The AR-15

[The Annoyed Man]

What about a 5.56 SCAR?

I'd like to own one some day, and I love the 17......just not enough to want to hump it around all day with less ammo. My only issue with the SCAR 16 is the lack of commonality of parts with the AR platform (and maybe the high cost). The only thing it shares with an AR is the magazine and maybe the muzzle device. But the SCAR series are great rifles. However, today's topic is the AR.

[Soccerdad1995]

My main issue with the M-16 / M-4 is that it tends to jam when dirty. And when you are in the field, things get dirty. They just do. The platform really likes being well maintained and clean. And for home defense, where my rifle is kept indoors and regularly cleaned and lubed, the AR is perfectly reliable. To me, the whole AR vs AK debate is similar to the Glock vs 1911 debate. Accuracy versus reliability. It depends on the conditions. If I can be reasonably certain that the gun will be kept clean, then I'll choose the more accurate one. If I am going to be getting dirty, then give me reliability.

Of course, the flip side is that you don't need long range accuracy for home defense, and an AK should be plenty accurate for the typical ranges involved (less than 25 yards in my house). So in other words, for home defense, either one should work fine. And both are better than a pistol.

[Pawpaw]

My main issue with the M-16 / M-4 is that it tends to jam when dirty.

That is not an entirely true statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwoZ6SS_pY

S.W.A.T. MAGAZINE – FILTHY 14: http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-ma ... filthy-14/

[cmgee67]

My main issue with the M-16 / M-4 is that it tends to jam when dirty.

That is not an entirely true statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwoZ6SS_pY

S.W.A.T. MAGAZINE – FILTHY 14: http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-ma ... filthy-14/

Was just about to use this. The Ar is a more closed system

[psijac]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

Gonna disagree with you here. Anything will kill you given enough time and the right scenario. A drop of water will kill you in a flood. The best weapon isn't the one that will kill the most, it is the one that will destroy the attacker's will and or ability to fight. If a person gets shot and keeps fighting for an hour before dying of exsanguination, it's going to be a really bad hour for everyone. Just my two cents

[ELB]

...
If I were to choose the go into combat where I had to carry everything with me? Gimme an M16 because 1) I can hit what I want out to 500 yards with confidence, 2) I can carry a lot more of the little things that make holes in things that need holes and 3) the rifle itself is a lot lighter.

...

If I recall my history correctly, you basically just stated the whole reason for the 5.56 cartridge and the M-16/M-4/AR-15 class of rifles.

[The Annoyed Man]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

Gonna disagree with you here. Anything will kill you given enough time and the right scenario. A drop of water will kill you in a flood. The best weapon isn't the one that will kill the most, it is the one that will destroy the attacker's will and or ability to fight. If a person gets shot and keeps fighting for an hour before dying of exsanguination, it's going to be a really bad hour for everyone. Just my two cents

I wasn't making the point that the weapon that has killed the most is the superior weapon at all. I was making the point that the .223/5.56 cartridge has killed a lot of people, and as such it is probably as effective for self-defense as any other cartridge. 9mm aficionados are happy to point out that there are plenty of documented cases of people being hit multiple times with .45 ACP bullets who refused to go down. As in the pistol debate, shot placement is king. In that light, a 5.56 can kill a man as efficiently as a .308. You just have to hit him in the right spot. And mind you, it's not that I don't like .308. I love .308. Of all of my rifles, if I could only keep one in one caliber, I'd pick my .308 Remington 700. Why? Because it will reach further and hit harder at farther distances than my ARs. But I don't have to make that choice, and for my money, the AR is the best "general purpose" rifle there is. Sure there are better rifles for individual applications, but I really like the AR for its versatility.

I thought this article was a pretty good explanation and defense of the platform: https://www.wired.com/2013/02/ar-15/.

[DEB]

My main issue with the M-16 / M-4 is that it tends to jam when dirty.

That is not an entirely true statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwoZ6SS_pY

S.W.A.T. MAGAZINE – FILTHY 14: http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-ma ... filthy-14/

Was just about to use this. The Ar is a more closed system

Another area to check is InRangeTV on YouTube. They place both the AK platform and the AR platform in a wheelbarrow of mud and attempt to shoot them. The AR did excellent while the AK failed miserably. I was also led to believe during the 21 years I had in the Army that the AK would always function better when dirty. Never tested that thesis, just believed it as it was relayed to me by older vets. This video really changed my mind. I have had an M4 platform AR for several years, due to my time in the military I really understand it and its weaknesses, unlike the AK platform. The basic load for an M16 is 240 rounds, which I can easily carry on my LBE. I have an M1 Garand and ordered 220 rounds, which came in a sealed can, and would have had great difficulty in humping that amount for sure. Sure like these discussions, thanks to the OP.

[bblhd672]

AR-15/M4: I am having a really bad case of "wants one, gots to have one."