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

[WrongHanded]

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.

I never suggested otherwise. I asked about it precisely to point out that ARs being easy to work on and parts being widely available, isn't exactly a huge benefit.

 

[N555]

Don't need any tools to take it apart to do nomal cleaning or replace wear parts, which is kind of handy.

 

[gotboostvr]

Do rivets and roll pins often break on those guns?

I've seen more rivets break on AK's than roll pins on AR's.

 

[gotboostvr]

I asked about it precisely to point out that ARs being easy to work on and parts being widely available, isn't exactly a huge benefit.

I don't see how those facts could be anything other than a "huge benefit" for a Prepper.

 

[WrongHanded]

I've seen more rivets break on AK's than roll pins on AR's.

How many?

 

[WrongHanded]

I don't see how those facts could be anything other than a "huge benefit" for a Prepper.

It's not any kind of benefit if the gun doesn't break. How often do ARs break? Craig says no more often than any other design. Seems more like a non-issue than a huge benefit. Or maybe your definition of "huge benefit" is radically different than mine.

This whole spare parts thing just seems solution in search of a problem. Creating a need for spare parts, and then saying ARs are reliable, don't break any more than any other rifle, and are GI proof. Which one is it?

 

[mavracer]

Well, having a rifle is better gathering and preparation for surviving than not having one.

Not with you're arbitrary peppers don't learn how to operate and maintain it.

I asked about it precisely to point out that ARs being easy to work on and parts being widely available, isn't exactly a huge benefit.

So ultimately you agree it's a benefit you just want to argue semantics.

 

[12Bravo20]

I have personally seen plenty of AK rifles with worn out/loose or broken rivets while overseas. Granted those were old used and abused rifle that saw little to no maintenance.

And it was proven that the tests linked in the article were far from fair and definitely skewed against the M16/M4. We all agree that the M16 is not perfect, no rifle is. But the M16 has served several generations of service members for the last 60 years.

And as far as "preppers" go, the AR15 would serve them well. It is one of the most common rifles around and parts are readily available. And everyone that shoots more than the casual plinker should have spare parts for any of their firearms on hand.Any and every thing mechanical will wear out with use.

 

[CraigC]

It's not any kind of benefit if the gun doesn't break. How often do ARs break? Craig says no more often than any other design. Seems more like a non-issue than a huge benefit. Or maybe your definition of "huge benefit" is radically different than mine.

This whole spare parts thing just seems solution in search of a problem. Creating a need for spare parts, and then saying ARs are reliable, don't break any more than any other rifle, and are GI proof. Which one is it?

We're talking about a fighting rifle in a survival situation, right? Not Dad's old `06 that doesn't have 50rds through it???

 

[Charlie98]

It's not any kind of benefit if the gun doesn't break. How often do ARs break? Craig says no more often than any other design. Seems more like a non-issue than a huge benefit. Or maybe your definition of "huge benefit" is radically different than mine.

This whole spare parts thing just seems solution in search of a problem. Creating a need for spare parts, and then saying ARs are reliable, don't break any more than any other rifle, and are GI proof. Which one is it?

Again, I think you are creating a circular argument. No weapon system is 100% without fault. Mechanical devices, being what they are, assembled by humans, from parts made by humans, are bound to fail. If you wish to split hairs over MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) perhaps the AR does not win that match, but I'll tell you the AR wins the match as far as replacement parts and downtime. Spare parts are a solution waiting for a problem, not necessarily in search of.

(the rest deleted for berivty...)

 

[WrongHanded]

Not with you're arbitrary peppers don't learn how to operate and maintain it.

So ultimately you agree it's a benefit you just want to argue semantics.

I didn't say preppers don't learn how to operate and maintain as if it some binary condition that all preppers either do or don't. You're creating a false dichotomy. You're also making a big assumption about what does and doesn't make a prepper.... apparently based on whether they have spare AR parts. Which is ridiculous.

And yes, I agree it may be a benefit .... If something breaks. And providing parts are actually in the users possession, and the user knows how to install them. None of which is a given. Just an assumption on your part, and the part of others.

 

[WrongHanded]

We're talking about a fighting rifle in a survival situation, right? Not Dad's old `06 that doesn't have 50rds through it???

No. We're talking about a survival rifle in a survival situation. What do you think here Craig, that society goes sideways and everyone starts having running gun battles?

 

[WrongHanded]

Again, I think you are creating a circular argument. No weapon system is 100% without fault. Mechanical devices, being what they are, assembled by humans, from parts made by humans, are bound to fail. If you wish to split hairs over MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) perhaps the AR does not win that match, but I'll tell you the AR wins the match as far as replacement parts and downtime. Spare parts are a solution waiting for a problem, not necessarily in search of.

(the rest deleted for berivty...)

You're more than welcome to believe I'm creating a circular argument. I do see it that way at all.

People are defending the AR system primarily (at this point) based on parts availability and ease of replacement; rather than defending it based on simplicity of use, mechanical simplicity, or superior reliability to other designs. All of which seem more important to me than being able to slap in new parts. So why is an AR such a good choice for an average non-gunowner who wants to start preparing themselves and their family for a power grid failure or the aftermath of a large natural disaster? Because that's what a lot of budding preppers are focusing on.

If you've got this idea that all preppers are hiding in bunkers in the mountains waiting for the end of the world. You're ignoring a whole bunch of people who are actually living regular lives, whilst prepping for adverse and tumultuous times on the side. The guys in the bunkers already have their guns, and probably all their spare parts too.

 

[WrongHanded]

I have personally seen plenty of AK rifles with worn out/loose or broken rivets while overseas. Granted those were old used and abused rifle that saw little to no maintenance.

This is an important point. You've seen lots of broken down and beaten up AKs, that were old, abused and saw little maintenance. And presumably all the M16s you saw went straight to the armory for repair if they were damaged, and were cleaned regularly because those using them were ordered to do so.

But most of those old AKs still worked, right?

 

[redcon1]

You're more than welcome to believe I'm creating a circular argument. I do see it that way at all.

People are defending the AR system primarily (at this point) based on parts availability and ease of replacement; rather than defending it based on simplicity of use, mechanical simplicity, or superior reliability to other designs. All of which seem more important to me than being able to slap in new parts. So why is an AR such a good choice for an average non-gunowner who wants to start preparing themselves and their family for a power grid failure or the aftermath of a large natural disaster? Because that's what a lot of budding preppers are focusing on.

If you've got this idea that all preppers are hiding in bunkers in the mountains waiting for the end of the world. You're ignoring a whole bunch of people who are actually living regular lives, whilst prepping for adverse and tumultuous times on the side. The guys in the bunkers already have their guns, and probably all their spare parts too.

From the perspective of a prepper in America, no other long gun makes more sense due to the availability of ammo, magazines, and spare parts. The AR15 is America's rifle. It is undeniable and irrefutable. Sorry. I love my FN -FAL but it would not be my go to rifle in a SHF scenario and that pains me to say that because I love that rifle. I would freaking hate to leave that rifle behind but, over the long term, I would not be able to maintain it. Similarly, it would hurt me to leave any of my AR10s behind because they are awesome rifles but I'd have to go with the mil spec AR15. To reiterate, there are other rifles I would prefer to sling across my back as I walked into the apocalypse and I would try to bring them along but if it came down to one rifle, it has to be the mil spec AR15. YMMV.

 

[WrongHanded]

From the perspective of a prepper in America, no other long gun makes more sense due to the availability of ammo, magazines, and spare parts. The AR15 is America's rifle. It is undeniable and irrefutable. Sorry. I love my FN -FAL but it would not be my go to rifle in a SHF scenario and that pains me to say that because I love that rifle. I would freaking hate to leave that rifle behind but, over the long term, I would not be able to maintain it. Similarly, it would hurt me to leave any of my AR10s behind because they are awesome rifles but I'd have to go with the mil spec AR15. To reiterate, there are other rifles I would prefer to sling across my back as I walked into the apocalypse and I would try to bring them along but if it came down to one rifle, it has to be the mil spec AR15. YMMV.

And yet, as they're so popular, sooner or later, if you survived long enough, you'd probably get someone else's AR. Same as the G19, survive long enough in a long term scenario, and you'll pick one up.

 

[redcon1]

And yet, as they're so popular, sooner or later, if you survived long enough, you'd probably get someone else's AR. Same as the G19, survive long enough in a long term scenario, and you'll pick one up.

probably so. It's a decent rifle. In a SHTF situation, it would more than suffice. I'm a big fan of 7.62x51 but, in a SHTF COMWEC scenario, the 5.56x45mm round makes more sense. In that situation, I'm going to be fighting to run away, not fighting to close with with the enemy in a rapid and violent manner and destroy him and the smaller round will be better suited to that plan. That's just my Saturday night half a bottle of brandy opinion though of course but I don't think it would change on Monday morning.

 

[WrongHanded]

probably so. It's a decent rifle. In a SHTF situation, it would more than suffice. I'm a big fan of 7.62x51 but, in a SHTF COMWEC scenario, the 5.56x45mm round makes more sense. In that situation, I'm going to be fighting to run away, not fighting to close with with the enemy in a rapid and violent manner and destroy him and the smaller round will be better suited to that plan. That's just my Saturday night half a bottle of brandy opinion though of course but I don't think it would change on Monday morning.

Now that's a reasonable argument.

 

[jeepnik]

In the linked article that started this thread I found a kindred spirit. From personal experience (something more than likely most of the posters here don't have) the M-16 family of weapons have been and remain the worst combat firearms ever forced onto American servicemen.

Their introduction was a disaster. Even after all this time and multiple major, and heaven only knows how many minor) modifications to the weapon and it's production methods it still fails unless it is babied.

 

[Mosin77]

I think simplicity of use, mechanical simplicity, and reliability are very much already a given with the AR platform. Especially combined with the AR’s “accessibility.” Would a SCAR or some other semi auto platform be able to best the AR in one or more ways? Maybe, but probably only by insignificant amounts. And at the cost of extra thousands. Or simply being unavailable, period, due to supply chain issues. Whereas the AR, which is so modular that almost anyone can assemble one at their kitchen table after watching a YouTube video, is the very definition of available and affordable. For this reason alone (especially for an individual who doesn’t have a government procurement budget and staff behind him) there’s no other realistic choice in semi-autos. The other ones, in this country anyway, are more or less expensive range toys. And I say this as someone who doesn’t really care for the looks of the gun at all. I have a number of guns and the AR isn’t my “favorite” by a long shot. But I’m also realistic, and if I had to grab one rifle and trust my life to it for anything from hunting to self defense to warfare, and I needed this rifle to be reliable, the AR is the only choice. Ok, my SKS would be up there, too, but do I have to explain why for serious use the AR is better?

When Mosins were cheap some guys used to talk about their ideal SHTF characteristics. (It shoots. It shoots a powerful round currently available cheap. It’s cheap so I can buy 10. Russian reliability.) Mosins are no longer so cheap, but they’re now equivalent in price to a basic AR -and the AR has all the features that made the Mosin appealing to preppers (or anyone looking for good value in a firearm) plus being a heck of a lot better in just about every way. And also being a fairly world class firearm on top of it. Make no mistake there there are countries, soldiers, and “operators” out there who could choose other platforms but are in fact choosing something quite like an AR-15* and are doing so not because of cost, but because they’re very good rifles.


*Usually with their own model/name and addition of a select-fire capability of some type, which is a whole different discussion.

You're more than welcome to believe I'm creating a circular argument. I do see it that way at all.

People are defending the AR system primarily (at this point) based on parts availability and ease of replacement; rather than defending it based on simplicity of use, mechanical simplicity, or superior reliability to other designs. All of which seem more important to me than being able to slap in new parts. So why is an AR such a good choice for an average non-gunowner who wants to start preparing themselves and their family for a power grid failure or the aftermath of a large natural disaster? Because that's what a lot of budding preppers are focusing on.

If you've got this idea that all preppers are hiding in bunkers in the mountains waiting for the end of the world. You're ignoring a whole bunch of people who are actually living regular lives, whilst prepping for adverse and tumultuous times on the side. The guys in the bunkers already have their guns, and probably all their spare parts too.

 

[12Bravo20]

This is an important point. You've seen lots of broken down and beaten up AKs, that were old, abused and saw little maintenance. And presumably all the M16s you saw went straight to the armory for repair if they were damaged, and were cleaned regularly because those using them were ordered to do so.

But most of those old AKs still worked, right?

A good majority of those AK's were not safe to use. Along with loose/stretched and broken rivets, there were plenty that had cracked trunnion welds. And even a maintained AK will start to break rivets and welds after a certain point. The loose tolerances of the design allows it to beat itself to death.

 

[WisBorn]

After reading @WrongHanded opening post and the article. I agree with some of the articles points. I had a AR 15 and AK 47 and they were both fun on the range. I also understand that the US forces are looking to replace the M4 with a larger cartridge.

I will not throw the M4 under the bus, but after talking to service men from Vietnam era to present day. The majority of them would have preferred something else as there weapon.

In my experience I would prefer the AK over the AR.

 

[Charlie98]

You're more than welcome to believe I'm creating a circular argument. I do see it that way at all.

People are defending the AR system primarily (at this point) based on parts availability and ease of replacement; rather than defending it based on simplicity of use, mechanical simplicity, or superior reliability to other designs. All of which seem more important to me than being able to slap in new parts. So why is an AR such a good choice for an average non-gunowner who wants to start preparing themselves and their family for a power grid failure or the aftermath of a large natural disaster? Because that's what a lot of budding preppers are focusing on.

If you've got this idea that all preppers are hiding in bunkers in the mountains waiting for the end of the world. You're ignoring a whole bunch of people who are actually living regular lives, whilst prepping for adverse and tumultuous times on the side. The guys in the bunkers already have their guns, and probably all their spare parts too.

I've already addressed the differences in 'preppers' and the definition. You will note, also, the author of the OP article didn't quite break it down, either.

Using both ends of the spectrum, let's try this...

1) Doomsday preppers... thinking the EOTWASKI is coming, preparing for the time they will have to rely on what they have on hand... including a firearm. Why would a weapon system that is almost infinitely adaptable (simplicity of use,) that is easily maintained (mechanical simplicity,) that is reliable (superior reliability,) and as a bonus, easy to fix if something goes wrong (new parts) not have an advantage?

2) Pedestrian preppers... preparing for 'adverse and tumultuous times'... and having a firearm available, but thinking they will not be required to live in an armed environment. Why would a weapon system that is almost infinitely adaptable (simplicity of use,) that can be easily maintained (mechanical simplicity,) that is reliable (superior reliability,) and, as a bonus, easy to fix if something goes wrong (new parts) if not by that person, but by another person with reasonable knowledge of the platform... not have an advantage? That is setting aside the author's nonsensical claims about fragility and unadaptability.

The AR-15 IS a good choice for an average non-gun owner. Although the controls may or may not be ideally laid out for any one person, an AR is easy to operate, has good visual cues (safety selector,) and is certainly easy to maintain even at a basic level. I can think of a bunch of other platforms that do not meet that requirement, including the AR-10, and others that are not even close. Conversely, if you wanted to break it down to simplicity and ease of use, with no spare parts... you might as well go with a single-shot break-action rifle, but that is not the subject of your OP.

 

[WrongHanded]

I've already addressed the differences in 'preppers' and the definition. You will note, also, the author of the OP article didn't quite break it down, either.

Using both ends of the spectrum, let's try this...

1) Doomsday preppers... thinking the EOTWASKI is coming, preparing for the time they will have to rely on what they have on hand... including a firearm. Why would a weapon system that is almost infinitely adaptable (simplicity of use,) that is easily maintained (mechanical simplicity,) that is reliable (superior reliability,) and as a bonus, easy to fix if something goes wrong (new parts) not have an advantage?

2) Pedestrian preppers... preparing for 'adverse and tumultuous times'... and having a firearm available, but thinking they will not be required to live in an armed environment. Why would a weapon system that is almost infinitely adaptable (simplicity of use,) that can be easily maintained (mechanical simplicity,) that is reliable (superior reliability,) and, as a bonus, easy to fix if something goes wrong (new parts) if not by that person, but by another person with reasonable knowledge of the platform... not have an advantage? That is setting aside the author's nonsensical claims about fragility and unadaptability.

The AR-15 IS a good choice for an average non-gun owner. Although the controls may or may not be ideally laid out for any one person, an AR is easy to operate, has good visual cues (safety selector,) and is certainly easy to maintain even at a basic level. I can think of a bunch of other platforms that do not meet that requirement, including the AR-10, and others that are not even close. Conversely, if you wanted to break it down to simplicity and ease of use, with no spare parts... you might as well go with a single-shot break-action rifle, but that is not the subject of your OP.

You've repeatedly used the terms "simplicity of use", "mechanical simplicity", and "superior reliability". But you make no comparison between the AR and any other design. Those are all relative terms, and are meaningless the way have have used them.

Which designs does the AR beat out in "simplicity of use"?

Which designs does the AR beat out in "mechanical simplicity"?

Which designs does the AR beat out in "superior reliability"?

Make those terms mean something. Here's a short list of semi-auto rifles I think beat the AR in at least two if not all three of those categories.

M1 Garand
M1 Carbine
M1A
Mini 14
AK
SKS

 

[WrongHanded]

A good majority of those AK's were not safe to use. Along with loose/stretched and broken rivets, there were plenty that had cracked trunnion welds. And even a maintained AK will start to break rivets and welds after a certain point. The loose tolerances of the design allows it to beat itself to death.

I wish someone could do an article on guns like those. It'd be really interesting knowing the history behind them, where they came from, how old they are, the abuse they'd suffered, how many poorly constructed handloads had gone through them. But I suppose if no one is going to take the time to maintain them, no one's going to keep track of any of that stuff either.