[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the AR15 outdated? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:36:46 PM EDT
| Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? Why has the AR15 stayed relevant with shooters and the culture as long as it has? |
 I said better AND cheaper. |
|
Quoted: There's nothing that provides more than incremental nuanced improvement over the AR15, which is typically washed as soon as cost and availability comes into play. The next step is going to have to be something major, like an energy weapon or railgun. |
|
Quoted:
No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. Disagree. But it's close to being 'at the edge'. They are still developing powders with better burn/pressure rates. |
|
The AR15 is like the PC. Standard architecture so there are hundreds of companies making components. The OS (ammo) is generally Windows (5.56), but can be other OS's (calibers) if desired. Eventually, everyone has one and at some point you're not cool anymore. So you go out and buy Apple (AK, SCAR, AR10, etc) because its the cool new thing your friends are desiring. But, in the end, you still go back to the economically practical solution that just makes sense.  |
|
What does any other modern rifle offer that the AR-15/M16/M4 does not. Other than bullpup design which has not caught much traction here the advancements in rifles has not really progressed much. The AR is adaptable and upgradable and can be had very cheaply now in the grand scheme of things.
Do not forget the AR-10 a heavy version of the AR15. |
|
Cheaper and lighter? Kel tech rifles.
Better? Perhaps the SCAR or something like that. Though that is subject to debate. And I am not going to debate the point because I have only shot a Scar once. Better and cheaper? I don't think that such an animal currently exists. Even if someone invented it tomorrow it would take years for it to get going. |
| The new caseless belt fed ammo for the LSAT is interesting. Adding a new type of propellant to the mix might change it up some . But the AR will probably be able to adapt and fire it. I think the AR lower is the more revolutionary part of the design . Think of how many applications its used on. Catridges are moving to smaller OAL . The 308 lower was done out of necessity . I do t think we will ever see the better and newer calibers go larger. So with the use of a mag block the AR lower can stay relevant |
|
Quoted:
I think the FN SCAR is a better design but more money and I can't have one. 
Lol no, my beat to hell armaltie felt more sold than the SCAR H I shot. It's is accurate and reliable. However, proprietary mags are for faggots and it beats the shit out of good scopes. It's the gun version of Navy SEAL hero worship |
|
Quoted: The AR15 is like the PC. Standard architecture so there are hundreds of companies making components. The OS (ammo) is generally Windows (5.56), but can be other OS's (calibers) if desired. Eventually, everyone has one and at some point you're not cool anymore. So you go out and buy Apple (AK, SCAR, AR10, etc) because its the cool new thing your friends are desiring. But, in the end, you still go back to the economically practical solution that just makes sense. it's also been around so long that there are no patents keeping anyone from making their own AR |
|
Quoted:
Go on... Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing that provides more than incremental nuanced improvement over the AR15, which is typically washed as soon as cost and availability comes into play. The next step is going to have to be something major, like an energy weapon or railgun. He's hinting at a G20. /thread |
|
Quoted:
Go on... Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing that provides more than incremental nuanced improvement over the AR15, which is typically washed as soon as cost and availability comes into play. The next step is going to have to be something major, like an energy weapon or railgun. Magnets, man |
|
I don't expect anything revolutionary until there's caseless rounds, big increases in velocity, electronic ignition, etc.
Today there's just small changes from the AR15 compared to other pricier stuff. A little better reliability and accuracy, but nothing groundbreaking. I think bullpup rifles could eventually be better than an AR15 in performance and price if they continue to make improvements in them, become more popular, and the price comes down. A longer barrel in a handier design sounds good to me. |
|
Quoted:
AR-15 is in it's prime. Nothing better for the money. Tough to beat. Yep, this. I own AR15 in 6.5 Grendel and 5.56x45 and do not feel undergunned in any way, from hunting the game typical to the area around me (WI) to defending my castle. I like being able to maintain, fix, and upgrade my guns, I like having multiple AR SBR lowers, and I like being at the end of a very fat pipeline of parts and accessories. I've had FALs, an FS2000, multiple bolt action rifles in everything from .338LM to .308, and on and on... And I've kept my ARs. |
|
Quoted:
No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. I expect that this paradigm will remain with us for a long time. As body armor gets better we might see moves towards higher velocity and maybe small incremental improvements in barrel metallurgy, but nothing earth shaking. The next technological step from metallic cartridges and nitro cellulose propellant will either be direct fire energy weapons (microwave or laser), magnetic "propellant" weapons (railguns and coilguns) or Electro-thermal chemical guns. The problem with all of these is that they are, presently, viable for use in artillery systems but don't seem to scale down well to small arms. That's why I think we'll still have metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose for a long time to come. |
|
Better to me would be cheaper, lighter, more reliable and shorter. I don't think anything else out there can claim all four over an AR. I personally like the Steyr Aug, but it's darned heavy and expensive compared to an AR. Had a SCAR-L, but traded it off for optics. Heavier, more expensive and higher sight plane. Playing with a Sig MCX now. Pretty comparable in weight, a bit more expensive, but not in SCAR territory, I have no idea how reliable it will be yet. I don't see the AR being dethroned anytime soon.
|
|
Quoted:
Better to me would be cheaper, lighter, more reliable and shorter. I don't think anything else out there can claim all four over an AR. I personally like the Steyr Aug, but it's darned heavy and expensive compared to an AR. Had a SCAR-L, but traded it off for optics. Heavier, more expensive and higher sight plane. Playing with a Sig MCX now. Pretty comparable in weight, a bit more expensive, but not in SCAR territory, I have no idea how reliable it will be yet. I don't see the AR being dethroned anytime soon. And I'd basically call the MCX a more "evolved" AR. Not an entirely different platform like a SCAR or AUG. |
|
Quoted:
No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. This. The next big thing is going to be caseless, railgun, or energy beam. Cased, explosively driven solid projectile weapons are about at their apex of development. We can tweak them here and there, but the tech itself isn't going to improve in any meaningful way. |
|
Quoted: Go on... Quoted: Quoted: There's nothing that provides more than incremental nuanced improvement over the AR15, which is typically washed as soon as cost and availability comes into play. The next step is going to have to be something major, like an energy weapon or railgun. Before we see the next big jump in weapons development that migrates to plasma/laser/grazer/mazer/railgun, there will have to be a breakthrough in 2 fields: Room Temperature Superconductors - allow us to create batteries with incredible storage capacities Directed Force Fields - not sure how on this one, but there needs to be a way using either magnetism or gravity waves to control and funnel the energy discharge of the weapon. OR... A breakthrough in materials development in creating a frictionless material that can stand up to high shock and temperature values needed for a viable rail gun. |
|
Quoted:
Better to me would be cheaper, lighter, more reliable and shorter. I don't think anything else out there can claim all four over an AR. I personally like the Steyr Aug, but it's darned heavy and expensive compared to an AR. Had a SCAR-L, but traded it off for optics. Heavier, more expensive and higher sight plane. Playing with a Sig MCX now. Pretty comparable in weight, a bit more expensive, but not in SCAR territory, I have no idea how reliable it will be yet. I don't see the AR being dethroned anytime soon. Wasn't the Scar supposed to replace the M4/M16 ? I wonder what ever happened to that. |
|
Quoted:
Because they essentially banned it in 94 temporarily And have tried to do it again and again Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? Why has the AR15 stayed relevant with shooters and the culture as long as it has? Because they essentially banned it in 94 temporarily And have tried to do it again and again BOOM! Tell people they can't have something and now they want it. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.projecttriforce.com/images/products/secondary/h2_plasma-3.jpg Until the plasma rifle becomes mainstream, I think so... Certainly on the cheaper aspect. Is that a stapler or a new fangled speculum? Txl |
|
Quoted:
Wasn't the Scar supposed to replace the M4/M16 ? I wonder what ever happened to that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Better to me would be cheaper, lighter, more reliable and shorter. I don't think anything else out there can claim all four over an AR. I personally like the Steyr Aug, but it's darned heavy and expensive compared to an AR. Had a SCAR-L, but traded it off for optics. Heavier, more expensive and higher sight plane. Playing with a Sig MCX now. Pretty comparable in weight, a bit more expensive, but not in SCAR territory, I have no idea how reliable it will be yet. I don't see the AR being dethroned anytime soon. Wasn't the Scar supposed to replace the M4/M16 ? I wonder what ever happened to that. Cost and the difference between the two was not enough to warrant the change. They did buy a lot of SCARH rifles though. |
|
Quoted:
Better to me would be cheaper... That all comes down to laws and the like. The reason the AR-15 is so cheap is because the patents are gone and everyone makes them all over the world. I wouldn't be surprised if the SCAR was cheaper to make, the upper looks simpler to machine and the lower is polymer. But FN is FN, they charge a lot due to their name and I think they can't sell below some outrageous price the government buys them for. We'll never see a rifle as cheap as the AR because before patents expire some 40 or so years down the road, we'll have laws banning them from sale. |
|
Quoted:
Wasn't the Scar supposed to replace the M4/M16 ? I wonder what ever happened to that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Better to me would be cheaper, lighter, more reliable and shorter. I don't think anything else out there can claim all four over an AR. I personally like the Steyr Aug, but it's darned heavy and expensive compared to an AR. Had a SCAR-L, but traded it off for optics. Heavier, more expensive and higher sight plane. Playing with a Sig MCX now. Pretty comparable in weight, a bit more expensive, but not in SCAR territory, I have no idea how reliable it will be yet. I don't see the AR being dethroned anytime soon. Wasn't the Scar supposed to replace the M4/M16 ? I wonder what ever happened to that. Probably no appreciable advantage vs cost. From what I understand though is there are SCAR 17s been being used. |
|
Quoted:
Disagree. But it's close to being 'at the edge'. They are still developing powders with better burn/pressure rates. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there something that can do it better and cheaper? No. We've pushed the metallic cartridge / nitrocellulose propellant paradigm about as far as it's gonna go. Disagree. But it's close to being 'at the edge'. They are still developing powders with better burn/pressure rates. Agreed. Especially promising are the triple based powders, the potential is there for hypersonic rounds in the size of 5.56x45 with similar bullet weight. Caseless and/or telescoped rounds are also becoming practical and promising in testing. |