I do think what Military Arms Channel did in terms of testing is interesting, I would not do that to any of my firearms. And, what you learn, is that if you add enough dirt or mud, your firearm will malfunction. The US Military has a test to requirements philosophy, I have found from those who worked on Foreign Military Programs, that some of those European militaries have a test to failure philosophy. The US philosophy is to buy what you need, but that has to be doable. Anyone can insist on requirements that nothing can pass, and spend a lot of tax payer money in the process. I recently had a discussion with one of them, in this thread : Machine gun Oiler? https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/machine-gun-oiler.838074/#post-10859432 and the guy, is of all things, an Army Ordnance Test Engineer. He insists that it is reasonable to hand to the troops, firearms and ammunition, that are both 165 F and expects the troops to handle the weapons and fire the ammunition. It would be interesting to determine if the men in the burn room would still have full confidence in his leadership.
Testing to fail is valid, in that it tells you the conditions at which the item failed. If operation in the normal world is too stressing for your device, maybe it is not a good device. But, you can always create a test sequence at which something fails. And that is what we are seeing in these video's.
You have to understand what is achievable by state of the art. Industry knows what their weapons will do. Any buyer who puts out a procurement package that is "no bid" by industry, because the requirements are way beyond state of the art, is an idiot wasting everyone's time.
Now if the MAC guys were more than just consumers, lets say they are actual manufacturer's. Can they make a product that passes their tests, and, this is the big one, will they sign off on a contract that guarantees delivery of a product that will pass their tests? This is the ultimate Money Talks, BS walks. If they are held legally liable for the non performance of their product, I will bet, their tests won't be so rough.
Testing to fail is valid, in that it tells you the conditions at which the item failed. If operation in the normal world is too stressing for your device, maybe it is not a good device. But, you can always create a test sequence at which something fails. And that is what we are seeing in these video's.
You have to understand what is achievable by state of the art. Industry knows what their weapons will do. Any buyer who puts out a procurement package that is "no bid" by industry, because the requirements are way beyond state of the art, is an idiot wasting everyone's time.
Now if the MAC guys were more than just consumers, lets say they are actual manufacturer's. Can they make a product that passes their tests, and, this is the big one, will they sign off on a contract that guarantees delivery of a product that will pass their tests? This is the ultimate Money Talks, BS walks. If they are held legally liable for the non performance of their product, I will bet, their tests won't be so rough.
