SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    compromises in extreme reliability for the sake of performance under most conditions
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
compromises in extreme reliability for the sake of performance under most conditions Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
Old video.
I've shot at Blue Steel Ranch in Logan, New Mexico a handful of times, it's tough on rifles both bolt and AR. ONLY place I'll have lube on my action is on the lugs. Thoroughly hose out my trigger of any lube. Even seen a AI AW go down there. Brutal place to shoot. Amount crap in my ears after a day.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu9JEoHMBPA
 
Posts: 3166 | Location: 9860 ft above sea level Colorado | Registered: December 31, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Web Clavin Extraordinaire
Picture of Oat_Action_Man
posted Hide Post
Only thing I'd add here which occurred to me when I watched the test is that the most common initial failure point was manipulating the safety on most of the guns that have an AR style safety.

Probably shouldn't be too surprising that it's easier to actuate a frozen AK safety than a frozen AR safety because the lever is so much longer on the former than the latter.

The other thing I was thinking about is that, again, many of the rifles that failed, especially those that went click and not bang (i.e. their hammers were retarded by ice) all have considerably tighter receiver dimensions than, say, the AK, which is wide open.

It seems to me far easier for a component to free when there is a smaller volume of receiver to fill up (takes less water infiltration and easier to freeze a smaller volume of water solid).

So a wide-open AK receiver has far less chance to collect a sufficient volume of water right on the fire control components and subsequently freeze them solid enough to hinder their operation than a tighter receiver like an AR/MCX/SCAR.

Just my thoughts after seeing that last week.


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

Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"

Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
 
Posts: 19471 | Location: SE PA | Registered: January 12, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
As often when a good question is posed here, it’s piqued my interest. I’m giving more thought to the scenario I posed and the issue of clearing the rifle after it was immersed in water.

Assume that the air temperature and that of the cold-soaked gun was something like 20°, then because the water wasn’t frozen it would be warmer than the gun. How quickly the gun’s temperature warmed to that of the water would affect how soon ice would form inside the gun after it was removed from the water.

At this point I’m assuming that unless the gun was extremely cold, ice wouldn’t form in/on the gun when it was immersed, but I’m not certain. I also don’t know how fast the metal of the rifle would warm to the water temperature. Would it actually make sense to leave an immersed gun in the water a bit longer rather than pulling it out immediately?

Those would be fairly easy questions to experiment with. Hmm …. We shall have to see.

quote:
Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
So a wide-open AK receiver has far less chance to collect a sufficient volume of water right on the fire control components and subsequently freeze them solid enough to hinder their operation than a tighter receiver like an AR/MCX/SCAR.


All are reasonable thoughts.




“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
 
Posts: 44817 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've no idea what actual practical significance this testing has. Clearly we have temps that are substantially below freezing. Clearly one doesn't have quantities of liquid water in those temps landing in volume on your gun. I've been swimming with guns on several occasions as part of rescue events and the first thing one does when you get out of the water is get the f*** water out of the gun. shake, disassemble, what ever. I'm struggling with how this test resembles any possible real life event. OK I go through the ice with my gun and its soaked. First step is get myself managed. Second step get the gun online and that won't be let it sit there and freeze. Or if it visibly froze then get it unfrozen in some manner likely the same as got me unfrozen. What possible real world event does this simulate? Because I think its none. I've done a lot of testing about reliability under adverse conditions and nothing about this video makes me think the better guns overall (Like SCAR and AR) suffer in actual conditions one might face.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 9865 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Disregard the "testing" in the video for a moment, and consider one of the questions indirectly posed in the OP: would you, as a shooter and prepared citizen, favor ultimate reliability or an elevated level of performance under most conditions, with sacrifices made on the extreme ends of the reliability spectrum? Considering the unlikelihood of most extreme circumstances, I'll take the enhanced performance.

I never once took issue with the realism of the video; obviously it's silly. I did find it interesting that certain rifles struggled more than others, when all were subjected to very similar circumstances, and attributed it to the mentality I postulated above.

I think the comments made about moving between warm/cold environments are very valid. The fogging and frosting of optics is a critical hindrance. I suppose this phenomenon will likely be most problematic in an urban environment or a structure raid with a preceding movement. The comment referring to the "trunk gun" falling victim may or may not be realistic, depending on the vehicle, and whether or not you actually keep your weapon in the trunk; some trunks are not much affected by a car's climate control. This scenario also calls upon some aiming alternative that doesn't have you peering through glass. I have mentioned the Elcan Specter before, and it's obtuse BUIS; this is a scenario in which that would shine.

Keeping your weapon cool is perhaps a bit more practical in the military infantry context one response mentioned, than it is in a home defense or prepared citizen scenario. I suppose if you lived in an extremely cold climate, you could have a weapon stored just outside your door, in some sort of easy-access secure container.

I appreciate the good conversation.
 
Posts: 577 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Both performance and reliability are important, and an acceptable level of both is essential. The question, of course, is what constitutes “acceptable” in a certain situation.

I could discuss such a question at length, but I’ll condense my comments as much as possible. If something isn’t clear (and in the highly unlikely possibility that anyone really cares what I think), ask and I’ll expand.

The rifles I have that could conceivably be used for relatively short range defense need to be more reliable than the precision rifles I use to entertain myself by shooting small groups at hundreds of yards. Those defensive rifles don’t need to be as capable of shooting small groups, i.e., they don’t need to perform as well by being as precise as the other guns.

That said, however, there are limits to what sorts of environmental and mechanical challenges I expect the defensive rifles to deal with. There is no conceivable situation I could find myself in that would require them to function reliably after being pulled out of a cesspit or having fired 10K rounds with no maintenance.

One of the most significant factors beyond the firearm itself is our own individual capabilities. I believe I’m in better physical shape than most men my age, but I don’t have the strength and endurance I did 40 years ago. That means I’m probably not going to deal with a zombie attack by running for my life across a wintery snow-covered landscape. My personal situation also limits what I could do even if I had the ability. I know that my primary short range defensive rifle will function just fine in any foreseeable situation and therefore I don’t need to rely on a rattletrap that I can use after I fished it out of the Arkansas. In other words, I am more concerned about performance because I know that the gun I’d rely upon would be acceptably reliable.

If, however, I were faced with a long range engagement (even less likely), then performance does become more important. One of my ARs that has served in a DM role is a very precise performer with the proper ammunition, but although I don’t have reason to believe it would be less reliable mechanically in winter weather than an LE6920, its 3.6-18× optical sight is certainly not as rugged as the Aimpoint on the Colt.

As for other factors, some must be considered first and foremost. For example, some competitions limit how heavy the rifle and accessories can be. If we’re limited to 16 pounds, then it doesn’t matter if we can shoot the wings off a gnat at 1000 meters with our 18 pound rifle and it will run reliably for 30K rounds without any maintenance: it’s still unacceptable for the purpose. Some hunters strive for the lightest reasonable rifle weights because they know they’ll have to carry them a long distance, and most don’t demand 1/4 MOA precision from their guns or even that they will be reliable despite extreme environmental challenges.

My last point is that it really isn’t that difficult to protect a rifle from extreme environmental challenges in most situations. But if it’s impossible, learn what to do to compensate, and if that means relying on an AK that was built in a sidewalk shop in Pakistan from old auto parts, then do it.

Added: I don’t know if I expressed myself very well with all that. In short, reliability matters, and ultimately most of all because it’s got to work, but under reasonably likely conditions. No gun made or could be made will work under all conditions, and striving for such an impossibility would be foolish.




“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
 
Posts: 44817 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
The results of a brief immersion experiment.

The test used a block of steel that weighs 23 ounces (1 lb, 7 oz), and measures 4×1.94×0.625 inches. It was put in my garage and reached the ambient temperature of the surroundings of 14° after about an hour.

Cold tap water was run long enough to stabilize at 37°, and filled a 3 quart container.

The test consisted of moving the steel block from the garage to immersion in the water. After about one minute the block was removed from the water and its temperature had reached 32°; it was placed back in the water and after a total immersion time of about two minutes it had reached the water temperature of 37°. No ice was formed at any time.

Although preliminary and needs to be confirmed, a fairly massive block of cold steel warmed to the temperature of the water quickly and no ice formed during the immersion. I tentatively believe, therefore, that if a gun were completely immersed in liquid water that it would quickly warm to above freezing and therefore water inside the gun could be cleared if the shooter acts immediately.


Updated with additional tests.

This time I used the refrigerator freezer.
About 2 1/2 quarts of water were left inside until a skin of ice formed.
Test object was a virtually new (70 rounds fired previously) 5.56 Colt AR-15 bolt carrier group that was left in the freezer until it had reached the ambient temperature. All lube was removed to avoid that variable.

First test: Temperature of the BCG was 15°. The BCG was immersed in the water for 20 seconds. Although the exterior temperature of the BCG was 32° after removing from the water, within a few seconds ice formed around the bolt, cam pin, and evidently inside the bolt because the firing pin that had fallen out initially couldn’t be inserted fully (the firing pin retaining pin had been removed to allow manipulating the firing pin freely).

Second test: BCG was immersed in the water for 60 seconds and for some reason the freezer temperature was lower at 7°, as was the temperature of the BCG when immersed. Again the water had been left in the freezer until a thin skin of ice had formed.

After 60 seconds the temperature of the outside of the BCG when removed from the water had warmed to 32°, which was about that of the water at 34°. That time no ice formed anywhere on the BCG after removal from the water that I could determine. The firing pin and bolt moved freely. All that seemed to confirm my speculation that it was better to leave the BCG immersed somewhat longer to allow the entire unit to warm to the temperature of the water rather than removing it immediately after submersion.

My experiments were not of course a perfectly valid test of doing something similar with a fully loaded rifle at whatever ambient air temperature seems appropriate. (My tests were colder than the 20° I believe was mentioned in the video.) I don’t intend to do that, but if someone does, the results after clearing the gun as I suggested above would be interesting to know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,




“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
 
Posts: 44817 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I can't tell if I'm
tired, or just lazy
Picture of ggile
posted Hide Post
It best to keep in mind that Garand Thumb's video is a "worst case scenario" situation and knowing this, it would behoove us to take the steps necessary to minimize those affects in the event they should occur.


_____________________________

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
 
Posts: 1749 | Location: South Dakota-pheasant country | Registered: June 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Having seen piles of broken MK 11s and SR 25s, along with mediocre accuracy to the point that guys would draw specific rifles to qual as several were such poor shooters that you would fail…I’m no longer a fan of KAC rifles.


They work. Cool guys use them. They are rare and expensive. Their AR bolt is outstanding.


However…they just don’t do a whole lot that can’t be done by another system and without the HK level No Parts For You.


*************************************

If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to hunt insurgents and give him a fish, you can win a war with enough fish.
 
Posts: 3043 | Location: CONUS | Registered: June 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FedDC:
Having seen piles of broken MK 11s and SR 25s, along with mediocre accuracy to the point that guys would draw specific rifles to qual as several were such poor shooters that you would fail…I’m no longer a fan of KAC rifles.

It is very possible those guns you're referring to were victims of poor maintenance and abuse. "Lesser" guns could have potentially been much worse-off. I have seen an M2010 that was the same way; the barrel was shot out, and no-one could shoot worth a damn with it. It was a pain to get it fixed, and no-one wanted to put in the work. I would never let a military arms room example of any particular gun mold my opinions of a brand. Also, timelines come into play. The MK11 is a dated firearm now. Military arsenals are sometimes behind the performance curve, and it wouldn't be constructive to compare those models to what we're familiar with in the current market.
 
Posts: 577 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
I recently watched a video by Youtuber Garand Thumb, in which he performed an extreme cold weather torture test on a relatively diverse spread of firearms. I found it surprising, initially, that a few weapons choked on the first round of abuse. After considering it though, only one was really surprising. The three weapons were a Sig MCX, KAC SR15, and SCAR17s. I have never owned any of these, but have held them in high regard, and still do. All three stuttered pretty significantly, at an application of water in below-freezing temperatures, when the water was allowed to sit and freeze on/in the weapons. I don't recall the exact trouble each rifle experienced; the bottom line is that they choked at all. After thinking about it though, as the title of this discussion implies, I don't think it's unreasonable that a weapon's performance on the ragged edge of extreme conditions be compromised, when the gun has been tuned and refined to perform at an elevated level under all other conditions. I considered my efforts over the past year, in playing with different aspects of a suppressed build, in an effort to mitigate negative effects of the silencer; those tinkerings and fine-tunings serve to optimize the rifles function in the conditions I find myself in over the course of a year, but I would wager that the gun would fail in any kind of circumstance that really taxes the system. I was surprised at the SCAR though, considering it's military adoption, likely extreme testing associated with adoption, and 7.62x51 chambering. I can't help but wonder how a Sig 550 would have done, considering it has an adverse gas setting, for these exact conditions. The MCX has adjustable gas, but only in a downward direction, that I know of; as does the SCAR, I think. Anyway, I thought it was kind of neat. The video certainly gives some ammo to the AK crowd, in their war against the AR15; though I don't think folks bother much with that debate anymore.


_____________________
 
Posts: 13458 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    compromises in extreme reliability for the sake of performance under most conditions

© SIGforum 2022