Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: HK 416, MR 556 InRange TV Mud Test.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    There is a standard for mud testing, in Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045.

    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf

    Section 4.5.5, page 39.

    As someone who works with submitting weapons for gov solicitations where requirements include passing these tests, these You Tube tests are not anything but entertainment.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,188
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    They are not slaying any cows....
    Go watch the M14/M1A, M1 Garand, and AK ones.

    And their Mosin-Nagant and Mauser ones.
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,518
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    Arctic knows more than you do


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    6,824
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Most, maybe all, of their videos they state it isn't scientific so it isn't like they are making outrageous claims.

    But, some people do make outrageous claims. After hearing AK and Garand action devotees claims of no amount of grime, fouling, or corrosion being capable causing a stoppage while simultaneously claiming AR variants are lucky to fire more than a few rounds after thorough cleaning...the gas necessary for operation will choke them of course...it is informative enough.

    Similar thing could be done by putting an AK variant with a decent bore on a stable rest and shooting a 10 rds group to demonstrate the myth they can't hit a barn door from inside is just that.

    I won't say that it isn't entertaining though.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    Go watch the M14/M1A, M1 Garand, and AK ones.

    And their Mosin-Nagant and Mauser ones.
    None of the tests are any good.

    There is no consistency in their testing methods.

    Everything can malfunction. During our deployment work up, a small pebble got into the barrel extension of the 416 of one of the guys on my team during live fire react to contact drills. It was a catastrophic malfunction, causing the gun to completely seize up, requiring the use of tools to fix. Not the guns fault

    I have seen guns freeze, guns seize up from lack of lube (to include during actual contact in Afghanistan), guns extremely dusty (especially vehicle mounted belt feds) - some Norwegian troops also experienced extreme rain and mud, as mentioned above.

    The bottom line is that in order to maintain proper operability of your weapons in all conditions, you need to maintain them and have SOP’s in place for when things go bad. Most recreational shooters worry about dirt from shooting - as a soldier on operations, the environment is the biggest threat to equipment.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    6,824
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I think you are over thinking this. It isn't about a testing protocol to make a best choice on purchasing hundreds of thousands of rifles or a system of maintenance once that purchase is made.

    The thing being tested is the hyperbole spouted off by some people, for whatever reason. According to many advocates of the rifles Mountain Raven listed, those rifles cannot malfunction (and the inverse usually touted by those advocates is an AR pattern basically can't work) so the consistency from test to test really doesn't matter. The claim is system A can't lose while system B can't win.....100% of time, every time....and they show it isn't true.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    I am not overthinking it.

    Have you read comments on various boards and on the video itself? People are using the result from this video to validate their own confirmation bias.

    InRange TV has a very large viewership, and most of the comments defend the result citing that they are, and I paraphrase: "the most unbiased gun channel online".

    This is what Karl says verbatim, at the end of the video:

    "But it is not as reliable in fouled conditions, at least from this test of one, as a standard DI AR-15"

    Now, if you compare the execution of this test, with the one conducted in the video I link below, you will se great disparity in testing conditions:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU&t=2s

    The difference in mud composition/viscocity is quite prominent.
    On the DI test, they thoroughly shake it off, and during the test with the dust cover open, they scrape away most of the mud from the ejection port/bolt carrier. On the HK, they hardly shake the gun, and remove no mud from the ejection port.
    There is no consistency in how much mud is applied to the weapon - which is why the TOP test calls for full submersion into the test medium.

    They don't show that any claim is true or false, they just show that getting mud (and whatever particulates are in the mud) into the action of any firearm is bad news.
    However, they use their "results" to make assertions on the reliability of various weapon systems.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    There was a drama after MACs VP9 "test" that promoted his channel for some people and made it irrelevant for other. Drama ended. VP9/SFP9 sells like hot cakes (for HK scale of business). This drama will end as well.

    People seriously looking at this matters know that 1 (one) test conducted on 1 (one) sample is worth exactly nothing, even if done up to all scientific standards, not as performance for entertainment purposes. That is why when military test firearms they test bunch of them repeatedly to establish statistically viable probability distribution model. This is why group of 1 shots tells us nothings, group of 3 shots fuel our ego (all other groups had flyiers!), group of 10 shots start to tell us something and group of 30 shots is for those who really want to know and are not afraid of reality check

    People that got all excited by this results mostly were buying into "HK. Because you suck. And we hate you". They are hardly target demographics for HK anyway
    Last edited by montrala; 08-13-19 at 05:38.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,748
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    They are not slaying any cows....
    orly?



    "Ill show you how a real infantry weapon works!"
    "How a real infantry weapon works"
    "REAL INFANTRY WEAPON"

    Def no sacred cows here.



    As a former kommando you should recognize this type of posting arctic
    Last edited by vicious_cb; 08-15-19 at 00:05.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Unscientific, inconsistent tests don't slay any cows, sacred or otherwise.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 08-15-19 at 10:25.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •