Most Overrated Rifle?

[Geno]

This is a funny thread. My word...I laughed so hard my ribs hurt! I haven't seen this much urinatin' & moanin', gripin' and groanin' since I did that Kimber thread. We can't make blanket statements about this firearm is inherently good or bad. I have to come back here and read the next time I get a defective firearm.

Did you know laughter adds 8 years to your life? You all added a few days to my life. I'm going to take a few of my overrated firearms to the range now.

 

[SaMx]

I don't think the AR-15 is overrated. I think it's a pretty good design for a civilian firearm at least. For a civilian there's no problem cleaning it ever few hundred rounds, and most modern manufacturers are reliable enough that it's not a problem anyway. And the direct impingement system is actually pretty good in that it isolates the barrel from the motion of a piston. And related to that, it's super easy to accurize, you can replace a barrel, or even just add a free float tube, and see an improvement. All that combined with the flexibility of the platform make it a good choice IMO.

What I do think is overrated, are the M-4 style AR-15s. A 16 carbine makes a lot of sense, but what's the point of a carbine length gas system and M-4 profile barrel? Wouldn't a midlength carbine make more sense?

 

[plexreticle]

Steyr Scout

HK416

SVD

 

[H2O MAN]

~ under appreciated and much maligned.

 

[ar10]

M16

Still have a hard time understanding why the military selected a varmint rifle as a battle rifle.

 

[Tarvis]

I still don't get what makes the AR overrated. It is the most modular rifle available, and arguably the most ergonomic. It is accurate and reliable with the best after market support of any firearm on the market.

"unreliable"

Apparently you either shoot wolf ammo without a $4 upgrade to your extractor, use bad mags, don't clean your rifle or screwed up the lower when you put it together.

"underpowered"

You must not get out much. Borrow someone's AR with a 458 socom or 50 beowulf upper. How about 6.8spc or 6.5 grendel or 7.62x39 or 300 fireball?

"expensive"

I have built several AR's, most of which were under $650.

 

[Claude Clay]

ar10---cause if you wound an enemy it takes two others to get him off of the battle field: one shot removes 3 enemy troops. of course this strategy assumes the enemy will act humanly towards its own wounded.

 

[Rifleman 173]

A lot of people confuse the word "army" when they should really be saying "politicians." The worst offenders of extending unwanted/unneeded influence are the senators from New Yawk and especially Taxachusetts: Fat Boy Kennedy and Hanoi Kerry. If you want to read a night mare story, read up on all the design changes that Ted Kennedy, Senator from Chappaquiddick, put into place to modify the M-1 Abrahms tank. Same exact thing happened with the M-16 rifle. Stoner was right to curse and cuss but he got the REAL interlopers wrong. Those people he dealt with in the Army were just following orders from their socialist commissars from the Peoples' Republics. As anti-gun as Kennedy is, he's smart enough to know and use the fact that he has two of the world's major gun manufacturers inside of his state: Smith & Wesson and Colt Firearms. He'll try to scuttle any pro-gun effort in the open but he'll also try to land federal contracts worth billions of dollars for the gun makers within his state. That was exactly why Colt ended up with the contract for the M-16 rifle instead of the original Armalite Firearms Company. That was why General Dynamics ended up with federal contracts for some M-16 rifles, M-1 tanks and for nuclear submarines out of their Grouton, Conn. facility. GD was originally based out of Taxachusetts but had facilities in other northeastern states to include New Yawk, Maine, Conneticut and so on. Politics, it is sad to admit, actually controls the type and caliber of rifle our troops use. To be honest, the military has almost ZERO influence involving firearms development because it the politicians who want to bring home the pork for companies in their voting districts...

 

[longdayjake]

As an owner of some

I own the m1a, the ar15, and the m1 garand. Of the three I can understand why someone might say that the m1a and the ar15 were overrated. I have had too many troubles with them to not agree. However, the M1 garand has so far lived up to every good story I have heard about it and it has had more rounds fired through it then the other two put together. I have yet to have a malfunction of any kind. It is a dream. Literally. Sometimes I dream about it. I love it tons.

 

[Magnuumpwr]

Since no one else will mention it, I nominate the 82a1 or M107. These can be placed on the same par as Romak IIIs and Dragunovs. $8000 for some heavy gauge tin, a piece of pipe, and some bic pen springs.

 

[GarandOwner]

THE DRAGUNOV SVD ....... Way overpriced, and not very accurate. I am talking about the SVD's not the Romanian HaveNothingInCommonExceptTheName "Dragunovs"

I still don't get what makes the AR overrated

Mall Ninjas who cant shoot...I crack up everytime I go to the range and see someone shooting an AR-15 at the 25 and 50 yard range with a scope.

 

[Detachment Charlie]

Lazzeroni

Lazzeroni rifles, while a excellent rifle in terms of build and component quality, just don' make it for me. The cost to performance ratio is way out of line.Then there's the whole issue of custom cartidges.
I also have to give an honorable mention to Blaser rifles. Great rifles, but over-priced.
I understand that owners of either really don't care too much about the price, just the "wow" factor when they pull one out of its case.
OK Wildalaska, I have my flamesuit on - bring on the pain.

 

[1911 guy]

In descending order of annoyance

1) Pistol caliber carbines and rifles top the list.
2) "New and Improved" that isn't. Think FN SCAR and Sig 556.
3) Pre-64 rifles. New rifles are more accurate and just as durable.
4) AK-47 and variants. Alright for illiterate conscripts, lacking accuracy.
5) 7mm mag. Doesn't do anything an '06 can't and recoils more.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Most overrated - BULLPUPS.

Totally worthless in my opinion. These represent idealism taken too far. They are a result of too much engineer, not enough gunfighter input. They are the product of MBA's and number-crunchers and stats-monkeys - not gunfighters or operators. The reason they are terrible is the same reason they do not dominate any action shooting competition.

The Remington 700 cannot be overrated. It's an out of the box MOA shooter. I'm talking real MOA. Not internet MOA. These days, the BS flows so thick a newbie to shooting can be lead to believe that junk is suppose to shoot 1/4moa.

Aside from the occasional lemon that every manufacturer puts out from time to time, if you have a 700 that won't shoot MOA - you've got the problem. Not the rifle. Get some trigger control and lose the flinch. And if you think MOA groups are unacceptable for a $500 rifle, then you need to think again. You don't get a Ferrari for $18K either.

 

[MCMXI]

The Remington 700 cannot be overrated. It's an out of the box MOA shooter. I'm talking real MOA. Not internet MOA. These days, the BS flows so thick a newbie to shooting can be lead to believe that junk is suppose to shoot 1/4moa.

+1

That's one of the things I despise about the internet and bulletin boards ... ZERO accountability. You talk with someone face to face about firearms, shooting, reloading, etc and you'll know within 30 seconds if they're full of ****!!
This thread is just that!! :banghead:

 

[madmike]

FN2000

And I had forgotten how much a 10-22 costs just to get a useable receiver you can modify into a decent .22. Thanks.

I notice some of the most popular are by definition the most overrated. I recall stories about how Russian AKs can SHOOT THROUGH TANK ARMOR and it's disgraceful that the US has cheated its troops with a rifle that can't shoot through plywood

I would say for the guys who've only handled a range ho rifle at BRM...wait for a REAL M16. It may still be overrated, but it DOES shoot.

I'm almost ready to do my side by side by side test of Garand, AR and AK. I actually expect the Garand to fail first. (Go ahead and laugh...)

Would anyone claim the FAL is overrated? Or the CETME? (just curious)

I have to say any double over $10,000 is overrated...especially if it's in some stupid caliber like .22 or .30-06, instead of .470 NE or .375 H&H

What about the Model 29? Good gun, but Dirty Harry made it an object of religious worship.

 

[doberman]

Wow! I read this WHOLE thread!

So is it safe to say, I wasted my money on AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, and should have just been content with the $250 Marlin 336 all along?!

Damn! Damn! Damn!

 

[madmike]

That was exactly why Colt ended up with the contract for the M-16 rifle instead of the original Armalite Firearms Company.

um...no. Armalite sold the rights to Colt long before it got adopted.

And the AR was NEVER "designed as an aircrew weapon." There was a survival variant early on, prototyped, but it was designed from the word go as an infantry weapon. In fact, the AR10 was (and still can be) everything the M14 was promised to be--rifle, squad weapon, sniper weapon and carbine.

 

[madmike]

Doberman: I wasted money on all four...and lots of others.

 

[PercyShelley]

FN2000

Lessee, thin, not free floated barrel, no drop free magazines, no last round bolt hold open (why did FN start doing that?), bulky, sight radius shorter than it has to be, fixed optic model (what is this, the 1970s?), and the trigger group looks suspiciously like an AUG's...

OK, I could see that. I don't know that it's over-rated though, since it doesn't get that much airplay. Got to hand it to FN's engineers though, the integrated rangefinding grenade launcher sight and forward ejection are nifty, and it's one of the very few bullpups with a safety selector in the same postal code as the shooter's hand.

And I had forgotten how much a 10-22 costs just to get a useable receiver you can modify into a decent .22. Thanks.

True. Of all the myriad .22 autoloaders, why did the 10-22, with all its curious eccentricities become the most popular?

I notice some of the most popular are by definition the most overrated. I recall stories about how Russian AKs can SHOOT THROUGH TANK ARMOR and it's disgraceful that the US has cheated its troops with a rifle that can't shoot through plywood

I would say for the guys who've only handled a range ho rifle at BRM...wait for a REAL M16. It may still be overrated, but it DOES shoot.

I'm almost ready to do my side by side by side test of Garand, AR and AK. I actually expect the Garand to fail first. (Go ahead and laugh...)

What parts of the garand are prone to failure? I admit I don't know much about them.

Would anyone claim the FAL is overrated? Or the CETME? (just curious)

CETME? No, because nobody sings their praises. They are rightly considered solid, but generally unremarkable milsurp .308 autoloaders.

FALs I have a substantial list of complains about. I don't care how much of the free world used them; ubiquity does not excuse overcomplication.

What about the Model 29? Good gun, but Dirty Harry made it an object of religious worship.

But it's the most powerful handgun in the world!

 

[ziggy222]

i'll just say military rifles in general.i can't beleive what junk people are going into battle with.a 1ft pattern at 100 yards just does'nt cut it.i'm not sure an ak will even do that.the last thing i'd want to use to defend myself with would be a military weapon.give me a varmint rifle and a shotgun.better yet,i'll get my own.

 

[Kind of Blued]

I'm quite suprised nobody has mentioned the Uzi.

I'd probably put it at #1.

 

[travis74]

I do not really care too much for AKs but they are accurate enough for a soldier. Alot of people have died from the wounds of an AK and alot more will in the future. In my opinion that is why these battle rifles that everyone is trashing seem overrated. I mean, a 10/22 did not help change the course of world history. The accuracy of the AK doesnt really matter that much. It is accurate enough to kill a man and probably has killed more men than any rifle ever made. It has a proven record and it is kind of hard to dispute that. That is the point, not the accuracy. It is a man killer and it functions flawlessly. I gurantee any of you if you saw one shooting at you the last thought in your mind is how innaccurate it is. Just the sound of an AK is plenty enough. Just like the sound of an M2 will make the enemy run for cover. See the point.

As far as AR's go. Well I am no gun expert, I do love guns, just probably dont know as much about different types of guns. I am in the military and carry an M4 everyday here in Afghanistan so I do know a thing or two about military rifles. I love my M4 as well as the 249, 240B and the M2. I am planning on buying a couple of AR's when I get back. The M4 is alot more accurate than a 1ft pattern in 100 yards if you are refering to AR's that is or at least mine always has been. That goes for every variant I have ever had that includes M16A2 and A4's. Are they as accurate as a bolt action? I am not sure. It probably depends on who you ask.

I am positive alot of you guys know this already, but really a battle rifle is somewhat less accurate because it is mil spec. If you brought a very very accurate rifle to war with the tight tolerences here you could never shoot it anyway. It would keep jamming. Military rifles can be too accurate really because of that.

I would say that in most conflicts with regular infantrymen, not snipers, most engagments occur in less than 100 yards. I think if I had to shoot someone at 100 yards here I probably just would not take that shot and wait til they were somewhat closer, if I could that is. Well, we have ACOGs now so I think that I probably would. I have not came across the situation yet and hope to God that I do not.

Bottom line. Military rifles help make world history. A varmint rifle or shotgun did not. That is why alot of other guns are not as highly rated and they will never be. To each his own though. It is all a matter of opinion.

I have no opinion on the most overated rifle. I really have not owned enough or shot enough varieties to say for sure.

 

[onebigelf]

"TinyGnat, how long was the service life of the m1917 compared to the M1898 krag?"

Remember that the 1917 was never intended as a US service rifle. It was a war-time stopgap to meet our need for more rifles because the 1903 that WAS our rifle was too slow to produce. The 1917 was accurate and reliable, but heavier. I like the 6th round though.

"And I had forgotten how much a 10-22 costs just to get a useable receiver you can modify into a decent .22. Thanks."

Biiiiig +1. And buying a complete 1-/22 is still the cheapest way to get the basis for a custom rifle!

John

 

[anymanusa]

any H&K gun.