Worth looking at and thinking about.
I respectfully disagree on the overall assessment of M16/M4/AR-15 platform. They do need to be cleaned now and again but nothing crazy. They don't need to be spotless, just have the inside free of junk (chunks of carbon usually being the culprit) and some lube in there. If you are unwilling to do that then buy an AK. As to durability. I haven't seen the Buttstock/ buffer tube of an AR series rifle break during the course of military operations. Like any precise mechanical object they can be broken; I confident it would be easy to destroy any of the old WWII bolt action warhorses, a Remington 870, AK, Glock or whatever in 60 seconds flat by slamming it repeatedly into a rock or a curb. (The exception to this is the old M2 .50 cal because it is too heavy to swing well and has really thick metal components, I would have to take off the barrel and mess up the threads or take pliers to the trigger mechanism which would kind of be cheating).
In my opinion the M16/M4/AR-15 platforms ergonomics and commonality/ availability of parts/ accessories/ ammunition as well as the unparraleled modularity outweigh it's modest negatives.
Posts
7 comments:
The AR family does indeed suffer from reliability issues due to the direct impingement system of functioning, as Casey B. was referring to (along with stock/receiver extesion tubing problems if the buttstock takes enough of a blow from being dropped while dismounting from the back end of a truck or an equivalent distance).
After firing only 150 rounds through my new Bushmaster Patrolman (M4 copy), the lighter, 50 grain Federal .223 ammo I was shooting failed to fully cycle the bolt. Not all the time, but with some frequency. Cleaning it made a difference, and it worked again with that ammo, for a while.
After modifying that same M4gery with an Adams Arms gas piston kit (basically identical to the gas piston system in my AR-180), I never had another failure to function over the 1200 rounds it has fired so far. The only cleaning it has gotten (as I am testing its reliability) is a Boresnake through the barrel after each trip to the range or the desert.
The AR platform - with standard direct impingement system - requires religious cleaning, including carbon scraping - if you wish to trust your life to the weapon. Otherwise you are holding a "range whore" which could fail you at the worst moment.
If target shooting is your game, do as this gentleman suggests and clean it occasionally. If you want a reliable weapon to defend your family and your home, you'll have to do better than that.
One negative is that it looks like an "assault rifle".
Another negative, is that the civilian versions can share parts with the military versions... people think "Oh, that is great! I can scavenge military rifles and ammo!". I think SHTF it might easily go the other way: You will have valuable materials to help the "war effort"... "Help your government, patriot!" :) Where as I doubt they will be interested in a friendly looking wooden hunting rifle (short of a complete firearm confiscation).
I think a better option would be the SKS... now, I know what you are thinking: "An SKS isn't better than an AR-15 or an AK!!! Are you crazy?!!!?". Well, no, *ONE* SKS isn't better than an AR. But where I live you can get them by the crate of 10 (sold as "investment packs"), for less than $200 a piece... you can get crates of dirt cheap ammo... and as long as you leave the bayonet off, it doesn't look all that different than a friendly politically-correct wood hunting rifle.
Even if an AR-15 or AK are more reliable than an SKS... Are they more reliable than a crate of SKSs? Redundancy is nice, and you can always arm 9 friends if need be!
I agree, as the tool is only as good as the operator.
I had my issues with the M16A1, but I wouldn't mind owning one. I have a Ruger Mini-14 instead, because it was a lot cheaper when I got it. I've never had trouble with the A2 or M4.
I'll pass on an AK, never was able to hit a target with one past 100 yards.
From a repair standpoint, the guy has a point, but I'd take my M16A1 that would jam every round after the first magazine (bad bolt ejector) over an AK, because at least it shot where it pointed. Accuracy counts.
RegT, Was the gun lubed or dry? The AR platform functions best with more oil than a lot of guns need. As to buttstocks breaking I can't recall seeing it(and I just spent a year in Afghanistan). Maybe it is that I am so used to dealing with the (modest) downsides that they aren't an issue.
I like the piston idea as it would fix the platforms biggest downside. This system looks promising. I am sort of waiting for the Army to do a bunch of tests and buy a kit then work the kinks out before ordering one.
@8:49, To me the SKS is out as a primary defensive rifle because it has a 10 round fixed magazine. As to their reliability SKS's are either flawless or total junk, not much middle ground. If going that way I would get a couple AK's then stash a few SKS's as backups.
"the lighter, 50 grain Federal .223 ammo I was shooting failed to fully cycle the bolt."
No offence, but the platform wasn't designed around that ammunition. Perhaps better results would be obtained using hot 55-69 grain ammo that would be closer to the design parameters. This assuming 1:9 twist. If faster twist, shoot heavier stuff. Your milage may vary, but using one rifle as example of the entire population is faulty logic from the get-go.
H
AR ergonomics are, IMHO, the best of the bunch. I think the direct impingement gas system is the only weak spot, but not critically so. I'd like to wait a few years and see whose piston-AR has overcome all the issues and has the legs to last...then I'll probably switch over my DI guns to piston.
Post a Comment