Place your bets! Vz58 vs the mud test...

[TJNewton]

And the battle continues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCz6lLXJoQo

[RSR]

Nice 'stache brah.   

Despite, I think this was a fair test.  Thanks for sharing this vid.  And thanks to tester for taking the time. 

Still maintain that I'd like to see more silted stream/mud puddle tests (like MAC's) as well as dust chamber tests (like US Military has run and AR came in last...). 

Importantly, the VZ58's linear hammer appears to be superior to pivoting hammer designs across most test types... The disconnector to sear connection is the only real "fine" failure point.  Although I suppose enough crap on the top of the sear could result in a gremlin type sympton if the sear can't catch the striker....

While a Golani is definitely inferior to the Galil, the Galil has a pretty substantial testing history...  In brief, it's reliability is exceptional.  And it's only real negatives are weight and that the straighter walls of the 5.56 cartridge vs 7.62x39.  I have several old 1980s to 1990s tests of the Galil scanned if anyone has an interest.

[RSR]

Here's an example of a test similar to the MAC, that I think is more representative of actual field conditions and what I'd like to see InRange do instead:

https://youtu.be/5UkmhYsieCk

Also worth mentioning is that 5.56/.22 and smaller caliber barrels can and do trap water in barrels... So ARs, you need to break that seal by partially or fully extracting a round with barrel pointed down to drain...  Larger diameter barrels like 7.62x39 don't allow water to stay in...  Has to do w/ fluid dynamics, molecular bonds, etc.  Gas tube needs cleared of water too (why barrel needs pointed down).  Uncertain why the HK doesn't have an issue w/ both being 5.56 -- perhaps shorter barrel and/or piston have something to do with it.

https://youtu.be/AGwkHktkTxU

[RSR]

Another good set of dust tests: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/02/24/tangofoxtrots-rifle-dust-tests-mini-14-aug-arx-100-scar/

No VZ58 unfortunately.

https://youtu.be/WcfqZFWpk9s

https://youtu.be/synlZgnTnXg

From TFB, more at link above:

The results were surprising to them, but if you?ve been following these articles they shouldn?t be too shocking:

Mini-14 w/ grease ? 1 round

Mini-14 w/ CLP ? 1 round

AR-15 ? 32 rounds

ARX-100 ? 31 rounds

FN SCAR 16S ? 12 rounds

SLR-107FR ? 1 round

The second TangoFoxtrot test has some positive and negative aspects to its methodology. On the plus side, the test was conducted in an especially controlled fashion, with a sieve acting to provide each rifle with an even, uniform coat of fine dust, helping to eliminate error caused by differently sized particulates. Also, the rifles were all dusted while on safe and initially with their dust covers closed (if applicable). After the second (dirty) ten rounds, the dust cover was left open (where applicable), another plus.

On the negative side, the rifles were retired as soon as they had a malfunction of any kind, which halted any exploration of whether the rifles would keep functioning with the assistance of manual operation, or whether the rifles could be successfully put back into action with remedial action. The rifles were then rated only according to how many rounds they fired before malfunction, which limited the utility of the results. Finally, the SCAR 16S was tested (probably by accident) with the regulator on the ?suppressed? setting, which almost certainly led to its premature malfunction.

Having said all that, the TangoFoxtrot tests are still informative. Once again, the AR-15 proves to be a remarkably dust-resistant rifle, in spite of the reputation it received in the GWOT. The AK puts out a particularly poor performance (although it possibly could have continued working with manual assistance), but the true loser of the test is once again the Garand-style open action, in this case in the form of a Ruger Mini-14.

Thanks to commenters mosinman and Gecko9mm for the tip!

UPDATE: The SCAR owner writes ?

   

The complete story is that I thought the SCAR was horribly overgassed when I first got it. Even with the gas regulator set to the suppressed setting it flung brass and the bolt carrier crashed into the buffer.

    So I got a set of gas screws (that form the actual gas port) and tuned it for the ammo I actually shoot. I set the gas regulator to suppressed, inserted the smallest gas screw (1.00mm) and fired from a magazine loaded with only one round. I kept increasing the gas screw size until the bolt carrier locked open on the empty mag, then went up 2 sizes (the gas screws come in 0.05mm increments) for a little reserve power.

    When we did the test about two or three years later I had completely forgotten that I had set up the gas system that way. If I had remembered I would have returned the rifle to the stock configuration before shooting.

    Two other notes:
    1) All the rifles were shot with a new, clean magazine.
    2) The reasoning for stopping after the first malfunction was to keep everything similar and make the whole run shorter. The first test with the Mini-14 and the AUG was a miserable experience in hammering the Mini?s bolt open and shut after it choked.

    I just wanted to clear up what actually happened with the SCAR, just plain incompetence, not malice.

[CitizenPete]

Interesting.  The Mini-14 was more like an AKM or Sa. in regards to large gaps, openings and exposed meshing parts.  The AR14 once again was sealed tight and functioned. 

I wonder how the SIG Sauer 556 / 556R (7.62x39) would fare?  The tolerances are tighter on that rifle as compared to AKM/Sa..  If I didn't have mine listed for sale currently I might have considered giving it a go.

I also would note that the "sand storm" test that Rob Ski performs is fired with the gun on its side while the assistant sifts sand down on to the firearm, thus giving the dirt opportunity to enter the chamber.  Simulating sand blowing horizontally while the gun is in operation. Perhaps the AR14 would not pass that test.

The dirt and lube test was interesting too. 

[RSR]

Yes, Inrange did a sandstorm test w/ compressed air too for a few guns while firing.  The main thing I like about those is that it is accumulation over time rather than in one instant that better demonstrates the ability of a weapon to clear sand, dirt, etc, be it from just wind blowing, or from explosions putting crap into the air.

These light sand/dust tests, the mud puddle silt tests like MAC does, and then the freezing temps/bring indoors/refreeze w/ condensate type tests are those I find most interesting personally...  The inrange mud dump doesn't do much for my curiousity.

In regards to dust, I expect the VZ58 to perform better than the AK actually...  Mainly due to how it locks the bolt, and how simple the firing mechanism is...  I think the linear hammer setup (especially in original military/full auto configuration) should be less affected by dust than the standard hammer mechanism.  The AK can probably accomodate/clear more crap in the rails than the VZ58 and has the heavier bolt carrier, but those are its ownly main advantages that come immediately to mind.

[RSR]

InRange started a "Convoy Dust Test" series. 

More guns supposedly forthcoming, but they ran the AK-74 and AR15 during the first round.

AK-74:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5phNgZsaRg

AR-15:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htE91fMUA-s

[OldGringo]

The InRange mud tests are fun and interesting to watch, but not very realistic and they readily admit this.

For example they only clear the trigger and safety and have the rifles caked in the desert mud which has the consistency of sticky wet cement (it's literally fine moon dust + sand + small gravel + water). If that was a "real world" test the shooter would probably wipe the mud of the top of the receiver even if just to see the sights and that would mitigate some of the problems (i.e. the AK or Vz)

On the AK in slow motion, you can see how the mud on the top cover sheets off once the gun is fired under recoil and as it falls is promptly scooped by the reciprocating handle on the bolt carrier and deposited into the front trunnion locking lugs.

I suspect that this would probably remedy the Vz as well, although not the Garand - if you get that kind of crap on the top of the exposed bolt its going to get into the action no matter what (hence the WWII training films with GIs holding their hands over the top of the receiver).

I'm genuinely curious about the ACE though. Since not only is it pretty sealed up, but the charging handle is on the left side and doesn't have the large opening to throw the mud into the locking lugs.

[RSR]

The InRange mud tests are fun and interesting to watch, but not very realistic and they readily admit this.

For example they only clear the trigger and safety and have the rifles caked in the desert mud which has the consistency of sticky wet cement (it's literally fine moon dust + sand + small gravel + water). If that was a "real world" test the shooter would probably wipe the mud of the top of the receiver even if just to see the sights and that would mitigate some of the problems (i.e. the AK or Vz)

On the AK in slow motion, you can see how the mud on the top cover sheets off once the gun is fired under recoil and as it falls is promptly scooped by the reciprocating handle on the bolt carrier and deposited into the front trunnion locking lugs.

I suspect that this would probably remedy the Vz as well, although not the Garand - if you get that kind of crap on the top of the exposed bolt its going to get into the action no matter what (hence the WWII training films with GIs holding their hands over the top of the receiver).

I'm genuinely curious about the ACE though. Since not only is it pretty sealed up, but the charging handle is on the left side and doesn't have the large opening to throw the mud into the locking lugs.

For desert environs, I think the Galil is by far the best rifle for frontline troops.  The Galil ACE is probably more reliable than the original given the reciprocating dust cover, but all the polymer on that gun makes me less of a fan of it than its predecessor...  I don't think the charging handle cover is moon dust tight though. 
For second-line troops, I think the M4 is probably a better rifle due to being more tightly sealed (and accordingly less dust intrusion), but for running hard, especially with minimal to no lube, I truly don't think it can compete w/ the Galil. 

And yes -- absolutely, the VZ58 being open could create some issue, but the VZ58 being open also allows those issues to be quickly remedied.  The only real fault I could give, is that it doesn't have a full length cleaning rod, but even on many AKs that rod isn't long enough to clear stuck cases...

[fastfr8r]

As they admit, it's a pretty impossible test.  The videos are entertaining but I don't see them as overly informative.

Agreed, but I just have a hard time seeing the AR win the "mud trophy", when in the "real world" I have seen them have troubles while the VZ.58 kept going without issue.  It's like everything I learned from the tactical range classes was a lie.

+1