Iraqiveteran8888 destroying an AR upper on an M-16 lower. Yeeee-Hawwww!!!

 

 

C

That was a dumb thing to do. He was surprised the barrel failed? There is plenty of documentation and official studies done on the platform predicting exactly that. Shooting a rifle to failure with your face next to it is an application for a Darwin award.

I don't know why the stupidity of people continue to amaze me. What did this prove? Nothing, except he is still intact to subject us to a repeat performance in the future.

It lasted way longer than i expected..

Looked fun. MURICA!

He still has a face.......   got a little sketchy there for a sec

Yeah i would have been wearing a face shield of some sort...

at least it goes to show that they can take a bit of abuse

"I guess that kind of makes me a scientist"........NO, just an ASSWIPE!  This looks so important and so safe to do that we should ALL do it, and then make a commercial to stroke our sponsors.

Derp.

 

Why push the envelope? If you want to know when shit will fail just ask the manufacturer. They already put their parts through the paces. There's a reason these parts come with warning paperwork...

All the criticism about this guys video kills me.

 

He made it and came away unscathed.

 

I never heard him ask for anyone to pay for his health insurance.

 

He knew the risk and he did it.

 

Like racing a car or motorcycle.

 

Lighten up Jerome!

I like that the muzzle brake got tossed off, lol

I like that the muzzle brake got tossed off, lol

Thats why NJ wants it pinned...totally makes sense now.

Thats why NJ wants it pinned...totally makes sense now.

That's funny!

That was a dumb thing to do. He was surprised the barrel failed? There is plenty of documentation and official studies done on the platform predicting exactly that.

Nope. He had a shitty barrel. At least for the intended purpose.

 

The gas tube fails. Barrel may get a little wobbly, may be "ruined" by reasonable standards, but the gas tube fails first. According to documentation and official studies. On the platform. Or the roof. Or at the range.

 

I'm talking about US Military contract barrels and equivalent. Military grade Colt, FN, former Sabre Defense (yes I know they did not make M16s), Hydromatic.

 

With the "Just as good or better" you buy from all the fancy boys you might get gas port or gas block erosion first. Barrel failure is bottom of the barrel, so to speak.

Nope. He had a shitty barrel. At least for the intended purpose.

 

The gas tube fails. Barrel may get a little wobbly, may be "ruined" by reasonable standards, but the gas tube fails first. According to documentation and official studies. On the platform. Or the roof. Or at the range.

 

 

Depends on the barrel, because the M-4 (pre A1) most definitely failed EXACTLY like that in Colt's tests

 

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?_r=1

 

When it takes it apart you can see that his barrel profile if "government" type, thin under the handguard not the M-4A1 thicker profile, it looks like the same profile as any of the non-special M-16s or older M-4s.  That doesn't mean his barrel is shitty, seeing how a heck of a lot of very good barrels are shaped just like that.

 

The gas tube failing can certainly happen with the heavier barrels that don't melt first, but eventually something will melt.

 

Depends on the barrel, because the M-4 (pre A1) most definitely failed EXACTLY like that in Colt's tests

 

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?_r=1

 

When it takes it apart you can see that his barrel profile if "government" type, thin under the handguard not the M-4A1 thicker profile, it looks like the same profile as any of the non-special M-16s or older M-4s.  That doesn't mean his barrel is shitty, seeing how a heck of a lot of very good barrels are shaped just like that.

 

The gas tube failing can certainly happen with the heavier barrels that don't melt first, but eventually something will melt.

 

 

Gas tube goes first in pencil barrels. And it went first in your example, evidenced by manual firing. Has nothing to do with heavy barrels.

Ah, OK, I see what you mean.

 

That is not normal. Dozens of M16A1s with pencil barrels have been fired to failure in standardized tests and the gas tube goes first. With 20" barrels. No heavy barrel required.

 

M16A2 tests have revealed the same results. And they have the same government profile as M4 - close to pencil then thick for the last several inches.

 

Go to any FA website and people who have done exactly this for 30 years will say the same.

 

Not sure what is up with that Colt test, but it is not true to say barrels other than heavy tend to fail or even often fail before a gas tube. That is never true, this is the first example I have seen. Perhaps it is something special about the M4, or maybe (90% tongue in cheek) it was Colt marketing for heavier barrels.

 

But that is not the way it works. His barrel was shitty for the intended application.

But that is not the way it works. His barrel was shitty for the intended application.

 

There is no non-shitty barrel for going cyclic on a air cooled hand held carbine.

 

There were actually a whole series of tests about this in the 90's, not just Colt's and barrels failed a lot. I think best synopses of that is here: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/02/the-big-lie-about-wanat-cop-kahler-part-2-of-2/

 

Part one is interesting as well for different reasons, part 2 talks about the failure in testing. Part 1 is here: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/02/the-big-lie-about-wanat-cop-kahler-part-1-of-2/

 

Both M16A2's and M4's failed due to barrel rupture around 500 rounds, the newer heavier M4 barrels are the ones that last 800+ rounds and melt the tube after they set the handguards on fire which I would think most would take as a hint of sorts.

Thats why NJ wants it pinned...totally makes sense now.

Flying flashhiders are dangerous.  Won't ANYONE think of the children?!?

Isnt that failure normal with the standard profile M4 barrels... didnt the military up grade all M4s with the thicker SOCOM profile?

Moral of this video: don't shoot your PSA upper on FA lol...

Nope. He had a shitty barrel. At least for the intended purpose.

 

The gas tube fails. Barrel may get a little wobbly, may be "ruined" by reasonable standards, but the gas tube fails first. According to documentation and official studies. On the platform. Or the roof. Or at the range.

 

I'm talking about US Military contract barrels and equivalent. Military grade Colt, FN, former Sabre Defense (yes I know they did not make M16s), Hydromatic.

 

With the "Just as good or better" you buy from all the fancy boys you might get gas port or gas block erosion first. Barrel failure is bottom of the barrel, so to speak.

????  mil testing shows no more than 500ish rounds on full auto for m4...800 for AK.  For M4 the gas tube is the weak point and there were exploration to thicken it as well as training.  Training always win out.

 

absolutely normal for an AR to malfunction like this.  This is why we train to burst cover

I guess you didn't read all the links I posted. 

Depends on the barrel, because the M-4 (pre A1) most definitely failed EXACTLY like that in Colt's tests

 

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?_r=1

 

When it takes it apart you can see that his barrel profile if "government" type, thin under the handguard not the M-4A1 thicker profile, it looks like the same profile as any of the non-special M-16s or older M-4s.  That doesn't mean his barrel is shitty, seeing how a heck of a lot of very good barrels are shaped just like that.

 

The gas tube failing can certainly happen with the heavier barrels that don't melt first, but eventually something will melt.

correct....also the reason the mil is moving to socom barrels for m4s replacing the gov't profile