fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
General Somoza disagrees with your take on the AR.
Dirt + AR15's
- Thread starter thewillweeks
- Start date
- Status
General Somoza disagrees with your take on the AR.
Tomac
Member
1) You still haven't answered my question as to why 15K rds before bolt failure is unacceptable. You still haven't provided a failure point that's acceptable to you.
2) I've never heard of an AR bolt failure causing injury, care to provide some hard data to back up your claim?
3) First world armies count 'cause they can afford the best. Many poorer countries use what they can afford or what's at hand (Syria, for Pete's sake, recently was still using WWII German STG44's, doesn't mean the STG44 isn't obsolete). What they can afford or what's at hand is rarely the best.
4) AK's are in use by many countries for the same reason as 3) above: It's what they have on-hand or can afford. There are at least 35-50 million AK's produced by the former Soviet Union and given gratis to various countries and "freedom fighters" throughout the world. Yes, many of them still work but that's hardly an endorsement in light of their lack of effectiveness. Care to show me a modern army equipped w/AK's that has defeated a modern army equipped w/AR's?
5) FAL's produced by one South American country? What happened to all the other countries that used to field/produce the FAL. Why aren't they using the FAL now?
6) Still waiting for facts.
Tomac
ETA: I would be *especially* interested in seeing how a sheared AR bolt could possibly exit the rifle.
2) I've never heard of an AR bolt failure causing injury, care to provide some hard data to back up your claim?
3) First world armies count 'cause they can afford the best. Many poorer countries use what they can afford or what's at hand (Syria, for Pete's sake, recently was still using WWII German STG44's, doesn't mean the STG44 isn't obsolete). What they can afford or what's at hand is rarely the best.
4) AK's are in use by many countries for the same reason as 3) above: It's what they have on-hand or can afford. There are at least 35-50 million AK's produced by the former Soviet Union and given gratis to various countries and "freedom fighters" throughout the world. Yes, many of them still work but that's hardly an endorsement in light of their lack of effectiveness. Care to show me a modern army equipped w/AK's that has defeated a modern army equipped w/AR's?
5) FAL's produced by one South American country? What happened to all the other countries that used to field/produce the FAL. Why aren't they using the FAL now?
6) Still waiting for facts.
Tomac
ETA: I would be *especially* interested in seeing how a sheared AR bolt could possibly exit the rifle.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Anyone have a handy tool box, seems something has been left out.
ARs get used as general purpose rifles on the ranch. As such, they spend a long time riding around on the front of a mule. If the ranch is dry, by the end of the day the side of the AR that got racked facing forward will have a nice thick layer of super fine dust on it. The stuff is insane. Dust covers are not optional.
ARs get used as general purpose rifles on the ranch. As such, they spend a long time riding around on the front of a mule. If the ranch is dry, by the end of the day the side of the AR that got racked facing forward will have a nice thick layer of super fine dust on it. The stuff is insane. Dust covers are not optional.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
15k shooting 2 or 3,000 rounds a year is only 5-7 years of useable life before it needs a major overhaul. As for a failure point that is acceptable to me I don't see how that's relevant. I just know I want a gun that will last longer than that and do so without having to provide additional maintenance that another type of rifle will not require.
I don't know, I think your ego will be badly bruised the day the lugs let go and you recall our little discussion, lol.
Define "best".
Hate to say this, but victory has eluded the USA in every conflict we've fielded an AR. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and now Iraq one more time. So if that's your standard then the AR looks even worse. Politics, strategy, tactics, etc would have more to do with it than a side by side comparison of the guns.
Number one factor? Cost. It's not a cheaply manufactured firearm like most other military rifles. It's not easily worked aluminum like an AR or a riveted steel flat like an AK. With so many foreign conquests the superpowers have to have a cheap throw away weapon. The AK and the AR fits the bill.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Tomac said:
In almost every instance I know of where an AR pattern rifle sheared a bolt lug, it was discovered during cleaning. That mean the gun continued to run with the sheared lug and the operator was none the wiser. A sheared lug should be replaced when discovered, but in most cases won't cause the rifle to malfunction and has never to my knowledge caused a safety issues.
This whole thing is a lot to do about nothing.
The AR is really not the best that money can afford. It is an ergonomic high accuracy dream (especially the M16A1 configuration) but a horrible failure as a battle rifle that was eventually fixed and upgraded to have fair reliability that when combined with it's ergonomics makes a very good battle rifle if you are properly trained on how to run it.
Proper training does not mean mindless propaganda about it being the greatest rifle to come all the way to millenium's end.
You want to thank someone for the success of the AR platform, don't thank the cheap asses at armalite and the top military brass who were greased, thank the men and women who died in Vietnam and their friends who were with them for their input on WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO FIX IT.
That is the AR I would choose the one that was fixed the soldiers valuable input not some shortcut, corner cutting cheap garbage missing vital features that are needed for this type of platform to work properly for it's intended purpose.
How is that for marketing hype ? I hate it when people knock the right equipment and tell tall tales about their crap. Just tell the truth and people that need to save money will buy the cheap knockoff this makes me never want to consider it.
Proper training does not mean mindless propaganda about it being the greatest rifle to come all the way to millenium's end.
You want to thank someone for the success of the AR platform, don't thank the cheap asses at armalite and the top military brass who were greased, thank the men and women who died in Vietnam and their friends who were with them for their input on WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO FIX IT.
That is the AR I would choose the one that was fixed the soldiers valuable input not some shortcut, corner cutting cheap garbage missing vital features that are needed for this type of platform to work properly for it's intended purpose.
How is that for marketing hype ? I hate it when people knock the right equipment and tell tall tales about their crap. Just tell the truth and people that need to save money will buy the cheap knockoff this makes me never want to consider it.
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
fireside44 said:
So... No, you can't find a single instance of anyone ever being injured by a lug shearing on an AR bolt.
Good to know.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
So if a sheared lug doesn't cause a safety issue, why replace it at all?
Oh yeah, it's a safety issue.
Tomac
Member
1) You still haven't stated what's an acceptable failure point.
2) Reading is a basic skill: I said "modern army vs modern army". We easily defeated Saddam Hussein (army vs army) and our failure vs insurgents (like *every* modern army in recent history, including the AK-equipped Soviet Union in Afghanistan) is due to the nature of the conflict, not an indictment against the equipment used.
3) No hard data to back up your "bolt injury" claim? Not surprising.
4) Cost alone doesn't make the FAL an unwise choice. By your reasoning, a more expensive weapon that lasts much longer should be economically cheaper over the long run. What about the FAL's weight? What about the FAL's recoil? And while we're discussing the FAL, why does it have an adjustable gas system?
5) You're quick to harp on the politics of weapons procurement, how much politics was involved in your General Somoza's decision not to field the AR (especially w/his very questionable claim about possible AR bolt injury)?
6) *Still* waiting for facts.
7) ETA: A sheared bolt isn't a safety issue, it's a *function* issue.
Bottom line: The AR platform isn't perfect (I never claimed it was), but it's more reliable and capable than nay-sayers (who have zero experience w/the platform) claim. You don't like it? Fine, go spend your money on something else that better suits your particular needs. Come back when you actually have some credibility.
Tomac
2) Reading is a basic skill: I said "modern army vs modern army". We easily defeated Saddam Hussein (army vs army) and our failure vs insurgents (like *every* modern army in recent history, including the AK-equipped Soviet Union in Afghanistan) is due to the nature of the conflict, not an indictment against the equipment used.
3) No hard data to back up your "bolt injury" claim? Not surprising.
4) Cost alone doesn't make the FAL an unwise choice. By your reasoning, a more expensive weapon that lasts much longer should be economically cheaper over the long run. What about the FAL's weight? What about the FAL's recoil? And while we're discussing the FAL, why does it have an adjustable gas system?
5) You're quick to harp on the politics of weapons procurement, how much politics was involved in your General Somoza's decision not to field the AR (especially w/his very questionable claim about possible AR bolt injury)?
6) *Still* waiting for facts.
7) ETA: A sheared bolt isn't a safety issue, it's a *function* issue.
Bottom line: The AR platform isn't perfect (I never claimed it was), but it's more reliable and capable than nay-sayers (who have zero experience w/the platform) claim. You don't like it? Fine, go spend your money on something else that better suits your particular needs. Come back when you actually have some credibility.
Tomac
ClickClickD'oh
Member
fireside44 said:
Perhaps you would like another attempt at reading? I'll help:
ME said:
Now, a comprehension test:
If something is said to happen "In most cases", does that mean:
A) It will always happen
B) It is the likely outcome, but may not be in all situations
C) Potato
Please clearly indicate your answer.
Since you can not find a single instance of anyone ever being hurt by a sheared bolt lug, I think we will stick with it being a function issue. A sheared bolt lug should be replaced because it may effect the function of the rifle.
But wait, don't take my word on it that it's a function issue and not a safety issue... Here's an improperly heat treated AR bolt that completely failed on all the lugs during firing:
The shooter wasn't harmed in any way. He didn't even know the bolt had failed until he tried to fire the next shot and nothing happened.
Want to tell us again how little you know about the AR system?
sappyg
Member
I wonder what would happen if someone poured sand and dirt in the action of a FAL? Maybe even pour some dirt down the barrel for good measure. While you're still sitting on moms couch in the basement go ahead and Load the mags with some of those twinkles that are sitting by the call of duty video.
- Status
