I like it. I know a lot of people don't, to include, many say, the AR15's designer. However, the military asked for it. The military is known to make poor decisions in weapon design aspects, almost more often than not, but...

I have been slowly whittling away at an interview with Karl Lewis, of LMT. He was discussing the AR10 he made for the Brits, and he touched on the fact that it was initially designed without a FA, but they wanted one. A solicitor of such a company, for such a rifle, presumably knows what the hell they're doing. He said they wanted it to enable discreet press checks; I have used mine for the same reason; more than only a time or two. "But if your gun's loaded, you know it's loaded! You don't know what condition your gun is in?! You some kind of idiot, non-gun-handler?!". Apparently, yes, and so are the presumably specialized troops that asked for that feature on their LMT rifle. Another scenario that necessitates the FA is also one of discretion: Perhaps a special trooper has subsonic ammo (in his kit), and is presented with a sentry or guard animal takedown opportunity; after (quietly)removing his current ammo, it would be nice to be able to completely close his weapon's action on his subsonic ammo with minimal noise. "But I'm not a wannabee, try-hard, sneaking around assassinating people." Roger that; it's all just food for thought, based on an interview with someone who knows a lot more about weapons and the demands of professionals than I do. I don't think the device can hurt anything, so long as it isn't misused; that can be said for damn near everything. I have never had it accidentally engage, causing a problem. So, I think it's value added. What do others say? Some like fritz, with a lot of rounds downrange, may have run into trouble before.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Speaking as an Army veteran, I like the FA and want them on all my ARs.

This is along the lines of better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:


He said they wanted it to enable discreet press checks

This

And chambering around outside at 4AM and trying to do it quietly.

Considering these prompt and certain replies from some trusted SIGforum vets, I don't understand how this is a topic of any debate anywhere.

It seems the device has more of a military or "tactical", and hunting, application, than a "sporting" one. So, I suppose a "sport shooter" could prefer not to have one, if for no other reason than to save the weight and attain a sleeker weapon profile. In the realm of the weapon's real purpose though, it seems practical and of value.

The story goes that Stoner was against the FA, declared it unnecessary but that was with regards of course to the FA's intended use of seating the bolt when dirt or debris interferes. However, the 'press check' use makes a lot of sense.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
And chambering a round outside at 4AM and trying to do it quietly.

Sounds like we need a Chack-Chack speech for the AR-15.

Here is the Good Mr. Stoner discussing it.

As much as I prefer having the forward assist on all my ARs, I can understand not wanting it for whatever reason, non of my business. The beauty is, as consumers, we have that option, rather than are pigeonholed into one system.

It is unfortunate there are vocal individuals who would like to justify their preference by their own anecdotes/experiences and denounce contrary anecdotes/preferences.

I don't understand how it's an argument at this point. If you don't want a forward assist. Don't get one.

I didn't present the thread as some kind of argument. The question is: What is a good reason to not have a forward assist on an AR15? The question is not: What is a good reason to not have an assistless option available to people; there is no good reason for that, as you said. If someone's reason to not have one is they prefer the way it looks without it: cool, if it's absence allows someone to meet a lightweight goal: cool, if someone doesn't want it because Stoner says it's dumb: also cool. We can do what we want; God bless America. It seems that having it enables the user to do things he'd otherwise not be able to do, and not having it offers no advantage that outweighs the cons of it's absence.

If someone's application of an AR15 doesn't benefit from the abilities granted by a FA, then there's certainly every reason to save the weight. If someone's application of the weapon is a practical/tactical one, I think it's presence advisable, to facilitate the above-mentioned functions.

While I'm not specifically digging on the FA, would you ever push forward on a slide to get a handgun into battery? Why no forward assist on other MSRs?

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
While I'm not specifically digging on the FA, would you ever push forward on a slide to get a handgun into battery?

Yes, I have. Several times. The last time was less than a week ago with an Advantage Arms G26 .22LR conversion.

I have nudged a pistol slide home many times, in shooting a suppressed pistol that has issues with a can. Other MSRs carbines don't have one because they have reciprocating handles, in most cases. No one, in this thread, has advocated the use of the FA, to overcome an action that ought not be shut.

Noise discipline is an age-old factor in both hunting and combat; that is the primary case for the FA, as best I can tell. You ought to be able to completely and confidently manually cycle your weapon's action to a locked condition quietly.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
You ought to be able to manually cycle your weapon's action quietly.

You can. But without the FA, you can never be 100% the bolt is 100% locked.

Previous post edited for clarity.

I only skimmed the previous entries, so if this seems to be directed at anyone in particular, it isn’t.

The most vociferous objection I’ve read against the forward assist (more than once) is that it can be misused to make a situation with a cartridge that won’t chamber properly even worse:
“Now you’ve got a round that you can’t fire and can’t extract.”
“Okay, valid point.”
“So, you agree that guns shouldn’t have the feature.”
“No, I don’t. If we’re worried about someone’s misusing it, why not worry about the more serious possibility of misusing the gun itself?”
“Well, because we train them how to use the gun properly.”
“Well, then, train them to use the forward assist properly. Next—?”

And FWIW, I may be one of the few people who has actually used the FA with a press check one time when it was necessary to be as quiet as possible, and I’m not even a super special operator.

A good contribution, sigfreund, per usual. No one ever asked for an AK to have it's cocking handle re-engineered, so that it couldn't be used to manually close the action, in an effort to mitigate problems caused by incompetence. The inability to interact 100% directly with an assistless AR's action isn't a feature. I am not picking on the gun, in case anyone is getting that impression; I believe it to be the best fighting carbine available.

I’ve never been able to force a bad round into the chamber with the forward assist, and I’ve tried just for the sake of educational purposes lol. I mean, I didn’t hit it with a hammer or anything…

I have 2 ARs with no forward assist and that is for pure cosmetic purpose.
They both are 9mm and 10mm Range Toys. They look much cleaner without the FA.
All my actual use ARs have FA.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The most vociferous objection I’ve read against the forward assist (more than once) is that it can be misused to make a situation with a cartridge that won’t chamber properly even worse:
“Now you’ve got a round that you can’t fire and can’t extract.”
“Okay, valid point.”
“So, you agree that guns shouldn’t have the feature.”
“No, I don’t. If we’re worried about someone’s misusing it, why not worry about the more serious possibility of misusing the gun itself?”
“Well, because we train them how to use the gun properly.”
“Well, then, train them to use the forward assist properly. Next—?”

Exactly.

While it can certainly be misused to make a bad situation worse, that's a training issue, not an equipment issue.


That said, speaking of training, I do take issue with the Army's standard "SPORTS" malfunction drill for the M16/M4, which involves using the forward assist every time.

For those of you who don't know, SPORTS is an immediate action drill taught to soldiers, for use when you get a click instead of a bang from your rifle:
S = Slap the bottom of the magazine to ensure it's fully seated.
P = Pull the charging handle back
O = Observe the ejection of the chambered case/cartridge, and observe through the ejection port to see if there's a jam that needs to be cleared and that there's a round in the magazine ready to be loaded
R = Release the charging handle (once the jam is cleared, if applicable)
T = Tap the forward assist*
S = Shoot

If you did the S-P-O-R part properly, there should be no need to T. And dogged adherence to the T part of this drill could lead to a "bad situation made worse" scenario, where you Released the bolt onto another bad/misfed cartridge (or you failed to fully clear the previous jam properly) and then Tapped the forward assist to further jam it in place, compounding the issue.

Consider the simpler "Tap/Rack-Roll/Bang" routine, which normally is used for handgun immediate action drills, but which can also be applied to ARs too. Notice how it doesn't involve smacking the back of the slide (or the forward assist).


Also note that some of the Army's other AR platforms, including stuff like the SR25/M110, M110A1 CSASS, and M110A2, don't have a forward assist.