Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/5/2003 7:36:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 9:01:56 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
I have shot several 1000 round sessions with my carbine and I have never had any problems. I also have an 10 year old upper that I've done the same to as well and it was also a very relaible performer.

If the gas system is so horrible why haven't they've changed it? Is it because other systems haven't proven reliable in the AR platform?

I can see where it might can get dirty but so far getting dirty doesn't seem to effect the function like AR haters have bitched about...

What do you guys think about this?
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:28:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 10:14:19 AM EDT by 556Cliff]
Cause they're stupid like my brother. 556Cliff. Edited for spelling.[brick]
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:30:28 AM EDT
I have often wondered this also. I guess the AR haters have to bitch about something.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:37:27 AM EDT
Were you in super hot desert or extreme cold conditions when you were shooting these 1000 rd. sessions? Or, were you just at the range? I have had problems with mine but it was put through bad conditions and had a lack of cleaning. I think most of the trouble comes from immproper cleaning when the soldiers have downtime in the field.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:41:21 AM EDT
I don't think many people hate the mechanism. That gas system is the secret of the rifle's accuracy. Some people worry about gunk getting into the mechansim but it isn't a problem if you clean right. For people who demand spotless rifles it might be a real problem but it's not a FUNCTIONAL thing. Don't worry about it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:47:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 556Cliff: Cause their stupid like my brother. 556Cliff.
View Quote
It's "They're" stupid, Stupid! We haven't had any Grammar Nazi activity in a while!
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:52:16 AM EDT
Yes, why just let the anti folks think we are illiterate assholes, why not prove it? I doubt if grammar-nazi activity would help. You can make them go to school, but you can't make them learn.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:56:21 AM EDT
I normally wouldn't point it out. But when someone attacks another person's intellect using impropper grammar, it makes me laugh! Lotboy does it to me all the time!
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 8:59:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By markm: I normally wouldn't point it out. But when someone attacks another person's intellect using impropper grammar, it makes me laugh! Lotboy does it to me all the time!
View Quote
You spelled "improper" wrong.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 9:47:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 10:10:53 AM EDT by 556Cliff]
Thancs fore coractin mee.[brick] "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mattaer in what order the ltteers in a wrod are, the only iprmoetnt thing is that the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itself, but the word as a wlohe." This will drive spell check absolutely nuts![banghead] [devil]
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 12:51:02 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 12:58:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 556Cliff: Thancs fore coractin mee.[brick] "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mattaer in what order the ltteers in a wrod are, the only iprmoetnt thing is that the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itself, but the word as a wlohe." This will drive spell check absolutely nuts![banghead] [devil]
View Quote
Sonofabitch, He's right!
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 12:59:28 PM EDT
(To get back on track) I think people dislike the gas system when they use bad ammo. I used 1000 rounds in my 7.62x39 upper using okay ammo and I ended up braking my extractor (again) because the junk in the ammo caused the final cartridge to gum up and stick to inside after extraction.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 1:32:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 556Cliff: Thancs fore coractin mee.[brick] "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mattaer in what order the ltteers in a wrod are, the only iprmoetnt thing is that the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itself, but the word as a wlohe." This will drive spell check absolutely nuts![banghead] [devil]
View Quote
That's just freaky!
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 1:39:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 3:39:25 PM EDT by DougR]
(Scratches his chin in a reflective manner) Well I can relate to my time in the Army in 1970. I had heard so much at the time about how bad the M16 was, and I had one issued to me for a full year. Out in the field most of the year and I fired a blue million rounds mostly on full auto. At night on more than one occasion I got the gas tube to glow. I cleaned it the day I turned it in, but not till then. When I looked down the barrel and no longer could see light I got permission to shoot a magazine or so, cleaned it right up. No that is not recommended care for any firearm, but that does summarize my year.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 2:02:32 PM EDT
I hate all you Grammer Queens...[:D]
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 9:12:05 PM EDT
btt.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 9:22:47 PM EDT
ok i also wondered the same thing, and alot of people say that its because it's not adjustable.. so what about fulton armory's adjustable gas tube?? does it not work?? is that not the same adjustableness that everyone else is complaining about?? i've always wondered about this product.. any insight is helpful..
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 11:06:20 PM EDT
I don't hate it, but the simple fact is that a gas piston is a better idea for a combat rifle. Less accurate?....debatable (i.e.) Sig 550/551.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 11:48:54 PM EDT
If you want to find out what that rifle is mad up of. Take it out and put those same 1000 rounds thru it in a cold weather scenerio. At a high rate of speed. Let the thing turn white then cool down, then heat it back up again. You will then see what that rifle is mad up of. Or better yet. Take the rifle and put it in a high wind situation with a high content of sand a debris. Then heat the thing up. You will notice 1 small detail about that rifle. It wont shoot. So problem solved... I speak from experience. The rifle is great for the occasional user. But as a tool of the trade is a diffrent story.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 11:54:17 PM EDT
Brouhaha's Sig 550 is no more accurate than any other AR I have shot. In fact I would say its probably not as accurate as his 16" Colt. I have heard some real horror stories about the innacuracy of some Swiss owned Sigs. Of course that is just hearsay. I dont think its really debateable that a big moving piece of steel in the gun will affect accuarcy.
Link Posted: 10/6/2003 11:56:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 12:11:06 AM EDT
Why has the M-60 survived so long? Politics...
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 2:17:51 AM EDT
As far as the gas system goes I believe the anti arf crowd doesn’t like it because “it poops where it eats” so to speak. Anyone running a suppressor can attest to this. Personally, I think an impulse system is probably better on a combat rifle than direct gas, that’s just me though. Best regards, J
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 2:38:29 AM EDT
They hate it because they can't appreciate it's simplicity and economy of design. No difficult to manufacture parts, no parts that require an experienced hand to change, no parts that require a skilled machinist to make. It weighs nearly nothing, has no moving parts and when it does wear the parts to repair it cost less than $10 and can be replaced in under 10 minutes with a pin punch and hammer by any monkey. The M16 has proved it's reliability and durability against several other competing designs over the past 40 some odd years.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 3:22:27 AM EDT
I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that guy who said he didn't clean his m16 for a year in Nam, and fired all his ammo mostly F/A. BS! I was in Nam in 69/70/71, and I can speak from experience that as long as the 16 was cleaned religiously, several times a day, it would PROBABLY work when you needed it to. The reason people hate the gas system is because when the airforce tested it for adoption in early 60's, they used the ammo that designer suggested, and gas system never once plugged up, and never dirtied the chamber. When the army adopted the gun, 1st thing they did was change the ammo, to use up the vast stockpile of ball powder they had in the supply system. This powder was extremely dirty, and deposited filth in the chamber, plugging it up. Then the army shipped the 16 to Nam, minus cleaning kits, cause the A.F. said it didn't need to be cleaned. Honest to god, that's what the Army told the troops. Nobody knows how many G.I.s died because of dirty, plugged up rifles, but the Army does admit that it was a lot. By the time I got to Nam, the m16 was much improved, but everyone was taught to leave the selector alone, on S/A only. F/A would jam the gun after only 4 or 5 mags. My squad leader was a fanatic on clean guns, and would whack people upside the head for a dirty gun. No, he did not get fragged. That was an Army problem, not Marine. Besides, once the squad leader whacked someone, the rest of the squad did it too. Dirty rifles endangered the whole squad. Sorry for the looooong spiel, it just seemed from what I was reading that everyone has forgotten the early history of the M16. While the 16 is much improved from Nam, it still has major problems. Ask the survivors from the 507th Maintanance unit what those problems are. As for me, if I have a choice what to carry, it would be an AK. Not as accurate, but a thousand times more reliable. OJF
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 5:06:06 AM EDT
Yeah, the 507 had their Ma Deuces jam too. Guess those are unreliable weapons as well. [beathorse]
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 7:38:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By oldjarheadfart: The reason people hate the gas system is because when the Airforce tested it for adoption in early 60's, they used the ammo that designer suggested, and gas system never once plugged up, and never dirtied the chamber. When the Army adopted the gun, 1st thing they did was change the ammo, to use up the vast stockpile of ball powder they had in the supply system. This powder was extremely dirty, and deposited filth in the chamber, plugging it up. OJF
View Quote
[b]OJF has it mostly right and EVERYONE who gives a shit about the troops should read his post above.[/b] The AR-15/M-16 was DESIGNED to function with IMR powder. The ARMY switched to Ball powder WITHOUT notifying ArmaLite, Colt or Stoner. Ball powder has higher gas port pressures which cause the the gun cycle to speed up and the increased cycle rate causes light strike misfires from bolt carrier bounce and failures to extract. The change in powder was roughly like putting gasoline in your engine that was designed for diesel fuel. AMAZINGLY for well over forty years we've been using a rifle that has been forced to use a powder for which it was never designed. (I'm NOT a Colt fan but their engineers, Foster Sturtevant and Bob Roy, deserve HUGE credit for making the M-16 work with the incorrect powder.)
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 8:08:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2003 8:09:18 AM EDT by Ridge]
I can attest to the fact that the powder makes a BIG difference. I use IMR and Alliant powder in my reloads (both stick powder as opposed to ball). After a day of shooting the weapon merely needs to be wiped down. It is very clean powder. I've never torture tested my ARs, and I keep them clean. My brother-in-law has AKs and never cleans them. He seems to be the one always having reliability problems (not to mention 8 inch groups at 100yds). Gee, I hpoe I seplt evreyhting rgiht.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 8:11:05 AM EDT
As I've posted before, Stoner did not design the AR-15/M-16 that was done by James Sullivan and Bob Fremont. Just found an interesting comment by Sullivan: [b]"...........Ball powder is still not compatible with the M-16 and should never have been issued for that weapon. It (Ball powder) fouls the gas system and wears out the piston rings."[/b] 5sub
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 8:14:59 AM EDT
Don't mean to start an AR vs AK flame war but... Another issue is complexity of the AR gas system. I picked up a SAR1 ak at the begining of this last summer and had to compare it to my AR. The AK gas system is so simple & huge in comparison. You could literally fit 15 AR gas tubes in one AK gas tube. Also the AK gas tube is so easy to maintain.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 8:56:33 AM EDT
Here's a thought, if you don't like the AR gas system and you think the AK is better, then buy and AK. This topic has been hashed and rehashed and I doubt that any new thoughts are going to come out in this thread. Really what you should do is own one of each, an AR and an AK, and maybe an M1, and a couple of bolt action rifles as well, of course there are some good lever actions around too. So many guns, so little money.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 9:08:19 AM EDT
To people that asked, I have run my carbine in very hot, around 105 degrees, weather the coldest I've shot it is in the 20's, I that's not too extreme. I've also shot it in very dirty and dusty environments without any problems. Though I've not shot my carbine in actual combat but I don't see any reasons it would fail me. Maybe the design is actually pretty reliable or I'm just lucky...[:|]
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 9:34:18 AM EDT
Don't worry, you're not lucky. I shoot ball powder ammo, even Wolf, and usually clean every 1000 rounds. I usually get grit in the gun, only a few times were intentional. Regardless, the black rifle kept shooting. The AR-15 is a very reliable rifle.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 12:09:29 PM EDT
You mean we're supposed to clean these things?
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 12:53:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2003 12:58:02 PM EDT by cornbread2]
Originally Posted By oldjarheadfart: I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that guy who said he didn't clean his m16 for a year in Nam, and fired all his ammo mostly F/A. BS!
View Quote
Of course this is BS. No matter how much you may like and trust the system you have to know this is BS. But he could have been a REMF like Al Gore and his entire year of firing it could have been a total of 30 rounds. This is much like the story an old wantabe biker once told me. He claimed to have put 150,000 miles on a 1967 Harley without an engine rebuild. They are both FOS.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 1:44:59 PM EDT
I have taken my AR out and shot a ton in the cold northern michigan winter, and it held up fine. Perhaps I did not shhot enough to break it, but if it takes more than that to break, you wont hear me complain.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 2:06:29 PM EDT
I have fired over 300 rounds on top of 15 inches of snow (no BS, earlier this year when I was in mid-atlantic) and it I had zero malfuctions. (and also got my car stuck in snow) Also over 300 rounds in 95+ degrees hot weather. Zero malfuctions again (I did use SIR but it has nothing to do with the function of carbine)
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 3:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2003 3:53:16 PM EDT by DougR]
Oldjarhead, I can not disagree with you more. And please don't call me a liar- I am being 100% truthful. No enhancement or anything like that. I was a grunt (11H- Recoiless Rifleman) with A Co, 2/12 Cav, 1st Air Cav. I was in the field all but the last 3 months of the year. I have the paperwork to prove what I am saying. 1 1/2 months in Cambodia. And Cornbread, I am not a wannabe, I was just a draftee, nothing more. I spent the whole year on 15 to 20 day patrols along the Ho Chi Minh trail near Song Be, LZ Buttons and usually about 10 miles or so from Cambodia. After the 15 days we came in for 5 days of Greenline guard and a shower and change of clothes. Not the stuff the glamour magazines are made of but that is the way it was. I had no gun cleaning kit and certainly no time for cleaning. No one in the whole company cleaned rifles until they were turned in. These were early M-16s without the cleaning kit area in the stock. We didn't have a recoiless rifle, so I was handed an M-16 for the year. No big deal. I always kept it on full auto, also everyone else around me did. Many many magazines went through it. Gas tube very red at night. Never cleaned it. End of story. Where were you where they all fired on single shot? If you had tme to clean your rifle three times a day you were NOT where we were. You can call me a poor soldier, a bad example or whatever, but I don't have to take the liar label from either of you. Thanks for nothing.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 5:20:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DougR: Oldjarhead, I can not disagree with you more. And please don't call me a liar- I am being 100% truthful. No enhancement or anything like that. I was a grunt (11H- Recoiless Rifleman) with A Co, 2/12 Cav, 1st Air Cav. I was in the field all but the last 3 months of the year. I have the paperwork to prove what I am saying. 1 1/2 months in Cambodia. And Cornbread, I am not a wannabe, I was just a draftee, nothing more. I spent the whole year on 15 to 20 day patrols along the Ho Chi Minh trail near Song Be, LZ Buttons and usually about 10 miles or so from Cambodia. After the 15 days we came in for 5 days of Greenline guard and a shower and change of clothes. Not the stuff the glamour magazines are made of but that is the way it was. I had no gun cleaning kit and certainly no time for cleaning. No one in the whole company cleaned rifles until they were turned in. These were early M-16s without the cleaning kit area in the stock. We didn't have a recoiless rifle, so I was handed an M-16 for the year. No big deal. I always kept it on full auto, also everyone else around me did. Many many magazines went through it. Gas tube very red at night. Never cleaned it. End of story. Where were you where they all fired on single shot? If you had tme to clean your rifle three times a day you were NOT where we were. You can call me a poor soldier, a bad example or whatever, but I don't have to take the liar label from either of you. Thanks for nothing.
View Quote
Doug, what year/s were you in Vietnam ??
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 4:28:46 AM EDT
1969-1970. Specifically, September 24 1969- September 23, 1970. I have had all night to think about this, and I accept that during the time I was in Viet Nam there were units where it was important to spit shine boots, wear pressed fatigues and clean rifles several times each day, but that was not the situation I was in. I will say to the other Nam vet, Welcome Home, but he and I were in different wars in the same country. And if the other guy does smell BS, that is quite likely as he seems to be standing in it. One thing I can point out is that when I left Viet Nam, we were winning! Back then even I was impressed with the M-16. I have been reading this site for a long time, and I am so very pleased with the information you all have here, but I must say, when I first decided to post, I am not too happy with your welcoming committee. Oh, well.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 5:40:01 AM EDT
Welcome Doug...... Thanks for your service even if ya was drafted... :)... Pa in law served with the Marines in 64-65 in Nam. I was Army 85-89 . I first carried a worn out M16A1 that functioned 100% and then we switched over to the A2's. They was issued to us brand new.Welcome again.... :) WD [USA]
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:14:29 AM EDT
Where is that horses ass "LarryG36" when we need him? I am a civilian shooter and never had a problem with my ARs or M16s if I clean them every thousand rounds or so.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:31:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DougR: .......but I must say, when I first decided to post, I am not too happy with your welcoming committee. Oh, well.
View Quote
[b]Doug, WELCOME HOME[/b], thank you for your service to our country and welcome to AR15.com - the finest board in all of gundom !! Tom
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:55:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Which is why the design has been so unsuccessful for the last 40 years with the US military, and why several other countries have adopted it... [rolleyes] -Troy
View Quote
At the risk of getting flamed, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, while the M16 HAS been relible enough for the US, Canada, Israel, the direct gas system tends to be the weak point of the rifle, the vast majority of successful rifles introduced since the AR-15\M16 has had a gas piston or op rod, (ie: Sig 550, Aug, AN-94 etc). IMO, which really doesn't mean anything, the gas system is a weak point, but the AK's weak point is it's accuracy, the FAL's weak point is weight. Its just a weak point, like any other rifle system has.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 9:08:16 AM EDT
DougR, Welcome to the board, sir, and thank you for your service to our country!
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 9:25:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 556A2: .......the gas system is a weak point, but the AK's weak point is it's accuracy, the FAL's weak point is weight. Its just a weak point, like any other rifle system has.
View Quote
Agreed. When I post about the Army using the wrong powder and the corresponding problems with gas system I'm in no way condemning the AR-15/M16. I'm simply trying to say to me it is damn near a miracle that the AR-15/M16 functions as well as it has and for over forty years !! Still, when Mark Westrom (ArmaLite's President) designed the current ArmaLite AR-15 offerings, the M15A2, M15A4, etc., he did borrow from the gas system on the AR-18/AR-180 rather than staying strictly with the AR-15/M16 design. Also I'm still greatly bothered that a good number of our military people were killed in the early 1960's due to the Army's powder change, chambers not being chromed and no cleaning kits issued. As an example, an entire company of Marines was overrun and all killed. And all had jammed M-16's.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 9:30:39 AM EDT
Advantages: Lighter Simpler Disadvantages: Dirty Higher Felt Recoil Finicky (can't just use any ammunition you want i.e. low quality crap ammunition, has to be adjusted perfectly, but after that everything is ok) The design is simpler and lighter. With an op-rod system the action is taking place in the front, and felt recoil is lessend. Although some of this might be due to the added weight of the system. I find the gas system to be more finicky. Once it's tuned, is music, there's no problems, except with certain low quality ammo. But trying to get just the right amount of gas for your particular system can be a pain. So can lining up the gas tube. On a side note, it's also too bad the barrels are not quick-changeable. As for more accurate, I don't buy that. You're going to tell me op-rod rifles are inaccurate? That's ridiculous. Accuracy has more to do with the shooter, ammunition, barrel, chamber and just about everything else before the gas operating system. Tell me an M1A is inaccurate. Sure 1000 rounds through a rifle is great, and for most purposes this is probably enough, otherwise we would have used this rifle for the past 40 years. But there are op-rod rifles that will do 7000 rounds no problem. Basically, it doesn't matter if you admit it or not, an op-rod system is MORE reliable than direct gas inpingement. The question is do you really need a rifle more reliable than the AR15 already is? Probably not.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 10:18:37 AM EDT
With all the talk about the M16/AR15 ammo using the wrong powder, is there any company that sells .223/5.56 ammo with the correct IMR powder??? Id like to see the difference.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 11:07:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2003 11:08:48 AM EDT by kc3]
Still, when Mark Westrom (ArmaLite's President) designed the current ArmaLite AR-15 offerings, the M15A2, M15A4, etc., he did borrow from the gas system on the AR-18/AR-180 rather than staying strictly with the AR-15/M16 design.
View Quote
What parts did he borrow? Are you saying that Armalite AR15s are different from, say, Colt AR15s?
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 11:24:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kc3:
Still, when Mark Westrom (ArmaLite's President) designed the current ArmaLite AR-15 offerings, the M15A2, M15A4, etc., he did borrow from the gas system on the AR-18/AR-180 rather than staying strictly with the AR-15/M16 design.
View Quote
What parts did he borrow? Are you saying that Armalite AR15s are different from, say, Colt AR15s?
View Quote
kc3, I was given the above information in a private conversation and simply will not say more. But yes, the ArmaLite AR-15's are a bit different from those made by other manufacturers. I've often seen it posted here on AR15.com that the current ArmaLite management only bought the ArmaLite name some years back. That's just not correct. Current ArmaLite management bought the name and 'certain' (like original drawings of various AR's.......) other assets. 5sub 5sub
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top