Have to say I’m sort of surprised at the outcome, but only sort of surprised at the outcome. The number of firearms to, “pass,” is very, very small - and the failures include every flavor of AK to be tested, a Mosin-Nagant, a Kar.98k Mauser, 1911s, &c.
(Please note: Neither Karl nor Ian nor myself would ever recommend that you choose a firearm based solely on its performance in the IRTV mud tests.)
Saw this when it was uploaded. Was really impressed. I love my 16 and wish I could get a 17!.
My take away from these kinds of “tests” is this:
Do not put your firearm in mud and pack mud into it and expect it to run flawlessly.
If it does, bonus!
Couple observations:
Try that without a mag in the rifle and then try to load 'er up.
Try that with the bolt locked back and then try to shoot it.
Try that with mud in the barrel and then … try to survive the “test.”
I don’t understand the purpose of the first two: No firearm will, “pass,” those, “tests”.
The obstructed bore, however, is a test I believe that some firearms are intended to survive. And in the case of the USP and Mk23, I believe they’re tests the firearm is not only intended to survive, but to continue functioning afterwards.
I love it. Makes me feel better I bought a SCAR 17s despite all the negative comments on the web regarding optics, magazines, etc. I love my SCAR and enjoy it every time I take it out.
On both occasions I fired SCAR17s, I came away impressed. I was equally impressed by the precision of a SCAR16s. Really nice rifle.
Does anyone know what Karl was referring to when he mentioned reports of the rifle not having great service life?
The SCAR is a badass gun, no doubt.
Who knows on service life. At least the 556 version has had some pretty spectacular service life reports.
Out of curiosity, what are some of the firearms that “passed”?
AR-15 (every one that has been tested), P08 Luger, home-build CETME-L. There may be others.
What did they mean by “we’ve heard stories about it not having great service life”? 
A rifle costing $3000 + better have a Methuselah-like service life…
I know Karl is periodically one of the guests on the Primary and Secondary podcasts, which also tend to have a lot of industry people and end users on them. So maybe he heard anecdotes about the SCAR’s service life from some of those guys during one of the discussions he was present for.
The only think that pops into my mind is that the BCG runs on internal aluminum rails that are part of the receiver extrusion. Once those wear out you’re replacing the receiver.
I’d expect to go through multiple barrels before that happens and enough ammo that the price of a new SCAR is trivial.
H
YouTube sample-size-of-one torture tests are worthless anyhow, but this one is even more so considering the amount of R&D that went into the SCAR program.
Any gun will choke if an errant pebble wanders where it shouldn’t. I’ll trust the results of the engineers who did this the right way when the gun was in development.
Their testing is flawed because it only highlights that weapons that are primarily sealed against outside elements will run since the internals aren’t compromised. The real test is whether they will run if they are compromised. I want to see that SCAR pass the swamp test that “Regular Guy” does on youtube. So far only the AK passed his testing.
The AK has actually passed one of these YouTube “gun tests”? It usually fails miserably pretty early on just like the Mini 14.
What ive learned:
No matter what gun you have:
I’ve heard anecdotally, through an E6 that went through the course, that the SCAR H’s in the Bravo course had issues with service life. Not exactly surprising, and its only anecdotal evidence with a sample size of one. I can’t recall with specifics as to what part/parts were the failure points, but I don’t have any reason to doubt it really. Guns aren’t magical. They do break eventually guys.
The swamp test, each weapon is compromised internally right off the bat in sandy muddy water- in a real swamp. I’d like to see if the SCAR could pass this but so far only the AK has. This to me would be more realistic given say, an over the beach exercise or crossing a river system etc.
It’s not meaningful data, though. The AK could just have gotten lucky that the wrong rock didn’t get where it could cause trouble. You need a statistically significant number of guns, controlled, identical conditions for each trial, mud that is sifted to be uniform between tests, etc.
[i]I am with you, and have no buyers remorse , about my SCAR 17.
My internals are showing no signs of wear, after 7 years of moderate use…applying Super Lube grease. Running reloads too.
Battleground Vegas has had great results while renting both the 17 & the 16.
The least breakage of all their rental weapons .( by proportion of use)[/i]