Why the AR-15 Sucks for Preppers – Readyman

My Cart

Close

Why the AR-15 Sucks for Preppers

Posted on March 17 2019

I’m a 28-year Green Beret veteran (8 years boots-on-the-ground just in Afghanistan). My family comes from a manufacturing background.

And, I hate the AR-15. 

This sounds like an AA meeting for American veterans, so I better put up a decent argument soon before I’m lynched. Why does the AR suck?  

It’s too complex. Any time you have a system that is complex, you have two results: efficiency and fragility. 

In the military we are taught that the AR-15 is a fine weapon “as long as you maintain it.” In truth, the design works (80% of the time) in spite of itself, and has gone through so many design iterations that people have lost count.  The history of the AR-15 is a history of band-aids.

From front to back:

  • The front sight assembly sits ridiculously high because the straight (non-ergonomic) stock has to contain a massive spring and buffer assembly. If the weight or spring compression in that assembly is off just a small amount, it causes malfunction. This design flaw, right out of the gate, causes a huge mechanical offset where the eye lines up around three inches higher than the barrel. That’s why in 2019 you can’t find a new AR-15 with an old school front sight assembly.

  • The gas tube is thin, fragile and subject to bending or breaking—usually taking the rifle out of commission. 

If a build up of mud, water or carbon decreases gas pressure to the bolt, the the AR-15 fails to cycle.  This is particularly common with AR’s that have shorter barrels. That’s why gas rods have become all the rage. Yet another band aid…

    • The star chamber and bolt face are perhaps the single biggest design flaw of the AR-15.  That’s the eight-petaled flower at the front of the bolt. Flowers don’t belong in assault rifles. Some say the star chamber provides accuracy. It does not. Bolt-action sniper rifles don’t have star chambers. They have two or three lug bolts and they are the gold standard for accuracy. 

    Ask any soldier about weapons inspection and they will tell you the test is worming a pinky in the chamber of the rifle. The pinky never comes out clean and that should give us a clue. The single most important part of the rifle is nearly impossible to keep clean even in a garrison setting.  Think about that for a minute: the point where the bolt, bullet, and barrel meet is almost impossible to keep clean in an AR-15.

    The lugs on the bolt that lock into the star chamber are essentially a series of gears that if they don’t match up exactly, they cause a failure to feed or a failure to fire.  Any number of things can cause the lugs not to pass efficiently through the star portion of the chamber: dirt, heat expansion, ice, wobbly bolt carrier or wear and tear. All can cause a bolt to seat incorrectly in the chamber, or not to extract after firing, causing a whole host of malfunctions.  This is one of the reasons the forward assist was developed.

    • The extractor, due to its design has issues because it is similar to a teeter-totter that is out of balance. This causes the extractor to want to slip off the rim of the casing causing failure to extract malfunctions. This is particularly evident when the chamber gets fouled from use in combat conditions. Almost all infantry soldiers carry cleaning rods to clear this brutal malfunction so they can knock a spent casing out of the chamber and get back in the fight.

    • The bullet itself is a reliability issue.  The 5.56 has a relatively long, slightly tapered  casing which begs for issues disengaging it from the chamber.  And, the casing has to move a long way to disengage.  This becomes a monster issue if the bullet casing bulges during firing or if the chamber becomes excessively fouled, leading to failure to extract or half-extraction. 
    • There is no delay in the bolt moving during the extraction phase and this causes tremendous mechanical resistance. When the bolt carrier begins to move, it tries immediately to turn the bolt without first gaining momentum. If the bolt is stuck to the inside of the chamber due to fouling (or crap ammo like in Vietnam) then there is often not enough energy to knock the bolt back into rotation. There’s no “running start” to dislodge the bullet before turning the bolt. Almost all battle rifles, like the M14, M1 and AK use a delayed rotating bolt. The mass of the bolt carrier, once in motion, wants to stay in motion and hits the bolt like a hammer, knocking it into rotation and into extraction. Not so for the AR-15.
    • Also, the steep angle of feed for the bullets has caused more than its fair share of failure to feeds. Overly-strong magazine springs, dirt, burs, or gunk can cause a bullet to hang up as it tries to climb the steep angle.Why do we only load 28 rounds into a 30 round magazine? Say it with me: BAND AID.
    • The gas tube dumps carbon and debris into the upper receiver where the bolt carrier relies on a smooth surface to travel, which further exacerbates the tolerance issues with the star chamber. This has us running to piston-type band aid designs these days, as another attempt to fix a fatally-flawed concept. 
    • The hammer only goes to a 90 degree angle, which is ok, but does not take into account any mishaps, cold or weak primers, or a bolt that is not seated all the way.
    • Magazines for the AR-15 used to be notorious for feed lips cracking, springs getting weak, and followers not putting bullets at the correct angle (which still happens with plastic mags all the time.)
    • The bolt carrier does not ride on rails, and therefore wobbles as it travels back and forth in the upper receiver.  This wobble is one of the contributing factors to the lugs on the bolt face not lining up for proper mating with the chamber—causing other failures to feed.  This is another one of the reasons AR’s have a forward assist.

    • If the buffer, buffer tube or buffer spring are out of balance, it leads to all manner of malfunctions. When I was at 1st SFG and we were first issued the M4 to replace the M16A2 there was no end of problems because the buffers were not the correct weight which caused weird failures to feed. Once the buffer weight was fixed we ran into problems with the buffer spring tension; more malfunctions. Then we ran into a buffer tube length problem. All of the three had to be working in harmony or we would be going to war with sexy-looking paperweights. Never mind if dirt got into the buffer tube…

    I have probably made several AR-15 die-hard’s angry, and for that I apologize.

    When all of these arguments are brought to bear, the inevitable retort is this: “If the AR-15 is so bad, why does the United States government use it?” Anyone who has been in the military can attest: we do lots of dumb things, and sometimes we do them for generations.

    In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales said,  "American penchant for arming troops with lousy rifles has been responsible for a staggering number of unnecessary deaths…They died because the Army’s weapon buying bureaucracy has consistently denied that a Soldier’s individual weapon is important enough to gain their serious attention.”

    Test after test fielded by the U.S. armed services demonstrate that the AR-15 has a litany of problems. These problems are much, much worse for non-professional soldiers such as citizen preppers. On the ReadyMan range, with regular folks appearing with their own AR-15 rifles, grab-bag ammunition, custom modifications and uneven maintenance, our failure rate for shooting ARs runs about 25%.
    Granted: professional soldiers with training and dedicated time for rifle maintenance don’t experience quite such horrifying results with the M4, but preppers should beware: just because the U.S. military enjoys buying them, doesn’t mean the AR-15 is the right rifle for gardening one moment, defending your life the next.


    If a Tesla car failed 25% of the time, we would lynch Elon Musk and duct tape him to one of his rockets. If our iPhones only worked “when well maintained,” we would’ve chucked them all off a bridge. If our pants failed 19% of the time they went into battle, we’d burn that manufacturer at the stake for being an unpatriotic cost-cutter. For some reason, we’re still buying from Colt.
     

    (Editor's Note: Before you flame a 28-year Green Beret, please be so kind as to read the research attached below. Then, flame away.) 

    ReadyMen Closed Group
    Learn more cool things at ReadyMan.com 
     

     

    2007 Aberdeen Sandstorm Test. U.S. Army

    http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-32165.html

    10 Rifles. 60,000 rounds each.

    XM8: 127 stoppages.

    MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

    416: 233 stoppages.

    M4: 882 stoppages. (3.5 times the second worst, which is also an AR-15)

     

    2006 CNA Corporation Soldier Satisfaction Survey

    https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0015259.A2.pdf

    “Only” 19% of servicemen reported their M4 experiencing a stoppage during battle.

    2014 “Secret Test” of M4A1 Carbine

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

    Competing rifle outperforms the M4 and Army calls off the test.

     

    "Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in rifle"

    Washington Times article, 2014

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/

    95 comments

    • Robert Pinto: July 20, 2019

      As I’m trying to build a decent battle rifle I’m trying to do my research and one of the biggest problems I’m finding are the choices of barrels. Where do you buy the pencil Barrel or the government profile Barrel they both have severe whip or as people like to call the harmonics if you are using rapid fire the heat up rather quickly and throw your point of impact off my many inches. I also feel that when purchasing Parts as a civilian we are not able to purchase the best of parts unless you want to spend $400 for a bolt carrier group which really don’t make sense either it just seems that these civilians AR-15 R design to be flawed so civilians will never have that perfectly reliable rifle to defend themselves with and in my opinion I feel that is done intentionally. As much as I love my AR-15 if I had to use it in a life-or-death situation yes I’m confident that it will work but if we were invaded by a foreign country or some crazy apocalyptic event happens which I don’t think it will nor do I hope it will that’s what I think the AR-15 platform will fail under stressful situations for a home defense matter as long as you keep it clean you should have no issues but if you’re going to war but I have your tools with you spare parts and your cleaning gear along with 80 to a hundred pounds of other gear. Good luck out there stay safe and be vigilant

    • Nick: July 11, 2019

      To the guy beneath me, nobody has 25% failure rates lol your AK can’t even pass the mudtest. Just another person that sucks at using an AR so they use the AK because it’s limited in skill just like them

    • Roxie Frost: July 08, 2019

      I love and own both platforms AR and AK …
      Also if your little prepping gang has 25% failures with AR’s
      at the range….. then when SHTF…. your groups in Real trouble ….

    • Jo jo: July 05, 2019

      Yes complexity effects reliability. It also increases effectiveness. A spear is very reliable. The USA military is extremely effective. Technology wins wars. What is the role of the rifle in a modern military? It is becoming self defense not a primary system.
      The stoner system is very accurate lightweight and mounts optics well. Every firearm represents a compromise. Think the sight plane is high try a ak with a belarus side mount. The ar is a superior weapon while it works. While it works it is killing enemy. When it doesn’t that doesn’t negate the kills it made. If you are manning a primary system a heavy rifle tires you. The m4 is a reasonable compromise for a modern military. We have a reliable weapon that never fails. Its called a kabar. There is no perfect rifle. The m249 performed great in tests. In the field not so much. The ar with optics allows hits to be made more readily than a ak with optics. Is it a good rifle for the civilian ? You don’t know until you shoot it in your environment in all seasons.

    • Nick: June 26, 2019

      Civilian AR15s are made better than m4s so comparing your pos m4 that’s had more people run through it than Pamela Anderson is a dumb comparison. But then again most of you will drop thousands of dollars on outdated rifles like m14s and think you’re so bad ass for owning it because it shoots 308. Anyone who says an ak is better because “rElIaBiLiTy” hasn’t put their ak in mud. The mudtest showed the ak is a pos. And for the dumbass above saying the sks 😂😂😂 that’s another garbage rifle. All I see are fudds and bootlickers complaining because they can’t run a 5.56 rifle righr

    • Chris: June 10, 2019

      In the military we are taught that the AR-15 is a fine weapon “as long as you maintain it.” In truth, the design works (80% of the time) in spite of itself, and has gone through so many design iterations that people have lost count. The history of the AR-15 is a history of band-aids.

      80% of the time in spite of itself….I know, that other 20% is LOVE… Really bud. Is it the best? At what, where and under which conditions….rethink it brother, PEACE!

    • Mech Warrior: May 17, 2019

      I was in the Army 8 years but haven’t fired near as many rounds as you have. I personally didn’t experience many failures on the firing line but I’m sure that’s because I was never deployed as an infantryman. When I look at an AR15 or M16A2 I notice some of the same things as you have. The M16 or AR15 are good weapons but as long as you have maintenance support. The few malfunctions I’ve had with either of those weapons was usually because of the characteristics of the round, that long round with a very narrow neck that easily gets bent in a misfeed. The M16/AR15 could have been made into a simpler design and I think we would all agree that simpler usually goes along with more reliable and more robust. I just bought a WASR-10 and I can easily see a big difference in simplicity of design and a more robust construction. Thank you for your service.
      G Troop, 2/11th ACR (OPFOR)

    • Ranger Rick: May 10, 2019

      I liked the M-16 because I never had many issues with mine. Our Teams Weapons folks made them reliable. Custom if you will.
      I have some AR’S now and may convert them to the 6.5. THOUGHTS?
      Thank you for your insight and service.
      5th Grp Medic early 70"s.

    • US Corporation of America: May 08, 2019

      Your racist toward white people for hating the ar15.

    • Retired Para: April 15, 2019

      I have to say that I can understand the angst the AR type of rifle causes for some veterans; however, I see this article as being way over the top.

      Now here’s my take on the AR type rifle courtesy of 22 years in the military. Out of that time I have gone from my first issue M16A1 that was on a lower marked XM16E1 to using a HK416 thanks to AWG. In between plenty of time on the A2 and M4. Add to that the years, yep years, spent in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as time in Panama, Honduras, Korea, etc…

      So what is my opinion? Simple. A quality made AR is robust, reliable, and accurate that requires just basic maintenance. It does well in all environments and actually beats the vaunted AK in some circumstances (see InRange’s mud test on the AR vs AK as well as Military Arms Channel’s testing on the AR)

      A standard DI AR will serve anyone quite well with basic maintenance. Keep the bore clean and proper lubrication and the rifle will run, PERIOD.

      As others have noted, every time a replacement is tried (SCAR-16, XM-8, etc…) they end up bringing nothing more to the table that the current AR based infantry rifles don’t already do as well or better.

      To the writer, I respect your viewpoint but I think you’re off base on this one.

    • Wm: April 06, 2019

      This fella wrote a piece giving his opinion on the M16/M4 he provided cites to support his position.

      I have seen nothing in the Flame Commentaries to rebut his points no citations or references to do so.

      Therefor his position carries the day simply based upon the evidence he presented and lack of any contrary evidence.

      Anecdotally.. I learned 40 plus years ago how inadequate and unreliable the M16 and the round it fired was..

      Anecdotally.. I learned 40 plus years ago how inadequate and unreliable the M16 and the round it fired was..If you are forced to defend yourself.. You will want to stop hazards immediately with finality.

      Anecdotally.. I learned 40 plus years ago how inadequate and unreliable the M16 and the round it fired was..If you are forced to defend yourself.. You will want to stop hazards immediately with finality.

    • AJ: April 06, 2019

      this article is fucking bull shit lol whoever wrote this had too many concussions

    • J: April 04, 2019

      We may soon come to find out that the best way to clean and lube your AR is with tears.

    • Bj: April 04, 2019

      You’re a fucking dumb cunt
      Not only is it the most popular rifle in the country but is also chambered in the most popular caliber.
      It’s the most customisable and parts are fucking everywhere. To run anything else in the apocalypse is fucking stupid.
      Not only are you not going to be putting 10000 rounds through your apocalypse rifle so whatever argument you put forward about an all doing 1000s more without cleaning and without parks breaking but you’ll probably just carry the fucking thing around all day and hardly ever shoot it more than a few burst to scare people off. So being as lightweight and compact as possible is going to be seriously important.

      A glock in 9mm and a modern ar15 like a BCM 10-14.5inch mcmr upper in 5.56. Done. 1-8/1-6 LPVO or a red dot with a magnifier, sling and you’re done. Doesn’t have to be any fancier than that. Anything else in place of your primary and secondary is fucking stupid.

    • AK Guy: April 03, 2019

      Oh the AR butt hurt is strong…

    • Spencer: March 29, 2019

      Wow, this guy got it right: Nathaniel F: March 19, 2019

      With the egging on of my so-called “friends”, I have been convinced to give a point-by-point rebuttal in the comments here.

      >The front sight assembly sits ridiculously high because the straight (non-ergonomic) stock has to contain a massive spring and buffer assembly. If the weight or spring compression in that assembly is off just a small amount, it causes malfunction. This design flaw, right out of the gate, causes a huge mechanical offset where the eye lines up around three inches higher than the barrel. That’s why in 2019 you can’t find a new AR-15 with an old school front sight assembly.

      This is in fact such a horrible, awful, terrible idea that the Soviets decided to change the AK platform to be more like that. /sarc

      You sound like Chuck Hawks. Not a good look, dude.

      >The gas tube is thin, fragile and subject to bending or breaking—usually taking the rifle out of commission.

      What, do you run your AR-15 without handguards? You know what the AR-15 doesn’t have to deal with? Piston/cylinder alignment. Eugene says “you’re welcome”.

      >If a build up of mud, water or carbon decreases gas pressure to the bolt, the the AR-15 fails to cycle. This is particularly common with AR’s that have shorter barrels. That’s why gas rods have become all the rage. Yet another band aid…

      If only there were some sort of automatic flush mechanism that acted like a sort of, I don’t know, air compressor, to blow that crap out with every shot!

      The real issue with AR-15s is actually gas port erosion, not the gas port getting clogged with debris. All gas operated rifles have itty bitty little gas ports. All of them erode over time. This causes the cycle to become too violent, not the other way around.

      >The star chamber and bolt face are perhaps the single biggest design flaw of the AR-15. That’s the eight-petaled flower at the front of the bolt. Flowers don’t belong in assault rifles. Some say the star chamber provides accuracy. It does not. Bolt-action sniper rifles don’t have star chambers. They have two or three lug bolts and they are the gold standard for accuracy.

      If you’re seriously having trouble cleaning the barrel extension on your AR-15, get some steel wool. Obviously, you can buy dedicated tools for this that fit inside the pistol grip, but since this is a prepper blog I know that actually effective solutions that cost $7.89 before tax are met with disdain as that cuts into the MRE budget. So just get some steel wool. And just a thought, if you’re not resourceful enough to clean a recessed cylinder with whatever is on hand, maybe you shouldn’t be a prepper.

      >The lugs on the bolt that lock into the star chamber are essentially a series of gears that if they don’t match up exactly, they cause a failure to feed or a failure to fire. Any number of things can cause the lugs not to pass efficiently through the star portion of the chamber: dirt, heat expansion, ice, wobbly bolt carrier or wear and tear. All can cause a bolt to seat incorrectly in the chamber, or not to extract after firing, causing a whole host of malfunctions. This is one of the reasons the forward assist was developed.

      This is plain ol counterfactual BS. The lugs are manufactured to precise dimensions and toleranced against this. And you might have noticed this thing called a “cam pin” that prevents the bolt from rotating into orientations where it doesn’t match up with the barrel extension. If you are having these problems, stop buying parts from the gunsmith’s special bin.

      >The extractor, due to its design has issues because it is similar to a teeter-totter that is out of balance. This causes the extractor to want to slip off the rim of the casing causing failure to extract malfunctions. This is particularly evident when the chamber gets fouled from use in combat conditions. Almost all infantry soldiers carry cleaning rods to clear this brutal malfunction so they can knock a spent casing out of the chamber and get back in the fight.

      This is actually true, and it’s something that was only discovered when they went to the 14.5" barrel and carbine length gas system of the M4 Carbine. Also, it’s easily solved with a little black o-ring that costs less than $2 for a 3-pack, and which comes standard on most current AR-15 offerings. But again, that MRE budget. Better spend $1800 on an M1A Loaded, instead!

      >The bullet itself is a reliability issue. The 5.56 has a relatively long, slightly tapered casing which begs for issues disengaging it from the chamber. And, the casing has to move a long way to disengage. This becomes a monster issue if the bullet casing bulges during firing or if the chamber becomes excessively fouled, leading to failure to extract or half-extraction.

      Look man, I don’t know how you expect people to take you seriously as an expert when you can’t even clearly distinguish between a “bullet” and a “cartridge case”. Also, the 5.56mm case has as much or more taper than the following alternatives:

      -.30-06
      -7.62 NATO
      -6.5 Grendel
      -7.62×54R

      Yes it has less taper than 7.62×39 or 5.45×39, but both of those rounds were designed for steel cases, and 5.56mm wasn’t. Having said that, I’ve got about 10,000 steel cased 5.56/.223 rounds under my belt and I’ve only ever seen one extraction failure. Ever. That was in a rifle that had an incorrectly dimensioned chamber.

      >There is no delay in the bolt moving during the extraction phase and this causes tremendous mechanical resistance. When the bolt carrier begins to move, it tries immediately to turn the bolt without first gaining momentum. If the bolt is stuck to the inside of the chamber due to fouling (or crap ammo like in Vietnam) then there is often not enough energy to knock the bolt back into rotation. There’s no “running start” to dislodge the bullet before turning the bolt. Almost all battle rifles, like the M14, M1 and AK use a delayed rotating bolt. The mass of the bolt carrier, once in motion, wants to stay in motion and hits the bolt like a hammer, knocking it into rotation and into extraction. Not so for the AR-15.

      This shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. First, the term for run up before the bolt carrier/operating rod begins to rotate the bolt is called “underslide”. Second, the AR-15 does not need underslide because, as designed, this dwell time between the peak gas port pressure and unlocking is taken up by the gas traveling rearward through the gas tube. Which is why the piston operated AR-15s which you seem to think are an improvement end up with dramatically reduced bolt lives, because they are unlocking when the chamber pressure is higher than it should be. Almost like you shouldn’t fuck with a good thing, eh?

      Oh, and by the way, your “battle rifles” with “delayed rotating bolts” had better have good metallurgy and be well lubricated. In WWII, the M1 Garand had this fun issue where the operating rod got a good running start at unlocking the bolt, and if the lubricant had washed away or evaporated, it would beat the snot out of the cam lug, galling it, and the rifle wouldn’t work anymore. This is why the M14 has a roller cam, which did fix the issue but introduced about three more I can think of. I’ll let you try to guess what those were.

      >Also, the steep angle of feed for the bullets has caused more than its fair share of failure to feeds. Overly-strong magazine springs, dirt, burs, or gunk can cause a bullet to hang up as it tries to climb the steep angle.Why do we only load 28 rounds into a 30 round magazine? Say it with me: BAND AID.

      Wh- wh- what? “Overly-strong magazine springs” cause the bullet to hang up during feeding? This sounds like it was written by some journalist who has never seen a gun in person and is being fed information by a third party and they’re trying to sound informed. No, strong magazine springs do not cause failures to feed (that’s the term you were looking for, btw). Yes the AR-15 has a cluttered feedway. So do lots of rifles. If you’re so worried about it, buy Gen 3 PMags.

      >The gas tube dumps carbon and debris into the upper receiver where the bolt carrier relies on a smooth surface to travel, which further exacerbates the tolerance issues with the star chamber. This has us running to piston-type band aid designs these days, as another attempt to fix a fatally-flawed concept.

      You just said a bunch of stuff that sounds good if you don’t know how all these things interact. Quiz time! Which of these two things do you think will dump more propellant reside into the barrel extension and onto the locking lugs?

      -The gas port, which is small and recessed into the upper receiver and contained within the gas key during most of the pressure curve.

      -The chamber which is huge and right fucking there.

      Yes the AR-15 dumps reside into its receiver. Actually, all guns do, to some extent. Some are cleaner than others. Know what some of the dirtiest are? The roller retarded blowback guns, like the G3 and HK33.

      >The hammer only goes to a 90 degree angle, which is ok, but does not take into account any mishaps, cold or weak primers, or a bolt that is not seated all the way.

      Maybe the hammer spring could be a bigger factor in that bigthonk

      >Magazines for the AR-15 used to be notorious for feed lips cracking, springs getting weak, and followers not putting bullets at the correct angle (which still happens with plastic mags all the time.)

      ALL PLASTIC MAGS ARE THE SAME AND ALSO I DON’T NEED SOURCES FOR MY CLAIMS

      >The bolt carrier does not ride on rails, and therefore wobbles as it travels back and forth in the upper receiver. This wobble is one of the contributing factors to the lugs on the bolt face not lining up for proper mating with the chamber—causing other failures to feed. This is another one of the reasons AR’s have a forward assist.

      Hahahahah what the fuck kind of shagged out upper receiver are you using, dude? Buy fewer credit card survival tools and shell out those eighty nine bucks for an in-spec Aero lower. The problem will m a g i c a l l y disappear.

      >If the buffer, buffer tube or buffer spring are out of balance, it leads to all manner of malfunctions. When I was at 1st SFG and we were first issued the M4 to replace the M16A2 there was no end of problems because the buffers were not the correct weight which caused weird failures to feed. Once the buffer weight was fixed we ran into problems with the buffer spring tension; more malfunctions. Then we ran into a buffer tube length problem. All of the three had to be working in harmony or we would be going to war with sexy-looking paperweights. Never mind if dirt got into the buffer tube…

      Yeah it turns out if you use the wrong parts in a gun, it don’t work right. Who knew! Nice thing about the AR-15: It gives you a modular moving mass which means an additional point of adjustment so you can tune them much more exactly than you can other designs.

      >Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales

      He’s literally a paid lobbyist for defense companies. I’m not denigrating the man, that’s his actual job description.

      OK we’ve gotten past most of the random counterfactuals, and to your sources, of which you have four. I’ll address each of them individually:

      1. The 2007 Dust Test. This was a trainwreck, not the least because it counted burst memory as a “failure” of the M4. Gee I wonder why malfunctions were so much higher?

      https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/08/25/2004-m4-dust-tests/

      2. The 2006 CNA study. You misinterpret 19% of soldiers experiencing a malfunction in battle as the gun malfunctioning 19% of the time. Nope. 80% of soldiers never had their AR-15 jam in combat. Ever. Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Especially since, if you’d read the study, you’d know that the M16 and M4 were the most reliable weapons in US Army inventory, far above the M249 SAW (which is a belt-fed AK, basically).

      https://i.imgur.com/3svytHe.png

      3. The Individual Carbine program. It might be worth mentioning that there were three classifications of malfunctions in these test, separated by how long each malfunction took to remedy (these classifications were the same as in the 2007 dust tests). They are:

      >A class 1 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear within 10 seconds; a class 2 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear, but requires more than 10 seconds; and, class 3 is a stoppage that requires an armorer to clear.

      The M4 Carbine out-performed 7 of the 8 IC competitors in all three categories. It was outperformed in class 1 stoppages by one of the eight, “Rifle C” but it in turn out-performed “Rifle C” in class 2 and 3 stoppages. The media didn’t report it this way, because “US Army rifles work real good” isn’t a gripping headline.

      4. Some random Washington Times article. It’s not clear what this source is really supposed to tell us, except “M4 bad”. SOCOM did adopt the Mk. 16 SCAR, and then subsequently abandoned it as not being an improvement over the M4. They quote Scales and the ancient Y2K SOCOM tests, and there’s a lot of “real journalism” going on. Weird, SOCOM still seems to be shooting people with M4s, despite having access to alternatives.

    • harleymike: March 28, 2019
      Wow. Such hate. LOL. The front sight is NOT 3 inches higher than the barrel. Yes, The buffer spring assy makes a low sight picture impossible with a standard shoulder stock. But….if you look after your gun, it will look after you. These torture tests you refer to are just that…TORTURE! They are not real world scenarios for Joe Schmoe American. And lastly. You aint going to find shit pots of 7.62×39 ammo laying around here in ’Murica. Stick with 5.56, clean your gun, and you will be fine
    • Richard Bailey: March 28, 2019

      I’m not buying in to this story. A prepper rifle is not the same as a combat rifle. If you believe it is, your preparedness plan is severely flawed and you will die in combat, instead of trying to procur food or simply defending your self. I’ve owned AKs and ARs. I’ve had parts on the AKs break before. I’ve had ARs with feeding issues. But because of the modularity of the AR-15 it does win as the prepper rifle. It’s easier to walk into gun stores and find parts for. It’s easier to walk into Wal-Mart and find ammo for. You can buy a CMMG 22lr conversion kit for it. Or you replace the whole upper and use 300BO. The flat tops are a more modern platform and easier more effective to mount scopes to than a AK. So yes the AR-15 is the better prepper rifle. Regardless of this story.

    • Sinster: March 28, 2019

      First off any actual military personnel know that the “AR-15” is not an “assault “ rifle. Secondly they would also know that the AR-15 has never been used by the military or in ANY battle fought by American soldiers, EVER.
      So with that being said, this whole article seems like a giant falsehood perpetrated to down play the rifle., by a person that actually has no real information on the rifle. Just a bunch of prepared statements created by, Dare I say, gun control activists. Just another way for those anti 2nd Ammendment people to try and get into peoples heads.

    • Temp: March 27, 2019

      The real problem is the military has old worn out guns and crap magazines. They are replacing the magazines with PMags but mostly the military ARs are just worn out. I will stick with my M4gerys thank you. US army 7 years, 3rd Armor Division.

    Leave a comment