This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Pretty much every piece of high speed kit you're thinking of is attached via picatinny rail. Which I'm sure you know has nothing to do with the design of the AR as a platform. The US Army could have stuck with the slightly updated magazine fed Garand as a platform and you'd still have the same sort of kit hanging off it. Carry handle gooseneck mounts and underbarrel grenade or shotgun mounts you could claim exclusivity to the AR platform if you wanted I suppose.
The Warsaw pact side rail dates back to N variant AKMs that holds and returns to zero with non-garbage tier attachment mounts pretty simply. It's easier for me to swap between two mounts with different optic combos on them on one of my AK patterns than setting up two optic combos on a picatinny rail with indexing and having to QD each optic. (Say an LPVO to a red dot + magnifier and back again, at least the magnifier doesn't need QD but it's appreciated when swapping.) Personally speaking I don't get gassed out of my x95 with the factory port cover. Sure it matters for suppressing and mag dumping but that also applies to the AR platform. The CETME was originally built for 7.92x41, was rechambered to 7.62x51 but has been scaled down to 5.56x45 and 9x19 so the delayed roller lock system is not that difficult to rechamber. With the roller system there's a bit more tolerance for different pressures since it's not a gas system at all. The stamped metal receiver weight and wear and tear on the rollers having to be checked with calipers are major draw backs of that platform. It doesn't drop in swap but even with the split receiver design of the AR you're not jumping from 5.56 to 7.62 with the same lower. In a slightly different timeline where the BATFE wasn't focused on full auto conversions, different AR uppers would have been considered different firearms and for good reason what with the whole matched bolt, barrel and tuned gas system being integral components. The threaded screw-in barrel is an actual design upgrade compared to pressed trunnion barrels but that serviceability come at higher per-unit costs of having to thread that end of the barrel. The MCX platform does one better on that score of course by using trunnion pin-like captive clamping screws.
That virtuous cycle is my point. The US military could have standardized on literally any rifle design and most of what makes modern ARs attractive would apply all the same. The AR is dominant in the same way the US military is dominant because the US military is dominant (plus a side helping of foreign aid in the form of selling ARs for cheaper than any country could produce a competitor).
Meh, we disagree. I think the AR is dominant because the US has a civilian gun culture with disposable income. No military in the world would put the time and money into iterating a system like the American Gun Nut.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link