People need to stop thinking this mud test shows the AK is u

>>33215114
No it wouldn't. Mud fucks guns up, especially AK varients. AR style handles mud better.

Don't be mad at facts anon.

>>33215114
Why the fuck do mud tests matter so often to autists, when has anyone ever gone to the range and thought "LOL IM GONNA SHOVE MY GUN IN AN ASSLOAD OF MUD" or keep their home defense gun in a fucking tanker of mud?

>>33215150
The vietnam war, essentially

File: Untitled.png (54KB, 186x182px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 186x182px

>>33215126
he have both Russian and Bulgarian AK but chose a Romanian part kit use for the test

and he use a top of the line AR for the AR test

the test is bias

File: 1482285734991.jpg (16KB, 465x358px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 465x358px

>>33215114
> AK fag is getting triggered

File: image.jpg (327KB, 1130x890px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1130x890px

>>33215114
>Taking the mud tests seriously when Ian and Karl specifically said not to due to the fact that the modern day battlefield isn't consisted of WWI style trench warfare in the trenches of Verdun.
Secondly, nearly all licensed variants of the kalashnikovs are more or less the same due to being manufactured in the same specs as the original. The same applies to ARs, HK style rifles, FALs, etc. Unless you cut corners with the metallurgy (Which again, has nothing to do with clearances and more to do with its service life), the rifle operates the same. The Kalashnikov system isn't sealed, and has loosw clearances. This doesn't mean that the rifle is fucked. What people don't understand is that you can still attempt to clean whatever happens to the rifle, secondly, you'd be a dumbass to let it get dirty in the first place. While the AR system was designed to be sealed in the first place, it can be a bitch to unjam her in the case a foreign body enters the system (Unless you know what you're doing, you'll be fine). The other flaw is its inability to shoot with water filled in the chamber. This increases the pressure inside and can cause the rifle to blow out its magazine and causs some damage to inside (Hence why you must drain the rifle of water before firing as explained in the issued field manuals during Nam).

>>33215152
Who the fuck is going to bury their rifle in the mud? Keep it there and then specifically shovel more mud onto it?

>Nb4 the "cached" ak's that were "buried in the dirt".

>>33215157
He's tested 4 different AR platforms, one of which being a period-correct M16A1 clone.
It's safe to assume EVERY AR would be fine, and guns with tolerances and designs similar to the AK faired similarly, so it's safe to assume that every AK would let mud ingress into the action and jam the fuck up.

File: IanLRRP.jpg (211KB, 799x929px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 799x929px

>>33215114
hey be kind to gun Jezus, he's seen some things that people should never see.
Like Colt's 1911 nudes

>mud in chamber
>ANY gun working with this

>>33215114
People need to stop taking these tests as if they provide some significant data, pro tip they don't.

>>33215266
Literally the only ones who think they do, are noguns faggots.

>>33215114
Bait

>>33215270
There are a lot of people that do actually. They don't realize you need a much higher sample size for such testing. This is part Ian and Karl's fault. They are fully aware but still reference this video in their other videos, intentionally spreading bad information. Stay away from pseudoscientists.

>>33215188
i wish he would do the same with the AK test instead of 10 video about how he not hate AK and people should not hate AK

>>33215292
I just want to slaughter every mudshit man woman and children

File: IMG_0385.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>33215327
Sorry you're so butthurt.

>>33215327
So much edge. Better watch it, you might put an eye out with your sharp and pointy autism.

>>33215292
The video does prove that AKs take in mud if you drown them in it and shovel more mud on top, but that's all it does. AKs having loose fits and openings is absolutely nothing new and provides absolutely no kind of issue in any sort of realistic scenario. You are not going to let your rifle get this full of mud and if for some inexplicable reason you, do, whether it's an AR or an AK doesn't matter, since the barrel is going to be full of mud and thus unsafe to fire, regardless of what you are carrying.
Literally the only people who are bothered by this are noguns faggots, retards and shitposters merely pretending.

>>33215367
Well I wouldn't even go that far to say that's proven. They only used one gun and did one test. That's like saying we are testing this car for accidents, crashing it once in one area, and then saying because it performed well in this test it will do in reality. Not only that but the tests seem inconsistent. How can they guarantee the ratio of water to sand is equal in each test without measurements, documentation, etc.
tldr Ian and Karl are dumb

>>33215383
I should say that was proven in their testing. It's fairly common knowledge that big opening can be problematic but you can't prove that with a sample size of 1. The results just aren't significant.

I love watching you guys rationalize the AK sucking at dealing with mud.

>>33215433
Not anyone in this thread or a fan boy, I have both; but i've seen both guns come up with stoppages. ak much less even after both havent been cleaned in a month and dropped in mud puddles with broken lipped magazines. Just personal experience.

>>33215114
If you fill any rifle with mud it will fail.

The great advantage of the AK is that if this happens (jam because of mud), you just pop up the dust cover, clean the interior summarily with water, put back the dust cover on and the rifle is good to go (loose tolerances, few moving parts).

The AR on the other hand is better sealed. Which means that it's more difficult for mud to enter. But once mud is inside, you need to clean the rifle very well to make it work again (small parts, tight tolerances).

>>33215150
I wonder why they don't do a test where they have to run through a muddy obstacle course where they have to jump around, crawl, etc around mud while holding their rifle. Maybe even dropping the rifle in the mud to try to simulate combat conditions

So whatever mud that gets on and possibly into the rifle, would be more realistic, as opposed to purposely burying your rifle in mud and packing it in.

>>33215509
>Maybe even dropping the rifle in the mud to try to simulate combat conditions
Mate, you don't drop your fucking rifle in the mud. You twist your body to take the fall and keep the rifle above the mud.

>>33215516
shit happens in combat. you don't want to get shot either but it still happens

>>33215546
If shit happens enough for you to lose control of your body, chances are you're either a casualty, or your barrel's going to be full of mud as well, at which point your choice of firearm doesn't matter for shit.

File: german-motorcycle.jpg (80KB, 800x612px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x612px

>>33215181
I'm laughing at the prospect of some soviet peasant tripping over and dropping his rifle into mud during training exercises in the mud season.

File: 1488500582260.png (107KB, 283x375px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 283x375px

>>33215554
I'm sure the Soviet military had the capability to tell their recruits to keep their rifles free of snow and mud, nevermind dropping it.

>>33215509
Ian did it with an AR and some other rifles.

One thing they didn't test is what happens if mud gets in the barrel

>>33215553
So considering that you're not constantly in combat, if shit happens and you fall down in an uncontrollable way(which is usually the way it happens) and land in mud or thick debris...

File: CQjujXMWsAAWoib.jpg (80KB, 579x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 579x960px

>>33215572
Mate I've seen some pretty stupid shit happen in training exercises across all militaries.

>>33215554
>Drops gun on mud
>Gun sinks into mud as if was quicksand

>>33215592
The barrel is ruined, worst case it's plugged and the gun suffers a catastrophic failure.

>>33215603
>uncontrollable way(which is usually the way it happens)
No it's not. I must've fallen a dozen times during my year inna FDF and not once did I allow my rifle to fall first. Thrice I fell in a swamp and kept my gun dry, many more times in snow. All it takes is a movement of your right arm and a slight twist of your body to fall on your left hip, which you'll be used to anyway, training movement under fire.

>>33215604
I suppose you're right. Should never underestimate the grunt's stupidity.

File: a0329.gif (21KB, 253x370px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 253x370px

>>33215634
>training movement under fire.
Specifically talking about rushing.

>>33215114
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE

to every firearms test, you can usually find videos showing the exact opposite outcome.

>>33215578
remember which episode it was in? I kinda want to watch them.

>>33215660
M16 mud test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

>>33215484
None of what you said is true.

>>33215152
That was 50 years ago

>>33215114
So Romanian AK is not an AK now?

Mfw this guy was used as a source to discredit my love of VZ58.

If I'm going to low crawl through the Everglades for two miles I'll wipe my chamber before I fire.

>>33215640
But that is a test with different parameters.

>>33216009
This is where I can see that mud tests are bullshit.

If he had opened the dust cover and let the mud inside the rifle it would have been fucked like the AK.

in fact any rifle with a dust cover would be fine in this situation UNLESS you put mud when the dust cover is removed.

File: IMG_0067.png (831KB, 816x841px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 816x841px

this thread again

>>33216466
Did you even watch the video? Go to 2:30

>>33216466
>>33216544
Meanwhile, the AK failed the same test with its 'dust cover' safety closed

File: images.jpg (2KB, 90x90px)

2KB, 90x90px

I present The Butthurt Vatnick AK reliability copypasta 2017 edition, For use when any AK fails and you need to justify the issue is due to the gun not being a "real AK"

Uses a Wasr
>HUUR NOT REAL AK, DO DAT SHIT WITH A NOT CENTURY MONKEEY BRAND AK

uses Hungarian one
>HUUR NOT REAL AK!!! USE ONE THAT IS MADE BY A COUNTRY THAT MAKES GOOD GUNZ

uses a Polish made one
>HUUR NOT REAL AK, DO DAT WITH A SLAV MADE ONE

uses a Serbian made one
>HUUR NOT REAL AK, USE ONE MADE IN A RUSSIAN SPEAKING COUNTRY FUCKER!!

uses a Arsenal
>HUUR NOT REAL AK, DO DAT WITH A RUSSIAN MADE ONE

Uses a Siaga
>HUUR NOT REAL AK, DO DAT WITH A REAL SOVIET ONE BITCH!

uses a Norinco
>HUUUUR NOT REAL AK, CHINESE SHIT FAGGOT! TRY ONE NOT MADE BY SLAVES

uses a Maadi
>HHHUUUUURRR NOT REAL AK, GET DAT PYRAMID KEBAB SHIT OUT OF HERE!!

>Uses Galil,
>YOU GET DAT JOOO SHIT BACK TO THE OVEN. WHERE DO YOU GET DA BALLZ TO PASS DAT SHIT OFF MOTHERFUCKER

uses Valmet
>HUUUR NOT REAL AK!!! FUG OFF WITH YOU AND DAT SPURDO BITCH TOO!!!

uses Vecktor
>HHHURR NOT REAL AK GO BACK TO AFRICA!!!!

uses a sig 550, or 556
>HHUURR FUCKING COOCOOKLOCK KRAUT SHIT, NOT REAL AK BUDDY DIS IS WHAT HAPPENZ WHEN YOU TAKE GLORIOUS AK AND HAVE IT FUCK GARBAGE AR,

uses a kit build from any "real AK" from AK commie country
>HUUR NOICE TRY ASSCLOWN, NOT REAL AK. DAT SHIT IS OLD AND BUSTED AND WORN AND IS MADE BY AN AMERICAN ASSHOLE LIKE YOU

>>33216653
I got some hearty keks when that Russian TV show edited it to look like the rifle didn't fail.

>>33216653
see>>33216518

>>33215114

The AK got a different methodology, when Carl constantly mentions keeping the test the same. It was buried, when now the test is to gently lay the rifle over the mud-barrow and pour the mud over it. They only submerged the AK.

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

614KB, 671x683px

LOL

itt
>If I keep saying it, it must be true.

>>33216518
>it has more parts that can fail
No, it doesn't.

Fuck.

Isn't the 'x is more reliable than y' shit all bullshit anyways? I thought it was just that it was relatively easier to get an AK working if you fuck it in the field.

>>33215114
The reliability "myth" is total nogunz shit anyways
Any fucktard who knows how to disassemble a gun knows dirt of any kind fucks a weapon regardless of who makes it
What makes the AK "more reliable" is that should dirt get caked in mud to a point of malfunction for some dumbass reason, fixing that is as easy is popping your dust cover off and flipping it over. Also the fact it has all of 5 or so moving parts so not much cleaning and maintenance is necessary
The whole reliability thing is just stupid

>>33217277
It's not any easier.

>>33217277
>relatively easier to get an AK working if you fuck it in the field

No.

Why do people act like the AR is such a complex machine?

>push out a single pin, get access to FCG and BCG
>pull out BCG, it disassembles in 5 seconds flat
>complete access to chamber/bore

What's so fucking complicated about it

File: 1487927548993.jpg (25KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 520x390px

>>33215114
>AKs never jam like the M16
>AK fails mud test
>Only real Ak's are Russian made ones!

Guys, an AK was designed to be a cheap mass production rifle.
A Russian AK is no more or less reliable than any other.
They are all cheap guns that shoot steel case ammo all day.

>>33215157
Protip: "top of the line" in the ar world almost certainly just means you paid too much for it. Aside from the barrel and trigger pack, there is rarely an appreciable difference. It's just about GUCCI for those guys

>>33216071
I didn't know that mud stopped existing after the vietnam war.

File: 53.jpg (183KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x533px

Fanboys are so fucking stupid.

No, a Russian AK is not "higher quality." No, it will not stand up to the mud test better. A Romanian AK is built to the same specs and tolerances that a Russian one is built to. They might differ in finish, accessories, and a few minor things, but the gun is the same.

An AK is an EXTREMELY open system. I mean it's really a miracle, like if a house with just a foundation and a tarp over the top kept you clean and dry for 5 years. An AR is a very CLOSED system. It is very hard for mud to actually get into the action on an AR. The bolt has to be open before it can do so, and the motion of the bolt will probably prevent any mud from actually getting in.

So don't get your panties in a twist because muh AK reliability isn't perfect. Nothing is.

I don't see why autists care about these stupid mud tests anyways. You aren't ever going to literally drown your fucking rifle in mud at the gun range. Even soldiers do not get into shit that bad. If you're ever in a situation where there is literally pounds of mud caked into the action on your gun I think you need to sit down and think about the course of events and your part in them that led you to that point.

>>33218232
>not rolling around in the mud with your rifle

It's like he's never been through basic training

>>33218439
>implying you're ever going to get that much mud on or in your rifle

The only reason they're even able to get that much mud covering the gun is because they are literally trying to. Any situation where you have that much mud and shit on your gun is also going to plug up the barrel and make it unsafe to fire anyways.

How would an sks fair, to a ak in the mud test?

File: soldiers-in-muddy-flooded-014.jpg (679KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2560x1536px

>>33219063
>How would an sks fair, to a ak in the mud test?

probably badly. Grit would easily infiltrate the magazine and get caught in the chamber. My chink SKS has feeding problems even under ideal conditions.

>>33218232
>Even soldiers do not get into shit that bad.

uh, yes they do. There are a million reasons that a soldier might need to jump into or travel across heavy mud.

>>33216853
Meanwhile the AR got submerged as well with its dust cover open...

>>33215114
Does the test need to use Russia brand Russian mud too?

File: mag fitment.jpg (176KB, 1382x778px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1382x778px

Mud in the receiver eventually means mud in the chamber, and that means no more working rifle.

AK BTFO completely

File: AK service manual magazines.jpg (416KB, 1681x982px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1681x982px

>>33215114
The only thing you have to bitch about is no select-fire FCG, that includes an auto-sear.

FCG different the other FCG might fare better or worse.

>>33219155
"Travel across heavy mud" is not the same as "literally stick your fucking gun 4 inches into the mud, swish it around, and pack mud onto the top of it with your hand."

I said before, any situation where that is happening you're already fucked because your barrel is obstructed.

>>33215114
>A russian ak is far higher quality and would be a much fairer test than using a cheap low quality romanian parts kit AK they used.

No it wouldn't. "Reliability" isn't really the appropriate term for why Russian firearms are good, or last as long as they do anyways. This is perhaps a better video showcasing "reliability".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpTIVlC7Ho

Russian firearms are successful designs precisely because they can be "rode hard, put away wet". They're durable guns that can survive being beaten around and carried daily. Being simply, robust designs is more important than having no ingress points for foreign material in this case.

It's not because they can be pulled out of a bucket of mud and function flawlessly.

>>33219491
shit does happen though, falling in a big mud hole happened to a US soldier in a youtube vid in Iraq

File: side rail mount2.jpg (409KB, 1229x691px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1229x691px

>>33219586
Durability is why Russian guns are good, everyone on /k/ knows this by now.

My AR would bend and break long before my AK would.

But that kind of durability seems more important for peasant armies with nonexistent logistics. Rifle also comes with cleaning rod and cleaning kit, perfect peasant rifle.

At least the soviets weren't dishonest about what they needed.

>>33219636
>Durability is why Russian guns are good, everyone on /k/ knows this by now.

You would hope.

Much of the ass pain from that mud test video stems from the myth of "AK reliability" though, which itself is just a product of people wanting to simplify the AK and AR down into these binary opposites, based upon the mythology of our own experience with the AR in Vietnam. Pure History Channel logic.

>>33215114
>but it's not a real Russian AK
Downright one of the most idiotic and ignorant statements I've ever heard in actual real life.

>>33219636

>FORGED 7075
>bending/breaking before cheap stamped steel

Fuck off retard

Honestly what does it matter. This isn't a realistic condition for any gun. This isn't WW1 in the muddy trenches, this isn't a Vietnam firefight where you don't have half a second to wipe down the ejection port or shake off the gun.

>>33216544
I like how he hasn't come back.