accuracy question - AR vs Swiss
- Thread starter Kreech
- Start date
From the same article:
People who use them in the field report a highly reliable system, and this was an accuracy thread anyway, so your comment and article quote are at best non sequiturs.
Given a $3K AR (custom everything - barrel and trigger being the most important parts) and an off-the-shelf Swiss Arms for the same cost, the AR will outperform the Swiss Arms.
The article also had this to say "If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds"
Well I hope they all never fire more than 68 rounds in a non-ideal environment.
I'm not denying that a 3k custom AR will outshoot a 3k Swiss Arms. However you can count on the 3k custom AR having more problems in non-ideal environments with renders the sub-moa accuracy useless.
As far as service rifles are concerned 1-2 MOA is really all you need to reliably hit a man sized target at the effective range of the .223. All other concerns should be in reliability. Reliability in that no one can deny that the Swiss Arms is far superior in comparison to a DI AR.
1) you need to re-read the quote from the article you've brought forward. The test environment was not "non-ideal", it was not a "typical combat environment". Quite different. It's like feeding rats massive doses of saccharin and declaring that the stuff is unsafe for humans even when typical exposure is five-hundred times less.
2) who gives a rat's ass about how a $3K target rifle will work in a "non-ideal" environment? They mostly get used in ideal environments, and if they have some hiccoughs you do a re-shoot (most sports anyway). JP, for example, explicitly tells customers to not use their lightweight stainless carrier system for tactical purposes.
We aren't talking about going into combat, but you're responding to the posts as if we are.
The thread is titled "accuracy question - AR vs Swiss", not "dumping the gun in mud after jumping it in sub-zero temperatures - AR vs Swiss". There are plenty of other threads like that, just not here.
. A soldier's vest weighs more than that 
Maybe you are correct...
Maybe you are right Rich... but how do you tell if the barrel is damaged.. I have a couple of loads that approach 1.2 MOA so i am going to go back to them and try again... They were with 77 gr SMK and 23.6 gr Varget giving 2550 fps (gave 1.093 inches) and another load with 75 gr berger VLDs with 25.2 gr of RL15 giving 2800 fps and 1.449 inches. Hope this works or i will be buying a new barrel!!!!
Dan
Maybe you are right Rich... but how do you tell if the barrel is damaged.. I have a couple of loads that approach 1.2 MOA so i am going to go back to them and try again... They were with 77 gr SMK and 23.6 gr Varget giving 2550 fps (gave 1.093 inches) and another load with 75 gr berger VLDs with 25.2 gr of RL15 giving 2800 fps and 1.449 inches. Hope this works or i will be buying a new barrel!!!!
Dan
Roughneck12
Regular
- Location
- Blackfalds AB
lol I like my 9lb anchor.
I like my 9 lb anchor TOO!!!
Even though its not what i expected i do Like my 9 lb swiss anchor too...
Dan
Even though its not what i expected i do Like my 9 lb swiss anchor too...
Dan
Heavy trigger.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
Maybe you should have read the entire report. The articles leave out a few details.
1) The 416, SCAR, and XM8 were factory brand new unfired, and apparently cherry picked from the factory when ordered. The M4s they used came from a training facility with unknown round counts.
2) Out of those 862 some failures, 239 were attributed to magazines that were worn out (bad springs / followers, or bent feed lips, they came from the same armory and were used). The SCAR, XM8, and 416 used brand new proprietary from their respective factories.
4) It was discovered that the failures didn't occur immediately after lubing. The test was re-conducted again with the EXACT same M4s that had used from the previous test. This time they increased the amount of lubricant used in the bolt carrier. Only 307 failures were noted. Unknown how many could be attributed to the magazines.
5) The 'dust storm' they simulated is a 0 visibility storm. The kind that everyone runs to cover from because standing in one can be extremely hazardous to future plans, seeing as they can cause a mild case of death.
Actually the Hk416's where AWG turn in's, they had been operations guns prior. The XM-8 and FN SCAR's where factory fresh submitted specifically for the trial.
One of the Hk416's had 75% of their stoppages.
The M4's had unk rounds counts, and parts where not replaced prior to the test.
One of the Hk416's had 75% of their stoppages.
The M4's had unk rounds counts, and parts where not replaced prior to the test.
HK G36/XM8,
The most under rated weapon system in the world. It beat everything in the test.
By the way, the full results are contained in a protected document. Only people with true inside info, like Kevin B, have some of those details. Lot's of people think they know what they are talking about but are not connected enough to know the truth.
Rich
The most under rated weapon system in the world. It beat everything in the test.
By the way, the full results are contained in a protected document. Only people with true inside info, like Kevin B, have some of those details. Lot's of people think they know what they are talking about but are not connected enough to know the truth.
Rich
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
Love the G36. Hate the integrated optics though. The Latvian army ones are my favorite.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I can because I have never been shown otherwise. Or anything to support claims made by owners.
Or anyone who has carried one overseas.
