By no means am I putting down S&W AR's. I can only go by here say and information that is in front of me. I do not own one and have not shot one, but that does not mean I have not heard of problems with them. ARCOM has posts about issues with them as well. By the way your mentioning of Glock's kabooming is very valid and the reason why I don't shoot reloads in mine.
I might be one of the odd balls, but I believe many of these issues are caused by ammo more often then the gun.
Agreed across the board C hawk.
Including ARFcom who has a problem with every rifle/carbine product ever made by anyone, ever (!).
Which makes for some interesting if not out right entertaining reading. :p
Count me in with you as an odd ball as well.
I too believe/feel that a good portion if not many of the issues are ammunition related without otherwise regard to the gun.
And not speaking singularly to S&W M&P15s only either.
BTW if there were say 200 such cases, rather than 2, then I'd be like okay there is a problem there, regardless of the mfr. be it S&W, Sig, Colt, Glock or who ever.
But that is not the case, here. Further it's a known that the first item was ammo related (Remington) at that,per the OPs own statements and reporting in his thread. His beef and real issue was with Remington's bad ammo.
Yes the threads here and at ARFcom are long in discussion length BUT the actual amount of owners/end users as within those threads are singular such as is the case for the two threads here.
Two problems does not make a trend. At ARFcom there are probably ten others maybe with same. Again against literally thousands of units out the door.
But hey if folks don't want to deal with such problems and be able to digest whatever ammo including Wolf too, then maybe get a Sig instead.
<Pulls on Nomex flame resistant suit> :lol:
Anyway this was fun but I'm done.
Gotta get back to work making cheese to pay for ammo, from Remington.
As per an update from the OP as in the _second_ M&P15 blow up thread it is confirmed that Remington the ammo. mfr. is again at cause for the issue.
This is as I'd stated prior not a S&W product problem at all nor are their CS folk at fault for not just handing out free replacement guns because faulty ammo blew up in them. Ones issue and argument is the ammo manufacturer, which in both cases reported here at DC.com link back to Remington.
The latest update can be found here today as of 2:04P EST
But I also guarantee this not insignificant fact willbe forgotten/left out too, as with the first incident, and all that folks will recall and speak on is mfr. name and model, 'blew up'.
Which simply is not the whole story and is not an objective nor fair re-telling of the tale be the product by S&W or fill in the blank other vendor.
But hey, that's the internets for ya.
- A grain of salt
NM don't want to keep it going.
I doubt it.
Putting blame to a third party as from a legal stand point is not something any company would take lightly nor do without cause.
I myself manage a corporation and there is no way we would do same at all never mind as related to a customer unless there was very good and substantive cause.
Further as based on _both_ of the OPs own statements of what occurred from the start to my own mind, and that of others in both threads, the issue was clearly caused by and related to ammunition.
Both instances in fact were and are ammunition related problems. That the AR is possibly sensitive to ammunition per it's DI design is not the fault of S&W as it is not their design. Nor would as much be specific just to S&W as the vast majority of ARs are of DI design.
You can't really blame one company for not jumping up and down to go to bat as against a whole other third party toward an incident such as this.
Yes it would be nice if they did so...But to expect as much at all muchless each and every time such an event occurs, that is a stretch.
As to your item about Ruger and their LCP with some guy reloading that makes more sense for them to do as that model is brand new to market and based on a completely new frame design. Which is not applicable nor even remotely relevant to this with S&W and a rifle based on a nearly 50 yr. old and widely copied design.
Apples and pears.
In this specific case it was the Remington ammo, no ifs about it, so say by analysis both S&W and Remington as per the OPs own statements toward finality.
Yes it took time to come to an agreement toward that fact. But it's only been what 3 months. All things being equal as related to other industries such as that of automotive to get a conclusive response in 90 days is quick.
s to the why of this, my guess is that one round was badly undercharged (too little powder) resulting in the firearm not having enough kinetic energy as gas to cycle completely.
Next round comes along with a partially open/unsealed bolt and boom!!...Metal goes flying here there and elsewhere. This could and has happened to any other brand/type manufacture firearm.
It should not happen with commercial ammo, but this wouldn't be the first time and likely is not the last.