M1A Torture Test -- Sad

[Dienekes]

Sorry, I'm not bedazzled. Don't have the book in front of me, but there is a volume out titled something like "US Infantry Weapons of WWII and Korea" with about 65 first-person veterans' accounts of the Garand and other weapons in those conflicts. Almost every one said that the M1 rifle was hands down the most reliable weapon they had. They appreciated its power, too...

The M14 is just a product-improved M1 with box magazine. I have used both fairly extensively (not in combat, sorry) and own an M1A. Ditto for the M16 and AR-15 series.

You can put anything out of action if you try hard enough. But I would much rather have John Garand's rifles than anything else out there if I were going to subject myself and it to severe abuse--anytime, anywhere.

Sort of reminds you of S.L.A. Marshall's theory that US soldiers didn't put out enough rifle fire in WWII. Some pretty salty combat vets had their own take on that one, too.

 

[GunTech]

There was a well known issue on Garands bolts seizing - cured by issuing a small bottle of grease. Tghe plan was to improve the Garand by by adding a roller lug on the bolt - a feature that appeared on the M14

 

[Coronach]

I agree with the questionable validity of torture tests. Most of them use a sample size of one, don't set up the test in a very realistic way, or test the weapon to failure and try to make inferences from this. My PD did a torture test of the guns it was T&Eing, and while they had several of each on hand, they still did not have enough to be really meaningful (imagine that...the manufacturers were not going to send two dozen of each model to be broken by the prospective buyers), and I, for the life of me, have no idea what it means when you put 30,000 rounds through in a few hours time and have it fail...what does this mean for any realistic use?

I did not see the test in question, but I cannot imagine any gun would fire packed full of mud. Now, is exposure to mud and dirt a valid test? Sure, but if you pack the receiver solid, it won't run. No gun will run in that state. Was the reciever packed full? I don't know. Was it exposed to mud in a reasonable manner, and just happened to get a pebble in one of the channels for the op-rod or roller? I don't know. The way you control for freak chances or incidents of poorly set up tests is you test a LOT of guns a LOT of times. After a while you start to get a picture about what guns will run when really dirty, and how dirty you have to get each type of gun before they start to choke.

It sounds like the took one gun, ran it through one mudbath, and called it a day.

That's worthless.

Mike

PS Disclaimer: I own several M14 clones and one FAL. I like both designs, and I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[GotGlock]

Well i completely disagree, i think the test was valid and showed what would happen if you were in a bad situation and needed to make a shot. The gun didn't work, plain and simple. I would love to see that test done with a few more rifles, an ak, ar-15, sks, and a fal. Guns are tools and tools get dirty, what if someone was shooting at you and you had to hit the ground, in mud. I doubt you will have time to grab your canteen, and pour water on it. Out of all the bonehead tests they do on that show, this one is arugably the most realistic.

The gun wasn't purposly loaded with mud, he low crawled in the mud and did his best to keep it as clean as possible and had the barrel taped over, just like in a combat situation.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I saw the test tonight on TV. Basically it was a fat guy crawling through mud with an M1A. By the time he fired it, th receiver and bolt were so gunked up with mud that the rifle was only vaguely reminiscent of an M1A.

I am not surprised it failed. Anything that dirty should fail. I don't know how other rifles would have fared, but I would not all try to blame this on the rifle.

The way he was dragging it, he kept the receiver and bolt in the mud for most of the crawl.

 

[Coronach]

Well i completely disagree, i think the test was valid and showed what would happen if you were in a bad situation and needed to make a shot. The gun didn't work, plain and simple. I would love to see that test done with a few more rifles, an ak, ar-15, sks, and a fal. Guns are tools and tools get dirty, what if someone was shooting at you and you had to hit the ground, in mud. I doubt you will have time to grab your canteen, and pour water on it. Out of all the bonehead tests they do on that show, this one is arugably the most realistic.

The gun wasn't purposly loaded with mud, he low crawled in the mud and did his best to keep it as clean as possible and had the barrel taped over, just like in a combat situation.

Tests are supposed to prove something generalizable. As in, they expose a trend that holds true across many similar situations. The only way to do this is to do the test multiple times, preferably with multiple rifles.

Let's look at an example. Let's say you have two rifles. One of them is extraordinarily reliable. We'll call it a KA-74. You have another one that is a piece of junk. We'll call it a Low-Point. The KA-74 will run for hours on end, without cleaning, for thousands of rounds. The Low-Point is lucky to shoot two magazines in a row without a stoppage.

Bubba goes out and does his low-crawl test. He is fair about it. He crawls through some mud, does not deliberately pack the rifle full of gunk, but neither does he try to keep it clean. By the end of the 10' crawl, the gun is covered in mud, muck, sweat and chewing tobacco. He does this once for each gun.

The KA-74 (which we have already decided, by fiat, is stone reliable), happens to get a tiny pebble wedged under the dustcover, between the receiver and the bolt carrier. The bolt carrier cannot move freely, and the gun jams. It is a situation that would jam up any gun on earth, is a fairly freak occurrance, but, by chance, it happened to the KA-74. It fails the test.

The Low-Point is more lucky. It gets some mud up inside it, but no pebbles. The Low-Point is also fortunate in that it didn't get quite as muddy as the KA-74. This wasn't by design or conspiracy; if you low crawl through mud with two guns, one of them is going to be the cleaner of the two. And finally, by sheer happenstance, the gun decides that today is the day it will run a full mag without a hitch.

Guess which one looks reliable?

Now, this test is total crap. Can you see why?

The way you fix this is you do the test A LOT. The KA-74 might get unlucky once or twice. It won't get unlucky 100 times in a row. Likewise, the Low-Point might have one or two good runs. It won't have one hundred. Doing the same test, over and over, reduces the effect of fate/karma/luck/random chance. It is the only way to know whether you're seeing a real effect or just freak chance.

The test, as described, is scientifically worthless. It might look good, but it tells you nothing.

Mike

 

[db_tanker]

I made sure to put on my nomex undies before posting this....


BUT...


anyone who has the time and interest needs to go on over to the FALFiles board and read about "Old Dirty"...

go to the general firearms discussion and you will see what a FAL with 13,500 rounds of various stuff ran through it can do...it gets a dollop of CLP and no further cleaning...James is right proud of Old Dirty...

Now...I would LOVE to see an M1A, M14 or variant go through the same...

IMO the test IS viable...I am sure the BG's will let you tear down the rifle, take out the op-rod and clean around the action and etc etc etc...sure....

Mind you...SA can build a rifle...a beautiful piece of art, IMO...I don't want ART...you hang ART on a wall...I want something that will go BANG! when I pull the friggin' trigger, dammit...especially when there are potential BG's around.

MTCW
YMMV
D

 

[dscottw88]

I'm sorry glock but I agree with Coronach. The test, although viable, needs to be ran 99 more times to iron out the kinks. The AK, AR, FAL, and SKS would all fail with the same amount of mud. Find me a rifle that succeeds that test and i'll be sure to stop by the local Island Tactical to pick it up Tommorrow!

 

[MechAg94]

db_Tanker, are they filling old dirty's action up with mud? No? Then that little story is no comparison to what this is about. Besides, comparing one example to one other example doesn't say anything about the design as has been said above.

 

[glockman19]

After all the debate. I guess it's time for Glock to come out with a semi auto rifle chambered in 7.62-.308. You could use it abuse it torture test it and it will shoot no matter what gunk you throw at it.

 

[Onmilo]

So,,,,All you guys are basically saying the TV show is as goofy as the magazine then????

 

[trbon8r]

Who knows if half the exploits posted by some guy on the internet about "Ole Dirty" have any veracity or not.

Even if true, what difference does it make that one individual example of a rifle, any rifle could go 13,000 rounds without cleaning? I mean why on earth would anyone want to do abuse their stuff like that? If there are bad guys around, anyone would be a fool to have a rifle in their hands that has had 13,000+ rounds run through it without maintenance. Not to mention the only bad guy 95% or more of us on this board will ever see is a steel plate out on the 200 yard line.

I own a FAL and M14 type rifles. Both will work fine and do as they are designed to do. I prefer the M14, mostly because that was what I learned to shoot on. If the FAL works better for you then I wouldn't try to change your mind.

Anything mechanical can and will have problems if abused. That includes AKs and Glocks, which have a well deserved reputation for reliability, but still an overblown one at that.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Saw it last night, and I have to say its the most realistic torture test they have done.

Like, freezing a gun in ice isn't going to do anything!

Needless to say, I was rather disappointed. But I still want an M1A someday.

 

[Omaney]

So,,,,All you guys are basically saying the TV show is as goofy as the magazine then????

Absolutely IMO. I watched the same episode last night and was not at all surprised that rifle did not fire more than twice. It was chambered during the crawl so #1 round I expected to fire. #2 surprised me, especially seeing the amount of thick, black mud that was forced into the action/chamber by the first round cycling. It would have been interesting to see those guys swish that rifle in the stock tank a few times...I bet it would've fired.

G&A TV is just entertainment...and I treat it as suck...er...such.

 

[rino451]

I wonder what would have happened to an AR-15. Any AR-15 (M4) torture tests out there?

Uhm... with any mud IN the action generally any AR/M-whatever would be done.

As much as I like the platform, grit in the action is almost a deal killer whether it's fte or ftf.

I was at a carbine class the last weekend in May where it rained the whole time. On the second day, we were drilling pretty close to the backstop and there was a guy near me shooting an AR-10 that would kick up a mess of TX clay. One little pea sized piece flew into the ejection port and landed on the my bolt just behind the lugs. Guess what? Tried SPO... 'O' stood for "Oh, crap, it won't open!" Ordinarily, I'd butt stroke the crap outta it and hopefully get is back in the game, but range rules prohibited that. It was stuck like chuck! Finally realizing pounding on the forward assist was futile because I'd never get the thing recocked, I pulled myself off the line. I though that there was serious mechanical failure - wrecked cam pin or something. Only after I got the action open did I notice a little dollop of smashed mud on the face of the carrier. Freak chance, maybe, but it sure didn't take much to take it outta the fight so to speak.

I still like it and now realize that if you're life depends on you're weapon, you MUST make its survival your priority b/c by definition you're is lost otherwise.

 

[GunTech]

M14 vs FAL.

The Army did extensive testing prior to adoption. Basically, both rifles are so close in reliability that the difference isn't worth mentioning. You can find details in "The Great Rifle Controversy" and "US Rifle M14", both by Ezell. The FAL is slightly more reliable if the gas port is correctly tuned for the ammo used. The M14 requires no adjustment with a wide variety of ammunition. The M14 has better primary extraction, but The FAL is more resistant to dust and sand if the bolt with sand cuts is used.

 

[GunTech]

Sort of reminds you of S.L.A. Marshall's theory that US soldiers didn't put out enough rifle fire in WWII.

Actually, Marshall, in 'Men against fire' observed that a high proportion of men didn't fire their rifles in combat, and basically served as ammo carriers that did. While some of Mrshalls data has been questioned, WWII vets have frequently commented on this.

Tghis was considered enough of a problem that the US army completely changed it's trining methods for BRM. Classic bullseye targets were replaced with pop-up man silhouettes, and operant conditioning techniques were introduced. Studies in Vietnam observed that in that conflict, over 95% of men in combat fired their weapons - whether effective or not, and even veterans of WWII and Korea noted the increase.

There are some interesting comments on this to be found in David Grossman's 'On Killing', and SLA Marshalls original work 'Men against fire' is also worth reading.

 

[MassMark]

The "test" left a lot of unanswered questions and was based more on entertainment than science. How was the rifle prepped before the test? Was it prepped? Was it greased? Was the factory oil removed from the piston? Mags? If they just took the rifle out of the box and went at it, then it's no suprise that it failed. I have fired my SOCOM in conditions from blazing hot, to sub-zero, to rain and it has yet to fail me in over 7,000 rounds, (and I'm no maintenance guru). The history of the action is proven in battle and sound - period. Are we to take that away and lable it unreliable, just because some yahoos crawled around in the mud? I wonder if the Navy was watching that show and is now dumping their MK-14 Model 0's in the dumpster?

 

[Nomad101bc]

AR-15 they torture tested fire 1,300 rounds of ammo on full auto. After being droped in the water, mud, and sand and cycling through beta mags etc. AR-15 if well made is a superior battle rifle but 60 or so years ago the m1 was an amazing firearm.

 

[db_tanker]

db_Tanker, are they filling old dirty's action up with mud? No? Then that little story is no comparison to what this is about. Besides, comparing one example to one other example doesn't say anything about the design as has been said above.

before I answer the question, have you read the pages?

Do you want a link to the thread?


D

 

[Coronach]

Saw it last night, and I have to say its the most realistic torture test they have done.

The test itself, from the descriptions of it, sounds somewhat reasonable. The fact that they only ran it one time, on one gun, is what is laughable. It furthers the unfortunate stereotype that rednecks shouldn't do science.

Mike

 

[AZ Jeff]

Tests are supposed to prove something generalizable. As in, they expose a trend that holds true across many similar situations. The only way to do this is to do the test multiple times, preferably with multiple rifles.

<Much detailed explanation snipped for brevity>

The test, as described, is scientifically worthless. It might look good, but it tells you nothing.

Mike

I am a mechanical engineer by trade, and have devised NUMEROUS tests over the years, and I can tell you without equivocation that Mike is 100% correct in his assessment of this "test".

Testing must be REPEATABLE and CONSISTENT to warrant useful valid results. This supposed test was NEITHER.

 

[brentn]

Look a little harder before you speak

Rosco, you don't have to be a prick when you reply. What I said was not a statement, but a question, thats what the '?' indicates. Had it been a statement then I would have deserved that comment, so just relax.

 

[sacp81170a]

duplicate post.

 

[sacp81170a]

I made sure to put on my nomex undies before posting this....

The one thing I do have to say for the guys on Guns and Ammo TV is that they are at least honest. The guy crawling thru the mud, Richard Venola, is an M-14/M1A aficianado. He made the comment that "the guys on AR15.com are gonna be laughin' at me for this." I know their torture tests are for entertainment only, but when somethin' fails, it fails right there in front of the world and they don't try to cover it up.

Operator error? I can only say that when I was crawling thru the mud over and under obstacles with an M-16, I knew enough to keep it clear of the mud as much as possible, and it wasn't that difficult. Of course, that would have defeated the purpose of the test. On the other hand, the M1A did fire three times and could have been put back in action by swishing it around in some water.

Conclusions that can be drawn from this test? Exactly what you paid to watch it...