Wasn't HK416 specifically developed for water operations? Like in the promotional videos they all show how much better it handles water than all other AR15s and it really does. I guess theres upsides and downsides in every design.
I'd like to start out by saying this isn't a rant because the majority of the comments I see on inrange videos are well thought out and reasonable, and I think Inrange in general fosters those ideals, but this has been vexing me for a number of days now. I've never understood why people get upset when a gun does poorly in the mud test. The Amount of grime that these firearms are subjected to is incredible and is meant to simulate worst possible conditions. Just because you're favorite AR or AK or Martini Henry rifle didn't do well doesn't mean it's a worthless firearm, just that it may be a bit finicky. And, for the most part, having a gun that can't survive being thrown in the middle of the battle of Passchendaele probably shouldn't be the first priority of a weapon. The first priority should be whether you can shoot it well and if it shoots well. Most of us will never get our firearms even remotely as fouled up as these mud tests show, and if we do we typically have the luxury of being able to clean it outside of a combat scenario. Ideally, a firearm is accurate, light weight, comfortable to shoot, and 100% reliable, of course. But, we sadly live in reality.
People tend to anthropomorphize a lot since being human is the only perspective that we have. They also tend to have a self worth intertwined with concepts outside of themselves (this can be just about anything not just machinery/industry) probably due to us being a social species.
Yep. I'm sure a Porsche does poorly off road, that doesn't mean it's bad that means it doesn't do well under those conditions. Now sure some guns do poorly in all categories and some do well in most. That doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable
It's almost like you're saying the firearms are purpose built for certain advantages and disadvantages... M16\AR15 accurate,very sealed(prevents entry of mud and debris), realible for a day's use before be re-lubricated due to tighter tolerance spacing. Ak47\74\akm less accurate but still functionally accurate, not tightly sealed(leaving it vunerable to mud and large amounts of debris), requires less lubrication, realible for more constant use.
I think the key issue is twofold: 1) Many of the guns in these mud tests tout reliability (whether true or advertised) as one of their strongest advantages, and 2) The concept of unimpeachable reliability has become an obsessive fetish among many gun owners. Nobody really cares if, say, an HK VP70 or a custom Volquartsen .22 were to fail the mud test. While reliable function is obviously important for any firearm, neither of those are particularly recognized as being exceptionally reliable. However, if something like a Glock 19 or this MR223/HK416 were to fail even one single reliability test- regardless of how extreme- folks will get up in arms, because both of those guns are renowned specifically for a degree of reliability that allegedly exceeds all others.
the 1958 Army test report on the AR-15 makes it clear the gas helps clean off the ejection port. I think this is misunderstood By people who just skimed through the report and thought that it was somehow self cleaning the rifle.
@@cottonballs185 because that's what its called a regular m4/m16/ar 15 is usually considered direct impingement even though its reall not...but basically it is a DI.
As a former member of the HKPro forums, I am sure they will objectively consider the results of this test regardless of the results and refrain from any "fanboy" behavior. /sarcasm
I don't get why people get upset by any of these tests really. The chances of you ever having so much mud on a rifle without being able to clean it off is soooooooo small. I would rather look at how long parts last and how strong it is when dropped from heights etc. And even then it would be tests for the most extreme situations where 99.99% of us will never be. Every gun can and will jam eventually.
@@nathan655555 In Oregon there are lots of mountains and with any precipitation it turns to mud. I've been hunting in those mountains and there were a few times where either we slipped or just the grade was so significant that when the action made contact the action got boogered up and tough to work (this is a bolt gun too). These tests aren't all that unrealistic.
@@nathan655555 I think you may be underestimating the amount of mud that can be accrued between the dehumidified gun safe --> range bag --> BMW X5--> indoor air conditioned/heated shooting range stall --> back to bag --> back to BMW X5 --> back to dehumidified gun safe. Its obvious why they would get upset at the obviously flawed testing. It probably wasn't even real mud. JKing BTW, but in all honesty, legend has it that if you spend your life in a one sided love affair with HK they will show up at your funeral and deposit a sneer on your coffin.
@@kylethedalek Not out of the side of the carrier while unlocking they don't. By venting gas like the DI guns do mud is blown away from the main ingress point, so cleaning the gun, hence why this jammed and the DI guns didn't.
So many times I have heard "the AR poops where it eats" and I would try to show them that its actually blowing any debris away from the ejection opening . But old fudd slogans die hard.
@@kylethedalek did you watch the video....? The point is the vent ports on the DI gun effectively clear the port of debris....as designed. I.E. The piston actually reduced reliability is this case... If Stoner wanted a short stroke piston, he would have designed the gun as such, the tech was well known at the time the AR was designed...
I love and have used the m27 iar a ton but it by far has the worst stoppages I've ever seen. I was on a meu running a range once and had a jam where the round flipped around and the piston rammed the projectile above and in between the bolt head. The armorers had to rip the round in half to get it out. Needless to say i didn't finish the range.
That must have been fun to witness, worst I've seen was a .357SIG CZ 75TS that failed to eject a fired case, and proceeded to turn the case 180 degrees and re-chamber it backwards, was no getting that out without a clearing rod, ended that stage of the competition pretty quickly.
@@MaseratiChris556 No, i used the standard lube; happy thoughts, thinly veiled homosexuality and unicorn blood and we don't get jalapeno cheese spread anymore. They replaced it with glue a few years back shits cash
James, have you ever trained with the 249? Or went directly into the m27?.. Im currently a 249-man with the guard, and ive been curious if there are any SAW-men who have been Re-trained with the m27. Curious to know what they thought about the 2 weapons.
The comments in a nutshell: AR/DI guys: hahaaa i knew it. Holy stoner created the BEST gun EVER. It even works in lava. MUUURICAAA. Everybody that things different is a HK fanboy HK fanboys: not a real HK! Theses tests arent scientific enough! My HK has a nicer black than yours. Me: Hmm...interessting!
@@th3comb1ne13 That was proven to be magazines, powder, and buffer spring related. The aluminum gi mags have been the biggest issue for AR's since it was designed, but luckily this has finally been fixed with p-mags.
Super interesting. I know that the benefits of the piston is being able to submerge the gun and then fire immediately as well as sustained auto fire, but I hadn't thought about the gas relief wholes in the bolt aiding in clearing the mud. Very interesting.
@@Every_Day_Heresy really depends on the rifle tbh. I'd do a lot for a H&K SR-9. These MR556's are excellent uppers, regardless of how it faired in an extreme mud situation. I bet it would do just fine in their caravan test. I'll agree that H&Ks are expensive, but there's a reason that militaries the world over choose to spend more on them than they would on cheaper alternatives. Also, note that it came back to life with a little bit of water. If there's that much runny mud around in the field, then I'd wager there's some standing water to dunk the gun in.
@@Every_Day_Heresy You're probably joking but you've taken the test out of context if you aren't. The rifle wasn't made to pass inranges mud test. It's like judging a fish by how well it can climb a tree. People are taking these mud tests far too literally.
I think what also happened that you didn't exam was that the sand got into the piston area. HK416 piston isn't shrouded like an T91/How T89/etc so it isn't kicking the carrier with enough force thus fail to eject (despite breech being clear enough to chamber& fire rounds) I want to see T91/Wolf A1 being put to the test, if just to see shrouding piston from elements work.
These are my thoughts also. After pouring in water to clear the chamber, i figured the piston was being affected if the gun continues to not function at 100%
Ha! I have been waiting for this for quite some time. While it does have certain advantages, I'll take my own are build any day over a 416 - for a third of the cost. Thank you, as always, for such awesome content, and furthering our knowledge on defensive gear.
I asked about this mud test some time ago having in mind that piston gun doesn't blow mud out of the way like DI and some people said that it doesn't make much difference. What is funny tho it played out just like I imagined.
one has to be fair, the Mud Test is a very extreme stress test that wouldnt happen in real life. this scenario is basicly the only scenario where the DI system is surperior due to it venting into the reciever. Reliablility of a piston system is higher because the gun is not feeding explosion gas into the reciever, wich leaves the bold carrier group etc significantly cooler and cleaner. Meaning if you want long term reliability, pistons are your way to go
That gas blowing out of the chamber in the AR system seems to definitely be the difference in clearing out the gunk. Iirc Karl said exactly that on that episode as well. Stoner just plain did it right :)
@@th3comb1ne13 You can, it's irrelevant. McNamara and his whiz kids we're responsible for changing the powder, failing to chrome line the bores, and issuing the rifles without cleaning kits. The design was perfectly sound, the attempt to save money by changing that design from what had been trialled successfully was dumb and led to all of the teething problems.
@@th3comb1ne13 AR-10s and AR-15s had been used successfully by various militaries for years before Vietnam with no significant problems, albeit on a relatively small scale. All the issues of the M-16 in Vietnam show is that making a major equipment change in the middle of an active conflict is fraught with problems.
@Strive-2-Survive >implying "DI" ARs are hard to clean in the field, all the fouling ends up in the bolt. It's not even real direct impingement, more like an "internal piston" Really the main benefit of a piston system is the fact that they don't have potential to fail due to water build-up in the gas tube
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Although, to be fair, its France... the guns will not be used before they get the chance to surrender... In terms of the next time they purchase weapons, these will still be pristine and so, should fetch a fair bit of coin... unlike the FAMAS... Clever buggers...
@@ProjectZenOfficial one test that comes to mind is the one military arms channel did. There's another one floating around too somewhere I forget. But ya those recoil action springs have to have full travel or else they don't work and they're very compact. I mean don't get me wrong it's a pretty closed system and a good rifle. Just in comparison once a lil bit does get in it does worse than the ar15 system which has larger tolerances in the buffer tube/receiver extension, also making it easier to happen since debris doesn't get blown off like a di ar15 and eats in during recoil like it did wit the hk416. They actually had a similar problem with the 416 piston spring at first because they made the spring too compact in coils, and once a spec of dust got in between it would shut the piston system down because it couldn't contract. So they went with a wider spring and all is well. Not as big of a problem in the mcx cuz those springs are inside the receiver
What I have experienced with ARs is that they can perform well while dirty/kinda muddy and do just fine at first. It seems to be when that bolt gets so hot that it dries the water out of the mud, leaving some caked on dirt that really slows things down on the inside of the gun.
Mitch Schutter we use a program called MRDM at work. Us young guys call it Mr. DM. Which makes me smile because each time I open it I picture some old perv on Instagram trying to “slide into the DMs” of some insta-thot
not that I care because I don't have a clear preference between DI and piston, but I have to point out how much more the HK was covered with the dust cover open compared to the AR. When I saw how much crap was left on the bolt I *knew* it would just fail ^^ You're probably onto something when you say the gas ejection might clear the bolt before cycling, but I'm not convinced this was the most significant factor here, I think the sheer amount of crap left on the bolt might be. You put one hell of a kick in the butt of the "gas piston master race" myth though
"Are you the commander? HK416; Please remember this name, this... extraordinary name." "Sure, sure. I'll also remember to toss you in a mud pit with the Anti-Rain Team."
Oh boy, the comments are going to something else Edit: Forgot to mention how the hk fanboys will send a german epa ration to karl and ian just like how the ak fanboys did with russian ration
@CIA BETA Wing ignorant and untrue, the tolerances are completely different. We don't know what was done during the build. We don't know if the upper is compromised. We don't know if the upper is 100% factory. We do know that the video was an intentional misrepresentation of facts, and that calls everything else into question. The integrity of the presenters is forever in question, sad they have no integrity.
@@RayLaskyOutdoors Next you'll be telling us that it's not an HK because the black anodizing isn't black enough. Truth, anyone who bought this HK bought it because they're a collector and just because they liked it but not because it's more reliable than an AR. Stop taking it like a little bitch.
The piston blocks gas flow to the BCG to self clean as eugene's did in the AR15 mud test. The interia of gas/mud mix going down the gas tube cleaned it out and cycled the AR
I was issued the HK 416 when i served in the military, and it was notorious to malfunctions when using "practice" rounds because of fouling and residue the ammunition would deposit in the chamber and upper.
I was actually expecting this test to go the way it did. One clear advantage of a DI rifle that should be considered from the start is the venting in the BCG. It helps blow off any crap that might be on the side of it. There's also that spring on the Piston system that can easily get fouled up by soupy mud and/or wet sand. While the Piston system may be more reliable and require less cleaning in normal conditions, less moving parts are better when it comes to adverse conditions where you introduce different forms of particulates into the system. I currently have the video paused at 6:43 as I have come to these conclusions. I'll update if I change my mind by the end of the video. Update : I was right, although he made no mention of the spring in the piston system itself, just a lack of gas vents on the BGC.
That's interesting, certainly seams like the di system has an advantage over the piston system in that regard. Some further investigation me thinks, people commenting suggesting that the failure to go into battery was a piston mech issue. Would be nice to have a revisit with a shrouded piston mech etc
i think maybe in future tests of military rifle maybe y'all could only use the amount of water in either a canteen or "camelbak" because i would assume that is what soldier would have on hand. i would love to see a mud test or an SR-25 or M110
Still not sure why the Marines replaced the excellent M16A4 with this. I'm curious how much better, if at all, the 416 is in extended full auto fire vs a full auto M16 with the HBAR heavy barrel, seeing as we already know the M16 makes a wonderful DMR and Carbine (M4). I think the M16 will always be the premiere Jack of All Trades, Master of Most.
Been waiting for this particular test comparing the AR cycling systems for some time now. I had always suspected that this would be the result. Great job!
Can someone tell me the point of these tests? I've watched several of them now and it seems that many of the most used guns in the world perform poorly in this "test". So I wonder if this really is a concern for militaries around the globe or if other factors like accuracy, reliability of parts and maintanance as well of ease of useage and disasembly are way more important. I fail to understand what the information of these mud tests really brings to the table beside viewer entertainment on youtube.
Of course it's just one aspect of the gun but it's still a valid test. Some guns perform better than others. Attribute to it as much importance as you wish. Karl and Ian don't judge guns by it either, it's just one of the factors.
mud in the chamber is the same as not properly recalibrating the brass, it ends up not entering the chamber due to debris so there is the window closed mode when you are not shooting. sorry bad english.
I never understood why people are so enamored with the 416, It's _just_ an AR-15 with unnecessary stuff inside it, And, Hey! Would you look at that, It can't even _match_ an AR in rough field conditions. This gun is a gimmick (Look at this! It's an AR but with pistons and _we_ made it! says H&K, thinking anyone but rabid fanboys would ever care) that only got as much market share as it did _because_ it says H&K on the side. The AR-15 does _literally_ everything better
Not an HK guy, never have owned one, don't plan to, BUT... There was a LOT of mud thrown into the ejection area in this test. Seems like a lot more than previous tests. Maybe that caused what we saw.
Yeah they should do at least 3 rounds of mud testing, this might be a fluke. I can't imagine a DI AR doing any better once it's got that much mud thrown into the action.
The DI system venting through the BCG helps get crud off the non vital surfaces of the BCG and helps lessen the crud coming into the ejection port after firing the first round, but doesn't seem to assist in removing crud from the locking surfaces once it gets in, and as always with every design as you've shown repeatedly, if you get crud in the locking surfaces, it fails. I'd be interested in seeing a more 'modern' InRangeTV(TM) mudtest with a DI AR where you did the exact same as you did in this one, in the earlier DI AR mud test, you cleared much more crud out of the ejection port when testing it with the dust cover open than in this video, makes me think thats where the difference between the two performances are. Definitely some interesting data points from this, I think the more valid questions in operating systems being 'better' than each other shouldn't be as oversimplified as DI Vs Piston, but how the DI and how the Piston systems are actually implemented and whether they need to have engineering and tolerances and design altered in different aspects that each system may benefit from. It could potentially be as simple as ejection port sizing and tolerances with the BCG or something more complex like the space the piston/oprod takes up potentially being a entry way for mud to accumulate into the locking rings that a DI AR might not run into with a smaller more compact gas tube. Thats just speculation on my part though, unfortunately my fair land isn't as fair and free as yours so getting a look inside each system is a bit trickier for me. I'm curious to see if theres any difference between a DI AR and the HK Piston AR system in your convoy dust test. Keep up the good work, its always entertaining!
A bow and arrow is probably the most reliable weapon in a mud test but that doesn't mean it's my first pick. It's worth considering that the best gun in the worst conditions is not necessarily the best gun in average conditions. Very interesting video. This flies in the face of all of the fudd-lore about piston guns. Just goes to show that resistance to the elements is more nuanced than "AKs are unstoppable"
Sfter watching both this video and the AR15 mud test, I feel like there was significantly more mud on the HK during the dust cover open test. You wiped a lot of the mud off the AR15 with your fingers that was still present of the HK. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it's worth a mention.
They did 3 different ar15s on two different occasions already.. the hk eats the mud when the bcg recoils backward, whereas the ar15 blows it off/away before it can come in when the bcg recoils back
Karl, this is a positive comment. You are doing great work. This video was informative, interesting and made my day. You have made your fans like you more. Don't forget your mother still loves you, and that is what is important.
That's why the square bolt carrier group is better for short stroke systems while circular BCG with internal piston is better for direct impingement. You mix both and you get a BCG which doesn't get gas to blow off gunk from the ejection port opening. Now if you mix square BCG with direct impingement like in K1 it would have been better one will get the ability to have folding stock with AR15's light weight mechanism.
Interesting, i have seen the 416 do well in similar tests. It does a lot better in dusty conditions than the M-4 which im guessing is one of the main point of the 416.
Did the most expensive rifle out of the ARs tested do the worst? Looks like this proves a point that just because you pay more it does not necessarily mean that you will get better reliability.
Well you'll get better reliability under normal or slightly adverse conditions. Generally you can go longer without cleaning it before you start to run into issues with fouling on the BCG. With that said, that advantage is absolutely not worth 2-3 times the cost, and in a military scenario that advantage doesn't justify the costs involved in replacing the existing M4's. It doesn't do better *enough* than the M4.
Despite all the hate it's received from certain segments of the population, I always loved my M4. If I took even moderately decent care of it, it functioned just fine, was light, accurate enough for my skill level, and compact enough to make getting in and out of M1151's and M2 Bradleys a breeze. The Marines can have the M27 and all of it's derivatives. All I want is a free-floated MLOK rail and I'll keep the M4 for another 20 years.
Yep the higher brass in the marine corps in charge of procurement nowadays are just really senile or they were heavily bribed. The m4 is by far the superior rifle. It could easily preform in the iar role as well with a heavier barrel.
I would like a test with a non HK piston upper. Could be the dimensions of that upper aren't particularly good for mud. Could just be the no gas diversion to blow dust away. Use my patreon money to get a larger sample population lol. Results of this series continue to be interesting. Thanks, boys.
I looked at the previous AR15 videos and it is obvious that previously you shook the gun a a lot more and that the ejection port had clearly a lot less mud than with the HK416.
@@InrangeTv Not trying to be funny or anything. Just noticed that when viewing the other videos. Just look at the Vietnam era AR15 4:29 and this video at 3:21.
