The AR rifles...again
First, just a little bit of background. so you know my opinions did not come just from something I read on the internet.
I was an Army Small Arms repairman from 75-78 and I handled, inspected, and repaired literally thousands of M16A1 rifles. I have built (assembled) AR rifles, and I have been a shooter and reloader for close to 40 years.
The AR rifles today are the result of 40+ years of tweaking to correct the flaws in the original design, and the flaws in application of the original design that appeared to be flaws in the design.
There are two basic components to the AR rifles, the guns themselves, and the cartridge. The 5.56mm round is puny, compared to every military rifle round before it. In the majority of states it is not powerful enough to legally hunt deer. Whenever you compare it against a larger caliber round, it will be found wanting. However, for what the military wants (today) it serves well enough.
The AR rifle design has some great features, and some that are less than the best possible. As others have said, the military got the AR rammed down their throat by the MacNamara defense dept, those same bean counters who were responsible for the removal of more weapons and weapons systems from the US military than would have been lost to a Soviet nuclear first strike!
Over enough time, we have gotten most of the bugs out of the system, aside from those which cannot be altered as long as we stay with the basic AR design.
For all those who claim things like "nobody ever complained about the .30-06" or "they carried the M1 to hell and back without complaining", I got news for you. They complained. They bitched. They whined and sniveled, just like soldiers today do. They did it about the M1, they did it about the 1903 Springfield, and about the rifle-musket. I'm pretty confidant they bitched about the weight of the spears, swords, axes, clubs, and rocks used from day one. It is something soldiers do. When soldiers aren't complaining, watch your butt!
But one thing I never heard of was anyone complaining that their M1 wouldn't kill the enemy. Yes, it is heavy, by today's standards. And they thought it was heavy back then. But they knew that heavy meant sturdy. Blocking a German bayonet lunge, or buttstroking a Banzai charging Japanese called for a weapon that was rugged. I don't know about the latest AR rifles, but I can tell you from experience that many times Vietnam troops had to go hand to hand with their M16s, and found themselves with two pieces of broken rifle afterward. Light weight has drawbacks. So does heavy. There is no free lunch. Don't think those WWII vets cared about the weight? Just look at any picture from WWII, not taken in the midst of actual combat. And look at the number of rifles who's butt in on the ground. Nearly all. When you don't have to carry it, you don't.
Many,many things have changed since those days. Military doctrine has undergone major changes since WWII. The guys who landed on Guadalcanal with 1903 Springfields (Marines, who hadn't gotten M1 Garands yet, because there weren't enough to go around yet) were given 40 rounds of ammo, and that was expected to last them two weeks in combat! We sure have come a long way. In those days, riflemen were taught to shoot only when they had a target. Suppressive fire was the job of the machinegun. We did learn that in combat there are drawbacks to that philosophy, but it took some time.
With AR rifles, every troop carries a (light) machinegun, or did until they took away the full auto setting.
the M16 is very easy to shoot. Current designs shoot well. The military doesn't train soldiers to be riflemen today like they did generations ago. WWI troops were taught to hit man size targets at 600 yards, and area targets at 1200, with their bolt action .30-06 rifles! When I was in, we were taught to hit at the tremendous range of 300 meters! And they didn't bother to spend the time needed to ensure the majority could do even that!
As shooters, lots of us understand what is rifle is for. What it can do, and what it is not so good at. And we all want our equipment to be the best it can be, because when it is real, it is our butt on the line. The military has a slightly different view. The lives of the individual soldiers are not the most important thing. The mission is. Lives are important, and should not be wasted, but the mission is the most important thing. And if you can get the mission accomplished with what you have, better equipement is a low priority.
The AR is the most popular military type rifle today (in the USA) because there is no real alternative. The reason the AR has been constantly upgraded and improved, instead of being replaced is cost. There is nothing in the pipeline that is a significant enough advantage over the AR to overcome the cost of replacing the huge investment that 40+ years of AR use has built up. Aftermarket gadget designers make thing for the AR, because they want to make money. They make money by selling the most of their product that they can. So they make it for the AR, because there are more AR out there than other things. And people buy ARs because there are so many aftermarket add ons. The cycle builds on itself. The Ruger 10/22 is the most accessorised .22 on the market, and a huge seller because of that. And because it is a huge seller, lots of people make accessories, etc. It is a fine gun to start with, but not significantly better than many other .22s. But all the neat stuff you can get for them.....you get the picture?
