Given my affinity for the Sig 55X rifles, I have often posed this question to myself; the answer is always no. No matter how squared-away I manage to make a 553, it will always be heavier. Not to mention the spare parts aspect in a SHTF hypothetical. When you boil it down to pure practicality, IMO, the AR will always be the way to go. Does anyone truly believe-in an alternative weapon, for their primary carbine?

Local laws can change such things.
I have a nice lever action that can become primary on certain travels due to local restrictions.

Ah, I always forget about the damn looney-tunes states. I live in a state without restrictions, and I don't travel, so those facets never enter my mind. Good point.

Other than that though...

The only instances I can think of are using calibers other than 5.56mm, and prioritization of a folding stock.

Good point. There's likely still be an argument for having a weapon in 7.62x39, and the AR certainly isn't the system for that cartridge.

The folding stock priority is extremely specific and, outside of vehicle environments, there's really no need for them, IMO. Even in the confines of a vehicle, something like a MK18 is likely maneuverable enough. The refinement of the LAW folding mechanism has enabled ARs to sort of fill that role too. Unless my duties were solely specifically vehicle-based, I'd go for the regular AR. In my years of 55X use, I have only ever folded the stock to passively transport the gun, and it certainly wasn't required. I have never found myself wishing I could fold an AR, for any reason.

The bit of buzz about lever actions is interesting, and I wonder if it’s partially due to an unacknowledged recognition of the dangers of future gun rights restriction efforts. A friend mentioned a video he’d seen extolling the advantages of a lever action and when I pointed out the problem of available cartridge chamberings, he promptly directed me to the Henry “Long Ranger”—which is sold out everywhere. I wonder at times if a manufacturer like Ruger might offer something similar.
But although something like a lever action might be desirable or even necessary in some situations, that doesn’t make it better when those situations don’t exist than the AR; far from it, in fact.

I look at the AR platform as being the revolver of long guns intended for their obvious purposes. For well over a century revolvers were the handgun of choice, even after (mostly) reliable autoloading pistols were developed. Supplanting the revolver (mostly) for many of the purposes it served required the Glock with its demonstration of what advantages reliable, high capacity autoloading pistols could offer. But because the AR is so well suited for the roles it usually fills, it’s impossible for me to imagine what Glock-equivalent long gun invention is waiting to be discovered and developed. Could the AR be improved as it has been countless times already in certain limited ways? No doubt. “Torture” tests have supposedly demonstrated that if the guns are covered in Mideast dust that other designs work better and that’s why the military constantly seeks those improvements, but for the rest of us—?

I never imagined the Glock until it came along and after several years of improvements and adoptions by countless users who found them to be better in many ways than the revolvers they replaced. The AR may be replaced as well by something better, but I cannot think of anything I’d rather have for the purposes it serves than that now.

I can see an argument for a bullpup (Tavor X95, for example), to retain 16" barrel external/terminal ballistics for the 5.56, yet still remaining "short" suppressed, for maneuverability.

I'll be the contrarian I guess for this. I have and as you know from other discussions, KSGM an AUG that does everything my AR does except suppress well. It has the same length barrel but runs like a 10.5. It has a different manual of arms but if one trains with it it isn't much slower for reloads. It also has standard factory 42 rd mags. It runs clean even with a can on it. It has years of field time for development and it doesn't require a stamp. Ive carried an AR in some capacity longer than I haven't and I work on ARs for a living and have built plenty so I'm certainly not hating, I just dont think the AR is the only platform and sometimes I like not having almost a foot of lower receiver extension, that doesnt exist in other platforms, rigidly hanging off the back of the gun making it way longer. Just my thoughts on it. I'd be just as happy to find myself in a bad situation with either, or most reputable platforms for that matter.

I can see a scenario where the magazine for your handgun and rife are the same.
For example a Beretta FS92 and a CX4 or something similar where Glock mags are used.
No it isn't a rifle round so that would be a good argument against.

Short answer: No. I have a great appreciation for lever guns and my Mini-14, but for serious work, the AR is king.

Long answer: There are two things that I don't love about the AR platform...the pistol grip stock and the recoil system. I've always just been partial to a traditional stock, and feel that it points and shoulders better for me, and I'm less inclined to push it off target than I am with a pistol grip. I think this is why I like my mini and my lever guns so much...but that by itself is not enough to make them more practical than the AR.

Second, the long spring/buffer tube of the AR introduces a lot of reciprocating mass over a long distance, and places that mass right next to the shooter's ear. It also limits your options for a folding stock, and the location of the buffer tube/stock in-line with the bore forces a high sight over bore axis, and the problems associated with that. A recoil system that contains the springs and bolt inside of the receiver eliminates some of these problems...my buddy's Sig MCX for example is much smoother shooting that any AR I've ever fired. The downside to the MCX, though, is it is too heavy for what it is...and expensive.

Ultimately, while the AR isn't perfect, it is pretty hard to beat for a reliable, ergonomic rifle. It's popularity has driven prices down to where it doesn't even make sense not to own one (or seven), and parts are abundant and affordable. I'm not a tactical Timmy, and don't want a safe overflowing with ARs to the detriment of everything else...imo that's just boring. But I'll always own one or two, and it would be the rifle I'd grab if I had to go do serious work.

The only answer I can come up with is "preference". The AR is light, easy to use, accurate, reliable, commonly available, relatively affordable and will get the defensive job done. That's one hell of a combination of attributes to try to beat, and I can't see how anything else would be "better" for most people.

I would say barring any legal hurdles then no. The AR is sort of the Brown Bess of our time.

I would argue the same for a Glock 17/19 even though Glocks are not my primary choice.

Yeah, you don’t have to like them lol. While I have a few of them and have owned many, there are several design features about them that I truly hate.

At this point though the AR is like the Amazon of firearms. lol You may not like everything about dealing with it, but it’s everywhere, with unsurpassed availability and so very easy to do, it’s hard for anything else to compete.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
I would say barring any legal hurdles then no. The AR is sort of the Brown Bess of our time.

Winchester 1873, IMHO. The Bess was never so ubiquitous outside of Latin America in the early 1800s.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Yeah, you don’t have to like them lol. While I have a few of them and have owned many, there are several design features about them that I truly hate.

At this point though the AR is like the Amazon of firearms. lol You may not like everything about dealing with it, but it’s everywhere, with unsurpassed availability and so very easy to do, it’s hard for anything else to compete.

And, most importantly to certain people, it's the Barbie Doll of firearms.

Your just not going to find much of anything that will beat the AR-15 in America at this time.
The Tavor & the AUG are viable replacements (although cost prohibitive for some).
If your looking for a reliable "proven" 7.62x39 AR I would point you toward the CMMG Mk 47 (what used to be called the mutant). It uses a 308 bolt & accepts AK magazines. Also some of the parts are compatible with a standard AR.

As above. Caliber. In a real SHTF emergency grab one gun and go, I don't want a 5.56 gun. Now I never expect to be in that exact situation and take active steps to prevent it, but its a possibility. In any other circumstance I will prefer an AR (or actually multiple ones).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The bit of buzz about lever actions is interesting, and I wonder if it’s partially due to an unacknowledged recognition of the dangers of future gun rights restriction efforts. A friend mentioned a video he’d seen extolling the advantages of a lever action and when I pointed out the problem of available cartridge chamberings, he promptly directed me to the Henry “Long Ranger”—which is sold out everywhere. I wonder at times if a manufacturer like Ruger might offer something similar.
But although something like a lever action might be desirable or even necessary in some situations, that doesn’t make it better when those situations don’t exist than the AR; far from it, in fact.

I have more ARs than I have fingers so I am certainly a fan of them though
I am not quite following the problem with available cartridge chamberings for a lever action.
.30-30
.44 mag/.44 spl
.357 mag/.38 all
.45-70
.45LC
Those are all well proven and easy to come by rounds. The only ones that are arguably problematic are the .45-70 and .45LC but if you have a rifle chambered in those you are likely prepared for that.
I would love for someone to put out a lever gun in .350 Legend. That is my next SBR AR build and think I would also be first in line for a lever gun in that caliber.

I am also not sure that anyone is advocating the lever gun is superior to the AR. The OP asked when would someone have their primary rifle as something other than an AR.
Local laws and travel are likely the biggest reason as I stated. I have a lever gun and pump shotgun for certain situations.
Also when it comes to bear. I take the 12 gauge or lever action with me on my property and not the AR.
I did however just finish a 10mm AR build to use instead of those but I need to test her out a bit more before I fully trust it in the woods.
Also sometimes when I am hiking the lever gun in a scabbard is not a bad choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Local laws can change such things.
I have a nice lever action that can become primary on certain travels due to local restrictions.

Agreed. The .357 Winchester Trapper is great for that.

Laws (even in truly decent States like mine) drive lots of this discussion to me. I have pump action 5.56's (which take a full AR magazine) that aren't covered by some poor drafting stupidity in my State and don't get a second glance when carried due to the traditional shape and wood stocks. I have pistols with shorter barrels shooting rifle cartridges for the same reason as the law lets one do things that you couldn't otherwise. Not optimal on barrel lengths for me but what one has to deal with.
Its all about optimizing within the envelope of what are your goals. IN SHTF I'm probably not going to give much concern on the legal situation. But when traveling in normal life I give a lot of consideration to it.