M16/M4/AR15 Reliability Poll – Mark all that apply

[armed85]

I have experience with issued M16A2s and one personally owned LMT 16" AR15.

Both rifles perform the same with the same reliability. The exception is that the LMT 16" AR15 has a shorter sight radius, lighter weight, and will heat up much faster than the M16A2.

I can get both to reliably fail to return to battery when the gun is really hot and the CLP evaporates or cooks off. After this happens, a few drops of oil on the BCG and I'm good to go.

Both have been heavily fouled with carbon and continue to function reliably.

All I've ever used is CLP because that's how I was trained. I am experimenting with using grease. Grease does seem to work better as I expected it would.

 

[stubbicatt]

Never shot more than 100 rounds in a match. Never had a reliability issue, except for one case that split in half circumferentially in the chamber. Hosed my 600 yard stage that day.

 

[aloharover]

Only issue I ever saw/had with the M16A1/M16A2 were related to bad magazines or blanks.

I witnessed people doing convoy escort in northern Iraq who would roll in, throw all their gear including weapons in a corner and there they sat till the next morning. To be fair these were Air Force personnel who had probably never even seen an M16, M240, M2 prior to their two week predepolyment training.
I actually had one laugh at us once because our weapons were so clean. "Look at the new guys". My response directed to the NCOIC of the group was that our weapons were clean because we did PMCS every single f-ing day and had been running convoys 6 days a week for 3 months already.
We tried many times to get them to follow our practice, but it was like :banghead:
We even took them out with us on a down day to go shooting with the Pesh. They had a number of weapons failures, including a crew served that would not function at all :shaking:

 

[41magsnub]

In my military experience with the M16A2 is it is fine and all the ones I used were completely ragged out. The only time we had problems was with blanks for obvious reasons.

I take that back.. I had one double feed at a range once.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

How my ARs function now is not how my M16 functioned in the Corps. When it got dirty, it jammed a lot.

The problem is combat is dirty and so a combat weapon must be able to function under those conditions.

Here, at home, where it sits in a safe and is oiled and ready to go for the fool who breaks down my door, I'd trust it. I've not had one of mine jam yet.

 

[Chipperman]

Never been in combat, and hopefully never will.

I have personal experience with several M16s, one of which is my own. I also have personal experience with >10 different AR15s, two of which are my own.

I have seen jams with both full-auto and semi-auto. Jams in full-auto are more frequent. My personal AR15 has NEVER jammed, but my M16 has jammed many times. Likewise, the ones not owned by me jammed more frequently if full-auto.

For parts breakage, I've never broken anything on mine; but I've witnessed broken extractors and a broken mag-release tab.

 

[strangelittleman]

Bad magazines are the root of all evil! I have been in combat w/ the M16A2 and it functioned well. Every malfunction I had in 8yrs as a Marine 0311 was attributed to bad mags( man, we had some old, crappy mags back then, but got new ones prior to deployment).
All weapons will go down in the harsh environment that is the Middle East, when the "bisquick mix" gets in it....yep, even the AK, M1911, My Beloved NM Vaquero & M19 Combat Magnum, '98Mausers, Thor's Hammer, the Sword of Gideon etc., etc.

 

[JKimball]

I needed a choice for "I have used one in combat" between "completely reliable" and "unsatisfactory."

I thought about including an option somewhere between those, but decided in favor of keeping the survey shorter. And I guess I'm reasoning that a soldier should be dissatisfied if he doesn't believe his battle rifle is completely reliable.

I understand this poll is pretty subjective and doesn't really prove anything, but it is helpful to me to quantify the attitudes on both sides of the argument.

Right now I'm seeing that the large majority (80%) of people that have used the M16/M4 in combat consider it completely reliable, but a very significant percentage (the remaining 20%) consider its reliability unsatisfactory. So either there are a lot of bad guns out there amongst the multitude of good ones, or some people have much higher standards of reliability, or some weapons weren't properly maintained, or some combination of all those possibilities.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Above anything else, including the opinions of those who have used it in combat, your own experience with a weapon is what will tell you what you need to know.

In some cases, people just have a bad weapon. But you need to try out your own individual weapon to know how it will operate. That goes for any platform.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Right now I'm seeing that the large majority (80%) of people that have used the M16/M4 in combat consider it completely reliable, but a very significant percentage (the remaining 20%) consider its reliability unsatisfactory. So either there are a lot of bad guns out there amongst the multitude of good ones, or some people have much higher standards of reliability, or some weapons weren't properly maintained, or some combination of all those possibilities.

The poll doesn't differentiate between "I was handed an M16A1 in 1965" and "I was handed an M16A4 in 2005." I suspect at least a portion of the variance is explained by the chronological side of things.

 

[SpeedAKL]

Never been in combat, but I've never had my Bushmaster AR jam. Then again, it's used for range work and as a backup in a SHTF situation, so I'm not exactly running through the jungle or sandbox with it. I don't grease it up with CLP though, I use dry-lube and it runs great. I've run Remington, Winchester 5.56, Igman milsurp, PMC, and lots of Wolf with no problems (though Wolf tends to get things dirtier).

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Right now I'm seeing that the large majority (80%) of people that have used the M16/M4 in combat consider it completely reliable, but a very significant percentage (the remaining 20%) consider its reliability unsatisfactory. So either there are a lot of bad guns out there amongst the multitude of good ones, or some people have much higher standards of reliability, or some weapons weren't properly maintained, or some combination of all those possibilities.

The poll doesn't differentiate between "I was handed an M16A1 in 1965" and "I was handed an M16A4 in 2005." I suspect at least a portion of the variance is explained by the chronological side of things.

It also misses the latter part of the 1990s when there were some weapons that were just plain worn out; but not replaced. For example, in Capt. Nate Self's oft-repeated story of M4's jamming during Anaconda, those M4s were around seven years old and had approximately 84,000 rounds on them according to the Platoon Sergeant in that engagement. You often see the same thing with AR mags - they are kept in the system long after they should have been trashed and reliability suffers.

 

[buzz_knox]

I've had a Colt 6920 bolt get sluggish when it hasn't been cleaned for a while and is being administratively loaded (i.e. bolt locked open and released). But during firing it was flawless regardless of how many rounds were between cleanings.

 

[rero360]

but thats how it works in the military with everything, you use something until its so worn out its falling apart then you wrap some duct tape around it and keep going until you can convince the supply people to DX it and give you a replacement.

 

[rino451]

Haven't read all the posts, but 300-500 before being dirty enough to start having problems? Something is up, there - mags, ammo, out of spec, tight chamber, etc.

I've put 1k's through my Bushie and on two occasions took it to tactical carbine classes and never cleaned or lubed it through out the class. Never a problem because of cleaning. Both classes were in the 1,500 round range each. The second class was in the rain both days shooting on all positions (prone blew!). The only problem I had was from mud slung up into the ejection port onto the rear of the locking lugs. Failed to go into battery. I then made things worst by jamming on the forward assist. Didn't even clean the rifle between the first class and the rain class and did some shooting in the mean time. I had to finally clean it after the rain class (a couple of weeks later) because of a IDPA-type carbine competition.

ETA I use grease but occasionally use Mobile 1 for lube. CLP abd the like cooks off too easily/soon.

PS I Hate cleaning guns and won't shoot anything that needs cleaning after every range session. I have a Glock 17 with several k rounds through it and hasn't been cleaned in almost a year. Don't plan on it either.

 

[sacp81170a]

Bad magazines are the root of all evil!

Amen! I've used everything from the old flat sided M-16's from the original SAC purchase to A1's in the military. They never failed when properly maintained with good mags.

I own three AR's now and use one on duty as an LEO. One each Armalite, Olympic Arms and DPMS. All have functioned flawlessly when I've done my part.

 

[TimboKhan]

I didn't check #10, because I interepreted it as "dunked in a mudhole" dirty. IF you just mean dirty from shooting, then yes, I think it is reliable.

 

[Oohrah]

M-16 A1 between '62 and 65, a piece of crap. M-1 and M-14s never
a functional problem. AR 15 and civilian version of A4, do not like extream
wet when most other platforms keep running. Marines early on would
pick up Charlie's SKS and AKs that would go dirty and rusty to a point.
Same conditions and environment, the 14s would run without a stutter.
Many modification since the first ones, but I still think early gas platforms
will go longer in almost any conditions. After 300 yds. the round 223
runs out of steam period I bought a new Bushy A4 LEO HB. Will need
to run it before I can judge the old and new. Most likely I will stick to
my Garands for a battle go for rifle.

 

[Hokkmike]

I could really check any of your answers as my responses all fell in between "complete trust" and unreliable. Maybe I don't have enough experience but in the back of my mind I always expect the inevitable, however infrequent, jam.

 

[JKimball]

The poll doesn't differentiate between "I was handed an M16A1 in 1965" and "I was handed an M16A4 in 2005." I suspect at least a portion of the variance is explained by the chronological side of things.

True. I did try to account for those early problems by asking people whose experience was with the early M16s to comment on that, and I noticed that at least one person (Dick Tylock) stated that his dissatisfaction stemmed from the M-16 A1. If that's the case for anyone else, please chime in.

It also misses the latter part of the 1990s when there were some weapons that were just plain worn out; but not replaced.

Another good point. I was unaware of that issue. I guess it would be ideal to do a poll for active military only (relating to the M16/M4.) Probably wouldn't get as much response here, but I wonder if there is a forum somewhere that would be more suited for that. Anybody know?

I could really check any of your answers as my responses all fell in between "complete trust" and unreliable. Maybe I don't have enough experience but in the back of my mind I always expect the inevitable, however infrequent, jam.

I was wondering if it is fair to ever expect a rifle to be "completely reliable." In post #33 I said I was assuming a soldier would be dissatisfied if he didn't feel his battle rifle was completely reliable. But I've never been a soldier. Is that a fair statement?

 

[yongxingfreesty]

i love the ar platform. have been reliable for me at the range every time.

 

[KBintheSLC]

AR's are great guns as long as they are cleaned and lubed regularly. Hence they are only feasible for an organized military or as a civilian plinker/varmint gun. However, as a survival rifle for unorganized revolutions/insurgencies, or even for regular folks when the SHTF, the AK or SKS is a far better choice. They are cheaper to buy, ammo is cheap and available, and they can endure horrendous conditions for long periods of time without cleaning. So it all boils down to what resources are available to you. If they are many, the AR is great. If the resources are few, go AK.