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: