Slab-Side or Forward Assist for PDW Build?

D

Drucifer

Regular
Rating - 99%
95   1   3
I'm looking for info/opinions on weather the FA is necessary on a pistol length AR. I see that NEA offers a slab-side version of their upper that looks appealing. Does anyone have experience with this type of setup?
Thanks
 
IMo why hammer in something that does not fit? Faster to cycle the round than hammer it in the chamber and then deal with a stuck case no? Short ar's with the DI system run extremly dirty quickly and requier a heavy dose of lub to run good ( mine anyway but then I machined my 3 sbr's uppers in my basement using only common sense as reference) I learned the hard way than hammering in a round with the FA usualy entrails ejection/extraction problems. SO as NEA says it's a presonnal preference but personnaly I never use the damn thing anyway so if you like the look of the slab-side than go for it and just clean the pig on a more regular basis than a longer barreld ar...
 
My thoughts exactly.
I've never owned an AR before but if any other rifle i own failed to chamber
I would open it up rather than try to bash it closed.
Seems a bit ridiculous...guess it's a DI thing eh?

Thanks
 
The AR15 already HAS a forward assist cutout in the bolt (the little spot where the door detent sits).

You just use your thumb to push the bolt into battery with that thing. So yes I would go with a slab-side, if you have to use the forward assist hard enough to pound it in or something, something IS wrong and you're very likely going to end up making it worse. You will also very likely break the forward assist "claw" that meshes with the cutouts in the bolt.

ETA

The USC45's bolt has the same type of forward assist cutout in the bolt, and it works just fine for pushing it into battery.
 
Drucifer said:
My thoughts exactly.
I've never owned an AR before but if any other rifle i own failed to chamber
I would open it up rather than try to bash it closed.
Seems a bit ridiculous...guess it's a DI thing eh?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Wrong, it was a US army requirement, it has nothing to do with the operating system.

TDC
 
I have NEA's slab side on my AR. (oddly enough I got it by mistake...but I'm cool with that) Has worked great and no problems at all. I had no muscle memory of a manual of arms(like some military guys might) so it didn't bother me not to have it. And like people have said...generally if it fails to seat...something else is going on.

I also just remember to never ride the bolt..always let it slam home when charging it so that it gets into place. If you ride it you have a greater chance of it not seating correctly.


Cheers,
Llywelyn
 
TDC said:
Wrong, it was a US army requirement, it has nothing to do with the operating system.

TDC
Click to expand...

The first AR's (and M-16's) were built WITHOUT a forward assist.

What happened was the US Department of Defense contracted with Winchester (at the time) to supply one type of powder for both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 ammo.

The powder used was NOT good for the M-16 series of rifles due to the gas system design (it left a LOT of carbon and other residue in the chamber and bolt), but it worked great in the M-14 series rifles and the M-60 machine gun, both of which have operating rods which keep the gas out of the chamber.

The M-16 rifle would frequently jam in Vietnam, and the powder was one of the causes (the other cause was improper cleaning, as the M-16 was promoted by Armalite and Colt as low-maintenance, requiring no cleaning f:P:2:), which would get the troops killed while they were trying to fix their rifle.

Instead of having the ammo suppliers go to the proper powder for the 5.56 rounds, the DOD decided to add forward assists, have the barrels and chambers of the M-16 chromed, and issue a cleaning kit together with comic-book style instructions.

Once this was all done in '66-67, the new rifle was designated the M16A1, which became VERY popular with the troops in Vietnam.

Just a little history on the forward assist on the AR rifles.
 
To whom it may concern:
Be aware that virtually everything in the post quoted below is nonsense. The forward assist was incorporated into to the Colt Model 603 rifle in 1964, before the design was type classified as the XM16E1, before any regular combat troops entered Vietnam, before any trials were done with alternates to the IMR 4475 propellant, and before the earliest reports of excessive jamming surfaced in 1966.

Perhaps the author should learn a little history himself.

The first AR's (and M-16's) were built WITHOUT a forward assist.

What happened was the US Department of Defense contracted with Winchester (at the time) to supply one type of powder for both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 ammo.

The powder used was NOT good for the M-16 series of rifles due to the gas system design (it left a LOT of carbon and other residue in the chamber and bolt), but it worked great in the M-14 series rifles and the M-60 machine gun, both of which have operating rods which keep the gas out of the chamber.

The M-16 rifle would frequently jam in Vietnam, and the powder was one of the causes (the other cause was improper cleaning, as the M-16 was promoted by Armalite and Colt as low-maintenance, requiring no cleaning f:P:2:), which would get the troops killed while they were trying to fix their rifle.

Instead of having the ammo suppliers go to the proper powder for the 5.56 rounds, the DOD decided to add forward assists, have the barrels and chambers of the M-16 chromed, and issue a cleaning kit together with comic-book style instructions.

Once this was all done in '66-67, the new rifle was designated the M16A1, which became VERY popular with the troops in Vietnam.

Just a little history on the forward assist on the AR rifles.
Click to expand...
 
BattleRife said:
To whom it may concern:
Be aware that virtually everything in the post quoted below is nonsense. The forward assist was incorporated into to the Colt Model 603 rifle in 1964, before the design was type classified as the XM16E1, before any regular combat troops entered Vietnam, before any trials were done with alternates to the IMR 4475 propellant, and before the earliest reports of excessive jamming surfaced in 1966.

Perhaps the author should learn a little history himself.
Click to expand...

giggle... :popCorn:

Slab side for me... its just better. :D
 
I like the look of the old style colt slab side myself in rifle length. So it would look great flattop on a pistol setup! More like a pistol w/o FA

P1000062.jpg
 
Last edited:
BattleRife said:
To whom it may concern:
Be aware that virtually everything in the post quoted below is nonsense. The forward assist was incorporated into to the Colt Model 603 rifle in 1964, before the design was type classified as the XM16E1, before any regular combat troops entered Vietnam, before any trials were done with alternates to the IMR 4475 propellant, and before the earliest reports of excessive jamming surfaced in 1966.

Perhaps the author should learn a little history himself.
Click to expand...

So then why did they add the forward assist? guys kept riding the charging handle in trials?


just curious because the story shredder told was interesting and sounded like it made sense (plausible)... I will use Colberts "truthiness". cou:

Just asking because I am actually interested in why they added it when so many people say you don't need one.
 
When firing the AR ####s where it eats.

Gunk build up can cause the round to not seat properly.

thats why the drill was created and MILITARY pers hit the forward assist after loading a mag. To make sure that first round seats properly.

At least thats what I've always been told...
 
c0ntract said:
So then why did they add the forward assist? guys kept riding the charging handle in trials?
Click to expand...
The Colt production line was going to be closed down if the US army didn't order something soon. So Colt did a limited standard run with the FA on the XM16E1 in the meantime to move forward with the project. Just stick everything on it and get it out the door.
I love to tell people that the British Army adopted the AR15 platform before the US Army.
 
c0ntract said:
So then why did they add the forward assist?
Click to expand...

As TDC said, it was simply US Army policy. The self loading guns they had used prior (M1 and M14) all had the capability for positive bolt closure. This had proven valuable on the Garand in particular, as when they started to wear it was common to have to force the bolt closed on the first round out of a clip. Since it had proven valuable in the past, the Army didn't want to lose the capability, so they insisted on it. The US Air Force, on the other hand, saw it as extra mass and expense where none was needed, so they insisted on NOT having it. This is why the US Army never adopted or used the M16, and the US Air Force never adopted or used the XM16E1/M16A1.
 
sounded like the first jam was from a dud?

Guessing a bullet was lodged in the barrel for the explosion?


whats your take?
 
1. Ok....who cares? Buy your gun and shoot it man.

2. The AR has a forward assist.....why take it off? What are the DISADVANTAGES to keeping it there? And if anyone says weight, harden the f&*k up.

3. Yes the military still teaches to tap the assist during certain drills, we also teach people to shine boots and put oil on shovels after use. Most guys are finally dragging themselves into the 21st century and most don't even think about the assist let alone use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom