Is bolt assist on AR really needed?

[BoilerUP]

So grter, you still haven't told us what theater of war the AR15/M16 proved so unreliable for you.

Yes, the rifle wasn't very reliable in Vietnam...but current issued rifles aren't the same ones that were used nearly five decades ago, either. Current rifles seem to have acquitted themselves pretty well in dusty, gritty, dirty desert environments over the last 10-plus years of active combat.

 

[grter]

Yea sure you mean the new ones with the dust cover and forward assist yes I think I get the idea. No doubt the dust cover has a lot to do with that.

Thicker barrel with faster twist rifling to stabilize heavier bullets so twigs and stuff don't deflect the still small bullet sure I can go with that.

16 inch barrel no not for me probably not a horrible compromise but I would stick with the old 20 inch barrel for better range and ballistics.

Oh wait a minute this is about the forward assist like the one on the current issue M4 which also happens to have a dust cover. A great idea learned from decades of combat experience if you ask me. Yup I can see the logic of it.

 

[Sam Cade]

Yea sure you mean the new ones with the dust cover and forward assist yes I think I get the idea. No doubt the dust cover has a lot to do with that.

You know that the dust cover has always been a standard part of the rifle, even before the FA and case deflector bump...
Right?

Thicker barrel with faster twist rifling to stabilize heavier bullets so twigs and stuff don't deflect the still small bullet

No. Just...no.

 

[grter]

Sure Mr. Cade sure I am sure you mean yes yes yes. It's not a bad weapon if kept spotless but don't get carried away it's far from the greatest gift from above dropped down unto the laps of eager soldiers.

 

[Sam Cade]

Sure Mr. Cade sure I sure you mean yes yes yes.

I am unable to parse this sentence.

 

[wturner14]

Wasn't the forward assist intended to fully engage the bolt if the chamber was cruddy or something similar?Not to hammer in a round. I've had .22 semi that a little assist from time to time. We were trained to palm the assist after chamfering the first round and I don't recall ever using it after that. I think it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[JShirley]

grter, "Keep me out of water"?! You wouldn't say this if you had been a deployed soldier in the past 12 years. I have deployed during this time period. Twice.

That's one. Two- since you seem to have missed it- is that I command my team. And (relatively) deep-water crossings are dangerous. So MY troops won't be doing them. All of which is besides the question of "is a forward assist necessary?". (Note that this is a different question than "is the FA used by some?") Necessary? No, not at all.

John

 

[herrwalther]

herrwalther, the Army doesn't have boot camp. It has basic or ITB OSUT.

I was using the common nomenclature for BCT, trying to keep the alphabet soup down for those who didn't go through it.

I have crossed a few streams with my rifle. I surprisingly would get wet, rifle would stay out of the water.

I would not all the M4/AR-15/M-16 a jam o matic. Most malfunctions I have seen with this rifle family have been caused by the magazine, not by water or an otherwise unclean rifle. I would bring my rifle cleaning kit on missions but I would not worry about it jamming up on me because it got some sand or dust down the barrel during the lovely, mountainous walk.

 

[Auto426]

Yeah keep it clean that is some very very very very good advice.

Let me be clear I don't care what any of these people may think but if an AR is not babied it quickly turns into one of world's worst crappy jam o matics out there.

My opinion is despite all of it's refinement's it barely qualifies as a suitable battle rifle and that's giving lots of credit.

However it's ease of handling, ergonomics, ability to accesorize, and great accuracy can be equalizers one had better know how to stretch all of these advantages otherwise you are screwed going into battle with that thing.

Despite the above you are going to need every bit a gadgetry that had been concocted over the years to reduce that jamomatics malfuntions.

"You just need to keep it clean" you bet you do cause the tinyest bit of dirt in the action is going to turn that thing into an alumminum plastic club.


You better hope the soldiers you are fighting are poorly trained.

If you pay constant attention (and I do mean constant) and meticulously maintain it as well as keep dirt out (dust cover is not an option it's a lifesaver) it probably is usable. If things get too hot and you wind up firing lots and lots of rounds through it, that dirt bomb carbon spitting direct impingment system is going put you in quick need of multiple sports routines (foward assist included.)

The bolts on those things always wind up a hair from fully closed when they get dirty which I will repeat again doesn't really take much to happen. A light tap on the forward assist pushes into battery.

The forward assist is a device put on this thing because it's so prone to jamms it is needed and not optional.

For those who keep them sitting in their clean homes problems will be minimum but in my opinion I still would not bet on it.

That summerizes my love hate relationship with this thing. I have yet to use any other rifle in this category that feels as natural, points as well, and provides as much accuracy as an M16 A1 but that lack of reliability and sensitivity to minute particles of dirt is something I really worry about.

I'm not sure if you are a troll, or just don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[JShirley]

I have experienced malfunctions, but they were typically caused by a LARGE amount of debris (like a tabkespoon's worth of sand), or not enough lube. The M16 platform does like to be "run wet".

John

 

[Torian]

I have experienced malfunctions, but they were typically caused by a LARGE amount of debris (like a tabkespoon's worth of sand), or not enough lube. The M16 platform does like to be "run wet".

John

Indeed it does. Of course, in sandy environments that tends to really gum up the action quickly.

I used a lot of Militec lubricant when I was overseas. Does nothing to protect the metal...but in such a dry environment...that's not an issue. Great stuff, and seemed to help keep the gas tube cleaner than normal. That thing is a real bugger to clean.

A lot of malfunctions that I experienced were due to crummy magazines. When I switched from my issued mags to PMAGs, I rarely had a problem.

The M4 is a precision weapon compared to the AK-47. Tighter tolerances with a gas tube action means we have to keep the action fairly clean to have it perform at the level we want it too. It's high maintenance...but I think it gets the job done.

If I could have chosen a weapon system to bring with me to Iraq / A-Stan, I would have brought my LRBM14 with my VX-R Leupold, and my 10mm Elite Match as a sidearm

 

[JShirley]

Militec sent me some Militec-1 for free during my 1st deployment. Good stuff, and good people.

John

 

[dprice3844444]

if they thought it wasn't needed,the bean counters woulda removed it

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not picking a fight, but I've waded swamps on four continents in my time in the Army. I've also crossed rivers and streams without benefit of boat or bridge.

 

[JShirley]

It's a whole different Army now, partially due to the high degree of mechanization. Since 2001, we have typically been in environments that are extremely dry and generally inhospitable.

Regardless, Vern, are you saying you have waded in water deep enough to get into your weapon on four continents? If so, either you were a real snake eater or had piss-poor leadership.

John

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It's a whole different Army now, partially due to the high degree of mechanization. Since 2001, we have typically been in environments that are extremely dry and generally inhospitable.

And it is the climate, not the mode of warfare, that has made the difference -- after all, I was a Mechanized Infantry Company Commander in Viet Nam. But mechanized or not, Infantry has to be ready to fight as Infantry when the chips are down.

Regardless, Vern, are you saying you have waded in water deep enough to get into your weapon on four continents? If so, either you were a real snake eater or had piss-poor leadership.

It has been my experience that trying to find the easy way is a good way to get ambushed or run into booby traps and mines. In combat, you have to be prepared to deal with the toughest going. And if your training hasn't included that kind of terrain, woe to you.

 

[Torian]

And it is the climate, not the mode of warfare, that has made the difference -- after all, I was a Mechanized Infantry Company Commander in Viet Nam. But mechanized or not, Infantry has to be ready to fight as Infantry when the chips are down.


It has been my experience that trying to find the easy way is a good way to get ambushed or run into booby traps and mines. In combat, you have to be prepared to deal with the toughest going. And if your training hasn't included that kind of terrain, woe to you.

We train how we fight.

Since we are more or less currently relegated to fighting in dry, sandy and mountainous terrain, our training should reflect that.

If we started moving towards a conflict that involved a wetter, more tropical climate, I'm sure we would modify our combat training accordingly

The rivers I saw in Iraq looked and smelled like raw sewage, which no one went into (I would rather have lit myself on fire), and in Afghanistan...what rivers?

 

[JShirley]

What Torian said. The only flowing water I saw in 23 months in Afghanistan was essentially sewage.

Again, wading in water more than waist high is extremely dangerous, especially with any type of current. Engagements likely in the near future will not be in areas at all safe to "wade" in. Hey, train as you fight, right?

John

 

[X-Rap]

The begining part of the book House To House has the author and others up to their necks in one of those canals. Reading this and other stories as well as first hand accounts from the war in Iraq tells me that there is a fair amount of water and it is filthy but early on our men had to deal with it more than towards the later. My son said they went around, over or on boats when dealing with water a couple yrs before the pull out.

 

[Reloadron]

Way back to the beginning:

Is bolt assist on AR really needed?
Just before the banic hit I was considering purchasing a S&W Sporter which as we know does not come with bolt assist.

When talking to my son who is active USA he said he has used the bolt assist on occasion but he is not in a combat unit. He says the AR's they qualify with are not in good condition and it is luck of the draw with getting one that functions and shoots well. He has no idea about the age of the ammo used.

However in the civilian market we have much more control over the quality of our guns and ammunition which leads me to ask if the bolt assist really needed for civilian use. Obviously S&W does not.

Back around post #16 I provided what I thought was a pretty good link on the subject.

Anyway, far as I know the AR15 is just a civilian version of the military M16 so to understand the evolution of the forward assist on today's AR flavors we should look back as to how the feature came about on the M16 rifle.

The original M-16 rifle issued by the U.S. Air Force didn’t have a forward assist. These so-called “slick sided” upper receivers just had an ejection port and nothing behind it, not even a brass deflector. And they worked fine. Well, except for that whole “bad ammunition, poor corrosion resistance and shoddy maintenance” thing. But the military powers-that-be wanted a forward assist installed.

Anyone familiar with the US Military and the powers-that-be controlling the US Military know they tend to get what they want. There was no shortage of problems with the earliest M16 rifles. So the forward assist came to be. Just like most military hardware there is a revision list.

Stoner’s (Remember Eugene Stoner) solution was to mill a recessed section into the bolt right in front of the ejection port that not only would allow the shooter to push the bolt forward using their finger but would provide room for the spring housing on the dust cover when the cover was closed with the bolt forward. The military was not impressed and the XM16 and XM16E1 models included a forward assist system that provided a mechanical device to replace Stoner’s simple solution.

The forward assist also served to allow for “Silent Loading” another feature the military wanted. Thus the forward assist was born and came to be.

Back to the original question is a forward assist really needed on civilian versions of the AR15? My opinion is no it is not needed. At least I have never had a need for it. "In the end it’s a personal preference. Your gun will run just fine without one, but for some people it provides quick and convenient peace of mind".

Below are two colt rifles. One has the forward assist and one obviously does not. They are both shot in clean environments free of jungle crud and water as well as dessert sand. There is really no need for a forward assist that I can think of. Not for my intended applications with those rifles anyway.



So choose what works for you. The forward assist is a nice to have but I do not see it as necessary. Unless of course you see jungle swamps and dessert warfare in your shooting future.

Also, for what it is worth, while in Vietnam my memories, though fuzzy, involved carrying our rifles over our heads when fording streams, rivers, rice paddys, swamps and other assorted ugly things. Having trained with the M14 all of my subsequent M16 experiences were actually pretty good.

Ron

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Anyone familiar with the US Military and the powers-that-be controlling the US Military know they tend to get what they want. There was no shortage of problems with the earliest M16 rifles. So the forward assist came to be. Just like most military hardware there is a revision list.

Actually, they don't -- the Army had tested the AR 15 and rejected it. The Air Force, using it basically for police and air base patrols found it acceptable.

MacNamara, to prove he was the boss, ordered the Army to adopt it. The Army demanded some well thought-out changes, and the Forward Assist was one of those. As it turned out, they didn't demand enough changes and during most of the Viet Nam War we had problems with the M16A1.

The maintenance issue came about because it was originally touted as "never needing cleaning," so no cleaning kits were issued.

 

[Reloadron]

Actually, they don't -- the Army had tested the AR 15 and rejected it. The Air Force, using it basically for police and air base patrols found it acceptable.

MacNamara, to prove he was the boss, ordered the Army to adopt it. The Army demanded some well thought-out changes, and the Forward Assist was one of those. As it turned out, they didn't demand enough changes and during most of the Viet Nam War we had problems with the M16A1.

The maintenance issue came about because it was originally touted as "never needing cleaning," so no cleaning kits were issued.

Hi Vern, my comments about the powers-that-be was more in political jest. MacNamara was always on an ego trip.

The maintenance issue came about because it was originally touted as "never needing cleaning," so no cleaning kits were issued.

Right on target. I remember a little of that. As a young Marine I didn't get to Vietnam till '72. Even then given a choice I liked the M14 I trained with and used right till I deployed. If there was one single thing the M16 needed to function correctly and reliably it was cleaning. Then more cleaning. That whole never needs cleaning was a lousy selling point. That is all it was as it sure as heck wasn't factual.

Anyway, overall I really don't see a great need for the forward assist on a civilian AR15, other than the peace of mind I mentioned. However, it's the buyer's choice I guess.

Ron

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hi Vern, my comments about the powers-that-be was more in political jest. MacNamara was always on an ego trip.

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.

 

[Warp]

Actually, they don't -- the Army had tested the AR 15 and rejected it. The Air Force, using it basically for police and air base patrols found it acceptable.

MacNamara, to prove he was the boss, ordered the Army to adopt it. The Army demanded some well thought-out changes, and the Forward Assist was one of those. As it turned out, they didn't demand enough changes and during most of the Viet Nam War we had problems with the M16A1.

The maintenance issue came about because it was originally touted as "never needing cleaning," so no cleaning kits were issued.

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

 

[moxie]

Vern, you're starting to hit the high notes! Almost spit up my spaghetti .