Ogre's AR-15


PDA






George Hill
February 20, 2004, 02:25 PM
I’ve become known for being the Anti-AR. I dislike the AR and I would happily tell that to Eugene Stoner’s face. However, it’s form is more useful than it’s function. The form, if made functional, would become quite the platform… but this is easier said than done. I’ve been asked to pick an AR-15 that I would be willing to spend my own money on… and really I am not sold on any of them. I wouldn’t buy any of them. None of them are “right” for me. Instead I would have one built custom to my specs. Luckily everything I want is available off the shelf. So here is what I’d have put together:
My AR-15 is going to have the flat top rail and handguard of the Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 97S. I like the long shotgun type rib that helps in fast snap shooting.
The gas system/action is going to be from ZM Weapons. This system uses an operating rod and a recoil buffer that’s forward of the bolt, not behind. This allows the use of a folding stock, which is nice, but also eliminates the annoying “Sproing” sound. This system is very reliable and much cleaner than the standard AR set up.
The Bolt and Ejector will be from Robinson Armaments… the Robinson bolt is strengthened and allows for a fixed ejector. This is critical for a rifle if it’s to be as reliable as possible. The plunger type ejector typical of the AR series is just not good enough for me.
The lower receiver and butt-stock will be from Cavalry Arms. The CAV-15 MKII receiver. This is a lightweight, but very strong stock, molded as a one piece unit for more strength and smooth lines. It’s very comfortable and I love the pistol grip… very nice.
The upper receiver is going to be the custom side charging upper from JP Enterprises, along with the JP Fire Control System… trigger system and speed hammer. I’ll also use the oversized anti walk pins they offer.
The barrel is going to be from DPMS, and I’m liking the 7” barrel. I would be happy to pay the federal fee for the Short Barrel rifle… after building this rifle totally to my specs, exactly as I want it, what is another 200 bucks? I’ll have the 7 inch for most uses such as personal and home defense, CQB… I’m also going to want a complete upper as I have specified in a 24 inch heavy fluted barrel for target work at longer ranges. Now here is the kicker… 5.56MM out of a 7 inch tube is pretty useless, but 7.62X39 does much better. This rifle is to be chambered 7.62X39MM, and I don’t want to hear any of you .223 pansies crying about it. Fatter bullet’s make bigger holes and heavier bullets make deeper ones. With a short tube there will not be any of that hypervelocity bullet fragmentation crap that AR-15 bevets keep singing about.
To top this all off, I will use an optical gun sight. The one that I like the most in form and function is the Bushnell Holosight for the shorty upper and a nice Trijicon unit for the long barreled upper.
Then I’d put a sling on it and call it good.
This is the AR-15 rifle that I would actually spend my own money on.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ogre's AR-15" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rock jock
February 20, 2004, 02:33 PM
Well, to each his own. That is about 180 degrees opposite from my ideal AR, but then again, I like the AR design.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 20, 2004, 02:40 PM
It's an interesting rifle, not for me ;) but you sound like you've thought it out some...

Only two things I'd add is a suppressor is going to be a very nice addition for any 7" barrelled centerfire rifle, especially one that will be used indoors.

Also, why 7.62x39? I understand the desire for the bigger, heavier bullet; but 7.62x39 is not renowned for its long-range accuracy. I would think that a 6.5PPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 6.8x43 would give you both the bigger, heavier bullet and the better long range performance for your 24" varmint version.

ny32182
February 20, 2004, 02:49 PM
We get it...you hate ARs.

Just buy an AK, it has everything you want stock off the shelf for $299.:scrutiny:

Poodleshooter
February 20, 2004, 03:54 PM
but 7.62x39 is not renowned for its long-range accuracy
Neither are 7" barreled rifles. The 7.62x39 in a SBR is a good idea. Get an adjustable gas port, load with 180gr .311" bullets loaded to 1050fps and thread the barrel for a suppressor while you're at it. Think .300 Whisper. I'd agree that a wildcatted 7mm/7.62x39 would be a better long range choice for his 24" long range upper.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 20, 2004, 03:59 PM
and I don’t want to hear any of you .223 pansies crying about it.I have no idea why but this made me laugh...

George Hill
February 20, 2004, 04:21 PM
"why 7.62x39?"

Because this ammo is cheap and plenty. You can get it pretty much anywhere you can get 5.56MM at.
These other rounds might be better balistic performance wise - but it doesn't do me any good if I can't get the ammo. .300 Whisper or this 6.5 Grendel... I'd go for it in a heartbeat if they sell by the case for less than the price of a CZ-52 at any given gunshow or well stocked shooter's market.
I like shooting a lot... and when I go shooting, I like to fire a lot of ammo.

The suppressor - I should have mentioned that. That's a given. Optional of course... give it a nice flash suppressor that accomodates a quick detach suppressor - that would be hell on wheels.

CZF
February 20, 2004, 05:05 PM
I think you have a good idea.but why continue to foster this
AR-15 fallacy. A gun design that was new in 1965 is not
so great after years of repeat problems.


Some of it related to design and ammo, but still a liability in my book.

While I don't believe everything i read on the net or watch on TV.

I make point of the LA Hollywood Shootout movie 44 Minutes.

Looks like they really tried to depict what actually went on during that
fiasco.

You will see the SWAT guys arriving with M-16s, and after a few shots
one sWAT dude is yelling MALFUNCTION!

Goodie! Just what you want during an armed conflict.

I'll also add that they showed the BAD GUY's AK-47, a ROMAK
"jamming" but this was after thousands of rounds on full-auto.
IN "real-life" one one probably be out of 75 round drum mags before this
would happen with the trusty Norinco or other than Romanian AKM.
I can remember being in a nasty place and being told that every
AK47 was trustworthy, but the ROMI. That stupid handle out front
was the real attention getter. Of course, the thousands of M16s
as sent from the USA for the war effort. Were quickly dumped in
the harbor!

Back to the AR. H&Ks new improvement might get the AR to a standard
of reliabality that someone like myself could accept.

I see that many people want an AR-15 type assault rifle, and wouldn't
be able to pay the high price of a G-36 if even offered as a semi.

I always thought the Gallil was the best of both worlds when they
were plentiful in the USA. AK reliable and AR like accurate.

The AR-15 is more reliable in 7.62 x39, but hi-cap mags that work
are scarce. Same problem with the Mini-30 though.

THe SPC cartridge is like putting .357 SIG in a 1911. A dated design
but in this case.. a pistol that works most of the time.

with sub-caliber perfomance as documented in Afghan/Iraq by our
nation's finest..along with the constant relibility problems..

I view the current crop as AR-15/M-16s as widow-makers.
Very glad that I don't have to be forced to rely on such an arm anymore.

Glad to see that others (like George) are not so shy about being vocal over the over-rated AR.

Harry Tuttle
February 20, 2004, 05:51 PM
This system is very reliable

and how many rifles has ZM weapons fielded?

Gewehr98
February 20, 2004, 07:49 PM
Hmm. Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah! That would be a Krinkov, kinda like what I did with my Title III paperwork via those wonderful folks in Naples, FL called "Krinks". When mine gets finished, I'm gonna take it over to hkmp5k's place for a Title III family photo op. :D



http://www.the-top.com/krink/Images/yugo.jpg

QuarterBoreGunner
February 20, 2004, 07:58 PM
Gewehr98...*sniff* that's just beautiful man. *sniff*...

RikWriter
February 20, 2004, 08:04 PM
Wouldn't want it. For one thing, 7.62x39 is far too weak a caliber. For another, the AR system is plenty reliable enough.

Andrew Wyatt
February 20, 2004, 08:05 PM
congratulations. you've made a totally unuseable AR.

the JP speed hammer isn't heavy enough to reliably detonate commie ammo, and the magazine well is totally unsuited to 7.62X39.

George Hill
February 20, 2004, 08:28 PM
"how many rifles has ZM weapons fielded?"

That really doesn't matter to me as "Fielding" isnt the option of the maker, but of the Politicos that have the checkbooks. The F-20 Tigershark was a fantastic jet fighter, but it was never "Fielded" either. Then you got the V-22 Osprey, and they are trying to "field" it before it's even functional... kinda like the M-16 in that regard... doesn't matter if 20 Marines are killed or whole platoons worth of Army grunts are wiped out... as long as it's "fielded" it's okay, right?

I have two associates who own the ZM Post-Ban kits. They have both run case after case off ammo through them without much trouble. However they have had occasional problems with the ejectors.

George Hill
February 20, 2004, 08:41 PM
Well, geese Andrew, I guess if the speed hammer didn’t work I wouldn’t use it… would I?
And the mag well? I believe I said I’d have this rifle custom made…
That would mean I’d have a gunsmith MAKE it work. That's what gunsmiths do. That's why I would pay for one to build this rifle.
You don't have much of an imagination or sense of humor, do you?

Gewehr98 - Buddy, you nailed it. I'd rather have one of those than 5 AR's. Have you seen those "Stretched Krinkovs" by Krebs? Very nice... but that short barrel... with pretty wood on it... "Elegant Brutality".

Zak Smith
February 20, 2004, 08:42 PM
Some random points:

I can shoot my Rock River AR15 thousands of rounds without cleaning, including dusty environments like Raton, NM. It doesn't get that dirty inside, sure, dirtier than a FAL, but it runs, so who cares? It takes about a minute to remove the bolt carrier assembly from the upper and spray it and the inside of the receiver down with some brake cleaner. Optionally, a couple drops of FP10/CLP later and it's good to go.

There is some value is having something relatively standard. Parts for the AR15 are everywhere. When my M96 broke, it took over a month to get replacement parts from RobArms.

The direct gas system is robust in its simplicity. Nothing to break or bind.

There are recent improvements in extractor design and lug design from LMT to aid reliability:
http://www.thermaldynamics.com/pictures/mstn/LMTbolt-3.JPG

-z

Gewehr98
February 20, 2004, 09:43 PM
You don't have much of an imagination or sense of humor, do you?

I don't think Andrew was ever issued a sense of humor, reading through his posts here at THR. ;)

Deadly serious stuff, building custom guns, dont'cha know?

MMcCall
February 20, 2004, 11:57 PM
Congratulations, your AR isn't an AR by any stretch of the imagination.

May as well call it the GH762 :scrutiny:

George Hill
February 21, 2004, 12:48 AM
:D Mission accomplished.

artherd
February 21, 2004, 04:14 AM
I was right there with you, untill this:

Now here is the kicker… 5.56MM out of a 7 inch tube is pretty useless, but 7.62X39 does much better. This rifle is to be chambered 7.62X39MM, and I don’t want to hear any of you .223 pansies crying about it. Fatter bullet’s make bigger holes and heavier bullets make deeper ones. With a short tube there will not be any of that hypervelocity bullet fragmentation crap that AR-15 bevets keep singing about.


Sounds like you want a Bushmaster Pistol.



7.62x39 is weak. I don't think the ballistics look any better than 10mm AUTO. Why not go .308 if you really have issues ;)

Why do you want a 7" barrel? That's tiny. And it'll deafen you in one shot indoors (unless you go suppressed :D Even then, 11.5" bbls should do you fine.


Any CQB rifle is going to be a compromise over a nice 26" barreled boom-stick.

Once you get past all that, the AR really is a great platform. You seem to have selected parts that should add to the reliability as well, though I'd want to see the whole assembled firearm be droped a few times, left for dead in the mud, then picked up and fired.

CaesarI
February 21, 2004, 06:57 AM
HKM4 in 6.8X43 for me. If they make it, and the mil adopts it, and the AWBan sunsets, I am gonna be one very, very happy customer (course it is a lot of 'ifs' but still).

Powerful, reliable, cheap and now tactical too!

-Morgan

DMK
February 21, 2004, 08:34 AM
Oh, come on now Mad Ogre. This is what you really want! :neener:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=813178

George Hill
February 21, 2004, 11:41 AM
DMK - you are absolutely right.


"Sounds like you want a Bushmaster Pistol." Oh yeah... I want one of those... right after I get my nipples peirced and a "prince albert" I'll get one. Promise.

Benjamin
February 21, 2004, 08:25 PM
I understand the point of this post was "what would George have to do to accept an AR 15".

That said -- what you ended up with sounds a lot more feasable going off a lightweight FAL lower, and a meeper conversion to 7.62x39

You'd start off with the proper side charging ability, and a gas piston system, rather than having to kludge them out of the ether.


Regards,

-Ben

Feanaro
February 21, 2004, 11:50 PM
and how many rifles has ZM weapons fielded?

Merely because something had not been fielded does not make it unreliable, nor does the fact that a weapon was fielded mean it was worth a crap. The M16(before any improvements)? The PTRD-1941(obsolete before it was even designed)? SA-80/L85?

Andrew Wyatt
February 21, 2004, 11:58 PM
*Shrug*

What was the purpose of this thread again?

RikWriter
February 22, 2004, 08:35 AM
What was the purpose of this thread again?

The purpose was for George to troll people who like the AR15.

Tamara
February 22, 2004, 08:52 AM
I’ve become known for being the Anti-AR. I dislike the AR and I would happily tell that to Eugene Stoner’s face.

Given your obvious talent for gun design, I'm sure he'd be all broken up about that.

RikWriter
February 22, 2004, 09:13 AM
Given your obvious talent for gun design, I'm sure he'd be all broken up about that.

ROFLMAO!!! Zing! :D

George Hill
February 22, 2004, 02:42 PM
The point was that these are the AR-15 parts that I like... I like the Cav Arms lower and the JP side charging upper... blah blah blah...
This is just a collection of all those parts and features, and putting them together. That was the point.

If you guys don't like it - fine. I wasn't trying to sell the concept.

Andrew Wyatt
February 22, 2004, 04:03 PM
I was just pointing out that your gun was totally unuseable as it was, what with the straight mag well and tapered ammunition being incompatable (and incapable of being made compatable, since the plastic lower is not machineable and there are no m-16 curved magazines floating around).

Zak Smith
February 22, 2004, 04:22 PM
JP side-charging upper? I've never seen one of those, and I have two JP custom rifles.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of someone else?

-z

Harry Tuttle
February 22, 2004, 05:03 PM
the only side charger i know of is the American Spirit Arms upper

Gewehr98
February 22, 2004, 05:43 PM
*Shrug*

What was the purpose of this thread again?

Andrew's response made the front page at MadOgre.com. That's noteworthy in itself.

Andrew Wyatt
February 22, 2004, 06:07 PM
ooh. frontpage at Madogre.com. I'm almost happy enough to wet myself.

Tamara
February 22, 2004, 07:40 PM
Andrew's response made the front page at MadOgre.com.

Well, damn... There goes my shot at being a hordeminion... ;) :D

Gewehr98
February 22, 2004, 07:47 PM
I noticed George cleaned it up a bit from the first iteration, probably, if anything, for the sake of Andrew's sensitivities. ;)

Zak Smith
March 27, 2004, 02:27 AM
http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/6.8mm/small/117_1749_img.jpg

Let's see..

Chambered for 6.8mm, proper mags will end up holding 28 rounds. Relatively lightweight upper. Easily activated BUIS. Strong collapsible stock. JP fire control set including speed hammer (4# for ignition reliability). Rails can be added or removed from tube. I would prefer this served MRP-style so a CQB barrel could be switched for a precision barrel, but we'll have to wait for that.

-z

Chris Rhines
March 27, 2004, 07:28 AM
George -

Speak to me of this Robinson Arms AR bolt that incorporates a fixed ejector slot. I've never heard of this, and would like to know more about it. Do you have a link?

- Chris

Ben Shepherd
March 27, 2004, 10:01 AM
Lets take it a little easier on Mr. Hill folks. He's just voicing an opinion, and like most of us here he has strong opinions(which more people should have) we don't have to agree with it.

He and I have shot together, I can tell you he's a good man and on our side. He just doesn't like one type of rifle that some/most here do that's all.

Heck myself, I like my bushy m4 clone, I've got a couple of yugos. I like them both.

But here's where I'll get flamed: I will never own an ak-47, period!! Why? I hate stamped parts on guns. Won't own a gun with a stamped reciever, end of subject! Yes they are reliable as anything out there but I don't care, they're not for me.

I'll take the higher maintinance and better accuracy of the AR platform over the energizer bunny gun any day.

But George and I are still friends, just have different gun requirements.

George Hill
March 27, 2004, 11:09 AM
The Robinson bolt is used in the M96 rifle. I don't have a link to any good picture of one, but it's pretty much just a big cut though the side of the bolt to allow it the use a fixed ejector rather than the standard plunger ejector.
You couldn't use it in a regular AR without serious modifications to the rifle. Including the chamber.

This rifle would be virtually impossible to build unless you ran H&K and gave the shop foreman the plans and say "Build This". It would be too expensive.
Just get an AR-18 and have a good smith cut the barrel down and you would have most of this...
Or better yet, just roll with DSA's lightened FAL variant or a Krebs AK variant.

I believe I have said that I wouldn't mind having my old CAR-15 back. I had very few problems with that one. No, wait a second... I don't remember having any problems with it at all. No rails, no gadgets... just short and light and very handy. An M1 Carbine fits that roll just fine too.

Zak Smith
March 27, 2004, 11:14 AM
Kurtz Kustom will convert your AR-15 to piston-operated for about $150

Gewehr98
March 27, 2004, 11:45 AM
You've kinda become a poster child for that switch-barrel , 6.8 SPC, "thing" that started from the AR-15/M-16 family over the last several days. Why are you pushing it so hard? Are you selling them, or is it a financial partnership? Thought about requesting the mods move it to the "For Sale" part of the forum.


Nothing personal, just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Myself, Uncle Sam lets me retire in T-700 days and counting. Then I'll never have to look at another M16/AR-15 or Beretta M9/92F again if I choose not to. Thinking about selling my pre-ban Colt Competition HBAR, too. ;)

Risasi
March 27, 2004, 01:12 PM
What a squabble. What's funny is I like shooting AR's, but agree with George. I actually think "stoner" was Eugene's nickname, and it just stuck after the AR15 came out.

I love how accurate the potential of the AR is, but hate the fact that after firing 100 rounds there is more dirt on the internals, than in Courtney Love's police file. Love to shoot, hate to clean.

I LOVE the fact I can take even my El Cheapo $350 CETME, squirt a little CLP down the barrel, run two patches (maybe two, if I've shot it a lot) through. Squirt a little more in the reciever and just wipe out any excess next time I pull it out of the closet. I got better things to do than clean guns all day.

Likewise I agree with Ben Shepherd, AK's were a big turnoff to me. I just didn't like the way they handled, and not very accurate. (Though I am finding this has changed some). The point is to each his own.

Guns, cars and women (or men, sorry Tamara) are a very personal thing. And George has refrained from letting personal opinions get in the way of analyzing the AR properly. Personal experience, now that's different. Generally I find that the worst gun snobs are AR owners. You know!! That's it!! George, I'm selling my Rock River. I believe in stereotypes. And I am slowly building one in my mind of AR owners.

You have evaluated the AR quite well, you tell these guys the reason you don't like it and they take offense. And then you tell them how you would build it if you would own one. (Nevermind they ignore that fact that you carried one day in, day out, in the forces). And they poo-poo you, rather than thank you for explaining how you would fix the shortcomings the AR has. That is an attack on the man, not a reasonable discussion of the validity of his discourse and exposition. But, I shouldn't expect any different, for 6000 years people have been murdering the messenger, rather that evaluating the message, and taking heed.

I believe this can only be because they have some personal issue, probably a shortcoming in their lives somewhere and HAVE TO tout their ABC, 123, latest greatest AR buy. Just to sooth their fettered emotions. Or as is the case with all sheep, it's too hard to be different and easier to live by pack mentality. Talk about fanboyism. How un-american.

To be frank, I recognize the fact that EVERY device mankind makes have advantages and disadvantages. Now most of you aren't in this fanboy group, but a couple of you I can see are so absolutely positive your AR must be from God, since it's infallable.

I may be a gun slut, but I'm no gun bigot...

I think Gewehr, Zak and Ben Shepherd all bring up some interesting observations and bring something to the table, but several of you get this "Oh great, George is off the reservation again" attitude. And would rather just shut him up.

Jake 98c/11b
March 27, 2004, 04:02 PM
George, buddy, how are you? Imagine the pleasant surprise I had when, after months in transit I arrive in Iraq, finally getting the chance to surf the net and the first thing I see is the chance to abuse my bud George.

I will have to disagree with an observation from Risasi, having carried the AR pattern for far longer than George 'day in and day out' in the service my experience contradicts Georges observations. Not that I completely disagree with all of his observations, I certainly don't (he's not as dumb as he looks, really). Some of his observations are definately valid but I have never had any problems with the AR, not from an issue weapon anyway. I have seen a few home built abominations that used the cheapest components possible assembled by some ham handed putz with a pipe wrench that, for reasons unknown, did not run 100% (not you George, you rate as an ill trained chimp). I can honestly say I have never had a failure of an issue M-16 variant and I am currently teaching our units CQM program.

My ideal AR series rifle would be a rather basic shorty flat top with four position stock. I do admit that I like the idea of the 16 inch barrel (lightweight profile) with the intermediate length handguards (and the SIR system). Given quality components and basic care it will run just fine. My big problem with my two ARs is finding the right optics. I have a flat top with the 4X ACOG but find the magnification is greater than I would prefer for general use and the fixed carry handle version had the 2X Aimpoint. I say 'had' because the Aimpoint is now on my issue A2 sitting next to me. Have not yet shot with the Aimpoint enough to decide if it is the way to go just yet. Haven't found anything I like as well as the AR for serious use, everything is right where it needs to be for me (right handed) and operation is fast and intuitive, hasn't failed me yet.

Before I shipped on my latest vacation I spoke with Todd Jarrett, he came by the shop to shoot our monday night match, and he said that if H&K made a G36 style upper for the AR it would solve any issues with the system but that the AR had some definate advantages over all other weapons in the battle carbine category.

Conversation with Todd was a few months back but I stand by my general recolection of the conversation.

Still have the E-Mail address George? If so, drop a line.

George Hill
March 27, 2004, 04:42 PM
Hey Jake! Good to hear from you again...
Say hello to my brothers if you see them over there. They are on the way.
No, I don't have my old email roster... You have mine though.

A G-36 style upper would be amazingly helpful with a great many things... op-rod, ambi charging handle that isn't on your nose... and I even like the G-36's built in optic. But you know... all of that is coming in the XM-8.
Now if we could just get the XM-8 in 6.8MM...

Keep your powder dry, and some camo on that shiney dome of yours, Jake.

Zak Smith
March 27, 2004, 05:45 PM
Gewehr98,

I'm just posting pictures of some new toys. The MRP and the 6.8 each separately are really interesting developments in the AR15 family. (The HK M4 & KurtzCustom gas piston systems are also very interesting developments.) I like the MRP because of its more flexible modularity vs. a normal AR, the ability to switch calibers, and weight savings over a conventional railed forend.

Wildcat cartridges for the AR15 have been around for a long time to address the widespread desires of users of that platform: more power, heavier bullets, effective subsonic ammo. The 6.8SPC addresses (most of) those wants and has a chance to gain a foothold because of its military origins, probably LEO use, and importantly, backing by major manufacturers. This is all IMO. I've got nothing to gain from 6.8SPC succeeding besides greater demand driving ammo prices down.

Some of these neat new developments are available to everyday people today, as opposed to some time in the nebulous future, if you are LEO or military (HK). I don't understand why someone would want to wait 6 months and read about new stuff in SOF or SWAT instead of reading reports here as soon as it is available.

One thing I really like about the AR15 platform is that it's so easy to build an accurate rifle. I wonder how much of that we'd lose with a piston upper?

-z

TechBrute
March 27, 2004, 09:57 PM
:DJust to pee in someone's cornflakes... (http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=9046084761&m=7586013295) :D

Gewehr98
March 27, 2004, 10:25 PM
:banghead:

Jake 98c/11b
March 28, 2004, 12:08 AM
George, you silly little man. Camo facepaint is not allowed in this theater, some cultural thing I hear. Now a while back, you know when we were on the offensive, it was OK but not so under stability and support operations.

I will get with you privately about your brothers, you never know, may have the chance to look them up.

Given the advantages of the AR ergonomics, I love it over all else I have used (and that is a lot). If a G36 style upper would satisfy you overly emotional types who can't clean a gun right then fine. I would prefer the operating mechanism only as I am not a huge fan of the optics on the G36.

That little XM8 thing has it's own issues from what I have seen, a paddle type mag release and the need to 'rock' the mags in place is the big one for me. Well, that and no built in iron sights. And it is ugly as sin. What is the adjustment range of the stock anyway, anyone know right off hand?

Zak Smith
March 28, 2004, 12:08 AM
Here's what was posted on Lightfighter

Don't give me any bull--- about how an AR wont run if it is dirty. Here is about 6000 rounds with out a cleaning!
http://www.ops-se.com/Lightfighter/Dirty%20Bolt%20Carrier.jpg
There are at least half a dozen board members who have fired this gun -- it runs. Even with all of this ---- caked on!

Brad C. Nelson
President/CEO
Lightfighter Tactical, Inc.


-z

natedog
March 28, 2004, 12:53 AM
Ok, here's Natedog's Ideal AR:

1. 20" 1-7" chrome lined A1 profile barrel w/Phantom flash suppressor

2. A3 flattop reciever w/ forward assist

3. Ergo grip

4. Bayonet lug (why not?)

5. ACOG or Aimpoint Ml-2

6. A2 furniture

7. BIUS

8. A boatload of GI 30 round magazines and 70 round Chinese drums and magpuls

Risasi
March 28, 2004, 09:12 AM
That's interesting. I've put about 1200 through mine before getting a jam. All in all it's a cool platform, but still the biggest downside is clean the damn thing. Though to be honest I never have cleaned the gas tube out, ever.

I hear that on the other calibers. I've been through the whole deal, so do I build an upper in 6.8, 300Whisper/Fireball/30Apache, 458 Socom? I deciced to hold off and see what happens with 6.8 SPC. I've pretty much limited myself to those calibers as I can use the same magazines.

George Hill
March 28, 2004, 11:13 AM
I really like the .300 Whisper. I would love to have an M96 Recon in that cartridge with a supressor... Very slick.

Bainx
March 28, 2004, 04:56 PM
For one thing, 7.62x39 is far too weak a caliber.
Oh yeah, just what you got in mind?:confused:

JShirley
March 28, 2004, 05:08 PM
Some people who smoke and drink like fish live to an extraordinarily old age. By the reasoning some have shown, that would mean that smoking and drinking make people live longer.

No.

These are just anecdotal inputs. They prove nothing. My anecdote would be to mention how a little sand in my M16A4 gave me a malf every two or three rounds. Again, this "proves" nothing, except that some AR15's run well, and some M16's do not tolerate crud worth a damn.

Still says nothing about the inherently dirty design, or the late '50's technology, struggling to be brought into a new era by tacking on techno gear.

John

George Hill
March 28, 2004, 05:09 PM
For one thing, 7.62x39 is far too weak a caliber.
That's odd.
TFL and THR are full of people saying that 7.62X39 is balistically similar to .30-30... and TFL and THR are full of people saying .30-30 has killed more deer than any other and is an outstanding deer cartridge.
So along this logic, 7.62X39MM should also be an outstanding deer cartridge (With the right bullet of course)... and now all the sudden it's far too weak? Dang - that sucks because I just purchased a .30-30! Crap!
Wait a second... wasn't there a SWAT magazine article that had Ashley Emerson out in a Thunder Ranch tactical rifle course with a Marlin 336 in .30-30?
I guess you need to tell Ashley that he was using a far too weak caliber. Wasn't there a photo of Ashley with that rifle and a dead critter he just hunted with that 336? You should tell him that caliber was far too weak... or better yet, tell that to the dead beast.

If anything 7.62X39MM is still hitting with a fatter and heavier bullet than what is normally used with 5.56MM. It's not a perfect cartridge... but it's one I like, and I like it more than the 5.56MM. Why do some people take my opinions so personally?
:confused:

Zak Smith
March 28, 2004, 08:30 PM
One thing 5.56 has over 7.62x39 and .30-30 is a flatter trajectory. This is true even for the heavy (75-77gr) 5.56 loadings.

75-77gr 5.56, 115gr 6.8, and 150gr .308 have just about identical long-range trajectories: their initial velocity is in the 2600-2800fps range (about the same depending on barrel length) and BC's are around 0.35 - 0.40.

-z

George Hill
March 28, 2004, 08:39 PM
"One thing 5.56 has over 7.62x39 and .30-30 is a flatter trajectory."
Yeah, but that doesn't mean so much when you know how to find the target's range and you know your gun's balistics.

Zak Smith
March 28, 2004, 09:24 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't mean so much when you know how to find the target's range and you know your gun's balistics.

Sure, if you know your target's range, you can dial the elevation. However, I believe the following three points refute that "it doesn't mean much":


The faster, higher BC bullet will have a longer point-blank range (http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/4th/55.cfm). This is the distance within which the shooter aims dead center and is assured a hit within some margin.

For example, with 75gr 5.56mm with MV of 2700fps sighted in at 210 yards, the shooter is assured that the bullet will hit within 2" vertically of the point of aim anywhere from about 4 yards to 240 yards:

_BC_ _MV_ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 | YARDS
0.395 2700 > -2.52 -1.27 -0.20 0.67 1.36 1.80 2.02 2.00 1.74 1.24 0.48 -0.61 -1.92 | > 5.56mm Hor 75gr 20"
Far zero at 210.0, maximum 2.04 at 129.0, falling -0.08"/yd, angle 0.00192 rad


To repeat the same with 7.62x39 (BC 0.282, MV 2365), sighted in at 178 yards, the shooter is assured the bullet will hit within 2" vertically of the point of aim anywhere from about 4 yards to only 205 yards:

_BC_ _MV_ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 | YARDS
0.282 2365 > -2.51 -1.08 0.09 1.00 1.65 1.96 1.96 1.61 0.91 -0.15 -1.61 -3.58 -5.91 | > 7.62x39 125gr
Far zero at 178.3, maximum 2.00 at 110.5, falling -0.14"/yd, angle 0.00221 rad


If you increase the size of the acceptible zone of impact from +/- 2" to larger, the effect is amplified.

Once past this point-blank range, the shooter must deal with elevation adjustments, hold-over, or a BDC, which leads us to our next point:


Range estimation accuracy is less critical with the fast, high BC bullet. At any range, compared to the slow low-BC bullet, the fast, high-BC bullet will be dropping less per yard travelled. This means that an error in range estimation will have less of an effect on the point of impact of the fast, high-BC bullet than the slow low-BC bullet.

For example, if you have a 5.56/75gr and a 7.62x39 both sighted in at 200 yards. You are shooting at a target you estimate to be at 400 yards, but it's really 450:

_BC_ _MV_ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 | YARDS
0.395 2700 > -2.53 0.14 1.56 1.54 -0.01 -3.29 -8.46 -15.70 -25.00 -37.01 -51.79 -69.24 -90.45 | > 5.56mm 75gr 20"
0.282 2365 > -2.50 0.98 2.77 2.51 -0.01 -5.24 -13.57 -25.47 -41.10 -61.77 -87.87 -119.37 -158.39 | > 7.62x39 125gr

The 5.56 hits low by 12". The 7.62x39 hits low by 20". This effect is amplified as range increases and distance increases.

Another example. Say you have a pretty good rangefinding system, but you're off by 2% at 600 yards. 2% is damn good especially if you are using a mil-dot! You estimate 600, but it's really at 612:

_BC_ _MV_ 0 576 588 600 612 | YARDS
0.395 2700 > -74.87 -79.86 -85.05 -90.45 -96.07 | > 5.56mm 75gr 20"
0.282 2365 > 129.67 -138.82 -148.40 -158.39 -168.83 | > 7.62x39 125gr

The 5.56/75gr will only hit low by 6", but the 7.62x39 will hit low by 10".

If you compare the instantaneous falling rates of the two trajectories:

_BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 | YARDS
0.395 2700 > -2.53 1.56 -0.01 -8.46 -25.00 -51.79 -90.45 | > 5.56mm 75gr 20"
Far zero at 200.1, maximum 1.73 at 125.8, falling -0.54"/yd, angle 0.00186 rad

0.282 2365 > -2.50 2.77 -0.01 -13.57 -41.10 -87.87 -158.39 | > 7.62x39 125gr
Far zero at 200.1, maximum 2.92 at 120.3, falling -1.02"/yd, angle 0.00243 rad

The 7.62x39 is falling at about twice the rate (1.02 inch per yard) of the 5.56 (0.54 inch per yard) at 600 yards.

The fast, high-BC bullet will be less affected by wind than the slow low-BC bullet. Wind drift is a function of the bullet's BC and the flight time to target. The fast, high BC bullet is better in both these areas.


Items #2 and #3 are why long-barrelled 7mm Magnums (and 300WM) rule unknown-distance long-range "sniper" competitions, such as the DLSports International Tactical Rifleman Championship in Gillette WY, instead of .308. Ranging errors don't screw you so bad, and wind is easier to deal with.

-z

Gewehr98
March 28, 2004, 09:38 PM
Items #2 and #3 are why long-barrelled 7mm Magnums (and 300WM) rule unknown-distance long-range "sniper" competitions, such as the DLSports International Tactical Rifleman Championship in Gillette WY, instead of .308. Ranging errors don't screw you so bad, and wind is easier to deal with.

You're a proponent of the mousegun round, don't forget, so stick to your guns. Smaller diameter bullets, less powder, less recoil and all. And I've watched the 6.5x57, 6.5-284, and 6.5-06 rule several other long-range "sniper" competitions against their eargesplittenloudenboomer magnum brethren. Better ballistics and all, don't ya know. ;)

JShirley
March 28, 2004, 09:53 PM
Zak,

If I'm understanding you correctly, you posted all those figures to show us a PBR difference of 35 yards. Who cares, really?

FWIW, I've long been of the opinion that, if it makes a hole, and will penetrate whatever clothing or armor impedes it, it's a big enough cartridge for use against man.

I just think the AR15/M16 is a poor design. :)

John

Andrew Wyatt
March 28, 2004, 11:08 PM
if it's such a poor design, then why does it rule the 3 gun match circuit?

While i'm not adverse to a piston operated AR or other reliability improvements, i don't see how sacrificing hit probability for a debateable jump in reliability by going to another rifle is a good thing.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean so much when you know how to find the target's range and you know your gun's balistics.

Finding the range and adjusting sight settings takes time. this is something you more than likely won't have if you're using the gun for "serious" purposes. Mhen you were using an m-16a2 as a working gun, how often did you change sight settings to match the range?

JShirley
March 28, 2004, 11:25 PM
Somehow, I'm unimpressed that a firearm "rules" a gun game. There is at least one gun game, the pin shoot, that is typically "ruled" by a design over 100 years old. Again, so what? This same design (the large frame, double-action revolver) is totally unsuited for military use.

Highly modified, bulky, "space guns" rule another gun game. Again, totally unsuited for the real world.

Who said anything about "improvements" to the design? Junk it. It's almost a 50 year old design, already, and I would have rejected it the first time.

Plastic is fine. Small bore is fine. The M16 sucks. :) (And again, just because it's been used by the most powerful country on earth only proves that it's been used by the most powerful country on earth.)

John

Zak Smith
March 28, 2004, 11:34 PM
Gewehr98,
You're a proponent of the mousegun round, don't forget, so stick to your guns. Smaller diameter bullets, less powder, less recoil and all. And I've watched the 6.5x57, 6.5-284, and 6.5-06 rule several other long-range "sniper" competitions against their eargesplittenloudenboomer magnum brethren. Better ballistics and all, don't ya know.
You know, when I posted that, I just knew someone was going to bring up the 6.5's. :D Yes, you're exactly correct. I don't know the numbers for all of those off the top of my head, but they are real close to 7RM and do it with less powder & recoil. The same arguments used for 7RM over 308 can be used for 6.5-whatever over 308, or to compare 7RM and the 6.5 family. Only reason I've heard to prefer 7RM or 300WM over some 6.5's is barrel life.

JShirley,
If I'm understanding you correctly, you posted all those figures to show us a PBR difference of 35 yards. Who cares, really?
For +/- 2", it's a 35 yard difference. For +/- 3", it's a 50 yard difference. With M855 at 3100fps, the PBR (+/- 2") is out to about 270 yards.

Point 1 was the Point-Blank Range. It's longer with higher MV and higher BC. Whether or not you care if it's 150, 200, 250, or 275yards if your call. From my experience in 3Gun, I'd just as soon have as long as PBR as possible, so I don't have to think about it: anything 250 or less, hold right on. There are usually more closer targets than further targets (in competition or the battlefield), so the longer the PBR, the more targets don't need any elevation adjustment.

Points two and three are also reasons to prefer high MV and high BC. I don't understand how someone can argue against a high BC high MV cartridge on the basis of external ballistics!

Andrew wyatt,
Finding the range and adjusting sight settings takes time. this is something you more than likely won't have if you're using the gun for "serious" purposes. Mhen you were using an m-16a2 as a working gun, how often did you change sight settings to match the range?

I'm with you here. I readily admit that my "practical" experience is shooting 3Gun, but it's also revolutionized my thoughts about what works. With the TA11 ACOG shooting 75gr from a 20" AR15, it's real easy. If the O.D. of the donut is about the same size or smaller than the 12"-14" plate, and I can see the plate through the 2MOA donut, then I make the shot. DING. If it's narrower, then I use the BDC stadia - starting at 400 yards - and hold at the top of the plate.

if it's such a poor design, then why does it rule the 3 gun match circuit?
You'll love this. It's the Russia IPSC Coordinator Vitaly Kryuchin shooting an AR-15 at SMM3G in Mesa two weeks ago.
http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/SMM3G-2004/115_1577_img_c.jpg
I seem to remember him saying it was a "very good rifle."

-z

TechBrute
March 28, 2004, 11:34 PM
Moderator, please move this to the "AR, Glock, and 9mm Sucks" forum. Thank you.

JShirley
March 28, 2004, 11:41 PM
Seems more at home in the gun games forum. Heh.

I think a point I've made is being missed. Who cares about the caliber? The *platform* is obsolescent and flawed.

John
Owns a Glock
Owns 4 9mm's
Sold his Colt toy
:)

Zak Smith
March 28, 2004, 11:47 PM
3Gun is a practical, yes, game. Score is either total hits (minus penalties) divided by time, or total time + penalties. You do it outdoors, in dirt, rain, crawling on the ground, etc. If your 1911 or AR15 has tolerances so tight the fine red dust of Raton NM gives it fits, you quickly learn to change your equipment to something more reliable.

I am tired of the "spaceguns, unsuitable for tactical/military use" objection.

You got an Open-class pistol with optics and a comp that makes ears bleed, a shotgun with a dot and a 15-round tube loaded by phallic-looking devices, and a rifle in .223AI with two optics on it? Fine, it's unsuitable for military use. You know what? That's just one class available to 3Gun shooters.

The majority of competitors shoot in Tactical/Modified class, which means this: a pistol 9x19 minimum which has iron sights and no porting/comp; a rifle with no more than 1 optic; and a 12-ga shotgun which holds no more than 9 rounds. What's the most common setup? Take you pick of a good-shooting handgun in 9x19 or .40SW, preferrably holding 15 or more rounds. A CZ-75B or Glock 17 would work fine. Or a polymer wide-body 1911. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with either of those for tactical use. Shotgun: the Benelli M1S90 'Tactical', with only the addition of a +3 or +4 tube. Rifle: a 18 or 20" AR-15 with a good trigger and an ACOG.

Rant over.

-z

JShirley
March 28, 2004, 11:51 PM
Point being, just because something works in a game, doesn't mean it works well in all other arenas. So, we have a firearm, that, although fundamentally flawed, has good ergonomics and accuracy, controlleable recoil, and fires inexpensive ammo. What a surprise that it's used. Since there is no other rifle available that offers this combination of features and is fairly inexpensive and common, once again, AR-15 apologists have proved nothing.

If there was an extant, common, inexpensive rifle that had been in Western hands for a similar length of time for product evolution and maturation, we would have some basis for comparison. From what I can see, the closest thing we have to compare the AR-15 to, is the M-1 Carbine, and the M-1 fires a pistol round. I still prefer that platform, despite its caliber. :)


John

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 12:13 AM
What we have done is to describe (correctly, IMO) the capabilities and limitations of the AR15. Does it get dirty, yes. Does that cause malfunctions-- I think no. Some think so. Brad Nelson's is running at 6000 rounds with no cleaning (picture). Does the direct gas system aid accuracy- yes. Is it simple and not prone to breaking- yes.

If people are going to flame about how much the AR15 sucks, let's see some precisely stated theses with data to back them up. If the AR15 is an ancient design which should be ditched in favor of something new, let's see what that "something new" is and then debate its merits and faults. Saying that the AR15 is bad compared to some other gun which doesn't exist for lack of development is a cop-out.

-z

JShirley
March 29, 2004, 12:31 AM
I wouldn't really describe myself as flaming, Zak. Surprised if you do.

I am meeting the common rejoinder given when some of us say the platform is flawed. This common argument says, "Well, look at everything the M-16/AR-15 has done." So? Since we have no similar basis for comparison, nothing has been proven. This is the cop-out, sir.

If you're going to attempt to be scientific, you need to have a control group. We just need to have a weapon with similar capabilities, firing the same cartridge, used for a similar length of time. (It would help if it were used by a similarly sized group, too, but one can't have everything.) If we can find such comparison, let's make it, as carefully as possible. If we cannot make such a comparison, then reciting all the things one could do with Eugene Stoner's toy proves absolutely nothing. (However, it is a matter of fact that the design is late 1950's. :p )

I will state, for the last time in this thread, that all we have, from both sides so far, is anecdotal information, and as I have already pointed out, this is useless.

Now, here's a question for you: why are the AR true believers so desperate to think their weapon is the ULTIMATE tactical tool? I see lots of other firearm owners enjoying their weapons, often without feeling any need to proclaim them the ULTIMATE anything. I don't hear any cowboy types proclaiming the single-action revolver the ULTIMATE defensive tool, but these pistols are appreciated for their history and handling. Why is there such an ego stake in the AR? Why is it so painful to even admit that we should be finding something better for our troops? When did petty little egos become more important than protecting our boys?

Bah. I have better things to do, and need to go do them.

John

Andrew Wyatt
March 29, 2004, 12:52 AM
You do make some excellent points; but what should we replace the m-16 with? WHat would be a better fighting gun that an m4 with an aimpoint or m16A4 with an ACOG?

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 11:42 AM
I wouldn't really describe myself as flaming, Zak. Surprised if you do.
Now, here's a question for you: why are the AR true believers so desperate to think their weapon is the ULTIMATE tactical tool? I see lots of other firearm owners enjoying their weapons, often without feeling any need to proclaim them the ULTIMATE anything. I don't hear any cowboy types proclaiming the single-action revolver the ULTIMATE defensive tool, but these pistols are appreciated for their history and handling. Why is there such an ego stake in the AR? Why is it so painful to even admit that we should be finding something better for our troops? When did petty little egos become more important than protecting our boys?

We've got a lot of static in this conversation, and shown by the two quotes above. I was sort-of lumping you into the AR flamers, and you're lumping me in with the AR15 true believers.

I agree we've got a chicken-and-egg problem in that there's no long-term data on things like the M96 and the new HK M4 upper. Both of those have promise, IMO. About four years ago, I sold off my AR15 and bought a M96. Then I sold the M96 because its benefits didn't outweigh its faults. Now I'm back to AR15's.

Slinging cliches around like "The AR ^%$#s where it eats", "The AR is 50 years old", "The AK/G36/etc is inaccurate", is not very useful. This is what I was talking about when I said, "let's see some precisely stated theses with data to back them up. If the AR15 is an ancient design which should be ditched in favor of something new, let's see what that "something new" is and then debate its merits and faults."

It's going to be much more constructive if we first accurately characterize the known and measurable performance characteristics of the different platforms, and then move on to debating which combination of features is required for what application.

In the thread-starting post by George, the most-lamented problems of the AR15 were the direct gas action, the "sproing", lack of fixed ejector, weak stock, weight, trigger, caliber ineffectiveness.

Let's pick three right now: direct gas action, fixed ejector, and caliber. Instead of accepting these as faults with some off the cuff anecdotal "evidence", a well formed argument would first characterize them.

For example, one could gather data to determine the difference in reliability between a direct-gas impingement action and a piston operated system, all other things being equal. This could be done for about $150 (Kurtz Custom conversion) with a good control (same platform besides piston) and the cost of ammo. Then one could ask, does it matter if the cleaning period is 2000, or 6000, or 15,000 rounds? Guys who want their weapons to work in field clean them whenever they have a chance. As a normal guy, even a 2000 round cleaning period means I just have to hose down the bolt carrier assembly every 2 weeks. Finally, one could quantify what the trade-offs are for adding a piston system to the platform. What is its effect on accuracy? On MTBF (actually MTTF)? For what applications is that tradeoff worthwhile?

Similarly, for fixed ejector: First, quantify the reliability difference between a fixed ejector bolt and the AR15 bolt. I've never seen a FTEject, and dirty bolts seem to run- I'd be interested in this number. Next, you'd determine if there are any design change costs, and so on.

Finally, for the caliber. We debate calibers all the time. It seems that there are several dimensions to the caliber question for an AR-like platform: what are the external ballistics and are they acceptible, what are the terminal ballistics as a function of distance and are they acceptible, what kind of barrel length is require for the desired terminal ballistics, what is the effect on mag capacity, and what effect does the cartridge's size have on platform size and weight?

What we seem to get in terms of discussion is often more along the lines of, "I like X." "No, X Sucks, Y is better." Those kinds of discussions are basically worthless because neither side has actually proposed a proper argument backed by data.

We can actually gain knowledge and make better choices if we separate the accurate description part of the debate (ie, facts about the choices) from the choices themselves.

-z

George Hill
March 29, 2004, 12:58 PM
Slinging cliches around like "The AR ^%$#s where it eats", "The AR is 50 years old", "The AK/G36/etc is inaccurate", is not very useful. This is what I was talking about when I said, "let's see some precisely stated theses with data to back them up. If the AR15 is an ancient design which should be ditched in favor of something new, let's see what that "something new" is and then debate its merits and faults."

The AR does defecate where it eats. That's no a cliche... that's a design feature.
The AR is old. That's not a cliche... that's a documented historical fact.
The AK is inaccurate... That's not a cliche either... That's a misconception. Most people who say the AK is inaccurate only say that because they just can't fire an AK as accurately. This isn't an indictment of the rifle, but of the shooter. Sure, the AR has ergonomic advantages that make it easier to shoot better with it than the AK... but this is a matter of training and practice time. If you take the same dollar for dollar you spend on an AR, on an AK - you can make it just as spiffy and gadgety as your AR. And even more so because of the cost advantage of the AK means you can spend more money and gadgets to go on it. Most AR's are going for 800 to 1500 or more. Most AK's are less than 500 around here. This means the AK guy could afford some custom work and nicer optics or whatever.

Someone was critical about my choice of 7.62X39 in my choice of AR... saying that it wont work... Well... look at this:
PANTHER™ 7.62 x 39mm (RFA2-762)
http://www.dpmsinc.com/images/RFA2-762.jpg
http://www.dpmsinc.com/specialty_rifles.html
So don't tell me it can't be done. It can be. Anything can be done. If you can't do it, that doesn't matter. Someone else can. With modern molding technology out there with rapid prototyping, you can edit the design on a CAD CAM machine, make a mold, and pour the polymer and have the reciever prototyped easier than ever before. And cheaper too. That's the great thing about technology. Heck - if we wanted we could probably even put a digital counter on the side of the mag well like an M41A Pulse Rifle. I mean heck, if we can put a Linux based PDA into a wristwatch - we can do this. Free Your Mind... Open Your Imagination... And stop taking everything so bloody serious.

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 01:23 PM
I didn't say they were false - in fact, I didn't care if they were true or false. I said they were not useful. We need to use a different process of debate to gain knowledge and useful conclusions. "It's going to be much more constructive if we first accurately characterize the known and measurable performance characteristics of the different platforms, and then move on to debating which combination of features is required for what application.".

The AR does defecate where it eats. That's no a cliche... that's a design feature.
Exactly. But that fact by itself is, irrelevant. What is relevant are the effects of that decision. 1. Quantify how much less reliable an AR15 is, as measured by MTTF or required cleaning interval, with a direct gas system vs. one with a gas piston, 2. Quantify what effects a gas piston system would have on accuracy and MTTF (e.g. parts in the piston system failing).

You just started ranting on about how an AK isn't inaccurate, it's the shooter, training, etc. That is exactly the debate behavior I am criticizing. We'd actually gain information instead of your opinion if you posted data from a controlled experiment which studied which platform was more accurate - given the same shooter, or a constant sample of shooters - quantified the benefit and the cost, and analyzed why.

As it is, all we've got is that George Hill thinks anyone who claims an AK is inaccurate doesn't know how to shoot an AK; but an AR might have better ergos; and something unrelated to accuracy about gadgets. Thanks. That was extremely helpful and could actually help someone determine which rifle they should buy based on how much accuracy they need.

Oh, wait, no it doesn't..

-z

Mulliga
March 29, 2004, 01:25 PM
These threads are always a lot of fun. :p

This isn't an indictment of the rifle, but of the shooter. Sure, the AR has ergonomic advantages that make it easier to shoot better with it than the AK... but this is a matter of training and practice time. If you take the same dollar for dollar you spend on an AR, on an AK - you can make it just as spiffy and gadgety as your AR. And even more so because of the cost advantage of the AK means you can spend more money and gadgets to go on it. Most AR's are going for 800 to 1500 or more. Most AK's are less than 500 around here. This means the AK guy could afford some custom work and nicer optics or whatever.

While I agree with some of this, if what you suggest is true, the serious target shooters would go for the AK every time, right? These target shooters want to save money just like the rest of us, I'm sure...but how many AKs do you see in competitions?

Hell, I don't even own an AR-15...too expensive to shoot and probably overpriced in the first place. But I've seen people shoot fairly impressive groups with them, so I'm not even touching that argument.

George Hill
March 29, 2004, 02:17 PM
I'm not saying an AK is more accurate than an AR. I'm just saying the AK is not "innacurate". But I would put your average VEPR II (an AK variant) against any AR with a similar price tag on the US Army ARM qual course at Malone 18 at Ft Benning.

Risasi
March 29, 2004, 02:29 PM
George Hill:

I'm not saying an AK is more accurate than an AR. I'm just saying the AK is not "innacurate". But I would put your average VEPR II (an AK variant) against any AR with a similar price tag on the US Army ARM qual course at Malone 18 at Ft Benning.

-----------------------------------------------


<Shudder>

No thanks, I've seen what Robinson's guns are capable of. One guy I know who owned one was getting 1" MOA out of his. And to top it off the VEPR II is available in .308 (which can also take 20 round M14 mags). Sorry guys, but that not enough of a difference in accuracy for me to argue unless I'm > 1000 yards out....

P.S. Oh yeah, price tag is $600.

Andrew Wyatt
March 29, 2004, 03:18 PM
Question: how many reciever sighted AK's are available with ambidextrous safeties and drop free magazine wells?

Risasi
March 29, 2004, 03:58 PM
Question: how many reciever sighted AK's are available with ambidextrous safeties and drop free magazine wells?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One entry found for ambiguous.
Main Entry: am·big·u·ous
Pronunciation: am-'bi-gy&-w&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ambiguus, from ambigere to be undecided, from ambi- + agere to drive -- more at AGENT
1 a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness <eyes of an ambiguous color> b : INEXPLICABLE
2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There you go again, with an attack again. At least it certainly looks like an attack. What next? You gonna start your next post with "Ogre, you ignorant slut"!!! You ask an ambiguous question like that. It's a trick question like the Pharisees used on the Lord. Either re-word the question or go start a new thread.

Bettter yet, in the proper discourse of a debate it is fair play to ask a question in return.

Question: How many roller-lock delayed blowback AR's are made that have an integrated bi-pod that folds into the handguard, and 0-400 yard barrel adjust iron sights.

Dude the question is bogus. You are describing features of an AR and applying them as the litmus test by which an AK should be measured. Unless of course you are asking how many AK's there are that exist in set boundaries (whether that be state, country or universe) I would assume universe by the wording of your question. In which case it's not answerable, at least by us mere humans. I also assume you mean how many come out of manufacturing with the set criteria you specified. In which case I would say it's unlikely any of them do. Although Rob Arm's does have some VEPR's with receiver mounted sights, and a picatinney rail to boot. Man you are full of it.

MrAcheson
March 29, 2004, 04:28 PM
You are describing features of an AR and applying them as the litmus test by which an AK should be measured. ... Although Rob Arm's does have some VEPR's with receiver mounted sights, and a picatinney rail to boot.

While the drop free mag is unfair (AKs just don't do that), a good mounting point for optics, etc is not. Lots of people want this on a rifle. Since I'm not a rifle guy in general, how generate equivalent functionality with an AK? The safeties would be nice. Since Krebs makes an AK (an robarms resells them) with both a reciever mount and ambidextrous safeties, I think they are legitimate.

Next you are going to say that setting an accuracy standard is inherently unfair because AKs are not supposed to be accurate...

George Hill
March 29, 2004, 04:36 PM
No... no... I don't consider it an attack... it's okay.

But the question is bogus. Reminds me of a debate I had a long time ago about glory of "Milspec" weapons.
*sigh*

Drop free mags and ambi-safeties are not the holy grail of weapon features. In fact the Drop Free mag vs the AK's rock to lock (as used on the FAL and a number of other rifles) is a whole other debate. But look at this - the AR doesn't have an Ambi mag release does it? No, but the AK does. And a clever machinist could put a charging handle on the other side of the AK if he really wanted to.

One time I was on a rifle range with an AR... 30 round mag. Put in the mag, slammed the base of the mag to make sure the mag was seated... and after the first shot the mag fell back out. With a rock and lock type (Like on many HK guns that don't have ambi safeties either, so do they suck too? Besides... that's a poor arguement as there is aftermarket for all of this... AR's don't come stock with Ambi safeties) this sort of thing doesn't happen. Can't happen. Because the mag is locked up solid.

I wonder if troops armed with AK's and HK's and FAL's have to be taught S.P.O.R.T.S. like US Troops.

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 04:39 PM
There is a very simple ambi mag release available for the AR. The name eludes me right now, but my lefty friends use it.

-z

EDIT: It's made by Norgon.

George Hill
March 29, 2004, 04:40 PM
There is aftermarket for everything for anything these days. So the whole question was bogus.

Looking at the AR - it didn't have any of these new high speed features for the first 30 years it was out. Most of these trick parts are all very new things.
I mean, come on... it was only just a few years ago that the large charging handle latch was THE high speed - low drag gadget that everyone had to have.

These things are all products of aftermarket effort. As the demand for them for the AK goes up - we will see pretty much everythign available for the AR will be available for the AK. Pretty much already is. Rails, Mounts, all of that stuff.

It's just a matter of taste now.

Risasi
March 29, 2004, 04:59 PM
quote:

Next you are going to say that setting an accuracy standard is inherently unfair because AKs are not supposed to be accurate...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mr Acheson,


No I do not think that is an unfair question. But I don't think it is a fair match, the AR wins hands down. I has the potential for better accuracy. But I am sure you could tweak an AK that would be more accurate than some AR's. At that point we are talking various strengths and weaknesses of different weapons platforms. You see that's like the old body armor adage. There is no bullet that can't be stopped, and no armor that can't be pierced. It ups and downs.

With that said. The original Kalishnikovs were never designed with sights mounted on the receiver cover. So by Wyatt asking that question, with an obscure argument (computer programming term), like "how many are available", this means the question is unanswerable.

That would be like me asking you, "So, do you still beat your wife"?

Okay, let's analyze that little statement. By me asking that question, and inserting the word "still", would that not cause most people to assume you are or were a wife beater (and that you are married, which you may not be)? Regardless of whether you are or not? Obviously you can't just come out and answer that question. It's a loaded question.

So, I am saying Wyatt's question was hypocritical. It was a question asked in such a way as to generate a derogatory conclusion to the question. A hypocritical question is one asked not sincerely, and not to actually receive an answer. But to create an attack on the man asked, via guile.
So, I am saying if it was a sincere question re-word it. It's too ambiguous.

We were doing fine until that question popped up. Zak has been very upfront. And adding some real data to the thread. Frankly I don't think this thread is very productive any more. George started it stating he had been asked to post what configuration AR he would purchase. So he did. Next thing you know he receives nothing more than ad hominem attacks by a few on this thread.

That's just not right.

Correia
March 29, 2004, 05:40 PM
Gentlemen, lets keep it friendly.

I come at this particular debate from a very interesting angle. Like Zak, I'm primarily a 3gun shooter, and yes John, outside of slogging through the mud and getting shot at by angry people it is about as close a case of weapons abuse any of us cake eating civillians are going to put our guns through. :p

Here is the thing. I don't really like AR15s. I've had a couple, and they tend to make me mad because I've yet to own one that was reliable enough to satisfy me. So I compete with a Vepr K or an FAL.

HOWEVER... I will be the first to admit that the AR absolutely dominates my sport for very simple reasons, as has been pointed out they shoot extreamly well.

The ARs recoil characteristics are superb. Though I don't LIKE ARs, doesn't mean I don't know how to use one. I can do a 40 yard Bill Drill on a steel plate with an AR in 1.6 seconds. I can't even come close to that with an AK or a FAL, (around 2 and 2.3 respectively) and I have lots more trigger time on either of those systems.

The AR is user friendly, easy to shoot, easy to shoot fast, and easy to get hits with. I see tons of guys at every match who kick major serious booty with ARs. I also see lots of guys clearing AR malfunctions. Then I see people who have tons of rounds through ARs with no malfunctions at all. It all depends.

So if you like your AR, good for you. If you hate ARs good for you. But please folks, lets not let our personal likes and dislikes cloud our view of reality.

This of course will all change as soon as my Race Vepr gets finished. :p BWA HA HA HA HA!

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 05:54 PM
Like Zak, I'm primarily a 3gun shooter, and yes John, outside of slogging through the mud and getting shot at by angry people it is about as close a case of weapons abuse any of us cake eating civillians are going to put our guns through.
Correia,

You've got to check out the ITRC match run by DLSports in Gillette, WY. Probably the highest K.A.F. of any "3Gun" match. It's not called "the proving grounds" for nothing:
http://www.dlsports.com/npage7a.html

The D&L Sports S.A.T.A. annual International Tactical Rifleman's Championship is considered the proving ground for tactical marksmen and their equipment. Test your skill and your gear against competitors from around the world. The primary focus of this competition is tactical marksmanship. PREVIOUS YEARS PRIZE TABLES HAD CUSTOM GUNS, SHOOTING ACCESSORIES, AND TROPHIES VALUED IN EXCESS OF $25,000.00. This year's prize table may prove to be even better!
The match is a three-day team event held in Northeast Wyoming. Teams of two riflemen will engage the courses of fire. On the rifle field courses, one carbine shooter will engage targets from 0-500 yards and the rifleman is responsible for 0-1000 yards. Most carbine targets will be 0-300 and most rifle targets will be 0-600. Short-Range course will demonstrate pistol and rifle/carbine skills. On all courses of fire the Pistol distance will not exceed 50 yards.
Field courses and known distance shooting at the D&L Sports Small Arms Training Academy will challenge beginners and experts. The competition is open to Law Enforcement, Military, and qualified civilians (clean criminal record).

Just reading the liability release gives me a rush:

[...] Many activities at DLSATA events are outdoors and subject attendees to severe weather including thunderstorms and lightning. I assume all risk and responsibility for injury and/or damage related to nature. I agree to assume all risks associated with maneuvering on rough ground/terrain in all conditions of lighting and darkness. [...]

I fully understand that many wild animals inhabit Wyoming, including bear, mountain lion, rattlesnakes, prairie dogs (and holes). I accept all risks associated with these areas and understand backing away from animals is often the safest method of handling an encounter. I understand that no prairie dog shooting is allowed on DLSATA property. No shooting is allowed in any areas that do not feature sound backstops within the DLSATA boundaries. No game shooting is allowed out of season on DLSATA property. I understand that shooting a dangerous game animal requires safe gun skills and is only a last resort in a defense situation.[...]

Safe equipment and ammunition are my responsibility. I accept full risk for any equipment and/or ammunition in any condition which I may borrow, buy, or use from D&L Sports Inc, Dave Lauck, or any other person. I understand that force on force events can be dangerous, and even deadly. My use of paintguns, simunitions, other less lethal weapons, or hand to hand, or knife training is at my own risk. [...]

Aircraft transport, training, landing, and travel are all engaged in at my own risk. Aircraft service and safety may, or may not, be up to proper standards. I fully accept all aircraft and related training death risks at my own free will.


The 2004 match will feature a stage shot in tandem with your partner with two supplied rifles from a helicopter as it flies up a gully. You hump over 600 rounds and carry like 15 loaded mags in the gully stage. Shoot-house as big as a hangar. Last year some guy's AR fell apart.

-z

Correia
March 29, 2004, 06:22 PM
No kidding? That sounds freaking awesome. I heard about the helicopter before, but holy moly that sounds like fun. Unfortunatly for me I've been pretty broke this year and limited to shooting local matches.

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 06:26 PM
It's the match to sell your kidney or eat ramen noodles for a year to afford.

Can you make it up for Rocky Mtn 3Gun this August?

-z

natedog
March 29, 2004, 07:34 PM
.This is probably the most proffessionally debated, cordial weapon vs. weapon thread I've ever read :cool:

Gewehr98
March 29, 2004, 09:17 PM
This is probably the most professionally debated, cordial weapon vs. weapon thread I've ever read

That is, until Andrew pulled the ambi safety and drop-free magazine well thing out of a bodily orifice. I'd call it a cordial weapon vs. non-related widget vs. weapon thread after that. :p

And no, I'm not real big on AR-15's myself. I've been issued, and still am, M16's over the last 18+ years, and I can make my current issue FN M16A2 work for me come qualification time or when it's time to engage an aggressor. I even have a couple pre-ban competition AR-15's at home, fun toys to play with, nothing more. But they're not my first choice for SHTF. That duty falls to a Bulgarian SLR-95, just like it did during the Y2K tensions.

Andrew Wyatt
March 29, 2004, 10:12 PM
You are describing features of an AR and applying them as the litmus test by which an AK should be measured.


I'm saying that those features of the AR are features that iseem to lead people to choose it over the AK. If someone came up with an Ak that didn't have the objectionable safety, better sights (iron or otherwise) and had a less curved trajectory, i'm sure more of the AR people would pick it.

The original Kalishnikovs were never designed with sights mounted on the receiver cover. So by Wyatt asking that question, with an obscure argument (computer programming term), like "how many are available", this means the question is unanswerable.

eeh. I'll concede the drop free magazine thing, but the other features are available currently. Krebs makes picatinny railed Ak's with reciever sights, galils have somewhat more useable safeties, and whathaveyou. there are AK's that have some or all of their objectionable features fixed. I've liked the reciever sighted AK's i've fired.

Zak Smith
March 29, 2004, 10:22 PM
Isn't a SIG 55x basically a "civilized" AK action?

It looks like it has decent sights out of the box, and you can stick a rail on it:
http://us.st3.yimg.com/store5.yimg.com/I/botach_1783_50872435

Does anyone know how accurate the 550 can be? What are its recoil characteristics like?


-z

Andrew Wyatt
March 29, 2004, 11:43 PM
The one i shot at the SOF 3-gun match (one of the short ones, if i recall correctly) had recoil characteristics similar to a mini-14 (in other words, not bad).

I liked it, and wouldn't mind having one.

George Hill
March 30, 2004, 12:24 AM
Yeah, neither would I. The SIG 55* or an FNC.... both awesome. Both rare now. Both an Arm and a Leg and another Hand on the side.

DANG THAT AWB!!

Zak Smith
March 30, 2004, 12:32 AM
I thought those were primarily prevented by the '89 Import Ban, not the '94 AWB?

-z

George Hill
March 30, 2004, 12:40 AM
Whatever. :rolleyes:

JShirley
March 30, 2004, 07:20 AM
SIGs were actually the chief arm that popped to mind (as well as the FNC) as potentially competing examples with the M-16. I do not know how long the 550's have been around, and I hear that complete dissasembly requires replacing small roll pins in the Sigs. If this is the case, I do not believe this is acceptable for a combat arm. Then again, if this is the chief defect, surely it can be designed out.

I am all for changing calibers, too, but this is based on the thought that a single, higher weight round only marginally larger (than 5.56) could replace both 7.62 and 5.56 weapons, greatly easing logistics. The 6.8, while perhaps capable at closer ranges, is not that round.

John

gearbox
March 30, 2004, 07:35 AM
Good thing nobody has brought up 9mm conversion kits :)

JShirley
March 30, 2004, 08:10 AM
Yeah...when I have a war chest again, I'm going to see if Olly Arms or somebody like that will make a 9x23mm upper...

I shoot revolvers, too. Mostly because one can't find reasonably priced, size-efficient autoloaders in .41 Mag and .45 Colt! :p

John

Tamara
March 30, 2004, 09:01 AM
(However, it is a matter of fact that the design is late 1950's. :p )

A babe in the woods compared to the Ma Deuce or the M1911. You have other, better, arguments; you should drop the age one. ;)

Correia
March 30, 2004, 09:41 AM
Zak, not looking likely. Unless it costs a lot less to fix my mini van than I expect. :p

MrAcheson
March 30, 2004, 09:50 AM
Seems like this thread is jumping the tracks...

While Andrew's question isn't fair, it does have a point. The AK market isn't especially feature rich right now compared to the AR market. Some of those features (like ways to mount optics) are important to people like me with bad eyesight. Others are damn near unreasonable (drop free).

George Hill
March 30, 2004, 10:58 AM
"However, it is a matter of fact that the design is late 1950's."
Not an arguement... still a fact. Most leading nations armies have been upgrading rifles this last 10 years or 20... we have not.
Not saying we have to keep up with the Joneses but we should at least try to keep with with the Ivans and the Chans.

Heck, even some of the nations that are devout to the AK configuration have been working on improving it. We haven't we just shorten the barrel and pretend it's something new and wonderful.

The AK Market isn't epsecially feature rich? Maybe not... maybe not...
But name something you can mount on an AR that you can't mount on an AK.

http://www.krebscustom.com/RawPhotos/Nov%2003/AK103S-650.jpg

OH... another rifle worth looking at is the Beretta AR-70. Didn't Tamara have one?

Tamara
March 30, 2004, 07:19 PM
OH... another rifle worth looking at is the Beretta AR-70. Didn't Tamara have one?

Dumped it. Dumped the Daewoo. Dumped the .223 all-alloy FAL. As soon as I get another 16" 5.56 AR screwed together, the HK-91 goes back to hang on the wall next to the pre-ban AKM/47S underfolder, Garand, and FN-49.

Even Italy never adopted the AR-70 completely, since the mags aren't STANAG compatable and the receiver is made from folded Wrigley's wrappers. The AR-70/90 has cute steel bars tack-welded down each side of the reciever to fix that problem.

Andrew Wyatt
March 31, 2004, 01:27 AM
hold on a minute.


What vintage is the AK?

Tamara
March 31, 2004, 01:33 AM
What vintage is the AK?

Oh, it's much older than the M-16, but remember: A smaller caliber and different muzzle brake on a fifty+ year old AK (with sights no different from a 100+ year-old Mosin) is an "improvement", while an M4 is just an "M16 with a shorter barrel."

;)

Jake 98c/11b
March 31, 2004, 08:54 AM
Tamara, I like you more and more with each posting. Damn shame I missed you at the SHOT show last year. Missed this one with this deployment too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ogre's AR-15" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!