AR-15/M-16 Reliability

#I can count on about 1/2 of the people >using AR-15/M-16 and #derivatives, in .223, to encounter >problems at some point during the #match. Usually with failures to feed, or >ammunition feeding problems #of some type.

What kind of <I>lubricants</i> are they using? Remember, that Army unit with lots of gun failures in Iraq during an ambush had not only M-16s fail - but also M2s and other guns!

#American shooters in general, and >American Soldiers and Marines, are >MORE caring in their treatment of their >weapons than your NVA regular or #peasant soldier or Mujahadeen or Al >Quaeda warrior or Somali #tribesman.

The SKS is more peasant-proof than the the AR or the M-16 - but it also isn't very accurate.

I sympathize with what you're saying. The AR system is not as reliable as it should be. It seems to stem from the use of raw combustion gases to power the action directly versus the AK with its separate piston to capture the gas pressure. As a battle rifle in a sandy environment it isn't the best design. Aggravating this is the fact that the equipment our troops are using is not always in the best of condition to start with (contrary to popular opinion). This is not just limited to the M-16's. Did you notice how much trouble gunners had keeping the 50 cal M2's running? The CNN and Fox News coverage of the war showed this many times. I think that these weapons systems could work better if they were in better shape. Those 50's on the news may have been the actual units we used to win WWII.

Highest Regards,

Scott Richards

> ...

Hmm, interesting observation. I compete in USPSA Area 1, and 99.99% of guys shooting in this region are shooting AR variants for the carbine/rifle. A few shoot the M1A pattern weapon, and even fewer are shooting the AK pattern. I sure haven't seen the percentage of problems with AR style rifles/carbines you're seeing. In Area 1 matches AR variants are stone reliable in 3 gun competition. Problems I've seen with guys trying to use the AK pattern weapon in a 3-gun match is the damn slow reload. AK pattern rifles also very reliable, but can't match an AR on the speed of magazine changes.

> ...

An interesting point, and one that should be taken into consideration. The reason for the AR-15/M-16's accuracy is that it has very tight tolerances, lessening reliability. The reason for the AK-47 and the SKS's reliability is that they sacrificed accuracy with loose tolerances. I would like to see if the air-cleaning system works. If it does, and the military furthers the M-16, it might make it into the

How about keeping it the same, except for the gas system. Use a short piston to reduce front end weight to keep the gun quick handling in an urban combat role. The strength of the AR design is it's great ergonomics. Don't change that, including the weight distribution.

My experience from NRA highpower matches is that the majority of failures come from either bad ammo or poor maintenance, with the OCCASIONAL failure of a trigger (usually a Bushmaster two-stage). I've seen one case where the coach for a junior team didn't properly maintain a rifle and there was some light surface rust in the chamber causing extraction problems. I've personally had a problem with lubricants and powder fouling accumulating in the bolt carrier and not allowing the bolt/firing pin to move far enough to guarantee solid hits on the primer, I switched lubricants and also started paying more attention to that spot during cleaning and have not seen the problem recur.

Looking at the reports from the convoy in Iraq, ALL weapons systems were showing failures, not just the M16's. Reading the timeline for the convoy, mention is made of downtime for sleep, but no emphasis on weapon's maintenance during any halts.

James

> ...

> ...

> ...

# Did you notice #how much trouble gunners had keeping the 50 cal M2's running? The CNN and #Fox News coverage of the war showed this many times. I think that these #weapons systems could work better if they were in better shape. Those 50's #on the news may have been the actual units we used to win WWII. #

I made a conscious effort to ignore Clinton News Network, but the one time I saw someone having trouble with Ma-Deuce was the Bn.S-2 having trouble on the 3d ID run into Bagdad. On the second stoppage (same scene) I knew it wasn't headspaced right. I guess Officers need more weapons training. Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)

Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM ! The Alamo had none.

I cannot say I agree 100% with your post, but thanks very much for posting it. Obviously, you've thought a lot about this, and that is very much to your merit. I'm looking forward to all of the posts this will generate. Too bad we can't have a rifle as reliable as the Garand and the M1A were/still are. Thanks again for your thought provoking post.

J David Phillips 1925 S.E.Hwy 19 Crystal River, Florida, 34429 352-795-2777

# Dear Shooters, # # This is a hard item to post. One that will generate controversy, # because of loyalty, mostly, and for some, fond memories. It is # however, in light of recent fatalities suffered by American Soldiers, # IMHO, necessary.

# #Looking at the reports from the convoy in Iraq, ALL weapons systems were #showing failures, not just the M16's. Reading the timeline for the convoy, #mention is made of downtime for sleep, but no emphasis on weapon's #maintenance #during any halts. #

It won't make much difference how well the weapons worked. The Press and the Democrats are going to win Sadam's war for him. Just like with Nam. and the Viet Cong.

Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)

Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM ! The Alamo had none.

# The SKS is more peasant-proof than the the AR or the M-16 - but it also # isn't very accurate.

Every SKS, AR-15 series, AK type semi-auto and old Garands and M-1 Carbines, could hit a Pepper Popper out to 350 yards. More accuracy than this you really do not need in combat.

Geoff Who believes long range precision marksmanship is for specialists with special rifles.

# How about keeping it the same, except for the gas system. Use a short # piston to reduce front end weight to keep the gun quick handling in an # urban combat role. The strength of the AR design is it's great ergonomics. # Don't change that, including the weight distribution.

A different problem with the M16 is down to its layout. I have read reports on the effectiveness of US weapons in Iraq and two things stand out; that the M16 (20' barrel) is felt to be loo long and cumbersome when getting in and out of AFVs, and also in urban fighting (leading to a demand for more pistols); and that the M4 (14.5' barrel), while very handy, doesn't have the punch at long range.

The only way to combine the handiness required with a long-range punch is of course to go for a bullpup design, which implies rather different ergonomics. I know that the main objection to this layout is the difficulty of using such guns left-handed, but the new FN F2000 shows that this can be overcome.

Despite the results of their own reports, the US military seems to be heading for another short-barrelled carbine type (the XM8 = G36) for its next rifle.

Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: