Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: MR416 fails InRange mud test

  1. #1

    MR416 fails InRange mud test

    Are the Brownells kits cheaper than what was available in the past?

    #RESIST

  2. #2
    *Not gonna go read the comment section*
    *Not gonna go read the comment section*
    *Not gonna go read the comment section*

    Ah hell, BRB gonna go read the comment section.
    Last edited by Casual Friday; 08-11-2019 at 07:03 PM.

  3. #3
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Kind of surprised me but -

    1) Any type of failure test of this type is a "sample of one" and subject to randomness.
    2) It could be that the gas venting from the BCG of a DI AR has some clearing advantage for this type of failure mode, then again it could just be dumb luck that the right amount of goop fell into the chamber at the right time here.
    3) While I very much like 1/2 of the InRange team - I also have to think that the folks involved with the various LS/HD units (and even the French Army) have conducted their own testing. I trust the guys in SFOD-D a little more than Karl.
    4) Even though piston guns like the 416 may be more vulnerable to stoppages caused by debris entering from the dust cover, they are less susceptible to stoppages caused by other factors. No design is perfect as the InRange duo has shown.

  4. #4
    IT's an MR556 not a 416, get your shit straight.

  5. #5
    Meh DILGAF. Moar backyard testing, LL are you trolling for HK snobs? You should've posted the P30 having an epic failure. It would've been more entertaining.

  6. #6
    Member StraitR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Basking in sunshine
    Quote Originally Posted by navyman8903 View Post
    IT's an MR556 not a 416, get your shit straight.
    What are the differences that might affect the results of this test?

  7. #7
    Honestly not surprised. Was not super impressed by the IAR (longer barreled 416 action) and didn't find it gave us a huge advantage over the AR platform. People keep chasing ways to improve a platform that works really well when maintained and treated semi decently.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
    Kind of surprised me but -

    1) Any type of failure test of this type is a "sample of one" and subject to randomness.

    Agreed. This interesting, I appreciate Inrange for doing this, but it’s not science, nor is it advertised as such.

    2) It could be that the gas venting from the BCG of a DI AR has some clearing advantage for this type of failure mode, then again it could just be dumb luck that the right amount of goop fell into the chamber at the right time here.

    The video does discuss and show high speed video of gas venting out of a DI AR. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think every DI AR Inrange has tested has done substantially better than the MR556. The DI AR is both well sealed from the environment, and works to displace foreign contaminants from its action. Speaking of dumb muck, it seems like a Little Rock got wedges between the bolt stop and the receiver. That really is dumb luck, and I’m uncertain if it could have had an affect.

    3) While I very much like 1/2 of the InRange team - I also have to think that the folks involved with the various LS/HD units (and even the French Army) have conducted their own testing. I trust the guys in SFOD-D a little more than Karl.

    I think any controversy about this video is more about interpretation than the actual outcomes. That HK makes a high quality, durable, and reliable piston AR is beyond question, I would think. The Luger Inrange tested did great, did outstanding, in the mud test, because it was apparently fit so well that mud just couldn’t get in the gun to cause trouble. Meanwhile, mud really messed with the Glock. I don’t think anyone would suggest taking a Luger over a Glock, and the piston HK can have certain advantages in short-barreled, suppressed, and high-volume full auto applications than DI M4s.


    4) Even though piston guns like the 416 may be more vulnerable to stoppages caused by debris entering from the dust cover, they are less susceptible to stoppages caused by other factors. No design is perfect as the InRange duo has shown.

    I’d love to see either a MR556 or 416 compared to DI ARs when exposed to IAR-specc’ed firing schedules.
    I remember hitting my teens in the 90s, and buying all the “gun magazines” I could. While some of the “new media” content is dismal, stuff like Inrange and Forgotten Weapons is outstanding.
    Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.

  9. #9
    Is there a reason to not try the forward assist at all?

  10. #10
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Dude could use some help understanding what type of malfunction he is having.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

    Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •