Pretty incredible isn't it.

Gospel.

Interesting video. I'm just really not sure what it proved.

The video needs subtitles for those of us that live above the Mason Dixon line.

LOLz

It is a stupid test but at the given price point i would have expected it to last like at the minimum a milisec longer than an aero. Yikes.

Typically the community deals with these issues by either gaslighting themselves or copium.

Lol, from a dude shooting 0.35 moa to another that worked on sr15s from harsh environment operators, this thread delivers… oh not to mention the mil-spec contract requirement novel that tells civilian consumers to stfu because they were not part of the product development…

This guy skipped and/or got an F in Physics 101 ^

It's like driving 200k miles on a set of tires then bitching because you got a blowout.

cope harder

I can't do much justice to what Jack and others have said this far. Nonetheless, rifle requirements vary by use and the acquisition programs generally reflect that use. Those requirements are based mostly on real life scenarios and what the users believe are the optimal needs. Humping a rifle across terrain along with everything else you need to carry is no small point. Nor is the length of engagements and the typical amount of ammunition expended in those engagements. Keep in mind that some of those requirements also consider rifle use within a squad and other weapons available within that contingent. I'm sure I've missed a lot, but you get the point. The rifle is optimized for use within that environment, considers all the variables (and extremes based on real engagements) and produces a specification that hopefully meets those needs. I made this sound simple, but it's not and I'm sure there are a few bald guys around to prove it. That said, a test like this is indicative of nothing in the real world other than what we already know. A heavier profile CHF barrel can absorb more heat and has a higher failure point.  I'm not sure where in the real world this has been a repeated scenario or where engagements have reflected that use. I also highly doubt, based on available data, where in civilian-land this scenario would play out. The fact is that KAC has one of the best testing programs for the rifle specifications they've been given, and the data proves that out. They are also extremely responsive ( as much as they can be) to the end users. In the end, everyone benefits from that, and it's honestly why a lot of us have their rifles in our hands. YMMV.

I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did, considering the barrel profile.

There is a reason M4 barrels were beefed up - ARs are good at a lot of things, but cyclic isn't one of them.

I don't need to because I know how to use my brain and understand rifles and thermodynamics. Thanks though.

This is like calling a F-150 trash because it can't haul 20k up a mountain......if you want to do that then buy the f350....or in this case buy a thick ass barrel that weighs 35oz....

https://youtu.be/7CgwC8W1kqo?si=kTzC9OKLp-Q7T2Qg

I watched this video (suggested by YouTube). I was reminded of this thread where people were explaining how SR-15’s should be more durable and I think… these guys ran out ammo (6 spares of let’s say 60 round quad stacks and one in the gun totals to 420 rounds), were having rounds cook off from the amount of full auto, etc. were just pouring out all of the ammo they have out… and this was still a less demanding test that the SR-15 test in this thread.

I don’t even own a KAC gun. But… I think these burn down test are cool, but when the barrel fails and it’s a light weight barrel. Welp. It is what it is man - heat has to go somewhere and this is the use case where a lighter profile gun goes to the way side.

Quite honestly… you need an LMG (open bolt) and quick change barrels to truly succeed at this and heck if it’s just straight full auto… should probably even consider just getting a water cooled gun.

It is what is is… I’m honestly hoping the KS series guns come to the civilian market at SHOT this next week.

One can hope! Even the KS1 with thicker and golf ball milled barrel probably would be better suited, but I’d pass over the heavier barrel for a lighter 11.5 or 14.5 gun to be honest.

I simply won’t be able to fire them at a rapid enough rate to see the value of a heavier barrel over the saved weight. YMMV.

ETA: Apparently they’re only 53 rounds which drops it to 370-ish rounds expended - https://deserttech.com/quattro-15.html

These KAC & Daniel Defense versus Aero, Bear Creek etc. meltdown videos are a minimal IQ test for the viewer.

I completely agree with your assessment.
I just can’t wrap my head around what the “tester” was trying to prove.
Only a dumbarse would expect a lightweight carbine barrel to perform
like a full auto machine gun. It just makes no damn sense.

Destroy a Knights barrel just to talk smack?

Go to 2:00, where Ash says the same thing we’ve all been saying lol