AR reliability. Riddle me this.

[Kevslatvin]

I guess I have the answer. As long as it lubed every once in awhile it shouldn't have any of the problems of those first issued to combat troops. Also correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the advisors using them prior to us sending combat troops didn't have those problems as their ammo had the proper propellant. That change didn't occur till wide scale adoption.

[Doc Safari]

I guess I have the answer. As long as it lubed every once in awhile it shouldn't have any of the problems of those first issued to combat troops. Also correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the advisors using them prior to us sending combat troops didn't have those problems as their ammo had the proper propellant. That change didn't occur till wide scale adoption.

And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.

[Feline]

And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.

Ive heard conflicting information on the validity of those claims. Personally, I'd take a 77 OTM over 55 gr Nam' ammo.

[Firefly]

We should fight another war in Nam to see how it would work with KMRs and such!

I support this. Only way to know for sure.
The Vietnamese use Galil Aces so it would be amusing.

Per my first post, AKs would have a following like FALs or G3s because people like to be different. But if in 1964 folks started off with M4A1s and SR25 Carbines nobody would care any more for AKs than they would for Howa Type 64s.

I doubt it would have affected the campaign much but it'd never have started the whole "M16s suuuuck" spiel.

Advisors and Rangers went to Vietnam with COTS AR-15s, factory mags, proper ammo, and cleaning kits and thought it was bad ass.

Lightweight, 5.56 mess yo ass up. Accurate.
Hell to the yayeaaah

[Feline]

I support this. Only way to know for sure.
The Vietnamese use Galil Aces so it would be amusing.

Per my first post, AKs would have a following like FALs or G3s because people like to be different. But if in 1964 folks started off with M4A1s and SR25 Carbines nobody would care any more for AKs than they would for Howa Type 64s.

I doubt it would have affected the campaign much but it'd never have started the whole "M16s suuuuck" spiel.

Advisors and Rangers went to Vietnam with COTS AR-15s, factory mags, proper ammo, and cleaning kits and thought it was bad ass.

Lightweight, 5.56 mess yo ass up. Accurate.
Hell to the yayeaaah

"I just got like, this 5.56 okay? And it's 55 grain ball. And everybody I've ever seen shot with it, it dicks them up."

---Clint Smith
Thunder Ranch

[Stickman]

And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.

I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.

[Hank6046]

I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.

Yeah, totally... It wasn't Mattel, it was Hasbro...

[Eurodriver]

I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.

How is it that threads like this get so much attention anyway?

[Dienekes]

I blame the early M16's problems on Vatican II. Those guys couldn't leave ANYTHING alone.

[1168]

Frankly, instead of an AK vs. AR thread I'd love to see an Aimpoint vs. ACOG thread where the users relate their authentic battlefield or law enforcement experiences.

In my experience, I have seen a few older Comp-M's &@$% the bed on Mk46's and maybe a small few get problems or quit on M4's. OTOH, I have never seen an ACOG reticle fail to show up for the party, and I've seen guns with ACOGs burn in from jumps, and survive helo rollovers. However, I have used older ACOG's that were unzero-able, as in the adjustment knobs don't seem to do anything. I wonder if they are the same ones that have had 9 lives. I would say the ACOG is more indestructible, but I have little experience with the PRO or COMP M4.

Both ACOG, and Aimpoint, are insanely durable. The stuff that breaks them tends to be hazardous to the users' health. Same is true for the M4 platform in general. Usually the types of impacts and such that destroy the rifle either render the user inop, or they are separated when it happens.

OP, in a jungle, just keep it lubed to try and prevent rust, and it is a good weapon for crappy, humid places. I live in coastal SC now, and lived in NC, GA, and LA in the past. I also worked with the weapon in all sorts of places for work. Even my personal guns occasionally go swimming, get rained on while hunting or at range, go camping, get carried around in the woods, put on the wet ground while I prep my gear, etc. I don't cancel shooting for weather. I've had to replace the trigger on my favorite rifle twice due to surface rust making the pull crappy. I tend to use coated or corrision resistant components when possible, but my stock M4's and M16s have had a tendency to work well, also. I just have to maintain them by drying them out and applying oil.

For those mentioning the AK: while mine tend to get light rust just from looking at them funny (probably due to corrosive ammo), I believe the practical difference between the 74 pattern rifles and the M4 is small, jungle or otherwise. Training, tactics, strategy, support, and logistics renders the difference irrelevant on the battlefield. The 47 pattern rifles can kiss my butt. The M4 outclasses them so well, they don't belong in the same sentence. Still, though, the factors two sentences back are more important.