What makes the m16 and the ar rifle family so great

>It doesn't do anything particularly different than the AK platform

Wut. Every control on an AK other than the trigger is in a really stupid location, while the AR is probably the most ergonomic rifle even today. Even putting an optic on an AK in a way that doesn't lose zero during every field strip is insanely difficult.

Maybe it's the zealotry of a recent convert who sold his AK and got into ARs, but they really aren't even on the same planet, the AR feels like something from a century after the AK.

I don't know.

Attached: WP_20180512_005[1].jpg (3072x1728, 1.21M)

Rule of thumb with ARs is that it's like PCs. Buy one and you're probably going to pay more and get a lot less, that fits your desired role less closely, than if you research and build it yourself. That's really the beauty of ARs and what everyone means by "modularity".

Probably 2-3 MOA with M193

Being the most lighweight firearm of its class ever fielded is a huge plus. Even guns made nowadays don't come close.
God tier ergonomics that have become the standard that every gun up to this day has to comply with.
Iconic aesthetics
Became the cheapest weapon of its class to produce, ironically.
Unlimited supply of aftermarket parts

It's simply the best firearm ever made, and it is going to remain that way for at least a few more centuries.

Biggest advantage is a multi-lug rotating bolt that engages directly into a barrel extension, rather than the receiver or a trunnion.
Just about every rifle duplicates this because:
-It reduces the number of pressure-bearing components, meaning the receiver no longer has to contain the pressure from firing so it can be made out of plastic or aluminum rather than hardened steel.
-The receiver can therefore be much lighter, cheaper and easier to manufacture.
-Elimination of the receiver as a pressure-bearing component also helps accuracy since it is no longer a factor in repeatability of lockup. It's effectively bedded by design.
-The multi-lug bolt head tends to come closer to the same exact lockup position from shot to shot than a 2 lug bolt does, also improving accuracy.

There are other key advantages as well.
-Straight-line stock layout allows for very linear recoil profile, reducing muzzle climb.
-Generally convenient and ergonomic battery of arms.
-Magazine is inserted vertically and is faster/easier to change than a rock-in pattern.
-DI system reduces reciprocating bolt mass and shifts the point of balance back towards the receiver and shoulder.
-DI gas tube acts as a mechanical fuse, in the event of truly excessive heat it'll warp and fail before other critical components inside the receiver do. It still takes a stupendous rate of fire and round count to do so.
-Aperture sights that are easy to pick up quickly in combat and easy to read/adjust for long range shots.
-Because the upper can be swapped with the use of 2 pins it's a very modular design. Also very few things are permanently riveted/pinned so smaller parts are easier to replace or upgrade in the field.
-The rifle has been in use for a very long time so there is a wide array of military and commercial parts as well as aftermarket support for it.
-The magazine pattern has also become the established standard for the 5.56mm ammunition it fires. It is now abundant, inexpensive and reliable.

I'm curious, if someone made a finger sized replica of a gun (moving parts, springs, actual chamber and barrel, etc) but there isn't any ammo that would fit in it, does that still constitute as a firearm?

People actually do that and no, as far as I know they are not regulated as firearms.

Con't

-5.56mm has become a common standard for intermediate caliber ammunition. It is widely used with many manufacturers and variants available.
-Being able to hinge the action open is a great way to get at the trigger assembly and bolt.
-Bolt carrier group is easy to field strip, service and reassemble.
-Closed action helps keep mud/dust out.

Now as far as downsides.
-The buffer tube. It prohibits the practical use of side-folding stocks. It also means if there's a jam and the BCG isn't all the way forward it blocks the upper from hinging open, making that jam tougher to clear if the usual tap/rack/bang drill doesn't clear it.
-DI system does vent some carbon fouling into the BCG. Not a huge problem but it does mean you have to get in there to clean it more often than you would otherwise.
-Closed action is a mixed blessing because while it seals mud and dust out it also traps it, allowing for it to build up in tight spots. It also has a few sweet spots for a misfeed or spent brass to get caught where it becomes a real nightmare to unfuck, as opposed to something like a Mini-14 where a bad feed/eject will either be thrown clear in the first place or easy to reach in and fix.
-Mainspring twang. It's not a real problem but it is annoying.

Its modularity and customisability is unreal. I thought my SKS would be my battle rifle and thought the 7.62x39 superior to the 5.56 in every way, at least until I starting building my first AR from PSA and Anderson parts because I was broke.

>babby's first AR cost $500,
>then bought a 7.62x39 barrel and bcg so I could shoot my surplus ammo
>then bought A2 handguards for the 5.56 upper
>then a A2 upper receiver for the 5.56 >then a lower receiver for the 5.56 so I didn't have to take apart my 7.62
>of course an A2 stock kit for the 5.56
>now I have a M16A2 and AR-47 build, what's next?
>now I'm building a M16A4
>but what about the M4?
>building a M4 pistol build too

waynedriskillminiatures.com/other-guns/machine-guns/

if I had the wealth, I'd collect the miniatures along with the actual guns.

Childhood is idolizing the ar
Adulthood is realizing the HK platform makes more sense

Attached: 6852057168aeda69fe4fa4c1ca7327f4[1].jpg (760x500, 166K)

Not really.

You want an example of "shitting where it eats"?
Roller-delay H&K. Plus you need the deft digits of a proctologist to really get it clean.

>be left handed
>fuck you
>you dont deserve to charge your weapon

it never ends

Attached: 1519168195761.jpg (657x527, 244K)

I don't hear right handed ak-fags complaining

Attached: Akm_rifle_fullstock[1].jpg (1700x528, 203K)

>litteraly copy the spanish CETME
>OC DONUT STEEL BUY MY GUN GOYIM
>people actually fell for it
the only thing in this picture worth it back then was the MP5

LOL shit ergonomics

Because they dont have to reach up near the muzzle to work their bolt.
I don't have a problem hitting an AR bolt release with my index finger.

That could be true if any gun if it were popular. The same would go for AKs if the us adopted them. The only thing inherently more modular about the AR is the double recurved design

high quality posts

>buying HK
I'm going to need (You) to write down a phone number

Attached: IMG_8457.jpg (574x509, 39K)

In exactly what way?

Nope. You can carry around multiple AR uppers and zeroed optics, and swap them in seconds. An AK is what it is, you're going to have to go to a gunsmith to change calibers or barrel lengths.

Fanboyism and peoples'stupidity.

From an engineering standpoint it's good machine but a horrible weapon. That's evident by how it came to be, designed by a good engineer that had no experience actually handling and using weapons. Doesn't matter to an engineer if it shits where it eats and has to be cleaned often, but it matters to a soldier. Doesn't matter to an engineer if it has a weak action and fails once every 500-800 rounds, but it matters to a soldier.

Compare it to say an AK that was designed by an engineer who was also a soldier. He had it in the back of his mind that it had to work, always, 100% of the time. No bells and whistles, no working in a new questionable reliability recoil buffer system just to make it shoot softer, it just had to put rounds down range to kill the enemy reliably. He went with proven methods rather than proprietary ones... now if he had only covered up that selector switch hole...

I'm not saying the AK is the best rifle, but piston designs are the majority of rifles for a reason, and that reason is why your nerd designed gun sucks.

Attached: DXKc7ubX4AA2FPz.jpg (224x225, 10K)

>That could be true if any gun if it were popular.
Are you saying AKs aren't popular?
>The only thing inherently more modular about the AR is the double recurved design
Are you pretending to be an idiot?

Attached: WP_20180303_004[2].jpg (3072x1728, 2.33M)

For me personally it was after I had taken a statics class for engineering, and I found an engineering analysis of the G3.
It's just one giant redirection of force vectors. The angles involved minimize the force actually pushing back to open the action.
hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:technical-engineering-detail-of-the-g3&catid=4:special-topics&Itemid=5

>You want an example of "shitting where it eats"?
>Roller-delay H&K

How so?

In every semi the bulk of fouling in the action comes from the bore when the case is extracted.
In roller delay actions and most actions with chamber fluting there is higher pressure during extraction and more gas is blown backwards.

>-Mainspring twang

Noguns here, what does this mean?

This, there are more elegant systems out there but the amount of R&D poured into the AR and it's derivatives means that all the bugs have been worked out.

> looking cool
I think they're ugly as fuck

Which is a copy of the STG-45

See-It helps to avoid tearing the rims off the cases by "floating" the case on propellant gases.
It's in effect, blowing it's own "exhaust", back and into the breech and lockwork.

that's not how enginering works

I think your a soilder trying to understand and explain how a enginer works

enginers first make shit use it see all the fauliors of the stuff then go back and remake it until they come up with a ultimate solution

I own a PTR. After even a few dozen rounds it is dirty as all fuck. It has no gas tube, all of its energy comes from the blow back force of the case itself. This causes a lot of carbon fouling to enter into the area near the barrel inside the receiver. It gets thick with the stuff.

Of course, this doesn't really slow the thing down as roller delayed blowback doesn't give much of a fuck about anything, but it makes it incredibly dirty.

Is this why my SVT40 gets unreasonably dirty after only a bit of shooting?

That's "blow back" in roller delayed blow back.

The recoil spring inside the buffer tube. Makes a distinct sound when the action cycles.

You do know it was the same engineers that designed the stg-45 that fled to France, then Spain, that designed the cetme. And the same that retooled the cetme for NATO standardization for the bundeswehr as "Gewehr 3"

fucking noguns

No, because the SVT40 is a short-stroke piston rifle.

They're not bad, but the AR is just better.

Dunning Kruger.

ARs are fucking lego sets dude, one thing breaks and you can instantly replace it, including the barrel.

When you shoulder the rifle and fire it, or cycle it manually, you can hear the spring and recoil buffer in the stock.
Some rifles are more noticeable with this than others.

because you like it more. I never liked the AR, the first time I picked up an HK it just felt better.

Other way around, here. I was HK fanboy as fuck once upon a time. Now I'm into ARs. Go figure.

The action does not matter.
The SVT has chamber fluting and extracts while there is still fairly high pressure in the chamber. It blows large amounts of gas and carbon into the action.

I like your bed sheets user. Comfy.

Not even close to an expert, but here's my take

pros:
*very light
*easy modular function
*Parts being easily used together from different producers=huge potential for aftermarket production streamlining(i.e selling lowers and uppers instead of individual parts like an AK)
*receiver can be made from polymer and metal=easily tapped into aftermarket for parts producers of all kinds to make receivers with(out) molding plastic
*direct impingement negates considerable amount of recoil compared to its long stroke gas piston competitors

When it comes to production of the AR compared to other rifles, in this case especially the AK it competed with, the AR's parts are more expensive to make but easy to assemble on the consumer end. Having complete lowers and uppers makes things really easy. On the other hand, the AK's parts are easier to machine and have more lee way in terms of tolerances, but involve more 'hand crafting' in a way. If you're the average consumer making an AK, you can't really just get a lower and upper receiver and call it a day. It takes more skill on the consumer end to assemble an AK.

Compare:
Average consumer build AR:
*buy lower
*buy upper
*assemble
Average AK assembly:
*buy receiver; bend, flatten, heat treat
*do headspacing and drilling on barrel
*populate the barrel
*properly align front trunnion in the receiver
*insert all the internal components provided you have the knowledge, skill, parts, and time

I'm not an expert, but in my opinion, the AR has come out as great as it is because of its modularity, which it gives in exchange for production time and price. However, the AK's parts are made easily, but it takes a skilled worker to properly assemble an AK given all of the hand done bends and cut outs, like filing the magazine wells, headspacing the barrel, and mounting the front trunnion, which takes a skilled laborer to do reliably. Also AK assembly requires heat treating and riveting and shit, which complicates the process more

Attached: wooden furniture.jpg (5312x2988, 2.25M)

>but piston designs are the majority of rifles for a reason

Attached: everyone look at this retard.gif (220x165, 977K)

>Which is a copy of the STG-45

>Battle rifle with full sized rifle cartridge
>Assault rifle with intermediate cartridge
one of these things is not like the other

Nothing. It's not that great of a design. Its supposed advantages can be attributed to mere economy of scale.
>muh modularity
>muh aftermarket
Any rifle that mass produced is going to have a huge aftermarket.

It's like you're begging for someone to reply to you with nothing but a picture of an AK...

Solution: JP captured spring. Your welcome

>modularity
>legos

I think its funny that even though most firearms enthusiasts are also aware of the historical context that weapons came to exist, that people in regards to the AR-15 either understand 2004-onwards, and Vietnam, and nothing else in between. First off, only ARs were all built like Legos it would be great, because at least Legos are all made to the same standards. We all know that a Daniel Defense or LMT is not a fucking Bushmaster, and though they physically can interchange parts, they won't all do so with every component, nor would that yield a reliable weapon. Secondly, ARs with monolithic rails and all kinds of ninja shit is something that JUST came to be in the last few years, and is not exclusive to ARs. Go look at the shit that Delta was doing to mount lasers and optics to their rifles in the late 80s and early 90s and come back and talk about aftermarket and modularity. Stoner didn't envision the weapon to be what it is today.

Attached: 1435084366.jpg (1000x343, 66K)

Did you suffer a stroke or is english not your first language

These. Stoner, Fremont, and Sullivan got a lot right with the AR-15, both mechanically and ergonomically. It's no accident modern service rifles take a lot of cues from the AR-15 (and Stoner's later AR-18).

An excellent read if you haven't done so already is the book "The Gun" by CJ Chivers. It goes over basically 19th and 20th century small automatic arms history, and then juxtaposes the development of both the AK and the AR and their designers, and how both weapons came to be the main small arm of their respective countries. As much as I can appreciate both, the AR was a disaster from the start, and how it was adopted into our military is the stupidest backdoor bullshit ever, and the reason why we kept it so long was basically political reasons. The military keeps trying to get rid of it but doesn't want to spend the money to replace it with something better.

Attached: 20160417_225257.jpg (3264x1840, 740K)

Is that how you respond to someone's point, you butthurt faggot? Fuck yourself off back to /arg/ and quit fucking up the thread.

Attached: 165299b7-3861-46a4-8d87-cdcb69446781.gif (486x261, 1.4M)

Read it just fine and it makes perfect sense.

Eugene Stoner was a Marine before he became an engineer you stupid fuck, you can’t tell me he didn’t know how to handle a weapon. Literally everything in this post is wrong. Kalashnikov was a drunk that had no formal training, he was a decent tinkerer, but he had basically zero original designs of his own. The trigger and bolt assembly of an AK borrow heavily from the M-1 Garand. Also the original AK-47 was shit until real engineers ironed out the problems. I find it rather ironic that the current AK variants now mimic the AR in terms of ergonomic and modularity improvements. Go suck slav cock elsewhere.

>side from having the objectively superior striaght-in magazine well
But rock ins are more stable / secure and require less material.

Read a book nigger. Or if you’re really lazy just watch Ian’s video on it.

>It's not that great of a design.

Lol wut? Do tell us about all the other superior designs user. We’re waiting.

Jesus you are dense. Stoner was a brilliant guy, but his primary concern was to use lightweight state of the art materials in firearms. Yes, he may have been a Marine at one point, but being a Marine in and of itself does not make you an authority on either small arms design nor an engineer. In Stoner's case, his preference for lightweight materials and his passion for aircraft influenced his design, and it's hard for the designer to always envision how the end result will hold up in practical use.
>Kalashnikov was a drunk that had no formal training
Neither did many people who've gone to create great inventions. I personally am not of the belief that Kalashnikov had complete control and input of the design of which we know as the AK, and there is evidence and testimony that backs this up. Regardless, the AR is one of the few small arms still being used with the "direct gas" or "DI" gas system, while conversely, most small arms have come to either directly copy the AK's long stroke piston and lug design, or implement it in one form or another.

>I find it rather ironic that the current AK variants now mimic the AR
You do understand that militaries all over the fucking world also have the need to install IR lasers, optics and lights on their weapons, and the 1911 rail is NOT exclusive to the fucking AR you idiot. Every small arm around the world has rails you mong.

Attached: fde5a034-12be-4924-9b1c-fd490d46701e.jpg (1280x848, 216K)

Kalashnikov had formal training.
The soviet system would take anyone with potential and push them into engineering schools under established engineers. Kalashnikov had 3+ years of traing with the best design bureau engineers before submitting his design.

>it's hard for the designer to always envision how the end result will hold up in practical use.
That's what iterative testing by potential end users is for.

>the AR is one of the few small arms still being used with the "direct gas" or "DI" gas system
If you want to get into the weeds about it, the AR-15's gas system is not a DI system in the same way the MAS-49 is a DI gun. It's a piston gun where the bolt carrier is the piston.

>while conversely, most small arms have come to either directly copy the AK's long stroke piston and lug design, or implement it in one form or another.
Name them. Almost every western service rifle is a take on the short-stroke AR-18, or is an AR-15.

Not that user but I'll take a stab at why the AR isn't that great. Actually, it's not that bad, but it has flaws, mostly in the gas system and bolt design. DI as most know is a hot system and dumps lots of heat into the bolt carrier area. The bolt itself has three needle dick gas rings that under harsh conditions can fail, leaving the weapon inoperable. This gas system and issues are also why a piston is a superior design, especially when using short barrels with supressors. This is entirely the fucking reason why weapons like the HK416 and SCAR were developed.

The other major downfall is the magazine design. When Stoner designed the dimensions of the lower receiver, it caused the design of the magazine to be very thin and flimsy. This wasn't an issue to him as the weapon was designed (and sold to the military) with the intent that the magazines were DISPOSABLE. The rifleman would have x amount of mags and literally just leave them on the field and be issued new ones. When the military decided that they would reuse mags, this was an issue, as until the arrival of the pmag, most mags were flimsy aluminum ones that followers would get hung up in, and feedlips would bend, causing malfunctions. Many malfunctions in ARs are mag related, and it is just inherent in their design and how the mag is inserted.

Attached: f4251402-24ea-4475-9be7-0da9cff78b6f.jpg (500x358, 170K)

>name them
The Sig 550 series, SCAR, Tavor, Galil ACE to name a few.

>if you want to get in the weeds
I don't care whatever the fuck you want to call it, call it "AR piston", it doesn't matter. It's hot, it's poor in comparison to ANY piston design for supression as there isn't as effective a way to regulate the fucking gas, again, thus why the HK416 and SCAR exist.

>Suppressing 5.56x45/.223

Attached: 1523331089199.png (1085x1217, 1.66M)

SCAR is an AR-18 derivative.

>I’m merely pretending to be a moron: The Post

Stop user, just stop posting. Your stupidity is painful.

You know, the military is in a really weird spot. It's stagnate again, just as it was prior to Vietnam, but now instead of being hung up on M1 Garand based designs, it's hung up on AR based designs. It's so retarded it's laughable, and it's actually hung up small arms development all over the world. This is what the military does:
>Military: manufacturers, we want to make a new small arm. It's got to be better than the M4, significantly better, and the same money or cheaper. Do this and you'll get a sweet new contract
>manufacturers:uh, ok, so, what are you looking for?
>Military: make it like an M4
>manufacturers: "ok, so, we made these new piston weapons that do what you want them to do, and they are more reliable"
>military: "yeah, but, you know, they are just like the M4, and they are expensive and not THAT much better. We'll buy some of them but keep the M4 for now since you guys can't make anything better"

What FN or HK could have made to replace the M4 could have been amazing, but the government won't let go of the AR design. Not because it's the best, it's because the US military can't make small arms for shit, but now that we're the biggest spenders, all of the companies just cater to the bullshit that the Feds say they want but won't let go of. It's stupid.

Attached: 0aaeb555-555a-4b75-944b-675959f810e7.jpg (438x576, 56K)

>18inch
>3 prong
>wood
>unfenced
>a1

Attached: dong2.jpg (383x700, 44K)

Everything you said is either wrong or has been fixed for a long time with the AR design.

Really? I didn't know the AR-18 had a fucking GAS PISTON? Can you show me on the SCAR where the little gas tube is that directs hot gas directly onto the bolt carrier?

This is your argument? I'm giving you points, and you come back with nothing. This is a discussion and you've contributed nothing but ad hom, feels like summer in here and you must be a fucking 12 year old out of school playing Call of Duty.

Attached: 13709807_10205024044235892_7666987615656831837_n.jpg (720x540, 33K)

Well then it sure is a good thing the AR wasn't designed with suppression in mind.

>Really? I didn't know the AR-18 had a fucking GAS PISTON? Can you show me on the SCAR where the little gas tube is that directs hot gas directly onto the bolt carrier?
Are you fucking retarded?

Please, please, tell me where I am wrong and what has been "fixed". You can't "fix" the real problem of the magazine design without completely designing the lower, all you can do is change the material and design of the mags, which companies like Magpul have done a good job of, but that doesn't make it a good design. It's a shit design. Please tell me why the Marines want to ditch the M4 and the M240 SAW and give everyone HK416s? Please tell me what recent changes were made to the M4A1 that made the DI system significantly more reliable? You understand I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a grunt in the military and I've got plenty of AKs, and ARs both, and I've shot a fuck ton of different types of rifles, I'm arguing the merits and flaws of the AR and nobody can do anything in the thread but spew out liquid shit. Please educate ME why the AR is state of the fucking art despite it being a mid 1950s design that the Military would love to replace if it wasn't for politics and money?

Attached: 14350715_1322740081070026_828658111_n.jpg (1080x803, 135K)

I provided plenty of points in my original post. You are the one having a hard time providing a convincing argument. You seem to be stuck on the idea that AKs are Slav magic superior in every way to the AR. The fact is they are both good weapons, you just can’t seem to comprehend that the AR, for better or worse, is a far more technically advanced design.

Oh, it was? Can I get a citation on that?

Attached: 1458619828884.png (299x288, 73K)

The 416 uses STANAG mags. It too must be a shit design.

>SCAR is long stroke

WRONG

Attached: A698CCC8-9398-4B87-A833-06C8144F55CD.jpg (1024x576, 46K)

They are the most accurate semi automatic rifles you can get. #noteventrolling

No, you have no points, and have not refuted any of mine. Are you the one saying that a SCAR gas system is basically the same gas system as a fucking AR-18? Have you ever taken down either of these guns to clean them?

>AKs are slav magic superior in every way to the AR
I didn't say they are superior in every way to the AR. The AK has it's own particular flaws, but none of those flaws are what most people on Jow Forums think they are because half of the people on Jow Forums don't even shoot guns. The AR can be said to be better than the AK due to weight and construction materials, for one. But have you picked up an M4 that the average grunt gets issued in the Marines with a fucking KAC rail, PEQ15, light, vert grip, ACOG and BUIS on? It's not light. The military, nor does any military use a variant of the AR that resembles the Frankenrifle abortions with carbon fiber handguards and other bullshit that would crumble in real conflict. So, weight, has a slight edge but not that much over the AK, not anymore.

The AK also isn't as easy to suppress due to issues with barrel concentricity, but this is changing, but still not as optimal as a gas system like that on an HK or SIG rifle.

The AR is "super futuristic" to you because you see ninja shit on it all the time, but it too is a dated design, albeit one with a huge flaw being its gas system. Both can be used in conflict effectively by their users, but neither is the pinnacle of technology over the other anymore with the ability for pretty much anything, even a fucking M1 Garand, to have a fucking pic rail and a modern optic installed.

SCAR is short stroke with a elongated AR-18 bolt carrier group you big poop

>what does it do that no other rifle does?

It is capable of being carried by small Asians. Aside from that its pretty inferior to the majority of small arms and comparable only to ones designed to be used by illiterate Russian conscipts