Reality Check Me: The primary AR-15 platform flaw...

AFAIK, there is normally only contact along the "rails" at the bottom of the bolt carrier; the rest of the bolt carrier doesn't normally touch the inside of the upper receiver. I don't think this is much if any different than the way the bolt inside a (for example) Sten or other similar weapon works. I've only got about 1500 rounds through my Bushmaster with no stoppages, but I wipe it out after every range trip. The only obvious wear points on the bolt carrier are on those rails.

I always thought the "reliability" problem came because the bolt itself would get gunked up and fail to rotate and therefore fail to lock/unlock.

IMHO the main flaw is the integral, short, straight magazine well. This llimits the SA version AR to cartridges which are just short of the minimum power neccessary to kill a rabid weiner dog. (no, I'm not impressed with any of the offerings, whether 6.5 or 6.8 or 7.62) I can live with the bolt carrier design, especially since they invented dry lube formulas.

I think the biggest problem with the AR platform aside from being in 223 is the Army.

I extensively used a very early model 14"twist 3 prong flashider,triangular charging handle, etc. with commercial ammo for a couple years with absolutely no problems.

Ammo changes, twist changes, buffer changes, forward assists, and the rest of the Army add ons made a real difference, toward the minus sude.
Probably the only design change I was in favor of was the t shaped charging handle.
Sam

I thought you were going to say the direct-gas action being very dirty is the number one problem. I thing all actions have a bolt riding inside a receiver, so I don't think this tube-in-a-tube idea is a problem.

Yes, contact between the bolt carrier and the upper receiver is basically just at the four rails on the bolt carrier. If you examine your upper (and have shot it much), you can probably see the wear pattern.

In my limited experience, you can get the bolt carrier fairly dirty without effecting function any as there is enough clearance to handle a good amount of dirt. We were shooting rollover prone with the ejection port facing the sky in a 25 mph wind and every shot would throw up a fountain of fine dirt which the wind would carry back over the gun and into the action (and your eyes and teeth). The carrier got a nice dirt film and continued to function.

However, get some dirt on the actual bolt lugs and you'll see problems real quick (which is true of most rifles in my experience, regardless of the operating system).

The direct gas impingement is commonly cited as an issue with ARs; but I don't see it myself. It is certainly dirtier than a gas-piston system; but it will still function for many more rounds than I could possibly carry or many more days than I would ever need to go without performing basic maintenance. The only place where I see direct impingement affecting reliability is when you are using many different ammo loads - the direct impingement system is more sensitive to gas pressure issues than a gas-piston system.

The direct gas impingement is also what helps make the AR one of the most accurate semi-autos on the market today.

If I had to pick a shortcoming of the AR, it would be the GI-mags. They are nice when new; but they don't stand up to hard use well. The fact that you have to beat the snot out of them to seat them with 30 rounds also means the aluminium feed lips (not sturdy to begin with) can go south in short order.

IMHO the main flaw is the integral, short, straight magazine well. This llimits the SA version AR to cartridges which are just short of the minimum power neccessary to kill a rabid weiner dog. (no, I'm not impressed with any of the offerings, whether 6.5 or 6.8 or 7.62)

Click to expand...

What about the .499LW?

LW15.499

DCMilitary.com article on the LW15.499

http://www.sr-25.com/LeitnerWise.htm

Fully capable of killing weiner dogs...rabid or otherwise.

Biggest peoblem I see with the paltform as a whole is the PRICE... is $1000.00 and up TRULY justafiable for a gun that doesn't really function any better than my $200.00 Norinco SKS?

I PERSONALLY do not think the $800.00 difference (minimum) is justyfiable...

they ARE truly overpriced... and the stock .223 caliber sucks too...(but the caliber thing has been addressed in MUNEROUS variants), but not the price!

Biggest peoblem I see with the paltform as a whole is the PRICE... is $1000.00 and up TRULY justafiable for a gun that doesn't really function any better than my $200.00 Norinco SKS?

Click to expand...

Without starting up the whole AK vs AR thread, I don't think the military M16s are anywhere close to $1000. IIRC, aren't they in the neighborhood of $400 or so? You can build your own for about $500, and for that matter, you can find brand new Bushmaster ARs for under $700.

Olympic Arms "Plinkers" can be found for $499 complete, if you're not bothered by the cast upper/lower receivers. FWIW, I've heard Olympic is selling the "Plinker" with forged upper/lower as well, but I haven't seen one yet.

That $499 gets you something you won't get from a SKS or AK...a lifetime warranty.

When you can buy a Yugo SKS for just over $100 and parts are dirt cheap, who cares about a lifetime warranty?

It should be understood however, that the LW15.499 is a complete weapon system in its own right and not a mere conversion of the 5.56 mm gun... This whole process was necessary because unfortunately, due to the nature of the .499 cartridge design, the traditional 5.56 mm magazine would not allow a reliable transition of the cartridge to the breach.

Click to expand...

Stasher, looks like they are trying to remedy some problems with the AR platform. Look at what armalite has done to make their .308 and .243 versions and you see a similar thing, modification of the magazine system.

IMHO they should have started with the bigger mag well, with just a little bit of a forward curve...somewhere losing the 5.56 in the process.

...because unfortunately, due to the nature of the .499 cartridge design,...

Click to expand...

The reason for the mag redesign is simple, the .499 isn't a bottle-necked round like the 5.56 and will not feed properly in a curved mag. It's not a design flaw with the AR platform, just a difference in ammo shape.

Direct from Colt webapage

Unique direct gas operating system eliminates the conventional operating rod and results in fewer and lighter components

Click to expand...

Accommodates the full range of 5.56mm ammunition, including the NATO M855/SS109 and U.S. M193, utilizing a rifling twist of 1 turn in 7" (178mm)

Click to expand...

These are in the Feature list

Improvements would be the HK op rod system and rechamber in 6.5 Grendel

IMHO, the AR-18 was a definite improvement. Too bad it was too late.

Jim

The primary AR-15 flaw is that I don't have enough of them.

That $499 gets you something you won't get from a SKS or AK...a lifetime warranty.

Click to expand...

I'd be sincerely impressed if someone just firing at a range managed to break an AK or SKS in a manner that couldn't be repaired with $20 swapout of parts.

If I can't find a hammer, I have used the butt of my SAR-1 or a nice steel 30 rd mag instead.

Also, anyone who "thinks' that a good 223 softpoint load won't blow your guts out on the ground is just ignorant of the facts. You are not stuck with ball ammo, you know. The 75 gr V Max softpoint, in a 24" barrel, will still expand just fine in flesh at 500 yds, and it has the same 500 ft lbs left out there that a 4" 357 Revolver has at 10 ft.

Click to expand...

I can only claim to know the effects of ball ammo personally, but I'm not rather impressed. 5.56 is not a meatcleaver, nor does it usually "blow your guts out on the ground". In a pinch, using more ammo does the trick more often than not.

If you want a "guts all over the ground" rifle, buy a Barrett .50 cal. I saw a ND on a M2 .50 cal once, it was not something you'd ever forget.



Seriously, the AR15 is a good accurate platform for any bench shooter. The mags tend to die more quickly than I'd like. Replacing the spring and bashing the lips back into shape will usually do the job. Under range conditions, an AR15 is plenty reliable.

Without starting up the whole AK vs AR thread, I don't think the military M16s are anywhere close to $1000. IIRC, aren't they in the neighborhood of $400 or so? You can build your own for about $500, and for that matter, you can find brand new Bushmaster ARs for under $700.

Click to expand...

M16s are within a few dollars of $490. Buy in bulk, and you will save. I want to know how much they actually make the things for. You can't find a Colt for under $800, someone, somewhere is getting rich.

twixt:without the advantages of drop in trigger jobs, drop in ambi safety, drop in luminous sights, GI parts, etc, heavy wt, etc, it was a real loser. There's several good reasons why no military was interested in the AR18.

Also, anyone who "thinks' that a good 223 softpoint load won't blow your guts out on the ground is just ignorant of the facts. You are not stuck with ball ammo, you know. The 75 gr V Max softpoint, in a 24" barrel, will still expand just fine in flesh at 500 yds, and it has the same 500 ft lbs left out there that a 4" 357 Revolver has at 10 ft.

Click to expand...

First: You could say the same thing about any gun that was never seriously adopted by a military power. When AR-15s/M-16A1s first came out, was there any of that stuff floating around? Silly stuff like luminous sights, custom trigger jobs, and so forth are only made for popular guns. If we had adopted the AR-18, the scoffing would be the other way around.

Also, comparing a .357 at ten feet to a 5.56 at 500 yards is like comparing Buster Mathis to Diet Pepsi. There's a ton of other stuff to consider, like rate of drop at those respective distances, bullet weight, striking surface area, and so on.

All I wish is that someone would make a current-production version of an AR-18/180/180B that's milled instead of a stamped/plastic construction. With a Weaver/Picatinny rail on top. And a folding stock, and different pistol grips.