Removing the Forward Assist?

[Renegade]

I figured that this was a matter of experience. I figured it would be split down the line, those with mil/le experience would have used a rifle in adverse conditions and would want it.

If adverse conditions mean dirty environment using it to jam in a round is a mistake.

Like iraqgunz all my ars have it. I just do not use but should not call it useless some uses are valid though not for me.

[Dr Dues]

I'll just leave this here.....

Quote from The Late Pat Rogers:

"Neither do we use the Forward Assist. Never. We have been doing this for a few days, and have never, ever observed a situation where pushing on that useless appendage would have made anything better."

P.S. I follow the book of Pat,...have yet to find anything better.

[5.56 Bonded SP]

I voted to keep it. Military/LE experience is moot.

+1

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

+1

I do '' press check '' my AR's at times, pull the charging handle back just a little to assure it has a round in the chamber. Never really needed the forward assist at it goes back into battery once I release the charging handle.

I think it's nice to have though, and I can think of some situations where it would be nice to have as well.

[JasonB1]

Is there a cover made to put over the FA port?? I'm putting together an upper and don't want the FA as part of it. My other uppers are slick sided, but this one has the port.

https://www.brownells.com/rifle-part...prod79433.aspx

[Kain]

Actually I would say the poll is flawed, Should be an ambivalent option towards the FA since we are seeing that as a point from some, and I would probably fall into that one most than anything, I don't think I have a use for it the more I work with it, the more I induce malfs the less use I see for it in general. I would also argue that a better poll would be to ask how many people have actually used it for its design, which is to to get a round into a fouled chamber, and not as a work around for a chamber check, and such. I think the issue I was bringing up, since I am no doubt one of the firebrands who started this, is the question on whether it was legitimately useful, not useless(Obsolescent compared to obsolete) considering it added weight, parts complexity, and if we want to continue on the point, it also is none ambi. I know a lot of right handed shooters will reach up and press it with their thumb. A lefty would not have such an easy time. At any rate, does being able to pound a round into the chamber offer an actual advantage over if the round requires more force than I can apply via the scallop just ejecting it and feeding a new one. I see a lot of guys press checking, chamber checking, close the gun quietly, but I see that as a more work around what I have in hand, than guys who are using for the original design concept. So then comes the question, how often is it actually utilized in combat or even training? What percentage would a FA solve a problem that a tap, rack, and bang wouldn't? Those who I have questioned who have been in more than a few firefights, and down a number of tours in Iraq, A-stan, and even some in Nam, few ever mentioned ever using it. Some of the guys who served in nam didn't have it, and never felt they needed it. There some other stories involving a few not liking though, though one involves it making a piss poor spring board.

Personal experiences with chamber checking, I rarely have had the bolt on any of my rifles not go into battery which pulling the CH back far enough to verify a round is in the chamber, and even with it fails to go into battery I have found little difference in effort needed to assist it with the FA or just nudging the BCG. This is on a fair number of personal and LE rifles, lubed, not lubed, clean, and in one particular case, mine, run bone dirty for about a case of filthy steel cased ammo, some brass, and doing every bad AR idea you can come up with and the rifle, never closing the dust cover, and such and if that thing, which sounded like sand paper in the action(to the point that my CH in that rifle is nice and shiny on one side) and it still ran fine. I have personally seen rounds that did not want to go into their homes, the FA didn't really help matters, and personally if a round is not wanting to chamber I am probably more interested in getting it out of the stack and trying a different one than not. I care not to be mortaring a rifle, and even less for ones so ****ed up that kickstarting becomes a thing, and I have seen both ,and done former and assisted with the latter. If my carrier is so fouled that it doesn't want to move I would also probably be more inclined on throwing some lube in it than pounding the hell out it as well. I am also interested in seeing if pounding on that FA could cause worse issues in the case of a major malf like a bolt override, could someone beat that bitch hard enough to **** up the gastube? Might be worse an experiment. Also, in the day of 300BLK, I would be doubly dubious about hammering a round home, which while less of a concern in Mil circles, in LE and civie and such it might be something to consider with that growing trend.

I think in the end my point comes down to seeing it as more of a niche tool, like a glass breaker on the end of my rifle. Does it have utility? In some circumstances. Is it required? Probably not for the vast majority. And yet, for something like that, I find the degree of near emotional attachment fascinating.

[Biggy]

Apparently LAV would rather have one than not.

Larry Vickers says:
December 1, 2013 at 02:53

{Yes i feel a forward assist is a must have in a combat carbine – one of those ‘in case all else fails’ devices that is a nice to have item on your weapon
I rarely ever use mine but i still want it on the carbine}

[Todd.K]

The forward assist was added to "quietly" chamber a round. Doesn't fit any modern SOP that I know of.

Using it for a stoppage is bad, not just unnecessary but bad.

Using it for a press check is fine, but it just makes an admin action a bit easier.

[mlberry]

Stoner designed the AR15 without the forward assist. He felt it was unnecessary and could turn a small problem into a major one with a bad round thoroughly jammed in the chamber. The Army having had the equivalent of a forward assist in the M1, M1 carbine and M14 disagreed. The M16 without the forward assist was happily used by the Air Force and the Army used the M16A1 with the forward assist. I don't think it was ever really needed, but now that it's there it's not worth removing.

[Renegade]

The forward assist was added to "quietly" chamber a round.

Evidence?

Never heard that one before.

ETA from The Black Rifle

Army first began demanding a "bolt closure device" in the summer of 1963. Both Springfield Armory (the Govt Arsenal) and Colt submitted designs.

[ccosby]

I have used numerous times to close the bolt quietly.

I've done this as well. Personally I like having it but for those who don't you have multiple vendors now making uppers without it.

I've also shot 22 uppers that didn't have it and should have.