Although online multiplayer games have a few people who make it worse for others, I just try not to let them bring down the whole experience. I try not to let 15 year olds punk me around on the game haha.

People don't hate it. It just there is no use for it just like any other PDW or submachineguns. All PDW and submachineguns have been replace by AR15 SBR.

The 5.56 is superior to the 5.7 and pistol calibers.

In real life there is no extra life or respawn. So people in the profession use the best weapons that are available.

What about over penetration? Law enforcement don't take AR-15s into houses to clear them? If there's civilians involved, it's best to take a weapon that fires bullets that wouldn't go through a bad guy and hit the man behind him. Do they make frangibles in 5.56 bullets?

In testing 5.56 pierces less through a person than standard psitol calibers so they justify that it's safer. It also pierces more stuff if it misses. Im guessing departments have A LOT of faith in their accuracy.

PDWs aren't really a main gun, more a backup. A marksman can't be lugging a Remington PSS and an m4. A p90 is light enough as a backup. Secret Service even conceal them, try that with an m4.

You could conceal a shorty M4 in plain clothes very easily. Give it a short barrel, collapse the stock and vola. They displayed that concept well in Heat. In Future Weapons, Mack did something like that when he was showing off the PSD and he was wearing a regular jacket.

But PDWs as security weapons are the ideal

Every calibers the US military and LEA use over penetrate the human body.

http://theboxotruth.com/

PDW are primary weapons.

Pistol are secondary weapons, ie your backup if the primary weapon failed.

You can said PDW are security weapons but they are far from ideal. SBR AR15 made them undesirable.

I don't exactly like the AR platform, i find pistol gripped weapons awkward in the first place but then then controls on ARs are over-complex. A submachinegun can be a secondary. And It is WAY easier to conceal, a colt commando type thing may be concelaable with effort and be incredibly awkward, but A p90 is small enough for a backpack or even loose coat. Id take the FN over any AR. Much more compact indoors.

The AR15 rifle has the best ergo. The controls are simple. It has a safety, mag release, and bolt catch that is easy to reach. The charging handle is ambidextrous.

The grip angle and control of the AR15 has been copied by many rifles such as Sig 556, SCAR, Masada, Massoud, etc.

The worst ergo design goes to the AK and G3.

Submachine guns are primary weapons. Secondary weapon are pistols and knives. You can have a rifle and submachine but that doesn't make the submachine gun a secondary weapon. It still considered a primary weapon.

Here the thing about the P90. FN spend 10 years trying to sell it to the Europeans. It failed. So they went to the USA and have some limited success. The FN P90 filled no void. SBR AR15 does everything better and without the awkwardness of changing the magazine of the P90.

You don't conceal PDW or submachine, or any SBR primary weapons. The compactness allows the operator in and out of the vehicle without any hindrance.

AR 15s have to be taken off the shoulder to clear a jam or charging handle whacks your face and the direct impigment system means it craps where it eats. Agreed, AKs suck. I prefer the ruger mini for close range, as a standard rifle stock is much more confortable. My CQB weapon of choice is my 870 express deer.

Well if you clean your AR it won't jam as much, a rule all gun owners should follow. If you have to clear a jam in a scurmish, whacking your face is the least of your problems, you're pretty much SOL anyway.

A P90 is a nice gun. Light recoil, good penetration, accurate. But it is ergonomically awkward, and you can't see into the breech, so a brass check is impossible, and clearing a jam is going to be VERY difficult, expecially in combat. Reloading also isn't tactically efficiant, you can't drop and grab like with an AR, which can allow good 2-3 second reloads. You have to pull out a P90 mag so it takes twice as long. The mags are big too, so spare ammo won't be extreme. High ammo capacity is good, but rate of fire is a tad too high. Super short barrel makes it bad for medium ot long range, while AR can handle all much better. I have to say I'm an AR man.

Shotguns are always good choices for close range, but people tend to forget shot pattern doesn't truly spread for 30 or so feet, so a shotgun pattern at close range is as devistating as a slug. I want to get a Mossberg Cruiser as a home defense gun for this reason, my 870 Wingmaster is too big to make turns inside.

How's the AR-15 design over-complex? It's actually very simple.

And any rifle, if it jams, you have to take it off your shoulder most of the time to clear the jam. What are the odds of the charing handle of an AR 15 actually wacking you in the face? It's not going to explode into your cheek.

The pistol grip design is for more control and accuracy when firing a weapon in rapid succession so the rise of the weapon when fired won't raise the weapon too much.

Yeah really, the AR-15 platform is pretty easy to use. Insert magazine, pull back charging handle, release, take it off safe. To reload, drop empty mag, insert loaded mag, push bolt release on right side, weapon chambers. Or pull the charging handle to the rear (there will be no spring pressure because the handle isn't locked on the bolt yet) and pull until it goes no farther. When you release, the handle will release the bolt and the gun will chamber.

Plus, I think the pistol grip makes it much easier to hold, it has a better weight distribution so carrying one is easier than with a hunting stock rifle and it holds you steadier.

Carrying one is easier? Don't really think so, It puts my wrist at an awkward angle totin any PG weapon around while a standard stock rests confortably. ARs are also, well, incredibly overrated. I can't wait till its replaced in the U.S. arsenal, and a more modern weapon is used. I've heard good things about the SCAR, but it does look a little, well, bulky.

Yeah, unfortunately it seems every time they start looking for a new weapon system, it seems to always goes over budget, over the time constraints or some other type of problem. I dont speak from experience though, so take it with a grain of salt. Only from what Ive heard or some RUMINT floating around.

And I've also got to say this thread slowly got off topic, haha

Meh, each person has their opinion. I think it is very easy to carry. And it may be a bit over rated but it has served 50 years in the US Army and seems to do its job well.

Over-penetration is basically a myth. Some 9mm loads will penetrate more than .223 at the range in which CQB typically occurs. It varies depending on the specific make. But the types of .223 loads used by LE are not nearly as powerful as the NATO standard 5.56x45mm (SS-109).

Haven't you noticed that there aren't very many SWAT teams using MP5s anymore? Most of them are using M4s and derivatives nowadays.

But in rapid-fire, a pistol grip makes it way easier to hold. Try firing an M14/M1A rapidly and the difference becomes pretty clear.

I dunno why there's so much hatred for ARs, either. I recognize their flaws, but tend to think too many people are too critical of them.

Its more I think there is a lot of hype around them, especially where people buy 2 grand worth of tacticool accessories and such. And its a good rifle, not a great one. Better options out there. As for every weapons program being over-budget, I think its just a lot of stalling to extend the AR platform.

What hype do you mean? It seems to me like there have always been some vehement critics of the AR, particularly the people who insist that service rifles should still be 7.62x51mm NATO. And then there are those who actually argue that the AK is a "better" weapon. I feel like the AR receives way too much criticism.

I don't think the other programs going over-budget is "stalling". The XM8 was in many respects an inferior weapon to the M4, while the 416 is really not enough of an improvement to justify the per-unit cost (plus, both are H&K weapons, and the DoD has a terrible history with H&K). And the OICW/XM29 was just a plain dumb concept from the get-go. The SCAR may turn out to be better, but we'll have to see.

I believe intermediate cartridges are the way to go, 308 recoils too ahrd for close range full auto, 556 just can't make the long shots. 6.5/6.8 cartridges are looking promising. The AR is over hyped, I have freinds who were told the m16 is the ultimate rifle all through basic and hate the thing. One was told an m4 with ACOG is a better DMR than an m21:confused:

as for AKs, too many people base there gun knowlege on video games and tales of the gun on the history channel where they say aks dont jam. I picked up a norinco ak at my friendly local gunstore and don't even think it was meant for shoulder fire, it feels desighned to shoot from the armpit and the rear sight is halfway up the barrel.

I'm a fan of the AK platform, but it has awful ergonomics. It was designed to be reliable, simple to operate and maintain, and easily mass-produced, with anything else being an afterthought.

I'd take an AR over an AK any day.

What do you mean by "long shots"?

3,4,5,600 yards. I know 223 can make it out that far, under ideal conditions, as it is easily affected by wind or elevation more than a .308. It also has relatively poor penetration through cover, LEOs have had windshields stop their .223 ammunition. I wish back in the thirties we'd gone with .276 petersen, as we would probably be using an intermediate round today.

You can thank MacArthur for the change the caliber of the Garand to .30-06 but it was great vision doing it as it would have been one more caliber in use during World War II. Just think about it the M1 Garand, BAR, Browning 1919, Browning AN/M2, and 1903A4 Springfield Sniper Rifle. Also rear echelon weapons like the Browning 1917, 1903 Springfield, 1903A3 Springfield and 1917 Enfield Rifle. All those weapons would have to use a separate cartridge or be re-barreled. The same goes for the Remington 6.8 the only ones ever to use it in combat will be Special Op units as the military will not re-barrel their existing weapons or add a new caliber to frontline units. They are both good rounds just did not come at the right time.

When is the right time to switch? With that logic well use .223 when lazer cannons are ripping us to shreds........

When we go to a new Infantry weapon system wide. That time might me here faster than you think with every service testing the SCAR-L and SCAR-H. The SCAR-L is readily adaptable from 5.56 to 6.8 in about 3 minutes. The SCAR-H is in 7.62 NATO and is very controllable on full auto. I have checked out the SCAR-H and it is a beautiful weapon and is so robust that the Marine Corp could not destroy it. The SCAR system is coming on line right now for Special Ops and would be no problem to go system wide with it. I have my eyes on one in 7.62 NATO but they are not cheap.

As for Law Enforcement sales I think you will see then stick with 5.56 because of the city attorneys worrying about a round going through a car or wall and killing a innocent bystander. The was the reason SWAT teams went from 5.56 to 9mm and then back to 5.56mm the attorneys.

Funny I have a buddy who owns a G3A3 and at 50 yards he can put two ten round bursts across a human torso target and at 100 yards( in which about 80% of recorded firefights happen) he can put three seven round bursts across three human torso sized targets. The only time he has had trouble with controling a 7.62X51mm NATO weapon is when he fires his HK-21E from the shoulder. In that case the weapon is question has been cronographed at 1,100 rounds per minute...ie, it makes a MAC-10 look tame.

As for the 5.56X45mm While I have relatives who used the Armalite in Oman and Yemen and found the range to be lacking due to the fact that in those area's you did get 1,000m plus engagement distances. My friends in Iraq and Afganistan have sucessfully engaged hostiles at 500m plus with M-16A2s with a Colt Factory 3.5 optic mounted on the carry handle. Basically the 5.56X45mm has had 50 or so years to grow up and work. Heck Jeff Cooper's Apollo Challange was done with a custom Rifle loaded with .223 Remington ammo.

If you are unfamiliar with that challange it was to fire twenty rounds in twenty seconds into a twenty inch circle at 1,000 yards. It was done a couple of years back by a custom AR-15 maker. He said he used the .223 as anything else that had the reach had too much recoil to place everything in that twenty inch circle.

As for the 6.5 Alexander round and the 6.8X43mm SPC. the 6.5mm is not being marketed as a tactical round and the 6.8X43 mm has even more long ranged wind drift than either the 7.62mm NATO or the 5.56mm NATO. That does mean something when one is fighting in mountains and deserts.

I wouldn't mind seeing a SCAR adopted. Its modular enough for CQC, Standard and DMR uses.

Some say the SCAR is too heavy and kinda rough to hold. I like the Magpull Masada or ACR as it's called now, it has similiar concepts.

The ACR would be cool, as its produced about 30 minutes from where I live and would help the maine economy.

In an AR15 you don't need to take your rifle off your shoulder to clear a typical jam. I don't and people that have been train on the platform don't.

If you have a double feed or a malfunction that is harder to clear then you have to do remedial action then that need to be taken of the shoulder in some cases (like all rifles). Compare to a lot of rifles clearing an AR15 malfunction is pretty fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6jXFbkNU6E

The Ruger mini 14 is crap. For a rifle that cost almost the same as an AR15 it can't hit the side of the barn from 50 yards. After some 30 odd years Ruger decided to produce Hi-Cap mag for the mini 14. Wonder why? No ones buys the mini 14, everybody went with the AR15.

If the DI is so bad then why does almost every Western Special Force use them instead of piston type rifle? The people that thinks that the AR15 is unreliable are game kiddies and internet commandos.

Here is an AR15 shooting at 860 yards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9Nk...eature=related

I've seen AR15 competitor shooting AR15 with iron sight in less then ideal conditions at 600 yards targets without a problem. In fact 60% of their shots hit the X.

The SCAR is dead. Another future weapon program will start this coming November. It the main reason why Bushmaster is delaying the ACR.

This is based on what?

Base on the military starting another future weapon program this coming November. Bushmaster is delaying production of the ACR because they want to know what is the requirements for the new completion.

If the SCAR is going to be adopted in the US military then why start another program? Here the thing about the military, even if your product past the testing it does not means that it will be adopted.

In order for a future rifle to replace the AR it needs to suppress the AR15 in every categories. That's not going to happen because all these weapons are repackage from old design that was developed 50+ years ago. The difference is new name and new material but the same soul.

Special forces like the SCAR last time I saw.

And the AR is not as dominant as you make it seem, the big reason is politicians not wanting to dish out money on guns. We could get better weapons, and even small improvements are good. We could replace all U.S. Service rifles for the cost of one stealth bomber. Why not?

Ars jsut don't do it for me. And minis cost about half of what an AR costs. I dont know where your seeing 1200 dollar mini 14s. And ever try the NRA model with 16 inch barrel? 2-3 inch 100 yard groups. Not a military rifle, but as a utility gun I like it. And they have a target model, guess what, MOA:D

The reason for high caps is bill ruger died and now we dont need to deal with his BS and the new ruger folks are making good decisions.

I don't think you understand how the AR15 works. It is the best weapon in the world. That's why most Western Special Force use it.

If the AR15 was bad then why it is the number one weapon of choice for contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would these independent contractors that can use any weapon chose a weapon that most game kiddie think it is bad. Why would they risk their lives carrying a bad weapon? Because the AR15 isn't a bad weapon, in fact it is the best platform in the market.

Every time I read that the AR15 is unreliable and whatever, the first thing that comes to my mind is game kiddie.

Every time I read that this XXX weapon is going to be replace the AR15, the first thing that comes to my mind is game kiddie.

Show me pictures or videos where US Special Force use the SCAR in combat. The SCAR is for sell to civilians. If the SCAR is being use by the US military you would expect civilians sells would not be on the top of the list. There will be no civilians version for years just like there wasn't when the AR15 first came out.

You can get an AR15 for the same price as a Ruger mini 14. It's not my opinion it a fact. A typical AR runs around $800. The price is higher right now because of high demand and low supplies. AR15 manufactures can't keep up with demand even when the factories are running 20 hour shift. There is around a 6 months waiting period.

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/SearchResults.asp

I'd rather have an AR-15 than my dad's Ruger Ranch Rifle, but with a pre-ban 40 round magazine, accuracy isn't an issue a long range. But I've shot targets with the newer stainless steel Ruger Mini-14, and I fired 20 rounds as fast as I could fire on a target at 40 yards and got them all within about 2", which is pretty good.

But I feel very comfortable with the AR-15 platform, I think it is very ergonomic and easy to use, and is very accurate. While I wouldn't call it the best rifle in the world, it is a proven weapon that many prefer.

Now if .223/5.56 wasn't so god damned loud! I'm amazed anyone who's ever used one in combat can still here. You never feel compelled to plink with an AR, unless you want people a few miles away to know.

The AR-15 is not the greatest wepon in the world, it's jsut used by the military, looks cool and gets the job done. Any attempts to surpass it are shut down by the pro-ar crowd and everyone with one believes it to be the ultimate gun in its class. Everyone gets biased to their guns. Look at pistols. Some say glock, some say 1911, neither will admit anything is better.

But I do think Jdun has raised a good point...if the AR-15 is so overrated, why is that anyone who has a choice in what they use (meaning SF personnel) prefer them? Don't you think it's kind of odd that the Aussies adopted the Steyr AUG, for instance, but their SF all use M4s?

I did not say the SCAR-L/MK16 Mod 0 was being adopted by the US Military. I said The SCAR system is coming on line right now for Special Ops and would be no problem to go system wide with it. FN has produced over 100,000 SCAR-L/MK16 Mod 0 Rifles to date for USSOCOM. The are competing for the Marine Corp IAR program at this time. So if this new ACR program coming up what weapons are going to compete and how do you know that the SCAR is not one of them? Also I would not count on Bushmaster to much they still have a big QA problem as the M4 in Orange County Sheriff Dept that came from Bushmaster are junk.

Not saying it's a bad system like all thing it has flaws but the weapon works for the right operation. I have been working on the AR15/M16 system for 30 years and worked the bugs out to make them work fine. Then someone comes and changes it like the size of the gas port for cyclic rate or chamber dimension to get more accuracy out it. Then those have to be corrected because it done not work correctly with those changes. HK took several years to build the 416 changing everything when Taiwan had the T65 in the 1970's which is a M16 with a piston gas system ala AR180.