[cslinger]

Everybody knows that AR15s have drawbacks such as being more sensitive to abuse, small caliber and weak magazines.

So why is it that every picture of special forces I see has the majority of them carrying some kind of AR15/M4/M16 variant. Whether they be U.S. Spec Ops, SAS etc. These are the folks that, I assume, know what they are doing and do indeed have a level of choice involved. Whenever I see pictures of these folks I see AR15s, SIGs, Browning High Powers and M60 variants.

So I would assume the old M16 has evolved into a pretty solid fighting firearm.

I am not an AR hater, I have 2. I was just wondering from those in the know why this is.

Chris

[Sistema1927]

Everybody knows that AR15s have drawbacks....

I guess not.

[Bud Light]

Caliber

[Cesiumsponge]

I think a large stigma comes from the older generation that were issued M14s and were rudely intruded on by the first generation of M16A1's which had major issues.

They've long since ironed out those major issues and the M16 is reasonably reliable, but old stigmas die hard. Every firearm platform has it's own nuances and foibles. I think that the modern M16 is so widespread among the world, we're bound to hear more problems solely because there are so many of them floating around.

You can make similar arguments to any platform. Example:
The M14 is longer, unwieldy, can only carry 20 rounds. Wood isn't as stable as synthetics, it's louder, the muzzle flash is greater. It has more recoil which makes it harder to control. 7.62mm NATO is too heavy.

I love the M14's too, but it's easy to assemble arguments against any firearm.

[ocabj]

... it's easy to assemble arguments against any firearm.

Exactly.

[KaceCoyote]

My major gripe with the AR system in general is the ammunition. I like big bore calibers, and I like rifles that dont use aluminum magazines. I thought the Aluminum mags were fine until I warped one underboot.

I dont hate it, I'll buy one down the road but in a SHTF situation its my AK that goes with me.

[Mulliga]

So why is it that every picture of special forces I see has the majority of them carrying some kind of AR15/M4/M16 variant. Whether they be U.S. Spec Ops, SAS etc.

I think special forces get less choice than we think when it comes to what they carry. And even if they do have a choice, for reasons of national pride they tend to go with their country's firearms - I've heard that GSG-9, for example, uses mostly H&K firearms.

[cslinger]

And even if they do have a choice, for reasons of national pride they tend to go with their country's firearms

Yes but HK actually does make at the very least very good weapons and in some cases spectacular weapons.

I have never seen SAS pictures with L85, their home grown assault rifle.

Chris

[chopinbloc]

i'm just a pog; i never get outside the wire, but i live with the sf guys and they all carry m-4, m-16, m-249 and/or m-9. some also carry a kalashnikov variant but not many. they do put all kinds of crazy sights, handles, lights, lasers, etc. on their weapons. the sf does have quite a bit of latitude in what they can get issued - i've seen a few with silencers on their m-4s - and a little lattitude in what they can carry. they carry the m-16 type systems because of supply issues (ammo, parts, magazines), because using the enemy's weapons draws friendly fire and because the m-16 type weapon system is a solid platform. i own two ar-15s and have fired m-16s occaisonally for about 7 years. i have NEVER experienced a malfunction with live ammunition. blanks jam all the time, but i don't think it's fair to count that. i have pumped circa 5000 ronds through my ars and probably about 1500 through different m-16s some of which were so old the finish was completely worn through on the barrel and most of the receiver. the 5.56mm 62gr m855 is adequate for human targets out to about 250m from a 20" m-16a2 and about 150m out of the 14.5" m-4. most of the reports of failures to drop targets are due to excessive range or poor shot placement. that said, obviously the 7.62 nato has more energy and thus should perform better on human targets at any range, but as was mentioned earlier, there are severe weight issues involved. the 5.56mm round was adopted because it offered an ideal balance between power and weight. anyone who's had to travel long distances by foot with rifle, k-pot, lbe, canteens and a 40# ruck appreciates the weight saving the 5.56mm allows. i'd like to know how many "experts" who decry the m-16 platform have actually spent any time in level III body armor.

bottom line: like the above posts mentioned, every weapon systems has pros and cons.

[Rexrider]

Well, for whatever it is worth, I don't think they suck. I own 2 also. A 10-year-old post-ban 20" Colt and a no-ban 14.5" (+ izzy FH) Bushmaster I bought last year after the AWB expired.

The Colt has never had a non-magazine related failure. The mags that did cause a failure were Thermolds that had excessive flash on the feed lips. Once I cleaned up the mags I never had a failure since.

The Bushy failed out of the box. It was sent back to Bushmaster and they fixed it. No failures of any kind since then (over 1500 rds).

Now, I have not used them in combat (and expect I never will). I clean them but each rifle has seen over 1k before cleaning just to see how they would run.

Also, Aluminum mags may break/bend when stepped on but at $13 apiece I can live with that. I try not to step on mags if I can help it

The round itself may not be the best one out there, but if designed correctly and provided enough velocity, it works.

But then what do I know. I like Glocks too. :neener:

[Infidel]

So why is it that every picture of special forces I see has the majority of them carrying some kind of AR15/M4/M16 variant
If you needed a real rifle, boy, the Army would have issued you one.

[Commissar Gribb]

If you needed a real rifle, boy, the Army would have issued you one.

I dont see what's so bad about it anymore. 5.56 does the job well in most cases and gives back with many advantages.

we're still an all volunteer military- dont like the rifle? dont join.

[swingset]

Ask Britain, who could have issued their Special Forces anything they wanted and probably would have preferred a British variant why they chose the M4? What about Israel, who uses theirs in daily combat, why did they abandon the Galil for the M16 family? What about Denmark, what about the Phillipines, what about....

You get the idea. The M16 has drawbacks, but ALL rifles do and history is proving day after day, battle after battle that the M16 is one the most versatile, deadly assault rifle ever fielded.

[NMshooter]

Never did understand the need some folks have to hate inanimate objects.

[rbernie]

I believe that the professional term of art is 'penile compensation syndrome'.....

[GunGoBoom]

I used to be convinced that they sucked, not because of caliber, but for alleged unreliability. Now I'm convinced that they don't suck at all. The caliber is perhaps not ideal, but very very good and the best tradeoff considering weight of the ammo and alternatives. I think that a 6mm or .257 cartridge would be ideal, preferably a 6mm (NOT 6.5 or 6.8mm), but the 5.56 works fine with proper barrel length and bullet selection. ARs is good stuff. I can understand hating inanimate objects - I hate beanie babies.

[hillbilly]

I think they suck sooooo much that I've actually built two of them out of parts kits.

But then again, I've also built a FAL and I own an M-1A, too.

I think you should just appreciate diversity

hillbilly

[Too Many Choices!?]

Most people buy 1......But usually end up with 2-10 :scrutiny:...

It sucks soo much that it has been the issue weapon for almost ~40 years :scrutiny:...

It sucks sooo much that it is the," Gun to beat", in 3 gun and NRA long range matches :scrutiny: ...

I think the AR-15 is a fine weapon if you take it for what it is(light on weight and a certified man stopper), and not what it isn't(an AK or M-14).... :scrutiny:

The AR-15 was designed to be a man stopper(even lightly armored men) and I think some people don't want anything short of a shoulder fired tank buster
:D

[NMshooter]

Well, I want a pocket sized disintegrator with no recoil and unlimited ammo... :p

[dasmi]

So why is it that every picture of special forces I see has the majority of them carrying some kind of AR15/M4/M16 variant. Whether they be U.S. Spec Ops, SAS etc. These are the folks that, I assume, know what they are doing and do indeed have a level of choice involved.
Then maybe they don't suck, and this entire thread is a waste of bandwidth and diskspace... :p

[jefnvk]

Most people that make statements like that are not in any position to make statements like that.

People that say that we shouldn't use the AR because it isn't as reliable as the AK, make about as much sense in saying that I shouldn't drive a Mustang because a Corvette goes faster.

[Bud Light]

Maybe the bad rep is that the AR is an assualt rifle not a battle rifle and is best at sub 200 yard ranges. Though the feed back on the early M-4's in Somalia was terrible with the enemy taking on average 4 hits to stop and even then they were just bleeding out. The .308 will get the job done better no if ands or buts. In Afganistan the M-4's seem to come up short due to the distances that the enemy is being engaged hence you would think a geniune battle rifle ie., the M-14 would be a vastly better choice. I like AR's and they have a role. As far as SF groups being able to carry whatever they want well in many cases that is simply not true. And if I'm not mistaken Socom is looking very hard at ballistically superior rounds for the M-4's. But its ok to own a black "poodle shooter" or actually for me a "prairie dog capper" i love mine.

[MaceWindu]

It sucks sooo much that it is the," Gun to beat", in 3 gun and NRA long range matches ...

Screw the competition stuff, I want a BG stopper...paper does not rob, steal or cheat you.

The AR serves its roll competently.


MaceWindu

[Commissar Gribb]

Maybe the bad rep is that the AR is an assualt rifle not a battle rifle and is best at sub 200 yard ranges. Though the feed back on the early M-4's in Somalia was terrible with the enemy taking on average 4 hits to stop and even then they were just bleeding out. The .308 will get the job done better no if ands or buts. In Afganistan the M-4's seem to come up short due to the distances that the enemy is being engaged hence you would think a geniune battle rifle ie., the M-14 would be a vastly better choice. I like AR's and they have a role. As far as SF groups being able to carry whatever they want well in many cases that is simply not true. And if I'm not mistaken Socom is looking very hard at ballistically superior rounds for the M-4's. But its ok to own a black "poodle shooter" or actually for me a "prairie dog capper" i love mine.

it's really not fair to compare such vastly different cartridges but regardless..

The M4 is not designed to be a "reach out and touch" rifle. It's a carbine that sacrifices capabilities at distances and accuracy for a shorter more compact package. nobody on the website says "why is the US military using beretta pistols when the enemy is using AKs?".

Yes we still use M16s and yes- they are most definately up to the job of hitting targets at range. in fact- ballistically speaking IIRC, they do their most damage at range since the bullet has more time to fragment.

[Too Many Choices!?]

What you talkin' 'bout Willis :confused: ? The longer the range to target, the less energy when the bullet gets there, which equals less fragmentation, sadly :( ...So shoot them twice,"at range":evil: ...

TMC

[Rockstar]

I just don't get a couple of things said in this thread: "early M-4 in Somalia?" What the heck was "early" about the M-4's in Somalia? As anybody who remembers what happened in Somalia knows, the type of bullets used, not the platform from which the bullets were launched, was the problem.

"Fragment at range?" Unbelievable! ;)

[KaceCoyote]

The AR isnt unreliable, however the rifle which it is commonly compared to is so amazingly, unstoppably reliable that the AR's reliability pales in comparison.

I like my AK, but I've got nothing against the AR. My dislike centers around the small bore round it champers.

[Coronach]

Yes we still use M16s and yes- they are most definately up to the job of hitting targets at range. in fact- ballistically speaking IIRC, they do their most damage at range since the bullet has more time to fragment.You need to reread whatever source material gave you that tidbit about 5.56's terminal ballistics. That, or find another source.

Fragmentation happens once the bullet strikes something, and only happens reliably above a certain velocity. This is why the longered barrelled ARs are "better" with ball ammo: the bullet stays above the limit at which fragmentation occurs for longer. This means it will fragment upon striking targets further away than bullets fired from a short barrelled AR.

Mike

[voilsb]

Since there seems to be some misinformation about terminal ballistics in this thread, may I remind people that www.ammo-oracle.com (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm) still has very good information about this.

[Rockstar]

By "fragmentation", one generally is speaking of the bullets' breaking @ the cannelure when striking certain media @ 2700 fps or greater. Such breaks don't always happen, nor are they necessary for large, devastating, terminal wounds. One of the characteristics of the .223 bullet is that it yaws easily when striking media as dense as flesh. There's an excellent high-speed photo somewhere (it's on a German website) of a .223 bullet's tumbling as it passes through an orange.

Don't make the mistake of operating under the illusion that a break at the cannelure is required for the .223 bullet to be devastating, as you'd be doing yourself a disservice.

[Kalashnikov]

MY main problem with the AR platform is the ammunition. Terminal ballistics aside, I personally feel that the round is not sufficantly(sp) lethal. Part of the reason, is the we are limited to FMJ ammo in the U.S. military, but I still feel something in a larger caliber would do everything the 5.56 can do and do it better.

[Rupestris]

The only thing that sucks about AR's (IMO) is that they are WAY overpriced.

Its a pick-up truck with a Porsche price tag.

[Keaner]

I personally have 2 strong dislikes for the M16/M4 platform.

The first is the week ammo. I realize it works well for the military, etc, but when I don't have backup, or an automatic weapon (ie, AR-15*), I want a round that will put down to stay down.

The second strong dislike I have with the platform is its weakness in the stock. I am personally an M1 fan, so take that as a reason: but I want a weapon that works just as good as a club :neener: I realize the M1 is too heavy, too long, has too much recoil, not enough ammo capacity ,etc for most, but its godsend reliability, its massive-hard hittin round, and its amazing range make it a great weapon for a medium-long distance military.

* the AR-15 IMHO is a worthless weapon. The main advantage of the M16/M4 is that its an easily controllable automatic weapon that anyone can use. The AR-15 is just a semi-auto .223. If I have to have a semi-auto, there are better choices.

[yorec]

something in a larger caliber would do everything the 5.56 can do and do it better.

Except wound - no one's brought up the old wounding theory - it takes two enemies to care for one who has been wounded and lies screaming. Three down with one shot...

On the other hand, if your enemy doesn't care if one of thier buddies lies screaming nearby and presses on to finish you off... :neener:

Still - I like my AR better than my FN-FAL, AK, M1 or any other weapon when it comes to scooting about the bush fending off hostiles of unknown capabilities and number. But give me my FN-FAL (or preferably M1 if you'll supply a couple dozen extra mags) with my mags when hunkered down behind a fortress wall with lotsa buddies similarly armed! :scrutiny:

Oh yeah - Rupestris, have you priced a new pick up lately! :eek:

[Rupestris]

Oh yeah - Rupestris, have you priced a new pick up lately!

I knew someone would catch that. Unfortunately, I have. :(
Just meant that its a mass produced, utility firearm that should be cheaper considering the production/sales numbers.
The market seems flooded with 'em. Dunhams sporting goods is selling them now. Even the small Mom-&-pop gun stores around here have a half dozen in stock.

[yorec]

A from that angle I agree wholeheartedly - problem is that the AR's popularity is driving the current demand. So prices will stay high so long as people will continue to pay them. Second problem is that I'll need a dozen MORE ARs before my personal appetite is satiated... Sigh. :scrutiny:

[jefnvk]

Just meant that its a mass produced, utility firearm that should be cheaper considering the production/sales numbers.

AK's would be just as expensive, if they were made in America.

Just because something is mass produced, doesn't mean that it is cheaper to make.

[Master Blaster]

They dont suck. :)

[Kurt]

They would, if they could........imo.


:barf:

[txgho1911]

Several state have baned them in any form. A federal ban was created and that lasted for 10 years. I baught one so I could truthfully brag about it to my senators and Congres critter for Indiana's 7th dist.

[sully]

The M16/AR15 weapons system has been in U.S. Military service for over 40 years. I'm sure if it was a bad or unreliable system that it would have been gone. As far as the M4 and bullet performance, the shorter 14.5" barrel puts out lower velocity to the 5.56/.223 caliber ammunition, and when you slow this ammunition down it will penetrate more and not break up or yaw as fast. The break up and yawing of this particular rifle round is what creates trauma, thus less break up means less trauma.

CY6,
Greg Sullivan "Sully"
Chief Instructor
TheDefensiveEdge.com (http://www.defensive-edge.net)

[Essex County]

I sold one AK yesterday and traded the other one this morning. I have a great deal of respect for the AK platform, but My AR's much more practical for me. I have a Colt H-Bar, a varmint rig and a carbine. The AK simply doesn't shoot with the AR's. We hear much about the AK's ability to withstand neglect but I don't bury my guns in a manure pit fot six months. Even if I did a garden hose would probably get either one going. I'm not going to get into a caliber war ( it leads to nowhere ). The only advantages I can see is inexpensive ammo and a lower initial investment......Essex

[jefnvk]

Oh, one moire thing on cost. Besides the foreign AK's, and CIA Cetmes, what other assualt/battle rifles are considerably cheaper? Many of the rest will run into the thousands of dollars, when you can get a bone stock A2 or CAR for the $700-800 mark, and even cheaper if you dig or build.

[roo_ster]

1. Cartridge
The 5.56mm is adequate for most applications, but has little surplus knock-down for when ranges get long or barrels get short.

2. Defecates Where It Eats
The gas system dumps the gas & carbon all over the carrier, bolt, chamber and everything else encased in the upper & lower. This is inherently less robust than the piston/rod system used by other auto rifles. Hence, the AR must get TLC more often and with greater attention to detail than less-sensitive designs. This is no big deal with a sporting rifle or a rifle used in law enforcement.

*****

On the upside, the AR can be accurzed more easily than most other designs and has a nearly unlimited array of customizing doo-dads that can be slapped on it. It is also easier to shoot adequately & can be shot for cheap.

[cordex]

What about Israel, who uses theirs in daily combat, why did they abandon the Galil for the M16 family?
Um ... I think they abandoned the Galil because of its weight and (more importantly) the fact they can get M16s for free from Uncle Sugar.

[Shane333]

Cordex has a point. The U.S. has an interesting relationship with Israel. We give them some monetary aid, and they are expected to then buy US made defence products with that aid.

At least, that is my understanding of the situation.

Of course, don't forget the aid we give to several of the countries surrounding Israel...like $2 billion/year to Egypt or the millions we give to the Palestinians each year. I just bring that up because in some parts of the world they've forgotten about how much aid we give to Israel's neighbors.

[355sigfan]

AR15's don't suck. They are the fighting weapon by which all others are judged. They are the best over all in accuracy, ergonoomics and overall user friendlyness. The caliber is fine if you use good ammo. Its not a 600 yard gun but most situations don't call for that.
Pat

[Rupestris]

Oh, one more thing on cost. Besides the foreign AK's, and CIA Cetmes, what other assualt/battle rifles are considerably cheaper? Many of the rest will run into the thousands of dollars, when you can get a bone stock A2 or CAR for the $700-800 mark, and even cheaper if you dig or build.

I wish there were some battle rifles for the Cetme or AK price.
Being one who tends to buy good used firearms I don't mind holding out 'til I find what I want.

A new lever gun will set you back $300 - $500. A used one in excelent shape can be found for roughly half.
A typical handgun will lose 10 - 20% off the top when it comes to resale.
Remington 870's can be had for alot less that NIB if one looks for 'em.
Plenty of other good, popular firearms depreciate considerably.

The AR seems to hold its value to the piont where its better to buy new.

Now, with that said, retained value is a good thing. I'd love to get what I paid for any of my firearms.
Personally, I'd just like to see an entry level AR in the $500 (closer to the price of a Ruger Mini 14) range or more reasonable prices on used ones.
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way.

[Pete45]

"They've long since ironed out those major issues and the M16 is reasonably reliable, but old stigmas die hard."

One of the famous M16 / AR15 stigmas has been the sensitivity of the action to fouling as a result of the gas system setup. Has this issue been dealt with adequately by this point in time? I'm not being sarcastic... I'm actually asking. It is still quite frequently referred to as a negative attribute of the platform. I know the forward assist acts as a safety net of sorts, but what else has been done to solve the problem? I have no experience with ARs so I am curious if the gripe is still valid.

- Pete45

[jefnvk]

Pete, I believe that some of the original .223 loadings utilized a different powder than what was specified, stuff they had left over from the 7.62 and .30 ammo runs. That was part of the problem.

[Zak Smith]

One of the famous M16 / AR15 stigmas has been the sensitivity of the action to fouling as a result of the gas system setup. Has this issue been dealt with adequately by this point in time? I'm not being sarcastic... I'm actually asking.
This point is so overblown it's not even funny.

Take a properly built AR15, such as a Colt. It will be able to shoot merely decent ammo for many thousands of rounds before it starts to malfunction due to self-fouling, if ever. Yes, it looks dirty, but it runs. Get over it.

Even piston designs like the FAL or M96 have to have their gas pistons de-carboned periodically.

[rbernie]

And that's really the sum of it. It's awfully emotionally compelling when you hear someone say, 'Oh, it craps where it eats so it must suck', but the reality seems to be that direct gas impingment isn't the boogyman that it's made out to be.

But it certainly is more of a gut-grabber than hearing how operating rod bounce causes action/barrel harmonics that can play havoc with a rifle's accuracy... :rolleyes:

[Too Many Choices!?]

Thankyou!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have never heard of an AR-15 or M-16 "Brought down", SOLEY DUE TO FOULING!!!! Poeple have to justify their hate some how though so any PERCEIVED WEAKNESS IS JUMPED ON, THEN REPEATED TO THE POINT OF THE GOSPEL :banghead: :barf: ! This bears repeating again, AR-15/M-16 series weapns will fire thousands of rounds without cleaning before fouling will POSSIBLY disable the action. So AR critics can just move on to the mouse gun hating club and leave the direct gas impengement hating club, as it has never been proven in 2nd generation AR's/'16's :eek: !

[Commissar Gribb]

AK's would be just as expensive, if they were made in America.

Just because something is mass produced, doesn't mean that it is cheaper to make.

they are made in the US and the US made ones are expensive.

AFAIK, you'd be hard pressed to find an Arsenal AK priced around $200

[Kurt]

Somebody's gonna bust a gasket! Relax.

Hey, it's a sad design, especially for modern times. It may work most of the time, but it sure wouldn't cause sooo much concern in sooo many folks if it were such a superb weapon. And then we can start to discuss it's cartridge.

:rolleyes:

Two of the stoppages I personally saw had nothing to do with "fouling" Mr. TMC. The first one was with a newish Colt. After about 260 initial break-in rounds, the owner cleaned it and put it in his room temp safe.

On a range trip with me (a little over seven or eight months later) the weapon wouldn't even make it through ten straight rounds without a hiccup.

After many days of diagnosis (he really knew and liked AR's), it finally turned out to be the lube Colt put in the recoil spring tube. It was too much, too thick or too something or other - I don't even remember. The owner said he didn't touch anything in that area when he cleaned the gun.

The other incident I witnessed with another factory AR was a whole bunch of demonic stuff happening due to a semi-loose gas tube (key?). It was the part that's screwed to the top of the AR bolt. I'm glad I wasn't ridin' home with THAT dude! When he calmed down, he said it had about 400 rounds through it over the last half-year or so. It was either a Bushy or Rock Island I believe.... not a Colt.

AR Sir?

NO THANK YOU ! ! !

:uhoh:

[jefnvk]

It may work most of the time, but it sure wouldn't cause sooo much concern in sooo many folks if it were such a superb weapon.

I know people that say you should never buy a 1911, they are prone to jamming and need tinkering to make them work. Lots of people, in fact. Just look at some of the non-1911 pistol boards.

I know plenty of people that will say that 9mm isn't big enough to kill a man.

I know plenty of people that would crap their pants if they knew EBR's were legal.

Just because lots of people have a notion against something, doesn't make it true. It means it has been repeated enough to unknowing minds to make it stick.

Most of the time, while hearing about the M16's failures, I hear 'Back when I was in Vietnam...'. Vietnam was a long time ago. We aren't even on the same gun or ammo as then.

I would bet that if the US forces fielded the AK, and the enemy had the M16, we would find much to complain about. It is innaccurate, or it doesn't fit well, or the sights suck. We would say 'we need to go to the M16, like our enemies have, they work so much better'.

As for your examples, if I unscrewed parts in the AK, it probably wouldn't work, either.

And I don't buy people's complaint about one product, when they are pitching how this other product is the cat's meow.

[Commissar Gribb]

On a range trip with me (a little over seven or eight months later) the weapon wouldn't even make it through ten straight rounds without a hiccup.

After many days of diagnosis (he really knew and liked AR's), it finally turned out to be the lube Colt put in the recoil spring tube. It was too much, too thick or too something or other - I don't even remember. The owner said he didn't touch anything in that area when he cleaned the gun.

leave it to colt!!! LMAO! :evil:

JK though. - yeah any weapon that is improperly assembled or is clogged with grease is going to fail. You can't blame that on the weapon (though arguably you could blame that on colt even though I would say it was user error in that he didn't do a complete military field strip on it before trying to fire it)


The other incident I witnessed with another factory AR was a whole bunch of demonic stuff happening due to a semi-loose gas tube (key?). It was the part that's screwed to the top of the AR bolt. I'm glad I wasn't ridin' home with THAT dude! When he calmed down, he said it had about 400 rounds through it over the last half-year or so. It was either a Bushy or Rock Island I believe.... not a Colt.

I didn't know rock island made ARs... hmm

anyhow- yeah, like jefnvk said. The gas key is supposed to be screwed onto the carrier very tightly. If it's not, your rifle WILL jam and you will be an unhappy customer. This is no fault of the rifle but of the person who put it back together. If I gave you any other rifle where the components weren't installed correct, I bet you'd have similar problems.

[Too Many Choices!?]

So now you want me to believe that an AK-47 with a "loose" gas piston(or other necessary part that is broken/improperly installed) will work better than an AR with a "loose" gas key :confused: ? You also assume that factory guns are flawless, they are not. Anything made by man can and will fail. A well made AK-47 will not give you any trouble, just like a well made AR-15 won't :cuss: ...

But you don't have to like the AR-15/M-16, you just have to respect it is my point :). A while back there was a Thread titled ,"7.62x39 the Rodney Dangerfield(sp?) of Cartriges."; I respectfully submit the AR-15/M-16/M4 as the analogous "Platform", for the sake of this argument, just gets no respect :confused: ...

[Too Many Choices!?]

You beat me to it and he was talkin' to me :cuss: .... :)

[Kurt]

Well experience tell me that there are those that already know the "common knowledge" gun stuff like 1911's are good and 9m/m's don't always work as expected AND that AR's have too many potential problems. The others should just consider themselves on an informational journey of sorts.

CG, you have lost most of my confidence by the way you grasp at anything to defend your popgun.

TMC, I still looking for something in the confidence area. . . :neener:


:)

[Commissar Gribb]

Well experience tell me that there are those that already know the "common knowledge" gun stuff like 1911's are good and 9m/m's don't always work as expected AND that AR's have too many potential problems. The others should just consider themselves on an informational journey of sorts.

common knowledge is not.

and the things you mention are not common knowledge- they are generalities passed on by people who don't know a lot of what they're talking about. I'd take my browning HP any day over a cheap thrown together 1911.


CG, you have lost most of my confidence by the way you grasp at anything to defend your popgun.


popgun? grasp at anything? I'm not going to say that the AR system is perfect, but given correct operator, ammunition, assembly and cleaning I would say that it works very well as a combat weapon. the AR system is not a long range sniper (like the M14) and IMO doesnt rank up to the AK in close quarters but it DOES have it's niche and it DOES fill it well.

After all- it's probably the cheapest modern military style rifle you can buy (assuming you consider the AK to be a product of the 40s).

As for confidence, what the hell is that supposed to mean? I dont even know you! this is a web board! If you want confidence, go talk to some of the army and marine spec forces coming back from iraq who have used the M4/M16 system and say it works fine!
[/QUOTE]

[Zak Smith]

the AR system is not a long range sniper (like the M14) and IMO doesnt rank up to the AK in close quarters but it DOES have it's niche and it DOES fill it well.
Psstt-- Don't tell all those SR25's and AR10's being used to kill bad people at long range.

[Commissar Gribb]

sorry- forgot about the .308 models

I meant the 5.56 ones (ala M4 and M16)

[Zak Smith]

What's wrong with an M4 for CQB, again?

[Sam]

AR's do not suck. For what it was made for they are great. For someone who does not shoot much or has difficulty handling a battle rifle they are outstanding. It was even better before the Army took to playing with it.

What was a small easy handling 6 1/2 lb weapon is now an 8 1/2 lb clunk but that isn't the topic.

Sam

[Zak Smith]

Add an effective adjustable LOP stock, rails with IR illuminators/designators, and a white light (e.g. Surefire) and you now have a 14# M14. Woops.

[Mulliga]

Personally, I'd just like to see an entry level AR in the $500 (closer to the price of a Ruger Mini 14) range or more reasonable prices on used ones.
Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way.

You could theoretically build one up from a lower (say, Stag or Mega) and a parts kit for around $550 + shipping/tax.

Ah, the AR vs. AK thread. You can count on one every month. It's almost like a lunar cycle. :p

[nyresq]

If I was going to shoot at someone 800 yards away, it would be with artillery... or an M1-A.... tank that is.... :neener:

[Kurt]

As for confidence, what the hell is that supposed to mean? I dont even know you! this is a web board! If you want confidence, go talk to some of the army and marine spec forces coming back from iraq who have used the M4/M16 system and say it works fine!
CG, you're correct (that's what you seek - right?) confidence has little to do with it and we're NOT involved (together) in a serious discussion of a most serious class of weapon where some lurking newbie might be swayed to invest their bucks and possibly a LOT MORE in this rather tepid choice of platform and caliber.

Maybe I've confused confidence with boredom in your case. In your counter-points you try to sway things into your favor (reality be damned) as long as you SOUND good. You are exceptionally easy to spot in that regard and often use the exception to help "prove" your point.

You compare your BHP to some slob-level 1911. Why not a $2000 combat custom? You simply brush away my factual examples of AR stoppages that I have personally witnessed, even though those EXACT situations could easily happen to any average buyer and maintainer of these particular weapons.

I grow tired at reasoning this one out with you and your billboard-size posts.

Yep, it was boredom.

Thanks!


:)

[Number 6]

Let's try to keep it civil you all. The being said I will put my 2 cents in before this thread gets shut down.

I think a lot of the problems with the caliber wars or AR vs. AK debates is that each side can cite individual sources and experiences where a caliber failed or a weapon system failed. The problem is that citing personal examples does not prove anything, it is just data. The AK, FAL, M1, M14, M16 all fail at times. Citing a personal experience about a rifle does not mean you can apply those experiences and make a claim about everyone of those rifles. The failure could be because of the operator, a factory problem, or any other issue that does not apply to the whole. For one to really settle the issue, one must look at the aggregate data collected in an unbiased scientific survey. One must try to avoid data bias, if we are striving for what passes for truth.

[Keaner]

The AK, FAL, M1, M14, M16 all fail at times.

Blasphamy! The M1 NEVER fails, even if you are missing parts! :D

In all honesty, the M16 works perfectly in its niche, as a medium range, automatic weapon, utilizing a light ammo, and is fairly reliable.

Remember, in its situation, the m16 doesnt need to be 100% accurate, because you will always have backup. In CQC, the M16 seems like it would do a good job, because of its size advantage over the AK.

As a personal weapon (IE Semi Auto versions) the AR-15 would be a bad weapon when the SHTF, because its main advantage is gone (automatic/burst fire). For the same reason, an AK would be useless.

In that case, you want something deadly accurate, very powerful, simplistic and durable construction, and with the ability to have multiple attacks in close. That is why I think the M1 would be the perfect weapon for a SHTF case. The M1 Bayonet, plus the ability to act as a club in close would give it an advantage. It is also deathly reliable, amazingly simplistic in construction (ie, almost all the parts could be remade in your basement if you needed to).

The only disadvantage to the M1 is ammo capacity, but in general, loading an enbloc is quicker than loading a magazine into a weapon. Plus, with the ammo on clips, held on the body, it wouldn't be a problem.

[roo_ster]

FN M16A2
My issue M16A2, when maintained as perfectly as I was trained to maintain it, was good for ~500 rounds before stoppages would occur due to carbon build-up on the carrier, bolt, & in the chamber. It was serviceable for ~100 more rounds through use of the forward assist. After that, it was necessary to remove carrier & bolt for a quick wipe-down/scrubbing with CLP. A quick few passes with the chamber brush was also a good idea if time was available. I became quick adept at this maneuver.

The M16A2 was moderately used when I was issued it. It was not spankin' new, but had been maintained pretty well. All function checks were good-to-go. The rounds I referenced above were issue rounds, not blanks. With blanks & BFD, performance was worse.

Colt M4A1
I received this puppy nearly spankin' new & received a NIB replacement later. These were generally much less prone to carbon fouling related stoppages. Then, the occurrance of such stoppages started to creep up. Eventually, I ended up replacing all the springs, gas rings, etc. This brought the carbon-fouling related stoppages back in line. The replacement of such parts became routine every few thousand rounds & kept the M4A1 humming. I was quite lucky to have a steady supply of little parts. Otherwise, I suspect my M4A1 would have eventually gotten as bad as the M16A2, for which I did not have a steady supply of parts.

Conclusion
I came to the conclusion that ARs were sort of like hot rod cars or the space shuttle:
* They will work and will perfrom remarkably well given an extremely high level of maintenence. They will fail in the absence of that level of maintenence.
* They are very complex (in comparison to similar machines) and have little tolerance for harsh conditions that do not faze other designs.
* Like those hot rods, a vast array of add-ons & doo-dads were to be had. Some of which actually improved functionality.

[Keaner]

JFruser, 600 rounds before the gun stops working?! Its even worse than I thought! And having to replace parts every few thousand rounds is a little much.

I don't mean to sound like I am fanboying at all, but a few guys at the range I go to own M1's they don't ever even clean the bore(*shudder*), and each has a few thousand rounds through the weapon: without problem. In fact, as the new resident "m1 guy", I cleaned one there the other day that hadn't been cleaned since he got it in 1997, even though his son shot it every weekend! The only difficulty I had was the gas cylinder, which had carbon deposits on the end of the op-rod, and cylinder plug. Neither of which stopped it from functioning.

As far as reliability, neither the AK or the M4/M16/AR-15 will never, EVER match the reliability of a Garand.

Out of them though, I would still get an M4, due to its inability to lose in medium range combat.

[roo_ster]

Keaner:

The first time I noticed my M16A2 stopping due to carbon was on a range where my weapon was set up with all the doo-dads and was to be the weapon my squad was to train on. I was to go first & stay with the weapon at the firing point. Towards the middle of that block of training, I was shotgunning my weapon between users and giving it the once-over with brush & CLP. In the dark. Quick & dirty maintenence done my sense of touch & smell. Stoppages occured in other high round count situations, as well.

I do not hate the ARs or think they "suck." They have good points & bad points. Just have to get to know them and treat them accordingly.

My issued M4A1 I could keep a round count on, but buddies & others in the company were more unkowns. Some never had problems with their weapons (usually Os/NCOs with to-be-expected low round count weapons). If others started complaining of stoppages, I would generally do the spring/ring swap for them. Any weapon that went to higher level maint for whatever reason (usually bent bbl) would get the treatment.

[RevDisk]

When you have no help, you'd better never have to fire 20 rds in any one engagement. If you do, you are probably going to die that day. The survivalist has to be a lot smarter and more careful than the soldier. You can't "accept" ANY level of casulties. So you have to avoid being in the open, in daylight. You have to avoid conflict, except for carefully set up ambushes on small parties of the enemy. Therefore, you will fire very few rds per engagement.

I was doing good up until the "survivalist has to be smarter and more careful than soldier" line. Heh. Indeed, because survivalists have to deal with landmines, IED, and more high end weapons (RPK, RPG's, etc). They also have the option of running the other way when someone shoots at them. :rolleyes:

Not to meantion, not everyone buys their weapons for SHTF scenerios, which are at best a little far fetched for most individuals. If that's what you make your purchases on, tis fine and good. But not everyone buys for the same reasons you do, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Keaner]

Since you won't be carrying more than 200 rds, the need to clean it every 600 rds means nothing.
First, that is incorrect. In a SHTF sinario, I would assume that my Car would also be available as a mode of transport. I would not want to be walking in a situation like that! Anyway, in !PEACE TIME! my car always has 800+ rounds of .30-'06 in it, plus an additional 1000+ rounds at my house. I have a bunch more trunk space, my front seat could hold a few hundred rounds, etc, so I would never have a round limit.

When you have no help, you'd better never have to fire 20 rds in any one engagement.

This may be true with an AR-15 or an AK, but the M1 Garand is effective for a "normal" shooter out past 400 yds over iron sites. The guy I know that was in the Marines said they routinely had them practice out past 600 yds. With optics, the M1 is supposed to be effective WAY past 1000yds for a good shooter.

At these ranges, I would most likely be out of shooting distance of any opponents, and therefore could hold a large group away at once. I could have the "sniper" effect, someone WAY out of the defender's range, but still within the sniper's range.

Also, the 600 rounds listed above is in somewhat ideal conditions. I doubt the M16 was constantly in the mud, being rained on, etc. I would bet that the M16 would have other problems within that time. My major problem with the platform is the sensitivity of the butt stock. On an AR-15 (AFAIK) the bolt slides into the butt stock. I have seen a few AR-15's with butt stocks broken off, so I cannot imagine it being durable enough to last someone as a "lifer" rifle in a situation.

The M1 on the other hand, has a BEEFY stock, which is easily capable of being a weapon on its own, without damaging the integrity of the rifle.

Finally, although unlikely, I would like to point out the bayonet. I have heard (and this may very well be dead wrong) that using the bayonet on an M4/M16 can screw up some of the inner workings of the weapon. The M1 on the other hand, transfers force from the front end of the rifle, into the stock effectively enough to not cause damage.

[Zak Smith]

I have heard (and this may very well be dead wrong) that using the bayonet on an M4/M16 can screw up some of the inner workings of the weapon.
How about we stick to things we actually know personally?

As for 600 rounds ro failure.. At the ITRC last year, we shot over 550 rounds through our carbines in about 20 minutes. Most of the guns ran fine. The ones that didn't, failed because of improper (aftermarket) gas blocks. My JP gamer gun ran 100%.

If 600 rounds to constant failures were true, then nobody could get through a day of training without the gun breaking down. That just doesn't happen. Yes, there are "sick" rifles out there that need repair, but the properly built ones run fine.

[TheDutchman]

Never had my RRA failed once, that was rifle related don't know what you ex army boys are taking about.

[Bud Light]

The peformance of the AR in on autoglass is suspect unless its a .308 Ar.

[RevDisk]

Never had my RRA failed once, that was rifle related don't know what you ex army boys are taking about.

Yes, Dutchman, tis good. But have you stomped on your RRA for a bit, tossed it in a muddy pond overnight, stomped on it a bit more, wash it out with small amount of water, and then tried firing it? What is the longest relatively sustained amount of firing you've subjected it to?

That's not even touching arctic conditions, nor sandstorms, nor a dozen other environmental concerns.

I'm not trying to be cynical. I've subjected my M16A2 to much worse.

Plus, don't forget, lowest bidder usually gets the govt contract. ;)

The Army pays something along the lines of mid $400 per M16A2. At least that's the amount on the property books. I'm not sure what the Materials Command or contract folks actually pay per weapon, and I at times think that no one truly does. Comparing a $400-$600 M16 to a much more expensive AR-15 isn't exactly a fair comparison. I've seen AR's for sale that cost between $1000-$1500. If a weapon costs three times as much, I'd very much expect (hope) it to be of superior quality.

[2ndChapterofActs]

The comment about the cost more better quility. I don't think that is the case. The US Military dosn't deal in all the stuff that we basic consumers do. You can get military packs and stuff cheaper then their civie counterparts.

Don't worry, if I ticked anybody off the last time with my little AK v. M16/M4 bit I won't be posting a whole lot here but if somebody (Too Many Choices) would pop me an email to let me know when the next big AK/AR fight pops up I really would like to get back to the arguments again!

[jefnvk]

You know what needs to happen? Someone needs to get a bunch of M15's and a bunch of AKM's. Do everything imaginable to them. Smash them, drop them, heat them up, freeze them, drop them in water for a few days, maybe even salt water, cake them with mud, run them full auto for hours on end, etc.

I would bet that both types of guns have some that fail, some that work throught all the testing.

I am still of the belief that if we were fielding the AKM, you know, thousands of soldiers using it day in and day out, we would find out about its little problems, too.

[Too Many Choices!?]

Will do ;) .

Jefnvk, Righ on the money as usual.

Again people, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE AR-15/M-16/M-4, YOU ONLY HAVE TO RESPECT IT :) !! ALL Battle/War proven designs deserve that much ;)...

PS: Why would I throw my rifle in the mud and muck when Uncle Sam has already fine-tuned and proven the design for me? :neener:

[dakotasin]

oh, for the love of pete!

[AZ Jeff]

Someone needs to get a bunch of M15's and a bunch of AKM's. Do everything imaginable to them. Smash them, drop them, heat them up, freeze them, drop them in water for a few days, maybe even salt water, cake them with mud, run them full auto for hours on end, etc.
Does anyone here think that somebody in the DOD has not already done this long ago? Just because it's not internet legend does not mean it did not happen.

Case in point: back in 1982, when NATO was considering adoption of the .223 cartridge (or some variant thereof) MANY then "cutting edge" self loading rifles were tested using the then-current M193 ball ammo from the US. Among those tested were the FNC, Galil, FAMAS, G41, etc. (The outcome of all this testing was the adoption by NATO of the "SS109" cartridge.)

Guess what rifle was the benchmark against which to measure reliabilty? The M16A1. Guess which rifle had the best MRBS (mean rounds between stoppages)? The M16A1.

Does any of this get much play on the internet? No. Why? Because the testing and results was not widely distributed thru commerical media channels, so the "legend" was not widely circulated.

So, just because you have not heard of a test between the vaunted AK and the maligned M16 does not mean it has not been done.