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

[jesuvuah]

If it doesn't matter to you, why did you create this thread? It seems you do care, which is fine.

In my experience, the AK has a slight edge in reliability and durability over other designs. In my experience other designs have a slight edge in accuracy and ergos. Either one can be used effectively by a trained individual.

In my opinion, the Pakistani test was about as valid of a data point as MACs torture tests, but it a data point. I read the article, and from my understanding, they didn't test an ar15, but an ar10. Most ar10's, as well as most modern 308 gas guns, are built to fulfill a dmr role, not a battle rifle role, with the exception of the scar. So my guess is tests like tgese were not a huge conver when designing them. These tests are at about the bottom of my concerns when choosing a rifle, and it seems most else agree.

For anyone who is concerned, there is the AK. I imagine the amount of people/agencies, that are concerned with such tests, must be small enough, that large manufacturers are not concerned with engineerin and producing such a weapon.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[Bart Noir]

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

In this interesting thread, only one person used the right word. And that was . . . . 7n6.

He used "clearances" to describe one reason the AK seems to run well when bigly dirty. And as an engineer, who does tech writing for a living, I just goddamned have to point out that is not the same thing as "tolerances".

Large clearances means the installed parts rattle like a castanet. Sucky for being accurate, but it provides lots of room for the dirt, terrifying beach mud, or baloney sandwiches to fall into instead of causing a jam.

Large tolerances means the parts don't have to measure anywhere close to the designed dimension. You want your AK receiver to be a 1.0 mm sheet with a large tolerance of +/- .4 mm? You could have one weapon that bends because it is so thin, and another which jams because the bolt carrier is snug on the fat rails, yet both are "within tolerance". Small tolerances means the parts are precision made to come very very close to the designed dimension. Yet so many people want large tolerances so the weapon will be reliable?

Anyway, keep the discussion going. Please.

Bart Noir

[jesuvuah]

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

In this interesting thread, only one person used the right word. And that was . . . . 7n6.

He used "clearances" to describe one reason the AK seems to run well when bigly dirty. And as an engineer, who does tech writing for a living, I just goddamned have to point out that is not the same thing as "tolerances".

Large clearances means the installed parts rattle like a castanet. Sucky for being accurate, but it provides lots of room for the dirt, terrifying beach mud, or baloney sandwiches to fall into instead of causing a jam.

Large tolerances means the parts don't have to measure anywhere close to the designed dimension. You want your AK receiver to be a 1.0 mm sheet with a large tolerance of +/- .4 mm? You could have one weapon that bends because it is so thin, and another which jams because the bolt carrier is snug on the fat rails, yet both are "within tolerance". Small tolerances means the parts are precision made to come very very close to the designed dimension. Yet so many people want large tolerances so the weapon will be reliable?

Anyway, keep the discussion going. Please.

Bart Noir

So your saying the clips wobble because of to big of tolerance right

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

[RetroRevolver77]

If it doesn't matter to you, why did you create this thread? It seems you do care, which is fine.

In my experience, the AK has a slight edge in reliability and durability over other designs. In my experience other designs have a slight edge in accuracy and ergos. Either one can be used effectively by a trained individual.

In my opinion, the Pakistani test was about as valid of a data point as MACs torture tests, but it a data point. I read the article, and from my understanding, they didn't test an ar15, but an ar10. Most ar10's, as well as most modern 308 gas guns, are built to fulfill a dmr role, not a battle rifle role, with the exception of the scar. So my guess is tests like tgese were not a huge conver when designing them. These tests are at about the bottom of my concerns when choosing a rifle, and it seems most else agree.

For anyone who is concerned, there is the AK. I imagine the amount of people/agencies, that are concerned with such tests, must be small enough, that large manufacturers are not concerned with engineerin and producing such a weapon.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

I want to point one thing out in that particular test, it wasn't just that the AR10 variants failed in the extreme over the beach tests. I expected that due to the gas tube just as I would expect an M4 to fail. However what was shocking, to me at least- is that the piston fed AR18 derivatives failed. This is why I said this test should be an eye opener for manufacturers. That it isn't just a piston which is necessary for passing an over the beach test as the video I linked earlier provided with the HK 416 vs the Colt M4 shows. That it is also equally important, if not more so, for the design to have clearances around main components for the debris should the weapon actually become compromised.

Just wanted to add, in the meantime they offer sand cut BCG's for AR's, similar maybe to the carbon cutter bolt carriers from KAC. Until we go to a piston design in the future, perhaps this is the best temporary fix for most uses.

https://www.dsarms.com/p-16061-dsa-a...ier-group.aspx



7n6

[vicious_cb]

Submerging an M4 and then firing after coming up out of the water is no more a problem on the M4 than the AK. Firing either weapon underwater is very stupid.

If you’re so worried about over the beach capability, why have you not tried it? Do you even know the procedure for clearing a rifle barrel after swimming?

Edit: the M16 and M4 were designed with drain holes in the buttstocks and magazines for a reason. In other words, the gun was meant to swim.

I like how the OP focuses on the most asinine points about a weapon system like OTB firing.

BTW strangely enough the SAW performs the best in the OTB role, nearly zero drain time and no chance of having a water in the firing pin channel failure.
Here's a 20lb MG + ammo, swim that shit, and thats why I will never be a combat diver.

Nailed it, you can make any AR underwater capable if you swiss cheese the buffer tube.

[RetroRevolver77]

I like how the OP focuses on the most asinine points about a weapon system like OTB firing.

BTW strangely enough the SAW performs the best in the OTB role, nearly zero drain time and no chance of having a water in the firing pin channel failure.
Here's a 20lb MG + ammo, swim that shit, and thats why I will never be a combat diver.

Nailed it, you can make any AR underwater capable if you swiss cheese the buffer tube.

Gas tube would need to be switched over to a piston as well as the entire carrier and lower re-designed with clearances for debris. The 416 is close though. Not having enough clearances for debris is the reason that not one of the modern piston designed AR18 style rifles passed the over the beach/sand portions of the test while the AK-103 did. Also being able to pass the extreme cold weather tests would be a huge bonus. Below is the exactly type of scenario as to why I raised these concerns.


Chinese Military Joining Russians for Nuclear War Games.

"Vostok drills are aimed at countering foreign invasions and addressing military threats for Siberia and the Far East," Gabuev said in Twitter commentary. "China was among potential adversaries for many years. Now Moscow's message is that it doesn't view Beijing as an adversary any more."

https://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ear-war-games/




7n6

[RHINOWSO]

People who obsess of these kinds of minutia usually have little to no real world experience, which makes lots of sense.

[RetroRevolver77]

People who obsess of these kinds of minutia usually have little to no real world experience, which makes lots of sense.

The facts are that the AR derivatives failed the extreme environmental tests while a modern Russian AK type passed all those tests.


7n6

[jpmuscle]

The facts are that the AR derivatives failed the extreme environmental tests while a modern Russian AK type passed all those tests.


7n6

And yet, nobody cares. Because the folks out in the real world who carry these weapons for a living and those who support them have determined such parameters are outside the scope of operational necessity. Let us know when SOCOM or any other competent SMU starts lobbying for AK platform fighting rifles.

In the interim, nobody cares


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RetroRevolver77]

And yet, nobody cares. Because the folks out in the real world who carry these weapons for a living and those who support them have determined such parameters are outside the scope of operational necessity. Let us know when SOCOM or any other competent SMU starts lobbying for AK platform fighting rifles.

In the interim, nobody cares


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe we'll never fight in say a Chosin Reservoir or Battle of the Bulge type scenario ever again necessitating that level of reliability. However with the advances of their weapon designs, any type of perceived performance gap that we felt we had in small arms over theirs- is now for the most part gone. That's what I was simply trying to warn people about and why I felt we needed to consider updating our weapons designs.


7n6