Dirt + AR15's

Status
Not open for further replies.

thewillweeks

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
285
So, I bought my first AR a few months back, without a dust cover. The Colt LE6900 as some of you will know has no dust cover, no FA and no option to install a dust cover. It's an "accuracy" version so they left those off. Anyway, It was good enough for my hunting needs and the occasional in home confrontation I could see happening so I grabbed it for $850. I'm well aware of the discussion about who actually made it and all that jazz, but I'm going to call it a colt for now because it is stamped Colt.

Regardless, we're getting ready for deer season and I wondered how well it'd handle a little dirt in it since it didn't have the cover. So, first was dropping it in the dirt and dumping dirt on every open area. It functioned just fine after this so I popped it open, filled the trigger area with dirt and blew it out, and dumped dirt on the bottom of the BCG and blew it out. And then tried to go back to shooting.

It fired fine for about 5 rounds and then began to short stroke, which wasn't all that surprising, I'd dumped dirt in the guts. So, I performed the standard pull and wipe, took about 30 seconds and slapped it back together. Tried again, still short stroking/FTF. However, anytime I pulled the charging handle all the way back it'd slap the round in just fine. So...I got curious and pulled the mag of TULA 223 I'd been using and swapped in my brass case ammo...and TADA :cool:. Ran just fine, no more short strokes/FTF, and after 5 rounds I swapped back to TULA and ran with zero more issues for the rest of practicing.

So, TULA may be fine for practicing and such but don't expect it to function the rifle when the rifle becomes dirty (Which makes sense, takes more gas to function it fully then and the TULA is kinda anemic from what I hear).

(Sorry, no pictures this time. It was a spur of the moment test so no thought was given to taking pictures.)
 
Befuddled why someone would do that to their gun!

But, unless you do some VERY extreme hunting, the absence of a dust cover shouldn't pose a problem. As you've discovered.
 
One thing you have to remember about the "dust cover", ..... okay two things....
1) The original M16 had a bright, industrial chrome covered bolt, it needed the dust cover to keep it from being seen by opposing forces.
2) The bolt carrier fits tightly enough in the receiver that it doesn't need to be protected from 'dust'; it's not an AK with a big, gaping hole for the charging handle. Look at how few military rifles really need a 'dust cover'.
 
I am also puzzled why one would abuse a firearm without good reason. I have never experienced a hunting situation where the receiver of my firearm was filled with dirt.........I am guessing you are under 30 years of age.
 
Ah, the good ol' "the AR is a reliable system" so long as:

1) it's clean
2) it's soaking wet with lube
3) i use the "correct" ammo
4) b/c made of unobtainium
5) i hold my mouth just right while shooting

You might like this test done on various types of ammo through an AR.

Haha, look at that load of fail. Stuck case, stuck case, stuck case. Stuck case after 189 rounds? Action and extractor springs changed after 5,000? Maybe carry a backup AR in an ankle holster, lol.

The word "reliable" and "AR" don't belong in the same sentence. I put 2 or 300 rounds of that cheap crap down my gun every range trip and it never chokes, not once. C'mon fellers, let's hear those excuses and don't forget to wipe your b/c down before bedtime!
 
I'm going to call it a colt for now because it is stamped Colt

I really need to buy a Ferrari hood ornament for my Ford....:neener:

The only thing I've ever had jam up an AR, whether it was a PSA, BCM, Colt, Delton, DPMS or Bushy was a few specs of sand in the chamber. However, foreign material in any rifles chamber is likely to cause malfunctions.
 
fireside44, I used to think like you for decades. I'd had bad experiences w/AR's w/everything from a stock SP-1 to a custom XM-177E2. That soured me on the platform for many, many years.
Then, about 6-7 months ago someone posted about $849 Colt 6920's so I bit my tongue and picked up 4 of them. Fast forward to today and so far every single one of them has been 100% reliable w/everything from full-house 5.56 to weak PMC .223 (including one I've been running dirty for appx 1,500rds so far). I now acknowledge the error of my ways.
All platforms have their strengths, weaknesses and maintenance schedules for keeping them reliable (yes, even AK's).
Bottom line is that with a quality AR, it will run dirty but doesn't like to run dry any more than a quality sports car doesn't like to run on regular gas (what?! my XYZ sports car will run on *anything*, your car must be a POS!").
Your phobic fear of the AR platform would be more credible if you could provide facts instead of opinions.
Tomac
 
I am also puzzled why one would abuse a firearm without good reason. I have never experienced a hunting situation where the receiver of my firearm was filled with dirt.........I am guessing you are under 30 years of age.

I'm a lot closer to 60 than 50. While hunting rifles aren't usually subjected to the same abuse as military rifles they can be at times. There isn't any problem with conducting a little experiment to find out. It isn't going to hurt the gun.

Twice in my hunting career I've had to retrieve guns from the bottom of swamps or rivers after being dropped. I've had to break ice from the actions on several occasions when hunting in freezing rain or snow and I've taken more falls in rough terrain than I can remember. None of those guns had a dust cover, and after some minimal cleaning the hunts continued in most cases.

I think you'll be fine with it as is.
 
I am under 30, and I did this due to a discussion with a family member about whether AR's need dust covers. He's quite confident due to his training that they do, so I decided only chance of actually discussing it was testing it.
 
Fireside,

You clearly don't know much about ARs. That's OK. We are all hear to learn. I suggest you a Google "Filthy 14".
 
Then, about 6-7 months ago someone posted about $849 Colt 6920's so I bit my tongue and picked up 4 of them. Fast forward to today and so far every single one of them has been 100% reliable w/everything from full-house 5.56 to weak PMC .223 (including one I've been running dirty for appx 1,500rds so far).

The exception, not the rule. I'm sure someone out there will tell me they had a reliable Jaguar too but it's still an exception to the rule.

1500 rounds fired without a cleaning while smothering it in lube doesn't prove much to me. You'll be replacing parts before long i.e "maintenance schedule" while an AK or FAL or even a cheapo SKS would still be going strong, no lube or spare parts pile necessary. I'm tired of guys who, due to personal biases, try to put it in the same class as other military rifles in terms of reliability because time and time again it has been shown to be among the least reliable military designs.

The only thing I've ever had jam up an AR, whether it was a PSA, BCM, Colt, Delton, DPMS or Bushy was a few specs of sand in the chamber.

:neener:

I suggest you a Google "Filthy 14".

This is supposed to prove how reliable it is?

"It has been lubed generously with Slip 2000 Extreme Weapons Lube"-($40 for a 16oz bottle?!)

"At Brady, Texas, in March 2009, it suffered a malfunction, which was reduced with Immediate Action."

"At Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, in May 2009, it had several failures to extract, and the extractor spring was replaced at 13,010 rounds."

"At Wamego, Kansas, in June 2009, two bolt lugs broke at 16,400 rounds."

"At Columbus, Ohio, in November 2009, we had several failures to extract at 24,450 rounds."

"At the last class in Casa Grande, Arizona, at approximately 30,000 rounds, we had several failures to extract."

You're telling me the gun is reliable yet the bolt sheared lugs at a 16,400 rounds? That's a dead rifle. Someone took a FAL 15k rounds without cleaning it, without replacing anything; they lubed it once the entire time. Now tell me about the spare b/c and gas rings you should carry in your backpack "just in case".

Your phobic fear of the AR platform would be more credible if you could provide facts instead of opinions.

There is no phobia. You simply can't tell me that a gun is reliable when it must be smothered in lube and the bolt must be replaced after 10 or 15,000 rounds, much sooner, no doubt, if it isn't heavily lubed. It's the only gun I've ever heard of that shears bolt lugs before the barrel is worn out.

Why aren't there any tests showing how long it will last with no lube, no maintenance, and crap ammo? Because the rifle will fail in short order. The supposed "reliability" of an AR is all based around having lots of lube, ideal ammo, plenty of spare parts, and turning a blind eye towards reality. Claims of reliability on par with it's closest competitors on the world stage are all based on dishonesty. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Most all maluctions I've had were ammo related not dumping dirt in the action.

Things do break though. In the past year I've had to replace a broken extractor and broken rebound spring in guns with less than 10k rounds through them. Neither were ARs and they are all resonably cleaned. Even glock recommends replacing the RSA after 5k rounds.

One gun (not an AR) started acting up in a steel match. Shot some CLP in it and kept on running.

Life Lesson: if you pour sand and dirt in any firearm action you will have issues. If you pour sand and dirt in the gas tank of your car.... You will have issues. Why is it people insist on doing this with a gun but but not a car?
 
fireside44, still waiting for facts.
I don't claim 1,500rds is definitive proof of reliability (I've only had these rifles for a few months, can't afford to put 10's of thousands of rds through them all in that short a period), but it is hard data as opposed to your opinion. What are the odds that I managed to obtain 4 "exceptions to the rule"?

Quality in anything mfgd will affect reliability, whether it's the quality of the parts themselves or the quality of the assembly process. My early AK's (I started w/Polytechs & Norincos back in the late '80s) were 100% reliable and had incredible triggers and even my later 5.45 SAR-2's were incredibly reliable right out of the box. Need I mention some of the AK abominations to come out of Century Arms? If all my experience w/the AK platform came from Century Arm monkey-jobs, I'd have a very negative attitude towards all AK's.

I've perused many an AR troubleshooting thread and the vast majority of problems occur from DIY builds, sometimes w/parts of questionable quality (remember Century Arms?), but bonafide problems from quality mfgrs are rare. It may seem to you that there are more, relatively speaking, until you compare the number of AR's in this country to the number of other platforms. Statistically speaking, you can have more reported problems w/platform X than w/platform Y yet X is more reliable because the *percentage* of problems is less w/X than Y. It simply seems there are more because there are many more X rifles in circulation than Y rifles.

How reliable is "reliable enough"? There are more aspects to consider for a weapon than an obsession for perfect reliability. There are reasons AK's, FAL's and others you've mentioned are *not* in use by modern armies of the world, whether it's weight, lack of accuracy, recoil, ergonomics, etc. IDF fielded their own AK-variant, the Galil, and by all accounts it was extremely reliable, so why aren't they using it any longer?

Bottom line is that if my AR's can go 2,000rds w/o cleaning or additional lube, that's good enough for my purposes (YMMV). W/the AR I have a rifle that's lighter, less expensive, more ergonomic and easier to equip/modify for different needs than any other platform currently available (especially since the import ban that prohibits the importation of such important AK parts like spare bbls).

If you want to run an original VW Beetle at the Indy 500 because "it's more reliable", then more power to you, but don't be surprised if you don't place First.
Tomac
 
What are the odds that I managed to obtain 4 "exceptions to the rule"?

You haven't obtained a single exception to the rule. Your b/c will also die sometime around 15,000 rounds, sooner if you do not keep it well lubed. I know of no other autoloading military rifle that will assuredly suffer such a complete failure at such a low round count. Pitiful when the same fate can be expected even of a "quality" rifle.

Quality in anything mfgd will affect reliability, whether it's the quality of the parts themselves or the quality of the assembly process.

Very true, but even assuming excellent quality parts are used the design is still deficient, which is why the AR is at the bottom of the list for military rifles when it comes to reliability tests.

How reliable is "reliable enough"?

That's up to the user. Guys drinking the military kool aid that the AR is the best cause the Marines/Army use it consider it reliable enough. I guess if you are a rich 1st world superpower with plenty of cash and the ability to resupply and refit it's not a big deal. Kind of how Rome's one toss spears work for a Roman soldier but would be lousy for someone without a blacksmith shop behind him to make new ones after every throw....

Other people, who I think are a bit more honest, look at bolt lug failure at 15k rounds and say "junk", cause that's what it is. A catastrophic failure. Or "routine" maintenance at 5k rounds? It's a design issue, which is why all kinds of other rifles sprung up around it hoping to overcome it's deficiencies.

There are more aspects to consider for a weapon than an obsession for perfect reliability.

Not sure about you but if I can't trust a gun to go "bang" each and every time I squeeze the trigger, regardless of whether cleaned/lubed/maintained, then it isn't something I will stake my life on, and therefore, I won't own it.

There are reasons AK's, FAL's and others you've mentioned are *not* in use by modern armies of the world, whether it's weight, lack of accuracy, recoil, ergonomics, etc.

Huh? They are still in use by modern armies, and even still in production. You're grasping at straws.

Bottom line is that if my AR's can go 2,000rds w/o cleaning or additional lube, that's good enough for my purposes

Now you make a claim you admittedly haven't backed up.
 
1) In your earlier post you claimed that the reliability of my AR's was "The exception, not the rule".
2) So what if my bolt fails at 15K rds? Is that an unacceptable number? If so, why and at what point is it considered "acceptable"? (30Krds? 50Krds, 100Krds, be specific, please).
3) Please list any first-world armies that are using the FAL's, AK's or SKS's you mentioned earlier (are FAL's still in "current production", how about the SKS? And if not, why not if they're such great weapons?).
4) Please note that I mentioned *if* my AR's can go 2,000rds w/o additional lube or cleaning. Nowhere have I stated that they've reached that point yet.
5) You admit that "reliable enough" is up to the user. Since many countries field the AR, either the AR is reliable enough for actual military use or they're all wrong and you're the only one who's right.
6) Still waiting for facts (which I see you are careful to avoid stating).
Tomac
 
So what if my bolt fails at 15K rds? Is that an unacceptable number? If so, why and at what point is it considered "acceptable"? (30Krds? 50Krds, 100Krds, be specific, please).

It's unacceptable. In fact, I would call it unacceptable for a bolt to disintegrate in a manner that could maim or kill the user. Head space adjustment should come long before bolt replacement. But as we see, it's not the case with the AR series. It requires a 1st world supply chain to keep service rifles in optimum working condition. And even so, it's comparative reliability is mediocre at best when compared to other military rifles, past and present.

Please list any first-world armies that are using the FAL's, AK's or SKS's you mentioned earlier (are FAL's still in "current production", how about the SKS? And if not, why not if they're such great weapons?).

Nice try, "first world armies". Since when did only first world armies count? Hate to say it but I seriously doubt that most first world armies are using an AR either. Maybe I'm wrong? Funny though, doing a little digging for the answer I came across a link discussing Nicaraguan General Somoza fixing to place an order for 7500 AR rifles until the bolt lugs sheared off and sent the bolt flying past his head while he was personally using a rifle. Maybe he wasn't shooting it from a lube filled swimming pool like he should've been, lol. Order canceled, it put Armalite in financial dire straits. So apparently Somoza thinks your toy is junk too, lol...

And yes, Brazil still produces and fields the FAL rifle. They are still widely fielded, as are AK47 rifles and variants thereof.

You admit that "reliable enough" is up to the user. Since many countries field the AR, either the AR is reliable enough for actual military use or they're all wrong and you're the only one who's right.

Politics doesn't have much to do with a weapon's function. We are the biggest arms exporter in the world, of course lots of countries allied with us will buy weapons from us. The bottom line is your rifle is DOA at 15k rounds and needs a pretty thorough maintenance routine to make it that far. Most military rifles don't have that problem.

Yes, if it can fire one shot before total replacement and you consider that "reliable enough" then for you, it is reliable enough. To someone else who is more honest with themselves, it's a design failure.
 
bolt lug failure at 15k rounds... "junk", cause that's what it is

it seems most everyone in the tactical, LE, and mil community disagrees with you. interesting, and yet not surprising.

i guess all those folks are just lying to themselves, and you're the only one that can see the light.
 
Last edited:
it seems most everyone in the tactical, LE, and mil community disagrees with you. interesting, and yet not surprising.

In other words, guys that have been most heavily steeped in propaganda. Interesting, and yet not surprising.
 
in other words...guys that have been there and done that. people that speak from experience will always trump some know it all form behind a keyboard. what's your experience?
 
in other words...guys that have been there and done that. people that speak from experience will always trump some know it all form behind a keyboard. what's your experience?

I don't have to look to far to find ex-servicemen whose negative experiences trumped the propaganda and also don't trust the rifle. Why? Because it has a bad track record and someone had to experience it first hand. Then I have my good friend the marine corps reserve whose never put more than two or three hundred rounds through his gun without a cleaning and has a supply closet of spare parts. He thinks it's the bees knees.

You guys are annoyed because I pointed out the deficiencies of the AR and you want to believe you bought the best. Sorry I rained on the parade, but I get tired of people here and elsewhere putting the AR in the same class as the AK and FAL when it comes to reliability. It's not even close. The AR requires all sorts of special conditions be met in order to come close, as I noted in my first post here (ammo, lube, maintenance, etc). And guess what, it still falls flat....
 
im not anooyed at all. you simply haven't stated anything with any credibility and clearly don't have any real world experience with the platform. that's fine.

those that use and rely on the rifles in harms way day in and day out, couldn't care less what you have to say anyway.

i can find you equally as many mil guys that wouldn't even think of carring an ak or fal.
 
Oh boy here we go again. You best know now than later ARs and dirt do not mix well again ARs and dirt do not mix well.

No one will ever hype me into getting an AR without a dust cover and forward assist because I am not going to be stupid enough to swallow that sales pitch.

You best keep that dust cover shut when it's not in use or you may be in for a surprise.

I love the old M16A1 configuration with a 20" barrel it's lightweight, it feels and points well, it is very accuarate and every enhancement added to it was learned the hard way, which is too bad by the way, by the spilled blood of US soldiers who died because of the early weapons shortcommings as well as a lack of proper training on the nature of it's construction, operation, and nature.

These people who told soldiers that their M16s were self cleaning and did not need maintence remind me of the same people here that try to tell you dust covers and forward assists are not needed and that it's a super reliable design that was only thwarted by faulty ammo in the old days. They also go on to tell you the soldiers who were forced to fight using these things and complained did not know what they were talking about.

This is insulting to the soldiers that learned the hard way the shortcommings of this weapon and how to make it work.

Any normal person that gets stuck in the field with that thing will eventually know it inside out provided it didn't jam getting him killed in his first combat confrontation which shortly after, provided he survives, will quickly learn to disregard whatever nonsense the top brass and people that are like people on this forum have told them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top