@Syme: I didn't realize that the difference in accuracy was so negligible. Thanks for that info.

Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
(what's the difference, anyhow?)
I'm using Tactical Response's Fighting Rifle DVDs as a source here. Combat rifle = intermediate cartridge. Battle rifle = full power cartridge. Full power cartridge > Intermediate cartridge > pistol cartridge. Full power cartridge = .308, .30-06, 7.62x54mm, etc.

@Bowzer: I've read a lot about the Steyr AUGs available to US civilians (MSAR STG-556, TPD AXR) and my conclusion is that they offer no really significant advantages over the AR-15 platform. Civilians don't need crazy reliability and other combat-oriented benefits to the same degree that military operators do. Civie AUGs are nice, to be sure, but to state that they're better than ARs like it's a fact seems hasty to me.
Also, US Army uses M16A4, according to wikipedia. Some branches of the armed forces use A3s (which have f.a capability). In my opinion, there's no need for a combat rifle to have f.a capacity if it's got burst. Soldiers like f.a, of course, but when you factor in controlability for covering fire and such, I think burst-fire setting has a clear advantage.
And Anony's AR is hardly standard.
I'm really struggling to think of a rifle out there that's better for his purposes than a good ol' AR-15. You can make the case for other guns if you don't factor in cost of ammo, magazines, customability, etc, but if you really take everything into account, in my opinion, AR platform comes out on top. Some newer gas-piston rifles like the XCR and piston AR-15s come close, but seriously, you're dropping more money for an increase in reliability that you may not every really feel. No, a good ol' DI AR with some goodies is the best weapon for Anony's purposes. Even if you disagree with me, calling the AR-15 a shitty weapon surely seems extreme, doesn't it?