I have yet to see any countries militaries use hand loads. Most of my experience with the AK is with military issued rifles. I have probably ran across most of the different country's of manufacture available in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
AR-15 Article: Some Won't Like It, But....
- Thread starter WrongHanded
- Start date
- Status
I have yet to see any countries militaries use hand loads. Most of my experience with the AK is with military issued rifles. I have probably ran across most of the different country's of manufacture available in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Ah, the handloads reference was because I've seen video of guys in the middle east haphazardly pouring powder into brass, shaking a little out of the top, and jamming a bullet down on it. I have to assume it worked for them because it looked like a regular operation. No measuring or anything. Presumably for use in their AKs.
DustyGmt
Member
Yeah I've seen that too. Lil loading cells, 6-8 guys sitting in a lil hovel with steel cases plucked from the street just haphazardly pouring who knows what powders and projectiles in and loading them into mags for their very used, very janky looking AK's..... The very loose tolerances of the AK is probably a huge benefit in that case, but now that the taliban primarily uses M4A1's and M16's, M249 SAW's I doubt they will be able to get away with those lil makeshift loading setups for those weapons......
Charlie98
Member
I am actually quoting your previous post, using your own terms. The are relative, but also stand alone... the AR does not have to beat out another platform to have 'simplicity of use'... it is simple. The AR does not have to race against another platform to win either the 'mechanical simplicity' or 'superior reliability' award... either it is, or it is not. You can compare it to another platform, if you wish, but it's not necessary.
Every one of those alternate platforms has a weakness, how you may view that weakness is entirely subjective.
The M1 Garand is not only heavy, but chambered in .30-06. It, too, and along with the M1a, can shed parts (the extractor being one...) and requires a special tool to disassemble and assemble the bolt. The ammunition requires an en bloc clip to load into the rifle... which are not very common... at least, not as common as an AR-15 magazine.
The M1a, like the Garand, is quite heavy, and chambered in .308. There are more parts to maintain on the M1a vs the Garand, but it is not unlike maintenance on the AR-15... the parts are just in a different place. The M1a also requires the bolt assembly/disassembly tool, and a proprietary pair of pliers to loosen/tighten the castle nut on the FSB.
Neither the M1 or M1a have the adaptability the AR does. I don't believe the M1 nor the M1a has the ease of use the AR does. You mention some preppers may not be 'gun people,' yet you turn around and suggest an M1 Garand, or an M1a?
I am not familiar with the M1 Carbine, nor the Mini-14, so I can't speak of them, and I'm only marginally familiar with the SKS. I have had familiarity training with the AK, I was not impressed with it, nor the ergonomics of it (which is certainly a personal preference.)
DustyGmt
Member
Good post. Yeah, I was going to mention some of these points but didn't have the mental stamina, it's obvious that the AR15, to some, is an inferior, complicated weapon less suitable to those who are otherwise determined to prepare for a worst case scenario,.but don't want to take about an hour to read up, familiarize themselve with and shoot the weapon for any meaningful period of time, in that instance I dont know what weapon platform would do any good if you dont have the wherewithal to learn your chosen weapon .
upptick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
- Messages
- 281
Speaking of the AR gas system, why doesn't it clog? I've never known of a gas tube that got clogged up on an AR, but it seems like it would -- is it somehow "self-cleaning?"
And to state the obvious about the AR, it has become the most universally-owned firearm in the U.S. precisely because it has been perfected over literally decades. Any practical design flaw was engineered out of it long ago, and complaining about hypothetical design flaws at this point is really more akin to post-modern aesthetic criticism.
And to state the obvious about the AR, it has become the most universally-owned firearm in the U.S. precisely because it has been perfected over literally decades. Any practical design flaw was engineered out of it long ago, and complaining about hypothetical design flaws at this point is really more akin to post-modern aesthetic criticism.
DustyGmt
Member
Yeah, see post #169 (but don't quote or respond to it). As far as the rifle being a disaster when it was first fielded in Vietnam, that literally had nothing to do with Stoner and the Weapon itself and had alot more to do with the fact that certain Army personnel were personally invested in seeing the weapon fail and didn't want to eat crow so they basically induced malfunctions and went against the design specs and made sure the rifle failed at the Aberdeen proving grounds against the specific instruction of Mr. Stoner and without his direct supervision and ability to inspect the rifle and ammunition in person, they basically fielded the weapon in adverse conditions with bad ammunition + components. This wasn't Mr. Stoner's first rodeo with them and when he found out they had sent that rifle up there for a trial he caught the next flight out and from what I understand he spent most of that year in and out of airplanes making sure people weren't deliberately sabotaging his designs....
There is alot more to the story than that, but anybody who thinks the rifle was a disaster in its early years due to Mr. Stoner's mistakes or design shortcoming, would have an entirely different view if the knew the full story and knew that the man was outright ignored, obstructed, undermined and disrespected at every turn in his attempt to get the military the weapon they were asking for.
Don't believe me, do some research.
C-grunt
Member
You think a M1 Garand, M1A, Mini 14, SKS, and the M1 Carbine are better? There is a reason nobody has made a combat rifle with an open receiver since the 50s.
The AK is a good rifle but I'll take an AR any day of the week. Lighter weight, lower recoil, faster mag changes, flatter shooting cartridge (when using 7.62), easier to use safety, bolt hold open, etc... The AR is plenty reliable. I've fought with that rifle in conditions you've never put a rifle through and it ran fine. Ive also seen plenty of AKs fail or malfunction because the operator didn't take care of their weapon. The AK is a very reliable rifle, but it's not infallible.
Here are some pictures that an embedded reporter took in Iraq in 2003. We fought in that sandstorm for two days. The rifles ran.
FB_IMG_1647791418810 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647791423951 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647791455324 by chase, on Flickr
This was our living conditions for months. Second picture is what company HQ looked like after we took Baghdad. The rifles ran.
FB_IMG_1647727828831 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647818924230 by chase, on Flickr
The AK is a good rifle but I'll take an AR any day of the week. Lighter weight, lower recoil, faster mag changes, flatter shooting cartridge (when using 7.62), easier to use safety, bolt hold open, etc... The AR is plenty reliable. I've fought with that rifle in conditions you've never put a rifle through and it ran fine. Ive also seen plenty of AKs fail or malfunction because the operator didn't take care of their weapon. The AK is a very reliable rifle, but it's not infallible.
Here are some pictures that an embedded reporter took in Iraq in 2003. We fought in that sandstorm for two days. The rifles ran.
FB_IMG_1647791418810 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647791423951 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647791455324 by chase, on FlickrThis was our living conditions for months. Second picture is what company HQ looked like after we took Baghdad. The rifles ran.
FB_IMG_1647727828831 by chase, on Flickr
FB_IMG_1647818924230 by chase, on Flickr
C-grunt
Member
The gas tube has high pressure, high temperature gas flowing through it. Nothing is going to build up in there. Most of the carbon gunk you see on the bolt carrier group and inside the upper receiver comes from the chamber after extraction.
C-grunt
Member
Here is a great slow motion video of the AR15 firing. Note how much gas comes out of the chamber vs what is being used to run the action and vented out the side of the carrier.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
They may have kept running for you. But apparently that wasn't true for everyone. There was some supply convoy that became detached from the main at some point early on in the Iraq invasion. They got ambushed. I read that many of the weapons (M16s I believe) failed. Perhaps the report - which seemed pretty official - was a fake, or got things majorly wrong?
DustyGmt
Member
Thanks for sharing pictures.....
DustyGmt
Member
Yeah, I believe it's possible, that the report you are referring to, was the fault of some defective EOtech weaponsights that didn't perform within the parameters they were supposed to and had severe POI shifts in the 110° heat.......possibly
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
It's not as mechanically simple as other designs. To pull the bolt reward you use one device, to let the bolt forward under spring tension you use a second device, to push the bolt forward you use a third device. All in different locations, using extra and unnecessary parts that other design use one part for, in one location.
"Simple" and "complex" are relative terms. The AR is more complicated than other designs both in user operation, and mechanisms. There's no other way to look at it unless you're going to redefine those terms.
How much the increased mechanical and operational complexity matters to you, is up to you. I'm simply stating that it is more complicated than other designs.
And I knew perfectly well a bunch of you were going to jump on the weight of the M1 Garand and M14/M1A, but that's not the point. Both have seen military duty (one still does), and both have been and are owned by civilians. If it's too heavy for you, fair enough. But that does not address the points of mechanical and operational simplicity in those designs compared to the AR. Although the M1 could be argued against based on the internal magazine. Though it is very cleverly designed, it is more complicated than a box magazine.
The Mini 14 is a scaled down version of the M1A, chambered in 5.56. Rather than an enclosed piston below the gas port, it vents directly into the forestock and functions in much the same way as the Garand, but smaller and lighter. I believe (but do not know) that the M1 Carbine functions in the same way.
The AK is relatively knew to me, but I've field stripped one. It appears to be a very simplistic and rugged design with loose tolerances. All of which we could say about a Glock pistol. It's also an incredibly popular rifle worldwide, fielded by many militaries and militia groups. I'm not sure how many militaries adopted the AR-15/M16/M4 for general issue, but I don't think it's many.
There's a very simple explanation as to why the AR is so common. When the assault weapons ban rolled off in 2004, the easiest way to make receiver was to machine it with a CNC mill out of a block of aluminum. So a bunch of companies sprung up doing just that. And they marketed the heck out of the design. Accessories popped up everywhere, with modular interchangable standardization, and it allowed every owner to customize and tacticool things up all they wanted. Once it became popular, it stayed popular, because a whole bunch of people convinced themselves that it couldn't get any better. And if it did get any better, the better was too expensive.
None of that makes it a good design. It's just a good enough design, that can be tinkered with and customized, and built at home. That doesn't make it superior to anything else, it just makes it a fun hobby.
If you like it, you like it. If you think it's the best option for you, maybe it is. But that doesn't make it simple either mechanically or operationally, and it doesn't make it the best choice for everyone.
And of course the AR has to beat out other designs! Every time someone choose an AR over everything, it has to do that! And when it does that, it does it by being cheap and popular, and with a normalized reputation as being a good design.
Last edited:
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
I read that the guns jammed. That's one heck of an optics failure.
C-grunt
Member
I know exactly which situation you are talking about. It was the Jessica Lynch fiasco. I was in that battle. That was a major tactical failure, not an equipment failure. Also shows what happens when support troops drive directly into an ambush set up by battle experienced infantry. Much of the initial reports were false as they said she fought hard until her rifle jammed. She later stated that didn't hapoen and she never fired her rifle. Her Humvee was struck by a RPG and she was knocked unconscious.
Either way, any rifle will have issues if you neglect to take care of it. Multiple veterans in this thread have witnessed AKs having issues because of improper care. I shot a guy trying to un-jam his AK.
You have multiple tests such as the Ballistic Radio KAC test, the Military Arms Channel BCM test, Filthy 14, Inrange TV mud and convoy tests, as well as multiple posters here who have high round counts without cleaning. All showing that the AR being unreliable is BS.
Either way, any rifle will have issues if you neglect to take care of it. Multiple veterans in this thread have witnessed AKs having issues because of improper care. I shot a guy trying to un-jam his AK.
You have multiple tests such as the Ballistic Radio KAC test, the Military Arms Channel BCM test, Filthy 14, Inrange TV mud and convoy tests, as well as multiple posters here who have high round counts without cleaning. All showing that the AR being unreliable is BS.
you can keep going on and on, but pretty much everyone with experience completely disagrees with you.
it is the most ergonomic rifle I know of. the context of "prepping" you mentioned earlier doesn't change that. if there were a more ergonomic choice, it would be winning competitions. further evidence is that most new designs in the past two decades imitate the ar15 controls.
the rifles you mention are all so inferior that their use today is largely limited to those nostalgic for them. the burden of proof is really on you to demonstrate how some other rifle is more ergonomic. talking about the number of controls might be interesting but you haven't shown how more or less controls is faster or slower.
if you go to a carbine class, you will find decades of economy of motion improvements distilled into simple methods of quickly doing anything you might want to do with an AR using both hands, or simulating injury, with left or right hand only. there are very few complaints about the ergonomics from folks that actually use them.
here's a challenge for you: find a youtube video of some operation like a mag change that is faster with your ak or m1a or mini14 or whatever than with an AR.
it is the most ergonomic rifle I know of. the context of "prepping" you mentioned earlier doesn't change that. if there were a more ergonomic choice, it would be winning competitions. further evidence is that most new designs in the past two decades imitate the ar15 controls.
the rifles you mention are all so inferior that their use today is largely limited to those nostalgic for them. the burden of proof is really on you to demonstrate how some other rifle is more ergonomic. talking about the number of controls might be interesting but you haven't shown how more or less controls is faster or slower.
if you go to a carbine class, you will find decades of economy of motion improvements distilled into simple methods of quickly doing anything you might want to do with an AR using both hands, or simulating injury, with left or right hand only. there are very few complaints about the ergonomics from folks that actually use them.
here's a challenge for you: find a youtube video of some operation like a mag change that is faster with your ak or m1a or mini14 or whatever than with an AR.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
It certainly was a tactical failure. That failure required them to use their weapons. But it did cause the weapons failures, did it?
Look, I'm not saying the AR is horrendously unreliable. It's obviously not. But it seems there is a recorded history of it failing in adverse circumstances. I don't see that it's any more reliable than any of the competition, but do see the possibility that it is less so.
C-grunt
Member
Double post
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
You talk about "people with experience", but is that equal experience with a variety of rifle designs, or just lots of experience (and development of muscle memory) with the AR? There's a big difference.
The idea that it's particularly ergonomic just strikes me as ridiculous. To use the charging handle you have to move a hand to the rear of the receiver and pull a handle halfway back along the buttstock. How is that ergonomic? It's not. It's just a popular system that's been normalized. What's ergonomic about a bolt release on one side of the rifle, and a forward assist on the other side? Which hand is running the gun, the left or the right?
If a carbine class is designed around a particular and very common design, the techniques are also going to develop around the particular design. This is how technique is always improved. If a rifle such as the (because it was mentioned earlier) AR180 had become popular, no one would say the AR-15 was ergonomic. The function and reloading techniques would all be done by the right hand along with any malfunction drills, and everyone would find that easier because it was standard, that running an AR-15.
You want fast mag changes huh? I will give the AR it's due there. It's faster. But is resolving a malfunction faster with the AR? I doubt it. But yes, the reload is faster, and I suppose is 30 rounds hasn't proved enough to defend your home, half a second less on a reload is probably not going to make a significant difference.
C-grunt
Member
80+ countries have adopted the M16 or a variant of it. The Germans are replacing the G36 with the HK416. The UK adopted an AR10 as a DMR.
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
General issue?
C-grunt
Member
I love it when people who have no experience and are way out of their lane try and argue about things with people who have vast experience in those fields.
Some people listen, some people try to argue points they have no frame of reference for.
C-grunt
Member
What's the general issue rifle for the US military?
C-grunt
Member
What does general issue mean to you?
- Status
