grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
What would your dream AR15 be? If you could specify anything you wanted from a manufacturer? The only rules are that you must give your reasoning in detail, and it must be within what is technically feasible with today's technology. Here's my idea:
I've built about ten ARs now, and owned a few factory ones as well, and I've recently come to some conclusions about the platform, and how it should be utilized in the future.
First and foremost, I've concluded that the only advantage of the AR over similar "assault rifles" is that it's inherently more accurate. This is due mostly to the DI system. BUT, that system comes at a cost. While the unreliability of the AR is mostly exaggerated, it's still there, especially when you start getting into SBR territory. So rifles like the SCAR and Sig 550 make more sense from a reliability perspective. But, those are 2 MOA guns, whereas the AR, taken to its extreme, can be a .25 MOA gun.
The AR is also fundamentally lighter, or has the potential to be, due to the lack of a piston. But, that is negligible in most cases. So unless you're building a sub 5 pound AR, I don't think you're going to find any potential weight savings to be totally worthwhile in and of themselves. Comparing the SCAR to a similarly outfitted M4, you're looking at maybe a pound difference. Definitely noticeable, but not worth sacrificing reliability just for that weight saving alone.
Thus, I've concluded that the AR as a platform only makes sense if you maximize its accuracy. BUT, the AR15 will never be a long range rifle due to the small caliber. It's not a sniper rifle. So it's role as far as I can see it is to make short range, highly precise shots, while still retaining value as a CQB platform. So it's a way to get more DMR type weapons into a unit without compromising that unit's effectiveness in urbanized areas. An "urban sniper rifle," if you will.
So here's my idea of where AR designs should be going in the future:
1. All ARs should be free floating, and this should really go without saying. Without a free floating barrel, you don't see any benefit whatsoever from the DI system in terms of accuracy. My inclination is towards 15'' handguards because it gives you enough room to mount a short bipod on the end and still get enough room behind it to get a good C clamp grip when shooting offhand.
2. As long as we're free floating, we should just go ahead and make the uppers monolithic. This removes stress from the flange, making the AR truly 100% free floating, just like a bolt gun action. This is actually kind of important when you're talking about loading a bipod, especially if it's far out front in the manner described, which would be especially prone to vertical stringing with a traditional FF tube attached to the barrel nut. The continuous top rail also creates better options for mounting optics, especially once you start talking about night vision stuff. You can mount things further out with less chance of POI shifts.
3. Make stainless barrels standard. Since accuracy is our primary concern, I would opt for 3R polygonal rifling. Depending on caliber, I also think 14-16'' is ideal, because it squeezes most of the juice while still being usable as a carbine. That barrel length is also kind of a sweet spot for the gas system in terms of length vs. reliability. Also, I would make the barrel profiles tapered, so as to balance weight with rigidity and heat tolerance, and come up with a fluting design that maximized rigidity and heat dissipation. I would like a barrel that tapered from the chamber to a .625 gas journal, with no shoulder, then tapered from the gas journal down to .5, with a .625 flare right before the threads to support the muzzle device. For fluting, I would like ball mill dimples that became progressively larger and deeper the further back they went. That way you maximize weight reduction and heat dissipation, while still having more meat at the rear to act as a heat sink (remember the barrel would be tapered).
5. I would like to see a new cartridge developed for it. Essentially, I would want an 80 gr. .22 cal bullet going about 3,000 fps. I would also like to see match grade AP rounds developed for it, with a tungsten core inside a full metal jacket. Not only is this going to give better barrier penetration, but the terminal effect of AP rounds is outstanding if they're designed properly.
6. It will also need an optic that maximizes its dual use philosophy. My goal would be to develop a lightweight 1-6x scope with a front focal plane mil-dot reticle. With simple mil-dots, with no hash marks, the average set of eyeballs should be able to make pretty good use of the reticle at 6x. I've found very limited use with mil dots in 1-4 power scopes because you can't hardly see them at that magnification. I think that a 6x scope is also the minimum that would be useful at 1-2 hundred meters, and a 1-6x scope is still pretty useful as a red dot at low magnification. At 1x, the reticle would be so far zoomed out that it would hardly be noticeable and work much like a simple red dot. I've never used a 1-8x scope because they're horrifically expensive, but I've heard they don't really work well at close range. Does anyone else have experience with them? If so, would you feel comfortable using them inside a building at low magnification, as you would a red dot with both eyes open?
So what would be your ideal future AR15? If you could have anything you wanted, within the parameters of what is technically feasible for intermediate cartridges (let's limit power to say 1500 ft-lbs or so). And you must explain your reasoning in detail! As well as how it would be superior to other intermediate platforms.
I've built about ten ARs now, and owned a few factory ones as well, and I've recently come to some conclusions about the platform, and how it should be utilized in the future.
First and foremost, I've concluded that the only advantage of the AR over similar "assault rifles" is that it's inherently more accurate. This is due mostly to the DI system. BUT, that system comes at a cost. While the unreliability of the AR is mostly exaggerated, it's still there, especially when you start getting into SBR territory. So rifles like the SCAR and Sig 550 make more sense from a reliability perspective. But, those are 2 MOA guns, whereas the AR, taken to its extreme, can be a .25 MOA gun.
The AR is also fundamentally lighter, or has the potential to be, due to the lack of a piston. But, that is negligible in most cases. So unless you're building a sub 5 pound AR, I don't think you're going to find any potential weight savings to be totally worthwhile in and of themselves. Comparing the SCAR to a similarly outfitted M4, you're looking at maybe a pound difference. Definitely noticeable, but not worth sacrificing reliability just for that weight saving alone.
Thus, I've concluded that the AR as a platform only makes sense if you maximize its accuracy. BUT, the AR15 will never be a long range rifle due to the small caliber. It's not a sniper rifle. So it's role as far as I can see it is to make short range, highly precise shots, while still retaining value as a CQB platform. So it's a way to get more DMR type weapons into a unit without compromising that unit's effectiveness in urbanized areas. An "urban sniper rifle," if you will.
So here's my idea of where AR designs should be going in the future:
1. All ARs should be free floating, and this should really go without saying. Without a free floating barrel, you don't see any benefit whatsoever from the DI system in terms of accuracy. My inclination is towards 15'' handguards because it gives you enough room to mount a short bipod on the end and still get enough room behind it to get a good C clamp grip when shooting offhand.
2. As long as we're free floating, we should just go ahead and make the uppers monolithic. This removes stress from the flange, making the AR truly 100% free floating, just like a bolt gun action. This is actually kind of important when you're talking about loading a bipod, especially if it's far out front in the manner described, which would be especially prone to vertical stringing with a traditional FF tube attached to the barrel nut. The continuous top rail also creates better options for mounting optics, especially once you start talking about night vision stuff. You can mount things further out with less chance of POI shifts.
3. Make stainless barrels standard. Since accuracy is our primary concern, I would opt for 3R polygonal rifling. Depending on caliber, I also think 14-16'' is ideal, because it squeezes most of the juice while still being usable as a carbine. That barrel length is also kind of a sweet spot for the gas system in terms of length vs. reliability. Also, I would make the barrel profiles tapered, so as to balance weight with rigidity and heat tolerance, and come up with a fluting design that maximized rigidity and heat dissipation. I would like a barrel that tapered from the chamber to a .625 gas journal, with no shoulder, then tapered from the gas journal down to .5, with a .625 flare right before the threads to support the muzzle device. For fluting, I would like ball mill dimples that became progressively larger and deeper the further back they went. That way you maximize weight reduction and heat dissipation, while still having more meat at the rear to act as a heat sink (remember the barrel would be tapered).
5. I would like to see a new cartridge developed for it. Essentially, I would want an 80 gr. .22 cal bullet going about 3,000 fps. I would also like to see match grade AP rounds developed for it, with a tungsten core inside a full metal jacket. Not only is this going to give better barrier penetration, but the terminal effect of AP rounds is outstanding if they're designed properly.
6. It will also need an optic that maximizes its dual use philosophy. My goal would be to develop a lightweight 1-6x scope with a front focal plane mil-dot reticle. With simple mil-dots, with no hash marks, the average set of eyeballs should be able to make pretty good use of the reticle at 6x. I've found very limited use with mil dots in 1-4 power scopes because you can't hardly see them at that magnification. I think that a 6x scope is also the minimum that would be useful at 1-2 hundred meters, and a 1-6x scope is still pretty useful as a red dot at low magnification. At 1x, the reticle would be so far zoomed out that it would hardly be noticeable and work much like a simple red dot. I've never used a 1-8x scope because they're horrifically expensive, but I've heard they don't really work well at close range. Does anyone else have experience with them? If so, would you feel comfortable using them inside a building at low magnification, as you would a red dot with both eyes open?
So what would be your ideal future AR15? If you could have anything you wanted, within the parameters of what is technically feasible for intermediate cartridges (let's limit power to say 1500 ft-lbs or so). And you must explain your reasoning in detail! As well as how it would be superior to other intermediate platforms.
