InRangeTV: Torture Test of M1A, AR15, and MAS 49/56

[DevsAdvocate 112]

1. Sand Test (simulating sand storm)

2. Mud Test (simulating.... mud)

 

If you didn't watch the results are: AR15 > MAS 49/56 > M1A... with the M1A performing abysmally.  In fact, when the M1A failed, it failed hard to a point where the gun needed disassembly to get it going again.

 

I'm very surprised at the AR15, that thing seems to keep trucking pretty well.  I'd love it if someone like AK Operators Union would put a decent mid-tier AR15 through the same testing as their AKs... Like this one: WASR-10 Testing by AKOU47-74

[bhunted 887]

Very interesting. Really sad how much the M1A failed.... great for benching, not sure how they even dealt with it in the firld all those years....

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Yeah.  Makes me wonder how much some "common gun beliefs" were utter bullshit.  I wonder how a 1960s era M16 would fare in these tests?  Is it drastically different from the current AR15 models?

[bhunted 887]

-Delete- That was weird, double post. Must be bad ammo. Lol.

[bhunted 887]

Yeah. Makes me wonder how much some "common gun beliefs" were utter bullshit. I wonder how a 1960s era M16 would fare in these tests? Is it drastically different from the current AR15 models?

The conventional AR/M16 imho, hasn't really changed much in all these years. Other than the M4 design, it's really no change other than material and such. The prob they had with the M16 was more shitty ammo related than design.... Yea, the jungle swamps weren't kind to it, but as you can see, it can be over come with some quick wipe downs. Even a dunk in water was fine. Just dump out excess and back to boom.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The conventional AR/M16 imho, hasn't really changed much in all these years. Other than the M4 design, it's really no change other than material and such. The prob they had with the M16 was more shitty ammo related than design.... Yea, the jungle swamps weren't kind to it, but as you can see, it can be over come with some quick wipe downs. Even a dunk in water was fine. Just dump out excess and back to boom.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think the biggest problem with the M-16 platform was probably the magazines the rifle used.  It seems to have been a common weakpoint in the design all these years as evidenced by testing for the individual carbine competition the Army held.

 

Rifle is fine, magazines were not.  IIRC, Vietnam Era magazines were utter shit.

[bhunted 887]

Never recalled mag probs. everything was dirt related, dirty ammo, etc.

Here are/were the main complaints.

 

- The M16 was billed as self-cleaning (when no weapon is or ever has been).

 

- The M16 was issued to troops without cleaning kits or instruction on how to clean the rifle.

 

- The M16 and 5.56×45mm cartridge was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR8208M stick powder, that was switched to Olin Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well and often).

 

- The M16 lacked a forward assist (rendering the rifle inoperable when it jammed).

 

- The M16 lacked a chromed barrel and chamber, causing corrosion problem, contributing to case swelling and extraction failures. (This was considered the most severe problem and required extreme measures to clear, such as inserting the cleaning-rod down the barrel and knocking the spent cartridge out.)

 

Once everything was addressed, there were improvements in reliability.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk