Not a fan

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by tierone, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. tierone

    tierone New Member

    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?
  2. Papa_Woody

    Papa_Woody New Member

    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....

  3. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    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..
  4. MrWray

    MrWray New Member

    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?
  5. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

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

    BadBob New Member


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

    therewolf New Member

    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...
  8. Snakedriver

    Snakedriver New Member

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2011
  9. baddog

    baddog New Member

    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.
  10. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    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.
  11. Johnny357

    Johnny357 New Member

    Part of the switch to intermediate cartridges after WW2 was because iron sights aren't accurate beyond 200 yards. Why give a soldier a heavy battle rifle capable of accuracy well beyond that if the sights aren't up to it? But photos that I see of the troops nowadays shows them all with an ACOG on their rifle. So now perhaps the inverse is true - modern solders have the capability of engaging targets well beyond the effective range of their rifles. Time to bring those M-14s out of mothballs and trick them out with modern sights?
  12. tierone

    tierone New Member

    Actually the ACR was originally introduced by Magpul Industries as the Magpul Masada. Bushmaster soon after bought the rights to it for mass production. Remington bought the rights to it not to long ago.
  13. Wambli

    Wambli Member

    That is 100% correct, plenty of folks *****ing about the platform and cartridge, but not usually the ones wiping out enemy troops with it. Today's M-4 is a magnificent weapon system.
  14. trip286

    trip286 New Member


    Therein lies the problem. The 5.56 simply isn't a heavy enough bullet to be a reliable man stopper at extreme ranges. I have no complaints about it at less than 250-300 meters, it served me well in Afghanistan and Iraq, and my ranges were always less than 250, except for once.
  15. tierone

    tierone New Member

    I'm not saying change from a 5.56 to a 7.62. What I'm saying is change to round that can knock a man down with one shot. The problem with the 5.56 is that it goes extremely fast and has deep penetration which is fine except for that it is such a small bullet that it just flows right through the person. It doesn't tumble. A 6.8 has the penetration of a 5.56 with the knockdown power of a larger round. Look at the ballistics of both rounds and you will see what I meam
  16. tierone

    tierone New Member

    I personally was a huge fan of the AR-15 until my uncle ( who was a marine for 20 years) brought all of this to my attention. I had had no personal experience with the weapon at that point. Not trying to be disrespectful but he was wiping out enemy troops with it and he didn't like it. You would be surprised how many American soldiers agree with him. The platform was revolutionary at it's time but now there are evident changes to be made to the system that we have been using for 50 years.
  17. Gator45

    Gator45 New Member

    Thanks, all I need
    to know.
  18. tierone

    tierone New Member

    That was only part of the answer later on I got ahold of the weapon and confirmed all that he had told me.
  19. M14sRock

    M14sRock Active Member

    The M855 ammo is too stable. It drills through. The M193 was not as stable, and tended to tumble and yaw. Though the lighter bullet of the two, the 55gr M193 causes much more traumatic wounds on soft targets.

    I'd like to agree that the DI system is not reliable, but it is boringly so. DI works, and it works damn near flawlessly.

    The original early M16s had problems related to the ball powder used in the ammo, and from a lack of chrome plated chambers and bores. Today, the M16 just plain works.
  20. unclebear

    unclebear New Member

    I too dislike the AR's I like my Colt for plinking, but as far as defense I don't like it. I would prefer to carry an M14 over the M4 or M16 it maybe be a heavy SOB but at least I know that when I hit someone with it there going down. In some cases the AK47 is better then the M16 it may not have the range but for CQB it's great.