I've heard some great things about the M96 Expeditionary rifle, that it's suppose to be better than an AR15. Any comments?

I think it's a pretty cool design.  The main drawback is it's price.  It's a post-ban gun that costs as much as a pre-ban rifle.  As a new rifle, there really isn't that much in the way of accessories, etc. available for it yet.  With it's higher price tag, the market remains small, so there's little reason for anyone, other than it's manufacturer, to develop much for it.  All sorts of people will try to market things for the AR, because it's a ready market.  The M-96 is much smaller, so there's no economic reason to do that yet.

I'm not knocking the M-96, I'd love to own one myself, but I just can't see plopping that kind of green down for a post-ban gun.

Ross

I understand they aren't as accurate.

Quoted: I understand they aren't as accurate.

Which rifle, the AR-15 or M96?  I haven't heard anything either way.  From what I've heard and seen the rifle is just as accurate and reliable as the AR-15, it just doesn't have the same accessories available for it.





"Do what you will,
just don't make you statements so vague."

Is it sufficiently "better" than an AR to warrant the difference in price?  

Has it been PROVEN better. With real scientific & repeatable tests, for a disinterested 3rd party?  I doubt it.  Lots of people (especially the manufactures) make all kinds of claims.  Very few can back them up.

Get if because its cool, or you like the way it looks, or with a  bit of Kurt's magic you can make it look like a Stoner.  But don't try to kid yourself that its definately 'better'.