in dirty battlefeild conditions, with little lube, and little time to clean?
I hear a lot of opposing opinions
Is the AR reliable?
Is the sky blue? Is the ocean MORE blue? Is the ocean a better blue? Is green better than blue?
The AR is reliable under the conditions you set out. However the word “reliable” is inadvertantly linked to the indiviudual that is involved in the “relying upon” part of the question. You never know that your next trigger pull is going to result in a satisfying “bang”, or that the “bang” will result in a dropped BG. All you have is the culmination of your experiences, and frankly there are a lot less people with experience in the areas you ask about than there are that will volunteer their opinion on same.
If I don’t think that my gun will work it automatically loses reliability. If I think that it will work, but never pull the trigger, it is still perfectly reliable- but only in my mind (the majority of Bushmaster owners seem to fall into this category for some reason :p).
The better question would be- “Who here with experience in whatever circumstance are still happy staking their lives to whatever particular weapon?”
Anyway-
There are other guns that are somewhat MORE reliable or robust in the same conditions though. And that is the crux of the “versus” arguments that have befouled the intellect of participants in these “discussions” since nerd first disagreed with geek over whatever obscure interest they decided to argue about.
I think the AR-15/M-16 Weapons platform is very reliable; from dust, to cold, to hot and humid…if it’s properly maintained. the weapon got a bad rap during the Vietnam War; partly due to the fact it was a new weapon system that didn’t get the bugs worked out before it was fielded in combat and partly because many Soldiers were not properly trained on maintaining the weapon. The weapon itself has improved quit a bit since it was introduced 40 years ago.
I see dead people… :eek:
I think the internet grossly exaggerates everything bad you hear about the ar15 platform.
The only thing I hate about the ar15 platform is the tighness in which the bolt carrier fits into the upper receiver.
I thought about how you can solve this problem by shrinking the exterior diameter of the carrier while making the gas key taller, the cam pin head thicker to reach the cam track, and having 4 little wheels as friction points on the bottom of the carrier to reduce friction and keep the carrier in line with the chamber for correct function.
Guys,
On this very forum, we all saw that link that outlined the results of the Army’s weapons evaluation.
I was the only one who wrote how shocked I was to learn that the Colt M4 suffered ten times the malfunctions of the other contenders. Others chimed in and said that they were not shocked because the conditions of the test did not allow for maintenance or lube or something.
I’m sure I’ll get slammed for even typing this…but which is it? Who’s right?
Just know that I love my Colts & my LMT.
yeah I remember the tests. Although I don’t think the the colt suffered ten times the malfuntions. I think it was three times the malfuntions suffered by the contenders on average. Then again the mags had alot to do with thouse malfs.
The m4 fired 98.6% of the time, the other fired more than 99%. All the rifles were deemed unsuitable for duty after the tests.
OH MY GOD THE M4 IS SO UNRELIABLE!!!
I really wonder how would have the AK done in the tests. Or XCR…
I think any weapon is only reliable as the person behind it.with the right training it is one of the best IMO
Yes and Yes.
are you guys referring to the “dust tests”?
this is the info i find interesting
This was the third in a series of tests.
Summer 2006: M4 and M16
Summer 2007: M4 with added lubrication
Fall 2007: M4, SCAR, HK416 and XM8. All with added lubricationSummer 2007 M4 + lube = 307 jams.
Army credits it to the additional lubrication.Fall 2007 M4 + lube = 882 jams.
Army has no clue, claims test is ostensibly the same.
sorry if this has been covered before, i’m new here.
Don’t confuse reliable with ‘idiot proof’.
reliable - hell yes. In the hands of someone properly trained in it’s use.
idiot proof - nothing in this world is 100% idiot proof.
All my rifles have been reliable under every circumstance that I have used them so far. What else can I say? If I jump into a pool of molten lava, will the rifle still fire? I have no idea. Sure, an AK would, but would I care? 
Well put.
I am willing to bet my life on the reliability of my AR’s. Actually, I do every day I drive my marked car out of my District parking lot…
In order of importance:
- Clean and well lubed.
- Dirty and well lubed.
- Clean an not well lubed.
- Dirty and not well lubed.
Does it look like these can be applied to any mechanical device?
A close friend of mine served a combat tour in Viet Nam in 1969, during the A1’s reign. This is of course after the well documented problems I’m guessing 65-67. He never had any problems with it at all, and was actually impressed with it’s reliability. I can remember him talking about wading through a river, pull it out of the water still dripping and firing with out problem. The only thing he did was down load the mags to 18 rounds. And he used to carry something like 1100 rounds on patrol, he was afraid of running out of ammo.
It is VERY reliable. People are lately trying to fix what is not broke. The weapon is actually very forgiving and reliable if someone with half a brain is fielding it. The weapon system outperforms the AK if you ask me…but the catch is you must maintain it. Not hard to do if you are slightly smarter than a primate. I swear it’s the easiest system out there to field strip and keep running.
I think it will get the job done. That does not mean that better mouse traps should be researched
No one can honestly say spraying the action with heat and carbon and cooking off lube is good or benign
Therefore, if one can maintain all the traits that make an AR15 great, yet reduce fouling, heat and cooked off lube this would be a good thing
Was it LMT Enhanced carrier or a Dave Lauck thing that had “sand cuts” in the lower bearing/contact areas of the carrier for that reason? I haven’t heard much about it or its theory being proven/disproven. Would be interesting to see…
I believe the LMT Advanced Carrier is for suppressed fire and for use in in 14.5" barrels and over only. Keep the AR platform well lubed with serviceable magazines and it will run just fine.
I’m too old and out of shape for “dirty battlefield conditions” and I keep my AR lubed and clean. So…I guess what I’m saying is I can’t answer your question. :rolleyes: