M1A Torture Test -- Sad

[Coronach]

The sad part is that if they had invested the time and effort, they could have developed a reasonable picture about what an M1A can be expected to do when exposed to a lot of mud.

I'll be blunt, I like science, and I like the idea of having some clue what my rifle is capable of doing when made all icky with filth. However, I am not taking my $1k rifle and low crawling with it through the mud, unless someone is shooting at me and my life depends on it. In the same sense, I won't be testing the airbags on my truck anytime soon. So, tests like this interest me, because someone will be trying to find out what I want to know, without me having to do it.

Don't misunderstand...I think a mudbath test can be perfectly valid. They just needed more rifles, or, at the very least, more repetitions of the same test, in order to see what the rifle will do most of the time. One mud bath, and one failure, is not valuable information. It's a single data point, nothing more.

Mike

 

[ASM826]

They tested the wrong thing.

What they needed to do was make the guy playing Marine do that crawl and arrive at the end with a clean chamber and bore.

I remember this well. Even recruits learned quickly at showing up at the end of a low crawl with mud in the action, magazine, or barrel of the rifle had painful consequences. No one expected the rifle to jam if it had a little dirt or mud on the handguards, but no one would have even pulled the trigger on a rifle with a dirt or mud caked action.

Take care of the equipment, and then the equipment will take of you. There is a lot of truth in the Rifleman's Creed.

...Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless....

 

[Andrewsky]

I think an AR15 would have done a lot better, because there are fewer places for debris to get at the moving parts.

Also, I'm convinced that that M1A had its gas spindle valve closed. I don't see how it could fail that bad.

 

[MassMark]

After watching G&A TV put a can of Goex under an M1A SOCOM and light the fuze, (as if to compare it to an IED attack), then manually drop a round in the pipe, let the bolt slam home, then insert a 10-round magazine and pop off 11-rounds, then go on to proclaim what a great rifle the M1A SOCOM is, I am more convinced than ever that Guns and Ammo Television is a total and complete waste of television space.....Talk about the absolute wrong approach to the right idea for a television program. It's off TiVo.....

 

[30Cal]

I watched it a couple months back. I did get a good laugh out of that clown wallowing in the mud.

The one thing it proves is that nothing is idiot-proof. These same idiots would no doubt pump unleaded in a diesel and deem it a failure.

Failure to conduct acceptance test (which all military weapons undergo prior to issue)
Failure to clean and lube prior to use
Failure to use approved ammo

Overall, I'd rate the test methodology as a complete failure.

 

[byf43]

I watched it a couple months back. I did get a good laugh out of that clown wallowing in the mud.

Agreed.

I've written G&A a couple of times regarding their antics.

Watching that guy floppin' around in the mud was comical. I felt that it was more comedy than test.

As for subjecting ANY of the firearms to their antics . . I wouldn't do it.
In another show, they took a pound of FFg black powder, and set a Scout/Squad M1A on top of it, and blew the powder via long fuse.

BOOM! The M1A flipped end for end and was only dirty from the 20 - 25 ft sommersault.


Those guys should be punched in the gut for subjecting perfectly good firearms to that nonsense.

 

[Browning]

Springfield M1A Torture Test on a different forum.

http://www.m14firinglineforum.com/upload/showthread.php?t=39235

These guys are talking about a show they saw that did much worse that crawl through some thick mud and the Springfield M1A that the show had still worked. I wonder what show that was that they're talking about???

Anybody know?

Garibaldi :I saw a torture test on a springfield M1A by those crazy guys on guns and ammo tv. They drug it for 1/2 mile thru mud, dirt, and gravel behind a jeep! Then washed it off with a water hose and remotely fired it with a string. Fired with no problems and other than the rear sight being broken the gun was mechanically sound. I would never do that do my M1A....

That sounds more like what I've heard Springfield M1A reliability to be like in regards to mud and dirt, but I wouldn't know. I've never drug mine through dirt and mud from behind a jeep or anything, I've just shot it alot and it's always worked so far. That's good enough for me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the AR-15/M-16 Torture Tests that you were asking about.

If you were still curious here's a 1100 rds in 15 minutes.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CQOvdYW6c

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L5ZXU9mr9g&feature=related

And another AR Torture Test done by different guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HdaUHUvSOs

 

[Float Pilot]

Back during the tanker-war/ Lebanon excursion period I was about ready to rotate State-side from my first branch when we had to go out and use M-14s to shoot at floating objects in case they be mines.
I had a bad attitude about something and I loaded up a big box full of 20 round magazines. Then I had my two buddies hand me mags as fast as they could while I full autoed that poor rifle with the front sling swivel tied to a life-line to hold the muzzle down. I turned the Parkerizing into a chalky white color, but that old gal M-14 kept on working with smoke pouring out of her action as the oil steamed off..
One sin I still struggle with...

You can jam a bolt action Mauser with enough mud.

 

[GunTech]

I finally watched the test. A couple of points I notice. As someone else mentioned, we don't know if this rifle was 'broken in'. I don't consider any rifle 'battle ready' until I have fired a few hundred rounds through it. SA M1As can be tight. It looked like the rifle was short stroking. I've had the same problem - when I forgot to tighten the gas tube plug.

They also stated that they were shooting TAP ammo. The M1A/M14 is designed for 7.62x51mm ammo. The powder for the M14 is supposed to have certain characteristics to match the M14's gas system. Powders suggested for the M14/M1A have the proper port pressure are the 4895s, BL-C(2), 2520 and similar powders. If you go outside of those burn rates, it is very likely that the rifle may not have the correct port pressure and short stoke or have other problems.

I'd like to see the test run again, with M80 ball ammo. Yes the M1A/M14 is ammo sensitive compared to the AK or AR. That's the nature of it's gas system. The FAL got around this by having an adjustable gas port. But fed correct ammo, my experience is that the M1A/M14 is very reliable, even under harsh conditions.

 

[BruceB]

"Ammo-sensitive M1A..."

"The M1A is ammo-sensitive..."

Oh, really?

My M1A was bought brand-new just a couple of years ago. I am a hopeless cast-bullet nut of the worst sort, and after about 400 rounds of 168-grain Sierra Matchking handloads for break-in, it has fired over 3000 rounds of cast-bullet handloads.

Most of these loads were purely experimental, and the results are written-up on another forum. The rifle works PERFECTLY (defined as: reliable semi-auto function with bolt locking-open after the last round) with wildly-varied ammunition. By "wildly-varied", I mean cast-bullet weights from 130 to 220 grains, powder burning rates from 5744 and 4227 on the fast side to H4831 on the slow end, and velocities from 1400 fps to well past the 2000 fps mark.

The service-level 168-grain jacketed loads also ran perfectly, right from round #1.

Not only does the rifle function correctly with such an extreme range of ammunition, but I have fired over 600 consecutive rounds without cleaning on several occasions, and even then only cleaned the rifle due to curiosity, not need. It does NOT accumulate "leading" in either the bore or gas system.

This rifle has never fired a single factory-loaded cartridge, and I have total faith in its reliability. Naturally, for "serious social work", it would be cleaned rigorously and often, but for my experimental cast-bullet work, it's just like the Energizer Bunny, and keeps going, and going, and going...

I am very pleased and surprised at the wide range of loads this rifle will accept and fire reliably. No, it's not "ammo-sensitive".

 

[HM2PAC]

This kind of testing strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. As a few people here have already noted, you learn quickly that you should not do that sort of thing to your rifle.

In my experience, an individual in combat learns quickly that the rifle must be protected. You will find no one in a bad situation packing their chamber with mud. If the chamber even possibly became contaminated or the bore obstructed, priority #1 becomes finding cover and clearing the rifle. Use your canteen or use your bladder, but clear it ASAP.

Pulling the trigger on a barrel that is questionably obstructed is reckless and irresponsible. It will put the lives of you and your shipmates at risk, and it jeopardizes the mission.

 

[GunTech]

BruceB

Both my M1As don't like some powders. I now stick with 4895, 2520 and N135.

Glad you have more luck. If you PM me with your mailing address, I'll send you a box TrueShot 30 cal cast bullets I bought as an experiment and never used.