AR build recommendations?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What's the point of a muzzle brake on a .223?

It really works a couple of ways
First, there was a stock Armalite brake on it when I bought it. It was REALLY loud and the barrell would stll jump around more than I would have thought it would.
Second, the flash was very visable (depending on what I was shooting)


This WCI brake (it is more of a compensator) took more jump out of the barrell and when using a scope stays on target much better. The sound is muffled some with the WCI installed. Sounds more like the rifle is spitting out the bullet than the BANG it used to have and
Third, I was watching my son shoot and this compensator contains all the flash inside it. It was kind of amazing watching it from the side and off to the side down range (Yes is way safe, my son and I worked it out before we did this)

So, I guess for all reason I have given, they must be the same reasons the Seals like this brake so much

So it's much more than just a brake. It's also a flash and sound suppressor. Sounds good. Is it going to be legal without ATF involvement as a "silencer"?

The only problem with brakes at a normal shooting range is that the blast is usually ported out sideways, which is upsetting to your neighbors on both sides. For a .223 that might not be a big deal. But we have a guy at the 1,000-yard matches with something like a .300 Weatherby magnum and a muzzle brake - the blast next door makes the shooting position uninhabitable. So we have to put him down on the end by himself.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So we have to put him down on the end by himself.

"Leper outcast unclean!!!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[steve1 5]

It's hard to keep up with all the changes in technology. I guess I'm not very familiar with a muzzle brake that can help reduce noise, recoil, and flash.

The conventional muzzle brake reduces recoil, but increases noise levels dramatically. Sometimes it's hard to even shoot a magnum rifle without ear plugs. As John said, it can even be dangerous to other's hearing if you are shooting next to them.

A lot of hunters have their magnum rifles ported like this, to help with recoil. Or a muzzle brake can be attached to the end. You end up with a very long barrel that sounds like an canon going off. The good news it doesn't kick bad.

It seems there is a magnum fad these days. Many people are going to muzzle brakes. Most hunters want to shoot a gun that will reach way out there for a long shot. There is also extra nock-down power by shooting a big fat cartridge full of powder.

Heavier bullets also buck the wind better. The draw backs are extra noise and recoil.

You might need a barrel in the 24 to 26 inch range (before the muzzle brake is put on) to get the full effect of all that powder. So you might end up with a barrel almost 30 inches long. Man, that is a long barrel!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

This is a bit off the subject....But I was doing some thinking. If there are any BATF types, who read this, don't panic. I don't even own an AR or M-16. I was just wondering how difficult it is to convert one to full auto.

In weapons training, years ago, I was told this was a very simple matter. All you needed was an automatic sear. There isn't much to an automatic sear. I think any handyman or want to be machinist could easily build one. I imagine these can even be bought somewhere, easily enough.

There's a lot more to it than that. The ATF requires manufaturers to make the semi-auto versions as hard to convert as possible.
For an AR-15/M-16 the trigger, hammer, safety and bolt-carrier are different. And the lower receiver has a lot of material that prevents an auto sear from being installed. It can be done, but it's a good bit of work.

AND it's a major risk. As was pointed out, possesion of an AR and any M-16 full auto part is considered possesion of an illegal full auto. Long prison sentence, big fines, and don't forget that the ATF doesn't practice a whole lot of restraint in these kind of cases.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What's the point of a muzzle brake on a .223?

It really works a couple of ways
First, there was a stock Armalite brake on it when I bought it. It was REALLY loud and the barrell would stll jump around more than I would have thought it would.
Second, the flash was very visable (depending on what I was shooting)


This WCI brake (it is more of a compensator) took more jump out of the barrell and when using a scope stays on target much better. The sound is muffled some with the WCI installed. Sounds more like the rifle is spitting out the bullet than the BANG it used to have and
Third, I was watching my son shoot and this compensator contains all the flash inside it. It was kind of amazing watching it from the side and off to the side down range (Yes is way safe, my son and I worked it out before we did this)

So, I guess for all reason I have given, they must be the same reasons the Seals like this brake so much

So it's much more than just a brake. It's also a flash and sound suppressor. Sounds good. Is it going to be legal without ATF involvement as a "silencer"?

The only problem with brakes at a normal shooting range is that the blast is usually ported out sideways, which is upsetting to your neighbors on both sides. For a .223 that might not be a big deal. But we have a guy at the 1,000-yard matches with something like a .300 Weatherby magnum and a muzzle brake - the blast next door makes the shooting position uninhabitable. So we have to put him down on the end by himself.

It would be hard to call this a silencer as there is still plenty of report.

As for the side blast. I know exactly what you speak of. The stock one that was on the rifle made you feel like you were getting slapped if you were beside the shooter.

I stood there on purpse with this one and while you still get a little of that it is much less noticable.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

As was pointed out, possesion of an AR and any M-16 full auto part is considered possesion of an illegal full auto. Long prison sentence, big fines, and don't forget that the ATF doesn't practice a whole lot of restraint in these kind of cases.

That's bad info. The auto sear is the documented part. There are plenty of ARs out there with M16 bolt/bolt carrier groups.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[steve1 5]

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I wonder though how many older weapons are on the market today. The older versions had a simple pin to hold the automatic sear in place. I'm no machinist, but it did look like a simple job to convert one to full auto....It sounds like the newer weapons are indeed different.

I just happen to have my Colt AR15 out to clean it, after this weekend's shooting match. So I've snapped a photo of my lower receiver, in regards to this full-auto conversion topic.

It's my understanding that the block (circled in red) behind the hammer is what prevents me from just dropping an auto-sear in there.

I don't know if that block is welded in place, pressure fitted, or what. There seems to be a pin there beside the block, but it doesn't go all the way through, so you can't punch it out from the other side.

Anyway, just adding this for people to visualize what we're talking about.

[palstev 1]

Another thing you may wish to keep in mind about building yourrelf is the wait time. Most, if not all manufacturers have production backlogs of up to 6 months or more.
I'm at 6 weeks and counting on an upper myself.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

...It's my understanding that the block (circled in red) behind the hammer is what prevents me from just dropping an auto-sear in there....

Hi John,

You're corresct. it's that, and the hammer on yours which is missing the bent which would engage the auto-sear. I assume that your fire selector also has the cam which would disable the single-shot-sear missing.

In effect, you would have to "add" metal to the hammer and fire selector working parts as well as remove and replace parts.

Regards,

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[miked10270 0]

Hi Mike,

I REALLY hate to complicate things any further... But from reading the whole thread,...

Are you really looking for an AR? I can't help thinking that a full length FN-FAL or H&K-G3 would be better starting points! Not necessarily in 7.62mm, perhaps 7mm(.280") or 6.5mm?

Wouldn't they give you the range, accuracy and stopping power you want?

Sorry!!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

As was pointed out, possesion of an AR and any M-16 full auto part is considered possesion of an illegal full auto. Long prison sentence, big fines, and don't forget that the ATF doesn't practice a whole lot of restraint in these kind of cases.

That's bad info. The auto sear is the documented part. There are plenty of ARs out there with M16 bolt/bolt carrier groups.

Ok, I googled it and found: This.
While not strictly illegal, it's a bad idea.
And the BATF has a history of not really caring about little technicalities like whether a gun is really legal or not.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[steve1 5]

John,
It has been a lot of years since working on an AR or M-16. I'm about positive though, that the automatic sear was held in place there. That pin held it in place. The pin went through both sides of your receiver. The automatic sear was a c shaped piece of metal. The selector switch held it in the proper position for "rock and roll". That's grunt talk for full auto

[steve1 5]

Joe,
I read most of that journal. It sounds like many M-16 parts may be illegal in an AR-15.

I've never looked into buying an AR. I might be letting a lot of ignorance show by asking some stupid questions, but here goes....

It sounds like M-16's are illegal in most states, yet AR-15's are okay to own. Aren't they both more or less the same weapon? I know the M-16 is an improved version of the AR. The AR was used in the military first, then along came the M-16. Why is an M-16 more dangerous than an AR-15 (as long as both are converted to fire only semi-automatic)? They seem very similiar to me. Why aren't both of them legal to own. I'll bet there is some political B.S. behind this to help people sleep more soundly at night....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I'm not an expert, but I've always understood that an M-16 is select-fire (full auto capable), while the AR-15 is semi only.
There was an early AR that developed into the M-16. I don't remember the model (AR-180 comes to mind). History Channel has a really good "Tales of the Gun" episode that covers the M-16.

Full auto is legal to own, under very strictly controlled, loads of paperwork, extremely expensive rules (NFA 1934). I know a couple guys that have a few full auto toys. They brought them down to the range I shoot at until local political pressure was brought to bear - no more full auto, belt fed or tripod mounted anymore

And the only stupid question is the one you don't ask. Unless it's been answered a million times already.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I'm not an expert, but I've always understood that an M-16 is select-fire (full auto capable), while the AR-15 is semi only.

M-16 is a military designation. AR-15 is a name brand that was created to sell the same gun outside of the military. There are select fire and full auto "AR-15s." Although, in the civilian world "AR-15" means a M4 that is semi-only.

I like to drink a "coke" while at work. My "coke" of choice is a Dr. Pepper. Get it?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hi Mike,

I REALLY hate to complicate things any further... But from reading the whole thread,...

Are you really looking for an AR? I can't help thinking that a full length FN-FAL or H&K-G3 would be better starting points! Not necessarily in 7.62mm, perhaps 7mm(.280") or 6.5mm?

Hey, Mike - thanks for posting.

The AR is for fun/plinking more than anything else. At some point, I wouldn't mind getting a switch-top in 6.5 or 6.8mm for some longer-range fun, but that's for the future.

I'll be getting some sort of 7.62 in the future (I wouldn't complain if someone were to drop an M1A in my lap), but, again, that's a little bit down the road.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[steve1 5]

Quote

[

M-16 is a military designation. AR-15 is a name brand that was created to sell the same gun outside of the military. There are select fire and full auto "AR-15s." Although, in the civilian world "AR-15" means a M4 that is semi-only.

P]

....................................................................
I'm having a hard time remembering all the history on the development of the M-16. So, I hate to start blabbing my mouth too much. If a remember right the AR-15 was called just that, and was used in the early days of Vietnam along with the M-14. Yes, it did fire full auto.

Vietnam was a muddy dirty place They were having trouble getting the bolt to close fully to chamber a round. They made some modifications including a forward assist on the side to help chamber a round if needed. Was that the new M-16?....I can't recall.

There were several other versions prior to the AR-15 that the military experimented with. All were gas operated, had a pistol grip, and they looked very much like an AR-15. I can't recall all their names.

I'll bet someone out there can give a more accurate account of all this. I am pulling all this off the top of my head and some of it could be inaccurate. This is what I was told in weapons training at Bragg, in the early 70's.

I know many people didn't like the M-16 in Vietnam. Some people in elite units even used an AK-47. It had greater nock-down power and it was less prone to jam. It wasn't nearly as accurate as an M-16, but for jungle warfare the AK-47 was a formidable weapon. Barry Saddler preferred this weapon over the M-16.

One nice thing about an M-16 is that you can carry hundreds of rounds of ammo without weighing yourself down. Ounces can add up to a lot if you are carrying everything on your back. An M-16 is very accurate. Mild recoil is another plus.

A 22 caliber, full metal jacket bullet, doesn't rip a very big hole though. Stopping power was sometimes an issue....

[AggieDave 6]

I was going off the top of my head, so I know I glossed a lot of details. There are entire books written on the history of the AR-15/M-16 (and the handful of other designators the same weapon system has carried).

Quote

it was less prone to jam

A lot of that is the military's fault. The first weapons were sent as "low maintenance" with no cleaning kits or real training for the troops in Vietnam. The other issue was the powder used in the ammunition. It was out of spec from the designer and manufacture. It burned dirtier and created more pressure in the barrel. That caused cycling problems and further problems with the more dirty burning powder.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[steve1 5]

That's probably very true, Dave. I've fired hundreds and maybe even thousands of rounds through an M-16 and have never once had one jam, or fail to feed properly. I've never used the forward assist on one either....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I wonder though how many older weapons are on the market today. The older versions had a simple pin to hold the automatic sear in place. I'm no machinist, but it did look like a simple job to convert one to full auto....It sounds like the newer weapons are indeed different.

Here's an example of how crazy the BATF can get in prosecuting people for "machine guns":

Regular readers of this column will remember the latest tale of Len Savage, firearms designer, president of Historic Arms, LLC, and expert witness for the defense in, among other cases, the persecution of David Olofson...

You remember--the story where the government arrested the part Savage submitted in a caliber conversion project? The one where they attached chains, duct tape and plastic ties to induce firing of more than one round? And then called it a machine gun and seized it?...

Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d12-Savage-strikes-back

[steve1 5]

The Randy Weaver story was a prime example of the BATF doing their thing....