https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_IeAaR5AmU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreJ6BIDLj4
1911 fags btfo
>"Karl, we're not getting enough views!"
>"Prepare another mud test."
>>30465568
Not a 1911
Mud tests are fucking retarded
Don't put mud in your gun, how about that
>>30465568
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEABZswQWDg
Have an actual mud test of an actual 1911 that wasn't performed by a wehraboo
>>30465593
They don't need views, this content was made first and foremost for their supporters on full30.
>>30465568
I liked how in the luger test, the wheelbarrow had much less mud in it, the gun was dropped from a shorter height, and didn't get nearly as much mud on it.
Whereas the """1911""" dropped way down into the mud and was totally covered with mud.
Ian's mud tests have to be some of the best things to happen to /k/ this year. Without fail, they will generate butthurt that lasts weeks or months.
>>30465713
They both were submerged beneath the surface, why would it matter how deep?
>>30465763
The luger was resting on the surface.
>>30465752
Nobody is butthurt by obviously flawed tests.
We are annoyed when they get spammed over and over with "[insert fandom] BTFO!!!!!] and people basically just use them as bait.
>>30465637
>t. i only ever shoot my gun in an indoor range
>>30465568
>"people would complain no matter what 1911 we used!"
>"so we decided to not use a 1911"
>>30465783
>Nobody is butthurt by obviously flawed tests.
This very thread says otherwise, senpaitachi.
>>30465830
>This very thread says otherwise,
No, that's you saying otherwise.
(protip, claiming someone is butthurt does not in fact make them butthurt, it just makes you feel better about yourself)
>>30465846
>no one here is expressing frustration/anger/buttyblustering in this thread, honest
Heh.
Christ the asshurt.
>>30465863
>>no one here is expressing frustration/anger/buttyblustering in this thread
Correct.
Explaining why something is bad or dumb =! anger
Replying to your posts =! frustration
More importantly, someone being angry or frustrated has absolutely nothing to do with who is correct.
Making people angry does nothing to prove someone right or wrong.
It's something that people with low self esteem do to feel good.
Fuck Ian
Fuck his retarded tests
Fuck wehraboos
Fuck the overcomplicated piece of shit that is the luger
Fuck Ian
>>30465888
>>30465889
>>30465898
>claim there's butthurt in this thread
>i point out there is none
>you have no examples to quote
>thankfully, a post expressing butthurt magically appears immediately afterwards for you to immediately see and reply to a minute later
seems legit
>>30465752
It's the only reason I come to these threads.
>>30465918
Whatever you say anon. :^
>we're not butthurt we're just frustrated
>>30465898
>durrrrr ur mad so ur wrong
Fuck off, the 1911 is more reliable than some convoluted piece that is tighter than a ten year olds asshole
>>30465952
I didn't even say I agreed with the test or not, but flail away senpai. :^
>>30465951
>>we're
>>we
A post you made and myself do not constitute a "we"
The phrase "lol u mad" does not constitute an argument.
And there is nothing you can say that can possibly make me mad.
Eventually I'll just get bored and leave. And you'll continue to insist that I'm mad because that makes you feel good.
It's really transparent.
>>30465970
>And there is nothing you can say that can possibly make me mad.
I'm not trying to you asspained cretin, but go ahead and keep lecturing about how uncoloncrucified you are to me. It's convincing, honest. :^
>>30465952
Hey, 1911 was good enough to kill batman's parents, it's good enough for me
>>30465986
>I'm not trying to you asspained cretin,
What an obvious and grammatically flawed lie.
>>30465999
1911 wins by sheer virtue of the magazine reloading process.
>>30465713
Does not matter, the self-loading mechanism of the Luger is preferable.
>>30466005
Which is why nobody uses it, and the majority of modern guns use the 1911 style tilting barrel locking system including Glocks?
>>30466001
What part, me originally laughing at the inevitable butthurt that would (and did ensue) or you being an assapined cretin that has to resort to incorrect accusations of samefaggotry? Because both aspects are, painfully, correct. ;^
>>30465568
The Luger is a terrible handgun that killed many gi's serving overseas due to its exposed sear after picking them up from the battlefield.
>>30466004
I was joking mostly, but I'd still choose 1911 anyway. Better price, big old boolits. Plus dat aftermarket.
>>30466026
Why are you feeding trolls?
>>30466038
I think only a retard would actually take a Luger over a 1911 if they were heading into the shit. That said, releasing the toggle mechanism after you insert a fresh mag cannot be equaled. Although removing the empty clip from a C-96 and having the bolt fly home is a close second.
>>30466027
You're gonna need some sauce to back up a claim like that. And it can't come from /pol/
>>30466051
I think you're asking the wrong person that question.
Ian has proved once again he is based and is the final word on all things firearms.
I wish I had 1/3 of his encyclopedic tier knowledge of firearms.
>>30466056
Wish I could say I knew
>P08 gets near mud
"It runs, P08 masterrace! Germany masterrace!"
>fake 1911 gets buried under 4 inches of mud
"We didn't even bother shaking it once like the autistic faggots we are, and it only ran half a mag with some minor trouble. Completely unreliable"
>>30466056
What's going on with the mixed milled and stamped parts on that 98K?
>>30466139
Some Romanian capture BYF '43 I got for $250 a couple years back. Bolt and receiver were force-matched post-war, but everything else seemed like it was grabbed from parts drums at random and slapped together, so it was a real hodge podge. I've since replaced the stamped parts with milled ones.
>>30466022
cheaper to produce.
>>30466056
>I think only a retard would actually take a Luger over a 1911 if they were heading into the shit.
why? the Luger is more reliable and more accurate.
>>30466056
If thats your collection, I'm a little jelly.
Just needs a Nazi-captured FN BHP to be complete badass.
>>30466133
>'tis but a speck of dust!
asshurt 1911 fag in denial.
>>30465791
I only shoot outdoors on my own land. Never even been to an indoor range.
I've also never once, in more than 20 years of shooting since I was a little kid, dropped my gun into mud. Why would you do that? Take care of your shit. I don't drop my phone into mud either.
>>30465568
>first the ak
>then the mosin
>now 1911
basically every reliabily meme gun rekt
HAHAHAHAHA
1911faggots BTFO
BROWNING DICK SUCKERS ON SUICIDE WATCH
LUGER IS GOAT
>>30467139
How long have you been here? You should know by now that every gun is a jammomatic piece of shit
Stick beats gun in mud test
Gun refuses to fire, stick continues to poke just fine
HAHAHA HAHAHA GUNFAGS BTFO
COMBUSTION FAGGOTS ON SUICIDE WATCH HAHAHAHAHAH
>>30465791
>I'm a butter fingered fag who doesn't consider a gun to be an extension of my own arm
The gun is part of your arm.
Can you drop part of your arm?
No.
It's like you don't even let the guns soul bond to your own soul.
>>30467139
the AK did alright and the 1911 did better than they thought it would. it would have just taken a shake in some water to get them running good again.
their mud tests are pretty rough. very gritty but just the right viscosity to get into everything. and no layer of water over the mud. you would have to be very unlucky to encounter that in RL.
>>30465752
>>30465863
>>30465898
>>30465962
>>30466069
ok what is with you and cancertale düder
>>30467206
let's not get into other extreme, there is difference between jam-o-matic and failing very hard test
>>30467311
no disagreement here, I just love to see tears of fanboys when they realize that their favorite guns aren't as magical as they thought they are
These test expose the fallacy of "reliability" more than anything.
>>30465774
Again, if the luger was dropped on either side, fully coating or submerging it into the mud, why would it matter.
>>30465568
>Not a 1911
>Durr we will get hate either way we do it
Honestly I think they took worst route. Should have just dropped the colt in there. I'm far more interested in that than a copy
>>30465952
Lol, in a mud test a cocked and locked 1911 is far more susceptible to malfunction.
>>30467566
i would say people are using the word "reliable" when they shouldn't.
pretty much anything that isn't a completely sealed up, star-trek phaser will have trouble when crap fills up it's internals. and that is what their test pretty much is; seeing how well sealed a gun is and if operating it pulls gunk into the action when it is covered in crap.
imagine taking a gun and putting it into soupy, wet sand, letting it fill the voids in the gun and then trying to operate it. you could take a revolver or a lever action rifle and embarrass them with a test like that, but outside that situation nobody would ever claim that those guns are unreliable.
reliability can mean much, much more than "will it pass a mud test from hell?".
>>30467926
>reliability can mean much, much more than "will it pass a mud test from hell?".
That's what I mean.
In the Luger test, Karl states that he's rebuilt his Luger and replaced all the springs, and that it is ammo sensitive. By other metrics and in other tests, that would make it unreliable. The truth is, of course, that any gun can be made to fail.
People shouldn't get so upset about them.
>>30466069
I say that cause you're responding. Or are you trolling?
>>30467201
d o t h a t s h i t w i t h a h i - p o w e r
>>30466316
I don't even like 1911s and I can tell you're a faggot
>>30468369
high quality b8 m8, they dropped luger's other side too
>>30468402
>it's comparable!
>>30468369
>>30468427
This is literal autism
>>30468032
lets just sit back and enjoy the shitshow.
>>30468427
There is mud covering the entire pistol in each example, what does it matter how deep?
>>30465640
biased test. The mud was pro-1911.
>>30468427
>bwaahhh it's not faaaiir
Stop whining you manchild.
>>30465568
>Granted, we're not using a real 1911. but it doesn't matter 1911 fans will not like any 1911 we use..
Okay..
>>30465568
>1911 mud test
>doesn't use 1911 to perform test
wut
>>30468615
>that grip safety sure would help
>>30468621
"It's a copy, but a slight simplification". So, not a copy. Not a 1911. Why didn't they just use an actual 1911, anon?
>>30468687
maybe because they don't own one and this is closes you can get to original?
as I said, that grip safety might be a game changer, but not in the way you think
>>30468741
>1911 mud test
>1911
I'm not disputing the results of the test they performed, only pointing out that they didn't even use a 1911 to perform their 1911 mud test.
>>30465568
I guess I won't be taking my 1911 into the muddy trenches of Arizona.
>>30465640
Nice.
>>30465640
>some mucky water is the same as coarse mud
>an Argentine 1911 isn't a 1911 but a Brazilian 1911 totally is a 1911
no confirmation bias at work here.
>>30468960
Or you know, don't shovel wet clay into your open action.
I like Ian, but when he does stuff like this I have to question his commitment to objectivity and if he's documenting facts or making entertainment.
I mean I can see mud being a somewhat realistic test but I'd rather see a rifle shoot 210 rounds over the course of an hour, wait thirty minutes, and then shoot another 210 rounds and see how it performs without being cleaned in between. Then repeat until it fails.
>>30469019
The gun they used is a Ballester–Molina, which isn't even based off of the 1911 like Ian claimed.
It's based off of the Star model B, which was based off the 1911, so it's 2 degrees of separation from the original.
Ballester–Molina pistols are not parts interchangeable with 1911s, they have a totally different trigger design, and iirc the safety works differently too.
The Springfield 1911 on the other hand is made in America, (they stopped making them in Brazil a while ago) and is made to 1911 specs.
I watched the video earlier today. This is clearly a troll thread as they both performed admirably. I expected the luger to choke, but this was based on my hearing that they are unreliable.
