Post by: caseydog on December 02, 2006, 08:41:15 PM
Apparently they have some in use with SPecial Forces in Iraq and Afgan with great reliability.
http://www.shootingusa.com/TV_SCHEDULE/SHOW_26-02/show_26-02.html
http://www.zmweapons.com/index.htm
Ray
Post by: brimic on December 02, 2006, 09:54:16 PM
-more weight
-more moving parts
-decreased accuracy
Pros:
-You don't need to clean it quite as often
I think I'll stay with the direct gas inpingement myself.
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on December 02, 2006, 10:14:02 PM
~GnSx
Post by: caseydog on December 02, 2006, 10:22:33 PM
Quote
Man, who doesn't make a freaking op-rod AR upper anymore?
Yeah , I've seen others in passing , I guess what struck me as special about ZM was they actually got a military contract , and judging by the breakdown they actually simplified the take down and integrated top rail issue rather than making a CF of it.
Ray
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2006, 10:24:18 PM
Why bother jury-rigging some op rod contraption onto an AR when there are plenty of fine rifles designed from the ground up to use op rods?
Post by: El Tejon on December 03, 2006, 06:27:14 AM
Yet another solution in search of a problem. An entire industry springing up to combat the Errornet drivel of "it shits where it eats." *sigh*
Post by: Ron on December 03, 2006, 08:15:45 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on December 03, 2006, 08:57:17 AM
as there is no buffer tube/ buffer required
Post by: mustanger98 on December 03, 2006, 12:20:46 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 03, 2006, 12:26:27 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 03, 2006, 01:28:43 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on December 03, 2006, 07:00:43 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 03, 2006, 10:47:09 PM
Post by: Fly320s on December 04, 2006, 12:30:18 AM
I'm sure you've been over to AR15.com to look around. But, if you haven't, the op-rod is well discussed over there.
My limited, under educated opinion is that the AR15 works fine in it's current direct gas impingement format.
Post by: Mabs2 on December 04, 2006, 02:48:36 AM
Cons:
-more weight
-more moving parts
-decreased accuracy
Pros:
-You don't need to clean it quite as often
I think I'll stay with the direct gas inpingement myself.
Plus it's kind of ugly...
-more weight
-more moving parts
-decreased accuracy
Pros:
-You don't need to clean it quite as often
I think I'll stay with the direct gas inpingement myself.
Post by: roo_ster on December 04, 2006, 06:07:31 AM
Just make sure:
1. Your armorer or yourself regularly replaces all the springs, especially the extractor, ejector, & buffer springs.
2. Make sure the leetle washers on the butt-end of the bolt do not have their void spaces lined up. Replace them often, too.
3. Keep it assiduously clean and appropriately lubed. Then clean it again, concentrating on the chamber, bolt, & bolt carrier.
The AR15 is a hot-rod design. If not constantly tended it can and will go tango uniform on you. Most op-rod designs do better in unfriendly environments and with less maintenence & cleaning.
For those of you with personal AR15s who have never had a problem, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do you pay for your own ammo or does Uncle Sam pay for it?
2. Have you ever fired so stinking much in one day that you don't wanna fire any more but continue because some loud & insistent third person says so...and has the authority to make it stick?
3. Do you measure the round count though your AR in the thousands or tens of thousands?
4. Have you had to keep your AR15 up & running in a sandy/dirty/muddy/rainy environment for weeks with only the little 2oz bottle of CLP, a shaving brush, a few patches, the issue brushes and rods...while running through several thousands of rounds that create these huge chunks of carbon in your upper and all over your bolt, carrier, & chamber?
The AR15 has its pros & cons. The chief con is the TLC it requires to keep going in harsh use & environments. Op-rod versions try to address this issue with some degree of success.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on December 04, 2006, 07:00:08 AM
ARs have been running in harsh environments for a few moons
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2006, 07:08:06 AM
For those of you with personal AR15s who have never had a problem, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do you pay for your own ammo or does Uncle Sam pay for it?
2. Have you ever fired so stinking much in one day that you don't wanna fire any more but continue because some loud & insistent third person says so...and has the authority to make it stick?
3. Do you measure the round count though your AR in the thousands or tens of thousands?
4. Have you had to keep your AR15 up & running in a sandy/dirty/muddy/rainy environment for weeks with only the little 2oz bottle of CLP, a shaving brush, a few patches, the issue brushes and rods...while running through several thousands of rounds that create these huge chunks of carbon in your upper and all over your bolt, carrier, & chamber?
The implication being that if you don't have a drill sergeant yelling at you or if you don't count rounds by the 10k, your inherently flawed rifle will magically work better than it should?1. Do you pay for your own ammo or does Uncle Sam pay for it?
2. Have you ever fired so stinking much in one day that you don't wanna fire any more but continue because some loud & insistent third person says so...and has the authority to make it stick?
3. Do you measure the round count though your AR in the thousands or tens of thousands?
4. Have you had to keep your AR15 up & running in a sandy/dirty/muddy/rainy environment for weeks with only the little 2oz bottle of CLP, a shaving brush, a few patches, the issue brushes and rods...while running through several thousands of rounds that create these huge chunks of carbon in your upper and all over your bolt, carrier, & chamber?
I'm not aware of any mainstream military rifle that is so poorly designed that one cannot rely upon it to function if it's properly maintained and properly lubed. Cleaning is nice, but unless you let your rifle go many thousands of rounds between cleanings then it isn't strictly necessary, even for the AR.
If your rifle rifle isn't working for you, then you need to either stop abusing it or have it repaired. Blaming it on the design of the rifle is a cop out.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 04, 2006, 07:11:44 AM
Again, 40 years' succesful deployment is hard to argue with.
Post by: roo_ster on December 04, 2006, 10:50:01 AM
For those of you with personal AR15s who have never had a problem, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Do you pay for your own ammo or does Uncle Sam pay for it?
2. Have you ever fired so stinking much in one day that you don't wanna fire any more but continue because some loud & insistent third person says so...and has the authority to make it stick?
3. Do you measure the round count though your AR in the thousands or tens of thousands?
4. Have you had to keep your AR15 up & running in a sandy/dirty/muddy/rainy environment for weeks with only the little 2oz bottle of CLP, a shaving brush, a few patches, the issue brushes and rods...while running through several thousands of rounds that create these huge chunks of carbon in your upper and all over your bolt, carrier, & chamber?
1. Do you pay for your own ammo or does Uncle Sam pay for it?
2. Have you ever fired so stinking much in one day that you don't wanna fire any more but continue because some loud & insistent third person says so...and has the authority to make it stick?
3. Do you measure the round count though your AR in the thousands or tens of thousands?
4. Have you had to keep your AR15 up & running in a sandy/dirty/muddy/rainy environment for weeks with only the little 2oz bottle of CLP, a shaving brush, a few patches, the issue brushes and rods...while running through several thousands of rounds that create these huge chunks of carbon in your upper and all over your bolt, carrier, & chamber?
The implication being that if you don't have a drill sergeant yelling at you or if you don't count rounds by the 10k, your inherently flawed rifle will magically work better than it should?
No magic needed. Just metallurgy and design. The implication is that those who can answer, "yes" to some of the above have used a particular weapon beyond the "shiny & new" phase. Springs are no longer quite what they once were when new and wear has begun to develop in other areas that effect reliable function. The weapon likely works just fine when clean & happily lubed. When it gets fouled with carbon, sand, & other detrius is when it fails...at a lower round count than when it was new.
I'm not aware of any mainstream military rifle that is so poorly designed that one cannot rely upon it to function if it's properly maintained and properly lubed. Cleaning is nice, but unless you let your rifle go many thousands of rounds between cleanings then it isn't strictly necessary, even for the AR.
Frequent cleaning is downright necessary for many/most high-round-count AR15s that have not had several of their more critical springs replaced.The Indians might take issue with your first point.
If your rifle rifle isn't working for you, then you need to either stop abusing it or have it repaired. Blaming it on the design of the rifle is a cop out.
>>Alert: A painfully obvious point follows this warning.<<Design has a huge effect on maintenence requirements.
Some of the maint is user-level, some goes to the unit armorer, & some can only be performed by higher. If one design has greater maint requirements over use than another, it is perfectly reasonable to state such, or "blame" the design.
What is abuse? Does that include IMT where the AR is used to break one's fall, causing the bolt & carrier's inertia to flip the ejection port cover to open & allow foreign matter to enter when the user flops prone? Issue weapons that are used are going to be used HARD, much harder than you or I would likely use our privately owned weapon at the range.
I was going to post but the Headless One said it best.
Again, 40 years' succesful deployment is hard to argue with.
Luckily, for most of those 40 years, we have not had to put many of our ARs to long term hard use...and got periodic replacements: M16 > M61A1 > M16A2 > M4 & M4A1 & M16A4.Again, 40 years' succesful deployment is hard to argue with.
I do not argue that it is a POS, any more than I would argue that the M4 Sherman tank (the tank that helped win us WWII, an undeniable success) was a POS, despite being a design inferior to most other major fielded designs. The deciding factor is not the AK or the Ar, but the user.
------------
FWIW, I used to maintian ARs of various configuration and age (ancient CAR-15s, M16A2s, M4A1s, & others) for my unit. Shiny new ARs worked as advertised. High round count weapons did not until I replaced several springs in the upper & the buffer spring. My guess is that the extractor & ejector spring fatigued over time and gradually were less able to yank a cartridge out of the chamber after carbon built up in the upper. Also, the carbon & foreign material slowed down the bolt & carrier. Last (and least likely to effect reliability, IMO) , the buffer spring could not push home the bolt & carrier against the extra resistance of the carbon in the upper & chamber.
Unfortunately, I did not have time or funding to gather the sort of data I would like:
1. Precise round counts
2. Failures
a. Type
b. Total round count
c. Round count since last cleaning
d. Lube regimen
3. Corrective action (parts replaced, etc)
Pretty much , if any hooah was having reliability issues, I swapped out springs if no glaring deficinecy (in personal weap maint or mechanical) was apparent. Usually did the trick for the next range. Some weapons were problem children, however, and were true PITA to keep rolling.
-------
What we (USA, USMC) have done is adjust our training to accomodate the peculiarities of our chosen weapon platform. Most times, training can overcome non-optimal equipment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 04, 2006, 11:25:13 AM
Cons:
-more weight
-more moving parts
-decreased accuracy
Pros:
-You don't need to clean it quite as often
I think I'll stay with the direct gas inpingement myself.
Plus it's kind of ugly...-more weight
-more moving parts
-decreased accuracy
Pros:
-You don't need to clean it quite as often
I think I'll stay with the direct gas inpingement myself.
I thought ugly was a design requirement of the AR.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2006, 11:56:11 AM
If your rifles are full of worn and out of spec parts, then your rifles are defective and need to be repaired. No machine can be expected to perform optimally when its critical parts are defective. Don't blame the design of the rifle, blame your armorer for failing to keep your rifles in spec. Oh, wait... that was you. So blame yourself, not the design. Hmm... on second thought, better blame the design.
This is like driving your truck 300,000 miles without replacing the clutch or the brake pads, then wondering why its shifting and braking performance isn't quite what it used to be. Obviously the problem is that Detroit couldn't design a proper vehicle. It has nothing to do with wearing out critical components well past the point where the machine becomes defective.
You're not the only one who uses your ARs past the "shiny and new" phase. There are bajillians of ARs in civilian, police, and military hands that are used hard without experiencing reliability issues. This obviously wouldn't be possible if there were systematic flaws in the basic design of the AR. If their ARs were working and mine weren't, then I would identify what I was doing wrong and adjust my behavior accordingly.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 04, 2006, 12:09:46 PM
Is the argument that the AR platform needs more or more frequent maintenance than other guns? Every weapons system has its peculariarities. I would rather work on a non-functioning AR than a non-functioning AK.
Post by: roo_ster on December 04, 2006, 05:22:47 PM
Is the argument that the AR platform needs more or more frequent maintenance than other guns? Every weapons system has its peculariarities. I would rather work on a non-functioning AR than a non-functioning AK.
I agree/affirm with all three of your statements.
The AR is more maintenence-intensive relative to both other assault-type rifles and its predecessors in the US military inventory. A side note is that it is generally less tolerant of harsh conditions outside of maintenance.
Every weapon system is a compromise. Size, weight, cost are just three of hte most easily quantitfied. In the case of the AR15, some robust reliability was compromised for other nice-to-haves. Intentionally or not, that is the way it turned out.
I have much less time behind an AK and wrenching one, so I will go with that, too.
As far as not understanding the issue, I think you understand more than you might think. Some folks just plain do not like or agree with the design compromises embodied in the AR series of weapons, the two most glaring being its relatively small(er) envelope of reliable operation and the cartridge. I am of the opinion that we ought to have chosen a different weapon when we bought the M4/M4A1/M16A4 gereration of ARs. I suspect some of the logisticians were hoping they could plug the gaps until OICW was deployed. Whatever the reason (cost, log simplification, training costs, etc.), it was a defensible call.
Of course, there is the other contingent that can brook no criticism of their beloved AR. They remind me of hte "King James Version Only" folks.
Post by: roo_ster on December 04, 2006, 06:53:56 PM
Cripes, replace your goram springs. Of course your rifles will stop working if you wear the springs out and fail to replace them.
If your rifles are full of worn and out of spec parts, then your rifles are defective and need to be repaired. No machine can be expected to perform optimally when its critical parts are defective. Don't blame the design of the rifle, blame your armorer for failing to keep your rifles in spec. Oh, wait... that was you. So blame yourself, not the design. Hmm... on second thought, better blame the design.
If your rifles are full of worn and out of spec parts, then your rifles are defective and need to be repaired. No machine can be expected to perform optimally when its critical parts are defective. Don't blame the design of the rifle, blame your armorer for failing to keep your rifles in spec. Oh, wait... that was you. So blame yourself, not the design. Hmm... on second thought, better blame the design.
Now, I am not a doctor, but perhaps some of what El Tejon suggested using in the following post could help with your outlook:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=5172.msg78481#msg78481
The weapons I referred to were in spec, according to the manuals, quarterly PMs, etc. The weapons functioned, just not as reliably as we would have liked or they once had.
The spring swap was a measure to keep from having to send them to the post armorers, as we wouldn't see the weapons for months. A lot of time the swap worked, sometimes not.
You're not the only one who uses your ARs past the "shiny and new" phase. There are bajillians of ARs in civilian, police, and military hands that are used hard without experiencing reliability issues. This obviously wouldn't be possible if there were systematic flaws in the basic design of the AR. If their ARs were working and mine weren't, then I would identify what I was doing wrong and adjust my behavior accordingly.
Yep, nobody but my unit has had reliability issues with ARs. It was an unheard-of phenomenon until my unit was stood up. I doubt there are that many civilian ARs that got the kind of use our weapons did. We had a rather large trainng budget. Heck, I bet only a very few ARs on a very few police depts see that kind of use.
I think we can se where you are coming from in this sentence, "This obviously wouldn't be possible if there were systematic flaws in the basic design of the AR." You speak of flaws & blame, I speak of design compromises. You write that some things in the AR universe are "not possible," while others have experienced the possible and come to understand the design's limitations and how to work around them.
I hope you enjoy your AR. I look forward to acquiring the parts and building one in the coming year.
Post by: brimic on December 04, 2006, 08:03:16 PM
Quote
M1911 springs need to be replaced every 2-3k rounds or so. If you don't do that, it wont work well.
Speaking of which, I've seen many more failures with 1911s than all other guns put together. This is the gun that most internet 'gun experts' want to see replacing the M9, while in the same breath telling us that the AR has to go too because of reliability problems. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
BTW: I love my 1911 and would sooner shoot my self in the foot with it than trade it for a plastic fantastic.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2006, 08:15:13 PM
Merry Christmas.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 05, 2006, 04:13:38 AM
Quote
Of course, there is the other contingent that can brook no criticism of their beloved AR. They remind me of hte "King James Version Only" folks.
They're more analogous to those who decry any modification from Browning's original M1911.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 05, 2006, 05:48:26 AM
Quote
M1911 springs need to be replaced every 2-3k rounds or so. If you don't do that, it wont work well.
Speaking of which, I've seen many more failures with 1911s than all other guns put together. This is the gun that most internet 'gun experts' want to see replacing the M9, while in the same breath telling us that the AR has to go too because of reliability problems. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
BTW: I love my 1911 and would sooner shoot my self in the foot with it than trade it for a plastic fantastic.
You've probably seen more 1911s period just because the design popularity means every Tom Dick and Heinrich is making one. But the point is valid anyway. Design has improved dramatically. I would rather be working on a non functioniong Glock than a non functioning 1911.
As for the AR, what I hear mainly is the caliber issue. I would invite everyone who thinks that bigger is better to go lug 500 rounds of 7.62 NATO for a day and then tell me we ought to be fielding that.
Some of the people spouting this stuff I think view the military as an extension of their private gun collection, where changing from an AR to an FN-FAL is as easy as buying the gun, mags, and ammo. It aint so.
Post by: richyoung on December 06, 2006, 12:20:49 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 06, 2006, 12:41:39 PM
Quote
The AR was NOT, repeat NOT, designed to be an Army battle rifle. It was designed for use by Air Force security forces guarding nuclear armed bombers.
Got any documentation for this? AFAICT, the rifle was designed to be sold to whomever wanted it in order to make Armalite a profit. The basic idea of a high speed, small caliber projectile was something lots of people were working on at the time, not just Stoner/Armalite. The AF was then the first to adopt the rifle, but it wasn't designed for them.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on December 06, 2006, 01:02:16 PM
I didn't know the Secret Service adopted rifle platforms
Post by: The Rabbi on December 06, 2006, 01:04:09 PM
In Long's book on the AR he goes through the history of the AR and its adoption. Yes, the Air Force adopted it first. But it was already being looked at by the military, and in 1962 it underwent tests by ARPA in the DoD. Among their finding were that aimed fire was not really all that important and more rounds really did make a difference.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on December 06, 2006, 01:14:28 PM
Post by: richyoung on December 06, 2006, 01:20:39 PM
Stoner designed the AR-10 to be a .308 MBR and Armalite down scaled it to .223
I didn't know the Secret Service adopted rifle platforms
I didn't know the Secret Service adopted rifle platforms
Well, they do. In fact, one of the theories behind the massive head wound that JFK got is that a Secret Service guard in the old "linebacker" limo following the presidential limo picked up an AR-15 when the first shots rang out, and fired an AD into the bakc of Kennedy's head. So the Secret Service had them in late '63, at least.
Post by: richyoung on December 06, 2006, 01:27:25 PM
Quote
Testimony Of Clinton J. Hill, Special Agent, Secret Service
...
Mr. HILL. I was working the followup car, which is the car immediately behind the Presidential car.
Mr. SPECTER. And how many cars are there ahead of the followup car, then, in the entire motorcade?
Mr. HILL. There was a lead car ahead of the President's car, the President's car, then this particular followup car.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any car in advance of the car termed the lead car?
Mr. HILL. There could have been a pilot car, but I am not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, approximately how far in front of the President's car did the lead car stay during the course of the motorcade?
Mr. HILL. I would say a half block, maybe.
Mr. SPECTER. And how far was the President's car in front of the President's followup car during the course of the motorcade?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. How were the agents armed at that time?
Mr. HILL. All the agents were armed with their hand weapons.
Mr. SPECTER. And is there any weapon in the automobile in addition to the hand weapons?
Mr. HILL. Yes. There is an AR-15, which is an automatic rifle, and a shotgun.
Mr. SPECTER. And where is the AR-15 kept?
Mr. HILL. Between the two agents in the rear seat.
...
Mr. HILL. I was working the followup car, which is the car immediately behind the Presidential car.
Mr. SPECTER. And how many cars are there ahead of the followup car, then, in the entire motorcade?
Mr. HILL. There was a lead car ahead of the President's car, the President's car, then this particular followup car.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any car in advance of the car termed the lead car?
Mr. HILL. There could have been a pilot car, but I am not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, approximately how far in front of the President's car did the lead car stay during the course of the motorcade?
Mr. HILL. I would say a half block, maybe.
Mr. SPECTER. And how far was the President's car in front of the President's followup car during the course of the motorcade?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. How were the agents armed at that time?
Mr. HILL. All the agents were armed with their hand weapons.
Mr. SPECTER. And is there any weapon in the automobile in addition to the hand weapons?
Mr. HILL. Yes. There is an AR-15, which is an automatic rifle, and a shotgun.
Mr. SPECTER. And where is the AR-15 kept?
Mr. HILL. Between the two agents in the rear seat.
Post by: richyoung on December 06, 2006, 02:13:50 PM
Quote
Curtis LeMay viewed a demonstration of the AR-15 in July 1960. He immediately ordered 8,500 for defense at Strategic Air Command airbases, later rescinded by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Colt Industries also approached the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), who bought 1,000 rifles for use by South Vietnamese troops in the early summer of 1962. American special operations units and advisors working with the South Vietnamese troops filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara now had two conflicting views: the ARPA report favoring the AR-15 and the Pentagon's position on the M14. Even President John F. Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army's test report stated only the M14 was suitable for Army use, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used, who reported that the testers showed favor to the M14.
Marines practice with M16A2 rifles in 2003Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a halt to M14 production in January 1964, after receiving reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces. Secretary McNamara had long been a proponent of weapons program consolidation among the armed services. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could remotely fulfill a requirement of a 'universal' infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered the weapon be adopted unmodified, in its current configuration, for immediate issue to all services, despite receiving reports noting several deficiencies with the M16 as a service rifle, including the lack of a chrome-lined bore and chamber, the 5.56 mm projectile's instability under arctic conditions, and the fact that large quantities of 5.56 mm ammunition required for immediate service were not available. In addition, the Army insisted on the inclusion of a forward assist plunger to help push the bolt into battery in the event that a cartridge failed to seat in the chamber through fouling or corrosion. Such a device had been incorporated into later versions of the AR-10, which also had a chrome-lined chamber to prevent corrosion (Pikula). Colt on the other hand, had argued the rifle was a 'self-cleaning' design, requiring little or no maintenance. Colt, Eugene Stoner, and the U.S. Air Force believed that a forward assist needlessly complicated the rifle and added about $4.50 to its procurement cost, with no real benefit. As a result, the design was split into two variants: the Air Force's M16 without the forward assist, and for the other service branches, the XM16E1 with the forward assist.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara now had two conflicting views: the ARPA report favoring the AR-15 and the Pentagon's position on the M14. Even President John F. Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army's test report stated only the M14 was suitable for Army use, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used, who reported that the testers showed favor to the M14.
Marines practice with M16A2 rifles in 2003Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a halt to M14 production in January 1964, after receiving reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces. Secretary McNamara had long been a proponent of weapons program consolidation among the armed services. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could remotely fulfill a requirement of a 'universal' infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered the weapon be adopted unmodified, in its current configuration, for immediate issue to all services, despite receiving reports noting several deficiencies with the M16 as a service rifle, including the lack of a chrome-lined bore and chamber, the 5.56 mm projectile's instability under arctic conditions, and the fact that large quantities of 5.56 mm ammunition required for immediate service were not available. In addition, the Army insisted on the inclusion of a forward assist plunger to help push the bolt into battery in the event that a cartridge failed to seat in the chamber through fouling or corrosion. Such a device had been incorporated into later versions of the AR-10, which also had a chrome-lined chamber to prevent corrosion (Pikula). Colt on the other hand, had argued the rifle was a 'self-cleaning' design, requiring little or no maintenance. Colt, Eugene Stoner, and the U.S. Air Force believed that a forward assist needlessly complicated the rifle and added about $4.50 to its procurement cost, with no real benefit. As a result, the design was split into two variants: the Air Force's M16 without the forward assist, and for the other service branches, the XM16E1 with the forward assist.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 07, 2006, 09:44:49 AM
He's not all rigid or dorky looking like Kerry or Gore in pictures with guns.
-Off-Topic-
If he hadn't been assassinated, on the narrow issue of gun control, I wonder where we'd be?
His brother's killing was certainly inspired by the idea you could shoot a President. Without those two deaths of popular men, beloved of that generation of reporters, I don't think the GCA's of the '60's would have been as supported or even proposed.
MLK's assassination added to those two in effect, but I bet, on it's own, would have been mourned as just the action of an angry racist, not blamed on the rifle itself.
Ever been a thread on the "what if's?"
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 08, 2006, 04:46:25 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 09, 2006, 04:26:26 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 09, 2006, 04:29:26 AM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on December 09, 2006, 04:55:30 AM
March 20, 1961
Dear Mr. Orth:
On the occasion of Patriots Day, I wish to offer my contgratulations and best wishes to the National Rifle Association of America which over the past years has done credit to our country by the outstanding achievements of its members in the art of shooting.
Through competitive matches and sports in coordination with the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, the Association fills an important role in our national defense effort, and fosters in an active and meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minutemen.
I am pleased to accept Life Membership in the National Rifle Association and extend to your organization every good wish for continued success.
Sincerely,
John Kennedy
Post by: El Tejon on December 09, 2006, 05:14:41 AM
Back to the AR silliness. The AR-15 was designed for anyone who would buy it (specifically armies using it as a "battle rifle"--whatever those are), the USAF was one of the first to adopt it. Bobby McDonald took an AR-15, "Old Number 4", around the world in many different climates (European, Arab, Asian) and the weapon performed flawlessly.
If you live in a wasteland, then you have to care for your weapon differently. Keep it clean and lubed and you'll be fine.
Post by: Joe Demko on December 10, 2006, 05:02:07 AM
Quote
For all Kennedy's Kennedy-ness, the man is comfortably handling an automatic rifle in the Oval Office. be nice to see that kind of thing again.
He does have the air of man who is enjoying what he is doing in the photos I have seen of him handling guns. Have we had a POTUS since JFK about whom you could say the same thing? I can't recall ever seeing a picture or film of LBJ with a gun. Reagan and Carter both came from backgrounds that made them familiar with the use of guns, but I don't recall seeing a picture of either of them handling a gun that looked like anything but a staged photo-op. Carter genuinely was a hunter, though; and I've read letters between Reagan and the inventor of the Gyrojet pistol that indicate Reagan owned one and enjoyed shooting it when ammo was available.
Bush I, for all his background as a military pilot and head spook, always had such an air of prissiness about him that I never could picture him hunting or shooting and actually enjoying it. Tennis or golf at the country club seemed much more his style.
Bill Clinton, as we all remember, was the most anti-RKBA POTUS we ever had; even though his background was such that he should have grown up hunting and shooting. In fact, I suspect that he isn't a committed anti in his black little heart. That, like everything else he ever did in an official capacity, was nothing but a calculated political maneuver. In the case of the AWB, a miscalculation..as even he admitted.
Bush II is supposedly a gun enthusiast. The internet is filled with FOAF stories spread by his partisans to the effect that he has a Thunder Ranch (or similar) .45 in his nightstand at the Whitehouse, among other things. I don't buy it. Despite his efforts to cultivate the good ol' boy image by brushcutting at his ranch and so forth, he still strikes me as more of the tennis/golf at the club type. He has minions to carry guns for him.