It's actually more like the later AR-18 than the AR-15/M16.
Posted on 08/07/2003 10:52:17 AM PDT by Long Cut
It's actually more like the later AR-18 than the AR-15/M16.
Again, the internals are similar, though the current semiauto AR-180b uses an AR-15 type configuration of a stampred upper receiver with gas piston-type action, plus a polymer lower receiver and trigger mechanism housing. Accordingly an AR180b, while a great little carbine in its own right [I've had examples of the earlier AR-180 model with folding stock as produced by both Great Britain's Sterling Arms and the Japanese Howa machinery company] would be a little more complicated starting place for a XM-8 repro...hmmm, XM-8, SL-8...Almost as if they've had this idea from the get-go.... And the current AR180b is also arranged to use M16 magazines. Accordingle, it realy looks like the SL-8 is the better place to begin.
My only complaint with the SL-8 (and I'm sure many other civilian shooters shared this gripe) is its butt-ugly stock with that "butthole" pistol grip. If you're asking a buyer to pay out $1500 for a rifle based on a military design, you simply have to do better than that, IMHO. The SL-8's failure on the marketplace was undoubtedly aided by this.
It could have been issued with a proper pistol grip, too. They only would have lost the opportunity to sell it in California and New York, which probably wouldn't amount to all that many sales, anyway, as dedicated buyers in those states have a way of finding what they want elsewhere.
I often wondered why manufacturers of semiautos left the barrels "slick" after the ban, when a simple lathe job would have yielded a "muzzle device" which had at least the proper "look" to it.
To me at least, a semiauto lookalike just plain looks strange and incomplete without a muzzle device of some kind.
Also, it demonstrates the utter futility of the Ban, when industrious, independant, and ingenious Americans go to work on the problem.
They aren't. The SL-8 was intentionally designed to use a single-row feed 10-shot capacity magazine, due to the *Assault Weapons Ban* Accordingly, there've been conversions for pre-ban M16 magazines or for those fose pre-ban synthetic magazines for the Steyr AUG.
But the modular character of the rifle should make it possible to do all sorts of interesting things with the SL-8 once the AWB sunsets in 22 weeks.
I'm still hoping against hope that the major manufacturers have a whole Santa's sleigh full of goodies to offer once the Ban sunsets. I think they're wisely keeping such things close-hold now, though, to keep them from being used by the Antis as a backdrop for speeches.
I can just imagine DiFi and Scummer standing in front of a poster of some new AR-Asskicker25 or something saying, "Look at what'll be on our streets, slaughtering every baby in sight with automatic, high-powered bullets if this vital, commonsense legislation expires..."
I sure can, complete with a *before and after* comparison, too:
AlpineTech SL-8/G36 conversion work.
I often wondered why manufacturers of semiautos left the barrels "slick" after the ban, when a simple lathe job would have yielded a "muzzle device" which had at least the proper "look" to it.
To me at least, a semiauto lookalike just plain looks strange and incomplete without a muzzle device of some kind. Well, it will at least make turning threads on the end easier once the AWB sunsets in 22 weeks so that flawsh suppressory san be retrofitted. But note that the most accurate barrels fitted on match target rifles are usually plain aside from a recessed target crown. Even the earliest FAL rifles were usually not fitted with a flash hider at all, and several nations' FALs were lacking them, notably Israels.
Also, it demonstrates the utter futility of the Ban, when industrious, independant, and ingenious Americans go to work on the problem.
Oh yes. Though the idea may too have been to get Americans to grudgingly comply with unconstitutionasl and unlawful dictatesgets back to the nature of such legislation as a temporary nuisance.
Also, Economics 101. A demand WILL find a supply. Laws "banning" anything at all are more akin to trying to block a river with one rock placed in the center and calling it a "dam". The allegedly "banned" supply simply flows around, over, or underneath it.
It always amuses me when the Antis accuse manufacturers of "circumventing" the Ban by offering rifles of the same actions but without cosmetic features. LOL! They are simply complying with the law as written. If the Antis wanted them to consider the intent of the Ban instead of its actual text, they should have said so. However, then we could just bring up the intent of the Second, which the founders helpfully explained in their writings.
- It HAS standby iron sights.
- It HAS a bayonet lug.
- The flash supressor is an M-16-style "birdcage", vice the "pronged" model on the prototypes.
The mags also snap together, and in the firing sequences, Ermey worked it on F/A with no discernable muzzle rise.
In all, it was a good showing of the weapon, with an Army LTC doing the demo for Ermey.
The "modular" feature was also demonstrated, with the forend being removed in a thrice.
tx65,
You forgot one thing in your post above.
You stated that 7.62 NATO / .308 has higher energy delivery than the 6.5 Grendel.
This is only true out to a certain distance.
After 600 meters (or somewhere near depending on bullet choice) the 6.5 Grendel has higher energy delivered to the target due to its higher BC and higher retained velocity at long range!!!!
This rifle will be a serious infantry weapon, as our troops should ALWAYS have.
bump for gun porn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.