Mud Test: H&K 416/MR556

Published on August 9, 2019
Duration: 9:03

The H&K MR556A1, a piston-driven AR-15 variant, was subjected to a mud test. While it performed reliably with the dust cover closed, it failed to cycle when mud was introduced directly into the action with the dust cover open, underperforming compared to direct impingement AR-15s in similar conditions. This suggests piston systems may be less resilient to extreme fouling than DI systems.

Quick Summary

The H&K MR556A1, a piston-driven AR-15, failed a mud test when exposed with the dust cover open, experiencing cycling failures. While reliable with the cover closed, it underperformed compared to DI AR-15s in extreme fouling, suggesting piston systems may be less resilient in such conditions.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Intro: H&K MR556A1 vs DI AR-15
  2. 02:11Mud Test: Dust Cover Closed Reliability
  3. 03:03Mud Test: Dust Cover Open Failure
  4. 07:24Conclusion: Piston vs DI in Mud

Frequently Asked Questions

How did the H&K MR556A1 perform in a mud test with its dust cover closed?

When the dust cover was closed, the H&K MR556A1 successfully fired five rounds of M193 ammunition after being covered in thick mud. This demonstrated that the rifle's sealed system could handle external mud well when the action remained closed.

What happened when the H&K MR556A1 was tested with mud and the dust cover open?

With the dust cover open, mud entered the MR556A1's action, causing immediate failures to cycle and return to battery. The rifle struggled even after being rinsed with water, indicating a significant reliability issue in this condition.

Did the H&K MR556A1 perform better or worse than DI AR-15s in the mud test?

In the open-action mud test, the H&K MR556A1 performed worse than standard Direct Impingement (DI) AR-15s previously tested by InRangeTV. The DI system's gas blast may help clear debris more effectively.

What are the potential advantages of the H&K piston system despite the mud test results?

The short-stroke piston system on the MR556A1 offers advantages such as better performance with suppressors and potentially reduced fouling in the action during normal firing. However, the mud test highlighted a vulnerability in extreme, open-action fouling scenarios.

Related News

All News →

More Reviews Videos You Might Like

More from InRangeTV

View all →