The Mad Ogre: Why I Hate The AR15
- Thread starter Glenfilthie
- Start date
sixty9santa
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I own an AR-15 based (Ap-74, ya ya ya, .22LR but it's fundamentaly the same crap design and that's why it's restricted) rifle and I hate the damned thing. I have used several different AR's and they are great if cleaned every 100 or so rounds due to the carbon, internals polished like a drug dealers rims, get fead premium ammo and don't get droped or hit anything with it.
WARNIN
If you can't take what you are about to read, THAN DON'T (you have been warned in advance so any personal attacks will be promptly reported to the Mods)
Take the AK for example:
- Can shoot the dirtiest ammo in the dirties conditions.
- Only needs to be put under a tap or get hosed down to get cleaned, then dunked in some motor oil (dirty or not) to lube and prevent rust.
- Shoots something more devastating (the VC hid behind trees and survived yet the US troops that did the same ended up it a bi hole in thier sculls and this has been documented) than the 5.56x45 and shares the ballistics of and is less heavy than the 7.62x51
- You can beat half a platoon to death (a bit of over exageration) just by using the buttstock alone.
- Had a chromed bore before the AR and the ones used in the middle east and Africa are shot-out, beat-up guns that the Russians were going to melt but decided to make some money instead.
-The gun being restricted has nothing to do with it being good or bad
-The AR is not the 1911 of rifles, since the 1911 worked very well with the worst ammo, can be easily field stripped while not having the fear of loosing something and didn't need to be continuously pampered (I have a 1911, I know!)
- The stock cannot be folded
- Less recoil, duh! Smaller cartrige plays a role in that one and not only the inline buffer tube.
- Yes many insurgents have been taken down by the 5.56x45 but how many rounds did it take per kill?
- Notice that Alies use the AR platform (they get for cheap) to show what they are
- Great for target but the AK is the KING (more made, more in use, and Canada made a big mistake my kissing the US's by switch from the FN's)
- I don't like the AR for combat but I like it for target.
- Don't own an AK but have a VZ and have spent many hours with AR's as well to know what gets the job done and what pokes hole in paper in an ideal setting.
- Never hunted with either but would not hesitate with either.
- Would I trust an AR with my life during an actual combat situation, I think not (well only if I have hours to clean and have clean ammo)
- The AR is the most modular thing out there, yes. But the AK and VZ (the things that the AR can be compared to due to the era) are as well
I don't want an AR for protection of life, but I will have one in 5.56x45 for paper. If I'd want to trust my life to a 5.56x45, only the SIGARMS PE90 would get my vote.
WARNIN
If you can't take what you are about to read, THAN DON'T (you have been warned in advance so any personal attacks will be promptly reported to the Mods)Take the AK for example:
- Can shoot the dirtiest ammo in the dirties conditions.
- Only needs to be put under a tap or get hosed down to get cleaned, then dunked in some motor oil (dirty or not) to lube and prevent rust.
- Shoots something more devastating (the VC hid behind trees and survived yet the US troops that did the same ended up it a bi hole in thier sculls and this has been documented) than the 5.56x45 and shares the ballistics of and is less heavy than the 7.62x51
- You can beat half a platoon to death (a bit of over exageration) just by using the buttstock alone.
- Had a chromed bore before the AR and the ones used in the middle east and Africa are shot-out, beat-up guns that the Russians were going to melt but decided to make some money instead.
-The gun being restricted has nothing to do with it being good or bad
-The AR is not the 1911 of rifles, since the 1911 worked very well with the worst ammo, can be easily field stripped while not having the fear of loosing something and didn't need to be continuously pampered (I have a 1911, I know!)
- The stock cannot be folded
- Less recoil, duh! Smaller cartrige plays a role in that one and not only the inline buffer tube.
- Yes many insurgents have been taken down by the 5.56x45 but how many rounds did it take per kill?
- Notice that Alies use the AR platform (they get for cheap) to show what they are
- Great for target but the AK is the KING (more made, more in use, and Canada made a big mistake my kissing the US's by switch from the FN's)
- I don't like the AR for combat but I like it for target.
- Don't own an AK but have a VZ and have spent many hours with AR's as well to know what gets the job done and what pokes hole in paper in an ideal setting.
- Never hunted with either but would not hesitate with either.
- Would I trust an AR with my life during an actual combat situation, I think not (well only if I have hours to clean and have clean ammo)
- The AR is the most modular thing out there, yes. But the AK and VZ (the things that the AR can be compared to due to the era) are as well
I don't want an AR for protection of life, but I will have one in 5.56x45 for paper. If I'd want to trust my life to a 5.56x45, only the SIGARMS PE90 would get my vote.
Last edited:
1) A wise man once said, "you go to war with what you've got, not what you want"
2) It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.
3) My father's experience with early trials FN's included barrels that bent when fired for long periods of time and rubberized butstocks that fell apart. In addition, early rifling twists cause bullets to key hole at 500 yards. He still says the FN is sh*t. This was 1953 - 1955 at Ash Range during tests of the then-new rifle.
edited to add, the old man still kicked my *ss with the FN I had when we took it out.
2) It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools.
3) My father's experience with early trials FN's included barrels that bent when fired for long periods of time and rubberized butstocks that fell apart. In addition, early rifling twists cause bullets to key hole at 500 yards. He still says the FN is sh*t. This was 1953 - 1955 at Ash Range during tests of the then-new rifle.
edited to add, the old man still kicked my *ss with the FN I had when we took it out.
Last edited:
Santa,
Interesting post. I don't agree with a great deal of what you comment on however we are often victims of our bias. If I owed an AR and had to clean it every 100 rounds to ensure function, I would have issues as well. My two personal ARs have 7K and 3K round through them with no problems. As I noted before, I have taken the AR with me into harms way and have no concerns. In Afghanistan, the C7/C8 is performing extremely well and coupled with NVGs allows us to dominate the night. All the after action reports state how well they are doing and the effectiveness. So I guess my question is...if the Canadian Army has no problem, the Brit and Australian SAS use the C8/C7....people who have significant operational experience with the rifle are good to go....what is at issue here? I personally don't care what the weapon of choice of the third world is....
Anyway, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am just curious if you can address what is at issue with the C8/C7 if the troops using them are good to go with them...
Jeff
Interesting post. I don't agree with a great deal of what you comment on however we are often victims of our bias. If I owed an AR and had to clean it every 100 rounds to ensure function, I would have issues as well. My two personal ARs have 7K and 3K round through them with no problems. As I noted before, I have taken the AR with me into harms way and have no concerns. In Afghanistan, the C7/C8 is performing extremely well and coupled with NVGs allows us to dominate the night. All the after action reports state how well they are doing and the effectiveness. So I guess my question is...if the Canadian Army has no problem, the Brit and Australian SAS use the C8/C7....people who have significant operational experience with the rifle are good to go....what is at issue here? I personally don't care what the weapon of choice of the third world is....
Anyway, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am just curious if you can address what is at issue with the C8/C7 if the troops using them are good to go with them...
Jeff
Speckfire said:Morph you used the magical word, C7, not your regular AR type rifle. After all it's made in Canada(Am I slightly being biased
I am a little biased myself but to be fair, I have good contacts with the guys from the 101st and they have had no problems with the M4.....they have done a tour in Afghanistan and two tours of Iraq....so the comment is the same...CHeers
Jeff
LOL, I like that line.Mad Ogre said:
It goes without much saying to guys like Striker, Popurhedoff, Bartok5 and BMW, that I am in the Ogres (and Sixty9Santas) camp.
Morpheus32, I am genuinely curious, if you were given a choice to carry another design/model of firearm, is there anything you personally would prefer above the AR15/M16/M4 family?
These are purely range monkey observations, so bear with me:
Fouling problems? Use CLP and quit yer #####in'. If you use light gun oil or some god-knows-what lubricant not designed for the AR15, don't be surprised if it dries out and the fouling accumulates to the point of jamming the gun.
The direct gas system is a problem, I'll admit. In full-auto or rapid fire the internals of the receiver heat up, leading to sooner bolt failure. In Canada, it's not a problem.
7.62.x39 guns may be reliable, but they sure as hell aren't accurate. What good is an ultra-reliable gun if it can't hit what you're aiming at? This is a range monkey observation, but an SKS with a scope that cannot reliably hit a 18" gong at 300yds is pretty useless as a battle rifle. If I wanted to participate in human-wave suicide missions, I'd pack an AK. If I wanted to actually win a battle by getting proper shot placement, I'd use the AR15 (with an optic if possible).
Fouling problems? Use CLP and quit yer #####in'. If you use light gun oil or some god-knows-what lubricant not designed for the AR15, don't be surprised if it dries out and the fouling accumulates to the point of jamming the gun.
The direct gas system is a problem, I'll admit. In full-auto or rapid fire the internals of the receiver heat up, leading to sooner bolt failure. In Canada, it's not a problem.
7.62.x39 guns may be reliable, but they sure as hell aren't accurate. What good is an ultra-reliable gun if it can't hit what you're aiming at? This is a range monkey observation, but an SKS with a scope that cannot reliably hit a 18" gong at 300yds is pretty useless as a battle rifle. If I wanted to participate in human-wave suicide missions, I'd pack an AK. If I wanted to actually win a battle by getting proper shot placement, I'd use the AR15 (with an optic if possible).
Again, I'll chime in with my well-known bias....
And no, I have been fortunate enough to never have to "count on" any firearm design in actual combat, and yes, I do understand the problem of having to carry what you're issued...
The AR-15 should have been designed from the get-go with a gas piston, but it wasn't, deliberately, in an attempt to save weight. I do NOT like having the rifle crap where it eats, and when I was issued a C7 by the Queen, I found it a real bugbear to clean, and it would become unreliable when dirty.
I have since been fortunate enough to have the financial means to purchase a piston system gas operated rifle (PE90), and have been very happy with its reliability. The compromise: weighs a ton, and yes, a little more expensive than an AR modified to be reliable!
Nothing is perfect, but for the same reason that we don't all drive Fords, there are always options available in the retail market. Buy what you like, and practice, practice, practice!
Neal
And no, I have been fortunate enough to never have to "count on" any firearm design in actual combat, and yes, I do understand the problem of having to carry what you're issued...
The AR-15 should have been designed from the get-go with a gas piston, but it wasn't, deliberately, in an attempt to save weight. I do NOT like having the rifle crap where it eats, and when I was issued a C7 by the Queen, I found it a real bugbear to clean, and it would become unreliable when dirty.
I have since been fortunate enough to have the financial means to purchase a piston system gas operated rifle (PE90), and have been very happy with its reliability. The compromise: weighs a ton, and yes, a little more expensive than an AR modified to be reliable!
Nothing is perfect, but for the same reason that we don't all drive Fords, there are always options available in the retail market. Buy what you like, and practice, practice, practice!
Neal
blah blah blah.
The UK SOF weapons program determined the direct impingment system in the C7 and C8SFW was more reliable than the piston systems in the G36 and Sig55X series.
The USN Spec War found the 10.5" Mk18 was more reliable in over the beach operations and other waterborne operations that the piston Hk416 system.
I have personally fired thousand and thousands of rounds from impingment systems.
I have carried a C7 overseas, a C8SFW, a M4A1 and a Mk18 as well.
I also carried a AK47 and Cz58.
I fully believe based on my expeirences the M16FOW is the most effective combat weapon system currently avialable on the planet.
WRT reliability we put more than 1500rds thru my Mk18 suppressed without cleaning and had one stoppage.
BigRed wnet and procured a M4 Recce carbine with his own money to replace his issued Sig 552...
Honestly the chairwarming I hate the M16 series is rather tired and simply shows wither ignorance or incompetance.
The UK SOF weapons program determined the direct impingment system in the C7 and C8SFW was more reliable than the piston systems in the G36 and Sig55X series.
The USN Spec War found the 10.5" Mk18 was more reliable in over the beach operations and other waterborne operations that the piston Hk416 system.
I have personally fired thousand and thousands of rounds from impingment systems.
I have carried a C7 overseas, a C8SFW, a M4A1 and a Mk18 as well.
I also carried a AK47 and Cz58.
I fully believe based on my expeirences the M16FOW is the most effective combat weapon system currently avialable on the planet.
WRT reliability we put more than 1500rds thru my Mk18 suppressed without cleaning and had one stoppage.
BigRed wnet and procured a M4 Recce carbine with his own money to replace his issued Sig 552...
Honestly the chairwarming I hate the M16 series is rather tired and simply shows wither ignorance or incompetance.
i think that on of the best exemple of what kevinb is saying is just looking at grureilla groups like hamas and others.
they are all switching to the AR platform. you only have the guys wiht no money still carrying AK.
Its over boys... get over it... the AR wins.
i know its frustrating for bubba that dosent have the coin to get one, cant work on it or can get himself to clean anything but precision engenering wins over tractor type mechanics.
whas it perfect from the get go ? no but time haved change this is not vietnam this is M4 and SPR and new bullets like the 77gr
they are all switching to the AR platform. you only have the guys wiht no money still carrying AK.
Its over boys... get over it... the AR wins.
i know its frustrating for bubba that dosent have the coin to get one, cant work on it or can get himself to clean anything but precision engenering wins over tractor type mechanics.
whas it perfect from the get go ? no but time haved change this is not vietnam this is M4 and SPR and new bullets like the 77gr
Last edited:
These debates are useless, always have been. Everyone is in there corner and thats it. You dont like AR's you dont need to buy them, or vice versa. From the view of a range monkey like myself I can't find anything wrong with either system. So until I am in a warzone it wont matter, but if it ever comes to that I am sure I will be able to pick the gun I need from the dead.
KevinB said:
No way man... I have... like... 5000 hours of counterstrike experience and I've fired millions of rounds from my AK with no stoppages.
The 7.62 round is waaaay more powerful than the AR. Especially if you mod the config files. It will even shoot through an entire building or car.
You don't know what you're talking about. Besides, I read on a website how the ARs that weren't issued cleaning kits and got a bad batch of ammo in NAM jammed.
And we all know that there have been absolutely zero modifications or changes to ammo or rifle parts in the past 30+ years.
Listen to me because I'm l33t.
Well they are all equally reliable on the range, so why do 99.9% of the board care?
It is one thing to know about the mechanics of the AR, and see possible mechanical shortfalls. It is another to criticize its use in combat. Most people have not been there, and to form an opinion on a weapons platform based on what you have read on the internet is just retarded.
It is one thing to know about the mechanics of the AR, and see possible mechanical shortfalls. It is another to criticize its use in combat. Most people have not been there, and to form an opinion on a weapons platform based on what you have read on the internet is just retarded.
