The Mini14 certainly fits in the same class. If we breach the optics and other attachments threshold, however, the Mini will get nasty quick. Of course, that depends on the user's needs.

I'm a big fan of the pencil barreled 14" Bren-2 with p/w suppressor mount. It compares vary favorably to my SOLGW p/w 13.7" as far as weight and pointability with a tip of the hat the Bren for folding stock and more ergonomic (side-charging is easier in a pinch then rear of the receiver when you need to clear).

Colt 6720 - 6.2lbs
Mini-14 - 6.6lbs
Bren 2 14" - 6.8lbs

They are supposed to be light!?!?

I decided to get the scale out and weigh some guns.

The one at the top is a 9mm build. It's about as barebones as you can get without investing in ultralightweight stuff. 16" CMMG RDB barrel and BCG, Magpul stock and pistol grip, Aero Atlas S-one 9" handguard with a holosun 407c mounted on a skeletonized mount. It doesn't vene have backup irons on it. It weighs 6.2lbs.

Middle is my old patrol rifle. 16" M4 profile barrel, Magpul furniture, Aimpoint PRO, MBUIS rear backup sight, blue force gear sling, and a streamlight polytac. Weight: 8.06lbs (9lbs with a loaded 30-round mag).

Finally, the Mini. It wears a cheap sling and I replaced the plastic handguard with a wooden one. It's 6.5lbs (7.4 with a loaded 20 round mag).



So yes, an AR can be lighter than a mini, but most of them aren't set up like that.

Putting stuff back in the safe, I was also reminded what a PITA those ARs are with the protruding pistol grips and stuff sticking off everywhere. The mini slides right into a slot like it was made for it. Obviously storage has no bearing on usability, but it definitely illustrates the "svelteness" of the mini over an AR.

Hopefully not too much of a drift, but is that an RRS Anvil-30 head on the tripod, IndianaBoy? If so, how do you like it in that setup?

Because of its size and weight I put mine on a much smaller Slik tripod that obviously isn’t as stable as something like yours. Without going to the trouble of switching the head to my Two Vets Recon, I’m curious if you feel that the Anvil-30 makes a good combination like yours.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Hopefully not too much of a drift, but is that an RRS Anvil-30 head on the tripod, IndianaBoy? If so, how do you like it in that setup?

Because of its size and weight I put mine on a much smaller Slik tripod that obviously isn’t as stable as something like yours. Without going to the trouble of switching the head to my Two Vets Recon, I’m curious if you feel that the Anvil-30 makes a good combination like yours.

It is. Very very solid. 95% as stable as prone. The tension lever has a very graduated feel. I can have the rifle completely loose, can have some tension to reduce wobble while traversing, or I can lock it down. There is just enough flex in the tripod to allow about 1 mil in any direction if I need to push the rifle to fine tune POA with the ball head locked all the way down.

There are two features of the M16 which create what some call modularity. One is the gas impingement system discussed in a variety of ways. The other is the barrel extension and barrel nut capture to the upper. That feature alone has further advantages - the barrel doesn't have to be pressed into a receiver trunnion and headspace simultaneously set, the bolt lugs are part of the extension, not the receiver, and the barrel extension itself screws onto the barrel making headspace adjustments simple, not a gunsmith level job.

Once the headspace is set then the extension is pinned, and the port and feed ramps machined. The pin acts as an anti rotation lug when inserted into the upper. That procedure makes swapping barrels easy - it's a wrench job, not a press and set headspace job. The barrel extension is where the critical modularity comes from which makes owner assembly from almost the ground up as easy as it is.

Working on my third - how many have built Rem 700 customs by pressing and setting headspace on that barrel receiver? Few. AK - same, press and set headspace, assembling an AK would be common and dirt simple except for that. It's the major stumbling block for most of us, just as a handgun frame with trigger incorporated made those a slow and tedious process - but not after SIG came up with the FCU.

Stoner making the barrel assembly with threaded components not only saved time and labor on mass production lines, it's the foundation of why we can make and remake AR's today. BTW - if your AR is too heavy, spec a pencil barrel, which was the original, not the match fat barrels or "recon" profiles which were partly invented to reduce flex, along with act as a heat sink to reduce bending from inclusions, which are basically low quality barrel blanks in the first place. Machining less and charging more without .5 MOA guarantee tells you something. Most heavy barrels under $200 are fashion, not performance.

What gives the AR the edge as a fighting rifle is not the fact that I can put one together at home with minimal training/tools. It's modularity certainly gives it staying power, but that's not what I was considering, in the context of the OP.

Referring to the same two guns again: the G36 and the 55X, I'll point out that there is no pressing or headspacing required in barrel changes, when dealing with either of them. G36 requires a "reaction rod" mandrel and barrel nut wrench; 55X requires a receiver fixture and regular wrench. But, again, altering the weapons' configuration isn't what we're talking about.

At the end of the day, using these three examples again, I'll take the AR over the G36 because it's more compact; I'll take the AR over the 55X because it's more compact and lighter. Or will I? The 55X and G36 both have arguably favorable shooting characteristics, when compared to the AR, which is what originally prompted this thread.

The AR was the right design in the right place at the right time.


There isn't anything that any of the weapon designs chambered in 5.56 do enough better than the AR to justify adopting anything else, yet.

The modularity probably gave it some staying power as it enabled military armorers the easy ability to swap barrels. All of the fancy new attachment methods for additional equipment has evolved along with the platform.



The Stoner gas system is an elegant bit of engineering.


The A1 rifles certainly were a breath of fresh air coming from the much heavier M14.


I think the best feature of the AR is enough reliability and enough durability and enough accuracy. They can be ultralight or quite heavy, depending on intended purpose.


Come to think of it, I think the single best feature today of the AR15 is the massive aftermarket support.

Carbon fiber wrapped 14.5 inch pencil barrels? Available.

30 inch stainless steel bull barrels? Available.


And everything in between. And you can mount any optic you can dream of on top, including thermal.

ARs are the Barbi dolls of the gun world.

I only have 3.

I like that you can edit...

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

Another thing that does not give the AR an edge as a fighting rifle is it's affordability. That gives it an edge as a small arm for militaries and citizens, in the cost/benefit context, but, again, not the discussion I intended for this thread.

IndianaBoy makes good points, in addressing the timeliness and practicality of the rifle's adoption, in the military atmosphere. Where he makes a truly relevant point is his comment on the "elegance" of the system; this elegance grants it a light weight and svelte profile. It can be made to be light or heavy, but it's original configuration is light.

I'm going to go in a slightly different direction. The ARs biggest advantage is its widespread acceptance by military and civilian customers. This has led to a booming and continuous aftermarket that allows me to be able to source parts damn near anywhere in the world and just about any type.

To address your actual question OP I will say that having built a very nice low weight AR it is an advantage to move the heavy bits of the operating system center or rearward but I also think weight distribution is a better metric for "pointability" and usefulness. I have some great rifles that are noseheavy piston guns and their weight is quite noticeable. The AR and bullpups due to their distribution of weight over the center or rear of the gun allow for the "weight" advantage IMO.

Running 1 handed manipulations with a light AR or a AUG/MDRx (the only bullpups I own, its likely the same with tavors etc) are similarly possible where as good luck with a Sig 55x or B&T for example. I find similar benefits with a can.

"The AR-15's best feature"? For me, it's just cool looking.

As to the SIG 55X series and the HK 416, never going to happen, even if they were less bulky and lighter, because most folks can't afford them.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
because most folks can't afford them.

I know it's a stretch for people, but, as mentioned above, affordability doesn't make the AR a better rifle; we are ignoring that, in this discussion.

It seems this will inevitably devolve into a piston vs DI AR discussion. The LMTs and LWRCs are not any bulkier, and probably only marginally heavier. So, if those guns didn't cost more, would everyone be rocking them instead of DI guns? Are those guns ultimately better fighting rifles?

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Very very solid. 95% as stable as prone.

Thanks for your comments. There is a recent Sniper Hide video extolling the Anvil-30 over a leveling head, but I’m curious about others’ experiences. As I mentioned I have mine on a much lighter Slik tripod and the one time I used that combination with a heavy Tikka T3x TAC the results weren’t too good, but other than poor shooter skill that was probably due to the tripod.

(Thanks for tolerating the thread drift, but I didn’t want to lose the opportunity to ask the question.)

I’ve never understood why a 16” barrel AR15 with aluminum upper & lower and plastic stock, grip and hand guard is heavier than an M1 Carbine with an 18” barrel, steel receiver and wood furniture.

My brother made an ultra light AR15, but it was stupidly expensive.

The AR’s best feature is the military and law enforcement use, which made so many people familiar with it and they just can’t use anything else now.

An M1 Carbine is lighter than an AR for the same reason it's lighter than a Mini14; a Mini14 is lighter than an M14 for the same reason as well. The M1 Carbine is not in the same class as the AR.