AR: Why Not a Forward Assist?

[stagpanther]

warned that if the roll pin for the FA breaks (and it has broken before at other times), it will jam the gun and will need gunsmith work to fix the problem.

The roll pin doesn't need to break, all that has to happen is for the pawl to go out of alignment--for whatever reason--and your weapon can be rendered inoperable. Hard to do that (other than improper assembly) but still a possibility if it takes a good whack.

[Duke of Lawn Chair]

@JeepHammer

Could you explain this comment you made

Keep in mind, this was a brand new round for our military producers, early Viet Nam era ammo was actually NATO foreign made.
That ammo wasn't sealed and would swell in the high humidity environment.

Specifically how a round could "swell" from high humidity?

Also what unit were you in, in Nam?

[TimW77]

77 comments on what others need/should do!
Buy what you want and let the other guy buy what they want...

Personally I would never own an AR type weapon without both a dust cover AND a FA...

Never needed while in the Army but the 2 times I needed it afterwards I'm sure glad I had it, would have cost myself or someone else their lives!

T.

[RC20]

Keep in mind, this was a brand new round for our military producers, early Viet Nam era ammo was actually NATO foreign made.
That ammo wasn't sealed and would swell in the high humidity environment.

That to has me puzzled, I know there was a definition for it circa 1960, but the US being supplied by it in that era?

[JeepHammer]

Galil (IWI/IMI) messed with several calibers, from Warsaw Pact standards to both .308 Win & 7.62x51mm staring in 1962. 1965 saw pre-production & special operations chambered in 5.56x45mm.

(They also messed with the first 6.5mm 'Short' battle rifle cartridges. Many of these military rifles were considered for US forces, right along with the AR-15 and are still in military museums)

Now, discounting the hype some wildcatter came up with the .223 in his basement,
It was actually the Belgium (FN) to first put high volume production into practice in 1963, Israel in 1965.
The US didn't get into full production until 1967 because of constant revisions and the military fighting the smaller round & 'Plastic' Rifle tooth & nail.

Both Belgium & Israel, and later the French & Australian governments got into the supply chain.
This was, after all, a multi-national war, or didn't you all know that?

The concept of a .22 cal round for military use was agreed to in 1958, while the .222 Super (later renamed the .223 SAAMI/5.56x45mm NATO adopted in 1962, serious production started in Belgium in 1963 using IMR powder just like original rounds were intended to use.
FN Herstal actually refined the cartridge to what we see today, Not Remington or Stoner.

Remington didn't rename the 5.56x45 NATO '.223 until 1959.
The appx. .270 cal round England was developing was dead in 1960 when the .22"/5.56mm bullet was adopted officially by NATO after Belgium/FN demonstrated the effectiveness of the smaller .22 cal round in European military competitions.
This was a zero fail test for the 5.56NATO round when fired through a FN/FAL style rifle, the ONLY offering to have a zero fail test at that particular military exhibition.

The US decided to use the newly developed Stoner design rifle and 'Winchester type' ball powder (cheaper to produce and military contractors of the period had experience with mass quantities of ball powder) which further screwed with the AR-15 design since it's MUCH dirtier & produces hard carbon.

The actual NATO/STANG requirements weren't laid down until 1980...
A full 20 years after the 5.56mm NATO cartridge was adopted by NATO.

The 5.56 NATO round/rifles have been around a LOT longer than the armchair expert think.
The FN/FAL was actually intended for the two prevailing European contenders, 6.5 & 6.8mm respectively (sound familiar? Still trying to sell the .270" to this day!)
It was scaled to fire 5.56 NATO but was too heavy to meet US military requirements, then scaled up to fire 7.62 NATO.

Initial reports from military trainers in Viet Nam were positive on both the 5.56 round & AR-15, renamed XM16 at that time.
Outside contractors building the rifles, along with US military ammunition manufacturers screwing with the powder got the rifle/round a seriously bad reputation.

Most don't know the AR-10 is the actual Stoner/AR rifle, intended to be chambered in 7.62 NATO, and/or the European favored .270'ish round, downsized to accommodate the 5.56 NATO round.
This *Should* be common sense, considering the AR model number 10 preceeds the model AR-15, but a LOT don't put that together either...

Don't even begin to ask me about civilian versions, I only kept up with military development history.

If you have any doubts, these test rifles still exist in military museums.

This is like the P-08 Lugar in .45 ACP. (1907)
The US was considering the toggle bolt P-08 before the 1911 Colt...
Yes, there is one remaining test pistol in existence.

What this has to do with a forward assist, I have no idea. I thought this was common knowledge/basic information when I was in the military, I didn't find out there were a million myths until I became a civilian and started reading civilian magazines... Which is why I don't read civilian magazines anymore...

[JeepHammer]

I don't use the term 'Nam' since I wasn't there. It's reserved for Viet Nam veterans.

I joined the Marines and became a military armorer & long range Marksman in 1979.
Remember, we were chasing down and killing things that got Viet Nam military folks dead.

The entire military small arms community were busy trying to deal with NATO stupidity, and make the M-16 as reliable & efficient as possible.
Can't know what to fix if you don't know the history...

[Duke of Lawn Chair]

Read some of your earlier posts and some how got the impression you were trying to give that impression. My apologies for being so presumptuous.

Now my original question to you again;

Could you explain this comment you made

Quote:
Keep in mind, this was a brand new round for our military producers, early Viet Nam era ammo was actually NATO foreign made.
That ammo wasn't sealed and would swell in the high humidity environment. End Quote:

Specifically how a round could "swell" from high humidity?

[stagpanther]

The FN/FAL was actually intended for the two prevailing European contenders, 6.5 & 6.8mm respectively (sound familiar? Still trying to sell the .270" to this day!)

I thought the original FN competitor submitted for trials was a 7mm/284 (which in fact did exceedingly well)? I recently was inspired to build a xx308 AR chambered in 284 win--the closest approximation I could get to that weapon--it operates very well and has outstanding ballistics though a bit limited in it's potential in the AR's short-action magazine configuration.

[JeepHammer]

I actually don't know since it wasn't adopted by any military I know of.
The US military considered the FN rifle in both 5.56 & 7.62 NATO rounds, but with the M-14 in full production it didn't really have a chance, and it was too heavy in 5.56 to be considered.
I've seen both, and I've seen the 6.5 & 6.8 versions, both of which were supposed to be considerably more accurate than the 7.62 NATO versions.
Don't know personally, just saw the rifles & read the history on them.

6.5 & 6.8mm have been repackaged, people think it's something new & wonderful, but it's rehashed from the late 50s/60s.

The pointed .30 cal bullet in a .223 case isn't new either (.300 AAC Black Out).
The Germans tried something similar in the late 70s, after 9mm rounds failed to penetrate improvised body armor of terrorists during the '72 Olympics.
The HK MP5/SP89 was in service '69 but wouldn't do the job, some of the 'Black September' terrorists wore phone books under their cloths which actually stopped 9mm rounds.

HK messed with a shortened 5.56 case, pointed 7.62 bullet, along with 10mm & 40 cal versions.
I can't remember the 7.62 ammo designation, doesn't matter since even HK never got it to work worth crap and dropped it.
What's old is new again I guess...

The 'Holy Grail' is the case-less rifle round.
Didn't work when I was in and the military was spending millions on it, still doesn't work as far as I know and they are STILL spending millions on it...

[JeepHammer]

Ammo has swollen as it absorbed moisture in several incarnations.
Why do you think US military ammo is sealed at both the billet & primer?

[stagpanther]

Why do you think US military ammo is sealed at both the billet & primer?

My guess--primarily to prolong ignition and combustion efficiency/reliability of both primer and powder.

[rickyrick]

I really don’t know much about ammo and powders or anything Ike that. I know how it works, but don’t know the properties of the materials used.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the whole ammunition swelling in high humidity.
Since I essentially live in a rain forest, and have large quantities of unsealed ammunition I’m Wondering if I should be concerned.
What exactly is swelling? Is it the powder inside pushing on the shell causing it to expand? Is it the brass itself or the bullet?

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, let's reason this out. Of the 3 major components (bullet, case, powder), which ones are known to be able to absorb water?

Of the ammunition that is sealed, as noted, it is sealed at the bullet and primer. Those are both entryways to the interior of the case.

Sealing does not take place all over the cartridge, just at those to areas.

If the brass or bullet was swelling, even sealed ammo would swell because of the huge amount of surface area that was not sealed.

So the part that must be swelling would be the powder. Sealed cartridges are sealed at the openings of the case so as to keep moisture from getting inside the case where the powder is housed.

With that said, I can't imagine cartridges swollen with moisture actually firing anyway.

[stagpanther]

I'm not an expert--but have hand-loaded my own ammunition for all of my many weapons for the better part of 15 years--there is no doubt that environmental conditions can have a big impact on the performance and reliability of cartridges. Military cartridges, though, tend to have "the little extras" like highly reliable powder formulations with wide temperature tolerances, thicker primers, swaged primer pockets and sealing and usually thicker case dimensions. I'm not saying I doubt that early NATO 5.56 ammo had issues chambering due to dimensions--but I too am having some issues conceiving how the brass swells to any significant degree due to humidity--unless maybe the cartridge dimensions and early weapon chamber reaming allowed for little to no expansion allowance? This would likely also result in a high number of headspace issues and rifle Kabooms would be my guess.

[rickyrick]

I’m not knowledgeable about the properties of the powders, but I was being sarcastic about the rest. Like explained above, the only imaginable scenario is the powder expanding. But I can’t imagine how it can expand enough to swell a cartridge to just the right point that it won’t chamber normally, but can be chambered with the forward assist and still fire.

[Art Eatman]

Enough wandering off-topic.