Jump to content
Practically Shooting

Marginal aspects of AR design.


wwillson

Recommended Posts

BSW posted this earlier on BITOG - I reposted here with his permission.

------

Without trying to irritate anyone by picking on their favorite rifle, it seems like a lot of aspects of the AR's basic design are marginal:

1) The bolt is over stressed for the specified steel. Either a better grade of steel should have been specced, more generous stress relief cuts should have been used, or the locking lugs by the extractor should have been beefed up. Or all three. Alternately, a larger bolt could have been used, which would allow for more steel in the highly stressed areas and better stress relieving features.

2) The cam pin hole in the bolt causes a stress riser. This should have been eliminated. However, with the current design making the cam pin hole in the extractor smaller forces the cam pin to be smaller, which might lead to cam pin breakages.

3) Extraction is marginal. More spring force is needed and/or a widerextractor would provide for more of a margin against failure to extract.

4) Bolt travel is too short. As is, the bolt travels just enough to pick up the next round. Anything that interferes with the bolt's travel results in short stroking. A design that allowed bolt over travel would provide a margin against short stroking.

5) Debris* mitigation features are lacking. The AR has lots of tightly fitted parts with minimal clearance between them. Sand cuts should have been provided like the FAL and/or minimize contact areas of the bolt carrier, and receiver, like the G3, AK, and SCAR designs do. You could even do self clearing features like the Stirling SMG had. A automatic ejection port door like the FNC would be a nice feature too. Anything that relies on the operator is asking for trouble.

The trouble is no one can try and fix any of the problem areas without breaking the modularity/interchangeability of the AR. Design a stronger bolt and you still have to interface with existing barrel extension designs and bolt carriers. Make a better extractor by making it wider and now it doesn't work with the existing fleet of bolts and barrels that are in service.

BSW

*External debris like dust, sand, and mud. I completely agree that carbon fouling in the AR is a total non-issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those are practical issues applicable to 99.9% of AR uses. May have more effectivity on the M4/M16 platform.

As far as making the AR more robust, it can be done. My 6.8SPC II should technically be harder on moving parts than my 5.56. No breakages yet, because some manufacturers know these things and chose stronger materials and use max material conditions when they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The AR was designed by an aircraft guy. It has AR problems.

The biggest whoops with the AR is the change to the carbine length barrel. The change causes an increase in cycling speeds which beats the parts to an earlier death as compared to the 20 inch barrel set up.

The beauty of an AR is it is cheap to produce, Easy to fix with minimal if any machine work needed.

The AK was designed by a tractor type guy. It has AK problems

The FAL has its FAL problems.

The M14 has M14 problems etc.

I will say that the AR and the AK have had a long in service period which says much .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Glock pistol was designed by a man in plastics looking to get into a new discipline for monetary gain. The Glock has few, if any, real problems (most are imagined). If the Glock were not a robust concept, then why does everyone now offer some form of flattery?

My point is that who designs it does not assure any success or failure. Good, and bad, ideas come from many sources.

The alternative would be a gun designed by committee; that typically leads to a whole host of compromises that ultimately make no one happy, and everybody a bit upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Glock pistol was designed by a man in plastics looking to get into a new discipline for monetary gain. The Glock has few, if any, real problems (most are imagined). If the Glock were not a robust concept, then why does everyone now offer some form of flattery?

My point is that who designs it does not assure any success or failure. Good, and bad, ideas come from many sources.

The alternative would be a gun designed by committee; that typically leads to a whole host of compromises that ultimately make no one happy, and everybody a bit upset.

What IMO makes a Glock is they are simple and they work. That is a wonderful concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Let's just agree he was in manufacturing; the origin of the nature tends to waver a bit each time I ask at the Glock recert classes. Does not really matter to me. I'll concede that I was not there when he started; I don't know him personally.

I neither love nor hate the man. But I surely love his product!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...