Why I do not like the AR-15

>>33190616
>Before you jump on me about how there are ARs in other calibers, remember that ARs sold in 223/5.56 are by far the most common.
So what? Alternative ammunition is readily available.
>Also remember that the short action length obviates many of the best rifle cartridges.
Then it sounds like you don't want an assault rifle in the first place.

File: .gif (2MB, 480x266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x266px

>>33190716
>assault rifle

>AR-15

>Being this liberal

>>33190737
Well the guy is complaining about the caliber, the pistol grip, shorter barrels. He's obviously talking about lighter rifles firing an intermediate cartridge, an assault rifle as opposed to a battle rifle.

>>33190716
>>33190773
>Then it sounds like you don't want an assault rifle in the first place.
Any rifle should be able to deliver a decisive blow no questions asked out to at least 200 meters. None of the AR-15 cartridges I know of will do that. Whether you call that an assault rifle or not is a matter of semantics.

>>33190773
DO YOU SEE A SELECT FIRE M16 THREAD, BOI? NO? OK THEN

>>33190783
>None of the AR-15 cartridges I know of will do that.
Sounds like you'd be better placed at the Pentagon instead of /k/.

>>33190616
>5.56
it is a limitation of the cartridge without a doubt, but I also know not to hunt elk at 300yds with it too. With the right bullet, I can kill a deer at the ranges I typically encounter deer at just fine, and she does more than fine while predator or pig hunting.

>DI
depends on the quality of parts a lot too. Tbh, it's more important that you keep an AR wet than keep it clean.

>pistol grip
form follows function. Design of the AR allows recoil to just go straight back into my shoulder rather than climb, allowing for much faster follow-up shots. Very useful when pig hunting.

>forward assist
If I'm going to condition 1 and want to be quiet, it's a lot cleaner to use the forward assist than to push the BCG into battery.

>Magazines
yeah, and it's kinda stupid that they under-load the mag. Compression isn't what wears out a spring, it's use. But physics isn't mandatory in high school so Spring Lore is rare to find.

>weight
if you're putting a heavy barrel on you're probably looking for a precision build anyway, at which point weight is your friend not your enemy

>reliability
you gotta clean it buddy

>>33190616
5.56/.223 has been the standard for US armed forces since Vietnam, so obviously it can't be all that terrible. I think thousands of dead gooks, commies, and ragheads will back that up.

There is literally nothing wrong with DI, it's how the gun was designed to function and is no more dirty than any other action.

Muh traditional fudd stocks, muh spicy opinions

I will agree with the forward assist part, but with the charging handle being non-recipricating, there has to be some way to make sure the bolt is closed without running the charging handle again. It's the same as pushing on the bolt handle on an AK.

Who the fuck underloads their mags? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The system is lightweight at it's core, any other rifle would be much heavier with the same attachments.

Muh anecdotes
All rifles will jam if not properly maintained


tl;dr you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded

Can't be bothered to tread your dumb opinion

>>33190616

>5.56/.223
kills shit dead

>direct impingement
works fine

>forward assist
how else would you do SPORTS?

>magazines
thats some fuddlore. the work fine fully loaded with a closed bolt.

>weight
they weigh 7.5 lbs from the factory. the owner puts shit on it, not the guns fault


>and the biggest problem of all, reliability
clean your gun and spray clp in it, rifle works fine

Jesus Christ this is some advanced shitposting

>>33190783

holy fuck

>>33190889
Just because a round has killed a lot of people doesn't mean it's a good round.
Any bullet that has been used by one of the best militaries in the world, which also feels the need to play world police, will amass a decent amount of kills with the weapons they are issued, regardless how effective.
5.56 may be effective, but there could be better rounds.

>>33190938
>ust because a round has killed a lot of people doesn't mean it's a good round.

>>33190948
Er, you're right that was kinda stupid.
What I should've said is just because a bullet kills alot of people doesn't mean it's the best small arms round to existt.
I bet musket balls probably killed a lot of people too.

>>33190817
I will grant you that the AR has a low bore axis, which is a definite benefit. However, traditional stocks have that too. It's a matter of how much drop at the heel you have.
>If I'm going to condition 1 and want to be quiet, it's a lot cleaner to use the forward assist than to push the BCG into battery.
Why not just stay in condition 1? I always carry my rifle in condition 1.
>if you're putting a heavy barrel on you're probably looking for a precision build anyway, at which point weight is your friend not your enemy
You can get very good accuracy even with a light barrel. Barrel weight is more about delaying heating than anything else.
>you gotta clean it buddy
And I call that a design flaw. A rifle should not be so sensitive. A rifle should be able to withstand months of heavy use without cleaning. I wouldn't abuse a rifle like that, but it should be able to withstand it.
>>33190840
>5.56/.223 has been the standard for US armed forces since Vietnam, so obviously it can't be all that terrible. I think thousands of dead gooks, commies, and ragheads will back that up.
Actually, the US has a very high rounds fired per enemy killed rate. It's in the hundreds of thousands. Most enemies are killed with crew served weapons.
>Who the fuck underloads their mags? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
People do it.
>traditional fudd stocks
I said it was a personal preference.
>Muh anecdotes
There's not much else to go by for assessing a rifle's reliability. These anecdotes have been around for a long time. The old German Mauser had its flaws, but nobody questioned its reliability.
>All rifles will jam if not properly maintained
No, there are rifles that can fire thousands of rounds without maintenance and still work.
>>33190889
>kills shit dead
Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.
>how else would you do SPORTS?
See Clint Smith's videos on running the AR.

>>33190938
>but there could be better rounds.
At the expense of increased recoil and, more importantly, weight and carrying capacity. If you don't like it, though, there are other platforms and weapon systems out there.

>tfw I have a 10.5", lightweight AR, can use 77gr mk262 and maintain awesome efficiency, haven't cleaned it in thousands of rounds (suppressed, SBR, wolf ammo)
Stay salty. My only complaint is that it's such a good rifle that it's kind of boring.

>>33190971
>Most enemies are killed with crew served weapons.
Which is why there isn't a big rush on replacing 5.56.

>>33190980
You have a 10.5 inch barrel? Have you chronographed it? With a barrel that short and 77 grain bullets, you're barely outpacing a 22 magnum.

>>33190938

AR-10 is in 7.62 NATO

perfectly fine gun.

File: googleimagesearch.jpg (24KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x200px

>>33190616
>forward assist
>Why would you want to jam something in there if it doesn't want to go in there?

>>33191041
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPD6MlBsu0I

>>33190971
Hunting regs in my state require rifles to be unloaded until afield. So stealthy loading a requirement.

you can get good theoretical precision out of a lightweight weapon, not denying that. But when you're afield and having to make shots without benefit of a lead sled, heavier weapons have less sway.

600 rounds between stoppages is very reliable considering that an infantryman only carries about a third of that whenever going outside the wire. It's not a design flaw. You gotta clean it.

>>33191041
Clint Smith even said so.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/02/robert-farago/the-two-biggest-enemies-running-an-ar-15-clint-smith/

>>33190616
You've never owned an AR-15 so how do you know

>>33190980

literal .22magnum


you couldnt pick a worse choice in ammunition, if it was a 20" it'd be a different story, 14.5 sucks enough as is with 55 grain.

>>33191054
>Hunting regs in my state require rifles to be unloaded until afield. So stealthy loading a requirement.
What fucking state are you in? Can't you load it in the truck before you get out?
>600 rounds between stoppages
Where did you get that figure.
>It's not a design flaw. You gotta clean it.
Why would you settle for less? Why wouldn't you want a rifle that could fight a whole war without cleaning?
>>33191072
How do I know what? Everything I said is backed up by reliable sources.

File: 1487615420311.jpg (67KB, 417x640px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 417x640px

>>33190616

>5.56
There's a reason so many countries around the world utilize this cartridge. What would you coinsider "one of the best" rifle cartridges?

>direct impingement
The AR doesn't utilize a direct impingement action, it's an internally expanding gas operated piston. Does not "get dirty" in any meaningful manner compared to a traditional piston gun. It's a much more elegant and advanced design. Gasses are ultimately vented out of the side of the bcg, out of the ejection port.

>pistol grip
Find me a service rifle in the world that has a traditional stock.

>forward assist
Bullshit that was never supposed to be on the gun in the first place, but was shoehorned in due to army bullshit. That being said it does have some utility, like being able to check if the action is in battery without racking the charging handle.

>magazines
Whoever does this is a fucking fudd retard.

>weight
There isn't a rifle out there that people DON'T make retarded unnecessary heavy accessories for. What's your point

>reliability
ARs are one of the most reliable rifles on the planet. The reputation was due to the army cutting corners on the stupidest shit during the vietnam war in order to save money + manufacturing jobs. They loaded ammo with ancient WW2 era powder and didn't build the gun to specs. Worst fuckup was them not even chrome-lining the barrels. That's what got people killed

>>33191108
Wisconsin. Letting a loaded weapon be in or on a vehicle (or even touch a motor vehicle) gets you a night's stay at the County Hotel and a fine if you get caught by the asshole wardens who don't need a warrant under the State Constitution to do anything.

>600
the Army.

>why wouldn't you want one
because the only weapon that could come close to that is the AK and it is not nearly as precise as I require in a rifle.

>>33191114
>>reliability
>ARs are one of the most reliable rifles on the planet. The reputation was due to the army cutting corners on the stupidest shit during the vietnam war in order to save money + manufacturing jobs. They loaded ammo with ancient WW2 era powder and didn't build the gun to specs. Worst fuckup was them not even chrome-lining the barrels. That's what got people killed

jim sullivan couldnt have said it better

>>33191136
I should clarify, CCW permit holders can have loaded pistols in their cars, but that's it. No loaded long guns period.

>>33190616
Great, don't buy one. More 5.56 for me.

>>33190616
OP. If you didn't know cartridges come from two schools of thought. First, is the traditional expansion school. Second the velocity school. 5.56 is a velocity school cartridge. The round doesn't get all of it damage from tumbling, although any spitzer style projectile will do this. The damage comes from the fragmentation of the copper jacket and lead core. Also known as spalling and is directly effected by the projectile's velocity. In general a 5.56 going slower than 2500 fps is not going to be a lethal as it would normally be. This very fact is why having a 5.56 weapon with a barrel shorter than 12.5 inches as a serious defensive firearm is below par in stopping power. 5.56 is just fine as long as the projectile hits with a velocity above 2500. Although barrel length and velocity isn't the whole story. Steel core 5.56 neither tumbles or spalls like a standard lead core FMJ. 62 gr. LAP/M855 is where all of the horror stories about 5.56 not being lethal come from. It penetrates too deep to do what a velocity school cartridge was designed to do. You should also take note that expansion school doesn't expand all of the time either. Hell, hollow points only expand like they're supposed to 25% of the time and round placement will always be the end all of cartridge discussion anyway. it doesn't matter, in a general sense, WHAT you shoot them with, but WHERE. Velocity cartridges also carry the added benefit of being significantly lighter, enabling you to carry more and stay in a fight longer. The list goes on and you have 60+ years of NATO combat data to support this.

>>33190616
>A rifle is only as good as its bullet,

I'll agree to that. An AR is a .22 caliber rifle. It's good if you have to hump a large amount of ammo in the jungle and adopt spray and pray tactics in the bush at close quarters. Anywhere else, it's a punk round.

ARs are cheap, and fun to shoot, but unless they're full auto at close quarters, .223s are best used as plinkers, or small varmint guns.

The worst mistake the US military ever made was adopting a .22 rifle and forcing its NATO allies to eat that shit as well.

>>33191114
>powder fuckup
>chrome lining fuckup
Don't forget that they didn't issue soldiers cleaning kits, and told them that they didn't even have to clean their rifles. In the fucking swamp jungles of Vietnam.

Fuck, imagine how dirty and nasty and rusty an M16 would be after toting it around fucking Vietnam for years and never even cleaning it.

>>33191114
>There's a reason so many countries around the world utilize this cartridge. What would you coinsider "one of the best" rifle cartridges?
I think the reasons for that specific cartridge are that it was adopted as the SCHV choice of the USA and then standardized through NATO. There are still lots of countries out there primarily running 7.62 NATO, 5.45, 7.62x39, etc. It just seems to be based on what general political bloc you drifted towards during the Cold War and have production lines set up to produce for. Outside of a few Eastern European countries, I don't know if anyone has really bothered to make a changeover.

>>33190783
>All rifles should conform to this ill defined criteria I pulled out of my ass.

>>33191114

To clarify,

>WW2 powder
Even if it functioned perfectly the pressure curve was completely wrong for the rifle. It would be like, loading black powder into .30-06 cartridges and then trying to fire them with a Garand. Won't work very well.

>not built to specs
They tried using cast potmetal receivers that corroded through with skin contact. Also a slew of other preposterous things.

>chrome lining
This was the worst, jungle conditions would eat through an untreated steel barrel extremely fast. The slightest amount of pitting in a chamber will result in cases getting stuck, turning the gun into a useless brick

>>33191114
>There's a reason so many countries around the world utilize this cartridge.
Yes, that reason is that America made the other NATO countries use it as a standard. America did the same thing with 308. Third world countries use whatever they can afford, which usually happens to be cheap NATO or Russia surplus shit.
>What would you coinsider "one of the best" rifle cartridges?
243, 6.5 Creedmoor, 270 Winchester, 7mm-08, 280 AI, etc. Pretty much any rifle that can fire a bullet of 6mm to 7mm caliber at a muzzle velocity of about 2900 fps or better.
>The AR doesn't utilize a direct impingement action
What?
>Find me a service rifle in the world that has a traditional stock.
Bandwagon fallacy.
>The reputation was due to the army cutting corners on the stupidest shit during the vietnam war in order to save money + manufacturing jobs.
That reputation has persisted for 50 years now. It's not something that went away in the 60s.
>Worst fuckup was them not even chrome-lining the barrels.
The failures are in the action, not in the bore. How does lining the bore make the action more reliable?
>>33191136
>Wisconsin
I'm sorry.
>because the only weapon that could come close to that is the AK and it is not nearly as precise as I require in a rifle.
Not true. The Mauser and its derivatives could easily beat that.

File: lolgif3.1.gif (1MB, 150x113px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 150x113px

>>33191114

>ARs are one of the most reliable rifles on the planet.
HAHAHAHA
top fucking kek
Keep telling yourself that while the AR continues to come in last place in every modern US Army reliability trial.

>>33191230
It sounds like you just want a hunting rifle, not a modern fighting rifle.

Just don't join any military, police force, or private security company that issues rifles and you should be fine.

>>33191242
Do you have any links to back up this claim?

>>33191253
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158468,00.html

>>33191242

Cite source material on your claims. You are an idiot on the internet, your opinion means shit. Cite sources from verifiable professionals/experts/Army.

Thanks holmes.

>>33190616
Most of this is bs.

>>33191230
>243, 6.5 Creedmoor, 270 Winchester, 7mm-08, 280 AI, etc.
You can get ARs chambered in most of the cartridges you're thinking of, most likely.

>>The AR doesn't utilize a direct impingement action
>What?
It doesn't.

>That reputation has persisted for 50 years now. It's not something that went away in the 60s.
Yeah and people still think standing in front of a microwave oven will give you brain cancer. What's your point? People continue to parrot stupid shit as old as time itself, doesn't make it any more true

>The failures are in the action, not in the bore. How does lining the bore make the action more reliable?
The failures in Vietnam were due to the chamber/bore, not the action. Corroded chamber = stuck case = useless gun. Soldiers would tape cleaning rods to their handguards because they needed to poke out stuck cases so often. And before you spout some bullshit about AKs being better in this scenario, keep in mind AKs in Vietnam had chrome lined bores.

>>33191270
see
>>33191270

>people on /k/ haven't ever read this shit, yet proclaim the AR is the most reliable rifle in the world
You niggers disgust me desu.

>>33191230
>the Mauser is more reliable
yeah no shit, it's also manually operated, you're comparing apples to oranges now. A semi-auto has to be cleaned for it to work, a bolt action you can just push harder.

Apples and oranges.

This thread is balls

>>33191269
Is this the one where an M16 burst mechanism not firing all 3 rounds counted as like 3 malfunctions instead of 1?

>>33191242
>new rifles are 3% better than your crusty old AR-15s!

>>33191269
Fair enough. Though I bet a newer AR not manufactured by shit -tear colt would do better.

>>33191313

No, but it is the one where a guy on the internet claimed that without any source whatsoever, and ever AR fag believed him because of their biases.
Not that it matters that much, because even in the earlier test that was only with the AR, it still jammed more than the other rifles in the later test.

>>33191275
>The failures in Vietnam were due to the chamber/bore

WRONG.

>In 1964, the Army was informed that DuPont could not mass-produce the IMR 4475 stick powder to the specifications demanded by the M16. Therefore, Olin Mathieson Company provided a high-performance ball propellant. While the Olin WC 846 powder achieved the desired 3,300 ft (1,000 m) per second muzzle velocity, it produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the M16s action (unless the rifle was cleaned well and often).

The original M16s were issued with chrome barrels and bores.

>>33191322

>newer rifles jam 4-8 times less often
>3% better

butthurt ARfag detected
Don't worry anon, I liked ARs too when I was like 16 and didn't know any better.
:^)

>>33191245
I would remind you that for most of the 20th century, military rifles were very similar to hunting rifles, the main differences being that military rifles were stocked almost to the muzzle and that they were easier to load.
>>33191273
Not an argument.
>>33191275
AR 10s, yes. AR 15s, not so much.
>It doesn't.
Semantics. It still gets dirty as fuck.
>Yeah and people still think standing in front of a microwave oven will give you brain cancer. What's your point? People continue to parrot stupid shit as old as time itself, doesn't make it any more true
The difference being that almost no one has been OBSERVED getting cancer from a microwave oven. Go to any shooting range where a sizable percentage of the attendees are using ARs and watch them jam.

>>33191350
yes, and when's the last time a John C. Garand design has won at Camp Perry?

>>33191340

That anon mentioned the incorrect powder in a previous post you illiterate dicksocket

And he was correct, the vast majority of failures were due to barrels without chrome lining corroding to shit. A few very early rifles had chrome lined barrels and BCGs (as according to proper designer specs) but they switched to plain steel barrels to cut costs

When people started dying because their guns were reduced to muzzleloaders, they finally gave in and started retrofitting chrome lined barrels

But the harm was already done

>>33191304
>Apples and oranges.
No, they are both small arms. The fact that bolt actions are more reliable is a valid argument for why the army should have kept bolt actions. The fact that during the Soviet Afghan war, Afghan soldiers often sold captured AKs and continued to use surplus Mauser and Lee Enfields is evidence of this.

>>33191350
>I would remind you that for most of the 20th century, military rifles were very similar to hunting rifles,

No. Hunting rifles were based on military designs. That has been traditional since recioded history.

>>33191341
I was agreeing with you my dude. I own an AR because it is a fast competition gun and I don't have to worry about it on the same scale as a military. I take care of my 1 gun, buy nice parts for it, and it works great in the conditions I use it in with cleaning every 3/4 range trips. If the US military adopted a new rifle and cartridge tomorrow I wouldn't care, except for increased availability of surplus 5.56.

>>33191384
>No. Hunting rifles were based on military designs. That has been traditional since recioded history.
That's my point. The hunting rifles of today are essentially the military rifles of the the early 20th century.

>>33191405

Quoted the wrong person

>>33191376
>That anon mentioned the incorrect powder in a previous post you illiterate dicksocket

My sad little tardling, the retarded little faggot still pointed out bore/chamber problems, that was fucking wrong. Are you some sperglord faggot who cannot read or research?
Go back to your vidya and airsoft you fucking retard fool.

>>33191350
You can remind me of that, but it isn't the 20th century anymore gramps.

>>33191350
>Semantics. It still gets dirty as fuck.

Not in the parts that matter. The inside of the BCG acts as a gas chamber, functioning just like those on an AK or similar piston driven rifle. It's supposed to get dirty in there.

Also my local range is usually 80-90% ARs and I have never observed a single one to jam

>>33191377
yeah because the AK is a piece of shit at distance shooting
meanwhile, ARs have been winning the National Matches beating out Garands and Springfields for ages now.
but when it's time to get up close and personal and not shooting at each other from between mountain ranges, you bet your ass that a semi-auto is gonna kill the shit out of the bolt action 9 times out of 10

>>33190971

>Most enemies are killed with crew served weapons.
>and arty and airstrikes and rockets and tanks and pretty much everything under the sun that isnt a basic service rifle.

So how do we keep the badguys in place long enough for those weapons to be brought to bear? Bullets, and lots of them. How do you carry lots of bullets? Use smaller bullets. 5.56 does a good enough job at being lethal where it matters and thats all it needs to do.

>>33191377
Are you seriously implying that a modern military should issue bolt action rifles?

I would like to hear your reasoning.

>>33191425

Not the guy you replied to, but if you ever own a semi auto besides an AR, (AK, SCAR, 416, whatever) you will see for yourself that they are much cleaner than an AR.

>>33191414
lol

>>33191430

Is sub moa at 500 yards shit?

>>33190616
>A rifle is only as good as its bullet, and this caliber is questionable at best. It seems to inflict devastating wounds, but ONLY when the bullet tumbles. If the bullet fails to tumble upon impact, it will do no more damage than stabbing with an icepick, and there are trauma doctors who will back me up on this
Get 20 inch barrel then, it'll fragment instead of tumbling

>b-b-b-but my tactical 9.2" AR pistol with brace that I totally don't shoulder

>>33191448
and the AK is not a precision instrument, and the other 2 cost the same as 3 ARs, and your AR when using good parts can go 1000rds without needing cleaning, and cleaning isn't that hard

File: 1482622760147.jpg (152KB, 631x457px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 631x457px

>>33190616
bait, but i'll bite
>5.56/.223
for what it's designed to do, this caliber is fine. if you find it to be anemic, you can get uppers that chamber every caliber up to side-loading 50bmg; if you want something less, you can swap out to shit as small as .22lr
>DI
it works fine, provided to clean your gun. like ever. otherwise, get a piston conversion
>pistol grip
you can get workaround for pistol grips, or try one of the billions of grips to find one you like
>forward assist
you can get uppers without one, no one forces you to use it
>magazine
that's user error if someone chooses to underload a 30rd mag
>weight
with the sheer number of parts available, your AR can be as light or as heavy as you want
>reliability
just clean your fucking gun

>>33191437

Herp, derp, spray and pray is good enough, why use an effective round when we just have to scare them until a SAW shows up?

>>33191454
>sub moa at 500 yards
sub moa is sub moa at any distance, somebody here clearly doesn't actually do distance shooting

File: 1487481635985.jpg (59KB, 1080x1188px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1080x1188px

>>33191419

He's still right though.

Read this and get back to me:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Hearings_Before_the_Special_Subcommittee.html?id=vokfAAAAMAAJ

Unless of course you think these official widely recognized hearings are full of bullshit too.

>>33191340

>The original M16s were issued with chrome barrels and bores.

You're a fucking retard?
No they weren't?

>>33191476
You joke, but these are the tactics that work.

>>33191485
>recognized hearings

Congressmen debating about powder fouling.

You're a fucking retard. Stay retarded, and stay away from real firearms until your balls drop

>>33191377
>The fact that during the Soviet Afghan war, Afghan soldiers often sold captured AKs and continued to use surplus Mauser and Lee Enfields is evidence of this.
maybe because they weren't a fucking standing army using small unit tactics based on volume of fire? maybe because they were taking pot shots from across a fucking mountains?

>>33191496
>You joke, but these are the tactics that work.

They don't work as well as an effective round. A .223 is .22 caliber.

>>33191531
tell that to all the dead goatfuckers and commies

File: 1488541271522.jpg (71KB, 460x613px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 460x613px

>>33191465
>and the AK is not a precision instrument
God, how I hate this argument.

"Uh my 7.62x39 AK shoots less flat than 5.56 therefore it's significantly less accurate, I'll ignore the existence of 5.45x39 because I'm stupid".

The long-stroke piston has some inherent accuracy issues(in comparison to DI) and sight radius isn't the best on AK's but the practical difference is more or less the same as at the difference between them when we're talking about ability to fire full fun for a sustained period of time. Both aren't really designed to do this, they can sort of fit in that role and AK will probably take that torture test better. Except by the time AR drops out of the contest both of them will have completely fucked-up barrels.

>>33191531
Prove it.

>>33191423
Appeal to novelty fallacy.
>>33191430
Those old rifles were made before modern machining. If those designs were made on modern machine, they would be much more accurate. Go to a match where there are no limitation on the type of weapon used. Bolt action predominate.
>>33191437
That's all well and good, but how does it apply to you as a civilian? You don't have air support.
>>33191446
There are arguments for and against it. If the army weren't too lazy to train people how to use bolt actions well, they could be devastating weapons just like they were on Guadalcanal (they still had Springfields at that time).
>>33191460
It's still just a fast 22. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
>>33191472
>for what it's designed to do, this caliber is fine.
What do you mean what it's designed to do?
>you can get uppers that chamber every caliber up to side-loading 50bmg
Action length limitations.
>just clean your fucking gun
No, I expect more than that out of a gun (although I do clean mine religiously)
>>33191514
And which of those two better describes American civilian gun owners?
>>33191540
>implying goatfuckers and commies haven't been killed with full power rifles.

>>33191476

HERP DERP misconstrue tactics and oversimplify things because they go against my retarded ideas.

Jokes on you, you can act like a retard all you want. But those tactics still have been killing shit dead for 60 years. Your tiny fight-flight caveman brain doesnt know the exact caliber, velocity and wounding potential of every bullet flying past the rock you're hiding behind. The more bullets the other guy has to keep you behind that same rock, the better off he is while the plt mortars or FO are dialing your ass in for some serious boom-boom. 5.56 is lethal enough to keep people in cover, and does a reasonably good job of killing people that arent in it, which is pretty much the entire function of a service rifle round.

Also

>crew served weapon
>SAW

Who the fuck do you think is doing the initial "spraying"

>>33191041
If you think anyone in this thread has had any experience with ARs you are sorely mistaken. It's all memes, shitposting, and fuddlore in here.

>>33191544
>Prove it.

Prove that a .22 is a puss round?

Try to hit an iron gong with a .223 at 1,000 yards. I can bang one 9 times out of ten with an 03A3 with iron sights.

File: 2977317802_04b96e400e.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>>33191542
this is not an aperture sight; it was decades outdated before it was even introduced

>>33191551
if spaceguns were so great how come I never see anyone ever taking one out for hunting

furthermore, sure commies and goatfuckers can be killed with a full-size round, but if I'm going into a sustained gunfight I'd rather have 210 rounds of 5.56 than about 100 rounds of 7.62x51. Lets me keep up volume of fire for longer, and any hit will knock my opponent out of the fight

>>33191551
>And which of those two better describes American civilian gun owners?
Obviously the second, but you were discussing the military feasibility of a bolt action rifle for a professional army so stop moving the goalposts.

>>33191531

and .30 carbine is .30 caliber. Doesnt make it the same as 7.62 NATO, or 7.62x54r

hurf durf only pretending to be retarded

File: WP_20170107_007[1].jpg (2MB, 1728x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1728x3072px

>95 replies
Wasn't even that good, but props OP, I guess people genuinely are that stupid.

>>33191578
>this is not an aperture sight; it was decades outdated before it was even introduced
Then change it. Seriously, of all reasons that cause the "AK is inaccurate" meme you've picked the most retarded one, do you have any relatives in Australia, by chance?

>>33191041
>>33191051
>>33191057
>>33191563

In-YOUR-endo!

>>33191561

Good God, you're so fucking stupid, you don't even understand the difference between shooting a target and spraying tiny bullets in the general direction of a target.

Stay stupid.

File: 2000px-Smuckers_logo.png (129KB, 2000x617px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 2000x617px

>>33191212
>best AR manufacturer.

>>33191551
>how does it apply to you as a civilian? You don't have air support.

Thats correct, but I do have a buddy who is now able to maneuver to a spot where he can shoot you dead because you're too busy playing "dont get fucking shot" by my larger sustained volume of fire.

>>33191603
okay we were arguing about why the goatfuckers trade AKs in for Lee-Enfields and now you're looking at making the ideal service rifle. Uh...

>>33190616
>stopping power
>the rest of that shitty post
You're clearly a noguns faggot who needs to get off my /k/

>>33191586

Who said anything about decrepit .30 carbines except you, fucktard?

File: lt-electric-glide.jpg (33KB, 340x234px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 340x234px

>>33190817
>Hunting elk with 5.56

>>33191377
>the military should go back to bolt actions
That was a little too far even for /k/, but good effort so far, 6/10.

>>33191041
It is some awkward phrasing.

>>33191614
Goatfuckers trade AK's for Lee-Enfields because mountain plinking in Afghanistan requires something that has at least some long-range accuracy. And neither AK or M4 have this. Same goes for M240 if we're at it, I suspect RPK too. One of the reasons why .308 SCAR's started being issued on limited scale was exactly because US military needed something that holds zero(that is - not M14 derivative) and fires .308.

>>33191631
>>the military should go back to bolt actions

They do. What do you think snipers use?

>>33191551
You claim appeal to novelty when I was refuting your appeal to tradition. You literally said "things were done this way for a long time in the past so it must be better"

You make good points for civilian ownership of full power rifles good thing they make ARs in full power calibers, perhaps I will buy one.

No amount of training will make a bolt action rifle more effective than a semi auto/select fire for large scale military applications.

>>33191637
>M240
M249*

>>33191551
>the army should bring back bolt actions
Go suck start a shotgun champ.

File: 1487981179811.jpg (257KB, 843x1034px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 843x1034px

>>33191551
>What do you mean what it's designed to do?
intermediate cartridge. the criticism that the wounds are less than devastating is more of a product of ball ammo than a cartridge flaw. it's not intended for longer-range engagement, so declining performance is to be expected.
>action length limitations
http://www.safetyharborfirearms.com/products/shtf-uppers/product/43-shtf-50-mag-fed-upper-conversion
>No, I expect more than that out of a gun
if you're not maintaining your equipment, you will experience more jams and failures. it doesn't matter what your expectations are, that's simply how guns work

>>33191638
5/10, you're slipping.

>>33191630
M855 is bretty good desu.

>>33191655
>intermediate cartridge

A .223 is a small cartridge. It's a fucking .22 caliber, the same diameter bullet as a fucking .22 LR.

>>33191605
You can keep saying shit like this, but that won't change modern infantry tactics.

>>33191642
>You claim appeal to novelty when I was refuting your appeal to tradition. You literally said "things were done this way for a long time in the past so it must be better"
No, I did not say that. You said:
>It sounds like you just want a hunting rifle, not a modern fighting rifle.
And I provided background information by saying that hunting rifles ARE fighting rifles, albeit slightly modified.
>>33191638
Because snipers are the only men expected to actually hit what they shoot at instead of spray and pray.
>>33191615
Not an argument.
>>33191611
Why not just shoot me in the first place? Also, wouldn't a machinegun be better for suppressing fire? Using a semi auto for that sounds like the wrong tool for the job.
>>33191655
>if you're not maintaining your equipment, you will experience more jams and failures. it doesn't matter what your expectations are, that's simply how guns work
Bolt actions never have that problem for me.
>>33191653
Not an argument.

>>33191669
>22lr =5.56 now

>>33191679
Yeah dude, hunting rifles are OLD fighting rifles. Times have changed, fighting has changed. We have gotten better at killing one another. People weren't pushing their full powered service rifles to their technical maximum range, we figured out that firefights happen most often at shorter ranges and that follow up shots were important, so we adapted firearms to this purpose. Perfect marksmanship under stressful conditions is a bad thing to bet on, weather on a personal level or a military level.

I legitimately think you are autistic because you don't understand how technology and doctrine improves over time.

File: 1485577752223.jpg (48KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x480px

>>33191669
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO
>The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is an intermediate cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle

>>33191679
>not an argument
I wasn't arguing with you, I was giving you important life advice.

>>33191717
>firefights happen most often at shorter ranges
A real rifle works at short range too.
>follow up shots were important
Yes, they are, and you can follow up very fast with a bolt action. I have seen it done. Of course, you can't miss fast enough to kill your enemy.
>Perfect marksmanship under stressful conditions is a bad thing to bet on
Who said it has to be perfect? All you have to do it hit your enemy. If you can't do that with a bolt action, a semi-auto isn't likely to do it for you either.

>>33191756
>you can do fast follow-up shots
yeah unless you're talking a Lee-Enfield, you have to give up sight alignment in order to cycle the weapon, and the Lee-Enfield has it's own drawbacks as well.

Any semi-auto allows for follow-up shots without loss of sight alignment, and with the low recoil of the 5.56, getting back on target is even faster.

>>33191756
Smaller boolet = more boolet per army man
this is the crux of the matter

Even the fastest bolt action rifle shooter will be slower than if he spent the same amount of time training on a semi auto.

You are just making the "muh stopping power" argument over and over again. You aren't smarter than the collective decision making body of every military that has adopted an intermediate cartridge in a select fire rifle.

You sound like you only have acess to a bolt action and are trying to defend it as the end all be all of firearms. It isn't. A semi auto in the same caliber would be better. A semi auto in an intermediate caliber would be more effective if you were arming a large group of people.

>>33191804
and even if we're looking only at full power rifles, the M1 was vastly superior to the k98 and the Moist Nugget in combat. SMLE came close. Close.

>>33191782
>Any semi-auto allows for follow-up shots without loss of sight alignment, and with the low recoil of the 5.56, getting back on target is even faster.
Loss of sight alignment is a function of recoil. Any gun with substantial recoil is going to take the sights off target. A bolt action can be cycled almost as fast as a semi-auto.
>>33191804
>You aren't smarter than the collective decision making body of every military that has adopted an intermediate cartridge in a select fire rifle.
Argument from authority fallacy. Also, there are plenty of military experts who thought the switch to 5.56 was a bad idea. There still are. The reason so many of them switched is because of NATO.
>Smaller boolet = more boolet per army man
Also more bullets per enemy killed. A lot more.
>>33191833
The Mosin was shit. Commies were not known for making quality products. The Mauser 98 and its derivatives, the 1903 Springfield and many sporting rifles, on the other hand, were quite good. The M1 may have been slightly better, but not vastly better.

By the way, Garand rhymes with errand.

>>33191833
SMLE was basically peak general issue bolt action. I really don't think there is any change you could make to create a bolt action rifle that came closer to the early general issue semi autos.

>>33191551
>engagements are solveable with a bullet that drops just as fast, weighs more, takes up more space, and doesn't have guarunteed lethality either

Not only do you not have any idea what firefights look like, your idea of a solution is retarded as well.

>>33191858
Lee Enfield was cock on close. That increases lock time.

>>33191876
>bullet that drops just as fast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75aGG27dGUA
>weighs more, takes up more space
But you only need half as much, so you save on weight and space there.
>doesn't have guarunteed lethality either
Nothing is guaranteed, but even a 6mm bullet is much more likely to pull off a one shot stop.

>>33190616
>AR fags eternally BTFO!

>>33191847
I have a Model 1891 Argentine Mauser. I cannot cycle the rifle without having the bolt smack my face. I have to take my cheek off my rifle in order to cycle it fully, so to shoot again, I have to get check weld again, line up the sights, put sights on target and then fire.

Cheek weld remains constant with my semi-autos, so my eye is right where it needs to be; sights are already aligned, just put on target bang.

Mausers are fine as sporting rifles, nobody is arguing that, but as service rifles they are outclassed by current offerings.

Also, NATO originally wanted to use an intermediate round but the US threw a hissy fit and said no. So we went with a full size round.

>small size means more bullets per enemy killed

again, it's not that easy of a comparison. Sure, we use lots of ammo in Afghanistan, where the enemy mostly hides far away and takes pot shots that rarely hit. Doctrine stipulates that at extreme ranges you use indirect fires to neutralize enemy targets, and use infantry for close combat. Intermediate rounds are much better for close combat, where experience in WWII and Korea taught us that it was volume of fire that decided fights.

>>33191847
"Any gun with substantial recoil is going to take the sights off target"
This is how I know you have no real experience with firearms. Using modern combat shooting techniques you can keep your sights on target even with a full sized cartridge.

This has been fun, but you aren't giving me any new bait.

>>33190783
7.62

>>33191890
>he thinks .308 or other battle rifle rounds doesn't drop as fast as 5.56
Retard alert

>you only need half as much
No, that's where you're wrong charlie

>More likely to pull off a one shot stop
You're in a fucking war, you think being shot with 5.56 from distance means you just take a breather and get over it? You're not going to be combat effective within minutes, and that's nothing considering how long battles get when neither party has clear line of sight of each other and essentially pops off shots once in a while from behind cover.

>>33191910
>I cannot cycle the rifle without having the bolt smack my face
Never a problem with my rifles, even full length actions. Try something with a shorter bolt throw.
>>33191920
>This is how I know you have no real experience with firearms. Using modern combat shooting techniques you can keep your sights on target even with a full sized cartridge.
I shoot a 270 Winchester. That is a full size cartridge which will take your sights off the target.
>>33191922
That's AR-10, not AR-15.
>>33191955
308 does. The 6.5 mm cartridges don't. Even the 6mm cartridges don't. 270 definitely doesn't.
>You're in a fucking war, you think being shot with 5.56 from distance means you just take a breather and get over it? You're not going to be combat effective within minutes, and that's nothing considering how long battles get when neither party has clear line of sight of each other and essentially pops off shots once in a while from behind cover.
There are plenty of firsthand accounts of people being shot with 5.56 and continuing to fight. Paradoxically, small people are harder to kill with it because the bullet doesn't tumble in smaller people. There are soldiers and doctors who can back me up on this.

>>33191981
>308 does. The 6.5 mm cartridges don't. Even the 6mm cartridges don't. 270 definitely doesn't.
So you want a larger caliber for the military?

>>33191890
By this logic we shouldn't even issue bolt actions. We should issue single shot .50bmg. This way the bullets are almost guaranteed to pull of a one shot stop. Who cares if you can only carry like 20 or 30 rounds. And fire them slowly. But muh stopping power and technical effective range!

>>33191981
>shorter bolt throw
cartridge length determines that primarily. This is a problem with all Mauser-derived actions.

>>33191981
>Firsthand accounts
Yeah, and there are first hand accounts of people surviving a lot larger calibers than 5.56. People don't always immediately die when shot, especially from distance. But I can guarantee you that people who are shot, even in non-critical areas, are not going to be combat effective.

>the bullet doesn't tumble
Militaries use fmj, no shit sherlock
Your fmj .270 or 6.5 or 308 is just going to be a slightly larger hole in the target that doesn't tumble either from those distances you speak of.

>>33191981
It wouldn't take your sights off target if you used a rifle with a pistol girp and a modern shooting stance. But that would require you to get gud scrub.

>>33191994
If I were equipping an army, I would want them to have a fast, aerodynamic caliber. 6mm and 6.5mm bullets have better sectional density than 5.56, and even a small case can drive them to more than acceptable speeds.
>>33191995
That would be overkill.
>>33192000
I use a Winchester Model 70, and that is a Mauser action. Never been a problem for me.
>>33192008
>even in non-critical areas, are not going to be combat effective.
Would you bet your life on it?
>Militaries use fmj, no shit sherlock
FMJ can tumble. That is the chief wounding mechanism for 5.56. If I were in charge of an army, my men would use soft points. To hell with the Hague Convention.
>>33192010
Yes, it would. The reason 5.56 doesn't is because it has very little recoil.

>>33190616
>I don't know how modern day bullets work

>I can't clean my gun

>Holding it is uncomfortable

>I don't know what this part of my gun does, becauseI don't shoot enough to encounter an issue where I would need it

>I believe fuddlore about magazine capacity and loading

>There are some models that are heavy, and they're now the universal standard

>I've never seen any other gun jam, just ARs

Noguns or stupid

>>33192041
I would bet my life that if I shot you with 5.56 from 400 yards: you wouldn't survive without medical assistance in the next few hours. And you certainly won't be shooting back after just a few minutes.

>fmj's can tumble
not from range kiddo

>chief wounding mechanism
maybe back in 1964, and maybe in the current dumbass military that only uses fmj's

>To hell with the hague convention
As much as I would agree I'm not a idiot who denies reality. The reality is that militaries issue fmj.

>>33192041
>a fast, aerodynamic caliber. 6mm and 6.5mm bullets have better sectional density than 5.56, and even a small case can drive them to more than acceptable speeds.
I guess. The army never did anything with 6mm SAW. Maybe they'll do something with .264 USA.

>>33192041
>Yes, it would. The reason 5.56 doesn't is because it has very little recoil.
nope. What are ar10s/scar17s? how do I shoot my ar10 so fast while still putting holes in targets?

you are starting to bait in circles

>>33191108

>could fight a whole war without cleaning

The amount of fuddlore you spew is overwhelming. Everything requires cleaning, otherwise it becomes a rusty pile of shit and stops functioning. That includes AKs, FALs, M1s (particularly M1s), everything.

Steel, when exposed to air and water, rusts. It rusts more when you coat its parts in carbon and powder residue from firing that attracts moisture. I have personally seen an SKS seize up completely because it went uncleaned after using corrosive ammunition.

>>33192052
>>I don't know how modern day bullets work
Not an argument.
>I can't clean my gun
I can and I do, but I shouldn't have to. I can and do wash my car, but a car that breaks down if you don't wash it every 100 miles is a bad car.
>Holding it is uncomfortable
What is personal preference?
>I don't know what this part of my gun does, becauseI don't shoot enough to encounter an issue where I would need it
I think Clint Smiths more than you, and even he says that it is unnecessary.
>I believe fuddlore about magazine capacity and loading
I didn't say you should do that. I said that there are people who do, and that indicates bad design.
>There are some models that are heavy, and they're now the universal standard
It was a criticism of those models, not a blanket criticism.
>I've never seen any other gun jam, just ARs
The fact that other guns jam does not excuse ARs jamming.
>>33192068
>not from range kiddo
That's my point. At longer ranges, the 5.56 loses its ability to inflict damage.
>As much as I would agree I'm not a idiot who denies reality. The reality is that militaries issue fmj.
I'm talking about making a better mousetrap unconstrained by stupid treaties.
>I would bet my life that if I shot you with 5.56 from 400 yards: you wouldn't survive without medical assistance in the next few hours. And you certainly won't be shooting back after just a few minutes.
You overestimate the power of gunshot wounds. Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwPtP-KDNk

>>33192083
The bullets don't all go through the same hole, do they?
>>33192088
A soldier field stripping his gun is not going to remove all the carbon. You'd be surprised how much is left in the barrel. Modern ammo is not corrosive.

>>33192092

>I shouldn't have to wash my car
Cleaning a gun is far different from washing the exterior of a car. It's more comparable to cleaning your oil/filter and replacing steer/brake fluid. Imagine if all the parts of your car were exposed to the elements and not hidden under a hood. You'd take a lot better care of it.

>what is personal preference
Not a reason to determine if a gun or caliber is objectively good or bad

>I think Clint Smiths
He's not the only person who's seen combat, and not the only person to train people. I think even fucking Yeager knows more than you, doesn't mean he's always right.

>People who say that indicates bad design
So people who say AK's can't hit barn walls indicates bad design?

>Criticism of those models
Yeah except you used it as an example to bash the weapon platform entirely

>Does not excuse ARs jamming
Every gun jams kid, and AR's jam a lot less than older designs. Sure there are newer entries to the market that supposedly jam less, but you're talking about 1 or 2 fewer jams in many thousands of rounds. There's a point where one more TRB every few thousand rounds isn't that bad.

>loses its ability to inflict damage
Besides entering and potentially exiting your body? Do you think that's not a wounding mechanism?

>Grabinsky
He's never been in a war theater. This is more fuddlore that retards spew as knowledge. He literally shows ballistics gel hits from under 25 yards as his study on rifle rounds. And the problem with military 5.56 icepicking is a flaw with that type of bullet, not the gun and not the caliber. He also doesn't mention how bullets incapacitate people.

Surely you'd volunteer to be shot by 5.56 at range because it's no problem right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFkLAgGy6w&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiq3szgZgjI&spfreload=10

>>33192130
>Cleaning a gun is far different from washing the exterior of a car. It's more comparable to cleaning your oil/filter and replacing steer/brake fluid. Imagine if all the parts of your car were exposed to the elements and not hidden under a hood. You'd take a lot better care of it.
Then I would buy a car that's not as finicky about how often I change the oil.
>Not a reason to determine if a gun or caliber is objectively good or bad
The title of the OP was "Why I don't like the AR-15." Some of those points may apply to you, some may not.
>He's not the only person who's seen combat, and not the only person to train people. I think even fucking Yeager knows more than you, doesn't mean he's always right.
If he says that the forward assist is unnecessary, he's a pretty good source on that. He knows the AR very well.
>So people who say AK's can't hit barn walls indicates bad design?
Every magazine is different. If your magazine can fit all 30 rounds with no problem, fine. If not, then it's probably a bad design.
>Yeah except you used it as an example to bash the weapon platform entirely
No, I didn't. I granted that the platform was fairly lightweight without all the extra shit on it.
>Every gun jams kid, and AR's jam a lot less than older designs. Sure there are newer entries to the market that supposedly jam less, but you're talking about 1 or 2 fewer jams in many thousands of rounds. There's a point where one more TRB every few thousand rounds isn't that bad.
I don't think you'll find a bolt action that jams more than ARs.
>Besides entering and potentially exiting your body? Do you think that's not a wounding mechanism?
It is, but it's not a very effective one. It just drills a tiny little hole like an icepick.

File: 7fwWXpp.jpg (59KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x960px

>>33190616
>>5.56/.223
Modern loading with newer bullets have gone great lengths to rectify this fact while improving accuracy no less, the major caveat is that you won't have both good longer range terminal performance (>200m) and armor piercing capability beyond that range in the same bullet.
>Also remember that the short action length obviates many of the best rifle cartridges.
Presumably you are speaking of the AR-10 and if so that is not at all true.

The rest of your arguments/concerns are nonsense troll bait.

File: 1475813699409.png (133KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 380x380px

>>33190616
I just want to point out one really retarded thing that was in your wall of text.
>> If the bullet fails to tumble upon impact, it will do no more damage than stabbing with an icepick

If i stabbed you 5 to 15 times anywhere on your body with an icepick it would do enough damage that your internal organs would shut down, or you would bleed to death.

Just admit it anon, you cherry picked things that dont like about AR's and made a thread about your dumbfuck opinion no one cares about.

>>33191114
>Find me a service rifle in the world that has a traditional stock.
AC-556

>>33192130
>Grabinsky
He's a fucking trauma doctor. He's obviously seen plenty of gunshot wounds. And yes, he did talk about how gunshot wounds incapacitate people.
>He literally shows ballistics gel hits from under 25 yards as his study on rifle rounds.
No, he talks about how it tumbles and why it sucks when it fails to do so.
>flaw with that type of bullet, not the gun and not the caliber
So what 5.56 load is better then?

>>33190616
>pistol grip
Everyone else likes it as a pistol grip, its not at all uncomfortable as long as you like your grip which can be easily and cheaply changed unlike a traditional stock
>magazines
I've only heard of that being an issue with older GI mags because they were shitty, pretty much any mag made within the last decade+ will never have that issue
>weight
If you're gonna throw rails on it you're probably gonna throw rails on whatever your suggested alternative is increasing the weight proportionally
>reliability
Good job, you've seen bubba "I dont know how to dismantle my gun" fudd have his under maintained AR jam, you must be an expert

OP maybe do some research and actually shoot one before you come on the internet and look retarded.

File: 3890490249029402.jpg (64KB, 698x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 698x640px

>>33191994

>Proponents of muh stoppin power high caliber rounds "gotta ditch this .22 peashooter" prevail
>By the time we switch over we go from long range (across the +400m Afghan valley or over the +300m open fields of Iraq) wars to some Vietnam 2 electric boogaloo or urban fighting and all of a sudden realize we want volume of fire and lower recoil back.
>lawgiver murphy and the green weenie are laughing_white_girls.png

>>33192169
>Presumably you are speaking of the AR-10 and if so that is not at all true.
No, I am speaking of the AR-15.
>>33192171
A rifle shouldn't have to shoot someone 15 times. One shot should be enough. If it isn't, you need a better rifle.
>Good job, you've seen bubba "I dont know how to dismantle my gun" fudd have his under maintained AR jam, you must be an expert
Still unreliable.

>>33192139

Ouchie

>>33190616
>5.56

This is a bunch of bullshit - .30 caliber bullets that fail to tumble or fragment are similarly impotent. You can gripe all you want about that, but solid core projectiles were panned in the 1890's/1900's for their shit performance out of the battle rifles of the day. M43 7.62x39 also sucks unless it hits bone. Second, the point is completely moot, because you're a civilian and you can buy expanding ammunition. The fact that you haven't considered this is the first clue that you're noguns.

>direct impingement. This action seems to work OK, but it gets very dirty very fast. Cleaning any gun is a pain in the ass, at least for me.

Everything needs to be cleaned. The fact that you think otherwise is again a clue that you are noguns. Also, the maintenance required to keep an AR operating is minimal. Compare it against a slav gun running corrosive slav ammo. You'd BETTER clean that every range trip.

>pistol grip

There are only a handful of military style semi autos that are still being produced with a traditional stock. M1A, the Mini series, and...

>magazines
Maybe had problems 50 years ago. There are so many good mags on the market now, I don't get what your point is. Additionally, if it were true that you had to download - and it isn't - it's a non issue. You can say it's a DESIGN FLAW but if you think that's a big deal... go pick up someone's nicely set up M1A by the top handguard and see how they react.

>weight. The AR-15 is lightweight by design, but many owners and manufacturers defeat that with heavy barrels, heavy rails, and a long list of aftermarket accessories.

When it's covered in crap, it's still lighter than a battle rifle. Additionally, it's up to you if you cover it with crap or not. "Long list of aftermarket accessories." These are accessories for literally any gun with a rail. One more clue that you've never bought a gun.

>and the biggest problem of all, reliability

It's reliable. Sorry, but this is a stupid meme.

>>33192163
>not as finnicky
Sounds good until you realize that instead of an oil change every 7,500, you need an oil change every 7750. It's not a big difference

>He knows the AR very well
And so do other people who've used it in combat. They know the AR very well too.

>If your magazine can fit
But they can. You're the one spouting fuddlore and suggesting that they can't.

>I don't think you'll find a bolt action that jams more
Are you suggesting that bolt actions are better than semi-automatics as a weapon of war because they "jam less"? Wow, this is a new level of retard. You can trb an AR within a second and a half no problem, and go right back to shooting semi-automatic. And both platforms are susceptible to catastrophic failures, which are primarily ammo related.

>It just drills a tiny little hole
Which causes bleeding and organ damage depending on where it hits. Would you then be up to the task of letting me stab you in the torso with a sharpened screwdriver? Surely it can't hurt that bad, the wound channel is like an icepick!

>>33192206
>When it's covered in crap, it's still lighter than a battle rifle. Additionally, it's up to you if you cover it with crap or not. "Long list of aftermarket accessories." These are accessories for literally any gun with a rail. One more clue that you've never bought a gun.

wrong

>>33192189
>>5 to 15
>>5 to
>>5

Id say if you have a 30 round mag 5 shots is about what any one would shoot in most situations.
Do you see anyone ever fire one shot of 30-06 to take down a human being at 100 to 200 meters now a days?
Warfare is about volume of fire anon, seemingly a doctrine lost on you.
If i were to just shoot some one once with an AR they would go down easy.
But if i can fire more and i can, i will because i want to make that fucker dead thats trying to kill me.
Not everyone is accurate enough to kill a guy with one shot.

>>33192112
>A soldier field stripping his gun is not going to remove all the carbon. You'd be surprised how much is left in the barrel. Modern ammo is not corrosive.

First of all you typically clean the barrel when you clean a rifle. That's par for the course. I know you've never done it but that's how it works.

Whether the ammunition is corrosive or not is just about irrelevant. If you run your gun dry, with a bunch of hydrophilic gunk in it you will fuck it up in time.

Is there a particular rifle you have in mind that you like better?

>>33192210
>Are you suggesting that bolt actions are better than semi-automatics as a weapon of war because they "jam less"?
Yes.
>But they can. You're the one spouting fuddlore and suggesting that they can't.
Some people say that some magazines don't work as well fully loaded. If that is true, then that is a problem with those magazines.
>Which causes bleeding and organ damage depending on where it hits. Would you then be up to the task of letting me stab you in the torso with a sharpened screwdriver? Surely it can't hurt that bad, the wound channel is like an icepick!
Not enough bleeding to reliably stop a fight.
>Warfare is about volume of fire anon, seemingly a doctrine lost on you.
I know that is the current doctrine, but I disagree with it. I think it is born out of an inability or unwillingness to train good shots. Volume of fire is a nice way of saying spray and pray.

>>33192216
You're right dude, when you buy an AR, it comes with a full complimentary SOPMOD kit

>>33192176
He's a trauma doctor who operates on people shot in cities with handguns. He doesn't operate on people shot by rifles in war zones.

You want a more knowledgeable source about rifle rounds in war? https://sofrep.com/45197/why-id-rather-be-shot-by-an-ak47-than-an-m4/#prettyPhoto

Even the new 855a1 is an improvement. Any jacked soft point is an improvement. Any open tip match load is an improvement.

>>When it's covered in crap, it's still lighter than a battle rifle. Additionally, it's up to you if you cover it with crap or not. "Long list of aftermarket accessories." These are accessories for literally any gun with a rail. One more clue that you've never bought a gun.

An issued M4 as it stands now weights about 12 pounds, a g3 weighs 9.7 pounds.

>>33192236
Spray and pray was the whole point of project salvo. They found with maths between spray and pray and aimed shots spray and pray won.

But that said I agree with you on the 5.56mm round itself as being underpowered generally.

>>33192230
I clean my guns fanatically. I have wasted hours cleaning them, but I rest easy knowing that I could run them for months or even years without cleaning and they would still work. That, to me, it what a rifle should me.
>Is there a particular rifle you have in mind that you like better?
Winchester Model 70. It is a modern incarnation of the Mauser 98.
>>33192240
The video still has information about rifle injuries.
>>33192254
Good Lord! I didn't know it was that bad. 12 lbs is like a damn elephant rifle.

>>33192240
The link is paywalled. Can you find me a free link to that article?

>>33192236
>if that's true
I'm trying to explain to you, it's objectively not true. And the fact that you're believing this is even more astounding.

>Not enough bleeding to reliably stop a fight
It's plenty enough, if you hit an area that actually has blood vessels. Not all bleeding is external, internal bleeding is a huge problem. You only need to lose a couple pints to be impaired.

>I know that is the current doctrine but
Training good shots doesn't do anything in today's war. Your average goatfucker is hiding behind cover or in a building only popping out their head once in a while, for a second, to take a couple shots. Your bolt action rifle isn't gonna hit a target hidden behind cover any better than an AR.

>>33192254

7.5lbs loaded. About 8.5lbs with an optic.

Your G3 is 9.7lbs UNLOADED with no irons. Apply yourself.

>>33192277

I'm literally within arms reach of a Model 70 sporter right now. It is my favourite rifle. I am however, completely disregarding everything you have to say now because you're trying to compare a full power hunting rifle to a semi/select rifle built for combat. I'm also completely confident now that you don't own guns, and definitely no semi's.

Also, that anon is wrong about the weight of an M4. Loaded and with optic, It is still a pound lighter than an unloaded G3 with irons.

Is OP the ultra fudd?

The One Fudd to Rule Them All?

>>33192189
What the fuck does that have to do with short/long action then?

>>33192277
And that video's "information" is second-hand hearsay and in no way is a study or comprehensive knowledge base

There are better sources.
This for example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596205/

Or this
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=579054ad-96e5-4825-8c43-0504665f3ffc

(This one actually has a picture of an Iraqi National Guard shot in the face with a 6mm sniper cartridge from range who lived just fine)

>>33191476
>SAW not chambered in 5.56

>>33192189
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU
AR15 mud test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFsx2XS2wA8
K98 mud test.

Your Mauser flunks. The AR doesn't.

>>33192240
Why the fuck would anyone paywall this??

>>33190616
>Cleaning any gun is a pain in the ass, at least for me.
>>33192277
I clean my guns fanatically. I have wasted hours cleaning them

I don't think you've got guns anon.

>>33190616
>Uses a weird internal design no other gun uses (I wonder why)
>Bitch caliber that only works within an ideal range zone with ideal barrel length
>Shit performance out of short barrels
>Stock doesn't fold

I've been into guns for about a decade now, owned around 20 but never a single AR. Can't take them seriously as a platform, I don't see what they do better than other intermediate caliber rifles. The caliber may shoot flatter than 7.62x39, but it's ineffective at the range that the 7.62 starts to drop... I'll take the ability to punch through cover any day if I'm going with an intermediate caliber, if I need accuracy I'd use a real caliber like .308

>>33190616
>hurr everyone should use a .300 win mag bolt action hunting rifle with a classic wood stock

kys

>>33192413
The ar is the lightest, one of the most reliable, and potentially most accurate platform to shoot an intermediate rifle round. 7.62x39 is fine, so is 5.55, so is 5.45. You do you. But the military does not share your mindset.

>Not owning 5.8x42

>>33192413

Where do you weird tryhard fucks come from?

>people that shoot other people professionally swear by it, including the ones that get to pick their own rifle
>an objectively excellent civilian carbine

MUH BARRIER PENETRATION

When's the last time you shot something that wasn't paper

>>33192295
>It's plenty enough
Oh, but it isn't. There are plenty of accounts of the 5.56 just not having enough stopping power. You don't have to shoot them with a 416 Rigby, but a 100 grain 6mm would be a major improvement.
>>33192312
But the model 70 is just a knockoff of one of the most prolific combat rifles of all time: the Mauser 98. If you could make a model 70 Winchester take 20 rounds detachable magazines (I'm sure this has been done), then it would be a fine combat rifle.
>>33192322
AR-15 won't take a round much longer than 5.56. You'd need AR-10 for that.
>>33192371
Not an argument. And yes, I do have guns. I don't enjoy cleaning them, but I do it a lot because I'm picky.
>>33192452
Strawman argument.
>>33192458
>But the military does not share your mindset.
Argument from authority. Procurement officers are POGs.

>>33190616
>I don't like the Ar15

OK Hillary Clinton, tell me why I give a shit about your opinion?

>>33192495
>AR-15
>a firearm designed around ONE cartridge doesn't readily accept more than that ONE cartridge it was designed to accept
Please tell me how short action figures into this beyond the fact that the cartridge in question falls within the Remington short action spectrum.
AR-10 is SHORT ACTION as well by Remington's definition.

>>33192505
Now lookit. There are three main action lenghts: standard, short, and really short. The AR-15 is really short. It won't chamber 308 length cartridges. You need an AR-10 for that.

File: 1466006173968.gif (2MB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x375px

>>33192511
>troll troll troll
Well you got me bud, chalk it up as another win that you got to this point. Assholes like you are a diamond dozen.

>>33190616
>I know the AR-15 is very popular these days, so I know I am probably in the minority when I insist that it has certain unacceptable drawbacks.

So don't buy one as there is nothing to discuss. Buy what you like. You are a civilian. Take your b8 elsewhere. Fuck off.

>>33192172
Not in service. Bermuda have switched to the SA-80.

>>33191038
Is it bad that id rather start with an ar10 than a ar15? How do the two compare besides ammo? Id just rather have 7.62 than 5.56.

>>33190616
>forward assist
>Why would you want to jam something in there if it doesn't want to go in there?
Jesus christ all ot does is give the BCG a little tap in case the round has issues extracting from the mag or the carrier decides to not go into battery for whatever reason, where the fuck are these faggots coming from who think it mashes the BCG with tard strength and that it will always make the rifle jam? It's like you have no clue how an AR functions.

>>33191021
>>33191103
You guys do remember the published numbers of 262 in a 10.5 exist and life isn't a video game so he can change ammo at will.

All he said was it runs well

File: 1488500997321.jpg (207KB, 692x960px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 692x960px

>>33192495
>Oh look, it's an "anon tries to argue with everyone at once and ends up looking retarded" thread

It doesn't fucking matter. It's a gun. It will work if you ever need to defend yourself. Stop being so autistically pity.

99.9999% of people have zero idea how to react to even the smallest sidearm. An AR-15 will 100% fuck up anyone that tries to invade your home.

>>33190616
Nice blog

>>33191551
>Those old rifles were made before modern machining. If those designs were made on modern machine, they would be much more accurate. Go to a match where there are no limitation on the type of weapon used. Bolt action predominate.

If you think "old machining" was in any way less precise than cnc shit today you are retarded top to bottom.its just easier and requires less skilled operators and man hours to produce. Bolt actions appear more mechanically precise because it's an easier design to work with, kinda like how the Remington action and versions of it are more widespread in precision builds.

File: 1488473925460.jpg (211KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1280x853px

>>33190616
Fuck it, I'll bite.

Let's take a look at these "certain" "unacceptable" "drawbacks".

>A rifle is only as good as its bullet, and this caliber is questionable at best. It seems to inflict devastating wounds, but ONLY when the bullet tumbles.

I'm sorry, did we forget what fragmentation is? Furthermore, you're forgetting various bullet designs and weights 5.56 offers. There is ball, FMJ, HP, open tip, soft point, ballistic tip, AP, and green tips /black tips. Not to mention grains usually ranging from 45 all the way up to 80. You assumed it simply was FMJ or even AP.

>If the bullet fails to tumble upon impact, it will do no more damage than stabbing with an icepick, and there are trauma doctors who will back me up on this.

Thus the reason why Russian changed from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39. The former went right through our guys in 'nam, but did little damage. Also you're gonna have to sauce me on the surgeon part.

>It usually has a low sectional density and ballistic coefficient, causing its stopping power to rapidly decline at longer ranges. Short barrels make this problem even worse.

Again, bullet design. Also sauce.

>direct impingement
Never liked it myself, but it works fine assuming you're shooting clean ammo. There are plenty of cheap AR-15 pistons on the market, so you don't have an excuse anyhow.

>pistol grip
I find them more comfortable and more controllable. Anyhow, even if that was the case, there are AR-15s with traditional stocks.

>forward assist
>why would you want to jam something in there if it doesn't want go in there?

I dunno, so you can... ya know, FIRE IT. The round may be fine, just that it didn't load right. AK has a handle you can bash forward to do the same thing.

>magazine
Dunno, works fine for me. This sounds like fudd lore.

>weight
>many owners and manufacturers defeat that
I'm sorry, are you those owners and manufacturers? You can easily get an AR that's 4 lbs.

>reliability
Take care of your guns. AKs will do the same.

>>33191021
>with a barrel that short and 77 grain bullets, you're barely outpacing a 22 magnum.

You're gonna have to sauce us on that one, bub.

File: 1488167108586.jpg (72KB, 268x490px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 268x490px

>retarded range queen fudds under-load their AR mags for no fucking reason
>oh no it must an inherent fault of the rifle's design!

File: tmp_23162-Screenshot_2017-03-04-11-22-52-11378251695.png (685KB, 1440x2219px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1440x2219px

>>33191576
OK

So how does hitting a static target at at know distance, is a .30 call possessing the energy of a potato prove that 5.56 isn't good?

How does ringing a gong help against fire and maneuver as the distance closes,your ammunition gets lower and the volume of fire on your position increases?

>>33191197
I know this is bait, but cmon

>bullet diameter
>having anything to do with lethality

I bet you think .45 acp has more stoppan' pow'r than .223 rem too.

>5.56/.223
Optional. Get 6.5 Grendel or .300 Blackcocks or whatever you want.
>Also remember that the short action length obviates many of the best rifle cartridges.
Then get a long action AR15. They call them AR10s but they are mechanically closer to AR15s than real AR10s. Up to .338 lapua magnum.
>direct impingement
Get a piston AR then?
>pistol grip
Get an Ares SCR.
>forward assist
Optional.
>magazines
What could possibly be your issue here?
>AR owners often underload their magazines to make them work better
"No."
>weight
AR15s are typically very light.
>The AR-15 is lightweight by design, but many owners and manufacturers defeat that with heavy barrels, heavy rails, and a long list of aftermarket accessories.
Then don't get any of that shit for your personal rifle.
>and the biggest problem of all, reliability
No contest. This is the only real tradeoff you make with the AR. The thing is we have the luxury of being able to clean our rifles so it's really not a tradeoff at all unless you lose that luxury.

This is an incredible amount of work to put in to create such shitty bait.

>>33194554
Well it does out of a 4 inch barrel. Pistol and rifle cartridges are kumquats and bananas. No comparison can really be made because of completely different design intentions.

>>33194510
To be fair that is a real issue with the FAL, where the rounds rest on the bolt so the magazine spring applies varying pressure to it as you go through a magazine.

File: 0NInFb0.jpg (241KB, 1200x1188px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x1188px

how is this autistic thread still up?

>>33194597

I'm sorry anon, I thought this thread was talking about the AR platform?

File: 20160917_100936.jpg (786KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 2048x1152px

Standing up, spitting .223 from a shouldered position is what God intended. SAWs now come standard with battle toads that act as assistant gunners.

>>33194700
Just saying it's not entirely invalid or unprecedented reasoning, even though he is wrong in this case.

File: IMG_6991.jpg (44KB, 457x381px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 457x381px

>>33194700
>platform

>>33194602
/k/ is piss easy to troll that's why

File: kys.jpg (18KB, 400x327px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x327px

>>33190616
kill yourself

>>33190616
>This action seems to work OK, but it gets very dirty very fast.
As someone who shoots black powder, holy fuck am I having a good laugh right now.

>Cleaning any gun is a pain in the ass, at least for me.
If cleaning your gun more often even though it's still seldom is an "unacceptable drawback" to you, I suggest not being such a lazy piece of shit.

>>33190616
>tfw bottom bin psa
>tfw 10k without a single ftf/fte

>>33190616
>This thread again
>all these replys
You all disgust me.

>>33198394
Taking this kind of bait is oddly fun for me. I feel bad about this.

File: Carbines3.jpg (526KB, 1306x745px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1306x745px

>>33190616
AK's are my game, but after building my Hillary-scare AR and enjoying the fuck out of it all I see in your post is glaring ignorance.

>Cleaning any gun is a pain in the ass, at least for me.
YOu don't need to white-glove clean the things every 50 rounds bub. That's actually bad for them.

>>forward assist
The AK has a forward assist also, it's called the charging handle and if you ride the bolt when you charge it, you will need to smack the bolt into battery. The same thing is true of AR's, that's what the assist is for.

>AR owners often underload their magazines to make them work better
This is myth and you should know it.

>but many owners and manufacturers defeat that with heavy barrels
So make sure you get a lightweight barrel and minimalist handguard and you will be fine. Also steer clear of the typical 'triangle' front sight block.

>but I have seen with my own eyes that ARs jam
My AK and 92FS have had their share of jams. I have witnessed legendary Glock reliability fail and jam from carbon buildup. Machines will fail.

If you really don't like them, whatever. There's plenty of options for you. Just be aware that I used to think like you until I put one together for myself.

>>33190616
>bad reputation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

>>33193273
No, .308/7.62mm will maintain more energy at longer ranges is better suited for large game than .223/5.56mm. This comes at the cost of more recoil, lower capacity magazines, and more expensive ammo.

Its your choice.