Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   General Rifle Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/)
-   -   Not a fan (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/not-fan-49186/)

tierone 10-03-2011 03:40 AM

Not a fan
 
You guys might hate for this but unlike a lot of you I'm not a huge fan of the AR-15. Now don't get me wrong I respect it but I feel like it isn't what our military needs right now. For starters it's round, the 5.56, doesn't have enough stopping power. American soldiers have complained in Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan, and many other theaters of battle, about how the 5.56 round hitting their enemies and not putting them down, it would just pass right through them. Another problem I have with it is it's direct impingement gas system. It is unreliable and causes jams. We have had problems with this system since the original AR-15's in Vietnam. The advantages of the AR-15 are accuracy, modularity, and familiarity. Many of us were raised on the AR. There are several potential replacements for the AR-15. Some of these are the Remington ACR, FN SCAR, HK 416, and the XM8. I am personally a fan of the ACR. It's short stroke gas piston system is extremely reliable. Its top reciever can be changed out to shoot the 5.56, 6.8, and 7.62x39mm cartridges. I think our military should be giving the best to our soldiers. What do you guys think?

Papa_Woody 10-03-2011 03:59 AM

I am pretty torn... While carrying it for Uncle Sam, I felt outgunned. It required constant attention, I also felt the round was some sort of BS compromise for the UN and the Lefties trying to regulate how we fight a war. I swore when I came home I would never pick it up again, swapping it for an AK.

Now, I own one. Bought it cause it's light, accurate and holds plenty. And it's familiar. I can utilize it's modular abilities as I see fit ( as opposed to being limited by uncle Sam). While I love the AK, the nimbleness of the AR suits me with it's lowered recoil and lighter ammo.

Do I feel like our boys are still outgunned? Somewhat. But it's not up to us. Which sucks. But where it may seem outgunned by the ak from one angle, from another it outguns the ak. And it's not the only gun we have....

Axxe55 10-03-2011 04:20 AM

well i am going to throw my opinion in here. 5.56mm round in the military is limited, (fmj). civilian world we have many more options as to bullet type, that takes some of the limitations out of the equation. gas pistons, IMO are better than the gas tube method, but are more expensive. also the military buys weapons buy contract and whoever has the best price wins the contract. i have a Bushmaster M4A2 carbine and am very fond of it. would really like the same gun in 6.8 spc. i think the 6.8 is a better round than the 5.56, but this is just my opinion and what i have read about ballistics between the two rounds. i would like to see a comparison between the two in a real world type test. tests from two similar rifles, tested for accuracy, reliability, functioning, weight, knockdown power, ect. ect..

MrWray 10-03-2011 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tierone
You guys might hate for this but unlike a lot of you I'm not a huge fan of the AR-15. Now don't get me wrong I respect it but I feel like it isn't what our military needs right now. For starters it's round, the 5.56, doesn't have enough stopping power. American soldiers have complained in Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan, and many other theaters of battle, about how the 5.56 round hitting their enemies and not putting them down, it would just pass right through them. Another problem I have with it is it's direct impingement gas system. It is unreliable and causes jams. We have had problems with this system since the original AR-15's in Vietnam. The advantages of the AR-15 are accuracy, modularity, and familiarity. Many of us were raised on the AR. There are several potential replacements for the AR-15. Some of these are the Remington ACR, FN SCAR, HK 416, and the XM8. I am personally a fan of the ACR. It's short stroke gas piston system is extremely reliable. Its top reciever can be changed out to shoot the 5.56, 6.8, and 7.62x39mm cartridges. I think our military should be giving the best to our soldiers. What do you guys think?

I really like the way that the ACR looks, i read another thread on here that most of the ACRs are having slam fire issues and unreliability due to it.. Any knowledge of this?

jpattersonnh 10-03-2011 04:41 AM

Bushmaster introduced the ACR, Not Remington. Can you say Fishing!!!!

BadBob 10-03-2011 10:16 PM

5.56
 
This is why so many are currently looking at going to the .308

therewolf 10-03-2011 10:27 PM

There actually has been a resurgence of the M14, in .308,

with and without stoner-style stocks the last few years.

IMO, the AR in 5.56 is great for what it does well, but a mix

of AR-10s in .308, and something perhaps even longer range,

such as a scoped Rem in 30.06 would be an improvement over

simply an issue of all 5.56 ammo...

What they're finding over in the hot zones, is they're

out-ranged by machine-guns at 400 to 700 yards, and

even a single determined shooter with a Mauser or Mosin at 750+

yards can be a headache.

But it's hard to speak for soldiers in the field, as to what an

optimum replacement rifle in the field would be.

Maybe they'd just like it better if we brought them all home for Christmas...

Snakedriver 10-03-2011 10:54 PM

Despite what the nay sayers have to say, the AR-15 system and its spawn have been in use in the military for nearly 50 years with a great deal of success and its killed ten & tens of thousands of our enemy quite effectively. Just as dead as they would be if they were shot with a .30-06.

Most military engagements take place at ranges not exceeding 300 yards, which is well within the limitations of the 5.56mm NATO round. I'll never understand why so many insist on trying to turn the 5.56 into a long range sniper round.

I have to believe that if the military could come up with a better caliber and design for their individual soldier carried weapon, they would have by now. Look at how quickly they dumped the .30-40 Krag in times past.

Yes, if you choose to misapply the weapon into a role it was never intended you'll come away disappointed, but when used for what it is it has performed admirably.

ETA: BTW, between the aviation assets and the Rangers in Somolia we killed over 10,000 Somoli's in the now famous "Blackhawk Down" incident. I'd say someone's weapons were being effective. I also don't believe that anyone is going to get up after being shot with a 5.56 round from an M4 at close range. I've seen the wounds, it 'aint gonna happen.

baddog 10-03-2011 11:38 PM

This is just my opinion but after owning and shooting the AR15 in 5.56 I have since built a Generic 6.5 Grendel .Because of trademarks it is technically a 6.5 BPC since I built it from a barrel blank and a reamer from PTG.Like I said this is only my opinion but that is what the AR 15 should of been .Hands down beats the 5.56 round in all ways.Haven't put the 5.56 top on since.

JonM 10-04-2011 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tierone (Post 591716)
You guys might hate for this but unlike a lot of you I'm not a huge fan of the AR-15. Now don't get me wrong I respect it but I feel like it isn't what our military needs right now. For starters it's round, the 5.56, doesn't have enough stopping power. American soldiers have complained in Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan, and many other theaters of battle, about how the 5.56 round hitting their enemies and not putting them down, it would just pass right through them. Another problem I have with it is it's direct impingement gas system. It is unreliable and causes jams. We have had problems with this system since the original AR-15's in Vietnam.

the m16 and the 5.56 is the longest serving combo in us history. if there was something truly better we would be using it.

the 5.56 is a man killer and does the job exceedingly well.

the di system is extremely reliable. the only problem its ever had is when it was first introduced no cleaning kits were issued and the ammo given to the troops was extremely dirty. those problems were corrected and its been a super reliable system since then.

nato didnt force us to adopt the 5.56. they were using 7.62x51 and a slew of other rounds. nato adopted the 5.56 because its a lightweight extremely effective round. its low recoil makes it easy for soldiers to shoot for very long periods of time. the lightweight ammo means they can carry a LOT of ammo. low recoil means accurate fast follow up shots.

unless i was toting my issued M60 i wanted a m16a2. today my goto rifle is my ar15a1.

if i need real shotrange punch i can slap my 458socom upper on the lower and im shooting the equivelent of 45-70 rounds...

ill take the ar15 anytime.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:09 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.