Just Built an AR

[kirkland]

Reliable was a question , just looking for input from people in the know. Back in 1967 AR's did run well than either. Marines up in I core where not happy with them. I was able to get a Winchester Mod 12 for searching san-pans and junks on the rivers. My AK is a GP WAS 10 I picked up in 1989 mags came from different times and all are old sheet metal or aluminum. In fact the whole gun is sheet metal. Am able to hit clay birds at 100 yards. This gun would get the job done. I just wanted to build this AR because I had some parts given to me. I would like to see it run. If not I will buy a Colt or S&W . What would be a top running AR 16 inch manufacture?

I would highly recommend getting rid of the PSA, forgetting all about buying the S&W, and buying a Colt 6920.

[Stickman]

Built my first AR using PSA 16 inch upper with mid range gas tube.......... So far I have no faith in either of my AR's. Is it just me or are AR's unreliable?

C21,

There are a slew of possible issues, but PSA is not known for quality components. There are a lot of complaints regarding their products, their use of defective or shoddy parts, improper assembly and so on. There have also been complaints of them selling things rejected by manufacturers.

However, I think a few assumptions are in order. I will assume you remember how to clean and lubricate your weapons, and I'll assume you did so in this case. I will assume you are using magazines which are as old as you say they are, and I'll assume they probably weren't brand new magazines kept stored in a box somewhere for 30-40 years.

It is most likely, especially when you add in issues with your Colt, that the problem is with the magazines you are currently using. Whether it is the springs which are worn out, followers which are installed incorrectly, and/ or bent feedlips, it really doesn't matter. It is time to buy some new magazines. Magpul PMAGs are good magazines, but if you want to stay with metal mags, Surefeed (Okay Industries) makes very good ones.

Regarding your ammunition, I'm not worried about the age. We aren't talking about loading cannons with black powder and worrying about humidity here, ammo tends to be well made and stay good for a very long time.

Check how your new and old AR15 do with new magazines, and I think you will be fine.

[n4aof]

So far, I’ve been very pleased with my PSA for the money.

I'll let you know the verdict on my build Monday when I get out to the farm to check it out. It's an Anderson lower with a PSA upper and PSA LPK. Just put together yesterday.

ARs not working well back in the 60s doesn’t really mean anything. They’ve been continually refined for the past 60 years.

Yes and no.

Many of the issues with the AR back in the late sixties when the Army dumped them on us in country weren't really AR problems. One of the biggest problems was that in most of Vietnam the 5.56NATO round was simply the wrong round for the environment. Any varmint shooter will happily tell you that a lightweight high velocity bullet will deflect off the slightest twig or even a blade of tall grass. 5.56 was great if it happened to hit anything but it wasn't a great JUNGLE round where nearly every shot required penetrating something to reach the target. Another major problem only partly related to the AR itself was that the Army initially issued M16s in country without having the new cleaning kits. Guess what, you can't clean an M16 with a cleaning kit made for a .30cal M14.

I say that the cleaning kit problem was partly related to the M16 platform itself simply because the M16 really did require much more cleaning and maintenance than other military small arms is use at the time - particularly it did require more cleaning and maintenance than its predecessor the M14. The M16 had performed reliably in the Army tests before it was adopted. What no one thought about was that each of the rifles being tested was disassembled, cleaned, inspected, lubricated, and reassembled immediately prior to each test.

Just as the US has spent all the years since WWII arguing that we can beat the foe based on Quality over Quantity, our criteria for small arms has consistently put accuracy over reliability. The simple fact is that accuracy requires tight tolerances while looser tolerances favor reliability. (Personally I am not sure that accuracy matters in rifles issued to soldiers in an Army that has all but abandoned rifle marksmanship training).

While there have been a lot of tweaks to details of the M16/M4 design over the years, the biggest enhancements in "reliability" have been accomplished by convincing soldiers that cleaning their rifle at the very least every day, preferably more often, is simply normal.

If we return to the initial poster's comparison between the AK and AR platforms, with all other factors being equal, yes under military combat conditions the AK platform is inherently more reliable than the AR platform -- and the more both rifles are abused and neglected the greater the difference in favor of the AK.

But for civilians who clean and lube their AR, take it to a nice clean range, run a few magazines, take the gun home to clean and lube it before placing it carefully back in the gun safe, their AR will be just as reliable as an AK.

[Wake27]

I'll let you know the verdict on my build Monday when I get out to the farm to check it out. It's an Anderson lower with a PSA upper and PSA LPK. Just put together yesterday.



Yes and no.

Many of the issues with the AR back in the late sixties when the Army dumped them on us in country weren't really AR problems. One of the biggest problems was that in most of Vietnam the 5.56NATO round was simply the wrong round for the environment. Any varmint shooter will happily tell you that a lightweight high velocity bullet will deflect off the slightest twig or even a blade of tall grass. 5.56 was great if it happened to hit anything but it wasn't a great JUNGLE round where nearly every shot required penetrating something to reach the target. Another major problem only partly related to the AR itself was that the Army initially issued M16s in country without having the new cleaning kits. Guess what, you can't clean an M16 with a cleaning kit made for a .30cal M14.

I say that the cleaning kit problem was partly related to the M16 platform itself simply because the M16 really did require much more cleaning and maintenance than other military small arms is use at the time - particularly it did require more cleaning and maintenance than its predecessor the M14. The M16 had performed reliably in the Army tests before it was adopted. What no one thought about was that each of the rifles being tested was disassembled, cleaned, inspected, lubricated, and reassembled immediately prior to each test.

Just as the US has spent all the years since WWII arguing that we can beat the foe based on Quality over Quantity, our criteria for small arms has consistently put accuracy over reliability. The simple fact is that accuracy requires tight tolerances while looser tolerances favor reliability. (Personally I am not sure that accuracy matters in rifles issued to soldiers in an Army that has all but abandoned rifle marksmanship training).

While there have been a lot of tweaks to details of the M16/M4 design over the years, the biggest enhancements in "reliability" have been accomplished by convincing soldiers that cleaning their rifle at the very least every day, preferably more often, is simply normal.

If we return to the initial poster's comparison between the AK and AR platforms, with all other factors being equal, yes under military combat conditions the AK platform is inherently more reliable than the AR platform -- and the more both rifles are abused and neglected the greater the difference in favor of the AK.

But for civilians who clean and lube their AR, take it to a nice clean range, run a few magazines, take the gun home to clean and lube it before placing it carefully back in the gun safe, their AR will be just as reliable as an AK.

You think they need to be cleaned multiple times a day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AndyLate]

But for civilians who clean and lube their AR, take it to a nice clean range, run a few magazines, take the gun home to clean and lube it before placing it carefully back in the gun safe, their AR will be just as reliable as an AK.

The myth of the delicate AR that needs cleaning every couple hundred rounds has been disproven so many times in so many ways that I am not going to bother posting any links. Just google Filthy 14 and enjoy.

Andy

P.S. I read The Gun too.

[RHINOWSO]

Funny, in the many thousands of rounds I have through an ARs (BCMs, Noveske, Aero) and SCAR16/17, the only malfunctions I've had were due to fouled magazines.

The AR15 mag got a small rock stuck in it (during multiple drops during a class) and wouldn't let rounds feed up after the first round.

The SCAR 17 feedlip broke off (bad batch of mags) and fouled the FCU intermittently.

And I hate cleaning weapons.

[JediGuy]

I say that the cleaning kit problem was partly related to the M16 platform itself simply because the M16 really did require much more cleaning and maintenance than other military small arms is use at the time - particularly it did require more cleaning and maintenance than its predecessor the M14. The M16 had performed reliably in the Army tests before it was adopted. What no one thought about was that each of the rifles being tested was disassembled, cleaned, inspected, lubricated, and reassembled immediately prior to each test.

Mmm... I can’t speak to whether the .223 round was effective in the jungle, but it’s pretty common knowledge that the problem with the M16 was Big Army not making the round with the correct powder, which caused poor performance in several areas. On the cleaning, I’ve never heard it has to be cleaned more than any other major US military rifle. As another referenced, numerous people have run over 10,000 rounds through AR’s without cleaning, without malfunction.

[Arik]

But for civilians who clean and lube their AR, take it to a nice clean range, run a few magazines, take the gun home to clean and lube it before placing it carefully back in the gun safe, their AR will be just as reliable as an AK.

What about the civilians who shoot 500-1000 round in classes in the rain or out in the desert, then comes home and throws it in the corner somewhere until next time? And once every few years it eventually gets cleaned. What about those?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[n4aof]

What about the civilians who shoot 500-1000 round in classes in the rain or out in the desert, then comes home and throws it in the corner somewhere until next time? And once every few years it eventually gets cleaned. What about those?

IF there are any (which I actually doubt) who shoot that seriously AND honestly don't do any maintenance for "years" sometimes they get lucky, other times they accept the occasional failure as being "reliable" enough (after all "everyone" has an "occasional failure" in those "high round count" courses, that's why they teach malfunction drills); but either way, people who don't maintain an AR generally aren't people who count on the AR for their lives.

But, bottom line is simple.... If you don't want to maintain your AR, go right ahead and abuse it. Eventually it will return the favor.

[Arik]

IF there are any (which I actually doubt) who shoot that seriously AND honestly don't do any maintenance for "years" sometimes they get lucky, other times they accept the occasional failure as being "reliable" enough (after all "everyone" has an "occasional failure" in those "high round count" courses, that's why they teach malfunction drills); but either way, people who don't maintain an AR generally aren't people who count on the AR for their lives.

But, bottom line is simple.... If you don't want to maintain your AR, go right ahead and abuse it. Eventually it will return the favor.

Eventually.... this is true for all firearms.

Who? Go read the dirty 14. 500 - 1000 rounds isn't a lot. These rifles are not as finicky as some believe.

As much as I love AKs the whole AK is Uber reliable and AR is not myth needs to disappear. In fact in some cases its the opposite. The closed system keeps more debris out of the gun. Technology and refinements have come a long way since Vietnam.

A lot of the fouling in Vietnam happened from the powder, which isn't used any more.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk