Forward assist

[HammsBeer]

If you're a "press checker" then it's useful to make sure the round is fully chambered afterwards. Otherwise I never use it.

But we all know that to be a HSLD Operator you must have as many operable knobs/buttons/levers as possible for operating when gearing up for an operation.

 

[Pilot]

I like having it. It just looks right on an AR.

 

[lysanderxiii]

While I do not know the forum demographics I would venture a guess that 75% of the membership was not around in 1962, even as infants. So with new shooters there are new to them questions. Anyway, wasn't it around 1963 the M16 rifle entered service and wasn't till 1969 the M16A1 with the forward bolt assist came along? Really matters not because as new shooters come along the same questions many of us posed decades ago will be asked again, and again, and again and they will be answered again, and again, and again.

Ron

In 1962-3 when the Army was testing the AR-15 for possible adoption, one of the questions that came up was "what if you need to bump the bolt forward to fully seat a round?" With the M1 and M14, it's no problem, just heel the op-rod, but that was one of the noted "deficiencies" of the T48 (FAL), with a non-reciprocating charging handle, you can't just bump the bolt forward.

The Army stated that a 'forward assist' of some sort was mandatory. The Air Force was of the opinion that that feature was unnecessary and undesirable. The Navy and the Marines* were on the fence, they would take it if it did not reduce reliability, but if it was not included they would still be OK.

The Army reasoning was if you get dirt in the chamber and the bolt just doesn't lock you have to be able to close the bolt, also you can quietly chamber a round by riding the bolt forward and using the FA to fully seat the round (well, quieter that just letting the bolt fly home). The Air Force stance was in four years of testing, we have yet to see anything that required an FA. To which the the Army countered, well we don't want to take a chance that out in the mud, it becomes a problem, besides the USAF doesn't run around in the mud as much as the Army does.

It went back and forth for some time....

McNamara originally demanded that the military buy only one type of AR-15 rifle, so this one small feature suddenly became a big thing, as neither the Army nor the Air Force would back down on their stance. The OSD finally allowed the purchase of two variants, one with the FA, one without.

This thread shows that the two camps, the 'army' camp (better to have and not need than need and not have; yes to the FA) and the 'air force' camp (you'll never need it, so why have it; no the the FA) are still present and still just as entrenched as they were back then....

____________________________
The Marine may have later reversed their opinion, after evaluating the Stoner 63, one the suggestions for improvements to the Stoner 63A was the addition of a forward assist cocking handle.

 

[Reloadron]

In 1962-3 when the Army was testing the AR-15 for possible adoption, one of the questions that came up was "what if you need to bump the bolt forward to fully seat a round?" With the M1 and M14, it's no problem, just heel the op-rod, but that was one of the noted "deficiencies" of the T48 (FAL), with a non-reciprocating charging handle, you can't just bump the bolt forward.

The Army stated that a 'forward assist' of some sort was mandatory. The Air Force was of the opinion that that feature was unnecessary and undesirable. The Navy and the Marines* were on the fence, they would take it if it did not reduce reliability, but if it was not included they would still be OK.

The Army reasoning was if you get dirt in the chamber and the bolt just doesn't lock you have to be able to close the bolt, also you can quietly chamber a round by riding the bolt forward and using the FA to fully seat the round (well, quieter that just letting the bolt fly home). The Air Force stance was in four years of testing, we have yet to see anything that required an FA. To which the the Army countered, well we don't want to take a chance that out in the mud, it becomes a problem, besides the USAF doesn't run around in the mud as much as the Army does.

It went back and forth for some time....

McNamara originally demanded that the military buy only one type of AR-15 rifle, so this one small feature suddenly became a big thing, as neither the Army nor the Air Force would back down on their stance. The OSD finally allowed the purchase of two variants, one with the FA, one without.

This thread shows that the two camps, the 'army' camp (better to have and not need than need and not have; yes to the FA) and the 'air force' camp (you'll never need it, so why have it; no the the FA) are still present and still just as entrenched as they were back then....

____________________________
The Marine may have later reversed their opinion, after evaluating the Stoner 63, one the suggestions for improvements to the Stoner 63A was the addition of a forward assist cocking handle.

Many thanks, the AR has an interesting history politically which I never really studied. Went in the Marines 1969 and was trained with the M14. I managed to avoid Nam till 1971 / 1972 time frame and when I got there was handed a M16. All my riffle quals and my last issued rifle at Cherry Point was the M14. Literally had to figure the M16 out. Again, thanks for some of the history.

Ron

 

[CLP]

My Son had an early AR without the forward assist. We were out in the field
with it shooting at stumps and tin cans and stuff. We ran about 50 rounds
through the gun and a cartridge went into the chamber but not quite all the
way. We pulled back on the charging handle or whatever they call it and it
came loose from the cartridge. Then we took a rock and tried to knock the
cartridge out with the cleaning rod. The cleaning rod expanded and now we
had a cartridge and a cleaning rod stuck in the bore. It would have been nice
to have that forward assist at that time.
Zeke

If the round was THAT stuck part way into the chamber I dunno if the forward assist would have been of any assistance. And just for future reference, less than wise method to extract the round by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore. Not trying to be holier than thou or anything, just suggesting you consider a safer alternative next time.

 

[BSA1]

Carried one for Uncle Sam from 1972 until 1975; had a FA. Many thousands of rounds and never had to use it. Was trained in Basic to use it, understood it's use but never needed it - that was back when the feature (can't remember if it was the A1 or A2 model) was supposed to be needed in a pinch - I was lucky, never a pinch and never used. I would say obsolete today.

This thread shows that the two camps, the 'army' camp (better to have and not need than need and not have; yes to the FA) and the 'air force' camp (you'll never need it, so why have it; no the the FA) are still present and still just as entrenched as they were back then....

My active duty son in U.S.A. tells me that he has used the Forward Assist when qualifying with the AR. He is a support unit and has a low opinion of the AR's and ammunition they are given to qualify with. He says they are given AR's and M-9's no longer suitable for front line duty.

I am on the fence for civilian use.

Trying to force a round to completely chamber with the F.A. is asking for the mother of all jams.

For hunting wouldn't make more sense to chamber a round and then hunt with the safety on? Bolt action rifle are safe to hunt this way.

 

[BSA1]

My Son had an early AR without the forward assist. We were out in the field
with it shooting at stumps and tin cans and stuff. We ran about 50 rounds
through the gun and a cartridge went into the chamber but not quite all the
way. We pulled back on the charging handle or whatever they call it and it
came loose from the cartridge. Then we took a rock and tried to knock the
cartridge out with the cleaning rod. The cleaning rod expanded and now we
had a cartridge and a cleaning rod stuck in the bore. It would have been nice
to have that forward assist at that time.
Zeke

If the round was THAT stuck part way into the chamber I dunno if the forward assist would have been of any assistance. And just for future reference, less than wise method to extract the round by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore. Not trying to be holier than thou or anything, just suggesting you consider a safer alternative next time.

Ditto! I can't decide if the image of two guys beating on a jammed gun with a rock and cleaning rod out in field shooting at junk and trash is funny or cringe worthy.

Using the Forward Assist would have made the situation worse. Either it would cause the cartridge case to become impossible to remove or if you had been able to force the round to completely chamber the resulting high pressure could have damaged the gun or the shooter or both.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I don't have much use for FA, but all of my ARs, have FA. In many cases the FA omitting stripped uppers cost more than the standard stripper uppers. Even if you aren't a fan of using FA, is it really worth paying more to omit it? One thing I would note, some of the FA omitting uppers also do not have the ejection port cover mount. I prefer the ability to help limit the amount of dust, dirt, etc from my bolt carrier when being it's being stored or out in the field. Just something to keep in mind when purchasing if you are one that finds value in the ejection port cover.

if you want to move the carrier forward to make sure a round is chambered, or because someone eased the charging handle down, you could just use that divot on the side of the carrier to push it forward, could you not?

That works if you are chambering the first cartridge. The holes in that indention are the gas vents and they ensure that indention gets pretty hot and bothered after a few rounds have been fired. You better have some gloves on if you want to do that after firing.

My Son had an early AR without the forward assist. We were out in the field
with it shooting at stumps and tin cans and stuff. We ran about 50 rounds
through the gun and a cartridge went into the chamber but not quite all the
way. We pulled back on the charging handle or whatever they call it and it
came loose from the cartridge. Then we took a rock and tried to knock the
cartridge out with the cleaning rod. The cleaning rod expanded and now we
had a cartridge and a cleaning rod stuck in the bore. It would have been nice
to have that forward assist at that time.
Zeke

Ouch, it's hard to imagine anyone who can appreciate an old SP1, beating a cleaning rod into it with a rock. It's also hard to imagine that the forward assist could have done anything but make that problem worse.

 

[joem1945]

My issue M16 A1 didn't have it and I never needed it. IMO it makes problems worse.

 

[kBob]

WHen the M16 was young there were only petroleum based lubes.

Heat and moisture or especially cold and moisture sometimes turned the petroleum based lubes into a sticky mess, add the carbon junk of a fired round and it was a thick black sticky mess.

It was not unusual for a round, especially the second round from a magazine to not fully seat.

The FA allowed one to manually push the bolt forward to fully chamber the round AND AND AND engage the extractor on the rim of the cartridge.

The only thing happening in these "jams" was that the now crud covered parts failed to obtain enough forward momentum to fully chamber the round.

On the AR15 system the extractor only engages as the bolt fully closes.

MANY times I saw folks skip the tap on the extractor before moving on to the rap on the bottom of the magazine and racking the charging handle ONLY TO FIND they now had a "double feed".

What happened was they attempted to eject a "jammed" or failed" round, BUT the extractor was not engaged so working the action only caused the rifle to attempt to chamber another round in the already partially loaded chamber.

On occasion this caused the round in the chamber to be fired, by the point of the new bullet, with the action more than 3/4 open.

Sometimes folks attempted to recharge AND THEN USED THE FA after this second cycle feed a second round. This shoved the bullet of the new cartridge with force into the first and firing the first cartridge could occur. It was possible to shove the second bullet back into the second case and expose that powder to ether blow by OR the gas tubes exhaust. The first case could be partially extracted by pressure and torn up and mixed with the debris of the second cartridge and that gun ain't going no where but somebody's depot, depending on which side picks it up.

The "classic double feed" often blamed on crappy magazines is actually usually an effect of trying to eject a cartridge that has not had the extractor snapped on yet by loading another round from the magazine.

SOme times the BCG is so slow going forward that the cartridge being loaded clears the front of the chamber, but the point of the bullet is moving so slowly that it never slides over the area between the bolt locking resess and the actual chamber on top. obviously at this cock-eyed angle the extractor can not possibly engage. Pulling back the charging handle and so BCG allows the first round to sort of wallow around and find its own place. It may slide forward or back or just hang there. It is thus in the way of the new cartridge, The second cartridge tries to go around or through and there is your "classic Double feed" with a perfectly good magazine.


When this failure to lock happened it was actually a good idea to tap the FA first to insure you had the extractor locked over the rim and the bolt fully forward and locked.

Generally after a second or third shot the thick oil/water gel had been reduced by heat and pressure to a thin oil only mixture and the system worked. Yah!

In Europe it was not uncommon at all on cold days, say under 40 F for the first round fed to be moving too slow from magazine to chamber and failure to lock happening.

Using the FA was STRONGLY encouraged when loading the first round.

The whole affair is less of a threat with modern synthetic lubricants, but note I said LESS not not.

Sand, grit, and believe it or not in Gene's Wonder Waffen DI gas system models carbon can cause the same slowed BCG closing problems even with the wonders of science providing little silicon ball bearings for lube.

One of the nights I personally spent experiencing extremely high pucker factor was the DIRECT result of someone failing to use the FA on his M-16A1. About a quarter hour after that failure the person that had relieved him of his rifle noted the bolt not being fully forward and simply thumbed the FA to have it closed before attempting to clear the rifle.

At my age the odds of being out in the dark (or light) engaging bad people with any AR 15 variant are (I hope) extremely low. If it should happen I would like a FA that works, thank you.

If I am to teach folks to shoot ARs on a nice clean unthreatening range, I would like a way to ensure the extractor engages and perhaps prevent any sort of hang up or "ka-Boom"

I think I am going to copy this to my files now to repost next month when this comes up yet again. Getting tired of trying to explain.

-kBob

 

[carbine85]

I find the forward assist almost useless. Each time I've had a feed issue I made it worse by using it. It's original intention was to assist in feeding into a dirty rifle and I don't run mine that dirty. I still prefer to have it on the rifle all things considered.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

For creeping the bolt forward slowly and quietly...

... it's priceless in the platform.

For seating a reluctant bolt/cartridge - it is a horrendous idea in all but the most emergency of situations.



Todd.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

I like the forward assist on every AR that I own. I like the look of it as a 100% slick sided AR just doesn't look right to me. And in a hunting situation the FA is priceless to lower the bolt slowly and quietly and the tap it to make sure the bolt is completely closed.

 

[justin22885]

I don't have much use for FA, but all of my ARs, have FA. In many cases the FA omitting stripped uppers cost more than the standard stripper uppers. Even if you aren't a fan of using FA, is it really worth paying more to omit it? One thing I would note, some of the FA omitting uppers also do not have the ejection port cover mount. I prefer the ability to help limit the amount of dust, dirt, etc from my bolt carrier when being it's being stored or out in the field. Just something to keep in mind when purchasing if you are one that finds value in the ejection port cover.


That works if you are chambering the first cartridge. The holes in that indention are the gas vents and they ensure that indention gets pretty hot and bothered after a few rounds have been fired. You better have some gloves on if you want to do that after firing.


Ouch, it's hard to imagine anyone who can appreciate an old SP1, beating a cleaning rod into it with a rock. It's also hard to imagine that the forward assist could have done anything but make that problem worse.

i guess... i'll just stick with reciprocating charging handles

 

[lysanderxiii]

My issue M16 A1 didn't have it and I never needed it. IMO it makes problems worse.

If you were issued an M16A1, you had a forward assist.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Even during arctic testing back in the 1960s there was never shown to be a problem with failing to chamber the first round. Hence the Air Force's stance on the subject. (and Gene's)

There were actually two different FA designs offered, one, designed by Springfield Arsenal, and what Colt proposed. Springfield's design was actually more of the "closure assist", It was built into the charging handle. One simply hit the back of the charging handle, and a bar slid along the top of the CH slide and was cammed down to contact the back of the carrier key and pushed the bolt forward. It only worked over the last 1/4 to 3/8 inch of carrier travel.

The reason the this design was preferred by the Army was if one had to move the carrier more than 1/4 inch or so, it indicated something was sufficiently wrong that bumping the carrier would not solve the problem, and possibly make it worse.

Stoner also preferred this design, but for a different reason. He felt that the Springfield design required less modification to the forging design, so when everyone realized the genius of his design and a forward assist was not necessary at all, it could be deleted easier.

But, since Colt owned the AR-15 drawings, we got Colt's design.

 

[justin22885]

Even during arctic testing back in the 1960s there was never shown to be a problem with failing to chamber the first round. Hence the Air Force's stance on the subject. (and Gene's)

There were actually two different FA designs offered, one, designed by Springfield Arsenal, and what Colt proposed. Springfield's design was actually more of the "closure assist", It was built into the charging handle. One simply hit the back of the charging handle, and a bar slid along the top of the CH slide and was cammed down to contact the back of the carrier key and pushed the bolt forward. It only worked over the last 1/4 to 3/8 inch of carrier travel.

The reason the this design was preferred by the Army was if one had to move the carrier more than 1/4 inch or so, it indicated something was sufficiently wrong that bumping the carrier would not solve the problem, and possibly make it worse.

Stoner also preferred this design, but for a different reason. He felt that the Springfield design required less modification to the forging design, so when every realized the genius of his design and a forward assist was not necessary at all, it could be deleted easier.

But, since Colt owned the AR-15 drawings, we got Colt's design.

i wonder if this could be implemented via aftermarket in a charging handle assembly for those without FA uppers?

 

[Robert]

I have never used mine, nor had need of it. I honestly don't care one way or the other so I guess put me in the better to have and not need camp.

 

[justin22885]

my favorite family of rifles (hk91) lack a forward assist as well, never needed it but when you have a bolt carrier mass of 1.25lbs and a heavy spring behind it that action is probably closing with so much momentum that no forward assist would ever be needed, but an AR with its much lighter bolt, id probably rather have the FA for the option as well, its not like you lose anything by having it

 

[USAF_Vet]

This thread shows that the two camps, the 'army' camp (better to have and not need than need and not have; yes to the FA) and the 'air force' camp (you'll never need it, so why have it; no the the FA) are still present and still just as entrenched as they were back then....

Despite being an Air Force vet with some Army training, I fall more in line with the Navy/ USMC line of thinking. Personally, I don't care if it's there. I know when to use it, how to use it, and when NOT to use it. Of my three AR weapons, two have a Forward assist and one is a slick side. Thanks for the history, too. It answers why I've seen a lot of training M-16s without a Forward Assist.

 

[lysanderxiii]

i wonder if this could be implemented via aftermarket in a charging handle assembly for those without FA uppers?

It also required the machining of a hole in the top of the CH key way and the insertion of a steel cam. With a flat-top it would be impractical.

 

[d2wing]

I got into the habit of useing it to make sure the first round was fully seated. It comes in very handy deer hunting. I prefer to climb into my stand then pull my unloaded rifle up by rope. Then quietly chamber a round using the forward assist to seat the round. I like it as a safety feature.

 

[lysanderxiii]

my favorite family of rifles (hk91) lack a forward assist as well, never needed it but when you have a bolt carrier mass of 1.25lbs and a heavy spring behind it that action is probably closing with so much momentum that no forward assist would ever be needed, but an AR with its much lighter bolt, id probably rather have the FA for the option as well, its not like you lose anything by having it

Some H&K do have a "forward assist"...

 

[justin22885]

Some H&K do have a "forward assist"...

yes, the PSG1 and MSG90 had one added, though its more useless on an HK than an AR15

 

[Elkins45]

As a lefty the primary purpose of the FA seems to be as a channel to blow gas and debris back into my face. I would like an upper with the shell deflector but without a hole for the FA. Anybody make one of those?