Brian46 said:
This really is not a good comparison or debate, because you are comparing a prooven battle rifle (civilian version) with a sporting rifle.
I will be the first to admit that my comparison was based on civilian ownership and civilian range use of the two systems in question. In that context (and in my humble view), the M96 represents very good value for the investment. I fire my M96 far more often than I shoot my Colt "AR15A2 Sporter II" or my Pac-West Arms "AR-15 Commando". And that's a fact.
Were I going to war (again) tomorrow? I would quite happily accept an issued C-8 heavy-barrelled flat-top. I cannot honestly say that I would as willingly carry an M96 into harm's way. As we all know, the M96 is not (at least not yet) a militarily-proven design. Unless you associate the M96 with the great success that U.S. Navy Seals enjoyed in employing the same basic design during the Vietnam War in the form of the Stoner 63 and 63A modular weapon system.... But I digress.
I will be the first to admit that my personal perceptions are somewhat coloured, having successfully carried a C-8 on combat operations back in 2002. It served me well, and as a result I can't refute the system. It definitely "craps where it eats", and is therefore more maintenance-intensive than any piston-driven system on the military market. But given reasonable maintenance it never failed me on operations. And that is why you will never hear me condemn the Stoner "AR-15" system. But that doesn't mean that it is ideal - not by a long, long measure.
I honestly believe that there are numerous 5.56mm designs out there which are far superior to the 5.56mm AR-15. After all, the AR-15 series was based on the original AR-10 - where the "crap where you eat" nature of the direct impingement system was not an issue thanks to the larger dimensions/mass of the 7.62x51mm NATO-scaled working parts. Reduced to 5.56mm however, there were (and continue to be) reliability and maintenance issues associated with the AR-15 family. There's no getting around it. As originally issued, designed and "marketed" to U.S. Army soldiers, the M-16 was an abject failure. More than one U.S. soldier died as a direct result of the failure of his/her personal weapon. The only reason that the AR-15 series of firearms is currently preeminent in the Western world is thanks to 45 years of concerted effort to mitigate the fundamental shortcomings. That, combined with a terrific marketing program backed by heavily subsidized U.S. sales (or outright give-aways) to friendly nations.
Are the direct-gas AR-15-based rifles and carbines accurate, reliable, etc? Sure they are.....these days. Thanks to 45 years of ceaseless U.S. government-sponsored efforts to make them so.
Are there other operating systems which are instrinsically more reliable? Yes, there are. The AR-18/180 immediately springs to mind, upon which the G-36 operating system was directly based. There are others. The fact of the matter is that the AR-15 family has benefitted from 45 years of government-supported developmental improvement. No other firearms design has enjoyed the same (perhaps misguided?) support. Yet other designs continue to give the AR-15 series a serious run for their money - even designs that have not undergone any substantive design improvement since their inception in the 1960s (AR-18), 1970s (FNC, AUG, Galil), 1980s (Daewoo, SAR-88, etc), or 1990s (SIG).
If you want a "combat proven" 5.56mm self-loader for your civilian range sessions? Then by all means, buy yourself an AR-15 in one of its many guises. I own several civilian versions, and have carried the military version on combat operations with few complaints. But these days my civilian AR-15s sit in the safe because they are fundamentally boring. Everyone and his dog owns one.
If you want something a tad different (and I would argue better-suited to civilian ownership/range use), then I would suggest the M-96, Swissarms PE-90, or even an AR-180B. The piston-driven systems are FAR easier to maintain, just as simple to operate, and (give or take) every bit as accurate.
As stated earlier, I have no qualms whatsoever about my M96 purchase. As a recreational rifle it has served me extremely well. So much so, that my AR-15's have been collecting dust in the safe for the past 5 years while my M96 and (more recently) PE-90 invariably end up at the range....
On a side note, if you want to talk "prooven battle rifles (civilian version)" you might want to talk about the military-issued USGI M14 versus the civilian semi-automatic-only Norinco M305. Or the military-issue HK G3 versus the civilian semi-automatic-only HK 91. Rifles chambered in full-sized calibres such as 7.62x51mm NATO are commonly referred to "Battle Rifles".
Conversely, select-fire military rifles chambered for "intermediate" cartridges such as the 5.56x45mm are commonly referred to as "assault rifles". That said, their semi-automatic civilian versions are nothing more than "sporting rifles", regardless of how "evil" or "battle-proven" they may appear to the uneducated layman.
I'm guessing that perhaps you meant to say "battle-proven rifles" versus "proven battle-rifles"? No offence whatseover intended Brian, but when it comes to such things semantics are important.
As always, just my $.02
FWIW
Did I mention I'll have two soon? 
