Forward Assist

[G-Mac]

And if not having a forward assist makes an AR lower end, someone should let Les Baer know... they've been turning out a lot of low end guns.

If he did build one with a forward assist, would it cost more...or less?

If you understand why they were put there in the first place, you can decide whether you need one or not.

How many Les Baer AR's are used in extreme conditions?

 

[nawilson]

I have never needed to use one on an AR... now, I have needed to use them on M16s and M4s. Your local range is not the same as crawling around in the dirt.

No, the original M16 as designed by Eugene Stoner did not have a forward assist. When the M16A1 was adopted, it did. The A1 was an improvement over the original design based on lessons learned in Vietnam.

 

[NJM15]

Bought it new this past December from a local gun shop in Southern NJ the boss for the button is there but that's all

 

[Bozz10mm]

22 years in the military shooting the M16A1. I don't recall ever needing the FA. The dust cover seems like a good idea tho.

 

[TheMaineEvent]

I can't ever recall using the FA during my time in the military. For those who think it's important to have one I'd say that you'll have much bigger issues to worry about if you're in a situation where having a FA matters.

 

[gm272gs]

Charging is a noisy event. If keeping things quite is required, ride the charge handle forward and then use the FA. Light click rather than a loud smack might just come in handy.

Not to put words in your mouth, but if keeping things quiet is required (whether in hunting or in combat), there ought to already be a live round in the chamber. The only light click should be the trigger.

 

[cyphertext]

If he did build one with a forward assist, would it cost more...or less?

If you are saying "low end" from a cost perspective, then fine... but from your statements, I read it to be a quality perspective.

If you understand why they were put there in the first place, you can decide whether you need one or not.

I think I have a quite a good understanding in why they were put there in the first place. In fact, I explained it in this very thread. Not only did I explain why they are there from a history stand point, I explained how they are used in military training.

How many Les Baer AR's are used in extreme conditions?

The Les Baer ARs are used in the same conditions that S&W or any other civilian rifle is used in... LEO use, three gun, HD. Are you saying that the Les Baer doesn't need the FA due to the conditions it is used in? On the Les Baer AR, the FA is actually optional, you can get it with or without.

 

[cyphertext]

Not to put words in your mouth, but if keeping things quiet is required (whether in hunting or in combat), there ought to already be a live round in the chamber. The only light click should be the trigger.

You shouldn't climb up into the stand with a round in the chamber, per your hunter safety training. But this is where you can force the bolt closed with your thumb.

I get to my stand at least an hour before legal shooting hours anyway.

 

[gm272gs]

If I were in a stand, I would charge the rifle after I got situated up there.

From a hunting perspective, I was thinking Coyotes. Around here, there's no need for a stand. You just get off the tractor and shoot them in the field. We can't hunt deer in my state with an AR-15, unless it's chambered for .450 bushmaster. Bizarre, I know.

 

[cyphertext]

No, the original M16 as designed by Eugene Stoner did not have a forward assist. When the M16A1 was adopted, it did. The A1 was an improvement over the original design based on lessons learned in Vietnam.

I would have to go back to the history books, but I believe the carry handle was added prior to the Army fielding the XM16E1. However, most of those lessons learned were ammunition related. In any case, a lot of good men were lost...

 

[cyphertext]

From a hunting perspective, I was thinking Coyotes.

Didn't think coyotes... don't really hunt them, just shoot them due to the cattle being on the lease.

I don't use the AR for deer either, I use it for hogs. I'll typically get in a stand for the hogs though. Gets me up off the ground and allows me to see them in the hay field and the wheat field.

 

[radar1972]

This should be interesting.

You, sir, are a prophet..... I need numbers for tonight's lotto.

 

[rjbFL]

cyphertext

Thanks for much good information - appreciated.

 

[jimjc]

There really isn`t any argument over the FA...If you want to pay for it be my guest...I happen to think not...It isn`t needed to make the gun function so I don`t want to pay for it...That goes for the dust cover to and the silly trigger guard...The sport is exactly what I want....My Sport is the 10th AR I've owned and the only one I now have and I couldn`t be happier not only does it run perfect it wasn't a bundle of money...I'll be purchasing another Sport and build it into a different looking gun soon..

 

[JaPes]

I'll be purchasing another Sport and build it into a different looking gun soon..

I hear ya. My 2nd AR-15, the one right after the Sport, was one I assembled myself. Between the craziness I did to my 15-Sport and building one, I don't see myself buying another AR type firearm.

Time to try something different: IWI Tavor or a Sig 556Xi.

 

[WU_Who]

Not to add fuel but wasn't the dust cover omitted from the Stoner orginial design? Meaning the FA and DC where added after the scallop.

 

[Vinney47]

I think the notion that "if Mr. Stoner didn't include it in the original design, it's (not needed/worthless/icing on the cake, etc)" is kinda silly. The things added to later editions are IMPROVEMENTS that were added due to real world experience. It's not like some guys said "let's throw a bunch of needless **** on the rifle for no reason". I mean Stoner designed the gun to never be cleaned, are any of you operating your rifle like that?

I do think it's a good idea to have a way to help close the BCG and fully seat a round. Only a fool is going to cause problems for themselves with a FA (such as making a jam worse) and would end up with operational issues with or without it.

I understand that AR15's aren't generally used in the same situations as M16/M4's and a FA likely isn't "neccessary" for the everyday shooter. Not wanting to pay for one and accepting the gun without the improvement is one thing, but to be against improvements on a design is another.

 

[JaPes]

I mean Stoner designed the gun to never be cleaned, are any of you operating your rifle like that

*Sigh*

M16 : Documentary on the M16 Assault Rifle - YouTube

Now this one, at 15:25 into it the man himself expresses his incredulity that the M16 was issued without a cleaning kit.

M-16 vs AK-47 - YouTube

What you have to put into context is the politics and procurement of the time. WW2 just ended, officers and generals came from that time. They were used to 30 caliber, wood and steel. Every branch of the armed services procured it's own firearms to different standards.

Enter Robert McNamera. Harvard MBA. He served in WW2 in the office of statistical control. He analyzed efficiency and effectiveness of bombing runs. Eventually he becomes the CEO of Ford Motor Company. He then is tapped to serve as Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson.

You get a progressive administration embracing the "space age" and emerging computing technology. You add in a Secretary of Defense that comes from the business world that wants to streamline the DoD procurement process to be more financially efficient. You have a guy and his "whiz kid" team who run things by the numbers.

You have two philosophically opposed groups going at each other. Both were right, both were wrong.

McNamera and his team ran by spreadsheet. .223 ammunition is less expensive to produce than 30 caliber. Soldiers can carry more rounds. More rounds = more chances at killing enemies. Their error was in trying to make the rifle as inexpensive as possible, against Eugene Stoner's design.

• No Chrome Line Bore
• Ball powder instead of cleaner stick powder
• It's space age! No need to clean it. No need to spend extra on cleaning supplies and training.

Rifles jamming? Well let's just add a forward assist, no need to clean.

The old military establishment wanted the rifle to fail, they wanted the procurement process that McNamera mandated to fail. I'm willing to bet that military leaders didn't speak up as all of the changes go against firearms common sense.

All of this and more went into the design evolution of the M16/AR15. It wasn't just a Eugene Stoner design. The political and military industrial complex of the day had as much sway into what got issued.

 

[cyphertext]

Not to add fuel but wasn't the dust cover omitted from the Stoner orginial design? Meaning the FA and DC where added after the scallop.

I might be wrong, but I think the ejection port cover was there in the original design. It was on the Air Force slick sided rifles that I have seen.

 

[tacreload]

To all you gentlemen who have served our country I thank you.For the way you have provided information in this thread and debated the differences of opinions without becoming abusive or hostile I also thank you.There is a lot of wisdom provided here by men who have depended on this rifle.A friend of mine did a year at Bien Hoa and has told me his rifle never gave him a problem.He has never gotten into specific details and I don't ask but he didn't just carry the weapon around,it was well used.Kept him alive.a lot of great knowledge in this thread.Thanks

 

[WU_Who]

I know the cover was on the the rifles that went to the Air Force in 1961, but that was after Colt bought the designs of 1957 and got some input from the top brass. When I have information I like to be sure that information is correct, not trying to beat the horse.

 

[cyphertext]

I think the notion that "if Mr. Stoner didn't include it in the original design, it's (not needed/worthless/icing on the cake, etc)" is kinda silly. The things added to later editions are IMPROVEMENTS that were added due to real world experience. It's not like some guys said "let's throw a bunch of needless **** on the rifle for no reason". I mean Stoner designed the gun to never be cleaned, are any of you operating your rifle like that?

Nobody is saying that it isn't needed just because it wasn't in the original design... however, it has been shown to be an item that is not required. It is not necessary for the function of the rifle.

And no, Stoner did not design it to not be cleaned. While the metal gas rings can reduce the carbon buildup in those contact areas, it still needs cleaning. My Beretta shotgun has the same thing in the action... a metal gas ring with bumps that scrape carbon to reduce cleaning, but not eliminate it.

I do think it's a good idea to have a way to help close the BCG and fully seat a round. Only a fool is going to cause problems for themselves with a FA (such as making a jam worse) and would end up with operational issues with or without it.

There are a lot of fools out there with forward assists. Without it, the fool can not jam home a round that is not seating on it's own. Their only option is to pull back on that charging handle and clear the round.

If the round does not seat fully and the bolt does not close after releasing it with the bolt catch, or releasing the charging handle from the full rearward position, there is something wrong with the rifle. Even sluggish action in a combat environment means the rifle is not functioning properly.

I understand that AR15's aren't generally used in the same situations as M16/M4's and a FA likely isn't "neccessary" for the everyday shooter. Not wanting to pay for one and accepting the gun without the improvement is one thing, but to be against improvements on a design is another.

Not against improvements. Different twist rates that support longer projectiles = improvement. Melonite treatment or chrome lining of the bore = improvement (unless it is a target rifle). Flat top rails for easier mounting of optics = improvement.

Requiring an appendage be added because the M1 Garand has a way to move the bolt forward and backwards and this design does not... not sure that would be an improvement.

 

[Watchdog]

The lower end ones don't come with it because they are just that...lower end.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My opinion is that a Smith & Wesson M&P-15 Sporter in .223 is not a "lower end" rifle just because it doesn't have some extra little doo-dad on it.

 

[cyphertext]

I know the cover was on the the rifles that went to the Air Force in 1961, but that was after Colt bought the designs of 1957 and got some input from the top brass. When I have information I like to be sure that information is correct, not trying to beat the horse.

In the video that JaPes posted, at about the 12:32 mark, they display what they describe as the "original AR 15". It does appear that it has an ejection port cover and scallop in the bolt carrier.

M16 : Documentary on the M16 Assault Rifle - YouTube

 

[JaPes]

I believe the original AR-10 didn't have a dust cover. I'm not certain but I believe the first AR-15 had a dust cover, no brass deflector, no forward assist. I believe the scallop in the bolt is for the dust cover and has the unintentional side benefit of being used to nudge a bolt into battery.

 

[-db-]

The AR-10 had a dust cover (and thus a bolt carrier scallop to operate it) almost identical to the AR-15's.

 

[JaPes]

Thanks!

So, we can all agree that the dust cover was there from the get go. Brass deflector wasn't, but we can all agree (especially the lefties) that the deflector is a good thing. Forward assist or no forward assist, personal preference.

 

[Mack]

The lack of a FA does not make the Sport low end, lots of AR's with one are low end. However the lack of a dust cover does make the Sport low end or a hobby gun i.e. not a firearm I would select for self defense or survival use.

BTW the FA was an Army Ordnance requirement, they did not want the M16 so they had a hissy fit and said they would only take it if it had one hence the XM16E1 which became the M16A1 after adoption. The Air Force did not require it so they were buying M16's with no FA at the same time the Army and Marines were buying the M16A1 with one.

 

[jimjc]

I hear ya. My 2nd AR-15, the one right after the Sport, was one I assembled myself. Between the craziness I did to my 15-Sport and building one, I don't see myself buying another AR type firearm.

Time to try something different: IWI Tavor or a Sig 556Xi.

Ya the Tavor is very high on my want list but the price is up there... I wish I had someone that had one I could shoot...I don`t know much about the Sig 556Xi..Jim

 

[jimjc]

For what it`s worth there are a growing group of AR guys that want what is called slick sides on their uppers...NO FA...NO dust covers and no shell deflector.

I didn`t read all the threads but there are some high end guns that don't have FA`s