Why The AR-15 Is The Greatest Rifle Ever
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 2 months ago
Readers know how I feel about the gun Eugene Stoner built. Furthermore, readers know that we speak the name Eugene Stoner only in hushed reverence. But that’s not my article title – it belongs to John Snow at Outdoor Life.
What we’ve seen over that time is the rise of the AR, which has become America’s most popular rifle, as well as the greatest battle rifle of all time.
How did this happen?
Think of the AR as a seed planted in the 1960s, when the military adopted the rifle, known both as the M16 and the XM16E1 initially.
The rifle got off to an inauspicious start in Vietnam. Shoddy construction in the form of barrels and chambers that hadn’t been chrome-lined, poorly made ammo that used the wrong type of powder, and the lack of cleaning equipment and training for the troops who were issued the rifles led to disaster on the battlefield. Rifles malfunctioned, and soldiers and marines died. The grunts and GIs lost faith in the M16, and Colt, which had purchased the manufacturing rights to the rifle from Armalite in 1959, had a public-relations disaster on its hands.
The fallout of that era created a tide of ill will and misinformation—like the myth of the M16’s tumbling bullets—that kept the AR seed dormant for decades while the military slowly modified the platform to address its shortcomings.
We’ve dealt with the issue of bullet flight before, and while the 5.56 mm round doesn’t tumble in flight (that would cause keyholing targets), it does in fact yaw in flight and rock back and forth, even boat tail ammunition. This occurs at the beginning and close to the end of its flight. See Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56 mm Performance In Close Quarters Battle, specifically see Figure 4. This is not a myth. It’s real, and reproducible. The bullet also tends to fragment into multiple pieces, causing multiple wound tracks. For this, see “Terminal Mechanics” on page 5.
The M16A2 made its official debut in 1982 and featured a heavier barrel, a faster twist rate, and a three-round burst mode in lieu of a full-auto setting. Then, in the mid-’90s, models like the M4 and M16A3 were introduced, with flattop receivers with Picatinny rails and adjustable telescoping stocks and shorter barrel lengths.
These evolutions in the platform augmented the AR-15’s excellent ergonomics, and gave the rifles more flexibility and modularity to adapt to different missions. And finally the seed could grow and bloom. What the AR needed for this to happen was a catalyst, and it came from an unlikely source: the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The AWB was authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and prohibited the sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that had more than one of the following features: pistol grips, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and grenade-launcher mounts. Similar provisions applied to semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. The ban also limited magazines to a 10-round-maximum capacity.
The goal of this was, of course, to kill off these semi-autos in the name of public safety. The “logic” being that these guns—AKs and ARs, in particular—contributed to crime because of their cosmetic and ergonomic features.
At first it did seem that the AWB had taken the legs out from under the AR platform. Major gunmakers backed away from the category and stopped aggressively marketing the rifles to civilians.
“Before the assault weapons ban, ARs were expensive, hard to find, and didn’t work all that well,” says firearms expert Michael Bane. “When it came on, all the big players got scared off, and this opened the market. For that 10-year period [before the AWB expired in 2004], the little guy got the innovative edge because there was no one there to knock them off.”
Into that vacuum stepped entrepreneurs and innovators like Randy Luth, Karl Lewis, and Jack and Teresa Starnes who saw the potential of the AR and started introducing everything from aftermarket parts and accessories to complete rifles.
It was during this period that the AR realized its potential as a modular platform. The adaptation of the Picatinny rail system created new possibilities for accessories.
[ … ]
As a battle rifle, it can engage opposing forces accurately at distances a fighter with an AK couldn’t dream of. Accurized for precision rifle work, it can shoot tight groups at 1,000 yards. For hunters, it can be lightened up and chambered in hard-hitting cartridges for any type of large game.
But most important, the AR has become a bridge for shooters, connecting what used to be disparate communities of firearms owners and uniting them around its modular platform, encouraging people who used to stand toe-to-toe instead to fight side-by-side to protect our rights.
Any rifle that can boast this series of accomplishments deserves to be called the greatest, no question about it.
The author then gives us the personal perspectives of a number of people, including Kyle Lamb.
Kyle Lamb doesn’t have any patience for the haters. After more than two decades in the Army, most of it spent in special operations with Delta Force, he’s seen enough combat and has headed up enough training to know exactly what the modern-day descendants of the original M16 can do.
“People hate this gun. Even people on our side,” Lamb says. “But it is the most modular and accurate battle rifle we’ve ever had on the planet. The AK? It’s great too—unless you’re actually trying to hit somebody.”
Lamb’s military career, which started in 1986, coincided with the evolutionary refinement of the M16. This isn’t surprising, given that Lamb and his fellow soldiers in the special operations community were key players in perfecting the platform.
After Lamb joined Delta Force and started shooting every day, he learned how to get more out of the M16 and saw where it needed improvement.
In combat Lamb and his colleagues discovered one shortcoming was the sights.
“We showed up in Somalia with Aimpoints with big red dots. The dots were bigger than the dudes we were shooting at,” Lamb says. “So we got into better sights. Guys started adding regular hunting scopes to the rifles and making shots out to 400 yards.”
The tactical evolution of the platform progressed quickly from there. Lamb and other Delta Force soldiers upgraded internal components like extractors for greater reliability. They added free-float handguards to improve accuracy. They slapped on Picatinny rails to mount other accessories. The AR platform became lethal for everything from long-range engagements to close-quarters battle.
And don’t forget the 600 meter shots Travis Haley made in Al Najaf. I’m sure there are a lot of M1 aficionados who would argue with the conclusions of the article, but the AR-15 platform has proven to be one that has killed hundreds of thousands of enemy fighters in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, from field shots to CQB.
On February 2, 2016 at 11:32 am, Pat Hines said:
You won’t get any argument from me, Herschel. The AR-15/M16/M4 isn’t the longest serving rifle in US military history for no reason.
I like it a lot.
I have rifles in 7.62×51 NATO, and one example of the Garand, so I’ve lived with and fired them all.
On February 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
Yep, the 5.56 M16/M4 yada yada is such an awesome weapon.
Tell me again why for the designated marksman position they use 7.62’s (M14’s and such)?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with range and punch would it?
On February 2, 2016 at 2:45 pm, Herschel Smith said:
They use several rounds for the DM rifle, my son Daniel was a DM as well as a SAW gunner. To answer your question, well, range.
And so is range the only consideration, ever, under any circumstances, for ever and ever amen? If so, then why not issue a .50 Sasser to everybody? Why stop with 7.62?
Don’t be so puckered. This is just an article for Outdoor Life. I thought it had some interesting things in there, such as Kyle Lamb’s views, and he’s always interesting.
On February 2, 2016 at 7:12 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
Hey, I just asked a question. If you can really do tight groups at 1,000 yards with M16/4’s whatever, why did the military issue M14’s (or other 7.62s) to the “designated marksman”?
On February 2, 2016 at 10:26 pm, FedUpWithWelfareStates said:
Have to raise the B/S Flag on that claim!
I have done it consistently at 500 yards, but no way at 1000 yards. An M14 could not even do that…
On February 3, 2016 at 2:05 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
I never claimed either rifle could do that. The article Hershel quoted from did that.
But that was my point. If the M16/M4 could do that then the military wouldn’t have used the M14 in the “designated marksman program” would they?
On February 2, 2016 at 2:56 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Here’s a 5.56 DMR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_12_Special_Purpose_Rifle
There are “light” and “heavy” DMR platforms, and the “light” platform with 77 gr MK262 ammo extends the range of a 5.56 to roughly 700 meters.
Besides, the AR
On February 2, 2016 at 7:18 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
My sole “military” experience is in high school ROTC (4 years) but we drilled with M1’s and then M14’s.
I’ve shot my Garand in service rifle competition and don’t do too bad considering I’m just an amateur.
And, I do have an M1A.
But I also have 4 AR-15’s.
I’m asking a serious question –
if the AR-15 is the “greatest rifle ever” then why did the military decide to use the M14 for the “designated marksman”.
No one who fawns over the M16/M4 platform has ever given me an answer to that.
On February 2, 2016 at 7:52 pm, Andrew E. said:
The issue of accurized M14 rifles as DMRs was as a stopgap measure.
Why? They were already bought, paid-for, and sitting on armory racks, so they could be tuned and issued without the rigmarole of a new weapon purchasing program to fill the need. Now those M14s have been going back into the armories for the past several years. The M14-based DMR’s heyday was pre-2010. Why? That purchasing program has been putting weapons into the field in the last few years.
The M110 SASS (which is an AR type) and its derivatives are taking over that role, as well as accurized M4 programs. They have the advantage of training commonality (and in the latter case, most parts are common as well) with existing M16 and M4 issued weapons.
There was a perceived need for a larger, heavier bullet to strike targets at longer ranges. However, the advent of ammunition like Mk.262 for the 5.56mm rifles has changed that. Mk.262 uses the 77gr SMK BTHP bullet, which is accurate to over 600m even from an M4’s barrel.
Heck, even the new generation of ball rounds (USMC’s Mk.318 SOST and Army’s M855A1) are more accurate than the older generations of ammunition, and are allowing regular riflemen to get hits out to 400-500m with an ACOG-sighted issue rifle.
Beyond that, it’s time for a crew-served weapon or a trained sniper anyway.
On February 3, 2016 at 2:38 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
Thank you for the answer.
On February 2, 2016 at 7:28 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
Thank you Hershel,
You did answer the question.
The M14 (7.62mm) is SUPERIOR to the 5.56 M16/M4 platform in regards to range, and I would say punch too.
So, the M16/M4 in 5.56 isn’t the “greatest rifle ever”.
It like all other weapons is just a compromise. Maybe its the best “compromise” ever for our troops but I can’t speak to that.
I do know that if the SHTF and I have to choose one weapon it will not be my AR15 (even the Colt, the other 3 are kit builds). It will be the M1A. I think the 7.62 is a better round for all-round purposes. Hell, I prefer 30-06 but I don’t have a magazine fed Garand.
Maybe your post was meant as humorous, but the article you quoted was quite fawning and you did nothing to dispel the silliness of claiming that tight 1,000 yard groups would be normal in combat so I think my snark was a little justified.
And no, range is obviously not the only consideration. Nor is the number of rounds that you can carry be the only consideration cause if so why not the M1 Carbine? I understand the issues.
Under my snark was a serious question. Thank you for answering it.
On February 2, 2016 at 8:55 pm, Pathfinder said:
You really don’t get it.
I spent 23 years as an Infantryman and retired as an E-8. I have qualified with the M-16A1, M-16A2 and the M-4 and carried the last two in combat. I have also qualified with the M-21 and M-24.
There is a reason that the M-16 platform is the longest serving service rifle. Because it works. End of story.
There is a reason that the M-14 had one of the shortest service life’s. It wasn’t all that good. It was beat in the trials by the FN-FAL. But because of “not invented here syndrome” the results were trashed and we ended up with the M-14. It never should have been adopted in the first place.
Someone mentioned above that they were issued as a stop gap measure, that is correct. And when they were issued, you were lucky if you could get one magazine that worked with the rifle. Some came with none. I was a platoon sergeant in Afghanistan in ’06. I had 2 in my platoon. I was able to get one to run reliably and had to get magazines mailed from the states that were bought at gun shows and online and I was able to only get 4 because everybody else was trying to do the same thing. The best thing to happen was for them to be sent back into storage.
And the M-1 Carbine? Wow. Talk about another under performer. I own one and a Garand.
An M1A for a SHTF weapon? How many classes have you taken with that rifle? I will tell you this, you will go through way more ammo with that rifle and will not be able to carry the amount needed. But what do I know?
My point is this, when people who have actually used a weapon in combat and under some of the harshest conditions tell you that the weapon they choose is the AR system, that is called a clue. Don’t take my word for it, take Kyle Lamb’s.
On February 3, 2016 at 1:44 am, ATTILA said:
The real question is whether you’d be any better off in Afghanistan if your riflemen carried FALs or G3s or a modern day equivalent (in 7.62X51) instead of M4s/M16s. You are the only one who can answer that.
And this is not a weight issue, since troops have been found willing to carry anything they trust would help them in battle (and dump the useless staff).
On February 3, 2016 at 2:32 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
sorry, re-posted as a reply to pathfinder
On February 3, 2016 at 2:33 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
this is a reply to pathfinder –
No, you don’t get it.
My point was that the 5.56 (AR15/M16/M4) couldn’t handle a threat and so the “designated marksman” program was born and available 7.62’s were pressed into service.
Because – the 5.56 couldn’t counter the threat. If I’m wrong please correct me on that.
It was Hershel that asked if “range” was my only consideration. I said “no” and pointed out that number of rounds wasn’t the only criteria either because IF SO the M1 Carbine would allow for far more rounds to be carried. You seem to think ONLY the AR15/M16/M4 rifle allows for the exactly right number of rounds to be carried. Upon what do you base that claim?
I understand that EVERY weapon is a compromise. I’ve never claimed that the M14, or Garand, or Carbine, is the “most awsomest” rifle ever.
I also notice that you never qualified or carried an M14 in your 23 years I assume because all of those years were spent in a military where the M16/M4 was the standard weapon.
A man I know, the only Nam vet I know, was Marine Recon in Nam, 19 months, 3 helicopter crashes and full disability (from they think a .30 carbine round thru the helicopter skin) and he only carried a 14. He swears by it, and says he has a confirmed kill at over 500 yards with it (I assume open sights as he wasn’t a sniper). I have no reason to doubt his claims.
People have a tendency to love what they know.
I would also point out that nobody lost their life by being issued an M14 before it was ready as (apparently) happened in the early days of the M16.
The fact that the 14′ available to you had problems is not necessarily an indication of the rifles quality, it could be very well the fact that they haven’t been the standard weapon for 50 years. It is just a simpler Garand and we made millions of those in WWII that the GI’s swore by.
And not every warrior swears by the M16/M4 platform.
As I recall the man who volunteered to help the downed pilots in Mogadishu was carrying an M14 wasn’t he?
On February 3, 2016 at 5:38 pm, ATTILA said:
You need two rifles to defend your hometown not one. Don’t judge rifles by what the DM gets.
Every firefight, when properly set up has a close in and a far away component, carefully interlaced. From close in, grazing fires pin them down, cuz if they were moving you would never hit them with your M14. From far away you cannot be seen, so you can aim carefully your plunging fires, undisturbed by return fire, which you cannot do from close in, where your every exposure attracts a couple of AK magazines.
Reduction of the enemy can only be brought about by a careful integration of grazing and plunging fires, short range and long range positions and the utilization of many angles or directions. You need a rifle for 50yrd engagements and a rifle for 400+yrd engagements.
It is true that assault rifles make noise while DM rifles do the actual killing. But this is how it’s supposed to be. Assault riflemen draw the enemy’s attention, DMs kill him.
Some find this difficult to comprehend, to others it is so obvious. Take the Russians for example, who combine the not so masculine 5.45x39mm of the AK74 with the 7.62x54R of the SVD.
I have seen plenty of village fighting on the European battlefield and strongly recommend that you come to terms with the above. There’s no telling whose village will be threatened tomorrow.
On February 3, 2016 at 6:38 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
My reply was to pathfinder, sorry. I deleted it and reposted it to him.
But I don’t have a problem with your theory. I’m not arguing that everyone in the squad have a 7.62 battle rifle.
I simply take issue with the idea everywhere I find it that the M16/M4 platform is the “most awsomest” weapon ever.
And if some people have a problem with that they should talk to the military because it was them, not me, that decided the troops should have at least one weapon capable of reaching out to 600 yards or so which the 5.56 is not going to do.
Even if you can get it out to 700 yards as claimed elsewhere in this thread its not going to have the same punch. So, back to the same problem, it won’t be (as) effective.
My other criteria is a man alone in a SHTF situation. For me, I want the heavier weapon. My wife can carry the AR15, or the M1 Carbine, or the Mini-14. If we meet up with others we can decide how we fight as a group. But I think I can accomplish everything with the M1A that I can with the AR15 and I don’t give up the range.
Of course Pathfinder thinks that ONLY the AR platform allows for just the right amount of ammo to be carried so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Hopefully I’ll never have to find out whether that’s true. But the way things are going maybe not.
On February 3, 2016 at 7:00 pm, ATTILA said:
Excuse my intrusion.
Thank you for taking the time to read this comment and ty for your polite answer.
On February 3, 2016 at 11:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:
“It is true that assault rifles make noise while DM rifles do the actual killing.”
You might have been around some incompetent shooters. My son employed an M4 with great success in Iraq when he didn’t carry his SAW.
On February 4, 2016 at 7:59 am, ATTILA said:
I might have been. I said my experience comes from observing the European battlefield (Yugoslavia, Black Sea etc). There’s a lot of incompetent people over there.
I may be entirely wrong in my remarks.
On February 4, 2016 at 12:26 am, Pathfinder said:
The M-21 is an M-14. Specifically it is a National Match M-14 set up as sniper rifle. It isn’t a run of the mill rack grade M-14.
Another is the M-25. It was originally developed by 10th SF group and was built to fill a specific need. Again, it was a National Match M-14 rebuilt.
The man you speak of was SFC Randall Shugart. He was armed with an M-14 with an Aimpoint 7000. That wasn’t a rack grade rifle either.
I have heard the same stories about when the M-16 was first issued told to me by men who were there. It was a disaster the way it was fielded, but once the issues were fixed, no more problems. And of the ones that I know that carried both preferred the M-16.
As to the ones we had in Afghanistan. It was never used, it was carried in a vehicle as a backup to my DM’s rifle. And that was, horror of horrors, an AR with an ACOG. That got used a lot and did a damn good job. He had been specifically trained with that rifle at a DM course before deployment.
But you know what, none of that makes a damn bit of difference. You keep living in your world that hasn’t got a clue about weapons systems and what, why or how they are used.
Herschel, thanks for letting me try to interject some sanity here.
Thanks for all you do.
On February 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
Here is my reply to Ned. It mentions you.
No Ned, my post wasn’t “something about 7.62 vs 5.56”, so therefor wasn’t a non-sequitur.
The article Herschel links to is about the AR platform is so fawning as to be sickening.
He of course doesn’t endorse it specifically (but Herschel is a big fan of the AR platform) but also doesn’t bother to disavow the most egregious statement in it (which he included in his excerpt – I didn’t go to Outdoor Life to find it) which claims 1,000 yard tight groups with the AR!
Excuse me?
So I snarkily remind everybody that it was the US military itself that decided the “worlds most awsomest rifle of all time” wasn’t up to countering a specific threat. Ergo, the DSM program was born using the available 7.62’s, M14’s mostly as I understand.
Because the AR in 5.56 is not going to shoot 1,000 yard tight groups. Not in 7.62 either.
I never made the argument as 7.62 is “better” than 5.56 or that the M14 is “better” than the M16/M4. I just remind people that the “worlds most awsomest rifle of all time” doesn’t have it in a least one specific instance as decided by the US military.
It became M16 vs M14 because of M16 fanboys like Pathfinder.
But the laws of physics still apply. The 7.62 bullet when it gets there will have more weight and punch than the 5.56 unless they can invent magic 5.56 bullets.
But I’m not trying to explain that to you hayseeds. I like to push back at any silly mantras.
For that I get people like Pathfinder falling on me like a Muslim when you tell him his religion isn’t one of peace. He doesn’t have good reading comprehension and employs poor logic in his vehement denial of the straw-man argument he created (that I’m claiming the M16/M4 is crap and that the M14 is the superior weapon).
And told that – “You keep living in your world that hasn’t got a clue about weapons systems and what, why or how they are used.” What an arrogant jerk. He should be complaining to the US military for starting the rumor that the “a thutty caliber hits harder than does a 223”.
I notice that he hasn’t gotten any pushback from you or Herschel.
And Ned, per your post right above. I don’t “hate” the AR platform. I own 4 of them. You didn’t notice that I think.
But you are correct discussions like this do often devolve into shouting matches. But not because of me. I only stated my preference for the true “battle rifle” because I was asked not because I’m a frothing at the mouth fanboy like Pathfinder.
On February 4, 2016 at 8:57 pm, Pathfinder said:
As you didn’t respond to the post about whether I have any experience with the M-14. Just to give you something else to chew on. Those two that I had in ’06? The ones that I was able to finally get one working gun out of, I was the only one in the company who even knew the manual of arms and how to field strip it. So yeah, I’ve got the experience to know that it is not my choice of a rifle to go into combat with. Why? If you haven’t figured it out by now, I can’t help you.
And the M-14 is such a good platform, why did the development of it cause the death of Springfield Armory. The real one, not the gun company trying to capitalize on the name.
So now I’m a fucking fanboy and a fucking muslim. You have your head so far up your 4th point of contact you need glass belly button.
The reason why this is still even talked about is because of people like you that have never had the sack to do what I and others have done. We learned those lessons in blood and sweat. You denigrate it all you want, it wont change the outcome.
On February 5, 2016 at 2:05 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
you still can’t read so FO. you can thank ME for your pension.
On February 5, 2016 at 9:45 pm, Pathfinder said:
Finally got what I was looking for.
On February 8, 2016 at 2:48 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
You are a VERY stupid individual. And you are “like” a Muslim in that you are an irrational fanatic. Criticize your “god” and you lose it.
Also, I don’t OWE you crap for your “service”. You VOLUNTEERED for a JOB and got PAID for it. You knew the risk pal.
I GIVE my respect to people that deserve it.
I wouldn’t cross the street to spit on you if you were on fire.
On February 2, 2016 at 11:35 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Of course, a related question could be “Is it possible to select an optimum rifle,” i.e., one that picks the best performer for most circumstances we will face and relinquishes the least good points of all rifles?
Interesting question, yes?
On February 3, 2016 at 2:36 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
I would never try as I’m not qualified to determine that even if it is possible, which I doubt.
On February 2, 2016 at 8:30 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Here’s a couple of videos for the myriad shooters who hate the AR platform:
Here’s 830 rounds on full auto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw
Then there’s this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY
On February 2, 2016 at 10:11 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Herschel’s post on AR platform guns has already devolved into what has, IMO, become ubiquitous — The Captain’s Journal posts a link to an Outdoor Life article – with some of Herschel’s insights regarding the AR platform inserted – and comments devolve immediately into something about 7.62 vs 5.56, which is, of course, a total non sequitur.
Honestly, how many of us see the literally undefined “Godwin’s law” regarding mentioning the AR platform of guns? If enough people enter into the conversation, no matter what happens, the 5.56 x45 vs 7.62 x 51 (the “Hitler” reference in Godwin’s law) crap will show up like it does just four posts down in this comments page.
IMO, in any blog, forum or other, wherein the author, site manager or otherwise posts something about the ubiquitous AR15, some one has to ‘splan to us hayseeds why a thutty caliber hits harder than does a 223. Really nice of these folks, – that way, we don’t have to go check out ballistics tables about things like that, which, for many of us, are so hard to sort out. I an SO ready for an AR15 Godwin’s law. We can all cite that next time, and dispense with the straw man and “mine’s bigger ‘n yours” bullshit.
Hey – guess what folks a 308 has more range and energy than a 223! Please welcome the AR15 Godwin’s law. How ’bout Stoner’s law?
On February 2, 2016 at 11:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Good line, Ned. I’ll steal that one too.
On February 4, 2016 at 3:12 pm, Arizona Gunowner said:
No Ned, my post wasn’t “something about 7.62 vs 5.56”, so therefor wasn’t a non-sequitur.
The article Herschel links to is about the AR platform is so fawning as to be sickening.
He of course doesn’t endorse it specifically (but Herschel is a big fan of the AR platform) but also doesn’t bother to disavow the most egregious statement in it (which he included in his excerpt – I didn’t go to Outdoor Life to find it) which claims 1,000 yard tight groups with the AR!
Excuse me?
So I snarkily remind everybody that it was the US military itself that decided the “worlds most awsomest rifle of all time” wasn’t up to countering a specific threat. Ergo, the DSM program was born using the available 7.62’s, M14’s mostly as I understand.
Because the AR in 5.56 is not going to shoot 1,000 yard tight groups. Not in 7.62 either.
I never made the argument as 7.62 is “better” than 5.56 or that the M14 is “better” than the M16/M4. I just remind people that the “worlds most awsomest rifle of all time” doesn’t have it in a least one specific instance as decided by the US military.
It became M16 vs M14 because of M16 fanboys like Pathfinder.
But the laws of physics still apply. The 7.62 bullet when it gets there will have more weight and punch than the 5.56 unless they can invent magic 5.56 bullets.
But I’m not trying to explain that to you hayseeds. I like to push back at any silly mantras.
For that I get people like Pathfinder falling on me like a Muslim when you tell him his religion isn’t one of peace. He doesn’t have good reading comprehension and employs poor logic in his vehement denial of the straw-man argument he created (that I’m claiming the M16/M4 is crap and that the M14 is the superior weapon).
And told that – “You keep living in your world that hasn’t got a clue about weapons systems and what, why or how they are used.” What an arrogant jerk. He should be complaining to the US military for starting the rumor that the “a thutty caliber hits harder than does a 223”.
I notice that he hasn’t gotten any pushback from you or Herschel.
And Ned, per your post right above. I don’t “hate” the AR platform. I own 4 of them. You didn’t notice that I think.
But you are correct discussions like this do often devolve into shouting matches. But not because of me. I only stated my preference for the true “battle rifle” because I was asked not because I’m a frothing at the mouth fanboy like Pathfinder.
On February 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Goodness, AZ Gunowner, I wasn’t targeting you specifically, else I’d have replied directly to you. But this is all about a lengthy article in Outdoor Life. Including an AR Clone in 300SAUM. Pretty long-ranged, and hard-hitting, I’d guess. And guess what – I pretty sure I never said “AZ Gunowner hates the AR platform,” – but doe to the amount of posts you made, and the tenor of those posts, I could see how one may think that. Pathfinder, as far as I can tell, didn’t rely to me. I only noticed your reply on another page when I clicked on my replies. What’s interesting to me is, Herschel’s post got WAY more comments than the Outdoor Life post (2 at this point.) I think this one has like 36. Interesting that Herschel has so many people posting. Maybe more reading is site than Outdoor Life.
But really – take yourself out of the equation – I wasn’t picking on you. Go back and check pages all over the internet about the AR15. The primary bitch will be – “it’s a goddam poodle shooter, and we used to carry real 7.62 battle rifles” and I think you will agree, that any post re: AR15s devolves to caliber – despite the fact that a standard AR platform is capable of firing even 50 BMG with just an upper change. With that statement comes “we used to use M14s.” If you believe I’m delusional you may be right. But many people have a more favored “battle rifle that puts the AR platform to shame” than you can shake a stick at. You are in AZ and could be my neighbor – I’m neither picking on you nor do I have any sort of beef with you, nor with your choice of M1A – M14. I just think it’s great that some of us have those tools, and I hope we are all on the same side.
Heck, you may even be my neighbor. WTF would I choose to piss you off? I
simply made an observation, something I do on occasion.
I rarely comment on things I disagree with these days – it takes too much time and energy. Besides, all that, I’m a big fan of the 6.5 caliber for short or long range battle rifle. I think we may at least agree, everything’s a compromise, which point I believe you made.
Peace?
On February 2, 2016 at 10:16 pm, Damocles said:
I love my ARs, absolutely love them. Having said that, this year I will have to finally purchase a rifle forged by Soviet elves. Gotta have both.
On February 2, 2016 at 11:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Ha! ” … forged by Soviet elves.” Some folks luv ’em. I found the only AK I ever shot to be a rattle bucket. Maybe I just had a bad one.
On February 3, 2016 at 9:54 am, joe said:
Herschel, if you can find the time, take a look at the AK Operators Union channel on YouTube….Rob Ski, ex-Polish military and now Indiana National Guard, shoots and abuses various renditions of the AK … entertaining and educational at the same time…
On February 3, 2016 at 10:00 am, Damocles said:
Amen to that, I love Rob’s channel and learned quite a bit about AKs from him. Herschel, I have seen that not all AKs are equal. I wouldn’t go to the lengths that some do to torture test a rifle, but I’d like to get a middle of the road level AK. Just another type of wrench for the ol’ tool box…
On February 4, 2016 at 6:03 am, Publicola said:
I’m not an AR fan. I dislike the design of the gas system & a few other things. Plus that damned “sproing” makes them feel like bb guns. & not quality BB guns either. Plus I’m not a cheerleader for its typical chambering. & its bayonet… the OKC-3s is a decent effort, but any bayo under 10 inches just didn’t understand the question (& if anyone brings up the M5, I’ll maintain that was proof that communist infiltrated out Dept. of War!)
That being said, the AR platform, because of its direct impingement gas system, is one of the most accurate semi-auto target rifles there is. You have to be real clever at reading the wind when things get medium distance-ish (500 or 600 yards) but off the shelf an AR usually will be decently accurate & it doesn’t take much work to get them real damn accurate.
But they’re not Battle Rifles. With a happy switch notch on the safety, they’re properly Assault Rifles. Sans select-fire, they’re just semi-auto’s. & I get a might perturbed when they’re called rifles at all; in my estimation, anything with a < 20" barrel is more properly thought of as a carbine.
We can't talk about the M16 variant of the AR without getting into cartridge discussion, & to keep things simple, I'm not a fan of any .22 when the quarry is bigger than a coyote.
Reliability can be argued, but I fall back to my dislike of the gas system design. If an AR is reliable it's in spite of the way it was engineered, & that leaves too few warm & fuzzies for me to be sanguine about.
As for the AR platform's longevity in our martial services – above the rank of Colonel things get political real fast, & the brass & politicians who make those sort of decisions aren't looking at things from a strictly objective, military sciencey worldview (I offer the recent search for a new pistol as corroboration of my point). There have been some good picks & some less than stellar picks as far as basic equipment goes, but the fact that the military hasn't replaced something is not of itself dispositive.
So no, the AR isn't the greatest rifle ever. Unless of course you simply want it to be. That kind of thing is strictly subjective, & we're no closer to having a greatest rifle ever than we are to having a greatest ice cream ever.
I am one of those M1 aficionados of which you wrote. I have Garands & AK's & I'm cool with that. The Garands aren't quite as easily accessorized, but I have optics on nearly all of them, including a co-witnessing red dot on a Mini-G build (16" barrel set up by a fellow named Shufflin out of Michigan) & a scout scope on a forward rail. They're as accurate as I need them to be (capable of making a shot on a man-sized target at 600 yards with my eyes from prone), reliable, sturdy, & being Garands the barrels glow blue whenever Marxists are near. The AK's are accurate enough out to 300 or 400 yards, & are sturdy & reliable. With both aforementioned long guns, I'm confident the chamberings will do what I require. I chose those long guns instead of AR's. Your mileage of course may vary, but I'm definitely not sold on the AR concept.
But methinks the BM-59, chambered for a hot little 6.5mm cartridge (the .260 Remington comes to mind) and a provision for a forward mounted optic would be as close as one could get to the ideal general issue rifle. It'll never happen – not because it's a bad idea, but because politics dominates procurement more than most would like to think.
On February 5, 2016 at 8:56 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
Kudos on the “Sproing”!