Think the AR-15 is dying?

[HMMurdock]

The AR-15/M-16/M4 has been the mainstay of the American arsenal for almost all of most of our lives. Since Vietnam one variant or another has been the primary choice for the U.S. Military and SWAT teams. But with the SCAR on its way to replace the M-16 in the military, I cannot help but wonder if it is on its way out?

From what I understand, there have been just as many people hating the design as there have been fellating it since its inception. I have never been a strong fan, but that's not the point.

Now that there are so many AR alternatives: FN SCAR, Robinson XCR, Hk M416, etc. does anyone here think that the AR-15 design is at the end of its rope?

Will these alternatives replace the classic .223 workhorse or will, despite its absence in the U.S. Military, the AR design keep as the mainstay of civilian contractors, other militaries, weekend warriors and SWAT teams for the rest of our collective lives?

Just opinions, of course-- and try to steer clear of "I hate ARs" --so do I. I just wanna know if a few years from now we will still be seeing the same models or if, instead, we will be reminiscing about the "old days" of the AR-15... What do you think?

 

[Jeff White]

I predict it will soldier on until the next big breakthrough in firearms or ammunition design happens.

The SCAR will NOT replace the M16 series throughout the Army. It's a SOCOM program and it may not even replace the M16 series throughout SOCOM. It all boils down to money. While many other designs may fix real or perceived shortcomings in the M16 design, none of them are a big enough improvement over what we already field to justify the expense of changing.

We went down this road before in the late 1980s and early 90s with the ACR program (Advanced Combat Rifle). We'll probably go down it again once or twice before the big break through happens.

Jeff

 

[rust collector]

It's a survivor. Whether you love it or hate it (not guilty on either count) you have to admit it's had a long service life and has mutated to meet changing needs and tactics. Sure, there will be newer designs that work better in some ways, but there are millions of ARs out there and they won't go away anytime soon.

 

[Onmilo]

The design has been in service for over forty years now.
The only longarm that had a longer service record were variations of the French designed .69 caliber musket.
Eventually the M16 will be replaced.
Love it or hate it that is a fact.

 

[Eightball]

It's outdated, that's for sure---and only got adopted because of political wrangling. Unfortunately, no one has enough sense to replace it. It is the next AK. I think .223 is around to stay, but I hope that the direct-gas impingement system is not. Just to give people an interesting note of merit--the AR series is the second-longest serving mainstay battle rifle in history---the only thing that served any nation for a longer period of time was the Brown Bess Musket Pattern . And look where that got the world......

As for weather my grandchildren will be using one.....Sure they will, if I buy them one .

 

[mattw]

I've never used an AR type weapon in combat but my educated opinion on the matter: Crappy gas system, Crappy choice in ammo (5.56mm NATO is very under powered), Excellent ergonomics and array of accessories.

I say keep the design but change the gas system and caliber. I say bring back the 7.62x51mm as the standard service rifle caliber.

 

[swingset]

Oh, the ignorance in this thread, ugh.

The AR has proven itself in combat over and over and over again, despite a rocky start that was no fault of the design but of tactics.

For a gun that fires such a weak caliber, has a crappy gas system, and is obviously a political choice, it has survived in the .mil for generations of soliders. Why? Better question, it has been adopted by some of the best militaries in the world, and special forces who can choose anything under the sun and chose the M4/M16. Do they not read The High Road?

And here's the real mystery....how does that pitiful 5.56 pill seem to kill so many enemy combatants? It's almost as if it doesn't know that it's woefully inadequate. Apparently, when the 5.56 talked to Dr. Fackler, he said such nice things about its terminal ballistics, it got overconfident and became a serious threat to internal organs.

 

[Coronach]

So our choices are:

Obsolete
Almost Obsolete

and

Will never die?

How about something between 10-15 years and eternity? I seriously doubt that we'll fully phase out the M16 family in 15 years, but I think that is more likely than my grandkids going off to war with an M16A9.

Mike

 

[Scottmkiv]

The Ar-15 will probably be popular with shooters decades after the military phases it out, and I don't think it is going to get phased out for a very long time.

 

[cbsbyte]

Its not going away anytime soon. First, to answer the question the military will probably officialy retire the old gal from frontline service within the next decade. Though the M16 and M4 will probably stay in reserve forces for sometime after that. It will probably not stay in active duty in many countries for much longer, even Israel is retiring their M16A2/A4s in the next few years for a new Israeli made rifle. In the civilian world the Ar-15, barring a complete ban, will be popular for at least another generation or two.
The military is using the new 77 Gr bullets in the AR derived Special Purpose Rifle and many CQB M4s carbines. Compared to the commonly issued 62gr, It seems to be alot better at droping a person with one or two shot at close range to 600 yds. It seems to be working well enough that the Special Forces have stoped using the the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel in combat. If this is the case then the military will probably not field a new rifle caliber for a long time.

 

[Dienekes]

Weapons development is almost a textbook case of how logic does not factor in most of the time. Now and then something really, really good comes along, almost by accident--but usually it just underlines that fact. In the grand scheme of things which small arm we do or do not have is not usually a big issue.

In WWII the German soldier was usually about 1.3 times more effective than his Allied counterpart, and his personal weapon was a bolt action Mauser.

 

[Number 6]

the only thing that served any nation for a longer period of time was the Brown Bess Musket Pattern . And look where that got the world......

Where would that be?

In WWII the German soldier was usually about 1.3 times more effective than his Allied counterpart, and his personal weapon was a bolt action Mauser.

I don't doubt you, but I am curious where you read that, and how they determined that ratio.

 

[swingset]

In WWII the German soldier was usually about 1.3 times more effective than his Allied counterpart, and his personal weapon was a bolt action Mauser.

Wherever that tidbit came from, I doubt its veracity. Not only would it be almost impossible to quantify, but I just doubt it in general.

 

[Vairochana]

longest serving?

Surely the mighty Lee-Enfield had a longer service life- the SMLE and No4 alone would qualify. When you include the Lee-Metford and Long Lee that increases.
The Enfield was used into the 1980s as a sniper rifle also.

off topic and nit picky I know but I love my Enfields

 

[Outlaws]

There will be AR15's for the next hundred years since the machinery is there and there are so many of them. They won't be issued IMO but they will be around and I am sure people will always offer replacement parts.

But guns will evolve at some point and the AR will become a piece of history/novelty much like all other past service rifles.

 

[wayne in boca]

AR15's have put more people in the ground than the black plague.They will be around for a long time yet.Typically when a weapon is phased out by a new system,it doesn't suddenly disappear.It gets relegated to rear-echelon duty at first,and given or sold as surplus to allied nations.If someone invented a death ray with unlimited range today,it would take 35 years before third-world grunts fielded them.

 

[Lebben-B]

The SCAR will NOT replace the M16 series throughout the Army. It's a SOCOM program and it may not even replace the M16 series throughout SOCOM. It all boils down to money. While many other designs may fix real or perceived shortcomings in the M16 design, none of them are a big enough improvement over what we already field to justify the expense of changing.

I must disagree with you here. The M16 first saw combat use with SF advisors in Viet Nam. Their raves about the weapon helped persuade Big Army to make the M16 the standard issue rifle for the force. 20 years later, SF's use of the M4 caused DA to issue it to most combat arms units. If the SCAR is a hit with SF, I would expect the Army to eventually make the SCAR the standard issue service rifle for combat arms.

Mike

 

[Lebben-B]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[LoadedDrum]

Until the aftermarket options catch up with the AR, none of the new alternatives will have similar market share, let alone be able to replace the AR.

 

[Number 6]

I must disagree with you here. The M16 first saw combat use with SF advisors in Viet Nam. Their raves about the weapon helped persuade Big Army to make the M16 the standard issue rifle for the force. 20 years later, SF's use of the M4 caused DA to issue it to most combat arms units. If the SCAR is a hit with SF, I would expect the Army to eventually make the SCAR the standard issue service rifle for combat arms.

I think this is a very good possibility. SOCOM very well might be the testing ground that the army needs in order to adopt the SCAR as a general issue weapon. That does not mean that the M16 is going to go anywhere soon, it will take time to phase it out. I remember a post on ar15.com showing some folks having M16A1s in the most recent Iraq war.

 

[benEzra]

Regardless of when and what the military replaces the M16 with, the civilian AR-15 platform will continue to be immensely popular with civilian shooters. It does have great merits, and civilians aren't stuck with the .223/5.56x45 either since you can just buy another upper in a different caliber.

IMHO, the civilian AR-15 is more like the next Winchester Model 70. I think that as the supply of inexpensive SKS's and AK lookalikes dries up, the AR is only going to gain market share among Gen-X and Gen-Y shooters. When the current crop of U.S. soldiers gets out of the military, many of them will probably gravitate toward civilian rifles that look and feel like the rifles they used in the service. And I think you might be seeing more AR's with .243 or 6.8mm uppers out hunting as well.

If you look at the number of manufacturers making AR-pattern civilian rifles in 1986, compared to the number making AR-pattern civilian rifles in 2006, you can see the direction things are going.

 

[MK11]

The M-16/AR-15 is the most prevalent police rifle. It continues to see frontline action by nations actually in combat (especially the M-4). It dominates rifle matches. Smith & Wesson and HK (which has a long history of producing top notch rifles of its own design) now offer an M-4. Sig took its 55X-series, based on the AK and arguably the best battle rifle in the world, and retooled it to be more AR-like with the 556.

Regardless of whether you think it's great or a POS or the above manufacturers are out of their minds, how does anyone even begin to think the design is dying?

 

[JesseL]

Wherever that tidbit came from, I doubt its veracity. Not only would it be almost impossible to quantify, but I just doubt it in general.

I doubt it when applied strictly to US soldiers (or brits canadians, australians, etc), but remeber the allies included a few tens of millions of soldiers from the soviet and chinese armies too.

 

[HMMurdock]

Not to get off topic too far, but:

Germany is roughly the size of Montana and almost overtook the world. Their soldiers had to have something going for them, especially since their standard issue was the freakin' Mauser bolt action...

--Back to AR talk, has anyone personally handled any of the AR-Alternatives like the FN SCAR or Robinson XCR or Robinson M96?

TRL

 

[RNB65]

So what exactly is the biggest gripe that people have against the AR? The gas impingement system? The 5.56mm round? Or just the politics of how it came to be adopted?

Several companies, including Bushmaster, are now selling piston rod uppers for the AR. I love the ergonomics of the AR. If there are still doubts about the reliability of the gas system based on its performance in the Middle East, why not just replace the upper receiver with a piston rod receiver?

It seems to me that one of the strengths of the AR, its modular design, is the answer to any problems that may exist. Just replace the component that's underperforming with something better without need to replace the entire platform.

Thoughts?