InRange TV: Down In The Mud With The AR-15, Will It Choke?

9aFD3Gu

As part of their recent set of mud testing, including some disappointing results from the fabled M1 Garand, and AK rifles, Ian and Karl of InRange have tested a weapon most people would expect to wither like a delicate flower at the first frost, in the presence of mud: The AR-15, designed by Jim Sullivan, and based on Eugene Stoner’s innovative, but maligned direct gas impingement operating system:

A shocker to some, but maybe not to others: The infamously “unreliable” AR-15 passed. One thing Ian and Karl did not mention which is a huge boon to the AR-15’s reliability in situations like this is the very thing it’s most often criticized for: It poops where it eats. Rather, the specific brand of direct impingement gas system that Eugene Stoner designed vents gas at the bolt carrier through two small ports. This gas vent acts to a certain degree like a compressed air hose, blowing dirt and debris away from the action before it has a chance to be carried back into the sensitive moving parts group. Further, the fact that there is a sealed gas tube, with no operating rod trying to move forward and back through it means that it’s extremely difficult to get debris into the heart of the AR-15’s operating mechanism.

Many of our readers expressed shock that the AK, a weapon described as having “legendary reliability” often enough as to make one nauseous, did not perform perfectly in the same test. While the gun did not stop functioning, it failed to continue operating in a semi-automatic fashion. This led many to conclude that the test was simply too difficult for any rifle to pass. Those of us (myself included) who have performed this kind of testing on AR-15s previously, however, knew that the AR-15 passes tests like these with flying colors, and the results of the InRange test surprise me not at all.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Joshua

    This should be good.

  • iksnilol

    Clearances=/=tolerances

    • Joshua

      Common enough mistake that everyone knows they’re talking about clearances.

      • iksnilol

        I felt being pedantic, okay?

        • Joshua

          No its not ok…its never ok!!!!!(runs away crying)

          • iksnilol

            Damn it! Don’t run away.

            (quietly)… because I love you.

          • Now it just got… absolutely normal by 2016 standards.

          • iksnilol

            Still waiting for that sweet, sweet, TFB sitcom money.

    • CommonSense23

      Except in this case when referring to sealing the mud from getting inside. Tolerances is the right term.

      • How do you figure? Tolerances are the set of acceptable dimensions, while clearances are the spaces between parts.

        • CommonSense23

          Cause the terms clearance isn’t being used appropriately in this aspect when talking about sealing something such as the upper and lower from debris ingress. Clearance has become a catch all for how two different parts are put together, when it should be the term Fit.

          • Fair enough, the application of the term “clearance” here is a little inappropriate. You’re right that “fit” is a better match.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Tolerance is absolutely not the right term. In engineering, fit is a general term with clearance being a category of fit; there are clearance fits, transition fits, and interference fits, in descending levels of freedom of motion. Clearance is actually a perfectly acceptable term to use in this context, since the space between the dust cover, selector switch, and receiver is an obvious clearance fit to allow ease of operation; with the little bump tab on the receiver making a transition fit with the selector to keep it in place when in the fire position.

          • CommonSense23

            And when we are talking about the upper and lower receiver coming together. Thats not a clearance fit. And by having high manufacturing tolerances you get a better fit.

          • ostiariusalpha

            You haven’t quite got it yet, CS. The fit describes how the parts interact: do they move in relation to each other, or do they lock each other into place? Clearances describe how much space there is between two interacting parts, how much “free & clear” they are of one another. If there is any clearance at all then the fit is a clearance fit, if there is no clearance at all then it is an interference fit. The follower in the mag, the selector switch, the bolt group, and various other components that are supposed to move somewhat freely are clearance fits. The barrel pressed into the trunion, the sight blocks, and all the rivets are interference fits. Transition fits are clearance fits that under special circumstances act like interference fits. For instance, the top cover on the AK is obviously meant to be easily removed (a clearance fit), but you don’t want it to just fall off (or perhaps you don’t even want it to rattle about), so you have something that can trap it temporarily like the rear latch button on the recoil spring guide rod. Lots of transition fits require materials with good elastic properties to overcome their temporary interference fit stage, though screws are a good example of clearance fits with only minor elasticity that become interference fits when tightened.

          • I’ll let you two hash out the semantics, be sure to use the correct leather 3-ring folio binder when submitting your report. 😉

          • ostiariusalpha

            Aye-aye!

  • John

    And I’ve seen *out of the box* ARs have double feeds, stove pipes, misfeeds, and bolts not lock back at the range. I’ve never seen a new AK do that.

    Really, these tests are statistical outliers. Most battlefield conditions that usually impact a weapons platform are dust and dirt. Maybe water from time to time. It is a relatively rare occasion that any rifle is DUNKED in thick, coarse, sticky mud like this. It happens, but probably not all that often.

    All-in-all these types of tests are a mixed bag. I’ve seen videos where AKs pass tests like this, and I’ve seen ARs fail tests like this and the other way around. I think it all depends on the sum elements at the very moment something like this happens, so you really can’t pain a broad picture like ARs being able to handle conditions like this all the time. There is a reason why there are AKs kicking around hellish conditions for 40+ years and still run.

    • Frank

      Just as much as you still see AKs on the battlefield. Look how long M16a1s were used in places like Israel and the Phillipines.

    • Joshua

      My M4A1 handled conditions like this all the time without issue.

      I love AK fans.

      • John

        For the record, I own both platforms and I love both. I just think that these tests are kind of silly. They mud tested the garand too and it didn’t even fire a round the first go around. Does that mean the garand sucks? No.

        • It means the Garand sucks in the mud, which it does. Why do you think they invented those plastic rifle sleeves used on D-Day?

          • John

            Almsot every rifle sucks in the mud.

          • …But not the AR-15, as this and numerous other tests show.

          • John

            And there is plenty of footage of the ARs chocking at range conditions.

          • CommonSense23

            Yes poorly built rifles, using crap mags fail at a range. Who is surprised.

          • John

            Not true Scotsman.

          • CommonSense23

            Except this isn’t one of those no true Scotsman cases. Any poorly built rifle, ruining crap mags is going to produce crap results. That has no bearing on the design of the platform. That’s the execution of the platform.

          • iksnilol

            What sleeve.

          • You can see them in these photos.

          • iksnilol

            Cool :O

          • Joshua

            They also were trained how to fall on their rifles, how to crawl with which side of the rifle up, and were taught when not using the rifle to keep their hand covering the hole behind the bolt.

          • Rick5555

            Come on didn’t you see the movie “Saving Private Ryan?”

        • Joshua

          The garand does suck by modern standards. The difference is that in WWII most everyone else had bolt action rifles so it was still better than what others had.

          • John

            Pretty sure you could defend yourself just fine with an M1 in 2016.

          • You could also defend yourself with a rock or a baseball bat.

          • notalima

            Statistically a preferred weapon over rifles of all forms by killers nationwide 😀

          • hydepark

            Nathan, can you shed some light on an interesting piece of info my friend gave me? He said that the Germans in WWII focused heavily on machine gun crews. So most everyone would have a Mauser, but they would also be directly supporting an MG-42 or the like. If that’s true then it kinda sheds some new light on the Garand outgunning the Mauser spiel.

          • Right, their infantry squads were organized around the light machine gun (MG34 or MG42, or possibly a ZB.30 or something else), whereas American squads were organized around the body of riflemen, with the M1918 BAR supporting them. Here are a couple of resources I just dredged up on this:

            http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/german-infantry-regiment.html

            http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters2.php

            I am not the best guy to ask about organization or tactics, by the way, though I’m pretty confident about what I’ve said here.

          • hydepark

            Wow thanks for the response that’s a lot of info there. Having never served and with limited information, I would say this adds to the two-dimensional “Garands outgunned Mausers” statement that gets repeated with frequency.

          • hydepark, you’ve hit the nail on the head, and touched on a very important piece of context that I (tried to) outline in one of my posts about the MP.44, which is that in the broader context of the combined infantry small arms, these people are working together in units. So when one is focusing on upgrading from a Kar.98k or whatever to an MP.44, they’re missing the point about the overall mix of weapons and how they are being used.

            Anyway, that’s an entirely separate topic, and since Ian’s running around here in the comments, I’m sure I’ll get an earful from him, but still. It’s a very astute observation about how these weapons were used in concert, and why.

          • iksnilol

            Eh, my Mauser fires handles mud fine. So I wouldn’t call the M1 better.

          • mosinman

            except the M1 is a better rifle. until it gets a bunch of mud in it. it simply allows the US GI to outgun his enemies with bolt actions

          • iksnilol

            I can’t hear you over the sound of my rifle actually working.

            Eh, I’d call it arguable. I mean, sure, an unproficent person is fast with a semi auto. Just as a proficent person is fast with a bolt action. I’d argue it is faster if you’re talking about conscripts and people with low experience.

          • mosinman

            you’re not going to beat a semi auto with a bolt action in ROF

          • iksnilol

            Nah, but you’ll get close.

            The advantage of the semi auto IMO is that you can fire from unconventional positions (due to not needing to work the action).

          • mosinman

            Don’t forget that you don’t have to actually cycle the action, you don’t have to reacquire your sight picture and cheek weld, you can fire quick follow up shots, you shoot faster in close quarters ect.

          • iksnilol

            You have to reaquire sight picture with a 3006, semi auto or not.

            You don’t have to lose cheek weld with a bolt action.

  • Jhon

    Those who consider the AR unreliable these days are generally ignorant about many other things in life as well.

    • iksnilol

      My only experience with one was a specimen I am sure was used to zap gooks while yelling “CHARLIE DON’T SURF!”.

      So I might be biased.

  • GearHead

    M1a & ak kiddies on sucide watch, hopefully their dark pits of despair don’t get too muddy.

    • mosinman

      the mud will actually save them because their rifles won’t fire in the muddy pit of despair

      • GearHead

        Lol

  • tony

    the importance of that dustcover….

  • iksnilol

    What I hate about stuff like this is you can never get a clear cut answer. It isn’t like measuring your foot.

    I mean, I’ve seen tests where the AR failed under the same conditions. Yet it doesn’t prove the AR is unreliable.

    Seems the consensus is the more closed and tighter it is, the better.

    • You can absolutely have an AR fail in a test like this, if debris gets back in the trigger group, or under the trigger guard. However, Ian, Karl, myself, and a few others have run tests like this often enough that we expect the AK and especially the M1 to do much more poorly than the AR, generally speaking.

      There’s just no substitute for keeping that crap out.

      Now, some of the improved AK variants, like the AK-12, that have better sealing, I might expect those to do really well at a test like this.

      • iksnilol

        Hmm.

        Seems like the common denominator is the trigger. Maybe that sputter gun guy was on to something? 😛

        I suspect the AK-12 has better sealing not only because of the improved design, but possibly also because of smaller clearances.

        • Joshua

          A real M4 also has less issues with the trigger getting obstructed as well due to the auto sear being able to use the carriers momentum to often times overcome things that may bond the disconnector if its set to burst/auto.

          • iksnilol

            Does the auto sear do anything while firing semi auto? And do those fancy Timney and Geiselle triggers work with it?

            I am not that good with ARs as is probably obvious.

          • Joshua

            Not sure about Timney triggers as I have never used those drop on packet trigger things.

            Geiselle however are about the best combat trigger available. SOCOM actually within the last year or two began putting a Geiselle in all M4A1 lowers and it has around double the parts life across the board to the standard GI trigger.

            As for the auto sear it doesn’t do anything in semi due to how the safety is designed. However usually if the trigger is having issues it is often the disconnector and you should be able to put the rifle into burst/auto which will disengage the disconnector and have the auto sear take over which should over ride some of the issues of stuff getting into the trigger.

  • Ed

    Don’t matter I’m smart enough never let my issued weapons get caked in mud!!

  • I wonder if the Vz. 58 works the same in mud like the AK?

    • In my experience, it’s closer to the MAS-49/56 in performance in these kinds of tests. So better than an M1, for sure.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Do you mean does it fail? Yes, it jams up good and proper.

    • nadnerbus

      The action opens up pretty wide when cycling. Might be decently sealed while the bolt is closed, but I could see it fouling pretty quickly after a few rounds.

    • Ian McCollum

      We happen to have tried it, and will publish the video in a few weeks. 🙂

      • Joshua

        Can’t wait, will be fun to watch. I really like the Vz. 58.

        • Yeah, it’s pretty crazy that of the three rifles I’d consider to be the best infantry weapons in the world (for their day, at least), one of them is from little old Czechoslovakia.

          Unfortunately, the vz. 58 is just a little dated these days, as it was designed around the needs of the 1950s, not the 2010s. But it’s still a better design in quite a few ways than some of the most modern wunder-rifles out there.

          Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have issues, of course. Fascinating things happen, for example, if the rifle’s receiver heat treat is not uniform enough… Ask me how I know, hahah.

      • juicy!

  • Blake Allen

    Can I just say something. No matter what gun it is, if you clog the bolt area with foreign debris, it will cease to function. With that out of the way, I would like to discuss this more thoroughly.

    I am an AK fanatic, I believe them to be in the top tier of world class assault rifles. Until recently I was under the hypnosis of the typical AK bandwagon in thinking that it was some sort of invincible God like weapon. What I came to realize is that we have been thinking of the AK’s reliability in the wrong way. We have thought that it could swallow up dust, dirt and mud without an issue. Obviously, that is not correct 100% of the time. I say that because there are videos of AK’s swallowing handfuls of sand, dirt and mud and not even faltering. MY answer to that is what I said in the above paragraph. What the AK can do is run for very long periods of time without proper cleaning. Now, the reason the AK can go long periods of time without maintenance is do to the “loose tolerances”. However, that is a two edged sword, as it is also the reason why it chokes up when too much foreign debris enters the action. This is about where AR guys will swoop in and declare victory over the AK, but just hold on a second. Yes, the AR’s tight tolerances means it can get away with these mud tests, it also means that after running too long without maintenance, it won’t be able to function. Simply put, the AR keeps debris out of its action better than the AK, but the AK can cope with debris inside its action better than the AR. With more modern version of the AK, keeping debris out isn’t a problem. With this issue solved, people will go back to their sides of the fence and continue the age old debate of AK vs AR. I heard a analogy awhile back and I think it’s worth repeating. The AR is like a finely tuned Cadillac, while the AK is a rough-edged pick up truck. There are markets and buyers for both, not one is superior to the other. Now, I know this won’t solve anything, but I at least wanted to put my opinion out there to see what you all think, as well as to calm down any other AK Believers out there.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Give poor iksnilol a break and use the term “clearances,” it’s just the decent, gentlemanly thing to do.

    • CommonSense23

      How much experience do you actually have with the AK47/AKM platform. Cause that assessment doesn’t vibe with my experience with the platform. Which was overseeing a 50-75 thousand rounds a week training program with the AKMS. The AK cannot go long periods of time without maintenance cause of “loose tolerances”. Loose tolerances does not mean it doesn’t need less maintenance. Typically it means more maintenance. The AK47/AKM strength was its a rifle that was designed to max out its strengths while still being a easily produced rifle with the overall poor industrial capabilities of its host nation.

      • Blake Allen

        Actually, I don’t have much experience with the AKM platform. My experience comes from the Sig 556 rifle, which is a modernized Kalashnikov pattern rifle. I mean no disrespect to yourself or any others with experience using the AK platform as extensively as you have. I am simply curious as to why the AK has been coined as such a reliable weapon. Where does it’s durability and reliability come from, if not from the loose tolerances. In addition, may I ask about your experience with the whole AR vs AK in terms of sand and dirt?

        • I think it is the same as any other stereotype, starts with a kernel of truth and grows from there.

          The AK is – for the record – a fantastically reliable weapon when made properly. Mud is only one metric, and the AR beats the AK out in that respect, generally speaking. If I lived in a very cold, snowy environment, though, and I needed to carry a rifle, either would suit me just fine… But the AK would be a bit better.

          • Blake Allen

            Thank you for your response, Nathaniel. I do believe the AK platform can be a great rifle when made properly. Just watch Tim’s video on the Krebs Custom KV-13 on Military Arms Channel. He dunked it in muddy water and it still ran like a champ.

          • NewMan

            There are a lot of misunderstanding here and lies spreading by so-called ‘expert’ including the lies about the HK416 – a rifle that completely destroyed the M4 in any reliability test including the sand test.

            “OP Rod driven ARs(piston) do nothing better than the traditional AR design.”

            Ignoring the fact that the 416 has proven to be significantly cleaner and run cooler and has much longer lifespan than any M4. It also run much better suppressed and isn’t sensitive to barrel length. Not to mention it also has OTB capability It’s a well known fact that short barrel AR has reliability issues and very ammo sensitive.

          • CommonSense23

            Have you ever dealt with the 416 personally?

          • NewMan

            I haven’t use one in combat no, but from the technical standpoint and many field reports, the 416 has proven to be significantly more reliable/capable.

            Just ask any Subject Master Expert (including those at m4carbine) who have used both system in harm way, and they all put the 416 on top.

            the 416 is the M4 at its absolute best, period.

          • I would be very interested to see the study that you’ve apparently done where you counted every single person who ever used an HK416, and they all said it was the best.

          • Joshua

            10th group did a test between the Mk18 and the 416 and found the Mk18 to be Mechanically superior.

            It pretty much states what every one has found in testing.

          • Do you have a resource for that test?

          • Joshua

            Nothing that is open source and could be posted online. Only the title of the document has been released.

          • NewMan

            You are not going to get any source from him, just more vague statement without any citations.

            Everything that the haters of the 416 been saying pretty much contradicted actual field reports and end users statements, who have nothing but good thing to say about the 416.

          • Joshua

            Yet here you are giving nothing of substantial proof either.

          • NewMan

            Something like that would’ve been made public long ago..

            What you are saying DOES NOT match what field operators and SME that I have personally talked to and including the Marines and Marine armorers.

            The experts that I have talked to have credentials and not some vague user name on the net, BTW..

          • CommonSense23

            What field operators and SMEs have you personally talked. Whats your actual background with firearms?

          • Joshua

            Didn’t you read, he gets his knowledge from m4carbine and their “SME’s”.

          • NewMan

            I trust lary vickers over some no name on the internet,

            It’s a known fact that the M4 has shorter lifespan, get blown up once submerge under the water, his lower cook-off rate, and the gas tube blow up in intense full auto.

            The Marines picked the 416 over the rest due to its vastly superior capability not only in harsh condition but under intense full auto as well.

          • Joshua

            Plus There are also the Individual carbine competition where a stock M4A1 was proven to be more durable than the HK416, and the New Zealand trials that recently selected the LMT MRP16(a DI operating system) over the HK416 due to it also outperforming it.

          • CommonSense23

            So how well does that OTB 416 with all the different rounds available?

          • You’re aware that Larry Vickers has worked with both HK on their oprod HK416 and with Daniel Defense on their DI DDM4s, right?

            Like, I dunno where you’re getting this impression that Larry thinks the HK416 is a dramatically superior weapon; I’ve been following him for ages and never picked up on that.

            Also, are you serious? The Marine Corps picked the HK416 for the IAR program because that was the best weapon submitted… Guess what wasn’t submitted? An M4 Carbine. Guess what the USMC just replaced their M16A4s with? M4 Carbines.

          • NewMan

            The M4 wasn’t submit during the IAR trial because it FAILED in combat particularly with intense full auto/hard use. It’s a known fact that DI M4 CANNOT handle intense full auto due to higher cook-of rate, shorter parts lifespan and the gas tube will BURST. All of this have been proven in combat and is the main reason why the IAR program exist, and why the 416 won, because it proven to be vastly superior and the Marines themselves have said this many time over. They also use the 416 as a DMR with suppressor because once again the 416 proven to be much more reliable with suppressor.

            the Marines replacing their m16 with M4 is due to politics and nothing more. If actually giving a choice, they would go with the 416/

          • NewMan

            The M4 wasn’t submit during the IAR trial because it FAILED in combat
            particularly with intense full auto/hard use. It’s a known fact that
            DI M4 CANNOT handle intense full auto due to higher cook-of rate,
            shorter parts lifespan and the gas tube will BURST. All of this have
            been proven in combat and is the main reason why the IAR program exist, and why they chose the 416, because it proven to be vastly superior and the Marines themselves have said this many time over. They also use the 416 as a DMR with suppressor because once again the 416 proven to be much more reliable with suppressor.

            the Marines replacing their m16 with M4 is due to politics and nothing more. If actually giving a choice, they would go with the 416.

          • Not really, and no.

            The M4 wasn’t submitted to the IAR competition because Colt submitted their IAR (which is, by the way, basically an M4 with a big heavy aluminum heat sink attached – it was rejected by the USMC, because it is more than a pound and a half heavier than the HK416, but Colt received one of the 3 finalist contracts), and FN submitted their HAMR IAR.

          • NewMan

            that vid proved my point. the M4 gas tube BURST under intense full auto.

          • Joshua

            Why would it have been made public? Not every testing document gets made public.

            The SCAR trials still are not public, and the test the 10th did was performed after the SCAR trials. I could name hundreds of procurement trials that have never seen the light of day to the general populace.

            Who are these field operators you know in person who are willing to discuss this? Very few are issued the HK416 in the US so I am curious to know who it is you know?

          • CommonSense23

            Well I actually have first hand experience with the 416. Worked with the JSOC guys. Talked to their armorers a good bit. Seen more issues out of the 416 than I ever did out of our MK18s. The majority of the guys I talked to, stated they preferred their Colt built guns. So what is your background with either weapon?

          • milesfortis

            Hmm, it’s possible we’ve met.
            I was a civil service armorer for a “subordinate command”.

          • Joshua

            Do they now? The ones I know don’t, but they don’t post on m4carbine either.

          • G.K.

            “I haven’t use one in combat no”

            You could’ve just stopped there and saved us some time.

          • NewMan

            I have source and technical knowledge to back me up, including opinions of many know SME, and not just some random user name on the net, and they all porve that the 416 is superior.

          • Joshua

            If you have never been issued and deployed with a HK416 how can you have knowledge of how the rifle performs in combat roles?

          • Nicks87

            Subject matter expert. There I fixed it for you.

          • I would sincerely like to see the 2007 dust tests repeated with an M4 and an HK416 upper on a 3 round burst M4 lower.

            I suspect that the “malfunction” rate of the HK416 would skyrocket.

          • nadnerbus

            Normalizing the magazines across all platforms tested would be even bigger.

          • Joshua

            The individual Carbine competition had a dust test portion just FYI.

          • jamesone

            From my experience in the army and civilian ar’s I believe COLT is the problem. I have seen stupid problems with Colt rifles due to magazines sitting to high in the mag well. Had no problems with the FN A2s I used in training or the older A2 I carried on deployment. When we were issued new M4s the reliability blew with a fully loaded mag. Bought a 6920 when I got out and had the same problems, poor reliability round 30-25 and problems after I shoved a H2 buffer in for making 28-30 my problem children. Even had random stoppages similar to what I saw in mil M4s. Built 3 rifles from mega and Anderson mfg lowers and never have had a problem. Colt is the problem with the rifle not the design itself. So yeah shove a 416 upper on a colt mil lower and watch the problems come to light.

          • My 6920 has never given me such problems, nor have I ever actually heard of anything like that.

            But yeah, your problems sound like an issue with Colt specifically.

          • jamesone

            shours of specified that it is likely not all Colt rifles do this but of a few I saw in service and the one 6920 I snagged up it seems to be an oversight on colts part. I also have seen CLP drip down to the chamber on a colt M4 and run like a champ. Half the problem with service rifles is crap lubercation/Maint practices.

          • Didn’t mean to sound like I wasn’t taking you seriously, it’s entirely conceivable to me that Colt has put out bad guns from time to time. In fact, despite the overall high quality of their products, they have been known to do so in the past.

          • jamesone

            If I remember correctly they lost the M16a2 contract due in part to poor quality. I won’t be surprised if the m4 gets some positive view after FN gets theirs in circulation more. Just a bit disappointing when I can assemble “junk” parts into a rifle and have better reliability than what I have seen from them.

          • Yeah, I’d be pretty mad if I were you.

          • Scott Connors

            I ran the ASP when 24 ID transitioned to the M16A2 in 1988 or 89 (can’t recall precisely). I also acted as the on-site armorer. During that period I saw brand new Colt rifles with excessive firing pin protrusion and pierced primers, broken locking logs, loose gas tube pins, and loose lower receiver extensions that caused malfunctions that I could not fix on the scene.

          • Joshua

            The current Mk18 has no reliability issues.

            This is the sole reason the HK416 exists. Because on team wanted a reliable 10″ gun before CRANE could get them one.

            There’s a reason no one in the US uses the 416 outside of the two earliest adopters, and its because the current issued M4A1 and Mk18 are just as good and don’t cost nearly as much, while also being lighter and having better recoil impulses.

          • Zachary marrs

            Wow, #1, the 07 dust tests were rigged.

            #2 not all 416’s are otb capable

            #3, SBR ar’s aren’t that unreliable, and aren’t that ammo sensitive

          • Spoiler alert, if you fire a rifle with a barrel clogged with water in the open air, it will blow up.

            I love that HK OTB promo video for the 416, by the way. It’s the bomb, because it disproves what a lot of people claim about the AR-15 and HK416. If you watch it, the HK416 passes, and the M4 fails… At the chamber. The M4’s failure in the test has nothing to do with it being DI and the 416 being oprod, it has everything to do with the HK416A2 OTB’s special features, which A.) Are only on the A2 OTB models, not regular 416s (the bolt carrier and buffer tube drainage holes are on all models, but not the breech reinforcement that would have prevented the catastrophic failure), and B.) Compromise the A2 OTB model’s reliability with certain kinds of ammunition. Not a tragedy, and in fact a good compromise if you’re a frogman, but it definitely makes the HK416A2 OTB a specialized gun.

          • Joshua

            You forgot the OTB features also include drain holes in the buffer tube(large holes in every stock length notch and large rear hole)

            as well as a flat chamber face to better seal against the bolt carrier(most chamber faces are chamfered for better feeding and extraction)

          • “the bolt carrier and buffer tube drainage holes are on all models, but not the breech reinforcement that would have prevented the catastrophic failure”

            😉

          • Joshua

            …Whatever *rolls eyes*. I was still right about the flat chamber face.

          • 1911a145acp

            I don’t know where in HELL people come up with this cleaner and COOLER BULLSHIT for long stroke gas piston guns. Rip off three mags from an AK with wood hand guards, a RUGER Mini-14 or an M14/M1A, or even three clips from a GARAND, one thing they won’t be described as, is COOL…..

          • n0truscotsman

            It depends on what youre measuring.

            If you are comparing bolt temperatures, the external piston operated guns have the edge over the Stoner system. But the heat is just ‘moved’ to the external piston area too.

            theoretically, this should be advantageous from a reliability standpoint, but in real life practice, it has been proven to be a rather moot point since the stoner system is just as reliable, if not more so in many cases.

        • CommonSense23

          Sand and dirt. Going to take my MK18Mod1 over a a AK47 any day of the week. I have gone thousands of rounds without cleaning, shooting suppressed, in multiple different environments. Sand storms, being covered in more mud than the test above, swimming it through the surf zone. The gun works. It just needs proper maintenance, not cleaning maintenance. And that is the ARs problem. A well built AR from someone like Colt or FN gets its reliability issues from people not knowing how to maintain there gun. Its that simple.
          As for where the AK gets it reliability reputation from? Simple people exaggerate what they don’t know, blame the weapon for their own lack of understanding,

          • Blake Allen

            Firstly, thank you for your service. I would be interested to hear your opinion on the Piston vs DI and small caliber vs big caliber debate, as well.

          • CommonSense23

            OP Rod driven ARs(piston) do nothing better than the traditional AR design. And a lot of things worse. The OP Rod driven gun is a market driven fad, from lack of understanding why the HK416 was adopted. As for small caliber vs big caliber. Use the right rounds (MK255/262/318, M855A1) and 5.56 is awesome. And the simple fact is for range, the 5.56 is more capable than 95% of its shooters.

          • Joshua

            The HK416 was oddly enough never adopted to replace the M4.

            It was a way to get a reliable 10″ gun ASAP. It took CRANE much longer to mature the Mk18 than it did for SFOD-D and DEVGRU(or whatever they’re calling themselves now) to adopt the HK416.

            However it stopped with those two. But you know this.

          • milesfortis

            “It was a way to get a reliable 10″ gun ASAP”

            Glad you’re one of the few who understand what was going on.
            BTW the Asymmetrical Warfare Group had 416s for a short while until TPTB figured out that they should carry the same weapon the troops they were training used and drew M4s

          • Joshua

            And the main contention with using the M4 was the trigger. No one liked the burst trigger setup and AWG fought to not have to use it, which is why they are all using M4A1s with Block II items now.

          • milesfortis

            Yep, Uncle finally saw the light and reversed gears away from Burst.
            I was a young 45B in the 9th ID’s main support battalion smallarms shop when the division first drew the A2. One of the first things we did was squirrel away A1 components, making sure we had a set tagged for our platoon sergeant. After that, we could do no wrong.

          • Nicks87

            No, nobody wants to hear his, mine, or anybody else’s opinion on Piston vs. DI. That horse has been beat to death.

      • Patriot Gunner

        Sweet sons of liberty! He’s got it, he’s actually got it! Someone on the internet actually gets it! “The AK47/AKM strength was its a rifle that was designed to max out its strengths while still being a easily produced rifle with the overall poor industrial capabilities of its host nation.” Couldn’t be any more right…To the Russians it was always about the numbers and the fact that they could produce them by the ton very quickly was always the priority. “There is a certain quality to quantity” Lenin (He was a douche).

      • n0truscotsman

        Your last sentence hit the nail on the head.

        Another thing to consider that weighs heavily on this debate is that the AK was conceived in a era where you had M1 Garands, M14s, FALs, and other rifles that were very material intensive and expensive to manufacture, and given the Soviet Union’s philosophy at that particular time in the 50s, the AK was an obvious choice for them.

        In a conflict that the AK was designed to fight in, it made far more sense than anything else in its time, at least until the M16 became commonplace. especially in the Russian climate

    • displacer

      “What the AK can do is run for very long periods of time without proper cleaning.”

      I hate to break it to you, but google “BCM Filthy Fourteen” and then search youtube for the phrase “sad trombone sound effect.” Have the latter ready to play when you’re done reading about the former, because the myth of having to scrub a modern quality AR spotless of fouling is pretty much baseless as well. I run boresnakes through my ARs every great once in a while and top it off by dabbing a little more red lithium wheel bearing grease onto the bolt sliding surfaces every now and then, but more than one endurance test has shown that as long as it’s lubed good AR doesn’t really need cleaned until they’re literally packed full of tens of thousands of rounds of carbon. Other tests I’ve seen show it’s not particularly sensitive to decent amounts of foreign debris either, like when the dude who runs MAC was literally dumping handfuls of dirt into his Colt 9260 and only got the trigger to eventually malfunction when something got jammed in the FCG. Debris causing a trigger malfunction is something I’ve seen happen to the AK in at least two other reliability tests, btw 🙁

  • May

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the AR is reliable in dirty environments, you coat it in gunk and as long as the bore is clear it’s gonna run. The AK is reliable with dirty ammo, you fill it with Romanian steel casers and as you don’t squib it’s gonna run. AKs were designed as cheapo guns, ARs were not. They’re both durable in their own way, take your pick which way you prefer. I’ll take an AR since I have more control over the ammo I buy than the weather conditions I’m in.

    • I gotta say, if you show me an assault rifle that wasn’t designed to be cheap, I’ll show you an assault rifle that wasn’t designed right.

      • iksnilol

        Well, ACR, anything modern from HK, MDR and what else is there?

        • Joshua

          ACR*Snickers*.

          • iksnilol

            Dude, it was the best gun ever made according to ARFcom.

          • jamesone

            If you don’t mind the .223 only and other “features” bushmaster put into it sure…. Why not.

          • Joshua

            God I remember when Magpul announced it and that stupid future weapons show talked about how everyone was replacing the M4 with it…..I watched it the other day and it was full of so much derp it hurt.

          • iksnilol

            I find Future Weapons (and of course Deadliest Warrior) to be amongst the most derpy, cringeworthy stuff out there on the airwaves.

          • Joshua

            oh lawd deadliest warrior…I honestly don’t even know what to say about that show and their judges were so serious.

        • ostiariusalpha

          The MDR, besides being a boutique gun that’s not even aiming for general issue status, is essentially a “battle rifle” (with all due apologies for using that term) that has modular features allowing intermediate cartidges, and the mags that go with them, to be used; the action itself stays the same length. I would compare it to the possibility of someone modifying an LMT MWS with a intermediate chambered barrel, magwell adaptor, and a special BCG fitting inside the normal upper receiver that works with STANAG mags. Like the MDR, and unlike the Colt 901, the gun wouldn’t change size.

        • Zachary marrs

          Of that list, only two actually have a real product you can buy right now, and of those two, only one of those actually has guns in military use

      • Ian McCollum

        Stgw 57?

        • I can’t tell if I should say Swiss rifles are excepted, or an excellent example of what I’m talking about, hahah.

          You uh, just keep gold plating those disposable forks, Switzerland…

        • ostiariusalpha

          Battle rifle! That’s a battle rifle! Ha ha, doesn’t count! j/k

  • ostiariusalpha

    One thing the AR really does not like is crap in it’s “hose,” the gas tube. If it gets immersed in water you want to give it a some time to drain out of the tube before firing, and hope there wasn’t too much silt or scum that got inside in the process. Otherwise the AR lives up to it’s initials: Awesomely Resolute.

    • Yes, but blessedly it’s difficult to get crap in the gas tube… Unless you let water get in there and freeze, yikes!

    • Joshua

      Sure, 2-4 seconds with the muzzle pointed down.

      Or you can slightly uncork the barrel to instantly clear water.

  • Tritro29

    HAHA this is a funny one though. Sealed system doesn’t allow for mud inside the action. Then some how mud debris and what not gets inside the uber action…and it fails JUST the same as the rest.

  • Joshua

    Sorry, but commonsense knows his stuff and what he says is true.

    • Tritro29

      True about what? The AK needing more maintenance than the AR? I bet you a fine bottle of French wine, that we use both our respective service rifles (if he has served) and I’m pretty sure that the amount of stuff that can go wrong with his (M4/M16) would dwarf what can go wrong with mine (74M or N). I’m also pretty sure my rifle would lose far less aptitude to perform what it is expected out of it with less maintenance, than his without the proper schedule. You see when you use a Formula One car, it’s bound to need more care than a Ford Focus. Shure the F1 car will smoke my Ford (Lada if yo want), but the input it will require would greatly surpass mine. And that’s why the AK is what it is.

      • Joshua

        He has, and honestly the M4A1 has a maintenance schedule of 10,000 rounds for preventative measures.

        Fire to destruction trials have shown parts last to nearly 15,000 rounds before things break.

        You will never fire that many rounds on a deployment, pre deployment workups however we would have to rebuild the rifles every couple of weeks due to actually using them in such a manner that seeing 10,000+ rounds every few weeks was common place.

        But please tell me what firing schedule your issued AK sees.(if you are issued an AK as your general purpose small arm)

        From what I have seen of AKs we purchased and issued out to Afghan forces I was less than impressed when they saw similar firing schedules to our M4A1s

        • Tritro29

          On the top of my head I’ve fired about 2000 rounds ( with the AKS74 (all sorts of it during a year). And I fired about 5/6000 with the AK74N2 that replaced it. If you want more examples just go and check some recent pictures of Russian radio crews in Syria. There’s a funny one when two of the guys are sporting 1979 original rifles, down to the damn muzzle brake. If we go conservative, and know what crap happens in the old country, those 74’s are probably the same since Brejnev was still alive. With at least 500 rounds fired per year for the most remote unit that makes roughly 20K rounds with no signs of alterations and deemed good enough to be given to guys that are more likely than not to use them in anger.

          • Joshua

            And there are still M16A2s in our Military that may see 200-400 rounds a year still going.

            Key is firing schedule. Huge difference in wear between 500/year and 10,000/3-4 weeks.

            From what I have seen of AKMs under a similar firing schedule to our M4A1s I was unimpressed across the board.

            Like I said the M4A1 has a required maintenance schedule of 10,000 rounds for replacement under a SOCOM pre deployment workups firing schedule.

            I have seen the maintenance schedule papers that were revised earlier this year.

          • Tritro29

            You do understand that the burden of proof here is on you two about the “fact” the AK’s maintenance (including cleaning routine) will be more important than that of the any AR system out there, because of how it isn’t precisely enough “engineered”…So you tell me excatly how the AKM hasn’t lived up to its expected standart.

          • Zachary marrs

            “Isn’t precisely enough “engineered”

            You answered your own question

          • Tritro29

            You might want to read the question again. Then pause. Then you’ll understand why the AK’s is seeming not “engineered precisely enough” for Americans.

          • Zachary marrs

            No, you answered your own question.

            The ak is crude, the production methods are crude. Combine that with wonderful quality control, and it should come as no surprise that a disposable rifle fails more often than a rifle that is designed to be issued to a group of peasants with literally no training.

          • Tritro29

            Yo you managed to list all the myths about the AK in such a synch that your latest post, deserves no answer. But, the deal is that while the AKM is crude compared to the AR (yeah you let that one out for some reason), it doesn’t mean is’s a disposable rifle. A crudely made wrench will be as useful as a laser designed one, in MOST cases. That why chinese tools still get bought for DIY stuff. Well the Soviet quality control on my own AKS didn’t let me down once, and the rifle had been shot to ‘death’ according to your wisdom. Yet that rifle is still with my former unit. 14 years while I punched out of there, and I suspect the AKS74N2 is still there from the other unit I served at. 11 years after I was let go.

            Also the level of literacy when the AKM was issued, was HIGHER in the USSR than in the USA.

          • Zachary marrs

            You must not know how QC works. A sample of 1 means absolutely nothing

            The fact is that the AK was designed to be cheap and disposable, like the mosin and ppsh before it. A conscript rifle for a conscript army.

            A crudely made wrench is still a crudely made wrench

            “Also the level of literacy when the AKM was issued, was HIGHER in the USSR than in the USA.” Aww, did you get that from Pravda?

          • Tritro29

            1. QC works on a schedule. The schedule for the AK so far has proven the GUN wasn’t exactly disposable stuff. Especially since so many of them were ironically based on a milled receiver. Actually it’s already a sample of 2…both based on AKM principle.
            2. Sure, sure…get a life, troll.
            3. A crudely made wrench is always a judgement to something else. If it does the job, that doesn’t mean anything else, that the standards of manufacturing are inferior to something else. Yet at use a crudely made wrench will make no difference for the basic task it is required to perform.
            4. Nope, I got it from the NAAL. Oh and so know, it’s still under the Russian average.

          • Zachary marrs

            Lol, whatever makes you sleep well

            But hey, your sample size is two! Impressive, to say the least.

          • Tritro29

            First you said one, now it’s two, shall I dump more facts on you or is it enough already.?

          • Zachary marrs

            You never said it was 2 in your older replies.

            “Actually it’s already a sample of 2.”

            If anyone here is a troll, it’s you.

          • Tritro29

            This demonstrated the level of literacy and your knowledge about Soviet/Russian infantry weapons. I stated that both guns I had used and (many more at most units in the Soviet army then and Russian army now) were AKS74 and AKS74N2 whic are both AKM’s on 5.45×39. A lot of things are implied for those who can read. If I were to point out all the non-sense you and your circle jerk of “Russia=Shit” this would be called the BullshitBlog, Politics and Retardation instead of the FirearmBlog. Firearms not Politics.

          • hydepark

            Can you give us an idea of a maintenance schedule list? It takes me a while to go through 1000 let alone 100000 but having parts on hand if / when things fail interests me. I assume extractor / ejector and small pins / springs? Real world armory info is cool.

          • Joshua

            Entire bolt assembly- 10K R
            Spring helical compression(buffer spring)- 10K I, 15K R
            Bolt carrier assembly+ 60K R(Inspect every 15K)
            Upper receiver and lower receiver assembly- 90 R(Inspect every 15K)
            Disconnector and spring- 30K R
            Hammer and trigger- 90K R

            Everything else is just inspection at 10K rounds and if something needs to be replaced do so, but they break so rarely its there no mandary replacement point. Then inspect at 15K if everything is still fine the next inspection point comes every 15K(30K, 45K, 60K, etc).

            That’s of course a rough post as the actual manual has a lot more data.

          • Joe Schmoe

            I would like to mention that in the IDF, I doubt any single part was ever changed on the M4A1’s since we received them. And I alone put around 20,000-30,000 rounds through it in two years. Yet, I can count on my two hands the number of malfunctions in the field that are due NOT to a magazine failure. Granted, I always oiled my gun and cleaned it when I could, but there were still weeks in the sandy field (which dries out lube like nothing else) where the M4A1 kept kicking.

            Again, this is without proper rifle maintenance I can assure you.

      • troy

        As someone who has shot and trained with both extensively, the ar15 is more reliable than the AK. The myth of AK reliability is just an extension of Soviet propaganda. Their is a huge difference in public perceptions between the west and Russia. In america for example, the ar might choke do to lack of lube or whatever. The media here grabs that one story and makes a huge scandal out of it. The government is killing our soldiers but buying $2,000 dollar toilet bowls yada yada. In Russia or the Soviet Union, if a weapon failed to function for whatever reason in war, and someone then tried to publish any negative comments about a military product, he would be censored before he opened his mouth. Any TV station that aired anything critical would get but raped by the KBG/FSB or whoever. Military sales and national pride are huge commodities there as you know well. Rumors like that could cost a lot of people money, clients, or political clout. For that reason they never see the light of day. I know plenty of people in former Warsaw countries with experience on both AK systems and newer ones. All but the oldest heads prefer the AR, 416, Tavor, whatever to the AK74. Now the light machine guns are another thing entirely, most of them love their PKM’s and heavy machine guns and loath to trade them in for western models.

        • Patriot Gunner

          Hat tip to you Troy. Most people don’t realize the impact the Soviet Union and communism had in shaping the legendary image of the AK.

        • Tritro29

          That’s some kind of superb bullshit. There are nations that had the choice to use an AK-system or an AR-system and they picked an AK system. Like the Swiss. There isn’t anything the AR system has over the AK, bar the fact it functions most of the time on a closed circuit. That makes it exceptionally well suited to SOME conditions. That also makes it a nightmare under OTHER circumstances. As with everything human designs are based on compromise, ergo trade-offs. I’ve never met anyone who spoke highly of the AR systems they were given now they’re in NATO. And FFS I was in Riga in November. And oddly enough the complain isn’t even about the system. But the bullets they fire. Go figure. And then again they love the hand-me down MAG’s they had and preffer some of its features over the PKM and the MG3’s. It’s like you’ve met the exact contradiction of those people I’ve met. Give the AK the same kind of attention to detail and the AK system (or Russian engineering for that, since this is the crux of the row here, in reality) will shine on its own right. If a weapon failed to function back in “those times”, it wouldn’t have been produced in the first place. You have a very poor understanding of the Soviet State Trials. This whole BS about KGB shutting down press and media (hint KGB was the damn media) is something that’s a figment of US psyche about totalitarianism. While in reality, there would rarely be “news” about how weapons would perform, bar saying BS about ground breaking this or that (which ironically was kinda true in retrospective). Simply put, the reports didn’t exist and were MO material only. This Blog is about fire-arms. Stick to it instead of bullshit about places you haven’t been, nor served, nor do understand. Please.

          • troy

            You might be surprised to learn that I speak fluent Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and lived in that part of the world for quiet a few years. As a Russian Soldier making about $500 a month I am sure you travel extensively in Europe and train with western soldiers and that they are very open to discussing their training and tactics with a Russian soldier during a new cold war. I never said that they talked about weapons on Commie TV. They talked about simple crap. I simply said that they would never publish negative comments about anything from the system including weapons. Same as today, you’ll never see a negative comment about the Army or equipment in Russia, its all jingoistic kill NATO BS. Ukrainian Nazi Juntas and NATO invasions. In America, the press seems to glory in criticising weapons, tactics, use of force, whatever. Hence the over played stories about the M4 being unreliable. I think the number of first class professional armies fielding the AR or variants speaks for itself. USA, Canada, New Zealand, The Dutch, England, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others. When ISIS raids an Iraqi depot, which guns do they keep? They grab the m16’s and trash the AK’s. Just open your eyes and the brain will follow.

          • Tritro29

            If you want to have an ounce of credibility, first type your own language properly. Quiet, isn’t quite. I’m not a Russian Soldier any more, since 2004. Also I don’t make 500 USD, and no Russian “soldier” makes 500 USD (especially with the RUR having smelted away). If you wanted to speak about a CO, then you could have a point, but ALAS I declined more of it.

            Also Commie TV? Man, quit while you’re ahead. I’ve been handing over armoury reports for about 18 moths to UFO-caps and I’ve been reading stuff you couldn’t imagine.

            You will hear a lot of very negative stuff about Russia, especially when you know WHERE to look for. But as you are “fluent” in Russian and Ukrainian (holy moly), you can access the thousand or so fora, blogs, pages that detail the flaws of the many follies the USSR created for its armed forces. The M4 being unreliable, isn’t a USSR hit, it’s done by the people who first used the AR-system in anger. Then it picked up from there. Funny you speak about countries like Saudi Arabia, which has as front-line rifles at least 6 actions, including AK-103 with Obzor red dot. It’s funny that ISIS is the seal of approval for “fire-arms”. No because the greater majority of ISIS weaponry is still, WarPact. Please cut the crap and stop posturing, you smell 10 miles away.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    I’m calling BS. Despite your claim that mud tests consistently show that the AR-15 is more reliable than than the AK-47, I’ve seen exactly the opposite result.

    They admitted themselves that the mud that they made for the AK was the thickest batch that they’ve ever used. In comparison, the mud used for this AR-15 looked a lot more watery. He also wiped some of the mud off of the bolt with his finger by using the excuse that he wanted to remove some rocks. Their enthusiasm throughout this video also revealed that they wanted the test to turn out this way – revealing their bias.

    If they want to conduct a more objective test then they should get a high quality AK (not the old WASR that they used) and literally bury both rifles in the same pile of mud and shoot them without wiping the mud away.

    • Tritro29

      Nothing to do with the mud, it’s got to do with the system and the design. The ak isn’t sealed, The AR “is”. This is all good until some freak stuff happens and crap gets in the bomb-proof uber AR. Then both stand at the same point.

    • Christopher Edward Penta

      They used identical mud. The same mud, in fact. They filmed them one after the other.
      The only bias showing here is from you. The AK failed miserably, and the first test of the AR (dust cover closed), was a complete and total success. As was the second.

      • A Fascist Corgi

        Even if it was the same mud, open up both videos and compare the thickness of the mud on the AK-47 and the AR-15. You’ll notice that the mud on the AK is way, way thicker than the mud on the AR-15.

    • “I’m calling BS.”

      For the second time today, I am absolutely, 100%, completely, and totally unsurprised.

      • A Fascist Corgi

        And I’m not surprised that you’re annoyed by people that are skeptical of the content that’s uploaded on this website.

        • Who said I was annoyed?

          You’re just being your usual delightful self. 🙂

    • Joshua

      Hahahaha, you do realize this and the AK was filmed in the exact same day and range sessions with the exact same mud in the exact same wheel barrel which is why he has mud on his gloves and shirt before ever doing the test with the AR.

      He also had the safety on thus the dust cover closed on the AK and wiped it off with his hand and shook it.

    • Ian McCollum

      For the record, the AR actually passed the test twice. After we filmed the regular footage, we went back and re-muddied it to film the high speed clip, and it worked perfectly that second time as well..

      • Ian, this was not news to me, either. My Colt, which I reviewed for my very first article on this site, was the subject of a similar test I performed in Texas in 2010, alongside a Zastava M70B1 that I owned at the time. Of course I didn’t document it, because it was just a bit of fooling around for me then, and I had no idea I’d become a writer.

        For folks like you and I, we’ve seen this over and over again. The AK sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t resist crap like this, but you tend to have to really work to get an AR-15 to stop running due to debris… Or literally just open the action and dump crap right onto the fire control.

        • John

          Unless you buy a bushmaster, which I did, and it misfed every 5th round or so.

          • Well, I guess don’t recommend Bushmaster, then. 🙂

      • A Fascist Corgi

        And how do we know that you didn’t put a thinner layer of mud on the AR-15 just like you did with the first test? And, again, that WASR is made up of 50+ year old surplus parts. That would be like comparing a brand new Russian AK against an M16 that was made in the 1960s.

        • nadnerbus

          It is a bad idea to invest your ego into inanimate objects.

          Step back and realize you are basically insinuating that Ian and Karl rigged the test somehow by using inferior mud on the AR or something. Instead of accepting that in at least this one test, this is how things turned out, you are arguing that incompetence and ill intent on Ian and Karl’s part is what created the outcome. That makes you look kind of desperate.

          Tim from MAC made his Galil Ace fail to fire (trigger reset) by dunking it in mud as well. If it makes you feel better, it was waterier and thinner mud.

          • And AFC is forgetting that others such as myself have done similar tests as well… With very repeatable results.

            I just think he’s not very receptive to changing his mind. 🙂

          • A Fascist Corgi

            Yeah, I’m not receptive to changing my mind. Which is why I’ve changed my political and religious views numerous times. I simply demand convincing evidence and sound arguments. You just don’t like me because I refuse to agree with you that the M4 is the greatest assault rifle that’s ever been created. I mean, I actually have the nerve to disagree with your claim that the M855A1 has superior stopping power than the 7.62×39, the 6.5 Grendel, the .308 Winchester, and the .50 BMG. I clearly lack your critical thinking skills and extensive firearm knowledge…

          • AFC, I have, over the course of my time writing here, and on my blog, written tens of thousands of words on these subjects, references tens, or possibly hundreds, of government documents describing why, exactly, things are the way I describe them. I have discussed this subject to such a degree that I’ve looked at tests, analyses of tests, and analyses of those analyses. All of these resources are available for you to read here and on my blog, just search for them (and even then, I’ve linked you to many of them).

            But these are not convincing and sound arguments to you… Even though your arguments never reference a single document, and essentially boil down to “well EVERYBODY knows…”

            So, no, I don’t take that kind of discourse terribly seriously. Go read what I’ve written. Think about it honestly, and without immediately brainstorming all the ways you just know it’s all gotta be wrong.

            You know why I’m telling you to do this? Because I used to think the AR-15 and 5.56mm sucked, too. If you’re really honestly open to changing your mind on this, then read what I’ve written. I’m not lying to you, I don’t have an agenda, and you should take seriously the fact that not only was I presented with evidence that convinced me that I was wrong about those things, but I’ve kept a record of all that evidence that you can read to your heart’s content.

            Go forth, read it all. Read every source I link. Don’t come back until you’re done and you’ve meditated on it a while.

            Ciao, buddy.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            You have an unjustified high opinion of your own content… I’ve read 95% of the stuff that you wrote and linked to me. The only thing that I didn’t fully read was one of those lengthy PDFs that I skimmed over looking for relevant or interesting information. You’re basically throwing archaic 20+ page military documents and tons of sophomoric blog posts at me and then telling me that I’m lazy and close-minded for not agreeing with your opinions – like your belief that the 5.56×45 round and the M4 assault rifle is superior to every other round and assault rifle in existence. I already made the mistake of reading one of those old military papers from the 1950s that you linked me, only to find out that it didn’t support your claims at all and instead supported mine. Why would I waste my time doing that over and over again? If you’re going to have a debate with someone, it’s not polite to dump a pile of resources onto them and then demanding that they read through all of it. It’s your responsibility to pluck the pertinent pieces of information out of your sources in order to support your arguments.

          • “your belief that the 5.56×45 round and the M4 assault rifle is superior to every other round and assault rifle in existence.”

            Hahahah, I never said that. There you go, that’s the quality of your end of this discussion.

            “It’s your responsibility to pluck the pertinent pieces of information out of your sources in order to support your arguments.”

            Which I did do.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            Yeah, this is another reason why I hate trying to debate a subject with you. You constantly cite blog entries to make a point, and then when I take issue with the point that you’re clearly trying to make, or with the points that were made in the blogs that you cited, your typical response is either “LOL. WTF? That isn’t what I was saying at all. Learn to read, idiot…” or you accuse me of not even reading the blog. A perfect example of that is that National Guardsmen who tried to puff up his military and training credentials when he was writing about his experiences with shooting at the Taliban in Afghanistan with his M14. You cited his blog post in response to my comment that combat engagements can often take place at 200+ yards, and therefore the 6.5 Grendel round is superior to the 5.56×45 round. How else am I supposed to interpret your response other than you believing that 200+ yard combat engagements rarely ever happen, or if they do happen, then the bullets that they’re shooting don’t matter because our soldiers supposedly can’t hit anything at that distance anyway.

            And in relation to the M4 rifle, almost all of the blog entries that you linked about the M4 rifle are singing its praises, saying that no rifle that’s been put up against it has beat it, it’s insanely reliable and light weight, et cetera. How else am I supposed to interpret those blog entries other than you believing that the M4 is the best assault rifle out there today?

            As to the 5.56×45 round, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you write a single bad thing about it. On the contrary, you wrote several lengthy comments to me claiming that it has superior stopping power than the 7.62×39, the 6.5 Grendel, the 7.62×51, and the .50 BMG because smaller, high-velocity bullets are more prone to tumbling than larger and heavier bullets. You were also essentially saying that the 5.56×45 round has an ideal combination of size, weight, and power that has yet to be beat by any other round. And yet you act like I’m wildly misrepresenting your positions, or that I’m too lazy to read what you actually wrote.

          • “Yeah, this is another reason why I hate trying to debate a subject with you. You constantly cite blog entries to make a point, and then when I take issue with the point that you’re clearly trying to make, or with the points that were made in the blogs that you cited, your typical response is either “LOL. WTF? That isn’t what I was saying at all. Learn to read, idiot…” or you accuse me of not even reading the blog.”

            Alright, so then where did I ever write that the 5.56mm round is the best ever? That would be a really strange thing for me to write, because I don’t actually believe that, nor have I ever. Maybe you’re conflating some things I’ve said regarding the A1-style EPR being the best general purpose military bullet design there is, but that’s not a statement about the 5.56mm caliber itself, just a statement about that bullet design.

            Or maybe you’re confused as to what I’ve said about a larger caliber being no guarantee of improved effectiveness? You seemed to have a very tough time accepting the fact that even larger rounds like .50 BMG sometimes fail to perform and produce “walk away”-type wounds. In the case of an extreme example like that, it’s rare, but it has happened. In the case of a round with the kind of energy .50 BMG has, it can have an extremely poor energy transfer and still put as much energy into a target as a perfectly 5.56mm round.

            Regardless, I have no idea why you think I said some of the things you think I said.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            Okay. I have a few questions that I’d like you to answer frankly.

            1) What in your opinion is the best general purpose assault rifle and round today?

            2) Do you agree that if the M855A1 fails to solve the widely documented stopping power problems of the 5.56×45 round, at both short and long range, then the potential of the 5.56×45 round as a general purpose assault rifle round has been exhausted?

            3) At what range do you think an infantryman should be able to effectively suppress or kill his enemy using an assault rifle?

          • 1.) For whom?

            2.) You’re asking me to make a statement that’s way too absolute for the kind of data we have. I am pretty sure that M855A1 considerably improves on the consistency of the M855 round with regards to the fleet yaw problem, because that was the whole reason it was developed.

            3.) It depends on your theory of operations and weapons mix.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            1) For the U.S. military.

            2) So, theoretically speaking, if U.S. soldiers keep complaining about the close range stopping power and long range capability of the M855A1 round, that’s still not going to convince you that maybe it’s time to switch to something like the 6.5 Grendel?

            3) Let me rephrase the question… You’ve been sent to Afghanistan and the Taliban are routinely using PK machine guns and Dragunuv sniper rifles to shoot at you from 500+ yards away. What assault rifle and round would you choose?

            4) Please answer.

          • CommonSense23

            So you have never served right? Never actually had a SCAR issued to you? Somehow think a rifle is supposed to/going be able to suppress a beltfed(particularly a Russian beltfed). Try to equate your ability to hit targets at 800yards on a range with returning fire out at 600 yards?

          • A Fascist Corgi

            No, I’ve never been in the military. But I do own a FN SCAR 17S, and it’s freakin’ amazing.

            And I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to suppress someone at long range regardless of what they’re shooting at you. You don’t even have to hit them. As long as you can land the bullets around them, then that should keep their head down and prevent them from just casually shooting at you – something I’ve seen quite often from Taliban propaganda videos.

            And I’m not saying that because I could reliably hit a target at 800 yards with my AR-15 shooting Black Hills 77 grain OTMs (the same round used by the U.S. military by the way) then that means that I’d be able to do the same thing in combat. But my way of thinking is that if I can do that at the range using a cheap scope (I was shooting pretty rapidly as well once I knew where to hold), then your average soldier should be able to return relatively accurate fire from cover at that range as well. Especially if they’re using an optic that’s utilizing the ACSS reticle – that takes almost all of the skill out of shooting at medium to long range. A caveman could effectively use that reticle to reliably hit targets at 600 yards. Give them a 6.5 Grendel round, and it becomes even easier. You also get over twice as much foot-pounds of energy at that range if you swap the 5.56×45 round out for the 6.5 Grendel. That will definitely allow you to suppress someone that’s shooting a PK machine gun at you from 600 yards away.

          • CommonSense23

            First been issued the MK17 and MK20. Know a lot about its history, and the possible Mod1s. Its got a lot of problems and never should have been adopted. There is a lot of reasons the JSOC units never adopted them, and the rangers dumped the MK16 so quick for their M4s.
            Now as for those ACSS reticles, or any BDC reticle. They have a lot of problems. One you change elevation and temp, and well its not that relevant anymore. Which plays into the whole suppression thing. Suppressive fire only really works, if you can make hits if they expose themselves. Thats they thing about the Taliban. They don’t like to be shot. Like anybody else. So they don’t expose themselves that much when they decide to ambush someone. And typically either do it from a range/angle/cover which no rifle is going to be able to do much against. Its why machine guns are needed to suppress machine guns. And considering the love the TB have for the good ole Dshk, not really anything a dismounted patrol can bring to bear. And the M4 and 5.56 is more than capable for Afghanistan. Its a matter of tactics and training, which we are failing at. Not the overall gear. If anything is subpar in terms of small arms for the military, its light machine guns, not our M4s.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            Remember when you said that I had reached the limits of my capabilities? Welp, it looks like you’ve reached the limit of your capability to come up with BS arguments in support of the M4 rifle and the 5.56×45 round now that I’ve forced you to answer very direct and simple questions.

            Since you won’t give me straight answers to my questions, I’ll answer my own questions because unlike you, I’m not afraid to state what I honestly believe…

            1) The FN SCAR is the best assault rifle in the world in my opinion. It’s extremely durable and reliable (it’s superior to the AR-15 in this regard), it’s easy to clean, it’s very easy to add accessories to, it’s easy to modify, it’s very accurate, it has a very pleasant recoil impulse (it’s actually less than the AR-15), it’s suppressor, SBR, and optics friendly (despite what you read on the internet, the stock works fine), and it’s relatively light weight compared to most other assault rifles (although the AR-15 is lighter). I even think that it looks cooler. I’d love to see FN come out with a version chambered in 6.5 Grendel since I believe that that round is the best general purpose assault rifle cartridge that has yet to be invented. But that isn’t to say that I’m 100% happy with the 6.5 Grendel round. Ideally I’d like to see a stretched out version of the 6.5 Grendel that has an overall length of about 2.5 inches. That would make the angle on the shoulder of the case less severe, make the cartridge slightly narrower and allow you to dump in a little bit more gun powder (ideally I’d like this round produce about 1,800 foot-pounds of energy out of a 16-inch barrel. That would give you superior ballistic and terminal performance while still having manageable recoil).

            2) The M855A1 is the last hope of the 5.56×45 round. If it fails to provide our soldiers with reliable stopping power at close range and the capability to suppress the Taliban at 500+ yards, then the 5.56×45 round is donezo as a suitable general purpose assault rifle cartridge.

            3) I honestly think that your average infantryman should be able to reliably engage the enemy at 800 yards with their assault rifle. Yeah, I know people will say that that’s completely ridiculous, but I simply don’t agree. I know that shooting at the range isn’t the same as combat, but I guess that I have more faith in the competency of our soldiers than most people. I can reliably nail targets over and over again at 800 yards even with my AR-15 using 77 grain OTM bullets and my 4-14X44mm Primary Arms scope (a relatively cheap $250 scope). So, I honestly think that our troops would be able to reliably suppress the Taliban at 600 yards with an FN SCAR chambered in 6.5 Grendel. If I was sent to fight in Afghanistan, I’d be perfectly happy with slapping something like a quick adjust Primary Arms 1-8x24mm scope using the ACSS (the ACSS reticle is simply amazing). But I know people will scoff at the durability and quality of a scope like that (unjustifiably in my opinion), so you can go with a 4×32 Trijicon ACOG using the ACSS reticle (the ACSS reticle will make it relatively easy to teach a soldier how to reliably hit his targets at medium to long range). I also have more faith in the 6.5 Grendel round quickly incapacitating a charging suicide bomber than the 5.56×45 round.

            4) I obviously believe that bigger and heavier bullets that produce more foot-pounds of energy will have superior stopping power than smaller and lighter bullets that produce fewer foot-pounds of energy (assuming similar bullet construction) because… well, it’s just common freaking sense. Nathaniel just can’t admit the obvious because he doesn’t want to admit that the 6.5 Grendel round has a significant advantage over his beloved 5.56×45 round.

            1-8X24mm

          • A Fascist Corgi

            I’m not “investing my ego” into the AK. I own several “modern sporting rifles” and prefer the FN SCAR over both the AR-15 and the AK-47 (although I do prefer the AK over the AR-15). I honestly believe that they tried to make the AK fail and the AR-15 pass in order to get the results that they wanted to show in their videos. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the AR-15 is genuinely more reliable than the AK for the reasons that they stated. I just don’t think that the tests that they showed in these videos were anywhere near objective and comprehensive enough in order to persuade me.

            Anywho, even if the AK is genuinely less reliable than the AR-15 when covered in mud, that still doesn’t prove that the AR-15 is more reliable than the AK overall. The AK design beat the AR-15 in a an extreme cold weather reliability test that was carried out by Alaskan state troopers back in the 1980s, and it also does better in the majority of the dust, dirt, and water torture tests that I’ve seen on the webernetz. And in my own personal shooting experience, AKs generally tend to be more reliable than AR-15s.

    • jamesone

      I believe they mentioned it was the same mud 10 min later the same day…. So yeah don’t think it was different.

  • Rick5555

    “…it’s almost as easy as building a computer,…” I’m an M.D. and I can’t build or assemble a computer. But then, I was never good when it came to electric and circuits. Oh well my, guess I’ll keep purchasing my p.c. from the local computer store.

    • I built my own computer, it’s about as tough as assembling a LEGO kit. Well, I guess you need a screwdriver, and you don’t normally need that for LEGOs.

      • Tritro29

        Do you understand that assembling and MAKING the AR, because of the “tolerances” etc, are two completely different issues? Same for the PC, assembling and making it isn’t the same. You can make a rudimentary AK (even out of a shovel), it becomes MORE complicated with the AR…

        • Trito, you know the guy who “made” the AK from a shovel just assembled a parts kit around a flat that he bent out of a shovel blade, right? I mean, that’s a cool project, for sure, but it’s not like he forged the barrel himself, cast all the fittings, etc. It’s a little more difficult to kit build an AK than it is an AR, but not by much.

          You seem to be missing my point, which is that anyone can become an AR “manufacturer” by kit building guns to whatever standard they want, meaning there’s a lot of ARs out there that aren’t what they should be to various degrees.

          • Tritro29

            Yes I know, I was merely ranting about how the preception is that the AR is a kind of Manna (you know the biblical foodstuff) that just happens. To me the level of precision needed to make an AR, should get more attention than the “building” factor, which indeed gives that false image of simplicity in manufacturing.

          • Sounds like you need to re-read what I actually wrote.

          • Tritro29

            Probably. I’m getting behind trying make people understand that one system’s trash, is the other one’s strong point.

        • Joshua

          You can’t make an AK out of a shovel. You can make the receiver, but the bolt, carrier, FCG, gas tube etc all require machines.

          • Tritro29

            Read what I replied. Once again, the mythology of the AR simplicity to build, forgets the “making” part. Which, ironically, is harder for an AR, than an AK.

    • iksnilol

      Sir, you’re a surgeon, right? So I will explain in terms you’d understand. People are connected together, y’know, leg bone to the foot bone. Computers are the same. GPU to the CPU to the power supply.

      Just get a decent build guide and you can succeed easily whether its computers or rifles (people require a more advanced manual I’d presume?).

      PS: kinda unrelated, but have you played Surgeon Simulator? And what did you think of it?

  • Well, John, you’ve proven two things:

    1. Both AR-15s and AKs malfunction sometimes (no surprise there, and no one said otherwise).

    2. You have trouble telling the difference between a mud test and a dirt test. But since you brought up MAC’s test, here’s one he did with an AR:

    He does make the AR-15 fail, after doing the exact same test he did on the AK… 3 times (he only did it once for the AK). What was the failure point? The trigger group, which, just like on the AK and any other rifle, begins to have problems when debris gets in. Guess what? Tim then opens the AR up, shakes it out, repeats the test, and it runs perfectly.

    • Joshua

      I would also argue outside of locking the bolt back, and purposely tilting the rifle so you can dump a couple of handfuls of rocky sand into the lower that it was horribly impossible to do in the field.

    • iksnilol

      I wonder if some sort of rubber sleeve over the trigger would help? I am thinking on the AK since there is an opening where the trigger goes into the receiver. Having some sort of rubber cover (with a cutout for the trigger to go through) should help.

      • Probably would help a whole lot, but you’d be making an incredibly incremental improvement.

        • iksnilol

          Yeah, but it wouldn’t cost much. I mean, take a thin piece of bike tire (inner tire), cut a tiny hole for the trigger, and attach.

          Would be a cheap mod. Or if you want to be ghetto, wrap a rubber glove around the receiver 😛

    • John

      My point was that dirt/dust tests are more realistic, especially in the current theaters of war they find themselves in. That is what you’re probably going to encounter way more than thick, sticky, course (man made) mud that your rifle gets totally submerged in, which is also kind of unrealistic seeing as how a mud drop doesn’t automatically mean mud gets into your action/trigger group or even lands on the action side of the rifle. They intentionally BURY the action. Not very realistic situation in the vast majority of drops, probably.

      Anyways, all of this is silly. The AK has proven itself for decades on every battlefield you can possibly think of. It has reliably killed untold amounts of people. It is a reliable rifle I would trust my life with.

      • Well, to paraphrase SMSgt Mac, if you get the Army to buy the best-darn-dust-proof-rifle-that-ever-t’was, you can bet they’ll spend the next twenty years worried about it corroding in a jungle someplace.

        As for your last paragraph, of course. The fact that so many people see this as an implicit attack on the AK (when it’s actually just a sharing of data that everyone can learn from) is disappointing, but not really unexpected.

  • Don Ward

    Of course the AK is going to jam. They are using freedom loving American dirt to make the mud. Next time import genuine Mother Russia soil that has been fertilized by the blood of countless Fascist invaders to make your mud!!!

  • John

    What really surprised me was watching him throw his rifle on the ground.

    Way to promote responsibility, idiot.

    • Joshua

      It was empty who cares.

      • iksnilol

        On deployment on the space shuttle (proud space shuttle gunner here 😛 ) we carried about 5 cut down M4s (with tactical 45 round mags). When empty we’d just throw them away since the ARs were so unreliable and clumsy that it wasn’t worth the bother with reloading.

        This is all true BTW, I am a moderator on ARFcom after all.

      • Phil Hsueh

        You do that in the Corps and you’d be pushing, empty or not.

        • milesfortis

          Not just in the Corps. In Big Green it was “Get on down with it.”

  • Don Ward

    See. This is why I use FIREClean as a lubricant for all of my assault weapons. It burns away the mud with each pull of the trigger!

    • nadnerbus

      It also produces superior MRE stir fry.

      • n0truscotsman

        Gah! hahaha

        Never gets old

    • Core

      I only use Non GMO FireClean, my doctor said the GMO stuff might make my barrel fall off..

  • NewMan

    This video/test doesn’t prove or disprove anything, considering there are tons other out there that show that the AK has superior reliability in harsh condition and many decades of combat prove this as well.

    • 624A24

      Fanboism.

    • Ceiling Cat

      You must be assblasted. So many retards who love slavshits blindly in the American gun community.

    • CommonSense23

      What superior reliability? Where is this factually documented reliability? How many AKs have you recovered off the battlefield.

      • No, but, CS, there was that one guy, in Vietnam, who dug up an AK that was buried, then he fired a full magazine, or something? I don’t remember it very well, but it totally happened! Afterwards, I heard he threatened to kill his sergeant and got to keep using it instead of his garbage mattel toy M16, too!

        • RawDawg

          Comparing an AK to a Vietnam era M-16 is pretty cheap.

  • Blake Allen

    Piston driven systems have proven to be more durable than DI, just saying. Key word “durable”.

    • Zachary marrs

      No, go ask battlefield las vegas

      • Blake Allen

        Battlefield Las Vegas is not a reliable source, period. That’s where hooligans who have never shot a gun go and get some full auto trigger time. While they only carry one piston driven AR (the 416 actually), they have plenty of other piston driven system like the AUG, SCAR, and other such guns. Their claim that piston guns aren’t reliable enough for them is simply due to the nature of their business, letting a bunch of idiots shoot their guns. Also, I’ve heard that Battlefield is quite spotty on the care they give towards their firearms.

        • Zachary marrs

          Lol. Ok.

        • Zachary marrs

          Also, they carry a knock off 416 because it lasted longer than their real one

    • Nicks87

      No, they are actually more fragile. More parts = more things that could break, bend or bind up.

      • Blake Allen

        In theory yes, but when was the last time any of us have heard of a quality piston system snapping or breaking the op-rod? I guess that a short stroke system could theoretically break, but not a long stroke system, it’s all one piece with no springs.

        • Joshua

          It happens to a lot of the op rod systems that have been tested, not all but a lot are sub par in quality.

          • Blake Allen

            Agreed, but since we are talking about quality DI guns i think it’s only fair to include quality Piston ones in the debate. 🙂

          • Joshua

            Not really, BCM is basically a rack grade AR(which there is nothing wrong with this).

            It’s not like were taking KAC SR-16’s which would honestly be more inline with the HK416 in the government price range and would easily outperform the HK416 across the board, considering it has been getting outperformed by guns like the LMT MRP16 and CQB-R’s.

            The SR-16 is the only gun I’ve seen tested that could outperform the M4A1’s we were issued.

          • Blake Allen

            When I talk about piston ARs, i’m not referring to the 416. That thing is old, outdated, and outclasses by the new piston rifles. I find it quite ironic that just how M14 fans resisted the new M16, so to are DI fans resisting the idea of piston ARs being superior. 🙂

          • CommonSense23

            You realize the idea of a pistol AR isn’t anything new right. Been around for decades.

          • Blake Allen

            Maybe 2 decades, if even that.

          • CommonSense23

            For your “piston” ARs your might want to try more like 5 decades.

          • Blake Allen

            I’m not trying to come across as ignorant here, but I would very much like to see a picture of such a commercially/militarily successful design. I know Colt experimented with a piston variant called the 703 in the late 60’s, I think it was 69.

          • Mark

            Colt 703 1969 – piston ARs have been around for a long, long time. The Rhino kits were the first DIY piston systems but Colt was experimenting with piston ARs for at least 45 years. YMMV

          • Oprod AR-15s are neither new, nor superior.

          • Joshua

            Please tell me what op rod AR beats the HK416?

            No one is resisting op rod AR’s. They get tested often when new ones come out.

            So far the only one capable of competing with the current M4A1 as issued by SOCOM is the HK416.

            No one has developed a op rod AR superior to either of those rifles.

          • Blake Allen

            An LWRC, Huldra, PWS, Ruger, LMT, etc…the 416 ins’t special anymore. It was only special because it pioneered the way for new piston driven ARs. Newer piston system are not only just as durable, but they are also lighter than the 416. If i’m not mistaken, there were complaints about the 416 being overly muzzle heavy. Hell, the MR556 I shot felt like a literal tank up front, as compared to an AR with a simple Osprey Defense conversion kit.

          • Joshua

            I take it you don’t base any of your information on fact and mostly on internet heresay right?

            Also you do realize LMT recently won the New Zealand contract to replace the AUG and guess what they submitted? I’ll tell you… Instead of submitting their op rod MRP they chose DI…and it won beating out 7 other piston guns.

          • Blake Allen

            Correction, the exact model they chose has yet to be revealed. And i’m basing that off of TFB and RECOIL’s articles on this topic. The latter said it could very well be the MRP. As for a possible reason why New Zealand choose the LMT could possibly be due to the fact that they currently use their .308 rifles as DMRs. Maybe the whole “I’ve bought your product before, i know it works” thing may play a part. In addition, Colt submitted what could possibly be a DI gun. Maybe you should check your facts first next time.

          • We know which gun it is, and it’s a DI model.

          • Blake Allen

            I stand corrected.

          • CommonSense23

            Do not use Recoil as a source.

    • CommonSense23

      Where has that been proven?

      • Blake Allen

        LWRC has produced piston ARs that leave DI guns in the dust. Their piston guns can fire twice as many rounds before parts need replaced.

        • CommonSense23

          Yeah ,where are you getting that info from?

        • Which is why they’re now producing DI guns, right…

          (Note that’s not a budget model, either, it’s a $1600 rifle, which is comparable to some of their piston offerings. But I guess DI just sucks, right?)

          • Blake Allen

            I would venture to say that they are simply expanding their products line up to appeal to more buyers. I don’t believe DI sucks, it obviously works and it works well. I just believe that piston does everything a DI does, but it has added benefits.

          • n0truscotsman

            You did it, you evil, evil man.

            I knew you would use that as ammunition for an argument later. You have no idea how patient I have been waiting for it to be used 😉

  • Joshua

    This is a direct quote from Mike Pannone.

    The goal was to dispel the popular myth that even small amounts of sand make the rifles malfunction. I carried this platform for years and the conventional wisdom as passed on institutionally was that very sentiment. It was one of the two biggest reasons for the advent of the piston design, the first being JSOC adopted one in an SBR format and it was a fallacy.

    So op rod AR’s being superior to the M4 was a Fallacy according to Mike…if you don’t know Mike was SFOD-D, then trained AWG till he got injured breaching a room.

    Also if you didn’t know

    fal·la·cy

    ˈfaləsē/

    noun

    a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

    “the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy”

    synonyms:misconception, misbelief, delusion, mistaken impression, error,misapprehension, misinterpretation, misconstruction, mistake; More

    LOGIC

    a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

    faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.

    “the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem”

    So you told me to ask a SME, and I just gave you a quote of one saying op rods improving function over the “DI” is a fallacy.

    • CommonSense23

      You ever notice that is is always the most flashy/loud/obnoxious guys who get the most attention. While guys like Pannone get ignored by the masses.

  • DW

    If sealing is the name of the game, can someone do FS2000 mudtest? Gaskets, ejection port cover and all.

    • 1911a145acp

      I can tell you an FS2000 won’t work from the get go and WHEN it gags you will need five minutes with the owners manual, a YouTube tutorial running, a flashlight and 3 hands to find out how to get the DAMN thing OPEN and peer around inside to see what the F^*K is going on in there!

      • ostiariusalpha

        Or you could just push the super obvious take-down pin to it’s “out” position, slide the barrel assembly forward, clear your malfunction, and then reassemble. It’s not exactly on the AR level of stupid simple, but neither is it exactly a challenge if you aren’t completely uncoordinated or mechanically inept. The FS2000 runs like a top as long as you’ve done the bare minimum to maintain it (sound familiar?), and you give it the magazines it likes. The feed lips have to be where they’re supposed to be (no funny angles) and any followers that are not anti-tilt are seriously not recommended. As for the mud, that would be an interesting test of what the gun is capable of in the real world, instead of the rather cynical guesswork of some frustrated guy that couldn’t get one particular firearm to work as problem-free as he felt he was entitled.

  • S N P

    But can you run a ham sandwich through a AR? Checkmate huehue

    • Realist

      Yes, yes you can…so long as you have mayo on that sammich. Mayo is some good lube…

  • CommonSense23

    What truth?

    • John

      It is an obvious proven platform that is reliable.

  • n0truscotsman
  • Joshua

    Please keep using the Dailycaller as a source, it let’s us know you are so far out of your lane your driving into oncoming traffic.

  • NewMan

    get back to me when you actually watched the OTB test. The test even show the 416 shot when almost full submerged under water with the muzzle pointed up. You are another example of some nobody on the net

    So far no one here has provided any factual data where the DI outperformed the 416 – simple, because there’ no such data.

  • RawDawg

    Been saying it for years. Those who know, know: the AR platform is the current top dawg of rifles.

  • Cogsie

    From what I understand the Australian and New Zealand armies found this out in the 80s when they were looking for a gun to replace their FALs, the only reason why they didn’t adopt the AR15 at the time is because they couldn’t get a license to manufacture it and went with the AUG instead.