Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Rifle to compete against the AR 2017-06-17 05:23:39 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Rifle to compete against the AR 2017-06-17 05:23:39 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: IMG_0020.jpg (108KB, 736x1308px) Image search:
[Google]
108KB, 736x1308px
Okay.
Let me paint a picture for you guys.
A rifle that is
>$400>
>capable of MOA or better
>compatible with STANAG mags
>5.56 (obviously)
>can take AT LEAST a small number of AR parts so as to be capable of using AR aftermarket
So.
Say it rolled in at 10lbs, started with a fudd stock from the factory but could take an adapter for AR stocks (like an AK with a crapco AR stock adapter) and had a sheet metal and trunnion method of receiver manufacturing.
It had a manual of arms akin to a mini 14 or an SVT 40 (hell, the disassembly method of an SVT-40 roughly) and the dust cover would be easily and cheaply swapped for both railed and iron sighted versions.
The barrel attached via a barrel nut kinda like an uzi meaning caliber swaps are quick and easy, and they only cost the price of a barrel.
It has the ability to take American eagle brand stripper clips.
For $400 NIB (not MSRP, but street price) would people not scream "JUST BUY AN AR!"
Would people give it a chance?
What would be necessary to make people give something besides the AR a chance?
>>
The problem with competing with the AR price point is that it's already been developed, researched, the design has been polished and perfected. To design something new, you have all the costs of R&D, tooling, and testing. That has to be recouped in the price of the product. Even if it were possible to PRODUCE the ne rifle at prices lower than an AR, it would still be more expensive because of the company's need to recover costs.
>>
>>34280207
I understand that.
And I don't have anything in mind as of now.
I'm just saying that, hypothetically, should someone put out a gun with those features that had some cross compatibility with AR parts (trigger packs, stocks, and, with modification, hand guards for instance) would someone even consider it or would "just buy an AR" kill it right off the bat?
>>
>>34280178
>10lbs
no just no
>>
Scar 16. The pricing was a choice by the company. An extruded upper, polymer injected lower, and easily machinable bcg make it quite cheap to produce.
>>
>>34280224
Got it, so the weight would hurt it greatly.
>>34280227
Huh. Interesting. So, given the choice of something akin to (build quality included) a SCAR-16 people (okay, one kommando) would potentially be interested.
>>
>>34280240
even a fal weighs less than 10 lbs. somewhere between 6-8 is ideal but 10 is crazy for something with no optics or other addons.
>>
>>34280221
They exists. There are some higher end bolt guns that use drop in AR trigger packs. There are quite a few AR varients. The Ares Cali compliant straight stock, HK416, things like that which use AR parts in various places. They tend not to take on the AR in price, that's a near impossibility, but rather they try to fill a niche that the AR doesn't. Be that accuracy, piston operation, or just state law compliance.
>>
>>34280266
Okay.
Let's say then that, with some high level magic, it could be produced at 8 lbs.
>>34280274
The idea is to actually use the fact that it has parts compatibility in some way to reduce the cost.
The triggers would be outsourced, the stocks would be outsourced, frankly I could probably have gas blocks outsourced and make them compatible.
We'd be using low end AR components as an advantage in terms of R&D and production, whilst still not being an actual AR.
Kinda like a bastard of an AR-18 and an SVT-40 that uses some parts from the AR.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1