PDA

View Full Version : i dont like the AR15, am i alone?


jason41987
August 26, 2012, 06:00 AM
hey everyone.. i see a lot of people relatively new to firearms always go for an AR15, i see other people who know more about firearms feel like they need one because everyone else has one

i used to want an AR15, made some posts about it.. i have experience with ar15s... but the more i got into the guts of it, the more glaring some of the flaws became to me and i just cant help but think there are better options out there... and theres some people who will always think theyre absolutely the best simply because the military uses them, some who would probably jump of a bridge if it was something the military was doing

but what i dont like about this thing is the more i get into the mechanics... the more i start to see it for its only one or or two good features it has, which arent even specific to the rifle

everyone claims its a great weapons platform, expandable, customizable versitile.. but it wasnt like this, at one point in his like if was a straight .223 with no top rail and a plan plastic forearm... it was made into what it is now mostly from the aftermarket... its features i do like is the quick change barrel (try changing a barrel on an AK, FAL, G3, try telling me the AR15 isnt quick-change) but other rifles had these features too, and are just as capable at being an expandable platform, some quite old designs too

what i dont like about the AR15.. where i think its flawed is mainly in the design and the mechanics... i strongly believe, and always will that the straight magwell was a bad idea.. a flaw on this design that caused tons of feeding problems in its youth, and still causes some from time to time now, not as obvious as when firing something like 7.62x39 through an AR, but its still present... they should have gone with a magazine more along the lines of what the G36 and steyr AUG used (fully curved).... most these new age rifles entering the market copy this one feature and they shouldnt, but theyre actively looking to recreate a custom AR15 without putting much effort into actually improving on it (i know, NATO STANAG standard and such)

another issue i have with the design is just how absolutely long the carrier is, just so a larger recoil spring could be used without a guide rod, so they extended it to make clearance for the hammer... i think a spring behind the gas-key, or a couple on the sides (like an AR18) would have been able to shorten the action up without that spring and carrier entering the buttstock and smacking around near your face

i dont like the upper receiver being made of aluminum and not using rails for the carrier to slide on... you have a very hard metal riding along a soft metal.. take a wrench and try to slide it along your hardwood floor, it slides very easily, because the floor is hard... try sliding it across a carpeted floor, it doesnt go anywhere because its soft, too much friction.... this happens in an AR15 on a microscopic scale, but one of the reasons it has to be lubricated regularly

... im not even going to get into a gas system arguement like most people were probably expecting, because i direct impingement isnt going to be less reliable than a short stroke piston, but it will be lighter and a lot more accurate.. so i actually like that feature

-------

anyway... am i alone here? or does someone else share my opinions, or maybe have reasons of their own?... there are designs on the market i like most, some fairly old and battle proven so id rather add some of these to my collection first... which rifles would you rather have to fill the role of an AR15, that is not an AR15?

i just feel like im the only one that sees this design as unrefined as anything else from its generation

MC 1911
August 26, 2012, 06:55 AM
It's not that I dislike the AR platform,I just prefer my Mini 14 & AK. I've heard all the arguments as to why they aren't as good,but they feel better & do what I need them to do and thats what counts.

Skadoosh
August 26, 2012, 07:04 AM
At least you're not basing your dislike of the AR on things like its performance and inherent accuracy...

wingman
August 26, 2012, 07:27 AM
I did not like them either until I purchased one.;)

jmr40
August 26, 2012, 07:37 AM
All of your dislikes are based on flawed logic. The rifle has been the most tested, and has the longest service record of any rifle in US history. There were a few minor bugs that needed to be worked out 50 years ago, but it is the most tested and proven rifle ever.

BillyJack3
August 26, 2012, 07:41 AM
Man, you're all over the place. Comparing what it was to the enhancements made today. Discussing what you feel are design flaws that don't seem to pose a problem or performance issue. Straight magwell is a bad idea? Is anyone having issues with it? I don't think any of your arguments as to why you don't like it are common issues today.

1DrnkMxR
August 26, 2012, 08:33 AM
I have around 1300 rounds through my home built AR15 with no problems. I would not say you're alone but I would say there's more likes than dislikes.

Crow Hunter
August 26, 2012, 08:44 AM
There are undoubtedly rifle designs out there that are superior, just like there are cartridges that are better than the 5.56 that it is designed around.

The problem is that this is the US. The way our laws are written right now, the only way for an average civilian to get a true "combat tested" rifle as close as possible to the as issued configuration is to go with an AR-15.

All of the other guns out there have to be imported in neutered configuration and the have US produced 922r parts installed in them.

Some of them, like the SCAR, are probably identical to the military issue parts just produced in the states, others, maybe not. (How many of you really trust Tapco to make things to a high standard...:D)

Couple this with large aftermarket available for the AR and the modularity and ergonomics of the the platform and it is going to be hard to beat the AR.

The upper doesn't need rails as BCG "floats" within the aluminum upper on the skids on the carrier. Since the forces involved in opening the action are inline with carrier, it doesn't need any rails to keep it from torquing over. Even if it had rails, it would still need a layer of lubrication for it to slide over.

The SCAR has a steel bolt carrier riding on aluminum rails.:eek:

Since most of the pictures that I have seen of the latest generation of rifles all seem to have similar extruded aluminum upper receivers, I assume they all do the same thing.

(The SCAR does peen the rails int he upper but it seems to be self limiting)

madcratebuilder
August 26, 2012, 08:46 AM
I dislike all seven of mine:rolleyes:

Palmetto-Pride
August 26, 2012, 08:48 AM
So what rifle of equal or less weight, equal or more capacity, equal or more accurately, equal or less money, equal or more easily accept optics, equal or more reliably fire the 5.56x45mm round than the AR-15.:confused:

Please provide the alternative rifle that will fill the above criteria because I want one.:eek:

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 08:53 AM
similar ergonomics, good accuracy, more reliability, and still able to be an expandable platform allowing simple use of optics.. i would use the sig 551-A1 for this role

Jo6pak
August 26, 2012, 09:04 AM
I don't "dislike" the AR. I just prefer other designs.

What I really dislike are the fanboys who wear blinders to any critisizm on the design, or any praise of any rifle other than the AR.

Strafer Gott
August 26, 2012, 09:10 AM
So get the Sig, and give us a range report already, Jason! I'd love to hear something good about a Sig piston, or say hey, even an M400.

Crow Hunter
August 26, 2012, 09:25 AM
similar ergonomics, good accuracy, more reliability, and still able to be an expandable platform allowing simple use of optics.. i would use the sig 551-A1 for this role

Caveat. I have never personally fired a Sig rifle. I have taken one apart though.

I used to think the same thing, based on Leroy Thompson's articles. (I ignore him now however based on his SCAR 17 article in SWAT where he talked about cowitnessing iron sights through a magnified optic....:rolleyes:)

Then I got to doing some research.

Only 2 countries in the world issue the Sig 55x series to their military. Switzerland and Chile. Neither of them have participated in any combat to speak of. When the SAS was trying to pick a rifle to issue to their units (Because the L85 sucks so bad) they evaluated the 55x series. It lost out to the Canadian C8. (AR-15).

http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1297035&postcount=82

I think a big part of the mystique of the Sig is because it is made in Switzerland, so it much be perfect, and there are so few of them here in the US (read valuable) that no one runs them hard to find out of they have any fleas.

I know Nashville SWAT had a couple real Swiss LEO only rifles that they brought to a Tactical Response Fighting Rifle class and they weren't impressed based on the AAR that I read.

From what I have read about Sigs quality control on the 556 series they are making in the US they are less than impressive.

Microgunner
August 26, 2012, 09:32 AM
Yes, you are alone. Utterly alone, at least among the people I speak with.

Art Eatman
August 26, 2012, 09:44 AM
Hey, the AR is just another type of rifle. If you like them, fine. If you don't, who cares? I've had several; have one now. But I don't get particularly excited about it. Overall, I prefer a lightweight bolt gun.

The only drawback to them is the infantile fanboy nonsense that gets spouted on the Internet with far more emotion than is warranted. Guns are tools, just like screwdrivers and pliers.

I figure that emotions are better served when dealing with pretty gals. :D

Marquezj16
August 26, 2012, 10:15 AM
To the OP - thanks for your opinion. Like someone else said, your complaints are not current issues with the rifle. No one has problems with the magwell, BCG, or upper receivers.

There are plenty of other rifle designs available out there. Go get one and be happy.

BillyJack3
August 26, 2012, 10:25 AM
I don't "dislike" the AR. I just prefer other designs.

What I really dislike are the fanboys who wear blinders to any critisizm on the design, or any praise of any rifle other than the AR.

I don't think anyone criticized any other rifle. In fact, if we are on this forum, I think it's safe to say that we own more than just an AR. I in fact own several semi-autos, bolt actions, shot guns, pistols and have them in multiple calibers. On many days, I leave the AR in the safe. Just depends on what I'm doing that day and what I want to shoot.

As far as design criticism, again, point something out that is relevant, problematic today and needs to be addressed.

asm3686
August 26, 2012, 10:37 AM
I'm not going to knock the ar platform but I am a fan of the ak platform for its simplicity. To me the ar feels like a toy with all its plastic and aluminum parts doesn't have the weight I have gotten used to. I will admit accuracy/ar weight/ar aftermarket/ar cost/ak reliability/ak but that's just my two cents I feel it is a far superior rifle but my ak groups 2in at 100 yards and that the Max range I can shoot at where I shoot. So in my book different circumstances is take an ar and prolly love it but my ak fills all my current needs.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Woody55
August 26, 2012, 11:01 AM
I'm used to them.

It's more accurate than I am.

Clean it every once in a while and throw away damaged magazines, and it's perfectly reliable.

RT
August 26, 2012, 11:23 AM
You are clearly smarter and more mechanically inclined than Gene Stoner and all the civilian/ military armorers that work on the AR.
If you don't like the AR, then don't buy one

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 12:02 PM
wow, what a very arrogant and condescending remark in the defense of something you like that someone else doesnt... are you really going to sit here and make claims that eugene stoner was an all knowing super-genious who designed something completely unflawed without so much as a degree in engineering? and there cant possibly be any problems with it that someone more mechanically inclined might notice?... how dare you insult others for not thinking the things you like are as cool or perfect as you do

chris in va
August 26, 2012, 12:12 PM
I think for the price you pay for a decent AR, there aren't many other rifles that compare in the same price point. Mine was $640 and I'd be hard pressed to find a 'high capacity' 5.56 with similar performance.

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 12:22 PM
yeah, for $640 it would be hard to find something new.. many of the better rifles on the market do cost more.. i wont list as AK as better, merely different, it has its own problems too

tulsamal
August 26, 2012, 12:26 PM
Back in the 70's and and early 80's I didn't like the AR/M16. I preferred several other designs. I could list out the reasons. Every time I fired an AR-15 I went away shaking my head and fussing about various things. Determined to never "waste my money on one of those things." Saved up my money to buy an HK and a Steyr AUG.

But then 1985 came and I joined the US Army. Went to Basic Training. OSUT at Ft. Bliss then to Schofield Barracks and the 25th ID. Once I got out of the Active Army, I went into the Active Reserves as a Drill Sergeant. Ended up with 8 years of service in the Army.

What I'm trying to say is... my opinion on the AR totally changed once I lived with it on a daily basis. I did discover a whole bunch of other flaws I didn't even know about before. But I also discovered how to avoid those. How to properly maintain the rifle. And I grew to totally respect it and what it could do.

So I still can't resist buying things like FAL's and AK's. And AUG's and CETME's. But the AR-15 feels like "home" in my hands. If we really do have such a thing as muscle memory based on training time, then I guess that's what it comes down to. Think of all the US soldiers that have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm betting really large numbers of them are going to end up wanting one or two AR's of their own eventually. There is a just a comfort when you pick them up. If you don't believe me.... well, go sign up for the US Army for a few years and see what I mean!!

Gregg

RT
August 26, 2012, 12:49 PM
Don't get your knickers in a twist, son. Sure the AR has some flaws, but I have never heard anyone complain about the asinine stuff you posted. If the AR sucks so much and is so unrefined, then why is it still in use around the world and more popular than ever here in the US?
Like I said, if you don't like it, don't buy one. :rolleyes:
BTW, Do you own an AR?
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494812

ritepath
August 26, 2012, 12:51 PM
I like my AR so much I bought another, then a 22 conversion kit for the kids to plink with.

I used to want a AK but no more, I traded my SS mini.

I'm currently working on a third to hunt with, looks like my 308 and BAR in 270 are going to be retired. It's just such a hard decision on what caliber to go with for deer.



In other news I don't recommend you buying one. Lot's of my friends over at the survivalist forums agree that the AK is best for defending their tomato gardens from roving patrols of thieves after SHTF.

Marquezj16
August 26, 2012, 12:54 PM
I bet if you look at all those other better rifles, they will all have pros and cons. Any weapon does.

BTW are you saying you are more mechanically inclined than Stoner? Which weapon system did you design?

Shotgun693
August 26, 2012, 01:49 PM
I like my '73 clone a lot more than my AR. the '73 is more fun, handles great and I often shoot clean with it in matches. However, in a combat type situation I'd much rather be carrying an AR. It shoots flatter, is quicker to load, shoots a reasonably powerful round and most everyone else has one. My '73 is my fun, hunting good looking gun. My AR is my emergency go to gun. They serve different purposes.

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 02:22 PM
ive actually designed a few of my rifles in the past and have discussed features relating to them on here and it other forums... and my background is in mechanical engineering

FordV8
August 26, 2012, 02:30 PM
I like Pie!

Edward429451
August 26, 2012, 02:33 PM
I'm not over joyed with the ergonomics of the AR, but I think it's important to be well versed in the platform.

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 02:39 PM
i think its important to be well versed in "a" platform, not going to make the claim someone needs that platform to be one specific rifle or another.. it can be an AR15, but i wouldnt look down on someone if they chose that one platform to train with to be something else

Marquezj16
August 26, 2012, 03:30 PM
what is your rifle design called?

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 03:43 PM
marquez, my designs are right where they need to stay for now and thats in blueprint form which is a lot more than you have or ever will have.. so you may want to think twice about bringing that up... the AR15s not perfect... said it once, and said it again, get over it

militant
August 26, 2012, 03:48 PM
I'm selling my AR to get a M14

Skadoosh
August 26, 2012, 04:04 PM
The M14/M1A is a great platform. I would sell an AR for one too!

SIGSHR
August 26, 2012, 04:12 PM
I don't like the AR-15/M-16, carried one for Uncle Across the Pond, fired one off and on while I was in the Reserves 1976-1998, haven't touched one since I retired, doubt if I have even one round for it. It has been a work in progress since its adoption, every conflict reveals new shortcomings in its design and ammunition, and like RNL ammunition for the 38 Special, it really fills no niche well. However, this is my personal opinion.

AKsRul.e
August 26, 2012, 05:08 PM
"everyone claims its a great weapons platform, expandable, customizable versitile.. but it wasnt like this, at one point in his like if was a straight .223 with no top rail and a plan plastic forearm... it was made into what it is now mostly from the aftermarket... its features i do like is the quick change barrel (try changing a barrel on an AK, FAL, G3, try telling me the AR15 isnt quick-change) but other rifles had these features too, and are just as capable at being an expandable platform, some quite old designs too."

You are woefully ignorant of our SERVICE RIFLE's History.........:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBpCmgRRr0

:)

Wildshot
August 26, 2012, 05:09 PM
My brother and I went shooting on friday. He brought his AR and I brought my Savage bolt action. We shot for awhile and then traded guns for awhile. I enjoyed shooting his AR. Would I buy one? No, I like my savage better. Anytime I feel like shooting a AR, I'll invite my brother to go shooting. Best of all worlds. :D

cannonfire
August 26, 2012, 05:19 PM
Wow somebody is getting upset that people are not +1ing his comments...

So why is it bad that there is no guide rail? Just because it is different from the majority of other semi auto rifles does not mean it is wrong or flawed. The system has worked for how many years? By how many countries? The popularity of the system over that long of a period shows it's success.

Either way, if you have a problem with the AR system, don't by one. But don't get mad when people don't agree with you, that's awfully childish.

And just because you have a degree in mechanical engineering does not mean you are good at designing anything. I have drawings too of guns that I designed, does not mean they would work or be successful. Saying you have blueprints of your designs does not mean you are a better engineer than the man who has created one of the two most popular weapons in the world for the past 60+ years. Get production models of your designs created then have them tested and see how they compare to ARs and other rifles.

There is no perfect rifle or weapon, but if you designed it then you might want to sell those designs, you'd be a wealthy and popular person

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 05:37 PM
ive already said why i didnt like the lack of a guide rail.. not so much for the sake of a rail but because as it stands, its hard steel riding on soft aluminum

and to describe what happens on a microscopic level.. try sliding a wrench or a hammer across a hardwood floor.. it slides easily.. then try sliding it across carpeting.. it wont go anywhere.. thats what happens when you try sliding something across a softer material.. it causes more friction requiring more and more often lubrication.. .a rail would reduce surface area on contact and it would be hard steel riding on hard steel

PawPaw
August 26, 2012, 05:49 PM
I got my first one in 1973, rack #8, at Fort Knox, KY. On and off since then, I had many over the years. Good rifles all, but just tools, something else to hump on my back. I turned in my last issue rifle in 1999. They got better over the years, but they were still just bullet-launchers. No soul at all. Simply machines to be used, cleaned, used again.

I bought my own in 2002, a clone of the A2 I carried for most of my career. Shot it for awhile, tripped down memory lane. I carry it today as a patrol rifle and shoot it maybe three-four times a year. It's still a tool, a bullet-launcher. The grandkids think that it's uber-cool, but to me it will always be just a bullet-launcher.

Quentin2
August 26, 2012, 05:50 PM
I liked the M16 in Vietnam and 44 years later I like my three AR builds. A pretty smart design in my opinion and it's remained up-to-date over the years. I have no major complaints.

No doubt there are plenty of good rifle designs (and I have others such as lever action and bolt action) but remember, the AR is right up there with them.

cannonfire
August 26, 2012, 05:50 PM
and to describe what happens on a microscopic level.. try sliding a wrench or a hammer across a hardwood floor.. it slides easily.. then try sliding it across carpeting.. it wont go anywhere.. thats what happens when you try sliding something across a softer material.. it causes more friction requiring more and more often lubrication.. .a rail would reduce surface area on contact and it would be hard steel riding on hard steel

But if the force of the bolt cycling is enough to over come the friction then it's a negligible problem. Lube helps to negate the friction but it is not necessary. See how many service members keep the M16FOW well lubed while in the sandbox. The smart ones who use their weapons dont because lube holds dirt and sand. The weapon works without lube so the friction "problem" is not really a problem, but an observation. There is not excessive wear or damaged parts because of the way the bolt sits in the reciever. There is no problem there.

And anything short of glass on glass will have microscopic friction like you explained. You're fishing for a problem that doesn't exist

stubbicatt
August 26, 2012, 05:56 PM
... I don't really care for fish, either. But it is what tastes good to me, what I like, what I don't, rather than an indictment of seafood. Same for the AR15. You can hardly argue with its performance, light weight, etc. Same: fish is good for your brain, gives you cholesterol fighting "stuff."

Nonetheless, I don't like it!

Rock on, AR guys!

Eghad
August 26, 2012, 05:58 PM
That is why you use lubrication.

Imagine a car engine with an aluminum block and the pistons are going hundreds of revolutions a minute. I get at least 10 years or more out of my vehicles. The key to that is making sure they are lubricated properly.

Same goes for an AR-15.

This guy fired about 15,000 rounds in 31 weeks using a DI M4.M4a1 type carbine with a total of 9 malfunctions which were bad ammo and bad magazines. All he replaced was the gas rings.

http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/

I can understand somebody not liking an AR-15. It is an ugly duckling compared to some of my other rifles.

The first ones were sold in 1959. It is over 50 years old and the design has been enhanced and improved to where it is a reliable firearm if made properly and the operator does proper maintenance and lubrication.

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 06:09 PM
there is a lot more wear when they run them dry.. ive known people that have done that well and they say its a tradeoff, shortens the life of the upper but prevents collecting dust and sand and forming a glue

i never said it was a bad design, just a bit efficient and archaic.. i notice some of the design shares a similar concept and thought process to some WWII submachine guns and some sacrafices were made to make them cheaper to produce, since they werent going to be saving much money on the manufacturing process of casting and forging receivers

the idea of the bolt carrier riding inside a tube, with a large gas spring behind it reminds me very much of the WWII SMGs like the sten, MP40, and some of those other tube-based submachine guns and the idea of this was for simplicity.. it just didnt carry over as well when being adapted to a closed-bolt design and an actual trigger group being added to the mix...

id have to say the fact its an expandable platform by todays standards is more luck than anything else.. when they designed this in the 60s i dont think anyone had an idea of rail systems like they use now... so there was an amount of luck in the design with it being so easy to adapt to a flat top

---

so what can i say? its not a bad design, just in my opinion a bit outdated and a bit inefficient to those reguards and i still completely prefer the simplicity and reliability of "rock and lock" type magazines

i think the sig rifles which have been out for what? 40 years now are better, as they add similar ergonomics with the better magazine setup, same rail system, better reliability. i feel its a more complete design in the sense that it offers a more complete balance of reliability, ergonomics, and needed features

i cant say i like many of the modern rifles too, i look at the SCAR, ACR, XCR and they basically just coppies of the AR15 whos differences are little more than whats available on an AR15 through aftermarket..

one new rifle im keeping my eyes on at this point is the CZ-805 rifle, supposed to be made available to the civilian market in the near future but until that comes out i guess ill continue working on AKs for the time being and get myself a sig 551 of my own soon

Eghad
August 26, 2012, 06:21 PM
If you lube it properly it doesn't turn into a grit soup and it runs just fine. Plus you have lubes like Slip 2000 EWL and Frog Lube plus others. I have been using the AR-15 platform since 1975 till I retired in 2004 never had any problems except with bad magazines. The early AR-15's problems were self induced.

I don't see any significant advantages of the SIG 556 over the AR-15. In fact Sig is now producing AR 15 style rifles.

Crow Hunter
August 26, 2012, 06:43 PM
You say you have a "background" in mechanical engineering.

Do you actually have a degree?

I assume that you have at best a couple years experience based on your 4-19-1987 birth date and the types of comments that you make.

Look closer at the design of the AR. (It would help if you actually owned one and could look at it rather than just going with what you read on the internet) The BCG doesn't ride in the tube. There are clearances all the way around. It only touches where those 4 skids are. No more contact than a rifle with rails. Possibly even less since you only have the area on top of the skids touching rather than the 3 sides of a rail.

If you will remember in your "engineering classes" the largest component of friction is the load normal to the surface. There is negligible load normal the friction surface between the BCG and the upper compared to forces opening and closing the action. On top of that, the inside of the upper receiver is anodized which greatly increases it's surface hardness which helps with it's lubricity and prevents corrosion.

You also need to get some experience working in a machine shop. We did dry turning of brake rotors at the job I used to have. The interior of the machines were constantly coated in cast iron dust (abrasive enough that it will eat through tungsten carbide tool holders that aren't nitrocarburized). The ways of the machines (X axis/Z axis) were constantly lubricated with lithium grease. They didn't bind up, even though they have much tighter clearances than any AR rifle ever made. The grease kept the dust in suspension and kept it from binding.

Schooling is good, but experience is better. Take your designs and get a patent and see if you can sell them or start up your own weapons company. Then, when your designs are vastly more successful than the AR-15, AR-10, and the AR-18, you can definitely say that you know better than Gene Stoner how to design a rifle.;)

I think last time I looked, Knight's Armament had an opening. You should apply.

Sinlessorrow
August 26, 2012, 06:46 PM
I guess these guys never got the memo about how less lube is better or how lack of guide rails is bad.....
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95136&page=3
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/564927_Why_I_like_my_LMT___.html

jason41987
August 26, 2012, 06:51 PM
it doesnt even need guide rails specifically.. the skis work for that and the key keeps it from rotating inside the upper... but to not ride on a much softer aluminum... it would add weight, but id rather an upper that either has rails, or if its going to ride on the inside surface like that, ride on the inside of a steel upper

Sinlessorrow
August 26, 2012, 06:57 PM
its not needed, I have put tens of thousands of rounds through the AR-15 system and never once have I ever seen any issues caused by a steel bolt carrier riding on the aluminum upper.

Eghad
August 26, 2012, 07:01 PM
Even the CZ 850 uses aluminum alloy in the receiver.

Marquezj16
August 26, 2012, 07:27 PM
What crow hunter said. :D

I wonder how many owners have worn out their aluminimum uppers because they have steel BCGs? :eek:

Justice06RR
August 26, 2012, 07:28 PM
You are probably more or less in the minority who doesn't like AR's for the "flaws" you mentioned.

No rifle is perfect and each one has their pros and cons. The modern AR15/M16 today, especially from a top-tier manufacturer like Colt or BCM is an excellent and very efficient rifle. Sure it may not have started that way, but its service history and decades of use and improvement have mostly eliminated any of those disadvantages you mentioned.

If you don't like the AR platform, thats your prerogative. There are plenty of other choices out there.

My question is, have you owned a high-quality AR15 from Noveske, Colt, DD, or BCM?

buckhorn_cortez
August 26, 2012, 07:35 PM
...that eugene stoner was an all knowing super-genious who designed something completely unflawed without so much as a degree in engineering?

If you're actually are that familiar with the AR-15 - then you'd know Eugene Stoner didn't design it. Stoner designed the AR-10, and Robert Fremont and Jim Sullivan designed the AR-15 based on Stoner's AR-10 design.

As for the rest of your comments - too silly to respond to as the design has so obviously proven itself over 50 years of use. All of your "critique" could be easily refuted - it would just be a grand waste of time.

If you don't like it that's fine - buy something else. Next you'll be giving us a schooling in what's wrong with the 1911, Glock, etc. - I can hardly wait for that laugh fest...

kraigwy
August 26, 2012, 08:28 PM
I really have a hard time disliking a rifle that saved my hide un-teen times in SE Asia during a Live Fire FTX with Pop Up Shoot Back Targets.

For the same reason I can't dislike the 1911a1 and the Model 28 Smith.

RT
August 26, 2012, 08:54 PM
Jason, Please explain how an upper made of 7075 T6 aluminum forging that is type III hard anodized (with a surface hardness of 60 Rockwell) is "a much softer aluminum" :rolleyes:

5.56RifleGuy
August 26, 2012, 09:03 PM
I have never seen or heard of a worn out upper receiver.

Art Eatman
August 26, 2012, 10:48 PM
And once again there's a bunch of wandering away from the OP.

Nighty-bye...

Marquezj16
August 26, 2012, 11:16 PM
marquez, my designs are right where they need to stay for now and thats in blueprint form which is a lot more than you have or ever will have.. so you may want to think twice about bringing that up... the AR15s not perfect... said it once, and said it again, get over it

So you have the design in a computer, ever made a prototype, how does it function? As far as what I have, I have built my own rifle using the AR15 blue print which is more than what you have.

You claim your background is mechanical engineering but you are not an engineer. You have a lot of research knowledge and theories but you have not put it into reality. Until that happens, you have nothing.

greentick
August 27, 2012, 12:01 AM
Black hole weaponry was doing an internally railed upper for a while. Had a matching bolt carrier with grooves cut into it. No claims to improve accuracy or reliability but evidently felt much smoother cycling.

Good friend of mine did months of reading reviews, product descriptions etc. Bought a Sig 550. Once in hand, he found it to be heavier-feeling and more cumbersome than a similarly equiped AR15. Sold it for what he paid for it and got an AR.

I've been shooting M16A1/A2, M4A1 and AR15 in a few calibers for 25yrs. I personally love it. Shot plenty of foreign stuff in my time, haven't found much better.

raftman
August 27, 2012, 03:29 AM
Mr. Mechanical Engineer doesn't appear to have mastered spelling or grammar. In any case, the whole list of "faults" seems to be composed of things that might in theory be problematic but in practice aren't.

No, they're not perfect (but neither are the alternatives); for the money they're pretty good.

HiBC
August 27, 2012, 04:51 AM
No,you aren't alone,but,I'm not with you.

I have 30 years of trying to mentor engineers...I was the guy they came to to have their ideas made into something they could hold.Usually I had something to do with showing them how to make it work.

I have met some good engineers,some excellent engineers,but most of them do not perform nearly as well as AR-15s.

Case in point,your "dragging on the carpet"analogy of steel running on aluminum.

Look up the Rockwell "C" heat treat capability of 7075,and just for fun compare it to the 24 "C' or so that seems to have worked in a 1911 for 100 years,but,then realize that is just structural core.You see,the steel bolt carrier does not run on aluminum at all,zero,period.Learn about hard anodizing.It is very important you allow for the thickness when you design parts,or they will all be scrap.The steel runs on aluminum oxide.It is hard.See Norton Aluminum oxide grinding wheels.
Actually,that coating is harder than the bolt carrier,or guide rods,in an AR-18,and,oh my gosh,look at how much more surface is bearing in an AR-15.My guess,the AR-15 is a far more durable setup than the AR-18.

One thing about the AR was done very well"design for manufacturability".

It uses current manufacturing tech well.

The Sten and Grease gun did in their time.

The AR is adapted well to modern casting,forging,and CNC capabilities.

Stamping and spot welding steel sheet metal was OK in it's time.

The mag well does not like curvy bananna magazines?So what?You like those?
Do they go in mag pouches better?
We don't design modern cartridges with the case taper of the archaic 7.63x39 round anymore,or the .303 Brit if you're thinking Lewis gun.

Have you looked at the Surefire mags?

Nah,I respect you can like/dislike,thats fine,but when you elaborate ,the case you make I just can't follow

marine6680
August 27, 2012, 05:47 AM
I like the Sig 550 series because I think it looks good and should be reliable.

I like the AR because its comfortable and easy to shoot. Its proven reliable when kept lubed. I am currently looking hard at building two soon... perhaps a PSA build.

I like the CZ 805, based on what I know of its design and the CZ reputation, I will be getting one if they come to the US civilian market. (all those awesome older pistols like the 52, then the 75... and the VZ 58 rifle... Just a small smattering of CZ's long line of great guns)

All have strengths and weaknesses... newer rifle designs can reduce the weaknesses simply because of the concepts of continuous improvement.

One extra thought:

I was wondering about something though... and I don't want to start a new thread, so I will ask here.

During my training, there was a big emphasis on being able to use the M16 as a melee weapon in close quarters if needed. (we had M16A2)

Bayonets... using the butt stock as a blunt beating object... We abused those rifles. I know I personally beat the tar out of the rifle, I was surprised I didn't break the butt stock against the power pole thick post the "target dummy" was attached to. I even buried a bayonet into the post so deep I had to use both legs and all my weight against the pole to get it out.

Heck, we even used the rifle as a step ladder to lift guys over walls... one guy holds the butt stock, another the barrel near the hand guard, then the 3rd steps on the receiver and then you lift him up as he jumps off of it.

That is a lot of abuse to give any gun...

So my question... How would the M4 with its adjustable butt stock handle such treatment? It seems to me the solid rifle butt stock was a big reason for the ability of the A2 to handle the abuse as it did. The bare extension tube seems like it would be a weak point to me... but I could be wrong.

Crow Hunter
August 27, 2012, 07:44 AM
No,you aren't alone,but,I'm not with you.

I have 30 years of trying to mentor engineers...I was the guy they came to to have their ideas made into something they could hold.Usually I had something to do with showing them how to make it work.

I have met some good engineers,some excellent engineers,but most of them do not perform nearly as well as AR-15s.

Case in point,your "dragging on the carpet"analogy of steel running on aluminum.

Look up the Rockwell "C" heat treat capability of 7075,and just for fun compare it to the 24 "C' or so that seems to have worked in a 1911 for 100 years,but,then realize that is just structural core.You see,the steel bolt carrier does not run on aluminum at all,zero,period.Learn about hard anodizing.It is very important you allow for the thickness when you design parts,or they will all be scrap.The steel runs on aluminum oxide.It is hard.See Norton Aluminum oxide grinding wheels.
Actually,that coating is harder than the bolt carrier,or guide rods,in an AR-18,and,oh my gosh,look at how much more surface is bearing in an AR-15.My guess,the AR-15 is a far more durable setup than the AR-18.

One thing about the AR was done very well"design for manufacturability".

It uses current manufacturing tech well.

The Sten and Grease gun did in their time.

The AR is adapted well to modern casting,forging,and CNC capabilities.

Stamping and spot welding steel sheet metal was OK in it's time.

The mag well does not like curvy bananna magazines?So what?You like those?
Do they go in mag pouches better?
We don't design modern cartridges with the case taper of the archaic 7.63x39 round anymore,or the .303 Brit if you're thinking Lewis gun.

Have you looked at the Surefire mags?

Nah,I respect you can like/dislike,thats fine,but when you elaborate ,the case you make I just can't follow

This is exactly what I was talking about. Schooling is good (for teaching you basics and more importantly how to think logically and critically) but experience trumps it every time.

When you get a chance, especially since you are a young engineer, latch on to a good machine shop/tool & die guy, like I am betting HiBC is and learn. Don't be one of those guys who thinks that a piece of parchment and 4 years in the Ivory Tower of Academia automatically makes you infallible (trust me, it doesn't). Take him your ideas then take his advice, it will help you learn to turn theory into application.

Then one day, many years in the future, you will design something, and take it to someone like him, and he won't want to change a thing.

Then, you will finally be "there".;)

zincwarrior
August 27, 2012, 09:25 AM
Hey, the AR is just another type of rifle. If you like them, fine. If you don't, who cares? I've had several; have one now. But I don't get particularly excited about it. Overall, I prefer a lightweight bolt gun.

The only drawback to them is the infantile fanboy nonsense that gets spouted on the Internet with far more emotion than is warranted. Guns are tools, just like screwdrivers and pliers.

I figure that emotions are better served when dealing with pretty gals.

Agreed. People should not be hemmed in by other opinions. If you don't like an AR then fine. There are a plethora of other choices out there. This is America. Go with the one YOU like.

jason41987
August 27, 2012, 09:44 AM
ive actually been polite and pointed out some of the short comings in the mechanics of the rifle... i could list some of the features i think are dumb as well... but of course, you wouldnt want to hear anything that paints anything but a flawless portrait of the rifle you find infallible

i started this thread to find others that didnt like the design, and liked other rifles.. not for the utter whining from its fanboys who get defensive over the slightest amount of criticism

TRguy
August 27, 2012, 09:55 AM
Where is the "Like" Button? :D

cannonfire
August 27, 2012, 10:13 AM
Jason41987,

You actually have not been polite. As soon as someone questioned your opinion you immediately got defensive. You explained what you think are flaws in the design and when people challenged your opinion, you immediately started saying that because you are a mechanical engineer with no firearms experience,, you can build a better rifle than the AR. But you don't want your designs to get created, why?

You make these accusations that you are some great mechanical engineer but you have zero prototypes or weapons in production and you expect people to not question you?

Have a discussion and stop your crying like your post above. You don't even refute any of the other commenter's claims about the heat treatments applied to the "softer" aluminum. You didnt answer my question regarding the friction "issue". You didnt comment on the posts about how the bolt only touches the receiver on the slides. No you created this threat so people would think that you are some great engineer who found a problem with the design. But you made the problem up. Like I said, no rails does not deminish the integrity of the bolt or receiver. You thought you found a problem but when shown its not really a problem, you got your panties in a wad, blaming it on fanboys.

What are some other flaws in the design that are stupid? Explain yourself

Edward429451
August 27, 2012, 11:23 AM
i think its important to be well versed in "a" platform, not going to make the claim someone needs that platform to be one specific rifle or another.

Generally speaking I agree with this. From a logistical standpoint, it makes all sorts of sense to be familiar with the AR platform specifically because it is used by the military, police, citizens, and is everywhere.

I'm not saying you have to make it your fav or even like it. But every adult male should be able to run one, and be familiar enough with it to shoot it, field strip it, change parts etc..

FrosSsT
August 27, 2012, 12:40 PM
Its not my favorite but I like the AR-15. I think its an aging platform that will be replaced sooner or later. Theres also alot of drama and heated debates over them which is funny.

marine6680
August 27, 2012, 12:57 PM
When you get a chance, especially since you are a young engineer, latch on to a good machine shop/tool & die guy, like I am betting HiBC is and learn. Don't be one of those guys who thinks that a piece of parchment and 4 years in the Ivory Tower of Academia automatically makes you infallible (trust me, it doesn't). Take him your ideas then take his advice, it will help you learn to turn theory into application.

Every good engineer I have ever know has done something like this... or they started out in the field before finishing school.

I studied engineering for 2 years before switching to another field... and ever since I was younger (early teens) I knew that I wanted to have hands on experience to supplement my "works on paper" training... I was a practical kid, yet still eccentric in ideas. :p

I have always felt that an engineering student should be required to intern in the field he is studying... and not in the office with the engineers, but on the floor with the people actually making the stuff.

But on topic... no the AR isn't perfect... new designs can improve on the function and weaknesses... but the AR as a whole is not broken, or fundamentally flawed, if it was, then it wouldn't function well at all.

Its perfectly fine to not like the AR due to what you feel are short comings... find a platform you like better and go for it.

Ben Towe
August 27, 2012, 03:07 PM
The one thing I don't like about an AR is ergonomics. They just feel weird to me, and that's probably due to my dimensions and not the rifles (I'm a "bit" larger than average). That said, I still have one and I like it. I'm not really sure where you are getting your information on it's other "flaws" the steel BCG versus aluminum upper is a non-issue; magazine design is a non-issue, not sure why anyone would prefer a rock and lock mag design, maybe its just me but I really hate them. To my line of thought, another rifle design is an answer in search of a problem.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Eghad
August 27, 2012, 03:47 PM
My favorite thing about the AR-15 is that you can build one at home with a few tools. If the barrel wears out you can replace it in a very short time. If the upper gets out of spec you can get a new one. You can replace those yourself.
It lends itself to all kinds of customization by the end user. They can be made into very accurate shooters with a little TLC and patience.

kraigwy
August 27, 2012, 04:12 PM
I like the ergonomics of the M16/AR.

Unlike any other rifle I've used, I can hold it in my right hand, Release the bolt, use the safety, drop the mag, while bringing the second mag to the mag well and be firing again before the first hit the ground. (if not letting the mag do dry).

Pretty dern handy in an infantry rifle.

I'm not an engineer, I'm an end-user. I've use the M16 in combat, competition, and plinking. All in some of the nastiest conditions you can imagine, from the jungles of Vietnam to the sub temp Arctic of Northern and Western Alaska.

It never let me down. If I didn't hit what it was pointing at, it was me getting a bad wind call or some other failing on my part.

BarryLee
August 27, 2012, 04:18 PM
I'm not an engineer, I'm an end-user. I've use the M16 in combat

First, thanks for your service I for one will never take it for granted. Secondly, I think your comment above is priceless. :D

Art Eatman
August 27, 2012, 06:40 PM
Not much being said that hasn't already been said.