The Glock 19 Undergoes The InRange Mud Test – 1 Round Fired

Over the last few months, InRange TV has found a successful niche of testing various firearms under their internal “Mud Test” for various classic and modern firearms. While not perfectly representative of the various military standards (their mud is “goopier”), the tests are the normal InRange combination of entertainment and learning.

Latest to the fore is the ubiquitous and venerable Glock 19 compact 9mm handgun. Often touted as the most reliable firearm in production, the Glock 19 is put to the test… where it only gets off a single round before the weapon fails to go into battery.

Now, before the fanboys get all righteously indignant, the results of the Glock 19 is common for this test across all handguns that use a barrel locked breech. The mud that InRange TV uses is homemade in Arizona and outside of being more liquid than various standards, it’s also far more gritty – meaning much harder for the action to clear out of itself.

However, most other weapons have been able to get back up and running through remedial action and further troubleshooting. In this particular media, the Glock was unable to get back up and running even with some water-based assistance…

Perfection? Perhaps not – especially when a Hi-Point beat it in a similar test.



Frank.K

TFB’s FNG. Completely irreverent of all things marketing but a passionate lover of new ideas and old ones well executed. Enjoys musing on all things firearms, shooting 3-gun, and attempting to be both tacticool AND tactical.


Advertisement

  • BattleshipGrey

    Note to self: cancel plans to operate in mud.

    • Giolli Joker

      Operate with Hi-point and a bottle of water.

      • Dougscamo

        Any tactical water? Or do you have a favorite?

        • A.WChuck

          Russian water only, because Spetsnaz drink it.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Spetsnaz also train soldiers to eat frogs and worms

          • Flounder

            And the army doesn’t? That is just the LT’s having fun with their privates.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No. Just the Spetsnaz

            In the past, not so distant, there was also the practice of using “dummies” to teach them hand-to-hand fighting. Some criminals acted as sparring partners. No rules

          • oldman

            So do the French the difference is in France you can order them in restraints.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You can order live worms in French restaurants?

          • oldman

            In France you can even order snails eggs granted these things are not common but can be found.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You can order a cat in China and a human head in Nigeria

          • Uniform223

            US Army Special Forces learn to eat ants, grubs, snakes (hence the name snake eater) and and survive off the land. Most if not all special forces units in the world learn wilderness survival techniques. What is your point?

          • valorius

            Anyone that goes to JOTC gets to eat bugs.

          • Uniform223

            You don’t need a special course to eat bugs, you can go into your backyard and do that yourself. The real trick is knowing what bugs to eat.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Spetsnaz eat worms alive

          • Uniform223

            Yeah kids do that too…
            Good source of protein. What’s your point?

          • Sermon 7.62

            US soldiers are addicted to peanuts and fast food.

          • Uniform223

            and alcohol… and caffeine… and nicotine… and porn…
            what point are you trying to make?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Thats the point.

            Being addicted to peanuts, alcohol, caffeine, pornographic pictures in a situation such as being deprived of peanuts, alcohol and pornographic pictures for a couple of months the frustration is going to make US soldiers lose their spirit and surrender.

          • Uniform223

            Lmao!

    • Major Tom

      Then plan to never operate anywhere. Mud is a universal fact of life, even in dry climates it can happen.

      • john huscio

        Then the AK is a poor option because it failed this test as well.

        • Major Tom

          Which was funny because they worked well in conditions where AR’s fail. For example the moist climates and mud of Vietnam.

          Arizona mud might be the one place on Earth where AR > AK in terms of reliability.

          • Vitor Roma

            The M16A1 used in Vietnam wouldn’t do well anywhere, since the ammo used had out of spec powder.

          • Major Tom

            The A2 didn’t like Afghanistan’s “moon dust” or the chronic sandy conditions of Iraq.

            Meanwhile the AK worked and continues to work in those places without issue. (Other than their users being bleeding idiots.)

          • Joshua

            Got some proof there? I’ve spent half my life it seems in Iraq/Afghanistan and I’ve never seen these failures you speak of?

            Only time we had issues with such things was early 2002 coming off the Clinton regime. Back when we didn’t have the budget to maintain guns and instead deployed with M4s that already had 9,000+ rounds on them without proper parts replacements, you know because Clinton shredded our budget.

          • Major Tom

            We didn’t go to Afghanistan with M4s. At least outside of SF units anyways. Regular line infantry both Army and Marines went there in 2001 and 2002 with the M16A2.

          • Joshua

            Well I went there with a M4A1.

            Should tell you enough.

            Again the Army faced the same budget constraints…actually worse than we did.

            At the start of the war practically everyone was deploying with old worn out guns.

            The name of the game was replace broken parts when they break, and only when they break.

            It wasn’t uncommon to see guns with springs that had 15,000+ rounds on them because they weren’t broken, even though they only kinda sorta worked.

            The Clinton years were not good to our forces and going straight into a war exasperated the issues because everyone was deploying with worn out guns.

          • Major Tom

            It tells me you either went there recently or were SF. (You don’t sound like SF types. Just sayin)

          • Joshua

            I’m a weird guy in that way.

            I try to keep my replies as easy to read by the masses as possible.

            Keeps me from having to make 20 extra posts to explain what I mean.

          • Sermon 7.62

            He is a team leader in the Internet Special Forces troll squad

          • valorius

            A2s are extremely reliable, until soldiers douse them in breakfree.

          • int19h

            Dust is a very different problem, though (and InRange guys actually talk about that in the video).

            The problem with dust is that it’s fine, and so it finds a way even around covers. Once it’s in the receiver, it doesn’t take much to jam the action, or at least adversely affect cycle reliability, for the AR, because of tight tolerances and general lack of space for the dust to get out of the way of the action.

            In comparison, with mud, it’s all about how tightly the receiver is closed. AK fails this test because its loose tolerances mean that mud rapidly accumulates – especially so with the safety level off, because of that huge gap – to the point where it fills even the spacious AK receiver; and, of course, clay is also harder for the action to shove out of the way than dust.

            AR does better with mud, because the dust cover actually protects it pretty well; and even with it opened, there’s not much space between the walls of the receiver and the bolt carrier for it to flow past. So you get water inside, but not much clay.

            OTOH, AK does better with dust, because the fact that receiver is more open than AR doesn’t matter as much – it’ll get inside anyway. But there’s plenty of room inside for the dust to be shoved away from the action – and the overgassed action and the heavy bolt & carrier with some extra impulse help with that.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Because the test was stupid and biased and designed to fail an AK. Put that M4 into the mud along with the barrel and see what happens.

            Plus, in the nature mud is found in mudholes, so drop it into a mudhole!

          • Joshua

            Government has done that countless times.

            The M4 has always passed.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Has passed a stupid test like that one?
            Amazing

          • Joshua

            Yeah.

            Fully submerged for one minute into concrete like mud.

            The M4 does exceptionally well in mud.

          • Sermon 7.62

            If the muzzle is taped. Yeah

          • Joshua

            I’ll ask again have you ever been in the military? Seen combat?

          • Uniform223

            He’s only seen combat in CoD video games and what RT/Sputnik news shows him regarding Russian Small arms. Next he’ll tell us the PAKFA is primed and ready for service and can fly in space because of an article he read on Sputnik “news” and that the T-14 is not a copy off of the M1 TTB.

          • int19h

            Google “Olgino troll” for the most likely background of this gentleman.

          • Joshua

            Mostly due to ammunition and cost cutting features of no cleaning kits, and bare steel chamber/bore rusting up.

          • oldman

            That was because they were issued with out cleaning kits and uncoromed chambers hand boars. They have preformed exceptionally well since they corrected those flaws. Oh and I am not a fanboy of the AR family of rifles I have a dislike of DI but admit it has stood the test of time.

          • valorius

            The M16 initially had teething issues in vietnam but worked great once they were ironed out.

  • Petto

    That is cool and all but what is the actual real life chance to fight in the mud like cement?
    well like 1% – I am not saying this because of Glock but rather all guns in general

    • Petto

      for that reason , i take these mud tests as a entertainment than anyhing else

      • sauerquint

        I always view them as “take better care of your stuff”. Tactifools are a unique brand of fool, though.

        • pun&gun

          With all these reliability trials on YouTube lately, the TacTards will soon begin carrying lots of single-shot derringers instead of a semi-automatic pistol. No way THOSE can get the actions jammed; just New York reload after every shot!

          • QuadGMoto

            Unless you fall in mud and get that stuff glued between the hammer and firing pin. Then you’re hosed until your guns are hosed. 😜

      • Joshua

        US Army mud tests are worse.

    • Flounder

      The mud test is a test where the guns are supposed to fail. That is the point.

      The sample size is just one gun. And Ian is just doing it for fun! and entertainment. Not a single gun has made it through “flawlessly” all though some have “passed”. I think passing is if they can get through 10-15 rounds even being manipulated by hand.

      It’s a lot like the sand tornado tests on AKOU. The guns are supposed to fail. If they don’t it is an exception thing. And pretty good entertainment either way!

  • TDog

    Can’t wait until folks decide to put guns through a REAL TEST! That’s right: encasing them in concrete and seeing if they’ll fire then! Because all real spec op delta green seal operators know that in a firefight they may find themselves encased completely in solid concrete!!!!

    • sauerquint

      Did you ever see that “Remo Williams” movie in the mid 80s?

      • TDog

        Heck yeah! I’m no communist! 😀

  • Raginzerker

    Muh Glock tho…. *cries under Oakleys*

    • Marc

      I didn’t even watch the video. I just came here for the Glock is great/sucks entertainment. It’s almost as amusing as the caliber fan-bwais.

      • Raginzerker

        Yeah some people love their glocks a little TOO much

  • mig1nc

    Hi-Point Perfection.

    • Jon Fox

      I counter your Hi Point with a PO8 Luger that did the best in the mud test with 100 percent reliability ’cause Austrian design and German manufacturing FTW!!!

      • roguetechie

        And leverage…

        Say what you want about the funky luger action, but it was designed to work at a time when the BEST pistol ammunition was still a nightmare of inconsistency compared to pretty much everything you can buy or load at home today.

    • int19h

      Seriously, though, did they test Hi-Point?

      • mig1nc

        I was mostly joking, but yeah. It’s on YouTube. If you click on the video like above, click into their channel, and search the channel for the keyword “point” it will show up as the first hit.

  • Bill

    Any device can be made to fail given sufficient cause.

  • Gaston

    Do yourself a favor: buy a Hi-Point.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    I wonder how it would fare in a pool filled with jello?

    • wetcorps

      MattV2099 tested it. The video is out there, just search for “jello glock”.

      • QuadGMoto

        That’s not a proper “pool filled with jello” test. The Glock and the shooter must both be in the jello as the gun is fired. 😜

        • Phillip Cooper

          Kinky.

  • felix

    Yep, sorry NEIN

  • wetcorps

    Those InRange must test might be questionable firearm-wise, but they do an excelent job as sociology experiments about various cognitive bias. The way people attach themselves to particular guns and the efforts they do to defend them is amazing.

    • Joshua

      How is it questionable?

      Army testing requires guns be submerged for 1 minute into a mud mixture of red clay, silcosil sand, and water.

      • Sermon 7.62

        Does it have to be submerged with the barrel, or just the receiver like these dudes did with AR to proove it’s more reliable than AK?
        🙂

        Mud like that doesn’t exist in nature

        • ExMachina1

          Thousands of men literally drowned in mud in WW1

          • Sermon 7.62

            Exceptional case

        • Joshua

          Yes.
          Muzzle taped, round chambered, magazine inserted.

          Completely submerged for one minute.

          I know your trying to be cool and start crap, but you should realize the M4 has never failed the government mud testing.

          I can’t say the same for the countless tests the AK has been in as a comparison sample.

          If you have the clearance…which lets be honest, you don’t, you could get that data…but you can’t.

          “Make a mixture of 4.5 kg (10 lb) of montmorillonite clay, 1 kg (2.2 lb) of
          SIL-CO-SIL 125 as used in the Sand and Dust test (para 4.5.4), and about 45.51 (48 qt) of water.
          The amount of water to be added to the sand and clay mixture will vary with the moisture
          content of these components. The water content will be limited to the quantity producing a mud
          viscosity of 4600 + 200 centipoises as determined with a Brookfield viscometer. The
          measurement conditions are as shown in the following table.”

          • Sermon 7.62

            Muzzle taped, round chambered, magazine inserted?

            That’s the point, man. If round isn’t chambered, muzzle not taped the rifle is going to fail

          • Joshua

            Every rifle fails with an obstructed bore.

            Even your precious, beloved, perfect Russian AK.

            Guns blow up when a bore is blocked.

            The purpose of mud tests is to see how the mechanics of the rifle functions when muddy, the AK fails spectacularly at this.

            Like i said, if you had clearance all this data is there.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Nope. AK can shoot submerged in water. Barrel full of water

          • Joshua

            So can the AR. It’s about equal internal and external pressures.

            Underwater and the pressures are equalized.

          • Sermon 7.62

            There is that HK vs M4 test. Must be some Russian propaganda 🙂

          • Joshua

            That’s actually a good video. Better when you understand it.

            I’ll explain this for those here who want to learn.

            The government found that water obturates inside the bore when a bore is under .246″(or close to that) in diameter.

            Above that and the water cannot create a blockage.

            So in small bore guns, the water obturates and creates a blockage.

            In the case of the 416 vs M4 there was a few key things in this test.

            The 416 used had a 10″ barrel.
            This is important because we found during the SCAR trials that a 10″ and shorter small caliber bore, does not have long enough surface area to allow pressure to build to catastrophic levels to cause a KB, before the bullet can push the water out.

            This was seen with the FN SCAR as it failed the initial OTB test with a 14″ barrel, however immediately passed with a 10″ barrel.

            Second the 416 used was a 10″ OTB variant.

            This means it had a few key changes to further enhance it.

            First it had a heavy bull barrel to withstand internal bore pressures and not bulge the barrel.

            Second, it had a OTB chamber face, this means the chamber face chamfer was removed and instead it was flat. This is leads to reduced reliability, but greatly enhanced cartridge case support at the base.

            Third, it featured the OTB extractor support lug built into the barrel extension that keep the extractor from lifting prior to extraction.

            Lastly, it has the OTB buffer tube, which had 9 extra holes drained into it for water to drain.

            I want to point this out, a 14.5″ standard HK416 will not pass a OTB test.

            It requires all OTB features to reliably pass such a test.

            Anyways back to the 416 vs M4 OTB test.

            The M4 lacked any OTB features(which are required to make a 14.5″ small caliber bored gun to fire with a water obturated in the bore), it also had the 14.5″ barrel.

            In reality the 416 vs M4 video was a great example of apples to oranges propoganda to drive a narrative.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You forgot to mention that there is no M4 with OTB features, that SCAR is not a DI gun and that standard AK-74 has all of that as standard, meaning beats both HK416 and M4

          • Joshua

            There’s no issued M4 with OTB features.

            The price was found to not be worth the incredibly small and incredibly situational use of OTB features.

            You have to remember, OTB features in the 416 reduce feeding and extraction reliability, and a reduction in reliability was also found in the M4A1 with OTB features. Not worth the cons of it.

            I think you would be amazed at what the government gets created to test.

            I also didn’t think I needed to specify the SCAR used a piston…I thought that was common knowledge.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are missing the point, man
            You need both piston and OTB features for a rifle to be that much reliable, and the rifle that has it all is AK

          • Joshua

            OTB features reduce the reliability of the 416.

            A piston is not needed as I’ve seen a M4A1 modified with OTB features using DI pass OTB tests.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Right. Muzzle taped 🙂

          • valorius

            Seems to me like youve completely changed the subject to a water test, when the fact is the AK failed the mud test miserably.

          • Sermon 7.62

            AK’s are tested in a dust chumber, that simulates the sand storm conditions. Next it is taken to the shower box, still in dust, and is sprinkled for 3 hours and after that it is put into the freezer.

            M4 doesn’t pass this test

          • valorius

            InRange set up in sand and blew sand directly into the action as the weapon was firing with compressed air. The AR passed the test with flying colors. The AK fell flat on it’s face.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Because sand doesn’t blow into the action with compressed air in the natural conditions. Just as mud doesn’t get mixed into gel and rifles don’t fall into mudholes with barrels up.

            Make a realistic test

          • valorius

            In a sandstorm sand can absolutely blown into the action of a firearm as it operates.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Like in the dust chamber?

          • Nicks87

            Are you talking about the drain holes? I’m pretty sure issued M4s have drain holes, you just have to pull back the charging handle slightly in order to break the seal that may have developed when the rifle was submerged and the weapon will drain and be safe to fire. I’ve been out of the military for more than 10 years so I’m not 100% sure but I remember hearing that somewhere.

          • Joshua

            The 416 buffer tube has 3 drain holes in the rear and one drain hole in every stock position.

            You are correct, however OTB testing requires pulling the rifle out of the water and firing immediately with no drain time.

          • Major Tom

            But only once. (AR’s are the same way. Fire once underwater but only once.)

          • Sermon 7.62

            No. AK can shoot once submerged in water, but can shoot as usual picked up out of water. AR can shoot once and fail

          • Major Tom

            I’m referring to strictly remaining underwater.

            Although when removed from water you’re right the AK does recover much quicker with little or no fuss.

          • Joshua

            It’s because of bore diameter.

          • Sermon 7.62

            That’s right.
            And that is how it happens in a real situation

          • Joshua

            You realize it is entirely due to bore diameter.

            Again the government has countless tests on the subject of bore diameter and water obturation, and at what diameter water does not obturate inside a bore.

            The AR-10 can be fired fresh out of the water with a bore full of water just fyi.

          • Sermon 7.62

            It’s not because of the bore diameter. AK-74 does it, and HK added OTB features to the 416 and it does it, too. Because it depends on, first of all, the piston and also on the OTB features (holes to vent the pressure out of the rifle)

          • Joshua

            Piston has nothing to do with it.

            Your extreme lack of knowledge is astounding.

            I’ve seen a 14.5″ M4A1 with identical OTB features(setup for testing purposes) pass the same tests as the 416.

            Just like how a base 14.5″ 416 will explode without it’s OTB features.

            Just like how the 14″ SCAR-L failed the OTB portion.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Just like an AK passes this test, regardless of the model. It’s about the piston, too since if the water gets into the gas tube M4 is going to fail

          • Joshua

            To go a bit farther into detail on that.

            I believe the rain tests on the AR 15 back in the 40s/50s it was, found that bores above .246(or close to that) did not retain water in them allowing for the gun to be fired because water drained immediately.

            This applies to the AK 47 with it’s 7.62 round.

            Same thing for the AR-10.

            The issue is once you go below .246 bore diameter water obturates inside the bore and cannot drain without some external force, such as uncorking the bore.

            This applies to the AK-74 and AR-15.

          • Uniform223

            why would you do that and what does it prove?

          • Sermon 7.62

            If you dropped your rifle into a mudhole you can pick it up and use it.

          • Uniform223

            First off if a soldier/marine purposely drops their weapon in said mudhole, that soldier/marine is an idiot. Second most weapons often encounter sand, dust, and small debris. Rarely if ever large clumps of thick or runny mud. These “tests” provide little if any real insight into a weapons inherent reliability. They are simply used for entertainment (in my book). Any debris that gets into the chamber or barrel will cause catastrophic failure to any weapon… (sprinkling of sarcasm) even the much over rated, inaccurate, low engineering precision, heavy, and outdated peasent weapon known more popularly as the AK (type) Rifle.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Last time I checked AKS-74 was lighter than M4, just as accurate and could use all the same accessories. It is a much more reliable gun on top of all that

          • Uniform223

            Last I checked an M4A1 with a 10.5 inch barrel pushes a little over 6lbs unloaded and is very much reliable…

            what point are you trying to make? Did you Kremlin handlers give you that 1 rubel pay raise yet?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Right, 10.5 inch barrel is so good 🙂

            You know, AKS-74U also has a short barrel. In fact, it has a shorter barrel, 8 inches and pushes a little under 6 lbs and is so much more reliable. But lets not get distracted from the main topic.

          • Uniform223

            “is so much more reliable. ”

            > ROFLMAO

          • Sermon 7.62

            So much more reliable. Because as we know, of all mil-spec standard issue rifles M4 is the least reliable, and AK is the most

          • Uniform223

            You should really do stand up comedy. Seriously my sides are hurting and my eyes are watery from all the laughing I’ve been doing.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I suggest seeing a shrink

          • 8166PC1

            If the AK fails spectacularly then why does it work fine in these two mud tests? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBK2jY93IEs&t=247s

          • Joshua

            Because they were not submerged entirely in mud for a minute?

            Usually when the AK is put through government mud tests the entire inside is completely filled with mud.

            Also since government standard mud…yeah I just said that…is thick it doesn’t move well so it just stays in the receiver.

          • 8166PC1

            The Inrange video of the AR15 wasn’t completely submerged in mud either yet you tout that example for the AR15.

          • Joshua

            I’ve also said about a dozen times in this thread I’ve seen the M4 pass government mud tests over and over again.

          • 8166PC1

            Okay high speed tactical operator

          • Joshua

            Going by your post history, your attempt at an insult is laughable.

          • valorius

            Soldiers have been known to put a condom over their bore in really rainy or muddy conditions my friend.

          • int19h

            In fact, there’s a standard issue rigid plastic barrel cap for AR (just the right size to completely cover the standard A2 flash hider with a snug fit). It’s officially “cap, dust, black, for M16/M4 series rifle”, but it works just fine to guard against water in rapid submerging, rain etc.

            I’m not sure if they’re actually issued in the field these days, though. But they can be had from Amazon 🙂

          • valorius

            We never had ’em. We had plenty of condoms though. 😀

          • int19h

            “This is for fighting, this is for fun”?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Yes. I know 🙂

        • Joshua

          Also in range didn’t fully submerged either the AK or the AR. They only covered the receiver in both.

          • Sermon 7.62

            That’s the point
            Rifles don’t fall into mudholes with their barrels sticking out of it.

          • Joshua

            Have you ever been in the military? Been to war?

            There’s more than one way to get mud on your gun.

            Also like I said, even completely submerged the M4 has always passed government mud tests.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Taped muzzle is not acceptable in the Russian test

          • Joshua

            You ever been in the military? Seen war?

          • valorius

            Since when?

          • Sermon 7.62

            A long time ago

        • 8166PC1

          They didn’t prove anything because here’s a video of the AK have mud dipped on it and working fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBK2jY93IEs&t=247s

        • valorius

          Awww sounds like someone is upset that the AR performed far better than any model of AK tested. 😀

          • Sermon 7.62

            That test is good to gather troll comments

    • ExMachina1

      Only questionable thing for me is that they are doing a sample size of 1 on every gun. Beyond that, while that degree of mud might not be likely in the real world, they are at least comparing apples-to-apples when it comes to treating every gun the same. Take home message–sealed actions are better.

    • 8166PC1

      I think these tests are overated and people draw false conclusions about the firearms from these unscientific tests. For example, you can find plenty of videos of Glocks working dipped in mud on youtube.

  • DW

    Guns yet to fail on Mudtest: AR15, Winchester Model 1895, Luger 9mm

    • J.T.

      The Luger really surprised me. I had always heard that they weren’t reliable when dirty.

      • DW

        I’d guess by “dirty” It meant “dirty with fired powder residue” or “poorly maintained”
        Actually, Luger has bigger problems that overshadowed reliability: Safety. It can fire when dropped, and is advised to not carry with a round in the chamber.

  • Saint Stephen the Obvious

    On the Highpoint he bumps the slide with the palm of his hand to get it into battery but not with the glock.

    With that said I will never buy HP.

    • QuadGMoto

      Actually, he did. When it first didn’t go into battery, he racked the slide to load a fresh round. When it still didn’t go into battery, he first tried pressing it into battery, then bumping the slide with the palm of his hand.

      What I found most surprising was that it still wouldn’t function even after washing it with water.

  • A.WChuck

    A test sample of one is not meaningful. Not for the “wins” or the “fails”.

  • mechamaster

    Maybe the Glock 19 that undergo the mud test has tigthter tolerance than previous model ?
    So the mud is really added friction and going into working part ?
    Or maybe Ian doesn’t use hotter ammunition like the military ?
    Like the AK, Glock has generous gap / opening in the slide rail that potentially added too much muddy & fouling to the lower receiver internal mechanism ?

  • Joshua

    Let’s be honest, the high point failed to.

    We need a modern Luger P08.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6437284ce35480be22c51e9385e4652f8790c33e5136b6786182d15a51a1c39d.jpg

  • Joshua

    I know there’s lots of salt over this test, but everyone should look up the mud portion of TOP 3-2-045.

    What Inrage is doing is pretty standard stuff for mud testing by militaries.

  • BillC

    It’s sad, because people take this entertainment as some sort of gospel, and they conflate it with a real test, with large sample sizes and protocols. I had a friend get into a panic attack and he immediately stopped carrying and sold his HK VP9 because of that silt “test” MAC did.

  • AC97

    Hmm, I wonder if the fact that you can see light between the slide and frame had anything to do with this?

    “B-but, muh open spaces mean better reliability…”

  • Kurt Ingalls

    ….another pointless “test”………………………………………………… 🙂

    • inchang

      No, it allows us to see where the gun can fail

      • Kurt Ingalls

        No, it allows you to think you are in a WAR ZONE!!!!!…..LOL, come on, REALLY!!!!!…for us AND you, the gun fails when we don’t do rudimentary maintenance on them……. G.I. Joe!!!!! LMAO 🙂

  • inchang

    But it allows us to see where problems can occur in the gun when you do unfortunately get in mud

  • inchang

    InRange mud tends to rub on everyone’s egos I was kinda expecting it to malfunction a few times but overall pass the test, but instead it failed completely.
    These tests show us what guns has the higher chance of running in the most worst possible scenario, and where debris can cause the gun to fail.
    Hell they even tested a Sig AMT/Stg57 and I can tell you that you don’t see mud tests on a pristine Sig AMT/Stg57

  • inchang

    I’ll say, the G3/ptr91/C308 did exceptionally well and places 2nd (imo) on the mud test with rifles. That violent bolt velocity sure lives up to it’s name

  • valorius

    Bwahaahahahaaaahaaaahahaha!!!

  • DW

    You missed the point of the mudtest.
    Are guns that failed mudtest bad or unreliable? NO. InRangeTV made it clear that Mudtest isn’t all there is to it for a firearm. Look at those that failed: AK, VZ58,FAL,Cetme, etc. These are not inferior guns, as long as you know enough to not drop them in mud. On the other hand, the 3 guns that did not fail, only one of them is still in production and easily obtained (AR15), the other two were out of production for many legitimate reasons(Win.1895 because needlessly expensive and unwieldy, Luger because safety and cost of manufacture )
    tl;dr: Don’t drop guns in mud

  • ColorMeSkeptical

    I can take out and bend the Glock’s connector at the elbow to be more of a 90 degree angle (which you don’t want), thus nullifying its ability to reliably reset/battery and duplicate the problems in the video.

    Someone with an agenda and 30 seconds with a leatherman can make a similar video…without the mud if they wanted to.

  • cisco kid

    I also watched the AK-47 Test and it too failed miserably.
    I think too that the U.S. water and mud tests are also a big joke as you can ever get the same amount of contaminants in all of the pistols tested so the test is invalid. In one test they found the “gold standard” a U.S. G.I. WWII .45 1911 jammed up in the mud test while the Beretta 92 and Sig 226 did not. Now does this mean the 1911 is a dog. No, it means the tests are invalid.
    I had one foul mouth moderator on the “Sig Forum” pontificate that since the Star M28 jammed up in another mud test that it too was a dog (mostly because it was made in Spain) according to this Moron. In reality the Star M28/30 was the most durable 9mm high capacity pistol ever made. Interarms who imported it ran 100,000 of rounds through one without any parts breakage what-so-ever, a feat never matched by any other 9mm pistol ever made. I think the Moderator should have stuck to playing golf or knitting.
    This idiot once said the Mini -14 in .223 was an inaccurate dog too until I posted a picture of a 5 shot 1 inch group at 100 yards with a stock gun. Again he ate crow.

  • bthomas

    Such programs are good entertainment. If one wants to actually know what a pistol can do and what a pistol can not do, look to service records of actual users … police and military. The results speak for themselves. G-17/19 are used by thousands of units/departments with excellent results. Same with other decent pistols. As far as entertainment, can’t see why they don’t do a talcum powder test or a Desitin test so that mothers with babies will be able to see what pistols are reliable for use when they are out and about with the baby. Could also do the dirty diaper test … but that could get in some deep dodo and it might not look so good on video. You know!

  • Jason Bourne

    Love the mud test. It looks like fun, and if I could waste a gun, I would definitely do these myself. But, how is this real world? I don’t live in the area these guys are in. So, will my Glock fail when I get caught in the rain running out of Walmart and slip and fall in a puddle. Probably not… But, this is good for you “A-teamers” out there. I’m just not one of them…

  • pismopal

    I don’t think mud is in the future for our armed forces….sand, oh yes.

  • Daniel W

    WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS TEST????

  • Gregory Markle

    The 2,000 round test with no cleaning is Tam’s gig over at http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/ but she only does handguns.