Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/4/2002 7:19:18 PM EDT
Well, I've been a student of the AR-15/M-16 for many years now, but I've been a member here for only a few weeks now and an AR owner for even less time.

Anyway, While I really enjoy my new Bushy, but I'm wondering what, if anything, is being done by manufacturers in the pursuit of a heavy duty AR-15/M-16? I'm familiar with Socom Mfg. Diamond Series of lower receivers as well as some kevlar/plastic lowers. These look promising.

I, for one, believe that there is alot of room for improvement in the basic AR-15/M-16 design. Surely all the big names Armalite, Bushmaster & Colt, etc. know that there is potentially alot of money to be made in updating the design by establishing a super heavy-duty version. One that can withstand the rigors of combat far better than the current design.

I would imagine that if a manufacturer could come up with a composite lower and upper built more durably than the aluminum guns they could shut everyone else out and perhaps corner the world market for M-16, M-4s et, al. Heck, they could revolutionize the assault rifle world.

What do you guys think? How quick would you be willing to lay down your $$$ if Bushmaster were to come out with a beefed up composite AR-15/M-16 impervious to heat and cold extremes. Super accurate and reliable (BMs are anyway). Capable of being run over by 40 Hum-Vees in a row and then picked up and have 10K rounds fired through them without a single stoppage? Add to that flawless functioning when filthy and still weigh at or less than the current versions.

I believe this is possible with our current technology. Somebody just needs to step up to the plate and do it. Again, don't get me wrong I enjoy my Bushy, but I truely believe that the AR-15/M-16 has only been taken about half way in its development. Ahhh, its fun to dream...
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 7:39:09 PM EDT
I don't recall hearing anyone complain about the strength of the AR/M16 lowers or uppers. I have't had any problems myself.

I guess maybe it might have some good points behind the idea.

I don't know about that hummer theory, I thought that in the military your rifle should be with you at all times. If the hummer gets your rifle I think you are going with it.
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 7:53:38 PM EDT
After reading the review on the Russian AN-94, I suspect the M16/AR15 is close to being obsolete, at least in the military sense. Not bad mouthing it, I shoot highpower competitions with it and it will kick any Russian guns arse as far as accuracy, but they have something going with a 2 shot burst fire at 1800 rpm and firing the second round out of battery. Absolute zero recoil, and for the first time a peep sight on a russian rifle. The M16 is a 40 year old design, I would not be too surprised if something new comes along in the next 5 years to keep up with the Russians.
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 8:03:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2002 8:07:54 PM EDT by Prairie-Ranger]
That An-94 looks like a goofy ak-74. It shoots a 5.45x39, which is generally held to be an inferior round to 5.45x45. An-94 is just another AK variant, and I don't know what the hell you are talking about shooting a shell out of battery. That seems like a good way to get all your own troops injured/disfigured.
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 8:08:35 PM EDT
Where can I get more information about the AN-94? I understand that the Russian muzzle brake for their current AK's reduces the recoil a massive amount, so with improvement they could do so again on a new rifle.

As for the Heavy duty AR, I think that MidnightHunter has a great idea. There is always room for improvement. Perhaps a carbon-fiber wrap for the stock and foregrip? I ideas are what make the origional AR, lets keep them rolling.
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 8:17:50 PM EDT
I did a yahoo search for "an-94 rifle"

found this
www.gunsworld.com/ak/an_94s_us.html

Would also like to say that while you are saying the AR-15 is old, the an-94 is just another AK variant which would make it based on technology 55 years old. Not that it doesn't work, just pointing out that it's hard to beat a tried-and-true design (Especially the AR-15).
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 8:42:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2002 8:43:46 PM EDT by MidnightHunter]
All,

Well, I've checked out the AN-94 here :www.club.guns.ru/eng/abakan.html and here www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3889684630f5.htm and I'm not terribly impressed yet. I'll have to study it more first.

Anyway, VA-Gunnut I understand your view, but I still believe the M-16/AR-15 has so much more untapped potential. I'm not slamming it here, if anything I'm boosting it. Frankly, aluminium isn't real durable. I too am I'm pretty knowledgeable about firearms and aluminium just doesn't cut it compared to steel, but steel is sorta heavy.

Why not a composite? there so many damn tough new materials out there that can be utilized now. There is so much more that can be done. The original Armalite is just so ergonomic, it balances well and its just such a good design. She is due for a modern overhaul. It can be done!!

Come on people--throw out some more ideas!

Link Posted: 2/4/2002 8:52:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2002 8:56:14 PM EDT by Kaliburz]
What? Ya haven't seen Garryowen's web page?? The CAV-15???

www.cavalryarms.com


What do you mean by cold and hot extreams?? Cavalry Arms sent the CAv-15 to Alaska to be tested....





What else can you do to the design? I've personally thought up of a way to make a pistol that has mag in the grip, like an UZI and Mac. But it uses AR parts.... and highly modified lower. Funky idea...... something between the cross of an AR, a bush M17, uzi....

I'd love to make a prototype, but alas, no equipment nor time.....if I could put it onto a cad and use some hard plastic to make a prototype.....another story.....
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 9:11:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/4/2002 9:17:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
There have been stainless steel lowers, and Oly was working on a titanium lower (not sure if they actually made any).



I was told they have them in stock and have one on order. It makes more sense on a .50BMG upper, as 99% of the people will not harm the Aluminum forged upper/lower.

Of course if someone wants to get a Ti lower, drop me a line!

mark
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:37:24 PM EDT
Guys I'm not talking about a redesign of the basic rifle, per se. I'm talking about a completely bullet proof beast of an AR.

Kaliburz, THANK YOU. You have helped me to rediscover what it was I saw in a gunshop here around 6 months ago. I never got the name of the lowers, but I'm positive they were Cav's.

Well people, I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse here. However, I believe that all who responded to this post as well as just about everybody else on this board would instantly lay down their $$$ if a manufacturer came up with an outrageously durable AR.

MH
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:51:01 AM EDT
Certainly, you could make the AR "tougher", but at what price? Steel is heavy. Titanium and carbon fiber composites are extremely expensive. Since the original design has been holding up well for 40+ years, why change it?

The AR's reliability issues aren't the result of the upper or lower receivers failing.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 6:56:22 AM EDT
There's no such thing as "bullet proof". If it can be manufactured, it can be broken. It's just that simple. This rifle was designed as a battle rifle for all sorts of troops to use. It's light. It's accurate. It's dependable. You can carry lots of ammo. You might just want to rethink this and accept the AR just the way it is. It's really not bad at all. If you want something beefier, step up to an AR-10 in .308....
Top Top