Firearms that where originally made to use corrosive ammo tend to be easier to clean and take down, than those made for which corrosive ammo was not in use at the time they were developed. For example the SKS, CZ58, AK47, Garand M1 (M14 since is a development of the Garand) also the T97 since it is a development of the QBZ95 since the 5.8x42 round used with this rifle was originally corrosive. In comparison the AR15, AUG and Tavor were developed when corrosive ammo was not the norm for the 5.56x45.
Firearms made that originally used corrosive ammo are easier to clean and take down
- Thread starter rhino62
- Start date
charlesquik
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Quebec....
imo ar15 is so easy to clean
Leviathan024
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- GP Alberta
IMO the ar15,ak,aug and tavor are far easier to clean/strip down then any of those older rifles.
thats sadly not true. if you think about it the only reason you feel they are easier to clean and strip is simply because the non corrosive ammo makes it easier to clean. stripping on the other hand is harder you just don't realize it because you don;t need to strip it down as far as a rifle that uses corrosive. Not that it's hard, it's just less accessible. Consider the AR, since it's non corrosive the only cleaning you ever need to do is the bore and chamber, a quick wipe down of the recievers, and the bolt carrier group. so yes it is easier to clean as you don't have to clean as much nor as thoroughly, however this resulted in it's design. The gas tube is essentially non removable, the trigger mechanism is held in a recessed compartment and is also not field removable. Even just within the opened up reciever halves it is harder to clean certain places without the proper tools or further take down which will again require other tools.
on the other hand consider an SKS. without a doubt it is "harder to clean" in the sense that you have to clean more thoroughly and more often. however the process of takedown and cleaning is much easier. almost every part of the rifle can be taken apart with the removal of a few pins or rotation of a few plugs, almost all of which require no tools and those that do the tools are part of the small and compact cleaning kit. Once opened even the man with the world's largest sausage fingers can get in there and clean it by hand.
so yes by comparison firing their respective ammunition an AR and other modern rifles are easier to clean, however if you run the same ammo through both rifles you'll immediately see the advantage since you either A) won't see a difference using non corrosive since they are all easy to take down and clean as you'll no longer need to go into the gas system of the SKS and do complete take downs or B) see a major difference using corrosive in both since you'll quickly have a non functional AR with a plugged up gas tube and probably a rusted up chamber locking up the bolt.
Disagree....you need a hammer and punch to disassemble the SKS bolt if you want to clean it out properly.
AR can be stripped right down with no tools, receiver/buffer tube/buffer is aluminium which would not be affected by corrosive ammo anyway, gas tube is stainless which also would survive fine without cleaning, trigger group gets flushed with water, dried, and oiled in place, BCG breaks right down with no tools for cleaning. Only thing exposed would be the interior of the gas block, which would be chromed if they were designed to fire corrosive ammo. Same with barrel extension.
AR can be stripped right down with no tools, receiver/buffer tube/buffer is aluminium which would not be affected by corrosive ammo anyway, gas tube is stainless which also would survive fine without cleaning, trigger group gets flushed with water, dried, and oiled in place, BCG breaks right down with no tools for cleaning. Only thing exposed would be the interior of the gas block, which would be chromed if they were designed to fire corrosive ammo. Same with barrel extension.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Nothing I have ever handled comes apart for cleaning as easily as an FN-FAL.
I never found AR15's easy to clean or for that matter any rifle with a Johnson type bolt (aka Stoner, however it was Melvin Johnson who came up with the bolt design!). Also any rifle where access to the breech is limited! I also agree with the previous post about the FN). I always seemed to use a lot of Q-TIPS when I had A15's and always used to think that Stoner make a fortune from shares in the maker!
Last edited:
Yes, however a long time ago and they were commercial Colts which were harder to take down since they had a screw instead of a take down pin. The point I was trying to make is that ease of cleaning was more of a design issue when corrosive ammo was the norm and if it still was a lot of modern rifles would not have been designed the way they were (i.e compare the Tavor to the T97). The AR15 was originally stated as being self cleaning!
Last edited:
Had nothing to do with corrosive ammo and everything to do with simplicity. Firearms needed to be serviced in the field by the guys shooting them...they HAD to be designed with that in mind.
Corrosive ammo was probably the least concern of the designers and the least concern of the soldiers shooting it.
Corrosive ammo was probably the least concern of the designers and the least concern of the soldiers shooting it.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Because they are. Pull the carrier, lube it up and keep shooting. You can burn the barrel out of an AR without ever cleaning it.
