Is our beloved AR's most endearing quality it's light weight and svelte profile? In my recent fiddlings with the G36, which I quite like, and happens to be very lightweight as well, I have noted that perhaps the AR's weight and profile combined is what initially gave it such a foothold, and will keep us coming back in the future. Piston systems of various types continue to temp us with promises of cleaner, cooler, and ultimately more reliable firearms; they always come at the cost of weight and bulk though. Is that ultimately why we stick with the AR, in it's original configuration? I love the Sig 55X rifles, and they bring a lot to the table, functionally, but, at the end of the day, they're heavier and larger. It begs the question, if the 55X was the same size and weight of the AR, would we choose it instead? If the HK 416 was lighter and less bulky, would it be the gun everyone had to have?

I know the AR's modularity is what draws so many folks in, right now. That modularity wasn't there, when the rifle was first adopted; it's there now because something else gave the rifle an edge out the gate.

What do others think?

The intent of this discussion is to compare the AR to other rifles in the same class. 5.56mm, semi-automatic fighting carbines utilizing a thirty round magazine, and capable of mounting contemporary optics and laser/illumination devices. Barrel lengths are assumed equal, in any comparison, and the stock and LOP should be usable (not a PDW stock in a collapsed position).

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

I built my first AR as an SPR....18" fluted barrel and precision stuff. It was not light. I had a DDM7 after that which wasn't light either.

A revelation occurred when a friend handed me a 727 style carbine. Whoa. I get it now.

I've since acquired several retro AR variants and appreciate them for what they were and are. Still...love my HK MR223's and 55x's but can't beat the originals for how well they handle and point.

I was pondering this myself recently, how a design birthed in, what, the 1950s as a prototype (right?) endures to this day.

I, too, prefer a simpler AR that’s more akin to the likes of the XM177 / CAR-15 style carbine. So easy to handle, easy to hit with. Between a .223 and a 9mm variant, I feel like I’m set as far as my personal long-gun needs go.

There are lighter rifles, there are more compact rifles, there are lighter more compact rifles.

The reason The AR15 is so popular is because of its modularity. Look at the P320, and perhaps P365 to an extent as evidence.

If it more clearly mirrored a Remington 700 style (in terms of modularity, not action) then folks wouldn’t own 6-12 like I do. MOST people don’t own 6 700-style rifles, and it’s arguably one of the most modular firearms. It just shows how much farther ahead the AR is.

Modularity and ease of at-home assembly of parts. Which go hand in hand.

The light weight of the AR is one of my favorite aspects of the design. You're shooting a light-recoiling cartridge, there's no reason to have a massive heavy rifle to shoot it from. Yes the temptation is there to mount everything including the kitchen sink to your gun, but in my experience you'll regret that down the road. I find the lightweight guns more fun to shoot, and if you've ever had to hold perimeter with your rifle for hours at a time, you're gonna appreciate every ounce that you managed to shave off of your gun.

The great thing about the AR's modularity is you can add what you need, and leave off the stuff that you don't, and you can optimize it's weight and balance through what you mount and where. It's also incredibly reliable in its basic, lightweight configuration, so unless you have specialized needs like doing a lot of suppressed shooting, the heavy piston systems aren't really a necessary or even beneficial upgrade.

Our local SWAT guys use the Sig MCX. That gun's recoil system is incredibly smooth and they are a joy to shoot, but it's just too heavy for what it is. A lot of the weight is out front, too, due to the piston system and massive handguard, which ruins the balance, even before you stick a can on it. For a practical working gun, I prefer my regular old DI AR.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Is our beloved AR's most endearing quality it's light weight and svelte profile? In my recent fiddlings with the G36, which I quite like, and happens to be very lightweight as well, I have noted that perhaps the AR's weight and profile combined is what initially gave it such a foothold, and will keep us coming back in the future. Piston systems of various types continue to temp us with promises of cleaner, cooler, and ultimately more reliable firearms; they always come at the cost of weight and bulk though. Is that ultimately why we stick with the AR, in it's original configuration? I love the Sig 55X rifles, and they bring a lot to the table, functionally, but, at the end of the day, they're heavier and larger. It begs the question, if the 55X was the same size and weight of the AR, would we choose it instead? If the HK 416 was lighter and less bulky, would it be the gun everyone had to have?

I know the AR's modularity is what draws so many folks in, right now. That modularity wasn't there, when the rifle was first adopted; it's there now because something else gave the rifle an edge out the gate.

What do others think?

while I agree that the modularity was not there when it was developed and adopted, it followed shortly afterwards (in the 60's)

there are a lot of variants, and it was not uncommon for the US to upgrade or change types but just swapping uppers,

The Colt 6520 and Colt 6720 pencil barrel carbines in my safe are my favorite. The 6920 is not as balanced and feels front heavy in comparison.

I have heavier stuff, which is OK, I guess, but nothing feels as good in the hand to me as a simple, pencil barrel, A2 carbine like the Colt 6520

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
there are a lot of variants, and it was not uncommon for the US to upgrade or change types but just swapping uppers,

The same can be done with something like the 55X. The G36' main selling point was inherent modularity. The early modularity you're referring to is not unique to the AR, IMO, other than it was perhaps the earliest example.

I built mine as a lightweight, with a BCM pencil bbl & tried to keep the add-ons light too.
It's only got a Magpul rear BUIS, Vortex Strikefire II & padded Vickers sling on QD swivels. Had a AFG II on it, but didn't like how bulky it was.

The Strikefire II adds some bulk, but it's still comfortable enough to have slung for extended periods.

I'll have to toss it on the scale & see what it really weighs.

I like to attach the kitchen sink to my guns, and that practice serves to highlight the AR's edge even more. Guns like the 55X become quite bulky indeed, because of their original proportions becoming magnified by attachments. This is partly due to many attachments being optimized for the AR.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
There are lighter rifles, there are more compact rifles, there are lighter more compact rifles.

What is a lighter, more compact semi-automatic 5.56mm carbine that utilizes a 30rd magazine? I don't think you can get more compact, without going to a bullpup, and there's not one of those that's lighter, that I know of.

Which AR are we comparing?

SBR? 6920? My 11 lb 18” SPR with permanent suppressor?

Are we calling 16” carbine length M4 profile that “standard”? With FSP gas block and standard handguards? I would counter that while most own one of those, that’s the starting point for the modularity bit I added.

I agree that it’s a good selling point but I just argue it’s main reason for being so popular is it’s modularity.

I don’t even consider the AR “compact” when compared to a standard 16” bolt action as an example.

Take a 10/22 carbine and a 6920. AR can be shorter, but it’ll rarely be more Compact from any other dimension. Wider, taller, more “appendages”. But it is comfortable.

If you're comparing an AR to a bolt action or semi-auto in other calibers, that's not really a fair comparison. No, my Colt 6720 is not lighter or handier than my Q Mini Fix. Apples and oak trees.

There are not lighter, more compact rifles in it's class.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
There are not lighter, more compact rifles in it's class.

Okay.

I didn’t say 223, or carbine, or 30 round, are any class. I was merely making a point to show that it’s modularity allows for so MANY configurations that fold typically own more than one, leading to its overwhelming popularity.

If everyone reads my post I said I am comparing in terms of modularity, not action (caliber, blah blah blah)

I am not being argumentative, Ottosig; just trying to clarify the discussion. The weapon's intended function puts it in a class; as PGT stated, we aren't having constructive discussion, if we compare out of the class. Another rifle in the same class, with the same length barrel and a usable buttstock, will inevitably be heavier and larger than an AR.

OP edited.

Comparing modularity is okay across any platform.

This is your thread man, I’m out, just bored at work. Didn’t mean to upset the currents.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Is our beloved AR's most endearing quality it's … svelte profile?
…
What do others think?

It’s interesting to see an AR described as “svelte.” Of all the ways I could possibly describe an AR, “svelte” is probably at the bottom of the list.

To me a svelte autoloading rifle is something like the M1 Carbine or Ruger Mini-14 with 10-round magazine and no optical sight. The AR’s straight line stock requires the sight(s) to be mounted high above the bore line and its receiver design is much longer top to bottom than other model’s as well. That doesn’t even factor in the “saw handle”* style grip that extends down much farther than the old style pistol grip of those rifles. Even thinner are the bolt actions with nonextended magazines. By way of comparison, from the top of a flat top receiver to the bottom of an AR grip measures about 7.5 inches; the same measurement of a Remington model 700 is about 4.5 inches, and that doesn’t include the sights that must be mounted much higher on the AR.

I love my ARs and shoot them much more than my other models, but not because of their size and even handiness. Sometimes I remind myself of my true favorite designs by dragging out a 77/22 or 10/22 rifle and mowing down a line of bowling pins.

* Original credit to Jeff Cooper. His contention, and I have always agreed, was that rifles with traditional “pistol grip” stocks (à la M1 Garand, M14, his “scout rifle,” and countless others) were handier and quicker to mount to a shouldered firing position than guns like the AK, AR, and others with their grips that are positioned far below the bore line of the rifle.

It's everyone's thread, Ottosig. You didn't upset anything. I always forget some stipulation in my OP; you helped find it.

^^^ Was just about to jump in and mention the Mini-14, but SigFreund beat me to it. I love mine...and it's probably because I like a "svelte" carbine. It is indeed lighter and more streamlined than most of my ARs, and the traditional stock and minimal sight-to-bore offset make it a very handy and pointable weapon.

It loses to the AR in the accuracy and modularity department, but if lightweight and handy are your priorities the mini with a flush-fit magazine is hard to beat.