Poll - Favorite Assault Rifle

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, the Blackout is an interesting offering. If I were way more into suppressors and such I'd have an upper in that caliber in the collection in short order.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I'm liking the looks of .300 AAC Blackout too.

- C.

Not only just switching barrels, just switch mags attach a silencer, and you have a subsonic silenced weapon. And if you forgot to take off the silencer when you went back to or accidentally put in a mag of supersonic ammo you would not have a catastrophic problem just a slightly embarrassing one (that is if anyone notices).

I would like to see the 6mm, though though .300 black out is cool too, if not a little more veritable.

[Schone23666]

As for this topic, well....yep, I chose the AR-15/M-16/M-4 platform. Don't mean to sound jingoistic in any way, but it's what I'm comfortable with. Plus, it's come a long way since the teething problems the original models had back in the day. As for as assault rifles go it's a very accurate firearm, easy to handle and very ergonomic, and the biggest plus being it's such a modular platform. The design of the upper and lower receiver has allowed it to be easily adapted to a whole slew of various calibers and barrel lengths, and the Picatinny rail system allows it be tricked out in whatever configuration you want with all the various accessories they have these days. The number and various type of accessories that can be mounted on the platform these days are insane to say the least, which I'm sure some members here can attest to.

[Medic]

Again, depending on the nationality of the said character, practically any assault rifle would do though I have some qualms about the reliability of the Colt family. For a Finnish character it would be the m/62 or m/95, depending on his unit of service. And in case of m/95, probably one equiped with some kind of an optic and the cheekplate installable on the folding stock.

For a mercenary character the Israeli Tavor might be cool...

[CDAT]

First off I went with the AR Platform. Have used it in real life, and trust it. I have had the opportunity to use the AK, and do not trust my life to it, the rest I have no first hand experience with. I did serve around some Brits who had good things to say about there rifle (no idea what A version it was).

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

AK's aren't great, but they're not that bad. If properly zeroed both the 47 and 74 are easily 200 meter guns (meaning minute-of-man with no problems), though that's maybe about the limits of it.

One more saying it depends on the rifle. I have used ones that no one could get to zero, even in a bench rest it patterned like a shotgun. I have never seen one that was accurate, but have seen lots that are OK, and many that just flat out suck.

Originally Posted by Ronin

OK, lets dispel one thing right now. The M4 is a pile of shit. It was designed to be a handy rifle for non-combat, support troops. Just like the M-1 carbine was designed for in WWII. A replacement for a pistol. The M-4 jams up after 2, 30 round mags, and over heats. Because it is not meant to be in an extended encounter. You can say well "professionals", and spec ops use it. Yeah, well when your choice for a short barrel rifle is and M4, or an M4. You obviously pick the M4. People seem to think that PMC's, and Spec ops can grab all sorts of neato crazy shit. They get whats in the armory. Whats there? Sig 550? AKSU74? Colt MARS? CZW-438? No, M4s, or an M-16A (whatever.)

I have to say you must be smoking crack or something, I have first hand experience going through way more than 2 magazines. I carried 16 magazines loaded to 27 rounds, there was one time I ran dry and had to reload from the supplies in the truck, guess how many jams I had? Zero, guess how many jams the team had, Zero and they fired about as many rounds as I did.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Medic

Again, depending on the nationality of the said character, practically any assault rifle would do though I have some qualms about the reliability of the Colt family. For a Finnish character it would be the m/62 or m/95, depending on his unit of service. And in case of m/95, probably one equiped with some kind of an optic and the cheekplate installable on the folding stock.

For a mercenary character the Israeli Tavor might be cool...

Don't worry, I used an R604 M16(no "A") in 1995, it was 10 years older than I was and had serial number 54,XXX.

[Raellus]

Based on the new responses on the Favorite APC/IFV thread, I thought a bit of thread necromancy might be in order.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've used both the M16 and AK-47 in real life -- and the winner is the AK-47. Yes, it's heavy, and a decent lot of ammunition is beastly heavy, but it works. I haven't had extensive real-life use of an AK, but you can shoot and shoot, throw it around, use it as a baseball bat club, and it keeps going without a hiccup. and it's round is guaranteed a fight-ending wound or a kill.

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.

Have to agree with your assessment of the M16 - I had similar experience with them myself. Every. Single. One.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've used both the M16 and AK-47 in real life -- and the winner is the AK-47. Yes, it's heavy, and a decent lot of ammunition is beastly heavy, but it works. I haven't had extensive real-life use of an AK, but you can shoot and shoot, throw it around, use it as a baseball bat club, and it keeps going without a hiccup. and it's round is guaranteed a fight-ending wound or a kill.

The M16 is light and easy to tote around, and you can carry a s---load of ammo for it. And you'll need it, because you'll need at least a 3-round burst or sterling marksmanship to bring an enemy down. And then, the bane of existence in my experience with the M16 -- extraction failure. Rarely did I go through more than 3 magazines without one. Often, it was only one. Then you find yourself clearing your chamber under fire, discarding the magazine (because it was sometimes the culprit) ans then doing a SPORTS routine.

I have to say that your experiences are totally different from mine. I spent about five years is Iraq using M16/M4's of one type or another. But most of that time I was working OGA (Other Government Agency) this just means that I was working for a different agency than the one I belonged to (State department when I was Army in this case). I had the opportunity to work with the locals a lot, and we (the US government) would give them brand new from the factory firearms, within a month we got a fair number of them back as they were no longer working. What were those firearms you ask? They were AK-47's (not sure who made them but think it was a former block) and Glock 19's. One of the things that I got tasked with was figuring out what went wrong, with the Glocks we found that it was due to poor ammo, they had a fair amount of bad ammo that produced squib loads, the way they cleared them was to fire another round. So on one had it shows that the Glocks were very tough firearms as they did not blow up, they just had bulges in the barrels that would lock the slide open. As for the AK, we have no idea what they did. We could not even get the slide to open with a hammer it was as if it was welded in place. Could not find anything out of the normal with the ammo it was not the best quality, but not the worst I have seen, it did have corrosive primers, but not that out there. They did not do the best maintenance, but much better than what "they" (being the uber fans) say is all that is required, I have also seen troops do worse maintenance on there M16 and they still worked just fine. Then when you add in the lack of accuracy or maybe better to say lack of consistency. What I mean by this is when doing test shooting some of them shot patterns, and others were almost OK, none were what I would call good, best were about 2 to 3 MOA, worst I do not have any idea as not all rounds were on the paper from a bench rest at 25 feet (worst I have ever seen, so not saying it is typical of them).

[Sith]

I have a lot of experience with the M16/AR over the past 30 years. I have to say that one of the greatest disservices done to this weapon has been the military’s notion that the weapon has to be dry. This has done more to perpetuate the myth that it is unreliable than anything else. The M16 will run dirty all day as long as it is properly lubricated. The guys at EAG ran an AR for over 31k rounds with one cleaning back in 2012 https://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-...ine-filthy-14/ , since then the test has been replicated time and again by other folks. The military’s obsession with dry/clean weapons has probably caused more problems with reliability than any design or manufacturing mistake.

The wetter the better. The M16 will absolutely run dirty, but not dry.

[Raellus]

It's well documented that the early M-16, relatively advanced compared to its contemporaries, was not ready for the battlefield (much like the Panther tank in WW2). By the 1980s, most of the kinks were ironed out. That's not to say that the later versions of the M-16/AR-15 are perfect, but there's a reason (besides marketing) that AR-15 "black rifles" are the most popular "assault weapons" on the US civilian market, and that military versions are used by armed forces around the world.

There are entire books and websites devoted to the Great AK-47 v. M-16 debate.

The arguments can be boiled down to:

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Ease of Maintenance: AK
Range: M16
Stopping Power: AK
Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
Durability: AK

So it's pretty much a push, and the "winner" depends on what factors the individual shooter values more.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Sith

I have a lot of experience with the M16/AR over the past 30 years. I have to say that one of the greatest disservices done to this weapon has been the military’s notion that the weapon has to be dry. This has done more to perpetuate the myth that it is unreliable than anything else. The M16 will run dirty all day as long as it is properly lubricated. The guys at EAG ran an AR for over 31k rounds with one cleaning back in 2012 https://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-...ine-filthy-14/ , since then the test has been replicated time and again by other folks. The military’s obsession with dry/clean weapons has probably caused more problems with reliability than any design or manufacturing mistake.

The wetter the better. The M16 will absolutely run dirty, but not dry.

Also when supply wants zero carbon on the weapon. It has been found to work better with a bit of carbon on. I have also seen more weapons damaged/destroyed by troops trying to get the last speck of carbon off so that supply will accept it.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It's well documented that the early M-16, relatively advanced compared to its contemporaries, was not ready for the battlefield (much like the Panther tank in WW2). By the 1980s, most of the kinks were ironed out. That's not to say that the later versions of the M-16/AR-15 are perfect, but there's a reason (besides marketing) that AR-15 "black rifles" are the most popular "assault weapons" on the US civilian market, and that military versions are used by armed forces around the world.

There are entire books and websites devoted to the Great AK-47 v. M-16 debate.

The arguments can be boiled down to:

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Ease of Maintenance: AK
Range: M16
Stopping Power: AK
Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
Durability: AK

So it's pretty much a push, and the "winner" depends on what factors the individual shooter values more.

Recoil/Accuracy: M16 (this is why the AK74 was created)
This may be why it (the AK74) was created, and it is much more accurate than the AK47, if you go off of the information out there it could be argued that it is more accurate than the M16, but that is a misnomer if you ask me. The reason for this is how they determine accuracy. They use Circular error probable, and we use MOA (Minutes of angle). If you try to convert the information given about the AK74 you end up with about 3.9 MOA (compared to the 5.9 MOA for the AK47), where the M16A2 has an average of 4.2 MOA. But this is misleading as for the AK74 (AK47 as well) half the rounds will be outside this circle, but every round from the M16 will be inside, with most rifles being between 1 to 3 MOA.

Reliability: AK (this is why newer assault rifles don't use Stoner's direct impingement gas system and instead use a variation of the AK's piston-driven system)
I am not going to get into this this except to say that there is some out there who come down on both sides of how reliable the direct impingement system is or is not. Also in my first hand experience the M16 (not saying it is the direct impingement) was much more reliable in combat than the AK47, but others have different experiences.

Weight (of weapon & ammo): M16 (also why the AK74 was created)
Weights are with out magazine, M16 6.37lbs (2.89kg), AK47 7.7lbs (3.47kg), AK74 6.8lbs (3.07kg). Magazine weights for a fully loaded 30rd magazine are .99lb (.45kg) for M16, between 1.6 to 2lbs (.74 to .92kg) for AK47, and 1.215lb (.551kg) for AK74.

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

Range: M16
I think that this has a lot to do with accuracy, as it is difficult to hit a target if the bullet is off by more then the size of the target at that range.

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Ease of Maintenance: AK
For this I do not know what the expected level of operator maintenance is for the AK, but will say that it is easier to field strip, not that the M16 is difficult, the biggest issue I see for the M16 is it does have some small parts that could be lost in the dark or what not.

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Stopping Power: AK
At the barrel, The AK47 has 1502ft/lb (2036 J), the AK74 has 979ft/lb (1328 J), and the M16 1302ft/lb (1764 J). So the AK47 is the winner here, but the AK74 is in last place, so I would not say AK, as you are bouncing between AK47 and AK74. The AK47 also has the best penetration.

I only mentioned the development of the AK74. It wasn't really included in the comparison, but thanks for including it in your assessment.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Ergonomics: M16 (this is why the HK416 and SIG 716 & MCX pretty much copy everything about the M4 other than its operation)
This is one more thing that I am not going to get into, as I have never carried the AK for extended periods of time. I have used it for training and teaching others, for this is was fine, but I have thousands of hours on the M16 so not sure it is better ergonomics or just more familiarity.

One of the biggest knocks on the ergonomics of the AK series is the safety/selector switch mounted on the right side of the receiver. It can't be operated without removing one hand- usually the right hand (for most, the dominant/shooting hand)- from the weapon. This is a major design flaw.

It's also reputedly quite loud. I've read numerous accounts of LRRPs and SOG recon teams in Vietnam being tipped off to an impending ambush by the loud CLACK of AKs being taken off safe.

Originally Posted by CDAT

Durability: AK
This is the same as the reliability.

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

[pmulcahy11b]

On the direct impingement system: An author for Small Arms Review said it well: they are the only weapons that throw up in their own mouths when they fire.

[kcdusk]

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

[Ursus Maior]

I have very few experience, but felt comfortable with my G3 battle rifle.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

All the Assault Rifles have the same stats. So it doesn't matter which one you choose.

In terms of game mechanics, you're right, more or less. But T2k is also theater of the mind, and, for some players, at least, it matters what weapon they imagine their PC wielding. If I'm going to daydream about using an assault rifle, I want it to look cool.

It's not in the poll, but I like the looks of the Swedish AK-5.

-

[cawest]

i went with AR. its all about ammo and spare parts for me. it is very hard to reload russian war ammo. not saying that it cann't be done only that it is harder.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I based this off of much anecdotal evidence. I once saw a video of a rusted AKM found in a hole in the ground in Mozambique. It was covered in rust. The finder poured some motor oil over it and was able to fire it. I've never seen or heard of a similar feat with an M16.

Also, the AK is reputed to require less frequent cleaning. This, I think, makes maintaining it easier.

I don't like field stripping my AR-15. As you pointed out, too many little parts. The AK-47/AKM has fewer parts. This make maintenance easier too.

I have also seen videos of things like this, but my real world experience with AK's is very different. Yes they may require less frequent cleaning but the AR is not one that needs near as much cleaning as many say. I spent on average about 5 minutes when we came back from a patrol cleaning my rifle, over the almost two year deployment never once had any malfunctions of any kind. On my second and third deployments where I was working with the locals they had there AK's and at least when we were around they did maintenance, they had all sorts of issues from failure to fire up to the bolts seized up so much that could not even get them open with a hammer.

...

Originally Posted by Raellus

To an extent, but not really. I was thinking more of what would happen if one tried to butt-stroke an enemy. The M16's plastic stock is a lot less sturdy than most models of AK-47/AKM, many of which have a metal buttplate in addition to a wood butt. The M16's foregrip is less sturdy as well.

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic. They are not as weak as people make them out to be. The fore-grip are also very sturdy, now yes there are after market ones that are very weak and my guess is that is where the misinformation about service weapons comes from. We used ours to beat down doors, and all sorts of other stuff with none breaking from that. We did have one rifle break, but that was when the soldier who's rifle it was leaned it against the truck tire, walked off to do something and the truck moved driving over it, this would have also broken a wooden stocked rifle (it was also the barrel that was bent, not the "plastic' that broke). Now how does it compare to the AK's wooden butt stock I can not say for sure as I have never used an AK to butt stroke someone, I do know that wood stocks have issues with accuracy based on the humidity. Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

[Raellus]

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

Originally Posted by CDAT

If you butt-stroke an enemy with an AR nothing happens to the rifle, as they are not plastic.

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?

Originally Posted by CDAT

Last thought on the strength issue is if it was a issue why would the US Army be switching its M14/21's to synthetic stocks (the EBR)?

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

[micromachine]

I have thought about this one for quite a while and I think I would use the assault rifle with the best chance of "battlefield pickup" for my area of operations. I know the battlefield is in flux and there is a good chance that even friendlies are armed with opfor weapons and the opfor having familiar weapons.
So, in a behind enemy lines campaign, I would opt for the opfor assault rifle, so I can get spares easily and pickup ammo and magazines off the dead and prisoners. The added plus is that I would make a scout come closer to positively identify me as an enemy.
I would keep my issue weapon and magazines as well, so long as i can leave it in a safe place suitabily disabled so prying eyes and hands don't make a "five finger discount" purchase at my expense. If my party has a vehicle, this is a no brainer. This will keep my options open for its use should a supply of ammunition be located.

[bash]

In game terms, I went with the AK-47/AKM. In both T2k and M2k I've always seen them as common "found" weapons. The Pact flooded the second and third world with them for decades. The proliferation of the AR platform (to the best of my knowledge) in the real world is an artifact of the fall of the iron curtain.

I think the mix of WP and NATO equipment gives a good feel for the setting. After a couple years of cantonment and pulling in stragglers even nominally NATO units aren't going to have homogenous load outs. Even if characters have their originally issued weapons they've likely, in my view, to have picked up AKs just to make scrounging for parts and ammo easier.

[ChalkLine]

My philosophy is always reduced to the following criteria:

Firstly, "will it let me down at a crucial moment?"

Secondly "is there plenty of ammunition for it?"

I usually go for the AK-74 variants in Euro campaigns as there's buckets of ammo and magazines, it's rock solid and also it doesn't draw undue sniper attention. Really, if I'm some chump holding what everyone's holding and there's a guy with a Gucci gun next to me they're going to whack him first. Similarly if I was to play in the USA it'd be an M16.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Its the AUG for me: nothing against the black rifle, its a solid design, but I feel from a usability point of view the AUG is a handier weapon, especially for mounted troops. If I had to pick a rifle to equip my army, the exact version would be in 6.8spc though, and yes, there are 6.8spc AUGs out there: they are license made in the USA by MSAR.

I have a friend in the ADF and he is not a fan of the AUG/F88 because he finds it's difficult to shoulder with his body armour on. He prefers conventional rifles with a sliding stock so he can adjust it.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I respect your personal experiences, CDAT, and my intent is not to dismiss it or question your integrity but, excepting your anecdotes, everything I've seen, heard, or read on the topic has been pretty adamant that the AK-47/AKM is a sturdier weapon (i.e. can handle more wear and tear and hard use, and less routine maintenance) than the M16. Of course, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the AK is a better overall weapon than the M16.

I agree that the stories out there are about how the AK can be totally abused and still work, and the AR if any dust gets in it, it will jam. However I think that the AK and the AR are much more in the middle. I think it was a forgotten weapon video (or maybe the link was from it, do not remember) where they took both a AR and AK did the same dirt and mud test on them on video. The AR was the one that worked better. (just looked it up it is inrangeTV the AR test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU and the AK test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU) There is also the video by Brandon Herrera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htkYVB4LaDM) who is about the biggest AK fan that I know of. Based on those videos, and what I have seen in real life both from others using them and using them myself I think that the reliability of the AK is vastly overblown, same as the AR being a jam o'matic, having said that the biggest advantage I see for the AK over the AR is if something needs fixed in a third world good luck for the AR, but the AK I can see you making parts in a back yard garage. Heck I saw quite a few AK, and Mosien who had broken stocks that were just nailed back together, not something that you can do with an AR.

Originally Posted by Raellus

What material are M16A1/A2 buttstocks made out of?

I do not know the exact thing that they are made out of, some fiber reinforced polymer. Also this is for GI ones, not the after market (some are good I am sure, but other are just cheap plastic) I was in a LEO AR armorers class and the Colt instructor noticed one of the guys in the class had after market parts, so he asked if he could use one of the forgrips (told him that they would likely be destroyed) and was able to bend them with his arms snapping it in half, he then let the class try to do the same with the GI issue ones, no one was able to even bend them. My understanding is that the for grips and the butt stock are made out of the same, with the butt stock also being filled (where not intended to be empty for the cleaning kit).

Originally Posted by Raellus

I assume weight is a big factor in that decision, and also the age and wear of the original wooden furniture. I also assume that synthetic materials are sturdier now than they were in the mid-1960s.

-

My understanding is that it is because of the stiffness and that they do not swell with the moisture in the air, weight was not noticeable (we had some of both wood and synthetic) we did the same things with both.

Now I am not anti-AK, I think that the AK is just a fine weapon, I am pro AR on the other hand and feel that it is a better overall firearm. Having said that both are tools, both were out, the AK will be easier to rebuild in a TW2k type world, I think that the AR will last longer before it is needed, but this could be my bias so take it for what it it worth.

[Sith]

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/com...upper_is_done/

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Sith

This doesn’t really fit here… but doesn’t warrant its own thread either.



Ok… Which one of you is building an M16EZ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/RetroAR/com...upper_is_done/

I hope that's not one of those "Ghost Guns..."

Are any of these guys being legal and registering their short-barreled rifles?

[HaplessOperator]

AR-15 variants for service rifles, hands down.

Manual of arms is faster than a raped ape. Runs better in mud than an AK. Runs even better if you keep 'er wet, even in the desert (the "keep your weapon dry" thing is a sure fire way to have it malfunctioning; environmental contaminants can't seize if they're a liquid), and you can slap just about anything on the platform in any configuration you wish and still have a lighter rifle than the next competitor, and you can trivially upgrade or modify essentially any single part of the rifle imaginable.

Need a rifle the size of an MP5? Mk18 has you covered. Need to reach out and touch someone at 800? Mk12 and 90-grain SMK's got it. Want to convert between the two in a private setup? You're two takedown pins and 15 seconds away from a room sweeper to a precision rifle. More exotic workups are easily possible; that same rifle can serve as a 9mm subgun to a .50BMG bolt-action, magazine-fed rifle or anything in between, and with a given lower, fire anything that fits within the 5.56 action length, and if you're not too snooty about upsizing, you've got the AR-10 and SR-25 families of design following essentially the same pattern.

Lefties do fine, too. No proprietary parts switching (which aren't issued along with service rifles most of the time, anyway), no worries about having to physically pull your magazine free if retention isn't required but speed is, allowing you to shortcut the process of gassing your weapon back up, no brass to fly in your face if you're transitioning shoulders (and you will constantly be transitioning shoulders).

With over 500 companies manufacturing parts for the things, and thousands that could if needed, they're better situated than any other country's service rifle for emergency wartime production, especially considering modern design and fabrication methodology for cutting aluminum billet and punching barrel blanks, and the existing aftermarket is probably the richest for any rifle platform in existence. These days, you can turn an AR-15 cheaper and faster than you can most extant AKs.

There's no one rifle that can do everything, but the AR-15 - especially in its modern incarnations - probably comes the closest.

If I were a trifling man, I could also mention that I've never been able to ignore that all these countries with indig service rifles (especially bullpups) tend to have their special operations forces almost universally using some flavor of AR-15 as well.

For the business end of things, an AR-15 is - within most common shootout distances - slinging a round that is going to cause considerably more tissue damage than a 7.62x39, as well, with lighter recoil, faster follow-up on the target, and on a trajectory that isn't like firing a rock from a slingshot.