AR - Dead Reliable?

[coloradokevin]

I've had three AR-15's.

1) Bushmaster, A2 style with 20" barrel. This AR-15 was built during the "ban" years, and featured a crowned 20" barrel, and a ground-off bayonet lug. After shooting this rifle for approximately 200 rounds I started to have cycling issues. The culprit in this case was a bolt carrier (gas) key that had come un-staked. I torqued the bolts on this key, and restaked it. Never had a problem since.

2) Colt AR-15 (6520 model). This carbine length AR-15 was issued to me by my department. In the time that I carried this rifle I put at least 7,000 rounds through it. Never had a single malfunction.

3) Smith and Wesson M&P15T. This was my most recent purchase on the AR-15 platform. I really love this gun. It shoots great, and the trigger is the nicest factory trigger I've had on an AR-15. I've put a couple thousand rounds through this gun so far, and haven't had any issues whatsoever.


AK-47 style rifles are known for being reliable, and they are also known for being inaccurate and cheaply constructed. I suppose that the reputation still holds that a properly constructed AK will shoot in more adverse conditions than a properly constructed AR (mainly because of the loose tolerances on the AK platform). Personally, while I have nothing against owning an AK, I like the AR-15 platform a lot better. There was a time in my life when I didn't think that this would be the case, but the AR-15 has proven itself to be an accurate, reliable, and versatile firearm.

 

[Tirod]

The early history of the AR is as much misinformation as anything. Early AR's had great reliability - they were low production, hand fitted, and had ammo loaded just for them.

Fast forward to '68, first Colt had to ramp up production by four times, from making less than 100,000 a year to 400,000 a year. A subcontractor on barrels got the chambers tight, the government highhandedly omitted chroming the bores (standard on M1's and M14's,) and the ammo makers got to use repurposed powder not previously loaded, but handled a lot. Bingo, a perfect storm of stupidity introduced by administration, not by Stoner. Nobody asked him, nobody consulted with Colt, who got blamed?

Does anyone recommend using tight chambers in AK's, not chroming the barrel, and using recycled powder? Well, maybe on that last one, it's not even as powerful as a .30-30.

"Loose tolerances" is BS, it's design clearances. What's really meant is the AR is too well made and tightly fitted, which causes the BCG to mysteriously stick and jam. That Doesn't Happen, period. Ignorance abounds on this subject. What happens is that bad feed lips direct the ammo to low or high and keep the ammo from chambering. The majority of stoppages are the cheap flimsy mags which can be dented by just dropping them. Does that mean all the alibi firing on a range day which needs a huge train of supplies is the fault of the design, or, an Army that won't buy good magazines, won't crush bad magazines, and won't accept a lesson learned about them? That includes the complete lack of Preventative Maintenance, meaning replacing worn parts BEFORE they break. The Army doesn't do that either, and makes the excuse they can't keep track of the rounds fired. It's more like, they don't care enough. Running a car into the ground doesn't mean the engineers didn't do their job, the owner is responsible to change the oil, duh.

Dragging out claims of reliability when mistreatment and maintenance are the real cause is the exact problem I described - most shooters repeat the lies, not the actual issues.

The magazine is the bad boy problem of the M16, and the saving grace of the AK-47. Here's another way to look at it - an AR in 7.62X39. Good luck with that, they basically don't work. You're shoving a curved sheetmetal mag into a straight mag well, and ammo feeding issues skyrocket. Nobody makes a decent mag - the AR still works ok besides that. What it needs, and what other gunmakers have done, is cut the mag well away and use AK mags - which solves all the problem.

But nobody ever tries a 5.56 conversion in the AK, except Valmet. Add a mag well attachment to hold a cheap flimsy issue mag and get back to us on that. I have no doubt the first reliability fix will be using Pmags. Thats exactly what the Marines are doing in Afghanistan, across the board. The Brits just bought One Million for their own use. Put a decent mag into an AR, it functions, as many veterans are well aware.

Studies over the last twenty years have shown the AR has 1) magazine stoppages, 2) ammo problems. The AR must be shot with ammo loaded in the correct pressure range to function. Most stoppages on the internet reported are first trips to the range with a new, dry rifle, and underpowered import ammo or light civilian bolt gun fodder. A Corvette won't run so good on Coleman fuel either. If the AR has a problem, it's the American shooter doesn't know much how to actually shoot it right. The odds are 100 to 1 they never served and don't even know how to clean one. They just repeat the same old same old they hear from "war veterans" who complain about anything to perpetuate their bias. No clue they had it wrong then and now.

But, that's all part of our heritage, the right to be uninformed and let everyone know.

 

[alemonkey]

My homebuilt, parts gun AR has been 100% reliable. The only problem I ever had with it was with some reloads that were too long and getting hung up in the mag. This is my 3 gun rifle and it gets run fairly hard, no mag dumps but a lot of fast shooting and it gets fairly hot. I cleaned it really well the other day for the first time in a couple thousand rounds and the BCG was absolutely filthy. The crud had crud built up on it. Still it never hiccupped. A lot of people will tell you homebuilt AR's won't be reliable, but IMO that's a generalization and can't be applied to many guns. If you built it with quality parts and not a crap bolt you picked up from Bubba at the gun show it will run just fine.

 

[jon_in_wv]

My personal experience in 4 years in the Marine Corps and another 15 years working with AR15s in Government is I trust the AK47 platform MUCH more than the AR15. I love the accuracy, ergos, and light recoil of the AR15 but I do not trust its reliability unless it is my PERSONAL AR instead of an issued AR. The quality and reliability ARs seems to vary wildly. I've had to qualify yearly on the range for the last 15 years for my job. I have NEVER seen all 15-20 shooters shoot a measly 30 rounds without several of the weapons malfunctioning. Last week I had to qual again. When the instructor hand me the AR he asked if i wanted a heavy barreled or regular barreled. I said, "just give me one that works". Of course he said, "they ALL work."
Firstly, I shoot much faster than most on the range so normally I finish before the rest and I can watch the rest of them shoot. (We shoot 30 rounds at 50 yards in 10 MINUTES) Well, round number 30 FTF and I had to clear the malfunction. I finished firing and I stepped back to give an, "I told you so" to the instructor and we watched two other shooters also have malfunctions. This has been NORMAL for 15 years. I absolutely DO NOT trust the AR unless it is my weapon and I can control its maintenance, magazines, ammo, cleaning, etc.....under those circumstances I would have no problem with the AR. If I had to take a weapon off the rack and trust my life with it? It would be an AK any day.

BTW, The weapons in question are all A2 FNs and Colts using factory supplied magazines.

 

[harmon rabb]

The AR suffers from bad press and ignorance, being called a jammomatic and "defecates where it eats," mostly by those who believe anecdotal stories with no real understanding of what actually stopped the weapon.

eh, the AR does ***** where it eats. i have an AR, an AK-47, an AK-74, and a SKS. after shooting a same amount of rounds, the AR is far, far dirtier inside than the others. you'd have to be blind to not notice.

of course, a properly maintained AR works just fine, so I guess this doesn't matter a whole lot. fwiw, none of the rifles i listed above have ever failed me. well, the 47 had a few failures to return to battery when new, but it just needed to break in, and after a couple hundred rounds, those issues disappeared.

 

[benEzra]

"generous lubrication" should be changed to "correctly lubricated"...it does NOT mean dumping a quart of CLP into it and calling it good.....

Honestly, I don't think you can overlube an AR, unless you are in the middle of a sandstorm and have somehow lost your ejection port cover, and even then I'm not sure that more lubrication wouldn't be better than less. If you get too much oil in it, it will sling off---messy for the first few rounds, but not a problem. I suppose you should keep it out of the magazine, though.

eh, the AR does ***** where it eats. i have an AR, an AK-47, an AK-74, and a SKS. after shooting a same amount of rounds, the AR is far, far dirtier inside than the others. you'd have to be blind to not notice.

The inside of an AR receiver gets dirty mostly for the same reasons that the inside of an AK receiver gets dirty---debris from the ejecting case, and residual gas backflow from the opening chamber. The gas used to cycle an AR's action is vented to the atmosphere like an AK (through the gas vents in the bolt carrier), not to the interior of the receiver, and carbon on the bolt tail is irrelevant. The AR does have a lot more smooth, uncluttered surfaces inside the receiver that let you see the buildup easier, but it doesn't seem to get all that much dirtier than an AK to me, at least comparing my RRA to my SAR-1.

I just cleaned mine yesterday after 114 rounds of Tula, and it really wasn't dirty enough to bother. The oil was still mostly clear, the bolt and bolt carrier were still wet, and there was no crud. It may help that I don't run it dry, and I use an oil (Mobil 1) that doesn't evaporate and keeps carbon from building up.

 

[mc223]

When i put my AR away it was working fine. When I need it again it will be working fine.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Honestly, I don't think you can overlube an AR, unless you are in the middle of a sandstorm and have somehow lost your ejection port cover, and even then I'm not sure that more lubrication wouldn't be better than less. If you get too much oil in it, it will sling off---messy for the first few rounds, but not a problem. I suppose you should keep it out of the magazine, though.

You can overlube an AR..you will notice as your trigger finger gets covered in CLP as it drips out of the trigger slot.

I ran my dry in Iraq with no issues....a drop or two of oil initially but basically it was dry and didn't hiccup...same with my rifles at home. A drop or two of oil in the carrier at the cam pin then the same on the hammer/trigger pins and thats it.. If you lube anything else you are basically wasting your time as the bolt carrier only touches the upper in a few spots and the bolt itself almost floats in the carrier. Anywhere else there is oil and it becomes a dust magnet....

 

[Tirod]

Jon complains about ISSUE AR's not being trustworthy, just imagine the level of trust we would have with an AK in that system. Not changing the extractor until it breaks, leaving action springs in until the weapon simply won't cycle, and continuing to use magazines three generations earlier just because you are required to have some, but won't spend the money to have working ones, isn't the fault of the design. It's all about administrative priorities, and tools are usually ignored by administrators.

Hey, we bought you guys a box of replacement box knife blades last year, what happened to them?

If your chain of command and armorer can't keep weapons from malfunctioning, THEY are the problem, nothing to do with the design. I'm certainly not going to compromise my choice of weapon because of institutional incompetence, and accept a lesser design using a lower powered caliber. I prefer to use a gun that adapts to the way I want it, not be forced into accepting and getting used to features that aren't considered optimal by any advanced military. Not even the Chinese use AK's now. It's a relic of bygone times.

Certainly cheap, just like post war Mausers, Arisakas, Enfields, '03's, etc. Nothing wrong with collecting a piece of history, but things aren't right if someone insists they are still a first choice in firearms. If you think I should be using a rotary dial phone, give me a call on yours, we'll talk about it.

Modern firearms designs over the last 20 years have not emulated much at all of the AK, what you see are bits and pieces of the original and later M16's transplanted to them. Almost all of the real engineering in firearms has been publicly underwritten by the American shooter, proving the feature does work in sales, and being incorporated into the next gen gun designs. We keep raising the bar, and the other makers fall further behind, because their design can't be easily modified.

Take a M16Anothing - chop the barrel to 14.5, add carbine gas, chop the carry handle and leave the rear sight, mount a rail, shorten the buffer tube, add more weights to the buffer, cut the action spring, shorten the handguards, etc. All prototyped, done, and probably in Knights collection. It will perform as well as an Issue M4. That's how they got there.

Other guns? Can't touch that, not FN, HK, or AK. The reason YOU can buy them is that THEY are NO LONGER IN SERVICE. Time has passed them by, better guns are now being used.

The AR marches on.

 

[walking arsenal]

Having owned both for a number of years and knowing what I know now about both platforms here is what I think.

Keep the AK.

Aks work
They work with bad ammo
They work with no lube
Their mags are durable and so is the rifle.

ARs operate on ifs. They only work........
If the rifle is clean
if the ammo is good
if the mags (Which are the weak point of the weapon) are good.

I made my decision to use my AK as my go to gun when a badly seated, fully loaded GI issue magazine fell out of the bottom of my AR. It hit the ground and the floor plate fell out, the mag body hit the ceiling, and 30 rounds of 5.56 flew all over the room.

If that had happened in a fight that would have been 30 wasted rounds wit the AR.

With the AK it would have meant bending over to pick up the mag.

I use my AR for varmiting which is were it excels. For everything else it's the AK.

 

[Jeremy2171]

lol..would you like to hear the stories of AKs that DIDN"T work in Iraq...I have plenty of them....

Or of the stories of bad AK mags??

An AK that isnt taken care of will fail just like an AR will.. or a Browning M2 50cal....

 

[Justin]

ARs operate on ifs. They only work........

If the rifle is clean

Not so. I've gone two-three thousand rounds between cleanings with my main 3 Gun AR. To look inside, you'd think the thing is filthy, but it still runs. I usually only clean it before a big match, which only happens a couple times a year.

if the ammo is good

No gun will run out-of-spec ammo.

if the mags (Which are the weak point of the weapon) are good.

Reliable and robust magazines are widely available at nearly every gun shop, online retailer, and pawn shop in the country. They're also cheap. Don't buy American brand or Thermold magazines, check the feed lips on any older magazines once in awhile, and if you have a mag that doesn't run, toss it and get a new one. It's not like they're made of unobtainium.

 

[benEzra]

You can overlube an AR..you will notice as your trigger finger gets covered in CLP as it drips out of the trigger slot.

If it does, it won't harm the gun, just leave you with lubricant on your hands, as the rifle sheds the excess. I do prefer something a little thicker than CLP, though, as it tends to stay put better.

I ran my dry in Iraq with no issues....a drop or two of oil initially but basically it was dry and didn't hiccup...same with my rifles at home. A drop or two of oil in the carrier at the cam pin then the same on the hammer/trigger pins and thats it.. If you lube anything else you are basically wasting your time as the bolt carrier only touches the upper in a few spots and the bolt itself almost floats in the carrier. Anywhere else there is oil and it becomes a dust magnet....

A good AR-pattern rifle can certainly run dry, but IMO it makes the system more susceptible to failures caused by low-energy ammunition or crud in the system. Sufficiently wet, the lubricant prevents crud from turning solid and tends to move debris away from bearing surfaces. Again, there may be some rare exceptions, but generally speaking AR's have a longer MRBF running wet than running dry, and a number of controlled tests have borne this out.

ARs operate on ifs. They only work........
If the rifle is clean
if the ammo is good
if the mags (Which are the weak point of the weapon) are good.

I really like AK's, and I actually got started in USPSA carbine with a SAR-1. But AK's don't have a monopoly on reliability; AR's also work when dirty, and with cheap imported steel-case (Wolf, Tula). I shot a match this weekend using Tula 55gr FMJ I bought for $5/box at Wal-Mart, and didn't clean the rifle beforehand; it worked fine. That does assume you have an AR set up for reliability rather than half-MOA accuracy, of course.

I do agree with you on the weaknesses of USGI mags; they are fragile, not particularly durable, allow dirt ingress into the magazine and the lower receiver, and are prone to "quiet" failure (e.g., critical damage is not always obvious). I often use USGI mags in local matches simply because I have them, but in any scenario where mag failure is more than just a minor inconvenience, PMAGs would be my first choice.

One other thing to consider about AK magazines is weight. Loaded 7.62x39mm AK magazines weigh nearly two pounds each; three loaded magazines weigh nearly as much as the empty rifle. They are durable enough to be used as hammers (literally), but there is a substantial weight penalty as a result. And there are also delicate light-duty-only AK mags out there (mostly American made) that IMO deserve to be avoided.

 

[coloradokevin]

"Loose tolerances" is BS, it's design clearances.

I assume you were responding to my opinion about the AK from the previous post? Not entirely sure what you meant in that sentence, and I'm certainly not an engineer myself. But, with that said, the AK is clearly built with looser tolerances than a properly built AR-15.

That's not to say that the design of the AK is flawed, but it certainly isn't built with the fit of an AR-15, or other fine rifles. It is simply a different type of design, and that design allows for functioning with cheap and loosely fit parts. Anyone could handle the two rifles side-by-side and come to this conclusion. And, anyone who has shot both rifles side-by-side would realize that there is an inherent loss of accuracy in the AK design. Again, the design isn't inherently flawed, but it isn't a precision rifle either.

So, how do you mean "loose tolerances is BS"?

 

[Jeremy2171]

PMAGS can break too...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

PMAGS can break too...

That is what makes them so great compared to USGI mags though. If you bend them past the limit where they can return to their original shape, they break. If you bend a USGI mag past that limit somehow, you just end up running around with a mag that looks OK visually; but the feed lips are 0.09" further apart than they should be and the first obvious indicator you have of it is when it spits two rounds into the chamber during feeding.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Jon complains about ISSUE AR's not being trustworthy, just imagine the level of trust we would have with an AK in that system. Not changing the extractor until it breaks, leaving action springs in until the weapon simply won't cycle, and continuing to use magazines three generations earlier just because you are required to have some, but won't spend the money to have working ones, isn't the fault of the design. It's all about administrative priorities, and tools are usually ignored by administrators.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings but you are comparing apples to oranges. You would have to compare the ARs I work with to AKs that were bought brand new 8 years ago with factory supplied magazines, are stored in a controlled environment, and have only fired a MAX of 360 rounds per year with a thorough cleaning and lubrication after each training cycle. All of the ARs were purchased brand new with magazines supplied by Colt and FN and the rate of failures has been pretty consistent from the first year until now. And to correct you I said OUR issue ARs have given me that experience and have formulated my opinion based on that experience. . What am I supposed to do? Have that experience then ignore it and pretend that the ARs work super great when my experience is otherwise? That doesn't make one bit of sense.

I have no doubt in my mind that quality AKs in the same environment would be vastly more reliable. I didn't say you have to agree to that. I also said I have no doubt that if you or I exposed our personal ARs to the same treatment they would perform vastly better. No one has ever offered one explanation of why I see the constant failures of the ARs at my work other than to attack me for saying that they fail. I guess I should lie and somehow that would make you happier. Sorry.

 

[txgunsuscg]

First off, I have not been around the military as long as many of you have, but I do a lot of shooting with the M4 system. Having fired (tens of) thousands of rounds through the M4 system in the last year, I would say 90% of the malfunctions I have seen were mag-related. Just today I saw two triple-feeds. Both had mag lips bent/cracked (one so bad the rounds were side-by-side, not staggered). Other malfunctions were due to extremely high round count (saw one bolt lug shear off) or armorer/operator error (castle nut not properly staked letting the detent walk out, gun actually broke down in the operator's hand, or the guy who lost his firing pin retaining pin during cleaning and put it back together anyway). I used to be the guy who hated ARs, but after watching these guns eat 10k rounds a month, I trust them....

 

[mshootnit]

An AR can come close to AK reliability IF you run quality ammo and mags. The only way to trip up an AK is to run US mags in it (unless they are from KVAR)

 

[69Rebel]

Here's my anecdote.
I have a Colt 20" HBAR upper on an Olympic lower, A2 stock, nuthin' fancy. I actually used a Dalphon (Oly) cast lower for nearly 10 years, but just upgraded to a MaxHard lower. But that's really neither here nor there.
Anywho, when I cobbled this rifle together, I was pretty unfamiliar with the AR platform. I assembled the LPK into the lower by following a diagram. The upper was complete when I bought it off a table at a gunshow. I only pulled the carrier out and put a little lube on it and the cam pin. I didn't disassemble the BCG. I've ran at least 3000 rounds through that rifle before I ever took the BCG completely apart. Dirty, dented range cleanup rounds through milsurp mags that I bought off of tables at gunshows. No FTFs or FTEs, ever. Just lucky I guess.
Ramble off.

 

[Zak Smith]

Data points:

I clean my AR's sort-of marginally on average about once a year. My AR's run great dry or with a minimal amount of lube (approx 5 drops total). The suppressed SBR never retains any lube so I leave it dry. The uppers were built by Noveske and MSTN. Having a rifle that was built properly can make a big difference.

-z

 

[Tirod]

"Loose tolerances" is production variations of a large nature. Tolerances are the specified +/- .030" figure you see on blueprints, and if you make parts outside that allowed variation, you likely won't last long at your job stamping widgets.

Clearances are the amount of space left between components to allow grit, debris, and power residue space to slough off.

Ak's have lots of space in them, sure. Mostly the bolt rails allow a lot of looseness, really nothing to do with accuracy. AR's have less bolt carrier looseness, a lot of that due to riding in a monolithic upper. Both have all the clearance they need to shed debris and powder residue.

What most uninformed shooters conclude is the apparent control of the bolt as demonstrated by each somehow represents why one is "more reliable" than the other. That is complete BS. What controls reliability is mags feeding ammo properly, correct powder charges, and not making uninformed redesigns of the system creating guns that can only work in an extremely narrow envelope.

If you have an AK that won't cycle, which is posted on the net alot, the second hand guessing from afar will diagnose it as poor mechanical fit. On the AR, it's tarred as being the mythical jammomatic. There is an extreme amount of competent diagnosis going on about AK's, but everyone and his cousin seems to be clueless about the AR - and even refuse to listen to experienced users or industry professionals. They would rather accept the conspiracy theories of disgruntled draftees from 45 years ago than learn and understand what they are talking about.

Rather than study truth, they perpetuate ignorance.

"Loose tolerances" is BS.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Biggest problem in Iraq with the AKs was rust...bad mags...and bad ammo and the local "hadji" gunsmith....

I once had more AKs fail on the firing line than M16s that were shooting next to them....mind you these were AKs that came right from the hands (literally) of the insurgents with THEIR ammo and mags.

 

[Justin]

A picture I took at this year's SHOT show. The rifle shown is one that Pat Rogers has run continuously and without cleaning with no malfunctions. The lubricant used is Slip 2000 (which is the booth where the rifle was on display.)

 

[avs11054]

I have an AR that I've put about 2000 rounds through (I got it and the mags used, and I have no idea how many rounds were put through it before me). I have had one malfunction with it. I have an AK that I've put about 300 rounds through. I've never had any malfunctions with it.

That being said, at the one training course I took with the AR, we kept being told to put lube on it throughout the day or we would have a malfunction.