Is bolt assist on AR really needed?

[Vern Humphrey]

Do you really think those problems were a result of not changing the rifle enough??

No, those problems were the result of adopting the rifle in the first place.

After 50 years of refinement and engineering changes, we're about where we'd have been on Day One if we'd simply taken a proven design -- like the M1 Carbine, and simply scaled it up a bit to take a .22 varmint round.

 

[Magnuumpwr]

ATLDave, Eugene didn't use chrome lined barrels either while designing. He also used 308 not 223. So just because the designer of any items used or did not use something does not mean they came up with a "perfect" design.
As to the OP, some new guns need a little extra help getting into battery until the contact parts smooth out. You are of course referencing a factory assembly line rifle, keep that in mind.

 

[Destructo6]

After 50 years of refinement and engineering changes, we're about where we'd have been on Day One if we'd simply taken a proven design -- like the M1 Carbine, and simply scaled it up a bit to take a .22 varmint round.

I disagree. This sort of thinking brought the US the short-lived M14. The M1 Garand was a breakthrough weapon, but the M14 was a mild modernization that wasn't able to keep up with its main adversary, the AK.

I think the military realized that something truly modern was needed and the AR was there to fill the niche.

Now, what would have happened had the US adopted something like the FAL in .280 British? Would the AR have been anything more than a prototype and footnote? Would the US have used that FAL well into the 1980s as most countries that adopted it did?

 

[justice06rr]

Its not required/needed, but it is a nice thing to have on an AR15. I've owned different AR's, along with a M&P15 Sport that I bought early this year. I never had the need for the FA on the Sport as long as its properly lubricated and you chamber a round normally.

 

[Deus Machina]

I'm of a split mind on the bolt assist. But I don't own an AR (yet) so take that as you will.
For civilian use, I can only imagine that most instances of it would just jam the thing up harder. For military, it would help quiet loading and maybe finer dirt and crud wouldn't be as bad as the stuff we get here.

But this is exactly the reason I am a fan of Soviet hardware. The 5.56x45mm casing is effectively straight-walled, and anything in the chamber puts on serious friction. The taper on the various x39's, on the other hand, floats the brass away from chamber walls after a very short travel, and releases anything that was gumming it up. I've never found a point where I needed any further coaxing to chamber or clear my AK.

 

[Nappers]

A buddy at work who fought in Afghanistan never used his FA on his weapons, with military rounds, that's pretty good.

We talked about the M&P Sport and he said, get one! Dust cover, Don't need it unless you are going to the beach and digging a fox hole where sand will get in. I said "nope".

 

[ATLDave]

ATLDave, Eugene didn't use chrome lined barrels either while designing. He also used 308 not 223. So just because the designer of any items used or did not use something does not mean they came up with a "perfect" design.

I certainly agree that "original intent" fetishism makes little sense. But that's not what I'm talking about. Stoner started with the .308, but then altered his design to work with .223. He may not have specified chrome-lined barrels, but I'm not aware of him ever lodging any objection to them. It's my understanding that he affirmatively disliked the FA, taking the view that its most likely use would be to exacerbate a bad situation.

I think of my times using semi-automatic pistols. Virtually every time I have assisted the slide forward with a stuck round, I have regretted it. If a round is not completely chambered, retraction is the solution, not cramming it forward. And I've seen a friend jam the dickens out of his AR hammering on the FA.

The "press check" or quiet bolt closing seems like the best argument for a FA.

 

[benEzra]

I've never found a point where I needed any further coaxing to chamber or clear my AK.

It might occasionally be necessary to push the charging handle forward a little after a press check over a full magazine on an AK (it's been a while since I sold my SAR-1, and I don't remember), and it probably would be necessary if you ever single-loaded the chamber or rode the handle forward to chamber a round quietly. Whether or not you actually use it that way, the AK does have the capability.

Mikhail Kalashnikov did apparently design the AK with press-checking in mind, BTW; that's presumably why with a round chambered and the safety on, the cutout in the safety/selector allows you to pull the charging handle back far enough to check the chamber but no further.

 

[Torian]

I disagree. This sort of thinking brought the US the short-lived M14. The M1 Garand was a breakthrough weapon, but the M14 was a mild modernization that wasn't able to keep up with its main adversary, the AK.

I think the military realized that something truly modern was needed and the AR was there to fill the niche.

Now, what would have happened had the US adopted something like the FAL in .280 British? Would the AR have been anything more than a prototype and footnote? Would the US have used that FAL well into the 1980s as most countries that adopted it did?

I'm curious what rational makes you think the M14 doesn't measure up or completely outperform the AK47?

We are still issuing M14s to our squad or platoon level designated marksman in the Army. Our Scouts were using them in Afghanistan to annihilate the Taliban at distances where their AK47s were completely worthless. Up close, it usually only took one round for us to get our point across.

I would have definitely preferred both the action and caliber of this weapon to the issued M4 I had. I think problem lies in the fact that the M14 weapon system requires more skill and training for the shooter (more recoil / extended range interdiction) than the Army wants to invest. It's also more cumbersome, and not as maneuverable in close quarters such as getting out of a vehicle. The current M4 platform is lightweight, with a much smaller round, which is easier to shoot, and also easier to carry larger amounts of ammo. It's also a weapon system that is easier for lightweights (females) to handle in the event they need to go outside the wire / engage the enemy.

Not a superior performer in my book...but works better for the collective armed forces as a whole.

 

[grter]

As far as the forward assist making things worse on a manfuction or jam in my experience it never ever never made things worse.

The forward assist worked almost all the time when the bolt needed to be nudged into battery. If it didn't work it just didn't work nothing ever got worse from using a forward assist.

Maybe people who are unfamiliar with the mechanics and function cycle of the AR may "make things worse" when used properly the forward assist does it's job most of the time and it if doesn't nothing changes for the worse.

This is just the design of the AR platform.

Don't cut corners if you choose to get an AR get a mil spec AR with a dust cover and forward assist. No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Reloadron]

Indeed he was, but he had the good sense to have himself cremated -- otherwise Viet Nam veterans would be lined up for miles to micturate on his grave.

Hi Vern, in keeping with guns here and the US arsenal in general Robert McNamara wasn't the first to have US GIs want to stand in line.

Long before Robert McNamara immediately following WWII there was a Louis A. Johnson who was a rather interesting character.

Louis Arthur Johnson (January 10, 1891 - April 24, 1966) was the second United States Secretary of Defense, serving in the cabinet of President Harry S. Truman from March 28, 1949 to September 19, 1950.

Born in Roanoke, Virginia, he earned a law degree from the University of Virginia. After graduation he practiced law in Clarksburg, West Virginia; his firm, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC eventually opened offices in Charleston, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C..

Note he only served a short time.

Following WWII Johnson all but decimated the US military, cutting more and more military spending. Many Korean veterans felt this was why we lost so many troops at the onset of Korea, we were ill prepared lacking equipment. Many GIs placed the blame on Johnson's cuts.

The irony here is Steptoe & Johnson still exist headquartered in Clarksburg WV. Johnson's grave is at the base of Stanley Street in a very large old cemetery. My now deceased brother-in-law who was a retired USMC Force Recon guy during Nam lived on Stanley Street. Following 20 years he went to law school and worked for Steptoe & Johnson. Great guy and shooting buddy who I miss. He loved to tell the story of how Johnson's grave was easy to find, because of all the angry Korean veterans, his headstone was the one with the yellow stains.

Anyway, as to a forward assist? In keeping with guns, take it or leave it.

Ron

 

[Destructo6]

I'm curious what rational makes you think the M14 doesn't measure up or completely outperform the AK47?

Very simply: it doesn't fill the role of the modern assault rifle.

It was intended to fill the roles of

• 1) rifle (big check)
  2) Submachinegun (nope)
  3) Automatic Rifle (nope)

The AK does all of these things reasonably well, but I think the AR does it better, particulary with more recent refinements. The M14 does only the first well, but it does that very well.

The AK beats the M14 in weight, weight of ammo (combat load), controlability/fast follow up shots, etc. About the only place the AK comes up short is range, which is borne out in your anecdote of limited M14 use in Iraq/Afghanistan.

 

[Creature]

I wont own a AR that doesn't have the assist.

 

[Grassman]

If it "may" be useful in a jam, and can allow me to load more quietly in a hunting situation, I want it. Case closed, for me at least. Both of my AR's have em.

 

[Torian]

Very simply: it doesn't fill the role of the modern assault rifle.

It was intended to fill the roles of

• 1) rifle (big check)
  2) Submachinegun (nope)
  3) Automatic Rifle (nope)

The AK does all of these things reasonably well, but I think the AR does it better, particulary with more recent refinements. The M14 does only the first well, but it does that very well.

The AK beats the M14 in weight, weight of ammo (combat load), controlability/fast follow up shots, etc. About the only place the AK comes up short is range, which is borne out in your anecdote of limited M14 use in Iraq/Afghanistan.

You left out one important point: your standard AK is completely outclassed in terms of accuracy by the M4 or M14. Otherwise, I do not disagree with much of what you said.

You should have seen the ranges we ran with the Iraqis and the Afghans. The AK is not a precision weapon. Follow up shooting is great if you can actually hit what you are shooting at. Attempts to qualify with this weapon usually turned into a complete circus show.

For the up close "spray and pray", it seemed to work well for the forces we worked with.

 

[fireside44]

You left out one important point: your standard AK is completely outclassed in terms of accuracy by the M4 or M14.

Those claims are greatly exaggerated when discussing issue weapons and besides, extreme accuracy isn't a plus in a combat weapon.

 

[Warp]

Those claims are greatly exaggerated when discussing issue weapons and besides, extreme accuracy isn't a plus in a combat weapon.

I agree that the claims/differences are often exaggerated (AR's are far more reliable than some claim, and AK's are far less inaccurate than others claim)...but how in the heck is "extreme accuracy" not a plus in a defensive arm?

I fail to understand how, all else equal, it isn't a case of 'the more accurate, the better'

 

[Torian]

Those claims are greatly exaggerated when discussing issue weapons and besides, extreme accuracy isn't a plus in a combat weapon.

What kind of experience are you drawing your opinion from? At the distances we are usually engaged at these days, you definitely need / want the accuracy if you can get it.

Issued weapons (M4 / M16) for me have performed well (forget the issued mags) and could hold a tight group when needed. I wouldn't consider that accuracy "extreme"...just acceptable. If you have to take a shot IVO civilians you'll be glad you have it. No accuracy difference between them and 6920 I personally own.

I think a much better comparison to the M4 in terms of accuracy would be something like a milled Arsenal SAM7R with a decent trigger. This is not a standard AK of course, but the shootout would be interesting.

 

[grter]

Every one keeps comparing the AR with the AK-47 (7.62x39) when it should be compared with the AK-74 (5.45x39.) The 7.62x39 does not have much range but can punch through barriers real good and is not easily deflected by branches and stuff which made it excellent for the Vietnan jungle.

From what I have read the 5.45x39 (sorry guys but thats the way the cookie crumbles) is a better version of a 5.56 (AR round) round. It is one nasty far reaching round with less recoil that keeps it's tissue destroying capabilities regardless of how short your weapon's barrel is. For a dense jungle the AK-47 would most likely be better but for a more open field beware AR toters an AK-74 is pretty close to a match if the person weilding it knows how to use it.

This is gathered from my armchair studying and serparation of patroitic propaganda nonsense.


The AK-74 is nothing to underestimate for a lot of reasons from what I have read. The AK-74 has some state of the art features developed over the years and frightening ballistics. The AR is still more accurate but the 74 can reach out far enough to be considered a formidable threat.

If you keep that AR clean, the Dust Cover closed when not in use, and tap that Forward Assist when needed you should have something usable with a little bit more range, ergonomics, and ability to widely accessorize than your standard AK-74.

I got this information from cokeman2324 videos. Whatever people may think the guy does own maintain and use both AR and AK platform weapons. If you can sort out his personal opinions there is a lot of info there but that goes in all walks of life doesn't it.

 

[taliv]

to be honest, i was surprised this thread made it past page 3 still on topic, and was shocked it was still on topic by page 6. but all things come to an end