3 ms·

> 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 s

> 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. I suppose that’s fair to say, but my mental taxonomy still considers the Knights Armament SR15 and LMT Monolithic Rail Platform to be AR’s. It seems like one could make a pretty strong argument for the SR15 at least, since I believe it was partly designed by Eugene Stoner. Then again, it is also the least compatible out there given the completely proprietary bolt design. But that SR15’s proprietary bolt design by all accounts solves the bolt longevity issues, and the LMT MRP solves the rail and interfacing fragility issues. But you’re right that I don’t think there’s any single AR that solves both simultaneously. LMT’s BCG is improved but I don’t know that it solves the problem as well as the SR15. I’m not sure it’s fair to hold the stock mortaring situation against the AR, since this same issue appears in virtually every collapsible polymer stock design. It only is not a problem with fixed stock designs, independent of whether they’re an AR or not. I believe the FN Scar for example received a lot of criticism for its stock being considerably more fragile than even standard M4 stocks. Also, I’ve never heard of dust in the magwell being an issue as long as standard practices like keeping a mag in place in dusty/dirty environments are used. In fact, more often I’ve heard of issues with polymer AK mags breaking, since the AK mag design essentially offloads the rigidity and durability problems to the mag rather than the rifle. This could be a good or bad thing in some ways, but I think everyone agrees it increases weight too much when you need steel mags. Example: All modern designs use enclosed magwells and polymer mags. In any case, I’d be inclined to concede to you that ARs don’t last as long as other designs (without replacement parts every 5-10k rounds or so). And it certainly makes sense too when just dry running the action: compare the locking/unlocking cam action on an AR, vs a modern piston design like a Steyr AUG, FN Scar, CZ Bren, etc. and it’s so obvious how much less violent the forces are on the bolt as it locks/unlocks considerably slower and smoother on these more modern designs. P.S. Fun fact for interested readers: All these “more modern” designs I mentioned are all descendants of Eugene Stoner’s AR18 design (which is itself a descendent if others though, of course). The influence of Stoner’s design in modern rifles is impressively prolific. If you want to learn more fascinating trivia, I recommend the YouTube channel “Forgotten Weapons” which is incredibly educational.

int_19h 8y ago
What is and isn't an AR is one of those questions along the lines of angels dancing on the head of a pin. In practice, I think we mostly go by "I know it when I see it", which usually works because most cases are clear-cut. But then you get designs like, say, ARAK-21 or SIG MCX, where it could be reasonably argued either way - and no matter how you argue it, it just muddies the water further. Let's take MCX, for example - is it an AR? If it is not, then what exactly pushed it over the line? Piston? But we have piston ARs. Incompatible lower and/or upper? Then CMMG Mutant isn't an AR, either. Recoil spring in the receiver, and no buffer or buffer tube? Extar EXP has the same arrangement, but is otherwise a conventional Stoner action. Okay, so suppose it's an AR. But nobody calls SCAR an AR; so what's the difference between SCAR and MCX that makes the latter an AR? I don't really have an answer here, if the difference is meant to be qualitative. On the other hand, if it's not about one particular difference, then we could draw a line somewhere and say that it needs to have that much in common - so one difference doesn't push it over the line, but in aggregate, enough of them can.

int_19h 8y ago

What is and isn't an AR is one of those questions along the lines of angels dancing on the head of a pin. In practice, I think we mostly go by "I know it when I see it", which usually works because most cases are clear-cut. But then you get designs like, say, ARAK-21 or SIG MCX, where it could be reasonably argued either way - and no matter how you argue it, it just muddies the water further. Let's take MCX, for example - is it an AR? If it is not, then what exactly pushed it over the line? Piston? But we have piston ARs. Incompatible lower and/or upper? Then CMMG Mutant isn't an AR, either. Recoil spring in the receiver, and no buffer or buffer tube? Extar EXP has the same arrangement, but is otherwise a conventional Stoner action. Okay, so suppose it's an AR. But nobody calls SCAR an AR; so what's the difference between SCAR and MCX that makes the latter an AR? I don't really have an answer here, if the difference is meant to be qualitative. On the other hand, if it's not about one particular difference, then we could draw a line somewhere and say that it needs to have that much in common - so one difference doesn't push it over the line, but in aggregate, enough of them can.