Jump to content

Perfect example why the AR-15/M4/M-16 is a genuine...


Recommended Posts

This "lube" discussion is funny. I've fired over 1000rds after just using graphite from a pencil rubbed on certain parts to lube my M-16 (it was all we had in the desert at the time). Ran like a champ. Did a basic cleaning before hand (these were issued in storage crates and looked like they were tossed into the crates straight out of Viet Nam, still had weeds and mud in them). I have nothing against piston systems, but the DI critics can tend to over-blow the argument a bit. Maybe if I'd had any failures I'd think differently, but like I said, I'll go with my personal experience every time. But maybe I’m wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This "lube" discussion is funny. I've fired over 1000rds after just using graphite from a pencil rubbed on certain parts to lube my M-16 (it was all we had in the desert at the time). Ran like a champ. Did a basic cleaning before hand (these were issued in storage crates and looked like they were tossed into the crates straight out of Viet Nam, still had weeds and mud in them). I have nothing against piston systems, but the DI critics can tend to over-blow the argument a bit. Maybe if I'd had any failures I'd think differently, but like I said, I'll go with my personal experience every time. But maybe I’m wrong.

 

Sorry but how dirty a DI operated AR gets is no debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but how dirty a DI operated AR gets is no debate.

 

And yet mine still functioned flawlessly...what a POS!

Like what you want and go with your own experience as to what works reliably. I just don't care to listen to stories when my experience is different. Maybe I just got lucky and have always been issued the "freak" guns that worked, and then got lucky and bought a freak also. Maybe the rest are all junk. I can only assume that everyone you personally used had tons of problems. Again, guess I just got lucky (a bunch of times).

Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet mine still functioned flawlessly...what a POS!

Like what you want and go with your own experience as to what works reliably. I just don't care to listen to stories when my experience is different. Maybe I just got lucky and have always been issued the "freak" guns that worked, and then got lucky and bought a freak also. Maybe the rest are all junk. I can only assume that everyone you personally used had tons of problems. Again, guess I just got lucky (a bunch of times).

about a dozen ar's in the safes. All Di. None have ever had any issues traceable to the operating system except the car a3 lubed with rem oil and fired hundreds of rounds, maybe thousands. It had a failure to fully chamber, but that may have been also due to improperly resized cases. My dad was just getting into reloading and didn't full length resize some of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but how dirty a DI operated AR gets is no debate.

 

It's cleaner than a piston ar once you go suppressed IF you are using the proper port size or a switchblock. I'm more interested in suppressed performance, but its still plenty fine for more ammo than you can carry without a re lube needed. I fail to see any advantage what so ever to pistons. They weigh more, an impact accuracy to a small extent, are all proprietary, many cause carrier tilt that eats up the buffer tube and buffer retaining pin hole edges, and all that just so you can talk about how the oil on the bolt tail evaporated slower. Say what you want, but I know for a fact Di works, and works reliably and well. If you are too lazy to wipe the bolt and carrier off, I can't help you.

Edited by Unobtanium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slip 2000 EWL ! Who gives a crap about PD vs DI . I have a LWRCi SPR . I love it . Use what ya got , take care of it and it will take care of you . Lets all fight together with our DI & PD's ! This is how wars are started .

 

Happy Holidays !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone keep skirting the issue?

 

There isn't any debate as to if a DI gun works fine, can fire thousand of rounds or can be maintained by a monkey. Thing is that no matter the lubrication status of any of the parts a DI gun is going to need much more than a wipe down after 1000+ rounds, a PD will not.

 

As for accuracy issues give me a break it is a fricking battle rifle not some match grade target rifle. Then again some still think it's a marketing ploy so who knows what you guys will think of next. Seriously though if you notice the accuracy differences than you shoot an assault rilfe off bags and shouldn't be in this conversation anyway.

 

The best part of this thread is the fact that I have both kinds of systems and only mentioned obvious pros & cons. I loved my DI wanted nothing to do with a PD AR but after buying one there is no debate as to it's advantages.

Edited by cody6.0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does everyone keep skirting the issue?

 

There isn't any debate as to if a DI gun works fine, can fire thousand of rounds or can be maintained by a monkey. Thing is that no matter the lubrication status of any of the parts a DI gun is going to need much more than a wipe down after 1000+ rounds, a PD will not.

 

As for accuracy issues give me a break it is a fricking battle rifle not some match grade target rifle. Then again some still think it's a marketing ploy so who knows what you guys will think of next. Seriously though if you notice the accuracy differences than you shoot an assault rilfe off bags and shouldn't be in this conversation anyway.

 

The best part of this thread is the fact that I have both kinds of systems and only mentioned obvious pros & cons. I loved my DI wanted nothing to do with a PD AR but after buying one there is no debate as to it's advantages.

 

You're right, it's a battle rifle. So as long as it functions reliably for thousands of rounds without cleaning, I don't really care if it gets dirtier. Nothing I said was about being cleaner, just reliability. But I'll concede to your expertise on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to chime in here, I was not going to, but I can't help myself.

Now, I have 30+ years of firearms field use, training and teaching. I have used more variants of guns than I can count and in reality have put more rounds down range than most here. Personally, I have nothing against the AR, I have owned, shot, and sold every one of them I have owned. It is OK, but just not what I believe a battle rifle should be. A Battle rifle should be easy to shoot, maintain and repair. The AR requires training! As seen in the video and I am sure we all can agree on this.

Shooting it takes practice and even more skill level to operate it above other platforms. Maintenance is a MUST for this rifle, DI especially, but also in GP. The DI rifles are (for me) more difficult to clean. GP much easier. As for repairs, Well, All I can say is, you either have lots of experience and training or you let the qualified armorer or gunsmith help you.

Now to list a few GP rifles that I personally have tested and found worthy of the name battle rifle. I think the most widely used rifle is the AK, I know some of you have tried beating this rifle up, but it's longevity and track record kicks all the others butt!

There are crap made AK's just like crap made AR's, and if I had to pick the one rifle to grab and go to war with, it would be a good quality AK, with good quality ammo. This is just for ammo and parts availability alone, not to mention you cant hardly make it stop running. The few videos Unobtainium posted show Ammo malfunction more than than rifle malfunction. I would venture to say the full auto malfunction was either a squib load or an overcharged round. A lesser rifle would have been catastrophic, but all he did was loose his top dust cover on the receiver when it over pressured, the bolt and spring remained intact and where they belonged. The other was a bad round or magazine. He cleared it fairly easy. Sorry, but you need to be fair! This rifle will run with little maintenance, a monkey can operate it, and repairs are just a matter of swapping out the parts that the operator can perform themselves.

Also an overlooked rifle, but of excellent quality and build design way before it's time is a Steyr Aug. Again, easy to shoot and handle, very easy to maintain, and repair is as easy as swapping out the modular parts system. Very soldier friendly and is actually being picked up by some of our special forces now due to its bullpup design and all I have mentioned.

FN scar is a great platform basically having much of the same qualities as the Aug. It just is missing the bullpup design which I cherish most.

To also qualify, I have shot every one of these rifles with suppressors both AAC and Surefire and find that blow back is at a minimum and very little if any which is about the same as with the DI system.

I will say in closing, I think the GP systems on AR's is a makeshift system to bridge the gap. The AR system is design as a DI system and it was forced and remade to work as a GP. I think the AR GP is not as well designed as other system mentioned, because AK's, Aug's and FN's were designed as GP systems and perform better, in my opinion.

I have sold all of my DI systems and work only with GP systems or a Bolt system. As for the closest thing I have near an AR platform it is a Sig 556. Again, It was designed as a GP system from the beginning and is of the few that were made with original Swiss parts in the very beginning. My primary weapon is one of 2 Aug's, with AAC suppressors, Also in the lineup is a custom Arsenal AK that I built a few years ago. By the way it has the Steyr made barrel in it :o) ,

My GP operated Benelli M4 ;o) and a few bolt rifles.

So, I think the most that can be said, in response to the original video is Training!!!

Edited by Flascot007
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does everyone keep skirting the issue?

 

There isn't any debate as to if a DI gun works fine, can fire thousand of rounds or can be maintained by a monkey. Thing is that no matter the lubrication status of any of the parts a DI gun is going to need much more than a wipe down after 1000+ rounds, a PD will not.

 

As for accuracy issues give me a break it is a fricking battle rifle not some match grade target rifle. Then again some still think it's a marketing ploy so who knows what you guys will think of next. Seriously though if you notice the accuracy differences than you shoot an assault rilfe off bags and shouldn't be in this conversation anyway.

 

The best part of this thread is the fact that I have both kinds of systems and only mentioned obvious pros & cons. I loved my DI wanted nothing to do with a PD AR but after buying one there is no debate as to it's advantages.

It shoots cleaner unsuppressed, but I like gas. Recoil seems more controlled, and what I have previously stated in prior posts. It's also lighter. Weight is huge on a weapon that you are using as a battle rifle (technically, batttle rifles are heavier caliber, though.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to chime in here, I was not going to, but I can't help myself.

Now, I have 30+ years of firearms field use, training and teaching. I have used more variants of guns than I can count and in reality have put more rounds down range than most here. Personally, I have nothing against the AR, I have owned, shot, and sold every one of them I have owned. It is OK, but just not what I believe a battle rifle should be. A Battle rifle should be easy to shoot, maintain and repair. The AR requires training! Any firearm requires training to be proficient with it. The AR no more-so than the AK-47. As seen in the video and I am sure we all can agree on this.

Shooting it takes practice and even more skill level to operate it above other platforms. Say what? How? Have you tried to manipulate the controls on an AK-47 as quick and effectively as the M4 platform? How those quick mag-changes working out in comparison? As you mention later on, a monkey can maintain it, but you need a monkey-hand to operate that safety unless you are taking your hand off the grip to do it. Maintenance is a MUST for this rifle, DI especially, but also in GP. The DI rifles are (for me) more difficult to clean. GP much easier. Maybe to achieve "white-glove" clean, but to function, all you need is to wipe off the bolt and carrier and add lube. ****, you don't even have to wipe it off, unless it falls in the mud or you are in Iraq and do get a bunch of fine dust in it. As for repairs, Well, All I can say is, you either have lots of experience and training or you let the qualified armorer or gunsmith help you. What kind of repairs are you talking about? I can maintain my M4 perfectly fine without anything cut a couple of punches, normal cleaning supplies, a hammer, and a screw-driver (for field-staking the gas-key, if required). Are you talking about to change barrels or something? because short of that, anyone can perform all the other maintenance and repairs with simple hand-tools and common sense.

Now to list a few GP rifles that I personally have tested and found worthy of the name battle rifle. I think the most widely used rifle is the AK, I know some of you have tried beating this rifle up, but it's longevity and track record kicks all the others butt!

There are crap made AK's just like crap made AR's, and if I had to pick the one rifle to grab and go to war with, it would be a good quality AK, with good quality ammo. This is just for ammo and parts availability alone, not to mention you cant hardly make it stop running. The few videos Unobtainium posted show Ammo malfunction more than than rifle malfunction. I would venture to say the full auto malfunction was either a squib load or an overcharged round. A lesser rifle would have been catastrophic, but all he did was loose his top dust cover on the receiver when it over pressured, the bolt and spring remained intact and where they belonged. The other was a bad round or magazine. He cleared it fairly easy. Sorry, but you need to be fair! I agree, and my purpose in posting those videos was to show that YouTube and Liveleak are worthless data-points. This rifle will run with little maintenance, a monkey can operate it, and repairs are just a matter of swapping out the parts that the operator can perform themselves. Same with the AR-15 in either DI or piston. What experience do you have with the AR/M4/M16 that leads you to claim otherwise?

Also an overlooked rifle, but of excellent quality and build design way before it's time is a Steyr Aug. Again, easy to shoot and handle, very easy to maintain, and repair is as easy as swapping out the modular parts system. Very soldier friendly and is actually being picked up by some of our special forces now due to its bullpup design and all I have mentioned. It had poor accuracy originally (although I am sure good enough to "get the job done", but in Iraq, people are shooting 2-300m now, and the margin of inaccuracy might be significant to that user.) Another point, is that it doesn't suppress as well as the AR-15. The DI AR-15 is THE best semi-auto 5.56 platform for suppression when it comes to sound-reduction.

FN scar is a great platform basically having much of the same qualities as the Aug. It just is missing the bullpup design which I cherish most. FN SCAR is nice, I skipped it because it was piston operated, aesthetically displeasing, lacked aftermarket support parts to customize it to my liking, but it is a great platfrom form what I hear.

To also qualify, I have shot every one of these rifles with suppressors both AAC and Surefire and find that blow back is at a minimum and very little if any which is about the same as with the DI system. Have you fired a properly gassed DI system meant for use with a suppressor, such as a purpose-drilled upper, or one with the Noveske SB? You will find this to be superior to the piston systems and other DI systems, as well as lowering sound-signature at the shooters ear by 1-3dB due to the later un-locking time and less pressure coming out the ejection port secondary to this.

I will say in closing, I think the GP systems on AR's is a makeshift system to bridge the gap. The AR system is design as a DI system and it was forced and remade to work as a GP. I think the AR GP is not as well designed as other system mentioned, because AK's, Aug's and FN's were designed as GP systems and perform better, in my opinion. 100% agreement. If you want a piston gun for whatever reason, buy one. Don't buy an AR retro-fitted and tweaked and engineered on to accept it. LWRC put out pure CRAP and used their customers for testing basically. They have finally gotten a workable formula down it seems, but I'm not convinced. I think H&K's 416 is the only piston AR I would trust, and I wouldn't want it.

I have sold all of my DI systems and work only with GP systems or a Bolt system. As for the closest thing I have near an AR platform it is a Sig 556. Again, It was designed as a GP system from the beginning and is of the few that were made with original Swiss parts in the very beginning. My primary weapon is one of 2 Aug's, with AAC suppressors, Also in the lineup is a custom Arsenal AK that I built a few years ago. By the way it has the Steyr made barrel in it :o) ,

My GP operated Benelli M4 ;o) and a few bolt rifles.

So, I think the most that can be said, in response to the original video is Training!!!

 

I agree with your closing statement. Training. However, riding the bolt-home, not knowing when your weapon is empty or not, etc. are not things that this soldier would have not encountered were he using any other firearm you mentioned. The AR-15 is no harder to use than any other weapon you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let's break it down by you highlighted replies.

 

Red highlight #1: yes all weapons require training. But It is a proven fact that the AR requires actual hands on instruction to just maintain and clean the darn rifle. others also, but as I said (in my opinion) I think GP systems are easier to maintain and clean. Do you think you can go to the desert and hand a untrained farmer any of the mentioned rifles and the AR would come out on top? Really? Oil in your DI rifle or weapon over there is especially not a friend. Hence the reason moly coats and cerakote are used to keep them dry and yet still function.

 

#2:The answer as I already stated is yes, and an extended safety will help those with handicaps. I can easily function it with my forefinger with either style safety without changing my grip. As for mag changes, I can manipulate the change about the same as any other platform. I guess I just prefer accuracy over speed so I do not need to change mags as often. Just because you can spray, pray and reload fast, it does not make you the better rifleman and winner.

 

#3: please refer to #1

 

#4: "I can maintain my M4 perfectly fine without anything cut a couple of punches, normal cleaning supplies, a hammer, and a screw-driver (for field-staking the gas-key, if required)."

 

This is my point, does every soldier carry this into combat with them?

Most of the GP rifles especially the AK and Aug can be completely broke down and with the ease of nothing more than a cartridge to do so (if needed). And it requires much less skill , hence a battle rifle criteria. Easy to maintain and repair.

I know you like your AR, and I said it's a good platform, just not the platform I consider an optimal battle rifle. ( in my opinion)

 

#5: I know why you did it, I just think it was polluted and inaccurate even for the reasons you explain. Could have found a truer representation of the point you were trying to bring. There are some good data points to be found on them as well as inaccurate and simply idiotic on both forums.

 

#6: I simply disagree, and the second paragraph of my post I think I was pretty clear. How about you? I have about a dozen certifications and lost count on the number of schools and classes I've attended to go with paragraph 2. But all of this is my opinion and experience. Not just forum BS!

 

#7: Never had a problem, I have owned at least 7 different Augs and never had worse than 1.5" out to 100 yards, a little over 3" at 200 yards and a Lot has to do with the operator. For a battle rifle, it is well within acceptance for me and many of the armies in the world. But of course I have to yield to the AK as the most used world wide. Wonder why that is???

As for the last statement, I disagree... Sorry!

 

#8: I agree!

 

#9: Yes, and again I refer to the second to last paragraph. In must say it is physically impossible to take note of the difference in 1-3 db. With equipment yes, but not enough To the naked ear to make a big deal of it.

 

And finally! # 10: I agree!!!

 

Please read the whole post, this is my extensive experience and opinion only. Take it for what it's worth. I'm not here to turn you to the light and make you see the real truth. Just an old retired cops opinion.

Edited by Flascot007
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, let's break it down by you highlighted replies.

 

Red highlight #1: yes all weapons require training. But It is a proven fact that the AR requires actual hands on instruction to just maintain and clean the darn rifle. Subjective. ANYTHING with 2 moving parts can benefit from hands-on experience. "Lube the bolt and carrier, brush the chamber" is just as simple as anything else. others also, but as I said (in my opinion) I think GP systems are easier to maintain and clean. Do you think you can go to the desert and hand a untrained farmer any of the mentioned rifles and the AR would come out on top? Really? Oil in your DI rifle or weapon over there is especially not a friend. Heavily lubed M4's did better in the dust tests, and in actual combat. An AR will run clean and dry, or dirty and wet, but not dirty and dry. Hence the reason moly coats and cerakote are used to keep them dry and yet still function. Nice, but not needed.

 

#2:The answer as I already stated is yes, and an extended safety will help those with handicaps. I can easily function it with my forefinger with either style safety without changing my grip. As for mag changes, I can manipulate the change about the same as any other platform. Then you have spent plenty of time running an AK. Do you think the ignorant farmer can change mags in an AK as fast as with an AR? I guess I just prefer accuracy over speed so I do not need to change mags as often. Just because you can spray, pray and reload fast, it does not make you the better rifleman and winner. Suppressive fire. Sometimes accuracy is not as important as volume in combat. For a civilian, obviously not the case more often than not, but we were discussing Iraq.

 

#3: please refer to #1

 

#4: "I can maintain my M4 perfectly fine without anything cut a couple of punches, normal cleaning supplies, a hammer, and a screw-driver (for field-staking the gas-key, if required)."

 

This is my point, does every soldier carry this into combat with them? No, but I am talking about re-staking gas-keys, changing ejector springs, and all sorts of things that after thousands of rounds I have never had to do, but THEORETICALLY could run into. Everything but the bore is "no tools required" for general maintenance in the field.

Most of the GP rifles especially the AK and Aug can be completely broke down and with the ease of nothing more than a cartridge to do so (if needed). The AR-15 can as well, unless you are removing the buffer-tube or gas-key or the barrel (Why...why...and why? would you in the field?) And it requires much less skill , hence a battle rifle criteria. Easy to maintain and repair. I'm missing how the AR-15 is not equally easy. Further, you sound like you are going to hand the rifle to an invalid. ANY weapon in the hands of an invalid will be equally inaccurate and likely to be as much a hazard as a help.

I know you like your AR, and I said it's a good platform, just not the platform I consider an optimal battle rifle. ( in my opinion) I cannot and will not tell you you are wrong. This is America and your opinion is your own.

 

#5: I know why you did it, I just think it was polluted and inaccurate even for the reasons you explain. Could have found a truer representation of the point you were trying to bring. There are some good data points to be found on them as well as inaccurate and simply idiotic on both forums. One dumb video deserved another.

 

#6: I simply disagree, and the second paragraph of my post I think I was pretty clear. How about you? I have about a dozen certifications and lost count on the number of schools and classes I've attended to go with paragraph 2. But all of this is my opinion and experience. Not just forum BS! I do not have 1/5th the experience you have I would bet. However, tearing an AR-15 down and cleaning it is not a task that daunts me. I have also spoken wiht plenty of former .mil. Some like the AR, some like the AK. Your experience is not the dividing factor. Your opinion is.

 

#7: Never had a problem, I have owned at least 7 different Augs and never had worse than 1.5" out to 100 yards, a little over 3" at 200 yards and a Lot has to do with the operator. For a battle rifle, it is well within acceptance for me and many of the armies in the world. But of course I have to yield to the AK as the most used world wide. Wonder why that is??? Cost of manufacture, number of them made, distribution networks involved, etc.

As for the last statement, I disagree... Sorry!

 

#8: I agree!

 

#9: Yes, and again I refer to the second to last paragraph. In must say it is physically impossible to take note of the difference in 1-3 db. With equipment yes, but not enough To the naked ear to make a big deal of it. I agree regarding 1-3dB. Very true, but 3dB makes a big difference in hearing-loss over time. Your ears don't have to hurt to be losing hearing, etc. Also, dB is not a linear scale as you are aware. 3dB, or even 2dB, is significant, even if you cannot tell the difference.

 

And finally! # 10: I agree!!!

 

Please read the whole post, this is my extensive experience and opinion only. Take it for what it's worth. I'm not here to turn you to the light and make you see the real truth. Just an old retired cops opinion.

 

I respect your opinion, and submit mine.

 

I further submit that if this person can be trained to properly take apart and re-assemble an AR-15, noone else has an excuse for their ignorance, either. Marginally simpler equipment is no substitute for proper training, otherwise the club would still be the ultimate tool of war.

 

 

With another 10 minutes of instruction, if that is all she currently knows, she could properly maintain that rifle with a USGI cleaning kit and CLP. What's anyone else's excuse?

 

(Obviously clearing jams, weapon manipulation, etc. would require more training, but again, AK-47's and AUG's don't operate themselves, either. One must still master control of the trigger, sighting system, and malfunction remediation).

Edited by Unobtanium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas Piston

 

Complicating the Army search for higher reliability in the M4 is a number of observations of M4 gas piston alternatives that suffer unintended design problems. The first is that many of the gas piston modifications for the M4 isolate the piston so that piston jams or related malfunction require the entire weapon be disassembled, such disassembly cannot be performed by the end user and requires a qualified armorer to perform out of field, where as any malfunction with the direct-impingement system can be fixed by the end user in field. The second is that gas piston alternatives use an off-axis operation of the piston that can introduce carrier tilt, whereby the bolt carrier fails to enter the buffer tube at a straight angle resulting in part wearing. The third is that the use of a sound suppressor results in hot gases entering the chamber, regardless of a direct-gas impingement or gas piston design choice.[77][78]

 

(Take note though at the last sentence.)

 

“ We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.

- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.[29] ”

 

(Sorry, I just had to take something out of context. I know this was due to the lack of a chrome bore.)

 

And what's the forward assist for again??? Be honest...

 

Anyway, it's been fun bantering back and forth Unobtainium, God bless and Merry Christmas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gas Piston

 

Complicating the Army search for higher reliability in the M4 is a number of observations of M4 gas piston alternatives that suffer unintended design problems. The first is that many of the gas piston modifications for the M4 isolate the piston so that piston jams or related malfunction require the entire weapon be disassembled, such disassembly cannot be performed by the end user and requires a qualified armorer to perform out of field, where as any malfunction with the direct-impingement system can be fixed by the end user in field. The second is that gas piston alternatives use an off-axis operation of the piston that can introduce carrier tilt, whereby the bolt carrier fails to enter the buffer tube at a straight angle resulting in part wearing. The third is that the use of a sound suppressor results in hot gases entering the chamber, regardless of a direct-gas impingement or gas piston design choice.[77][78]

 

(Take note though at the last sentence.)

 

“ We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.

- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.[29] ”

 

(Sorry, I just had to take something out of context. I know this was due to the lack of a chrome bore.)

 

And what's the forward assist for again??? Be honest...

 

Anyway, it's been fun bantering back and forth Unobtainium, God bless and Merry Christmas.

 

Well, if I ever have an AR-15 that jams due to a non-ammunition related issue or out of spec part, I'll have to let you know. So far, has not occured. Thousands of rounds, not one failure unrelated to ammo (Occured with one lot of Wolf that the cases resembled belted magnum rounds in) or out of spec parts (occured once on a mutt built regarding the feed-ramps and upper, and once with a Sabre Defense regarding an improperly dimensioned bolt).

 

So, if I ever have an AR-15 that jams, I might agree, until then, I enjoy the platform because I am personally capable of running, and maintaining it.

 

PS. If you use the forward assist for what you imply, stick with the AK. Further, if you believe every word of every person who came out of Vietnam, please explain how the M193's projectile manages to end-over-end like a buzz-saw through the air. Lotta great knowledge came from 'Nam :rolleyes:

Edited by Unobtanium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...