kBob
Member
I have given up on this topic. It seems almost religious in nature. I am capable of cracking my eggs on either end at this point.
-kBob
-kBob
The Stoner design and why it's bad.
- Thread starter Baja Oro
- Start date
- Status
Sunray
Member
One must remember that nobody wanted the M-16 except the USAF for an air crew survival rifle. The U.S. military was told they were adopting it by McNamara. Who then jammed the .223 down the throats of the rest of NATO. Just like the 7.62 x 51 and the M-14(that nobody wanted either.) was less than 10 years earlier. And an AR-15 is not and never has been an M16.
In any case, all military kit falls apart in the hands of OR's. Early M-16's had no chrome anywhere either.
"...was not indeed shooting full auto but..." Had a C1A1 do that on one of my guys on a range I was running. A C1A1 was semi-auto only. Safety had wiggled loose and the thing doubled and jammed.
"...AKMs seen to better suited than..." Made, like the SKS and AK-47, to be issued to illiterate conscripts who could be taught to use it as fast as possible. Not made for accuracy, but to go bang every time, in all conditions.
None of which an M-16 was ever designed to do. The design has had 50 years of development though. Way better now than those jam-a-matics first issued for SEA.
In any case, all military kit falls apart in the hands of OR's. Early M-16's had no chrome anywhere either.
"...was not indeed shooting full auto but..." Had a C1A1 do that on one of my guys on a range I was running. A C1A1 was semi-auto only. Safety had wiggled loose and the thing doubled and jammed.
"...AKMs seen to better suited than..." Made, like the SKS and AK-47, to be issued to illiterate conscripts who could be taught to use it as fast as possible. Not made for accuracy, but to go bang every time, in all conditions.
None of which an M-16 was ever designed to do. The design has had 50 years of development though. Way better now than those jam-a-matics first issued for SEA.
eazyrider
Member
Well, I disagree with almost everything you say and not to be a jerk, but the amount of failed gas tubes you claim to have seen is a bit incredible. I was a Marine from 02-06. Three tours in Iraq, countless hours on a range and I have never seen a gas tube fail. So the amount you claim to have seen is a bit hard for me to believe. Why didn't I see this?
I also contacted a friend of the family who served in Vietnam during Tet and I asked him about it and he had never seen it.
Further, I have never, ever, seen a man take a 5.56 to the chest and stay in the fight. If you are popping a guy who is down but still breathing okay, but that can happen with almost any round. I also asked my family friend about this and his quote, "never seen a guy get up after a taking one center mass." With the exception of long range I would never argue the effectiveness of the 5.56.
I usually don't pick arguments but your claims are highly suspect.
I also contacted a friend of the family who served in Vietnam during Tet and I asked him about it and he had never seen it.
Further, I have never, ever, seen a man take a 5.56 to the chest and stay in the fight. If you are popping a guy who is down but still breathing okay, but that can happen with almost any round. I also asked my family friend about this and his quote, "never seen a guy get up after a taking one center mass." With the exception of long range I would never argue the effectiveness of the 5.56.
I usually don't pick arguments but your claims are highly suspect.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaisyCutter
Member
The OP seemed very critical on some downright silly points.
That said I do like some aspects of the Mini-14 more than the AR. The Minis bolt handle is in a more traditional spot, safety selector is more intuitive, a loose primer or piece of separated case is less likely to seize up the Mini's bolt. IMO the Mini is more comfortable to live with, both in hand and slung, because it's smoother, with less protrusions.
The only reason I sold my Mini was because good mags were rare and expensive during the AWB. That's a non factor in 2016.
The OP went on to say his ideal firearm is a heavy battle rifle with a 16" barrel. To me, that's like a F-250 riding on Corvette tires. You lose a lot of payload, and don't really improve handling much.
That said I do like some aspects of the Mini-14 more than the AR. The Minis bolt handle is in a more traditional spot, safety selector is more intuitive, a loose primer or piece of separated case is less likely to seize up the Mini's bolt. IMO the Mini is more comfortable to live with, both in hand and slung, because it's smoother, with less protrusions.
The only reason I sold my Mini was because good mags were rare and expensive during the AWB. That's a non factor in 2016.
The OP went on to say his ideal firearm is a heavy battle rifle with a 16" barrel. To me, that's like a F-250 riding on Corvette tires. You lose a lot of payload, and don't really improve handling much.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
I definitely agree with this - in the unlikely event that things somehow go so far south that I find myself forced into being a soldier, it's insanely unlikely that I outlive my ammo supply let alone the parts on my LMT MWS. Realistically my trick knee probably doesn't survive that much action either.
And if I somehow do, there will be a LOT of rifles on the ground, and I'll make use of one.
People concerned about the outer limits of their equipment in such unlikely situations would be far better off thinking about how, if something were to go wrong, they'd work to organize a social and political solution to avoid continuous violence.
I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 1974. In a 28 year career, 20 of it in the Infantry, I used it in every environment on this planet, from the Arctic (BRIMFROST '83) to the desert, the jungle and the more temperate climes. I've literally ran hundreds of ranges, everything from M16 zero ranges to a CALFEX and have probably seen a million rounds go downrange over the years. After I retired from the Army I went into law enforcement full time and was a patrol and tactical rifle instructor. As an LE instructor I saw all kinds of different ARs, some of them good and some not so good. I'd like to think that with 40 years of professional experience with the M16 weapons system that I've seen every possible malfunction. In all of that time, I have never seen a gas tube fail. The only malfunctions I have ever seen that were caused by a gas tube were ones that were induced by the soldier or the officer messing with something he shouldn't.
I've seen gas tubes that were plugged because someone tried to clean the inside and somehow stuck a cleaning patch, a pipe cleaner or a Q-Tip in them. I've seen gas tubes that were bent when someone who didn't know what they were doing disassembled the weapon then couldn't put if back together correctly.
Considering that I retired from the Army 13 years ago, and my experience might not be current, I called my middle son who is also a career Infantry NCO about to complete his 15th year of service. He has tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is currently in school on his way back to the 1st ID after a tour in Korea. He's never seen or heard about a malfunction like that either.
The OP lists credentials as a five year sniper and Infantry armorer. An armorer position in a rifle company is a supply MOS not an additional skill identifier, and if you look at the Maintenance Allocation Chart in TM 9-1005-319-23&P a unit armorer doesn't do much repair, he/she mostly sends weapons to direct and general support maintenance for repair. These support units have small arms repairmen ( a different MOS then a unit armorer) who actually repair the weapons. A unit armorer's duties involve physical security, cleaning and inspection of weapons and in most units the armorer spends most of his or her time assisting the supply sergeant with the day to logistics functions in the unit.
There are no maintenance bulletins about any defective gas tubes pitting and causing malfunctions. From the research I've been able to do, looking through the documented history of the AR15/M16 in US military service, I can find no instance of this ever occurring. If it was in fact a problem, there would be actions being taken to correct the problem. There are no reports, no QDRs on any manufacturers M16s or M4s listing gas tubes as a problem.
If the OP thinks that his piston operated AR is the best rifle for his personal use, that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not necessary to make up stories to justify his opinion though.
I've seen gas tubes that were plugged because someone tried to clean the inside and somehow stuck a cleaning patch, a pipe cleaner or a Q-Tip in them. I've seen gas tubes that were bent when someone who didn't know what they were doing disassembled the weapon then couldn't put if back together correctly.
Considering that I retired from the Army 13 years ago, and my experience might not be current, I called my middle son who is also a career Infantry NCO about to complete his 15th year of service. He has tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is currently in school on his way back to the 1st ID after a tour in Korea. He's never seen or heard about a malfunction like that either.
The OP lists credentials as a five year sniper and Infantry armorer. An armorer position in a rifle company is a supply MOS not an additional skill identifier, and if you look at the Maintenance Allocation Chart in TM 9-1005-319-23&P a unit armorer doesn't do much repair, he/she mostly sends weapons to direct and general support maintenance for repair. These support units have small arms repairmen ( a different MOS then a unit armorer) who actually repair the weapons. A unit armorer's duties involve physical security, cleaning and inspection of weapons and in most units the armorer spends most of his or her time assisting the supply sergeant with the day to logistics functions in the unit.
There are no maintenance bulletins about any defective gas tubes pitting and causing malfunctions. From the research I've been able to do, looking through the documented history of the AR15/M16 in US military service, I can find no instance of this ever occurring. If it was in fact a problem, there would be actions being taken to correct the problem. There are no reports, no QDRs on any manufacturers M16s or M4s listing gas tubes as a problem.
If the OP thinks that his piston operated AR is the best rifle for his personal use, that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not necessary to make up stories to justify his opinion though.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,872
Well... Pot stirred...
Officers'Wife
Member
OK, once again I find myself tempted to try to be the voice of reason to which is not in my skill set...
As an all around, one size fits all, it can do everything but cure cancer he's right... The Stoner action does fail miserably. But within the limits of what it was designed for and with an operator skilled in it's care and feeding it is a very good platform. Every design from the Stoner system to the Brown Bess has negatives, nothing designed by man can be perfect (with the possible exception of the designs of John Browning since it's well known the archangel Micheal carries a BAR.) The negatives do not necessarily condemn the design.
As an all around, one size fits all, it can do everything but cure cancer he's right... The Stoner action does fail miserably. But within the limits of what it was designed for and with an operator skilled in it's care and feeding it is a very good platform. Every design from the Stoner system to the Brown Bess has negatives, nothing designed by man can be perfect (with the possible exception of the designs of John Browning since it's well known the archangel Micheal carries a BAR.) The negatives do not necessarily condemn the design.
Last edited:
That's fine. There are a lot of people who don't care for the AR platform for one reason or another. I'm one of them. I use a Mini-14 as my primary center-fire rifle.
But when my wife came to me and suggested we might to give our older son money to buy a semi-automatic rifle and buy one ourselves to give to our younger son when he turns 18 because they might soon be much harder to get, we didn't have to do any soul searching to decide those rifles needed to be ARs. In the United States the rifle is ubiquitous and parts, accessories and magazines are readily available so the rifle is more likely to be able to be repaired when needed.
The Stoner design is great. Very simple for auto/semi auto rifle. Not a lot of moving parts. Very reliable. Very accurate. Inexpensive for what it is and does.
I have AR's in 8.5 thru 20 inches and calibers. 458socom, 308, 7.62x39, and of course 5.56. They all run great with very little maintenance. Not sure what the detractors of the platform expect from a rifle? I have other semi auto and bolt rifles so am not limited to the Stoner design.
I have AR's in 8.5 thru 20 inches and calibers. 458socom, 308, 7.62x39, and of course 5.56. They all run great with very little maintenance. Not sure what the detractors of the platform expect from a rifle? I have other semi auto and bolt rifles so am not limited to the Stoner design.
you can get ARs configured as short barreled rifles for CQB, and extremely accurate varmint configurations with 26" heavy barrels and they also dominate the 3gun scene where speed is king. Of course there are one of the most popular deer hunting rifles these days, and one of the most popular plinkers, and then there's all the military configurations for carbines to SPRs. And one of my new personal favorites the suppressed blackout takedown configuration.
no other rifle on the plant is even in the same ballpark of versatility. it may not be one-configuration-fits-all, but the receivers and basic gas system someone is complaining about has certainly demonstrated more one-size-fits-all capability than any other rifle on the planet. heck, the fact that people call it a "platform" now speaks volumes.
btw, i don't remember seeing anything in the OP that i would agree with
I must confess I was skimming somewhat.
1000 rds continuous full auto? Yes, that's beyond the design parameters.
There have been some interesting destructive testing done. I don't recall the .mil results of shooting to destruction, but I recall somebody doing a full auto destructive test on a "standard" grade AK ,meaning a stamped receiver, standard weight barrel, I believe a run of the mill Romanian. It lasted less than 400 rds before it stopped working, the barrel got so hot it drooped and the gas piston wasn't getting enough impulse to run the action. The M4 ran about 600-ish I believe, before overheating uses caused problems. The intrepid tester got a better grade AK, one with a heavier receiver than standard, and a heavier barrel than standard, then it ran about as long as the M4. He tried to make the point that "the AK is at least as good as the M4". Well, not really, you had to use an upgraded version to achieve that. Use a heavy barrel M4 and the picture changes also (note the M4A1 barrel).
One online destructive test of an AR type used a stainless barrel, which is not as tough as a GI barrel for abuse. An irrelevant test.
Have heard of people melting gas tubes shooting lots of rds full auto. Not going to happen in normal use, especially a civvy shooting semi auto.
Not buying the OP's argument. Sorry.
1000 rds continuous full auto? Yes, that's beyond the design parameters.
There have been some interesting destructive testing done. I don't recall the .mil results of shooting to destruction, but I recall somebody doing a full auto destructive test on a "standard" grade AK ,meaning a stamped receiver, standard weight barrel, I believe a run of the mill Romanian. It lasted less than 400 rds before it stopped working, the barrel got so hot it drooped and the gas piston wasn't getting enough impulse to run the action. The M4 ran about 600-ish I believe, before overheating uses caused problems. The intrepid tester got a better grade AK, one with a heavier receiver than standard, and a heavier barrel than standard, then it ran about as long as the M4. He tried to make the point that "the AK is at least as good as the M4". Well, not really, you had to use an upgraded version to achieve that. Use a heavy barrel M4 and the picture changes also (note the M4A1 barrel).
One online destructive test of an AR type used a stainless barrel, which is not as tough as a GI barrel for abuse. An irrelevant test.
Have heard of people melting gas tubes shooting lots of rds full auto. Not going to happen in normal use, especially a civvy shooting semi auto.
Not buying the OP's argument. Sorry.
entropy
Member
Jeff, you are correct, however sometimes in the line units (at least in the 7th when I was there) soldiers who were not 76Y's were assigned to assist as a punishment. Not just line units, either. The gal I replaced as our Unit Armorer was a 76J10 (Medical Supply Specialist) who'd screwed up ordering stuff and got stuck in the Arms Room for it. She profusely thanked me for volunteering for Armorer when I reported to the S-4. As I soon held an SMOS of 45B, I did a lot of my own repairs normally not allowed at the unit level; I just had to do them over at the Post Maintenance facility. The Warrant that ran it was a bike club buddy of mine, so I had an in. As for the last part, yep, when I wasn't in the Arms Room,(or at the range)
,I worked in the BN S-4 or HHD Supply Room. The only place I know of where you might be able to combine sniper (instructor) and Armorer would be the ATMU; or SF Weapons Sgt, or whatever they call that now.
crazysccrmd
Member
In much of the Army an armorer is just an additional duty, trained in a short week or two course on how to do basic repairs and inspections on the weapons. It's not common to actually have an MOS armorer anymore in my experience.
Last edited:
Dog Soldier
member
I have been using the Stoner system for years. Sometimes by orders other times by choice. Users have cussed them since the late 1950s. They are today many wars later the most popular rifle in America. 
Ibmikey
Member
Being a civilian user of the weapon as we had left over WWII weapons in Korea, i still put thousands of rounds through my AR's and my experience coupled with extensive readings of the good and bad points of the weapons system in use today makes me think the OP has a vivid imagination and a bit too much time on his hands to think up such dribble. Of course the millions of AR's and clones still soldiering on without major problems also is of no consequence.
The photo of the old guy (me) and "Spot" a 350#+ Texas Hog taken with one shot from a 300 blackout ( a .223 case cut to 35mm and stuffed with pistol powder and 125 gr bullet) is a hint as to what the AR platform potential is. My buddy (taking the photo) has killed almost 600 hogs on one piece of property many of them with an AR i built and is outfitted with night vision. Plain old 55gr GI FMJ knocked over dozens of hogs each with a single shot through the shoulder.
Who ever had a need to clean a gas tube anyway??
The photo of the old guy (me) and "Spot" a 350#+ Texas Hog taken with one shot from a 300 blackout ( a .223 case cut to 35mm and stuffed with pistol powder and 125 gr bullet) is a hint as to what the AR platform potential is. My buddy (taking the photo) has killed almost 600 hogs on one piece of property many of them with an AR i built and is outfitted with night vision. Plain old 55gr GI FMJ knocked over dozens of hogs each with a single shot through the shoulder.
Who ever had a need to clean a gas tube anyway??
What exactly could damage a gas tube? Colt had video up of some destructive testing. They ran full 30 round magazines in it continuously, no breaks to cool down, insert and fire full auto. At about the 640 round mark the hand guards were on fire, the barrel was drooping and some gas tube damage had occurred when a bullet exited the barrel in front of the FSB. Toast.
Full auto suppressed shooters and Henderson report that a gas tube can perforate near the FSB sometime near the 100,000 round mark. It takes longer if you abuse the weapon with fewer magazines each session, it stretches out the damage over a longer period of time. The significant point is, however, that the M16 was NEVER considered a full auto support weapon. The basic load of ammo is typically about 10 magazines, 300 rounds, and that sets a limit on how much a soldier can continuously fire. If they run out - then cross leveling or resupply forces a cool down period, And that is completely ignoring the ROE where most often they are told to keep it on single fire and AIM. Let the full auto support MG's with hundred round belts and bags do the heavy shooting, they were designed exactly for that. Attempting to do it with an M16 is not only completely misunderstanding it's role, it's abuse.
So, how could someone with the experience listed have missed that in class and field instruction? Goes to credibility and understanding tactics and the logistics of resupply, which exists even at the squad level. Since the typical soldier isn't even issued 1000 rounds, much less capable of carrying it AND the other 85 pounds of combat load and team shared equipment, the idea that you would wear out a weapon and blow the gas tube is highly uninformed.
Again, you'd have to live thru months of intense combat on a daily basis. The extractor, bolt lugs, and action spring would need replacement every 25,000 rounds anyway, and the relative accuracy using all full auto fire would erode the leade and open up the normal 2MOA group to 6-8 LONG before, which would result in getting another barreled upper sooner than the gas tube would perforate.
These discussions have been going on various forums across the net for over 15 years, and the fact is that experienced, competent people know better than to make rash statements about the reality of the M16.
Full auto suppressed shooters and Henderson report that a gas tube can perforate near the FSB sometime near the 100,000 round mark. It takes longer if you abuse the weapon with fewer magazines each session, it stretches out the damage over a longer period of time. The significant point is, however, that the M16 was NEVER considered a full auto support weapon. The basic load of ammo is typically about 10 magazines, 300 rounds, and that sets a limit on how much a soldier can continuously fire. If they run out - then cross leveling or resupply forces a cool down period, And that is completely ignoring the ROE where most often they are told to keep it on single fire and AIM. Let the full auto support MG's with hundred round belts and bags do the heavy shooting, they were designed exactly for that. Attempting to do it with an M16 is not only completely misunderstanding it's role, it's abuse.
So, how could someone with the experience listed have missed that in class and field instruction? Goes to credibility and understanding tactics and the logistics of resupply, which exists even at the squad level. Since the typical soldier isn't even issued 1000 rounds, much less capable of carrying it AND the other 85 pounds of combat load and team shared equipment, the idea that you would wear out a weapon and blow the gas tube is highly uninformed.
Again, you'd have to live thru months of intense combat on a daily basis. The extractor, bolt lugs, and action spring would need replacement every 25,000 rounds anyway, and the relative accuracy using all full auto fire would erode the leade and open up the normal 2MOA group to 6-8 LONG before, which would result in getting another barreled upper sooner than the gas tube would perforate.
These discussions have been going on various forums across the net for over 15 years, and the fact is that experienced, competent people know better than to make rash statements about the reality of the M16.
You know what we haven't had in a long time? Another x,y, or z is terrible and you should never use one thread... Said no moderator ever. We are done here.
- Status
