Real rifles

[warhawke]

Actually I'm neither a poser nor a troll, as for jackass. . .been said before, I leave that to you, of course your opinion of me matters little.

As for my experience with the AR's, I fired my first on in 1978 (original Colt no forward assist) and in the last almost 30 years I've fired dozens. Rifles, carbines, A-1's, A-2's and just about everything but the M-4. I even fired an original Sudanese AR-10 as well as several current versions. I've seen them work without a hitch and I've seen then jamming up and down the line. Heck, I've cleaned more AR's than most guys have ever held.

What's wrong with them? I'll skip the gas system dumping carbon into the action as that has been hashed out ad nauseam. We could talk about the fact that most people don't realize that the action works like a pneumatic piston, or the relationship between the gas rings and gas flow out of the bolt-head and how it impacts reliability. We could talk about the fact that while the locking provide 230% of required strength collectively, individually they are weak and prone to damage from abrasion. We could talk about the weak springs throughout, the extractor which is weak and too small, the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems.

I don't think I'll go on, I've been dealing with the AR longer than most of those kids in the sandbox have been alive. I've seen enough ink spilled over them to have grow tired of the subject. If you like them fine, I hope you never have to bet your life on one. Myself, I'll stick to weapons that work, without needing to keep them practically sterile. I also prefer something that kills quickly, as someone once said; "I ain't got time for 'em to bleed to death".               

[USSA-1]

Okay guys, deep six the personal comments.

Discussions and personal opinions are welcome.  Personal attacks are not.

the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems.

Warhawke, I was with you until this.  Care to elaborate?  I haven't heard this one before.

I also prefer something that kills quickly

Anything will kill quickly if you do your part.  A 223 in heart is better than a 308 in the arm.

Erik

[CLP]

Warhawke,
  I can agree with you on the extractor, but there are easy fixes for that.

[warhawke]

Warhawke,
  I can agree with you on the extractor, but there are easy fixes for that.
CLP


If it had been designed better it would need fixing!


"the lack of mass in the fire control parts which adds to the reliability problems."

Warhawke, I was with you until this.  Care to elaborate?  I haven't heard this one before.

Erik Lund

Pull the trigger parts from an AR, an AK, M-1 ect. and compare the size and weight, the mass of the parts in other words. Just like the bullet, more mass means it's harder to stop once it's moving. Heavy parts take more force to move and are thus harder to stop moving once they start, they also require require heavier springs which are harder to damage and work better against resistance from dirt and debris. The lighter parts of the AR's, while reducing the weight of the weapon and being easier to make into a target grade trigger, are more easily jammed by dirt and debris and use lighter springs which themselves are more easily damaged. I've seen plenty of cracked sears, disconnectors and even a couple cracked hammers on AR's, I had an M-16 issued to me in the army which kept bending the disconnect spring (the trigger was cracked and bent behind the pin but not enough to notice until we pulled it out), this caused the weapon to FTF until you tried to apply the safety, then it would fire. The tighter tolerances of the AR trigger system adds greatly to this problem by giving the dirt and fouling nowhere to go and ensuring that even if the parts move the material will rub and scrape causing extra wear and tear on the parts.

The AK trigger group (like the M-1 Garand on which it is based) is full of big heavy parts and springs which are very hard to break and pay little attention to dirt and debris. They also add weight and bulk to the weapon and are difficult to modify to provide a good crisp trigger pull.

Look, the AK was designed to spit bullets, it didn't have to accurate it just had to work under any conditions and in the hands of ignorant peasants. The AR-15 was designed to meet some very specific requirements for the US Air Force. The AR was supposed to be a light weight, flat-shooting replacement for the M-1 Carbine. It was also designed to provide MINIMAL penetration against hard and semi-hard targets, like aircraft. The Air Force had discovered in WWII that security forces could do as much damage attempting to protect the aircraft as the enemy if the bad guys got on the flight line (the SAS noted this during operations in the western desert when they were attacking Rommel's airfields). The 5.56 M-193 did minimal damage because the bullets would break up on the skin of the aircraft and the tiny particles wouldn't penetrate very much. Also the accuracy of the weapon would help prevent hitting the plane in the first place. The Army and Marine Corps had the M-16 rammed down their throats by the DoD by people who had no understanding of small arms employment and the brass had burned up too much political capital fighting over idiotic stuff like different boots and band equipment.

Once the M-16 came into service, the brass had little choice but to get behind it. They came up with all kinds of excuses for why the M-16 was adopted, from the light weight to the "better to wound than kill" BS they spouted (that is only true when you are fighting people who medi-vac during the battle, which none of Americas enemies did, then or now). They couldn't say "This thing sucks but the Sec-Def made us adopt it". Even in 1968, when the Army considered total replacement with the AR-18, political considerations forced them to try to get the M-16 to work instead, because nobody wanted to go to Congress and explain why troops were dying in the field because of the M-16. Even now the military is moving heaven and earth to keep from admitting that the M-16 family of weapons is ill-suited for general purpose use in the field, look at the controversy over the M-4 procurement and how much effort it took to get a simple head to head test against the SCAR and the H&K-416. The military brass is afraid, once again, that they will have to explain why our troops are using the M-16/M-4 when there are much better weapons available.

The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics! A 50 year legacy of failure and death, of men and women who were injured and killed because their weapons failed when needed most. It makes me want to scream when I hear people defending this weapon. Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance, even though the same thing has been happening since the adoption of the weapon, even though identical problems have occurred with combat units and even Navy Seals and Army Special Forces (and I dare anyone to tell THEM that their problems were due to poor maintenance). It especially grates me when the people criticizing the troops are arm-chair commandos who have never tried keeping an M-16 clean and functioning in the field.

Once again, if you have a different opinion, fine. If you've had different experiences (assuming you've had them somewhere other than a nice neat range or your armchair), again, fine. I however have enough knowledge and experience otherwise to have my own opinions and to be willing to defend them against anyone. 

[mnshooter]

I'm thinking you meant: "If it had been designed better, it would not need fixing. 
There is a lot of validity to your comments regarding the politics attached to the M16.
Now if we can all cease the personal attacks, we'll continue to enjoy this fine site.

[Sponsor]

[JohnJacobH]

The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics! A 50 year legacy of failure and death, of men and women who were injured and killed because their weapons failed when needed most. It makes me want to scream when I hear people defending this weapon. Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance, even though the same thing has been happening since the adoption of the weapon, even though identical problems have occurred with combat units and even Navy Seals and Army Special Forces (and I dare anyone to tell THEM that their problems were due to poor maintenance). It especially grates me when the people criticizing the troops are arm-chair commandos who have never tried keeping an M-16 clean and functioning in the field.

 

Warhawke;

These are good points and have much truth, but a bigger truth is that some things never change.

The rule has always been (and always will be ) :

Never let the sun set on a dirty gun.

Back in the Black Powder days the hydroscopic characteristics of the residue would rust the holy heck out of everything, then you
had the wonderful corrosive primers of the WWI era (straight through to WWII as I understand in some instances) and now
you have the fiddly jewel movement of a inordinately precise machine that needs constant attention.

Do they still teach the troops to field strip and reassemble their weapons blindfolded? (Even better, do the tactical instruction
courses cover that topic?)

If I recall correctly even Clyde Darrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame religiously cleaned his 1911A1 every night. He was in a bunch
of gunfights and won most of them right to the end.  Was it because he was a better shot or a more disciplined fighter?

The ways of the military have always been and always will be mysterious and right now most of our troops prevail most of the time with better training, better equipment and better discipline than their opponents.

Should we do some of the things we do? Probably not. Will anyone listen until the feathers hit the fan? Probably not.

A marginal weapon in the hands of skilled troops will always be used to better effect than a superior weapon in the hands
of marginal troops.

Hope this helps.

Have you had an opportunity to examine the Benelli Inertial Bolt setup? Everything I have heard has really excited me.

Best regards,

[m25operator]

I guess I'll stick my toes in the water here. It sounds more like caliber selection than weapon selection on one point, reliability versus accuracy on another, adaptability to the situation on another.

Well here go's. I've owned ar15's and still do, M1a's and still do, M1 garands but don't now, ak47's not now, sks's and still do, HK91-don't now, M1 carbine - not now, enfield smle's mk1 and mk2, o3a3's - still do.

None are select fire.

Reliability for all 100% with decent ammo, not match but good surplus.

Accuracy, ar15 1st by a hair, not including my match gun, issue barrels and under 300 yards.

2nd my M1a service rifle, consistently shoot 89% possible score with czech 147 ball surplus, jumps to 94% with US Lake City match 168grn. Beats the 5.56 hands down beyond 300 yards.

3rd my a303, 2 minute gun, but holds it way out there.

4th M1 garand, 2.5 minute gun and no complaint.

5th Hk91 2.5 minute gun, mainlydue to trigger and less than perfect sight picture or adjustments.

6th Sks, 3 minute gun, but holds it out to 500 meters, 15 inches does not sound great, but from a 200 dollar rifle with a crappy trigger and poor sights using chinese milsurp ball, very usable.

7th Ak47 3.5 to 4 minute gun, I like ak triggers, long and light, better than most issue triggers for close fast work, and not bad for careful application.

I would not feel under gunned with any of the above but concessions have to made about caliber. 5.56 allows us to carry many rounds into the field, but does not have the penetration against things bad guys like to hide behind. ( good guys too ) but on a raw target unprotected, yeah it works just fine. On just about any hit on a human it makes bad juju. Head, torso or extremities.

The 7.62 x 39 round is no joke, I shot a match that the first 5 places were taken with sks's and ak's due to penetration, at the last part of the run, you had 20 steel targets propped up on logs( that you could not see, because the grass was too high )
and with the 5.56 your normal aiming point was into the grass for a center of mass hit, that round would not penetrate the logs to reach the steel. But boy did that 7.62x39.

I'm a big fan of the .308 and 30.06, it will do both jobs, but at a cost of weight, ammo count +  weight, I've carried the M1a's and Garands in the field, and you want to sling it as soon as possible, bless you guys who carried them for real, ready for action, it gets old fast. If you and your units bacon is on the line, do what you gotta do. I do certainly like a rifle I count on to 600 meters, to hit hard and accurate. The latest designated marksman m4's do that with the mk77 ammo.

The extractor on an ar15 compared to the rimsize is just as robust as it's counter parts.  I too like the gas piston system versus the direct gas pressure on the bolt, but guess what, you can get that if you want, and will probably be the next evolution of the AR platform, that is the coolest thing about AR's, kind of like chevrolets small block engines, what ever you don't like can be remedied. Caliber, trigger pull, sighting systems, stock configurations, options for sighting or lighting, bipods and a host of other options. You can't get that on a Garand or a303. Just now coming out for the M1a, Ak47, and even the Sks. But it can be had.

As to the design, remember Eugen Stoner built the rifle for extruded powder and 500 rpm, it was the dod, who said at the last minute, it needs to use ball powder ( changing the burn time to put more fouling in the gas tube ) and 650 rpm. It was designed wonderfully. Unlike the other guns I have mentioned, it has evolved, only a few of the previously mentioned rifles have to any degree. The HK91/93 had the sniper versions with better sighting systems and trigger. Only recently have the M1a's been paid attention to, I think mainly because the people in the sand box have issues with penetration with the 5.56. I for one am glad to see the m14 come back to life. ( except for the milsurp ammo drying up, but if our guys can use it, go for it and if they run out, I'll send em my stash  ).

As to the mass of the fire control, it is dimunitive to match the size and caliber of the rifle. Granted, the 5.56 has plenty of pressure, but all things considered, it does not take a big hammer and spring to set off primers, and the buffer spring is humongus compared to any of the above mentioned firearms. They also do not have a buffer at all.

You posed a lot of scenarios, in my home it's 12 guage and 9mm first to allow me to get to my AR15, if I gotta go play with some notice my M1a will be there, along with the aforementioned. My sks with the 75 round drum, ( works flawlessly) also has it's place. My M40a3 also has it's place as does my 26" match AR built for 80 grn vld Berger bullets. 800 meter mouse gun. I would definitely like to have an AR in 7.62x39 that accepts AK mags to complete the armory.

A firearm choice has always been built on reliability , power, distance to the target, size of the target, how many targets could there be, accuracy requirement, conditions of deployment, ( needs are different in a tank than out of one ) and what are you personally willing to carry.

[USSA-1]

Warhawke,
 

  ...are more easily jammed by dirt and debris and use lighter springs which themselves are more easily damaged.

In my experience, I've never seen anything in the fire control system jam from dirt or debris, but I, like you, have seen parts in the fire control system break.  Mostly disconnectors and hammer springs.  Never saw a trigger or hammer break, but I'm sure it's happened.

The tighter tolerances of the AR trigger system adds greatly to this problem by giving the dirt and fouling nowhere to go and ensuring that even if the parts move the material will rub and scrape causing extra wear and tear on the parts.

There is plenty of clearance at the bottom of the fire control section for dirt and debris (D&D) to collect, but I've never really had a problem with much accumulation in this area.  The only way for D&D to get into that area is through the trigger area (assuming the rifle is closed up.)  I'm not saying it can't happen, only that I've never experienced it and I've been had my rifle down in some pretty nasty stuff.  About the only D&D that has caused my a problem in my fire control system is a blown primer that got stuck under the trigger.  It prevented the trigger from releasing the hammer, effectively causing the rifle not to fire.

The only area in the fire control system that is susceptable to wear are the tiny areas on the sides of the hammer and trigger that fit snugly against the side of the receiver.  The possibility of D&D getting into those areas is very remote for the same reason you've already stated.  The tolerances in those areas are very tight.  I've never seen anything other than the finest particules of dust get into those areas. 

I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue.  My experiences just do not relate to yours.

They also add weight and bulk to the weapon and are difficult to modify to provide a good crisp trigger pull.

Are you raising this issue as a good point or bad point?  I would think that extra weight and and heavier trigger pulls would be a bad point, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with respect to this statement.

It was also designed to provide MINIMAL penetration against hard and semi-hard targets, like aircraft.

Okay, makes sense to me.

from the light weight to the "better to wound than kill" BS they spouted (that is only true when you are fighting people who medi-vac during the battle, which none of Americas enemies did, then or now).

The premier "enemy" of the United States was the Soviet Union, which did and still does place a very high regard on recovering and treating it's wounded soldiers.  When debating the merits of this philosophy its important to remember that nearly all weapon systems and strategic planning were based on an eventual confrontation with the Soviet Union.  Taken in this context, this was a very valid argument.

Even now the military is moving heaven and earth to keep from admitting that the M-16 family of weapons is ill-suited for general purpose use in the field, look at the controversy over the M-4 procurement and how much effort it took to get a simple head to head test against the SCAR and the H&K-416. The military brass is afraid, once again, that they will have to explain why our troops are using the M-16/M-4 when there are much better weapons available.

I can say from personal knowledge that nothing is ever simple when it comes to Government procurement.  Many of the delays in testing were a result of manufacturers requesting extensions.  When the Government issues a request for submission, it can not specify who submits items for consideration.  The Government will issue a set of criteria that any submission must meet prior to testing.  The Government cannot simply say, "We want to test the SCAR and 416."  They have to open testing up to anyone who can meet the submission requirements.  Numerous issues have crept up with the testing process from which tests were selected to how the results were evaluated.  None of delay issues are on the Governments side.  Remember, the contract for the replacement of the standard military rifle is worth Billions over decades.  Every manufacturer is pulling out all the stops to win this contract and everyone that loses is crying foul the instant something doesn't go their way.  As a result, the testing process is moving slower than a snail on flypaper.

As for the M4 being ill-suited for general issue, I'll have to disagree with you. Consider two things.  First, if you look at the Special Operations Community (SOC), it has the ability to go outside the normal procurement system and use any weapon system they desire.  This is plainly visible by the fact that the SEALS use 9mm Sig 226 pistols, while DELTA and Marine Force Recon still use 1911 pistols.  Back in the early 90's, the M4 came to life at the request of the SOC as the SOPMOD M4.  They were not required to use the M4, but requested several improvements and design changes to the original Colt Commando (11" carbine.)  They could have used or selected any weapon in the world, but they chose to use an upgraded M16 platform.

Second, consider the rest of the world.  There can be no argument that the two most prominent weapon systems in the world are the AK and the M16.  The biggest difference being that we didn't give M16's away to every country in the World for free.  Some we did, but others willfully choose it and paid for it.  The best example I can think of is Israel.  They have produced some of the best and most reliable weapon systems ever (the UZI and the Galiel come to mind), yet they are now using older A1 commando M16's.  If there is any Country in the World that would dump a weapon system for failure to perform, it would be the Israeli's.  They don't even use their own stuff because when taken as a whole, the M16 is a better system.

The M-16 has been with us for 50 years because of politics!

No argument here.  Politics have always been involved with expensive weapon systems and always will be.  Remember the Bradley FV?

Like when the 507th Maintenance company got tore up (the unit Jessica Lynch was in) and everybody blamed poor weapons maintenance,

I've trained enough Military people (from line troops to all the go fast guys) to appreciate that the real fault here was a lack of training in all aspects of warfare, including weapons maintenance.  This was an example of training failures at all levels.  The outcome would not have changed even if every weapon worked perfectly.  These brave soldiers did the best they could under the circumstances, but the outcome was inevitable.  I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole as this is quite a drift.  Another topic for another time.

Once again, if you have a different opinion, fine. If you've had different experiences (assuming you've had them somewhere other than a nice neat range or your armchair), again, fine. I however have enough knowledge and experience otherwise to have my own opinions and to be willing to defend them against anyone.

 

Never been called an armchair commando before, guess there is a first time for everything!

Warhawke, fortunately you live in a Country that has plenty of options for you.  We know how you feel about the AR, so what is your choice instead of the AR?

Erik 

[JohnJacobH]

Back in the Black Powder days the hydroscopic characteristics of the residue would rust the holy heck out of everything,

Okay, I have had my coffee and can now confidently say it is hyGROscopic, not hyDROscopic!

If I recall correctly even Clyde Darrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame

And yes, it is equally true the famous Bank Robber's name was Clyde Barrow, not Clyde Darrow!

Many thanks to all for not mercilessly heckling me.

If you spot any other errors please just keep them to yourselves as well.

Best regards to all,

[warhawke]

USSA-1
First off I wasn't calling YOU an armchair commando, you are clearly not.

I've been trying to answer this all day and between my busted right hand and my computer which is crying for tech support right now I have not managed too do so.

I'm just gonna let this whole thing drop. I didn't intend to start this whole thing in the first place really. I just would like to see more Main Battle Rifles instead of the 'Cult of the AR' which you can get at just about any website around.

As for what rifles I like better (skipping the FN, H&K etc. that I mentioned at the beginning) I like all the SIG's from the PE-57 to the AMT to the 55X's. The FN-FNC is nice, the FAMAS, the AUG is interesting, heck I just like firearms, but I prefer ones that do the job, as advertised, right out of the box. I don't demand perfection, the AK is far from perfect, but it works.

I like 7.62 NATO, but the 6.5 Grendel has awesome potential, the 6.8 looks to be a fine close to medium range round, heck the 7mm-08 would be one of the finest rounds you could have if it were loaded well, say with a 150gr VLD bullet at about 2800fps, and let's not forget the 7.62x54r, the 7.92mm or the 30-06. I like what I shoot at to fall down and not bother me anymore, not keep coming till I pop it a half-dozen times. I also don't like to depend on luck or trick bullets or super fine shooting skills in the middle of a fire-fight, those fine motor skills tend to get less fine when somebody is throwing hot lead biscuits in your direction. Thump a guy in the torso with a 7.62 NATO or a '54r and he is likely to get the message, with a 5.56 I don't want to bet on it.

So, I'll keep believing what I do, you all will keep doing the same and we can just get back to enjoying things here.

Sorry about the mess.