+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Build-It-Yourself & Custom Builds (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Poll: Forward Assist or No (/showthread.php?tid=9311)
Poll: Forward Assist or No - 65Whelen - 05-06-2015
Is the forward assist necessary on a Modern Sporting Rifle or a carry over from the Military design?
Forward Assist:
Original Stoner Design did not have a forward assist. The addition was the military requirement. Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I’ve read it was a reaction to failures caused by chambers that weren’t chromed and powder initially used in military ammo.
Granted a semi-auto rifle can be loaded and not go into battery, it is something anybody using an AR or any semi-auto has to be aware of. When loading a semi-auto you have to make some noise, it’s a necessary evil. It should be slammed shut to insure it’s in battery, gently closing an action is asking for trouble.
Growing up in WI the go to deer hunting rifle was a Rem. 742 and I’ve heard many stories of opening day deer hunting, 15 degrees and the gun goes click, missing(of course) a big buck. The majority of these failures are and continue to be operator error. Either the weapon needs a good cleaning or it’s improperly lubricated, more often than not with WD-40.
IMHO, forward assist is unnecessary in a modern sporting rifle when proper maintained. For military issue rifles used in extreme conditions, yes.
When starting this thread, I tried to do a poll but it didn't work, more operator error.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - bwaites - 05-06-2015
There you go!
Poll: Forward Assist or No - BluntForceTrauma - 05-06-2015
I've seen this debated. I feel like I got a definitive answer from a guy named Jacob Bynum, who runs the shooting facility Rifles Only.
His contention is that the forward assist is for a "system check." Before a soldier goes into a firefight or a SWAT officer breaks into a house, he pulls back on the charging handle about a half inch and looks into the ejection port to "see brass." He is double checking that a round is on the boltface and has been chambered. Now he needs to re-chamber it again without making noise, right? So he eases the charging handle back down and then uses the forward assist to firmly seat the round.
Bynum said the forward assist should NOT be used to seat a round that is stubborn because of a fouled chamber. One will only jam it in worse.
He seemed like he knew what he was talking about and it made sense to me.
Having said that, I really don't like the FA and would never get one on a home build. I, personally, have zero use for it and it clutters what I feel should be a sleek, clean look. Extra parts and complexity for zero benefit.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - 65Whelen - 05-06-2015
bwaites Wrote:There you go!
Thank you.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - stanc - 05-06-2015
65Whelen Wrote:Is the forward assist necessary on a Modern Sporting Rifle or a carry over from the Military design?The forward assist is a carry over on civilian versions, likely done for at least a couple of reasons:
1. Manufacturers are already set up to produce upper receivers with a forward assist.
2. Many civilian shooters want to have the same configuration as used by the military.
That the forward assist is not truly necessary is evidenced by its absence from the M110 sniper rifle.
![[Image: size0.jpg]](http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2014/09/22/363629/size0.jpg)
Quote:Original Stoner Design did not have a forward assist. The addition was the military requirement. Correct me if Im wrong but from what Ive read it was a reaction to failures caused by chambers that werent chromed and powder initially used in military ammo.I have to say you're wrong. The M16A1 rifle was given a forward assist at the insistence of the US Army leadership, who wanted to have the same ability to close the bolt as did previous self-loading, service rifles (M1 Garand and M14) which had integral bolt handles. The problems you note occurred with early production M16A1 rifles, which already had a forward assist.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - LRRPF52 - 05-06-2015
Forward Assist, as Stan points out, was an Army Ordnance Board requirement that Stoner disagreed with them on. The Air Force told them, "We don't care. Our rifles will NOT have it, so do whatever you want."
The chamber check is something Kyle Lamb specifically says not to do in that manner, and to check the magazine feed location instead when you load the AR. I'll take Kyle's word on anything AR15 and CQB related over all of the SWAT guys combined, credibility being the biggest factor in that. On some guns, you might not get a full bolt rotation, especially with debris in an ongoing series of actions. Coming out of a van, that shouldn't be a problem in a clean, urban setting.
In a hunting setting, we want a full power chamber of the cartridge before we get into the area where noise discipline is an issue. I've spent decades working with AR15's and M16's outdoors, using selector lever discipline without issue. I don't see why that can't be done once you embark on a hunt.
If the gun is properly assembled, correctly sprung, lubricated, fed quality ammo, has reliable mags, and chambered correctly for a gasser, it will chamber quality ammunition made to the specs.
Here's one of the first production AR15's, the Colt Model 601, before they had the problems which were induced by a totally different propellant introduced later in the war. Jim Sullivan suspects sabotage.
![[Image: 602F2437x357-1.jpg]](http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2011/07/602F2437x357-1.jpg)
Poll: Forward Assist or No - lamrith - 05-06-2015
Hrmmm "Necessary" or "desired" can be different votes. Required/Necessary, heck no, as mentioned for normal day to day target usage it would be better to not have it, as then you are less likely to have people tempted to force a bad round into battery. I have watched people at the range do it and quickly made my way to the other side of the range when I saw them do it.
That said..
With all the gear we tend to wear hunting these days, safeties could get flipped to fire and triggers snagged on webbing, straps etc so I know a number of guys that will not chamber a round when hiking, glassing or just sitting in a tree stand. No big deal for bolt gun, as you can slowly cycle the bolt. For an AR the bolt needs to snap forward fast or the lugs will not fully lock in. That is a noisey proposition when your "once in a lifetime" buck is 100yrds away. FA will let you ride the charge handle forward, then use the FL to lock the bolt lugs in quietly just like the Swat example. Side charger you can cycle slow just like a bolt action and push forward to lock it in. IMHO that is why I would only run those two and went with a FA upper on my hunting grendel, so I believe it is desired. FA or Sidecharger..
Poll: Forward Assist or No - NugginFutz - 05-06-2015
lamrith Wrote:... FA will let you ride the charge handle forward, then use the FL to lock the bolt lugs in quietly just like the Swat example. Side charger you can cycle slow just like a bolt action and push forward to lock it in. IMHO that is why I would only run those two and went with a FA upper on my hunting grendel, so I believe it is desired. FA or Sidecharger..
^^^ If for no other reason, this! Coyotes are particularly sensitive to the sound of a rifle racking a round, these parts.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - Klem - 05-07-2015
A non issue.
You gain almost nothing in weight if you opt out of one and there's already the shell deflector on the same side sticking out. Even so I have never known it to catch on anything.
Agree with Lamrith, the questionnaire is loaded depending on your definition of 'necessary'. Is a shell deflector or sling attachment necessary?
It is a piece of utility that you might use, or never, but like the old saying goes, 'You can't use it if you don't have it'.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - BluntForceTrauma - 05-07-2015
Klem Wrote:but like the old saying goes, 'You can't use it if you don't have it'.
Or as its corollary goes: "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."
Regarding the chamber check: I'm not really planning on staging an ambush on a column of VC soon, or raiding a meth lab, so the "correct" procedure is moot for me. Although lamrith makes a good point about using it hunting. Anyway, it raises the classic conundrum of what to do when both of your respected "experts" disagree?
P.S. Bonus Saying from old-time backwoodsman and wilderness survival guide Dick Person, now deceased: "The more knowledge you carry in your brain the less gear you need to carry on your back."
Poll: Forward Assist or No - badmoon692008 - 05-07-2015
lamrith Wrote:Hrmmm "Necessary" or "desired" can be different votes. Required/Necessary, heck no, as mentioned for normal day to day target usage it would be better to not have it, as then you are less likely to have people tempted to force a bad round into battery. I have watched people at the range do it and quickly made my way to the other side of the range when I saw them do it.
That said..
With all the gear we tend to wear hunting these days, safeties could get flipped to fire and triggers snagged on webbing, straps etc so I know a number of guys that will not chamber a round when hiking, glassing or just sitting in a tree stand. No big deal for bolt gun, as you can slowly cycle the bolt. For an AR the bolt needs to snap forward fast or the lugs will not fully lock in. That is a noisey proposition when your "once in a lifetime" buck is 100yrds away. FA will let you ride the charge handle forward, then use the FL to lock the bolt lugs in quietly just like the Swat example. Side charger you can cycle slow just like a bolt action and push forward to lock it in. IMHO that is why I would only run those two and went with a FA upper on my hunting grendel, so I believe it is desired. FA or Sidecharger..
My thoughts exactly
Poll: Forward Assist or No - lawndartmike - 05-08-2015
The depression on the side of the bolt is there to help you push the bolt closed. A design throwback to before the FA. If you rifle is clean and lubed it should not be a problem.
Poll: Forward Assist or No - stanc - 05-08-2015
lawndartmike Wrote:The depression on the side of the bolt is there to help you push the bolt closed. A design throwback to before the FA.I've read of people using that depression on the bolt carrier to push the bolt closed, but I don't know if that was actually a design purpose.
AFAIK, the only reason for the carrier to have that portion milled out is to interface with the protuberance in the middle of the dust cover, the depression providing clearance for that part when the cover is closed, and forcing the cover open when the weapon is fired or the bolt is manually retracted.
![[Image: IMG_5521-vi.jpg]](http://images32.fotki.com/v1103/photos/2/26966/4762546/IMG_5521-vi.jpg)
Poll: Forward Assist or No - wraith1516 - 05-08-2015
I have had to use the fa it was damn cold and the Wilson Combat lube I was using got thick and the bold didn't go all the way into battery
Poll: Forward Assist or No - Christopher67 - 05-24-2015
BluntForceTrauma Wrote:P.S. Bonus Saying from old-time backwoodsman and wilderness survival guide Dick Person, now deceased: "The more knowledge you carry in your brain the less gear you need to carry on your back."
Indeed.
