Unobtanium

TW25B works well for me, although I am now experimenting with Froglube on my AR. Lube the M4s90 like you would an M4/M16.

The .223 can be tailored by load selection to do anything I need to be doing.

Updated w/pix in post 1 and 2

Regarding terminal ballistics, I like this "bubba" test. Since shooting live creatures is always "subjective" (we don't know the mindset of the animal or person shot, etc. and identical hits can provide different results). Bubba test 7.62x39 FMJ Bubba test 55gr FMJ (3100fps handloads, supposedly) [video=youtube;o-WMeBplZSs] (I purposefully chose some of the poorest performing and most "commonly found" rounds as a "worst case" scenario). As you can see, when either round fails to yaw, it's a VERY poor performer. Ice-pick. .224 vs. .30 is a rather moot point. You are talking .076" difference in the size hole poked. That is like saying a .40 Gold-Dot is worthless and a .45 Gold-Dot will knock 'em in the dirt ASAP. When they DO yaw, you can see how superior the 5.56 round is.

Also, what do people actually using these rifles in Afghanistan have to say? Not someone using the pre-courser several generations of firearm back, but the modern "in-use" version? http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/examining-the-complaints-about-american-rifle-reliability/ Here is a video worth watching: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/ Now, lets compare *****s to *****s...well, not quite, I'm going to use one of the "least reliable" configurations for the AR platform. So, which weapon do you want to have placed in your hands to defend yourself at the end of each "test"? I know which one I would pick... vs. ETA: Why can I not type "app-les" Now, back to your friend in the jungles. I have NO DOUBT that the AK-47 was a better weapon back then. The M16 was not chrome-lined regarding the carrier, chamber, or the bore. What happened? A bunch of un-trained Americans got killed over there when this "self-cleaning" gun fed the wrong ammo AGAINST recommendation to the military was issued without cleaning kits. Low and behold! They corroded. They jammed. They stopped working in a heartbeat. Your friend is ABSOLUTELY right. It was a total POS at this point in its evolution and the environment it was fielded in was the worst place for its weakenesses. Now, what does the M1A have that it doesn't? All its parts were chrome-lined. You say the jungles were the M16's enemy? Because of humidity? Well there you have it. It's just chemistry. Remove the chrome-lining from your M1A and watch it fail hard with not maintenance in 90%+ humidity. Well, since then, they changed the powder. They chrome-lined the parts I mentioned earlier. They now come with cleaning kits and troops are lubing them correctly (and you can, too! All it takes in a punch is some motor-oil. Easily accessible. Pat Rogers has even used KY on the rifle in his classes to prove a point. It burns off fast, but it works in a pinch.). My point is that while the information you have is accurate, it is accurate in a historical sense. Much like me saying "Mustang's can't handle, in 1980..." when in fact Mustang GT's are now laying down lap-times that are in corvette territory on many tracks.

Exactly what "time" does an AR-15 take to maintain in your opinion? I have fired thousands of rounds through them and had maybe 5 failures that could not be traced to a specific NON-maintenance related cause (improperly re-sized reloads, etc.). Yes, I took them down and cleaned them well, but we already know that that wasn't "necessary". Just shoot some CLP in it when it slows down and you are fine. That is how people go through these 3-4,000 round carbine classes. At most many of them just pop the BCG out and wipe it off and re-CLP. What year was your friend an armorer for the Contras? A LOT has happened between the non-chrome lined M16 and the M4 of today. From the feed ramps to the chrome-lining to better USGI magazines. It's like you telling me you are a Ford fan because in the 80's the 302 was superior to the 305 that Chevy fielded. It's a moot point in 2011. I think you have bought into some anti-AR propaganda. How many AR's have you owned/ran? I'm not sure where you have come up with your opinion that they take a lot of love to keep alive. Regarding your video about the #1 assault rifle, look at the criteria used. I saw that episode. The reason the AK-47 "won" is because it has been around longer, and had a more profound impact on the world. Not necessarily because it is a physically superior weapon. They used "historic impact" as a rating factor. As far as the "bury it in sand", I think the video I posted showed the AK doing rather poorly there while the AR didn't have any issues. Depends on which kool-aid you want. As to your M1A, yes, there are plenty of factory loads out there that can bend an OP Rod. Just google "M1A hunting ammo OP rod" and you will find quite a few people who have had it happen. Here is one link. Yes, it's just a forum with people talking and no "real documentation", but... http://m14forum.com/ammunition/8244-factory-hunting-ammo-thats-okay-use-m1a-m1.html http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?76604-M1A-op-rod-question& It's not just fast burning powders, it's heavier bullets, etc. What if in a SHTF situation you come across some 175gr stuff? What if it's "loose" and with no box to tell you? You fire it...bent op-rod. It seems you are "stuck" with mil-spec ammo only if you wish to be 100% sure of reliability/weapon integrity. I mean, that's pretty far-fetched, I whole-heartedly agree. Very similar to how far-fetched it is to think that with all the automobiles around I can't slop some 10-30 on my BCG every now and then... The picture you showed me of an AR-15 jam is a bullet-over-bolt. It is caused by a faulty magazine that fails to control the rounds secondary to bent feed-lips. PMAG's and other modern incarnations of the AR-15/M16 magazine do not have this issue, and it is a perfect example of lack of maintenance on this user's part. If you have a USGI mag that does this--destroy it or use it for range-drills only. Magazines are an expendable item. When they fail, discard and attain new. Until the PMAG and L5 AWM and the like came out, the magazine was a real bugger for the platform. That problem has now been rectified. We can go back and forth with the "jammed rifle" pictures and videos. I guess this will be my next submission of such: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMXKo8fySrg&feature=related

I wanted to say a bit more of my piece on terminal ballistics. Short of military application, we don't have a whole lot of review for this. Since you are disapproving of the terminal ballistics of the 5.56, do you have any resource you would like to cite not using M193, M855, or an improper projectile (BST's to shoot through glass, etc.)? I have what I have, and yes I am defending an emotional as well as monetary investment, but I do truly believe that with proper barrier-blind ammo the 5.56 is very adequate out to 3-400 yards from a carbine, which is the intended purpose of this weapon. I picked the AR platform because it is superior to suppress. Suppressed AK's really don't work so hot in the real world it seems. They meter pretty high. With the 6.8, 300blk, etc. I was worried about ammo as you noted. No ammo

89% of the guys in the sand-box are pleased with their M4 carbines. Not bad when you can get 89% of any group to agree on something. Check this out: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee6_1312170216&comments=1 As to the 5.56x45 being effective, it is very much so when the correct ammunition is used. just like a 9mm or .45. Sucks with ball, use a good hollowpoint and it's nasty. Why do you feel the 5.56 is ineffective? Do you have facts to back this up, or are you relying on anecdotal evidence, or are you citing complaints about M193 and M855? Using proper ammo, plenty of deer and hogs have been cleanly killed with the .223/5.56. I don't see a person being much more hardy than a 200# boar. If you want to use the "whatever is available" argument, I take it that you are implying TSHTF and you are grabbing what you can grab. In that case, you are much more likely to stumble across .223 or 5.56 than you are any of the AK chambered rounds here in America, due to what local LE carries. I would think ANY ammo is superior to NO ammo. However, if neither is to be found, more 5.56 can be carried than 7.62x39, all things being equal. I also do not know of a commercially loaded source of 7.62x39 that is as effective as 5.56 TSX or MK318 MOD 0 SOST. I suppose I am asking: Quantify your detraction from the platform. De-bunk the supposed "propaganda" I have bought into. I went round and round with MD Roberts on the issue, and he did state that the 12ga round with #1 buckshot would destroy more tissue in a single blast. However, what about light body-armor? What about follow-up shots/mag capacity? What about barriers of ANY kind more substantial than clothing(slug only there, I shot enough stuff with buckshot to know it is a VERY poor barier penetrator. 000 Buck barely able to go through a good solid 2x6.)? The AR platform has some real advantages over the M4S90. I would further state that parts are more likely to be found for the M4 than for the AK/FAL in a real SHTF situation, and if NOT in that situation, all these other points are moot as well for the most part. You yourself switched to the M1A. You are aware that commercial loads of many flavor will bend that OP rod, yes? So what you are saying is that you did indeed choose a system that has ammunition limitations, in this case so severe that it will not even accept all rounds that can chamber in it. Further, you cited accuracy/ergo as your reason. The AR has it in spades. It is also a lot easier to maintain than the M1A because as all that needs doing is a liberal lubing of the BCG when it's dry. Wipe it off and it's G2G. Obviously not for a white-glove inspection, but clean with a rag and spray/wipe with CLP or other suitable lube will keep you running for a Loooooonnnnngggg time. Another point is that I have YET to see a good suppressor for the piston guns mentioned. The AR platform is wonderfully easy to suppress and does great suppressed. Mine, especially (pix will make clear why later on )

Terminal Performance: Poor reputation is due to M193 and M855 relying on yaw/fragmentation to disrupt tissue. They are also very poor barrier penetrators. TSX, MK318, etc. all do away with these problems and make the 5.56 effective well past 300 yards. Military FMJ ammunition is a poor measure of efficacy. Noone would dream of using 9mm FMJ, for example, in their carry weapon. Reliability: http://www.slip2000.com/patrogers15000.html

Useful against more than a poodle: (impact @ 3,000fps+ form 14.5" barrel at 25 yards, this fired from 16" barrel. Avg. expanded diameter (min+max/2) diameter 0.4")

Pix re-scheduled for Saturday morning.

Well, Capital One has decided that I can only spend $2000 a day from my checking account. Project just hit a several-day delay due to Thanksgiving tomorrow or whenever the **** it is. Stuff isn't moving well this week with stores closing, etc.

I'll go ahead and throw out a major clue. The most expensive part of the project is made by Surefire, other than the firearm itself, but it's the one part that won't be in the picture this Wed.

It's a TA44SG-10 resting in an LT105 Dos Mini.

Pix up Wednesday of a mostly finished project...

Optic arrived the other day.

Is it NFA or does it have a pinned muzzle device pushing it over the 16" line (I am guessing NFA...)?

It's only been up a few days. Chill. Mine took two months to move.

No. Kip is it.

This is SPF

I do not know if the guy on the AR15.com forum has a Benelli forum SN, but his AR15.com name was "scroungersix" and I came across that SN on other forums with the same MO, long-time member, a few posts (like less than 50 over 5+ years), mainly in the for-sale sections, and on one other forum he did the EXACT same thing he did to me with a rifle "purchase". SPF=Sold Pending Funds. Meaning that I have a committed buyer who has sent money, and all that is left is to collect, cash out, and ship them the weapon. In this case, the person over-nighted the money and coordinated with an FFL dealer, who I have already shipped to. For some reason funds don't arrive or aren't straight, I just call the FFL dealer and it becomes a legal issue. I feel very protected, and I wanted the buyer to have the shotgun before the weekend. I would have appreciated the same, and his communication was very solid. In contrast, this "scroungersix" never sent me his FFL info. The current buyer, actually called his FFL, set the deal up (I called behind him and spoke with FFL and they knew exactly what he was buying at just the mention of his first name), called me, discussed everything with me, etc. Buyer does not know I have already shipped the shotgun, they believe I am shipping it after the check arrives tomorrow, so it's not like they planned on the cross-shipping, but I treat good people well. People who have done business with me in the past know this and return the favor.

Ah, gotcha. It's a sick deal, no doubt! Looks like a great buy for someone's boyfriend.

Hammer...$50 CC Tube...$200 Bolt Handle..$50 Foregrip...$50 ...$350 ...Price of stock by process of elimination $265. I see no way of getting a discount on FFT, CC, or Geissel products. That means that the MSRP's for the new parts should be taken as TMV, making this a helluva deal! you are, however, inadvertently de-valuing the C stock on the market. Good for buyers, bad for sellers.