Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by jim in Anchorage, Oct 22, 2014.
Hard to compare the two.
like they both said - mine has been known as remington jammomatic for 40 years AND it also shoots beautiful 3 moa groups from a good rest. OTOH my dpms 308 shot < 1 moa ootb.
cant wait to see what it will do with the new giessele trigger --SWEET
Yep, receiver chatter. The 742's are only good for about 500-1000 rounds. AR's will keep running for tens of thousands. So, to answer the OP's question, longevity, accuracy, ability to free float the barrel, magazine capacity and ergonomics are all things the AR-10 does better than the Remington. The weight of the Remington is listed at 7.5 lbs, so it's not much less than an AR-10, and you get all the other features of the AR. The other thing is a $250 Remington 742 is an old used rifle. To be fair in comparing, look at the price of a new Remington 750 and a new DPMS or ArmaLite AR-10. The Remington will be $800, and something like a DPMS AR-10 starts at around there. $2000 is a fancy new AR-10, and $250 is a beat up old 742. Not an even comparison at all.
Jim, its not inferior. Its kinda an apples to oranges comparison.
Both shoot bullets but each have a different purpose. The AR10 is designed as a tactical/combat rifle with higher capacity. Like to shoot good groups slowly and don't need other accesories, then your rifle is fine. If someone likes to shoot fast and add many accesories to their rifle for other purposes, an AR10 might be a better choice.
Its kinda like comparing a Toyota to a Mercedes; both do the same thing but you pick one based on your needs and budget. Personally I don't have a problem with Toyota's (owned many) but also like some higher-end vehicles.
So, they can sell rifles like ARs made out of recycled aluminum cans for thousands while wood a blued steel is CHEAP because none of the zombie hunters think it's tacticool.
That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. Pistol grips are for pistols.
The parts are stronger, the system runs cleaner, function and DURABILITY is much better.
Try running 100 rounds through the 742 as quickly as possible, and see how far it will get. This means using multiple magazines, of course.
Do the same with the AR10, and I would expect it to fire numerous full magazines without problems, even as it becomes literally smoking-hot.
THERE is where the price difference comes from. The extra money is paid for the capability of a military-type rifle, versus the lighter construction and reduced sustained-fire ability of a sporting rifle.
This is nothing new, and riflemen have been well aware of the difference for many years.
Other than that, not much from a purely target shooting or hunting perspective, but if I were going to storm the beaches of North Korea, I'd take the AR-10.
The bolt lugs chewing up the receivers to the point of being unrepairable in a few hundred rounds is completely unacceptable (every single one has this problem. It's not a matter of if but when it will fail). Rough chambers causing brass to get stuck in the chamber locking up the gun, or sometimes breaking the extractor. Mediocre accuracy, poor triggers, and no bolt hold open on the rifle itself. The thing that gets me is that Remington knew about the issues and kept producing them for 2 decades+.
For sure. I never got the military gun craze.
While an AR10 can be used for hunting, I rather doubt that among the approximately 22 million licensed hunters, AR10s are the rifle of choice.
For shooting a deer it would be a bit foolish to use an AR-10. Would it work? Absolutely. For going into a true battle (non-zombie affair) it would be equally foolish to carry a gun that is known to have serious design flaws that lead to failure. In a zombie battle you could at least bash them with the jammed rifle since they don't fight at a distance.
JIM IN ANCHORAGE, would be to run about 150 rounds through it, shooting at a set of targets perhaps 200 or 250 yards away, under time pressure (let's say, 100 rounds in 3.5 minutes, or 150 rounds in 5 minutes), and keep track of accuracy degradation, failures to to fire/feed/eject. etc.
The test would be expensive, but it would probably be edifying, if the constraints of the test are reasonable and scrupulously observed. I have a feeling that swapping out those 4-round magazines (I hope you have more than one or two) rapidly would be a chore, and I'd expect point of aim to wander as the piece heats up from continuous firing.
I recall, in my (much) younger days, a company that manufactured high(er)-capacity magazines for the various Remington gas auto-loaders. I know of a few (probably 5 or 6) fellow shooters who bought at least one such magazine. I'm not aware of any who bought more. Whether it was the magazine or the rifle that was the weak link in the continuous-fire equation, I do not know. But SOMEthing made it not work.
So, if the 742 is used in the "carried often, shot only when necessary or highly beneficial" role, I guess we're back to comparing a sports coupe to a HMMWV, the outcome of which is at least a knowable as the "Joe Louis vs. Mohammed Ali" theoretical. Interesting pondering, but not really of much real application.
If the intent is to compare the 742 to a piece that was designed from the ground up as a battle implement, I'm not optimistic about the 742's performance.
Take 10 guns of each type and start shooting them to the point that they will no longer function and I believe the AR will win out by a long shot.
The shortcoming of each are well known and I would favor the AR on almost every count.
Neither would be my choice for big bears in the OP's neck of the woods but I wouldn't hesitate to carry the 742's cousin up there.
It's still an '88 Ford Escort though.
My wife's Lexus doesn't do either of those two things any better, but I prefer it over the Ford Escort.
It also had more felt recoil than even my 300 win mag BAR, the AR 10 is a kitten in comparison.
Separate names with a comma.