So everyone does things like mud tests and sand tests but what's

>>29489701
But your supposed to test for mildly realistic battlefield scenarios

ie; Mud, sand, snow, drop, IED even

When would we leave our rifles outside against a tree for a few months

>>29489701
That rifle could conceivably be repaired if you removed it, yes?

File: 1347503107648.jpg (84KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x480px

One time Anon found most of an SKS innawoods.

A little soak in rust converter and it ran like a raped ape.

Anyone done a sandstorm test?

Like dropping it in sand is one thing but a sandstorm is something else.

>>29489828
What does that even mean anon

>>29489828
wut?

>>29490741
>>29490825
It means that an anon repaired an abandoned SKS and that leaving a rifle in the woods for years will not kill it

>>29490875
Prolly a murder weppin, dumb anon shoulda taken it to the police.

File: IMG_1026.jpg (224KB, 746x1000px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 746x1000px

>>29489701
RIFLE IS FINE

Trees are really freaking cool, they'll grow around anything. I've seen trees grow right through a fence, like, right through them, no fucks given.

>>29489701

Some guys buried a glock for a couple years.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bj5Kcs4dzro

File: 1347503780509.jpg (183KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 640x480px

>>29490913
Why? It was a good boy; didn't do nothing.

>>29491984
Green jacket bro forgot his earpro, lol

>>29489701
Rust test

Basically get a water that has heavy concentration of salt in it and submerge the entire firearm in it and leave it there for a few hours and pull it out and wait for it to rust completely in a few days then take it to the field and fire it and test it out on how well it works with all that rust

Basically a comparison video showcasing two different firearms and test both of them completely rusted and see which one does better being rusted to shit

>>29492283
I....uhm I want to see this

>>29489701
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkboM5FBAd0

File: 1456459419021.gif (1MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x197px

>>29489701
Actual researcher here.

The reason people don't do tests like this is because such a test would be pointless. Any good experiment should have a theoretical or rational motivation of some kind; otherwise the results won't be useful to anybody. The motivation for a mud test or a sand test is to find out whether a given firearm will perform in dirty conditions that an operator might reasonably expect to encounter in the field. Mud and sand are elements commonly encountered in the field; therefore, the test has a high degree of generalizability to REAL WORLD conditions.

When you start doing tests like baking a gun into a cake, or seeing how many rubber bands you can wrap around the slide before the gun won't cycle, you're basically just pissing away your time and resources because these aren't situations that an operator would ever expect to encounter, anywhere. What does it mean that a gun does or doesn't work after being baked into a cake? Well, aside from that specific situation that will never happen by accident, it really doesn't mean anything. Cake filling is different from mud and sand, so you can't generalize. It's literally just a piece of spurious information.

Likewise, your test has very low generalizability because the vast majority of gun users DON'T just leave their guns out in the woods. What do you hope to learn from the test and how will it help people? Everybody already knows that guns rust if left outside, and there are different finish types that are more or less prone to letting moisture through to the steel underneath, but how would assigning a numerical value to different finishes' propensity to rust, or to different firearms' propensities to render themselves inoperable by rusting, be useful to anybody? Also, how would you operationalize the weather in a meaningful way?

Try to imagine what the results of your experiment might look like. "Guns rust when left out in the elements." Would this be new information to anybody?

>>29490825

Ned found it and fixed it up and gave it to his buddy at the pawn shop to sell for him.
That's how he earned the last bit of dosh he needed for his sweet bike.

>>29492444

Pretty much this. Why Build a gun that will operate usefully on the moon, upside down, in a pool of super cooled mercury. Sure I over shot that, but you guys demand your range queens to preform to competition specs when you will never ever take it there. So why manufacture gear for that? For cheap I might add. You want high spec shit, spend disposable income you broke fucks.

I'd like to see the guns cleaned but totally dry, no lube. Then shoot then shoot 1000 rounds through them and show the wear.

>>29491984
Lol, the woman had better control of that handgun than most of those dudes. Bunch of limpwristing faggots.

>>29489701
just a tumble test and salt spray test would be absurdly better than the shit that people call testing.

>>29492655
>upside down
Because that could never possibly be useful ever

>>29494854
It's very useful, especially when rappelling inverted into a room full of drug lords and assassinating them.

>>29492283
Agreed. It'd be a good test for how robust a system is, how well it will keep working when it's internals aren't 100% perfect.

>>29492444
>2016
>not ccing inside a cake

What are you, some kind of fag?

>>29489701
>I want to see if someone will steal m property.