AR-15 Article: Some Won't Like It, But....

the guy is factually wrong on several point in the first paragraph.
He sounds like the "green beret/seal/recon/boogyman" that sits on a straining barstool all day at the gunshops.

I'll just say that if someone thinks the AR is more mechanically complex than most other SLR's, they're confused, because its just the opposite. The AR allows user lever detail stripping of nearly every part. If an AKM did that, or a FAL, or anything else, it would be seen as "complex". But when you clean an AKM, you don't take the gas port off, or the extractor out of the bolt. This is just silly.

Whats that joke about buffer/spring weight? Thats just made up. Not misunderstood, just made up.
Non-Ergonomic stock? An odd statement about what is undisputed (by 99% of shooters) the most ergonomic rifle ever mass produced. A stock setup thats so popular nearly every common firearm, including pistol adapters, and shotguns have an adapter to use that stock.
Also, in 2019, I had zero difficulty finding a front sight equipped AR. Rear carry handles are the hard part.

This guy doesn't understand the mechanical factors that contribute to accuracy. Comparing a 2 lug bolt action to a 7 lug auto loader shows this guy doesn't understand the concept of repeatability. Somehow I be he's just fine with the many European multilug bolt setups.

Are we really going to pretend that military comparison tests are fair? 3 hand fitted factory rifles vs the literal worst old stock of worn training rifles?

Does anyone think its odd that this guy writes a paragraph about how much he hates the bolt design, then goes on to compare it to three other rifles that use the same bolt design.... Maybe its just me.

WrongHanded said:

It's not a circular argument. It's directly in response to this idea that there's some huge benefit in owning a rifle that's so "easy" to work on. Not everyone is going to feel their time is well spent learning how to replace any and all parts on an AR. In fact I bet that's true for the vast majority of people who own them.

I keep mentioning the prepper part because it was in the title of the article. You do realize that some people who are preppers focus far more on resources and storage than they do on firearms, right? And that new people join the "prepper" community every day, possibly having never owned a firearm before. When a person decides in their mind that a "prepper" is this thing, or better know how to do that, they're failing to grasp that not everyone who preps will meet that specific ideal.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in telling me that it's okay that I don't like ARs. I know perfectly well it okay. I was originally asking about an article. I have accept the vast majority of the thoughtful and well explained criticism of that article. But since doing that, there have been some posts which include content I disagree with, and I'm responding to those points. That seems reasonable to me. Hopefully it seems that way to you as well. If not, we can discuss your reasons.

Click to expand...

Sorry... I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, I'm just trying to understand your view, and I'm simply replying to your posts. I'll admit, I didn't read the article... although I probably have read it in the past. I am not a prepper, but I understand the concept. I do like to prepare for eventualities... the Second Dark Age of Reloading, for example; I've largely been immune to the shortages except for a very limited few items. That doesn't, in my mind, make me a 'prepper,' it just means I've thought about what I might need in the future and set about to prepare for that eventuality. The term 'prepper' is also a bit nebulous... is it a EOTWAWKI person, thinking we are going to deteriorate into a kill or be killed world, or simply a person that is preparing for some amount of service interruptions (loss of power, loss of water source, etc)? So there is that. The specific article, even given the title, could be renamed any number of things away from it's original title... and would still be just an AR hit piece. That's all it really is. I could write the same thing about the Glock pistol... and I'd likely be just as wrong as the author of the AR article. I would opine that 'prepper' = preparation for eventuality. As I mentioned, if your prep plans include a firearm (which they may or may not...) you should know how it works, and how to fix it, at least at the field level. One of the reasons an AR makes a good all-around weapon is you can fix, repair, replace, rebuild, build from a box of parts with basic hand tools, with pedestrian knowledge... you don't need to attend an armorer's course to work on, or build, the thing. The sheer number of parts, magazines, and ammos available, let alone the adaptability and design modularity of the AR, lend itself to a being a good choice... whether it's lights out for a week, or Armageddon. There are also other firearms that would likely be a good... or better... choice for any one person, but saying the AR is a poor choice is just not true.

My point in pointing out that it's OK to not like the AR is simply that it's, well... OK to not like the AR, and move on with your life. And I mean that with all good will. It's kind of like the recent hit pieces on the .41MAG. If someone doesn't think the .41 is for them, I'll bet they can come up with 20 reasons why it's a poor cartridge... when I can come up with 20 reasons why it's a great cartridge. We are both right.

A few things, if we are going to discuss the actual shortcomings of the AR-15/M16 design . . .

1) The high sight-line. To a certain extent the high sights of the AR-15 are not optimum for a combat rifle. A large part of combat shooting is the "snap-shot", where the rifle is brought up to the shoulder and fired quickly, looking over, rather than through the sight. Obviously, this is a short range thing, but experienced shooters can effectively engage targets out to 75 yards using this technique. There have been many tests that show the conventional stock layout (like an M1 Carbine or over-and-under shotgun) is far and away the easiest shape to use in this manner. The reason being the eye can reference the top of the barrel when pointing. With the high sights, this reference is diminished. That's why things like this popped up before red-dot sights. The large fin/rib gives the eye a good azimuth reference just like a shotgun rib.



2) Extraction. This the biggest beef I have with the AR-15/M16 design. There are two basic extraction methods - "extraction-under-power" and "extraction under momentum". In designs such as the Mauser, M1/M14 and AK the locking surfaces of the bolt are cut on a helix, so rotation of the bolt moves the bolt backward a little bit, breaking the case loose from the chamber. Even with designs like the AR-18, the piston is still under gas pressure when the bolt is completely unlocked, providing some force to snatch the case free from the chamber. In the AR-15/M16 once the cam pin is fully forward in the cam track the gas pressure on the bolt and carrier is equalized, the gas pushes the carrier back exactly the same amount as the gas pressure pushes the bolt forward, so there is nothing pushing the carrier aft. Therefore, there is only momentum to carry the bolt and carrier backward to achieve extraction. This makes the AR-15/M16 very sensitive to case hardness, and chamber surface finish.

3) Ergonomics. This is a debatable issue as everybody's idea of what is comfortable varies. But, even Mr Stoner himself felt the grip of the AR-15/M16 was less than optimal, as he change the grip angle and grip length on all his subsequent designs. And, the charging handle definitely awkward, another thing he altered in later designs.

4. The AR-15/M16 is actually a very inelegant design, dozens of pins and springs and detents, it has rather high parts count. It was, after all his first go at designing a rifle, and it shows. The AR-18 and Stoner 63 are much more "efficient" in that regard.

lysanderxiii said:

It was, after all his first go at designing a rifle, and it shows.

Click to expand...

Actually it was the 15th version/design, hence the model number being 15. The AR10 was the 10th version/design.

ARs are cheap enough, buy 3 of them. You’ll probably never have to replace a single spring for the rest of your life. If prepping is the context, the guns will be carried much, shot relatively little anyway (powder, primers, ammo will be precious commodities) so parts wear will be negligible.

WrongHanded said:

But before I do, let's remember the context: the article stated "for preppers". Not for gun enthusiasts, or sport shooters, competitors, or anything of the kind.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you understand "preppers"?
It's been my experience from being "the gun guy" in a large manufacturing company that the "preppers" I've had that aren't gun people are first and foremost interested in long term maintenance.

WrongHanded said:

It makes more sense to just buy a spare gun, zero it, and keep it in storage, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Small parts kits are 20-25 bucks, and there's these things called books that were around before Al Gore's internut, they're popular with actual peppers.

12Bravo20 said:

Actually it was the 15th version/design, hence the model number being 15. The AR10 was the 10th version/design.

Click to expand...

They were all Armalite designs, yes, but not Stoner designs, Armalite had more engineers than just one. The AR-10 was Eugene Stoner's first all up rifle design.

WrongHanded said:

How many parts have you had break on a stock AR of reasonable quality, and over how many rounds?

Click to expand...

None, but the fact that the parts are easily sourced, sometimes fabricated, and installed isn't a bad thing.

I have lost a few detents/springs and was able to make/scavenge adequately functional replacements very easily a couple times though.

I have been reading over these posts, forgive me if I've misinterpreted you @WrongHanded, but are you saying that people who don't want to work on guns or replace anything are better served with something else?

I would say that the average person doesn't end up replacing any parts on their AR, since usually parts wear and breakage only happen for high round count guns. There's always an exception, sometimes stuff just breaks, but I wouldn't say the AR is more susceptible to wear and breakage than any other system, I think people are just saying it's the easiest platform to deal with and fix and find parts for in that instance..... and that's a strong plus for the boy scouts, preppers among us....

And I wouldn't describe the AR as complicated. Every AR could come with a lil instruction booklet that could literally be used to easily replace any and every part on it. Most other guns require the use of a qualified gunsmith or you have to send it in to the manufacturer for repairs.

The only other defensive gun that comes to mind that could be simpler to repair or replace wear parts or even locate spare parts easily for would be M500/R870 shotgun or something.....

WrongHanded said:

So for you, in your case, nothing has broken. But you've lost parts accidentally. In my mind that speaks to a failure of the design rather than a success. If it's easy to lose parts, that's not good. Why buy a rifle for prepping purposes that has so many small parts that are easy to lose. You see what I'm saying?

Which of course goes towards the "it's too complicated" argument. Why are there so many small springs and detents, and far more parts than are necessary for a semi-automatic rifle to function?

Look at the simplicity of the Glock design. It's ugly, and it's not got a great trigger. But the parts are kept to a minimum, and the design as simple as possible. That would also be preferable to me in a rifle. The AR seems the opposite. Extra parts where they really could have been avoided.

Click to expand...

Those parts only got ejected into places unknown when building the rifle in the first place.

Not exactly during regular routine maintenence.

If any of those parts were to break, get lost again etc, they're very simple and easy to replace. Breaking a rivet on an AK is a much more complicated fix and about as likely as breaking a roll pin on an AR.

WrongHanded said:

You seem to think that your definition of prepper is the definition of prepper.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.
And for the record Merriam Webster says "a person who gathers materials and makes plans in preparation for surviving"
So my usage that includes planning, where yours seams to live in this weird space where the prepper buys the chickens but doesn't plan to keep them alive so they have eggs for survival.

lysanderxiii said:

3) Ergonomics. ...But, even Mr Stoner himself ... the charging handle definitely awkward, another thing he altered in later designs...

Click to expand...

Lots to say but I'll just start with this one. Stoner didn't design the AR15. He did the AR10, then James Sullivan did the AR15, improving a lot and among other things eliminating the vastly worse carry handle charging "trigger" and the long slot that weakened the receiver and let gas escape. Overall better even if a bit odd of a choice at the time.

Sullivan is also on record having very very very specific thoughts of how they messed up the extractor in that design, but it's the cartridge/extractor design together; he'd want more rim, not just extractor changes, so that's not gonna happen!

WrongHanded said:

The T shaped bolt handle coming out of the rear of the receiver, requiring the user to move the rifle away from them (or perform a very awkward action) is not good ergonomics, or intuitive. It not being reciprocation is obviously necessary given it's position directly in front of the user's face. But it then also requires a forward assist, which is on the right side of the gun. And it requires (without being incredibly impractical) a bolt release level, which is then located on the opposite side from the forward assist.

That's three different locations, for 3 different parts, that perform 3 different actions. A charging handle directly attached to the bolt carrier would have been a far more simplistic, elegant, ergonomic, and intuitive design feature. All three actions in one place, located in a place that makes sense.

Click to expand...

The charging handle on an AR is easy to use and stays out of the way. I have absolutely no problem running the charging handle while keeping the rifle up in my shoulder. The charging handle being the way it is also allows the AR to be a closed system to keep the elements out of the rifle.

The forward assist is only needed in emergency situations or when performing a press check to ensure the condition of the rifle. It's also not required as the first generation of the M16 didnt have it and some rifles today still dont have it. Im a fan of it though.

Im not sure what the issue with a bolt catch/release is? They are incredibly helpful for clearing the rifle or quick magazine reloads. They make ambi versions if you want that.

A charging handle directly mounted to the bolt carrier has it's own set of issues. The two main ones are that the charging handle can hit things during operation and cause malfunctions and that the channel for the charging handle in the receiver creates open space for the elements to enter the rifle.

For me the first one is easily the bigger problem. Ive seen people induce malfunctions on rifles with reciprocating charging handles because the handle struck their hand, equipment, or another object while cycling the action. This is particularly the case when shooting under a barricade or a car with the action side of the rifle pointed down. The handle hits the ground and stops the action.

Overall reciprocation charging handles arent necessarily a bad thing, but they do have there own set of quirks. Theres a reason new combat rifle designs pretty much all have non reciprocating charging handles.

C-grunt said:

The charging handle on an AR is easy to use and stays out of the way.

Click to expand...

This is all my opinion. Others may feel differently of course but I do feel like the charging handle precludes the use of an optimally placed cheek riser and results in a sub-optimal cheek weld when using an optic. This sub-optimal cheek weld is not conducive to a steady position. You can make it work as it is obviously, we've all seen the stellar accuracy that the weapon is capable of, but I think it could work a little better if there was no charging handle dictating the location of your cheek weld on the stock. I feel like a cheek weld closer to the rear of the charging handle would be more conducive to creating a "steady position". I'm still a huge fan of the platform mind you.

redcon1 said:

This is all my opinion. Others may feel differently of course but I do feel like the charging handle precludes the use of an optimally placed cheek riser and results in a sub-optimal cheek weld when using an optic. This sub-optimal cheek weld is not conducive to a steady position. You can make it work as it is obviously, we've all seen the stellar accuracy that the weapon is capable of, but I think it could work a little better if there was no charging handle dictating the location of your cheek weld on the stock. I feel like a cheek weld closer to the rear of the charging handle would be more conducive to creating a "steady position". I'm still a huge fan of the platform mind you.

Click to expand...

What optic are you using that requires a cheek riser on an AR? Here is a picture of my "SPR" on the left and my brother in laws Mk12 clone on the right. Both have scopes, mine is a Nikon FX100 4-16x50 and his is a Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40. No issue with cheek weld and a riser would actually hurt proper eye placement.

20210329_101450 by chase, on Flickr

Another pic showing my precision AR.

20210329_105003 by chase, on Flickr

C-grunt said:

What optic are you using that requires a cheek riser on an AR? Here is a picture of my "SPR" on the left and my brother in laws Mk12 clone on the right. Both have scopes, mine is a Nikon FX100 4-16x50 and his is a Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40. No issue with cheek weld and a riser would actually hurt proper eye placement.

View attachment 106684220210329_101450 by chase, on Flickr

Another pic showing my precision AR.

View attachment 106684320210329_105003 by chase, on Flickr

Click to expand...

like I say, some may disagree but in your picture there, look at the stock on the bolt action rifle and compare that to the stocks on the ARs. The wood stocked bolt action with its monte carlo style stock and cheek piece is pretty optimal for scoped rifles. The straight comb of the AR15 is better suited to iron sights IMO and though it works with scopes too, a monte carlo style stock with a cheek piece that locates your cheek closer to the center of balance of the rifle would promote a steadier position at least for me. I want my head located closer to the grip and farther from the heel and the charging handle precludes the use of a stock that would do that as the elevated comb would stop you from fully charging the rifle. This is why AR adjustable combs like the magpul PRS which I have on my Armalite AR10T are always back by the heel of the rifle, to accommodate the charging handle.
Here's my precision AR10T btw which I love and would not be inclined to part with. My recent build, a precision AR15 is on the bottom there (FN FAL in the middle) and I'm working out some bugs with it but I had it shooting sub MOA (barely) with 25.3 gr of Varget and 69 gr sierra HPBTs last week and I anticipate it being about .5 MOA-.75 MOA once the bugs are worked out-maybe better. The 200 yard target on the bottom there was me shooting up the last 4 rounds of 100 last week. I had moved back to 200 yards and was zeroing it at 200 and those were the last 4 rounds. I had to substitute a Z max for an AMAX because I only had 49 AMAXs for some reason and so I shot that round as a one shot group as my last shot of the day because I wanted to see if there was any difference between the AMAX and the ZMAX. There doesn't seem to be much of a difference. The AR10T routinely shoots between .4something MOA and .75 MOA. It is limited by the stock trigger which is mediocre and the scope which is only a 10x Nikon monarch tactical and how much the shooter has been practicing which is not much lately. The monarch is on the AR15 in this pic. The Arkon is on the Armalite. It's vice versa now. The Arkon seems like a good scope for the money btw. I'm currently looking at installing a triggertech trigger into the Armalite but I have concerns about compatibility. I can't find anything on the internet about the Armalite AR10B models versus the A models versus the DPMS patterns as far as aftermarket triggers go. I'll probably just take a chance and buy it and find out the hard way whether it will work or not. With that trigger, this rifle will be incredible. It's already around .6 MOA and I know that creepy trigger is opening my groups up. That and the mildly suboptimal cheek weld.

The fact that AR's are easy to work on in no way implies that they need it more than any other firearm. They do not. However, if you believe that two is one and one is none, then you ought to have enough sense to have some spare parts. ANY prepper should understand this concept. We're not talking range toy here but a tool you depend on for survival. I would be as intimately familiar with such a tool as possible. Sure, an extra rifle would be good but spare parts take up very little space. So I'd rather have two rifles and spare parts than just two rifles. There's no reason not to. Throw in an extra BCG and barrel and you're set for a long time.

WrongHanded said:

Not quite. I'm saying it's not the best platform for someone who isn't terribly interested in guns (to the level many of us are) but wants one for those just in case times.

Click to expand...

Personally, if I had any kind of sketchy home intrusion situation and I for some reason had to leave my wife or daughter who sort of like firearms, like that I have them and can use them well, but aren't terribly passionate about them, I think the first choice of gun I would want them to have is a reliable semi auto with a large magazine capacity. More specifically, the AR. I think I would be more comfortable handing them an AR than anything else, as long as they can remember to push the 60rd drum in til it clicks, pull the charger and sweep the safety off, they're in business. I can't really think of another gun that would be preferable in that scenario. Maybe a PCC?

I guess all this to say, I don't know, what's so wrong or complicated about an AR? I only found mind to be counter intuitive initially because my experience beforehand was with side charging rifles, a pretty small hurdle.