You see this phrase thrown around a lot, when folks are referring to a "KISS" rifle, or other minimalist configurations. It is often accompanied by comments about guys "bolting a bunch of crap to their rifles" and turning a lightweight gun into something that "may as well be an M14 at this point". In running some of my own guns across the scale lately, including the most recent, 11LB 10" AR "mini recce" prototype, it seems I am a regular offender of the AR-ruining phenomenon; I must have a bunch of stuff I don't need on there. Well, I think it's subjective, contextual, circumstantial, METT-TC dependent, or whatever other synonyms fit the bill, when it comes to considering what one needs.

Is a laser aiming unit dead weight? Not if it's IR, and the user has night vision.
Is a silencer just making the gun heavier and longer? Sure; if you discount all of it's advantages.
Is a variable power optic big and heavy, when compared to a red dot? Of course it is, but if your use-case ever has you needing to scrutinize something "in the field", I hope you have some binoculars around your neck.

I have a KISS mid-length carbine with an IWC light mount on CAR handguards in the trunk of the car. It's got irons and a sling. Is it lighter and handier than the 11LB rifle mentioned above? It sure is. It is also FAR less capable. If I had a strictly "home defense" carbine, I'd be happy with a red dot or holo, with a light and a silencer. That would be enough, in that context; it wouldn't be enough on a contemporary battlefield.

Short of deliberately employing the lightest-weight components available, a competitive battlefield rifle is going to be a bit heavy, I think. Are we ruining a light weight AR15? No; I say we're taking advantage of that light weight foundation. As mentioned in the folding stock thread, an equally capable contemporary rifle of almost any other design will likely be a bit heavier and bulkier than an AR15.

"Everything you need" is relative to what your perceived needs are.

This rambling was inspired by me reconsidering the construction of some of my rifles, when I started to see what the scale was revealing. After the dust settled, I have resigned myself to having rifles that many likely consider heavy. I have toted them for hours at a time, and it hasn't hurt my feelings... yet.

Places I could shave some ounces are accompanied by sacrifices. I could swap the LMT SOPMOD for a CAR stock, but I'd lose that comfy cheek weld, grippy rubber pad, and battery storage. I could use a lighter handguard and low-pro gas block (no real sacrifices here, but I have what I have, and the ounces saved aren't worth the expense to me right now). I could invest in a silencer made of fancier material and by fancier methods (also expensive). I could run a crazy lightweight barrel and BCG, but I won't because that's not what I think is appropriate in a "fighting rifle". Lights, lasers, optics, and mounts only get so light, so there's not much to say there.

Do I use these rifles, so equipped, professionally? No. Do I expect to be faced with a "contemporary battlefield" situation? Not necessarily. But that's what the rifles in question are built for. There are members here who use carbines professionally, and have access to, and a need for, all the contemporary "enablers". I wonder what their carbines weigh in at.

I've got everything I need, and nothing I don't. I guess I could take off a rubber ladder rail cover; ounces equal pounds.

*I have been weighing with a 30rd mag of M855 installed.

I can’t take anyone serious that has a defensive firearm without a WML. It’s borderline with no sling or optic. If they have 10 firearms and no NVD I question their priorities. KISS is fine for range toys in good lighting.

Two observations resulting from things I realized long ago:

A significant reason why people criticize what others do is that they recognize that they should probably be doing some of the same things, but they can’t—or more likely, don’t want to—do those things themselves. But they’re so insecure about their choices that they can’t simply let it pass without saying something, and feel compelled to express their disdain for what others do. Whenever I see something like, “Why do you want that?” my first thought is, “Why do you ask? Even though it can have absolutely no effect on you personally, it’s evidently important enough for you to offer a critical opinion, so what’s the reason?”

The other reason is also something we see all the time in various discussions. Very many people simply lack the experience or even the imagination to realize that other people’s lives and life circumstances may be different than theirs. To cite one common example, some people blithely assume that everyone else can simply pack up and move away from an oppressive jurisdiction if they’re not happy where they are.

And another thing that many people don’t recognize is that we all benefit even from things that we ourselves aren’t interested in. I’m not a precision rifle competitor and am very unlikely to ever become one, but my enjoyment of shooting is nevertheless enhanced from the fact that there is a high level of demand for the guns, ammunition, and myriad types of gear used in that sport. Plus, much of that benefit comes from learning about other people’s experiences.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
If they have 10 firearms and no NVD I question their priorities.

The doctor at the clinic said it was just a rash.

I can hit 16" steel plates at 400yds with my K31 if I do my part. That's the epitome of KISS.

I look at a KISS rifle as the modern musket. No, it doesn't need anything on it and I'd argue any battery operated optic doesn't fit the KISS standard. IR designator is nice if you have other kit but 99% don't.

Basic bitch Colt 6920 is KISS. I do prefer my CAR15/XM177 style for light/handy/KISS simplicity and quick handling.

A sling is mandatory.

quote:

Originally posted by PGT:
A sling is mandatory.

It certainly is if the rifle is ever used, or contemplated to be used for any serious purpose and isn’t just a range toy. A sling is the long gun equivalent of a holster for a handgun, except that some things can be done with a handgun in one hand and with the other hand free for the task. That is much more difficult to impossible with a long gun that’s heavier than a .22 plinker.

Unless, of course, we don’t mind just dropping the rifle on the ground and leaving it behind while we’re doing something else with our hands.
(That’s actually something I saw a senior LEO do in an exercise because his AR malfunctioned, it didn’t have a sling, and he wanted to shoot his pistol with both hands.)

I hope this doesn't turn into everyone chipping in their definition of a KISS rifle. We've all seen it tweaked every which way, to suit the definers ideas. People bend it because it's appealing to be KISS; who doesn't see the appeal of doing more with less? Quite appealing indeed. I say it's cool to do even more, with a bit more.

PGT, I hear you loud and clear on the irons. One of my first threads on SF was about an entire year that I committed to shooting irons only, on all my rifles. If one's eyes permit their effective use at range, irons and their user are capable of a lot. I say that a rifle with irons, a light, and an IR laser is more capable on a modern battlefield than a rifle with any daytime optic, but without an IR pointer.

However, where magnified optics come in handy is more than engaging. The dudes crushing it out to 400m with their K31s likely had eyes in the form of their own binos, or binos used by leaders. We can bolt that to the top of our guns now, and these devices are pretty light and rugged. We can better inform our actions and better aim our shots all at once.

The KISS appeal hits a snag, when we boil it down to something like this: Two opposing forces; both equally trained in their given equipment and battlefield tactics; one is KISS equipped; the other is "kitted out" (not talking about armor and whatnot; just weapons). Is the light/handy/KISS crew gonna win? I say no.

Just like my "citizen training threshold" thread, this thread wasn't inspired by me taking issue with something someone else, here or elsewhere, said about me or my choice in weapons/tactics. It's merely a thought exercise, based on trends I see in our "community". It was kind of inspired, actually, by arcwelders "lightweight carbine" thread a little while back. It wasn't the first time I observed a discussion like the one prompted by that project, but it was the first time I was motivated to see how my rifles stacked-up, in an effort to see if I could and wanted to do anything to trim some weight. I decided against it; to lose weight, more often than not, means losing abilities, when I look at my rifles.

This post is not debating yours, PGT. I just found the most to draw from, in your comments.

I like single malt scotch, and I like ice in it. I have an idea of what a KISS rifle is, but folks got to do what they do.

I think the light weight of an AR should be something you consider with its purpose, there is something to saying "why not .308" once it gets to be a heavy girl.

I think the best rifle is one with a purpose, that doesn't have stuff on it outside of that purpose. Does everyone need an OTAL?

Everyone does need a suppressor though....

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The KISS appeal hits a snag, when we boil it down to something like this: Two opposing forces; both equally trained in their given equipment and battlefield tactics; one is KISS equipped; the other is "kitted out" (not talking about armor and whatnot; just weapons). Is the light/handy/KISS crew gonna win? I say no.

The armed citizen is not fighting a war. The armed citizen is protecting home, loved ones, property. Because of this, there is no symmetry with opposing forces, and actually, there is likely to be one opponent only.

When the time comes for armed conflict on a large scale, I have rifles with magnified optics. Until then, an AR with a sling, a WML and iron sights serves my needs just fine. In defense of my home and family, I am not going to be taking shots at even a hundred yards, and inside a hundred yards, I can ventilate opponents with my 1966 Ithaca Deerslayer. I'll ring an 18" plate all day long with that shotgun loaded with slugs. Open sights, of course. This is not to say I use a shotgun in a defensive role; I mention the shotgun to illustrate that precision is not required for close-in shots on human-size targets, not for the civilian, anyway.

I have the tools to do what I need to do, and while I am not entirely averse to an LPVO on a rifle (that gives me a true 1X and then some magnification for longer shots), I find that optics annoy me. They get in my way.

An honest man with any MSR trigger time will tell you that he doesn't actually need magnified optics, and certainly at living room or backyard distance, I don't need sights on a rifle at all to puncture human-sized targets.

I have a KISS focused Sig 556; ambi lower, pmags, 1913 adapter and folding stock. I know I said irons above but on this stick, it’s a ScalarWorks mount and Aimpoint Micro and only backup irons (rail mounted popsicle and an MFI 553 folding front). Spare batteries on the grip to last a century.

as a gun guy, and a gun dealer (FFL\SOT) and a Service Rifle shooter (as in comps) I have had folks mention to me that they are coming to see me if the SHTF etc etc,

when I tell them I know the dope from my window to each mailbox on my street, they at first don't get it, then I remind them that I have at least one spotter (wife) and that she is good with a handgun,,,,

then they get it, and start the ''aw man, would not shot me'' BS,,

a simple weapon, as in AR, M1 or 1903,, with good enough ammo and basic marksmanship skills helps,,

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The KISS appeal hits a snag, when we boil it down to something like this: Two opposing forces; both equally trained in their given equipment and battlefield tactics; one is KISS equipped; the other is "kitted out" (not talking about armor and whatnot; just weapons). Is the light/handy/KISS crew gonna win? I say no.

The armed citizen is not fighting a war. The armed citizen is protecting home, loved ones, property. Because of this, there is no symmetry with opposing forces, and actually, there is likely to be one opponent only.

When the time comes for armed conflict on a large scale, I have rifles with magnified optics. Until then, an AR with a sling, a WML and iron sights serves my needs just fine. In defense of my home and family, I am not going to be taking shots at even a hundred yards, and inside a hundred yards, I can ventilate opponents with my 1966 Ithaca Deerslayer. I'll ring an 18" plate all day long with that shotgun loaded with slugs. Open sights, of course. This is not to say I use a shotgun in a defensive role; I mention the shotgun to illustrate that precision is not required for close-in shots on human-size targets, not for the civilian, anyway.

I have the tools to do what I need to do, and while I am not entirely averse to an LPVO on a rifle (that gives me a true 1X and then some magnification for longer shots), I find that optics annoy me. They get in my way.

An honest man with any MSR trigger time will tell you that he doesn't actually need magnified optics, and certainly at living room or backyard distance, I don't need sights on a rifle at all to puncture human-sized targets.

Sir, it is posts like this that really make me wish we had a like button,

I am fortunate enough to be able to have a long gun stashed where I work; it is KISS; it's intended for distances that Para described: inside the building and into the parking lot. It is a Sig 556 with diopter sights, a SF weaponlight handguard, and a P/W silencer on a ~13" barrel; it's loaded with Hornady 75gr Interlock. That makes two KISS weapons in my life very day; I appreciate their appeal and value. And I certainly appreciate that that's arguably all a citizen needs. Also, I have a small bandoleer that accompanies the trunk KISS rifle; it's got water, a snack, two mags, a TQ, and ear muffs on it. Between these two rifles and my modest bandoleer, I think I have my pragmatic bases covered. As I said above, I appreciate the efficacy or irons. I have spent a lot of time with them; I really really like them, and am confident in my skills with them. My two KISS rifles rely on them. Para and lyman both touched on another recurring facet of the KISS conversation, though I know they weren't being antagonistic in their mentioning of it: It is often implied that someone discussing an "overly equipped" rifle needs to learn to shoot better, because they must be compensating for poor fundamental performance. I have always been an advocate of the attitude that there'll always be someone who can do more /better than I can, with less/worse equipment. We should use that as motivation to train with what we've got. There are undoubtedly plenty of cases in which someone with a high-dollar rig with stuff attached to it ought to work on his fundamentals; it shouldn't be assumed that that's always the case though. In that year that I shot nothing but irons, I shot just as fast/accurate as my friends with dots; I'd do well to brush up on some training with my KISS guns now though.

The rifle in the trunk of my family's car is astonishingly similar to the ones Para shared images of, down to the light mounted on a plastic handguard. I understand the concept, and employ it in two rifles that I count on every day. From there, I choose to employ more gizmos, on other, IMO, more capable rifles. It seems Para has a more equipped rifle as well, as do all of you, I am sure. That is what this thread was made advocate for, I suppose. The KISS rifles stand ready to defend home and workplace; let us not neglect the rifles that enable a pro-active antagonization of a more elaborate opponent (a possibility that seems more viable every passing day). Thank you all, for the interesting discussion. Perhaps, so far, it boils down like it often does: this gun is for this, and that gun is for that. In KISS discussions I have seen over the years, there always seems to be an underlying attitude of KISS>kitted; that's where I take issue with the thinking. KISS isn't better, it's different.

Clearly, use-case defines the gear.

Both my work rifle and my personal AR are set up very similarly to what Para posted above, with the exception that both have non-magnified red-dot optics. They both weight in right at 9lbs, with a fully-loaded 30 round mag. I'm confident that I can do whatever needs doing with either of those rifles inside of 200 yards, and based on my experience any needs that arise in my life will likely be far closer than that.

Most of my real-world usage has involved a lot of carrying and holding of the rifle, for long periods of time, and those experiences have made me grateful that it's only 9lbs instead of 12. I also have to deploy it from a rack inside of a car, so the fewer protruding accessories the better (I actually keep a 20-round mag in the rifle and 30-rounders in an immediately accessible spot, as the 20 gives me a lot more clearance between the seats).

I'm not in the military, not a sniper, and not a SWAT guy. I don't have night vision, and don't have a suppressor (if I did, I'd likely opt for a piston gun over DI, which would add even more weight). In the highly unlikely event that I need to take a longer shot with the rifle, I guess I'll just have to make do with the gear that I've got, but for my current use-case I am happy with the trimmed-down config of my rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
and certainly at living room or backyard distance, I don't need sights on a rifle at all to puncture human-sized targets.

Very true.

I do a fair amount of instructing with Simunitions for room clearing and active shooter response training, and I've found I can reliably get hits at full speed on opponents inside rooms and shorter hallways using a Simunition pistol or rifle without ever consciously seeing the iron sights.

Now, that's not to say that you don't need to install sights on your defensive firearm, or should actively ignore the sights when shooting. Just reinforcing that with a little experience and when shooting at room distances, it's not difficult to hit human-sized moving targets without even really aiming.

quote:

In the highly unlikely event that I need to take a longer shot with the rifle

I recall reading something in the past that advocated magnified optics for officers, to enable greater short/medium range precision and target identification; the same way an LE sniper may prioritize such shooting, which is potentially reflected in their shorter rifles, as compared to a military sniper.

I regards to the ongoing thought exercise, I am curious how folks consider the recurring comment on the jump to .308. I'll snip arcwelder's above mention, as the example:

quote:

there is something to saying "why not .308" once it gets to be a heavy girl

Let us consider this in the context of a "KISS AR10" being applied to both use cases: the citizen's defense of self/family and home/property, and the citizen as a minuteman or part of some other sort of broader community military effort. Is the upgrade to a higher-performance caliber worth the weight and bulk, for the man defending his homestead and family? Is the upgrade worth the bulk, and sacrifice of magnified optics, for the man with a more military purpose? The rifle in question would be a regular-frame AR10 with a light, LAM, silencer, sling, and iron sights, as those are all things everyone can seemingly agree on (the LAM only because it seems anyone will concede that if the user has NV capability, then he ought to have the IR laser on there). Barrel length would be whatever makes it close to what your 5.56 was. It seems, to me, that it would be ill-advised in either case. Would advantages of the caliber be realized in the family defense situation? I guess bigger bullets going into the bad guy is always a good thing, but is it worth the bigger/heavier gun? In the more military situation, you have the burden of a different/heavier ammo inventory on your person, a bulkier gun, binos around your neck, and no on-board magnification to take advantage of the enhanced capabilities offered by the cartridge. Again, bigger bullet in bad guys is good, and something can likely be said about defeating barriers, but it seems I'd rather stick with a higher round-count and magnification on-board.

Magnification seems to be the odd lynch pin: put a LPVO on your rifle, and it's practicality in a citizen's use case is immediately downgraded. I can get on board with that, in that family and homestead defense application. As someone who's spent time with irons, I can also see the appeal of forgoing a dot as well; both my KISS rifles are completely optic-less. Put a magnified optic on your fighting rifle, and it may as well be something in .308, because it's so big and heavy now, that you'd be better off putting 7.62x51 downrange in the same weapon weight class, but without an optic. The scope is apparently what makes/breaks the deal in either case.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

My one and only AR at the moment has a carry handle, a light and a sling on it. The carry handle can be an excellent sight if you know how to use it, and I do.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder:
I think the light weight of an AR should be something you consider with its purpose

I totally agree. Most of my AR15s are assembled in a lightweight manner. I take optic/mount weight into account as well, though there isn’t much you can do when it comes to WML and aiming lasers. I have two full power PERSTs that go on my two “most serious” rifles.

quote:

Does everyone need an OTAL?

If you don’t have a good passive aiming setup, yes. It’s dark half the time.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I regards to the ongoing thought exercise, I am curious how folks consider the recurring comment on the jump to .308.

In my case, my primary relocation point is in grizzly territory. I have done lots of studying and thinking on 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 rifles. The Ruger SFAR has my interest right now, though I will not be able to get my hands on one until I move anyways.

quote:

In my case, my primary relocation point is in grizzly territory. I have done lots of studying and thinking on 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 rifles.

An interesting note. Perhaps a fighting rifle requires a sort of upgrade, when there are other, "non-combatant" threats.

One of the biggest hang-ups for me, when considering the .308, is the extra weigh/length in not just the rifle, but the silencer. It's a much bigger bang to muffle, and it takes a big honkin' can to get it down to similar, bearable levels that we're used to with 5.56 carbines. I have, more than once, considered an M&P10 project, that has the barrel chopped near the gas port, and a silencer installed; it would make a relatively handy, relatively affordable, relatively feature-rich AR10 rifle. However, it'd be damn loud.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
and certainly at living room or backyard distance, I don't need sights on a rifle at all to puncture human-sized targets.

Very true.

I do a fair amount of instructing with Simunitions for room clearing and active shooter response training, and I've found I can reliably get hits at full speed on opponents inside rooms and shorter hallways using a Simunition pistol or rifle without ever consciously seeing the iron sights.

Now, that's not to say that you don't need to install sights on your defensive firearm, or should actively ignore the sights when shooting. Just reinforcing that with a little experience and when shooting at room distances, it's not difficult to hit human-sized moving targets without even really aiming.

Rex Applegate agrees.