Dang Giroden. That's a blast from the past. It's been acouple years since I shot that blue carbine but it's still in the safe.
I still think it is a pretty sweet example how light one can go with a lot of steps few other's take, such as the carbon fiber barrel. Do you have any thoughts or insights about the carbon fiber barrel. I've considered one a time or two for my own light weight build but without knowing more about them the steep entry price makes me balk.
i dont understand peoples obsession with making things lighter..
Well when it comes to AR's I think there are a few ways people come at it. One is just the feat, how light can you get it. These featherweight builds are rarely if ever anyone's sole, or even primary AR. I've never known anyone to build an "as light as possible" gun as a defense or duty. Rather, they are most often fun projects to see what can be done. This particularly true of the more exotic parts and more extreme lightening tactics. In these builds one often sacrifices absolute reliability for ounces here and there. Given there purposes, design goals, and uses its not much of an issue. Its much like when people build competition guns. They often are built in a way that would be unacceptable as a defensive or duty weapon and often sacrifice absolute reliability and durability for other advantages.
Then there are working guns. All other things being roughly equal a lighter gun is generally preferable for an AR. If one cannot understand the reasons for that I'm not sure how much trying to explain it would really help. Lighter guns often handle better. One can bring them to target quicker and make quicker transitions. Use a 9.5 lbs rifle back to back with a 5.5lbs one and its probably impossible not to make some insightful observations. For extended activities the old adage rings true ounces=pounds and pounds equal pain. Even if one could carry a 9lbs rifle if one only has to carry a 6 lbs rifle that is 3 lbs of something else one could have instead.
A light weight projector where the parameters are as light as possible without jeopardizing reliability, durability, or utility is a different kind of beast and will be built very differently.
you know there are people who hikes for miles and miles for weeks at a time with 16lb BARs during WWII two that would have loved to have a 9lb rifle.. the tommy gun weighed about 11lbs.. the garand was actually the lightest for a long time at 9.5lbs before the M1 carbine came around.. and people hiked all over europe AND korea with those garands.. so to complain your AR15 weighs 5 1/2lbs and not 5lbs is kinda wimpy.. and i bet a lot of those old WWII vets could STILL out hike a lot of the AR15 crowds with those garands on their backs
women in the military now hike with M4s, M16s.. are you really going to tell me you dont even have the upper body strength and stamina to do what they can?.. and isnt it kind of pointless if youre just going to hot glue everything and the kitchen sink to the rifle?.. laser sight, red dot sight, flashlight, bipod, forward grip
I find all of this rather amusing. Your first point about WWII soldiers misses a few points. First, those same guys weren't packing body armor that can weigh as much as 33 lbs. Even if one is wearing a lighter interceptor system that still weighs about 16.5 lbs. They also didn't have a lot of the kit that is pretty common place to have to haul around today.
Second just because one can get by with something doesn't mean something else is not a significant improvement. Its worth noting that everyone of the weapons you mentioned is antiquated. Furthermore almost universally the trend has been to lighter weapons. That is not a coincidence.
Given that even a guy that was 17 in 1945 would be 85 today I'd wager there really aren't that many WWII vets around who can do much hiking, let alone with garand on their backs. I'm sure that there are so horrendously out of shape people who own AR-15s but I'm not sure there is any correlation between owning one and physical condition.
I wont bother to respond at length to it but I find your closing paragraph that in sum argues even women can to it to be most amusing as well. It suffices to say that again it simply misses the point that because thing A is serviceable it in no way means that thing B would not be preferable.