Appeal of the AR

[ceyko]

By the time we got to the later variants, we stopped having crazy problems with them.

Concur

[YALE]

Concur

See you at the range, homie!

[CJ]

I have had ARs jam more than any other gun. My factory rock river gun jams like a sunofabitch. DI may keep costs down, but it is nasty as hell and makes for a tedious cleaning process. I like guns with gas pistons, as they are generally more reliable and seem to be the natural progression. The army's test showed the m4 with more stoppages than piston guns-




If that doesn't prove that more modern piston setups are more reliable, then I do not know what will.

Also, hasn't the m16/ar platform... you know... lost wars? And it is popular because of a combination of factors ranging from import bans to the number of players in the game. Hell, in the 80s HK roller locked stuff was way more popular than AR stuff, and in the 90s FALs were the gun to have and build. Now, the import ban stopped HK stuff from flooding in, and 922r killed the FAL, so the AR is all most people gravitate to.




Cool opinion bro. I like folding stocks. My MP5k will have one soon, and my MG has one. I like shooting full auto with the stock folded in

You're comparing a weapon against 3 other's which are 4x as much money. Of course it has more stoppages than a piston setup, that's going to be obvious. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter for us, we're not combat fighters. For the amount it costs to convert your AR to a piston, I can purchase another upper, and have another weapon - which I consider to be considerably more useful. Basically, my point is we're dick swinging here, wallet warrior mentality - throw cash at something that never needed it. Direct impingement is lighter, more simple, and completely reliable. If anyone on here plans on shooting more than 3,000 rounds without cleaning it, then maybe you should look into a gas piston setup.

I guess what I'm preaching from my soap box is the perceived problem that direct impingement presents is completely overblown and is on the verge of absurd in comparison to it's reliability. Even in combat, no rifle should ever exceed 3,000 rounds without a cleaning - so even in the worst situations I find the argument weak. If my life was on the line - I would have a gas piston setup. But, for the cost, I'd rather have another weapon. And if the shit hit the fan IRL - I'd carry my M16A1 on my back, and my G3 as my weapon of choice/reliability. Neither of which I might add are gas piston, and both of which are dirty as shit - but I know them, I know they're reliable, and I trust them. And in battle, you go with what you trust, and even direct impingement is very trustworthy. It's unfortunate your experience with your RRA AR is poor, but I've never had any of the issues you are so adamant about with my AR-15's - I've had to use the forward assist maybe once or twice in all of the guns I've owned. But, I've also fired DPMS rifles which fucked up all the time and were crap, and that's do to poor quality and improperly built weapons.

And no, I wouldn't say the AR15/M16 has lost any wars it's been involved in - politicians lose wars. AR-15's shoot tight groups and kill people. And to compare, the 3 rifles below it in that chart are fresh to the battlefield - one of which is still experimental. None are war tested and proven like the AR-15 is - and won't be for another 50 years.

[CJ]

I'm also aware of in the Vietnam era the M16 pissing people off and arguably costing the lives of the first models being used.

There is a whole lot of theory and conjecture about this and a whole hell of a lot of misinformation floating around, 99% of people don't understand the history and progression of the initial M16 failures. Armalite/Stoner designer that weapon to fire extruded/stick powers- IMR-4198 specifically. The US military and kennedy's brain children decided to go with the cheaper to produce ball powder at the beginning of the war - which burns much dirtier. They made this selection AGAINST and WITHOUT the notification of Armalite. The weapons went into US troops hands with ball powder - against the warnings of armalite. Now, usually this wouldn't be a problem you would just need to clean the rifle more - but they didn't issue cleaning kits to the very first slab side A1's. This turned a problem into a disaster. Now, it should be mentioned that these problems primarily only happened for 7-10 months and many people argue only a few units ever had this issue for more than a few months at most, but it was a long enough span to tarnish it's reputation and stick in the mind of every M16/AR15 detractor out there, and it's a shame. But, the quality, innovation, and design prove the resiliency of the design - it's still around today, and was able to survive politicians.

Now, personally I take a great deal of offense and frustration with some people who don't seem to understand how revolutionary and genius the AR-15 design is. It had so many unique features never seen before that it is in a class of it's own. I personally maintain that no rifle previous or since has revolutionized the combat rifle as much as the AR-15 did. The AK-47 was the same damn thing all previous automatic rifles were, it was just executed and designed simple and reliable. The AR-15 was a completely different approach, and just about every part of it was new and never used before. And, mind you, almost every current issue rifle copies those features to some degree.

<-AR-15 nut hugger.

[ceyko]

<-AR-15 nut hugger.

lol, generally speaking you're preaching to the choir here. I'm not quite as informed as you on the history of some aspects of the rifle, but I'm familiar with the post you just mentioned. (recall it from some documentary about Vietnam I watched to be honest)

Regardless - if nothing else - there is more then one reason so many prior service guys have 1 or more of these rifles.

If it was truly a death trap/crappy rifle...whatever it would've been replaced by now. Also, service members would be raising non-stop chaos about it as well.

edit: Good posts btw.

[KBScobravert]

It is no secret I enjoy an AR or dozen. I am a gas piston nut hugger though, mainly because cleaning is a breeze, the bolt never gets warm and the gases are not blowing back in my face when I shoot suppressed. But most of my ARs are DI guns and I am just fine with that too.

I have shot several thousand rounds through a few of my ARs and I have never had a jam one. CJ is spot on with the difference in the powder solving the early woes of the M16.

[hotrod66stang]

<-AR-15 nut hugger.

Thanks for all the info. Nice little history lesson there.

If it was truly a death trap/crappy rifle...whatever it would've been replaced by now.

You would think so. If ford can get the 6.0 diesel replaced after just a few years, the military could get a life-endangering weapon replaced.

[CJ]

Thanks for all the info. Nice little history lesson there.
You would think so. If ford can get the 6.0 diesel replaced after just a few years, the military could get a life-endangering weapon replaced.

haha, the 6.0 was a unreliable version of the 7.3L. The 6.4L in an unreliable version of no predecessor - and those things are awful in comparison to the 6.0L from all accounts. But, the new 6.7L is a beast, looks to be an excellent motor - congrats to ford. But yes, good point.

[Moose242]

You're comparing a weapon against 3 other's which are 4x as much money. Of course it has more stoppages than a piston setup, that's going to be obvious. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter for us, we're not combat fighters. For the amount it costs to convert your AR to a piston, I can purchase another upper, and have another weapon - which I consider to be considerably more useful. Basically, my point is we're dick swinging here, wallet warrior mentality - throw cash at something that never needed it. Direct impingement is lighter, more simple, and completely reliable. If anyone on here plans on shooting more than 3,000 rounds without cleaning it, then maybe you should look into a gas piston setup.

I guess what I'm preaching from my soap box is the perceived problem that direct impingement presents is completely overblown and is on the verge of absurd in comparison to it's reliability. Even in combat, no rifle should ever exceed 3,000 rounds without a cleaning - so even in the worst situations I find the argument weak. If my life was on the line - I would have a gas piston setup. But, for the cost, I'd rather have another weapon. And if the shit hit the fan IRL - I'd carry my M16A1 on my back, and my G3 as my weapon of choice/reliability. Neither of which I might add are gas piston, and both of which are dirty as shit - but I know them, I know they're reliable, and I trust them. And in battle, you go with what you trust, and even direct impingement is very trustworthy. It's unfortunate your experience with your RRA AR is poor, but I've never had any of the issues you are so adamant about with my AR-15's - I've had to use the forward assist maybe once or twice in all of the guns I've owned. But, I've also fired DPMS rifles which fucked up all the time and were crap, and that's do to poor quality and improperly built weapons.

And no, I wouldn't say the AR15/M16 has lost any wars it's been involved in - politicians lose wars. AR-15's shoot tight groups and kill people. And to compare, the 3 rifles below it in that chart are fresh to the battlefield - one of which is still experimental. None are war tested and proven like the AR-15 is - and won't be for another 50 years.

CJ, your post essentially validated what I said. A piston system is more reliable, and the more modern platforms I have mentioned are improvements upon the AR's design; they take what the AR did well and kept it, all the while adding improvements like a piston system, ambi controls, etc.

Also, lets not play the need game here. I am one of those guys that is always willing to pay a bit more for quality, and often uniqueness. Sure, I do not need a piston... but none of us need machine guns, semi auto rifles, or hell, none of us even need ARs... but we wanted them and we bought them. I might not be in combat (and I hope that I never am) but I do not mind paying extra for reliability and less potential stoppages. I guess I see it kind of like you would a carburetor versus fuel injection; they both get the job done, but one is more modern and more reliable. Also, lord do I hate cleaning up after a DI gun. The system is damn dirty and you go through half a bag of patches every time you shoot it, especially if you are running a can (in which case residue also hits you in the face).

Let me be clear: I do not dislike the AR platform. In fact, I have NEVER said that it is a bad platform (played out =/= bad). I do however believe that there are better, more modern designs available to consumers. Yes, these rifles cost more. Yes, they are also less "battle proven", but remember that if the fudds at the time of the M16's introduction had their way then it would not have been proven either. There will be a time when the M16 goes the way of the m14, garand, springfield 1903, krag, etc and fades away into history, and I bet you anything that the next gun to be fielded by the US military will have a piston system on it.


PS: Lets go shooting tomorrow.

[CJ]

Gimme a ring tomorrow. I'm free, we can head to my range.

CJ, your post essentially validated what I said. A piston system is more reliable, and the more modern platforms I have mentioned are improvements upon the AR's design; they take what the AR did well and kept it, all the while adding improvements like a piston system, ambi controls, etc.

Also, lets not play the need game here. I am one of those guys that is always willing to pay a bit more for quality, and often uniqueness. Sure, I do not need a piston... but none of us need machine guns, semi auto rifles, or hell, none of us even need ARs... but we wanted them and we bought them. I might not be in combat (and I hope that I never am) but I do not mind paying extra for reliability and less potential stoppages. I guess I see it kind of like you would a carburetor versus fuel injection; they both get the job done, but one is more modern and more reliable. Also, lord do I hate cleaning up after a DI gun. The system is damn dirty and you go through half a bag of patches every time you shoot it, especially if you are running a can (in which case residue also hits you in the face).

Let me be clear: I do not dislike the AR platform. In fact, I have NEVER said that it is a bad platform (played out =/= bad). I do however believe that there are better, more modern designs available to consumers. Yes, these rifles cost more. Yes, they are also less "battle proven", but remember that if the fudds at the time of the M16's introduction had their way then it would not have been proven either. There will be a time when the M16 goes the way of the m14, garand, springfield 1903, krag, etc and fades away into history, and I bet you anything that the next gun to be fielded by the US military will have a piston system on it


PS: Lets go shooting tomorrow.

[bigmuskie]

So since there seems to be some AR savvy peeps in here, I have a question. My new upper has a polygonal 1:7 barrel. Can I still shoot ammo that has say a 55 to 60 grain bullet?

[helosailor]

So since there seems to be some AR savvy peeps in here, I have a question. My new upper has a polygonal 1:7 barrel. Can I still shoot ammo that has say a 55 to 60 grain bullet?

I wouldn't go much lighter than 55 grain. That twist will not be friendly to lighter bullets.

[YALE]

I wouldn't go much lighter than 55 grain. That twist will not be friendly to lighter bullets.

That's a, "yes," bigmuskie.

[bigmuskie]

I wouldn't go much lighter than 55 grain. That twist will not be friendly to lighter bullets.

That's a, "yes," bigmuskie.

Good deal gents. I have plenty of the lighter 55-60 grained ammo.

So when you say "not friendly", are you referring to bullet performance or may cause physical damage to the barrel or rifling?

[helosailor]

Good deal gents. I have plenty of the lighter 55-60 grained ammo.

So when you say "not friendly", are you referring to bullet performance or may cause physical damage to the barrel or rifling?

The higher spin rate on the lighter bullets can cause them to tumble in flight and negatively affects accuracy (the word here is "keyholing"). There have been unconfirmed reports of very light bullets (like, say, 40 grains) coming apart in flight.
It will not hurt your barrel or rifling.