AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/13/2014 2:38:04 AM EDT
|
Or how "not to do" a magazine comparison" IMHO. Its funny how all of the magazines that they have had in other videos as (paid advertisements) all "made it" or excuses were made for it so they could include them in their test.
And again, if you are going to do a test, test brand new magazines that all have had the same use, not like this video were half of the mags are already beat to shit. Also a good reliable ar15, not some unproven upper you are "testing". Also generally load all the mags with 30 rounds, at the sig part, you can see the mags dont have the same amount of ammo, as the top round is on different sides meaning he possibly could have overloaded them. 
|
|
Quoted:
Or how "not to do" a magazine comparison" IMHO. Its funny how all of the magazines that they have had in other videos as (paid advertisements) all "made it" or excuses were made for it so they could include them in their test. And again, if you are going to do a test, test brand new magazines that all have had the same use, not like this video were half of the mags are already beat to shit. Also a good reliable ar15, not some unproven upper you are "testing". Also generally load all the mags with 30 rounds, at the sig part, you can see the mags dont have the same amount of ammo, as the top round is on different sides meaning he possibly could have overloaded them.  http://youtu.be/AJgZ-u8iYuIWorking with engineers for the last decade has taught me that testing is half setting up the test to get valid results and the other half is interpreting those results correctly. While we still consider our published videos as "unscientific" (we do not use our testing fixtures or show sample size or multiple controls), they have the minimum requirements to make the subject worthwhile. What our minimums were in making our videos shown below... 1. The test should be repeatable and consistent. (in this case we use 6000fps high speed video to confirm impact points are consistent) 2. The test should have a control or baseline (in this case the new from the wrapper USGI contract brown follower magazines) 3. The test should document physical damage and visual changes after test. 4. The test should confirm if any damage (visual or not) causes the item to not function as intended (in our case every test is ended with full auto fire with a factory HK 416 and failures are confirmed on high speed video) I do not know about other companies but Magpul Industries does not pay any online blogger or personality to do pseudo testing. We like to do our own media. PMag M3 Testing (HK416 Full Auto with High Speed Video)
|
| In reference to the top round being in different positions in magazines, it could have to do with the followers. It is possible there are more or less rounds in the magazines, but it's also possible that they are all loaded to the same level and the individual magazine's follower causes the top round to be on the left or right. |
|
Quoted:
In reference to the top round being in different positions in magazines, it could have to do with the followers. It is possible there are more or less rounds in the magazines, but it's also possible that they are all loaded to the same level and the individual magazine's follower causes the top round to be on the left or right. On the lancer, the left side indicates it is an odd-numbered round. I agree with the assessment that he was overloading the magazine and that was likely why it failed. He failed the 10 percent test. While I prefer Gen 3 PMAGS over all other mags, and are my current baseline magazine, in my experience, there is not a damn thing wrong with the Lancers and would take them into harms way in a hot minute. |
|
Quoted:
In reference to the top round being in different positions in magazines, it could have to do with the followers. It is possible there are more or less rounds in the magazines, but it's also possible that they are all loaded to the same level and the individual magazine's follower causes the top round to be on the left or right. This is true, our top round is on the left on even numbers. Opposite a GI mag. We were a little disappointed that our mags were not in the comparison. |
|
Quoted:
This is true, our top round is on the left on even numbers. Opposite a GI mag. We were a little disappointed that our mags were not in the comparison. Quoted:
Quoted:
In reference to the top round being in different positions in magazines, it could have to do with the followers. It is possible there are more or less rounds in the magazines, but it's also possible that they are all loaded to the same level and the individual magazine's follower causes the top round to be on the left or right. This is true, our top round is on the left on even numbers. Opposite a GI mag. We were a little disappointed that our mags were not in the comparison. Yeah I was looking for your too, but honestly after his first video, his second isn't going to be any better |
|
Quoted:
The video was done by someone who obviously doesn't understand science. I really felt bad for Eric after watching that video, as I knew he would get a TON of crap about it. I generally really like his channel and I think he does nice work. That being said, it seems like he didn't really understand the proper way to conduct that kind of test. As was already pointed out, you only test one variable at a time. Using an unproven upper while testing magazine reliability isn't going to work, as you don't know which is the issue. You also need a control(USGI). He had neither. He also was using mags of various stages of wear(another variable to account for), which could contribute to possible issues. Hopefully he learned from his mistakes. |
|
Quoted:
I really felt bad for Eric after watching that video, as I knew he would get a TON of crap about it. I generally really like his channel and I think he does nice work. That being said, it seems like he didn't really understand the proper way to conduct that kind of test. As was already pointed out, you only test one variable at a time. Using an unproven upper while testing magazine reliability isn't going to work, as you don't know which is the issue. You also need a control(USGI). He had neither. He also was using mags of various stages of wear(another variable to account for), which could contribute to possible issues. Hopefully he learned from his mistakes. Quoted:
Quoted:
The video was done by someone who obviously doesn't understand science. I really felt bad for Eric after watching that video, as I knew he would get a TON of crap about it. I generally really like his channel and I think he does nice work. That being said, it seems like he didn't really understand the proper way to conduct that kind of test. As was already pointed out, you only test one variable at a time. Using an unproven upper while testing magazine reliability isn't going to work, as you don't know which is the issue. You also need a control(USGI). He had neither. He also was using mags of various stages of wear(another variable to account for), which could contribute to possible issues. Hopefully he learned from his mistakes. I probably watch their channel more then any other, and lately the channel has become very "stale". Ever since Berry is gone it has been downhill, their way of making up for it has been fancier cameras and teaming up with FPS Russia (If you notice, all of FPS Russia's new videos have been at IV8888's range) |
|
The only torture testing was being done on the viewer who opted to watch this.
It's just a guy ripping through mags full of ammo. I got 0 magazine related test results from any of that. I'm not ripping on the guy, but there's no usable data produced in this video at all. |
AR Sponsor