ar dislike! - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > ar dislike!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-28-2013, 05:46 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9205 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

And I'll note, it was mentioned "pulling straight back towards the face"...

I've given myself a black eye in a CQB course. To be fair though, I was the only SAW gunner taking that particular course. I was the company driver for the day, and they had an extra **** ton of ammo, and this captain wanted me to check out on his M4. It was customized with stuff he only got away with because of his rank. He thought I should have some fun because I was essentially his personal driver for the day and we had the same taste in music...strange fella.

__________________
trip286 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 07:18 AM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,789
Liked 1190 Times on 661 Posts
Likes Given: 509

Default

I've never had any major problems with the AR, but I don't use crap magazines or inappropriate lubrication (no lube, too little lube, or a lightweight oil for a high round count shoot).

If you use PMAG's, a high temperature grease for high round count shoots between lubrication, and you give it a decent wipe down every now and again, you won't have too many problems, assuming you understand that the operating components are consumable items that have to be replaced at regular round count intervals.

The military likes to run things until they break, which is stupid from a reliability standpoint, but it probably saves them a few dollars here and there at the cost of a few lives.

If the military didn't insist on trying to make every weapon in the inventory a machine gun, with all the money saved on wasted ammo, attempts to address problems with engineering that would have best been answered with common sense, and wasting money testing new weapons that don't improve upon existing designs from a practical standpoint, there'd probably be enough money to make every shooter in the Army and Marine Corps an expert marksman and to purchase a match trigger, like a Geissele, for every M4 carbine in the inventory.

The notion that you can use a high speed, high tolerance machine without lubrication is a foreign concept to me and I'm not sure where that came from. The same people that understand that cars require motor oil to run can't comprehend the idea that a piston operated rifle requires the same.

Oh well, I'm sure it's time to waste some more money blazing away and trying to engineer a solution to a non-existent problem.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 08:03 AM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,789
Liked 1190 Times on 661 Posts
Likes Given: 509

Default

If the military wants to blow some cash on improvements to the AR design, I'd look into coatings that reduce the need for lubrication on the bolt and carrier, improving the service life of the bolt assembly with improved lug geometry, improving the service life of the springs with better materials, reducing the weight of the bolt carrier and not over-gassing the action so much, designing a plastic lower to reduce weight, and redesigning the buffer spring to reside in the receiver instead of the buffer extension thereby enabling folding stocks to be used.

Apart from that, external piston AR's and completely new rifles are mostly a spectacular waste of time and money. The only external piston rifle I'd look into, if I were the military, would be Rick Crommett's ICE-15. It's the only piston design I've seen to date that actually reduces the recoil force, lightens the operating components, and does away with the buffer spring to permit the use of folding and completely telescoping stocks. All other designs I've seen add weight to the rifle, increase recoil force, unbalance the rifle, or all of the aforementioned. That is not "improving" the design to my way of thinking.

Enough time and money has already been sunk into engineering the AR up to this point. No need to start the process over again back at square one.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 10:22 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

Nothing wrong with an AR. No, it's not a bolt gun. Was it designed to replace the bolt gun? Nope, It's just one mroe in a huge line of long guns. I guess that's the reason for having a really long list of long guns. There is no one size fits all.

The AR is great for the things it can do. It's modular design allows for reconfiguring in a hurry. The aftermarket allows the end user to set it up to their individual wants or needs. Many other rifles do not do this as well.

I'll give you the 5.56 is a flatter round over distance than the 7.62x39. That pesky gravity can be a pain.

I lean to older long guns personally. I like steel and wood. I like to feel like I'm holding something. I own an AR, an AK, and a SKS and have a lot of fun shooting them. But I get really jazzed shooting one of my Enfields or my 03A3. But tyhe AR and the commie guns have their place and can be a lot of fun too.

__________________

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

DrumJunkie is offline  
towboater Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 02:29 AM   #15
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,890
Liked 6268 Times on 3519 Posts
Likes Given: 5858

Default

I guess one of the things I like best about the AR is the lack of a piston. I also like the reliability and accuracy.

__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
Winston Churchill



War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
locutus is offline  
towboater Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 03:16 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9205 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
I guess one of the things I like best about the AR is the lack of a piston. I also like the reliability and accuracy.
They started seriously screwing with the balance when makers started playing around with pistons...

I wouldn't have a standard piston driven AR, period. Give me one for free, I'll sell it first chance I get. Might as well hang a dumb bell from the muzzle.
__________________
trip286 is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 05:16 PM   #17
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,789
Liked 1190 Times on 661 Posts
Likes Given: 509

Default

All AR's have pistons. Stoner's movement of the piston to the bolt carrier improved the balance of the rifle and his use of aluminum alloys lightened the receiver. Apart from that, the only real advances in rifle design have been in improved materials (higher grade steel and aluminum alloys), better process quality control (CNC milled components and heat treatment in particular), and improved accessory mounting technology for optics, lasers, and control/ergonomics accessories.

The roller lockers accomplished the same thing, but the design of the mechanism was such that the roller locking rifles and carbines have more recoil and sharper recoil impulses than Stoner's designs. The weight of the roller locking weapons was purely a byproduct of industrial design at the time, which favored steel over the then new aluminum alloys. Lighter receivers and trigger groups are entirely possible to produce and at least two firms, apart from HK, produced lighter weight components (receivers and trigger groups) for roller locking rifles and carbines. A redesign of the locking mechanism using improved geometry and lighter materials would be necessary to produce a rifle on par with a Stoner pattern design.

Not to get too off-topic here, but I'll explain what I mean.

The HK P9/P9S is an example of a roller locker design that improves upon weight and recoil characteristics over comparable designs. The .45 ACP P9 series weigh less than a steel frame 1911. The weight differential is very slight, but recoil characteristics are noticeably different. From having fired aluminum (slightly lighter than a P9S) and steel frame (slightly heavier than a P9S) commander model 1911's and a P9S side-by-side for comparison the P9S permits more rounds on target in a given period of time.

This relates back to the AR design because no other 556 rifle or carbine design that I've shot permitted more rounds on target in a given period of time. I've shot Colt, HK, FNH, and some other "wonder piston" AR's. You can hate them all you want, but the design is superior for putting rounds on target in a given period of time.

__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:25 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
juststartin5272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 196
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbd512 View Post
All AR's have pistons. Stoner's movement of the piston to the bolt carrier improved the balance of the rifle and his use of aluminum alloys lightened the receiver. Apart from that, the only real advances in rifle design have been in improved materials (higher grade steel and aluminum alloys), better process quality control (CNC milled components and heat treatment in particular), and improved accessory mounting technology for optics, lasers, and control/ergonomics accessories.

The roller lockers accomplished the same thing, but the design of the mechanism was such that the roller locking rifles and carbines have more recoil and sharper recoil impulses than Stoner's designs. The weight of the roller locking weapons was purely a byproduct of industrial design at the time, which favored steel over the then new aluminum alloys. Lighter receivers and trigger groups are entirely possible to produce and at least two firms, apart from HK, produced lighter weight components (receivers and trigger groups) for roller locking rifles and carbines. A redesign of the locking mechanism using improved geometry and lighter materials would be necessary to produce a rifle on par with a Stoner pattern design.

Not to get too off-topic here, but I'll explain what I mean.

The HK P9/P9S is an example of a roller locker design that improves upon weight and recoil characteristics over comparable designs. The .45 ACP P9 series weigh less than a steel frame 1911. The weight differential is very slight, but recoil characteristics are noticeably different. From having fired aluminum (slightly lighter than a P9S) and steel frame (slightly heavier than a P9S) commander model 1911's and a P9S side-by-side for comparison the P9S permits more rounds on target in a given period of time.

This relates back to the AR design because no other 556 rifle or carbine design that I've shot permitted more rounds on target in a given period of time. I've shot Colt, HK, FNH, and some other "wonder piston" AR's. You can hate them all you want, but the design is superior for putting rounds on target in a given period of time.
Stoners original design is a direct gas impingement system, not a piston system. Kalishnikov uses the long stroke piston system in the AK, and most Ar platforms using a piston system accomplish that with the short stroke design.
__________________
juststartin5272 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:30 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DTOM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 37
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip286
I have no REAL love for the AR, but there are some major benefits. For one thing, parts are oozing out of everyone's ass, so to speak. It truly is the Barbie doll for men, it can be accessorized, customized, and modified for any and every situation, circumstance, need, and user. It truly is a "do all", within it's chambering's capabilities. You can go from a PDW suitable for briefcase carry, to a mid range varmint rifle in about 2 seconds flat, either being suitable for a ten year old noob, a 30 year old combat veteran, or a geriatric on vacation from the nursing home.

This also means it can be fixed quick, cheap, and easy, but it's also a pretty durable gun these days. A lot of R&D has gone into them since they were introduced.

But... I haven't jumped on the bandwagon. When it comes to a "battle rifle", I've already decided the M1A is the one for me. Just gotta save up that dough. Here's the kicker: I've never fired one, and only held it once. But it's like the antique double barrel shotgun I just got, when you find something that fits just SO PERFECT, you know it's the one. It's a gun that's almost as customizable as the AR too, with a round I much prefer over the standard .223/5.56. I know the AR10 comes in the same chambering, but the M1A is a freaking glove. AR's have just only ever fit me "good enough", but never perfectly.
I agree with everything you said. Although I love the AR, my dream rifle is an M1A.
__________________
DTOM97 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 04:55 AM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,789
Liked 1190 Times on 661 Posts
Likes Given: 509

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by juststartin5272 View Post
Stoners original design is a direct gas impingement system, not a piston system. Kalishnikov uses the long stroke piston system in the AK, and most Ar platforms using a piston system accomplish that with the short stroke design.
Apparently the concept isn't clear, so I'll repeat my earlier comment. Every AR has a gas piston. The gas piston in Stoner's design is located in the bolt carrier.

Those gas rings you see at the base of the bolt are there to prevent gas from blowing by them. Don't take my word for it, go pull the bolt on your AR.

The so-called "piston" AR's have a gas piston located near the gas block. If you can show me an AR without a piston, I'd love to see it.

After reading my post, I see that the concept isn't crystal clear so I'll add this tidbit: the bolt on a Stoner pattern AR is the gas piston.
__________________
kbd512 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
I strongly dislike ..... rurak The Club House 2 04-08-2013 08:46 PM
Name a gun you dislike and why. Glock17owner General Handgun Discussion 260 09-12-2012 02:24 AM
Dislike for certain calibers? cottontop General Rifle Discussion 63 02-12-2012 01:04 PM
Music Groups: Who Do You DISLIKE?? Dillinger The Club House 50 09-20-2009 09:51 PM
I dislike being Nice all the time JiroZero713 The Club House 33 03-06-2009 04:19 PM