Hypothetical: What Still Needs Fixing?

[Dionysusigma]

The AR design, is (more or less) 60 years old. Since its initial development, it's been frequently and sometimes nonsensically modified, updated, made from almost every possible material, accessorized, accurized, shortened, chambered in as many different calibers as any hunting rifle line, used in every operational environment this planet has to offer, and is still going strong.

Over that time, included in numerous issues that have been addressed are a standard of gas port size requirements; buffer weight; charging handle (from the original "trigger inside the carry handle" to the comparatively-new AXTS); barrel lining, barrel profile, and total barrel composition; trigger/hammer/disconnector/spring group; sights; ergonomics (i.e. furniture options); and countless others. And all have been, more than with any other system ever in such widespread use, cross-compatible with nearly every variant produced. A person could put a BCM GFH Mod 5 charging handle on a Colt 601 (however blasphemous it might seem).

But what, in your opinion, still needs fixing? What glaring (or mildly annoying) issue bothers you? How could it be changed?

To simplify discussion, let's try to limit the possibilities within the following:
- STANAG magazine compatibility
- Mechanically safe (e.g. no paper-thin chamber walls or skeletonized uppers)
- Remain within the "small arms" definition (nothing crew-served, portable and usable by one person)
- Be fully compatible with the majority of another AR - several push this envelope, from the fully ambidextrous lower of the SR15E3 to super-short PDW systems, but may be included because they can still be "mated" with the other half of the system
- Use materials that currently exist (no Star Wars Durasteel bolts or using antimatter instead of H335!)

Edited to add: This is all made from the assumption that the AR operating system (for lack of a better descriptor) is the pinnacle of firearms development. For the sake of argument, let's maintain that bias. The Sig MCX thread comes to mind...

[lysander]

Personally, I think they have been ruining it since 1980.

They started with a rifle that worked, and weighted a tad over 6-1/3 lbs unloaded, and a tad over 7.3 lbs with a full magazine and sling.

But, now they have a carbine that has 5.5 inches less barrel, shoots bullets 300 fps slower and now weighs slightly more, burns through bolts in 5000 rounds, and isn't quite as reliable as the M16A1*. The M16A4 weighs the same as an unloaded M14....



* In 1968 the US Army testing reported a Mean Time Between Stoppages at around 4200 to 4500 rounds (http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA953116), the M4 has about 3600 MRBS (https://peosoldier.army.mil/docs/Wea...r-Oct%2009.pdf)

[opngrnd]

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA953116[/url]), the M4 has about 3600 MRBS (https://peosoldier.army.mil/docs/Wea...r-Oct%2009.pdf)

I'd be interesting in how today's mid-length gas system offerings compare with current mags (e.g. Magpul M3) and properly lubed(e.g. VTAC Rand CLP).

[BufordTJustice]

With the implementation of the grossly over pressure M855A1 round, a 16" barrel with Noveske-length intermediate gas system, a carrier with delayed unlocking and pressure reduction features, Vltor A5 system, an improved bolt, a free float rail system using a new standard such as keymod or Mlok, and a barrel contour similar to a heavy ELW (continuous taper) would all be common sense, COTS solutions which could be implemented very quickly and at relatively little cost compared to something like, say, THE F-35 LIGHTNING II.

[mkmckinley]

I'd like to see a standardized interface for mounting a rail/hand guard to the upper receiver completely independent of the barrel nut. Something like Larue's system or Aero's Enhanced uppers where the barrel nut only does one thing, hold the barrel down and there's a completely separate attachment method for attaching the handguard to the upper. Standardization would be in line with the AR's inherent modularity and make it easier/cheaper/better for manufacturers to design hand guards without having the reinvent the wheel. Such a system would ideally have excellent return to zero in the handguard is removed e.g. some type of self centering system or even a pin. Ideally there would be redundancies or keeper in the actual mounting hardware so like one or two screws could come loose one night and you wouldn't lose zero on your IR laser.

Standardized ambi controls including a way to lock bolt open without removing firing grip.

I'd like the charging handle redesigned to a SCAR style but retain the non-reciprocating/ self enclosed feature.

Make it impossible for a primer to stop up the trigger mechanism.

Standardized, simple, self cleaning adjustable gas regulator with stepped settings like high, medium, low.

This may be a bad idea in practice but if it could be done reliably and without adding noticeable weight then single on board battery in the pistol grip to power multiple gadgets would make the whole package streamlined.

[vicious_cb]

All the upgrades in the world won't make a difference if your average soldier isn't taught how to properly lube and do preventive maintenance on his service weapon.

[MistWolf]

I'd like to see four particular improvements-
- Easier way to lock the bolt back without a mag
- The charging handle moved to a more convenient location
- A lightweight adjustable buttstock with a cheek piece like that used on the UBR
- The death of metal handguards

[lysander]

I'd like to see a standardized interface for mounting a rail/hand guard to the upper receiver completely independent of the barrel nut. Something like Larue's system or Aero's Enhanced uppers where the barrel nut only does one thing, hold the barrel down and there's a completely separate attachment method for attaching the handguard to the upper. Standardization would be in line with the AR's inherent modularity and make it easier/cheaper/better for manufacturers to design hand guards without having the reinvent the wheel. Such a system would ideally have excellent return to zero in the handguard is removed e.g. some type of self centering system or even a pin. Ideally there would be redundancies or keeper in the actual mounting hardware so like one or two screws could come loose one night and you wouldn't lose zero on your IR laser.

Standardized ambi controls including a way to lock bolt open without removing firing grip.

I'd like the charging handle redesigned to a SCAR style but retain the non-reciprocating/ self enclosed feature.

Make it impossible for a primer to stop up the trigger mechanism.

Standardized, simple, self cleaning adjustable gas regulator with stepped settings like high, medium, low.

This may be a bad idea in practice but if it could be done reliably and without adding noticeable weight then single on board battery in the pistol grip to power multiple gadgets would make the whole package streamlined.

"The NATO STANAG Powered Rail" coming soon to a military near you...

[SomeOtherGuy]

The STANAG magazine / current magwell dimensions are one of the biggest remaining limitations. Something just a little bigger, like LWRC's proprietary six8 setup, would provide benefits with many cartridges including 5.56 (where you could run longer, higher-BC bullets).

The other remaining limitation is the bolt. It works, but it's a highly stressed component. Some improvements like those from ARP, LMT and KAC are all positive, but a larger bolt that isn't on a knife's edge would be better. The Faxon ARAK design seems very solid in fixing remaining weaknesses without introducing new ones, except for being proprietary.

Finally, while there are many good aftermarket triggers, even the best have rather slow lock time compared to the best bolt-gun triggers. If I'm redesigning things anyway I would look at changing to a striker setup and trying to get lock time down to 2ms or less.

[sinlessorrow]

Personally, I think they have been ruining it since 1980.

They started with a rifle that worked, and weighted a tad over 6-1/3 lbs unloaded, and a tad over 7.3 lbs with a full magazine and sling.

But, now they have a carbine that has 5.5 inches less barrel, shoots bullets 300 fps slower and now weighs slightly more, burns through bolts in 5000 rounds, and isn't quite as reliable as the M16A1*. The M16A4 weighs the same as an unloaded M14....



* In 1968 the US Army testing reported a Mean Time Between Stoppages at around 4200 to 4500 rounds (http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA953116), the M4 has about 3600 MRBS (https://peosoldier.army.mil/docs/Wea...r-Oct%2009.pdf)

I see people say it burns through bolts in 5,000 rounds. The issue I have with that is the Maintenance Schedule calls for replacement of the bolt at 10,000 rounds.

So who's right? Random internet users or the mandatory maintenance schedule?