A Test of Rifle, Caliber .223, AR-15 – From 1960

Aberdeen Proving Grounds 1960 AR-15 Test

Linked above is a PDF report from February, 1960, about some early AR-15 testing. I’ve had it for a while but don’t believe that I’ve discussed or posted it in the past. There’s a large amount of technical data, to include precise gas port diameter and location, distance the bolt travels before unlocking, precise travel of the front sight post per notch moved, and so on.

It also includes multiple 10 shot group accuracy testing, 6000 round endurance testing, extreme heat and cold testing, dust testing (though limited in scope), mud testing – which appears to be far more involved than the “mud testing” we see on YouTube from time to time, as they introduced mud to the FCG, causing failures of the trigger to return forward on its own – something I have encountered while trying this as well – rain testing, and cook-off testing.

Broken parts were encountered, and as described in the appendices, they included extractors, extractor springs, and firing pins, but also rather nonessential parts such as a trigger that broke in the -65F testing but was not replaced because the weapon still functioned, handguards that came unriveted, cracked stocks, sling swivels that came apart, etc.

It should be noted that these weapons were functioning at a cyclic rate of between 746 and 796 rounds per minute. Many variants of the platform available today operate at much higher rates of fire, to their eventual detriment.

A.R.M.S. #71 Sights – Video Review

I had intended to make a longer review, but I’m unable to do voiceovers at the moment, so I’m just going to go with an “at the range” overview that I filmed last weekend.

In my opinion, these sights are less than functional, and the reasons why both the front and rear sights have major problems are very obvious.

The front sight’s release latch doesn’t always return to the “forward and upright” position, meaning that some of the time you want to fold the sight down, you have to physically move the latch into place. Sometimes it does. Consistency, even if it was in a less than desirable manner, would be nice.

The rear sight is designed to allow both the large and small apertures to lay flat on top of one another, leaving a lot of room for optics. Unfortunately, when the rear sight is sprung upwards into place, the small aperture moves forward at roughly a 45 degree angle, blocking the shooter’s view of the front sight almost completely. The only true solution to have the rear sight ready to use the instant it’s moved up into place is to leave the small aperture folded away from the large one, reducing scope clearance and not allowing the user to immediately use the small aperture if he so desires.

In the video I describe the sights as “absolutely useless”. Perhaps this was going a bit too far, but I do not find them to be very functional as-is. Initially, they looked nice, and I liked the low profile of the rear sight – but as I actually used them, I found that I would…never want to actually use them on any of my rifles. If I wanted to use polymer sights, I would buy the Magpul MBUS, which are better designed, and as a result, they work as intended.

I’m reviewing them separately from the NGA X7 (which came equipped with them) because they were an optional accessory, and I didn’t feel that their poor performance should reflect upon the rifle.

Springfield XD as Beretta M9 Replacement?

This morning, I received, by email, a link to a post on humanevents.com. The author of the post states that the United States Marine Corps should adopt the Springfield XD-45 as a new service pistol. While I generally weigh what people have to say carefully, some of the comments he makes strike me as quite ridiculous, leading me to question much of his knowledge base on the subject.

He bases this recommendation on three major points –

1. That the .45ACP cartridge is a massive improvement over the 9mm Parabellum cartridge.

2. That the Beretta M9 is prone to early failure.

3. That the XD-45 is a significant improvement over other handgun designs.

Let’s take the first point – caliber.

The author states that:

“The momentum that the .45 carries with it into the target almost doubles that of the 9mm with a broader impact surface resulting in a much heavier hit, like taking on a National Football League back after playing high school tackle.”

Let’s compare and contrast this with a quote from WWII armorer and author, Roy Dunlap, who says:

The old claim of “the .45 knocks ‘em down if it hits ‘em in the arm of leg” carries no weight with anyone who has actually seen any bullet work on humans. Sometimes a .45 might flatten a man with a minor wound, but I have known of Jap soldiers who absorbed a burst in the body from a Thompson and went down fighting. The .45 carries a lot of shocking power, it is true, but the point nearly every pistol argument misses is that a hit with any bullet above a .22 rim fire will slow a man enough from what he is doing – running away, running toward you, or shooting at you – to give you time to put in a fatal hit or hits. “

While the author of the HumanEvents article defends the notion of “stopping power,” he fails to provide any evidence to back up this claim beyond football tackle analogies and a basic discussion of “energy.” True, there’s a statistical difference in “energy” – but what difference does it make in the real world? All handgun cartridges are pretty similar in terms of energy when you compare them to centerfire rifle cartridges.

Next, he states that the Beretta M9 is prone to failure at early round counts – between 22,000 and 35,000 rounds, he says. However, he never presents data on the XD-45. There’s only limited data available on the internet regarding XD high round count testing – specifically, a 20,000 round test. Even so, this was for the XD-9 – not the handgun the author fervently adores. To me, hard data based on thousands of Beretta M9s and the lifespan of their components is far more reliable than a single example where an XD was not even shot to the lowest supposed failure point of the M9.

Beyond that, as Helmuth von Moltke  says, “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.” How does that apply to handguns? Well, no piece of gear ever survives first contact with junior enlisted infantrymen and armorers unscathed. It’s easy enough to say that the XD would be a more durable handgun, but its lack of adoption by any significant department or unit in the United States or abroad leaves many unanswered questions.

The story of Beretta M9 maintenance has been fraught with failure, both in terms of training the end user in how they should maintain the handgun and in training small unit armorers in how often critical components need to be changed. The XD is not a magic wand, and is going to be just as susceptible to such failures if 500,000 of them were fired 20,000 times each over the course of 25 years, all while not being maintained practically until they fell apart.

Finally, he states that the XD-45 is nothing short of a revolutionary advance compared to handguns such as the Beretta 92/M9. I’m a little confused by one comment – he states that Glocks have problems with balance because of their “composite materials” – while stating that the XD uses an “all metal framing.” It’s not clear to me whether he is aware that the XD is substantially similar to a Glock in terms of construction – both have polymer frames with metal components which the slide and other internal parts interface with – or if this was just a poorly stated comment referring to the minor differences between the two. Regardless, this is the first comment I’ve heard stating that the XD is better balanced than other handguns. Generally, this is one of the first things people complain about with regard to the XD – a “top/forward heavy” feeling.

In addition, he describes the XD as having “a cocking indicator on the rear face of the slide like a Glock.” Unless Glock handguns have changed since I last bought mine, they do not feature cocking indicators on the rear face of the slide. These comments lead me to seriously question the basis for his opinion. Everyone’s entitled to one – and the ability to express theirs – but articles such as this have no basis in a serious discussion of service handgun performance or selection.

Instructional/Informational Videos

As I have spent more and more time focusing on this blog, it’s gained viewers – 50,000 hits last month – and attracted a fair amount of attention from some in the industry. This has led to some truly exciting opportunities. Among other things, for example, GunsForSale.com recently asked me to create a series of basic instructional/informational videos about some of the products they sell.

In addition, you’ve most likely noticed the small ad on the right side of the screen. I was finally able to eliminate the WordPress-sourced Google ads that appeared in some articles to some viewers (but never to me), the revenue from which I never saw. In its place, I think this small ad – with revenues directly supporting what I do with VuurwapenBlog.com, such as buying lots of ammunition and components – is much less obtrusive, while also being more functional for the readers/viewers of this blog.

Anyway, the videos – here’s an example – they do not feature VuurwapenBlog “markings,” nor will they appear on the VuurwapenBlog YouTube channel. They’ll appear in GunsForSale.com product listings and are intended to educate potential purchasers – or recent purchasers – of the basic features and maintenance procedures of the firearm shown. I don’t pass judgment or review the firearms, other than describing them in terms I think most would agree with.

As I am always looking to improve my work, if anyone can think of anything else they’d like to see in a video no longer than 2 minutes that has to appeal to firearms “newbies” and semi-experienced folks as well, please let me know.