al_fallujah Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I can tell you I am very excited about getting one an MR1 once the boss (aka The Wife) lets me. (its gonna be negotiated, she will get a new toy of her own). I am not a fan of the AR-15 platform, and I say that with 14 years of military experience with them, so I was happy when I dicovered the MR1. The only thing that could make it better would be a 6.8mm version. Does anyone know if Benelli is even considering it? Will likely get the current version in any case, but if the larger caliber is coming, I would want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoAtrox Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 It is possible, but I wouldn't count on it. Benelli didn't do the engineering on this one. Baretta designed the firearm for military use. When they didn't get any significant buys, the design was mothballed. Benelli eventually picked it up and "sporterized" it. They could do a 6.8 SPC version, but the MR1 market is already fairly small; I don't see them putting an engineer on making variants. Of course, sometimes I have no idea why gunmakers do the things they do. So what's your beef with the AR platform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_fallujah Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 Mostly that its a dirty design. Direct gas impingment. And (and I am sure any AR fans will take offense at this) it is unreliable. I would say that of all the times my unit's have gone to the range, about half that time, someone has a jam so bad the rifle required it to be pulled off the line. Double-feeds, usually, sometime others stuff. And I am excluding the minor things that quick immediate action (SPORTS for the GIs) resolves. I have messed with M16 A1s, A2s and A4s and M4A4s. The M4 actually gave me the least issues. I suppose it has improved, but its still dirty. I am not expecting the Military to change quickly, but for my own weapon, I will just avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoAtrox Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yeah, there are better civilian options out there that the military won't adopt because they're too expensive. But civilians can buy the good stuff, like EXO coated internals to reduce friction and carbon fouling, and piston retrofit kits. I can understand why the M4's give you the fewest issues. The carbines operate at higher pressures than rifles, so carbon fouling isn't an issue as early as it is with the M16's. That said, I spent my time in the Marine Corps with only one failure to feed during that time. Of course, we Marines clean and lube our rifles whenever we have down time; we don't run them dirty if we can help it. I think that the AR platform has improved; but I can understand how you reached your opinion. Still, I think the positives of the AR platform outweigh the negatives--especially when we see civilian AR's running thousands of rounds without cleaning--so its still my system of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_fallujah Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 The only other issue is more minor. I am a left-eyed shooter. The AR-15 platform, and all military models, are made for right handers. I understand there are ambidextrous kits out there to put a safety both sides. And some manuafacturers make their lowers with them anyway, which is the way it should be. If you were in the Corps, then you already know that all 50% of all corners in the world are left handed corners. And something the USMC training does that the Army does not is to teach off-hand firing. A major gripe of mine for 14 years. The fact that pull for the charging handle is where the cheek-weld is mean that it requires you come out of battery to rack it for immediate action. Another minor issue. Most of these can be worked around with training. Thats been proven. You mentioned cost. I have heard that the base rifle costs about 400 bucks for the US military. And that is important. The MR1 (just as an example), currently costs 1200-ish. But if it were being mass produced, it would be less. I think that would be true for many of the possible replacements for the AR-platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoAtrox Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You mentioned cost. I have heard that the base rifle costs about 400 bucks for the US military. And that is important. The MR1 (just as an example), currently costs 1200-ish. But if it were being mass produced, it would be less. I think that would be true for many of the possible replacements for the AR-platform. We shall see. The Army is soliciting for a replacement again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_fallujah Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 You never know. They need to look again at 6.8mm. There was a USMC general that considered sending some 6.8mm uppers to his men in A-stan, because the standard NATO 5.56 ball ammo was not cutting it at the range needed up in those mountains. They ended up going with a heavier round, and apparently that helped. With most GI's carrying optics on their rifles now, they can see and aim farther than the current ball ammo will shoot. They need to upgrade. As for me, I want a round that will work for hunting too. I have heard many use the 6.8 for that. Seems like a good multi-purpose round for me. And thus my desire for the MR1 in 6.8mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.