Vintage Colt AR 15 Advertisement...

[cshold]

Very cool
I don't ever remember seeing this one before.
Any idea as to a year?

[sore shoulder]

Definitely early 60's. 63 was introduction of the first AR15 Sporter. However not the first AR15. Contrary to popular belief and Internet expert myth, the AR15 was not a civilian version of the M16. The first military AR pattern issued was in 1959 as an AR15 (Colt model 601) with select fire. I've personally used an M16A2 that was built on a very worn out AR15 stamped receiver with a full auto position on the selector. It had been stamped A1 at one point, then rest amped A2. A crime no one else at the school I was attending seemed to appreciate.

[hfcable]

I remember when those ads said it was available in 223 and 222.....saw one once in 222 and was too dumb to buy it....a rare version.

[Blaine]

$189

[hfcable]

$189

yep, wasn't very cheap for that many years ago, compared to a good price today.

[Rusty]

IIRC I paid $199 for my first one in 1976.

[pshort]

Howdy,
According to the inflation calculator, $189 from 1963, is about $1463 in 2015.....

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Don't know if they're correct or not.. Amazing amount of inflation....

Paul

[jeepnik]

As a varmint gun the original AR15, civilian AR15 (thanks for the info Sore Shoulder) and the M16 were likely acceptable. As a combat weapon they were deplorable. My kids say the current versions are okay, but both still prefer, as do I, the M14. Though they were both SAW gunners for a bit and liked those a lot. Then again they always were a noisy pair.

[sore shoulder]

As a varmint gun the original AR15, civilian AR15 (thanks for the info Sore Shoulder) and the M16 were likely acceptable. As a combat weapon they were deplorable. My kids say the current versions are okay, but both still prefer, as do I, the M14. Though they were both SAW gunners for a bit and liked those a lot. Then again they always were a noisy pair.

A major part of the current issues with lethality is the ammunition. The 55gr M193 would destabilize and fragment quickly, and at greater ranges than the current 62gr M855 with steel core, creating much more devastating wounds. Interestingly the M193 from a 20" barrel will penetrate AR500 level III body armor at 25 yards. Steel core M855/green tip will not. The MK262 77gr OTM works well on soft targets, but is usually only issued to higher tier operators. Most of the other "issues" with the AR platform are internet myths. Of course as with anything, poorly assembled guns from non spec parts won't work properly either.

[BigSky56]

55 gr fmc used in a 14 twist barrel was devastating on charlie it cavitated & tumbled made horrible wounds the twist was also the cause of the bullet not able to penetrate foliage. I liked the round but despised the delivery system it was junk for a auto fire battle rifle it got good men killed. danny

[sore shoulder]

55 gr fmc used in a 14 twist barrel was devastating on charlie it cavitated & tumbled made horrible wounds the twist was also the cause of the bullet not able to penetrate foliage. I liked the round but despised the delivery system it was junk for a auto fire battle rifle it got good men killed. danny

The use of old stockpiles of dirty powder instead of the correct clean burning powder was a crime that should have gotten someone shot for treason. It is the reason the forward assist was incorporated, when all that was really needed was proper ammunition, but the forward assist made a good cover up. I use an M4 in my job and I refuse to use the forward assist. Hobie put it very well one time, if it won't chamber I'm not goi g to pound it in and create an extraction issue.

[jeepnik]

The powder was part of it, likely the major part of it. But, there were other issues that compounded it. Poor training resulting in misinformed end users. Lack of adequate cleaning supplies, goes back to the misinformation.

My own failure was when the case head ripped off the body and then the rifle tried to chamber another round. If the thing had been ne with a forward assist it would have made no difference and likely would have made things worse.

I hear tell they now have broken shell extractors. Seems to me such an item wouldn't have been invented if many others hadn't had a similar malfunction. Oh, and it was clean, well relatively as I had fired a few rounds before the failure, and properly lubed.

[sore shoulder]

The powder was part of it, likely the major part of it. But, there were other issues that compounded it. Poor training resulting in misinformed end users. Lack of adequate cleaning supplies, goes back to the misinformation.

My own failure was when the case head ripped off the body and then the rifle tried to chamber another round. If the thing had been ne with a forward assist it would have made no difference and likely would have made things worse.

I hear tell they now have broken shell extractors. Seems to me such an item wouldn't have been invented if many others hadn't had a similar malfunction. Oh, and it was clean, well relatively as I had fired a few rounds before the failure, and properly lubed.

Case head separation isn't unique to an AR. It's also usually a gas timing issue, whether it's a piston or DI. Ive seen millions of rounds go down range from M16's and M4's and haven't seen it happen so it's not very common. It usually happens when extraction is attempted early while the case is still expanded and gripping the chamber. It's the reason carbine gas length gets a bad rap and the mid length gas is so popular. Its why 7.62x39 AR's extractors break. It's also why rifle gas length is so reliable and will work with such a broad range of ammo. The gas port diameter is a big part of that equation. Powder burn rate, gas pressure, dwell time. One bad batch of ammo or a bad round can affect all of that. It's the nature of any semi-auto. It's why QC for issue ammo is so high. Every batch of bullets, cases, primers and brass is retested and load changes made. In spite of that, I'm constantly amazed at how well an AR that is properly assembled will digest almost any ammo.

In your case, and in probably every failure I've witnessed, the forward assist was of no help. Ive gone slick side on my latest build, and all my future builds most likely will be also.

[BigSky56]

The #1 problem with any DI gun is the powder when the military went to a double base ball powder for more speed so it could punch thru a steel pot at 500 and with a calcium carbonate (flash retardant) additive it spelled doom for the troopers.
If the perfumed princes in the pentagon and MAC V had of supported the troopers inside of saying they werent cleaning their rifles in 65 we might of got the right powder as it was and is they put lipstick on the problem, instead they just reduced the amount of CC in the same powder in 69. And the steel pot thing, well charlie never wore them.
If I remember right in 2008 there was another dust up with the M4 9-12? troopers KIA after a 30 min gunfight at their FOB, jammed guns, there was a investigation by a retired 2 star and the report is online.
A side note the original powder is in current use in 7.62 M80 ammo no problem in a piston gun.
Its hard to maintain fire discipline when their coming over the wire especially at night, Top said semi only let the MGs do their job, it works. danny

[jeepnik]

You're quite right about the forward assist being of no use with a broken case. Banging on it would only have made things worse. My lefty Stag has one and I'm ambivalent about them. It's just something that was on the rifle when received and one you can't really do anything about once it's there.

I'll admit my AR has been pretty reliable but old prejudices , like habits, die hard.

[sore shoulder]

I don't know what to think about some of these reports and problems. I've personally had an M4 so hot it was cooking off. That was after doing mag dumps on burst and somewhere over 12 mags. It was still running. I've seen weapons running after dumping 100's of blanks. There is literally nothing dirtier you can run through an AR. ALL of the gas goes into the bolt carrier since the barrel is plugged with a blank firing adapter.

[jeepnik]

I don't know what to think about some of these reports and problems. I've personally had an M4 so hot it was cooking off. That was after doing mag dumps on burst and somewhere over 12 mags. It was still running. I've seen weapons running after dumping 100's of blanks. There is literally nothing dirtier you can run through an AR. ALL of the gas goes into the bolt carrier since the barrel is plugged with a blank firing adapter.

Remember my experience was decades ago with the original M16, and all of it issues. I found the M14 much more reliable. It was quite a bit heavier, but I didn't have to hump it over hill and dale.

[BigSky56]

In all fairness to others I reread the after action report M240s jammed M249s jammed auto grenade jammed and several M4s jammed all to high rate of auto fire, only the ma duce kept working. danny

[Malamute]

Ive had them with and without a forward assist. I prefer to have one.

The only thing they do, as I understand it, is to help be sure the bolt is closed completely after chambering a round when loading. You wouldn't pound on it any more than you would the bolt handle on an M-1/M-14/M1A or a bolt action that had a malfunction when firing. As I understand it, it was standard use and procedure to push the bolt handle with the heel of the hand with those guns (self loaders) after the first round was chambered to insure the bolt had closed all the way and locked. I'd had several M1 Garands that didn't always close all the way when inserting a fresh clip.

I've had a number of times the bolt didn't close all the way with an AR when dropping the bolt on a fresh magazine using the bolt catch. You can use the little dished out spot on the side of the carrier to push it the last tiny bit left to locking, but its not nearly as simple as the forward assist. Its always happened when the mags were full up 30 rounders, and either cold outside or the gun dirty. When firing, they never stopped, not would I have tried to force anything into the chamber with the assist. I downloaded magazines by one round and it just about completely stopped not closing all the way on the first round when cold or dirty.

I don't understand why anyone would try to pound a round into a chamber if the gun had a stoppage when firing, with an AR or any other self loader. I don't think that was ever the purpose or intention of the forward assist, simply to give the bolt that final boost on chambering the first round of a fresh magazine, just like with the M1 Garand when they wouldn't always close all the way on a fresh clip.

It seems popular to not like them, and give examples of why theyd cause problems (I don't think in this particular discussion) but the examples seem to be uses that the assist isn't intended for.

Doing a chamber check, the assist is handy to be sure its closed all the way and locked.

ETA: Ive had Aks not close all the way on the first round. It isn't a big deal to bump the cocking handle to close it. Interestingly, doing the same thing on an AR type isn't considered a good thing. FWIW, Ive had more operational malfunctions with semi-auto AKs than any AR's Ive had.

[sore shoulder]

In all fairness to others I reread the after action report M240s jammed M249s jammed auto grenade jammed and several M4s jammed all to high rate of auto fire, only the ma duce kept working. danny

I've seen M2's jam too. It happens. Thats why you drill over and over and over on those systems how to clear and reload.

I'm glad Malamute made the comment about AK's. It's always fun for me when a person comments how an AK will work even full of mud and sand, and I ask if they have ever fired them when they are full of sand and mud. Then I ask if they have ever owned or fired one. You can guess the answers I usually get. I really shouldn't enjoy doing that as much as I do.

I've seen an M4 grind up some pea gravel that got in the action, some remedial action had it up and running quickly.

[7.62 Precision]

The original M16 had ammunition with wrong powder, long pencil barrel, slow twist rate, light projectiles, no chrome lining in bore and chamber, no cleaning supplies. This caused issues. These issues were dealt with long ago and are no longer an issue. It ain't 1965 anymore.

Yet in every discussion like this, all of those things are dredged up as reasons the AR system is unreliable. They are not even relevant to most of these discussions. Because I would never drive a new chevy truck because my Dad had a Chevy back in 1965 and it didn't get good gas mileage. Plus it used leaded fuel. Reasonable argument?

The AR system in M16s, M4s, and AR-15s has more than proven itself for reliability and durability. There is a reason why the guys in units that can choose anything they want to fight with still fight with M4s.

So what we have in most of these situations in which people have non-functioning rifles in combat is lack of discipline in maintaining weapons. And the guy who lets his M4 get to the point that it won't fire would be no better off with an AK.

The one constant with US soldiers, especially infantry, is a reluctance to lube their weapons. With the infantry, it tends to be more than a reluctance - it is a phobia. A lubed weapon won't pass inspections. The better it is lubed, the more time has to be spent getting it in shape to pass inspection (totally dry), so soldiers gain an aversion to lubes.

But when the unit gets in a firefight and their weapons malfunction, they certainly are not going to report a lack of discipline and proper maintenance. Every time, it gets blamed on the weapon. Yet other units face the same circumstances without issue. An M4 can be incredibly dirty and filled with sand if it is lubed, and it will still run. But the same rifle dry will choke. Same with the M240, and the SAW, and the M2. The M242 Bushmaster will seize right now if the bolt is dry, no matter how clean it is.

One constant thing I notice is that firefight after firefight goes without mention, and then we have this one where one guy saves his whole unit by clubbing a Haji and turning his weapon on the other Hajis, because EVERY weapon his company had was non-functional after a sandstorm. Then we have the Jessica Lynch story where her entire unit had no functional weapons, and this other story where the whole unit has malfunctioning weapons, and in most of these few cases, it is not limited to the M4 or M16, but includes the crew-served weapons as well. But these few exceptions to the rule are what are grabbed and quoted by those who want to prove that the AR system is insufficient. These stories don't make me feel uncomfortable about the weapons at all. They tell me there was a unit-wide issue with how the weapons were used, maintained, or lubed.

And by the way, I have seen little real world evidence that AKs are measurably better than current M16s. They rust, they get dirty, their mags get damaged, they can have ammo issues, they have to be lubed. Just like any other auto-loading rifle.

Also, when I hear about how bad the M16/M4 was in combat, it is always from the guys who have just a few too many stories that are just a little too impressive, the guys whose claims seem just a little off.

And one more thing:

For all the soldiers and marines whose units threw their M16s and M4s away in the desert, sailors who dumped them in the ocean, Vietnam vets who left them rusting in the jungle, and who all used captured AKs, I am curious about several things:
Where are the photos?
Everyone has cameras in combat now. Everyone takes tons of photos. So where are the photos of whole battalions armed with captured AKs? Someone please tell me where they are, because they have to exist - so many people have told me this story, it must be true, right? Photos of battalions of US soldiers armed with blood-drenched AKs, let's see them guys.

What were the investigations like when it was discovered that entire units could not account for their issued rifles?

How many enemy do you have to kill to pick up enough AKs to outfit a battalion? I'm impressed. To outfit a Battalion, you have to slaughter a battalion. If you have any grasp of what common casualty rates are in combat, you would have to admit that any battalion that went out and killed enough enemy to outfit themselves with small arms has to be the baddest battalion in the history of the US military.

Why do only POG units capture and use AKs? How come I hardly ever talk to an infantryman, for example, who claims to have done so, but every cook and clerk, truck driver and finance guy has stories about ditching the M16 and picking up a dead guy's AK?

And the forward assist. The utility is completely misunderstood. My thoughts: http://shwat.com/TheStories/tabid/85/En ... ature.aspx

[OldWin]

Cool old ad. A stark reminder of how long this "modern" rifle has been around.

I owned one AR twenty years ago. It was a "CAR-15" style setup. Shot and functioned well but I rarely shot it and couldn't figure out what to do with it. I swapped it for an M1A and never looked back. Shot the Springfield way more. I still have it and one more.
On a whim last spring I bought a new Colt-Magpul 6920 SORTAM4THINGY. It's a nice rifle and shoots well.
Yes, the AR has come a long way and is much more reliable than in the past.......but shouldn't it oughta be? This design has had 50 years and countless millions of dollars invested in it. It should be the undisputed best rifle ever.......but I think it falls a little short of that mark.

[sore shoulder]

The biggest improvements that could be made to the issue weapon at this point would be proper coatings on the bolt carrier group and upper receiver., and the chamber and barrel. Hard chrome is good, but for barrels a Melonite/salt bath nitride QPQ Seems to be far superior in lifetime wear/ corrosion resistance and lubricity. Unlike hard chrome it does not reduce accuracy. If anything it improves it. It is literally the best of both worlds. And the self libricating Nib or similar coatings on the bolt carrier group and receiver would make a huge difference in sustained fire performance and cleaning. This is something that could be integrated into the current weapon system. Unfortunately I doubt that is even a remote possibility.

Back to the forward assist. The M110 SASS rifle does not have one. The M110 is basically the original AR10 design of Eugene Stoner from which all AR pattern rifles descend. There's a reason for that. It isn't needed. I read the article posted earlier and didn't find any of the reasons in favor of the forward assist compelling. In particular I found the reasoning of being able to silently chamber a round completely invalid. You can ride the bolt forward with the charging handle and push the bolt into battery through the ejection port with little effort. All of my future builds will not have a forward assist but that is based on my opinion and personal experience. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for wanting one, but I don't buy any of the reasoning so far. Eugene Stoner knew what he was doing when he designed it without one. He was designing a lightweight system with low reciprocating mass and as few moving parts as possible with a low snag slim profile. Other than the twist rate, in my opinion the original slick side AR15 pencil barreled 20" rifle was perfection.

As to the comments earlier of entire units reporting failures, I have no doubt whatsoever that that was a maintenance/proper lube issue. The mention earlier of a soldiers aversion to lube is valid. I blame the supply people who inspect weapons for turn in. It's a well known fact that you can take a squeaky clean weapon, put a tiny bit of CLP on it, and it will pull carbon out of the metal. So weapons turned in to supply will have extremely dry bolt and chambers to prevent the chamber failing the dirty pinky check. Despite the fact a little carbon is actually a good thing, and I don't mean caked on. The sad part is I can't ever recall a supply person taking apart the bolt to check the inside of the carrier where the hot carbon ends up. FYI, that carbon will not be black, it looks very similar to chrome plating making more than a casual look necessary. So when BigSky writes about every weapon system on that FOB having problems, to me that is indicative of dry/ poorly maintained weapons. I will also hazzard a guess that they were from a support unit.

[Malamute]

Its interesting to see the variety of feelings about the different guns.

Years ago, I had an AR I tooled around in the hills of AZ with, hunting small game and coyotes, and walking around a lot. I bought an M1A. Great sights, heavier caliber....I shot it several times, I quickly figured out it was too heavy to carry around. If hunting deer, I wanted that heavier caliber, but NOT in the bulky, awkward M1A. A scoped bolt action sporter was much nicer to carry, weight and bulk wise. The AR was far nicer to carry around and do what I liked most of the time. I think I sold the M1A in only a few weeks. M1 Garands are fun to shoot long distance. I have no desire to carry one around. Range or fun gun, sure. The M1A did basically the same thing. I didn't need both.

I don't kick doors in, have never been in a firefight, and think most haven't outside of actually being in military service. If our country somehow descended into the chaos that has consumed Syria (which I seriously do not think will happen), I may have different considerations or priorities, but I suspect that lighter ammo would probably be high on my list.

Watching videos of the events in Syria, its not that unusual to see people clearing malfunctions with AKs. No way to know exactly why, but the fact is it happens, contrary to literary and internet lore.

[sore shoulder]

The doctrine of light weight low recoil weapons that hold a higher round count of lighter ammo is sound. It was a concept that had been around long before the AR15 and .223 was developed. The StG 44 and the Luger pistol were far in advance of their time. The commies saw this and went with it. Our uniformed and elected seat polishers in DC were slow to follow and were more concerned with careers and bank accounts than what was best for the guy taking incoming rounds, nothing has changed there. Pressure and money from the manufacturers of the incumbent weapons almost always wins. McNamara declined the offer by Colt to use chrome lining at an additional cost of $1.50 per unit because he didn't think it was worth it. The 6.8 SPC was a step backwards and was completely dropped by SF (it was their original concept that in practice didn't work) for some very good reasons. The Marines have allowed their specops to carry Glock 19's by overwhelming request instead of the fancy new combat 1911's made just for them. Most won't understand what the term doctrine encompasses. It took me many years and some immersion in the military to see it, and I'm still learning (reluctantly). It's very hard to examine the big picture objectively without bias or prejudice. 15 years ago you would have found me with a 1911 in my waistband without a holster and a HK91 in the truck. I rolled that way for over a decade. Now its a G17 and an AR. As firearms have evolved we have consistently gone lighter and faster starting with .77 musket balls. At some point there's a balance, a good example is the Army having M24 sniper rifles rechambered from .308 to .300 winmag (yes, the M24's were originally built on the stronger magnum long actions). Then there's 300 BLK that fits a specific niche very well somewhere between a 9mm pistol and a 5.56 carbine, but doesn't really replace either one. It seems every generation is reluctant to adopt the next's philosophies and technology. Add unsubstantiated myths, lore, outright fabrications and lies to stubbornness and pride. Throw in gun shows, gun magazine articles, advertisers, blogs, forums, video games, lack of intelligence and pure idiocy and you have a nearly insurmountable amount of useless information to wade through. The point made earlier contrasting one units weapons malfunctions on a FOB versus the massive numbers of firefights by combat units in constant engagements with basically the opposite experience underscores the issue. I think the opinion of that poster that blaming the weapon instead of the units maintenance practices that were probably the real cause is accurate based on my own experience.

Well, that's my coffee fueled stream of consciousness for the day.

[Malamute]

Ive read some critiques of the report about M4s failing in that particular fight in Afghanistan. The media reports were not entirely accurate about the situation and results. A couple of the rebuttals were very well written, calling into account the inaccuracies in the articles, and the lack of practical combat field experience of one of the senior officers involved in the report.

One aspect not disputed, they ran the guns very hard on full auto. Running the guns on full auto for extended times can make any personal small arm fail. In a "meltdown" test, a Youtube film maker had the barrel of a WASR AK (standard, common AK barrel size) get so hot on auto fire it melted and drooped, causing the gun not to fire. 265 rounds was what it took. He later did another test with a different version (Veper I think) with a heavier barrel, trunion and receiver. The results were much better before that barrel became so hot it drooped and caused the gun to stop, 900-ish rounds. About 65 rounds longer than the AR meltdown he did, and which Sore shoulder pointed out in the past was a stainless barrel, which is inferior for full auto shooting to the issue barrel.

Run any of them past their practical limits, and they will fail. Air cooled guns overheat at some point. (There was a crazy number of rounds run through a water cooled belt fed WWI machine gun, tens of thousands of rounds I believe)

One other perspective (among several Ive seen) of the Afghanistan fight.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20047