Having watched several of these mud tests I'm starting to see a pattern emerging, it's almost as though fire arms aren't supposed to be covered in gunk, the more you know. Cool content though.
After the G3, would be interested to see how the Galil stacks up. It was good enough for the Israelis to replace their FALs before they got their hands on M-16/M-4's.
I've experienced this before, but only with the Israeli production rifles and never with my Australian rifle. I can attest for the enlarged sand grooves on the Commonwealth L1A1 Australian; they absolute work as intended in sandy environments and running the rifle wet or dry doesn't seem to change much. The culprit here was the slog of mud you had against the carry handle which jumped into the chamber after the second round ejected. This is why we removed our carry handles.
I must say that I was disappointed by this test. Not because I love the FAL (which I do, very much), but rather because you guys usually examine the rifle and determine what the cause of failure was, and you didn't do that this time. Kind of a let-down, IMO.
The FAL is the most aesthetic rifle in existence. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make it more reliable. Any ideas? Would a dust cover and forward assist/reciprocating charging handle have helped?
It did exactly what I thought it would, mud got stripped off the side of the bolt carrier and dropped down into the receiver. What I wasn't expecting is that you left the carry handle on the ejection port side, which looks like it acted like a shelf to hold more mud alongside the ejection port and allowed a ton of mud to fall into the open port as the bolt cycled back. Dirt and contamination are obviously an issue with the FAL, but I feel the test might have gone slightly better if the carry handle was left on the other side.
the thing about these mud tests is that when in combat, a soldier will pronate on the ground to take cover. this means there's downward force on the gun against the mud/dirt which actively pushes debris into the action if the gun. Ian should simulate this to make his mud tests more authentic. (also because I want to see him covered head to toe in mud)
FN looks cool and works fine under normal conditions but the IDF found that the gun was somewhat sensitive to sand in desert conditions and preferred the AK-47 which held up better. Ultimately, the IDF adopted the Galil for use in the late 70s, through the 80s and early 90s
Would love to see an SKS hit the mud. Doubt it would survive but it's a fairly common and easy to aquire rifle so I figure it's not to daunting to ask for
I was really hoping this would do well... We were issued these in the SADF in the late 80's (as the R1) just as the Galil-based R4 was phased in for the Infantry. We were given the 'left-overs', but it was super accurate, unlike the R4's we tried out, but heavier although with a surprisingly smooth and manageable recoil. Loved it, but on the strength of this test - I would stay in the African bushveld and out of the trenches. Nice video, once again.
nonreciprocating bolt handle i thought about using in a bullpup design I considering working on months. But these test really do show me that you need that ability to slam the bolt forward. Which has led me to a few ideas on how to get a nonreciprocating bolt handle but also make it able to work in a way to allows you to slam the bolt forwards.
It looked like there was a heap of mud sitting on top of the carry handle, right next to the ejection port. Out of curiousity, I'd like to see this test again with that handle up out of the way, especially given the fact that that heap of mud wasn't there before being re-covered. I'm not sure this will make the test any different in the long run, but it'd be good to be sure.
You guys should do more mud tests with rifles chambered in .308/7.62x51 NATO! Also for the fun of it you guys should do a mud test comparing the falling block action, the break action, the rolling block action, and the single shot bolt action to see which ones hold up the best in muddy conditions as provided by the shovel and mud filled wheelbarrow.
If it was fitted with a non reciprocating bolt handle that could lock into the bolt and reciprocate, it could have hypothetically been forced into battery and made to work. Basically a forward assists.
Procedural suggestion: Get a long plastic bin, such as a rifle case, to hold the mud; drop the rifle in and maybe squoosh it down once on each side. This would cut back on the "randomness" of where the mud goes, and make for a little more consistent test. You'll probably have to keep the wheelbarrow for mixing the mud.
TotalMetalJacket Just watch the last video of the CETME build video. The way those rifles were, it wouldn't surprise me if a bit of mud changed something in the rifle that made it run poorly. Any other rifle I'd say yes, but those particular CETME rifles were hard to build and if I had them I wouldn't want to sacrifice my rifle for this test.
Try the British L1A1 I’ve personally seen one work after that kind of mud dumping (a mate went arse over tit on a live fire exercise on Sennybridge ranges in the middle of February many many years ago) and mag out quick shake and it worked a treat !
Great vid. I liked your comment about the non-reciprocating charging handle. I've heard so much criticism about the SCAR's reversible, reciprocating C/H which is a total non-issue and does in fact come in handy sometimes.
It's like watching a car wreck ........ you want to turn away, but can't. Great work! .... so a question. The mud ...... is it basic desert sand with water added? Would clay mud the type encountered in WW1 and WW2 in Europe, behave differently? Thanks!
Interesting, I know it's a moot point because the bolt would not go into batter,y but if it had would the FALs adjustable gas regulator help the rifle run reliably?
You know, I think the sand cut bolt might have made this worse, at least as compared to the standard bolt. If it’s like my FAL, it also has a flare on the ejection port of the dust cover so combine that with the sand cut bolt and it will force crud into the action. The cuts grab the mud (or dirt or sand) and then allow it to slide into action through the flared dust cover opening. I wouldn’t expect any FAL to do great in a sand or mud test, but it’s interesting that the modifications that were supposed to increase reliability may have had the opposite effect. I’m not defending the FAL design in this test but would like to see a sand cut and non-sand cut FAL tested to see if the “snake oil” sand cuts actually impacted the outcome, for better or for worse. There were some other guns that had sand cuts, the Sterling comes to mind, but in all cases it seems like a design modification that just seemed like a good idea as opposed to one that was thoroughly tested.
An observation I've made with my time with British, Israeli and Australian FALs is that the Commonwealth L1A1 Australian functions a hell of a lot better in dry sandy environments. The enlarged grooves were amazing in the Simpson. But they're neither better nor worse than the British/Israeli rifles in wet sand or muddy environments. The solution was in our manual of arms: First, remove your carry handle! It's a mud trap. (Not all troops did this -- they were the ones who complained about malfunctions on exercise) Second, always slap your rifle to dislodge any loosish mud from the seam between the bolt and port lip.
Im really looking forward to the g3 mud test,Im predicting it will perform better because it will clear itself of mud because of its violent shell ejector.
A test of the L1A1 and the Belgian FAL paratrooper would be in order. The L1A1 contains a few parts that might solve the problems noted here. Mind you , in this test you're testing the DSA arms ,and not the Belgian FAL. Belgian FAL paratrooper model still tops all FAL models.
I have to thank you for this and G3 mud test. I own both rifles and you can imagine that I am unable and unwilling to do something like this. It is great video but I have to ask on something. I have read enough materials about rifles and for example the vz.59 was rifle that my father used as a conscript and I always hear from him how durable and reliable these guns are. Is was a propaganda or why rifles(FAL,G3,AK,vz.59,M1A1) I counted to be mud, sand, ice and water resistand are not? How did these rifles get such reputation if they arent like that?
I was a bit disappointed, but thanks for the great vid. Keep up the great vids as always. The Right Arm of the free world will return triumphant. Lol. Thanks.
It seems like the carry handle held a big lump of mud close to the bolt, don't know if that affected it. I wonder if a test on one without the handle or with one in the up position would change the results.
I'm sure someone will mention the Israeli Style FAL Forward Assist. But I'd guess it wouldn't do much good. Would you and Karl consider doing a video or series of videos on old style Military tangent, and Volley sights and relative accuracy for drop? I'd love to see how close (if at all) some of these seemingly over ambitious range settings on these old sights are for their math on bullet drop etc. I'd like to think some German engineer did the math on the bullet drop for a Broomhandle Mauser sight - Very un German like to not do so. Curious if the math (forget about accuracy) for drop comes out fairly clean or is it just nonsense. Thanks again for all your hard work to keep us entertained and informed with your videos.
Good thing that, the situation of someone dropping their gun in mud, is a such a rare occurrence, it's not even worth worrying about. It is nice knowing how they'd react though. Now i know to not drop my FAL in mud.
As I understand, the only rifles that passed the test were the AR-15 and the Arisaka, and somehow the MAS 49-56. You did the Ariskaka and Mosin-Nagant: Will you do mud test with all WW1 bolt action rifles (SMLE & 1914 Pattern , Gewehr 88 , Mauser Gewehr 98, US M1917, Springfield M1903, Lebel 1886, Berthier 92 or 07-15, Mannlicher M95, Mauser 1889, Carcano 91, Mannlicher-Schönauer 1903, Mauser 1893 for Turkey) ?
Thak you! So Direct Impingement (AR15 + MAS49) and Roller Delayed Blowback rifles seem to deal better with mud than Gas Piston rifles. The confirmation will be if you test a Swiss STG 57. Regards
Would a standard metric bolt carriage without sand cuts make a difference? I'm looking at a smooth carriage right now and it seems fairly sealed. For what little it's worth, it seems to keep the FCG completely devoid of CLP when I spray it liberally from from the outside, since I'm not brave, content-oriented, or wealthy enough to trash my rifle in a full mud test.
when you do the mud test on the G3 you might want to use a remote stand because the mud might mess up the roller lock dynamics on the second shot while still going into battery. You could have a straight blowback action in 308!
You either need to find more people whose beliefs conflict with yours and proceed to get into arguments with them, and/or spend some time learning the simplest aspects of human psychology (here's your homework for today: look up "confirmation bias," "the sunk cost fallacy," and "the backfire effect"). P.S.: My M1A's will kick your AR's ass any day of the week. You'd know that if you knew anything, obviously. Duh.
vabch82 i carried the FAL for 6 years and it hated san and mud but if kept clean it's a wonderful rifle. If I need to bet my live on it I'll take something else like an AR15 or, yes, an AK74. Yet for power the 7.62x51 still beats the ar/ak.
When I did the military service (compulsory) in my country, Argentina, if you let your FAL get that muddy, you expend the rest of the day, and part of the night, jumping and running and getting yourself muddier than the rifle...
I understand that you guys want to have consistent test to be fair to the guns but this fal never stood a chance with that much mud. My opinion is you need to start small with a lot less mud and then work up to completely covering it. Just saying, I throughly enjoy these videos regardless:) good job guys, keep it up!
What would happen if you for some reason you actually did drop your rile in the mud and, in order to quickly clear the internals of debris, dumped a bucket of water down through the ejection port or hit it with a garden hose? I wouldn't imagine there would be any long term issues as long as you properly cleaned and lubricated it later.
Nothing, in fact we tried cleaning with that way in the earlier videos, but it doesn't work all that well. I'm at the point now where I throw the whole thing in a bathtub, entirely submerge it and clean it that way. ~Karl
The Israelis must have done the fn fal mud test because the production FALs they ordered had a special cut in the bolt carrier and a special charging handle that cut be pressed into the cut out and then used as a forward assist. At least on the heavy barrel izzys I have seen.
In America, you need to use the Inch pattern FAL, not Metric. That's why the mud was not compatible.
you should do the L98a1. See if you can even fire it before the mud...
nice one
Oh, so *now* you want a forward assist
Mud test on a great sword please and thanks.
It passed. ~Karl
+InRangeTV thank you kind sir, I shall confidently invest in one!
Inb4 the all the Rhodesians bush operators start trying to kill Karl
blow out soon fellow stalker
m a n a m o n g m e n
Having watched several of these mud tests I'm starting to see a pattern emerging, it's almost as though fire arms aren't supposed to be covered in gunk, the more you know.
Cool content though.
I guess the Rhodesian Light Infantry must have been able to keep mud off their Fn FALs all those years.
I'm sure the did when they could. ~Karl
We'll keep them north of the Zambezi.
After the G3, would be interested to see how the Galil stacks up. It was good enough for the Israelis to replace their FALs before they got their hands on M-16/M-4's.
doubt that it would be too different from the ak
Do not forget: The Galil ACE (the latest version) has a dustcover.
A test with it could be interesting.
Why it's just an AK with an upturned bolt handle, rear dust cover mounted sights and a milled receiver?
Galil rifles are quite hard to come by, although I hear they're much of an improvement over eastern-bloc style AK's.
+AGS363 I think Tim at MAX did an informal test on his pistol ACE and it failed. Grit locked up the trigger.
I've experienced this before, but only with the Israeli production rifles and never with my Australian rifle. I can attest for the enlarged sand grooves on the Commonwealth L1A1 Australian; they absolute work as intended in sandy environments and running the rifle wet or dry doesn't seem to change much. The culprit here was the slog of mud you had against the carry handle which jumped into the chamber after the second round ejected. This is why we removed our carry handles.
I must say that I was disappointed by this test. Not because I love the FAL (which I do, very much), but rather because you guys usually examine the rifle and determine what the cause of failure was, and you didn't do that this time. Kind of a let-down, IMO.
The FAL is the most aesthetic rifle in existence. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to make it more reliable. Any ideas? Would a dust cover and forward assist/reciprocating charging handle have helped?
These “”Mud”” tests which I refer to as Wet Concrete Abuse ....Have to be the toughest weapons challenges I have ever seen..
It did exactly what I thought it would, mud got stripped off the side of the bolt carrier and dropped down into the receiver. What I wasn't expecting is that you left the carry handle on the ejection port side, which looks like it acted like a shelf to hold more mud alongside the ejection port and allowed a ton of mud to fall into the open port as the bolt cycled back. Dirt and contamination are obviously an issue with the FAL, but I feel the test might have gone slightly better if the carry handle was left on the other side.
I wish someone was brave enough to test an FS2000 in this manner, in the interests of science of course :-)
I'm really looking forward to the g3 test
+warlock 34 www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
oh awesome!! thanks
the thing about these mud tests is that when in combat, a soldier will pronate on the ground to take cover. this means there's downward force on the gun against the mud/dirt which actively pushes debris into the action if the gun. Ian should simulate this to make his mud tests more authentic. (also because I want to see him covered head to toe in mud)
FN looks cool and works fine under normal conditions but the IDF found that the gun was somewhat sensitive to sand in desert conditions and preferred the AK-47 which held up better. Ultimately, the IDF adopted the Galil for use in the late 70s, through the 80s and early 90s
Would love to see an SKS hit the mud. Doubt it would survive but it's a fairly common and easy to aquire rifle so I figure it's not to daunting to ask for
Mud Test: FAIL.
I was really hoping this would do well... We were issued these in the SADF in the late 80's (as the R1) just as the Galil-based R4 was phased in for the Infantry. We were given the 'left-overs', but it was super accurate, unlike the R4's we tried out, but heavier although with a surprisingly smooth and manageable recoil. Loved it, but on the strength of this test - I would stay in the African bushveld and out of the trenches. Nice video, once again.
nonreciprocating bolt handle i thought about using in a bullpup design I considering working on months. But these test really do show me that you need that ability to slam the bolt forward. Which has led me to a few ideas on how to get a nonreciprocating bolt handle but also make it able to work in a way to allows you to slam the bolt forwards.
It looked like there was a heap of mud sitting on top of the carry handle, right next to the ejection port. Out of curiousity, I'd like to see this test again with that handle up out of the way, especially given the fact that that heap of mud wasn't there before being re-covered. I'm not sure this will make the test any different in the long run, but it'd be good to be sure.
You guys should do more mud tests with rifles chambered in .308/7.62x51 NATO! Also for the fun of it you guys should do a mud test comparing the falling block action, the break action, the rolling block action, and the single shot bolt action to see which ones hold up the best in muddy conditions as provided by the shovel and mud filled wheelbarrow.
+MrLM002 www.full30.com/video/934ab3c44ddae25ae87d6f5404587fda
True fact the FAL gained notoriety during bloody Sunday in Belfast in 1972
If it was fitted with a non reciprocating bolt handle that could lock into the bolt and reciprocate, it could have hypothetically been forced into battery and made to work. Basically a forward assists.
Another interesting result!
Procedural suggestion: Get a long plastic bin, such as a rifle case, to hold the mud; drop the rifle in and maybe squoosh it down once on each side. This would cut back on the "randomness" of where the mud goes, and make for a little more consistent test. You'll probably have to keep the wheelbarrow for mixing the mud.
some kind of forward assist would have been nice for this gun
+gabrielchcosta Nope.. Just needs a reciprocating charging handle, like every semi-auto rifle should have.
Real fn' nato ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Well done sir
go back to reddit you shit
Fun fact: The British SLR model had a reciprocating charging handle for the very purpose of punching it into battery.
It would be cool to see a mud test of the CETME rifles you guys built
considering the work they put into those rifles, it'd be sad and quite likely that they would never run again.
+Rochyan
Never run again? Must be not that great of a rifle if some mud destroys it totally.
TotalMetalJacket Just watch the last video of the CETME build video. The way those rifles were, it wouldn't surprise me if a bit of mud changed something in the rifle that made it run poorly.
Any other rifle I'd say yes, but those particular CETME rifles were hard to build and if I had them I wouldn't want to sacrifice my rifle for this test.
I read the title as Mud Test FAIL
Strange, the old videos have so much better video and sound quality than these new mud tests?
Try the British L1A1 I’ve personally seen one work after that kind of mud dumping (a mate went arse over tit on a live fire exercise on Sennybridge ranges in the middle of February many many years ago) and mag out quick shake and it worked a treat !
I think the Israeli's partially fixed the FAL's issue with not going into battery by adding a forward assist to the rifle
Thanks for that much demanded video :) keep up the good work guys
Wow I was honestly expecting better from the FAL.
I don't expect any tilting bolt gun with no dust cover to perform at all.
Obviously needs a forward assist lol
My Israeli FAL has a forward assist charging handle, they didn't think it ironic.
I would put my PTR 91 up for a mud test if I could get to you guys.
www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
I think the sand cut helped the ingress of mud into the action. Maybe a regular bolt would fair better.
I hit the like button before even watching these. Haven't been disappointed yet.
It's crazy that the ak actually doesn't preform well in the mud but the ar actually does.
I was hoping you would close the gas port before firing after the mud. That is a huge advantage the FAL has over the competition.
Great vid. I liked your comment about the non-reciprocating charging handle. I've heard so much criticism about the SCAR's reversible, reciprocating C/H which is a total non-issue and does in fact come in handy sometimes.
Hah, i love it you already thought of the G3 mudtest before i (and presumably we)did.
Done that, THX:D
It's like watching a car wreck ........ you want to turn away, but can't. Great work! .... so a question. The mud ...... is it basic desert sand with water added? Would clay mud the type encountered in WW1 and WW2 in Europe, behave differently? Thanks!
Interesting, I know it's a moot point because the bolt would not go into batter,y but if it had would the FALs adjustable gas regulator help the rifle run reliably?
you guys should make a video on how you clean them and handle them after the test idk I personally think it would be cool to see
You know, I think the sand cut bolt might have made this worse, at least as compared to the standard bolt. If it’s like my FAL, it also has a flare on the ejection port of the dust cover so combine that with the sand cut bolt and it will force crud into the action. The cuts grab the mud (or dirt or sand) and then allow it to slide into action through the flared dust cover opening.
I wouldn’t expect any FAL to do great in a sand or mud test, but it’s interesting that the modifications that were supposed to increase reliability may have had the opposite effect.
I’m not defending the FAL design in this test but would like to see a sand cut and non-sand cut FAL tested to see if the “snake oil” sand cuts actually impacted the outcome, for better or for worse.
There were some other guns that had sand cuts, the Sterling comes to mind, but in all cases it seems like a design modification that just seemed like a good idea as opposed to one that was thoroughly tested.
An observation I've made with my time with British, Israeli and Australian FALs is that the Commonwealth L1A1 Australian functions a hell of a lot better in dry sandy environments. The enlarged grooves were amazing in the Simpson. But they're neither better nor worse than the British/Israeli rifles in wet sand or muddy environments.
The solution was in our manual of arms:
First, remove your carry handle! It's a mud trap. (Not all troops did this -- they were the ones who complained about malfunctions on exercise)
Second, always slap your rifle to dislodge any loosish mud from the seam between the bolt and port lip.
Suspiciously short video, either fails instantly or goes flawlessly.
The important thing to remember is this is a DSA FAL, which means the quality is very hit or miss.
Mostly miss.
I expected it to do better. It's a relatively closed receiver. I love FAL's. Never know for sure until u test it of course.
You guys should do sand and water tests.
2:15 you say this yet you guys always pooh-pooh the forward assist on an AR-15. Guess the FAL shoulda had a forward assist too eh? 🤣
Im really looking forward to the g3 mud test,Im predicting it will perform better because it will clear itself of mud because of its violent shell ejector.
+Twiggy the lizard www.full30.com/video/1cad3dcf2768f2e592c5670b132a8572
+InRangeTV Thanks for the link,Im happy to see the results,and nice california compliant rifle😆
Not sure if you have tested the HK 91 yet but that would be an interesting test to watch.
+willynthepoorboys2 www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
Ty
A test of the L1A1 and the Belgian FAL paratrooper would be in order. The L1A1 contains a few parts that might solve the problems noted here. Mind you , in this test you're testing the DSA arms ,and not the Belgian FAL. Belgian FAL paratrooper model still tops all FAL models.
I heard there were issues with the FN FAL in Israel, Vietnam, Africa, The Falkland Islands. Almost everyone had reliability issues with it
Can't wait for the G3 clone test.
I have to thank you for this and G3 mud test. I own both rifles and you can imagine that I am unable and unwilling to do something like this. It is great video but I have to ask on something. I have read enough materials about rifles and for example the vz.59 was rifle that my father used as a conscript and I always hear from him how durable and reliable these guns are. Is was a propaganda or why rifles(FAL,G3,AK,vz.59,M1A1) I counted to be mud, sand, ice and water resistand are not? How did these rifles get such reputation if they arent like that?
I was a bit disappointed, but thanks for the great vid. Keep up the great vids as always. The Right Arm of the free world will return triumphant. Lol. Thanks.
It seems like the carry handle held a big lump of mud close to the bolt, don't know if that affected it. I wonder if a test on one without the handle or with one in the up position would change the results.
That's about right. First bit of sand and those things would jam every time.(British Army80's)
If im going into battle , I'd use an FAL.
Just in my opinion , it would do nicely.
It'll go well with my universal carrier.
I'm sure someone will mention the Israeli Style FAL Forward Assist. But I'd guess it wouldn't do much good.
Would you and Karl consider doing a video or series of videos on old style Military tangent, and Volley sights and relative accuracy for drop? I'd love to see how close (if at all) some of these seemingly over ambitious range settings on these old sights are for their math on bullet drop etc. I'd like to think some German engineer did the math on the bullet drop for a Broomhandle Mauser sight - Very un German like to not do so. Curious if the math (forget about accuracy) for drop comes out fairly clean or is it just nonsense.
Thanks again for all your hard work to keep us entertained and informed with your videos.
Good info, but bad vandalism. Thanks again.
+Spaceman Moe Vandalism? Wtf? ~Karl
Nothing personal Karl I like the stuff you guys do, just hard for me to see sweet hardware get rained on.
I don't think they leave them like this lol, I'm sure they've all been taken home and got the TLC they needed after the tests.
Yes I know, but it's still hard to see this done to a rifle I have a love for but do not own. They love there rifles as much as I do, so all is good.
Actually, I don't love any rifles...I just use them. ~Karl
So 2 videos featuring the FAL. One on this channel and the other on Ahoy :)
If you get the opportunity, try the XCR.
Now you hast to make G3 mud test!!
+MajorKusanagi www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
Mud Test! With my Sunday lunch too, this is a great start. Is there a way to do some World War 1 revolver mud tests without blowing yourselves up?
Good thing that, the situation of someone dropping their gun in mud, is a such a rare occurrence, it's not even worth worrying about. It is nice knowing how they'd react though. Now i know to not drop my FAL in mud.
honestly i would like to see if some shotguns could prove themselves in your mud test. maybe an 870 because of popularity?
I thought the title said mud test fail at first 🤣 it was almost like a spoiler lol
you should do the scar heavy and/or a pump shotgun
I'm actually surprised by this, given the FAL's reputation.
ThePhantom710 Perhaps the mud test involves a little bit more mud than in reality?
Iron Drapes yeah they to mix in grass, gravel and leaves
As I understand, the only rifles that passed the test were the AR-15 and the Arisaka, and somehow the MAS 49-56. You did the Ariskaka and Mosin-Nagant: Will you do mud test with all WW1 bolt action rifles (SMLE & 1914 Pattern , Gewehr 88 , Mauser Gewehr 98, US M1917, Springfield M1903, Lebel 1886, Berthier 92 or 07-15, Mannlicher M95, Mauser 1889, Carcano 91, Mannlicher-Schönauer 1903, Mauser 1893 for Turkey) ?
+jo dc www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
Thak you! So Direct Impingement (AR15 + MAS49) and Roller Delayed Blowback rifles seem to deal better with mud than Gas Piston rifles. The confirmation will be if you test a Swiss STG 57. Regards
Ian has such majestic hair...
2:41 -- NOW YOU FIXED IT
This is the assalt rifle of the army of my country LOL
Would a standard metric bolt carriage without sand cuts make a difference? I'm looking at a smooth carriage right now and it seems fairly sealed. For what little it's worth, it seems to keep the FCG completely devoid of CLP when I spray it liberally from from the outside, since I'm not brave, content-oriented, or wealthy enough to trash my rifle in a full mud test.
when you do the mud test on the G3 you might want to use a remote stand because the mud might mess up the roller lock dynamics on the second shot while still going into battery. You could have a straight blowback action in 308!
+Geoffery Baker www.full30.com/video/abe80197c42f7023c13e3408235100a1
Would like to see mud test on SCAR
We'll get there. ~Karl
I love this series!
mud test on the liberator pistol
I thought this would be a mud test fail, instead I got a mud test FAL
Funny how the people who stand behind the M14, FAL, etc and trash the AR aren't laughing anymore!!
You either need to find more people whose beliefs conflict with yours and proceed to get into arguments with them, and/or spend some time learning the simplest aspects of human psychology (here's your homework for today: look up "confirmation bias," "the sunk cost fallacy," and "the backfire effect").
P.S.: My M1A's will kick your AR's ass any day of the week. You'd know that if you knew anything, obviously. Duh.
vabch82 I don't use my M-14 in mud, if I need a patrol rifle I own several ARs
Brandon T It still failed lol bahaahaaaahhahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahaaahhhahaah
vabch82 i carried the FAL for 6 years and it hated san and mud but if kept clean it's a wonderful rifle. If I need to bet my live on it I'll take something else like an AR15 or, yes, an AK74. Yet for power the 7.62x51 still beats the ar/ak.
AR 308 same platform.
This is unsettling to watch. I have this image in my head of this kind of failure in a combat situation.
When I did the military service (compulsory) in my country, Argentina, if you let your FAL get that muddy, you expend the rest of the day, and part of the night, jumping and running and getting yourself muddier than the rifle...
I understand that you guys want to have consistent test to be fair to the guns but this fal never stood a chance with that much mud. My opinion is you need to start small with a lot less mud and then work up to completely covering it. Just saying, I throughly enjoy these videos regardless:) good job guys, keep it up!
Yay FAL! Too bad it didn't do so good. How about a revolver now?
What would happen if you for some reason you actually did drop your rile in the mud and, in order to quickly clear the internals of debris, dumped a bucket of water down through the ejection port or hit it with a garden hose? I wouldn't imagine there would be any long term issues as long as you properly cleaned and lubricated it later.
Nothing, in fact we tried cleaning with that way in the earlier videos, but it doesn't work all that well. I'm at the point now where I throw the whole thing in a bathtub, entirely submerge it and clean it that way. ~Karl
I see. Great videos by the way.
The Israelis must have done the fn fal mud test because the production FALs they ordered had a special cut in the bolt carrier and a special charging handle that cut be pressed into the cut out and then used as a forward assist. At least on the heavy barrel izzys I have seen.
Can you think of any particular firearm that might actually suffer a catastrophic failure (go *boom*) as a result of a mud test?
fal is best rifle heretics
Both you and another channel, Ahoy, featured the FAL recently, Great show
Did you try adjusting the gas blowblack in order to get that thing to cycle? No.
Note to self: Stay out of Mud with my L1A1!
As oft used by so many countries, I figured the FAL would be as reliable as an AK.
Kind of knew that was going to happen without an ejection port cover it just lets everything in