New online class - building a fighting AR-15

Status
Not open for further replies.

pangris

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
239
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Greetings all -

In the tradition of the 1911 Patriot Online Class, Bill Zollo is going to offer an AR-15 class.

The 1911 class was reviewed HERE in American Handgunner.

This class is centered around building a fighting/training gun…

Some background -

I took my first rifle class at Thunder Ranch a few years ago. I brought an M1A believing that as a big, strong young man I could handle the 10 lb rifle. It is only two or three pounds heavier than most of the AR’s out there. Two hours into the class, I was crying like a little girl on the inside.

A year later my wife and I went to Tiger McKee’s school, Shootrite, for a tutorial. We got the tour of his safe, and he handed me an AR that I thought must be a toy. It weighs 5 lbs 9 oz. After learning about it, I built a very similar gun that weighed in under 6 lbs. I’ve since used it in several training classes with no probems.

In February of 2006, Bill told me he was thinking about doing a class for the AR-15. Tiger had mentioned that a number of his students wanted a rifle like his but there was nothing available off the shelf. After putting heads together, the Online AR-15 class and Shootrite Rifle has been born.

I have no affiliation with the class other than knowing and introducing Tiger and Bill. I’ll be taking the class myself, building a couple rifles for my sons.

The basic format –
A1 stock and upper, slickside, 16” pencil barrel, no frills… this is a lightweight bullet launching platform. This is an exercise in simplicity. The more on the gun, the more that can go wrong, period. The fewer moving (or God forbid electronic) parts, the less there is to fail.

213626179.gif

Basic philosophy of the rifle…
Half the reason for the focus on weight is, as Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch says, “You’re going to carry it a hell of a lot more than you’re going to shoot it.” The other half the reason is that most of the stuff on rifles today is, to be blunt, less than necessary go fast looking gear sold to us by marketing bastards whose goal in life is to convince us that we need all the extra stuff to be tactical, accurate, etc etc. In reality, these rifles can shoot 1.5” at 100 yards, which is more accurate than necessary for a battle rifle – and more accurate than most shooters as well. This rifle is going to be built from top quality parts, each individually and purposefully selected to make the best gun possible.

The barrel – 16” lightweight, 1/9 twist. Easy to maneuver, can use bullets from 55-69 grs.

The receiver – A1 slickside, current Fulton Armory production. Tiger points out that the 800 yard sights on the A2 are questionable at best since the AR isn’t very terminally effective past 200 yards, and that confrontations beyond the 300 yards the gun was originally designed for are all but non-existent anyway. Once you are zero’d you shouldn’t need to manually adjust anything if you understand mechanical offset and drop.

Why no forward assist? To quote Tiger directly - “The original A1 upper also lacks the forward assist, a feature deemed unnecessary by some that eventually became a standard feature on the rifle. So, you ask, how do you seat the bolt without the forward assist? That half-moon cutout on the right side of the bolt carrier is the original bolt closure device. The operator simply places a finger in this cutout and presses the bolt carrier forward. If finger pressure doesn’t seat the bolt then you probably have a faulty round of ammo or the chamber is too tight due to powder residue or some other foreign matter. Regardless of the cause if you force the issue by hammering on the forward assist it can jam the weapon. This would be a “bad thing” in the middle of a fight.”

213626178.gif

Bolt – Bill is testing a number of units, but “quality is job one”… it will be the best of the best. As of now, students will build TWO bolts for the gun.

Buttstock – The A1 is 5/8” shorter than the A2. I had always used A2 stocks since I’m 6’2” and have monkey arms. I was amazed at how well the A1 fit me, and how well I shot a rifle equipped as such. It also puts the balance of the rifle further back, improving the overall feel. The stock is a current production A1, built like an A2 - just shorter. Finally, the user can’t forget to extend the stock, can’t autocollapse, reduces the number of parts/buttons/switches for Murphy to act on.

The end result is a rifle that snaps to the shoulder, easily transitions from target to target, and generally feels great.

This is not to say that all the whiz bang stuff can’t serve some specific purpose, just that this rifle will do the job if you do yours. Tiger cites Commander John Byron, USN, who stated that often people attempt to make up for a lack of ability by assuming “that the burden of victory rests on the weapon, not on its wielder.”
Finally, a quote from Tiger about some of what he has seen in training -
“As instructor for Thunder Ranch part of my job included running Thunderville, a set of buildings on the Texas range students work through while engaging targets which appear across the street. I can’t tell you how many times, after being given time to load and make ready, students would drop into position to engage the first target and not get off a shot because they had forgotten to turn on this, adjust that, or flip a switch on something. Violent encounters in the real world rarely have time to run a leisurely systems analysis on a complicated weapon or the leeway for you to forget something important, like turning your sight on… If you think about it most of us would be well off with a weapon that is as simple as possible…. Gadgets will never replace skill.”

213626181.jpg

Weapon lights are a pretty personal decision, so for the purpose of the class they aren’t addressed – the student can add one if they wish, or learn to use a handheld light.

As I understand it the final details and part selection is going to be finalized at the 2007 SHOT show, but Bill is taking deposits on the class. There are only 15 slots and about half of them have been filled by alumni of the Patriot classes. At this point, if the class is a success, it will be offered 3 or more times a year.

Bill hasn't finished the official website yet, but a preliminary page CAN BE SEEN HERE You can contact Bill Zollo about taking the AR online class to build this rifle.

Tiger Mckee can be contacted at www.shootrite.org to learn more about the practical application of weapons in defensive situations…

For what it is worth, this is my gun right after I built it...

95476373.gif

And now with a light mounted to it.

213706806.gif
 
Last edited:
You could shave even more weight off of that by going to a CavArms MkII lower. You could also shave a few ounces by going to a flattop with fixed detachable rear sight. If you don't like the CavArms lower, you could also bring the balance back more and shave some more weight with a Sully stock.

As to the design, lf you start with a modular lightweight rifle, you can always change it to a KISS configuration if that is what you decide works for you. If you start with the rifle in the first picture, it will be more difficult to change to any other configuration. Certainly it is a plenty capable rifle; but something as simple as a flattop receiver would cut the weight and give you options for either irons or optics.

Tiger McKee certainly has a lot more experience and knowledge here than I do; but I don't know that I agree with some of the conclusions. If somebody can't manage something like making sure their sight is on and functional, that sounds more like a training issue than an equipment issue. Gadgets will never replace skill; but you certainly aren't going to reach a decent level of skill if you do not spend enough time training to correct deficiencies like not turning your sights on.
 
I've actually looked at/thought about the cav arms lowers - even tried to order some, and the order got screwed up... haven't gotten around to trying again.

Regarding this configuration, I'm pretty sure Tiger and Bill both prefer well established and proven parts.

With regard to the flat tops, the iron sights attached as such are by definition not only more complicated with additional attachment points, but not as protected as in the A1 configuration.

The goal is the simplest set up possible with an effective AR... then to train with it in such a way that there isn't a set of unnecessary if/then statements to run through if things aren't working in the middle of a fight.
 
I really like this concept. Gives me some more ideas for my first build. I was going to build a straight forward M4-gery, but now I might reconsider. Thanks for sharing.

-jagd
 
I really like both rifles. I have one question, is the fixed buttstock heavier than a collapsible stock? I know that the adjustable stock has more stuff to break but I like the idea of keeping the rifle as light as possible. How much does yours weigh and who made the fore end? Does anyone make a flattop with a permanently fixed foldable rear sight? That way you have the irons and the ease of attaching a low power scope. Of course now I'm getting away from the original intent of this rifle.
 
Everyone has to figure out what works for them - there is no "right" answer per se... this is just the best I've found for me. The intent of the rifle is to be as simple as possible while retaing functionality. If you need (or just can't live without :rolleyes: ) optics, then for you the flat top would be a viable option.

Regarding the weight of fixed vs. telescoping stocks-

The A1 is probably a *little* heavier, but where the weight falls is the easiest place to deal with it, i.e. the point resting on your shoulder rather than what you are working against leverage wise.

There are lighter fixed stocks - the ACE comes to mind. I've long wondered why no one has made a carbon fiber stock in the A1 profile as well.

Flat top vs. A1 -

I've come to the conclusion irons are all I want/need - I really want to MASTER iron sights, not become "good enough". I'm seriously considering taking a "precision urban rifle" type class where we'll shoot out to 200 yards with my carbine rather than a scoped bolt gun. I want it to be second nature when I shoulder my gun to pick up and use irons - I have the same basic sight on every rifle I own, be it an AR or M1A... again, less to think about under stress.

Bill has reported a number of requests for the flat tops, and that it will probably be an option in the class.

El Tejon, just took my little brother to Shootrite for a two day tutorial and we had a great time and he learned a lot - it was his first class. He finally understands what I mean when I say "shooting stationary targets while stationary isn't that challenging" :D

JP - If you get in touch with Bill, I'm sure he'll be happy to talk about the class and the build.
 
With regard to the flat tops, the iron sights attached as such are by definition not only more complicated with additional attachment points, but not as protected as in the A1 configuration.

Complicated in the sense of having to attach the sight to the rail? Because otherwise they work just like A1 sights (if that is what you want, you can also have H&K sights, M14 sights, or just about any variation of iron sight made).

As for protected, I've seen pictures of M4s blown apart by a 155mm IED that still have detachable carry handles or ACOG mounts attached. There isn't even much of the upper left; but the mount is still grasping the 1913 rail nicely. I don't know if that is better or less protection than the A1 handle offers; but it will do the job for me.

The goal is the simplest set up possible with an effective AR... then to train with it in such a way that there isn't a set of unnecessary if/then statements to run through if things aren't working in the middle of a fight.

My point is that the simplest AR is not the most effective. It is just simple. I've run a fair amount of people through courses using a timer and those who can even come close to matching their optics times with irons are few and far between. You need a significant level of training to reach that kind of proficiency with irons and 99.5% of shooters will never reach that level of training. Alternatively, you could give these people the same level of training they are already pursuing and just remind them to turn on their sight (or teach them backup methods like using a dead/off optic as a large ghost ring).

As I understood the rationale, it is that it is better to teach most people the basic Vietnam-era M16 because it is simpler to use and they will not train often enough to make use of other gear. To me, the rationale that you have time to teach them to use irons as effectively as optics; but not time to teach them to effectively use optics doesn't mesh with my own experience and observations.

I'm sure that Tiger McKee sees a lot of problems with gadget ARs. Practically any instructor who teaches a carbine course does because there are just so many accessories out there that both the good and bad invariably end up in those classes. If you aren't going to take the time to learn to use the gear/what gear works, then I agree that simple is the way to go. If you are willing to invest training time though, I think you can learn to use optics and other assorted gear just fine.
 
Mr. Roberts,

"As I understood the rationale, it is that it is better to teach most people the basic Vietnam-era M16 because it is simpler to use and they will not train often enough to make use of other gear"

The goal is not to train so little, or to train so much - just to know you're going to get the same thing everytime you bring up the rifle.

The concern is that if the optics break, die, lose zero, etc ad nauseum at the worst possible time, you have to realize they aren't working, diagnose why (not turned on? broken?) then deploy a bad up, then re adjust yourself to the second system you are tryingto use - in a fight, the amount of time involved could be an extra second or two that you may or may not have.

No doubt many people can shoot better with less training to a limited degree - but in the end, as Clint says - optics don't help you SHOOT better, just see better. Up to 100 yards, I'd guess most people can be taught to hit a torso, maybe even a head, with a dot sight. Get beyond that and the yanking the trigger, poor stance, bad breathing, etc are gonna show up.

You referenced that 99.5% of shooters won't put in the time to use a rifle like this to its full potential. I tend to agree - maybe even less, because of the amount of training necessary to be truly proficient, even with a rifle this simple.

The real goal of training at TR, Shootrite, etc is to beat the fundamentals into you so that you can do all the necessary things to make hits and run the gun in ANY situation.

Do 1 in 200 (99.5%) of shooters do that? No way. MAYBE 1/1000 (.1%) are serious enough about training to spend the time and money to really get to the point that they have the trigger time and reps to keep the gun up and make hits regardless of the range, position, conditions, and so forth.

There is a demand for the flat tops, even as applied to this class. It isn't good or bad, just a reality that some people need optics (bad eyes) or want optics. More power to them, just voicing what I've spent a fair amount of time and money learning in my quest to master the gun.

If all things considered, you want a dot on yours, more power to you - may you enjoy your set up in a class we take together, after which we can enjoy a good steak dinner :cool:
 
I have to disagree with his take on electronic sights. The Aimpoint in it's military guise of the M68 CCO has proven durable in combat for the past several years. It's standard issue in all US Army Infantry units. The current version has a battery life that can be measured in years. All of the disadvantages the iron sight traditionalists have listed have been overcome.

Battery life, not an issue. The new diodes literally give you a battery life in years.

Dirt or mud on the objective lens. Doesn't matter, if you have binocular vision, you just use it like an occluded eye gunsight. You can close the lens cover on the objective lens and still use the sight.

Having no sight if by some very bad circumstance the cricuitry fails. You don't even really need a backup iron sight. You can use the Aimpoint as a big ghost ring and be accurate on an E silhoutte out to 100 meters.

With the Aimpoint you get a sight system that is much faster then and more accurate then irons. I think that properly executed reflex sights have earned their place. They've earned it not on the range but in combat.

Jeff
 
Would the Bushmaster carbon upper and lower make much difference?

I've handled an AR using the Cav Arms polymer lower, it does work well and is very light but the main weight of the AR is the barrel and upper, the barrel on this one had been turned down to remove weight. It would be possible to get it under four pounds empty thought I don't think that particular rifle made it. My only gripe with the Cav Arms one is that you cannot replace the stock, ever so to fix LOP problems you'd have to either add a buttpad or cut down the stock.
 
pangris said:
No doubt many people can shoot better with less training to a limited degree - but in the end, as Clint says - optics don't help you SHOOT better, just see better

Well, just going by the scenarios we shoot, which are mostly under 50yds and usually involve movement... people get better quality hits in less time using red dots. Since the red dots are 1x, I don't know that they are helping anyone see better but they do seem to help them shoot better.

I can understand some of the rationale behind it. For one, if people come to classes with the rifle you mention, you'll be able to spend a lot more training time shooting and a lot less time sorting out the various gear issues. At a personal level though, I just don't agree with the very strong emphasis on simplicity in the design approach. You certainly don't want a rifle that is more complex than the user can manage successfully. However, you can always make a modular rifle simple very quickly; but the reverse is not true.

mrmeval said:
Would the Bushmaster carbon upper and lower make much difference?

Well, one problem I have always noticed with lightweight ARs is that the weight is often removed from the "wrong" places. Removing weight from behind the barrel nut makes the gun lighter; but it also makes even the lightweight barrels feel nose-heavy past a certain point. This is one reason the old style fiberlite collapsible stocks bug me - too little weight in them to balance out the front.

This is one reason I like the relatively heavier M93 stock on my rifle. It adds weight to the rifle; but because the balance is better, you don't notice it as much as a slightly lighter rifle that is nose-heavy.
 
I guess the question becomes... what can the "more complex" rifle do that the "simple" rifle can not?

Again, the aimpoints are great sights, just not the direction that these guys have observed to be the only way.

Tiger instructs a LOT of military guys, including active duty groups that are heading the middle East. He is aware of the technology, how it is used, the durability, etc etc, and he still prefer this design.

Again, due to the interest in flat tops, they'll be offered.
 
Neither rifle will deliver rapid accurate fire at an enemy unless the rifleman has been well trained. Why have all the bells and whistles if you can't use the basic tool? I think Tiger McKees point is that before you start loading up your weapon with lots of fancy gear you need to learn the basics of shooting and learn them well. I use a reflex sighted Remington M870 at work and I like the sight. I shoot pistols, rifles and shotguns a LOT more than the people I am stationed with and have outshot people using the 870 while I was using my Mossberg M500 simply because I had a lot more quality practice time. The sight could not make up for me being able to load, pump and fire quicker than anyone else. Against an equally skilled shooter with the reflex sight I would get smoked.

When I finally get to a state where I can own an AR-15 I'm going to keep it simple and light. I want a flat top with fold down irons(Fulton Arms had some nice ones with tritium inserts), maybe a scout scope and a good sling. Ideally this would come in at or lower than 7 pounds. Then I'm going to shoot, a lot.
 
No. The question is, "What can the more complex rifle do better than the simple rifle?" The answer is, "Deliver rapid accurate fire at the enemy."

I believe you have the plane and the pilot confused.
 
Tiger instructs a LOT of military guys, including active duty groups that are heading the middle East. He is aware of the technology, how it is used, the durability, etc etc, and he still prefer this design.

I am sure he instructs a lot more people than I see shoot and shoots more often personally as well. That is one reason I am curious. My experiences just don't support the conclusion he reached at all. So it makes me wonder what he is seeing at his range that led him to this conclusion.
 
Again, no. I'm perfectly aware of the respective roles of the weapon and the shooter, and I phrased my statement accordingly. The gun fires (or "delivers fire"), the shooter shoots.

The point which I tried to make is that an optic-equipped carbine is a better tool for hitting your target than an iron-sighted carbine. Simplicity is a good and noble goal, but not when taken to the point where it becomes a detriment rather than a help.

- Chris
 
Point taken. I was looking at it from a different view point. I'm not knocking the idea of an M16/M4 with all sorts of stuff hanging off of it. I was thinking that most people build a rifle like that for the same reason they drive huge lifted trucks with fancy rims, etc. It looks cool even though they never use 4wd, or the rifle, to anywhere near its' capabilities. I first starting shooting our ACOG equipped shotguns a few years ago and I have to agree that all else being equal the guy with the ACOG is going to make more hits than the guy with the bead for a sight.
 
I am sure he instructs a lot more people than I see shoot and shoots more often personally as well. That is one reason I am curious. My experiences just don't support the conclusion he reached at all. So it makes me wonder what he is seeing at his range that led him to this conclusion.

Every time I hear trainers really discuss the issues they see in training, it usually boils down to the fact most shooters don't know what they don't know... but they think they know it, and think the are ready to run thier gun regardless of the situation. Then they have to shoot for extended periods under scrutiny and things fall apart.

I know that the first time I took a class, I thought "I knew"... a dozen classes later I now know that I don't know much, but want to learn a lot more :eek:
 
probably a tangent, but it seems to me that the difference here is philisophical:

do you build a gun around the 99+% of the time it's operating correctly

or

do you build a gun aroud the 1% of the time it fails?


over the years i've oscilated between the two. recently, my AR builds have begun to benefit from my experience in architecting large scale, highly available computer networks. specifically, i'm analyzing the MTBF of individual components rather than the system as a whole.

for me, for instance, forward assist is a must. i use it fairly often. my ARs no longer sport BUIS. either irons or optics. neither fail often enough for me to justify using both.

other parts are still giving me grief. suppressors and verticle foregrips are both useful enough to have when they're working well, but dang if they don't get in my way a lot, or come loose, etc. i.e. do i go with a strong and heavy vfg, or a light plastic one that balances better but requires occasional tightening? jury is still out
 
It isn't about the failure of a part or the rifle - it is about the conditions you may find yourself in the fight that may lead to failure unrelated to MTBF type testing.

The less you have to do to the gun, the more you can focus on everything else.

It is a gun designed to be pulled out of a trunk, from beside the nightstand, etc and from there, work with minimal user input. Charge it, press check, safety on, and go to work without any other factors mixed in...

The configuration isn't for everyone, to be sure.

That said, the class teaches how to build every AR - not just this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top