Thread: Went shooting yesterday....

Originally Posted by Bowzer

Ill take an L85A2 over a standard AR15 any day. Dont believe me?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8045505AAJthpR

Your source on the "superiority" of the SA80 is a Yahoo Answers page with anecdotal evidence in the form of some random guy saying "my M16 jammed but my L85 never did"? Nice try. Even setting that aside, most of what he says is either questionable (such as the part about the L85 being more accurate) or irrelevant to us (such as the fact that it has full-auto capability).

Anyway, it's a moot point, because again, as a US civilian, you can't get a semiauto L85 (maybe there are a few out there, but if so, they are rare and not easily available.... and thus will be quite expensive, just like all the other expensive or unavailable guns you listed as alternatives to the "overpriced" AR). So it doesn't matter if the L85 really is a superior weapon. You can't have one.

Originally Posted by Bowzer

Oh, and how about the Steyr AUG? Theres another .223 better than the AR15.

And here we have yet ANOTHER rifle that's way more expensive than an AR. Have you looked at prices on civilian AUG clones recently? The MSAR is usually around $2000; maybe if you get a good deal you might go as low as $1600 or $1700, but that's about it. The same is true for the TPD AXR: $2000 or more (I believe MSRP for the basic 16"-barrel model is $2195). If you can point to a quality AUG clone that's around the same price as the average AR (about $1000), your argument here might have a bit of credibility. But until then, suggesting the AUG as a superior alternative to the "overpriced" AR is just as laughable as your previous suggestions of the SCAR and G36 and XM8.

Originally Posted by Bowzer

What im trying to say is just that I would never spend $1500 on a shitty weapon system. But hey, to each their own.

That's not how much the average AR costs. Around $1000 is more realistic. First I asked you to list some rifles that are less "overpriced" than the AR and you listed a bunch of rifles that are MORE expensive than ARs, or are unavailable to the public, or both. Now you think that $1500 is a representative price for an AR. I'm beginning to think you just don't actually know anything about the price or availability of the guns you're talking about.

****

Originally Posted by crunker

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.

Hmm, I've never seen it broken down this way. I think these DVDs invented the "combat rifle" category themselves; the terms seems a bit broad (of course the same could be said of the term "battle rifle"). Virtually all military rifles chambering intermediate cartridges are designed as assault rifles, so I think the term "assault rifle" can be safely used to describe them as a class. That is interesting, though.

Regarding the M16A3, no branch of the US armed forces uses them. They never saw widespread use even when they were first introduced in the 1980s, since they were intended only for specialized use by certain units. Only a small number were ever made. Nowadays they aren't really used at all. The SEALs, etc., probably still have a few lying around, but that's about it.