What is the worst determination of a firearm's reliability

So, what you're saying is the Ross Rifle was perfectly fine and history was wrong to disparage it

File: laughing hips.png (127KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 480x480px

>>34017490
>his rifle failed the mud test

File: 1488643613379.png (980KB, 1752x1342px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 1752x1342px

>>34017490
Buttmad person who unsubscribed from InrangeTV ~T.

File: IMG_2365.jpg (34KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x480px

>>34017506
>Anon didn't read the fucking post
>The Ross rifle was essentially a target rifle not suitable for use in war

>>34017507
>The only center fire rifle I own is a BCM ar15, and the ar15 functioned completely flawlessly in the mud test
>inb4 "I am poor and can't afford BCM so I will shit all over a milspec rifle because of a brand name"

>>34017568
>>34017490
You don't know what a torture test is for , do you?

>>34017490
>>The firearm is designed to function under normal conditions
found the flaw in your premise
the firearm is designed to function under various conditions

>>34017578
>Anon didn't read the fucking post
>I know exactly what a torture test is for
>Other people don't which is why I made his post, to educate the mentally challenged masses that base their liking of a firearm over a damn torture test

>>34017601
>>>>I know exactly what a torture test is for

No, you don't.

>>34017490
If you think serious firearms are only designed with normal conditions in mind you're absolutely pants on head retarded.

>>34017490
mud test is not a torture test.

>>34017610
>A torture test is used to see how well a firearm may function in unrealistic conditions
>A torture test is difficult to completely replicate, and often firearms will perform very well in one test and not another
>Anon is mentally challenged

>>34017620
>Anon is a master at developing a straw man argument
>Anon likes fallacies
>My post implies that a manufacturer does not design every aspect of a firearm to function in abnormal conditions such as being completely submerged in mud, although they may design a firearm to function well in realistic conditions, which might include inclement weather or a realistic amount of mud, sand, snow, etc

File: Uru.jpg (199KB, 782x550px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 782x550px

TFW OP, and other fags don't know what a torture test is, from reliability test

A torture is the mix between a reliability test, and a durability test.

A reliability test is just a mud test

A durability test is shooting a gun until it wont shoot anymore

The Uru would beat all of them. ;^)

>>34017662
if a cerrtain piece of equpment can handle unrealisticly harsh enviroments, it is even more likely to handle the realistic ones.

"torture testing" is also a way to get a concise way to compare different equipment, but also that they are retestable

>>34017490
>Mud tests are not reliability tests as they do not test the functioning of the firearm in the conditions that it was designed to function in

>rifles are not designed to work after being dropped in the mud
k

>>34017490
Nofuns here, I believe it would make more sense to test a firearm under torture test and repetitive regular use and cross-examine it's ability to function in both situations. A gun that can fire even with gravel in it but isn't much good on its own is not really a great gun, the same way one that is reliable normally but jams under little stress is likely to cause problems, so I suppose one that is reliable and can take at least some abuse would be the best.
makes sense right?

>>34017674
a torture test is basically pushing the equpment under test, beyond its designed specification.

and seeing how far beyond you can get, you can do this with mud too.

>>34017710
unless you are crawling through a foot deep watery mud puddle for several minutes. there is no way a soldier's weapon is going to get that much mud inside it.

>>34017745
>unless you are crawling through a foot deep watery mud puddle for several minutes
>implying this can't happen

>>34017490

"submerged in mud" tests are part of the Military's testing protocols. that said, testing 1 example of a gun against another is heuristically worthless bc simple chance has too big of an impact. a single "unlucky" grain of sand can kill ANY gun. therefore, you need to test many examples of a gun against it's competitors. as always in science you want n to be as large as possible.

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

stuff like this which has results diametrically opposed to inrange's test is possible bc their n=1.

>>34017721
Mud can be cleaned away, but things like setting explosives off next to a gun leave pretty fucking good marks

Take https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRf7MbF9suk for example, its a pretty fucking good test IMHO, it shows what a 1911 can take; and it IS a torture test.

>>34017757
unless we are going to fight in a rain forest or back to trench warfare in a humid climate, it won't.

even then. drop mag, cycle the action a few times, hold the action open and tap the rifle. now you have a clear enough rifle.

>>34017785
>unless we are going to fight in a rain forest or back to trench warfare in a humid climate
Both can happen. Swamps exist, too.

>even then. drop mag, cycle the action a few times, hold the action open and tap the rifle. now you have a clear enough rifle.
Apparently not as that wasn't enough to un-fuck the AK in the InRange test.

>>34017710
>Another semi-retarded anon who loves formulating a straw man argument
>That is not what I said, and being dropped in the mud can be considered a realistic scenario, whereas having several pounds of mud dropped over its ejection port is not
>Anon is semi-retarded and loves to formulate a fallacious argument
>Anon is so stupid I have to repeat myself one more time - Anon is semi-retarded

>>34017772
>This guy actually makes sense
>You have to test many samples of a firearm because only testing one is more of a case study
>Good point

>>34017804
>That is not what I said
That is what your are implying, hence the usage of ">".

Lurk more.

>>34017774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CuFf5h17L4

Glock Excelsior!

File: c5e.jpg (344KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 625x625px

HEY FAGGOTS, LETS SET SOMETHING STRAIGHT

If it survives pure fucking hell, its probably a good gun, and thats great.

If it doesn't, thats fine, as long as it isn't just shit, its perfectly fine.

>>34017816
>Anon's fallacious argument is exposed
>He is mad
>His only response is "lurk more"
>I win, suck my cock, you shit

>>34017827
>This guy knows what's up
>A bad torture test is not the only determining factor of how good a gun is
>Thank you for not being dumb

>>34017832
You need to post less and lurk more.

>>34017840
Hey man, I was the Anons >>34017547 >>34017578 >>34017610 >>34017674 >>34017774 >>34017827 the entire time

>>34017853
>Anon says some stupid shit, but makes a good point, and I give credit where credit is due
>What did he mean by this

>>34017846
Also, may things make up what a gun is, single shot guns are pretty much epitome of how reliable, durable, and accurate a gun can be, you could put absolute hell apon a single shot gun, and it will survive, and thrive, where literally any other gun won't (not even the Uru); but when you start putting more bits, and bobs, is where shit gets really fucking complicated.

>>34017886
>You are really bad at greentexting

oh look it's another
>"reliability" test where we keep the dust cover closed on the AR and submerge it in mud like that's supposed to be impressive
episode

>>34017886
Your replies to my past posts, are contradicting when compared to >>34017840

>>34017827

Wow, marking this post, Albuquerque.

>>34017898

meh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1VZ9Mur1bU&list=PLP7PGPbJZNmzbClkYLIxOpQfXkoCax1pn

try this with an AR and the barrel will snap out of the upper...

>>34017914
That's the point of a dust cover. Why wouldn't you keep it closed?

>>34017932
AR is not the same as an AK, people need to remember that; both have their pros, and cons.

>>34017662
Well Einstein

When you drop a rifle in the mud, it tends too get covered in mud.

Rifles and Some pistols are designed with this in mind

File: 500px-610x.jpg (54KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x334px

>>34017914

They did it with the dust cover open as well and it still worked perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXndCxn9K4

>>34017945
>AR is not the same as an AK

that's weird bc I was under the impression they are a self loading infantryman's rifle in an intmediary cartridge...

>people need to remember that; both have their pros, and cons.

true

>>34017935
>That's the point of a dust cover. Why wouldn't you keep it closed?

because it doesn't test anything if it never gets dirty

might as well just paint the gun brown and say it's a test

>>34017964
AR, and AK were made for different purposes...

>>34017923
>They are not
>You made some stupid points, so I called you on it
>You made a good point, and I said so, because I give credit where credit is due
>I have no idea who is who because of Anon
>You still think you have some sort of "point"
>I guess you are stupid in general after all

>>34017986
You need to stop typing

And you're still bad a greentexting, newfriend.

>>34017952
>Uses Einstein as a "standard" for being smart
>Anyone who has any knowledge of science knows that Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell were far more influential than Einstein
>Kill yourself because you formed a straw man

>>34017974
>because it doesn't test anything if it never gets dirty
It tests how well the gun keeps dirt out of the action. It's not just going to magically appear inside the gun.

The whole point is that AR does this exceptionally well.

>>34017978

>AR, and AK were made for different purposes

Not really. They were both intended as infantry rifles.

>>34017974

>The design of the gun prevents it from getting jammed
>Somehow this is a bad thing

Also, as I already pointed out, they tested it with the dust cover open as well as closed.

>>34017998
What fucking country are you from? Do you not know that calling someone "Einstein" is a type of saying?

>>34017978
>AR, and AK were made for different purposes...
like what? you are moving goalposts. they are rifles made for the same "purpose" - the only difference is in the technologies the countries that were making them were willing to use to make them... remember, it took the AR a long time to become a streamlined, optics ready flat top race gun.

>>34018013
>Not really. They were both intended as infantry rifles.

You don't know what either of the rifles were made for, do you?

>>34018009
>It tests how well the gun keeps dirt out of the action

but the goal of the tests is to see how it performs when dirty, and it never gets dirty

do soldiers always keep the cover closed when fighting?

wouldn't dust and dirt find its way into the action while shit is going down?

it's a shit test and it's pure theatrics

>>34017772
Wow, why did InRange's AR hold up and this one didn't.

File: bF6Cp.jpg (30KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x375px

>>34017998
You're embarrassing yourself at this point.

>>34017568
You waste money on buying a complete BCM rifle and pretend to be an authority on anything? You got balls kid, I'll give you that.

File: shoogoaway.png (14KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x500px

/ITT people who don't know what AR, and AK's were made for in warfare.

Fucking Christ, you people sicken me, get the fuck off /k/, you fags don't belong here

>>34018035

Yes, in fact, I do. They were both intended as, and used as infantry rifles.

>>34017662
I'm pretty sure I remember the offensive pistol tests were worse than anything youtube shills have done. Something about intentionally squibbing the MK23, then clearing it with another round and then looking at group size. That may or may not have been after the week long sea water bath.

>>34018064
>Yes, in fact, I do. They were both intended as, and used as infantry rifles.

OH BABY

>>34018036
>but the goal of the tests is to see how it performs when dirty, and it never gets dirty
It does get dirty on the outside. Again, the dirt doesn't just magically appear inside the action. It has to get there first. Checking what would happen if it got there when it clearly can't doesn't make any sense.

>do soldiers always keep the cover closed when fighting?
No, but as other Anon already pointed out, the action is sealed off even without the dust cover.

>wouldn't dust and dirt find its way into the action while shit is going down?
Apparently it wouldn't as you can see for yourself in these tests. As long as the bolt is closed, there is no way for anything to get inside the chamber.

>it's a shit test and it's pure theatrics
To me it looks like you are upset it doesn't align with your expectations. That's reality.

>>34018053
>ITT: A person who does not know how to use a comma.

File: th4Q9AZ368.jpg (9KB, 249x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 249x250px

>>34018074

>>34018112
"After I have no counter argument, I just call anything opposing me bait!"

>>34018110
Commas, are, a, textualised, form, of, breaths; you, are, also, not, an, english, major.

File: 64e.jpg (513KB, 1146x1148px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1146x1148px

>>34018128

>>34018091
>Checking what would happen if it got there when it clearly can't doesn't make any sense.

but it can, the action isn't perfectly sealed, and this is the case for many rifles

you are literally just painting the outside of the gun, and that's not a dirt test

>To me it looks like you are upset it doesn't align with your expectations

i thought this was clear from the start, i said it's a shit test and it doesn't meet my expectations

the guy in the video above with the tavor and AK are better tests, but he still closes the AK cover

tell me what soldier has the presence of mind to do this while he's tripping and dropping his weapon, or doing anything that will cause the gun to get shit in it

>>34018134
>Commas, are, a, textualised, form, of, breaths
No, something like "(breathes)" would be be.

File: 1471189622001.jpg (101KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x600px

>>34018134
>you, are, also, not, an, english, major.

But you are? Let's see:

>/ITT people who don't know what AR, and AK's were made for in warfare.
>AK's
>means plural of AK
>writes possessive form of AK

english major my asshole.

pic related is probably the clown you are IRL.

>>34018151
(breathes), Woah, (breathes), mister, (breathes), "I, (breathes), take, (breathes), everything, (breathes), literally, (breathes)", (breathes), don't, (breathes), take, (breathes), shit, (breathes), too, (breathes), literally, (breathes).

>>34018168
Never fucking said I was, you dipshit.

>>34018168
That picture gives me hope for the future. Finally after all these years of oppression my people are able to rise above it all and take control.

File: 1437389519781.png (119KB, 392x366px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 392x366px

>>34018091
>That's reality
Name anyone who would fire their fucking gun when it's submerged in mud without cleaning it first? Name anyone who would constantly flip their fucking AR dust cover on every time they stop firing and run two feet?

>b-buh it doesn't mattah anyway becuz da ayy arr is super duper good and there's literally no way dirt could get into the action without the dust cover sealing it, because i say so. One might ask why have a dust cover in the first place if nothing can get in the action, but they're just butthurt anti-american commies wrongthinking

Also, the point of AK "reliability" isn't that it's an indestructible weapon designed by god, it's that when it fails it's easy to fix the fucking problem, unlike with an AR

>>34018181
"take control" over what? once the white genocide is over, your people will rule over a bunch of sticks and stones and new england will be nigger free because niggers can't live there without the white devil's medicine in form of artificial vitamin D3 supplements.

This thread is dead, all posts now are just maggots in the body.

>>34018210
You realize african civilization was the most advanced an complex the world has ever known before the white man came with diseases and wiped them all out or sold them into slavery?

>>34018226
I pity you.

>>34017772

If you actually watched the video closely, he drops the AR ejection port facing downward with dust cover open. He doesn't replicate the same procedure with the AK. He drops the AK ejection port facing upwards and rinses before firing. Then when it comes to the sand test for the AK, notice he "buries" the non-ejection port side. I don't have a particular bias between the AK and AR and which one is "superior," but there seems to be a bias in the method, whether intentional or unintentional.

>>34018037
Well he didn't actually fire the AR at all before submerging it so it might be just that he has a too low gas setting. Other than that, the AR is somewhat susceptible to small stuff like this muddy water, with chunky mud it seems to do just fine.

>>34018554
Interesting. I wish someone would one day do a full on unbiased torture test with the AR platform but that would require a huge budget and way too many AR's.

File: 1406214707157.jpg (12KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 230x230px

What is the most reliable firearm?

>>34017827
Fucking this.

Oh no my phone got blown up by tannerite and failed the mud test. Next time I'll buy apple.

>>34019387
A knife.

>>34019387
Probably a cannon.

>>34018243
And I you.

Friendly reminder that this is a """"torture test"""" done right.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/4027

>>34017490
I dont have a problem with torture tests, I just have an issue with how horribly people misquote them.

>"Gun A" fired 6,000 rounds with no cleaning or breaks in fire before failure
>"Gun B" fired 7,000 rounds with no cleaning or breaks in fire before failure
>OMG "GUN A" IS A POS, WOW, I CANT EVEN! WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY GUN A?

Both tests clearly show 2 reliable weapons, one is just a bit more so than the other. Nonetheless, it has now garunteed that mallninjas who will never fire more than a few hundred rounds per month out of it from a bench on a range will talk shit on gun A for all eternity.

File: thisneverhappensinwar.jpg (83KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 450x320px

>>34017745

>>34017490
Being able to puncture a Steel Helmet at 500 yards.

>>34019866

>smug anime image
>gun A fags BTFO

File: IMG_1243.jpg (156KB, 496x750px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 496x750px

>>34017745
Yeah no way

File: water-in-trench.jpg (140KB, 600x461px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x461px

>>34017745

>Mud never happens in warfare

You can't be this naive.

>>34020225
>laughingsluts.jpeg
>only poorfags like gun A

File: mfw.jpg (13KB, 233x217px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 233x217px

>>34017662
>>A torture test is used to see how well a firearm may function in unrealistic conditions

>>34017954

Don't mind the HK shills or nogunz.

>>34018037
It looked like he had the dust cover AND bolt open when he dropped it in. Both were closed for the ak.

>>34018191
>Name anyone who would constantly flip their fucking AR dust cover on every time they stop firing and run two feet?
As has been pointed out, you wouldn't need to. It will outlast an ak in a muddy environment even with the cover opened. The cover is nice to have as a confidence booster and prevents things like pebbles and large particles from getting in there, which actually could fuck it up. It also doesn't weigh much, and it doesn't hurt anything, so why not add one?

>Also, the point of AK "reliability" isn't that it's an indestructible weapon designed by god, it's that when it fails it's easy to fix the fucking problem, unlike with an AR

They're both equally fast and easy to field strip and clean. Assuming we're talking about the action getting dirtied, it's clear that just racking it and shooting it again won't always work, but that process is also equally easy.

>itt: a bunch of autists who maybe own one ar-15 try to talk about military reliability by basing it off random mud tests by two equally retarded wehraboos
Good thread

>>34017674
pls spoonfeed me highlights about the Uru and why it looks like a heavy ass improvised SMG

>>34017772
>Ian eternally BTFO.

>>34023120
Ian is fucking retarded anyways
>polymer ar lowers and no forward assists!

>>34023132
Don't get me wrong at gun history Ian is a god, but anything else...

>>34023148
What amazes me is how people still take him seriously. Watching anything modern with him gives me a fucking aneurysm, especially when he picks up an FAL
>that fucking horrendous excuse for a mud test
I still cringe trying to watch either of them work that goddamn thing

>>34023161

Did you see his """1911""" mud test?
I didn't even get to the mud part, because his retardation made me cringe so hard I closed the video.

>>34023184
I remember someone mad at me cause I said the 1911 test and luger test were hilariously unbalances
>literally fucking bury the 1911 at the bottom of the bucket
>only lightly lay the luger on the top
>this is somehow a reliable test
It's not even fucking consistent how they apply mud. Also the lack of remedial action always gets to me
>present with piss easy problem to fix
>"well we couldn't fix it by yanking on the charging handle, whole gun is broken"