That One AR-sucks argument that never dies

The AR-15 (aka M-16 and M4) rifle created in 1964 by Armalite to give the US army a light rifle for the Space Age, and was contracted to Tonka Toys for manufacturing because they did die-casting of aluminum, is a well engineered rifle built around a very specific cartridge with a very specific bullet weight, gas pressure, recoil, and meant to be cheap to manufacture, even in a basement with minimal tools. Completely unlike the AK-47 which has to be made with huge hydraulic rams and presses. The AR can be made in a fallout shelter. This combined with our nuclear weapons was a major deterrent nightmare for the Soviet bloc. Problems with the design began immediately. The Chair Force thought it was fine for base security, and then the army decided that since it owned lots of CL2 ball powder, they would load all these small bore rifles with gritty bad burning powder. The gas tube mounted to the gas block about 6 inches from the muzzle forces burning powder and soot back into the tiny piston, which it TECHNICALLY is on the patent, even though it is only a piston for 1% of its movement and is an exhaust port for the other 99%. These exhaust gases, in the real world, blow right into the chamber and magazine, covering the rounds in hot gritty gases. Guns jammed. Troops died by the dozens, then hundreds. Relentless cleaning after firing became required until the Army swapped to a different powder that burned cleaner. I experimented with CL2 and its a really dirty powder in that caliber. It leaves piles of soot in the barrel, and I had a bolt action so my chamber stayed clean. Very interesting. I actually cared about my experiment so I did this right rather than screw around like loony Texans who can't seem to find a way to tell the truth for lying. But whatever.

A different round replaced the standard 55 grain it was designed around, a 62 grain that became a NATO standard. I've shot this weight. It works really well. So does the 69 grain BTHP, at the right velocities. I was a finicky loaded, but I eventually created loads that drove tacks, cloverleafing and overlapping hits at 100 yards consistently. That's what you want, if you are precise about this. I have targets with those hits somewhere in storage. Very proud of that. Thank you Lincoln Range. A good place to target shoot.

Troops took the M16 around the world during and after Vietnam, and it outperformed the AK-47, however it has problems and limitations. Canting, not being straight up and down, throws off accuracy, so the Flattop rifle was developed. This required raising the rifle closer to your eye, which means less of the rifle butt is actually on your shoulder. Extensions can be fitted, but issue rifles are an inch jabbing into your collarbone, which isn't ergonomic. Also, the carry handle has a functional purpose, providing rigidity to the mechanism, which on removal to a flattop starts flexing under load. This can be tamed in various ways, but its also documented.

In Gulf War 1, which a few friends of mine from high school fought in, wild blown talc and silt disabled rifles and the Bravos (front line ground troops), got very bitter about this and started putting condoms on the end or using pantyhose to try and keep the dust off the CLP used to clean the rifles. The powder sticks to the lubricant and makes mud in the chamber. Veterans know this and talked about it often after GW1. The issue was raised and the M4 became a thing. I am not entirely clear how it is mechanically different. It mostly seems to be the trigger group and barrel length, which requires a different tuning for the gas bloc so it still cycles. There's no mention of removing the coil spring in the tube down the stock or shortening the recoil distance of the bolt attached to that so-called 5mm piston which recoils about 5 inches to eject the brass and snag the next round. The system works for the round it was designed for, but they haven't used that in decades.

In Gulf War 2, after 9/11, the M4 had problems. So did the M16, even the latest heavy barrel target versions. The round it fires wasn't working at the ranges they have to shoot. This video has Blackwater (mostly veterans) in Iraq shooting insurgents from a rooftop. They are making multiple hits at 800 yards, but they keep shooting because the men get up and run away. There are several versions of this video. Many many rounds go downrange, only some hit, and the ones that hit don't work fast enough. This is an example of failure, despite the cheerfulness of the snipers.

It got worse when we (our military services) went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, killing Taliban who'd been the prior Mujahedeen allies of ours when fighting off the Russian invaders in 1980's. We helped them and in return they murder us once they got freedom. What have we learned about Arabs and Islamics? Nothing, apparently. And the public keeps voting these Islam-supporting jackasses back into office too. In the caves, we found Taliban hyped up on hashhish, wearing body armor and our M855 ammo didn't kill them fast enough. They experimented with 80 grain (it was actually 77 grain apparently) ammo which would go through their armor at close range, but there were many problems.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/10/in_2008_afghan_firefight_us_we.html

Many problems. So many that SOCOM and the USMC organized a caliber test and came up with something better based on the rimless high pressure case from a 300 Winchester, which is similar to a .30-30, but takes 3x more pressure. You can fit 26 of these in a 30-round STANAG magazine, which is a NATO standard (when they aren't using the 20 round ones anyway) and the USMC and SOCOM like them. After playing with .224, 6 mm, 25 cal, and up to 7mm, they decided on .277 (270) in a light for caliber 117 grain load. This gave them effective 600 yards, rather than the 250 yards they could get from standard NATO 5.56 ball ammo. I have read so many articles about this, too. And forums frequented by many active military, reservists sent to the Stans and Iraq, and veterans of all of them. Way more than some Texan I don't know. My 24 inch heavy barrel bench rest bolt .223 with match loads was a tack driver, and I would NOT trust it to hit something person sized at 500 yards. That's so much Mall Ninja crap. I am sick and tired of lying Hollywood rifle claims on the Internet. I have several friends who are gunsmiths, and know dozens of veterans. They do not say nice supportive things of the M4 or M16. They tend to get very silent most of the time, and talk about the need for a new rifle or new caliber. A few true believers quote method and verse on the official military line about 5.56 NATO which is also a kind of comment as well, if you understand their particular brand of sarcasm. As someone who married a veteran, that's one of the things you pick up on. Someday, AR-15s might be in the CMP, and all that NATO ball ammo will be too. And good riddance for a holiday contest. Cleaned, in a clean rifle, with nobody shooting back, its a fun plinking rifle. In combat? Well, I'm not a veteran, but the USMC clamoring for M-14s in Stan, and getting them issued in the real world, that says a lot. Dozens of veterans post to forums or comment to my gunsmith friends and they all say M14 or M1A. A few want Remington bolt rifles in .338 Lapua, more want .300 Win Mag, but the important thing is nobody wants 5.56 NATO in real world combat.

An article I really liked is this one: http://www.defensereview.com/m16-rifle-and-m4-carbine-time-for-a-change/  Notice the comments in the article about M16 reliability and DGI "vomits into its own mouth"? Yes. That. The AR-15 I fired at my range in Lincoln, CA, did the same thing. Soot all over the brass, and forward assist became required after several magazines. The grit fouled up the locking lugs and prevents full battery position. That's really stupid. That's crap design.

I agree. Everything I know about the 6.8 SPC says that's the round, if we're keeping the Lower receivers and all those millions of aluminum magazines in NATO. You need a different bolt head, to fit the case, and a new barrel in the upper, but these are easy to change parts. New Uppers fix many of the problems. If we ditch the short magazines and go to full length .308, we have more options, such as the 270 ARM, which I like on paper. I haven't fired it, but should be very similar to .260, 6.5 Swede, and 7mm08. I own the last one. Very nice round. I also own a .308, which is nice, but a bit heavy recoil for all day shooting in a light rifle.

There's also such a thing as a op-rod, which diverts the gas elsewhere instead of into the receiver moving parts and ammunition, which is a much better thing in dusty environments like the Stan and Iraq. There are many ways to do this, most of them not the way people (non-gunsmiths) think. A traditional Operations rod is solid steel, heavy, and causes shot stringing at range. This is a bad thing. It becomes a reciprocating weight. But it doesn't have to be solid steel, and it doesn't have to be long either. It just needs to be long enough to keep the gases out of the receiver. If your OP rod is only solid at the ends and hollow in the middle, and is mechanically tied to weights around the sides, you just removed the flexing problem. DGI screws up reliability but in the first few shots it is much more accurate. Its when the powder, if its at all dirty, changes battery lock and pressure of the round in the throat, which impacts muzzle velocity, that it goes all to hell.

Target shooters, like me, know about this because we actually care. And we clean meticulously to get our accuracy. Tack driving is not at all cheap. I was thinking seriously about a $10K rifle for Camp Perry only 10 years ago. I got over it. I can hold that still, and I am that good, and I can be that meticulous about sorting and concentricity for match loads. But it is a bit much. And California started taxing primers and getting your name for reloading supplies and the shop got taken over by jerks and I just gave it up.

I don't own an AR rifle. I don't like the ergonomics and I don't like the flaws, and even if an autorifle were legal in my state, I'd probably shoot one like the Robarms XCR, which is piston driven, clean, and multi-caliber capable. Best of all worlds, and relatively nice design too. I could get a 270 ARM barrel and call it good. On this side of the Rockies, with long range shots being normal, and game being generally light, or as heavy as bull elk, it is enough for most Western purposes. It would suit the army well in Stan, even if the ammo weighs nearly as much as .308. But they won't change to this, or to 6.8 SPC, because they have their budget cut by the Islamic-friendly leadership. And it will kill lots of our side in this conflict. And that's really a terrible tragedy because fixing the problem costs less than continuing to lose.