Equation
Lieutenant General
Either way it requires more maintenance and care than say the AK types.
PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
The author of blog is also using a Bushmaster and extrapolated his Vietnam experience into this subpar AR. Should be enough said right there. As I said, the M-16's initial failings are well-documented, as are its later fixes. If you want to compare the AR-15 or M-16 to the AK-47 series in terms of being able to shoot with sand, grit, mud, or water in the chamber, it won't compare favorably. If you want to talk about accuracy achieved by tighter tolerances, the AK-47 most definitely doesn't compare favorably. That said, they are both rifles of their times. Newer more modern rifles like the HK416 and SCAR-16/17 blow both of these rifles out of the water in terms of reliability, with similar or better accuracy.
Equation
Lieutenant General
How many times are they going to redesign an inferior model of the M-16 base? If they have to go this much "improvement" than it is not really a reliable design.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Exactly! Civilians will never get the most out of their military converted rifles because those rifles will be well looked after and regularly maintain, yet never be subjected to the kind of stress and abuse they were designed to take.
Even the INSAS would no doubt function fine when so pampered and fired so infrequently.
The Type95 was designed to be as robust and reliable as an AK, yet as accurate as the M16 and be cheap to mass produce.
Yes it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of top of the range western guns, but then I seriously doubt many, if any, western frontline service rifle could take being run over by a truck, marinated in mud (as opposed to a quick dip) buried in sand etc and still be able to fire with a quick shake.
Unless western youtubes are prepared to put their precious rifles to that kind of extreme abuse to show the comparative results, you won't see where the overwhelming majority of the design focus on the Type95 went.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Except in actual demonstration with mud and sand and grit the AK doesn't survive as well as advertized an AR15's work fine because they prevent such from entering the chamber.
The Videos I point to used thick mud on AR's and AK it was not a little drop but a heaping thick mass. To Drive a rifle over with a Truck and any rifle will be damaged AK, AR, Type 95 you name it. Where the AK reliability comes in is mostly due to the ability to maintain said weapons with limited industry base. IE repair of rifles with limited parts, Lubrication with WD40 or Motor oil and the like. and the Reliability of the weapons magazines.
Additionally there is an advantage in The AK Banana Magazine which was used as a design basis for the QBZ95 has a continuous curved shape that allows rounds a smooth feed. Original AK type magazines were also steel and then thick bakelite.
the USGI standard magazine lacked this and was Dog legged in design this came from the magazine wells of the early AR15 being designed for a straight 20 round box design. when the designers added 10 more rounds they had to now consider the inherent curve of the ammunition from point to base. this resulted in a curve that then straightens which is not advantageous for smooth feeding. further issues arose from the material thin Aluminum as they magazines were proposed as disposable. and weak springs. Over the years for the AR and NATO as a Whole one of the biggest changes is the magazine's first moving to steel or changes in springs and now to polymers and slightly more curve. The magazine is the Achilles heal of any automatic weapon. the One advantage of the AR mag is it's quick release compared to the AK style.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Of all the M-16 variants, only the A1 and A2 versions address reliability concerns
I would like to see a video of a QBZ-95 being subjected to this degree of abuse and still fire.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Not Quite.
Pre A1 a number of changes were made that were standardized in the A1 spec. These were to address reliability issues in Vietnam.
And The key reason of those early issues were related more to changes in specification of Ammunition. The Original Specifications were for IMR powder the Ordnance Corps instead chose Ball powder. Like Fueling a Gasoline Engine with Jet fuel It's going to cause issues. Ball powder burns faster which created a increased mechanical rate of fire by over 200 rounds per minute. A weapon designed to cycle at 800 repetitions per minute was suddenly working at over 1000.
The ball powder also introduced fouling into the chamber from changes in burn and was not as easily cleaned with finally high humidity causing corrosion on the gas tube and Receivers from inferior materials.
The A1 addressed the reliability issues by Chrome plating the chamber and barrel increasing barrel life easing cleaning and Changing of the Gas tube to Stainless steel. Changing buffer springs to reduce wear by rate of fire. The receivers were changed from lower grade Aluminum to Aircraft grate 7075, adoption of captive pins and installation of a rub around the magazine release to prevent accidental unloading.
Between A1 and A2 the 30 round magazine was introduced.
CAR 15 with shortened barrel telescopic stock and round handguard introduced. testing showed issues with the 10.5 inch barrels so a 4 inch muzzle device was added creating a 14.5 inch length
This was followed by the Limited introduction of the M16A1 Carbine at a 16 inch barrel.
The A2 changed the rifling for NATO spec ammo, new sights and gas block ( front sight post), Stock with cleaning kit carrier, new handguards and introduced the 3 round burst and standardized bolt assist on a redesigned upper and lower. A2 also introduced the A2 Barrel profile tapers where the barrel narrows for mounting of a M203 then widens again and narrows for the gas block then widens
A3 was an A2 with a 4 place selector safe, semi 3 round and full auto.
The M4 Carbine was developed after the M16A2 as a Carbine derivative, using lessons learned from the CAR15 it had a 14.5 inch barrel. as it was developed US SOCOM came in and asked for a Full Auto option and M1913 Rails These were new an supposed to be just for Socom use. M4 would suffer from the A2 barrel profile A2 buffer and shortened gas tube. M4 introduced new feed ramps, an improved telescopic stock.
A4 swapped the upper receiver for a M4 style with M1913 rails and changed the gas block to raise the front sight to match.
The M4A1 was developed due to issues of the barrel and high heat high stress from pressure being placed on the barrels the A2 barrel profile caused issues because if narrowed after the Trunnion IE the point of highest Heat and pressure then widened. M4A1 addressed this by changing buffers, moving to a heavier barrel and beginning to free float the handguard.
And there are still improvements being offered.
All of which shows us that these are mechanical systems that are adapted and changed to meet their current users wants and needs.
Reliability of a Machine ( make no mistake Rifles are Mechanical devices.) depends primarily on consistent specifications and Quality. AK's have Jammed. The INSAS is often disdained yet it is an AK design why does it fail? because the Indian producer was not able to maintain a high consistency in Quality control and Quality control is meeting Specifications.
You cannot expect a machine assembled with poor quality components to perform to high quality specifications. If you run ammunition that doesn't meet specifications though a AR it will fail. if you allow foreign Debris in the operation of a AK it will jam, If you construct a rifle out of poor quality materials it will fall apart.
You forgot the thicker barrel was introduced to resist bending and overheating, the forward assist was introduced to help the bolt into battery if there was debris in the chamber or in case of quiet round chambering, the flash suppressor was closed off on the bottom to prevent debris kicking up into the barrel or the sight picture, and a stronger buttstock was engineered to resist cracking if dropped on the ground or onto the skull of an enemy combatant. All these are definitively reliability enhancements over the original M16 as well as the A1 iteration.
MwRYum
Major
Does those Youtube vid that see AR and AK go through meltdown torture test count?
I'm sure Youtube got more of such stuff...
As for the AR jamming...I wonder if that has to do with ammo itself, that the cheaper types leave more carbon residue than the more expensive ones. For during my conscription days in Singapore Armed Force, that's something I got used to, though I clean my M16S1 (and later, M16 Vietnam era - yeah, got the Colt logo and stuff, that thing is even older than me) diligently and went deeper than field strip to clean the bolt assembly.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I was referring to this upper and lower receiver. ALL M-16 types whether it's older model or new have this same mechanisms. THIS alone where many soldiers and gun owners have to spend hours on cleaning and drying it as well. One have to lubricate it with CLP prior to use and than CLP it again to clean. That is a lot of work to keeping in good condition.
