>any guns that dont pass extreme torture tests on youtube are shit

Still mad your VP9 was exposed as the trash it is?

Are you trying to suggest that that is untrue? They might still have value historically or as a proof of concept to be improved on, but unreliable guns are for practical purposes worthless

fghfgh

Calling a gun unreliable because it didn't work well after a mud torture test is like calling a car unreliable because it broke down after you ran it through a brick wall.

literally LMAO'ing at your miserable life you bitch ass hk cuck

>>32452300
I rather take the US military's torture test standards than what these clowns online attempt to do. However, I will admit some do it correctly, but are still amatuerish

>>32452318
The retarded shit they do in torture tests in no way immitates any situation you will ever find yourself in. Theyre only valid for rifles used for military operations and only when done in a controlled, repeatable way.

>>32452318
>>32452303
>>32452326
You're probably the same people who complain about overly tacticool mall ninjas, yet you use these tests as a way to show up fanboys for companies you don't like.

I mean, if you're gonna go swimming with your gun and then roll around in the bog with it, I guess these torture tests are for you. Most people carrying weapons don't live like literal pigs, myself included, so these tests aren't all that important to me.

If you want a benchrest gun or a safequeen, torture tests don't mean much. If you're going to use it in actual conflict, it might show some issues you were previously unaware of.

>>32452318
A "Torture test" is not a performance test, it's a crash test. If it's true, as you say, than AKMs are unreliable guns that only have historical values, because there are several "torture tests" that wreck AKMs.
Did you see that video where IV8888 blew the gas tube on the AR after putting ~1000 rounds through?

Guess ARs are unreliable guns that only have historical value.

>>32452318
Because most people roll around in fucking gritty mud on a daily basis, gotta be ready bro!

File: ar-15-torture-test.png (779KB, 715x471px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 715x471px

>>32452959

This.

Torture tests expose an issue in a rifle that could crop up in a worst-case scenario, and gives you something to keep in mind when operating a rifle in a combat environment, for example:

- An AK can jam when subjected to extremely muddy conditions, such as submersion in mud, and may require removing the dust cover and flushing
- An AR can kB! if you don't allow it time to drain after submersion in water
- An EOTech may suffer from POI shift if exposed to temperatures under -40 or above 122 degrees, something to keep in mind when using in arctic or hot desert environments

An AK could suck dicks in muddy trench conditions, an AR could be terrible in maritime or semi-aquatic environments, and an EOTech could be horrible in Alaska or some balls hot middle eastern environment.

But disqualifying said weapon from any service entirely makes you a retard.

File: 1480523684877.jpg (4KB, 125x118px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x118px

>>32452318
I live in a city and have a carry gun, the nearest water is miles away, the only dirt is in planters, but I guess it's useless for any practical use just in case I'm attacked by a landscaping truck and a fire engine and then have to draw on someone

>>32453876
>An AK can jam when subjected to extremely muddy conditions
Any gun can jam when grit enters critical parts of the gun like the bolt carrier rails, firing pin bore, or fire controls.

The moral of the story is, don't bury your gun in the dirt.

I don't get you guys. If you treat your guns like safequeens, why are you watching mudtests to being with? If your mom drives a Tacoma that shits the bed at the slightest mention of dust then its a shit 4wd, even if she only ever uses it to pick you up from soccer practice.

>>32453927
B-but muh delusional shtf scenario where literally 100 things would kill you before a weapons malfunction would dictates that my gun needs to be indestructible!

>>32454067
Who is antman and what is hoobidy doobidy?

>>32454076
Newfag

Those tests are like throwing a car inside a river and saying that it sucks because it won't start.

>>32454082
Not really, just haven't been on 4chan in a few years.

>>32452345
>I can pretend it never happened because I don't do stuff like that

>>32454090
If you remove the battery, afterwards drain the engine and let the electronics dry out, it almost certainly will.

>>32454101

http://desuarchive.org/k/search/username/The_Ant_Man/tripcode/%21KpuDfj7%2F2s/

>>32454076

He was some crazy guy and you could always tell if it was him even without the trip, because he would go into mind blowing levels of retardation.

>>32454126
Dat autizm lebels

>>32452300
The issue is not an individual gun's performance in a vacuum but its performance relative to other guns that have a similar construction and intended purpose. Is there any reason why a combat Sig that goes for over $1000 dollars should ever lose to a cheap copy made by a third world country? Is here any reason why an HK polymer gun should ever be worse than Glock mediocrity? This is the same reason why the Sebenza gets rightfully ridiculed--it was outed as offering no added value over cheap Chinese-made knives that cost 1/4th its price.

>>32452300
The torture tests are interesting, but that's about it. Not many, if non of us are ever going to have out guns in situations that extreme, so there's no need to worry about it.

That said, no one has done a test on my carry gun of choice, and I wish they would.

>>32452303
Of the VP9 is trash then Glocks and every other striker fired pistol must be shit then.

>>32454082
>antman
>not a newfag forced meme
L E L

>>32454107
Yeah and if you clean the gunk out of a gun that's been chucked in a river it will also work.

>>32454076
The most forced meme this board has seen.

>>32454208
What is your carry gun of choice?

>>32454223
Literally makes no sense tard

Gun reliability is dependent on myriad variables that are closed off in sterile rangelike environments. Any given gun is still susceptible to failures associated with those variables despite never nearing those thresholds in an academic manner.

If you own a gun because bad things happen to people, and don't believe that bad things also happen to guns, you're a first rate fool.

Ergo it is totally reasonable to not only put your weapon "through its paces" but to also open up the envelopes of extreme conditions and manipulation during testing to add that little bit of extra insurance.

This shouldn't even be a debate

>>32454223
>Glocks and every other striker fired pistol must be shit then.
gloks are shit

flintlock blackpowder muzzleloading pistol masterrace

File: STEYR-PISTOL-M9-A1.png (401KB, 789x600px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 789x600px

>>32454608

>>32452300
If a gun can't cycle while full of gravel, it's not a good shooter.

>>32454106
I'm not pretending these guns didn't jam you fucking moron. If the gun only fails in situations I'll almost certainly never find myself in, then it's a non issue for me.