Breaking news... Russians think the M16 sucks

[vladtepes 1,060]

Vlad, if it works for you, march on brother. For me Ill choose accuracy and modularity over what I consider a non issue. I havent hit the point that my rifle gums its self to a stop yet but its expected to be around 2000 rounds without lube or cleaning. I dont see a practical benefit to something that can go more. Im not running around with 4000 rounds strapped to my back! So on the topic of modularity, how easily/quickly could you change your AK from this to this?

 

 

 

it is irrelevant to me since I can not afford a rifle at those levels...

but if AI could hypothetically afford that stuff.. with the exception of "upper swaps" since AKs do not have uppers..

not too long..

they make plenty of lightweight durable rail platforms for AKs just like ARs... so if I had the money to invest? it would be as simple as taking the parts off I did not want and putting on the parts on..

 

I have a collapsible stock.. 30 rounds magazines.. a quality light.. and a quality red dot..

 

for me.. that works for what I would use the gun for.. I would never debate that it is more accurate than an AR it is not.. but that accuracy is moot to me in the context of "people shooting"

[HavocMan 13]

If we're gonna go by personnel experience then BOTH fail.

 

I had a Stag that absolutely died on steel cased wolf ammo. It became inoperable due to a stuck case in the chamber. I needed a cleaning rod to punch it out.

I had a GP1975 (AK variant) that absolutely died. Wouldn't feed OR eject ammo. She just wouldn't run. Add to that, the front sight was so canted that even if it did run 100% I would have to use crazy Kentucky windage and hopefully hit my target.

 

Exactly - reliability and accuracy are dependant on what outfit built the guns and what mags and ammo are being used. I'd take a top tier AR over a top tier AK any day.

 

"Top tier AK" ... is that an oxymoron?

 

Just for the record, I own a few examples of each. The AK's heat up much more quickly than the AR's do, so based on that single, simple comparison I prefer the AR system. But that's not the only reason for my personal preferance - not by a long shot.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Exactly - reliability and accuracy are dependant on what outfit built the guns and what mags and ammo are being used. I'd take a top tier AR over a top tier AK any day.

 

"Top tier AK" ... is that an oxymoron?

 

Just for the record, I own a few examples of each. The AK's heat up much more quickly than the AR's do, so based on that single, simple comparison I prefer the AR system. But that's not the only reason for my personal preferance - not by a long shot.

 

how does a "top tier" AR negate the dirty failure I experienced..

it is the nature of the gun.. not the cost of it that creates failure under heavy abuse..

run it dry and dirty enough and it will fail.. sure it might take THOUSANDS of rounds.. but yeah..

[dtown223 12]

If we're gonna go by personnel experience then BOTH fail.

 

I had a Stag that absolutely died on steel cased wolf ammo. It became inoperable due to a stuck case in the chamber. I needed a cleaning rod to punch it out.

I had a GP1975 (AK variant) that absolutely died. Wouldn't feed OR eject ammo. She just wouldn't run. Add to that, the front sight was so canted that even if it did run 100% I would have to use crazy Kentucky windage and hopefully hit my target.

Again, well written, and good side by side comparison, clearly, the answer is..own both!

[HavocMan 13]

Vlad - either system will fail if run dry long enough with cheap, dirty ammo. ...but the AK might catch fire before experiencing any other malf

 

Why would anyone run a gun dry though?

 

Why spend a decent chunk of change on any rifle and then feed it with the cheapest, dirtiest ammo available?

 

Want to see an example of a solid AR? Google "Filthy 14"

[Shane45 807]

Vlad, I understand your points. I was specifically debating the comments by Intercooler that the AK is practical and the AR is not. I think its modularity makes it highly practical.

 

For ME as much as I love red dot sights, the abiility to engage targets at greater distance than 100 yards drives my kit selectionss to focus around magnified optics. Although I might be able to make com hits to 300 with a red dot, I cant do it in all lighting conditions and I surely cant ID the target F or F at those greater distances.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

clearly, the answer own both!

 

Won't argue that. But to say this is better or that is better because X Y Z is stupid. I mean, nobody here is kicking down doors in Iraq or taking 600 yard shots in Afghanistan or serving no knock warrents in Camden. Nobody here is running full auto guns and playing in mud or sand or swamp or whatever.

[dtown223 12]

 

 

Won't argue that. But to say this is better or that is better because X Y Z is stupid. I mean, nobody here is kicking down doors in Iraq or taking 600 yard shots in Afghanistan or serving no knock warrents in Camden. Nobody here is running full auto guns and playing in mud or sand or swamp or whatever.

This..that...all i can do is grin ear to ear, and try and grow my collection!

 

 

[vladtepes 1,060]

Vlad - either system will fail if run dry long enough with cheap, dirty ammo. ...but the AK might catch fire before experiencing any other malf

 

Why would anyone run a gun dry though?

 

because situations do not always occur as best as they should..

and while I do not doubt your words.. I shot the dirtiest of dirt through my AK.. put it in the dirt.. ran pretty much bone dry and it keeps on ticking.. never has the synthetic fire burn or melt..

 

my goals are reliability.. then reliability.. next.. reliability.. then things like accuracy.. mobility.. etc..

because without reliability.. and a shit ton of it.. the rest doesn't really matter much...

 

 

Vlad, I understand your points. I was specifically debating the comments by Intercooler that the AK is practical and the AR is not. I think its modularity makes it highly practical.

 

For ME as much as I love red dot sights, the abiility to engage targets at greater distance than 100 yards drives my kit selectionss to focus around magnified optics. Although I might be able to make com hits to 300 with a red dot, I cant do it in all lighting conditions and I surely cant ID the target F or F at those greater distances.

 

I recently shoot out to around 200 (somewhere between 175 and 200) yards with my Saiga.. and an Aimpoint.. was ringing 12in steel which is a reasonable COM hit IMO..

for a cheap gun.. shooting cheap ammo.. with an unmagnified optic.. I would say that is relatively good..

never shot at paper so they could be hitting all over.. but for my purposes with that weapon a hit is a hit..

 

like I said time and time again.. I have an AR in 308.. I liked it enough to make an AR in 556.. love the gun.. just dont know if I trust it as much as an AK as no real range time with the 556 gun yet..

hopefully it changes my views..

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Is there room for improvement, always. Way better? Im not so sure. In consideration of those at the tip of the spear, look at how many passed on the SCAR to keep their M4. It is my opinion that from a design and engineering standpoint the SCAR is a superior rifle. However, put a teir 1 AR or a SCAR in my hands and well it just simply doesnt seem to matter. I have both and neither has failed me ever. Neither has been cleaned even once since I got them. The sinlgle only FTF I have even had was with the SCAR when some crappy culled cproducts mag made its way back into my range bag instead of under the heal of my boot. That mag did not work in ANYTHING.

 

I think most passed on the SCAR because it too had its drawbacks. I mean, from what I've read, while the SCAR was solid, it wasn't ready for prime time and had issues with the stocks and some issues with canted barrels and such. I don't quite understand this route... giving a rifle to SOCOM guys as your starting point for testing is bound to be a big fail, these guys want the refined finished product, not the work in progress. That being said, ICC will give us something new (I hope), even if it is a piston-driven Colt M4... (which I despise).

[Ray Ray 3,566]

 

I think most passed on the SCAR because it too had its drawbacks. I mean, from what I've read, while the SCAR was solid, it wasn't ready for prime time and had issues with the stocks and some issues with canted barrels and such. I don't quite understand this route... giving a rifle to SOCOM guys as your starting point for testing is bound to be a big fail, these guys want the refined finished product, not the work in progress. That being said, ICC will give us something new (I hope), even if it is a piston-driven Colt M4... (which I despise).

 

No gun is perfect, and if you think the Government is going to find one then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

No gun is perfect, and if you think the Government is going to find one then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

 

Wasn't seeking perfection, just something better than a 50 year old design... Can the Gov't find it? Well, they found the AR-15... 50 years ago...

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Wasn't seeking perfection, just something better than a 50 year old design... Can the Gov't find it? Well, they found the AR-15... 50 years ago...

 

You'll always find something better. Think of it this way, no matter how tough you are there will always be someone tougher.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

You'll always find something better. Think of it this way, no matter how tough you are there will always be someone tougher.

 

Ray, this kind of thinking is counter-productive and essentially follows the flawed mindset: "why fix it if it ain't broken". Except, it is broken, it's always broken. Broken is just a deficiency in capability, an inability to be efficient, and/or a lack of availability. People like you come and go, they're the ones that said:

 

- Why do we need an M-1 Garand? We have the M1903!

- Why do we need an M-14 when we have the Garand!

- Why do we need some Mattel piece of junk AR-15 when we have the M-14?

 

The answer is: something better was found. It offers improved reliability, saves weight, etc.

 

I'm pretty sure, in 2012, we can develop (dare I say, we have developed) a replacement for the AR-15 platform. It's a 50 year old design, with documented deficiencies in combat, documented flaws, and documented reliability issues. It's refined, but that has taken almost a generation to accomplish.

 

Meanwhile we have promising replacements, that can offer more, at lesser weight. To me, these replacements are summed up in two designs: the SCAR and the ACR. Both have flaws, but these flaws are easily remedied. Both offer greater performance, similar accuracy, and no flaw in ergonomics. They both cost roughly the same to produce as an AR-15, and are far less complex (this I know for certain with the ACR). So why not move to these platforms? Cost? HAH! The money wasted on slapping bumper stickers on an M2 Bradley can easily cover the replacement of the M-4/M-16... Training? LOL, if the ergos are the same, then what's the worry?

 

The switch to a new rifle can be relatively painless and shouldn't be a big issue at all. There will be problems at the outset, but if your risks are mitigated properly, then you have nothing to worry about.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

The AR isn't broken though, it works.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The AR isn't broken though, it works.

 

There are plenty who disagree with this assertion. Fact is, it's an old design that has been surpassed by newer ones. Hell, even Ol' Eugene Stoner himself recognized the faults in the AR-15 platform and created the AR-16, which was simpler to manufacture and ran more reliably. This design would better be known as the AR-18. This was partly due to the sale of the AR-15 rights to Colt, but also due to seeking a cheaper way to produce a more reliable, just as accurate, ergonomic rifle as the AR-15.

 

For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 was completely outdone by the AR-18 in design, complexity of manufacture, and reliability, and lives on in many modern rifles... like the G36, XM8, SAR80, ACR, and even the SCAR (to an extent).

[Ray Ray 3,566]

There are plenty who disagree with this assertion. Fact is, it's an old design that has been surpassed by newer ones. Hell, even Ol' Eugene Stoner himself recognized the faults in the AR-15 platform and created the AR-16, which was simpler to manufacture and ran more reliably. This design would better be known as the AR-18. This was partly due to the sale of the AR-15 rights to Colt, but also due to seeking a cheaper way to produce a more reliable, just as accurate, ergonomic rifle as the AR-15.

 

For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 was completely outdone by the AR-18 in design, complexity of manufacture, and reliability, and lives on in many modern rifles... like the G36, XM8, SAR80, ACR, and even the SCAR (to an extent).

 

And there are plenty who think the AK is better, and the M1A is better and the SCAR is better. Nothing is better, just different.

[Vlad G 345]

To me, these replacements are summed up in two designs: the SCAR and the ACR. ... They both cost roughly the same to produce as an AR-15

 

Hmm do they? Cause it sure doesn't seem so. I recall Magpul telling us the Masada was gonna be $1000 and by the time it become the ACR it is 2.5 times that. Sure there are development costs and all that but both the ACR and the SCAR are made by HUGE companies who should be able to absorb the development cost and sell them at some reasonable price if they could be made at a reasonable price. As an example everyone and their grandma is making large pile of new handguns and those also have development costs but they come to market at a reasonable price. Either the manufacturers are expecting to never sell a large number of them and they want to make their money back quick, or they can't make them for the cost of an AR.

 

Ultimately the BIGGEST stopping block to civilian adoption is accessories. As far as I'm concerned, for my needs as a civilian, both the ACR and the SCAR are far less customizable then the AR is, the monolithic upper/handguard is a killer for me, my arms are long. Another big issue is support, I can buy parts for an AR from 100 different manufacturer, I don't depend on one of them going out of business or changing their mind.

 

Seeing for I can make an AR run in ways all of you are telling me is impossible, a theoretical improvement in reliability from a platform with limited support which requires me to shaped 'correctly' based on the designers opinion is not a deal for me. Not to mention for the cost of a SCAR or ACR I can build an incredible AR, including kickass optics.

 

The cold hard truth is that their are not better enough, we are riding the long tail of development, we are only getting very slight improvements of performance at this point, with drawbacks and higher cost. We need a truly revolutionary step in firearm design before we are going to see a new rifle worth buying, at least for my money.

[vladtepes 1,060]

the replacement for the AR15 is a replacement for foot soldiers in general.. things get so far advanced that when it gets to the point we are at (guiding missiles through an open window, unmanned drones, etc..) we should just be getting away from foot soldiers altogether.. I mean I KNOW that there will always be a need for feet on the ground.. but instead of fixing a gun that appears to work OK.. I would rather see a focus on getting troops further away from the action..

[Dan 177]

The only real "revolutionary" advancement that I know of in terms of infantry rifles in the past 20 years would be the Russian AN-94. 2 shot burst with 1 recoil impulse at 1800 rpm. Two rounds, nearly 1 hole with one pull of the trigger. Now that is revolutionary.

 

[Vlad G 345]

The AN-94 was clever except anyone who ever got to see one in person mentioned that they were remarkably unreliable. I don't think they ever got deployed or used by anyone, have they?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

The only real "revolutionary" advancement that I know of in terms of infantry rifles in the past 20 years would be the Russian AN-94. 2 shot burst with 1 recoil impulse at 1800 rpm. Two rounds, nearly 1 hole with one pull of the trigger. Now that is revolutionary.

 

 

The language was pissen me off, ANGLISH PLEASE!

[bbk 188]

Knowing the progress of technology and how adept at cultures are at creating ones that are more efficient at decimating the opposition, I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that a better option hasn't been fielded yet. This leads me to believe that the lack of progress from any country has more to do with politics.

 

However...

 

and this may be off-topic, but I think it also has to do with the over-arching progression of warfare. Being a former military man, notably with the Army, I'll be the first to say that battles are won by boots on the ground. But the realist, with the application of my experience, in me realizes that the shift is moving away from equipping the troop best, and to figuring out how to simply take the human cost out of war (at least for the countries/entities that can afford it). Whether we're talking about better delivery systems (launchers, UAVs, SAT, etc.), or the actual weapons being developed (for example, shifting from bigger bombs to smarter bombs). I'd bet that if BWC of 72 was never signed, we would have continued to develop/use them extensively as they are cruelly efficient and a huge combat multiplier.

 

So, my point is that why spend the money on outfitting/retrofitting a type of warfare that is quickly going extinct in conventional warfare? The only thing holding back said progress is that the world is ensnared in asymmetric warfare that does require boots on the ground (even though that is quickly evolving from BCTs to QRUs).

[Ray Ray 3,566]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4

[DevsAdvocate 112]

And there are plenty who think the AK is better, and the M1A is better and the SCAR is better. Nothing is better, just different.

 

Except the AK isn't better, it suffers due to a lack of ergonomics. The M1A is based on the M-14, and is a heavy, unwieldy beast. SCAR is good, but not there just yet Still needs some more time in the oven.

[Kaiser7 33]

What if the question is changed slightly? I assume we're all talking about direct impingement ARs. I mean, a piston driven short stroke AR may well make up, or at least perform well enough in the "takes a beating" category as the AK. I don't know as much about the Piston ARs to really judge.

 

As for my previous opinions, perhaps I shouldn't be talking, since I'm more or less going only off what I hear about both platforms. Perhaps my information is slightly biased since the people I know who hate the AR were issued them during Vietnam. Then again, they had experience with both the M14, and the early M16s (and the improved M16s). Their judgements against the AR may be based off of their switch from the M14 to the then new M16. Though the one guy, a security guard at my mall liked the M16 enough, he made it clear that he kept the SKS he found for more than just a trophy. The other veteran, who is more or less the reason I'm looking into getting an AR after singing its praises, in terms of modularity and cheaper ammo, was quick to point out that he had trouble with his on the front, but believed that the system should be remedied by now.

 

Personally, I love the G3, and M14 families the most. So I'm not sure if I'm totally biased. I'm not a huge fan of the AR or AK, but I will give credit where it is due. I will say this about the AR, I would never own one with the carry handle, I hate those sights.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

the replacement for the AR15 is a replacement for foot soldiers in general.. things get so far advanced that when it gets to the point we are at (guiding missiles through an open window, unmanned drones, etc..) we should just be getting away from foot soldiers altogether.. I mean I KNOW that there will always be a need for feet on the ground.. but instead of fixing a gun that appears to work OK.. I would rather see a focus on getting troops further away from the action..

 

Disagree. The old adage remains true: drones/UAVs/fighter jets/bombers/helicopters, cannot capture and hold territory. The only thing that can do that is a man with a rifle.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Just buy a bunch of both and have fun with them.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Hmm do they? Cause it sure doesn't seem so. I recall Magpul telling us the Masada was gonna be $1000 and by the time it become the ACR it is 2.5 times that. Sure there are development costs and all that but both the ACR and the SCAR are made by HUGE companies who should be able to absorb the development cost and sell them at some reasonable price if they could be made at a reasonable price. As an example everyone and their grandma is making large pile of new handguns and those also have development costs but they come to market at a reasonable price. Either the manufacturers are expecting to never sell a large number of them and they want to make their money back quick, or they can't make them for the cost of an AR.

 

It's all a friggin lie. Pound for pound, the ACR is less complex to produce than the AR-15... and in many instances, uses the same components.

 

- Barrel

- Trigger Group

- Bolt

 

The most complex part to produce is the extruded aluminum upper receiver, which by it's very nature is a lot easier to build than a stripped AR upper or lower. Everything simply snaps to that. Beyond that, the stock, foregrip, lower receiver is made from Magpul plastic with metal inserts... easy to produce, cheap too.

 

All in all, the ACR probably costs less per rifle than an AR-15... the only reason it costs so much is simply marketing, and supply. This is why I hate Cerberus. They took what could be a 'sure thing' and messed it up.

 

Ultimately the BIGGEST stopping block to civilian adoption is accessories. As far as I'm concerned, for my needs as a civilian, both the ACR and the SCAR are far less customizable then the AR is, the monolithic upper/handguard is a killer for me, my arms are long. Another big issue is support, I can buy parts for an AR from 100 different manufacturer, I don't depend on one of them going out of business or changing their mind.

 

Think about this though: what are you actually gonna customize on a SCAR/ACR? Most people customize AR-15s to allow the following: rails for accessories, and new stocks. The ACR/SCAR already has that, and can play nice with your optics and other bolt-on crap. It's all MIL-STD-1913.

 

Problem is: cost. Not enough market penetration to justify 3rd party production.

 

Seeing for I can make an AR run in ways all of you are telling me is impossible, a theoretical improvement in reliability from a platform with limited support which requires me to shaped 'correctly' based on the designers opinion is not a deal for me. Not to mention for the cost of a SCAR or ACR I can build an incredible AR, including kickass optics.

 

The cold hard truth is that their are not better enough, we are riding the long tail of development, we are only getting very slight improvements of performance at this point, with drawbacks and higher cost. We need a truly revolutionary step in firearm design before we are going to see a new rifle worth buying, at least for my money.

 

They are better, the problem is: Fabrique Nationale and Remington/Bushmaster are like H&K. They hate you because you suck, and aren't .mil/LEO/high speed low drag. You're not the target customer, you never were. Building for the civilian market is a waste of money because the ROI simply isn't there. Winning a fat DoD contract is the way to go.

 

Watch, should FN or Remington win the ICC, and their rifles become the new infantry fighting weapon, people will throw their money at them to buy one for themselves.

[Shane45 807]

DA, the SCAR does in fact have a number of accessories. Extended front rails, Giessle triggers, stocks, different charging handles.... In my opinion the SCAR is far more complete than you give it credit for. And I completely disagree with your statement about FN being like HK. I think FN has gone out of its way to bring each of its military versions to the civy market. That approach has done well for FN as they have moved a ton of SCAR's, PS90's and FS2000's. As such you ave not seen the prices of these rifles really drop hardly at all.