Quoted: Quoted: The AR is not the greates weapon out there.  The operating mechanism isn't forgiving on neglect while a lot of comtemporary designs are. The ONLY reason for the go fast accessories is because its popular among civilians. If an AK were as popular in the US as the AR was there would be all kinds of accessories for them.  Lots of weapons use the "upper" and "lower" design that are more reliable in extreme conditions.  If they were as popular then there would be more options for configurations. The AR is nice in its felt recoil, but the lights, lasers and vertical foregrips are NOT well thought out. The idea behind HK's sight was that 1. Modern well made optics are pretty hard to break so might as well design them as the primary sight.  Thats how their going to be used in the field-as the primary.  The laser and illuminator for NVG use was also built into their sight housing.  Very compact and streamlined approach IMO.  There isn't a light because US forces generally don't use lights-they have NVGs.  Personally I don't like vertical forgrips. From a practical standpoint the AR is the best weapons system to currently own.  From a purely technical standpoint its mediocer. The AR15 cannot be "technically mediocer", for the simple reason that there has not been a new rifle mechanism introduced in more than 50 years.  Every rifle out there is a combination of different bolts and operating mechanisms combined togeather.  Some combinations work better than others.  The AR15 is a good combination for a rifle- but not a light machine gun.  For that you would want a piston.  But the pistonleess system saves parts and saves weight over the forend in exchange for running hot and making the reciever dirtier. The problem with the HK sight was that it could not be removed when it was obsolete- not when it was broken.  Though most end users seem to like the idea of back-up irons.  If combining all those features in one unit is so hot, ask Trijjicon to build one.  And when the first rifle sized IIR becomes available you will still be able to mount it on your AR after you remove your multi-unit- but not on your HK without replacing the upper reciever.

Where to start...where to start...

Okay, first HK made the sight easily removable without tools, not to mention it still retains a zero when remounted.  If it does break, not only can it be simply removed, but there are integrated back up sights that fold down into the bridge/handgaurd.  

The AR platform is a great platform.  The ergonomics are excellent.  There are a few problems with the AR platform though.  The first being the direct gas system.  Its old technology and crap when compared to whats out there today.  A piston upper is better than the direct gas in everyway.  Weight saver, eh?  Great, a couple ounces will sure help out that infamous front heavy problem the M4 has.  Yeah, the M4/M16 can use a butt-load of accessories but where do they all go?  Right on the rails on the handguard which makes for a unbalanced weapon.  

Next, whenever any modifications want to be made as a whole, an entire new lower or upper receiver is needed.  The receiver needs to be complete which makes for a lot more parts.  A quick change barrel or stock requires quite bit (everything except time).  

Compared to what is available today, the only thing the AR platform has going for it now is the abundance of accessories (which the only reason for that is because its been around for so long) and the ergonomics.  But then again, I like the G36 series just as good.  There is plenty that needs to be done to the AR platform to make it number one again.  Problem is, its up against a whole bunch of weapons that will never match it so going too far with updating it doesn't make much sense.  Like an AK47 will never beat out a plain jane M16 except in the relieability department, so why make a weapon that is better than the M16 when the M16 is already better than what else it out there.

Unless Iraq or the middle east start manufactoring AN-94, quite possibly the most advanced assualt rifle behind the G11, the AR platform will still be found at the top, right next to the G36 and Sig series but just below the XM8 and HK416 and the SCAR.  

Maybe for an organized combat arm with access to artillery and close air support.

Quoted: I suggest you do a little research on those so-called "tests".

Sorry, not following you here.

Good, bad, rigged?  What's your point?  Discuss?

What I've gathered implied the tests were rigged so that it would fail miserably and Stoner was basically accused of building a POS rifle that would get our boys killed by Army testing.

no, make mine the right arm of the free world

Quoted: Quoted: I suggest you do a little research on those so-called "tests". Sorry, not following you here. Good, bad, rigged?  What's your point?  Discuss? What I've gathered implied the tests were rigged so that it would fail miserably and Stoner was basically accused of building a POS rifle that would get our boys killed by Army testing.

You said:

I

don't really know enough to comment other than I know the initial arctic tests of the AR failed miserably. I don't think it is the same now, though.

You say the tests failed miserably, then you say you know about the tests being rigged.  That's self-contradiction, unless you are saying that Gene Stoner lied about it.

Yes, the tests were rigged.  The took the pins out of the front sights and replaced them with welding rod pieces.  Not only did that throw the sights off and allow them to move around, it also caused the gas system to fuck us since the FSB was moving around.  Stoner himself recounted that both in print and on video.  He personally went to the test site and that is what he found.

Quoted: You say the tests failed miserably, then you say you know about the tests being rigged.  That's self-contradiction, unless you are saying that Gene Stoner lied about it. Yes, the tests were rigged.  The took the pins out of the front sights and replaced them with welding rod pieces.  Not only did that throw the sights off and allow them to move around, it also caused the gas system to fuck us since the FSB was moving around.  Stoner himself recounted that both in print and on video.  He personally went to the test site and that is what he found.

I don't think Stoner lied about anything - I saw the show as well.  I contradicted myself?  What's the rap on that?

I threw that out in response to the cold issue - anyone could have commented like you just did.

You seem pissed, but I'm not sure why.  Or am I reading you wrong?

AR=AK love them both for Dif. things.

The G36 and Sig 552 are probably better. If we were allowed to buy these like we can buy ARs, there'd be a lot more American gun owners who would agree. Never underestimate the "I own it so I must convince me & everyone else that it's the best" train of thought.

Quoted: Quoted: I have yet to find another platform that feels as much like an extension of me.. I do, the M1 and M14 point like shotguns.  You don't need any kind of sights in CQB with those rifles.

How true, especially the scout model. Haven't tried the socom yet.


Roy

Quoted: Quoted: So, nobody wants to respond to my statement that the AR doesn't do well in extreme cold/dusty/dirty conditions? I don't really know enough to comment other than I know the initial arctic tests of the AR failed miserably.  I don't think it is the same now, though. Seems to me everyone complains about dust and dirt with every rifle (i.e. sand cuts in FAL bolts - that sort of thing), well maybe not an AK - not much maintenance to them - hose it down and spray with some oil

Yeah, you mean the initial arctic tests where the people disassembled the front sight bases and put them back in with steel rods instead of taper pins? (Or at least so said Mr. Stoner).

(OK someone else beat me to it!)

Quoted: They're seeking to replace our amrs with foreign. The two companies H+K and FN come to mind. I have a strong(unpopular) belieft that all of our weapons should be American.

How about we pick the best weapons for the
job, reguardless of who makes it? I'd rather
see 1000 Americans lose their jobs than
100,000 servicemen go into battle without
the best equipment.

I'll second that. My rifle was made by FN under license. I didn't care, the thing worked. My tank had a German gun, British Armour, Canadian fire control system, Belgian machineguns, Italian sidearms, American engine, and a generally multinational crew. But it worked, and worked well.

I'm a bit of a heretic here, but I'm a firm proponent of bullpups. The AR-15 was a great design for its time, but is getting a little long in the tooth these days. The L85A2 is perhaps a little heavier, but it's better balanced, just as accurate if not more so, and has a longer barrel for the overall length with resultant increase in accuracy and lethality whilst maintaining its compactness, and, of course, has the piston mechanism praised above. The AUG might reduce a little in accuracy, but make up for it in lightness. Both rifles can come with a mounting rail system (which, due to the short stock design, means that the balance isn't as badly affected by mounting things onto it as it is on the AR-15) and so can be plenty adaptable.

NTM

Certainly one of the best.

But there are a few contenders like the Sig 550.

Quoted: Quoted: Why does everyone say it's so ergonomic? When I say ergonomic, I mean the straight pull of the stock for fast shot recovery - the push is straight back, rather than rocking upward.  This is not unique to the AR, HKs are that way too.

 I love the AR platform. As a matter of fact, I want a Bushy .308 that uses the FAL mags BAD! And I still have the 1rst AR-15 I ever built about 20 yrs. ago.  
 But I love my FAL's , too. You should shoot my 17" short gas system home re-build. With the straight plastic high-comb StG buttstock, it to me is very much the same way as far as feeling like it recoils straight back. It feels pretty controllable to me for a .308 and balances about like my 16 " short gas AR(albeit somewhat heaver). And it just seems to point instinctively well for me. Everyone's different of course.
 And the families of rifles all have their own different little quirks as well. I have no AK experience but as far as the AR vs. FAL, to me the AR is probably an inherently more accurate platform and there's the weight thing too, while I would probably give the FAL the nod as far as overall reliability and a cartridge I have more confidence in overall. I like them both for different reasons I guess...

Isn't this like asking an all out hippy pothead if weed is the greatest drug ever?

Quoted: I'll second that. My rifle was made by FN under license. I didn't care, the thing worked. My tank had a German gun, British Armour, Canadian fire control system, Belgian machineguns, Italian sidearms, American engine, and a generally multinational crew. But it worked, and worked well. I'm a bit of a heretic here, but I'm a firm proponent of bullpups. The AR-15 was a great design for its time, but is getting a little long in the tooth these days. The L85A2 is perhaps a little heavier, but it's better balanced, just as accurate if not more so, and has a longer barrel for the overall length with resultant increase in accuracy and lethality whilst maintaining its compactness, and, of course, has the piston mechanism praised above. The AUG might reduce a little in accuracy, but make up for it in lightness. Both rifles can come with a mounting rail system (which, due to the short stock design, means that the balance isn't as badly affected by mounting things onto it as it is on the AR-15) and so can be plenty adaptable. NTM

The L85a2 is a piece of shit every british soldier knows that. There is a reason that the British SAS chose the C7/M16 platform to outfit there troops it is because the L85 Enfield system is shit.

Ah, no.

The L85A1 was a piece of shit. Then the British decided to hand the thing over to the Germans, have H&K rework it for a stupid amount of money, and according to the Brits who've used it in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is now more reliable than the M-16/M-4 series. British special forces are now reconsidering the rifle. The SA-80 series is now suffering from the same 'reputation' problem that plagued the M-16 for the first part of its life. They fixed it, but people don't believe it.

NTM

No,

G36 or the xm8 or the 550 or just about any other gun that doesn't have a gaping fart pipe shitting into it's own mouth is a better design.

I love my 5.56 AK.

That said, I admit to hoping that some day I may actually be able to afford an AR15.

I'd also love a Dragunov variant.

or just about any other gun that doesn't have a gaping fart pipe shitting into it's own mouth is a better design.

This is for anyone to answer.

I hear a lot about the gas impingement design and how flawed it is, but have never see anyone give evidence of failures because of it.  Is there any documentation of failures based soley on this part of the design?

What about failures due to carboned op rods on other designs?

Quoted: Quoted: You say the tests failed miserably, then you say you know about the tests being rigged.  That's self-contradiction, unless you are saying that Gene Stoner lied about it. Yes, the tests were rigged.  The took the pins out of the front sights and replaced them with welding rod pieces.  Not only did that throw the sights off and allow them to move around, it also caused the gas system to fuck us since the FSB was moving around.  Stoner himself recounted that both in print and on video.  He personally went to the test site and that is what he found. I don't think Stoner lied about anything - I saw the show as well.  I contradicted myself?  What's the rap on that? I threw that out in response to the cold issue - anyone could have commented like you just did. You seem pissed, but I'm not sure why.  Or am I reading you wrong?

I'm not pissed, but your initial response was that you KNEW that it failed miserably in the artic tests, as if that were fact.  No mention of them being rigged until I brought it up.

Then by agreeing that the tests were rigged, you negated your first response.

Quoted: or just about any other gun that doesn't have a gaping fart pipe shitting into it's own mouth is a better design. This is for anyone to answer. I hear a lot about the gas impingement design and how flawed it is, but have never see anyone give evidence of failures because of it.  Is there any documentation of failures based soley on this part of the design? What about failures due to carboned op rods on other designs?

I have ARs that have both types of gas systems.  It is no big deal.  I know the lack of a piston makes the rifle jump around less when fired given that you don't have that moving weight under the handguards.  I find neither one any harder to keep clean than the other and have no malfunctions except an occassional bad mag or round.

A lot of people just like to hear themselves say it "shits where it eats" as if it is some original saying.

Quoted: I'm not pissed, but your initial response was that you KNEW that it failed miserably in the artic tests, as if that were fact.  No mention of them being rigged until I brought it up. Then by agreeing that the tests were rigged, you negated your first response.

Okay, good.  I guess I was being a poor devil's advocate there - I should have just posted what I had gleaned from (tales of the gun?) the show I saw.

From the show, I gathered that Stoner had one hell of a battle on his hands over the new weapon.  Army testing seemed determined (from the show) to eliminate any future of this rifle, regardless of how well it performed (without negative 'tweaking')

All rifles have their faults and quirks, but this one seems to have evolved quite well in the military and civilian roles - not many rifles out there can claim the longevity of service the AR/M16 has had.

Also curious about the comments on the G36 and Sig 55X series - in what way are they deemed better that the AR?  Weight?  Accuracy?  Functionality?  Sex appeal?  Forbidden fruit for most?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not pissed, but your initial response was that you KNEW that it failed miserably in the artic tests, as if that were fact.  No mention of them being rigged until I brought it up. Then by agreeing that the tests were rigged, you negated your first response. Okay, good.  I guess I was being a poor devil's advocate there - I should have just posted what I had gleaned from (tales of the gun?) the show I saw. From the show, I gathered that Stoner had one hell of a battle on his hands over the new weapon.  Army testing seemed determined (from the show) to eliminate any future of this rifle, regardless of how well it performed (without negative 'tweaking') All rifles have their faults and quirks, but this one seems to have evolved quite well in the military and civilian roles - not many rifles out there can claim the longevity of service the AR/M16 has had. Also curious about the comments on the G36 and Sig 55X series - in what way are they deemed better that the AR?  Weight?  Accuracy?  Functionality?  Sex appeal?  Forbidden fruit for most?

They wont be forbidden fruit for long.  And when people get ahold of them they will find that they are not really any different.  It might be fun for a civilian to own a gun that isn't just like everyone elses but unless its performance is astoundingly better (and since they all use the 5.56mm cartridge thats not really possible) there is no reason for a large user like the US Army to change.

The reason that the basic AR action has been around for 40 years is that firearms design has stagnated for over 40 years.  Accessories like sights are the only things that changed, and maybe now bullet construction might change as we are now begining to understand what happens when the round hits the target.

Spending money on sights and new bullet construction for existing rifles is far more useful than new designs, especially when the "new" designs are not new but just repackaged combinations of 50 year old tech.

Also food for thought.  If the AR15 supposedly requires a "sophisticated" user, why do the Moros in the Phillippines seem to have no trouble keeping theirs running (on Norinco ammo no less)  and a lot of their guns are REALLY old, having been originally sold to Vietnam and Indonisia in the 1960's- real M16A1's that already had been through at least one war before they got to the Phillippines.  Are the Moros unusually well trained guerillas or?