blackhawk2000
member
I've been told by people who know more than me that even in sandy enviroments to keep it wet.
AR-15 what is it good for?
- Thread starter bigman9828
- Start date
- Status
10-Ring
Member
HD / range fun...The AR is new to me too. I just had my 1st build in Sept and I've got about 600 rounds through it...man is it fun to shoot! And cool too 
ctdonath
Member
Only problem I had with an AR15 was too much laquered Wolf ammo made the chamber sticky. Oddly, cleaned that out by firing a few rounds of polymer-cased ammo - the texture on the plastic apparently scraped the goop out.
Allowing for ordering a couple lost detent springs and a pivot pin adapter, turned an old fixed-stock long-barreled AR15 into an M4gery in about an hour - and I had pretty much no idea what I was doing. Based design is so modular it's almost silly.
My second AR15 (just got, not yet fired):
Allowing for ordering a couple lost detent springs and a pivot pin adapter, turned an old fixed-stock long-barreled AR15 into an M4gery in about an hour - and I had pretty much no idea what I was doing. Based design is so modular it's almost silly.
My second AR15 (just got, not yet fired):
glen walker
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 41
When the United State's Goverment put in their request for a 'new' rifle, "This is about the size of round we want and this is what we want it to be able to do" the only two serious contenders were Colt and Ruger. (Sturm and Ruger) Ruger's version, the 'Mini-14' was the best by far, completely outstripping the M-16 in all fields (accuracy, ease of handling, reliability, and dependability) However, there was just one problem. All of Ruger's '14's' were machined out, and the Colt-16's were 'stamped out'. The U.S. Federal Government went with the Colt because it was cheaper, even though they were well aware of all the test's results, and knew damned good and well that the Colt had lot's of 'bugs' that needed to be worked out.
The Colt's flash suppressor was three open prongs that tended to catch on vines..The Colt had a maximum rate of fire of 750 to 800 rounds per minute...I still remember back in Vietnam when the Lt. came through the hooch passing out new spring and buffer units to replace the older ones. The new buffer units slowed the rate of fire back down to 700 to 750 rounds per minute, placing it on a par with the M-14. That did not solve the problem. Then they passed out new complete rifles that had a chromed chamber. There was a tiny letter 'c' engraved on the bottom of the barrel, letting one know that he had a M-16 with a chromed barrel. That did not solve the problem...Here was the problem, and it still exists to this day. (It was just worse back then, although it's still plenty bad enough today) The rifle does not like to extract. More properly put, the bolt would cycle ( for example, the M-14 will load, chamber, fire, extract, eject, load, in approx. one/one hundredths of a second) but the extractor would strip the brass from the empty hull and leave it in the chamber. Many a good man died over the years due to a jammed up M-16 rifle. In Vietnam, on Hill 881, over two full companies of Marines died taking that hill. Two out of three of them were found dead with their M-16 jammed and them trying to fix it when they were killed.
We were using Colt ammo. They changed ammo . It did not solve the problem. From Vietnam until I know up into the 1990's, all U.S.Marines were constantly cautioned to keep the lower section (tip end) of the rifle's cleaning rod in their pocket at all times. When you got a jam, perform 'immediate action' (a term they came up with to cover their ass) by pulling the bolt to the rear, and taking the section of cleaning rod from your pocket and throwing it sharply down the barrel from the muzzle end, and hoping that it would dislodge the empty hull from the chamber.... I realize that this is 2007, and I know they 'stiffened the barrel' and I know they added the three round burst selector, but I also know that one drop of water, one tiny bit of leaf, a couple of grains of sand, in the wrong place at the right time, and you're out of business. Talk to any of these old timers, and they will tell you about it. If it didn't happen to them, I'll bet they know someone it did happen to...BOTTOM LINE AND IT'S A FACT.. At least up into the 1990's, when the U.S. Marines jumped off of those helicopters in the middle of the s**t, it was 50/50 as to whether those M-16's would work past the second or third shot. It was also standard policy to carry only 17 or 18 rounds in the magazine. Check around. Ya'll will see..
The Colt's flash suppressor was three open prongs that tended to catch on vines..The Colt had a maximum rate of fire of 750 to 800 rounds per minute...I still remember back in Vietnam when the Lt. came through the hooch passing out new spring and buffer units to replace the older ones. The new buffer units slowed the rate of fire back down to 700 to 750 rounds per minute, placing it on a par with the M-14. That did not solve the problem. Then they passed out new complete rifles that had a chromed chamber. There was a tiny letter 'c' engraved on the bottom of the barrel, letting one know that he had a M-16 with a chromed barrel. That did not solve the problem...Here was the problem, and it still exists to this day. (It was just worse back then, although it's still plenty bad enough today) The rifle does not like to extract. More properly put, the bolt would cycle ( for example, the M-14 will load, chamber, fire, extract, eject, load, in approx. one/one hundredths of a second) but the extractor would strip the brass from the empty hull and leave it in the chamber. Many a good man died over the years due to a jammed up M-16 rifle. In Vietnam, on Hill 881, over two full companies of Marines died taking that hill. Two out of three of them were found dead with their M-16 jammed and them trying to fix it when they were killed.
We were using Colt ammo. They changed ammo . It did not solve the problem. From Vietnam until I know up into the 1990's, all U.S.Marines were constantly cautioned to keep the lower section (tip end) of the rifle's cleaning rod in their pocket at all times. When you got a jam, perform 'immediate action' (a term they came up with to cover their ass) by pulling the bolt to the rear, and taking the section of cleaning rod from your pocket and throwing it sharply down the barrel from the muzzle end, and hoping that it would dislodge the empty hull from the chamber.... I realize that this is 2007, and I know they 'stiffened the barrel' and I know they added the three round burst selector, but I also know that one drop of water, one tiny bit of leaf, a couple of grains of sand, in the wrong place at the right time, and you're out of business. Talk to any of these old timers, and they will tell you about it. If it didn't happen to them, I'll bet they know someone it did happen to...BOTTOM LINE AND IT'S A FACT.. At least up into the 1990's, when the U.S. Marines jumped off of those helicopters in the middle of the s**t, it was 50/50 as to whether those M-16's would work past the second or third shot. It was also standard policy to carry only 17 or 18 rounds in the magazine. Check around. Ya'll will see..
Umm, Mr. Walker, sir?
Just how good a stuff were you tokin' in that hooch, letting you see into the future? Ruger didn't begin development of the Mini-14 until 1970, with production beginning in 1974.
Testing of Eugene Stoner's AR-15 began in earnest in 1958. Curtis LeMay saw the gun demonstrated in 1960, and the Air Force and Army began orders of the M16 in earnest in 1964 when MacNamara ordered production of the M14 ended.
There was no way short of a time machine that the Ruger Mini-14 was a competitor in the DoD evaluations for the M14's replacement in the early 1960s. You will excuse my disbelief and general questioning of your credibility.
(Winchester submitted a modified variant of the M1 Carbine for trials in 1957. It kind of looked like the much-later Mini-14)
Just how good a stuff were you tokin' in that hooch, letting you see into the future? Ruger didn't begin development of the Mini-14 until 1970, with production beginning in 1974.
Testing of Eugene Stoner's AR-15 began in earnest in 1958. Curtis LeMay saw the gun demonstrated in 1960, and the Air Force and Army began orders of the M16 in earnest in 1964 when MacNamara ordered production of the M14 ended.
There was no way short of a time machine that the Ruger Mini-14 was a competitor in the DoD evaluations for the M14's replacement in the early 1960s. You will excuse my disbelief and general questioning of your credibility.
(Winchester submitted a modified variant of the M1 Carbine for trials in 1957. It kind of looked like the much-later Mini-14)
AlaskaErik
Member
Mine is a SHTF last resort home defense weapon. It's an easy rifle to shoot and clean and I'm familiar with it, having shot its full auto cousin in the military. And a thousand rounds doesn't take up a whole lot of room.
Please provide something (i.e. anything) that supports your contention that the Mini-14 was ever entered as a competitor against the M-16 prior to the latter weapon's adoption by the US Army in general (versus SF and USAF who both used the AR-15 prior to general issuance).
Actually, policy is 28 rounds in a magazine, to allow the magazine to be inserted with a closed bolt. It looks like you've taken the download by two rounds advice and applied it to the 20 round mags (which don't have this issue).
Actually, policy is 28 rounds in a magazine, to allow the magazine to be inserted with a closed bolt. It looks like you've taken the download by two rounds advice and applied it to the 20 round mags (which don't have this issue).
kingpin008
Member
A Mini-14 is more accurate than an M-16?
Oookkkk..
Limeyfellow
Member
The military version of the Ruger is the Ruger AC556 famous really for being on the A-Team. It didn't begin development on the rifle till 1970 and commercially it came out in 1973 and the military version slightly later. Its just no way it could have been part of the some trials that picked the M16.
That did cause me a *** moment too. Its considered by pretty much everyone that the Mini14 design has inferior accuracy.
That did cause me a *** moment too. Its considered by pretty much everyone that the Mini14 design has inferior accuracy.
SoCalShooter
Member
competition, home defense, plinking, hunting...apocalypse
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
We were? That's odd . . . It seems none of the units I was serving with received that directive . . .
Considering I entered the Marine Corps in 1990, served as an infantryman in infantry units, I expect I'd be in a pretty good position to see such an immediate action drill taught. In fact, the immediate action drills I was taught had nothing to do with cleaning rod sections at all. I was trained as a heavy machinegunner. None of the 3 guns' immediate action drills, nor the M-16's we were required to maintain proficiency with, ever mention your cleaning rod solution. Nor did their remedial action drills.
You might be describing some field expedient solution you heard tale of, but I suspect that's about all it is . . . a tall tale.
Really? I don't see how that lightly sprung extractor has enough tension on the brass to hold onto it and rip the rim off the brass in an M-16. Might happen incidentally . . . but not regularly. And if one does experience a case head separation, shoving a rod down the barrel won't get that case out. I've had to use a case extractor on our M-60's from time to time, which would occasionally rip up brass in various forms as it extracted, but that's a different beast.
Well, we seemed to have missed the directive to carry rifles that didn't work, too. And the one about loading mags with 17 - 18 rounds . . .
Of course, its possible the units I served with weren't as high speed/low drag as the one you ran with . . . . we never got to visit the boathouse at Hereford.
- Status
