Just Built an AR

[Wake27]

I'm pretty sure the Vietnam era guns didn't come with dust covers either, so that is one of those small steps in refinement. And there are plenty of guys here who regularly shoot 500 rounds or more in between cleanings. "Army cleaning" of the M4 is one of the biggest wastes of time.

[Zirk208]

Fascinating watching all the same 50 year old complaints about delicate AR's getting played out all over again in 2018.

Where's that facepalm emoji?

[Circle_10]

I'm pretty sure the Vietnam era guns didn't come with dust covers either, so that is one of those small steps in refinement. And there are plenty of guys here who regularly shoot 500 rounds or more in between cleanings. "Army cleaning" of the M4 is one of the biggest wastes of time.

Ejection port covers were present right from the get go. Using ammunition with the "wrong" powder (basically something other than what the gun had been designed to work with) is what caused the bulk of the early reliability problems, everything from stupidly high cyclic rates of fire to chamber corrosion.
Since the government wasn't apparently going to budge on the powder, the rifle was improved instead, with the heavier current-style rifle buffer (replacing the original lightweight "Edgewater" style) and chromed bores and chambers.
Over time they also did things like added the "fencing" on the lower receiver around the mag release to help prevent accidental mag drops.
Then there was also the forward assist, but that's up for debate how much of an "improvement" it was.

[kirkland]

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 don't need to clean an AR, that is a misconception, they just need lube. I haven't cleaned my Colt in over 2 years and several thousand rounds, I just keep lubing it with Mobil 1 and it just keeps on running.

[kirkland]

As another poster said, the whole AK is more reliable than AR myth needs to die.

I've found some interesting tourture tests on YouTube that seem to indicate otherwise.

Here is an AR buried in sand several times and having several magazines run through it, then it is buried again, run over with a Jeep and has another magazine run through it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o

Here is an AK in the same exact test:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRUuXyspT0

Here is an AR buried in mud, then fired:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

And here is an AK in the exact same test:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU

Here, sand is blown into an AR with compressed air as it is firing, they also test an M1a and a French MAS:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPjlcJ3rtY

Here's an absolutely ridiculous test where the guy pours super fine dirt/sand into the AR with a locked open bolt. This one is definately worth watching:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BYenZXvGhDs

[Wake27]

Ejection port covers were present right from the get go. Using ammunition with the "wrong" powder (basically something other than what the gun had been designed to work with) is what caused the bulk of the early reliability problems, everything from stupidly high cyclic rates of fire to chamber corrosion.
Since the government wasn't apparently going to budge on the powder, the rifle was improved instead, with the heavier current-style rifle buffer (replacing the original lightweight "Edgewater" style) and chromed bores and chambers.
Over time they also did things like added the "fencing" on the lower receiver around the mag release to help prevent accidental mag drops.
Then there was also the forward assist, but that's up for debate how much of an "improvement" it was.

Chrome chamber and lining, I believe that’s what I was thinking of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[titsonritz]

You don't need to clean an AR, that is a misconception, they just need lube. I haven't cleaned my Colt in over 2 years and several thousand rounds, I just keep lubing it with Mobil 1 and it just keeps on running.

Same here, I'm just not using Mobil 1.

[Creek21]

OK so not knowing any better I built an AR with PSA upper and MAG Tactical lower. Gun would not run with old mags from 1980. Ammo was from same time period. 55 gr Remington. I stated this in my first post. Now ordered PMAGS. Ran 300 rounds trough gun no problems feeds great and at 50 yards I can cover group with the end of a soda can. I am very happy with my $400.00 gun. Now that I know gun will run I will put another 2-300 rounds and if no problems will use it as a truck gun.

[titsonritz]

Not sure why you created a new thread on the same subject, but whatever...

The first thing I'd do is put a BCM bolt upgrade kit in it & check the carrier key stacking, I'd bet you'd best off to replacing the screws with Ned Christiansen's OCKS and running it thru a MOACKS.

Read this too...
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...w-better!-quot

[GH41]

OK so not knowing any better I built an AR with PSA upper and MAG Tactical lower. Gun would not run with old mags from 1980. Ammo was from same time period. 55 gr Remington. I stated this in my first post. Now ordered PMAGS. Ran 300 rounds trough gun no problems feeds great and at 50 yards I can cover group with the end of a soda can. I am very happy with my $400.00 gun. Now that I know gun will run I will put another 2-300 rounds and if no problems will use it as a truck gun.

Evidently you didn't google "MAG Tactical" before buying the lower. There is a reason they are out of business.