We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Alex D. • 7 years ago

Because at least 9 out of every 10 "innovations" made these days are gimmicks made to separate you from your money. Similarly, 9 time out of 10 they are the exact same thing looking just a little different. And everyone falls for it hook, line and sinker so as long as the money keeps rolling in, manufacturers will never have to innovate for real.

derpmaster • 7 years ago

Additionally, particularly in semi auto rifles: 9 times out of 10, they cost 2-3x what a quality AR or AK would.

Tritro29 • 7 years ago

... Who would have thought that military grade weapons with extensive R&D wouldn't be immediately available at affordable prices. I mean...stop the presses. The fact is that SCAR/416 etc weren't at ALL meant for civilian use initially, that has become a post-Cold War norm, ironically initiated by ... the Fins. Who would sell their AK's because the first batches were redundant. From the 150 000 RK62 and Rk 62 modernized and about the 120 thousand RK62 folding only 250 thousand were inducted in the FDF, so SAKO started selling their production and the FDF allowed Valmet to sell theirs.

In the US the AR-15 didn't caught as fast but it went beyond the some few unissued guns like in Finland. In the US, the civilian market became the primary market .

However those rifles you are naming, are still part of a military contract, with various stages of R&D and the price tag is farily normal. With volumes, that price will go down. So basically is a vicious circle that could get only broken by an influx of surplus rifles. Unicorn stuff.

AC97 • 7 years ago

Like in the case of the SCAR or HK416; what, you want to touch the bolt for whatever reason after you fired over 100 rounds or whatever (Screw you Future Weapons)? Simple, buy an oven mitt or two, don't spend over $2,400 for "piston superiority" when you can buy/build multiple rifles for the same amount of money (or build/buy a really awesome AR).

Bob • 7 years ago

And yet, they may have a niche (like a bullpup inside vehicles) or have features some people like more than a plain old AK/AR.

DonDrapersAcidTrip • 7 years ago

"never have to innovate for real."

I guess you personally are judge jury and executioner of who is innovating "for real"

Kivaari • 7 years ago

Would that include piston driven ARs?

retfed • 7 years ago

Around 1988 I was in my local gun emporium and I saw a strange-looking pistol. I asked the clerk, "What's that?" He said, "A Glock. They make them in Austria." I said, "It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen. There's no hammer! How can you tell when it's cocked?" He said, "Look at the trigger." I said, "Naaah. Show me that nice Model 15. They'll be around forever."
(I'm leaving out the part where I picked it up and found out it was made of damn PLASTIC! He corrected me there, too. He said, "It's space-age polymer.")
True story. Fortunately, I eventually learned to embrace progress.

Alex C. • 7 years ago

Ha, interesting. I imagine that happened to lots of folks.

Cordite • 7 years ago

It's funny. The AR15 is 1950s tech, has been in use since the 60s or late 50s, and evolved into THE modern rifle to beat. Militaries, police, gun owners, hunters, and competition/target shooters have made the AR15 the overall #1 rifle across the world.

Despite all of that, to this day you can go into any discussion post, forum, thread, or comment section and you will STILL see people ragging on the design, bringing up problems from Vietnam, and calling it an unreliable POS poodle shooter plastic toy that is unfit for war or self defense. It's 2016 and it seems like a large chunk of the population is stuck on complaints and myths from 50+ years ago. They still say we should be using the m14 or even the garand to this day. I can't think of any other product in any other industry that is as proven and widespread as the AR15 that also still has decades old myths and a large number of detractors surrounding it. It'd be like a large holdout of people to this day saying fuel injection is crap and we skills have never moved on. Or jets/jet turbines are a crazy new unreliable tech and we never should move on from prop engines. It's a strange phenomena.

AC97 • 7 years ago

And speaking of the M14, that thing shouldn't have even existed, let alone get adopted. Literally the only reasons that rifle is thought of positively in any way is because of nostalgia and the fact that the M16 had problems caused by cutting corners in vital areas, which have long since been solved.

Kivaari • 7 years ago

People forget that it was withdrawn from production because the companies building them couldn't keep them shooting. It was an unreliable and inaccurate rifle much of the time. Only today, 60 years later, has it been made into a shooting machine, it never was during the Vietnam era.

Gary Kirk • 7 years ago

You talking about the 16 or 14 brother? Because the same can be said about both..

AC97 • 7 years ago

There's a difference in that the M14 was a bad idea to begin with. Just look at all of those exposed locking surfaces. The FAL and AR 10 were (and are) more than capable of being better in every meaningful way.

Kivaari • 7 years ago

AND the top army brass screwed up by insisting on both the M14 rifle and the rifle using 7.62x51mm.

Kivaari • 7 years ago

The M14 was stopped and replaced by the M16 (then M16A1). Winchester, TRW and H&R had difficualty keeping the stocks from warping and stopping the proper function and accuracy issues. McNamara pulled the M14s plug. The M16 issues are well known and mostly came down to high level Army officers not knowing a damn thing about the new rifle.

Tom Currie • 7 years ago

You might want to recall that the M16 came to the military initially in response to an Air Force solicitation for something to replace the M1 carbines being issued to Air Police units. Then before the Air Force could finalize a selection, politicians made a decision that all the US military forces would adopt a single rifle which would absolutely meet all of everyone's needs AND be lighter AND use lighter weight ammunition.

Those who criticize the M14 are right, it was an old-fashioned design, pretty much just an M1 Garand with a externally replaceable magazine. So, of course it was a terrible rifle, even though it went bang every time you pulled the trigger and would consistently hit what you were aiming at well past 300m (assuming you did your part). How dare the military give our troops a rifle that didn't have a pistol grip and lots of black plastic?!?

Kivaari • 7 years ago

I recommend you read Ezell's "The Great Rfile Controversy", as it explains in greater detail why the army was searching to replace the M14 shortly after it was adopted. The rifle had a very spotty record. It didn't go bang every time the trigger was pulled, the accuracy AND reliability were serious issues thanks to stock warping. The very negetive field experiences had the army brass wanting a new rifle. They had rejected the AR10 and FAL initially, than when faced with a disaster, especially in Vietnam, the AF going for the new AR15 gave the army a ready solution. Had they not screwed up with the wrong powder, the failure to chrome line the bore and chamber and improper cleaning directions lead to the early problems. BUT, those issues were corrected in the M16A1.
The M14 was not this wonderful, reliable and accurate rifle it is made out to be, by for the most part never having used the thing. At least there is adequate research history showing it was not a great rifle.

n0truscotsman • 7 years ago

What was particularly concerning was that our adversaries had already began mass fielding an excellent select-fire assault rifle, the kalshnikov, while we were still fumbling around with M14s that manufacturers couldn't make fast enough to fit our armed forces with, forcing a 1930s internal magazine fed design to remain in service until the 1960s (m1 garand).

DonDrapersAcidTrip • 7 years ago

Seriously the old man "plastic gun" complaint cliche?

Buford T. Justice • 7 years ago

Men were smaller back then, just look at surplus uniforms. Just having to carry an M14 would have been a deal breaker. No wonder soldiers loved the weak M1 Carbine.

john huscio • 7 years ago

Army should've stuck with 30.06

Kivaari • 7 years ago

The '06 wasted materials. Just the savings in brass was a huge amount of money. One thing that drove the search for a new round was the 1/2 inch air space in the case. Newer (wartime) IMR powders allowed for the same performance in a shell 1/2 inch shorter. The performance in the field between a .30-06 and the 7.62mm is in reality nothing. When the change was made the research already showed that an intermediate cartridge should likely have been adopted, at least in rifles.

Tom Currie • 7 years ago

AC97 is 100% right. ALL the problems of the M16 have been solved! It no longer shoots a lightweight high velocity round that deflects off any blade of tall grass or light brush between the shooter and the target. It no longer has a mechanically weak joint between the receiver and the buttstock. It no longer blows up if you carry it loaded and happen to get water in the barrel. It no longer requires complete disassembly and detailed cleaning every few hundred rounds. Yep. All those ancient problems that plagued the plastic toy rifle in Vietnam have been solved today.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

Let's see. 5.56 never had a deflection issue in Vietnam. That was people missing and blaming it on the round. It definitely doesn't require common cleanings. Unless you call cleaning a gun every 5000 rounds or so common. And water in the barrel is a issue for pretty much all rifles.

AC97 • 7 years ago

And speaking of "deflection problems", who can forget how the .30 Carbine supposedly "bounced off of heavy winter coats" in the Korean War?

Such idiocy...

Tom Currie • 7 years ago

Nice to see that you are reading up on stuff that happened before you were born and therefore know better than the people who actually were there. But you need to check your keyboard, apparently your 0 key sticks, because you ended up with three zeros when the correct number would have had either one or two.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

The Army tested the deflection issue in Vietnam. They found for the bullet to deflect enough to miss a target in brush that a 7.62 would still hit. The 5.56 had to travel almost 6 times the distance a target could be visibly seen. Guys were just missing.
And yeah the AR can easily go thousands of rounds without cleaning.

Kivaari • 7 years ago

I've found that shooting through light brush deflects any rifle bullet. Blades of grass I have never tried, but thin alder I have. I was amazed at how many pieces a .30 caliber bullet will break into. There are no "brush bucking" rounds to be had. Even things like the .45-70 are easily deflected on brush.

ostiariusalpha • 7 years ago

Strewth!

john huscio • 7 years ago

50BMG

Kivaari • 7 years ago

Everything will be deflected. Put a stack of 1/4 inch dowells in front of a 50 bmg and you will see the bullet is deflected. Any bullet passing through brush will get deflected, it is just a matter of degree and how far the target is beyond the impact point. Put any conventional rifle or pistol round out through brush and if the target is any distance beyond the target chances are the target will be missed.

Kivaari • 7 years ago

Have you seen the people that have been running their ARs for a year without cleaning, hitting thousands of rounds. Now I wouldn't try to go that far and clean after every use. But the rifle is amazing in how much gunk it can take without stoppages. The carbon issue is a hold over from the Vietnam era when things were getting stuffed with the wrong powders and no cleaning gear.

Buford T. Justice • 7 years ago

I thought that way a few years back, until a trip to Israel opened my eyes. No Galils, no AK's, all M16's in almost every soldiers hands.

Ondřej Tůma • 7 years ago

Well, that's because Israel got most of them for free thanks to the FMF, which, however, requires the Uncle Sam's weapon grants to be spent exclusively on US. made arms.

Scott P • 7 years ago

"I can't think of any other product in any other industry that is as proven and widespread as the AR15 that also still has decades old myths and a large number of detractors surrounding it."

Umm the AK.....

Malthrak • 7 years ago

By what measure are you calling the AR15 the #1 overall rifle across the world?

I don't think it's a terrible gun by any means, I own AR's and enjoy them very much, but I think calling it the #1 overall rifle across the world is just as hyperbolic as those who call it garbage. It's adoption has been slower and less widespread than other designs, and many of those adopting AR pattern rifles are doing so with heavily re-engineered models sporting highly modified actions (e.g. HK416).

Within the US it's certainly #1, but outside of that it's a multi-polar kind of rifle world.

Scott P • 7 years ago

Agree

Politics and logistics come in to play as well. The U.S. provides the most logistical support when it comes to "overseas adventures" so many of these countries want us to be able to supply them if they are unable to or WW3 happens.

DonDrapersAcidTrip • 7 years ago

I don't know how large the hold out is exactly but there's certainly groups of certains kinds of old men in certain corners of the internet going on about how fuel injection is crap and live in some imaginary world where old 70s muscle cars somehow had the most horse powers of all time ever. with guns the myths probably persist more because young people assume the old timers have a clue and want to sound knowledgable on guns because it sounds impressive to people who aren't and just repeat the same crap

gunsandrockets • 7 years ago

The only thing more annoying than AR-15 critics are AR-15 fanboys.

Porty1119 • 7 years ago

Sounds about right. I honestly have a bit of hatred for the AR platform, but recognize that it has its uses and is definitely a proven system. My issues with the AR mostly relate to ergonomics, not functionality. .223 on the other hand...better options exist.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

What issue with ergonomics does it have?

Guygasm • 7 years ago

Charging handle

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

It's one of the ARs biggest strengths. It's out of the way, ambi, and non reciprocating.

Tritro29 • 7 years ago

It requires you to break sight alignement and can't be done while aiming through an optic. From a military viewpoint, it's not optimal. Also reciprocating handles seem to be an American issue.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

Why would I be needing to keep my line of sight to a target when running a charging handle on a AR. The only reason to work it is either loading it from a closed bolt and empty chamber. Or if it has a malfunction. Neither of which I'm looking down the sights for.

Tritro29 • 7 years ago

Because of this thing called Situational awareness. And when in a trench or fortified position your gun resting you don't lose contact with your target. You have rifles like the G3 (or 36) that you can reload while maintaining the gun pointed at the right direction. The Ak fails at this as well, since you have to do a pivot to reach the charging handle or to use your weak hand (if right handed). A charging handle placed in front or in the middle of the receiver is a more friendly feature in such circumstances. The G3 fails however to fully capitalise on that aspect as its charging handle is placed far in front rendering that task a bit of a liability.

Also, you guys, i will never repeat this often enough, need to understand that while you have somewhat a privilege in the US* to run those firearms in more liberal way (pun intended) than most of us, those weapons are meant for war and for a doctrine that relies on different approaches than a target competition.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

Have you reloaded a AR. Cause you don't need a charging handle to do it when it runs dry. You use bolt release.

Tritro29 • 7 years ago

I have and it was asked from me to pivot/rotate the gun in order to reach the charging handle without punching myself in the the face. Also clearing a stoppage requires handle play.

CommonSense23 • 7 years ago

So with the bolt locked back you use the charging handle to send the bolt forward instead of just slapping the bolt release while slamming the mag in?