8 ms·

And yet 40 years later the AR15(M16/M4) is one of, if not the best firearm platform to have ever existed. It is really interesting to see to follow the sorted p

by cco 8y ago

And yet 40 years later the AR15(M16/M4) is one of, if not the best firearm platform to have ever existed. It is really interesting to see to follow the sorted past of such a successful firearm.

int_19h 8y ago
It's hardly the best. It just happened to be "good enough", so we mostly stick to incremental improvements (free-floated rails etc) from here on, just as e.g. Russia does with AK - it's hard to justify redoing it from scratch, considering the relatively minor benefits of doing so. An in case of the AR family, this is further exacerbated by its modular nature, and the desire to preserve the now de facto standard interfaces between components when updating them individually (software engineers should find this part very familiar...).
- cco 8y ago
  I added "one of" to nip this sort of argument in the bud but I guess it didn't work. Let's just agree to disagree, there is no such thing as "the best" so if it wasn't clear my comment was calling out that this rifle platform has been hugely successful.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > I added "one of" to nip this sort of argument in the bud but I guess it didn't work. You also added > ..., if not the best Personally I don't care, I just wanted to point out why people may start arguing : )
- electrograv 8y ago
  It depends how you define “best”; by most definitions, it very much is the best, simultaneously across a wide range of categories (I cover its one caveat below too): Modern variants of Stoner’s design happen to be the lightest weight, smoothest recoiling, most accurate (by a factor of 2-10x), most upgradeable and customizable, and arguably most ergonomic rifles in the the world right now — with no exceptions that I know of. (Incidentally, this is why the AR15 is the single most popular owned firearm in America.) Please feel free to provide any counterexamples in these categories; I don’t really know of any, and I’ve studied this quite a bit. Most of its excellent performance is due to the direct impingement operating system, which as others have described keep the recoiling mass inline with the barrel (which means the recoil is pretty much entirely linear without any torque, which is virtually impossible to achieve with durable piston designs). This unique gas operating system design also minimizes the overall weight, because the DI’s compact design eliminates the need for a separate piston / op rod assembly (which in piston operated military designs, must be fairly heavy duty, or else they will break rather rapidly from the violent forces involved). Some say it also explains the extremely high accuracy of the design, by avoiding a heavy reciprocating mass from moving alongside the barrel with each shot, as in a gas piston design. Thus, this inherently light weight design permits you to choose either (1) a lightweight barrel yielding an overall weight significantly less than any of its competitors, or (2) use heavier and longer barrel which, despite yielding an overall weight matching the “lightweight” version of competitors, far, far exceeds their accuracy capabilities. It really is a remarkably well engineered system, when you realize that most of the early reliability issues were due to feeding it the wrong ammo (which it was not designed for) and other easily avoidable embarrassing mistakes of mismanagement. The only real disadvantage again comes from the direct impingement system, which causes the operating mechanism to get dirty and fouled up with burnt powder residue really really fast, whereas gas piston designs (used by virtually all other guns) pretty much stay clean and smoothly running even if you abuse them by never cleaning or maintaining them. There is something to be said for that, especially for military purposes: that is for example one reason why the AK was so successful; it just works. You can and should maintain it, yet if you don’t, it will still work reliably. So this is just about the only area in which other guns beat out the M16/M4/AR15; while it’s reliability is pretty much on par with any competitor, this remains true only as long as it’s kept cleaned and oiled etc. fairly regularly, especially if it’s used in dirt dusty environments. That said, the difference may not be as extreme as pop culture makes it out to be: A quality built M16/M4/AR15 will keep functioning for probably at least 5k rounds without any cleaning, before it starts jamming, and some extremely high quality civilian models have been known to go far longer than this in extreme “torture tests”.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I own more ARs than AKs, and I wasn't talking about DI. I agree with you that DI has more benefits than problems. It's stuff like e.g. the interface between the receiver and the buffer tube, which is weak and known to break under stress. Or the telescoping stock design, which has a similar problem with the retaining pin - which is why they tell you to never mortar it unless fully collapsed. There are some issues with the bolt longevity - in an AR, the bolt eventually fails with sheared locking lugs - which is unheard of in AK and not common in other designs. Part of it is due to asymmetric distribution of forces, because of the extractor taking the place of one lug. Modern bolt redesigns try to mitigate this in various ways. Then there's the enclosed magwell, which is great for quick mag changes, but requires the upper part of the magazine to be straight - which caused troubles for 30-round AR mags historically, until the modern polymer magazine design with internal constant curvature made possible by the manufacturing process. In addition, the magwell is prone to dirt-induced malfunctions - once you get the dirt in, e.g. from the lips of a magazine that fell to the ground, it stays inside, and can block the mag from going all the way in easily. Ice can cause similar issues. The button magazine release can get stuck relatively easily as well. AK well-less paddle system, while slower, is less susceptible to dirt, and the rocking insertion motion and the paddle magazine release provide more leverage even if there is an obstruction. Or we could look at the antiquated handguard design, which results in precious little rail space on the upper receiver, because the top rail on the handguard, even free-floated, is not as stable (and hence not used for magnifying optics usually, but red dots, lasers etc). Notice how the latest trends in military ARs have been monolithic upper receivers, like in New Zealand's MARS-L, or Canadian MMR? Of course, you could easily make a rifle based on the Stoner action that has none of these problems - there are more exotic AR variants and accessories that solve one or the other, you'd just need to combine all those solutions. But I don't think it would count as an AR at that point. Even the monolithic upper is already a major difference that breaks compatibility in so many ways. I mean, we don't say that SIG 550 is an AK variant, even though it's also long stroke piston, and the BCG looks very similar to AK. There's more to a gun than its action.
    - germinalphrase 8y ago
      Are there any good commercial designs which stand out as being particularly “modernized” without going full custom? Or are the trade-offs too numerous?
roel_v 8y ago
Are modern versions more true to Stoner's original design, like the original rifling etc as indicated in the article? And do today's civilian AR15's generally have the manual bolt closure?
- cco 8y ago
  >And do today's civilian AR15's generally have the manual bolt closure? Most still do, but that is just inertia that is slowly dying out, it is not uncommon for civilian AR rifles to not include a forward assist, i.e. manual bolt closure. I don't keep up with military rifle configs to know if they still continue with forward assists. >...like the original rifling etc as indicated in the article? There is quite a lot of variety in barrel rifling these days, 1-in-7 isn't uncommon today and with the variety of rounds available, i.e. heavy bullets/light powder(slow) and light bullets/high powder(fast), barrel twist is also highly variable depending on what works best for your barrel length and cartridge selection. Overall the AR platform has moved far beyond Stoner's original design, from the Marines recently adopting a "light machine gun" version of it, to the very short length M4s that is the standard today for the US military. Add into that the huge variety of uses and configurations that civilians use the rifle can wear so many hats. There is actually a really interesting series if you're interested from InRange TV, a firearm YouTube channel, that takes a look at what the AR15 might look like if designed with today's material advancements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5NPiicXjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5NPiicXjE
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    InRange and Forgotten Weapons are both fantastic channels to lose a day learning about guns with! In particular, the (linked) "what would Stoner do" series was really interesting to me.
- novembermike 8y ago
  The rifling has generally gotten more extreme. IIRC Stoner wanted 1:14 and the army went to 1:12, but the modern rifles are moving to a 1:7 twist rate. The ammo is different, it's heavier and does better at low velocity so the twist rate doesn't matter much for lethality.
kev009 8y ago
I'm not sure I buy that, a piston gun is generally much better than impingement. You can package a piston up in something that looks nearly identical to the AR15 but it's not the same as the original firearm. Also 5.56 isn't a great caliber for military purposes, on one side the lack of immediate stopping power of FMJ and on the other over-penetration in close quarters without frangible.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >piston gun is generally much better than impingement Hello 2008, my old friend. I’ve done high speed and thermal camera testing on AR firearms. There is no honest advantage of what you are calling piston guns over DI, which is a short piston on the carrier itself. There are good and bad examples of both, piston AR pattern guns have carrier tilt, extra weight, more parts, more required maintenance, and get just as dirty esp when suppressed as DI guns. It’s an old opinion you have there. I lived through piston-mania 2008. DI effectively won when you look at anything remotely considering retrofit designs.
  - andromeduck 8y ago
    It looks like the West is starting to standardizing on the HK416/417 due partially to increased reliability though.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      That has a lot to do with politics and how well HK plays the contract game.
- int_19h 8y ago
  There is no statistical evidence that pistons are more reliable. Indeed, ARs with pistons are less reliable on average (although this is mostly because the AR bolt carrier / receiver interface is not designed with that in mind, and carrier tilt results if you try to adapt it). Not using a piston has two advantages. First, it's lighter in general, and in particular, there's less reciprocating mass, which means that weapon is easier to control, especially in full auto. Second, the recoil impulse in Stoner's design goes directly back along the bore axis (which is why it doesn't have carrier tilt!), whereas pistons add an angular component, which translates to more muzzle flip. The disadvantage is that you get carbon deposits in the action. But the effect is usually overstated - there were numerous tests with uncleaned ARs firing several thousand rounds without any ill effects from the carbon - it just keeps running so long as you keep lubricating it. According to Armalite, most of the deposits are in places where they don't matter, and where they do matter, the action itself is designed to remove much of them as it cycles.
Thorrez 8y ago
The article says the AR-15 is good and the M-16 is bad. You seem to be lumping them into a single thing.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Um... the difference in the AR15 and M16 is a hole in the lower receiver, an auto sear/pin/spring, and a different safety/disconnector. It’s beyond fair to lump them into the same thing. And GP is right, there is currently no overall better personal defensive weapon in the world than the AR15/M16.
  - Thorrez 8y ago
    The entire point of this article is the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16. So if they are essentially the same, that means this article is pointless. That type of assertion needs some strong evidence given how well-researched the article is. The 3 differences the article lists between the AR-15 and the M-16 are: 1. The M-16 added a useless "manual bolt closure" making it a bit heavier. 2. The M-16 rate of twist was changed from one-in-14-inches to one-in-12, which made it 40% less lethal. 3. The M-16 switched from IMR 4475 powder to ball powder, which made it much much less reliable. After tons of US soldiers died due to the unreliability, they modified the ball powder and changed the mechanical "buffer" of the rifle, which made it more reliable, but still less than the AR-15.
    - austinpray 8y ago
      You do understand that nearly all the parts on an M16 are interchangeable with an AR15, right? The AR15 is an M16 without select fire capability.
      - dfox 8y ago
        There are two different AR-15s: ArmaLite AR-15 which is what the article is about and from which M16 was derived and then modern day Colt AR-15 which is civilian version of M16.
azernik 8y ago
The M-16 was buggy, not an inherently bad design. If it had another few years to bake before being rushed into combat, it would probably have avoided the bad rap.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Yea. There was a massive training problem, no chrome bore at launch, and a few largely unearned bad rep regarding the size of the bullet.
- ldh 8y ago
  Given a few more years to bake, maybe it would have achieved parity with the already fully-baked AR-15? It seems like the perfect example of "Not Invented Here" syndrome and didn't need to exist in the first place.
  - azernik 8y ago
    The last-minute management-induced requirement of new ammo is an unfortunate but normal part of the project management process, and is usually part of that decade or so required to get a reliable system into soldiers' hands.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Personally I believe that the reason that the AR15 is so popular (at least in the civilian world) is more that it's lego for adults who like guns, and less because of its utility as a platform. That's not to say it's not a good rifle though, but I don't think that in a military context it's fundamentally better or worse than any of its peers, such as the H&K G36, the Steyr AUG, or the SA80.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  It was way better than early marks of the SA80, it took decades for that to become reliable and HK essentially rebuilding it from scratch.
- qball 8y ago
  >Personally I believe that the reason that the AR15 is so popular (at least in the civilian world) is more that it's lego for adults who like guns, and less because of its utility as a platform. At least in the US and Canada, the primary driver is cost. The AR-15 is extremely cheap to make because the receiver is not a pressure-bearing component, and because you need very few machines to make the most important parts (of which there are fewer than most other guns due to the design). It doesn't help that import restrictions in the US make everything that's not an AR artificially expensive (complying with them has parts/labor overhead if it's even possible in the first place). The other guns you mentioned are not only more expensive to produce, but they also perform much worse (the SA80 had problems with literally every single part breaking or warping, the G36 melts because its barrel is cast into plastic, the AUG fires when it shouldn't and doesn't handle as well as an AR) to the point where nearly every country that currently uses these weapons are replacing them with some variety of AR15. The original design (gas piston behind bolt = no rotational forces against the carrier = no reinforcement needed in receiver) really is that good.
  - PhantomGremlin 8y ago
    Do you consider the M27[1] to be an AR15 variant? Apparently the US Marines want everyone to use it? The "direct impingement gas system" has been changed to a "short stroke piston". At which point is one weapon merely a variant of another? Isn't this change in the action a significant improvement? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle
bluedino 8y ago
>> And yet 40 years later the AR15(M16/M4) is one of, if not the best firearm >> platform to have ever existed. The latest wars in Afghanistan/Iraq have had no shortage of similar stories of weapons jamming, failing to finre, and malfunctionibng because they were full of sand etc

by cco 8y ago

And yet 40 years later the AR15(M16/M4) is one of, if not the best firearm platform to have ever existed. It is really interesting to see to follow the sorted past of such a successful firearm.

int_19h 8y ago

It's hardly the best. It just happened to be "good enough", so we mostly stick to incremental improvements (free-floated rails etc) from here on, just as e.g. Russia does with AK - it's hard to justify redoing it from scratch, considering the relatively minor benefits of doing so. An in case of the AR family, this is further exacerbated by its modular nature, and the desire to preserve the now de facto standard interfaces between components when updating them individually (software engineers should find this part very familiar...).

cco 8y ago
I added "one of" to nip this sort of argument in the bud but I guess it didn't work. Let's just agree to disagree, there is no such thing as "the best" so if it wasn't clear my comment was calling out that this rifle platform has been hugely successful.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  > I added "one of" to nip this sort of argument in the bud but I guess it didn't work. You also added > ..., if not the best Personally I don't care, I just wanted to point out why people may start arguing : )
electrograv 8y ago
It depends how you define “best”; by most definitions, it very much is the best, simultaneously across a wide range of categories (I cover its one caveat below too): Modern variants of Stoner’s design happen to be the lightest weight, smoothest recoiling, most accurate (by a factor of 2-10x), most upgradeable and customizable, and arguably most ergonomic rifles in the the world right now — with no exceptions that I know of. (Incidentally, this is why the AR15 is the single most popular owned firearm in America.) Please feel free to provide any counterexamples in these categories; I don’t really know of any, and I’ve studied this quite a bit. Most of its excellent performance is due to the direct impingement operating system, which as others have described keep the recoiling mass inline with the barrel (which means the recoil is pretty much entirely linear without any torque, which is virtually impossible to achieve with durable piston designs). This unique gas operating system design also minimizes the overall weight, because the DI’s compact design eliminates the need for a separate piston / op rod assembly (which in piston operated military designs, must be fairly heavy duty, or else they will break rather rapidly from the violent forces involved). Some say it also explains the extremely high accuracy of the design, by avoiding a heavy reciprocating mass from moving alongside the barrel with each shot, as in a gas piston design. Thus, this inherently light weight design permits you to choose either (1) a lightweight barrel yielding an overall weight significantly less than any of its competitors, or (2) use heavier and longer barrel which, despite yielding an overall weight matching the “lightweight” version of competitors, far, far exceeds their accuracy capabilities. It really is a remarkably well engineered system, when you realize that most of the early reliability issues were due to feeding it the wrong ammo (which it was not designed for) and other easily avoidable embarrassing mistakes of mismanagement. The only real disadvantage again comes from the direct impingement system, which causes the operating mechanism to get dirty and fouled up with burnt powder residue really really fast, whereas gas piston designs (used by virtually all other guns) pretty much stay clean and smoothly running even if you abuse them by never cleaning or maintaining them. There is something to be said for that, especially for military purposes: that is for example one reason why the AK was so successful; it just works. You can and should maintain it, yet if you don’t, it will still work reliably. So this is just about the only area in which other guns beat out the M16/M4/AR15; while it’s reliability is pretty much on par with any competitor, this remains true only as long as it’s kept cleaned and oiled etc. fairly regularly, especially if it’s used in dirt dusty environments. That said, the difference may not be as extreme as pop culture makes it out to be: A quality built M16/M4/AR15 will keep functioning for probably at least 5k rounds without any cleaning, before it starts jamming, and some extremely high quality civilian models have been known to go far longer than this in extreme “torture tests”.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I own more ARs than AKs, and I wasn't talking about DI. I agree with you that DI has more benefits than problems. It's stuff like e.g. the interface between the receiver and the buffer tube, which is weak and known to break under stress. Or the telescoping stock design, which has a similar problem with the retaining pin - which is why they tell you to never mortar it unless fully collapsed. There are some issues with the bolt longevity - in an AR, the bolt eventually fails with sheared locking lugs - which is unheard of in AK and not common in other designs. Part of it is due to asymmetric distribution of forces, because of the extractor taking the place of one lug. Modern bolt redesigns try to mitigate this in various ways. Then there's the enclosed magwell, which is great for quick mag changes, but requires the upper part of the magazine to be straight - which caused troubles for 30-round AR mags historically, until the modern polymer magazine design with internal constant curvature made possible by the manufacturing process. In addition, the magwell is prone to dirt-induced malfunctions - once you get the dirt in, e.g. from the lips of a magazine that fell to the ground, it stays inside, and can block the mag from going all the way in easily. Ice can cause similar issues. The button magazine release can get stuck relatively easily as well. AK well-less paddle system, while slower, is less susceptible to dirt, and the rocking insertion motion and the paddle magazine release provide more leverage even if there is an obstruction. Or we could look at the antiquated handguard design, which results in precious little rail space on the upper receiver, because the top rail on the handguard, even free-floated, is not as stable (and hence not used for magnifying optics usually, but red dots, lasers etc). Notice how the latest trends in military ARs have been monolithic upper receivers, like in New Zealand's MARS-L, or Canadian MMR? Of course, you could easily make a rifle based on the Stoner action that has none of these problems - there are more exotic AR variants and accessories that solve one or the other, you'd just need to combine all those solutions. But I don't think it would count as an AR at that point. Even the monolithic upper is already a major difference that breaks compatibility in so many ways. I mean, we don't say that SIG 550 is an AK variant, even though it's also long stroke piston, and the BCG looks very similar to AK. There's more to a gun than its action.
  - germinalphrase 8y ago
    Are there any good commercial designs which stand out as being particularly “modernized” without going full custom? Or are the trade-offs too numerous?

roel_v 8y ago

Are modern versions more true to Stoner's original design, like the original rifling etc as indicated in the article? And do today's civilian AR15's generally have the manual bolt closure?

cco 8y ago
>And do today's civilian AR15's generally have the manual bolt closure? Most still do, but that is just inertia that is slowly dying out, it is not uncommon for civilian AR rifles to not include a forward assist, i.e. manual bolt closure. I don't keep up with military rifle configs to know if they still continue with forward assists. >...like the original rifling etc as indicated in the article? There is quite a lot of variety in barrel rifling these days, 1-in-7 isn't uncommon today and with the variety of rounds available, i.e. heavy bullets/light powder(slow) and light bullets/high powder(fast), barrel twist is also highly variable depending on what works best for your barrel length and cartridge selection. Overall the AR platform has moved far beyond Stoner's original design, from the Marines recently adopting a "light machine gun" version of it, to the very short length M4s that is the standard today for the US military. Add into that the huge variety of uses and configurations that civilians use the rifle can wear so many hats. There is actually a really interesting series if you're interested from InRange TV, a firearm YouTube channel, that takes a look at what the AR15 might look like if designed with today's material advancements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5NPiicXjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5NPiicXjE
- DuskStar 8y ago
  InRange and Forgotten Weapons are both fantastic channels to lose a day learning about guns with! In particular, the (linked) "what would Stoner do" series was really interesting to me.
novembermike 8y ago
The rifling has generally gotten more extreme. IIRC Stoner wanted 1:14 and the army went to 1:12, but the modern rifles are moving to a 1:7 twist rate. The ammo is different, it's heavier and does better at low velocity so the twist rate doesn't matter much for lethality.

kev009 8y ago

I'm not sure I buy that, a piston gun is generally much better than impingement. You can package a piston up in something that looks nearly identical to the AR15 but it's not the same as the original firearm. Also 5.56 isn't a great caliber for military purposes, on one side the lack of immediate stopping power of FMJ and on the other over-penetration in close quarters without frangible.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>piston gun is generally much better than impingement Hello 2008, my old friend. I’ve done high speed and thermal camera testing on AR firearms. There is no honest advantage of what you are calling piston guns over DI, which is a short piston on the carrier itself. There are good and bad examples of both, piston AR pattern guns have carrier tilt, extra weight, more parts, more required maintenance, and get just as dirty esp when suppressed as DI guns. It’s an old opinion you have there. I lived through piston-mania 2008. DI effectively won when you look at anything remotely considering retrofit designs.
- andromeduck 8y ago
  It looks like the West is starting to standardizing on the HK416/417 due partially to increased reliability though.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    That has a lot to do with politics and how well HK plays the contract game.
int_19h 8y ago
There is no statistical evidence that pistons are more reliable. Indeed, ARs with pistons are less reliable on average (although this is mostly because the AR bolt carrier / receiver interface is not designed with that in mind, and carrier tilt results if you try to adapt it). Not using a piston has two advantages. First, it's lighter in general, and in particular, there's less reciprocating mass, which means that weapon is easier to control, especially in full auto. Second, the recoil impulse in Stoner's design goes directly back along the bore axis (which is why it doesn't have carrier tilt!), whereas pistons add an angular component, which translates to more muzzle flip. The disadvantage is that you get carbon deposits in the action. But the effect is usually overstated - there were numerous tests with uncleaned ARs firing several thousand rounds without any ill effects from the carbon - it just keeps running so long as you keep lubricating it. According to Armalite, most of the deposits are in places where they don't matter, and where they do matter, the action itself is designed to remove much of them as it cycles.

Thorrez 8y ago

The article says the AR-15 is good and the M-16 is bad. You seem to be lumping them into a single thing.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Um... the difference in the AR15 and M16 is a hole in the lower receiver, an auto sear/pin/spring, and a different safety/disconnector. It’s beyond fair to lump them into the same thing. And GP is right, there is currently no overall better personal defensive weapon in the world than the AR15/M16.
- Thorrez 8y ago
  The entire point of this article is the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16. So if they are essentially the same, that means this article is pointless. That type of assertion needs some strong evidence given how well-researched the article is. The 3 differences the article lists between the AR-15 and the M-16 are: 1. The M-16 added a useless "manual bolt closure" making it a bit heavier. 2. The M-16 rate of twist was changed from one-in-14-inches to one-in-12, which made it 40% less lethal. 3. The M-16 switched from IMR 4475 powder to ball powder, which made it much much less reliable. After tons of US soldiers died due to the unreliability, they modified the ball powder and changed the mechanical "buffer" of the rifle, which made it more reliable, but still less than the AR-15.
  - austinpray 8y ago
    You do understand that nearly all the parts on an M16 are interchangeable with an AR15, right? The AR15 is an M16 without select fire capability.
    - dfox 8y ago
      There are two different AR-15s: ArmaLite AR-15 which is what the article is about and from which M16 was derived and then modern day Colt AR-15 which is civilian version of M16.

azernik 8y ago

The M-16 was buggy, not an inherently bad design. If it had another few years to bake before being rushed into combat, it would probably have avoided the bad rap.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Yea. There was a massive training problem, no chrome bore at launch, and a few largely unearned bad rep regarding the size of the bullet.
ldh 8y ago
Given a few more years to bake, maybe it would have achieved parity with the already fully-baked AR-15? It seems like the perfect example of "Not Invented Here" syndrome and didn't need to exist in the first place.
- azernik 8y ago
  The last-minute management-induced requirement of new ammo is an unfortunate but normal part of the project management process, and is usually part of that decade or so required to get a reliable system into soldiers' hands.

toomanybeersies 8y ago

Personally I believe that the reason that the AR15 is so popular (at least in the civilian world) is more that it's lego for adults who like guns, and less because of its utility as a platform. That's not to say it's not a good rifle though, but I don't think that in a military context it's fundamentally better or worse than any of its peers, such as the H&K G36, the Steyr AUG, or the SA80.

noir_lord 8y ago
It was way better than early marks of the SA80, it took decades for that to become reliable and HK essentially rebuilding it from scratch.
qball 8y ago
>Personally I believe that the reason that the AR15 is so popular (at least in the civilian world) is more that it's lego for adults who like guns, and less because of its utility as a platform. At least in the US and Canada, the primary driver is cost. The AR-15 is extremely cheap to make because the receiver is not a pressure-bearing component, and because you need very few machines to make the most important parts (of which there are fewer than most other guns due to the design). It doesn't help that import restrictions in the US make everything that's not an AR artificially expensive (complying with them has parts/labor overhead if it's even possible in the first place). The other guns you mentioned are not only more expensive to produce, but they also perform much worse (the SA80 had problems with literally every single part breaking or warping, the G36 melts because its barrel is cast into plastic, the AUG fires when it shouldn't and doesn't handle as well as an AR) to the point where nearly every country that currently uses these weapons are replacing them with some variety of AR15. The original design (gas piston behind bolt = no rotational forces against the carrier = no reinforcement needed in receiver) really is that good.
- PhantomGremlin 8y ago
  Do you consider the M27[1] to be an AR15 variant? Apparently the US Marines want everyone to use it? The "direct impingement gas system" has been changed to a "short stroke piston". At which point is one weapon merely a variant of another? Isn't this change in the action a significant improvement? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

bluedino 8y ago

>> And yet 40 years later the AR15(M16/M4) is one of, if not the best firearm >> platform to have ever existed. The latest wars in Afghanistan/Iraq have had no shortage of similar stories of weapons jamming, failing to finre, and malfunctionibng because they were full of sand etc