PDA

View Full Version : Article details many problems with AR15/M16....


Skans
November 3, 2009, 11:15 AM
I just read the most comprehensive article I've seen on exactly why the AR15/M16 is a poor military weapon. In my opinion, this is a MUST READ for anyone thinking of buying an AR15 http://www.madogre.com/interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm

Just a few of the reasons explained by the writer as to why the AR15/M16 sucks are:

1. Direct gas Impingement system spews carbon and debris all over the many tiney parts that are difficult to clean.
2. too many small parts
3. must be ultra-clean to be reliable, and it's impossible to keep ultra clean in combat conditions
4. Small weak extractor
5. sprung ejector tends to fail
6. Flimsey charging handle
7. gas tube glows under full-auto fire and tend to burst under combat conditions
8. 5.56 round is too weak
9. magazines are very flimsey
10. It's very finicky about ammo

I just highlighted a few of the reasons mentioned by the writer why he didn't like the M16. There's much more in the article. Read the article, see what you think. I found his reasons rather compelling.

Mike Irwin
November 3, 2009, 11:17 AM
Reopened.

I will say this about my AR-15...

I fired nearly 2,500 rounds through it BEFORE I cleaned it for the first time.

And it never malfunctioned.

As for the gas tube glowing under full auto fire? Are there any fully automatic M-16/M-4s still in service? I thought they had all been withdrawn in favor of the 3-shot burst models. If I'm correct, it's not that much of an issue.

And, given that there are relatively few fully-automatic M-16 type rifles in civilian hands, I doubt that it's even remotely an issue for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all AR-15 owners in this country. So, I fail to see how that's really an issue.

Mike Irwin
November 3, 2009, 01:36 PM
Lord I hate getting old. I could have sworn that I reopened this. Sigh.

It's open now.

plainsman456
November 3, 2009, 01:41 PM
My son is NAVY Spec Ops and he has told me much of what you have printed.And yes the gas tubes do glow and melt under harsh firing conditions.That is why some have gone to the gas piston design and they are looking at some other wepon systems.Good Luck

MEATSAW
November 3, 2009, 01:42 PM
Since 2001 when I first became an end user it has never once failed be. Even under "combat conditions." Oh well. I still find it fun to shoot now that I am in the civilian world.

KLRANGL
November 3, 2009, 01:50 PM
Ah yes, I remember this article. Back in the day, it got me over my childhood ignorance in assuming AR was better than an AK (note the word "assuming". I make no claim as to one being better than the other).
I really have no opinion on the military use of the M16 because, well, I've never been in the military. From an engineering standpoint though, it has never really made me do anything other than cringe. But I know plenty of people who own and operate ARs and they work just fine for their needs.
That said, I own an AK... Trying to pick up a used Bushmaster lower soon so I can compare.

7. gas tube glows under full-auto fire and tend to burst under combat conditions
Did it say the gas tube does burst, or may burst after getting glowing hot in the article? (I thought it was may).
The turbo in my car glows quite frequently (:D) but I don't worry about it bursting in the least. Some things are meant to glow, and are designed that way. Not saying the AR gas tube wont burst, I'm only saying it glowing is not a satisfactory argument to say it will burst without providing additional information...

NSO_w/_SIG
November 3, 2009, 01:57 PM
I just read the most comprehensive article I've seen on exactly why the AR15/M16 is a poor military weapon. In my opinion, this is a MUST READ for anyone thinking of buying an AR15 http://www.madogre.com/interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm

Just a few of the reasons explained by the writer as to why the AR15/M16 sucks are:

1. Direct gas Impingement system spews carbon and debris all over the many tiney parts that are difficult to clean.
2. too many small parts
3. must be ultra-clean to be reliable, and it's impossible to keep ultra clean in combat conditions
4. Small weak extractor
5. sprung ejector tends to fail
6. Flimsey charging handle
7. gas tube glows under full-auto fire and tend to burst under combat conditions
8. 5.56 round is too weak
9. magazines are very flimsey
10. It's very finicky about ammo

I just highlighted a few of the reasons mentioned by the writer why he didn't like the M16. There's much more in the article. Read the article, see what you think. I found his reasons rather compelling.

I think Pat Rogers fired like 15,000 rds. in each of his T&E Colt and BCM without cleaning and had no malfunctions, the article either exagerates or out right lies about many of the issues you list here.

I just got done shooting about 600 rounds through a 6520 today with no malfunctions, with no added lube or cleaning during the session. All of my expeirences with the platform have been similar to this.

csmsss
November 3, 2009, 02:01 PM
Nope. Haven't seen this same laundry list of gripes posted repeatedly before. Nope. Not ever.

Skans
November 3, 2009, 02:18 PM
Did it say the gas tube does burst, or may burst after getting glowing hot in the article?

I didn't mean to misquote. The article lead me to believe that this was something known to happen in full-auto fire. What it said was:

When the gas tube glows brightly at night to the point it’s lighting your immediate area – this is not good it could go “pop” any moment here. If your gas tube had any weakness in it before – it’s only going to be worse now. If it doesn’t break now – it will have a greater likelihood of breaking in the future.


And, given that there are relatively few fully-automatic M-16 type rifles in civilian hands, I doubt that it's even remotely an issue for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all AR-15 owners in this country. So, I fail to see how that's really an issue.

It's an issue for me If I'm purchasing a rifle that is basically a combat rifle, except for the fact that it is limited to semi-auto rate of fire, I do want to know that it's full-auto counterpart is up to the task of sustained full-auto fire without breaking or FTF/FTE problems. It goes to the robustness and longevity of such a gun especially if parts become unavailable. I tend to like guns that are over engineered and dislike guns that are under engineered.

I have an FNC. At one time these guns cost about the same as an AR15. Their price is overly inflated now because people like to put registered sears in them. But, in my opinion, this is a really robust semi-auto .223. It's very difficult to get parts for these guns now, but you rarely ever hear of anything breaking on them, other than the occassional firing pin. Even the ones that have been converted to full auto legally tend to perform flawlessly, from what I've heard.

qwman68
November 3, 2009, 02:37 PM
i was in the army from 86-94 and in my time there they improved a great deal.i can only hope they have continued to do so.gas piston is what i would prefer if i had to have another one.direct gas does cause problems,i know from experience.either way i dont think too many here in civilian world will be glowing any time soon from maxed out use.there are some new rounds out there the military should look at in my opinion. like the 6.8 spc,and the 30 ar. those seem to have the most promise.

Madcap_Magician
November 3, 2009, 02:39 PM
Gee, it's been at least thirty seconds since I saw a thread about all the failures of the M-16 design...

Technosavant
November 3, 2009, 02:41 PM
MadOgre also has a podcast where he describes why he likes the platform.

People have griped about their weapons since the invention of the spear. They have also played weapon fanboy ever since the first person griped about that spear.

Do people really, honestly, believe that there's something pro/con regarding the AR-15/AK-47/Glock/1911/pointy rock that they can say that hasn't already been beat to death? 90% of these kinds of articles are only brought up to show how intelligent/stupid the author is since he/she agrees with your particular point of view.

Skans
November 3, 2009, 02:47 PM
I understand what some are saying: "the AR15 / M16 is what it is; we know its faults and good points, now leave it be..."

Sure, some folks do, some don't. I see many posts on here weekly where Joe Smith is planning on buying his first AR15 and wants to know "what to buy" and why. I thought the article was informative and could be helpful to those who think that the AR15 is the cat's meow and that there are no better 5.56 rifles to possibly consider.

Mike Irwin
November 3, 2009, 03:19 PM
That's actually why we recomment judicious use of the Search button, Skans.

Skans
November 3, 2009, 04:01 PM
That's actually why we recomment judicious use of the Search button, Skans.

I look at this forum quite a bit. I've seen bits and pieces that touch on a specific problem in a specific AR15....or simply compare it to an AK. However, I've never seen a thread that takes a comprehensive look at all of the inherent problems of the AR15 / M16. The article I read was a pretty thorough piece on not just one, but all of the problems experienced in this perticular type of gun.

FWIW, I did try the search engine to see if i could quickly come up with anything similar: I searched "AR15 problems" "AR15 issues" "AR15 broken" "AR15 failures".

What else would you have me search that would yield the same thing that I posted? If someone can provide me with a link in this forum where this article, or another one just like it is discussed, then I guess we all can agree that my search skills need a lot more work.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 3, 2009, 04:15 PM
You know, I don't think even the original author of that article agrees with all the points listed there now... which isn't suprising given how old it is...

1. Direct gas Impingement system spews carbon and debris all over the many tiney parts that are difficult to clean.

True, and yet the rifle runs for thousands and thousands of rounds like that.

2. too many small parts

Compared to? What trade offs did they make to have fewer small parts (more weight?) because you don't get something for nothing.

3. must be ultra-clean to be reliable, and it's impossible to keep ultra clean in combat conditions

Just plain BS.

4. Small weak extractor

Adequate extractor for the M16, too small for the M4 which extracts under a heavier load. I agree this is a weakness; but this is unlikely to change since the existing barrel extension and bolt limit how much the extractor can be modified.

5. sprung ejector tends to fail

Brass or debris can bind the ejector - just like it can in other notoriously unreliable sprung ejector designs like the M1 Garand, M14, etc.

FWIW, the only ejector I've ever had fail on me is a Browning Hi-Power ejector (which is fixed). It broke in half - though to it's credit, it continued to eject shells more often than not. Fixed ejectors fail too (as a quick read of the XCR problems will reveal).

6. Flimsey charging handle

I'd note that the charging handle is often flimsier in civilian AR15s because many manufacturers cut corners by using 6061 Aluminium or castings (or both) instead of the 7075T6 forged aluminium that is specified. rob_s has posted some nice pictures of a DPMS charging handle compared to factory Colt that illuminate the difference nicely.

However, one nice thing about the AR is that due to its modularity, you can pick from about two dozen different charging handle designs for it. Something like a BCM Gunfighter will definitely cure any "flimsy" concerns you may have with your AR, civilian or military.

7. gas tube glows under full-auto fire and tend to burst under combat conditions

Again, parts are not parts. There are several examples of M16 and M4 barrels bursting before the gas tube did. However, you can argue whether having an $8 part fail before you destroy the $250 part is a bad feature. I wouldn't pretend to know what "combat conditions" the author was referring too; but I do know that you can dump a soldier's entire basic load as fast as you can load the magazines on full-auto and both the M4 and M16 will handle it.

8. 5.56 round is too weak

It is a compromise designed to give you the power you need at the distances combat is most often encountered while minimizing weight, heat and bulk to allow higher rates of fire and more ammo (both overall and in the magazine). Personally, I'd like a round that hits like a .338, is the size of a .22LR and generates no heat at all; but pesky physics is mean about compromise. For what it is worth, the new 62gr SOST round promises 6.8 110gr ballistics out of a 62gr 5.56mm cartridge in a land warfare legal package that doesn't require any conversion.

O yeah.... and if you think the gas tube on an AR heating up is a problem, try running the same number of rounds it takes to burst an M4 gas tube through ANY 7.62x51 rifle at the same rate. Let me know if you make it to he M4 number.

9. magazines are very flimsey

Compared to what? I'm successfully running 20 year old + magazines with black followers and golf-ball sized dents. They aren't PMAGs to be sure; but they will do the job given a periodical inspection and replacement.

10. It's very finicky about ammo

Again, compared to what?

Skans
November 3, 2009, 05:14 PM
Again, compared to what?

I'm just summarizing what I read in the article attached to the link I posted. These are not necessarily all my own opinions - just my synopsis of an article that I felt was quite compelling explaining some of the inherent problems of the AR15/M16 rifles.

My only problem with an AR15 is that in a semi-auto rifle, the 5.56 round doesn't make a whole lot of sense for defensive/offensive purposes. I agree with you that in full-auto, it's a rather potent round, considering the high rate of fire and larger amount of ammo that you can carry. I've also questioned from time to time how robust the AR15/M16 rifles really are.

Many of the other problems mentioned by the article were completely unknown to me - thus I found it an interesting read. I do appreciate your expanation of each of the things I outlined though - it does add perspective.

Slopemeno
November 3, 2009, 05:31 PM
I worked for a gunsmithing shop that certified a couple of dozen M-16's for duty each year for PD's. Suffice to say I've never seen a gas tube glow, despite my best efforts.

Engineering *choices* are just that- choices. Was the M-14 perfect? Was the Garand? No, but they were decent for the era. The M-16 platform does a decent job considering its age.

Point by point- just like Bartholomew:

1) Yep. And it works.
2) If you had to design one from a clean sheet of apaer, what do you suppose the parts count would be?
3) Agreed. BS.
4) That people mill into bolts of rifles to replace other small, weak extractors.
5) That about a couple of hundred other guns use as well...
6) Never saw one or heard of one failing. Ever.
7) Riiiight.
8) The local SWAT guys seemed to make it work.
9) Maybe. Maybe. Perhaps the point ought to be "(insert .mil branch ere) doesn't replace damaged magazines"
10) Feeding? Accuracy? The full auto one I fired never missed a beat.

Scorch
November 3, 2009, 05:45 PM
Oh, noooooooooooooooo! A (supposedly) person who has (supposedly) been in the Army (supposedly) has information about the M16 platform that no one else knows about! Read through his list and it is just a rant full of outdated information and folklore. But his other pages are pretty cool. Oh, look! Our (supposedly) expert on m16s is also telling us about Star Wars and several other games! Good thing he knows about plasma rifles, becasue when the dragon-riders come to hunt us down as food for their gnolls, he will need the plasma rifle to defend himself against dwarves! Hahahahahahahahahahaha! What a loser.

Mike- explain to me again why this was reopened.:rolleyes:

OK, I'll be nice. My experience is:

1. Thousands of rounds with no malfunctions through M16A1 in varying conditions.
2. has fewer parts than an AK or an UZI
3. 5-10 minutes in the jungle kept it clean
4. the extractor is as wide as the case head. How much wider could they have made it?
5. the plunger ejector is very reliable, found in many military and civilian arms
6. the charging handle is for feeding another round into the chamber, it is not load bearing
7. glow, yes, burst maybe, but 3-round bursts are the norm anyway, so it is a non-issue
8. wow, have I ever heard that one before? It kills people just fine.
9. if it dents, throw it away and grab another from the pouch
10. never seen that. Ever.

MTT TL
November 3, 2009, 05:52 PM
That article is a bad joke:

I would be very surprised if the author ever went to the show.

kraigwy
November 3, 2009, 06:09 PM
I'm sure glad I didnt read this BS while I was an infantryman and the M16 was saving my ass in Vietnam.

Somebody forgot to tell our rifles they were junk.

MTT TL
November 3, 2009, 06:25 PM
I'm sure glad I didnt read this BS while I was an infantryman and the M16 was saving my ass in Vietnam.

You mean you didn't throw your rifle into a river and start carrying an AK-47 like everyone else? Jeesh, I am surprised you even made it home. ;)

Art Eatman
November 3, 2009, 06:26 PM
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.

RT
November 3, 2009, 06:52 PM
Ah yes, the infamous "Madogre" article. Didn't George Hill used to be a member here? It's worth what you paid for it....

bcarver
November 4, 2009, 12:58 AM
Most people who say the .223/5.56 round is weak have never been shot by one.
I would bet madogre is one of those persons.

javven
November 4, 2009, 01:11 AM
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.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 4, 2009, 07:59 AM
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.

Glenn E. Meyer
November 4, 2009, 10:48 AM
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.

Skans
November 4, 2009, 10:57 AM
Looks like the article(s) have been pulled for some reason, Glenn. I just get a blank page when I click on the links. What was the gist of what you read?

darkgael
November 4, 2009, 11:09 AM
The New York Times.....ah, yes: "All the news that fits we print".

Pete

Bartholomew Roberts
November 4, 2009, 11:59 AM
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
November 4, 2009, 12:05 PM
Sorry the paste didn't work. :o

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. :D

golfnutrlv
November 4, 2009, 12:45 PM
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.

Lashlarue
November 4, 2009, 12:53 PM
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
November 4, 2009, 01:00 PM
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.

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.

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.

Baratacus
November 4, 2009, 01:45 PM
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.


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.

MTT TL
November 4, 2009, 04:38 PM
All I really want to know is this:

If Ar-15s are so bad can they please lift the bans in the various states and localities? After all if they are so bad as to be practically harmless what do they need to be banned for? :)

Skans
November 4, 2009, 05:44 PM
If Ar-15s are so bad can they please lift the bans in the various states and localities?

OK! Abracadabra, kallamazoo, all Kali Citizens the AR15 is available for you too. Now, just go out and buy one....but don't blame me when it jams just when the Kali stormtroopers are hunting you down.

MTT TL
November 4, 2009, 06:01 PM
but don't blame me when it jams just when the Kali stormtroopers are hunting you down.

Actually it will turn into a rock throwing contest as they will all be armed with AR-15s also! :D

davlandrum
November 4, 2009, 06:17 PM
People have griped about their weapons since the invention of the spear.

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...

Palmetto-Pride
November 4, 2009, 06:41 PM
Skans you seem to have a personal vendetta against the AR-15 did your first love cheat on you with one.............lol:eek:

Snakum
November 5, 2009, 08:25 AM
Finally, an "M16/AR15 short-comings" thread I give enough of a @#$^ to respond to. :D

gas tube glows under full-auto fire and tend to burst under combat conditions

One, how would anyone know it was glowing? The tube is largely hidden under the handguard.

Two, utter bullcrap. I fired old M16A1s on full auto in US Army basic and Infantry school (training units had not transitioned to the A2 in 1985) and as a contractor/trainer in Latin America I saw many, many instances of very old M16A1s having five or six 30-round mags emptied as fast as the panicky, un-fire-disciplined troops could change mags during a firefight and I never, ever saw a gas tube glow or explode. Not that is hasn't happened, and my experience is still rather limited, but I just don't see it under normal combat conditions.

Will the M16/AR/M4 choke in that fine powdered sand in the ME? Heck yes. It was seen as far back as Bright Star in Egypt in the late 70s that the Stoner rifle didn't function optimally n that kind of environment. But everywhere else it is a proven platform, and as near as I can tell needs only normal maintenance and a few precautions to operate properly in the desert, as well.

The 5.56 round? Well, the standard ball ammo ain't the bees knees, that's for sure. But that is an easy fix. Higher weight soft-point bullets would fix that asap. ;)

The M16/AR15/M4 doomsayers are just ranting to hear themselves rant. I'm an AK fan-boi but I have enough real-world experience to admit that the Colt M/AR platform works. Period.

Skans
November 5, 2009, 08:44 AM
Skans you seem to have a personal vendetta against the AR-15 did your first love cheat on you with one.............lol

Now that's funny! My first love hated guns...I could only have been so lucky. The way some folks stick up for the M16 / AR15 you would think that they and their beloved AR are newlyweds!

I really do not have a personal vendetta against the AR15. I have two myself. One pistol - Carbon-15 and the other is an older Colt Sp1 Carbine. I replaced the upper receiver with an A2 upper and put a heavier barrel on it. It works just fine - I just rarely shoot it because I have other guns I prefer to shoot.

Now, I do shoot my Carbon 15 pistol quite a bit. It's fun as heck to shoot. It's fairly accurate, light weight and controlable. But, it does foul up pretty bad. And, it only takes about 300 rounds to crud it up to the point that it will start to jam. It's not that bad to clean, but it does take a bit of time and some scraping.

My Carbon-15 is a range toy, and as such I rappid fire it extensively. It did fire a double onece with one pull of the trigger - never could figure out what made it do that - probably just dirty.

I have fired a full-auto short barreled M16. It felt and functioned about the same as my AC556 - no decernable difference in performance (other than mag changes which were quite a bit easier) as far as I could tell from my limited experience. I did notice that the receiver was pretty beat up and it almost looked like the aluminum had been polished bright from wear in some areas, but that was just cosmetic. The M16 functioned flawlessly from what I remember.

Alleykat
November 5, 2009, 08:49 AM
I won't bother to read the article, as there are plenty of us on this forum who know more about firearms than does the author. (apparently)

The OP's synopsis of the article indicates to me the silliness of the article. Wonder how many ARs the author built, starting with stripped uppers and lowers? :rolleyes: I don't find my ARs hard to clean. I don't ever plan to use any of my ARs in combat. I won't be shooting my ARs f.a. My ARs NEVER FAIL!

I'd like to see some empirical evidence of gas tubes' "bursting" in combat. That's a new one on me and probably an egregious prevarication.