Would a Russian AK fared better in the mud test than a Roman

>>32385812
Nah, a heavier rifle like an RPK maybe.

No real reason it would.

>>32385812
Another Romanian AK may have even worked a bit better. The point really ins't that this one or that one is better or worse, it's that the design is inherently more vulnerable to the environment when compared to the AR. Testing 100 different ARs vs. 100 different AKs would ultimately demonstrate this.

>>32385812
The amount of denial in the youtube comments.

>"Muh Russian AK would do better"

holy mother of keks

>>32386003
>"Muh Russian AK would do better"
Actually, new production Russian AK's have an extra rivet that assists in helping the bolt rotate into battery. I doubt it would help that much but it would be likely that it would do marginally better.

File: 1467296900378.jpg (95KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 426x426px

>>32387563

>>32387577
>anon think rifle improvement even a small one is useless

well, why did the US armed forces decided to update the M16 to the M16A1 and then A2 and A3/A4 ?

>>32385812

I know this has been discussed to death, but how does the AK have such a good reputation if it did so poorly?

>INb4 soviet propaganda

I'm pretty sure they had much more important ideas to spread back then

>>32385812
I own both and don't intend to submerge either of them in mud like that, I don't see how this test is a big deal to anyone. The only way my rifle is getting dunked in mud is if it's blown out of my hands by explosives or something and then I have much bigger problem than a fucked rifle

>>32387838
Because both guns tested are well maintained by people who know how to maintain weapons. Stick them in a third world shithole for a few decades where the users have no idea how to maintain them beyond shaking out the dirt or maybe running a cloth through it and the AK's much lower mechanical tolerances and simple design are going to let it continue to function as a lead thrower. Not accurate or ideal, but when most users don't even know how to use the sights, it's plenty.

>>32387563
k. so it would shoot 2 rounds before jamming?

>>32387838

There are other reliability metrics than Arizona mud.

>extreme cold
>extreme heat
>extreme humidity
>sand
>no lube

Et cetera. I'm not bashing the AR, I'm just saying there's more to reliability than what Ian and Karl are doing.

>>32387948
I have no idea. In terms of the In-range mud test, I'd say it would probably still shoot one and get only slightly closer to locking in battery, while an M4 trial style dust test might reveal a slight increase to reliability, where the bolt has to overcome a condition that isn't quite as binary as Ian/Karl's mud test.

File: 1480472601321.gif (2MB, 318x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 318x188px

slavaboos BTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 1480775917815.gif (2MB, 297x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 297x360px

>>32387894
man with the AR would not have a problem

you die slavaboo!

>>32385812
Before the shitposting starts, Ian and Karl have gone on record saying these were done just for fun and shouldn't be taken as factual.

File: 1471625500090.png (980KB, 1752x1342px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1752x1342px

>>32385812

File: 785067.jpg (62KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x640px

>>32388316
u wot m8?

AKs are shit!

File: 45670890.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>32388324
this is some quality OC

>>32385812
>Would a Russian AK fared better in the mud test than a Romanian one?
perhaps if it was a older Type 2 or Type 3 milled AK47 with a handfitted safety lever.

The thing is, an AK is easier to get back in operating condition if its action gets filled with mud. If you leave an AR action open and drop it in waterysloopy 'slushy/smoothee' muck (not barely wet 'peanutbutter' mud), you'd pretty much be fucked (and if you had your bolt open, might as well kiss your ass goodbye). AK you just pop the top cover off, and commence dumping a canteen into the U-channel receiver and have it all drain out the maghole.

>>32388453
Care to examine exhibit B?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

>>32388324
kek

>>32387838
because ultimately the AK isn't any more "reliable" than most other well-designed service rifles, however it is far more resistant to abuse than the vast majority of them. People confuse this for service reliability when they are actually two different aspects of a gun's performance.

also, memes.

>>32388389
>OC

>>32388453
>AK you just pop the top cover off, and commence dumping a canteen into the U-channel receiver and have it all drain out the maghole.

And you couldn't just break open an AR and do the same thing?

>>32388774
>And you couldn't just break open an AR and do the same thing?
You would think you could... but if the AR bolt is not completely in battery (ie bolt lugs are COMPLETELY CLOSED and locked against the barrel lugs), Einsteins second theory of relativity will apply, and the bolt will not pass the lower receiver ear.

Then there is the ass-over-teakettle ejected case that gets stuck up top above the gastube, also preventing you from disassembling the rifle. Its a pretty big flaw in an accurate fighting rifle.

>>32388489
Care to examine the soupy mess the AK mud is, while the AR mud is like ur normal scatporn shit?

Also, when you lift the AK that way so it flows up under the dustcover, and barely keep it on the AR, it kinda defeats the purpose.

File: 1482132366397.png (151KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 576x432px

>>32389503
stay mad

Having a rifle that can fire in a wheelbarraw full of concrete is a less important feature than one which can fire without a quart of lube. I can think of something else that is cute and lightweight and needs that much lube due to tight tolerances and it ain't a gun

>>32388024
>This
They even acknowledge that they are only doing a mud test not an extreme cold or humidity test.
They have done some sand tests but I don't think we will see more until they figure out how to do them in a comfortable for the shooter fashion.

I think its kind of silly all of the tests that people put these guns through and then claim one is better than the other.

These tests are not comparable to how they actually get used by the civilians who buy them. Or even the use in the field by actually soldiers.

Not an AK fanboy trying to claim this test is unfair or anything or damage controlling.

I just think its silly and unnecessary that people put clout into tests like these.

>>32388292
>I have both
Wow either the mental acuity or the quality of trolling of /k/ has dropped significantly and I can't figure out which

>>32389358
I'd challenge you to be able to take the dust cover off an ak an out of battery bolt

File: E15.jpg (36KB, 480x265px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x265px

>>32387654
Because the Chairforce had the M16 and the Army wanted a slightly different rifle for actual combat, this upgrade included a full mag fence, changed flashider to birdcage, bolt assist, cleaning kit stowage, chrome'd barrel, . thus the a1 was born

the a2 changed to a better rear sight, swapped out the easily broken and non symmetrical furniture, reinforced the receiver to stop cracks, added a brass deflector, muzzle device changed to full bottomed flash hider, FCG was made burst, and changed to a goverment profile barrel,.

the a3 was an a2 with full auto

a4 introduced picatiny rails to the upper receiver and handguard changed to full legth KAC RAS, enabling mall ninjas and gear queer threads to exists en masse.


But yea thats totally the same as adding one rivet.

>>32389930
I find the tests interesting from an engineering point to see where and how a gun fails (I wouldn't think that some bolt actions have problems with.mud getting into the locking recesses with a closed bolt). I wouldn't let a test like this effect make a purchase of a gun since I never plan on dropping on in the mud like that.

The people who freak out or go this is diffinitive proof of one gun superiority over another are poorfags who only have one gun or someone who has vested way to much emotionally into their first gun (this coming from a guy who is rebarreling his mosin since it was his first gun).

>>32390017
Unless that bolt carrier is stuck completely to the rear and your boot cannot kick it forward, or you got babbybackbitchboy arms&hands, you can get the dustcover off just fine because the only thing holding you is a spring.

For the AR, it is literally a steel BCG stuck inside a aluminum tube threaded inside a thicker aluminum lower with nothing to grab on.

>>32388389
Your new is showing

>>32390090
>But yea thats totally the same as adding one rivet.

Half of the A2 changes made it a worse rifle, the A3/A4 was outdated just after it was introduced, and nothing has changed on how the bolt cams into battery on the AR15. The single bolt assist rivet found on '09 and newer Russian AKs is an actual improvement upon how the bolt locks into battery.

>>32387838
>how does the AK have such a good reputation if it did so poorly?
It came from the same place where "5.56 is designed to wound", "ARs jam constantly", and other beloved fuddlore came from. Vietnam.

>>32385812
>all these anons that haven't watched inrange's video where they tell you NOT to take their mud tests seriously
>not knowing they do it for shits and giggles
>not realizing that Ian and Karl ascended to the status of gun meme gods long ago

You guys must actually be autists.

Would the T-72 pass the mud test or would it blow its turret off

>>32391334
>or would it blow its turret off
like dropping the pan while flipping a flapjack
>choose storefronts
>store called "ASSOALHOS"
wtf?! LOL

>>32390227
The fact that you think the A3 and A4 are near each other time-wise makes me think you're full of shit

>>32385812
Those tests showed that is less about quality and more about how well action is sealed. AK are not well sealed by design, sometimes it helps sometimes it doesn't.

I wonder how a daewoo or a piston AR would do.

>>32389830
Actually they did do a sand test that involved blowing a compressor at a pile of sand at the shooter and gun, though they only did it for the AR. Worked fine enough though the Garand system kind if shit the bed

Rob Ski does a sand tornado test on his AK torture tests and most come out okay.

>>32387838
>fill action with mud
>why doesn't it cycle correctly
>wtf i hate guns now
Maybe I'm crazy but if you fill up the action of your gun with mud you typically clean it out before attempting to fire it. Really makes you think.

>>32388024
AKs have issues in cold as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVe7d7xJdAo

>>32394651

I've seen that before. Have you read the 1986 SWAT magazine tests? I'm not saying that it invalidates the video, but it's pretty interesting how different the results were.

>>32396248
That test didn't incorporate any AKs.

>>32396574

Point taken, but the Galil and Valmet are basically AKs, and the FNC is AK-derived. What do you think the Spurdos and Merchants did right, that the Russians did wrong?