It's pecking order.
My gun is better than your gun, but if I actually think your gun is really pretty good, then I'm going to trash talk it because tearing you down makes me higher on the pecking order.
Locker room posturing.
All the crap talk about "the jammomatic killed people in Vietnam!" completely ignores what was pointed out earlier - we still use it, more people have been familiarized with it than ANY other weapon, it's been working fine for over 40 years, and is the basis for most new designs.
Stoner did some really significant things: He got rid of the operating rod and exposed bolt, which eliminated a MAJOR source of malfunctions. Direct impingement is NO dirtier piston to piston - the fact it's in the carrier has nothing to do with it - but in operation, it actually relieves the locking lugs of the case head pressure and allows them to be less stressed. The barrel extension eliminated the bulky receiver and mounting a barrel to it semipermanently, and eliminated setting up headspace in it. Headspace on the AR is literally dialed into it by rotating the extension and pinning it where it needs to be. Literally, micrometer adjustment on the bench - NOT in a 50 ton press.
While the alloy receivers were a showcase of 1950's aerospace engineering, they also reflected the realities of mass production. It's far easier to finish machine a forging than fully machine billet - and CNC wasn't available then.
The control layout is the best to date in a combat firearm. Nobody is interested in retrograding to a blade safety mounted in a trigger guard, or right hand reciprocating bolt handles that require taking off the safety to charge the weapon. Having a last shot bolt hold open eliminates charging against a closed bolt on an empty chamber. The shooter will always be up and firing again much more quickly than a gun without it.
The AR haters rarely bring this stuff up - they have no clue about superior engineering elegance, or operational ergonomics under pressure on the battlefield. "It took 50 years to get right." is really a backwards view - it's been successfully used the last fifty years, and nobody's going back to what amounts to rotary dialing or driving every nail by hand. Those are historical reenacting, not modern reality.
It's more than simple conservatism now, it's downright reactionary to continue to express a belief the AR is somehow inherently flawed and inadequate. Quite the contrary, most of the free world that can choose is buying AR type weapons to arm their countries. Italy, for example, is fielding the Beretta ARX - A R X - and many of it's features are the same. The FN SCAR is another derivative. It's much more an AR than a FAL, their own revered design which has passed into the collection of curio and relic.
The 1911 was brought up, and the same issue exists in that forum - 1911 fans generally exhibit a poor opinion of Glocks. The reality is that the 1911 in it's many forms is most reliable when full sized shooting military ball ammo, just like the military issue AR's. It's the sportier versions that exhibit irregular behavior - they are modified versions not working in the original design envelope. As a class, they are generally admitted as problematic.
And another 1911 comparison - the Glock is in universal issue, or derivatives that use polymer frames, double stack magazines, and have partially cocked single pull triggers. Those are in service by the millions - not the 1911, just like the AR is in service - not the vaunted collectibles of yesteryear.
The AR is a significant watershed design in firearms that has already, and will continue to affect combat weapon design for the next 50 years. Opposing that is like trying to sweep the incoming tide off the beach - it's obviously not logical behavior or well thought out.
My gun is better than your gun, but if I actually think your gun is really pretty good, then I'm going to trash talk it because tearing you down makes me higher on the pecking order.
Locker room posturing.
All the crap talk about "the jammomatic killed people in Vietnam!" completely ignores what was pointed out earlier - we still use it, more people have been familiarized with it than ANY other weapon, it's been working fine for over 40 years, and is the basis for most new designs.
Stoner did some really significant things: He got rid of the operating rod and exposed bolt, which eliminated a MAJOR source of malfunctions. Direct impingement is NO dirtier piston to piston - the fact it's in the carrier has nothing to do with it - but in operation, it actually relieves the locking lugs of the case head pressure and allows them to be less stressed. The barrel extension eliminated the bulky receiver and mounting a barrel to it semipermanently, and eliminated setting up headspace in it. Headspace on the AR is literally dialed into it by rotating the extension and pinning it where it needs to be. Literally, micrometer adjustment on the bench - NOT in a 50 ton press.
While the alloy receivers were a showcase of 1950's aerospace engineering, they also reflected the realities of mass production. It's far easier to finish machine a forging than fully machine billet - and CNC wasn't available then.
The control layout is the best to date in a combat firearm. Nobody is interested in retrograding to a blade safety mounted in a trigger guard, or right hand reciprocating bolt handles that require taking off the safety to charge the weapon. Having a last shot bolt hold open eliminates charging against a closed bolt on an empty chamber. The shooter will always be up and firing again much more quickly than a gun without it.
The AR haters rarely bring this stuff up - they have no clue about superior engineering elegance, or operational ergonomics under pressure on the battlefield. "It took 50 years to get right." is really a backwards view - it's been successfully used the last fifty years, and nobody's going back to what amounts to rotary dialing or driving every nail by hand. Those are historical reenacting, not modern reality.
It's more than simple conservatism now, it's downright reactionary to continue to express a belief the AR is somehow inherently flawed and inadequate. Quite the contrary, most of the free world that can choose is buying AR type weapons to arm their countries. Italy, for example, is fielding the Beretta ARX - A R X - and many of it's features are the same. The FN SCAR is another derivative. It's much more an AR than a FAL, their own revered design which has passed into the collection of curio and relic.
The 1911 was brought up, and the same issue exists in that forum - 1911 fans generally exhibit a poor opinion of Glocks. The reality is that the 1911 in it's many forms is most reliable when full sized shooting military ball ammo, just like the military issue AR's. It's the sportier versions that exhibit irregular behavior - they are modified versions not working in the original design envelope. As a class, they are generally admitted as problematic.
And another 1911 comparison - the Glock is in universal issue, or derivatives that use polymer frames, double stack magazines, and have partially cocked single pull triggers. Those are in service by the millions - not the 1911, just like the AR is in service - not the vaunted collectibles of yesteryear.
The AR is a significant watershed design in firearms that has already, and will continue to affect combat weapon design for the next 50 years. Opposing that is like trying to sweep the incoming tide off the beach - it's obviously not logical behavior or well thought out.
