View Full Version : Why are my smartest AR builds ones I dream up for other people?
I've been trying to come to terms with this for a while, and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard; but I'm amazed at just how much better carbine arrangements I come up with for my wife or a friend actually work, mostly because I'm not insistent on some marginal capabilities.
Example - my go-to rifles for myself are a pair of 16" Carbines with low powered variable optics, a flashlight, and a DBAL. This is way better than I had done before, where I was running really heavy rifles with tons of extra junk, but even this iterated things aren't as enjoyable as the rifle I have set up for my wife.
Her setups: a pair of 14.5/14.7" lightweight carbines with fixed front sights, bare lightweight handguards, an Aimpoint H1, X300, and MOD stock on the back (EMOD/SOPMOD). I've had these for a while, and the first time I realized I liked hers better was when I realized I needed something closer (which led me to change to my current pair, but I still failed to pull that off).
What I'm trying to put my finger on is why I have much more clarity on prioritization of features when I'm not consciously making a rifle for myself. My do-all recce is a truly awesome carbine, the 1-6x optic and DBAL both add pretty impressive tangible function, and the match barrel with suppressor at least in theory are big improvements in capability, but the sum total is that her $2000 rifle for 95% of the time is actually slightly better than mine which I've piled 3x as much money into. As part of the outright simplicity, hers is completely ambidextrous (BAD Selector, X300 light at 12:00), and balances a lot better. The favorite aspects of my suppressed SBR are ones which I just gave up and decided to copy from her rifle (the above, plus the handguard), and not the ones I originally had in mind.
Is this mostly an inaccurate assessment of my own abilities, or just a bad assumption that because I'm trying to make carbines that span my entire capability range instead of making simplifying assumptions of the capability of others which end up in choosing more focused tools? I figure if I can better understand this phenomenon, I might be able to do a better job of spending my money on stuff that fits the mission instead of shiny crap that seems like it does that and more.
SpankMonkey
04-19-14, 20:09
You violate the first rule. Why I do not know. But I will remind you.
KISS... it works, always has always will.
...because I'm trying to make carbines that span my entire capability range instead of making simplifying assumptions of the capability of others which end up in choosing more focused tools?
Thats my guess! SpankMonkey beat me to it, KISS is best... No one can do it all well..
Failure2Stop
04-19-14, 20:45
KISS will vary from user to user and condition to condition.
We tend to greatly over-estimate our own personal needs unless you have a job for the tool.
Remember that most people will be better served with a pistol or airsoft when it comes to carbine "needs".
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
BrigandTwoFour
04-19-14, 23:46
I noticed the same trend with my "primary" when compared to ones I've have assembled for others. My primary was built around the idea of a "do all" to meet nearly any need I might have. It was a fantasy gun built to operate in an imaginary SHTF situation. The end result was that it simply wasn't great at anything.
Every other build I've done has had a more focused purpose for each one, from lightweight KISS defense rifle to bench precision. These were built without any fantasy situations in mind, and based solely on how they would be used. The lesson was learned, and I went back to rebuild my primary to suit how I used it.
The bottom line is that we all eventually learn the same lessons that have been learned in the past. Every weapon is a compromise. Tailor the weapon to the mission.
We always yearn for "capability" with our "do-it-all" carbines. What we occasionally forget is that complexity is the enemy of efficiency, weight is the enemy of speed and bulk is the enemy of deployability. The extra money spent on "capability" would probably be better spent on ammo and training in the pursuit of proficiency.
Outlander Systems
04-20-14, 13:04
We always yearn for "capability" with our "do-it-all" carbines. What we occasionally forget is that complexity is the enemy of efficiency, weight is the enemy of speed and bulk is the enemy of deployability. The extra money spent on "capability" would probably be better spent on ammo and training in the pursuit of proficiency.
^ Tons of truth right there.
My preference has moved further and further towards basic over the years.
If I want a badass precision setup, I want a bolt gun.
If I want a PDW, hand me a pistol.
For the carbine...
Add red dot. Add light. Call the Sumbitch good.
What is the ultimate do-everything hammer for a carpenter?
There's not one. Guns are the same way.
If you're wanting a "do-it-all" AR, you're probably dreaming.
Ideally, I think a lightweight 14.5" or 16" middy (think KMR) with a lightweight 1-4x optic would be an ideal daylight gun--but throw on an X300 or WML for versatility.
Meanwhile a 12.5" upper with a DBAL, Aimpoint T1, and a Surefire with a vampire head, Surefire flash hider and can if you have one would be the perfect inside the house/night time gun.
I wouldn't expect either system to do EVERYTHING, but if a guy wants two long guns to cover lots of territory, I think those two would get you close. If you want to shoot longer range, a bolt-action .223 or .308 and call it a day.
Jwknutson17
04-21-14, 10:31
What I have done to solve some of the issues that come up, are build another gun for every need. ;) You end up with 5 or 6 complete Ar-15 builds and a really light wallet.. :D But in reality, Bolt Gun for long range or anything precise. SBR with a can for the house. And a 14.5 middy for most everything else. Spend all day going back and forth on optics and accessories, but at the end of the day like others have said.. whats the purpose of the rifle and tailor accessories to that specific need.
What do you need your $6,000 rifle to do that it doesn't do?
Probably because for other people, you have a more honest and objective idea of what their actual use for the rifle is, and you stick to what is necessary to accomplish it. If you are like most of us, you are a bit of a gear whore... there is always the temptation when you see something cool to FIND a use for it, instead of letting mission dictate equipment.
What do you need your $6,000 rifle to do that it doesn't do?
One hell of a question.
I still wish it was smaller (like my Mk18 type SBR) and/or lighter (like my 16" LW Middy Daytime Carbine). Or I wish it was a bit more precise, like my 18" 5.56 and 7.62 rifles - in short, I'm about out of legitimate complaints, but it took me a lot of iterations where I'd have my 'ideal' carbine of carbines not do many things well.
hensch nailed the rest of it pretty much, it's so hard to be objective about what actual use I have for a tool when there's so many shiny things I can add which aren't called for.
[eta] FWIW, my obsession with making an improved DMR has probably led to a lot of what in retrospect was poor decision making, but I've finally figured out that it's truly possible to work out a better mousetrap in that regard.
One hell of a question.
I still wish it was smaller (like my Mk18 type SBR) and/or lighter (like my 16" LW Middy Daytime Carbine). Or I wish it was a bit more precise, like my 18" 5.56 and 7.62 rifles - in short, I'm about out of legitimate complaints, but it took me a lot of iterations where I'd have my 'ideal' carbine of carbines not do many things well.
hensch nailed the rest of it pretty much, it's so hard to be objective about what actual use I have for a tool when there's so many shiny things I can add which aren't called for.
[eta] FWIW, my obsession with making an improved DMR has probably led to a lot of what in retrospect was poor decision making, but I've finally figured out that it's truly possible to work out a better mousetrap in that regard.
Post pictures of your and your wife's rifles! I'm curious.
In my opinion, a do it all carbine would be a 14.5" elw kmr bcm upper with a mini4 suppressor, vortex 1-4 in aero precision base, and a x300 with tape switch. Throw in some buis and vcas sling and call it a day. Use whatever lower, BAD and Geissele parts, A5, STR and K2 furniture.
decodeddiesel
04-21-14, 23:46
Good thread, and a lesson I had to learn the hard way.
For example, at this point I have no good place to shoot out past 200 meters regularly. For this reason the bolt gun, and the SS barreled AR upper went bye bye. At this point I have 2nd lower sitting in my safe with no upper because I just can't figure out/justify spending $1000-$1500 for another upper that might be able to do what my SBR does from 0-200 meters marginally better. My only thought is a gun that could travel across state lines on a road trip, but I have a 5.56 AK-101 clone that fills that role nicely. I can't really afford to have any strictly range toys at this point, but I am considering liquidating part of my collection to buy a SCAR and/or a can knowing it would probably be a glorified range toy.
Part of the problem is accepting when a part is good enough. A heavier profile match barrel is known to be more consistent but it's advantage over a standard or light profile barrel isn't apparent until getting involved in competition shooting bughole groups way out yonder. A variable scope helps with target identification at a distance but an Aimpoint works very well out to 300 yards and shines inside 100.
I think we get caught up in the equipment race. Like you said in post #12, it's easy to get distracted by shiny things. But the reality is, the KISS AR is really the smartest do-all configuration. It's just not the coolest- or the shiniest.
Here's my do-all carbine. The only thing I need to do to use it in a precision role is to swap the sights and maybe switch to a free float tube. It's just another AR. Nothing spectacular, nothing special. It works but it's boring
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/ARCarbineSnow1_zpsf15be895.jpg
Between these two rifles, I think I've got just about everything covered that I want an AR to do. I could probably just stick with the 16" carbine by installing a FF tube and swapping the sights around but I want the flatter trajectory the added velocity of the 20" barrel gives
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/Liberty/DSC_0001_zpsc8532be9.jpg
My wife bricked my good 32GB SD card, so I'll have pictures once I work around that...
So far, I'm really amused/impressed with just how much M4C type rifles have convergent evolution going on with layout and functionality - they're still different visually, but all the key hardware is hilariously similar, with only a couple good layouts for each intended role.
My wife bricked my good 32GB SD card, so I'll have pictures once I work around that...
So far, I'm really amused/impressed with just how much M4C type rifles have convergent evolution going on with layout and functionality - they're still different visually, but all the key hardware is hilariously similar, with only a couple good layouts for each intended role.
Which key hardware?
Posted before, but this is my KISS carbine that gets 95% of the AR work I do now. Noveske lower with Geissele SSA trigger, BCM 14.5" LW Middy with Aimpoint H1, 600 Scout light and VCAS sling. The BAD lever is gone now, but otherwise the build has remained in stasis since I put it together. It's light, accurate, fast to use and maneuver in tight confines.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/Glocktogo/CIMG0797_zps21bf4d3d.jpg
Failure2Stop
04-22-14, 15:33
Posted before, but this is my KISS carbine that gets 95% of the AR work I do now. Noveske lower with Geissele SSA trigger, BCM 14.5" LW Middy with Aimpoint H1, 600 Scout light and VCAS sling. The BAD lever is gone now, but otherwise the build has remained in stasis since I put it together. It's light, accurate, fast to use and maneuver in tight confines.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/Glocktogo/CIMG0797_zps21bf4d3d.jpg
That's almost identical to my girl's AR.
Which key hardware?
I'd say-
16" government profile barrel, 1:7, chrome lined, /FSB
Quality bolt
Full auto carrier w/staked gas key
Forged upper & lower receivers
Standard trigger
Milspec carbine RE
H2 Buffer
Adjustable stock
MOE handguard
BUIS
Sling
Common Variations
Government/M4/Pencil profiles or HBar profile
10.5 - 11.5" barrel, 16" barrel or 18" barrel. Sometimes 20" barrel
Stainless steel or chrome lined chromoly barrel
1:7 or 1:8 twist
FSB or low profile gas block
MOE handgaurds or FF tube
Milspec or A5 RE
RDS or variable scope
Standard trigger or G trigger
Weapon light
A2 flash suppressor or compensator/hybrid muzzle device
Basically, yes.
The stuff common all the way across the board on what I pictures as the 'M4C Pattern Carbine'
Chrome Lined, 1:7 Twist barrel in 16" or 16" OABL Configurations [SBR's are a bit different]
Forged Upper/Lower Receivers
Milspec FA BCG
Collapsible Stock
Weaponlight mounted at least 5" forward of the upper receiver
Iron Sights Present
Magazines with MagPul follower (either mil-spec Al, or PMags)
.mil type trigger group (Stock, ALG, or Geissele)
The stuff that varies slightly:
A2/A2X, BattleComp1/1.5/2.0, or BCM Muzzle Device
Milspec (w/ H or H2) or A5 Buffer System
RDS (Aimpoint H1/T1), or maybe EOTech or other Low Powered Variable Optic
Aftermarket Stock/Pistol Grip- usually MOE/MIAD/BCM GF grips; stock is either CTR/MOE/Rogers/UBR type, or SOPMOD/B5/IMOD/STR//EMOD/ACS/ACS-L with sloped cheek)
Sling (Primarily VCAS, but VTAC, Husky, Emdom, or other 2-pt are most common, the odd 1-pt appears)
And there seem to be three really common configurations for the upper:
The LAV type - fixed front irons, ambidextrous 12:00 weaponlight in front of the FSP/Fixed Railed Front Sight set up for direct activation. Either the Mossie FSP mount for the light, a 12.0 FSP Handguard (e.g. LAV DD Carbine), or longer handguard with DD 1.5 Fixed fronts.
The MD/IWC type - offset weaponlight (usually support side leaning), usually folding sights or fixed FSP. Usually an MOE handguard with IWC Offset type mounts, or longer FF handguard configured similarly
The SR07 type - folding iron sights, tape switch activation for weaponlights/NOD attachments located at 12:00, generally with a FF railed handguard.
Finally have pictures to illustrate:
http://i61.tinypic.com/wk4ufd.jpg
Wife's current carbine up top, my accidental favorite rifle in the middle, and my do-all recce on the bottom
http://i61.tinypic.com/33lpn5e.jpg
Hers is a 14.5" Pinned BC 1.5 [this needed to be a Cali capable upper] DD LW Middy, Troy VTAC Rail. X300 @ 12:00, DD Fixed Front Sight, AP T1 on LT660 w/ MBUS Rear; API lower with G&R LPK, MOE+ Grip, GSSA, BAD Ambi Selector, H/Sprinco Blue in LMT Milspec Buffer, and LMT SOPMOD Stock. This thing is built brilliantly, and it's hard not to be jealous of.
http://i57.tinypic.com/rmmumr.jpg
Next is the multi-colored rifle, this was meant to be my training beater, but in this configuration it's my favorite rifle despite being affordable and lacking in bling. I never intended this to be my favorite carbine, but goofing around putting my Gen2 A5 lower on this upper with the TR24, and I couldn't shake how well it handled or worked. I stumbled into a better configuration than I could have sorted out myself without just mashing parts together like a first grader with a stack of Legos.
It's a DD V5 LW 16" Middy upper w/ OmegaX 12.0 Rail, SF M300 at 12:00, runs MBUS Sights under a Trijicon TR24RT, the LDE DBAL I2 fits under the 1-4x because of the LT135 1.93" Mount. The lower is a Noveske Gen2 Chainsaw w/ G&R LPK, MIAD, GSSA, A5 Buffer System with ACS.
http://i61.tinypic.com/2rh1csl.jpg
Finally is my do-all Recce rifle; heavily informed by what I learned from the above carbine, and this thing is one hell of a rifle for what it is: an answer to a few too many questions.
It's an HCS 16" Recce w/ URX 3.1 13.5" Handguard, OPS M4-S (or 14th) Can, SF VTAC L4 3V in VLTOR Scout Mount (poor-man's M300) at 12:00, KAC 45* Offset Iron Sights, Leupold Mk6 Optic in LT-135 2.01" Mount. The lower is also a Noveske Gen2 Chainsaw w/ G&R LPK, MIAD, GSSA, and runs a UBR w/ H2/Springco Blue buffer.
We tend to greatly over-estimate our own personal needs unless you have a job for the tool.
The job devised is probably the least logical part of this, but for a civilian Squad DMR equivalent rifle, I think I've just about nailed it. Maybe a slight improvement here or there can be had (BCM Upper w/ 13" KMR, slightly lighter barrel meaning a lighter stock/buffer arrangement can be more comfortable), but for a 10lb capped 0-600m daynight reduced signature + NOD capable 5.56 weapon system I'm actually quite happy with the result, since this rifle handles everything I do well, with a roughly 24oz penalty with stuff that won't be critical that often (match barrel, DBAL, that extra 2x zoom, can), and what I do well is still emphasized (spot, make good range estimates for longer shots, make decent hits at 550yd, use weapon mounted electronics smartly).
My latest rifle is only any good because I accidentally figured out a smart configuration with my DD V5 upper, and I was able to wind up with a decent Recce rifle that can function as a Mk12Mod-R (16" Barrel and OPS 14th shave off 3.5" of OAL from a true Mk12), and it's about light enough to run with a low powered variable and make sense (hence the Mk6 optic), but it's still a tad too porky to be a really good social use rifle (luckily I'll have my Mk18 to go with it shortly), and I'm still inclined to run more rounds through my V5 LW carbine because it's lighter and I'm not beating on a suppressor in the process.
I have tons of small complaints with each of MY rifles, but all three of the carbine configurations I've figured out for my wife (see below) were all instantly better, and I've basically given up and modeled my SBR layout off of her current carbine, because it just works better than what I had planned.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/Glocktogo/CIMG0797_zps21bf4d3d.jpg That's almost identical to my girl's AR.
That's how hers started off too, and that was damned good. Only change made was moving from the offset 6V E2 weaponlight off the handguard to the LAV configuration, with a Centurion C4 12.0-FSP handguard at X300 out front at 12:00. It now has a shorter twin with a VTAC/TROY Rail, but the same basic configuration.
KISS will vary from user to user and condition to condition.
We tend to greatly over-estimate our own personal needs unless you have a job for the tool.
Remember that most people will be better served with a pistol or airsoft when it comes to carbine "needs".
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I'm going to take my first carbine course this summer. I'm trying to hold judgement until after that, but I can't help but wonder if my $800 for the class and ammo would be better spent elsewhere.
I'm a civilian, the chance of me needing a pistol is thankfully small. The chance of me needing a rifle is almost non-existent.
Failure2Stop
04-22-14, 19:47
If you are going to possess a tool, I highly support knowing how to use that tool. There is nothing wrong with carbines as a hobby, I'd much rather be a recreational shooter than a golfer, and in the event that something puts my loved ones at risk there is nothing that I would rather have in my hands than a good carbine that I have thousands of rounds on. It doesn't take the downfall of society to have a good reason for a rifle. The difference between the airsofter and the shooter is in the long game.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Basically, yes.
The stuff common all the way across the board on what I pictures as the 'M4C Pattern Carbine'
Chrome Lined, 1:7 Twist barrel in 16" or 16" OABL Configurations [SBR's are a bit different]
Forged Upper/Lower Receivers
Milspec FA BCG
Collapsible Stock
Weaponlight mounted at least 5" forward of the upper receiver
Iron Sights Present
Magazines with MagPul follower (either mil-spec Al, or PMags)
.mil type trigger group (Stock, ALG, or Geissele)
The stuff that varies slightly:
A2/A2X, BattleComp1/1.5/2.0, or BCM Muzzle Device
Milspec (w/ H or H2) or A5 Buffer System
RDS (Aimpoint H1/T1), or maybe EOTech or other Low Powered Variable Optic
Aftermarket Stock/Pistol Grip- usually MOE/MIAD/BCM GF grips; stock is either CTR/MOE/Rogers/UBR type, or SOPMOD/B5/IMOD/STR//EMOD/ACS/ACS-L with sloped cheek)
Sling (Primarily VCAS, but VTAC, Husky, Emdom, or other 2-pt are most common, the odd 1-pt appears)
And there seem to be three really common configurations for the upper:
The LAV type - fixed front irons, ambidextrous 12:00 weaponlight in front of the FSP/Fixed Railed Front Sight set up for direct activation. Either the Mossie FSP mount for the light, a 12.0 FSP Handguard (e.g. LAV DD Carbine), or longer handguard with DD 1.5 Fixed fronts.
The MD/IWC type - offset weaponlight (usually support side leaning), usually folding sights or fixed FSP. Usually an MOE handguard with IWC Offset type mounts, or longer FF handguard configured similarly
The SR07 type - folding iron sights, tape switch activation for weaponlights/NOD attachments located at 12:00, generally with a FF railed handguard.
So basically, it's hilarious that people here have an AR with a light and iron sights or BUIS? Cause there aren't a whole lot of other configurations possible.
What's a non-mil-type trigger group?
I don't own a "M4C pattern carbine" apparently :p
For your tan rifle, does your support hand block your dbal?
So basically, it's hilarious that people here have an AR with a light and iron sights or BUIS? Cause there aren't a whole lot of other configurations possible.
What's a non-mil-type trigger group?
I don't own a "M4C pattern carbine" apparently :p
For your tan rifle, does your support hand block your dbal?
I forgot the brand side of the weaponlights - very Surefire heavy, anything else is Streamlight or Elzetta; and yeah, some people consider a general use carbine GTG sans ability to identify threats at night.
Irons - same concept, there are people that consider no irons reasonable, or do ridiculous things like put MBUS on railed gas blocks, or have subscribed to the pre-2012 Marine Corps logic of 'if you can unscrew the TA-31 mount, you can then add a charging handle', so that does apply.
It's more of a case that I'm really amused that there are just three particularly common configurations that seem to be settled on, almost all of which are based a very short list of weaponlights attached via an even shorter list of mounts, and one of five iron sight layouts using parts from really only four brands, and 97% of them fit one of three silhouettes.
By mil-type trigger group, I mean mil-spec hammer and full power hammer spring, non-adjustable; so none of the shady single stage match triggers, or adjustable NM setups.
My support hand when wrapped over will gas block area will blcok the IR illum side of the DBAL, but I can move my thumb down and leave it out of the way when I'm doing night stuff. It's a bit of a transition, but that's the farthest back I can stick it while still being able to activate it conveniently. I've briefly messed with some side rail placements, but I didn't like them on my M16A4 with an APTIAL, and even on my personal guns didn't, so that's where the APTIAL lived on my M16, with the scope mounts I've chosen the DBAL works great in that same spot, so it lives there. I'm still waiting to snap up a second one for my Recce, and then let my tan one float between my 16" V5 and my 10.5" SBR.
subscribed to the pre-2012 Marine Corps logic of 'if you can unscrew the TA-31 mount, you can then add a charging handle', so that does apply.
What? You have to unscrew an ACOG to have a charge handle?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrigandTwoFour
04-22-14, 23:22
That's almost identical to my girl's AR.
Same here.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-obBGPei9Ivg/UrvcxpB3Y3I/AAAAAAAAA7U/6riyF_OZ7_E/w968-h582-no/IMG_0026.JPG
The one on bottom is the one I built for my wife. It also conforms quite well to Llama's description.
BCM LW 16" with FSP, A5 kit, SSA, VTAC Mini L-4 in IWC mount, VCAS, and XPS-2. It was built with purpose in mind: lightweight, simple, reliable. It meets that requirement in spades.
The other was my original project that has gone through three iterations now. It is functionally identical to the other one, except that it uses a Centurion CHF barrel and low profile gas block. It usually has that Vortex 2.5-10x32 on it for the type of shooting I do with it. But I have a TR-24 that I swap in or out, need dependent.. I think that having a suite of optics choices is ultimately the key. Configure the gun to how you are going to use it and go. Or, as many on here have been saying for years: mission dictates.
It's more of a case that I'm really amused that there are just three particularly common configurations that seem to be settled on, almost all of which are based a very short list of weaponlights attached via an even shorter list of mounts, and one of five iron sight layouts using parts from really only four brands, and 97% of them fit one of three silhouettes.
I guess I'm just not seeing the commonality you're talking about besides a generic statement that people here tend to have white lights on their guns.
For the carbine...
Add red dot. Add light. Call the Sumbitch good.
+1, in addition I found a significant benefit from running a steeper angle grip and short VFG with modern techniques.
That's almost identical to my girl's AR.
LOL....
A sling, a light, and an optic.
I get there with a RIS II, an X300U, T-1, and a VCAS.
I still don't understand the problem, but apparently everyone else does...?
I feel you think that the rifle you configured for your wife more perfectly meets her needs. I suspect this is because you are not your wife and are making a somewhat unfounded external conclusion as to how well it meets her needs. You are not applying the same rigid standards you have for your own setup to hers, therefor hers seems to fit her needs "better." I doubt you have any genius for meeting others needs that suddenly vanishes when you try to apply it to yourself.
Assess where your rifle falls short, and make the necessary corrections. You say you want something lighter, smaller, and more accurate. You can have all three. Why not simply make it lighter, smaller, and more accurate?
I doubt you have any genius for meeting others needs that suddenly vanishes when you try to apply it to yourself.
Assess where your rifle falls short, and make the necessary corrections. You say you want something lighter, smaller, and more accurate. You can have all three. Why not simply make it lighter, smaller, and more accurate?
I'm quite sure the former statement is completely accurate, but that's seldom how it seems. Once I found the sorts of components where the rifle doesn't fall short, and in fact excels in added areas, the idea of trying to wring out even more performance seems to be a giant money trap of diminishing returns, so it comes down to being able to accurately assess where a concept for a rifle DOES fall short, and where it merely fails to meet a mission statement or objective goal that doesn't make tons of sense. It's not really a problem, especially when a modular platform is used to its absolute fullest, but the varying efficiency to even simple mission requirements (e.g. a sling, a light, an optic) offered by different solutions means that some of them are inferior, and others while superior aren't cost-efficient.
We always yearn for "capability" with our "do-it-all" carbines. What we occasionally forget is that complexity is the enemy of efficiency, weight is the enemy of speed and bulk is the enemy of deployability. The extra money spent on "capability" would probably be better spent on ammo and training in the pursuit of proficiency.
This is the most true statement ever made about carbine configurations. It's my firm belief that many people get bogged down in capability, when in reality the rifle won't be great at anything other than being a heavy version of a dream they had in their head. Light/simple always beats heavy/complex.
Obviously the "mission" has to dictate what is necessary, and what is not, but for most guys a good RDS, and light would be all they need.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.