What other semi-auto would you trade your AR15 for?

Status
Not open for further replies.
what rifle would I trade AN AR15 for?
(because I would not trade an AR away if I didn't have a 2nd one around somewhere)

Garand or M1A.

Why? I like them as much as I like the AR platform, I'm not afraid of the additional weight, no matter any other arguments about the effectiveness of .223/5.56 (and it is plenty effective) 30-06 and .308 are just a bit more "authoritative", and something in my soul likes the look of steel and wood.
 
A B.A.R...the old kind...if the offer came up. I might even throw my other AR in for that one.
Even if it is only semi auto.
 
Started off my education with the Garand, then M14, then purchased an HK91.

Moving your trigger finger to cycle or feed the action? Inferior.
No bolt hold open to freely insert a magazine and then chamber the round? Inferior.
Off hand manipulation of the mag catch which slows the withdrawal of a new mag and it's insertion? Inferior.
Piston mounted on the barrel which has been shown to bend it while cycling and create more barrel harmonics? Inferior.
Barrel pressed or welded into a receiver that makes it unrepairable? Inferior.
Gas piston action that adds complexity, weighs more, is harder to access, requires just as much cleaning,and can hang up on cover? Inferior.
Propriety scope mounts that only work on that one weapon? Inferior.
Heavy steel receivers and components that limit the overall load out of ammo? Inferior.
Single caliber selection because the aftermarket doesn't support alternatives? Inferior.
Non ambidextrous charging? Inferior.
Fixed stock length regardless of season or equipment? Inferior.
Hard to access mag well that requires breaking cheek weld to see? Inferior.
Folding stock which must be deployed to shoot accurately and may even be required to get the firearm into action? Inferior.
Foreign make with a distinct single source of parts for repair? Inferior.
New design with no documentable improvements in field results, that costs twice as much, and dropped like a hot cake by the requesting elite unit after extensive testing in combat? Inferior.

Somebody please point out what other gun would I want to trade for that does everything the AR does right, and then adds even more? No C&R collectible can.

The Armed Forces of America hasn't seen a better rifle yet, and they've spent a lot of money looking for it. So far, new battle rifles all plainly copy most of the features of the AR. They add some older retro tech to appeal to old schoolers, and don't do anything better. That's because it's really just a bullet launcher, and after centuries of development, we finally got it right despite all wrong things it's been accused.

I would suggest John Moses Browning needs to vacate his seat at the right hand and let Eugene Stoner take his anointed place. :D
 
Not to mention, those that primarily use foreign made ammunition that can be cut off at almost any time...

I'd also call that inferior.

And those that use proprietary parts that can only be had from one manufacturer, period, end of discussion.

Meanwhile, if you need a new extractor or firing pin for your AR, you can find one almost anywhere.

Even if the AR isn't the best in every category, it's very hard to find something that's a better overall package.
 
I would happily trade my AR for for a Beretta ARX.

That Beretta seems like the Glock of ARs to me. Grandpa's stoner needed a true upgrade.
 
I would suggest John Moses Browning needs to vacate his seat at the right hand and let Eugene Stoner take his anointed place.
Click to expand...

The M16/M4/AR15 has been in service a long time, but I wouldn't go that far. Browning's M2 was designed in 1918 and is still in service, all over the world not just with the US, and remains almost unchanged. Some parts of the US military still use the 1911 as well.
 
If I had a spare AR, I'd think about trading for something I found interesting. If I didn't have a spare AR, I'd trade the AK to get one.

Wouldn't trade for a Keltec SU16. A friend had one. He brought it along on one of our shooting trips where we each put several hundred rounds downrange, matching each other mag for mag. It broke the receiver of his SU16 and Keltec had to send him a replacement
 
"how about a vz-58? has anybody mentioned that one yet?"
Probably not, it always seems to be forgotten. The VZ is pretty much the zenith of what we've achieved on the machined steel receiver front, in my opinion. It's shorter, lighter, simpler, and easier to service than an AK, while maintaining superior ergonomics (if not grip size :D). The belt fed version, the UK59, is still chugging strong where it is in use.

"The Armed Forces of America hasn't seen a better rifle yet, and they've spent a lot of money looking for it. So far, new battle rifles all plainly copy most of the features of the AR. They add some older retro tech to appeal to old schoolers, and don't do anything better. That's because it's really just a bullet launcher, and after centuries of development, we finally got it right despite all wrong things it's been accused."
1) If you look at the autoloading service arms the world over for the last 100 years, the AR stands out as one of the funkier designs --not saying that's bad, just that rotating, tilting, or delayed blowback designs are far, far more common in more places over greater time spans. Most of that time span has been spent by us once more re-perfecting --again-- the AR platform (once and for all)
2) The AR bolt head concept has certainly swept the world with its brilliant design, allowing for modularity and compactitude simultaneously. But the gas system is rapidly being abandoned in new designs for gas piston setups, short and long stroke, which eliminate the buffer tube nonsense, and plastic clamshell-style monolithic receivers with swappable barrels rather than uppers/lowers which offer (mostly) false economy when it comes to modularity. The ARX160, BREN 805, SCAR, G36, and I think a few others seem to be coalescing around a very similar theme (that theme being the G36 :D). I'm not familiar with those enough to speak to whether the AR15/M16 FCG is gaining or losing popularity in this next generation
3) In the end, it doesn't really matter since we/the world at large are in no mood for paying for new kit these days ;)

TCB

"I would suggest John Moses Browning needs to vacate his seat at the right hand and let Eugene Stoner take his anointed place."
HA! :D :D Maybe when he wakes up and designs 1.5 world-dominating pistol designs used for a solid century, a leading shotgun layout used for a century, a pump shotgun design that is used to this day, several of our heavy weapons platforms used to this day, and collaborated with foreign and domestic interests to spread his genius worldwide and elevate other talent the likes of Saive and Pedersen. Stoner was brilliant, but he had one fantastic idea, that being the barrel extension concept, and a good head for applying it to all sorts of manufacturing processes the Feds wanted it tailored to (aerospace, automotive, etc). He hardly created entire genres of firearms from whole cloth (granted, that was easier to do in Browning's day since precision machinery had just come into its maturity). I'd rank him with Martini or Peabody, who each designed very successful service rifle actions that remained in triumphant use for many years and provided the inspiration for further improvement of tilting/falling block actions like the Madsen LMG
 
Last edited:
Funny that someone mentioned the VZ.58 just as I was reading through this for the first time. It did pop in my head, but I dismissed the idea shortly after.

My hypothetical pick, a CZ 805, preferably in 6.8 SPC, and I will throw my VZ on the pile in trade too. :evil:

Would probably start building another AR though.;)
 
If you like the AK then the SKS should make you happy too. Of course I wouldn't trade straight up for one. I'd get a good bit extra if someone wanted to trade me an SKS for an AR. Like maybe 1000 rounds of ammo.

Then there are the Saiga's. The price has gone up but they are still cheaper than an AR for what you get.

Actually there are quite a few semi-autos around that will get the job done and remain rock solid without a lot of TLC. My SKS has been super reliable over 20+ years. I couldn't even get the gas tube off that Norinco for over 5 years. It shot thousands of rounds of ammo during that time and never gave me a bit of trouble. They rarely do for any reason.
 
I wouldn't. If I could only have 1 semi rifle or 1 type, it would definitely be an AR. That said, I love my Garand and M1 carbine and would like an AK.
 
barnbwt said:
"how about a vz-58? has anybody mentioned that one yet?"
Probably not, it always seems to be forgotten. The VZ is pretty much the zenith of what we've achieved on the machined steel receiver front, in my opinion. It's shorter, lighter, simpler, and easier to service than an AK, while maintaining superior ergonomics (if not grip size :D). The belt fed version, the UK59, is still chugging strong where it is in use.

"The Armed Forces of America hasn't seen a better rifle yet, and they've spent a lot of money looking for it. So far, new battle rifles all plainly copy most of the features of the AR. They add some older retro tech to appeal to old schoolers, and don't do anything better. That's because it's really just a bullet launcher, and after centuries of development, we finally got it right despite all wrong things it's been accused."
1) If you look at the autoloading service arms the world over for the last 100 years, the AR stands out as one of the funkier designs --not saying that's bad, just that rotating, tilting, or delayed blowback designs are far, far more common in more places over greater time spans. Most of that time span has been spent by us once more re-perfecting --again-- the AR platform (once and for all)
2) The AR bolt head concept has certainly swept the world with its brilliant design, allowing for modularity and compactitude simultaneously. But the gas system is rapidly being abandoned in new designs for gas piston setups, short and long stroke, which eliminate the buffer tube nonsense, and plastic clamshell-style monolithic receivers with swappable barrels rather than uppers/lowers which offer (mostly) false economy when it comes to modularity. The ARX160, BREN 805, SCAR, G36, and I think a few others seem to be coalescing around a very similar theme (that theme being the G36 :D). I'm not familiar with those enough to speak to whether the AR15/M16 FCG is gaining or losing popularity in this next generation
3) In the end, it doesn't really matter since we/the world at large are in no mood for paying for new kit these days ;)

TCB

"I would suggest John Moses Browning needs to vacate his seat at the right hand and let Eugene Stoner take his anointed place."
HA! :D :D Maybe when he wakes up and designs 1.5 world-dominating pistol designs used for a solid century, a leading shotgun layout used for a century, a pump shotgun design that is used to this day, several of our heavy weapons platforms used to this day, and collaborated with foreign and domestic interests to spread his genius worldwide and elevate other talent the likes of Saive and Pedersen. Stoner was brilliant, but he had one fantastic idea, that being the barrel extension concept, and a good head for applying it to all sorts of manufacturing processes the Feds wanted it tailored to (aerospace, automotive, etc). He hardly created entire genres of firearms from whole cloth (granted, that was easier to do in Browning's day since precision machinery had just come into its maturity). I'd rank him with Martini or Peabody, who each designed very successful service rifle actions that remained in triumphant use for many years and provided the inspiration for further improvement of tilting/falling block actions like the Madsen LMG
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I must remind you the AR is a “rotating” design as it has a rotating bolt. It is certainly not “funky”. It is without a doubt the most “flexible” service rifle design ever created. Most of those other rotating, and tilting or delayed blowback designs have been assigned to the scrap-heap of history for something new and improved. Meanwhile the AR design has an inherent flexibility to be continuously improved to accomplish its primary mission and modified for missions never conceived of by its designer. I challenge you to find one post-WWII service rifle design that has been developed to do as many things as well as the AR system. It will not be the M14, FAL, AK, G3, FAMAS, STG57, Enfield or AUG. The reason why we keep “re-perfecting --again” the AR is because it can be. Most of the post-WWII designs have been replaced or reached a development and modification point of diminishing returns. Even the vaunted AK-47 through out its history has been “re-perfected” in design, materials, and caliber. It however has never had the design flexibility of the AR. In fact, despite how much enthusiasts and the Russians boast of its performance, the Russians are trying to replace it. The only other military machine I can immediately think of that has demonstrated a design that has outstanding inherent ability for improvement and modification to do so many things well is the Supermarine Spitfire. Regardless of newer designs not using the DI system or other features of the AR they have yet proved their superiority or supplanted it in numbers used. For all we know they may in a few years be considered just be a temporarily fashionable flash in pan. Of the designs you listed I have yet to see them demonstrate any superiority to my “re-perfected” AR, the KAC SR-15.

I agree with you that JMB should not give up the right hand seat to Eugene Stoner. It is not his to give up. JMB are ready told the World that John Pedersen should occupy that seat. However, neither Browning or Pedersen ever designed a weapon with the design flexibility to do so well at many different missions as Stoner.

There is an old Aviation axiom "The best replacement for a DC-3 is another newer/improved DC-3. Here is one of Nom de Forum's Military Rifle maxims "Currently the best replacement for an AR-15 is another newer/improved AR-15." So I traded my Colt AR-15A2 for a Knights Armament Corporation SR-15. Have fun all you guys beta testing what will most likely not be the replacement for the AR.
 
"Excuse me, but I must remind you the AR is a “rotating” design as it has a rotating bolt. It is certainly not “funky”."
Look at point #2. I said the barrel extension specifically has swept the world over in almost every design case, but the gas tube/key/carrier piston thing has not. The pressurizing of the bolt carrier is undeniably an uncommon (i.e. 'funky') characteristic when practically every other design that's been implemented for any length of time uses external force to drive the carrier back.

"I challenge you to find one post-WWII service rifle design that has been developed to do as many things as well as the AR system. It will not be the M14, FAL, AK, G3, FAMAS, STG57, Enfield or AUG."

Example;
AK dual-lug rotating long/short stroke action. Aside from being the basis of the majority of service rifles for the last century, it has been applied to everything from pistols to belt fed heavy machine guns. Two large lugs require the barrel trunnion area be larger than can be obtained with a Stoner-type lug ring, but tolerances can be a bit looser and construction with machine tools easier. M1 Garand lands solidly here, as does the AR70/SIG550, and even the HK MP7 if you'll 'permit' me to include it by way of it's G36-esque gas system (but AR-style multilug bolt head). IIRC, even the M249 called in to do what the M4 can't uses this system (though is hardly the best execution of it)

BREN rear tilting bolt long stroke action. Again, applied to everything from rifles to heavy belt fed machine guns and anti-tank rifles, numerous variations for different roles, numerous nations arriving at the same solution (Goryunov, for example). Killed due to the need for beefed up long receivers to carry lug load from the rear of the bolt to the barrel trunnion. I suppose you could lump the FAL/FN49/SKS in this category if you look broadly enough.

G3 roller delay. Applied to everything from 9mm MP5s and the PSG1, to the belt fed Amile by CETME. Adopted/developed/stolen by many nations like Switzerland (STGW57, which turned out to be a very nice shooter today :D). Killed by weight required to retard the bolt, even in spite of it being delayed, and by poor design choices by the trail blazing designers at CETME and H&K who made the design much more complicated and unmodifiable than it needed to be. I think history has also shown these designs were also less user friendly than they really needed to be (never get in a thumb wrestling match with a Franco-era Spaniard, German vet, or Swiss reservist)

VZ58 pivoting locking piece. Applied to the VZ58 rifle in x39 and the belt fed x54r UK59. Unique to Czech designs, despite being fixing entirely the shortcomings of a rear tilting bolt system when it comes to receiver complexity, size, and weight. The platforms it's been tried on used expensive machined receivers in Czech tradition rather than cheaper forged trunnions or barrel extensions, which probably is why it hasn't caught on (though the design itself does not require this production method). Alas, I think this action was doomed by bad timing; the late fifties being the time when post war Europe, USSR, and the US had already chosen their infantry arms for the foreseeable future and had no interest in novelty.

Degtyarov. My personal favorite at the moment :D. RPD (x39), DP28/DPM (x54r), DShK (12.7x108mm), and I think there's an even bigger 20mm or grenade launcher out there, too. I'm adapting it the opposite direction for a 7.62x25 carbine. It flares out two flaps on either side of the bolt into receiver recesses. Brilliantly simple, safe, reliable, and easy to make, but has the same receiver-design shortcomings as the tilt bolt setups with their heavy machined parts.

Direct gas impingement. AG-42/Hakim/Rasheed, AR15, MAS49/56 (I think). And I think the AR is unique among them about pressuring the interior of the bolt (I'm honestly not that familiar with these obscure guns, though). Aside from the American development, which had the whole weight of our military complex thrown behind it for 50 straight years, didn't become particularly popular until quite recently when the Euros made their last equipment upgrade (late 80's/90's through the present). A lot of it's increased stature internationally can be explained by the fact it was front and center in two large scale wars for a decade straight, and performed well, which helped increase its market share independent of its excellent record. More though, it is explained by the M4 variant which was demonstrably smaller/lighter than competing platforms at the time. Now that the merits and deficiencies of the M4 are better understood, newer designs seek to capitalize on the compact size and lightweight modularity, while not sacrificing sustained firepower capabilities and (supposedly) increased maintenance (though that's what they back in the 60's about the AR itself :D)

I ain't talkin' smack about your, or any, ARs. This is merely my observation from learning about the operational details of a ton of different platforms both successful and unsuccessful throughout history. Similar to how a roller-locked recoil operated pistol is fairly uncommon in history, so is a rifle which unlocks the bolt via internal pressure. And if the latest crop of designs being pitched is any indication, it will not become increasingly popular in from-scratch design efforts. That was the entirety of my statement.

"Most of the post-WWII designs have been replaced or reached a development and modification point of diminishing returns."
I wouldn't argue the AR design is evolving by 'leaps and bounds' these days either, but then again, no one is ;). I also don't happen to see the AR as being nearly as modular as many make it out to be, which may color my perception of its ongoing 'development' differently (i.e. a 50cal, 5.7x28, pistol blowback, or piston upper are not outgrowths of the AR design in my eyes, but rather independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing)

TCB
*"The only other military machine I can immediately think of that has demonstrated a design that has outstanding inherent ability for improvement and modification to do so many things well is the Supermarine Spitfire."
I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate (if you care to). I know they stopped making them with the more efficient elliptical wings early on due to production difficulties, but that's the extent of my Spitfire configuration history knowledge :eek:
 
Sig 556

I have a couple ARs, AKs a FAL, CETME, but my real go to gun would be either the SIG 556 or (please don't flame me) my Mini 14 B with peep sights. I have the SIG red dot on the 556 and you could say it positively ejects with people at the range dodging spent cases at 30 yards. Really! I like the Mini 14 because it is so reliable (20 years and never a failure to feed or eject) and also I find the buffer noise on the AR to be distracting. I know not a big deal. Some would argue the accuracy of the AR is much better and that may be true but my sig has a 4 mil red dot and I would have a really hard time explaining to the jury why I did not just run away if the threat was farther then 100 yards. for accuracy I am really starting to like my Alexander Arms Grendel but am still learning how to shoot it.
 
I wouldn't argue the AR design is evolving by 'leaps and bounds' these days either, but then again, no one is . I also don't happen to see the AR as being nearly as modular as many make it out to be, which may color my perception of its ongoing 'development' differently (i.e. a 50cal, 5.7x28, pistol blowback, or piston upper are not outgrowths of the AR design in my eyes, but rather independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing)
Click to expand...

I've only got a passing knowledge of most of the other designs you've mentioned, so I'm not really qualified to get in that discussion.

In some ways, I think you're sort of right about the AR. It is flexible in theory, but probably not any more flexible than any other system that uses an upper/lower configuration. Having said that, uppers in .300 BLK, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 458 SOCOM, and .22 LR could add a lot of flexibility. But... who only has one lower and all those different uppers? I'd be inclined to have several different complete rifles.

From my point of view though, the AR is "our" rifle. Any advantages that other designs have are offset by the AR's huge availability of parts and accessories for an AR. If your firing pin breaks on an AR, you can order one from half a dozen places just off the top of your head. You can probably get one at a well-stocked local gun shop just as fast. If your firing pin on a VZ-58 breaks, where do you get a replacement? And if choice number one is sold out, what is choice number 2?

So even though the VZ is a great design with a lot of positive qualities, I'd have a hard time criticizing someone who wouldn't trade an AR for one. It's kind of the same story with a lot of other designs too.
 
Last edited:
Stop it Please

Quit showing photos of the Tavor. My wallet is getting itchy and Momma wont stand for another .223 LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
AR15 vs AK47 vs Mosin Nagant
Replies
2
Views
1K
nalioth
N
S
  • Locked
What kind of Assualt Rifle, Battle rifles do you have?
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Schuey2002
S
someguy2800
  • Locked
Is there a sub moa 5.56 semi auto that isn't an AR15?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
someguy2800
someguy2800
Bobson
  • Locked
  • Poll
AR15 and AK47, or M1A?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
sansone
S
S
  • Locked
What's a Great .223 Semi Auto Rifle.
Replies
6
Views
605
stchman
stchman
Back
Top