Christmas wish - No more AR15 Manufacturers, please, Santa?

Post by **blueorison** » 02 Dec 2011, 17:52

Andrew mirrors thoughts I've been having for the past few years now. Tired of every other company claiming to be the "solution" to some imaginary problem. I've posted about this before.

I follow his blog because he

1. Actually shoots the guns he reviews and is a proficient shooter; which is necessary to understand why weapons should work a certain way, not just be able to be "sub-MOA", or "look cool"
2. Writes with an educated brain, and knows the difference between clips and magazines
3. Honest, unlike many gun magazine writers that do not include faults of the gun
4. Well-traveled

DISCLAIMER: These are my opinions (you would think), and below are his. If you're offended, next time I will include Gummi-bears. :p :thumb:

http://vuurwapenblog.com/2011/12/02/my- ... facturers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Dear Santa,

I haven't asked for anything from you in a long time, mainly because my life is pretty good and I don't really need anything. This year, though, I'd really like for my wish to come true.

Please prevent new AR-15 manufacturers from starting up.

I know it's a terribly anti-free-market thing to wish for, but I'm getting really tired of all the new AR-15 companies out there. It was hard enough when we only had a few dozen to choose from - now, everyone with an LLC and a buddy who works in a machine shop can make "world class tactical rifles." None of them have any imagination when it comes to names, either - it's almost a requirement to have the word "Black" in the name, because black equals tactical, and tactical equals money in today's firearms market.

The names of the rifles aren't any more imaginative. They most likely include the numbers 4 or 16 (or 4 and 16), or are somehow related to Greek mythology. Hey, the Zulus were pretty hardcore warriors, why can't we get some rifles named after them?

Of course, everyone is "mil-spec." Why? Because their carbine model generally resembles an M4. Never mind what the word means. In fact, some AR-15 manufacturers don't have a clue what mil-spec actually means.

I don't care what operating system they use, either. Windows 8? Short stroke gas piston? Doesn't matter, make it stop, please. Whether I'm a couch potato or an SF type who fast ropes out of bed in the morning, there are about a million things more important than whether my rifle can fire 10,000 rounds at the cyclic rate before the barrel melts, or whether it's "sub-MOA."

The ACR was a joke wrapped in a fat suit inside an enigma. The SCAR was a viable alternative, if you feed your purebred dogs caviar. No one is really sure if the XCR-M exists. The Sig 556 - no, forget that one. But the others were at least different. The companies put their best into the design. They didn't just say "hey, we could probably do that too" and proceed to confuse the hell out of innocent bloggers with their infuriatingly similar names and business plans.

I know that some of these budding AR-15 manufacturers are probably run by good people, but please, leave them prints for some other firearm under the tree this year.

Thanks,

Andrew Tuohy

PS. I am still waiting on that thing I asked for in 1989."

Mister Freeze · Post by **Mister Freeze** » 02 Dec 2011, 18:05

Can I, like Congress, tag on my own request? No more 1911 makers either!!

On a serious note, though, how does one become a viable firearms tester and/or writer?

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 02 Dec 2011, 18:13

You basically have to agree to never, ever, ever write a poor review. That is the problem with gun reviews, they are just bought and paid for ads.

On the letter, its funny. I love how is cool with the Sig (I am reading that right, right?) If not, F him!

Post by **Rapier1772** » 02 Dec 2011, 18:15

I wouldn't mind another 6.5 Grendel manufacturer or two though. By the way, what was the name of the one in Idaho?

Post by **blueorison** » 02 Dec 2011, 18:17

flyingirish04 wrote:You basically have to agree to never, ever, ever write a poor review. That is the problem with gun reviews, they are just bought and paid for ads.

On the letter, its funny. I love how is cool with the Sig (I am reading that right, right?) If not, F him!

Seriously. I have never read one poor review.

I think most guns made by the Swiss are top notch in quality. Andrew seems to agree with Sig manufacturing.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 02 Dec 2011, 19:25

Yeah, it is my major gripe with the gun industry. They can't just be honest and rip a gun when it needs to be ripped. That is why whenever I see a person talking about how a gun got such great reviews, I kinda chuckle.

fooschnickens · Post by **fooschnickens** » 02 Dec 2011, 19:59

Was just having this same discussion the other day on another board.

Rampant AR fanboyism has dragged firearms development to a crawl and is making developing any revolutionary platform a moot point because they won't make money because it isn't an AR.

I'm all for the free market weeding out bad designs but at this point something that's been "good enough" for the better part of 50 years is just choking out other options to the point of being considered monopolistic.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 02 Dec 2011, 21:08

Rapier1772 wrote:I wouldn't mind another 6.5 Grendel manufacturer or two though. By the way, what was the name of the one in Idaho?

Several companies make Grendals. The one in ID you are referring to is probably Quality Arms. They are decent.

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 03 Dec 2011, 05:00

I sold my last AR last year to a guy on this forum. Good riddance. Every gun show you go to is inundated with nothing but AR after AR, its become so senseless to even keep track of the "who's who" that I dont even bother looking at a single one. I also agree that coming up with a "solution" to a 45 year old design that was NEVER a viable replacement for the M14 to begin with (Aramalite M-16A) has become this country's obsession. If we'd go to a 6.5 or .300AAC as the new standard in America I'd poop my pants, but we're not, and primarily out of some sort of fanatasism with the AR. Even if we HAD to stick with the 5.56, how about a rifle that is so innovative that it kicks the crap out of the competition for half the coin? Other industries do it all the time, but the firearms industry is in an AR rut... and the fanboys.. oh god the fanboys... the 12-30 y/o demographic that work in the gun shops or play Modern Warfare... they'll pretend like it was the AR that saved their ass in 'Nam till they're blue in the face.

We just need one innovative company to come along and put the AR back in second place. Thank God for people like Kel Tec, if they'd just up their quality and be willing to work with the new catridges, I think their designs would take off.

He took a dig a the Sig 556... Ok, reasonable enough, its heavy and its made of lots of metal. Buts, its a short-stroke gas piston rifle with the realiability, functionality, and durabilty of an AK. Its served the Swiss for decades and has a reputation as an absolute rock in combat. I also have a sub 10" barrel on mine and it folds up into something you could fit in a damn microwave, costs negligably more than an AR, takes NATO mags. My other NON-AR's are a Steyr AUGA3 and a Sig DMR/LMG.

fooschnickens · Post by **fooschnickens** » 03 Dec 2011, 07:20

I noticed the jabs at the 55x and SCAR as well. While the comment on the Sig is somewhat merited (all the US made 55x rifles are riddled with QC issues), the actual swiss-made rifles are nothing short of perfect. The issue, however, is that you pay a substantial premium for those models. I'm not quite sure what he meant about the SCAR. Whether he's referring to it being maintenance-heavy or requiring high quality ammo. I've experienced neither with mine as I've shot it a lot when dirty and run all types of ammo through it down to shitty tula/brown bear with no issues. Only malfunction I've managed over several thousand rounds was a double feed that was eventually determined to be caused by a mag with a bent feed lip because the same malfunction was duplicated several times on other rifles.

We can only hope that the new rifle that beretta is developing will have a decent chance. It brings a host of nifty features to the table and if they can keep the cost at or under $2k it'll be a massive hit methinks.

romer522 · Post by **romer522** » 03 Dec 2011, 08:36

Only gun that had any chance of changing the game was the ACR, and if it were a pound lighter and half as much $$ it would have.

I half agree with the OP, too many companies are trying to manufacture complete rifles and market them, but I do not think in the slightest that there are too many high end part manufacturers. There is still new stuff coming to market that is entirely new, or with way better pricing than what it is competing against.

Have you guys thought about it this way? The more companies out there that know how to make ARs, the harder it is to regulate them, the harder it is to ban them, and the harder it is to shut down the US ability to manufacture combat-worthy weapons if we ever NEED people out there making them.

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 03 Dec 2011, 08:40

I dont really see why anyone would want less companies making guns.

Post by **panzermk2** » 03 Dec 2011, 08:57

WOW that Beretta has some really neat features. I like the three mag catches. It would make transitioning from an FAL/AK platform much easier.

Post by **blueorison** » 03 Dec 2011, 10:31

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I sold my last AR last year to a guy on this forum. Good riddance. Every gun show you go to is inundated with nothing but AR after AR, its become so senseless to even keep track of the "who's who" that I dont even bother looking at a single one. I also agree that coming up with a "solution" to a 45 year old design that was NEVER a viable replacement for the M14 to begin with (Aramalite M-16A) has become this country's obsession. If we'd go to a 6.5 or .300AAC as the new standard in America I'd poop my pants, but we're not, and primarily out of some sort of fanatasism with the AR. Even if we HAD to stick with the 5.56, how about a rifle that is so innovative that it kicks the crap out of the competition for half the coin? Other industries do it all the time, but the firearms industry is in an AR rut... and the fanboys.. oh god the fanboys... the 12-30 y/o demographic that work in the gun shops or play Modern Warfare... they'll pretend like it was the AR that saved their ass in 'Nam till they're blue in the face.

We just need one innovative company to come along and put the AR back in second place. Thank God for people like Kel Tec, if they'd just up their quality and be willing to work with the new catridges, I think their designs would take off.

He took a dig a the Sig 556... Ok, reasonable enough, its heavy and its made of lots of metal. Buts, its a short-stroke gas piston rifle with the realiability, functionality, and durabilty of an AK. Its served the Swiss for decades and has a reputation as an absolute rock in combat. I also have a sub 10" barrel on mine and it folds up into something you could fit in a damn microwave, costs negligably more than an AR, takes NATO mags. My other NON-AR's are a Steyr AUGA3 and a Sig DMR/LMG.

I like Steyrs. The new AUGA3's are beautiful and very functional. I've only shot the clones (MSAR), wish I would get some time with the real thing. Now the SIG DMR I have had much fun with; it's a large gun but the trigger is great and it is very well made.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 12:52

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I sold my last AR last year to a guy on this forum. Good riddance. Every gun show you go to is inundated with nothing but AR after AR, its become so senseless to even keep track of the "who's who" that I dont even bother looking at a single one. I also agree that coming up with a "solution" to a 45 year old design that was NEVER a viable replacement for the M14 to begin with (Aramalite M-16A) has become this country's obsession. If we'd go to a 6.5 or .300AAC as the new standard in America I'd poop my pants, but we're not, and primarily out of some sort of fanatasism with the AR. Even if we HAD to stick with the 5.56, how about a rifle that is so innovative that it kicks the crap out of the competition for half the coin? Other industries do it all the time, but the firearms industry is in an AR rut... and the fanboys.. oh god the fanboys... the 12-30 y/o demographic that work in the gun shops or play Modern Warfare... they'll pretend like it was the AR that saved their ass in 'Nam till they're blue in the face.

We just need one innovative company to come along and put the AR back in second place. Thank God for people like Kel Tec, if they'd just up their quality and be willing to work with the new catridges, I think their designs would take off.

He took a dig a the Sig 556... Ok, reasonable enough, its heavy and its made of lots of metal. Buts, its a short-stroke gas piston rifle with the realiability, functionality, and durabilty of an AK. Its served the Swiss for decades and has a reputation as an absolute rock in combat. I also have a sub 10" barrel on mine and it folds up into something you could fit in a damn microwave, costs negligably more than an AR, takes NATO mags. My other NON-AR's are a Steyr AUGA3 and a Sig DMR/LMG.

The 5.56 is fine given the proper ammo. If you have had to use it, you know it is fine for a man killer. Extremely accurate as well. Is it the ideal, of course not. Put it this way, if you think a 5.56 isn't enough, they there is no way you can think the 5.7 is enough. The simple reason why the other AR cartridges haven't been adopted is because they aren't worth the money to convert. Not at all. I love the 6.5 Grendel, but it isn't worth converting an entire military to it when that military is still the best int he world with the 5.56. Same reason why the SCAR failed with the military, too expensive to convert for what you get with the conversion.

Specialized units will always get the exact weapons they want. Rank and file military is served just fine with the M4 variants and the 5.56.

And the guy wasn't attacking the Sig, he was saying it was the only one that he was cool with, if I am reading it right.

As far as ARs, I think it is wonderful so many companies are in the market. I wish all gun designs had as much interest. Better for the industry, better for gun owners.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 12:56

panzermk2 wrote:WOW that Beretta has some really neat features. I like the three mag catches. It would make transitioning from an FAL/AK platform much easier.

It is very similar to the Benelli version gas system, as is to be expected. They made it much more functional though, looks like an ACR. I would stick with the FAL though, if it is priced like an ACR. I personally, I don't like the whole plasticy look. It is too SCI-FI or something. It took me a while to love my FsN for the same reason. I bought solely for the 5.7 capability. I am probably in the minority on this one.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 13:07

romer522 wrote:Only gun that had any chance of changing the game was the ACR, and if it were a pound lighter and half as much $$ it would have.

I half agree with the OP, too many companies are trying to manufacture complete rifles and market them, but I do not think in the slightest that there are too many high end part manufacturers. There is still new stuff coming to market that is entirely new, or with way better pricing than what it is competing against.

Have you guys thought about it this way? The more companies out there that know how to make ARs, the harder it is to regulate them, the harder it is to ban them, and the harder it is to shut down the US ability to manufacture combat-worthy weapons if we ever NEED people out there making them.

:agree:

ChuckD · Post by **ChuckD** » 03 Dec 2011, 16:06

IIRC, that blog loves the 5.45 AR15.

Wollychop · Post by **Wollychop** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:25

Personally, I would love to see*more* companies making ARs and other 5.56 platforms. More companies to enter the arena of the free-market, and more to be in play to experience market pressures and respond to customer demand.

Many would go out of business, but competition is good.

And yes, I would love to see more ultra critical reviews. What I would really like is to see more "torture test" reviews that bring a weapon to the point of critical failure. Test a wide variety of magazines and ammunitions and shoot so much that key components fail (bolt keys, whatever). I'm not talking about some 350 lbs tactiboy who hasn't even served in law enforcement much less the military talking about "tactical applications", I'm talking about benching a rifle and putting rounds through it till it fails or destroys itself. Show performance at various ranges to, say, 600 meters, with a variety of optics and conditions.

A lot of people think that if a rifle shoots at 1 MOA at 100 yards it will do the same at 300, 600... Well, not the case. Show us the full spectrum of applications. Show us the rifle shooting 55gr, 62gr. 75gr, etc ammunition. Shoot with the cheapest, dirtiest ammo you can find.

And then blow the sucker up. A squib followed by a full power round impacting a bullet stuck four or five inches down the barrel, or shoot with a barrel jammed with dirt in the far end simulating someone who took a tumble while on the run attempting to squeeze off a round. Blow the hell out of the upper receiver and let's see what happens. Can you reuse the lower? Is it all shot to hell? Would the shooter be injured?

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:30

daniel defense did a pretty decent torture test. granted, it was a company doing a torture test with their rifle, but it was very cool.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:35

Daniel Defenses torture test was a joke. Sorry. It was an advertisement, not a true torture test. I would love to see a third party do a real torture test. It just doesn't exist because no gun company will give out a free gun without getting guarantees.

Wollychop · Post by **Wollychop** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:42

flyingirish04 wrote:Daniel Defenses torture test was a joke. Sorry. It was an advertisement, not a true torture test. I would love to see a third party do a real torture test. It just doesn't exist because no gun company will give out a free gun without getting guarantees.

Yep! You'd need somebody willing to pay *out of pocket* to purchase weapon systems to put through the ringer, which would be tough. I can't really imagine it would be easy to make the money back.

The closest I saw was an American Rifleman where they put 1lbs of black powder under a M14 and blew it up, then shot it. But really all it did was toss the rifle about ten feet in the air (no more than a drill team might toss it, I'd imagine) and *magic* it worked just fine.

Well, what if the operator of that M14 had been sprinting, tripped, and buried his muzzle in mud for a few inches? Would it still be ok, or would the barrel split like a banana on the first shot?

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:53

flyingirish04 wrote:Daniel Defenses torture test was a joke. Sorry. It was an advertisement, not a true torture test. I would love to see a third party do a real torture test. It just doesn't exist because no gun company will give out a free gun without getting guarantees.

I get that it was ran by the company that makes the rifle but why, in your opinion, wasnt it a torture test?

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 17:56

NO muzzle block, dumped in mud, not truly gritty sand. No extended and sustained firing and accuracy tests. Can't tell if they even did what they said they did. And I don't trust anything done by the manufacturer. Ever.

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 03 Dec 2011, 18:08

But they did blow it up, throw it out of a helicopter, shoot it with a shotgun, and run it over. Seems to cover a pretty broad test. I really just wanted the Aimpoint afterward. I do understand not trusting anything a manufacture puts out but at the same time, who is going to do that to their own $2k gun?

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 03 Dec 2011, 18:11

Did they though? I can't tell for sure. Its called video editing. Was it cool, sure. But it doesn't resemble a real torture test, of which I have seen in the military. It is much more boring and in depth then the throw off a helo and blow it up marketing exercise.

And every company would do that if they felt it would get people to pay a higher price for their product. DD isn't the first to do that by any means. Great entertainment, yes. Empirical evidence, absolutely not.

Post by **panzermk2** » 03 Dec 2011, 22:27

flyingirish04 wrote:
panzermk2 wrote:WOW that Beretta has some really neat features. I like the three mag catches. It would make transitioning from an FAL/AK platform much easier.

It is very similar to the Benelli version gas system, as is to be expected. They made it much more functional though, looks like an ACR. I would stick with the FAL though, if it is priced like an ACR. I personally, I don't like the whole plasticy look. It is too SCI-FI or something. It took me a while to love my FsN for the same reason. I bought solely for the 5.7 capability. I am probably in the minority on this one.

The one fault, besides weight, of the FAL is the rocking mag and it's release.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 04 Dec 2011, 17:44

flyingirish04 wrote:
Rapier1772 wrote:I wouldn't mind another 6.5 Grendel manufacturer or two though. By the way, what was the name of the one in Idaho?
Several companies make Grendals. The one in ID you are referring to is probably Quality Arms. They are decent.

Gun show today, talked to them about getting one. After Christmas they will be coming out with a piston 6.5 Grendel. They nickle plate everything - I don't like the bling but I do like how smooth it makes everything & really easy to clean.

Ok not everything gets plated but parts of the trigger pack plus the bolt & carrier. I may get myself a late Christmas present - maybe :ponder:

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 05 Dec 2011, 09:00

I think this thread is getting off track, its supposed to be about NO MORE AR's... now we're arguing about which AR has what.... pfftt!

I think the position "the more manufacturers the better" is a cheap scpagegoat.. its an easily defendable platitude that sounds really good but holds no water here. Sure, more gun manufactuers should mean more innovation and competition...

But thats the catch... it DOESN'T.. they're all making the same thing, a few tweaks here and there, and all claiming perfection, with relatively little if any increase in capability or design.

I agree that the reason the bulk military isn't switching-up is due to money... both in primary weapon and in primary cartridge. However, I think keeping the AR, going to a purely gas piston design, and changing to something like the .300AAC which uses the same mags, and same AR parts with no decrease in round count, would be ideal. Costs increases would be negligable given the relatively large increase in capability. Bang for the buck.

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 05 Dec 2011, 14:17

What I dont really get is why it bothers people that there are that many AR manufactures? If you dont like it, dont buy it. I don't see how it doesnt mean more innovation/lower prices. Dont like the retarded charging handle location, LAR came up with a side charging upper. Dont like gas in your face, Innovate Arms came up with the W.A.R. upper receiver. You want mags that hold more than 30 rounds that arent much longer, Surefire came up with a solution. Want a lower with lefty controls, someone came up with a solution.

It's the same when shopping for a new car. There are so many options out there but each manufacturer offers something that someone else doesnt.

toyslr · Post by **toyslr** » 05 Dec 2011, 15:59

Be interesting to see if Daniel Defense hangs in their after their bankruptcy and laying off almost half its work force at the end of '09

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 05 Dec 2011, 19:16

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote:I think this thread is getting off track, its supposed to be about NO MORE AR's... now we're arguing about which AR has what.... pfftt!

I think the position "the more manufacturers the better" is a cheap scpagegoat.. its an easily defendable platitude that sounds really good but holds no water here. Sure, more gun manufactuers should mean more innovation and competition...

But thats the catch... it DOESN'T.. they're all making the same thing, a few tweaks here and there, and all claiming perfection, with relatively little if any increase in capability or design.

I agree that the reason the bulk military isn't switching-up is due to money... both in primary weapon and in primary cartridge. However, I think keeping the AR, going to a purely gas piston design, and changing to something like the .300AAC which uses the same mags, and same AR parts with no decrease in round count, would be ideal. Costs increases would be negligable given the relatively large increase in capability. Bang for the buck.

I can't disagree with this post more. The military is slowly switching to piston ARs for their combat arms echelons. And the 300AAC is a terrible round choice if you want change. It is designed for suppressor use. General military has zero need for it. 6.5 is probably the best for our type of warfare theory. But even then, what you get vs what you spend will not pass any cost-benefit analysis. Not even one done by the government. You don't have to graduate from NPS or the War College to see that.

And having more manufacturers being a good thing isn't a platitude, it is sound economic theory. And it allows for more choice. It doesn't stifle a thing. If people want something, the market will respond. I can't believe anyone could argue against that with a straight face unless the lived inside some elitist progressive mindset. :ponder:

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 05 Dec 2011, 19:18

toyslr wrote:Be interesting to see if Daniel Defense hangs in their after their bankruptcy and laying off almost half its work force at the end of '09

I hope it survives. It makes good stuff. However I think their price point is way too high for most of their gear. I hope they survive for sure though. :thumb:

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 05 Dec 2011, 19:20

Rapier1772 wrote:
flyingirish04 wrote:
Rapier1772 wrote:I wouldn't mind another 6.5 Grendel manufacturer or two though. By the way, what was the name of the one in Idaho?
Several companies make Grendals. The one in ID you are referring to is probably Quality Arms. They are decent.
Gun show today, talked to them about getting one. After Christmas they will be coming out with a piston 6.5 Grendel. They nickle plate everything - I don't like the bling but I do like how smooth it makes everything & really easy to clean.

Ok not everything gets plated but parts of the trigger pack plus the bolt & carrier. I may get myself a late Christmas present - maybe :ponder:

Yeah, they love the shine, don't they. Alexander Arms and SI-Defense are great options too. SI is doing some uber secret product development and have stopped production until after the unveiling at the shot show in January. But they make a great 6.5 rifle, at least they did before they went 100% skunkworks.

fooschnickens · Post by **fooschnickens** » 05 Dec 2011, 19:21

srt-4_jon wrote:What I dont really get is why it bothers people that there are that many AR manufactures? If you dont like it, dont buy it. I don't see how it doesnt mean more innovation/lower prices. Dont like the retarded charging handle location, LAR came up with a side charging upper. Dont like gas in your face, Innovate Arms came up with the W.A.R. upper receiver. You want mags that hold more than 30 rounds that arent much longer, Surefire came up with a solution. Want a lower with lefty controls, someone came up with a solution.

It's the same when shopping for a new car. There are so many options out there but each manufacturer offers something that someone else doesnt.

That's kinda apples to oranges.

Sure there are lots of car manufacturers out there, but they all don't make the same car. If everyone made the "Accord" simply because it had 4 doors, got decent mileage, was cheap to manufacture and had a massive aftermarket making it fairly customizable... that's a horrible thing to think about. I'd just as soon drown myself in a bucket of gear oil.

The problem is that since everyone and his dog is making "AR-15s" now the market has become supersaturated to the point that nothing new or groundbreaking will come about easily unless done by a big player in the market itself, but even then it's proven to be incredibly difficult. FN, Steyr, Kel-Tec, Magpul, HK, and others have tried to inject something new and viable into the market but people shun it because it's not what their pappy used to kill gooks in the jungles of vietnam or what HSLD operators are using on super covert night stealth chopper ops against hadjis in the sandbox.

There are some fantastic options to the AR in the market right now, but no one gives two shits about them because they aren't an AR. There's no objective reasoning, no methodology, no definitive answer as to why the AR is better. People can cite that it's been the service rifle of the US armed forces for decades but that doesn't mean <profanity removed>. We all know the gov't shells out to the lowest bidder. Hell, I'm surprised we haven't switched to the AK since it can be produced cheaper than the AR and still deliver similar performance. Lord knows they've screwed everything else up these past few years, what's one more thing?

Show me that it's more accurate than anything else out there.
Show me that it's more reliable than anything else out there.
Show me that it DESERVES this infectious fanboyish following that it has grown over the years to the point of stagnating the entire firearms market to a near standstill because it turned "good enough" into the status quo.

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 05 Dec 2011, 19:54

How will more manufactures make it harder for nothing new or groundbreaking to come out? With more competition, you need to something to stand out. I actually prefer bolt action rifles but I do have one AR for a few reasons. They can change calibers on the fly, any option I want is at my fingertips, I have a ton of manufactures to choose from so prices are low, and I can choose what features I want. If I want a long range precision rifle or a $500 gun I dont have to worry about, the options are out there. Those are a few reasons that the AR IS better than a SCAR, G36, RFB, AUG, FS2000, ACR, ect, ect, ect...

fooschnickens · Post by **fooschnickens** » 05 Dec 2011, 20:04

So what you're saying is that you prefer gimmicks over a having well-designed platform from the ground up?

Also, when everyone is already making the same product, more competition within the same segment isn't going to solve anything.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 05 Dec 2011, 20:49

Sorry Foo, but that isn't how markets work. Not in the least. Market saturation creates more alternatives and innovation rather than stifles it. In fact that actually makes it easier for a new guy to stroll in, like John Browning did, time and time again. Competition is always a good thing. Always. The only thing stopping other platforms to have success is their manufacturers not being competitive enough.

And the AK doesn't perform better than the AR. That is actually a myth. AKs actually have a higher catastrophic failure rate than the AR, mainly due to workmanship and materials. Their piston system is less susceptible to minor fowling, yes. But now there has been evolutions in the AR to make its gas system as resilient as the AK in this realm. Its called PISTONS! Not a gimmick.

The reason the AR is popular: Because it is actually a very complete weapon system that is easily personalized, and it is a better option for most given the cost over the SCAR, AUG, FS2000, ACR etc, etc, etc. The fact is that if it was just fanboys that perpetuate its dominance, it wouldn't actually be dominant. Most people that buy it buy for its capabilities. The fact you don't like it is because to you, it is boring and over owned, and you don't want the same thing. That's fine, but lets be honest you seek notoriety through uniqueness, which is actually just as pretentious as being a fanboy. And the only reason those other higher priced assault rifles sell is because people are fans of the platform and are willing to pay more. That too is fanboyish. You see where I am going now?

nrv216 · Post by **nrv216** » 05 Dec 2011, 21:15

I had an AR and sold it to get a ptr-91. I'm not a rifle guy and I wanted something in .308 for my all purpose rifle. I liked my AR, it was a stag arms, but it wasn't the end all be all rifle for my purposes. Like others have said, its all economics. Demand for ARs is up. Now it might be due to "fanboys," "gamers," and the tacticool crowd out there but I still won't knock all the manufacturers who are cashing in on the demand for ARs. I can see the point that shopping for an AR nowadays is like sifting through a endless sea of black rifles with flashy names but I cannot condone the conclusion that HAVING all of those options is a bad thing. I guess the real complaint probably comes from those who want a clear answer on which AR is the best or which AR to buy and I think that is ridiculous. Do your research, get what is suited for your purpose and be satisfied with it. At least that's how I feel. And if all of the people with ARs want them just because they think they are cool; good for them. However, they might question the logic behind their choices if and when our social/political situation changes for the worse.

nrv216

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 06 Dec 2011, 00:13

fooschnickens wrote:So what you're saying is that you prefer gimmicks over a having well-designed platform from the ground up?

what is the gimmick in versatility?

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 06 Dec 2011, 00:54

flyingirish04 wrote:
I can't disagree with this post more. The military is slowly switching to piston ARs for their combat arms echelons. And the 300AAC is a terrible round choice if you want change. It is designed for suppressor use. General military has zero need for it. 6.5 is probably the best for our type of warfare theory. But even then, what you get vs what you spend will not pass any cost-benefit analysis. Not even one done by the government. You don't have to graduate from NPS or the War College to see that.

And having more manufacturers being a good thing isn't a platitude, it is sound economic theory. And it allows for more choice. It doesn't stifle a thing. If people want something, the market will respond. I can't believe anyone could argue against that with a straight face unless the lived inside some elitist progressive mindset. :ponder:

You can disagree all you want, thats your perrogative, thanks for the input. Where is the military switching to piston AR's? I haven't seen any out here, but then my first trip to the Sandbox was in only in 06 and I'm still here. I wasn' there for the 01 invasion, still in flight school. Only piston rifles I've seen out here are the Spanish who have the G36 variant, and the hodgepodge of ISAF which mostly carry AK's with skeleton stocks on them, especially the Romanians. The Brits have their organic bullpup, and the Aussis's use their AUG's.

Really? A dig at NPS or NWC? Hey at least we're not as dumb as the ARmy... OH MY GOD, you talk about where the term "dumb as a box of rocks" comes from, United States Army.. Hoooah. :p Lets not turn this into a thing about naval postgraduate education, I see no relevance here.

"More AR manufactueres = More Better" is EXACTLY a platitude, its a generalized statement that implies a replationship that simply isn't true in all cases. The OP is making that case that no matter how many AR bozos come on the scene, nothing other than more ARs seems to come out of it. Nobody is saying that they aren't making money out of it, or that demand isn't up, so you're creating your own argument in that respect.

And actually, yes, a homogenous culture of anything can potentially stifle innovation... in some circumstances complete dependence on a singular product can create an resistance to change. Whats the number one reason that most people don't go buy a new rifle... "OOh.. it doesn't take my AR mags, therefore I'm not interested." How many billions of dollars in rifle sales have been lost for that one reason... AR mags. If we didn't have a completely overwhleming market of AR's, that wouldn't be a much of a deal, would it. Case in point... Microsoft.. everyone uses Windows, everyone has invested billions of dollars and entire careers in Windows. How many better products from smaller companies have never seen the light of day simply becuase the market is drowned with a singular product.

So yes, I can sit here and argue your points, and I don't have to have an "elitist progressive" mindset, whatever the hell that means. Nobody is saying that there should be some sort of control or legislation against AR manufactueres, its a free country and people will go where the demand is. If 100 new AR companies pop up every year, so-be-it, they'll still all be selling the same thing, and there will be less and less innovation and experimentation that goes "against the grain" of anything and everything AR.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 07:25

Seahawk, I am not trying to get personal here. Really...that wasn't a dig at NPS or NWC. It was a dig at your market POV. I could have used Harvard, or Yale, or Notre Dame, or Stanford...you get my meaning. I was/still am (IRR) a Naval Officer, and I spent a great deal of my time in training and attached at USASOC, then deployed as a task force adcon to two different conventional Army Divisions. I was literally a small unit guy in both Big Army and Big Navy, so you don't have to lecture me about the the ineptitude of big Army, or the idiocy of Big Navy either. As with all govt agencies, there is woeful inefficiency throughout DOD, even to the level of SOCCENT in country, exacerbated by increasing numbers of union minded officers and enlisted that are more bureaucrats than warfighters. I get it.

Now to address your points, as respectfully as I can:

One of the weapons I utilized in the dez in 2006-2007 was a version of the HK416 and that is a piston AR. The USMC is adopting the HK IAR, also a HK416 variant, as their infantry combat arm, also a piston gun. The Army is looking at piston uppers now and is slowly phasing them in, apparently using a piston Colt gun. The Navy always lags behind on this front, because save a few units, they really have no need for small arms other than sidearms and MA duties aboard ship, where a lot of lockers still have M14s. Most GM duties involve crew serve, so the USN will always be playing third fiddle in the battle rifle department.

To say that AR saturation stifle innovation is like saying that large corporations are evil. Its the same mentality that some how Big AR is stopping anything from being made to combat them. That is absolutely not free-market minded. It's even more ridiculous when most of these companies are small businesses!!! Homogenous culture? Not sure you know what that actually means, but it doesn't apply here.

And interchangability of mags is an economic issue. Pure and simple in a bad economy, people want to be able to interchange components, thus reducing turnkey costs. That is a no brainer.

And the fallacy of analogy of windows...wow. First of all, for that argument to have any credance, you would have to have once again a single entity, Big AR if you will, buying out better designs in order to keep their market share. Nevermind no such company exists, this isn't even sustainable for any company, even Microsoft. In fact, what usually happens with acquisitions like that, having actually been a part of a few, is that it creates product innovation internally. The fact that Microsoft hasn't evolved fast enough has even allowed competitors to survive otherwise company killing moves. Take Apple for instance or even look at RedHat's open source product line that exists solely because Microsoft is missing the boat in so many areas, and their saturation of the market has people looking for alternatives.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it simply isn't true. You want more cool toys out there as firearms platforms, I get it. But ARs aren't keeping that from happening. And to call anyone that owns one a bozo is very elitist, and frankly fanboyish. To not see the versatility and useablility of the platform is to not understand firearms. I don't know what more I can tell you.

ynoty3k · Post by **ynoty3k** » 06 Dec 2011, 08:43

flyingirish04 wrote:....
And the fallacy of analogy of windows...wow. First of all, for that argument to have any credance, you would have to have once again a single entity, Big AR if you will, buying out better designs in order to keep their market share. Nevermind no such company exists, this isn't even sustainable for any company, even Microsoft. In fact, what usually happens with acquisitions like that, having actually been a part of a few, is that it creates product innovation internally. The fact that Microsoft hasn't evolved fast enough has even allowed competitors to survive otherwise company killing moves. Take Apple for instance or even look at RedHat's open source product line that exists solely because Microsoft is missing the boat in so many areas, and their saturation of the market has people looking for alternatives. ....

WRONG!

Take Apple for instance? Bill Gates personally saved that company from bankruptcy with a single pen stroke loan of $500 million! It was a hair's breadth away from kicking the can, and he brought it back. Every single time Steve Jobs left the company, they've gone down, way way down. It is currently only a matter of time until they're back in the exact same situation.

And as for RedHat "product line"; They fit one market, one very niche market; Security. They're regular Linux based, and sure they've tinkered here and there, but they're one of the very few commercializations of the Linux Kernel that have succeeded. And even then, they're only in the Server OS market now; their desktop line is dead because no one was using it.

SeaHawkDriver-B · Post by **SeaHawkDriver-B** » 06 Dec 2011, 10:59

I was calling the influx of AR companies the bozo's, not the owners. I myself have owned two AR's, in fact, the AR was my first purchase of a semi long gun, some dozen or so years ago.

Saying that a singular product or market saturation stifles innovation isn't "elitist", as I am firmly for the manufactueres doing WHATEVER they want, and buyers BUYING whatever they want, thats the free market system. I'm certainly not for any sort of market control, I'm just pointing out the fact that when a market is somewhat vested in ONE design, change becomes very, very difficult. There are numerous examples one could use.

I just want you to tell me WHAT comes out of this bloated AR market, besides MORE AR's?

Post by **Cyberfly** » 06 Dec 2011, 11:44

If I may?
Although the discussion may have gotten a little...'heated'(?) at times, I do see both sides. Not saying I buy both sides entirely, but I do SEE both sides. I see where having SO MANY different AR manufacturers out there tends to steer R&D away from 'what could have been', but thats not to say that anybody 'would have been'.
Free markets are just that. Free markets. The markets are going to answer to what the consumers want and if what the consumers WANT is AR platforms, then that is what manufacturers are going to provide. I like some of the AR platforms, but to be honest, there aren't many. I'm just not a huge fan of them. That's personal taste. On the other hand, I have personal friends who have literally DOZENS of them in their collections. They buy them sometimes 2 or 3 at a time. God bless em. More power to them. Maybe they are investments, maybe they are stocking up for a zombie invasion or maybe they just like to see a whole wall of black in their spare room? I really don't know. But I do know that as long as people continue to buy them, manufacturers will continue to make them and each manufacturer will continue to tout theirs as the best. And more and more manufacturers will come online to provide their 'answer' to a perceived 'problem' that may or may not exist in those that are already in production.
All I can say to those who really don't like it...design a better mousetrap and people WILL buy it.
But you might want to have it use AR mags...LOL!

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 15:11

ynoty3k wrote:
flyingirish04 wrote:....
And the fallacy of analogy of windows...wow. First of all, for that argument to have any credance, you would have to have once again a single entity, Big AR if you will, buying out better designs in order to keep their market share. Nevermind no such company exists, this isn't even sustainable for any company, even Microsoft. In fact, what usually happens with acquisitions like that, having actually been a part of a few, is that it creates product innovation internally. The fact that Microsoft hasn't evolved fast enough has even allowed competitors to survive otherwise company killing moves. Take Apple for instance or even look at RedHat's open source product line that exists solely because Microsoft is missing the boat in so many areas, and their saturation of the market has people looking for alternatives. ....

WRONG!

Take Apple for instance? Bill Gates personally saved that company from bankruptcy with a single pen stroke loan of $500 million! It was a hair's breadth away from kicking the can, and he brought it back. Every single time Steve Jobs left the company, they've gone down, way way down. It is currently only a matter of time until they're back in the exact same situation.

And as for RedHat "product line"; They fit one market, one very niche market; Security. They're regular Linux based, and sure they've tinkered here and there, but they're one of the very few commercializations of the Linux Kernel that have succeeded. And even then, they're only in the Server OS market now; their desktop line is dead because no one was using it.

Um, no. That isn't what happened at all with apple and microsoft sorry. Jobs left the company once, until his death. And redhat doesn't fit one market. Sorry.

You still haven't proven tha ARs stop innovation, which is utterly ridiculous.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 15:12

Cyberfly wrote:If I may?
Although the discussion may have gotten a little...'heated'(?) at times, I do see both sides. Not saying I buy both sides entirely, but I do SEE both sides. I see where having SO MANY different AR manufacturers out there tends to steer R&D away from 'what could have been', but thats not to say that anybody 'would have been'.
Free markets are just that. Free markets. The markets are going to answer to what the consumers want and if what the consumers WANT is AR platforms, then that is what manufacturers are going to provide. I like some of the AR platforms, but to be honest, there aren't many. I'm just not a huge fan of them. That's personal taste. On the other hand, I have personal friends who have literally DOZENS of them in their collections. They buy them sometimes 2 or 3 at a time. God bless em. More power to them. Maybe they are investments, maybe they are stocking up for a zombie invasion or maybe they just like to see a whole wall of black in their spare room? I really don't know. But I do know that as long as people continue to buy them, manufacturers will continue to make them and each manufacturer will continue to tout theirs as the best. And more and more manufacturers will come online to provide their 'answer' to a perceived 'problem' that may or may not exist in those that are already in production.
All I can say to those who really don't like it...design a better mousetrap and people WILL buy it.
But you might want to have it use AR mags...LOL!

Well said. :agree:

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 15:14

SeaHawkDriver-B wrote: I just want you to tell me WHAT comes out of this bloated AR market, besides MORE AR's?

Creative destruction. That's what. Look it up.

fooschnickens · Post by **fooschnickens** » 06 Dec 2011, 15:53

flyingirish04 wrote:
You still haven't proven tha ARs stop innovation

And you still haven't proven that they don't.

srt-4_jon · Post by **srt-4_jon** » 06 Dec 2011, 16:22

lol, that's a pretty silly argument.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 06 Dec 2011, 16:35

Doesn't that sum up most internet arguments? :p

Post by **blueorison** » 06 Dec 2011, 19:14

I haven't posted on this thread in a bit, but I wanted to say something that I think is "clear" to many.

Just because you "can", doesn't always mean you "should". Of course, "should" is what is commonly debated within the confines of "can".

Legally Open-carrying with a Level I holster cocked 'n locked in a very crowded area is one example. "Can" you do so legally? Yes. "Should" you? Is it safe? It might be for you, but just as defensive driving can't prevent 100% of accidents because you can't control OTHERS, open carrying with a Level I holster cocked 'n locked might not be 100% safe because you can't control the actions of others, and opening up the opportunity for easy access of your firearm "might" not be the safest thing.

Does this mean I'm against it? Heck no. I'm all for open carry. But just because we "can", just means we should do so responsibly. That's the keyword, here. Just as everyone can own guns but a TONNE of gun-owners have ZERO concept of safety and endanger MANY around them,

Just because there is a free market for AR mfg's to spring up, SHOULD they? Or is it more progressive for the firearm market if they actually make INNOVATIVE products such as Magpul instead of mfg. gimmicky products that are advertised as "solutions" to non-existent problems, or just making the same thing as everyone and naming it something else because it LOOKS more "tactical"?

Something to think about, perhaps.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 19:57

fooschnickens wrote:
flyingirish04 wrote:
You still haven't proven tha ARs stop innovation
And you still haven't proven that they don't.

Yes I did. If you don't understand simple supply and demand principles, I really don't know what to say. There is no big AR company out there buying up all good ideas so that no one makes something different. Sorry but that is essentially what you are claiming and it is just plain ridiculous.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 20:01

blueorison wrote:I haven't posted on this thread in a bit, but I wanted to say something that I think is "clear" to many.

Just because you "can", doesn't always mean you "should". Of course, "should" is what is commonly debated within the confines of "can".

Legally Open-carrying with a Level I holster cocked 'n locked in a very crowded area is one example. "Can" you do so legally? Yes. "Should" you? Is it safe? It might be for you, but just as defensive driving can't prevent 100% of accidents because you can't control OTHERS, open carrying with a Level I holster cocked 'n locked might not be 100% safe because you can't control the actions of others, and opening up the opportunity for easy access of your firearm "might" not be the safest thing.

Does this mean I'm against it? Heck no. I'm all for open carry. But just because we "can", just means we should do so responsibly. That's the keyword, here. Just as everyone can own guns but a TONNE of gun-owners have ZERO concept of safety and endanger MANY around them,

Just because there is a free market for AR mfg's to spring up, SHOULD they? Or is it more progressive for the firearm market if they actually make INNOVATIVE products such as Magpul instead of mfg. gimmicky products that are advertised as "solutions" to non-existent problems, or just making the same thing as everyone and naming it something else because it LOOKS more "tactical"?

Something to think about, perhaps.

Um there is nothing wrong with carrying a pistol like that...so, no idea what you are trying to say there. Are you responsible for your sidearm at all times, yes. As long as you stick to that you are fine. But that is personal responsibility, not any governments responsibility. The second amendment arms all law abiding citizens, regardless of intellect. That is something not conditional. I assume you agree blue by your post, just not sure.

And the rest of your post seems to assumes that the market is just chock full of all idiots that have no idea what they are doing...if so, I don't agree with any of that. Might have misread.

Should more of any type of gun manufacturer spring up? Yes. As many as the market can bear.

Do AR companies make their guns just to squelch out other innovation? No way. Complete nonsense to think that way. Do they cause others to stop innovating? No again. The market will bear what it can. The platform is a wonderful platform, people like it, it sells. End of story.

Post by **Rapier1772** » 06 Dec 2011, 20:43

As I see it, there may be something wrong with carrying a gun like that. For instance, being around a group of little kids. (Kids too young to really know better) I would never open carry with level 1 holster, condition one, cocked & locked & yada, yada, surrounded by a bunch little kids. They like play, climb, grab etc. & you're just begging for an accident to happen.
I'd drop the hammer & switch to concealed in that case. Or in the case of my FsN, I might actually flip on the safety but definitely concealed.
Crowded mall at Christmas? Again no. Personally, I'd be too nervous about person A grabbing my gun because person B took that last Slap Me Sally doll or whatever & person A just HAD to have it. Remember, its Christmas & its crowded.

Accidents can happen, people are stupid & you would be responsible. If you want that responsibility then go ahead & I wish you the best. But not everyone feels the same way.

Can you? Yes
Should you? Only you can answer

CenCalSplicer · Post by **CenCalSplicer** » 06 Dec 2011, 21:51

I agree with Irish and this horse has been beat to death. If you don't care for AR's (whatever your reason might be) then don't buy one. Please name another platform that is as versatile and you can buy without breaking the bank??? Until the military switches to the 6.5 as their all around platform I will stick to my 5.56 and my .308.

flyingirish04 · Post by **flyingirish04** » 06 Dec 2011, 21:55

Rapier1772 wrote:As I see it, there may be something wrong with carrying a gun like that. For instance, being around a group of little kids. (Kids too young to really know better) I would never open carry with level 1 holster, condition one, cocked & locked & yada, yada, surrounded by a bunch little kids. They like play, climb, grab etc. & you're just begging for an accident to happen.
I'd drop the hammer & switch to concealed in that case. Or in the case of my FsN, I might actually flip on the safety but definitely concealed.
Crowded mall at Christmas? Again no. Personally, I'd be too nervous about person A grabbing my gun because person B took that last Slap Me Sally doll or whatever & person A just HAD to have it. Remember, its Christmas & its crowded.

Accidents can happen, people are stupid & you would be responsible. If you want that responsibility then go ahead & I wish you the best. But not everyone feels the same way.

Can you? Yes
Should you? Only you can answer

Fair enough. I will say that with 1911s it is safer to carry cocked and locked rather than hammer down on a loaded chamber. The gun is designed to be carried cocked and lock. Just FYI.

And you never know when those rug rats may get you. Ever notice that the creepiest part of horror flicks is when you hear toddlers giggling right before something evil bursts forth.

Post by **blueorison** » 07 Dec 2011, 02:03

Rapier1772 wrote:As I see it, there may be something wrong with carrying a gun like that. For instance, being around a group of little kids. (Kids too young to really know better) I would never open carry with level 1 holster, condition one, cocked & locked & yada, yada, surrounded by a bunch little kids. They like play, climb, grab etc. & you're just begging for an accident to happen.
I'd drop the hammer & switch to concealed in that case. Or in the case of my FsN, I might actually flip on the safety but definitely concealed.
Crowded mall at Christmas? Again no. Personally, I'd be too nervous about person A grabbing my gun because person B took that last Slap Me Sally doll or whatever & person A just HAD to have it. Remember, its Christmas & its crowded.

Accidents can happen, people are stupid & you would be responsible. If you want that responsibility then go ahead & I wish you the best. But not everyone feels the same way.

Can you? Yes
Should you? Only you can answer

THANK YOU.

You 100% understood the point of my post.

You put it very well. Thanks, Irish for seeing what I was trying to say!

I'm definitely FOR open carry and concealed carry. I think it's awesome that people in Arizona can walk into a bank with their gun in the open, IIRC.

Post by **Cyberfly** » 07 Dec 2011, 05:28

Situational awareness. Means more than what most people assume it means.

Who is online