natedog
February 23, 2004, 08:10 PM
I'm always hearing about how the AR-15 "defecates where it eats" and "breaks easily". I want to here some good points about its design- omit comments about the caliber, I've already made up my mind on it.
AR: Good points
If you enjoyed reading about "AR: Good points" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Slimjim
February 23, 2004, 08:29 PM
Its a good design. Farily few moving parts, its just built to a kind of tight specs. As long as you keep it clean it will function. The jaming was mostly the early models and powder issues.
BigG
February 23, 2004, 08:41 PM
Natedog:
Yanno, using AR15 as a generic term is akin to using 1911 to describe a million clones of the Colt Government Model and its commercial variants produced by Colt. I bought AR15s when the only maker was Colt (other than a few Olympics and Bushmasters) and never had a problem with mine. Today, you can buy a million different "AR15" pattern rifles and the quality is all over the map, just like the clones of the Colt 45 Automatic. You are taking your chances if you buy something that you are unknowledgeable about and often when something is cheap there is a good reason for it. Not always, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb.
I always use GI contract mags or Colt original 20 and 30 rounders and also never had a problem. The issue of green followers has never come up with any of my mags and they run heavy to Colt, Adventureline (no :cuss: ), Center Industries, and maybe a few of the original contractors in Vietnam era.
There are those who have no use for an AR15 and I just tune them out. The idea of defecates where it eats is too ludicrous to address in my opinion and has the same validity as reasons to elect John Kerry to be our next president. :eek: YMMV
HTH
Yanno, using AR15 as a generic term is akin to using 1911 to describe a million clones of the Colt Government Model and its commercial variants produced by Colt. I bought AR15s when the only maker was Colt (other than a few Olympics and Bushmasters) and never had a problem with mine. Today, you can buy a million different "AR15" pattern rifles and the quality is all over the map, just like the clones of the Colt 45 Automatic. You are taking your chances if you buy something that you are unknowledgeable about and often when something is cheap there is a good reason for it. Not always, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb.
I always use GI contract mags or Colt original 20 and 30 rounders and also never had a problem. The issue of green followers has never come up with any of my mags and they run heavy to Colt, Adventureline (no :cuss: ), Center Industries, and maybe a few of the original contractors in Vietnam era.
There are those who have no use for an AR15 and I just tune them out. The idea of defecates where it eats is too ludicrous to address in my opinion and has the same validity as reasons to elect John Kerry to be our next president. :eek: YMMV
HTH
Gewehr98
February 23, 2004, 08:59 PM
I want to here some good points about its design- omit comments about the caliber, I've already made up my mind on it.
Concerning the design - they're made, these days, to a modular standard. Uncle Sam made a LOT of them, my government-issued M16A2 is made by FN USA. The fact that they're modular and a lot have been made for issue is a good thing. That way, when it jams on me, I can toss it and grab another one fairly quickly, and the unit armorers can collect them and clean up afterwards by cannibalizing the modular sub-assemblies.
I noticed a couple weeks ago, when last I spent some quality M9 time at my local Combat Arms Training & Maintenance shop, they got a big bunch of M4 carbines in. The boxes they were shipped in were piled high outside the back door. It appears Colt got a very big contract for M4's. I asked the CATM guys "when" - referring to the rumored replacement issue of the M4's for the M16A2's in certain parts of Air Force service. "Soon, very soon" was the reply. Joy. :scrutiny:
Concerning the design - they're made, these days, to a modular standard. Uncle Sam made a LOT of them, my government-issued M16A2 is made by FN USA. The fact that they're modular and a lot have been made for issue is a good thing. That way, when it jams on me, I can toss it and grab another one fairly quickly, and the unit armorers can collect them and clean up afterwards by cannibalizing the modular sub-assemblies.
I noticed a couple weeks ago, when last I spent some quality M9 time at my local Combat Arms Training & Maintenance shop, they got a big bunch of M4 carbines in. The boxes they were shipped in were piled high outside the back door. It appears Colt got a very big contract for M4's. I asked the CATM guys "when" - referring to the rumored replacement issue of the M4's for the M16A2's in certain parts of Air Force service. "Soon, very soon" was the reply. Joy. :scrutiny:
Badger Arms
February 23, 2004, 09:00 PM
Good points? For those of you who know me, this is going to be difficult:
1) In-line recoil. The lessened weight of the moving parts moving in direct line with the bore means less muzzle jump and less felt recoil.
2) Accuracy. The Johnson/Stoner locking mechanism along with the stress-free barrel nut mounting system make this an accurate rifle.
3) Sexy. Yep, the gun is just sexy to look at, no doubt about it.
4) Ergonomics. The major controls are easy to reach and manipulate.
5) Pointability. The gun points, shoulders, swings, and balances well with a light-contour barrel.
Everything else I can think of can be shared or surpassed by other weapons. EVERY other weapon in its class is easier to clean and most are easier to disassemble. Virtually all other weapons in this class are more reliable. The AR-15 has lots of accessories, yes, but other guns are just as easy or easier to accessorize, it's just that we've been FORCED to accessorize the AR-15. I won't criticize caliber, but I will say that the AR-15 isn't flexible in its magazine well. You are SEVERELY limited by the magazine well opening to what caliber you use.
1) In-line recoil. The lessened weight of the moving parts moving in direct line with the bore means less muzzle jump and less felt recoil.
2) Accuracy. The Johnson/Stoner locking mechanism along with the stress-free barrel nut mounting system make this an accurate rifle.
3) Sexy. Yep, the gun is just sexy to look at, no doubt about it.
4) Ergonomics. The major controls are easy to reach and manipulate.
5) Pointability. The gun points, shoulders, swings, and balances well with a light-contour barrel.
Everything else I can think of can be shared or surpassed by other weapons. EVERY other weapon in its class is easier to clean and most are easier to disassemble. Virtually all other weapons in this class are more reliable. The AR-15 has lots of accessories, yes, but other guns are just as easy or easier to accessorize, it's just that we've been FORCED to accessorize the AR-15. I won't criticize caliber, but I will say that the AR-15 isn't flexible in its magazine well. You are SEVERELY limited by the magazine well opening to what caliber you use.
RepublicanMan
February 23, 2004, 09:54 PM
Virtually all other weapons in this class are more reliable. it's just that we've been FORCED to accessorize the AR-15.
Horse puckey.......
The AR is no different than any other rifle...you take care of it and it will take care of you....as for accesorizing....the standard A2 sights on production ARs are FAR superior to those on an AK, SKS, G3, FN or any other factory production Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle that I played with while in the Army. People are still stuck on crap that happened back in the early 60s when the weapon was first fielded...and alot of those problems can EASILY be traced back to sabotage by narrow minded morons that were in charge of the testing and Sec Def McNamara who wouldn't allow improvements that were reccomended such as chrome plating the bore and chamber.
To paraphrase a buick commercial...."This ain't your daddys AR"
Horse puckey.......
The AR is no different than any other rifle...you take care of it and it will take care of you....as for accesorizing....the standard A2 sights on production ARs are FAR superior to those on an AK, SKS, G3, FN or any other factory production Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle that I played with while in the Army. People are still stuck on crap that happened back in the early 60s when the weapon was first fielded...and alot of those problems can EASILY be traced back to sabotage by narrow minded morons that were in charge of the testing and Sec Def McNamara who wouldn't allow improvements that were reccomended such as chrome plating the bore and chamber.
To paraphrase a buick commercial...."This ain't your daddys AR"
El Tejon
February 23, 2004, 10:22 PM
Ergonomics.
Harry Tuttle
February 23, 2004, 10:43 PM
availability of TMs, mil spec sighting systems and fellow AR shooters
natedog
February 23, 2004, 10:43 PM
Please, please, for the love of JMB, Mikhail Kalashnikov, and Eugene Stoner, do not turn this into an AR bashing thread.
Gewehr98
February 23, 2004, 11:04 PM
Please, please, for the love of JMB, Mikhail Kalashnikov, and Eugene Stoner, do not turn this into an AR bashing thread.
As long as you don't elevate Eugene Stoner to the same level as John Moses Browning again. ;)
As long as you don't elevate Eugene Stoner to the same level as John Moses Browning again. ;)
del4
February 23, 2004, 11:09 PM
It's more accurate than your average, off the shelf battle/assult/military self loading rifle.
Ammo is cheap and easy to find.
Light recoil, short LOP, makes it easy to break someone in on a HP rifle, especially youths.
Mags prices are not off of the price scale.
Intimidation factor for home defence. (looks like an M-16)
Big cool factor with non-shooting friends. ("This is a civilian M-16")
Ammo is cheap and easy to find.
Light recoil, short LOP, makes it easy to break someone in on a HP rifle, especially youths.
Mags prices are not off of the price scale.
Intimidation factor for home defence. (looks like an M-16)
Big cool factor with non-shooting friends. ("This is a civilian M-16")
natedog
February 23, 2004, 11:21 PM
Don't you mean drag Eugene Stoner down to JMBs level :D ?:neener: :what:
Gewehr98
February 23, 2004, 11:25 PM
Oh, alright. They're both in a happier place now, anyway. Probably working on a new autoloading big-bore project together with John C. Garand, Elmer Keith, Charles Newton, Bill Ruger, and Gale McMillan. :p
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 01:19 AM
The AR is no different than any other rifle...you take care of it and it will take care of you....On the contrary, you beat the heck out of a G3 or AK47 and they will still get the job done. The same could be said of the M1 Garand in my experience. I don't have any personal experience, but I doubt that the AR would hold a candle to the Sig 55x series in terms of reliability or durability. My negative experiences with the AR are the reason for my distrust in its reliability, not as you imply, some armchair philosophizing.
swingset
February 24, 2004, 03:06 AM
You can argue this till everyone on this forum is dead and gone, but two incontrovertible facts will remain to attest to the AR's lasting contribution to the shooting world:
1. Proven in combat over and over and over again, by many countries in very different areas of field use. High maintenance gun? Perhaps, but so is every other accurate gun in combat. Want to hit what you aim at? Pay the piper. This goes for the Sig550, the AUG, the SA-80, etc. They all have their issues. As for durability, they seem to last an awful long time. Countries are still using early Vietnam era M-16's in combat, which says quite a bit about the ruggedness of the design & manufacture. When the SAS & Israelis tested, they found the M-16 variants just as durable and to have just as much longevity as pretty much every other gun in their class, if not more. I'm a big fan of the G-36 & Sig designs, but I don't under any circumstance say they surpass the AR in every way, only in some ways and for each advantage, they give something up. So it is with guns.
2. Configurable. For whatever reason you want to attribute this to, there is no getting around the incredible modularity of the AR. From match rifle to entry level combat carbine to pistol all with just a few pins & screwdriver turns that a boob can accomplish.
Now, continue the pissing match like I know you will....:neener:
1. Proven in combat over and over and over again, by many countries in very different areas of field use. High maintenance gun? Perhaps, but so is every other accurate gun in combat. Want to hit what you aim at? Pay the piper. This goes for the Sig550, the AUG, the SA-80, etc. They all have their issues. As for durability, they seem to last an awful long time. Countries are still using early Vietnam era M-16's in combat, which says quite a bit about the ruggedness of the design & manufacture. When the SAS & Israelis tested, they found the M-16 variants just as durable and to have just as much longevity as pretty much every other gun in their class, if not more. I'm a big fan of the G-36 & Sig designs, but I don't under any circumstance say they surpass the AR in every way, only in some ways and for each advantage, they give something up. So it is with guns.
2. Configurable. For whatever reason you want to attribute this to, there is no getting around the incredible modularity of the AR. From match rifle to entry level combat carbine to pistol all with just a few pins & screwdriver turns that a boob can accomplish.
Now, continue the pissing match like I know you will....:neener:
artherd
February 24, 2004, 03:33 AM
1) Ergonomics. I can quickly aim and get a shot off faster, and with more precision, than just about any other gun.
2) Reliability. Let's face it, the thing is combat-proven in theaters all over the globe. Is it problem-free? No. Is it a damn reliable inherant design? YES!
3) Parts Availability. There's lots of 'em to scavange parts from after the commet slams into the ocean.
4) Ease of assembley.
5) Felxability. It can be everything from a pistol, to a 26" target/varmant/sniper's rifle.
6) Price. Relatively cheap for what it is (a dam good gun).
7) Cool sproingy sound and cool looking A2 flash hider. Hey, at least I'm honest.
2) Reliability. Let's face it, the thing is combat-proven in theaters all over the globe. Is it problem-free? No. Is it a damn reliable inherant design? YES!
3) Parts Availability. There's lots of 'em to scavange parts from after the commet slams into the ocean.
4) Ease of assembley.
5) Felxability. It can be everything from a pistol, to a 26" target/varmant/sniper's rifle.
6) Price. Relatively cheap for what it is (a dam good gun).
7) Cool sproingy sound and cool looking A2 flash hider. Hey, at least I'm honest.
Elarski
February 24, 2004, 03:58 AM
Natedog: Are you getting a FAB-10 Lower? If so, from who, and how much?
And what type of upper are you going to get? Whatever you get, I'm sure you'll have fun with it! Good luck!:cool:
And what type of upper are you going to get? Whatever you get, I'm sure you'll have fun with it! Good luck!:cool:
c_yeager
February 24, 2004, 05:40 AM
I don't have any personal experience, but I doubt that the AR would hold a candle to the Sig 55x series in terms of reliability or durability.
Well thats easy, lets just compare the performance of the sig vs the ar series in various fields of combat. Whats that you say? No data? Hmmmmm could it be that one has been the main combat arm of the most powerfull military in the world for close to 40 years and the other one guards the pope? hmmmmmm
Well thats easy, lets just compare the performance of the sig vs the ar series in various fields of combat. Whats that you say? No data? Hmmmmm could it be that one has been the main combat arm of the most powerfull military in the world for close to 40 years and the other one guards the pope? hmmmmmm
RepublicanMan
February 24, 2004, 07:52 AM
I don't have any personal experience, but I doubt that the AR would hold a candle to the Sig 55x series in terms of reliability or durability. My negative experiences with the AR are the reason for my distrust in its reliability, not as you imply, some armchair philosophizing.
Not to get into a pissing contest (I prefer to save those for political discussions for the most part :D ), but I carried the AR series of rifle for a little over 12 years, started with an A1 in basic training and the Texas Guard and for the first couple of years in Germany, then got an A2 when we swapped over in Germany after I went active, then an M4 while at Bragg and not once in the entire time did I have a problem with it other than the occasional (as in not very often) failure to feed due to faulty mags or due to the fact that I didn't seat the rounds in the mag properly. My experience includes 6 months in the sand box during the 90-91 Gulf War.....a once daily cleaning and a little common sense (as in don't use a lubricant that is thick such as CLP) was all it took. I like the G3 although it's not much fun trying to control on FA and it's heavy as balls. While at Bragg my unit had some examples of almost every NATO and Pact small arms in the arms room and I was able to "play" with most of them at one time or another at the range.....perhaps due to familiarity or perhaps just because it's an excellent design, the AR was far and away the best performer for me and it was most certainly among the lightest and easiest to tote around the woods.
Not to get into a pissing contest (I prefer to save those for political discussions for the most part :D ), but I carried the AR series of rifle for a little over 12 years, started with an A1 in basic training and the Texas Guard and for the first couple of years in Germany, then got an A2 when we swapped over in Germany after I went active, then an M4 while at Bragg and not once in the entire time did I have a problem with it other than the occasional (as in not very often) failure to feed due to faulty mags or due to the fact that I didn't seat the rounds in the mag properly. My experience includes 6 months in the sand box during the 90-91 Gulf War.....a once daily cleaning and a little common sense (as in don't use a lubricant that is thick such as CLP) was all it took. I like the G3 although it's not much fun trying to control on FA and it's heavy as balls. While at Bragg my unit had some examples of almost every NATO and Pact small arms in the arms room and I was able to "play" with most of them at one time or another at the range.....perhaps due to familiarity or perhaps just because it's an excellent design, the AR was far and away the best performer for me and it was most certainly among the lightest and easiest to tote around the woods.
BigG
February 24, 2004, 09:40 AM
c_yeager: I love your on target comment! :D
Advocates of theoretical advantages of SIG longarms, French surrender rifles like FAMAS, Austrian never-beens like the AUG just cannot be compared to the real-world record of the M16, much to their chagrin. "Well, I'm sure if it was EVER in a battle it would be much better than the M16" seems to be the best they can come up with. :neener: :neener: :neener:
Advocates of theoretical advantages of SIG longarms, French surrender rifles like FAMAS, Austrian never-beens like the AUG just cannot be compared to the real-world record of the M16, much to their chagrin. "Well, I'm sure if it was EVER in a battle it would be much better than the M16" seems to be the best they can come up with. :neener: :neener: :neener:
Joe Demko
February 24, 2004, 09:59 AM
AR Good Point #237: They provide lots of entertainment in the form of watching The He-Man AR Haters Club (tm) members get their smallclothes twisted into hard, little knots.
natedog
February 24, 2004, 10:17 AM
FAB-10...I wish...the gun funds a little low right now, so I'll have to stick with my Mini-14 till I get out of state.
Swamprabbit
February 24, 2004, 10:54 AM
Me, and my AR owning friends, aren't veterans so I can't speak regarding the combat use of ARs. But for general plinking, hunting, and competition (high power) shooting, I think the things are great. My competition rifle has just over 2,000 rounds through it and it still works great. The target two-stage trigger went out on it after just over 1,000 rounds but these triggers aren't what is used on regular ARs.
When you hear of parts breakage, you need to keep in mind that many ARs are shot thousands of times. There is NO piece of machinery that can be steadily used (and ofter abused) and not have wear and tear. As for the gas system, I don't particularily like it because it makes the chamber dirty but it does make the rifle much lighter and makes for less parts to wear out.
When you hear of parts breakage, you need to keep in mind that many ARs are shot thousands of times. There is NO piece of machinery that can be steadily used (and ofter abused) and not have wear and tear. As for the gas system, I don't particularily like it because it makes the chamber dirty but it does make the rifle much lighter and makes for less parts to wear out.
SodaPop
February 24, 2004, 11:04 AM
When I have taken my sisters and friends to the range, I have taken my SKS, FAL, AR and Mini 14 and every new shooter I took preferred the AR.
The more experienced shooters wanted something else.
The AR15/M16 is good for training monkeys.
:D
The more experienced shooters wanted something else.
The AR15/M16 is good for training monkeys.
:D
El Tejon
February 24, 2004, 11:18 AM
Soda, you are getting the AK and the AR confused again.;)
RepublicanMan
February 24, 2004, 11:40 AM
At ease that noise there James........or I'll tell everyone you were afraid to go shooting because it was windy. :D
rock jock
February 24, 2004, 11:47 AM
The more experienced shooters wanted something else.
Probably because the AR is so ubiquitous that they wanted to try something new. I know that would have been my response. I have never fired a FAL so I would pick that first.
Probably because the AR is so ubiquitous that they wanted to try something new. I know that would have been my response. I have never fired a FAL so I would pick that first.
SodaPop
February 24, 2004, 12:24 PM
I value my family too much to train them on the AK style rifles. *Joking*
People that arm their soldiers with AKs usually think they are expendable.
I'll train my monkees to shoot an AR. :neener:
At ease that noise there James........or I'll tell everyone you were afraid to go shooting because it was windy.
You just did.:uhoh:
People that arm their soldiers with AKs usually think they are expendable.
I'll train my monkees to shoot an AR. :neener:
At ease that noise there James........or I'll tell everyone you were afraid to go shooting because it was windy.
You just did.:uhoh:
BigG
February 24, 2004, 12:28 PM
Sodapop: Sonny, any credibility you MAY have ever had with me is rapidly evaporating. Are you trying to break into comedy, perchance?
dave3006
February 24, 2004, 12:29 PM
Sodapop, why don't you train your family to use the Mini-14. They go bang all the time. I have seen so many ARs malfunction, including mine, I would never give one to a non-gun person I care about.
Dave
Dave
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 12:40 PM
Defense of the AR-15 system comes in several flavors. Here are some common ones:
The AR-15 is better than sliced bread becasuse...
...it has been used for 47 years and no other gun in that caliber has been made in greater numbers. (well DUH, but because it was first doesn't mean it was best)
...it didn't fail us in OIF or Afganistan! (actually, those I've talked to all report some sort of failures. Even they defend the gun because they know when and how it's going to fail!)
...even the SIG 55x has problems and has never been in combat. (Bullpucky, there was a time when the iron knife had never been in combat either. I'll bet there were cavemen touting the superiority of the flint knife for centuries thereafter)
...well, because we say so and anybody that disagrees with us gets called names like 'he-man AR hater.'
...becasue those who disagree with us don't have personal experience with real guns like a Bushmaster or Colt.
...all of the AR's problems were McNamarra's fault. If they would have developed the gun more, it would be better now. (polished turd)
...I've shot my AR's thousands of times and I haven't broken anything.
...I got a chance to shoot every NATO weapon out there and I still liked the AR. In fact, it was far and away the best performer even though it jamed sometimes mostly due to the magazines. I only had to clean it once a day to keep it from jamming. (wonder how many Iraquis had to clean their AK's once daily?)
The AR-15 is better than sliced bread becasuse...
...it has been used for 47 years and no other gun in that caliber has been made in greater numbers. (well DUH, but because it was first doesn't mean it was best)
...it didn't fail us in OIF or Afganistan! (actually, those I've talked to all report some sort of failures. Even they defend the gun because they know when and how it's going to fail!)
...even the SIG 55x has problems and has never been in combat. (Bullpucky, there was a time when the iron knife had never been in combat either. I'll bet there were cavemen touting the superiority of the flint knife for centuries thereafter)
...well, because we say so and anybody that disagrees with us gets called names like 'he-man AR hater.'
...becasue those who disagree with us don't have personal experience with real guns like a Bushmaster or Colt.
...all of the AR's problems were McNamarra's fault. If they would have developed the gun more, it would be better now. (polished turd)
...I've shot my AR's thousands of times and I haven't broken anything.
...I got a chance to shoot every NATO weapon out there and I still liked the AR. In fact, it was far and away the best performer even though it jamed sometimes mostly due to the magazines. I only had to clean it once a day to keep it from jamming. (wonder how many Iraquis had to clean their AK's once daily?)
ny32182
February 24, 2004, 12:41 PM
Mini-14's, with any mag over the factory 10 rounds, or even the factory mag with softpoint ammo, seldom goes bang in my experience.
My AR's go bang, every single time. Always. And they always put the bullet where I want it to go, too. My other... umm... Russian rifle goes bang every time, but its anyone's guess as to where the bullet will land if it goes further than 100 yards (probably ammo related though).
There is a reason that ARs are so heavily used in the civilian market, as well as by the best troops in the world for the last 40 years. That reason is that with good mags, good ammo, and occasional maintenance, the AR is as good or better than any .223 autoloader out there... Period.
My AR's go bang, every single time. Always. And they always put the bullet where I want it to go, too. My other... umm... Russian rifle goes bang every time, but its anyone's guess as to where the bullet will land if it goes further than 100 yards (probably ammo related though).
There is a reason that ARs are so heavily used in the civilian market, as well as by the best troops in the world for the last 40 years. That reason is that with good mags, good ammo, and occasional maintenance, the AR is as good or better than any .223 autoloader out there... Period.
Joe Demko
February 24, 2004, 12:43 PM
Those knots uncomfortable after you've sat on them a while, Badger?
RepublicanMan
February 24, 2004, 12:47 PM
Much like the 1911 the AR doesn't really need a defense....it's history proves its point admirably.
Seems most anti-AR people are those that have ZERO experience with them, don't want to take the time to take care of what they own, subscribe to the "I need a bigger bullet to make up for my lack of manhood" theory or just like to argue.
As to the moronic remarks about common defenses....might just be that they're common because they're KNOWN TRUTHS huh?
Seems like it's not just the brick and mortar gunshops that have uninformed people behind the counter.
Seems most anti-AR people are those that have ZERO experience with them, don't want to take the time to take care of what they own, subscribe to the "I need a bigger bullet to make up for my lack of manhood" theory or just like to argue.
As to the moronic remarks about common defenses....might just be that they're common because they're KNOWN TRUTHS huh?
Seems like it's not just the brick and mortar gunshops that have uninformed people behind the counter.
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 12:48 PM
Mini-14 mags never came from the factory in 10-round guise. I have factory 5, 20, and 30 rounders. All three have functioned flawlessly with everything I've fed them throughout the lifetime of my mini's. (hmmm, I guess that makes the Mini-14 superior to the AR-15, now, doesn't it!)
:evil: Touche'... I was just responding! :rolleyes:
:evil: Touche'... I was just responding! :rolleyes:
SodaPop
February 24, 2004, 12:49 PM
Sodapop, why don't you train your family to use the Mini-14. They go bang all the time. I have seen so many ARs malfunction, including mine, I would never give one to a non-gun person I care about.
I let people try what they are most comfortable shooting and then go from there.
I've taken dozens of people to my gun club and seen them hit 80% better with the AR style rifles than any other. Nobody has trouble doing mag changes on it either.
I let people try what they are most comfortable shooting and then go from there.
I've taken dozens of people to my gun club and seen them hit 80% better with the AR style rifles than any other. Nobody has trouble doing mag changes on it either.
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 12:51 PM
Republicanman:
If you're attacking me personally here, I'm not feeling the need to defend myself and you are wrong on all counts. I prefer small calibers, I have extensive experience with the AR-15 system, and I do not take kindly to being called a Moron! Watch it.As to the moronic remarks about common defenses....
If you're attacking me personally here, I'm not feeling the need to defend myself and you are wrong on all counts. I prefer small calibers, I have extensive experience with the AR-15 system, and I do not take kindly to being called a Moron! Watch it.As to the moronic remarks about common defenses....
Oleg Volk
February 24, 2004, 12:54 PM
About Sig 552...doesn't it use a recoil spring wrapped around the gas tube? An disn't that the same feature which caused failures in DP27 light machine guns?
ny32182
February 24, 2004, 01:09 PM
Hmm... must not have been the factory mag then.
I've seen mini-14's work with the smaller mags and FMJ. Bigger mags and/or softpoint hunting bullets, and its multiple hangups per magazine... In my experience... which is a handful of mini-14's, none of which I owned, but all of which I saw a good number of rounds put down range with. And don't even get me started on the accuracy/ergonomics/modularity/(in my experience) big reliability advantages of the AR.
In the end, everyone is going to use what they want to use, which is what works for them. As usual, this argument is pointless and isn't going to change anyone's opinion about anything.
I've seen mini-14's work with the smaller mags and FMJ. Bigger mags and/or softpoint hunting bullets, and its multiple hangups per magazine... In my experience... which is a handful of mini-14's, none of which I owned, but all of which I saw a good number of rounds put down range with. And don't even get me started on the accuracy/ergonomics/modularity/(in my experience) big reliability advantages of the AR.
In the end, everyone is going to use what they want to use, which is what works for them. As usual, this argument is pointless and isn't going to change anyone's opinion about anything.
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 01:12 PM
ttbadboy, the Factory Mini-14 magazines are VERY reliable but also fairly scarce. I bought a Mini out of a classified ad. The guy said he had 5 magazines for it. I went there expecting to find five USA magazines, but he had a stack of FACTORY 30 rounders!
RepublicanMan
February 24, 2004, 01:17 PM
Hey sunshine.....you're the one that chose to attack everyone elses VALID points about the AR series....for instance the maintenance, the battlefield useage etc.....
If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't then pass it on.
If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't then pass it on.
AZ Jeff
February 24, 2004, 02:17 PM
I gotta chime in on this issue of AR reliability.
Back when the DOD was adopting the M16A2 version of the rifle, Soldier of Fortune magazine ran an article on the improvements of the A2 version over the A1. The article was written by Peter Kokalis, SOF's then small arms editor. Peter has some pretty good contacts inside the US military ordnance system, and he commented the following (paraphrase):
When NATO was mulling over standardizing on a new cartridge and rifle to replace the 7.62x51 round, they tested NUMEROUS rifles chambered for the 5.56x45 round. Among them were the FAMAS, AUG, Valmet, HK33/53, Galil, M16A2, HK G41, and FNC. (I probably forgot a couple of others that Kokalis mentioned.) Their test protocols involved all sorts of adverse environments, and in the end, the rifle with the greatest "mean time between stoppages" was the M16A2. It beat ALL the other rifles at that time (in the mid to late 1980's).
I wish I had a copy of the article to quote verbatim, but it certainly provided some evidence that the AR-15 series rifle in it's M16A2 guise is more reliable than most of it's detractors care to admit.
Back when the DOD was adopting the M16A2 version of the rifle, Soldier of Fortune magazine ran an article on the improvements of the A2 version over the A1. The article was written by Peter Kokalis, SOF's then small arms editor. Peter has some pretty good contacts inside the US military ordnance system, and he commented the following (paraphrase):
When NATO was mulling over standardizing on a new cartridge and rifle to replace the 7.62x51 round, they tested NUMEROUS rifles chambered for the 5.56x45 round. Among them were the FAMAS, AUG, Valmet, HK33/53, Galil, M16A2, HK G41, and FNC. (I probably forgot a couple of others that Kokalis mentioned.) Their test protocols involved all sorts of adverse environments, and in the end, the rifle with the greatest "mean time between stoppages" was the M16A2. It beat ALL the other rifles at that time (in the mid to late 1980's).
I wish I had a copy of the article to quote verbatim, but it certainly provided some evidence that the AR-15 series rifle in it's M16A2 guise is more reliable than most of it's detractors care to admit.
Badger Arms
February 24, 2004, 02:23 PM
I'll finish your paragraph, Jeff:
...if you clean it daily and if you feed it good ammo and if you keep the ejection port cover closed and if your magazine feed lips aren't worn or dented and if... etc.
I'd still like to see the results of the test. Of the weapons you mentioned, only the HK33 had been fully developed and none of the weapons you mentioned had gone through enough testing to work any kinks out.
...if you clean it daily and if you feed it good ammo and if you keep the ejection port cover closed and if your magazine feed lips aren't worn or dented and if... etc.
I'd still like to see the results of the test. Of the weapons you mentioned, only the HK33 had been fully developed and none of the weapons you mentioned had gone through enough testing to work any kinks out.
BigG
February 24, 2004, 02:30 PM
The A2 "improvements" were mostly target accuracy related and were at the behest of the USMC, IIRC, to make the AR15 into a sort of latter day 1903 Springfield at the target butts. The strengthening of the bbl all took place forward of the gas block but the part under the handguards had the A1 profile with the ridiculous M203 cuts, so no big improvement in my eyes. The twist was to stabilize the M856 tracer round which due to its length wouldn't work in the 1/12" twist A1 bbl. The brass deflector: OK, I'll give you that. But the adjustable rear sight. For combat use it does not beat the old A1 sight. Typically you set and forget the sight - except on the TARGET range.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
AZ Jeff
February 24, 2004, 02:30 PM
If I remember correctly, at the time of the tests, ONLY the following rifles were not considered "fully developed and in volume production"
FAMAS, M16A2, HK G41
All others were already issued to one or more NATO forces and/or allies of NATO (Israel, for example).
FAMAS, M16A2, HK G41
All others were already issued to one or more NATO forces and/or allies of NATO (Israel, for example).
Correia
February 24, 2004, 06:34 PM
As many of you know I'm not a big AR fan, however that doesn't mean I don't know how to use them. :) From a competition stand point (which is what I come from because I'm just a cake eating civillian) nothing is easier to shoot fast and with greater accuracy than an AR. For putting multiple shots on multiple targets fast, it is hard to beat.
That said I'll bow out now because the original post was about the good things about the AR.
That said I'll bow out now because the original post was about the good things about the AR.
c_yeager
February 24, 2004, 10:00 PM
With everything else thats been said in mind i think i should point out that the AR has better sights/ optics mounting options than virtually any other military rifle out there by a pretty wide margin.
artherd
February 25, 2004, 12:39 AM
...I've shot my AR's thousands of times and I haven't broken anything.
Badger- I have to disagree with you here, I think that particularily is a GREAT endorsement of a weapons platform.
In the end, shoot what you like. Life's too short to own a crappy gun.
Badger- I have to disagree with you here, I think that particularily is a GREAT endorsement of a weapons platform.
In the end, shoot what you like. Life's too short to own a crappy gun.
Dave Markowitz
February 25, 2004, 08:19 PM
I went there expecting to find five USA magazines, but he had a stack of FACTORY 30 rounders!
Why can't I ever run into this kind of luck? :scrutiny:
OTH, I do have 4 - 30 round and 5 - 20 PMIs, so I shouldn't complain.
As for the AR-15, it's strengths include very good ergonomics, excellent accuracy for a military rifle, and light weight if not saddled with a heavy barrel. It is reliable if maintained properly.
Why can't I ever run into this kind of luck? :scrutiny:
OTH, I do have 4 - 30 round and 5 - 20 PMIs, so I shouldn't complain.
As for the AR-15, it's strengths include very good ergonomics, excellent accuracy for a military rifle, and light weight if not saddled with a heavy barrel. It is reliable if maintained properly.
SodaPop
February 25, 2004, 08:31 PM
OTH, I do have 4 - 30 round and 5 - 20 PMIs, so I shouldn't complain.
You wouldn't happened to have found one of the 20rders at W&W?
I lost a 20rd PMI mag there.:o
I even got permission to go back there with a flashlight late at night. They are worth $60.:banghead:
You wouldn't happened to have found one of the 20rders at W&W?
I lost a 20rd PMI mag there.:o
I even got permission to go back there with a flashlight late at night. They are worth $60.:banghead:
RepublicanMan
February 25, 2004, 09:19 PM
Dayum.....I got a Colt 20 that I'll sell ya for $59.99 Soda . :D
Kidding, I do have a Colt 20 that I never use though....if those things really are that valuable maybe I should sell the damned thing.
Kidding, I do have a Colt 20 that I never use though....if those things really are that valuable maybe I should sell the damned thing.
Feanaro
February 26, 2004, 03:25 AM
AR good point: much easier to brag to your buddy about your G3/M14/FAL when he has one of these. :D
It's accurate.
Cheap ammo.
Fairly availible mags.
Lots of neat CARBON FIBRE SUPER ELITE TACTICAL doodads.
It works more often than a Mini-14? ;)
It's accurate.
Cheap ammo.
Fairly availible mags.
Lots of neat CARBON FIBRE SUPER ELITE TACTICAL doodads.
It works more often than a Mini-14? ;)
If you enjoyed reading about "AR: Good points" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
