Mud Test: Desert Tech 308 MDR

Lets pour mud on the Desert Tech 308 MDR and see what happens.
InRange is entirely viewer supported, please consider it:
/ inrangetv

[@murderousintent7838]

invalid test no wheelbarrow

[@ddegn]

I'm not sure that's really Karl.

[@TheKajunkat]

and no used earplug in the muzzle. might be a deepfake counterfeit.

[@ddegn]

@@TheKajunkat "deepfake counterfeit" I suppose that's almost as likely as my theory of Karl being abducted while raiding Area 51. I thought this was some sort of alien shape shifting impostor. While I'm likely correct, we shouldn't rule out a deepfake.

[@petesheppard1709]

I was thinking that maybe the wheelbarrow finally failed the test.

[@MongooseTacticool]

Wrong time of day also!

[@JoeyJoJoJoestarJuniorShabadoo]

Zip 22 mud test when you absolutely completely run out of ideas.

[@PobortzaPl]

This thing stops firing once you look at it. And it doesn't even have to be a "funny" look.

[@cmikles1]

PobortzaPl wait, you got one to fire? Haha.

[@35Cypher]

@@PobortzaPl maybe the muds the key to making it work?

[@darthcole4668]

Dude I would love this just for the laughs.

[@aluxtaiwan2691]

L85A1 mud test.....

[@diamondflaw]

I'm always so pleased to see the consistent and reliable operation of the e-tool in these tests.

[@luissantiago5163]

Absolutely adore these mud tests. Thank you

[@calska140]

Agreed. mud test another AK but with more blatant contempt when it fails. The internet rage was fun. Russians are funny when they are angry.

[@markstocker5121]

They dirty 'em up so we don't have to.

[@a1phamalestud]

calska140 bylat that ak wasn’t made in the motherland

[@mollerch]

Leaving aside the bullpup argument, I think it did remarkably well. Having to push mud straight into the ejection port twice before it failed to cycle, and even then it wasn't a catastrophic failure. Didn't even have to use water to make it run again.

[@KyussTheWalkingWorm]

By design the gun has quite the vigorous action. So if you remove the ejection port cover, it should help by giving the action a lot of extra energy to work with even if the cover itself isn't fouled.

[@hellcatdave1]

@@Rutherford_Inchworm_III it should be...considering there's 74 years of firearms design evolution between the two...(AK47) and about 50 between the Steyr and it.

[@SPARTAN-107]

It also was not on the "Adverse" gas setting. I wonder how a SE varient would fair, considering it doesn't have the added complexity of the forward ejection component while also appearing to be a better sealed system.

[@lukedrewry2816]

@@hellcatdave1 you could say that, but none of this is really new besides the ejection action, plus ar’s do remarkably well even though there even older that the aug

[@lukedrewry2816]

@@royrogers3624 agreed, some of the ngsw programs though have some newer technologies

[@alexmiller4881]

Man you really fed the camera guy some brass there at 6:56

[@rageagainstthehygiene2357]

I think it is a camera girl today

[@bigjim9706]

Ian was probs recording lol! But he always interacts with karl so idk it could be a different cameraman

[@Medicopter_N7]

@@bigjim9706 It's Sarah, she's listed in the credits at the end.

[@calska140]

Getting a forehead cut from hot brass is a blessing from the kube.

[@andrewbear1057]

I mean, it’s a DESERTTech, not a MUDTech...

[@ParanoidMaster]

But actually it did what it should. No one ever would actually cause such a mess inside his chamber under combat conditions. I think as long as the dust cover is sealed, you could fully sink into a mud pit and still would be able to go on fighting (if you get out of that pesky mud pit xD). And a trained soldier will have it sealed, especially near mud, right ;)

[@andrewbear1057]

ParanoidMaster “Better than an AK” is probably worth something...

[@JiTiAr35]

I imagine Desert Tech guys were nervous and excited watching this video since they take InRangeTV pretty seriously.

[@Gantradies]

Actually looking forward to how they respond- they actually seem to care about the quality of their product to a degree that’s depressingly unusually today- look at the software industry >.

[@fatman4792]

forged in mud

[@SeLeevi]

I expected MDR to have terrible problems with the mud test, but it did surprisingly well.

[@davidli3582]

Spoiler alert!

[@darkest_eclipse8271]

Lee vi I expected it to do well for the same reasons the ar-15 did. I knew something would fowl up because it’s recess is much larger than the ar-15 (it it even had any in the mechanism) but you can also say that it has solutions hybrid of ar-15 and ak systems. Little to no recess but if you do, you can take it apart slightly and get the gunk out, in this case you take one side panel out of the ejection area and it works perfectly fine.

[@darkest_eclipse8271]

I guess you can say, you literally just took the piece with most of the mud and threw it away, even then you can easily take it at scratch the mud out.

[@Quartermaster2014]

Would be interesting to see how the 5.56 MDR does in the mud test and if the lighter cartridge changes the results. Wonderful test as always and I can't wait to see the next one.

[@SgtKOnyx]

Per my understanding there's few differences that would even matter.

[@jasonjohnson6938]

Like the g3 vs cetme l test

[@tomoqube]

I think it would do better as I think the bolt speed is higher

[@thepinkplushie]

@@SgtKOnyx probably would be more failures to eject, thats the only thing I can think. The casings are ejected with less force and the tolerances are so fine on all these guns that a little grit can stop the round from ejecting.

[@thepinkplushie]

Actually, I'm talking out my ass I should say "I assume they eject with less force". I don't know how you would even test ejection force. The 5.56 should cycle faster in theory so that might increase force? The entire bolt group is lighter though.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Your educated commentary is more valuable in finding out what causes malfunctioning and the different nuances of firearm design than just watching mud on guns

[@ostiariusalpha]

I'm impressed by Sarah's self-control in not uttering so much as a peep while that brass was flying at her.

[@Seelenschmiede]

And it was flying pretty hard! Cudos to her!

[@johngibson3748]

I think the MDR performed well considering but since it has additional gas settings it would have been nice once it started to fail, to see the gas setting changed to “Adverse” and then continue the testing. Dumping mud onto/inside the rifle certainly qualifies as adverse conditions in my opinion.

[@clough211]

If you drop your rifle in mud 3 times in a row or fall with it 3 times then the rifles not the problem you are...

[@GODOFGUITAR2112]

"If you make something idiot-proof, the world goes and invents a better idiot" an unattributed variant of Murphy's law

[@BoredDoc]

As much as I want to agree with you I have first hand experience in wearing a a inch thick layer of mud while on a patrol. Night patrol in Iraq after a rain hit which turned the moon dust into a fun quagmire with the viscosity of KY jelly and the adhesion of sloppy quickcrete. By the end of the five mile patrol easily half of the infantrymen had 60% or better coverage over their entire body/kit and likely weighed an additional twenty pounds. We slogged back to our CSC and took the next few hours to clean our gear. That mud was everywhere. Inside feed trays, filling magazines, coating BCGs, even in our helmet pads. Thankfully no one needed to use our weapons on that night because I would be shocked if half the rifles would have fired more then the round already chambered. I really do enjoy these tests because it isn't really to test against light use or how it functions in austere environments. It is to test the most foul and counter productive conditions to see the failure point of the firearm. Once you know where the firearm will likely fail first then you can start working on your immediate actions to clear likely failures.

[@davisjames8484]

@@BoredDoc you know how I know you were really over there? Cuz u called it moon dust lol

[@AM-hf9kk]

I'm seriously impressed. Nice to see the MDR doing so well after the initial growing pains. Maybe it's not up to AR-15 standards of reliability yet, but still light-years ahead of the Tavor when it comes to ease of cleaning. On that note, I'd really like to see an After Action Report similar to the X95. Pretty sure the cameraman got whanged by some brass there too LOL.

[@magoid]

Me too. The ARs they tested were not abused like this one. He put mud AND pressed down with the shovel till it shocked. In reality no soldier will dump mud in his weapon like this. A cleaning video of this and every new test would be nice too.

[@lucius_caecillius]

Honestly this rifle performed really well. considering that this one was coated in mud multiple times, had mud pressed into its ejection port, was never rinsed off with water and yet it still managed to regain operation by the end of the test. It should also be taken into consideration that the other piston operated platforms tested like the numerous AKs and the HK416 failed after the first few rounds.

[@stevenrith2386]

magoid the cocky conscripts equip with ak will though. average people and gamer usually think ak is invincible rifle.

[@bob-wo3ir]

"growing pains" use your costumers as guinea pigs ..

[@AM-hf9kk]

Yeah, that's the price you pay being an early adopter (aka beta tester). Happens with every product and every manufacturer.

[@redrackham6812]

I would say that with the dustcover closed, it passed with flying colors. Without it, it had similar results to the Tavor. The magazine release on one side failed, but the other one still worked, and once you pulled the magazine, ran the action a few times, and inserted a clean magazine, it seemed to work more or less normally. Clearly, though, dustcovers are a very good idea and should always be used.

[@andyoreo333]

For a bull pup that’s an A+, but solid B pass overall for my vote.

[@zakleclaire1858]

I give 3.6 roentgens. Not great not terrible.

[@InexorWoW]

I'd personally say it passed at the same level of an AR-15 since any self loading gun has an ejection port (maybe except for the RFB and fs2000) but has a reliable dust cover mechanism unlike an AK.

[@venomgroyper3954]

Key observation: DUST cover, not mud cover.

[@InexorWoW]

@@venomgroyper3954 I feel like its harder to keep dust out than mud...

[@RaptorJesus]

@@InexorWoW You'd be correct. Dust tends to have far, far, far smaller particulate. Way easier to slip through.

[@PaletoB]

I wonder if they could make a literal window in to the action. Maybe a transparent side plate. Anyway, in the future it might be completely normal to not be able to look into the chamber.

[@Cmoth040]

Considering that this is a test that the industry and anyone who didn't serve in WW1 France would think, "Why the Hell would we do that", the weapons overall I think are doing admirably well.

[@skyhop]

Considering the action and added complexity, I'm surprised it did as well as it did. Guess it goes to show, once again, more complicated doesn't always mean less reliable.

You should have tried to pee on the rifle to dislodge any debris. Water doesn't cut it, has to be urine.

[@razor1uk610]

luckly most infantry (i.e; males,) are equiped with Personal Watering Directable Devices [PeWuDds]

[@ricojes]

@@razor1uk610 "Stop. My pewudd can only get so erect."

[@whyjay9959]

Do you think a higher gas setting would've helped here?

[@GruntBurger]

It was set to adverse.

[@ascinder]

Gruntburger, no it wasn't. At the beginning if the video he clearly states it is set to normal with the option to go to adverse later if necessary. He never changes it in the video.

[@JunkyardBashSteve]

The problem was the ejection port getting fouled up, along with the first magazine, so I doubt the gas setting would've had any effect.

[@UselessFox]

@@JunkyardBashSteve When he removed the ejection port it then had a failure to eject. A higher gas setting might have prevented that.

[@JunkyardBashSteve]

@@UselessFox Don't forget: the first malfunction was a failure to eject. As soon as he fired the first shot with the dust cover open you could see the brass peeking out. Higher gas pressure running the bolt won't necessarily keep mud out of that tiny ejection chute.

[@YS3D]

have they thought about making the ejection port covers out of a clear polymer so you can see into the action

[@Skozerny]

It doesnt even need to be completely made of clear polymer, a small window on the side of the ejection port cover would suffice.

[@jarvy251]

I would think that would be too cloudy to be usable to begin with, and would get fouled with firing.

[@Seelenschmiede]

@@nunyabidniz2868 you could do a second flip up cover for the little window, so you only open it when the need to watch in is there. If not, keep it shut to minimize the degradation. And after that just chance it every 5k shots or so.

[@martinkirbits4752]

@@jarvy251 exactly. I dont think it would stay clear for too long.

[@YS3D]

DT should just make caseless ammunition and remove the ejection port all together, problem solved

[@LoneWolf-zw5yn]

Wow that was actually impressive, did so much better than I expected. Just keep the dust cover closed, fare enough test.

[@ondrejh571]

Such a brave, brave gun. I didn't like it until now.

[@UselessFox]

Would have been nice to see how it would have done on the adverse gas setting

[@Sysiphus777]

I agree. Otherwise, why is is it there?

[@brianjrichman]

I think you guys should be retained by the DoD to do mud tests on all military weapons procurement projects.

[@ChaosPootato]

99% of the guns would fail though, it's a bit too drastic to represent "actual" use

[@tomoqube]

@@ChaosPootato That's the point. Only adopt the 1%

[@MrLM002]

The last thing the government wants is someone paid by the government to prove that we're blowing tons of money on crap. Why not do a pebble test for Jet engines on military aircraft. A steathy 4 year old with a slingshot can take down an A-10 on the tarmac with a handful of pebbles so long as he isn't caught. The Russians however have retractable screens for dirt runway use.

[@BeKindToBirds]

@@MrLM002 are you paid by Russia to lie or just a dunce?

[@Hermenie]

US military mud tests are actually more drastic. When testing the AR15 and AK47 they plugged the barrels and submerged them in mud similar to that for a minute, pulled them out and shot them. Needless to say the AK did not make it very far

[@yoshialmighty8324]

I think the redundant mag releases with one on each side that operate independently of each other definitely contributed to how well this did in this test. Impressive results! Most bullpups you've done this with have failed catastrophically.

[@AverageJoe4063]

He didn't even use the third one by the magazine either! 😄

[@danielbenington4814]

I personally think that once you get to the point where you are actively going out of your way to get the weapon to fail then it's a pass, whenever I was in the field with my M16 I always had my dust cover closed which is about 95% of the time.

[@helmutkafer1747]

Why not a mud test on the AUG, as you are at bullpups now!?

[@G1NZOU]

@@Orlunu I doubt InRange could get their hands on an A3 variant unless they did a special trip to Britain, the only L85s we exported were A1s and A2s donated as military aid to Bolivia, Mozambique, Nepal, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe, as well as Jamaica using them since the 90's and Papua New Guinea having a few L85A1s in reserve but using the M16 as their standard rifle.

[@markdahlia9543]

Does anyone else watch this and think wow it's almost like dust covers have a purpose. Great test I'd love to see more especially on the 5.56 version

[@ransisua]

so now desert tech need to make a dust cover that always closes.

[@burkehoward1511]

Wow did surprisingly well I think. Better than lots of other rifles. Much love for Inrange.

[@GamingKeenBeaner]

Seems like you dumped way more mud in this gun than usual and it still performed better than almost any other. In many ways it could be argued it has the best performance of any auto rifle you've mud tested. Even when it had a double feed you were able to quickly clear it and you were good to go again. Very impressive.

[@PianoMan347]

That’s surprising to me that the right mag release died while the left continued to work since they both cam the same transfer bar. I wonder what caused it to fail that way, maybe mud on one side of the cam?

[@theoneandonlypirate]

Very cool - was expecting it to do much worse. Clearing those failures looks like a pain in the ass. Would be interesting to see how fast you could get it running again when it fails.

[@stephennelson4954]

Warlock testing his scout rifle before heading to the Moon. 2019 colorized.

[@InrangeTv]

Warlock? kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXWomXajZdWredE

[@stephennelson4954]

@@InrangeTv Warlock. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gne8e4erma9oapI Edit: Moons Haunted. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnKrnZujfLmpoJo

[@SpaceMissile]

man, they friggin hated this gun... they just kept shovelling that mud on there.

[@gnarshread]

An admirable performance for sure!

[@charliefoxtrot2779]

Really glad to see the MDR perform well after the initial issues. It would have been easy for desert tech to blame the ammo and make excuses but for them to actually tackle the issue head on, successfully, and take care of any customer that already bought one, was commendable.

[@antitankautism8052]

I'm definitely impressed. Certainly a much better rifle than it was starting out.

[@waterboy330]

How do you think the MDR is comparing against the AR-15 now in terms of reliability? Also, do you think a small redesign of the ejection port and mag release would improve reliability?

[@SpaceCowboyfromNJ]

I think an -A is a fair grade for it. Unless I am forgetting a couple I think you only have had two semi auto rifles that continued working just fine in comparison , so this would be the 3rd best.

[@dpsuper6891]

I would love to see how the Steyr AUG would hold up in these tests. It is after all, a gun thats used by many militaries.

[@davidresetarits5616]

DP Super It would probably be identical to the ar-15 Tests. It can take a lot of dirt, but if something blocks the bolt, it's over. But in comparison to an AR, it would be a lot easier to clean it and get it running again.

[@Briggsian]

The AUG unfortunately failed pretty terribly, twice

[@j.yossarian6852]

Nice mudtest warpaint there.

[@michaelpee9471]

FN PS90 MUD TEST Next!!!

[@AM-hf9kk]

Oooh that would be fun to see. I bet it does just fine though, since it doesn't seem to have any openings for mud ingress. Like the Tavor, field stripp and basic cleaning is a cakewalk, but detail cleaning the polymer shell looks like a bitch. kzbin.info/www/bejne/npa6ppt6dql2q5o

[@tagrifleworks]

Mud Test the ARX?

[@kenhelmers2603]

I cringe at every scoop of mud! The MDR did pretty well imho :)

[@IPostSwords]

Back when it was first tested by you guys it had issues with extraction too, IIRC. And that was without mud. Makes sense that'd be the failure point once mud was added to the equation

[@gepgeckodile3015]

Desert tech worked with them to fix that issue now I think this was just mud ingress that caused the fault.

[@IPostSwords]

@@gepgeckodile3015 They fixed the issue in a clean condition, yes, but this shows that the extractor is still likely to be a problem in field use, if the gun gets muddy or potentially dusty, despite working when clean

[@AM-hf9kk]

As I recall the Extraction worked (mostly). The main issue was with Ejection because the scissor jack wasn't timed correctly or the chute lips were too tight.

[@paulableman2663]

Yeah yeah yeah, legitimately interesting and contemporary rifle and all, but why aren't you testing 100 other AR-15 variants? I don't know if you've proven how reliable that firearm is thoroughly enough. Surely one of them will fit my outdated bias of the reliability of that platform...

[@michaels5210]

I think it did really well. Did a lot better than the AK did a few years ago. All of these malfunctions were cleared without taking the gun apart(ejection cover aside, doesn’t really count?) and then the gun worked fine

[@benjaminodonnell258]

Frankly, I'm pretty impressed with how much punishment it could take and how easily the failures were remedied. It looks to me like maybe, if they made it heavier, they could make it grunt-proof.

[@StraightShot2977]

Given that he had to deliberately circumvent the installed protection to get it to fail, and could restore it very quickly, I'd say it passed with flying colors.

[@zachariahmorris833]

This is the only bullpup to do this well.

[@regisphilbinsscrotum6631]

Kick ass!do the tavor 7 next!I wonder how the mag releases and open ejection scraper will perform. I cant believe the mdr did as well as it did!

[@Govrin.]

They did the x95

[@jaesungkim5478]

This rifle is amazing

[@kevmorris3000]

It took four muddings to make this gun seriously malfunction. I think that's on well done by the manufacturer.

[@jesstenhower4847]

I would really like to see how the 5.56 version fairs, both the side ejecting and covered versions

[@ssreeser95]

I watched this already but I will absolutely watch it again.

[@xandergross8474]

A pretty descent performance actually despite the fact that this gun is a 'baby' for now. And sometimes it takes years and even decades for maturing. Personally I think this is a really remarkable one at the market! Waiting for 556 version unpatiently. Thank you gentlemen for your work for us

[@filipskotnica971]

Awesome mud test. Your content is amazing :)

[@Ihasanart]

Thanks for suffering on our behalf, entertaining as always!=

[@SportbikerNZ]

Extremely good performance really. Took a lot to get it to have a failure.

[@loganholmberg2295]

Sorda pass? It my not have done as well as an AR did on your test (what has? ) but considering what you did I would trust it.

[@trilliamogdlocog4986]

I agree the rifle did quite well only weak point I see is the ejection port after it gets gummed up still for a bullpup this did good to me..

[@Mrwednesday84]

DT has a standard ejection port model.

[@DestroyER82]

When I first started to watch I though it will struck and stuck the charging handle... but that went pretty well. Overall I think it went really good.

[@matthewconaway4952]

i wonder if the mud slowed the bolt down enough to not give the scissor ejector enough kick to fully seat the case into the side plate.

[@JazzForYourSoul]

The very scientific test of let's see how much bullshit we can put on the gun before it finally says "fuck you"

[@GunsNGames1]

Next: FG-42 (Early model) mud test

[@censorduck]

what kind of monster are you?

[@CocoTehQuila]

Karl needs to push Ian to put his Famas into some mud

[@InrangeTv]

That won't ever happen.

[@davidatchison9245]

I know you don’t necessarily love doing these videos, but I really enjoy them.

[@3KindsOfGuns]

why did you go for stripping the mag instead of a tap rack drill?

[@daljiba]

I have been watching the weapon evolve over a number of years and feel Happy for the company and the beautiful solution they have come out with ambidextrous ejection.

[@ragnarok5056]

Impressive 👌👌👌

[@rossgreenzweig]

Would love to see the Beretta ARX mud tested, I think it would do well!👍👍

[@fthirtyfivemr]

Hey Inrange! Love your videos! I noticed on your Glock 19 mud test the Glock performed poorly. Do you think using a higher pressure load such as a .45 or 10mm would make a difference? Thanks and keep up the great work!

[@bnizzle8500]

In Washington you don't need a bucket and a hose to make mud you just go outside.

[@proteus2103]

Am I the only one that thinks this rifle looks cooler without the fancy ejection ...thing? Also quite impressed with this one; I'd say it's A- material

[@AM-hf9kk]

I'd say it looks like a disaster waiting to happen without the ejection cover. That's a huge opening to get gunk in the action.

[@jarvy251]

@@AM-hf9kk They didn't test with the chute removed entirely because I think it's fairly obvious what the result would be. Still would have liked to have seen it.

[@proteus2103]

@@AM-hf9kk That's true.

[@proteus2103]

@@jarvy251 Indeed. The casings were hitting the camera lens, too. The forward eject thing is a pretty cool design feature.

[@Siriskyubi]

The failure to eject looked like it might have short stroked. Wonder if it would have cleared on the adverse setting.

[@bigjim9706]

I'd say it got a A-

[@lovefrompraha]

I mean... I almost feel like you were trying to make a point lol. You dumped way more mud onto this one and multiple times and directly into the action than other rifles I've seen you do this with. I'd say all things considered, it did really really well. People are in here trashing on it, but what he just did here is by far the most catastrophic situation I've ever seen for a weapon lmao. This is like battle of Passchendaele you just fell until a 6 foot mud hole up to your ears, used your rifle as a paddle to reach the other side and now you're trying to fight with it situation. I've been in a lot of shit holes with a lot of rain and mud and river crossing and so forth in the military and i don't think I've ever gotten a rifle a fraction this nasty. So def a pass in my eyes

[@classifiedveteran9879]

I agree. Personally, I think covering the entire weapon in mud isn't very realistic. The _"convoy"_ dust test is the most realistic thing I've seen in training and deployed environments. Crud isn't slopped onto your weapon in a single moment. It slowly works its way into the weapon. The most common way I've seen this happen is the ammunition and magazines get dirty and introduce fouling. I've yet to see a magazine or pouch designed to address this.

[@MILITARY-TUBE]

Thumb up as an encouragement for you to clean this.

[@spookyperson7096]

better than a tavor

[@ThrowingItAway]

Fair rating, It did better than a lot of guns.

[@defendingchampion]

right ejection button didnt work, left one did. what about the secondary magazine release (paddle?) in front of the magazine well?

[@jarvy251]

It looked like he tried it to no avail

[@kimbilinkimbilin]

This Weapon is awesome🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🐷🐷🐷💨💨

[@DeadPollo]

So far the best performing bullpup

[@joshuamendoza2564]

I have This gun , and I’ve notice it’s an easy gun to jam with hard conditions , so I make sure I don’t run any of these test for it haha !! Still love the gun

[@classifiedveteran9879]

Yeah, that's my one problem with a fair number of bullpups. At one point a jam is going to happen. You might have to _"get in there"_ to nurse it back to working order. This bullpup addresses all the issues that typically come with bullpups, except a field expedient way to get into the chamber for remedial action. But other than that this rifle has it all.

[@Imustfly]

I agree with the B+/A- rating. It performed unexpectedly well for having gumbo mud shoveled DIRECTLY into the ejection part. Less than flawless cycling would be expected from ANY platform. Doesn't sway my opinion ONE BIT, regarding how well engineered this rifle is.

[@glockguru9]

Everyone loves the infamous mud tests. I do want to point out that the mud seemed to quickly turn into adobe. Are you sure that mud is not Quikrete?

[@AM-hf9kk]

Dude, that's just Tucson. 84 and sunny at 9 am, pounding down rain at 11 am, and concrete by 4 pm.

[@nates9536]

I'd give it a B on performance, in regards to other rifles we've seen tested. -Did it fire 2+ rounds? ✅ -Did it require water to resume firing?❎ -Did it require disassembly to resume firing?☑ -Did it finish the course of fire in functional condition?☑ Overall it continued running, but especially being forced to remove that side ejection plate, if forced to continue enduring those conditions, the rifle would have quickly been out of service. Final verdict: Not the most suitable for fighting off swamp monsters, but she'll do fine most other places

[@TengrioftheCrimsonSky]

I'd argue that pulling off that plate once you know wtf you're doing with the rifle would be much faster than pivoting an AR variant rifle to do a similar clearing procedure followed by then pushing the pin back in place.

[@nates9536]

@@TengrioftheCrimsonSky but what the hell do you do once you have it off? Unless you clean it and put it back on, you're just going to get mud directly onto the bolt and the action that is now unprotected.

[@enen7188]

i have never clicked on a video this fast

[@uncleleeno9360]

This shows one benefit of ambidextrous controls is having more options to perform a function if one is not working due to mud or whatever else

[@classifiedveteran9879]

Excellent point! 👍

[@JetorgXIII]

Surprisingly resilient, interesting success.

[@LL-cz5ql]

Solid A

[@lengthOFpole]

Actually impressive, could you fix this fowling if you had a spare ejection port cover? just click a new un-fowled one in place and keep going.

[@MikkellTheImmortal]

That rifle did better than I expected for a seemingly more complex rifle than an AR15. If you revisit this rifle for a mud test I'd like to see you bugger it up the same but than give it a rinse in a bath of water without taking anything off except maybe the magazine

[@GenericBrandDan]

You used the wrong mud, if you had used mud from the planet Reach I it would've passed, because that's what it was designed for....