Why was the ar15 so universally adopted but the ar10 ignored?

File: armalite1.jpg (194KB, 650x980px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 650x980px

>>33351518
>AR-10
>not battle tested
Portugal would like a word with you

File: 1469332883407.jpg (26KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x378px

>SR-25
>M110

File: IMG_6787.gif (428KB, 500x596px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 500x596px

>>33351532
Yes, that mighty war machine of Portugal

Weren't most countries moving from 7.62 NATO and looking for an intermediate cartridge? I think that's why. If the AR-10 had come when NATO countries were adopting 7.62 NATO rifles it might have done well. Instead it came at a time when they wanted rifles in an intermediate cartridge, and so it was pretty much ignored.

Although it does see service here and there, and is a fine rifle. It's just not what NATO was looking to arm their troops with outright.

>>33351518
because, at the time the m14 had pretty much all the same shit the ar 10 had

>>33351558
Is the SR-25 the best semi-automatic 7.62x51mm rifle in existence?

>>33351593
>be too fucking ignorant to know about the 13 year long Colonial war in Africa that only ended because of a lefty coup
jesus you thick retard

File: IMG_6728.gif (919KB, 170x196px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 170x196px

>>33351630
>side using ar10 loses
>somehow this is a ringing endorsement
Kys

>>33351616
Nothing made by Knights Armament is "the best ever made," it's just the most expensive.

>>33351821
KAC is great, fuck off.


The AR-10 was ignored because everyone either already had adopted their 7.62 NATO rifle or it failed catastrophically during testing and they disqualified it immediately.

>>33351518
bcus 15 is a bigger number than 10, god OP are you dumb?

>>33351616
Short no.
It is really equipment age and shooter dependent. I've seen people on KD ranges make 1,000 yard shots with M14's, I think they are garbage after having to lug one around compared to the 110 yet people still stand by the 14.

>>33351518
Unreliable

>>33351828
>KAC is great, fuck off.

>Loses M110 contract to H&K's piston gun

>>33351828
>$20k per unit for a 1 MOA gun

>>33351518
because battle rifles in full-size calibres are a fucking meme

>>33351912
Why soninsanely expensive?

>>33351984
Only that expensive for the military. IIRC that price include everything from replacement parts to armorers courses, materials, etc.

The H&K will "only" cost $12k or so.

You can buy one from them (or more likely from someone on gunbroker) for about $5k, but even then you have to ask yourself: Is a 1 MOA rifle worth $5k?

>>33351984
Because it has Reed Knight's name on the receiver and Eugene Stoner's name on the design documents.

>>33351518
>Why was the ar15 so universally adopted but the ar10 ignored?

Because at the time the Army still did its small arms R&D and production in government-run arsenals, and their nostalgia-ridden pet project the M14 was in full swing. Armalite didn't have the political clout to get anyone to consider anything that could potentially fuck with all those military officers in charge of the arsenals' careers.

Then they sold the design to Colt to catch their attention and Stoner got the Air Force to force the issue.

>>33351984
It's not just the rifle. Included optics and various parts.

>>33352099
The AR-15 was developed before licensing Colt to manufacture it, just like the AR-10 with the Dutch factory.

Because McNamara wasn't around to push the AR-10 through.
>AR-10 failed trials.
>Repeatedly.
>AR-15 failed trials.
>Repeatedly.
>McNamara "Oy vey! Adopt it or no funding!"
The military needs a group opposite of Cincinnatus, call them Brutus.
JFK, LBJ, Clinton would have gotten rekt.

>>33351518
most western nations are adopting an AR10 as their DMR.

>>33351811
This desu senpai

File: 12590-SA.A.1.jpg (145KB, 1245x843px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1245x843px

>>33351518

>Unfortunately for ArmaLite, the rifle's aluminum/steel composite barrel (an untried prototype design specified for the tests by ArmaLite's president, George Sullivan, over Stoner's vehement objections) burst in a torture test conducted by Springfield Armory in early 1957. ArmaLite quickly replaced it with a conventional steel barrel, but the damage had been done. The final Springfield Armory report advised against adoption of the rifle, stating that "it would take five years or more to take it through tests to adoption".

Besically George Sullivan killed the AR-10, and deserves to rot in hell for it.

>>33351811
>>33352746

Lindybeige eat shit, the Portuguese held Mozambique and Angola when the coup came.

File: 11008360_923104804396916_170457323_n.jpg (167KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 640x640px

>>33351616
>Is the SR-25 the best semi-automatic 7.62x51mm rifle in existence?
no, pic related is.

File: KAC BTFO Kuckmod BTFO.jpg (87KB, 920x518px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 920x518px

>>33351828
>KAC is great, fuck off.
lol no

>>33353315
too light to actually be a good long distance weapon.

>>33352022
>Because it has Reed Knight's name on the receiver and Eugene Stoner's name on the design documents
this. most of KAC's stuff is actually made outside of KAC, iirc a lot of it is made by LMT. All that money you're paying for a KAC is just for their roll mark.

File: AR10BCatalog1.jpg (399KB, 741x1000px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 741x1000px

>>33351593
>implying

>>33353315
>pic related
is the best 7.62 rifle hiding behind that ugly plank of wood that guy is holding?

>>33353355
According to the britbongs maybe

File: ARs1.jpg (574KB, 1103x746px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 1103x746px

>>33351518
>TFW you can shoot both whenever

>>33353335
>piston AR
>good
ok

File: Mlok master race Geissele master race.jpg (440KB, 1500x844px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1500x844px

>>33353689
stay mad Reed Knight

>>33353916
I don't even care about the SR-25. If it was me I'd have chosen the Mk20 SSR. The HK417 is shit, piston ARs need to die already.

>>33353916
>That fucking handguard though

So did HK make that, or is Geissele making it for them?

>>33351811
>>33352746
>rifles are the reasons why people lose wars
Here are (you)r (you)s for (you)r shit bait

>>33353335

As far as HK stuff goes, is it more realistic to imagine that we'll get one of these sold to the general public before the G28 or are they both just as much of a pipe dream?

I'd do unspeakably terrible things for one of either.

>>33354043

>images of a prototype .308 AR SMR posted on arfcom years back
>complete silence about it since
>Geissele churns out a new rail for a rifle we can't even buy first

Goddamnit, Bill, I trusted you. I trusted you and you hurt me.

>>33354169
>what is Franco-prussia war

File: blow it out your ass.jpg (45KB, 712x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 712x402px

>>33354450
>rifles in what's considered as a modern war of the 20th Century where artillery and air support is responsible for the most casualties, along with the seizure of important territories and cities dictate the outcome of battle
>Implying it was firearm technology from your basic bitch singleshot riflemen and not the usage of combined arms, and a strong leadership in the military that won the war
Have another (you).

>>33354655
>>33354450
To be fair the Prussian tropps had a sgnifigant advantage by being able to lay prone while operating the bolts on their gun's but it's jsut that. Unless one nation's rifle has a significant game changing leap in technology (true in the Franco Prussian war, not with Portugal) it doesn't make a huge difference when compared to shit like artillery and logistics ability.

>>33351630
>>33351811
Both of you calm down and say your sorry to one another. Less name calling more bwop bwop bwop square up irl fgts

File: IMG_6776.gif (2MB, 260x142px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x142px

>>33355018
What is this, niggerspeak?

>>33352889
George Sullivan? or Jim Sullivan?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/24/breaking-jim-sullivan-ar-15-designer-makes-some-controversial-claims-on-hbo-tonight/

>>33355338
Jim Sullivan wasn't even employed by ArmaLite at the time.

>>33353315
A tuning fork isn't a rifle, anon.

>>33355352
interesting.. is there a relation between the two?
do you have any recommended readings into the ar15/ar10 you view as a go to?

>>33355380
No relation between the two, as far as I'm aware.

As for resources:
This guy's a bit a Colt shill (used to work there, apparently) but he knows a shitload about the AR-15 and its history. Literally wrote a collector's guide book on it.

Most of his content is fairly shallow, but more informative than most - still not as in-depth as I like, and I disagree with some of his biases, but he gives a decent overview.

For some general information on the development of the AR-10/AR-15 and its adoption, with all the problems that followed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYLkrethQA

And the follow-ups on the development of the M4 Carbine. Yes, they are different! Slightly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmi3SzkOIiQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0xpjy-IIIE


And then there's Ian's interview with Jim Sullivan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUKXIrDE0I

File: Q6hPmz.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x180px

>>33354655

>>33355352
Jim Sullivan is a traitorous fudd

>>33351630
The only time Africa comes up in schools is when talking about Egypt, until you get to college and have to take specific courses

>>33356201
It got moved when some moron said that it was the rifle of the losing side. OP said battle tested, 13 years of war against unwashed commies counts as battle.

>>33356201
Subtle.

>>33351518
Because whoever wanted 7.62x51 rifle had either FAL or G3 at this point.

>>33357812
These are superior to the ar10

>>33358064
I would personally say the ar10 is better, but these countries aren't going to go through the expensive process of rearming their service rifle for a marginal advantage.

>>33351984
Because no military/government ever just buys the guns. Military contracts frequently contain measures and riders for things like training from private sector; engineers/maintainers to work on the parts and weapons; training courses for the military members who will be using them; a travel budget for the private sector personnel to meet/greet with government contacts including air fare, hotels, and food; offloading the entire cost of production onto the government, including collection of base materials, fabrication, shipping, packaging, etc.

Government contracts are literally the best thing a private company can get, because it's essentially free money and the government will almost always agree to pay for whatever stupid shit you ask for.

This is actually why the U.S. military "needed" over a trillion dollars a year to maintain successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of private sector government contracting jewery, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either utterly ignorant or plain stupid.

File: IMG_6753.jpg (216KB, 808x1024px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 808x1024px

>>33358204
Why is an sr25 14k for civilians. Will they send big titty bitches over to suck my kac?

>>33358764
It's 14k because they can.

>>33353402
>>33353402

It wasn't accuracy related, it was volume of fire related.

File: 1480266769282.png (446KB, 732x412px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 732x412px

>>33353315
>People suggest getting Elcan for Scar 17
>Decide to look it up
>Costs over 2 grand almost as much as the gun itself.

>>33351518

Better question is why the AR18 wasn't adopted.

File: tumblr_nb7jgq9kcR1slfxluo1_1280.jpg (40KB, 509x429px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 509x429px

>>33358764
>ejection port facing away from his visor yet it can bee seen in his visor

>>33359183
The one that goes up to 6x costs more.

>>33357262
>Jim Sullivan is a traitorous fudd

>HBO edited the interview footage to make it seem like he's anti-gun

>>33359830
HBO news is way more credible than some old fudd.

>>33357812
What he said

>>33361417
But those are heavy and shitty

>>33361676
The guy that made the FAL basically gave away the TDP for it to all the allied nations involved in "saving" Belgium during WW2.

Germans didn't have that, and needed to restart their arms industry, so the newly-founded H&K's G3 was a nice substitute.

And of course the guys running the USA's Ordnance Dept were still circlejerking over the Garand.

>>33361676
Every cold war battle rifle was heavy and shit, AR10 included.

>>33353315
eww

>>33353315
>reciprocating charging handle
but why? What is the benefit of this?

>>33362211
Cheaper to manufacture.

>>33362211
You can use it as a forward assist, as well as see immediately if you're in battery.

>>33362253
>$2700 gun
>>33362258
Hadn't considered that, thank you

>>33351811
>USA "lost" Vietnam, therefore the M-14, AR-15 and 1911 are shit.

>>33353315

correct

>>33362299
>$2700 gun

I said cheaper to manufacture, not cheaper for you, goyim.

>>33362316
Correct

The brits use ar10s in Dmr roles in pretty big numbers

>>33362658
This

>>33362316
The USA did not "loose Vietnam" The USA won more battles, and killed more gooks. They signed a peace treaty, and the Viet Con broke the treaty, but by that point, America didn't want to be involved in a war that was none of their business to begin with, so they didn't do anything about it.

>>33362682
>we dedicated years of fighting to stop the Commies taking the south
>but when they did we didn't fail

>>33353404
blahblahblah

File: Sudanese AR-10.jpg (97KB, 1142x328px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1142x328px

>>33353404
>tfw want to build a sudo-retro AR-10 clone
>cant find any AR-10 uppers that dont have rails
>no one makes 80 lowers that arent AR-308

Fucking kill me dude

File: me telling a socialist about all the positive benefits of a free market economy but he didn't really have a response because he got so worked up that he had to leave.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>33362562
Sorry Schlomo, please don't take away my Good Goy points.

>>33362682

But we could never win Vietnam without a political solution. We got stuck backing a shitty regime.

>>33355461
That guy is a fucktard.

>>33353366
What is KAC selling that's actually made by LMT?

>>33357305
No (evils of) colonialism chapters?

>>33362682
>loose
DIAF, nigger

>>33363347
>sudo-
You, too

>>33359200
The ar18 was designed so nations without modern industry could make them on their own due to the stamped design. The ar15 shoots softer and is a nicer gun overall so there was no reason for the Americans to switch over, and many nations that could benefit from the ar18 design already got foreign aid weapons like Israel dropping the galil for cheap/free m16s, or had invested heavily in older tech such as battle rifles given from nations that phased them out for intermediate rifles and didn't want to spend money on a domestic industry or retraining all their men.

>>33361763
I wouldn't say shit, but certainly heavy compared to the m16, although the ar10 would be the lightest of the bunch with its aluminum reciever.

File: 1489862389182-k.jpg (48KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x699px

>>33363347
Hey man check out KEARMS they got a 80% lower in the .308 section.

>>33353942

How is the HK417 shit, and why do piston AR's need to die?

>>33364334
The HK417 is shit because it's a piston AR. Piston ARs are shit because the AR-15's bolt carrier and upper receiver design don't constrain the pitch or yaw of the bolt.

>>33364542
My MR762 works great, no signs of abnormal wear due to the often parroted carrier tilt and things you are parroting.

The H&K 416 and 417 have the longest track record as far as piston AR's go.

>>33353689
That's why everyone is transitioning to them beside the overly opiniated autismos that come to this shit site.

>>33364619
>My MR762 works great, no signs of abnormal wear due to the often parroted carrier tilt and things you are parroting.
How many rounds through it? Carrier tilt isn't 'parroted'. It's simple physics. You WILL see reduced bolt lifespan because the bolt is no longer extended towards the inside face of the barrel extension before unlocking and is unlocking against the lugs of the barrel extension at an angle. It's a flawed design borne out of wanting to maintain parts compatibility it doesn't have anyway.

File: t91.jpg (19KB, 550x265px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 550x265px

>>33364619
>The H&K 416 and 417 have the longest track record as far as piston AR's go.

Actually the Taiwanese T65 family of rifles, the latest iteration being the T91 are probably the oldest pistion driven ar derivatives out there. The upper draws heavily from the ar18 piston design but they chose to retain the ar15 style bcg and buffer system while being 100% compatible with any milspec ar15 lower. It's a pretty neat concept, and while the hk rifles may have the advantage of being a newer design with a free float barrel, these have been around a long time and have found use in many nations. Including Jordan and India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T91_assault_rifle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T65_assault_rifle

>>33364840
Isn't WPA trying to import Type 91 uppers?

>>33364845
yeah, they have already sent production models to gun reviewers and bloggers. The holdup for the next batch is fabricating M4 height front sights so it will be compatible with buis and red dots.

>>33364822

1400 so far since I got it in January. No marking on the buffer tube from the dreaded carrier tilt. No wear on the bolt. Pretty boring really. We will see what happens when I start getting up there in rounds, but no abnormal wear whatsoever.

I have yet to find data showing that the H&K piston guns eat bolts. Could you point that out for me?

File: 20170313_171810.jpg (2MB, 4032x2268px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x2268px

>>33364845
Yeah they're supporting the LEO version that has a slightly different front sight gasblock combo from the mil spec one. It doesn't have the piccantiny rail for the gl or the bayonet lug, and the front sight post sits in a dovetail that can be removed if you punch out the rollpin.

>>33364872
The current batch that they are going to be selling soon already has the correct height front sight. here's the best video review I can find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psT6Q-v9AY

detailed video about the upper disassembly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMRvkQggjxs

Pic related is the lower i'm going to use on mine for a pseudo type 91 clone. hopefully they'll release the real furniture for sale soon but I think mine looks good enough for now.

>>33365070
If they were to make the real furniture and a milspec gasblock available for sale i'd probably get an 80% and have it engraved to match the real mil spec lowers.

>>33365066
>1400 so far since I got it in January.
That's nothing.
>No marking on the buffer tube from the dreaded carrier tilt.
That's been fixed, it's not the sign of whether or not it occurs. It does and always will until they actually put rails in the carrier and upper receiver like they should, like every other gun that uses an offset impulse to cycle.
>No wear on the bolt.
You definitely won't see it in 1400 rounds and by the time it is noticeable you'll have sheared the lugs off.
>I have yet to find data showing that the H&K piston guns eat bolts. Could you point that out for me?
No one has that data because no one has done the study, but the theory is pretty solid.

>>33365116
I am aware that the round count is low. Still, there are no abnormal signs of wear on the firearm.

The only mention I could find Of a bolt breaking on an H&K piston gun is at 25k with a 416. Others have been reported still running at 60k.

So, you're saying that they break bolts, but you have zero to back it up, other than a solid theory? Thanks for your expert parroting. At least back up what you are trying to claim, other than theory.

>>33364323
but those are all AR-308 lowers and not true AR-10 lowers

>>33365160
How is that possible when no one has done a test? I can't think for you.

>>33365192
then buy a block of aluminum and rent out the cnc machine bucco.

>>33365192
>>33365210
There is a company in Montana that makes retro AR-10 lowers, but you have to group buy 100 of them at 300 a lower lmao

>>33365209
With how long the 416 and 417 family has been in service, if breaking bolts was a problem, you would be able to find information about it, and would have heard about it.

Its cool though, stick to your theory. Now you can start talking about how the 417 isn't accurate to round out the parroting.

>>33365240
>With how long the 416 and 417 family has been in service, if breaking bolts was a problem, you would be able to find information about it, and would have heard about it.
From who? The governments purchasing 416s and 417s probably don't even notice the increased maintenance.

File: Taiwanese T91.jpg (617KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1280x960px

>>33365070
I cant fucking wait for the T91 uppers, Im also sad they arent brining in the stock and grip and rear sight. Maybe one day. I also hope the bring in the T65. That shit would be bitchen

>>33365245
Now your're just bringing in speculation, and making up excuses, as to why there are no recorded reliability issues to hold together your unproven theory. It doesn't matter how "solid" you think your theory is. Without any evidence, or even stories of it breaking you have nothing but an unsubstantiated claim that has no place being treated like a fact. No matter how hard you may believe it to be true.

>>33365245
Keep trying. Stay mad parrot.

>>33365245
Increased maintenance and straight up catastrophic failures of parts while in operation are two entirely different things. How would know one notice a bunch of bolts shitting themselves all the time? That's the kind of thing that comes up in expense reports.

>>33365358
I meant no not know sorry, typing this on my phone.

>>33365245
You do know that the US Army states the bolt life on the M4 is 6,000 rounds right?

So, you are stating your theory is that the 417 bolt lasts less than that.

But you have zero proof to back this up other than wild assed speculations?

Whew lads, we have an expert here.

File: us victory.png (18KB, 316x305px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 316x305px

>>33362316
Is that what you call victory?

>>33366423
Btfo

>>33351597
They were still trying to standardize the fal among allies around that time

>>33365192
What's the difference between them?

>>33353355
>watches one forgotten weapons video.
>takes opinions as fact.

>>33368441
are you badmouthing gunjesus?

>>33363369
sawce?

>>33364822
You guys always say this, but why don't other piston rifles have this problem?

>>33368507
What other piston rifles?

>>33368483
No, I am bad mouthing you for parroting someone elses idea like a thoughtless drone.

>>33368515
Lol? Like the G36, FAL, M14, SCAR, and BRen?

>>33368528
All of those rifles have the bolt carrier riding on rails and the FAL doesn't even have a rotating bolt.

>>33368554
You do know the AR-15 BCG rides on rails right?

Also how do rails stop torque on the bolt?

>>33368515
Type 65, 86, and 91. The ocean chinks have been using piston ars for four decades now. The design is working good enough for them that it has been used in 3 generations of piston ar derivatives and they have been able to export them successfully.

>>33368563
>You do know the AR-15 BCG rides on rails right?
No, it doesn't.
>Also how do rails stop torque on the bolt?
The motion of the bolt carrier can be constrained left to right/up and down.

>>33368600
>No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, on the bottom of the carrier.

>The motion of the bolt carrier can be constrained left to right/up and down.

The rails and the receiver walls on an AR don't do this? Also there would still be some torque and movement as the parts have some leeway on all rifles.

>>33368596
I'm sure. You can get around this design flaw and create a product that has acceptable durability for your customers. It's just not ideal.
>>33368614
>Yes it does, on the bottom of the carrier.
Those are clearances for the fire controls.
>The rails and the receiver walls on an AR don't do this?
No.
>Also there would still be some torque and movement as the parts have some leeway on all rifles.
You're right, but it's minimized.

>>33362708

We fought the NVA to a point where they signed a peace treaty. We then pulled out troops out as part of the deal.

2 fucking years later they break the treaty.

How the fuck does that equal a loss on our part?

>>33368641
>Those are clearances for the fire controls.

Lol no, the FC group only makes contact at the hammer which is in the middle.

>You're right, but it's minimized.

So they also have carrier tilt, but it is somehow less than an AR-15 because of reasons.

>>33354450
>Result: Decisive Prussian victory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassepot

It's like you weren't even trying, nigger

>>33368695
You're going to have to show me where you think these rails are.
>but it is somehow less than an AR-15 because of reasons.
Yes, the reason being their movement is constrained. The AR-15's bolt carrier is not.

>>33368497
Netlix - Narcos. Show about Pablo Escobar and cops chasing him.

>>33368732
>The AR-15's bolt carrier is not.

Except it is because there are rails.

>>33368774
Again, where do you think these rails are?

File: See the rails nogunz.jpg (109KB, 1250x833px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1250x833px

>>33368774
>>33368785
Sorry I forgot the pic.

>>33368796
Those are not capable of preventing the BCG from pitching up and down.

>>33368796
Looks like a bolt specifically designed for someone's piston gun, normal/mil spec bolts don't have those.

>>33368842
If you actually owned an AR you would know that is a lie. My BCM carrier has those same rails.

>>33368836
How so they are at the top and bottom quarters of the cylinder.

>>33368842
They are there to make lockup more consistent.
>>33368873
>How so they are at the top and bottom quarters of the cylinder.
They are only at the front, and on one side. If they were on both sides and actually interfaced with something on the upper receiver, then they would function like they do on other rifles.

>>33368925

Every time we prove that piston ars are effective and reliable guns you keep on pulling shit out of your ass or outright denying that they are a thing.

There is nothing wrong with you having a preference for DI ars, its a good design that is cheaper, lighter weight, has less parts and has a large after market with easy sourcing or replacement parts since most piston guns are proprietary to the manufacturer.

But denying the fact that there are good factory built piston ar designs, one of which has been inactive military service for over 40 years, (I don't doubt that some of your claims have a bit of truth to them when we're talking about shitty drop in piston conversion kits) that increase the reliability, make suppressed shooting run better, and run cleaner; just because you want to make everyone believe your preference is the objective best is just retarded.

>>33368984
I didn't deny that there are serviceable piston ARs. I said they have a flawed design. I'm sorry you can't handle that. Have a good day, man.

I wonder how different it would make a piston AR if the rails (on the carrier) were replaced with spring loaded rollers (or ball bearings) with a good amount of forcing keeping them in place?

>>33369023
How are they a flawed design? you keep on claiming that because of your "Solid Theory" but carrier tilt meme is something that h&k and the Taiwan guns have never had any reported issues with and both have stellar service records stretching about a decade for the hk and 41 years for the t65. Just because you keep saying its a "flawed design" or "The governments purchasing 416s and 417s probably don't even notice the increased maintenance.", because having to keep a few backup bolts on hand is something that never came up during testing or in the past 10 years of it being fielded by the US Military. The fact that they are expanding the use of piston ars to the m27 with the lessened maintenance time and costs being a huge factor in the transition to piston ars destroys that argument entirely. Like I said there is nothing wrong with having a preference for DI ars but preference doesn't make the piston designs flawed, "solid" theory or not.

>>33368691
Because Commies winning anything = Us losing.

That's how America thought of every single foreign issue since Stalin rolled into Eastern Europe. Anything that reeked of red commie scum was dealt with one way or another, from Korea, to Guatemala, to Iran, and so forth.

Sure, you can deny Vietnam as a loss and call it whatever you want, but every single American that time would call you a goddamn retard since our price paid in blood didn't equal to a surviving South Vietnam like South Korea or an entirely democratic Vietnam.

>>33351532
>pictured, the entire Portugese military

>>33364794
>everyone
France is just one country

>>33359933
on gun stuff? Hell fucking no.

>>33366423
>2 Years after all US forces are withdrawn the north finally recovers from linebacker 2 and wrecks the south
it was a victory for North Vietnam, but not a defeat for the US. The US had little to no involvement with the wear by the time NV won.

>>33369023
>>33368925
Now you are arguing with 2 people. Just face it, there is nothing wrong with piston ARs.

>>33369087

thats a G3

>>33368925
Just stop already.

You have already been BTFO, and have shown you know nothing other than what you parrot. You make broad statements, not knowing what you speak of, then when called out about it, you have zero to fall back on other than theory.

I have multiple DI AR's and the piston MR, and they are all great guns. The H&K runs clean, is boringly reliable, and is a sub .75 MOA gun. My DI AR's are reliable and sub MOA as well.

You should try running a gun as much as you run your mouth.

>>33355277
what is this from

>>33376285
District 9

>>33355461
I don't really think he's a colt shill. He's said multiple times that it's a dead company. Manta rail protectors on the other hand...