ar dislike!

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by juststartin5272, Apr 28, 2013.

  1. juststartin5272

    juststartin5272 New Member

    196
    0
    0
    Am I the only person that just absolutely hates the ar platform? I have very few things I actually like about it. And to be fair I don't have a complete love for the AK either. I've gotten really into the sig 556. It seems to encompass all the things I like about both platforms into one solid gun.
    I love the reliability factor of an AK, the piston is something I really like. But I tend to feel like the controls of the ar are a bit more functional, except for the charging handle design which I absolutely hate. I would much rather reach under and charge the gun, than have to work to the rear and pull directly toward my face, seems more efficient to me and doesn't ever block my view of the threat. One of the other things I prefer of the ar is the standard cartridge used. Not that I hate the 7.62 but the 5.56 is much more manageable and much more accurate in my opinion.
    Anyone else feel this way or similar? Anyone feel as though I'm misguided in my opinions of these weapon systems?
     
  2. rhyno13

    rhyno13 New Member

    664
    0
    0
    No, your not the only person. I hate them as well. I prefer a good bolt action over the AR or AK.
     

  3. juststartin5272

    juststartin5272 New Member

    196
    0
    0
    And I know someone will say that the bolt release on an ar is so you don't have to pull the charging handle everytime. In my opinion small manipulation such as that are too complex in a stressful situation and the chances for foul ups are greatly increased. Which is one reason I love that ak's don't have a bolt hold open on the last round, makes every manipulation or malfunction technique the same. And as we all know simplicity always wins over complexity.
     
  4. juststartin5272

    juststartin5272 New Member

    196
    0
    0
    I like a bolt gun, but if you had to choose a small caliber semi auto rifle what would it be? AK or ar? Or perhaps something totally different?
     
  5. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,927
    67
    48
    Nope you're not the only one. I tend to like them. But neither one of us is the only one in either camp.
     
  6. rhyno13

    rhyno13 New Member

    664
    0
    0
    Probably a mini 14 or mini 30
     
  7. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I have no REAL love for the AR, but there are some major benefits. For one thing, parts are oozing out of everyone's ***, so to speak. It truly is the Barbie doll for men, it can be accessorized, customized, and modified for any and every situation, circumstance, need, and user. It truly is a "do all", within it's chambering's capabilities. You can go from a PDW suitable for briefcase carry, to a mid range varmint rifle in about 2 seconds flat, either being suitable for a ten year old noob, a 30 year old combat veteran, or a geriatric on vacation from the nursing home.

    This also means it can be fixed quick, cheap, and easy, but it's also a pretty durable gun these days. A lot of R&D has gone into them since they were introduced.

    But... I haven't jumped on the bandwagon. When it comes to a "battle rifle", I've already decided the M1A is the one for me. Just gotta save up that dough. Here's the kicker: I've never fired one, and only held it once. But it's like the antique double barrel shotgun I just got, when you find something that fits just SO PERFECT, you know it's the one. It's a gun that's almost as customizable as the AR too, with a round I much prefer over the standard .223/5.56. I know the AR10 comes in the same chambering, but the M1A is a freaking glove. AR's have just only ever fit me "good enough", but never perfectly.
     
  8. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    That's a great point. When I was serving, my unit was beginning to teach the guys to exclusively use the charging handle just for this purpose. The bolt release was only to be used for COD on the parade field.
     
  9. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    In practical terms, I also dislike the AK, and feel an SKS is more

    accurate, and better made.

    The US doesn't have an inexpensive semi milsurp weapon like the SKS.

    But the M1 carbine is epic, and loved by many.



    What I specifically dislike about the AR is all the tacti-crap. The

    AR-15 which was adopted by the army, as the M-16, is a clean

    design, albeit a full size rifle. But it is what it is, and there's

    nothing at all wrong with that. A great set of iron sights, a very

    functional carry handle, a very accurate platform. More moving

    and full maintenance parts than I personally like to see, but

    so what? I'm a fussy PITA anyways.

    But just try to find a simple, standard M-16 style AR to add to

    your milsurp collection. Cheese and rice.

    And stop talking about bolt-actions. You're making me drool

    all over my keyboard.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013
  10. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,450
    358
    83
    Yeah. I had the same dilemma. So I bought them both...twice.
    Then fell in love with the FAL.
     
  11. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    And I'll note, it was mentioned "pulling straight back towards the face"...

    I've given myself a black eye in a CQB course. To be fair though, I was the only SAW gunner taking that particular course. I was the company driver for the day, and they had an extra **** ton of ammo, and this captain wanted me to check out on his M4. It was customized with stuff he only got away with because of his rank. He thought I should have some fun because I was essentially his personal driver for the day and we had the same taste in music...strange fella.
     
  12. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    89
    48
    I've never had any major problems with the AR, but I don't use crap magazines or inappropriate lubrication (no lube, too little lube, or a lightweight oil for a high round count shoot).

    If you use PMAG's, a high temperature grease for high round count shoots between lubrication, and you give it a decent wipe down every now and again, you won't have too many problems, assuming you understand that the operating components are consumable items that have to be replaced at regular round count intervals.

    The military likes to run things until they break, which is stupid from a reliability standpoint, but it probably saves them a few dollars here and there at the cost of a few lives.

    If the military didn't insist on trying to make every weapon in the inventory a machine gun, with all the money saved on wasted ammo, attempts to address problems with engineering that would have best been answered with common sense, and wasting money testing new weapons that don't improve upon existing designs from a practical standpoint, there'd probably be enough money to make every shooter in the Army and Marine Corps an expert marksman and to purchase a match trigger, like a Geissele, for every M4 carbine in the inventory.

    The notion that you can use a high speed, high tolerance machine without lubrication is a foreign concept to me and I'm not sure where that came from. The same people that understand that cars require motor oil to run can't comprehend the idea that a piston operated rifle requires the same.

    Oh well, I'm sure it's time to waste some more money blazing away and trying to engineer a solution to a non-existent problem.
     
  13. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    89
    48
    If the military wants to blow some cash on improvements to the AR design, I'd look into coatings that reduce the need for lubrication on the bolt and carrier, improving the service life of the bolt assembly with improved lug geometry, improving the service life of the springs with better materials, reducing the weight of the bolt carrier and not over-gassing the action so much, designing a plastic lower to reduce weight, and redesigning the buffer spring to reside in the receiver instead of the buffer extension thereby enabling folding stocks to be used.

    Apart from that, external piston AR's and completely new rifles are mostly a spectacular waste of time and money. The only external piston rifle I'd look into, if I were the military, would be Rick Crommett's ICE-15. It's the only piston design I've seen to date that actually reduces the recoil force, lightens the operating components, and does away with the buffer spring to permit the use of folding and completely telescoping stocks. All other designs I've seen add weight to the rifle, increase recoil force, unbalance the rifle, or all of the aforementioned. That is not "improving" the design to my way of thinking.

    Enough time and money has already been sunk into engineering the AR up to this point. No need to start the process over again back at square one.
     
  14. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    Nothing wrong with an AR. No, it's not a bolt gun. Was it designed to replace the bolt gun? Nope, It's just one mroe in a huge line of long guns. I guess that's the reason for having a really long list of long guns. There is no one size fits all.

    The AR is great for the things it can do. It's modular design allows for reconfiguring in a hurry. The aftermarket allows the end user to set it up to their individual wants or needs. Many other rifles do not do this as well.

    I'll give you the 5.56 is a flatter round over distance than the 7.62x39. That pesky gravity can be a pain.:)

    I lean to older long guns personally. I like steel and wood. I like to feel like I'm holding something. I own an AR, an AK, and a SKS and have a lot of fun shooting them. But I get really jazzed shooting one of my Enfields or my 03A3. But tyhe AR and the commie guns have their place and can be a lot of fun too.
     
  15. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,638
    849
    113
    I guess one of the things I like best about the AR is the lack of a piston. I also like the reliability and accuracy.
     
  16. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    They started seriously screwing with the balance when makers started playing around with pistons...

    I wouldn't have a standard piston driven AR, period. Give me one for free, I'll sell it first chance I get. Might as well hang a dumb bell from the muzzle.
     
  17. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    89
    48
    All AR's have pistons. Stoner's movement of the piston to the bolt carrier improved the balance of the rifle and his use of aluminum alloys lightened the receiver. Apart from that, the only real advances in rifle design have been in improved materials (higher grade steel and aluminum alloys), better process quality control (CNC milled components and heat treatment in particular), and improved accessory mounting technology for optics, lasers, and control/ergonomics accessories.

    The roller lockers accomplished the same thing, but the design of the mechanism was such that the roller locking rifles and carbines have more recoil and sharper recoil impulses than Stoner's designs. The weight of the roller locking weapons was purely a byproduct of industrial design at the time, which favored steel over the then new aluminum alloys. Lighter receivers and trigger groups are entirely possible to produce and at least two firms, apart from HK, produced lighter weight components (receivers and trigger groups) for roller locking rifles and carbines. A redesign of the locking mechanism using improved geometry and lighter materials would be necessary to produce a rifle on par with a Stoner pattern design.

    Not to get too off-topic here, but I'll explain what I mean.

    The HK P9/P9S is an example of a roller locker design that improves upon weight and recoil characteristics over comparable designs. The .45 ACP P9 series weigh less than a steel frame 1911. The weight differential is very slight, but recoil characteristics are noticeably different. From having fired aluminum (slightly lighter than a P9S) and steel frame (slightly heavier than a P9S) commander model 1911's and a P9S side-by-side for comparison the P9S permits more rounds on target in a given period of time.

    This relates back to the AR design because no other 556 rifle or carbine design that I've shot permitted more rounds on target in a given period of time. I've shot Colt, HK, FNH, and some other "wonder piston" AR's. You can hate them all you want, but the design is superior for putting rounds on target in a given period of time.
     
  18. juststartin5272

    juststartin5272 New Member

    196
    0
    0
    Stoners original design is a direct gas impingement system, not a piston system. Kalishnikov uses the long stroke piston system in the AK, and most Ar platforms using a piston system accomplish that with the short stroke design.
     
  19. DTOM97

    DTOM97 New Member

    37
    0
    0
    I agree with everything you said. Although I love the AR, my dream rifle is an M1A.
     
  20. kbd512

    kbd512 Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,732
    89
    48
    Apparently the concept isn't clear, so I'll repeat my earlier comment. Every AR has a gas piston. The gas piston in Stoner's design is located in the bolt carrier.

    Those gas rings you see at the base of the bolt are there to prevent gas from blowing by them. Don't take my word for it, go pull the bolt on your AR.

    The so-called "piston" AR's have a gas piston located near the gas block. If you can show me an AR without a piston, I'd love to see it.

    After reading my post, I see that the concept isn't crystal clear so I'll add this tidbit: the bolt on a Stoner pattern AR is the gas piston.