Shot an AR-15 for the first time today...

[mtnbkr]

I'm not a huge fan of the AR. I'm building one, but mainly because I like a good project, and I want to try the platform chambered in 50 Beowulf and other "oddball" chamberings. If 223 was my only choice, I'd never own one.

The "sproing" is the biggest turnoff.

Chris

 

[Coronach]

The old Marines I'm speaking of are Vietnam veterans who were issued M-14s, then re-issued M-16s and didn't like the latter in the conditions they has to deal with. Many of those guys saw their brothers-in-arms killed because their rifles failed them under fire. Some of those same guys are the ones who said the AR is a good match rifle, just don't take it to war.

And those old soldiers would be correct, because of the extremely well-publicized things that the armed forces did with the first batches of M16s they issued to the troops. Here's a hint: if the rifle is designed to be used with ammo of a certain type and you change that ammo to something different, it will not work. Not rocket scien- well...actually, it is ballistics. So, yeah, I guess it is rocket science.

In any event, once the first problems were worked through, by pretty much all accounts the majority of problems cleared up. We can, of course, argue all day if it ever got to be reliable enough. I'm not military and never have been, but the basic gist I get from people who worked with the M16/M4 is that if you take care of it, it works fine. If you don't, it won't. Every soldier and Marine would like an utterly maintenance-free weapon, but they haven't invented one yet. And, natch, I know soldiers and Marines who love the weapon. I know soldiers and Marines who hate it.

Returning to our thread at hand...what matters most is what the weapon you own is going to do, not what the weapons issued to our front line troops are doing. My M4gery? More accurate than I am. After the first hundred-or-so rounds it's been jamproof. And while I'm not dragging it through the mud and tossing muck in the ejection port, I'm also pretty casual about cleaning. I'm certainly not babying the thing.

Seems like a good go-to gun to me.

Mike

 

[Coronach]

And FWIW, I'm not an AR fanboy. If TSHTF, I'm going for my FAL.

But I certainly would not feel poorly armed with an AR.

Mike

 

[Chris Rhines]

I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of argueing with somebody's experience.

I am, particularly when their experience directly contradicts my own. Being an old Marine doesn't automatically make one right.

I have an AR-15 carbine with almost 2000 rounds through it, with no cleaning beyond occasionally pulling out the bolt carrier and wiping it off with a paper towel. It has had no malfunctions. My experience with other AR-15s that I have built has been similar. A properly built AR-15 will be every bit as reliable as an AK clone, M1A, Garand, FN-FAL, or any other magazine fed semi-auto.

- Chris

 

[444]

(as close as I can get to the one with the guy rolling around laughing).

"We should run a reliability test between a Mini-14 and a similar priced AR (perhaps an Olympic or a parts gun). The results would put a lot of this stuff to rest. "

That wouldn't put anything to rest. These threads are fueled by speculation and BS. People don't want facts, they want controversy. If they wanted facts, they would just look at the hundreds of thousands if not millions of M16 platform rifles that have served in combat for the last 40 years all over the world. Instead they want to base their arguments on stuff that they read on-line somewhere.

I have an AR15 that has well in excess of 10,000 rounds through it. Does this mean I know anything about the subject ? Naw, some teenage video game player said it wasn't true.

 

[Sistema1927]

This is the first time that I have seen lack of recoil described as a bad thing. That lack of recoil allows you to get a good cheek weld and put your nose right against the charging handle.

Not to mention that the sight arrangement on the M16/AR15 is the same as that found on the M1 Garand and M14. For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone could mess up lining up the sights.

 

[Stinkyshoe]

For what it is worth, the gunsmith I worked for over the summer has M16...and it seemed to shoot just fine after 35 cases of ammo....yes thats 35,000 rounds without being cleaned. Kinda like the mechanic who owns the car that doesn't work very good.

I've never had a problem with the AR jamming. It is all about what you trust from experience, what you shoot well, what is comfortable, and what can do what it needs to. A mini is great if that is what you are comfortable with. Good for you if you like the AK! We are all on the same side. IMO.

(My brother really likes this quotation regarding certain internet discussions, "Arguing on the internet is sort of like participating in the special olympics, you may win, but you're still retarded")

 

[Mannlicher]

its hard to believe that in this day and age, and on a gun BBS to boot, there is so much pure ignorance. geez

 

[Quintin Likely]

I really like my AR. I really like my friend's AKs. I like his L1A1 too. Hell, if it goes bang and sends a projectile downrange without blowing up in my face, sign me up.

I am not, and chances are unless the draft comes back up, never will be a soldier or Marine, so I can't relate on how an AR would function in a combat environment. I know mine got very hot and very dirty between three of us running 5 or 600 rounds through it one afternoon with no faults. That's good enough for me.

 

[Quintin Likely]

Oh yeah, and the sproing from the buffer spring can be fixed with a couple CLP soaked patches, a little grease on the buffer spring, or (supposedly) with an SSS buffer spring. I don't run any of the above; if I'm thinking about how the buffer spring is rattling around during a match, that means that I'm not thinking about the front sight as hard as I need to be.

 

[762x51]

I run a Tubb Speedlock CS spring in my SPR and there is no boing/twang/sproing at all. Good piece of gear.

 

[Mulliga]

its hard to believe that in this day and age, and on a gun BBS to boot, there is so much pure ignorance. geez

If you think this is bad, stop by AR15.com sometime and partake in one of the "brand wars" threads. Almost need asbestos just to view the whole thing.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, because I don't own an AR. I've shot plenty though, and I have nothing bad to say about them from personal experience. Then again I haven't been driving a truck through an Iraqi sandstorm for 15 hours and then had to pull out an M16 covered in sand to defend myself. I can tell you, I bet the soldiers in Jessica Lynch's convoy would have given their left nuts for a dozen cheap SKS's and 20 loaded stripper clips apiece (or M14's, or AK's...)

 

[Darkside]

Quinton Likely said "if I'm thinking about how the buffer spring is rattling around during a match, that means that I'm not thinking about the front sight as hard as I need to be."

A big AMEN to that


Darkside

 

[444]

"I bet the soldiers in Jessica Lynch's convoy would have given their left nuts for a dozen cheap SKS's and 20 loaded stripper clips apiece (or M14's, or AK's...)"

#1) Jessica Lynch doesn't have a left or right nut
#2) They may have wished for a weapon after the ambush, but I seriously doubt that they gave much thought to their weapons before they needed them. Otherwise they would have worked.
#3) From the accounts I remember reading about the incident, only a couple people made any attempt to fire their weapons. I only remember one guy, but the events are no longer clear in my mind. However, in the account I read, after being in the convoy in extreme dust conditions, and after being in a rollover accident, and after crawling out of that accident and crawling to cover, his weapon malfunctioned. No one knows how well that weapon had been maintained prior to all that happening. And dispite all the BS you read on-line, no one knows if any other weapon in the world would have functioned after all that. A lot of people will tell you that they know. Even more people will tell you what their opinion on the matter is (backed up by zero first hand experience). But NO ONE really knows.
Along the same line: something that I always find amusing. During this war I have seen hundreds of film clips of people in the middle east and Afganistan firing weapons up in the air. In these film clips, most of the people are firing weapons high touted among the internet commando crowd as being absolutely and totally reliable. Yet I am amazed at how often these weapons malfunction in these film clips. It doesn't really surprise me all that much because I realize that no mechanical device will work without maintainance or when full of sand. What used to surprise me is the number of people on the errornet that believe otherwise (again, based on zero personal experience).

 

[ccanter]

I wish I could get a chance to fire off one of those.

 

[g56]

When the M-16 first came out they had some problems, they were designed to have a chrome plated chamber and bore, the rifles delivered had neither, the ammo they got was the wrong spec, it was much dirtier than the correct ammo, the rifles were issued without cleaning kits and the troops were told they didn't need to be cleaned! Blame that on McNamara and his cronies!

Those problems were cleared up a really long time ago! The chrome plated bore and chamber was really for military use where the rifles wouldn't get cleaned very often, but as I said the early issued rifles didn't have them.

I have an AR and have shot it plenty, I have never had a malfunction of any kind, and the "sprong" sound is long gone too, that was the old A1 models, the A2's don't make that noise. The AR has much better reliability than the Mini 14, and is more accurate to boot, the AR does cost more, but if you shop around enough you can get one at a decent price, or build one yourself, it's easy!

 

[MM]

Bibedo, (GK)
I thought you went to Korea, instead...
Back on topic--I used an M-14 while in the Navy, great bush bucker, great club, if required. I just eschewed the 16. Now I own a bushy A3 AK, and enjoy it immensely, but If I have to grab one out of the stash to go and do rough things, It will be the Sar 1, or most probably the JLD PTR 91. The rifle should reach out, and this 308 will, indeed!
SatCong

 

[MM]

Yeah, I DO KNOW!
SatCong

 

[steelhead]

Lupine,

Any rifle that brings a big smile to your face is well worth it. I enjoy my Bushy because it is fun, accurate, and cheap to shoot. That is what the post was about?

I've converted more than a couple of anti's (one being my wife) with the evil black rifle. That alone makes it an excellent firearm.


To those bickering over weapon design and caliber. I read an interesting book by Rick Atkinson called "Army at Dawn". In that book, there is a passage which describes how the G.I.'s in North Africa were amazed at how tough a human was and how difficult it was to kill him quickly - unlike in the movies of the time. Also, they were dismayed at how quickly their M1's jammed in the sand and dust. Now, I suppose someone will argue that the M14 is a better design than the M1, and the .308 will put a man down better than a 30.06.......... but it is still interesting to hear about some of the same arguements/concerns from men over 60 years ago when they still fought with "real" weapons.

God help us when we adopt phasers. Then they will all be plastic, run on batteries, and the "projectile" will have no mass and won't create a wound cavity like the good old .22 and a third.

 

[Ghost_Point]

I think we should consider being cut off from all supplies and not being able to clean the rifle because the enemy is always present. Sure if you take care of a firearm it should work but what if you can't do anything but move from cover to cover while trying to use your rifle 5000 rounds later and dropped in mud. As an all around combat weapon the AR is too expensive. The .223 will go off coarse in thick brush and will not penetrate alot of armor and most armor will not protect against a 7.62x39. Also why are the US troops picking up AKs in Iraq? Because the AR isn't powerful enough for one and two because you can't sit down and clean your rifle in a sand storm while people are shooting at you. The AR isn't the trash they used to be but they are still trash to me if I'm going to fight AKs. Plus Aks look so much nicer. The AR is a police rifle. The Ak is a combat rifle. And besides every one is making new rifles because none are perfect.

Russia Germany and Israel all make better weapons than the USA.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Also why are the US troops picking up AKs in Iraq?

Uh, trick question. They aren't. Whoever told you this is full of it.

I think we should consider being cut off from all supplies and not being able to clean the rifle because the enemy is always present.

In my experience, the AR-15 platform is just as reliable as the AK, FAL, or M14 platforms given the same level of maintaince. The AR is an extremely reliable design - mine goes thousands of rounds between cleanings, without malfunctions.

The .223 will go off coarse in thick brush and will not penetrate alot of armor and most armor will not protect against a 7.62x39.

First issue - thick brush will deflect any bullet fired from any weapon. Second - I'm not aware of any classification of armor that is proof against the .223 but not the .30 Ruskie - could you share the brand and model?

- Chris

 

[The Rabbi]

I think we should consider being cut off from all supplies and not being able to clean the rifle because the enemy is always present. Sure if you take care of a firearm it should work but what if you can't do anything but move from cover to cover while trying to use your rifle 5000 rounds later and dropped in mud

First off, no one on this forum lives under those conditions. Almost no one on this forum, all the flabby 35-75 year olds, is ever likely to shoot in those circumstances. So if you pick your range/sport weapons based on how they perform in battle conditions you deserve what you get. My guess is that 100% of the people posting here shoot because its fun. If you have fun shooting an AR, go for it. If you dont like it, pick something else.

As for the Israelis, my brother in law on the West Bank tells me the Uzi has a terrible reputation for reliability in Israel. This is mainly due to the annual cleaning they receive, whether they need them or not.

 

[Ghost_Point]

on the marines picking up AKs not only was it in the newspapers and on tv but I have freinds that are Marines in Iraq and they have told me the same things. They picked them up because they wanted the firepower. And DID NOT TRUST their rifles in the sand storms. There is an article you can find about a Marine in Iraq that said he had shot an enemy five times and the enemy didn't even seem to flinch and so he was saying that they needed rifles that can match the firepower of the AK47. Now this brings us to the armor part in wich was tested in Los Angeles at a bank robbery. The police shot the guy 20+ times with no effect. I have all types of armor and they specificaly say they will not protect from a 7.62x39 at 200 yards.

 

[Ghost_Point]

part 2
My plates are thicker than the police issues and it says it will not protect from a 7.62x39. And for the brush I have target shot through bush with freinds that had .223 and me with the 7.62x39 and the difference was very big. I didn't say the bigger wouldn't I sayed the smaller will lots more. And a 7.62x39 will go through much thicker anything than the .223 just like as in armor. Also the USA government them selves are leaving the .223 behind because of lack of power and to keep up with china and russias new heavier round rifles. And as far as the harsh conditions the topic wasn't best sport rifle it was for best battle rifle. All my freinds that used to have .223s ARs and what have you all have AKS and SKSs now and have sold almost all of their ARs and .223s and minis.