GUN NOTES
Awesome ARs
The United States service-rifle platform has come a long way since Boot Camp.
|
|
An AR delivering .300 magnum performance? An AR that will match groups with almost any bolt gun? I never would have imagined it possible had I not seen it. You see, I'm a Baby Boomer. In the war movies of my youth, whether set in Word War II or the Korean War, real men carried real rifles. The real rifles they carried were, of course, Garands--beautiful rifles of wood and steel, heavy and powerful.
Fast-forward some years, and I was among the last group to train with the M14. This, too, seemed like a real rifle. It was heavy and powerful, Garand-esque in appearance, and its 20-round magazine seemed to make a lot of sense. At that time I was much more a gun nut than a budding Marine, so imagine my consternation when that solid, familiar M14 was replaced with the first "black gun" I'd ever handled.
By then this was the M16A1 with bolt assist. Under not so benevolent tutelage I first learned to care for it, and then I learned to shoot it. I actually learned to shoot it quite well. Over a period of many years, the M16A1 was responsible for an unbroken string of Marine Corps "Expert" qualifications. Somewhat grudgingly, I came to appreciate its attributes and the surprising performance of its diminutive 5.56mm cartridge.
I was around when the M16A1 was replaced with the M16A2, with a longer, heavier barrel; three-shot burst capability; better sights; and a different rifling twist to handle the new heavy-bullet load. By then I had few beefs with the A1, and the A2 answered most of them. Not that he cared, I had to agree with our Commandant when he described the M16A2 as a "fine battle rifle." Some years later, when a subsequent Commandant was making noises about wholesale replacement of the M16A2 with the M4 Carbine, I was among a small group that started squealing like stuck pigs (I have often thought this was the beginning of my trouble with the Corps). The handy M4 definitely has its place, but now that we had enhanced the range, penetration and accuracy of the M16 platform, I simply couldn't understand why we would want to give up velocity and sighting radius in our primary infantry rifle.
As we know, the M16 series and M4 share the same basic receiver, the primary differences being stocks, barrels, sighting equipment, and bells and whistles. This is much the same with the many civilian versions based on both the AR-15 and its big brother, the AR-10 (except that the sporting rifles based on these frames are semiauto only). But I've been PFC (that's Proud F-something Civilian) for some time now, and since I reside in California I cannot own an AR-based sporting rifle. So I've seen various custom and production versions only in snapshots, at prairie dog shoots and at various range events. I have been impressed, even bemused, at what so many fine riflesmiths are doing with this surprisingly versatile receiver. At least once I've been shocked.
Last year I had a chance to shoot one of the first ARs in .450 Bushmaster. I stood up in the steady but fairly loose standing position that so often saved my Expert badge (like after I blew kneeling or dropped a magazine in rapid fire) and squeezed off a round. The charging handle smacked me in the upper lip under a full head of steam. Ignoring the laughter, I nonchalantly tried to hide the blood streaming everywhere while it dawned on me that this was definitely not a 5.56!
