind, that's it.


7n6

[Outlander Systems]

Q predicted this.

Yet even those fifty year old AK's that have been used for decades of fighting, likely could still pass the extreme environmental tests where the AR would not. It comes down to the engineering of the weapons, clearances for debris- which is the point of this thread. No one is advocating for replacing the M4 with an AK. It's just that we do have the technological capabilities to design a more reliable rifle and many European countries are currently updating their infantry weapons. It's about not wanting to fall behind, that's it.


7n6

[Arik]

Q predicted this.

LMAO!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[crusader377]

Yet even those fifty year old AK's that have been used for decades of fighting, likely could still pass the extreme environmental tests where the AR would not. It comes down to the engineering of the weapons, clearances for debris- which is the point of this thread. No one is advocating for replacing the M4 with an AK. It's just that we do have the technological capabilities to design a more reliable rifle and many European countries are currently updating their infantry weapons. It's about not wanting to fall behind, that's it.


7n6

It is interesting that you forgetting that there was recently a fair and open rifle trial conducted by a competent military which evaluated the AR against all of the cool new European rifles you speak of and it was a DI AR which won the competition. This country was New Zealand and they selected the LMT CQB which went up against very stiff competition. No offense but I have much more confidence in New Zealand's rifle selection criteria than Pakistan which is a corrupt 3rd world country.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ace-steyr-aug/

[Sooter76]

It is interesting that you forgetting that there was recently a fair and open rifle trial conducted by a competent military which evaluated the AR against all of the cool new European rifles you speak of and it was a DI AR which won the competition. This country was New Zealand and they selected the LMT CQB which went up against very stiff competition. No offense but I have much more confidence in New Zealand's rifle selection criteria than Pakistan which is a corrupt 3rd world country.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ace-steyr-aug/

Pakistan aside, you do realize that only 8 rifles took part in the trials and of those at least 3, and probably as many as 5 (since NZ would probably be looking not to spend an exuberant amount on new rifles), were AR15 type rifles... The odds were in the platforms favor.

[RetroRevolver77]

It is interesting that you forgetting that there was recently a fair and open rifle trial conducted by a competent military which evaluated the AR against all of the cool new European rifles you speak of and it was a DI AR which won the competition. This country was New Zealand and they selected the LMT CQB which went up against very stiff competition. No offense but I have much more confidence in New Zealand's rifle selection criteria than Pakistan which is a corrupt 3rd world country.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ace-steyr-aug/

There's nothing in the article about the New Zealand tests as to what exactly they did. The M4 still cannot pass an over the beach test so I don't even understand why they chose it given they are an island nation. Perhaps they just liked the rifle for it's ergonomics.

However I look at the AR inside from the back with the bolt locked- where's the room for debris around the carrier? There is none. Then look at the trigger group- where's the room for debris? Again, none. Simple engineering- clearances for debris.

The Paki's test was very simple- throw the rifles near the beach and fire them. Drag the rifles through the sand and fire them. Throw the rifles into a watery hole and then fire them. Either the weapon works or it does not. Since one of them worked then it isn't necessarily the testing either.

Similar style test that I've shown before. Maybe the practical solution is that we figure out why one worked and the others failed.

[Serious Account]

Since the beginning the main focus of the AR-15 design has always been to be a light weight, low recoil and accurate rifle, and not so much "reliability". Now, this isn't to say that the designers don't care about reliability but more like they don't place such strong emphasis on it as much as the AK platform. As a result you have a decent and well-balanced rifle that perform adequately in most environment so as long as you don't push it too hard and don't utilize it in adverse condition. Whereas the AK has been optimized for reliability from the get-go. Keep in mind that it took at least 50 years to work out a bunch of kinks/quirks for the AR platform to be as good as it is today.

If having to take one rifle to war where I have to subject it to a lot of harsh elements, I'd pick a modernized AK over the AR-15.

[crusader377]

The M4 still cannot pass an over the beach test so I don't even understand why they chose it given they are an island nation. Perhaps they just liked the rifle for it's ergonomics.

However I look at the AR inside from the back with the bolt locked- where's the room for debris around the carrier? There is none. Then look at the trigger group- where's the room for debris? Again, none. Simple engineering- clearances for debris.

The Paki's test was very simple- throw the rifles near the beach and fire them. Drag the rifles through the sand and fire them. Throw the rifles into a watery hole and then fire them. Either the weapon works or it does not. Since one of them worked then it isn't necessarily the testing either.

You claim that the M4 can't pass an over the beach test but yet the experts in over the beach operations like the USMC, U.S. Navy SEALs, British SBS, British Royal Marines, etc.. have used AR platform weapons for decades in many cases. So using your logic those organizations must be ignorant for using a rifle that can't do over the beach operations.

Also back to the debris question, the solution to keeping a gun running in adverse conditions is keeping the operating system as well sealed. No matter what the platform, eventually debris in the internals of the rifle is eventually going the cause the rifle to fail.

[SteyrAUG]

I really can't disagree with anything you wrote there. I still think the easy button for the m9 would have been to either not care because it's just a handgun, or give em a G19......but that would have been way to easy.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

When the US Army adopted the M9 they required a double strike capability. I think we've evolved handguns enough where designs with better reliability and better accuracy exist so the M9 will probably be put out to pasture when the military no longer has a huge supply of serviceable weapons.