AR vs. Other Assault Rifles. Why the hate?

[orionz06]

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

Perhaps those who are offended, lobbing red herring grenades into the debate, and talking theory?

[Ed L.]

Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what it is that Cannon advocates and considers adequate for his situation, since he posted positive things about leverguns and M1 Garands, while taking shots at modern gamechanging improvements like RDS:

The point I'm attempting to make here is that for 99.9% of us who live 100% of our lives in a civilian world, proficiency with a Marlin 30-30 lever action would probably be sufficient.

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.

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.

It also seems like he is aimed at ARs as most of us would set them up for defensive use and for training classes:

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.

So it gets confusing. To me it sounds like he is eschewing modern AR set-ups with RDS like most of us have or would advocate for defensive longarms, and is in favor of anachronistic guns.

I have found his posts to be vague in many regards as to what he advocates for his own needs.

If he simply wrote something like, "I prefer an AK with a folding stock because it is compact to store, cheap to feed, and adequate for medium sized animals. I don't like an RDS because I am not happy with any of the mounting solutions for the AK, or it puts it outside of my price range, etc."

If he wrote something like that, I would have a better understanding of his position.

[Canonshooter]

Holy mis-communication. Back to the OP;

I find it interesting that in a capitalist (and gun) society that there seems to constantly be "discussions" about various rifles that seems to always end with an almost religious zeal with Stoners rifle (God created the earth, heavens and the AR). I own several and love the design but I also love other rifle types. Yes, many countries use this system but I do not feel it is the "One rifle to rule them all". Anyone care to express any thoughts on this subject?

So far we've heard (1) superior ergonomics; (2) shooting better scores at the local rifle club match; (3) large selection of parts and accessories; (4) flexibility of the split receiver design. I think these are the major ones, all of which there is little to disagree about.

A point I've been attempting to communicate is that unless your black rifle is strictly for (1) target shooting or (2) sustained combat in a military or LE role, that I think there are other (perhaps even better) choices beyond the AR.

In support of that contention, I've been asking what is the historical use of rifles for civilains in self-defense? What would be the most likely use of a rifle in the hands of a civilian in a SHTF scenario? I then pointed out the Korean shop owner scenario as the only modern example I knew of.

In the absense of other historical case studies, what would I speculate the most possible SHTF scenario might be for use of a rifle as a civilian?

1. Civil disobedience, looting, etc. - I would think that unless those doing the rioting/looting are havily armed and highly trained, that my need to do lightening-fast mag changes or being able to easily flip the safety on-off-on-off may not be top requirements. The reference to Korean shop owners during the LA riots seem to indicate that.. No fantasy, no speculation - just factual history.

In this case, the "superior ergonomics" of an AR are a moot point.

2. Collapse of the food chain - again, not speculation but what seems to be entirely plausible. During an economic calamity, deliveries to the local supermarket may be interrupted. Since I (and I bet many other readers of this forum) live in an area where if push came to shove I had to harvest a deer, a 7.62X39 is a FAR better choice than 5.56. Not to mention that 7.62X39 is a proven cartridge for white-tailed deer for shots under 150 yards, and that it is a legal big game hunting round.

In that case, my AR is not the best choice.

So once again, beyond purely military/LE/sustained combat use, are there other platforms for the civilian to consider that will serve as well or better?

I would think;

1. Designs that don't have the part count/complexity of an AR could be an advantage.

2. Designs that are more robust and require less maintanence could be an advantage.

3. Rifles that use cartidges suitable for roles other than combat could be an advantage.

4. Rifles that are easily folded for concealment/transportation could be an advantage.

In my case, I have a RECCE-style AR (16" SS BCM upper with Larue rail, 1-4 SWFA optic in Larue mount with BUI, UBR stock, Atlas bipod on QD mount, Gisselle trigger) and a Krebs Saiga 7.62X39 conversion with a folding stock and an Aimpoint in a Midwest Industries side mount (co-witness).

As a SHTF rifle, I grab the Krebs because it gives me 90% + of the combat capability of the AR, plus 100% flawless function over thousands of rounds (same can't be said for AR), the ability to use the rifle for white-tailed deer hunting and adequate accuracy for hunting/defensive purposes. Yes, I would hate to leave the AR behind but if just one of them can come, I have to go with unquestionable reliablity, easier maintanence and the greater utility.

To wrap this up -

It's been my intention to support the OP in his contention that the AR is not the only platform worth considering. I am absolutely thrilled with mine, but IMO it would be a disservice to wear my AR Fan Boy badge (yes, I have one too) in this discussion and state that the AR is all things to all people for all purposes - as I have come to realize over the last 30 years of owning many rifles, that is clearly not the case.

Just my 2-cents and obviously, YMMV. Again, I appreciate the conversation and hopefully this last post clarifies what I'm saying.

[orionz06]

Sounds like you just really like that there Krebs...

[rob_s]

If he simply wrote something like, "I prefer an AK with a folding stock because it is compact to store, cheap to feed, and adequate for medium sized animals. I don't like an RDS because I am not happy with any of the mounting solutions for the AK, or it puts it outside of my price range, etc."

I was going to disagree with you, and say that I thought this was what he was saying, just indirectly or not as well, then I read the post below yours, and now I agree with your post completely. It would appear that we are back to ONE anachronist with the ability to clearly and concisely explain his why. The rest are either incapable of doing so, like the sound of their own typing, or are arguing just to argue.

so I would offer this:

Perhaps it would be helpful if those that do NOT choose the AR FOW for their primary rifle/carbine could explain what they choose instead, why, and what they believe it does that that AR FOW doesn't, and how this overcomes the other advantages of the AR.

[Alaskapopo]

Holy mis-communication. Back to the OP;




A point I've been attempting to communicate is that unless your black rifle is strictly for (1) target shooting or (2) sustained combat in a military or LE role, that I think there are other (perhaps even better) choices beyond the AR.

2. Collapse of the food chain - again, not speculation but what seems to be entirely plausible. During an economic calamity, deliveries to the local supermarket may be interrupted. Since I (and I bet many other readers of this forum) live in an area where if push came to shove I had to harvest a deer, a 7.62X39 is a FAR better choice than 5.56. Not to mention that 7.62X39 is a proven cartridge for white-tailed deer for shots under 150 yards, and that it is a legal big game hunting round.

In that case, my AR is not the best choice.

So once again, beyond purely military/LE/sustained combat use, are there other platforms for the civilian to consider that will serve as well or better?

I would think;

1. Designs that don't have the part count/complexity of an AR could be an advantage.

2. Designs that are more robust and require less maintanence could be an advantage.

3. Rifles that use cartidges suitable for roles other than combat could be an advantage.

4. Rifles that are easily folded for concealment/transportation could be an advantage.

In my case, I have a RECCE-style AR (16" SS BCM upper with Larue rail, 1-4 SWFA optic in Larue mount with BUI, UBR stock, Atlas bipod on QD mount, Gisselle trigger) and a Krebs Saiga 7.62X39 conversion with a folding stock and an Aimpoint in a Midwest Industries side mount (co-witness).

As a SHTF rifle, I grab the Krebs because it gives me 90% + of the combat capability of the AR, plus 100% flawless function over thousands of rounds (same can't be said for AR), the ability to use the rifle for white-tailed deer hunting and adequate accuracy for hunting/defensive purposes. Yes, I would hate to leave the AR behind but if just one of them can come, I have to go with unquestionable reliablity, easier maintanence and the greater utility.

To wrap this up -

It's been my intention to support the OP in his contention that the AR is not the only platform worth considering. I am absolutely thrilled with mine, but IMO it would be a disservice to wear my AR Fan Boy badge (yes, I have one too) in this discussion and state that the AR is all things to all people for all purposes - as I have come to realize over the last 30 years of owning many rifles that it is clearly not.

Just my 2-cents and obviously, YMMV.

Cannon the AR unlike the Ak is a weapon system and its available in calibers from 22 long rifle up to 50 Beowolf. You can harvest all kinds of game with the AR and a lot of people do just that. Don't go down the same hole that Zumbo did when he said AR's could not be used for hunting. The simple fact is the Ar is a very versatile tool and the best out there currently when it comes to a fighting all around rifle. As for your comment on the Krebs. The AR can go thousands of rounds too and I have many that have. Pat Rogers has a rifle he put over 14000 rounds through without cleaning. So please don't try to make the point the AR is not reliable as that is a fools arguement.
pat

[rob_s]

Cannon the AR unlike the Ak is a weapon system and its available in calibers from 22 long rifle up to 50 Beowolf. You can harvest all kinds of game with the AR and a lot of people do just that. Don't go down the same hole that Zumbo did when he said AR's could not be used for hunting. The simple fact is the Ar is a very versatile tool and the best out there currently when it comes to a fighting all around rifle. As for your comment on the Krebs. The AR can go thousands of rounds too and I have many that have. Pat Rogers has a rifle he put over 14000 rounds through without cleaning. So please don't try to make the point the AR is not reliable as that is a fools arguement.
pat

Agree. and with something like an LMT MRP those caliber changes can come relatively easily.

[Canonshooter]

Perhaps it would be helpful if those that do NOT choose the AR FOW for their primary rifle/carbine could explain what they choose instead, why, and what they believe it does that that AR FOW doesn't, and how this overcomes the other advantages of the AR.

That is indeed a fair request;

1. I can use the Krebs for big game hunting without resorting to wildcat cartridges, different ammo requirements/inventory, etc. The 7.62X39 is a reasonable (and well proven) compromise for self defense and medium/big game hunting. A selection of JSP, FMJ and VMAX covers a lot of use and applications.

2. Yes, a top-tier AR can go thousands of rounds without failure. But it takes user knowledge (proper maintanence) and a solid build to get there. Push come to shove for my samples, my money is on the Krebs in that department.

3. Though only a 3 MOA gun, the overall build quality of the Krebs and the inherent simplicity of the AK design gives me more confidence that it will "go bang" when I need it to. Though there's more recoil, I have greater confidence in the 7.62X39 round with the selection of ammo I have on hand for it.

So, for the choice of rifles I have in my safe, that is where I stand at the moment - and I don't think my reasoning is horribly flawed that the AR is NOT the only game in town.

[Reagans Rascals]

Cannon the AR unlike the Ak is a weapon system and its available in calibers from 22 long rifle up to 50 Beowolf. You can harvest all kinds of game with the AR and a lot of people do just that. Don't go down the same hole that Zumbo did when he said AR's could not be used for hunting. The simple fact is the Ar is a very versatile tool and the best out there currently when it comes to a fighting all around rifle. As for your comment on the Krebs. The AR can go thousands of rounds too and I have many that have. Pat Rogers has a rifle he put over 14000 rounds through without cleaning. So please don't try to make the point the AR is not reliable as that is a fools arguement.
pat

I do admit that before I began frequenting this forum I fell victim to the piston propaganda.... and the so called "unreliability" and blah blah blah...

however... after the substantial information contained within the servers of this forum.... it's honestly irritating to even hear people talk about the unreliability of the system and how the piston will change the game.... how the AR-15 is such a finicky system that requires tumultuous amounts of meticulous care and blah blah blah

If I see one more show or video boasting about how they can take the bolt out of their Adams Arms Upper after 300 rounds and hold it in their hand, I'm gonna have a god damn stroke.

Its honestly just irritating at this point.... but I guess Will from Red Jacket knows best with his DOE Wunderwaffen....

The AR is the only weapon on Earth that can be changed to any format, to complete any mission in less than 10 minutes. From CQB to Extended Range Precision, desert to jungle, .22 rim fire all the way up to .50 Beowulf, single shot to mag fed all the way to belt fed, it excels at any mission.

And now with the advent of weapon systems like the MGI Hydra, with interchangeable mag wells, the possibilities are endless. Simply swap in the 5.56 mag well and MK18 upper to clear your way in, then throw on a .50 BMG mag well and upper (if one were so inclined to make one) for extremely long range over watch, there's literally no end to the possibilities. If you have a backpack and extra uppers/mag wells, you can accomplish any mission.

That is the genius of the AR.... modularity... and even Eugene Stoner couldn't have envisioned how versatile the AR would become.... no mechanical creation in history approaches the modularity of the AR..

the first AR I ever purchased, was a Stag Arms Model 1. I sold it after about 3200 rounds, and never experienced a single malfunction that wasn't attributed to bad ammunition. And with Stag towards the middle of the road, not great but also not a DPMS, doing as well as it did for me..... I can't even fathom how someone could question the reliability of a top tier sourced weapon.

that is all

[Canonshooter]

It would appear that we are back to ONE anachronist....

Would you label those who carry/shoot the 1911 as an "anachronist" too? That's an even older design than the AK - just wondering....