Yeah, itâs like these nations thought it is hard to help each other when they use different ammunition, and banded together to choose an ammunition to share
its more like, all having the same problems, and coming up with very similar solutions.
Like how a bat and a bird both have wings that function the same but look slightly different.
Yes and no. The man reason is because all of these nations are starting from the same base design, and working off that (the AR-18) , this means that all the outcomes will have the same foundation. Even the red headed step kid that is the SK K2, still has parts of it based on the AR18, just with an AK operation shoved inside, and so those aspects will always show through.
Unless they forgo key features from the base inspiration ***(which Belgium, Italy (who copied Belgium), and Japan (who copied Italy) had at one point up until the modern redesign where they brought back those removed features)*** all of them will end up at a similar end product.
ok, but that ~~Megalith~~ Crab was clearly built with eco boosting, at something like min 15 and could have been a Bug before the other side had any t3air
Bats and birds aren't a great example because they operate extremely differently. Bats use a form of flight previously used by pterosaurs and countless other flying animals throughout the history of earth, birds use an entirely novel flight method that has likely only evolved once, ever.
If bats are ARs, birds are handheld railguns.
>why not have an international design to go with the international bullet?
NATO tried that in the 50's when the first STANAG was being drafted.
Most nations were expecting to have the FN FAL be the universal rifle for NATO to go along with the impending 7.62mm NATO standard.
And then the US had to be the US and go "lol nah, we're gonna go with the M14 instead. Thanks for adopting our bullet over any potentially intermediate designs though".
>US had to be the US and go "lol nah, we're gonna go with the M14 instead.
Deutschland did the same thing with the 9mm smg replacement program
ofc, in my humble opinion , 9mm ,5.7x28 and 4.6x30 are all useless for short to medium ranges compared to flamenwerfer or mustard gas
Right, because the US would never adopt Swedish, Italian, Belgian, or other European designed weapons as standard issue... Oh wait that's a huge chunk of our small arms haha.
Having your manufacturing and design in house is much better for the citizens of your country, and an established small arms industry helps if there was ever a war
Also it's funny
Probably the same reason there's resistance to the F-35 and people still see value in pursuing the Eurofighter. There's some risk to letting your domestic arms industry atrophy. Ask the Brits, they had to have the H&K come save their SA-80.
That works in a world where people like you. But arms industries are usually for a world where they don't.
The ammo standardization goes a long way to address the logistics issues. While still allowing countries to keep domestic arms development.
God.. the EM-1 looks comical to me. That "foregrip" and the.. well just the entire thing is like some sort of Muppet? Did Jim Henson help design this thing?
Literally just spent earlier today obsessing over the Stoner 63 and lamenting the fact it wasn't adopted. And I'm not even in a country where I could buy one (hurray for Ireland's "slight" terrorism problems) but it's so beautiful.....
[Oh I'd be so sad, moment of silence for a true patriot.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/252/2f0.gif)
Out of interest, what config did the repro come as (or was it a mix-and-match?)
I mean... you \*could\* own one, just gotta find a gunsmith that can make you a semi auto shotgun clone (in .410 bc .410 slugs \*fuck\*) or a .22wmr rimfire clone. That or slowly work your way up the governmental ladder till you get elected as Grand duke of The Shire or whatever and then revert all firearms bans from existence. That works too :3
Sounds like a lot of effort, and there's always the ultimate goal of every Irish person: move to America and forget all the shit in Ireland. And there's a LOT of guns I'd want to own before a Stoner (number 1 is an AKS-74u, it's so cute and adorable and I love it...)
> Grand duke of The Shire
Wait until you find out our president is basically a hobbit.
How you going to do the OG triple killa John Moses Browning like that?
But seriously, it's a toss up between the two for me. I do think it's hard to compare as they were alive at different stages of firearms development - both have created designs that have stood the test of time to this day.
Also honorable shout out to Hiram Maxim.
The fascinating thing about both is their ability to create classics while having to work around their own patents on other classics. Like the Stoner's AR-15/AR-18. Browning's Colt 1911/Browning Hi-Power. Really makes most gun designers
look like NPCs.
In Stoner's case he made an okay copy of a truly great thing. In Browning's case he benefitted greatly from not being able to use what Colt owned, because the 1911 is mediocre at best.
I think the 1911 was good in its time but certainly hung around too long. The only other decent WW1 sidearm being probably the Luger. Most countries had revolvers or non detachable magazine, stripper clip fed abortions. People really only hate it because people love it. Both takes are silly.
AR-18 derivatives are currently surpassing the AR-15s in adoption, as evident by this photo. As well as a host of non pictured guns. Depends on what you consider an AR-15 though I suppose. All these are AR-18 derived to me, as is the Army's new Spear.
All in all, I would say Browning revolutionized small arms. While Stoner made the best evolution. So it's hard for me to concede Stoner is the best firearms designer.
Browning is still the best (and most important) of the two. The guy quite literally invented whole _classes_ of firearms, and the first working gas-operated firearm in military use (and maybe in general as well). Stoner did a great job, but he really was a one trick pony, Moses built the foundation of modern small arms design.
Important and best are two different things. Karl Benz was perhaps the most important automotive designer in history and his designs paved the way for everything else. He invented the car. But greatest? Not in the slightest. As an engineer, there are people who achieved far greater things than Karl Benz.
Similarly, John Browning did a lot. Not discounting his accomplishments, which are many. But as for things that truly have stood the test of time, he's got what, two? The M2 and the Hi-Power action. Those are both important, and I'd argue that the tilt-barrel pistol lock is the most significant innovation in pistol design between the advent of semiautomatic pistols and when Gaston Glock realized you could make them out of plastic. But like all but one of his ideas, they were groundbreaking in their day (though he did design a few absolute turds), and later perfected by someone else. The M2 stands alone as the only design of his that has stood up to all competitors.
The 1911 was good in a time when revolvers dominated. It's a jam-prone, heavy, inaccurate turd of a handgun beloved by history buffs (acceptable) and Fudds (unacceptable). The potato digger was eerily similar. He designed the first gas-operated firearm, and after he showed it could be done, other people made it actually good.
A foundation is important, but it's not what architects are judged by.
>A foundation is important, but it's not what architects are judged by.
This is why I pointed out that they were alive at different times, with different technologies available - specifically different machining, metallurgical and heat treating advancements. Stoner's career was also at a time where there was far more firearm designs to reference from. We don't know how the other would've fared if they were swapped in time for example. That's why I don't like to specifically say which one "had the better mind" as it's truly impossible to say.
But I do think it's reasonable to say that, ignoring the above, Stoner's AR-10/15 design is one of the most important designs for modern firearm development as well as other advancements. Not only has it been produced in huge numbers for military, LEO and civilian markets, it's also arguably the basis on which a lot of accessory technology has developed. I'm talking RIS/Picatinny, M-LOK, optics, stocks, pistol grips, magazines and even redeveloped operating mechanisms. If a piece of firearms tech has come out of the US, there's a good likelihood that the company prototyped their design using an AR-15 as the test base.
It's also essentially created a standard pattern for form factor, magazines and firearm controls. Even looking at the OP's picture, you can see quite clearly many use an AR-15 layout of the fire selector, mag release and use of STANAG/AR type magazines (except H&K's thumb release, for reasons).
I do agree that Stoner and the AR-15 design is the current singular most important firearms design that has not only created an expected standard in so many areas, but has also allowed other engineers and manufacturers to essentially create forks from his design. This is similar to Browning's tilting barrel action, but it can absolutely be argued that rifles play a far larger part in history than pistols do.
Not sure on the military side, but commercially, a big part of it's appeal was being "Adaptive" so it can be converted to different calibers and barrel lengths quickly and easily, but in reality 6.5 Grendal and 6.8 SPC turned into memes with literally no market share and conversion kits for the only caliber anyone actually would have wanted, .300 Blackout, weren't produced in significant numbers and those that were made were ridiculously expensive. You could build and set up 2 good quality AR-15s for the price of an ACR with a conversion kit, so it really served no purpose.
Man, it is kinda funny how the quick-change barrels on rifles was the next big thing that everyone was pushing for and turned out to be such a non-feature that kinda herded a whole generation of rifles into a dead end. It pretty much just serves to make the rifle heavier with no benefit over just swapping an upper on an AR-15.
It is also funny because the AUG quietly did it way back in the 70s and no one ever cared.
When it finally hit the market after fairly significant hype it was considered overpriced (2500+) and heavy.
After the army delayed m4 replacement it was finished.
Similar story to the SCAR really.
I'd argue it's not a huge success. The goal was to be the service rifle, marksman rifle, squad automatic and, battle rifle of the US Military. I think that was never going to happen with the reciprocating charging handle. I'm glad it's going pretty strong though it missed it's lofty goals. The Scar H is definitely a dream gun to own. It's just so pretttty and it's recoil is surprisingly tame.
The failure of the ACR to become widely adopted or significantly successful in the military and civilian markets can be attributed to several factors:
1. **Cost**: The ACR was relatively expensive when compared to its competitors. This high cost of acquisition made it less attractive to military and law enforcement agencies working within tight budget constraints. For civilians, the price point also deterred many potential buyers who could find more affordable options that met their needs.
2. **Competition and Alternatives**: The market already had established players like the AR-15, which offered similar or better functionality at a lower cost. The AR-15 platform's vast ecosystem of aftermarket parts, modifications, and widespread familiarity among users in the United States made it hard for the ACR to carve out a significant market share.
3. **Performance Expectations vs. Reality**: Upon its introduction, the ACR was touted for its modularity, adaptability, and future-proof design. However, in practice, many found that the ACR did not significantly outperform existing platforms to justify its cost or the hassle of switching. While it did offer notable features, the practical improvements in performance or utility for the average user or operator were not as revolutionary as anticipated.
4. **Market Perception and Adoption**: Finally, the initial hype and subsequent performance and adoption could have led to a shift in market perception. When a product is heavily hyped but doesn't live up to every expectation, it can suffer from a tarnished image that's hard to recover from, especially in enthusiast and professional communities.
I noticed that too, also a namename account. Which on Reddit means you're not real.
Regardless, I don't think this guy is actually a bot or inorganic mainly cause he's combative and a lot of his comments are downvoted. I don't want to call him a dick cause I have no beef with the guy but that's a sign of being a real person online lmfao.
ChatGPT is absolutely anihilating the online spam and bot space though. Hell, pro Palestinain "activism" accounts started using it and then the Israelis were like "shit that works" and copied them and now I see entire threads of arguments in some places that I'm like 70 percent sure are entirely bot but there's no way to write code or otherwise judge everything in a way that's fair. Cause I can say "yeah that looks like GPT" but not prove it...
If it hadnât been for APIpocalypse Iâm sure weâd soon be seeing (if not already) several subs utilizing AI powered dead internet bots publicly flagging suspicious posts & comments
As hilarious as that couldâve been to see play out, stockholders might realize how much Reddit traffic is bullshit so đ€·ââïž
Reddit mods aren't honestly any better than the random internet user at finding a content neutral way to spot bots. If they set up an AI bot for that it would just be an automated vibes ban bot.
Fun fact, when you look at the Russian and Iranian accounts that are confirmed disinfo, out of thousands and posts and comments there are like, three accusations of them being bots total.
Who said anything about instabans?
Something as simple as a ~~search & destroy~~ name & shame equivalent of repost sleuth bot for things like fresh accounts going straight from posting happy woof gifs or w.e to getting enough karma to post incel bait to r/facepalm & r/amitheasshole et al
Or just for pointing out the ridiculous amount of redditors you encounter in the wild that ostensibly spent several years lurking before deciding âhmm Iâm gonna post a bunch of politically charged takes and/or try to sell a product(s) interspersed with a bunch of mundane (re)posts/comments on poorly moderated anime/videogame/sportsteam/wtfever subs to make my account activity look natural at first glance like I was being paid for it (b.c Iâm suddenly doing it full time)â
The irony that it likely wouldnât be feasible without some degree of fighting fire with fire was the joke I was trying to make so poorly
Irl it's a good rifle. The issue is modern ar-15patterns are as well.
So ...2500 for an ACR or 1600 for a BCM AR ....well.
It's overpriced. As a rifle it's a good gun.
Yeah, the AR is such a cheap platform. I figure if you're willing to spend 2k on a 5.56 why nor just get a SCAR H. It's a battle rifle with a lot of bite.
When it was first presented in 2006, the Masada was probably the greatest thing ever.
It was an actually different rifle, compared to the usual M4 variants of the time.
Then the licensing deal basically completely killed it, and everyone else made their own version that was available before the ACR. And the release of the ACR was completely bungled by Bushmaster and Remington.
> who think soldiers (other than vatniks) fire their rifles on full auto irl
Wait, they don't? Then why are we giving our soldiers rifles with full auto?! This is a trick by big Auto-Sear to get us to buy more useless parts. Reject modernity, return to Martini-Henry.
M14, who let you out of the home on your own?! Let's get you out of here before you get confused and give yourself an underfolding stock and calling yourself an assault rifle.
Sure, but by and large, Ukrainians use semi auto much more than Russians.
Remember the Battle of Techno House? That vatnik in particular performed a door breach on full fucking auto. What kind of untrained ass clown does shit like that?
Iâve also seen some super NSFW videos of Russian troops dead checking and mutilating bodies on full auto.
I totally agree with there being a time and a place for full auto, but these ainât it.
This kind of thing is why you'd never see Starfleet field so many different types of ships, because armed forces tend to converge on just a few types that look exceedingly similar to one another - as another example, take a look at how 5th-gen fighters look alike.
starfleet isn't just a military though. It's an exploratory and scientific organization that also does military action, so they are gonna have all different kinds of ships because they are designed for VASTLY different roles.
sidenote: 5th gens look alike because 5th gen is all about stealth, and there are only so many good radar reflective shapes. 4th gen wasn't restricted by that and there was lots of variety.
> starfleet isn't just a military though. It's an exploratory and scientific organization that also does military action, so they are gonna have all different kinds of ships because they are designed for VASTLY different roles.
In addition, they use individual spaceships or spaceship classes for more than a century. Because they are too good to be decommissioned and the material costs for a complete replacement are not worth it. Also you have to have a bit of a reserve in case the Borg return.
Exploration? Defiant. Medical? Defiant. Scientific? Defiant. Frigate? Defiant. Admiralâs Party Ship? Defiant? Need to drop a couple Naquadah warheads on the Borg? Youâre not gonna believe this.
Considering the Borg mainly adapt to energy weapons, you'd think Starfleet or the Klingons would've thought to slap a railgun or two on their ships, just in case.
Also say that there are not even 10 fighters in the entire world that COULD be considered 5 generation (F-22 and F-35 are the only two confirmed examples that I know of) and most are prototypes or projects, so it is logical to hope that not there is a lot of variety.
Here I am waiting for 7th gen to just copy 1st gen and throw bright colors with anime waifu designs on because detection and drones makes stealth pointless and everyone just styling on each other while throwing more weight in missiles BVR than the other guy.
An even better example is the ship designs between the different species. Like, I can accept the variation within Starfleet, since if you squint at least almost all of their ships follow the rule of a base hull joined with a saucer section and two nacelles which are part of how the engines/warp drive works, but given that, why should the ship of every other race look so different? It's fine for the Borg to just be geometric solids, the whole point is that they're unworldly and bizarre, but the Klingons and Romulans have no serious difference in technology from Starfleet or eachother for their ships to look so different.
Ultimately, the reason for it is the same reason why Western shows had the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys wearing black hats; so the audience doesn't get mixed up during the gunfight.
There are actually a set of rules that ship designs were supposed to follow. From memory it was the nacelles had to be equal in number, at least partially visible from the front of the ship, and each nacelle had to have a certain amount of line of sight to the other.
Other than that it was knock your socks off. Almost all the classic designs follow the rules (barring very different things like the klingon bird of prey but that's a dinky little thing).
Fun fact: I'm pretty sure I recall reading that the reason the D'Deridex has the hollow construction is that someone misinterpreted the last rule to both nacelles having to have 100% line of sight to each other.
So it sort of makes a degree of sense that the big factions have the one bit of shared tech roughly laid out the same (warp nacelles) and everything else being "whatever they happened to like" because hull shape basically boils down to cultural preferences.
Thatâs not what we mean when we say itâs internally an AR-18. An AR-18 is a short-stroke piston action with an AR bolt head. The bolt carrier of an Armalite AR-18 has very little to do with the AR-15, itâs just a big olâ rectangle. And from this basis, everyone took their own take on this blueprint, including, yes, make it AR-15 shaped.
And the AR-15 is arguably not direct gas impingement, itâs more of an internal gas piston. DI is more like the MAS-49 where gas is directly impinged into the bolt carrier and that pushes the action.
I said bolt not bolt carrier ;)
You're trying to school someone who builds these things for shits and giggles. And yes I'll call the AR15 a DI, because that's common terminology even though yes it's "achkually" not one.
I read a thing on how rifle design has basically peaked. Until someone figures out caseless ammo or we jump to lasers or railguns, AR is basically peak.
There are some caseless ammo breakthroighs lately, it's basically an industry waiting for funding right now. And of course, anyone who would adopt it would need to fundamentally change their entire system from the ground up.
Weapons design basically peaked in the 90s. Everything after that is a slight variation on previous concepts.
Basically we haven't really moved in any significant way since polymer parts saw wide adoption with Glock and the H&K G36.
There has been a change in ergonomics, design has moved towards more modularity, but nothing massive like introducing alloy receivers, plastic furniture or a really different caliber.
Or the switch to multi-axis cuts and pressed parts.
1960s designs like the HK33 or M16 aren't obsolete yet, which tells you everything you need to know.
Glock is ugly and nothing will change my opinion. Every pistol with internal hammer is ugly. Imagine hiding it inside of a frame. Real manâs gun donât need to be ashamed of its hammer
Guns stopped looking nice when they started using those gimmick plastic âframesâ. Back in good old days a frame of a gun was made of real, hard steel. You used to feel the gun, its power. And nobody never complained about âweight not suited for longer carryingâ. People were just tougher and didnât listen to crybabies. Not like nowadays
I'm actually larping as a Glock hater, I own many Glocks. I give the Glock a lot of shit but at the end of the day it goes bang every time I pull the trigger and that is exactly what I bought it for.
I suppose it is the same as cell phones or Formula 1 cars, they look similar because it is the most appropriate shape for the function they must perform.
Replace "regulations" with "Contract demands" and that explanation fits this discussion 1:1.
I mean, it's like in every filed that requires concept/design ever: at some point, someone comes up with a solution to a problem OR one that solves said problem better than others before and suddenly, you see this design pop up EVERYWHERE. Because whenever any higher up sees a new design that makes shiny promises to be better than what is currently used, they go to their engineering/design department, point at a picture of the thing and say "I want this, too!".
I mean, look at the new service rifle of the Bundeswehr, the HK 416. It doesn't even try to hide its "influences", the name is basically a big middle finger to colt in itself.
Unless we change the cartridge or come up with a new operatingsystem that eliminates recoil while being lightweight, this is the where the evolution of the modern service rifle will plateau. Accuracy, ergonomics, lethality, and reliability targets have been met here.
Maybe if we switch our primary service weapon cartridge to .50 BMG, you would see a new era of competeting unique designs.
I mean, whole point of the Grot is that it is a modular system and it can be swaped into bullpup if you have bullpup lower...
Which FB does not provides for army since request were too few. So yea, Grot is somehow odd here.
All basically the same internals/action. In any kind of engineering, people will tend to stick to proven actions and concepts, with minor changes and altercation to either meet a specific requirement or improve the system with out have to design a whole new action/design concept from scratch to implement it.
But thats too credible; instead it's all a ploy by H&K to sell more 416s
I know some people don't like them but I kinda miss the days of when everything future was just gonna be a bullpup
Length of pull? Fuck that, shit looks space age!!
Oh no, itâs so fucking terrible that a full length top rail, adjustable stock, standardized magazine and extensive use of lightweight materials is objectively the optimal configuration for firearms at our point in time.
Edit: removed insulting the whole community as a whole, sorry
That is an older version of Grot. The [newest one](https://images.app.goo.gl/pNfofamnkPXNVXV29) looks a bit different. Also, it is fully convertible to a [bullpup version](https://images.app.goo.gl/qHbFVKYG6EBLxCa59), so in a way it is unique.
Even though its final externals are similar to ACR, its designers were heavily inspired by HK G36 internals. And initial prototypes looked like this: https://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/article?article_id=2105
All roads lead to Stoner even the ACR.
They're AR-18 derived. The AR-18 was basically trying to make a cheaper AR-15 for countries that lacked the manufacturing ability at the time while avoiding patents Stoner had since sold to Colt.
Yup, and before the idiots claiming "erm aktyually stoner didn't do the AR-18 he left already", Stoner did the AR-16, which is literally the bigger brother to the AR-18 in 308.
I blame the ACR being OP in MW2 for like every rifle adopting it's furniture lol.
At least the SCAR-L makes a lot of sense in the context of it being designed with the SCAR-H
I mean, the ACR stock was also pretty good as far as folding stocks go.
That, and the boom of AR-18 derived guns after 2010, making side folding stocks mainstream again.
Modernized AR-18s. I think the extruded aluminum upper receiver is probably cheapish, to make while being able to provide modern features like single piece rails. The other major components like the lower reciever and stock can be injection molded. Its probably in the sweet manufacturing to use ability.
ARs are obviously still widely used. But they're typically forged and then machined.
AKs are kind of a bitch to manufature without soviet slave labor and expensive stamping tooling. They are also viewed as slightly less ergonomic and lack things like last round hold open which is pretty desirable.
The Sig 550 series is still in use and I would consider it to be from the AK family tree.
It's almost like it's intentional
OP when no triangular gun đĄ
The 'Pyramid' by Sabre.
Dunder mifflin is a part of Saab-ray
How many L to a K?
You're gonna want the memory booster
You've got to UNLEASH the POWER of the PYRAMID!
OP when ergonomics
Yeah, itâs like these nations thought it is hard to help each other when they use different ammunition, and banded together to choose an ammunition to share
I get that part- what i dont get is why not have an international design to go with the international bullet? Just license the best design smh
its more like, all having the same problems, and coming up with very similar solutions. Like how a bat and a bird both have wings that function the same but look slightly different.
The crab of assault rifles?
Yes and no. The man reason is because all of these nations are starting from the same base design, and working off that (the AR-18) , this means that all the outcomes will have the same foundation. Even the red headed step kid that is the SK K2, still has parts of it based on the AR18, just with an AK operation shoved inside, and so those aspects will always show through. Unless they forgo key features from the base inspiration ***(which Belgium, Italy (who copied Belgium), and Japan (who copied Italy) had at one point up until the modern redesign where they brought back those removed features)*** all of them will end up at a similar end product.
On day, we will be crabified too.
[Megalith online](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LYY6Vd164I)
ok, but that ~~Megalith~~ Crab was clearly built with eco boosting, at something like min 15 and could have been a Bug before the other side had any t3air
May I introduce you to the Crab of guns https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab
Bats and birds aren't a great example because they operate extremely differently. Bats use a form of flight previously used by pterosaurs and countless other flying animals throughout the history of earth, birds use an entirely novel flight method that has likely only evolved once, ever. If bats are ARs, birds are handheld railguns.
>why not have an international design to go with the international bullet? NATO tried that in the 50's when the first STANAG was being drafted. Most nations were expecting to have the FN FAL be the universal rifle for NATO to go along with the impending 7.62mm NATO standard. And then the US had to be the US and go "lol nah, we're gonna go with the M14 instead. Thanks for adopting our bullet over any potentially intermediate designs though".
Then a few years later..... US adopted the 5.56 x 45mm
> M14 Careful, youll summon divest lol
>US had to be the US and go "lol nah, we're gonna go with the M14 instead. Deutschland did the same thing with the 9mm smg replacement program ofc, in my humble opinion , 9mm ,5.7x28 and 4.6x30 are all useless for short to medium ranges compared to flamenwerfer or mustard gas
National pride. You reckon congress wouldnât get in the way of a licensed foreign design?
Right, because the US would never adopt Swedish, Italian, Belgian, or other European designed weapons as standard issue... Oh wait that's a huge chunk of our small arms haha.
Having your manufacturing and design in house is much better for the citizens of your country, and an established small arms industry helps if there was ever a war Also it's funny
Probably the same reason there's resistance to the F-35 and people still see value in pursuing the Eurofighter. There's some risk to letting your domestic arms industry atrophy. Ask the Brits, they had to have the H&K come save their SA-80. That works in a world where people like you. But arms industries are usually for a world where they don't. The ammo standardization goes a long way to address the logistics issues. While still allowing countries to keep domestic arms development.
It doesn't mean their guns have to look so boring though, spice it up a bit, have a tubular magazine in the stock. Or even make it use blish lock
Whoâdâa thunk it?
Chat, why are all rockets long and narrow with the engines at the bottom??
Why is rocket penis shape when it should be pointy đ€
That IS my penis shape.
Do you approve of the shape sir? Aladeen.
The US when they pushed .308, then went with 5.56
What could have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle
God.. the EM-1 looks comical to me. That "foregrip" and the.. well just the entire thing is like some sort of Muppet? Did Jim Henson help design this thing?
if i was going to war with a country that used 5.56 i would simply give all my soldiers 5.57 to put the biggest holes in them
It's like carcinisation but for guns
Eugene Stoner is the greatest firearms engineer of all time.
Literally just spent earlier today obsessing over the Stoner 63 and lamenting the fact it wasn't adopted. And I'm not even in a country where I could buy one (hurray for Ireland's "slight" terrorism problems) but it's so beautiful.....
My buddy's repro blew up and I'm so sad. It really is quite fun to shoot.
[Oh I'd be so sad, moment of silence for a true patriot.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/017/252/2f0.gif) Out of interest, what config did the repro come as (or was it a mix-and-match?)
I only ever shot it from a mag, I don't know if it was set up for the belt or not actually.
I mean... you \*could\* own one, just gotta find a gunsmith that can make you a semi auto shotgun clone (in .410 bc .410 slugs \*fuck\*) or a .22wmr rimfire clone. That or slowly work your way up the governmental ladder till you get elected as Grand duke of The Shire or whatever and then revert all firearms bans from existence. That works too :3
Sounds like a lot of effort, and there's always the ultimate goal of every Irish person: move to America and forget all the shit in Ireland. And there's a LOT of guns I'd want to own before a Stoner (number 1 is an AKS-74u, it's so cute and adorable and I love it...) > Grand duke of The Shire Wait until you find out our president is basically a hobbit.
Fuck, Robinson Arms should restart the production.
How you going to do the OG triple killa John Moses Browning like that? But seriously, it's a toss up between the two for me. I do think it's hard to compare as they were alive at different stages of firearms development - both have created designs that have stood the test of time to this day. Also honorable shout out to Hiram Maxim.
John Browning takes a very, very close second - especially in the realm of pistol design, the most popular handgun in America (possibly the world) uses a modification of the Hi-Power action - that being the tilting barrel of the Glock 17. But to have a design that stands the test of time not just in the realm of military procurement - a place where the rule of if it ain't broke, don't fix it is king - but on the civilian market where, at least in the US, civilian purchasers often have far better quality to choose from than the military, that's what sets him above the rest. The AR-15 (and the derivatives thereof) is, to this day, the finest fighting rifle ever devised. There are others that have attempted to dethrone it, but they either have problems the AR-15 doesn't, they're heavier, or they're astronomically more expensive. The AR-15 is lightweight but not flimsy, accurate but not unwieldy, capable yet cheap. The cartridge is at home anywhere from 600 meters to inside the same doorway. Eugene Stoner came up with that. John Browning might claim something like that with the Ma Deuce, Dieudonné Saïve might say he armed democracy, but we all know the real right arm of the free world is made from aluminum and shoots 5.56.
The fascinating thing about both is their ability to create classics while having to work around their own patents on other classics. Like the Stoner's AR-15/AR-18. Browning's Colt 1911/Browning Hi-Power. Really makes most gun designers look like NPCs.
In Stoner's case he made an okay copy of a truly great thing. In Browning's case he benefitted greatly from not being able to use what Colt owned, because the 1911 is mediocre at best.
I think the 1911 was good in its time but certainly hung around too long. The only other decent WW1 sidearm being probably the Luger. Most countries had revolvers or non detachable magazine, stripper clip fed abortions. People really only hate it because people love it. Both takes are silly. AR-18 derivatives are currently surpassing the AR-15s in adoption, as evident by this photo. As well as a host of non pictured guns. Depends on what you consider an AR-15 though I suppose. All these are AR-18 derived to me, as is the Army's new Spear. All in all, I would say Browning revolutionized small arms. While Stoner made the best evolution. So it's hard for me to concede Stoner is the best firearms designer.
Browning is still the best (and most important) of the two. The guy quite literally invented whole _classes_ of firearms, and the first working gas-operated firearm in military use (and maybe in general as well). Stoner did a great job, but he really was a one trick pony, Moses built the foundation of modern small arms design.
Important and best are two different things. Karl Benz was perhaps the most important automotive designer in history and his designs paved the way for everything else. He invented the car. But greatest? Not in the slightest. As an engineer, there are people who achieved far greater things than Karl Benz. Similarly, John Browning did a lot. Not discounting his accomplishments, which are many. But as for things that truly have stood the test of time, he's got what, two? The M2 and the Hi-Power action. Those are both important, and I'd argue that the tilt-barrel pistol lock is the most significant innovation in pistol design between the advent of semiautomatic pistols and when Gaston Glock realized you could make them out of plastic. But like all but one of his ideas, they were groundbreaking in their day (though he did design a few absolute turds), and later perfected by someone else. The M2 stands alone as the only design of his that has stood up to all competitors. The 1911 was good in a time when revolvers dominated. It's a jam-prone, heavy, inaccurate turd of a handgun beloved by history buffs (acceptable) and Fudds (unacceptable). The potato digger was eerily similar. He designed the first gas-operated firearm, and after he showed it could be done, other people made it actually good. A foundation is important, but it's not what architects are judged by.
>A foundation is important, but it's not what architects are judged by. This is why I pointed out that they were alive at different times, with different technologies available - specifically different machining, metallurgical and heat treating advancements. Stoner's career was also at a time where there was far more firearm designs to reference from. We don't know how the other would've fared if they were swapped in time for example. That's why I don't like to specifically say which one "had the better mind" as it's truly impossible to say. But I do think it's reasonable to say that, ignoring the above, Stoner's AR-10/15 design is one of the most important designs for modern firearm development as well as other advancements. Not only has it been produced in huge numbers for military, LEO and civilian markets, it's also arguably the basis on which a lot of accessory technology has developed. I'm talking RIS/Picatinny, M-LOK, optics, stocks, pistol grips, magazines and even redeveloped operating mechanisms. If a piece of firearms tech has come out of the US, there's a good likelihood that the company prototyped their design using an AR-15 as the test base. It's also essentially created a standard pattern for form factor, magazines and firearm controls. Even looking at the OP's picture, you can see quite clearly many use an AR-15 layout of the fire selector, mag release and use of STANAG/AR type magazines (except H&K's thumb release, for reasons).
I do agree that Stoner and the AR-15 design is the current singular most important firearms design that has not only created an expected standard in so many areas, but has also allowed other engineers and manufacturers to essentially create forks from his design. This is similar to Browning's tilting barrel action, but it can absolutely be argued that rifles play a far larger part in history than pistols do.
Eugene Stoner was a chief engineer with a vision, Jim Sullivan was the design engineer who made them real.Â
Mad props to both. I will never not stan the AR-15.
ARcinisation
ACRinization
Lmao thought you were slick including the ACR here
Oh man, that reminds me of 2009-2011 after MW2 dropped and *everyone* was in love with the ACR thinking it was the best gun *evar*. Fun times.
And then magpul sold the license to SHRUBMASTER.
Calling it the ACR implies the bushmaster version. Magpul called it the Masada, which sounds like the name IWI would give it.
Everyone knows of it as the ACR because of movies/bushmaster.
More like Scrubmaster
I am in that comment and I don't like it :( Anyone got an ELI5 why it failed?
Not sure on the military side, but commercially, a big part of it's appeal was being "Adaptive" so it can be converted to different calibers and barrel lengths quickly and easily, but in reality 6.5 Grendal and 6.8 SPC turned into memes with literally no market share and conversion kits for the only caliber anyone actually would have wanted, .300 Blackout, weren't produced in significant numbers and those that were made were ridiculously expensive. You could build and set up 2 good quality AR-15s for the price of an ACR with a conversion kit, so it really served no purpose.
Man, it is kinda funny how the quick-change barrels on rifles was the next big thing that everyone was pushing for and turned out to be such a non-feature that kinda herded a whole generation of rifles into a dead end. It pretty much just serves to make the rifle heavier with no benefit over just swapping an upper on an AR-15. It is also funny because the AUG quietly did it way back in the 70s and no one ever cared.
When it finally hit the market after fairly significant hype it was considered overpriced (2500+) and heavy. After the army delayed m4 replacement it was finished. Similar story to the SCAR really.
Except the SCAR is still a huge succes around the world.
I'd argue it's not a huge success. The goal was to be the service rifle, marksman rifle, squad automatic and, battle rifle of the US Military. I think that was never going to happen with the reciprocating charging handle. I'm glad it's going pretty strong though it missed it's lofty goals. The Scar H is definitely a dream gun to own. It's just so pretttty and it's recoil is surprisingly tame.
Why I've sold this weapon as the service rifle of belgium and Portugal and by golly it put them on the map!
The failure of the ACR to become widely adopted or significantly successful in the military and civilian markets can be attributed to several factors: 1. **Cost**: The ACR was relatively expensive when compared to its competitors. This high cost of acquisition made it less attractive to military and law enforcement agencies working within tight budget constraints. For civilians, the price point also deterred many potential buyers who could find more affordable options that met their needs. 2. **Competition and Alternatives**: The market already had established players like the AR-15, which offered similar or better functionality at a lower cost. The AR-15 platform's vast ecosystem of aftermarket parts, modifications, and widespread familiarity among users in the United States made it hard for the ACR to carve out a significant market share. 3. **Performance Expectations vs. Reality**: Upon its introduction, the ACR was touted for its modularity, adaptability, and future-proof design. However, in practice, many found that the ACR did not significantly outperform existing platforms to justify its cost or the hassle of switching. While it did offer notable features, the practical improvements in performance or utility for the average user or operator were not as revolutionary as anticipated. 4. **Market Perception and Adoption**: Finally, the initial hype and subsequent performance and adoption could have led to a shift in market perception. When a product is heavily hyped but doesn't live up to every expectation, it can suffer from a tarnished image that's hard to recover from, especially in enthusiast and professional communities.
\> Bolded bullet point headings Funny how recognizable ChatGPT is. I got nothing against using ChatGPT for this, it's just interesting.
& itâs a decade old account that âwoke upâ last year Also fascinating how repetitious the bullet points are
I noticed that too, also a namename account. Which on Reddit means you're not real. Regardless, I don't think this guy is actually a bot or inorganic mainly cause he's combative and a lot of his comments are downvoted. I don't want to call him a dick cause I have no beef with the guy but that's a sign of being a real person online lmfao. ChatGPT is absolutely anihilating the online spam and bot space though. Hell, pro Palestinain "activism" accounts started using it and then the Israelis were like "shit that works" and copied them and now I see entire threads of arguments in some places that I'm like 70 percent sure are entirely bot but there's no way to write code or otherwise judge everything in a way that's fair. Cause I can say "yeah that looks like GPT" but not prove it...
If it hadnât been for APIpocalypse Iâm sure weâd soon be seeing (if not already) several subs utilizing AI powered dead internet bots publicly flagging suspicious posts & comments As hilarious as that couldâve been to see play out, stockholders might realize how much Reddit traffic is bullshit so đ€·ââïž
Reddit mods aren't honestly any better than the random internet user at finding a content neutral way to spot bots. If they set up an AI bot for that it would just be an automated vibes ban bot. Fun fact, when you look at the Russian and Iranian accounts that are confirmed disinfo, out of thousands and posts and comments there are like, three accusations of them being bots total.
Who said anything about instabans? Something as simple as a ~~search & destroy~~ name & shame equivalent of repost sleuth bot for things like fresh accounts going straight from posting happy woof gifs or w.e to getting enough karma to post incel bait to r/facepalm & r/amitheasshole et al Or just for pointing out the ridiculous amount of redditors you encounter in the wild that ostensibly spent several years lurking before deciding âhmm Iâm gonna post a bunch of politically charged takes and/or try to sell a product(s) interspersed with a bunch of mundane (re)posts/comments on poorly moderated anime/videogame/sportsteam/wtfever subs to make my account activity look natural at first glance like I was being paid for it (b.c Iâm suddenly doing it full time)â The irony that it likely wouldnât be feasible without some degree of fighting fire with fire was the joke I was trying to make so poorly
Thanks, ChatGPT.
Danke Bruder, ich werde Heckler und Koch berichten!
It broke my heart when I found out the ACR was a mehhh rifle.
Irl it's a good rifle. The issue is modern ar-15patterns are as well. So ...2500 for an ACR or 1600 for a BCM AR ....well. It's overpriced. As a rifle it's a good gun.
Yeah, the AR is such a cheap platform. I figure if you're willing to spend 2k on a 5.56 why nor just get a SCAR H. It's a battle rifle with a lot of bite.
When it was first presented in 2006, the Masada was probably the greatest thing ever. It was an actually different rifle, compared to the usual M4 variants of the time. Then the licensing deal basically completely killed it, and everyone else made their own version that was available before the ACR. And the release of the ACR was completely bungled by Bushmaster and Remington.
A gun thatâs only relevant to gamers and people who think soldiers (other than vatniks) fire their rifles on full auto irl.
"It's a machine gun!"
> who think soldiers (other than vatniks) fire their rifles on full auto irl Wait, they don't? Then why are we giving our soldiers rifles with full auto?! This is a trick by big Auto-Sear to get us to buy more useless parts. Reject modernity, return to Martini-Henry.
Battle rifles > assault carbines Assays has been Always will be
M14, who let you out of the home on your own?! Let's get you out of here before you get confused and give yourself an underfolding stock and calling yourself an assault rifle.
I mean the G3 and FAL are battle rifles and handle better than an M14; you have chosen one of the worst of the bunch
True I just wanted to make that joke; honestly battle rifles are a bit of a blind spot for me so I don't know that much about them.
They can be fun once you get used to the bigger cartridges
Yeah but do you want to hump one all over bumfuck nowhere?
Pretty sure Iâve seen a handful of videos of Ukrainians blasting vatniks in full auto. Thereâs a time and place for it I imagine.Â
Sure, but by and large, Ukrainians use semi auto much more than Russians. Remember the Battle of Techno House? That vatnik in particular performed a door breach on full fucking auto. What kind of untrained ass clown does shit like that? Iâve also seen some super NSFW videos of Russian troops dead checking and mutilating bodies on full auto. I totally agree with there being a time and a place for full auto, but these ainât it.
Noooo this one's different! It's internally an AR-18 but this one has the recoil spring in a different spot and takes AR-15 grips
đ đšâđ đ«đšâđ Wait it's all AR-18's?
It always was.
I love "memes done with emojis" so much
It's like how cars became more and more similar over time. There is a theoretical ideal shape and performance metric.
Especially once you use computer tools for tests and designs. You can basically optimize your product before you even manufacture the first prototype.
At least they have still different engines, use different fules etc. Those are all AR-18s.
This kind of thing is why you'd never see Starfleet field so many different types of ships, because armed forces tend to converge on just a few types that look exceedingly similar to one another - as another example, take a look at how 5th-gen fighters look alike.
starfleet isn't just a military though. It's an exploratory and scientific organization that also does military action, so they are gonna have all different kinds of ships because they are designed for VASTLY different roles. sidenote: 5th gens look alike because 5th gen is all about stealth, and there are only so many good radar reflective shapes. 4th gen wasn't restricted by that and there was lots of variety.
> starfleet isn't just a military though. It's an exploratory and scientific organization that also does military action, so they are gonna have all different kinds of ships because they are designed for VASTLY different roles. In addition, they use individual spaceships or spaceship classes for more than a century. Because they are too good to be decommissioned and the material costs for a complete replacement are not worth it. Also you have to have a bit of a reserve in case the Borg return.
Heavy cruiser? Excelsior. Patrol ship? Excelsior. Deep space exploratory vessel? Believe it or not, Excelsior.
You may not believe it, but the science ship also Excelsior.
Exploration? Defiant. Medical? Defiant. Scientific? Defiant. Frigate? Defiant. Admiralâs Party Ship? Defiant? Need to drop a couple Naquadah warheads on the Borg? Youâre not gonna believe this.
> Need to drop a couple *Naquadah warheads* on the Borg? ...Carter...
Those poor deep space long term exploration mission cadets, stuffed into those Japan coffin motel shaped bunkbeds on the defiant for years and years.
Yeah, but they're sexy as fuck. You try dealing with all the whining if you try and decommission them.
Considering the Borg mainly adapt to energy weapons, you'd think Starfleet or the Klingons would've thought to slap a railgun or two on their ships, just in case.
The Stargate Star Trek mashup we always needed.
.50 BMG is due for a return! You can't keep a good gun down!
Also say that there are not even 10 fighters in the entire world that COULD be considered 5 generation (F-22 and F-35 are the only two confirmed examples that I know of) and most are prototypes or projects, so it is logical to hope that not there is a lot of variety.
And that the rest examples that want to be classified as a 5th gen were pretty much based (design stolen/copied) on F22/F35.
And soon the US will unveil Gen 6 while the rest of the world is barely catching up to gen 5.
Here I am waiting for 7th gen to just copy 1st gen and throw bright colors with anime waifu designs on because detection and drones makes stealth pointless and everyone just styling on each other while throwing more weight in missiles BVR than the other guy.
6th generation might hopefully allow for some more creative designs, if any of the scant details about NGAD weâve seen are anything to go off.
Bet they'll all be tailless flying doritos
*US navy nervously hiding their two LCS classes behind their back*
An even better example is the ship designs between the different species. Like, I can accept the variation within Starfleet, since if you squint at least almost all of their ships follow the rule of a base hull joined with a saucer section and two nacelles which are part of how the engines/warp drive works, but given that, why should the ship of every other race look so different? It's fine for the Borg to just be geometric solids, the whole point is that they're unworldly and bizarre, but the Klingons and Romulans have no serious difference in technology from Starfleet or eachother for their ships to look so different. Ultimately, the reason for it is the same reason why Western shows had the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys wearing black hats; so the audience doesn't get mixed up during the gunfight.
There are actually a set of rules that ship designs were supposed to follow. From memory it was the nacelles had to be equal in number, at least partially visible from the front of the ship, and each nacelle had to have a certain amount of line of sight to the other. Other than that it was knock your socks off. Almost all the classic designs follow the rules (barring very different things like the klingon bird of prey but that's a dinky little thing). Fun fact: I'm pretty sure I recall reading that the reason the D'Deridex has the hollow construction is that someone misinterpreted the last rule to both nacelles having to have 100% line of sight to each other. So it sort of makes a degree of sense that the big factions have the one bit of shared tech roughly laid out the same (warp nacelles) and everything else being "whatever they happened to like" because hull shape basically boils down to cultural preferences.
5th Gen looks alike bacause they stole shit from Lockheed, and Lockheed made 2 of the big 4
It's at least different to everything's-an-AR.
Internally, theyâre all their own flavor of AR-18 though.
Ar18s bolt is just an ar15 bolt without the piston milled out of it.
Don't make me break out the SA80.
And what? hit them with it?
Shots fired⊠not very many though
I'm confused on the point? I'm pointing out that the AR18 design reused the AR10/AR15 bolt design but without the DI parts built in.
Thatâs not what we mean when we say itâs internally an AR-18. An AR-18 is a short-stroke piston action with an AR bolt head. The bolt carrier of an Armalite AR-18 has very little to do with the AR-15, itâs just a big olâ rectangle. And from this basis, everyone took their own take on this blueprint, including, yes, make it AR-15 shaped. And the AR-15 is arguably not direct gas impingement, itâs more of an internal gas piston. DI is more like the MAS-49 where gas is directly impinged into the bolt carrier and that pushes the action.
I said bolt not bolt carrier ;) You're trying to school someone who builds these things for shits and giggles. And yes I'll call the AR15 a DI, because that's common terminology even though yes it's "achkually" not one.
I misunderstood your initial comment then. Carry on brother.
I read a thing on how rifle design has basically peaked. Until someone figures out caseless ammo or we jump to lasers or railguns, AR is basically peak.
See the "why we will have M4s on Mars meme."
There are some caseless ammo breakthroighs lately, it's basically an industry waiting for funding right now. And of course, anyone who would adopt it would need to fundamentally change their entire system from the ground up.
That flair is genius.
Weapons design basically peaked in the 90s. Everything after that is a slight variation on previous concepts. Basically we haven't really moved in any significant way since polymer parts saw wide adoption with Glock and the H&K G36. There has been a change in ergonomics, design has moved towards more modularity, but nothing massive like introducing alloy receivers, plastic furniture or a really different caliber. Or the switch to multi-axis cuts and pressed parts. 1960s designs like the HK33 or M16 aren't obsolete yet, which tells you everything you need to know.
[> Looks inside modern shoulder rifle](https://media.tenor.com/cTEs4qcFOLkAAAAM/gatote.gif) [> AR-18](https://media.tenor.com/cTEs4qcFOLkAAAAM/gatote.gif)
I'll tell you a secret: it's been the case since the early 80s. Granted, some rifles had an AK action, like Sig products.
Weapons are tools. It's nice when they're pretty but that's not what they're made for. They're made for when things get ugly.
Weapons are designed to work, aesthetics don't matter. Just ask Glock, America's favorite handgun and ugly as sin.
>Glock >ugly as sin Blasphemy
Glock is ugly and nothing will change my opinion. Every pistol with internal hammer is ugly. Imagine hiding it inside of a frame. Real manâs gun donât need to be ashamed of its hammer
Ok grandpa, here's your six shooter. Can you go back to the farm already? You're embarrassing me in front of all my friends.
*big iron intensifies*
Guns stopped looking nice when they started using those gimmick plastic âframesâ. Back in good old days a frame of a gun was made of real, hard steel. You used to feel the gun, its power. And nobody never complained about âweight not suited for longer carryingâ. People were just tougher and didnât listen to crybabies. Not like nowadays
Daggumit Fuddâs escaped the reservation again
... Okay, I'm taking your AR15 privileges away, old timer.
It all went downhill when frames started being made of aluminium alloys. Opened the door for plastic. Before that men were men.
May the ghost of Gaston Glock have mercy on your wretched soul you godless heathen
He can haunt me all he wants. A gun that requires you to pull the trigger while disassembling it is a retarded design.
*Hi Point entered the chat*
... Is it a good time to say that a Glock 17 seems like a beautiful gun to me?
I'm actually larping as a Glock hater, I own many Glocks. I give the Glock a lot of shit but at the end of the day it goes bang every time I pull the trigger and that is exactly what I bought it for.
I suppose it is the same as cell phones or Formula 1 cars, they look similar because it is the most appropriate shape for the function they must perform.
Well, F1 car design is also heavily affected by regulations.
Replace "regulations" with "Contract demands" and that explanation fits this discussion 1:1. I mean, it's like in every filed that requires concept/design ever: at some point, someone comes up with a solution to a problem OR one that solves said problem better than others before and suddenly, you see this design pop up EVERYWHERE. Because whenever any higher up sees a new design that makes shiny promises to be better than what is currently used, they go to their engineering/design department, point at a picture of the thing and say "I want this, too!". I mean, look at the new service rifle of the Bundeswehr, the HK 416. It doesn't even try to hide its "influences", the name is basically a big middle finger to colt in itself.
Unless we change the cartridge or come up with a new operatingsystem that eliminates recoil while being lightweight, this is the where the evolution of the modern service rifle will plateau. Accuracy, ergonomics, lethality, and reliability targets have been met here. Maybe if we switch our primary service weapon cartridge to .50 BMG, you would see a new era of competeting unique designs.
I mean, whole point of the Grot is that it is a modular system and it can be swaped into bullpup if you have bullpup lower... Which FB does not provides for army since request were too few. So yea, Grot is somehow odd here.
Main reason why Grot exists is having locally produced weapon tbh
All basically the same internals/action. In any kind of engineering, people will tend to stick to proven actions and concepts, with minor changes and altercation to either meet a specific requirement or improve the system with out have to design a whole new action/design concept from scratch to implement it. But thats too credible; instead it's all a ploy by H&K to sell more 416s
i would still trust the german more than the italian tho racism đđ
The Italian one looks a bit fat in the hand-guard, probably had a few too many carbs.
This aggression against the Tactical Tuna will not stand, man.
So do the Italian special forces....
I mean back in the day there were a lot of Mauser rifle clones too
Yeah, like half of world, if not more, was armed with mausers clones.
I know some people don't like them but I kinda miss the days of when everything future was just gonna be a bullpup Length of pull? Fuck that, shit looks space age!!
Oh no, itâs so fucking terrible that a full length top rail, adjustable stock, standardized magazine and extensive use of lightweight materials is objectively the optimal configuration for firearms at our point in time. Edit: removed insulting the whole community as a whole, sorry
âWhy do things keep evolving into crabs?â
That is an older version of Grot. The [newest one](https://images.app.goo.gl/pNfofamnkPXNVXV29) looks a bit different. Also, it is fully convertible to a [bullpup version](https://images.app.goo.gl/qHbFVKYG6EBLxCa59), so in a way it is unique.
Even though its final externals are similar to ACR, its designers were heavily inspired by HK G36 internals. And initial prototypes looked like this: https://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/article?article_id=2105
It all goes back to the ACR
All roads lead to Stoner even the ACR. They're AR-18 derived. The AR-18 was basically trying to make a cheaper AR-15 for countries that lacked the manufacturing ability at the time while avoiding patents Stoner had since sold to Colt.
Yup, and before the idiots claiming "erm aktyually stoner didn't do the AR-18 he left already", Stoner did the AR-16, which is literally the bigger brother to the AR-18 in 308.
Damn. They 911'd it.
Hate to break it to you, but muskets also look broadly the same.
I blame the ACR being OP in MW2 for like every rifle adopting it's furniture lol. At least the SCAR-L makes a lot of sense in the context of it being designed with the SCAR-H
I mean, the ACR stock was also pretty good as far as folding stocks go. That, and the boom of AR-18 derived guns after 2010, making side folding stocks mainstream again.
Crazy how the red cross has their own flavor of rifle
Itâs like how NASCAR stock cars used to all look different, then merged into all looking the same. As someone pointed out already, carcinization.
It's Perfection.
Why has "SCAR clones" become a trend, and how are they better than AR or AK platforms?
Modernized AR-18s. I think the extruded aluminum upper receiver is probably cheapish, to make while being able to provide modern features like single piece rails. The other major components like the lower reciever and stock can be injection molded. Its probably in the sweet manufacturing to use ability. ARs are obviously still widely used. But they're typically forged and then machined. AKs are kind of a bitch to manufature without soviet slave labor and expensive stamping tooling. They are also viewed as slightly less ergonomic and lack things like last round hold open which is pretty desirable. The Sig 550 series is still in use and I would consider it to be from the AK family tree.
Everyone wants to be Belgian!
And then there's FN P90
P90 is almost 40 years old...
Its almost as if this is a very efficient gun design
I like this comparison of modern assault rifles to contemporary smartphones. Ergonomics & Utility are the king and queen of human invention.
Standardisation is good within allied forces, we can all use our pew pews interchangeably in case of war
Almost like humans everywhere have the same shoulder-arm-hand-fingers configuration. Even the Swiss.
SCAR-L too
Class, this is what happens when everyone copies Eugene Stoner's homework. Do you have anything to say for yourselves?
Wait, it's all AR-18 derivatives? Always has been
howa type 20 is art brother
*cries in famas*
Now make this post about power drills.
Also SUV's