View Full Version : Is the M4 still viable?
I remember all the fanfare, so to speak, in waiting for the SCAR and ACR. At one time I thought of selling my LMT to fund a new SCAR/ACR, but after their release I've been a little less than overwhelmed with them. My wife now claims the LMT and I now have a Colt 6920 that I am getting closer to setting up the way I want it. I no longer entertain the idea of selling one of my M4's to fund one of these new carbines but now I wonder if they are worth the price of investment. I feel the ACR has future potential, but as of now I feel it is unrealized potential. At this point in time I feel I'm better served by my Colt and LMT. My question to you guys is, how many of you still prefer a quality M4 carbine, for your own needs, over the new carbines? Just curious.
At this point in time I feel I'm better served by my Colt and LMT.
Aside from a few that might be shooting the latest and greates at hostile human beings on a regular basis, I'm sure most here will have the same sentiment as you. I think it will be quite a while before this forum changes to www.SCARcarbine.net or www.ACRcarbine.net.:D
arizonaranchman
05-09-10, 00:52
Wouldn't even consider changing. The tried and true things in life last for a reason. The rest are just fads. The 1911 is one example...
Iraq Ninja
05-09-10, 00:55
I still have my first AR is bought in 1975. It is still viable.
But, I am a lefty and find the ACR to be superior to the AR for my needs and wants. I also think my Glocks are superior to my 1911s for different reasons.
Superiority does not always imply inferiority when it comes to guns.
Is the AK still viable? The M4 will be viable for just as long.
DaBears_85
05-09-10, 04:10
Is the Ak still viable? The M4 will be viable for just as long.
+1
I can't say I've never thought about it, but I would definately never replace my AR's with SCAR's or ACR's. Not until at least another 5-10 years down the road when and if it has a more proven track record. That's just the thing though, I know what my AR can do and her track record is very well proven and documented. So why mess with a good thing.
Now if your talking about just getting one on the side, Eh...
I wouldnt replace my AR. The AR has a long track record and the weaknesses of the system are known and can be easily taken care of. We dont know what the weak points of the SCAR and ACR are yet?
I used the M16 in Iraq and I know and trust the system.
QuickStrike
05-09-10, 04:58
Is it still viable? Of course!
It's still:
Reliable, ergonomic and modular enough.
Guns don't just stop working, just because something slightly better comes along.
How likely will the outcome of a fight be affected if someone uses a SCAR instead of an M4?
variablebinary
05-09-10, 05:27
Yes.
I cant lie, my 6920 still holds a special place in my collection despite my owning the latest and greatest
Simple answer........YES
It has worked for me on several trips to the sandbox.
Failure2Stop
05-09-10, 08:25
For my personal use I have no reason to dump my M16FOW for anything else in 5.56.
Why dump something you know works for something that may work? Like others have said, the weaknesses of the AR platform are well known, the weaknesses of the ACR and SCAR are unknown.
RogerinTPA
05-09-10, 10:08
Yes, very viable.
There is nothing wrong with a proven design. The only thing missing with most end users, is knowledge (on various means to employ, manipulate, and how to keep it running). Same can be said for any other weapon system out there.
Slinger646
05-09-10, 10:11
I'm just getting into the AR game, I've always been an AK guy. I had an AR once, but traded it for a Jeep.
After lurking here and other places, I decided on a DD M4. I could have gotten a SCAR, ACR or whatever new whiz-bang gun is out there, but dollar for dollar, nothing beats this platform for customizing, mission adaptability and real world SHTF use.
Sure it has some faults, but we know what they are and how to over-come them. I cant say the same for the new kids on the block.
Belmont31R
05-09-10, 10:39
The AR15 will be king for decades to come. There is just too many people using them, and even if the military switches over there are not enough companies making the guns to keep up with the rates at which people buy the AR.
Why does a SCAR or ACR cost over 2k? Because they have a limited market. Even if they make the "next" military gun, and the price drops to say $1200-1500 you only have ONE source for the gun. With the AR you have literally dozens of companies making them, supply is good, and prices range from 500-3000+ for a complete weapon. That expensive price point on the ACR and SCAR put a lot people out of the market. All the DPMS, Oly, BM, RRA crowd...plus all the guys like many on here who have invested tens of thousands into the AR, training on it, going to combat with it, etc are not just going to jump to a new system just because the bean counters decided its the next mil gun.
What has kept the AR going all these years is the ability to adapt, and configure the gun. Its a system that easily changes with the times. 20 years ago, or maybe even 10 years ago...no would would imagined we have the selection we do today. There are a number of high end barrel makers out there, you can put just about any optic on the gun, you have 20+ viable stock choices, different triggers, forends range from 13" FF to your basic carbine CAR handguards. What do you get to modify on the ACR or SCAR? You get to decide what optic goes on the gun I guess. Shorty barrels are nowhere to be seen. Its not the best choice in the DMR/SPR role. Maybe that will change at some point in the future but these guns have already been in the making for many many years, not both of them are going to be the next mil gun if the mil changes at all. So one is going to remain a niche gun there are hardly any aftermarket parts for.
My own personal opinion is that both the ACR, and SCAR try to play off the false notion that DI is inherently unreliable. In using them for quite a few years now in both a civilian and military capacity Ive found them to be very reliable, and I don't see the ACR or SCAR being any significant improvement. They are just modern versions of the classic over barrel piston assault rifle. They operate the same basic way but are just dressed up for the 21st century. Polymer instead of wood, and AL instead of steel. 1913 rails instead of open notch graduated sights. Who cares? The AR has been doing that for years now.
ETA: Id be more interested in buying a G36 than either the SCAR or ACR. A factory SBR G36C would be awesome to play with....
pilotguyo540
05-09-10, 13:38
I think that barrels and ammo being roughly the same, the SCAR and ACR may not help you put accurate shots down faster or more reliably. I cant wait to try them out and see for myself.
What I am trying so unsuccessfully to say is that, unless you can have faster follow ups and/or a proven reliability advantage or equivelant there is no other reason than personal preference to go with anything else.
Personal preference can mean looks, ergonomics, cleaning ease etc.
i have zero experience with the new plastic carbines... but since i've still never fully tapped the potential of the M4, i can't see any need to "upgrade," and i think the same applies to basically everyone. as already stated, the M4 is the most customizable, adaptable weapon platform ever put into mass production- you can only improve on it by improving it, which we do all the time.
if a guy wants a SCAR or ACR- more power to him. but when we're talking "need," there isn't any.
---
and re-reading my post, i'll just add: its my opinion that the new series of plastic carbines isn't an "upgrade" or "improvement" to begin with... they're a step backwards, as far as i can tell.
The AR is the best weapon system available, and It's going to be that way for a long time IMHO.
Belmont31R
05-09-10, 14:40
i have zero experience with the new plastic carbines... but since i've still never fully tapped the potential of the M4, i can't see any need to "upgrade," and i think the same applies to basically everyone. as already stated, the M4 is the most customizable, adaptable weapon platform ever put into mass production- you can only improve on it by improving it, which we do all the time.
if a guy wants a SCAR or ACR- more power to him. but when we're talking "need," there isn't any.
---
and re-reading my post, i'll just add: its my opinion that the new series of plastic carbines isn't an "upgrade" or "improvement" to begin with... they're a step backwards, as far as i can tell.
They are certainly nothing new EXCEPT for the manufacturing techniques to make them. HK has been making a polymer framed assault rifle for a while now (G36 series). Piston guns have been around for a long time. Hell we used piston guns in prior to WW2.
Like I said they are just another iteration of the over barrel piston assault rifle. There have been many before these 2, and many more will follow in the next 20-30 years. The AR is still a better choice given the modularity, parts selection, configurability, etc. Ive never found the piston argument to hold much credibility if any. DI has always worked just fine for me, and millions of other people.
Now where I think these systems, especially the SCAR, is in the 7.62 area. Ill be taking a good look at the SCAR-H carbine. I like the KAC EM but its nearly twice the cost as the SCAR-H, LaRue OBR is setup more for precision than a true battle rifle, LMT MWS looks pretty promising....REPR has had issues. I think the SCAR-H can be a competitive player in this market since there arent a whole lot of choices to begin with, and its at a pretty decent price point.
The addition of the BAD Lever and ASAP plate virtually did away with my desire to overpay for an ACR.
The QCB capability offered by the existing and proven MRP uppers when coupled with the above means that the forward charging handle and folding stock are the only remaining talking points for the ACR/SCAR options.
The ACR charging handle gets in the way for a 12:00 mounted X300 mounting arrangement, so to me the question becomes if the folding stock is worth the price difference.
The XM8 used too much plastic - steel trunnion and friction surfaces make more sense. The ACR fixes this, but right now the overall and forward weight is just too much. The SCAR strikes a good compromise, and the intercompatibility between the L and H versions is it's best selling point, but its reciprocating charging handle needs to be fixed.
The AR will probably still be the future carbine - a MURG can fix a lot of the perceived issues, though ammunition is the chief limitation. Simple procuring MRP or similar uppers, training with green 5.56 rounds, and then using the improved Mk318 or switching to 6.8SPC for COIN use would solve a large number of issues, and streamline integration of weapon systems like the SPR/SDMR/SAMR as being identical, except for longer match barrels, optics, and trigger; and DI can also be used in conjunction with gas piston as needed. If a PDW variant can be included, then a simplified system can be a top seller, and if the same monolithic uppers can be used to make IAR-like rifles, it's a really winning system.
I think it's a bit funny that all the literature surrounding recent 5.56 rifles could be very easily reproduced just taking existing M4/AR lowers, and swapping upper receiver groups.
I would rather have another AUG or a Tavor than a SCAR or an ACR.
As long as I can buy a Daniel Defense M4 + Aimpoint MicroT in a LaRue mount + 2000rds of Wolf + a Magpul Dynamics carbine class all for less than the basic stripped down version of the ACR, then I will stick with the AR. :eek:
ETA: plus the weight. I just can't get over the fact that my fully loaded AR weighs less than stripped ACR.
My own personal opinion is that both the ACR, and SCAR try to play off the false notion that DI is inherently unreliable. In using them for quite a few years now in both a civilian and military capacity Ive found them to be very reliable . . .
Noted firearms expert Michael Pannone's most recent article regarding the reliability of the AR/ M4 platform.
LINK: http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/
The Big M4 Myth: “Fouling caused by the direct impingement gas system makes the M4 Carbine unreliable.”
On March 19, 2010, in Featured, Rifles And Carbines, Special Operations, by David Crane
By Mike Pannone
Info@CTT-Solutions.com
All photos contained in this article were taken by Mike Pannone for DefenseReview.com, and are copyrighted. Mike Pannone and DefenseReview.com own the copyright on these photos.
March 19, 2010
Here’s my question for those that subscribe to the direct impingement fouling concept:
I fired 2400 rounds of M193 through a 14.5” M4-type upper receiver from Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM) with no lubrication, and without any rifle-caused malfunctions. So; why can I get my direct impingement rifles to repeatedly do things that conventional wisdom says they can’t do?
This article is not a direct impingement vs. piston driven operating system debate and does not discuss piston guns at all. It is specifically dealing with a 14.5”AR-15 upper receiver with .062” gas port that’s as close to a Mil-Spec M4 upper as I could find on the civilian market.
All I have ever asked and required of myself (and others) as a professional is that everything I say or write must be capable of being substantiated. I am asking some questions and giving my opinions, observations, and conclusions based on my own experience and testing.
For years I have been told, and heard others repeat, incessantly, that the direct-gas-impingement M16/M4 family of weapons is flawed because they deposit gas and powder residue in the upper receiver, and thereby are inherently unreliable with hard use. That sounds good in theory. However, in practice, I have not seen nor experienced it with my guns as a special operations soldier or civilian instructor. Why is that? Why don’t I have said commonly referred-to fouling problem with even excessive use and minimum maintenance?
When I returned from Iraq in 2005, I was a primary instructor on a rifle course with the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG). During that time as I have mentioned in previous articles I began a quest to find out what made the M4/M4A1 Carbine run well, and what stopped it from doing so. In that time I spent a year at the 82nd Airborne Division training with infantry units prior to their deployment on the Iraq surge. During this time, I saw every manner of malfunction and never saw a rifle that was not well cared for (the soldiers attending were more senior and specially selected, as well as being members of the highly disciplined 82nd Airborne division). Each time there was a malfunction, if possible, I would run over and observe what had happened, then write it down in my log book. What I eventually realized was that when magazine issues were removed, along with broken parts, about 80% of the malfunctions had been accounted for. The rest were failures to properly extract and eject, and failures to go into battery. That is where I realized my rifles were superior to the ones issued. The only problems I had experienced with my own guns were double feeds which are exclusively magazine caused.
What’s odd is that I was using a civilian version of an M4 that was nearly identical to the ones used by the paratroopers of the 82nd. My rifle utilized a DPMS chrome-lined 16” M4-profile barrel with a Larue free-float forend rail tube. After that barrel was shot out I went to a Noveske 14.5” Afghan barrel, and then finally to a Noveske 14.5” N4 cold hammer forged, double-chrome-lined barrel. Aside from being semi-auto-only instead of select-fire (i.e. burst-fire or full-auto capable), and one having a barrel that was 16.1” vs. 14.5”, they were functionally the same rifle. The difference was that I used a heavier Sprinco buffer spring (correctly called an action spring), a DPMS Extra-heavy buffer (.2oz lighter than a Colt H3 buffer), and a 5 coil extractor spring with a Crane O-ring for added extractor tension. Those drop-in parts made my rifles obscenely reliable, and still do. The spring-and-buffer combo I use works in mil-spec-size gas port rifles (.062” as per NAVSEA Crane a.k.a. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division) with 14.5” or 16” barrels and a 7.5” carbine gas system. There are some rifles on the market that have smaller gas ports than the Colt M4 in its military configuration, so the spring and weight may not work in them, as they may cause short cycling issues. I had the luxury of shooting my rifle without maintenance in a training environment until it failed. I routinely went well over 2500 rounds with only a few drops of oil and a bore snake run through the barrel every morning. I was convinced there and then that fouling was not nearly the issue it was purported to be, and that the real issue was weak springs and a buffer that was too light.
My Test:
Recently, I received a milspec equivalent (barrel length/gas port size/gas system length) M4-type upper from Bravo Company USA (BCM) to test my theory that a heavier buffer and spring with enhanced extractor tension would give extraordinary reliability with no lubrication or maintenance whatsoever. I have shot over 2500 rounds with the FailZero kit with EXO Technology coating on four separate occasions with no lubricant, as well as a ceramic coated rifle (to include bolt and bolt carrier group) from Next Generation Arms that currently has 4000 rounds on it without cleaning or lubricant, and also no malfunctions. I have also routinely shot a Noveske N4 14.5”-barreled rifle over 2500 rds with only 6-8 drops of oil every 500-700rds fired without any issues. If I used those rifles or parts for my test, many would say “well those are custom coatings/guns and military guns don’t have that.” For that reason, BCM was kind enough to send me a stock 14.5” upper on which to do the test. Prior to the test I did the following:
1. Remove all visible oil and lubricant from the inside of the upper receiver.
2. Disassemble the bolt carrier group (BCG) and remove all lubricant inside and out
3. Put a Crane O-ring on the existing extractor spring
4. Use a lower receiver with a Sprinco standard Blue spring and an H-3 buffer (I used an H3 because it was close to the DPMS Extra-heavy buffer I use in most of my rifles.
(*Writers note: A standard rifle buffer is 5.2oz. For a Carbine receiver extension a standard H buffer is 3.8oz, H2 is 4.7oz and H3 is 5.6oz.)
After I had done that, I fired 2400 rounds of M193 through it in six sessions, often shooting it so hot that I could not hold the forend without gloves. The first of such sessions was in the presence of two Border Patrol BORTAC snipers, and it consisted of 330 rounds in 25 minutes. This included zeroing the optic so the bulk of the rounds were fired in a 20 minute period by all three of us. (Note: At the conclusion of this, I pulled the bolt carrier group out and held it by the lugs with my bare fingers. That’s another myth (to debunk) for another article. I did this a second time later during the test where I had shot the rifle so hot I needed gloves to hold the forend, then shot 120 rds in 2:35 and again held the bolt by the lugs with bare fingers.) The rifle had no issues other than some test magazines that did not feed the last round properly. Once those test magazines were removed, the rifle always locked to the rear on the last round fired and did not feel sluggish.
With good magazines–I used USGI aluminum of various makes so as to replicate military use as closely as possible–there were no issues until I reached 2450 rounds fired. At 2450 rounds the rifle would not complete the recoil cycle due to the additional friction caused by the fouling and no lubrication, and exacerbated by the extra buffer weight. Once the rifle began short cycling, it did so every shot. In diving medicine, that’s called “dramatic onset of a symptom”. It was as though a switch had been flipped and the rifle just stopped working.
Rounds fired per session were: 330, 510, 540, 450, 450, 120* (Note: Failure point was end of 6th magazine/2440rds. Problem: chronic short cycling due to excessive fouling caused friction.)
At the failure point I replaced the H3 buffer with an H buffer, and the rifle ran reliably again. I finished the remaining rounds in the 6th magazine of the session, and continued shooting. At 2500 rounds, the rifle ran, although quite sluggish in counter recoil. Then, nearly on cue, the rifle stopped again, this time at the 2540 round mark, and the last ten rounds were accomplished by tap-rack (performing a tap-rack-bang drill) each time. Just to isolate the issue I put the BCG in another dirty but oiled upper of same design and it ran easily (with H3 buffer reinstalled). I returned the BCG to the original upper, oiled it, and the rifle immediately came back to life firing another 90 rounds smoothly and without issue (2630 total rounds fired for test + 30 in replacement receiver cited above).
Here are the findings of my testing:
· When the rifles become fouled, they have more drag (friction) inside the upper receiver, which slows down the bolt carrier group. This along with the pressure on the bottom of the bolt carrier from a loaded magazine will slow the BCG down enough to keep it from reliably going into battery during the counter-recoil cycle. The heavier buffer and spring completely remedy this, but there is a crossover point. That crossover point on a bone-dry stock M4/M4A1-type AR carbine upper is about 2400rounds fired. At that point, if there is enough buffer spring tension to drive the BCG into battery, then it cannot fully cycle. And, if the spring is light enough to allow the weapon to fully cycle to the rear, it does not have enough force to go fully into battery. The changing from an H to an H3 buffer only gave an additional 80 rounds of reliability. And, given the parameters of the test (no lube) and the dramatic increase in shootability using a heavier buffer, I am still a proponent of a buffer heavier than an H.
· With the Sprinco enhanced Blue action spring (or comparable extra-power spring) and an H2 orH3 buffer, unless there is a rigid obstruction present in the barrel extension, the rifle will reliably go into battery. Note: I routinely take “damaged” or discarded rounds (see first article on M4 reliability) that have been lying around or have deformed cases from the malfunctions block I conduct and load them into my magazines. I will shoot them all without issue, unless they are catastrophically disfigured or the projectile is pushed back into the case (creating a safety issue due to increased chamber pressure). The heavier buffer and added spring tension effectively resizes the case and fires it.
· A benefit of the additional spring/buffer weight is that it slows down the unlocking and extracting tempo, increasing the locked chamber dwell time and allowing for much more reliable extraction and ejection. This is because the longer dwell time allows the chamber pressure to recede more, as well as transferring heat from the case to the chamber walls. It also offers a softer-shooting rifle because the recoil impulse is transmitted over a longer period of time, hence lower ft-lbs/second received at the shoulder.
· With an enhanced extractor spring (BCM 4 coil, Sprinco 5 coil or comparable) and a Crane O-ring, I have not experienced any failures to extract except for faulty ammunition (specifically Radway Green training ammunition used by the 82nd in 2006) The SOPMOD bolt upgrade kit (new extractor and pin, 5 coil extractor spring, Crane O-ring and new gas rings), first fielded by SOCOM, should be standard on all M4’s used by the military or law enforcement.
*I have heard of some rifles that will not function properly with both an enhanced extractor spring and a crane O-ring installed. The symptom is the extractor does not release the brass from the bolt face causing a failure to eject. I have never experienced this with my personal rifles, but am currently working with Lou Patrick of on finding the reason for this. Lou is one of the most overall knowledgeable gunsmiths I have ever met, and is also a former gunsmith for the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU).
**Test-fire any enhancements before fielding.
Conclusion:
Fouling in the M4 is not the problem. The problem is weak springs (buffer and extractor), as well as light buffer weights (H vs. H2 or H3). With the abovementioned drop-in parts, the M4 is as reliable as any weapon I have ever fired, and I have fired probably every military-issue assault rifle fielded worldwide in the last 60 years as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant (18B). An additional benefit of the heavier spring/weight combo is that it transmits the energy impulse of the firing cycle to the shoulder over a longer duration, lowering the amount of foot pounds per second and dramatically reducing the perceived recoil. Follow-on shots are easier to make effectively, and much faster, especially at 50 meters and beyond.
I reliably fired 2400 rounds (80 magazines) on a bone dry gun, and I would bet that is a lot more than any soldier or other armed professional will ever come close to firing without any lubrication whatsoever. So, disregard the fouling myth and install a better buffer spring, H2 buffer, enhanced extractor spring and a Crane O-ring (all end user drop-in parts). With normal (read “not excessive”) lubrication and maintenance, properly-built AR-15/M4 type rifles with carbine gas systems will astound you with their reliability and shootability.
About the Author: Michael Pannone a.k.a Mike Pannone is currently the owner/operator of, and senior instructor for, CTT Solutions, which is a tactical training (including tactical shooting) and consulting firm. He’s also a certified Colt Armorer. Mr. Pannone is a former operational member of U.S. Marine Force Reconnaissance, U.S. Army Special Forces, and specially selected elements of the Joint Special Operations Command. He has participated in stabilization, combat, and high risk protection operations in support of U.S. policies throughout the word as both an active duty military member, and a civilian contractor. During his military career, Mr. Pannone was the Distinguished Honor Graduate of a Level 1 SOTIC held at Ft Bragg. He currently instructs U.S. military, law enforcement (LE), and private citizens around the country as an adjunct instructor with several different organizations. He can be contacted via e-mail at Info@CTT-Solutions.com.
variablebinary
05-09-10, 17:05
AR15 type weapons are just another option for consumers.
Lots of people talk about combat and SHTF scenarios, which is fantasy for 90% of the population, and for those that will see combat they seldom have a choice in what they will be issued.
As a consumer, ask yourself if the AR15 meets your needs/wants/likes
I dont think the issue is viability for a consumer; it's if you really want it, and will it make you happy to own. It doesnt matter if everyone on M4C thinks the AR15 is uber awesome. If it doesnt make you happy what's the point.
Just a quick anecdote: Had a buddy that wanted a new Stery AUG. Got on the forums, asked for opinions, everyone said bullpups blow for reasons XYZ. Buddy gets mind changed, and buys a Noveske instead. Was happy for a week, then went back to wanting an AUG. Finally got annoyed enough to sell the Noveske and got his AUG. He's much happier because the AUG is what he wanted even though it wasnt the first choice of the tacticool kid forum circuit.
Life is short. Make yourself happy.
Thanks for all the replies, I'm a little overwhelmed from the number of responses. Your opinions seem to mirror mine. I've had the thought before that if the AR system was just introduced that it would still be a success even in todays environment. It's no wonder that it has been serving for nearly 5 decades now. I think it may be awhile before the AR system is totally replaced by a new system, I think the SCAR and ACR have some potential but are a looong way from getting there. I was just wondering how many people were satisfied with the M4. At one time I thought I may want a piston AR system but that idea fell by the wayside (I don't even consider that option anymore) and I think the SCAR/ACR fever may cool down as well. Just a few thoughts, thanks again guys.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 04:21
What can a SCAR/ACR/Bullpup gun do that our beloved AR can't?
All the things they want can be found in the AR.
Accuracy? We have it.
Modularity? We ****ing definitely have it.
Triggers? We have it.
Monolithic platform? We have it.
Pistons? We have it.
DI? We have it.
Reliability? We have it.
Track record? We have it.
Weight? We don't have it.
Durability? We have it.
Cost? Not much. Especially considering it's standardization.
DaBears_85
05-12-10, 05:48
Now where I think these systems, especially the SCAR, is in the 7.62 area. Ill be taking a good look at the SCAR-H carbine. I like the KAC EM but its nearly twice the cost as the SCAR-H, LaRue OBR is setup more for precision than a true battle rifle, LMT MWS looks pretty promising....REPR has had issues. I think the SCAR-H can be a competitive player in this market since there arent a whole lot of choices to begin with, and its at a pretty decent price point.
Agreed
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 06:59
Yeah, but it's still worth it to run a KAC AR-10, or LWRCi R.E.P.R. on another company's lower receiver despite cost, for parts compatibility, and shootability.
At least that's what I'd do. As a paying civilian.
John_Wayne777
05-12-10, 07:53
My question to you guys is, how many of you still prefer a quality M4 carbine, for your own needs, over the new carbines? Just curious.
I think that for most, weapons like the SCAR or ACR offer the potential for a marginal level of improvement...if they prove to be as good as the M-16 family of weapons as we know them today. Remember that the AR family of weapons has been around for a very long time and have evolved over decades into the most versatile family of military rifles in the history of mankind.
That's not to say it's impossible to improve upon the AR family of weapons, but you must admit that those are some pretty big shoes to fill. It's going to take a good bit of time and development before newer guns like the SCAR or the ACR can truly be said to supplant the AR family of weapons.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 07:55
By the time they've evolved the AR will have evolved, and become even MORE modular.
We have the head start. X)
RogerinTPA
05-12-10, 18:31
I think that for most, weapons like the SCAR or ACR offer the potential for a marginal level of improvement...if they prove to be as good as the M-16 family of weapons as we know them today. Remember that the AR family of weapons has been around for a very long time and have evolved over decades into the most versatile family of military rifles in the history of mankind.
That's not to say it's impossible to improve upon the AR family of weapons, but you must admit that those are some pretty big shoes to fill. It's going to take a good bit of time and development before newer guns like the SCAR or the ACR can truly be said to supplant the AR family of weapons.
Agreed.
Unless someone invents a weapon system with "leap ahead" technology, instead of product improvement, the AR platform will be around for another 40+ years.
"What can a SCAR/ACR/Bullpup gun do that our beloved AR can't?
All the things they want can be found in the AR. "
No, where they shine and the M4 fails is in the manual of arms and ergonomics. The M4 is an abysmal failure in that regard, just ask a lefty. Much of the M4's ergo failings are just now, 60 years after the rifle's intro being addressed by rifle manufacturers. I see no reason why an M4 lower can't be built to incorporate much of the user-friendliness of the SCAR/ACR.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 20:03
You can find AR systems built for lefties.
If my home were to burn down tomorrow with all of my M4s in it, I would give the new platforms a serious look once I had my insurance check in hand. But right now I do not find the M4 platform lacking enough (or at all really) to take such a hit by selling my M4s on the used market and purchasing a pair of SCARs or ACRs for a much higher price.
"What can a SCAR/ACR/Bullpup gun do that our beloved AR can't?
All the things they want can be found in the AR. "
No, where they shine and the M4 fails is in the manual of arms and ergonomics. The M4 is an abysmal failure in that regard, just ask a lefty. Much of the M4's ergo failings are just now, 60 years after the rifle's intro being addressed by rifle manufacturers. I see no reason why an M4 lower can't be built to incorporate much of the user-friendliness of the SCAR/ACR.
I'm a lefty and I don't have any issues with a standard M4 lower. They're companies making ambi-control lowers though so I don't think it is really a issue. I also think in general the ergonomics of the platform are really good. Could they be better? Sure. But I still think it's a lot better than most.
"What can a SCAR/ACR/Bullpup gun do that our beloved AR can't?
All the things they want can be found in the AR. "
No, where they shine and the M4 fails is in the manual of arms and ergonomics. The M4 is an abysmal failure in that regard, just ask a lefty. Much of the M4's ergo failings are just now, 60 years after the rifle's intro being addressed by rifle manufacturers. I see no reason why an M4 lower can't be built to incorporate much of the user-friendliness of the SCAR/ACR.
I think we can safely say you didn't mean to include "Bullpup" when you were talking about ergonomics. I note you didn't include it in your quote. :)
I think that for personal / home defense, the AR will forever remain viable. Sure, some rifles will improve on the design, and these improvements will address specific shortcomings (perceived or real) that typically apply to specific situtations that I personally am not likely to encounter.
I have 4 AR's, each configured differently, and none of them are ever going anywhere. I'd like a SCAR just to add to my collection, but it's not to replace anything.
The Morrigan
05-13-10, 11:49
I confess i didn't follow the Masada to ACR evolution.
But as for the SCAR, I remember asking when it was announced "What does this really offer that is worth going to it over the M16 series?
The SCAR really offers three advantages:
1.) Folding stock. Simply makes it easier to get in and out of vehicles, and if necessary, fire from within one.
2.) Ability to switch calibers from an intermediate to full power cartridge. You need a completely separate rifle to do this with an AR.
3.) Quick change barrel. Meaning taking the barrel off the receiver and putting a new one on. It's not hard to do on an AR, but it is more complicated than undoing 6 captive screws.
The other things the SCAR offers are preference issues, and some of them (ambi controls, pistons) are available for ARs.
Now, ask yourself how much those improvements are worth?
#1 as a military person, having a folding stock is a definite advantage, considering the likelihood of getting ambushed and having to start a fight from inside a hummer.. For a civilian? Let's face it, if we ever got into a firefight in our cars, most likely we'd have to solve it with what was handy (a pistol), and in many cases will be over with within the first magazine. If you must have a car rifle, why not make it a lower cost option, and get an AK with a folding stock, some commie steel mags, and 7.62x39 -- which I'd rather use against a vehicle anyway? Even if you trick out the AK and the AR, you're still well under the cost of a SCAR.
#2 How big of an advantage is this really? From a military end user viewpoint, you'll never see the difference between seeing this, and being issued a KAC in .308 versus an M4. At the armorer level it may be easier, but again, how much of a difference does it really make? You maintain M4s, M16s, etc in inventory and issued to the troops what you're told to. As a civilian, the ability to swap uppers is important in the beginning phases of ownership, but most people eventually just buy dedicated lowers at some point anyway, and usually want a .308 rifle set up different from their lightweight carbine anyway, so it's easier to just have a separate rifle.
#3 Armorers have the tools to swap barrels on M16 series rifles. It's not that hard. Even with the 6 captive screws method of the SCAR, it's something that will be done back at base, you won't have time in combat to unscrew your barrel and screw another in. No advantage to the end user. For a civilian, it's fairly easy to get the tools to swap barrels if you do it a lot, and it's not hard to get a gunsmith to do it. For swapping different barrel lengths for different activities, it's faster to pop two pins and slap a new upper on than to mess with screws. No real advantage here, either.
The primary reason to buy one of these new guns is that you have the money, and you want a new "space gun". Good enough. But they are not revolutionary, and certainly don't obsolete anything that came before.
Some weapons have survived the test of time. Despite many pronouncements of it's demise, the 1911 is still going strong. The AK-47 is still going strong, and the AR-15 is still going strong. in fact, all three platforms have more available now for them than at anytime in the past.
I wouldn't go scrapping out my ARs just yet. ;)
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 12:07
Well played, sir. Well played.
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 12:26
I confess i didn't follow the Masada to ACR evolution.
But as for the SCAR, I remember asking when it was announced "What does this really offer that is worth going to it over the M16 series?
The SCAR really offers three advantages:
1.) Folding stock. Simply makes it easier to get in and out of vehicles, and if necessary, fire from within one.
2.) Ability to switch calibers from an intermediate to full power cartridge. You need a completely separate rifle to do this with an AR.
3.) Quick change barrel. Meaning taking the barrel off the receiver and putting a new one on. It's not hard to do on an AR, but it is more complicated than undoing 6 captive screws.
The other things the SCAR offers are preference issues, and some of them (ambi controls, pistons) are available for ARs.
Now, ask yourself how much those improvements are worth?
#1 as a military person, having a folding stock is a definite advantage, considering the likelihood of getting ambushed and having to start a fight from inside a hummer.. For a civilian? Let's face it, if we ever got into a firefight in our cars, most likely we'd have to solve it with what was handy (a pistol), and in many cases will be over with within the first magazine. If you must have a car rifle, why not make it a lower cost option, and get an AK with a folding stock, some commie steel mags, and 7.62x39 -- which I'd rather use against a vehicle anyway? Even if you trick out the AK and the AR, you're still well under the cost of a SCAR.
Except maybe in rare instances no but the turret gunner is firing from the truck. SOP is to keep the bullet proof glass up. We haven't been rolling around with windows down since armored trucks became SOP, too. You don't want rounds getting inside a steel box. And if I do get out of the truck I want the gun ready to rock. I dont want to get out, and then mess with my gun to get it ready to fire. Before you open the door the gun should be ready to fire except for going from safe to semi on the selector.
I could imagine a folding stock would be useful for airborne operations but honestly Ive never jumped so my opinion on this is next to worthless.
Shooting with a folding stock actually folded is also worthless except maybe at point blank range. We try to teach our troops to actually hit what they are aiming at.
#2 How big of an advantage is this really? From a military end user viewpoint, you'll never see the difference between seeing this, and being issued a KAC in .308 versus an M4. At the armorer level it may be easier, but again, how much of a difference does it really make? You maintain M4s, M16s, etc in inventory and issued to the troops what you're told to. As a civilian, the ability to swap uppers is important in the beginning phases of ownership, but most people eventually just buy dedicated lowers at some point anyway, and usually want a .308 rifle set up different from their lightweight carbine anyway, so it's easier to just have a separate rifle.
It would have little to no bearing on regular Army troops. Its easier to swap uppers on an AR/M4/M16 than start messing with changing barrels. Two pins vs. 6 screws that have to be torqued to a certain spec?
#3 Armorers have the tools to swap barrels on M16 series rifles. It's not that hard. Even with the 6 captive screws method of the SCAR, it's something that will be done back at base, you won't have time in combat to unscrew your barrel and screw another in. No advantage to the end user. For a civilian, it's fairly easy to get the tools to swap barrels if you do it a lot, and it's not hard to get a gunsmith to do it. For swapping different barrel lengths for different activities, it's faster to pop two pins and slap a new upper on than to mess with screws. No real advantage here, either.
The primary reason to buy one of these new guns is that you have the money, and you want a new "space gun". Good enough. But they are not revolutionary, and certainly don't obsolete anything that came before.
Some weapons have survived the test of time. Despite many pronouncements of it's demise, the 1911 is still going strong. The AK-47 is still going strong, and the AR-15 is still going strong. in fact, all three platforms have more available now for them than at anytime in the past.
I wouldn't go scrapping out my ARs just yet. ;)
My comments in red above.
I also wonder about how the headspacing on the QD barrels works. I doubt its just plug and play straight out the box. If they are anything like M240 and M249 barrels each one needs to be headspaced to each individual gun. We had to do this when our SAW's went from regular setup to the shorty barrels, and col stocks. If they are plug and play that is pretty cool. Also so far as I know FN is not releasing shorty barrels, and you cannot simply cut down a 16" barrel from what FN has said. I imagine the barrel assemblies are not cheap.
One thing I also wonder about the SCAR is the rail length. It looks to be about carbine length compared to an AR, and I prefer at least a 10" rail.
Im actually interested in looking at a SCAR H if I see one in person. Id like to get a 308 battle rifle like this.
ETA: Id be more interested in buying a G36 than either the SCAR or ACR. A factory SBR G36C would be awesome to play with....
The SOT that I consult for has one. It's fun, but I'd MUCH rather have a Colt 6933 or HK 416. I've used it in a Vickers Subgun class. Meh.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Machine%20Gun%20Sunday/redone%20Machinegun/DSCN0543.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 13:09
You bastard. Why do you get to shoot the badass G36C?
If it was full auto, I seriously hate you.
:):):)
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 13:17
The SOT that I consult for has one. It's fun, but I'd MUCH rather have a Colt 6933 or HK 416. I've used it in a Vickers Subgun class. Meh.
Well yeah but as far as plastic framed guns go the G36 has impressed me the most. In Germany we got to do quite a bit of cross training with the Germans, and always thought the G36 was a pretty neat gun. One thing about it is the CH works both ways whereas both the SCAR and ACR its either one side or the other.
I just handled an ACR today, and it felt pretty cheap to me. I also don't understand the thinking behind an M4 profile mid length barrel. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Thats one thing that could have been improved upon given they were working from the ground up on this. Its also a hefty piece.
You bastard. Why do you get to shoot the badass G36C?
If it was full auto, I seriously hate you.
:):):)
That's the only way they come......
And don't worry, I've engendered a lot of hate towards myself over the years.....:cool:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000698.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000701.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000702.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 13:21
:eek::mad:
You're awesomeness makes me cry. :( :(
(Spellcheck says that ''awesomeness'' is a real word. wtf?)
You're really lucky, did you shoot that beauty suppressed?
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 13:24
Yep Id much rather have that than the SCAR or ACR.
For those who don't know the CH is the metal piece between the top rail, and the top of the receiver. The very end 1 1/2" or so swivels to either side, and then stops at a 90 degree angle as the "handle". So you can charge/operate the CH from either side the exact same way. Its kinda like the real old school AR15's that had the CH between the carry handle, and the top of the receiver.
The only thing I didn't like about the "rifle" length version is the integrated RDS and magnified optic. The shorty versions just have a top rail so you can mount whatever you want on it.
I'd still feel more comfortable with a Colt 6920 or a Daniel Defense carbine than the G36, especially from an ergonomics point of view.
For the military, the FN SCAR Mk.16 Mod.0 provides an incremental improvement in features over the M4, but the SCAR Mk.17 provides a hell of a leap forward compared to the legacy main battle rifles that are currently fielded.
If it aint broke dont fix it. For example, I will drive my little toyota for ever and ever till the frame rots through in 70 years. Because I want an old little four banger? No, because it works and lasts. And is easily repaired and simple at that. Plus all its faults have had more than enough time to work out in one way or the other so I know what to expect, and I capitalized on that when I chose it. Why do you see more older toyotas around than most others? They are a good platform and machine, a design that just stuck. Like the AR, if it was not a very reliable, long lasting adaptable platform it would have been a 2-5 year fad and faded away by now. Just look at its service life, several generations. And until they have light sabers and laser rifles to phase out centerfire weapons the .223 will be no less effective in the AR than in some other hyped up replacement.
I'd still feel more comfortable with a Colt 6920 or a Daniel Defense carbine than the G36, especially from an ergonomics point of view.
For the military, the FN SCAR Mk.16 Mod.0 provides an incremental improvement in features over the M4, but the SCAR Mk.17 provides a hell of a leap forward compared to the legacy main battle rifles that are currently fielded.
Sorry for the OT post, but there's a tiny but great scene in "Proof of Life" where Russel Crowe's character is gearing up for their rescue mission and a guy tries to hand him a new G36 with some sort of explanation I can never make out. Russell Crows character just walks by him and sticks with his M4, obviously a known quantity.
Very good gunplay throughout the whole movie and the rescue team was played by the actual SF advisor as well as Ecuadorian SF guys. I would heartily recommend just renting it to watch the final scene, just like the movie about the SAS storming that embassy in London.
Sorry, back on topic. I have assembled and bought custom many DI AR's from BM to Eagle to DPMS to Armalite to Colt to LMT to Noveske over the years and found that with proper setup, good parts, good mags, decent ammo, and a bit of lube I have had no memorable or even mildly upsetting reliability issues in tens of thousands of rounds downrange. I LIKE having a gun I know all the ins and outs of and is proven to work by me and many, many others. When it comes down to it, it's all about sending lead downrange and until they come up with MUCH better ammo or plasma rifles in the 40 watt range I see no general reason to switch to anything else for serious use.
Dennis.
I own a couple of ar platforms from basic armalites to my beloved noveske afghan but i do love my scar 16L very much i saw guys carying them in iraq and they were the tan ones and they were so worn that they hardly looked tan anymore but they still ran great
so i bought one and i love it and i will be buying a 17h when i can get by hands on one
the scar is very light yet bulky and i love it but i have the issue of making the transition over from the m4 platform
recoil isnt there it is the softest shooting platform 5.56 rifle i have ever touched from xcr's to manny ar platforms im sure theres somthing else out there that shoots softer but for a pistion platform this things follow up shots are very very fast
the trigger is horrible and i think for the price that these guns are fetching it is even worse for 2200 i think is the average ive seen that the rifle should come with a nice trigger now i understand that this is a service rifle but my trigger has a heavy gritty trigger and im sure that a better trigger would be very beneficial to more controled more natural shooting but personaly i love it
i will never invest in a acr i will not under any circumstances spend that kind of cash on a 1-9 twist rifle that bushmaster murdered i have shot one and it feels cheap and not worth anything i want in my safe ever
a scar feels solid when you send the bolt forward it sounds like a solid slam not a flimsy coke can being hit with a peice of scrap tim metal that echos throught the rifle it almost sounds like a red rider bb gun going off but im sure that there selling like hot cakes i see bushmasters everywhere and no matter how that rifle is wraped its still a bushmaster with a 1-9 twist
Every time I hear talk of how awsome the new acr is by some call of duty playing idiot I think back to the hitler spoof video. "Shrubmaster" and "Run by monkeys" comes to mind.:p
Every time I hear talk of how awsome the new acr is by some call of duty playing idiot I think back to the hitler spoof video. "Shrubmaster" and "Run by monkeys" comes to mind.:p
OT, but THAT is the funniest video on YouTube!!
... As you were ... :)
wild_wild_wes
05-13-10, 22:50
I just handled an ACR today, and it felt pretty cheap to me. I also don't understand the thinking behind an M4 profile mid length barrel. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Thats one thing that could have been improved upon given they were working from the ground up on this. Its also a hefty piece.
Yeah, the M4 profile barrel is a dumb choice. SCAR, G-36 etc., all serious assault rifles have proper Lightweight barrels.
I've had all different kinds of semi-auto military-style rifles....AUG, FAMAS, Valmet, HK and more....nothing quite matches AR versatility and ergonomics.
If my home were to burn down tomorrow with all of my M4s in it, I would give the new platforms a serious look once I had my insurance check in hand. But right now I do not find the M4 platform lacking enough (or at all really) to take such a hit by selling my M4s on the used market and purchasing a pair of SCARs or ACRs for a much higher price.
I understand what your saying, however if I were to start over for some reason I would still go with the M4. Which was sort of my whole point of this thread. If I were to lose, for some reason, my Colt and LMT, I would either go with two Colts, or a Colt/BCM or Colt/DD. I just don't think anyother system beats the M4 system enough to take a different path. For me anyway.
That's the only way they come......
And don't worry, I've engendered a lot of hate towards myself over the years.....:cool:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000698.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000701.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/HK%20Stuff/P1000702.jpg
We're not worthy.......we're not worthy.....
Magic_Salad0892
05-15-10, 07:51
Does the G36C count as a PDW?
I don't think for my needs I'll be swapping for an ACR or SCAR any time soon. My current Carbines are close to set up the way I want them and though I like the concept of the ACR, I would likely wait a year or two and let some others work out any kinks or bugs before I drop that much coin.
Belmont31R
05-15-10, 12:42
Does the G36C count as a PDW?
No its more like our Mk18 than a real PDW. HK makes the MP5 PDW, and the MP7 which are true PDW's.
I thought that I was the only one here with a bit of love for the G36C. Nice to see others here appreciate the platform. So many nice features that could be incorporated into the AR line.
In the past couple of months, I purchased two LWRC platforms and found them to be very superior AR15 style rifles. The piston operation system leaves little doubt of their reliability. Cleaning is like the Maytag man....when does he show up? Anyhow, I have been very satisfied with LWRC and wonder when will the U.S. military get a clue and arm the troops with the best? The HK 416/417 are fine; however their weak points have already been pointed out. I have the conventional gas impingement AR15s in my collection and might turnover my collection into the gas pistons.
BushmasterFanBoy
05-16-10, 10:22
The way it breaks down for me is this. The new platforms offer a couple of supposed advantages, but none of those are real game-changers, at least to me.
1. Reliability. This is bunk in my eyes, since I don't encounter malfunctions in my ARs, well, ever really. A SCAR or ACR with the added weight/unbalance of a piston will just add weight without giving me an advantage.
2. Quick Change Barrels/Modularity. Hmmm, lets see if I have any spare barrels floating around... nope. Lets see if I want a larger, more expensive to shoot caliber than .223... not really. And if I did, I'd just buy an upper for my AR. The AR is king in this regard, and while the new rifles are trying to best it, they aren't really able to do a good job, they're just taking a different direction. Instead of swapping pins, you swap barrels and bolts. Eh.
3. Folding Stock. No thanks, I've shot AK's folded enough to know that you aren't doing anything other than wasting ammo and killing dirt if you shoot with a folded stock.
Now, those are the selling points. But something I've noticed with the ACR is this:
1. Better Controls. This is a damn fine point. It's the first thing I noticed about the ACR. All the controls are perfectly mirrored on either side. Not convoluted cross-over contraptions, but perfectly mirrored for a left handed grip. And to top it off, it has a BAD incorporated directly into the lower, and yeah, that too is perfectly mirrored. Dropping the bolt home for faster reloads and holding it back for admin. handling or malfunctions is now an ergonomically simple task, able to be done the same way with either hand. Very cool beans. The SCAR has some ambi capability, but the ACR is top dog here, I'd actually pick it over the SCAR for this reason alone.
The AR on the other has a couple of advantages. At least compared to the SCAR, the AR has better controls with the addition of a BAD lever. The AR also has a much wider variety of aftermarket parts which enable you to beat any advantages of a "1-flavor" option like the SCAR/ACR. You can trick out a lightweight setup for overall weight advantages, put a UBR on to get a better balanced gun, etc.
Another advantage, at least for my hands, is a smaller hand guard, which I find to be a big asset in controlling the gun. If I can't get any leverage on the 12oclock side of things because a honkin' piston is making the hand guard 4 inches tall, then I've reduced my ability to drive and control the gun. Add to that an increase in sight offset at close range, and you have another point against the SCAR/ACR.
Are any of the guns "bad"? Hell no, but the AR is far from being inferior, I'd say that for a user that can actually customize their weapon, it's probably the best choice.
The way it breaks down for me is this. The new platforms offer a couple of supposed advantages, but none of those are real game-changers, at least to me.
1. Reliability. This is bunk in my eyes, since I don't encounter malfunctions in my ARs, well, ever really. A SCAR or ACR with the added weight/unbalance of a piston will just add weight without giving me an advantage.
2. Quick Change Barrels/Modularity. Hmmm, lets see if I have any spare barrels floating around... nope. Lets see if I want a larger, more expensive to shoot caliber than .223... not really. And if I did, I'd just buy an upper for my AR. The AR is king in this regard, and while the new rifles are trying to best it, they aren't really able to do a good job, they're just taking a different direction. Instead of swapping pins, you swap barrels and bolts. Eh.
3. Folding Stock. No thanks, I've shot AK's folded enough to know that you aren't doing anything other than wasting ammo and killing dirt if you shoot with a folded stock.
Now, those are the selling points. But something I've noticed with the ACR is this:
1. Better Controls. This is a damn fine point. It's the first thing I noticed about the ACR. All the controls are perfectly mirrored on either side. Not convoluted cross-over contraptions, but perfectly mirrored for a left handed grip. And to top it off, it has a BAD incorporated directly into the lower, and yeah, that too is perfectly mirrored. Dropping the bolt home for faster reloads and holding it back for admin. handling or malfunctions is now an ergonomically simple task, able to be done the same way with either hand. Very cool beans. The SCAR has some ambi capability, but the ACR is top dog here, I'd actually pick it over the SCAR for this reason alone.
The AR on the other has a couple of advantages. At least compared to the SCAR, the AR has better controls with the addition of a BAD lever. The AR also has a much wider variety of aftermarket parts which enable you to beat any advantages of a "1-flavor" option like the SCAR/ACR. You can trick out a lightweight setup for overall weight advantages, put a UBR on to get a better balanced gun, etc.
Another advantage, at least for my hands, is a smaller hand guard, which I find to be a big asset in controlling the gun. If I can't get any leverage on the 12oclock side of things because a honkin' piston is making the hand guard 4 inches tall, then I've reduced my ability to drive and control the gun. Add to that an increase in sight offset at close range, and you have another point against the SCAR/ACR.
Are any of the guns "bad"? Hell no, but the AR is far from being inferior, I'd say that for a user that can actually customize their weapon, it's probably the best choice.
Well said, IMO.
In the past couple of months, I purchased two LWRC platforms and found them to be very superior AR15 style rifles.
The past couple months on two piston rifles really isn't much of a sample
The piston operation system leaves little doubt of their reliability.
Make this into a real sentence with some kind of metric to show what you mean. Pat Rogers watched 500,000 rounds go downrange last year from DI ARs, and he has little doubt of the DI AR's reliability.
Cleaning is like the Maytag man....when does he show up?
DI ARs have been shot for 10s of thousands of rounds without cleaning. Or lubricating. Without malfunction. In harsher conditions than you have shot your LWRCs. Again, what is your data point? Round count, conditions, etc...
Anyhow, I have been very satisfied with LWRC
I don't care about your satisfaction level. This isn't a fan-board for fan-boys. Find some other metric than "satisfied" to demonstrate why yours is best.
and wonder when will the U.S. military get a clue and arm the troops with the best?
The best? The best what? What do you mean by "best"? Again, define what you mean.
The HK 416/417 are fine; however their weak points have already been pointed out. I have the conventional gas impingement AR15s in my collection and might turnover my collection into the gas pistons.
I think I'll go talk to my procurement buddies at the Pentagon, show them this e-mail and have them get on that right away.
Until that time, maybe you might think of reading through this entire thread, and maybe more of the site, and decide what kind of response you'd like to give.
considering that I no longer see any military contracts scrambling away from the M-xx platform the same way I don't see LE agencies running away from Glock after more advanced models come out, I honestly don't even see the platform being dropped until we move on to the "next great technological leap forward" in weapons, which, is probably gonna be another 20-50 years.
Yep Id much rather have that than the SCAR or ACR.
For those who don't know the CH is the metal piece between the top rail, and the top of the receiver. The very end 1 1/2" or so swivels to either side, and then stops at a 90 degree angle as the "handle". So you can charge/operate the CH from either side the exact same way. Its kinda like the real old school AR15's that had the CH between the carry handle, and the top of the receiver.
The only thing I didn't like about the "rifle" length version is the integrated RDS and magnified optic. The shorty versions just have a top rail so you can mount whatever you want on it.
I don't know man, I'd much rather have a SCAR Mk.16 Mod.0 CQC than a G36C.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000682.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000693.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000671.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repr762
In the past couple of months, I purchased two LWRC platforms and found them to be very superior AR15 style rifles.
Originally Posted by 120mm
The past couple months on two piston rifles really isn't much of a sample
Quote:
The piston operation system leaves little doubt of their reliability.
Make this into a real sentence with some kind of metric to show what you mean. Pat Rogers watched 500,000 rounds go downrange last year from DI ARs, and he has little doubt of the DI AR's reliability.
Quote:
Cleaning is like the Maytag man....when does he show up?
DI ARs have been shot for 10s of thousands of rounds without cleaning. Or lubricating. Without malfunction. In harsher conditions than you have shot your LWRCs. Again, what is your data point? Round count, conditions, etc...
Quote:
Anyhow, I have been very satisfied with LWRC
I don't care about your satisfaction level. This isn't a fan-board for fan-boys. Find some other metric than "satisfied" to demonstrate why yours is best.
Quote:
and wonder when will the U.S. military get a clue and arm the troops with the best?
The best? The best what? What do you mean by "best"? Again, define what you mean.
Quote:
The HK 416/417 are fine; however their weak points have already been pointed out. I have the conventional gas impingement AR15s in my collection and might turnover my collection into the gas pistons.
I think I'll go talk to my procurement buddies at the Pentagon, show them this e-mail and have them get on that right away.
Until that time, maybe you might think of reading through this entire thread, and maybe more of the site, and decide what kind of response you'd like to give.
Well now 120mm....it seems you have an issue with opinions and just like everyone else, we all have opinions. I definitely won't seek a word of words battle with someone who feels compelled to bully their opinions over others thinking he/she/it is the best in their knowledge and judgement. No one is an expert in anything. It is all about learning, educating, etc. That is why I came to this board - to learn the latest information, suggestions and exchange of knowledge. My comments come from many years of hands-on experience as a field operator and armorer.
Hey, if you're having a bad day, no problem. But if you acting like the playground bully, go elsewhere!:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repr762
In the past couple of months, I purchased two LWRC platforms and found them to be very superior AR15 style rifles.
Originally Posted by 120mm
Quote:
The piston operation system leaves little doubt of their reliability.
Quote:
Cleaning is like the Maytag man....when does he show up?
Quote:
Anyhow, I have been very satisfied with LWRC
Quote:
and wonder when will the U.S. military get a clue and arm the troops with the best?
Quote:
The HK 416/417 are fine; however their weak points have already been pointed out. I have the conventional gas impingement AR15s in my collection and might turnover my collection into the gas pistons.
Well now 120mm....it seems you have an issue with opinions and just like everyone else, we all have opinions. I definitely won't seek a word of words battle with someone who feels compelled to bully their opinions over others thinking he/she/it is the best in their knowledge and judgement. No one is an expert in anything. It is all about learning, educating, etc. That is why I came to this board - to learn the latest information, suggestions and exchange of knowledge. My comments come from many years of hands-on experience as a field operator and armorer.
Hey, if you're having a bad day, no problem. But if you acting like the playground bully, go elsewhere!:D
Doesn't change the fact that he was right.
I didn't see any bullying, just some blunt truth.
I don't know man, I'd much rather have a SCAR Mk.16 Mod.0 CQC than a G36C.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000682.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000693.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000671.jpg
Hey Im visiting VA in June. Can I come play with your cool toys??
variablebinary
05-17-10, 06:13
The M4 still does far too much right to not be viable.
It scores big points in the weight category. All these new carbines are 1-3lbs heavier than the M4. Plus the M4 maintains its great weight and balance with a 14.5" barrel which the SCAR, and HK416 cant come close to doing
I know it drives lots of people nuts, but the M4 remains a top flight weapon.
CaptainDooley
05-17-10, 07:54
Well now 120mm....it seems you have an issue with opinions and just like everyone else, we all have opinions. I definitely won't seek a word of words battle with someone who feels compelled to bully their opinions over others thinking he/she/it is the best in their knowledge and judgement. No one is an expert in anything. It is all about learning, educating, etc. That is why I came to this board - to learn the latest information, suggestions and exchange of knowledge. My comments come from many years of hands-on experience as a field operator and armorer.
Hey, if you're having a bad day, no problem. But if you acting like the playground bully, go elsewhere!:D
No one is an expert in anything? What the hell does that even mean? Of course people can be experts - and they can surely know a lot more about something than you or me. His points were valid - you made a gushing fanboy proclamation with little to no facts and numbers to back up your claims. Hell, I thought you were a shill for LWRC when I read your post. It made no kind of a decent argument on a board that prides itself on factual information over opinions.
Unless you have something meaningful to add to this conversation, maybe you should just spend some time reading and learning...
The M4 still does far too much right to not be viable.
It scores big points in the weight category. All these new carbines are 1-3lbs heavier than the M4. Plus the M4 maintains its great weight and balance with a 14.5" barrel which the SCAR, and HK416 cant come close to doing
I know it drives lots of people nuts, but the M4 remains a top flight weapon.
Seriously. If the weapons system weighs more, it better be a drastic improvement.
Magic_Salad0892
05-17-10, 13:13
In any gun with a longer barrel profile than 14.5'' (I'd like a 14.5'' DI M4A1 Clone. :)) I'd run DI.
The reason I still run pistons in SBRs, and suppressed guns: (which is all I currently own.)
Piston is my preferred operating system. Not for reliability reasons.
Pistons help in SBRs, and suppressed weapons due to backpressure, dwell times, and overgassing issues. (Thanks M4C.)
There is no real reason to replace the DI system, it's very reliable.
It provides an obvious advantage in weight, and balance. Among other things.
To say you doubt the reliability of the DI system is only due to ignorance, or being a ''piston pusher.''
(I'm trying to build, a Mk. 12 (trying = wallet has too much empty space in it.), and while I do have an A1 clone, which was a gift, I never shoot it. It is my safe queen.)
JHS - brilliantly put.
That said, there is an argument for certain piston guns, as Magicsalad points out:
A Telefolding stock (with the ability to fold as well as telescope) can be a good thing, as the ACR stock replicates much of the functionality of ACS and UBR.
I can see QCB with <MOA RTZ being a tremendous asset, but for a small population again. As seen with AR's, a separate upper will do the trick still, out and caliber change isn't as relevant outside that small group of folks with budgets.
For SBR setups (under 14.5") with suppressors, weight is already going to be a bit of a limitation, and cans already shift the weight balance. The dwell time and adjustability of gas pistons make a lot of sense, and the monolithic platforms also allow more flexibility in optic mounting.
The Noveske switchblock can achieve a lot of this, or for dedicated suppressed weapons smaller gas ports go a long way.
For civilian shooting, using good components properly assembled and quality ammunition, and properly lubricating will eliminate virtually all common issues, so the piston designs are typically very good answers to seldom asked questions.
PrivateCitizen
05-17-10, 16:51
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Advanced%20Carbine%20and%20Pistol%2011-13%20July%2008/TD3/FN%20SCAR-L/P1000682.jpg
Hot Diggity!
This is the first shot that made me WANT a SCAR.
SBR the lower and get some barrels. Candy!
Hot Diggity!
This is the first shot that made me WANT a SCAR.
SBR the lower and get some barrels. Candy!
Forgive me if I am wrong, but the upper is the serialized part right? So wouldn't it be the upper that is SBR'd? Please correct me if I am mistaken....
variablebinary
05-17-10, 18:45
Forgive me if I am wrong, but the upper is the serialized part right? So wouldn't it be the upper that is SBR'd? Please correct me if I am mistaken....
Correct. The upper has the serial #.
And there are no SBR barrels, so that is just wishful thinking. Ask me how I know. Grr. Dont get me started.
:cool:Yes I thought the same new is better, So 1year ago I bought a SIG 556. It was heavier, but they ravied about the Gas piston and how accurate they were. I tried everything to get that SIG to shoot good groups, Aimpoint, ACOG, Samson Iron sights. Guess what, It was a hyped piece of junk, So I got rid of it and went back to my Trusty Colt 6920, PROVEN, TRIED, DEPENDABLE, and Dam accurate. I will never ever switch again, please forgive me for I have sinned to think newer was better!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.