Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
I.E. AR10 types make a lot more sense than AR15 types - *Particularly* for civilians without full autos but really for semi- or full-auto as well.
Bear with me please on this.
One of the main design features of the original Stoner AR10 and it's progeny (M16, AR15), if not THE MAIN feature of the design is this - the *tradeoff* between a higher sight plane (detriment), in order to gain the advantage of the straight-back recoil (with the straight buffer tube design), which minimizes muzzle climb and allows one to stay on target in full-auto mode (and nowadays, in burst mode). This works great in full-auto for an intermediate cartridge such as 5.56x45mm. But in semi-auto mode, which is what the vast majority of us citizens experience with AR types, this is not really needed at all - the 5.56x45 is such a pussycat that very fast semi-auto follow-up shots are cinch (especially with a good muzzle brake). And so for people like me, who greatly value the aspect of having one's optic as LOW as possible in order to have dead on accurate shots at very SHORT ranges, the sky high line of sight of an AR rifle is very irritating. I'd personally rather go ideally with something without the buffer tube, so as to get that line of sight within 1.5 or 1.75" of the barrel, for maximum range of point 'n' click accuracy. Which is one reason I'm getting an Robinson XCR (unlike most people, this particular factor is a far bigger factor than the supposed unreliability of the dready dirty AR in deciding to get a non-AR15 over an AR15).
Now, 7.62x51mm, OTOH, is generally considered uncontrollable in full auto pretty much whatever you do to the rifle (other than making it weigh 18+ lbs), not to mention the other reasons for the military not adopting a "full-powered" round for the average soldier to carry in his/her select-fire, standard issue rifle. For whatever reason, the AR10 or SR25 type is not the chosen issue of the .mil. Nor are AR10 types popular among registered machine gun owners in the USA (I don't think there's many of them at all). But for civilians shooting semi-auto in 7.62x51/.308 win, a full-powered round, getting back on target quickly is much harder to do given the recoil/muzzle climb of that round. Accurate double taps just ain't that easy to do. But with the straight back buffer tube design in .308, getting on target for the 2nd shot is bound to be much easier than with substitutes like M14 types, FALs, AK types, etc. This in turn makes the sky high optic line "worth it" in terms of the tradeoff, especially in light of the more long-range nature of the full-powered round like the 7.62x51 (or other chamberings which AR10 types make come in, such as .260 rem or .243 win). *IFF* one has a need for quick follow up shots on the same target, that is. Whereas hunters usually don't. So it's more of a fighting rifle concept. The bottom line being: IF you like the AR ergos, and IF you think you need a "full-powered" round for fighting, and IF you'll need quick double taps, then the AR10 type offers a distinct advantage over other possible rifles in this category, making what normally is quite obnoxious to me (the super high sight line) worth it as a tradeoff.
In fact, a case could be made for civilians that, if limited to semi-auto, and not having to hump all your gear & ammo across long distances as a soldier would, something like an AR10 in .243 win is the ultimate fighting rifle. Super fast and accurate double taps could be made for this setup, along with great terminal effectiveness.
Am I making sense or smokin weed here?
Bear with me please on this.
One of the main design features of the original Stoner AR10 and it's progeny (M16, AR15), if not THE MAIN feature of the design is this - the *tradeoff* between a higher sight plane (detriment), in order to gain the advantage of the straight-back recoil (with the straight buffer tube design), which minimizes muzzle climb and allows one to stay on target in full-auto mode (and nowadays, in burst mode). This works great in full-auto for an intermediate cartridge such as 5.56x45mm. But in semi-auto mode, which is what the vast majority of us citizens experience with AR types, this is not really needed at all - the 5.56x45 is such a pussycat that very fast semi-auto follow-up shots are cinch (especially with a good muzzle brake). And so for people like me, who greatly value the aspect of having one's optic as LOW as possible in order to have dead on accurate shots at very SHORT ranges, the sky high line of sight of an AR rifle is very irritating. I'd personally rather go ideally with something without the buffer tube, so as to get that line of sight within 1.5 or 1.75" of the barrel, for maximum range of point 'n' click accuracy. Which is one reason I'm getting an Robinson XCR (unlike most people, this particular factor is a far bigger factor than the supposed unreliability of the dready dirty AR in deciding to get a non-AR15 over an AR15).
Now, 7.62x51mm, OTOH, is generally considered uncontrollable in full auto pretty much whatever you do to the rifle (other than making it weigh 18+ lbs), not to mention the other reasons for the military not adopting a "full-powered" round for the average soldier to carry in his/her select-fire, standard issue rifle. For whatever reason, the AR10 or SR25 type is not the chosen issue of the .mil. Nor are AR10 types popular among registered machine gun owners in the USA (I don't think there's many of them at all). But for civilians shooting semi-auto in 7.62x51/.308 win, a full-powered round, getting back on target quickly is much harder to do given the recoil/muzzle climb of that round. Accurate double taps just ain't that easy to do. But with the straight back buffer tube design in .308, getting on target for the 2nd shot is bound to be much easier than with substitutes like M14 types, FALs, AK types, etc. This in turn makes the sky high optic line "worth it" in terms of the tradeoff, especially in light of the more long-range nature of the full-powered round like the 7.62x51 (or other chamberings which AR10 types make come in, such as .260 rem or .243 win). *IFF* one has a need for quick follow up shots on the same target, that is. Whereas hunters usually don't. So it's more of a fighting rifle concept. The bottom line being: IF you like the AR ergos, and IF you think you need a "full-powered" round for fighting, and IF you'll need quick double taps, then the AR10 type offers a distinct advantage over other possible rifles in this category, making what normally is quite obnoxious to me (the super high sight line) worth it as a tradeoff.
In fact, a case could be made for civilians that, if limited to semi-auto, and not having to hump all your gear & ammo across long distances as a soldier would, something like an AR10 in .243 win is the ultimate fighting rifle. Super fast and accurate double taps could be made for this setup, along with great terminal effectiveness.
Am I making sense or smokin weed here?
