User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/1/2012 4:12:50 PM EDT
[#1]
Too bad you don't have a 5.45 AR!
I find the 2nd gen PMAGs work well with 5.45, but not fully loaded. First gen doesn't work at all. GI can work not fully loaded as well, other mags - dunno, but would love to find out. What part of WI are you in? I've half a mind to drive my LWRC 5.45 over there... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:49:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WI57]
[#2]
Range time again.
First off the mags with 300 AAC BlackOut. 
All loaded just fine. 
All the mags except the Tapco and Green GI worked just fine with 300 AAC. Tapco had a few stoppages, the Green GI had one nose dived round as well. 
The 300 AAC fired off. 
Now the 6.8 SPC. 
I loaded the rounds with the same capacity as yesterday. 
The test rifle, a RRA 6.8 SPC. 
The Troy mag was very difficult to fit into the lower, but worked.
The TangoDown mag worked just fine.
The Pmag mag worked just fine.
The Lancer mag was kinda tight in the lower, had one jam and popped 3 rounds out, but worked when reloaded.
The Tapco mag was tight in the lower, did not feed, and set the 6.8 bullets back in the case.
The Tan GI mag, jammed on the feed ramp at first, but them worked no problem.
The Green GI mag worked just fine.
So even though these mags are not designed for 6.8 SPC, they can be pressed into service in limited capacity. Now the 458 Socom. 
Loaded with how many rounds they held yesterday. 
The Troy, it only holds one rounds of 458, but fed and locked back.
The TangoDown, holds 10 rounds, and the nub has no effect on the 458 feeding.
The Pmag, can only hold 3 rounds of 458 before it jams up inside, but feeds them all just fine.
The Lancer mag, holds a full 11 rounds, feeds and functions fine.
The Tapco mag, holds 11 rounds of 458, feeds and functions fine.
The Tan GI, holds 11 rounds and functions just fine.
The Green GI mag, will hold 11 rounds and will probably function just fine. But I only had 8 rounds left, and it worked.
No problems feeding the rounds they held. 
Ever seen $150 worth of fired ammunition that fits in one box....? 
The results of todays test, a tore up target and big smile. 
I love the 458! 
eta- corrected video |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:54:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Originally Posted By Spart:
Too bad you don't have a 5.45 AR! I find the 2nd gen PMAGs work well with 5.45, but not fully loaded. First gen doesn't work at all. GI can work not fully loaded as well, other mags - dunno, but would love to find out. What part of WI are you in? I've half a mind to drive my LWRC 5.45 over there... 5.45, thats one AR I don't have. That would be an interesting test since 5.45 is similar to 5.56. Will have to look into a 5.45 barreled AR15. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2012 9:36:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Originally Posted By WI57:
Originally Posted By Spart:
Too bad you don't have a 5.45 AR! I find the 2nd gen PMAGs work well with 5.45, but not fully loaded. First gen doesn't work at all. GI can work not fully loaded as well, other mags - dunno, but would love to find out. What part of WI are you in? I've half a mind to drive my LWRC 5.45 over there... 5.45, thats one AR I don't have. That would be an interesting test since 5.45 is similar to 5.56. Will have to look into a 5.45 barreled AR15. Looks like you need to get some MRP Badness. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 9/2/2012 12:15:21 AM EDT
[#5]
and so the carnage continues..
 i wish i had enough money to test stuff like this... i don't even have the cash to buy a second ar, let alone 4 of them haha keep up the good work sir
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2012 9:49:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2012 10:45:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: VA-gunnut]
[#7]
You probably should of done a part 2 thread. If it were me, I would of started a new thread.
ETA: Let me rephrase that so it doesn't sound like I'm giving instructions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2012 1:41:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Any chance of testing the CAA MAG17s? Since the IDF just adopted them, that might be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2012 9:04:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Originally Posted By 35mm_Shooter:
Any chance of testing the CAA MAG17s? Since the IDF just adopted them, that might be interesting. I'll will have to look into that magazine, no idea what it is. 
I will be doing a cold weather test this winter. All the major magazines will be involved. I am going to update this again when I can get the other caliber uppers and try to get as much use testing with these mags as possible, before anything bad happens. Thank you all again for following, I have a LBV test in the future planned that may be exciting.
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 11:16:24 AM EDT
[#10]
Is there a way to sumarize this for those of us havent made it through all 17 pages yet?
What were the results, which mag was the best and which the worst for the 5.56? mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 11:57:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Originally Posted By dyna962007:
Is there a way to sumarize this for those of us havent made it through all 17 pages yet? What were the results, which mag was the best and which the worst for the 5.56? mike I am working on a before, during, and after write up from my notes. I have a couple uppers I'd like to try with these 5.56 mags with and see if they feed non-5.56 ammunition. There will be a summary and the replys/reactions from the manufacturers when this is done. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 11:58:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Originally Posted By dyna962007:
Is there a way to sumarize this for those of us havent made it through all 17 pages yet? What were the results, which mag was the best and which the worst for the 5.56? mike I'm sorry, but there's really no quick answer for this. This really didn't turn out to be a best-worst test, even if it was intended that way in the beginning. It was more of a "Hey, y'all, watch this!" None of the mags failed catastrophically before the tests got into the "now that's just silly" range, so the net answer is that they all performed acceptably within the limits of these tests. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 5:47:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Originally Posted By justmatt:
Originally Posted By dyna962007:
Is there a way to sumarize this for those of us havent made it through all 17 pages yet? What were the results, which mag was the best and which the worst for the 5.56? mike I'm sorry, but there's really no quick answer for this. This really didn't turn out to be a best-worst test, even if it was intended that way in the beginning. It was more of a "Hey, y'all, watch this!" None of the mags failed catastrophically before the tests got into the "now that's just silly" range, so the net answer is that they all performed acceptably within the limits of these tests. No matter what the fans and sponsors try to convince us of a box with a spring in it is pretty much a box with a spring in it.......They are all pretty much the same. I think the Lancer is without doubt the toughest of the group, but they all held up pretty well even the 40 year old USGI design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 6:31:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tortilla-flats]
[#14]
Originally Posted By WI57:
he test will compose of 5.56 NATO, 6.8 SPC, 300 AAC BlackOut, and 458 Socom. 
You had me at hello. Nice work again. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 9/9/2012 8:31:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Mmph! I bought 10 TangoDown mags when they went on sale at DSG Arms. I took a couple out to try today, and the bolt won't lock back when they go empty when shooting Tula 55gr 4 out of 5 times. Did better with PPU M193, but was still not 100%. I have a Phase 5 extended bolt catch, which probably doesn't help, because there's more mass than a standard mil-spec part, but the Lancer L5, D&H 20-rounder, the older MagLevels, and even the "pre-ban" steel SA80 mag work fine with Tula ammo. The newER generation PMag Maglevel failed to lock back once with the Tula.
Hopefully the TangoDown mags will work better with the ACR. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 10:03:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Originally Posted By k80clay:
Originally Posted By AMUshooter10:
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
Originally Posted By DonaldJ3637:
I'll bet Lancer sells A LOT of mags after this. Great thread OP. Unless there is a group buy or sale I doubt it. Lancer needs to lower their price to become competitive. I have always preferred lancers but you never see them for an OK or decent price. I've got far more pmags because of all the sales on them. I recently got windowed current Gen pmags for $5 less then the standard solid color lancers Times sure have changed....A few years ago the mantra was "What's a few dollars if my life is on the line" "Why skimp if the magazine is the weak point of the AR platform" "What is a few dollars per magazine if the rifle cost $2000" ""The magazine might fail at a crucial time and I will be killed" My point is, is that pmags obviously work and are incredibly reliable. People are not going to be off loading them because of this test. Honestly this test just proved what was already known. That lancers have a much stronger feed lip area. A did a little more than that for me.  .
I like the troys more now, and it's good to know what will rub your mags the wrong way. This way some can willing avoid things that will rust or degrade each mag. Plus it was very entertaining. The pmag was the first to technically be unusable. And I learned that the muzzle flash off of a .50 is no joke. And I learned that magpul is a little caty. And they have a huge fan base. I guess I already knew that though. This was by far the best testing since molon on this site. It's nice to see stuff other than "tell me which part do I want to buy" and "look at all the ammo I painted or rifles I have threads" that are so prevalant these days. Great job WI57 and I can't wait for the next installment.
I think Magpul was simply stating that this was a sample of 1. Each mag was a sample of 1. It's hard to tell overall durability with a sample of 1. Who's to say that the 1 Pmag that was tested simply had a bad fiber in the compound, causing the crack - and that a sample of 20 would have the other 19 performing well with no crack. Same thing with the Lancer - who's to say the OP just didn't get some kryptonite infused 1-off sample that proved to be the cat's ass? (not trashing either one - I own both) Not taking anything away from the OP - great thread, and I don't think anybody would expect him to do the test with a sample lot of 20 of each mag. It's sort of like the joke about cro-magnon man - how do you know all his friends are not somewhere in the afterlife saying "did you see who they dug up? Fred - yea, the guy with the sloped forehead, bad teeth and crooked nose. Why did it have to be him, he looked like hell to begin with...." Very interesting point. For years we have been hearing that "If my magazine fails I might be killed" Well................If now you are saying there is so much variability in magazine construction that some might have hidden flaws? When you lock a magazine into a magazine well you have a sample of ONE. They all have to work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 11:31:17 AM EDT
[#17]
I would love to see a similar test done on handgun magazines.
Glock (polymer) vs. Korean Glock (polymer) vs. HK USP black and opaque (polymer) vs. XD (steel) |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 12:46:14 PM EDT
[#18]
THis is a Highly entertaining thread. Very very cool.
Except the magpul part. It does not inspire confidence in me when the manufacterer of my goto mag gets on her and complains, contests,and overall boohoos about the scientific validity of a forum test. Masters of polymer maybe, but I guess I'll stack deeper with some variety now. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 3:33:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Originally Posted By Suburban:
Mmph! I bought 10 TangoDown mags when they went on sale at DSG Arms. I took a couple out to try today, and the bolt won't lock back when they go empty when shooting Tula 55gr 4 out of 5 times. Did better with PPU M193, but was still not 100%. I have a Phase 5 extended bolt catch, which probably doesn't help, because there's more mass than a standard mil-spec part, but the Lancer L5, D&H 20-rounder, the older MagLevels, and even the "pre-ban" steel SA80 mag work fine with Tula ammo. The newER generation PMag Maglevel failed to lock back once with the Tula. Hopefully the TangoDown mags will work better with the ACR. If you're having any issues with our original magazine production, please contact us. We'd be happy to exchange them out for the MK2s. Jeff TangoDown, Inc [email protected] |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 3:54:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Very interesting point. For years we have been hearing that "If my magazine fails I might be killed" Well................If now you are saying there is so much variability in magazine construction that some might have hidden flaws? When you lock a magazine into a magazine well you have a sample of ONE. They all have to work. It's not. Saying that "well it's only a sample of one", is a cop-out to excuse poor results. It looks desperate when I see it said. It's not even a very good chess move, because as you deduce, the next step is the obvious extension that it means the manufacture has horrid quality control. Which they don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 11:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 35mm_Shooter]
[#21]
Every gun review I've ever read was a sample of one. Every car review I've ever read was a sample of one. Some very "scientific" tests use a sample size of one. When I worked at NASA on the X-38 program, guess how many samples we planned to obtain, to prove that it could survive reentry? Yep, one (V-201).
So yes, one data point may not be statistically bulletproof, but that does not mean you can't obtain useful and directionally correct information from it. The results may very well be representative. And if your results agree with other tests that have been performed as it does here, the samples size isn't really just one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2012 1:41:26 PM EDT
[#22]
If one magazine cracks in a particular test, that simply indicates that magazine COULD crack. The problem with attempting to compare products is that the impact wasn't EXACTLY the same for each of them so product A may perform better than product B in one test but if several iterations are done, it can have the effect of smoothing out test anomalies. In other words, if the test were conducted multiple times with as strict a procedure as possible, the Troy or Lancer magazines might have developed a crack similar to the Magpul and Tapco magazines. Or they might not, but the only way to fairly compare them to each other is to perform multiple tests.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2012 10:23:24 PM EDT
[#23]
Tagged for updated
Remember everybody, keep it on topic 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/12/2012 9:21:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
If one magazine cracks in a particular test, that simply indicates that magazine COULD crack. The problem with attempting to compare products is that the impact wasn't EXACTLY the same for each of them so product A may perform better than product B in one test but if several iterations are done, it can have the effect of smoothing out test anomalies. In other words, if the test were conducted multiple times with as strict a procedure as possible, the Troy or Lancer magazines might have developed a crack similar to the Magpul and Tapco magazines. Or they might not, but the only way to fairly compare them to each other is to perform multiple tests. You should do that. A good way would be a secure way to hold the magazine and have a pendulum type device that could vary the amount of force depending how high it was dropped from. I think Fortier had a chute set up that dropped the magazines the same way but people that didn't like the results complained. There was a guy on this forum several years ago that crushed many magazines in a hydraulic press and recorded the results but the people that didn't like the results complained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2012 1:15:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
If one magazine cracks in a particular test, that simply indicates that magazine COULD crack. The problem with attempting to compare products is that the impact wasn't EXACTLY the same for each of them so product A may perform better than product B in one test but if several iterations are done, it can have the effect of smoothing out test anomalies. In other words, if the test were conducted multiple times with as strict a procedure as possible, the Troy or Lancer magazines might have developed a crack similar to the Magpul and Tapco magazines. Or they might not, but the only way to fairly compare them to each other is to perform multiple tests. You should do that. A good way would be a secure way to hold the magazine and have a pendulum type device that could vary the amount of force depending how high it was dropped from. I think Fortier had a chute set up that dropped the magazines the same way but people that didn't like the results complained. There was a guy on this forum several years ago that crushed many magazines in a hydraulic press and recorded the results but the people that didn't like the results complained. I do like the test and I don't have the money to destroy magazines. My point is that while the test is interesting, it isn't conclusive. Moreover, the above comment about certain test articles being a sample of one is only relevant in the context of doing ONE test on ONE article. If you test multiple magazines against each other, there is bound to be some small variation in impact force and angle, no matter how carefully you set up the test. In other words: No, the test isn't perfect. Yes, it's still interesting. Yes, the Magpul guys still sound whiny by complaining about it. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/13/2012 10:37:15 AM EDT
[#26]
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
No, the test isn't perfect. Yes, it's still interesting. Yes, the Magpul guys still sound whiny by complaining about it. I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. One thing I think you can conclude is that all of the magazines are boringly pretty much the same and can take a ton of abuse before they stop working. If you were to test them to where you could definatively state Magazine A is better than Magazine B you would need a larger sample size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2012 12:54:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Originally Posted By KurtVF:
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
No, the test isn't perfect. Yes, it's still interesting. Yes, the Magpul guys still sound whiny by complaining about it. I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. One thing I think you can conclude is that all of the magazines are boringly pretty much the same and can take a ton of abuse before they stop working. If you were to test them to where you could definatively state Magazine A is better than Magazine B you would need a larger sample size. Exactly. What difference you might find would be pretty minimal, except possibly the metal magazines, but they even did better than expected. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2012 7:17:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Originally Posted By bluefalcon: Originally Posted By KurtVF: Originally Posted By bluefalcon: No, the test isn't perfect. Yes, it's still interesting. Yes, the Magpul guys still sound whiny by complaining about it. I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. One thing I think you can conclude is that all of the magazines are boringly pretty much the same and can take a ton of abuse before they stop working. If you were to test them to where you could definatively state Magazine A is better than Magazine B you would need a larger sample size. Exactly. What difference you might find would be pretty minimal, except possibly the metal magazines, but they even did better than expected. The keyword of this test is "unscientific" |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2012 7:04:22 PM EDT
[#29]
This thread should be saved in the "resources" section. It is the best and most useful thread I've seen on the mag forum. Yes, I know it is not "scientific" but that's been pointed out already ad nauseum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2012 10:11:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Originally Posted By KurtVF: This thread should be saved in the "resources" section. It is the best and most useful thread I've seen on the mag forum. Yes, I know it is not "scientific" but that's been pointed out already ad nauseum. I'm one step ahead of you, I made it so the thread will never go into archive and will stay active, when the interest drops off I will add a link to it in the resource page  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 2:47:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WI57]
[#31]
UPDATE
As some of you may have figured out, I was contacted by three of the manufacturers of the magazines in this test. I hadn't even sent in the damaged magazines yet and they had already contacted me. The first company I was in contact with was Magpul, basically through their interaction in this thread. They made true on their promise to replace the damaged magazine, and actually went above and beyond what I expected from them. The second companies were a tie between Lancer and TangoDown; both IM'd me the same day. Lancer replaced my damaged magazine and sent a few other assorted magazines to experiment with. Tango Down sent replacement mags, a t-shirt and some stickers. TangoDown was also interested in getting the damaged magazine parts back to inspect. And now I know why...
Late last week I received an unexpected box from TangoDown. 
Inside this box was a magazine labled "Bionic" mag. 
I opened it up, and lo and behold they did something I didn't think was possible... 
They REBUILT my destroyed magazine! 
I am truly amazed that they were able to reconstruct it into a usable magazine. It no longer drops free in my rifle (probably from the Barrett blast), but I am betting that it will still function. So my next range visit will be to check the function of a magazine brought back from the dead. I will be mailing the Troy, Tapco, and Center Industry mags back to their manufacturers next week and will see what they say in reply. The letter I am including says this: [Mag mfg],
I recently tested one of your magazines for chemical resistance and durability. The test involved submerging the magazine in various chemicals, subjecting the magazine to drop tests, blasting the magazine with a muzzle brake of a 7” AR pistol, dropping a simulated live weight ammo can on them, and finally laying the magazine on the brake of an M82 Barrett and firing it. I documented this test on AR15.com in AR discussions, under the magazine forum. Prior to the Barrett test, [I then included a magazine-specific description of how the manufacturer's magazines had performed.] Unfortunately, none of the magazines were functional after the Barrett test. I am returning this magazine to you in case you would like to take a look at the damage it suffered during the test. Thank You. Respectfully, WI57 A gigantic "Thank You" goes out to all the manufacturers that have been watching and following this. Eta-spelling |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 3:00:35 PM EDT
[#32]
LOL, faster better stronger?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 3:25:49 PM EDT
[#33]
This thread is "Too Cool For School."
Thanks a million. Bill |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 4:42:17 PM EDT
[#34]
So I can score some free mags from Lancer by ridiculously abusing their mags? Awesome! Here comes the "Cement mixer and 300 pounds of river rock test."
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 5:24:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WI57]
[#35]
A cement mixer test would be good. If I knew anyone with one I'd try it.
(But then why stop at just mags...
Eta- that would be a nightmare of scientific proportions... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 7:27:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
So I can score some free mags from Lancer by ridiculously abusing their mags? Awesome! Here comes the "Cement mixer and 300 pounds of river rock test."
The more I think about this the more I want to stress I never expected any of the magazine manufacturers to warranty any of these test mags. These fall under the "intentional damage and abuse" category IMHO, and the fact that they even replaced the destroyed one was above and beyond. When I started this it was for my own knowledge as I wanted to know what the plastic mags were capable of taking and still functioning. But since I was doing it I figured I'd post the updates along the way so others can watch the carnage. Take this test for what it is, a "Highly UN-scientific test".
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 8:53:25 PM EDT
[#37]
What mags did lancer send? If I was at home I would send you a L5a 20rd'r, so I'm hoping they send you one.
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 9:00:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Originally Posted By WI57:
Originally Posted By bluefalcon:
So I can score some free mags from Lancer by ridiculously abusing their mags? Awesome! Here comes the "Cement mixer and 300 pounds of river rock test."
The more I think about this the more I want to stress I never expected any of the magazine manufacturers to warranty any of these test mags. These fall under the "intentional damage and abuse" category IMHO, and the fact that they even replaced the destroyed one was above and beyond. When I started this it was for my own knowledge as I wanted to know what the plastic mags were capable of taking and still functioning. But since I was doing it I figured I'd post the updates along the way so others can watch the carnage. Take this test for what it is, a "Highly UN-scientific test". This. I know bluefalcon most likely said in jest, but it didn't settle well with me either as I wouldn't put it past some people to believe it to be true. I'm thoroughly impressed by the response, good humor, and warmheartedness of the manufacturers that got involved in this on their own volition, and I would hate it if someone took advantage of these qualities for selfish means and ruin it for the WI57's of the world. Once again, I'm certain bluefalcon was making a funny. That being said, play on, and keep up the comms with the manufacturers! I love it when companies take the time out to read the non-industry forums and get involved
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 9:26:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Originally Posted By WI57:
Inside this box was a magazine labled "Bionic" mag. http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg76/gi57/MagTest/P9152129.jpg http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg76/gi57/MagTest/P9152130.jpg I opened it up, and lo and behold they did something I didn't think was possible... http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg76/gi57/MagTest/P9152131.jpg They REBUILT my destroyed magazine!
Ahhhh! Zombie mag. First Rule: Double Tap!! |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 9/21/2012 9:33:43 AM EDT
[#40]
I'm really surprised the USGI mag with the tan follower seemed to hold up better than the USGI with the green follower. And I think it is pretty obvious it was stronger despite the small sample size. Are the new mag bodies built to a diffrent spec than the old ones?????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2012 10:58:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Thanks for the entertainment. I really enjoyed the thread so far and think it is really cool to see the manufacturers come through and replace or rebuild your mags even though you were purposely setting out to destroy them. I do realize you have spent a lot of time, money, and resources doing these tests and appreciate it.
I think in reality all of the mags performed pretty well. All I have currently are a few Pmags and some of the older clear Lancers. This has me wanting to expand and get a few different brands. |
|
|
|
DEU
|
Posted: 9/29/2012 1:09:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: chris_germany]
[#42]
Thanks for this awesome test! I (and a few AR-15 shooters from my Club) really enjoy this test. After every training we´re looking for news in this thread. And if there is a new test, we project the thread with a beamer on a wall in the clubhouse. We really enjoy it!
A cement mixer test would be good. If I knew anyone with one I'd try it.
Ask in your local DIY-Market. If you have luck, you can rent a cement mixer for a day or a weekend. Regards from europe, Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2012 1:30:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Props to Tango Down! That's pretty damned cool and shows a passion for manufacturing. I dig it.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/3/2012 2:47:14 PM EDT
[#44]
Entirely epic thread. Even though unscientific, it was very well done, and we appreciate it.
Big thumbs up!
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2012 12:08:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Originally Posted By MikefromTX:
Entirely epic thread. Even though unscientific, it was very well done, and we appreciate it. Big thumbs up! I dont think WI57 is done yet. I think 'hope' hes working on doing round 2. 
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2012 5:20:20 AM EDT
[#46]
I know people swing on the whole "scientific" way of doing this, but life isnt always scientific so any of those situations could " technically" happen. Great job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2012 7:58:34 PM EDT
[#47]
Ok just an update.
I am trying to gather some things together to do some more tests, and to make some fixtures to increase repeatability. Looking into doing the cement mixer test too... I will start an entire new thread with the next series. Thanks again all for following.
|
|
|
|
DEU
|
Posted: 10/5/2012 2:08:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Originally Posted By WI57: Thanks again all for following.
[/span]No, no, no! WE have to thank YOU for this test!
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 10/5/2012 2:59:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Originally Posted By chris_germany:
Originally Posted By WI57: Thanks again all for following.
[/span]No, no, no! WE have to thank [span style='font-size: 12pt;']YOU[/span] for this test!
+1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2012 9:57:08 AM EDT
[#50]
Just read all 18 pages. This thread rocks! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
