It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AR-15

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I know there are a lotta peopel that like the AR and many others that hate them. But why do some people say the AR is the worst assault rifle on the market? I have a Bushmaster AR and have never had a singel problem, it's fun to shoot and very accurat.




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I agree Full_Auto77. I have a Bushmaster AR-15 (.223), too, and I have never had a single issue with it. The AR is very accurate, and operates smoothly. Here's what I've got

The only idea I would have as to why many people don't like it, would be a comparison to the AK-47. The AK is so loosly made, that it won't jamb even if it was packed full of sand. The AR, to the contrary, is made with tight clearances.

To each their own. I'm happy with my AR, however, I'm very interested in getting an AK-47 as to save a little bit on ammo. The 7.62 x 39mm is a cheaper round hands down.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I have recently obtained a AR 15 for a good price from someone needing some moneys quickly. To date I have only put less than 60 rounds through it.

Most of my recent range time with rifles has been with my SKS rifles. These seem to be fine rifles for the design and moneys spent on them. I just purchased replacement synthetic stocks for these two rifles to replace the standard wood stocks.

I have not really shot this AR 15 enough to get all that familiar with it though I have used the M16 version when I was in uniform.

I much rather use my 1903 Springfield or my M1 Garand for real hard hitting power.

Next comes these two SKS rifles. In .223 caliber I am actually more fond of my bolt action Savage with the accutrigger. Talk about a shooting rifle. Wow!! It will put them where I want them.

Next time I am able I intend to take both SKS rifles and the AR15 to the range and put some time on them. I need to check out the difference in the synthetic stocks vs. the wood on the SKS and of course work on getting back in the groove with the AR 15.

Orangetom



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I suppose the only difference between the AR-15 and M-16/M-4 is that the AR is semi auto and the M's are full auto/burst, right?


How about Mags? The Bushmaster mags work good and so do the H&K mags. Are there any other good brands that are at a good price?



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
i have the colt version of the ar15, and have never had a problem with jamming or accuracy. i think the main issue some people have is the size of the round....it just doesnt have the same stopping power as weapons with larger calibers. i remember reading one story of a soldier during the initial invasion of iraq who won the bronze star because of a close quarter action in which the .223 rounds didnt stop the enemy even though he had hit them at close range mulitiple times, and he ended up having to put them down hand to hand. there has even been some experimentation with the m16 in the military in trying different barrels with larger caliber bullets. guess we'll see what the future holds. still though, my experience has been that it's a most pleasant weapon and a joy to shoot.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I love AR-15s. They are not really made to be "assaultive" although they are used by the Army.. They are certainly not made for hunting and such either.

If it's distance you are looking for,it is hard to find a semi-automatic with a greater range. I like it because it is fairly smooth shooting and the recoil is minimal.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I hate AR-15's because they are so prohibitively priced.

But I can respect the design and it's very complex operation.

Not a rifle i'd like to maintain however.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
They are certainly not made for hunting and such either.


Hi,

Though the rest of what you said is true, I disagree with your idea that the 5.56 x 45mm, or .223 is not a game-getter. It is, in fact, a fine, tho under-rated, calibre for White-tail and Mule Deer, and Antelope. I wouldn't go any heavier with it, tho.
My Deer load for the .223 is topped out with a 64gr controlled expansion Horneday bullet, and a single round to the vitals will pass through 4/5ths of a deer at ranges out to 250 yards, dropping them in their tracks. I haven't had to chase one up, yet!
Recovered bullets have always been intact and expanded to just under the size of a dime. These loads are available from Winchester.

On the AR-15/M-16(E2), I am the first person in the US Military Service to qualify Expert with this weapon, and was in the first unit of the Military to train with it. We had the only M-16s in Vietnam when we shipped. We were also the ones that had the initial problems with the weapon, which was traced to the fact that the ammunition we had was improperly loaded; causing an incomplete burn which left powder grains in the chamber neck causing the following round to crimp and fail to eject. The manufacturer had used the same Ball Powder used in the 7.62, rather than the specified perf flake powder, which burns much faster and cleaner. The only other problem we had was mechanical and had to do with the ROF at full auto.
That was somewhere around 1100 rpm as issued, which is rediculously fast and blows the accuracy due to bbl overheating. We solved this by installing stiffer buffers which cut the ROF to about 850, and that helped a great deal.

On the .223, you are dealing with an very hi-velocity round. Out of the M-16, you are looking at 3800 fps at the muzzle. The trajectory of the standard military load,
(55 gr FPBT), is tick-flat out to 300m and presents a drop of only 2" at 600m. The greatest knockdown power comes from hydrostatic shock. @ 300m the round will totally dry and pulp an area within a diameter of 8" around the entry point in flesh.
I know from experience that a shot in the foot to a Human Being will completely shatter every bone all the way to the hip. IOW, a person hit with a .223 is going to go down--period--and the likelyhood is that he will not get back up.

On a new AR, you are going to have to put between 200 and 250 rounds through the bbl before the rifle will "settle in". This is because the rifle bbl is chromium steel rather than 4140 AS. Due to the hi-velocity, chromium steel has to be used to increase bbl life to something realistic, and it takes awhile to smooth out the milling marks and burrs in the grooves. After that, the rifle becomes very dependabley accurate, and fully capable of holding 5-round groups under the size of a quarter @ 300m consistently--and that with iron sights.

The first M-16s were a problem also due to the Ordinace depertment's idea that the action needed to be made to tighter tolerances. This led to other jamming problems (extraction and injection) until the rifle was literally "shot loose". Before that great day, we had to keep the weapon inordinately clean, a hard thig to do in the climate of Vietnam in I Corps when you are walking in ankle-deep Laterite all the time. Laterite is very finely divided clay dust, which gets into everything and onto everythin it can't get into--which is not much. This is especially true of mechanical things. For my own sake, I kept a condom over the muzzle attached with a rubber band, and wrapped the receiver with a single sheet of Sarran-wrap. The gun will discharge with either or both of these items in place.

If any of you ever wanted to know another use for a Condom--now you know.


For what it's worth, my scores on the Mod. "B" range were 248/250p the first time, and 250/250 the next time --2 years later. Yes, I got tagged for the Rifle Team. My current arm of choice is a BWK-92; an AK-47 clone in .223, and it is every bit as hard a shooter and as accurate an arm as an AR-15.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Amazing how the ar-15 is still in use by the military. just wow.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I never had an AR but I finely decided on the one to start with. Maybe next week my Rock River lower will come in and the painful decision of the upper will start.


Then start saving pennies for a AR-10.


Roper



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Little Fox, the reason that I said an AR-15 or .223 if you prefer is not a hunting rifle is because of its fast bullet. If you are hunting in a lot of brush, the bullet from an AR-15 tends to deflect due to the bullets velocity.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox

For what it's worth, my scores on the Mod. "B" range were 248/250p the first time, and 250/250 the next time --2 years later. Yes, I got tagged for the Rifle Team. My current arm of choice is a BWK-92; an AK-47 clone in .223, and it is every bit as hard a shooter and as accurate an arm as an AR-15.


sounds like you know what youre talking about.


so one quick question for you....what do you think of the .223's stopping power in the field as compared to other high caliber weapons in use by our opponents?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
In Kansas where I'm from, not sure of laws elsewhere (haven't checked)... the .243 is the smallest rifle round legally used.

AR-15's can be purchased as a .308, though, making it fully legal to shoot deer.


AR-10! nice!



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
How about mags? What are the best to use?


I guess as long as you keep the barrel and chamber clean, you wont have a problem with the AR(I guess it also helps if you have a high quailty one to.)


So anyone know of good mags to use or ones to stay away from?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
WHOA!--

Lot of questions! So, in order---:



Little Fox, the reason that I said an AR-15 or .223 if you prefer is not a hunting rifle is because of its fast bullet. If you are hunting in a lot of brush, the bullet from an AR-15 tends to deflect due to the bullets velocity.


Speaker--you are correct on that. This is why I use the 64gr loads for hunting deer. The difference in just 9gr of bullet weight makes a big difference in the ability of a .223 to fire accurately through brush. There are 2 factors at play which lend to this; a drop in velocity, and an increase in energy. In this case, the drop in velocity is to about 3400fps, and it is enough.




so one quick question for you....what do you think of the .223's stopping power in the field as compared to other high caliber weapons in use by our opponents?


Snafu--

Good question! Unfortunately, but in truth, I have to say that the 7.62 x 39 and
7.62 x 54 is superior and the Kalasnikov designs are far superior military weapons. At the time our military adopted the Armalite design and calibre, the big brass was having a love affair with HV weapons technology, the devestation of hydrostatic shock capability, and the idea of equipping our troops with a true and lightweight assault rifle. The AKs have NONE of the functionality drawbacks of the M-16, and many advantages over it. One thing about accuracy--they are equal. In the Real World of a fire fight, trust me, you don't take that many shots off the shoulder and it all boils down to the Golden BB scenario.




How about mags? What are the best to use?


Full_Auto--

The best you can afford, (Colt, Armalite, US Mil Surplus, and Police supply brands)--and always the one's with steel followers and stout springs. For the purposes of combat and handling in combat, 20s are better than 30s, the length of a 30 being very cumbersome when you are laying prone. If you keep your mags loaded at all times, (I do), then stuff only 15 rounds into a 20, and 25 into a 30. The reason is that keeping them completely full for an extended period will weaken the springs enough to give you failures to feed on the last 5 rounds. Underloading by 5 rounds keeps this from happening. The same is true for AKs, and any other mag-fed rifle or pistol. If this problem does occur, pull the mag apart and stretch the spring a little, and it will solve the FTFs, but, you don't want that to happen when the Sheiite hits the fan--so, keep the mags down x 5. If you know what you are doing, 30 rounds (2 mags) will provide you with all the time needed to reload fully,


Now, I expect most of you to be wondering, at this point, why I have an AK in .223 instead of 7.62 x 39, when I know the later is a superior calibre. The answer is that 5.56 is NATO, and 7.62 x 39 isn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. It is a matter of Realestate--location, location, and location. Get my drift?

Lastly, yes, before using a .223 for hunting other than Varmits, check with your State and Local Wildlife people, as .223 is not legal in some states for big game. It is here, and that is a plus for me.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox

Now, I expect most of you to be wondering, at this point, why I have an AK in .223 instead of 7.62 x 39, when I know the later is a superior calibre. The answer is that 5.56 is NATO, and 7.62 x 39 isn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. It is a matter of Realestate--location, location, and location. Get my drift?


yup, that's the main reason i elected to go with the colt ar15 instead of the ak.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
From my experiences they are great rifles. As someone said they have tighter tolerances than say an AK47 and are more sensitive to dirt, dust etc.. but it's nothing a regular cleaning can't prevent.

if you want more stopping power look into getting a 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC or .50 Beowulf upper reciever



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I don't have an AR, but do have an AK-74 (5.45x39mm).

From what I've read and heard, I would echo the same "complaint" about the AR:

price
tight tolerances
comparative complexity of design

Fine weapon, though, from everyone I hear that has one, no one "complains" enough to get rid of it.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Infoholic & others..

For someone who doesnt have a whole lot to spend and is really fond of the ak-47 for the look and make of the weapon, but is new to shooting guns and is fairly lightweight himself so doesnt want too much recoil, would an AK-47 made to fire .223 NATO rounds (very common, these run for $350-750 in price depending on quality) be a decent choice? Or should I go wih the 7.62x larger ammo like the original AK's use if im going to go for an AK?

Would getting a .223 AK be gimping it for me or just giving me less recoil?

I like the ones that have the black grip and black removable back piece that goes to your shoulder .. pretty sweet.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
One of the hallmarks of the .223 is its accuracy and flat trajectory. If you got a .223 in an AK-type weapon, you won't get the best out of the round as you would in an AR-type weapon. I know AR's are more pricey. A cheaper alternative (more accurate than the AKs, but not as much as the ARs) would be the Ruger Mini-14.

The recoil is not that great in either the .223 or 7.62x39, even less so with the action taking some of the recoil to cycle the next round.

My opinion: if you want a .223, get an AR-type, or a Mini-14; if you want the Soviet round, get the AK-type.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join