User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:23:37 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:54:56 AM EDT
[#2]
The rifles carried in Vietnam were just fine. It was the powder changes that were forced by MacNamara that caused more issues than anything else. Also the silly statement that an AR never needed to be cleaned and no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles.
I routinely go 1500 rounds without cleaning with zero issues but I am also not in a humid jungle environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:56:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Some of the big issues include chrome chambers, and the proper powder. We also have made upgrades to the extractor spring/insert.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:56:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Main Improvements:
Better ammunition, better quality of lubricants and better knowledge of how to properly apply lubricants for optimum performance. Secondary Improvement: Better quality Buffer Springs, Heavier Buffers. I would venture you could take a 60's era M16 apply modern lubricants and good ammunition and you would find stellar reliability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:58:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Its just more modern materials. Just like anything else really, take cars for example.
They ran pretty shitty back in the 70s. Constant stalls, burning smoke, losing fuel to poorly designed carburetors, etc. Now, you have magnetic suspension, better fuel injection and exhaust, all sorts of stuff. With the M16, its the same idea really. Better materials used for the barrel, IE different steels, chrome lining, twist rates, thhen the ammo; different powders, casings and bullet weights. Then of course you have your springs, pretty much the same thing as before, just made better. It is really just a case of keeping up with technology advancements. As well as continual abuse in the field by numerous different countries. Some ideas come from the civilian market as well. Its really just keeping up with the times. Just like the 1911. The M16 is here to stay. It will always be the same at its core, with just better materials and manuf process. ETA: I started typing before the posts above me were posted. Everyone above is pretty much correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 9:16:36 AM EDT
[#6]
years of developments and inovations into one design by mutliple outside sources.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 9:53:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Google "D. E. Watters 5.56 Timeline."
Read. For hours. Most of your questions will be answered. Way way too much in the form of background information and other stuff to even bother with a post here. For additional research go get copies of "The Black Rifle: A Retrospective," and "The Black Rifle II." Go dig through the retro forum on this site, and the retro black rifle page. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:41:34 AM EDT
[#8]
How many complaints about reliability have you heard from the units who have been using this family of weapons since before Vietnam...i.e SAS in Malaysia? It's always telling to see units around the world that actually have the leeway in choosing what weapons they will use almost always using some variant of the AR15 family, often carbines. This is true, even when their home nation utilizes an entirely different service rifle....L85 for the Brits (SAS and SBS have used Armalites & Diemaco Carbines for 51 years now), Steyr AUG for the Aussies, while Australian SASR uses M4A5's, and we're seeing an increase in Western and Eastern European countries adopting M4-type carbines for their infantry and SOF units...Danes, Norwegians, Georgians, Netherlands, Czechs, etc. The list goes on and on as you look at other regions of the wolrd, but the most telling thing to me are the units that have the ability to cut through political BS and actually buy the exact things they want. When they have been choosing AR15 weapons for over half a century, that screams a very loud message as to the system's viability and reliability, and is extremely difficult to argue with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:42:27 AM EDT
[#9]
Why is it more reliable?
Careful application of time. Remember that the 5.56 was a new cartridge at the time - an outgrowth of the 222 Remington. Time and experience reveal the flaws in any design. Correct powder. Chroming of the bores and chambers. Addition of things like forward assists. Just plain better manufacturing processes and alloys. The design was never actually unreliable in the first place. Things simply needed to be changed due to external factors. Happens with every design. FALs got sand cuts. M1s moved away from gas traps. ETC.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:50:36 AM EDT
[#10]
The M-16 was rushed into battle before being properly refined, unlike the AK. The chrome lined bore/chamber was the biggest improvement made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:53:22 AM EDT
[#11]
What do you mean now?
I never ran across any unreliable one (thats M16A1, A2, M4, A1 and CQBR). Google "Filthy 14" for a treatise on M4 reliability potential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 11:05:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Why are AR15/M16 rifles more reliable now?
Some of it has to do with the "unreliability" myth being less widely circulated and mostly being mumbled about by those most desparate to believe it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 11:16:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
The rifles carried in Vietnam were just fine. It was the powder changes that were forced by MacNamara that caused more issues than anything else. Also the silly statement that an AR never needed to be cleaned and no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles. I routinely go 1500 rounds without cleaning with zero issues but I am also not in a humid jungle environment. This and the lack of chrome lining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 11:50:02 AM EDT
[#14]
The rifle has evolved over time, modified to meet the needs of the end user.
As a rule, we are always tinkering to improve things. Like cutting the top off and A1/A2 to screw a piece of weaver rail to it, making the first flat tops. I'd be curious to see what we do to next for a primary infantry weapon, the M16 family is adaptable for almost every application and is here to stay. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 7:06:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Thanks everyone for the responses!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 7:19:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Seals were using the very first models of M16s that were procured through their open purchase policy at the time..they had far far far less problems because they didnt buy into the "self cleaning ifle" bs and cleaned their equipment thats why no matter what if weapons were cleaned well and maintained well in the beginning chromelining or not there wouldnt have been the problems that came later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:59:50 PM EDT
[#17]
It would be interesting to see who fielded the AR15 in combat first, as I believe the SAS used it first in the Malaya conflict, which was before anyone in the US military except the Infantry Board at Ft. Benning had touched the rifle. According to the 5.56 Timeline, by D. Waters, small orders for the (recently purchased by Colt) Armalite AR15 came in from Malaya, Australia, Singapore, India, and Burma in 1959.
I have a book on England's Secret War in Malaya, that clearly shows SAS Troopers with SLR's (L1A1) and Armalites. They have been using it ever since, so if they had them in 1959 and 1960, that was before Curtis LeMay shot it at the famous summer Barbeque with the watermelons, before the Air Force adopted it, and before the fielding to the South Vietnamese ARVN Ranger Battalion. From 1959-2011 actually puts it a 52 years of combat experience, and preference by units with actual unit-level weapon selection authority. It's an amazing record really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 9:09:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
How many complaints about reliability have you heard from the units who have been using this family of weapons since before Vietnam...i.e SAS in Malaysia? It's always telling to see units around the world that actually have the leeway in choosing what weapons they will use almost always using some variant of the AR15 family, often carbines. This is true, even when their home nation utilizes an entirely different service rifle....L85 for the Brits (SAS and SBS have used Armalites & Diemaco Carbines for 51 years now), Steyr AUG for the Aussies, while Australian SASR uses M4A5's, and we're seeing an increase in Western and Eastern European countries adopting M4-type carbines for their infantry and SOF units...Danes, Norwegians, Georgians, Netherlands, Czechs, etc. The list goes on and on as you look at other regions of the wolrd, but the most telling thing to me are the units that have the ability to cut through political BS and actually buy the exact things they want. When they have been choosing AR15 weapons for over half a century, that screams a very loud message as to the system's viability and reliability, and is extremely difficult to argue with. ive always loved that, when people talk about how bad the 5.56 is and how bad the AR-15's are. all you gotta do is look around and most units that can choose their weapons use the AR-15's over their native rifles |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 9:49:20 PM EDT
[#19]
My M16A1, A2 and M4 were and are reliable pieces of kit as have been my personal AR15 types.
When clapped out M16's are fired by green basic trainees with crappy beat up mags overstuffed with nasty, cheapest contract bid blanks  the myth is perpetuated.
Wish I had a dollar for every time I heard " It's not my fault,,,,,this weapon is a #u@&ed up " in Basic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:30:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Mostly training.
The original AR-15 was designed to run IMR powder. when the US Govt. adopted it, they allowed cheaper ball powder to be used. It's burn rate was different and it was dirtier. the burn rate increased the cyclic rate too much. this is what lead to the heavier M16A1 buffer. Early marketing touted the rifle was "self cleaning" and initially issued without cleaning kits. chrome lining the chamber, and later bore, changing the buffer, and including a cleaning kit in the new A1 buttstock compartment, along with teaching troops to keep the weapon CLEAN solved the problem. check out the retro forum, guys are routinely building copies with the original Ar-15 and when properly cared for, they run fine. 
Read THE BLACK RIFLE 
vs 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2011 10:34:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Mostly training. The original AR-15 was designed to run IMR powder. when the US Govt. adopted it, they allowed cheaper ball powder to be used. It's burn rate was different and it was dirtier. the burn rate increased the cyclic rate too much. this is what lead to the heavier M16A1 buffer. Early marketing touted the rifle was "self cleaning" and initially issued without cleaning kits. chrome lining the chamber, and later bore, changing the buffer, and including a cleaning kit in the new A1 buttstock compartment, along with teaching troops to keep the weapon CLEAN solved the problem. check out the retro forum, guys are routinely building copies with the original Ar-15 and when properly cared for, they run fine. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/retro%20AR15%20pics/IMGP6031.jpg Read THE BLACK RIFLE http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7492/supergun3r.jpg vs http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/101st_Airborne_Division_-_Vietnam_03.jpg yep that was the biggest issue, the ar-15 needs lube to rune properly and the occasional cleaning(every 2-3k rounds will do). back when it came out like the article stated, everyone said it was self cleaning that was a big issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:29:16 AM EDT
[#22]
Once I got bitten by the retro bug, I started ordering surplus Colt parts that had been re-imported to the US. I was getting Colt MPI/HPT bolts and other parts for dirt-cheap prices, and running them in modern builds after checking that the ejector and extractor springs were good-to-go. Then they upped the prices big-time because of the limited supply of surplus parts kits.
Every M16A2, M16A1, M4, and M4A1 I used ran like a champ, except for the ones in basic, but that was magazine-related. The mags we had were older than us, and had been stuffed inside ammo cans when fully-loaded, so that the feed lips were crushed, bent, and spines of the mag bodies were split. That is a recipe for double-feed & FTF all day, and SPORTS only makes it worse. My first unit still had M16A1's, and I loved it. Much lighter, better trigger mechanism, slightly shorter...a good Infantryman's weapon. The Army "fixed" it with the M16A2...major fail. It was a heaven-send when we got M4's in my 3rd Scout Platoon in 1997, just in time to deploy to Panama for one of the last Jungle Operations Training Center rotations with 2nd Ranger Battalion before Clinton handed the Panama Canal over to the Chinese, in honor of comrade Carter's promise from 1979. As far as cleaning the AR15 family goes, you don't really need to do it that often. As long as you lube it well, it will run. More carbon fouling on the back of the bolt flange for the gas rings gives you a better gas seal. I know guys in units that shoot more in a week than an Infantry platoon will ever shoot in a quarter, and they only clean once a month. Lube, lube, lube... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:38:39 AM EDT
[#23]
Progress maybe?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:48:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
The rifles carried in Vietnam were just fine. It was the powder changes that were forced by MacNamara that caused more issues than anything else. Also the silly statement that an AR never needed to be cleaned and no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles. I routinely go 1500 rounds without cleaning with zero issues but I am also not in a humid jungle environment. Thr rumor is never going away. there are no improvemnets. Its still a gas tube and bolt carrier. I like the one about how you can shoot a monkey out a tree by firing a sharpend cleaning rod out the barrel with a grenade blank, much like a harpoon gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 7:50:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The rifles carried in Vietnam were just fine. It was the powder changes that were forced by MacNamara that caused more issues than anything else. Also the silly statement that an AR never needed to be cleaned and no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles. I routinely go 1500 rounds without cleaning with zero issues but I am also not in a humid jungle environment. Thr rumor is never going away. there are no improvemnets. Its still a gas tube and bolt carrier. I like the one about how you can shoot a monkey out a tree by firing a sharpend cleaning rod out the barrel with a grenade blank, much like a harpoon gun. ive heard that too, cant say i would want to be the Guinea pig for that experiment |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 9:16:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Wow, there is SO much misinformation in that article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:17:52 AM EDT
[#27]
Really..it did have those problems. But the m16 is how the gas system should operate. The carbine is not as smooth and harder on parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:24:14 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Really..it did have those problems. But the m16 is how the gas system should operate. The carbine is not as smooth and harder on parts. I have to respectfully disagree if we're talking about 14.5" carbines. They have the same amount of dwell time as a 20" rifle gas system. If we're talking about 16" barrels with a carbine gas system, I will agree with you somewhat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:51:16 AM EDT
[#29]
Location of port closer to chamber is pressure increase, using same dwell...you proved my point. Should have been increased
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:03:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The rifles carried in Vietnam were just fine. It was the powder changes that were forced by MacNamara that caused more issues than anything else. Also the silly statement that an AR never needed to be cleaned and no cleaning kits were sent with the rifles. I routinely go 1500 rounds without cleaning with zero issues but I am also not in a humid jungle environment. Thr rumor is never going away. there are no improvemnets. Its still a gas tube and bolt carrier. I like the one about how you can shoot a monkey out a tree by firing a sharpend cleaning rod out the barrel with a grenade blank, much like a harpoon gun. I can assure you that using cleaning rod sections as projectiles on top of blanks is no rumor. I've done it, and was quite surprised at the terminal range and trajectory. When we first got M16A2's, and were without any supervision above the SSG level, an E-5 who had come from 2nd Ranger Battalion was having this argument with the other NCO's. He grabbed a cleaning rod from one of the Joes who had an extra in his kit, chambered a blank, dropped the rod down the pipe, aimed at a large tree about 150m away, and launched it. It recoiled much more than usual, and we all ran out to the tree to recover the rod. It was almost impossible to pull the rod from the tree. That sucker was embedded in it deep. I wouldn't recommend it though, as it has got to be damaging to rifling. Soon, we were all blasting away with them, until some other guys in the Platoon managed to actually roll one of the hard-top HMMWV's. We all pitched in to right it back on its wheels, and hoped that we could cover it up...nope. This was in my 1st Scout Platoon in Virginia in 1995...good times. I believe some UCMJ was involved for the rollover incident, since so much damage was done to the vehicle... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:13:50 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Location of port closer to chamber is pressure increase, using same dwell...you proved my point. Should have been increased What should have been increased? The dwell time? Also, carbines have run for over 50,000 rounds with one bolt carrier group replacement, very little cleaning and just added lubricant. No parts breakage. Wearable parts were replaced roughly every 5,000 rounds (gas rings, extractor, extractor spring, extractor insert) and 10,000 rounds (action spring). This "extra wear" that everyone is so concerned about doesn't seem to be much of a real problem considering most of us can't even afford to shoot 50,000 rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:19:15 AM EDT
[#32]
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:21:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:23:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? i was just joshin...but it is a more durable/reliable design...not saying the AR isnt, but the AK is more so.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:28:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Once I got bitten by the retro bug, I started ordering surplus Colt parts that had been re-imported to the US. I was getting Colt MPI/HPT bolts and other parts for dirt-cheap prices, and running them in modern builds after checking that the ejector and extractor springs were good-to-go. Then they upped the prices big-time because of the limited supply of surplus parts kits. Every M16A2, M16A1, M4, and M4A1 I used ran like a champ, except for the ones in basic, but that was magazine-related. The mags we had were older than us, and had been stuffed inside ammo cans when fully-loaded, so that the feed lips were crushed, bent, and spines of the mag bodies were split. That is a recipe for double-feed & FTF all day, and SPORTS only makes it worse. My first unit still had M16A1's, and I loved it. Much lighter, better trigger mechanism, slightly shorter...a good Infantryman's weapon. The Army "fixed" it with the M16A2...major fail. It was a heaven-send when we got M4's in my 3rd Scout Platoon in 1997, just in time to deploy to Panama for one of the last Jungle Operations Training Center rotations with 2nd Ranger Battalion before Clinton handed the Panama Canal over to the Chinese, in honor of comrade Carter's promise from 1979. As far as cleaning the AR15 family goes, you don't really need to do it that often. As long as you lube it well, it will run. More carbon fouling on the back of the bolt flange for the gas rings gives you a better gas seal. I know guys in units that shoot more in a week than an Infantry platoon will ever shoot in a quarter, and they only clean once a month. Lube, lube, lube... Wrong. It was the Marines that brought us the M16A2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:43:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? i was just joshin...but it is a more durable/reliable design...not saying the AR isnt, but the AK is more so.. I understand others' experiences are much different, but I've seen so many broke fucking dick AK variants from various manufacturers, from civilian models to ones used by foreign militaries that I have to laugh out loud about the "legendary reliability" of the AK platform. I've seen many many many more NMC AKs than I've ever seen ARs. I even got told by an ANA soldier "if I had a weapon like yours, Afghanistan would have no Taliban problem." I think the M16 / AK debate is a classic "grass is greener" scenario that's not borne out by the facts or my experience. Remember, the feared Soviets dumped their iconic symbol of... cheap foreign trade? back in the seventies. I also always have to laugh about that when the 5.56MM / 7.62 caliber debate starts up. Remember the Galil? That was an example of "we're gonna take all the awesome things about the AK and M16 and combine them!" Mmmhmmm. See where that one went? ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 11:53:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once I got bitten by the retro bug, I started ordering surplus Colt parts that had been re-imported to the US. I was getting Colt MPI/HPT bolts and other parts for dirt-cheap prices, and running them in modern builds after checking that the ejector and extractor springs were good-to-go. Then they upped the prices big-time because of the limited supply of surplus parts kits. Every M16A2, M16A1, M4, and M4A1 I used ran like a champ, except for the ones in basic, but that was magazine-related. The mags we had were older than us, and had been stuffed inside ammo cans when fully-loaded, so that the feed lips were crushed, bent, and spines of the mag bodies were split. That is a recipe for double-feed & FTF all day, and SPORTS only makes it worse. My first unit still had M16A1's, and I loved it. Much lighter, better trigger mechanism, slightly shorter...a good Infantryman's weapon. The Army "fixed" it with the M16A2...major fail. It was a heaven-send when we got M4's in my 3rd Scout Platoon in 1997, just in time to deploy to Panama for one of the last Jungle Operations Training Center rotations with 2nd Ranger Battalion before Clinton handed the Panama Canal over to the Chinese, in honor of comrade Carter's promise from 1979. As far as cleaning the AR15 family goes, you don't really need to do it that often. As long as you lube it well, it will run. More carbon fouling on the back of the bolt flange for the gas rings gives you a better gas seal. I know guys in units that shoot more in a week than an Infantry platoon will ever shoot in a quarter, and they only clean once a month. Lube, lube, lube... Wrong. It was the Marines that brought us the M16A2. Nope. Army, then Army/Marines joint request...check the 5.56x45mm Timeline by D. Waters... "August, 1977... While briefing Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (DCSRADA) LTG Howard H. Cooksey, MAJ Whittington outlines plans for an engineering development phase for the SAW program. LTG Cooksey does not approve the plan. Instead, the advanced development stage is to be continued through the end of FY 1979. A design maturity phase can begin only after NATO approves its new cartridge. This phase should be an eighteen-month effort with an eye toward fielding the SAW at the beginning of FY 1982. In addition, the program should include a new M16 HBAR variant, requested by the ODCSOPS." The Marines had tested and dropped an experimental HBAR M16 meant as an Automatic Rifleman's weapon before that. The adoption of the SAW with 1/7" twist to stabilize the new tracer also helped push the JSSAP committee towards some of the main features of the M16A2, which started out as the XM16A1E1 later in 1980. The Army and Marines began discussions with Colt in 1978 about a product-improved M16 to replace aging M16A1's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:00:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once I got bitten by the retro bug, I started ordering surplus Colt parts that had been re-imported to the US. I was getting Colt MPI/HPT bolts and other parts for dirt-cheap prices, and running them in modern builds after checking that the ejector and extractor springs were good-to-go. Then they upped the prices big-time because of the limited supply of surplus parts kits. Every M16A2, M16A1, M4, and M4A1 I used ran like a champ, except for the ones in basic, but that was magazine-related. The mags we had were older than us, and had been stuffed inside ammo cans when fully-loaded, so that the feed lips were crushed, bent, and spines of the mag bodies were split. That is a recipe for double-feed & FTF all day, and SPORTS only makes it worse. My first unit still had M16A1's, and I loved it. Much lighter, better trigger mechanism, slightly shorter...a good Infantryman's weapon. The Army "fixed" it with the M16A2...major fail. It was a heaven-send when we got M4's in my 3rd Scout Platoon in 1997, just in time to deploy to Panama for one of the last Jungle Operations Training Center rotations with 2nd Ranger Battalion before Clinton handed the Panama Canal over to the Chinese, in honor of comrade Carter's promise from 1979. As far as cleaning the AR15 family goes, you don't really need to do it that often. As long as you lube it well, it will run. More carbon fouling on the back of the bolt flange for the gas rings gives you a better gas seal. I know guys in units that shoot more in a week than an Infantry platoon will ever shoot in a quarter, and they only clean once a month. Lube, lube, lube... Wrong. It was the Marines that brought us the M16A2. Nope. Army, then Army/Marines joint request...check the 5.56x45mm Timeline by D. Waters... "August, 1977... While briefing Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (DCSRADA) LTG Howard H. Cooksey, MAJ Whittington outlines plans for an engineering development phase for the SAW program. LTG Cooksey does not approve the plan. Instead, the advanced development stage is to be continued through the end of FY 1979. A design maturity phase can begin only after NATO approves its new cartridge. This phase should be an eighteen-month effort with an eye toward fielding the SAW at the beginning of FY 1982. In addition, the program should include a new M16 HBAR variant, requested by the ODCSOPS." The Marines had tested and dropped an experimental HBAR M16 meant as an Automatic Rifleman's weapon before that. The adoption of the SAW with 1/7" twist to stabilize the new tracer also helped push the JSSAP committee towards some of the main features of the M16A2, which started out as the XM16A1E1 later in 1980. The Army and Marines began discussions with Colt in 1978 about a product-improved M16 to replace aging M16A1's. Okay, I guess I stand corrected. I had been under the impression from a lot of different sources that the Marines had pushed for the M16A2 and the Army just went along. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:01:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Better magazines have also improved things. Same with 1911's. Buy the good, redesigned magazines and your problems decrease.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:05:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? i was just joshin...but it is a more durable/reliable design...not saying the AR isnt, but the AK is more so.. I understand others' experiences are much different, but I've seen so many broke fucking dick AK variants from various manufacturers, from civilian models to ones used by foreign militaries that I have to laugh out loud about the "legendary reliability" of the AK platform. I've seen many many many more NMC AKs than I've ever seen ARs. I even got told by an ANA soldier "if I had a weapon like yours, Afghanistan would have no Taliban problem." I think the M16 / AK debate is a classic "grass is greener" scenario that's not borne out by the facts or my experience. Remember, the feared Soviets dumped their iconic symbol of... cheap foreign trade? back in the seventies. I also always have to laugh about that when the 5.56MM / 7.62 caliber debate starts up. Remember the Galil? That was an example of "we're gonna take all the awesome things about the AK and M16 and combine them!" Mmmhmmm. See where that one went? ~Augee Speak it brother. I've run "good" AK's into NMC (non-mission-capable for those wondering) status in one range session, especially Romanian variants. The legendary reliability of the AK is a proof of legendary Soviet propaganda, not superior design. Every high-volume course I run or attend now sees more problems with AK's, unless the guys have really trouble-shot them thoroughly, which usually means trying out 20 mags per 8-12 mags that will actually work. I also see many of those Israeli Galil's dumped on unsuspecting new NATO partners in Eastern Europe, who would be better-served with an AR carbine. Look at how many Israeli Light Infantry and SOF units carry Galils, and then look at how many carry Colt Commandos....yeah, you don't see Galils much nowadays-definitely not in dismounted trigger-puller units. Every time one of the guys has a major malf with an AK that isn't cleared quickly, I yell out as loud as possible in a Russian accent, "...the most reliable system....in the world, hah ha ha ha ha ha ha!" I get a kick out of myself... Here's Colt's early test proto of an op-rod system in the AR, that proved to be less reliable, too expensive, too front-heavy, and required more parts...i.e. POS. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:06:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Better magazines have also improved things. Same with 1911's. Buy the good, redesigned magazines and your problems decrease. The original Colt 20rd. aluminium magazine with the alloy follower is still considered to be one of the most reliable magazines in existence for the AR15 platform. I guess not "original" if you count the 25 round magazine and waffle magazine, but nevertheless. I should say "Vietnam vintage." ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:10:53 PM EDT
[#42]
I've not noticed any real changes in reliability between old 30rd mags with black followers, the green followers, or modern anti-tilt followers, as long as the magazine body was serviceable and undamaged. Once the feed lips get jacked, or the mag body gets dented or bent, and it's time for DX, no matter what mag you have, unless you can salvage it. The biggest factor I've seen in military guns was presence or absence of lubrication, after serviceable mags. No lube...may run a few rounds, then stuck like chuck. Plenty of lube, gun runs like a champ.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:12:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better magazines have also improved things. Same with 1911's. Buy the good, redesigned magazines and your problems decrease. The original Colt 20rd. aluminium magazine with the alloy follower is still considered to be one of the most reliable magazines in existence for the AR15 platform. I guess not "original" if you count the 25 round magazine and waffle magazine, but nevertheless. I should say "Vietnam vintage." ~Augee Yep. I have a bunch of those 20rd mags that are used with my Colt SP-1 (1976) and they run fine. They are all silver from the coating being worn off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:14:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? i was just joshin...but it is a more durable/reliable design...not saying the AR isnt, but the AK is more so.. I understand others' experiences are much different, but I've seen so many broke fucking dick AK variants from various manufacturers, from civilian models to ones used by foreign militaries that I have to laugh out loud about the "legendary reliability" of the AK platform. I've seen many many many more NMC AKs than I've ever seen ARs. I even got told by an ANA soldier "if I had a weapon like yours, Afghanistan would have no Taliban problem." I think the M16 / AK debate is a classic "grass is greener" scenario that's not borne out by the facts or my experience. Remember, the feared Soviets dumped their iconic symbol of... cheap foreign trade? back in the seventies. I also always have to laugh about that when the 5.56MM / 7.62 caliber debate starts up. Remember the Galil? That was an example of "we're gonna take all the awesome things about the AK and M16 and combine them!" Mmmhmmm. See where that one went? ~Augee Speak it brother. I've run "good" AK's into NMC (non-mission-capable for those wondering) status in one range session, especially Romanian variants. The legendary reliability of the AK is a proof of legendary Soviet propaganda, not superior design. Every high-volume course I run or attend now sees more problems with AK's, unless the guys have really trouble-shot them thoroughly, which usually means trying out 20 mags per 8-12 mags that will actually work. I also see many of those Israeli Galil's dumped on unsuspecting new NATO partners in Eastern Europe, who would be better-served with an AR carbine. Look at how many Israeli Light Infantry and SOF units carry Galils, and then look at how many carry Colt Commandos....yeah, you don't see Galils much nowadays-definitely not in dismounted trigger-puller units. Every time one of the guys has a major malf with an AK that isn't cleared quickly, I yell out as loud as possible in a Russian accent, "...the most reliable system....in the world, hah ha ha ha ha ha ha!" I get a kick out of myself... Here's Colt's early test proto of an op-rod system in the AR, that proved to be less reliable, too expensive, too front-heavy, and required more parts...i.e. POS. http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j422/LRRPF52/Colt703-600x163.jpg http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j422/LRRPF52/Colt703-2-600x166.jpg yes yes i know in the AR section people always see ak's go down, and in the ak section they always see ar's go down..but to say the ak design isnt more reliable/durable is just looney tunes.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:17:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Just as an aside - when I mention AKs in use by foreign militaries that I've seen go down, I'm not just referring to the craptacultar Afghani weapons, but also AKs in use by our new, firmly first world (in the traditional Int'l Relations definitions - 1st World: Representative Government, 2nd World: Communist, 3rd World: None of the above) NATO "friends and allies."
~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:19:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: yes yes i know in the AR section people always see ak's go down, and in the ak section they always see ar's go down..but to say the ak design isnt more reliable/durable is just looney tunes.. Is there an AK equivalent of "Filthy #14" or another such long term no cleaning reliability test? I've heard all the rumors too but haven't seen any concrete examples. Could be due to ignorance and my focus on ARs, so I'm legitimately asking the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:31:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Same here. The only ones that I've seen that run really well are the Sako Rk95's, Valmet Rk62's, East German MPi-KMS-74's, as long as nation-specific mags are used with them. I avoid the Romanian AKMs like the plague, unless one really proves itself over time, but I try to avoid AK's in general. I've shot and used more variants of them than most people even know about, and high-volume courses seem to put Milspec AR's at a higher rung on the reliability ladder, in my experience of running both designs for the past 23 years. I used to believe all the hype about the AK being the gold standard in reliability, but I just haven't seen that play out over the years.
When I saw Red Dawn as a kid, I had the major impetus of the romance stage of adoration for the AK, and I still love that true AKM laminate wood finish contrasted on the black receiver, but while those particular models may look nice, the vast majority of AK variants made by hordes of imitators around the world just flat out suck. They suck to carry with all the forward weight, they suck to carry mags for in 7.62x39, the ergos blow, the recoil impulse is ridiculous, and the no bolt hold-open feature sucks for several reasons. I do like the Galil SAR if I had to pick one, or a tricked modern version with quality parts, but I really don't mess with them that much more than I need to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:39:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
yes yes i know in the AR section people always see ak's go down, and in the ak section they always see ar's go down..but to say the ak design isnt more reliable/durable is just looney tunes.. Is there an AK equivalent of "Filthy #14" or another such long term no cleaning reliability test? I've heard all the rumors too but haven't seen any concrete examples. Could be due to ignorance and my focus on ARs, so I'm legitimately asking the question. Shooting high-volume in an end-of-year spendex with them broke several in just a few hours. Gas tube roll pins (there's a great idea for securing an op-rod to a bolt carrier!!!) worked out, and scored the crap out of the gas tube. There are common problems with trigger mechs, mags being incompatible, even from country of origin. At the end of the day, it's a Russian design made by a peasant class of "engineers" after The great Patriotic War, when all the brains of Russia had been killed or run out during the Bolshevik years, Lenin's famines, mass-executions, and Stalin's purges. They killed 40 million of their own people before 1939, and I doubt they will ever recover from that as a society. That size of a dent on your connect-the-dot people is unrecoverable, in my assessment, and it's really sad for them. It's not very fun to take a 7.62x39 AK through a high-volume course of fire either, but doable. That handguard gets extremely hot, and finding one with a good cheek-to-stock weld is very difficult at best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:43:15 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they looked at the AK and made improvements to mimic what they saw... Improvements such as...? i was just joshin...but it is a more durable/reliable design...not saying the AR isnt, but the AK is more so.. Ive seen several AK`s jam |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2011 12:45:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Better magazines have also improved things. Same with 1911's. Buy the good, redesigned magazines and your problems decrease. stills using the old 20rd Colt with metal followers never a single problem |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
