Once again the wheelbarrow proves to be 100% reliable regardless of mud.

I know I am years late to this video but I would like to share a personal experience with the M4A1. I was an assistant gunner on an M240 gun team and one time we had a platoon live fire training event. It consisted of; dry run, blank run, then live fire day & night iterations. It had been raining on and off all day creating awfully consistent sticky mud. I had never cleaned my M4 between any of the iterations. We finally got to the live fire iteration and I had set my gunner on a giant dirt berm which was now mud. In between barrel changes and ammo linkages I would fire my M4 at targets as they popped up. Long story short I kept laying it down in the mud and almost every time facedown on the bcg with dustcover open. I remember several times there was a fat glob of mud on the bcg and it would explode away as I would fire. Needless to say I had absolutely zero malfunctions that day or night. When we got back from the field and conducted weapons maintenance I found pebbles/grime in the buffer tube, star chamber, and every other possible orifice you can think of. These weapons preface at least a decade or more before I even joined the Army so they had definitely been beat to hell and were “tired.” I carried an M4A1 in the Iraqi and Syrian moon dust and fired countless 1000’s of rounds through it (blank & live.) The only malfunctions I have ever had were from ammo. Take care of your weapon and all components; mags, optics, internals, etc and this weapon will never let you down. The amount of fudd-lore that was pushed about the M16/M4 series during my time was always extremely aggravating. I am ironically an AK lover at heart but Mr. Stoners design is superior in my opinion.

@InrangeTv

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing your experience.

@jumbles67

Жыл бұрын

@@InrangeTv Thanks for the informative content!

It's almost as if Eugene Stoner knew what he was doing. Like he was a professional firearms engineer, or, something.

@Ofnir_3

3 жыл бұрын

The Stoner 63 is still a marvel to this day. It's literally a Lego set as a firearm

What most people seem to forget that the real reason why most M16s in the war jammed was because of the cheap rounds that they used, that's the real reason why. It's not the environment that was the downfall, it was the shitty primers and powder they used.

A Russian friend of mine once quipped that in America, high quality means "doesn't break down", while in Russia it means "easy to fix when it breaks down". We weren't actually talking about rifles at the time, but I've always thought the line summarised the AR vs. AK debate quite well.

@JohnDoe-uc5iu

7 жыл бұрын

DMStraylight welcome to ww2 Russian tank design

@kurtbergh

7 жыл бұрын

l was trained to command a Russian-made tank in the Finnish Army, and l can totally confirm that for the more modern tanks as well. They broke down all the time, but in the end a whack from a sledge hammer usually fixed it or at least made the thing move again.

@nicholascunningham3927

7 жыл бұрын

You're friends with The Mighty Jingles?

@DMStraylight

7 жыл бұрын

nicholas cunningham Nah. Guy named Ruslan I went to high school with. I did laugh for a solid hour the first time I heard Jingles come up with the same line, though.

@MrCooper89

7 жыл бұрын

Brian Ross What? You can break down an AR to parts with nothing more than a punch and a means of twisting the nut off the barrel. An AK requires rivets and a press to do the same thing, how does that equate to easier to repair? Are you more likely to carry a rivet gun, or a press with you or a punch and a barrel wrench?

My dad was 1st Air Cavalry early in the Vietnam war. (originally 11th Air Assault but became 1st Cav on the way to Vietnam I believe in '65). They were one of the early units issued M16s and he said they loved the rifles ... much easier to rappel out of a helicopter with one than an M14 and much more powerful and reliable than an M2 Carbine (his hatred of the M1/M2 Carbine was pretty intense ... said they were unfit for plinking, let alone military service). He said even in the jungle they never had serious problems with their guns and always believe the rifles got a bad rap. He also hated the AK and thought it was an over rated POS (mostly because the VC had no idea how to care for their rifles and many of them were in tremendously poor condition before they worked their way through Soviet supply lines down to the lowly VC). Wish he was still alive to see his vindication in this video.

@vogonford

7 жыл бұрын

I love the idea of the carbine - it's ludicrously light and handy. But with ball ammunition it makes pathetic icepick wounds, and it's one of the least reliable guns I've ever used. I've shot at least five different carbines, from wartime production to Cold War era surplus parts builds to new production. They all jam. I have this gut feeling that it's the bolt weight being too light, or maybe the return spring isn't strong enough, but they just never seem to close reliably.

Huh, it's almost as if the engineers at Armalite thought about this when they were designing it...

I remember a teacher telling me, "How do you tell your mens mom that he died because he didn't clean his rifle" He is a Vietnam veteran

I like the 16 inch carbines as much as the next guy, but damn that AR looks gorgeous with those triangle handguards, carry-handle rear sight, 20 inch barrel and fixed stock.

@Porty1119

7 жыл бұрын

Honestly, I greatly prefer the original 20" lightweight barrel and its accompanying rifle-length gas system. It shoots smoother and is less overgassed, while increasing sight radius. The A1 furniture is also very comfortable. My personal AR is what I call an 'A1.5', using the excellent A2 sights while being an A1 in every other way.

"I don't have an emotional fixation with the gun!" Therein lies the issue with all too many gun owners. Don't marry a gun.

@Gakulon

7 жыл бұрын

Mitch Schutter Don't marry a gun, marry the concept of a gun

@mitchschutter4302

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed.

@FOOGLEMAN

7 жыл бұрын

Mitch Schutter but Mah raifu

@fsmoura

7 жыл бұрын

Can I still sleep with mah raifu then? I promise not to marry it.

@pinkushatejar

5 жыл бұрын

I'll marry my gun if I want to, you fucking communist

About what Ian said, the army research paper/Congressional Report is declassified. The data is astounding. The powder change brought the reliability from ~3 failures per 1,000 rounds, to *~10.5 FAILURES.* (1963-63 Evaluations vs SAWS Period.) After the buffer was improved, the reliability went back down to ~4 fails per 1,000. Then the chrome lining brought it down further, to the original ~3 fails per 1000. The worst part, was that it was very prone to jamming by Failure to Extract. The rifle was ruined until the round/case was pushed out with a cleaning rod (which didnt even get issued at first). Ball powder took it from 0.16 instances per 1,000 rounds, to 1 instance per 1,000. In the Panama tests, after the buffer and chroming improvements, and updating the powder specs, the instances of F-t-Ex were only 0.10 per 1,000 (1 per 10,000).

"When my older brother was in 'Nam, he had a failure to eject on his M16. Picked up an AK off a dead Charlie to replace it, but he said he couldn't hit the side of a barn with that thing. Picked up a Mosin off another dead Charlie, didn't have a single failure to cycle for the rest of the war." -A Fudd, probably

Minigun mudtest please.

@MisterDesigner

7 жыл бұрын

Why not the GAU-8?

@christopherrice2004

7 жыл бұрын

*flying tracers

@deepbludreams

7 жыл бұрын

tr0n minigun is entirely mechanical, as long as the motor is turning, the gun will cycle, it will even skip rounds that did not fire and just eject them.

Here's another myth I hear a lot. "The Soldiers loved the M14 and the M16 was forced on them for propaganda purposes!" Nothing is further from the truth. The M14 was harshly criticized for it's heavy weight, uncontrollable recoil on automatic fire, and not to mention, it was mostly an obsolete design. But the thing is, the military did everything they could to make sure the M14 was going into service even though tests were showing that the AR-15 was the superior gun. In fact Eugene Stoner and Co. weren't able to get the AR-15 adapted and approved for trials until a US Air Force general vouched for them. Btw the phrase that Marines loved the M14 over the M16 that they chanted "I don't need no sweet sixteen, I just want my M14" also is a myth. In my research, that line comes from Full Metal Jacket and there's no reliable sources that say the Marines said that. Also, the line is "I don't need a beauty queen".

@Frostiken

7 жыл бұрын

That's exactly like what people were saying about the military getting rid of 1911s. When MARSOC tried going back to 1911s a few years back, people hated it. 1911s are terrible guns. Low velocity, astonishingly low capacity, unreliable unless you pour over a thousand dollars into each gun, and heavy, and they don't do anything a wonder nine doesn't. MARSOC is now ditching their 1911s because unsurprisingly, turns out using a 105-year-old gun design just for nostalgic reasons wasn't a good idea.

@Moxiethe4th

7 жыл бұрын

I don't know about terrrible guns, but certainly not adequate for the military's purposes anymore.

@fuigebhardt2966

7 жыл бұрын

WastelandRadio fallout 4 is the worst game ever, i hope you know that.

@Moxiethe4th

7 жыл бұрын

I don't really understand, Tyson. Did you post here by mistake?

@fuigebhardt2966

7 жыл бұрын

WastelandRadio no. your name sounds like a fallout reference

"That. Killed. Men. The rifle didn't. The design didn't. THAT did." Damn Karl, your shitposting makes me giggle but that gave me goosebumps. Well said.

@seanmac1793

4 жыл бұрын

Bean counters get people killed but hey it was worth it because of the money we saved on extensive testing and issuing full kits to people

My neighbor, a Seabee Vietnam Vet, said that the last time he was in a firefight with an M16 he dropped it into a muddy river and he hoped to god that it wouldn't blow up and the rifle performed as usual

I can't say how much I appreciate this video. This explains so much. I always thought that it was the guns fault when it actually were the pencil pushers. I hope this goes atleast semi viral to explain the true history of the AR design.

13:34 Ian showing of his Matrix dodging skills

@wierdalien1

7 жыл бұрын

DaSpineLessFish i like how he watches the first case

@drmaudio

7 жыл бұрын

Wait for December 2 gun match footage. Limbo shooting.

@fsmoura

7 жыл бұрын

In the Gun Matrix, Gun Jesus is the Chosen One. Neo = Ian

@Tripp426

7 жыл бұрын

My favorite part.

Thanks guys. I'm a Vietnam vet but served on a patrol ship, a part of TF115 who set up Operation Market Time, the coastal blockade of Vietnam. Our primary rifle was the M1 rifle backed by BARs, Thompson Subs with 30 & 50 cal browning machine guns. That bean counter micro management came straight down from McNamara and LBJ.

I must say, before I stumbled across your videos on this topic, I 100% believed that the AK was just in every way a more reliable weapon than the AR. But you guys have pretty conclusively proven that I was wrong about that.

"IT JUST WORKS." Todd Howard confirmed for Armalite employee.

Sadly, the image of the problematic M16 (experienced when first fielded in Vietnam) lives on today. I've talked to new soldiers fresh out of Army basic training who claimed that some of these M16 "POS" stories were being repeated by their drill sergeants. I had a Colt M4 Carbine for my 1 year in Afghanistan and I always had 100% confidence in my weapon. Thank you InRangeTV for helping to kill a foolish myth.

Modern AR’s can absolutely be abused and still function beyond a reasonable point.

My dad enlisted in the Army Reserve as an 11B in 1982. He still to this very day, tells stories of having nightmares in Basic Training of his M16 jamming in a firefight. He admits he enjoys shooting the AR/M16 platform because it’s a great rifle to shoot, but still prefers the AK because of the horror stories and experience with the early Army ammunition that was apparently still being issued in 1982. Fast forward to 2008 when I enter service and I’ve yet to see an M4/M16 have issues after basic maintenance, even while firing hundreds of blanks. I’m a Tanker so granted my primary is a pistol, but I still have a fair amount of time on the M4.

I absolutely love the tone of righteous indignation in Karl's voice. "Huh! It locked open!" hahaha Great video as usual, gents.

"The AR won because the Ak wasn't fired by an authentic Russian soldier!!!!" No matter what you do, people will still make piss poor excuses. Merry Christmas to Ian and Karl!

When I went through Army Basic Training, everyone else's M4s would jam. However, mine never would. Why? Because the *MAGAZINES* would get dropped into the sand and dirt, causing the rounds to become fouled..... If you want your gun to operate correctly and as designed.... please....... *KEEP YOUR MAGAZINES IN GOOD CONDITION!!!!!!* Think if your magazine is a Trojan horse.... could be a really cool thing, or could be your demise.

Don't forget that the original specs for chrome plated chamber and bore were dropped for cost reasons. Add to this the lack of available cleaning kits and poor initial ammo specs created a perfect storm.

Inrangetv Killing myths better than the mythbusters themselves

So basically the issue was politicians cutting unimportant things like using modern ammo and issuing cleaning kits? Thank god humanity always learns from its past to never make the same mistake again. Imagine if we cut the military budget for armored transport right before a war filled with IED's? Then someone would have had to say "you go to war with the military you have not the one you wish you had". Thank god that didn't happen and we didn't let people die to save a few pennies...again?

I guess what could be better said is that an AK is more resistant to neglect, but an AR is more resistant to abuse

Great video as usual. My Dad served in the USMC in Vietnam and went from the M14 to the M16 and they had some problems, but not too bad. I think with the USMC and their philosophy on marksmanship, it was a natural reaction to outright reject the AR-15 just as they were reluctant to give up the '03's in WWII. When I was shooting in competition and M16's started showing up sometime in the 90's, the old timers from Vietnam would still talk smack to them and bring up the failures from Vietnam mostly because they wanted to still cling to the M14 which was being challenged on the firing line for the first time.

FYI: The propellant issue was far more complicated than the popular narrative supported by the Ichord Subcommittee. More than a fair amount of mythology has been built up about the DuPont Improved Military Powder (IMR), and I suspect IMR 4475 would have posed its own problems in Vietnam if DuPont had not withdrawn it as a qualified propellant for M193. It certainly would not have solved the problems with chamber corrosion or non-existent case hardness standards. You have to remember that the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) saw the procurement of the AR-15 and its .223 ammunition as a Commercial Off The Shelf purchase. The expectation was that little tweaking would be necessary to field it successfully, and that the Army could simply adopt the commercial specifications for the rifle and ammunition as-is for their own Mil-Specs. For instance, the military’s original velocity and pressure specifications for 5.56mm M193 were based on Remington’s commercial specifications for .223. However, while the average civilian user of the .223 would have no way to tell if Remington had fudged their figures, the military did, and took Remington to task. All of the hype about the effectiveness of the rifle and cartridge was tied to its high velocity, and thus, a reduction of velocity could easily be seen as reducing its effectiveness. As the prime user of the rifle in 1963 when all of this was hashed out, the USAF was unwilling to accept a loss in range by relaxing the velocity specifications. (The same thing had occurred earlier when the USAF discovered that the bullet was unstable in cold weather with the 1-14″ rifling twist. The USAF testers suggested that the stability problem could probably be solved if the bullet was simply shortened by going to a flat-base design of the same weight, but the change in shape would reduce long range performance.) However, the refusal to budge from the velocity standards led to an additional complication when it was discovered that IMR 4475-loaded ammunition could not meet these specifications while consistently maintaining the proper tolerances for chamber pressure. Previously, Remington could simply cherry-pick lots of IMR 4475, but this would no longer be possible once M193 reached mass production. Some have asked why the chamber pressure specifications were such a problem, and why not simply increase the chamber pressure specifications so IMR 4475 could be kept. The problem was that the military evaluations in late 1962-early 1963 had already shown signs of pressure excursions like popped primers. Some of the over-pressure events during were probably the result of Remington and Colt not comparing notes on Remington’s changes in ammunition and chamber dimensions when they established SAAMI specifications for the .223. It appears that Colt’s chambers at the time were smaller than the final SAAMI specs for commercial .223, which is even smaller than what we now have as standard for 5.56mm. Increasing chamber dimensions partially helped moderate the pressure issue, but then likely resulted in a reduction in velocity. The first clue that the pressure/velocity specifications were going to pose a problem was when all of the major commercial ammunition manufacturers balked on bidding for M193 production contracts as long as the existing specifications remained in place. With no one willing to budge on pressure or velocity, the only other possibility was the propellant. The first to suggest a change of propellant from IMR 4475 was Remington themselves, in order to fulfill an existing USAF ammunition contract. Ironically, Remington proposed alternative was Olin’s WC846. (Mind you, Remington was owned by DuPont, the manufacturers of IMR brand powders.) A search for alternate M193 propellants was underway when Remington and DuPont withdrew IMR 4475 as a qualified propellant in March 1964. WC846 and IMR CR8136 were approved by the Army for M193 in April 1964. At that time, only Remington chose to load M193 with CR8136. Winchester and Federal went with WC846. By the end of 1964, Remington dropped CR8136, again due to lot-to-lot consistency issues. So this set off another search for alternative propellants, and IMR 8208M was approved for use in M193. This time, all of the commercial manufacturers, including Remington, went with WC846. As a result, Lake City and Twin Cities ended up loading M193 with IMR 8208M. IMR 8208M was not dropped from use with M193 until after the WSEG testing in 1968. The mere fact that other propellants, including IMR-types, were approved for M193 should put to rest the old myth that IMR 4475 was rejected so the Army could sole-source Olin Ball Powders like WC846. IMR 8208M had in fact been the off-shoot of another propellant developed by DuPont under Army contract for 7.62mm NATO. The 7.62mm propellant had to be modified as its grains were too long for automated loading given the 5.56mm’s narrower case neck. The stories that WC846 was never tested or that Colt did not know or approve of the change are also false. Colt had USAF ammo loaded with WC846 in early 1964, and pointed out the increase in cyclic rates in March. Colt went even further and had tests done at H.P. White to determine the cause of the cyclic rate increase. In April 1964, Colt’s senior product engineer Foster Sturtevant wrote in an internal report that the higher gas port pressures with WC846 were “in no way harmful to the AR-15” and would lead to more positive functioning of the rifle. It strikes me that the increased cyclic rate was initially tolerated because some uninformed souls saw it as a bonus feature, not a flaw. After all, the USAF’s aircraft armaments were designed around even higher cyclic rates. Imagine trying to argue in favor of revising the velocity specs of M193, when Remington and Colt have already signed off on a change in propellant. As for the claim that the propellants were not tested for port pressure, Colt simply didn’t know what the appropriate port pressure should be, and the OSD’s pressure to get the rifles fielded meant that no one wanted to wait to run tests to find out what the acceptable limits should be. William C. Davis, Jr. and his colleagues at Frankford Arsenal basically had to guess. Another myth is the idea that the military should have kept IMR 4475 despite its issues since it was part of the .223 design since the beginning. A curious point to come out of the Ichord Hearings was multiple mentions that Remington had not always used IMR 4475 for the early .223. Yount mentioned that some test ammunition had been loaded with IMR 4198, and one of the USAF witnesses claimed that they had IMR 4064 in the USAF’s initial 1963 specs until they contacted Remington as to their preferred powder and primer. Most damning was the DuPont witness who testified that Remington adopted IMR 4475 for the .223 as late as 1962. I find it particularly odd that Ichord never subpoenaed representatives from Remington, Olin, Federal, or Hercules. A seemingly unkillable narrative is that IMR was a new improved design sabotaged by traditionalists unwilling to give up outdated surplus propellants or offend a powerful vendor like Olin. First, the name “Improved Military Rifle” was merely a brand name. It signified the change from DuPont’s earlier “Military Rifle”-brand extruded powders, which used straight nitrocellulose to IMR’s deterrent coated nitrocellulose. IMR propellant types are actually older than Olin’s Ball Powder types. The specific type used, IMR 4475, was actually introduced back in the 1930s. To somehow suggest that DuPont was not a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the Military/Industrial Complex and had any less of a cozy relationship than Olin is patently ridiculous.

@danielwatters1203

7 жыл бұрын

Was there a widespread conspiracy to kill the M16? Certainly, the Army General Staff wanted little to do with the rifle, and were hoping that they could either restart M14 production or wait until the SPIW or another alternative was available. However, the Army Materiel Command’s General Frank Besson took very close interest in Project Manager Colonel Yount’s progress. Besson routinely marked up his copy of Yount’s weekly significant action reports and sent it back for further comment. Moreover, some of the folks on the M16’s Technical Coordinating Committee, like Frankford Arsenal’s Bill Davis, appeared to be selected specifically because of their previous SCHV work. One of the biggest impediments to the rifle’s development seem to have been the Secretary of Defense and his staff. They had drunk the Kool-Aid that the AR-15 and its ammo were a fully developed, perfectly perfect, Commercial Off the Shelf product that needed no additional work prior to issue. They wanted the rifle issued, and they wanted it done NOW. Some of the problems in Vietnam were going to happen regardless of which powder type was used. Case hardness standards were left up to the individual manufacturer, who likely used the same case hardness specs that would be appropriate for hunting or target ammunition in a single shot or bolt action, but not for military ammo for an automatic weapon. The M16’s unchromed chambers were doomed to rust in a tropical environment, particularly given the widespread belief that the rifle needed little to no cleaning. Combine corroded chambers with soft brass, and you get failures to extract. As for the original action spring guide (buffer), its Edgewater springs had a tendency to seize when wet. When this happened, all buffering value was lost. The early troop issues were to Special Forces and Airborne units, many of whom had a chance to train with their rifles prior to deployment to Vietnam. By 1966, regular Infantry units were receiving them, many making the transition in country. Rust doesn’t take long to start in humid climates if you aren’t taking care of it. One archive item, a 12/3/67 article from the Baltimore Sun stated that from one USMC battalion, 286 of 445 rifles inspected were going to need their barrels replaced due to corrosion in the chamber. It also claims that when they were issued their new rifles in the Spring, Marines were told not to oil their weapons after cleaning. This order was not rescinded until June. As to the issue of cleaning kits, that seems to be more of an in-country distribution issue. Federal Stock Numbers and nomenclature were assigned to the AR-15, bayonet, bipod, and cleaning rod during the week of May 13-17, 1963. During the November 21, 1963 meeting of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), Colt's W.J. Hutchins presented an engineering test model of a proposed buttstock storage compartment. The compartment could hold the three-piece cleaning rod, patch holder, bore brush, container of Lubriplate, and cleaning patches. Hutchins stated that they estimated the modification would add $0.73 to the cost of each rifle. The USAF's representative William S. Aumen indicated that while the USAF had a requirement of such a feature, they had managed to get along without it so far. As a result, Aumen speculated that the USAF might not approve it given the cost. LTC Yount stated that the Army had already planned to store the cleaning matériel in the pocket of the bipod case. However, they would prefer the carriage of the items within the rifle. Like the USAF, the Army would hold off on the decision until the TCC's next meeting in December 1963. The PMR Weekly Significant Action Reports for the summer of 1965 have multiple references to the development of improved cleaning rods and brushes for the XM16E1. It looks like they were nearly ready to ship during the week of July 19-23, 1965. In the notations on his copy, Gen. Besson recommended that the new equipment be airlifted straight to Vietnam, and the shipping data be forwarded so that the matériel was not lost in theater. (In a later note on the October 4-8, 1965 WSAR, Besson darkly commented that if such shipments were not met as soon as the cargo plane landed, they risked the cleaning rods being stolen and used as concrete rebar.)

@artemisfowl52

7 жыл бұрын

You seem to know a lot about this. Do you have a book or source you're referencing?

@danielwatters1203

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! For full disclosure, I'm the author of "The 5.56 Timeline," formerly hosted by Dean Speir's The Gun Zone and more recently, Looserounds.com. looserounds.com/556timeline/ Besides the books listed in the sidebar, there is a vast array of the original military reports now available for free download via DTIC.mil, NTIS.gov, and SmallArmsReview.com. Basically, you can run through my Timeline or the bibliography of the cited books like "The Black Rife," and then read the original source material at one of three sites mentioned. In addition, both the hearing transcripts and final report of the Ichord Subcommittee can be read online at HathiTrust.org. A really useful document is the US Army's 12-volume response to the Ichord Subcommittee's report. This is titled "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Program." You'll need to hop between DTIC and NTIS to access all twelve for download. I also have the benefit of having a copy of the Program Manager Rifle's Weekly Significant Action Reports for 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1968. This was a gift from a fellow researcher who was working on a collectors guide for the AR-15 family of rifles.

.....remember...the M14 was the US Army's baby. The M14 was their design and they had just adopted it (a shoulder fired rifle that was full auto and fired a full powered cartridge, go figure right?) Then all of the sudden the Army is ordered to test and evaluate a design that might replace the M14. **GASP** The Army did everything they could to sink the AR!

Great video guys! I had completely bought into the preconceived myths about the first generation M-16's in Vietnam. Thanks for the valuable lesson, keep up the good work.

Winchester also made a competing design, the Winchester Automatic Rifle (W.A.R.) which looked like a miniaturized M-14 (sorta). As a company that had a much longer relationship with the US Army Ordnance Board than did those upstarts in Costa Mesa, they had a vested interest in seeing the AR-15 fail. Guess which company was the exclusive maker of the sole powder used in the development of the AR-15's cartridge? Olin-Winchester. Do you know why the Ordinance Board and all of the contractors who made ammo needed to find a new powder, and famously switched from IMR to Ball powder? Because Olin-Winchester stopped production of that powder when their design was initiated. Whoops. Probably just a coincidence.

I'm starting to see a pattern here, I just can't put my finger on it. Perhaps if you do two or three more...

Being the sexiest gun l know of, a Vietnam-style AR taking a mud bath is strangely satisfying.

I love the extreme sarcasm, perfect.

I love you guys. These videos are some of the most entertaining on KZread. I've learned so much history from you guys. keep it up!

You need to make a spandau vs bren mud test.

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

You've been watching Lindybeige.

@mariusdragoe2888

7 жыл бұрын

Couldn't help myself. Someone had to ask for it

@socom1700

7 жыл бұрын

Marius Dragoe to

@fsmoura

7 жыл бұрын

JUST SLICE THEM OPEN WITH KATANAS o.o

@rockbard9621

7 жыл бұрын

The Bren featured a removable pommel for ease of cleaning as well as to end pow's rightly. Also napoleon was literally hitler and Normans were not French

"Those bean-cunters, -counters..." I think we all know what Karl wanted to say

I have a lot of respect for you guys digging into the technical side of how a gun works so people can actually understand all the different things behind a firearm - its not just the gun, it's the supply line, it's the manufacturer, it's the support, its everything that affects how a weapon works.

the passive aggression is strong in this one

I feel like my m16a4 ran bad because of the intense amount of blanks ran through it...

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

+Dandy Lion Blanks are filthy. ~Karl

I'd like to add to the "$500 AK is as good as a $1000 AK" thing. Some of the cheaper AKs are dangerous and beat themselves to death and expand their own headspacing.

@wierdalien1

7 жыл бұрын

Ross Tafari thats terrifying

@PSG1JOHN1

7 жыл бұрын

Your talking about US made AK, Russian/Com block or Chinese AK are great, I myself use a Vepr and that thing a tank. Russian Made AK cost $200 and US made M-16A2 cost about 600 in the US, got to love cheap Russian labor cost.

@socratesjohnson980

7 жыл бұрын

Damn famn. You obviously aren't in the states, too many hoops importers have to jump through to get that good of a price on them. Are you in Finland by any chance?

@PSG1JOHN1

7 жыл бұрын

Ross Tafari I should have said $200 in Russia once it goes through importers they set the price u.s. Market

@tuck234

7 жыл бұрын

The Palmetto State Armory AKs seem pretty good, especially in Rob Ski's 5000 round testing of it.

You guys have such great chemistry, you bounce off each other so well, and also teach me so much. You really are like those really good teachers in schools, where you're learning cool stuff and they're also really entertaining at the same time. I don't know what I'm saying.

My grandmother is Vietnamese and she was a combat medic fighting against communism. She always said the m16 never failed them and that she hates war. She now lives in America and still hates communists.

@angry_zergling

2 жыл бұрын

Your grandmother sounds like a badass lady! Tell her a rando on youtube thanked her for her service on the side of freedom against the forces of tyranny.

When soldiers used it to break wires.... WHAT?

@laci816

7 жыл бұрын

PierreDolphin Yes. If you place the teeth of the flash hider around a wire and twist it you've got a nice wire cutter. Unfortunately the teeth would break off on that flash hider.

@sillygoose210_6

7 жыл бұрын

PierreDolphin some guns have mussel devices with a built in wire cutter

@charlesinglin

7 жыл бұрын

What I was told by one of my ROTC instructors at the time, the troops would use the three prong flash hider to break the wire around c-rat cases or ammo cases (I forget which), by sticking the wire between the prongs and then twisting the rifle. Give it a hard twist and you could damage the barrel.

@nathanbutler8240

7 жыл бұрын

Bdkj 3e the russian krinkov had a muzzle brake that would cut wire when fired also look up the vso gun channel on ar15 cutting wire there plenty out there if you look that says they fire the weapon to cut the wire

@SearTrip

7 жыл бұрын

Charles Inglin c-ration cases. My Dad said they were told not to do it because too many flash hiders were getting broken. It was still the easiest way to get the cases open.

Awesome video! Thats why I love your channel! Good rational arguments. Thanks for all the great work guys.

Not quite sure why so many people hate on you guys, when you guys are one of the most honest and unbiased gun based you-tube channels around.

I think this was the 1st video I have seen of yours. well done.

Great video guys, just like always. This new camera should become your primary in my opinion, it looks so clear and the colors are so lively, beautiful. Thanks for providing such amazing content, have a great day. Happy holidays :)

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

That's already the plan (with the cameras). Thank you, and you too! ~Karl

AR's work in mud?! INCONCEIVABLE! (Princess Bride)

Love the channel, new sub. Your content is very professional and knowledgeable. You have a plan and you test the weapons, loving it.

Thank you for clearing up the common misconception that the m16 was "jam happy" and was "unreliable in dirt and mud"

UNFAIR WE NEED A $4,000 AK IT'S UNFAIR, UNFAIR!!!!

Excellent work!

Love the video guys, keep up the awesome work!!

Thank you for laying that out nice and clearly. An excellent job.

Dear Ian and Karl, I am writing this message in response to an argument I duly lost to a friend of mine. I apologize for wrongly insulting and critiquing this well thought out video. Thank you for spending your time and money to provide us with this information and disabusing those such as myself, who succumbed to believing all the myths surrounding such guns as the m16. Your videos are both interesting and informative, and I am ashamed for my act of immaturity I have presented upon myself.

"inconceivable!" "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

I used the word incomprehensible, and I know exactly what it means. ~Karl

@mattatat1138

7 жыл бұрын

missing the inigo montoya reference, incomprehensible!

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

Indeed I am, although now I know what movie you're referencing at least. ;) ~Karl

This video has the best mud of all of them. Perfect consistency

You guys are very thorough, well done!

I have to clarify why exactly it is so emotionally touching, especially for those who are Russian/Soviet patriots to any degree. The thing is, the Soviet Union was a failure as a country/state with few good things about it. The AK series were generally considered one of them. Long has it been believed our AK had a balancing difference against the M16: while M16 was believed to be just more precise and overall lighter than an AKM, the AKM itself was considered much cheaper and more reliable, able to withstand whatever harsh conditions were thrown at it. Your mud test just proved one thing: it isn't. Reliable. At all. The M16 can withstand the conditions and shoot as purposed. The AK just can't. And your video isn't the first and the last one to show it. Coupled with the fact that AK is actually quite expensive in production (well, the first models were), it fully ruins the myth and one of the few good things we had about the SU. That's why we are so outraged in a nutshell.

Your phone camera seems to be clearer then your other camera

Learned a lot from this video! A friend of mine told me a lot of guys died because of these weapons, but I never knew exactly why!

You've really opened my eyes to this debate.

Pff. Anyone can do it with a cheap knock-off romanian or checkoslovakian mud. Authentic vietnamese mud would've jam this gun right away.

The powder issue coupled with rotted, pitted chambers was the recipe for disaster.

Great video guys, had subtitles on and when emptying the magazine seeing the bang bang bang bang bang bang script gave me a good laugh. Keep up the good work.

You guys are awesome 👏🏼 very interesting and informative

I first watched the AK video and was shocked at the results because of what i use to hear about the AK didn't come true. I was an Ak fanboy but this has totally changed my mind. Thank you InRangeTV!

In my house my AR is right next to my AK. Love em both. Every platform has its strong and weak points. If you have an adult mind, you will see it and use it to its advantage. I'm just glad that I live in a free country where I can own guns.

Man, you definitely cleared it up for me! I appreciate it!

Very informative. Thanks guys. As a former 0311 and "professional" user of the M-16A2, I found this to be quite enlightening.

“It just works.” -Todd Howard

So much sarcasm it sounds like a middle school english class

I always wondered about this folklore about the AR15/M16. Thanks guys!

The military had a contract for the old powder that was used in all the other ammunitions and didn't want to purchase the specific powder required for the 556 munitions. The powder specified for the munitions of the M-16 had a agent blended in to basically slow down the burn of the powder. This had the effect of slowing the maximum rate of fire. If I remember correctly, the design of the M-16 was for a max rate 350-450 rounds per minute (RPM). The older powder cased the rate of fire to exceed 700 RPM. This cause numerous jams and other breakdowns. Many solders were found lying on or near their weapons with cleaning rods shoved in the barrels. They had died trying to remove the what ever caused the misfire. The military came to a compromise on the powder mix with the weapon manufacture and the powder manufacture. This powder was acceptable to all manufacturers. It would also not have a negative affect any other existing weapons. The RPM after the inclusion of the new powder on the M-16 was around 500. I could be wrong about the details, but it's as close as I can recall.

That was the best m16: m193,1:12twist,20"barrel Awesome rifle!!!

"The AK and Vz58 videos have even been used in Russian and Ukrainian media propaganda." Really now? Do you have a link? I'd love to see this.

@Kamwi_003

7 жыл бұрын

BigMek456 Check the InRange TV Facebook. They posted it there.

@BigMek456

7 жыл бұрын

Found it, thanks

@ICx6q

7 жыл бұрын

they made a video about it.

First one I've seen actually still function after a mud test. I'm very impressed.

It was not the military, but the US Army Bureau of Ordnance that tested the M-16 with fast burning powder, then switched it to slow burning powder when the rifle was deployed to the troops. This caused several other problems including corrosion in the gas tube because the slow burning propellant was still burning in and fouling the gas tube. As for cleaning kits, there is no way to clean the gas tubes even with modern AR15's cleaning kits, but it is not a problem because fast burning propellants are standard and the gas tube is chrome lined. This is also why today there is no Bureau of Ordnance in any branch of the US military. The various military Bureau of Ordnance throughout US history had messed up big time several times. And they were done away with.

Every time its almost painful to watch the moment when mud hits a gun :/

The "adobe" test really drives the point. when mud dries is when it really becomes an issue and that AR handled it great. Awesome stuff guys!

excellent video series!

Excellent vid, as usual, guys!!!

Even though we had M16A2s in Iraq, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, I'd take my M16 over those junk AKs the insurgents had. And they had AKs that were Chinese, North Korean, Yugoslav, and Arab make. We test fired a lot of them, and they were all junk. Inaccurate, cheap parts, and jam with lots of dust and dirt in the chamber. M16? Works like a champ. But what do I know. I was just a tanker in OIF III in a combat zone at the time...and then was a SAW gunner in the squad.

Now for the chauchet mud test

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone!!

Sarcastic, slightly passive aggressive, Ian and Karl are glorious.

You guys think this stuff is getting boring?!? This group of videos is some of the most interesting thing I've seen on youtube. Like Stephen Fry interesting. Keep up the good work

@InrangeTv

7 жыл бұрын

Honestly, yes...both of us think the mud videos are potentially the least interesting stuff we put on this channel. We're obviously in the minority, though, as they get the most views by far. ~Karl

@SuperFunkmachine

7 жыл бұрын

Mud vids could be the most boring.

@ZAKW42

7 жыл бұрын

InRangeTV I lived in 3points for a long time, I'm familiar with the clay like mud, I'd like to see the results from the same ar-15 mud test but with it dried on. let it dry after application and before initial firing to see if the gas ports in the bolt is enough to break it away.

@ZAKW42

7 жыл бұрын

Patrick Gonzalez I have. I had meant from the start of the test, load the mud/clay on and let it dry before firing. That point at the end was just left over dried clay. I know what I said.

From what I've gathered is that in terms of reliability, the AR platform is more suited to professional militaries with basic proper training, where as the Kalashnikov is meant for people who don't know proper weapon maintenance such as the Vietcong, ANA, the Iraqi military, terrorist organizations, ect.

Excellent video, gentlemen.

Love both AR and AK but I won't deny I prefer the AR's and you guys hit the nail on the head. Just as durable as long as the rifle is taken care of which is so true.

Awkward moment when the cacti start speaking Vietnamese.

10 years and 2 deployments so far and i can honestly say that the AR family if weapons is by far the most reliable system i have ever used, including AK'S.

Great video! The reminder about Sullivan's comments and the congressional hearing conclusions are a stark reminder that those at the top don't always care about us individuals.

this is my favorite mud test you did good