Shitposting aside what do you actually think about mud tests?

When's the last time you actually, accidently or purposely, submerged your entire fire arm in mud?
Useless.

>>31158270
I don't worry about them because I will never be in a situation where I will not be able to clean my gun if I drop it in a giant puddle of mud.

>>31158270
Fun tests

They show that some guns don't work sometimes.

SURPRISE SURPRISE

>>31158270
Interesting to watch, shows some possible points of failure on a firearm which any owner should pay attention to so they can clean more effectively.

Don't think they're at all realistic as far as normal use is concerned. If my gun dropped in mud like that I'd try to clean it off as best I could and not fire it until it was clean out of fear I'd fuck it up worse and have to disassemble.

>>31158293
1. Extreme tests can demonstrate principles
2. Your average /k/ommando has never taken their precious raifu anywhere apart from their home, their mom's car and their local range.

Mud tests are not conclusive, but they are far from useless.

>>31158270
Mud/sand tests are inherently innacurate, more for entertainment than anything really.

File: snapshot20100312022911.jpg (29KB, 432x352px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 432x352px

They're only good, or valid, if the support my bias.

I'd prefer lava tests.

>>31158270
ALRIGHT LETS PURPOSEFULLY MAKE THIS GUN FAIL

IT FAILED
HAHA WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT IT DOESNT WORK IF YOU PURPOSEFULLY MAKE IT FAIL

>>31158270

Ian's mud tests all seem to be troll videos.
It's pretty undeniable at this point.

this is what I think https://www.full30.com/video/8fe5f0bb6a5e00acdc75e2c21c0bb2e8

I think what they've really been good for is proving to people that the AR doesn't stop working if it gets a little dirty, or even very dirty, and that the AK won't truck through all kinds of unreasonable bullshit.

Not scientific by any means, but it'll shut up people who constantly repeat how the M16 becomes spontaineously inoperable if you take it anywhere near sand or mud, as well as people who think the AK will cycle flawlessly even if you fill the receiver with retarded shit.

Also the Czechnophiles who have it in their head that the Vz.58 is somehow extraordinary because it's a little lighter than an AK, and that the gun isn't completely average.

>>31158339
This.

Ian's p good at trolling.

File: 1453937854727.jpg (30KB, 305x283px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 305x283px

>>31158366
They literally never say the guns are terrible, actually they explicitly state it's not a real scenario and would never come up. They do this for retards like you.

Every video they say this.

>>31158414
>implying butthurt slavaboos listen to reason when their delusions are shattered

>>31158366
Honestly, I like how they do it, as it's not so much a "will it fail" as a "how far will it go before it fails", which is a far more useful metric. Plus it rustles everyone's jimmies even if their raifu did well because "muh forced failure!"

I'm a Mosin fanboy and I personally found it quite interesting how that seized up during the mud test. Mosins will take a shitload of abuse, and I speak from practical (hunting, not combat) experience, but the bolt design is a definite weak point in the system.

>>31158421
This is a good point.

File: 755.jpg (131KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1300x957px

>>31158270
due to inconsistencys of mud and earth, theres no telling what will happen.

Look at Aregularguys mud test nd you think" WOW the AR and Tavor are shit!"

then you watch Ians tes and you think " WOW AK's are shit"

That said the old DOD tests proved the AK is a reliable and accurate rifle.

Don't base your gun choice on shitty you tubers, base it on professional opinions or LONG TERM AND EXTENSIVE tests.

>>31158468
>Implying all of the retards on /k/ give a shit ao they can tustle jimmies and shitposts

>>31158270

I only watch those vids when I drink. If the gun fires I take a shot. If it doesn't work I shotgun a beer.

>>31158377
Hi Karl.

File: image.jpg (46KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x562px

I don't feel any way at all about them.

File: kalash.jpg (471KB, 1281x2007px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1281x2007px

>what i think of mud tests

>hey lets subject a weapon to an real specific type of abuse that will clearly make it stop functioning, thus feeding the internet retards.

They're neat but don't really mean anything imo
you're not gonna be in verdun in your lifetime, and if you are, well fucking rip you, because you're gonna get killed by 6 inch artilliery anway.

File: 50BMG-2.jpg (44KB, 800x346px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x346px

>>31158270
I think (well I know, been there) there is a significant difference between martial military environment and peacetime civilian environment. The word "environment" now literally means our physical surroundings. You got about 500% more dust, mud, moisture sand and general shit in military environment. You spend a lot more of your time outdoors, exposing your kit and yourself to the elements.

However, if
1) the gun is deadly accurate and reliable even after dragging it through shit all day, that's the one to buy.
2) the gun is deadly accurate and reliable but only when clean, that's the one not to buy.
3) everything else not to buy.

This is a mission statement as well. I have learnt long time ago not to resort to personal preferences, I pick up things that a) work and b) work for a mission/task/service. a) and b) can be two very different things.

c) fun and talks are /k/.

>>31158941
I support this.

>>31158270
Some surprising results like lel Luger with lel external levers working flawlessly and good old "reliable nothing can go wrong" bolt actions choking on their bolts.

>>31158890
idk how all of you retards fail to understand that the mud tests are done so that you can compare firearms reliability wise

>>31158270
99% useless, but fun to see regardless.
People who actually put much weight on them are idiots.

>>31158991
Yeah I still don't get how that happened. It completely discounts the conclusion they made about more sealed guns being more reliable. The Winchester is also pretty exposed too.

The real conclusion is that these tests aren't really an indication of any trend.

They're incredibly small sample size tests of unrealistic usage scenarios with practically no controls and are biased by the tester. If you add up all the unofficial mud tests you get maybe 10 total for something that exists in the hundreds of thousands and with no prior knowledge of the weapon itself. The only field tests that have been of any use for diagnosing serious build problems are actual combat where you have a few thousand of x weapon in one specific environment with one explicit form of use.

They're fun but ultimately pointless and get made as clickbait.

>>31159068
what the fuck do you mean? luger is a well sealed gun, the winchester is a well sealed gun when the action is closed. mosin is not a well sealed gun even with the action closed.

i can see a quite the clear trend here.

>>31159522
why would you need a big sample size for fucking mud tests? it's pretty fucking clear why the guns fail after they've been exposed to mud.

>>31158270
Interesting data point, but far from a proper reliability test.

>>31158270
Really cool to see how different mechanisms perform under an adverse condition. Very interesting to see how and why things fail.

People who take it as "This gun is shit/not reliable" are stupid. Get over your butthurt, its not the definitive test of a

File: 1472437881001.png (732KB, 899x1195px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 899x1195px

>all the butthurt slavboo's ITT

hahaha nigga like how the fuck did the AR outperform the ak like nigga its the most reliable weapon ever like nigga it didnt even cycle 5 rounds hahahahahah

>>31159665
Hi Karl!

>>31158270
They triggered the shit out of that retarded FAL tripfag, so I'd say they're doing God's work

>>31158468
But those examples show clear scientific results

The AK does not like thicker particulate matter in the action, such as mud, ice, or dirt,
as evidenced here:
https://youtu.be/synlZgnTnXg?t=1883
https://youtu.be/CVe7d7xJdAo?t=576
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU

But the AR15 does not like extremely fine matter, particularly those mixed with water, such as Silt.
As evidenced here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE

These may be small sample sizes but if you look at the data they show weaknesses and strengths of both systems, not just a "LOL AK/AR IS SHIT".

What's moreso better about these youtube tests is that the video does not lie, unlike written reports which may have tampered with and we would have no idea.

>>31158339
Pretty much this

>>31158270
>keep your gun at arms length at all times

>>31159680
Tbh I wanna see them do a full military-trials-esq test of the guns.

>>31158270
utter worst case scenario of many bad things happening at the same time. Do i think that any gun that fails der warfenmundzen test is a pos when exposed to atmosphere? No. Do I think any gun that passes is now greatest battle implement ever devised and all others are utter shit? No. Do I think its scientific? not really. the mud consistency has changed from thick chunky cake mix to dirty water back and forth in their vids.

Its fun to see how far these weapons can go and how much simulated pants on head retarded soldier abuse and terrible conditions they can take. It's nice to see lore harden baseless misconceptions being debunked. Like the M1 being almost perfect with it's long stroke gas system capable of cycling with the bolt welded shut. Or the luger being so tightly fitted that the slightest thought of dust getting near causes it to seize. Anyone or mostly anyone that owns these weapons would never put their rifle through this shit to prove or disprove myths (i being one of them with an M1) and hold fast to previous accounts of their perfect service records and what their circle jerk forum tells them to believe. These guys are "fuck it, lets get some views and rustle some jim jams".

>>31160087
id like to see that with firearms not adopted by a military. So every day commercial firearms being put through grueling test as if they were being considered for adoption.

File: 1461113273175.jpg (262KB, 740x980px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 740x980px

>>31159851
quality post

>>31158293
Well, every duck season I end up tripping over a submerged stump/branch and submerging myself and everything on me in ~3ft of river water+mud at least once.
>remington 1100's will work just fine when competely full of water/mud
The only time it choked I ended up having a fucking snail in the action.

I'm not the target audience so I don't really care. I pay far more attention to videos that show guns running a a variety of ammo, particularly steel cased, as that is what I shoot 90% of the time.

>>31158270
The scenario of using a gun after it has been completely submerged and filled with mud isn't likely to happen to most people, however it does demonstrate reliability of firearms under extreme circumstances.

These tests are OK but nothing less than clickbait

>>31159674
To have a proper test as done by governments that accualy do test large number of rifles, not just we filled an ak with enough mud its hammer cant move or we froze a ar's everything solid.

>>31158366
>ALRIGHT LETS PURPOSEFULLY MAKE THIS GUN FAIL
What about the AR 15 video then? : ^ )

>>31162936
It wasn't this gun for that one cold or water will cause failure.

>>31160272
Kek

>>31158366
Luger didn't fail.

>>31161333
this

/thread

>>31158270
They're interesting in principle, but threads about them are absolute fucking cancer.

>"HEY GUYS, DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MUD TEST THERE'S 8 THREADS ABOUT ALREADY!??! _______ FAGS BTFO XDXDXDXDXDXDXDX1!1111!!2"

>>31158366
Imagine having to run for your life from crazed cannibals after the nuclear bombs have gone off.

You stumble upon a sig p226 that's still held firnly in the grip of another kid just around the same age as you.

He's been dead for weeks on end, and the gun along with his hand was ran over with a vehicle or tank pushing it into the mud partially.

You pick up the gun hoping it will fire to save your life...

>>31158320
>their mom's car

What makes you think the "average /k/ommando" drives their mom's car?

>>31163247
This will never happen, go to another board if you want to jerk off to post apopstalipstick fantasies

>>31158270
They seem very inconsistent, especially if they just throw a gun in a muddy pit. Small rocks in the mud could definitely fuck things up.

>>31163271
What makes you think we can drive?

>>31163309
Try reading my post again

>>31159068
The P08, with the slide closed, is basically an unbroken slab of metal. It would take fine silt or something to get in between the camming surfaces, same with the lever actions.

>>31158270
When done properly they can give insight, however people are apparently too retarded to understand the scientific method so the results mean nothing.

File: Predator-Mud.jpg (23KB, 500x273px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x273px

>>31158293
>not preparing to be covered in mud
DO YOU WANT TO DIE ANON?

>>31163309
My driver's license and car full of gas

>>31160272
Some anons shoot slugs, some shoot snails.

>>31163247
Why don't I have one of my several guns on me? Why would I have to rely on some dead guy's gun

If it's a scenario like that I'm never going anywhere without a rifle and pistol strapped to me 24/7 and I'm not dumb enough to submerge both of them in mud