SHTF: 5.56 or bust?
- Thread starter Shemp
- Start date
Can't speak to the current iteration of the AR used in the desert, but I remember cussing an A1 when the sands of Ft.Sill made it a pseudo bolt action. Although it was more reliable, the A2 was still maintenance intensive, something a real AK (can't speak for the imports) isn't. As for the value of the round, ask the guys who did time caked in crud what they think of the 5.56. If you read up on the AK, you will find that it was designed with looser tolerances, sort of like the original 1911, to increase reliability.
My 2 cents: As a survivor, please consider holding those long range shots while in survival mode. Better to move off than bring down (as they say) A Whole World of ... on yourself. There are better ways of impacting the enemy without making yourself a target.
No disrespect intended here, but those old myths really don't apply. All a decent AR needs in order to run thousands of rounds without cleaning is a reasonable amount of lubricant.
And the debate continues...I'm saving up for a SCAR, or an M1A, I haven't decided yet.
Well...technically it isn't a myth. Modern guns are built better and more importantly we learned how to run them because of the very real problems the M16 had in its early days.
20,000 rounds, no cleaning. I'm not sure what else there is to say. The AK is certainly a workhorse and reliable. But the longstanding myth that it is more reliable than the AR is unfounded. Old military protocols for cleaning and maintenance have more or less been proven to be dead wrong. Keep an AR wet and happy and they'll just keep chugging along.
http://ballisticradio.com/endurance-tests/kac-sr-15-mod-2/
http://ballisticradio.com/endurance-tests/kac-sr-15-mod-2/
Cool...a $2300 AR 15 shot 20k rounds...while impressive, it's also a bit silly. If a $900 Colt does the same I'd be impressed. For $2300 one could buy a WASR And 7400 rounds and never shoot it out....
ARs are far more reliable when kept wet than given credit for, no doubt there. Start banging it around and dragging it through the Styx and I'd have more confidence in a $550 WASR AK than a $550 AR...
Maybe myth is too harsh. Didn't mean to sound that way. But modern thinking has shown that all they need is lubrication. (assuming that the gun is of decent quality) This was really borne out of the last 20 years of fighting in the desert. I guess all I'm saying is that choosing an AK based on the "reliability" aspect alone is a poor reason to discount the AR.
I'd be surprised if a Colt wouldn't do the same. Heck, the Bushmasters used in the Lucky gunner 10k round tests fared pretty darn well.
My beloved Bushmaster will hold moa with Federal Fusion hunting ammo and a 3x scope, many a bolt gun and Garand will not do that !
Maybe...but whether that -06 round hits the left pectoral or right pectoral it ain't getting back up...
That made me smile. And I needed it, because this morning has been a shit show.
Good lubricant does make a difference. A lot of guys still use clp or rem oil. Those tend to burn off quickly or evaporate over time though. Newer stuff like MPro7, Slip 2000 ELW, Fireclean, weaponshield, etc does actually help from a reliability standpoint.
Thought about this over the weekend. The sr15 endurance test is highly impressive, but it may not be a fair comparison. Most AR's would have likely had a bolt failure with that round count and firing schedule. The SR15 uses a slightly modified bolt that's warrantied to 20k rounds minimum. Most E3 bolts run 40k or more before breaking. Keep in mind that a standard AR bolt is lucky to survive 10-15k rounds, sometimes much less. Without getting into the intricacies of the SR15 design, I'll just say that it's not your standard AR. It's more like an evolution of the design.
So, taking that into account, I thought about other recent examples of endurance and torture testing that used a standard ar15. The two that immediately come to mind are the BCM carbine known as "Filthy 14" used by EAG Tactical in their training courses. The second recent example were the guns used in the Lucky Gunner test. In those cases, with good ammunition, the guns have run extremely well and go a long way toward disproving the AR's are unreliable myth. Also in those examples, a key component of the reliability was proper lubrication.
Well I'm glad that you aren't blinded by AR devotion to realize the SR15 test was a bit of a misnomer.
I do fully realize that ARs aren't as fragile as many belive. The lucky gunner test did prove that they do need better quality ammo to run reliably as tula completely choked two guns of memory serves.
It should also be noted that the filthy 14 was cleaned twice before it got a detail clean. ...and that the extractor and spring needed to be replaced multiple times.
Yeah, I'm an admitted Knights Armament fan. But not blindly so. There are several things that they do that I don't like. But if they sold E3 barrels and bolts, I wouldn't use anything else.
And you're right about the Tula ammo. But it was an ammunition test after all. The gun running brass cased 223, ran like a top. The tula ammo was definitely a problem. If I recall, it plugged a gas tube.
Filthy 14 did have some minor maintenance performed. But there are a few things to consider. 1) those guns are used to train mostly LE, so some preventative maintenance is normal. Just like most departments and the military regularly swap buffer springs, bolts, barrels, extractors, etc all according to a predetermined pm schedule. 2) the gun performed extremely well under an abusive firing schedule and was pretty much neglected in terms cleaning regimen. They were trying to make it fail. Bottom line, we all clean our guns before they get that nasty and a reasonable amount of maintenance is all it really takes to keep one up and running.
Just to be clear for everyone, I'm not trying to make an argument that an AR is superior to an AK. Just trying to illustrate that some commonly held beliefs may be misplaced. Either one would serve you well if you really needed it.
For me, the ability to easily add an optic, light, etc is a big factor. Also, the lighter weight and better accuracy at distance, along with the ability to run the gun faster at close range, steer me to the AR. It's just personal preference.
