the ar-16 rifle and the 5.56x41mm nato (.223 remington) it shoots, are disparaged at every turn, and derided no end by critics. (few of whom, it must be observed, have ever been killed or wounded by it.)
(al miller, a crusty old wwii vet and prominent gun writer, rather testily chastises those who similarly disparage the 7.92x57mm german service round of wwii, noting simply that they were never chased around the deck of a troop transport dodging 7.92mm bullets fired from strafing fighters, as he was. he noted he learned plenty of respect for the round, which he never forgot.)
but, oddly enough, the rifle and its cartridge influence gun and cartridge design the world over, the rifle's basic operating system copied by many subsequent arms (some refining same, admittedly), and most nations of the world including the soviet remnant and the chinese emulating the overall performance parameters of the cartridge.
apparently mechanical engineers, metallurgists, chemists and ballisticians & associated scientists, wound pathologist and gun designers are not as knowledgeable on such matters as journalists.
on the other hand, the ak-47 and its variants, and the cartridge they shoot, the 7.62x39mm russian, receive fulsome praise from all such knowledgeable quarters. this, even while the rifle's cartridge has been abandoned by both the russians and the chinese in favor of near clones of the 5.56mm nato, and even while the rifle seems to be loosing influence among those who design infantry weapons.
few infantry weapons of recent derivation do not emulate the ar-16 bolt and bolt carrier, and fire control systems. some do no like the ar's direct gas impingement system, and it is current right now to emulate the ak's piston drive system, but, in the main, the layout and the mechanics of the ar-15/16/10, or its cousin, the ar-180 seem to dominate gun systems designs.
the people who design such things tend to imitate those things which work and are reliable. yet, the ar-15/16 is excoriated with this sin or that omission or that failing and/or shortcoming.
still, the people who design such things tend to continue to copy it, and emulate it.
and, they will continue to do so, until something else demonstrably better & more reliable & more efficient comes along. perhaps they are simply waiting for some knowledgeable people, like a journalist hit on the head by an apple contemplating the universe under an apple tree, to invent that next better thing.
to my mind, the whole thing is like berating julia roberts for her little mole thingie, and praising soviet shot putters for their wonderful swedish braids & buns, when discussing feminine design attributes. it makes no sense to me, ... , but a lot of things are like that in this world.
i just accept that it puzzles me.
john jay @ 01.26.2011
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.