Article details many problems with AR15/M16....
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I have a bit of a problem with the idea that M-16 flaws have much to do with us civilians and our AR-15s. I've had four of the silly things, and I keep finding people who'll give me a profit and there I go messing with something else. But I've never had any sort of failure with an AR. Reasonably clean, rationally lubed and they all seem to work just fine. So, I'm meddling around now with #5...
As far as the .223 cartridge, that's in the eye of the beholder. The "DC Sniper" seemed to do okay. Wily Coyote doesn't like the cartridge at all. Some folks even eat a bunch of Bambi from the .223. Damfino.
One thing for sure: If you don't like them, don't buy them. Seems simple enough.
As far as the .223 cartridge, that's in the eye of the beholder. The "DC Sniper" seemed to do okay. Wily Coyote doesn't like the cartridge at all. Some folks even eat a bunch of Bambi from the .223. Damfino.
One thing for sure: If you don't like them, don't buy them. Seems simple enough.
Most people, IMO who shun the AR-15 design have either never shot one or never shot a good one.
When you go through 100, then 1000 then 5000 rounds playing 'pass the ar-15' in a weekend of shooting with 10 or 15 of your friends, you'll start to come around.
Oh - and the rifle got cleaned I think once with about a 5 minute job (toothbrush, break free, bore snake - so you can imagine what got done - and didn't).
FTFd/FTFi = 0.
How many have they broken or had fails to feed or fire? What did an intelligent, experienced AR expert have to say after the fact or did you just beat your head in trying to figure it out, only to blame a crappy design. People say this, people say that... blah - blah. People say the moon is made of green cheese and the tinfoil on their head keeps the aliens out. Frankly some of it stems from people who're hacked that they can't afford an AR (I can't afford many m'self) and latch onto a soviet - block design made to be used by peasants.
The AR-15 is a Rapier. Fast, light, accurate - anyone can swing and cut, but this is really a duelists / experts blade. The AK-47 is a war hammer. Heavy, blocky, relatively blunt. Deadly even in the hands of a peasant with a few hours of training, verifiably nasty in the hands of a trained fighter.
I don't recommend facing someone armed with either.
When you go through 100, then 1000 then 5000 rounds playing 'pass the ar-15' in a weekend of shooting with 10 or 15 of your friends, you'll start to come around.
Oh - and the rifle got cleaned I think once with about a 5 minute job (toothbrush, break free, bore snake - so you can imagine what got done - and didn't).
FTFd/FTFi = 0.
How many have they broken or had fails to feed or fire? What did an intelligent, experienced AR expert have to say after the fact or did you just beat your head in trying to figure it out, only to blame a crappy design. People say this, people say that... blah - blah. People say the moon is made of green cheese and the tinfoil on their head keeps the aliens out. Frankly some of it stems from people who're hacked that they can't afford an AR (I can't afford many m'self) and latch onto a soviet - block design made to be used by peasants.
The AR-15 is a Rapier. Fast, light, accurate - anyone can swing and cut, but this is really a duelists / experts blade. The AK-47 is a war hammer. Heavy, blocky, relatively blunt. Deadly even in the hands of a peasant with a few hours of training, verifiably nasty in the hands of a trained fighter.
I don't recommend facing someone armed with either.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
O, I think madogre is plenty familiar with the design of the AR - though probably more familiar now than when he wrote that piece.
If you read the article you can see that one of the problems is the cleaning regimen being used. When I was in the military, it also used to be common to demand that M16s be "white glove" clean.
So you take a design that spews carbon into the upper receiver and then tell the 18-24yr old maintaining it that you want it "white glove" clean instead of functionally clean and here is what happens:
1. Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman uses non-approved techniques and cleaners to clean rifle so he isn't there for the rest of his natural life
2. He also doesn't use CLP after cleaning the rifle because all that will do is pull more carbon out of the metal and cause you to fail the whole "white glove" thing. So the rifle goes back into storage dry as a bone usually.
3. Doctrine at the time was the M16 should be sparsely lubricated. Doctrine now (and what has been successful in four different dust tests since 2000) is to run that sucker wet with generous lubrication.
If you combine non-approved cleaners and techniques that strip the metal of any protective films while using little or no lubricant, then the AR15 family of weapons is unlikely to work well for you.
I won't even get into the general disaster that weapons maintenance was at the time; but I remember all kinds of bad parts and magazines being in the system - and worse, when you actually were able to identify a bad magazine or part, pointing it out usually didn't correct the problem - the part or magazine would mysteriously turn up again in another rifle, later on.
At the more high speed units, rifles were used well past their serviceable life simply because some services adopted the "the M16 is designed to last 20 years, therefore there is no need to replace a rifle until 20 years regardless of whether that rifle sees 10,000 rounds or 100,000 rounds" approach. Not to mention that during this time, I used and saw rifles marked XM16E1 on the lower receiver...
Put all those things together and you've got a recipe for unhappiness with any weapon system.
If you read the article you can see that one of the problems is the cleaning regimen being used. When I was in the military, it also used to be common to demand that M16s be "white glove" clean.
So you take a design that spews carbon into the upper receiver and then tell the 18-24yr old maintaining it that you want it "white glove" clean instead of functionally clean and here is what happens:
1. Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman uses non-approved techniques and cleaners to clean rifle so he isn't there for the rest of his natural life
2. He also doesn't use CLP after cleaning the rifle because all that will do is pull more carbon out of the metal and cause you to fail the whole "white glove" thing. So the rifle goes back into storage dry as a bone usually.
3. Doctrine at the time was the M16 should be sparsely lubricated. Doctrine now (and what has been successful in four different dust tests since 2000) is to run that sucker wet with generous lubrication.
If you combine non-approved cleaners and techniques that strip the metal of any protective films while using little or no lubricant, then the AR15 family of weapons is unlikely to work well for you.
I won't even get into the general disaster that weapons maintenance was at the time; but I remember all kinds of bad parts and magazines being in the system - and worse, when you actually were able to identify a bad magazine or part, pointing it out usually didn't correct the problem - the part or magazine would mysteriously turn up again in another rifle, later on.
At the more high speed units, rifles were used well past their serviceable life simply because some services adopted the "the M16 is designed to last 20 years, therefore there is no need to replace a rifle until 20 years regardless of whether that rifle sees 10,000 rounds or 100,000 rounds" approach. Not to mention that during this time, I used and saw rifles marked XM16E1 on the lower receiver...
Put all those things together and you've got a recipe for unhappiness with any weapon system.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
To add to the fray:
The NY Times is running a series of stories on if the M4 sucks and what Iraqis think of it vs. the Ak-47. When it makes the NY Times - then it is world shaking news.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...20rifle&st=cse
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...20rifle&st=cse
There are other articles in the series.
However, nobody suggests that if we rack a shotgun, Al-Qaeda will give up.
The NY Times is running a series of stories on if the M4 sucks and what Iraqis think of it vs. the Ak-47. When it makes the NY Times - then it is world shaking news.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...20rifle&st=cse
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...20rifle&st=cse
There are other articles in the series.
However, nobody suggests that if we rack a shotgun, Al-Qaeda will give up.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The link was truncated. If you delete everything after 2009\, you can see the title pages and blog subjects. However, you aren't missing much. It is essentially just blog posts. You can get better info from TFL on any given day.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Sorry the paste didn't work. 
I wasn't putting forth the NY Times as the ultimate gun info but just to indicate that the discussion has penetrated even to the popular media.
I expect to see it on the View or Oprah soon.
I wasn't putting forth the NY Times as the ultimate gun info but just to indicate that the discussion has penetrated even to the popular media.
I expect to see it on the View or Oprah soon.
golfnutrlv
New member
My 2 cents.
Bear in mind that I have never been in the military, or in a gunfight, hope I never am...
First, I own an AR-15, I absolutely love it. My favorite gun to shoot. I probably have 1500 rounds through it so far. It has been FLAWLESS!!! Yes, I have cleaned it fastidiously, but I do so with every gun I own, whether I fire 500 rounds or 10.
Second, our military is the most advanced and dedicated in the world. Doesn't it make sense that if there was a "fundamental flaw" with the weapon system the military would adopt a new one? Body armor is one thing, bad rifles are another entirely.
Take the M9 for example, it has its critics and its supporters. I personally think the Sig p226 would have been a better choice for our troops. (ask the SEAL's)
Regardless of that fact though, it has a good track record, good service length, and has seen us through many conflicts. Also, woudn't you know it, the military just ordered a whole lot more from Beretta! Must work!
The Military continues to order the M4 platform, and continues to use it to great effect. I understand the criticism's, and maybe some of them are valid, but to me, the proof is in the pudding, and the AR/M16/M4 have a track record of success and longevity in our armed forces.
Feel free to flame me, but I have my 2 cents in.
Bear in mind that I have never been in the military, or in a gunfight, hope I never am...
First, I own an AR-15, I absolutely love it. My favorite gun to shoot. I probably have 1500 rounds through it so far. It has been FLAWLESS!!! Yes, I have cleaned it fastidiously, but I do so with every gun I own, whether I fire 500 rounds or 10.
Second, our military is the most advanced and dedicated in the world. Doesn't it make sense that if there was a "fundamental flaw" with the weapon system the military would adopt a new one? Body armor is one thing, bad rifles are another entirely.
Take the M9 for example, it has its critics and its supporters. I personally think the Sig p226 would have been a better choice for our troops. (ask the SEAL's)
Regardless of that fact though, it has a good track record, good service length, and has seen us through many conflicts. Also, woudn't you know it, the military just ordered a whole lot more from Beretta! Must work!
The Military continues to order the M4 platform, and continues to use it to great effect. I understand the criticism's, and maybe some of them are valid, but to me, the proof is in the pudding, and the AR/M16/M4 have a track record of success and longevity in our armed forces.
Feel free to flame me, but I have my 2 cents in.
The Israeli's discovered in the 6 day war in 1967 that M16's do not take kindly to a sandy environment, which is why the IMI Galil was developed and adopted in 1972, they have since reverted back to the M16[they get them free from us] with a stringent cleaning regamin.But continue to license the making of Galil's which are the Cadillac of AK variants and are used by the armed forces of a dozen or more different countries. Just yesterday on Fox , a segment on women in the Columbian Army showed them field stripping Galils during their training.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I will point out that the 556 is not necessarily a proof against the M16. The rifle can be converted and produced in other calibers with better statistics. I don't personally have a large problem with the 556, but I do think the two issues deserve to be addressed separately.
I don't think they quite get them for free, although they get them very cheaply. I think they were basically forced to take them from us in order to standardize equipment. They seem to be very happy about the Tavor and excited about getting it into use even if it costs 3 times as much as an M4 and it will take another decade. Have to love Israeli designed small arms.
Nothing else I can say in this thread that I have not said at least a dozen times before on this forum.
I don't think they quite get them for free, although they get them very cheaply. I think they were basically forced to take them from us in order to standardize equipment. They seem to be very happy about the Tavor and excited about getting it into use even if it costs 3 times as much as an M4 and it will take another decade. Have to love Israeli designed small arms.
Nothing else I can say in this thread that I have not said at least a dozen times before on this forum.
You mean like using ball powder in a rifle that was designed for stick powder just because the US military had a huge surplus of ball powder? Even though ball powder rounds swelled the cartridge and jammed the weapon that no ammount of festidious cleaning could prevent? Even though ball powder wasn't as clean burning and caused frequent fouling directly in the chamber and the carrier? Even though the chroming of the chamber was sidelined on the original production models as an unnecessary expense?
The military cuts corners on all kinds of things. Most things aren't as catestrophic as the original M-16's (which have been since modified and most of those original flaws have been addressed.) The M-16 had the misfortune of becoming a service rifle while the U.S. was involved in a military action. The flaws and problems were discovered and worked out "IN the field" It cost a lot of servicemen their lives and has given the AR platform a bad name from the beginning.
At this point, there isn't anything wrong with a modern AR if you keep it clean and take care of it. Same can be said for any good rifle out there. Don't assume that if the government uses it then it must be awesome. The quote.. "well.... good enough for government work" is a mark of meeting the bare minimum not one denoting exceptionally good work.
davlandrum
New member
Ain't that the truth!!!!
I can see it now - the first stone point is lashed on a spear, and everyone has to complain about how clean you have to keep it so the sinew won't rot...The old spears (sharpened sticks) were lots better and sturdier...
If they ain't complaining, it ain't training...