AR-15 Torture Test
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 10 months ago
We’ve covered the AR-15 and its adherents and detractors in The Reliability Of The Eugene Stoner Design and Blaming The Gun For The Battle Losses concerning the battle of Wanat. In the test shown below, this AR-15 endures a test of greater than 800 rounds in a short duration of time.
On January 16, 2015 at 6:37 am, AZOlddog said:
I don’t know about you but, I can’t carry 800+ rounds on and about my Bod!
On January 18, 2015 at 7:47 am, Flight Er Doc said:
Better get into shape, then. I can carry 10 30-round AR mags plus 1 in the weapon, and bandoleers for 2 full reloads in my pack. BTW, I’m 60 years old and a physician, so I lead a fairly sedentary life.
On January 18, 2015 at 7:51 am, AZOlddog said:
Good for you then. I am 65 with a pair of bad knees and around 500 rounds plus my other gear is about all I can handle before the wheels start to creak!
On January 18, 2015 at 8:11 am, Flight Er Doc said:
As I said….you can fix that.
On January 16, 2015 at 9:51 am, Mitch Rapp said:
So…if you were laying down suppression fire in semi-auto mode, you probably couldn’t blow out this gun. I think the nay sayers are still using 1963 data when claiming this rifle can’t take the abuse of 800 rounds of full auto fire.
On January 18, 2015 at 6:13 pm, Veritas said:
Apparently the troops in Wanat fired about this amount when their rifles misfunctioned due to the heat caused by auto fire. The question remains how reliable the rifle is. Why is it that our special forces unit prefer other arms rather than this weapon?
On January 18, 2015 at 8:34 pm, Herschel Smith said:
No. They complained about malfunctions at around 400 rounds. And the weapons SO uses are simply other versions of this weapon, usually from H&K. Some shoot RRA. But the shooting at Wanat occurred over a much longer time frame than here in this video. These Soldiers were shooting Colts (which I believe aren’t nearly the quality of say, Knights Armament, RRA, LaRue Tactical, etc.
On January 16, 2015 at 9:55 am, Mitch Rapp said:
In the mean time, I have a special recipe for hand loads that should push the envelope even further out. A medium velocity powder load topped with “Puflon” dry lubricant/filler compound under bullets coated with boron nitride instead of moly and dry lube for the BCG.
On January 16, 2015 at 1:09 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
I’m glad you have that recipe, Mitch – working on one myself.
On January 16, 2015 at 10:07 am, no_tubes said:
He’s havin’ way too much fun! We need to get NFA ’34 repealed.
On January 16, 2015 at 11:15 am, Western Gunowner said:
I have no problem with the AR platform, after all I own 4 of them.
But, if the SHTF I’m picking up the M1A.
The 5.56 doesn’t get it done.
The military “designated marksman” program to give every unit a .308 M14 settles the argument.
It isn’t the “platform” that is important, it is what you put downrange with it.
On January 16, 2015 at 12:51 pm, z--man said:
Absolutely.
On January 19, 2015 at 1:41 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
As a USMC DM, I was only ever issued the SR 25 with both Mk 262, and M855 ammunition. The supposed lack of lethality of the 5.56 round is the same 50 year old arguments by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I have actually used 5.56 on human beings and dropped plenty of them with a single hit, not to mention 180 lbs. white tail deer. The only real advantage that 7.62×51 has over 5.56 is longer range. Out west in open terrain, that may be the reason to use 7.62, but lethality… you just don’t know what your talking about.
On January 19, 2015 at 2:32 pm, Oregon Hobo said:
You were issued a 7.62x51mm NATO rifle with 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition? Did you use the SR25 to beat your logistics guy over the head?
#OREGON HOBO#
On January 20, 2015 at 4:10 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
Touche’ *SR 15. seems my AR 10 preoccupied subconscious is showing.
On January 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm, Western Gunowner said:
You can get killed with a .22 if it hits you right.
But I didn’t say the 5.56 (of course that is essentially a .22) wasn’t lethal.
I said the 5.56 “doesn’t get it done”.
You admit the 5.56 doesn’t have the range.
In reality actually, it has the range but doesn’t have the power when it gets there.
Again, the military had to come up with a response to the Taliban and other “insurgents” using .30 caliber bolt-action weapons at too great a distance to be countered by just the 5.56.
Ergo, the designated marksman program.
Using, a .308. They scrambled to find M14’s to issue.
So as a DM you were issued a lesser capable weapon than the .308 M14.
A weapon not able to actually perform the mission stated because “it doesn’t have the range”.
Thank you for admitting that the 5.56 “doesn’t get it done”.
On January 20, 2015 at 4:51 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
There are many other considerations besides range. I admit only that the 7.62 and it’s superior range make would it a better choice if you are able to dictate the range of every gunfight you encounter.
If you are always able to dictate the range at the outset of any engagement, be it one initiated by you, by your enemy, or a so called “meeting” engagement then I suggest you start a business training people it what is obviously the most incredible field craft methodology in the history of warfare.
But, in reality you cannot expect to be able to dictate much of anything in human conflict.
5.56 is superior to 7.62 at closer ranges for several reasons. First of all is carrying capacity and this is the real reason for the worldwide move away from .30 caliber type rounds to smaller ones such as the 5.56×45 (U.S.), 5.45×39 (RUS), 5.8×42 (China) etc. The fact that you can carry almost double the amount of 5.56mm ammunition over the 7.62 is not to be overlooked. For anyone who has successfully broken contact under fire, you find out pretty quick that 120 rounds “doesn’t get it done”.
Secondly is the use of rapid or automatic fire. The M14 was highly criticized for being uncontrollable in automatic mode especially by troops of smaller stature. The automatic function was disabled before the system was eventually replaced by the 5.56 Stoner rifle, which was actually originally chambered for 7.62.
Even in semi-automatic mode, 5.56 rifles are far easier to control and more accurate during high volumes of fire than 7.62 rifles.
In Vietnam, both the issues of carrying capacity, and controllability for high volume fire were the deciding factors in adopting the 5.56mm over 7.62. Granted at the time, the AR/M16 platform was rushed and not complete with dangerous reliability issues which have been effectively addressed over time, but in my opinion at the needless expense of American lives.
I am not sure what your SHTF scenario may be, but you may not always find yourself in a fight where you are at a distance where the 7.62 range offers you any tactical advantage.
Another thing to think about is supporting arms. If you don’t have artillery for example, you might want to get close to the assholes who do before you start a fight. Proximity negates call for fire as it were.
On January 20, 2015 at 5:45 pm, Western Gunowner said:
So, there is no PERFECT weapons system. Who knew?
Of course I didn’t say there was. Nor that the M-14 was (and note I said I would pick up my M1A which is semi-automatic).
Again, when faced with guerrilla’s engaging us with WWI era British .303’s the military response was to equip each unit with a .308. Not for the FA fire, but for the ability to put a bigger projectile at a greater distance with greater accuracy and more punch when it got there.
One on one the 5.56 wasn’t capable of countering that threat.
Like you said you can’t choose the terms of your engagement. So that’s news?
And, so the military thinks the AR platform is best all-around. Maybe so, but they had to get .308’s to counter a specific threat.
Perhaps that’s the problem. Since WWII we’ve been trying to come up with 1 weapon for everybody. But it doesn’t look like we’re any further along than in WWII with the Garand, the Carbine, the .45, and BAR, and maybe a Tommy Gun for Tom Hanks :).
It doesn’t look like the AR platform satisfies all needs either.
If I, by myself, not knowing just what was going to happen, was told I could have 1 weapon, I’d pick up my M1A.
To me that’s my best all-around weapon. Heck, I’d choose my Garand over the AR too.
I want a .30 round. I don’t think the 5.56 gets it done.
On January 20, 2015 at 7:11 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
Actually the idea of one weapon for everybody was the whole point of the “Assault Rifle” concept. And I mean a no shit assault rifle, capable of BOTH semi-automatic and fully automatic fire modes.
WWII spawned this. The Battle of Stalingrad was not won by Russian snipers as the revisionist history wants us to believe. While they certainly made an impact, snipers can do little to gain ground. What the problem was for the German’s was entire communist squads outfitted with the PPsh 41 sub machine gun.
The typical German infantry squad was outfitted with one MP 40 submachine gun, one belt fed machine gun such as the MG 42 or MG 34, and the rest were K 98 bolt action rifles. During WW1 many armies identified a need for submachine guns when actually assaulting a trench, while the bolt action big caliber rifles dominated in the open spaces, so the Germans in WWII carried both.
However after several months of bombing and shelling, the rubble strewn ruin that the city of Stalingrad had decayed into largely negated any advantage the rifles would have over submachine guns in this “CQB” environment. Submachine guns had a firepower advantage over bolt action rifles, and a mobility advantage over belt fed, rifle caliber machine guns. The Reds submachine guns simply overwhelmed the Germans riflemen with firepower.
Enter the MP 44 (originally StG 44). This rifle was built from the ground up to address what happened in Stalingrad. The Germans wanted a single, do all gun for their riflemen that could dominate both at close quarters, and at intermediate distances with single shots. This would mean a new rifle round would have to be developed as the current 7.92×57 was too powerfull to fire from the shoulder fully automatic. This new round would be the 7.92x33mm Kurz. The MP 44 had a semi-automatic mode, and a full auto mode to give the rifleman the flexibility to be able to fight with accurate single shots out to 600m, but also dominate a CQB situation with full auto fire. Fortunately for us, the MP 44 was not fielded in significant numbers until the Battle of the Bulge. As it was, after action reports show that this rifle erased the serious semi-automatic firepower advantage that the M1 Garand had always enjoyed over the K 98.
Anybody else notice the striking design similarities between the MP 44 and the AK 47? But I digress…
You see, it doesn’t matter what you think or want to believe. History, hundreds of battles, thousands of analytical reports, innumerable dead and the veterans who survived them point to the sheer fact, that .30 caliber rifles are inferior as general situation fighting implements.
Is there one perfect rifle for every situation? No. But, there are rifles, and more importantly calibers that are more perfect for most situations than others. While the 7.62 might get it done, the 5.56 more than likely will. What will certainly not get it done is your M1 Garand. Even the 7.92×33 round shined at the Battle of the Bulge, and American war planners knew it. Not to mention 7.92×33 Kurz is a rather anemic compared to the 5.56mm in range, accuracy.
I gotta say, if things go south your better bet is 5.56mm than your 7.62 or 8 round capacity 30-06. It doesn’t matter what you want, or how you have deluded yourself into a particular thought process, reality does it’s own thing. Usually that is OK. But if it’s going to cost people their lives, particularly your own, that way of thinking is not acceptable. Extremely rare is the situation going to be where you need to fire a shot over 200m and save your own life. The times when shit is dire, the 5.56mm will be the superior fighting firearm.
On January 21, 2015 at 10:35 am, Western Gunowner said:
Except when you need the .308 to counter the people shooting at you from too far away for the 5.56 to be effective against.
On January 21, 2015 at 4:59 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
Sure but that is a rather rare incidence. Even with the uptick in Afghanistan of small arms engagements form distances of 400m plus, these type of firefights still only make up a very small proportion of small arms engagements. These longer range engagements in Afghanistan are usually classified as harassing fires, and while demoralizing, cause relatively few casualties or degrading effects on an operation.
Regardless of the weapon system you are carrying, if the enemy is initiating contact at this distance, he is likely to have several advantages in terrain, observation, and even prepared positions. Hitting the deck and shooting back is prolly not the best option. Usually the best way to deal with that is to break contact by getting the hell out as fast as possible, in a controlled/tactical manner of course.
It is very hard for an enemy to fix you in position at these long distances through fire. If the distance is far enough that 5.56 is ineffective, your best bet is to break contact out of the kill zone and more often than not, you will not have to return fire to do so. If prudent, once contact has been broken, plan a maneuver on the enemy position on your own terms, but you can expect only a rather green enemy force to still be there. The only time that .308 would be any real help here is that if you are fixed in the kill zone by suppressive fires and have no other option than to fight your way out of the kill zone. It is extremely rare that suppressive fires will be so effective at a 400m distance that you couldn’t just break out.
The only real circumstance where .308 provides any advantage is if YOU are initiating the contact at these distances that are out of range for the enemy force. Then you have a solid tactical advantage that hopefully you have accentuated with OKOCA considerations.
But if they shoot at you from those distances, your best bet is to maneuver out of the kill zone. Even if the weaponry is equal for both sides, the enemy will still have OKOCA tactical advantages (unless they don’t know what they are doing) which means you are at best in a really bad situation. In SHTF your mission priority should be to survive, all other considerations are secondary. In guerilla warfare in particular, there is no mission before the man, the man is the mission. You don’t need to win a fight, you just need to keep resisting with force, and surviving. Guerillas win wars in this way without winning many battles.
On February 14, 2015 at 2:34 pm, cargosquid said:
That’s when you call in the circling B-52 with JDAMS…dontcha know?
On January 16, 2015 at 12:34 pm, jon said:
that AR-15 has an average-quality barrel made of 416R stainless steel machined to the SOCOM profile. it is well within expectations that it should fail in that short of a time. the government orders 4150 CMV barrels for their M4 rifles, these are designed to hold up better for automatic fire. 416R is what target/precision shooters use.
On January 16, 2015 at 1:10 pm, pdxr13 said:
In a different test, the problem was closed-bold cook-off. 140 rounds fired quickly in semi-auto led to a hot enough chamber to cook off a round. This may not wreck the weapon, but it’s unsafe to the user and everyone around.
On January 18, 2015 at 7:46 am, Pat Hines said:
Bercause the AR is the de facto standard weapon used in the US by governments, everyone should own at least one. Battlefield pickups will furnish an abundance of spare parts, including lwers with all the right holes already drilled in them. There will be virtually no spare parts for M1As or AKs to be found anywhere.
On January 18, 2015 at 8:31 am, boober said:
So I’m gonna pick up an M4 on the battlefield, take it apart for the parts? Wtf? Ifor I can pick it up I’m gonna use it, my Mosin will get me an M4
On January 18, 2015 at 2:27 pm, Pat Hines said:
Now that’s a knee slapper for sure.
On January 21, 2015 at 5:06 pm, JohnLeePettimoreIII said:
Yeah it’s why I carry a knife to the mall. If some guy starts shooting the place up with a hangun, I’m going to just stab him and take his dog tags Call of Duty style and then use his handgun on his jihadi buddy with an assault rifle, take the rifle, so on and so on.
By the time I am done, the mall will be completely secure, all my enemies dead, and ready to make a huge profit when I sell the movie rights. Isn’t tactical ignorance fun?!
On January 22, 2015 at 5:33 am, Pat Hines said:
Beats me, I’m studying how to get me one of those Moisins.