@@TheKajunkat "deepfake counterfeit" I suppose that's almost as likely as my theory of Karl being abducted while raiding Area 51. I thought this was some sort of alien shape shifting impostor. While I'm likely correct, we shouldn't rule out a deepfake.
Leaving aside the bullpup argument, I think it did remarkably well. Having to push mud straight into the ejection port twice before it failed to cycle, and even then it wasn't a catastrophic failure. Didn't even have to use water to make it run again.
By design the gun has quite the vigorous action. So if you remove the ejection port cover, it should help by giving the action a lot of extra energy to work with even if the cover itself isn't fouled.
@@Rutherford_Inchworm_III it should be...considering there's 74 years of firearms design evolution between the two...(AK47) and about 50 between the Steyr and it.
It also was not on the "Adverse" gas setting. I wonder how a SE varient would fair, considering it doesn't have the added complexity of the forward ejection component while also appearing to be a better sealed system.
@@hellcatdave1 you could say that, but none of this is really new besides the ejection action, plus ar’s do remarkably well even though there even older that the aug
Your educated commentary is more valuable in finding out what causes malfunctioning and the different nuances of firearm design than just watching mud on guns
Actually looking forward to how they respond- they actually seem to care about the quality of their product to a degree that’s depressingly unusually today- look at the software industry >.
Lee vi I expected it to do well for the same reasons the ar-15 did. I knew something would fowl up because it’s recess is much larger than the ar-15 (it it even had any in the mechanism) but you can also say that it has solutions hybrid of ar-15 and ak systems. Little to no recess but if you do, you can take it apart slightly and get the gunk out, in this case you take one side panel out of the ejection area and it works perfectly fine.
I guess you can say, you literally just took the piece with most of the mud and threw it away, even then you can easily take it at scratch the mud out.
Would be interesting to see how the 5.56 MDR does in the mud test and if the lighter cartridge changes the results. Wonderful test as always and I can't wait to see the next one.
@@SgtKOnyx probably would be more failures to eject, thats the only thing I can think. The casings are ejected with less force and the tolerances are so fine on all these guns that a little grit can stop the round from ejecting.
Actually, I'm talking out my ass I should say "I assume they eject with less force". I don't know how you would even test ejection force. The 5.56 should cycle faster in theory so that might increase force? The entire bolt group is lighter though.
I'm seriously impressed. Nice to see the MDR doing so well after the initial growing pains. Maybe it's not up to AR-15 standards of reliability yet, but still light-years ahead of the Tavor when it comes to ease of cleaning. On that note, I'd really like to see an After Action Report similar to the X95. Pretty sure the cameraman got whanged by some brass there too LOL.
Me too. The ARs they tested were not abused like this one. He put mud AND pressed down with the shovel till it shocked. In reality no soldier will dump mud in his weapon like this. A cleaning video of this and every new test would be nice too.
Honestly this rifle performed really well. considering that this one was coated in mud multiple times, had mud pressed into its ejection port, was never rinsed off with water and yet it still managed to regain operation by the end of the test. It should also be taken into consideration that the other piston operated platforms tested like the numerous AKs and the HK416 failed after the first few rounds.
But actually it did what it should. No one ever would actually cause such a mess inside his chamber under combat conditions. I think as long as the dust cover is sealed, you could fully sink into a mud pit and still would be able to go on fighting (if you get out of that pesky mud pit xD). And a trained soldier will have it sealed, especially near mud, right ;)
I would say that with the dustcover closed, it passed with flying colors. Without it, it had similar results to the Tavor. The magazine release on one side failed, but the other one still worked, and once you pulled the magazine, ran the action a few times, and inserted a clean magazine, it seemed to work more or less normally. Clearly, though, dustcovers are a very good idea and should always be used.
I think the MDR performed well considering but since it has additional gas settings it would have been nice once it started to fail, to see the gas setting changed to “Adverse” and then continue the testing. Dumping mud onto/inside the rifle certainly qualifies as adverse conditions in my opinion.
Seems like you dumped way more mud in this gun than usual and it still performed better than almost any other. In many ways it could be argued it has the best performance of any auto rifle you've mud tested. Even when it had a double feed you were able to quickly clear it and you were good to go again. Very impressive.
I have been watching the weapon evolve over a number of years and feel Happy for the company and the beautiful solution they have come out with ambidextrous ejection.
Really glad to see the MDR perform well after the initial issues. It would have been easy for desert tech to blame the ammo and make excuses but for them to actually tackle the issue head on, successfully, and take care of any customer that already bought one, was commendable.
Considering that this is a test that the industry and anyone who didn't serve in WW1 France would think, "Why the Hell would we do that", the weapons overall I think are doing admirably well.
Considering the action and added complexity, I'm surprised it did as well as it did. Guess it goes to show, once again, more complicated doesn't always mean less reliable.
I think the redundant mag releases with one on each side that operate independently of each other definitely contributed to how well this did in this test. Impressive results! Most bullpups you've done this with have failed catastrophically.
I'd personally say it passed at the same level of an AR-15 since any self loading gun has an ejection port (maybe except for the RFB and fs2000) but has a reliable dust cover mechanism unlike an AK.
As much as I want to agree with you I have first hand experience in wearing a a inch thick layer of mud while on a patrol. Night patrol in Iraq after a rain hit which turned the moon dust into a fun quagmire with the viscosity of KY jelly and the adhesion of sloppy quickcrete. By the end of the five mile patrol easily half of the infantrymen had 60% or better coverage over their entire body/kit and likely weighed an additional twenty pounds. We slogged back to our CSC and took the next few hours to clean our gear. That mud was everywhere. Inside feed trays, filling magazines, coating BCGs, even in our helmet pads. Thankfully no one needed to use our weapons on that night because I would be shocked if half the rifles would have fired more then the round already chambered. I really do enjoy these tests because it isn't really to test against light use or how it functions in austere environments. It is to test the most foul and counter productive conditions to see the failure point of the firearm. Once you know where the firearm will likely fail first then you can start working on your immediate actions to clear likely failures.
I wonder if they could make a literal window in to the action. Maybe a transparent side plate. Anyway, in the future it might be completely normal to not be able to look into the chamber.
A pretty descent performance actually despite the fact that this gun is a 'baby' for now. And sometimes it takes years and even decades for maturing. Personally I think this is a really remarkable one at the market! Waiting for 556 version unpatiently. Thank you gentlemen for your work for us
@@nunyabidniz2868 you could do a second flip up cover for the little window, so you only open it when the need to watch in is there. If not, keep it shut to minimize the degradation. And after that just chance it every 5k shots or so.
Frankly, I'm pretty impressed with how much punishment it could take and how easily the failures were remedied. It looks to me like maybe, if they made it heavier, they could make it grunt-proof.
Very cool - was expecting it to do much worse. Clearing those failures looks like a pain in the ass. Would be interesting to see how fast you could get it running again when it fails.
From your guys' extended time with this gun and some hands-on I had at the store, I'd buy this with a few feature changes: 1) Optional spring ejector on the left side and AR-style port with cover and deflector on the right. They might be able to do this without changing the bolt. Just alternative port inserts. Could even be reversible. 2) 5.56 configuration where the rear mag release works. 3) Field-adjustable gas regulator. Gimme a slot or something. 4) More positive selector. 5) A more filling grip for bigger hands? I dunno, gloves might fix this entirely. This gun is a fantastic proof of concept for a first generation. I love how thin it is. Compared to other bullpups, it's positively lithe. And very sensible ergonomics.
I personally think that once you get to the point where you are actively going out of your way to get the weapon to fail then it's a pass, whenever I was in the field with my M16 I always had my dust cover closed which is about 95% of the time.
Fell in love with the DeserTech after they addressed the issues, and released a video of how they fixxed it. Alas I live in Canada, so no bullpups for me. I'll just have to stick to my 18"(total length) DeLask 870.
The last thing the government wants is someone paid by the government to prove that we're blowing tons of money on crap. Why not do a pebble test for Jet engines on military aircraft. A steathy 4 year old with a slingshot can take down an A-10 on the tarmac with a handful of pebbles so long as he isn't caught. The Russians however have retractable screens for dirt runway use.
US military mud tests are actually more drastic. When testing the AR15 and AK47 they plugged the barrels and submerged them in mud similar to that for a minute, pulled them out and shot them. Needless to say the AK did not make it very far
Back when it was first tested by you guys it had issues with extraction too, IIRC. And that was without mud. Makes sense that'd be the failure point once mud was added to the equation
@@gepgeckodile3015 They fixed the issue in a clean condition, yes, but this shows that the extractor is still likely to be a problem in field use, if the gun gets muddy or potentially dusty, despite working when clean
As I recall the Extraction worked (mostly). The main issue was with Ejection because the scissor jack wasn't timed correctly or the chute lips were too tight.
Gruntburger, no it wasn't. At the beginning if the video he clearly states it is set to normal with the option to go to adverse later if necessary. He never changes it in the video.
@@UselessFox Don't forget: the first malfunction was a failure to eject. As soon as he fired the first shot with the dust cover open you could see the brass peeking out. Higher gas pressure running the bolt won't necessarily keep mud out of that tiny ejection chute.
gotta give that little port some credit, you were able to tell it was out of battery real fast with it. admittedly you had the bright desert sun on your side, but it did something.
Wow, that noise in that tub of mud. I just knew that was a sapirka, I've used them so damn much can't believe that triggered a response as soon as I Heard it, lol
I agree with the B+/A- rating. It performed unexpectedly well for having gumbo mud shoveled DIRECTLY into the ejection part. Less than flawless cycling would be expected from ANY platform. Doesn't sway my opinion ONE BIT, regarding how well engineered this rifle is.
DP Super It would probably be identical to the ar-15 Tests. It can take a lot of dirt, but if something blocks the bolt, it's over. But in comparison to an AR, it would be a lot easier to clean it and get it running again.
I think it did really well. Did a lot better than the AK did a few years ago. All of these malfunctions were cleared without taking the gun apart(ejection cover aside, doesn’t really count?) and then the gun worked fine
I think that a slight modification could yield excellent results, if they could mimic the ejecting action of the Maxim Machine gun, it feeds a spent casing in it’s ejection tube, and that spent casing loads and stays in there until a new casing loads in, I believe mimicking this action would create a tight seal that prevents mud and dirt from ever entering the action, and it would remove the need for a dust cover, because the spent case essentially acts as the dust cover
@@Orlunu I doubt InRange could get their hands on an A3 variant unless they did a special trip to Britain, the only L85s we exported were A1s and A2s donated as military aid to Bolivia, Mozambique, Nepal, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe, as well as Jamaica using them since the 90's and Papua New Guinea having a few L85A1s in reserve but using the M16 as their standard rifle.
That rifle did better than I expected for a seemingly more complex rifle than an AR15. If you revisit this rifle for a mud test I'd like to see you bugger it up the same but than give it a rinse in a bath of water without taking anything off except maybe the magazine
I think an -A is a fair grade for it. Unless I am forgetting a couple I think you only have had two semi auto rifles that continued working just fine in comparison , so this would be the 3rd best.
That’s surprising to me that the right mag release died while the left continued to work since they both cam the same transfer bar. I wonder what caused it to fail that way, maybe mud on one side of the cam?
I have This gun , and I’ve notice it’s an easy gun to jam with hard conditions , so I make sure I don’t run any of these test for it haha !! Still love the gun
Yeah, that's my one problem with a fair number of bullpups. At one point a jam is going to happen. You might have to _"get in there"_ to nurse it back to working order. This bullpup addresses all the issues that typically come with bullpups, except a field expedient way to get into the chamber for remedial action. But other than that this rifle has it all.
Due to budget cuts, the tactical wheelbarrow had to be sold in order to afford more mud. The wheelbarrow was replaced with Ian's vintage 1790's tupper ware box(lid not shown here).
Given that he had to deliberately circumvent the installed protection to get it to fail, and could restore it very quickly, I'd say it passed with flying colors.
Remarkably identical result to the X95, so I was a little amused that the MDR was rated as doing "admirably well, B+ or A-" instead of being "quite a failure." The experience with the X95 carried over, same problem with same solution, so no fumbling around struggling to figure out what went wrong or what other options you have. I actually agree with your MDR assessment, it did better than I was expecting! The AR-style magazine releases on bullpups do seem to trade convenience for reliability, so it's smart of both the MDR and X95 to have no less than 3 (though the MDR's 3rd release looks like it failed?)
Identical how? The Tavor was a remarkable failure. It failed to eject on the first round and then wouldn't drop it's mag and had to be mortared. The MDR had no issues until the second trip into the mud (with the ejection port cover open). And it recovered fairly easily. The only similarity is the way both right-side mag releases failed early. The MDR will be massively easier to clean properly. th-cam.com/video/SUDc9wKoQgM/w-d-xo.html
@@AM-hf9kk By identical I mean identical. They had the exact same issues. They couldn't drop the X95's mag, the first step of clearing the malfunction because one of the the releases (the same release, even!) failed, just like the MDR. It took them forever on the X95 to try one of the other releases (like the MDR, the X95 has three!) because they didn't know how the rifle functioned. They were able to clear the MDR so quickly because they knew to try the other releases right away directly because of their experience with the X95 test. Of course the MDR worked fine with everything sealed up. That didn't even need to be tested, frankly. It's like asking how an AR15 would do with the dust cover closed. There's not really anything that can go wrong. The second that tiny dust cover was open though, the rifle choked up on the first round, just like the X95. The chute afterwards was a write off and had to be abandoned. After clearing the malfunction, both rifles ran fine. I'm not even going to criticize the test for not remudding with no chute, because I think we'd know how that would go. The only difference was the mortaring, which is an issue that's been solved. Early US commerical X95s had a placeholder charging handle. This is important because the "new" charging handles pivot, and use leverage to unlock the bolt for you. The bolt rotates from a helix cut machined into it, which interacts with a static pin. This seals it up excellently from debris but can make it VERY stiff to initially unlock without that leverage. The original TAR21s and military X95s always had that feature, it was odd it didn't make it onto the first run of commercial rifles. But it's there now.
@@AM-hf9kk What did I get wrong? I rewatched the video before making that comment. MDR and X95: Right hand magazine release failed MDR and X95: Left hand magazine release functioned, the only difference was they took forever to think to try it on the X95 MDR: Third magazine release failed / X95: Third magazine release untried, probably because they didn't know it existed (I don't blame them for this, it is barely mentioned in the manual) MDR and X95: With no dust cover, malfunction after first round MDR: Chute has to be abandoned, returned to normal function after replacing fouled mag X95: Rifle has to be mortared, returned to normal function with fouled mag I dunno, looks pretty identical to me?
invalid test
no wheelbarrow
I'm not sure that's really Karl.
and no used earplug in the muzzle. might be a deepfake counterfeit.
@@TheKajunkat "deepfake counterfeit"
I suppose that's almost as likely as my theory of Karl being abducted while raiding Area 51. I thought this was some sort of alien shape shifting impostor.
While I'm likely correct, we shouldn't rule out a deepfake.
I was thinking that maybe the wheelbarrow finally failed the test.
Wrong time of day also!
Leaving aside the bullpup argument, I think it did remarkably well. Having to push mud straight into the ejection port twice before it failed to cycle, and even then it wasn't a catastrophic failure. Didn't even have to use water to make it run again.
By design the gun has quite the vigorous action. So if you remove the ejection port cover, it should help by giving the action a lot of extra energy to work with even if the cover itself isn't fouled.
@@Rutherford_Inchworm_III it should be...considering there's 74 years of firearms design evolution between the two...(AK47) and about 50 between the Steyr and it.
It also was not on the "Adverse" gas setting. I wonder how a SE varient would fair, considering it doesn't have the added complexity of the forward ejection component while also appearing to be a better sealed system.
@@hellcatdave1 you could say that, but none of this is really new besides the ejection action, plus ar’s do remarkably well even though there even older that the aug
@@royrogers3624 agreed, some of the ngsw programs though have some newer technologies
I'm always so pleased to see the consistent and reliable operation of the e-tool in these tests.
Absolutely adore these mud tests. Thank you
Agreed.
mud test another AK but with more blatant contempt when it fails. The internet rage was fun. Russians are funny when they are angry.
They dirty 'em up so we don't have to.
calska140 bylat that ak wasn’t made in the motherland
Zip 22 mud test when you absolutely completely run out of ideas.
This thing stops firing once you look at it. And it doesn't even have to be a "funny" look.
PobortzaPl wait, you got one to fire? Haha.
@@PobortzaPl maybe the muds the key to making it work?
Dude I would love this just for the laughs.
L85A1 mud test.....
Man you really fed the camera guy some brass there at 6:56
I think it is a camera girl today
Ian was probs recording lol! But he always interacts with karl so idk it could be a different cameraman
@@bigjim9706 It's Sarah, she's listed in the credits at the end.
Getting a forehead cut from hot brass is a blessing from the kube.
Your educated commentary is more valuable in finding out what causes malfunctioning and the different nuances of firearm design than just watching mud on guns
I'm impressed by Sarah's self-control in not uttering so much as a peep while that brass was flying at her.
And it was flying pretty hard! Cudos to her!
I imagine Desert Tech guys were nervous and excited watching this video since they take InRangeTV pretty seriously.
Actually looking forward to how they respond- they actually seem to care about the quality of their product to a degree that’s depressingly unusually today- look at the software industry >.
forged in mud
I expected MDR to have terrible problems with the mud test, but it did surprisingly well.
Spoiler alert!
Lee vi I expected it to do well for the same reasons the ar-15 did. I knew something would fowl up because it’s recess is much larger than the ar-15 (it it even had any in the mechanism) but you can also say that it has solutions hybrid of ar-15 and ak systems. Little to no recess but if you do, you can take it apart slightly and get the gunk out, in this case you take one side panel out of the ejection area and it works perfectly fine.
I guess you can say, you literally just took the piece with most of the mud and threw it away, even then you can easily take it at scratch the mud out.
Would be interesting to see how the 5.56 MDR does in the mud test and if the lighter cartridge changes the results. Wonderful test as always and I can't wait to see the next one.
Per my understanding there's few differences that would even matter.
Like the g3 vs cetme l test
I think it would do better as I think the bolt speed is higher
@@SgtKOnyx probably would be more failures to eject, thats the only thing I can think. The casings are ejected with less force and the tolerances are so fine on all these guns that a little grit can stop the round from ejecting.
Actually, I'm talking out my ass I should say "I assume they eject with less force". I don't know how you would even test ejection force. The 5.56 should cycle faster in theory so that might increase force? The entire bolt group is lighter though.
I'm seriously impressed. Nice to see the MDR doing so well after the initial growing pains. Maybe it's not up to AR-15 standards of reliability yet, but still light-years ahead of the Tavor when it comes to ease of cleaning. On that note, I'd really like to see an After Action Report similar to the X95.
Pretty sure the cameraman got whanged by some brass there too LOL.
Me too. The ARs they tested were not abused like this one. He put mud AND pressed down with the shovel till it shocked. In reality no soldier will dump mud in his weapon like this. A cleaning video of this and every new test would be nice too.
Honestly this rifle performed really well. considering that this one was coated in mud multiple times, had mud pressed into its ejection port, was never rinsed off with water and yet it still managed to regain operation by the end of the test. It should also be taken into consideration that the other piston operated platforms tested like the numerous AKs and the HK416 failed after the first few rounds.
magoid the cocky conscripts equip with ak will though. average people and gamer usually think ak is invincible rifle.
"growing pains" use your costumers as guinea pigs ..
Yeah, that's the price you pay being an early adopter (aka beta tester). Happens with every product and every manufacturer.
I mean, it’s a DESERTTech, not a MUDTech...
But actually it did what it should. No one ever would actually cause such a mess inside his chamber under combat conditions. I think as long as the dust cover is sealed, you could fully sink into a mud pit and still would be able to go on fighting (if you get out of that pesky mud pit xD). And a trained soldier will have it sealed, especially near mud, right ;)
ParanoidMaster “Better than an AK” is probably worth something...
I would say that with the dustcover closed, it passed with flying colors. Without it, it had similar results to the Tavor. The magazine release on one side failed, but the other one still worked, and once you pulled the magazine, ran the action a few times, and inserted a clean magazine, it seemed to work more or less normally. Clearly, though, dustcovers are a very good idea and should always be used.
I think the MDR performed well considering but since it has additional gas settings it would have been nice once it started to fail, to see the gas setting changed to “Adverse” and then continue the testing.
Dumping mud onto/inside the rifle certainly qualifies as adverse conditions in my opinion.
Seems like you dumped way more mud in this gun than usual and it still performed better than almost any other. In many ways it could be argued it has the best performance of any auto rifle you've mud tested. Even when it had a double feed you were able to quickly clear it and you were good to go again. Very impressive.
Wow did surprisingly well I think. Better than lots of other rifles. Much love for Inrange.
For a bull pup that’s an A+, but solid B pass overall for my vote.
I have been watching the weapon evolve over a number of years and feel Happy for the company and the beautiful solution they have come out with ambidextrous ejection.
Wow that was actually impressive, did so much better than I expected. Just keep the dust cover closed, fare enough test.
Does anyone else watch this and think wow it's almost like dust covers have a purpose. Great test I'd love to see more especially on the 5.56 version
Really glad to see the MDR perform well after the initial issues. It would have been easy for desert tech to blame the ammo and make excuses but for them to actually tackle the issue head on, successfully, and take care of any customer that already bought one, was commendable.
Considering that this is a test that the industry and anyone who didn't serve in WW1 France would think, "Why the Hell would we do that", the weapons overall I think are doing admirably well.
It’s a miracle to get my MDRX 308 to run a mag after perfect maintenance, let alone anything like this. Glad yours goes!
I know you don’t necessarily love doing these videos, but I really enjoy them.
Considering the action and added complexity, I'm surprised it did as well as it did. Guess it goes to show, once again, more complicated doesn't always mean less reliable.
I'm definitely impressed. Certainly a much better rifle than it was starting out.
I think the redundant mag releases with one on each side that operate independently of each other definitely contributed to how well this did in this test. Impressive results! Most bullpups you've done this with have failed catastrophically.
He didn't even use the third one by the magazine either! 😄
I'd personally say it passed at the same level of an AR-15 since any self loading gun has an ejection port (maybe except for the RFB and fs2000) but has a reliable dust cover mechanism unlike an AK.
Key observation: DUST cover, not mud cover.
@@venomgroyper3954 I feel like its harder to keep dust out than mud...
@@InexorWoW You'd be correct. Dust tends to have far, far, far smaller particulate. Way easier to slip through.
I watched this already but I will absolutely watch it again.
Surprisingly resilient, interesting success.
An admirable performance for sure!
If you drop your rifle in mud 3 times in a row or fall with it 3 times then the rifles not the problem you are...
"If you make something idiot-proof, the world goes and invents a better idiot" an unattributed variant of Murphy's law
As much as I want to agree with you I have first hand experience in wearing a a inch thick layer of mud while on a patrol. Night patrol in Iraq after a rain hit which turned the moon dust into a fun quagmire with the viscosity of KY jelly and the adhesion of sloppy quickcrete. By the end of the five mile patrol easily half of the infantrymen had 60% or better coverage over their entire body/kit and likely weighed an additional twenty pounds. We slogged back to our CSC and took the next few hours to clean our gear. That mud was everywhere. Inside feed trays, filling magazines, coating BCGs, even in our helmet pads. Thankfully no one needed to use our weapons on that night because I would be shocked if half the rifles would have fired more then the round already chambered.
I really do enjoy these tests because it isn't really to test against light use or how it functions in austere environments. It is to test the most foul and counter productive conditions to see the failure point of the firearm. Once you know where the firearm will likely fail first then you can start working on your immediate actions to clear likely failures.
@@BoredDoc you know how I know you were really over there? Cuz u called it moon dust lol
I wonder if they could make a literal window in to the action. Maybe a transparent side plate. Anyway, in the future it might be completely normal to not be able to look into the chamber.
I give 3.6 roentgens. Not great not terrible.
Finally, I’ve been waiting for an inrange style test on this rifle for a while now. Thanks.
A pretty descent performance actually despite the fact that this gun is a 'baby' for now. And sometimes it takes years and even decades for maturing.
Personally I think this is a really remarkable one at the market!
Waiting for 556 version unpatiently.
Thank you gentlemen for your work for us
have they thought about making the ejection port covers out of a clear polymer so you can see into the action
It doesnt even need to be completely made of clear polymer, a small window on the side of the ejection port cover would suffice.
I would think that would be too cloudy to be usable to begin with, and would get fouled with firing.
@@nunyabidniz2868 you could do a second flip up cover for the little window, so you only open it when the need to watch in is there. If not, keep it shut to minimize the degradation. And after that just chance it every 5k shots or so.
@@jarvy251 exactly. I dont think it would stay clear for too long.
DT should just make caseless ammunition and remove the ejection port all together, problem solved
So far the best performing bullpup
Frankly, I'm pretty impressed with how much punishment it could take and how easily the failures were remedied. It looks to me like maybe, if they made it heavier, they could make it grunt-proof.
Very cool - was expecting it to do much worse. Clearing those failures looks like a pain in the ass. Would be interesting to see how fast you could get it running again when it fails.
From your guys' extended time with this gun and some hands-on I had at the store, I'd buy this with a few feature changes:
1) Optional spring ejector on the left side and AR-style port with cover and deflector on the right. They might be able to do this without changing the bolt. Just alternative port inserts. Could even be reversible.
2) 5.56 configuration where the rear mag release works.
3) Field-adjustable gas regulator. Gimme a slot or something.
4) More positive selector.
5) A more filling grip for bigger hands? I dunno, gloves might fix this entirely.
This gun is a fantastic proof of concept for a first generation. I love how thin it is. Compared to other bullpups, it's positively lithe. And very sensible ergonomics.
I agree the rifle did quite well only weak point I see is the ejection port after it gets gummed up still for a bullpup this did good to me..
DT has a standard ejection port model.
This shows one benefit of ambidextrous controls is having more options to perform a function if one is not working due to mud or whatever else
Excellent point! 👍
Would have been nice to see how it would have done on the adverse gas setting
I agree. Otherwise, why is is it there?
I personally think that once you get to the point where you are actively going out of your way to get the weapon to fail then it's a pass, whenever I was in the field with my M16 I always had my dust cover closed which is about 95% of the time.
Such a brave, brave gun. I didn't like it until now.
Fell in love with the DeserTech after they addressed the issues, and released a video of how they fixxed it. Alas I live in Canada, so no bullpups for me. I'll just have to stick to my 18"(total length) DeLask 870.
In memoriam: InRange wheelbarrow. Gone but not forgotten.
I think you guys should be retained by the DoD to do mud tests on all military weapons procurement projects.
99% of the guns would fail though, it's a bit too drastic to represent "actual" use
@@ChaosPootato That's the point. Only adopt the 1%
The last thing the government wants is someone paid by the government to prove that we're blowing tons of money on crap. Why not do a pebble test for Jet engines on military aircraft. A steathy 4 year old with a slingshot can take down an A-10 on the tarmac with a handful of pebbles so long as he isn't caught. The Russians however have retractable screens for dirt runway use.
@@MrLM002 are you paid by Russia to lie or just a dunce?
US military mud tests are actually more drastic. When testing the AR15 and AK47 they plugged the barrels and submerged them in mud similar to that for a minute, pulled them out and shot them. Needless to say the AK did not make it very far
Extremely good performance really. Took a lot to get it to have a failure.
Back when it was first tested by you guys it had issues with extraction too, IIRC. And that was without mud. Makes sense that'd be the failure point once mud was added to the equation
Desert tech worked with them to fix that issue now I think this was just mud ingress that caused the fault.
@@gepgeckodile3015 They fixed the issue in a clean condition, yes, but this shows that the extractor is still likely to be a problem in field use, if the gun gets muddy or potentially dusty, despite working when clean
As I recall the Extraction worked (mostly). The main issue was with Ejection because the scissor jack wasn't timed correctly or the chute lips were too tight.
Do you think a higher gas setting would've helped here?
It was set to adverse.
Gruntburger, no it wasn't. At the beginning if the video he clearly states it is set to normal with the option to go to adverse later if necessary. He never changes it in the video.
The problem was the ejection port getting fouled up, along with the first magazine, so I doubt the gas setting would've had any effect.
@@JunkyardBashSteve When he removed the ejection port it then had a failure to eject. A higher gas setting might have prevented that.
@@UselessFox Don't forget: the first malfunction was a failure to eject. As soon as he fired the first shot with the dust cover open you could see the brass peeking out. Higher gas pressure running the bolt won't necessarily keep mud out of that tiny ejection chute.
This rifle is amazing
Nice mudtest warpaint there.
Warlock testing his scout rifle before heading to the Moon. 2019 colorized.
Warlock? th-cam.com/video/sDEhCm0pxCo/w-d-xo.html
@@InrangeTv Warlock. th-cam.com/video/LFYJTudJ540/w-d-xo.html
Edit: Moons Haunted. th-cam.com/video/pAHlhmGTvj8/w-d-xo.html
You should have tried to pee on the rifle to dislodge any debris. Water doesn't cut it, has to be urine.
luckly most infantry (i.e; males,) are equiped with Personal Watering Directable Devices [PeWuDds]
@@razor1uk610 "Stop. My pewudd can only get so erect."
gotta give that little port some credit, you were able to tell it was out of battery real fast with it. admittedly you had the bright desert sun on your side, but it did something.
That brass hitting the camera man cracked me up
That gun passed the test
Would love to see the Beretta ARX mud tested, I think it would do well!👍👍
Wow, that noise in that tub of mud. I just knew that was a sapirka, I've used them so damn much can't believe that triggered a response as soon as I Heard it, lol
I agree with the B+/A- rating. It performed unexpectedly well for having gumbo mud shoveled DIRECTLY into the ejection part. Less than flawless cycling would be expected from ANY platform. Doesn't sway my opinion ONE BIT, regarding how well engineered this rifle is.
I would love to see how the Steyr AUG would hold up in these tests. It is after all, a gun thats used by many militaries.
DP Super It would probably be identical to the ar-15 Tests. It can take a lot of dirt, but if something blocks the bolt, it's over. But in comparison to an AR, it would be a lot easier to clean it and get it running again.
The AUG unfortunately failed pretty terribly, twice
so now desert tech need to make a dust cover that always closes.
I loved the camera person trying to dodge the brass near the end. "Dance!" :D
I think it did really well. Did a lot better than the AK did a few years ago. All of these malfunctions were cleared without taking the gun apart(ejection cover aside, doesn’t really count?) and then the gun worked fine
Fair rating, It did better than a lot of guns.
Kick ass!do the tavor 7 next!I wonder how the mag releases and open ejection scraper will perform.
I cant believe the mdr did as well as it did!
They did the x95
I think that a slight modification could yield excellent results, if they could mimic the ejecting action of the Maxim Machine gun, it feeds a spent casing in it’s ejection tube, and that spent casing loads and stays in there until a new casing loads in, I believe mimicking this action would create a tight seal that prevents mud and dirt from ever entering the action, and it would remove the need for a dust cover, because the spent case essentially acts as the dust cover
Thanks for suffering on our behalf, entertaining as always!=
Why not a mud test on the AUG, as you are at bullpups now!?
@@Orlunu I doubt InRange could get their hands on an A3 variant unless they did a special trip to Britain, the only L85s we exported were A1s and A2s donated as military aid to Bolivia, Mozambique, Nepal, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe, as well as Jamaica using them since the 90's and Papua New Guinea having a few L85A1s in reserve but using the M16 as their standard rifle.
Right before school, awesome!
That rifle did better than I expected for a seemingly more complex rifle than an AR15. If you revisit this rifle for a mud test I'd like to see you bugger it up the same but than give it a rinse in a bath of water without taking anything off except maybe the magazine
Desert Tech openly admitted that they put this gun through all the official tests and it passed them all.
I think an -A is a fair grade for it. Unless I am forgetting a couple I think you only have had two semi auto rifles that continued working just fine in comparison , so this would be the 3rd best.
Good job on the cameraman (Sarah?) for not making any audible sounds when the casings came flying at them.
That’s surprising to me that the right mag release died while the left continued to work since they both cam the same transfer bar. I wonder what caused it to fail that way, maybe mud on one side of the cam?
It’s like you know what questions keep me up, thx for the test and awesome content
Awesome mud test.
Your content is amazing :)
Karl, you must love cleaning your guns
6:55 for some reason I couldn't help giggle imagning Ian dodging shells haha. Also looks pretty darn cool.
I have This gun , and I’ve notice it’s an easy gun to jam with hard conditions , so I make sure I don’t run any of these test for it haha !! Still love the gun
Yeah, that's my one problem with a fair number of bullpups. At one point a jam is going to happen. You might have to _"get in there"_ to nurse it back to working order. This bullpup addresses all the issues that typically come with bullpups, except a field expedient way to get into the chamber for remedial action. But other than that this rifle has it all.
4 times mud and stil works, great!
Due to budget cuts, the tactical wheelbarrow had to be sold in order to afford more mud. The wheelbarrow was replaced with Ian's vintage 1790's tupper ware box(lid not shown here).
That's some good looking mud
These tests are BRUTAL! just bought an APC9-SD would love to see you test one of those on here.
OMG! That was AMAZING! I am going RIGHT now to a gun store and buy one!!!
The mud looks yummy and that gun sounds gurthy
The shovel in the mud makes a very satisfying sound. Yeah, there's probably something wrong with me.
thanks man, love these experiments
I'm impressed. That's a nasty test.
Thumb up as an encouragement for you to clean this.
It took four muddings to make this gun seriously malfunction. I think that's on well done by the manufacturer.
When I first started to watch I though it will struck and stuck the charging handle... but that went pretty well. Overall I think it went really good.
Given that he had to deliberately circumvent the installed protection to get it to fail, and could restore it very quickly, I'd say it passed with flying colors.
Inrange loves the MDR, so they put it on heavy trial so it'll do better
i wonder if the mud slowed the bolt down enough to not give the scissor ejector enough kick to fully seat the case into the side plate.
man, they friggin hated this gun... they just kept shovelling that mud on there.
Remarkably identical result to the X95, so I was a little amused that the MDR was rated as doing "admirably well, B+ or A-" instead of being "quite a failure." The experience with the X95 carried over, same problem with same solution, so no fumbling around struggling to figure out what went wrong or what other options you have.
I actually agree with your MDR assessment, it did better than I was expecting! The AR-style magazine releases on bullpups do seem to trade convenience for reliability, so it's smart of both the MDR and X95 to have no less than 3 (though the MDR's 3rd release looks like it failed?)
Identical how? The Tavor was a remarkable failure. It failed to eject on the first round and then wouldn't drop it's mag and had to be mortared. The MDR had no issues until the second trip into the mud (with the ejection port cover open). And it recovered fairly easily. The only similarity is the way both right-side mag releases failed early. The MDR will be massively easier to clean properly.
th-cam.com/video/SUDc9wKoQgM/w-d-xo.html
@@AM-hf9kk By identical I mean identical. They had the exact same issues. They couldn't drop the X95's mag, the first step of clearing the malfunction because one of the the releases (the same release, even!) failed, just like the MDR. It took them forever on the X95 to try one of the other releases (like the MDR, the X95 has three!) because they didn't know how the rifle functioned. They were able to clear the MDR so quickly because they knew to try the other releases right away directly because of their experience with the X95 test.
Of course the MDR worked fine with everything sealed up. That didn't even need to be tested, frankly. It's like asking how an AR15 would do with the dust cover closed. There's not really anything that can go wrong.
The second that tiny dust cover was open though, the rifle choked up on the first round, just like the X95. The chute afterwards was a write off and had to be abandoned. After clearing the malfunction, both rifles ran fine.
I'm not even going to criticize the test for not remudding with no chute, because I think we'd know how that would go.
The only difference was the mortaring, which is an issue that's been solved. Early US commerical X95s had a placeholder charging handle. This is important because the "new" charging handles pivot, and use leverage to unlock the bolt for you. The bolt rotates from a helix cut machined into it, which interacts with a static pin. This seals it up excellently from debris but can make it VERY stiff to initially unlock without that leverage. The original TAR21s and military X95s always had that feature, it was odd it didn't make it onto the first run of commercial rifles. But it's there now.
@@jarvy251 Apparently you and I watched very different videos.
@@AM-hf9kk What did I get wrong? I rewatched the video before making that comment.
MDR and X95: Right hand magazine release failed
MDR and X95: Left hand magazine release functioned, the only difference was they took forever to think to try it on the X95
MDR: Third magazine release failed / X95: Third magazine release untried, probably because they didn't know it existed (I don't blame them for this, it is barely mentioned in the manual)
MDR and X95: With no dust cover, malfunction after first round
MDR: Chute has to be abandoned, returned to normal function after replacing fouled mag
X95: Rifle has to be mortared, returned to normal function with fouled mag
I dunno, looks pretty identical to me?