The AR Platform Has Won

[StrikeFire83]

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

Okay, I'll take these stupid arguments one at a time.

1. It took 50 years to become truly reliable.

Okay, so why should I care about this? I'm not jumping in a time machine and buying a rifle 50 years ago. Likewise, I'm not buying a 50 year old rifle. I went into a gun show and bought my AR-15 in July of this year, and it was manufactured in late 2010. If the current guns are "truly reliable" as you say, then why do I give a pile of horsepucky if it took 50 years for the design to get that way. (Even though I think your 50 year assertion is complete bunk)

2. It took 50 years to become affordable.

See my answer to question 1.

3. It is ineffective at longer ranges.

What do you mean by "longer ranges"? I'm not going to be shooting at an Al Queda fighter at 1,000 yards in Afghanistan. I need a self-defense/CQB rifle that's combat accurate within 200 yards or less. Honestly, I have trouble envisioning a situation where I'd need to even shoot beyond 100 yards, and even that's a stretch.

 

[ugaarguy]

How can a 200 dollar rifle selling for 1000 dollars be considered affordable?

Where's the $200 rifle that's selling for $1k?

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?

McNamara was Sec Def, so yes, he and his penny pinching cronies are the ones who messed up the design. Again, the gun worked as Stoner designed it. The M16A1 remedied the problems of the McNamara neutered M16.

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?

It didn't take 50 years. The M16 entered service in 1962. The M16A1 entered service in 1967. It was five years too many, and those first five years are what gave the whole rifle family its bad reputation. If the rifle had been manufactured as engineered, proper ammunition components used, and minimal cleaning gear issued there would have never been problems. Again, do some research.

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?

Neither the AR-15 / M-16 nor the AK-47 were intended to be used on point targets beyond 600 meters. Further, the story you're referencing is in regard to the M4 carbine. The M4's 14.5" bbl greatly reduces bullet velocity when compared the M16/A1/A2/A3/A4 20" bbl. You're also ignoring the ammunition. M855 ball was never intended for use on unarmored personnel. M855 ammo was developed for the Cold War where we would be facing opponents wearing body armor. Reissuing the M193 ball ammo, which yaw's and more heavily wounds unarmored opponents, has increased effectiveness against insurgents (who typically don't wear armor). The military (not civilian) M16 family of rifles are assault rifles, not main battle rifles. In a true testament to the M16 family of rifles' versatility simply adding optics, and heavy match grade ammo (Mk262 Mod 0 / Mod 1) has allowed them to used as Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (or acceptable MBR substitute by just sighting the irons in for the heavier ammo).

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.

1. Wrong, see above, it was reliable as originally engineered.
2. See below.
3. It was never intended to be an MBR, but with improved ammo it actually does work at longer ranges.

2. Affordability - Name another forged aluminum receiver, chrome lined bbl, semi automatic, match grade sight equipped, rifle with the tolerances an AR-15 has that costs less. The fact that you can get a quality AR-15 for $600 when a slapped together plastic frame is $500 makes an AR-15 an amazing value.

 

[Rshooter]

When I first put my hands on an M-16 in the seventies I hated it. Thirty years later I have one AR-15 and am building a second. IMHO every citizen who can own a gun should own an AR.

 

[valnar]

@Rshooter. What changed in that time frame, other than availability?

 

[Justin]

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.

My point being this:

If the design were inherently flawed in some manner, no one would have gone to the trouble of correcting it to make guns to sell in civilians in a mind-boggling array of configurations.

Nor would you have seen such wide adoption among civilians, especially those who buy rifles for reasons other than plinking on an idle Sunday afternoon.

I will agree that at this point the AR is practically an open-source design, and anyone with a bit of know-how and access to a CNC mill can put their own spin on the concept with much less effort than building a design from scratch or modifying one of the other available platforms.

 

[Rshooter]

@Rshooter. What changed in that time frame, other than availability?

Heavier barrel, different twist rates, more availability of bullet weights, better sights, availability of optics (flat top). Quite a bit of a change from the old ones in my opinion.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

1. Wrong, see above, it was reliable as originally engineered.
2. See below.
3. It was never intended to be an MBR, but with improved ammo it actually does work at longer ranges.

2. Affordability - Name another forged aluminum receiver, chrome lined bbl, semi automatic, match grade sight equipped, rifle with the tolerances an AR-15 has that costs less. The fact that you can get a quality AR-15 for $600 when a slapped together plastic frame is $500 makes an AR-15 an amazing value.

1. We obviously wouldn't have these discussions if the AR had been used as you claim it was originally engineered. It wasn't used that way, that way didn't become reality...hence it is immaterial. Do you understand this?
2. You're not addressing the fact it took so long to become affordable. We all know it is relatively affordable now. I'm not arguing the value of it now. Do you understand this?
3. I'm sure it does great things with improved ammo. Could it do those things at its inception, like a 30 cal could, with any crap ammo? Or again, did it take until more recently to become marginally effective?

 

[Strykervet]

I believe the reason that the AR market might be flat is so many people are assembleing thier own. This along with the availability of parts and ease that you can build one. I shoot and prefer other styles of rifles but have gotten the erectorset bug as well.

Cheers,

ts

I build all of mine. I have the receiver block, wrenches, punches, etc. to do it right. Not only is it fun, but it costs way less and I get to use the best parts. I can generally make a better rifle than I can buy.

For instance, I've found that the JP Ent. make the very best lower parts group. They have one without the trigger for $30something. Way better than the DPMS even. Their "tactical" bolt carrier is just awesome, very well made and it does work better than a standard mil spec. I use Satern barrels in a couple, I just put together a Grendel and they have a .300BLK barrel on the board for me. Another has an LMT chrome lined barrel. Most have AAC suppressor mounts, every one has a different trigger depending on the rifle. If it has a rail, it is some kind of KAC stuff. Lower receivers are, so some point, all the same, but that said, I just found out I like the Noveske mil spec lowers the best.

See, I can't buy a rifle like that. I can get a good rifle from any one of those manufacturers but I can't get exactly what I want. So I have a nice collection of custom AR's. Couple of 5.56mm, 6.5Grendel, .50Beowulf, .300BLK, and one day, I'll probably put together a 6mmAR. I really like my AR's.

I doubt I'll buy another regular AR since I can build 'em myself, but I would like to get a .308 AR some day. I'll probably get that one whole from whoever makes it most like I want it due to compatability issues. The LMT one I saw looked nice.

 

[Strykervet]

For all you interested in AR's, check out Rainier Arms. This will probably sound like an advertisement, but it isn't intended to be, I just really like the place. They are a local place for me, but they do a lot of internet sales too. I've gravitated to them almost exclusively for AR parts. They are a good place to do business with, they do good work (I had them blind pin an AAC brake and they did an awesome job) they have a great selection, they only sell quality stuff (they may not have exactly what you are looking for, like KAC for me, but what they do have is all good stuff, they aren't a junk dealer) and most important of all, they focus completely on AR's. All calibres and all kinds, but they are all AR rifles and derivatives.

Now I mention this place not just because they sell AR parts, you can find a lot of what they sell at a dozen or more places online for the same price (although they do have good prices, similar to Bravo Company). I mention it because for those of you that can't build your own rifles but know what you want, you can call these guys up and they'll build you "your" rifle the way you want it built for you. And they won't rip you off, and they'll do a good job. If I couldn't build my own, I'd get it from them most likely.

Other places may be in bad shape, I don't doubt for one second that the market is saturated. So this place stands out in customer service and custom builds. If you live in WA and like AR's and haven't been here, you are really missing out. The shop is set up like a showroom, not a gun shop, and has a couch and hang out spot and they also have several nice triggers in demo rigs to compare as well as all the new high end rifles on the wall. Lots of Noveske and LMT, but several others too. Tons of gear and accessories.

 

[Strykervet]

Quote:
"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 which was replied:

"Neither the AR-15 / M-16 nor the AK-47 were intended to be used on point targets beyond 600 meters. Further, the story you're referencing is in regard to the M4 carbine. The M4's 14.5" bbl greatly reduces bullet velocity when compared the M16/A1/A2/A3/A4 20" bbl. You're also ignoring the ammunition. M855 ball was never intended for use on unarmored personnel. M855 ammo was developed for the Cold War where we would be facing opponents wearing body armor. Reissuing the M193 ball ammo, which yaw's and more heavily wounds unarmored opponents, has increased effectiveness against insurgents (who typically don't wear armor). The military (not civilian) M16 family of rifles are assault rifles, not main battle rifles. In a true testament to the M16 family of rifles' versatility simply adding optics, and heavy match grade ammo (Mk262 Mod 0 / Mod 1) has allowed them to used as Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (or acceptable MBR substitute by just sighting the irons in for the heavier ammo)."

As a former SDM instructor and SDM, the unmodified M4 with an ACOG was the first SDM rifle. We shot out to 600m using iron sights and the ACOG. I'm sure it has reduced effectiveness at 600m, but I can tell you that when it goes overhead through that target, it is still supersonic.

There are better rounds for range, for an SDM the 6.5Grendel comes to mind. I have one and it is my favorite semi for long range stuff. Way better than the 5.56 (and I personally think the army should adopt this and do away with both 5.56 and 7.62). But for now, the 5.56 is a great intermediate cartridge, which it was designed for, and though 600m stretches it for a point target, it is doable.

But most of what stretches it at 600m isn't so much the velocity of the short barrel as much as the acceptable MOA of a Colt service M4. They are acceptable up to 4MOA. But they are commonly 2MOA rifles. So the problem is really hitting a sillhouette at over 600m reliably. I can hit 600m all day long with a Colt M4, but move the target to 800m, and even with a spotter, it is luck that I hit it.

And reliability? Don't even go there. The plain direct impingement is very reliable, just keep it clean. The AK is "more reliable" because you can give it to a 12yo. with no training and no cleaning supplies and he can't tear it up. In the hands of a trained infantryman, that M4 is every bit as reliable as an AK. Seriously.

It may not be the "best" assault rifle out there, but it is probably pretty close. I've noticed that almost all the new designs still echo the AR design, including the ACR, FN, etc. I don't think it is coincidence, I think it is because you can't get a smaller, lighter, more accurate auto rifle in that size package and pistol grip configuration. Simply put, it is the pinnacle of development for those applicable cartridges. Changes in operation, cartridge, etc., will have to be made in order to affect serious new designs, ie, a quantum leap.

I noticed this looking for something in pistol grip configuration to get OTHER than an AR and found unless I went AK derivative or bullpup (not pistol grip) there really isn't anything significantly different or new that isn't an AR or AR derivative.

 

[Strykervet]

For those interested, on the Outdoor Channel today, they are talking about the M16 on the show "Gun Stories". They do a good job dispelling the Vietnam myths, explaining the problems that existed in the beginning, why, and what they did to remedy it. They also talk about where it came from, and in general, it is good info on the AR.

 

[browneu]

For those interested, on the Outdoor Channel today, they are talking about the M16 on the show "Gun Stories". They do a good job dispelling the Vietnam myths, explaining the problems that existed in the beginning, why, and what they did to remedy it. They also talk about where it came from, and in general, it is good info on the AR.

Did you catch the time and date? I'd like to watch.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

 

[Strykervet]

It was just on, it just went off on the west coast... But it comes on again at 7:30 and 10:30. On Wednesdays on the Outdoor Channel, they show shooting shows all day. There are several that they repeat all day. Usually they have hunting shows on all week, but on Wednesay, it is all about shooting. The shows are: "Gun Nuts" where they review firearms, "Shooting USA", the NRA's show which highlights shooting sports, usually competitive but sometimes hunting, "Best Defense" for SHTF and survival stuff, "Gun Stories" where they have a show about some different firearm, I think last week or before it was the BAR, and my favorite, "Impossible Shots" which is about exhibition shooters and, well, impossible shots.

Here on the west coast the Outdoor Channel is in with all the sports channels. You'll need that of course to be abe to watch it. It is in with our basic stuff here. Other than that, you might be able to watch it online if you go to the Outdoor Channel's website. I don't know, but a lot of times TV channels will do that.

 

[Bobson]

"Won" implies that someone lost (well, maybe the ACR). As long as rifles are filling racks and hands, we are all winners (cheesy, I know).

lol.

Shoulda ended that with /thread, right after the neener smiley.

 

[browneu]

I'm unsure why being affordable or length of time to become affordable is even a determining factor against the AR.

All products have a a life cycle and products in the beginning of their life cycles are more expensive than at their end. Factors that drive price up are things like patents limiting suppliers, costs to begin production, initial demand, availability of alternatives, etc ...

Remember how expensive the first HDTV cost? It took over a decade for the price to come down.

So again, arguing about price doesn't prove anything than tell is that the AR is probably in the middle of its life cycle, which means its here to stay for long time before something comes along to replace it.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

 

[benEzra]

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

Actually, the *passage* of the AWB did much of that, IMO, although the AWB expiration made more options available. AR's were not banned after 1994, just restricted to fixed stocks and such. The AR was pretty close to being the top selling centerfire rifle in the nation by the time the Feinstein law expired in 2004.

 

[ugaarguy]

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.

1. We obviously wouldn't have these discussions if the AR had been used as you claim it was originally engineered. It wasn't used that way, that way didn't become reality...hence it is immaterial. Do you understand this?

Improper employment of a weapon has no bearing on reliability. If you tried to employ an AK as an MBR rather than an Assault it wouldn't work in that role either. Nor would practically any assault rifle if employed as an MBR.

2. You're not addressing the fact it took so long to become affordable. We all know it is relatively affordable now. I'm not arguing the value of it now. Do you understand this?

Affordability is relative. When the AR-15 premiered it was expensive, but not unafforadable. They're downright cheap now.

3. I'm sure it does great things with improved ammo. Could it do those things at its inception, like a 30 cal could, with any crap ammo? Or again, did it take until more recently to become marginally effective?

M193 is the original ammo, and it's always been effective at ranges where an assault rifle would be used. The new improved ammo (Mk 262, etc.) is used to extend the M16 / M4 rifles' range into MBR / DMR territory. You also can't use any old crap ammo in the previous .30 cal semi-auto rifles the US Military issued either. The M14 & M1 Garand's gas systems operate in a very narrow gas pressure / volume range. Both of those rifles are also ineffective as assault rifles - they're Main Battle Rifles. The MBR is dead in modern ground war fighting. We use assault rifles supplemented by a machine gun (Squad Automatic Weapon), and a designated marksman w/ rifle (Squad Designated Marksman), both, as the names obviously imply, at the squad level.

Do you understand all this?

 

[JohnBT]

A lot of people have speeding tickets. Heck, lots of people have 10/22s. What does it prove? I have an AR clone and I have a lever action. It's a tie.

Millions of Frenchmen think Jerry Lewis is god.

USA TODAY
3/16/2006
Jerry Lewis gets Legion of Honor medal
PARIS (AP) — France formalized its fascination with Jerry Lewis

Popularity is an interesting thing, but is it the final word?

John

 

[Sam Cade]

For all you interested in AR's, check out Rainier Arms.

+1
I've bought a couple barrels from their website and had one very pleasant phone conversation with someone on staff. They seem like good folks.

 

[d2wing]

I saw that show. I agree completely. I used both the M-14 and M-16 in 'Nam and other places. I like both, I was impressed then with the M-16A1. Some units had the earlier versions and did have bad problems. I have a buddy in the marines that had a jammed M16 in battle. Those guys still hate them and I don't blame them. The rifles I shot were accurate, light, and did the job. The main advantage for me is the ability to get on target quicker. I was taught the quick kill. That was old school, and has been replaced by technology, optical sights. But I hear the hit percent is up over our day.
Some guys will always prefer something else like the M-14, FAL or AK which have their place. But as they said on the show, new rifles appear all the time and tested but none
have an overall advantage in tests. They said like I have stated before, it will take a leap in technology to replace it.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Do you understand all this?

There's no need to mock, unless imitation/flattery is the idea in which case, thanks.

You are escaping reality in the end, arguing for a gun that never was used. Sad, but I understand your intentions. Downright cheap is a bad opinion to employ when we're dealing with facts. And finally, we're obviously talking about bullet types. Whatever the pressure range is to cycle the action, great, but its what the bullet can do at extended ranges. Which for the 5.56, isn't a lot.

 

[StrikeFire83]

^ WTBguns10kOK, you've yet to answer any of my arguments. I'll re-ask the core question:

Assuming you're correct (which you're not)...why should any of us give a steaming pile of pony loaf that it "took 50 years for the AR to become truly reliable and affordable" ?

If I'm going out to buy a rifle today, I don't care what happened 50 years ago with a variant of a weapon that is not currently for sale and that I'm not buying. If the current examples of the AR platform are "truly reliable" and affordable, that's great, and I'd buy one. {Actually, I did buy one, check my sig.}

 

[ugaarguy]

There's no need to mock, unless imitation/flattery is the idea in which case, thanks.

Neither mocking, nor imitating. I simply answered your question by restating it to you.

You are escaping reality in the end, arguing for a gun that never was used. Sad, but I understand your intentions.

Sad that you cant comprehend what I've written. The rifle you claimed was never used actually was used, and used in Vietnam. The Armalite AR-15 (the early full auto Stoner design) was used by observers, and other American irregulars in Vietnam before America became formally involved. Then the McNamara neutered AR-15 was adopted as the M16 in 1962. In 1967 the M16A1, which went back to the original AR-15 design; and added a few other features like the mechanical forward assist, improved brass deflector, and gated magazine catch.

Downright cheap is a bad opinion to employ when we're dealing with facts.

That's your opinion. The fact is you can buy a well built AR-15 (S&W M&P-15 Sport) for $600. Plastic framed service pistols like Glock, S&W M&P, Springfield Armory XD sell for $500+. I think the price of common service pistols vs. the price of the far more complex AR-15 supports my opinion though.

And finally, we're obviously talking about bullet types. Whatever the pressure range is to cycle the action, great, but its what the bullet can do at extended ranges. Which for the 5.56, isn't a lot.

First it was any old .308 will work at extended ranges. Now it's proper .308 in an M-14 is better at long range than an M16 DMR with proper ammo. You're correct...

However, the M-14 is a maintenance hog in general, and the accurized versions in particular. That's why the KAC SR-25 was just adopted the M110. That's an AR pattern rifle in .308 Win / 7.62 NATO in case you're wondering.

Any more questions?

 

[68wj]

How did this turn into an M16 v. AK debate? The headline was about modern sporting rifles in the hands of civilians. For anyone that didn't follow the link, here is the opening line:

The first comprehensive survey to look at ownership and use of modern sporting rifles reveals that 8.9 million Americans went target shooting with AR-style rifles in 2009 and that participants using this type of rifle were the most active among all types of sport shooters.

This isn't about the jungles or deserts of Asia. The M16 is an automatic military rifle and a very small amount of civilians own them. The (real) AK-47 is an automatic military rifle and only a very small amount of civilians own them as well. However, both of their civilian counterparts are very popular.

For whatever reason, based on the NSSF study, the AR15 version (in its MANY forms) is the current leader in the shooting world. If you are an AK, Vz, SKS, FAL, M1A, Garand, etc fan, that doesn't make your rifle any less good to you.

 

[ATLDave]

This isn't about the jungles or deserts of Asia. The M16 is an automatic military rifle and a very small amount of civilians own them. The (real) AK-47 is an automatic military rifle and only a very small amount of civilians own them as well.

That's true in America. In many parts of the (mostly third-)world, full-on AK's are very common among the civilian population.