When do you deem an AR-15 reliable?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Good&Fruity

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
227
Mine don't jam, but I only shoot slow fire at targets. I will say I have shot 1,000 rounds of Tula which is dirty as heck through one and another 1,000 .22 lr without cleaning (just lubing) and it still doesn't jam.

Some say that I need to dump 3-6 mags rapid fire to consider it reliable. Do you agree?
 
I usually run it about 500-1000 rounds without cleaning just lubing. If it can do that then I consider it reliable.
 
After 1 or 2 hard range/training sessions I will trust a rifle. It isn't about round count it is about how hard you run those rounds through it.
 
It definitely tells you something about your rifle's reliability that it can fire that many rounds between cleaning and not malfunction, but to get the full picture of its reliability you need to get it hot and keep it hot, and get down in the dirt, mud, and snow.
 
I don't go to ranges, I shoot in the woods. It get's covered in dust and debris from walking in the woods, going prone, etc.

The thing I haven't really done with it is getting it hot with .223 and seeing if it chockes. I've dumped 6-8 mags of .22 through it fast and no problems.

Guess it's time to eat the money and do it with .223, I'm just wondering how many mags I should dump?
 
Last edited:
There's no real reason to waste ammo doing a bunch of mag dumps through the gun to test reliability, especially if the bulk of your shooting is slow fire paper-punching.

Blasting through a bunch of magazines just to see what happens will tell you nothing about how the gun handles and shoots when it starts to get hot, and even less if you don't first mark your magazines before doing so, as most stoppages in AR-pattern guns can be traced back to magazine problems.

The best way to test reliability is to do so under situations that are strenuous for both you and the rifle. The best way to do that is to either attend some local rifle or 3 Gun matches, or go and take a rifle class from someone like Louis Awerbuck.
 
Yeah, you'd get a lot more out of the experience by going to a class to test reliability, rather than just doing some mag dumps. Any decent carbine course will get your rifle plenty hot.
 
I have never had a problem with an AR that wasn't mag related. I buy quality magazines and replace them regularly..for $15-18 why not. Keep the old Mag bodies for spares and junk the rest. They are just too cheap right now for me to justify any other method.
 
I've had no stoppages of any kind yet in several seasons of rolling around in the dirt at matches. Couple thousand rounds so far.

I think it's safe to call my AR reliable.
 
Reliability is a relative term as nothing is 100% reliable in 100% of situations. Run it in a way as close to how you expect it could be needed. For example, if its an end of the world zombie gun let it go many rounds between cleanings.

IMO the controversy surrounding AR reliability does not really apply to semi auto versions.
 
we have two identical carbines that have never had a single stop between them, of any kind. never "oh it was a bad magazine" or "well, i was riding the bolt into battery"............. absolutely zero period.

@ around 1000rds each i started think "wow, these are pretty reliable"
@ around 3000rds each i knew "holy cow these things are reliable"
@ around 6000rds each i knew "these are the most reliable firearms ive ever seen"

the last time we took them out we ran them hard by anyones standards, and the total round count to date is just shy of 20,000 rds between the two.

all ammo has been my handloads on a progressive press with automatic case feeder. most of the bullets have been hornady or winchester 55g fmjbt -w- cannelure, sitting on 22g of hodgdons h322, cci standard small rifle primers, c.o.a.l. of 2.225,

still no stops as of yet. (you go mobil1!!)

i think they are reliable.
 
I agree that AR's are way more reliable than the "legends" suggest.

In my actual experience they've been more reliable than the "legendary" AK's. What gives?

I deem mine reliable when it consistantly works with regular cleaning and maintenance that any normal use of my carbine would require or allow. It's been a non-issue.

The only failures I've really had were related to weird positions or really really bad ammo. Even then a simple 3 second failure drill fixed it. I've never been able to blame a Pmag equiped AR, from any reputable AR builder.
 
The only issue I have had with mine is an occsaaional failure to extract. Last one I had was after 100 rds in the session and I had to get a cleaning rod to knock it out. Cleared that one, then shot another 60 or so without problems. This was with brass ammo (S&B) which is usually pretty good stuff. Rifle was hot as I had gone thru 3 mags pretty fast. In about 1000 rds since I bought the rifle, I have had about 4 FT Extract.

I plan to change out the springs to the Power Extracter type and hope this cures the problem. I will also pay close attention to chamber cleanliness for my future sessions and see what happens.

Anyone else have suggestions?
 
I'd consider my AR reliable when the target is knocked down for good. Other than that about 500 rounds. My new DPMS 308 TAC20 has only 100 rounds of reloads thru it. So far so good.
 
jimbeaux82, if a new extractor and spring doesn't fix it (and I would replace both, since they're cheap), check that your buffer weight is correct for your gas system length.
 
In my actual experience they've been more reliable than the "legendary" AK's.

This has been my direct experience as well, though the AK fanbois uniformly claim that I am wrong.

Me three. The only malfunction my M15A2C has ever suffered was feeding with a cheap 40 round gunshow mag, which also choked a RRA carbine and my PLR-16. I simply discarded that mag. With GI mags, P-mags and Beta-C mags, never a hiccup in many thousands of rounds.
 
Magazines are the #1 cause of malfunctions. Use the ones you trust the most, and realize they are the weak link in the design. It was build to use a straight 20 round mag, nearly new every time. Treat M16 mags like the flimsy lightweight disposable throw aways they are, and don't stress over crushing a bad one.

Ammo is the #2 cause of malfunctions, and tightly controlled by milspec to provide adequate gas to operate the M16/M4 in a narrow window. The military doesn't issue plinker rounds, or odd ball weights. It's a select and narrow range. Run it on full power rounds, it works. Not everyone gets good results with cheap import fodder, reject surplus overruns, or anonymous reloads from a gun show. Those are almost universally reported as part of a kaboom or function problem.

It's always amazed me how many will argue milspec guns are the only proper standard, then shoot junk fodder in them and claim great accuracy from three shot groups. Military standard is milspec issue ammo only, and ten shot groups accepting the lot. That draws a distinct line in the sand for those who are really only giving it lip service.
 
It's always amazed me how many will argue milspec guns are the only proper standard, then shoot junk fodder in them and claim great accuracy from three shot groups. Military standard is milspec issue ammo only, and ten shot groups accepting the lot. That draws a distinct line in the sand for those who are really only giving it lip service.

I have got to agree with Tirod on this one. Never understood someone who will buy a + $1000.00 rifle and then shoot cheap ammo through it.
 
I have four 2 pound coffee cans full of brass plus a three three pound can full of brass... mind you that's only the brass I policed up ater shooting.

My AR might be the most reliable semi auto firearm I have ever owned.

This is a pile of brass 2.5 by 2 feet by about 9 inches thick, which is making a BIG dent in my space mattress or it would look deeper. (I was sorting brass today.)
 

Attachments

  • DSC08315.jpg
    DSC08315.jpg
    297.4 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.