The AR Platform Has Won

[stchman]

What does the AR win? I will definitely say that the AR has won the most customized .223 rifle out there.

If this is the case, then the 10/22 has won. For every AR I see at the range, I see at least 6 10/22s.

Many have speculated that there are over 500 million AKs and variants the world over.

 

[otcconan]

The lapse of the Clinton-era assault rifle ban is the cause of all this.

 

[230therapy]

Nothing against ARs but I don't have much use for the .223 cartridge. Too big for small game and two small for big game. I guess it's OK for predators but I prefer a bolt .22-250.

The 5.56x45mm cartridge is just one of many available for the platform. It would not be so popular if the platform were limited to the poodleshooter cartridge. There's the 22 Long Rifle...up to the 458 SOCOM. 6.8 SPC adds a good intermediate chambering to the lineup. 6.5 Grendel gives it another long range option. 7.62x51mm is popular in various larger framed guns (both DI and piston driven).

 

[Justin]

What does the AR win? I will definitely say that the AR has won the most customized .223 rifle out there.

How do you want to define the terms of winning?

A lot of guys like to define it as the number of armies that have fielded a particular gun, or how many of them have been built since their inception.

I'm not in the military, nor will I likely be in a situation where I will have to run a gun that is issued to me at any point in the foreseeable future. As such, I suppose comparing logistics numbers is fun, but I don't find it particularly enlightening or practical when attempting to quantify what is best for my particular needs.

I much prefer to look at those shooters who are extremely good, but demographically similar to myself.

If we look at a cross-section of the top competitive shooters in the disciplines that allow usage of semi-auto rifles, there's a pretty clear preference for the AR. ARs are the dominant choice for Service Rifle and National Match Rifle competitors at Camp Perry, and in fact have been used to set records in a shooting sport that has been around for the better part of a century.

If we look at newer shooting sports like 3 Gun, the AR is far and away the dominant choice of not only most of the people who choose to compete, but of those who win.

I've even seen a couple of AR10-pattern guns at an open-terrain Sporting Rifle match with targets at distances of 400-875 yards.

Ok, well, what about hunting? As has been previously stated, a lot of varmint hunters report good success with AR-pattern guns.

Other than that, it seems like there are a growing number of hunters who are using AR-pattern guns chambered in heavier calibers for hunting big game, and with good results.

How about for martial and defensive use? For issue to patrol officers and SWAT cops, the AR seems to be pretty ubiquitous. I'm not a cop, so this data point isn't necessarily completely cromulent to my situation, but it's worth noting.

What about people who are concerned with personal protection and defense? Well, most of the well-known trainers like Larry Vickers, Pat Rogers, and the MagPul Dynamics guys seem to favor the AR for their classes, and there are a number of reports that the .223 round is a good choice for urban environments as it will have less of a likelihood of over penetration compared to other calibers, including some handgun rounds.

Alright, so what if you don't want to be concerned with all of that heavy competition and personal defense stuff and just hit the range for a bit of plinking? Well, toss on a .22 upper, and you've got a great gun for drilling tin cans and teaching little Timmy the basics of marksmanship.

I suppose you could argue that the 10/22 is more modifiable than the AR, but if so, it's only just barely, and ultimately that doesn't matter so much because the fact that it's limited to only rimfire options means that the applications for the 10/22 are rather limited, whereas this is not the case with the AR.

 

[mortablunt]

It's funny that ownership is at an all time high, yet sales and prices are actually down. I think that its military adoption has a lot to do with it because it meant that a lot of AR type guns had to be made, a lot of ammunition for them had to be made, a lot of people getting out of the service wanted a gun like it, and a lot of accessories had to be made. Notice how military designs tend to survive? Notice that the M1911, G98K, Lee-Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, m1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, SKS, and Browning Hi Power still persist despite their age and relative obsolescence?

 

[valnar]

It's Lego, it eats it own residue, it's underpowered, whatever. What they won't do is quit carping about it. Here's why - IT'S THE ACKNOWLEDGED LEADER IN DOING NEARLY EVERYTHING BETTER. They don't pick on something universally regarded as a poor design, they set their sights for the Big Kahuna, the front runner, the One.

Well, lets be fair now. It only "won" because the military adopted it. Period. There have been some outstanding designs as of late, but since its not standard issue, they have no chance of winning.

 

[X-Rap]

There have been some outstanding designs as of late,

But none I am aware of have been a great departure of what we have today.
There just isn't a radical change in general issue military rifle/carbine out there nor one fielded by other countries.

 

[valnar]

But none I am aware of have been a great departure of what we have today.
There just isn't a radical change in general issue military rifle/carbine out there nor one fielded by other countries.

Correct, but that doesn't mean the AR-15 is inherently superior to all. If one of these other designs were invented and picked up by the military 50 years ago, we would be praising them instead. Let's face it, if a killer piston-driven AR-like design was made in the 1960's and someone invented a DI version today as an alternate, people would be picking it apart like they do piston AR's today.

On a perfectly level playing field, with aftermarket parts and support, I'd rather have the PWS AR or an XCR.

 

[X-Rap]

Something else I would note is the likely hood of the AR being the last Rifle we as civilians can own that so closely matches our service rifle.
The next big break through will more than likely not have a civilian brother like colt made back in the 60's.

 

[Justin]

Well, lets be fair now. It only "won" because the military adopted it. Period. There have been some outstanding designs as of late, but since its not standard issue, they have no chance of winning.

If the newer designs were superior in ways that could justify their price, I think you'd see more sales. As it stands, though, there really aren't any huge advantages offered by, say, a SCAR or XCR over the AR, and for the price of either one of those guns, you could easily buy an AR from a high-end maker like JP or LaRue.

Certainly adoption by the military has worked to generate a significant infrastructure to support the guns, and this ultimately worked to drive down prices in the civilian market, but I don't think that's the only reason for why the guns are so widely adopted, especially among those who would be willing to drop large amounts of money for a definable advantage.

Correct, but that doesn't mean the AR-15 is inherently superior to all. If one of these other designs were invented and picked up by the military 50 years ago, we would be praising them instead. Let's face it, if a killer piston-driven AR-like design was made in the 1960's and someone invented a DI version today as an alternate, people would be picking it apart like they do piston AR's today.

The issue with the piston-driven designs is that they're not as inherently accurate as a DI gun, and there are reports that some of them have a tendency to fail.

That isn't to say that a reliable piston-driven gun can't exist, there are plenty of them out there, but they end up weighing more, and are generally less accurate than a similar DI gun.

 

[batmann]

To me, the AR platform is like a 1911. So many types and variations to chose from, the market is flooded. The basic AR is a pretty good rifle, but AK seems to be better in reliability and the AR in accuracy. Once we start to 'tacticool' the AR wins by a landslide. Go through a shooting catalog and there are pages and pages of things we can hang, add or change.
The problem with all the stuff we put on, is our neat little 6 pound carbine winds up a 9+ pound rifle and nothing we added changed the reliability one single bit, the basic gas system still needs to kept clean.
Compare an AK that shoots so dirty must American shooters would not be seen with one and compare to an AR that MUST be kept clean.
Like a Glock to a 1911. The Glock just goes and goes and the 1911 will run, but must be kept cleaner.
The 1911 and the AR are fine weapons, but the AK and Glock, while not as cool, still go long after the cool wears off. I have both pistols (1911 and Glock) and an AK and AR so it is not BS I talking about here.

 

[Justin]

As I've posted multiple times, I've got ARs that have gone thousands of rounds between cleaning.

Pat Rogers has a carbine that, last time I bothered to check up on it, had gone 51,000 rounds without a cleaning.

The claims that the DI system is this delicate thing that must be spotlessly maintained is a myth that just will not go away.

 

[ugaarguy]

Compare an AK that shoots so dirty must American shooters would not be seen with one and compare to an AR that MUST be kept clean. Like a Glock to a 1911. The Glock just goes and goes and the 1911 will run, but must be kept cleaner. The 1911 and the AR are fine weapons, but the AK and Glock, while not as cool, still go long after the cool wears off. I have both pistols (1911 and Glock) and an AK and AR so it is not BS I talking about here.

Who was your AR made by, and who was your 1911 made by? I own multiple ARs & multiple 1911s, and that's not my experience at all. If you buy properly built examples of either they'll run when absolutely filthy if kept lubed.

Let's face it, if a killer piston-driven AR-like design was made in the 1960's and someone invented a DI version today as an alternate, people would be picking it apart like they do piston AR's today.

Take a look at the AR-18, and Stoner 63. Everyone assumes that piston drive is what makes AKs reliable, lack thereof makes ARs less reliable. The masses never look at bolt & carrier design, and tolerances. AKs are VERY sloppy in tolerance. You don't get AR accuracy without tight tolerances. ARs are amazingly rugged & reliable for how tight their tolerances are.

 

[valnar]

Certainly adoption by the military has worked to generate a significant infrastructure to support the guns, and this ultimately worked to drive down prices in the civilian market, but I don't think that's the only reason for why the guns are so widely adopted, especially among those who would be willing to drop large amounts of money for a definable advantage.

Nope, I think that is exactly why it is popular. Same with the 1911. There is little R&D for any company to do. The design is basically "open source". How can something *not* become popular under those circumstances? If the SIG or Glock design was available for free and a dozen competitors came along building them to spec, we'd see the same thing.

 

[Cosmoline]

The military's influence is certainly there, but I think it's mostly on the "software" side. Actual military M-16's, M-4's and so on cannot cross the lines to civilian hands. The biggest influence I'm actually seeing is in training so many people on the platform. Current and former servicemen and women are a big part of the base of users, and at least from what I've seen locally are making up most of the younger generation of long gun shooters even here in AK where hunting is still very prevalent. Heck a lot of folks are hunting with them, even here. Which you never used to see.

And it's in that sense that I'm saying the AR's have won. They're so well established among the younger generations in particular that they have essentially become *the* American rifle. For better or worse. They appear to have finally become the semiauto platform which will push out the bolt actions as general purpose rifles--something that's been predicted since WWII but has taken ages to actually happen.

And on the positive side, that fundamental change means that a revival of the AWB would be all but impossible. In the early 90's the AR's were exotica reserved for a small number of wealthy shooters. It was a lot easier to marginalize them.

 

[mljdeckard]

While Colt was the only manufacturer selling them to civilians, it certainly didn't bring the price down. The same rifle that was on the army's property books for just over $400 was selling for twice that in the civilian version. It was other manufacturers getting into the game that forced the price down.

 

[redneck2]

As for caliber, I've got a .223 that's incredibly accurate, a .458 SOCOM, and a .358 WSSM. Other than some very special situations, there's little that these can't do.

 

[llwsgn]

i like the ar...it's a sweet baby. that is my opinion in the event that you'd want it.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I always avoided them due to the limitations of the varmit round that they traditionally chambered but recently I have had a change of heart now that they come in bigger calibers. I had a .50 Beowulf and now two 6.8 AR's. It is a really good platform, accurate, dependable and modular.

 

[kfgk14]

The AR has some very strong interests going for it. First, over 20 million prior servicemen and women have been trained on it. They all have an intimate knowledge of how easy it is to operate and tear one down for cleaning. They all know how to put it back together right the first time. That is the biggest pretrained and sold user group that has ever existed.

It's the one design that continues to influence modern rifle designs - not the AK. First, the barrel extension, which allows a light receiver made of polymer or extruded aluminum. Name a new battle rifle that doesn't use it - the ACR, XCR, ARX, SCAR, L129A1, etc. All barrel extension designs, and most also use the control layout, which is proven superior.

The modularity also carries over, and inventing the Picitinny rail and mounting it on the cutdown upper was a stroke of genius. Now we have a universal optics mount, and every maker can use it.

AR's aren't going away, we're just seeing a bit of a downturn because disposable income in a recession isn't there. AR's are more like smartphones, if you want to do something different or just get it the way you want, they have an app for that. With the same lower and stock, you can do a CQB suppressed 12" in .300 BO, a 16" 6.8 with rifle handguards for deer and hog, a 20" 5.56 with scope and bipod for prairie dogs, or a 24" 6.5G for precision shooting at 600m. And that leaves out the big bores, and the AR10, too.

Can you do that with an AK? Can you even build four different AK's like that, and have all the parts ship to your front door and assemble them next week Thursday afternoon?

What's horribly ironic is that the American shooter finally gets a gun that he can make his way with very little complication or hassle, from .204 Ruger to .50 BMG, and yet some people just don't see it as exactly what we've been wanting for decades and couldn't get from all the makers. They would never cooperate and deliver one platform to do it - but like the internet, now we have it, and we're not likely to go back to a world where every gun was a unique proprietary action and good luck finding accessories. Yet, some still complain about it.

It's Lego, it eats it own residue, it's underpowered, whatever. What they won't do is quit carping about it. Here's why - IT'S THE ACKNOWLEDGED LEADER IN DOING NEARLY EVERYTHING BETTER. They don't pick on something universally regarded as a poor design, they set their sights for the Big Kahuna, the front runner, the One.

It's just starting to hit it's stride. If the Army picks a new non-compatible design, it will just fuel the fire even more.

The AR-15. It's here to stay.

Thank you.
It beats every other platform out there in modularity, versatility, and an average AR is more accurate than an average AK-47 or an average Mini-14 or an average SKS. The haters are gonna hate, and they're gonna scream Vietnam, and they're gonna talk about in-field failures, and they're going to ignore that a good lubricant, a well-built, well-maintained rifle, and decent ammo add up to a reliable platform, and that those who build it right have run them for many tens of thousands of rounds with very few failures. Also, they're the platform that is largely responsible for making "assault weapons" popular. While AK's, M14's, and other military-style rifles were available, they certainly weren't what you saw on most firing lines across the U.S. The fact that a large portion of the shooting population (thought) they would be unaffected by the AWB because grandpa's 1903 was the closest they got to a military rifle was part of the reason it passed. Now, with such a large number of shooters getting into military-style rifles and adapting them for other uses (as well integrating features such as adjustable-length stocks, flash hiders, suppressors, and pistol grips into their semi-auto hunting guns), such a ban would be much harder to pass. The prevalence of hog hunting in America, where many guys use AR-15's just like the rifles carried on foreign battlefields for the task, has helped this along.

 

[wlewisiii]

In 16 years in the Army, I was issued a M1911 for 3 and a M16 for 13 of them. Those of you who want them are welcome to them. I have no interest in either anymore and am very thankful that they are not the only games in town.

Instead, I carry a revolvers and, depending on the game, a bolt action or lever action rifle or a SxS shotgun.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

I'd strongly suggest you read your history. The design was perfectly fine as Eugene Stoner engineered it. When Robert McNamara and his whiz kids changed things that Stoner told them were critical to function of the rifle it didn't work. Don't blame the AR-15; blame McNamara for killing men by trying to save a buck.

Wait, so it's one person's fault that a whole military used a crap version of something that "may" have worked well? We're blaming one person for a gun that malfunctioned terribly when it first saw service? Did it take 50 years for (pick a gun) to come down to a reasonable price and be very reliable? Or did it just work like a gun is supposed to? And wasn't there just a story a while ago about how the 5.56 is ineffective at longer ranges which is where it is more accurate than the AK?

To recap:
1. It took 50 years to become truly reliable.
2. It took 50 years to become affordable.
3. It is ineffective at longer ranges.

Find another product that took so long to get all the problems ironed out. Were it not for military use, the AR would have failed miserably.

 

[Zerodefect]

Pretty sure the DOD f'd up the M16 by being a bunch of cheapskates. I don't think we can deny that. It's also a safe bet they didn't care about the lives it cost us either.

Chrome and cleaning kits. Pretty weak things to cheap out on.

 

[Owen]

1. It took 50 years to become truly reliable.
2. It took 50 years to become affordable.
3. It is ineffective at longer ranges.

you know, saying things over and over doesn't make them true.

 

[dalepres]

2. It took 50 years to become affordable.

How can a 200 dollar rifle selling for 1000 dollars be considered affordable? Gun prices of mass produced guns have nothing to do with quality or value of the gun; they're based on supply and demand, government regulations, and speculation.