this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE!

[Former Cav]

https://www.full30.com/video/6618755...gn=subscribers

Of course, I never had someone blowing sand into my action and face.

[StockDoc]

It seemed like a fair test to me, what a let down.

[Dan Shapiro]

Took Basic Training at Ft Ord in 1967. Part of the training was night firing. Targets were 25 yards away. We were told that there would be a tendency to undershoot. They were right. Wind was coming from 12 o'clock. All the way thru the firing exercise we had sand blowing back in our faces. Don't recall anyone having a misfeed or failure to eject from our M14's.

[nf1e]

I would like to see that test done with one of the other M14 reproduction rifles that has been properly maintained using a chrome NATO chamber rather than a SAI with a .308 chamber. There is a reason for the extra clearances and chrome lining in a USGI barrel. That 1 rnd and lockup sure reminds me of our first adventures with the M16 in '67/'68. And that was not caused by sand and rocks being blown into the weapon.

[Phil McGrath]

Wow, Karl got fat!!!

[Griff Murphey]

Dirty enough I'd expect they'd not work. AR was impressive. That ain't fine beach sand, cruddy pebbly Americn Western desert stuff.

[Phil McGrath]

That ain't fine beach sand, cruddy pebbly Americn Western desert stuff.

Somewhere in Arizona. My guess is between Red Rock and Phoenix.

[Art]

I saw two guys, maybe these two, doing a water and mud test, basically crawling through a muddy creek bottom. After 3 rounds the very wet, very muddy M1A failed to eject, immediate action was taken and on the next round fired but it not only failed to extract and eject but locked up. Been there done that back in the army, no joy for sure. The AR 15 they used ran like a champ. I remember one of the guys saying that he bet those AR guys were laughing their (hind ends) off. I admit I was very surprised at how poorly the M1A did in the sand, totally unexpected result for me too; gawd beaten by the Frog gun .

[da gimp]

ouchie, ouchie, ouchie

[Rock]

I don't know if it made a difference but that rail over the bolt of the M1A could have been directing sand down and directly into the action.

[Col. Colt]

The site wants me to update my browser, so I haven't seen the test yet, but I do distinctly recall reading that the Army found out in the African Desert that the M1 Garand, running in a sandy environment, must be degreased, and run either dry, or with a very light instrument oil film. Once that was done, they were not a problem. They also issued a small (M31?) brush with the M1, made by the Fuller Brush Company, which may have been for desert maintainence.

I do recall that one of the points in the M14s favor over the FNFAL was that the M14 was fine in sand testing - and the FAL was NOT - requiring "sand cuts" to be made to get it to work in sandy environments. So why did this M1A not do the same thing as it's military brother as well?

I agree that a recent production "tight civilian/match chambered" M1A would be at a severe disadvantage in this test to a "M14 GI Chrome barrel model, with a real GI long throated 7.62MM chamber. That alone could cause lots of trouble. A real M14 might have been a fairer test of the design. And what ammo were they using? Was it correct port pressure for the M1A/M14? We must remember that M1As are not exactly built or clearanced like a GI M14. I don't recall of any confirmed reports of problems with properly maintained US Military M14s in the desert before.

Did the ARs have the dust cover open or closed during the testing? I know that in the early going in Iraq, at least one support unit had a high percentage of M16s that failed to work in Combat when they were attacked in the Desert. This was reported in the Media, and not denied by the military. I seem to remember some of our troops were captured as a result.

I suspect both platforms are workable in the sandbox - but only if maintained specifically for that exact condition. Smart operators always close the dust covers on ARs, and keep a mag in the well, and clean them daily. I have heard no reports from anyone of the M14 DMRs having reliability problems, and the larger surfaces in the M14 can let sand in - but if dry the sand can be pushed aside, and you can clean/clear the action from the top quickly.

Most of these Blogger/Youtube "tests" are run by amateurs or someone with a bias - who sometimes rig things to pick a winner. I saw the famous "Mud Test" of the M1A of the fat guy dragging it through the mud in a way no soldier would and it was a hoax - they deliberately stuffed a NEW M1A full of mud (no mention of if it had even been properly lubed before it was tested) and were shooting 110 grain bullet ammo that almost certainly was not engineered for the necessary M14 gas port pressure. In my opinion, that was a Rigged Test - and there was even some sponsorship by Armalite for these guys at the time! They did mention the light bullet ammo at the end, but I'm not sure many people were paying attention.
I'll try to watch the feed at work before final judgment - but a good salesman (and I am one) knows how to make his product look good and by setting the conditons for his products strengths, can always "win" the contest. Deliberately rigging weapons tests is not exactly rare - or new.

Lots of potential influences at work here. Certainly curious that the M14 beat the FAL in sand - and now it's a problem......?? CC

[Griff Murphey]

Good point.

[Rock]

I wonder how a 73 Trapdoor, M1917, 03, SMLE or 98 Mauser would have fared in that test.

Whatever tests people cook up doesn't change historical fact. There are battle tested arms that were used in harsh conditions all over the globe and were well liked and trusted by the end users.

[Art]

I wonder how a 73 Trapdoor, M1917, 03, SMLE or 98 Mauser would have fared in that test.

None of those are autoloaders and autoloaders have problems unique to themselves. One thing that held autoloaders back was the difficulties with making them reliable with the full power military cartridges of the time.

Sand, mud or grit in the barrel or locking recesses will stop any rifle. That is ANY RIFLE!! If you look at an M1 or an M14 from the top the breach and the locking lugs and recesses are out there in front of God and all creation. It was the first truly workable autoloader and in its day the Garand action (which is what we're still talking about with an M14) was the only truly serviceable generally reliable autoloading action in a full power rifle which is the reason it was also the only generally issued self loading rifle. To prevent stopages due to wet and muddy conditions, or should I say to minimize them special lubricants were used that weren't required on bolt action repeaters. If you look at the Garand's competition, the SVT 40 was too fragile and too difficult to maintain by the common soldier and the G 43 was a plagerized somewhat improved SVT 40, and the Ljungman required lubricated ammunition to function optimally (talk about an invitation to crud in the chamber.) The Garand was the greatest infantry weapon of its day but I would not use it or the M14 if I could find a more modern firearm. Nostalgia stops when it comes to saving my skin.

So time marches on and the Garand action has been superseded by other types that are more rugged and require less maintenance. The reason for the AK 47.s (among some others) reputation for reliability is it does a better job than most in protecting the breach and locking recesses from dirt. Dirt can get into the action but usually where it doesn't matter because of the design of the weapon. Like any other autoloading weapon AK system firearms can and will fail due to dirt or grit in the breach or locking recesses, its just harder for it to get there and it absolutely requires no special lubes or handling and any idiot can maintain it.

Col. Colt, the AR started with the bolt cover shut which is the way it should be, that's the reason the cover exists. However it was obviously open during firing. On ammunition, the ammunition used in the M1A was Federal ammunition specifically made for the M1A. A point made emphatically during the video. Again on "properly lubed." When I was in the Army we were never issued gun grease, in fact I didn't know gun grease existed. All we had was the functional equivalent of Three in One Oil. I was one of those "end users" Rock talks about and I was the victim of stopages I'm sure were the result of not having the right lube, can you say malfeasance on the part of command?

Finally, I am going to re-emphasize that a lot of progress has been made, generally in firearms design (some real duds excepted.) A modern battle rifle shouldn't have to be "properly lubed" with a special grease to function under duress. That was fine in 1940 or even 1950 but not today. One of the big issues with the M16, partly because its system generates its own crud, is the disproportionate amount of user maintenance it needs to run properly, but one thing it does not need is any lubricant except light machine oil, and it does do a good job of protecting the breach and locking recesses from crud. As far as "sand cuts" on the FAL, well I think that was just a swellelegant idea.

Soooo, I'm not surprised terribly at the results. When it comes to protecting my hind end nostalgia stops. I shoot vintage milsurps for grins and love doing it. I don't trust vintage autoloading firearms if my life is on the line.

Oh, a P.S. The old boy in the video knew how to clear the weapon when the bolt froze, something I wish they'd taught me when I was in the Army. I didn't learn that until many years later.

[Rock]

None of those are autoloaders and autoloaders have problems unique to themselves. One thing that held autoloaders back was the difficulties with making them reliable with the full power military cartridges of the time.

Sand, mud or grit in the barrel or locking recesses will stop any rifle. That is ANY RIFLE!!

That's why I mentioned those manually operated arms. Introduce that much dirt into any mechanism and it will cease functioning. The M1903 came in first when tested in sand and mud during tests of the M1 and other semi auto rifles in the early 40's. But that didn't mean that the 03 and other bolt actions didn't have problems in harsh conditions. Sealing actions is a good way to keep dirt out. A few bolt action designs started out with sliding action covers because dirt did cause malfunctions. Eventually, militaries decided that sealing the actions with covers was not necessary and those rifles served well enough without them.

The AR15 in that test functioned as long as it did because of its sealed action and not enough sand entered the action to stop it. It would have been interesting if the shooter performed a reload during that mini sand storm. That open ejection port would have received a load of sand before the shooter chambered the first round of the second magazine.

Also, as I mentioned before, the accessory rail on that particular M1A most likely directed additional sand into the action. Also, the flat bolt of a M1/M1A tosses sand off the bolt and away from the action during unlocking and that accessory rail probably caused any sand ejected by the unlocking bolt to bouce back into the action. They should have used a stock M1A in the testing.