I posted a thread called gadget trends here a while back,  and boy did it ever get a response!  Iwasn't trying to offend anyone, just expressing my views.  Nevertheless I think some missed the point.  I was only refering to SERIOUS combat type rifles, not match guns, LEO entry weapons, or rifles to have just cause you want to.  I see no problem with an Aimpoint, or other small scope, but it is easy to get carried away.  I have an Armson OEG on one of my own such rifles, and they do help for quick shooting and night engagements.  However except for law enforcement applications I see no need for heavy bbls, vert forgrps, lights, lasers, big scopes (over 4x), rail systems, allum. handguards, ergo grips (because you loose the grip storage space for spare parts), and other things that offer little or no use for the weight they cost you.  It makes no sense to me to take a 6-7lb rifle and tack enough stuff to it to make it a 9-10 lb rifle.  If I am going to field a 10lb rifle it's not going to be a .223 AR-15, for that weight I would take a .308 FN-FAL.  Just my thoughts,  thanks to everyone who responded, the differences we have are what make this web-site a great place to learn things from each other.

I generally agree with you. KISS and light. If I want to tote around a 10 pound rifle, I'd carry the M1A.

However, with my aging eyes, I can really appreciate a reddot, reflex or holographic sight. And then, I'd want a set of backup irons.

If I want to shoot distance, bolting on a little magnification is also nice.

For a home/farm defense gun a weapon light and a Giles sling are worthy additions.

The heavy barrel is a good idea on M16s that are shot recreationally (ie, mag dumps).

Ditto's!

Too many people seem to want to hang everything off of their rifle. Look, a GPS is a nice thing to have but does it really belong on your carbine?

I have a rule of one thing per gun (normally a sight) but have violated it on my M4 carbine with two sights and a detachable flashlight: a DMPS rear sight, a Comp ML, and a TACM III flashlight. Still the thing is lightweight, nearly snap proof.

High speed and low drag.

I also tend to agree.  I was watching a show about that new land warrior system the military is testing right now, with the computer on your back, and all that crap on your rifle.  If I was forced to have that huge camera and crap on my rifle it would mysteriously malfunction and fall off when I was in the field.  What a pain in the arse.  I really don't see a need for any attachments to a main battle rifle.

For home defense / LEO entry type weapons I can see some advantage to certain attachments like lights or certain optics.  I personally think though that nothing is as fast as good old iron sights.  I personally am not real big on lights because while it illuminates your target, it certainly leaves no doubt as to where YOU are.

My .02

Mike

"However except for law enforcement applications I see no need for heavy bbls, vert forgrps, lights, lasers, big scopes (over 4x), rail systems, allum. handguards, ergo grips (because you loose the grip storage space for spare parts), and other things that offer little or no use for the weight they cost you."

I will agree with you that most "gadgets" belong on a tactical rifle and that many of us will never see any sort of CQB situation.  However, saying that isn't much farther off than an anti saying we have no need for machine guns.

Quoted: I was only refering to SERIOUS combat type rifles, not match guns, LEO entry weapons, or rifles to have just cause you want to.  I see no problem with an Aimpoint, or other small scope, but it is easy to get carried away.  I have an Armson OEG on one of my own such rifles, and they do help for quick shooting and night engagements.  However except for law enforcement applications I see no need for heavy bbls, vert forgrps, lights, lasers, big scopes (over 4x), rail systems, allum. handguards, ergo grips (because you loose the grip storage space for spare parts), and other things that offer little or no use for the weight they cost you.

Your terminology is a bit on the vague side.  By "serious combat rifle" do you mean "standard infantry weapon?"  If so, then you're correct...not much is needed beyond perhaps optics.  However, the various special forces units engage in "serious combat" and CHOOSE to "weigh down" their weapons with what you seem to consider extraneous crap.  They do this because they know how to use that "extraneous" stuff...and know that it has a use.  
If by "serious combat rifle" you mean "home defense gun" then a rail system or some other means of mounting a light with an instant-on switch would seem to be a very good idea.
If by "serious combat rifle" you mean "SHTF gun for possible societal breakdown" then that is highly dependant on circumstances.  Do you live in the woods or on open farmlands or plain?  Then you would undoubtedly find a telescopic sight useful.
Do you live in a suburban environment where you might conceivably face a riot?  Then you might find a Beta mag useful and might find that a vertical foregrip helps you shoot better with that heavy mag in place.  You might also find that a laser sight or bright weapons light would work well in such a situation as an intimidation device.
It's always easy to sit back and say "Oh, that's just a waste of time, Keep It Simple," etc...and try to make yourself look oh-so-practical and intelligent.  But life is not that simple and just because one way works doesn't mean another way doesn't.

I agree with RikWriter.  The use of accessories on your rifle is situational.  These devices are made to function in certain environments and situations.  Their use should not be summarily dismissed as "excess".

Also, I have a visual disability.  In order for me to make my rifle functional in my hands, I need to have a red dot because I simply can't see the iron sights well enough to use them accurrately.  I also like a light on one of my rifles, because my night vision is poor, and I certainly want to be sure of what I am shooting at before I pull the trigger.

If you don't like, or have no need, for accessories on your rifle, great--don't use them.  But don't simply dismiss them as "extra baggage".

corporal chaos:  I did not say that we should not have them(acc.)  I said that SOME of them served no useful purpose.  I'ts up to everyone themselves to decide what to spend their money on.                                                                                             RikWriter: I do agree with you on optics( I have one AR set up with a 4x Colt compact scope) but large optics on a rifle you are going to drag around through the woods, desert, snow, or swamps won't hold up to that kind of abuse. Also I agree with your comment on the spec ops guys but, those are specialized weapons for specialized tasks, similar to LEO SWAT team weapons. Also on your comment on the BETA MAG yes I can see that, but I wouldn't consider a Beta Mag a useless gadget.  Having fired numerous 1928 Thompsons and AR's with vert. forgrips I find that they do not work for me, BUT to each his own. As with any acc. I it works for you USE IT! I was just making my own comments on what works for me.  

On the beta mag I'd rather have all my eggs in more than one basket thank you. Different strokes.

"They do this because they know how to use that "extraneous" stuff...and know that it has a use." hehehehe that's funny, as above.

Quoted: ... nothing is as fast as good old iron sights.

Me, personally, I have a better combination of accuracy and speed with a non-magnifying optic (particularly the HDS & C-more - probably because of the no-tube effect) than with iron sights. This is for the 5-75 yard drills that I run that mimic expected engagement distances for me (again, home and "ranch" defense).

Quoted: On the beta mag I'd rather have all my eggs in more than one basket thank you. Different strokes.

I don't understand how having a Beta Mag is having "all your eggs in one basket."  Am I disallowed from carrying other mags simply because I have the gun loaded with a Beta Mag?
This sounds like just the sort of false dichotomy that this whole thread began with.

I'm not a fan of HBAR weapons, too heavy. I'd rather have a light rifle and carry more ammo & water.

However, in a Static position, like the Koreans held during the LA riots, an HBAR with a Beta Cmag and bi-pod would be nice to have.

Many people want to cram as much on their rifle as possible. I too think that it is a little outrageous, but if Mr. crap all over his rifle hits what he is aiming at, I don't have any harsh words.

RikWriter: You and I have a difference of opinion nothing more. That is what makes this web site great, getting different opinions (both sides of the coin so to speak) However I thought "false dichotmy that this whole thread began with." was a little uncalled for.  

Quoted: Quoted: On the beta mag I'd rather have all my eggs in more than one basket thank you. Different strokes. I don't understand how having a Beta Mag is having "all your eggs in one basket."  Am I disallowed from carrying other mags simply because I have the gun loaded with a Beta Mag? This sounds like just the sort of false dichotomy that this whole thread began with.

I don't see having to carry much more than 200 rounds at a time. A few handfuls of 20's and 30's seem a better load to me than a pair of beta mags. Losing half of my ready ammo over a broken beta mag would be a bitch too. The 100 rounds hung off the rifle blow it's balance to me with the 100 rounds weighing about the same as the entire rifle.

There is nothing "false" about the dichotomy as there are tens of thousands of reasons to own an AR, dozens of vastly different terrain types, thousands of scenarios - the dichotomy exists because we are different people, living in different places, with different experiences and creating different plans for different events. To not have a dichotomy would be simply stupid as what works for me ain't gonna work for you.

When I moved from California to Washington state for example I had to rethink my whole kit. Water is just not an issue in Washington as it is here in Southern California, camo colors are way different, and unless you're standing in the middle of the freeway there's very rarely a shot beyond 100 meters on the west side of Washington state. Here in California I carry more water weight than ammo, the area is far more urban than wooded, and find opportunities to make 400 yard shots all day long with range limited only by gravity most of the time. I've also since had a life changing leg injury which has to effect my thinking too.

So there's an example of the same guy and same rifles rigging his kit differently. Why one would think other wise puzzles me. A dichotomy yes, a false dichotomy no.

I love my GPS and MP3 player but wouldn't mount them on my rifles . I have a heavy barrel rifle with an ergo grip and large scope for benchrest target shooting and plinking. I see no reason to put a laser on a rifle nor a rail system to mount a vertical foregrip, bipod and flashlight. Vertical foregrips are bad tactics in my book (and Jim Crews'), the bipod can be mounted with a tiny Harris stud, and the flashlight comes with it's own mount that mounts into the front sight tower.

Big scopes allow you to throw the tiny .223 bullet way out there but to what effect? The 62 grain bullet is just floating along much past the range where a scope larger than 4x is needed, at those ranges I'd rather send 154 grains of .308 caliber - where the terain allows. With a 4x scope I can make hits on a 12" plate at 400 yards which is plenty far enough for the .223.

My carbines are for movement. My MBR's are for defense. The .223 rifles are light, fast pointing, accurate, and hard hitting. The FAL, M1A, and M1 Garand rifles are heavy, slower on target, accurate, and harder hitting. The extra weight of the rifle and ammo are not an issue when protecting the home front with known avenues of approach and lanes of fire.

Paul,  Amen: Nuff Said.