The AR-15 still doesn’t suck
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 13th, 2015 at 7:25 pm
You guys are starting to remind me of the people that put the ‘My Kid is a Terrific Kid’ bumper sticker on their care to somehow convince us and themselves its true.
If the AR was really that good nobody would be out having to debunk anything.
Its like I have said before. Throw 50 years of continuous development and billions of dollars in development costs at a Chauchat and you will get a reliable rifle..
January 13th, 2015 at 10:17 pm
So you believe the BS that the AR is “unreliable”?
It’s been repeated so often, for so long it’s like the gun control lies.
It just has to be true!
January 13th, 2015 at 10:56 pm
I believe they are perfectly Reliable. After 50 years of development and more than a little cash spent they better damn well be!
But as I am having to repeat this. Do the same to a total piece of shit weapon and watch the magic.
Hell we could make a Highpoint ACCURATE when shot not just when thrown with that timetable and cash expenditure!
or an AMT that does not Jam! The list could on for ever!
The one and ONLY reason the AR was pursued to perfection is that it happens to be the Choice of the Federal Government. If not it would have gone the way of the AR-18 or the Fn CAL. A novel idea but not exactly!
January 14th, 2015 at 9:13 am
^ What Paul said.
January 14th, 2015 at 2:39 pm
There’s the other side, of course. It was a perfectly good peacetime design rifle corrupted by bureaucrats until it couldn’t perform in the field. Remember, we weren’t at war in 1957. The Avtomat Kalashnikova was a perfectly good wartime design that was not similarly crippled. The CCCP was, at fact, at war during its development. How many Western peacetime designs have we seen that were perfect for use at the first issue, anyway? How many of them have replaced the M16? I thought so.
January 15th, 2015 at 2:17 am
Pretty sure lack of war does not excuse that it took 50 years to get the AR to its current position.
The current less than popular M4 is a result of things learned in war.
And yes there have been better platforms. Simpler. I gave an example of one previously in the Ar-18. The Stoner 63 system is one of the best. Just as effective but more user friendly. Plus neither required 50 years of development. Picture where a system that start off outstanding like the Stoner 63 could be if it had 50 years of continuous improvements? It would be insane.
The Government thinks Good Enough is the Enemy of Perfect, because the people making the decisions don’t stand behind the decisions(rifles) they foist on others….