What exactly is the draw of the AR platform?

[Ash]

The multiple upper argument to me falls pretty flat. The upper is the expensive part, the lower contributes the smallest amount to the overall cost. Since the lower is cheapest, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a guy would have only one lower and a bunch of uppers. That means you only have one gun. With a bunch of uppers, it would make sense to have an equal number of lowers. If we were in turn-of-the-twentieth-century-Germany that taxed number of guns owned, leading to the drilling, or if the lower ate up the lion's share of the cost, then it might make sense to brag about multiple uppers being able to be used.

Otherwise, have a lower for ever upper.

 

[hatt]

The multiple upper argument to me falls pretty flat. The upper is the expensive part, the lower contributes the smallest amount to the overall cost. Since the lower is cheapest, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a guy would have only one lower and a bunch of uppers. That means you only have one gun. With a bunch of uppers, it would make sense to have an equal number of lowers. If we were in turn-of-the-twentieth-century-Germany that taxed number of guns owned, leading to the drilling, or if the lower ate up the lion's share of the cost, then it might make sense to brag about multiple uppers being able to be used.

Otherwise, have a lower for ever upper.

Depends on the lower. Some people want fine triggers and nice stocks. That $150 blemished PSA lower turns into $600.

 

[mavracer]

Ash that's the real problem they multiply like that, build a second upper for one lower then, shoot I'll just get another lower and before you know it you have a dozen.

 

[B2Tall]

Depends on the lower. Some people want fine triggers and nice stocks. That $150 blemished PSA lower turns into $600.

I only need 2 lowers because I only need 2 configurations - a pistol and a rifle. In my case, adding more lowers would only be a redundant cost whose only justification would be a minor convenience (i.e. not spending less than a minute swapping uppers). I don't need different grips, triggers, or stocks outside of what I already have on my 2 lowers. Also, the lower is what is considered the "firearm". Everything else - including uppers - is just a "part" and therefore unregulated by the government and doesn't have the associated strings attached.

With my pistol lower (that I'll SBR in the near future) I can switch to any one of 3 calibers that I own in less than a minute (5.56, .300 BLK, .458 SOCOM) while still having just one "firearm".

With my rifle lower I can switch between my 16" "tactical" upper or my full-size 20" heavy-barrel upper.

 

[cfullgraf]

My first firearm with interchangeable barrels was a Contender. Swapping barrels, although not really difficult became tedious and I bought a frame for each barrel that I had.

So, when I got into AR-15s, there was no consideration of swapping uppers on a single lower. Besides, I then have the opportunity to try new AR-15 stuff.

Future regulations, events, supply, and/or finances might change the economics enough to make it not feasible to have one lower for each upper.

 

[verge]

The multiple upper argument to me falls pretty flat. The upper is the expensive part, the lower contributes the smallest amount to the overall cost. Since the lower is cheapest, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a guy would have only one lower and a bunch of uppers. That means you only have one gun. With a bunch of uppers, it would make sense to have an equal number of lowers. If we were in turn-of-the-twentieth-century-Germany that taxed number of guns owned, leading to the drilling, or if the lower ate up the lion's share of the cost, then it might make sense to brag about multiple uppers being able to be used.

Otherwise, have a lower for ever upper.

Having a single lower designated as an SBR with an after market trigger allows you to run any upper you want without committing a felony, waiting months for approval, paying multiple $200 fees for a tax stamp or buying multiple $300 triggers. You just really cannot do that with any other platform.

I have more than one lower but I have more uppers than lowers because of the afore mentioned considerations.

 

[justice06rr]

The multiple upper argument to me falls pretty flat. The upper is the expensive part, the lower contributes the smallest amount to the overall cost. Since the lower is cheapest, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a guy would have only one lower and a bunch of uppers. That means you only have one gun. With a bunch of uppers, it would make sense to have an equal number of lowers. If we were in turn-of-the-twentieth-century-Germany that taxed number of guns owned, leading to the drilling, or if the lower ate up the lion's share of the cost, then it might make sense to brag about multiple uppers being able to be used.

Otherwise, have a lower for ever upper.

It doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't fit your needs or applications.

For a person on a tight budget, or someone who has a NFA lower (SBR, Select Fire) it makes complete sense.

Sure, most extra uppers eventually turn into complete rifles anyway, but not always. Lets say you have 2 lowers: one SBR and one standard lower (both multical). You can have calibers in 22lr, 5.56, 7.62x39, 300BLK etc if you wanted to shoot other calibers. Also allows you to build uppers with less than 16" barrel if you have an SBR lower e.g. 8.5" 300BLK and 12" 5.56NATO mated with your SBR lower.

 

[A Pause for the Coz]

I have one AK that sits in the safe. I shoot my SKS more, as it is more accurate.

I have 4 AR's that get the snot shot out of them. That includes a AR 10 in 308 win.
Indecently, building a rifle length upper with a 1- 12 twist. Really allows you to get the most out of all the cheap 55 gr 5.56 ammo out there.
A 55gr lead core FMJ shot out of that rifle will penetrate steel body armor plates while 62gr steel core (green tips) shot out of ether carbine length or rifle length will not. Its all about SPEED.

When you go back to the master piece MR Stoner came up with. The differences widen substantially. Guy was a friggin genius.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

AR's are fun to shoot. I don't care if you like the 556 or not, it's fun to shoot. And cheap.

 

[Robert]

A 55gr lead core FMJ shot out of that rifle will penetrate steel body armor plates

No, no it won't. A 55gr FMJ lead core bullet will not penetrate steel armor plate. It will penetrate mild steel but it will not penetrate hardened body armor steel plate.

Do you have some kind of proof?

 

[Thermactor]

Robert:
Sounds like a case of being convinced by YouTube clickbaiters firing hot (think IMI) M193 point blank out of 20"+ barrels at cheap mild steel.

 

[OilyPablo]

I am still amazed at the end of a stressful caffeine filled day and my aging tired eyes I can pick up 6.8 AR with open sights and almost effortlessly shoot a row of clay pigeons at 110 yards. I have other rifles I can do the same but seems to take more concentration.

 

[benEzra]

Sounds like a case of being convinced by YouTube clickbaiters firing hot (think IMI) M193 point blank out of 20"+ barrels at cheap mild steel.

Out of a 22" barrel, M193 lead-core FMJ can penetrate NIJ III (but not III+) AR-500 if the distance is only a few yards. M855 will not.



The velocity at the plate in that video is about 3240 ft/sec from a 22" barreled bolt-action. It has been said that 55gr FMJ will sometimes slip through AR500 at across-the-room distance from a 20" barrel also, but I haven't seen that demonstrated. By all accounts M193 will *not* penetrate NIJ III AR500 from a 16" barrel or beyond in-the-home distances, and M855 will not penetrate from a 22" barrel even at across-the-room distance (as shown in that same video above).

Basically, it boils down to whether the NIJ III plate in question was designed to simply meet the NIJ III standard (steel-jacketed .308 at 2600-ish ft/sec) or whether it has enough margin to stop a smaller, softer, but much-faster bullet also. It's a good argument for spec'ing NIJ III+ in place of NIJ III, IMO.

 

[dakota1911]

Hickock45 had a comparison of a shotgun with an AR (223/556) for home defense that is interesting.

 

[C-grunt]

AKs might be able to keep up with an AR/M16 at 100 yards but when you stretch that out to 300 or 500 yards the difference is significant.

Also 7.62x39 nor 5.45x39 are ballistically better than 5.56. 7.62 does have more penetration but it's terminal ballistics with FMJ is actually not that great. It has late yaw any doesn't fragment.

If I were stuck using an AK in combat I would prefer a 74 for the flatter trajectory and range. Though I'd take an AR any day of the week.

 

[Blade First]

"Don't have some disorder where I am obsessed with swaps or kits or bolting stuff onto a main item." -- Hookeye

Must be a lot of fun having a beer with you...

 

[Hookeye]

Quite a few people think so

Of course, my buds and I are kinda picky about our beer drinking associates.

Invite only, rules are: thick skin, pro gun, conservative, damn funny.

And don't bring crappy beer.

 

[Hookeye]

BTW, I hunt deer sometimes with a Contender carbine.
No extra barrels.
Just two more Contenders set up for specific purposes.

I've slapped together several AR's. Sold my last one to my hunting bud, it's his coyote rifle (Stag upper and lower).
Figured with the nonsense I proly needed one.........so Frankensteined one on the cheap.

 

[Blade First]

"I consider AR's to be adult tinkertoys.....easily "customized" by people of limited understanding/skill."

Alas, ignorance comes in many forms.

"BTW, I hunt deer sometimes with a Contender carbine. No extra barrels."

What's your point exactly? That you're the kind of guy who would cruise his '63 Beetle on the autobahn between Hamburg and Berlin and give the one-finger salute to every BMW or Mercedes that blew your wing-window closed?

"I've slapped together several AR's."

Likely one of your more accurate comments on this thread.

Flexibility, curiosity and imagination seem to be traits you hold in poor regard. Fortunately, *millions* of new AR owners over the last two election cycles disagree with you.

I've shot AR platforms in calibers from .17HMR to .50BMG because defining and building a particular tool for a very specific job is very rewarding.

If you're inclined to a one-trick pony, it makes no difference to me or other modern sporting rifle fans. I'd just ask that you not insult those who don't necessarily agree with your definition of 'crappy beer'.

 

[Robert]

I really don't see that point to leaving this open. Shoot what you like and don't worry about the other guy.