What is better for the Cdn shooter? SAN-CG or AR15?

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
410   0   2
Location
Onterrible
The question is, For the average shooter in Canada, are you better off with a Swiss Arms Classic Green or an AR15?

Just so we are talking apples and apples, let's limit discussion to comparing the AR15 A2/A4 to the Classic Green or Classic Black with an 18.5" or longer barrel.

Discussion is also welcome comparing a CG carbine or CQB to an M4-style, but please indicate that in your post if you are discussing other than the 18.5"+ barrelled models.

As I see it, the most obvious tradeoff are:

1) AR15 can use 10 round LAR15 mags, has lots of reasonably priced modular options and can only be shot at the range. QA/QC can be all over the place depending upon manufacturer. For the sake of argument, let's assume the AR we use for comparison is a matched upper/lower from a reputable maker lime LMT, Colt, Stag, etc.

2) SAN-CG is limited to 5 round mags, the gun and accessories cost much more, but it can be shot anywhere a non-restricted rifle can be shot. QA/QC should be higher since the guns in Canada are all made at the same factory in Switzerland.

In my own case:

The AR's I've owned include:
-DAR-701 A4 style
-Colt H-BAR A2
-Armalite M4A3

The SAN's I've owned include:
-A TSE branded Classic Green with a KPA rail.

I've never owned an Eotech but have run all the above guns with Aimpoint CompM4's and ACOG T01-NSN sights.

In my personal case, I no longer own an AR15 for various reasons, though I always liked them. I still own a Classic Green and very much like it, though it's on the heavy side. I will probably own an AR again, and is they were non-restricted, the CG would be sold and replaced with an AR15A4 pretty quick since it is lighter, cheaper, just as accurate, and easier to get parts for. Under current regulatory climate, however, for me, the Classic Green will remain in my home.
 
There was a time when the SAN Clasic Green was one of very few non res options in .223/5.56. Now there are more coming online every day, some considerably cheaper then the average AR and just as acurate. For me restricted means PIA, but I don't really shoot at civillian ranges so... Also I've used the C7 enough that its just a rifle to me so other things are more interesting.

Althogh I know some countries will continue using the M16 platform for decades to come I think its pretty obvious that its flaws and limitations are begining to become points of concern among high level users and other platforms are being introduced as well as signicicant modifications to the gas system that in my mind make it no longer an AR. I think from the professional standpoint the sun is setting on both the ar and SAN platforms and new systems like the Tavor and G36 at clawing away at the market (we can own these too in civillian form).

As a shooter I think if I wanted a tacticool rifle I'd take the T97, CZ858 or if I have money burning a hole in my pocket a Tavor over either an AR or SAN. IF I had to choose between the AR and SAN I think the SAN would win because of where and how I can use it.

All that said the Norinco M4 will likely sell like crazy because of its price and modern configuration. So many new tacticool options are hitting the market these days that its hard to choose.
 
The non-restricted swiss rifle will get shot more. Rifle use is all about practice. i have Colt AR15A2 rifles and carbines and they see very little use compared to the swiss rifles. Since the swiss have made 600,000+ rifles, most of the "problems" have been fixed. They are also a very well made rifle. Price is the only problem.
 
My opinion:

AR
Advantages:
-cheap
-availible
-modular, tonnes of parts
-10 round mags

Disadvantages:
-restricted
-no gas system
-awkward rear cocking handle
-light (good for action matches, bad for benchrest)


Swiss Arms

Advantages:
-reliable (not one malfunction with all kinds of factory and light reloads, in +25 to -25 C). Others can attest to the reliability.
-accurate (1.1 MOA with Ruag at 300m. My reloads have gotten to 1.25 MOA, and I still have alot of things to try out)
-egronomics (cocking handle on side rather than the back. postive attachment of mags.)
-front heavy (good for bench shooting, reduces muzzle jump for sniper matches)
-look cool factor

Disadvantages:
-expensive
-5 round mags (real bad for matches)
-parts are hard to get (not like you'll need them :D)
-certain models can be difficult to get
 
can14 said:
The non-restricted swiss rifle will get shot more. Rifle use is all about practice. i have Colt AR15A2 rifles and carbines and they see very little use compared to the swiss rifles. Since the swiss have made 600,000+ rifles, most of the "problems" have been fixed. They are also a very well made rifle. Price is the only problem.
Click to expand...

IIRC both KevinB and Big Red have posted about quality issues with SA bolts failing. They aren't perfect. In combat I think I would take the M16 over a SA thats for sure.
 
suprathepeg said:
IIRC both KevinB and Big Red have posted about quality issues with SA bolts failing. They aren't perfect. In combat I think I would take the M16 over a SA thats for sure.
Click to expand...

IIRC, everything bad I've heard about the SAN rifles from BigRed and KevinB have been about the 552 and/or other short models. I don't recall ever hearing anything bad about the SG550, PE90 (or classic green, though I'm sure they don't use the semi-only model in combat). As I remember, the problems were with the guide rod design on the shorter guns, not the bolt.

I've also heard that the issues have been pretty much solved now, though the short-length guns have gotten a bad name amongst the operators due to those initial problems and perception is everything when it comes to trusting your kit.

I suspect one of those distinguished gentlemen will chime in and tell me to go pound sand if I'm mistaken on any of this ;)
 
suprathepeg said:
As a shooter I think if I wanted a tacticool rifle I'd take the T97, CZ858 or if I have money burning a hole in my pocket a Tavor over either an AR or SAN. IF I had to choose between the AR and SAN I think the SAN would win because of where and how I can use it.

All that said the Norinco M4 will likely sell like crazy because of its price and modern configuration. So many new tacticool options are hitting the market these days that its hard to choose.
Click to expand...

Well, in terms of adding "interesting to try" to the criteria, I would agree with you. However, I know for a fact the SG550 and clones thereof (in long rifle format) are tanks that are very reliable and proven. The AR, limitations and all, has really matured as a platform and is quite good if properly maintained.

The T97, on the other hand, has SERIOUS problems and unknowns that would have to be addressed before I would consider it as an informed substitute for a SAN or AR. Some of these include:
1) Unproven in combat, for the most part.
2) NOT lefty friendly. I'm a lefty and hence I will never own one.
3) Long term durability per rifle, and as a platform, totally unknown.
4) QA/QC totally unknown. I have a dubious view of the term "milspec" applied to Chicom manufacture.
5) Mounting options pretty much suck.

CZ858 "issues":
1) Gremlin.
2) after-market non-chromed bore.
3) Gremlin.
4) Lack of good accessories aside from some sparse options.
5) It's not a .223/5.56mm so kind of out of scope of the question.
6) Gremlin - did I mention reliability?
(for the record, I have a 58S and consider it superior to the 858 in many ways. The 58L is probably a good marriage of the two rifles, but I've not tried one personally).

Tavor "issues" (as I see them):
1) Interestingly, like the Galil, it remains a substitute issue to the IDF. They still primarily issue the AR. I wonder why?
2) Meprolight = crap.
3) Cost. For the money, you could have a SAN, which I personally prefer. YMMV.
4) The trigger is not exactly its finest point.
5) Again, lack of good mounting options for optics.
6) Does not have a lot of combat time to really validate it, though knowing Israel, they will likely iron out nay issues after a few years of use against insurgents.
7) A personal thing, I've never liked the feel and handling characteristics of bullpup rifles. Again, YMMV.

HKG36/SL8:
1) While I realize this is a well liked rifle for civilian shooters, I've never really grown to like this rifle. The looks matter to me, though from a practical perspective, I know they should not.
2) Receiver cracking issues.
3) Cost. For the same money, I like the SAN.
4) Despite all the fanfare, how many countries and/or operators are choosing the G36 these days? From what I understand, not many.
5) Accessories are even more pricy than SAN stuff!?!
6) R. Nicholls... though in fairness this is also a newly arisen problem for the SAN stuff too.
7) In the end, I would consider this rifle to be about functionally equivalent to the SAN stuff for civvy shooters, though I consider it less attractive cosmetically and the receiver cracking issues reported sound worrisome.
 
Last edited:
Claven2 said:
Tavor "issues" (as I see them):
1) Interestingly, like the Galil, it remains a substitute issue to the IDF. They still primarily issue the AR. I wonder why?
2) Meprolight = crap.
3) Cost. For the money, you could have a SAN, which I personally prefer. YMMV.
4) The trigger is not exactly its finest point.
5) Again, lack of good mounting options for optics.
6) Does not have a lot of combat time to really validate it, though knowing Israel, they will likely iron out nay issues after a few years of use against insurgents.
7) A personal thing, I've never liked the feel and handling characteristics of bullpup rifles. Again, YMMV.
Click to expand...

There are a couple rail options available to us in Canada. So I would say your point about this is unfounded.
 
Fair enough, and I know some people like the Tavor. I'm not saying it's not a nice rifle, but as a bullpup, for me, well - I just don't like how they shoulder and handle. I'm just not a fan.

I wonder if any operators are using the TAVOR? KevinB?
 
Last edited:
As a Civilian shooter I prefer the AR platform. The ergonomics are better. Also the accuracy potential out of an AR platform greatly exceeds that of the Sig/SAN rifle. The direct impingement actually allows for the barrel to be truly free floated and you don't have extra variables from a piston system affecting accuracy.

There are a couple of manufacturers for the AR-15 that have varmint models with .5 moa guarantees. Also some of the AR-10 rifles are known to shoot sub .5 moa. This puts the accuracy potential of these rifles in the same realm as "tactical" level bolt guns.

The PE-90 rifles are known for their accuracy compared to other combat rifles. At the time of their introduction they were considerably more accurate than the AR rifles and most combat rifles being produced. So they are decent. But.... you can get an AR to shoot better, for less cost and with not too much work.

This spring I'll be doing some range time with both my Swiss Arms and my Stag rifle. I have the PE-90 flat top target version and the Stag Model 2T.
Keep in mind the Stag has a target crown hiding under the flash hider, but still it should be a decent comparison between the two.

Also of note is that the Stag rifles we get here in Canada are a bit different than the ones listed in the US. If you go through the list on AR rifles many of the features that are posted as absent on the Stag rifles are present on our Canadian Stag rifles.

From initial inspections. The Stag is significantly lighter and handles a lot better. However the PE-90 is built like a brick S*** house and has some very well thought out features. Plus it could probably take more abuse, require less cleaning etc (but lets face it for most of us we're going to baby a $3000 rifle).
 
Epoxy7 said:
As a Civilian shooterAlso the accuracy potential out of an AR platform greatly exceeds that of the Sig/SAN rifle.
Click to expand...

While I agree you can make or buy ARs with an edge in accuracy, I believe the difference is quite a bit less than you make it out to be.
 
Between the two, for me the freedom of not being restricted to a range is a huge benefit. Having said that, I only own an AR, but if I had the funds I would certainly consider a SA. It would be a toss up between the SA and Tavor. The biggest downside being the cost.

But I'm still holding out for some kind of .308 non-restricted black rifle first! :rockOn:
 
looking at the scope of this question, ive got to ask who here actually has and uses as 18"+ AR? for me an AR with a barrel that long has no use for me, where the swiss arms does because i can take it out to a gopher field

but if we start talking about carbine and shorter then the playing field is different
 
I personally was looking at getting a SA Classic Green, but couldn't justify the price (again personally)... I did however get the Armelite AR180B-2, and after all the comments here online I had reservations about it. But after I got it, cleaned it, and now shot it... I am VERY happy with it! It is light, shoulders perfectly for me, and fires in non bench resting positions superbly (just fine bench rested as well - there is no problem getting SUB 2 MOA). So far it functions 100% reliably as well, with several different brands of ammo in -10 Deg C. I also have $2000 extra in my pocket. I have no reservation to use it for varmint hunting and pest control... at the range it was a lot of fun and brought smiles to everyones faces. I (and everyone so far) also like that it is non restricted. (I will be posting a review with pics and video when I get the chance)

I just thought I would throw this in for the less well heeled out there... sorry to disrupt.
 
Horses for courses, gentlemen.
If you're talking civilian, non-range use...the clear winner is the SAN.
For range only use....pick what 'floats your boat'.
For 'two way range' use....no question....AR and variant platform.
I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford a variety of the above.
I have owned an H&K SL-8, every AR variant (5.56/.223 & .308), Tavor, Swiss Arms Rifle/Carbine/CQB, Armalite Ar180-B, RobArms XCR...
I currently own, and enjoy, three AR's..all 5.56..(10.5", 14.5", 16"bbl.), a Tavor, and a Black Special and CQB.
I await, with interest and a little impatience, a Type 97, but find the above covers the spectrum for me.
Just my $0.02.....
 
Last edited:
I shoot at a range and have never shot in the bush, wouldn't know where to go.
I own an LMT piston AR, and a 17.9" and 14.3" Swissarms. I sold my 20" Swissarms as it just wasn't being shot much, I prefer the balance of the shorter guns.

For mounting optics, the AR is better. Most of the Aimpoint, ACOG, and Larue mounts are the proper height for an AR. With the flat top SIG, the height of various mounts are just a little off (too high) due to the 'dip' in the Sig's stock.

However these mounts work well with a Sig with an aftermarket rail and cheekpiece. One thing I like better with the AR is that their rails don't have cant. Both flattop sigs or aftermarket rails on them can have a bit of canting off to one side.
 
My Type 97 and my AR are both on order...I have shot both, and I do like both. I would say that the AR is better quality overall, but in my limited experience both shoot comparitively well. I think the costs of the SA is a limiting factor for the average joe...I have not owned or shot one.
Even when I commited to buying an AR-tye to not order a Norc M4 took some serious deliberation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom