AR vs. Other Assault Rifles. Why the hate?

[Alaskapopo]

This is a point we'll just have to respectfully disagree with each other.

I started in the competitive shooting arena 30 years ago. Mostly handgun, starting in Bullseye and then branching out to PPC (civilian league), Action Pistol, IPSC, bowling pin matches and now an occasional IDPA match. In rifle, I dabbled in High Power with a M1 Garand and a SA M1A and now dabble in IDPA carbine matches with both an AR and AK.

I think IPSC is a good example of what I'm talking about - how the rules dictate the equipment but how the equipment dictates course design and ultimately the rules. In the early days of IPSC, an Ed Brown 1911 in a Milt Sparks holster was the set up to use, and we all know from there it has now evolved into equipment that has questionable value for EDC. As you know, when some competitors had enough with the "space gun race" they branched out to form IDPA, which uses targets and courses of fire that are very similar to IPSC. However, a pistol that would do well in IDPA would not do well in IPSC, and an IPSC Space Gun wouldn't even be allowed to compete in IDPA. This is all due to the predefined rules of competition, which do not exist in self-defense or on the battlefield.

In "rifle competition" the M1A I used for high power would be "contrarian" in the typical IDPA carbine competition, and visa versa. If I was shooting silhouette competition that would be a 3rd rifle that would need to be owned. The "rules of the game" drive the equipment, and the rules evolve as the equipment evolves. This in turn drives the market for third-party accessories and devices, which in turn drives manufacturers to sponsor firearm competitions, websites like this one, etc. I’m not in any way saying this is a bad thing, but something I think needs to be taken into consideration once the conversation moves beyond what gear is best for formal competition or what the current hottest setup is for the Navy Seals.

One more point on the "cheating" RobS refers too - it could be argued that using a lower-recoil, lower energy round like the 5.56 with a compensator is "cheating." We could also change the rules (all of which are arbitrary in formal competition anyway) where .30 caliber is minimum, or set the minimum power factor where the 5.56 doesn't make it, or set the steel so that it takes a heavier 7.62 bullet to topple it, or that the starting position is with the rifle cased in a bag no longer than 26 inches. With a stroke of the pen, a 5.56 M4 is now rendered useless, waste of time, contrarian, or whatever label you'd like to apply to it.

My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it.

I do concur that despite the arbitrary rules (most of which won't apply in a fight-for-your-life scenario), participating in formal competition is a good way to maintain one's gun handling /shooting skills. But I also try to prevent the contrived courses-of-fire from instilling any preconceived notions of how a real battle may unfold. Likewise, how the “battle” will unfold for a civilian using a rifle in a self-defense situation is likely to be quite different than that of a SWAT team doing an entry into a drug dealer’s house, as well as the impact those differences will have on equipment selection and training.

Unlike the military or LE that has a long history of what happens and what gear works the best for their applications, all we as civilians can do is read, learn, consider, experiment and then make our decisions based on our own circumstances (or at least what we speculate they may turn out to be).



After spending some time seeing how "destructive" the gases actually are coming from the vents of a G17C, I have come to the conclusion it's a non-factor. Even if the BG grabbed the end of the pistol directly over the vents and I fired, I doubt the vented gases of a 9mm round alone would be enough to convince a determined attacker to let go. At the same time, the muzzle flip of the vented barrel is not much less than that of the non-vented barrel, but there is a (slight) perceivable difference.

Based on shooting the G17C for many years, I don't buy into the argument that its porting is a liability for EDC, but I know that even the slightly reduced muzzle flip could be a benefit for follow-up shots.



See my comments about formal rifle competition above.

Thanks for the conversation - your insight is very much appreciated and no disrespect for your POV intended.

No disrespect intended but those vented gases will cause serious harm to your yes if you shoot the weapon from a retetion position if you happen to be un lucky enough to have to hold it at the wrong angle. Which can happen in a real fight. Civilians needs the same thing in a gun that a LEO and a Soldier does. They need it to be reliable and easy to shoot well. Competition is a good proving ground to see how equipment and shooters stack up against each other. If a rifle design dominates in three gun it will carry those same traits that help it win over to a gun fight as well. Nearly everything that ends up in miltiary and leo hands has at one time been tested as a design concept in competition. Take red dot sights and muzzle brakes as an example.
Pat

[MistWolf]

What I hate is how folks keep telling me the AK with the all the comfort of two planks nailed together, is somehow the epitome of superior ergonomics, will still be shooting long after all other firearms have turned to scrap and the sun has exploded into a super-nova

...My only point here is that how good of a score you can shoot with a particular rifle in a particular form of regulated competition is IMO not the end-all indicator of how well it will serve in a chaotic, fight-to-the-death scenario with no rules at all. In combat, I think it's safe to say that an "anachronistic" AK or M1 Garand can kill as fast as the latest rendition of a "space rifle" with lights, lasers, optics, compensators, vertical grips, rails, RDS, etc. attached to it...

All rifles have their strengths and weaknesses and smart fighters will play to the strengths of their weapons and exploit the weaknesses of their enemy. They will use tactics best suited to the weapons at hand.

In the case of the Garand vs the AR, the fighter with the Garand will engage at a distance from ambush and fade away before the fighter with the AR can close the distance where it's maneuverability and volume of fire can dominate the firefight. However, a fighter with the Garand has a narrower set of tactics that give them the edge.

Since the muzzle loader, a superior weapon offers at least one of three advantages over it's predecessor: Shots on target, reliability and volume of fire. The rifled musket and Minnie Ball supplanted the smoothbore because it was more accurate. The cartridge rifle offered a greater volume of fire and reliability over the rifled musket. Smokeless powder meant reliable machine guns and longer ranges were possible. And so it goes until we come to the AR carbine. It's not that other rifles are not deadly. The AR carbine can be used successfully with a wide variety of tactics, puts out a higher volume of controllable fire and is easy to use.

Other rifles in the hands of a determined enemy will kill you dead. I love my 308 battle rifles and would not hesitate to grab one to defend my life with. Look how IPSC pistols evolved into "race-guns" as shooters looked for the slightest edge in the extremely intense competition for significant prizes and sponsorships given to the winners. Now look at the AR. The AR carbine has not only survived, but thrived as the rifle of choice in a competition where there the only one to go home is the winner

[Canonshooter]

Alaskapopo, MistWolf and others, thanks again for your thoughts and engaging me in this conversation. I am here to learn and at the same time, test some of my thinking/reasoning with those on this board.

Obviously not all "space rifle" equipment will be as useful in a real world but I have seen quite a lot that have been adopted but the point is to evolve and improve. Remember when the Weaver technique was considered a competative stance as well as target sights and extended beaver tails on 1911's?

Yes, without a doubt competition is a test bed for new ideas and concepts – whether it’s carbine matches or auto racing. I am in no way disputing this or that in a purely combat role, that the AR is the standard by which other platforms should be judged. I believe I stated as much in my first response in this thread.

What I believe I have failed to do so far in this discussion is to make clear that I believe role is the starting point for all equipment decisions. The military and LE have the benefit of history and first-hand experience by which to make their equipment choices. While there is plenty of history (documented cases) of civilians using handguns for self-defense purposes – and plenty of training/educational resources available based on that history – there is much less history/case studies of civilian use of a rifle under the same circumstances.

Perhaps the most famous recent-history case study is of the Korean shop owners using military-style rifles to protect their property during the LA riots. While some shots were evidently fired, I do not believe that the speed of magazine changes or ergonomics played much (if any) role in their successful use of those rifles as a deterrent to having their shops looted.

On the same token, I can only speculate what my needs might be in a bad-day scenario when I need to make use of a rifle. Would the better ergonomics that are important in sustained combat be more important than mechanical simplicity, reduced maintenance needs, the ability to fold the stock for transportation/concealment purposes, or the ability to effectively hunt big game? If I had to bug out and take only one long gun with me, what would be the most important attributes to consider? My intent here is not to debate what those attributes might be, but to simply point out that there may very well be other considerations beyond how good of a score I can shoot in an organized competition.

In my case, living in semi-rural NH, having a “SHTF rifle” that is effective for combat is certainly an important consideration, but unlike purely military or LE considerations – or even a civilian in a more urban setting - it wouldn’t be my only consideration. As much as the AR reigns supreme in competition and combat, there’s much to be said for other platforms in more civilian/utilitarian roles – especially those that retain tremendous combat capability.

Thus I go back to my original assertion – what makes a rifle Choice One for competition, the military or LE may not make it the best choice for “serious use” civilian purposes. For the civilian, who will probably be on his/her own, I believe the best selection is the one that best covers an array of possible needs/uses – and I’m not in any way convinced the AR is the only choice to consider. In fact, I believe that depending on the anticipated needs (and recognizing those can vary considerably), there could be better choices. In the case where someone has decided that a non-AR is their best bet, I don’t think ridicule or condescension is appropriate – which is where I think the OP was taking this discussion.

Vented barrels, compensators, RDS, etc….

Without a doubt, the ported barrel of a G17C is not all gravy. In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery comes the risk of vented gasses causing injury. BTW, this one has never been my EDC – I consider it more of a “SHTF Combat Pistol.”

In exchange for the superior sighting ability of a RDS, comes weight, bulk and the possibility the RDS will go down (or worse yet, become opaque from damage) at the worst possible moment.

In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery of a rifle compensator comes greater visible flash to the shooter (that could reduce night vision) and louder percussion.

The list could go on. Every device has an upside and a downside, for which everyone should make an informed decision based on their own needs. Having the ability to discuss the advantages/disadvantages with knowledgeable people is something I truly appreciate.

My thanks again to all for sharing your insight!

[Ed L.]

Perhaps the most famous recent-history case study is of the Korean shop owners using military-style rifles to protect their property during the LA riots. While some shots were evidently fired, I do not believe that the speed of magazine changes or ergonomics played much (if any) role in their successful use of those rifles as a deterrent to having their shops looted.

Deterrent is the key word. The Korean shoppowners were not in a major firefight nor under heavy attack. Nor were they piling up enemy bodies. They pretty much fired warning shots. Not sure if they actually shot anyone. So I would submit that the capabilities of the guns that they used were not a big issue.

Besides, can you guarantee that you will have a bunch of armed Korean shopholders backing you up if you ever have to use a firearm to defend yourself?

On the same token, I can only speculate what my needs might be in a bad-day scenario when I need to make use of a rifle. Would the better ergonomics that are important in sustained combat be more important than mechanical simplicity, reduced maintenance needs, the ability to fold the stock for transportation/concealment purposes, or the ability to effectively hunt big game?

How did we get to big game hunting? This thread has nothing to do with big game hunting. If you needed a modern mil style gun that could handle big game you would get a SCAR17 in 7.62 nato which has rails on the receiver to allow mounting a modern optic, rails on and around the forend to allow mounting of accessories if needed, a collapsable stock to better fit you in terms of length of pull, modern ergonomics, etc.

I am not even sure what guns you are talking about at this point.

If we are talking about a modern quality M4 type AR vs an M1 Garand, the M4 will give you a gun that is lighter and more maneuverable, one that can allow you to disengage the safety more ergonomically without breaking your firing grip, better balance to get you on target faster and quicker, and an RDS to enable you to get the sights on target faster and engage it faster. This is true whether you are facing one homebreaker or four, where the superior ability of an AR to more quickly engage multiple targets comes into play.

The better ergonomics and better capability of an AR with a RDS will serve you better whether you are facing one home invader or several--whether it is during a home invasion or a full fledged riot.

Without a doubt, the ported barrel of a G17C is not all gravy. In exchange for quicker shot-to-shot recovery comes the risk of vented gasses causing injury. BTW, this one has never been my EDC – I consider it more of a “SHTF Combat Pistol.”

People in competition are not going to be firing shots from a retention position so the issue of having the glock compensator blow muzzle blast up into their face does not come up. However if you are using it defensively you may need to fire the gun from a retention position to prevent the gun from being snatched away from you. One minute you seem to be arguing that competition and defensive use are not the same thing; the next you are advocating a competition feature not suitable for defensive use.

In exchange for the superior sighting ability of a RDS, comes weight, bulk and the possibility the RDS will go down (or worse yet, become opaque from damage) at the worst possible moment.

Which is why the US Army has ordered over 800k of them over the last few years and the same reason that they adopted by elite Army units long before they became general issue--because they might go down.

[Canonshooter]

The Korean shoppowners were not in a major firefight nor under heavy attack. Nor were they piling up enemy bodies.

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies.

My thanks to all for your time and consideration.

[Littlelebowski]

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies.

My thanks to all for your time and consideration.

Passive aggressive much?

[orionz06]

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies.

My thanks to all for your time and consideration.

You can own anything you want for any reason, more often than not when people go towards some hipster gun to be special they are not honest about it. "I just wanna shoot a _____" is just fine, just don't make up some BS reason and post it. Be honest.

[rob_s]

Identify need --> choose tool best suited to fit that need

unfortunately for most in the intentionally anachronistic bunch, it goes more like
choose tool --> fabricate need/reason why it's best

Canon, while you may not like hearing it because you're too busy self-identifying as the latter group, it appears to me that you fall pretty squarely in the former group. Either that or you've just been at the fabricating longer. If things like overall compact size when stowed, ability to use a larger round, etc. means you chose an AK, then have at it.

But that now makes a whopping TWO of the anachronists, you and misanthrope, that have identified and explained actual, real world, reasons for forgoing the status quo and choosing what you did (and I would frankly argue that the point of the thread was not AR vs. AK but more like AR vs. Chauchat, but I could be wrong). Everyone else is too busy being offended, lobbing red herring grenades into the debate, and talking theory.

[Ed L.]

Exactly my point, Ed. As I have repeatedly stated, I'm NOT military, not LE, nor am I an Internet Commando who feels the need to be equipped to "pile up bodies."

As a civilian who wishes to prepare/be equipped for the most likely rifle-use scenario (I wonder how many who view/participate on this site are in the same category?), [I]I am certain that my equipment needs are not the same as Navy Seals Team Six. But I stand corrected - the only reason to own a military-style semi-auto rifle is to be able to shoot high scores in carbine matches and be able to pile up those bodies..

It's nice that you can successfully predict that you wil never face more than a single attacker.

And amazing that you know in advance the exact threat you will face and what will happen so as to make your chosen gun perfectly fine.

You have been talking in generalities without being specific. What gun are you defending as adequate--the AK, the M1 Garand, or the levergun that you mentioned a few posts ago?

The bottom line is whether defending your home from one person or several, the modern semiauto M4 will give you a gun that is lighter and more maneuverable, one that can allow you to disengage the safety more quickly and ergonomically without breaking your firing grip, better balance to get you on target faster and quicker, and an RDS to enable you to get the sight on target faster and engage it quicker and move from target to target faster and more rounds to fire than the M1 Garand or the lever gun that you have to work after each round.

There are other possible guns that could serve a similar role--a real Steyr AUG with a RDS or SCAR are fairly ergonomic in terms of disengaging the safety as you bring the gun up and the newer AUGS allow you to mount a modern RDS that you can pick up threats quickly in a low light situation.

You could even equip an AK with a mount that will allow you to use an RDS, though the ones I've seen are either less than optimal at mounting and maintaining zero or place the weight over the forend which makes the AK front heavy which effects balance and pointability. Plus the AK's recoil slows down shot to shot times and is slower to engage multiple targets. It's more powerful round may be a positive if you plan on using it for medium game hunting or for penetrating intermediate objects, or a curse for the overpenetration it can cause in your house. It is not as ergonomic as the AR or AUG or SCAR when it comes to quickly disengaging the safety and getting your hand in a fighting grip.

[Ed L.]

Identify need --> choose tool best suited to fit that need

unfortunately for most in the intentionally anachronistic bunch, it goes more like
choose tool --> fabricate need/reason why it's best

Canon, while you may not like hearing it because you're too busy self-identifying as the latter group, it appears to me that you fall pretty squarely in the former group. Either that or you've just been at the fabricating longer. If things like overall compact size when stowed, ability to use a larger round, etc. means you chose an AK, then have at it.

But that now makes a whopping TWO of the anachronists, you and misanthrope, that have identified and explained actual, real world, reasons for forgoing the status quo and choosing what you did (and I would frankly argue that the point of the thread was not AR vs. AK but more like AR vs. Chauchat, but I could be wrong). Everyone else is too busy being offended, lobbing red herring grenades into the debate, and talking theory.

Exactly what is the last line in your post supposed to mean and who is it directed at?