User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:58:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Everybody already has an AR. The government is NEVER going to give out firearms to people who don't already own them, and for good reason. Any adult without a rifle has some sort of issue with rifles or has social issues that would preclude them being trustworthy enough to be handed one.
The Second Amendment's purpose was to have a citizen militia that supplied themselves to avoid the taxpayer paying for a standing army. Now, I do realize our government has completely abandoned the original premises of the constitution, but that's another issue entirely. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:57:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: I’ve never understood the attraction to mag fed LMGs or automatic riflemen like the Aug LMG or L85 LMG or the Marines new M27. While lighter than a SAW you’ve lost the ability to provide sustained support by fire. Even with a drum mag or beta mag they are clumsy choices. Id also like to point out that the M4 is modular in the same way, you just swap out the uppers. A lot of the high speed guys will have two or three different uppers set up for their M4s. A single lower, a couple of different buffers and uppers is all you need to go from 10.3” to 14.5” to 18” or even 20”. Personally I think the M4s modularity is better than the quick change barrel concept since everything retains zero with the various uppers and you aren’t locked into a single use optic or having to change optics and re-zero after a barrel length change. With the M4 you can go from an Eotech equipped MK18 upper to an LPVO 18” DMR upper and be ready to go in seconds. No zeroing needed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Originally Posted By Oldhogleg: -A standardized Civil Defense weapons system in a similar vain as the Swiss. -an entire small arms weapons system -universal receiver design for a family of weapons from PDWs to LMGs It's literally the Steyr AUG. https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2014/01/the_AUG_family_used_a_number_of_different_barrel_lengths_for_different_mission_profiles.jpg https://i.ibb.co/H4pfzZn/Screen-Shot-2024-04-16-at-1-14-00-AM.png I’ve never understood the attraction to mag fed LMGs or automatic riflemen like the Aug LMG or L85 LMG or the Marines new M27. While lighter than a SAW you’ve lost the ability to provide sustained support by fire. Even with a drum mag or beta mag they are clumsy choices. Id also like to point out that the M4 is modular in the same way, you just swap out the uppers. A lot of the high speed guys will have two or three different uppers set up for their M4s. A single lower, a couple of different buffers and uppers is all you need to go from 10.3” to 14.5” to 18” or even 20”. Personally I think the M4s modularity is better than the quick change barrel concept since everything retains zero with the various uppers and you aren’t locked into a single use optic or having to change optics and re-zero after a barrel length change. With the M4 you can go from an Eotech equipped MK18 upper to an LPVO 18” DMR upper and be ready to go in seconds. No zeroing needed. Mag fed LMG like the HBAR makes sense as a pairing with a 7.62 GPMG/LMG, or as a hit and run insurgent weapon, or as a mass issue weapon for conscripts/civil defense force who have less training/logistics than the regular army. AR modularity is frankly not in the same league. You retain the lower receiver - the very cheapest and smallest component - but have to swap out the whole upper/barrel/rail/optics. So you keep your $250 lower but then swap out ~$2500 upper when optics and IR are factored in. Really barely any improvement vs just having multiple rifles. With the AUG, the rifle can be quickly converted to different roles (from 16" to 24" HBAR; from 20" to 14.5" suppressed,etc) while retaining all of the most valuable parts of the rifle - namely most of the rifle and all of its accessories. If we convert this guy into a 24" Automatic Rifle, or 14.5" with integral suppressor, everything is retained but the barrel vertical grip:  Saying the AR is a modular wonder is like saying the MAC 11 is; sorta?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:15:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Mag fed LMG like the HBAR makes sense as a pairing with a 7.62 GPMG/LMG, or as a hit and run insurgent weapon, or as a mass issue weapon for conscripts/civil defense force who have less training/logistics than the regular army. AR modularity is frankly not in the same league. You retain the lower receiver - the very cheapest and smallest component - but have to swap out the whole upper/barrel/rail/optics. So you keep your $250 lower but then swap out ~$2500 upper when optics and IR are factored in. Really barely any improvement vs just having multiple rifles. With the AUG, the rifle can be quickly converted to different roles (from 16" to 24" HBAR; from 20" to 14.5" suppressed,etc) while retaining all of the most valuable parts of the rifle - namely most of the rifle and all of its accessories. If we convert this guy into a 24" Automatic Rifle, or 14.5" with integral suppressor, everything is retained but the barrel vertical grip: https://i.ibb.co/60xwk2J/a29d1be7cuh71.jpg Saying the AR is a modular wonder is like saying the MAC 11 is; sorta? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lage-Manufacturing-MAX-1115-.2235.56-Upper-Receivers-for-M-119-SMGs-1.jpg Different barrels will have different POI's. Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Of course you could get good QD mounts and use rail covers to keep track of optic positions, but that's far from perfect. It's also worth noting a basic ar will shoot circles around an AUG, you don't have to worry about the QD barrel causing issues, you don't have to worry about stocking left hand bolts so 10% of your population can even use the rifles to begin with. Whatever accessories you decide to issue (optics, lights, improved triggers, grenade launchers, suppressors) are going to work better on an AR than an AUG. LOP is adjustable on an AR, so no matter if the gun gets issued to a 6'4" dude in body armor or a 4'7" teenage girl, they can still hold the firearm comfortably |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:52:06 PM EDT
[#4]
I own multiple AUGs and love them. I would never take one over a good M4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 9:48:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Incorrect. They stopped production of the thing during the Vietnam war because the guns were getting rejected left and right. They absolutely did yammer on about early issues because *they stopped production in the middle of a war* Loys of guys were more than happy to trade their m14's for m16s or CARs as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 9:59:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Different barrels will have different POI's. Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Of course you could get good QD mounts and use rail covers to keep track of optic positions, but that's far from perfect. It's also worth noting a basic ar will shoot circles around an AUG, you don't have to worry about the QD barrel causing issues, you don't have to worry about stocking left hand bolts so 10% of your population can even use the rifles to begin with. Whatever accessories you decide to issue (optics, lights, improved triggers, grenade launchers, suppressors) are going to work better on an AR than an AUG. LOP is adjustable on an AR, so no matter if the gun gets issued to a 6'4" dude in body armor or a 4'7" teenage girl, they can still hold the firearm comfortably Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Mag fed LMG like the HBAR makes sense as a pairing with a 7.62 GPMG/LMG, or as a hit and run insurgent weapon, or as a mass issue weapon for conscripts/civil defense force who have less training/logistics than the regular army. AR modularity is frankly not in the same league. You retain the lower receiver - the very cheapest and smallest component - but have to swap out the whole upper/barrel/rail/optics. So you keep your $250 lower but then swap out ~$2500 upper when optics and IR are factored in. Really barely any improvement vs just having multiple rifles. With the AUG, the rifle can be quickly converted to different roles (from 16" to 24" HBAR; from 20" to 14.5" suppressed,etc) while retaining all of the most valuable parts of the rifle - namely most of the rifle and all of its accessories. If we convert this guy into a 24" Automatic Rifle, or 14.5" with integral suppressor, everything is retained but the barrel vertical grip: https://i.ibb.co/60xwk2J/a29d1be7cuh71.jpg Saying the AR is a modular wonder is like saying the MAC 11 is; sorta? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lage-Manufacturing-MAX-1115-.2235.56-Upper-Receivers-for-M-119-SMGs-1.jpg Different barrels will have different POI's. Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Of course you could get good QD mounts and use rail covers to keep track of optic positions, but that's far from perfect. It's also worth noting a basic ar will shoot circles around an AUG, you don't have to worry about the QD barrel causing issues, you don't have to worry about stocking left hand bolts so 10% of your population can even use the rifles to begin with. Whatever accessories you decide to issue (optics, lights, improved triggers, grenade launchers, suppressors) are going to work better on an AR than an AUG. LOP is adjustable on an AR, so no matter if the gun gets issued to a 6'4" dude in body armor or a 4'7" teenage girl, they can still hold the firearm comfortably You pretty much hit all the counter arguments I was going to write. I’d also point out that even fully equipped uppers with optics, lights, lasers, VFGs, etc can all still fit in a single rifle bag. You can essentially carry three rifles with one lower. This really shows its usefulness when you get into night vision and passive aiming. A one size fits all optic doesn’t really exist. So while you can swap barrels in something like the AUG, using an Elcan with nods sucks. Having an upper set up specifically for night time goon shit that you can swap to in seconds is a much better option. That is simply not something an Elcan equipped AUG can do without comprising by having to use an optic that isn’t well suited for night time stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 10:11:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: It was and is a great rifle. According to who? You? Here's the thing, it isn't. It was a bad idea, executed by a government agency that was desperately trying to stay afloat, and it failed. It's half propped up by people who haven't had to carry it, or were never involved in firearms manufacturing. If you want to look at a garand and improve it, it will look absolutely nothing like an M14 or a mini 14. It will look like an AK. If thats too radical for you, congratulations, the italians did a better job than SA did in less than a quarter of the time |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 10:40:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Mag fed LMG like the HBAR makes sense as a pairing with a 7.62 GPMG/LMG, or as a hit and run insurgent weapon, or as a mass issue weapon for conscripts/civil defense force who have less training/logistics than the regular army. AR modularity is frankly not in the same league. You retain the lower receiver - the very cheapest and smallest component - but have to swap out the whole upper/barrel/rail/optics. So you keep your $250 lower but then swap out ~$2500 upper when optics and IR are factored in. Really barely any improvement vs just having multiple rifles. With the AUG, the rifle can be quickly converted to different roles (from 16" to 24" HBAR; from 20" to 14.5" suppressed,etc) while retaining all of the most valuable parts of the rifle - namely most of the rifle and all of its accessories. If we convert this guy into a 24" Automatic Rifle, or 14.5" with integral suppressor, everything is retained but the barrel vertical grip: https://i.ibb.co/60xwk2J/a29d1be7cuh71.jpg Saying the AR is a modular wonder is like saying the MAC 11 is; sorta? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lage-Manufacturing-MAX-1115-.2235.56-Upper-Receivers-for-M-119-SMGs-1.jpg Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Really in the scenario the OP mentioned - a universal 5.56 platform for Civil Defense - a standardized optic and accessories setup would likely accompany that, rather then issuing multiple varieties of optics. The OP called for a modular platform (PDW-LMG with universal receiver); the AUG is the answer for that as a factory rifle. I don't consider the AR a modular platform (other then LMT) because you're swapping out 80% of the value of the rifle just to make the the thing shorter or longer. ... However, personally I don't think Modularity makes sense for a Civil Defense Rifle. I think an 'all in one' Universal Infantry Weapon (UIW) makes much more sense - a single weapon configuration that can work pretty well as Assault Rifle + DMR + Automatic Rifle. Going with the AUG, that would mean rather then Modular options for a 14.5+16"+20"+24", a Universal option of a 18" HBAR barrel with LMG compensator + light bipod + 42rd mags, with a ACOG+Aimpoint combo. For the AR Universal Infantry Weapon, rather than plans for multiple uppers, just a standardized 14.5" SOCOM profile heavy barrel MLOK upper, paired with the Desert Tech Quattro 53rd quad stack lower receiver. Topped off with a Surefire OBC bolt carrier to reduce FA RPM, a 45/90 SA/FA selector, and a Warcomp to reduce muzzle climb. Also paired with a ACOG/Aimpoint combo. The AR or AUG UIW gives 1 Universal Weapon and Optic combo that can serve all 5.56 weapons needs (albeit imperfectly in each). |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 10:47:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: You pretty much hit all the counter arguments I was going to write. I’d also point out that even fully equipped uppers with optics, lights, lasers, VFGs, etc can all still fit in a single rifle bag. You can essentially carry three rifles with one lower. This really shows its usefulness when you get into night vision and passive aiming. A one size fits all optic doesn’t really exist. So while you can swap barrels in something like the AUG, using an Elcan with nods sucks. Having an upper set up specifically for night time goon shit that you can swap to in seconds is a much better option. That is simply not something an Elcan equipped AUG can do without comprising by having to use an optic that isn’t well suited for night time stuff. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Originally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Mag fed LMG like the HBAR makes sense as a pairing with a 7.62 GPMG/LMG, or as a hit and run insurgent weapon, or as a mass issue weapon for conscripts/civil defense force who have less training/logistics than the regular army. AR modularity is frankly not in the same league. You retain the lower receiver - the very cheapest and smallest component - but have to swap out the whole upper/barrel/rail/optics. So you keep your $250 lower but then swap out ~$2500 upper when optics and IR are factored in. Really barely any improvement vs just having multiple rifles. With the AUG, the rifle can be quickly converted to different roles (from 16" to 24" HBAR; from 20" to 14.5" suppressed,etc) while retaining all of the most valuable parts of the rifle - namely most of the rifle and all of its accessories. If we convert this guy into a 24" Automatic Rifle, or 14.5" with integral suppressor, everything is retained but the barrel vertical grip: https://i.ibb.co/60xwk2J/a29d1be7cuh71.jpg Saying the AR is a modular wonder is like saying the MAC 11 is; sorta? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lage-Manufacturing-MAX-1115-.2235.56-Upper-Receivers-for-M-119-SMGs-1.jpg Different barrels will have different POI's. Plus if you're swapping between a MK18 upper, and an SPR upper, you're going to want different optics. Of course you could get good QD mounts and use rail covers to keep track of optic positions, but that's far from perfect. It's also worth noting a basic ar will shoot circles around an AUG, you don't have to worry about the QD barrel causing issues, you don't have to worry about stocking left hand bolts so 10% of your population can even use the rifles to begin with. Whatever accessories you decide to issue (optics, lights, improved triggers, grenade launchers, suppressors) are going to work better on an AR than an AUG. LOP is adjustable on an AR, so no matter if the gun gets issued to a 6'4" dude in body armor or a 4'7" teenage girl, they can still hold the firearm comfortably You pretty much hit all the counter arguments I was going to write. I’d also point out that even fully equipped uppers with optics, lights, lasers, VFGs, etc can all still fit in a single rifle bag. You can essentially carry three rifles with one lower. This really shows its usefulness when you get into night vision and passive aiming. A one size fits all optic doesn’t really exist. So while you can swap barrels in something like the AUG, using an Elcan with nods sucks. Having an upper set up specifically for night time goon shit that you can swap to in seconds is a much better option. That is simply not something an Elcan equipped AUG can do without comprising by having to use an optic that isn’t well suited for night time stuff. Why swap at all at that point vs just having 2 rifles? The lower is the cheapest component of the rifle, and also is about 2.5lbs. If you're carrying this fantasy golf bag of rifle uppers, what is the point of not just having a complete spare rifle? Also getting back to the OP's question, does 'golf bag of optic equipped uppers' seem like a plausible option for a Civil Defense Rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:04:13 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: According to who? You? Here's the thing, it isn't. It was a bad idea, executed by a government agency that was desperately trying to stay afloat, and it failed. It's half propped up by people who haven't had to carry it, or were never involved in firearms manufacturing. If you want to look at a garand and improve it, it will look absolutely nothing like an M14 or a mini 14. It will look like an AK. If thats too radical for you, congratulations, the italians did a better job than SA did in less than a quarter of the time The Taiwanese, Chinese, and multiple commercial companies have been making them too, ideally as true to the original 1957 design as possible. How many other rifles never had a modification to the mechanism since release? Of course I am saying it's a great rifle. I bought my first one at age 18. They are fantastic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:15:23 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Really in the scenario the OP mentioned - a universal 5.56 platform for Civil Defense - a standardized optic and accessories setup would likely accompany that, rather then issuing multiple varieties of optics. The OP called for a modular platform (PDW-LMG with universal receiver); the AUG is the answer for that as a factory rifle. I don't consider the AR a modular platform (other then LMT) because you're swapping out 80% of the value of the rifle just to make the the thing shorter or longer. ... However, personally I don't think Modularity makes sense for a Civil Defense Rifle. I think an 'all in one' Universal Infantry Weapon (UIW) makes much more sense - a single weapon configuration that can work pretty well as Assault Rifle + DMR + Automatic Rifle. Going with the AUG, that would mean rather then Modular options for a 14.5+16"+20"+24", a Universal option of a 18" HBAR barrel with LMG compensator + light bipod + 42rd mags, with a ACOG+Aimpoint combo. For the AR Universal Infantry Weapon, rather than plans for multiple uppers, just a standardized 14.5" SOCOM profile heavy barrel MLOK upper, paired with the Desert Tech Quattro 53rd quad stack lower receiver. Topped off with a Surefire OBC bolt carrier to reduce FA RPM, a 45/90 SA/FA selector, and a Warcomp to reduce muzzle climb. Also paired with a ACOG/Aimpoint combo. The AR or AUG UIW gives 1 Universal Weapon and Optic combo that can serve all 5.56 weapons needs (albeit imperfectly in each). Modularity makes sense when you have untold billions of parts that already exist. There is no such thing as a standardized optic. There's always going to be situations where a red dot or an acog isn't enough, or a 2-10 or 5-25 whatever is too much, plus again, you're going to have a lot of COTS stuff lying around that you'd be an idiot to not use. There's little to no use having a quick change barrel on anything other than an automatic rifle/lmg |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:19:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Why swap at all at that point vs just having 2 rifles? The lower is the cheapest component of the rifle, and also is about 2.5lbs. If you're carrying this fantasy golf bag of rifle uppers, what is the point of not just having a complete spare rifle? Also getting back to the OP's question, does 'golf bag of optic equipped uppers' seem like a plausible option for a Civil Defense Rifle? By the time you add all the parts to complete it, the lower isn't all that cheap. Stock assembly, FCG, grip and other small parts will triple to quadruple the value. Even more if you have an A5 or Giessle trigger You should tell all the SOCOM guys that their m4's and mk18's are fantasies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 12:25:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: It's become fashionable the last few years to parrot this idea that the gun wasn't manufacturable. The reality is there were some hiccups in early production but no actual required design changes. Virtually every other gun needed multiple revisions. The FAL would shatter flash hiders, the AR buffer changed, the AK receiver was initially problematic to make in stamped form, the Garand got a new gas system, it never had the accuracy issues of the Mini-14, it's actually a testament to the excellent design of the M14 that they never needed to change anything. The Taiwanese, Chinese, and multiple commercial companies have been making them too, ideally as true to the original 1957 design as possible. How many other rifles never had a modification to the mechanism since release? Of course I am saying it's a great rifle. I bought my first one at age 18. They are fantastic. Yes, so manufacturable it only took them 20 years, 20 years to get some of the best, most experienced rifle makers in the world to build a devolution of a rifle that was produced successfully for over 25 years Meanwhile Italy built one in 4 years, and it worked better. Wow, china and Taiwan has been making them? Wow. I bet they are using them day in and day out on the frontlines. Your defense of the m14 is almost as bad as your idea for fixing the mini 14. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:31:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: By the time you add all the parts to complete it, the lower isn't all that cheap. Stock assembly, FCG, grip and other small parts will triple to quadruple the value. Even more if you have an A5 or Giessle trigger You should tell all the SOCOM guys that their m4's and mk18's are fantasies. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Why swap at all at that point vs just having 2 rifles? The lower is the cheapest component of the rifle, and also is about 2.5lbs. If you're carrying this fantasy golf bag of rifle uppers, what is the point of not just having a complete spare rifle? Also getting back to the OP's question, does 'golf bag of optic equipped uppers' seem like a plausible option for a Civil Defense Rifle? By the time you add all the parts to complete it, the lower isn't all that cheap. Stock assembly, FCG, grip and other small parts will triple to quadruple the value. Even more if you have an A5 or Giessle trigger You should tell all the SOCOM guys that their m4's and mk18's are fantasies. A complete lower is $160-$400.  An MK18 or URG-I complete upper is $1400, not counting the optics + laser + light. https://www.brownells.com/gun-parts/rifle-parts/rifle-receivers-parts/mk16-urg-i-complete-upper-receivers-5.56mm/ https://www.midwayusa.com/product/100344258 The cost discrepancy between upper w/ optic and lower makes having spare uppers vs spare complete rifles silly unless constrained by laws or bureaucracy (ie like a rule that will only issue one lower per soldier but doesn't limit uppers, which I believe is why SOCOM has those spare uppers instead of spare rifles). |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:44:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: There is no such thing as a standardized optic. There's always going to be situations where a red dot or an acog isn't enough, or a 2-10 or 5-25 whatever is too much, plus again, you're going to have a lot of COTS stuff lying around that you'd be an idiot to not use. There's little to no use having a quick change barrel on anything other than an automatic rifle/lmg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Really in the scenario the OP mentioned - a universal 5.56 platform for Civil Defense - a standardized optic and accessories setup would likely accompany that, rather then issuing multiple varieties of optics. The OP called for a modular platform (PDW-LMG with universal receiver); the AUG is the answer for that as a factory rifle. I don't consider the AR a modular platform (other then LMT) because you're swapping out 80% of the value of the rifle just to make the the thing shorter or longer. ... However, personally I don't think Modularity makes sense for a Civil Defense Rifle. I think an 'all in one' Universal Infantry Weapon (UIW) makes much more sense - a single weapon configuration that can work pretty well as Assault Rifle + DMR + Automatic Rifle. Going with the AUG, that would mean rather then Modular options for a 14.5+16"+20"+24", a Universal option of a 18" HBAR barrel with LMG compensator + light bipod + 42rd mags, with a ACOG+Aimpoint combo. For the AR Universal Infantry Weapon, rather than plans for multiple uppers, just a standardized 14.5" SOCOM profile heavy barrel MLOK upper, paired with the Desert Tech Quattro 53rd quad stack lower receiver. Topped off with a Surefire OBC bolt carrier to reduce FA RPM, a 45/90 SA/FA selector, and a Warcomp to reduce muzzle climb. Also paired with a ACOG/Aimpoint combo. The AR or AUG UIW gives 1 Universal Weapon and Optic combo that can serve all 5.56 weapons needs (albeit imperfectly in each). There is no such thing as a standardized optic. There's always going to be situations where a red dot or an acog isn't enough, or a 2-10 or 5-25 whatever is too much, plus again, you're going to have a lot of COTS stuff lying around that you'd be an idiot to not use. There's little to no use having a quick change barrel on anything other than an automatic rifle/lmg If we had a time machine and could give Stoner the LMT quick change barrel design, and that became how the M16/AR15 was designed, we'd think the current system of having to swap uppers to change barrel lengths is totally retarded.  Meanwhile, standardized optics is literally the standard for military weapons, where the majority of rifles use 1-2 common optics outside of very specialized roles. The US Army + Marines used the ACOG or Aimpoint as standard for 20 years. The Army is now standardizing on the SIG 1-6x LPVO (M4) or NGSW-FC (for NGSW), while the Marines are standardizing on the VCOG. A Civil Defense Rifle could easily (and would likely) use a standardize optic suitable for day and night use thats good enough for most applications.  |
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 8:17:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#16]
An AR15 with a 14.5” medium weight barrel, quality LPVO, and appropriate accessories fills the role of essentially everything one would need in a CD rifle.
Making the AR into a SAW is silly. Just add in beltfeds. Earlier in the thread I proposed this: As a comprehensive CD kit, I propose: -LMT MARS-L with 1913 Specwar upper, 14.5” chrome lined barrel. -Magpul M3 PMAGs. -NF NX8 1-8 with a Euro diopter adjustment (we are dreaming, let’s dream big). -Hux Flow 556k suppressor. -Magpul MIAD grip. -Magpul MOE SL stock. -Ergo ladder type rail covers. -Blueforcegear VCAS sling. -Arisaka 18650 light body with Malkoff E2XTL, Unity AXON switch. -Wilcox RAID Xe full power laser -Glock 45 optic cut with Aimpoint ACRO or Trijicon RMR HD. -L3 1531 white phos BNVD on a G24 mount, on a lightweight ballistic helmet -Trijicon Skeet-IR thermal -Plate carrier with level IV plates. -Crye LVS level IIIA vest. -SKD PIG gloves. -Raptor Mk4 belt with double m4 mag and double pistol mag pouches, dump pouch, IFAK. -Safariland 6395 holster for Glock 45 -Cleaning kit, lens pens, etc -Comms Would also want weaponized and surveillance drones, anti-drone defense, Carl Gs, mortars, M240, M249/mk46. All can be kept in the CD armory to be drawn in the event of need. Better yet, since we are dreaming, let’s assume the 34 NFA, 68 GCA, and 922(o) were ruled unconstitutional and the 240, 249/mk46 can be bought at retail like any other firearm. Re: the costly electro optics, make theee available at gov contract price to those in the CD, allow full value of all items purchased for CD to be written off income taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 8:53:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Why not a standard issue Colt M4? Use the gun the mil uses, no need to complicate things.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 11:40:19 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: A complete lower is $160-$400. https://i.ibb.co/whMpwsx/Screen-Shot-2024-04-17-at-2-18-38-AM.png An MK18 or URG-I complete upper is $1400, not counting the optics + laser + light. https://www.brownells.com/gun-parts/rifle-parts/rifle-receivers-parts/mk16-urg-i-complete-upper-receivers-5.56mm/ https://www.midwayusa.com/product/100344258 The cost discrepancy between upper w/ optic and lower makes having spare uppers vs spare complete rifles silly unless constrained by laws or bureaucracy (ie like a rule that will only issue one lower per soldier but doesn't limit uppers, which I believe is why SOCOM has those spare uppers instead of spare rifles). You are comparing a range of lowers to one, well two specific uppers. Uppers that can be produced for MUCH cheaper than your quoted price. Plus again, with an extra upper, you don't have to worry about POI shift, you don't have to worry about getting stuck with a red dot if you need a DMR or to act as a sniper, your gun shoots much better to begin with, and should it come down to it, one upper can be cannibalized for spare parts. You can field a full AR for the cost of 1 AUG barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 11:52:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: If we had a time machine and could give Stoner the LMT quick change barrel design, and that became how the M16/AR15 was designed, we'd think the current system of having to swap uppers to change barrel lengths is totally retarded. https://cdn.athlonoutdoors.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2014/11/lmt-lm8mws-swmp-jan-switch-barrel.jpg Meanwhile, standardized optics is literally the standard for military weapons, where the majority of rifles use 1-2 common optics outside of very specialized roles. The US Army + Marines used the ACOG or Aimpoint as standard for 20 years. The Army is now standardizing on the SIG 1-6x LPVO (M4) or NGSW-FC (for NGSW), while the Marines are standardizing on the VCOG. A Civil Defense Rifle could easily (and would likely) use a standardize optic suitable for day and night use thats good enough for most applications. https://i0.wp.com/jtacindustries.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PXL_20220610_2323551092-jpg.webp?fit=416%2C416&ssl=1 You just listed 6 optics. Not exactly a strong standard, even less when you realize all the different model ACOG's in inventory, the elcans, various aimpoints, and eotechs that are floating around, and thats ignoring all the other fixed power and variable optics that are everywhere. If you are at the point you need to issue rifles to civilians, you cant just whip an AUG with a "standard optic" out, you take what you have, or can easily get. And considering how many places across the US already make AR15's, and how far away Austria is... that makes it a very easy decision |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 1:04:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Yes, so manufacturable it only took them 20 years, 20 years to get some of the best, most experienced rifle makers in the world to build a devolution of a rifle that was produced successfully for over 25 years Meanwhile Italy built one in 4 years, and it worked better. Wow, china and Taiwan has been making them? Wow. I bet they are using them day in and day out on the frontlines. Your defense of the m14 is almost as bad as your idea for fixing the mini 14. I keep hearing that the BM-59 is so much better, I don't know. I shot one one time, what's the advantage of it exactly? I didn't say Taiwan and China were using them, just that they made them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 1:05:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankW134: Why not a standard issue Colt M4? Use the gun the mil uses, no need to complicate things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 2:12:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: The version that's 30 years old? Its soldier proof and easy to maintain. M4A1 MWS usable with whatever force multipliers that they determine to issue. Have you ever served? Have you ever trained level 1-3 troops? Have you ever taught basic soldier skills? Land nav, first aid, etc? You only need a basic rifle, LBE/body armor, mags, cleaning kit and sling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 3:41:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: They didn't spend 20 years setting up the assembly line, it was far less. The rifles went into mass production in 1957. They didn't start the M14 in 1937. Why do you think it was 20 years? What is your timeline? I keep hearing that the BM-59 is so much better, I don't know. I shot one one time, what's the advantage of it exactly? I didn't say Taiwan and China were using them, just that they made them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By Jm11513: Yes, so manufacturable it only took them 20 years, 20 years to get some of the best, most experienced rifle makers in the world to build a devolution of a rifle that was produced successfully for over 25 years Meanwhile Italy built one in 4 years, and it worked better. Wow, china and Taiwan has been making them? Wow. I bet they are using them day in and day out on the frontlines. Your defense of the m14 is almost as bad as your idea for fixing the mini 14. I keep hearing that the BM-59 is so much better, I don't know. I shot one one time, what's the advantage of it exactly? I didn't say Taiwan and China were using them, just that they made them. Let him keep displaying his ignorance. I like the BM-59, but it's just on-par with the M14. No better, no worse. Both are ahead of the Garand, which is a big no-brainer. Typical attributes for a Cold War battle rifle. If I had to choose between my FALs and M14s (or a -59), it would really come down to ergonomics and how many mags/spare parts I had on-hand. Not a fan of the G3's charging handle, and the AR-10 type is leagues ahead of all the rest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:58:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: They didn't spend 20 years setting up the assembly line, it was far less. The rifles went into mass production in 1957. They didn't start the M14 in 1937. Why do you think it was 20 years? What is your timeline? I keep hearing that the BM-59 is so much better, I don't know. I shot one one time, what's the advantage of it exactly? I didn't say Taiwan and China were using them, just that they made them. Christ. I don't think i'm capable of explaining this any further. The m14 is a direct descendant of the m1 garand. The garand at the time of the adoption of the M14 was mature and had been proven in global combat, and had a healthy list of contractors who were successfully producing rifles. It was not a clean sheet design. Several elements were worked through by SA and winchester prior to the M14 even being a concept. The M14 was never mature. It's production was plagued by issues that were never resolved. Whats the advantage of the bm59? Well aside from the fact it used more M1 tooling? Aside from the fact Garands could be converted? Aside from the fact it took less than half the development time? Aside from the fact it had less than half the unit cost? Aside from the fact a country that was barely mechanized during WW2 managed to build them without the issues that H&R or Winchester or TRW faced. But I'm sure the government arsenal (the same one that threw the T44/48 trials), and fought the AR15 tooth and nail was right, It's everyone else's fault |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:04:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Its soldier proof and easy to maintain. M4A1 MWS usable with whatever force multipliers that they determine to issue. Have you ever served? Have you ever trained level 1-3 troops? Have you ever taught basic soldier skills? Land nav, first aid, etc? You only need a basic rifle, LBE/body armor, mags, cleaning kit and sling. My question was: What configuration exactly? Are we going to have the 7" KAC RAS? Or are we going with a midlength, any changes to the grip or stock, etc? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:19:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jm11513]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: No to your questions. My question was: What configuration exactly? Are we going to have the 7" KAC RAS? Or are we going with a midlength, any changes to the grip or stock, etc? Smart move would be to build whatever you can at first Then once you get rid of the non standard stuff, build copies of the 6921, with some limited production of mk18 and m16a4/m16a5/SAMR uppers, and F/A M4 lowers to hand out as needed. You don't need SOCOM barrels or KAC rails for a mass issue gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:26:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Christ. I don't think i'm capable of explaining this any further. The m14 is a direct descendant of the m1 garand. The garand at the time of the adoption of the M14 was mature and had been proven in global combat, and had a healthy list of contractors who were successfully producing rifles. It was not a clean sheet design. Several elements were worked through by SA and winchester prior to the M14 even being a concept. The M14 was never mature. It's production was plagued by issues that were never resolved. Whats the advantage of the bm59? Well aside from the fact it used more M1 tooling? Aside from the fact Garands could be converted? Aside from the fact it took less than half the development time? Aside from the fact it had less than half the unit cost? Aside from the fact a country that was barely mechanized during WW2 managed to build them without the issues that H&R or Winchester or TRW faced. But I'm sure the government arsenal (the same one that threw the T44/48 trials), and fought the AR15 tooth and nail was right, It's everyone else's fault |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 10:45:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Why do you think it was so hard to make the M14 compared to the Garand? What parts were harder to manufacture and why? Because SA has a history of screwing up the garand, and their fingers were tainting quite a few pies. The t48, the ar15... They had to bring JCG out of retirement twice to fix their mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:53:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: No to your questions. My question was: What configuration exactly? Are we going to have the 7" KAC RAS? Or are we going with a midlength, any changes to the grip or stock, etc? I did answer the question. M4A1 MWS which is standard issue with 7" KAC RAS, 14.5" SOCOM bbl with FSB/bayonet lug, side sling swivel, A2 FH, A2 PG, flat top (either with BUIS or detachable CH), select fire/auto, 4 position receiver extension and whatever stock it comes with (4-5 in system). Why, cause the Uncle has already bought millions of them, cheap enough, parts in inventory and proven system. M4 sling or Blue Force sling as both have NSNs. Issue either any M7 or M9 bayonet stockages out with training. Since the M203 has been withdrawn from front line service, issue those with the M4A1s too as needed. Training plans and graphic training aids already developed and in system. Not every location is going to have ranges to zero and train on, hence those air powered training rifles with vans for cities. Then there is the .22LR sub cal training devices ie M261s for indoor ranges (haven't seen any in years however) There is a lot more involved in training a force besides just handing out a rifle. That force needs training hence a "Well Regulated Militia." I've trained from individuals to brigade level. Civilian Defense militia would be more securing infrastructure ie bridges, ports, airports, power plants, food processing plants, railways and highway intersections, etc. These are NOT glamourous jobs but vital just the same. These activities would be defensive in nature and would require the necessary equipment/training to defend. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:25:59 AM EDT
[#30]
I think the US is a pretty obvious case of AR variant, for obvious reasons.
I think the more interesting question is whats the ideal for other countries as a Civil Defense / Total Defense weapon? Currently the only 2 country's I know that practice 'military guns kept in civilian homes in case of surprise invasion' are Switzerland (SG 550) and Cyprus (HK G3). Both are designs getting pretty long in the tooth. Cyprus has done some work to replace the G3 with the Tavor, but it's far from complete and could probably change. Depending on how the war in Ukraine goes, I could see some of the smaller countries in Eastern Europe like Latvia / Estonia / etc follow the same concept. These are countries with more limited budgets, and no real domestic firearm design, making the field pretty wide open. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 8:05:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: FrankW134]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: The version that's 30 years old? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By FrankW134: Why not a standard issue Colt M4? Use the gun the mil uses, no need to complicate things. The current M4A1 version is circa 2014. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 11:39:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankW134: The current M4A1 version is circa 2014. M4A1 Block 1 was mid 90s within a year of the adoption of the carbine in 94'. SOCOM barrel came out in 2001. Army just adopted SOCOM block 1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:50:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrankW134]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: M4A1 Block 1 was mid 90s within a year of the adoption of the carbine in 94'. SOCOM barrel came out in 2001. Army just adopted SOCOM block 1. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Originally Posted By FrankW134: The current M4A1 version is circa 2014. M4A1 Block 1 was mid 90s within a year of the adoption of the carbine in 94'. SOCOM barrel came out in 2001. Army just adopted SOCOM block 1. I'm referring specifically to the M4A1 PIP in 2014, not SOCOM specific weapons. There are a lot of items specific to the block 1 program which are no longer in service, or simply not issued to big army carbines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:25:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankW134: Why not a standard issue Colt M4? Use the gun the mil uses, no need to complicate things. Uncle Sam is in the process of replacing the M16/M4 with a new weapon system. We will slowly begin retiring a large amount of M16/M4 rifles that should be set aside for the "just in case". The manual of arms is pretty much the same between the new and the old as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:45:38 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Uncle Sam is in the process of replacing the M16/M4 with a new weapon system. Not really. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:51:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Not really. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By Frank762: Uncle Sam is in the process of replacing the M16/M4 with a new weapon system. Not really. About the same as the M1 and the M14. Almost the same manual of arms, different ammo, not many interchangeable parts. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:11:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Not really. And we will see. Uncle Sugar has a history of touting the latest greatest weapon .. on then moving to the next, latest greatest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:11:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Uncle Sam is in the process of replacing the M16/M4 with a new weapon system. We will slowly begin retiring a large amount of M16/M4 rifles that should be set aside for the "just in case". The manual of arms is pretty much the same between the new and the old as far as I can tell. Yes and No. M7 6.8x51mm is only to replace the M4A1 in frontline infantry. Not as a general purpose rifle to everyone. The M16/M4 will be around for a long time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:32:43 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Yes and No. M7 6.8x51mm is only to replace the M4A1 in frontline infantry. Not as a general purpose rifle to everyone. The M16/M4 will be around for a long time. Once the Army infantry has their M-4s replaced, I assume support units in the Army will have their M-4s replaced by the new rifle. Then, Air Force base fast food franchises will transition to the new rifle. Then, the Marines will be forced to switch to the new rifle after yet again being denied switching back to the 1903 Springfield. The Navy however will stay with the M-14 as a line thrower, because 6.8x51mm was not close enough to re-write 60 year old manuals. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:42:53 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Once the Army infantry has their M-4s replaced, I assume support units in the Army will have their M-4s replaced by the new rifle. Then, Air Force base fast food franchises will transition to the new rifle. Then, the Marines will be forced to switch to the new rifle after yet again being denied switching back to the 1903 Springfield. The Navy however will stay with the M-14 as a line thrower, because 6.8x51mm was not close enough to re-write 60 year old manuals. If you look at the new 6.8x51 its a 140 gr projo at 3000 fps from a 13" bbl. You know what else gives that but from a longer barrel and been around since 1925, nearly 100 yrs ago? The .270 Winchester. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:00:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: About the same as the M1 and the M14. Almost the same manual of arms, different ammo, not many interchangeable parts. I wasn't talking about the manual of arms. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:56:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9D1Alpha]
[#42]
Ruger SFAR set up for long loaded , heavy 5.56. Specifically 77gr tmk.
* keep the spare .308 bbl, bolt , and mags for other conditions. |
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 11:43:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Once the Army infantry has their M-4s replaced, I assume support units in the Army will have their M-4s replaced by the new rifle. Then, Air Force base fast food franchises will transition to the new rifle. Then, the Marines will be forced to switch to the new rifle after yet again being denied switching back to the 1903 Springfield. The Navy however will stay with the M-14 as a line thrower, because 6.8x51mm was not close enough to re-write 60 year old manuals. That ExeTurd monstrosity is going to be a dead in the water program akin to the SCAR-L. A carbine with a railed handguard that cannot hold zero for lasers and clip on night optics with reports of poor accuracy is a stillbirth. The LMG lacks a QC barrel. How do you design an LMG that lacks a QC barrel? A light assault machinegun could understandably have a barrel that’s not QC. But a LMG for general issue should have a QC barrel. The caliber is silly and way too expensive and complicated to manufacture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2024 12:24:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: If you look at the new 6.8x51 its a 140 gr projo at 3000 fps from a 13" bbl. You know what else gives that but from a longer barrel and been around since 1925, nearly 100 yrs ago? The .270 Winchester. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Originally Posted By Frank762: Once the Army infantry has their M-4s replaced, I assume support units in the Army will have their M-4s replaced by the new rifle. Then, Air Force base fast food franchises will transition to the new rifle. Then, the Marines will be forced to switch to the new rifle after yet again being denied switching back to the 1903 Springfield. The Navy however will stay with the M-14 as a line thrower, because 6.8x51mm was not close enough to re-write 60 year old manuals. If you look at the new 6.8x51 its a 140 gr projo at 3000 fps from a 13" bbl. You know what else gives that but from a longer barrel and been around since 1925, nearly 100 yrs ago? The .270 Winchester. Projectile tech and powder tech have gone forward some in 100 years, but steel is still a limiting factor and while exotic materials exist that can do higher CUP and get higher pressures and thus FPS barring some Sort of weird hybrid gyro jet/ conventional round o don’t think FPS can go up much or some sort of APFSDS projectile (and accuracy in rifles sucked on my experience) . Barrel length is limited by soldier and weight; , powder charge by both logical reasons and steel strength, projection by desired effect (a 20 grain projectile at 5000 fps wouldn’t have much down range effect). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:01:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: That ExeTurd monstrosity is going to be a dead in the water program akin to the SCAR-L. A carbine with a railed handguard that cannot hold zero for lasers and clip on night optics with reports of poor accuracy is a stillbirth. The LMG lacks a QC barrel. How do you design an LMG that lacks a QC barrel? A light assault machinegun could understandably have a barrel that’s not QC. But a LMG for general issue should have a QC barrel. The caliber is silly and way too expensive and complicated to manufacture. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: Originally Posted By Frank762: Once the Army infantry has their M-4s replaced, I assume support units in the Army will have their M-4s replaced by the new rifle. Then, Air Force base fast food franchises will transition to the new rifle. Then, the Marines will be forced to switch to the new rifle after yet again being denied switching back to the 1903 Springfield. The Navy however will stay with the M-14 as a line thrower, because 6.8x51mm was not close enough to re-write 60 year old manuals. That ExeTurd monstrosity is going to be a dead in the water program akin to the SCAR-L. A carbine with a railed handguard that cannot hold zero for lasers and clip on night optics with reports of poor accuracy is a stillbirth. The LMG lacks a QC barrel. How do you design an LMG that lacks a QC barrel? A light assault machinegun could understandably have a barrel that’s not QC. But a LMG for general issue should have a QC barrel. The caliber is silly and way too expensive and complicated to manufacture. I had read somewhere the 101st was being issued these weapon systems. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:23:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: I had read somewhere the 101st was being issued these weapon systems. Right. I predict that we see a number of issues crop up, such that both guns are sidelined and no more are ordered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:57:34 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: Right. I predict that we see a number of issues crop up, such that both guns are sidelined and no more are ordered. Wasn't there a unit that was issued SCARs years ago? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:38:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Wasn't there a unit that was issued SCARs years ago? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Originally Posted By JoshNC: Right. I predict that we see a number of issues crop up, such that both guns are sidelined and no more are ordered. Wasn't there a unit that was issued SCARs years ago? Back in the mid 2000s. Nothing ground breaking came out of it. Fact that a lot of scar owners don’t want to admit is that it’s pretty much just a dressed up AR18. While the 17 was probably more useful being 7.62x51 but the only thing the 16 does that the M4 doesn’t is have a folding stock and from the reports about the SCAR back then, the folding stocks would often break. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:56:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Back in the mid 2000s. Nothing ground breaking came out of it. Fact that a lot of scar owners don’t want to admit is that it’s pretty much just a dressed up AR18. While the 17 was probably more useful being 7.62x51 but the only thing the 16 does that the M4 doesn’t is have a folding stock and from the reports about the SCAR back then, the folding stocks would often break. And the XM7 is also a dressed up AR18. But somehow there was a BAR in the family somewhere and some recessive genes snuck in to create a 16lb rifle |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
