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

[RetroRevolver77]

Yes, but is that level of reliability the minimum standard for what is acceptable for a service rifle? It seems that what you're implying is that pretty much every rifle in the world except the AK is unfit for combat.

What I'm saying is that examining why that one weapon passed could be implemented to enhance the reliability aspects of the other weapon systems.

[PNorris]

What I'm saying is that examining why that one weapon passed could be implemented to enhance the reliability aspects of the other weapon systems.

You are like the crazy uncle who you can't escape at the family barbecue.

[RetroRevolver77]

If anyone has a link to another weapon system that can pass a swamp/mud submersion test- let me know.

Thanks,


7n6

[Aries144]

I want to see the gas ports and springs on those Russian AKs. I find it very curious that Zastava and Chinese AKs performed so differently from the Russian AK, as their designs were based on the original AK specs.

I would like to have seen gas settings set to "adverse" on rifles so equipped to see if it's purely a matter of putting more energy into the bolt assembly.

The immersion test with empty chambers was very curious. If too much grit or crud finds its way into a rifle's chamber or locking lug area, it's not typically going to chamber a round. An empty chamber would let water wash grit right in. What change do you make to a rifle that allows it to chamber and then extract a round with crud in the chamber, other than keeping crud out to begin with? Obviously the increased taper of the 7.62x39 chamber and case isn't enough alone since the Zastava and Chinese AKs failed here.

The whole thing leaves me suspecting the condition of those Russian AKs and the integrity of the test more than respecting magical Russian AK voodoo. It leaves more questions than answers.

[RetroRevolver77]

The 103 is a 74 variant, not an AKM like the Zastava and Chinese types. Not sure why those minor changes would make that much of a difference in overall performance. I don't recall the part about chambers being empty for the immersion test but then again, if the bolt is closed- not much dirt is going to get in initially anyway. Now the flip side of similar results is the backyard swamp test linked earlier with the Chinese AK that came out firing. However that particular rifle was well used, perhaps broken in more.

[JoshNC]

The 103 is a 74 variant, not an AKM like the Zastava and Chinese types. Not sure why those minor changes would make that much of a difference in overall performance. I don't recall the part about chambers being empty for the immersion test but then again, if the bolt is closed- not much dirt is going to get in initially anyway. Now the flip side of similar results is the backyard swamp test linked earlier with the Chinese AK that came out firing. However that particular rifle was well used, perhaps broken in more.

And the InRange experience with all AK variants they’ve put to mud - universal failure.

[PNorris]

This thread has more lives than Jason from Friday the 13th.

[Moose-Knuckle]

And the InRange experience with all AK variants they’ve put to mud - universal failure.

And the exact opposite results for the AR variant mud tests which include an original SP1 and a parts gun.

[Aries144]

I'm looking over the test results again and when I see reports of random parts of AR10s like the bolt catch falling out and flash hiders being launched down range after being exposed to nothing but 140* for 12 hours, plus only the Russian AK passing all tests without a single hiccup despite being submerged in mud without a round chambered...

I wouldn't use this test as evidence of anything. Super, super sketchy. Does not pass smell test.

The evidence leans toward this being a rigged display, with some rifles being fiddled with behind the scenes, not a true "test."

7n6, I agree with many of your notes in the OP. Sealing a rifle keeps out thick mud and most sand, but significant amounts of small particles can still be carried in when suspended in thin fluids. All that can be done for the latter is to attempt to reduce points of contact between the reciprocating parts and receiver and allow for increasing the forces moving the carrier. Sealing the receiver as well as reducing carrier contact, with an adverse gas system setting, seems like the ideal. That also matches the trend of western rifle design over the last 30 years.

[RetroRevolver77]

I'm looking over the test results again and when I see reports of random parts of AR10s like the bolt catch falling out and flash hiders being launched down range after being exposed to nothing but 140* for 12 hours, plus only the Russian AK passing all tests without a single hiccup despite being submerged in mud without a round chambered...

I wouldn't use this test as evidence of anything. Super, super sketchy. Does not pass smell test.

The evidence leans toward this being a rigged display, with some rifles being fiddled with behind the scenes, not a true "test."

7n6, I agree with many of your notes in the OP. Sealing a rifle keeps out thick mud and most sand, but significant amounts of small particles can still be carried in when suspended in thin fluids. All that can be done for the latter is to attempt to reduce points of contact between the reciprocating parts and receiver and allow for increasing the forces moving the carrier. Sealing the receiver as well as reducing carrier contact, with an adverse gas system setting, seems like the ideal. That also matches the trend of western rifle design over the last 30 years.

Except no one has done that yet, all modern designs seem to still leave no room for debris around critical components. I have yet to see any rifle designed today that surpasses the AK variants as far as making clearances for debris. Or better, making clearances for debris as well as being sealed against the elements like the SIG 55X AK rifles. The Inrange test simply showed that a standard AK is not sealed around the bolt carrier- if the carrier can't close the weapon will not fire because it was designed not to fire out of battery. The same AR that passed the Inrange test would still fail a swamp test so the Inrange test is just to highlight sealed systems versus non sealed systems. Either way we haven't advanced in terms of overall reliability since the AK and that's where I feel we could design something better.

M