Wasn't HK416 specifically developed for water operations? Like in the promotional videos they all show how much better it handles water than all other AR15s and it really does. I guess theres upsides and downsides in every design.
I'd like to start out by saying this isn't a rant because the majority of the comments I see on inrange videos are well thought out and reasonable, and I think Inrange in general fosters those ideals, but this has been vexing me for a number of days now. I've never understood why people get upset when a gun does poorly in the mud test. The Amount of grime that these firearms are subjected to is incredible and is meant to simulate worst possible conditions. Just because you're favorite AR or AK or Martini Henry rifle didn't do well doesn't mean it's a worthless firearm, just that it may be a bit finicky. And, for the most part, having a gun that can't survive being thrown in the middle of the battle of Passchendaele probably shouldn't be the first priority of a weapon. The first priority should be whether you can shoot it well and if it shoots well. Most of us will never get our firearms even remotely as fouled up as these mud tests show, and if we do we typically have the luxury of being able to clean it outside of a combat scenario. Ideally, a firearm is accurate, light weight, comfortable to shoot, and 100% reliable, of course. But, we sadly live in reality.
People tend to anthropomorphize a lot since being human is the only perspective that we have. They also tend to have a self worth intertwined with concepts outside of themselves (this can be just about anything not just machinery/industry) probably due to us being a social species.
Yep. I'm sure a Porsche does poorly off road, that doesn't mean it's bad that means it doesn't do well under those conditions. Now sure some guns do poorly in all categories and some do well in most. That doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable
It's almost like you're saying the firearms are purpose built for certain advantages and disadvantages... M16\AR15 accurate,very sealed(prevents entry of mud and debris), realible for a day's use before be re-lubricated due to tighter tolerance spacing. Ak47\74\akm less accurate but still functionally accurate, not tightly sealed(leaving it vunerable to mud and large amounts of debris), requires less lubrication, realible for more constant use.
I think the key issue is twofold: 1) Many of the guns in these mud tests tout reliability (whether true or advertised) as one of their strongest advantages, and 2) The concept of unimpeachable reliability has become an obsessive fetish among many gun owners. Nobody really cares if, say, an HK VP70 or a custom Volquartsen .22 were to fail the mud test. While reliable function is obviously important for any firearm, neither of those are particularly recognized as being exceptionally reliable. However, if something like a Glock 19 or this MR223/HK416 were to fail even one single reliability test- regardless of how extreme- folks will get up in arms, because both of those guns are renowned specifically for a degree of reliability that allegedly exceeds all others.
As a former member of the HKPro forums, I am sure they will objectively consider the results of this test regardless of the results and refrain from any "fanboy" behavior. /sarcasm
I don't get why people get upset by any of these tests really. The chances of you ever having so much mud on a rifle without being able to clean it off is soooooooo small. I would rather look at how long parts last and how strong it is when dropped from heights etc. And even then it would be tests for the most extreme situations where 99.99% of us will never be. Every gun can and will jam eventually.
@@nathan655555 In Oregon there are lots of mountains and with any precipitation it turns to mud. I've been hunting in those mountains and there were a few times where either we slipped or just the grade was so significant that when the action made contact the action got boogered up and tough to work (this is a bolt gun too). These tests aren't all that unrealistic.
@@nathan655555 I think you may be underestimating the amount of mud that can be accrued between the dehumidified gun safe --> range bag --> BMW X5--> indoor air conditioned/heated shooting range stall --> back to bag --> back to BMW X5 --> back to dehumidified gun safe. Its obvious why they would get upset at the obviously flawed testing. It probably wasn't even real mud. JKing BTW, but in all honesty, legend has it that if you spend your life in a one sided love affair with HK they will show up at your funeral and deposit a sneer on your coffin.
@@cottonballs185 because that's what its called a regular m4/m16/ar 15 is usually considered direct impingement even though its reall not...but basically it is a DI.
the 1958 Army test report on the AR-15 makes it clear the gas helps clean off the ejection port. I think this is misunderstood By people who just skimed through the report and thought that it was somehow self cleaning the rifle.
The comments in a nutshell: AR/DI guys: hahaaa i knew it. Holy stoner created the BEST gun EVER. It even works in lava. MUUURICAAA. Everybody that things different is a HK fanboy HK fanboys: not a real HK! Theses tests arent scientific enough! My HK has a nicer black than yours. Me: Hmm...interessting!
@@th3comb1ne13 That was proven to be magazines, powder, and buffer spring related. The aluminum gi mags have been the biggest issue for AR's since it was designed, but luckily this has finally been fixed with p-mags.
@@kylethedalek Not out of the side of the carrier while unlocking they don't. By venting gas like the DI guns do mud is blown away from the main ingress point, so cleaning the gun, hence why this jammed and the DI guns didn't.
So many times I have heard "the AR poops where it eats" and I would try to show them that its actually blowing any debris away from the ejection opening . But old fudd slogans die hard.
@@kylethedalek did you watch the video....? The point is the vent ports on the DI gun effectively clear the port of debris....as designed. I.E. The piston actually reduced reliability is this case... If Stoner wanted a short stroke piston, he would have designed the gun as such, the tech was well known at the time the AR was designed...
I love and have used the m27 iar a ton but it by far has the worst stoppages I've ever seen. I was on a meu running a range once and had a jam where the round flipped around and the piston rammed the projectile above and in between the bolt head. The armorers had to rip the round in half to get it out. Needless to say i didn't finish the range.
That must have been fun to witness, worst I've seen was a .357SIG CZ 75TS that failed to eject a fired case, and proceeded to turn the case 180 degrees and re-chamber it backwards, was no getting that out without a clearing rod, ended that stage of the competition pretty quickly.
@@MaseratiChris556 No, i used the standard lube; happy thoughts, thinly veiled homosexuality and unicorn blood and we don't get jalapeno cheese spread anymore. They replaced it with glue a few years back shits cash
James, have you ever trained with the 249? Or went directly into the m27?.. Im currently a 249-man with the guard, and ive been curious if there are any SAW-men who have been Re-trained with the m27. Curious to know what they thought about the 2 weapons.
Super interesting. I know that the benefits of the piston is being able to submerge the gun and then fire immediately as well as sustained auto fire, but I hadn't thought about the gas relief wholes in the bolt aiding in clearing the mud. Very interesting.
Been waiting for this particular test comparing the AR cycling systems for some time now. I had always suspected that this would be the result. Great job!
Karl, this is a positive comment. You are doing great work. This video was informative, interesting and made my day. You have made your fans like you more. Don't forget your mother still loves you, and that is what is important.
I think what also happened that you didn't exam was that the sand got into the piston area. HK416 piston isn't shrouded like an T91/How T89/etc so it isn't kicking the carrier with enough force thus fail to eject (despite breech being clear enough to chamber& fire rounds) I want to see T91/Wolf A1 being put to the test, if just to see shrouding piston from elements work.
These are my thoughts also. After pouring in water to clear the chamber, i figured the piston was being affected if the gun continues to not function at 100%
@@LDZMarder inferior? Is that why every modern country is begining to adopt the M16/M4/HK416 family across the planet? The 416 isn't inferior to a standard M4, it does many jobs better, SBR, sustained full auto and suppressor roles. They are also better in maritime roles with water pressure events negated by different over the beach features. DI guns are typically more precise, and as you can see more suitable for some adverse conditions like the mud test or sand test
@@Every_Day_Heresy really depends on the rifle tbh. I'd do a lot for a H&K SR-9. These MR556's are excellent uppers, regardless of how it faired in an extreme mud situation. I bet it would do just fine in their caravan test. I'll agree that H&Ks are expensive, but there's a reason that militaries the world over choose to spend more on them than they would on cheaper alternatives. Also, note that it came back to life with a little bit of water. If there's that much runny mud around in the field, then I'd wager there's some standing water to dunk the gun in.
@@Every_Day_Heresy You're probably joking but you've taken the test out of context if you aren't. The rifle wasn't made to pass inranges mud test. It's like judging a fish by how well it can climb a tree. People are taking these mud tests far too literally.
I thank you guys for doing these mud tests. You have helped me make decisions on whether to buy, or not buy, certain weapons platforms because of these videos. I hope you continue to do more in the years to come. Again, thanks.
"Are you the commander? HK416; Please remember this name, this... extraordinary name." "Sure, sure. I'll also remember to toss you in a mud pit with the Anti-Rain Team."
That's why the square bolt carrier group is better for short stroke systems while circular BCG with internal piston is better for direct impingement. You mix both and you get a BCG which doesn't get gas to blow off gunk from the ejection port opening. Now if you mix square BCG with direct impingement like in K1 it would have been better one will get the ability to have folding stock with AR15's light weight mechanism.
I asked about this mud test some time ago having in mind that piston gun doesn't blow mud out of the way like DI and some people said that it doesn't make much difference. What is funny tho it played out just like I imagined.
Ha! I have been waiting for this for quite some time. While it does have certain advantages, I'll take my own are build any day over a 416 - for a third of the cost. Thank you, as always, for such awesome content, and furthering our knowledge on defensive gear.
Man I am absolutely flabbergasted at what you guys are willing to mud test, you keep on surprising me. It was almost painful to watch, but I must say though, it is greatly appreciated.
@Strive-2-Survive >implying "DI" ARs are hard to clean in the field, all the fouling ends up in the bolt. It's not even real direct impingement, more like an "internal piston" Really the main benefit of a piston system is the fact that they don't have potential to fail due to water build-up in the gas tube
Not an HK guy, never have owned one, don't plan to, BUT... There was a LOT of mud thrown into the ejection area in this test. Seems like a lot more than previous tests. Maybe that caused what we saw.
Yeah they should do at least 3 rounds of mud testing, this might be a fluke. I can't imagine a DI AR doing any better once it's got that much mud thrown into the action.
one has to be fair, the Mud Test is a very extreme stress test that wouldnt happen in real life. this scenario is basicly the only scenario where the DI system is surperior due to it venting into the reciever. Reliablility of a piston system is higher because the gun is not feeding explosion gas into the reciever, wich leaves the bold carrier group etc significantly cooler and cleaner. Meaning if you want long term reliability, pistons are your way to go
not that I care because I don't have a clear preference between DI and piston, but I have to point out how much more the HK was covered with the dust cover open compared to the AR. When I saw how much crap was left on the bolt I *knew* it would just fail ^^ You're probably onto something when you say the gas ejection might clear the bolt before cycling, but I'm not convinced this was the most significant factor here, I think the sheer amount of crap left on the bolt might be. You put one hell of a kick in the butt of the "gas piston master race" myth though
A bow and arrow is probably the most reliable weapon in a mud test but that doesn't mean it's my first pick. It's worth considering that the best gun in the worst conditions is not necessarily the best gun in average conditions. Very interesting video. This flies in the face of all of the fudd-lore about piston guns. Just goes to show that resistance to the elements is more nuanced than "AKs are unstoppable"
Why would you want an AR to be like an AK? As in, heavy recoil for caliber, shitty sights, and a wide open action that can shoot cheap surplus...though you literally have to hose the corrosive salts out or it'll corrode itself to death.
That gas blowing out of the chamber in the AR system seems to definitely be the difference in clearing out the gunk. Iirc Karl said exactly that on that episode as well. Stoner just plain did it right :)
@@th3comb1ne13 You can, it's irrelevant. McNamara and his whiz kids we're responsible for changing the powder, failing to chrome line the bores, and issuing the rifles without cleaning kits. The design was perfectly sound, the attempt to save money by changing that design from what had been trialled successfully was dumb and led to all of the teething problems.
@@th3comb1ne13 AR-10s and AR-15s had been used successfully by various militaries for years before Vietnam with no significant problems, albeit on a relatively small scale. All the issues of the M-16 in Vietnam show is that making a major equipment change in the middle of an active conflict is fraught with problems.
I was actually expecting this test to go the way it did. One clear advantage of a DI rifle that should be considered from the start is the venting in the BCG. It helps blow off any crap that might be on the side of it. There's also that spring on the Piston system that can easily get fouled up by soupy mud and/or wet sand. While the Piston system may be more reliable and require less cleaning in normal conditions, less moving parts are better when it comes to adverse conditions where you introduce different forms of particulates into the system. I currently have the video paused at 6:43 as I have come to these conclusions. I'll update if I change my mind by the end of the video. Update : I was right, although he made no mention of the spring in the piston system itself, just a lack of gas vents on the BGC.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Although, to be fair, its France... the guns will not be used before they get the chance to surrender... In terms of the next time they purchase weapons, these will still be pristine and so, should fetch a fair bit of coin... unlike the FAMAS... Clever buggers...
Interesting, i have seen the 416 do well in similar tests. It does a lot better in dusty conditions than the M-4 which im guessing is one of the main point of the 416.
I read they're discovering that the M416 design puts more force on the locking lugs and barrel extension because having the operating rod impinge on the top of the bolt carrier (where the gas key would be in a standard DI AR), the force makes the bolt carrier tilt up slightly. That is putting so much extra force on the lugs that they develop cracks over time and snap off, sometimes on the extension. They're also finding that H&K is using a different hardness of steel in their bolts (and maybe in their barrel extensions) than standard DI AR's. With DI, the force is applied in the center of the bolt carrier where the piston is, so the carrier goes straight back, there's no more extra stress on the bolt lugs or the lugs on the barrel extension. Ruger's old SR-556, which was also piston driven, didn't have that exact problem, it had another one. If the threads at the rear of the lower receiver for the extension are cut at an angle, the carrier will strike the inside of the lower extension and peen an area over time, but there's no extra stresses on the lugs, it will dent the crap out of the extension and it might slow the carrier down from rubbing. Ruger was having that problem with their carriers at first, so they machined relief cuts to prevent that instead of making sure their extension threads were square. I don't think they make the SR-556 any more.
Sfter watching both this video and the AR15 mud test, I feel like there was significantly more mud on the HK during the dust cover open test. You wiped a lot of the mud off the AR15 with your fingers that was still present of the HK. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it's worth a mention.
@@ProjectZenOfficial one test that comes to mind is the one military arms channel did. There's another one floating around too somewhere I forget. But ya those recoil action springs have to have full travel or else they don't work and they're very compact. I mean don't get me wrong it's a pretty closed system and a good rifle. Just in comparison once a lil bit does get in it does worse than the ar15 system which has larger tolerances in the buffer tube/receiver extension, also making it easier to happen since debris doesn't get blown off like a di ar15 and eats in during recoil like it did wit the hk416. They actually had a similar problem with the 416 piston spring at first because they made the spring too compact in coils, and once a spec of dust got in between it would shut the piston system down because it couldn't contract. So they went with a wider spring and all is well. Not as big of a problem in the mcx cuz those springs are inside the receiver
The fewer moving parts you have in a machine, the more reliable it will be. This is a good example of why I never messed with piston systems in AR15's.
@3:18 "One shake" tbh that was more of a gentle drop which didn't shake much mud off. I looked back at the AR15 tests and they haven't had that much mud on the bolt carrier (scraped off, didn't stick or not much was piled on or stayed on). The only test to have a pile of mud on the bolt carrier was when Ian was crawling in the mud but it wasn't coated as much as this one. If you have time to spare you can do the test again but with a DI ar15 to see if a DI can beat out a pile of mud similar to the one in this video. The mud looks good though.
That’s essentially the same System my H&K SL8 (civilian G36) and it’s worked great! BTW: the G36 System is wildly underrated! It’s reliable and very precise out of the box! (If you drop some work and money in it, this gun becomes a real marksman rifle)
@3:18 big clump of mud still around the ejection port, as soon as the rifle was fired it gave the chance for a lot of that mud to fall in and be shoved into the chamber by the chambering a new round..
AR-15: "Let me get the rocks outside of the gun" M416: "-" I know you didn't to this one purpose, but it defenetly can falsefy the results. And I know that you've "considered fair and decided against it" but the way you treat the results afterwards give the impression that the test was scientific. All I'm asking for is to repeat the test a few times for every gun (of course after cleaning it) so you get more stable results. From what I see a huge factor is how much mud stays on the ejectionport after you pick the gun up and that varries quite alot and it doesn't apear to be something you check or even mention.
For everyone screaming that the HK416 is inferior to the AR this is an extreme test. Even under most combat situations a gun is unlikely to get this dirty. Not to mention the HK's piston system handles water and being submerged (As Karl mentioned) better than a DI gun. Not to mention the HK is still a very well sealed design so I get the feeling it could handle dust very well. End of the day they are both good guns.
Now that is an interesting result. I was always a fan of the myth about the dirty gases causing the issues with the M16, one of the causes, but after this result, well.... I might have to take those comments back. This result I didn't suspect at all.
@@Craigx71 Maybe, I'd still argue for a long stroke system. At least I'd try. I'd wonder if the inertia transfer is better between the system, without the perception of the gas issues, gas fouling. However that still doesn't change the nature of the ejection port. I think if you wanted the same level of reliability you might have to redesign that. Some sort of deflector or just redesign the shape of the port. Once you get the much on the locking surfaces, that's it. Doesn't matter AK or AR, you're gun is just plain fouled up.
@@lostsaxon7478 Changing the powder specs of the round while the gun was still in development to early production was a criminal decision if you ask me. I think Karl and Ian have voiced similar sentiments from memory. I won't pretend I'm an expert on guns, even in the theory of just getting piece of metal down range. I'm Australian and I simply don't have the trigger, range time, these guys have. I don't have a firearms licence. There's plenty I don't know and there's plenty I could do with learning more of an d about. What I do know is that this is changing how I think about the guns, M16 specifically. Where that leads, I have no idea, yet.
I never understood why people are so enamored with the 416, It's _just_ an AR-15 with unnecessary stuff inside it, And, Hey! Would you look at that, It can't even _match_ an AR in rough field conditions. This gun is a gimmick (Look at this! It's an AR but with pistons and _we_ made it! says H&K, thinking anyone but rabid fanboys would ever care) that only got as much market share as it did _because_ it says H&K on the side. The AR-15 does _literally_ everything better
Still not sure why the Marines replaced the excellent M16A4 with this. I'm curious how much better, if at all, the 416 is in extended full auto fire vs a full auto M16 with the HBAR heavy barrel, seeing as we already know the M16 makes a wonderful DMR and Carbine (M4). I think the M16 will always be the premiere Jack of All Trades, Master of Most.
I looked at the previous AR15 videos and it is obvious that previously you shook the gun a a lot more and that the ejection port had clearly a lot less mud than with the HK416.
@@InrangeTv Not trying to be funny or anything. Just noticed that when viewing the other videos. Just look at the Vietnam era AR15 4:29 and this video at 3:21.
Interesting how the short-stroke gas piston means there's no gas venting out the side of the BCG, as there's no gas directed inside any expansion chamber. So the mud isn't blown away from the ejection port like on a regular AR-15.
The hk416 would fare better in dust and water.. the ar15 has an advantage in mud where it blows it off before being pulled in when the bcg recoils back. Makes sense actually
What I have experienced with ARs is that they can perform well while dirty/kinda muddy and do just fine at first. It seems to be when that bolt gets so hot that it dries the water out of the mud, leaving some caked on dirt that really slows things down on the inside of the gun.
I think the gas venting out of the bolt carrier may have some effect as to clearing mud from the action before the bolt cycles. I dont know to what degree that it does but it's my hypothesis.
I feel like this is something we've time after time. DI guns tend to be more "sealed" and piston guns all have somewhere that dirt or mud can get into as it's the nature of the beast. As you said, more reliable in fouled conditions vs more reliable with neglect. Brand doesnt seem to matter, just design.
As Karl pointed out, this is just as sealed as a standard AR. The difference seems to be the lack of excess gas venting through the bolt carrier blowing away debris.
I think it still has it's advantages. If I remember correctly from HK's own video promos, on a AR15 they inserted a magazine and chambered a round underwater. When the operator surfaced he fired the gun and it virtually exploded. When they did the same to a 416, it worked flawlessly
“Failure to something”
Story of my life
Kilroy93 I felt that
@@beardoggin8963 pretty sure everyone does lol
@@andreweisen99 Hello kindred spirit.
Thanks for this
The feels man
Coming this summer, from the producers of "Not a real AK" comes "Not a real HK" ...
I say the earlier AR tests were just fake
Haha!
Student discount? Student?
I actually lol'd. Thanks for that.
@@phileas007 I say it wasn't a real AR.
The ejected shell at 5:03 sounded like it landed in the water bucket. Small thing but it sounded very satisfying
Ploink!
Sounds like the video where they edit a tiny splash noise over the midget doing a cannon ball
Lol....
It sounded amazing.
Bloop
It didn't go into battery and yet Karl did not make any jokes about the forward assist...
Karl, is that *really* you?
Trip to Narnia has changed him
@@yamato3151 It looks like he had a long day.
Nice JSDF pfp
KalashniBen Thanks! Btw, let me know if you find any Type 64 parts kits lying around 😉
@@kalashniben9005 Nice what
I can already tell the comments on this video will be civil and respectful
@มานพ กาญจน I think Karl would love the idea that he is a progapaganda arm of the government
@Daris1 Because of Poe's law, it isn't always obvious.
Wasn't HK416 specifically developed for water operations? Like in the promotional videos they all show how much better it handles water than all other AR15s and it really does. I guess theres upsides and downsides in every design.
Daris1 Idk if he’s joking...
Wow you subscribe to InRange as well? Small world.
no wheelbarrow 0/10
I miss it too.
Mr. Senate get down. The trolls sent by Darth Sidious may come for you.
The Senate has spoken!
And no SpongeBob Squarepants tape was in sight either!
You used a WWI shovel to scoop up mud but not a vintage canteen for the water rinse ?
I was thinking the same thing haha!
To be fair, Behrens has been making those pails since like 1911.
It's unacceptable.
Unsubscribed, reported to UA-cam.
They just don’t make entrenching tools like they used too
I'd like to start out by saying this isn't a rant because the majority of the comments I see on inrange videos are well thought out and reasonable, and I think Inrange in general fosters those ideals, but this has been vexing me for a number of days now. I've never understood why people get upset when a gun does poorly in the mud test. The Amount of grime that these firearms are subjected to is incredible and is meant to simulate worst possible conditions. Just because you're favorite AR or AK or Martini Henry rifle didn't do well doesn't mean it's a worthless firearm, just that it may be a bit finicky. And, for the most part, having a gun that can't survive being thrown in the middle of the battle of Passchendaele probably shouldn't be the first priority of a weapon. The first priority should be whether you can shoot it well and if it shoots well. Most of us will never get our firearms even remotely as fouled up as these mud tests show, and if we do we typically have the luxury of being able to clean it outside of a combat scenario. Ideally, a firearm is accurate, light weight, comfortable to shoot, and 100% reliable, of course. But, we sadly live in reality.
People tend to anthropomorphize a lot since being human is the only perspective that we have. They also tend to have a self worth intertwined with concepts outside of themselves (this can be just about anything not just machinery/industry) probably due to us being a social species.
Yep. I'm sure a Porsche does poorly off road, that doesn't mean it's bad that means it doesn't do well under those conditions. Now sure some guns do poorly in all categories and some do well in most. That doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable
It's almost like you're saying the firearms are purpose built for certain advantages and disadvantages... M16\AR15 accurate,very sealed(prevents entry of mud and debris), realible for a day's use before be re-lubricated due to tighter tolerance spacing. Ak47\74\akm less accurate but still functionally accurate, not tightly sealed(leaving it vunerable to mud and large amounts of debris), requires less lubrication, realible for more constant use.
I think the key issue is twofold: 1) Many of the guns in these mud tests tout reliability (whether true or advertised) as one of their strongest advantages, and 2) The concept of unimpeachable reliability has become an obsessive fetish among many gun owners.
Nobody really cares if, say, an HK VP70 or a custom Volquartsen .22 were to fail the mud test. While reliable function is obviously important for any firearm, neither of those are particularly recognized as being exceptionally reliable. However, if something like a Glock 19 or this MR223/HK416 were to fail even one single reliability test- regardless of how extreme- folks will get up in arms, because both of those guns are renowned specifically for a degree of reliability that allegedly exceeds all others.
Jacob Bauer what rifle would that be? I am genuinely curious.
"What is is ben?" "it's as if a thousand h&K employees screamed out at once."
"... and were suddenly silenced", with no piston pop!
Is it*
LOL!!! Brilliant!!!
Joseph Putnam then the no piston proceeds to “pop” in water.
Th3 Comb1ne Which is proven to be because of specific OTB features and not because the HK 416 is piston.
Take the L, 416 fanboy.
Try it again while swearing in German, wearing black scuba gear, and jumping out of a murky pond with techno music playing in the background.
By that point, you should’ve just recruit ZF Clan
I understood that reference.
I get the reference, fuckers obviously sabotaged that rifle to make HKs ARs look better, sneaky fucks
Solid joke
@@georgedasani do you actually think that?
As a former member of the HKPro forums, I am sure they will objectively consider the results of this test regardless of the results and refrain from any "fanboy" behavior.
/sarcasm
I don't get why people get upset by any of these tests really. The chances of you ever having so much mud on a rifle without being able to clean it off is soooooooo small. I would rather look at how long parts last and how strong it is when dropped from heights etc. And even then it would be tests for the most extreme situations where 99.99% of us will never be. Every gun can and will jam eventually.
@@nathan655555 In Oregon there are lots of mountains and with any precipitation it turns to mud. I've been hunting in those mountains and there were a few times where either we slipped or just the grade was so significant that when the action made contact the action got boogered up and tough to work (this is a bolt gun too). These tests aren't all that unrealistic.
@@perrytilton5221 it depends on the area I guess, I can't imagine my gun ever getting this muddy where I live
@@nathan655555 I think you may be underestimating the amount of mud that can be accrued between the dehumidified gun safe --> range bag --> BMW X5--> indoor air conditioned/heated shooting range stall --> back to bag --> back to BMW X5 --> back to dehumidified gun safe. Its obvious why they would get upset at the obviously flawed testing. It probably wasn't even real mud.
JKing BTW, but in all honesty, legend has it that if you spend your life in a one sided love affair with HK they will show up at your funeral and deposit a sneer on your coffin.
@@adakar Where my dad lives in Texas all we have to worry about is sand. Which is why I would buy a gun with better sand resistance.
Yes, this is exactly what we were waiting for
Who are you and what have you done with Karl?! The real Karl only uses the holy wheelbarrow in mud tests!
8:02
"By going to a DI system...you've actually made the gun function worse."
You mean piston Karl..
no he knew what he said
WĘGORZ TV lol
I caught that too. Had to rewind to make sure.
Well here’s not wrong. The DI system functions worse in water but better in mud.
@@cottonballs185 because that's what its called a regular m4/m16/ar 15 is usually considered direct impingement even though its reall not...but basically it is a DI.
7:31 that was extremely insensitive of you to insult the intelligence of the rifle. It’s doing the best it can, Karl.
I litteraly laughed when he said that poor gun !
So this is not the gun to take with me into Verdun, good to know. I'll stick with my friendly and reliable chauchat instead.
*saltiness intensifies*
I have always loved the DI system. This was a great video because I agree. I think the blowing gas helps clear some debris.
I helps blowing more dirt in the system.
So THAT'S why they said the M16 was self cleaning!
indeed
the 1958 Army test report on the AR-15 makes it clear the gas helps clean off the ejection port. I think this is misunderstood By people who just skimed through the report and thought that it was somehow self cleaning the rifle.
That’s not a M16. Different system.
tfw its been so long since a mud test, you thought this was an old video...
This so much. Actually did a neck breaking double take to see if I was being played.
Same here, Ha ha
It's not.
Thanks for this honest review, over the past decade or so there has been so much hype behind the 416
The comments in a nutshell:
AR/DI guys: hahaaa i knew it. Holy stoner created the BEST gun EVER. It even works in lava. MUUURICAAA. Everybody that things different is a HK fanboy
HK fanboys: not a real HK! Theses tests arent scientific enough! My HK has a nicer black than yours.
Me: Hmm...interessting!
Nailed it!
Stoner wasn't even in merica when he designed that, if i remember correctly.
@@peterwelsh6975 It was designed in Hollywood or Arizona I believe.
Meanwhile AR/DI guys like to forget how the m16 preformed in Vietnam.
@@th3comb1ne13 That was proven to be magazines, powder, and buffer spring related. The aluminum gi mags have been the biggest issue for AR's since it was designed, but luckily this has finally been fixed with p-mags.
As a guy with experience falling down on the banks of the Helmand rud I can attest that these are valid tests lol
Wait..you mean venting gas out of the side of the ejection port isn’t an Achilles heal? Almost as if Stoner designed it to be an advantage..🤔.
@@kylethedalek Not out of the side of the carrier while unlocking they don't. By venting gas like the DI guns do mud is blown away from the main ingress point, so cleaning the gun, hence why this jammed and the DI guns didn't.
So many times I have heard "the AR poops where it eats" and I would try to show them that its actually blowing any debris away from the ejection opening . But old fudd slogans die hard.
@@kylethedalek did you watch the video....? The point is the vent ports on the DI gun effectively clear the port of debris....as designed. I.E. The piston actually reduced reliability is this case... If Stoner wanted a short stroke piston, he would have designed the gun as such, the tech was well known at the time the AR was designed...
It worked until leftover debris found it’s way in...DI blows the debris clear..
kylethedalek They all vent. Piston guns, like the M416, Vent at the piston
I love and have used the m27 iar a ton but it by far has the worst stoppages I've ever seen. I was on a meu running a range once and had a jam where the round flipped around and the piston rammed the projectile above and in between the bolt head. The armorers had to rip the round in half to get it out. Needless to say i didn't finish the range.
That must have been fun to witness, worst I've seen was a .357SIG CZ 75TS that failed to eject a fired case, and proceeded to turn the case 180 degrees and re-chamber it backwards, was no getting that out without a clearing rod, ended that stage of the competition pretty quickly.
Sheesh
@@MaseratiChris556 No, i used the standard lube; happy thoughts, thinly veiled homosexuality and unicorn blood and we don't get jalapeno cheese spread anymore. They replaced it with glue a few years back shits cash
James Harris I’m curious. Why did you love it? Do you have anything to compare it too?
James, have you ever trained with the 249? Or went directly into the m27?..
Im currently a 249-man with the guard, and ive been curious if there are any SAW-men who have been Re-trained with the m27. Curious to know what they thought about the 2 weapons.
Super interesting. I know that the benefits of the piston is being able to submerge the gun and then fire immediately as well as sustained auto fire, but I hadn't thought about the gas relief wholes in the bolt aiding in clearing the mud. Very interesting.
definitely.
But on the other hand.... in what situation do you submerge your gun in this kind of mud?
Been waiting for this particular test comparing the AR cycling systems for some time now. I had always suspected that this would be the result. Great job!
I miss Ian's comments
It was a nice video though, thanks for having made it for us, we appreciate
What happened to Ian?
To think that the first AR 15 with problems is a HK model. It shows that a fancy name with a huge price tag is not always the best.
Good thing they made AK mud test videos before this video. Because if they didn't, all the AK guys would be spouting nonsense in the comments.
This gun only failed because it wanted to be like an AK with its piston system. 😂
@@billyfreeman5803
So the piston is the reason it failed even though it's a closed system?
@@billyfreeman5803yeah thats why US and few other countries in the world mass use DI guns and rest of the world run piston designs hahahah
Great test, interesting results. I too think the wolf a1 upper would be a great candidate
Karl, this is a positive comment. You are doing great work. This video was informative, interesting and made my day. You have made your fans like you more. Don't forget your mother still loves you, and that is what is important.
love your channel keep the wonderful content coming.
It’s crazy how when you use the dust cover (kind of) for its intended purpose that the gun runs well.
Surprising score one for DI with tight tolerances and A key that cuffs the gastube, proof that less is more when it comes to moving parts and gaps
I think what also happened that you didn't exam was that the sand got into the piston area. HK416 piston isn't shrouded like an T91/How T89/etc so it isn't kicking the carrier with enough force thus fail to eject (despite breech being clear enough to chamber& fire rounds)
I want to see T91/Wolf A1 being put to the test, if just to see shrouding piston from elements work.
These are my thoughts also. After pouring in water to clear the chamber, i figured the piston was being affected if the gun continues to not function at 100%
Yeah, never put water over the piston.
I want to see a T91 being tested as well.
Sounds like cope. Mr556a1 is an undergassed scam lol
But but but HK.... Cleary shows that Mr. Eugene Stoner knew exactly what he was doing when he designed the AR system to be DI.
**Stoner and the team
Counterarguement: The gun still needed maintenance and is not really "self cleaning"
Pretty sure Stoner never claimed it self sealing.
Piston has different advantages.
Not self cleaning at all. The DI gasses blow dirt and debri away from the action.
To be fair, when he redesigned the AR as the AR-180/AR-18 he changed the action to a more traditional piston/op-rod design.
Why are you mixing mud from the Caveman Territorial War of 13,000 BC with a WWI shovel?
Maybe Ian couldn’t find his rock shovel?
@@messmeister92 UG
Not surprised after seeing the AK mud test. I'm an HK fanboy but this doesn't insult the company just the flaw of one design vs another. Great video!
its what you get if you copy the inferior us ar design. Ar´s re build to fail.
@@LDZMarder inferior? Is that why every modern country is begining to adopt the M16/M4/HK416 family across the planet? The 416 isn't inferior to a standard M4, it does many jobs better, SBR, sustained full auto and suppressor roles. They are also better in maritime roles with water pressure events negated by different over the beach features. DI guns are typically more precise, and as you can see more suitable for some adverse conditions like the mud test or sand test
@@PogLife2171
The AR did not outperform the AK in the dust test; the AK is also superior in snow and ice conditions.
And suddenly my Colt Block 2 upper seems so... "just fine" compared to a civ MR556 upper.
H&K rifles. Top tier cost; Middle to low end performance.
@@Every_Day_Heresy really depends on the rifle tbh. I'd do a lot for a H&K SR-9. These MR556's are excellent uppers, regardless of how it faired in an extreme mud situation. I bet it would do just fine in their caravan test.
I'll agree that H&Ks are expensive, but there's a reason that militaries the world over choose to spend more on them than they would on cheaper alternatives.
Also, note that it came back to life with a little bit of water. If there's that much runny mud around in the field, then I'd wager there's some standing water to dunk the gun in.
@@Stout936 Also, yes, I'd do some very dumb things to get a hold of an SR-9. Those guns are _SO DAMN COOL_
@@Every_Day_Heresy I got ya. I need me a civi PSG dammit
@@Every_Day_Heresy You're probably joking but you've taken the test out of context if you aren't. The rifle wasn't made to pass inranges mud test. It's like judging a fish by how well it can climb a tree.
People are taking these mud tests far too literally.
I thank you guys for doing these mud tests. You have helped me make decisions on whether to buy, or not buy, certain weapons platforms because of these videos. I hope you continue to do more in the years to come. Again, thanks.
Do the fs2000! I'm curious how that 'totally sealed' designe will fare. Also curious to see what kind of malfunctions it would have.
Yes please
2 years late but your wish has finally been granted, lol
"Are you the commander? HK416; Please remember this name, this... extraordinary name."
"Sure, sure. I'll also remember to toss you in a mud pit with the Anti-Rain Team."
ARAK next? Then barrett. Then a musket. Then an assault musket. Then a muskrat. End off the season with mud testing Elon Musk
Elon musket
@@biggidousthethird2672 a mud tested elon musk mud testing the new space force elon musket. I like it
That's why the square bolt carrier group is better for short stroke systems while circular BCG with internal piston is better for direct impingement. You mix both and you get a BCG which doesn't get gas to blow off gunk from the ejection port opening. Now if you mix square BCG with direct impingement like in K1 it would have been better one will get the ability to have folding stock with AR15's light weight mechanism.
I asked about this mud test some time ago having in mind that piston gun doesn't blow mud out of the way like DI and some people said that it doesn't make much difference. What is funny tho it played out just like I imagined.
You are a genius
Why did the G-36 pass the test?
Ha! I have been waiting for this for quite some time. While it does have certain advantages, I'll take my own are build any day over a 416 - for a third of the cost. Thank you, as always, for such awesome content, and furthering our knowledge on defensive gear.
OMG it's not the perfect gun?
Gee, thanx Karl.
Illusion shattered!
@Liberty or Death when you actually use a DI gun outside of a mud test video, you'll understand.
Man I am absolutely flabbergasted at what you guys are willing to mud test, you keep on surprising me. It was almost painful to watch, but I must say though, it is greatly appreciated.
I'm noticing a trend with these piston designs.
EDIT: Also, more convoy dust tests when?
Sinbad Way overhyped
No doubt. DI seems so dirty but man when you look at this...
@Strive-2-Survive >implying "DI" ARs are hard to clean in the field, all the fouling ends up in the bolt. It's not even real direct impingement, more like an "internal piston"
Really the main benefit of a piston system is the fact that they don't have potential to fail due to water build-up in the gas tube
@@radical026 The main reason units like SEALs went to the piston guns was so they could shoot it while very wet.
@Kenny honestly just pour some lube on the AR and you can get away with not cleaning it
Not an HK guy, never have owned one, don't plan to, BUT... There was a LOT of mud thrown into the ejection area in this test. Seems like a lot more than previous tests. Maybe that caused what we saw.
Yeah they should do at least 3 rounds of mud testing, this might be a fluke. I can't imagine a DI AR doing any better once it's got that much mud thrown into the action.
In the DI AR15 test, they actually *pushed* the mud against the bolt with the dust cover open.
Some of the DI AR-15 tests were done with a LOT of mud as well.
Hmm it's almost like that venting gas was helping to blow gunk out of the action
Well, that is the intention of the design and why there is a mud-cover.
Interesting test and not surprised with the results. Very informative.
416 has failures on mud test after changing the gas system
Godfather Stoner "You get what your fucking deserve "
Honestly didn't expect this considering the success of the DI AR 15 tests & the hyped HK 416 reliability.
one has to be fair, the Mud Test is a very extreme stress test that wouldnt happen in real life.
this scenario is basicly the only scenario where the DI system is surperior due to it venting into the reciever.
Reliablility of a piston system is higher because the gun is not feeding explosion gas into the reciever, wich leaves the bold carrier group etc significantly cooler and cleaner.
Meaning if you want long term reliability, pistons are your way to go
not that I care because I don't have a clear preference between DI and piston, but I have to point out how much more the HK was covered with the dust cover open compared to the AR. When I saw how much crap was left on the bolt I *knew* it would just fail ^^
You're probably onto something when you say the gas ejection might clear the bolt before cycling, but I'm not convinced this was the most significant factor here, I think the sheer amount of crap left on the bolt might be.
You put one hell of a kick in the butt of the "gas piston master race" myth though
He even stated "let me get the rocks outside of the gun" in the AR-15 video
That was the best explanation of how the gas and piston systems work I've ever heard
A bow and arrow is probably the most reliable weapon in a mud test but that doesn't mean it's my first pick. It's worth considering that the best gun in the worst conditions is not necessarily the best gun in average conditions.
Very interesting video. This flies in the face of all of the fudd-lore about piston guns. Just goes to show that resistance to the elements is more nuanced than "AKs are unstoppable"
This is one of the finest ar style rifles ever made this makes the AR as good as an AK it fixed every flaw of the M16
Why would you want an AR to be like an AK? As in, heavy recoil for caliber, shitty sights, and a wide open action that can shoot cheap surplus...though you literally have to hose the corrosive salts out or it'll corrode itself to death.
I'm interested to know how long it takes him to clean these rifles after the mud test. That should be part of the mud test.
That gas blowing out of the chamber in the AR system seems to definitely be the difference in clearing out the gunk. Iirc Karl said exactly that on that episode as well. Stoner just plain did it right :)
Not really. May I remind you of how the m16 preformed in Vietnam. Or how literally the DI system can explode in water despite working better in mud.
@@th3comb1ne13 You can, it's irrelevant. McNamara and his whiz kids we're responsible for changing the powder, failing to chrome line the bores, and issuing the rifles without cleaning kits.
The design was perfectly sound, the attempt to save money by changing that design from what had been trialled successfully was dumb and led to all of the teething problems.
@@th3comb1ne13 AR-10s and AR-15s had been used successfully by various militaries for years before Vietnam with no significant problems, albeit on a relatively small scale. All the issues of the M-16 in Vietnam show is that making a major equipment change in the middle of an active conflict is fraught with problems.
We need to see a mannlicher 1895 mud test.
I love the little *blubb* sound at 5:02 when the ejected round drops into the waterbucket.
I was actually expecting this test to go the way it did. One clear advantage of a DI rifle that should be considered from the start is the venting in the BCG. It helps blow off any crap that might be on the side of it. There's also that spring on the Piston system that can easily get fouled up by soupy mud and/or wet sand. While the Piston system may be more reliable and require less cleaning in normal conditions, less moving parts are better when it comes to adverse conditions where you introduce different forms of particulates into the system. I currently have the video paused at 6:43 as I have come to these conclusions. I'll update if I change my mind by the end of the video.
Update : I was right, although he made no mention of the spring in the piston system itself, just a lack of gas vents on the BGC.
im impressed how well the dirt appliance tool handles the mud test
I always wondered if this would be the case of any deviation from the Stoner di system that gunk will get in the action, now I know.
Lubricate and wash out the action with all the HK fan boy tears this video will cause! :D
Heart of Texas Armory 😂😂😂
This is why I only build DI ARs. Piston ARs are great.....at the range. Lol
@@Ruhrpottpatriot There's much more notable military units using DI.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot They adopted the HK416 because France doesn't have weapon industry anymore
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Although, to be fair, its France... the guns will not be used before they get the chance to surrender... In terms of the next time they purchase weapons, these will still be pristine and so, should fetch a fair bit of coin... unlike the FAMAS... Clever buggers...
Interesting, i have seen the 416 do well in similar tests. It does a lot better in dusty conditions than the M-4 which im guessing is one of the main point of the 416.
Well given french foreign legion is getting them, yes dust it is.
I read they're discovering that the M416 design puts more force on the locking lugs and barrel extension because having the operating rod impinge on the top of the bolt carrier (where the gas key would be in a standard DI AR), the force makes the bolt carrier tilt up slightly. That is putting so much extra force on the lugs that they develop cracks over time and snap off, sometimes on the extension. They're also finding that H&K is using a different hardness of steel in their bolts (and maybe in their barrel extensions) than standard DI AR's.
With DI, the force is applied in the center of the bolt carrier where the piston is, so the carrier goes straight back, there's no more extra stress on the bolt lugs or the lugs on the barrel extension.
Ruger's old SR-556, which was also piston driven, didn't have that exact problem, it had another one. If the threads at the rear of the lower receiver for the extension are cut at an angle, the carrier will strike the inside of the lower extension and peen an area over time, but there's no extra stresses on the lugs, it will dent the crap out of the extension and it might slow the carrier down from rubbing. Ruger was having that problem with their carriers at first, so they machined relief cuts to prevent that instead of making sure their extension threads were square. I don't think they make the SR-556 any more.
Where did you read up on this ? Not saying you're wrong, just curious.
Sfter watching both this video and the AR15 mud test, I feel like there was significantly more mud on the HK during the dust cover open test. You wiped a lot of the mud off the AR15 with your fingers that was still present of the HK. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it's worth a mention.
Ohh, now I really wanna see a MCX torture test/mud test. Great video guys!
They tend to do bad on all tests I've seen due to the small compact recoil spring/rail channels
Source? Not saying I'm doubting it, but I'd love to see.
@@ProjectZenOfficial one test that comes to mind is the one military arms channel did. There's another one floating around too somewhere I forget. But ya those recoil action springs have to have full travel or else they don't work and they're very compact. I mean don't get me wrong it's a pretty closed system and a good rifle. Just in comparison once a lil bit does get in it does worse than the ar15 system which has larger tolerances in the buffer tube/receiver extension, also making it easier to happen since debris doesn't get blown off like a di ar15 and eats in during recoil like it did wit the hk416. They actually had a similar problem with the 416 piston spring at first because they made the spring too compact in coils, and once a spec of dust got in between it would shut the piston system down because it couldn't contract. So they went with a wider spring and all is well. Not as big of a problem in the mcx cuz those springs are inside the receiver
I feel as though there was such a discrepancy between the 416 and a standard DI AR that a side by side test should be done for continuity's sake.
The fewer moving parts you have in a machine, the more reliable it will be. This is a good example of why I never messed with piston systems in AR15's.
You should do an ARX100 test...
The first AR test you guys did you wiped the bold carrier clean.
@3:18 "One shake" tbh that was more of a gentle drop which didn't shake much mud off.
I looked back at the AR15 tests and they haven't had that much mud on the bolt carrier (scraped off, didn't stick or not much was piled on or stayed on).
The only test to have a pile of mud on the bolt carrier was when Ian was crawling in the mud but it wasn't coated as much as this one.
If you have time to spare you can do the test again but with a DI ar15 to see if a DI can beat out a pile of mud similar to the one in this video.
The mud looks good though.
That exposed notched in it and the fact that the ejection port is slanted in what's casing the problems!
That’s essentially the same System my H&K SL8 (civilian G36) and it’s worked great!
BTW: the G36 System is wildly underrated! It’s reliable and very precise out of the box! (If you drop some work and money in it, this gun becomes a real marksman rifle)
@3:18 big clump of mud still around the ejection port, as soon as the rifle was fired it gave the chance for a lot of that mud to fall in and be shoved into the chamber by the chambering a new round..
It’d be interesting to see a multi ar test with cheaper ars, expensive, mid range, etc.
That forward assist was BEGGING to be tapped
I'd quite like to see a G36 go through a mud test now.
Agreed, it would be interesting to see how it would hold up.
The g36 would be better just like the FN SCAR did. I expect something like that.
i'll save it for you: it dies
@@taterc229 looks like 7 months later you're wrong.
@@taterc229 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no it didnt; it passed
AR-15: "Let me get the rocks outside of the gun"
M416: "-"
I know you didn't to this one purpose, but it defenetly can falsefy the results. And I know that you've "considered fair and decided against it" but the way you treat the results afterwards give the impression that the test was scientific.
All I'm asking for is to repeat the test a few times for every gun (of course after cleaning it) so you get more stable results.
From what I see a huge factor is how much mud stays on the ejectionport after you pick the gun up and that varries quite alot and it doesn't apear to be something you check or even mention.
I really want to see you guys test the Wolf T91 upper. I think the fully enclosed piston system will make a difference!
For everyone screaming that the HK416 is inferior to the AR this is an extreme test. Even under most combat situations a gun is unlikely to get this dirty. Not to mention the HK's piston system handles water and being submerged (As Karl mentioned) better than a DI gun. Not to mention the HK is still a very well sealed design so I get the feeling it could handle dust very well. End of the day they are both good guns.
Now that is an interesting result. I was always a fan of the myth about the dirty gases causing the issues with the M16, one of the causes, but after this result, well.... I might have to take those comments back.
This result I didn't suspect at all.
@@Craigx71 Maybe, I'd still argue for a long stroke system. At least I'd try. I'd wonder if the inertia transfer is better between the system, without the perception of the gas issues, gas fouling.
However that still doesn't change the nature of the ejection port. I think if you wanted the same level of reliability you might have to redesign that. Some sort of deflector or just redesign the shape of the port.
Once you get the much on the locking surfaces, that's it. Doesn't matter AK or AR, you're gun is just plain fouled up.
@@lostsaxon7478 Changing the powder specs of the round while the gun was still in development to early production was a criminal decision if you ask me.
I think Karl and Ian have voiced similar sentiments from memory.
I won't pretend I'm an expert on guns, even in the theory of just getting piece of metal down range. I'm Australian and I simply don't have the trigger, range time, these guys have. I don't have a firearms licence.
There's plenty I don't know and there's plenty I could do with learning more of an d about. What I do know is that this is changing how I think about the guns, M16 specifically.
Where that leads, I have no idea, yet.
@@robertkubrick3738 Now I'm going to source those claims and see what's out there.
I think I have a lot of reading ahead of me.
Keep an AR lubed, and it'll generally keep running. The myth of unreliability is just that.
I never understood why people are so enamored with the 416, It's _just_ an AR-15 with unnecessary stuff inside it, And, Hey! Would you look at that, It can't even _match_ an AR in rough field conditions. This gun is a gimmick (Look at this! It's an AR but with pistons and _we_ made it! says H&K, thinking anyone but rabid fanboys would ever care) that only got as much market share as it did _because_ it says H&K on the side. The AR-15 does _literally_ everything better
Still not sure why the Marines replaced the excellent M16A4 with this. I'm curious how much better, if at all, the 416 is in extended full auto fire vs a full auto M16 with the HBAR heavy barrel, seeing as we already know the M16 makes a wonderful DMR and Carbine (M4).
I think the M16 will always be the premiere Jack of All Trades, Master of Most.
HK 416 with Magpul mags....stop Karl.... I can only get so excited!
I looked at the previous AR15 videos and it is obvious that previously you shook the gun a a lot more and that the ejection port had clearly a lot less mud than with the HK416.
Right
@@InrangeTv Not trying to be funny or anything. Just noticed that when viewing the other videos. Just look at the Vietnam era AR15 4:29 and this video at 3:21.
Interesting how the short-stroke gas piston means there's no gas venting out the side of the BCG, as there's no gas directed inside any expansion chamber. So the mud isn't blown away from the ejection port like on a regular AR-15.
For mud: AR>HK
For general longevity and water: HK>AR
Thank you for blessing my feed with your content.
For a gun with such lore for reliability, you'd think it'd have 0 issues.
The hk416 would fare better in dust and water.. the ar15 has an advantage in mud where it blows it off before being pulled in when the bcg recoils back. Makes sense actually
What I have experienced with ARs is that they can perform well while dirty/kinda muddy and do just fine at first. It seems to be when that bolt gets so hot that it dries the water out of the mud, leaving some caked on dirt that really slows things down on the inside of the gun.
I think the gas venting out of the bolt carrier may have some effect as to clearing mud from the action before the bolt cycles. I dont know to what degree that it does but it's my hypothesis.
This test was what got me into the T91 rifle.
I feel like this is something we've time after time. DI guns tend to be more "sealed" and piston guns all have somewhere that dirt or mud can get into as it's the nature of the beast. As you said, more reliable in fouled conditions vs more reliable with neglect. Brand doesnt seem to matter, just design.
As Karl pointed out, this is just as sealed as a standard AR. The difference seems to be the lack of excess gas venting through the bolt carrier blowing away debris.
I think it still has it's advantages. If I remember correctly from HK's own video promos, on a AR15 they inserted a magazine and chambered a round underwater. When the operator surfaced he fired the gun and it virtually exploded. When they did the same to a 416, it worked flawlessly
Companies video promos aren't something I would believe.
Nutnfancy has been saying this for 12 years haha
love your vids, especially the mud tests. Keep up the great work