Will the AR ever have competition?

[Arkansas Paul]

It is inevitable that everything will eventually be replaced by something else.

However with the AR, as has already been said, it will be a long time and even after the military has replaced it, there will be millions still around.

So will something newer eventually be the thing for the military? Sure.
But ARs aren't going anywhere. Maybe ever.

 

[taliv]

oh, i certainly think ARs will be around for the next 100 years. but that wasn't the question. the question in the thread title is "will they have competition"

 

[Warp]

Well I just read where the Ak-47 is beginning to outsell the AR-15 and is, in fact, displacing the AR as America's trendy rifle.

I suggest not believing anything that you read from whatever laughable source that was

 

[dogtown tom]

Warp Quote:

Originally Posted by coondogger View Post
Well I just read where the Ak-47 is beginning to outsell the AR-15 and is, in fact, displacing the AR as America's trendy rifle.

I suggest not believing anything that you read from whatever laughable source that was

+1
I transfer fifty AR15's for every AK......and that's complete rifles.
If were talking about AR vs AK receivers it's 500:1

 

[v35]

Well I just read where the Ak-47 is beginning to outsell the AR-15 and is, in fact, displacing the AR as America's trendy rifle.

As Maxwell Smart said "I find that hard to believe". Trendy? Perhaps, but like fashion, flings like that tend to come and go very quickly.

I was under the impression that they are being made (or will soon be made) in the USA though: http://www.kalashnikov-usa.com

Unless they can be manufactured and sold at prices considerably below the ubiquitous AR, which seems extremely unlikely given the fact they're wildly popular and inexpensive, the AK isn't going to displace the AR any time soon.

 

[ttarp]

I'd say no, there is almost a cult like quality to the ar community that I don't think any new designs will be able to incite. Similar to the 1911, it has its pros and cons, but its a timeless design.

 

[ericuda]

For the out of the box plinkers to the custom ar's I don't see any competition. No other platform besides the 10/22 since the 80's has been available for the "common" man to make his own.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Not until the Army settles on a different service rifle, which they're not going to do unless there's a high-intensity war. There's a good reason to think the day for those has passed.

Then, if you throw a whole decade-plus at working out the kinks in that design, before saturating it throughout the media and the public conscience as "the gun the pros use", releasing all the technical specs, and having it commodified by two dozen different manufacturers until prices hit their absolute floor, you'll have a replacement for the AR.

As it stands now, small arms are really just "six of one, half a dozen of the other". The technology is very mature and any design changes you make are really just tradeoffs instead of improvements. In that regard, the AR is just as good as anything else, and no rifle is even going to come close to beating it for cost or market support. Especially the former - it seems like the AR floodgates really opened when the price fell.

It makes me wonder - if there was a DPMS Tavor selling for $500 at every sporting goods store in America, what would the public's reaction to that be?

 

[kozak6]

For something to surpass the AR-15, it will need to be significantly cheaper to produce, not too far off in quality, and must hit the market in large enough numbers to displace the AR-15. Otherwise, it won't be able to get the traction to displace it. This means another public domain design, or a manufacturer like Ruger with the muscle to get it out there.

The AR-15 is only popular because any machine shop with spare CNC capacity can crank them out, resulting in competition and lower prices.

Compare this to the M14, for example.

 

[taliv]

no i think the AR is popular because it's accurate and ergnomic; it's much easier to get hits on targets fast, and you can carry a lot of rounds. so the people everyone respects use them. half the people using AKs/etc don't even have indoor plumbing.

the rest of the stuff about machining and cost is just icing on the cake.

so for something to surpass the AR, it needs to be more accurate and easier to use and faster to get hits on targets. there is a LOT of room for improvement there.

 

[W.E.G.]

The basic foot soldier mostly needs a dependable rifle that can make a 50-yard shot at moving target. There is room for developing a better aiming apparatus. The current one already costs double the cost of the rifle it is attached to.

 

[Browning]

The M-16 and the AR will probably end up being like America's Brown Bess and for the same reasons. History has a way of repeating itself.

British Land Pattern Musket (Brown Bess) - 1722 to 1838 (*Click*)

Think about how many successive familial and social generations 116 years are, especially at that point in history due to an individual's average lifespan. 4 generations? 5? That rifle's time in service was forever. Great grandsons and great, great grandsons using the same model (with some improvements - flintlock to percussion cap) that their great grandfather and great, great grandfather used. The M-16 is at 53 years and climbing. Soldiers now using the same improved design that their grandfathers used.

A British soldier could have seen action in the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727–1729 and then (he himself or) his son or nephew could have been in battle with the same rifle or one exactly like it in the Jacobite rising of 1745. 93 years after its adoption a male member of the same family could've carried a Brown Bess at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. When it wasn't being used in battle it was often used to protect the home or out getting game. Starting to see the same thing with the M-16. Grandfathers in Vietnam, sons in Panama or the Persian Gulf and grandsons in Afghanistan and Iraq. When they get home it's pretty common to get a semi version of what they had.

To some degree from a technology standpoint the M-16 and its variants and the civilian AR kind of mirror the Brown Bess and its place in the military and society. The Bess wasn't replaced for so long for a few different reasons. There were huge numbers of them. The troops and some of the populace were intimately familiar with them since they'd been used for so long. And as far as the technology went there really wasn't anything better on the horizon. If it was better it wasn't by much and usually presented some drawbacks. Sound familiar?

Like the M-16 there were continual improvements to the Brown Bess as needed. Iron ramrod instead of a wooden one, shorter barrels (less weight to carry and which didn't detract from accuracy), notched rear sight (previous models had no rear sight at all), spring catch to prevent the bayonet from slipping down the barrel, a different shape trigger guard (ease of manufacture) and eventually a percussion lock for more reliable ignition (especially when wet). The M-16 has had upgrades throughout the same way. Chrome lining, faster twist rates, forward assist and so on.

What finally led to the adoption of something else instead of remaining with the British Land Pattern Musket was actually the invention of a new projectile that solved the fouling problem associated with rifles, the Minie Ball.

Currently since the new rifle designs that are coming up don't really provide anything that the M-16/M-4 can't do there's not much reason to go through the astronomical expense, hassle and training that adopting a new arm would entail.

Like the Brown Bess the M-16 has been around for awhile (53 years and a few generations) and if any new arm is eventually adopted by the US Armed Forces I imagine that it would probably be for the same reasons, the new rifle significantly outperforms the M-16/M-4.

Someone else mentioned guided mini-missles and electronic guided optics.

Think something similar to the Tracking-Point integrated guided rifle optic, but an optic that's less vulnerable to being hacked and that works with guided munitions.

From a civilian perspective the munitions wouldn't likely be legal to own by the average individual. The optics are cost prohibitive for almost everyone but the super rich.

It took a long time for the AR-15 to gain the acceptance it has and that's only really happened since 2004 and the end of the 'Assault Weapons Ban'.

Even as recently as the 70's, 80's and 90's if the occasional shooter had a semi-auto rifle it was more likely to be one of an array of different rifles like a Mini-14, an M1 Carbine, an M1 Garand or a Rem 7400. I'd venture to say that most shooters generally didn't have mag-fed semi auto rifles. Wasn't really a thing. 3-gun competition wasn't around and the only sort of competition that was around back then were service rifle competition.

At any rate in my mind there are some parallels between the Brown Bess and the M-16/AR-15. Sure, there will be alternatives to the AR in the civilian world as there are always those who want to be different even if there isn't much real advantage. Not any real competition though. For the Military the M-16/M-4 isn't getting replaced until there are actually some real measurable advantages. Right now I'm not seeing any advantage and apparently neither is the military.

 

[tarosean]

Quote:
Originally

Posted by coondogger:
Well I just read where the Ak-47 is beginning to outsell the AR-15 and is, in fact, displacing the AR as America's trendy rifle.

I suggest not believing anything that you read from whatever laughable source that was

Im guessing it was found on AK47.com or similar.

As for competition??

In about 1 year from now, we may just have a "new kid on the block" as a work around to our wonderful governments asinine ideas that appearances make the gun deadlier..:banghead:

 

[The Sarge]

Well the AK is now being produced here in the States. PSA has their PSAK47 so forth. Also many AK "build parties" going on across the country with components now being easier to source versus all AK parts coming from overseas.
Do I see the USA Made AK's outselling the AR-15? Nope. But I have built a few AK with all US parts in the past year or so and they are fine weapons. CHEAP ammo.

 

[entropy]

In the US? no. Worldwide? You should be asking, "Will the AK ever have any competition?"

 

[Art Eatman]

entropy, I'd bet that most of those AKs were given to rebels and revolutionaries during the Cold War era. Not what I'd call free-market sales for money.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

AR's, this too shall pass......

 

[entropy]

entropy, I'd bet that most of those AKs were given to rebels and revolutionaries during the Cold War era. Not what I'd call free-market sales for money.

I'm in total agreement. However, now that those (and many more since 1990) are floating around the world, they will be cheap to acquire and adequate for the intended uses.

There are over 100 million of them out there, around eight times as many as there are of the AR/M16/4's.


The Sarge: CHEAP ammo. ??? Same price as steel cased .223 or 5.56, often to the penny. The brass reloadable stuff is much more expensive than .223 brass loads.

 

[Bill4282]

I'll keep my phaser and sonic-wave grenades. AR is so 20th century

SgtUSMC, Viet Vet (in country), AmLegion, VFW, LifeNRA, DAV

 

[barnbwt]

The unique quality of the AR's 'lower' being defined it's 'receiver' per the NFA unlike every other competing platform is one reason it will be a tough act to follow. It'll be hard for anything else to claim the shear variety of configurations (not just caliber/barrel/furniture swaps) simply due to the law (and the ATF will never make that mistake again)

I do, however, predict the military (maybe not 'our' military, necessarily) or civvie market will inevitably trend toward a platform that bridges the gap between AR15 and AR10. Upper receiver will contain the front end of the mag well, thus allowing the magwell length to float with this portion of the receiver (becomes even more obvious when considering cylindrical 'telescoped' ammunition concepts, that mag width is not nearly as limiting a factor as size for ultimate flexibility). Barrel will have to be quick changeable, or at least a simpler procedure than the AR, simply because the upper will be the regulated part (so it won't cost 40$ by itself). Stock will thread into the back of the upper, which will be doubled-pinned to a flat-topped lower/FCG unit (as the AR should have been designed all along). Barrel extension & BCG size could float with the upper as required for pistol, intermediate, and high power cartridges, potentially with adapters that allow smaller sizes to be used in larger for cheapskate customers. Full length rail/charging handle tunnel up top can be replaced to accommodate swappable gas/buffer/charging handle configurations freely.

Personally, I'd be happy with a more CZ805/G36-ey layout (like, literally a G36 with extruded aluminum receiver ), with modular mag-block and a basically tubular receiver, but I think is probably too practical in the end for a market that likes to be able to tweak as many aspects of the gun as possible (modularity seems to be taking priority over function, since everyone claims to sell a better bolt-on mousetrap)

TCB

 

[theotherwaldo]

Of course the AR has competition - itself.
Almost every year since its inception the AR has been replaced by its biggest opponent - the NEW AR. The original 1950s products may share some components with the many current products but the divergence is tremendous.

Calibers, operating systems, stocks, non-metal receivers, sights, even pistol versions and other variations lead us farther and farther from the design that was first visualized around the time of my birth.

Your AR may be a 25-pound, .50 caliber bolt action. Mine may be an M-Forgery or a .22 pistol.

Are they all really the same weapon?

 

[444]

It is my opinion that the AR15 chugged along for many years but only really gained it's current level of acceptance within the last 10 years. If you have been around the online gun forum scene for awhile I think you will tend to agree with me. FWIW: I bought my first AR15 in 1981 and have owned at least one since then. I was a fan of the AR15 long before it was cool.

Recently (within the last week), I was searching for some loading data that I posted about a LONG time ago. I ended up bringing up all the previous threads I had posted in and got a lot of laughs at some of the old threads. For years issues of reliability which stemmed from the problems encountered in the early years of the Vietnam war were still being discussed. People still believed that military rifles such as the M14 and the 1903 were more accurate as-issued rifles than the M16. There used to be all kinds of discussions about terminal ballistics of the 5.56 cartridge..................... I think this present never ending war we are fighting had a lot to do with putting all this BS to rest.


Someone mentioned AK build parties. I went to a couple AK build parties about 10 years ago. Building an AK is much more difficult than home building an AR. This is just one more reason why the AR is king. You can build them yourself. You can modify them yourself into whatever configuration you want............. and end up with a rifle that is every bit as good as you can buy.....anywhere from anybody.

So to answer your question: no. It won't have any competition in the foreseeable future.

 

[armoredman]

May I pose a question to those who keep saying the government will invent something better - how many military rifles adopted in the US were designed by government employees? No fair listing Carbine Williams - inmate labor doesn't count.

Not liking or using it will be akin to not having rubber tires on your car or not using binoculars. Good luck with that.

Emphasis added - you made such good points right up to that point. I don't like them and I don't use one. Last AR pattern rifle I fired was an M16A1 in 1984 with an Army Reserve unit. Didn't like it. I've owned/shot AKs, Minis, vz-58s, and the current czoice is a CZ BREN 805. Doesn't mean that the AR has "competition", just means that I like other rifles that function just fine for me. Diversity - it's not just a leftist buzzword.
The AR-15 rifle has been in production for civilian consumption for over 50 years. I would be absolutely stunned if, barring draconian governmental action, that doesn't continue for at least as long, and even when the Phased Plasma Rifle debuts in a 30 and 40 megwatt range, it will have an AR style lower receiver.

 

[Jeff H]

For something to surpass the AR-15, it will need to be significantly cheaper to produce, not too far off in quality,

It is going to be pretty hard to be significantly cheaper than the $45.00 stripped lowers you can find these days.

 

[macgrumpy]

It's hard to beat the modularity and intrinsic accuracy of the AR platform. The only areas that people will argue over is the gas system so I'd suspect that the only real change we might see will be in that area but the rifle overall will probably stay the same for decades.

That being said, I don't own one and probably wont unless I get my hands on a .308 (preferably a SCAR) or 300 Blackout. I spent over 20 years in the military and used the M16 style rifles enough to know them well and while I like certain things about them I still prefer a .30 caliber of some kind.

By the way it's killing me so I have to make a comment. Your statement:

Undoubtedly, the AR is most popular modern sporting rifle...

is a commonly quoted propaganda statement created by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) in order to counter anti-gun groups. The term "Modern Sporting Rifle" was created by the NSSF to define the AR platform so yes, since a Modern Sporting Rifle is by definition an AR, it's obvious that the AR would be the most popular Modern Sporting Rifle. In reality the most common sporting rifle (as opposed to just a modern sporting rifle) is the Remington 700 style rifles.