Reliable AR15......

[peanut]

I really enjoy this conversation!
Alot of people think they need to buy $1500-2000 AR's to have a top tier gun.
So you want a gun that is functional but not reliable, lol! OK.

 

[peanut]

Or do you want a gun that is reliable but not functional? I don't understand what your geting at?!?!
So if I break in a new gun by shooting it hard, that's wrong?

I don't think u understand, my wife has been out of country for over 2 weeks, i Need someone to talk to!! Lol!

Edit: why are you seperating reliability and functionality? Don't you want both? I do.

 

[SMS]

Edit: why are you seperating reliability and functionality? Don't you want both? I do.

Separating them because functionality (as in a gun that functions at any given moment or short sampled range session) does not automatically indicate the ability of a particular firearm to provide long term, hard use reliability.....That holds true for any machine.

Case in point, in my last military unit...we had a fleet of 2 1/2 ton trucks. They all functioned, they started and you could drive them all on 3 or 4 hour long convoys with few issues. Flash forward to Hurricane Katrina and subsequent road haul from OKC to New Orleans. Those functional trucks, when subjected to the hard use, heat and vibration of a long road haul ended up puking their guts out. Blown engines, seized brakes, clogged fuel systems, fires etc....They were functional but ended up being proved unreliable for the long haul.

Same goes for an AR...until you test it yourself or, if ammo is an issue, buy it from a proven manufacturer who conducts those tests, has a statistical sample of thousands of guns, and has good enough QC to ensure reasonable repeatability of specs...you will never know if it's truly reliable.

So, yes, you don't need to buy a multi-thousand dollar AR to have a reliable gun, but until you test it...and even after you do...you still only have a statistical sample of one.

Glad I can help you through this tough period of separation! LOL.

 

[peanut]

That makes sense.
So the fact that i've put a couple thousand rounds through my $510 AR without malfunction makes it what?
Reliable or functional?

 

[SMS]

That makes sense.
So the fact that i've put a couple thousand rounds through my $510 AR without malfunction makes it what?
Reliable or functional?

It's functional for your intended use, and could be said to be reliable in the context of the conditions and time frame those thousands of rounds were fired under.

But you could take it to a three day tactical carbine course with a 1500 round requirement and it could puke it's guts out....just like my friggin truck!

 

[henschman]

If you put those couple thousand rounds through it in one weekend, with no cleaning except for maybe an occasional oiling of the bolt, I would be prepared to say it is reliable. But if that is how many you've put through it over your whole ownership of the rifle, and has been cleaned every few hundred rounds or so, like most people do for regular use, then I'd say the jury is still out.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think an important aspect of reliability testing is learning what your gun looks, sounds and feels like when it's working correctly, vs. when it isn't. From that you learn to replace consumable parts before they cause problems. Another critical component for the hard use crowd is the knowledge and ability to conduct field maintenance and parts replacement without the need for an armorer or gunsmith. These aren't necerssarily important to the casual shooter, but when you rely on if as your lifeline, it's very important. No firearm is 100% reliable indefinitely, but some are built to withstand more abuse and continue working than others.

 

[NikatKimber]

As a "Hobby Shooter" and home owner, if I was using an AR for home defense; reliability would mean can I run a mag dump, reload, mag dump consistently? Unless we're talking government zombie takeover apocolypse scenario, needing more than 60 rounds of .223 is beyond a stretch... more like the chance of me winning the mega millions lotto without buying a ticket. I mean, I don't have warlord enemies, or any nemesis gangs panting to break down my door.

Even if you're a LEO, how much ammo do you carry with you? 200rds? 300rds? That's how much you need to know your rifle can do without needing maintenance.

What does it take to prove your rifle can reliably do that? That's the question.

But get a grip, the average shooter doesn't need the ability to go 2000+ rounds without maintenance (not saying that isn't a good way to prove the capability of their rifle to do what they DO need)!

Personally I would say that the average shooter would see more benefit of the same round count by shooting 200rds per session 10x a year, with cleaning and inspection between; than 1 2k round count class once a year (excluding the skills taught in the class).

That's like requiring a car be driven 100k miles nonstop to be declared reliable when the user's commute is 20 miles round trip.

 

[SMS]

Proving again, that reliability means different things to different people....and is therefore a pretty useless term. Which brings us back around to my original point that started the mess (post #12). We only progressed beyond that when peanut pressed me for MY standard.

The last thing I'll say is that you don't test the rifle to 2,000 rounds in a short period without maintenance because that is something you might have to do, you test it to that standard because it gives you a larger sample and a means to meaure the average rounds, or cycles, before failure.

Backing out now.

 

[peanut]

Some very good points and good discussion!