What's everyones opinion on this test ?

[mp5a3]

I know this is probably old, but I just found it. It seems pretty legitimate.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=199061

FINAL RESULTS IN ON TORTURE TEST-COLT M4 vs LMT M4

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

Ok guys! I know that some of you have been waiting for the final verdict on my torture testing of the Colt M4 vs LMT M4. It should be noted that both rifles were run "wet" with Slip 2000 lubricant. Both rifles were well lubricated before each testing phase and fired without lubrication throughout each test. Here are the compiled results below:

70 ft drop down to concrete- 250 rds:

Both rifles were dropped from 70ft rappelling tower down to concrete with a loaded Magpul P Mag. Results: Both rifles fired 250 rds each in semi& full auto without a hick up or breakage of parts.

100 ft helo drop down to concrete- 250 rds:

Both rifles were dropped 100 ft from one of our helicopters down to concrete with a loaded Magpul P Mag. Results: Both rifles fired 250 rds each in semi & full auto without a hick up or breakage of parts.

50 ft alt water submersion test- 250 rds:

Both rifles submerged down 50 ft in salt water with loaded Magpul P Mag. This was done in an open ocean scuba dive 10 nautical miles out in Miami, Fl. I called my buddy at USCG & he took my team member and I out in one of their rigid hulls. Both my team mate and I emerged out of the water & immediately fired 250 rds out of each rifle in semi & full auto while staying afloat while my buddy on the vessel handed us the loaded P Mags. Results: Both rifles fired the 250 rds a piece without a hick up.

2 ft submersion in mud for 3 hours- 250 rds:

Both rifles were submerged in 2ft of mud and left in the mud for 3 hours with a loaded Magpul P Mag. Both rilfes were pulled out and were fired without cleaning. Results: The Colt fired about 125 rds in semi and it jammed once after a 30 rd full mag in full auto. A forward assist strike fixed the problem. Fired the remainder of the 125 rds in full auto without a hick up.

The LMT fired 125 rds in semi and 125 rds in full auto without a hick up.

500 rd simulated sand storm testing: (god this was messy, still pulling sand grains out of my a--)

Both rifles were loaded with Magpul P Mags & fired in semi & full auto while sand was blown from an industrial blower fan onto the the rifles while 2 operators fired the weapons. Results for Colt: The Colt jammed 3 times after 200 rds in semi-auto. With the first & second malfunction, the rifle got back in the game with 2 strikes to the forward assist & continued. Then, the 3rd malfunction was a failure to extract. P Mag was pulled, charging handle charged with ejection port facing down to let gravity work for us. The Colt continued to fire 250 rds in full auto without a hick up.

Results for LMT: The LMT jammed once with only 3 rds to go to complete the first 250 rds in semi-auto. A strike to the forward assist got the ball rolling and never malfunctioned again. Then, it fired 250 rds in full auto without a malfunction.

It looks like the LMT beat the Colt in the mud. It never missed a beat. It also beat the Colt in the simulated sand storm. The LMT malfunctioned only once in semi auto. Again, I personally attribute this to the enhanced design of the LMT bolt. Their bolt clearly runs smoother & cooler. One more thing that this test has proven (something that I and other experienced folks have said many times), is that the M4 doesn't need to be kept meticulously clean. Yes, clean it if you have the down time. But, it has to be run wet. Lubricate, lubricate, lubricate! There you go gentleman, time to spend that tax rebate and pray that that damn terrorist doesn't get in our White House!

 

[fireman 9731]

Where was the AK in all this testing?

Oh wait... Its already been battle proven in nearly every country around the world for the last 50 years

 

[CoRoMo]

I don't usually give much credence to torture tests, but parts of this one are at least fairly practical.

The results of the drop tests are interesting. I'd think a 100ft drop, barrel first, onto concrete would do more damage.

Honestly, I see this as a tie between the two. Sure, the LMT could be given a slight win here, but IMHO, they both held up as well as I'd expect. No real surprises.

That's just my 2¢.

 

[oneounceload]

I guess I don't get the point - I'm not a SEAL, so having one offshore under water is unrealistic. Dropping the gun from a great height? What a sling can help prevent; besides, here in FL we don't have anything that tall.

As for mud and sand - if my gun found its way into that, I would sure take a few minutes to at least wash it down to get the grit and grime out of there.

Are you military about to be deployed? If not, what was the purpose?

 

[John Parker]

I like how he spelled 'hiccups' (or hiccoughs) as 'hick ups.'

 

[HorseSoldier]

That's a lot of misery to inflict on two rifles to yield results that are statistically irrelevant -- one gun isn't a statistically meaningful sample size for any potential consumer, be they individuals, smaller buyers like PDs, or a government agency.

 

[browningguy]

The test is pretty meaningless to me, and 99.9985% (by actual count and survey)of the other gun shooters on the planet. As already mentioned the sample size is nowhere near significant enough to draw conclusions.

And like oneounceload I rarely find myself in a position not to as least rinse off the mud. Actually, I've never dropped my rifles off a 5' deer stand much less a 100' drop. I can't recall ever taking a rifle scuba diving to 50' (and I used to do a lot of diving), and the times when one of my rifles gets muddy or sandy I actually clean mine.

Sounds like something a wannabe ninja/blackops operator/zombie hunter thought up. And if you are deploying with the military another big so what, you don't get to choose your issue weapon.

 

[mp5a3]

Still I think it proves the AR's aren't as "delicate" as some misrepresent them as being.

 

[Tim the student]

I think a lot of this test tested nothing that I can envision happening. I consider it to be a waste of time.

If they want combat conditions, maybe they should test those, instead of leaving a rifle 2 feet under mud for hours. If they want to torture a rifle, maybe they should do that - like leaving a weapon under water for days, weeks. It doesn't test anything, except for how a rifle will function after 3 hours in mud. Did mud get into the action?

How about some poor schmuck crawling around in mud for 3 hours, all while shooting, and reloading from mags that he has been crawling around with? I think that doing that will get mud in more places that will affect function, and obviously be more realistic.

Leaving a rifle completely underwater and then firing it? Why? What does that replicate, other than being left under water. Who does that? Does the author feel the need to do testing for the SEAL's? How bout the same poor schmuck shooting and walking around under a garden hose for a few days?

I do not believe that they had so few malfunctions in a sandstorm with a rifle that they "lubed, lubed, lubed!". Sorry, call me cynical, but I don't believe it. Something is flawed - either they ran dry, or they had a weak little "sand storm".

One thing I do think is realllly bad advice for certain people is to

Lubricate, lubricate, lubricate!

The sand and dust that I experienced in Iraq was very fine. We called it moondust because it would just float in the air. It was like talcum powder. If you "lubricate, lubricate, lubricate!" there, you will quickly be enjoying a malfunction at a bad time. It is a bad idea for anywhere that a "sand storm" might replicate.

Ok, rant off, but I think that this test was seriously flawed in a number of ways. If they wanted a torture test, why didn't they just waterboard it for a few seconds? It would have been a lot quicker and cheaper.

 

[Slamfire]

Why are these tests better than the Mil Std 810 tests conducted by the military?

These are Moron tests. Dropping something on concrete from 70 feet, or higher. Stupid.

Assuming there is a paratrooper attached to that rifle, people don't survive 70 foot falls onto concrete. So what is the point?

What I would like these Morons to do, is not conduct Moron tests, but rather sit across from a Manufacturer, and try to get the Manufacturer to guarantee that their weapon will pass these Moron tests. See if all the money in the world will buy the guarantee. Or better yet, have the Morons make weapons, and guarantee that their weapons will pass other Moron’s tests.

 

[chuwee81]

geez, calm down folks. I agree with mp5a3. It may not be practical for regular folks but it's interesting nonetheless. I am new to centerfire rifle shooting (10/22 mostly) and ever since i helped clean up my friend's AR, i noticed a lot of advance design in the weapon.

2 feed ramps from stacked magazine, Locking bolt face and chamber (ridges), modular design (lower and upper receiver). Although there's a lot of comments against reliabilities from the AR platform, I found out it can take some abuse. e.g: my friend's AR. I wanted to learn more about it so i asked him if i can borrow it and shoot it. He said go ahead but make sure i clean it afterwards. He had that thing for about a year, and never clean it thoroughly except for wiping the bolt down and re oil. That's it - never took apart the bolt, firing pin, etc. It ran ok but not as smooth. I started a thread asking why is the action sluggish at THR before. Now i know why. But during those times we shot it, it never jams, misfeed, FTF, or FTE using the cheapo steel mags. It was an RRA.

however, i saw at my shooting range the same day that 2 AR's didn't work properly. one is a single shot (bolt cycled but feed nothing - a "click" on the next shot) and FTEs on the other.

 

[Tim the student]

Sure, it is interesting, but I don't see any legitimacy in it.

ETA: He asked us our opinions of this test. He got our opinions of this test.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

He got more than that. He got rudeness & forum rule violations, which need to be edited.

geez, calm down folks. I agree with mp5a3. It may not be practical for regular folks but it's interesting nonetheless.

Absolutely, +1,000. If you can't just say "thanks for the info", then just clamp it and go on your way. More info is always better than less info - to do with as you please.

And who cares how he spells hiccups? My goodness, there's a lot of non-high-road stuff here in this thread.

 

[oneounceload]

He got more than that. He got rudeness & forum rule violations, which need to be edited.

Quote:
geez, calm down folks. I agree with mp5a3. It may not be practical for regular folks but it's interesting nonetheless

Sorry, I'll disagree - the title and question asked for OPINIONS. If all he wanted was to post it as an interesting read, then don't ask for opinions.

 

[mp5a3]

I feel bad for posting it now. I'm an information hound, so I like all tests, practical or otherwise. The "fire to destruction" test was one of my favorites posted here.

 

[Tim the student]

No, don't feel bad for posting it. It is interesting, but not really worth much IMO. Actually, if you have more, I'd like to see them. I also like tests, but I just think that this one was severely lacking.

 

[John Parker]

Yeah, don't feel bad. It was fun to read.

And Dr. Winslow, I said I liked how he spelled ''hiccups," nothing else, so don't get all high-roadier than me. ;-)

 

[lencac]

Where was the AK in all this testing?

It was being laughed at by the guys who actually want to hit what they shoot at.

 

[John Parker]

The AK is much more accurate than most people know. It's hampered by its poor sights, but even then, I've consistently hit man-sized targets out to 300 meters. At the ranges that count, it does the trick.

 

[lions]

50 ft alt water submersion test- 250 rds:

Maybe someone can help me understand why they went to 50 ft. Is the rifle supposed to get more wet? The only difference I can think of is pressure but I looked it up and at 50 ft there is 21.65 psi. I don't see that breaking anything. I can't think of a reason other than 50 ft submersion test sounds cooler than 6 in plastic tub submersion test.

 

[lencac]

John, Ak's have horrible accuracy. I had AKs including milled Bulgarian Ak and the accuracy sucked, period. While you are hitting man-sized targets at 300 yrds with your stamped POS I'm hitting baseball sized targets at 300 yrds. with my AR. Do AKs go bang when you pull the lever? Absolutlely. But don't try to make the AK something it isn't. And accurate it is NOT !

 

[crazy-mp]

I remember something in basic training, "Take care of your rifle it will take care of you," I never made it to special forces school, and I pay too much for my guns to do stuff like this, but hey its great that other people have jobs that allow them to get guns they don't own dirty and try to break them. I guess you can call that R&D?

 

[gga357]

+1 lion

 

[C-grunt]

I thought it was an interesting read. I dont see why you all are getting all wound up over this test. Sure it wasnt significantly scientific but any info is good info. I say thanks for posting it.

 

[MCMXI]

Maybe someone can help me understand why they went to 50 ft. Is the rifle supposed to get more wet? The only difference I can think of is pressure but I looked it up and at 50 ft there is 21.65 psi. I don't see that breaking anything. I can't think of a reason other than 50 ft submersion test sounds cooler than 6 in plastic tub submersion test.

Typical atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi and the pressure increases by 1 atmosphere every 33ft. Therefore, the pressure 50 ft below the surface should be 14.7 psi + (50/33)*14.7 psi = 37.0 psi.

I was wondering if 50 feet is the maximum (or typical) usable depth of the rebreather system used by the SEALs.