G&R Tactical
Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 334

Thread: THE BAD: What AR accessory do you really dislike or is just flat out useless?

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hamburg PA
    Posts
    3,498
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    Now that's one I had not considered. That alone seems a worthy reason for the Forward assist being it does not negatively impact anything else I'm aware of.
    On that note for a forward assist and wanting to close it silently. Does the FA do it better than pushing the BCG forward at the scallop? I've tried to induce a bolt not fully seating to see and it seems that there is little difference and if the bolt can't be closed with pressure on the scallop at the BCG then the FA may indeed cause an issue.
    "I don't collect guns anymore, I stockpile weapons for ****ing war." Chuck P.

    "Some days you eat the bacon, and other days the bacon eats you." SeriousStudent

    "Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello." WillBrink

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    422
    Feedback Score
    0
    Anecedote: While overseas, a forward assist on one of my guys’ gun broke somehow and the pawl locked up the gun hard. This occured when locking and loading while leaving the gate. It was unresolveble in a timely manner and he was bumped from the mission. I held that against forward assists for years, and am just recently realizing that it was a freak thing, and not a reason to avoid forward assists. That said, yeah, its possible for them to be counterproductive.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,079
    Feedback Score
    0
    For the FA, it can have benefits to assist proper battery. Don't use it to try to push a square peg in a round hole. It's rarely needed most of the time, if you need to "hammer" it hard multiple times, you have issues to look into. In the rare cases for use, it's normally just thumb pressure, not the palm smacking it in.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    4,872
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    For the FA, it can have benefits to assist proper battery. Don't use it to try to push a square peg in a round hole. It's rarely needed most of the time, if you need to "hammer" it hard multiple times, you have issues to look into. In the rare cases for use, it's normally just thumb pressure, not the palm smacking it in.
    As Kain mentioned, what benefit does FA offer that the scallop does not?

    If my bolt doesn’t seat, I’ve bever had pushing the scallop fail, and the FA work. I have had the FA fail but the scallop work though.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    461
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    As Kain mentioned, what benefit does FA offer that the scallop does not?

    If my bolt doesn’t seat, I’ve bever had pushing the scallop fail, and the FA work. I have had the FA fail but the scallop work though.
    Maybe if the gun is REALLY dirty - that obviously raises other issues, but it would be much easier to put more pressure on the FA than the scallop if carbon or dirt is slowing things down. I know that's a niche application and the safety of forcing the bolt in that situation would raise concerns, but if you have to, I would think the FA would be easier/quicker/more reliable.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hamburg PA
    Posts
    3,498
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance435 View Post
    Maybe if the gun is REALLY dirty - that obviously raises other issues, but it would be much easier to put more pressure on the FA than the scallop if carbon or dirt is slowing things down. I know that's a niche application and the safety of forcing the bolt in that situation would raise concerns, but if you have to, I would think the FA would be easier/quicker/more reliable.
    But couldn't the scallop be reprofiled or checkered to offer better purchase?
    I just playing devil's advocate. But, I think there is the arguement to be made that changes could have been made that didn't add parts to achieve a similar result for 99% of the times where the FA is used.
    "I don't collect guns anymore, I stockpile weapons for ****ing war." Chuck P.

    "Some days you eat the bacon, and other days the bacon eats you." SeriousStudent

    "Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello." WillBrink

  7. #277
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,079
    Feedback Score
    0
    The scallop as we see it today was not only intended as a control of the ejection port door, but also as a way to reduce fouling issues exhausting from the ports.
    Sure, we could manipulate the carrier via the scallop, but would that method be preferable for operation over the FA? I would tend to think not so for that.
    Adding areas into that surface to better aid with manipulating the carrier in that area would be a collection surface for quickly condensing fouling.
    I would rather exhaust the fouling condensates into the air and not apply them into the system.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hamburg PA
    Posts
    3,498
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    The scallop as we see it today was not only intended as a control of the ejection port door, but also as a way to reduce fouling issues exhausting from the ports.
    Sure, we could manipulate the carrier via the scallop, but would that method be preferable for operation over the FA? I would tend to think not so for that.
    Adding areas into that surface to better aid with manipulating the carrier in that area would be a collection surface for quickly condensing fouling.
    I would rather exhaust the fouling condensates into the air and not apply them into the system.
    You got a link for info on that? I honestly have never heard that particular comment in regards to the AR FOW.

    At any rate, I still am not of convinced that checkering, or molding, or whatever we may wish, within reason, to aid in using it to push the carrier forward would create an added risk of collecting fouling, or carbon. At least no more than the groves for the FA already there which are viewable from the ejection port as it is. I mean, the guns I have seen go down due to carbon build up wasn't due to it being on the carrier, or bolt, but it packing the receiver, and that was after thousands, upon thousands, of rounds. Those were also auto loading shotguns that run in my experience a bit dirtier than the AR. There is also, or at least was, a SR15 somewhere around here that had been run long enough, I want to say like 20K rounds, mostly suppressed too, that was so filled with carbon that it was oozing from between the upper and lower, and the guy was still shooting it. At that point I am not sure carbon build up is something that I would be concerned with.
    "I don't collect guns anymore, I stockpile weapons for ****ing war." Chuck P.

    "Some days you eat the bacon, and other days the bacon eats you." SeriousStudent

    "Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello." WillBrink

  9. #279
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,551
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    If your rifle has only gone from the safe to the bench at the range and then back into the safe you should not be commenting on whether the FA is needed or not.

    YMMV

    ETA - and only used beat up and worn out Viet Nam era magazines because that is what is issued.
    Last edited by EzGoingKev; 12-08-17 at 06:51.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,079
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kain View Post
    You got a link for info on that? I honestly have never heard that particular comment in regards to the AR FOW.

    At any rate, I still am not of convinced that checkering, or molding, or whatever we may wish, within reason, to aid in using it to push the carrier forward would create an added risk of collecting fouling, or carbon. At least no more than the groves for the FA already there which are viewable from the ejection port as it is. I mean, the guns I have seen go down due to carbon build up wasn't due to it being on the carrier, or bolt, but it packing the receiver, and that was after thousands, upon thousands, of rounds. Those were also auto loading shotguns that run in my experience a bit dirtier than the AR. There is also, or at least was, a SR15 somewhere around here that had been run long enough, I want to say like 20K rounds, mostly suppressed too, that was so filled with carbon that it was oozing from between the upper and lower, and the guy was still shooting it. At that point I am not sure carbon build up is something that I would be concerned with.
    The internet wasn't around back then. I would suggest looking at earlier Armalite carriers to study how they evolved. It's not just ease of machining, directed porting wasn't bad in concept, but what they learned from that was we enter to today. We really do not want to increase the surface areas in that location.

Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •