The Big M4 Myth

We see our fair share of Mac issues at the office so whoever thinks that Macs are trouble free has drunk too much Apple flavoured kool-aid.

And I am replying on my work issued Macbook Pro. :p

Now back to the topic...

Great post OP. Thanks for sharing that.
 
Most of the problems I've seen with the AR platform were completely attributable to the operator.

Little to no lube, franken builds using low quality parts, useless accessories, failure to check that their rifle is built properly (castle nuts, barrel extensions, carrier keys, etc), and using low quality or worn mags.
 
Last edited:
Read up on Vietnam and the introduction of the M-16.They did foul up along time ago due to the 556 powder formulation and insufficient cleaning.Cleaning kits where originally not supplied to the troops and they where initially actually told this new weapon did not require cleaning!Also remember direct impingement is also a concern with sustained fire and the danger of cook off.--Hope this helps==Dieseldog!
 
My Norc 14.5" has been 100 percent reliable so far after 1200-ish rounds down the tube, usually 200 or so rounds at a time. Mind you I'm a little obsessive about keeping my guns clean, so that may not count for much. My C7A1 when I was in the forces was always very reliable for me too. Even after shooting a butt load of blanks. I've never bought into the whole "AR's aren't reliable" thing, because I've always found them to be nothing but reliable when wielded by competent users. Most stoppages I've seen were mag issues. They wouldn't have lasted this long in worldwide service if they weren't reliable guns.
 
Last edited:
dieseldog said:
Read up on Vietnam and the introduction of the M-16.They did foul up along time ago due to the 556 powder formulation and insufficient cleaning.Cleaning kits where originally not supplied to the troops and they where initially actually told this new weapon did not require cleaning!Also remember direct impingement is also a concern with sustained fire and the danger of cook off.--Hope this helps==Dieseldog!
Click to expand...

I would assume any AR enthusiast know the ol' Nam M16 story. That's where most of the AR myths stem from. It's all left over from that horror story.
 
Conte said:
I would assume any AR enthusiast know the ol' Nam M16 story. That's where most of the AR myths stem from. It's all left over from that horror story.
Click to expand...

Yup, like the "semi-automatics are not reliable or accurate" and "double stack magazines cannot possibly be reliable" myths that still circulate from time to time.

Hmm, I wonder of anyone has done direct comparisons between a Swiss Arms and a comparable AR, at similar price points and barrel lengths and what not, using the same ammo.
I'd think that an AR, budgeted the same as an SAN, would be pretty hard to beat..

Any rich boys want to put it on the line for internet glory?

Excuse me while I disassemble my frankenrifle in shame. Going to take forever to build it.
 
Stevebot-7 said:
Hmm, I wonder of anyone has done direct comparisons between a Swiss Arms and a comparable AR, at similar price points and barrel lengths and what not, using the same ammo.
I'd think that an AR, budgeted the same as an SAN, would be pretty hard to beat..
Click to expand...

Cost should be of no concern. When we talk about reliability, money should not enter the discussion. I don't think it is a matter of one rifle beating the other. Both have there ideal setting. An AR is one of, if not, the most modular platform on the planet. It's Light weight, many different calibers, models, and accessories make for a very modular platform. In modularity, a Swiss rifle cannot compete. In terms of reliability however, a Swiss will experience less stoppages than any AR's I have seen. They are both just a rifle, a tool like any other, each with their advantages and disadvantages. My point was not to start a Swiss vs AR comparison, but to state simply that while I agree with the article, (and perhaps because I am spoiled by the Swiss) I feel the AR has many more issues than just being DI (If you consider that an issue at all). I also believe the article actually highlights this point by specifically addressing weak springs and light buffer weights as needing to be upgraded to make the weapon system reliable.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any rifle can compete really.

For the price of a swiss, you can put together a pretty sick sub-MOA shooting AR. Assuming you're comparing accuracy, I think the AR is just about untouchable at that price point.

However, I will state, that my Precision AR, is no where near as reliable as other rifles. Almost to the point I bring special tools to the range, because I pretty much expect it to yield certain jams. My P-AR isn't quite in the Swiss price point tho'. Had to make reliability vs accuracy compromises to meet my budget, both can be had.

My Carbines on the other hand, set up to not fail, don't.
 
This is a great read. I have an H2 buffer and stiffer action spring in my box just in case, but I've never had problems with a standard buffer/action spring. Like the article said - it only yields an extra 100 rounds or so on an unlubed rifle @ 2400 rounds, which is more extreme than anyone would subject their rifle to in a real world scenario.
 
One thing I find interesting is the amount of time dedicated to how to clear a jam or malfunction at these carbine courses where the AR platform is the primary firearm used.
 
Most common issues I(personally) know of in order by # of failure/stoppage
1. Magazine issues
2. Improper lub or no lub issues
3. Worn out parts/broken parts
4. Dirty ammo

Mi dos centavos
 
skypilot said:
Most common issues I(personally) know of in order by # of failure/stoppage
1. Magazine issues
2. Improper lub or no lub issues
3. Worn out parts/broken parts
4. Dirty ammo

Mi dos centavos
Click to expand...

I think #1 is home assembled parts guns (usually including at least one used and one part made by a company no one has heard of) built by people to cheap to use the right tools.
I have seen carbine buffers and springs used in rifles and the reverse to less than stellar results.
 
sithinside said:
This is a great read. I have an H2 buffer and stiffer action spring in my box just in case, but I've never had problems with a standard buffer/action spring. Like the article said - it only yields an extra 100 rounds or so on an unlubed rifle @ 2400 rounds, which is more extreme than anyone would subject their rifle to in a real world scenario.
Click to expand...

While I agree that nobodies likely to shoot that many rounds at a stretch, let alone on a dry rifle, if you add environmental grit and/or freezing temperatures into the mix, you are probably going to meet that fail point much sooner.

That's without getting into the issues of low build quality and tired magazines and other components that seem to be a problem in the U.S. military context.

If modern American society has one glaring weakness, it's their tendency to best case scenario everything, and that includes mechanical device operation.
 
"...the AR-15 is..." After 40 plus years of development it should be. Mind you, the AK was reliable from the very start.
Like 870P says, the real troopies can't fiddle with their issue rifles. Gets the RSM riled up.
 
saskcop said:
One thing I find interesting is the amount of time dedicated to how to clear a jam or malfunction at these carbine courses where the AR platform is the primary firearm used.
Click to expand...

Its amazing how much time pilots spend training for emergencies llike engine failure. Does that mean Boeing and airbus make ####ty aircraft? Your statement is full of fail. Traing for the worst and expect the best. The fact many schools teach and preach this philosphy has no bearing on the tools being used. The outright ban of certain firearms or other gear carries more merit.

Tdc
 
Gunnerlove said:
I think #1 is home assembled parts guns (usually including at least one used and one part made by a company no one has heard of) built by people to cheap to use the right tools.
I have seen carbine buffers and springs used in rifles and the reverse to less than stellar results.
Click to expand...

AR15 is the only rifle that has been reversed engineered by so many people, from ISO manufacturers to garage machine shops.

If you look at all other systems, they are either made by the original manufacturers or licensed manufacturers.

Even 10 years ago, many bigger shops still could not drill the gas port to the correct sizes.......when the war started, some of the spec in the TDP were eventually "observed". I also think that cheaper engineering software, as well as 3D scanning, allows many smaller and medium shops to properly model and design stuff without purely guessing.
 
Gunnerlove said:
I think #1 is home assembled parts guns (usually including at least one used and one part made by a company no one has heard of) built by people to cheap to use the right tools.
I have seen carbine buffers and springs used in rifles and the reverse to less than stellar results.
Click to expand...

You could be correct on the home assembled parts and their effects. I should have specified that I was speaking of OEM stock Colts, S&Ws and Bushmasters during training/qualifications.
 
TDC said:
Its amazing how much time pilots spend training for emergencies llike engine failure. Does that mean Boeing and airbus make ####ty aircraft? Your statement is full of fail. Traing for the worst and expect the best. The fact many schools teach and preach this philosphy has no bearing on the tools being used. The outright ban of certain firearms or other gear carries more merit.

Tdc
Click to expand...

Not full of fail at all. It was merely an observation. I have been to enough firearms training over the last 30 years to see that when training for other platforms, the stoppage drills were not as frequent as they seem to be now in the modern carbine courses. Everyone trains for a failure; but not every course is training for constant failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom