https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX7 3uXs3xGU https://www.yo

>there are still people who are posting these videos

File: 1470374432177.jpg (15KB, 480x243px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x243px

inb4 butthurt slavaboos

>>31159734
what's wrong with 'these videos' ?

we've had this thread dozens of times

please let this meme die

File: jeb-kun.jpg (19KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 530x298px

>>31159891
>They have exposed the AK to be trash dozens of times.
>Please stop.

>>31159903

sorry famalam, but the AK is the superior weapon system

>>31159722
So that's it then? I'm just supposed to buy an AR and nothing else because the mud tests say so?

There was literally a thread that involved this very same subject and was handled well because there's absolutely no reason anybody nor their fuckin' battlebuddy would ever dump their entire rifle in the mud. You keep it off the ground for a reason. Stop making shit fucking threads, you goddamned autist shit.

Kill yourself, OP.

>>31159722
>>31159932
please watch both of the videos.

>>31159945
reliability was literally the only thing going for the ak over the ar.

lets do a sand test :^)

>get mud in ak
>stop
>spend less than 2min dumping water on it
>ready to go

whats the meme here?

File: 1444332637993.png (128KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 250x250px

>>31159966
VS
>getting mud in an AR
>no issues
>AK fags kill

File: 1455330618656.jpg (69KB, 609x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 609x720px

>>31159943
No, you are supposed to buy an AR because it's the superior weapon system.

Why do I have to pick one over the other? Can't I love all firearms equally?
Stop the misoGUNistic behavior.
#gatlivesmatter

>>31159966
>put same amount of mud on ar
>works perfectly

>>31159960
And both videos represent exaggerated, scenarios that you will personally never subject your firearms to. What's your point?

>>31159992
But what if I want to buy something else? Plus the AR community on /k/ is so fucking toxic, why would I want to be a part of that? Have you fucking seen the AR general threads?

File: 1457905468997.png (164KB, 504x415px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 504x415px

>>31159993
In the way that whites are better than blacks,
ARs are better than AKs.

File: Bill_Nye.jpg (67KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x533px

this is now a get thread
>>31159722
>>31159877
>>31159966
>>31159977
>>31159999
ak>ar

>>31160004
>A firearm is bad because its followers are cancer
Nigger wot the actual

>>31160001
after watching these videos you realize that there is not a single reason ever to choose an ak over an ar.

File: 9fb93d1b845b1b93f2a40747d0df480a775161882c2c0307bc2f1b0858923a3d_1.jpg (111KB, 537x778px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 537x778px

>>31160019
no tho

>>31160023
Did you even read my post and the relevance of how important it is to not do this to either an AK or an AR?

I guess not.
Go back to high school and stop making shit fucking threads.

>>31159722
Does the ar eject the mud out of the ejection port because it uses direct gas?

>>31160040
leftover gas is ejected out of ports on the side of the bolt throwing the mud away before the bolt moves back.

>>31160021
If I buy said firearm, they will associate me with the cancer. Every time someone posts an AR its always criticisms about how you could've bought more expensive shit, or people drooling over the anons who actually have the expensive shit.

>>31160303
>Giving a fuck about what anonymous people on the internet think about the things is have.
You have to be 18 to post here kiddo, hows high school going?

>>31159877
What situtation EVER would you drop your rifle and pile mud onto it?
If you fall you're going to take it out of mud immediately or even instinctively hold it up as you fall.

These tests are really dumb regardless of what rifle is being shown because it just doesn't happen.

>You don't know what could happen!
If you are in a situation where you put your rifle in the mud and pile some mud ontop of it, flip it around and throw some more in it you have done something horribly wrong.

>>31160407
Graduated in 2012, but you'd have to be blind to not see the fanboyism on /k/.

>>31160407
Wouldn't it be better to have something that you know won't shit the bed if you got any dirt/mud in/on it?

>>31160519
Moot point. AK can't handle mud as well as AR

File: 49481-1-1362244344.jpg (663KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1680x1050px

>>31160522
You can't just not go into the generals?
Does it really matter so much that a minority of people who like a product are autistic?
Does it matter to you so much that it will detract from your experience with that product?

In all seriousness I would never let the actions of others be a detriment on my enjoyment of something.

>>31160559
Fair point, its just that they tend to bleed into the other threads. At least the camofags for the most part stay in their containment thread.

File: 21423554364764376.jpg (740KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1680x1050px

>>31160572
I own a S&W M&P sport ii, I couldn't recommend it more as a great inexpensive baseline AR for those looking to get into the platform if you are interested.

File: F2000 recoil.gif (945KB, 200x180px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 200x180px

>>31160519
What is the purpose of your rifle?

If its SHTF then you need to know its strengths & weaknesses.

For example: The AK does not like thick particulate matter in the action. (Dirt, Ice, Mud)
https://youtu.be/synlZgnTnXg?t=1886
https://youtu.be/CVe7d7xJdAo?t=579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU

But the AR does not like extreme fine matter, especially when mixed with water (Silt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE

Understanding these factors is important data to making an informed personal choice in weapon.

Faggot.

>>31160549
Ar cant handle water, sand, or cold as well as an ar but you dont see the AK fanboys constantly pointing it out to sate their inferiority complex like AR fanboys do with mud

>>31160620
As well as an AK*

>>31160620
>water and cold
Well you don't know what you're talking about then. Move along sir

>>31159949
pour mud in ak action
>le ak is trash meme
put m16 in bucket of mud with with the dustcover closed
>OMG IT WORKS THATS AMAZING LOOK IT DIDNT JAM FOR ONCE!!!

>>31160593
Guess I'll give it a shot, local gunstore has a few in stock. I was kind of saving up for a handgun though (lol poor college student).

>>31160626
>if i plug my ears, that makes it not true
The only semi auto rifles used in extremely cold areas are aks and ak derivitives. Im on my phone but im sure some anon has the pic of the canadian rangers testing this. And try submerging your ar before firing it like you can with an ak

>>31160559
>>31160593
So what do I need for the game to look for this, or is this more doctored bullshot stuff?

File: Snapchat-308167204698093901.jpg (889KB, 1440x2392px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1440x2392px

>>31160303
Nigger I have a poorfag ar. I built that sumbitch for 400$. All I've been getting is compliments on my build.
>pic related
The kids that get shit on are the ones that buy poorfag shit and act all buthurt that they can't get the same level of reliability/accuracy/tacticool that someone who spent more on their rifle gets.

>>31160612

AR mag release doesn't like ice either. But much like mud in an AK, it's a moot point. I use both rifles for fun and hunting four legged creatures.

My main concern with any rifle is accuracy, trigger, and how many rounds before it gets dirty enough to stops functioning. In this regard, I wish there were more videos like that Polish guy who puts Warsaw rifles through their paces.

>>31160729
>built that sumbitch for $400
Well if its that low I guess getting one for shits n giggles wouldn't be out of the question. If I may ask, what did you use for your build? Also as someone who knows next to jack shit about building ARs, what do you need to build one?

>>31159932
Wrongo bongo

>>31159945
>>31160631
>>31160519
AK fags on full damage control. Don't get too sad, you can always sell it and get an AR :^)

>>31160631
the ak had its dust cover closed as well you dumb dumb

>>31160019
Could be, but Bill nil is a fucking imbecile and i have you for posting this piece of shit face here in 4chan

>>31159992
>AR because it's the superior weapon system.
except it isn't the superior weapon system

>>31159877
they've been posted a million times already and discussed to death, now all that remains is shitposting. It's like posting undertale on /v/.

>>31160766
there's too much to cover in one post, but know that you don't really need more than 2 tools to build an AR. Here's a couple of videos to get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utJ_pOfjyJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1omm6jY7Gg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFYdtvyvlNI

>anybody who has seen, used, been to next to someone who used an AR and an AK in any modern warzone says the AK is more reliable under battlefield conditions
>these same people say the AR will work you just gotta clean it more

>wehraboo dumps both of them in mud and the AK fails

I'm not sure what this proves

They put up a video on Full30 literally today saying how people need to stop taking these videos so seriously because they are so far beyond what would likely happen.

https://www.full30.com/video/8fe5f0bb6a5e00acdc75e2c21c0bb2e8

>>31161293
the AR just needs a lot of lube on the BCG rails and it'll work as reliably as any AK

>>31160612
>Valmet
>Implying ice is a huge issue
Just do what the conscripts do, wack it on a tree and the ice will break off. Problem solved.

File: 1472439765206.jpg (83KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x820px

>>31161305
basically, every time a mud test video is posted, this video should be posted in tow.

I have a problem OP. I own both!
Since I never get rid of a gun what do I do?
Obviously there's some third gun I need to buy but I don't know what it is.

>>31161305
Exposing a gun to the elements,
> "wouldn't happen"
Nice damage control AK fag

File: FN fail ;^) it was just a prank bro.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>31161305
wtf I hate mud tests now

>>31161898
>people who made the videos saying to stop shitposting
>no
????

>>31161898
that's way more severe than simply exposing it to the elements and if you can't see that then you literally need to kill yourself. not even kidding or trolling, you need to end your own life. soon.

>>31161940
WTF, I hate my life now.

File: 0fc.gif (169KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 600x451px

stop with stupid AR vs AK bullshit already!
they both have their pros and cons.
also this is THE UNITED STATES OF FUCKING MERICA! and the year 2016
WHY DON'T YOU OWN BOTH?

>>31161995
Because anon, I can only own the very best

I'm just too poor to own either

File: 1467126301648.jpg (29KB, 296x394px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 296x394px

>>31159722
Christ we have this thread every 2 days.

First off mud tests are bullshit, period.
Example of a AR-15 & Tavor getting BTFO VS a AK in a mud test.
skip to 5:20

https://youtu.be/2a9lZO74YCE?t=320


DOD testing back in the day PROVED the AK is a viable platform.

http://www.guns.com/2016/02/22/5-things-found-out-about-the-humble-ak-the-hard-way-video/

Fucking cuck keyboard warriors.
People who care about mudtests either don't own a gun or dont shoot their own, so they have to base their arguments on some fucktarded reddit cuck youtubers "torture test"


BOTH the AR and the AK are PROVEN designs that fucking PROFESSIONALS bring into combat everyday, cant you fucking retards stop spewing this shit? Its like you need constant praise for what ever rifle you chose.

"Ohh little johnny your so great for picking X rifle over Y rifle"

"YOUR SO FUCKING AMAZING OMFG"

You /k/ids are so insecure you need constant pats on the back to feel good about anything.

>>31162120
Read the thread next time, bucko

>>31162120
See>>31161305
Let's calm down bud.

File: 1472318574710.jpg (265KB, 315x461px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 315x461px

>>31162026
/k/ in a nutshell

>>31160660
Theres also the Alaskan and Finish tests that say the same thing the ak can opperate just fine in the cold the ar can not.

File: 1469846693245.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>all these assblasted slavshitters on massive backpedaling damage control

>j-just don't get your AK muddy!
>I-i can just clean my AK when it stops from getting dirty!
>what if I just like AKs more huh?! what are you a bigot!?

Stay bad kids.

>>31163698
>all these assblastes arfags

>j-just don't go out in the cold!
>I-i can just cuddle with my rifle to unfreze the bolt, trigger, mag release!
>what if I just like ARs more huh?! what are you a bigot

Stay mad kids.

All rifles have problems

>>31163887
except the AR

>>31163935
I think AR lovers have to reassure themselves more often that they have a superior rifle. Because you never stop with these ridiculous threads, jesus.

>>31163986
So you admit AR is better.

>>31159722
i reproduced the tests and i got no failures from my AR or my AK

the AK still has a wandering POI like a drunk nigger tho

>>31163997

>AR15

>having no problems


HAHAHA
EXTREME COLD WEATHER TESTING

Treacherous Weather, Dangerous Killers And Lonely Roads Dictate That Alaska State Troopers Be Equipped With The Finest Cold Weather Rifles Available

By Jeffery Hall


Nationwide, law enforcement agencies are encountering criminals armed with sophisticated weapons. Assault rifles, shotguns, quality handguns, and automatic weapons are common. The traditional service revolver and pump shotgun are often outclassed in a firefight.

This situation is especially hazardous to the state trooper or highway patrol officer. These officers work lonely stretches of roadway, far from back-up and support facilities. A rifle can make all the differences, as encounters often take place at ranges beyond the effective range of shotguns or revolvers. This was dramatically shown in the Norco, California, bank robbery.

Several state police agencies have adopted a service rifle to be carried in the patrol car to augment the shotgun and revolver. Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas, Idaho and others have selected and adopted a service rifle for general issue. In some cases, this program started after a specific incident in which officers were injured or killed due to a lack of effective firepower.

In February of 1984, I was authorized by the Alaska State Troopers to conduct an evaluation of existing rifles for consideration as a service rifle. Due to the climate of Alaska, certain specific requirements had to be met.

We began by listing the basic requirements we felt necessary. These were:

1. 100% reliability after prolonged cold exposure
2. Night sights, if available
3. Large trigger guard for use with gloved hands
4. Folding stock
5. .223 or .308 calibers
6. Detachable box magazine, 20 to 30 round capacity
7. Must have a flash suppressor and sling mounts
8. Require minimum maintenance

>>31163997
>>31164069

The major firearms importers and manufacturers were contacted and asked to submit a sample weapon for testing. A clear understanding was reached with each supplier that the weapons would probably be damaged during testing.

Upon receipt, each weapon was inspected and field stripped. Each received a thorough cleaning to remove all oil and grease. The weapons were not lubricated at all following the cleaning.

All of the test samples were taken to the range by our special weapons team marksman. He fired each for familiarity, using different firing positions and ranges. We were not concerned with match accuracy, only with a consistent shot group in the four-inch range. All were fired using the same lot of military ball ammo, and the same lots of Federal FMJ ammunition in .223 and .308, respectively.

All of the rifles fired, showed acceptable accuracy, with none being exceptional. The HK-91 showed the tightest groups, averaging about two inches. Approximately 200 rounds were fired through each rifle, and they were not cleaned after shooting.

We then loaded guns and gear into a four-wheel drive vehicle and drove 400 miles north of Fairbanks to Coldfoot, Alaska: The average daily high temperature was -20° F, with lows at night in the -40° F range. These were good working temperatures and would be consistent with much of the state during the winter months.

The first test consisted of leaving the weapons outside for several hours, then bringing them into a warm room for thirty minutes. This allows moisture to condense on the weapons, which then freezes when they are put back outside. This often occurs when a firearm is brought into a warm room then put back into a cold car trunk. This warming/ cooling cycle was repeated six times with each weapon. No malfunctions resulted, with all of the rifles being capable of fire.

>>31164069
Nice job posting your original thoughts and not somebody else's literature.

>>31161305
So in a roundabout way is this proof that they do browse /k/?

>>31164105
Nice job ignoring proof.

>>31164084

Next, one pint of warm water was poured into the bolt and trigger group of each weapon. It was then allowed to stand outside in -20° F weather for three hours. After three additional hours inside we experienced a 60% failure to function in the weapons. Either the hammer would not fall at all, or the hammer fall was too weak to detonate the round. The only weapons that experienced no malfunction were the two Galils, the Valmet and the FNC.

All of the weapons were then brought into a heated room (+70° F) and warmed for thirty minutes. After heating, all of the rifles functioned properly. Unfortunately, heated shelter may not be available when needed.

Finally, all of the weapons were cleaned of ice and lubricated heavily with Break-free. The lubricant was sprayed into the bolts and trigger groups and the weapons were cold soaked for fourteen hours at -40° F. The test showed the true colors of the weapons involved, for all but four failed to function after this test. Again, only the Galils, the Valmet, and the FNC were able to function and fire. The other weapons showed bolts frozen shut, selectors and safeties frozen, and hammers that would not fall. All of the rifles but the Galils, Valmet, and FNC were then eliminated for consideration. These, not surprisingly, share a Kalashnikov ancestry. The weapons performed as follows:

>>31160012
Well that just sold me on my AK if it means I can own the nigger of the rifle world

>>31164201
Awesome, next time they should get video evidence.

>>31164105

7.62 Galil No Malfunction

5.56 Galil No Malfunction

HK-91 A round was chambered and would not fire. Round was manually extracted, another was chambered which did fire. The weapon cycled and the third round would not fire. Manually operated, fourth round would not fire. Charging handle broke off.

HK-93 Fire rounds manually cycled, none fired.

HK-93A3 Same as above.

Valmet No Malfunction.

Ruger Mini-14 Five rounds manually cycled, none fired, hammer frozen, safety frozen.

M1-A Bolt would not draw far enough to the rear to chamber a round. Unable to fire.

Colt M-16 Forward assist had to be used to close the bolt. Selector frozen, could not be moved. Five rounds cycled manually, none fired.

Colt AR-15 Magazine release frozen, selector frozen.

FN-FAL Five rounds manually cycled, none fired.

FN-FNC Five rounds fired with no malfunctions. Last casing stovepiped in ejection port. Gas regulator moved to "adverse conditions" setting and five rounds fired with no malfunctions.

We later spoke with a factory representative of one of the companies involved, who was very disturbed at our results. He called his engineering department, who assured him that if the weapon was cleaned, then lightly lubricated with a synthetic lubricant, it would function properly. The entire purpose of the evaluation was to see if any of the weapons could stand up to the neglect and direct abuse we gave it. If all had failed, we would have felt that our test was unrealistic. The fact that four of the weapons performed 100% of the time shows that some are suited and some are unsuited to a cold climate. In addition, police officers are notorious for neglecting their equipment, even though their lives depend on it.

There were many other features considered in deciding which weapon we preferred. Weight, balance, trigger pull, sights, ease of operation, cost, availability of options, ease of maintenance, etc. were all considered.

>>31164214

The clear winner and our first choice was the Galil .223. It was 100% reliable, accurate, and easy to shoot. It has the best night sights available and an excellent folding stock. It has a reciprocating bolt handle, which can be drawn to the rear then pushed forward to lock a round in the chamber. This is a very desirable feature when the weapon is frozen or very dirty. The bolt and safety can be manipulated with either hand. It is very easy to field strip, without tools, and parts are easily replaced.

The Galil and its accessories are expensive, but not out of reach. If you are with a police department or an individual that works in a cold climate, it is the best weapon you can get.

For information on the Galil, contact: Douglas Evans, Magnum Research, 2825 Anthony Lane S., Minneapolis, MN 55418.

NOTE: The Alaska State Troopers have not yet adopted a service rifle, due to budgetary limitations and other factors. This article expresses the opinions of the author. The Department of Public Safety does not endorse any product.

The author: Jeffrey Hall is a veteran of the 173rd Airborne and 75th Infantry (Ranger). An Alaska State Trooper for seven years, he has been a member of the Department's Special Weapons Team for four years, and is presently assistant team leader. He holds a black belt in karate and is two time state IPSC Pistol Champion.

Troy L. Duncan, Alaska State Trooper, was the co-author of this project. A former Marine captain, Duncan had spent two years testing and evaluating cold weather equipment for the U.S.M.C. Trooper Duncan was a member of the Department's Special Weapons Team and was killed in action while arresting a multiple homicide Suspect.

>>31161305
I don't like to say I don't you so but.

Actually fuck it I love telling you cucks I told you so.

I've been saying it forever since these tests came out, it's unscienfuckingtific. It doesn't mean anything, for every video of one failing and one succeeding there's another of the reverse.

I like how they're backpedaling though, they get so matter of fact and scoffy when one gun fails and like to go "aassss expeeecteed"

Now they're getting called on it and need to pretend it was all a joak.

Also no I don't own an AK, I own an AR, I just want the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth.

>>31164214
Why are arfags illiterate.

>>31164214
Noooo that would be definitive proof.

>>31164236
>it's unscienfuckingtific.

If the conditions are repeatable with no variables in factors then it is indeed scientific.

And even if not, it still provides data. Why did the weapon X fail here? Why weapon Y succeed?

File: 262315621365.png (38KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1162x850px

>>31164213
fuckin kek

>>31164188
copy pasta a fucking written report with no video evidence.

>>31164312
And? It is more scientific than the mud test video.

>>31164276
>If the conditions are repeatable with no variables in factors then it is indeed scientific
Are you saying pouring mud with an unknown material composition, in an unknown amount being poured onto rifles with no actual form of measurements is a repeatable, no variable environment?

What even.

File: pip guy down.jpg (29KB, 338x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 338x600px

>>31164335
>No video at all is more specific than video.
nigger wot

>>31164353
Yes the method of testing is there and you can go to alaska this winter and do it also.

>>31164358
No you can, go film a test for all to see then you can come back and shitpost AK fag.

File: The mustache we need, but not the one we deserve.jpg (28KB, 323x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 323x400px

>>31164244
Because people write can any shit, and without irrefutable and unbiased proof we can't an informed choice.

We know that old military testing had many results formed from bias.

Thus without video evidence, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

Example, this is a test, I'd consider a reliable source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY

Despite my own bias, I'd like to believe the BCM "Flthy 14", or Glock "100,000+ rounds", but without proper documentation how can I consider those results reliable?

Same with AKs, I believe in their durability, we have plenty of video evidence of such, but I also believe in their weakness to foreign ingress, to which we also have plenty of video evidence.

File: 12159836735.png (614KB, 671x683px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 671x683px

AK a shit

>inb4 booty bothered AK apologists screaming about how "not Russian AK"

>>31164358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieG20FxRyQ

get rekt

File: 12639755289251.png (542KB, 811x710px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 811x710px

>>31160660
>The only semi auto rifles used in extremely cold areas are aks and ak derivitives.
>he doesn't know about the C7

>>31164466
But the C7 is a maaaaaaaagical rifle with canada arm lube and super loosey goosey tolerooncies

>>31164348
>unknown material composition

Use it the same wheelbarrow of mud between both tests

>Unknown amount
Cover both sides of the rifle's receiver in mud, until you cannot see the receiver underneath.


>no variable environment?
Test both rifles within the same location.

The Inrage AK & AR mud test fall within easily repeatable testing.

>>31164497
I get it, you're just acting retarded because you realize how stupid your post was.

That's fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr1tV2nsGoM

ARfags btfo

>>31164533
Yep, you certainly got me, gawrsh darn it

>>31164105
If he gave his input you'd say it had no credibility. Kys.

>>31164276
nigga do you even scientific method?

>>31164551
Neither does the report, without unbiased documentation.

>>31164551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oieG20FxRyQ

>>31164571
anecdote

>>31164548
Seriously though, at the risk you aren't just acting at this point.

They have no idea how much of what is actually entering the firearm and they have no way of ensuring the amount is the same every time. The test is unscientific.

>>31164586
>Provides video proof that completely disproves unsourced reported account.

>>31164586
Ok
It's still documented evidence.

Now that only applies to the factors in place of the video (BCM 14.5 upper)

But it still provides evidence.

>>31159722
If you weren't such a poorfag you wouldn't be concerned about these things.
You would have both and 5k rounds of ammunition for each.
My guess is you have neither.

>>31164601
>They have no idea how much of what is actually entering the firearm and they have no way of ensuring the amount is the same every time.

But that isn't the test.

The test is whether the gun can reliably operate after both sides of the receiver have been dunked in mud (until the receiver is not visible and then lightly shook off).

Within those testing parameters, we have the results

>>31164646
What was the viscosity of the mud and was it the same each time, were they all in for the same time, was the action oriented the same way each time and at the same depth, if no it was not a proper test.

File: mah stalka.jpg (24KB, 239x223px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 239x223px

>>31164625

This is an uber butthurt thread. Thanks OP.

Ar fags btfo at least a dirty ak doesn't need gunsmith after getting muddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I

>>31164646
I'm saying the test doesn't mean anything, it's nothing people should draw conclusions from.

>>31164667
>What was the viscosity of the mud and was it the same each time,

Not recorded, but it was indeed the same, as proven through the video evidence (Both AK & AR video shot within 10 minutes of each other)

>Were they all in for the same time
Both were covered in mud for less than 10 seconds.

>was the action oriented the same way each time and at the same depth,

Both rifles were laid flat on the wheelbarrow onto the side of their receivers, before the mud was scooped upon them.

>>31164743
>didn't measure viscosity

>didn't time it

eyeballing it is not good enough

>>31164738
>it's nothing people should draw conclusions from.

I disagree, the conclusions of the test speak for themselves.

Rifle Y performed better than Rifle X.

However, I do agree, because of the small sample size it should not be indicative of ALL AK rifles or ALL AR rifles.

>>31164781
So yes, you're just pretending you were retarded lol.

>>31164762
But there is still a consistency to both viscosity and time in the testing

The mud for both rifles was from the wheelbarrow.

Both rifles were only covered for less than 10 seconds.

Another test can further detail the outside factors, but its clear that the test between Rifle X & Rifle Y were consistent.

>>31164814
see>>31164762

>>31164797
>XD
>LOL

>>31164828
I accept your defeat. Try harder next time, be less blatant.

>>31164762
>eyeballing it is not good enough

Good thing we have a video evidence.

Both guns were dunked from mud from the same wheelbarrow.

Both guns were under less than 10 seconds mud before firing.

>>31164852
see>>31164826
and>>31164762

>>31164838
I accept your defeat.
Next time, admit when you ran out of points.

>>31164862
see >>31164852
and >>31164814

File: mehhedsmugly.gif (2MB, 500x459px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x459px

>>31164874
Don't be mad you btfo yourself. Just think before you post in the future and you wouldn't have to put up suck a blatant ruse.

Also, you're anonymous, it's okay to be a retard, I also accept the fact you have learned and will not do it again.

>>31164898
>Just think before you post in the future and you wouldn't have to put up suck a blatant ruse.

If agreeing to the same result but with a different viewpoint then we different definitions of "epic rusing"

File: evenfemalesaresmarter.jpg (39KB, 729x432px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 729x432px

>>31164932
>he thinks a test with no measurements is scientific

>>31164948
see>>31164826
and>>31164762

File: leface.png (17KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x320px

>>31164968
>he thinks no measurements are measurements

>>31164968
Hey thats my line and you used it on the wrong person.

>>31164885
>>31164852
See>>31161305 At 2:30. There is no consistency at the mud viscosity because the mud's physical composition of the solution was not measured. For the time and type of mud solution, yes, it was consistent. However, both Ian and Karl admitted that one mud type isn't the same as all mud types due to varying numbers of particles and solids in the mud. They also admitted that they didn't measured the mud viscosity in the video.

>>31165015
view>>31164826
and>>31164762

>>31165032
>he thinks no measurements are measurements
lel

>>31165032
see>>31164826
and>>31164762

>>31165028
>here is no consistency at the mud viscosity because the mud's physical composition of the solution was not measured.

I'd agree to the point, but only to variability of the same mud within the same wheelbarrow.

It could be more accurately measured, but there is a form of consistency from the fact the mud came from the same wheelbarrow, within a 10 minute time period in which both videos were shot.

>>31165063
You expect me do trust that when you dont even trust cited proofs?

>>31165063
https://www.full30.com/video/8fe5f0bb6a5e00acdc75e2c21c0bb2e8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

>>31165089
I don't expect you to trust anything beyond what is clearly recorded evidence.

>>31165121
So did they record the 10 minutes between the videos or did they to one in the morning and the other in the afternoon after it dried up a bit?

>>31165143
Reported from Karl, same 10 minutes.

Evidence from the video, at least within the same half hour