is the AR-15 reliable enough for SHTF

[Thin Black Line]

A half scale target at 25 yards would be no trouble at all.

However, the Army 25 yd target is not a "half scale" target, but rather scaled
for silhouettes at longer distances. If you don't train to hit the smaller targets
at 25 yds it's actually more difficult than shooting the full-size ones at the
real distances if that is how you always trained. This happened to me the first
time I ever used one. I did a simple qual no problem w/ M16 the first time I
ever used it. Groups were nice and tight (I used an acuwedge). I asked to
go again to adjust for the closer distance against the tinier silhouettes and
got sharpshooter the second time. That was the second time ever.

Could someone do that with a good AK? Sure. Practice for it. However, in
my experience that is not how AK shooters actually train.

 

[AK103K]

However, in
my experience that is not how AK shooters actually train.

For the most part here I'll agree, but its not just the AK shooters.

I rarely see anyone at local ranges shooting from anything but a bench, and when they dont, its a "mad minute" and the targets usually have little to fear.

If your a rifleman, you wont have to much trouble with either out to 300 yards or so on targets with no aiming points.

Add a good red dot to your AK, and the gap closes even more.

 

[RP88]

ARs are reliable. And by 'reliable', I mean what the US manual says: "will provide many years of service if properly maintained" (i.e. not Soviet reliable, where neglecting the gun actually enhances its performance). Maintaining it isnt that hard to do at all if you read the manual on field stripping and cleaning.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Again, re-read my post. What those two instructors were telling me was that every student who failed to qualify with an AK subsequently qualified when they switched to an AR.

Right. Because of the sight picture/equipment combination at 25 yards.
No, I didn't miss the point at all. The instructors know this, we all know
this. Yes, the ar family will be more accurate than the ak family aside from a
few good specimens from Russia and Bulgaria. Yes, the ar family will be reliable
enough for the majority of shooters who maintain them. Yes, they will benefit
from the superior accuracy. The shooters who can't/don't/won't maintain a
rifle? Which is the better for them? The AK.

Maybe we should be asking if the shooter is reliable enough for the AR-15?

In the meantime, we will practice for gremlins and zombies...lol...just
kidding, sacp, it's all good.

 

[sacp81170a]

ARs are reliable.

Another word that can be used to describe an AR: versatile. It's a good thing, especially for SHTF. Imagine, carry an M4gery and an additional upper chambered in 6.8 or whatever other caliber is available and strikes your fancy. In a matter of a few seconds you can have a completely different weapon with a completely different set of characteristics in your hand. Try that with any other weapon.

 

[sacp81170a]

Maybe we should be asking if the shooter is reliable enough for the AR-15?

You've actually hit on a very valid point. That's what I was saying in my earlier post, that most folks who I've seen having trouble with their AR weren't incompetent, they were just untrained in proper care and maintenance. The problem isn't limited to non-LEO's, either. I've seen plenty of LEO's who had trouble with their AR's due to a lack of knowledge. That lack can be corrected. AK's are far more idiot proof. Would I hesitate to use an AK if it was what was available? Heck no, I like the way they feel and handle at close quarters. Not better than an AR, just a little different.

In the meantime, we will practice for gremlins and zombies...lol...just
kidding, sacp, it's all good.

 

[HorseSoldier]

All my AK's, including the rougher ones, will shoot fist sized groups from field positions on a standard silhouette at 100 yards all day long. A half scale target at 25 yards would be no trouble at all.

The 25 meter alternate qualification course simulates the targets on the standard, pop-up, qualification range, so target sizes range from the head-and-shoulders 50 meter target out to little 300 meter silhouettes.

I agree that AK's get an exaggerated reputation for poor accuracy, though I can also see how shooters would have problems with an AK on the 25 alt-qual course, especially if they were not used to the AK sights.

 

[Tokugawa]

So the consensus is I need a high end $$$ AR to be reliable out of the box?
And good ammo and good mags? OK.

Regarding the accuracy of the AK platform, ammo can be a HUGE factor. Switching from wolf to brown bear HALVED the groups in my vepr, from 4+" to 2" at 100 yards.

Regarding the comments on qualifying with an AK, there is no doubt whatsoever that AR iron sights are VASTLY superior to AK iron sights. Using a PK AS or kobra dot is probably the single biggest thing one can do to enhance accurate shooting with an AK.

 

[Grunt]

Doesn't have to be a high end rifle like a Les Bear, LMT, Noveske, Colt, etc. butit does have to have quality parts. This is why I build my own. I really don't care if a trigger guard, magazine release button, slip ring spring or what not was made by a high end company or a bargin bin piece as long as it is within spec and works. That's just an example as there are other parts out there that are better quality than others so you just have to research which parts are better and know what to look for when you buy your parts. I guess the bottom line is that non-essential parts can be made by the lower end companies to save money that is better spent on the more vital parts, hammer, trigger, barrel, sights, etc. where higher quality is going to pay for itself.

 

[jon_in_wv]

[How many rounds do you fire in training between qualifications? In my opinion, I wouldn't trust any firearm, magazine, and ammo combination for serious use until I've given it a thorough wringing out(by that I mean 1500 - 2000 rounds over the course of a few days). I have three AR's and an AK. Of those three AR's, all three have been through the same regimen and not one has had a failure not related to ammo or magazines. If you're only firing 30 rounds once a year, I wouldn't trust my life to even the vaunted AK./QUOTE]

You apparently don't know that not every employer allows you to take an issued weapon home and treat it like its yours. At any time we could be issued any one of the ARs in the armory. The point being that in 12 years of experience, non of the ARs we have qualified with have been relieable. PERSONALLY I own an AK47.

 

[gtmerkley]

gtmerkley's DAD

I have used a bushmaster AR. an AK and a SKS and my land has got some bad spots mud, brush, vines quicksand and I watch the muzzle close but some times the actions get a bit of stuff in them. The AR. is the only one that will take it the SKS will get the bolt pulled back by brush or a vine and has to have the bolt pushed forward and the sand and dirt cleaned out of the front of the bolt before I can shoot. The AK has the same problem. I never had this problem with the AR. I have heard this argument ever since the AR. has been going up against the AK. If my life depends on the first I want my AR. Both platforms do good in ideal situations and good ammo and both can do bad. If you are going through a jungle use the AR. If you cant clean a gun and have clear land use your AK. it will take dirt and sand blown in ok.

 

[kcshooter]

The point being that in 12 years of experience, non of the ARs we have qualified with have been relieable.

I think you have an invalid test sample group here. Not a single reliable AR in 12 years? Come on, if that's true, someone needs to try maintaining your weapons. What agency DO you work for that neglects weapons in such a drastic manner?

 

[sacp81170a]

You apparently don't know that not every employer allows you to take an issued weapon home and treat it like its yours. At any time we could be issued any one of the ARs in the armory. The point being that in 12 years of experience, non of the ARs we have qualified with have been relieable.

???? You can't be serious. When I was in USAF Security Police we were each assigned a weapon and zeroed it at the range. I can't think of any agency with a rational firearms policy that would issue you just any weapon off the rack. My zero as a left handed shooter is going to be different from yours as a right handed shooter. We certainly weren't allowed to take them home, but we were on the range at least monthly.

My PD issues its full time officers their own weapons and as a part timer I supply my own. We're issued training ammo and have use of the range at any time, as well as quarterly qualifications. Any agency that issues and treats its rifles as yours seems to do is begging for tragedy. The only time I would "grab one off the rack" would be in an extreme emergency. No wonder you have reliability problems. Those problems aren't a result of the weapons, they're a result of administrative policy. I feel for ya. Too bad your superiors don't seem to be committed to your safety.

 

[sacp81170a]

So the consensus is I need a high end $$$ AR to be reliable out of the box?
And good ammo and good mags? OK.

No, not really. My Armalite HBAR A2 cost $708 NIB when I bought it. I've run across a few bad mags which I either fixed or got rid of. My Stag cost me $750 and I put together my DPMS for around $600-$650. I know I could have bought two Romaks for what I paid for the Stag or the Armalite, but buying a high-end AK would have cost about as much, and still wouldn't be as accurate. There's a compromise in every situation. If you don't have the bux to pay $700 for an AR, by all means buy the $325 Romak. Is the AR reliable enough for SHTF? Yes, if you test it out thoroughly before you depend on it. I wouldn't depend on that $325 Romak until it's been tested out thoroughly, either.

 

[Browning]

Tokugawa : So the consensus is I need a high end $$$ AR to be reliable out of the box?

I have two Rock River AR's that worked right out of the box, neither of them are high end.

They aren't cheap and they aren't expensive, RRA is more like middle of the road.

And good ammo and good mags? OK.

That certainly helps.

Cleaning and lubing it are going to increase your chances of keeping it running too.

 

[AK103K]

My $800 Armalite M15A4 (C) with its Aimpoint and my $350 SAR1 with its Aimpoint on an Ultimak rail, or my $700 Krebs AK103K with its 14" barrel, Aimpoiint and Ultimak, shoot about the same when when shot side by side from field positions at the same targets. The hits on the targets are very similar. Even using the iron sights, I dont get to much variation on the groups on unmarked silhouette targets. With a target that has an aiming point, then the AR will usually do a little better.

If your worried about shooting "groups" for score, then the AR is probably your better choice. Otherwise, either will do if your capable.

Personally, I'd grab an AK before an AR, just because they shoulder and shoot more naturally for me. Nothing wrong with the AR's either, they work just fine too. Better to become proficient with either, and then not worry about it.

 

[sacp81170a]

Better to become proficient with either, and then not worry about it.

Bingo.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Kcshooter. You didn't read my posts. I never said that NONE of them were reliable.

 

[kcshooter]

Kcshooter. You didn't read my posts. I never said that NONE of them were reliable

Gosh, really? You didn't?

The point being that in 12 years of experience, non of the ARs we have qualified with have been relieable.

I didn't make that up, I cut and pasted your direct quote from post number 111.

 

[jon_in_wv]

That wasn't what was meant unless you choose to take if out of context. How exactly is attacking what I said furthering this conversation for anyone other than you??

 

[Pigspitter]

Unless it's an A1 that you grease up more than a body-builder and hump it through a swamp everyday, then it's plenty reliable.

 

[offshorebear]

An AR is great for police actions like our current military is in.

I wouldn't trust an AR to shoot over 100 rounds without a cleaning. I am ignoring that some ARs are picky on ammo and the .223 round. Any gun that ****s where its eats needs a lot of maintance to be reliable and its because of that I don't think an AR is a good SHTF weapon.

 

[Zak Smith]

I wouldn't trust an AR to shoot over 100 rounds without a cleaning. I am ignoring that some ARs are picky on ammo and the .223 round. Any gun that ****s where its eats needs a lot of maintance to be reliable and its because of that I don't think an AR is a good SHTF weapon.

As points of fact, I have run both a regular RRA 16" (w/ stainless barrel) and a 12" SBR in 2-3 day classes 2000+ rounds, without any cleaning. My primary 3-Gun rifle has gone years and thousands of rounds without cleaning. None of these have reliability problems.

 

[TexasRifleman]

As points of fact

Well that's your problem right there

Come in here with all your fancy "facts" to mess up their beliefs learned through years of exposure to the AR platform via Rainbow Six.....

Funny you mention SBRs. My 11.5" has been, overall, more reliable than any other AR I have.

 

[sarduy]

is the AR-15 reliable enough for SHTF

Yes