So what's your source??
Mine happens to be articles that were written back in the 60's when the problem surfaced.
Slab-Side or Forward Assist for PDW Build?
- Thread starter Drucifer
- Start date
So what's your source??
Mine happens to be articles that were written back in the 60's when the problem surfaced.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
The Black Rifle (Ezell and Stevens) is the one I am most familiar with and the use the most. Also The M16 Controversies (McNaugher). And all this info and more is also nicely compiled on the 5.56x45mm Timeline pages, see the 1963-64 entries at http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-2.html
Looking at it just now, production of the XM16E1 with forward assist commenced in early 1964, but the prototypes and the arguements were actually done in 1963, culminating with the signing of "contract 508" on Nov. 4, 1963, so the forward assist was "added" even earlier than I stated.
Most modern AR-15s have the forward assist, but it was not part of the original design. It adds several parts, and, despite your flippant attitude towards mass, it does add weight. This is significant since the whole point of the AR system was to field the lightest rifle possible. Every design choice, from the plastic of the buttstock to the aluminum of the receiver to the piston-free operating system, was made with weight conservation foremost in mind. To turn around and add a couple hundred grams to the side for no good reason was a 180 degree reversal from the whole design strategy.
It's not valid anymore, but back then there also the arguement of cost. An M16 in 1963 cost $112, while an XM16E1 was $121.84. The only difference between the two was the forward assist, indicating that the forward assist added 8.7% to the cost of the rifle. If it wasn't for the realities of economy of scale, that difference would be well over a hundred bucks today.
ETA: This Associated Press photo is dated November 18, 1965. It clearly shows an XM16E1 (note lack of a fence around the mag release) with forward assist.
Last edited:
So it looks like MY sources were either out to lunch or drew the wrong conclusions.
I stand corrected.
Most modern AR-15s have the forward assist, but it was not part of the original design. It adds several parts, and, despite your flippant attitude towards mass, it does add weight. This is significant since the whole point of the AR system was to field the lightest rifle possible. Every design choice, from the plastic of the buttstock to the aluminum of the receiver to the piston-free operating system, was made with weight conservation foremost in mind. To turn around and add a couple hundred grams to the side for no good reason was a 180 degree reversal from the whole design strategy.
It's not valid anymore, but back then there also the arguement of cost. An M16 in 1963 cost $112, while an XM16E1 was $121.84. The only difference between the two was the forward assist, indicating that the forward assist added 8.7% to the cost of the rifle. If it wasn't for the realities of economy of scale, that difference would be well over a hundred bucks today.
ETA: This Associated Press photo is dated November 18, 1965. It clearly shows an XM16E1 (note lack of a fence around the mag release) with forward assist.
[/QUOTE]
I get all of that man. My attitude isn't flippant, it's realistic. The "strategy" for that weapon has changed somewhat since the 60's. The AR is a fighting rifle and by the time the fighter has configured it correctly for modern combat (optic/light/rail/BUIS/PEQ-2A/PEQ-15/M-203) that gun can get a touch heavier than originally intentioned. The weight of the forward assist becomes a non issue. While I believe we should try to keep most builds as light as possible, sometimes it just can't be done. By the time the war fighter has put the rest of his stuff on, the forward assist is the least of is concerns, theres a million other ways to cut weight, re-engineering a mature 50yr old design isn't one of them.
I can't find a single disadvantage to just keeping the thing there, kind of like a benign tumor. Yeah it's a bit dated but you never know, someday you might need the thing. I'll take a spec Colt M4 with a forward assist into combat any day of the week.
As far as the armed citizen is concerned, go for it. If that's what gets you off then buy it and shoot it. Maintain it correctly-run it wet and you'll never have a problem.
It's not valid anymore, but back then there also the arguement of cost. An M16 in 1963 cost $112, while an XM16E1 was $121.84. The only difference between the two was the forward assist, indicating that the forward assist added 8.7% to the cost of the rifle. If it wasn't for the realities of economy of scale, that difference would be well over a hundred bucks today.
ETA: This Associated Press photo is dated November 18, 1965. It clearly shows an XM16E1 (note lack of a fence around the mag release) with forward assist.
I get all of that man. My attitude isn't flippant, it's realistic. The "strategy" for that weapon has changed somewhat since the 60's. The AR is a fighting rifle and by the time the fighter has configured it correctly for modern combat (optic/light/rail/BUIS/PEQ-2A/PEQ-15/M-203) that gun can get a touch heavier than originally intentioned. The weight of the forward assist becomes a non issue. While I believe we should try to keep most builds as light as possible, sometimes it just can't be done. By the time the war fighter has put the rest of his stuff on, the forward assist is the least of is concerns, theres a million other ways to cut weight, re-engineering a mature 50yr old design isn't one of them.
I can't find a single disadvantage to just keeping the thing there, kind of like a benign tumor. Yeah it's a bit dated but you never know, someday you might need the thing. I'll take a spec Colt M4 with a forward assist into combat any day of the week.
As far as the armed citizen is concerned, go for it. If that's what gets you off then buy it and shoot it. Maintain it correctly-run it wet and you'll never have a problem.
There is really no disadvantage to having an FA other than its weight. There's also no advantage to having one. The logical solution should the option be available, is to remove the thing and run slick. Seeing as how this was the original question for this thread, the answer is go slick.
TDC
TDC
