AR-15 Torture Tests
Patrick Sweeney beats a whole bunch of them up and they keep working: I hadn’t been able to make any of them malfunction, not once.
That’s weird because I read on the internet that if you get a spec of dust in the chamber, the AR-15 will catch fire and never, ever work again. Unlike those AKs.
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Ok, I’ll bite 😉 ARs are definitely more reliable than their rep, just like AKs have plenty of effective accuracy for the job.
But since you slander the AK with that one instance, you do realize in Mike’s article just before he talks about his AK malfunction he talks about the other ARs that were failing, right? 😀
“The AR-15s began to experience worse malfunctions. With bolts sticking just out of battery, shooters had to choose between mashing the forward assist and doing a tap-rack-bang drill to get their guns back in action. Opening stuck actions sometimes required mortaring the rifle, whacking the stock on the ground while pulling the charging handle as hard as possible. A buttstock castle nut came loose, and that AR nearly lost a spring and detent as a result.”
Mike mostly chalks up that AK failure due to mud in the magazines and on his hands while loading them dirty up the chamber.
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:42 pm
As a soldier, I carried the M-16A-1. Actually, 13 different ones over 4 years.
1 was 100% reliable.
6 couldn’t get though a 30 round mag without a malfunction.
The remaining six couldn’t make it past 50-100 rounds. And these were cleaned, properly lubed rifles, with issue mags in good condition. All Colt builds, some Anniston re-built.
For most, depot level maintenance got them working for only a short time.
So, IMO, normal wear and hard use have a severe impact on the AR’s reliability profile. Particularly the use of blanks and harsh cleaning practices common in the military.
It’s a fine civilian rifle. It’s still inferior as a issue weapon.
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:44 pm
The only AK I currently own (An Arsenal AK74 built from a Saiga) has a very very far off rear site. It’s visibly not in line with the rest of the rifle. At 200 yards it’s off several feet left and a few feet high. I need to drift the front sight all the way over and down, but that’s going to give me one ugly sight picture.
Makes me a sad AK owner, let me tell ya.
May 22nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
We use a group of 20 M4s and M16 to test our contract magazines for the Govt. 3 drops of oil initially and two drops after every one is pulled out of the test fixture after firing 6 or 7 magazines. They cool, get the two drops and then get another 6 or 7 mags run through them. No preventive maintenance except cleaning after a day’s worth of running, roughly 2000 rounds. Horrible abuse and they ran pretty darn well. Too much oil on the bolt and carrier ends up finding its way into the mags and from there to the chamber where it turns to carbon and jams things up.
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I’m smiling at the memory of watching an old Clark E. Hodges video on the M-16. Mixed throughout are a few minutes of commentary from a Marine, Sgt. Gooch.
Gooch seems like a straight-up guy, but his comparison of the AK vs. the M-16 is not especially articulate, and is almost laughable. Although he makes valid points about the inherent accuracy and good ergonomics of Stoner’s design, he closes out the argument by giving the M-16 a LOT of extra points simply for the spring loaded dust cover over the ejection port.