My father deployed to Vietnam with an M14, later changed to an M16, then a 16A1. He also used the 16A2 in the Reserves and the Gulf War (#1). He said out of all of them, he preferred the original 16 and had no problems with it while in Vietnam. This was in '68, so he may have not gotten the ball powder ammo. But either way, he used all three variants in combat conditions, though I don't believe he saw action in the Gulf War other than having some Scuds come in.
AR-15 malfunctions and cures...
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
El Tejon
Member
MrMurphy, Zahal is in a fight for their lives. If the Galil was worth a sow's ear, they would be carrying it off the parade ground and into fights.
Zahal carries the M16 into fights and exports the Iwannacoolguns.
Zahal carries the M16 into fights and exports the Iwannacoolguns.
The Israeli artillery and armor units still use the Galil on a daily basis. I've seen it myself, seen video and pics from about six months ago of a active duty Israeli artillery unit with 155's at the ready and rounds fused and ready to go, and every man of them was packing a Glilon (M4-sized Galil carbine) as I believe the carbine is called.
Friend of mine is an IDF captain, armor, in the reserves and he says all the guys in his tank unit have them, except a couple of the officers who prefer the CAR-15 and can wangle them. He himself prefers the Galil for the reliability, and he's used both in combat.
Friend of mine is an IDF captain, armor, in the reserves and he says all the guys in his tank unit have them, except a couple of the officers who prefer the CAR-15 and can wangle them. He himself prefers the Galil for the reliability, and he's used both in combat.
Joe Demko
Member
1967? What year is it now, fallingblock? Shall we say that the M-1 Garand, BAR, and Thompson submachine gun were all unreliable weapons because all of them were known to have problems from the volcanic dust of the South Pacific in WWII and the intense cold of Korea?
fallingblock
Member
Why Joe, the year isn't the point.....
"1967? What year is it now, fallingblock? Shall we say that the M-1 Garand, BAR, and Thompson submachine gun were all unreliable weapons because all of them were known to have problems from the volcanic dust of the South Pacific in WWII and the intense cold of Korea?"
*********************************************************
The point is that the AR is not as robust as some other military rifles.
I'm not gonna get all upset about it. With enough money and effort the AR's problems have been reduced/controlled to the point that it is "good enough"
for an issue weapon.
I don't believe the AR is as sound a design as the Garand or B.A.R..
The Thompson was just a simple blowback (as produced for the U.S. Army in WWII). It was heavy and needlessly complicated to manufacture for its role, but was what was available when the need arose. The M3-A1 did much the same work for a fraction of the price.
I wouldn't choose an AR for combat, as I mentioned. My opinion is based on seeing an awful lot of broken, jammed, bent, buggered and generally failed M16's in my service as a 45B20.
Perhaps some former Soviet ordnance folks have a similar view of the Kalashnikov.
It is the design of the AR which contributes to its relative fragility.
With enough training, maintenance and technical support, the design is a workable military rifle.
It is not a Kalashnikov in terms of ability to withstand neglect/abuse and continue to function.
The Garand is a robust rifle when compared to the AR.
Buttstroke something hard enough with the Garand/M14, the stock will crack.
The rifle will still operate.
Do the same with the AR, and you're gonna need a new buffer tube and maybe a lower receiver before you do any more semi-auto shooting.
The B.A.R. was a heavy and robust S.A.W. for its time. Perhaps not the equal of the Bren, but a machine capable of absorbing considerable abuse and still operate. Can you imagine the M16 as a S.A.W.?
I guess I'm actually agreeing with you that the AR is now "good enough"...
But IMHO there are better service rifles, particularly if the rigorous training, quality ammo and material support which the AR enjoys are lacking.
"1967? What year is it now, fallingblock? Shall we say that the M-1 Garand, BAR, and Thompson submachine gun were all unreliable weapons because all of them were known to have problems from the volcanic dust of the South Pacific in WWII and the intense cold of Korea?"
*********************************************************
The point is that the AR is not as robust as some other military rifles.
I'm not gonna get all upset about it. With enough money and effort the AR's problems have been reduced/controlled to the point that it is "good enough"
for an issue weapon.
I don't believe the AR is as sound a design as the Garand or B.A.R..
The Thompson was just a simple blowback (as produced for the U.S. Army in WWII). It was heavy and needlessly complicated to manufacture for its role, but was what was available when the need arose. The M3-A1 did much the same work for a fraction of the price.
I wouldn't choose an AR for combat, as I mentioned. My opinion is based on seeing an awful lot of broken, jammed, bent, buggered and generally failed M16's in my service as a 45B20.
Perhaps some former Soviet ordnance folks have a similar view of the Kalashnikov.
It is the design of the AR which contributes to its relative fragility.
With enough training, maintenance and technical support, the design is a workable military rifle.
It is not a Kalashnikov in terms of ability to withstand neglect/abuse and continue to function.
The Garand is a robust rifle when compared to the AR.
Buttstroke something hard enough with the Garand/M14, the stock will crack.
The rifle will still operate.
Do the same with the AR, and you're gonna need a new buffer tube and maybe a lower receiver before you do any more semi-auto shooting.
The B.A.R. was a heavy and robust S.A.W. for its time. Perhaps not the equal of the Bren, but a machine capable of absorbing considerable abuse and still operate. Can you imagine the M16 as a S.A.W.?
I guess I'm actually agreeing with you that the AR is now "good enough"...
But IMHO there are better service rifles, particularly if the rigorous training, quality ammo and material support which the AR enjoys are lacking.
Grump
Member
Yeah, that's supposedly a magazine problem. I've personally seen that trick take a Colt HBAR and a Bushie out of action for long enough to get the user killt.
Not good. The most serious design defect of the M16 system--never remedied in any interation of the weapon. Blame it on mags--no sympathy from me because it's the reasonably foreseeable field-buggered situation I believe that a combat rifle should withstand and overcome. [EDIT] There is NO comparable jam for an M1, M14, FAL, AK in .223, or Steyr AUG or...well, you know.
It's particularly disappointing because you can't even break the rifle down to clear that jam--the stupid bolt carrier is halfway into the buffer tube.
A total redesign of the gas tube/carrier hole/upper receiver/charging handle area is needed to fix that. It appears that if the round were a bit bigger in diameter, it wouldn't be able to get wedged in there.
Other than THAT problem, I'm satisfied that a properly lubed* M16 type will choke so rarely under adverse conditions of up to 1,000 rounds between cleanings that it is truly more than "good enough." But there still must be something *better* and I suspect it's a Daewoo gas piston system or maybe an AR180B--if that durned plastic lower were properly reinforced.
*And proper lube and maintenance seems quite achievable.
Tamara
Senior Member
Grump,
I got mine cheap when a worn op rod jumped track on the previous owner. That woulda sucked in the field.
I got mine cheap when a worn op rod jumped track on the previous owner. That woulda sucked in the field.
Master Blaster
Member
I was trying to avoid chimming in here but,
As far as the Garrand/M-14 being more reliable than the M-16;
I know three folks who carried them in the service, 2 in combat.
My great uncle landed on D-day and carried one accross Europe, He recounted to me a story of how on D-day he was unable to fire his because the sand and salt water that got in it when he landed jammed it solid after 2 shots. He claims to have pick up three different rifles off of dead and wounded soldiers as his unit fought its way inland and having them all jam after a few shots from the sand and dirt that worked its way inside them. In his unit the favored arm was the thompson SMG, and the M1 carbine (light weight and killed the enemy dead). No One really wanted the beloved BAR because it was too damn heavy, so the biggest guy in the unit got stuck with it.
My next door neighbor served in Korea, and hated his Rifle, because he had to sleep with it next to his body to keep the grease from freezing up and the gun from jamming when the had an unexpected night-time attack.
My father served in the Coast Guard after Korea 1953-1956, and carried one on guard duty when he was stationed on Kwjaleen atol, They had to clean their rifles alot to keep them from corroding shut in the sand salt air, he never had to use his in combat, but hated it because it required so much cleaning to pass inspection.
As far as the Garrand/M-14 being more reliable than the M-16;
I know three folks who carried them in the service, 2 in combat.
My great uncle landed on D-day and carried one accross Europe, He recounted to me a story of how on D-day he was unable to fire his because the sand and salt water that got in it when he landed jammed it solid after 2 shots. He claims to have pick up three different rifles off of dead and wounded soldiers as his unit fought its way inland and having them all jam after a few shots from the sand and dirt that worked its way inside them. In his unit the favored arm was the thompson SMG, and the M1 carbine (light weight and killed the enemy dead). No One really wanted the beloved BAR because it was too damn heavy, so the biggest guy in the unit got stuck with it.
My next door neighbor served in Korea, and hated his Rifle, because he had to sleep with it next to his body to keep the grease from freezing up and the gun from jamming when the had an unexpected night-time attack.
My father served in the Coast Guard after Korea 1953-1956, and carried one on guard duty when he was stationed on Kwjaleen atol, They had to clean their rifles alot to keep them from corroding shut in the sand salt air, he never had to use his in combat, but hated it because it required so much cleaning to pass inspection.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
KevinB reports from Afghanistan that he took down a door using an AR with a collapsible Magpul stock by buttstroking it. No damage to stock or AR in that particular instance.
I'm sure it can and does happen; but I think the stock is more robust than most people would imagine.
Grump, that particular AR-15/M16 malfunction still vexes me.
Because, as you related, it is an absolute, gold-plated Beeyotch to unjam. The bolt carrier is still partially extended into the buttstock's buffer tube area, so I can't use the takedown pin and split the upper from the lower to clear things. And, as luck would have it, there isn't a whole lot of room to fit something through the ejection port and free things up. Nor can I force the bolt backwards, because the round above the bolt lugs is at an angle, nose up towards the gas tube, rim down behind the lugs.
I wondered about the magazine spring tension, too, even though I use brand-new Colt® 20-round mags that I'd bought in the GSA plastic bags some time ago.
Maybe there's an official name to this kind of stoppage in a published DoD manual?
Next time it happens, I'll have to take detailed photos to share with all here at THR and TFL.
Because, as you related, it is an absolute, gold-plated Beeyotch to unjam. The bolt carrier is still partially extended into the buttstock's buffer tube area, so I can't use the takedown pin and split the upper from the lower to clear things. And, as luck would have it, there isn't a whole lot of room to fit something through the ejection port and free things up. Nor can I force the bolt backwards, because the round above the bolt lugs is at an angle, nose up towards the gas tube, rim down behind the lugs.
I wondered about the magazine spring tension, too, even though I use brand-new Colt® 20-round mags that I'd bought in the GSA plastic bags some time ago.
Maybe there's an official name to this kind of stoppage in a published DoD manual?
Next time it happens, I'll have to take detailed photos to share with all here at THR and TFL.
Of all the rifles I have fired, the HK91 took the longest to hopelessly jam up with sand. Then it was a poorly designed club. The AR is the only one I can get working again without disassembly, and the only one that tends to blow sand and dirt back out the ejection port. Direct gas has its benefits. That forward assist is useless most of the time, but it will get the job done if you need it.
fallingblock
Member
Yes, that buffer tube is fragile....
"he took down a door using an AR with a collapsible Magpul stock by buttstroking it. No damage to stock or AR in that particular instance.
I'm sure it can and does happen; but I think the stock is more robust than most people would imagine."
*********************************************************
Good luck, weak door, perfect angle of impact?
An AR was what he had and I'm glad it worked for him.
I replaced dozens of the blasted stocks/tubes....until the vertical and horizontal buttstroke were de-emphasized for the M16 in basic training.
I wrote off more than one AR which had been run over (leaning your rifle against a truck - which then pulls away.)
Unless the ground was frozen, the same accident with the M14 resulted in a replaced stock/handguard, and in the worst cases a new barrel.
Here's another little happiness an AR can deliver for you:
Load a damaged round, perhaps one with the case neck wrinkled or the case body dented into the magazine and "rock and roll" until that round feeds and jams - then hit the 'forward assist' in panic.
Guess what?
You've now got a round jammed part way into the chamber with no way to force it out except that little "T" handle thingy...which will bend/break with enough upward force applied to it.
If it was a Kalashnikov or M14 you could kick the bolt handle/operating rod handle (muzzle in a safe direction, please )
I saw this malfunction numerous times on the training ranges at Fort Bragg, perhaps due to the ammo being cycled a bit more before it was fired in the training scenario.
Unless you have a cleaning rod handy, you're going to need some time to correct this one, because the bolt carrier is part way back into the buffer tube and will not allow the normal procedure for disassembly.
"he took down a door using an AR with a collapsible Magpul stock by buttstroking it. No damage to stock or AR in that particular instance.
I'm sure it can and does happen; but I think the stock is more robust than most people would imagine."
*********************************************************
Good luck, weak door, perfect angle of impact?
An AR was what he had and I'm glad it worked for him.
I replaced dozens of the blasted stocks/tubes....until the vertical and horizontal buttstroke were de-emphasized for the M16 in basic training.
I wrote off more than one AR which had been run over (leaning your rifle against a truck - which then pulls away.)
Unless the ground was frozen, the same accident with the M14 resulted in a replaced stock/handguard, and in the worst cases a new barrel.
Here's another little happiness an AR can deliver for you:
Load a damaged round, perhaps one with the case neck wrinkled or the case body dented into the magazine and "rock and roll" until that round feeds and jams - then hit the 'forward assist' in panic.
Guess what?
You've now got a round jammed part way into the chamber with no way to force it out except that little "T" handle thingy...which will bend/break with enough upward force applied to it.
If it was a Kalashnikov or M14 you could kick the bolt handle/operating rod handle (muzzle in a safe direction, please
) I saw this malfunction numerous times on the training ranges at Fort Bragg, perhaps due to the ammo being cycled a bit more before it was fired in the training scenario.
Unless you have a cleaning rod handy, you're going to need some time to correct this one, because the bolt carrier is part way back into the buffer tube and will not allow the normal procedure for disassembly.
Chris Rhines
Member
My old copy of John Steyr's Cold Steel quite clearly states that buttstroking with a rifle will frequently break the stock. This was prior to the M16.
Do that with an AK and you will like as not snap the charging handle off. Do it with an M14 and you'll either break the extractor or jerk the op rod out of its track. Suddenly applying your entire body weight to a small part will break things - I don't care whether you have an AR, AK, or a stone axe.
- Chris
fallingblock
Member
Well, yes, Chris, that's true....
"My old copy of John Steyr's Cold Steel quite clearly states that buttstroking with a rifle will frequently break the stock. This was prior to the M16."
*********************************************************
Prior to the M16, if you cracked/broke the stock on a U.S. service rifle, you were left with a weapon that would likely still function.
*********************************************************
"Do that with an AK and you will like as not snap the charging handle off. *********************************************************
I've seen a number of AK's "kicked open" and no snapped charging handles yet. It surely could happen, but the odds are you'll get that stuck case out or at least get the bolt open. That's pretty hard to do with the AR in the situation I described above.
The range officers on Chicken Road used to get panic attacks in the presence of a loaded M16 which couldn't be opened.
*********************************************************
"Do it with an M14 and you'll either break the extractor or jerk the op rod out of its track. "
*********************************************************
Or, in most cases, you'll unjam the rifle without damage. Try it sometime (muzzle in a safe direction). It doesn't take a big kick to start the round out.
The problem is that the AR has no provision (except that little aluminum "T" thingy) to apply sufficient force to dislodge a stuck round.
Vigorously kicking the M14 op rod handle might also disassemble the bolt if you pop the extractor, but again, you at least have a good second chance at removing the jammed round with that op rod handle. No such luck with the AR.
I'm in agreement that the AR is "good enough" for a military issue rifle, but it does still have a few serious design flaws.
I believe that in its original projected role, the AR was to be a limited issue "light rifle" for the jungles of S.E. Asia.
The troops liked its light weight, low recoil and the extra ammo available per pound humped.
Bob MacNamara wanted it adopted and got it done.
Thirty years of changes, modifications and ammo development have resulted in a system that works pretty well.
Heck, other nations like Israel even take AR's when we give 'em away.
"My old copy of John Steyr's Cold Steel quite clearly states that buttstroking with a rifle will frequently break the stock. This was prior to the M16."
*********************************************************
Prior to the M16, if you cracked/broke the stock on a U.S. service rifle, you were left with a weapon that would likely still function.
*********************************************************
"Do that with an AK and you will like as not snap the charging handle off. *********************************************************
I've seen a number of AK's "kicked open" and no snapped charging handles yet. It surely could happen, but the odds are you'll get that stuck case out or at least get the bolt open. That's pretty hard to do with the AR in the situation I described above.
The range officers on Chicken Road used to get panic attacks in the presence of a loaded M16 which couldn't be opened.
*********************************************************
"Do it with an M14 and you'll either break the extractor or jerk the op rod out of its track. "
*********************************************************
Or, in most cases, you'll unjam the rifle without damage. Try it sometime (muzzle in a safe direction). It doesn't take a big kick to start the round out.
The problem is that the AR has no provision (except that little aluminum "T" thingy) to apply sufficient force to dislodge a stuck round.
Vigorously kicking the M14 op rod handle might also disassemble the bolt if you pop the extractor, but again, you at least have a good second chance at removing the jammed round with that op rod handle. No such luck with the AR.
I'm in agreement that the AR is "good enough" for a military issue rifle, but it does still have a few serious design flaws.
I believe that in its original projected role, the AR was to be a limited issue "light rifle" for the jungles of S.E. Asia.
The troops liked its light weight, low recoil and the extra ammo available per pound humped.
Bob MacNamara wanted it adopted and got it done.
Thirty years of changes, modifications and ammo development have resulted in a system that works pretty well.
Heck, other nations like Israel even take AR's when we give 'em away.
Tamara
Senior Member
fallingblock,
The A2 stock is far more rugged than the flimsy A1 stocks that were on the rifles you serviced. Trust me, you can administer quite a beat-down with an A2 stock.
I can't think of another modern issue rifle that would react particularly well to being run over. Certainly not the hollow sheet-metal Kalashnikov...
That's like saying that a car is bad because it'll stall if you put a few gallons of water in the gas tank. Inspect rounds before you load them into a magazine! Especially rifle rounds! This is a safety issue, above all else...
The A2 stock is far more rugged than the flimsy A1 stocks that were on the rifles you serviced. Trust me, you can administer quite a beat-down with an A2 stock.
I can't think of another modern issue rifle that would react particularly well to being run over. Certainly not the hollow sheet-metal Kalashnikov...
That's like saying that a car is bad because it'll stall if you put a few gallons of water in the gas tank. Inspect rounds before you load them into a magazine! Especially rifle rounds! This is a safety issue, above all else...
The SAS (both Limey and Aussie) seems to think highly of them, and not because of the price tag.Heck, other nations like Israel even take AR's when we give 'em away.
Wildalaska
member
Im gonna finally be controversial, and state that I have never, in 20 years or so, ever had a gun related malfunction in an AR or M16
WildstickinghisneckoutAlaska
WildstickinghisneckoutAlaska
fallingblock
Member
Yes, that's true, Tamara......
"The A2 stock is far more rugged than the flimsy A1 stocks that were on the rifles you serviced. Trust me, you can administer quite a beat-down with an A2 stock."
*********************************************************
That would be one of those modifications and upgrades over the past 35 years which I referred to. Wasn't there more thickness added to the area of the lower receiver into which the buffer tube threads as well?
Of course, any 'beat down' with an M16, even the A2, is gonna pale into insignificance when compared to one applied with a steel butt-plated
9-pound Garand.
*********************************************************
"I can't think of another modern issue rifle that would react particularly well to being run over. Certainly not the hollow sheet-metal Kalashnikov..."
*********************************************************
Well, Upon reflection, I have to admit that that is perhaps not an entirely appropriate criterion for the modern issue rifle.
However, in my experience the M14 was definitely the more likely survivor of the two in any confrontation with a deuce-and-a-half.
The M16 alloy receiver usually cracked around the barrel and/or twisted in a very unserviceable sort of way.
*********************************************************
"That's like saying that a car is bad because it'll stall if you put a few gallons of water in the gas tank. Inspect rounds before you load them into a magazine! Especially rifle rounds! This is a safety issue, above all else..."
*********************************************************
I take it then, that you have never had the pleasure of working with teenage urban draftees on a military rifle range?
These kids (and I was just one at the time as well, but I 'did' guns) were mostly urban and not the ones with the college deferments, if you get my drift.
Getting them to load the magazines with the projectiles forward was a good first step.
Not so different form most of the third world's "soldier class" these days, I would imagine.
A problem with the AR, and it remains to this day, is that there is no simple and foolproof way to remove a well-stuck/defective round from the chamber. The 'forward assist' was added on the A1 to correct the AR's defect of, well, no 'forward assist' for chambering, particularly with tropical conditions of dirty ammo.
That was a half-solution which exacerbated the lack of a 'rearward assist'-well,other than the aluminum "T" thingy - for removing defective ammo.
*********************************************************
"The SAS (both Limey and Aussie) seems to think highly of them, and not because of the price tag"
*********************************************************
Good Gravy, Mizz Tamara!
Please consider what the issue weapons are for those nationalities!
I certainly never intended to imply that there were not any WORSE weapons than the AR!
The Brits issue what is arguably the most problematic of modern infantry weapons. It is a standing (if somewhat cruel) joke among Britain's allies.
Here in "guns for the government only" Australia the current standard issue infantry 'personal' weapon is the F88 Steyr.
Certainly the Steyr is not in the same league with that Limey thing, but there are enough problems with it that most Diggers with experience of both the Steyr and the M16A2 will gratefully grab the AR every time. With gusto.
Wildalaska:
*********************************************************
"Im gonna finally be controversial, and state that I have never, in 20 years or so, ever had a gun related malfunction in an AR or M16"
*********************************************************
What! Wildalaska be controversial?!
Just my luck, I suppose, to have been in on the wrong end of the AR's developmental timeline.
Still, putting any weapon in the hands of a poorly trained draftee/recruit, especially a 'high-strung' design, will reveal many of its faults in a hurry.
I am reminded of the old Samsonite suitcase commercial - the airline
clerk places the bag on the conveyor, and a gorilla grabs it at the other end and begins throwing it against the wall and jumping up and down on the suitcase.
Through a process of correction, evaluation and evolution the AR15 made it through to the issue weapon of today.
Ah, if only the historical contingencies of U.S. Ordnance could have trended more in the direction of the Stg 90....
"The A2 stock is far more rugged than the flimsy A1 stocks that were on the rifles you serviced. Trust me, you can administer quite a beat-down with an A2 stock."
*********************************************************
That would be one of those modifications and upgrades over the past 35 years which I referred to. Wasn't there more thickness added to the area of the lower receiver into which the buffer tube threads as well?
Of course, any 'beat down' with an M16, even the A2, is gonna pale into insignificance when compared to one applied with a steel butt-plated
9-pound Garand.
*********************************************************
"I can't think of another modern issue rifle that would react particularly well to being run over. Certainly not the hollow sheet-metal Kalashnikov..."
*********************************************************
Well, Upon reflection, I have to admit that that is perhaps not an entirely appropriate criterion for the modern issue rifle.
However, in my experience the M14 was definitely the more likely survivor of the two in any confrontation with a deuce-and-a-half.
The M16 alloy receiver usually cracked around the barrel and/or twisted in a very unserviceable sort of way.
*********************************************************
"That's like saying that a car is bad because it'll stall if you put a few gallons of water in the gas tank. Inspect rounds before you load them into a magazine! Especially rifle rounds! This is a safety issue, above all else..."
*********************************************************
I take it then, that you have never had the pleasure of working with teenage urban draftees on a military rifle range?
These kids (and I was just one at the time as well, but I 'did' guns) were mostly urban and not the ones with the college deferments, if you get my drift.
Getting them to load the magazines with the projectiles forward was a good first step.
Not so different form most of the third world's "soldier class" these days, I would imagine.
A problem with the AR, and it remains to this day, is that there is no simple and foolproof way to remove a well-stuck/defective round from the chamber. The 'forward assist' was added on the A1 to correct the AR's defect of, well, no 'forward assist' for chambering, particularly with tropical conditions of dirty ammo.
That was a half-solution which exacerbated the lack of a 'rearward assist'-well,other than the aluminum "T" thingy - for removing defective ammo.
*********************************************************
"The SAS (both Limey and Aussie) seems to think highly of them, and not because of the price tag"
*********************************************************
Good Gravy, Mizz Tamara!
Please consider what the issue weapons are for those nationalities!
I certainly never intended to imply that there were not any WORSE weapons than the AR!
The Brits issue what is arguably the most problematic of modern infantry weapons. It is a standing (if somewhat cruel) joke among Britain's allies.
Here in "guns for the government only" Australia the current standard issue infantry 'personal' weapon is the F88 Steyr.
Certainly the Steyr is not in the same league with that Limey thing, but there are enough problems with it that most Diggers with experience of both the Steyr and the M16A2 will gratefully grab the AR every time. With gusto.
Wildalaska:
*********************************************************
"Im gonna finally be controversial, and state that I have never, in 20 years or so, ever had a gun related malfunction in an AR or M16"
*********************************************************
What! Wildalaska be controversial?!
Just my luck, I suppose, to have been in on the wrong end of the AR's developmental timeline.
Still, putting any weapon in the hands of a poorly trained draftee/recruit, especially a 'high-strung' design, will reveal many of its faults in a hurry.
I am reminded of the old Samsonite suitcase commercial - the airline
clerk places the bag on the conveyor, and a gorilla grabs it at the other end and begins throwing it against the wall and jumping up and down on the suitcase.
Through a process of correction, evaluation and evolution the AR15 made it through to the issue weapon of today.
Ah, if only the historical contingencies of U.S. Ordnance could have trended more in the direction of the Stg 90....
On a lighter note, there is an excellent article in the new GUNS Combat 2005 Annual about the LMT (Lewis Machine and Tool) AR-15 MRP (Monolithic Rail Platform) which allows quick-change barrels 
and several other accessories. The article echoes high praise from other reliable sources about LMT, LaRue and Troy products.
and several other accessories. The article echoes high praise from other reliable sources about LMT, LaRue and Troy products. Tamara
Senior Member
Pat Rogers couldn't say enough good things about the LMT in a recent SWAT article, also. I'm savin' my shekels.
Grump
Member
Not so comparable, in my personal experience. I did that once and it took no more than 30 seconds to clear, including looking in wonderment at the half-back bolt and skeewompis op rod handle. I had accidently dismounted the op rod when releasing for the first round fired.
BTW, I've seen that nasty AR double-feed kinda jam not only with a bad magazine and two live rounds, but also with the extracted but somehow not-ejected fired round being the one stuck between the gas tube and carrier key. IT'S A BAD DESIGN RESCUED FROM A CHAUCHAT-TYPE REPUTATION ONLY BECAUSE IT RARELY HAPPENS!!!
It's the unmatched severity of the jam that I object to.Now a questin for those who've looked at Robinson Arms and AR180Bs and HK piston-type AR derivatives--Does the op rod on the piston fill that neverland inside the top of the receiver and prevent this type of nasty jam? I have a certain suspicion here....
Grump
Member
Please, do tell us about the MAG-related malfs you have experienced...and how long they typically take to clear.
Joe Demko
Member
Mag-related failures in the M-16 family are more common than they should be because the aluminum mags were designed to be a semi-disposable item. That is to say that they would be used a few times and discarded. Of course, nobody (including the US military) actually does this. Thus, the mags get used well past the point at which their design dictates disposal and failures result.
Or so I've been told.
Or so I've been told.
Southern Raider
Member
If it's live rounds, it's a mag problem. Let's face it, the AR does not have the most durable magazine. It's aluminum construction and semi-disposable nature as inherited from the AR10, contribute to early wear out. The stress of multiple load and unload cycles cause these mags to bulge out and spread the feed lips. Compare and contrast to an AK mag which could be used to beat someone to death in CQB. :banghead:
However, if a fired round is in the mix, it is generally a sign of a weak extractor, which is why I always, always, ALWAYS, beef up extractor tension as previously noted. A Bushmaster tech once told me that it is quite common to find weak extractor springs in competing products, and I think he may be right. In fact, one of my ARs had a proclivity for this jam type which went away when the extractor was reinforced.
This type of jam is a bitch to fix as noted.
Wildalaska
member
Bout time someone picked up at that
Only had one double feed in a bad mag in my life, round lodged under the gas tube, cleared it with an awl.
Whenever doing full auto, always use new mags
WildemptyshopAlaska
MagnumCaliber357
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Messages
- 305
all you people praise the M14 and put the m16 to shame, but you have to keep in mind that the m14 was not adopted in the numbers because of its uncontrolablity on full auto. the M16 does have problems, but if it was perfect then there would be no need for any furture upgrades of small arms. If you can do a better job the Stoner did on the M16 then please do so and stop complaining about it . again NOTHING is perfect there is always room for inprovement, thats why they have trials and im proud to see our troops with an m16 an american icon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
