kennethhbrown01
Inactive
Why does the U.S military still use the aged AR Platform assault rifles when there are many new and better assault rifles like the Scar H or L and the Bushmaster ACR?
Rifles
- Thread starter kennethhbrown01
- Start date
The military doesnt use "assault rifles" that is a made up name by the media.
Please do not assist the "left" in propitiating the fallacy.
AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle. The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please do not assist the "left" in propitiating the fallacy.
AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle. The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
aarondhgraham
New member
The answer to your question is,,,
,,,Money.
That and while there are "better" rifles out there,,,
They aren't deemed to be "enough better" to justify the expense of change.
Aarond
.
,,,Money.
That and while there are "better" rifles out there,,,
They aren't deemed to be "enough better" to justify the expense of change.
Aarond
.
shootbrownelk
New member
Yeah right....It's about saving money. Our Government is a noted money saver.
buck460XVR
New member
Better in who's opinion? Better in such a degree to warrant complete changeover of the weapons themselves and corresponding training, manuals and replacement parts? Didn't the Rangers at one time attempt to use the Scar, and doesn't the SOC use the Scar-H?
Hard to just throw away something that has been tested and proven in the field to work well within the parameters of those using them.
.You can make an argument that this rifle, or that rifle is better. Or that another caliber might be better. But the reality is that any improvement over what we have is minimal at best and may well prove to be a step backwards.
As an individual if you want trade in a perfectly functional AR rifle for something you perceive is better then feel free to do so. After changing over to the new rifle, new magazines and new ammo it'll probably mean less than $1,000 out of your pocket. Imagine doing so with the number of rifles the military needs to equip the armed forces. As a tax payer I wouldn't approve such a plan.
As an individual if you want trade in a perfectly functional AR rifle for something you perceive is better then feel free to do so. After changing over to the new rifle, new magazines and new ammo it'll probably mean less than $1,000 out of your pocket. Imagine doing so with the number of rifles the military needs to equip the armed forces. As a tax payer I wouldn't approve such a plan.
"...the Scar H or L and the Bushmaster ACR..." NIH and cost. None of which are proven in combat either. The U.S. government dislikes buying anything from foreign designers. That's what the U.S. military got stuck with the M-14(the U.S. military didn't want it or the M-16 either).
Bushmaster issued a recall of all ACR rifles(MSRP of over $2500 to $3 grand each.) in 2010. Had a design flaw that made 'em go FA.
The Scar H is 7.62NATO and is from FN. Weighs a bit over 8 pounds empty too. An M4 weighs 6.3.
The 'L' was cancelled in 2010.
And, as mentioned, the M-16/AR is not and never has been an assault rifle.
Bushmaster issued a recall of all ACR rifles(MSRP of over $2500 to $3 grand each.) in 2010. Had a design flaw that made 'em go FA.
The Scar H is 7.62NATO and is from FN. Weighs a bit over 8 pounds empty too. An M4 weighs 6.3.
The 'L' was cancelled in 2010.
And, as mentioned, the M-16/AR is not and never has been an assault rifle.
The term doesn't bother me, assault rifle, assault weapon etc.
what bothers me is gun owners scrambling to be please the antis.
I think the m4/m16 rifles are just fine. If they weren't, they'd been replaced long ago. The military doesn't like things that don't work. I know we all got misgivings about aspects of our service, but if it was more than just soldier gripes, the equipment would have been phased out and replaced.
The fact that the rifle has been around so long is actually a testament to the design.
what bothers me is gun owners scrambling to be please the antis.
I think the m4/m16 rifles are just fine. If they weren't, they'd been replaced long ago. The military doesn't like things that don't work. I know we all got misgivings about aspects of our service, but if it was more than just soldier gripes, the equipment would have been phased out and replaced.
The fact that the rifle has been around so long is actually a testament to the design.
carguychris
New member
That's the short answer.rickyrick said:
The slightly longer answer:
[EDIT TO ADD] As it relates to standard-issue U.S. Army combat rifles...
The Model 1873 "Trapdoor" Springfield introduced breech loading.
The Model 1892 Krag–Jørgensen introduced smokeless powder and a magazine.
The Model 1903 Springfield introduced clip loading and a stronger bolt that allowed the use of more powerful cartridges.
The M1 Garand introduced semi-automatic fire.
The M14 introduced a detachable magazine, the 7.62x51 cartridge, and a select-fire option.
The M16 introduced the 5.56 cartridge, which has less recoil and is more portable than the 7.62, in a smaller yet more controllable package.
Compared to these leaps forward, rifles like the SCAR and ACR (or Tavor, or FN F2000, or SA80, etc. etc.) offer only marginal improvements in reliability and ergonomics, if that.
In order to justify replacing the proverbial bazillion M16/M4 rifles in U.S. service, along with all of the parts stockpiles and the additional training, the next generation of combat rifles will need to offer at least one fairly drastic improvement—like caseless ammunition, or a cartridge that performs much better against advanced body armor without being a step backwards in portability, controllability, range, or cost.
Last edited:
shootbrownelk
New member
It seems to me that every time we use the term "assault rifle" we're making the gun grabbers happy. Personally, I hate the term. I know Sen. Schumer and Diane Feinstein love it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Money, more than any other single reason. Same reason we kept the .30-06 and didn't adopt the .276 Pedersen round with the M1 rifle.
#1) despite "nothing is too good for our troops" sentiment, something (possibly) a little bit better simply isn't going to replace something that works acceptably well, and that we have millions (billions?) of dollars invested in.
#2) the politics of prestige. After spending decades getting all the MAJOR bugs out of the AR system, they aren't going to drop it for something that isn't a quantum leap forward in weapons technology.
This isn't a case of "what was good enough for granddad is good enough for me", its a case of "there is nothing enough better to justify the expense of the change."
I'm sorry but Assault rifle is the correct term. Assault WEAPON is the made up term created by the media. And yes, it was deliberately chosen to be confused with assault rifle.
one more time (and for the record)
ASSAULT RIFLE
is the English translation of the German term Sturmgewehr, the name given the initial example of the type in 1944, by Adolf Hitler. It's a valid term, and has been in use in the military and shooting community since the end of WWII. The defining features are an intermediate power cartridge (in between the standard WWII pistol and rifle rounds) AND Select fire.
The German word Sturm, is translated into English as "storm" or "assault" depending on context. It can mean storm, such as a thunderstorm, or it can mean storm, in military sense, storming/assaulting an objective. So Sturmgewehr can be translated as assault rifle or storm rifle. Assault rifle is the most common translation.
ASSAULT WEAPON
Is a term created by the media during the hysteria in the early 90s, and written into law in the 1994 Assault Weapon Bill.
Assault WEAPONS are semi automatics with cosmetic features on the list contained in the law, rifle, pistol or shotgun.
The US military seldom uses the term assault rifle, but we do use assault rifles by their proper definition. US law also does not use the term assault rifle, because under the law they are machine guns, and are called such.
Theohazard
New member
Yes, they do. The M4 and M16 are textbook examples of assault rifles. An assault rifle is a technical term for a select-fire rifle that fires an intermediate-powered rifle cartridge. The term has been misused over and over by the general public to refer to semi-auto rifles, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid term, it just means it's often misused.Texas45 said:
Nope. The Germans coined the term "assault rifle" in WWII and it's been a valid technical term even since. Here is an excerpt from a 1970 US Army field manual that defines an assault rifle as such:Texas45 said:
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
http://gunfax.com/aw.htm
The media term you're thinking of is "assault weapon", which is a made-up political term that categorizes certain scary-looking firearms based on arbitrarily-defined cosmetic features and then attempts to ban them. I don't understand why so many gun people can't figure out the difference between the made-up political term "assault weapon" and the valid (even if often misused) technical term "assault rifle". The fact that so many of us constantly confuse the two makes us look ignorant. After all, how can we educate people on proper gun terms if we don't understand those terms ourselves?
No, it just stands for the first two letters in "ArmaLite". The "AR-" prefix was also used by ArmaLite for pistols, shotguns, and even an anti-aircraft gun.Texas45 said:
EDIT: It appears that 44 AMP beat me to it.
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
This is an essential truth that echoes throughout all levels of equipment used by the U.S. military.44 AMP said:
The M1 Abrams
The F-16
The F/A-18 family
The B-52
The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
Note that attempts to replace several of these systems with something superior have turned out to be boondoggles.
Wikipedia disagrees, and cites a 1970 US Army intelligence document stating the M-16 was an assault rifle. (I was in US Army Intelligence in Vietnam in 1970 and occasionally carried an M-16, but I didn't write the referenced document.)
Thats funny because they also attribute the term to Hitler which is the general consciences.
The AR DOES NOT DESIGNATE ASSAULT RIFLE.
Never has Never will except to those who remain uninformed or are involved in the media.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Because the weak point for US infantry riflemen is training, not equipment.