>if you are still watching it, you are nerd and need a life
Why Ian so mean? Is it because he became very rich?
I don't watch Forgotten Weapons anymore, it's too mainstream now (you know when something has reached dangerous levels of uncool when /k/ is talking about it).
I've moved on to more obscure and better things.
>Making a thread about this
Looks like he was right.
He took down the video and reuploaded it without the joke.
People were probably complaining.
I thought that video broke after he said that more than anything desu.
> he never actually worked a day in his life after college, and had that paid for by his parents.
Here's his linkedin. He sold solar panels for a living while he was building the qwonset.
On one of his old channel videos he also talks about bar tending after college to pay off loans.
ITT: booty blasted cucks crying about their slavSHIT getting BTFO
I like how he abuse tested a single AR and a single AK and then determined that everyone was wrong, the AR is way more reliable, and he is always right.
I get it, you can't be wrong on your own show, but come on now, enough hot smoke up my ass. It's widely acknowledged and accepted that the AK is very reliable when dirty, and inductive reasoning doesn't change that.
another quality post by this faggot, this is the one that got you filtered
He never says this, he say "If you're still watching, I appreciate it."
Don't fall for the troll, /k/ids
I don't care what Ian tells me, and I didn't get to see the video before it was taken down. I don't know how he said it, but the way I said it. Was it clear that he was joking around, or was he legitimately making fun of people who watch his videos?
I can take a joke, but it's dumb to insult your viewers if you are an online personality, especially an online personality who specializes in inquire and rare things that kind of attract a certain type of people anyways.
Again, I didn't see the video so I can't tell if this is people getting butthurt over nothing or if Ian's popularity got to his head. If I had to guess, it's probably the former.
I don't have a problem with inductive reasoning, but when you're contradicting 50 years of battle-tested experience, you're going to need a more convincing argument than what he presented.
>It's widely acknowledged and accepted that the AK is very reliable when dirty
That doesn't mean it's true. At one point it was widely accepted that the world was flat.
For the record, the AK isn't known for being very reliable when dirty. It's known for being so stupidly simple and rugged, that you could bury one for two decades, dig it up, clean it out, and shoot it without a problem. The key word there is "clean".
I've seen plenty of videos showing the same results as Ian's. I've also seen a couple videos showing the opposite. Choose to believe what you want, but don't discard a video because it doesn't meet your expectations.
> it was widely accepted that the world was flat\
It wasn't, almost everyone in antiquity knew about the spherical earth, just the size and existence of other landmasses was the question.
I discredited the video when he drew broad conclusions from independent testing in his backyard. Everyone knows the AR had problems with dirt, likewise everyone knows the AK never suffered the same performance issues in actual battle conditions. Have AK's jammed? Yes. Have they jammed in battle? Yes. But never in the numbers the AR did.
I don't consider Ian or Karl dumping wet clay into receivers to be anything other than entertainment.
>Everyone knows the AR had problems with dirt, likewise everyone knows the AK never suffered the same performance issues in actual battle conditions
Holy shit, please be trolling.
The AR's problems were mostly due to the Army deliberately fucking things up because they were mad at McNamara for making them use a rifle they didn't pick (Curtis Lemay picked it).
People line to pretend the design changed significantly at some point in the last 50 years which is why it's good now but want then, but it hasn't. It was always a good rifle.
I think it's fair to say that a good portion of the AR reputation (and the AK reputation) can be chalked up to commie disinfo and propaganda.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, friend. It's widely accepted that the AK is more reliable in dirty conditions. If you come along as say it's not, then the onus is on you to show it isn't.
In terms of documentation the AR has had more problems even discounting the rocky first couple years it still has a history of problems ie the issues during desert storm before word got out to under lube becasue grease or oil attracted grit.
>It's widely accepted that the AK
Unless you read Russian or Arabic it would be kind of hard to find primary sources of reliability for the AK platform. You made the assertion that the 'AK never suffered the same performance issues in actual battle conditions' so backing it up would be nice. I could cite various condition in which the AR has failed and instances where it worked fine
An anon who was in Iraq recently chimed in during one of the arguments related to Ian's most recent mud test. He claimed that while over there, he came across a great many deal of AKs that were not functional. He said it was fairly common to see them converted into a nigger-rigged straight pull version because of issues cycling.
I've talked to many veterans from Iraq, and none of them ever talk about their weapons jamming. I've made it a point to ask a few who were in active combat about this, and they always tell me their weapons performed just fine.
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Okay, find me sources where it shows without a shadow of a doubt that the AK is more reliable than the AR in dirty conditions. You're making quite an extraordinary claim.
The extraordinary claim is that the AR is more reliable than the AK. Not the other way around.
It's universally recognized that the AK handles dirt and grime better. If the AR had that reputation then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Who am I exploiting with my videos? What tests have I ran? Do you understand what projection is? I never said anything about Ian's YouTube videos. Why so defensive Ian?
Is Ian still dating that one girl from his really early videos, or did he leave her for his raifu/Karl?
I noticed that when watching that video, what exactly is Karl doing?
Not even that anon, but way to be a fucking dismissive faggot.
>'you made a point and I don't have a retort, so I'm going to pretend you're a retard and validate myself.'
He has a fucking point. AK's have always been considered the most reliable.
Now you fucking did it. Here comes the shit storm
So for all of you who are wondering why based god Ian is getting so much random hate now:
He made a video with Karl mud testing an ak and ar15. Both of them commented that because the AK is more of an open design that mud will probably get in there and it would stop running. Since the ar15 is completely closed they both predicted it would run fine.
They ran the tests and the ak did better than most guns but the ar15 completely passed the test with flying colors.
They said at the end of the video to take it for what it is and that the test was no means indicative of actual battlefield conditions.
Now they are both being accused of being biased for their predictions (which aren't always right, they both predicted the RDB would pass and it failed horribly), or rigging the test, or being jews or w/e /pol/ shit people can think of.
tl;dr butthurt retarded faggots
>the small arms in use by both major powers on the planet are very reliable
>this is somehow something to fight over
hooray people make guns that don't break all the time and shoot 30 caliber clips per second.
fucking deal with it and pick the one you think is sexy.
You can't post a link to what you are talking about when making a thread about something because if you are OP you are a fag and an incompetent moron who makes shitty threads without links or explanations to the topic.
>Ian makes a video where an AK jams and an AR does not under specific conditions with 1 of each firearm
>/ARG/ makes 50 threads screaming about how slavshit is garbage self justifying their purchases
>ak owners try to calmly explain that this "test" does not change 70 years of combat proven reliability nor all the videos on youtube showing the AK being reliable under adverse conditions
>/arg/ fags spam BTFO DAMAGE CONTROOOOOOOOOOOL and suck the manlet mexicans tits.
Seems about right.
Pretty much this. Except based god Ian.
Fuck his auctioneer videos i need more gun range shit to appease my video needs. Not this "THIS IS FOR SALE AT ALS GOOD TIME HUNTING BARN FOR ONLY 1,900 DOLLARS OVER GOING RATE!"
The first AR I ever built, I put the hammer spring in backwards. It actually ran pretty good with the occasional light strike. I'm sure literally any debris in the fcg would have made it light strike every time.
Nnow, if some random faggot like me could tuck up a Lego build, I think we should entertain the possibility that a different random faggot could subtly fuck up a significantly more difficult build. There are a ton of things novice builders can do that will make any AK that works pretty well and might not appear in perfect conditions, but will cause it to be less reliable.
Were the receiver rails too tight to allow for the bcg to move freely? Some people squeeze the receiver either accidentally when pressing rivets or intentionally for more consistent bolt lockup.
Was the selector stop properly fitted the the new receiver? This will set mag height and too high or low will make it harder for the rifle to feed. A lot of new builders don't know how to properly do this and how important it is.
Did the builder use a pre drilled receiver? Trying to force the rivets through the receiver/trunnion holes and then crushing them can pull the trunnion out of alignment with the receiver and make it harder to feed and return to battery.
Was the piston replaced? If so, does it maintain the proper 6mm gap from the front of the piston to the bottom of the gas block chamber? Was it properly riveted to allow the slop needed to reliably enter the gas block?
What fcg was used?
Is this the original barrel? Did the builder have to drill a gas port, and if so, did they drill it undersized?
I would love to see them repeat this test with a factory built AK with a halfway decent reputation. I've made too many small mistakes building aks to trust the reliability of a rifle from an unknown and potentially untrained builder.
>go innabackyard with new AK built to exactly what you would consider in spec
>dunk it innamud
There you go, Russian lots are litteraly 'must know at least a dozen shady people named Boris' tier hard to get but using a quality bulgarian set would get the same results.
I don't quite understand the fanboyism on either side but I think the reason no one so far has refutes the results (which they themselves said that is indicative of not much) is because anyone with actual expertise in AK construction knows that it isn't indestructible and has flaws that allow for certain failures under certain conditions.
>Russian lots are litteraly 'must know at least a dozen shady people named Boris' tier hard to get but using a quality bulgarian set would get the same results
I did not have a problem with the origin of the parts as G kits are usually fairly decent as they were demilled military rifles, and the only problems I've heard from any romanian kits are eroded gas blocks which is extremely rare in the G kits.
The fact that you think that russian parts are that difficult to find, or that you seem to think that the parts kit origin is more important than the builder makes me think that you don't know anything about building AKs.
I was questioning whether this was an actual competent build, which would make this a fairly valid test and a good learning experience for people like me who love AKs, or if it's a bubba-tier monstrosity which looks halfway decent and runs only because it had never seen any harsh conditions prior to this test.
As I said in my last post, there is a lot of stuff that homebuilders can fuck up that factories generally don't because they have the right gauges and tooling to easily check any critical area on the rifle as well as original blueprints and assembly documents, instead of $5 harbor freight calipers and a vague recollection of what bubba told him at the last gun show.
Just a small sample of what a military armorer would have access to for inspection. Factories would have more and better tools.. I've spent close to $1000 for all of the tooling I use to build AKs and I can't even come close to the level of quality or specialization of even a field armorers kit.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the AK is more involved with maintenance than and AR? That if everything lines up just right that it will pass the test? Name a factory AK that is halfway decent to you.
The majority of things he looks at are rather rare or prototypes, if there's less than 20 surviving copies in the world to go around going rate is whatever the seller sets it as and whatever the buyer is willing to buy at.