60 Years Of The AR-15

Understanding America's Rifle

Yes indeed, 1959 was the year. Before miniskirts, before the first televised presidential debate, the pill, or 8-tracks. Despite how some folks would have you believe it is only a recent modern war device too dangerous for mere civilians,...back then, even Californians could order one through the mail directly to their door at any age, no registration or paperwork. Jeez, how did everyone not get murdered?! (Sarcasm,...can you smell it?)

But in fact, the AR15 was actually merely a later evolution from its original big brother, the AR10, which had first appeared in 1956! Elvis is new, Eisenhower still in his 1st term, the civil rights movement is just getting rolling.

Having been around so long, there is a lot of history and related areas and stories that could fill books on this subject, and have. What I will try to impart here in only a mere single article is the essential yet comprehensive summary of how it came to be, where its been, where we are now and the variety it has evolved into. In doing so, my hope is that this will illuminate why it has become the standard base rifle for the American public as well as the armed forces.

Genesis

Many people wonder what the AR15 name stands for. Well, the designer, Eugene Stoner, worked for a company in Hollywood called Armalite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite , a gun designing division of the aircraft company Fairchild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Aircraft, which has had several planes successfully attain U.S. defense contracts over the decades. Thusly, when created, it stood for Armalite Rifle 15. Other Armalite products had the AR prefix, such as the AR7 and AR18, neither of which looked like or were based on the most famous one we are discussing here.

As part of an aerospace manufacturing conglomerate, Armalite was from the beginning focused on utilizing aerospace materials and technology. Lightweight alloys and plastics instead of wood and iron. The products they turned out looked truly from the future and were very unconventional not only in their materials and manufacture, but even in outward appearance. The AR10 was developed specifically to compete in the 1957 U.S. Army trials to select a new service rifle to replace the WW2 and Korean era M1Garand. While it impressed the users who tested it alongside the FN/FAL (which was adopted by most of NATO), the fix was in and the M14 (essentially an enhanced and modified M1Garand) was adopted instead.

Some countries bought small quantities of the AR10, but it just seemed too much too soon for most traditional military institutions to take the plunge.

But almost as soon as the M14 was adopted, it became clear it had limitations in facing opposing rifles of the new "assault" type, and an insurgency within the Pentagon was on to save the U.S. Military from itself and it's new "old" rifle. There were Army officers who had witnessed the Armalite's performance during the trials and were very impressed. They wondered if perhaps it could be scaled down slightly to chamber a true intermediate assault rifle type caliber, and if they might be able to somehow sneak such a weapon development program through the cracks and have a stealth assault rifle program under the radar. As it turned out, the Air Force had the greater number of forward-thinking generals to go along with such a scheme, and enough independent budget with minimal oversight. By 1959, what we today know as the AR15 was already prototyped and in testing with the Air Force. It was in service by 1960. 3 years later, in 1963, the M14 was declared obsolete after the shortest service life of any U.S. Rifle (just 6 years), and no new production runs were made. (However, the Marines refused to give theirs up until 1967 by an act of Congress.)

The M14 had provided a larger reservoir of ammo than the M1Garand it had replaced, but it was still a full-power "battle rifle" caliber. Great for engagements between foes at long distances, but not for the new and evolving land warfare doctrines that emphasized mechanized units and shock troops maneuvering to surprise and quickly assault and over-run the opposing force. Such actually required something of a more intermediate caliber, allowing for more effective close-in fighting, and allowing troops to carry more ammo for the same weight.

The story of what made the AR15/M16 so revolutionary is really of 2 different parts;...the physical rifle itself ?" it's design and materials;...and the particular cartridge it debuted to the world, along with all it's unique properties. The debate still rages today as to which has had the greater independent impact on weapon development since.

The Hyper-Speed Bullet

It had been well understood by WW2 that, in a given bore diameter, the lighter and more unstable a bullet pushed at an even greater velocity than the heavier and more stables ones, would produce a dramatic wounding effect in flesh of significantly greater grievousness, incapacitation and potential lethality. By the 50's, American hobbyist rifle tinkerers had found that specialty cartridges originally designed for prairie dog and coyote eradication, using little .22 caliber pills traveling over 3000 feet per second (about 50% faster than most military calibers of the era) produced destruction in flesh far out of proportion to what their small size would seem to indicate could be expected. They did this with far less recoil energy expended at the shooter. Prairie dog hunters of the day exclaimed how, with these little "mouse guns", they could blast away at prairie dog towns all day long without fatigue.

The U.S. Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory took note of this, and began experimenting as well. When the semi-secret alternative rifle program that became the AR15 came calling, the USAWBL provided them with a cartridge they had partially developed in partnership with Remington, called the .223 Remington. (The U.S. Army's version, slightly different, was called the 5.56mm. These are similar, but INDEED different,...which we shall discuss later.)

Why was this so radical and important?

Among the data points to emerge after WW2 was that, despite the great distances of engagement that full power battle rifles of the day were capable of,...most engagements between soldiers shooting at each other occurred at distances of LESS THAN 300 yards. If so, then why put up with the abuse and fatigue of shooting a rifle meant to hit soldiers as far as 600 or 800 yards? As the Germans had shown with the Stg44,...it's little 8mmKurtz round, effective out to 300 yards, weighed only 65% of its bigger brother, the 8mm Mauser, which was the main German battle cartridge. Ergo,...a soldier could carry 35% more ammo into battle if he had the StG44, which allowed for tactics using a higher volume of fire to overwhelm the enemy.

But what if we could go even lighter?

The development of these hyper-velocity varmint hunting rounds seemed to make that possible. And with even less recoil and shooter fatigue than even the intermediate rounds like the 8mm Kurtz or Russia's AK47 cartridge, the 7.62x39.

Indeed, the typical .223 or 5.56 cartridge weighs about only 45% of the .308(7.62NATO) round it replaced. A U.S. soldier could literally carry more than double the number of rounds into combat for the same weight penalty in his overall load. If the soldier merely carried the same number of rounds, he then was less encumbered by load, fatigued less, and was therefor more combat effective.

All of this was very controversial at the time, and there was great difficulty overcoming institutional bias in favor of "battle rifles" over these puny and anemic "mouse guns".

Combat, however, tends to settle all arguments. And this was true of the new 5.56 ammunition when it saw use in Vietnam. The new round was so effective in its wounding, creating horrendous cavitation and crippling tissue damage, that complaints were lodged in Geneva by the Vietnamese that this new ammo was in violation of the conventions of war for being needlessly cruel and torturous, designed primarily to wound and not to kill. That was in fact partly true, but the complaints never got traction in international court, primarily because the ballistic science at play was new and not widely understood by those in positions of judgment.

The South Vietnamese soldiers LOVED the new rifle and ammo. Being small people, they more than anyone else could benefit from the lessened kick the package produced. And in the jungle, where you almost never saw the enemy until he was close enough to hit with a rock,...big blasters designed for trench warfare across the plains of Europe were just silly.

In fact, as any veteran will tell you, a soldier spends more of his life carrying his rifle and ammo than shooting it, even in a war zone. Soldiers labor like mules under heavy loads they must transport on their backs wherever they go, and every ounce is cursed about to the lord above. While soldiers issued the new AR15/M16 might have thought it looked like a plastic toy and had ammo that wasn't very inspiring to look at,...everyone loved it when it came to long road marches, as opposed to the heavy beast that was the M14.

In The Age Of The Jet,

Aerospace Materials & Engineering

America's military has had a particular lesson drilled into it during it's history. Ever since the Civil War, America's access to the latest technology, when applied to the battlefield, has been central to victory. It did not always mean America had the best weapons. But our industrial might has on several occasions made the difference.

During WW2, American engineers and designers had continually been impressed with and frightened by many Nazi "wonder weapons". What was so disturbing about these was that it was clear that if Germany had simply not been saddled by it's mentally defective dictator who quite often got in the way of many of these weapon systems being more widely adopted or used,...competent generals could have seen to it that ?" with the help of these systems more advanced than what America had ?" the war could have been much more bloody and taxing for the Allies, and indeed, might have ended with a negotiated partitioning of Europe rather than clear victory.

And so U.S. military thinkers coming up with future war-fighting doctrine were converting from the idea of having "the most" weapons, to having "the best" ones. America was rich when compared to other nations, and we could afford to spend on our weapons.

Nowhere was this being put into practice more vigorously than in the Air Force, with the world's greatest and fastest aircraft. It was before what we know today as "The Space Race", but for the Air

Force, it already saw itself in a race against Russia to create the future today. New materials and manufacturing processes were being developed as a result of all the research and development funds being dumped into the aerospace industry. Fairchild Aircraft, unfortunately, was not having as much luck with military contracts at that time as it had prior to WW2, so they looked to diversify a little and see what else they might be able to apply their aerospace engineers on that could bring in government money.

The result was Armalite, and the designs of Eugene Stoner.

As previously mentioned, Stoner brought aerospace tech to gun design. If a moving component used to operate the system could be replaced or eliminated, resulting in less weight, that was done as well. Stoner also understood ergonomics and kinetic energy, and realized keeping the whole occurrence of rearward recoil as low and inline to the shoulder as possible equaled better control and quicker return of sights on target. As well, the safety could be engaged or disengaged without the firing hand needing to move from its ready grip, allowing for soldiers (if trained appropriately) to have the weapon at the shoulder and ready fire, yet safe,...and still be able to engage immediately at the flick of a switch. This ergonomic focus is also part of the success of the AR15.

And perhaps most importantly ?" and you will hear this over and over in this article and elsewhere ?" Stoner emphasized modularity;...all of the system consists of modular sub-groups which can be repaired by simple replacement. But also, can be upgraded with an improved redesigned sub-component, usually without need of depot level armory technicians. While riflesmithing in the past required some skill as a machinist and as a blacksmith,...the Stoner design merely required a manual and a complete set of tools and gauges. This is key to why the basic design is still with us today and why individual shooters love it so much ?" customization.

As such, the AR15/M16 rifle cost more to produce than almost all other rifles in competition with it. While the AR15 cost approximately $350 (in 1970 dollars), the AK47 was being cranked out for less than $50. Today, due to the aerospace manufacturing methods used being more common, that disparagement in cost is not as widely different now. But a good AK47 averages for about $600-700, while similar quality AR15s run about the same. (There are exceptions to those guidelines, which we will cover later.) For prime Aks, expect to spend $1200 and up. The same goes for AR rifles, but their price ceiling is far higher.

If we were to look at the AR15/M16 timeline, 1984 was an important year, since that was when the 25-year patent on the basic AR15 expired. Suddenly, anyone could make and market AR15 copies. A few companies started making the lower receivers, and customers could now custom assemble their own AR as they would like it to be. This was the real beginning of the growth in development of the modular accessorizing of the series. While the AR15 had not previously been one of the more affordable semi-auto "assault rifles" available for the civilian consumer, it now began to be. Rather than buy it all at once, you could buy pieces of one as you could afford to, and increasingly at lower prices due to competition. (The expiration of patents now allow sharing them online as digital files, which is likely to be the future of weapon manufacture for many American citizens,...at home. More about that later.)

Modularity

The Eminently Upgradable Rifle

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. government M-16 rifle has gone through many evolutions during its over 50 years of being issued to American troops. (The longest serving base rifle design in U.S. history, by the way.) To better understand how the system's modularity makes this possible and more economical by simply replacing the system with something else entirely, let us catalog what these changes have been.

As first adopted by the Air Force, the AR-15 (and later designated the M-16 once fully adopted by the Pentagon) looked like this:

After the troubles experienced with it in Vietnam, the first upgrade came about. These were designated M16A1. Changes included a forward bolt assist button to help ensure the bolt could close fully on a live round if things were getting sticky due to grime and goo, chrome lining of the bore, as well as a redesigned flash-hider that did not as easily snag brush and twigs. It looked much the same, except like this:

At the same time, a smaller carbine version was also issued to select troops, whether because they needed to get in and out of vehicles or just needed to operate in confined spaces. This used the same lower and upper receivers, but had different/shorter barrel, handguard and even a collapsible butt-stock. It was at different times (depending on which armed service) called the CAR-15, XM-177 or other experimental designations. The first ones also lacked the forward assist and chrome lining, but later ones included the A1 upgrades. They looked like this:

And there things stayed until about 1981, when the M16A2 upgrade began. This was a much more inclusive redesign, which included new 1/7 twist rate barrel with a larger diameter, new adjustable sights, new directional compensating flash-hider, a forward assist button less prone to breakage, a 3-shot burst feature rather than continuous full auto fire, finger-grooved pistol grip, redesigned heat shield handguards, a 1 inch longer butt-stock to better fit larger Americans, as well as a cartridge case deflector to allow left-handed shooters to not get hot brass down their shirt. And it looked like this:

Covert special forces and commando units began growing rapidly under the Reagan administration, and after their successful operations in the 80s and 90s, had the clout to begin getting their own derivative weapon systems in the late 90s. Liking the improvements made in the A2 upgrade, but still often using the old and worn Vietnam era carbines like the XM177 and CAR15 on many missions, Special Operations Command (with help from the regular Army) got the Pentagon to approve purchases of a new carbine version, designated the M4. Recognizing that too much velocity and therefor lethality was lost with the super short 10 inch barrels of the past, the M4 came with a compromise length barrel of 14.5 inches. This gave good ballistics and wounding out to about 100 yards, but was still short enough to be much more useful than the full rifle. The commandos also wanted to more easily and securely mount night vision optic devices to these carbines than had been practical in the past, so the new weapon had a modified carry handle that was removable and provided for mounting such gear in its place. The new M4 looked like this:

It was during the late 80s and early 90s that an explosion of accessories for the AR15 series of rifle began to burst forth on the civilian market. The commando warriors in the special services, always keen to be a little different and to experiment, enthusiastically tried out all of them. Today it is not uncommon to see much more modified versions of these basic rifles in service, with all manner of other devices mounted to them, and covered in colorized finishes.

The Main Sub-Groups

Lower Receiver Assembly

This is, legally speaking, the "heart" of the gun. It bears the serial number, and so under U.S. law, the lower receiver IS the gun, even if all the other components that would allow it to shoot are not attached. Because of this, it can be less expensive to first invest in acquiring the lower receiver while laws and regulations are in your favor, and get the rest of the rifle's components at a later date via unregulated and unsurveilled sources. The feds also charge a 15% surcharge tax on all weapons, so buying a $100 lower receiver results in only a $15 tax paid, versus perhaps $150 if you bought a complete rifle for $1000. You can also "build" or complete your own lower receiver from a raw forging of aircraft grade aluminum, which federal law allows, and in this way leave no purchase record at all that you have one. Currently, legal circumstances allow for lower receivers that are only 80% completed to be sold as though they ARE NOT firearms, greatly reducing the work needed to be done by the purchaser to further fabricate it into a 100% functional firearm. Because they are currently unregulated and how many have been sold or completed is unknown, opponents of freedom have labeled these as "ghost guns". But those in gun circles simply call them "80 percenters" or "80% kits". (We will cover 80% receivers more in depth later.)

Upper Receiver Assembly

This is the section which has the barrel mounted to it, and nearly all of the major action that occurs mechanically when fired occurs within this half of the weapon. Because it can in modular fashion be detached completely from the lower half of the weapon, the possibility exists to mount a completely different other upper receiver assembly, consisting of different barrel length and weight (or even caliber) if the circumstances might warrant doing so. Thus, with one lower receiver but several uppers, you could have several different rifles in one.

Gas Operating System

When it was first designed, and for much of its life, the AR15 (and its big brother AR10) utilized only one type of system for operation; direct gas impingement. Not many other auto-loading rifles had used this system, but it was not new, although the AR15/M16 is the longest serving and most successful of the type. As the name suggests, the idea is to bleed propellant gas off from the barrel and have it flow down a tube to the bolt group, where it impinges directly upon the assembly, pushing it to the rear, setting in motion the process of cycling the gun. Eugene Stoner chose this type of gas operation system because it reduced not only overall weight, but mass which would be traveling under velocity within the gun, which resulted in reduced felt recoil.

However, such a system, to work cleanly and reliably, requires that the ammunition consumed within it it be engineered from the beginning to meet certain benchmarks. If the ammo used is of insufficient standards, mechanical mayhem can ensue. Not a very big deal when the only ammo available for the gun is that made by and provided for the Army, ensuring proper product will be fed to the weapon. But as years went by, and more and different nations and private manufacturers began making ammo in 5.56/.223, there was then a wide variety of quality control, and some was flat out poorly made.

And while testing of the direct impingement system (often simply called DI for shorthand) worked well in the laboratory, on the range and in field trials held in temperate North American climates and weather,...the crucible of combat in Vietnam illuminated shortcomings almost immediately.

As said previously, the ammunition (more accurately, the propellant) needed to be rather specific. Gunpowder is not a universal thing, and there is a wide variety. Within the large diversity of gunpowder propellants, each has a unique and specific "pressure curve", which is time it takes in micro-seconds for peak pressure to occur and abate, as well as how radically or sedately that peak occurs. As well, different methods of manufacture produce gunpowder granules of different physical appearance and properties. Some look like little short mechanical pencil leads, while others resemble grains of sand, while others still look like little tiny flat flakes. And due to these properties, the adverse affects they produce when burned can be starkly different as well. Some burn dirtier, some burn hotter, while others produce more flash. The powder selected for the new 5.56/.223 cartridge was of the "stick type", which in testing here in America showed to be cleaner burning and at lesser flame temperature. (Lessened burning temp was important to prolonged service life of the weapon, since barrels which get hotter quicker burn out sooner, needing to be replaced and increasing overall cost of the weapon system.)

But once in the humid jungle extremes of Vietnam, only then was it discovered that the propellant residue that had been no problem back in Alabama and Virginia, reacted completely differently. The light soot within the gas tube no longer simply got blown out the next time the gun was fired. If allowed to sit after being used, humidity would cause the sooty residue to congeal and fasten to the interior of the gas tube like an epoxy. Successive firing and sitting would see this build in layers, until soon, the gas tube became obstructed, and the gun would not cycle reliably.

Also, the stick type propellant, which had produced stable results in temperatures like those found in the U.S. or Europe, where it was intended to be used, now suddenly in the sweltering equatorial jungles was over-pressurizing when fired. This had the result in rifles that had not yet been fouled to the point of ceasing to cycle, to cycle so violently, that often the bolt would rip the rim right off the base of the cartridge, leaving the case stuck in the chamber. The only way to dislodge it was to unpack the cleaning rod and run it down the bore to pop the case out;...a process that made shooting such an afflicted weapon as slow as the muzzle-loaders of the Civil War. Reports began to come back of U.S. soldiers' bodies having been recovered from battlefields with their rifles beside them, cleaning rod in the bore,...showing the soldier had died while trying to get their malfunctioning weapon back in action.

The Pentagon soon recognized these issues and set about fixing them. The propellant was changed to the more temperature stable "spherical ball" type powder. This propellant burned hotter, reducing service life of the barrel, and produced thicker and sootier carbon fouling. But this fouling was of a chemical make up that did not turn into a baked epoxy. Yet it was still capable of eventually gumming up internal workings if not cleaned regularly. Soldier training was revamped to emphasize giving appropriate attention to rifle care and maintenance,...something which really should never have been neglected in the first place.

After these and other changes were implemented, the weapon became far more reliable. But stories of those dead soldiers with non-operational weapons by their sides continued to spread, and plagued confidence in the weapon for decades after. And despite the greater reliability, the DI system still had the nasty habit of depositing far too heavy an amount of exhaust gasses directly back into the bolt carrier group, coating the interior of the carrier's pathway within the upper receiver. Cleaning was a never-ending job.

Beginning in the 1980's, experimenters began trying to create retrofit adaptations of the more tolerant piston system principle to the AR15. Some produced results which were impressive. I admit here my own bias for piston-driven systems and AR15s. I have never had a DI AR15 that did not gum up and begin to fail to operate after only 200-300 rounds without a cleaning. As typified by the AK47, piston-driven gas actuation is far more tolerant of the ammo propellent it is fed. And gas which is bled off for the purpose gets vented far forward of the internal workings of the gun, keeping things relatively clean and in continued operation.

Piston-driven AR15s are slightly heavier, recoil slightly more and cost a little more too. They also are just slightly less accurate (for reasons to be explained later). But in my opinion, worth every bit of bother. They clean up easier too. The Marines Corp has adopted in limited numbers a variant called the M27 which uses piston operation, and these have been fielded in Afghanistan. A recently announced new purchase of more of these occurred in the last year.

In recent years, however, a certain subset of civilian competition shooters that prize the lighter recoiling impulse of the DI gas system over the piston type, but also want improvement in the occasional sensitivity to crappy ammo, have gravitated to "mid-length" DI gas tubes. These merely relocate the hole that bleeds off gas to cycle everything 2 inches further forward. The Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has taken note of this and has fielded some rifles in Afghanistan with these mid-length gas systems as part of an evaluation for possible modification/inclusion/upgrade in further weapon purchases.

Barrels

(Twist rate of spin)

As mentioned earlier, BOTH the rifle AND its ammunition were co-revolutionary. And while there were times (as described above) where the ammo was redesigned around the gun, the reverse was also true, where the gun was redesigned around the ammo. The best example of this is "twist rate".

Twist rate is the measurement in distance that a bullet travels down a rifled bore to make one full spiral revolution. A 1-in-12 twist means the bullet makes one full turn within the bore by the time it travels 12 inches. 1/9 twist means a full turn in 9 inches, 1/7 means one turn in 7 inches, and so on.

In ballistic science, there is an optimum twist rate for every caliber and bullet combination to induce stable flight.. Lighter bullets tend to need a "slower" twist, such as 1/12, while heavier longer projectiles tend to need a "faster" twist, such as 1/7. Sometimes, a compromise twist rate is used in an attempt to be able to stabilize sufficiently any and all projectile types, such as 1/9 is considered to be.

From the beginning, the AR15 threw light and short bullets weighing 55 grains. The designation for this round was the M193. The twist rate settled on at the time was 1/12. This worked fine. The only people shooting anything heavier than 55 grains in the 5.56/.223 caliber were varmint hunters and competitive marksmen, all of them shooting customized rifles, to which they had affixed specialty barrels with the faster rates of twist. But in military circles, this was unneeded. So 1/12 remained the standard through the 60's and 70's.

But as NATO embraced the smaller rifle caliber concept and also adopted the 5.56/.223 round, concerns about it lacking the ability of previous rifle calibers to punch through light armor or vehicles drove development of armor-piercing projectiles. The Belgians presented to NATO the fruits of their research into this problem; the SS109 round, which was a longer 62 grain bullet with a steel core. The Pentagon liked this ammo too, and adopted is as the M855. Unfortunately, it was too long to be reliably stabilized by the slow 1/12 twist of rifles then in inventory. Even worse, the new tracer round that had to be developed to compliment the M855 round was even longer, and often just tumbled end over end through the air with no accuracy at all. Eventually, all new production AR15/M16 weapons were given the "A2" upgrade, which included (among other improvements) a 1/7 rate of twist designed for the new tracer and armor-piercing ammo.

And it worked fine.

However, there was still an awful lot of the the older ammo in reserve stockpiles. It was often observed that when the faster and lighter bullets were fired through guns with the faster twist barrels, the projectiles often shredded themselves from the stress.

I personally have witnessed this, where I observed gray puffs of cloud-like vapor magically appear just feet beyond the muzzle, which was actually the lead radially spinning off in all directions as the bullet came apart from the centrifugal force.

The military solved this problem by selling off or giving away to allies all of the older style ammo to those who still had the older rate of twist. Eventually, the only ammo in U.S. military stockpiles was the M855.

But civilian shooters were in a quandary. They wanted the latest version of the AR15, but they also wanted to be able to shoot the least expensive ammo they could get their hands on, which often was surplus M193. As the rest of the world that used the 5.56/.223 caliber also converted over to the new heavier bullets and faster twist rates, cheap surplus M193 type ammo was the primary supply for civilian consumption.

Finally, some companies responded to this by coming out with barrels with a compromise twist rate of 1/9. Fast enough to stabilize all but the long tracer round (which few civilians ever had ability or reason to get their hands on anyway), yet not so radical a twist rate that it would shred the 55 grain M193 projectiles.

The point of all this (or the twist, if you like) is that you need to know before you purchase your rifle or barreled upper receiver assembly what ammunition type(s) you are likely to feed it. Thusly, you can intelligently select which rate of twist you will require.

While the older style 55 grain ammo is not as prevalent as in decades past, it remains popular with some and in active production for civilian sales. Some shooters like the even lighter 52 and 50 grain hollow-point ammo due to how it penetrates very little before explosively shredding within the target. It also, when fired indoors, penetrates fewer layers of drywall or pine studs, reducing liability issues faced by errant rounds that might find an unintended victim. Fans of this type of ammo will NEVER want a "fast" 1/7 twist barrel.

At the other end of the spectrum, even heavier and longer .224 diameter bullets have seen greater and greater use lately, such as the 69 grain and 77 grain sniper-grade projectiles. These absolutely require a 1/7 twist barrel, although some have reported good results with some custom and hard to find 1/8 twist tubes.

My recommendation is the middle ground. I have long been a fan of the 1/9 twist rate barrels, and I see no reason to change that point of view. They will easily handle 90% of the ammo you are likely to ever encounter.

(Stable vs. Unstable - The Controversy Over The Puny Poodle-Puncher Projectiles And Terminal Performance)

But this esoteric science over twist rates and the affects on the projectiles is not just applicable to accuracy and putting projectiles on target. As it turns out, the bullet you choose (both weight, design and even who made it) also has a great deal to do with whether or not it has effective wounding capability on your foe. The .223/5.56 caliber has been the stuff of legendary failures or legendary lethality, depending on whom you are talking to. In the days before the internet allowed us to research things so easily and before calibrated gelatin was found to accurately simulate flesh for testing purposes,...unverifiable legends passed from person to person were all the info anyone really had on which to judge whether the caliber was deadly or not. Short of having actually used it to shoot other people, you were reduced to hearing stories from Vietnam veterans in bars and at surplus stores about how it never worked worth a damn or how it smote down VC like the fist of God. No one ever seemed to have a middle of the road story. The round was either completely ineffective, or like a laser death ray.

As usual, the truth was rather nuanced.

Recall that earlier I said that in development, it was discovered how HIGH-VELOCITY yet small calibers were found to be surprisingly effective. In the regular-sized rifle, which has a 20 inch barrel,...the caliber generates enough velocity to produce these results out to 200 yards. But many variants of the basic AR15/M16 rifle were tested and issued in Vietnam, with some having barrels as short as HALF that length. Less barrel means less time to burn propellant before the bullet leaves the bore, which means less velocity. And in the .223/5.56 round, that means less lethality on target. THIS IS A VELOCITY-DEPENDENT CALIBER.

As seen in this photograph, these M193 projectiles were each fired into tissue simulant at different velocities. At velocities above 2500 feet per second, the M193 projectile breaks apart as it yaws (turns sideways) on its path. This is what produces a tremendous "splash" effect in human tissue (which is mostly water) and thereby performs the bulk of its wounding. This hydraulic force that shoves tissue violently aside, also causes these same tissues to try to fly further away from the wound path, stretching and tearing as they do.

However, if the M193 bullet encounters human flesh at velocities LESS than this, it tends to simply bore little .22 caliber holes,...producing a wound no more devastating than being shot with the common and lowly little .22LR rimfire that most people are familiar with. Yes, depending on where one is shot, that can still be quite lethal. But not nearly as dramatically and immediately incapacitating.

Some soldiers reported that they shot enemy combatants multiple times at close range with very little effect. That would be entirely consistent with the very reduced velocity from one of the shorter-barrelled weapons.

Because the wounding capacity of the .223/5.56 caliber involved the bullet tumbling through the body after hitting it, there was commonly a misunderstanding for a long time that this tumbling occurred due to the bullet somehow being inherently unstable in flight, and that if made to fly too stably, insufficient wounding would result. Thus, when the "A2" product improvement of the U.S. M-16 rifle occurred in the early 80's, with the new 1/7 twist barrel replacing the old 1/12,...rumors began to fly immediately that this would render very unimpressive results in flesh. And again, as some limited use of the new heavier bullet ammo and faster twist barrels began to trickle in from the few spots around the world where it saw some use,...the results were once again mixed. Sometimes the enemy was put down promptly,...and other times they seemed to shrug it off and keep on trucking.

Eventually, through extensive testing, it was discovered that much of the variance in effects on downrange persons which could NOT be explained due to lack of velocity and bullet energy upon contact, were in fact due to the wide variance of manufacturing specifications in crafting the projectiles, depending on where and when they were produced. Some NATO nations produced ammunition where the thickness of the copper jacketing was too much and prevented the projectiles from breaking apart and producing the explosive wound channel typical to the American product. Rather crucially, the American projectile has a built-in crimping groove (known as a cannelure) for the cartridge case to better keep hold of the bullet before firing. During fabrication, the making of the cannelure actually slightly weakens the bullet jacket at this location, producing a uniform place for the sideways forces under the stress of plowing through tissue to cause the bullet to break apart and become more lethal. This was not always present in ammo produced by other NATO nations. And since it is far more common than many people realize for ammunition from other NATO member states to end up being expended by American troops, this had an adverse affect on the terminal results observed on the opponents U.S. soldiers were occasionally shooting through the 80's and 90's. These variances were eventually remedied, and today nearly all NATO 5.56 ammo is within spec of the American production standards.

And if you are a soldier, that's fine. However, as a civilian shooter, having to source your ammo from a multifaceted marketplace, there is a lot of ammo out there meant "for training purposes only" that just does not measure up. It is not useless. But it is good to understand how to spot cheap bargain ammo that may not actually deliver the best results on people if you are ever unfortunate enough to have to do so. We will cover that later under "ammo selection".

It may seem we have been straying off target (I love puns) by talking so much about the .223/5.56 cartridge, but hopefully you by now see that the variety of barrel designs can be directly bound with the science of the ammunition's performance. And as part of that, here is another change that occurred when the M4 was adopted,...enhanced feed ramps. Sometimes an old slightly worn magazine will not fully lift cartridges into line with the chamber and these rounds might angle somewhat lower, causing them to "nosedive" into the non-ramped area just below the barrel face. The new feed ramps are a 2-part adaptation of both the M4 spec upper receiver and the newer barrels. Occasionally, assemblers of rifles from DIY kits who purchase the barrels and upper receivers from differing sources mistakenly get components not optimally matched for the feed cuts. Below is a picture showing how this can appear.

If buying a used rifle of unknown or unproven pedigree,...inspect it to verify it has parts appropriate to one another.

(Structure ?" Materials and profiles)

So aside from choosing which twist rate you require, other options are:

Length

Weight/diameter

Type of steel (carbon or stainless)

Bore type ?" bare, chrome lining or nitride

Profile ?" plain, stepped, fluted or carbon-fiber-wrapped

Chamber dimensions - .223, 5.56nato or Wylde

If you wish to maximize the performance of the .223/5.56 cartridge, the longer the length, the more velocity you get. That usually means getting the original 20 inch full length rifle version. However, although not as popular, even 24 inch barrels exist, usually referred to as "varminter" variants. Past 20 inches for which the cartridge is optimized, there is little velocity gain, but still some. There are shortened variants all the way down to ridiculously impractical 7 inch versions, but the most popular are from 16 inches (the legally shortest version without special regulation) and up. As stated earlier, the full-length rifle produced dramatic wounds out to 200 yards. At that distance, known as the "effective range", this velocity-dependent projectile has lost approximately 800 feet per second (fps) of velocity and much of its lethal capability. Since each inch of barrel reduced from the 20 inch full-length model equates to roughly an equal 100 fps in velocity loss, a 16 inch carbine barrel reduces the weapon to an effective range of 100 yards. Likewise an 18 inch barreled weapon is effective to approx. 150 yards. Bullets traveling further than this can still kill of course, but rapid incapacitation is less likely. While short and handy carbines are nifty, they have limitations. Keep this in mind when choosing your barrel length.

Some barrels are thinner in diameter to keep weight down. However, under sustained fire, those thin barrels can quickly heat to the point of warping and drooping, permanently destroying accuracy until a replacement is installed. Thicker diameters resist this and also reduce the felt recoil. The recoil produced by the .223/5.56 is rather small and insignificant already, but lighter kick can matter to small people and it certainly reduces time for target reacquisition along the sights.

Since the A1 variants issued late in the Vietnam war, chrome lining of the bores has been standard on government guns, to help against corrosion in the humid jungle environment and the reliability issues encountered there early on, as well as to increase hardness and thereby decrease undue wear from occasional sustained fire. Civilian shooters today often question whether that extra layer affects accuracy and instead often opt for plain unlined carbon steel, especially since bursts of full-auto fire are not likely. It reduces cost a tad. Some opt for stainless steel, providing corrosion resistance. Others who are looking for the ultimate (if slightly more expensive) go for salt-nitride coated barrels (both inside the bore and out). Nitride is harder than chrome and more corrosion-resistant than even stainless steel, which is why I prefer it.

Another expensive option (but worth it in my mind) is "fluting" the barrel. By milling out valleys along the length of the barrel, one can have the stiffness of the larger diameter, but the reduced weight of a smaller one. As well, this process creates more surface area from which heat can dissipate, allowing the weapon to cool more quickly and avoid damage. In recent years, a hybrid barrel, utilizing a pencil-thin metal bore core wrapped thickly with layers of reinforcing and heat-dissipating carbon fiber has been available. This again achieves heat dissipation, lightness yet rigidness,...and costs more.

Now I'm trying to not bombard you with esoteric gunsmithing and engineering minutia, but when it comes to what chambering to choose, there's no getting around it. So follow closely here. The .223 cartridge and 5.56nato cartridge have identical dimensions. They are loaded, however, to different pressure levels. (5.56 is higher in pressure than .223) While the exterior dimensions of the cartridges are the same, the INTERIOR dimensions of the chambers they go into are NOT. The difference is slight, but it matters. The .223Rem chamber has less "freebore", which is the distance the bullet jumps across from the mouth of the cartridge case til it actually engages the rifling grooves. The 5.56 has not only more freebore, but the freebore is also slightly larger in diameter, at .226, as opposed to the .224 freebore of the .223Rem. cartridge.

This means that a .223 round can safely fire in a 5.56 chamber, but firing a 5.56 in a .223 chamber is likely to raise pressures even more than the already maximum that the 5.56 operates at, and potential damage can occur. However, for accuracy purposes, match competitors value the tighter freebore of the .223 chamber, but would like the longer freebore of the 5.56 because it allows for using longer and heavier projectiles (which is important in long-range marksmanship). So a third option has been created known as the Wylde chamber, named after the gunsmith that came up with it. It allows ALL .223 and 5.56 ammo to be safely and accurately used. This SHOULD be standard on all AR15s made today, but sadly, it usually is not an option from the factory. You either have to have a gunsmith ream out and alter your .223 chambered barrel, or if assembling a gun from parts yourself, be sure to order your barrel with a Wylde chamber.

But is that necessary? If you are not looking to compete in matches or leagues,...probably not. And in that case, if average accuracy is fine with you, just settle for having a 5.56 chamber, and all is fine.

Handguards and free-float tubes

Perhaps the single greatest innovation to ever improve upon the AR15 series has been the free-floating handguard tube. The free-floating handguard tube is actually nothing more than a larger version of the locking nut that secures the barrel to the upper receiver.

But instead of only securing the barrel, the tube extends over the barrel, acting as the foregrip and handguard, while also eliminating any flexing of the barrel within its mount, since no pressure can be exerted on it far forward as plain handguards did.. Thus, rifles equipped with these tubes exhibit greater accuracy,...which was the original reason they were developed.

But as time went by, folks discovered that these metal tubes made for good places to mount other accessories. Originally just plain tubes, eventually, these shrouds were designed specifically to enable modular mounting of other gear. For gadget-happy soldiers and shooters who wanted a flashlight, a laser, another sight or even a camera on their weapon,...the accessory rails that were soon coming standard on nearly all free-float tubes made it possible to have nearly anything and everything at your fingertips while manipulating your rifle.

Unfortunately, adding metal to your gun, even lightweight aluminum such as this, makes the rifle heavier. However, there are even carbon fiber versions of these free-float tubes, which are what I prefer for absolute least weight and good thermal protection.

When they originally debuted, these free-float tubes were typically only round, and that didn't always make for the most ergonomic gripping surface. Soon, people began bolting vertical foregrips to these, to better wield them around. Then the shapes of the tubes began to morph from simply round to more triangular or square or even octagonal.

Soon, rather than making tubes that were then drilled and tapped to bolt on accessory rails as attachment points, tubes began being made in extruded form, with the rails made as part of the tube from the beginning of fabrication. By necessity, these were aluminum. But to keep weight down, they began to get "skeletonized", removing as much material as possible yet still have structural rigidity and robustness. As as added benefit, this also aided in cooling, allowing barrel heat from rapid fire to dissipate off and away, while the free-float tube acted as a protective cage that kept one's hand from coming in contact and getting burned.

Today, if you look at pictures coming back from where U.S. troops are serving, you will see these on nearly 75% of M16s and M4 carbines. While still not officially an issued item across the services, nearly every unit uses their own discretionary funds to acquire their own preferred version of these modular items. As a result, sometimes these rifles can appear a little cluttered from so much stuff attached.

Also, while the concept started out as a replacement/enhanced barrel mounting nut,...to make manufacture cheaper and installation easier, similar-looking devices that merely replace the handguards and provide these railed surfaces also exist for sale. But unlike the true free-floating tubes, pulling or pushing hard on these can actually affect your point of aim and can shift where on the target your shots impact. Although slightly more expensive and being a bit more troublesome to install, the railed free-float tubes are superior to the mere railed handguards.

A good way to tell which it is you are looking at on a gun that already has a railed handguard or tube (and which you may be considering purchasing), is to look at the end nearest the muzzle or front of the gun. If it is open and does not appear to be secured to anything, that is likely because it is a free-float type and is mounted only at the rear. If, however, the front of the handguard seems to lock up or otherwise mate with the front sight tower or the barrel in some way, this is an indication it is merely a handguard only and not a free-floating tube.

The one major drawback to these railed extensions that allow for so much modularity is all the corners and sharp edges. Just look at the picture above and imagine hurriedly dragging your knuckle accidentally across that. OUCH! So, rubber rail covers were devised to keep these sharp edges protected when not actually needed. Personally, I am of the opinion that you should simply buy smartly up front, getting no more rails on which to snag your skin or other things than you actually need. This is why I prefer the carbon fiber tubes with the removable bolt-on rail sections. But you can see here, there are essentially 2 types of rail covers;...lattice type and panel type.

The lattice or ladder type provide a slimmer overall grip diameter, while the panel type produces a thicker one. The panel type tends to protect better, as well as providing better cold protection in winter, preventing ungloved hands getting freezer burn on exposed metal in sub-zero temps. And of course, there are even customized versions, such as these;....

It is also important to recognize that the accuracy benefits of free-float tubes is realized mostly with Direct-Impingement operated rifles. Piston-driven guns also benefit, but piston systems inherently produce more downward push upon the top of the barrel under the stress of operating, and impart a small amount of barrel flex themselves. This is one of those trade offs you get get between DI and piston versions.

Sights

On the original AR15/M16 rifles, the sights were all the same. But today, they have morphed into a wide variety, and that does not even include the nearly endless selection of optics that are now employed. We will leave the optic option out of this for now and speak only to the "iron sights", which today are often not even metal.

Following U.S. military doctrine of many decades, the sights deployed on the original rifles were of the aperture and post type, which had been on all other U.S. weapons since WW1. Nothing wrong with that,...they work. But the ones on the M16 and M16A1 were rather non-adjustable, and the Marines, always emphasizing marksmanship at their core, found that unacceptable. Pushed by the Marines, when the A2 version came out in 1982, the rear sight had much more adjustment available for long range engagements.

But as the experimental and successful use of scopes and other optics on the rifles progressed through the 80s (primarily with special operations and commando types), that tall carry handle on which the sights were mounted was on obstruction. Optical devices need to be mounted as low to and inline with the bore as possible. Civilian match competitors had been experimenting with just completely shaving off the carry handle all together in order to achieve this, and military marksmen tinkered with the same thing. Thus, when Special Operations Command (SOCOM) lobbied the Pentagon to purchase the M4 variant, it included a modification of a removable carry handle attached via a universal optics mounting rail (known in shooter circles as a Picatinny or 1913 rail,...having been developed at Picatinny Arsenal in 1913). This was well received and it led to an increasing adoption by many units of optic devices.

But that tall front sight tower still stuck up in the way, and many folks began to simply shave it off as well. That's all well and good,...unless you drop your fancy rifle on its head and shatter the glass, rendering your sight system useless. Now what? Some talented gunsmiths developed fold-down iron sights that could attach to the Picatinny rails on the upper receiver and increasingly found on the free-float tube handguards. Thus, these "Back-Up Iron Sights" (known as BUIS in gun culture shorthand) became a very sought after accoutrement and today are very very common. If your optic is mounted via an easy to operate without tools type of mount,...no problem. Just flip a lever or two to dislodge the now damaged item,...toss it,...deploy the BUIS, and you're back in action. But if you cheaped out and attached your optic using screws or other things which require a tool,...that you of course didn't bring with you to a gunfight,...oh crap! But perhaps instead, you decided to mount your BUIS 45 degrees offline,...so that in case you need them, you don't have to bother with attempting to dispose of your optic at all;...just cant your rifle a bit and viola!

Desert Storm and the Rebirth of the AR10

All these developments were plodding along, rendering the AR15/M16 series more effective than ever before. But then came desert warfare. The entire premise of the intermediate rifle cartridge had been predicated upon the idea that most engagements against other soldiers were NOT at very long distances. But in the expanses of the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields,...you could see the enemy in the open at distances which would render any lucky hit with a 5.56 round about as annoying as a bee sting. Suddenly, soldiers were wishing they had true far-reaching, hard-hitting "battle rifles" like the M-14 the M16 had replaced. In fact, the Navy still had many M14s in mothballs that they had never gifted away to other nations like the Army had done, sending most of theirs to the Philippines in the 60s and 70s. When the SEAL teams wanted to lay their hands on some, the Navy was able to deliver.

Once the Kuwait ordeal was concluded, the lessons of the desert learned, the Pentagon procurement dudes were deluged with demands by all the special forces commanders that they needed to have at least a few battle rifles in inventory. While a great number of M14s were negotiated for return from the Philippines as an interim solution, they had seen hard service and needed refurbishing. Studying the problem, the Pentagon realized that cost was nearly greater than buying entirely new rifles. And if they were going to do THAT,...perhaps a newer better rifle should be investigated and/or acquired. At about that time, a Florida manufacturer called Knight's Armament had as a consultant Eugene Stoner himself and decided to take all that had been learned over the decades about how to improve and accurize the AR15 and apply that to a new modern AR10. While it took many years to happen, the Knight/Stoner rifle was eventually adopted as the M110,...in 2005. It only took ANOTHER desert war to make that happen.

But that didn't happen in a vacuum. The adoption of the M110(AR10) happened after 20 years of the renewed interest of the AR10 in civilian circles as well. The gun engineering community is rather small, and nothing stays secret for very long. As soon as it was learned in the early 90's that the legendary Eugene Stoner himself was working on reintroducing the AR10 as a military weapon, many veterans who had returned to civilian shooting circles decided they didn't want to wait and began lobbying other manufacturers to bring something to market NOW. And they did. The first, appropriately enough, was Armalite. This was not the original Armalite. The trade name had been sold for a bargain decades before, and the owners had decided to make the new AR10 their flagship product. They were soon followed by DPMS, and in the years to come, eventually Smith & Wesson, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms and many others. While not as numerous as their smaller cousins, the AR10 type has been enjoying more popularity than ever before.

In great part, this is due its commonality with AR15/M16. To use the larger rifle does not require learning a different platform. While the parts interchangeability is only 40%, the tearing down, cleaning and reassembly procedures are almost entirely 100% the same. That's not only attractive to military administrative types who have to deal with training regimen and doctrine, but even with Joe Sixpack.

Caliber variety and growth of the AR system

While the average person is not aware, it is none the less a fact that many calibers developed over time have mostly been done so by first experimenting with easily available brass casings of existing calibers, which are then modified and reformed to create the new experimental cartridge. These are known as "wildcats". Sometimes a wildcat is adopted widely enough to become mainstream. The 7.62x51NATO (also known as .308) has been used as the base case from which many popular mainstream calibers have been developed. These include the .22-250, the .243, the .260Rem, the 6.5Creedmore, the .338, the .358, and many others. The list of calibers which use the same rim diameter (which would allow easy adaptation without the need for a different bolt) is even longer. So of course, it was only a matter of time until people started making their own AR10 in calibers they thought might better suit certain purposes.

And in fact, while the .308/7.62NATO is certainly a farther reaching caliber than the weaker 5.56/.223 of the AR15/M16 series,...it is not the flattest trajectory caliber based on that cartridge case. Deciding that good was not good enough, DPMS was the first to offer as an option on their AR10 a chambering in .260Remington; basically a .308 case necked down from .30 inch to .26 inch. The caliber offered at 1000 yards and beyond nearly all the hard-hitting power of the .308, but with less recoil and less trajectory correction calculation. Conceptually, this should make for a weapon that was even easier to land hits at extreme range. The idea caught on so well that the .260Remington combination was investigated thoroughly, and some very minor dimensional design flaws to the cartridge were identified and corrected by designing an entirely new version of the caliber, designated the 6.5Creedmore, which has become one of the hottest calibers today.

The sportsmen who wanted to have the quick follow up shots an AR10 offered, but in a bigger caliber for large game (like moose) and deadly game (like Kodiak bears) wanted something a little bigger. Fortunately it was no difficult feat to offer them in .338 or .358. This year saw the introduction of the .500 AutoMax, specifically designed for the AR10 system, throwing a .50 caliber bullet. If you're on foot in Grizzly country, this might be for you!

And likewise, caliber options and experimentation began popping up in the smaller AR15 system as well. Not only did some shooters seek flatter trajectories and hard-hitting rounds,...some just wanted to shoot the cheapest ammo they could get,...and that meant surplus soviet stuff. While cheap .223 ammo cost about $0.30 cents each, soviet surplus 5.45x39 of similar performance was only 2/3rds that price. Same for the 7.62 russian round. These were the first conversions. But soon 9mm became a popular choice too. (More on that in a bit)

The quest for a harder-hitting round for longer distances in the AR15 brought forth the 6.5Grendel (also known as the .264LBC). While it achieved that goal, it required a full-length barrel to truly realize the velocity it needed to do that. The U.S. Special Forces Command (SOCOM) was intrigued by the 6.5Grendel, but having grown quite fond of how handy the M4 carbine envelope was, sought the same performance in carbine length barrels. Internal development in conjunction with the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit produced the 6.8SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge). These two rounds have slowly become adopted in greater numbers by shooters. More recent developments include the .224 Valkyrie, which is only a few years old.

Limited only by if the cartridge can fit in the limited dimensions of the magazines, folks who wanted large bore options developed new calibers specifically for the AR15 system. SOCOM was involved in this as well, producing the .458SOCOM in response to Task Force Ranger's bad experience in Somalia against drug-envigored opponents who stayed upright and continued fighting despite direct hits. Slightly more powerful is the .450Bushmaster that came about shortly after. The big boss, the .50Beowulf debuted also in the early 2000s. One of the newest is the .350Legend, introduced just earlier this year.

Gee, that sounds complicated enough to write a book about just THAT! Yep,...it's been done.

Despite all this, the vast majority of AR15s are still chambered in .223Rem./5.56 and the AR10 is still usually found in 7.62/.308Win.

Pistols/Shorties/PDWs

I wrote an article last year that covered a lot of ground on the trend in Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs) in small sizes usually associated with submachineguns. Refer to that at this link here. Without rehashing the entire thing, let me summarize the part pertaining to AR15 "assault pistols".

Federal firearms laws as laid out in the 1934 National Firearms Act (often referred to simply as the NFA for shorthand, and weapons under its rubric are referred to as NFA weapons), stipulates that any rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches is a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) and requires special licenses to possess. Likewise, any pistol that has a shoulder stock attached to it also becomes an SBR and if not properly licensed and registered, is a crime to possess. There are some limited exceptions to this, but that is all rather esoteric collector museum gobbly-gook which we won't bother with here.

AR15 pistols have existed for a long time. But they were primarily curiosities; impractical noise-makers that were more range toy than tool. Having no buttstock out of legal necessity and no really effective way to stabilize them when firing, hit probability was abysmal, precluding them from serious consideration for anything other than impressing fellow Bubbas. But everything changed about 2012, however, when along came the first commercially manufactured and marketed "arm brace" for the AR15 pistols.

An arm brace, meant to simply help stabilize a very large handgun, was perfectly fine. But what if that brace was significantly large in and of itself that one could improvise and use it adaptively like a buttstock? Hmmmm. Was it then a stock? Or was it merely an arm brace? Folks began buying these arm braces like mad and openly using then as improvised stocks. The practical effect was to have all the utility of an SBR, but without all the government BS. There was a few years there where the BATFE tried to scare folks into believing that by "misusing" an arm brace as an improvised shoulder stock they were violating some kind of law and could be prosecuted. But eventually, that bluff was called and it has been established that shouldering your pistol is not a crime.

This was a big deal. For years, many folks had wished they could have a small and handy version for getting in and out of vehicles more easily, or for stowing in small cramped craft like boats and planes. Indeed, even for use in home defense, navigating through hallways and around corners with a long-gun was always less than ideal. But in all the same ways that a submachinegun or PDW were of utility, now the citizen could experience that same benefit without paying the extra licenses and fees and waiting period BS.

Another thing happened at about the time the pistol brace was coming onto the scene. There was a resurgent interest in pistol caliber carbines (PCCs), primarily 9mm ones, which is the vast majority caliber of the type. While in my opinion pistol-sized .223/5.56 rifles are silly because of the severe loss in velocity and performance and the added penalty of increased blast noise,...pistol calibers such as 9mm and .45 are an entirely different matter. Unlike the .223 caliber, pistol calibers get a full burn of their propellant and thus full ballistic performance in rather short barrels. Nor are they nearly as thunderous. 9mm ammo is also cheaper than 5.56 ammo, so for simply blasting away recreationally or in training, it costs less to throw little 9 millies downrange. While the 5.56 cartridge does not deliver a lot of kick to the shooter, the 9mm tends to recoil just a bit less. All this combined made the little packages well suited to smaller statured shooters such as women and children, and not as intimidating for them either. So while 9mm AR15 types have been around a long while, their newer shorter versions have been more popular than ever and they are becoming common.

The AR15 pistols are also becoming more in vogue because of the recent increasing popularity of silencers. I wrote an article on that too, and you can read it here. Adding a silencer (more properly called a "suppressor") to a weapon makes it longer. But if the weapon is already rather short,...such as one of the currently popular AR15 pistols,...then the entire thing is only as long as a traditional carbine or rifle. And this is again ideally suited for children and females new to shooting because the unpleasant noise is much reduced.

So, you say to yourself, this sounds great. I'm gonna go buy an AR15 lower receiver and then stick a 9mm pistol upper assembly on it and an arm brace on the back. Well,...there are a couple potential pitfalls you need to be aware of first. Some legalese that needs to be paid attention to.

Remember the NFA of 1934 I mentioned earlier. The way it is written, no special permission or other BS is required to make a pistol into a rifle;...but making a rifle into a pistol,...that is trouble. Yet, dimensionally, the AR15 receiver for either a rifle or a pistol is exactly the same. The ONLY thing that differentiates between them is how they are MARKED. Prior to the arm brace coming to market and creating the demand for AR15 pistols, many AR15 receivers were marked as RIFLES or CARBINES. Rifles are not supposed to have barrels shorter than 16 inches, and even if you comply with the law by putting an arm brace on there,...it was manufactured as a rifle, and therefore in the eyes of the law shall ALWAYS be a rifle. To resolve this, receivers manufactured for sale as non-completed firearms since then have almost all been marked as "pistol" or more often, just given a "genderless" model designation. And due to the fact that you might choose an exotic caliber, they are now nearly all marked as "multi" where the caliber identification is engraved. Thusly, such a receiver is unencumbered by these entangling legal tripwires and is free to be legally built into a short AR pistol or rifle of whatever caliber you please. But there are many AR15 receivers floating around for sale,...some of which are marked as RIFLE. Unless you know what you are doing, you could inadvertently build yourself an NFA-regulated short-barrelled rifle and be in legal trouble.

"Ghost Guns" / 80% non-firearms

Or rather than bother with all that, you COULD just make your own AR15 lower receiver in the privacy of your own home. Federal law does not prohibit this,...at this time. Future legislation might come to pass that changes this, but for now,...nothing at the federal level bars you from manufacturing your own AR15. Local laws might have something to say, depending on where you are.

Federal law only began REQUIRING serial numbers on weapons newly manufactured in 1968. While most manufacturers, for quality control purposes, assigned serial numbers to their products, it was not a universal practice. Many of the rifles and shotguns sold through mass-marketing outlets like Sears, J.C. Penny and Montgomery Wards prior to that time had no such numbering. The serializing was required via a law based on the COMMERCE CLAUSE nexus of Constitutional juris prudence. This is key because the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA of 68') was enabled only as a regulatory scheme upon manufacturing and importation in pursuit of commerce. Not possession or fabrication for personal use.

Therefore, if you decide to manufacture a firearm in your basement or garage INTENDED only for your personal use,...there is currently no markings of any kind required. You may in fact mark it in any fashion your desire, or not at all.

As a result, there is no database such a firearm can be traced within,...unless you voluntarily decide to notify the administrators of such a database. California, for instance has passed state level law requiring anyone who has made a home-fabricated firearm to mark it with a serial number and enter it into the state's database. Other states are considering similar measures.

Because this has become an increasingly popular alternative over the last couple decades, there are suppliers who sell AR15 kits with all the parts except the lower receiver, while others sell "nearly complete" lowers that have approximately 80% of the machining processes performed, leaving you to complete the remaining 20%. Because they are only almost finished, they are not a firearm, according to CURRENT rules observed by the feds. (That may change in the future depending on the whims of Congress.) And as a "non-firearm", they are completely unregulated and able to freely and DISCRETELY be sold across any and all jurisdictions within the U.S., including the unfriendly Bill of Rights exclusionary zones like California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc. (Note: As this article is being published, New York is proposing the ban of sale of "precursor" gun materials, so this might very soon change.And Pennsylvania's Attorney General just decreed by the stroke of a pen that 80% receivers are now considered the same as any complete firearm.) To what degree those who possess these 80% receivers decide to comply with local laws is their responsibility.

But of course, some of these 80% guns have been completed by ner-do-well bad actors and involved in crime. But because there is no way to trace their origin, hoplophobic hand-wringing disarmament advocates squawk in blustery alarm that these "ghost guns" have no history to be unearthed and followed as leads.

But for the liberty-minded,...this might well be ideal. Except for the digital transaction trail of purchasing the components, legally making your own "ghost gun" goes a long way toward protecting you from potential future illegal seizing of it by corrupt authorities that may come to power. The Jews of Europe could have been greatly better off with a bunch of covert and off-the-books "ghost guns". History does repeat itself, you know.

Now if you go online in some of the various gundude chat forums and discuss making your own AR15 from an 80% receiver,...you will get a WIDE variety of opinions and uneducated guesses about whether it is legal or not to at some future point to sell off your home-made firearm, especially if you elected to not mark it with a serial number. While I am not an attorney, to me the law regarding this is rather clear that you are only prohibited from manufacturing a firearm without a serial number if with INTENT to sell or profit. If, say, 10 years later, despite having fully intended to keep your rifle and pass it on to future grandkids,...but you have a financial emergency such as medical bills or damage from a natural disaster,...and need to sell off cars, appliances and jewelry to make it through,...nothing (from what I can see) prohibits you selling off the rifle you once made and fully intended to keep and not produce for commercial profit. However, you may have some difficulty finding potential buyers who are comfortable and OK with buying a modern weapon bearing no serial number. Many folks are still unaware this is legal. So it might behoove you to give the weapon markings such as a serial number, just for the sake of keeping the sheep calm. And since you are a freedom-oriented person who would never willingly register your weapon with anyone anywhere at anytime for any reason anyway,...what does it matter?

To that end, there are folks producing and selling acid-etching template stencils for you to etch markings on your home build project. One such outfit I like is DogFightInk.com who has stencils to make your AR15 appear at first glance to actually be a rare and never imported foriegn-produced variant, such as those made in Canada or Taiwan. I mean, since you're not trying to defraud anyone by trying to pass off your common Bubba-made rifle as an exotic Taiwanese government-issued weapon,...what's the harm? It's just for your own private amusement.

The ATF, in typical fashion, got their panties in a twist over this when, in order to make the first glance seem as authentic as possible, some people have also had etched onto the lower receiver a FAKE pin for the auto sear. Only a true gundude is even likely to notice such a detail. The auto sear is necessary to make an AR15/M16 rifle function like a machine gun. But since the pin is fake and there is in fact no hole for such a pin,...why the fuss? Because ATF claims that putting such a marking on the weapon is MARKING the location for where to drill said hole, and supposedly could be viewed as INTENT to make such an alteration without proper legal permission. ATF's position on this was a not so veiled threat that they would prosecute folks for making such markings. But so far, no one has been arrested or charged for such and this appears to be yet one more of ATF's baby tantrum empty threats.

Manufacturing your own fully functional 100% lower receiver from an 80% is easy-ish,...but not necessarily something anyone can do. If you have never worked on your own car or built anything out of wood,...I'd say don't try this. But if you have any sort of machining experience, this should be a cake walk. Obviously a proper milling machine would be best to complete the steps, but many folks have successfully completed these with mere drill presses, routers and even hand-held Dremels. Sometimes groups get together who have met on local gun discussion forums and have a "build party", somewhat like a 1970s Tupperware party, but for men and guns, and held at someone's garage who has the proper tools and some prior skill.

CALIBER VARIANTS

While the original AR10 was chambered in 7.62NATO/.308 and the AR15 was originally chambered in 5.56NATO/.223, ever since the mid-80s, new and differing calibers have been adapted, producing a dizzying array of possible calibers one can choose from if they want something other than chocolate and vanilla. Purists will say that this range of calibers is pointless and detracts from the utility of the weapon system for several reasons. Primarily, that having a rifle chambered in a caliber other than that used by others means your buddy with the original style of rifle can't share his ammo or magazines with you and vice versa. While in a military or police context this is an entirely valid criticism, it doesn't necessarily apply to the individual sportsman. Your particular caliber variant might require specialized magazines or certain spare parts, but aside from maybe having to hunt a little harder or pay a little more for those...perhaps the trade off is worth it to you for whatever extra or different performance your combination provides. Another criticism, which is sometimes true, is that the AR15 wasn't designed for that caliber, and reliability of the adaptation is poor as a result. Many caliber conversion variants are just as reliable,...but yes,...some may not deserve to exist. Research of what works for you is your responsibility.

Here is a partial list of the different calibers that have been or currently are available in the AR15/AR10 system.

.204Ruger

.22lr

.224Valkyrie

.243WSSM

.25WSSM

.260Rem.

.300BlackOut

.30RemingtonAR

.300HAM'R

.338Federal

.350Legend

.358Winchester

.40S&W

.45ACP

.450Bushmaster

.458SOCOM

.50Beowolf

6.5Grendel

6.5Creedmore

6.8RemingtonSPC

7.62x39

9mmLuger

10mmAuto

The list is even longer than that, but consists mostly of esoteric or uncommon chamberings for highly customized rifles and applications, so we won't bother with them here. Nor will I detail even these on the list, as that would be a book all of its own. However, there are a few that need mentioning.

9mm Carbines and Pistols

In 1982, Colt (who was the company holding the AR15/M16 patent then and was the US govt contractor supplying them) received a solicitation from the DEA for a 9mm submachinegun for their raid teams to replace their aging Uzis. Colt engineered a variant that met the DEA's request. It soon caught the attention of various other government entities (as Colt had hoped) and sales were brisk. Civilian demand wasn't all that keen for a commercial model yet, but Colt made one anyway. It didn't fail, but neither did it catch fire,...until about 30 years later, when pistol caliber carbines recently started becoming all the rage.

Because the first contract with DEA was meant to replace Uzis, Colt engineered the 9mm version to utilize DEA's existing stockpile of Uzi magazines. And since it was already a well designed magazine, why try to re-invent the wheel with a proprietary magazine just to get a few more bucks? All the old Uzi mags required was a minor alteration by cutting a new slot on one side, and they were good to go. And so when Colt began selling the CAR-9 civilian model, they used the same feed device. Over the years afterwards, many people began copying Colt's 9mm and selling their own version. But they all liked the utilizing of the modified Uzi magazine and it was retained in nearly all copies,...until someone was able to adapt Glock mags to their version.

Because Glocks had taken over the handgun world and were the most popular handgun around, magazines for them were everywhere and cheap. Extended mags began appearing in the early 2000s, and they were relatively inexpensive, costing about the same as newly manufactured Colt/Uzi mags. Suddenly, there existed the possibility of having a 9mm carbine that also used the same feed devices as your sidearm. This is an attractive feature for some, and over time, the Glock magazine version of 9mm AR15s became the dominant variant you usually see today.

Aside from whether you would like your 9mm AR to use the same magazine as your Glock (if you have a Glock, that is), a big difference between these two choices of magazine type is that the Uzi/Colt style mag uses a dual-position feed lip system, while the Glock mags use a single-position feed. While single-position feed magazine USED TO BE less reliable, that is no longer the case, especially with Glock magazines. However, the dual-position magazines are indeed MUCH easier to load and less fatiguing to do so. It is relatively simple to just roll a fresh round into the Colt magazine without any special tools. But try to load the Glock magazines without a loading tool and you will be busting thumbs.

But all of these were operating by way of a different method than either direct-impingement or piston-driven gas systems as the rifle previously had. Due to the wide variety of ammunition in 9mm, the propellants used, bullet weights propelled and pressure levels created during firing, simple unlocked blow-back was used. Nearly every 9mm carbine or submachinegun ever developed uses this principle, and for the same reasons. However, adapting this to the AR15 bolt assembly was not without problems. Typically, blow-back 9mm systems operate best with a rather heavy bolt. But the dimensions of the original AR15 bolt carrier assembly don't allow for very much mass, since the entire design originally was meant to keep rearward moving mass at a minimum. Thus, the blow-back 9mm AR15s tend to have above average bolt velocity and can beat the gun apart and wear out more quickly than would be desired. This was ameliorated by inserting heavy tungsten weights in the bolt assembly, and other tricks, but with limited success.

But 2 years ago, a leading AR15 manufacturing company devised an entirely new bolt system for pistol caliber ARs, and it has revolutionized this category. So much so, I have one myself. This is the "Banshee" series, by CMMG. The trick is in the "delayed blow-back" system that some call a "semi-locking" bolt. Looking deceptively like a standard AR15/M16 multi-lug locking bolt, the rear face of the lugs, rather than being a 90 degree flat rear face, are in fact cut at an angle, so as to be approximately 45 degrees instead, as are the lugs in the barrel extension that these lugs mate up to. Upon firing, these slanted angled lugs slip on each other and allow the bolt to rotate out of engagement and the bolt to unlock and be blown to the rear. However, this takes just enough dwell time as to not allow as much rearward pressure to act upon the recoiling bolt assembly and the velocity of the bolt assembly is much reduced, as is also the felt recoil to the shooter, resulting in a much smoother shooting experience. When adapted to full-auto fire, it also reduces the cyclic rate from nearly 900 rpm to a more manageable 650 or so rpm. If you fancy a 9mm AR15 carbine or pistol, I highly recommend the Banshee. But nearly more important, this same system is available from CMMG in calibers that have traditionally been problematic in simple blow-back carbines because of their power level. The 10mm most specifically, benefits best from the radial delayed blow-back system.

.22LR

While there have been many .22lr rifles made to mimic the AR15, most actually merely appear to be an AR15 but are simply polymer-clad clones that internally are an entirely different animal. If you already have an AR15, or perhaps even an extra lower receiver lying around (such as an 80% project you completed perhaps), there are upper receiver sets you can buy or build from parts that allow you to simply swap out from one caliber to another or to dedicate to that other receiver. One of the better ones is made by (again) CMMG.

One of the greatest benefits of a .22lr AR15 is cheap practice with inexpensive ammunition. They also make for a great choice to train new shooters on the AR15 platform, simplifying and reducing familiarity issues between different guns and accidents that can occur. If the kids want to shoot something like what the parents have, but don't like the extra noise or just aren't otherwise yet ready for that big next step up,...one of these makes for a great introductory rifle.

.300Blackout (aka .300Whisper)

One of the more eagerly adopted new calibers in the last 10 years has been the .300Blackout. It also goes by the name .300AAC but originated back in the last century as a little known experimental cartridge called the .300Whisper. Despite the nomenclature, this little round has indeed earned a nifty legend in a short period of time, supposedly having been the round used to kill Osama Bin Laden by the U.S. Navy Seals. I wrote a brief article about it a few years back and you can read that here.

As far as its ballistic performance, the numbers indicate that it merely duplicates the 7.62x39 AK47 cartridge, throwing a 110-120 grain bullet at about 2200 feet per second, which doesn't seem very impressive at all. But due to the unique dimensions of the case and the requisite powder used, it does so with only a 9 inch barrel, as opposed to the 16 inches of barrel required for the 7.62x39 to achieve the same thing. What that means for special operations soldiers like the Seals is that one can stick a silencer on their weapon and have an overall length no longer than the standard envelope. Additionally, since this cartridge uses "American" .30 caliber bullets of .308 diameter, instead of the 7.62x39's metric .311 diameter projectiles and bore, a MUCH larger selection of custom bullets in all shapes sizes and weights can be loaded into the .300blk, including heavies like 200-220 grain pills, traveling at just below the sound barrier. Thus, one can carry both the supersonic (and slightly more effective) battle ammo, as well as the subsonic and efficiently quiet heavy bullet ammo, and use whichever best suits their mission as it unfolds.

Because the parent case of the .300Whisper/Blackout/AAC is the .223 the AR15 is originally designed for, not much needs to be done to modify an existing AR15 to the caliber. It uses the same bolts and the rounds fit in the same magazines.

Thusly, one could (if they had the proper tools and gauges) simply change out the barrel and have a different caliber. Or alternatively, simply swap out another barrelled upper receiver entirely.

As mentioned earlier regarding arm braces for AR15 pistol variants, it has been popular with some to create short sound-suppressed examples in this caliber, providing a weapon that rather easily can be transported in and out of vehicles, shoot quietly, and in a caliber at least as effective as the famed AK47.

But if this caliber combination intrigues you, there one thing you need to know before you commit to it. Because the .300blk is based on the same case as the .223/5.56 and uses the same bolt and magazines,...it is possible,...if one is not paying attention,...to inadvertently load a magazine of one caliber in a gun meant for the other caliber. If the .223/5.56 is accidentally loaded and fired in a .300AAC chamber, it will be a mess that will render the gun inoperable temporarily and maybe even damage it,...but unlikely to cause injury to the shooter. The situation is ENTIRELY different, on the other hand, if the .300Whisper is accidentally fired in a .223/5.56 weapon. KABOOM!!!! Metal bits will fly apart like grenade shrapnel. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. The best way (in my opinion) to prevent such tragedy is to ensure you use color-coded magazines for the different calibers.

Its possible to either buy mags of different colors, but some folks use fabric dyes to colorize polymer magazines like the popular Magpul Pmags. How you discriminate among your magazines to ensure there are no accidents is up to you. But don't leave it to chance.

OPTICS

Glorious Glass or Googly Goof?

While U.S. military rifles have traditionally been designed to be used with "iron sights" or "open sights", recent trends have seen our soldiers adopting and utilizing optical sighting systems more and more. Partly this has been occurring in no small part due to the fact our boys have been deployed in vast open desert terrain these past 30 years, where some magnification could be rather handy. Although there have been optics issued in small quantities for the M16/AR15 since the beginning.

It would be too big a topic to cover optics in general, but we'll cover here a few of the most common found on the AR15 type of rifle over the years.

But let us first break these down into 3 categories;...

Magnified

Non-magnified Red dots

Night vision

The ones most regular folks are likely familiar with are traditional magnification type, where we have essentially a little telescope with cross-hairs for an aiming point. For decades, there was essentially only one that was used on the AR15/M16, which Colt had contracted to be produced in Japan by Tasco and a few others. It was produced in 3x power and 4x power magnification. These saw limited issue to some U.S. troops and special ops commandos.

First designed in the early 60's, it was OK for its time, but today many consider it dated and obsolete. The Chinese imported a copy during the 90's for just $20 bucks back then, which I used extensively and thought was quite a bargain. Today, you'll spend $50 or more if you can find one online or at a gun show. Brownells just started manufacturing new reproductions from the original Japanese contractors, and it sells for $300. The genuine Colt examples are collectible and priced far higher.

But the next biggest magnification optic to see wide adoption was the ACOG (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight). First designed and submitted for government trials in 1987, it was truly a game-changer. Designed by a fellow who knew how well soldiers could break nearly anything, it was built to be bulletproof,...and has in fact saved a few soldiers by stopping bullets.

It was tough enough to be the first ever scope adopted by the Marine Corps for general issue, and has been similarly adopted by some U.S. Army divisions as well. Unfortunately, toughness and quality do not come cheap, and these cost as much as a rifle itself.

But aside from how tough the ACOG was, what really made it uniquely useful was that it had both day and night capability. While the aiming marks in the field of view during daylight were traditional black, in low light, they were illuminated WITHOUT BATTERIES, by means of self-luminous radioactive Tritium. With a half-life of 10 years, the Tritium was always on. No batteries to run down and fail to work. Just pick it up and get to business.

The ACOG is still in use and popular. Many variants exist. Of all the various optics currently in service on U.S. military rifles, ACOGs make up for about half.

Non-magnified optics are those which merely provide an aiming point (usually a red dot) in the shooter's field of view. Despite lacking the more preciseness usually associated with magnification, these types provide for a quicker to target engagement at distances closer than magnification sights can be effectively utilized, which can be quite literally a matter of life or death.

For many years, EOTech sights were issued to many units. Although in 2015 there was a scandal over having exaggerated and lied about how robust their products were and they are no longer issued. But many civilian shooters still prefer them. Less expensive than the ACOG, a new EOTech will still run you about $450.

Another main player in the U.S. military contracts was/is Aimpoint. They have survived to have a better reputation than the products made by EOTech, and their prices reflect that. For a couple decades now, their CompM2 (also known as the M68) has been used by U.S. personnel as diverse as the FBI, Secret Service and military branches.

Again, while still less expensive than an ACOG, the Aimpoint product will cost more than an EOTech, at about $520.

Just for comparison as an alternative,...time and experience has produced for the market smaller, lighter and less expensive alternatives since the war in the sandbox began. I personally have used and enjoyed the SIG Romeo5 red dot sight, which on sale costs about $120. Relatively robust, it has MOTAC (MOTionACtivation), a nifty feature many call "shake awake", wherein the unit has a motion sensor as an on/off switch. If you forget to turn the battery-powered unit off when put away, it senses when it has not been touched or moved after 15 minutes and shuts down. Likewise, when sensing it has been moved or picked up,...it turns itself on. This conquers the main concern of battery-powered illuminated optics, which is inadvertently leaving it on and killing the battery.

Night vision devices are a complicated issue, and I loathe to get into it here, since they are such an expensive piece of gear that you will likely never acquire one. Yet, it is because of night vision that the U.S. soldier has been able to be so successful in the field for the last 30 years. So it is nearly impossible to mention AR15/M16 rifle sighting systems without mentioning them at all.

Just like digital calculators, night vision sights used to be HUGE and now they are smaller.

1st generation "star light" scopes first appeared during the Vietnam war. They were referred to as star light scopes because rather than using infrared illumination as previous devices had, these used a different technology to amplify existing low light levels, such as that which is only present from stars on a moonless night. While even less bulky than the infrared units of the 50's, the weapon-mounted devices were really poor by today's standards and could only see clearly without directional lighting, such as infrared beams, out to about 100 yards. Pictured above is a AN/Pvs-2

In the mid 70's came the 2nd Gen night vision class of scopes. Typical of these was the AN/Pvs-4 pictured below. The Gen2 devices were a BIG step up from the Gen1s. Much longer useful range, typically out to just beyond 200 yards; clean brighter images with better resolution; longer battery life; and 3 times longer life expectancy of the entire device as a whole. Oh, and they were slightly smaller and less heavy,...always a plus.

By the late 80's, night vision devices had entered a new evolution, becoming better still. You probably remember seeing that misty green hazy footage from Desert Storm. Much of that was filmed via Gen3 devices. Typical of the units used then and even still today was/is the AV/Pvs-14 monocular pictured below. In addition to being smaller, lighter, brighter, clearer and use less battery power than ever before, it was also designed modularly to be able to be used in numerous ways. Not only can it be mounted on a rifle and used in conjunction with a red dot sight set to very low brightness, as seen in the picture here,...it is also able to be mounted on a soldier's helmet and simply used for walking at night or piloting a helicopter.

Tens of thousands of AV/Pvs-14s and other Gen3 devices have been issued, and now some of them are available as surplus. Just because they are surplus, however, does not mean "cheap". A reconditioned like new genuine U.S.-made AV/Pvs-14 runs about $2500, while a new one goes for about $4000.

Before you drop your jaw in shock at that price, look here at the difference in clarity between images taken using a Gen2 device and Gen3, respectively.

After all,...how much does victory cost? Whatever it takes. Thermal imaging devices are even MORE expensive. We won't even go there.

Ammunition Selection

Feed Your Pet The Right Food

As mentioned previously, the AR15/M16 series was co-revolutionary because it and its ammunition were developed together. When one changed, the other was usually changed along with it eventually. And just like feeding yourself or your pet,...if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

These comments will apply specifically to the .223/5.56 caliber, but are generally applicable in many respects to nearly all rifle calibers. The handgun caliber variants, however, are a slightly different animal.

We mentioned earlier a bit about the evolution of gunpowder used in the 5.56x45NATO. Most of the inexpensive bulk ammo in both .223 and 5.56 will be loaded with appropriate powder. But not ALL ammo will be so. For instance, one of the cheapest (both in cost and quality) examples available is the supremely inexpensive but crappy product made in the former Soviet bloc by TULA.

The Russian armory at Tula, 200 miles south of Moscow, is famous. They have indeed made good things,...and also typically Sovietsky "just good enough" stuff. They also have occasionally turned out plain old BAD product, and this is one of those. The problem seems to have stemmed from the fact that when the Tula Arsenal first began producing .223 ammunition, it was NOT for use in the AR15, but rather, in a special AK74 chambered in .223 meant for international sales to other armies. Because the piston-driven gas system of the AK series is so legendary tolerant of a wide variety and quality of ammo and propellant types (something entirely crucial in the famously bad quality control production environment of Soviet industry), Tula developed ammo that worked for them in THEIR rifles,...not the American rifle the round was designed for. As a result, the propellant used by Tula has a pressure curve entirely inappropriate for the Direct Impingement gas system on most AR15s and M16s. (However, this is a situation that shows the utility of the piston-driven type of AR15 rifles, which operate just fine with the Tula crap.) While not universally experienced in ALL original gas system AR15s, it is unfortunately quite common to experience failures of the weapon to extract fired cases, or to rip the rims off the case and leave a seized case in the chamber.

Why has Tula not bothered to simply reformulate their propellant and improve this situation? Good question.

But even if you have a piston-driven gas system AR15, and it feeds and extracts the Tula stuff reliably, it is still not optimum feed pellets for your faithful boomstick. Tula keeps costs down in part by using mild steel instead of brass or copper whenever possible. This is a remnant manufacturing technique from the Cold War and they haven't bothered to change. The steel cases are coated to prevent corrosion with either a lacquer wash or sprayed on polymer. Either of these, when chambered in a hot gun that has been experiencing a high volume of fire, can melt and seize the case in the chamber, or leave sticky residue that can contribute or accumulate to cause a seized case. And the jacket material used in the projectiles is usually a soft gilded metal, that is to say steel. Although it is soft steel, it still wears the bore at a quicker pace than copper and reduces the service life of the barrel. And this steel-on-steel produces a shower of sparks out the muzzle, regardless of how efficient a flash-reduction device may be mounted there. A serious position disclosure issue for anyone trying to stay hidden in the dark and not draw fire back at themselves. This is all a reflection of the Russian military doctrine of utilizing mass quantities of expendable conscript draftees.

And yet, despite how bad the Tula .223 ammo is,...it is literally EVERYWHERE. (Check your local Walmart's sporting goods counter. You'll see.) The el cheapo Russian made stuff by Tula and Wolf (we'll cover them here too in a moment) are easily the most commonly sold brands of .223 ammo in the U.S.!! Jumping Jehoshaphat, why?!?! It's simple, really,....

Price.

Currently, in bulk pricing, Tula .223 ammo sells for about .20 cents per round. Compare that to commercially available lots of surplus newly manufactured 5.56 ammo made at the Lake City munitions plant to the exact specifications of U.S. military production,...which sells for about .30 cents per round. A 50% price difference. And specialty ammunition with hollow-points or other expanding or frangible projectiles is even more expensive.

If you're lucky enough to have a rifle that seems to digest this awful product with relative reliability, and don't realize how you are prematurely wearing it out, why wouldn't you buy the cheap stuff?

And for the survivalists and preppers looking to buy it cheap and stack it deep for an unknown future, Tula's bulk packaging is rather attractive, regardless of their failings in quality. They still like to package their product in hermetically sealed tins, just as they always have, to last for decades in deep storage in case of war.

On par with Tula for affordability, but with a slightly better quality control history, Wolf provides a better product. Unlike Tula, Wolf is a brand, not just a single manufacturing location. Although Wolf has sold under their brand products produced in the Tula Armory, they have also done so with the Ulyanovsk and Barnaul munitions plants. Barnaul, near Novosibirsk, is Wolf's main contractor for manufacturing budget steel-cased ammo today, and this is where their cheap .223 ammo comes from. They too still like to bulk pack their ammo in sealed tins, and utilize steel poly-coated cases. But unlike Tula, the Barnaul facility has been more responsive to Wolf's demands because Wolf has simply gone and had ammo made elsewhere before, in former soviet bloc plants in other countries like Poland and Slovakia. Thusly, Barnaul has been a tiny bit more innovative. Their propellant for .223 has a more appropriate pressure curve. They load copper-jacketed projectiles.

And while Wolf is better than Tula,...issues remain. Aside from the matter of poly-coated steel cases, and despite the projectile being more appropriately made of copper, the Wolf projectile has a deficiency in the area of terminal performance. That is to say, when it strikes flesh. Both the Tula and Wolf products don't result in the same spectacular wounding that the M193 ammo made to western quality control standards is known for.

The reason for both brands has to do with thickness of the jacket material, regardless of whether copper or steel. Recall how earlier in this article we discussed that in addition to velocity, this caliber (with military profile non-expanding projectiles) creates its horrendous wound because as it passes through flesh, it turns sideways, whereupon it tends to break apart, creating multiple wound tracts. But this typically happens at the part of the bullet called the cannelure, which is a groove in the circumference of the projectile meant for where the case shall be crimped inward onto the bullet to keep it in place. This groove is a pre-weakened point for the jacket to fail and tear apart at when under the tremendous forces the bullet experiences as it plows sideways.

In this photo you can see not only the cannelure grooves in the bullets made by Denel (South Africa) and Lake City Munitions Plant (U.S.), but also the greater thickness of the jacket material of the Barnaul produced version. There is only the slightest indentation around the Barnaul bullet from where it had been crimped into the case before getting pulled for purposes of this picture. Below you can see the results of firing a M193 round made at Lake City into tissue simulant ballistic gel from near contact distance. Notice how the bullet came apart and would have made for several independent projectiles tearing through the wound.

And in this next photo is the result of firing a round of the Russian made steel-cased Wolf into the same tissue-simulating ballistic gel from the same weapon at the same distance. (Expect similar results from the Tula product as well.)

There are other photos as well which I dare not show you, from real world results down in Mexico from cartel gun battles. I have reviewed those so that you don't have to. They show much the same results. Wolf and Tula brand projectiles laying on the ground next to the bodies of cartel dudes, barely deformed after having plowed through flesh.(Yet, the cartel guys are still dead,...so as I say,...it will still kill,...just not as rapidly incapacitate.)

Okay, you say, you'll stay away from the crappy steel cased stuff and buy the good ol' brass and copper ammo designed like it was supposed to be. Great, but now what? What's the cheapest best you can buy, you ask.

Amazingly enough,...it's a different product by Wolf! Remember I said that Wolf is a brand, not a place, and they contract with manufacturers all over the world. To differentiate between their bargain basement steel-cased products and their better brass-based offerings, there is the Wolf Gold line. And their very popular duplicate of the U.S. quality M193 loading is made in Taiwan, on U.S.-supplied manufacturing equipment, to U.S. standards.

Depending on where you shop around to find it, this product can be had for as little as .26 cents, plus shipping. Usually that will push up the end result to about .30 cents, which is what I find it for here locally in the Phoenix area off the shelf. It's a quality product, and I have used it myself quite happily.

But I happen to prefer the currently issued M855 with the heavier 62 grain bullet. So therefore I currently stockpile and use the duplicate product sold by Federal.

Federal is the commercial ammunition company that currently holds the contract to operate Lake City on behalf of the U.S. Army. In the past, it has also been run by Remington and Winchester at different times. Just this past September, Winchester won the contract away from Federal and will assume operations in late 2020. But for now, Federal is the source.

One of the nifty benefits of buying the genuine U.S. military product from Federal (if it appeals to you) is that you can pay a little more if you choose to and get yours packaged in exactly the same way it arrives in the field to the GIs. You'll often find it in a reusable ammo can, often packed on stripper clips and with magazine loader "spoons" and bandoliers.

These are not your only options, of course, but these are what you are most likely so see out there at the gun show or Walmart or wherever else it is you encounter ammo for sale. Regardless of whatever you find that tempts you, look for these few things to help insure you are likely buying a quality product.

Look for that cannelure crimping groove. Unless you are buying expanding tip ammo, like hollow-points or soft-points, full-metal-jacketed projectiles be unlikely to fragment and produce impressive results unless there is a cannelure to ensure a weak point to break apart at when yawing through flesh.

Primer and bullet sealant. Properly made factory ammunition made according to military grade specs will usually have a moisture-defeating sealant to prevent ammunition that gets wet from allowing any moisture to seep into the case and contaminate the propellant. If you're not planning on storing your ammo supply long term or operate in a wet environment,...fine. Maybe this is not important to you,...until it is. U.S. military spec calls for an asphalt sealer on the inside of the case mouth as the bullet is seated during manufacture, so you are unlikely to see evidence of it on M193 or M855 ammo. But usually there is a colored ring of sealer visible on the foriegn-made stuff, if they have it at all. It's usually just good enough to inspect the base of the cartridge to see if there is a sealant applied to the primer. If so, you can have relative certainty that some sort of sealer was applied at the other end too.

Check the date. Sometimes you come across a deal on older surplus lots of ammo. Properly made ammo will last many decades. (I have fired U.S. made ammo from before WW2 that still went bang 100% of the time, but have also encountered foriegn-made stuff of lesser quality that was only a couple decades old and had failures.) Maybe you're not stockpiling for some unseen future zombie apocalypse and need ammo that will still work for your grandchildren, but why not verify how fresh the stuff you are buying is? Not all ammunition headstamps will have a date on them, but most military contract runs do, at least for NATO and other western countries.

During the early years of this century, U.S. forces were expending ammunition at such a fast rate, our reduced peacetime manufacturing capacity had difficulty keeping up as we began burning through war reserve stockpiles that had to be replenished. Ammunition prices on the civilian side nearly tripled during that time, from 2003 on. Although they settled out a bit, the market never really recovered, and the cheapest .223/5.56 you can find today is still double what it was in 2001. Most of the ammo you encounter today with date stamps are within the last 5 years. With .308/7.62x51 for your AR10, the situation is a bit different, as foreign stockpiles are still turning up here for civilian sale with production dates in the 70s and 80s. That's 30 and 40 years old already! Not necessarily a problem right now, since most of it still goes bang reliably,...but will it continue to in another 10 years? Keep that in mind.

3D Printing

and

Alternative Manufacturing

Processes

In the wise words of a gunsmith I know who shall remain nameless for his privacy, "Gunsmiths are working in plastic, or they are working in the past." I would amend that to soon include computer-aided drafting and coding, because 3D printing in not just polymers, but metals as well, are already being experimented with and applied to gun part manufacturing. The AR15 will be no different, and has already had its toes dipped in the waters of the manufacturing future.

Nearly 20 years ago, a local company in the Phoenix area, Cavalry Arms, came up with the first successful entirely polymer AR15 lower receiver assembly.

3D printing was not yet readily available in 2001, but the Cav15, as it was called, was produced in 2 halves in the traditional injection molding way. Then, the two clamshell halves were joined together via vibration welding. (Notice the seam in the picture above.) The product still exists today under a different company name, having been bought out by GWACS, who currently makes it in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Being all plastic, it does have a couple of weaknesses compared to the original metal version it seeks to replace. Its not absolutely perfect. But there are more than a few fans of it. And in some ways, it is actually more resilient than the original metal design. And of course, it can be made in any color of the rainbow. Back in 2002, there was even a special production run of 8 for company VIPs in glow-in-the-dark material.

Today, with 3D printing, it is possible that one could digitize the GWACS Cav15 into a downloadable file and send it across the internet to anyone else with a 3D polymer printer of sufficient size to then be printed out as a useable item. Why hasn't it been done yet already is quite beyond me. But it will happen. You'll see.

3D printing in metal is also a reality already, and has been for over 20 years. But it is a bit more technically complicated than plastic 3D printing and so has remained far more expensive as a technology and therefor not as readily at everyone's fingertips like polymer printing has become.

This is because 3D metal printing involves using powdered metal (also known as "sintered" metal) deposited in a layer, then micro-melted to adhere to and become part of previous layers. This is typically achieved by means of intensely-powered lasers focused on the newly deposited layer. But some metals are easier to micro-melt than others, and those metals are also of different strengths and other properties,...not all of which lend well to holding up to the performance required in guns. Early sintered metal 3D items were no stronger than simple pot metal. As the technology improves, stronger metals are becoming able to be 3D printed, but the machines to achieve it are not cheap at all,...yet.

But this technology has the intense interest of the Pentagon, and therefor is receiving development support in money and other means. To understand why, just consider how it could simplify logistics in wartime. During the invasion of Iraq, if a tank had a drive gear destroyed or damaged beyond repair, that tank would have to sit there until a spare part could be transported from the rear. That might involve waiting for it to be unloaded from a cargo ship in port back in Kuwait, getting loaded on a truck, rolling in a convoy hundreds of miles through combat zones, slowly, perhaps getting delayed for all sorts of unforeseen reasons. And maybe that particular truck gets destroyed in an enemy ambush while in transit,...and the whole process has to repeat. Or,...a forward deployed mobile manufacturing machine shop that has some specialized 3D printing machines and is closely accompanying the leading armor element manufactures the spare part on the spot. Even if the process is slow, it might well be completed days before a spare could be brought up from the rear. This is the dream the Pentagon has for 3D metal printing. And as a result, it is getting better and stronger all the time.

Back in 2013, a company trying hard to become a player in the 3D printing game, Solid Concepts, produced the first entirely 3D printed steel 1911 handgun that when assembled actually fired and functioned reliably for several hundred rounds. It might well have gone on to last longer than that, but this prototype was retired after 600 rounds without any signs of failure or fatigue and now resides in a display case as a technological feat.

The machine used to fabricate it, a German-made EOSINT M270, which sold for about $500,000 to $1,000,000 then, now sells for about $300,000. Prices are coming down, as they nearly always do as technology matures. In no small part due to the fact that this fabrication technology has so many industrial applications beyond merely making gun parts. Currently, the EOSINT M270 is marketed to dental appliance manufacturers. Using the conventional casting process, a dental technician can currently produce about 20 dental frames per day. But the M270 can produce about 450 crowns and bridges in 24 hours,...remotely,...via internet submitted data files. A dental appliance manufacturer can have the machine running all day and night, taking emails from dentists all over containing the file of laser-imaged dental work needed. In another 5 years, this machine might cost only $150,000. In 20 years, maybe only $20,000? Who can say.

The point is that in the not so distant future, it is foreseeable that certain financially comfortable individuals will be able to have a 3D metal printer in their garage to manufacture custom car parts. (Jay Leno already does.) Once that is true,...there will be no way to stop digital files of all manner of weaponry from being crafted, secretively, unregulated, without registration,...and there won't be anything the evil overlords in government will be able to do about it. Oh, what a glorious day that will be.

After 60 Years

The End Is Nigh

As was said at the beginning of this article, the AR15/M16 (which at 60 years and going has had the longest service life of any rifle in U.S. history) replaced the M14, which had the shortest service life, of just 6 years. That's a pretty good run, by anyone's standards.

But time and technology march onward. And as you read this in late 2019, the Pentagon is already underway in selecting the new replacement weapon system. With all the open terrain desert warfare the U.S. has been involved in over the past 30 years, that has influenced the current test trials, which have dictated the new weapon will be of a caliber between the .223/5.56 and the .308/7.62 of the M14 it replaced. 3 designs currently in competition are all using either 6.5mm or 6.8mm diameter projectiles (.264 and .277 inch, respectively).

Take notice that they all incorporate sound suppressors. In fact, in the top photo, the bullpup submitted by General Dynamics, has a solid sealed 1-piece unit made via the metal 3D printing mentioned a moment ago.

Once selected and issued, no one will be able to continue to make the claim that the AR15 is a "modern" weapon of war. Heck, they already cannot claim they have no "sporting purpose". Just ask the hog eradication hunters in Texas and other states, who use pretty much exactly the same gear as our special operations night raiders.

Don't worry. One day your AR15/M16/M4 will seem as completely normal and sportsman-suited as that old lever-action over granddad's fireplace or dad's bolt-action Nazi war trophy. Your great grandkids might ask you if you made it yourself. "No, child. Back then, we had to buy them at a store. And if a politician said something scary,...everyone would go try to buy it. We might have to wait MONTHS to get one, and pay double the regular price." "That's silly, Pop-Pops. You're silly."