Has there ever been an official test with AKs similar to the M4/SCAR/X8/416 dust test

[renesch93]

Anything similar for AKs?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

[playtym]

Yes, but with AK's it's called a Sand & Gravel Test, not a Dust Test. p-)

[B. Traven]

Definitely, every day, all around the world.

[PEMM]

Yeah, its called putting it in to service. Id give you my experience: (from finnish variant)

I used it for one year, in which the temperatures ranged from +30C to -39C. During this time there were lots of rain, warm days, days when we crawled with it on sand or in snow. It only jammed once with me during this time, even though sometimes i used the gun for the whole camp without really cleaning it. And that one time was my own fault: i fell on the snow on top of the gun, cleaned it from top, took the gun inside our warm container and after 30 minutes went for shooting range. Well, it happened to jam because the lock freezed... My own stupidity. Usually on camps we kept the guns outside, so this would not happen. I only saw like three cases where gun jammed, during the whole year, and they were alike fault of the user.

And even if it would happen, that the gun jams: it takes less than 30 sec to take it apart and put it together.

So, i think we can say the gun works.

[budgie]

Dunno if they ever gave such rigorous tests as fiolling it with sand back when the original was designed. However, there had to have beensome kind of hardship test. And then there's 60 years of anecdotes like the one above from Finland that attest to the weapon's ruggedness. Some guys have pointed out here in other gun threads too that even AKs need to be cleaned and maintained, and that even guerillas, terrorists, the Taliban and the VC knew how to take care of their weapons.

[wild_wild_wes]

not sure if serious

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/RUSS14.jpg

[Death.]

Sorry, but that was a pretty ****ing dumb question, hahaha.

May as well ask if the M1 Garand was ever put through a torture test.

[AlexMartin2]

Not sure if topicstarter seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbZWg4lRkg

[HardThunder]

Yes the Army test every item of ground power, and support it gets its hand on. That's what the do at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

[HK in AK]

Youtube is your friend.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRwx4wtmms&feature=related

[Jippo]

Youtube is your friend.


Not sure what that was trying to prove. Fill a trigger mechanism of any weapon with sand and it will fail. Now we need more testing to establish if AK sinks if left on water. Fraction of the amount of earth put inside would cause a failure on AR, so what is the point? They rather cleverly found out that AK has a hole in it and that if one puts stuff into that hole it'll go inside. Good job.

[Bro Jangles]

those youtube videos are not Official Tests as the OP asked.

[HK in AK]

I am sure Aberdeen has done tests on firearms from around the world.

[brainplay]

Fraction of the amount of earth put inside would cause a failure on AR, so what is the point? They rather cleverly found out that AK has a hole in it and that if one puts stuff into that hole it'll go inside. Good job.

They do it to an M16 series too....no jams. I think it was going towards dispelling some of the invulnerability myths that have long surrounded the AK series.

[Jippo]

That test is just stupid, nothing else.

Putting gravel inside any rifles trigger mechanism will cause a failure. They are putting sand in the AK trigger and they aren't putting sand in the AR trigger. There is no part equivalent of AK selector in the AR, nor is there a dust cover in the AK. If they would like to test the guns on similar ground they would put the sand inside the AR receiver. This is really a no-brainer: they made an invention that AK selector lever is somehow performing the same function as the AR dust cover. Since it is not, there is no foundation to base the test on. AK doesn't have the equivalent part, it simply doesn't need one.

[PEMM]

They do it to an M16 series too....no jams. I think it was going towards dispelling some of the invulnerability myths that have long surrounded the AK series.

Yeah, suddenly over 60 years of user experience is turned in to myth because of some internet video...

Maybe funniest is the guy who puts the gun full of grease in the winter, puts it under snow and then says: hey, it jams! :D

[brainplay]

Yeah, suddenly over 60 years of user experience is turned in to myth because of some internet video...

Maybe funniest is the guy who puts the gun full of grease in the winter, puts it under snow and then says: hey, it jams! :D

Yeah, that user experience once told us that the .45 ACP (handgun round) was needed by the military because the .30-40 Krag (rifle round) didn't have enough "stopping power". User experience develops all kinds of little tidbits that are far from the true in all sorts of ways. The AK is a darn good rifle and tough as nails. But it has some flaws and the video just points one of them out. It's almost as funny as the M14 video where everyone an their mom their a fit when they jammed up that overrated rifle.

[PEMM]

Also how about this test then? Both seem to work... ( feel a bit stupid as something made me to post stuff like this )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9y8lX1fmes

[Bro Jangles]

Pouring rocks in the Trigger group jams it? wow. intensive to keep it on safe when not Engaging.

[highdiver_2000]

I remembered our number one chinaman posted a video on this. An AK laid horizontal, fine gravel, not sand is shovelled on and tamped. The AK is pulled out and test fired.


Jammed everytime. The gravel went under the top cover and jammed the action.

[HardThunder]

I had a LT that filled his tank up with track pads. That thing did not work (well everything was fine, just no room for the crew).

OK I had an M-4 that did not hit well, but I would never have traded it for an AK. Never saw an normal AK that would hit on target that well. Have fired 5.56 AKs, and a 7.62x51, both did hit well.

[KillerBD]

AK vs AR again? These aren't football teams ya know... It's like rooting for team screwdriver... But someone else likes team wrench better. Who cares, two different tools essentially designed in different countries for different doctrines and military uses. Tired of all this stupid ****: "Well I'm a fan of... I'm not a fan of..." It's not just 14 year old kids saying this either, I've talked to plenty of active duty troops who like to voice their uneducated opinions in favor or opposed of whatever... In the end it just boils down to NO ONE WINS.. ;)

[Jippo]

I remembered our number one chinaman posted a video on this. An AK laid horizontal, fine gravel, not sand is shovelled on and tamped. The AK is pulled out and test fired.


Jammed everytime. The gravel went under the top cover and jammed the action.

Show me a gun that does not jam when you put gravel in it.

[Hyde]

Of course there have been extensive official tests over tens of thousands of rounds with the AK (and various variants, wich doesn't make a difference since they all use the same system).

There have been at least 50-100 such tests. I don't know how you even get the idea to ask such a question. :cantbeli:

[highdiver_2000]

Show me a gun that does not jam when you put gravel in it.

Not to go into a pissing contest, I think you have misread my post.

[Winger]

I am sure Aberdeen has done tests on firearms from around the world.

They test it there if they are looking to use it in the Army. My dad tested weapons there as a major. He was put in charge of testing the Carl Gustav for the Rangers. I have the old test manuals lying around here somewhere.

Anyways, like the poster above said, the AK is tested daily around the world. There are better weapons but if you are looking for value it's a winner in reliability, maintainability, & use.

[Skutatos]

Of course there have been extensive official tests over tens of thousands of rounds with the AK (and various variants, wich doesn't make a difference since they all use the same system).

There have been at least 50-100 such tests. I don't know how you even get the idea to ask such a question. :cantbeli:

It does make some difference. Some eastern european countries didnt manufacture their rifles to the same high standards as the russian, not to mention all the other copies all over the world. Some are just plain garbage.

[donllano]

Well, the Colombian Coast Guard once found a boat trying to smuggle AKs through the Caribbean for a drug cartel. The way they where getting smuggled? They where being towed underwater, with only a special oil rubbed on them protecting them.They then tested them before they where destroyed and melted, and they worked fine...

[Zarak]

Hey guys, I put my rifle in wet cement and it jams. WTF?

[Jippo]

I have posted long time ago a thread about the Alaska State Troopers rifle selection tests. The test concentrated on cold weather performance, but they are very indicative on the performance on dirty conditions as well.

Can't find it anywhere now, but maybe your google-fu is stronger than mine. Matter was also discussed in ar15.com (armory/general discussion) some time ago, but I'm not a paying member so I cannot see the thread anymore as it is in the archives now.

[Death.]

Hey guys, I put my rifle in wet cement and it jams. WTF?

lulz must be an AR!

[zulu261]

Cause you know why? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcsY0zaL3j4#

Starts from 2min30s.

[Hyde]

It does make some difference. Some eastern european countries didnt manufacture their rifles to the same high standards as the russian, not to mention all the other copies all over the world. Some are just plain garbage.

We'll, I'm pretty sure countries that manufactured their own AK's did some testing on original ones before starting manufacture, and then tested their own ones.
Just as an example, Yugoslavia (and after that Serbia) alone has developed several AK-types, and if only the biggest subgroups have been tested, that would make at least 5-10 tests (Russian Original, first prototypes on trials, then the M-64, the M-70 (which is in still in use today and went through wars in the Balkans, Iraq, all over Africa etc, all of which is better than "official testing"), M-77 in 7,62 NATO, the Krinkov's, the M-80 and M-90 5,56 adaptions shure went through seperate testing and the M-21 which also went through years of testing). Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Russia did the same for several AK variants. Now do the math.

And does one really need an official test anymore after seeing what the AK is going through every day in every corner of the earth for more than half a decade now?

[PEMM]

And does one really need an official test anymore after seeing what the AK is going through every day in every corner of the earth for more than half a decade now?

Also, in Finland they actually tested many other rifles before selecting the AK as model for new rifle. Why they selected AK was not because of low price (as the finnish variant really was not cheap), but the fact it worked well in our cold conditions.

[ayanami_tard]

not sure if serious

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/RUSS14.jpg

this pic is from 2nd chechnya war afaik

[Risc_Terilia]

I think it's worth pointing out (given that we're on page 3 already) that the OP wants to know about reliability of AKs vs. Other AK variants, not M4s.

[Jippo]

It is very difficult to make a meaningful test to compare them like that. It is like testing M4's from half a dozen manufacturers, not much of a difference since they are the same in form and fucntion in all parts that matter.