Welcome to my analog video essay in which I vent about some of the things that bother me within the firearms technology discourse.

Too many people do this "my dad can beat up your dad" thing with their guns of choice, where they cherrypick non-pertinent metrics and anecdotes to validate preconceived choices in equipment - probably because they dropped thousands into what amounts to a fashion piece and feel a need to validate their purchase with a logos appeal. If hipster guns are just socially-acceptable male jewelry to you in the same way knives and watches are, be honest to yourself about it.

I'm not entirely innocent to partaking in this tech heresy because it takes tremendous mental calories to evaluate nuance, and generally-applicable wisdom is easily taken to be axiomatic because it's functionally true 90% of the time; this journal acts as a self-reminder to maintain mental plasticity in an industry with continously-shifting technological paradigms.

RELIABILITY
This comes up a lot when talking about DI vs piston, revolver vs autoloader, striker vs hammer. Despite there being practical metrics like mean-rounds-between-failure for evaluating a selection of weapons samples under specific operating conditions relevant to an individual or organization, reliability is NOT a linear value that you can put a big number to for the purpose of universal comparison. Complex machines have complex failure conditions, dependent on operating conditions, ammunition, and QA/QC of manufacturing. Factors like bolt velocity, unlock timing, extractor geometry and tension, carrier tilt, etc. all coalesce together to deliver a net result, which differ slightly between individual units and differ greatly between different manufacturers. Something as simple as the choice between phosphate or polished-substrate DLC could make or break a system by changing the coefficient of friction.

People too often cite total weapon systems as champion representatives of one of their design features out of dozens of interdependent variables, and then compare net results to other systems with dozens of completely different variables, attributing total performance to the singular aforementioned feature. Correlation =/= causation.
Was direct impingement or the M16 a better or worse technology than its competition because of test metrics under specific trials at the time? Throw a modern Daniel Defense AR into the 1960s-era weapons trials and you'll see how much unspoken factors like the minutia of manufacturing can skew test results that people then selectively extrapolate to support their arguments.

Control as many variables as possible when evaluating a specific feature: e.g. control for ammunition, gas pressure at the piston face, chamber lubricity, dwell time, bcg, and buffer, when trying to determine the effects of gas system length (and subsequent unlock timing) on consistency of extraction and ejection within a specific platform.

Malfunctions also don't have universal remedies. This notion is particularly egregious in talks of the forward assist. It's a jam-enhancer if you apply it to a double feed or brass-over-bolt, but for some malfunctions like a failure to lock, the alternative of manually charging a bolt onto a live, chambered round can risk slamfire due to the lack of magazine to reduce forward bolt velocity.

PRECISION
Despite the advancements in manufacturing, barrels and ammunition are still all snowflakes subject to stacking tolerances. Two barrels of the same model from the same high end manufacturer could prefer different ammunition due to the bore-bullet fitment and where the bullet exits the muzzle during the barrel's harmonic whip.

Guys often post tight 3-5 round groups because it's a fun flex, but it isn't the whole picture. Shoot a 30 round group out of the same precision barrel with the same lot of match ammo and you might be surprised to see your group dramatically grow and shrink across strings of fire, even due to weird factors like magazine follower tension and binding affecting the angle at which the round is fed into and scraped against the feed ramp, imparting inconsistent deformation of the bullet.

MIL CARGO CULTING
The labyrinthine bureaucracy of military organizations works in mysterious ways that are not always logical nor pertinent to your needs: e.g. the development of forward-heavy government-profile barrels addressing a false diagnosis of bending barrels, the mk12 SPR's 18.5in barrel being adopted to sidestep the redundancy of a 20in barrel already in inventory with the m16, 3-round burst to correct a training deficiency, and the abhorrent manganese phosphate coating common to too many weapon components.

While military usage can create large sample sizes to derive conclusions from, and facilitate the maturation of technical data packages and institutional knowledge for producing and maintaining a technology, it's not an infallible model to be emulated without question.

If your goal is to emulate or clone mil kit for the purpose of fashion larping, that's great and guys should be allowed to have fun more. Just be honest about its practical capabilities and why you're doing it, because they're often designed with different METT-TC than yours.

IRONSIGHTS
Ironsights developed an axiomatic mythology of universal durability because they have different failure conditions to the red dots they serve as backup to, namely the lack of electronic failure potential. However, this is very much a myth born out of mistranslation: ironsights easily suffer breakage when sustaining impacts to the sight post or hinge mechanism - much easier than prisms like ACOGs or any of the budget 20mm aimpoint T2 clone dots with monolithic optic housings and can be reinforced with extended lens hoods or killflashes. In addition, FSB irons can shift zero for the entire barrel when impacted, and handguard-mounted irons depend on the handguard to retain zero against impacts, which is a hard ask given the length of leverage from the barrel nut.

The same luddites who insist upon ironsights for alleged durability usually get quiet when you start to nitpick their short gas systems (read the NSWC crane report on carbine vs midlength), phosphate bolt assemblies, and MIM fire control components for their shortcomings under general adverse conditions. It's really just a pretense to justify obsolete sighting technology, aside from budgetary concerns.