AR-15; the progeny of genius.

[ckkalyan]

Congratulations on your new acquisition xl_target - Enjoy!

An AR-15 pistol real value for money at sub $500 - wow - what a fun toy! I guess you will have to crank up production of .223 at your reloading station - this pistol seems to demand emptying magazines at a high rate of fire.

What sort of optic do you have on it?

I am not sure if it is available in Canada.

[xl_target]

CK,
I have a Bushnell TRS25 from their AR Optics line.



3 moa red dot with 11 brightness settings
weight: 6.3 oz.
It takes a standard CR2032 button battery.
The main reason I wanted that one was for its light weight. There are other much better red dots but this one is really light.

[xl_target]

Iwas able to extract a still from one of the videos, showing the fireball.

[ckkalyan]

That is a large BOOM xl_target!

Thank you for the explanation of the optic.

[xl_target]

I did some accuracy and velocity testing to check out the performance of this pistol.
I should have stuck a scope on it for the accuracy testing but I got lazy and just used the red dot.
To approximate conditions in the field, I put the fore end on a bag and held the pistol at arms length.

The disadvantage of using the red dot is that the dot covers the bull and precise placement on the bull takes a little guesswork
The lack of a stock and hence a cheek weld makes shooting this from the bench difficult.
The groups below were shot from the pistol at 50 yards.
The groups were not the greatest but I have to keep telling myself that this is a pistol being shot at 50 yards and not a rifle.


ZQ-1 5.56 62 gr. FMJ
AR-15 avg velocity – 2865 fps
Extar avg velocity – 2387 fps



Hornady .223 55gr. SP
AR-15 avg velocity – 2958 fps
Extar avg velocity – 2390 fps



Wolf Gold .223 55 gr FMJ
AR-15 avg velocity – 3030 fps
Extar avg velocity - 2425 fps


Federal XM193F
AR-15 avg velocity - 3098 fps
Extar avg velocity - 2465 fps



Winchester 5.56 55 gr. FMJ Target
AR-15 avg velocity – 3079 fps
Extar avg velocity – 2544 fps



Hornady Superformance Varmint .223 52 gr. Vmax
AR-15 avg velocity – 3087 fps
Extar avg velocity – 2554 fps

As I was waiting for the all clear to go get my targets, I was looking at them through a scope when I noticed a new hole appear in each target. I said "hey, you're shooting at my targets" and the guy at the next bench says "Oh, I thought you were done".

[ckkalyan]

As I was waiting for the all clear to go get my targets, I was looking at them through a scope when I noticed a new hole appear in each target. I said "hey, you're shooting at my targets" and the guy at the next bench says "Oh, I thought you were done".

Quite - well done - thank you!

[ckkalyan]

Simple, easy to understand comparison between the piston driven yet value for money AR, against the direct impingement system AR in hickok45's inimitable style! Check it out!

[brihacharan]

Hi xl_target,
I would be grateful if you could kindly explain the difference between the Hawke "Red Dot" I have (pic below) & the "Bushnell" Red Dot you have as per image you have posted. Just for my knowledge!

Briha

[xl_target]

Brihaji,
I haven't used or even seen the Hawke sight. I can only go by the description that I found on the net.

They are both on the lower end of the price range for red dot sights compared to the Trijicon US Army sights which retail for about $1500. The Hawke is about $25 and the TRS-25 goes for about $100.
Both seem to be 1" Aluminum bodied sights. They both use commonly available batteries. The Hawke uses LR44 button batteries and the TRS-25 uses CR2032.
The Hawke comes with a Weaver mount and airgun rail mounts. The TRS-25 only comes with a Picatinny Rail mount.

I really cannot say much about the durability of the two except that I haven't had any issues with the TRS-25. It did hold zero and once sighted in, it is easy to shoot with both eyes open. Once the dot is acquired, using the Bindon Aiming Concept, the TRS-25 has decent enough optics that the dot will float out there with no lens induced distortion.

Both sights are 1X sights (no magnification).
The Hawke has a 4 MOA red dot and the TRS-25 has a 3 MOA dot.
4 MOA means that it covers four inches at 100 yards, two inches at fifty yards and one inch at 25 yards.
3 MOA means that it covers three inches at 100 yards, 1.5 inches at 50 yards and 0.75 inches at 25 yards.
So you can see that unlike a scope's crosshair, neither is very suitable for very precise target shooting.

However, when shooting with both eyes open, the dot will float in space, giving you unobstructed vision and a wide field of view. All you have to do it put the dot on your target and pull the trigger. So they can be a very fast way to take on multiple targets, especially with a semi auto firearm, all the while retaining your situational awareness. These red dots gained wide acceptance with US forces as they prepared for urban fighting in Iraq in the 1990's. They also work very well in darkened rooms where non illuminated iron sights or a scope cross hair would be hard to see. They are eminently suitable for the Close Quarters Battle and room clearing by specialized forces. They were also quickly adopted by competition shooters who need to shoot multiple targets in rapid succession.

** Contrary to what Trijicon says, they didn't "invent" the Bindon Aiming Concept but Mr. Bindon (who apparently was a hell of a salesman), packaged it and successfully sold it to the US Army, along with his sight (and made millions in the process).
It is just convenient to call it by that name because it accurately describes the principle. There were other red dot sights on the market before Trijicon came along.

[Baljit]

I Can't believe about three years ago we start this.
Just refreshing my memory !!


Baljit

[xl_target]

I Can't believe about three years ago we start this.
Just refreshing my memory !!


Baljit

Three years already? How time flies.

On that note, the AR-15 is now 50 years old!
That's astonishing to us old fogies who consider the AR-15 a modern rifle.

[xl_target]

In the heat of August 1990, US troops started building up in the middle east.
CNN, which was still a news organization at the time, broadcast an almost 24 hour stream of images and video from the Gulf.
At that time, this was the most well covered war in history.
I, along with many Americans, was fascinated by the flood of media flowing back from the war zone.
I spent hours glued to the TV, often late into the night, watching the buildup.


image from here
I clearly remember the Marines in "Chocolate Chip" camo uniforms wielding their M16A2 rifles.
I really wanted one of those rifles.

Then in 2003, the son of a co-worker of mine, was deployed to Iraq.
He completed several tours in Iraq and sent back a flood of photos, most often with him and his fellow Marines holding their M16A3/A4 rifles.
I wanted one of those in an even worse way.

So when I got a chance, I picked one up.



Of course, this is not an M16.
It is a semi auto AR-15 with a 20" barrel and a flat top receiver.
It shoots very well with an even gentler recoil than the 16" barreled AR-15 carbine.
Using the 25-300 meter sight in target (pictured), it is possible to get a three shot one hole group with the iron sights.


Using that target, the rifle is sighted in at 25 yards and will hit point of impact again at 300 yards (with minor deviation from the point of aim out to that distance).
I had several people try it out with almost identical results.

[nitroex700]

Three years already? How time flies.

On that note, the AR-15 is now 50 years old!
That's astonishing to us old fogies who consider the AR-15 a modern rifle.

I feel that the US weapons industry has created this hoax of 'modernization' to siphon off the govt's money on a regular basis.. Nothing really ground breaking has happened with the AR15 since Eugene stoner invented it.. However there must be a gazillion DI AR15s out there.. Compared to that there are very few short stroke piston AR15s even though they're far more reliable on any given day...

Even the .223 was a 'coyote' round that they have dumped onto their army... Investing in newer rounds such as the 6.5 Grendel or 300 BLK would make better sense IMO than regularly changing their entire armoury wholesale and using the same old round!

[xl_target]

I feel that the US weapons industry has created this hoax of 'modernization' to siphon off the govt's money on a regular basis.. Nothing really ground breaking has happened with the AR15 since Eugene stoner invented it..

You're correct that nothing really ground breaking has happened with the design since Stoner invented it.
Changes have been minor and the basic design has remained the same.
In fact, one could take the upper of a Vietnam era M16, slip it onto a lower purchased last week and it will function with very few issues.
I submit that it is the soundness of Stoner's design that is reflected here and nothing else.

However there must be a gazillion DI AR15s out there.. Compared to that there are very few short stroke piston AR15s even though they're far more reliable on any given day...

Two Gulf Wars, a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan have shown us that there is nothing unreliable about the DI guns out there.
There is a good reason that there are a gazillion DI AR15's out there.

Even the .223 was a 'coyote' round that they have dumped onto their army... Investing in newer rounds such as the 6.5 Grendel or 300 BLK would make better sense IMO than regularly changing their entire armoury wholesale and using the same old round!

Not surprisingly, in the over 50 years of its use, there is a whole library of documentation about the effects of the 5.56X45 cartridge on humans. People who deride the round as a "poodle shooter" have not seem the terminal effects of a 55 or 62 grain bullet travelling at 3000 feet/sec. Where you start to have problems with the round is at distance. However, I believe the M855 round was designed to penetrate a steel helmet at 600 yards from an M16.

Even though the Dutch Special Forces use a limited amount of 300 BLK, it will never be a significant military round.
The beauty of 300 BLK is that it suppresses very well with a short barrel, with subsonic rounds. The use of a short barrel and suppressor would make it a good close quarters battle round. This gives you a compact and quiet weapon but those characteristics limit range and energy delivered downrange.
Loads that deliver supersonic velocities, negate the sound moderation delivered by the suppressor but the average soldier doesn't gain much over the M855 5.56 round. Not enough to necessitate a change.

The various 6.XX rounds offer an improvement but apparently not enough of an improvement to necessitate a wholesale change, according to the military.

[nitroex700]

@xl_target:
Dear Sir,

First, sorry for the delayed response. The laptop had gone kaput and took some time.
Second, I am writing my comments under the presumption that you're a retd Indian Army soldier enjoying his life abroad and are not associated with the weapons business. Out of respect for the Fauj, I will put forth my arguments against yours. However I sincerely hope that it shall not start another 'limited war' on this forum over who is right, as that is not the intention.
Third, if either of my assumptions is incorrect, pls omit the rest of my response.

You're correct that nothing really ground breaking has happened with the design since Stoner invented it.
Changes have been minor and the basic design has remained the same.
In fact, one could take the upper of a Vietnam era M16, slip it onto a lower purchased last week and it will function with very few issues.
I submit that it is the soundness of Stoner's design that is reflected here and nothing else.

That makes me wonder about their true intentions behind their constant squirming to 'modernize', since you're just dumping one AR15 to buy another one.. perhaps it suits the interests of the mighty arms industry well represented by many in their brass...

IMHO the best operating mechanisms for assault rifles are short stroke pistons and delayed blowbacks - but then I am not as knowledgeable as many others.

Two Gulf Wars, a war in the Iraq and one in Afghanistan have shown us that there is nothing unreliable about the DI guns out there.

Pls tell why do they have a forward assist and dust covers if they're indeed so flawlessly reliable? If I remember correctly they first started jamming with dust and grit in Vietnam and have continued to so sincerely ever since.. A warfighting weapon must be 'element proof' IMHO. Again, I may be wrong.

Not surprisingly, in the over 50 years of its use, there is a whole library of documentation about the effects of the 5.56X45 cartridge on humans. People who deride the round as a "poodle shooter" have not seem the terminal effects of a 55 or 62 grain bullet travelling at 3000 feet/sec. Where you start to have problems with the round is at distance. However, I believe the M855 round was designed to penetrate a steel helmet at 600 yards from an M16.

You can achieve good ballistics with lighter bullets in a smaller caliber, however it also quickly brings down its killing potential - those who have used 7.62x39 vs 5.56x45 in a counter insurgency scenario would vouch for this fact. If I ever shot someone where they could shoot back at me, I would definitely want them dead with the first hit..

There are ways to achieve the tumble and frag performance of the 5.56 with other rounds as well. However the 5.56 can not create a bigger wound cavity to kill the enemy quickly enough with a single shot to preempt life threatening situations for the shooter. It also lacks the punching power of heavier rounds like the 300 BLK and the 6.5 Grendel.

Even though the Dutch Special Forces use a limited amount of 300 BLK, it will never be a significant military round.
The beauty of 300 BLK is that it suppresses very well with a short barrel with subsonic rounds. The use of a short barrel and suppressor would make it a good close quarters battle round. This gives you a compact and quiet weapon but those characteristics limit range and energy delivered downrange.

IMHO it is an excellent 'counter insurgency round' that can be the best replacement for the 7.62x39. It kills like a 7.62x39, can be suppressed like a 9mm, fired full auto like the 5.56, accurate like 308 and available in AR15.. What more do you want really?

Apart from the suppressed carbine configuration it can also be employed as a very effective 'smg'/SBR cartridge. Its supersonic rounds also display a superior suppression capability compared to 5.56 due to the lesser powder used. They also retain more power than the 5.56 at all ranges. The subsonic cartridges obviously limit hitting power but the gigantic 220 gr bullets are still as lethal as a medium caliber rifle round going subsonic.. The penetration potential of the subsonic round will also be much greater than the 9mm typically employed for such work.

Where it SUPPOSEDLY lags behind the 5.56 is its 7.62x39 ballistics but wasn't it a 7.62x39 replacement in the first place? If you really want the ballistics then 6.5 Grendel is the way forward.

I believe that the US SOCOM has issued an RFP for ARs in 300BLK chambering. Once that happens, I'm sure that enough heads will turn to make a difference...

Loads that deliver supersonic velocities, negate the sound moderation delivered by the suppressor but the average soldier doesn't gain much over the M855 5.56 round. Not enough to necessitate a change.

The various 6.XX rounds offer an improvement but apparently not enough of an improvement to necessitate a wholesale change, according to the military.

AFAIK the US army wants its ARs to shoot accurately out to 1km - best of luck for doing that with 5.56!