DevsAdvocate

But in this case, we have actual Court cases! Too bad it's impossible to get more info on them.

I think that was the logical argument used in Court. They challenged the law by claiming that if a stock pinned in the first position was legal, then why would it be illegal to allow it to be longer?

Even the difference between those two is questionable. I always assumed that the prohibition on telescoping/folding stocks had to do with ones where the stock would be completely gone. When you fold a stock on the AK, the stock is no longer there, allowing concealment of the rifle. When you telescope the stock on an MP5N, it's also out of the way. In essence, the stock may no longer function as a stock. Whereas, an AR-15, is adjustable. The stock doesn't disappear or lose it's functionality, it is merely adjusted to a shorter length of pull to accommodate users wearing baggy clothing or those who are of smaller stature. There is some case law in NJ in a few counties where the collapsing stock on an AR-15 was found not to be prohibited. Though the details on those are a bit sketchy.

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, 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.

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...

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).

I think this is dependent on what those who used the AR platform in real combat tend to think. I think we have two members here on these forums who used these rifles in combat (GRIZ, usnmars I think), and both have opposing views. Frankly, I'm of the school of thought that we can be doing way better than either platform...

I've been dreaming about this a bit as well. Looks like I'll be picking up 3 Garands when I'm out there, plus as much ammo as I can bear. Hopefully you guys can help me pick out some real winners, CMP Forums have been saying that the pickings are pretty good as of late.

Just because the AK has faults ergonomically, doesn't mean the AR platform is much better. In all honesty, it's 2012, why the hell are we comparing a dated platform designed 65 years ago to another dated platform designed 52 years ago. The US military shoulda trashed the M-16 by default in the year 2000, and built a whole new rifle from the ground up with a better magazine design, gas system design, ergonomics, and a lifetime reliability of 50,000 rounds without a single piece of maintenance. But noooo... let's just slap some rails on it and call it a day.

What else is new? The AR-15 platform shits where it eats, and relies on a shitty magazine design. It's accurate, lightweight, and works well when maintained and babied a little bit. The AK... well, it just works.

Sarco is in caldwell?

Damn, this guy has tons of WWII stuff!

I wanted to buy stuff from him, but I figured, why go through Gunbroker if he can save the money and do it local?

Count me in. I'll dig into my savings for this trip.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/BrowseItems.aspx?IncludeSellers=636763 Located in Caldwell, NJ...

1x7 does stabilize 55gr... at least that's what I've been led to believe.

I also suggest a 1x7 twist. It does the cheaper low grain stuff, and heavy grain stuff if you want to use that for HD.

+1 because the movie takes place in NJ... lol

I don't think he ever had to stay in the wilderness to do his show. His show was about teaching techniques in realistic situations. I liked it because it was well-done, and learned a thing or two there.

Problem with that is it made for poor TV. Not having a camera crew makes it quite boring when he's off doing stuff.

Why is your wife thinking that at all? It's not her problem...

I keep sayin: best way to take on zombies is using spear-like weapons, and using riot shields / machetes up close. These creatures are dumb, just create a trap for them and turn it into a meat grinder. Just ensure you have the means to escape if overwhelmed. Pro tip: Using a ravine or bridge, draw zombies over the edge to their demise. They're like lemmings.

You can still have babies and live a life. It just means 'dead' has taken a new definition. Once you re-claim the Earth, destroying the brain in death will be no different than having an open casket. It'll just become ritualized.

Restraining order are stupid. Like a piece of paper ever kept someone from hurting someone else.