The small upgrades and our #### dollar sort of make all the pricing BS alright. It looks like a great rifle. Maybe if our dollar makes a rebound when we bring back a better government we can get these for a better deal.
can't flood the market with loans and not expect the dollar to drop and interest rates to climb
economics 101
I guess trudeau didn't take that class
I own an AR.
I own an AKM.
If I needed to actually hit a target at any sort of extended range, there is no comparison.
so we are back to M10x problem:
presumably this platform combined the best things from both rifles, hopefully they removed crazy AR butplate spring (mm crap which flies out on disassembly) and simplified the bolt carrier to be one piece and eliminated this crap:
seriously compare the following:
![]()
and now this:
![]()
bolt carrier, charging handle-one single piece of good metal=ultimate engineering beauty no crazy ####ty screws to bolt carrier
Hopefully it is clear, which one is simple and reliable and which one is subject to failures
The problem with M10X is not even its crazy 2000 price, but the fact that M10X was not and is not and will unlikely be service rifle-so less stress, less reliability to begin with..
ANYBODY has a close look of M10X bolt carrier?
Is it this one:
![]()
First, AK's issued to regular soldiers by a 1st world country are just as accurate as AR's, if both rifles are in similar condition and use the same quality ammo. This is a FACT.
I'm not one to slag the AK, I even bought a T81 and have shot lots of AK's. They are an iconic design and a great rifle generally, but... almost all the current AK variants shoot 5.45mm and run stamped and riveted receivers little different than a 1960's era AKM. I love the rifle and it's design, it has many advantages over competing designs, but it's not as accurate as an AR design in my experience.
Virtually all of them (the AK12 excepted, but it's hardly issued in any numbers) have a tangent sight and a short sight radius. On sight radius alone, there is no contest - an AR will shoot better with irons in the hands of the vast majority of shooters.
The AR has other advantages, like drop free mags, but on the accuracy claim alone - the AR's receiver is rigid and has no reciprocating mass over the barrel. An AK has lots of reciprocating mass out over the muzzle, making it inherently less stable unless shot from a rest. The receiver also flexes appreciably more during firing, adding an instability pulse to the action cycle. High speed film footage has long ago proved this as fact.
An AK is accurate enough, if well made and reasonably well maintained - but the average AR will shoot more accurately most of the time. Even comparing regular rack grade issue guns in a first world army.
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to hear
Any serious problem that requires major disassembly-rifle goes to garbage and/or you are dead
yes, AR is more precise, but the sights are not designed for Russian eyes.
no discussion here
the thing is that, it all depends on where the contact is happening-whether open space/ long distance vs CQB or <300m
Lol, That spring is for the captured rear take down pin detent. You could remove it and throw it away and the rifle would still function. You really should try to learn something about the rifle you are trying to bash. You're coming off as very ignorant and you're not convincing anyone that a spring that is there as a convenience feature if a negative to the rifles reliability.
the rifle should not have details, which you can through away and it will still function
I know enough AR = enough to bash crazy engineering ideas, compared to AK.
That spring is just an example
Look at the bolt carrier-WTF there are screws on it? why it is combined of so many pieces-eat it, I am not concentrated on that spring only, look at bolt comparison posted previously, who is ignorant after that? go and love your ferrari aka AR-15, I will love my tank aka AK47/74
And yes in close combat <300-500m 3moa vs 5 moa-who cares and for high distances the .223 power is lost, sure it may be still much more precise than AK, I don't care
cr5-don't know what you are writing, you r in my ignore list, I recommend you to add me to that list too, so we are free from each other company.
I will not edit my post-if banned-ok, no problem, I didn't start "ignorance" accusations and go personal, until somebody kicks me
I hope the thread is not locked.
I do not bash AR, I am criticizing bad things about it, which M+M tried to fix
The following good things are taken from AK:
1. bolt/ carrier simplicity
2. ak47 round/ mag compatibility
3. crazy AR charging handle is now new AK-style ambi-dextrous
The following good things taken from AR:
1. barrel and receiver carrying optics-one piece-maybe the best piece of AR; optic mounting options, co-witnessing was the weakest AK point, for sure
2. safety is more ergonomic now due to AR, it is also ambidextrous. New AK series has nice safety-no hand to be removed from the pistol grip, but making that ambi will look very cumbersome IMHO. I hope M+M makes EUROPEAN style safety aka arrow pointing to the range=shooting, up, auto and backwards=safe, after all that's logical, just like safety in T81-it is bulky , but directions are right, the AR style safety is always on the way of my thumb when in fire position and counterintuitive for most of the planet
I guess gas regulator comes from FAL and the front grip is due to FAL too
This is not complete list by itself
Hopefully it will be as reliable/ simple as AK and as ergonomic/ functional for the most part as AR
r34skyline;14412653.....And the price is hilarious.[/QUOTE said:I could care less about the AK vs AR argument. Wasn't that crap settled by Rambo in like 1985?!?!
What I don't get is people ragging on the 2K price of the M10X. We've all recently seen what $1100 buys you from a country with low labour costs - an unacceptably high rate of out-of-spec Trunion and Buttstock rivetting, resulting in crooked rifles along with some genuinely bent Receivers and hand-ground Bolts! Yes, a CZ 858 can be had for $1400 "new", but most of the parts aside from the Receiver and extended Canadian Barrel are surplus Czech military parts which cost next to nothing. You can cannot compare a rifle built on surplus parts with the cost of manufacturing a entirely new rifle in the USA. For what it is and the machining required, I personally think that $2K on the Canadian market is quite reasonable. I really don't care what they sell for in the US as that is a very different market, awash in $600 AK rifles that the M10X must try to compete against. I also could care less that Wanstall's original pre-sale price was only $1450, given that the price was for vapour rifles that Wanstalls couldn't deliver.
The $2K price is what the Canadian market will likely bear with decent (if not strong) sales. When I looked into doing a 3rd Party Import of a US 16.1" barrelled (restricted) M10X the savings over the Canadian MSRP were negligible once the currency conversion, brokerage fee, shipping, GST and so forth were taken into account. Take the CZ 858 out of the equation with its surplus parts and you aren't left with many 7.62x39mm alternatives on the Canadian market at or below the $2K price-point besides the SKS. Especially non-restricted rifles.
Just my $.02 on the M10X price. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay it? Fine, just move along to something more to your liking without polluting this thread with childish trolling. There is plenty enough of that in the other M10X threads. Just saying....
I could care less about the AK vs AR argument. Wasn't that crap settled by Rambo in like 1985?!?!
What I don't get is people ragging on the 2K price of the M10X. We've all recently seen what $1100 buys you from a country with low labour costs - an unacceptably high rate of out-of-spec Trunion and Buttstock rivetting, resulting in crooked rifles along with some genuinely bent Receivers and hand-ground Bolts! Yes, a CZ 858 can be had for $1400 "new", but most of the parts aside from the Receiver and extended Canadian Barrel are surplus Czech military parts which cost next to nothing. You can cannot compare a rifle built on surplus parts with the cost of manufacturing a entirely new rifle in the USA. For what it is and the machining required, I personally think that $2K on the Canadian market is quite reasonable. I really don't care what they sell for in the US as that is a very different market, awash in $600 AK rifles that the M10X must try to compete against. I also could care less that Wanstall's original pre-sale price was only $1450, given that the price was for vapour rifles that Wanstalls couldn't deliver.
The $2K price is what the Canadian market will likely bear with decent (if not strong) sales. When I looked into doing a 3rd Party Import of a US 16.1" barrelled (restricted) M10X the savings over the Canadian MSRP were negligible once the currency conversion, brokerage fee, shipping, GST and so forth were taken into account. Take the CZ 858 out of the equation with its surplus parts and you aren't left with many 7.62x39mm alternatives on the Canadian market at or below the $2K price-point besides the SKS. Especially non-restricted rifles.
Just my $.02 on the M10X price. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay it? Fine, just move along to something more to your liking without polluting this thread with childish trolling. There is plenty enough of that in the other M10X threads. Just saying....
It seems like you completely missed the point of my post. Did you stop reading after the part that you quoted? Assault rifle "accuracy" is almost completely irrelevant on the battlefield.
Have you ever shot an AK with match grade ammo, from a good rest with a high powered scope? My guess is that you haven't (probably because match grade AK ammo simply doesn't exist). Neither have I. So how can I judge it's inherent accuracy? But again, even if that was the case (AR's being more accurate), it makes NO DIFFERENCE for it's intended purpose. ZERO.
Are AR's sights better suited for precision shooting? Absolutely. Do precision sights make sense for an assault rifle in combat? Absolutely not.
AK's sights (and shorter sight radius) provide faster target acquisition, better sight picture and situational awareness. These benefits are FAR more useful in combat than ability to shoot a slightly more accurately.
Both are good rifles, have their advantages and serve their purpose well. But saying that one is better than other because it's more accurate is like saying that one vehicle mounted HMG is better than another because it's easier to carry around. Or that one F-Class competition rifle is better than other because it's more reliable after being dropped in a mud pile... And so on.
The pros and cons of both platforms are often greatly exaggerated by the fanoboys on both sides. Ak's are not "minute of barn", just like AR's won't stop cycling if somebody wet farts on it.