Reliability vs. Durability

The other day, I was sorting through some old gun magazines (the paper kind that you read) and happened upon an article from the March 2010 Guns Magazine called "Troubleshooting--Bringing back the bang." It was part of a regular column called "Up on ARs" that, as you can probably guess, if directed specifically at owners and operators of the AR rifles.

This particular article was about some things to check if a "once fine working AR-15 starts having problems...." The article focused on failure to cycle issues. It mentioned standard issues--broken extractor or extractor spring, failure to properly clean the chamber, and so on. He recommends the Mark Brown Carrier Scraper to clean carbon out of the bolt carrier. Some other issues I found interesting.

First, "[o]ne of the most overlooked and also more common causes for abated gas action is a loose bolt carrier key" that can cause a leak in the gas action. The author notes that if installed correctly, it should not loosen, but many are not correctly installed. "The key is held fast by two screws." He mentions that not only do these screws need to be tightened down tight--more than the specs of 30 to 40 lbs torque--but the screws also need to be staked so they do not loosen. The author notes that he has seen many that were not staked, but merely used thread-locking glue.

Second, "[t]he area inside the bolt carrier where the tail end of the bolt goes will--not can--get caked with carbon. That fouling is tough to remove, and it's the source of many malfunctions." The author recommends using GM Top Engine Cleaner and brushing to get rid of most of this grime.

Third, "[t]he gas rings on the bolt won't last forever and do break." He recommends keeping spares, and use the one-piece aftermarket rings.

Finally, he notes some possible gas leaks around the gas manifold or block due to misalignment or poor fitting.

Thinking about this, I realized that several of these are really issues with the AR-15--you won't find them with the M-1A or Mini-14, the AK series of rifles, the SKS, or other popular semi-auto rifles favored by preppers. But here is what I see as the difference: the AR is a direct impingement system (which is why the problems with carbon buildup and why springs even in the trigger mechanism can fail over time) and it is a high-tech, high maintenance rifle. I'm not knocking its reliability. The bugs in the original M-16, and the A-1 and A-2 models have mostly been worked out, and, properly maintained, it is a reliable rifle. But that is the key--"properly maintained."

It is a maintenance intensive rifle. And I don't know if that is a good characteristic in a grid-down, TEOTWAWKI scenario.

Of course, high-tech and high-maintenance don't necessarily follow one another. One example is cars. My father-in-law and I were reminiscing and discussing automobiles the other day and he made the following observation. Today, we can climb in our cars and, other than filling the gas tank, drive a couple hundred miles or more without really worrying about it. Yet, it wasn't so long ago that a long trip essentially required a check of the entire vehicle both before and after the trip. Most modern vehicles last longer than older vehicles did. In short, modern cars are both more reliable and more durable than vehicles built even just a few decades ago.

There are many products we enjoy today that are both more reliable and more durable. It is a factor of improved and more refined designs, more precise manufacturing, and better materials.

As preppers, we need tools that are both reliable and durable.