Bushmaster ACR/Masada vs AR 15

[Ermac]

Ain't it strange you hear AR15's kabooming more then any other rifle?

[Blue]

Hay Snipe I was sticking up for your XCR too but I am Siding with the ACR after all it's not just the Sleek Ads and pitch you also have too deliver and Remington and Freedom have a lot of production power!

Read the story on how Colt got the M16 contract and how the M16 got incepted. Its ridiculous. All politics and money.

In response to Terran on that article.

Yes, there were failed weapons. Lots of people using M-4's as light machine guns in a spray attitude. The blame here is completely on whomever put that base in that valley with towering cliffs on either side, and was aided immensely by having over 300 attack a base containing right around 50.

Good points all around. I would add that lack of training and equipment seems to be a factor there.

[FOG3]

Ain't it strange you hear AR15's kabooming more then any other rifle?

You do? I thought it was Glocks, which isn't so much a problem in design but people taking down the supergun a peg.

For the next rifle the US military adopts; it should allow the user to shoot from the open bolt at their discretion.

Why? Open bolt is only beneficial for full auto, a mode they don't really want you using to the point 3-round burst mode was implemented as a design feature instead of matter of trigger control. A mechanism to switch over, makes the whole thing more complex, which tends to lead to being more prone to failure.

A rifle is a rifle, a LMG is a LMG. It's not a good idea to try to mix the two at least until a lightweight LMG platform is developed, tested, and proven. The closest thing to that was the Stoner 63. Nice gun, but the SEALs did eventually drop it for a cut down SAW, so couldn't have been that great.

Perhaps the failures were more soldier related then the weapon, but I think there are more reliable designs out there then the M16 and M4 that the US military should adopt.

If the gun is kissing cook off temperatures, not having it chamber that round can actually be a good thing.

The much ballyhooed engineering test with the sand found that there no statistically significant difference between all models in the sand test, within the realm of a full war load. Outside a full warload, there was if the test was taken in isolation. The deviation with the last tests results however eclipsed the difference between the models.

Since the M16A1 there hasn't been really that many complaints with reliability, and all infantry rifles ever made jam and fail. If you want to get technical I'm sure you could argue the muskets didn't, but flashing the pan ain't much better. Bottomline is the AR is the longest serving rifle for the US, and has a lot of experience in other countries as well. It is perfectly capable of getting the job done, AOB interference on the early models aside.

Read the story on how Colt got the M16 contract and how the M16 got incepted. Its ridiculous. All politics and money.

True, but small change compared to that around the M14.

"We can make it on Garand tooling." Not. Ergo "I lied, now gimmee more money."

Springfield Armory lied their asses off, and couldn't even produce enough to meet demand hence McNamara getting involved.

[Blue]

True, but small change compared to that around the M14.

"We can make it on Garand tooling." Not. Ergo "I lied, now gimmee more money."

Springfield Armory lied their asses off, and couldn't even produce enough to meet demand hence McNamara getting involved.

Very correct! On one hand and of course, IMHO, the M14 was a huge improvement over the Garand for the ground troop. Also I would put forth that the M-14 will out live the the AR in any of its current incarnations. I think that regardless of how it got here, I think it will be as enduring as the Garand or the 1911, unlike the AR. Look how many different rifles like the Masada, the XCR, the SCAR, etc, are saying they are trying to improve on the current design while actually departing from the original design of the AR.

I think the next round of service rifle selection will make the last couple look like honest dealing though. Corruption and lies have now become the accepted standard. You don't even have to apologize these days, just pay a little fine.

[Ermac]

Why? Open bolt is only beneficial for full auto, a mode they don't really want you using to the point 3-round burst mode was implemented as a design feature instead of matter of trigger control. A mechanism to switch over, makes the whole thing more complex, which tends to lead to being more prone to failure.

M4's barrels can get very hot that's why I thought it might have been a good idea. It could possibly lead to more things failing by having a mechanism to switch over.

The much ballyhooed engineering test with the sand found that there no statistically significant difference between all models in the sand test, within the realm of a full war load. Outside a full warload, there was if the test was taken in isolation. The deviation with the last tests results however eclipsed the difference between the models.

What I recall from the sand test is the M4 did significantly worst then all the others.

Since the M16A1 there hasn't been really that many complaints with reliability, and all infantry rifles ever made jam and fail. If you want to get technical I'm sure you could argue the muskets didn't, but flashing the pan ain't much better. Bottomline is the AR is the longest serving rifle for the US, and has a lot of experience in other countries as well. It is perfectly capable of getting the job done, AOB interference on the early models aside.

I never liked the DI gas system of the M16. The idea of venting most of the carbon on the critical parts is not conclusive to reliability and requires more maintenance on the users part. Almost all new rifles designed today uses a short stroke piston or long stroke piston system. I think the reliability problems stem from that the AR was originally designed for a larger caliber then the 5.56mm. The larger diameter of the AR10's gas tube vs the AR15's would have taken much longer to foul and the looser tolerances of the larger .308 operating parts would have been better in adverse conditions.

[Ermac]

Very correct! On one hand and of course, IMHO, the M14 was a huge improvement over the Garand for the ground troop. Also I would put forth that the M-14 will out live the the AR in any of its current incarnations. I think that regardless of how it got here, I think it will be as enduring as the Garand or the 1911, unlike the AR. Look how many different rifles like the Masada, the XCR, the SCAR, etc, are saying they are trying to improve on the current design while actually departing from the original design of the AR.

I think the next round of service rifle selection will make the last couple look like honest dealing though. Corruption and lies have now become the accepted standard. You don't even have to apologize these days, just pay a little fine.

While the M14 is a good rifle I think it was outdated as soon as it was adopted. Better designs were made before it and after it.

[Blue]

While the M14 is a good rifle I think it was outdated as soon as it was adopted. Better designs were made before it and after it.

So why is it still in service today AND STILL being refined into accurized versions?

EDIT; I just realized that you said there were better designs before it. Please tell which ones?

[omon]

open bolt fire, is horoble for accuracy, it is acceptable for smg, "spray and pray" tactic, but for assult rifle it isn't. the only assult rifle that shoots from open bolt is aps, but there is a good reason why it does it, it is an underwater rifle.

[Ermac]

So why is it still in service today AND STILL being refined into accurized versions?

EDIT; I just realized that you said there were better designs before it. Please tell which ones?

Only because it's in .308. If they could have an AR style rifle in .308 for a designated marksman, they would choose it in a heartbeat over the M14. The G3 and FAL for one are better rifles.

[omon]

Only because it's in .308. If they could have an AR style rifle in .308 for a designated marksman, they would choose it in a heartbeat over the M14. The G3 and FAL for one are better rifles.

lol, really????
have you ever heard of AR10?
and how g3 or faL for one are better rifles??? I'd like to hear that one.

[Ermac]

lol, really????
have you ever heard of AR10?

They don't have the money to be fielding AR10's right now. The M14 is sufficent for now. The FAL is simplier to take apart,more reliable,better ergonomics, etc. The same with the G3. I heard that in army field trials they determined the FAL was a better rifle but they chose the M14 anyways. Think about about how many countries chose the FAL and G3 over the M14.

[omon]

lmao.

good one, best joke of the day, keep them comming

[FOG3]

Very correct! On one hand and of course, IMHO, the M14 was a huge improvement over the Garand for the ground troop. Also I would put forth that the M-14 will out live the the AR in any of its current incarnations.

I wouldn't be so sure. Not as a mark against the platform, but there has been a move towards a AR-10 platform specifically the Knight SR-25 to replace it if for no other reason then it doesn't advertise "Sniper! Kill IT!" quite the same way. :))

You guys are just a little too valuable and hard to replace to lose you unnecessarily due to advertising.

I think that regardless of how it got here, I think it will be as enduring as the Garand or the 1911, unlike the AR.

Not sure why you don't consider the AR enduring. Sales were better then ever this part year, and it has continued to grow in popularity in the civilian market. I don't think the competition shooters have begun moving away from it either. Could be wrong, as I don't keep that up to speed on what those guys do.

Does anyone that's not just an enthusiast use the Garand anymore?

I think the next round of service rifle selection will make the last couple look like honest dealing though. Corruption and lies have now become the accepted standard. You don't even have to apologize these days, just pay a little fine.

The sad part is you're probably right.

M4's barrels can get very hot that's why I thought it might have been a good idea. It could possibly lead to more things failing by having a mechanism to switch over.

Hot things make colder things warmer. It's a fundamental fact of life, like death and taxes.

The AR-15 actually started life at around 5lbs, or the realm that Kel-tec fought to get their superlight rifle into. Part of the militarization effort included a significantly heavier barrel, and honestly it's not like any barrels used on a rifle heat up significantly slower.

What I recall from the sand test is the M4 did significantly worst then all the others.

That's a take on it that involves reading the headline, but not the article. I'm right, and while this statement isn't wrong, it isn't right either.

I linked earlier in the thread to a rather thorough analysis. Check it out, and learn some stuff.

I never liked the DI gas system of the M16.

"UP AYE, SIR!"

"DOWN AYE, SIR!"

"LOUDER!!!"

"UP AYE, SIR!!"

"DOWN AYE, SIR!!"

The idea of venting most of the carbon on the critical parts is not conclusive to reliability and requires more maintenance on the users part. Almost all new rifles designed today uses a short stroke piston or long stroke piston system.

Pistons have their own serious issues, which is why despite the G36 being a flimsy thing made largely out plastic it's not meaningfully lighter then a M16A2. The piston tending to cause the BCG to dive also has long term effects on parts. It also doesn't unlock the bolt as smoothly, leading to some interesting effects.

[Ermac]

I wouldn't be so sure. Not as a mark against the platform, but there has been a move towards a AR-10 platform specifically the Knight SR-25 to replace it if for no other reason then it doesn't advertise "Sniper! Kill IT!" quite the same way. :))

You guys are just a little too valuable and hard to replace to lose you unnecessarily due to advertising.

Not sure why you don't consider the AR enduring. Sales were better then ever this part year, and it has continued to grow in popularity in the civilian market. I don't think the competition shooters have begun moving away from it either. Could be wrong, as I don't keep that up to speed on what those guys do.

Does anyone that's not just an enthusiast use the Garand anymore?

The sad part is you're probably right.

Hot things make colder things warmer. It's a fundamental fact of life, like death and taxes.

The AR-15 actually started life at around 5lbs, or the realm that Kel-tec fought to get their superlight rifle into. Part of the militarization effort included a significantly heavier barrel, and honestly it's not like any barrels used on a rifle heat up significantly slower.

That's a take on it that involves reading the headline, but not the article. I'm right, and while this statement isn't wrong, it isn't right either.

I linked earlier in the thread to a rather thorough analysis. Check it out, and learn some stuff.

"UP AYE, SIR!"

"DOWN AYE, SIR!"

"LOUDER!!!"

"UP AYE, SIR!!"

"DOWN AYE, SIR!!"



Pistons have their own serious issues, which is why despite the G36 being a flimsy thing made largely out plastic it's not meaningfully lighter then a M16A2. The piston tending to cause the BCG to dive also has long term effects on parts. It also doesn't unlock the bolt as smoothly, leading to some interesting effects.

It really depends on the design. Pistons work fine in a properly designed rifle. I have held a G36 and it completely turned me off that it was made mostly out of plastic.

[toemag]

It really depends on the design. Pistons work fine in a properly designed rifle. I have held a G36 and it completely turned me off that it was made mostly out of plastic.

You should have shot it. I have and it works a treat.:)

Having carried the L1A1 in my military career and having done familiarisation and been trained to use most firearms from the AR family most of the AK's, H&K and Stgw 77 amongst others the M249, M60 the FN GPMG, the MG3 MP5's and UZI's, not to mention the endless list of handguns.

Just how much hands on experience do you have?

And which direction are the empty cases ejected from the open bolt LMG's or GPMG's that you have used?

Tony