Reminder that H&K has no idea what they are doing with the AR design

>buy Stax
Yeah, those are super sweet. I'm happy with my Sennheisers though.

The Euros didn't design it, it's been around for a long time. This is just HK's (rather late) entry into the piston AR market.

longer time between cleaning
hot gas confined to the gas block and not let into the bolt carrier where it can burn up lubricants and whatnot

Are you fucking stupid? Almost every gun ever uses short or long stroke gas piston. Including many American designs.

How do AKs do in these tests?

I think HK rifles are shit but these tests are stupid.

I'll definitely make sure I don't grab a shovel and dump mud into my ejection port in the heat of combat.

quite badly

Attached: 1495312165087.png (1752x1342, 980K)

>what is direct impingement?
You’re gonna do well here

I only have ARs and bolt actions so I have no idea what this meme is supposed to mean.

Suppressor use & High volume of Fire applications.

And apparently something to do with water.

It's meaningless though, Gas buster charging handles exist, as do DI adjustable gas systems and larger gas tubes for high volume of fire

This, the Taiwanese T65 was the first piston AR, and it was based off of Stoner's prototypical designs anyway

>gas piston sucks, Stoner is the only engineer ever to realize that DI is the only viable system
>what do you mean by AR-18 and Stoner 63, what are those?
The DI system is like the katana, it goes every few years from god to shit tier according to internet experts lore.

>shit talking all you need
GIT OFF MY Jow Forums

Attached: 6C8D02DA-79FE-47CB-97A2-327B5F6C9680.png (1920x1080, 2.3M)

>every oper8r in the world uses a 416
>muh mud test
Grunts fuck off

Jesus fucking Christ this is fucking hot!

>what is direct impingement?
Something that died with the MAS-49, but then along came Stoner with his stationary piston design

delet now

It's in reference to the Mud Test series that In Range did for the AK. It fails in mud quite easily due to the AK having such an open design were dirt/debris can get into the action. ARs have very tight tolerances which keep dirt/debris from getting into the action in the first place.

Attached: Lewd HK416 Massive Oppai 2.png (1200x1697, 836K)

>ARs have very tight tolerances which keep dirt/debris
you fucking retard shut the fuck up
tolerances =/= clearance

I've done the same shit with several DI ARs using Arizona mud and induced failures. These guys had to make a video stating that these tests are for fun only and people STILL write lore based off of them. It's hilarious.

Even the grunts are being issued HKs now. But here comes Jow Forums to tell me all about how dudes that haven't even fired a single shot in anger know soooooooo much more lmao

Yeah, I know that, but how does that pertain to my original comment?

We frenchfags just bought a ton of this shit for whatever reasons

Attached: pepe.png (655x509, 21K)

Funny how many countries who developed their own guns have just gone “Fuck it, we’ll just use 416’s”

HK FAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH
SCAR WINS AGAIN

It's because of maintenance not any other reason. The DoD can save a dollar per rifle on maintenance? You bet they'll buy it even if it costs more than a Colt.

What did he mean by this

>sub 1k ar15 goes through test fine
>Vietnam m16 goes through test fine
>AR10 repro goes through test fine
>hk416 dies in test
You're a retard.

>ALL U FUKKIN NEED

Attached: E3B9D164-B1A5-4AAB-A1D8-B6C607731961.jpg (3500x5500, 1.92M)

Post vids or shut the fuck up

ALL

Attached: 14859389-63C7-4889-9F24-8A9F16487A76.png (1105x1553, 1.56M)

YOU

Attached: 71C90AC9-CA59-4D7A-A9C1-D28B970C71AE.png (774x1185, 683K)

FUCKING

Attached: F9E8A1B9-177C-4606-8602-DE1D6DD4C7A1.png (2121x3000, 2.64M)

NEED

Attached: 8F765300-5F80-4B5E-AB1E-CFC8865012A1.jpg (583x1000, 107K)

>need
SHALL

Attached: B661A46D-2DCB-4500-9DCD-24E89BBDA3E1.png (1414x2000, 2.31M)

>One drop of alcohol in action
>Complete mechanical failure

Ummmmm 404fags?

Attached: 1558395400591.jpg (224x282, 51K)

You talking shit bout 404 nigga just coz we know how to party?
Nothing a memory clearout the next morning can’t fix

Attached: EF660839-2403-40AF-8314-94483B0398BE.jpg (1280x652, 202K)

Well this thread’s been just as fucking horrible as you’d expect

How do you clean a gas tube? Do you clean a gas tube?

This test is so retarded it pisses me off

They could try use some semi realistic examples. Throw the fuckers into a puddle of mud, drop them in streams, tumble them down a dusty hill, try shooting in an artificial dust cloud or blast but don't fucking shovel gravel mud into a weapons fucking action, how pointless.

It simulates trench and swamp conditions.

More like it simulates a concrete mixer

you should kill yourself

>Reeeeeeee my favorite gun from CoD isn't a soldier's gun.

did you know that the us military mud test is even more extreme and "retarded"?
they immerse the whole gun in a barrel of mud for a certain time, take it out, and then shoot it
guess which gun happened to pass this test
hint: its name starts with an a and isn't followed by k

>And apparently something to do with water.
Water in your gas system is the potentially explodey kind of bad. It's easier to keep water out of and drain a piston gun than it is for Stoner DI. Not sure about traditional DI though, maybe that is so open that drainage happens easily or the gas can push the water out while staying inside pressure limits.

The meme implies the AK bros were on suicide watch after the AK mud test video dropped. There was a lot of but hurt over that video.

this, i have dunked good quality ak's in mud and had them work fine, also seen ar's die with fine dust everywhere

>karl is a cum drinking satanist and ian is a "guns for me but not for thee" liberal

I think a question not being asked is which particular action can withstand regular grunt abuse better and maintain an acceptable level of reliability for longer.

It is entirely possible that a DI AR might end up deteriorating faster and its mud test result might change relative to a piston AR. It's entirely possible that this is what the AK's reputation is built upon rather than "take factory fresh gun and drop mud into action; see what happens".

aks do pretty well in actual conditions

youtube.com/watch?v=2a9lZO74YCE

>simulates a pocket world with its own sentient characters while blackout drunk

I could give a fuck about what "simulates" what,
The only people I've heard claim the AK is unreliable in Muddy conditions are autistic youtubers shoveling mud into its fucking action and then exclaiming at its inability to operate.

>The NVA and VC had zilch complaints using the AK in swamps and jungles of Vietnam, nor did US service members who captured examples of them and on the contrary praised its reliability in such conditions.

>The Soviets and Eastern Bloc had absolutely no complaints about using the AK in muddy, rainy spring military excecises.

>Neither side has had any complaints what so ever using AK platform weapons in the muddy snowy Ukaranian trenches and Chechen foothills.

If your "tests" fail to replicate well established reality maybe just maybe it is the test that is wrong and not the wisdom of the thousands of people who lived and died by the weapons in question.

The mud test is fucking stupid and instead of dismantling fudd mythology as its proponents delude themselves into thinking it does, its one of the most fudd pieces of false conclusions common gun disscussion has seen in years.

Attached: vietnam035.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.jpg (950x629, 136K)

refer to this pic dumb ak fag
and also to this video
youtu.be/LyXndCxn9K4
here we've got concrete evidence on the effectiveness of these different firearms under these circumstances and you're still just toting some hearsay, or rather, lack of such

Jesus some of you ARfags are so desperate to cling to any high horse. If you left your tribal chimapnze brain at the door and actually read my comment properly you would notice that I said 0 (zero) comments on AR reliability.

Yet here (you) are blowing me up about "muh AR reliability" "Vietnam jams were ammo and maintanance related" etc. It might actually shock you to know I also think the AR is a reliable weapon besides having arguably one of the worst weapon introductions in firearms history. Yes in defiance of your black and white primate brain I think BOTH the AR and AK are reliable weapons, albeit in different ways and to different extents.

Don't break your brain contemplating it.

>evidence on the effectiveness of these different firearms under these circumstances
What cicumstances? Shoveling gravely mud into the weapon action? Are you responding to my statement the mud test is unrealistic by simply posting another one?
Come back when you've passed highschool

Ya'know, as much as people try to create a narrative that these vids cause supreme asshurt among AK, FAL and MR556 owners, the only consistent asspain Ive seen generated by them is from those who post them, when their b8ing targets tell them they dont give a fuck. Responding does not equal anger.

I really don't get the autists who go
>THESE TESTS ARE UNREALISTIC AND PROVE NOTHING, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE
Of course they're an unrealistic test of a hypothetical worst case scenario. It's just fun to see how different systems deal with it.

damn the asspain comments sure are pouring in huh

I see what you're getting at but the problem is lots of people think these are the ultimate testement to whether a gun is reliable or not and that they delegitimize established theory on the weapons.

I mean heck you literally have people out here now saying ARs are more universally reliable than AKs which anyone whos handled either in practicle use knows is total bullshit.

Dont get me wrong the modern AR is super reliable if its well maintained and can handle having shit literally shoveled over its sealed mechanism versus the AKs open mechanism (obviously), but with absolutely minimal maintanance and maximum abuse its just undeniably established at this point an AKs milege will go far further then an AR. This is coming from someone who would personally prefer an AR in nearly any given situation,

IMO the difference amounts to:
if you know and can afford to maintain your weapon properly the AR's not gonna fail on you, but even if you struggle to screw in a lightbulb the AK still isn't gonna fail on you (bar you essentially forcing shit inside the weapon)

sorry ive gone on a tangent, but you get the gist

I think the moral of the story is we should all chill out and not take everything so seriously when talking about guns.

my first diagnosis of the AR in that scenario is that it's undergassed. it could be on the bleeding edge of cycling in perfect conditions but clearly when you introduce dirt/debris the bolt doesn't get moved rearward enough to collect a new round on the way back. you can also tell by the ejection pattern (3/4 oclock) on the first round which works. fine.

overgas your AR, kids.

>ahem

Attached: test_czbren2_big_6.jpg (1200x777, 162K)

>Take AR

>Make it heavier

Do people not understand why Eugene Stoner designed the AR in the first place?

Pic related was the zenith of the AR evolution, it's all been downhill since then.

Attached: wm_3738188.jpg (2283x930, 325K)

DI was known to be shit almost as soon as it was introduced. This is zenith AR.

Dam, forgot pic.

Attached: armalite_ar18.jpg (600x300, 24K)

youtu.be/SywgLmXSSP4

>Doesn't know the AR-18 was designed by Stoner to be a monkey model budget version of the AR-15 to be assembled by literal monkey subhumans with leaves on their feet, because the forgings technology needed to make the 15 was too sophisticated for third world shithole industry.

Yeah, you Jow Forumsiddies should actually read books.

And have sex.

Attached: tenor.gif (414x382, 2.05M)

you do know that manufacturing a stoner DI ar18 would have literally been easier than short stroke?

>you do know that manufacturing a stoner DI ar18 would have literally been easier than short stroke?

That's 100% wrong.

Sig Sauer 516 doesn't have this problem, is piston and passes mud test

youtube.com/watch?v=FQGTts7xyr8

in fact it is 100% right
one drilling operation on the face of the bolt carrier, and then another from upwards, a dab of weld and you've got an ar-18 bolt carrier group that is DI
now add a cheap and simple to make gas pipe and you can ditch that piston

piston > di

>dust cover closed
fuck off sig shill

Some people are very butt hurt.

That is literally not what I was saying. Re-read my post, dipshit.

SLOPPY JOB HK

Attached: C013F839-6F38-428E-9C93-CD1F3037BD58.jpg (4032x3024, 3.61M)

indeed i am
i have seen way too many people repeat the same old crap about tolerances when they're talking about clearances that it really pisses me off

what the fuck do you mean?
clearances mean the distance between parts
tolerances mean the the allowed dimensional error from the specified value for the part to still be considered acceptable

Obviously not

This is what $3.5k gets you.....?

Attached: Best Duck Pathetic.jpg (601x601, 28K)

b-b-but...thats the gun that killed osama

No, you're 100% wrong on that.

no u

Ian and Karl say exactly that in every mud test video

Attached: 6f8.png (680x512, 349K)

He's reeing about semantics because tolerances arent the same as clearances, but we know what you meant

yes and I have nothing against them, one of my favourite youtube channels in fact, its the people that constantly refer to it as a pillar in reliability debates that are the problem.

i have no idea what any of this meant

Attached: 1563428181811.png (741x568, 29K)

I don't like piston ar because stoner impingement is such a cool design, and they just add a piston for no reason