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

[WrongHanded]

I once had a brand spanking new Rock River Arms standard length A2 AR that I bought for around $1000. It ran well, and shot well. I used Pmags, cleaned it after every range trip, and probably only put about 500 rounds through it.

I sold it at a fairly significant loss, and kept the Mini 14 Ranch rifle I already owned (which I bought for $750), because I decided the Mini seemed a far more simplistic and reliable design. Though this thread isn't an AR vs Mini 14 thread, that's just my personal comparison based on my experiences.

In case this is new to anyone, here's an article from a former Green Beret, explain why he doesn't like them either:
https://www.readyman.com/blogs/blac...ext=If a build up of,have become all the rage.

Tell me what you think of the points laid out in the article. It makes plenty of sense to me, but my experience is limited.

 

[12Bravo20]

I definitely do not agree with some of what was said in that article. Especially about gas tubes being easy to break. They might break if Private Snuffy takes the hand guards off and starts monkeying with it. Otherwise one would have to either drop the rifle from a substantial height or run the thing over with a vehicle.

Is the design perfect? Absolutely not. But it has done well for a long time now. And remember, nothing is GI proof. If a service member can mess something up, they will. I carried both the M16A1 and M16A2 into combat and neither failed me. I was a combat engineer so I was on the front lines (or in front of them) along with the infantry and armor units.

 

[Steve in PA]

Sorry, I’ll stick with my AR…..actually two of them. I wonder what rifle Mr GIJoe recommends?

 

[Varminterror]

This sounds like very typical ex-Mil guy trying to convolute military experience with firearms design knowledge… the way he talks about the action reveals how little he really understands about it. He takes shots at the AR which apply to any gas driven rifle, piston or otherwise. Takes shots at the claw extractor which is exceptionally well proven, takes a shot at the 5.56 case design, as if it were feeding a straightwall rimmed cartridge…

I’m not sure any of his bullet points ACTUALLY made sense, mechanically.

 

[C-grunt]

Ahh this old article popping up again. Decibel seems to not hold water with any actual combat veteran I know (outside of early Vietnam dudes).

Several of the tests done over the years were shown to be very flawed. Such as the test that showed the M4 having 800+ stoppages and it turns out that they shot the rifles on burst and counted times the rifle didn't fire 3 rounds as a stoppage. Or the test that used an old literally off the rack M4s with old used mags and tested it against brand new rifle with new mags.

If that guy had the problems he writes about he needs to keep better care of his rifle.

 

[Varminterror]

If that guy had the problems he writes about he needs to keep better care of his rifle.

NS!

 

[LiveLife]

MAC doing some "myth busting" on long-term reliability and notion that AR15 gas system needs to be kept clean to be reliable.

7,000 round test without cleaning



Will it go 10,000 rounds without cleaning?

 

[LonewolfMcquade]

The usual click bait type of title used to get clicks by youpuker shill channels trying to keep that easy $$ rolling in, beats getting a real job & making an honest living I guess

 

[md7]

The M16/M4 and the non Mil AR variants have been in service now for around 6 decades. If they didn’t work, and work reasonably well, then they would probably not be in use any longer.

 

[Demi-human]

For a guy from Afghanistan, he sounds like the elderly from ‘Nam.

So which is it?
Do the magazines use weak springs, or are they “overly strong”?
Were they issued without cleaning kits, or did every GI carry a cleaning rod to run down his bore to eject the case?
Is the star chamber weak, or is the “varmint cartridge” just too powerful?
The AR-15 cartridge length is referred to as a “mini action”, but now the cases are long and need to move a long distance for ejection?
It’s literally the shortest military rifle cartridge.

His description of how the BCG works is incorrect.

If the hammer moved 275° how would that be better?

You know, I’m going to stop. I actually feel dumber for having read that article.
Anyone can like or dislike ARs or Garands. They don’t need to decry opinions as facts, especially if they don’t know how it works.



(I wonder what his skull structure looks like to make his eyes three inches above the sights?…

So this Jac, uh, Donkey walks into an armory to pick out a rifle, after having read the internet…)

 

[WrongHanded]

For a guy from Afghanistan, he sounds like the elderly from ‘Nam.

I found out about him whilst scrolling through YouTube. He was doing some kind of live interview thing with James Jaeger and another guy, which was based on that article he wrote. I didn't watch it all because it was long and fairly boring. But I did search out the article.

 

[FL-NC]

I had incredibly good luck with numerous versions of the design in every environment on the planet I "Forrest Gumped" my way through for about the same amount of time as whoever wrote that. We shot them so much we needed new barrels about once a year. My personal "Training AR" has burned out 3 barrels in about 13 years. Had great luck with them in 3 gun competition as well, and I still continue to use them. I guess my mileage varied.

 

[DustyGmt]

Will it go 10,000 rounds without cleaning

You can reference the Filthy 14 article and take it a step further and ask if it will go 40,000-50,000 rounds without cleaning. Some can. The test was done on a class carbine, a loaner general purpose carbine that was used in daily, high volume shooting classes and it was just a standard BCM A2 upper. From what I gather the bolt was periodically wiped down with a cloth, liberally lubed and that's about it.

I have tremendous respect for service men, but I don't believe they are necessarily preaching the gospel when discussing weaponry. They have been well proven at this point. I've always figured them to be a good, well proven design but used to have doubts as to their robustness and durability since they are 90% aluminum but have since been convinced of their overall rigidity. It's amazing how much punishment in terms of repeated impacts and general neglect and even misuse they can withstand.

 

[Charlie98]

I admit, I take terrible care of my AR's. My lightweight carbine has about 4000 rounds through it with only a squirt of CLP on the bolt every now and then... and it just keeps on going. Not proud of it, but it is what it is.

I only had one problem with an issue M16... traced to a bad magazine.

I've only seen one problem with a civilian AR, my buddy's AR sheared 3 bolt lugs, and this is after it tore up the gas rings. I think it was a knock-off, substandard bolt and carrier at fault; I have since replaced it and he has not experienced any more problems.

The AR has matured into an exceptional platform. Is every firearm platform without it's faults? NO, and the AR is no exception, but problems and shortcomings are easy to fix, and the rifles themselves are even easier to adapt to any change desired.

If you are looking for problems, or a reason to not own an AR, you can find them pretty easily... obviously the author of the article did, and even if you have to make stuff up. I circle back to the general premise that not everything is for everyone, and that's OK, too.

 

[JayZee]

You know, I’m going to stop. I actually feel dumber for having read that article.
Anyone can like or dislike ARs or Garands. They don’t need to decry opinions as facts, especially if they don’t know how it works.

Didn't make it past a few "points" he tried to make before I realized how dumb it was. I did gain a few braincells back reading that I lost from listening to the SOTU address.

 

[jmorris]

I read word for word until “”it’s too complex”, I have personally seen children operate them and no telling how many people with little skill and equipment have “built” them on their kitchen table.

Glanced down to “The gas tube is thin, fragile and subject to bending or breaking—usually taking the rifle out of commission.” and realized he must have had a head injury during his service. Maybe caused by the explosion that blew the hand guard from the rifle so his gas tube could be bent…

I understand just not liking something but you can’t escape the obvious, if it’s such a dud, where are the other rifles that beat it out in testing for the military contracts and why are millions of these pieces of junk still in service, winning matches etc?

 

[Choctaw]

What BS. I have owned ARs since 1979 and except for one Colt (hunk of junk) I've never had any problems with them. I currently own seven and think I'll just hang onto them for a while.

 

[12Bravo20]

The first few years that I was in the Army, I was a combat engineer. We weren't exactly gentle with our equipment or weapons. After Desert Storm, I reclassed to a machinist. I did quite a bit of work on weapons as a machinist while stationed in Germany. It was easier and faster to have me work on them versus sending stuff back to the states to the depot. And the only time I had to replace a gas tube was from Pvt Snuffy jamming something in and getting it stuck or if someone ran a rifle over with a vehicle.

Nothing is GI Proof, but the M16 is close to it. A service member really has to try hard to break one. Ft Leonardwood was still using the M16A1 for basic training up until 1990-1991. Those rifles were well used and abused but kept working with minimal maintenance.

 

[someguy2800]

I read word for word until “”it’s too complex”, I have personally seen children operate them and no telling how many people with little skill and equipment have “built” them on their kitchen table.

Whenever someone says an AR is complicated or that the controls are too difficult to understand I just think how can you possibly use a computer or a drive a car if you are so dumb that you can't figure out an AR15.

 

[BreechFace]

All respect to a service member, but this guy doesn't know what he is talking about and it's evidenced by his comments on the AR in the article.

He acts like revisions to a weapons system are band-aids. So there one has to get a weapons system correct from the start without any revisions?

 

[BreechFace]

It makes plenty of sense to me, but my experience is limited.

No offense, really. But you might want to do your own research as opposed to trusting much of anything this guy says.

 

[d2wing]

I once had a brand spanking new Rock River Arms standard length A2 AR that I bought for around $1000. It ran well, and shot well. I used Pmags, cleaned it after every range trip, and probably only put about 500 rounds through it.

I sold it at a fairly significant loss, and kept the Mini 14 Ranch rifle I already owned (which I bought for $750), because I decided the Mini seemed a far more simplistic and reliable design. Though this thread isn't an AR vs Mini 14 thread, that's just my personal comparison based on my experiences.

In case this is new to anyone, here's an article from a former Green Beret, explain why he doesn't like them either:
https://www.readyman.com/blogs/black-autumn/why-the-ar-15-sucks-for-preppers#:~:text=If a build up of,have become all the rage.

Tell me what you think of the points laid out in the article. It makes plenty of sense to me, but my experience is limited.

Sadly much of it is just wrong. Like many other self made experts, much of his terminology is wrong and many of his ideas just have no merit. Like many before him he just makes stuff up and rehashes popular complaints to make it sound like he knows what he is talking about. No influence on me whatsoever. People like what they like and hate what they hate and make it sound rational.
Oh and fake or very misleading military credentials remind of the other big name fake that made a living lying.

 

[WrongHanded]

No offense, really. But you might want to do your own research as opposed to trusting much of anything this guy says.

No offense taken. It's why I asked. I wanted to know what others thought.

 

[Buzznrose]

I’ll agree with all the posts above and refute the article as pretty much garbage.

I look at guys who’ve “been there—done that” in some hardcore units and that are all running and teaching classes with AR’s. Guys like Kyle Lamb, Larry Vickers, Pat Mac, and a bunch of others.

All I’ll say is like anything else in life, there are varying levels of quality, reliability, and performance.

A $600 AR may be all you need to shoot a few thousand rounds over the course of a year or more, of to keep in your truck. But it may not pass muster for high volume/hard use over time. No different than a construction guy passing up a Craftsman or Kobalt tool for a DeWalt, because he knows which will take the beating better. I use Kobalt tools at home, but if I relied on my tools for my livelihood, they’d be DeWalt or similar.

All this said, stuff still breaks. If you want an AR platform that you can rely on forever and pass on, buy a quality firearm, then buy a spare BCG, spare lower part kit, spare recoil spring, and a spare upper. Combined with a couple dozen quality mags, your grandkids will be good to go through their lives…

 

[BreechFace]

Like everything in society today.

Corners are cut for increased margins. In a platform like the AR15 that is at the height of it's development there has been great refinements in efficiencies of manufacture that allow for pretty good quality at a low price, however there are items that I feel one should pay special attention to in an AR.

5 coil extractor springs, Carpenter 158 bolts, correctly spec'd gas ports for barrel length, good magazines (Okay Ind., Magpul, Lancer), tuned spring/buffer system for good dwell/unlock time, correct/polished feed ramps and good lube.

On high use AR's lube is crucial, especially short barrels that are suppressed.

One can pay $$$ for these to be included from a reputable manufacturer, or one can educate themselves for what to look for and fix the "cut corners" on more budget friendly AR's. It's a matter of $$$ or knowledge.