So AR15s suck.....so why........

[Keaner]

Since you won't be carrying more than 200 rds, the need to clean it every 600 rds means nothing.

First, that is incorrect. In a SHTF sinario, I would assume that my Car would also be available as a mode of transport. I would not want to be walking in a situation like that! Anyway, in !PEACE TIME! my car always has 800+ rounds of .30-'06 in it, plus an additional 1000+ rounds at my house. I have a bunch more trunk space, my front seat could hold a few hundred rounds, etc, so I would never have a round limit.

When you have no help, you'd better never have to fire 20 rds in any one engagement.

This may be true with an AR-15 or an AK, but the M1 Garand is effective for a "normal" shooter out past 400 yds over iron sites. The guy I know that was in the Marines said they routinely had them practice out past 600 yds. With optics, the M1 is supposed to be effective WAY past 1000yds for a good shooter.

At these ranges, I would most likely be out of shooting distance of any opponents, and therefore could hold a large group away at once. I could have the "sniper" effect, someone WAY out of the defender's range, but still within the sniper's range.

Also, the 600 rounds listed above is in somewhat ideal conditions. I doubt the M16 was constantly in the mud, being rained on, etc. I would bet that the M16 would have other problems within that time. My major problem with the platform is the sensitivity of the butt stock. On an AR-15 (AFAIK) the bolt slides into the butt stock. I have seen a few AR-15's with butt stocks broken off, so I cannot imagine it being durable enough to last someone as a "lifer" rifle in a situation.

The M1 on the other hand, has a BEEFY stock, which is easily capable of being a weapon on its own, without damaging the integrity of the rifle.

Finally, although unlikely, I would like to point out the bayonet. I have heard (and this may very well be dead wrong) that using the bayonet on an M4/M16 can screw up some of the inner workings of the weapon. The M1 on the other hand, transfers force from the front end of the rifle, into the stock effectively enough to not cause damage.

 

[Zak Smith]

I have heard (and this may very well be dead wrong) that using the bayonet on an M4/M16 can screw up some of the inner workings of the weapon.

How about we stick to things we actually know personally?

As for 600 rounds ro failure.. At the ITRC last year, we shot over 550 rounds through our carbines in about 20 minutes. Most of the guns ran fine. The ones that didn't, failed because of improper (aftermarket) gas blocks. My JP gamer gun ran 100%.

If 600 rounds to constant failures were true, then nobody could get through a day of training without the gun breaking down. That just doesn't happen. Yes, there are "sick" rifles out there that need repair, but the properly built ones run fine.

 

[TheDutchman]

Never had my RRA failed once, that was rifle related don't know what you ex army boys are taking about.

 

[Bud Light]

The peformance of the AR in on autoglass is suspect unless its a .308 Ar.

 

[RevDisk]

Never had my RRA failed once, that was rifle related don't know what you ex army boys are taking about.

Yes, Dutchman, tis good. But have you stomped on your RRA for a bit, tossed it in a muddy pond overnight, stomped on it a bit more, wash it out with small amount of water, and then tried firing it? What is the longest relatively sustained amount of firing you've subjected it to?

That's not even touching arctic conditions, nor sandstorms, nor a dozen other environmental concerns.

I'm not trying to be cynical. I've subjected my M16A2 to much worse.

Plus, don't forget, lowest bidder usually gets the govt contract.

The Army pays something along the lines of mid $400 per M16A2. At least that's the amount on the property books. I'm not sure what the Materials Command or contract folks actually pay per weapon, and I at times think that no one truly does. Comparing a $400-$600 M16 to a much more expensive AR-15 isn't exactly a fair comparison. I've seen AR's for sale that cost between $1000-$1500. If a weapon costs three times as much, I'd very much expect (hope) it to be of superior quality.

 

[2ndChapterofActs]

I'm BACK <grin>! Didja miss me?

The comment about the cost more better quility. I don't think that is the case. The US Military dosn't deal in all the stuff that we basic consumers do. You can get military packs and stuff cheaper then their civie counterparts.

Don't worry, if I ticked anybody off the last time with my little AK v. M16/M4 bit I won't be posting a whole lot here but if somebody (Too Many Choices) would pop me an email to let me know when the next big AK/AR fight pops up I really would like to get back to the arguments again!

 

[jefnvk]

You know what needs to happen? Someone needs to get a bunch of M15's and a bunch of AKM's. Do everything imaginable to them. Smash them, drop them, heat them up, freeze them, drop them in water for a few days, maybe even salt water, cake them with mud, run them full auto for hours on end, etc.

I would bet that both types of guns have some that fail, some that work throught all the testing.

I am still of the belief that if we were fielding the AKM, you know, thousands of soldiers using it day in and day out, we would find out about its little problems, too.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

2ndChapterOfActs,

Will do .

Jefnvk, Righ on the money as usual.

Again people, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THE AR-15/M-16/M-4, YOU ONLY HAVE TO RESPECT IT !! ALL Battle/War proven designs deserve that much ...

PS: Why would I throw my rifle in the mud and muck when Uncle Sam has already fine-tuned and proven the design for me?

 

[dakotasin]

oh, for the love of pete!

 

[AZ Jeff]

Someone needs to get a bunch of M15's and a bunch of AKM's. Do everything imaginable to them. Smash them, drop them, heat them up, freeze them, drop them in water for a few days, maybe even salt water, cake them with mud, run them full auto for hours on end, etc.

Does anyone here think that somebody in the DOD has not already done this long ago? Just because it's not internet legend does not mean it did not happen.

Case in point: back in 1982, when NATO was considering adoption of the .223 cartridge (or some variant thereof) MANY then "cutting edge" self loading rifles were tested using the then-current M193 ball ammo from the US. Among those tested were the FNC, Galil, FAMAS, G41, etc. (The outcome of all this testing was the adoption by NATO of the "SS109" cartridge.)

Guess what rifle was the benchmark against which to measure reliabilty? The M16A1. Guess which rifle had the best MRBS (mean rounds between stoppages)? The M16A1.

Does any of this get much play on the internet? No. Why? Because the testing and results was not widely distributed thru commerical media channels, so the "legend" was not widely circulated.

So, just because you have not heard of a test between the vaunted AK and the maligned M16 does not mean it has not been done.