Being able to get through a single mag without failure is a pretty low bar. I'm not sure anyone evaluating a weapon for combat reliability would be willing to stop the tests at that stage.For me battle reliability means 20 rounds from cold.
Yeah, I'm a bit curious why people are wanting to use the "if I were going to do battle tomorrow" criterion since they're NOT going to do battle tomorrow -- and if they were, would either be issued their rife or have quite a good choice of possibilities as a professional operator. Yeah, I guess if I were going to do battle tomorrow I might not select an S&W M&P AR -- but then I think I'd be unlikely to select any AR. But why use an unrealistic and fanciful criterion like that at all? Or are you using that criterion in order to be sure you get the most reliable and effective product for your combat use -- even though you won't be using it in combat? And that didn't seem to be the intent of the how the poll question was stated -- which I took to be in terms of reliable functioning, and not regarding military or paramilitary use and demands.
So now, just color me confused about the whole thing. 😂 But there's been some good information exposed in the thread in any event.
The original post says nothing about “combat”. That is your interpretation of “stake your life”. Stake your life could easily mean shooting a rabid fox, and considering rabies is 100% fatal in humans while “combat” is not I would consider this scenario more appropriate.Yeah, I'm a bit curious why people are wanting to use the "if I were going to do battle tomorrow" criterion since they're NOT going to do battle tomorrow -- and if they were, would either be issued their rife or have quite a good choice of possibilities as a professional operator. Yeah, I guess if I were going to do battle tomorrow I might not select an S&W M&P AR -- but then I think I'd be unlikely to select any AR. But why use an unrealistic and fanciful criterion like that at all? Or are you using that criterion in order to be sure you get the most reliable and effective product for your combat use -- even though you won't be using it in combat? And that didn't seem to be the intent of the how the poll question was stated -- which I took to be in terms of reliable functioning, and not regarding military or paramilitary use and demands.
So now, just color me confused about the whole thing. 😂 But there's been some good information exposed in the thread in any event.
That's pretty much the same criterion I used when I bought my Browning Hi Power in 1974. But I never took combat to be the defining environment since it had been used over the decades in a number of other situations (many police forces, internationally, for example), and had proven itself well in all of those. For a rifle's reliability, I would probably start with the same approach and open the sample space to those other types of organizations rather than just to "combat" ones, but the combat one's work for that purpose.I used that criterion because for me, to measure 'dependability' I'd like to see ...
But that's just an explanation as to why I use that as a criterion.
I’m curious why the colt 6920 is considered somehow better than the s&w m&p.
For me battle reliability means 20 rounds from cold.
Definitely not MY interpretation of "stake your life" since it's the criterion I'm actually questioning.The original post says nothing about “combat”. That is your interpretation of “stake your life”.
I was actually surprised to discover how much I admired the basic engineering of the S&W AR my wife got -- leaving the trigger aside, and I also understand the design and maintenance issues that resulted in that. I don't think I'd buy one for myself, but it is a pretty neat little gun with some interesting and good features. I see its utility and attraction.The $500 ARs now are a light-year better than $500 ARs 20 years ago. Manufacturing is better, quality assurance and quality control are better, worksmanship is better.
Well not exactly, don't you trust your life to every car you get in?Man, if only we could spend a certain amount that guaranteed we could trust our life with it. That would be amazing.
IMO we can change this from “AR” to “Automobile”. So I guess we are looking for the Toyota Corolla of AR-15’s here. Not sure what that is.
If the was about pistols I’d blurt out “GLOCK 19”!!
Sure, you can use any number of areas - I choose combat use as they're almost always used in worse conditions and more rounds fired in training and anger than a firearm in police use.That's pretty much the same criterion I used when I bought my Browning Hi Power in 1974. But I never took combat to be the defining environment since it had been used over the decades in a number of other situations (many police forces, internationally, for example), and had proven itself well in all of those. For a rifle's reliability, I would probably start with the same approach and open the sample space to those other types of organizations rather than just to "combat" ones, but the combat one's work for that purpose.
On the other hand, if I valued "reliability" at a reasonable price and with decent "minute of body" accuracy within, say, 200 yds., and bang for the buck, I'd be more inclined towards the works of our old buddies and Siminov and Kalashnikov. But as you say, the post is focused on the ARs.
First you say that combat is a silly standard, then you use it as a standard.Being able to get through a single mag without failure is a pretty low bar. I'm not sure anyone evaluating a weapon for combat reliability would be willing to stop the tests at that stage.
Shotgun, right tool for the job an' all. I wouldn't use an AR or any rifle up close for a fox.P.S. Dark humor, but imagine if you will someone desperately trying to blast a rabid fox at close range with a FAL...
Well, combat isn't a silly standard for a gun that's actually to be used in combat -- which wasn't the case being posed here. But I haven't used it as a standard. I was only responding to someone who suggested that "battle reliability" meant that a gun could get through a single mag without malfunction.First you say that combat is a silly standard, then you use it as a standard.
I don't really disagree with this, and I think I just misinterpreted what you said. You weren't really saying that "battle reliability means ...". You meant to say that the only "battles" that typical civilians will ever be in were ones in which a single mag should suffice -- i.e., that typical civilians won't be in battles at all. I'm inclined to agree with that (recognizing that there may be some outliers and exceptions at odd times).I think it’s pretty fair to say that perfect operation for 20 rounds is all a civilian will need 99.99999999% of the time,
I totally agree with the superiority of the shotgun for most homeowner applications. However, I confess that I've recently been giving serious thought to the AR 15-22 (with high intensity light and low power scope) as a nighttime tool on some intruders -- in order to avoid collateral damage from shot in expected fields of fire. My impression from after-dark sounds at various times, is that people around here vacillate between the two choices -- probably for similar reasons. But I would not consider my wife's AR for such an application.Shotgun, right tool for the job an' all. I wouldn't use an AR or any rifle up close for a fox.
Fun thread!
Well not exactly, don't you trust your life to every car you get in?
It seems to me that lots of people have the idea that anything firearm related has to be 99.99% reliable to "trust my life" to it. In any life threatening situation what are the odds something else will go wrong? Are your skills, mindset, and dumb luck (level of Murphy) 99.99% reliable?
My criteria is if I can put a few mags through it with no malfunctions then the odds are much higher something else will negatively affect my performance/outcome more than the firearm will.
I did the $600-1k range...mainly because I feel the "standards" have been set by Colt/SW/Aero and the like.
That said...If I walked into a room with a rack full of Colts on one side and >my< poverty pony PSA build on the other...Id grab mine, because I know it runs.
You are correct.I think you missed my point bro.
Which was: spending more money on a car does't necessarily equate to more trust in it.