Tactical Tailor

Torture Test II Preview – What Happens When You Shoot a DDM4 v1 with Buckshot?

This December, Larry Vickers, host of TAC-TV, puts the Daniel Defense V1 through another series of brutal tests. I was fortunate enough to be on hand for these trials and I’m looking forward to seeing how it all comes together on screen. I was amazed at the stuff the TAC-TV crew came up with. Last year’s first Torture Test seems mild after what I witnessed.

Last time they shot a carbine with birdshot and it kept running like a clock. For Torture Test II, they decided to turn it up a notch and use buckshot. The question is, what does buckshot do to a DDM4? To find out, catch the two-part series next month on Sportsman Channel.


Tags: , ,

8 Responses to “Torture Test II Preview – What Happens When You Shoot a DDM4 v1 with Buckshot?”

  1. none says:

    Seem’s like the Rail/Cover was damaged, cant wait to see it in December!

  2. Angry Misha says:

    Yawn, I could do the same thing with a service common M4. In fact, we have an ACOG with a 7.62×39 hole through it and it still functions.

    Hey DD, how about subjecting that thing to the OTB test?

  3. You are correct a mil spec M4 would perform the same as the DD carbine did – however it is still interesting nonetheless to see what this platform will endure and still function

    And once again the Aimpoint Micro stole the show – if you liked the first torture test then you will definately like this one

    • Angry Misha says:

      Sorry, Sir… Not impressed. However there’s plenty of mall ninja’s who’ll think its “wicked cool” and rush out to buy one. And honestly, shooting a platform with buckshot is stupid. What “condition” is that simulating? You and I both know that the platform may still function but that buckshot is gong into the users body parts, especially his hands and that’s going to make using the platform a bit difficult. In addition I have never seen a requirement, KPP or KSA that call out the ability for an assault rifle or ancillary item to function after struck with buckshot. But like I said, those don’t know any better will see validity in what you’re doing. Why don’t you try something realistic like stepping up the basic M4 performance spec by adding in a few things like the Airborne Slide Impact Test, and forgoing cleaning the platform for a few thousand rounds. I’d be more interested in the MRBS after being subjected to tests that represent actual environments the system will encounter vice some goofy “Call of Duty” waste of time.

      Trust me, I like DD and was thrilled when the PEO replaced the KAC RIS with the DD ones on our MK18s.

      However, at the end of the day, it’s just an M4 and it will do what an M4 does as I’m sure DD sources it’s components from the same place as LMT, DPMS and the littney of Cerberus groups do.

      Prove to me that this platform will function after I’ve carried it across the desert, through the mountains, jungles, artic tundra and across the beach. Prove to me “Why” I should choose a DD over an HK-416, SCAR etc. Prove to me why I should take a DD platform over one made by their OEM supplier.

      • SSD says:

        Buckshot was used to simulate shrapnel as they didn’t have any FSPs and a test fixture to use. Having done ballistic testing for a living, I could have sat there all day long and picked this apart. But, these aren’t tests in the true sense of the word. They are nonscientific demonstrations of how a mil-spec gun, and in particular, the Daniel Defense gun will perform in these scenarios. There is a great deal of randomness in the vignettes, so they would be quite difficult to reproduce consistently as required for real testing. However, perhaps you should wait to see what the actual demonstrations are before you critique them.

        And, while you state that a mil-spec gun should perform equally as the DD carbine, none of the other manufacturers have agreed to put their weapons up to these conditions which are well outside of the mil-spec. While I was present at the filming TAC-TV stated that they would be more than happy to include them if they were interested.

        Finally, Daniel Defense does source several components from the same suppliers as other manufacturers, they also build several components in house that others do not.

  4. Angry Misha says:

    I didn’t know that the PD for a service rifle or optic called out performance in regards to FSPs. Ok, if that’s what they’re going for, subject it to the performance requirements of CO/PD 00-02G lol. Like you said: “nonscientific” which is why no one from any other company would do this because there is no added value. Hell I could race a Ferarri in the Baka 1000 to see “how it does” but it’d be stupid because it wasn’t designed for it. Same logic for those that decided not to offer up a platform. It’s all mall ninja BS. gimme that thing and I’ll throw it through the cook off test and them end it with the OTB. This is nothing but an add for DD. would’ve been better if they didn’t name the manufacturer and used it as a confidence gain for those carrying the M4. Happy Thanksgiving

    • SSD says:

      I don’t see a problem with a company subjecting their product to extra-Mil Spec performance measures. So long as they do it voluntarily. I’m no fan of people arbitrarily taking products and “rating” them based on some made up scale.

      In this case DD agreed to the demonstrations.

      As for performance against FSPs, the current Mil Spec does not call for testing against shrapnel yet weapons are regularly subjected to it in combat. That was the point of this TAC-TV “Torture Test”, to take a look at how the weapon performed in situations that service weapons are often subjected to, yet are not considered part of normal acceptance testing.

      Once again, perhaps we should wait to actually see the episode and then we can pick apart what was done and how. Although, I will tell you that true testing is rather boring due to the amount of control and repetition involved.

  5. These extreme tests do in fact bring out some useful pieces of information that might otherwise get lost or undiscovered in normal endurance testing

    I know I have learned a lot from participating in them; some things are reinforced again and again like the need for proper lubrication- in many cases that is the X factor in terms of a functioning weapon or a non functional one

    For the sake of the show we format it in a way that is enjoyable to watch in order to keep it interesting – nevertheless I am impressed with what the weapon and optic will endure and continue to function. The M4 platform is much more rugged than many might believe and it reinforces the belief that if you take care of it then it will take care of you.