Armalite AR 10

grammon

Hello everyone... I am considering the purchase of a Armalite AR 10, Model T. This rifle has the carbine length barrel, stainless bore, picatinny rail, and two-stage match trigger.I am told that I can legally convert M1A 20 round magazines thru their factory. Factory literature claims 1 MOA and a lifetime warranty.Does anyone have any comments about and/or experience with this .308 rifle. How about the "converted" mags...reliable? I presently own a "loaded version" Springfield Arms M1A...how do you think this Armalite AR 10 stacks up to the loaded M1A?I respect the frankness and expertise I have read on this forum, and would greatly appreciate any knowledge you can share with me. Thanks, Jack

grammon

What is the thread size of the flash suppressor? I measure 5/8" x 24 but it is not quite a perfect match. Thanks

cpermd

Understand I am an M14 nutM14 is much more relible.Go to Armalite's own website and peruse all the tinkering and fixes they have done.AR10 is a 1.5-2 MOA rifle.M14 is a 2-3 Moa rifle but is easily tweaked.M14 is a battleproven design.Armalite AR10 definitely not.Parts availability-At the Tulsa show this weekend I bought several parts.Only one table had AR10 parts and that was Armalite's.I am biased.cpermdpsI forgot the mag thing.It shows the how and why on Armalites site but why didn't they just design it correctly to take M14 or FAL mags in the first place[This message has been edited by cpermd (edited 10-22-2001).]

JudgeColt

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion of this issue lately. The M1A and AR-10 are so different that it is hard to compare them. Each has its good points and not so good points. If you alraedy have a M1A, you need the AR-10 to complete another third of the three U.S. service rifle set from the 1950s trials where the U. S. military selected the M-14 over the AR-10 and FAL. I rank them AR-10, FN-FAL and M1A, with the AR-10 winning on emotion only over the FAL for me. I agree the AR-10(T) is more accurate than the M1A you have. Both can be made very accurate.The magazine conversion is really a new magazine, but the conversion kit takes advantage of a loophole in the magazine-limit law in that it uses the spring and base plate of the M-14 magazine and a new body and follower to make a legal post-ban 20-round AR-10 magazine. (The M14 magazine becomes unusable after the conversion so there is still only one large capacity magazine in existance at a time after the conversion. The parts can be switched back to the M14 magazine if desired.) The reason the M-14 magazine cannot be used "as is" is because the original ArmaLite AR-10 design uses a "straight-in" latch motion and the M-14 magazine must be "rocked" in. The FN magazine might have been a better choice as it also uses a "straight-in" latch motion, and only a new magazine latch slot would have had to have been cut to make a FN magazine work. However, at the time the current AR-10 was designed, I am not sure there were so many FN magazines in the country as there are now (before the import ban was imposed by Klinton). Since the M-14 magazine was comparatively reasonably priced and plentiful when the current AR-10 was being designed, I think that is why it was chosen as the magazine pattern for the new AR-10. (There were a lot of Chinese M14 magazines flooding the country then too. The Chinese magazines are fine quality, and were cheap at the time.)I think the Hesse AR-10 clone does use a very ingenious latch that locks an unmodified M-14 magazine in the magazine well with a straight-in push. As far as the M-14 being battle-proven and the AR-10 not, I disagree. While the M-14 design is very similar to the M1, it saw very little combat from its adoption in 1957 before being replaced by the M16 in 1963 or 1964. The M16 is the same design as the AR-10, and I think one would have to say the design is well battle proven. Original AR-10s are still in service in some parts of the world. I have read that the original AR-10 was still in use by the Italian Navy Commandos at least into the 1980s. How much of that service was combat, I cannot say, but the design is clearly combat proven for almost 50 years now.As far as the AR-10 "fixes," I think it is commendable that any flaws discovered are fixed. The original M-14 was very troublesome and had the luxury of not being introduced during a war so that the flaws could be worked out without being under the pressure of war production and combat requirements. Keep in mind that the current AR-10 design is an adaptation of the original AR-10 concept and none of the parts are interchanagable. The current AR-10 was developed by a small private company as a sporting rifle and every part had to be designed and manufactured. (As many M16 parts as possible were used to eliminate development costs and save money.) When flaws were discovered, they were corrected. On the other hand, the original M1A used all surplus military parts on a new cast receiver, so if the receiver was correct, any design flaws in the other parts were already corrected. Current M1A rifles use few or no surplus parts except the magazines, as the supply has largly dried up. As far as surplus parts, the M1A wins hands down. There are no surplus parts for the AR-10, except magazines in the form of M14 magazines. However, if that worries you, buy some spares from ArmaLite and be happy. ArmaLite has a kit of essential parts it sells for people who feel the need. I have one of each, and both are great, just different. Buy the AR-10(T) and enjoy.

seamus

Dear Judge Colt: I believe you are mistaken on your dates with regard to when the M14 was replaced by the M16, and thus you have discounted some of the rugged combat service that the M14 has experienced. I believe it was circa 1965 when the M16 began to appear in large numbers as the standard assault rifle issued to US troops. (I am a little fuzy on the exact year myself, as so much history has crossed my path since then.) I know the M14 was still being used in Nam by many Marines in 65, because I carried one. Moreover, I am not aware of any significant design problems attached to the M14 that had not been resolved by mid-1961; the M16, however, did have major problems in the early 60s, all of which were subsequently worked out (I believe the addition of the Forward Advance was a result of one of these problems). Some of the relatively minor problems associated with the M14 involved cracks developing in the (then) ventilated handguard (caused mainly by a vigorous manual of arms training, rather than by combat strain). Another criticism during that era was the weapon's relatively light construction, when compared to that of its predecessor, the M-1. I note that in actuality, the M14 was never completely replaced by the M16, to the extent that(at least up to 1997, when I retired from the USG) it had continued to be used by the US military in some circumstances: by the US Navy in particular, and expecially by the SEALS. As a main battle weapon, as opposed to an assault weapon, the 7.62 NATO round fired by the M14 is much more suitable against long-ranging and fortified targets than the 5.56mm round fired by the M16. But that is not the issue, of course, when comparing the M14 to other weapons that fire the 308 cartridge, as you have done. My bias is weighted toward the M14, but I respect your considered opinion concerning the other rifles you discussed.

Iroquois Scout

As a former "Jar Head" I can vouch for what Seamus has said in his post. At least in I Corps,the M14 had a rather long life. I first went to Viet Nam as one of the "Advisors". At that time we carried the M14 and M14E2. The only complaint heard about the M14 at that time concerned the weight of the rifle,but,man would that .308 cut the brush! In my next two deployments I saw the phase in of the M16. The majority of Marines did not like the M16 from the very beginning and when it started tearing the heads off cartridge cases at inopportune times,confidence in it really plummeted. Many M16's were "lost" during operations. Only the South Vietnamese Army liked it because of the light recoil. However, the M14 never completely disappeared among the Marines. As to the Armalite company, it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Fairchild Aircraft. When the U.S.Air Force let it be known that it was in the market for a new weapon to issue to the troops guarding the S.A.C. bombers. Fairchild got into the act and through it's worldwide contacts got wind of a smsll caliber light weight rifle for sale by the Dutch. In fact a number of prptotype M16's were built in Holland. Unfortunately the Dutch couldn't get it to work and that is why the design was for sale. The Dutch had purchased the design from the French who had developed the gas impingement system in about 1935 or 36 but couldn't get it to work either and let the design lay until after WWII and so American Troops were saddled with a less then satisfactory battle rifle.

---

grammon

Thanks guys for the information. As always, I am never disappointed with help and expertise that is found on this forum.Best regards, JackPS: for the record, Armalite does claim 1MOA for the model T...1.5 to 2 MOA is listed for the Models 2 and 4.

JudgeColt

I disagree with Scout. The AR-15 was not developed by the Dutch. Eugene Stoner developed it at Fairchild, and Colt later built it. I think Scout is confusing the AR-15 with the AR-10, which was also developed by Stoner while at Farichild. The AR-10 was built in some numbers by Artillerie-Inrichtengen in the Netherlands. (I have spoken before that I have a Sudanese AR-10 on a CKI lower semi-auto receiver.)Both the AR-10 and AR-15 were offered on the world market, but the AR-10 got only small interest from the Sudan and Portugal, which countries bought small numbers (5000 or so), as the world armed forces were moving towards smaller caliber systems, or the FN-FAL in .308. However, the timing was better for the AR-15, what with the Vietnam war ramping up. While the Marines did stay with the M14 longer than any other service branch, the AR-15 was being investigated early on by the other branches for replacement of the M14. The Air Force adopted the AR-15 in May 1962 with an initial order of 8500 rifles, 1000 of which were sent to Vietnam. The early reports from Vietnam were most favorable, with the AR-15 being reported as extremely reliable. The Special Forces (Green Berets) got the AR-15 in early 1963, as did airborne units. The Air Force took another 19,000 rifles in 1963 and the Army took 85,000 for special units. In December 1965, Westmoreland moved to replace the M14 with the AR-15/M16. (seamus, the phase-in dates mentioned above are why I said 1963-1964 for the M16 adoption date, but I cannot disagree that Westmoreland's recommendation in 1965 could also be considered the adoption date. However, your statement that the early problems with the M14 had been resolved by early 1961 proves my point. The M14 did not suffer its growing pain during wartime.)The interesting thing about the AR-15/M16 is that the initial reports from Vietnam were boasting about the reliablitiy and leathality of the AR-15. That is contrary to popular belief that the early M16 rifles were unreliable. In some ways, both reports are true. The AR-15 was extremely reliable and lethal, but after the brass began messing with it, and transformed it into the M16, that is when the troubles began. The AR-15 would have been fine if the "old boys club" in Ordnance had stayed out of it, but, by God, they did not want any AR-10 clone (after all, they had sabotaged the AR-10 and FAL in the 1950s in favor of the M14) in a squirrel rifle caliber as a battle rifle, so they began to mess with it. While the AR-15 had been outstanding with its original design cartridge and twist rate, the brass wanted the velocity to be 3250 fps instead of 3150 fps and mandated a powder change from IMR single-based power to double-based ball power, which was slower burning and dirtier burning, but gave the extra 100 fps. That meant the powder was still burining as the bullet passed the gas port and the burning powder then entered the gas tube while still burning, thus fouling the tube, and eventually plugging it. The port pressures were then so high that extraction forces were too high, and the cyclic rate went from 850 to over 1000 rpm, all over-stressing the rifle. Because the 1-in-14 twist rate would not totally stabilize a bullet at -65 degrees F., the twist rate was lowered to 1-in-12, thereby reducing the tendency of the bullet to tumble on impact, thus reducing its lethality greatly. Why was this done with a jungle war going on? In the almost 40 years since, the M16 has never been used in a very cold environment, but that will change in a few weeks. Because every semi-auto service rifle had had an operating handle that a GI could smack to be sure the action was closed, the brass mandated one on the M16A1, as the AR-15 was by then to be known. Forcing a sticky cartridge into a chamber that would not accept it freely is further invitation to disaster. Sure enough, rims began to be torn off cartridges due to the pressures being too high at the port and corroded chambers from the corrosive ball powder and a sad lack of maintenance. (Somehow, the idea that the AR-15 required no maintenance got started, and that became deadly when the ball powder was adopted.)The powder change and the forward assist were both changes that Stoner resisted, but, by then, the brass was in charge and they thought they knew better than the designer. Since the brass refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the powder, they told Colt to use whatever powder it wanted to test the rifles. So Colt completed all delivery tests with IMR powder and the rifle continued to meet all specifications for reliability and accuracy. When the rifles got to the field, they then had to operate on ball powder, with all the problems that caused. Obscene.The powder change was the cause of the early M16 troubles, with some help from the failure to require proper maintenance. A congressional investigation bears that out, but the power used in today's service round is still ball! Can you believe it? All the changes in the AR-15 were made to try to get it to be reliable with ball powder, rather than switch back to the stick powder around which the rifle was designed.Anyone who wants to be sickened by the saga of the M16 ball powder disaster is encouraged to read the excellent article in the June 1981 issue of Atlantic Monthly. Why no one ever had to accept the responsibility for the soldiers who died with a ball-powder-induced jammed M16 in their hands is beyond me. I realize this is a long way from the opening topic, but I felt it important to set the record straight on this important matter.

cpermd

Good posts on this thread.

Iroquois Scout

Judge, I respectfully beg to disagree with some of the points which you have made. The gas impingement system was most definitely developed by the Dutch from a French design. After Armalite bought the design and set up a factory and produced a few prototypes they realized that they could'nt get it to work reliably either. This is when they brought in Eugene Stoner and his design team. Stoner and Remington working together designed the .223 cartridge. They found that the only powder that would work was a non-canister lot of I.M.R. 3031. You are correct that the Army wanted to change the propellent to W.W.748,but not so much to raise muzzle velocity as to have a powder that would meter more easily and precisely through automatic loading machines. The unintended result was to raise the gas port pressure by at least 4000 p.s.i. The M16 could not handle this extra pressure. As you rightly point out Ball powder burns dirtier then does "stick" powder. The forward assist on the right side of the receiver was there not just to look kool,but was necessary to get the damn thing to load from the magazine and to get the bolt to lock up. As a lowly Nom-Com I was not privy to what the Commanding General sent back to the States,but I do know that the M16's which we were sent were pieces of s$$t. Another thing that gets my goat is armchair experts telling the grunt in the rice paddy that you have got to keep that peice clean. My answer is,how come the M1,M14,M1 and M2 carbine,SKS and the legendary AK47 did'nt screw up only the M16? Forty years later I still think that the M16 is a flawed design.

---

cpermd

And I sill stand by my M14 and M16 derivatives.Smooth,reliable,always ready.Like Cheryl Tiegs-Never a misstep!!cpermd

grammon

Anyone care to comment on the barrel of the AR 10, model T. I understand that the T model uses a stainless bore that is "triple lapped". This lapping process involves the final polishing steps. Armalite claims that this polishing greatly reduces scratches and bore imperfections and therefore improves MOA down to 1". The other models of the AR 10 utilize "double lapped" chrome lined bores.These models claim MOA in the 2" range.I have two questions:1. in general, will a stainless bore hold up as well as a chromed bore? I do a lot of shooting/plinking, and 80% of the ammo I will use will be NATO spec. surplus.2. I am aware of a 100 round break-in process recommended for stainless bores that involves multiple swabbings after each fired round or two. Just what is the purpose of this break -in, and does it really make a difference? Thanks again, Jack

cpermd

Chrome is much more durable and hard.That is why GI barrels come that way.You will hear that the break in is the only way to go for SS barrels and that it is wasted time.I don't do the every shot thing but can't argue with it and I enjoy shooting.No one has proven in a double blind study that there is a statistical difference in breakin procedures.Armalite is a master at advertising and PR