My garand in the army did get covered in mud a lot of times, that's how you get to learn your gun in the army. With the garand you can clean it enough in a creek or lake, to get it going again in just a few minutes. And i would never have done so if i was my own, not the armys property :)
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM ... "DID IT GO PING?" "WHAT?!" "DID IT GO PING?!" "HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW, I JUST HAD EIGHT ROUNDS OF 30-06 GO OFF BY MY EAR!"
heh, I was once doing some combat training in finnish army, and started to wonder why my rk-62 is smoking so much. I popped the gun open.. had about 4 inch long dry pine twig inside there, slowly burning. Didn't even need to take it out, gun worked just fine :-D if it is smaller than a squirrel, it shouldn't affect the gun ;-) BTW gun sights are interesting when doing combat in snow. its natural reaction to blow into the back sight if its clogged with snow. that is the worst thing to do, as the snow slightly melts, freezes over again, and voila, you just lost back sight.
prowokator also don't do it when you get snow in the muzzle. Better to knock it against a tree than try to blow it out, or even brush it off. Learned that the hard way.
When the Garand was undergoing acceptance trials the vulnerability of the mechanism to mud was observed and noted in reports. The weapon was adopted nevertheless because its other strengths more than compensated for that weakness. Furthermore, no semi-auto rifle evaluated up to that time by Ordnance Branch was in any way generally superior to the Garand. The high command realized the mud question would have to addressed by rigorous and effective training rather than by some sort of new mud-resistant rifle design. Remember, this was the mid-1930s, weapons like the FG-42 and the StG-44 with features that inspired Eugene Stoner to create his amazing AR-15 were in the future. The training of American soldiers to understand and maintain their weapons was much more intense and in-depth in the years just prior to and during WWII than in previous wars, especially the 1914-1918 Great War. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson's dunderheaded pacifism, the United States entered that cataclysm totally unprepared in most categories of modern warfare as practiced by the other belligerent powers. We had only a handful of machineguns, and those were generally inferior to world standards. We had no modern artillery, no modern combat aircraft, no tanks, and our standing army in April 1917 would have been hard-pressed to engage the army of Portugal, let alone the forces of Imperial Germany. All we had was a respectable navy and millions of untrained men. In the rush to get those men recruited, trained, equipped, and transported to France lots of shortcuts were taken and priorities were unrealistically skewed toward obsolete means of maneuver and combat. Far too much time was given over to close order drill and bayonet practice, and not nearly enough devoted to realistic training suitable for conditions on the Western Front. When the "doughboys" arrived in France they impressed everyone with their impressive physiques, their precise marching, and their enthusiasm. However, when the first American troops got into the line too many units tried to fight the Germans like it was the Battle of Antietam. A lot of men died who would have lived if their training had been more comprehensive and suitable to the realities of modern war. Too many men did not sufficiently understand even their relatively simple Enfield and Springfield bolt guns to do competent field maintenance or to avoid simple and extremely dangerous mistakes like barrel obstruction. It's not my claim that these points weren't addressed in the soldiers' stateside training, but that the training was brief, dry, and perfunctory -- typically rote lectures delivered by tediously droning sergeants reading aloud directly from the field manual. In terms of military pedagogy, the training methods used in 1917 were less than effective. In WWII the armed forces of the United States took the lessons of the Great War to heart and created training regimens unmatched in military history, and in a remarkably short time. In just a matter of a few months from December 1941, the Signal Corp created formats for training films, printed manuals, and classroom lectures. Among those creations were superscale models of infantry weapons such as machineguns, mortars, and hand grenades for use in classroom presentions. Furthermore, these training regimens and aids were constantly updated to keep abreast of battlefield experience and enemy means and devices revealed by military intelligence services. Sometimes training films were released after the subject matter had been revised. In those cases, an introduction sequence was often edited in explaining that some points to be covered were no longer applicable. Lecture material was included along with the film for the officer or NCO in charge of the presentation to address those obsolete points. UA-cam has dozens, perhaps hundreds of these training films available. There are even a few Nazi-era German training films available, and it is interesting to compare the style and substance of American training films to their enemy's similar efforts. Of particular relevance to this mud test conducted by Karl and Ian are these two videos: ua-cam.com/video/iS4bVuQDadw/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/R4Ljh5zLBpY/v-deo.html . Everyone with an interest in the M1 Garand will profit by watching them.
what I really like about you guys is that you are not super attached to these weapons like some of the fans are. its a tool, accentually, and you guys test it as such. love it guys
I love that you guys did all these mud tests. You've proven that the ar15 most battle tested mbr is the best shtf gun to have. Glad I got one and glad they are now so affordable. And also glad I got a DD GG2 so I can mill my own on the cheap.
I just recently bought an M1 and I wanted to sort of keep it secret from my family. I spent about a month waiting for a chance to shoot it just to see if it works. I loaded a clip and kept expecting the bolt to immediately fly forward. When it didn't I thought something was insanely wrong. In a panic, I spent about 10 minutes trying to purposefully induce Garand thumb, God finally gave me a freebie and sent the bolt forward. After finishing the test I realized what I did and for the next week I had a hand print on my forehead the size of Wichita.
Awesome test, thank you for doing this! These are the best torture tests ive seen. It's too bad the Garand action fails this test, being a big mini-14 fan.
+The Cosmoline Crate The rifle was not harmed, is cleaned, zeroed and lubricated - working fine. In my opinion, these rifles are war horses not flowers. :P ~Karl
Still got access to that Owen Gun, Ian? I'd love to see a modern test. It's not the prettiest firearm, and the Australian army initially didn't see the use for a sub machine gun prior to WWII (one of the reasons for it's initial rejection), but when the government later told them they did, they used an MP40, Sten and Thompson as benchmarks for comparison, which all failed instantly during mud and sand testing. The Owen continued on flawlessly.
I remember many hours spent disassembling and assembling both the M1 and the 1911 against a stop watch. I believe the reason for this was so what you displayed does not happen. Granted if it came to a shot had to be fired and all you had was a rifle laying in the mud take the shot and pour water through the action to resume. That is how I learned to respond to such conditions. A clean weapon is a happy weapon!
My my my...the sound of that rifle firing and cycling is music to my ears! There's something about that action that makes me smile. I've got a mini-14 and it's almost as if you can feel each individual action as it cycles and I love it. Sadly I haven't yet had the pleasure of a Garand or M1A, but there's still hope yet.
That doesn't make it correct. It was a mispronunciation that the US military just overlooked for so many years, that people just believe that's how it's pronounced. Btw, nice username. Suits you rather well.
Great video guys! Was the susceptibility to mud a design flaw of the Garand or more simply just drawbacks of a top loading and rather open action that self-loaders of the time mostly all shared?
+nutsandgum The design is just very open to the ingress of debris. The tracks/rails are all exposed, the bolt lugs and locking surfaces are exposed, there's a huge hole for entry of filth when in battery, and the system is closed inside with no magazine for any escape. It literally fills up with gunk and stops. Any gun will fail with this much crud in the action, the goal of the design is to block the stuff from getting in. ~Karl
This is why the British army did not except the M1 Garand into service. Their own tests conducted in WW2 came to the conclusion that it was an unrefined technology. It needed further revision before it could be declared suitable for military service, they where however impressed with the semi-auto principle.
In Range, love the show. in regards to the firing pin, the pin will retract on contact with the m1 receiver when the bolt closes. A protruding pin is insignificant.
how does this make the ar look better? Colt m4s jam endlessly. They gave the military the crap version with non piston in gas chamber causing endless jams.
I am wondering, this looks like the extreme of what these guns could go through, what would be a realistic test for these rifles. I still love these videos, and it is very informative to see these rifles go through such conditions. Keep up the good work.
I've read that Marines on Okinawa sometimes had to kick their M1 bolts into battery with their boots because of the mud. I suppose you could always try that...
This was an interesting video. During a dig in Germany I've recovered a jammed M1 Garand rifle, it still had 6 rounds in the clip and a spent casing in the chamber. The jam on the rifle looks very similar to the jam on your second test. Poor GI didn't survive...
Thank you. I really wanted to see this test, which simulated the results if a soldier fell into a severely muddy area. It certainly makes bolt action rifles with removable magazines much more appealing during our mud season. The AK test will be equally interesting.
Great video. I shot M1's and M14's for many years in competition. I had a guy next to me at a match just about slice his hand off after a slamfire so that stuck firing pin could have been a bad time for you guys.
Your killing me, a M1 Garand. I been looking for one for a long time and here you are beating the hell out of it. Please don't do it with a M1 CARBINE.
I realize there isn't any "soil " in AZ to make what most of us picture when we hear mud. I believe this mud test might reflect the Pacific theater somewhat. In the European theater I think you might see this kind of stone soup on the beaches, but man, Arizona mud is some nasty shit!!! Looks more like mortar mix. Thanks for your videos!
+Ruhrpottpatriot Interesting, I had no idea parts of Europe were this way. I always equated course sand with desert conditions. Thanks for setting me straight. Merry Christmas
Thanks for the mud test videos. Please be careful with these tests, I am afraid the mud will give with the firing pin stuck while you guys are trying to clear and clean it. Not sure if that is possible, but just be safe.
There's a WWII Garand training film where the Army is explicit that mud will stop it. They make it clear that once you have mud in the action, you're out of business until you strip it and clean it. P.S. in another video mud even messed up the fabled AK. He could manually cycle it, but not quickly.
+Jacob Galfi Bishop: noun 1. a senior member of the Christian clergy, typically in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders. synonyms: diocesan, metropolitan, suffragan, eparch, exarch; formalprelate "a meeting of the bishops"
And risk having the gun explode due to mud obstructing the barrel? I guess they could plug the barrel before they threw it in the mud but dunking the whole thing in mud would be complete overkill, just getting it on and around the action is fine.
I understand the concept behind these vids, but history still tells a different story. The M1 was known for its reliability and it fought it every type of environment. This is not to say it didn't have failures but I know vets and current members of the armed forces who curse the AR platform. Run these guns thru realistic scenarios, firing hundreds of rounds. Soldiers are trained to keep their guns out of the mud. They try to avoid getting them buried in it. Then after that trial run, see which one is easier to get back in action after a stoppage. Just on the range, a friend's AR's bolt locked to the barrel and we would've broke the T-handle forcing it. M1s can be kicked open. Thankfully it did fire or getting that out would've been alot more dangerous. Most of my M1s have never failed me save for misfires, one case head separation (Keep a headless case extractor in your butt trap.), and one gun whose as built original op-rod has a badly worn piston. Just my two cents.
I would appreciate if you would mud test a Lee Enfield. Was used alongside most of these other rifles you test. I am curious if the loose chamber etc is as good as good in dirty conditions as people say. Maybe get a large freezer and do ice tests too? Not sure if it would be safe, might need a remote firing setup.
Got to say...that was painful to see such a nice old rifle being abused in that manner. And your conclusions are most certainly correct...as far as it goes with mud of such consistency. When dealing with muck containing particles large enough to bridge over the operating clearances within the mechanism it's critical to keep that stuff OUT! Having looser internal working clearances WILL allow smaller debris a place to go without jamming stuff up, but when you have concrete slurry that's not going to work just because your rocks are way bigger than any working clearance is ever going to be. I know that every test can be argued, and Good Job on doing these! But running the same tests with more representative muck with smaller particle size could totally change the outcome. The AK (assuming it's not built too tight...which I see in US built guns often as people like them tight) would eat a small particle slurry where that same goop would penetrate the AR and clog it up. My M-16A1 fired ONE round after going through the Infliltration Course and had the bolt carrier stuck all the way back. Had to crunch it home one forward assist notch at a time until I could break it open and clean it....and this was just sand. (mostly) All small particle stuff which is the bane of the AR's and what the AK's laugh at. Keep up your testing and maybe re-run with small particle goop if you don't agree with my logic....but I think it's sound.
Hey guys I really like your vids . I just watched the AR15 mud test . One thing , the comments were disabled . Good vids deserve to be commented on for better or worse . Free speech gentle men is something to cherish not fear ! Again very good vids Rock On !
I figure it can be more frustrating then I can imagine but don't you like a good debate ? Or in the very least point out just how foolish some idiots are : ) and maybe give a little education in the process .
Is there any chance you guys would be able to mud test the M1941 Johnson Rifle? I feel like doing a side by side comparison, Johnson vs Garand, mud test would make for a great video, hell if you guys were able to take a bunch different of WWII era self-loading service rifles and conduct these tests, that'd be even cooler. Granted obtaining the rifles for the test might be more difficult than i can even imagine.
Oh yeah, some else to look up... nothing you guys did wrong. back after WWII (long before I was around, I'm Iraq/Afghanistan Era) we gave/loaned the Italians a bunch of M1 Garands. Before Beretta started making the BM59 they also had issues with water and other liquids pooling in the lower area of the trigger assembly. They would mill 3 narrow slots in the bottom. The name they gave it sounded really fancy, but it basically meant "slotting the spoon". My grandfather told me about it when he visited Italy. They said it work well for keeping pools of fluid out but the slots weren't so big as to let much crud in. I've never seen on from that era and can only imagine that they were tiny slots. anyway, just an interesting story.
Jeez, firing pin stuck extruding? You were trying to force the bolt into battery! Lucky it didn't fire out of battery with the pin sticking out like that...
I read a few years ago about a British soldier who watched a demo by an American soldier, in Britain very early on in WW2, of a M1 Garand. I wish I could find that again, as I cannot recall the context - what was an American doing showing British soldiers the rifle and why? - and lots of other questions like was this before the entry of the US into that war? Interestingly he wrote that the British soldiers thought he was shooting a machine gun, so rapid was the rate of fire compared to the Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles they were familiar with.
I imagine the chance of getting one isn't high, but I'd love to see this test with an FNC, or, even better, an AK5. I'm very interested to see how well that trick spring-loaded dust cover works.
You guys were never had a chance to see any combat , First thing a soldier learn is how to take care of his life and his life is his rifle. There is no way a rifle get mud like that in combat . That is not battlefield situation , people can only see in your channel , However I have to appreciate for what you guys are doing.
Makes one wonder about the legendary reliability of the garand action shared by many rifles (M1 rifle, M1 carbine, M14, various Winchester prototypes thru the mini14)? Wonder if your AZ mud which looks to be more sand based with many small rocks and pebbles is harsher on a rifle action that some of the richer soils in the midwest or eastern parts of the country? Would also be interesting to see how a 1941 Johnson rifle would do in the dust and mud tests as its action in much more closed up than that garand style actions?
Non-American here, I'm curious about shooting locations, do you just drive to a random spot in the desert (since it's so big and unpopulated) away from civilization or is there an actual """"range"""" dedicated to the purpose of shooting?
I've been into guns since the late 50s and I don't recall mud tests being in vogue at all, in the literature of the day (Guns magazine, American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo). I think it got started with the importation of the first commercial AKs back in the 80s. The AKs were mud friendly evidently...everything else, not so much.
My Dad carried one with 3rd MarDiv during Korea. He is 5'-6" and slight so he overwhelmingly preferred the M1 to the BAR which he hated. He also hated the flamethrower (no kidding?) which he carried in the Weapons Company for a time. He thought the 1911 was a POS which may have well been true by the 1950s. He thinks the WORLD of the M1 and would totter over to threaten you after disrespecting it! The strange thing, to me at least, is that rifle fought in the worst jungles of the Pacific and you never, ever read anybody complaining about it's reliability. I'm an M16 Marine and we cleaned our rifles religiously and I never had ANY problems with them either. I will never forget the weapons guys telling us to keep "hosing it with CLP and it'll keep running."
These tests always crack me up.. the idea is how gun functions better in nasty conditions "during a fire fight!!".. but every time AR guys do a mud/dirt/or sand test comparison with the ar15..its with the dust cover closed as it would be during transport..not a fire fight.. I live in a desert an have been around a lot of shooting with lots of people and when the sand starts blowing..I promise the AK and Garand/m1a action is noticeably less subject to failures...
How about the mud test with a FAL and a G3? I think the FAL will perform comparably to the AR15. Here are my theories. First, as you've already stated, openings in the receiver that allow gunk to get into the FCG and interfere with the bolt carrier/bolt movement don't do well. Even more, if the gunk can get into the recoil spring, it really messes up. That is one of the strengths of the AR in this test in that the buffer forms another barrier protecting the recoil spring. The standard FAL has the recoil spring in the butt as well, and the adjustable gas system allows you to increase the operating forces. So PLEASE, how about some more tests!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Honestly if my Garand was covered in mud like this I think would cry like a little girl.
Me to
me too, this video hurt my soul. I have to face camp perry and pray to john garand after watching this.
+gold54bs *too
LOL you are indeed little girls. Clean it off and deal with it.
*_*crying like a little girl intensifies*_*
mud test on a bow and arrow
+Jack Lamb It'd work. ~Karl
+InRangeTV Are you sure? The arrow might get jammed up in there XD
Beliserius1 but the weight and drag of water can misdirect the arrow
Arrow shoots, but it is horrible for the archer (if using a proper heavy weight bow). Just don't, unless you are using a bow with under 40 pound draw.
put the arrowhead in the mud
instant infection
actually i dont know shit, nvm
Somewhere out there, thousands of Garands screamed in unison.
*pinged
You don't think they have seen worse?
RebSike I was going to say that xD
Not if the owner could prevent it. Not when their lives depended on that gun working.
My garand in the army did get covered in mud a lot of times, that's how you get to learn your gun in the army. With the garand you can clean it enough in a creek or lake, to get it going again in just a few minutes. And i would never have done so if i was my own, not the armys property :)
00:52
"Ready?"
Me: no please don't do it
The M1 Garand: the gun where you accidentally say you're inserting a mag when you mean to call it a clip.
worth watching just for the PING
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
BOOM
...
"DID IT GO PING?"
"WHAT?!"
"DID IT GO PING?!"
"HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW, I JUST HAD EIGHT ROUNDS OF 30-06 GO OFF BY MY EAR!"
heh, I was once doing some combat training in finnish army, and started to wonder why my rk-62 is smoking so much. I popped the gun open.. had about 4 inch long dry pine twig inside there, slowly burning. Didn't even need to take it out, gun worked just fine :-D if it is smaller than a squirrel, it shouldn't affect the gun ;-) BTW gun sights are interesting when doing combat in snow. its natural reaction to blow into the back sight if its clogged with snow. that is the worst thing to do, as the snow slightly melts, freezes over again, and voila, you just lost back sight.
prowokator also don't do it when you get snow in the muzzle. Better to knock it against a tree than try to blow it out, or even brush it off. Learned that the hard way.
Patton is rolling in his grave right now
you should make this exact test with like EVERY gun
+weeeds334 Do you have every gun, available to loan them?
+Goldmarble i do
+weeeds334 I want to know how well bolt action rifles will run, especially the Japanese Type 99 Rifle with the dust-cover installed.
weeeds334 M4
When the Garand was undergoing acceptance trials the vulnerability of the mechanism to mud was observed and noted in reports. The weapon was adopted nevertheless because its other strengths more than compensated for that weakness. Furthermore, no semi-auto rifle evaluated up to that time by Ordnance Branch was in any way generally superior to the Garand. The high command realized the mud question would have to addressed by rigorous and effective training rather than by some sort of new mud-resistant rifle design. Remember, this was the mid-1930s, weapons like the FG-42 and the StG-44 with features that inspired Eugene Stoner to create his amazing AR-15 were in the future.
The training of American soldiers to understand and maintain their weapons was much more intense and in-depth in the years just prior to and during WWII than in previous wars, especially the 1914-1918 Great War. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson's dunderheaded pacifism, the United States entered that cataclysm totally unprepared in most categories of modern warfare as practiced by the other belligerent powers. We had only a handful of machineguns, and those were generally inferior to world standards. We had no modern artillery, no modern combat aircraft, no tanks, and our standing army in April 1917 would have been hard-pressed to engage the army of Portugal, let alone the forces of Imperial Germany. All we had was a respectable navy and millions of untrained men.
In the rush to get those men recruited, trained, equipped, and transported to France lots of shortcuts were taken and priorities were unrealistically skewed toward obsolete means of maneuver and combat. Far too much time was given over to close order drill and bayonet practice, and not nearly enough devoted to realistic training suitable for conditions on the Western Front. When the "doughboys" arrived in France they impressed everyone with their impressive physiques, their precise marching, and their enthusiasm. However, when the first American troops got into the line too many units tried to fight the Germans like it was the Battle of Antietam. A lot of men died who would have lived if their training had been more comprehensive and suitable to the realities of modern war.
Too many men did not sufficiently understand even their relatively simple Enfield and Springfield bolt guns to do competent field maintenance or to avoid simple and extremely dangerous mistakes like barrel obstruction. It's not my claim that these points weren't addressed in the soldiers' stateside training, but that the training was brief, dry, and perfunctory -- typically rote lectures delivered by tediously droning sergeants reading aloud directly from the field manual. In terms of military pedagogy, the training methods used in 1917 were less than effective.
In WWII the armed forces of the United States took the lessons of the Great War to heart and created training regimens unmatched in military history, and in a remarkably short time. In just a matter of a few months from December 1941, the Signal Corp created formats for training films, printed manuals, and classroom lectures. Among those creations were superscale models of infantry weapons such as machineguns, mortars, and hand grenades for use in classroom presentions. Furthermore, these training regimens and aids were constantly updated to keep abreast of battlefield experience and enemy means and devices revealed by military intelligence services. Sometimes training films were released after the subject matter had been revised. In those cases, an introduction sequence was often edited in explaining that some points to be covered were no longer applicable. Lecture material was included along with the film for the officer or NCO in charge of the presentation to address those obsolete points.
UA-cam has dozens, perhaps hundreds of these training films available. There are even a few Nazi-era German training films available, and it is interesting to compare the style and substance of American training films to their enemy's similar efforts. Of particular relevance to this mud test conducted by Karl and Ian are these two videos: ua-cam.com/video/iS4bVuQDadw/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/R4Ljh5zLBpY/v-deo.html . Everyone with an interest in the M1 Garand will profit by watching them.
I still love Garands. I'll just try not to pour mud on mine lol.
Well this explains why the M1 Garand had a cotton canvas action cover available as a accessory.
wow, M1 Garand sound is just outstanding
what I really like about you guys is that you are not super attached to these weapons like some of the fans are. its a tool, accentually, and you guys test it as such. love it guys
I love that you guys did all these mud tests. You've proven that the ar15 most battle tested mbr is the best shtf gun to have. Glad I got one and glad they are now so affordable. And also glad I got a DD GG2 so I can mill my own on the cheap.
FYI :don't throw your rifle in a mud bog and expect it to function without a complete strip down and cleaning/lube.
This video made me cry, but I’m also glad someone has the balls to do this is such a precious and beautiful gun I could never do this
I just recently bought an M1 and I wanted to sort of keep it secret from my family. I spent about a month waiting for a chance to shoot it just to see if it works. I loaded a clip and kept expecting the bolt to immediately fly forward. When it didn't I thought something was insanely wrong. In a panic, I spent about 10 minutes trying to purposefully induce Garand thumb, God finally gave me a freebie and sent the bolt forward. After finishing the test I realized what I did and for the next week I had a hand print on my forehead the size of Wichita.
Awesome test, thank you for doing this! These are the best torture tests ive seen.
It's too bad the Garand action fails this test, being a big mini-14 fan.
Wonder why Marines can keep their M1G always clean even their battlefields were mainly muddy in Pacific more than the Army in Europe during WW2.
I get what you guys are trying to do, but this made me cringe...Old gal deserves a cush retirement.
+The Cosmoline Crate The rifle was not harmed, is cleaned, zeroed and lubricated - working fine. In my opinion, these rifles are war horses not flowers. :P ~Karl
agree 100%
Next I want to see 3rd Gen. rifles put to the test: SCAR, ARX, and ACR going against the AR-15.
Still got access to that Owen Gun, Ian? I'd love to see a modern test.
It's not the prettiest firearm, and the Australian army initially didn't see the use for a sub machine gun prior to WWII (one of the reasons for it's initial rejection), but when the government later told them they did, they used an MP40, Sten and Thompson as benchmarks for comparison, which all failed instantly during mud and sand testing.
The Owen continued on flawlessly.
Having just watched a bunch of the later ones the instant fun and crazyness of this video is refreshing.
I remember many hours spent disassembling and assembling both the M1 and the 1911 against a stop watch. I believe the reason for this was so what you displayed does not happen. Granted if it came to a shot had to be fired and all you had was a rifle laying in the mud take the shot and pour water through the action to resume. That is how I learned to respond to such conditions. A clean weapon is a happy weapon!
This is why you don't feed your M1 to the Mud Bog monster.....Ping on my friends
That muddy stuff, that is why you have a bayonet!
Thay doesnt surprise me in the least. Thankyou guys for doing these tests. Keep up the great work and keeping it professional.
My my my...the sound of that rifle firing and cycling is music to my ears! There's something about that action that makes me smile. I've got a mini-14 and it's almost as if you can feel each individual action as it cycles and I love it. Sadly I haven't yet had the pleasure of a Garand or M1A, but there's still hope yet.
FINALLY! SOMEBODY ON UA-cam PRONOUNCES IT CORRECTLY.
+Brian Colborn Not correct.
Yes it is. His name was pronounced John Gerrand.
And literally nobody calls the gun that.
That doesn't make it correct. It was a mispronunciation that the US military just overlooked for so many years, that people just believe that's how it's pronounced. Btw, nice username. Suits you rather well.
+Brian Colborn Because it's consequential to the function of the gun? To referring to what it is? Stop being such a pedant.
Great video guys! Was the susceptibility to mud a design flaw of the Garand or more simply just drawbacks of a top loading and rather open action that self-loaders of the time mostly all shared?
+nutsandgum The design is just very open to the ingress of debris. The tracks/rails are all exposed, the bolt lugs and locking surfaces are exposed, there's a huge hole for entry of filth when in battery, and the system is closed inside with no magazine for any escape.
It literally fills up with gunk and stops. Any gun will fail with this much crud in the action, the goal of the design is to block the stuff from getting in. ~Karl
This is why the British army did not except the M1 Garand into service. Their own tests conducted in WW2 came to the conclusion that it was an unrefined technology. It needed further revision before it could be declared suitable for military service, they where however impressed with the semi-auto principle.
I know the ping is legendary, but the sound of the gunfire itself is positively heartwarming.
on iwo jima there is a video of a marine trying to open the action of an m1 with volcanic sand in the action
please do this with a g3! id love to see that
+Jason Derrer We don't have one, we'd have to acquire one or get a loaner. Maybe someday. ~Karl
+InRangeTV I'll send you my cetme clone
+Jason Derrer I would love to see that!
In Range, love the show. in regards to the firing pin, the pin will retract on contact with the m1 receiver when the bolt closes. A protruding pin is insignificant.
Sten SMG, Owens SMG (Forgotten Australian SMG known for being robust)
Great series of tests. They certainly earn a HUGE more amount of respect for the AR-15, I'll tell you that. I'll never "take if for granted" again.
how does this make the ar look better? Colt m4s jam endlessly. They gave the military the crap version with non piston in gas chamber causing endless jams.
Jeff Monroe I'd reply to you if there was the slightest hint you knew what you're talking about.
+GetMeThere1 really 6 years of range time and I've had over 10 jams. 3 different guns same problems.
www.cbsnews.com/pictures/replacing-the-m16-five-lethal-candidates/ one of many articles as well as my experience talking with others.
Jeff Monroe LOL. My advice: Don't look to CBS news for information on guns!
I am wondering, this looks like the extreme of what these guns could go through, what would be a realistic test for these rifles. I still love these videos, and it is very informative to see these rifles go through such conditions. Keep up the good work.
I know a lot of people love the m1 for its nostalgia, but overall i think its quite an impractical weapon
Well, i think you're wrong. There's nothing Impractical about it, and still makes for a better rifle than the M14
I've read that Marines on Okinawa sometimes had to kick their M1 bolts into battery with their boots because of the mud. I suppose you could always try that...
Hot Damn! I always forget just how much the Garand absolutely ROARS when it fires.
I get a better understanding of how tough it was for American G.I.s during WW2 in the pacific. Great video guys.
God i love the sound of the garand when the clip is done
This was an interesting video. During a dig in Germany I've recovered a jammed M1 Garand rifle, it still had 6 rounds in the clip and a spent casing in the chamber. The jam on the rifle looks very similar to the jam on your second test. Poor GI didn't survive...
I would hope the M14 would be slightly better considering it's an improved M1.
If it did worse, it wouldn't be much of an improvement.
Thank you. I really wanted to see this test, which simulated the results if a soldier fell into a severely muddy area. It certainly makes bolt action rifles with removable magazines much more appealing during our mud season. The AK test will be equally interesting.
Great video. I shot M1's and M14's for many years in competition. I had a guy next to me at a match just about slice his hand off after a slamfire so that stuck firing pin could have been a bad time for you guys.
Your killing me, a M1 Garand. I been looking for one for a long time and here you are beating the hell out of it. Please don't do it with a M1 CARBINE.
There's thousands upon thousands of M1 Garands still around
+Shawn H
Only a few of those available to the US and all of them expensive.
Eric Johnson Its a machine not a living thing
I don't know what your talking about, I love the M1 GRAND, M1A Scout or the M1 carbine. I must have me confused with someone else.
Can't say I didn't see this coming. Good job guys!
The M1 Garand is the greatest battle implement ever devised!
no
not when it comes to the mud test lol
any rifle of that period would share a similar failure rate, it was the best rifle of the era
I realize there isn't any "soil " in AZ to make what most of us picture when we hear mud. I believe this mud test might reflect the Pacific theater somewhat.
In the European theater I think you might see this kind of stone soup on the beaches, but man, Arizona mud is some nasty shit!!!
Looks more like mortar mix.
Thanks for your videos!
+Ruhrpottpatriot Interesting, I had no idea parts of Europe were this way. I always equated course sand with desert conditions.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Merry Christmas
+Jerry Long Also in north africa
Thanks for the mud test videos. Please be careful with these tests, I am afraid the mud will give with the firing pin stuck while you guys are trying to clear and clean it. Not sure if that is possible, but just be safe.
Taking away the Garand's ability to ping should be illegal
There's a WWII Garand training film where the Army is explicit that mud will stop it. They make it clear that once you have mud in the action, you're out of business until you strip it and clean it.
P.S. in another video mud even messed up the fabled AK. He could manually cycle it, but not quickly.
You guys should start a playlist with these torture tests. It would really help people discover your older content later on!
no rifle not even the AKs could fire with ROCKS in the action.
You should get a bigger container and just dunk that thing in there.
+1 this
+Jacob Galfi Bishop: noun
1.
a senior member of the Christian clergy, typically in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders.
synonyms: diocesan, metropolitan, suffragan, eparch, exarch; formalprelate
"a meeting of the bishops"
And risk having the gun explode due to mud obstructing the barrel? I guess they could plug the barrel before they threw it in the mud but dunking the whole thing in mud would be complete overkill, just getting it on and around the action is fine.
I spent 9 months and 15 days in VN as a "rifleman" in an infantry platoon. Don't remember ever seeing any firearm this muddy.
I understand the concept behind these vids, but history still tells a different story. The M1 was known for its reliability and it fought it every type of environment. This is not to say it didn't have failures but I know vets and current members of the armed forces who curse the AR platform. Run these guns thru realistic scenarios, firing hundreds of rounds. Soldiers are trained to keep their guns out of the mud. They try to avoid getting them buried in it. Then after that trial run, see which one is easier to get back in action after a stoppage. Just on the range, a friend's AR's bolt locked to the barrel and we would've broke the T-handle forcing it. M1s can be kicked open. Thankfully it did fire or getting that out would've been alot more dangerous. Most of my M1s have never failed me save for misfires, one case head separation (Keep a headless case extractor in your butt trap.), and one gun whose as built original op-rod has a badly worn piston. Just my two cents.
It never ceases to amaze me how fast the mud dries in the sun
The sound of this gun shooting is music to my ears. Damn I want a Garand.
Thats why the FN49 has small dustcover you can slide forward to save the action from debree.
I would appreciate if you would mud test a Lee Enfield. Was used alongside most of these other rifles you test. I am curious if the loose chamber etc is as good as good in dirty conditions as people say. Maybe get a large freezer and do ice tests too? Not sure if it would be safe, might need a remote firing setup.
I’m a Brit. If that was a Lee Enfield, you’d be desecrating a museum piece. In the USA, you’re merely soiling some surplus, haha!
One of the most beautiful rifles ever! Great Canadian engineering
A little anticipated recoil flinch ....:))
Love the content!! Please keep it up.
+golfnstuf It was an attempt to defeat a rock behind the trigger... ~Karl
I'm gonna cry
Got to say...that was painful to see such a nice old rifle being abused in that manner. And your conclusions are most certainly correct...as far as it goes with mud of such consistency. When dealing with muck containing particles large enough to bridge over the operating clearances within the mechanism it's critical to keep that stuff OUT! Having looser internal working clearances WILL allow smaller debris a place to go without jamming stuff up, but when you have concrete slurry that's not going to work just because your rocks are way bigger than any working clearance is ever going to be.
I know that every test can be argued, and Good Job on doing these! But running the same tests with more representative muck with smaller particle size could totally change the outcome. The AK (assuming it's not built too tight...which I see in US built guns often as people like them tight) would eat a small particle slurry where that same goop would penetrate the AR and clog it up. My M-16A1 fired ONE round after going through the Infliltration Course and had the bolt carrier stuck all the way back. Had to crunch it home one forward assist notch at a time until I could break it open and clean it....and this was just sand. (mostly) All small particle stuff which is the bane of the AR's and what the AK's laugh at. Keep up your testing and maybe re-run with small particle goop if you don't agree with my logic....but I think it's sound.
Is there anyone in existence (barring Axis WWII vets) who DOESN'T love that pinging noise when it throws out the empty clip? Man I love that sound
Hey guys I really like your vids . I just watched the AR15 mud test . One thing , the comments were disabled . Good vids deserve to be commented on for better or worse . Free speech gentle men is something to cherish not fear ! Again very good vids Rock On !
+Al Codie Free speech is awesome, garbage being shoveled into our inbox constantly by idiots and fools is not. ~K
I figure it can be more frustrating then I can imagine but don't you like a good debate ? Or in the very least point out just how foolish some idiots are : ) and maybe give a little education in the process .
Is there any chance you guys would be able to mud test the M1941 Johnson Rifle? I feel like doing a side by side comparison, Johnson vs Garand, mud test would make for a great video, hell if you guys were able to take a bunch different of WWII era self-loading service rifles and conduct these tests, that'd be even cooler. Granted obtaining the rifles for the test might be more difficult than i can even imagine.
Oh yeah, some else to look up... nothing you guys did wrong. back after WWII (long before I was around, I'm Iraq/Afghanistan Era) we gave/loaned the Italians a bunch of M1 Garands. Before Beretta started making the BM59 they also had issues with water and other liquids pooling in the lower area of the trigger assembly. They would mill 3 narrow slots in the bottom. The name they gave it sounded really fancy, but it basically meant "slotting the spoon". My grandfather told me about it when he visited Italy. They said it work well for keeping pools of fluid out but the slots weren't so big as to let much crud in. I've never seen on from that era and can only imagine that they were tiny slots. anyway, just an interesting story.
0:33
God, that sound is delicious. Imagine having to fight against that, the sound alone would be demoralizing.
OMG 😳
Don't scratch the rifle with the steel shovel man!
😭
What are you doing!
😂
(a lot of people immediately thought)
Can you guys try the M1917 Enfield? I want to see how it would do in the muddy trenches of WWI.
Thank you for not tossing the old girl on the ground after the test. I thought you were going to, after watching your AR and AK mud test videos.
+bwhip ARs and AKs are essentially cord wood. ~Karl
Jeez, firing pin stuck extruding? You were trying to force the bolt into battery! Lucky it didn't fire out of battery with the pin sticking out like that...
It's a good thing the mud in Europe isn't nearly as sandy as in AZ. Except for the beaches of Normandy of course.
0:56 That Garand was like,
_NO, I’M NOT GOING IN THERE !_
Karl,looks like you've lost a few pound in the year since you posted this video.Great channel,always look forward to a new episode.
I read a few years ago about a British soldier who watched a demo by an American soldier, in Britain very early on in WW2, of a M1 Garand. I wish I could find that again, as I cannot recall the context - what was an American doing showing British soldiers the rifle and why? - and lots of other questions like was this before the entry of the US into that war?
Interestingly he wrote that the British soldiers thought he was shooting a machine gun, so rapid was the rate of fire compared to the Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles they were familiar with.
The M1 Garrand...Ahhh Yes.!!!...That Sweet Succulent sound of Bullet through flesh. -Unknow Poet "1944
Congratulations. You just got killed by a German paratrooper.
This hurt to watch...but I searched for this video and I'm glad I saw it!!
Seeing the M1 give up that easily makes it hard to believe it’s related to the AK-47
I imagine the chance of getting one isn't high, but I'd love to see this test with an FNC, or, even better, an AK5. I'm very interested to see how well that trick spring-loaded dust cover works.
You guys were never had a chance to see any combat ,
First thing a soldier learn is how to take care of his life and his life is his rifle.
There is no way a rifle get mud like that in combat . That is not battlefield situation , people can only see in your channel , However I have to appreciate for what you guys are doing.
Makes one wonder about the legendary reliability of the garand action shared by many rifles (M1 rifle, M1 carbine, M14, various Winchester prototypes thru the mini14)?
Wonder if your AZ mud which looks to be more sand based with many small rocks and pebbles is harsher on a rifle action that some of the richer soils in the midwest or eastern parts of the country?
Would also be interesting to see how a 1941 Johnson rifle would do in the dust and mud tests as its action in much more closed up than that garand style actions?
When the M1A is inaccurate, the M1A guys blame the shooter. When the mud choked the M1A, M1A guys blame the mud and the shooter. Sounds about right.
Could we get a mud test of the 1903 Springfield, or possibly any other bolt action rifle from the Great War?
Non-American here, I'm curious about shooting locations, do you just drive to a random spot in the desert (since it's so big and unpopulated) away from civilization or is there an actual """"range"""" dedicated to the purpose of shooting?
Desert location. Ranges are nearly impossible to work with. ~Karl
I've been into guns since the late 50s and I don't recall mud tests being in vogue at all, in the literature of the day (Guns magazine, American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo). I think it got started with the importation of the first commercial AKs back in the 80s. The AKs were mud friendly evidently...everything else, not so much.
Honestly the mud test is Probly not the worst shit m1 garands have been through in there entire service life
A video with this or a M1 carbine in comparison to a SVT-40 and G41 would be cool if you could get your hands on them.
My Dad carried one with 3rd MarDiv during Korea. He is 5'-6" and slight so he overwhelmingly preferred the M1 to the BAR which he hated. He also hated the flamethrower (no kidding?) which he carried in the Weapons Company for a time. He thought the 1911 was a POS which may have well been true by the 1950s. He thinks the WORLD of the M1 and would totter over to threaten you after disrespecting it! The strange thing, to me at least, is that rifle fought in the worst jungles of the Pacific and you never, ever read anybody complaining about it's reliability. I'm an M16 Marine and we cleaned our rifles religiously and I never had ANY problems with them either. I will never forget the weapons guys telling us to keep "hosing it with CLP and it'll keep running."
These tests always crack me up.. the idea is how gun functions better in nasty conditions "during a fire fight!!".. but every time AR guys do a mud/dirt/or sand test comparison with the ar15..its with the dust cover closed as it would be during transport..not a fire fight.. I live in a desert an have been around a lot of shooting with lots of people and when the sand starts blowing..I promise the AK and Garand/m1a action is noticeably less subject to failures...
We did the same thing to the AR15, first with the cover closed, then with the cover open:
ua-cam.com/video/YAneTFiz5WU/v-deo.html
i have an M1 and seeing it with all that mud hurts my soul
How about the mud test with a FAL and a G3? I think the FAL will perform comparably to the AR15. Here are my theories. First, as you've already stated, openings in the receiver that allow gunk to get into the FCG and interfere with the bolt carrier/bolt movement don't do well. Even more, if the gunk can get into the recoil spring, it really messes up. That is one of the strengths of the AR in this test in that the buffer forms another barrier protecting the recoil spring. The standard FAL has the recoil spring in the butt as well, and the adjustable gas system allows you to increase the operating forces. So PLEASE, how about some more tests!