The AR design, is (more or less) 60 years old. Since its initial development, it’s been frequently and sometimes nonsensically modified, updated, made from almost every possible material, accessorized, accurized, shortened, chambered in as many different calibers as any hunting rifle line, used in every operational environment this planet has to offer, and is still going strong.
Over that time, included in numerous issues that have been addressed are a standard of gas port size requirements; buffer weight; charging handle (from the original “trigger inside the carry handle” to the comparatively-new AXTS); barrel lining, barrel profile, and total barrel composition; trigger/hammer/disconnector/spring group; sights; ergonomics (i.e. furniture options); and countless others. And all have been, more than with any other system ever in such widespread use, cross-compatible with nearly every variant produced. A person could put a BCM GFH Mod 5 charging handle on a Colt 601 (however blasphemous it might seem).
But what, in your opinion, still needs fixing? What glaring (or mildly annoying) issue bothers you? How could it be changed?
To simplify discussion, let’s try to limit the possibilities within the following:
STANAG magazine compatibility
Mechanically safe (e.g. no paper-thin chamber walls or skeletonized uppers)
Remain within the “small arms” definition (nothing crew-served, portable and usable by one person)
Be fully compatible with the majority of another AR - several push this envelope, from the fully ambidextrous lower of the SR15E3 to super-short PDW systems, but may be included because they can still be “mated” with the other half of the system
Use materials that currently exist (no Star Wars Durasteel bolts or using antimatter instead of H335!)
Edited to add: This is all made from the assumption that the AR operating system (for lack of a better descriptor) is the pinnacle of firearms development. For the sake of argument, let’s maintain that bias. The Sig MCX thread comes to mind…
Personally, I think they have been ruining it since 1980.
They started with a rifle that worked, and weighted a tad over 6-1/3 lbs unloaded, and a tad over 7.3 lbs with a full magazine and sling.
But, now they have a carbine that has 5.5 inches less barrel, shoots bullets 300 fps slower and now weighs slightly more, burns through bolts in 5000 rounds, and isn’t quite as reliable as the M16A1*. The M16A4 weighs the same as an unloaded M14…
With the implementation of the grossly over pressure M855A1 round, a 16" barrel with Noveske-length intermediate gas system, a carrier with delayed unlocking and pressure reduction features, Vltor A5 system, an improved bolt, a free float rail system using a new standard such as keymod or Mlok, and a barrel contour similar to a heavy ELW (continuous taper) would all be common sense, COTS solutions which could be implemented very quickly and at relatively little cost compared to something like, say, THE F-35 LIGHTNING II. [emoji12]
I’d like to see a standardized interface for mounting a rail/hand guard to the upper receiver completely independent of the barrel nut. Something like Larue’s system or Aero’s Enhanced uppers where the barrel nut only does one thing, hold the barrel down and there’s a completely separate attachment method for attaching the handguard to the upper. Standardization would be in line with the AR’s inherent modularity and make it easier/cheaper/better for manufacturers to design hand guards without having the reinvent the wheel. Such a system would ideally have excellent return to zero in the handguard is removed e.g. some type of self centering system or even a pin. Ideally there would be redundancies or keeper in the actual mounting hardware so like one or two screws could come loose one night and you wouldn’t lose zero on your IR laser.
Standardized ambi controls including a way to lock bolt open without removing firing grip.
I’d like the charging handle redesigned to a SCAR style but retain the non-reciprocating/ self enclosed feature.
Make it impossible for a primer to stop up the trigger mechanism.
Standardized, simple, self cleaning adjustable gas regulator with stepped settings like high, medium, low.
This may be a bad idea in practice but if it could be done reliably and without adding noticeable weight then single on board battery in the pistol grip to power multiple gadgets would make the whole package streamlined.
All the upgrades in the world won’t make a difference if your average soldier isn’t taught how to properly lube and do preventive maintenance on his service weapon.
The STANAG magazine / current magwell dimensions are one of the biggest remaining limitations. Something just a little bigger, like LWRC’s proprietary six8 setup, would provide benefits with many cartridges including 5.56 (where you could run longer, higher-BC bullets).
The other remaining limitation is the bolt. It works, but it’s a highly stressed component. Some improvements like those from ARP, LMT and KAC are all positive, but a larger bolt that isn’t on a knife’s edge would be better. The Faxon ARAK design seems very solid in fixing remaining weaknesses without introducing new ones, except for being proprietary.
Finally, while there are many good aftermarket triggers, even the best have rather slow lock time compared to the best bolt-gun triggers. If I’m redesigning things anyway I would look at changing to a striker setup and trying to get lock time down to 2ms or less.
I see people say it burns through bolts in 5,000 rounds. The issue I have with that is the Maintenance Schedule calls for replacement of the bolt at 10,000 rounds.
So who’s right? Random internet users or the mandatory maintenance schedule?
Why can’t both be right? 5-10k isn’t a very large number to begin with. Some people would be replacing their bolt every year or two. That’s hardly ideal.
I think the Arak bolt/barrel extension combo would be of benefit. But really why make these small changes? Why not just build a gun from the ground up that can handle the cartridge we want? The original ar15 was made for 222 rem, and now it appears 556 is pushing the limits of pressure and OAL.
Seems like both could be right? The schedule calls for replacement at 10,000 but sometimes they fail at 5,000, presumably due to the hotter loads.
When was the maintenance schedule written anyway? Could have been a long time ago.
To the OP,
There’s a long list of issues that can be resolved with further development. Issues arise as the cost of development of them requires a profit to be made by their investment. The problem in doing so is in part due to modularity of the base rifle, everything snaps together like Lego parts. When you you make enough changes, the old parts no longer work with the new parts. The business is concerned about about building better “mouse traps” and “band aids” for the existing systems, because it’s safer than than going into a platform that is at least initially proprietary to them and not compatible with the base gun.
An improved revision can be made without any doubt, take that as a given. No company would risk that investment right now, as “mouse traps” and “band aids” offer more profit and less risk, it’s a no brainer.
The problem was the design of the case was insufficient from the get-go. The original military minimum estimate for effectiveness was a 55 grain bullet going 3300 fps at the muzzle, and required a max pressure of 50,000 psi. The .222 Remington was just a little too small to get that kind of performance, so Armalite moved the shoulder forward .017", and with selected powder loadings, 3300 fps could be reached while staying below the 50,000 psi limit. Springfield Arsenal suggested that the shoulder be moved forward another .030", so the case would be more versatile in powder choices to reach the 3300 fps speed and stay under 50,000 psi. But, Armalite did not feel like lengthening the magazine, so the longer case was quietly dropped. Then later it turned out that you actually cannot reliably get 3300 fps out of a .223 case and stay under 50,000 psi, so they bumped up the maximum allowable pressure, and then had to again when they went to the heavier bullet to keep the velocity up in the shorter barrel.
.222 Magnum (Springfield’s suggested case) is more than capable of pushing a 55 grain bullet to 3300 fps with a wide range of powders and stay safety below 50,000 psi, also with the 62 grain bullet get 3200 fps and stay below the 55,000 Piezo/52,000 CUP limit of the original M193.
What’s the issue with metal handguards? The newer M-LOK and KeyMod units are light and strong. Are you thinking of carbon fiber or something?
There are some very good suggestions listed so far.
Stronger bolts (reduced cam pin hole, stronger materials, etc), longer gas systems, not relying on the barrel nut to attach the handguard, etc. No argument here. Obviously a cost benefit analysis is required, but those would all definitely be beneficial in my view.
A lot of the debate seems to center around “It’s a 40 year old proven design, we’d be stupid to abandon all that research and development. We should continue developing the platform.”
and
“It’s a 40 year old design. It’s time to abandon it, take the lessons learned and develop something completely new.”
If you push the neck any further forward you start to leave the cylindrical portion of the bullet and get into the ogive.
That case design has reached the limits of its capabilities.
You can’t push the chamber pressure up any more, the bolt design can’t handle it, and the limitations of physics prevent launching any heavier projectiles at the same or lower pressures.
IF you want any further improvements in bullet performance, you are going to have to get a new case.