AR10 or M1A Reliability
- Thread starter PapaPiece
- Start date
Bear007
Custom
NICE!
I'm jealous!High round count AR/M4's (over 100,000 rounds) and how they have handled on our range - AR15.COM
Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.www.ar15.com
This range is local to me, and I often bring visiting friends here as it's a great tourist experience.
That's one of the places that I really want to visit if I ever head out that way again - I've been to Vegas with the family when I was a kid, but haven't had the chance to revisit as an adult. That and the tank driving - being that I don't gamble, I'd be going for all the other forms of entertainment there....and I hope the buffets are back, too.
I agree with all of these points - but to say that a properly spec'ed AR-15 requires lubrication every 200 rounds - and that higher end ARs are less tolerant of harsher running conditions and more sensitive to ammo are both bordering on exaggeration, particularly as based on both the referenced ARFCOM thread (which indeed is legendary, and is indeed often referenced particularly for those of us who have a "training/range beater" in the stable; that's a thread that I've cited in the past, too
- https://www.xdtalk.com/threads/lets-talk-bcgs-general-discussion.448803/#post-7835307), as well as the empirical data that virtually every competitive shooter and student who has attended high-round-count training classes can provide. Similarly, while I agree that parts breakage is consistent -and therefore service life of said components must be paid mind (and dollars!
)- and lubrication required, these constraints are not exclusive to the AR-15 platform. Firearms are machines, and machines wear from use, and those wear components in-particular often require copious quality lubrication, refreshed at appropriate intervals. We see this with our automobiles (whether ICE or the newer electrics) as much as we see it with any other gun, be it the Glock or the 1911. To many, that we know about the service life of critical components and the maintenance requirements of a weapon system is much better than having a mystery: 9x19 Glocks and Mil-Spec AR15s both enjoy very well-known service intervals, with Armorer's Manuals from the manufacturer and also very highly-regarded gunsmiths (such as Dave Laubert of Defensive Creations, Chad Albrecht of SOTAR, etc.) having taught hundreds of civilian students. Knowing is not a bad thing - indeed, the lack of known service intervals was what almost turned me away from the XDm a few years ago, as I started to accrue more and more mileage and wear.Definitely, much of this is affected by just how hard the weapon is used. Extended firing of the weapon at-cyclic - or, alternatively, neglect - will definitely impact the service life of every component. Nevertheless, this is again universal.
And certainly, there are those out there who make refinements that should extend parts life - but as you noted, the specs are the specs for a reason. While some of these companies (H&K, Knight's, Surefire, and LMT come to mind immediately) have impressive pedigree and their parts/guns have proven themselves in other contexts, there remains a reason why some of these these "improvements" have not been adopted for the unique rigors of military use. That said, to suggest that "higher-end" somehow implies less overall durability and/or reliability really isn't an accurate portrayal. If the gun/components are within spec (and there is not an unique tolerance-stacking issue), it should run, regardless of the price-tag that's hung on the barrel. "Tighter tolerances" does not equate with abridging specifications. Similarly, "looser tolerances" -if they fall outside specs- will also translate to problems and is no guaranty that the gun will be more tolerant of...well...anything
: what's not spec is simply that, not within specifications, and that is where the problem usually both begins and ends. Again, I respectfully disagree - my experience has been that a properly gassed AR-15, provided that nothing else is problematic (i.e. chamber dimensions), it should run steel-case. Invariably, when I see AR-15s that fail to reliably run steel case, it's because there are more problems than just gas-related.
While any or all of these issues may affect AR-10s differently, I have to point out yet again that I embarrassingly do not have the experience or knowledge to go there
- my dissent here is purely with how the reliability and durability of the AR-15 is characterized. The AR-15, built within specs and given the proper care as with any other firearm, is as durable and reliable platform as any other.
TEXASforLIFE
Ronin
The "high end" reference makes me laugh! High end equates too high price as a lower cost item isn't as good? I've never paid over 1,600 bucks for a complete AR in any platform. I also haven't shot any due too no one near me has a $3,000+ AR. I am no way stating that they are any less better or worse than any I own. Still the reference is ( too me a joke in itself) laughable. However I built over 50 of my own in various cartridges and calibers in both AR 10 and 15 that have cost with optics close too and over 3k. Getting some of the AR10s gassed correctly has proven a pain in the butt. The worst barrel in cycling/overgassed issues is Proof Research with their +2 gas. The AR15s are no problem. I'm also not laughing at anyone's buying decisions as for it is theirs alone! My problem (not actually a problem) is I like building and I get exactly what I want without customizing/upgrading with extra cost. That doesn't enclude lights/lasers/optics.
^ To me, price doesn't necessarily translate directly to quality: it has various implications, but that doesn't necessarily suggest that there won't be unique-gun issues. Similarly, it's getting harder and harder to differentiate quality by pricing alone - look at Sionics and SOLGW, which both have sub-$1K guns that will consistently pass armorer scrutiny.
I don't want to put words in @bigx5murf 's mouth (er....type on his keyboard?
It's definitely true, someone who knows what they're doing can certainly put together a great AR-15 while on a shoestring budget: but the likelihood that someone who has less understanding of the system and/or less experience will see sub-par results may increase, versus the purchase of parts that may cost a little more, where that additional cost went towards QA/QC.
Now, THAT said, there is also a difference between the binary answer to the equation of "does that gun run?" versus exactly how close to the edge that gun might be running. Towards, this, really, even a gun just tottering on that edge will in most cases still run quite well!
Last edited:
TEXASforLIFE
Ronin
I will also state that some of the lower cost came at a sale price. I'm not trying too hide any info! I also (some times) get a lower cost that could be lower quality parts (upper/lower receivers, buffer tube, mag catch/release, bolt catch/release, safeties, castle nuts, end plates, pistol grips, buffer springs, buffers, muzzle devices, chargehandles, and handguards), but not on BCGs, triggers or barrels. 1 thing I do by this learning first hand (not by reviews or price) what works/functions/operates well and not going by name alone. Different coatings on triggers, BCGs, buffers and most any that have too do with cycling.