Thank you Fly'n for that informative not inflammatory link. Finally an informed opinion from someone with actual credentials.
The SCAR-L as I recall didn't have enough of an advantage over the M4 to warrant the extra cost.
Thank you Fly'n for that informative not inflammatory link. Finally an informed opinion from someone with actual credentials.
If the U.S. Army is going to field a modern design which offers a noticeable improvement in hit probability, terminal performance and body armor penetration over the current M4 carbine they will need to push manufacturers. The fielding and subsequent withdrawal of FNH's.v Mk 16 Mod 0 SCAR-L system clearly demonstrates this.
AN-94
SPECIFICATIONS
CALIBER: 5.45x39mm
OPERATION: Blowback shifted pulse
BARREL LENGTH: 15:9 inches
LENGTH: w/stockextended, 37.1 inches w/stock folded, 28.6 inches;
WEIGHT: w/out magazine, 8.5 pounds
FEED: 30, 45-round detachable box magazines
SIGHTS: Front--post adjustable for windage and elevationRear-diopter, 200, 400-700m
CYCLIC RATE: 1800 and 600 variable
FINNISH: Black. Phosphate,
MANUFACTURER: Izhmash JSC
STATUS: Limited issue with select Russian Special Forces units
SOURCES
IZHMASH JSC
www.izhmash.ru
INSTITUTE OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
www.instmiltech.com
I primarily posted the link to dispute those with no credentials asserting that the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles. However, I think it relates to the OP in at least three ways:Interesting read. I do not see how it relates to the op but I did enjoy the info.
Again, we have an MOS 18Z who has could have carried an AK if he was concerned with AR-15/M16/M4 reliability, but didn't. He states he only trained heavily with AK type weapons for a very specific mission where resupply, not reliability, was the deciding factor.The reliability of an AR can't be that bad if every other person and there dog has one, just as long as you keep em' clean.
I think part of Chindo18Z's post I linked, quoted below, applies here. Substitute "baby-needs-new-shoes" for "momma-says-we're-fixing-up-this-part-of-the-house", and the comparison becomes pretty valid.Have house project coming up so funds aren't as generous.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7742629&postcount=77
7. Despite its shortcomings, the AK is effective, reliable, and easier/cheaper to manufacture than the AR. It's also cheaper for the US civilian shooter to buy. In the "baby-needs-new-shoes vs. daddy-needs-new-toys" equation, a $400 WASR delivers more bang for the buck than a new Bushmaster. Is the AR the better rifle...yes. Snob appeal aside, will the WASR get the job done (SHTF, plinking, range fun, home defense)...yes. Would I equip a modern army with the AK (even the modern Russian versions)...no.
I primarily posted the link to dispute those with no credentials asserting that the AK is the undisputed king of assault rifles. However, I think it relates to the OP in at least three ways:
6 years? national level? never a single ak even in the top 20?To the OP - I've been shooting 3-gun at the national level for six years. The vast majority of the winning shooters in every division use an AR-pattern rifle. I've never seen an AK-pattern shooter place well (inside the top 20) in a major 3-gun match.
I think they sell those down at the store. Come on, man!.the AR build?.
The downside of the traditional AK siderail is that it sets the optic well above the iron sights, so cowitness is impossible and cheek weld is more of a chin weld. I shoot a 7.62x39mm AK with a gen-2 Kobra and an AR with a cowitnessed Eotech, and definitely prefer the lower, cowitnessed optic (I want to get an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo at some point for exactly that reason).If you have one with a side rail, you have a good optics solution that rivals the AR. Just add a BP-02 mount and any Weaver / Picatinny accessory.
I would say that it is *almost* as fast as an AR change. Someone well practiced with AK reloads will be faster than the average person running an AR, but IMO given equivalent practice I think the AR is slightly faster to reload, partly because mag ejection is a tad quicker, but mostly because rock-in-and-lock into a square-cut hole is a bit harder to do very quickly than slamming a magazine into a flared magwell.To people who complain about the magazine release, you probably have not seen the speed mag changes some people do, where they use the new magazine to rake the release lever and old mag out of the slot then rock it home. It's honestly just as fast as, if not faster than, an AR mag change.
AK's are definitely good guns, and I really like mine. I'm still looking for a good light setup, though. I tried a Tapco Galil-style forend with a rail at 9:00, and found that I shoot better with the original handguard than the Galil-style, but that's just me. I think an Ultimak will eventually solve that problem, but for the time being I may mount a rail segment on a secondhand upper handguard and see how that works.A lot of people limit themselves to viewing the AK as a rough, wooden-stocked, inaccurate relic. They don't see the potential these guns really have when you take the time and effort to set them up so they're right for you.
really, man, if the ak were so clearly better and the issues with sights, accuracy, ergos, range, were a non issue, i think someone who shoots as much as those guys do would've figured it out by now.
how is the scar any better in any of those categories?
the stats simply prove you wrong, and the ar is overwhelmingly the gun of choice for 3 gun. argue all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
are you forgetting the gazillion guys that win 3 gun matches that do it on they're own dime,
I think the less accuracy of a 47 would be a hindrance but i have to wonder how many strong competitors have ever run a 74.
I would venture that many of the more skilled participants are current and former LE and military and prefer what they know.
Not to mention there is a bias towards the AR in general that stems from it being the american military weapon.
I If i ever get into 3 gun i'll use what ever is the most fun and that may be more than one type of gun.
Not the guys at the top.