The Gun Digest®
Book of

THEAR-15

Volume 2

PATRICK SWEENEY

Thank you for purchasing this Gun Digest eBook.

Sign up for our newsletter and receive special offers, access to free content, and information on the latest new releases and must-have firearms resources! Plus, receive a coupon code to use on your first purchase from GunDigestStore.com for signing up.

or visit us online to sign up at

http://gundigest.com/ebook-promo

©2007 Gun Digest Books
Published by

An imprint of F+W Publications
   700 East State Street • Iola, WI 54990-0001
715-445-2214 • 888-457-2873
www.gundigestbooks.com

Our toll-free number to place an order or obtain
a free catalog is (800) 258-0929.

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a
reviewer who may quote brief passages in a critical article or review to
be printed in a magazine or newspaper, or electronically transmitted on
radio, television, or the Internet.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2005922945

ISBN-13: 978-0-89689-474-7

ISBN-10: 0-89689-474-6

Designed by Elizabeth Krogwold

Edited by Dan Shideler

Printed in the United States of America

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As always, I find the firearms community helpful in the extreme. Randy Luth of DPMS practically buried me under gear. I had to stop asking him about how this or that worked, or if shooters liked it, for another box would show up on my doorstep, containing the items I’d asked about. Jeff and Kristi Hoffman of Black Hills once again outdid themselves, and my delivery driver risked hurting his back. Steve Johnson at Hornady not only sent me anything I asked for, he was most thorough in answering behind-the-scenes questions about .223/5.56 manufacturing, testing and other such details. Mark LaRue and the staff at Troy, Samson and CAA practically sent my delivery driver to his chiropractor with additional back problems from the amount of gear they sent.

Wolf went far out of their way to send me ammo. In toto, I think they’ve sent me something on the order of fifteen thousand rounds of .223/5.56 to shoot, and I had the chance to watch fellow gun writer Dave Fortier bang nearly five thousand through another AR, not entirely in the book.

I want to thank all the manufactures who sent me rifles to inspect, photograph, shoot and in some cases abuse. That manufacturer after manufacturer would ship me a thousand-dollar rifle to shoot, inspect, in some cases disassemble, and then return “whenever you’re done” is amazing. Is this a great country, or what? In due time they all went back but one. I mention this time and again, but the rumors just won’t die; gun writers don’t get free guns. Oh, I’ve heard rumors of this or that one whom the manufacturers have given up on. If they send him something to write about, they’ll never see it again. That’s not me. I don’t have the room, and I can’t shoot more than a few.

As of this writing, I have done eleven books. Over five hundred magazine articles. The grand total of free guns I’ve gotten in that time? Three. If you are expecting a career of being a gun writer to be paved with free guns with which to pay your mortgage, think again. I appreciate the trust manufacturers put in me. And I send them back. Oh, I occasionally ask if there’s a “gun writers price” on some, but not many. And usually the price isn’t much better than what a distributor would ask. So I don’t buy many, either. No, I write books.

Larry Panka of CProducts was most informative on the background of AR magazines, their fabrication and engineering. He sent me magazines, Brownells sent me magazines, Dave Dunlap of PRI sent me magazines, and the end result was that I knew perhaps too much about magazines. I had to take a break from magazines to keep my head from exploding.

The 6.8 and 6.5 are the hot new calibers for the AR, more so than the .308. In that regard it was almost a contest over who could bury me in information; Did Dave Dunlap of PRI send me more info, hook me up with more guns, or keep me more in the loop, or was it Bill Alexander of Alexander Arms? You’ll learn more real-world useful information about dealing with the government in five minutes with Dave, or more about mechanical engineering from Bill, than you could get in a semester at a good school. If you talk with either, take a notepad.

Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms was very helpful with more engineering information, and some aspects of how the AR is machined, gauged and assembled were particularly useful. What the makers do in order to make such deceptively simple parts is quite amazing.

I had to resist the temptation to see just how much stuff I could bolt onto an AR, in order to produce an absurdity. In so doing I’d be holding up one or another manufacturer in that parody, which is not nice. And unfair. After all, all the gear is useful, in the appropriate time and place. All together, it becomes a bit ugly, too. Suffice it to say, you can make a light, handy, AR-15 carbine into something that feels like an anvil, by bolting things to it. Look at many photos from Iraq, and you’ll see examples. Take a six-pound M4, bolt a railed forearm to it, optics, M-203, IR targeting laser designator, vertical foregrip with spare batteries, and a spare magazine on the stock, and you can easily turn it into an anvil. Glad I’m not packing something like that. I did, however, just out of curiosity, weigh all the gear that could be put onto an AR. You can easily turn an M4 into a twelve-pound anvil. If you start with something like an H-Bar, you can easily go past fifteen pounds. There are light machineguns that weigh that.

Enjoy. I hope you’ll find useful information that you didn’t already know, and if you find errors of fact, let my Editors know. They like the give-and-take of phoning me up with “Sweeney, you screwed up again!”

I also depended on my crew of test-shooters, who are as always, more than willing to sacrifice in the name of knowledge – if you can call shooting loaner rifles with free ammo, and having only to pick up brass and be enthusiastic about the experience, a “sacrifice.” I have a test crew for several reasons, not the least of which doing all this is work. I know, I know, someone has their hand up “I’ll be happy to do the work, pick me, pick me!” It is work, and some Editors have dropped writers because they slacked off on the work. And it is also fun. I’m not above sharing the fun with shooters who make my work easier. You see, I learn things from the test crew. Not all shooters approach guns and shooting the same way. Seeing things from a different perspective is always informative.

I also have to thank Jeff Chudwin and Ned Christiansen, and all the officers who have spent their time in the “fire hose of knowledge” environment that we put on in the North East Multi Regional Training, Unit #3 classes. Jeff ramrods many of the classes for NEMRT, and Ned and I do our best to keep up with him. At times our students are sitting there with a glazed look on their faces, having been subjected to a Masters degree-level flood of information on firearms, law enforcement and tactics. Simply being in the classes has made me more informed, better-organized, and better able to present it to you, the reader.

I sure hope you like this, for it is too much fun to stop.

DEDICATION

I would be remiss if I did not thank Felicia, without whom I would not be the sane, happy, well-balanced and stable gun writer that I am. Some of the parts of my background before meeting her and getting into this gig should give you some idea of the less than normal career path I was on: radio disk jockey. At least before all the stations in the country became clones, and vassals of two or three conglomerates, being a DJ was being a gypsy. Repo man. The only thing more soul-deadening than repo man is working as a carny, and that I somehow escaped. Photo stringer as a freelancer. That career combines the rootless existence of DJ with the continued exposure to the worst in life that a repo man sees. Begin a gunsmith was a bright spot, but I immersed myself so deeply in that that I ended up burned-out from the grind.

And that’s just part of it. I don’t want to get too maudlin, but without Felicia I’d probably be a paparazzi in southern California, taking photos of down-and-out celebrities to keep from living in my car. Oh, and had I somehow become a successful gun writer without her, both you the reader and my Editor have much to thank her for. My writing was, shall we be kind and say, “quirky” before she finished the job my grade school teachers had started; she taught me to write.

Ah, the good life: work worth doing, the love of a good woman, standard poodles and port. You should be a tad envious.

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS AN AR?

For most, that is an easy question to answer. Any Stoner-derived, black rifle in .223/5.56 or one of the derivatives. And even those that aren’t black count. But there are some (there are always some) who just have to be “more tactical than thou.” There are some who feel that if a rifle isn’t one of the “ABC” it isn’t a real AR. I had one such earnest “expert” chat me up at a big trade show. “Why are you spending time and pages on all those AR wannabes?” His contention was that except for “ABC” the rest were just parts-assemblers, buying the components from the real makers, and assembling rifles they passed off as “Real ARs.” First, let’s cover the “ABC” idea. The idea that the only “real” AR makers are Armalite, Bushmaster and Colt. (Hence “ABC.”) And why are they the “only real” makers? Because they are the only ones who make all the parts that go into an AR-15.

Somebody sit that guy down, for the next statement will go hard on him: They don’t. I’ve been at various manufacturers’ plants, I’ve talked with the guys on the inside. They don’t make all the parts. The whole, and innovative, idea of the AR was that it was composed of parts that could be sub-contracted. As a matter of fact, the AR maker who makes the highest percentage of the parts that go into their rifles is Olympic Arms. They make their own barrels, do the machining of forgings, and fabricate the springs, pins and other parts that go into an AR. They even have their own moulds to get the plastic parts done by a moulding specialist. Of course, that would make the “ABC” something else. (ABOC? ABCO? AOBC? None have the right ring, do they?) And to top it all off, there are lots of armchair experts (you know the guys who have a pile or rifles, ammo and magazines, who don’t shoot them) who would exclude Olympic from the front ranks of AR makers.

Let’s take a step back and look at this. Those who have read Robert Heinlein might remember “Starship Troopers.” (Please expunge all thoughts of the awful movie, except perhaps the co-ed shower room scene. No, even that.) In it, he spends a bit of time discussing ingredients and labor. An expert chef can take simple ingredients and make a tasty treat. Someone with no skill can take the finest ingredients and make an inedible mess. There are many custom gunsmiths out there who can work on a 1911. Some even custom-order frames with their names on them so they can control all the variables and produce yet-better 1911s. And so it is with AR-15s. If someone goes to the trouble of ordering dimension-specific receivers with their name on them, and building ARs, then they are as much a manufacturer as ABC. They may not have the volume, but they are a manufacturer.

And that was what I used as my selection: did they offer complete rifles? Did they have their name on the receiver? Then, did it pass the fit, finish and test-firing I had planned? If it did, it got in. If it didn’t, it got sent back. Those that needed work and passed on return, you’ll read about. Those that didn’t, you won’t. And for those who’ve been through this with me before, you know my methods. I scour magazines, the internet, I pummel other shooters, competitors and trainers for info and leads on manufacturers. If they make a rifle that fits my criteria, I pester the makers for a rifle. Folks, I’m here to tell you that some people who allege to be making rifles aren’t. At least none they’re willing to get written about.

The most egregious example of this is a company I won’t name, whom I first contacted when commencing Volume 1 of The Gun Digest Book of the AR-15. My first attempt at communicating with them (an e-mail linked from their web site) was in early Spring, 2004. Since then I have kept a steady flow of e-mails, letters, phone calls and even the occasional fax, to no avail. At the 2005 SHOT Show (the annual firearms trade show) I tried to contact them, but they were not to be found. I tried again at the 2006 SHOT Show, where I managed to talk with them. I was assured that they would have a loaner rifle ready for me within two weeks of the SHOT Show. As I wrap up the manuscript for Volume 2, it is now the end of October, 2006. No rifle. No returns on emails or phone calls. Not even a live person who picks up the phone when I call. Will they be at the SHOT Show in 2007? I won’t know until I have been there. Will they offer to send me a rifle? Probably not, for I have no plans to stop at their booth, nor to waste any more time and effort asking.

If there is a rifle you’re just dying to read about but it isn’t here, the odds are I asked but they didn’t respond. Now, it is entirely possible that someone fell through the cracks. I’ll probably get an earful at the next trade show from someone I overlooked, neglected, forgot about, or just lost track of. Can you say Volume 3? If, by the time I talk my publisher into a Volume 3, you haven’t seen a particular maker’s name, you’ll know why.

I can assure you that the rifles I have tested do exist. And that you can get one. It may be tough, but you can get one. If I haven’t reported testing one, it may not exist, or the one I tested didn’t pass muster. Which of those it may have been is something you’ll have to deduce yourself.

The AR is deceptively simple in operation. So simple it is easy for people to get themselves in trouble, modifying, fixing or upgrading it. You’ll find guys who wouldn’t think of doing their own brakes working on an AR that could malfunction. Take it easy, guys.

And as for “who makes the best AR?” you won’t find that question answered here. It isn’t possible to answer. If I may run the risk of being branded a sexist pig, that’s like asking “Who is the most beautiful woman?” Or perhaps a safer topic, “Which is the best sportscar?” Such questions cannot be answered with any degree of certainty, simply because we all have different needs, desires, wishes, wallets and aspirations. The best AR is the one you have found fits your needs the best. Beyond that, all I can do is map out the terrain for you.

CHAPTER ONE

THE AR-15,
THE ONCE AND
FUTURE KING

One proposed solution is the piston-driven AR. Instead of blowing gas back, the piston rod strikes the carrier and starts the cycle.

The piston, however, simply means the carbon collects at some other location.

There is talk of replacing the AR-15/M-16. There has been since before it was even adopted, but long-term failure of a plan doesn’t stop the critics from trying to replace it. Now, before we get into a long discussion (or even a short one) of “should the AR be replaced” and, if so, what might replace it, let me get my position up front: I don’t care. As long as the decision is made rationally, and what replaces it truly is an improvement, I’m happy. A look at the Beretta M9 that replaced the 1911 is illustrative. Despite being touted as “ultra reliable” and the “handgun for everyone,” real-world experience showed otherwise. It was not more reliable. It wasn’t even more accurate. It wasn’t more durable, and it wasn’t something everyone could shoot. What it was, was a 9mm, something that “penetrated body armor.” Perhaps it did, until about 1982, by which time even the shoddiest of soft body armor could stop most nines. Some 9mm ammo goes through all soft body armor. (No, I won’t tell you which ones. That’s not the sort of info that needs to be generally circulated.) But if you built a .45 the same way those 9s were built, it would penetrate more body armor, too. I have a bunch of 1911s, and a Beretta. I’ve shot them both. If I need a hi-cap 9, the Beretta is a good choice. If I need something with which to shoot people, the 1911 is a better choice.

There are a lot of people who have it in for the Stoner system for one reason or another. They all have a favorite candidate, and they’d all rather see theirs prevail instead of keeping the Stoner system. As a preliminary to discussing replacement (or even upgrading the government’s or your AR) we should lay out what the usual arguments are for getting something “better.”

They revolve around four objections: the caliber isn’t big enough, the rifle isn’t robust enough, the rifle isn’t reliable enough, and the gas system basically “pukes where it eats.” (The last is often put more colorfully, but you get the idea.) The caliber people either point to the 7.62X39 or the 7.62 NATO as exemplars. The “robust” people want something all-steel and walnut, like the M-14 or the FAL. The reliability people object to the “excessive” need to clean the AR and get cranky about the magazines. And the gas system people simple drool at the thought of replacing the direct gas impingement system with a piston arrangement.

In the interests of making enemies of them all, here’s why they are all bad ideas:

The FN FS2000 is a bullpup. Some are greatly enamored of the bullpup. The bullpup layout has been pushed as a military rifle for over fifty years.

Caliber

The .223/5.56 is viewed as a pretty puny thing. I wish I could remember who said it, but a quote comes to me every time someone objects to a particular caliber because it isn’t robust enough: “Out there somewhere is a combat vet with a great story about an enemy soldier who needed a second burst of .50 machinegun fire before he’d go down.” Caliber and terminal ballistics is not a certainty, it is a statistical curve. No matter what caliber you select, there is always something that will deliver more. But more costs more. Yes, we were pretty happy with the .30-06 and the M1 Garand, but no GI ever complained that it was too light. Quite the contrary. And a day spent dishing out truth, justice and the American way via a Garand can leave you groggy from recoil.

Mark Westrom, the President of Armalite, developed a Powerpoint presentation and manual on accurate semi-auto fire (when he was in the US Army). Basically, it pointed out that aimed semi-auto fire prevailed, either on the battlefield or on the target range. The idea of “saturation fire” and hitting targets through volume and full-auto fire just didn’t work. At least not if the soldiers had to actually carry ammo themselves. And if you’re going to depend on literal truckloads of ammo, why bother with rifles? Just lash a minigun on the truck, and really get to hosing the countryside. Paul Howe, in his book, Leadership and Training for the Fight, gave an example.

He was in Mogadishu, and when the Rangers were surrounded and settled in to wait for help, he went out into the street to keep the swarms of militia at bay. He did this by finding a relatively protected position, and then awarding every darkened window and doorway with an aimed shot. He also fired on likely hiding places. Anyone who moved on the street or exposed himself in a window or doorway he was controlling got the gift of an aimed M855. When he didn’t have targets, he simply swept back and forth among the likely places, firing at a controlled rate. The idea was to keep the would-be shooters honest. No one would be likely to hang out a window (or at least less-likely) and whack off a full mag of AK ammo, if the window was catching a shot a couple of times a minute. That’s more likely to be combat shooting than what a lot of target shooters expect: bad guy appears, you hold and squeeze, hit with a robust caliber, and he falls. Then wait for the next target.

Given the same situation, and a minigun, would he have done better? Not unless Paul could have figured out how to control the 2,000 rpm minigun for precise shooting. Volume in the wrong place is useless. Power that comes at the expense of payload or fatigue from recoil is counter-productive.

The recoil of the .223/5.56 is pretty soft. In practical shooting, recoil is measured by the Power Factor: basically, weight times velocity. A heavier rifle will kick less than a light one, given the same PF, but rifles do not have dramatically different weights. A .223/5.56 has a 55-grain bullet at 3100 fps, or a 62-grainer at 2850. Ammo can vary, but basically we’re talking about a 170-190 PF. The .308/7.62NATO that is so beloved delivers a 150-grain bullet at about 2700 fps. A 405 PF. Twice the recoil. Recoil tires you, makes you a less-effective shooter, reduces effective accuracy and makes shooting in awkward positions difficult. The AK round, the 7.62X39, and the 6.8 Remington SPC have middleweight recoil. Again, loads can vary in power, but 280 PF is about right: almost half again the recoil of the 5.56.

The PS90 is light, handy and accurate. I just shot a passing (one “X” off of perfect) score in the NEMRT Qual course. The big question is, does it have enough power?

The Soviets thought enough of our M-16s that they upgraded the AK to the AK-74, with its 5.45X39 cartridge. One thing they wanted was more accuracy, and they got it.

Regardless of what, if anything, replaces the AR, there will have to be training guns, simulators and drill rifles. Someone stands to make a lot of money if we change.

The big question is not “Is the XYZ more powerful than the 5.56?” but “What is enough?” How much power do we need to get the job done? Critics of the 5.56 like to point out that it is illegal to hunt deer in a whole lot of states using a .223. So what? It’s also illegal in most places to hunt deer with an FMJ bullet, too. We aren’t hunting deer. We’re (and let’s be blunt here) shooting at people. Who are probably shooting back. A cartridge with too much recoil increases misses and gives the bad guys more time to shoot back.

How much can you carry? The basic combat load of ammo for the M16 was established by the Army to be seven loaded magazines: 210 rounds. Those going places where they expect to actually shoot at people usually carry more. But they also have to carry a lot of other gear too. There’s a limit to how much any one person can carry and still be able to fight. You can argue about what that limit is, but there is one. So, let’s just use the weight of those seven magazines as a starting point:

A loaded aluminum USGI 30-round magazine packed with M-193 weighs 16.75 ounces. A fraction over a pound. If we load it with the current hi-tech “bad guy” round, the Mk262 Mod 1, we add a whopping ten and a half ounces to the full-up mag weight. So, our basic payload runs seven pounds, five and an eighth ounces. Using Mk262 Mod 1 ammo, we add ten and a half ounces, making the payload an even eight pounds. What can we get for our eight pounds in other calibers?

An M-14 magazine weighs 8.2 ounces, a little over twice what an M-16 USGI mag weighs. Full-up, with twenty rounds of 147 grain FMJ, it tips the scales at twenty-six ounces. Rounded off, that means we get five loaded magazines of .308. For the same weight, we get 100 rounds of .308 vs. 210 of 5.56.

How about the 6.8? Currently, magazines are steel. If the 6.8 catches on, they may come in aluminum. A loaded (twenty-five rounds) magazine of 6.8 (Hornady 110 BTHP) weighs twenty-three ounces. Our payload gets us five and a half loaded magazines. One hundred and thirty-five rounds.

Modern warfare is built around automatic weapons. Here I’m about to engage digital enemies with a lasered SAW. Great fun, and pretty good training, too.

For an eye-opening comparison, let’s use the 5.7X28 the FN has chambered the P90 in. Offered as a personal defense weapon (PDW), it has a fifty-round magazine that weighs an airy 5.5 ounces. Fifty rounds of T-194 training ammo weigh eleven ounces. Our eight-pound payload gets us seven and three-quarters loaded magazines. Three hundred and eighty-seven rounds.

Now, put yourself on that street in Mogadishu, using aimed semi-auto fire to keep the locals from getting too cheeky about hanging out windows and plinking at you. Would you rather be there with 100 rounds or 387? The typical answer is “I’m a manly man, a strong dude, and I’d just carry more ammo.” Uh-huh. It doesn’t matter how much ammo you carry, the arithmetic is against you.

As a final point, the simple arithmetic of payload divided by caliber is not so easy to calculate. At the top end, the payload would be best divided by a firearm using .22 Magnum cartridges and a flexible, lightweight belt-feed. You could probably get six or seven hundred rounds of .22 Magnum in that seven-mag 5.56 weight limit. But who wants to be in a shooting war with a .22 Magnum? The .22 WMR has no range, no penetration, little stopping power. The trick is in finding the balance between effectiveness of rounds, and number of rounds, that gives our soldiers and Marines the best tool for the job. So far, the 5.56 seems to fit the bill.

Training for modern warfare calls for lots of simulated combat. It’s cheaper, can be done day or night, rain or shine, and it makes scoring easy. Ned (left) has decades of competition shooting experience. Ely (right) has weeks of simulator experience. Ely beats us when it comes to shooting digital bad guys. Ammo costs money. Computer time doesn’t.

Robust

One big slam against the AR is that is isn’t robust enough. Short of issuing everyone five-foot crowbars, what is? In a military environment, there are many forces that will damage any rifle beyond repair. The question then becomes how much weight are you willing to pack, in order to add a bit of robustness to the build?

Before we get too deep into this, we have to consider two exemplars of robust build: the M1 Garand and its derivative the M-14. Yes, they are hefty rifles. And were I planning on using a rifle primarily as a club, they’d be high on my list. But I don’t use a rifle as a club. And the two .30 rifles have drawbacks. Anyone who has used a match-conditioned M1 Garand has gotten the lecture: don’t pick it up by the forward handguard. You could bend the handguard attachment, causing it to touch the barrel and change accuracy. One advantage of the .30 rifles is their long-range accuracy and power. If you turn them into short-range powerhouses you’ve just given up a big advantage (supposedly). John Feamster, in his book Black Magic tells us that the match-conditioned AR or M-16 is actually more robust than the M-14. I have never dropped an AMTU match-conditioned M-14 onto a concrete floor (I think I’d burst into tears if I did such a thing) but he has (or has seen others inadvertently do it). The M-14 does not hold its zero when you do that, and groups suffer. The AR? If the sights haven’t been banged off their zero, you’re good to go.

“But ARs suffer horribly on combat.” Someone will complain. Uh-huh. I’ve seen a number of photographs of field depots and armorers in WWII with stacks of abused M1 Garands being overhauled. Combat is tough on everything, men and rifles combined. The record seems to indicate that the AR holds up as well as any other weapon. What of the AK? It does have some advantages. But even the AK will quit on you if you neglect it enough. I really don’t think we should be selecting a rifle based on how well it will stand up to utter and complete neglect. If I thought that was what my troops would be doing (and their NCO’s allowing) I’d issue them all sharp sticks instead.

There are other rifles that are not up to the rigors of combat. The Ruger Mini-14 is a nice little rifle, but it isn’t in the same league as the AR or AK for durability.

The PS90 is compact. The P90 is even more so, with nearly six inches off the barrel length.

Modern rifles will have optical sights, like this H-K XM-8. Why? Because they make hitting easier.

I love walnut. I love the look and feel of it. But it makes a pretty poor stock material. The fact that the government went with synthetic stocks, and even synthetic and aluminum/steel constructions for stocks on re-issued M-14, rifles should be a clue.

Collectors with transferable M-16s worry in some cases as to just how long their rifles will last. Will they oval out the trigger and hammer pinholes with use? Will the upper or lower eventually crack? Will their $15,000 investment (as of spring 2006, that was the cost of a clean, transferable M-16A2) be worn out in a few years of steady use? Not to fear. Even the high-volume shooters seem unable to wear out the rifles. Oh, barrels get fried, but uppers and lowers just keep going and going and .…

What with the war in Iraq, the government has had to haul all kinds of items out of storage. We’re seeing 40-year-old M-16s come out to play. They may be gray and worn bright on the edges, but they keep on working.

Reliability

The AR isn’t reliable. Just ask the critics. The big slam against it is the gas system, which blows gas back into the receiver. Two problems result. One is that the receiver gets impossibly grubby, so dirty that you really don’t want to touch anything in it unless you have to. The other is heat. Apparently, the gases blow back with enough heat that the receiver can become hot to the touch. Both are seen as bad things. Again, I haven’t done any door-kicking in Iraq, so I can’t comment on that environment. However, I can use two high-volume uses as a basis: the law enforcement classes where I work as an instructor and armorer, and Second Chance.

At Second Chance, ammunition consumption could be measured by the cubic foot. Those of you with a little reloading history might remember the old eight-pound powder tubs. The fiberboard tubs with a press-on lid. I used those (I went through a lot of powder, reloading in the old days) for storage. I would commonly go up to Second Chance with two or three of those filled with .223 reloads. I just went down to the shop and measured one: 184 cubic inches. About 500 rounds worth of volume. So my stash of three tubs would be good for 1,500 rounds, which went downrange in two or three days. How many malfunctions did I have in all that shooting? Perhaps two or three in fourteen trips “Up North.” And those were busted cases, from reloading the empties too many times. I was not alone in that level of reliability. There were others who went to Second Chance more times than I had, who had fewer malfunctions.

The new and improved rifle FN has in the running is the 5.56 SCAR.

Some want the .308 back as in days of old.Others want a new .308. The FN Heavy SCAR is a .308 updated for the 21st century.We’ll see if it makes it to issue status.

The secret? We cleaned and oiled them. Now, Second Chance wasn’t a Middle-east re-creation of the Alamo. We were able to stop, rest, cool the rifles and do some scrubbing. But if the AR was such a range queen, so beastly to keep running, we never noticed it. And if we had, we’d have either figured a way to fix the problem (the easier solution) or switched rifles.

Everything needs cleaning. The exemplar is the AK. It supposedly (just ask some owners) doesn’t need cleaning. Or maintenance. Excuse me, but BS. When I went through the Gunsite 223 class, most of my classmates were either military or police. There were a doctor and his son, and a whole slew of SEALs, Air Force Security Police, a Delta operator, and I. We all had ARs (or M-16s) except for some of the security police. Finding themselves scheduled for yet another rifle class, a couple had opted for something different: they had checked a couple of AK-74s out of the armory, along with a bunch of ammo. Why go through yet another class with the same old rifle? Why not learn something new? They did, and we did. One thing we all learned was that you can neglect an AK and have it fail, too. The most interesting malfunction we observed was truly bizarre: the empty case was extracted and stripped off the bolt face, but instead of ejecting it traveled further into the rear of the receiver. Once there, it stopped the rifle from working.

There are even bigger calibers than the 5.56 and .308 being bandied about.Cobb makes a .338 Lapua. Even at 1,500 yards, that’s going to leave a mark.

One thing critics of the AR do not complain about is accuracy. With its free-floated (or nearly so in standard trim) barrel the AR manages to wring almost all of the inherent accuracy out of a barrel/ammo combo as possible. With a good trigger and a decent scope, you can manage regular hits ‘way out past where the cartridge has enough energy to do much. Which actually ends up being viewed as a fault: “I can hit the bad guys at 800 yards, why can’t I get a rifle with enough oomph to paste them?” Because if you had a rifle with that kind of power, you’d be much less likely to be able to hit them, that’s why.

One last comment on reliability: any rifle can be made to quit. In U.S. Infantry Weapons in Combat, Scott Duff interviewed Frank Fulford about his experience in Korea. During the battle at Kunu-ri, his Garand stopped working. He hadn’t had time to clean it, and it defaulted to a single-shot weapon. So he tossed it aside and found one that would work. The combat was so fierce that there was no time to clean rifles, so he went through a succession of Garands, dropping each one when it stopped working, and trying found rifles until he found one that worked. The Garand, the exemplar of WWII reliability, can be made to stop working. If the Garand will stop, so will any other mechanism. The ultimate solution? Either clean your rifle on a regular basis, or depend on something less likely to malfunction, like a bowie knife.

The solution to all the AR problems is the gas piston. Just ask, anyone making a gas piston upper will tell you that. I suppose there are advantages, but they come at a cost. The big advantage is that the gases aren’t directed back into the receiver. No, instead they’re deposited in the gas system, to gum up the piston and op rod. The allure of a gas-piston AR wears off pretty quickly when you’ve neglected to clean it, and you have to wrestle the piston parts out of the rifle with a pair of pliers. You’re simply trading one “carbon-trapping”” set of parts for another. Me, I prefer the ones I can lubricate to keep running. The extra parts add weight, and the barrel harmonics can be affected by the extra parts that are attached, moving and vibrating. I haven’t seen a lot of piston uppers but they seem accurate enough, but the parts have to have some effect.

You’d better start with a light rifle.By the time you add magazines, grenades, body armor, a big knife, maybe a handgun or two, you have to avoid soft ground or risk sinking out of sight.

At Second Chance a thousand rounds in a couple of days was normal. The guns kept running.

The Garand can be accurate, is certainly reliable, but will beat you senseless in a day’s shooting.

The gas piston upper is the current hot thing, and it may well even turn out to be an improvement. But so far it hasn’t been proved. As with all things, time will tell.

Future Testing

There’s one aspect of testing that makes me crazy: it’s as if the testers and budget planners have never heard of the scientific method. Invariably, when it comes time to test and buy a new piece of equipment, the new ones are tested and the old one is not to be seen. Excuse me? Has no one ever heard of a baseline? Who cares that the ABC rifle is 5% more accurate than the XYZ rifle? How do they compare to the one we’re using? Ditto with reliability, longevity, etc.

With each new rifle, we hear things like “twice the barrel life of the M4” or “Our bolt has three times the durability of the M-16.” Uh-huh. And how do you do that? Oh, you use better steel, a newer heat-treatment process, or a new coating that reduces wear. Why are we not using those steps on the M4/M-16?

Two reasons. One is the government and the other is the manufacturers. Of the two, the government has a lot more influence on this. Let’s take for example the M-16A2. Everyone has heard of “mil-spec,” right? Everything about the rifle is specified. So, the barrel must be made of 4150 steel, heat-treated in a certain way, hard-chrome lined, inspected, straitened, installed and tested. Can Colt or FN simply add improvements as they learn of them? No. Not just no, but “HELL, NO!” Not unless they want to lose the contract. The mil-specs are the mil-specs, inviolate. Could Colt make a better barrel? Sure they can. The mil-specs for the M-16A2 barrel are state-of-the-art in barrel making, circa 1978. There are a lot of things learned since then, and barrel makers have adopted those that make a difference that their customers will pay for.

But the government ain’t buying. At least not now. You see, changing the mil-spec standards is something that can only be done at the top levels of the Army. And no General is going to spend time fussing over barrel steel when he can make a splash with a new artillery piece, an electronics advance or something else. Something sexier. Something that will ensure him a cushy job after he retires. (Yes, I’m a little buzzed on caffeine right now, but ask anyone in the military how grounded my position is.) Mil-specs are rarely, if ever, changed. The only way to change them is to adopt something new.

This is a new M4, but it could just as easily be a CAR-15, older than SSgt Gonzales. On Christmas Eve, Staff Sgt.Andrew Gonzales stands guard over KC-135 Stratotankers at this desert air base. He is deployed from the 436th Security Forces Squadron at Dover Air Force Base, Del. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Mike Hammond.)

Why? The Army (and the government in general) is fearful of change. Change means someone who didn’t have a cushy job with power might suddenly have one. And those who have them might not, in the near future. Government bureaucrats aren’t gun-guys. They don’t care about things like accuracy, power, or reliability. They’d be happy issuing purchase orders for 6.5 Carcano bolt action rifles as long as the contract goes to the lowest bidder, and the necessary paperwork on minority employment, retirement funding and environmental impact statements is filled out. Correctly. Letting the lower ranks change the mil-specs just because “the rifle would be better” is not a task to be delegated. So it can only happen when something new comes along.

That is something the manufacturers know. Colt can’t improve the barrel steel and increase service life from 10,000 rounds to 35,000 rounds unless they can convince the Army to switch to a new rifle. Or at least a new upper. Hence, the piston uppers appear. New uppers mean new barrels, bolts, etc. all improved. How’s that for dysfunctional? To get new barrels and bolt, we the taxpayers have to foot the bill for new uppers that will have to be fielded, debugged, improved and tweaked.

On that cynical note, let’s continue our look at the wonderful world of the AR-15.

CHAPTER TWO

AMMUNITION

It’s hard to fault the performance of Wolf Performance. An MOA group, 100 yards, from the S&W M&P15.

A typical M-193 terminal bullet path.The bullet goes in about four or five inches, starts to tumble, and then really starts being effective.

The Soviet 5.45X39 round, in its 7N6 loading, is quite effective. It “J-hooks” as much as the 5.56 does, when the velocity is up.

In the old days, we had one choice: .223 or not .223. Well, actually there were a few more. But they weren’t common. Now, we have a lot. The old AR vs. AK argument used to revolve around the rifles as much as anything else, because we couldn’t do a test of one without taking the caliber along with it. Now, not only can we have the AK in .223/5.56, we can have the AR in both AK calibers, 7.62X39 and 5.45X39. If the 6.8 Remington SPC becomes common, someone, somewhere is going to wrestle it into an AK somehow. We can now conduct tests of the platforms using the same caliber. I’ve warmed a bit to the AK of late, but still think the AR is superior. Yes, the AK will withstand more abuse, and keep working under more severe conditions, but the difference is of a severity I’m not likely to encounter. So, I don’t worry.

The .30-06 (L) and the .308 (C) were meant for different uses than the 5.56 (R) is meant for.

The Soviets spent the end of the Vietnam War redoing the .223 for use in the AK. Called the 5.45X39, it offered softer recoil, flatter trajectory, greater accuracy and a higher likelihood of hitting at combat ranges and conditions than the 7.62X39 offered. We’ve spent all the time since the Vietnam War trying to make the AR deliver something more like what the 7.62X39 delivers but without the drawbacks that round has. And as if that wasn’t enough, some experimenters are trying to do more.

Before we start listing the contenders and the advantages (real or imagined) they offer, let’s go down the list of strengths and weaknesses of the 5.56. On the good side, the 5.56 has soft recoil, flat trajectory and very good accuracy within combat ranges. Inside of 300 meters you do not have to worry about trajectory in order to get hits on opponents. If your “opponents” are prairie dogs, well, then, you will have to worry about trajectory. If they’re people, however, you will not. We as a matter of course teach officers in the patrol rifle classes a 100-yard zero, one that doesn’t require any sight adjustments in order to get hits on the computer-controlled popup targets out to 300 meters. Once on the 300 meter range, a few officers need an additional click or two of sight adjustment to be properly zeroed and hitting the targets.

THE AR-15

L-R: the 6.5 Grendel, the 5.56 and the 6.8 Remington SPC. They offer more, but are they better? That depends on what you want.

Everything old is new again. L-R, the 276 Pedersen, the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 Rem SPC, and the 7mm FAL round tried in the M-14 trials.

If your opponents are prairie dogs, the accuracy of the 5.56 is plenty good enough to get hits. In the course of testing for the book I had an opportunity to go on a prairie dog shoot with the S&W M&P-15. I was able to easily get hits on prairie dogs between 200 and 300 yards. Once I had the range I could count on hits more than half the time out to 300 yards. A prairie dog hit at 300 is much the same shooting problem as a head shot.

Little wonder that in one of the battles for Fallujah, there was a short hand-wringing “crisis” when someone found out that a lot of the insurgents had been shot in the head. “Oh-my-god! They’re executing insurgents!” No, you had Marines shooting rifles with optics, in an environment where the head was all you could see. If the journalists covering the battle had had any familiarity with things firearm, it would not have been even a moment’s puzzle.

What happens if you have a mix-up?Why, you end up with a 6.8 round like the one on the right. It tried to chamber in a 5.56 and failed.

The 5.56 is also compact and its light weight allows for a lot of ammo in a basic combat load. The weight of seven loaded magazines (210 rounds, the basic pre-war payload) is only eight pounds. If you want more, you can add more. As we discussed in Chapter One, going to a bigger caliber cuts down on the number of rounds carried. A bigger caliber also means a heavier weapon, further adding to a soldier’s payload. The combination of these factors means that the basic soldier can carry a useful amount of ammo while doing his “real” job. They can be sure of a reasonable chance of hitting, due to soft recoil and good accuracy. Most soldiers and Marines are not Rangers or Recon. Most will be driving trucks, loading ammo into an artillery piece, or performing maintenance on helicopters, trucks, tanks and the Colonel’s humvee. They would not be well-served by a six-pound .308 rifle.

Left, the 7.62X39, middle the 5.45Soviet, and right the 5.56. They went towards ours, so why are we trying to duplicate their old one?

In the “against” column is the perceived lack of “stopping power” that the 5.56 is prone to. Now, keep in mind that when I’m discussing the terminal ballistics of the 5.56, I am discussing it in a theoretical framework, using feedback from people who have had to use it. I myself have never shot something larger than a marmot using a 5.56. The problem, as I see it (and I have talked to people who have been there), comes at the extremes: at close range, and at distance. Both are problems brought about by target shooting and the increased skills they have brought to the soldiers and Marines fighting for us – and from the hard-chargers who are the actual trigger-pullers in the Army and Marines.

At the close end of things, the IPSC shooters have increased the skill level of our warfighters immensely. They may not know or see it, but that is where their skills have come from. One example: back when IPSC 3-gun competition was in its infancy, we began doing the El Presidente drill with rifles. The drill is simple: three targets at ten yards. They can be three yards apart (old school) or one yard apart (new format) but the spacing doesn’t matter much. When we began IPSC, if you could draw, shoot two shots on each target, reload and shoot two more, and get all “A” hits in ten seconds flat, you were a smoking shooter. If you could do it on demand, you were a demi-god. In the same time frame, doing it in fifteen seconds with a rifle was the mark of a really, really good rifle shooter. When I went to Gunsite in 1993, the par time for a Rifle Presidente was 14 seconds. As I recall, I did it in something like eight. (Our club had been holding 3-gun matches for about a dozen years by that time. I was a really, really good shooter back then.)

The Soviets made the Czechs give up their 7.62X45 (L). They didn’t want mixups in supply.So if we change to the 6.8 (on the right) we’d better change every single M-16 over.

Ballistic gelatin is the closest approximation to real tissue we have as a test medium.

It is entirely possible for an average IPSC shooter, or a really good soldier, to burst through a doorway and place two, semi-auto aimed shots on each of three targets (or people) in two or three seconds. In the time it takes to have hit the third guy between the shirt pockets (assuming his shirt has pockets) the first bad guy shot may not have had time to fall. So our good guy goes back and hammers them all over again. Was it a failure of the 5.56? Hardly. The first guy shot took two hits right out of the gate, and four second later took two more. By that time he was already falling, and out of it. “But a .308 would have done the job the first time.” Perhaps. But consider this: the .308 would have been slower to the third bad guy. “A .308 would not have required two shots each.” There I disagree. The .308 would do the job with one hit per, provided each hit was a center hit. Edge hits with the .308 are no better than any other caliber. Do the experiment yourself: get an AR and something in .308. To make everything else as equal as possible, don’t worry about safeties and the like (but be safe while you’re doing it).

Time yourself shooting the AR, two shots per target, with at least one an “A” hit. (More likely, both will be, at ten yards.) Then, shoot the .308, one shot per. But remember, you must have all three as “A” hits, or your run doesn’t count. If you do this (I have, a number of times) the .308 will be slower than the AR. In some runs, a lot slower.

I know people who have been in many shootings. In many police departments, if you’ve been in enough shootings to be what the Air Force considers an “Ace” (five enemy planes shot down) your police department is looking for a reason and occasion to either retire you or move you to a desk. I know a few people who have been in dozens of shootings (one in more than a hundred). They favor the .308. However, we don’t select equipment for the group based on the statistical outliers. If we did, NASCAR would be the testing ground for humvee design. Selecting the general-issue rifle based on the experiences and needs of the top shooters or most-experienced combatants is likely to leave us with something unsuited for the larger group. It is easier to find what is suitable for the group as a whole, and then provide something different for the few who need it.

It’s a rare .223 bullet that acts like this Federal Tactical. Rare, and not Legal for Land Warfare.

The other “problem” with the 5.56’s performance comes from the target shooting known as NRA High Power. There the targets are as far as 600 yards away. Once we figured out how to build rifles that could shoot that far accurately, the AR swept all other rifles off the firing line. An accurate AR, with a scope on it, good ammo, and a shooter who knows what he’s doing can get regular hits on a person at 600 yards. With a bit of luck and practice, you can make life miserable and short for combatants who are as far as 800 yards away. At one of the industry gatherings I had an occasion to shoot at LaRue targets at 600 yards. The LaRue is a falling steel plate that automatically resets itself. “Boom!” “Tink!” The plate falls; a few second later it is hauling itself up again. I was shooting from a prone position, with a bipod and scope on various ARs. It was easy. Once I had the range, it was simple to put the correct mil-dot on the targets, look for wind adjustments, press the trigger and hear the tink.

However, at 600 yards the 5.56 is not exactly the hammer of Thor. Let’s take an M16A2 with a battle zero of 300 yards, firing M-193 55 grain FMJ ammo. At 500 yards it is down 47 inches. At six hundred yards it is down eight and a half feet. It has a whopping 1213 fps at 500 yards, and out at 600 yards, it is slower than some .22LR target loads are at the muzzle: 1037 fps. Shooting people at 500 and 600 yards with the AR will get you hits, but not very robust hits.

Let’s up the ante and use something better, the M-855 62-grain bullet. We get a small increase in ballistic coefficient (reduced drag) and weight, but lower velocity. Our Soviet-slaying Cold War bullet shows a little improvement in velocity or drop out at 500 or 600 yards. But not very much. At 500, the 62-grain bullet is going just over 1300 fps, for a “bump” in power factor to 82 PF. What of the Mk 262 Mod 0/1 load? The drop changes, going from 60 to 40 inches. That’s enough for a good shooter to take advantage of. But in retained velocity, now we’re getting somewhere. At 500 yards our 77-grain Sierra MatchKing is loping along at 1590 fps. Compared to the 66 PF our M-193 delivered, the Mk 262 is giving us 122 PF. Basically, while the M-193 is a .22 Long Rifle at 500 yards, the Mk 262 is a 9mm ball round out there. Not a lot, but still an improvement.

With simple puncture wounds created by any of these rounds at that range, bad guys are not going to go “arrgh” and immediately fall over. Well, then, the .308 advocates tell us, if we’d shot them with a “man’s rifle” they would have fallen over. The 7.62 NATO has enough power at 600 and 800 yards to do the job. Surprisingly, the drop numbers are pretty much the same. What it does better is retain energy. A 150-grain FMJ-BT that starts at 2600 fps is still doing 1600 at 500 yards. That’s a 240 PF, enough power to make a marked difference. But that power comes at a price: fewer shooters, in fewer circumstances, could get the hits that the AR shooters are getting regularly. The .308 has the power but doesn’t let you get the hits. The AR gets the hits, but the bad guys aren’t falling over.

In fact, a certain percentage of them aren’t going to fall over regardless of what you shoot them with. A friend of mine spent a few years as an evidence technician in a large metropo

As I recall, I did it in something like eight. (Our club had been holding 3-gun matches for about a dozen years by that time. I was a really, really good shooter back then.)

***litan County sheriff’s department. He collected a looseleaf folder of his photos, and a story to go with each one. One concerned a home intruder. The bad guy burst in the front door and began going up the stairs to the second floor. The homeowner grabbed his house gun, which happened to be a 4" .44 Magnum revolver. When the bad guy reached the top of the stairs the home owner realized that his options had been reduced to one. The bad guy had not paid any attention to the commands to stop. So the bad guy got shot. The full-power .44 Magnum bullet struck the bad guy underneath his left eye. The unfortunate terminal ballistics experimental subject fell to the bottom of the stairs. He then got up, walked out of the house and down the block. The police found him dead by his car around the corner, keys out.

Now, be honest. Those of you who would say, “A .44 Magnum to the head will do the job every time,” raise your hand. OK, put it down, people are staring. Just to make you more afraid, the bad guy was described in the preliminary report as “average height, slight of build, middle age.” Not a mammoth bodybuilder type stoked on PCP. What possible handgun caliber could the good guy have used that would have had more effect?

Thus we come to “Sweeney’s Terminal Ballistics Rule #1:” Nothing you can hold in your hands is 100% effective. STBR#1 is simple physics: anything you can shoot is something someone can take a hit from (somewhere, sometime) and still keep going, even if only for a few seconds.

Sweeneys Terminal Ballistics Rule #2 is also simple: you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. Snipers practice a lot and can hit what they shoot at. For them, more power can be dealt with. If you only get one shot before the target hides, before the target’s protective detail shoots back, or before someone calls in artillery or an air strike, then it had better be a stout one. Handing a sniper a .308, a .300 Magnum or a .338 Lapua is just a matter of more practice. For the regular troops, these would be counter-productive choices.

Those familiar with history like to point out that our forefathers (and my Father in particular) fought with rifles chambered in .30-06. Are we lesser men than they? No, but we face a different threat. The opponents we were shooting were for the most part armed with bolt-action rifles. When you and they are armed with rifles of equal caliber, but yours is a self-loader and theirs is a bolt action, you’ll have a big advantage. Now, consider the matchup between Garand-armed combatants and those armed with AK-47s. Big difference. Yes, the Garand strikes a heavier blow, but STBR#2 tells us it comes at a cost: recoil. Fire superiority between facing units depends on the volume that can be delivered, as well as the effect of each individual shot. Unless you can be firing 40mm grenades at the M1 Garand pace, your heavier blows cannot overcome the fire volume of the AK-47.

You need a certain amount of power. Once you’ve exceeded that threshold, you need volume fire. More power decreases volume of fire.

While the 5.56 is effective in some uses, it is not nearly as penetrative on building materials as some think it is.

Selecting ammunition, or picking a caliber, is not easy. Even if all you have is one AR, in one caliber, you’re still going to be faced with a plethora of choices. Selecting ammunition for a police department adds a layer of complexity, while doing so for a military organization can make your head explode. I can well imagine some one grumbling, “Sweeney’s making it all too complicated. Why, everyone knows that ‘XYZ’ brand is best.” Best for what? For shooting deer? Shooting zombies? Hitting a target at 600 yards? What’s best for your wallet? No, if ammo choices were easy there wouldn’t be dozens of companies, and even countries, making ammo for our buying and consuming pleasure.

The exit hole in the second wall (circled) clearly shows the impact is caused by the thrown mass of the wallboard itself.

The ammunition and caliber controversies swirl mostly from advocates of one or another position having fixed firmly on one variable of the equation. They then argue their case based on that variable, to the exclusion of all others. One example is the controversy early in the AR-15 era. The military, through various research groups and study commissions, came up with a new idea, one not based on traditional rifle use: area saturation. The SALVO project discovered that if you fired a multiplex round (multiple projectiles at once) or a very high rate of fire burst, you increased your chances of hitting the target. (I’m sure at this point more than one reader is thinking “Well, duh!” Keep reading.) While hardly original, what they did was this: they extrapolated the concept beyond customary usage.

Everyone was familiar with the idea of a shotgun, but trying to get a rifle-like weapon to do the same thing proved problematic. Some of the more conspiracy-minded in the firearms world viewed the result research as simply an attempt by the Army to kill the unwanted AR. Perhaps they’re right. I guess I’m just not that cynical. The resulting weapon system was the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon). The idea was simple: launch a small projectile fast enough, and it will do more than just hurt. The goal was a ten-grain projectile at over four thousand feet per second. With such a low recoil impulse, you could fire short bursts at high cyclic rates, and be sure of connecting on a target.

The idea ran counter to traditional marksmanship, where you selected a target and made sure you hit it with your one shot. The new volume-fire advocates felt that in combat, targets (usually enemy soldiers) were partially obscured, moving, hidden by dust, smoke, rain or darkness, and thus difficult to hit. Additionally, the stress of combat, added to the physical tolls of exhaustion, dehydration, lack of sleep and odd eating schedule greatly diminished marksmanship skills. By saturating a suspected area, they could ensure combat effectiveness. The marksmanship advocates felt that it was easy to switch from aimed fire to suppressing fire, but that proper training meant soldiers would stay cool under fire and hit what they aimed at. In a nutshell, the volume advocates wanted to saturate an area, and the marksmanship advocates wanted to make sure any single blow was sufficient to “get the job done.”

Albert Einstein came up with a useful method of sorting out problems, called the “Thought Experiment.” Let’s do the same for our conundrum. If the volume advocates are correct, we need not worry too much about caliber. Thus we could settle on something like a .22 Magnum as good enough. Each soldier could carry several thousand rounds, in magazines or stripper clips to reload magazines. Every rifle would be constructed to fire ten-shot bursts. When faced with a problem, soldiers would simply saturate the suspected area. Machinegunners would have .22 Magnum miniguns, firing at 1,200 to 2,000 rpm, and two or three assistant gunners to help carry the 50,000 rounds they’d need. For the other advocates, who feel we need more power, we’d issue rifles in .375 H&H Magnum. Since they are assured of one-shot stops, the basic combat load of fifty rounds should be plenty. Both extremes are silly.

Hitting the target in a military context is different than it is in sporting use, police work or non-LEO self defense. If you’re a police officer and you commonly find yourself getting into multi-combatant firefights against machinegun-armed opponents, or fighting for days on end, you should let the recruiter from a less-dangerous department talk you into joining up. Hunters can always go back to the cabin for more ammo. Citizens defending themselves rarely need more than one magazine full. But a soldier, marine or airman may be slugging it out for hours. A personal weapon that consumes ammunition at a 1,200 to 2,000 rpm rate is one you can’t resupply fast enough. A .375 H&H has so much recoil you can’t shoot it for hours on end. I pretty much shoot for a living, and after about forty rounds of .375 H&H I need a cold drink and a nap.

No, anything used for combat or defense is something that has to balance the variables, not favor one over all the others.

The Great Caliber Debate

The thought came to me while I was shooting steel. I was settled down behind an Armalite Super SASS. It held a magazine full of Black Hills Red .308, loaded with 175-grain match bullets. I was shooting prone, off the bipod, sighting through a U.S. Optics scope, and the rifle sported a Surefire suppressor. As I held the fourth mil-dot down on the LaRue target and prepped the trigger, it came to me: I could be using any caliber. It really didn’t matter if the rifle was a .308, a .223, or any other caliber that Armalite could dream up or fit into the action.

Now, there are a lot of shooters who could use more cartridge than what we currently issue. But there are many more who couldn’t. Even in an all-volunteer military, you can’t issue anything based on the exemplars. You have to consider the average. The average soldier is not going to put any more effort into rifle practice than the Army gives him. He (or she) has a whole lot of other things to take care of, things the Sergeant they answer to is much more interested in. One example? How happy would everyone be, if a helicopter couldn’t fly? Especially if the reason was the maintenance crew was out getting even more range practice? Soldiers (and Marines) could be depending on the chopper for air support, or resupply, or medevac. No, you have to consider the average when making such choices.

Now, the curious thing is that when we are in a time of peace, no one worries about such problems. In peacetime, the number of actual combatant-jobbed military personnel is small. (Tragic, but true.) In a war, the people in the front are more concerned with getting the job done with the tools at hand than in forming a commission to argue the problem. And what we’ve found is that with a minor ammunition change, the 5.56 seems to work well enough. The marksmanship people were partly right: if you pay attention to your sights while pressing the trigger, quite often the bad guys fall down. And even at impressively long ranges. In the wide open spaces of Iraq or Afghanistan, you can see people at distances the Vietnam vets wouldn’t dream of. With an accurate rifle (and rack-grade M-16s and M4s often do better than 2 MOA) you can get hits on people well past the 300 meter range that the Project SALVO study felt was the maximum useful range.

Behind the loaded magazine, the ballistic gelatin was in sorry shape.

Budget Restrictions

Will the military switch calibers? My bet: probably not. Not until there is something so much better as to be worth the cost. Ditto for replacement rifles. The big problem I’ve seen with both is that they aren’t enough. Not enough of a better thing to make it worth the cost and hassle of switching. So, the new XYZ caliber drops bad guys 10% better when it hits them. If it costs more, forget it. Ammo costs money. Consider an Infantry company. To make things easy, we’ll round it off to 100 effectives. Each soldier with a rifle (80) has a basic load of 270 rounds. At least on paper. If it is a company that sees action, they’ll have more. Call it 300 rounds each. Your twenty SAW gunners have a 200-round belt in the weapon, a spare belt on them, and two more on each of two assistants who carry the load. That’s 1,200 rounds per gun. Those 100 men require 48,000 rounds of ammunition. At a cost of $150 per thousand, that is $7,200 in ammo. And they could burn through it all and need more in an afternoon. A 10% increase in ammo cost can hurt. A 10% decrease in hit ratio hurts. Bigger calibers are heavier, thus taking more weight and volume to ship.

A bigger caliber also requires new magazines, barrels and bolts (at a minimum) plus spare parts. The new ammunition has to be typed, tested, and produced in the usual variety. The common suite of loadings are ball, AP, tracer, match, proof test, blank and dummy. All those require time and money to develop, test and then produce.

Changing rifles takes even more. In addition to a new rifle, you’ll need magazines, slings, training manuals, and magazine pouches (unless you use the same magazines or same-size magazine). You’ll have to re-train armorers, write new training and field manuals, and design and distribute new rifle racks for vehicles, ranges, armories and storage depots.

The selling point of new designs is usually “the barrel has a longer service life” or “it is less prone to dust and mud” or “it’s lighter, stronger.” As an engineer and gunsmith, I always think “If the new technology is so great, why not use it to make the AR better? If the new barrel has twice the service life, then what do we get if we make it for the AR?” And so on with other improvements. You want to sell the military a new rifle, show how yours is not only markedly superior, but how its features can’t be applied to the current one.

The inertia of what exists is so great that unless someone comes up with a rifle that is such a good deal it would be stupid or criminal to pass it up, we’ll stick with what we have.

We’re going to cover the AK rounds, but as an interesting note, you can acquire ARs that fire the AK rounds. Colt made some AR-15s in 7.62X39. A couple of decades ago gun shows were awash in AK ammo. The Chinese were interested in making money, and what they had that we wanted was ammo. It was entirely possible to buy a case of 1,600 rounds for $79 at a gun show. But .223/5.56 then was not nearly as cheap, running (from memory here) on the order of $150 per thousand rounds. Faced with ammo half as expensive, Colt tried to get in on it. Unfortunately, the 7.62X39 and the Stoner system were not a good match, something that experimenters had to re-discover nearly twenty years afterwards. The tapered 7.62X39 doesn’t work very well in the nearly-straight AR magazine.

Recently, Alexander Arms made a batch of rifles they called the “.21 Genghis” which was the AR built in 5.45X39. The 5.45 is not nearly as tapered as the 7.62X39 and the result worked a lot better. However, if you say “AK ammo” to most shooters, what they’ll think of is 7.62X39, and so the Genghis is now a custom-made item, not regular production. There just weren’t enough people who wanted it.

So, how does the 5.56 stack up against the other calibers? The classic competitor is the 7.62X39. The Soviet answer to volume fire, it pitches a .30 caliber 120- to 125-grain bullet (a nominal 122 grains) at 2,200 to 2,300 fps. In recoil terms, that is a Power Factor of 264 to 287. The bullet, usually with some mild steel component (jacket, core or both) penetrates well. Despite the hard bullet, which does not break up, the bullet has good terminal performance. However, it is not a miracle bullet. You pay for what you get. The bullet has a looping trajectory. Where it is possible to zero an AR and be on a target all the way to 300 yards, you cannot do that with the 7.62X39.

As we discovered in The Gun Digest Book of the 1911, Volume 2, AK magazines, even when loaded, are not very good body armor.

Launched at a nominal 2250 fps, the 125-grain bullet is ten inches over the line of sight at the 150-yard mark. (The .223/5.56 is only six inches high.) Out at 500 and 600 yards the AK round is, how shall I put it, almost inconsequential. At 500 yards it has dropped almost six feet, at 600 almost twelve feet. Basically, you need a forward observer to walk your shots in. Velocity is still enough to hurt, almost 1200 fps at 500, and still over 1,000 at 600. But clearly a waste of ammo, coupled with the 4-6 MOA accuracy you can expect from the best AKs. The 7.62X39 is performing exactly as it was designed to, putting .30-caliber holes through people and objects within a 300-meter combat range.

During WWII (which the Soviets called The Great Patriotic War)) many Soviet infantry units were composed solely of soldiers armed with submachineguns. The idea was to close with the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS infantry units, and then simply overwhelm them with volume of fire and swarms of infantry as flanking units closed in. For that, submachineguns worked fine. The range and trajectory of the M-1943 (the 7.62X39) round was an improvement over that of the 7.62X25 submachinegun round.

Another strike against the 7.62X39 is lack of accuracy. Not that it is bad in that regard, it just isn’t all that good. A good AK, fed superb ammo, will deliver 2-3 MOA groups. Even a shabby one, fed ammo from four different ammo plants made each in a different decade, will still keep all of its hits on a person at 100 yards. But an AR under the same conditions will still be shooting 3 MOA.

The military requires controllable full-auto fire. U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Gregg Williams fires three-round bursts from an M4 carbine assault rifle during a weapons familiarization exercise at Tallil Air Base in Iraq. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Eric J. Benson, U.S. Navy.

The Soviet answer to the M-1943 round (as they refer to the original AK round) was the 5.45X39. The smaller bore and lighter weight meant less recoil. The 5.45 fires a .221" bullet (an odd diameter I can’t figure the reason for) of 55 to 60 grains at 2,900 fps or so for a PF of 175. The smaller bullet gives a flatter trajectory, allowing for point-blank engagement of targets to 300 yards. The 5.45X39 starts its 60-grain bullet at around 2,900 fps. So, we end up with a trajectory (using our 300 yard combat zero) thatr is almost identical to that of the M-855. And despite the much-vaunted Soviet “air-tip” bullet, I can’t see a steel-jacketed bullet of any design doing much breaking-up at 1300 fps, out at 500 yards. Lighter ammo means more in a soldier’s payload. The Soviets realized, among other things, that they could no longer utilize the same tactics that they had used in The Great War and had built their war-fighting plans around ever since. Without mass conscription (and the population base it required), they had to re-build with the idea of a professional army in mind. Smaller, better-trained units that would fire and maneuver without massive artillery preparations, without swarms of infantry units that could accept large casualties and still achieve the objective.

The same weight limit of eight pounds for our soldier armed with an M-16 gives us a limit of just under five loaded magazines of 7.62X39. Four fully-loaded, and one with seventeen rounds in it. That’s 137 rounds of ammo. Given how fast the AK-47 heats up when fired, that might be all you can shoot without a bucket of water handy. The AK-74 fares better. There, our eight-pound limit gets us just under seven loaded rounds. That’s six fully loaded magazines, and one with twenty-four rounds in it for a total of 204 rounds. Much better, but the AK-74 is still going to be hot when you’ve finished your basic combat load.

The AK-74 (the rifle made for 52 grains at 2886 fps) is more accurate than the AK-47. A good rifle will shoot 2-3 MOA with regular production ammo. Shift to ammo from another plant and the group center may change a little but the same 2-3 MOA is what you’ll see. On a good day, the -47 approaches but rarely makes it to 2-3 MOA.

If the 5.45 is so superior, then why are there so many 7.62X39 rifles out there? Because the Soviets, Chinese and other communist regimes flooded the world market with them, that’s why. You cannot wear out an AK. For all their crude appearance they were robustly designed and sturdily manufactured. Their chrome-lined bore and chambers mean the bores won’t rust any time soon. A fifty-year old AK, given even minimal maintenance, will work all of the time. Indeed, if you peruse any internet photos of conflicts in Africa, you’ll see AKs literally worn down to bare steel that are still working.

With magnifying optics, it is possible to regularly hit targets beyond the range at which the 5.56is capable of doing its best. DoD photo.

Calibers and Loads

.223/5.56

The hot new thing is the old new thing: steel.

Wolf

Faced with mounting (and as far as I can tell unwarranted) criticism of their lacquered steel cases, Wolf apparently paid attention to the movie The Graduate: “Plastics.” (Will that movie and quote ever fall out of use? )The new coating is polymer, and I have had no problems with it. Then again, I didn’t have a problem with the lacquered cases, either. The lacquer had a greenish color to it; the polymer is gray. In testing the new polymer-coated ammo, I subjected one of the test rifles from the first book to more agony. I took the Colt M4 Carbine, uncleaned from the previous book, and took it to the range. Actually, took it a number of times. I first made sure it was hitting to the sights, and added a good coating of powder residue from a half-carton of Black Hills blue. I then finished off any remnants of old Wolf lacquer-coat that were lying around.

With the rifle prepped, I fired a couple of hundred rounds of the new poly-coated ammo, in 62-grain full metal jacket. I let it cool, then cased it and kept it handy for subsequent range trips. Each time I went to the range I took the Colt, and put another couple of hundred rounds of the poly-coat ammo through it. Once I had shot off the whole case, I cleaned up the odd-n-ends box. At no time in the whole test did the Colt ever give me pause to regret my test. I don’t know what the shooters who are complaining about Wolf are doing differently, but I haven’t had any problems.

On good steel, frangible hits won’t be a problem.

Frangible ammo is expensive, yes. But to keep from busting steel, you’ll need it in training.

While steel works, there are still some who insist on brass. For them, Wolf has Wolf Performance. Brass-cased ammo made in the Prvi Partisan plant in the Balkans, the cases are boxer primed, non-corrosive, and provide the comfort of brass that so many shooters desire.

My friend Ned Christiansen had a suggestion about a possible avenue of problems with the old Wolf. He noted that when you are painting anything, the most important thing to avoid are runs. And that perhaps the old Wolf had occasional runs in the case lacquer. Now, we’d have to open a case or two of the old stuff and visually inspect each and every case until we found (or more likely, didn’t find) cases with runs in the lacquer. As an intellectual exercise, I can see where that might be the problem, but as for actually testing the theory, my thinking is: “Fuggedaboudit.” Since Wolf switched to polymer, and those who hate Wolf will never change their minds, the problem (if there was one) is moot. Try it. If you like it, use it. If you don’t, don’t. It won’t turn your rifle into a sub-critical tactical nuke.

Hornady

The hot load of late is the Mk 262 Mod1, the 75- or 77-grain open-tipped match loads. It delivers both power (or at least as much as the AR in 5.56 has to offer) and accuracy. It is, however, pricey. And tough to get, as the people who make it have this tendency (good for them) to ship it first to those who actually need it. And not in any great quantities to gun writers who will use it to shoot cardboard and steel (nor to mall ninjas, who will use it to shoot terrorists – in their dreams).

While making match and duty ammo based on the 75-grain open-tip match bullet, Hornady went even further. The big holdup for many on the new Mk-262 Mod 1 ammunition is cost. It costs money to do it right, and if you don’t do it right you don’t get any increase in effectiveness over the old M-193 load. To bring down the cost of practice ammo, Hornady did two things: they went with a 75-grain FMJ ballistic copy of the match bullet. No gilt-edged accuracy with the FMJ or sudden breakup in terminal ballistics, but accurate enough. And they went with steel cases. When I first mentioned this to a group of steel-case haters, I thought their heads would explode. I mean, a respected US manufacturer making ammo they might actually want to use, with steel cases? But soon after, they had reconciled themselves to the thought of using steel-cased ammo in their rifles, and were happily shooting the ammo.

I’m sure there will still be some who avoid steel cased ammo, but it will be even harder now. However, there is a fly in the ointment. For now, the new loading is a law-enforcement only stock number. Not because it is super-effective, or the bullets are made of something controlled, like depleted uranium. No word as to exactly why, but I suspect the steel cases have to be made on special machinery, and Hornady doesn’t want to be so buried in orders they can’t fill that everyone gets grumpy. If the load proves to be popular enough (and profitable enough) then they’ll get more machines and increase production.

Not all military bullets are plain bullets. Left, a red-tipped tracer. Right, a green-tipped AP. Both would have to be made for any caliber-changed AR in military use.

Cor-Bon

The big problem with the AR is the 5.56, specifically the fact that it sucks against vehicles. Window glass is very hard on bullets, windshields may as well be armor plate, and sheet metal is armor plate unless you’re the one behind it. One approach is to use a bonded bullet like the Federal round the DEA is issuing. Or, for the rest of us, go with Cor-Bon. The Cor-Bon DPX is an all-copper hollowpoint of 53 grains. In testing, we’ve punched it through a laminated safety glass panel, and the bullet survived intact enough to weigh 46-47 grains and still expand in gelatin behind the glass. Most FMJ bullets are simply copper and lead powder blasting into the front face of the ballistic gelatin. The Cor-Bon DPX still goes the required 12" minimum the FBI calls for.

The big desire among many is for a heavier bullet. Heavier bullets tend to do better than lighter ones. However, a bullet of all-copper is going to be longer than one of copper and lead, if they are the same weight. A longer bullet requires a faster twist to stabilize. The 53-grainer is as heavy as Cor-Bon can make it and still work properly in 1:12 rifling twist barrels. If they went heavier they’d have to have two kinds of ammo, one for 1:12 barrels, and another for 1:9 or 1:7 barrels. Considering how well the current one works, even in 1:7 barrels, would there be enough market desire for a heavier bullet? Perhaps. But for now the 53-grain DPX is the best bullet to be using if you have to work around vehicles.

Hitting at 300 meters? A piece of cake with a good AR and a scope. Soldiers from Company B, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division in the village of Shakaria, Iraq. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Kevin L. Moses

Lest you think steel is rampant, Cor-Bon ammo is loaded on brass cases.

6.8 Remington SPC

The 6.8 is not new. Oh, I know the history of it with Special Forces, but neither the idea nor the execution is new. The first medium-bore American service rifle and cartridge was the 6mm Lee-Navy. Now back in 1895, when it was the hot new thing, we weren’t looking to increase power in our service cartridge. Well, we were, but not for the reason we are now. The current service round then was the .30 U.S. Army, also known as the .30-40 Krag. The Army had the Krag rifle and cartridge, but the Navy went with the Lee. The 6mm cartridge was rimless, compared to the rimmed Krag. The Lee could be reloaded with stripper clips, while the Krag needed its magazine opened, topped off one round at a time, and then closed. The Krag was a thoroughly respectable round for its day (which was just about how long it lasted) while the Lee was a real hot number. But they both were made obsolete as soon as high-velocity spitzer bullets were unveiled.

Instead of a round-nosed 220-grainer at 2100 fps (the .30-40) or a 135-grain round-nose 6mm at 2450 fps (the Lee), the U.S. Army and Navy found themselves facing a pointed 175-grain bullet fired at 2700 fps from a 7mm Spanish Mauser. Out-ranged and with a looping trajectory, the then-current US military rounds were in need of immediate replacement. The result was the .30-03, soon the .30-06. (Yes, the Army had to do things two and three times even back then.)

Then, in the 1920s, while John Garand was working on his rifle, Pedersen was working on a cartridge. The Army actually extensively tested both, not just to determine the suitability of semi-automatic rifles but also to find the optimum caliber. They even shot goats. The result was the .276 Pedersen, which had a pointed 125-135 grain bullet at 2600 to 2700 fps. The recoil was soft, accuracy great, downrange performance excellent.

But John Garand, who had been designing rifle after rifle to meet the seemingly whimsical desires of the Army, had a hunch. He stuck his finger in the air and based his latest prototype, not on the .276, but on the .30-06. Sure enough, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Douglas MacArthur, nixed any change in calibers, both from the standpoint of cost of conversion as well as the huge supplies still on hand from WWII. The .276 was dead on arrival.

Anyway, the 6.8 is now doing very well, thank you. It had a rocky birth. It was not immediately adopted by the military. The intent was to have a cartridge that offered a stout up-close “hit” while still giving downrange performance that could be depended on. It offers pretty much the same trajectory as the 5.56 M-855 does. Zeroed at 300 yards, a Sierra 115-grain match bullet is 47 inches low at 500 yards and 93 down at 600. However, at 500 yards the bullet is still moving along at 1455 fps. That gives it a 167 PF, an appreciable increase over that of the Mk 262, at 125PF. So while being a good “up close” round it isn’t giving anything away to the M-855 for long-range shooting.

Making 6.8 ammo proved to be a bit more involved than anyone thought. Its actual velocity wasn’t up to the expected velocity, and magazines were hard to come by. Some even refused to have anything to do with it until “ammo is as cheap as mil-surplus 5.56.” Now there’s an optimistic outlook. With that as a guidepost, none of us would mess with AK-47s because we can’t still buy a case of 1,600 rounds for $79 like we could in the old days. Luckily, more forward-looking shooters have continued to build rifles and experiment with ammo. Hornady solved a lot of problems with the ammo. One change that makes the ammo better but reloading a hassle is that Hornady switched their cases to small rifle primers. So if you are going to reload you have to sort cases by brand. Remington uses cases with large rifle primer pockets, while Hornady and Silver State Armory have theirs made with small primer pockets.

The 6.8 is selling well enough that getting a supply of ammo from Hornady was tough. (From Remington it proved impossible, although they did send me a big box of once-fired brass for the reloading chapter.) PRI is making magazines, and shipping large numbers of them to places hot and dusty. Until it is accepted or categorically rejected by the military, it will have slow growth.

6.5 Grendel

Bill Alexander is Alexander Arms. He developed the 6.5 Grendel for a different reason. He was looking for a hunting round in the AR. What he did was take a 7.62X39 case, blow it out and neck it down. The result is a round that has much less taper than the AK round, and thus feeds reliably in a modified AR magazine. The results are very impressive. A 123-grain match bullet can be pushed out at 2600+ fps. Shooters love to match the 6.8 against the 6.5. The 6.5 pushes a slightly heavier bullet a bit faster than the 6.8 does. Me, I’d be happy if the government adopted either one of them. But if we’re going to compare them, then let’s get the numbers. The heavier, lower-drag bullet, starting at a higher velocity, performs better at all ranges. (Big surprise there, eh?) The 6.5 will drop five inches less at 500 yards and nearly twenty less at 600. It arrives with almost 300 fps more velocity at each distance. Basically, it delivers like a slow velocity .308 at 500 yards with a PF of 227. However, you can’t get something for nothing. The 6.5 has more recoil, and remember our discussion earlier? More recoil means less hitting for the average trooper.

I love the rifles, I think the 6.5 cartridge is great, but is it the great leap forward in small arms? No, it is a light-recoiling .308. Which is not a bad thing, unless you’re trying to get a female aviation ordnance technician who is all of five feet tall to shoot a qualifying score. Then it ain’t so grand. I know, someone will object, saying we should be selecting gear based on the fire-breathing “heart breakers and life takers” we all put on a pedestal. However, as I’ve pointed out, most of the services aren’t staffed with those people.

Where we should be considering the 6.5 Grendel is as a long-range sniper rifle cartridge. For the weight (less than .308) and recoil (ditto) we nearly get the .308’s trajectory, downrange power, wind-bucking ability and brilliant accuracy.

Would I issue 6.5 Grendel carbines in my police department, for use on patrol? No. Would I issue 6.5 Grendels for the sniper teams on SWAT? I’d insist on it.

6.5 X45

The 6.5 is a careful little cartridge in a number of guises. The basic 6.5 is the 6.5X45, big brother (marginally) to the 6X45. Both are made by necking a .223 case up to the respective diameters of their bullets. A close cousin of the 6.5X45 is the 6.5 MPC, by SSK Industries. J.D. Jones is well known for his work on the Contender handguns and the .300 Whisper cartridge. All these cartridges suffer the same fault: they use the .223/5.56 case. Thus, the 6.5 MPC (which pushes the shoulder back a bit to get good neck tension) pushes a 120-grain 6.5 bullet at 2400 fps. That gives us a trajectory and energy not quite up to the 6.8 Rem SPC. What it does, however, is allow us the use of standard AR bolts (the same case, thus the same bolt face) and the same magazines as the .223/5.56.

For this kind of area, you need more than an M-16. You need more than a mere .30 rifle. The middle soldier has a .50 BMG rifle. Good choice. The one on his right has a suppressed M4. Another good choice. Soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team participate in Operation Lion Phase III along the Tigris River near Mosul, Iraq. DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock.

If J.D. had gotten the 6.5 MPC in front of the military, it might have gone over. After all, the only thing needed to be changed would be barrels. But alas, I’m afraid it does not have a bright future.

If you want to experiment, you can get barrels from J.D. Jones, or barrels for 6X45 and 6.5X45 from Olympic, when they make them. You can get loading dies. But for all your effort I don’t think you’re going to get far.

.308

To many Stoner fans, the Holy Grail is the AR chambered in .308. Armalite makes them, Bushmaster used to, and DPMS just started. Here’s what you’re in for: recoil.

Adoption

One big obstacle to any change in calibers is the need to sweep the whole existing inventory clean. Let’s assume that someone does go for the “bolts, barrels and magazines” pitch. Every single rifle has to be changed. Even crusty old M-16E1s in some dusty warehouse on a base in Dirt, New Mexico. Why? At a recent writers get-together we had a number of rifles to play with. The 6.8 rifles were kept well-separated form those chambered in other calibers. And yet, someone managed to load a 6.8 round into a magazine for a 5.56 rifle. As you can imagine, the rifle didn’t chamber it. Not that it didn’t try. I suppose the shooter banging on the forward assist had something to do with how well it was wedged in place, but it was stuck. Getting something like that cleared on the range was interesting, if a tad hazardous. In combat, or with marginally trained troops trying to do the clearing, it would be very exciting.

The armed services are smart enough to realize that trying to have two different calibers is a recipe for disaster. Even if the right ammo arrives for the guns, who’s to say that all the magazines are correct, too? And what to do with all the lower receivers marked “5.56?” How confusing can that get? Very.

The Soviets took care of a similar problem when they were “discussing” defense items with their “allies” in the Warsaw Pact. The Czechs had a great rifle in the vZ58. It chambered a different cartridge, the 7.62X45. Less taper, more capacity, more velocity. While the original carbine, the vZ52, was still made for a while in 1945, the assault rifles were converted to standard 7.62X39. No possibility of ammo confusion if they were all 7.62X39. (The carbine was the Czech equivalent of the SKS, albeit with a weight more like that of a Garand.)

Lead-Free

Now, I want clean air and clean water as much as the next guy. More, since I live surrounded on three sides by the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet. There are environmentalists, however, who seem to live in constant, unwavering fear of lead. If you listen to them, lead, that plain old soft metal, is ranked just below Plutonium in toxicity, and just below Mercury in its ability to escape into the environment. In order to save us from the scourge of lead, they are willing to entertain any replacement, no matter how great the cost. (Would it be out of line for me to point out that they themselves would not be the ones bearing the cost?)

Now, lead does have some undesirable health effects. Exposed to it, and in situations where your body can absorb it, you can have bad health effects as a result. However, the methods of protecting yourself are pretty easy: Don’t eat or drink on the range, certainly don’t smoke, and wash your hands before you leave the range. As to lead getting into the water table, the results are pretty uniform: only in the most extreme situations does lead migrate. Even so, it doesn’t do so with any kind of volume. Unless the water is extremely acidic (in which case you have other problems besides lead migration) and constantly agitated, pretty much no lead will migrate.

The “typical” situation where someone gets exposed to too much lead is some or all of : an indoor range with poor ventilation, poor lead-removal hygiene, frequent or continuous exposure, and no medical remediation. We saw the combinations with law enforcement; typically a range officer working in a big city, with an indoor range. He (or she) spent eight hours a day, five days a week, on the range. Lunch and/or coffee on the range, the same uniform worn for several days each week, and/or a locker room not given more than the typical cleaning to prevent mold, mildew, locker-foot and objectionable odors.

Lead is measured via a blood test. The scale is “micrograms per deciliter.” That is, thousandths of a gram per ten liters of blood. Since the average adult human being has less than four liters of blood, we’re talking not much lead here.

Given those conditions, a training officer could quickly develop excessive lead concentrations. The problem arises when exposure values that are safe for children are used to measure adult exposure. Child blood lead levels in the single digits are in the borderline range. An inner-city child with blood level test results of eight or ten mcg/Dl is at risk. An adult with the same result number is barely above average. How can that be? Simple: lead-containing gasoline. Yes, we stopped using it decades ago, but there is enough lead-containing dust simply lying around in the soils of our cities and near highways that we are still exposed to lead. Even if you’ve never fired a shot in your life, you’ll probably have a “background” lead level of three of four.

That police officer? He or she can have a lead test with results above 40. That’s in the range where medical attention is needed. Me? I’ve spent almost 40 years shooting and over 30 reloading. For two decades my average ammunition consumption was in excess of 35,000 rounds a year. A law enforcement training authority I teach for requires annual blood level tests. The last few tests have fluctuated between six and eight. Obviously whatever I’m doing to keep lead out of my system is working. My secret? I don’t eat or drink on the range, I don’t smoke, and I wash my hands when I’m done shooting.

Anyway, back to the problem at hand. Environmentalists have so skewed the discussion that they are forcing governmental bodies to take extreme efforts to keep lead out of the environment. So much so that police agencies are switching to non-lead containing ammunition, and the DoD is even toying with the idea. The police have not gone for it whole-hog, but have switched to frangible ammunition (more on that later) for a lot of training. The DoD has gone another route: “green” ammo. The core of the bullets use a tungsten-tin mixture. My prediction? The authorities responsible for the switch will come to regret it, despite the fact it will not end up harming their careers. It will end up costing us, the taxpayers, a lot more money that lead would have. And the environmentalists responsible won’t be held accountable.

Why? Medical testing has uncovered an embarrassing fact: the tungsten-tin mixture causes cancer in lab testing. If the research proves to be correct, the “green” ammunition will never be listed as Law of Land Warfare-approved ammunition. The government is not big on two ammo sources: if any supply of tungsten/cancer-causing ammo ever gets into a war zone, it would be in violation of the Hague Accords. You know, the one prohibiting ammunition “designed to increase the severity of wounds or cause unnecessary suffering.” Rather than run that risk, DoD will simply not buy it. They have begun, however. What it will probably take is a phalanx of Generals appearing before a Senate or House subcommittee, listing the costs and risks (geopolitically) to make the switch completely. After a few years of ruminating, Congress will nix a change. Well, we can only hope. Otherwise, we’ll be dependant on buying our ammunition raw materials from the Chi-Coms.

Further prediction: We’ll find that the tungsten-tin bullets escape to groundwater a lot faster than lead does. Those who are familiar with things environmental might remember MTBE. It was proposed (and then rammed through) as a gasoline additive that would increase the oxygenation of gasoline and reduce pollution. It didn’t do much to reduce pollution, but it increased gasoline cost due to the increase of formulations and market restrictions, and we found out something very embarrassing: it escaped to groundwater like moths to a flame. Why were all these things a surprise? Because we jumped on MTBE as a “good idea” before we had fully tested it. And so we seem to be doing with tungsten-tin.

As a last negative, as I alluded to, most supplies of tungsten come from China. The idea that the Defense Department would be dependent on a vital material from such a country is insupportable.

Frangibles

Frangible ammo is meant for use on steel plates. Falling steel, or simply ringing steel, is an immediate positive feedback of shooting done properly. First, let’s get one idea out of the way right now, clearly and forcefully: frangible ammo is not meatn for use in any situation except on steel plates. Bullet-proof vests don’t stop frangible. (Not unless the plates are rifle-rated.) Walls, boards and other chance obstacles don’t stop frangibles. And it is not meant as a low-penetration antipersonnel ammo. Don’t use it for anything but close-range steel targets. Period.

Rifles are hard on steel. At the old Second Chance shoot we shot at steel plates as close as 45 yards, and those plates were hammered every year. That they lasted the whole nine days of the match was amazing. You are better off shooting at steel no less than 100 yards away.

But while doing CQB simulations, you can’t backup (nor even find) 100 yards in a hallway. So you shoot the distances you’ve got, with frangibles and targets to break them up. Where to get frangible ammo? One of my sources, PMC, is in the middle of re-engineering their ammo, so they may not be available for a while.

But two others are. I have had good luck with International Cartridge Corp and Precision Cartridge Corp. Of the two, I found the ICC ammo just a bit light in weight and velocity. In my rifles, the supply I had all worked. But a 4- grain bullet running only 2668 fps even out of a 20” barrel is a bit light. With a very dirty, or marginally-functioning rifle, it may not function 100%. The PCC ammo was hotter, and not only posted good speeds, but the full 55-grain weight bullet is just more comforting to me. Yes, frangible ammo is expensive, but sometimes it is all that you’ll be allowed to use in training.

Varmint bullets, to reduce indoor overpenetration, present their own problem:they don’t penetrate deeply enough on people.

One aspect of the lead-free ammo experiment we are being forced into is primer chemistry. One source of the lead we’re exposed to is the primer combustion byproducts. Lead-free primers are not as stable as the old formulas, and that is one of the reasons that lead-free ammunition is listed by the manufacturers as training ammo only. After a few years in storage, some small percentage of the primers may not ignite when struck.

Ammo: How Much?

You can start any number of arguments and perhaps even a few fistfights by asking this question. How much ammo is “enough?” Well, that depends. Are you planning to have enough stashed away in your remote mountain cabin that you can live the rest of your life after the fall of civilization and not run out? Or are you planning on dealing with rampant swarms of zombies in the streets, commie paratroopers or packs of looters? Let’s face it, unless you have enough people in your family to form two fire teams, or have organized the neighborhood, volume of fire isn’t the solution to your problems.

Ammo is unlikely to get less expensive in the future. You should find a brand of ammunition that your rifle likes, and lay in a supply. Say a few thousand rounds at least. Call that your “emergency stash.” With all due respect to Blacks Hills and other high-quality ammunition, I would not use reloads as my emergency stash. (Well, the only way to get Mk-262 Mod 1 is as reloads, so I guess there is always an exception.) My emergency stash is sealed in steel ammo cans, mostly in bandoliers. If I ever need it, I know it has been kept safe from heat and moisture, and I use tape on the handle to keep it safe from the hands of curious brothers-in-law.

With a stash stored away, then you should lay in a supply of practice ammo. Here, you can use (and I can in good conscience suggest) reloads. Might I suggest Black Hills? Or loading your own? Buy more as you run low, and always shop for the best price. How much? I know shooters who get nervous when their practice stash gets below 10,000 rounds. How much you buy and store depends on what your wallet is able to support. Look at it this way: if you forego a latte a week, each year you have enough cash left to buy a case of ammo.

Commercially-Available .223/55.6 Ammunition

* Headstamp with NATO proof/acceptance mark
** The factory box bore no lot number or no product designations
*** Unlike other XM193 brown boxes, these were white

CHAPTER THREE

MAGAZINES

PRI makes good magazines, and they make 6.8

Remington SPC magazines. PRI are the only magazines I use in my Police Sniper 6.8.

There’s a lot you don’t know about magazines. They are, after all, just sheet metal boxes, right? Well, after I had a long conversation about magazines with one of the top makers, I found out much more. For instance, care to guess how many dimensional variables have to be controlled to make first-class magazines? Anyone? Bueller? OK, would you believe 132? That’s right. Yes, yes, we all know they have to be the correct size front to back and side to side or they won’t fit. But how about the location of the magazine catch notch? And not just its location, but how square it is to the feed lips? Ever think about how that can affect feeding? How about the height and radius of the feed lips? Tempering and work-hardening of the alloy? When you consider how much goes into making magazines, the fact that the government can buy them for an average of $7.57 each, and we can buy them for less than double that, is a minor miracle. It also explains why bad magazines often can’t be fixed with new springs and followers. No spring in the world is going to give good feeding if the feed lips are badly shaped. And no follower will help if your mag catch notch is crooked.

Buy good ones, buy a lot of them, and don’t be too enamored of the ones you have. If they go bad, get rid of them.

The new thing in magazines is something old: twenty round magazines. And “steel is king.” I had a club member ask me the other day, “Does the government still issue twenty-round magazines?” As far as I know, no, they don’t. However, they still have a lot in inventory.

The government buys lots and lots of magazines. We benefit from that volume, paying dirt-cheap prices for excellent USGI magazines.

A different friend of mine happened to be visiting a government armory. (He’s a law enforcement officer, and they were showing him pretty much anything he wanted to see.) “What’s behind that door?” he asked, at one point in the tour. “Ah, we store magazines there, I think.” So they looked in, and there were pallets of magazines in cartons. They poked into one of the open cartons, and found cardboard boxes full of brand-new 20 round magazines. Seven magazines per box, brand-new with the manufacturing date and contract number on each box. And by “brand-new” I mean magazines that hadn’t been out of cardboard since they were made thirty-six years ago. Since he was a law enforcement officer, they let him sign for an armload of boxes. (The pay sometimes is bad, the hours can suck, and the Mayor may shaft you, but sometimes there are deals to be had.) For you internet research junkies, I’ve already run the contract number and come up empty-handed. The contract is so old it isn’t on the internet.

For a lot of users the twenty-round magazine is still king. They are nearly indestructible, unbelievably reliable, and compact, and for shooting prone they can’t be beat. If you have a chance to get twenty-round magazines in good shape for a fair price, don’t hesitate.

At a recent class, one of the officers who brought his rifle around for some work was loading his magazines when one caught my eye. It was a twenty-round Colt-marked magazine with no finish. Those who have worn their magazines down know that there are several platings on magazines. From the outside down, on a new magazine there is a solid-coat film of dry lubricant. Underneath that is the silver plating. (We don’t know what the various coatings actually are; the compositions are not disclosed by the makers. The mil specs would give a hint.) Under that comes a gold, a gray, a copper or red, then the anodizing and finally, the aluminum itself. Some good quality but non mil-spec magazines will have Teflon instead of the dry film, or even Teflon and then the dry film. This magazine was worn to bare aluminum. There was no trace of any color except some paint in the grooves. And this was his most reliable magazine, the one he refused repeatedly to turn back in to the departmental armorer. That’s how good, and closely held, twenty round magazines can be.

DPMS makes a reliable 45-round magazine for competition use. Be the well-equipped shooter at your club and get one. Then shoot in three-gun competition without needing to reload.

For a lot of people the 20-round magazine never went away. There is such an interest in them that magazine makers are now making 20-round magazines again. And collectors (bless their little hearts) are now cruising gun shows looking for the rare, the odd, the pristine. I say bless their hearts because if it wasn’t for collectors ferreting out every little detail about their area of interest, we’d lose much valuable information.

CProducts

Since my first AR book, a new manufacturer has surfaced. Well, an established manufacturer has let their name get out: C Products. They had made magazines for others but now make them under their own name. The excitement is on several fronts. First, they make magazines for the 6.8 and 6.5. They plan to be making magazines for 7.62X39 ARs, and also 9mm Colt carbines. All good things. But they also make 30-round 5.56 magazines that are different: they’re stainless steel. Unlike the older steel magazines, the C products magazines aren’t heavy. Unlike the HK magazines, they aren’t ferociously expensive. They are made from heat-treated stainless steel.

Ever run over an AR magazine with a pickup truck? I have. With an aluminum magazine it isn’t pretty. With a C Products magazine it isn’t a problem. Well, at least if you’re driving a relatively normal truck it isn’t. In our preliminary and unscientific test of a C Products magazine, Ned Christiansen first stood on it. Ned isn’t, in the parlance of bowling pin shooting, “a stable weapons platform” but he isn’t a skinny runt either. No problem. So we drove over it. A couple of tons of truck loaded with gear, and no problem. We promptly stuck the loaded magazine in a rifle and fired the rounds. No malfunctions. Based on that limited test, and using other C Products magazines in various rifles, I have to give them the nod of approval.

You’d be smiling too, with 100 rounds ready to go.Warning: too much Betamag can melt your barrel.

Magpul

Magpul makes magazine accessories. They don’t make magazines but they do make magazines better. When the government went with the new green follower, the anti-tilt one, they ordered new magazines with the new followers. Those of us with the old magazines had two choices: make do, or buy new. Well, Magpul made new followers so you could upgrade your old magazines. Now, I have a bunch of magazines with the old shiny black followers that work well. Magazines that have worked reliably for ten or twenty years each. I don’t feel compelled to swap out the old followers for new. But if a magazine gives the slightest hint of a problem in practice or training, then I’ll swap out the follower.

Magpul also makes magazine loops. The old method was (and still is) to attach a section of 550 cord, or a flap of duct tape or 100-mph tape to the magazines. The loop makes it easier to wrestle a magazine out of a full pouch. Things have changed. First, those packing magazines are not as likely to have them in three-mag pouches side by side by side. Pouches are now more likely to be two mags per, or even separate rows of individual magazine pouches. However, if they are in tight enough not to rattle or fall out, they are still going to be tough to extricate. The 550 loop or duct tape flap gave you a place to hold on to. Magpul originally offered their mag loops, which are moulded rubber loops. You will have to wrestle the loop onto the bottom of each magazine, not always an easy task. But if it were easy to put on, it would be easy to come off. What makes the work less of a hassle is the realization that you do not need Magpuls on every magazine. One per pouch is enough, as once the first magazine is out the second is a lot easier to remove.

Magpul also makes Ranger Plates. Unlike the mag pull, which slips over the existing magazine and baseplate, the Ranger plate replaces the magazine floorplate. The Ranger Plate has its own loop built in.

A supply of twenty-round magazines, a Camelbak, and an accurate and reliable rifle. What more do you need?

Magpul Ranger Plates replace the baseplate and provide you a place to grab. Yes, that is a Cooper Industries magazine in the foreground. It’s always worked for me.

The anti-tilt green follower makes dodgy magazines reliable. They can’t work miracles, and if your magazine is too far gone they can’t help.

In testing more rifles and going through my gear, I discovered that I had an unreliable magazine. A perfect candidate for testing. So I stripped the magazine and replaced the shiny black follower with a green anti-tilt Magpul follower, the original spring with an ISMi extra-power spring and the flat floorplate with a Ranger Plate. When installing the Ranger Plates, you have to be thorough and make sure it is securely installed. If you don’t it can work loose and come off. The regular floor plates are so light that they can’t shift or move. But the larger Ranger Plates can if you don’t get them on right, so you want them on right. Take a little extra time and you’ll be rewarded. The result was a reliable magazine. Now, I’m the cautious, old-school type who views an unreliable magazine as something akin to a rattlesnake: dangerous to be around, and not something you want to keep. But otherwise good magazines that are a bit cranky can be rehabilitated with the Magpul parts.

Magazines that work fine now will only work better with Magpul parts in or on them.

Wolff

The original firearms spring provider for those of us who don’t work at firearms manufacturers, Wolff makes springs of all types from music wire. Music wire is the traditional material used to make coil springs, and it has many benefits: it’s easy to form (relatively speaking), durable, inexpensive and predictable in results. However, music wire is easy to over-work, it can rust, and some fault it for durability. Me, I’ve always had good luck with music wire in general and Wolff in particular.

ISMi

ISMi makes springs using a different process from music wire. Their materials are a different steel alloy, and the springs, once formed, are shot-peened and heat-treated to increase durability, longevity, and corrosion resistance. However, nothing in life is free, and you’ll pay more for ISMi springs than you will for Wolff.

Military Mags

Since the first book I’ve had a chance to play some with the H-K magazines and talk to those who’ve taken them in harm’s way. Some view the H-K mags almost with awe and reverence. I talked with a couple of Marines who had come back from Iraq who had used the H-K mags over there.

The Arredondo mag base gives you a firm but adjustable prone shooting base.

The original Magpul mag pulls. They’re made of rubber, and they slip over your magazines.

To them, they were just magazines. One had brought his back with him. They were still dusty, scratched and worn bright on the edges but they worked. They all worked, even though one of them had the feed lips on one side visibly dented down. They’re heavy and expensive but they do work. One of my associates in the firearms instruction field took an H-K mag and pulled the follower out. Loren then installed the H-K follower in a USGI magazine. The follower was a marvel of smooth operation. But we agreed that the chances of being able to buy just followers from H-K with which to rebuild USGI 30-round magazines were about as remote as getting a date with a supermodel.

PRI

PRI makes magazines for the 6.8 Remington SPC.

They make them out of steel, so they are a bit heavier than USGI 5.56 magazines, but for the extra ruggedness I can put up with a bit more weight. And the weight of the ammo is more than the weight of the magazines, anyway, so no big deal. When PRI first made the 6.8 magazines, they made them with floorplates that stuck out. In magazine parlance, the direction the bottom tabs are folded determines what kind of floorplate goes on. “In” fold magazines can use a simple, flat floorplate. “Out” fold tabs mean the floorplate has to have folds itself, to ride over the outboard tabs of the magazine body. The military wanted “Out” mags so they could tell in the dark, by feel, which magazines they had. The only problem with that is one that, had anyone involved known their firearms history, would have been obvious. The British Lee-Enfield used rimmed cartridges. Load the magazine wrong, and the rims lock, and your rifle doesn’t work. Stuff your “Out” magazines in your mag pouches wrong, and they lock. Either they don’t come out at all, or they all come out. The next production batch had “In” floorplate tabs.

Buffer Technologies dual-mag holder. Cool.

The word is, the 6.8 has no future. Better not tell that to PRI. They’re regularly shipping cartons of magazines. Some go to distributors here in the U.S. and others go to various exotic locales.

Be jealous. Be very jealous. Brand new 20-round magazines still in the carton.

How many?

How many should you own? As many as possible without getting silly. I know shooters who are happy with three or four. I know others who snap up every gun show bargain (good ones, not just cheap ones) and don’t keep count. One shooter I know has over 100 clean, tested AR magazines stashed away. He keeps them in sealed tupperware knockoff plastic storage bins, labeled as to how many and when stashed away. After all, they do not go bad just sitting on the shelf.

The other question is, how many are there? That, I cannot answer. However, there are plenty. In looking over contracts issued, the total for what I can find is over fifteen million magazines contracted for in the last decade. Now, lest you think that is a whole heck of a lot, consider this: if we have 140,000 troops in Iraq, and we supply each of them with magazines (let’s just make a nice, round ten magazines each) we’ve just sucked up 1.4 million magazines. In the course of a year’s operations, the active shooters will probably lose, trash, step on and otherwise make scrap out of five to eight of those magazines. The helicopter maintenance tech will turn in ten magazines with slight wear, even if he or she had to do some active work on the perimeter. We can probably count on 400,000 of those 1.4 million disappearing each year.

Which leads to another question: what about the magazines that are brought back? Some view them as stolen property. Others, souvenirs. Me, I figure if you get through a deployment, and the Sergeant tells you “Keep ‘em, supply doesn’t want your crusty old mags,” then the government is well and truly done with them and you can do as you please. On the other hand, slapping shipping labels on otherwise unopened and unissued cartons of brand-new magazines, and sending them off to your brother-in-law for resale is theft. So please, will everyone who jumps in with “Theft of Government property!” every time someone on an internet forum exclaims “My buddy/brother/Uncle gave me some mags he brought back” please lighten up?

As for the “how many?” question concerning number of bullets per magazine, the jury is still out on that. I still have people I know and trust tell me they do not load more than 18 in a 20-round magazines or 28 in a thirty-rounder, or allow their students to do so. I have a whole bin full of magazines that have proven to be absolutely reliable loaded full. But if you simply must have more, then you can go with the DPMS 45-round magazine for competition. These are basically two magazine bodies welded together; the one I have has proven reliable enough for competition. (I’m not sure I’d trust a welded assembly in the rough-and-tumble of combat.) And if you have to have more, then there is always the Beta mag. At one hundred rounds it is still the king of capacity until we can get belt-fed conversions for our AR-15s.

Malfunctions

As discussed in Volume 1 of this book, there are a few things to look for in the AR magazine. One is tippy followers, a problem solved by using the Magpul follower. The other is weak springs, solved by sending an order to ISMi or Wolff. Dirty magazines are solved by cleaning them. But I encountered a malfunction that defies an easy solution. Or even an explanation. At the latest class, I had a rifle go down on a student. After making sure there wasn’t a round in the chamber and his safety was on, we looked at the magazine. The top round had its base wedged back in the bolt hold-open slot, on the spine. How’d it get there? No idea, as it wasn’t the top round. He’d fired a few before this happened. Just one of those on-in-a-million things, and reason enough to carry a spare magazine.

Buy magazines. Buy a lot of them. They don’t go bad, they don’t cost that much, and you never know when someone else wants them.

There’s a bit of paint left in the grooves, otherwise this magazine is worn down to bare aluminum. Still works fine.

Magazine Add-Ons

Buffer Technologies makes a nylon strap/clamp that holds a pair of magazines together. The late Larry Bullock brought it about, and it is still a great piece of gear. Command Arms has been making one that some look down on. I guess the apparent greater security of the Buffer Technologies system gives some people that warm and fuzzy feeling. I had to dash the sneers of one critic of the Command Arms system by pointing out that I had seen more than one photo from Iraq where the soldier or marine had a pair of mags held together with a CAA mag coupler.

Another one, meant for competition but having utility elsewhere, comes from Ralph Arredondo. The mag base slips over the already assembled magazine. The rounded bottom gives you a stable but adjustable base to rest the magazine on while shooting prone. Yes, yes, we all “know” that using the magazine as a monopod is an invitation to disaster. Your rifle will malfunction, your hair will fall out, you won’t win the lottery. Well I tested that premise back in Modern Law Enforcement Equipment and Training, 3rd Edition, and found my rifles didn’t malfunction. Nor have any I’ve tried it with since. I have other news for you too: your hair will fall out anyway, and the odds are you won’t win the lottery.

The Arredondo base works great for those fast prone shots in practical shooting competition.

Here’s Ned, in his French Foreign Legion paratrooper boots, standing on a CProducts magazine.

An Isuzu Trooper, loaded plimsol-down, parked on a CProducts magazine.

The stomped and parked-on CProducts magazine, working without fail in the DMR. Don’t be bashful, get some.

How’d this happen?No clue. How to prevent it? Keep ‘em clean, and live a good life. Other than that, I don’t know. How do you prevent a one-in-a-million problem?

The lead 101st Airborne trooper in this patrol outside of Hawijah, Iraq, uses a CAA mag coupler to hold his mags together. Can’t get much better than that.

DoD photo by Spc. Timothy Kingston, U.S. Army.

CHAPTER FOUR

BARRELS

The full-diameter H-Bar barrel is a beast. At .959” under the handguards, you’ll love the weight for recoil and prone shooting.

In a 3-gun run-‘n-gun match, however, it will be wearing.

The Troy folding front sight needs either a railed forearm or a gas block with a picatinny rail on top.

The burning question in the AR-verse is: “4140 or 4150?” Well, OK, three guys regularly wrangle about it on the internet in one or another forum, but it is something to think about. First, what are the differences? As you may know, steel is iron with a certain amount of carbon in it for hardness. The more carbon, the harder it is. (In the broadest possible brush strokes, yes. A lot more goes into hardness than carbon content, but unless you want a degree in metallurgy, use that as your working point.) The rest of the metals and other constituents in alloy steel are there for other reasons. Some to make it easier to machine, others to decrease oxidation, still others to make it springy without work-hardening and eventually breaking.

The first thing you have to be aware of is that it has been a long time since there was one 4140 or 4150 alloy. You can find at least six variants of “40” and seven of “50.” They are both members of the low alloy chrome-maganese-moly family, with a touch of phosphorus, silicon and sulphur in them. They both are easily worked and machined in their unhardened state. And both are a royal pain in the butt to work after they have been heat-treated. The main difference? 4150 has a touch more carbon in it. The specs for 4140 allow for carbon between .38 and .43 percent. For 4150, carbon content is between .48 and .53 percent. So why the big ruckus? Simple: if you’re going to be using your AR or M-16 as an impromptu SAW (as we’ve discussed elsewhere) as so many in the military seem wont to do, then a 4150 barrel will last a bit longer. When you’re dealing with an otherwise intractable problem, a few more minutes can be all you need. If harder, higher alloy steel is better, why doesn’t the military go with the better steel? And why would any of us settle for less?

Barrels with a short distance between the gas port and the muzzle can usually work just fine without involving your brother-in-law and his drill press. Test before drilling.

Ah, there’s the rub. First, remember “mil-spec?” The Army can’t go changing barrel steel alloy numbers without changing the spec. Do that, and the whole ball of wax might be up for grabs. No, best to leave the mil-spec alone. Besides, I had an interesting conversation with Mark Westrom, President of Armalite, on a related subject. We were discussing the barrel twist of ARs. At the time, the 1:7 was seen as not best. (That was well before Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Mk262, Mod 1 round.) He related that it would probably cost more to prove to the Army that the 1:9 barrel twist was better than the 1:7 than it would cost to change every barrel in inventory. You can imagine what it would cost to prove a particular barrel steel was superior. So, we stick with the state-of-the-art barrel steel, circa 1964. Why would any of the rest of us not use 4150? Cost, for one, and accuracy for another.

4150 is not a regular stocking item. It is enough harder to fabricate and to work, that anyone who can justify 4140 does so. Barrel makers want to make durable, but accurate, barrels. Anything that decreases accuracy is anathema. Anything that pushes up costs has to be justified in terms of useful life and accuracy. The government is perfectly happy with standard M-16 and M4 barrels that shoot 3 MOA. After that, they want durability. An NRA High Power shooter wants more than 3 MOA. A Master or High Master expects at least 1 MOA, and better if he or she can get it. The center X ring of the 600-yard target requires 1 MOA and the ten ring less than 2 MOA. You won’t see any chrome-lined barrels on the 600-yard line at Camp Perry unless someone was forced into using them. But a 19-year-old Marine in Fallujah trying the whack that pesky RPG gunner down the block wouldn’t notice the difference between a 1 MOA rifle and a 3 MOA rifle. So the government goes for durability.

What should you buy? That depends on what you need, and how much you’re willing to pay. It is entirely possible to spend as much on a barrel alone as some are willing to spend on a complete rifle.

Barrel Length

Ah, the evergreen subject. Short barrels are cool. Except, you give up velocity. You also, once you go below a certain length, add legal restrictions. Let’s say you have a burning desire for a shorter than kosher barrel. How to get it? First, determine if your State allows the possession of Short Barreled Rifles. In some places the SBR is more restricted than machineguns. (No, I’m not kidding.) In others, it is no big deal. Once you’ve determined that it is lawful for you to possess an SBR, you download or acquire from the ATFE the necessary form: a Form 1. There, you fill out the various boxes. You must note that the rifle was manufactured by whoever’s name is on the lower. If the lower says “Bob’s House o’ Guns” then that’s what you put down. Then, in the box of who is the maker of the SBR, you put in either your name or the name of the gunsmith doing the work. You send the form, the fingerprint cards, your check and your hopes off to the ATFE. There, they determine if you are legally allowed to possess a firearm, both in the general (as in no felony convictions, etcetera) and in particular, as in does your State allow SBRs.

You wait. You do nothing. You cannot acquire a short barrel, nor shorten yours, until you have the approved form back. Again, wait. Once it comes back approved, then you can deal with getting your barrel shortened, and the rifle, upper or barrel marked. That’s right, marked. It has to be marked as being an SBR. Once approved, marked and done, you now have a short-barreled rifle. Except, what about all those other ARs you own?

(Let me pause here for a moment and insert the obligatory notice that I am not a lawyer, never have been, and haven’t even played one on TV. Anyone who takes legal advice from a non-attorney is an idiot. Do be careful.)

I have written to the ATFE on this subject several times, and the advice they have given me has been consistent. (Which in itself is something of a minor miracle.) What they have told me is that it is perfectly legal to own an SBR and a non-SBR at the same time. What you should not do is also own an “unassigned” lower at the same time as owning an SBR. That is, a lower which does not have an upper to go with it. Two complete rifles, one an SBR and one not an SBR, and one lower without an upper, is cause for suspicion. Add an upper to that stray lower, and all is sweetness and light. However, never, under any circumstances, install the SBR’d upper on another lower. That is, consider the situation of AR “A” which is the registered SBR, and AR “B” which is not. Never put the upper of “A” on the lower of “B.” Never.

The only way to be sure you’re getting a 4150 steel barrel is to buy Colt or military. You’ll pay for that option, however. Most of the rest of us find other alloys entirely acceptable.

The GG&G folding front sight, with its three clamping bolts. The side sling adapter is a nice addition.

I have had people earnestly argue that they paid to have an SBR’d AR, and as long as they only had one, they were cool. Wrong. The ATFE has registered rifle “A” and its serial number as the SBR. Swap the upper from “A” to “B” and you have two SBRs: the registered one, and the unregistered one. It is, however, fine to put the upper of “B” onto the lower of “A.” You’ve registered it as an SBR, but that doesn’t mean it always has to be one. So, you could own a single AR, register it as an SBR, and own a number of uppers for it, not all of which are short-barreled. All kosher.

If you go to sell your SBR, you must comply with the NFA (National Firearms Registry) regs on the disposition of SBRs, machineguns, suppressors, etc. If, however, you get tired of it all, you have another out: write to the ATFE and request that your SBR be removed from the list of registered SBRs. You, of course, must then replace the short barrel with a suitably long one, and not retain said barrel. But once you do that, your rifle becomes just a rifle again, and it can be sold as if it were any other AR.

There is another price to be paid for an SBR, and that is velocity. You’ll lose velocity going to a shorter barrel. How much depends on how “fast” or “slow” your particular barrel is, and how much velocity your ammo starts out with. But you’ll lose some. You won’t lose accuracy. If you have an accurate barrel, it will still be accurate when it is shorter. Resist the temptation and the lure of the gunsmith, to “open your gas port.” Yes, it might need it. (More likely not.) But once opened it cannot be made smaller. Test your new SBR for proper function before you go and get the port drilled larger. If it works fine as-is, then leave it alone.

There are many rifles that have had their barrels shortened, and not needed the gas port tended to. In all cases, test function before getting out the drill set. I have shortened a number of 20" down to 16.5" and not yet had to mess with the gas port. It may well be that a 16.5" barrel and carbine gas tube, shortened to 11.5" or 10.5" might need the gas port opened, but don't just assume so and jump in with drills.

Machineguns

There was a time when you could do the same thing for a machinegun that we just described for an SBR. (Except the “removing from the list part.” Once made a machinegun, it could never be un-made.) However, an amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped the production of new machineguns. At least for us lowly taxpayers. If you send a Form 1 in to convert your AR to a machinegun, it will come back denied. Don’t bother arguing, it has already been tested in the courts. The result, as could have been predicted by anyone who hasn’t slept through Econ 101, is that machinegun prices have risen. Where an M-16 cost pretty much what an AR-15 did in 1986, now in 2006 a transferable M-16 costs on the order of $12,000 to $15,000. You want a machinegun? Either make a lot of money, or work to get the law changed.

The PRI folding front sight is neat, sturdy, robust and cool. High CDI points.

This anvil from a popped primer stopped the rifle cold. No trigger action, no shooting.

To turn the barrel nut you need a good wrench, not the wimpy little military one. A wrench for added leverage is nice, but not usually needed.

The impediments to a short-barreled rifle are not just economic and mechanical.

You have legal considerations to attend to as well. Do it right, do it legally.

Barrel Weight

We all used to lust after heavier barrels. Back then, we used them in matches, in patrol, in defense and in training. Now, light barrels are back in. One item of the A2 upgrade of the M-16 was the “heavy out front” barrel. Why? Two things: one, the M-203 mounting system could not fit on a heavy profile barrel. So the barrel was left skinny underneath the handguards, or as skinny as it needed to be and still accept the M-203. Why didn’t the A2 take a “slotted” barrel like the M4? Because the M4 hadn’t been invented when the A2 was being discussed.

Why, then, is the barrel heavier out front? To prevent bending. The Vietnam War was still fresh in many minds when the A2 was being worked out. You know the “urban myth” of barrels being bent from rifles being used as prybars? No myth, that. I know people who were there and saw it. Also, it was thought that the barrels were bending right at the front sight housing from bayonet use. The idea was that the leverage of the bayonet was bending barrels right at the housing. Straightness gauges would sometimes not pass the front sight housing area when they were inserted from the muzzle. So, the barrels were made heavier there. Only afterwards did the experts discover that the reason the straightness gauges weren’t passing the bore there was burrs from the gas port drilling. Me, I suspect that the insiders wanted heavier barrels, but knew they couldn’t get them without good reason. So “bent barrels in bayonet training” became the reason.

My advice would be to get the lightest barrel you feel comfortable with. I have yet to see or hear a student at the end of a three-day or five-day rifle class proclaim to anyone who will listen, “I wish this rifle were heavier.” Typically, they are prying off excess parts, bolt-on accessories and anything else to get the weight down.

Now, a light barrel can shoot as accurately as a heavy. What happens, however, is that the lighter barrel heats up faster. Accuracy can (not always will) decrease as a barrel heats up. What does happen, however, is that barrel life decreases the longer it stays hot, the hotter it gets, and the more it is fired when it is hot. If you are going to be doing lots and lots of shooting, heating up your barrel, heavier is better.

When it comes to AR work, and the gas tube in particular, the MOACKS is king. If you plan on working on ARs, get one. Get it now.

Many post-ban rifles had the comp secured with a blind pin, or in this case, a welded blind pin.

Here the cut-off tool on the lathe has dealt with the blind pin.

Comp removed, pin gone, threads cleaned up. Ready for a flash hider.

223 vs. 5.56

I know I covered this in Volume 1, but it bears repeating. Most manufacturers don’t really know what chamber their rifles have. Except for a few like Colt, CMT, LMT or FN (the latter from whom you cannot purchase a rifle) who make honest-to-god mil-spec rifles, because they sell them to the military, or those who actually make their own barrels, like Olympic, all AR makers get their barrels from a barrel maker.

What chambering that maker uses is not something they disclose. That is, you cannot call up “XYZ Barrels” and ask them “do you provide .223 or 5.56 chambers to Bob’s House of Guns?” No one talks. But barrels do. If you have a barrel with a .223 chamber, and feed it hot, mil-spec 5.56 ammo on a hot day when the rifle is crusty from lots of shooting, you risk popping a primer. The solutions are simple: stick with commercial .223 ammo, or open your chamber to 5.56. Get a gunsmith for this, and have him get a “Ned 5.56 reamer” from www.m-guns.com. It will only cut the leade, throat and neck of your chamber, and not otherwise change the headspace.

Headspace

I’ve heard, and read, some who say that headspace is a non-issue. That simply buying “mil-spec” barrels and bolts guarantees headspace. Well, maybe so, if you only buy one brand. If you only buy Colt barrels and Colt bolts, you can be sure of always being able to swap. Your odds go down buying a Colt barrel and say an FN bolt. And buy a Colt barrel and anyone else’s bolt and there’s no way to being sure without measuring. So, my advice is to always check headspace when assembling a new combo. Never assume the parts will work out OK, and be ready to exchange some parts if the combo doesn’t work out and you don’t/can’t ream for proper headspace.

A .223 chamber that pops primers will eventually cause a malfunction. Not at every class, but often enough that we know what to look for when we find a rifle that won’t shoot. Disassembly usually uncovers a mangled primer or the anvil of a primer, wedging the trigger immovable. Sometimes the popped primer ends up in the barrel extension, preventing the bolt from closing.

After-Ban rifles

When the Assault Weapons Ban was on, we couldn’t always install barrels with threaded muzzles. And new rifles didn’t have them. They were either left bare or had a brake soldered on. What to do if you want a flash hider? Selection of them is in the “Brakes and Comps” chapter, but if your barrel isn’t threaded, we’ll cover it here. Simply put, you need a lathe. You need a lathe with a chuck large enough to take the barrel with barrel extension installed. Without that much size, you are out of luck. How-to for those who don’t know would take a whole chapter itself. So, this is your background and description for your machinist or gunsmith who wants to undertake the task. First, remove the barrel from the upper. That means handguards off, gas tube off, barrel nut unscrewed, and barrel pulled out of the upper.

Next, open the jaws of the chuck and insert the chamber end of the barrel. Place it in the chuck so you get as flat a section under the jaws as possible. The delta ring will be between the chuck and the front sight housing. Put the muzzle end in a live or dead center on your tailstock. The barrel will try to flex away from the cutting tool. By using a center you also ensure your threads are concentric to the bore and not cut on the center of the exterior.

Colt and other companies have made many short-barreled rifles. Customers want them, but not all are aware they can be fussy to run.

With the barrel secured, use lots of cutting lube and a medium speed. Turn the muzzle down to .495" for .650" length. Or, if there is a soldered-on brake, comp or muzzle nut, lathe-turn it off.

Change to a thread-cutting tool. Cut twenty-eight threads to the inch. Cut until your flash hider/comp wants to start. If your machinist/gunsmith is adept, he’ll cut the final threads on the lathe. The rest of use will simply pull out our 1/2-28 die and hand-tap the final threads to fit.

Once cut, remove the barrel, hand-lap the crown clean (the center may have mussed up the crown a bit) and reassemble.

Voila! You have a threaded barrel.

Folding Sights

A new feature on the AR is the folding front sight. Why, you ask? The main reason is to get the front sight down out of the field of view of the optics. Me, I hardly ever notice the front sight in my field of view. But some shooters do. I’m sure, since it is there and in the optical path, that it makes a difference whether I notice it or not, but for some it is noticeable. And even objectionable. Another reason is that it makes the rifle just a tad more compact. If you are getting in and out of armored vehicles, or parachuting (also quaintly known as “jumping out of perfectly good government aircraft”) then the slightly more compact rifle with a folding sight can be useful.

If you plan on doing any work on barrels, and removing or replacing the front sight housing, get the Brownells block. It would be worth it at twice the cost.

There are two ways to install a folding front sight, and both require that you remove the old one. So, get out your Brownells sight block, hammer and drift punch set, and get to work. Remove the handguards, drift out the gas tube pin, then the front sight pins, and tap or wrestle the old sight off.

The new folding sights that replace the old sight are exemplified by either the GG&G or the PRI sights. They both use clamping bolts (the GG&G three, the PRI, two) to secure the sight. The GG&G has the added feature of a side-mount sling swivel. You can unbolt it if you don’t need it or want to move it to the other side. To install a folding front sight assembly, install the rifle’s old gas tube on the new sight first. Then slide on, snake the tube through the barrel nut, align the sight vertical and tighten the bolts. Take your allen wrench set to the range with you and zero the front sight by tipping it right or left to center groups. Then tighten and apply Loctite.

The second type uses either a gas block with a picatinny rail on it, or a low-profile gas block and the rail on the forearm as the sight location. For gas blocks with picatinny rails on them, you can look to any number of sources (e.g., J&T Distributing, DPMS, Armalite) and even compare them to each other in the Brownells’ catalog. On top of them will go a folding sight like the Troy folding sight.

If you’re using a folding front sight like the Troy, riding on the railed forearm, you don’t need a standard front. You might not even want a picatinny-railed gas block. Low-profile gas blocks to the rescue! You can get one like the one that came on the 6.5 Grendel long range rifle. Or, call up Mark and the crew at Larue and get a really low-profile gas block. Just large enough to line up the gas tube, it comes in three inner diameters to match standard barrel sizes: .625”, .750” and .875”. Be slick, be cool, get your gas block pared down. Get a LaRue.

Gas port diameters are a lot more forgiving that some give them credit for. Once drilled larger, throttling back too much gas is very difficult.Again, test before drilling!

The demo gauge shows where a “.223 to 5.56” reamer reams.The shoulder was not moved forward, just rubbed bright.

Barrel Tools

In all this, you’ll have to have some way of holding the barrel or receiver, so you’ll need either aluminum barrel blocks or the Peace River upper fixture from Brownells. Probably both, as you cannot always count on being able to use just one or the other. You’ll need a crescent wrench to unscrew flash hiders, hammer and drift punches to remove pins, and a barrel nut wrench to remove the barrel from the upper. Do not settle for the simple “military armorers” plate, the flat plate with three studs in it. It is a field-expedient item only. Get a big wrench, like the one ASA used to offer until they went out of business. You want a multi-notch wrench that grabs and holds on to as many teeth of the barrel nut as possible. A wrench, torque or otherwise, for extra leverage is nice, but not absolutely necessary.

Some like to use anti-seize compounds on the barrel nut/receiver threads; others are just the opposite and want to use Loctite. I can understand both, but use neither. A little common oil on the threads will have the nut turning smoothly and not seize. And there is only one place on the basic AR where Loctite is called for: the carrier key screws. I also, as I mentioned above, use it on front sight housings that clamp in place.

CHAPTER FIVE

STOCKS

The CAA CBS is a solid stock with a lot of features. Included is the built-in battery storage compartment.

In the high hold, the Duostock provides a larger contact surface with your body than the older stocks do.

The Duostock pivots down onto your chest or vest.

In the beginning the AR was a light, handy carbine. The M-16 had a relatively short fixed stock. However, in a military rifle nothing can be allowed to go to waste. The hollow stock was soon redesigned with a trapdoor in the buttplate, and the enclosure was deemed large enough for a cleaning kit. Most “old” stocks you’ll see will be “A1” stocks, with a trapdoor.

In the 1980s, with the redesign of the M-16, the stock’s shortcomings were addressed. Basically, the old plastic formula was deemed too fragile. The new, A2 stock was made of tougher stuff. It was also lengthened by 5/8 of an inch. Why? When shot prone, the old stock was a bit short for tall troops. I find that I often have my cheek right against the carrying handle while shooting prone. If I’m not careful I’ll rap my glasses against the handle on each shot. Of course, not all troops are 6'4" tall. And in the military you can pretty much count on those shooting for real having web gear and body armor on, adding length of pull. But when shooting on the target range, in a shirt or jacket, the stocks were too short. So the A2 was lengthened. I even built a rifle for competition with yet-more length. Olympic Arms made (and still does) a stock filler that adds another inch to the length of pull. With that on, I never had the carry handle hit me while shooting.

However, making a rifle that is suitable for target competition is often counter-productive to combat. What the military has found is that the A2 stock is too long for lots of soldiers and Marines in lots of the situations they face. Trying to handle a 20" barreled, full stocked M-16A2 inside of a humvee or armored vehicle is very difficult. The Armed Forces have not decided to simply yank the A2 stocks off of every rifle. I imagine part of it is cost. It would cost a bunch of money to do so. But it is also, and curiously, a matter of markings. If a rifle is marked “M-16A2” it is defined as having certain characteristics. If you take a rifle marked M-16A2 and y ou rebuild it into the M4A1 configuration, it would work just fine. It would also confuse the heck out of the supply system. How do you note in the inventory system that a rifle marked “M-16A2” is actually a M-4A1 configuration? Every time someone does a count, they’d note it as an “A2” despite its sliding stock and stubby barrel. There isn’t room to over-strike and re-stamp the model designation. The bureaucratic mind simply boggles at the thought of exceptions. No, if the Army is going to switch over to an all-M4 weapons issue, they’ll stuff the M-16A2s in storage and buy new M4s.

Mil-spec buffer tubes (like this Vltor) run a nominal 1.150”. Non-mil-spec tubes run 1.170”. It can matter, as a mil-spec slider often won’t fit on a non mil-spec tube, and a non-mil-spec slider rattles like crazy on a mil-spec tube.

Use your thumb to hold the buffer retainer in place while you screw the buffer tube on.

The top of the buffer tube on some telestocks might hit the upper as it hinges down. If so, you’ll have to file here to provide clearance.

Small notches go towards the receiver so you can stake them later.

The rifle buffer tube screws in until its shoulder stops against the receiver.

The stock keeps the rear takedown pin spring in place.

The telestock uses a rear plate to keep the spring in place. Tip the assembly slightly to one side to insert the plunger and spring.

The Vltor rifle Modstock, this being the Clubfoot. Very solid and comfortable, with lots of battery storage space.

But I digress. When the stocks were changed from A1 to A2 the buffer tube was not. The tube is too short for the A2 interior, so the designers included a spacer. The spacer is simply a plastic or aluminum cylinder to fill the gap. Why couldn’t the new stocks be designed to fit without the spacer? Beats the heck out of me. For a long time, I wondered: why not spec a new tube for the new stock, one that is longer, with a built-in buffer spring (or add-on on the buffer weight) to dampen felt recoil? I finally found out recently. The plan was to make the new stock longer, and make an improved short-length stock as well. That way, short-statured troops could have an option. Well, as with so many good ideas, the government never got around to making improved A1-length stocks. (The government never met a good idea it couldn’t screw up.) Thus, all rifle-stock buffer tubes are the same. It doesn’t matter if you install an A1, and A2, or some other rifle stock, you’ll use the same buffer tube, spring and weight. You must not, however, get A1 and A2 stock screws mixed up. The A1 is the short one, A2 the long one. The A1 won’t reach if you’re trying to bolt on an A2 stock. If you use an A2 stock screw to bolt an A1 stock on, the screw is too long: it will stick into the buffer tube. There it can easily be struck by the buffer weight while cycling, and eventually bust the buffer tube.

Telestocks, however, are not all the same, nor do they ride on the same tubes.

Rifle Stocks

A1

The original A1 stocks had no trapdoor in the buttplate. I’ve seen a few, bolted to military surplus M16A1 rifles used by police departments. They are short, light, handy and a tad fragile by today’s standards. But they are entirely useable. And for someone building a retro rifle, necessary. The later A1 style has a trapdoor incorporated in the buttplate, with a hollow cavity inside the foam plastic for storage. It was just large enough to hold a cleaning kit. The stock was changed for the A2 upgrade, and you rarely see an A1 stock on a new rifle.

A2

In the early 1980s the military (mostly the Marines) wanted an improved M-16. The Army wasn’t so hot on it, as they were (and still are, to a certain extent) pinning their future on a new rifle that would leapfrog past the M-16. (They’re still waiting.) The A2 had a number of improvements, but the stock is our subject. The plastic formula was made stronger, the buttplate stronger, and the stock longer by 5/8". Great for target shooting. However, the extra length made the rifle tough to use for those bundled up in tactical gear. I’ve even seen short-statured officers in classes who were unable to use the rifle, the A2 stock was so long. How unable? From being unable to post a passing score on drills or the qual course, to shooting perfect scores, simply from changing the rifle from the A2 to a telestock.

If you are tall and long-armed, the A2 is fine. Otherwise, it is too much of a good thing. However, it is common, and you’ll often find a standard rifle with an A2 stock on it, so you’d best be familiar with it.

You can tell the A1 and A2 stocks apart by their length. The 5/8" difference is obvious. The buttplates are also different, the A2 being squarer on the edge than the A1. Once you’ve had a few seconds to compare them side-by-side you’ll be able to spot them afterwards.

Compared to the old stock (CAR or M4) the Duostock keeps more of the stock in contact with you when the rifle is in low ready.

One addition I made to one of my ARs is the Olympic stock extension. Inserted between the stock and the receiver, it adds a full inch to the length of pull. I installed it on an A1 lower I have with an A1 stock on it. The length of pull comes out to an even fourteen inches. If I put an A2 stock on, it would be more than fourteen and a half inches. When I’m shooting prone, with iron sights, I need that much to keep the charging handle from going up my right nostril. Unless you’re tall and gangly, and plan to do prone shooting with iron sights, you probably won’t need a stock extension. But it exists if you do.

Rase

Rase makes a stock that they can truly call unique. In the modern usage, “unique” is often modified (as in “most unique,” not grammatically correct) or used simply to mean “interesting.” Rase takes a stock shell and installs a latch after cutting an access hole. The stock now holds a 20 or 30 round magazine. (You can have one or the other, not both, in one stock.) In use, you simply bring your support hand back, use the web of your hand to push the latch back, draw the magazine down, and then bring it forward to load.

The stock is an A2 shell, so if you have a problem with the length of the A2, you’re going to be in the same boat with the Rase. But if the A2 length isn’t a problem, then boy is this a useful stock. I suppose a careful gunsmith or craftsman could shorten the receiver end of the stock to bring it to A1 length. The Rase stock solves a few problems that other spare magazine methods have. First, it allows right or left-handed shooting, something the stock pouch doesn’t. The ammo is protected, which the dual-mag setups don’t. It doesn’t add weight, like the Redi-Mag. (I love the Redi-Mag, but it does add weight.) And you don’t have the bulk of the Rase stock creating storage problems, either in a vehicle rack or an armory rack. In use, you can swap magazines without lowering the rifle or removing your firing hand from the pistol grip.

The A2 stock was meant for target shooting. On the range it keeps the sights out of your face. With body armor on, it makes the rifle too long.

Ace

Ace makes several stocks of interest. The fixed-length one that caught my eye is the Skelton stock, the ARFX. Basically, take an aluminum buttplate, and fabricate a support bar that goes from the buttplate to the spring retainer plate. (That’s like saying a Mercedes is a vehicle with a tire at each corner.) The buffer tube? A slip-on foam tube cushions it, protects your face and hearing from buffer spring “boing” and provides the lowest cheekweld possible. Comfortably, too. I should make it clear, however, that “slip-on” is used in the broadest possible sense. Wrestle-on is more like it. Of course, the time (and sweat) you’ll spend wrestling on the foam tube is nothing compared the years of non-slip use you’ll get once it’s in place. I like it. I like it a lot. If you want a comfortable stock while not giving up the length of a rifle A1 stock, then the Ace ARFX is for you. The ARFX has sling swivel attachment points fore and aft, and on both sides. Since it is aluminum, if the provided points aren’t enough it would be pretty simple to drill and tap sling points where you needed them.

Vltor Modstock

The Vltor riflestock is way cool. The Modstock comes in two lengths, A1 and A2. It also comes in two shapes, the standard and Clubfoot. Why the Clubfoot? In some shooting situations, especially using a bipod, you’ll want to use your non-shooting hand under the buttstock to support and locate the stock. You’ll shoot faster and more accurately that way. The Clubfoot gives you a place to put your hand, and to grasp the stock. The Vltor offers colors as well, and you can swap the compartments to gain battery storage space. The battery compartments also provide a first-class check weld, too.

CAA SRS

The sniper rifle stock will make your gear-buddies salivate. First, it looks aggressive. Second, everything is adjustable. The buttplate (rubber) can be moved up or down. The cheekpiece can be raised. The length of pull is adjustable, with nine different lengths. And there is the monopod. If you drop the pod straight down, you can adjust its length until the rifle stands on its own tripod. (Monopod and bipod on the forearm.) You can use the monopod as a left-hand holding fixture, either straight up and down or angled. The whole assemblage is composed of glass-filled polymer; tough, impervious to the elements, and not likely to freeze your face in cold weather. (A lot of stocks have the last advantage. Polymer does that for you, as opposed to aluminum.)

What is the downside? Weight and bulk. While not too much heavier than others, it can matter. However, if you’re already packing a heavy rifle, what are few ounces? And the balance of a nose-heavy rifle can be improved by adding weight in back. No, the stopper for some of you will be price. At an MSRP of $465.50, it is literally half the cost of a rifle. I don’t usually mention prices, as they are prone to change, and a lot of readers are relatively price-insensitive. But at twice the cost of the competition, the Command Arms SRS has some proving to do.

Magpul

The Magpul PRS (Precision Rifle/Sniper) stock is perfect for a sniper/DM rifle. You simply remove your regular rifle stock and bolt the PRS in its place. The cheekpiece is adjustable, as is the length of pull. On the bottom the lower cover comes off, exposing a rail for a monopod. The sling attachments are bolted securely to the stock, so you need not worry about your sling attachments coming loose. At 28 ounces it is a bit portly, but no more so than other stocks with adjustments. You can well exceed its weight by going with a target version adjustable stock, something seen on the High Power firing lines. For the restrained tactical look (and a lot of performance) the PRS is the stock of choice of a lot of AR shooters.

Z-M Folder

The Zitta folding stock is in a separate class from the other AR stocks. In order to have a folding stock, you have to put the buffer, spring and other parts someplace else. You also have to shorten the bolt carrier. The carrier recoils into the buffer tube. If you don’t shorten the carrier, it will recoil out the back of the receiver. So, in order to install a folder you have to do a whole lot of other engineering, too. On an AK, switching from a fixed to a folder is work, but not like on the scale of an AR switch. In the AK you grind the rivet head off, drill or mill the rivets clear of the receiver, and remove the rear stock trunnion. (In certain models it isn’t possible at all, but the particular details are for another book.) In the AR, you’re in for a lot more engineering. However, one application lets you put a folder on your AR relatively easily: a .22LR conversion. There, the bolt doesn’t recoil into the buffer tube. You can have an über-cool folding stock on your AR if you make it into a dedicated .22LR.

Here you see the “bazooka hold,” or upright stance. Sgt. Adrian West, from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, aims at a possible threat during house-to-house searches in Mosul, Iraq. Photo by Staff Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.

Telestocks, or Really, Really CDI

The original telestocks came about from the XM-177 and XM-711A1 of Vietnam. As light and handy as the M-16 and M-16A1 were, they were not as compact as smaller rifles and carbines. The M1 Carbine, for example, was smaller, especially if it was in the paratrooper stock. Submachineguns were smaller. In an effort to make the M-16 as compact as possible, the barrel was shortened and the stock changed to the telestock. The stock slides in and out on the buffer tube, changing length. Original stocks had two positions, open and closed. Since then the makers have been trying to one-up each other, and there are now more length options. You can now have stocks with two, four, five, six and even seven positions. Is more better? Some think so. The ability to make the stock “just right” when you have shooters of different sizes and varying amounts of gear on, matters to some. I guess I’ve spent so much time accommodating myself to a few choices that it doesn’t matter so much to me. The whole point of the stock is to make the rifle/carbine compact in storage. As soon as your hands grab it, you should extend the stock. What matters more to me is that you can make any telestock too short. In its fully-contracted position, the stock will not prevent your face from striking the charging handle before your shoulder hits the stock. It is important to limit the forward travel of the stock, so it can’t be collapsed to the relatively unsafe shortest position.

Early sliders were aluminum, and painted a glossy black or coated with a plastic composition. Those who are particular will make sure they paint the stock of their XM-177 clones the same black. Later, I think in part to reduce costs, the slider was changed to plastic. It was also lighter. The lightest carbine you can make would be one with a pencil-barrel and a plastic slider on a telestock. The original design also had a sling loop on the top of the slider.

One change in the M4 program was to alter the slider again. The stock had the hollows under the sides of the tube filled for a better cheek weld. The loop on top for a sling was removed. Apparently that loop broke off in extreme cold, or when too much force was applied. I’ve seen museum M-16s and XM-177s with the loop broken. I wish instead of simply removing the loop, designers had figured out a way to reinforce it. I find it very useful. The new M4 style telestock sliders let the rear sling attachment slip off the tube. I guess shooters starting with it aren’t bothered by it, but I find it annoying.

The AR (in this instance an M4) is light, handy, fast to use and doesn’t recoil much. Sgt.Mathew Hall, from the 101st Airborne Division, demonstrates a shooting stance to troops from the 4th Iraqi Army Division at Forward Operating Base Summerall. Photo by Spc. Charles W. Gill.

The CAA Saddle gives you a better cheek weld and battery storage for a mere twenty bucks.

Here you see the cheekweld.Why everyone doesn’t own one of these, I don’t know.

The Rase stock is slick and handy. It is restricted to one or the other: 20 or 30 rounds.You can’t have both.

The LMT SOCOM stock is a great stock for cheekweld, and there is no wobble when you’re aiming.

The big thing you have to know about buffer tubes for telestocks is that there are two sizes: mil-spec and everything else. To understand why, you have to know how they are made. Starting with a forged aluminum bar (mil-spec) or billet (not mil-spec but entirely suitable if done right) the manufacturer bores out the tube. The outside is then profiled. On a rifle buffer tube the entire set of operations can be done on a CNC lathe, at high speed. The rifle buffer tubes practically fall out of the machine. For the telestock buffer tube, the sides of the tube have to be milled. In the old days that was done on a horizontal mill, with curved cutters profiling the tube. Now they are cut in a CNC lathe/mill combo, with the tubes bored and the sides profiled. The threads then get cut, and the finish machine operations for mil-spec tubes bring the tube down to a diameter less than that of the tops of the threads.

In the non mil-spec tubes the outside of the tubes are profiled, and the threads are cut. The tubes are not re-profiled, and the exterior diameter of the non mil-spec tube is the same as the exterior diameter of the thread tops. As a result, a slider made to fit a non mil-spec tube will rattle like mad (and may not even lock in place) when placed in a mil-spec tube. And a mil-spec slider might not even fit onto a non mil-spec tube.

Why not do it the mil-spec way? Two reasons, both cost-related. One, forgings cost more than billet. Second, by eliminating machining steps you cut manufacturing time, cost, tool wear and machine wear. A re-pass to profile the tube may not seem like much, but when you’re going to be making thousands of tubes it adds up.

How do you know which tube you have? You could measure it. The diameter is enough to show up with dial calipers. Mil-spec tubes will have a nominal diameter of 1.150”, while the non-mil-spec tubes will be 1.170” or so. You can simply look. Is the tube diameter the same as that of the threads? Or is the tube stepped down from the threads? Or you could be careful who you buy from. Colt makes mil-spec (obviously) as do several other vendors; Stag Arms/CMT, Lewis Machine & Tool, Vltor. If someone makes a mil-spec tube they usually aren’t bashful about mentioning it. Where you might get into trouble is at a gun show. Standing in the aisle, the dealer may assure you that his stock is mil-spec. He may be right. But be careful.

CAR

The original, either made of plastic (sometimes called “Fiberite”) or aluminum. The CAR stock is relatively smooth, with a rectangular loop on the top rear. The loop was to keep a sling in place. Unfortunately many rig the sling directly to the loop, without running it around the slider tube. Rigged that way it can break. (It takes a bunch of effort, but you can do it.) As the original, you’ll see a lot of them on older rifles, or rifles built as retro clones. The stock works, but is a little “old school” for someone looking to build an M4 clone. However, they are perfect for an XM177 clone, or an old-school Colt SBR build like the Model 639 or 733 series.

The original XM177 stocks were coated with a glossy black plastic. Later ones were a matte black plastic. So if you really are trying to do a period-correct “shortie” you’d better be sure exactly which it is. Then again, Colt was well-known back then for making orders out of whatever was on hand. A department could order a bunch of short-barreled rifles and get a mix of A1 and A2 lowers, with parts from the previous decade’s production runs.

If we ever get the Federal law changed and can buy new machineguns again, collecting Colt select-fire rifles and carbines and their variants would be enough to make your head spin.

M4

When the carbine idea for the M16 was revived by Colt, the stock got “improved.” One change was to adjust the formulation of the plastic involved. The new mix is a lot tougher than the old. I guess that matters to some, but as I’ve never broken a plastic CAR stock (had to knarf an aluminum one once, though) the new mix doesn’t matter to me. What they did change was to drop the top sling loop and add stiffening ribs under the slider tube. I think they also wanted to add material in the space under the tube for additional support for your cheek weld, but I can’t tell that there is any there. The checkering on some production stocks is more aggressive than it was on the old CAR stocks, but not on all.

The CAR stock has a sling swivel loop on top.

The Ace Ltd. SOCOM stock is durable and the foam makes shooting easier.

The stock is not a bad one, just something I have to get used to. The lack of a top loop means slings slide off when you sling the rifle. Apparently this doesn’t bother anyone who started on an M4 stock, and it is only old farts like me who started with CAR stocks who object.

Ace, Ltd.

Ace also makes adjustable stocks. Their improved M4 stock, the M4-7 offers options others don’t: the buffer tube is reinforced. The stock has seven positions. You can use the locking bolt to stop the stock at predetermined locations, making it only as long as you want, or preventing too-short sliding, thus keeping your face off the rear sight. The tube is marked so you can easily tell what length you have it opened (or closed) to. The Ace M4-7 is a definite improvement over the current M4 stock.

The ACE M4 SOCOM only has four positions and doesn’t offer them over the range of lengths the M4 does, but there are other improvements. The tube is stronger, less likely to bend. It also has the foam covering of the ARFX. The buttplate is more like a shovel handle, so you can easily grasp it in odd positions. And the SOCOM comers with a singlepoint sling attachment locations. The SOCOM also has the advantage (a real one in some circles) of not looking like the M4 stock. It looks better to some eyes. (I’m still trying to figure out if I like the look or not.)

Vltor

Pronounced “Ul-tor” their Modstocks stocks are solid and comfortable, and give you options on configuration. You can install the battery compartments or not, your choice. You can have them in black, green or brown. Oops, excuse me: Black, “Foliage Green” or “Flat Dark Earth.” Good luck finding either foliage or earth to match, courtesy DoD. I wonder if the person who named those colors worked for a while in the paper industry. You’d be surprised how many different names paper makers can have for something as simple as off-white.

Vltor buffer tubes only come in mil-spec diameter. If you have a non-spec buffer tube you can’t just slide the Vltor stock on. The battery compartments are user-changeable. If you want them, great. If not, you can take them off and replace them with filler panels that keep the locking edges from rubbing on your face. Replacement is simple: you just undo the locking screws that keep the compartments or filler in place, pull off and replace, then bolt down. You can even put one compartment on for a cheekweld (for which the Vltor is very comfortable) and leave the other side standard. You could, with a little fussing, put the battery compartment on the shooting side, and attach a magazine pouch on the other side. Me, I’m not a great fan of the pouches, but I see them on half the rifles in Iraq (or so it seems from photos) and a lot of shooters do like them.

As I mentioned, the Vltor stocks are mil-spec tube diameter. If you want to install the Vltor but your rifle has a non mil-spec tube, you’ll have to change tubes. You can get a complete kit from Vltor. At the present kit cost, the tube, buffer and spring add $40 to the cost of “just the stock.” You might (maybe, barely) be able to find a mil-spec tube, spring and buffer for $40 at a gun show. It will probably be used, not new. More likely it will cost you that much just for a tube. Now, if you already have a telestock on your carbine, and want only to add the Vltor stock, it may seem excessive to buy tube, buffer and spring. But, the chances of finding what you need at the cost Vltor is charging, and it fitting, are slim. If you have a non mil-spec telestock, just get the whole Vltor kit, and save yourself potential hassle. Those of you changing an A1 or A2 rifle stock to the Vltor will have an easy choice: just get the kit, and install it.

Duostock

We all tend to think of our experience as being definitive. One example (if you’ll allow me a slight digression) is easy to demonstrate: think about the TV shows you watch. Now, consider the actors. Compared to your height, how tall to you consider them to be when watching? If you’re like most people, you have this gut feeling that they are the same height you are. So, when you go and shoot, you consider the shooting you do to be representative, and the stances you develop, normal.

The Magpul PRS is an adjustable tactical marksman stock.

The Ace Ltd. ARFX stock. Solid, comfortable and minimal.

The Z-M folding stock. The hinge is very much like that of the Galil. (Another reason to go to a shooting school, to learn more than just what you’ve developed.)

In the military, you may be looking at a location, ready to shoot in moments, for a long time. Hours. All day. A regular shooting stance might not cut it. Another influence is the Marine Corps. Offhand qualification shooting calls for a very upright stance. The idea is to use bones for support instead of muscles. Muscles get tired, but bones don’t. As a result, the rifle offhand stance for many shooters (and a lot of instructors) is to have the top half of the buttplate visible above your shoulder, when viewed from behind. In some circles this is known as the “bazooka hold.”

The Duostock is molded to provide additional support when in that position. Additionally, it also provides a rotational surface, so you can swing up from low ready. A low ready where the rifle was actually supported, and not as if the toe of the stock was nailed to your chest or vest. Many shooters love it. As I have mentioned before (probably too many times) I started back in the really old days. When I started shooting ARs, there were still guys healing from when their M-16 failed them. I learned to lock the stock low and tight, and then sort of hunch forward on the stock. So the first time I tried the Duostock, it was a “What’s the big deal?” experience for me. Then I forced myself to use the high hold, and darned if it didn’t work exactly as described. Those who had never used my “chiropractor hold” (as one student has described it) find the Duostock is really, really good. My suggestion is that you should hunt down a rifle equipped with a Duostock and try it. If you like it, then get one for yourself. If for you it is the same “what’s the big deal?” experience it was for me, then don’t get it. I’m not getting any kickbacks, and Tom at Duostock won’t have his feelings hurt.

The Duostock comes only in black, and currently only in mil-spec tube size. However, the plastic formula of the Duostock takes paint very well (it should, there are a bunch over in the Sandbox that have been painted there) and mil-spec tubes aren’t that hard to find.

You can see that, folded, the Z-M stock provides no location for the buffer and spring.

SOCOM

The collection of services and personnel known as Special Operations managed a neat trick: they got independent budget authority for a lot of their gear and training. So, they can get gear directly, and spec it to their needs, without going through the labyrinthine acquisition process of Big Army. One program was to get what they needed for their rifles. The carbine got, among other things, a new stock. The SOPMOD stock is made solely by Lewis Machine & Tool for the US military, and you can get it either as a stock, a complete stock and buffer tube assembly, or already installed on an assembled lower or complete rifle. As a military item, it comes as you’d expect, mil-spec tube diameter only. Let me clarify that: LMT is the sole provider of the SOPMOD to the government. No others who make a clone SOPMOD provide them to the government. You can buy it; you just might have to wait a while if the government has just sucked up LMT’s production for the next six months or so.

The wedge shape gives you battery storage compartments and a solid cheekweld. Unlike the Vltor, the compartments are not changeable. Also, you can have the SOPMOD in any color you want, as long as it is black. One thing those who love the LMT SOPMOD gush over is the solidity of the stock. Most stocks wobble. Or so I’ve been told, as I’ve never noticed wobble while shooting. The SOPMOD stock rides smoothly, has no play, and locks tightly in each of its six positions. Other stocks have some play. If that bothers you, then I guess you’ll only be buying LMT SOPMOD. If not, you have choices.

I find the size and angle of the wedge of the LMT SOPMOD to be very comfortable. My face is not weaving around behind the sights, looking for the irons or the reticle. In that regard, I find all the “wedge” stocks to be the same. The SOPMOD is on par with the rest for shootability. It gains extra CDI points for being real current GI gear.

The Z-M stock is comfortable and adjustable.

J&T

J&T Distributing took the basic M4 stock, and upgraded a bunch of things. They went over the buttplate, the latch and the nut that holds the latch, and radiused all the sharp edges. It may not seem like much, but after a few months of living with a sharp-edged stock, you’ll find your gear (and hand) abraded. The radiused edges also keep it from catching and hanging-up on your gear. They added material around the latch pin bore on the stock, so you’re unlikely to bust the stock at that point. Inside the slider, they changed the shape to include four flat panels, so the slider rides on the panels on the tube, instead of rattling around on the tube. That’s tighter and offers room for gunk to get out.

One detail they didn’t alter (or did, depending on your viewpoint) is that the buffer tube diameter is still non mil-spec. However, the J&T stock is durable enough to be unlikely to break. The slider is made of Nylon 66 with a high fiberglass composition. The buffer tube is 7075-T6, unlike a lot of non mil-spec tubes that are made of 6066 or other 60-series alloys.

It is tough, works great, and if you want an M4 stock this one should be high on your list. If you’re planning on upgrading to an Vltor or LMT SOPMOD in the future, then why stop at an M4 on the way? Better yet, if you want an M4 now, and want something more in the future, then get the J&T, and add a CAA Saddle in the future. J&T is also known as Doublestar. You may recall them from my first book. They make solid, dependable gear. Your buddies may razz you for not having bought “used by Special Forces” gear, or something not made by the “ABC” consortium. But with the money you’ve saved, the practice ammo you bought will serve you in good stead. Buy the J&T, install a CAA Saddle, then buy lots of practice ammo with the savings. Practice, kick their butts, and tell them who told you to do it.

CAA Saddle

Not everyone wants to spend a lot of money on a new stock. Some shooters simply can’t stand the thought of having something less than what is deemed “the best” or what the guys out in the front are using. That’s fine. However, the choice is not always between “what SF uses” and “crap.” The Command Arms Saddle is something inexpensive that is worth a lot. The basic unit is a moulded cover and battery compartments that fit over and around your slider. The only drawback is the installation. It requires fussing, three hands, and the help of your buddies. It uses small screws and nuts that for best security should be loc-tited in place. But once it is in place, you get a much better cheek weld, something quite close to offered by the high-end stocks. There is even room to secure 550 cord around your slider as a sling location, if you don’t like the locations the Command Arms Saddle provides. One way is to loop the ends of a 14" to 16" length of 550 cord through the bottom sling swivel, then lash it up over the top of the stock. There, you can either attach a sling end, or tie the cord in another loop to provide an attachment point. We took another path: we drilled a hole through the stock flat, behind the Saddle but below the buffer tube tunnel. Then we tied 550 cord passed through the hole, above the slider, and looped it for a sling attachment location.

In the course of testing, Jeff Chudwin, Ned Christiansen and I wrestled one onto a carbine that Jeff was rebuilding. I say “wrestle” only because it took all three of us to hold the rifle, stock, plates and bolts all at once, while we tightened everything. We quickly figured that a drop of superglue to hold the nuts in place made things go a lot easier. Once installed, we agreed (and the targets the next day confirmed) that the stock was much more comfortable than a bare M4 would be, and getting a solid and consistent cheekweld was a lot faster.

The Saddle falls into that category we all search for: good, cheap gear. At a mere $20, the savings between the high-end stocks (which I love, but I’ve got to tell the truth here) and the Sidesaddle are enough to buy you a bunch of practice ammo. As I’ve pointed out before, getting good-enough gear, and spending the rest of your money on practice ammo, is going to build skills a lot faster than spending all your money on the top-end gear. It does not fit on a CAR stock. The top loop of the CAR stock interferes with the Saddle. I imagine you could trim a slot in the Saddle to clear the loop. While you’re rigging your Saddle, don’t forget to tie a cord or cords to your battery caps, so you won’t lose them.

CAA CBS

The Command Arms replacement slider is improved over standard ones in several ways. First, the buttplate has a rubber covering, a thick covering. Not that the recoil of the AR is so ferocious that you need a recoil pad, but it does provide a no-slip surface. There is also a battery compartment, with a twist. Instead of tubes, it is a lateral compartment that holds four Lithium 123 batteries. You also have quick-detach sling sockets, and the offside of the stock can hold the Command Arms spare magazine holder. A solid and comfortable slider, even if it didn’t have the battery compartment. The CBS is a non-mil-spec diameter tube slider.

The Vltor stock offers battery storage, very neat especially if you find the shape better for a cheekweld. (I do.)

Here we see a properly-staked castle nut.

The new battery compartments use a pair of locking screws to hold them in place.

Vltor tubes are numbered on top, and the stock has witness holes.

DPMS Pardus

Latin for Panther, the Pardus is an improved M4 stock. First, the material is improved, a fiberglass-reinforced polymer. (Zytel, to be exact.) Second, the latch area is reinforced. No more busted stocks at the latch tunnel. Third, there are four sling slots on the Pardus in addition to the bottom sling loop: the standard two at top and bottom and on the buttplate, giving you side-mount attachment points. (An idea long overdue.) The buttplate is curved, given a sawtooth face, and best of all, the cheekrest area of the Pardus stock is widened so there is more support for your face. In all, good and needed improvements. The ergonomic latch is also listed as a benefit, but since I’ve never had a problem with the old latch, that’s one of those “Nice, but I didn’t need it” things. I’m not sure you can harm the Pardus with a ball-peen hammer. The Pardus is available just as a stock, or as a complete kit. The Pardus is for non-mil-spec diameter tubes. I installed one on one of my “test mule” rifle and found it to be quite comfortable. The ergonomic latch may be more comfortable, but what I noticed was how certain in latching and how smooth in use it was.

Choate

Choate has been in the firearms accessory business for a long time. They were not new when I first came across them over twenty years ago. The big product they made that had everyone excited back then was shotgun magazine extension tubes. Yes, they are common now, but twenty years ago they were hot stuff. Now Choate makes a lot more than just mag tubes. One is their version of the SOCOM. Typically from Choate you get a lot of value for the money, and their stock does not endanger that reputation. The slider is triangular, for good check weld. The latch solid. The buttplate rubber-coated for a non-slip grip. There are a pair of battery compartments. The extension tube (you can get just the stock, or tube and stock) has five positions. The stock has three sling locations.

Top to bottom: Black, Foliage Green, Flat Dark Earth. (I guess the Army didn’t want to call the middle color “Sage Green,”which the Air Force has been doing for decades.)

Mil-spec buffer tubes will have the last few threads flattened by the profiling operation.

The M4 stock lacks a top sling loop, and has reinforcements on the underside of the cheekrest area.

With several loops of 550 cord through the stock, you can then attach a sling to the loops.

The CAA SRS. Adjustable in three locations, with a monopod for stock support.

There are differences, reflecting the fact that you’re paying half or less than an LMT SOCOM stock. The buffer tube in the kit is a non mil-spec diameter. The battery compartments only have metal threads in the front section. However, given the Choate penchant for making things stout, I doubt you’ll ever have the inserts loosen, let alone fall out. The caps do not have a way of tying them to the stock, so if you drop it you’ve likely lost it. And the stock is not tight to the tube like the SOCOM. Unlike the Vltor, the Choate (and to be fair, the SOCOM) doesn’t have the option of removing the battery compartments.

But for half the money, it is a hell of a deal. I tried the Choate stock in the kit on several other non mil-spec buffer tubes, and it did not fit them. Not surprising, as it is always a roll of the dice swapping things on non mil-spec tubes. So if you want a good fit, spend the extra money for a stock and buffer tube. The Choate stock by itself is listed as fitting the Colt buffer tube. Yes, Choate makes the sliders in two different sizes, so you can get a Choate for your Colt. If you are going from a fixed stock to a telestock, and aren’t worried about mil-spec tubes or not (half my telestock ARs have non mil-spec tubes on them), then you won’t be sorry with Choate.

Here you can see how to use the monopod as a rear gripping location.

Stock Work

Installing stocks is easy. Before we begin, first you have to understand a few things that the AR stocks do besides give your shoulder a nudge. The stock rides on the buffer tube. Inside the tube, the buffer weight and spring provide the action function to push the bolt and carrier back after each shot. If you install the buffer tube incorrectly, the rifle probably won’t work at all. So it is tough to get in trouble on that score. But you can screw up a few other things. The buffer tube screws into the rear of the receiver. In the receiver threads is a hole, with a spring and plunger in them. That is your buffer retainer. Without that, your buffer would be launched across the room every time you took the upper and lower apart. In an emergency you can run the rifle without those parts. You just have to be very careful taking it apart.

Underneath the buffer tube, on the outside rear of the receiver, is the takedown pin plunger and spring. The spring pushes the plunger against the rear takedown pin, keeping that pin from falling out of the rifle. This spring/ plunger combo is kept in place by one of two things: the stock itself on an A1 or A2 rifle, or the rear receiver plate on a telestock assembly. When you take the stock of a rifle off, you risk losing the spring and plunger.

I have seen rifles modified so the spring and plunger are retained by a small Allen screw. Nice idea, but I’m not sure I want to be wedded to yet another small Allen wrench just to work on the AR.

When you install a stock, either type, you have to make sure the springs and plungers in the rear are correctly captured, or function will suffer.

Installing Rifle Stocks

Let’s start as if you were assembling a bare receiver. Insert a buffer retainer spring and the buffer retainer into the hole in the threads. Insert the buffer tube in the rear of the receiver and begin screwing it into place. Once the buffer tube leading edge gets close to the buffer retainer, push the buffer retainer down with your thumb. Continue screwing the buffer tube into the receiver. The buffer tube should stop against the rear face of the receiver, without binding on the retainer. If the tube stops but does not capture the retainer, or the tube binds against the retainer and holds it down so it cannot keep the buffer in place, something is wrong. Either the tube is machined wrong, the receiver is machined wrong, or the retainer hole is in the wrong place. In 25 years of AR gunsmithing, I’ve seen this once. The receiver was a POS, made in someone’s machine shop back in the early 1980s during one of the earlier assault weapons bans, and nothing on it was right. The chances of a new receiver being like this are so small that it is probably the tube that is at fault. The buffer tube on the rifle does not need to be heavily torqued in place. Wring it on hand tight. Take the receiver and push the rear takedown pin in place. It is the shorter of the two, and the one lacking a flat on the pin head. Then, slide a plunger into the retainer hole and follow it with a spring. Now stand the receiver on its front, and slide your rifle stock over the tube. (If you’re using an A1, make sure you’re using a short screw; if an A2, long screw and tube spacer.) Ease the stock down until it compresses the spring, then install and tighten the screw.

Rifle buttstock screws must have a thread-locking compound on them. It should have a patch of red or blue goo on the threads. The screw also must have a hole the length of it, through the center. The thread-locking compound keeps the screw from loosening, and the hole allows water to drain out. Tighten firmly and you’re done.

Telestocks are different. First, the buffer tube of the stock does not have a stop shoulder. It is entirely possible to turn the buffer tube in too far, bind the retainer, and cause yourself problems. Or not turn it in far enough and cause other problems. Also, the buffer tube has a retaining plate and castle nut to hold it on and the takedown pin spring in place.

Assembly is a bit more complicated. First, take the plate and nut off the tube, and the slide as well. The nut and plate are often shipped screwed on incorrectly. And the slider will just get in the way for now. Take the castle nut (so called because of the slots cut in the ends, like the crenellations of a castle wall) and screw it onto the buffer tube. Install it with the large slots towards the butt and the small slots towards the open end of the tube. Some buffer tube nuts will not have slots. The older-style buffer tube nuts have circular holes drilled through them as the wrench latches. They can go on either way. Screw it all the way down. Now slide the retaining plate on. Notice that the hole on the plate has a tab. The tab lines up with the groove milled into the threads of the tube, on the bottom of the tube. Also, the plate will have a bulge stamped into it. The bulge goes towards the receiver. With the nut and plate on the tube, start screwing the buffer tube into the receiver.

Once the tube gets close to the buffer retainer hole, install the spring and retainer. Hold them down with your thumb, and screw the buffer tube until it traps the retainer. You’ll have to pick a spot where the buffer tube is correctly lined up (locking tab spine down) and the retainer is held in place. Too far and the retainer is trapped. Not far enough, and the retainer comes loose. In a worst-case scenario you’ll have to file the forward end of the buffer tube to get the tube lined up and the retainer working properly.

Top, a CAR stock. Below, a post-ban non-adjustable faux M4. During the ban, lots of rifles got pinned “M4” stocks. To replace them, just swap out the stock and buffer tube. Don’t bother trying to salvage the tube.

Before you go further, you have another alignment check to make. Take your upper and catch it in the front pivot pin, as in reassembly. Then carefully attempt to hinge the upper and lower closed. New-production mil-spec buffer tubes will have the upper half of the buffer tube lip machined away by half a thread, to provide clearance for the upper. Again, in a worst-case scenario you’ll have to file clearance on the upper half of the tube for the upper receiver, while keeping the retaining plunger properly trapped.

This Olympic spacer adds an inch to the length of pull. Not needed for tactical use, but mighty handy on the target range.

Telestocks are commonly shipped with the plate assembled wrong, just to keep it from getting lost. The plate goes between the castle nut and the receiver.

The J&T M4 stock offers improvements over others and is a solid stock that will give you years of service.

The DPMS Pardus is a solid stock with smooth operation, I particularly like the sling slots on the buttplate.

The telestock comes in a number of length versions, limited by the location holes milled in the spine. Left, six; right, four.

Choate makes solid, dependable gear. Notice on the top of the stock where it has been flattened, to clear the charging handle. Nice touch.

Once you have the tube lined up and the retainer properly positioned (in a bad-tolerance stock you’ll have installed and removed the tube a half-dozen times to file and fit), turn the tube just enough to let you get the rear takedown pin plunger and spring in the receiver. Then turn the tube back to where it was and press the plate forward. Hold the plate in place while you turn the castle nut down to lock the plate in place. With everything in place, once again check alignment, function and position. You need now to secure the nut. Hold your receiver flat on a bench or sturdy table, with a towel under it. Lean down on the receiver and use your buffer tube wrench to tighten the nut. You may be tempted to try and lock it in a vise. This would be a bad thing. Yes, you can “really tighten” the nut. You can also twist or break the receiver. You’ll also be tempted to simply hose the nut and threads with Loctite. (I know. I was in the old days.) Instead, tighten the nut as much as you can with the wrench and the bench. Then take a staking tool or spring-loaded marker, and stake the rear retaining plate into the small slot of the castle nut. That’s the proper mil-spec method. The only times I use Loctite is when I run into a hard retaining plate. Some of them are made quite hard. Usually they are the singlepoint sling attachment plates, and the makers want them hard so they won’t bend when hit. Hard means you can’t stake them.

You can clearly see the hole for the buffer retainer and spring. The forward lip of the buffer tube will trap the retainer but allow it to rise high enough to stop the buffer.

Some manufacturers are using Loctite to secure the castle nut. While it works, I’m not a fan. I can get a staked castle nut off if I have to. But one secured using thread-fastening goo may come off and it may not. I might need a propane torch, and I might need to heat a little or a lot. The temptation to hose the thread full when fastening things is great, and that’s the castle nut that will need a thorough torching to get loose.

The last step is to install your slider. A tip for installing or removing the slider: grasp the whole latching lever and pull it away from the stock. If you lever it you’ll only move the latch enough to take it out of one of the locking holes. To make it clear the buffer tube spine, you have to pull the whole lever away from the stock. If your stock will collapse too far, with your face hitting the sights, you need to work on it per the Patrol Rifle chapter. Otherwise, you’re done.

CHAPTER SIX

FOREARMS

The poor AR-15, locked into mil-spec forty years ago, and the government can’t/won’t upgrade it. That doesn’t mean we can’t.

The PRI forearm is made mostly of carbon fiber: cool to the touch, tough, good-looking.

The original forearms of the AR were exactly what a forearm or forend had been since the beginning of firearms: a place to put your hand that kept it off the hot barrel. The original Armalite and Colt handguards were fiberglass. The earliest were left brown and weren’t painted, showing the fabric texture of the fiberglass. Soon after, they were painted green. Then the formula was changed, and they became black. All were a tapered triangle and relatively fragile. Early handguards are now eagerly sought by Retro builders, as nothing comes close in material, and if you want to make (or re-make) something that was, you need the original parts.

The XM-177 series introduced a different set of handguards: basically cylindrical. Ribbed, and made in interchangeable pairs (the triangular ones are made as lefts and rights) they were shorter but to many people more comfortable. The handguards all featured a heat shield. To protect your hand from the heat, an aluminum or stainless steel shield was built into each of the handguards. They protect your hand by reducing the cooling rate of the barrel. But there is no way around the problem. You can’t increase the cooling rate of the barrel without having that heat pass by your hand. You want a cooler barrel, you have to have a hotter handguard. Or a heavier one, to absorb more heat before it gets too hot to touch.

Back when tubular handguards were new, I toyed with some ideas on air-cooling with forced air. I figured if I could rig a fan inside the tube I could suck cool air in through the barrel nut holes, and pump hot air out through the tube opening in front. The idea foundered on more than a few problems: fans for one, batteries for another, and vibration. By the time I got enough air flow to actually cool things, the weight, noise and vibration were more hassle than the heat. Oh well, another perfectly good idea dashed by reality.

The A.R.M.S. SIR is a tad bulky, but it’s easy to grasp, has plenty of rails, and its lower section comes off.

When the A2 series was being developed, the handguards got changed to the circular XM-177 type, but in rifle length. The later M4 handguards had a second shield added. To deal with barrel heat (and increase accuracy) the barrel was made heavier. Thus the dance we’ve been in for twenty years: barrel diameter. Heavier is stiffer, cooler, more accurate and it lasts longer. Thinner is lighter, and weight means a lot. Add to that a peculiar problem the Army faced: the M-203 grenade launcher can only be installed on barrels up to a certain diameter. Larger than a certain O.D. and the bracket doesn’t mount, and the launcher can’t be attached. Looking back it is easy to say that the Army should have re-designed the M-203. By making it a two-piece attachment launcher, they could have had mounting brackets of any barrel diameter, and then attach the basic M-203 (let’s call it the “M-203A1” for now) to the mounting bracket.

Why didn’t that happen? Remember our discussions (at more than one point) of the Army always looking for a replacement for the M-16? And how development of the M-16 has always suffered because there was always a replacement that would make it obsolete? That replacement was always “just around the corner.” Well, if you’re going to be replacing the M-16 any budget year now, there is no point is spending development money for systems that attach to the M-16, now is there? So the M-203A1 was not given a second thought. How long has this been going on? Well, at the same time in the mid-1980s when I was considering the engineering that would be needed to make a .30 Remington-based case fit the AR-15/M-16 (yes, a precursor to the 6.8 Rem SPC) I was making dummy grenades on the lathe out of bar-stock aluminum, and considering just how to go about designing a semi-automatic, shoulder-fired 20 or 25mm grenade launcher. I could not have been the only one. So basically, the Army has frittered away twenty-five to thirty years chasing a “perfect” all-singing, all-dancing weapon, and has passed up the possibility of having a greatly-improved M-16 for all this time.

The free-float Midwest handguards clamp on the barrel nut, and the barrel does not touch the handguards forward of the nut.

The Midwest Industries basic railed handguard simply replaces the existing handguards.

LaRue not only makes tough rails, they mark them so you can tell at a glance which one you have before you try to install it.

How is this possible, you ask? Simple. Consider yourself as the Colonel or General in charge of the current program to develop and field a replacement for the M-16. Any money, interest, production capability and career advancement that might be garnered by someone improving the M-16 comes at the cost of your program. It is money, interest, production capability and career advancement that do not come to you. You will (of course, being only human) tell anyone who listens that your project is “just around the corner” that there are “one or two technical problems to be solved” and that the combat capabilities of the new weapon “far outstrip the M-16 in combat effectiveness.” With such promises, it is an easy decision to make: pump the would-be M-16/M-203 improvement monies into the soon-to-be replacement. How do I know this? I’ve seen and read it for each of the programs that have sprung up in the last thirty years.

But we are in the early stages here of what the internet forums call “thread drift.” The M-16A2’s circular handguards are more comfortable to shoot than the older triangular ones. They are more durable, cooler and interchangeable. What they don’t do is give you a place to attach stuff. Attaching stuff was not such a big deal back in the 1980s. Back then, all you needed or wanted (or even had available) was a sling. Then we got lights. Lights are good.

The military then got more digital stuff. The big deal is the AN-PEQ/2. It is a laser, but one that can do many things. First, it can be used to “paint” a target. The Air Force spent a lot of money developing the laser-guided bomb. By attaching steering vanes and a laser-seeking nosecap, any bomb will direct itself to a laser source. When the project was first developed, the lasers were large and could be mounted only on an aircraft. Thus, multiple Air Force aircraft would fly over or circle a target, one would light up the target, another would drop the bomb, and after it hit they’d all go back to base to drink coffee and watch the video. You may recall the video images of the bomb drops on Moammar Khadaffi’s aircraft back in the 1980s. Those were done by means of the PAVEWAY system, which was a hi-tech laser guidance system that could be shoehorned into the bomb bay of an F-111.

Back in the early 1980s, it was “hi-tech” to make a laser guidance system smaller than a Volkswagen Beetle. When the electronics became small enough, the Army began using them. Now, the Air Force simply needs a plane in the air, close enough to the target. With the advancements of GPS positioning and computer calculations, the pilot need not even see his objective. The computer will tell him if he’s within the three-dimensional “drop cone” where the bomb can guide itself to the target. If so, off it goes. It is not a big conceptual leap from a delicate laser designator kept in a padded case of its own, to a designator the size and durability of a pair of binoculars, hung around the FDCs neck. (Fire Direction Controller) Once that small, it had to be a matter of the first live-fire mission in a theater for someone to use 100-mph tape to tape it to the handguards of a rifle.

Now, they are made to clamp onto a picatinny rail, and bolted to several rifles per maneuver unit in an infantry squad. The AN-PEQ/2 does several other things as well. As an infra-red laser, the dot is visible to someone using night vision gear. To something like the OSTI AN-PVS/22 we tested in the optics chapter, the IR laser projects a bright glowing dot downrange. With an NVG-equipped machinegunner, your laser-equipped scouts can “paint” the enemy in total darkness. Invisible to them, the dot is a bright “shoot me first” indicator to your crew-served weapons. Lasers can also be used with a gizmo called a “beam splitter.” Basically it waves the beam over a large area in rapid sequence, and the persistence of vision the brain has assembles the rapid beam into a cone of IR laser light. Basically, it’s an infrared flashlight. Again, soldiers or Marines wearing NVG see it as a searchlight in the darkness. People who do not have NVG see nothing, and are not aware they are being watched. Or targeted.

The AN-PEQ/2 is so useful it is nearly as ubiquitous as the M-16/M4 itself. But it requires a mounting system. Otherwise it is going to be in a pocket, rucksack, or on a vehicle seat when needed. For that, the handguard has to have rails. You can, if you wish, go to government surplus web pages and bid on stuff the government is done with. There you will find dumpster-sized bid lots of handguards. The government has taken the handguards off of thousands of rifles and carbines, replacing them with railed handguards.

The Harris bipod has springs to open it, but they add weight and places to snag.

Do you need a railed handguard? No, not really. They are very useful in mounting lights (visible) or lasers (again, visible for us non-military purchasers) but you don’t absolutely have to have them. But they are ‘way cool. Let’s go over the standard handguards first.

Plastic: The Future

You all remember the line from The Graduate, right? “Plastics. The future.” That’s what you get with traditional handguards. Triangular for the older ones, circular for the newer ones. The old CAR/XM-177 handguards were first triangular, later circular, but some lack the heat shield. Newer ones are made of a tougher plastic and have the heat shield. The ones I call “CAR-2” guards have dual heat shields but are not the new M4 diameter. In order to make the handguards better protect the shooters hand, the M4 project involved slightly fatter handguards (taller than they are wide) with a dual heatshield in them. If the M4 handguards are too fat for your hands, then it is easy to remove them and replace them with trimmer CAR guards.

Tango Down rail covers have a slot for pressure switches, which is about the only use I have for them.

An interesting approach to heat protection are the “Glacierguards” from DPMS. Instead of using liners, the DPMS handguards are a heat-resistant plastic, and have internal, thick plastic ribs inside. The plastic absorbs heat but conducts it slowly to your hand. Each time you stop firing, the heat then radiates back to the barrel, away from your hand. Basically, instead of a metal shield that shades your hands from heat, the Glacier guards use mass and thickness (like the insulation in the walls of your house) to protect you from the heat.

Railed Handguards

The tactical railed handguards come in two types: those that free-float the barrel, and those that don’t. Typically you see a slight accuracy improvement when you free-float the barrel. Railed handguards add weight and cost. They are made of machined billets or forgings of aluminum. There used to be some made from extrusions, but forgings are stronger, the cost difference is marginal, and the end-users all wanted the impression of the greater durability of forgings.

Surefire M-73

The Surefire railed handguards fit underneath the delta ring of the barrel assembly. You need not remove your barrel (or cut the delta ring off) to install the Surefires. Most delta ring-retained handguards have some slop, some movement, to them. The Surefire system uses a pair of locking bolts. Once you’ve installed the two halves, you then tighten the locking bolts. The result is that the halves brace themselves against each other, and tighten to a rigid assembly. There is some bracing they do against the barrel. Simply check your zero after you’ve tightened them (and secured the bolts) and if necessary re-zero. Once in place the Surefire handguards are tight enough that you can use them as a location for optics. Using screws to secure your handguard, you’ll want to re-test and then use Loctite to really make them stay put.

Midwest Industries

Midwest Industries is a large accessories fabricating company. They make handguards in a number of sizes as well as BUIS and light/laser bases that clamp to your front sight housing.

The MI handguards that fit under the delta ring do so as if they were a standard pair of handguards. They don’t have extra locking capabilities, so they will float a bit on your barrel, just as regular handguards will. Some particular rifles may have them fitting a bit tighter, and others more loosely. If you need to have non-rattling (or non-moving) handguards, you can go the tape or inner tube route. A wrapping of 100-mph tape will secure the handguards, or you can use a section of rubber tubing. Stretch and wrestle the tubing over the barrel and front sight housing, and then settle it in place on the front ring of the handguards. The MI handguards that do not use the delta ring clamp down over the barrel nut. Once tight, those handguards do not touch the barrel forward of the barrel nut. The MI handguards come in carbine, mid-length and rifle lengths. They are the same width as they are high, so MI forends can be a bit large to some shooters hands. The non free-float handguards are larger still. If you find the plastic M4 handguards, fine. You won’t have a problem with MI railed forends.

LaRue

LaRue is considered by many to be the Cadlillac/ Mercedes of handguards. LaRue also makes optics mounts and super-slick falling steel targets that automatically reset themselves. The big bonus you get with LaRue, besides an unbelievably durable “build,” is the anti-rotational bracket on their handguards. When you install a vertical foregrip on your handguards, you give your left hand (right if you’re a southpaw) a lot of leverage. So much so that it is possible to unscrew the barrel nut. When the barrel nut is broken loose of its clamped toque, the leverage of your vertical foregrip can move the handguards, which twists the gas tube. As we saw in the Vulcan rifle in Volume 1 of this book, twisting the gas tube brings the rifle to a sudden and unfixable malfunction. Unfixable, that is, short of replacing the knarfed gas tube, and re-tightening and locking in place the barrel nut.

LaRue handguards have a locking bracket. You must remove the delta ring, spring and retainer to install a LaRue handguard. So, you either install the Larue as you build the rifle (leaving off the delta ring and parts) or you remove the barrel and the front sight housing. Installing the LaRue takes some work; once you’ve removed the flash hider, front sight housing, delta ring, spring and clip, you unscrew the barrel nut and remove barrel and nut from the receiver. Then you remove the locking bracket. This allows the LaRue barrel nut to come free, so you can you place the locking bracket at the front of the upper receiver.

Tango Down makes a vertical foregrip that doubles as a storage compartment for spare batteries, a bolt, and cleaning stuff. (But not all at once!)

The front rail of the PRI is a perfect place to clamp on this GG&G bipod.

GG&G bipods have latches to keep their legs up.

Rifles rest on bipods, and you sometimes have to work to keep things vertical.

Now press the barrel back into the upper, slide the knurled ring and LaRue barrel nut on, and then tighten the barrel nut into position. Be careful to get it top-dead center, or your forend will be canted. Slide the internal collar on, and then the forend. Spin the locking plate screws in a thread or two by hand to locate and fix in place the locking plate. Carefully hand-turn the knurled ring to pull the forend back, making sure you get the locating pins lined up with the holes in the collar. Once everything is lined up, use a strap wrench to tighten the knurled ring. You don’t have to really lean on the wrench, as the locking bar will keep things from turning.

Once the handguard is tightened in place, tighten the locking collar screws. The upper handguard now has a mechanical lock on the rectangular upper portion of the upper receiver. In order to turn the handguard you’ll have to bend metal. Unless you’re built like “Ah-nold” (and probably not even then) you aren’t bending the metal involved.

You don’t buy a LaRue because you want lightweight. You buy it because of durability. (And the CDI factor.) With a properly installed LaRue, nothing is coming loose until you want it to.

Samson

Samson handguards come in carbine and rifle lengths, and the lower on the M203 models is detachable. You can bolt your Samson handguards on, and if you need to rebuild the rifle with an M-203 you simply remove the lower handguard and attach your M-203. No need to remove the whole thing, attach a new handguard with your M-203, and then have to re-zero your rifle. Samson railed handguards come in all the lengths you’ll need, and clamp down on the barrel nut. Your barrel will be free-floated. I used Samson handguards in my 6.8 Rem SPC police sniper build, and the rifle is a tack driver. A good barrel is the key, but free-floating lets it shoot up to its best.

Samson, and the rail that went onto my police 6.8 sniper rifle.

CAA

Command Arms has as their flagship the X6 and X6l handguards. The spar of the railed tube has an additional extension, putting rails on either side of the front sight housing. If you prefer a compact light or laser, the side rails up front are a convenient place to put them. There are police and military trainers who do not like side-mounted lights. They feel that the inevitable wall or corner will have your light on the wrong side. The Command Arms X6X and X6XL solves that problem. The extra rail is forward of the front sight, directly above the barrel.

CAA also makes the M33 (polymer) and M44 (polymer or aluminum) handguards, with rails molded or machined right into the contour of the plastic or aluminum handguards themselves. The rail/handguard comes with sliding covers. The bottom one of the M33 can be slid off any time, but the top one is trapped by the front sight housing. So if you plan to ever use the upper half, you need to remove the cover before you install the handguard.

A.R.M.S.

The A.R.M.S. SIR (Selective Integrated Rail) is a great forend system. The upper can either be the “C” model, which works under the deltas ring, or the “M” model, which requires removal of the delta ring. The top rail of the SIR clamps onto the rail of the flat-top of your M4 or A4 upper. The forend is thus secured not just by clamping onto the barrel nut, but the upper receiver. The lower half of the SIR is plastic and removable, again so you can install an M-203. (Remember, however, that you must have an A2 rifle or M4 carbine barrel, with the correct barrel diameter where the M-203 or a faux M-203 37mm will attach.) If you go to attach your SIR, you’ll notice that it comes short of the rear of the upper receiver. That’s the location where you’ll attach an A.R.M.S. #40 or #40L sight. You can’t put a sight on the SIR top rail, as the rail rides too high to line up with your front sight. The SIR rail is, however, the right height for mounting optics.

Troy

Troy makes railed handguards with a slight difference: they aren’t round. Well, there are other differences, too. The Troy handguards are not as wide as they are tall, so if you find other railed handguards too fat, the Troy guards could be just the ticket. Also, the Troy upper is integral with the clamping collar, but the lower half of the handguard set is not. There is a spring-loaded detent that keeps the lower from moving on its internal rails, so if you need to mount something to the barrel (like an M-203) you can easily remove the lower rail set without disassembling your rifle. Then just install the M-203. As with all military-use items, the rail slots are numbered so you can be sure of getting an accessory back in the same spot if you take it off for maintenance. Troy railed handguards are so well thought-of the Smith & Wesson uses Troy rails on their Tactical M&P 15.

Vltor CAS-V

The CAS-V is a slick system. Like some others it clamps to the upper top rail, and has a removable lower half. However, the CAS-V does not have rails everywhere. The forend is a shell, and you bolt the rails you need where you need them. If you want just one or two short ones, you end up with a very slick forend, figuratively but not literally. The cooling slots provide your gripping friction. Unlike others, made from forgings, the CAS-V appears to be made of pressings. Stampings, if you will. The method (if this is what Vltor does, and from the looks of the parts I’d say it is) each piece is stamped out of a sheet of aluminum in a process called “fineblanking.” If the engineers involved have done their jobs properly, the parts do not need finish machining, just deburring and hole drilling. (Vltor obviously employs skilled engineers.) Then the flat sheets are stamped or pressed to create their shapes.

Now, the top rail of the CAS-V obviously can’t be stamped. It is a solid bar machined to shape. Lest you think stampings are bad, most of the AK-47s in existence are made on stamped receivers, and all jet aircraft use stamped fuselage panels. Done correctly, the stamping operations work-harden the material involved and make them stiffer and stronger than they were when they were just flats. I’m not a body builder but I’m no wimp. I can’t wrestle the sections of the CAS-V out of shape with my bare hands. Short of banging them with a hammer (and obviously doing the same to all the other railed forearms, to be fair) I don’t know what it takes to bend one. But it takes more than just bare hands. In the course of conducting my classes, I haul forearms to each for part of the T&E. I can report, from direct observation, that a 200-plus pound SWAT officer sitting on a CAS-V equipped rifle in a soft case is not enough to bend it. Slick, light, tough. Get one.

The lower is hand-removable. Squeeze the forward latches and hinge down around the Phillips-head screws you see. Done. If you want rails, you can bolt the provided rails to the CAS in any location where holes line up. If you want to, you can bolt on all the stuff you see in photos from Iraq. Me, I like lighter more than heavier.

Those holes on the side, on the rail and at the back, are QD sling swivel points. This thing does everything but make your coffee.

The LaRue handguards have an anti-twist locking collar on the back.

You can see here the posts on the handguard, and the holes to receive them in the barrel nut/ locking collar assembly.

GG&G

Based in Arizona, where every other person you meet is a shooter (and the rest are carpetbagger ex-California immigrants) GG&G is well-situated to have their finger on the pulse of shooters.

Their railed handguard differs in several respects. It is an otherwise straightforward clamp on the barrel nut design, but it is smaller in diameter than others, and octagonal. You can clamp your rails on any or all of the seven flats, (the top is an integral rail) or just some and leave the others bare. The smaller diameter makes it easier for some shooters to grasp, although it must (even if only theoretically) get hotter from being smaller. The top rail is the same height as the flat-top, so once aligned you can have continuous mounting. Left uncluttered, and combined with the GG&G folding front sight, you can have a very clean and sleek front end on your AR. Made of aluminum you can drill and tap, machine or otherwise modify above and beyond the ability to mount rails where you want them.

Hogue

In the early days of three-gun shooting we looked for every advantage. (We even practiced, the ultimate advantage.) One thing we looked into was tubed handguards. Back then we weren’t looking for rails, because there was nothing with a base that could be attached to the rails. Steel is too heavy. Yes, the rifle has no recoil, but you can’t hold it up. A few runs on the LRPF (Light Rifle Pop and Flop) at Second Chance, and everyone had to call it quits. Aluminum works better. Except aluminum gets hot, and can be hard to hold. Hogue solved both problems with their overmolding process. They mold rubber over an aluminum tube handguard. Very nice. If you aren’t looking for something with a couple of yards of rails onto which you’ll bolt stuff, the Hogue works great.

Troy forearms are not just railed.They’re sculpture.

The Troy lower rail comes off, so you can mount other stuff. The upper remains clamped around the barrel nut.

DPMS

For the ultimate in light weight and heat-resistance, you need carbon fiber. There is nothing lighter, and carbon fiber essentially doesn’t hold heat. The barrel simply can’t transfer enough heat fast enough to the carbon fiber handguard to make it hot to the touch. As with the Hogue, no rails, unless you drill and tap for them yourself.

PRI

The combination of carbon fiber tube and rails comes together in the PRI forearm. I used one in building the DMR, and the installation is straightforward if sometimes requiring three hands. You must strip your barrel to a bare tube, so if you’re installing a PRI handguard you might as well consider their folding front sight, too. The short rails give you enough room to mount what you need, without luring you into mounting everything but the kitchen sink. It is also lined with a heat shield so heat is deflected from the handguard even before the handguard has to shrug it off. ‘Way cool, looks great, works as designed and it is lighter than other railed handguards.

Vertical Grips

Target shooters shake their heads and wonder just what has gotten into the water. Some old hands say they aren’t needed, and just get in the way. Vertical foregrips are not something you can be neutral about. Well, I can, but I’m a trained professional. (That sound you hear in the distance is the laughter of shooters who know me.)

Pfc. Ezra Agbodjan, from the 101st Airborne Division, has a vertical foregrip (bottom), a Surefire light (side), and a targeting laser on the top of his railed handguard M4. DoD photo by Spc. Teddy Wade.

OK, that sounded like I was just a bit full of myself. I find them useful, if odd. For the target shooters, with left elbow straight down and right elbow out to the side, the vertical foregrip is an impediment. For a defensive or tactical shooter who is trying to keep both elbows in, the vertical grip (let’s just use “VG” from now on, shall we?) gives them a secure hold and one that keeps the elbows in. A VG also is a useful place to store things, locate a light switch, or be part of a light itself. To have a VG on your AR, you have to have a rail out there.

Railed Forearms

Railed forearms come one of two ways: you either clamp onto the existing barrel nut, or you replace the barrel nut with a new one. Some of the clamp-on forends use the existing delta ring, spring and clip. Others require that you remove the delta stuff. If you don’t care about the delta ring, you can simply chuck a cutoff wheel in a dremel tool and hack away until the delta ring, spring and clip fall off. Or rather, the pieces of them. If you want to save the parts, you have to do the same thing the other railed forearms require: remove the barrel.

Some forearms, like the LaRue, Hogue and DPMS carbon fiber, also require that you remove the front sight assembly. There, you’ll find the Brownells barrel block very useful. When tightening up your new handguard, you must pay extra attention to the barrel nut or its replacement. When tightening on a regular barrel nut and handguard combo, a slight mis-alignment of the nut is no big deal. As long as the gas tube snakes through, and doesn’t bind on the carrier key, no harm done. However, on a railed handguard, a slight misalignment means you can’t attach any accessories across the gap. You can’t count on your optics mounted out front (if you have any) being vertical to the rest of the rifle. To make sure the rails are straight, you can use a straightedge. Or you can use the Brownells rail alignment gauge.

Rails are great, they look cool, but they add weight, cost and in some cases bulk to the rifle. Be sure you need one (or really, really want one) before you go adding one to your rifle.

Rail Covers

The question is; yes or no? Some prefer rail covers to protect their hands. My reply: shoulda bought something not so “edgy.” Others want color for camouflage. That’s what paint is for. The only use I have for rail covers is as a place to install a pressure switch for a light or laser. There, Tango Down gets the nod.

Bipods

Railed forearms are where you mount bipods. Except for the Versa-pod, which uses a stud on a handstop on the bottom of the handguard, you need a rail to mount your bipod. Not all bipods come ready to go on a rail, so you’ll sometimes need an adapter.

Harris

The Harris bipod is spring-loaded, and is designed to clamp onto the sling swivel stud of hunting rifles. To mount it on your AR, you’ll either have to make a stud adapter to fit inside your regular handguards (something I did for one of the USPSA Three-Gun Nationals) or get a LaRue adapter to bolt the Harris to your railed forearm. Harris bipods are convenient but bulky and their exposed springs can catch on stuff.

Here’s why a removable lower is such a big deal. The M-203 snugs right in place, without having to take the upper handguard off. Sgt. Adrian West, from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, aims at a possible threat during house-to-house searches in Mosul, Iraq. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.

The Hogue, like all other tube handguards, replaces the barrel nut to screw onto the upper receiver. You’ll have to remove your front sight housing to do that.

GG&G

The GG&G bipod is made with a rail clamp, so you don’t need adapters. It is not spring-loaded, but gravity helps you unfold the legs when you press the latch. They, like all bipods in serious use, have adjustable legs. Made of aluminum (unlike the steel of the Harris) the GG&G doesn’t add much weight at all.

Tango Down

The Tango Down bipod is synthetic, with spring-loaded buttons to latch the legs in various lengths. It has been designed specifically for the length on an M4 carbine. Mounted fully forward on an M4, the collapsed legs fold back to just clear the receiver. They extend out from that length, so you can have a much higher bipod setting if you want it. They also are shaped to fold back and be as compact as possible. Again, other bipods tend to be an angular or leggy lump under your rifle, just looking for things to snag on. The Tango down bipod folds to be much closer to the handguards and receiver, for less to catch on.

Versa-pod

The Versa-pod uses a front stud to attach to the rifle. You can get it on and off faster than the others. For that convenience you pay in weight and bulk. The Versa-pod also needs a handstop as a location for the stud, adding more weight and bulk. As a varmint bipod it is slick, convenient and sturdy. In tactical use it might be too much of a good thing.

The Hogue overmolded rubber on the tube provides a secure, non-slip surface.

Bipod Use

The one fault all bipods have is their location: under the rifle. As a result, rifles tend to flop from side to side if you aren’t careful. Canting can be an aiming and point of impact problem at long range. Ideally, a bipod would attach to the rifle on the top, letting the rifle hang straight down off the bipod attachment point. The problem is that location makes aiming difficult. No one had designed the perfect bipod yet, but we’re a lot closer than we were in the old days. I even recall experts in an earlier era decrying having bipods on combat rifles. The idea is that the troops would get down behind the rifle, and not get up again. While they aren’t for all uses, they do have some utility.

The Tango Down synthetic bipod clamps onto the lower rail of your forearm.

The Versa-pod requires a handstop and stud for mounting. A tad bulky and heavy, but great for varminting.

When folded, the Tango Down is compact and stops short of the receiver on an M4.

Here you see the Versa-Pod on the mount. It is an easy-on easy-off mounting system.

The Vltor CSA-V clamps to the flat-top rail and rests on the barrel nut. The lower half is hand-detachable for installation of an M-203 or other gear.

With the lower hinged and removed, you can see the internal stiffeners that make it so strong. You can also bolt rails to the CAS for your accessories.

You use a torx driver to tighten the GG&G forearm into place.

The GG&G forearm is two-piece, very sleek and compact. You can put rails where you want.

CHAPTER SEVEN

SCOPES
AND BUIS

The ADCO Solo offers multiple reticles, brightness settings, and is easy to mount. Yes, it looks fragile, but my test crew hasn’t broken it yet. If they can’t, few can.

Underneath the rear housing is the reticle selector. On top, the knob controls intensity.

The big advantage a rifle has over handguns and shotguns is accuracy – sufficient accuracy that extended range use becomes viable. Where a 200-yard shot with a handgun (for most handguns and shooters) becomes a “lottery shot” (your odds are about the same), for someone with even a little instruction and practice with a rifle, 200 yards is no big deal.

Magnifying optics allow for more precision in aiming at distance, but at a cost. The optics cost money, they are more fragile than the rifle, and once you start looking through a scope you tend to exclude things not seen through the scope. Non-magnifying optics do not have the advantage of increased magnification aiming ability. They are less fragile than magnifying optics. Some are downright durable. And you are less likely to fall into tunnel vision, as the non-magnifying scopes are simply a “dot in front of the world” view. But even non-magnifying (also known as “red-dot” scopes) can break. For that, you need iron sights. Since the easiest way of mounting a scope is to use a flat-top upper, and such uppers have, by definition, no iron sights, you need a bolt-on sight. Known as Back Up Iron Sights or BUIS, you can have any of a host of them to put on your rifle. The available sights are limited pretty much just by the makers’ imaginations and ability to fabricate a product. They are usually quite durable. After all, they are expected to be there after the optics have been lost, busted or otherwise rendered unusable.

We’ve been putting scopes on ARs for a long time. Almost from the beginning, in fact. In the early years of the AR-15 and M-16, Colt even offered (they didn’t make it, despite what some “experts” have told me) a 3X scope that you could clamp right into the carry handle. Later, that scope was copied by an endless series of Chinese optics companies, some even with faux Colt logos on them. As collectors pieces they compliment a Vietnam-era rifle or build. As optics, they’re better than irons, but not much. The Colt had a built-in trajectory cam. By turning the dial to the target range you’d have the holdover adjusted. Quite a trick for 1967, but the whole package is pretty much a curiosity now.

The ARMS #40 sight is solid, dependable, beautifully machined and very desirable.

A proper BUIS either locks upright, or is spring-loaded.That way, your sights can’t be knocked askew without your knowing it.

The original ARs weren’t all that cool for mounting a scope. The carry handle provided a convenient location. Well, convenient as far as “having a place to clamp” is concerned. It isn’t so convenient when you try to aim. The line of sight of any scope so-mounted is so high over the stock that you can’t really maintain a check weld. It’s more like a “chin weld.” Still, we got by. Some of us went so far as to butcher perfectly-good ARs. We’d lop off the carry handle and drill, tap and screw on a Weaver scope base. The accomplished among us used a milling machine and actually got the top level and the holes in a line. Some I’ve seen looked as if they were done with a hacksaw and belt sander. If you have a so-modified upper, and are having a heck of a (or even impossible) time getting your BUIS zeroed, there’s a simple reason: it is too high.

Fast-forward from the Vietnam War to the 1990s. The need for a flat-top upper is apparent. But what dimensions? Bartocci, in his The Black Rifle II, gives you the blow-by-blow rundown of who, when, where, and who else tried to take the credit. For our discussion here, the fact you need to know is this: the current flat-top top deck height is lower than we fabricated back then by installing a Weaver mount. The “typical” (every gunsmith had his own way of doing it) handle cut-off lowered the top deck of the upper to about 1.80". Add on the thinnest Weaver base and you’re left with a top deck height of 1.900" or more. Over the usual M4/flat-top measurement of 1.83"-1.84" by enough to cause problems. Could the upper have been shaved down some more? Sure, but the lower you go the thinner the wall, and fewer threads are available to clamp the base to the upper. So, most of the old flat-top jobs are unsuited for a modern BUIS install. You can still put a scope on them, but you can’t install back-up iron sights unless they are custom-made for that particular rifle.

As recently as just before the Iraq war, an AR with a scope, or red-dot sight on it, was viewed by many as a “competition gun,” something real men wouldn’t take into a real war. This despite the fact that the government had been buying truckloads of optics, magnifying and red-dot, for some years. Due to the wonders of digital photography the Iraq war has more images, more available for inspection, than any previous conflict. Anyone with a fast internet hookup can search out and closely inspect hundreds or thousands of photos. Having done just that, I can make a bet I heard a long time ago, with a twist: The bet was simple: you paid a dollar for every police officer without a mustache, if the other guy paid you a nickel for every one with a moustache. Only here, it would be pay a dollar for every M-16 or M4 you see with only iron sights, and collect a nickel for every one with a scope of some kind. You might not get rich, but you won’t lose money.

I have seen more than one rifle in Iraq photos that would have been a pretty well-equipped Open class gun in IPSC competition.

Optics

Optics choices for the AR are pretty simple; after all, you’re just picking a scope for a rifle. You’d use the same criteria you’d use for any other rifle: expected ranges, anticipated target size, amount of light available, and durability desired. Of course in the defensive, law-enforcement or military context, durability becomes much more important than in hunting. If I’m spending an afternoon on a ridgeline over a prairie dog town and my scope breaks, I can get another out of the truck. (Rifle or scope, my choice.) Or come back another day. If the bad guys are shooting at me and my scope breaks, I might not have the option of going back to the truck. As for the option of coming back another day – well, things don’t work that way.

Yankeee Hill Machine so far makes the only BUIS that can be folded with the small aperture ready to go.

Scopes selected for military use tend to be heavier, bulkier and a lot more costly than what would be “good enough” for hunting. That’s why you see bullet-proof rings like LaRue and Badger Ordnance on military rifles, and honkin’ big scopes like Leupold or the European makers. A few ounces, or even a pound, of extra weight don’t matter in those circumstances. Consider the situation of a squad designated marksman (or even a school-trained sniper) in a small group of SpecOps troopers, hiding on a ridgeline. Between the bunch of them, the government has spent a staggering amount of money: they all draw pay (not enough, in my opinion) and have since they enlisted. They’ve been fed, housed, clothed, and sent to an impressive number of schools. They’ve been through training exercises that cost bundles of money. Then, the government ships them and all their gear halfway around the world. Going over on a C-5A or a C-17 costs a lot more per-person than flying coach on a commercial airliner. Then, they took a helicopter ride. That chopper requires another group of people; pilots, maintenance techs, air traffic controllers, all of whom cost the government a lot of money. Lying there in the dust, each one of those SpecOps troopers represents a million dollars or more of invested money. Do you really think, once you start considering the costs, that the government really cares that another scope is “just as good” and costs “hundreds less”? If the troopers miss because the scope croaks, then the government may have to marshal millions more in air-delivered ordnance, artillery or drones. My only surprise is that there isn’t a “ball peen hammer” mil-spec test.

You, however, do not have that luxury. You may well find that a less-expensive scope (optic or red-dot) serves your needs just fine, and at much lesser cost. Lesser cost is good, if the savings are spent on practice ammo. Buy as good a scope as you can afford, but always buy enough ammo to be in practice.

Optics and Choices

When I worked in radio, I quickly found out that not just DJs had impressive record collections. Everyone at any radio station who wanted records could collect them. At one radio station, the record representatives showed up on Tuesdays. The playlist committee met on Wednesday, and on Thursday morning, Tanya’s office was opened. When you could go in depended on your place in the pecking order. Typically, there was at least one full stack of records, as tall as my shoulder. What were those records played on? Now there is where they interesting part comes in. DJs typically fell into one of two extremes: they either had a sound system to rival that of the station, or they had a phonographic “system” one step above a child’s Close ‘n Play. Why? Good systems cost money. What the station could afford was the best. It took a lot of money to match that sound quality. A lot of DJs didn’t care, they were “hearing” what they remembered anyway, so a simple, discount system from the local chain store was good enough.

The Armalite BUIS looks a lot like the FG-42 rear sight.

The Armalite hooded folding front BUIS.

The LMT BUIS looks like it is simply a carry handle chopped off. There’s more to it than that, but you wouldn’t be far off.

The M4 carry handle is a BUIS. You just have to carry it and bolt it on when you need it.

And so it is with optics. You can spend for the best, and nothing less. Or you can get optics that are good enough, and put the rest of your money into practice ammo. The Marine Corps (one of those groups sending people to exotic places) has decided the Schmidt & Bender scopes are all that will do. Even with the volume discount, they are spending a lot on glass. If you’re prepared to spend that much, you’ll get optics that will knock your socks off. But so will the price.

Leupold

Leupold & Stevens makes first-class optics, and if you’re serious about shooting then they should be the scopes you use. Yes, there are better optics, but you’ll pay, and pay dearly, for better optics. I covered them in Volume 1, so I need not review them again. I did, however, hang on to them to use them in this book too. That’s how good Leupold scopes are.

Famous Maker

For those not needing (or needing yet) optics in the “make your wallet bleed” category, Famous Maker offers entirely serviceable optics. Well, some are. While I would get Leupold optics sight unseen, you should look through lesser optics before buying. Famous Maker sent me two scopes. One, a compact 2-6X that looked perfect for the AR, proved not to be. The eye relief is so short that I was hard-pressed to mount it far enough back to be able to see through it. And the center portion of the scope was the only part usable. Outside of the center, the field of view had noticeable distortion. Until they make a “MkII” of this scope, pass on it. And I had high hopes for it, too. However, the 2.5-10X Tactical scope is different. Bright, clear and with a mil-dot reticle, it proved quite up to the task of shooting small groups from the bench. Upon arrival I slapped it on the S&W M&P-15, and proceeded to bang a dead-center group sub-MOA with Wolf Performance ammo. The Wolf ammo is an M-193 equivalent, and I have not had it fail to work properly in any of over a dozen rifles. The S&W loves it. The Famous Maker 2.5-10 suffers from the same fault that a lot of “not the most expensive” optics suffer from: narrow eye relief. Any scope you get that isn’t Leupold quality (and thus price) or greater will suffer from narrow eye relief. The scope is a one-inch tube with a 44mm objective. You can get the basic scope for about a hundred dollars, or you can get the illuminated reticle one for two hundred. As an entirely serviceable practice/learning scope, before you spring for your $1200 scope, consider the FM 2.5-10X. It has a lot going for it.

The ADCO Tactical meets the SEP and is judged “good” – as in “Get this one and then spend your money on practice ammo.”

The OSTI night vision scopes can be removed from one rifle and bolted to another, without losing zero. It simply intensifies what’s there and doesn’t provide any aiming of its own.

OSTI

Optical Systems Technology, Inc., makes perhaps the coolest thing a poor, underpaid gun writer gets to play with: an AN/PVS-22 night vision scope. For those of you who have not updated your knowledge since reading of the “starlight” scopes of the Vietnam War, hold on. We’ve 35 years of updating to do in a couple of paragraphs. A night vision scope is basically a television camera. Inside it is an extra electronic array known as a “photomultiplier.” The p-m is an amplifier. When it gets “hit” by a photon on the front (actually, it takes more than one, and the sensitivity of an NVG device is dependant on the threshold of light it reacts to) it responds by squirting ten, a hundred, a thousand out the back. The smaller the photo-sensitive locations on the p-m, the greater the resolution. The greater the amplification, the more it sees. However, you can’t get something for nothing, Early NVGs suffered from “bloom” which is an over-amping of the p-m, causing the whole screen to wash out or have haloes around light sources. Early screens also suffered from “burn-in” in the same way early computer screens did.

Having a high-resolution NVG suite simply means you own the night. Our military owns the night. NVG are also sensitive to infra-red light. So the I-R lasers on every other rifle, vehicle and lamp-post allow our NVG-equipped soldiers, Marines and airmen to see even in total darkness. (Of course, someone else with NVG can see the “flashlight” effect of the IR laser, too.

We are not alone in making NVG. However, we are the best. When the first Russian NVG scopes appeared on the market, they were simply awful. I mounted one for a customer and attempted to bore-scope it. All I got for my efforts was a splitting headache. Trying to discern objects in the dark, grainy, out-of-focus screen was enough to make you crazy. Some users even joke about needing lead shorts to stop the radiation rumored to be coming from them. Newer ones are much better, but still not as good as American NVG. Of course, better costs more, and the best are in use overseas.

What OSTI sent me was their Universal Night Sight, which mounts in front of regular optics. As the AN/PVS-22 is a television camera, you can’t look “through” it when it isn’t on. NVGs don’t work in the daytime. (The military has special day/night scopes but they make regular NVG scopes look inexpensive.) So, the OSTI has a quick-removal mount that lets you attach it directly to a rail in front of a scope. Since the UNS simply transmits an image back, and your regular scope hasn’t been moved, you don’t change your zero. You simply attach and turn on the UNS.

The new Holosights have a better water seal and thus better water resistance.

The GG&G A2 (here behind a Holosight) offers two apertures and windage adjustments.

If you plan to mount optics to your AR, and have them stay and survive, you need a tough mounting system. You’re hard-put to get tougher than LaRue.

When I showed it to a friend of mine who is a Chief of Police, he and several other departments were in the process of looking at NVGs for disaster preparedness. He took one look through the OSTI UNS and remarked, “This is worth the price of admission.” And it is. The view is clear enough to read license plates across a parking lot. On a hazily-overcast night out at a military base, I was able to see the stars through the cloud cover, and identify the constellations.

I had a great deal of fun with the UNS OSTI sent me. I first mounted it on my “Police Sniper” 6.8 Remington SPC rifle, and it is a hoot to use. Given even a slight amount of light from someplace (the stars will do, even a sliver of moon is enough to make the world light up) I had no problems whacking gongs or dropping the computer pop-ups on the NG base. What I found was that the OSTI AN/PVS-22 turns on first at the highest gain, and the best setting for me (and many others) was with the gain turned down. Way down. Too much gain interfered with resolution and was tiring to look at for any length of time. I’m sure turning down the gain increases battery life as well as increasing “eye endurance.” However, I have yet to use up the two AA batteries I put in to start this “research” so battery life is obviously not a problem. And you can find AA batteries at any location on earth. If there is a store with batteries, they have AAs.

It is important that you be able to co-witness your irons and your red-dot reticle.

The Meprolight Mepro-21 is a solid and quick-to-use red-dot with a triangle as an aiming reticle.

The Zeiss red-dot is a compact, bright and great little scope.You just can’t co-witness your irons through it.

Once I’d played with it for a while on the 6.8 Police Sniper I then mounted it on the 5.56 DMR. Since the UNS simply transmits its image back to the scope, you can swap it from rifle to rifle without a change in zero. The UNS was even more fun on the DMR. If you had a DMR, a UNS and IR-trace 5.56 ammo, you could indicate a position for someone else with NVG. Thinking about that in a military context (and IR lasers) gets downright scary. Scary for the other side, that is.

The downside? Cost. You’re going to be spending thousands of dollars at the very least. Six or eight, probably. If you buy more, the unit cost comes down, but you’ll have a heck of a time finding five or six friends who also want night vision gear. Of course, for many of us, that isn’t that much for something this fun. And from someone doing predator control, the expenditure is recouped pretty quickly in prevention of cattle losses. If you want something smaller OSTI makes the TaNS, the Tactical Night Sight, which is petite compared to the bigger optics.

You want night-time fun, look into the OSTI UNS. Lest you think they are just re-badged Russian optics, the UNS has a National Stock Number, and is listed with the Defense Logistics Agency.

Man, I hated sending it back. But what’s a poor, under-paid gun writer to do? (Besides take lots and lots of photos?)

The Troy front.

Insights

Insights makes lights and lasers and is in the process of making an optical system. The IOSS is a red dot sight with integrated laser. At the moment of this paragraph it is still in R&D, and the original models appear to be LE or military use only. But give them time, and there will be one for the rest of us.

Optics Bases

The ways to mount magnifying optics to an AR are legion. Well, there are a lot. At the low end, you could do something as simple as fit a Weaver ring set to your M4 upper rail. Or bolt a Weaver adapter into the carry handle of your A1 or A2. While the purists might look down on you (and the second method does have drawbacks) it gets the job done. The more durable, convenient and modern method is a throw-lever mount like the LaRue. Another approach is the GG&G lever, which clamps their bases or mounts to the top of your flat-top AR with a single swing of a large lever. At the top end, Badger Ordnance makes rings that are tougher than your rifle. If you were to mount a scope to your AR with Badger Ordnance rings, and then beat the snot out of the rifle and scope with a hammer, the rings would survive even after the scope and rifle were scrap. A real-world example would be an AR sniper rifle being ejected out of a police car during a collision. The result was a scrapped rifle and scope. But not the Badger Ordnance rings, which survived. Most things that go onto your AR need mounts, but some don’t.

The OSTI night vision scope, mounted ahead of a Leupold 3.5-10X sniper scope. Own this, own the night.

You can’t look through the AN/PVS-22 unless it is on. (Don’t turn it on in daylight.) But you don’t lose your zero taking it on and off.

Red-dot Mounts

Many red-dot mounts are simply built into the scope body. Others require a base and ring system. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. What you’ll often see with the separate optics and mount system is that the mount is cantilevered forward. Also known as a gooseneck mount, the angle is there to increase usable real estate on the top rail of the rifle. Unless there is a rail system on the handguard (and mounting scopes there can be chancy) you have to mount the scope on the rail. You also need room for the BUIS. And in military use you often need a night vision gear or optic, too. By angling the red-dot optic forward you make room for the NVG. Since the red-dot has no need for eye relief, it can be anywhere. You could mount it at the muzzle if you wished, provided it stayed aligned with the bore. The ideal mounting of the red-dot optic would put it in line with the iron sights so you would not have to change your cheekweld for one or the other.

One advantage to non-magnifying optics is the ability to “co-witness” sights. Simply put, you zero your irons and you zero your optics. Then you turn on your optics and aim through your iron sights. Note the relationship between the dot and your irons. They should agree as to the point of aim/point of impact. Once done, you can check your sights at any time. Let’s say your rifle takes a tumble. If you think your optic or irons took the hit, turn on the optics and aim through your irons. (In a safe direction, please!) If your sights no longer agree as to point of aim/point of impact, then something is amiss. If you know which took the impact, then that’s likely the one damaged. If you don’t, at least you know one of them is wrong, and can set about finding and correcting.

Red-Dot Scopes

The beginning of red-dot scopes in practical competition began with Jerry Barnhart in 1990. He mounted an Aimpoint on a .38 Super Open gun and proceeded to win the Nationals with it. Later that year, Doug Koenig, having mounted a red-dot scope on his Open gun, won the World Shoot. After that, there was no going back. Well, at least not for a few years. The original scopes were dim, had narrow tubes and were quite fragile. It was not unheard of for a competitor to have two or three pre-zeroed scopes in their gear bag. Should one decide to break, they’d unbolt the old one and install the new one. I recall one time, at a USPSA Nationals, after a hard rain the sun came out. My extensively-modified and unsealed scope fogged up. By holding a butane lighter flame against it, I was able to dry it out. We’ve come a long way since then, and Aimpoint has done a lot to advance the field.

Scopes are no good if they lose zero. And they are much more useful if they can be quickly removed. LaRue answers both needs.

The Matech BUIS is a real-deal DoD sight.It’s compact and offers ranging settings.

No, this isn’t a combo you’d see in Iraq. But with an accurate rifle and a solid mount, a cheap scope serves until you’re practiced or can afford the better optics. Don’t be a slave to fashion.

The method of operation of any red-dot scope is the same: you look through it, at the target. For fast, close-in shooting, you simply let the dot “float” in your field of view. Where it is, is where you hit. Optical purists quibble about which red-dots are and are not perfectly parallax-free. Parallax is the change in point of impact from the dot (or crosshairs) of a scope, when you move the dot or crosshairs from the optical center of the scope by moving your head. A scope with parallax will have the point of impact away from the dot or crosshairs when they are near the edge of the field of view.

In a magnifying optic, parallax can be a problem. Optically, the magnifying scope can be adjusted so it is parallax-free at a single distance. However, the effect is so small at distance that scopes can be said to be “parallax-free” at or beyond a certain distance when properly adjusted. Target competitors fuss over it greatly. A scope adjusted to be parallax-free at fifty yards will show parallax at 100, and vice-versa. When a change of fractions of an inch can mean lost points and lost matches, target shooters get fussy. The lack of magnification and the large dot size means that even a red-dot optic that is not well-engineered and has parallax hardly matters. At worst, the parallax in a red-dot scope is not enough to move the point of impact out of the “shadow” of the dot. As one example, if the parallax error of a Brand-X red-dot scope is three-quarters of an inch at 100 yards, and the dot itself is 2MOA, then moving your head is not going to move the point of impact off of the dot. If the dot is on the target, you get a hit. And the parallax error may well be less than the accuracy limits of the ammo being used. So, the short explanation is: don’t sweat it. If a manufacturer tells you their red-dot is parallax free, it probably is. And even if it isn’t, you aren’t going to miss your target because of it. At least not this side of 300 yards.

Here, a Famous Maker 2.5-10X scope, in an Armalite mount, turns in an excellent group with Wolf ammo out of the S&W M&P-15. Bet against this combo at your peril, as it will kick your butt in competition.

The GG&G Accu-cam mount for the Aimpoint is fast, solid and easy to use.

Troy knows about the desire some of us have for a folded BUIS with the small aperture ready to go. They’re working on it.

The Troy rear, stood up and with the large aperture swung around.

The GG&G 3X adapter for the Aimpoint 3X optic. Fast, but you’ll need a pocket for it.

How red-dot sights work is also pretty much the same, with one big exception. Basically, a low-powered laser inside of the scope body reflects off of an internal plate that is partially-mirrored. The mirrored plate does not interfere with seeing through the scope. (But does explain why red-dot optics are often a bit dimmer than outside light.) You see the dot. You aim with the dot. At close range you use binocular vision, let the dot “float” and get your hits. At distance you mentally focus, see only the view through the scope, and put your dot on your target. The ability to look through an optic without seeing it is part of the “Bindon Aiming Concept.” The late Glyn Bindon figured out that a glowing dot against a black background was as good as transparent to the human brain when viewed with binocular vision. (Actually, our mind. Our brain is simply the mechanico-chemical processor of the thought processes of our sentience. But let’s not complicate things.) By looking “through” an otherwise solid aiming device, you could shoot quickly and still be accurate. Even though you can look through most red-dot optics, your mind is following the same pattern that Glyn figured out. Some competition shooters use this concept with magnifying optics. If they have a scope with a battery-powered or fiber optic enhanced aiming point, they will close the front scope cover on a magnifying scope. The result is an opaque optic they can aim “through” using the Bindon Aiming Concept. They get both a magnifying optic when they want it, and a red-dot when they need it.

The original AR optic, a Colt-procured 3X scope that fits on the carry handle. Better than nothing, but not by much.

ADCO

Adco scopes are mostly of the “tube you mount” type. And used for competition. But they make a pair of scopes that are more in line with what 3-gun competitors and defensive shooting types are looking for. First, the Solo. The Solo is a “heads up” type optic. Instead of a tube, it has a screen mounted at the front of the unit. The Solo is compact, and has built-in rails for mounting. The big advantage in the Solo are its reticle options. In addition to variable power in the display, you get multiple dot sizes, a “T” display and a bracketed dot. In a competition, you can be faced with many aiming needs. The ability to crank the power up, the dot size, and select other reticles, can be very useful. If you’re in a super-bright range (say, in the desert) and the targets are out a ways, you can select a small dot and high power. If the next match finds you in a heavily-forested range, and the targets are close in, you can dial back power and select the T or bracketed dot for maximum speed.

Mounting a red-dot (this Midwest Industries mount is for an Aimpoint) has become so popular that everyone makes mounts for them. Get a good one (this one is), make it tight, and paint it in.

GG&G makes an Accu-cam mount for the Holosight. Better than the knob.

The LaRue M-68 CCO or “gooseneck” mount gets the Aimpoint forward of any NVG you might mount.

The only hesitation any of my test-shooting crew have had is with its apparent fragility. I say apparent, because some of them worried that they’d break it. I haven’t, in months of shooting, and tossing cased guns in and out of my truck. But some of my testers could break a crowbar, and they worry. I’m not, and unless your job includes jumping out of perfectly good aircraft, I don’t think you need to either.

The Tactical looks like an Aimpoint. It comes with its own mount. The mount does not appear as strong as the mil-spec mounts others make, and the clamping knob and plate are not as large. But the Tactical is not made to be mil-spec. Why, then, get one? Simple: cost. The Tactical is entirely serviceable. I haven’t broken mine, and I’ve shot it on a bunch of rifles. I’ve put a lot of ammo through those rifles, including some really stout kickers. While I haven’t deliberately abused it, any rifle that my test-fire crew handles gets knocked around. While they’re careful, they still will be dropping rifles onto the shooting benches, banging gear against them, and occasionally whacking barricades with the rifles or the gear bolted to them. (Then there’s the whole “into and out of the truck” thing; loading up for every range trip.) The Adco Tactical has survived all that and still works fine. It hasn’t even changed zero. The suggested price of the Tactical is just under two hundred dollars. You’d be hard-pressed to buy just a mil-spec gooseneck mount for that. Add in shipping, and the mil-spec mount would cost more than the actual retail price of the Adco Tactical complete with mount. For the cost of the optic that you’d then mount in the mil-spec gooseneck, you could have bought two or three cases of practice ammo.

Which brings me once again to “Sweeney’s Equipment Paradigm.” The SEP tells us that when the choice is between the best gear, and gear that is good enough and money for practice ammo, then “good enough” wins the prize. If you buy the Adco, and the practice ammo, and actually learn to shoot, you’ll be far ahead of the guy who bought the “cool gear” and no practice ammo. If you continue to practice until the Adco breaks (And there’s no telling how long that may take. It might never happen.) you will always be one or more steps ahead of the guy who insists on only buying what the government buys. If at every step you buy gear that is good enough, and plow the difference into practice ammo, you’ll crush that other guy in every match.

The SEP is based on buying gear that is good enough, but durable enough. If you buy cheap, crappy stuff, it won’t work. Adco does not make cheap, crappy stuff.

It isn’t easy getting a photo through a scope meant for the eye, but here’s an idea of what the OSTI does for you. There’s a streetlight a hundred yards behind the camera.

The Bennie Cooley and Midwest Industries cantilever mounts both let you put a red-dot on a rifle with a carry handle.

Aimpoint CompM3

The first Aimpoint to gain military acceptance was called the M-68. We know it as the CompM2. Like the M2, the M3 is hell for tough. They both have parallax-free viewing, no broadcast light, and a whole host of makers who make bases for them. Not that you need others, as Aimpoint has their own base. (More on that later.) The CompM3 has five times the battery life of the M2. At the lowest visible setting it will run for 50,000 hours. On the lowest NVG setting it will run for 500,000 hours. For those math-challenged, that means just under seventy months for visible (five and three-quarter years) and just under seven hundred months for NVG. Basically, if you install a set of batteries, leave them on the lowest NVG setting, and put them in your gear bag, you will be retired, living in a warm, sunny clime, and looking at photos of your great-grandkids before you need to change those batteries. Fifty-seven years later. Yow! The CompM3 comes in two dot sizes, 2 and 4 moa, and is submersible to a greater depth than the M2, 135 ft vs. 75. For those who swim to work, the depth matters. For the rest of us it simply means they are waterproof to any rainstorm we’ll be working in. to further armor the M3, Aimpoint ships it with a rubber cover.

My favorite GG&G BUIS (and finalist for overall BUIS) is the MAD.

I’m not sure you could harm the LaRue BUIS with a hammer. With its QD lever you can have it off or on in a moment.

The Aimpoint base has a clamping knob with a ratchet and gear teeth in it. Once you’ve located the scope on the rifle, you simply tighten the knob until the ratchet slips and the rod clicks. That’s as tight as it will let you tighten it. If it works loose you can simply tighten again. At any time, you can apply tension to the knob.

If you see the ratchet start to slip, you know the base is still tight. With other tightening knobs you have to torque it down, and then mark the knob or shaft with paint drops. If your paint breaks, the knob is loosening.

However paint flakes off, or gets obscured by dust, dirt, or darkness. Even in the dark you can check your Aimpoint base by simply turning the knob until the ratchet slips and clicks. Aimpoint bases are all over the place in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can spot them by the longer shaft of the tightening knob. Some complain that the shaft is too long and gets in the way. Perhaps they’d like to design a new one on their lathe, one that is less obtrusive? (I’ll bet Aimpoint already tried that.) Me, I don’t even notice it.

If you’re a machinist or gunsmith, you can solve most any problem. Here’s an early solution to the problem of how to mount a red-dot scope to a carry handle: on the side.

The one shortcoming that red-dot scopes have is the lack of magnification. There have been some attempts at making 2X and 3X red-dot scopes, but they have not been well-received. What Aimpoint has done is make a separate magnifier. The 3X attachment needs its own base. It rides behind the Aimpoint (or other scopes, too) and simply magnifies your view through the scope. The drawback is that while the view is magnified, so is the dot. A 4-MOA dot viewed at one power with the naked eye, on a 100 yard target, seems OK. The same dot, viewed at 3X, seems too big. Optically, it is the same size on the target as it was before. But some object to suddenly seeing, what appears to their eye as, a 12-MOA dot. Me, I don’t care, or notice. You might want to try a rifle with the Aimpoint installed before you go out and get one, just in case it is something you might not like.

To mount it, Aimpoint came up with a trick mount. You clamp the base to the rifle, behind the M2 or M3. You clamp the adapter ring to the 3X optics. (You have to cut off the rubber cover on the front.) Clamp the adapter onto the optic. Then simply press the optic with adapter down onto the base post, and turn. The optic will rotate and then lock into place. To remove it, thumb the locking lever, turn the optic the other way, and lift. You will need a convenient pocket or pouch on your gear where you can stash the 3X and adapter. A compass pouch or bandage pouch, strapped to your load-bearing vest (if you’re geared up for SWAT or Fallujah) would be cool and convenient. Using a spare-mag pouch strapped to the buttstock for your 3X instead of a magazine could work. If you use some other spare magazine solution, then you’re all set. It isn’t an instantly-available solution, but the need for 3X magnification is not usually a close-range one. More likely you’re getting shot at from someone way out there. If they miss (and if they didn’t, you’d have other, larger, problems) then you can dig the 3X out of the pouch while you’re behind cover, and once it is mounted be ready to locate and deal with the bad guy.

The GG&G gooseneck mount for the Aimpoint is solidly made and will look good on any AR.

Samson makes a very cool 3X mount: it swings clear. Press the latch and the springs swing the 3X adapter off to the side. No need for a pocket. An additional advantage for competition shooters: a detachable mount, in USPSA 3-Guhn competition, makes the3X an extra optic. Boom, instant Open Division. However, if you use the Samson swing-adapter, your red-dot and the 3X are a single optic (equivalent to a zoom scope) and thus allowed in tactical Division. If you want the power, and either lose things or want to stay in Tactical, then you simply must have the Samson 3X adapter.

Mounts for the Aimpoint

With the government having bought something like half a million Aimpoints (as I was writing this chapter, Aimpoint received another contract, for an additional 160,000 scopes!) there is an impressive segment of the accessories industry devoted just to attaching Aimpoints to rifles. There are a number of reliable, solid mounts to choose from. GG&G makes a gooseneck mount with its own lever-clamping system. (Or a model without, if you distrust quick-detach mount systems.) The lever has a fingerloop at the front, and is adjustable. GG&G also makes a quick-detach mount for the 3X optics for your Aimpoint. The GG&G 3X mount rides over a folding BUIS, if the BUIS is low enough. Troy sights are. LaRue makes several mounts, the CCO68 and the gooseneck ’68.

The Aimpoint knob is viewed by some as bulky but solves a number of tightness issues for any combat arm.

Aimpoint makes tough optics. They must; they’ve sold literal truckloads to DoD.

Midwest Industries A2 sight folds down out of the way.

EOTech Holosight

The EOTech Holosight came about from basic research into optics. The sight works differently than others. On other red-dot sights, the internal laser sends a beam up to a reflector plate, a partially-mirrored internal (or external) screen. Your eye sees the reflected dot. On the Holosight, the laser reflect off of a diffraction grid. The grid then forms a three-dimensional image of the reticle as engraved/etched on the reflector plate. If there is enough surviving plate, you see the reticle. Where other red-dot sights lose effectiveness in rain or dirt, the EOTech doesn’t. As long as there is enough reflector plate unobscured (or undamaged) to send a visible amount of light to your eye, you see a reticle. Holosights work even when partially broken, muddy, rained on, and other indignities that other styles cannot work through. However, as we all know, you can’t get something for nothing. The miniature reticle pattern etched on the reflector plate, while offering redundancy in case of damage, means the reticle is grainy. Some shooters simply can’t reconcile themselves to the grainy image they see. The Holosight is also a bit bulky (although not much, compared to other units) and a bit heavy. However, the apparent heaviness is offset by the built-in mount. While the threads of the clamping bar are a bit to fine for my tastes, the Holosight does not need an extra mount. If you want one, however, GG&G makes a lever mount that replaces the EOTech screw. Once adjusted, it clamps the Holosight on with one movement of the lever.

You can have Holosights that use standard AA batteries, Lithium batteries, with dots compatible for night vision gear or not. The newest model, the 553, offers a built-in quick-dismount throwlever mounting system.

As I was working on this, EOTech showed me their proposed new magnifier. The base mounts behind the Holosight, and the magnifier snugs up against the rear of the sight. The one I had a chance to try was a prototype, and the production models will probably look a bit different. But for the fans of the Holosight, it will be a really good thing.

Zeiss Z-Point

The Z-Point is a compact battery driven red-dot sight. How compact? About the size of a prescription drug bottle, on its side, with a flat base. Very compact. Which is also its problem. As a sight by itself it is great. The view is bright and clear, the dot is sharp. But the center of the Z-Point view is too low. The view center of the Z-Point is about .875" off the top of the receiver. The line of sight of your BUIS is about 1.325" above the receiver. Not only can you not co-witness through the Z-Point, the line of sight for the irons is right on line with the housing of the Z-Point. Now, if we had a half-inch riser we could solve this problem. Without a riser the Z-Point is a wicked little backup sight on an Open gun, where you’d mount it on the side and tilt the gun to use the Z-Point on close targets at warp speed.

Meprolight

The Mepro 21 is another red-dot with a twist: it uses a triangle. Now, some love triangles, and some hate them. So you’d best try one before you spring for one. Me, I use whatever is there. The Mepro 21, with lever mounts, is easy to attach to your flat-top sight. Just open, slap on, close and zero. If it was already zeroed, and you get it on in the same slots, then you’re still zeroed. The Mepro 21 is fast in use. While looking at it, someone asked me “How long do the batteries last?” I had to pause for a moment before answering “About ten years.” No batteries. It uses Tritium and fiber optics to light up the diamond. In daylight the fiber optic pumps more light in, making the diamond brighter. In darkness the Tritium inside lights the triangle.

The Mepro 21 sits a bit high on the upper, but not so much so that aiming or cheek weld is a problem. Your BUIS will be visible in the lower part of the screen if you leave the Mepro 21 on to shoot irons.

Other Red-Dot Mounts

Not all ARs are flat-tops. Some have carry handles. Mounting a red-dot or other optic up there is not fun. So, more than one inventor has developed a cantilever mount. The rear of the mount clamps in the carry handle. The front drops down in front of the carry handle, hugging the handguards. You mount your optics out there.

The simplest is one like the California Competition Works rail, which is not adjustable. (At least not last I checked, but Bill Pallazzolo is a busy guy.) If you want a sturdy, straight-forward mount, you can’t go wrong. There are, however two others that add more: one from Bennie Cooley, and one from Midwest Industries.

When stood up, the MI sight gives you an A2 sight picture.

The Bennie Cooley (I mention it first only because I saw it first) cantilever has a dovetail in the middle, and you can adjust the front rail up or down. Why would you want to do that? So you can get a co-witness between your irons and your optics, even with the cantilever rail. If there is one drawback to the Bennie Cooley rail, it is that the clamping/adjusting screws are on the front. If you have your optic too far back, adjusting the rail gets to be a hassle.

The Midwest Industries rail is much the same thing, but the clamping/adjusting screws are on the side. You can mount your rail, then the optic, and adjust the rail up or down until it is perfect for your aiming style.

If you want optics, and can’t see the cost of a flat-top conversion (or upper) for your rifle, then one of these rails lets you get optics on.

The Aimpoint with the twist-off 3X adapter, being used to slam LaRue targets far downrange.

BUIS

The Back Up Iron Sight is the inevitable result of scope development. As good as scopes are, as durable as they are and despite the advantages the give us, iron sights can’t be done away with. Scopes break. Batteries die. With iron sights ready on the rifle, you can stay in the fight. Here in the Midwest it gets very cold, and in a lot of locations, quite damp. A battery dead from the cold makes a red-dot sight useless. A rained-on, snowed-on or breathed-on scope is impossible to see through. So, having taken the carry handle off (and the sight that went with it) to install a scope, we’re now putting iron sights back on.

The need for back-up iron sights comes about as a result of the evolution of optics. Back in the old days, optics, or scopes as they were more-often called, weren’t durable enough for military use, a situation that many hunters found amusing. “Why, I’ve hunted with this scope for twenty years, and it has never given me a problem.” Uh-huh. And in all that time, how often have you dropped it? Or had to dive into a ditch to avoid incoming artillery or rifle fire? No, scopes for a long time in military use were pampered snipers sights (the sights were pampered, not the sniper) and not depended on for general issue.

IPSC changed that, as it has for so many things firearms related. More than a lot of people are willing to admit. The beginning came in the very late 1980s, by way of a shooter by the name of Jerry Barnhart. IPSC shooters are a peculiar kind of competitor, and American competitors are unlike any in the world. Jerry (as are so many IPSC shooters) is a nice guy. He’s also dedicated, analytical, driven and likes to win. He determined that a scope just might give him an advantage, if he could figure out the right one.

What he settled on was one of the earliest versions of the Aimpoint. Now Jerry wasn’t the first to ‘scope a handgun. The late Dean Grennell, and J.D. Jones, had been putting scopes on handguns a couple of decades earlier. But what Dean was doing was to wring more accuracy out of target guns. J.D. wanted scopes for hunting. Neither application made the demands on scopes that IPSC shooting did. Target shooting was done with really soft-recoiling ammo. Hunting (at least as done by J.D. Jones) involved very powerful rounds. But even the most dedicated hunter wasn’t gong to be shooting more than a few hundred, at most a thousand, rounds a year. The competition loads in IPSC involve the .38 Super. (At least in Open Division.) The recoil and vibration of a .38 Super at Major are intense. Back then, the formula was a 125-grain bullet at 1,400 fps, or a 115 at 1,520. Not bad, you say? Fine, then consider doing that twenty or thirty thousand times a year. IPSC shooters can wear out guns, something that few other competitive endeavors can claim. Jerry mounted an early Aimpoint, won the 1990 U.S. Nationals, and started the trend. Not to be out-done, Doug Koenig took his Aimpoint-equipped handgun to the IPSC World Championships later that year and won the 1990 World Shoot with it. After that, the floodgates were open; no one wanted to shoot iron sights any more.

That was with handguns. USPSA/IPSC 3-gun competition didn’t get organized at the National level until the 1990s, but my club and others were doing it in the early 1980s. What we found was that a lot of cheap scopes couldn’t take the regular volume of shooting we were doing.

The red-dot sights a decade later were not up to it either. Depending on the exact load, the scope mount used, and the luck of the shooter, optics died (the dot expired, flickered, lost zero) after a week, a month, or if you were really unlucky, a few days. The year before the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Mogadishu, one of the Rangers who would be there was in my squad at the Nationals. He had a supply of scopes for his Open gun sufficient to get him through the match if one croaked each day of shooting. But scopes improved. By 1994, I found myself at the Michigan Tactical Officers Association annual conference looking at a new scope by EOTech. It was scaled down from holographic three-dimensional sighting systems for aircraft. It was slick, promised to be durable, and would be available soon. I asked them if they were planning on getting into practical shooting. (I had two goals in mind: to find out if they knew what they were getting into, and to see if I could score a sight to write about.) “Yes, we’ve got a shooter who is going to be using our optics. Jerry… Barnhart?” So much for beating the rest of the guys to the punch.

Showing just what a red-dot, or any optic, looks like on target is next to impossible. The human eye is so much better than any camera that trying to take a picture is almost futile. That doesn’t stop us from trying.

Just a short while ago, an AR with a red-dot scope on it would have been sneered at as “too gamey” and “not tactical.” If you look closely, you’ll see the EOTech and laser are lashed down with 550 cord. Spc. Anthony Noger, from Company B, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division on patrol in Tal Afar, Iraq. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. James Harper Jr.

It took a few years, but optics makers developed the manufacturing methods ands optics designs that allowed them to make durable scopes. We now have optics so durable they can be mounted directly on a slide. Durable enough that they can be general-issue in the military. However, that brings up another problem: where to put the optics. For many years we had two choices, both bad: you could mount the scope in a base and rings clamped in the handle. Colt even offered a scope for mounting right there. (They didn’t make them, they had an optics company make them, and marked them with the Colt logo.) Or, you could whack the carry handle of the upper receiver off, bolt a Weaver base on, and mount the scope there. The carry-handle mount problem is that the scope is too high. Your face comes off the stock in order for your eye to see through the scope. Without a solid check weld, aiming is difficult, and fast aiming is very difficult. Cutting the handle off had the dual problem of what do you do with a rifle no-one else wants, and how do you get irons back on if the scope croaks? Unless the Weaver mount conversion was perfectly done, it ended up ugly and weak. And there was no way to get iron sights back on. Luckily for us, Colt solved that problem. They made rifles with a Weaver-like base (called a picatinny rail) as an integral part of the upper receiver. Scope bases, or scopes with built-in bases, could be bolted right to the receiver.

But we still had the problem of what to do if the scope breaks. I know, someone is asking “If IPSC perfected the red-dot optic, then why worry if it breaks?” The best response is something that my friend John Farnam once described: “Put two Marines in a room, each with a ball bearing. Come back in fifteen minutes. One ball bearing will be broken, the other missing, and neither Marine will know what happened.” Even outside of combat operations, the military is hard on gear. Add the stress of being shot at, and all sorts of equipment gets broken. A red-dot scope makes your shooting faster and more accurate, but not if it is broken.

Thus, the back up iron sight, or BUIS. The ideal BUIS would be compact, durable, out of the way and quickly brought into action when the scope is toast. The ideal scope would survive anything. Failing that, then the ideal scope is one that will survive most anything, and when it doesn’t you can easily take it off. The best way to keep the BUIS out of the way of the optics is to have it fold. The best way to get the scope off when it breaks is some sort of quick-detach or hand-unlocking mount.

There are BUIS that do not fold, and they are perfectly acceptable. They just get in the way a bit with your sighting through the optics. Some prefer a non-folding BUIS for the extra measure of durability. Me, I’d rather have something folded (which will be very durable, since it has nothing sticking up) that doesn’t get in the way of my view through the optics. Folding BUIS depend on a pivot pin, some in springs, many on a locking button of some kind. All those small parts can break. The non-folding sights have small parts, too, but their small parts are fewer in number and are not used to hold the iron sight upright. Which one you select depend on your needs, your budget, and for some what is the “uber-cool” sight of the moment. More than one shooter has been known to select a bit of gear by what they have seen in a photo from Iraq or Afghanistan.

A Colt M4 with a railed handguard, Aimpoint with Aimpoint mount, and a Matech. Dusty, worn, scratched and still working. Pvt. John Robinson and fellow Soldiers from Company A, 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division search houses for terrorists in Baji, Iraq. DoD photo by Spc. Charles W. Gill.

Two things you need to be aware of about BUIS: You must zero them as you do any sight, and you must be sure you install/replace them to the same spot each time. I’ve had shooters install a BUIS on their rifle and not zero it. No manufacturer can guarantee that simply bolting their BUIS on will ensure you’re sighted in. You still have to do the hard work. And, despite the top rail of a rifle being one piece and machined as precisely as possible, moving it to another slot may change your zero.

In one of the classes we once had an officer suddenly experience a change in zero in his rifle. After a little investigation, we discovered that he’d removed his carry handle/sight, and when installing it had clamped it on one slot back. That was enough to throw off his zero.

The new EOTech magnifier, in prototype form.

M4 Carry Handle

The original BUIS is the carry handle off of the M4. You take it off (after zeroing it) and stash it in your gear. When you need it you yank off the optics, install the M4 and go to work. For those anticipating a split-second assault, the whole affair seems pretty slap-dash. You can’t be certain of your zero, it takes time, and where did you stash that sight, anyway? It works well enough that I’ve read more than one account of a soldier or Marine having to go through exactly that process, for a good end result. One even had his buddy throw him a carry handle/sight. In a military context, “close enough” often is, fights are not always over in a few seconds, and equipment breaks. The use of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Explosives) in Iraq has lead to more optics being busted. To no one’s surprise, people have a higher survival rate to nearby explosions than electronics or optics. A solder or Marine may be momentarily stunned by an IED, but his optics often are toast. With iron sights to use, he can still fight. The carry handle gives him/her that option. As bad as the city of Detroit was, there weren’t any IEDs written up in the papers or police reports. However, sudden attacks were and still are common. (Not as much as in the past.) There, as with many civilian defensive encounters, you may not have the time to dig a carry handle out of your gear (if you even have it along) and so a bolted-on BUIS is the preferred solution to busted optics.

Me, getting to shoot the new EOTech Holosight and magnifier. Trust me, you’ll want one when they become available.

A.R.M.S.

Atlantic Research Marketing Systems makes gear that defines cool. Calling their S.I.R. a railed forearm is like calling a humvee a pickup truck. The 40 and 40L sights ARMS makes go about the process of standing up a bit differently. Where most sights must be pushed up, the ARMS 40 and 40L are spring-loaded. Move the locking lever and the sight pops up on its own. It remains spring-loaded but unlocked. If you bump it, it swings back but then stands upright again. The 40L is the low-profile version that blends in with the top rail of the SIR. In order to blend it has to be lower, and the adjustment parts thus smaller. It can be hard on your fingers to get the sight zeroed. But once set, you won’t have to touch it again. The #40 is the standard A.R.M.S. sight, and for many shooters it’s the definition of cool.

LaRue

The LaRue BUIS is a serious contender in the “brother-in-law with a ball peen hammer” survivability contest. A relatively simple upright machined housing protects the sight and its adjustment knobs. As with all LaRue products it is designed and built to be tough. The LaRue is windage adjustable without tools. Not everyone wants a folding BUIS, and for those individuals the LaRue is a damned good choice.

LMT

Lewis Machine & Tool is a basic manufacturer of things AR. That is, they make the rifles that other people sell as “made by XYZ.” They also make rifles for themselves. Their BUIS appears to be a modified detachable carry handle. Lest you think making a BUIS this way is a cop-out, let me assure you it isn’t. First, making one from a handle forging, while it requires some extra fixturing in the machining process, produces a first-rate product. It is as durable as the handle/sight would be. It uses the same parts, so if you need to rebuild or want to replace something, standard A2 parts are what you’ll need. And, as an A2 sight, if you know how to work the sights on an A2 AR then the LMT BUIS will hold no mysteries for you. You also get ranging adjustments with the LMT. Once you’re zeroed, you can click up to a longer range, just like the A2.

The EOTech Holosight is a durable red-dot with a “circle and dot” reticle, like a fighter jet sight.

The rail on your flat-top is made by forging a rib on top of the receiver and machining the picatinny rail. The dimensions are not the same as earlier weaver-base conversions.

GG&G

Based in Arizona, GG&G makes a number of BUIS, two of which concern us. One is the MAD, or Multiple Aperture Device. The MAD is a folding sight, with a paddle-like sighting arm. Inside the arm is a wheel with four apertures; two big, two small. With a quick twist you can have a large aperture or a small one. The MAD came about from a Naval Surface Warfare request for sights with multiple size apertures that were in the same location in the sight. The old A1 sight had two apertures, but one was a long-range sight. The MAD is a low-profile sight, and will fit under many magnifying optics. You can have a scope in a quick detachable mount (Like the LaRue we’ve tested) and have irons underneath. If the scope goes toes up, or you have it off for cleaning or protection, your irons are right there. The MAD offers no ranging adjustment. You adjust your zero using the old A1 sight method: vertical in the front sight, and horizontal in the rear. The horizontal adjustment moves the whole MAD paddle. The MAD is low when folded, and durable. The older MAD sights flipped up and down. Newer ones lock upright, and you have to press the lock button to unlock it and fold it. A locked upright sight is an Airborne requirement. Yes, a folding sight is more compact, and less likely to injure an airborne trooper, but if it folds down when it gets bumped, it isn’t much use. Many early designs of folding sights (and some still) didn’t lock up. But many now lock upright.

The DPMS Mangonel, front, stood up.

The DPMS Mangonel rear.

The GG&G A2 is not a compact as the MAD, but uses many A2 parts. It locks up, and the windage adjustment knob works directly on the aperture, like the A2 sight. It does not offer ranging settings.

Matech

Matech makes what one contact in the Armed Forces has told me is the “Air Force sight.” I don’t know about that, but I do know that they have an open-ended contract for twenty thousand sights a month, and I see them in Iraq photos all the time. The Matech differs from the others in several respects. The housing is a steel casting, not an aluminum machining. The sighting stalk with its aperture folds down, and when upright is simply a short stick. The Matech has ranging capabilities. The left side of the Matech has a paddle, with a set of range figures on the side. Crank the paddle until the range indicator corresponds to the distance you need. No clicks to count, just the actual range number. On a target range, you want clicks, so you can count and be dead-on. In a firefight, all you need is someone with a laser rangefinder to shout out the distance, set your Matech, and off you go. While the Matech is lower in profile than many, like the GG&G and Midwest Industries A2s, is isn’t as low as the MAD.

The rear sight on this FG-42 isn’t a BUIS, as there are no optics.Those came later, and on this same model rifle.

Midwest Industries

The MI A2 BUIS and the GG&G are examples of convergent evolution. Yes, they look the same. But look at it from the viewpoint of a designer: you need a locking block, with crossbolt and clamping plate. You need a hinge and a sight. You need ears to protect the sight, and you need to round the edges so your customers don’t cut themselves on our product. The remarkable thing isn’t that two look alike, but that so many look different. The MI A2 has a different texture and color to the anodizing, and slightly different lines in its parts. But it is a folding A2 sight with two apertures, and works just like you’d expect an A2 sight to work. As with the GG&G, the MI is not as low-profile a sight at you can have with other designs. It is however, tough, it comes back to zero when folded and re-stood, it looks good, and stays put.

DPMS Mangonel

The DPMS Mangonel is a different approach to the BUIS. Instead of a folding assembly that then locks or is spring-loaded, the Mangonel has a spring-loaded locking bar. Lift the front or the rear and the locking bar lifts until it locks into the latching slot. The Mangonel lays flat, but is positively locked when it is up. The front is adjustable for vertical and the rear for windage. There are no protective wings for the rear aperture, but then for a BUIS, do you need them? We aren’t talking a 600-yard target sight here, but something to keep you in the fight (or the match) when your optics croak on you. One thing you must be aware of: the Mangonel front has two locking slots. If you pop your front sight up and you get the locking slot that causes your sight to ride lower, you’ll be shooting over your target. Why two slots? One for gas block rail mounting, and one for railed forearm mounting.

Troy

Troy Industries makes folding front and rear sights. They are the ones the S&W selected for their rifle, and a lot of other people have elected to go with Troy, too. The Troy rear is windage adjustable, and the apertures are on a paddle that swings back and forth to get you from the large to the small. They are durable, compact, and good looking. The Troy rear BUIS is the one I went with on my DMR.

Yankee Hill Machine

The YHM BUIS is the one Al Zitta uses, and they have a lot going for them. They don’t fold as compact as others, but they can be folded with the small aperture ready to go instead of the large one.

The original night vision scope was active (the enemy could see your light), not passive. And large. This storage box for one should give you a clue. (That’s an M1 Carbine next to it.)

Armalite

The Armalite BUIS looks a lot like the rear sight on the WWII German FG-42: a post with a vertically adjustable aperture in it. The idea works mechanically, but to have it you have to give up the option of other aperture sizes. So if you do not like the one that it comes as, you’ll have to have your gunsmith disassemble the sight and bore out the aperture to the size you prefer. However, that is a small detail for a sight that works well.

As a sight by itself, the Zeiss is great. But you’ve got to have irons, and the Zeiss “doesn’t play well with others.”

BUIS Apertures

One thing that makes me a bit crazy is the apparent universal idea that when you need a BUIS, you’ll want the large aperture. Me, I want the small for most anything. The large is best used for night shooting, and usually in a military context. In a law enforcement use, or defensive non-LEO use, the large is a bit coarse. However, you cannot fold most BUIS down with the small aperture ready to go. The YHM BUIS lets you do that. Some of the others (A.R.M.S. for one) can do that if you file off the top of the small aperture ring. I’m not cool with that, so I’ll have to wait. Troy tells me that they know about some shooters who have the same crazy idea, and they’re working on a way to make it so you can have either aperture selected and still fold the sight.

CHAPTER EIGHT

BOLTS

The extractor spring rides in a machined groove in the recess, keeping it in place. The Colt dynamic buffer rides inside the spring, the D-Fender outside.

The ejector needs to be spring-powered above the face of the bolt, but not past the locking lug shoulder.

If you neglect cleaning your chamber, your extractor will rip right through the rim of the case that won’t extract.

There is a secret about the AR-15 bolt that a lot of people either haven’t thought of, or have avoided facing: it isn’t hi-tech. Despite its “as modern as tomorrow” looks the AR-15 bolt is a 1930s design, built to 1950s standards and methods, with some 1960s enhancements. What we’re looking at is the firearms equivalent of the 1964 Ford Mustang. Now, the Mustang was a great car in its time. (And a pretty attractive one still, as well as being a desirable collectible.) But it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination a modern design.

If you should decide to get a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you’ll be spending a lot of time learning about steel. Basically, steel is iron with some carbon in it, for hardness. However, there are a lot of other elements that can be added to steel to change more than just its hardness. You can add nickel or chromium to reduce oxidation. You can add molybdenum to control crystal size and machining ability. Vanadium, sulfur, lead, the list encompasses almost the entire periodic table. As if the number of them wasn’t enough, you can add combinations of them, and vary the proportions. Adding to the permutations of additives is the great ability steel has: it can be tempered, heated and quenched, and vary crystal size and hardness. You can (and will, if you go for your degree) spend a large amount of time learning all about steel.

The AR bolt is a product of the knowledge of steel in the 1950s. The mil-spec for the AR bolt calls for it to be made of Carpenter 158, a relatively low-carbon casehardening steel. A case-hardened steel is one that has a hard “skin” or surface, but a relatively softer core. The AR bolt must be made to very exacting dimensions. The relative locations of the various surfaces cannot vary more than a thousandth or two in critical dimensions, and some are held to less than a thousandth. Basically, the bolt is machined to nearly its finished dimensions, and then heat-treated to make it harder than sin on the surface. Then, the bolt is ground to final dimension. The problems come from one aspect of the design: there are a number of thin sections. If the bolt is hardened too much, the thin sections can be hard all the way through. Hard-through parts are usually described by another word: brittle. If the bolt is rough-machined and left too large, when it is ground to final dimension too much of the hard surface will be ground off. The hard skin will be too thin, not take the load, and when the skin breaks it then subjects the inner steel (called the substrate) to the load. The substrate deforms, and the part breaks.

Now, AR bolts can last a long time. Cleaned, lubed, not subjected to full-auto fire, and used only in barrels with proper headspace, a bolt will last a lot longer then the military replacement schedule calls for: 7,500 rounds. I have several that are still going strong with more than 20,000 rounds each through them, and one with about 40,000. Why do military bolts not last so long? And can we do anything to increase useful life of bolts? The military views bolts, along with other equipment, as expendable. Bolts are consumed in training and combat, just as ammunition is. Rather than find out the hard way, in some lonely place, that a bolt was on its last legs, the government will simply replace them frequently enough to keep them from breaking. Can we increase bolt life? Yes; keep it clean (or as clean as you can), don’t let your barrel get too worn or develop excessive headspace, and don’t let your local gunsmith “AR expert” drill out the gas port to “increase reliability.”

If you shoot your rifles when dirty and hot, put lots of bursts or full-auto fire through them, or generally work them hard, you’ll have to replace bolts (and other parts) on the military schedule. 2nd Lt. Anthony Aguilar, from Company A, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, hones his shooting skills at a range in Mosul, Iraq. DoD photo.

The AR bolt, for all its apparent modernity, is not amenable to the tricks and improvements that gunsmiths routinely do to other rifles. It is common for a gunsmith to improve accuracy on a bolt-action rifle by using his lathe to “true” the lugs on the bolt, and then lap them to a perfect fit. You can’t do that to an AR. The lugs are too hard. Indeed, the hardness of the bolt has been an impediment to caliber experimenters who wanted to work on the AR. Without carbide cutters, and the right touch, trying to open the bolt face on an AR would be a disaster. You can’t true the bolt lugs or lap them. You can’t lathe-turn the bolt to smooth its movement in the carrier. You could gauge a bunch of them, if you had equipment precise enough, but for the cost of the measuring equipment you could buy a bucket of bolts, a truckload of ammo, and shoot until you found the perfect combo. (Sounds like a fun time to me.) All you can do is use good bolts in good barrel extensions, and find a gunsmith who knew how to keep his lathe work concentric while fitting a new barrel to your rifle. Luckily for us the people who make bolts work very hard at keeping to the dimensions and to making things concentric.

Your bolt does four things in your rifle: it feeds the round. It rotates and locks up, and unlocks when told to. It holds the extractor, and it contains the ejector. Oh, and it is the part that takes the hit when you run out of ammo. For absolute reliability you want it to do all those things without fail. Here’s how:

Feeding depends on good magazines. We’ve been over that in Volume 1, and here we’ve already covered upgrades and markings. The bolt also has to deal with the feed ramps. However, it is a rare rifle that doesn’t have properly-done feed ramps. So, if you see ovaled ramps in the front of the upper receiver, you’re probably OK. If you see ramps but your rifle isn’t feeding properly there are a lot of other things to consider before you look at feed ramps and the bolt. What about locking open? The magazine and bolt stop handle that; the bolt is simply the part that takes the hit. Again, if your rifle isn’t locking open regularly, the bolt is the last place to look.

Which leaves extraction and ejection: the two biggies for problems, mis-diagnoses and headaches. Let’s take the easy one first; the ejector. One problem we’ve seen in classes is the “too cheap to de-burr” ejectors. If the manufacturer simply cranks out ejectors and doesn’t take the time to de-burr the edges, you’ll have an ejector that has a sharp edge on the front corner. When the round fires, it hammers the ejector backwards. A hot load will actually flow brass into the ejector hole. When the bolt rotates to unlock, the friction of the expanded case will hold it against the force of rotation for a bit. It will break free, however, or else it wouldn’t extract. You can see the result in a shiny circle on the headstamp, and sometimes the shiny circle has a bright smear away from it, from the rotating bolt. If the edge of the ejector is sharp, the brass driven into the ejector hole can be shorn or abraded. Especially with soft brass, little bits of brass will get carved off the case. They will collect in the ejector hole, and eventually bind the ejector. When your rifle starts getting double feeds, take a look at the bolt face. Lots of brassing? Does the ejector move in and out as it should? Check the ejector by removing it (use the bolt disassembly tool) and you’ll probably find lots of brass shavings in the ejector hole.

To solve the problem, first stop using that soft-brass ammo. Look at the headstamps of the ammo you’ve been using lately, and see what one or ones show bright circles on the headstamp. Stop using that stuff. Then, modify your ejector. Since you have it out, things will be relatively easy. Chuck it in a drill press or power drill, and run it a low to medium rpm. Use a fine, hard stone to break the edge of the end that bears against the brass. You need not chamfer it. Indeed, chamfering it could lead to a worse problem. You simply want to break the sharp edge. If you can see your results with the naked eye as more than a bright line on the corner of the ejector, you’ve probably gone too far. Not to worry, ejectors are inexpensive. You can probably buy a fistful of ejectors for the cost of the ammo you’ll burn testing your handiwork before you’re satisfied. Do ejector springs wear out? Perhaps, but I’ve never seen one exhausted. Usually they get dropped and lost, or bent and tossed away before they could wear out.

When you re-assemble, get a bunch of oil in the hole (excess will run or be pumped out via hydraulic action, so don’t worry about “too much”) and get both ends of the ejector retainer roll pin flush on both ends. You’re done.

Extractors are a different matter. The problem with the AR extractor is that it was designed to be too weak. No, I’m not kidding. If the case won’t extract, and the extractor is strong enough, you’ll rip the rim off of a fired case. In larger calibers the rim is stout enough that they don’t rip. The cases extract. Someone out there has probably done it, but I’ve never seen an M-14 or M-1A rim the rim off of a case. Even when my friend Bob Gerak and I were grinding through several cases of surplus .308 that looked like it had been salvaged off of a sunken freighter, we never ripped off a rim. (That ammo was literally green and crusty. It all went bang, it hit to the sights, and it was incredibly cheap. Cheaper even than 7.62X39 AK ammo in the 1980s, and that’s saying something.) The huge extractor on the M-14 gripped the large, thick rim on the .308/7.62NATO cases, and the empties got extracted. I think that a large part of that was the size of the extractor. When the bolt turned the case turned. There could be no hesitation. That primary extraction then precluded cases from not being pulled rearward when the bolt moved. The AR extractor is much less likely to turn cases when the bolt rotates. So, the decision was made to not have the extractor ripping through rims, and allow the bolt to not extract and yet cycle. I guess the resulting double feed was felt to be less of a problem than a stuck case with the rim ripped off. (The ultimate solution was to chrome-plate the chamber and bore, eliminating pitting and difficult extraction.)

It slices, it dices. Well, the MOACKS does a lot, including let you move a recalcitrant gas tube.

Yes, we see rifles from time to time that lack carrier key staking entirely.

Once you’ve cleaned and degreased the screws, tighten them down and apply the MOACKS.

We’ve been boosting the extractor tension ever since. The first extractors lacked a little gizmo you’ll see today, the plastic booster. When I went through the Colt M-16 Armorers course, I found that Colt has a fancy name for it: the harmonic dampening buffer something-or-other. I was drinking coffee at that point in the course, and almost snorted coffee through my nose. Everyone else just calls it “the plastic extractor gizmo.” I guess to come up with a fancy name takes a corporation or government agency. The early ones were white. Progressively stronger ones (the measure of elasticity in plastics is called “durometer”) got darker and darker. Now the current assembly for M4 carbines is a black gizmo with a gold-colored spring. (The gold denotes a stiffer spring.) I’ve seen a lot of early-production M-16A1 rifles and none have a plastic gizmo at all. And many of them work just fine. But who wants to find out the hard way?

When you tighten the staking screws, you’re staking that carrier like it’s never been before.

In an effort to boost extractor tension, we have taken to using boosters that nestle around the extractor. The one I heard of first is the D-Fender, designed by Mack Gwinn and sold by MGI. A lot of people figure “Hey, it’s just a little bitty O-ring. I’ll buy one at the auto parts store for fifty cents instead of the ten bucks Mack charges.” You could do that. But is your little o-ring proof against all known solvents including New Jersey tap water? The D-Fender is a lifetime part. You can transfer the one you buy from one to the next AR you own for the rest of your life and not wear it out.

I have one in all my rifles. Or, I did. At the class I was working while writing this chapter, I took advantage of a sudden lack of broken rifles to get some drills in. (At these classes, if rifles break, I work. If they don’t, I teach. When things go smoothly, I chance it and try to get some shooting in.) Ned was watching, and my rifle choked. Empty left in the feedway. “Hmm” he says “That thing have a d-ring in it?” I had my mouth open, in the act of saying “Of course” when I remembered: no it didn’t. I had taken my D-Fender out at the last class to install in a student’s rifle, and obviously hadn’t replaced it. I promptly went back to the truck, stripped the bolt, installed a D-Fender and went back to the line. There I pounded three magazines through the rifle just to make sure it was working properly.

Now, other people make the same kind of product. And I’m sure they went to the same lengths (all you’ve got to do is ask the polymer makers) to find something indestructible and proof against gun solvents. But the D-Fender is the one I first learned about. It works. I get no money (not even free D-rings) from Mack for telling you this: your rifle should have one.

Gas Rings

As my friend Jeff Chudwin says, “You must buy gas rings. Even MacGyver can’t make new ones out of a soft-drink can.” Gas rings are consumable items. If all you did once a year was to take out the old ones, install new ones and test-fire your rifle, a lifetime supply of gas rings would not cost you as much as two or three new magazines. One thing shooters look to is the one-piece gas ring. The “problem” they have been told is to avoid lining up the gaps in the gas rings. If they allow the gaps to line up, the rifle won’t work. Balderdash. Poppycock. Nonsense. First of all, even if you try to line them up, they’ll squirm out of line when you force the bolt into the carrier. I’ve run rifles with only two gas rings that ran fine. I know of a shooter at Second Chance whose rifle ran fine with a single gas ring in it. Now that’s asking for trouble, in my book, but his rifle ran that way. Mine wouldn’t. But keeping gas rings in is no big deal. Don’t clean your bolt with a brush. You’ll likely hook a gas ring with a bristle, and fling it off the bolt into the grass. Use something like (or the very thing) the MOACKS to scrape your bolt clean. Check your gas rings. They wear smaller as you fire your rifle. There are two ways to check: visual and mechanical. Visually, the ends of the gas rings look like a pair of snake heads facing each other. (Yes, exactly like the snake symbol in the Conan movie. It’s a coincidence, probably.) When the snake’s “neck” is half as thick or less than the head size, replace your rings.

Staking done: keys that won’t move.

The mechanical test is simple: with a clean and lubed bolt and carrier assembly, extend the bolt all the way forward. Stand the assembly on the bolt face on a hard surface. If the weight of the carrier cases the bolt to collapse, the rings lack friction. Install new ones. If it stands and the carrier does not descend, your rings are fine.

The one-piece rings? In many rifles they create too much friction. Rifles can short-stroke. When it comes to extractors I want all I can get and more. But for gas rings old school is good enough for me. I leave one-piece rings out of my rifles.

Firing Pins

Firing pins come in two collar sizes. The smaller M-16 size, and the larger AR-15 size. The larger flange or collar is Colt’s attempt at keeping idiots out of trouble, and placating politicians. The collar, in conjunction with the slotted rear of the carrier and a notched hammer, is there to catch a hammer that is attempting to follow the bolt forward. I had a fellow shooter as the question “My rifle and its firing pin have 14,000 rounds through it. The firing pin tip is jagged, and the flange keeps binding on the carrier. Should I replace it?” My answer was “Hell, yes.” The flange also pointed out a minor weakness in the Colt modification: the slot in the carrier now puts the force of cocking the hammer onto the firing pin. Instead of the rear corner of the carrier cocking the hammer, the firing pin had to do the work. And the flange took a lot of that effort. The rear corner of the flange on his firing pin had been peened to an angle.

Bolts are made with a hard skin and a tough core. If anything goes wrong in the manufacturing process, the resulting bolts will break.

The cam pin hole of the bolt is a high-stress area. If the manufacturer did it wrong, there’s nothing you can do to keep your bolt from breaking.

If they did it right, you’ll have a long and useful time with it.

The AR bolt has lots of thin sections, high-stress surfaces and generally lives a short, hard, miserable life. Saving a nickel (or even five bucks) on a bolt is false economy.

Can you tell which is which by looking at it? I doubt it. If you want to be sure, you have to have some measuring device with you. Me, I just ask for “M1-6 firing pins” and if the parts supplier doesn’t know the difference I move on. Those who are lathe-equipped can simply turn the flange to the smaller diameter, which is what I did twenty years ago when I ran into a firing pin with a flange that “was too big.”

One question that comes up is “titanium?” A titanium firing pin is lighter than the standard steel ones are. However, the standard ones are already pretty light. The idea is that the lighter pin shortens lock time, the time between your pressing the trigger and the bullet exiting the muzzle. I suppose if I were on the line at Campo Perry, duking it out with David Tubbs for the championship of the universe, I’d want every advantage, real or imagined. Any contest less than that, the difference in lock time is utterly inconsequential. I’ll take the surety of firing instead. For anything but a competition rifle, don’t bother. Stick with steel.

More interesting bolt stuff! The mil-spec blueprints call for bolts to be made of Carpenter 158 steel. A low-carbon case-hardening alloy. The problem is, it can be case hardened too deep if the proper heat-treatment process isn’t followed. What accentuates the over-hardening problem are the exacting specs for the cam pin and cam pin hole. Basically, the blueprints call for the cam pin and hole to be the same size. Well, when the blueprints call for a hole of .31275" plus-or-minus .00075" they want the hole to be exactly a certain size. To ease production, and reduce returns, some makers make the holes too big and/or the pins too small. When the pin is too small, the unlocking force isn’t a lateral force to rotate the bolt. The pin rocks in the bolt hole, kind of like the old advice to use a hammer handle in a revolver frame. It works until it doesn’t.

The old-style solid pin. Yes, they work, but no better than a cotter pin, and for a lot more money. However, for someone looking to do a Retro build, they’re required.

Take a bolt with the case hardening too deep and the cam hole too large (or pin too small), and the cam pin acts to pry the hole, not rotate the bolt. Result? Broken bolts. I have an inside source who knows the bolt makers, the carrier makers and the hardening process, and he predicts that broken bolts in some rifles are going to be an occasional thing in the future. A bolt company may ramp up production to meet demand, or someone hires a new guy who doesn’t quite understand the processes as well as he thinks. Bolts go out that pass inspection but are in actuality marginal, and then they break. File it under “stuff happens.”

You can minimize the probabilities of a broken bolt by sticking with a brand that is marked as having been magnetic particle inspected, from a maker that does it to all bolts in a lot, and not just a percentage. I’d love to tell you exactly who they are, but outside of Colt, we have no way of knowing. And makers can change their methods.

Bolts do not last forever. Given enough time and abuse, they will all break. The design, materials and basic fabrication method of the bolt come from the 1950s. Except for the “style” points, who would want to drive a squad car that dates from 1957? The M-16 bolt was improved and updated through the 1960s, but once it was cast in stone to mil-spec, that was it. If any company wanted to make bolts of a new wonder steel that meant they’d never break, the government wouldn’t buy any. Not mil-spec. And would not buy them until the mil-spec was changed to allow it. So, we’re all using the firearms equivalent of a 1957 Chevy BelAir.

Soft brass and sharp ejectors lead to brass shards clogging your ejector. Then your rifle stops working.

How often should you change bolts? The only real answer is, “Before you need to.” The government puts a rough limit of 7,500 rounds on bolts. But they also have a user base that is prone to using the M4 as an impromptu SAW. Used that way, the barrel quits in less than 1,000 rounds and the bolt soon after. I have one rifle on its third barrel (40,000 rounds on that bolt) and several others on their second barrel each (20,000+ rounds on those bolts each) and the bolts show no sign of quitting. I do not, however, do full-mag full auto dumps, suppressive fire, or other hard-use shooting like that.

The Stoner bolt is right on the edge of the performance envelope. Push it too hard and it will quit on you. We can do things to the 1911, the 98 Mauser and other designs that stretch them far past their original limits, and they keep working. The AR bolt was meant to be pushed to the limit from the start. The kind of use a police officer gives an AR is less than that of a competition shooter, which is still less than that of someone in Iraq. Most departmentally-owned rifles will have barrels in need of replacement from abuse and neglect, not from round count.

FN bolts are the other all-military and mil-spec bolts, and are not available to us. They are DoD-only, and their bolts may as well be made of depleted uranium for all of their availability to us. How can you find out who made your bolt? I can’t, nor can you. Unless it is marked and we know the code, it’s a mystery. All the AR makers are remarkably closed-mouth about who makes what. The market is intensely competitive, and high-quality suppliers are kept a closely-guarded secret.

What matters more for you or a police department is service. If your department (or you) own enough rifles and put enough rounds through them, you’ll probably break a bolt. (You’ll likely have broken a lot more other parts before then.) If you have a good relationship with the provider, you’ll get a replacement right away. If not, you won’t. Short of rewriting the mil specs to reflect the advances in steel and parts fabrication, you cannot guarantee never breaking a bolt.

My experiences are a small slice of what is going on. No one has a complete grasp of the field. The fact that I have seen a few bolts break from a few suppliers, I now realize, may stem more from local availability than anything else. Were you to ask me to raise my right hand and swear as to how to get the best bolt, I’d say this: Ask your supplier what they’d do if a bolt broke. If the answer isn’t “replace it,” then keep asking. If you’re in charge of a department, or the armorer, be sure every rifle in the inventory is thoroughly tested, zeroed and logged. If, sometime before you retire, it does break, get a replacement. And don’t lie awake at night, worrying about breaking bolts.

A little arithmetic might put some light on things. Our LEO AR classes are high volume. An officer in a 3-day class will go through 800 rounds, a 5-day 1,200. (I know there are places where you’ll shoot more. But not many.) After that, if the officer to whom the rifle is issued shoots a qual course twice annually (50-60 rounds each time), and repeats the 3-day class every five years, the barrel and bolt will be due for replacement in 30 years by the military standard. If you practice and compete to the tune of a thousand rounds a year, and shoot in a high-volume training class once every five, you’ll need a new barrel (according to the military) every five-year cycle. In that time, you’ll have gone through roughly $1,500 in ammunition, and paid two to three times that in travel, tuition match entry fees and other expenses. Don’t feel guilty about buying a new bolt to go with your new barrel.

Some classes and qualifying courses involve few rounds. Ours include lots and lots of shooting. If your rifle works through a NEMRT class, you can be sure of it on the street.

Basically, life is too short to spend it obsessing over bolts. (Obsessing, however, is what mechanical engineers do. They can’t help themselves.)

M-16 Carriers:
One more time

People continue to try to get a definitive answer out of the ATF: “Can I install an M-16 carrier in my rifle?” And the result is pretty much the same: like trying to nail jello to the wall. You can send your own letter to the ATF if you’d like, but what you get will be this: The response will first acknowledge your letter and the question you’re asking. Then, the letter will quote the definition of a machinegun from the U.S. Code. Next, you’ll be advised that if you possess sufficient parts to meet the definition or a rifle that fires more than one shot for each pull of the trigger, you’re in violation of the law. And that will be pretty much it.

Why? Because a letter is permission. And the ATF knows just how clever and in some cases mischievous, some gun owners are. If the ATF says to someone “sure, one M-16 part doesn’t make any difference,” they now are on record as approving that part. For all they know, someone has figured out how to use that part, and that part alone, to make a machinegun. I mean, someone figured out how to use a shoelace to convert a rifle into full-auto. (No exaggeration, a shoelace.) They do not want themselves to be boxed into a corner, having given permission here and there, over the course of years. So, they simply quote the law, and advise you (if even that) that you cannot own a rifle that fires more than one shot for each pull of the trigger.

That said, can you do it? Sure, shooters do it all the time. Manufacturers ship rifles with M-16 carriers in them. (But no other M-16 parts.) Of all the parts, it is the one that you can actually get some benefit from using, and the least likely to cause problems.

Here’s what happens when you bolt breaks. If you have any warning, it’s that accuracy will go to hell just before the bolt lets go.

Do I use them? Some of my rifles have them, some don’t. I don’t go out of my way to include an M-16 carrier in a build but I don’t go out of my way to avoid them, either. Faced with a pair of carriers to build with, I’d select the one that best fits the bolt I had for the project.

Some people out there take it personally: the ATF refusing to allow them the use of an innocuous M-16 carrier is oppressing them, denying them their civil rights, trampling two centuries or more of free expression and choice. Guys, lighten up. It’s just a bolt carrier.

At the latest class before sending off this chapter, I ran into a rifle that had one of the old solid firing pin retaining pins in it. Or so I thought. We yanked it out and replaced it with a new cotter pin. The next day the officer told me his armorer was very cross with us. “He put those in because they are better,” the officer said, referring to the armorer. “He wants it back.” OK. The government went away from the solid pins to the cotter pins forty years ago. They probably went for the simple reason of cost. A cotter pin a standard, cheap industrial product. The solid pins were precisely-machined firearms-specific items. Still, the cotter pin has worked. Unless you’re doing a Retro rifle, and you have to be absolutely detail-correct on everything, I wouldn’t seek out a solid pin to install it.

A broken bolt, with a “D” marking on it. MPI tested? No way of telling.

Carrier Security

Again and again in the classes we see ARs that start malfunctioning. Usually short-stroking is the culprit, and one of two causes usually surface: lack of lubricant and loose carrier keys. Lubrication is easy: use more. Just like sunscreen, you have to keep applying it with use. As for the carrier keys, some come staked well enough, others don’t. In the old days we hardly ever saw keys come loose. Now, we sometimes place bets on how many we’ll see in a class. The solution is to go to Ned Christiansen’s website (www.m-guns.com) and get his MOACKS. At first glance it may seem pricey, but good gear is almost always the best bet. Before you dismiss the cost (I’ll admit it can be a bit at first) consider what it would cost you to buy the bits and pieces it replaces. And for staking with other than the MOACKS you have to have a vise, pointed punch and hammer. I took a quick look at the current Brownells catalog. For $50 you can get a carrier scraper and a gas tube wrench. There are no bolt tail scrapersnor firing pin scrapers to be had. And packing a vise to stake the key is a real hassle. If you plan on keeping more than one AR running, the MOACKS is your best investment. Ned is a friend of mine, and he’s appreciative of my mentioning it, but he does not give me a fee for each one sold. Spend your money where it counts. Get a MOACKS.

Carrier Mass

JP Enterprises makes a number of carriers that are different from the normal AR carrier. The heaviest is the stainless lightweight. Lighter still are the aluminum carriers. Combine them with a lightweight buffer weight, and you have the least-possible reciprocating mass the AR can work with. However, you must pay a price for those parts. Not the cost of purchase, but the cost of tuning and ammo. In order to make your rifle work properly with the lightweight parts, you must change the gas flow. The AR gas port and tube are designed to blow the mass of a carrier and buffer weight made of steel, even with tungsten weights in the buffer. The gas port and tube will deliver too much gas to the lightweight JP Enterprises parts. You’ll find partial or no-extraction problems. What you have to do is install an adjustable gas block or gas tube and restrict the gas flow until the empties are barely ejecting. That is your minimum. Then slightly increase gas flow for normal ejection. Most shooters do it in this order: settle on a bullet, powder and load that delivers the Power Factor and accuracy you need. All chronographing and accuracy testing is done with the gas tube throttled down to no flow. No cycling. Once you find a load that works, gradually open the gas block adjustment nut until you have normal ejection and no more.

The experienced shooters among you will recognize that you will then be limited to a single bullet and powder, at a single weight. Any change will require retuning the gas flow for proper (i.e., sufficient but not too much) gas flow.

What do you get for this work? Combined with an efficient muzzle brake, you reduce the felt recoil of a competition AR to not much more than that of a .22LR. The lightweight carrier and buffer have much less mass to bottom out (if they do) in the buffer tube. The muzzle brake reduces further the felt recoil. With a properly tuned competition rifle, it is possible to watch the bullet strike on steel, through the scope. The field of view does not appreciably change during recoil.

The JP Enterprises carriers are not for duty or defensive rifles and they say so right in the instructions. But if you want the trickest of the trick rifles you have to have them.

The front of the bolt falls free, while the rear is trapped in the carrier by the cam pin.

CHAPTER NINE

SLINGS ‘N THINGS

The front of the Giles sling wraps around the handguards and locks onto the sling swivel.

The single point attachment.Bungee slings are almost all single point slings.

The single point (this is a Zitta bungee) make it easy to change shoulders to shoot from the off side.

The GG&G rear sidemount. Two bolts, two parts. Easy as pie.

The Giles sling doesn’t need hardware; it uses its own straps to secure itself to your rifle.

“A sling for a rifle is like a holster for a handgun. Without one, you have to hand your rifle to someone else, or lay it on the ground” (Jeff Chudwin, Chief of Police). Now, not every use is a law enforcement application, but the choices are pretty much the same: unless you have a rifle rack handy, you hand it to someone or put it on the ground. A sling lets you keep control. For several generations before the AR-15, slings were also used as an aid to marksmanship. The AR in its original form was not amenable to such use, and as a result it was kept off the long-range rifle ranges and viewed as not as handy as some rifles.

The original sling is not of much use. The original AR sling is and was just a carrying strap. The sling swivels are attached underneath the front sight casting/forging and the rear of the stock. The rifle hangs nicely off your shoulder, perfect for parade formations. In his rifle classes, John Farnam spends a lot of time teaching how to wrangle the rifle when using such a sling. I love John like a brother, but I’d rather spend half the time and effort getting a real sling on my rifles. However, I can see John’s point on this: a lot of rifles are going to be so-equipped. You may not always have the option of changing sling styles. And even if you do, you may not have a different sling available. Not to worry, his methods work. So you should learn them.

There are two ways to carry a rifle with a traditional sling: muzzle up and muzzle down. Let’s take muzzle down, as it is the “sexier” of the two, and the easiest to explain and learn. Also known as “African carry” you have an advantage in muzzle-down: your left hand (assuming you’re right-handed, and carrying on the left shoulder) is already on the rifle. To brace the rifle, and keep it from flopping around and banging you silly, you walk around with your left hand either resting on, or grasping, the forearm. To present the rifle from this carry, simply swing the muzzle up, while rotating your left hand palm-up. As the muzzle comes up, you let the sling fall off your shoulder, and pivot the buttstock over towards your right shoulder. As the rifle gets to horizontal to the ground and sights upright, your right hand grasps the pistol grip. From there, it is a simple last step in the presentation: stock to shoulder, face to stock, sights on target. With something light and handy like an XM-177 or an M4, the presentation is pretty quick. Even with a full-sized rifle like an H-Bar or M-16A2 it is convenient, if slower.

The muzzle-up carry is where people get into trouble. The usual method people use to get the rifle ready is to swing it ready: grabbing the sling with their left hand from inside (thumb hooked under the sling) they swing the rifle off their shoulder, around their arm (it stays muzzle-up the whole swing), and then catch it with their right hand. To complete the presentation, they then re-grab the rifle with their left hand, let go with the right, lift the rifle, drop the muzzle, grasp the pistol grip and then shoulder the rifle. There are a number of things wrong with this method. First, swinging the rifle gives you lots of chances to bang the sights against objects. You also have a good chance to miss the grab and either jamb a finger or thumb against the hard, moving forearm, or miss the grab entirely and have to fumble for a loaded rifle. (Might I add, just when you need to be fumbling least?)

No, there’s a better way.

Instead of swinging the rifle off your shoulder with your left hand, simply lift the sling forward. Lift your elbow slightly outwards, and snake your right hand underneath your left arm. Bring the rifle forward, and grab the forearm with your left hand, once the sling clears your arm. Then lift, pivot, grab the pistol grip with your right hand, and proceed as you would with any other presentation. The muzzle-up carry method actually works better (for a right-handed person) when carried on your right shoulder. There, you don’t have to switch hands. Your left snakes in, grasps the forearm, and you’re off to the races.

The third way to carry a slung rifle with the standard sling is diagonally across your back. It isn’t much use as a ready-carry method, just as a transporting method.

Once on, the Giles is comfortable.

Now, before we get too deep into the minutia of slings and carry methods, you need to understand why you’re carrying a rifle. Situations differ. A SWAT cop, doing an entry or high-risk warrant service or arrest, needs that rifle at hand, ready to go. If he (or she) has to wrestle someone, or “slap the cuffs on them” then they need to get the rifle out of the way. But they might need it again very quickly. A soldier or Marine walking the streets of Najaf or a nameless little town in Afghanistan on patrol needs a rifle ready. Unless they are carrying something bigger. However, a hunter hiking in the wilds of Alaska, or a soldier or Marine working an artillery or mortar crew doesn’t need a “tactical” sling. In fact, the tac-sling will be in the way for either. Trying to handle artillery shells or powder bags, or fuse and load mortar shells, with a tactical sling holding the rifle in front of you can only be described as a miserable experience. When you’re hiking through thick woods or brush, a tactical sling is just going to beat up both the rifle and you. So despite the “tactical mafia” telling you that only a front-mount sling is “a manly sling for manly men” there are uses for the older sling type. The best would be a sling that gave you the option: sling it in front like a tac-sling, or store it over your shoulder or on your back like a standard sling.

The Midwest Industries rear sidemount, attached and with a sling secured to it.

The Midwest Industries “agency” single point sling adapter. Slide on and tighten down.

They even include the wrench you need to tighten the bolts with.

One problem I see with tactical-type slings is in how some people wear them. A tactical sling (if we’re talking of sidemount slings fore-and-aft here) should be slung with the right-handed shooter’s left arm and head through the sling. When you let go, the rifle drops to point pretty much down. In some slings, directly down. Some shooters put their head and right arm through. When they let go of the rifle it hangs horizontally. For those who are not immediately seeing the problem here, I’ll slip into lecture mode. First, the muzzle is pointed at everyone else. You may have the opinion “My trigger finger is my safety” but I have a different one: “Your gear can act as a trigger finger.” In 2004 a SWAT officer in training had an accident. His department policy was that weapons dropped on slings need not be put on Safe. After all, the only reason they’d be doing it was because the rifle malfunctioned, and wouldn’t shoot, right? The department was in one of their training sessions (I think you can already see where this is going) and part of the training was “transition drills.” That’s where the officers would simulate a malfunctioning rifle, and draw their handguns to continue. The officer dropped his rifle, whereupon it discharged, striking him in the leg near the knee. The day’s training immediately went from transition drills to “EMT-this-is-not-a-drill.”

His trigger had struck some piece of equipment, firing the rifle. He has since recovered. Has the department changed the policy? You’d better believe it has.

So, your horizontally-slung rifle may (probably does) have the safety rubbing against your clothing or gear. And the trigger is not so far away that it is out of the reach of some errant buckle, strap, mag pouch or knife handle. Let me be perfectly blunt: if you’re going to have an accidental discharge, and someone gets shot as a result, I would greatly prefer that you shoot yourself rather than shoot me. My ideal solution would be that no one gets shot. But better you than me, pal. So, anyone who wears his rifle horizontally around me gets an earful.

The Midwest Industries side mount requires a railed forearm, but if you have that you’re golden.

If that isn’t enough, consider the second aspect of that carry: the world is a vertical place. Every lamp post, doorway, corner and mailbox is vertical. You are going to be banging the muzzle of your rifle off of a lot of stuff. None of it good for the rifle. And the owner of that Escalade you just scraped your flash hider along may have a few choice words. Not to mention paperwork for you. So sling your rifle correctly, and save all of us a lot of hassle. End of lecture.

One of the field-expedient sling methods is called the “top sling” method. You tie something to the front sight forging, and then rig your sling over the top to the buttstock. There was even a triangular-shaped steel ring for slinging your rifle that way, called the “Israeli sling.” The method works, but it has a drawback: unless you direct your muzzle down, it is as likely to point horizontally as it is to point down. Now if you make it a reflexive act to always shove the muzzle down before you let go, everything’s fine. If you do not, you’ll have a horizontally-slung rifle. Someone might object, “That’s the way my uncle did it in ‘Nam.” All I can point out is that that was now well over thirty years ago, and we’ve learned a lot since then. Another might object, “The Israelis do it that way, and no one complains.” The Israelis also are in the habit of walking around with the hammer down on an empty chamber, too. If you’re going to emulate the Israelis, don’t do it by halves.

Before we can delve into the slings themselves, we should look into the matter of hardware. Even if your “attachment” method is to simply wrap the sling to the rifle with duct tape, you still have to be wrapping it at a given location. For orientation, we have three: top-mount, side-mount and traditional or standard. For attachment points, we have single-point and dual-sling.

The way to keep the top sling out of your line of sight is to rig it to the side, like this Ned adapter going around the gas tube.

For work over water, you need a quick-detach buckle on your sling.

Top Mount

The top-mount is easy on the front: you have that opening in the front sight forging. You can rig 550 cord, or the sling itself, or one of the Israeli triangles. The problem with all top-mount attachment methods is that the sling can (and will) get in the line of sight. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to make you consider a side mount. The rear attachment hassles should make the top mount your last choice: there is no place to attach a sling on the top of the stock. Not unless you have a CAR stock. The only way to rig it is to make a location. You can use an extra-long piece of sling material, and loop it from the bottom over the top. Bulky, though. You can lash several loops of 550 cord around the buttstock, using the bottom sling swivel as the anchor point. (If you’re going to work on ARs, or modify more than one, admit defeat and buy some 550 cord. Blackhawk sells it in black, green and tan.)

My friend Ned Christiansen makes a wire-loop adapter that lets you rig your sling so the sling is pressed down away from the line of sight. Despite the fact that some people I really respect in the firearms instructor field are very fond of top-mount slings, I’m not a fan. And with a top-mount you still have to rig the sling at the back. That means more top-mounting, and usually more electrical tape and 550 cord. Just not my style.

It may be a bit involved getting the wire through and wrapped (good steel isn’t easy to flex) but the Ned adapter is great for sidemounts when the department says “no tools.”

The Ned front loop on the Chudwin sling.

The top loop, attached to an old-style telestock slider, using several wrappings of 550 cord.

To use a top-loop sling, you adjust the strap. Here I’m grabbing the slider on a Chudwin sling.

Run the strap out.

Then sling it over your head.This is not meant as a day-long carry method. If you know you need a sling, start with something more involved.

My problem with the Chudwin sling is that it usually comes up too short.

Side Mounts

To put a sling on the side is not that difficult. The problem comes in selecting which one of the hundred (you think I exaggerate?) methods to do so. The simplest, again, is 550 cord (where would the modern military be, without 550 cord and duct tape?). Thread a loop through the front sight housing, around the barrel. Lash several lengths around the buttstock of a standard rifle, or through the sling slot of a telestock, then rig your sling between them. As a field expedient, it works just fine. But there are better ways.

Front Rigs

GG&G

The GG&G Sling ‘n Light Combo, or SLIC, gives you a sling swivel on the left side and a light rail on the right. It clamps right into the opening of the sight housing. Then you attach your sling there and at the rear.

MI

The Midwest Industries mount needs a railed forearm. Luckily, lots and lots of rifles have those. The MI front side sling simply bolt/clamps onto the rail where you select.

Colt

Well, actually DoD, but Colt is where I’ve seen it, and it goes on government guns, so I call it the Colt side sling. There is a drawing or part number embedded in the casting, but I haven’t had any luck tracking that number. It is simple: a sling swivel with two legs, and a casting on the far side, the whole thing attached around the barrel by two roll pins. One big advantage is that it works right or left-handed.

Nedster

The Ned Christiansen method is a wire loop, sluing either around the gas tube part of the front sight, or the rear riser of the front sight housing. You can leave your sling loose, or secure it to the Ned loop, and adjust at the other end.

Rear Rigs

At the rear, you don’t have much choice if you gave a solid stock. There, you only choice is to lash several wrappings of 550 cord around the stock vertically, using the sling swivel as an anchor. Telestocks give you more choices.

MI

Midwest does it again. Here, they have a bolt-on sling swivel that fits through the slot of the telestock. Sling on one side, back plate on the other, screws through and tighten. You’re done.

The top-mount sling uses some kind of attachment to secure the sling to the front sight housing. Here, a Ned wire loop.

GG&G

GG&G makes a rear sling plate that fits though the telestock slider. Again, assemble and tighten the crews.

Single Point

One method of attaching a single-point sling is to replace the rear receiver plate with one that has a loop in it. However, there are a lot of agencies and departments that have a problem with that. Basically, anything that must be done with tools must be done by the departmental armorer. Don’t laugh. I’ve seen rifles worked on that were not well-served by their owners. I just recently received a rifle for more work from the department where I had sent it. (No names, and you’ll see why.) The rifle had had a single point plate installed. However, the existing plate hadn’t been removed. That’s right, two receiver back plates. Also, the castle nut had not been properly tightened and was finger loose. The rifle wouldn’t lock open when empty, and the charging handle was binding on the new single-point sling plate.

When I opened the action (upper and lower) the buffer and spring came free. I was expecting that, so it wasn’t a big surprise.

Now, would you want your officers going out for the shift, with a rifle in that condition? I thought not. That’s why some departments do not allow “tool” work on their ARs.

And why people like Midwest developed the “Agency” sling loop. Simply remove the slide, slip the new sling loop over the buffer tube, press into place and tighten the screws. Put the slider back, and you’re done.

Bottom Mount Slings

They are used in the military, but probably not for much longer. They are an easy way to carry a rifle, if you aren’t expecting to use it. But for combat ops, they aren’t so hot. You can use them, but there are better slings.

Which Sling?

You mean, of the hundreds out there? I’ve narrowed it down to a few, but they all have flaws. Which is probably why there are so many. Those inventors, like me, saw the flaws and developed their own slings. I’ll go over four, which are also the main types you’ll use, and consider their strengths and weaknesses.

Giles Sling

Made by The Wilderness, the Giles sling was developed from the H-K sling. The faults of the H-K sling were simply that it wasn’t simple. You needed an hour of instruction just to figure the thing out. And if you didn’t practice at least once a month, you forgot. The Giles sling does not need extra hardware to attach it to the rifle. It is a side sling. But you can’t have one that fits all, as the solid-stock sling won’t fit a telestock, and vice versa.

The Giles sling is less complex than the HK, but still has a lot there. You have to pay attention to rigging it, and using it, or you’ll get caught up in your own sling. It also doesn’t have a quick-release. For most of us that doesn’t matter, but for anyone working over water, it does. You can’t get the Giles from one shoulder to another without either unslinging, or strangling yourself, unless you rig it so low there is slack. I prefer to keep rifles high and tight.

Bungee Sling

The bungee is a flexible rope, with elastic inside of it. Typically mounted on a single-point sling attachment system, it allows you to move the rifle from one shoulder to another easily. There are also non-bungee single point slings, like the Chalker, from Blackhawk. The bungee, and all single-point slings, must have a tight fit to keep the rifle under control. That means they must have a quick-release if you’re going to take them off without help. Usually the quick-release is metal “jaw” catch, which I do not find particularly quick to release. But that’s just me.

Chudwin/Ned/Sweeney

This one was designed by Jeff Chudwin. It is simple and cheap. You use 550 cord to make a pair of loops, and then rig a plain sling between them. The sling is looped on itself to let you adjust length. The Ned part is replacing the front 550 loop with the steel wire loop.

The Sweeney part is installing a quick-release buckle in the sling. The advantages are low cost and the option of building it just the way you want. The drawback, at least for me, is that the sling is too short. If I make it long enough to fit over me, then there is slack left when the sling is pulled tight for storage. If I make it short enough to be tight on storage, it sits too high even for my tastes.

Vickers Sling

Larry Vickers is a cracking good gunsmith, and spent a career in the military in units he can’t tell us about. His sling is a side sling with an adjustable slider in it. It also has a quick-detach buckle in it. Many slings can’t be adjusted while you’re wearing the rifle. The Vickers can be. The adjustment is easy. The drawback, again for me, is that the sling is too short. It is plenty comfortable to sling and shoot from one side, but I can’t make it long enough to shoot from the other shoulder. I have to take the rifle off to shoot from the left shoulder.

The Colt side sling adapter may look cheesy, but it is a solid (and mil-spec) piece of gear.

Take Your Pick

Which is best? All, and none. If there were a best one, there wouldn’t be new designs coming out every day. You will, like all the rest of us, go down one of two paths. Either you’ll take a look at what’s out there, pick one and stick with it despite hell or high water. You’ll learn to use it, and accept its shortcomings, and ignore all other designs. Or you’ll take the other path and end up with a carton full of slings, and a different sling on each rifle, as you try to find that illusory single sling that does everything you want. It would be possible to fill a book of nothing but slings, design, fabrication, testing and analysis. I could fill a book, but there are only a dozen of you out there who’d buy it. And it would be obsolete before my publisher sold all they printed.

Sometimes I wonder if a single length of climbing rope wouldn’t just be enough.

CHAPTER TEN

LOWERS

Sun Devil machines their lowers from pre heat-treated billet.

This Sun Devil lower has custom markings. Simple enough, if you’re set up as a custom AR receiver maker.

The good news is that the quality of lowers has increased greatly in the last twenty years or so – not the best ones, they’re still good. But you don’t see the market flooded with second-rate lowers as we saw back in “the good old days.” You would have to search hard to find a bad lower today. The bad news is that you won’t have a lot of choice in those lowers. All you’ll see, pretty much, are flat black A2 lowers. Now, you do have some choice in names. What you might not know is that all those names came from the same few places.

AR-15 lowers are mostly machined from forged hunks of aluminum. Some are machined from bar stock. The aluminum arrives at the forge shop in bars. It is composed of 7075 alloy, and arrives in bars of a specified diameter. Then they are cut to length, heated and hammered and the excess is trimmed off. The actual AR machine shop buys forged lumps and machines them into lower receivers. Along the way they inscribe or rollmark the name, model, serial number and any other markings they feel are needed.

From looking at the receivers available, you’d think there are forge and machine shops all over the country. Not the case. There are perhaps half a dozen forges, and perhaps no more than ten machine shops making AR uppers and lowers. What of all those names? Simple: the ATFE allows a manufacturer to file a letter known as a “Marking Variance.” The machine shop files the letter, and informs the ATFE of the name and serial number block or designation to be put on the lowers. The ATFE approves it, and they’re off. A machine shop/manufacturer can do something as simple as leave their name on the trigger flat area of the lower, while then placing the assembler’s name on the magazine flat. Or they can create a whole “stealth” lower where the actual manufacturer’s name does not appear on the lower (except sometimes in the serial number as a code) and the only name designation is the assembler’s name on the magazine well. That is generally the clue: if there is a name on the trigger area, that’s the actual machine shop. If there is a name only on the magazine well, and no name on the trigger area, you’re probably looking at a lower made for the end-user (but with the AR business being what it is, not always).

If you want your name on a batch of lowers, all you have to do is work out the details of markings, payment and production volume with the machine shop. Someone out there will be happy to take care of you. Be warned, however, you will have to have a proper Fflfor assembly and retail/wholesale sales, and you’d better be prepared to buy a couple of hundred lowers at the barest minimum.

The internal shelf location is of interest for owners of an RDIAS. A high shelf means they can’t use their expensive accessory.

What machine shops are there? There used to be three broad classes or groups. First were the people who machined lowers for themselves and themselves only. Colt, Armalite, JP Enterprises, Bushmaster and Les Baer are members of this group. Colt doesn’t make receivers for others. They are far too busy making lowers for themselves and trying to keep up with ever-increasing military demands. Les Baer only makes them for himself, primarily because he needs them all for himself, but also because he won’t relax his quality standards to compete with the “this month’s gun show sale” crowd. (Nor should he, judging from the one he sent me to test.) Every receiver Armalite makes goes into an Armalite rifle. And JP reinforced hi-tech competition lowers lowers go solely into JP rifles. That leaves JP off the list of the “tactical black rifle” crowd looking to make their own “Fallujah M4.”

Bushmaster used to get lowers from another maker. There was quite the minor controversy about that. After all, build quality is what matters, but some people felt a bit betrayed to find that their Bushmaster lower was made by someone else. I’ve owned a couple of Bushmaster lowers made back then, and I’ve never had any complaints, then or now. Also, you will be unable to buy stripped lowers from these makers. Oh, there will be occasional “production overruns” from Colt on assembled lowers, but that’s it.

Why do the lowers makers/assemblers not offer stripped lowers? Primarily for warranty reasons. They have all had too many experiences with ham-handed assemblers “building” ARs from stripped lowers, then sending them in for warranty work when they don’t work right. Not that any of my readers would do such a thing, but there are those who would. And besides, the makers are all too busy making lowers for themselves.

Second were the shops that made lowers only for others to sell. This group is almost nonexistent now, as those machine shops have pretty much shifted to group three: making receivers for themselves, and for others with other names on them. The big three here are Continental Machine & Tool, Lewis Machine & Tool, and LAR. Many of the receivers you see on rifles, and for sale in periodicals, on web sites and at gun shows, are made by one of those three, even if they are marked “Billy Bob’s Tactical SWAT Shop” on the lower. And many of the name guns you see have their lowers made by one of the big three. I could provide a list, but the list would have changed before the book even got to the bookstore shelves and would change even more soon after. After all, each production batch of lowers that an assembly shop makes is the result of an extended contract or a new bid for lowers and uppers. If someone gets overtaxed, or two companies have a disagreement, a builder may then get its lowers from a different machine shop.

The big three differ on what they do with those lowers. Lewis now offers complete rifles as well as lowers with their name on them. It used to be you’d only get a Lewis lower when you bought one named to someone else, but the market for complete rifles is so hot that Lewis dove in. Continental builds rifles through a spin off, Stag Arms. Mark Malkowski is the President of Stag Arms. In the last year of the Federal assault weapon ban, sales of ARs noticeably slowed. No one wanted to buy a rifle built with ban characteristics, if six months later the ban evaporated and they’d then have to either sell it at a loss or spend money to have it rebuilt. Mark formed Stag from Continental (the family company) and designed and built a true left-handed AR. Sales were brisk. As soon as the ban expired, Stag offered right-handed rifles made by CMT but marked Stag.

LAR, based in Utah, still makes only uppers and lowers, both marked with their name and with the assembler’s name. The supply of LAR-marked lowers depends on downtime between other companies’ contracts. You may not be able to lay hands on an LAR-marked receiver for months, and then all of a sudden you can buy them by the bushel.

There is a fourth, smaller, group of machine shops that make receivers only with their names on them, but do not produce rifles. Essential Arms, Tom Sawyer and Sun Devil fall into the last group. Essential Arms took a lot of flak twenty years ago for making cast receivers. I came into one back then, and have used it as a test mule and “rebuild” gun ever since. I have built it into half a dozen configurations in that time, and I have yet to find a part that doesn’t fit. Essential Arms now makes their lowers by machining forgings, and no one has any complaints about E.A. Co. receivers. In the time in-between Essential was machining lowers for other people. Essential Arms doesn’t do custom, but they do make a first-class lower.

Tom Sawyer makes lowers, but what keeps him busy until all hours of the night are custom markings.

Sun Devil takes a different approach. Instead of using forged lowers, they machine them from heat-treated aluminum billets. Now back when I began working on ARs, billet-cut lowers were considered as even lower-class than cast. The quality of programming and the precision of machines were not up to the standards of today. Worse, the billets were usually not heat-treated before machining, nor afterwards. They were rough, crude, soft and covered with sharp edges. Sun Devil solved all those problems, and at first glance you might not even notice the hallmarks of a billet-cut lower. One option Sun Devil offers that most others do not are custom markings. Since it all is programmed into the CNC mill, you can have custom markings, name, serial numbers, etc. Extras cost, of course, and part of the cost is the marking variance letter for each individual lower. Instead of one letter for a thousand-lower production run, Sun Devil has to provide a thousand letters for a thousand one-off custom lowers.

The Cavalry Arms polymer lower is tough. Here is one with a PRI 6.8Remington SPC upper on it, soon to be ready for some steel hammering.

The JP Enterprises trigger unit goes into your lower as an assembly. It’s already factory-tuned for you.

But in all these lowers, you’ll have a single choice: an A2 lower in flat black. (Well, you can get JP lowers in colors and in non-A2 configuration, but that isn’t where we’re going here.) There is a growing number of AR owners who want something other than the current vogue (flat-black flat-top A2 rifles and carbines). They want what are known as “Retro” rifles. For them, ARs built before 1984 are the real thing. What are the differences? There are four aspects to consider. First is color. The original ARs were not black. The earliest were a light gray, and later came a darker gray. You can match the colors either by sending a receiver or set off to US Anodizing. They know about the color differences, and can match your parts to the color you want. Or, you can use Norrell’s baked-on resin finishes to match the color. So far, easy to do. The rest aren’t.

The older, A1, lowers had a different radius of the front receiver wall to the pivot pin bosses. The A2 made the radius larger, adding reinforcing material. The rear got the same kind of treatment, with the buffer tube “neck” getting more material added to it. The last part is the magazine button “fence.” As in, does it have one or not? The very earliest ones did not even have the fence above there, right underneath the dust cover door. The oldest design is known as the “Flatside.” The second, with an upper fence but no magazine button fence, is the “Upper fence” or “slickside lower.” Last, is the gray lower, A1 front and back, with magazine fence, known to Retro builders as the “M16A1” lower. The Retro M16A1 lower is not a machinegun, is not drilled or machined for the autosear, but looks just like the M16A1 lower otherwise.

Stag Arms made this lower, which is Stag marked on the mag well. But they could well have made it for a dozen other assemblers and stamped the assembler’s name on it.

To swap the catches, push the mag button until the catch clears the far side. Then unscrew it.

The Norgon Ambi-Catch is great for left-handed shooters, and good for us right-handers, too.

Except for the color, all the other changes are difficult to make. The problem with the contours is that you have to grind or machine, then hand-finish before re-anodizing or applying Norrell’s. To make the lower absolutely correct, you have to do some welding on the buffer tube ring. Not a lot of owners are keen on grinding on their rifles; even fewer are comfortable with welding. And gunsmiths who are capable of the work (and can be trusted) charge a lot of money for their time and skill. There is one other aspect of A1 lowers that makes them desirable, an internal one. At the rear of the trigger mechanism slot, where the rear takedown pin goes through, a number of receivers are now made with what is called a “high shelf.” Colt even pinned a steel block back there for a number of years. The idea is to make it more difficult to convert the AR to full auto. I suppose that is a noble quest if you think machineguns are evil, but a hindrance for those who own a particular class of legal machinegun: the drop-in auto sear.

Someone who has a registered drop-in auto sear (RDIAS) has to have a lower (known as the “host rifle”) with a low shelf. If the host rifle has a high shelf, or even a block, then the RDIAS won’t fit. So the retro rifle builders are in competition with the RDIAS owners in finding A1 lowers Most A1-lower rifles are Colts. So those two groups are also competing with the Colt collectors for the existing supply of A1 rifles and carbines. From time to time one of the lower machine shops talks (or gets talked into) considering a production run of A1 lowers. But to do the job right either takes original-contour forge dies, or some creative cutter path programming. And so as of this date nothing has come of it. Given enough time the project will become economically possible, and I’m sure we’ll see at least some made anew.

Not all A1 lowers were Colt. There was a brief overlap between good-quality lowers coming to market, and the transition to the A2 rifle, that there are some A1 lowers out there. But they are rarer even than the Colts. I have one, an Eagle Arms (Armalite before they got the rights to the name back) that is an A1 lower. The current Eagle Arms lowers are A2 lowers.

Custom Markings

The ATFE requires that the manufacturer’s name and city be on the receiver, along with a unique serial number. Everything else is optional. With lots of flat spaces available, you can put pretty much anything you want on there, if you have the tools. One custom-marker is Tom Sawyer Manufacturing. If your group wants a logo on their ARs, he can do it. Police departments, fraternal organizations and individuals can have a group logo or seal put on their ARs or pick one of the custom designs that have been developed and proven popular. One is the “Pirate” lower. On the mag well is a skull and crossed swords. The safety selector on the Pirate lower has “Parlay-Arrgh-Plunder” instead of the ‘Safe-Fire” or “Safe-Semi-Auto.” (Just as an aside, your AR can be marked “Full” or “Burst” or even “Plunder” even if it is just a semi-auto only rifle. The markings don’t mean anything. They may get you noticed, and even cause a brief time of official investigation, but they aren’t illegal.)

Early-production Colt lowers are “slabside” – that is, not having a magazine button fence. Also note the radius of the front takedown pin boss.

The rear of early lowers also differs from the current A2 forging shape.

Tom Sawyer manufacturing can also take care of your SBR-required markings if you decide to go that route. They can modify a lower or lowers you provide, or they can modify one of their own-production lowers to your specs. However, be aware that some institutions can be touchy about using trademarked names or logos. So if you really, really want a faux M-16A1 or XM-177 just like the one you carried in ‘Nam, be aware the they cannot mark the lower “Colt” if it isn’t one, nor names like “Hydramatic,” “Harrington & Richardson” or others.

Other Lowers

Since the AR lower is simply a machined block of aluminum, it can be made of other materials. You can, from time to time, get lowers made of stainless steel from DPMS. It isn’t as if you need the extra durability. Properly maintained, even the most ardent machinegun shooter is hard-pressed to wear out a lower. But the stainless lower is popular with shooters who want more weight. The extra pound or so the stainless lower adds to a rifle’s weight helps the NRA High Power shooter who wants an anvil of a rifle. By adding a hidden steel tube under the forearm (both as a sling attachment point and for weight) and lead in the buttstock, the High Power shooter can make an AR that weighs fifteen pounds. Add more lead under the handguards, and put a stainless lower on, and you can make a rifle in the eighteen to twenty-pound weight range. Not that you need it for recoil control, but a heavier rifle “hangs” better in offhand, and settles in solidly in prone.

I’m sure it is technically possible to make an AR lower from titanium, but the machining costs would be prohibitive. However, we may see them, as the Chinese have decided to muscle into the Ti casting market, and take over the market segment devoted to golf clubs. (Yes, once the market for cold-war driven Ti missile components went away, we suddenly saw Ti golf clubs. Strange new world, isn’t it?)

At the other extreme (from exotic, hard metals) we have Cavalry Arms. Cavalry Arms is a big supporter of three-gun competition and makers of ARs. Their lowers are another thing entirely: molded plastic. Excuse me, polymer. The two halves are molded like pieces of a clamshell, out of glass-filled nylon 66. Then they are joined via vibration welding. The joint is stronger than the shell, so you aren’t going to have your Cav Arms lower suddenly disassemble itself into two halves. The result is lighter than a regular AR lower by a full pound and impervious to corrosion. Where an aluminum lower gets scratched and wears down to bright metal, the Cav Arms lower gets mussed but doesn’t change its color. You can have them in black, green or tan. Armalite is a big provider of Cav Arms-made polymer lowers. Besides lighter and proof from corrosion, the Cav Arms/Armalite lowers are less expensive. You can easily get a Cav Arms lower with all internal parts for the cost of some bare lowers. The lower also has the mag well re-contoured internally. It will accommodate an M3 Grease Gun magazine. You can then have a .45 ACP AR-15 with relatively cheap and hi-cap M3 magazines.

Internals

For a solid, dependable lower, many feel that only mil-spec parts should be installed. For a lot of uses, I am in agreement. For a duty gun, a defensive gun, or something to teach new shooters on, properly-tuned mil-spec parts are the way to go. A good set of mil-spec parts, with a light polish and lubed correctly, will give you a reasonably clean trigger pull in the five-pound weight range. If it is clean, five pounds is plenty light enough. I have shot clean on the NEMRT qual course and the computer pop-ups to 300 meters using triggers that weighed more than that. You should, however, use AR-15 or AR-modified M-16 parts. Yes, mechanically, a lower stuffed full of the M-16 parts that will fit (that is, sans the auto-sear) will still only run in semi. But if your disconnector hook tip breaks or chips, and your rifle starts doubling, boy will that look bad.

Cop: “Son, you’ve got a rifle full of machinegun parts here, and it occasionally shoots two or three shots. Got anything to say?”

You: “Gee, officer, the disconnector must be chipped. I’ll have to get that fixed.”

Good luck with that discussion. Even if it all works out in the end, you risk having your rifle in the evidence room locker of your local PD or Sheriff’s department until the matter is settled.

The differences are not great but easy to spot. Most AR parts started out at the factory as M-16 parts. The hammer should not have the extra lump on it. The trigger should not have an open box at the rear. The disconnector should not have the long tail on it. And the safety should not have the extra slots the M-16’s has.

It doesn’t matter whose name is marked on the mag well; this lower was made by Sendra. (They only made lowers, no rifles, and were just “building” guns.)

The big discussion concerns the carrier, but that is in the upper, and something we discussed in Volume 1 of this book. The ATFE is still deliberately vague on that. They won’t say it is OK, but they won’t say you shouldn’t use it. Basically, their “opinion” is legalese CYA, so that they will not have boxed themselves out of a potential prosecution sometime in the future.

The lower they’re a lot clearer on. A machinegun is defined as “a firearm, or complete selection of parts, that allow a firearm to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger.” That’s a slight condensation for clarity – you should look up the actual wording, as it is more detailed and it is what they will use on you if you make a mistake. Basically, having an AR and a full set of full-auto parts is bad. Not bad as in “you’re going to jail” but bad in that it gives anyone who has found them all the leeway they need to keep looking. In some cases the parts are in and of themselves a machinegun. The conversion parts of the M2 Carbine, .30 caliber, are. Those parts, installed in any mil-spec M1 carbine, without any extra work, make it work full-auto. The only saving grace on the AR is that you have to do some extra work to make all the M-16 parts fit. This bears repeating: If you have an AR with all AR parts in the lower, and it gives an occasional double, you have a malfunctioning rifle, and no one will bat an eye if you need to get it fixed. If you have an AR with all the M-16 lowers except for the auto sear, and it occasionally doubles you have met the legal definition of a machinegun. Until you get it fixed, you are in legal jeopardy. There’s no advantage, so stop screwing around and get those M-16 parts out, or get them modified.

It is easy to build up your bare lower. You get what everyone calls a “lower parts kit” or LPK. If you call up or contact on the internet places like DPMS, M&A Parts or Brownells and ask for an LPK, what you’ll get is everything: all the parts except the buffer tube and contents and the pistol grip. The pins, springs, trigger mechanism parts are all the same regardless of what kind of stock or pistol grip you put on your lower. You’ll get a trigger and disconnector that match in spring location (Colt has move the location over time) and the parts will all either be AR-15 or modified M-16 for semi use only.

Not all lowers are standard. This Ares lower is meant for the belt-fed Shrike conversion. (The lower is rarer than the Shrike, apparently.) FAB makes a similar one for California, where evil hi-cap magazines are a no-no.

What about other uses? Aren’t there times when the standard trigger isn’t enough? Perhaps. Varmint shooters will argue that they need a lighter, crisper trigger. I went on a two-day prairie dog hosing session while working on this book. I used a box-stock S&W M&P15 and never felt the need for a lighter trigger. I was pretty much a 100% hit shooter out to 150 yards. Out at 300 I was still hitting better than 50% of the time, and that was with a 16" M4 rifle, stock trigger and bargain-brand scope. Yes, a better trigger might have picked up my percentage some, but I think a better scope would have done more for my score. Competition shooters will of course want a better trigger, and for them there are choices: the JP enterprises match trigger that has to be tuned, or the drop-in JP Enterprises and Chip McCormick triggers. There are makers of two-stage triggers as well, and some manufacturers ship rifles with two-stage triggers installed.

The trigger is one control, but the safety is something else. Left-handed shooters can manage the right-hand only safety of the AR, but it isn’t easy or elegant. The through-bolt pivot of the AR makes installing an ambi safety easy. All the maker has to do is make a rightside paddle and you have an ambi safety. My problem with ambi safeties (and it is by no means a problem all shooters experience) is that the paddle on the right often interferes with my trigger finger. I find that for most designs, I have to shave or grind down the rightside paddle to get trigger finger clearance. If you simply must have an ambi safety, you should handle a few to make sure you do not have the same problem I have. Once you find what works for you, track a unit down, get it installed and resist all offers to buy it from you. More than once I’ve had Murphy’s Law strike: I find something that works great, buy it, then sell it, only to find the gizmo is no longer made.

One aspect of the left-handed shooter is the magazine button. You can install an ambi safety, but the mag catch is tougher to do. Or used to be. Now the Norgon Ambi-Catch solves that problem. The Norgon Ambi-Catch is simple: you replace the existing mag button. How? The easy way is with a spare magazine catch button. Place the button over the catch and press like you’re releasing the magazine. The actual catch will be pressed completely out of the lower on the left side.

Then simply turn the catch (remember the mnemonic: “Lefty loosey, righty tighty”) and unscrew it. If you’ve planned ahead you just put the old one down, pick up the Norgon and turn it in to replace. Turn the Norgon (or any mag catch) until the screw shaft of the catch is flush or slightly under the surface of the magazine button on the right side. With the Norgon, pressing the mag catch on either side drops the magazine.

Combining an ambi safety with a Norgon Ambi-Catch and a single point sling ring with loops on both sides turns your rifle into a completely ambidextrous rifle.

Action tensioners are preferred in some circles and shunned in others. There are two types and two brands. One is the Accu-wedge. It is simply a piece of polymer that sits under your rear, or latching, pin. The cylindrical shelf rides under the pin, and the tapered section rests against the rear of the lower receiver. (I describe it because I’ve seen them carved on to make them “fit” in the wrong orientation.) When you hinge down the upper to close the action, the rear lug bears against the tapered section of the Accu-wedge and thus is forced to fit tightly.

The other is the JP Enterprises rear pin. The JP replaces your regular pin. It has internal wedge surfaces. You close your action, insert the pin, then tighten the pin from both sides. The slanted surfaces expand the JP pins, tightening the fit between upper and lower.

Why do some shooters use them? Target shooters find them useful to keep the upper from moving. Even a slight wobble can be a problem when you’re shooting at a 600-yard target. Target shooters obsess over details. If solving even a minor problem (or non-problem) can gain you a point or two, do it. If you think the wobbly upper on your lower costs you points, it probably does. The tactical guys are less worried about a wobbly upper than they are about a tight fit making takedown and cleaning more of a hassle. On this point, I have to go with the tactical guys. I have seen lowers damaged from vigorous disassembly. A too-tight fit usually means the hammers or the hammer simulators come out. Any time I hear the “tink-tink-tink” in an AR class of someone tapping, I rush right over. I have seen lowers damaged from someone using a hammer to deal with a too-tight fit. However, if the wobble bothers you, and you’re willing to be careful in disassembly, then by all means make it tight.

The McCormick trigger unit. As you can see, there is no fitting required, just “plug ‘n’ play.”

One question that comes up time and again is “How long does my lower last?” With care, forever. Some worry that the rotating pins of the hammer and trigger will wash out the pin holes in the lower. I’ve seen machinegun lowers that have had more barrels on them than could be kept track of. Not just tens of thousands of rounds, but hundreds of thousands. The lowers were doing just fine, thank you. The only two things you have to worry about with your lower (or upper, for that matter) is the previously mentioned hammer disassembly, and your brother-in-law with power tools. Avoid both, and your AR will last for years and years.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

FLASH-HIDERS,
COMPS, BRAKES
AND OTHER
MUZZLE GIZMOS

The movies would have you believe that suppressors are only used by bad guys. I guess if you’re a varmint, you’d view the rancher as a “bad guy.”

The AAC flash hider and suppressor mount. The notches are where the locking spring of the AAC suppressor latches on.

The AAC mount is basically an A1 flash hider with teeth for the suppressor ratchet to lock onto. As a flash hider it works very well.

The .223/5.56 is a high-intensity little cartridge, normally pushed right to the limits of what it can do. As a result it can be quite “blasty” on the pointy end. Especially in the shorter barrels, sixteen inches or less, the muzzle blast can be less than fun. Some loadings are worse than others in this respect. It is entirely possible to test and sort through ammo to find loads that produce football- or basketball-sized globes of flame when fired through rifles that lack a muzzle device of some kind.

What is going on here? The common observation is that it is “unburnt powder.” Not true. In rifles, creating a situation where there is unburnt powder at the muzzle is quite rare. In handguns, it is more common. The classic instance is the .44 Magnum loaded with 2400 powder. It is possible to load below the maximum pressure level of the .44 Magnum cartridge, and the large amounts (for the case and barrel length) of the (relatively) difficult to ignite 2400 can leave unburnt granules of powder in the case, chamber and bore. But not in rifles. First of all, no gunpowder requires ambient oxygen in order to burn. Gunpowder will combust in a vacuum or neutral atmosphere.

The expanding gases at the muzzle push cool, oxygenated ambient air away in an expanding globe. The muzzle gases can only interact and cool at the surface of the globe. What you’re seeing when you see muzzle flash is the expanding globe of gases, and its heat is great enough to cause it to incandesce. When you see a piece of red-hot steel, you aren’t seeing steel burning. You’re seeing the heat of the steel being expressed in the visual spectrum of light. So it is with muzzle blast. “Flash retardants” are powder gas-cooling agents.

How Flash Hiders Work

A flash hider creates uneven flow of the hot gases at the muzzle. By breaking up the expanding globe of hot gases, they allow faster cooling, and by mixing ambient oxygen with the muzzle blast they diminish the “globe of light” effect. If you’ve seen some movie stills, you’ll see the star pattern of flashes of light around the muzzle. Those are the lobes of expanding gases, escaping through the slots of the flash hider. By masking the incandescent shock front of the gases behind cooler turbulent gases, you hide the incandescent light created. Flash hiders can only do so much, and the muzzle blast is still visible to someone using a good set of night vision gear, but a good flash hider reduces even that.

The AAC can built for the SCAR trials.

Any suppressor is quieter than non-suppressed.You’d think the law would encourage their use, to save all our hearing.

How Muzzle
Brakes Work

Smart or well-read readers know that recoil begins as soon as the bullet starts moving. At the moment the bullet moves, recoil begins. So, how can a compensator or muzzle brake, sixteen or twenty inches downrange, have an effect on recoil? Isn’t it too late by then? No, for you are forgetting inertia. The bullet begins to move, but even by the time the bullet reaches the muzzle, the rifle has not been fully accelerated to its recoil speed. And once initiated, the thrust of recoil takes time to complete. The comp or brake acts to dampen the felt recoil that would have occurred after the time in the firing cycle when the bullet passes the muzzle and leaves. And thank goodness for the delay, too. Were the Laws of Physics different, and all the rifle’s movement and recoil were finished when the bullet left the muzzle, shooting would be an entirely different affair. Instead of the relatively drawn-out recoil we now experience, we’d get the full effects of recoil in the few milliseconds it takes a bullet to leave the muzzle. We’d all be shooting smaller calibers.

The muzzle brake, or compensator, works by diverting gases to compensate for the effects of recoil. The more efficiently a “comp” diverts gases, the more effective it is in reducing felt recoil. The gases must go somewhere, and it is for that reason many heartily dislike comps or brakes. Sitting at a shooting bench next to someone with an effective brake can vary from an annoying to a miserable experience. Indeed, it can even be hazardous. Those gases are hot and at high pressure. They often have particulate matter in the gas stream, and even if the gas stream starts out pure, it can easily shred particles off of the residues of gas powder deposited on the comp baffles and plates. Standing in the blast stream of an effective comp is a bad place to be.

Efficient comps are misery on a firing line. If you find yourself at a shooting class next to someone with a comp or brake, move. As the instructor, stand there and instruct if you must, but the first chance you get, get the heck outta Dodge. The efficiency we are considering does not take kindly to cooling and turbulence. As a result, it is at best difficult to have a comp that both reduces recoil and reduces muzzle flash. Indeed, the more-effective comps seem to act as both “blast enhancers” and flash enhancers.

The actions of comps fall into three mechanical methods: face plates, bottom shelves, and side or top ports. The top ports are easy to understand: venting gas out the top pushes the comp, and barrel, down. Rifles typically have so much gas, at such high pressure, at the muzzle, that you don’t need to use much to keep the muzzle down. The first prototype comp I built shoved the muzzle down so hard that I could not keep the sights on a fifty-yard target, shooting offhand. They typically ended up pointing about ten feet below the target. Side ports offer a couple of refinements. By creating a pair of opposed ports, the comp designer attempts to “trap” the comp between equal and balanced jets of gas. The trapped comp dampens vibrations, and the comp does not appear to wiggle or vibrate on the target when fired. With a tuned side-port comp (side-ports are added in addition to the other methods, and not by themselves) the rifle “locks” on the target, and the shooter can fire a second shot much more quickly. In competition, where targets are typically scored “two best hits,” a pair of fast shots is very desirable. In real life, you may need only one, you may need more. But the comp will be “trapped” on the target for each shot anyway.

The LMT rebar cutter. Compliance device? Check. Flash hider?Check. Rebar cutter? Double-check. And a seriously wicked looking piece of gear, too.

The Phantom, a closed Vortex type/A1 type flash hider, does a very good job and is unlikely to hook on stuff.

Any flash hider works on the basic principle of creating turbulence in the expanding gas volume, to break up the incandescent globe of expanding gases. This Phantom works great at that.

The side slots of the Sabre Defense comp. A good competition comp, but not what I’d want to be using on a team.

The slimline, or AR brake designed after the AK-74 brake, is better than nothing but not the best comp. The original, although larger, is better.There’s just no easy way to get one on an AR.

The Surefire attachment system comes either as a flash hider, like this one, or as a comp.

Bottom shelves are a means of getting down-thrust without using ferocious top ports. The expanding gases at the muzzle strike the bottom shelf, and push it down. There is no need to create a vertical jet of gas, out of a port, to push the muzzle down.

Face plates act to push the muzzle forward. The forward part of the ports, the faceplate or baffle, acts as a stop for the gases. The bullet passes through the clearance hole in the face plate, but the gases crash into it, pushing the comp (and thus the barrel and rifle) forward. Some gases follow the bullet through the clearance hole, and some expand around the body of the comp, contacting the face of the next baffle.

Trimming the third port off of a three-port design reduces its effectiveness a small amount. Taking the second one off makes for a noticeable increase in recoil. The forward thrust of a comp can be such that you can blow your comp off if you do not secure it properly. Any comp intended to go onto a bare muzzle, as a “no-thread” comp, is weak. Typically, they’ll have four set screws that you are expected to reef down as tightly as possible. They aren’t enough. Jump ahead to the attachment section in this chapter, and see how to make sure your comp stays put. Do that, and it will stay on.

At the start I remarked that you cannot have a device that acts both as a flash hider and a comp. Well, there is one type: suppressors. A “can” reduces both muzzle flash (well, duh!) and felt recoil. All the baffles inside the can act as faceplates of a compensator, and dampen felt recoil. However, there are costs besides the $200 transfer tax and the cost of the can itself. (A good suppressor, at this writing, runs just over $700 plus transfer tax, where a top-drawer comp is less than the cost of the tax stamp.) A suppressor accepts all the heat of the muzzle blast. In less than a magazine you can heat a suppressor to the point of burning yourself. A couple of magazines and you can raise blisters. Suppressors are cool man-jewelry, and very high on the CDI (“Chicks Dig It”) scale, but they prove once again that you can’t get something for nothing.

One thing some in the suppressor field assert is that “there is no better compensator or muzzle brake than a suppressor.” They should get out more. The best comps, the ones you’ll find at USPSA/IPSC three-gun or multigun competitions, will make an AR into a very noisy .22LR in terms of felt recoil. Some are so effective that if t were not for the noise and the flying brass, you might be convinced the rifle malfunctioned. I’ve shot rifles in all conditions: bare, flash hiders, comps and with suppressors. The best “can” is superior to a marginally-effective compensator, but doesn’t come close to the best.

Flash Hider Comparisons

As fashionable as it is to claim that any (especially your own) flash hider design is better than the standard “birdcage,” the plain old mil-spec flash hider works pretty well. The old “slots all around” A1 works just fine to hide muzzle flash. What some object to is the lower slots, kicking up dust when fired prone. The A2 has the lower slots closed so as to preclude that. Some claim it also acts as a recoil reducer/muzzle brake. I guess it does, theoretically. However the effect is so slight that I haven’t been able to notice it even when trying a side-by-side comparison.

A1

The old birdcage. Despite being really old, and slightly passé, it is an effective flash hider. If you have one on your rifle, you need not worry about flash giving you away. However, the drawback is that if you shoot prone, you will notice some dust. If you’re in a dusty environment, or you get really low in prone, you’ll notice a lot of dust.

A2

The new birdcage. The big advantage of the A2 is greatly reduced dust signature. However, you can get low enough that even it will kick up dust. The military calls it a “compensator.” I guess. It would take someone a lot more sensitive to recoil to notice the difference (if any) in recoil between a rifle with an A1 and a rifle with an A2 out front. I suspect the cone shape of the interior of the hider is what masks any effectiveness it might have. I have had some success boring out the prong area of the A2 and making it cylindrical. By giving the gases a surface to act against, it can dampen muzzle rise, although it does nothing for the rearward component of recoil. However, A2s altered this way are very sensitive to the powder, load and bullet weight. What works for a rifle being fed the hot XM-193 from Federal will show little or no dampening effect when fed something more sedate like Remington yellow-box econo-ammo. And if you shoot a rifle where the A2 has been tuned for econo-ammo, the XM-193 or Mod 262 loads will jerk the muzzle down.

The Surefire attachment system uses an eccentric nut and takes less than half a turn to lock in place.

The Cooley Comp, with the vertical vents to stop muzzle rise.

Suppressors get hot. They take all the heat of the gases. This Surefire, after a couple of magazines, is steaming oil off its exterior.

Yes, suppressors are fun to shoot.

They’re even more fun when they’re mounted on short-barreled rifles.

Wilson Combat

The Wilson is a combo flash hider and muzzle brake that does a decent job of both. While it looks like an A2 flash hider with a face plate, the dimensions differ. If you compare it to a high-end flash hider you’re going to see a bit more flash. If you compare it to an effective brake, you’re going to see more recoil. But for something that does both, it is pretty good. It also passes as a muzzle brake in many locales where flash hiders are verboten.

Troy Medieval Brake

A combo muzzle brake and flash hider, it works better as a flash hider than a brake – which is no slam against it, as it works as well doing both as the other designs do. Asking any muzzle device to do both is asking for the sun, moon and the stars. Where the Troy shines is as an impact weapon. In CQB, you may need to deal with people but not yet be allowed to shoot them. Poking them in the chest with your flash hider is an effective means of gaining compliance. The Troy has large slots, but the front is closed, with only a clearance hole for the bullet. So you need not worry about hooking a prong on brush, nor in having your flash hider bent hitting someone.

Lewis Machine & Tool Rebar Cutter

Oh, baby. If you thought the Troy medieval brake was a compliance tool, the LMT rebar cutter is that on steroids. The LMT cutter is much larger, and as a flash hider it’s OK. The cup of the cutter is large enough to accept a one-inch piece of rebar. You’re asking yourself, is this for real? Is Sweeney crazy? Is LMT in need of calming drugs? No, none of that. Apparently, there are actually houses in Iraq built to code. (Yeah, surprised the heck out of me, too.) From time to time, when blowing a hole in a wall, troopers will run into rebar. Rather than try and set a new charge to cut the rebar (a very involved task, by the way) they just shoot it. Now, on hearing that, I had to try it. But before I did, I looked into the matter of what kind of steel rebar is made of.

By the standards of the steel industry, just about anything ferrous is good enough for rebar. Using strong steel is a waste of strong steel. Rebar is tough because it is crude, but it has less than half the tensile strength of “good” steel. But it is steel, nonetheless. If you go to do this, I must warn you to read the instructions. I didn’t. You must (and I mean must) use green-top SS-109 or M-855 ammunition. Regular ball won’t get the job done. The first time I tried, I ended up getting my leg cut by a piece of something. I used my med kit to bandage myself up, read the instructions, saw the part about M-855 I had glossed over, loaded that, and snapped the bar in half on one shot.

Now you’re probably asking yourself, if it is that hazardous, why do the troops use it? Because it is faster than anything else. Consider this: you’ve just blown a wall, and created a hole big enough to go through, except for the rebar. How long would it take for someone with a cutting torch, or power saw, to cut the bars? A couple of minutes, perhaps? How long will it take, at one shot per, to shoot the rebar off? Ten, fifteen seconds? Also, who wants to be standing there with an oxyacetylene rig, if the bad guys start shooting? In a tight spot gone bad, the LMT rebar cutter and a mag of green-tip works miracles.

Smith Enterprizes Vortex

The new gold standard of flash hiders. The Vortex uses offset slots to create turbulent gases at the muzzle and hide the flash. To avoid bending and breakage, the Vortex is very hard. That makes it interesting for some of us. I can hear the high-pitch frequencies of the Vortex resonating when I shoot. It makes for quite an interesting symphony on some rifles. I hear the “boing” of the buffer tube spring, I hear the “ping” of the Vortex, I hear the “clang” of the steel target I’m shooting. At the right distances and shooting rates, I can almost syncopate my shooting. In testing, a group of us instructors did a hazardous thing. I must, at this point, insert the standard warning you see on every automobile commercial on TV: “Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt.” We went downrange in the dark and watched in turn as someone shot various flash-hider equipped rifles. DONOT DO THIS! Learn from what we learned. Flash hiders are very effective. The Vortex is among the most effective. Even so, the difference between the least (an A1) and the most (tie between Vortex and Noveske) was small. You want good, get the Vortex.

The Surefire shorty mount, also a compensator to dampen recoil when the suppressor isn’t on.

Phantom

The Phantom is a Yankee Hill design, but you can confuse it with the Vortex. Basically it is a closed-end Vortex (which is probably being unfair to both of them). Some feel the closed ends reduce effectiveness. Not really, it just keeps them from getting hooked on vegetation, clothing, fences, etc.

Even with a flash hider, you can present too much gas for any system to handle. Here an eight-inch barrel in .308 is too much for the small flash hider installed. Lotsa fun, though.

A suppressor shouldn’t alter accuracy or point of aim. This AAC did not change things, and I shot a clean score on the qual course for Patrol Rifles.

Noveske “Krink” Hider

The design is taken from the rifle we in the West (for reasons no one knows) call the Krinkov. The flash hider on the AKS-74U is both a flash hider and gas trap. The barrel on the short rifle is so short, and the gas port so close to the muzzle, that without it the rifle might malfunction. A modified design acts as a flash hider with a difference. The inside cone acts as a trap, but also creates turbulence to reduce or eliminate muzzle flash. The large diameter of the ‘hider, and the inside cone, also act to channel noise. Unlike the compensator of the XM-177 of the Vietnam War, which the ATF declared to be a suppressor, the Noveske is not. The ATF has tested it, it isn’t a suppressor, and you’ll get a letter explaining that. However, you experience a bit les noise that you would otherwise. The noise is channeled forward.

Again, we did a hazardous thing: we walked around the rifle while it was being shot. We obviously didn’t stand directly in front of it, but we did get close enough to the line of fire to notice an interesting phenomenon: it is louder out front than from behind. The nature of the noise behind is also changed: the frequency drops. The normal “crack” of an AR is changed slightly to a “chuff” kind of noise. Not a lot, but enough to notice. Standing behind a line of shooters, I can tell who has a Noveske and point to the shooter without having to look at the muzzles to locate it. The Noveske is a particular favorite of entry teams and those with short-barreled rifles. Shooting an AR indoors is a particularly unpleasant experience, and if you can shift some of that burden from yourself to the person you’re shooting at, so much the better.

Compensator
Comparisons

A muzzle brake or compensator works by changing the path of the escaping gases. The best create an unaffected cone behind, where the shooter is. Less-tuned ones will distribute the gases to the shooter as well. The term I use is “blasty.” A comp can be blasty to the shooter, to a bystander, or both. Only a suppressor can avoid being blasty to both. Those gases have to go somewhere. Some comps can be “clocked” (tilted in their locked-down position) to compensate for torque. Torque is an extremely personal thing. Due to my peculiar stance, I experience very little, if any. I have shot rifles where the comp, clocked for the owner, actually induces torque, or pushes the rifle in odd directions, for me.

A comp can also be “smooth.” Some comps do not reduce the vibration of shooting, while others are very smooth. The true test of a comp is simple: can you watch the bullet strike through your scope? Once you can, then comps can be compared as to how small a target, how close, and how high the magnification. Sort of like front lawns. A lawn you can drive by at ten miles per hour and have it still look good is obviously a better lawn than one that requires twenty miles an hour passing speed before it looks good.

The best way to attach a comp is to screw it onto a threaded barrel. Some of our readers may live in one of the various Peoples’ Republiks and not be allowed threaded barrels. If your gunsmith says he can attach it by using set screws, insist that the set screws rest in a groove or individual dimples drilled into the barrel exterior. A comp works by pulling the barrel forward. Again, I have seen comps blown off of rifles where they had been “attached” merely with torqued-down set screws.

Another thing to be aware of is that comps work by diverting the gases generated. You can adjust the gas flow to the action on many rifles, but the AR is not usually one of them. The rifle requires a certain gas flow and pressure to correctly operate the gas system. Go too far from the correct AR powders and loads, and your rifle will stop working. You can’t do more than minor tuning of your comp by adjusting the load. The best way to get a comp that feels good to you is to try several and see what you like. Go to a USPSA three-gun match and shoot in the match. Try the other shooters’ guns. When you find what you like, ask specifics about the load they use, gas system tuning, buffer and carrier weights. A highly-tuned competition AR is going to have a lot more going on than just the comp, and what you like about it may be the other stuff and not the comp. One possible route to a tuned gas system and an effective comp is to use an adjustable gas block like the one from JP Enterprizes. However, once you tune your rifle that exactly, you are locked into the ammo you tuned it for. Go too far from that load, and your rifle may not even work, let alone work well.

Why do we have comps or brakes on ARs? After all, it isn’t like the recoil of the 223 requires either a brake or a scheduled set of chiropractors visits. No, we have so many brakes due to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that happily expired in 2004. Manufacturers could not install flash hiders. But they could put on muzzle brakes. What most did was install something vaguely brake-looking. I suspect the desire was to install an inefficient brake, one that worked better as a flash hider than a muzzle brake. Many of the AWB-brakes are ineffective as brakes, although some are decent.

I did not try every single comp or muzzle brake available. I could not. I’m sure some were invented just in the time between my wrapping up this chapter and before my editor sent it off to layout. I limited myself to the ones you’re most likely to see, with a couple extras for information and aspirations. I considered ranking them from least to most effective. However, the differences between the ones in the middle are more a matter of vibration, slight differences (and combinations) of control of “up” and “back” and so I chickened out. The first is the least, only because it is so rough. The last is best. The rest are more a matter of personal preference. You can have two rifles with two comps from the middle group, and let a bunch of shooters test them. (I have.) What I found was that none could agree on any kind of a ranking. If I pressed them to write a list from “best” to ”worst” they’d chicken out too, and lump three or four or five together, list their personal favorite as best, and want more ammo. So I have to once again recommend that you try a couple and see.

The Vortex. The best flash hider that is just a flash hider.The prongs can hook on stuff, though, so be careful.

The Zitta slimline comp. Very flat, quite soft, noticeable gas on the sides. A great competition comp.

AK-74

The Soviets wanted something a little more controllable than their AK-47 rifles and with better “stopping power” along the lines of the M-16 buzzsaw. They came up with the 5.45X39 cartridge and the AK-74. I first saw the real thing at a Gunsite class in 1993. My impression then has not been changed: the AK-74 muzzle brake is blasty. On an AK-74 the brake is as bright as a flashbulb at night. On the AR, the “AK-74” brake you’ll get isn’t the real thing. It is smaller, and the AR version is rougher and vibrates more than a real AK-74 brake does. You will be buffeted by the AR-version brake, lessso by the real-deal -74 brake. If you have no other choice (someone gives you a free barrel) then use it. Otherwise, pass on the “cool gear” factor and go with something a little more civilized. It is difficult to mount the real thing on an AR due to the way the Soviets designed it: the AK-74 brake mounting threads are part of the front sight casting/forging. Besides being metric, the threads are nearly an inch in diameter. To mount an AK-74 brake on an AR would be an interesting gunsmithing challenge that I may undertake some day. Or may not.

Sweeney Comp

I designed this one at a time when comps were not common. I also designed it with a particular idea in mind: low cost. I had a production-class precision turret lathe available to me, and I could crank comps out for a few dollars each, in 1988 dollars. The design is simple: an impact baffle for “back” control, and a port for “up” control. I made it out of common one-inch bar stock, and it took less than eight cuts to produce each one. The only hard part was attaching the front plate. For the time it was a very effective comp, reducing “up” a great deal, and diminishing “back” by half. It was touchy about barrel length. The front plate needs a different aperture for 20" and 16" barrels. It does not respond well to load changes, and changing loads can have a relatively large effect on felt recoil. Were I still doing regular gunsmithing, I probably would have finished tuning it and offer it for sale. But the one drawback is that it doesn’t do much to diminish vibration. If you want to make one, you can; it is a very simple set of lathe operations. But for the machine time you’ll spend on it, you can buy much better comps. As fond as I am of it, I have to point you to better comps.

Me, on my first attempt at cutting rebar. Read the instructions. Use green-tip ammo.

The Noveske “Krink” flash hider. Very good flash hider and re-directs noise as well.

The Various Miculek Comps

It is perhaps a bit unfair to lump them all under Jerry’s name, but Jerry Miculek was the first person I saw shooting a comp of this design, so for me the name stuck. They all have three artillery-like ports, venting to the side. Most use some sort of venting to give vertical gas flow, and thus control “up” recoil.

Miculek

The “Jerry Comp” (as Second Chance shooters called it) is compact and uses the rear-most port to control rise as well as backthrust in recoil. The tops of the rear port are shaved to give more vertical gas flow. The change is subtle, but gas pressure is highest at the rear port, so you don’t need much to change rise. The comp is soft in both “back” and “up,” and while it is only a bit noticeable to the shooter it is quite blasty to bystanders. While you can see the target impact, there is a bit of vibration. Not so much so that shooters at Second Chance were vibrated off of a steel-plate bowling pin at fifty yards. It is very popular, and for good reason. It is also, for those who don’t want something large, a low-profile design, as are the others of the type.

Bennie Cooley

Bennie is a Three-Gun shooter with many more matches and trophies than I. He takes an artillery-baffle comp and uses flat-bottom baffles and small top ports. The Cooley comp also does a lot to diminish “up” and “back” while the small side ports damped vibration. The top ports diminish rise and the comp can be turned to compensate for right-hand torque. My minor quibble with the Cooley comp is those ports. I end up “clocking” the comp so they point straight up. My shooting stance is much less prone to rightward-recoil, so they offer nothing there for me. However, I’ve had many shooters sing the praises of the Cooley comp, and wax lyrical about the ability to “clock” the Cooley so their right-hand torque is eliminated. For me, the simple shaved-top rear port of the Miculek works better. But then, I have many bad habits from the old days. That, and Bennie can kick my butt around any three-gun match at will. So don’t hesitate to get a Cooley comp.

Wakal F2

The Alex Wakal comp from Flatland Forge is a wide-open artillery brake with flat-face bottoms and faces. It also has small ports on top, and the F2 ports are tilted to automatically compensate for righthand torque. The F2 is very good at reducing “back.” It does a good job of reducing “up.” I find it a bit blasty, and bystanders find it quite so. I also find it does not do as good a job of reducing vibration as some of the others. However, vibration on the F2 is amenable to load adjustment and barrel length. Switching from a sixteen-inch barrel to one twenty inches long reduces the vibration and backblast a great deal. I found it vibrating and blasty with XM-193 but a lot smoother with Black Hills 68-grain match. The basic Miculek-type comp does not change so much between loads.

The Wakal comp. Very good at dampening recoil, but a bit blasty. Shooters love it, while the Range Officer holding the timer will not.

The McArthur comp, favored by legions of bowling pin shooters. Soft, smooth, no muzzle rise, but enough blast to scour paint off walls.

Surefire

Surefire makes suppressors – you already know that. But did you know that their suppressor mounts can be had as compensators and not just flash hiders? The Surefire comps are slimline, to fit inside the suppressors. But the faceplate and bottom plates are well-shaped to act as good comps. I had a chance to shoot them on all kinds of rifles, up to and including a .338 Lapua (not in an AR, that would be a monster of a rifle) and they diminished felt recoil, and muzzle jump, a good deal. As a comp they are pretty good. As a comp you can mount a suppressor over, they are amazing.

Zitta

The Al Zitta comp is a low-profile comp. It features three angled ports in the sides and two smaller ones on top. It is small enough that at first glance it might not be noticed, but it is quite effective. My test crew included several USPSA/IPSC three-gun shooters, and they commented on how flat it was. That is, it controlled recoil. When an experienced competitor exclaims about a comp, you know it is something to try.

Left to right, a Sweeney comp, a Colt pinned-on comp, the McArthur, and the Wakal comp.

Sabre Defense

The comp on the Sabre guns is a slotted comp. Each of the slots is vertical but angled back towards the shooters. You get a distinct jetting effect to the sides, but you as the shooter don’t get much blast. As a comp to reduce recoil, it works great, and it is very low-profile. However, anyone standing to the sides will notice the jets. The comp comes on the Ayoob signature model, and for competition I think it is a great low-profile comp. As an accessory on a defensive arm, I think it has the same drawbacks as all others comps: no one wants to be your side man.

JP

The JP comp is a no-holds-barred artillery-type comp. The basic body design came from a section of thick-walled steel tubing, with an additional wall turned sideways and welded in. The JP is superb in reducing “back.” With all that wall face for the gases to crash into, how can it be otherwise? Up is controlled by making the tubing sections wider on the bottom than the top, giving the gases more vent up and thrust down. The JP is noticeable to the shooter but not objectionable. It is, however, quite stout to bystanders. The JP comp is most often found on USPSA/IPSC Open Division rifles, as it is larger than allowed under Tactical Division rules.

McArthur

Bruce McArthur, owner of Flint ‘n’ Frizzen gun shop, developed his comp in part to effectively control full-auto firearms. It is by far the most complex (and expensive) comp, but it is the most effective comp I have ever shot. How effective? I’ve fired belt-fed .308 machineguns offhand with McArthur comps installed, where I could keep the firearm on the target for as long as I could stand to hold it up and hold the trigger back. However, the cost is side blast. Not to you, the shooter, but to bystanders. I’ve seen shooters using McArthur comps peeling paint off of adjacent walls. You, the shooter, won’t notice it. The McArthur is the softest and smoothest comp in my experience. You’ll be able to watch the bullet strike on steel plates at fifty yards, with your scope magnification up. The backblast cone is tight, however. I once shot an M-16 equipped with a 10.5” barrel and a McArthur comp. After a couple of magazines on “burst” I thought my forearms were going to catch on fire. Any barrel longer than that and you the shooter won’t notice the side blast. But on short-barreled rifles the McArthur comp can be too much of a good thing.

Basically, compensators work by re-directing gas flow. This Sweeney comp has a side port/ faceplate chamber and an expansion/top port.

The Miculek comp, showing the larger rear port, to control upward movement of the rifle.

One thing you’ll notice about the comps is that they are in many cases relatively small. The rules call for that. “Back in the day” when the AWB/94 was enforced, many manufacturers made comps on their rifles. When it came time to develop rules for rifles other than Open Division, the USPSA had to contend with the stupid AWB. So, comps were allowed in Standard and Tactical Divisions if they were no longer then three inches, and no larger in diameter than one inch. As a result, many comps are that size and no larger.

Comps and brakes are definitely competition items. For an entry team the side blast of a comp or brake is more than just objectionable, it can be hazardous. If you are going to be doing any work in a group, don’t install a comp. Your fellow shooters will hate you for it. That also goes for shooting in classes, where you’ll be on the firing line with others. The shooters next to you will hate you for subjecting them to the blast of your comp. However, if you are shooting competitively, or do not anticipate being part of a team action, then a comp can do wonders for controlling recoil and allowing you to deliver fast, accurate follow-up shots.

Compensator Attachment

For most of us, attachment is simple: you unscrew the flash hider that is on there, and then screw on the comp. It may take a bit of fussing to get it on and straight up and down, and locked in place, but for most people it’s no big deal. For some, however, it is. Some states sill have egregious “assault weapon bans” or restrictions on rifles. And they may include a prohibition on threading barrels. California is chief among them. Apparently the legislators (or a majority of them) in California feel that threaded muzzles are such an inducement to evil behavior that they must simply ban them outright. Even handgun shooters, who want a comp on their competition guns, can’t have threaded barrels to attach their comps with. Gunsmiths are forced to either construct a comp-d barrel from a single piece of barrel (carving locking lugs and comp out of a large-diameter barrel blank) or soldering a comp in place sans threads. (Don’t get me started on the ballistic and engineering idiocy of legislators.)

For the AR, the solution is simple, if “inelegant”: locking screws. With four equally-spaced clamping screws you can secure a comp to a barrel. However, do not settle for merely tightening them down and using a bit of Loctite. I’ve seen more than one comp launched off a barrel. The impact of the gases is stout. It has to be, or the comp isn’t doing its job. The forces are enough to quickly hurl your new comp downrange unless you take some extra measures. One would be to turn a recess around the barrel at the location of the set screws. However, that requires a lathe. The other is to install the comp without using Loctite. Fire a few rounds, enough to make sure you have it “clocked” properly and it is working as expected. Then remove it and use a drill press to drill dimples at the set screw clamping marks. Use a drill the same diameter as the threads of the screws. Drill only until the full angled diameter of the drill has bitten into the steel, creating “dimples.” The set screws will then rest in the dimples, and the shoulder the dimple provides will be plenty to keep the comp from being launched. Should you, at some future time, find yourself in a new location where threaded barrels are viewed as the invention of the devil, the dimples will not prevent your gunsmith from threading your barrel.

A brake or compensator is a very useful thing in competition, but not so good in a team environment. Here Ted Puente, national three-gun Champ, hammers an array at my home club.

Suppressors

For many readers in many states, getting a “silencer” is relatively easy. You fill out the ATFE Form 4, listing the manufacturer, the suppressor, your name, etc. You fill out two fingerprint cards. You get the Chief Law enforcement Officer in your area to sign, and you send it off with a check for $200. Then you wait. Once you get approval, then you contact the manufacturer so they can ship the “can” to your local Class 3 dealer.

The process is relatively easy, the questions many. Who counts as a “CLEO?” Mostly, the Chief of Police, the local Sheriff, somebody like that. The ATFE definition is both exacting and vague. And depending on the details of your State law, there may be many others who qualify. I’ve heard of the local Prosecutor being approved as a signing CLEO, and (this one is most peculiar) even the the Coroner. It depends on who has authority to enforce the law. You can get a signature from anyone who qualifies in your area. And there is no obligation for the signer. They aren’t signing that they know you, or have done a background check, or anything like that. In fact, the ATFE doesn’t care if the locals do a background check, they’re going to do their own anyway, and wouldn’t take the locals’ word for it, had they done a check.

Another question is, “Who wants to do that, and have the ATFE come in and do an inspection any time they want?” (That one comes from the tinfoil hat crowd.) If you have an FFL, the ATFE can inspect your business premises during business hours. However, as a private citizen, if you own a suppressor you haven’t given up any rights. If the ATFE (for whatever reason) wants to “check up” on you, they’ll have to phone you up and ask to visit. If they want to see the can, then you have it on your kitchen table when they arrive. Can? Yup. Serial number match? Yup. Have a nice day. G’bye. Without a warrant that’s the extent of the visit. Now, if they have a warrant, then owning a properly-papered suppressor is the least of your worries.

What suppressors? For me, there are just two: Surefire and Advanced Armaments Corp. The main reason for both is that they are durable and quiet. The advantages for each are simple: the Surefire suppressors can be put on quickly, with a half-turn of the locking nut. Surefire units don’t change your accuracy or your zero, although there might be a small shift. If there is a shift, it is the same every time you put in your suppressor. Advanced Armaments units are extremely durable and cost less than other units. The AAC units use a proprietary flash hider/mount that you have to have on your rifle. No big deal; all suppressors need some kind of attachment system unless they are integral units. If you live in one of the 40 states where they are allowed, you can’t go wrong with one or the other.

The JP comp, which exemplifies the “tank” brake.The face plates offer lots of surface area for the gases to crash in to. The larger bottom gives downthrust to counteract muzzle rise. Yes, it is as blasty as it looks.

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE DMR

If you want to cover territory, you have to get on high. Sgt. Jan Carlos Manzano, a sniper from Company D, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, provides security for fellow Soldiers in the village of Shiaha, Iraq. DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Kevin L. Moses.

In open country, a .30 rifle is useful.

Spc. Ronald Turner, from the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, provides security for fellow Soldiers who are searching for insurgents and weapons in Mianashin, Afghanistan. DoD photo by Spc.Mike Pryor.

Most movie depictions of snipers are BS. I say this not as a sniper (I wasn’t one, never went through sniper training, and didn’t even stay in a motel down the street from a sniper school) but I’ve talked to those who were, and I have read everything public on the subject – and even a few not-so-public manuals. The movies would have you think snipers are either steely-eyed killers with icewater in their veins who kill without remorse or joy, or lunatic killers who whack anything that moves.

Actually, if you have any tendencies towards either frame of mind, the military wants you out of there pronto. They might find you a billet in Supply, but anything to do with shooting people will not be in your job description. You have to remain cool to be a sniper but not so detached that you aren’t human. And not so uncontrollable that you shoot anything that moves. You see, snipers are trained observers who happen to have really, really accurate rifles. A school-trained sniper (and the government spends a lot of money on the school training) has more to do than just shoot people. A sniper and his observer may go out on a mission, spend a couple of days taking notes while radioing in reports and fire missions and never fire a shot. In fact, in many instances, not shooting is a good thing.

When a school-trained sniper does shoot, it is likely to be at long range. A friend of mine who was our rep from one of the wholesalers had been a school-trained sniper and SF NCO when he served. His comment was “Life begins at the triple-zero.” Anything closer, and the shooting was much too close to being a fair fight. And a fair fight, when you’re armed with a bolt-action rifle while the other guys have everything up to belt-feds and rocket launchers, is just no fun.

But school-trained snipers are rare. They also do not work for the officers in the close fight. If a sniper can be said to work for anyone in particular, it is at the very least a Major, or a more likely a Lieutenant Colonel. The big brass would be most annoyed at an observation operation having its cover blown by a sniper taking liberties to help out an infantry unit deal with a recalcitrant machinegun position. So what’s the poor Lieutenant or Captain to do?

Until recently, not much. But the Army and the Marines both discovered a need for a skillset and rifle that had been described for many years. Described, but just ignored. The Squad Designated Marksman is someone who works for the line infantry commander. The SDM deals with targets a whole lot closer than the sniper does. The SDM, while his skills and rifle may permit target engagement out to 700 or 800 meters, is likely to be spending his trigger time inside 500. The sniper spends a couple of months at sniper school. After that, it’s off to a dedicated sniper slot in a dedicated unit. The SDM training is a lot faster. If the unit involved starts with their best shots, a weekend will suffice. More is better, but if the shooter already knows the basics, a weekend will do. After all, the sniper has to learn a whole lot of other things besides shooting, like constructing a ghillie suit (camouflaged uniform that turns a prone sniper into so much brush and grass) and learning to stalk. “Stalking” for an SDM involves getting to a solid shooting position and putting accurate rifle fire on the bad guys. His stalk may simply be a sprint to a busted wall, where he can use a convenient gap as a protected firing position. The SDM also is not so worried about long-range trajectory. Properly zeroed, the SDM won’t have to do much calculating out to 300 meters, and only a bit for the ranges past that. He also has the luxury of fire support from the rest of the team. The sniper is pretty much on his own (at least in regards to the shooting) and he has to hit the first time he shoots.

Across the street, or down the block, the recoil of the .308 can make follow-up shots tough. Spc. Hans Rvehr, a sniper from the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, searches for insurgents in Mosul, Iraq. DoD photo by Spc. Clydell Kinchen.

How do their rifles differ? The sniper uses a bolt-action rifle in .308 or an even bigger caliber. “One shot, one hit” at 800+ meters/yards is his goal. At those distances, repeat shots don’t have to be fast, and probably can’t be. Re-acquiring the target and judging wind, distance and impact effect all take more time than working the bolt. Duking it out with a belt-fed machinegun at 300 meters, or trying to whack a nimble RPG gunner, often takes a quick repeat shot.

For the SDM, an improved M-16 works great. In the mid 1990s, the Army took the military marksmanship ranges by storm by using accurized M-16s. The Marines, with their .30-caliber rifles, couldn’t beat the Army and their M-16s. Soon the Marines joined the Army, who had learned their lessons from the civilian shooters. (That, and the then-head of the Army Team decided “the category is Service Rifle, so we’re going to use the current issue service rifle.” The armorers had to make it work, and the civilians had the lessons plans all set to be used.) The AR-15/M-16 was plenty accurate enough to hit what you were shooting at out to 600 yards, farther than the SDM needed. Curiously enough, it was the Navy who put it together. Crane Weapons Lab, who tests firearms for the services, drew up the specs for the Designated Marksman Rifle. The DMR called for a free-floated barrel, optics, a compensator and/or suppressor, and match trigger.

In many applications, a suppressor is just the ticket for proper DMR use. Here, a Surefire can gets the duty.

The results could have been predicted by a savvy AR shooter: A PRI tube handguard, an A.R.M.S. rail, Leupold optics, and an 18" barrel. A what barrel? Eighteen inches? What’s up with that? The story is this: Crane realized that if they simply used the standard twenty-inch barrel length, there would be no way to avoid using off-the-rack M16A2 barrels. And that wasn’t accurate enough. So, to let them spec better barrels, Crane put down “18” as the barrel length and then wrote in accuracy specs.

The result is plenty good enough. Available for building were over a hundred thousand M16A1 lower receivers. Why those? Several reasons. They were available without causing a problem in delivery of A2s or M4s. They could be set up for full-auto, not that an SDM needs it, but some agitate for it and the A1s make that easy. And many A1 rifles (or receivers) are very low-mileage despite their age. The lowers in the Army DRM get Knight’s Armament two-stage triggers that are semi-auto only.

When you need light, you need a lot of it.Surefire 950-series lights produce lots of light and are tough as old leather.

The Army and the Marines can’t agree on much of anything, and the DMR is yet another case in point. The Marines went with PRI forends, and the Army went with Daniel Defense. The Marines went with 18" custom tubes, while the Army uses custom, fluted barrels, but they're 20" long. Well, with a pressing need for such weapons, and multiple teams working on it, we have an embarrassment of riches. The Army, so pressed for DMRs that they were yanking crusty old M-14s out of storage and handing them off (sometimes without magazines), built M-16A1s and A2s as DMRs with anything at hand. They used Douglas barrels, chambered by the Army Marksmanship Unit, and they used A2 barrels with a proven track record of accuracy. The Marine Corps went a step further. Both Coasts built rifles. The “East Coast” and the “West Coast” rifles (Quantico and Pendleton) differ in details but not intent.

The PRI carbon fiber forearm has rails for gear, like this GG&G bipod.

In the interim, we’ll simply use an elastic wrap to keep the light switch in place. (This is gunsmithing that gunsmiths don’t want you to see.)

As if all that wasn’t enough, as soon as the rifles got to the Sandbox, they were further modified by the end-users. I’ve seen photos of DMRs where the A2 buttstock has been replaced with a SOPMOD, various paint schemes, and all the usual extra gear. I’ve also seen photos of DMR clones, where a unit brought in the parts they needed to assemble a DMR, built it and used it. Unfortunately, getting parts back out is difficult and could mean disciplinary charges. So units hand off the modified weapon (or the parts to build the next issued one) to the unit that replaces them, a practice that will probably continue until the supply of DMRs is great enough to go around. Which means you can build just about anything that does the job, call it a “DMR” and probably be right.

So, how to build one? First, some of the parts may not be available to you. An M16 lower would be quite difficult to come by. As a result of the FOPA 1986 with the awful ”no new machineguns” amendment, the market price of a transferable M-16 (as of this writing) is on the order of $12,000 to $15,000. Ouch. The real detail-oriented builder will (as in the XM-177 build) search out a Colt SP1 lower, with the correct contours, on which to build a DRM. The rest of us will simply use an A2, as they are handy and inexpensive.

Me, I had two choices. I found, in the course of working on this book, that one of my rifles is an A1 lower. Eagle Arms, before they were Armalite, made rifles. (Once the rights to the name became available, Mark Westrom snapped it up.) My Coal Valley, IL-marked Eagle Arms lower is an A1. I could build on that. But I really want to use it for the XM-177 project. So I grabbed the lower that Dave at Sun Devil sent me and checked it against a Stag Arms flat top upper. Perfect fit. OK, on to the next step: I have a Colt M16A2 barrel lying around. The 20” length is close enough, and the 1:7 twist will allow the use of Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo and its clones. A spare CMT bolt, check headspace, just fine thank you very much.

Next, the forearm. The PRI is the best for this application. The carbon fiber construction keeps your hands cool, it freefloats the barrel, and there are plenty of rails to bolt stuff to. One thing the Army does, that I don’t feel the need to adopt, is to add an A.R.M.S. top rail to connect the upper to the PRI forearm. Why? Long, heavy scopes end up with the front ring forward of the uppers rail front. So the Army aligns the PRI rail and the upper, and then bolts one big rail to them both. Me, I don’t plan to double the cost of my rifle with a scope, so I’ll just “settle” for a LaRue mount that fits the upper.

The Mk262 Mod 1 load is wicked. It gives penetration and big fragments, and it does it a lot farther out than other issue ammo.

Many in the military still want .308 regardless of what it takes. Here, I’m wringing out an Armalite Super-SASS in .308, on 600 yard LaRue targets. Need I add that it’s lots of fun?

For a BUIS, I grabbed a Troy, and out front, we need a PRI folding front sight. And in the back, a PRI Gas-buster charging handle.

From what I can see, our boys are using all kinds of bipods. Since I have it and like it, I’ll use the GG&G bipod on my DMR. And last, we need a suppressor. For this, we go with Surefire. The dedicated Surefire flash hider is also the “can” mount. You do not change zero when going from the non-suppressed to the can, with a Surefire. I know that from personal testing. So, once the test-firing is done I’ll take the A2 flash hider off, install the Surefire, and get going.

Inside the lower, I found a slight hitch: I can’t get a Knight’s Armament match trigger group. Knight’s is too busy supplying the military to spare one for a lowly gun writer. Not to fear, I broke out a lower receiver parts kit from M&A Parts. I know that with a clean mil-spec parts set I can easily whack the computer pop-ups out to 300 meters. So in go the M&A Parts, and with a little fussing I have a clean trigger at the low end of mil-spec, about five pounds.

Installing the PRI forearm is a bit involved. You have to strip your barrel down to the bare tube. Off comes the front sight housing. Simple. Then just place the housing and barrel in the Brownells sight block and drive the pins out. Tap the housing forward with a plastic mallet, and voila! Then remove the barrel nut. The PRI forearm has its own barrel nut, and tube nut. Slide the barrel nut and tube nut on the barrel, and hand-tighten.

Check to make sure the tube nut isn’t binding, then tighten the barrel nut as you would any other: tighten, loosen, tighten, loosen, then tighten and align a hole for the gas tube. Then slide the tube over the barrel and align the two locating pins in the barrel nut, with the rails at vertical and square to the side. Once lined up, spin the tube nut to pull the tube back and lock it into the barrel nut. Once snugged back, tighten it with a strap wrench or toothed spanner. (That’s what the notches on the back are for.)

The front sight is easy. Install the gas tube in the PRI housing and then drive the gas tube pin through. Then snake the tube down the inside of the forearm, through the top dead center barrel nut hole. Line it up vertically by eyeball and tighten the bolts. If you find that you have to move the rear sight too far off center in checking your initial zero, loosen the front sight bolts (after you unload!). Tilt the front sight in the direction of the group, tighten and try again. You should have an initial zero established where the rear sight is not off-center.

The PRI forearm has a big tube-tightening nut that rides over the replacement barrel nut.

Inside, you see the alignment stubs that keep the PRI forearm straight as you tighten the outside ring.

I took a couple of liberties with my DMR. First, I installed an Vltor Clubfoot telestock. The pistol grip is for now a plain old A2 skinny pistol grip. Once I get the rifle up and running I plan to change it out for the MagPul MIAD. The MIAD will give me the option of changing contour, and using the hollow as a battery storage compartment. That is, if I don’t just go with the Tango Down pistol grip. (These things require testing to be certain. Unless you have a bunch of understanding friends who will let your test-fire their rifles you’ll probably end up with a bag of parts like me.) Also, instead of the military-issue M-16 carrier, I installed a JP Enterprises stainless carrier. Lighter than an M-16 carrier, it should give me a bit less jounce on recoil.

Up top, in the LaRue mount is one of my sturdy Leupold 3.5-10 Vari-X III scopes. The military uses much more sophisticated scopes but they are also much more expensive. Since I can’t simply fill out some paperwork and have one of the current optics sent (no, Leupold doesn’t give free scopes to gun writers just for the asking) I’ll have to “make do.” (As if using a Leupold scope is somehow déclassé.)

Once I had the DMR together enough to test-fire it, I hauled it off on one of the classes. It took about ten rounds to get the irons dialed in. The scope took a bit more, but only because I was fussy and insisted that my group be a tiny five-shot single hole in the center of the 25 yard zero target. After that, I went off and without any sight changes proceeded to drop twenty targets on twenty exposures, three times straight, on the computer pop-ups. And that with one run of XM-193, one run of Wolf 62-grain FMJ, and one run of mixed ammo that was rattling around loose in the bottom of the gear bag.

The basic rifle starts out light enough that everyone who handled it commented on how light it was. Coming from a bunch of guys who were toting 16” M4s and clones, that’s a compliment. Now I have to resist the temptation to load it down with gear. One thing I thought of on the drive back from that class: the DMR makes a really kicking USPSA/IPSC competition rifle. I mean, a tack-driving AR that doesn’t weight a ton, with a crisp trigger, BUIS and optics of some kind? Sounds good to me. The Vltor stock is plenty comfortable. To go from DMR to 3-gun competition would take only a few changes: lose the bipod unless you’re shooting in Open. If shooting in Open, then the bipod and 3.5-10 Leupold is just fine. If shooting Tactical, remove the bipod and put an Aimpoint or EOTech on it. For Limited, no bipod and no optics, just the BUIS. For Open, take the flash hider off and install a honkin’ big comp like the JP “tank” brake or the Bruce McArthur “coke can.” For Tactical or Limited, a lower-profile comp like the Wakal or the Miculek. Smokin’!

One thing about the DMR is the ammo. While a lot of line units will probably have their DMR running around with the same M-855 green tip ammo as everyone else, some won’t be. The Mk 262 Mod 1 75- or 77-grain OTM load is the happening load. It is not, however, standard issue. However, a commander can, if he or she fills out the proper request and requisition forms, get a supply for his unit.

Jeff Chudwin, shooting the DMR and declaring it good.

Well, if the DMR is built for, and runs best with, the Mk 262 load then I’ll have to use it. However, the load is a hot one. Hot loads in a hot rifle, in a hot environment, can pop primers. A blown primer is one that comes loose of the case and falls into the action. If it happens to get under the trigger, your rifle will stop working. You cannot clear it without disassembly. I figured I would use this as an opportunity to test the DPMS receiver rug. The rug rides under and around the trigger, and blocks anything from getting under the trigger. Now, you could be a long time shooting your rifle waiting for a primer to fall out. So I sped things along. I dropped a spent primer into the lower, closed it up, loaded and started shooting. Within a magazine or two, the rifle would stop. Note: this test can be hard on the rifle. It requires that you disassemble the rifle to clear the malfunction. You should not do it. Learn from my tests. I took the lower apart, installed the receiver rug, and tested again. Even with a half-dozen primers rattling around like the rifle was a maraca, none got under the trigger. I’m sure, given time, they would have found some other way to make things unpleasant, but they didn’t get under the trigger. It will take more testing, but this is one thing I think has a future.

Oh, and with Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo, the DMR is a tack-driver.

What of the use of M-14s as DMR? The military, and the end-users, have a number of problems with them. The problems of the end-user are easier to see: the rifle looks different. In combat, different is bad. Let’s say you’re a “sniper” (in this context, anyone with a rifle who is going to take a potshot at a group of soldiers or Marines) in some dusty town in Iraq. Who are you going to shoot first? If you have any sense, you’ll shoot an officer, the radio man, or a machinegunner. Lacking any of those, you’ll shoot the guy with the obvious sniper rifle. The M-14 may not be a sniper rifle, but it looks different. It also kicks harder, making follow-up shots more difficult.

The problem the military has is that having given up the M-14 forty years ago, there are few in the system. And fewer spare parts, magazines, etc, etc. And damned few armorers qualified to work on them, since the Army and the Marines both went to M-16s for competition back in the mid-‘90s. The M-14 needs more fussing by armorers. While it can be made accurate, it doesn’t stay accurate (in the sniping sense) without continual work by an armorer. Under the same conditions, an accurate M-16 stays accurate until the barrel wears out. Yes, the power is useful at times, but the downsides of the rest mitigate against it. There are M-14s in the field, but they’ll be replaced by M-16-based DMRs as soon as the supply can catch up.

Loren Helwink, a man who got paid to jump out of perfectly good aircraft, looks over the DMR in-process.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

A PAIR OF 6.8S
FOR POLICE
AND IPSC

The Magpul adjustable sniper stock is a bit heavy, but it’s solid and adjustable and appears impossible to damage.

Want a scope securely attached, and yet be able to wrestle it off? Look no further than LaRue. You’ll need a low-mount BUIS, which the GG&G MAD is.

Police have the wrong rifle. Well, the guys on the rooftops do, anyway. There is a common bit of internet lore traveling around the digital universe: that the FBI has surveyed police sniper engagements, and found that the average distance for police incidents is 75 yards. Not true. However, the American Sniper Association did do a survey of its members and found that the average engagement distance was (are you ready for this?) 51.3 yards. Many of you live in locales where 51 yards is longer than the largest open space you see. I have talked to more than one school-trained police sniper who on one or more of his first few incidents, had to deal with a miscreant who was moving at or inside the 51.3-yard distance, and where the police officer was standing. Yessir, that’s the situation where I want a bolt-action rifle in my hands with 10X scope and prone stock. Moving target, 10X magnification, sure I do.

Since we’re building a police sniper rifle based on the AR, perhaps we can make it a competition AR, too?

First up was caliber. A .308 hits like the hammer of Thor. But you pay for that in recoil. .308 is scored Major in competition, but the jury was in a long time ago: the .308 is too slow in recoil recovery to be worth the points gained. However, the next-common police rifle caliber is .223/5.56, and that isn’t enough in the minds of many as a man-stopper, but works just fine for competition. The sniper has to be sure (at least as much as humanly possible) of a one-shot stop. The only in-between caliber at present is the 6.8 Remington SPC. Yes, I know the 6.5 Grendel is better, but it is designed as a long-range (at least longer than our use here) cartridge. The design philosophies of each cartridge bear consideration.

The 6.8 was designed to fit the AR platform with the least-possible number of modifications necessary. Basically, you install a 6.8 barrel and bolt and use 6.8 magazines. What you get is something that hits harder within the usual distances of combat: inside 300 meters. The 6.5 was designed as a hunting cartridge that also delivers long-range accuracy while still fitting in the AR platform. Yes, you can build a 6.5 by simply installing a 6.5 barrel and bolt, and using 6.5 magazines. You get more recoil (more velocity for any given bullet weight) and less magazine capacity (an unavoidable result of a fatter case, needed for the extra velocity). As we’re working on a rifle for precision shooting well inside 200 meters (mostly inside 100), the flatter trajectory of the 6.5 doesn’t matter. So I settled on 6.8. For USPSA/IPSC three-gun competition, it now becomes a matter of whether the 6.8 can make Major.

Samson makes tough and solid railed forearms. Snipers need tough.

So with caliber and platform settled, I went to build a rifle. I took a rifle I’d built on a Wilson Tactical lower and yanked it apart. Wilson Tactical is a new player in the AR market, but Ryan Wilson knows how to make a quality product, and the ARs (assembled rifles and bare lowers) he makes show it. I’d built it as a lightweight M4-gery, but I already have several of those, so off came the lightweight parts. I used the LAR Grizzly flat-top upper that was on it, as the two were a perfect fit.

For a barrel I called up Model 1 Sales and had them send me a 20” barrel and bolt for 6.8 Remington SPC. For an entry gun or patrol rifle I’d much prefer a sixteen-inch or even a bit shorter. But for this application the extra length won’t be a burden, and the extra velocity is needed if we’re to make Major. M1 Sales offers carbon steel and chrome-plated chamber and bore barrels. As I’m not planning to drag my rifle through severe environments I opted for the carbon steel barrel. I installed a Samson full-length railed free-float handguard. Free-floating ensures I get all the accuracy the barrel has, without worry of sling tension or bipod pressure changing point of impact.

Here I was torn. For police work the Samson is great, adding a bit of weight. For a run-and-gun match, I bet I’ll want something a bit lighter. Then I’d go with a PRI carbon fiber forearm. As support, I used GG&G’s multi-adjustable bipod. Yes, we all know “proper” snipers wear a ghillie suit while using sandbags or mother earth for support. The last time I had to do some (training) shooting from the top of a building, by the time I’d hauled myself and the essential gear up there, I was in no mood to haul sandbags up too. A bipod puts our IPSC rifle into Open Division, so in competition I’d either take the bipod off (easy to do with the GG&G) or put a scope on. As the muzzle threads of a 6.8 barrel are not the same as that of the .223/5.56 (you don’t want a too-small flash-hider on your rifle, trust me) you will have to work with your gunsmith to find a proper compensator or flash hider.

Accurate? Is this good enough for you?

The PRI upper is blazingly accurate. For a 16”barrel, it is good enough to be a sniper rifle.

The typical police marksman is not going to get permission to shoot from his incident commander or Chief at a range much past 100-150 yards, so there is no need to go with a straight 10X scope. Instead I grabbed a LaRue quick-detach mount and snugged a Leupold M/LT 3-9 variable in it. The 3X end lets you scan a wide area for intel, and you can zoom up to 9X for a precise shot. The Leupold has a lighted reticle so if you’re peering into a darkened area you can still dial enough illumination to the reticle to see where you’re aiming, but not so much that it causes a problem with dark-adaptated vision. Why a QD mount instead of something more solid? First,

Wilson Tactical makes excellent lowers, and I used this as the base for my 6.8 Police Sniper.

I’m not sure you can have something “more solid” than the LaRue, at least not mounted on an AR. Second, in a pinch I can take the scope off and use the backup sights.

For backups, I started with a GG&G MAD in place underneath the Leupold. I have to take the scope off to use the BUIS, but that’s the price to pay for magnification. Anything with enough eye relief to clear the BUIS won’t give me magnification. Later, I swapped the GG&G out for a Matech sight BUIS. The GG&G is a great sight, but the Matech is range-adjustable. I can dial in past 100 yards if I want. Not exactly in line with our rooftop sniper and 51-plus yard shooting, but this is also a competition gun too.

For competition, if I was going to be shooting just Limited, the BUIS would do. For Tactical, I’d mount an Aimpoint with a 3X adapter, or an EOTech Holosight instead of the Leupold.

The last install was the stock. As an M4-gery the Wilson had a lightweight telestock on it. However, for shooting with a scope many of the telestocks available have definite shortcomings. So I grabbed the newly-arrived Magpul Precison Rifle Stock. The PRS has an adjustable cheekpiece, adjustable length of pull, a sling ring that looks tougher than some rappelling gear I’ve seen, and even a covered rail to which you can attach a monopod. Heavy, yes, but then we aren’t talking about a rifle for lightweight applications. The stock weight also balances the barrel and forearm weight I had out front. Now, for competition, where (again) there could be lots of running, I think I’d opt for an Vltor stock.

Assembled, the rifle worked as expected. Feed, function, groups, all proper. But we can always improve a rifle. First, the trigger. While the stock parts I had used from DPMS were plenty good enough to drop 300-meter silhouettes with iron sights, a sniper needs more. (Even if he doesn’t, court records indicate he does.) So I pulled them out and installed a drop-in trigger package from Chip McCormick. The change dropped the trigger pull from a nice service pull of five and a half to a crisp target pull of three and a half pounds. The McCormick trigger feels more like the trigger of a bolt-action, and is greatly desired by both sniper and competitive shooter.

For sniper use, a standard carrier is just fine. For competition, a JP Enterprises lightweight stainless carrier would serve you better. So that’s what I installed. Finally, I turned to the muzzle. I wanted to put a PRI or Miculek comp on it. The PRI comp is less “blasty” than others, something a marksman’s assistant/observer would appreciate. (He’s the guy right next to the trigger-puller, who is peering through a pair of binoculars. I’ve found most observers get testy when you spray them with hot, high-velocity gases.) In my experience the PRI is effective enough to keep my targets within my scopes field of view during recoil. Shooting from a reasonably solid rest I can shoot a steel plate inside 100 yards and watch the bullet impact on the plate. The Miculek is even softer, allowing for more magnification and still keeping the target “in the scope” during recoil. To do so offhand you need a muzzle brake that is much more ferocious to the teammates beside you. However, the threads posed a problem. The Model 1 barrel uses 1/2X36 threads. Standard AR barrels use 1/2X28. The PRI uses a larger shank diameter than 1/2”. None of the usual suspects are going to work. I’ll have to request non-standard threads on a muzzle brake to comp this rifle. However, if all I need is a flash hider, I’m in luck; 1/2X36 is the standard thread pitch for Colt 9mm AR barrels, and the 6.8 isn’t going to be bothered by the flash hider drilled for 9mm.

A spare comp on hand can easily be bored out for the clearance hole and re-tapped to the new thread size. Or built from scratch.

The next step was to test the rifle with various ammo. In the 6.8 universe, that’s a challenge. There is only a limited supply of Remington ammo to be hand. Apparently it is all going “someplace else.” Hornady has just begun loading, and they offer a 110-grain V-Max bullet and a 110-grain BTHP/WC, both in cases with crimped-in primers. There is only one buying group that insists on crimped-in primers, and we all know who they are. I asked my contact at Hornady about that, and he told me, “We use the same cases in our TAP line, so we simply use one case output for both ammunition lines. No ‘contract’ production that I know of.” Hmm, I’m not entirely convinced. I talked to a magazine manufacturer at the SHOT show who makes 6.8 magazines, and he is regularly shipping cartons of 6.8 magazines to exotic destinations. Somebody is shooting all this ammo, and when shooting it they are apparently a bit too busy at times to pick up empty magazines. That doesn’t sound like an afternoon’s plinking to me.

I had to hold out on ammo when it came time for the test-fire crew to shoot.If I hadn’t, they’d have shot it all. But I expect that from them. It means they think the guns are good. Rob really liked hammering the 200-yard targets with the 6.8 Sniper.

I however, managed to lay hands on enough ammo and magazines to test this new sniper approach. What I found is most encouraging. First, both the Remington and the Hornady ammo I have on hand is accurate enough for police work: one-hole groups at 100 yards. While the Remington ammo would occasionally print groups that were sub-MOA but not single-hole, the Hornady was eerily accurate in producing cloverleafs. The Leupold made shooting easy. At 9X I could see the group at 100 yards and once I got over the accuracy the rifle delivered, I didn’t get nervous about possibly ruining a bragging group. The LaRue mount comes off easily enough and goes back to zero closer than I can detect at my club’s 100-yard range. If it doesn’t return to zero it will take a better shooter than I, at a longer range than I have available, to prove the LaRue’s failing. (Just for the record, I’m not betting against LaRue.)

The Magpul stock is a must-have for precision shooting. It uses a rifle-length buffer tube, so by the time you’ve swapped from the telestock and buffer to the PRS and rifle tube and buffer you’ve added more than a pound of weight to the rifle. But the weight helps, since you’ve moved up in caliber. The Samson forend also adds weight, as does any aluminum railed forend. Between the two I added two pounds. The end result weighs only a little more than a box-stock Colt H-Bar with added cheeckpiece, and the 6.8 sniper delivers much more oomph.

The velocity differences between a sixteen-inch carbine (I have a PRI to compare to) and the 6.8 sniper are not great, but more is always better.

The rifle is so accurate I have abandoned any thoughts of shortening the barrel to a patrol-rifle length. You just don’t do that to something so good. As for the weight, it isn’t any heavier than a similarly-equipped H-Bar in 5.56 would be. It’s on par with the weight of a .308 bolt-action rifle. So I’m not paying any penalty in weight to gain the performance the 6.8 is giving me. And the ballistic tables tell me that getting on the 300 meter pop-up targets out at the NG base won’t be a problem: zeroed two inches high at 100 yards, I’ll be ten inches low at 300. Since the targets are almost three feet tall, I should be able to extend my years-long record of posting perfect scores at will. Considering the brass cost, I’ll be sure to police all my empties before going off to check the scoresheet. So far, this rifle appears to be a keeper.

The PRI carbon fiber forearm, and their folding front sight/gas block assembly. A difficult combo to beat.

The Vltor stock on the patrol rifle model for drills. A good combination.

One thing I was not able to do is to make Major with it. The 110-grain bullets most 6.8 ammo is loaded with would have to be going a steaming 2909 fps to make the threshold. Since they are going “only” 2600 fps out of the Model 1 Sales barrel, adding another 300 fps is out of the question. It is possible to make Major with any caliber by going up in bullet weight, sooner than if you increased velocity. However, the numbers are not encouraging. If I bump up to a 129-grain bullet, I still need 2480 fps to make Major.

Given some advances in powder technology, that might be doable in a few years. A 140-grain bullet only needs 2285 fps, but now we run into another problem: trajectory. Getting a rifle to hit at unknown distances, out to 300 yards, with a 140-grainer going 2285 fps requires a laser rangefinder, trajectory table and a lot of practice. It isn’t going to happen in a run-and-gun USPSA/IPSC match. So our dual-use 6.8 is going to make a crackerjack police sniper rifle, but a less than fun competition rifle. The 110-grainerss going 2600 fps mean we’ll have to deal with a 260 PF versus 5.56 rifle equipped competitors shooting 160-PF loads. The extra recoil is going to hurt our times. However, if we consider USPSA/IPSC competition as practice for the real world, then what other shooter’s recoil is, is not a matter for us to consider. We’re using the tool we’re using and getting better with practice.

The PRI carbon fiber upper on the M4 lower.If you want something fast to handle, but hard-hitting on the sharp end, here’s your gun.

PRI makes 6.8 magazines for your PRI 6.8 rifle. Solid, reliable, and much-needed. You cannot run a 6.8 using 5.56 magazines.

While working on this rifle, I had more than one person ask me why I was re-inventing the wheel. After all, others make 6.8 rifles ready to go, right? Yes they do, but…

Precision Reflex

In the course of working on the book I had a chance to lay hands on a number of 6.8 rifles. One of the interesting ones was built on a PRI upper. Actually, a pair of uppers. Precision Reflex makes, among other things, carbon fiber forearms, rings, bases, flip-up front sights, and magazines. In fact, they were the ones who initially supplied 6.8 magazines to our military. As an aside, you may see some PRI magazines with baseplates wider than the tube. That was a request from the government. They wanted magazines that could be told from the 5.56 magazines in the dark. The problem with such an arrangement, at least in rifles, is that the baseplates can get hooked on each other in your web gear. You yank one out, and another gets pulled free to drop onto the ground. The redesign called for flush baseplates.

The PRI 6.8 uppers came two ways, one as an aluminum-tubed forearm and the other as the PRI carbon fiber tubed forearm. The aluminum one was nice, but heavy. If you need the weight to deal with recoil, go for it. Otherwise, I’m all for the carbon fiber. So much so that my DMR, in 5.56, was built with a PRI carbon fiber forearm. The forearm has four rails for mounting lights, lasers and such. The rails can be removed if you like or moved around. If you don’t want the long rail on top, just swap it around. The front sight is a PRI folding unit. The button on the left side locks it both in the up and down positions.

The PRI barrel came with a PRI comp on it. Not that the 6.8 needs a comp to tame the recoil, but competition shooters want them, and the PRI is quite an effective comp. It dampens both back and up recoil, although it is a bit blasty for team use. (Heck, all comps are blasty for team use except the Noveske and the secret project I’m working on.) At the back, PRI built it with the most-excellent ARMS 40 folding BUIS, and a flat-top upper.

The PRI 6.8 upper getting a workout on the Patrol Rifle drills. Accurate, controllable, desirable.

The PRI uppers fit on all the lowers I had to test, about two dozen total. I ended up running the carbon fiber one on two lowers for the most part. One is an A2 lower with solid stock and match trigger, for the accuracy testing, and an M4 type lower with an Vltor stock on it, for the handling drills and testing. The solid stock lower had the workhorse Leupold M/LT 3-9 mounted in LaRue base for target work. When using the Vltor-stocked lower I just ran it with the iron sights.

Feeding it were PRI magazines. At 25 rounds per, and the same length as standard 5.56 magazines, you aren’t giving up much capacity. You’re adding a bit of weight (the PRI mags are steel) and recoil, but that is a small price to pay.

Simply put, the PRI 6.8 is a tack driver. I had it along with the Sniper 6.8, and the PRI, with a shorter barrel, shot head-to-head with the longer barrel and the heavier rifle. As far as accuracy is concerned, if you want it in a 6.8, you simply must be feeding your rifle Hornady ammo. Sub-MOA groups at 100 yards were a given. The PRI rifle is so accurate that it would serve well as a police sniper just as it is. With the scope in place, and the GG&G bipod mounted to the bottom rail, you’re in business. The comp may make life un-fun for your observer, but you won’t have any problems with fast follow-up shots.

In the drills, the PRI was a pleasure to shoot. I could do our standard drills on the square range without a problem. The 6.8 recoil didn’t cause any problems with making the time limits. On the National Guard popups, I could dump the 300 meter targets without a problem, and continued my years-long record of clean scores with anything reasonable I brought to the class. (Hey, expecting a 300-meter hit with an MP5 is ludicrous, even on a bet and with a full magazine.)

As a patrol rifle, the PRI 6.8 would be great, with a few changes. I’d change the comp for a regular flash hider. I’d also find some way of marking departmental magazines so there would be no way to confuse the 5.56 mags with the 6.8 mags. As a police sniper rifle, the PRI is every bit as good as the one I built. Perhaps you would want a 20" barrel instead of a 16, but then again, why? Yes, you’d gain a bit more velocity, but by also gaining bulk and weight. For the accuracy this one delivers (and I’m sure they all do) do you need a bit more velocity? Now, if you want a 20" version, PRI makes it. They also offer 16-inchers in 6.8 and 5.56, magazines, ammo and all the sights and scope mounts you’d need to fully trick out your rifle, any rifle.

You want a ready-to-go 6.8? Look into the PRI for a real tack-driver.

The PRI comp is clearly marked as to who makes it and what caliber it is meant for. If you’re confused, you have only yourself to blame.

MANUFACTURERS

The .50 Beowulf carbine is a handy, hard-hitting carbine that puts the “bang” in banging away.

ALEXANDER ARMS

Well-forged, well-machined and marked all over identifies an Alexander Arms.

This one came with a POF Predator railed forearm on it.

The top rail of the POF continues over the receiver rail. It pits the scope a bit too high for me, but my testers didn’t notice.

With their manufacturing facility and offices in the Radford Arsenal, leased from the Army, Alexander arms has a leg up in getting their rifles considered by the military, should the government ever decide the 5.56 isn’t “enough” cartridge. What they offer is a selection of out-of-the-ordinary rifles.

Having spent many years in the UK designing and building firearms, Bill Alexander had some ideas that were “out of the box.” The three that came to light were the .50 Beowulf, the 6.5 Grendel, and the .221 Genghis. The Genghis is not on the scene anymore. The idea was a good one: chamber the most popular rifle in America, the AR, with a dirt-cheap imported round, the 5.45X39 Soviet. The usual thought is to go with the near-ubiquitous 7.62X39, but getting that cartridge to feed in the AR isn’t easy. The 5.45X39 is an easier task. However, it failed to live up to expectations. Not the performance expectations, the sales expectations. I guess there weren’t enough shooters who wanted to shoot dirt-cheap ammo, even in an odd caliber. Me, I’m happy shooting my AK-47s in 5.45 and wish there was a steady supply of Genghis rifles. Now, they’re a custom-order proposition.

The .50 Beowulf

The .50 Beowulf is a .50-caliber straight wall case, with a loaded OAL. as long as will fit and feed in a standard AR magazine. Unlike the .502 Thunder Sabre, which has a mag tube filler, the Beowulf fills the magazine tube. Like the T-S, the Beowulf is made with the same rim and body diameter as the .50 Action Express. So you can use .50 AE loading dies to reload your cases, which will be an attractive option for those owning and shooting the Beowulf. Currently, ammunition is priced at $25 for twenty rounds. But then, any new cartridge in limited supply is going to cost you more than the common stuff. Reloading is certain to bring the per-bang cost down.

If you wanted irons on your .50, you can mount them on the gas block.

The muzzle brake looks good, but I’d be tempted to experiment and see if I couldn’t do better.

The Beowulf rifle is an interesting item. The one sent was a carbine, with a POF Predator forearm, and an Vltor Clubfoot stock. Up front, the Beowulf has a muzzle brake installed. Considering the ballistics, sending the Beowulf with a brake installed was a wise choice. Not everyone wants to shoot a 325-grain bullet at 1,900 fps out of a relatively lightweight rifle. Considering the ballistics, I’d call anything under ten pounds a lightweight rifle, and the Beowulf tips the scale at eight and three-quarters. The barrel is portly, but it has to be, with a .50-caliber bore. The gas block is pinned to the barrel with a pair of solid pins, and has a picatinny rail flat-top to install a front sight.

The handguard is a railed POF tactical, with vertical foregrip. The forend is their “Predator,” which is built by means of an aluminum tube with picatinny rails bolted to it. The size is not bad, although one of my test crew with smaller hands found it large-ish when handled and fired with gloves on. The POF handguard has an integral rail that rides over the flat top of the M4-type receiver. The combination raises your optics a bit higher than they would otherwise be. Most of my testers either didn’t notice or care, but I found the scope height to be a bit more than I am accustomed to.

The upper is standard, with ejector lump and forward assist, but the ejection port cover is missing. I guess that’s for the oversized brass. The lower is a standard double push-pin, with Alexander Arms markings both on the address area and the magazine well. The buffer in the rifle sent was a standard-weight shorty buffer, which I found surprising. I would have thought an “H” or an “H2” buffer would be used in the .50 Beowulf, so their greater mass could dampen cyclic rate. The buffer also showed signs of having been used quite a bit, even though the rifle sent appeared to be newly-built for this test. The trigger parts are all standard “M-16 modified to AR” parts. The trigger pull was box-stock AR-15/M-16 spec, with a bit of creep. The trigger pull is entirely adequate for any qualification course or hunting application you’d put the .50 to. As a plain trigger, I imagine it might give a High Power shooter fits at the 600-yard line, but the Beowulf isn’t a 600-yard cartridge. Just as a test I took the .50 Beowulf upper off and installed a standard 5.56 M4 upper. It fit and functioned properly, and I had no problem shooting a 300/30X score on the NEMRT qualification course. So, it is clear that all modifications to the Alexander Arms to accommodate the .50 Beowulf are done to the upper.

The stock on the Beowulf is a Vltor. Using a mil-spec buffer tube (not all telestocks use properly-dimensioned buffer tubes) the Vltor has several advantages over some other: the buttplate is checkered aggressively enough to have a non-skid surface. The side tubes hold spare batteries. And the side tubes provide a better cheekrest than standard sliders do. The better cheekrest advantage was somewhat offset by the POF forearm and its extended rail. The rail held the optics (the Beowulf came with a Holosight installed) higher than I like. I have a long, rather skinny face, and many rifles hold their optics too high for me.

The puzzling part was the tube installation. Telestocks are held to the lower receiver by means of a “castle” nut, a locking nut with slots cut in its edges. On the AR telestock, the large notches go out, away from the receiver. The small notches go in. The large notches are the locking points for your wrench, to tighten the nut. The small notches are for the assembler to stake the receiver backplate to the telestock castle nut. The Alexander Arms castle nut was on backwards, and not staked. Then again, in looking at literally dozens of rifles just for this book and having seen several thousand in training, competition and as a gunsmith, few castle nuts are staked any more. That minor quibble aside, the Alexander Arms rifle appeared well-built. I have not found any of the occasional “oops” marks that I’ve seen on some rifles. You know, the wrench slipped, the screwdriver skidded, the padding on the vise had some grit in it sort of marks. The AA .50 Beowulf had none of those marks.

Considering the .50 Beowulf a 100-yard cartridge might be stretching things to some. But it has the accuracy.

In case you take them apart and get things mixed up, Alexander Arms marks the uppers and lowers of the 6.5s.

My testing was somewhat limited. With a total of 80 rounds to work with, I managed to shoot some groups, get chronograph data, and do a few impromptu tests on penetration and expansion. The recoil of the Beowulf is stout, even with the muzzle brake. The 335-grain hollowpoints and full metal jacket bullets went out the muzzle right around 1,850 fps, which translates to a Power Factor of right around 620. Where a handgun Major is 165 and a rifle Major is 320 for USPSA/IPSC competition, a 620 PF is pretty much in the ballpark for a 12-gauge slug. I’d hate to think what the recoil would be without the muzzle brake. Given a choice of with or without, I can’t imagine a situation where I’d opt for the “without the muzzle brake” option. I have to confess one thing about the NEMRT qualification course: I cheated a bit. The 75-yard firing string calls for ten rounds prone, starting from standing. No way was I going to shoot the Beowulf from prone without extra padding. Go ahead and call me wimpy if you like. I’d suggest you shoot ten rounds of full-power 12-gauge slug from prone before you get too eager to dis me. Anyway, I used a folded towel between my shoulder and the buttstock, just to make it comfortable enough. (Hey, I had a dozen other rifles along on that range trip. I can’t let one beat me up.) As aggressive as the muzzle brake looks, I think I’d be swapping it out for something more efficient, were this rifle mine. With apologies to Bill, I think I can do better.

As for accuracy, the Beowulf has it. Fifty-yard groups were simply ragged holes through the target and backer. Penetration tests were somewhat frustrating. I did not have enough ballistic gelatin to stop any of the slugs. Two sections end-to-end didn’t even begin to stop the FMJ. The hollowpoint might have stopped in a third if I’d had a third handy. Chance obstacles, the kind of things an opponent might hide behind, were usually perforated by the FMJ. Light sheet metal, like car doors, would offer no protection. However, lacking a car door handy to shoot, I don’t know what the internal mechanisms might do. My experience, compared to what shotguns do, is that the jacketed and harder slug of the Beowulf would do better than usual shotgun slugs, which often don’t penetrate doors. The Beowulf would probably work as well or a bit better than the Brenneke, which does make it into vehicles.

The AA DMR is one accurate-shooting machine.

The only thing I’d do differently (and I did) on the 6.5 DMR Bill sent would be to swap the 1-4X for a 3.5-10X scope. Which I did.

The Beowulf uses unmodified AR-15/M-15 magazines. Loading the mags takes a bit of fumbling at first. Being so wide, the cartridges do not stagger in the magazine but stack singly. You have to load them much like you load a 1911 magazine, by pushing the top round down and then sliding the next round in over. As the Beowulf rounds are much longer than .45 ACP, the top round wants to porpoise on you. Watching someone try it for the first time can be mildly amusing. Once you get the hang of it, there’s no problem.

Reloading the Beowulf shouldn’t be a big deal. Basically it is an extra-long .50 AE case. (There are dimensional differences between the rim diameters of the various .50 AR rounds.) Alexander Arms has loading data on their web page. As the rifle had to go back after only a short visit, I wasn’t able to try my hand at reloading. However, it is simply a really long handgun round (as far as the reloading process goes) and should not pose any problems.

The 6.5 Grendel

The 6.5 had as its starting point a different objective from the 6.8 Remington SPC, something usually overlooked in the “6.5 vs. 6.8” wrangles. Bill Alexander developed it looking for a hunting cartridge, not a tactical/combat cartridge. He took as his base cartridge the 7.62X39 case, and using Lapua brass (most excellent brass, by the way) he blew the shoulder out and necked it down. By blowing the shoulder out he removed the taper that causes so many problems in the AR system. Necking it down got him bullets with a better ballistic coefficient. (Lapua small-rifle-primer brass, for the pedants among you.)

The BC of a bullet is a measure of the drag a bullet has. Once launched a bullet has only its momentum to overcome the resistance of air. The less drag a bullet has, the less momentum it loses overcoming air resistance. A 120 grain .308” bullet has a BC of .279. (The unit of measure doesn’t really matter, just keep in mind that when it comes to BC, more is better.) A 120-grain 6.5 bullet can have a BC as high as .421. The difference, if they are launched at the same velocity (“not bloody likely,” as Bill would say) is that the 6.5 would drop two and a half inches less at 300 yards, given a 200-yard zero. Of course, running the 6.5 so your 120-grain bullets are loping along at 2,300 fps is silly. The rifle, cases and bullets are capable of more.

The Magpul PRS stock is adjustable for everything but nap time.

Horus makes good scopes, but the 1-4X Bill had to send me on the test DMR is not what I’d select for a medium to long-range shooting rifle.

At the upper end of 6.5 ballistics, the drop difference becomes much greater: the 120-grainer going 2600 fps drops a mere 9 inches, compared to the 7.62X39 14.4 inches. The mid-range trajectory difference matters also. With a 200-yard zero, the 100 yard trajectory/point of impact is 1.8 inches for the 6.5 and 3.2 inches for the 7.62X39. If you stretch the “combat” range to 400 yards, the differences become greater.

Bill, never one to do things in small amounts, sent me three different 6.5 rifles: an M4, with a 14.5” barrel and a permanently attached flash hider to bump the whole thing up past 16 inches; a 16” inch M4; and a DMR. The two M4s had many things in common: neither had a mil-spec buffer tube, and the buffer inside was the standard weight, not on of the “H” or H2” buffers. The castle nuts were not staked. Their barrels weren’t marked, but their front sight housings were the “F” marked correct height towers for flat-top carbines. Neither flat-top had numerical markings in the slots. (No big deal, unless you’re anal about being mil-spec “correct” to impress your mall ninja buddies.) The lowers were marked with Alexander Arms, caliber, with the “AA” logo of Alexander Arms. To make sure there was no confusion, the uppers were also marked with the caliber, on the left side.

The M4 shorty had fat handguards, a modified M16 carrier with light staking on the carrier key, and a decent trigger, with a slight click as you brought pressure on, and then steady location until you got to the full trigger weight. At six and a quarter pounds bare, the M4 was quite a thumper in 6.5. Adding a BUIS and a loaded magazine didn’t add much weight. A 120-grain bullet at 2500 fps is going to have twice the recoil of a 5.56 and then some. You’re not going to get your bigger-caliber bonus without paying for it.

The sixteen-inch AA came with a Midwest Industries forearm, an EOTech Holosight, and a Midwest BUIS. As a result, it was a bit more portly. At close to eight pounds, the weight helped offset the recoil of the 6.5. internally, both the hammer and carrier were modified M-16 parts, common in the AR world. The MI handguards made the forearm a bit larger than the M4 “phat” handguards did, but not so much it would be a problem. The trigger on the longer carbine was a bit lighter, but a bit creepy. Lest you think I’m saying bad things about Bill’s triggers, they were both well within mil-spec in weight, and posed no problems in hitting targets.

The DMR was a rifle of a different type altogether. First, the stock was the Magpul PRS, an adjustable stock for precision shooting. The handguards were LaRue twelve-inch, stout enough to be an impact weapon by itself. Up top was a LaRue quick detachable mount with a Horus Vision 1-4X scope in it. Underneath the scope was a Troy BUIS, matched with a folding front from Troy. The Harris bipod provided a solid shooting rest. The gas block was a low-profile block threaded for a suppressor. (Alas, no “can” with the rifle.) The trigger was an Alexander Arms Tactical Trigger, a tuned single stage assembly that provided a very nice, clean, crisp but not too light trigger pull. Out front was a flash hider. If you wish to swap out the AA flash hider for another, the 6.5 Grendel barrels are threaded 3/4-28. That way you can’t fit a 5.56 flash hider or muzzle brake on a 6.5, and find out the hard way that the bullet is too large.

Never one to do things in a little way, Bill Alexander sent me three rifles to test.

With an empty magazine, but no sling, the DMR tipped the scales at 11-3/4 pounds.

Accuracy was good to superb. Given the recoil, I did not expect that I could shoot MOA groups with either of the M4s, regardless of what scope I put on them. They were, however, fully capable of going 20/20 on the computer popups. After a morning of quals and drills with various 5.56 rifles the recoil of the 6.5 does shove you around in the concrete foxhole some. But not like a .308 would. The DMR was different.

Given the weight, the trigger and the ammunition, I expected a lot. And I got it. The ammo is one or another Lapua or Sierra bullet loaded in Lapua-made 6.5 Grendel cases. Lapua makes good ammo. I know; I’ve been to the factory and seen the lengths they go to. The Horus scope, however, was not what I needed. Fine for fast, close shooting, a 1-4X variable is not what you want when you go to shoot tight groups. So I pried the Horus in its LaRue off, and installed the Leupold 3.5-10X in its LaRue. Once I’d re-zeroed, I could punch sub-MOA groups. How “sub” were they? Not very, but that’s my fault. As I explained to Dave Fortier, who was very curious about my impressions, I use entirely too much caffeine these days to be a good benchrest shooter. If I get down to half an inch, I’m happy. So, that a rifle can shoot sub-MOA all the time is a clear indication that I’m the limiting factor.

The DMR was plenty good to show off on the computer range. Once I’d shot a 20, I then limited myself to head shots on all the targets. After a few runs I recalculated the trajectory and adjusted my zero. Once I was 2.5 inches high at 100 yards, I could simply hold on the heads all the way past 250. At 300 I simply had to hold the crosshairs at the top of the head, and get a hit. Piece of cake.

So, what is the 6.54 Grendel good for? On the short and light end, I think the 6.5 is for the Tier One operators: those who regularly practice, who pay attention to their gear, and who are not only not afraid of, but not bothered by recoil. Not that the recoil of the 6.5 is all that stout, but if you have not put in your time, you won’t get the benefits. You might even go backwards. In law enforcement training, we see that the 5.56 is “in the cusp.” That is, it is strong enough, but not too much in recoil. It is plenty accurate. With the right bullet, bad guys drop where they’re shot. If you take someone who got a couple of days of training when they were issued their rifle, and a day of “practice and qualification” once a year, they won’t be able to stay on top of it. The SWAT guys will, but not the patrol officers.

You need 6.5 Grendel specific magazines to feed your rifle, but they are readily available and certainly reliable.

The 5.56 (left) is felt to be wanting by some. The 6.5 shoots a 120-grain bullet 300 fps faster than the 7.62X39. As for the big bruiser .50 Beowulf on the right, yes, it kicks as hard as it looks.

On the other end, I think there is a real future for the 6.5. Take the police sniper (oops, “marksman”) and take his bolt-action .308 with the ten-power scope away. Issue a 6.5 Grendel with a 3.5-10X variable. He’ll be able to do everything with the 6.5 (once there are bullets for LE use) that he could with the .308 and more. He’ll be able to do fast follow-up shots, for one thing. For military use, the 6.5 with the right load stays supersonic to 1200 yards. That means inside of 800 to 1,000 yards the 6.5 works as well or better than the .308. Past that, issue .338 Lapua Magnum rifles. Why not a .308 AR? A 6.5 fits in the same package as the AR-15/M-16. Gun cases, mag pouches, the uppers and lowers themselves. To go to a .308 you have to scale up just about everything. The more you try to keep commonality, the more compromised the end result is.

Will police change? Some might. I think the “.308 bolt gun” mentality is so ingrained in law enforcement that not many will change. And the military? It would take a Presidential Directive to get the services out of the 5.56/.308/.50BMG circle. A shame, too.

DOW ARMS

Marked as a Dow rifle, the lower was made by Mega Machine, a first-class maker of lowers. Then Dow built it into a rifle.

Not every one walks to the beat of the same drum. At Dow Arms, Bruce Dow makes ARs the way he wants to. I noticed the Dow Arms booth at one of the SHOT shows, and the first thing I noticed about the Dow Arms AR was that the stock and forearm were wood. The second thing I noticed, when my editor dragged me back, was that it was a 6.8 Remington SPC. The DOW FAL-15 uses an FAL front sight assembly with the top machined to accept an M1 Garand or M-14 front sight blade. Although FAL on the outside, it still has a standard AR gas system underneath the handguards. On the upper, the rear of the upper receiver where the charging handle would be is plugged, and the carrier has a side handle to cycle the bolt. The new charging handle does not reciprocate with the carrier. The upper is also octagonal, partly so the left side has room for the charging handle and components, and to stiffen the upper. The flat top has picatinny rail slots in it.

The rear of the octagonal upper is closed off, since the side-handle charging handle doesn’t need it.

The Dow FAL-15 proved easy to handle, soft in recoil and very much fun to shoot.

The lower is marked as a Dow with caliber and serial number, but the trigger mechanism sideplate has the machining makers name on it: Mega Machine. No matter. Dow is not alone in having someone with an expensive investment in CNC milling stations do the actual lower fabrication. The resulting A2 lower is excellent in all details.

The stock is walnut, with the hole for the buffer tube bored through a blank and then the rest profiled to be an AR stock. The forearms are re-shaped FAL handguards, and very comfortable. I recall seeing a few ARs back in the old days with wood stocks. Usually, what they were was someone’s attempt at laminating wood veneers onto standard stocks. Depending on the skill of the person doing the work, it could look anywhere from pretty good to simply awful. Dow Arms gets around that by doing it right: by making them out of solid wood. The barrel, as mentioned, is in 6.8 Remington SPC, and lacked a flash hider. Bruce Dow makes precision rifles. Sniper rifles, to be precise, and he felt that the 6.8 doesn’t have enough flash to worry about, and didn’t want to have anything interfere with accuracy. As-shipped, the FAL-15 came with an IOR Valdada combat scope on it, and PRI magazines. The flat top will accommodate any optic that will clamp to a picatinny rail, and you can use either PRI or CProducts 6.8 magazines without any problems.

Too bad the Hornady V-Max arrived too late to let us test it in the Dow.

Now I only had a chance to test the Dow FAL-15 for a short time period. I managed to get it from Bruce in-between other testers, so I had little choice about range time or ammo. At the time, only the Remington ammunition was available, and we’ve since learned that the early lots of Remington ammo were, shall we say, casual in accuracy. Later Hornady V-Max and boattail ammunition is much more accurate. Combine that with the IOR low-power optic, and I had my work cut out for me. Still, I was able to punch two-inch groups from the bench, at 100 yards. Considering the cold and wind, the ammo, and my un-benchrest-like shooting skills, that was pretty good.

The FAL front sight housing is there for the sight, not the gas system.

The handguards are solid, no veneers, and do a good job of protecting your hands.

As a custom maker with his own name on the lowers, Dow can make pretty much whatever you want, but like all gunsmiths prefers to work within an area of comfort and performance. Do not expect him to be slapping together a rifle at the lowest cost for you to go out and blast ammo at the local shooting pit. He builds extremely accurate rifles that perform. I wish I’d had a chance to try the FAL-15 with a Leupold scope with more magnification on it, and with Hornady ammo. I’m sure we’d have seen some real eye-popping groups.

Two inches, in the cold, in the wind, with the low-power scope and the ammo? Pretty darned good, I’d say.

DPMS AP-4

The lines of the lower show it is machined from a billet, which I do not find a problem.

The Phantom-type flash hider does a good job of reducing or eliminating muzzle flash.

DPMS is Randy Luth. Besides being a savvy business man, and a vigorous promoter of three-gun competition, Randy is always looking to push the envelope. Thus, the AP-4. Basically it is a scaled-up AR in .308, with the DPMS touches we have come to expect. The AP-4 was selected as the Golden Bullet Firearm of the year by the NRA for 2006. As well it should have been.

Up top, the AP-4 receiver is machined from a 6066 T-6 extrusion. The lower is machined from a 6061 T-6 billet. Why extrusions and billets, instead of forgings? All standard forgings are too small, being scaled for 5.56 rifles. To make a .308 rifle, DPMS would have to invest in proprietary forging dies, find a forging shop, and then teach them the intricacies of forgings the new, larger, platters. Machined extrusions and billets can be plenty tough, and certainly tough enough for the job of a Stoner-system rifle. Nobody is more snobbish about quality than I am, and I’m happy with a properly-machined billet cut from correctly tempered and anodized aluminum, which the AP-4 has.

The 4140 barrel is rifled 1:10, a standard and very useful twist for a .30 caliber rifle. It will stabilize bullets in any weight you’re likely to be pushing through a 16” carbine, and the Black Hills 175-grain match loads had no problems at all. The barrel is stepped, like that of the M4, and features a Phantom-type flash hider.

The DPMS BUIS is so substantial it could be used as an impact weapon even off of the rifle. On the rifle, it is a great sight.

The forward assist appears to have nothing to push forward, but it does. Just don’t use it to hammer a bent round into the chamber. That’s the wrong job for it.

The mag button is recessed into the rear of the magazine well step. Not traditional, but it works well.

The controls are standard AR-15, so you won’t have any problems figuring out how to use it, take it down, clean it, etc.

The carrier is chromed and takes the usual approach given to .308 Stoner rifles: the rear section of the carrier is smaller in diameter than the front portion, so it will fit within standard-dimension buffer tubes. Yes, you could make the carrier full-diameter, but everything else would have to be larger, too: the buffer tube and the stock over it. Your face would be farther up, too. The upper receiver has a brass deflector and forward assist, even though the carrier doesn’t have notches for the assist to catch on. Customers wanted a forward assist. So DPMS installed one. However, the lack of notches doesn’t keep the forward assist from working. Some decry the forward assist, but if you know when to use it (and more importantly, when not to use it) it can be a very useful tool. Basically, use it to close the action after you’ve done a loaded chamber check. That’s it, the only time. Up top the AP-4 has the DPMS BUIS, which is a solid, even substantial, sight. However, as the top rail is a standard Mil-1913, you could put any BUIS up there.

The front sight is a standard casting, and the barrel loops simply machined to take the .30-caliber barrel.

The stock is a standard M4 stock, and you can swap the slider as long as you get something in the non mil-spec diameter, a nominal 1.170”.

The lower receiver fence around the magazine button is not shaped like that of the M-16/AR-15. It is a continuation of the wide section of the magazine well, with the button recessed into the mag well wall. All the controls are simply 5.56 AR-15 controls and functions.

The forearm is the one place where I have to disagree with Randy and the crew. The one sent me has a solid tubular aluminum forearm, with grooves running most of the tube length. I gave up on solid tubes a long time ago, due to their weight and heat retention. I’d rather see a railed handguard, or a carbon fiber one to take a bit of weight out of the rifle. Not that it is heavy, at eight and a half pounds empty, but everything adds up. The less weight you start with, the less weight you have at the end, when you’re fully geared up.

You may recall the DPMS .308 we tested in Volume 1 of this book. That one was meant as a long-range, precision rifle. Weight was not as much of a consideration. The AP-4, as a patrol carbine or infantry carbine, should start out as light as possible. The previous rifle was made during the egregious AWB/94 era, and the magazines were a problem. Those old ones were plastic, the new ones are not, and they are exemplary. Made of steel, they are said to be interchangeable with magazines for the SR-25. I don’t have an SR-25 to test, so I can’t say for sure, but they sure look the same. They fed reliably, they certainly won’t break like the plastic ones, and they fit nicely into M-14 magazine pouches.

The buffer tube and stock are standard non mil-spec M4 style. You can swap accessories to your heart’s content.

What you really want are things like accuracy, recoil and reliability. Well, there the DPMS AP-4 does not disappoint. Accuracy, for a lightweight .308 autoloader, was quite good. Fed some of my crusty old Radway Green 7.62 ammo it shot as all rifles fed that stuff do: somewhere between 2 and 3 MOA. I lucked onto a truckload of it years ago, and have been shooting it ever since. It is headstamped as having been made in 1969, it all goes bang, but it certainly wasn’t made as match ammo. For that you need to look into something like Federal Gold Match 168s, or Black Hills match 168s or 175s. There, the AP-4 did much better, with groups hovering in the 1.5 MOA area. I’m sure with a match trigger instead of the mil-spec one, I could manage tighter groups. But getting shoved around by a lightweight rifle, a mil-spec trigger, and trying to keep the tube running consistently on the sandbags, I’ll be happy with 1.5 MOA. As for recoil, it is everything you’d expect in a rifle that starts at 8.5 pounds empty. You know there is something going on, but you aren’t getting beaten up by it.

If you want a light, compact, .308 rifle, then the AP-4 certainly merits consideration. Me, I’d probably make a few changes if this rifle were sticking around. I’d certainly swap the forearm for something else. Probably something railed, or maybe railed and carbon fiber. I’d swap the flash hider for either a scaled-up Noveske “Krink” hider or build a low-profile comp. Were I to be using it in a team environment, I’d make a low-profile comp that took a bit of steam out of the recoil without abusing my team members. And last, I’d swap the DPMS BUIS for something folding, and put optics up top. Something with low magnification, maybe a 1-4X Leupold in LaRue rings. One of the big advantages of the .308 is power at a distance. But distance shooting with iron sights isn’t normal in today’s world.

Whatever I did, if I wasn’t sending this one back, the DPMS AP-4 is a solid, dependable platform on which to build. Or leave alone and shoot as-is. Hey, it’s a free country, right? Knock yourself out making it exactly what you want.

HIGH STANDARD

Lowers marked on both sides.

Barrels clearly marked as one turn in nine inches.

Old timers will remember High Standard as the makers of a first-class rimfire target pistol, an interesting Flite King shotgun, and the very interesting Model 10 shotgun. The Flite King and Model 10 are no more. The pistol is once again being made by the new High Standard Manufacturing Company, along with a variety of 1911 pistols. There are no two hotter market segments in the modern firearms manufacturing and sales world than the 1911 and the AR-15.

The High Standard ARs are currently four in number. An A2 rifle and carbine and a flat-top rifle and carbine. High Standard sent me an A2 rifle and a flat-top carbine. The lower forgings are A2, with the large strengthening radius at the front pivot pin and the larger boss around the buffer tube threads. The color of the upper and lower is a dark, flat gray-black. The finish is uniformly matte and the rollmarks are restrained and simple text. Were you looking for a lower to modify for a Retro rifle, the High Standard shows a great deal of promise. No need to worry about logos or rollmarks making your AR look other than “1965” in appearance.

The lowers are marked “Safe” and “Fire” on both sides. The safety lever is standard mil-spec. The buffer tube on the carbine is the non mil-spec diameter, a nominal 1.170” and the castle nut holding the rear plate on is not staked. Provided you don’t plan to change stocks, and the castle nut is torqued in tight enough to stay, both are minor quibbles. The pistol grip is an A2 on both. The lower performed correctly in all testing, the magazines went into place smoothly and without binding, dropped free when the mag button was pushed, and locked the bolt back when empty. There were no sharp edges or toolmarks on the upper or lower.

The uppers are A2 all the way. The ejection port and the forward assist are separated by the ejection “lump.” That pyramid is there for left-handed shooters. I never really gave the lump much thought, as even when I shot left-handed rifles and carbines didn’t bother me.

Standard controls, pistol grips, finish, everything.

My friend Jeff Chudwin, trying to test-fire an M16A1 left-handed one day (and without the lump), showed me how hard it can be. Every other empty was grazing his face, arm or ricocheting off his earmuffs. Ouch. So unless you really, really have to have that Retro AR, don’t complain about the lump. The ejection port door spring was assembled incorrectly on both rifles. Another minor point, but I’ve built over a hundred ARs myself, and inspected a couple of thousand more, and little things like that can be bothersome. Were they mine I would be compelled to strip the rifle to get the spring the right way around, but that’s just me. The flat-top carbine was not numbered in the rail slots.

The carbine comes with a standard M4 stock on it. Not a mil-spec tube, alas.

The handguards are modern in composition but the carbine is the CAR diameter, and not the M4 diameter. If you want the double heat shields and larger size, you’ll have to swap the handguards out. For those of us who find the CAR handguards just fine, no need to change anything.

The bolts and carriers are unmarked, but properly machined/ground and phosphated. The carrier is a modified M-16, with the firing pin shrouded and the auto sear shoulder milled back. The carrier key is properly and heavily staked on both rifles. The bolts were unmarked, and the extractors had standard springs (not the new gold-color extra-strength) with blue inserts. Gold springs and black inserts are the new standard, but these two demonstrated their ability with the older extractor tension by never failing.

The buffer tube castle nut isn’t staked, but not many are. No big deal if it is tight enough to stay.

The ejector lump takes a hit and thus protects your face from the brass. I don’t notice, but lefties can have big problems otherwise.

High Standard marked on the mag well, a boon to someone looking for a “Retro” rifle project lower.

The barrels are all one turn in nine inches, the modern compromise for all-around use. The markings on the barrel look very much like those on some other makers, so I suspect High Standard is getting its barrels from a big maker. If my suspicions are correct, they are getting them from a big behind-the-scenes manufacturer, and you are getting a first-class barrel on your rifle, which is how well they shot. The carbine was marked “5.56 1-9” while the rifle was simply marked “1-9.” I had no malfunctions with any ammo, from factory-new XM-193 to wimpy reloads, to steel-cased Wolf and the new Wolf Performance ammo. When fed what they liked (the carbine, Black Hills 52-grain match hollowpoint; the rifle, Wolf Performance) they were both contenders for one-MOA performances. The only thing holding them back were the triggers, but almost MOA with a military-weight trigger is not something to be ashamed of. The carbine barrel has the M4 contour, with the relief notch cut for mounting an M-203 carbine version.

The front sight housing is not “F” marked but is the correct height for a flat-top. So you won’t have any problems mounting a BUIS to the High Standard carbine. The A2 barrel is a semi-H-Bar contour, with a straight diameter of .875” underneath the handguards. Heavy enough to make it steady in offhand, but not so heavy you feel like you’re trying to shoot a railroad tie.

Both rifles had all the current niceties. The flash hiders were both the A2, with closed slots on the bottom. The carbine has an M4 stock, with stiffening ridges underneath the tube and no sling loop on the upper rear. The stock of the rifle was the A2, full length and great for target shooting. But also too long for use with body armor, but that is a concern of a small subset of the AR community. The A2 rear sight wings have the deeper markings, not the shallow ones we see on some rifles. (Probably a particular subcontractor makes those. They don’t change anything about the function of the sights.) Both rifles were correctly zeroed right out of the box, needing only a click or two to get them set up for me. Once given a NEMRT zero, I was able to drop the computer pop-ups out to 300 meters, and shoot a passing score on the qual course. (300-27X with the carbine, 300-30X with the A2. The A2 trigger was nicer, thus the three extra Xs.)

The high Standard A2 is pretty much what a Marine or soldier would be issued. No select-fire (rats) and the barrel is straight contour under the handguards.

The A2 ejected the empties behind, at a 45-degree angle. The carbine tossed them forward, again at a 45-degree angle. By AR standards they ejected consistently, leaving brass within a three-foot circle when a magazine was finished. In the course of putting a carton of Black Hills and another carton of assorted ammo (XM-193, Wolf, Radway Green, some truly wretched Portuguese and some brilliant South African), neither of the High Standard rifles gave me any problems at all.

So, what to do with them? High Standard offers four models, the four most popular versions of the AR-15. Do they offer something that one of the rest of the host of AR makers doesn’t? Not really. You can’t get other calibers, only 5.56. You can’t get barrels other than twenty or sixteen inches. No select-fire (only an option for police departments, unfortunately) and no extras. You get a rifle or carbine, in a cardboard box, with a magazine. But you get a basic rifle that is reliable, accurate, zeroed and ready to be modified howsoever you wish. For someone looking to pick up a rifle to turn into a project, or someone who wants a basic rifle and plans to never make a single change, the High Standard offerings are just the thing.

There’s a certain segment of the sales force/marketing field that stresses “value for money.” That is, not trying to squeeze each nickel until the buffalo moos, but also not over-spending for “flash” or name recognition. The High Standard rifle certainly fits the bill.

With a C-More sight on the carbine, Roy is hammering the 200-yard targets.

The full sized rifle was, as expected, soft in recoil and plenty accurate.

LAKESIDE MACHINE

You must make sure your belt is correctly loaded, or you’ll find the Lakeside not at all happy.

Lakeside does not make firearms. They are a custom machine shop and Class 3 dealer who make one of the choicest accessories for AR owners: a belt-fed .22LR upper. Now, .22LR conversion uppers and internals are nothing new. The fact that the .224” bore diameter of the centerfire and the .221” bore diameter of the rimfire make conversion possible has been known for decades. And the military has been using .22LR conversions in a (wrong-headed) attempt to reduce training costs for decades.

The Lakeside .22LR upper is not intended to be a cheap practice conversion, but a mind-blowing fun gun. Lakeside has been making miniature Browning machineguns (semi-only, due to the grossly punitive Hughes Amendment of the FOPA 1986) for years, and has now applied that knowledge to the LM7, the subject of ours inquiry.

The LM7 upper comes as a steel receiver, .22LR barrel, handguards, new buffer, belt boxes and a mag well conversion adapter to hang the belt boxes. You must supply a lower and sights of some kind for all this to find a new home.

The heart of the lakeside conversion is the receiver. Machined from steel and bolted and welded, it holds the bolt, top cover and feed pawl. To attach a barrel, you simply push the barrel into the front of the receiver with the bright flat to the right. Press the barrel lock button (the silver one on the right side) and the barrel will lock home. The threads on the front of the receiver are there to hold your handguards. You can screw on a delta ring assembly and use standard handguards. Or you can screw on just the barrel nut and install railed handguards. Pretty much anything that goes onto a standard AR will fit on the Lakeside LM7. The front sight block looks like a gasblock. It locks in with set screws. Were I setting up an LM7 I think I’d swap out the lakeside front sight block and install something with a higher CDI factor. As the barrel is a straight .750” diameter, you can fit just about anything that goes on a standard AR to your LM7 barrel. The muzzle threads are standard 1/2-28. The receiver has a picatinny rail machined into it for your BUIS or optics. Just how does a belt-fed .22LR work? Anyone who has looked inside of a Maxim or Browning belt-fed will understand everything that is going on. To have a look, push back the latches on the top cover and swing it up. On the bolt (the white thingie you see in the receiver) there is a dogleg-shaped slot. That slot is the actuator channel for the pawl. The bolt goes back and forth, and the slot forces the pawl arm to cycle in and out. It takes with it the feed tray, which shoves the belt forward a bullet’s width each time the bolt cycles. The bolt has a big extractor-looking arm on it. That is the extractor, cartridge remover and ejector. The feed cycle is like this: each round comes up in the belt-feed until it stops at the end of the feed tray. There, the extractor grabs it and hauls it backwards out of the belt. It has to go backwards, for the rim of the .22LR won’t let it go forward. (The same sort of thing happens in a Maxim or Browning. Not all rifle cartridges are rimmed, but it is easier to haul them all backwards, rimmed or not.) The extractor also shoves the round down the bolt face, to line up with the chamber. When the bolt goes forward, the cartridge is chambered.

After firing, the empty is pulled backwards out of the chamber, and pushed down the bolt face again by the next cartridge. They would fall to the ground if you did not have the belt box adapter installed. The two boxes are your belt feed and your belt recovery boxes. The belts are either cloth, like the WWI-era Maxims, Spandaus, Vickers and the rest, or disintegrating plastic. Now, “disintegrating,” in machinegun parlance, does not mean each link falls apart but that the belt falls apart once the rounds are extracted. Each link falls as a separate piece into the recovery box, or on the ground, it you don’t use the box.

There are .22 conversions, and there are .22conversions. The Lakeside is way beyond fun.

There is one catch to all this: you must use the Lakeside buffer spring assembly to work the action. The .22LR, despite running at much the same pressure as the .38 Special or .45 ACP, generates so little energy that you can’t get the rifle to function with the standard buffer and spring. So the buffer with its built-in spring, and one of the two adapter tubes, must be installed in your lower to use the LM7. For those with a rifle stock, install the longer adapter tube. For telestocks, use the shorter adapter. All that may not be enough. Lakeside includes a replacement hammer spring in case your rifle still has to be “leaned out” more.

You have to use the Lakeside buffer assembly in your lower. No big deal; it all swaps in or out in a few seconds.

The heart of the Lakeside is a big steel receiver. It weighs a lot.So what? It’s worth the weight when it’s cool!

Now, those of you who have been asking all along, yes, the LM7 works on select-fire rifles. If you’re lucky enough to have, or have access to, an M-16, you can shoot the LM7 full auto. Full, semi, Lakeside can accommodate you. I must, in all fairness, warn you about some drawbacks. The first is that the conversion unit, like all .22LR units adapted to a centerfire design, may take some tweaking and tuning. You may well find 1) that to get yours running 100% you’ll have to have dedicated hammer and hammer and trigger springs; 2) that you can only use particular .22LR ammunition; and 3) that you may have to basically rebuild your rifle each time you want to swap back and forth. If you’re only doing it to a semi-auto AR-15 then don’t beat around the bush: dedicate a lower to it. Build up a rifle for the LM7 only, and tune and tweak until it runs great.

The bolt is recognizable to anyone who has peered into an early-design belt-fed machinegun.

The second drawback is the feeding mechanism. Not that they don’t work. They do. But loading .22LR into anything – belts, magazines, tubes, whatever – always takes longer than shooting said ammo takes. You’ll spend ten or fifteen minutes loading belts and getting the rounds “just right” for your minute or less of shooting. Shooters who lack patience will view that as a drawback. Me, I just view it as the (minor) cost of fun.

Last, the cost of this beautiful machining in steel is weight. The receiver and bolt alone weigh just shy of three pounds. The barrel, basically a sixteen inch tube .750” in diameter, adds over a pound and a half. With the adapter, boxes and a belt of 100 rounds, you have a conversion weight of seven pounds alone. Add in the weight of a lower and you could be the owner of the world’s heaviest rimfire rifle. You are not going to notice the recoil.

For those who are curious, this is just an upper, like any other, as far as the law is concerned. Well, as far as the ATFE is concerned. I can’t imagine something this fun being allowed in places like California, New Jersey or Illinois, so you’d better make a quick check with your state’s regs before you get all fired up to won an LM7. You probably needn’t worry, but you should be sure.

The barrel presses into place and is locked by the silver button. The threads are for your handguards, regular or railed.

LES BAER

One of my testers, who can obviously use the scope as-sent. Me, I had to move it foreward almost four inches.

In the modern world of tacti-cool M4 carbines, with ever more gear bolted on, the Les Baer is different. Before you can get a grasp of what a Les Baer rifle is all about, you have to know a bit about Les. He is a persnickety machinist who knows tons about building guns, specifically the 1911 and AR-15. He also built and supported a Pro 5.0 Mustang, a super-quick drag racer with elapsed times in the high seven-second range. Now, I am firmly of the opinion that a properly-made 1911 is about as durable as an anvil. But someone who can build a normal (not some nuclear-powered Top Fuel) engine that delivers 7.75 second ETs over the quarter-mile and doesn’t explode, melt down or otherwise break, well, that guy knows something about building mechanisms.

And here’s the real interesting part: Les has his own CNC stations, so he can machine his rifles the way he wants.

The rifle he sent me was an AR .223 Super Varmint. Not the kind of rifle you want to have in an overhead rack in your squad car, or walking the streets of Fallujah. However, if you’re looking to dispatch furry little members of the family rodentia, this is the tool. And, with a little less-tight chamber, it would be a perfect rooftop rifle for a police or military sniper.

As with all rifles the barrel is the heart, so let’s go there first. The rifle carries a pipe of a barrel, heavy and twenty inches long. Made of 416R stainless, it is cut-rifled to one twist in nine inches, and as if that isn’t enough, you can have other choices. You want a slower or faster twist? Eighteen, 22 or 24 inches? No problem. Les can do 1:12, 1:8 or 1:7 twists, in any of the four lengths.

The pistol grip extension, to protect your fingers from long sessions of varmint extermination.

One of the test-fire groups Les sent along with the rifle. The glossy black finish is attractive and durable.

Les can make your upper with or without a forward assist.

The Versa-Pod bipod mount and handstop. It runs in a slot cut in the handguard, and you can adjust it forward or back.

Les marks his uppers. You can’t get them except by buying a rifle.

Les machines his own carriers and bolts. The carrier is a bit heavier than normal.

The rifle sent me had a 1:8 barrel installed. Mated to the barrel is a Les Baer machined bolt, inside a Les Baer machined carrier. Besides being machined to Les’s exacting specifications, the bolt, carrier and extractor are hard chromed. What is so different about Les’s carrier? He leaves the usually-relieved side panels at near full height. They are grooved, to allow gunk a place to go. The extra steel adds weight. How much? A standard bolt-carrier assembly weighs 11.3 ounces. The Les Baer weighs 11.6. “So, .3 ounces, so what?” By itself, not a big deal. But consider the relative difference. It’s a little under three percent, but it is three percent the gas system has to accelerate from a dead stop. That means a slightly longer mechanical dwell, and the bolt stays closed just a bit longer. Good for accuracy, reliability and brass longevity.

The headspace, is, as expected, set to the minimum that will function reliably. If you’re looking for a rifle that will keep pounding rounds downrange in an Afghan sandstorm, while you’re trying to keep the swarms of bad guys downslope where they started, this is perhaps not the rifle you’re looking for. The chamber is tight. Sloppy reloads will give you fits. Properly-constructed reloads will work all the time, and ones with the least bit of attention to quality will deliver spectacular accuracy while working all the time.

The barrel is enclosed by a two-piece Les Baer (who else?) aluminum handguard. The barrel nut tightens down, and then the handguard threads onto it. That way the barrel nut can be torqued up tight and allow the gas tube clearance, while the handguard can be snugged up and left alone. The bottom of the tube is slotted, and that’s where the handstop and bipod mount rides. You can adjust the length from all the way out to nearly all the way back. That way you can have the bipod where you want it or install a sling in the sling swivel and get yourself so tight into a sling your fingertips turn blue. (Trust me, that’s a good thing.) The gas block is a Les Baer block, with rail on the top, meant simply to locate the gas tube. However, if you so wished you could fit a front sight to the gas block, and instead of a scope use irons. I can’t imagine why, since varmint shooters almost without fail use scopes, but you have that option.

The upper and lower are again, machined by Les. He takes forgings and mills them to the dimensions he feels are correct, appropriate and conducive to accuracy and reliability. Does this mean Les isn’t mil-spec? Correct. But anyone who comes to Les looking for mil-spec is barking up the wrong rifle rack. As yet another option, you can have the upper (which comes with a flat top with rail slots) with or without the forward assist. As little as I use the forward assist, on a varmint gun it is even less useful. Even lacking the forward assist you’d have the ejection “lump,” so lefties need not worry about being scarred by their own hot brass. In case you had any doubts, Les puts his initials on the upper, on the left side. The stock is, well, the stock. I mean, without getting all spacey on us, what can anyone, even Les, do to a stock? The pistolgrip is modified. The lower lip is extended forward under the trigger guard to keep the sharp edge away from your tender fingers. Now me, I’m the kind of guy who just uses a file to knock that edge off. But Les designed the pistol grip to take care of it.

Inside the lower is a Jewell trigger, adjusted for a light and crisp trigger pull.

The upper, lower and small parts are given the Baer Coat finish, a slick and glossy black finish. You can have the barrel coated, too, if you want, or have camo patterns applied.

The rifle shipped to me has a Leupold 4.5-14 on top, mounted in a set of Les Baer rings. The first thing I had to do was move the scope radically forward. I am tall and lanky (not so lanky as I was when younger) and I crawl a stock like there’s no tomorrow. If a scope doesn’t end two inches forward of the charging handle, I can’t shoot the rifle. Moving it was easy, but I noticed in the owner’s manual (Yes, I read such things) that the scope ring bolts should not be tightened past 45 inch-pounds. If you over-tighten and break them, you’ll have voided the warranty. Luckily I had the new Wheeler Engineering FAT torque wrench. I set it for 45 inch-pounds, and once I had the scope repositioned I simply tightened down to the listed spec. Done.

The Jewell trigger has a toothed ratchet for adjusting spring tension and thus trigger pull. Read the instructions before screwing around with it.

The Super Varmint isn’t the only AR Les makes. You can have the Thunder Ranch; there’s a CMP-Approved Service Rifle; a fully tricked-out open rifle for NRA High Power; and various tactical and varmint rifles. What you can’t get are basic, bare-bones M4 clones of various parts lashed together, delivering mil-spec 1-2 MOA accuracy. What Les promises is 1/2 MOA. This rifle? This rifle is scary.

As with all rifles and handguns that come out of the Les Baser shop, Les personally fires them for reliability and accuracy. I have to take my hat off to Les. The enclosed test target is spectacular. Two groups, both fired with Federal 77 grain Gold Match. As best as I can measure, the two groups ran .271" and .245" center-to-center. Les, you're making us look bad. The smallest group I was able to personally shoot was .345" center-to-center. I tried a whole raft of accuracy ammo, from Black Hills 52-grain match, up to Federal 68-grain BTHP Gold Medal, continuing right on up to some Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo. Everything shot under 1/2 MOA when I did my part.

The Super Varmint isn’t something you feed plain old 55-grain ball ammo, so I didn’t bother. I’m sure you could find some or another that would shoot sub-MOA, but why? The point is accuracy, pinpoint, predictable, stellar accuracy. Yes, you’ll save money plinking away with el-cheapo ammo, but if you do you’re missing the point.

The Jewell two-stage trigger was not at all a hindrance to shooting accurately. In fact, it was quite a help. It was clean, crisp, and never failed. Inside, the Jewel has a toothed wheel that lets you set the spring tension and adjust the trigger pull. I left it right where the ‘smiths at Les Baer had set it.

So, if you need a superbly accurate varmint or quasi-sniper rifle, at a good price, here you go. Ah, yes, the price. A basic (if one can use the word when considering a Les Baer rifle) Super Varmint is listed at a couple of lattes under two grand. A rifle fully tricked and equipped, like this one, with scope and rings, is a good dinner for two under three grand. I can see someone in the back, cringing at the prices. If you’re accustomed to a plain old tactic-cool M4 clone, with a mil-spec trigger pull, 1-MOA accuracy (or worse) and iron sights, then yes, two or three grand is a bit much. But a well-built M4 is going to run you most of a thousand dollar bill. Add in the premium components like the to-die-for match barrel, the precision-machined bolt and carrier, the hand fitting of assembly and the function and accuracy checks before it leaves, and three grand becomes a bargain.

The gas block has a rail on top, so you could mount iron sights if you wanted.

Les makes his own scope rings.

If it’s too much, it’s too much. But don’t be jealous if the guy next to you thinks it isn’t, buys one and shoot groups that makes your eyes bulge when you see them.

ROCK RIVER ARMS

Rock River makes excellent 1911s and excellent AR-15s. Can you get a matched pair of serial numbers? Probably not, but wouldn’t that be fun?

You get an excellent EOTech 552 on top of your Rock River.

The safety is not an ambi. One of the few tricks the DEA missed.

Rock River makes the two biggest selling American icons of the firearms field: the 1911 and the AR-15. You may have heard of late that they got a big government contract. You’d probably have to be hiding under a rock to not know. They inked a deal to deliver a pile o’ guns (technical term) to the DEA. What makes it particularly fun and worthy for Rock River is that in the near-unified government procurement system, once something is accepted for Federal service with one agency, other agencies can then tack their requests on to the existing order. Or so it has been explained. When people start to discuss the government acquisition system, my eyes glaze over and my head begins to hurt.

Which is not what will happen upon your seeing the Rock River rifle. While in the modern manufacturing system, pretty much every AR is like every other AR, the RRA DEA guns are different. First of all, they come with a boatload of accessories. That’s the way the DEA wants them. Not that an agent will be hanging everything off of his rifle at once, but by issuing all the gear at once, the supply system mavens solve a big headache of theirs: paperwork. It is a whole lot easier for them to make you sign once for five or six thousand dollars worth of gear, than to go through the process multiple times, once for the rifle, then or the light, then the sights, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That is, if you’re a DEA agent signing for it. For the rest of us, a fully tricked-out rifle can be a pretty big nut to crack.

Buying the civilian version (you can’t get one set up exactly like the DEA; for one thing, they frown upon people not in the agency owning items marked “Property of DEA”). You’ll be plunking down your money for the Pro-Series Government model. And a tasty dish it is. The barrel is the heart of any rifle, and yours will come with a Wilson chrome-lined barrel with a twist of one turn on nine inches. Fast enough to stabilize the good stuff, but not mil-spec. Hey, we’re emulating the DEA here, so mil-spec isn’t what we’re after. The 16” barrel will have a standard A2 flash hider and front sight post. It is plugged into a flat-top receiver, and on that receiver you’ll find an EOTech 552 sight and an ARMS A2 flip-up BUIS. The irons will co-witness through the lower part of the EOTech sighting screen, so in the event of an optical sight failure you simply have to snug your head down a bit to see your irons. The iron sights are trimmed on the top of the small aperture loop. Almost all BUIS designs require you to have your BUIS set up for the large aperture when folded. The trimmed rear aperture lets you fold the sight with the small aperture selected. It does, however, cause some of us old-timers a bit of concern: “Where the heck is the rest of my rear sight?”

The side sling adapter is the current mil-spec unit that goes onto every M4 Colt makes and on every rifle that needs a side sling.

The ARMS rear sight has the small aperture loop trimmed to keep it out of the way. Old farts like me don’t like it. We get along with it, but we don’t like it.

The Surefire M73 quad rail, a most excellent place to clamp your surefire M951 light.

Inside the upper is a standard carrier and bolt, with the now regular phosphate finish. Retro builders love chromed bolts and carriers for their 1960s-era builds, but the new standard is a dark carrier and bolt (and has been for a long time). The carrier is the new standard for ARs: an M-16 carrier with its shrouded firing pin, but the auto sear shelf is milled back.

Out front is where things get interesting. The forearm is a Surefire M73 quad rail, a perfect place to mount the included M951 light. As with all Surefire lights, the rear cap is the control. The switch on this one is the dual-control. It has a click-on button, and a momentary tape switch. You simply have to rig the system someplace on the quad rails and then learn which does what. Or, you can swap out the button for any other Surefire that will fit, and a lot of them will. You can have just a click-on or a momentary button, or even swap the multi-button cap out for a plain tape switch. All your choice, although you don’t get all those in the package. If you feel the need you can swap light heads for a larger reflector (larger heads mean tighter beams, not wider ones) and swap the lamp for fewer or more lumens. The Surefire 951 tube can be reconfigured into a dizzying number of configurations.

In the lower, Rock River did as the DEA asked and installed a two-stage trigger. Here is where I have to disagree with Rock River and the DEA. I’ve seen more than one police officer shoot the range ground in front of him working on drills in a class. All were done with rifles that had two-stage triggers in them. Even set at the heaviest setting, your typical two-stage trigger is a bit too light for work on the street. Rock River only did what the DEA asked, so I guess I don’t have a beef with them but with the DEA. Well, I’ve worked on ranges teaching DEA agents, and some of them would agree. Does this mean we might see the occasional accidental discharge on raids? I hope not. I’ve spent decades shooting as a near-professional. Faced with an imminent threat, and two rifles to choose from, I’m not sure I’d pick the one with the two-stage trigger first. For a match, I’m sure I would. But the RRA DEA gun has the two-stage trigger, so you’ll get one in yours, and they are certainly a lot of fun on the range. If you go to use your rifle in a match the trigger won’t hold you back. If you go to use your rifle in a defensive situation, I only have one piece of advice: Keep your finger off the trigger until you need it!

The light comes with the Surefire dual-switch tailcap, a click-on and a momentary pressure tape.

Backing that trigger is a non-ambi safety and a Hogue pistol grip. The rubber grip certainly will keep your hand from slipping. You southpaws will have to either do as you normally do, or get an ambi safety to plug in.

At the back, the Rock River DEA, oops, the Pro-Series Government model, has the now-standard M4 telescoping stock. For those wishing to install a sling, the DEA gun comes with an M4 side sling adapter up front. The parts themselves don’t look all that confidence-inspiring. It looks like a couple of cheesy castings, a pair of roll pins, and a riveted sling swivel. Guess what? It is an honest-to-god mil-spec item of issue. It comes on the DEA guns, it came on my Colt (a semi-only M4) and it goes on military carbines going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Could they have made it look better? (Colt, or the government, not RRA.) I guess, but that would have taken more work.

On the back end, the M4 stock is slotted to take any sling attachment system built for the telestock setup. The buffer tube of the telestock is not mil-spec diameter but the larger civilian-spec size. So, if you want to swap the slider for one of the storage stocks like the Vltor, you’ll have to get a whole new assembly. Word is, however, that Rock River plans to change to the mil-spec diameter, and that the one I received was in the last batch to have the old-diameter tubes. If that happens, great. If not, no big deal. Most of my telestock rifles have the non-spec tube on them, and I haven’t found myself lying awake at night, obsessed over that lack and planning furiously how to make them all mil-spec.

But enough fussing over how the DEA could have made the rifle perfect. How does it work? Does the phrase “as reliable as the dawn” give you a good idea? I could not make the rifle choke. My testers could not make the rifle choke. Regardless of the ammunition (crappy reloads aside) it ate it all and shot to the sights. Regardless of the magazines, it worked just fine. The supposed worst magazine out there (well, the worst I’ll use) is the Sanchez magazine. I dragged my Sanchez tubes out and let the DEA chew on them a bit. Every time, not a problem. Now, I didn’t take the Rock River rifle and drag it through the mud. I had other rifles scheduled for that, and the Rock River rifle arrived a bit too late for the full festivities. But I and my testers ground through more than a full carton of mixed ammo; full metal jacket, hollowpoints, commercial reloads from Black Hills, steel cased ammo from both Wolf and Hornady, all to no avail. That is, we couldn’t make the rifle quit.

So Rock River understates the weight. Neither my testers nor I found the extra .3 pounds to be anything to fuss over. Beside, the ammo weighs a lot more than that.

We put lots of ammo through the Rock River rifle, all to no avail. Oh, we were vastly entertained and we got lots of practice, but we couldn’t make it quit.

Accuracy? Rock River guarantees an inch and a half at one hundred yards. That is, a 1.5 MOA rifle. If you can shoot 1.5 MOA with irons or an EOTech, from a carbine, you’re a better shot than I am. I know that every time I pulled the trigger, if the irons or the Holosight dot was on the plate, the plate got hit. To test accuracy further, I tried a couple of scopes. I took a Famous Maker tactical scope, mounted in an Armalite scope mount, and a Leupold 3.5-10 tactical mounted in LaRue rings along on a range trip. What I found was this: Rock River lied. If you feed this rifle what it likes – and this rifle loves Black Hills red box, 52-grain match bullets – you will shoot sub-MOA groups. Even fed run-of-the-mill FMJ, the Rock River rifle delivered groups smaller than the inch and a half promised.

A Leupold scope, a LaRue mount, Black Hills ammo, and the Rock River rifle.Better than 1.5 MOA. Especially if you take out my caffeine-induced flyer.

No, you can’t get one marked “DEA” unless you manage to get a job with that agency. This one? A real DEA gun, at an LE-only class.

So let’s see now: we have a tricked-out rifle that works with as close to absolute reliability as the human hand can fabricate. It shoots very small groups. It is nicely balanced if a bit bulky out front. You have multiple ways to sling it. You have backup irons in case your battery-driven and nearly unbreakable optic goes toes-up on you. The recoil is soft, and ammunition is readily available. Have I missed anything? Oh, wait. It comes in a padded Eagle discreet carry case that might, if your neighbors aren’t paying attention, pass as a guitar case. It certainly doesn’t scream “rifle rug!” to the passersby. You get a cleaning kit and Viking Tactics sling, and you even get started with a brand-new 30-round magazine. (Sorry, those of you who live in places the magazine isn’t allowed.) It’s all there, in one package. One black, oozing-with-goodies package that you can use to make your gun club buddies green with envy. I’ve had a chance to see a number of these in use on the various police ranges I go to, and they have all worked just fine. We instructors are a bunch of old farts, set in our ways, and we agree that there should be cleaned-up mil-spec parts in the triggers and hammers, but that’s just us. We all shoot stock triggers. We also walked uphill, both ways, to school. In the snow. Get yourself a good rifle, and do it all at once. Get this one.

Oh, Rock River lied elsewhere, too. The catalog weight for the rifle is listed as 8.2 pounds. Can we all agree that an M4 clone, with railed forearm, optics, sling, Surefire light and a small amount of drool (it gets everywhere) weighs more than 8.2 pounds? Would you believe 8.5? Add a loaded magazine and it come to a smidge under 9.5 pounds. OK, I’ll give them the extra 1.3 pounds, since most of that is magazine and ammo. I just hope Rock River sends a shipping tag for this thing soon. I don’t need another AR, but this one keeps whispering to me. Every time I walk by the safe, I can hear it calling. . . .

As I wrap this up, additional news comes in: Rock River will be doing a .458 SOCOM rifle. Those who have been paying attention to the big-bore AR front will know all about it. Marty Ter Weeme designed it and was building rifles. The excellent ‘smiths at Castle Arms were also building .458 SOCOM rifles. Ammo is readily available from Cor-Bon, and you can use unmodified 5.56 magazines to feed your .458 SOCOM. With all due respect to Marty, and to the guys at Castle Arms (who both build excellent rifles), they aren’t the size of Rock River. In the large-bore arena, the .458 now has a big leg up on its competing cartridges, something Marty was positively giddy about when I ran into him at the SHOT Show, when the news was new. If you want, you could even have Rock River build you a dual-caliber rifle: a standard 5.56, with a .458 SOCOM upper to plunk down on your lower. Just be ready for recoil.

S&W M&P-15

Not a bad group at all, eh? From the bench, 100 yards, Wolf Performance ammo and a Leupold scope on an M&P-15.No wonder we did in so many rodents.

In two days of shooting prairie dogs, some 2,500 rounds of Winchester ammo went through the barrel of #221. After that it was still a 1-MOA rifle.

News flash: Hell Frozen! I mean, as if S&W’s making a 1911 wasn’t enough, now they’re making an AR-15.

No, the sun has not risen in the West. And S&W is only partly making AR-15s. On the 1911s, they forge and machine slides, frames, barrels, and they assemble the parts they make along with parts supplied by subcontractors. In the case of the M&P-15, they’re easing into it: they assemble rifles from parts provided to them from subcontractors. In the fullness of time, and with sufficient sales, I’m sure S&W plans to start making many of the parts themselves. But as we’ve discussed before, who makes the parts and who assembles them can matter. After all, we all know people who are entirely unskilled, and were you to ask them to assemble an AR-15 out of premium parts, they’d make a mess of it. And many a well-respected AR-15 manufacturer is actually an assembler, building rifles out of parts shipped to them from sub-contractors, using parts lists that contain exactly nothing they make for themselves.

The major components of the S&E M&P-15 come from Continental Machine & Tool. Known in the industry as “CMT,” they are a big behind-the-scenes maker of parts for many manufacturers. In fact, a lot of the rifles tested in this book (and Volume 1 as well) were assembled using CMT components. So in that regard S&W is not alone.

The three rifles offered are a standard M4, a tactical carbine with a railed forearm, and a precision rifle built up by the Performance Center. I had quite some time testing both the M4 and the Tactical. My first hands-on of the two was on a Wyoming prairie dog shoot. I found myself along with several other gun writers at a ranch in the middle of Wyoming, to shoot prairie rats. We had a literal truckload of Winchester varmint ammo, and a selection of S&W M&P-15s to shoot. Being the sneaky, underhanded gunsmith that I am, I took a quick look at the rifles and found the one with the best trigger. That was serial number 221. I then mounted the scope so far forward to accommodate my skinny frame and odd shooting stance that no one else could shoot it, thus guaranteeing I would have that one the whole trip.

For those who have not done so, prairie dog shooting is not hunting. Despite what some call it, it is plinking at animate targets. (Sssh, don’t let hunting haters know that.) You drive to a suitable spot, set up, and start shooting (“suitable” as in “lots of prairie dogs and other assorted vermin”). Vermin is what they are. They’re members of the despised family rodentia, and we were warned repeatedly not to get too close to them, as they are all infected with various diseases and prone to carry ticks, fleas and God-knows-what. You shoot until you run out of targets, ammo or time. How big are the targets? Basically, one or two playing cards in size. How far can you shoot? As far as you can hit.

The M&P logo is laser-etched on the right side of the mag well.

The Tactical and the A model come with Troy rear sights, marked “M&P,” of course.

The rifles had off-brand scopes on them that limited my shooting time. They were clear enough to get my hits. I was shooting a hundred percent out to about two hundred yards, and only dropping to fifty percent out to three hundred. #221 really loves Winchester 40-grain varmint and 50-grain ballistic silvertip ammo. My misses usually came from mis-doping the wind. I’m not usually shooting on targets that small out that far and rarely bother much with wind doping. But after a couple of hours I’d have to take a break, and then I used the Tactical model with iron sights on targets a hundred yards and in closer.

The rifles all had the 5.56 chamber and one turn in nine inches barrels, so reliability wasn’t a problem. The problem was the scope. It was just enough not-sharp that after shooting for a couple of hours I was starting to get a headache. The irons of the Tactical model gave me a rest. I could also use the bolt gun with a Leupold scope on it, but I wasn’t the only one taking a break. I know I went through over five hundred rounds of Winchester ammo in both the morning and afternoon session. The only maintenance I gave #221 was to lube the bolt and carrier after lunch. Once lunch was over we were back out again, slaying critters. One of our shooting locations in the two days we were at it, gave us a slightly rising field out to almost four hundred yards. Out to three hundred the drop of the .223/5.56 was not that much, and easy to deal with. A bit of hold over and we could walk our shots in. As part of the experience, I had brought my 7X42 Conquest Zeiss binoculars along. Superb! Spectacular! Taking turns using the binoculars as spotter, we could call the hits and misses for each other, and get on-target out in the field. The holdover at 400 yards was quite a bit. Depending on what ballistic coefficient you believe, and where you zero (a 200-yard zero would be good for this kind of work) the bullet will be dropping twenty inches or so out at 400 yards and drifting quite a bit, even in a light breeze.

The M&P is marked as such on the side of the trigger mechanism housing.Interesting.

The barrel tells us all we need to know, although it leaves the question of chrome-lining unanswered.

We finished the first day and went back for dinner, talk and sleep. The next morning at breakfast there was the rumor that someone has stayed up late into the night cleaning rifles but if so Wyoming should hire better night-time gun-cleaning gnomes. I oiled up #221 and went out to do more shooting. In the course of the two days of shooting I estimate that I shot something on the order of 2,500 rounds through #221. I oiled it now and then, and otherwise left it alone. It never failed me once.

I mentioned to S&W that perhaps it would be fun to have them send me this rifle for the book, so I could take a closer look at it once I got home. In due time a long package arrived, and #221 was here. The tactical model I shot is off somewhere else, probably doing the rounds to some police department or shooting demo somewhere. I didn’t get that serial number. In the interim someone had actually cleaned it. (I was shocked.) The trigger was as nice as I’d remembered, and the only thing to do was get it out and check accuracy. So I took a Leupold scope and bolted it into the Armalite scope mount I had on hand. That, and some Wolf performance (the Winchester ammo hadn’t arrived by then) went out to the range with me. The boresighter had done its job, as the groups were dead-on. No need to adjust unless I wanted to be fussy, and very small indeed. MOA groups with M-193 ball are not supposed to be the norm, but my observation is that we have seen the days of a 3 MOA AR-15 being acceptable. At least in the well-built ones. One MOA is the new standard.

Number 221 is your basic A2-lower M4 clone. The telestock is the non-CAR type, with six positions. The lower is marked around the selector with “Safe” and “Fire” on both sides. Interestingly enough, on the trigger mechanism sideplates we see the rollmark of “Model M&P 15” which is the usual location of the original maker who machined the lower. I guess a marking variance can include the change of the markings there, too. On the magazine well on the left side is the basic info, the S&W logo, and serial number, all looking pantograph engraved. The later, four-digit serial numbered rifles I saw had the serial number roll marked. Not a big deal, just noticeable once you’ve looked at a few thousand ARs.

The stock is marked with the S&W logo.

The flat top upper is numbered, so you can get your accessories back in the correct spots.

On the right side the mag well is laser-etched with the M&P logo that S&W now uses. This one has “15” as part of the logo. On the handguns the logo includes the caliber.

The barrel is marked “5.56 NATO 1/9” which tells us the chamber and the rifling twist. It does not indicate as to chrome-lining or not, but in this day and age, with S&W using 4140 as the barrel steel, I’d be greatly surprised if it were not chrome-lined. When I used it in Wyoming it did not have a rear sight on it. You can have yours with or with the standard detachable M4 carry handle/sight. If you do not want the carry handle, you can opt for the M&P-15A, which comes with a Troy BUIS. The front sight housing is the proper “F” marked height for use on a flat-top, so you can swap for any other BUIS you want, if you take off the M4 and install an optic. The Tactical uses Troy handguards and front and rear sights. Nestled inside the front sight housing of the M&P-15 and the A model is a mil-spec side sling adapter, complete with NSN part number. Out on the end is a standard A2 flash hider. However, the barrel is threaded so you can swap it out and replace it with something else if you so wish.

Inside, the M&P-15 uses an AR hammer, a modified M-16 carrier, and a standard-weight buffer. As an added bonus, a close inspection revealed a telling detail: the buffer tube castle nut is staked. In talking with S&W before the unveiling of the M&P-15, I mentioned there were a number of details on which AR builders were slacking off. Staking the castle nut was one of them. Staking of the carrier key is another, and I’d be happier if the S&W rifle had a more-robust staking there. The fit of the upper and lower is tight. You won’t have shift or rattle, but for a while you may have to tap the rear pint to get it to move for disassembly.

The S&W M&P-15? Get one. If they keep making them you’ll have an early rifle to show your friends. (They’ll probably all be good; yours will just be earlier.) If they stop making them, then you’ll have a notable piece in your collection. Me, I hope they keep making them. Rifles like #221 will only improve the breed.

Oh, and the prairie dogs? I figure, considering the population density, the number I killed, and the prolific nature of rodents in general, that any dent I made in the local population was replaced in a week or two.

The Tactical model comes with Troy forearm and sights.Nice and handy for close-in perimeter defense.

I found the optics passable, but the rifle superb. Here I’m taking a break from the bench and trying my hand offhand on 100 yard ‘dogs.

SABRE DEFENSE

Mas Ayoob is well-known as a writer, but there was a time when he could shoot with the best of them in IPSC and bowling pins.

The Sabre Defense “Gill” brake is effective, but anyone standing next to you won’t like it.

When Sabre Defense says “Signature Model,” they mean signature. As in Mas Ayoob’s.

Sabre Defense got their start some years ago making barrels – .50 M2HB barrels, to be precise. From there, it was simply a matter of expanding onto the related areas of defense manufacturing. They now make a full line of AR rifles, of which one concerns us here: the Ayoob Signature Model.

Mas Ayoob, for those of you who have either been hiding under a rock, or are new to defensive shooting, is the Dean of tactical shooting expertise. Not that he’s a shooter the equal of a Delta Force operator (some of whom are quite bad, by the way) but he was successful in the old days at competition shooting. No, he knows the law, and tactics, and gear as well. And has written volumes on firearms. No, really. If you collected all his writings you could probably fill a couple of volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, if they still print it.

The Ayoob signature model is an AR built to serve any need you might have, from competition to defense. As such it is a basic M4 with some extras, and while I can see that the extras were well thought-out, I have to disagree with Mas on a few points. Don’t worry, we’ve known each other for a couple of decades now, and he’s used to my second-guessing him. He isn’t worried, isn’t annoyed. The rifle is a flat-top with a carry handle BUIS and regular handguards. The telestock is a standard M4, and the sights are the regular post and aperture. The rifle comes embarrassingly equipped: it comes in a discreet case, with the Signature Model signature on it, stuffed full of magazines (I lost count at half a dozen, there probably were more stuffed in compartments I never got to) and a sling, cleaning kit, instructions, etc. The internal pouches are removable, so you can use them to transport your rifle and handgun mags in an emergency. The literature says there should be two 20-round and two 30-round magazines, but I found more. I don’t know if the specs changed, or they stuffed it full of gun writer “goodies.”

The internals are a two-stage match trigger, which is great for a match. Not my first choice for defense, though.

The rear sight is a removable carry handle. It works, but I’d have preferred a folding BUIS so there would be room for an optic.

The book specs say the Signature model has a 1:9 twist. But the one shipped to me is clearly marked as one turn in seven and a half inches. A head-scratcher, but a superbly accurate barrel regardless of the markings.

The castle nut is staked, always a good sign of attention to detail in assembly.

The barrel is a 1:9 twist made of mil-spec alloy and the end of it is one place I disagree with Mas. A defensive rifle should not have a compensator on it. Indoors, or in a group/team environment, a compensator is misery for everyone, including the shooter.

The lower does not have an ambi safety, another item I think should be on a defensive rifle, and the inside of the lower contains a two-stage match trigger. On a competition piece, a match trigger is good. On a defensive piece, I don’t like it. First, a match trigger is too light. Second, I have heard reports from law enforcement agencies using two-stage triggers that they have encountered broken ones. That is, the hammer breaks after a few hundred rounds. Now, the company that made the rifles was really good about replacing it, but who wants a hammer to break in a shootout? Not I. The last bit of complaining I’ll do concerns the rear sight, and then I’ll stop. There was a time when the removable carry handle as a rear sight was very trick. But today, the trick method (rapidly approaching the standard method) is to install a folding BUIS, so you can put an optic up there. Sabre offers that on other models, so it isn’t like you’re faced with a “take it or leave it” scenario on the Signature Model.

My test-fire crew had a fun time depleting my ammo supply. The best part was plinking at 200 yards with iron sights – and hitting regularly.

OK, enough carping. What did I like about the Signature Model? Well, the details of assembly were encouraging. The castle nut on the telestock was staked, as they are supposed to be. Some might think I’m making something big out of a little detail, but it matters. I’ve seen castle nuts come loose. I’ve seen rifles put together with Loctite hosed in that caused problems later. The upper and lower fit well; the safety clicked firmly but didn’t take two thumbs to move. The handguards were tight, not rattling. The front sight is a tritium night sight, very useful in low-light shooting situations. All these things show attention to detail in building. When I opened the upper and found the carrier key securely staked to the carrier, I wasn’t surprised.

Sabre Defense builds these right.

How did it work? Yawn. As in, yawn, this thing hasn’t malfunctioned yet. It never failed to work, not for me, not for my testers, not in a match, not in class drills. It delivered the obligatory perfect score on the NEMRT qual course and the National Guard 300-meter popups course. I used all kinds of ammo including Wolf steel case, and the rifle just perked along. The test-fire crew were impressed by the effectiveness of the comp, so if you want a competition gun, then be sure and get the comp on yours. They were also impressed with the accuracy, competing to see who could shove berm debris around on the backstop at 200 yards. Yes, plinking with a 5.56 rifle and iron sights at 200 yards.

Sabre Defense has more than just the one Signature Model. And they have standard models, too. You can buy a regular model, you can mix and match, you can build your own. Heck, if you’re like most of the other AR owners out there you’re going to change things on it anyway. You just can’t help yourselves. I know; I’m one of you.

The discreet carry case comes with more goodies than you can find in five minutes: a bunch of mags, detachable mag pouches, even the moronically-required gun lock.

The supplied sling is a very useful tactical sling that gets the rifle out of the way when you aren’t shooting it.

In the fullness of time, I shipped the Signature Model back. I’ve got a lot of ARs, and as tempting as this one is, I would take a lot of ribbing for shooting a rifle with Mas’s signature on the side. He and I shot against each other a lot in the old days, and anyone from back then who saw the rifle would ask me where my rifle was, the one with my signature on it. Hmm, now there’s something to consider. Oh, and the magazine count? I finally came up with seven of them in the case, all of which were packed back in the case and returned. I have a lot of rifles. I have a boatload of magazines. I don’t need to be light-fingered on Sabre Defense magazines to keep myself shooting.

We used to shop for ARs looking for the lowest cost on a plain-Jane model. Now, the attractiveness of a fully-tricked and kitted-out AR with all the goodies, at a reasonable price, is starting to catch shooters’ eyes. The Mas Ayoob Signature Model is one heck of a deal. Well done, Mas, and well done, Sabre Defense.

STAG ARMS

You’ll need more than this much Wolf ammo to even think about getting a Stag to stop.

The Stag Arms barrels have 5.56 NATO chambers, and a 1:9 twist, for stellar accuracy.

Since Volume 1 of this book, Stag has moved on: they now make right-handed rifles, carbines and rifles in 6.8 Remington SPC. I’ve also had a chance to shoot a bunch of Stag rifles since the first book, and have been uniformly impressed with them all. What I have to report here in Volume 2 is my accumulated experience with Stag rifles, and the use/abuse of a couple of their rifles in particular.

The first used/abused rifle came at an editorial roundtable. That’s where writers, our editors, and manufacturers get together for a week. Each day we get regaled with the new, the important, the fun info about products, and then we spend the rest of the day testing them. Get a bunch of gun writers together, loan them firearms and give them access to free ammo, and you’re sure to see something broken. God, we’re like little kids in that regard. This is what it’s like:

The President of Stag, Mark Malkowski, gives the Stag presentation, and then we’re off to shoot guns. He has an M4, select-fire and everything, as one of the toys to play with. Mounted on it is a suppressor. Brand name? Let’s just say it is one I have not had much of a chance to test, and not for lack of asking around. In short order, we have shot enough Hornady 75-grain 5.56 ammo through it to cause problems, to wit, the moderator is falling off the rifle, and pieces of the can are falling off the suppressor. Mark yanks the “can” off, does a quick strip and clean (basically, anything approaching the size of a charcoal briquette is scraped out, the rest left and lubed) and we’re up and running again. Why the problems? Suppressors delay gas release. (That’s how they work.) So the rifle gets more gas, for a longer period of time, than it was originally designed for. This suppressor was falling apart from less than fifteen minutes in the hands of a bunch of gun writers. Mark wasn’t going to have us get a bad impression of his rifle due to someone else’s “can.” I can’t say as I blame him, as no other Stag rifle, for the rest of the day, gave anyone any problems. Nor did that one afterwards.

A question came up during our session: can you “limp-wrist” an AR and make it malfunction? Of course you can’t, but some people have to have it proven. So one of my editors proceeded to shoot a Stag in 6.8 upside down. The interesting thing was not that the rifle kept working (I expected nothing else) but that Richard actually hit things he was aiming at that way. I guess his Marine marksmanship training actually worked. We did find one potential problem of mixing ammunition when someone (not I) tried to chamber a round of 6.8 in a 5.56 rifle. Instant stoppage, and an interesting job of wrestling the round out. If this happens to you, do not do the obvious: stick a rod down the bore. A couple of people have been injured, and one even killed, trying to remove a live round that way. If the round discharges, the rod or case will go flying. Either will have enough energy to injure. The mechanism that probably happens is that the bullet gets set back in the case, and the bullet striking the powder can cause the powder to ignite.

The stag M4 came with an ARMS #40 BUIS.

We tested 6.8 in gelatin, along with the Hornady 7- grain load. The 6.8 110-grain BTHP load produces an impressive temporary cavity, and fully expanded stops at the sixteen-inch depth when striking gelatin at 100 yards.

The second rifle is one they sent me, a right-handed M4. (We can use that now, after Bushmaster has won its lawsuit with Colt.) I figured I wouldn’t prove anything by doing another standard test. You know: accuracy spot-on, everything tight, etc, etc. I had a class coming up, so I figured I’d just haul the rifle along to the class. I checked the zero, mounted an EOTech 553 (the new model) and a Vickers sling on it, and went out to dispense medical assistance and justice. The class was a Tactical Medicine class for operators going to Iraq, held by Tactical Response. I was also to take their two-day Fighting Rifle class just before the med class.

The Stag, brand new, clean and before the class.

The Stag, our gear, clothing and we ourselves got pretty muddy during the class.

Dave Fortier and I were supposed to go together, so we planned to drive down. Well, two gun writers, with all their gear, ammo, and the extra stuff we planned to write about, just about stuffs a Ford Ranger full. The heavy part of the load was the Wolf ammo. The two classes, for the two of us, called for thirteen thousand rounds of ammunition. That’s right, seven days of class, two guys, and thirteen thousand rounds. Wolf kindly sent us the ammo, three thousand rounds of .45 ACP and ten of the 55 FMJ polymer-coated .223. I, like an idiot, had it shipped to my home so I could load the truck and drive it there. (And I could have had Wolf ship it right to Tactical Response. What was I thinking?)

Well, I found a slight problem with Wolf ammo. Now before the Wolf-haters and the Stag-haters gang up and go “Ah-ha!” let me describe just what it takes to stop a Stag that’s fed Wolf. We shot tons of ammo in the two-day class. There, I had no problems. The med class had us doing medical learning and practice in the mornings and then live-fire scenarios in the afternoons. There, a typical shooter would hammer out a full magazine at the maximum rate you could get hits or near-hits. Then, you’d be doing suppressive fire, a shot a second or a shot every other second, while the team needed outgoing fire from you. It was easy to pound eight or ten magazines out in a scenario. All the while, we were thrashing around in the mud, rain, debris from previous classes, etc.

If you stood up too long, or stayed too high kneeling when you should be prone, one of the instructors would come by, slap you on the shoulder and shout “You’ve been hit!” You then got to fall in the mud again and lie there. Then your team members had to deal with your wound. They found out just what it is when they get there, while the Doctor or the instructor told them what they found as they went through the casualty treatment routine. As a result, we spent lots of time on the ground, crawling, sliding, sprinting three steps and falling prone. We got muddy. Our gear got muddy. Our rifles got muddy. At one point, I was reloading prone, shoving a muddy magazine into the rifle, when I noticed blades of grass inside the action of the Stag M4. “Oh well,” I thought, “It’s been working so far.” And it continued to work, too.

The Stag, after a mudbath, and after being introduced to Mr. Garden Hose.

Mud even got into the magazines themselves, but the Stag kept on working.

How do you induce an AR/Wolf malfunction? Easy: If you heat your rifle up to the point where there are billows of smoke coming off the barrel, then chamber a round and get yanked off firing in order to haul a casualty or recon to the extraction point, you might end up with the chambered round wedged in the chamber. Might. Sometimes the heat will “weld” it in place. Sometimes it won’t. You’ll find out when you fire. The chambered round will fire just fine. But the extractor will either pull off or through the rim if the round was “welded” and leave the fired case in the chamber. A poke with a cleaning rod will get it out. I, in a week of scenarios and a huge amount of ammo, had it happen twice. Dave had it happen once.

The guys at Tactical Response were death on Wolf when we showed up. “You guys won’t last a day without your rifles going down.” By the end of the class, they were a lot more favorable. “Damn, only three malfunctions in ten thousand rounds? Not bad for training ammo.” I got the impression they have seen a lot more malfunctions than that with other rifles or ammo. We had other students using brass-cased ammo who had as many or more malfunctions.

Dave and I did a basic clean each day: we scraped the gunk and charcoal briquettes out, we sloshed in more lube, and we poked a cleaning patch (or in my case, a Bore Snake) down the bore each night. Our rifles worked. We maintained enough accuracy to hit what we were aiming at. On the return trip, I don’t think we brought back enough ammo to fully load us up for our final scenario. I went into that one “heavy.” Our team leader had made me his assistant, and I was obviously his backup if he went down. If he didn’t, I was a shooter. I started the scenario with sixteen magazines on me. I finally bailed into the getaway car with one partial magazine left. My rifle did not fail me that day.

One thing I was curious about was accuracy: what does nearly ten thousand rounds in a week do to accuracy? My cleaning routine was obviously not good enough to clean out the copper, so the bore had to be pretty choked. And the firing rates were not easy on the throat. So, I checked accuracy after my return. As expected, the Stag M4 was a bit less accurate. Before, it shot Black Hills red box 52-grain match sub-MOA. It shot Wolf to just under 2 MOA. On my return, it would just keep the Black Hills under 2 MOA, and the Wolf was well over 3 MOA. However, that was with the bore copper-fouled. After I cleaned it (and if you do take the Tactical Response class, be prepared for some heavy-duty bore cleaning), accuracy was much better. The Black Hills just under 1 MOA, and the Wolf just over 2. Not bad at all for a rifle I so obviously abused.

So, If you need a solid and dependable rifle, think Stag. If you need lots of practice ammo, think Wolf. And if you think being a gun writer is lots of fun, you’re right.

Is it fun being a gun writer? You bet. Can you have this much fun, too? Certainly.

WILSON TACTICAL

Along the way, the Wilson lower was built as the 6.8 Police Sniper.

Wilson Tactical is Ryan Wilson, son of Bill Wilson. After working in his father’s shop for years, Ryan struck out on his own. His first step was making knives. Wilson Tactical knives are known for being tough, one might even say “tough as nails.” I mean, testers who drive a knife sideways with a hammer, into a tree, then stand on the flat of the blade? Who does that? Apparently you just can’t break a Wilson Tactical knife.

Once Ryan had established a name for himself in knives, he branched out. He now does custom work on ARs and shotguns, and as I was writing this was in the process of setting up to produce ARs from scratch. My usual policy of reviewing complete rifles (or relevant conversion uppers) wasn’t possible here, as Ryan wasn’t completely set up to make rifles when it came time to hand in the manuscript. But Ryan did have lowers available. Curious, as most shops setting up to make ARs usually find themselves in the position of having everything on hand but lowers. Usually, they have customers wanting rifles, with bins full of barrels, uppers, handguards, etc., and no lowers.

Ryan sent me one of his lowers, and I proceeded to check-install three different lower parts kits in it. All fit without a problem. Five different buttstocks also fit without problem. I checked the fit of the lower with uppers on hand. You cannot guarantee that every single upper will fit any given lower, unless all your uppers come from someone like Colt, and the lower you’re checking against is a Colt – or CMT, LMT, etc. When you start checking across manufacturers, you can expect occasional “won’t go” or “loose as socks on a rooster” fits. The Wilson Tactical lower fit as many or more uppers as any other big-name lower I had on hand.

The lower is an A2, with reinforcements front and rear, so you Retro guys are out of luck here.

The final state: a telestock shorty, with Robar polymer finish in three-color desert camo.

Robar did the receivers in polymer and the internals and steel in NP3. Very trick, very slick, and tough to beat.

Given the reputation Ryan has in the knife crowd, and the years spent working for his father, the idea that an AR from him would be found wanting is pretty silly. The specs he proposes put it as a serious contender for the M4 crowd.

In the course of the book I built this lower into three different rifles, before settling on the last. At first it was an M4 clone with Vltor stock, and a “frankengun” upper. But I have plenty of M4s, so I then rebuilt it as the base of the 6.8 Police Sniper rifle. However, it finally came to rest as another project gun. I found out that GG&G makes folding front sights, as well as mounts, forearms and other gear. While they were in the process of building up a lower for the market, I had everything on hand I needed. So I plugged a spare shorty barrel into a flat-top upper, and installed all GG&G parts: a rear MAS, a folding front, their railed handguards, a flash hider. I then sent the whole thing off to Robbie Barrkman at Robar for a coating project. He sent it back done on the outside in a three-color desert pattern in his Polymax finish, with the internals done in NP3.

And that’s the way it is.

The NP3 is so slick, you can get by with very little lube.

Z-M WEAPONS

The LR-300 proved to be a stellar tool for shooting perfect scores on range drills.

Al Zitta is a long-time businessman, a custom gunsmith and practical shooting competitor. I can’t remember a time when I haven’t seen him wandering around whichever IPSC match or Steel Challenge we were both at. There are those who like to brag about “thinking outside the box.” Al is one of those guys who simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a box. And when he does, it is usually only to throw it under his motorcycle, open the throttle, and kick it into gear.

He was kind enough to send me an LR-300 for the book. Actually, what he did was make me send him one of my lowers, to show that the LR-300 can be had not just as a complete rifle, but as a conversion on existing rifles too. So off went a Stag Arms lower, with a JP Enterprises modular trigger unit. What came back brought lust to the eyes of my test crew, and to the many police officers who saw it in a number of classes.

First things first: yes, that is a folding stock you see on an AR-15. Not simply a telescoping stock, but an actual folding stock. Patterned along the lines of the Galil, it is locked out by means of a big spring and inefficient camming surfaces. There isn’t a locking latch, but I never felt the need for one. This stock is not going to fold on you unless you are using it as a club and you break something. (Probably the lower receiver.) The stock he sent me is the folding and adjustable, so it can be made short for use with body armor, or long for use in shirtsleeves. He also has folding stocks that are not adjustable for length of pull. The stock assembly screws into the lower receiver buffer tube threads, and uses the same castle nut to lock in place.

You can also have non-telescoping folding stocks.

You can have Al send you a conversion or a complete rifle.

Now, the clever ones in the audience have already leapt ahead: there cannot be a buffer tube, weight and spring. So where’d they go? Up front, on top. The LR-300 is a horse of a different color. It isn’t exactly a piston-driven AR-15. Most designs simply replace the gas tube with some kind of a piston system, and leave the rest alone. Al took the LR-300 and extended the carrier key until it acts both to add mass to the bolt and as a sleeve over the gas tube. Think of a six-inch long carrier key. With everything up front, he could dispense with the back end.

How is this arranged? Take it apart and see. Up front, at the end of the top rail and in front of the front sight, is a recessed button. Press the button and slide the rail forward and off. Pull back and clamp down on the recoil spring, and then remove the spring clip. You can now relax the spring and remove the bolt and charging handle out the rear of the upper. Notice that the bolt has had the back half chopped off. That’s the part that would otherwise retreat into the buffer tube during cycling. Up front, the gas tube is half the length of a standard one.

The disassembly button is in front of the front sight.

Z-17 The stock locks via a wedge cam and spring to keep it in place. It won’t come undone inadvertently.

How well does it work? So far, flawlessly. One complaint some shooters have with the various piston designs is that the extra mass of the piston increases recoil. And the extra hardware banging around on top of the barrel decreases accuracy. The reciprocating parts of the LR-300 weigh less than those of a standard AR, so you’d expect less recoil. It’s hard to tell, but it certainly doesn’t kick more. Accuracy? Plenty good enough for my two practical standards: shooting a 300 on the NEMRT qualification course and dropping all the targets on the NG computer pop-up course.

As I mentioned earlier, you can get this as a complete rifle from Al, marked as such with the Z-M Weapons logo. Or you can simply get the conversion kit to change your rifle over. If you do either, you have plenty of options.

First, the forearm material. You can get the Nylatron, which I did. Al, being Al, sent me that as well as an aluminum-forearmed upper with a Yankee Hill forearm on it. I might have been a bit jaded, what with a couple dozen other rifles with various aluminum forearms on them, but I prefer the Nylatron one. It has drilled and tapped inserts where you can bolt on rails if you need more. On top of the handguard was a Yankee Hill rail, with Yankee Hill sights. The YHM sights have one feature that only one other BUIS has at the moment you can fold the rear sight with the small aperture as the ready-to-go aperture. Except for nighttime, the small aperture is your best bet for accuracy while still maintaining speed. YHM gives you the choice of having small as your default (as does the GG&G MAD).

That’s right, a folding stock on an AR-15. Nowhere else. Be jealous.

The LR-300 with the aluminum railed handguard. Very nice, but I prefer the Nylatron.

The upper is custom-forged and machined. The ZM forge marks will be found nowhere else but on an Al Zitta gun or conversion. The lower is a standard lower, either yours or Al’s, and does not require any modification. You can even install the Z-M upper on a standard lower and not worry. The buffer tube, weight and spring won’t change the function of the Z-M upper at all. One change on the lower you might notice is the pistol grip. I agree, it looks different. However, it is quite comfortable. It fits well enough that some of my test fire crew shot the Z-M rifle and never noticed the pistol grip until I pointed it out to them. It appears to be machined out of a block of Delrin, and it provides a non-slip grip and is comfortable to grasp.

The Zitta brake is very effective despite its low profile. Just don’t stand next to it.

The YHM Phantom flash hider. Very effective, and the hooks also provide indexing locations for cutting wire.

The barrels are 1:9 and chrome-lined, and the two uppers came with two different muzzle devices. The Nylatron one came with a YHM Phantom flash hider, which works quite well. The other came with a slim compensator on it. While not much larger in diameter than the barrel itself, the comp Al sent was efficient enough that my test fire crew commented favorably on it. Most of them are regular practical shooting competitors themselves, and when they shoot a rifle and comment, “that comp works – who made it?” you know Al is on to something. For practical three-gun competition shooters, the comp is slim and short enough to make the Limited and Tactical Divisions of the USPSA: an inch or less in diameter, and three inches or less in length. As with all effective comps, standing next to it is unwise. The backblast is noticeable, and you will not make friends if you try to use it in a team environment.

The rifle came with a single-point bungee sling. Now, I’m not a great fan of either. Most single-point slings are attached (how shall I put this) clumsily, and bungee slings just look like trouble to me. I spent entirely too much time back in various martial arts classes learning to use people’s own efforts and equipment against them to be able to view with enthusiasm an elastic-corded seven pound weight. However, again, Al has done it right. The clip attachment is elastic-shrouded, so it remains unobtrusive. The bungee is firm enough that the rifle doesn’t flop around. If I were going to use a bungee sling, this would be the one.

The JP Enterprises trigger never failed and worked just fine. I did have to warn police officers who wanted to use it to look out for the trigger. Not that it is super-light or anything, but when they’ve been doing drills all week with a box-stock seven-pound M-16 trigger, going to the clean and crisp three and a half pounds of the JP could be a surprise.

The Z-M pistol grip looks odd, feels good, and is indestructible. The JP Enterprises trigger is clean, crisp and an excellent competition choice.

The YHM rail on top accepted all mounts I cared to try, which were many. LaRue, GG&G, Midwest industries, Badger Ordnance, EOTech, Aimpoint, they all fit just fine.

One bonus feature that occurred to me was the ease of mounting a .22LR conversion upper to the Zitta-modified lower. Since the .22LR upper doesn’t recoil into the buffer tube, you need only use a filler to fill the gap the Zitta conversion leaves in the buffer tube area. (The cycling bolt needs the space in .223, so you can’t leave the filler there all the time.) Were I fitting a .22LR conversion upper to the Zitta lower on an LR-300, I’d attach a nylon or Delrin block to the rear plate of the .22LR action, and thus not run the risk of leaving it in for the .223 upper. Yes, it would make the assembly/ disassembly of the .22LR upper a bit fussier. I’d have to not use the standard hinge-open method, and instead press both pins over and pull the .22LR upper forward an inch or so before lifting it out.

The LR-300 is not for everyone. First, it will end up running you perhaps twice the cost of a bare-bones stock AR. You do, however, get a lot for that cost: a compact rifle with great reliability (mine hasn’t stumbled yet), great accuracy and a big wow factor. One might even say it garners a high CGI factor. If you’re in the habit of running your AR as an impromptu SAW, then the LR-300 is probably not for you. As trick as the gas system is, I can see where the high heat of volumes of full-auto fire might be a problem. The recoil spring is right there in the gas system. But short of such abuse, I don’t see where the LR-300 system is a hindrance. You also do not pay a weight penalty for all this. The Nylatron-forearmed rifle Al sent me tips the scales empty at 7-1/4 pounds. Yes, you can get an M4 or CAR lighter, but not by much. It is possible to pare perhaps half a pound off that by going to a pencil barrel and polymer CAR stock, but that’s it.

When it came time to send the rifle back, I could not unscrew the stock nut. I took this as a sign, and called up Al to make the arrangements to keep this one here. Yes, I have a lot of ARs, and tested a bunch more for the two books of mine, but this is the one I kept.

Off my Stag went to be rebuilt by Al and his crew. It came back superb.

Only the LR-300 has a “ZM” forge mark.

YHM makes a folding BUIS that lets you keep the small aperture as your selected aperture.

GLOSSARY

THE AR-15/M-16

Due to the varied usage of the Stoner system, you may run into strange words or terms that you would not see in dealing with other rifles. And you may even run into words or usage that are match-specific. Ask an IPSC Three-Gun shooter what a “Bloop Tube” is, and you’ll probably get a puzzled look. So, in order to keep things sorted out, here are the terms you might run into that aren’t to be found in standard dictionaries.

550 Cord– A synthetic wrap, with an external sheath of OD green, tan or black, and a core of load-bearing material. Used in parachutes, and commonly found in all manner of field-expedient repairs. So named from its tensile strength of 550 pounds. While strong, it is thin, and thus not always comfortable when used as a sling, belt, lanyard or other clothing-type uses. In use, you secure gear, or attach the rifle to yourself, as a lanyard. The latter is also known in military use as a “dummy cord” used to keep weapons attached to people.

AK-47– The original Soviet assault weapon, but not the first rifle to fit the description. (The German Stg43/44 of WWI takes that honor.) The “47” is found in the original Soviet caliber, 7.62X39, a short, tapered .30 cartridge on about the same power level as the century-plus old .30-30 Winchester.

AK-74– An improved AK-47, differing mostly in caliber (5.45X39) and the presence of a muzzle brake. The AK-74 muzzle brake has the distinction of being one of the “flashiest” brakes around. At night, with Soviet ammo, it will produce bright white muzzle flashes, bright enough to diminish night-adjusted vision. It is, however, very effective in dampening felt recoil, and not as obnoxious to stand next to as many others.

AR-15– Only real Colt rifles can be AR-15s. Colt has trademarked the designation, which is why you see so many other makers market their rifles as “M-15” “XM-15” “CAR-15” and so on. While it may well have come to pass that the designation has slipped into common usage and is no longer protected, the Colt attorneys will no doubt resist efforts to have it so declared. Bushmaster won its lawsuit against Colt over the M4 trademark, but I do not expect Colt to quit on this subject.

Assault Weapon – By strict definition, a select-fire, shoulder-fired, individual-user weapon, using an intermediate-power cartridge and larger than (previous) standard magazine capacity. (Note: nothing about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc.) The earliest general-issue firearm that could be considered an “assault weapon” is the M1/M2 Carbine. It wasn’t much more than a pumped-up submachinegun in power, but it fit the bill. Curiously, legislative attempts to control “assault weapons” almost always leave it alone. But then (soapbox mode) most legislative attempts are aimed more at cosmetics than mechanics, as most legislators are attorneys and not mechanical engineers.

AWB/94– The Assault Weapons ban of 1994, which prohibited certain “dangerous” cosmetic features of the class known erroneously as assault weapons. The law also prohibited the production of magazines greater than ten rounds. The firearms could be produced, but they could not have the “evil” features of “assault weapons,” leading to ARs lacking flash hiders and bayonet lugs. Some States have their own AW definitions and laws, so you cannot go into places such as California or New Jersey with your AR. The law expired in 2004, and it is now as if the law never existed. Thus, you can now own rifles with those features, even rifles made during the ban, and even convert them to pre-ban cosmetic standards, provided your state allows it.

Ballistics– The study of the bullet, from ignition of the primer to impact with the target, divided into three sections: internal, external and terminal.

Ballistic Gelatin– A flesh simulacra, used to study the effect impact has on bullets, and that of bullets on the impacted object. The gelatin is a specific formula mixed to approximate the effect of flesh on bullets and vice versa. It is not perfect, but it is repeatable.

Bane Dangerous Scale– Named after gunwriter Michael Bane. The more often someone tells you how dangerous they are, the less dangerous they actually are. The more direct the statement, the greater negative impact on the scale. Mike: “The third time this guy told me how dangerous he was, I knew my trained attack beagle could take him.”

Bearing Surface– The portion of the bullet that actually contacts the bore of the barrel. The ogive and boattail do not contact the bore.

Bloop tube– A tubular extension off the muzzle, used in target shooting to extend the sight radius. The shooter gains a longer sight radius without the weight, expense and bullet-travel time of a longer barrel.

Boat tail– The rear of the bullet, tapered or reduced in diameter to reduce drag. By providing a cleaner release of the air around the base, the boa tail reduces drag, thus reducing lost velocity and flattening trajectory.

Brain Fade– A mistake caused by fatigue, dehydration or too many tasks in too little time. Simply forgetting some step in a process is “brain fade.”

BUIS– Back Up Iron Sights. Flat top rifles need something to replace the optics if the optics get broken or the batteries die. Most BUIS are flip-up, but some are not.

Buffer– The spring-loaded weight in the buttstock that adds sufficient mass to the cycling parts to control the firing rate and cycle dynamics of the rifle.

Buffer spring– Also called the recoil spring, it absorbs the energy of the moving carrier and bolt assembly, and then pushes them back to the breech, chambering another round as the rifle cycles.

Burst or Burst-fire– Firing a small number of shots in full-auto mode. Some models of M-16 have a “Burst select” where a ratchet in the fire control mechanism counts off the number of rounds fired and engages the disconnector after the burst is fired. Burst-select was added to U.S. military M-16s and M-4 to reduce ammunition waste by troops firing bursts of large numbers of rounds in full-auto fire.

CAGE Code– The code assigned to a manufacturer by the government. If you want to bid on a government contract, you have to prove you are capable of delivering quality and quantity. Once you have proven that, you’ll be given the complete data package, assigned a CAGE code and allowed to bid. If you win, your code goes on either the product or the packaging.

CAR– “Car” or “C-a-R.” The term given to models with telescoping stock assemblies and short barrels. Also known as “Shorty.” The M4 and M4-geries are not CARs. A CAR is a “Retro” rifle.

Cast– The process of forming a part by pouring molten metal into a mold.

CDI– Acronym for “Chicks Dig It”; used for guns, gear, cars, stereos, etc, that men kid themselves into believing women appreciate. The guy who gets stuff “CDI” is no threat on the range. He’s usually so convinced the coolness of the gear will see him through that he hasn’t practiced.

Class 3– – The general designation for dealers who are licensed to deal in machineguns; also the class of firearms they deal in. (The actual official designation of the license is “Special Occupation Tax” and it costs a lot: $500 or $1,000 a year, and you have to prove you’re in the business, not just a guy with bucks who wants to legally buy big boy toys.) The field is specialized, the law is particular, and the penalties for getting it wrong are severe. Be sure you have plenty of money before you decide you must own a machinegun. Patience is also useful.

Comp– Compensator. A muzzle brake (not “break” as I’ve seen many times) that redirects the muzzle gases to dampen felt recoil and muzzle lift. There is a direct relationship between redirected gas flow and comp effectiveness. In non-tech speak, that means the best comps are loud. Very loud. I’ve seen comps that would strip paint off of adjacent walls when fired. Used most often in competition, the effective ones are counterproductive in a tactical or team environment. “Real men” decry the use of comps on such a light-recoiling rifle as the AR. Little do they know that with a properly tuned comp, the sights never leave the target, thus allowing much faster follow-up shots.

Cook Off– When a cartridge if fired, the burning powder creates heat. Some of the heat leaves the rifle with the ejected brass, but the rest heats the barrel. If enough rounds are fired in a short enough time, the barrel can become hot enough that a chambered round spontaneously discharges. The round fired, and the process it is involved in, is called a “cook-off.” An air-cooled belt-fed machinegun always fires from the open bolt, to preclude cook-offs. The AR, firing from a closed bolt, can be heated to cook-off temperature. To do so requires a prodigious amount of shooting in semi-auto. In a select fire M-16, you can shoot full-magazine bursts, and after enough magazines the barrel will be hot enough to cook off a round.

Curios & Relics– A class of machineguns that are deemed so old, or so rare, that they are collector’s items in a separate group of the regular requirements of Class 3 dealings. While it is possible to acquire a C&R much easier than a Class 3 license, there are so few M-16 or AR-15 rifles on the C&R list it isn’t worth looking without a lot of money to back your search. C&Rs make the list two ways: they are more than 50 years old, or they are so rare they are not likely to be an item of criminal trafficking. It is possible to petition to have a particular firearm, by serial number, added to the list.

DCM– Department of Civilian Marksmanship. The organization formed to promote marksmanshi, and organize matches. So hated by anti-gunners that it was abolished in 1996. However, the job was saved, with the formation of the CMP, Corporation for Marksmanship Promotion. It is the organization in charge of disbursing surplus rifles and ammo. However, the rifle category where you use military rifles at Camp Perry and other High Power matches is still called the DCM.

Dealer Sample– A class of machinegun, the firearms in which can only be transferred between Class 3 dealers and cannot be sold on the regular transferable market. They can be sold to a police department, at which point the dealer can then order another Dealer Sample from the maker. Some makers are very stingy about dealer samples, and the dealer will likely take the order, acquire a new weapon from the maker for the order, and retain the sample for future sales.

DIAS– Drop-In Auto Sear. If you have an AR with a full suite of M-16 parts installed, you can add the last piece, a drop-in auto sear, to make it select-fire. (I’m not revealing any secrets here; anyone who cares to already knows about it.) A DIAS is in and of itself, a machinegun under the law. Unlike the M-16 fire control parts, where you can have some and be clear of the law, this is by itself a felony. You do not want one as a tie-tack, cufflinks, paperweight or any other such nonsense. There are some RDIAS in existence. If it is a machinegun, it was possible in the old days, to register one of these. Thus, a Registered Drop-In Auto Sear. They are rare, and you can be in big trouble if you buy what you think is an RDIAS and it isn’t. If you have an RDIAS, you may install it into any AR-15 in which it fits, and thus legally convert it into a machinegun. You can then shorten the barrel under 16” if you wish. However, if you transfer the RDIAS to another rifle, you must (I mean MUST) convert the old rifle back to vanilla-plain AR-15 configuration. There are almost always sting operations going on over DIAS. Do not buy them mail-order, and don’t even write the address to ask about them. You have been warned!

DMR– Designated marksman rifle. A purpose-built AR or M-16 for use in close to medium-range precision shooting problems. Typically used by the SDM to deal with the Squad, Platoon or Company marksmanship problems of the moment. Can be used at longer range, but the SDM is not usually trained for use “out there.” The DMR uses .223/5.56 ammunition, not the more powerful .308/7.62NATO that sniper rifles are chambered in

DOE– Department of Energy. DOE security is primarily concerned with the security of nuclear powerplants, radioactive materials storage and the like. Tough customers, a DOE security team is not so much like a SWAT team as they are a mechanized infantry fire team. Your local SWAT team won’t respond to a callout with a belt-fed machinegun (at least I hope not) but a DOE team very well might.

DQ– Disqualified. Breaking safety rules in any match will get you ”DQ’d” which is sufficient reason for the match organizers to refuse continued competition that day. Not all DQs are cause for social ostracism, as anyone can have a brain fade. Continued bad behavior has caused some shooters to be refused entry to clubs, ranges or matches.

External Ballistics– The study of the bullet’s flight, from the muzzle to the target. Five forces work on the bullet: momentum, drag, gravity, wind, gyroscopic stability.

Fire control mechanism– The internal parts of the lower devoted to firing the rifle; hammer, trigger, disconnector, safety and their springs.

Flexion– The cycle of a spring, one movement to compress and one movement to original dimension.

Follower– The platform inside a magazine, in direct contact with the stack of rounds, that lifts them with the force of the spring.

Force-on-Force– Training conducted against other people, using paintball guns, Simunitions® firearms or MILES gear. Rather than static targets, those in F-o-F training are going against reactive, thinking opponents. Paintball is a form of F-o-F training.

Forged – A receiver or part formed by the process of forging: a heated billet of metal is placed under a huge hydraulic press, and the billet is hammered into the outline of a receiver or other part.

FOPA– The Firearm Owners Protection act, passed in 1986. The good it did was to protect travelers form local laws while passing through a Peoples’ Republik such as New York, New Jersey or California. (Read the law for the details.) The bad it did was to prohibit new manufacture of machineguns for civilians. Why does a transferable MP-5 now cost you, the civilian, $12,000, when a new one to the police department is only $700? Because no new transferable ones have been allowed onto the market since 1986.

Full Auto– Instead of the disconnector engaging the hammer after each shot, in full auto the disconnector holds the hammer only until the buffer kicks the auto-sear and drops the hammer. In full auto, the rifle will continue to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition is expended. Full-auto is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934, strictly controlled, and very fun. Some states allow ownership of full auto rifles, and others do not.

Gas DwellTtime– The time period between the bullet passing the gas port, and exiting the muzzle. The gas dwell time is important for reliable function.

GPMG– General Purpose Machinegun. A medium-caliber, belt-fed, air-cooled machinegun capable of long-range fire and sustained use. To properly field a GPMG requires a crew of two, three or four men. Feeding it in a sustained role can take the efforts of as many more. The GPMG can be used for fire support for an infantry unit, mounted on a vehicle, or emplaced in a hardened position for defense. The current GPMG of the US is the M-240.

H-Bar– A heavy barrel version of the AR-15 offered by Colt, with a standard lower and a heavy, match barrel in standard handguards. Very accurate, but heavy and bulky to use as a Tactical rifle.

Hoplophobe– A word coined by Jeff Cooper, “an unreasoning fear of weapons. Specifically, firearms.” Someone who cannot discuss things firearm or firearm-related rationally due to a fear of guns is a hoplophobe.

IDF– Israeli Defense Forces. Like Switzerland, Israel has a citizen army. All citizens must be trained by, and serve a full-time term in the IDF, and then spend time in a Reserve unit for much of their adult lives. The Army is the citizenry, and vice versa. It is entirely likely that a commanding officer is an elected official, or a prominent businessman, and thus have the knowledge and leverage to see that the IDF is properly equipped and trained.

Internal Ballistics– Study of the bullet from primer ignition to its exit from the muzzle.

Leade– The portion of the barrel between the chamber and the bore. The leade (pronounced “leed”) is the cylindrical section forward of the case mouth, and the tapered portion of the rifling leading up to the full-sized rifling lands. The .223 chamber has a shorter and narrower leade than a 5.56 chamber has, which can lead to pressure problems if 5.56 ammunition is used in a .223-chambered rifle. In most applications the difference doesn’t matter, but sometimes it does.

LEO– Law Enforcement Officer, or Law-Enforcement Only. Back when the AWB/94 was in effect, rifles and magazines were marked as “LE Only/Military/Export” and could not be owned by the riffraff. Since the sunset of the law, the markings have no meaning whatsoever, nor any force under the law.

Lightweight Sporter– A Colt model with a standard lower assembly and a CAR or Shorty upper assembly. Colt offered the model to those who wanted a short rifle, while at the same time trying to placate anti-gun legislators who might have felt the telescoping stock was too offensive. They ended up with a rifle that was quite handy, comfortable and easy to shoot. It never got the respect it deserved due to many shooters taking umbrage with Colt for making it.

Lower– The lower receiver, or the assembled lower receiver of an AR-15. As the lower is the serial-numbered part, it is the firearm. All other parts can be bought, sold, traded, etc. (except where state law might be a bar) without paperwork or licenses.

Magazine– An ammunition carrier with its own feed spring. A clip is a folded sheet metal ammunition holder usually lacking moving parts, and certainly lacking a feed spring.

Magpul– A specific brand of magazine pull, to make it easier to get the first magazine out of a tight or full magazine pouch.

Mall Ninja– Someone who seems compelled to have all kinds of cool gear, equipment and clothing. Upon closer look, you often discover that: A) Their gear is all cheap knock-offs, B) they are all talk, not having been anywhere or done anything, and C) can’t back up their talk. A typical Mall Ninja is barely capable of finishing a practical competition match without DQ-ing himself.

Mechanical Dwell Time– The time period between pressurization of the carrier on firing and movement of the carrier. Mechanical dwell time allows for contraction of the fired case, allowing easier extraction.

M4– A trademarked designation and model by Colt. As a result, only Colt can make a true M4. The M4 is a 14.5” barreled flat-top with tele-stock carbine in 5.56, either select-fire or burst.

M4-gery– As in “M4-forgery”: a copy of the Colt without the name and without the select or burst-fire fire control system. Some use M4-gery as a derisive term, for rifles not Colt-made or not real machineguns. Others simply use it to describe semi-auto clones of the M4, Colt, or other brands.

Mils– Milliradians. A measurement of arc, used in surveying, artillery and astronomy.

(Unfortunately, they are not all the same “mils.”) A telescopic sight, with mils marked on the reticle, can be used as a means of estimating range. If an object of known size subtends (fills) X number of mils, the distance can thus be calculated.

Mil Dot– A scope with mil-sized dots on the reticle, used for range estimation.

MILES– Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System. Using laser-equipped rifles and wearing laser-sensitive receivers, teams or individuals can maneuver against, fire on, and be scored.

Mil-spec– Generally, an item or procedure that conforms to military specifications. In particular, a document detailing all relevant measurements, dimensions, quality control items, or procedures of concern. A Mil-spec can be an item such as food, ammunition, rifle or clothing. Or it can be a procedure, describing the testing of those items. Many mil-spec documents are classified or otherwise tightly controlled.

Mil-spec AR-15– A non-existent firearm. To be full mil-spec a rifle must conform to all the specifications laid down by the descriptions, and it must have been accepted by the government. There is no mil-spec for a semi-automatic rifle, thus it does not meet the specs, and has not been accepted by the government. There are some Air Force rifles, in the GAU-5 series, that are semi-only. But without a full-blown military specification package, you can’t call it true mil-spec.

Mil-spec M-16– There are a number of models of M-16 specified and accepted by the government. It is possible for someone to own a mil-spec M-16, if you overlook that it was probably never accepted by the government.

MOA– Minute of Angle. A circle is divided into 360 degrees, and each degree into 60 minutes. A minute of angle is thus very slightly more than one inch at one hundred yards, and proportionally to greater ranges. A rifle that “shoots 1 MOA” shoots a group one inch in size at 100 yards, 2 inches at 200, and so on.

Murphy’s Law– “Anything that can go wrong, will. And usually at the most inopportune time.”

M-240– The current 7.62 NATO machinegun of the US Armed Forces. A refined FN MAG-58, it replaced the egregious M-60. It fires belted 7.62 NATO, does not use magazines, has a quick-change barrel and is air-cooled.

M-249– The SAW in use in the US Armed Forces. Developed form the FN Minimi, it is a 5.56 air-cooled belt fed machinegun that can also use M-16 magazines (though not always with 100% reliability.)

NFA– National Firearms Act, also known as the NFA-34, since it was passed into law in 1934. The NFA is the law covering the control and taxation of machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, Any Other Weapons, etc. When someone uses the construction “NFA weapon” in an article or internet forum, they mean all firearms controlled by the act.

NVG– Night Vision Gear. Night scopes that collect and magnify the existing light. They can also be used with infrared lasers and beamsplitters, turning the laser into an infrared flashlight, to observe into areas where there is no ambient light to be magnified.

Ogive– The curved, forward portion of the bullet that is shaped to reduce drag.

Parts Gun– Also known as a “Frankengun,” a parts gun is one assembled of parts from various manufacturers. While many manufacturers assemble rifles from parts supplied by subcontractors, they are not parts guns. A parts gun typically has mismatched upper and lower receiver colors (gray and black, old and new, etc) and scrounged, surplus, salvaged or obsolete parts. Commonly, a parts gun is built from the least expensive parts, parts found, saved, salvaged or refurbished. Properly assembled, a parts gun can be as reliable as any other. Accuracy depends on the quality of the barrel used.

Platter– A forging; the forged upper or lower that looks like an aluminum pancake with the receiver trapped in the excess aluminum. The platter must be “blanked,” have the excess aluminum cut off, before it can begin the machining process.

Polymer– Also known as plastic, polymer is a petroleum-based synthetic in common use. In firearms it is strengthened by including stiffening strands of glass, carbon, or other materials. (Basalt can also be used, where the stone is heated and turned into fibers that can be used alone in other applications, or in polymer to strengthen the plastic.) Firearms are a unique, and new, environment for synthetics manufacturers, at least where the AR is involved.

Practical– A flexible term that often means what the speaker wants it to mean, no more and no less. Just as cars can be argued over as being beautiful, matches can be argued over as being practical. Or not. Cars can be measured as being fast, and winners of practical matches measured as the winner by final scores, but “practical” arguments can go on forever.

SAW– A Squad Automatic Weapon. The idea is to provide a squad an automatic weapon built for the job, and not merely a heavy-barreled rifle, but to do so without providing something so heavy it requires a dedicated crew to handle it. In a pinch, a SAW gunner can handle his weapon himself, whereas a GPMG requires a crew of two or three. The US SAW is the M-249.

SDM– Squad Designated Marksman. A squad member with an optically-equipped rifle (usually an M-16A4, or special-purpose rifle) trained to act as a medium-range sniper. He deals with the squad’s problems, not those of higher echelons.

Sight Radius– The distance between the front and rear sights. All other things being equal, the longer the sight radius of a rifle, the easier it is to accurately and consistently aim it. However, a longer sight radius can mean a longer rifle, and a longer rifle works against handiness in the field.

Short Stroke– A failure in which the mechanism fails to cycle its full length. The carrier may fail to lock open, or even fail to go back far enough to strip the top round off of a magazine. Often attributed to a too-small gas port, the problem is almost always someplace else.

Shorty– An AR with a 16” or shorter barrel, and a tele-stock. Colt made the Lightweight Sporter, which was a shorty upper with a standard lower. As an attempt to make a short rifle that the customers liked, and avoid a telestock that legislators abhorred, it failed. Buyers simply removed the standard stock and installed a telestock. The L-S is a very handy rifle, even if the stock doesn’t move. Shorty is more generic than “CAR” or “M4” and can be applied to just about anything with a barrel less then 20”.

SPR– A Special Purpose Rifle, a specially-built M-16 of some kind, used as a medium-range sniper rifle. It can be pressed into use as a long-range sniper rifle, but the energy of the 5.56 past 600 yards is markedly less than the 7.62 NATO, more so than closer. The Army uses DMR, the Mariens use the term SPR or SAM.

Stadia– Lines perpendicular to the reticle lines, to estimate range and holdover, and holdoff for wind correction.

Stripper Clip– A sheet metal channel, holding the cartridges by their rims. Used to quickly load magazines. The process is: press guide onto magazine, insert loaded stripper clip, then press the ten rounds (some earlier rifles only used five-round clips) down into the magazine. Remove empty clip, insert fresh one, and repeat until the magazine is full. Remove guide (also called a “spoon”) and insert loaded magazine in rifle.

Stripper Clip Guide– The guide that temporarily attaches the clip to the magazine for loading. Also known in some circles as a spoon.

Sweeney’s Equipment Paradigm– Once any piece of gear has a high enough quality or sufficient durability, extra cost is better put to practice ammo. A $1,000 scope will not serve you as well as a $500 scope and $500 in practice ammo. A $50 scope and $950 in ammo, however, is probably a wasted $50 scope purchase.

Sweeney’s Terminal Ballistics Rule #1: – Nothing you can hold in your hands is 100% effective. No cartridge can be counted on to immediately incapacitate any and all opponents with a single shot.

Sweeney’s Terminal Ballistics Rule #2: – You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. You cannot improve the terminal effectiveness of any cartridge or bullet without paying a price. More velocity costs barrel life and muzzle blast. More bullet weight means more recoil and more weight in the combat load.

Tensile Strength– The yield strength of a material. Worked less than the tensile strength, a material will return to original dimensions when a load is removed. Worked more, and the deformation is permanent.

Terminal Ballistics– The study of bullet impact with the target. For competition shooters, the subject is short and simple: the bullet passes through the paper, cardboard or canvas of the target. Done. For others, the study of bullet behavior when impacting game animals or people can consume a great deal of time, effort and thought.

Three-Gun (or 3-Gun)– Competitions that require all competitors to use a handgun, rifle and a shotgun at one time or another in the course of the match. Some use them singly, others require two or even all three in the course of a single stage.

Throat– The portion of the chamber forward of the neck, where the bullet itself resides when the cartridge is chambered. Also called the leade.

Trajectory– The bullet’s flight through the air. The initial thrust provided by firing is countered by drag, the force of air, and gravity. A bullet must be launched at a slight upward angle to account for drag and gravity. The arc (a parabola) the bullet travels on is its trajectory, and must be known and accounted for to provide accurate hits at any distance beyond conversational.

Transferable– A class of NFA weapons that can be transferred to anyone and not just Class 3 dealers or police departments.

Twist– The rate of rotation a barrel imposes on a bullet traveling through it. Denoted as “1:7” or “1:9” or the like, the shorthand means “one turn to X inches” where X is the second number. A lower number is a faster twist, and longer bullets need faster twists.

Upper– The upper receiver or assembled upper receiver.

USGI– The acronym for “United States, Government Issue.”

XM-177– The first official Shorty, featuring a special flash hider/muzzle brake that also acted (minimally) as a suppressor. When the ATF classified the flash hider as a suppressor, Colt lost overseas contracts on the rifle due to State Department restrictions on exports of “silencers.” Also the XM-177E1, XM177A1 and XM-177A2.