Do they really matter? Or is it just weapons grade autism
>>33138783
They're a fun curiosity to watch someone else try with "their" gun.
But completely useless and anecdotal evidence on reliability on any given gun for the most part.
>>33138783
If done to show that a certain gun suck but this other gun doesn't, yes it is pure weapons grade autism.
If done for shits and giggles, who cares.
>>33138842
>>33138887
/thread
>>33138783
Mud tests are stupid. Just invade Russia in the winter when all the mud is frozen.
>>33138783
I thought they were fun to watch. Not as a test but I actually would like to see what happens if the mud actually goes inside the gun. I'm guessing you can just wash off AK because everything is easy to access.
>>33138783
>Do they really matter?
Not really. Both even Ian and Karl state this. It is all about context, which the majority of firearm owners have a lack of understanding thanks to autism.
What's a real test? This right here.
No gay gangbang where 10 sweaty neckbeards line up taking turns shooting 1,000 rounds through the same gun. No lame ass mud test with a neckbeard throwing his $600 pistol into a puddle or steel plate. Shooting the fuck out of a gun, running it through drills and documenting everything, this is a real test.
https://pistol-training.com/archives/2668
Mud tests are as informative as a test to see if a car shits the bed when you put sugar in the gas tank.
They made the ak fags mad so i'd say they serve a good purpose.
>>33139306
>What's a real test? This right here.
Yup, but it scares me to think of how much $$$ went into that test. I figure they spent over 15,000 minimum if they were shooting factory ammo.
>>33139234
pretty much, just dunk the rifle in a creek cycle it a few times and swish it around and it is GTG, ar is harder to stop with mud but if mud gets into the locking lugs and star chamber area it will need to be cleaned. Both systems are reliable as fuck though. AK does better against the fine dust they have over in the sandbox though.