Why The Ar?

[LawDog101]

The AR series of rifles clearly dominates the carbine selection for about 95% of 3-gunners as well as the military, tactical, police, etc.

From my limited experience it appears to me that, for purposes of 3gun, the light weight, mag capacity, and low recoil are the main factors contributing to the AR's popularity.

Several why questions?

Why not use something in .30 cal (FAL, M14, etc.) carbine? Isn't a bigger hammer always better?

Why the .223?

Why not use something more reliable (not saying AR's are lacking), but I think most folks will agree than an FN, M14, and AK are all higher up on a purely reliability scale?

I would like to hear some of your thoughts on this. Thanks.

James

[George]

Because it can be made to be as reliable as anything else and it's lower recoil allows faster target engagement and it reloads real easy and slick compared to the other rifles in the running.

These factors matter in competition much more than spanking something harder does ;-)

[wsimpso1]

The particular benefits of ARs are inherent accuracy, lightweight, good ergonomics, many custom parts to do just about anything you want to it, and it is cheap to buy and feed. Other advantages are the modularity of the thing. One lower with two uppers can give you an open gun and a tactical or stock class gun.

The sum total of doing an accuracy build of an AR15 is to free float a good barrel. Everything else is sights you can see, a trigger that you like the feel of, and accessories. Want to upgrade later? You can do that easily. Another advantage is that you do not need a gunsmith if you are fairly good with tools. New barrel, float tube, different sights, different stock, muzzle device, etc.

At some matches you get 300m plates and flasher targets, and you will be competitivie with many AR's here, but the AK and M-1 Carbine are going to take a lot of ammo to get you hits at those distances.

Now as to using .30 cal... Guys do it and they get major scoring too. But custom parts are less available and/or more expensive, and it costs nearly twice as much to shoot it. The standard M1A is fine at shorter ranges. If yoo have 300 m targets, the issue rifle may shoot too large a group for you. An accurized one may require a gunsmith on staff to keep it shooting well (sights, bedding, gas system).

Now there have been folks talking about guys with M-1's, and shooting that grand old battle rifle gets you all kinds of cool points. It has the same problem as M1A in accurized form.

The thing about AR's that put off people is the gas system. It dumps powder residue on the bolt, carrier, and next round... It really is not a problem with a polished chamber and something resembling regular cleaning of the chamber, bolt, and carrier. Go to the rifle forums and look there for more on that topic... Oh and the direct impingement gas system is what makes the AR so inherently accurate.

And the really great thing about all of this stuff is you get to decide and get out your checkbook.

In the real world, well, this forum is about sport. AR15.com has many discussions of the AR as a serious weapon.

Billski

[George]

BTW, it's not just the AR, it's the AR and the choice of the .223 cartridge that earned it the nickname "mousegun" and it's present status at the top of the IPSC rifle heap.

The .223 cartridge and the AR platform truly are the short block chevy of the gun racing world. An AR in .308 or other major PF cartridge will still not be able to run with the little brother on the race course (in most hands).

It's the pairing of a low recoil high velocity cartridge with the highly customizable and ergonomic AR platform that create the winning combination here.

[bierman]

What billski said

[Sam]

LawDog101, +1 on those previous posts.

If you want to dig deeper into the hows and whys of the AR-15, I highly recommend Patrick Sweeney's book "The Gun Digest Book of the AR-15". It covers a great deal of mechanics, manufacturing info, and comparisons. Patrick is a frequent contributor here and has written some excellent AR-15 articles for Front Sight magazine as well.

[John Dunn]

I think most folks will agree than an FN, M14, and AK are all higher up on a purely reliability scale?

I haven't seen the data on mean rounds between failure for all the various platforms you mention. But I have an AR that has been rode hard and put away wet and has been failure free. The AR can be reliable as anything out.

[JFD]

I've never had a failure in any of my AR's, nor any of the M16s I had in the military. Even the heavily worn rifle I had in basic training ran 100%.

In a rare gun rag purchase, I saw where they ran 10,000 rounds through a Colt and basically had no problems.

99% of the problems I see come from some poor soul listening to the gun store clerk when they tell them USA mags are the same as USGI. If the mags don't spew 30 rounds before their even seated, then for sure the brand new toy will be a club unless the shooter is very lucky.

If I use Orlite or Thermold mags, then I'll usually see a failure here and there.

[LawDog101]

Great info guys. Thanks.

James