Smith & Wesson AR confusion

[isaidme]

Im no one special but I wouldnt own one that didnt have the dust cover, its important to keep the dust cover closed to keep crap out of the bolt when its not cycling. However, I dont like the forward assist and I dont think its a good idea to try and force and round in the chamber that doesnt want to go. Ive seen a kaboom from doing that!

 

[VA27]

Me, too. I can live without the forward assist, but I want the dust cover. Would it be possible to install one?

 

[CZguy]

Are both versions mil-speck?

 

[isaidme]

I dont think you can add a dust cover after the fact. FA and dustcover are mil-spec the other way is not. One note on the forward assist, you can use it if you want to quietly load a round by riding the charging handle to chamber a round and then taping the FA to make sure its seated.

 

[crracer_712]

There seems to be a difference of opinion about that for those barrels that are Melonite processed. As I mentioned before, research is your friend, especially on this topic.

That's the problem with research on the melonite barrels, most of it is just people on forums trying to justify their new AR's barrel finish... Very few cold hard facts with decades of data on it. I've got AR's in both, personally, I don't see a nickels worth of difference between the two. They'll both out last me.

 

[crracer_712]

I dont think you can add a dust cover after the fact. FA and dustcover are mil-spec the other way is not. One note on the forward assist, you can use it if you want to quietly load a round by riding the charging handle to chamber a round and then taping the FA to make sure its seated.

+1million

I don't understand why more people don't see that this would be the best use for the FA. Sometimes I'll pull the bolt back to see what's in the chamber, Steel case or Brass, and it seldom goes in to battery without the use of the FA. Sure, you could use your thumb on the bolt, but mine is usually oily so I'd just as soon keep it's oil on it, and my oil on me.

 

[arizona98tj]

Im no one special but I wouldnt own one that didnt have the dust cover, its important to keep the dust cover closed to keep crap out of the bolt when its not cycling.

For the 45+ years I've carried semi-auto rifles chambered in .22LR, .30-06, and .308 Win, none of them have had functioning issue that could be traced to the lack of a dust cover. Come to think of it, none of them have had functioning issues. The oldest of these is the .30-06 built back in the late '50s or early '60s.

Why is it that the AR-15 is so susceptible to having problems sans dust cover yet other semi-auto rifles run for decades without them?

 

[CZguy]

Why is it that the AR-15 is so susceptible to having problems sans dust cover yet other semi-auto rifles run for decades without them?

I run my AR wet with oil. The oil attracts dust.

I run all other autos as dry as possible. Grease, or dry lube as needed.

 

[DNS]

ARIZONA98,

My Sport runs fine in dust without a cover. West Texas is a dusty enviroment, i run it wet, and no failures here. Plenty of torture tests done on the Sport model particularly with dust in mind and it just keeps chuggin'.

The Sports really picking up a lot of fans.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

The magazine I linked earlier, talked about dust and the Sport. They could not get it to jam or fail to cycle. They were doing drag tests in fine powdered sand. They were the same as most of us, thought the rifle needed a dust cover, but after the test they changed their minds.

 

[meanmrmustard]

There is a great write up about the sport model M&P in the spring 2012 "Book of the AR-15" magazine. If you see it it is a red cover magazine. It actually changed my thinking about the sport version. I love my M&P, but would not even consider the Sport. Well I am thinking of adding the Sport to my wifes collection now.

Mine too. I had my Sport for a few months at that time. After reading that write up, I beamed a bit prouder.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

They really tried to get the Sport to jam from dirt, it wouldn't. I really think they are awesome rifles. For the price range they are hard to beat.

 

[meanmrmustard]

They really tried to get the Sport to jam from dirt, it wouldn't. I really think they are awesome rifles. For the price range they are hard to beat.

Indeed they are. Anyone opting to get a Sport, it is a confident buy. I made the mistake of selling my first, so I bought another on Friday. Leaving it stock, it's so darn light and compact.

 

[dprice3844444]

The sport also comes with a thin barrell. Again not a big deal unless you're dropping into a war zone anytime soon.

only a problem in a war zone if yoour running mag after mag of full auto,then the barrel will melt,otherwise,it should outlast you,your kids, and your kids kids,if properly serviced and lubed

 

[meanmrmustard]

only a problem in a war zone if yoour running mag after mag of full auto,then the barrel will melt,otherwise,it should outlast you,your kids, and your kids kids,if properly serviced and lubed

It's not a thin barrel. It's a medium contour throughout the entire barrel length. Heating that barrel up is going to be difficult, as it has no m4 cuts, so it's pretty stout.

I've been trying to school folks on the Sports capabilities in crappy environments, but as Cjohnson76 has posted, that singular article goes into great depth about the authors guarantee of a failure. It never happened even while purposely pouring crap into the receiver. That's amazing for a DI rifle with no dust cover.

 

[ugaarguy]

The sport also comes with a thin barrell.

The Sport has a GI contour bbl without the M4 style grenade launcher cut forward of the FSB, so it's thicker than a GI bbl. I need to mike the bbl under the handguards, but my MKI eyeball thinks it's not turned down as much as a GI bbl either.