Good use of a source. I knew that including mags and parts that Beretta won by cost, but I didn't know that with just the guns, the SIG was cheaper per unit. I wonder why SIGs are generally more expensive then.

While we're on the subject, I was also under the impression that Beretta also decided in favor of having a manufacturing facility in the U.S. whereas SIG did not at the time. This is of course why there are both USA and Italian made Berettas on the market. On the subject of magazines, Beretta was able to cut the overall costs by rejecting the Mec Gars they were going to include, and switching to magazines made by two companies called Check-Mate and Airtronics. Sadly enough, the magazines were finished poorly and included relatively weak springs and as a result made the M9s less than reliable guns. After 2006, Check-Mate changed the finishing from it's initial rough parkerizing to a spray on type finish to reduce friction in the mags, and they may or may not have changed the spring specs. I got one with my 92SB, and comparing the spring tension side by side with a relatively new factory magazine, I could find no strength difference.

The phosphate coated m9 mags were stupid, they coated the inside with phosphate too, good thing they did phase those out.

There's a link to the original GAO report below, if you feel like plowing through a dry government report.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20529

That doesn't seem like a good reason to buy a particular weapon, let alone bring it to the range. I go to ranges to shoot and have fun; I could care less if my gun makes me stand out or not.

Actually, sometimes I think I'm mostly unique because of how "bare bones" my AR is compared to those of everyone else - I shoot a stock DPMS Panther that looks like a military M4, has a vertical grip and no other accessories, and iron sights only. Everyone else has after-market camo pattern furniture, different brands of scopes, and tons of shit they don't need hanging off their RIS forearms. And they don't even shoot that well.

No, not everyone wants the same thing, but wanting difference for its own sake is not a good reason for variety.

There is also nothing "conformist" about preferring a proven weapons system over a hyped-up weapon that is unproven. Unless you think there's something wrong with all the people who would rather own/shoot modernized 1911s than purchase the latest polymer-framed .45 pistol.

What im trying to say is theres a common theme of people who rip on any rifle thats not an ar-15 or ak and say (SCAR, ACR, AR160, XCR, etc.) are answers in search of a problem, not needed cause the ar-15 exists, its the ultimate rifle that nobody should try to compete with, etc. A good, different rifle is cool. And works. Variety is the spice of life. The ar-15 doesnt exactly float my boat, its good, but theres a lot of good rifles out there also. Its also cool having something thats not exactly common, if 4 of your riends pulled out glocks wouldnt having your sig feel cool? I like the features on this rifle and if it is in the 1500 range ive heard and doesnt skyrocket way up like an acr im interested.

Who are those people you speak of? I'd really like to read an article/blog post by someone who "rips" on the SCAR or ACR or any of the new rifles. I haven't seen too many such articles. Whereas I've seen/heard WAY too many people on the 'Net who seem to think that the AR is fatally flawed, that it must be replaced ASAP, and that the newest rifle platform by H&K, FN, or whoever is the solution to the "problem" of the AR.

And the thing is, this has been going on since I was a kid. If someone had told me in 2000 that the AR was still going to be around (and more popular than ever) a decade later, I wouldn't have believed it. It's not so much that people "rip" on the new rifles; it's just that those new rifles never live up to the hype, so people eventually just stop talking about them and accept that the AR is fine, and in many ways superior.

Yes, it is. And one of the cool things about free-market societies like America is that there's such a huge variety of choices. But when one particular product endures and remains popular for over 40 years, outliving all of the other choices that have come and gone during that time, it seems safe to assume that this product is the best choice for most people.

No.

Also, if 4 of my friends pulled out brand-new, $1500 STI match-grade 1911 clones, and I pulled out my 22-year old, $500 SIG, then by your definition, I shouldn't feel so cool.

The Ar-15 hyping is forum stuff on gun forums not professional articles, Its just always something like:

"hey i want a new rifle for carbine courses is the XCR a good choice handled one in the store and liked it."

"get an ar-15 there the best thats why the military uses them"

"yeah why waste money on that when the time proven ar-15 is avalible"


I wouldnt mind having an ar15, just if i spent that much money on a rifle id want something I like a little better. And as stated I have left handed friends who hit the range with me and a true ambi rifle would be nice. Im not ripping on the ar-15, i just dont get why new weapons systems always get beat up on for not being one. The AR-15 is good, its not all superior, its not 10 levels above everything else, and remember, the first gen ar-15s blew hard, the new age weapons are in their first generation. In 40 years the Imagine where a SCAR or ACR will be.

Sounds like good advice to me. Buying a proven product is often preferable to buying a new and unproven product, especially when the new product costs so much more. And firearms, unlike other consumer products, don't become outdated or useless the way that cars and computers do, which is all the better reason to take a proven firearm over an unproven one.

The XCR also retails for $1500, while a good AR can be had for $800-$900. For someone who's never even owned a rifle before, it's an especially good idea to start with an AR, given its price and its track record.

Which would be well and done, but the biggest reason you seem to have for not liking the AR is the fact that you want to be different. And as I've said already, being different for the sake of being different is not morally superior to choosing something that most people like and enjoy.

What's more ambidextrous than an AR? You aren't talking about converting the rifle to left-handed shooting (switching bolt and ejection port) on the spot, are you?

It's not entirely obvious to me that anyone's "beating up" new weapons systems for not being ARs. It would help if you posted some links to forum posts/blogs/whatever to prove your case (being that this is the Internet and all, the rule "post proof or retract" applies).

Most of the "new generation" rifles (like the G36, SCAR, etc.) use the same gas system and bolt design as the AR-18, which is almost as old as the AR-15. The only big differences are that they're made out of polymer and have accessory rails. These aren't "new age" weapons at all, they're basically just modernized versions of a 40-year old rifle that already failed to eclipse the AR-15 in either the military or civilian markets.

Plus, you seem to forget that most European armies are issuing rifles that are based upon AR-18 technology, yet their SF units tend to prefer AR-15 variants.

I am talking about instantly changing it. Ejection port and all.

Plenty of other rifles have proven themselves

isnt my biggest thing, Reliability, accuracy and features is, just exclusivity is a nice thing, like when people put custom grips on a pistol, personalizing is where it is




I dont want a huge ar vs everything else debate, It just isnt the end all rifle, there are tons of good rifle designs and Im not gonna automatically get something simply because its been around the block the longest, im going to get whatever has a good fit, reliability, accuracy, and features. If somebody likes Ar15s, more power to them, they've just never caught on with me. I kind of like full sized ar-15s, a2 style, but the carbines just never did it for me.