New Tactical Rifle Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 (open MSR topic)

This video: does a good comparison between AK-47 and AR-15. He mentions the early problems of the M16/M4. The Soviet and US flags were a nice touch with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor.

If you notice, Hickock45 stated that he communicated with numerous folks in combat zones about the reliability of the M-16/M4, and they said, “As long as you maintain it, it works fine.”

I went back and looked at vuurwapenblog.com’s bio. It lists him as having been a Navy Medic with a combat tour in the Middle East.

The AR-15 is more finely made to tighter tolerances. The Kalashnikov has all the finesse of a Russian Tractor (primarily, because plenty were made in Russian Tractor Factories).

A “stock” AR-15 has Peep-Sights. They are much better than the AK sights for shots at 500 yards, but are impossible at night. Peep sights do not let enough light in. With the open sights of an AK, you can see over the sights well-enough to put rounds-on-target.

I had an M-16 “freeze-up” in Alaska in January. While carrying it in the woods on a week-long mission, ice formed inside of the receiver. Upon firing the first round, the bolt stopped halfway-back in the upper receiver.

The bolt wouldn’t go forward, and it wouldn’t go back. The only way to clear it was to remove BOTH receiver pins and pull it apart (not fun with Arctic mittens on).

With an AK, you could just “Kick-Start” it. (Put the gun on the ground, control the muzzle, while you pushed on the operating rod with your foot.)

If I was carrying a rifle in arctic conditions, where you have little daylight, the snow is flying, it is 30 degrees below zero, and you are so bundled up that you well seldom make a shot over 250 yards, I would take the Kalashnikov.

If I was in Afghanistan, and would be making routine shots over 450 yards, the AR-15 System rules.

That settles it I'm buying both  

I was passing the Sporting Goods section on the way out of my store and noticed a red dot scope from Bushnell for $129. Claymore, is Bushnell a good name in optics?

Bushnell is kind-of considered as the "lowest of the acceptable" or the "best of the junk" in red-dot scopes.

Absolutely, do NOT get a BSA, Barska, NcStar, or other Russian or Chinese scope.

I know that you can go all the way up to $1,900.00.

But for just a couple of dollars above your $129.00 figure, you can get into a Burris Scope.

Go to Optics Planet, look at the Burris Speedot 135, then check out the reviews for it on the Internet.

By the way, for a rifle get the smaller dot (3 MOA or less).

5 MOA is way too big for a rifle.

There's one on ebay for $179.00

Thanks for the advice. I usually figure most popular things sold at Walmart are't of high quality.

If you mount it on a "Flat Top", and do not have the "Flip Down" Front Sight, you will probably want to get a "Riser", because the front sight will be in your line of view.

They're only about $10.00 or $15.00 from Midway USA or at a Gun Show.

Claymore wrote:If you mount it on a "Flat Top", and do not have the "Flip Down" Front Sight, you will probably want to get a "Riser", because the front sight will be in your line of view.

They're only about $10.00 or $15.00 from Midway USA or at a Gun Show.

If the front sight is not flip down it'll be fixed? To my knowledge it has no sights at all.

These are the two I found at: www.opticsplanet.com/s/burris-speed-135-speeddot

I saw in the side panel a red dot reflex sight. What's your opinion of them?

RRCmdrBennett wrote:If the front sight is not flip down it'll be fixed? To my knowledge it has no sights at all.

These are the two I found at: www.opticsplanet.com/s/burris-speed-135-speeddot

I saw in the side panel a red dot reflex sight. What's your opinion of them?

Point #2: Yup. Those are them. I only have first-hand knowledge with the regular $200.00 Speeddot 135. I see that the XTS is about $50.00 more. I do not know what the added features of it are.

Point #1: If you have no sights at all, then you have a "true" flat-top, and do not need to worry about any "riser". A lot of rifles are the "A3" style, and have a flat-top rear, but have the fixed front sight assembly. My 6.8 SPC is set up like that, and I had to put a moderate-sized "riser" on it to get it past the fixed front sight.

Point #3: I saw the reflex sights, and saw that they only cost about $78.00. Jerry Michalek uses an Eotech Reflex sight for his close-in Championship Competition work, but it is a $680.00 sight. I just cannot see how a $78.00 sight is going to perform like a $680.00 sight. (I would be afraid of having Point-of-Impact variance by differences from your eye position behind the sight.)

In military use have you used reflex sights? Is there a special reason Jerry uses relex over red dot optic scope?

If I wanted to add the red dot scope and flip down peep sights to the gun I can mount them simultaneously?

RRCmdrBennett wrote:In military use have you used reflex sights? Is there a special reason Jerry uses relex over red dot optic scope?

If I wanted to add the red dot scope and flip down peep sights to the gun I can mount them simultaneously?

#2: Absolutely!! That's the big advantage of a large tube sight like the Burris. You just attach the iron sights to the rails, sight them in, then flip them out of the way. They are called "BUIS" (Back-Up Iron Sights).

Some of the pricier milled steel ones cost as much as $100.00 each for the Front & Rear Units. But, if they are going to be "back-ups", you might go with a cheap NcStar $29.00 or a mid-level MagPul $55.00.

#1: No, I have not used Reflex Sights. A friend of mine put a cheap Russian reflex sight on one of his guns, but I do not know how the experience went.

Jerry Michalek has his precision sights on top of his AR-15. That is what he uses for long-range exact shooting (pie-plates at 100 yards). His reflex sights are mounted on a 45 degree angle on the side of the back rail. This sight was used to quickly hit man-sized targets at 3 to 5 yards. That's not a precision sight, just a FAST sight.

So, reflex is good for close quarters home defense while red dot scope would help me hit that coyote @200+ yds?

That's kind-of an over-simplification, but pretty-much right.

Actually, your most accurate sights will be telescopic sights (not good in low light or for fast shots) or iron peep sights (not good for low light).

A Red-Dot is not a 600 yard sight, but for Point-Blank Range to 300 yards, it's pretty good.

Would holographic sights be any different than red dot scope/reflex sights.

A friend at church owns an AR and prefers the holographic sights. What are the pros and cons between them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_dot_reflex_sight_diagram.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Litepath.jpg

Kind-of goes to show that a GOOD Holographic Reflex Sight is more Complicated.

I've seen Cheap Russian "Reflex" Sights that were just an image projected onto the upright piece of polycarbonate (like a "Heads-Up" Display in an airplane or car that projects onto the windshield or plastic plate).

Oh definitely would cost more. Is the value of holographic vs red dot enough to justify buying one?

I'm probably going with the Burris speed dot 135. Not sure which one. Did you read the specs on the higher priced one?

I do not know. I know that the way that the Red Dot scope compensates for eye position is by the curved lens. So when your eye moves, the point that the reticle is reflected to your eye also moves. I don't know about the holographic sight. I was watching a show on soldiers going through the Basic Ranger Course at Fort Benning, and they were using Eotech-Type Holographic sights (they might be more compatable with Night Vision goggles, also).

Insofar as the higher priced Burris: I did not really consider it. I went with the regular Speedot 135, because I wanted to mount the scope as low to the receiver as I could, and the straight tube looked like it would mount pretty-flush (however, I then had to put a riser under it, so that the fixed front sight wasn't blocking my view, duh).

The difference I see in them is flip up lens covers remind me of the scopes seen in various movies I've watched.

I think I found the perfect AR rail!

Here's the link: http://shop.customgunrails.com/Blessed-be-the-Lord-Psalm-1441-Large-LEA-LEA070P14.htm

OK. That IS pretty neat.

Unfortunately, I don't think that I have any AR-15's with the full Quad-Rail Handguard.

I think that they are all A-1's & A-2's.

Can you replace A1 and A2 with a quadrail?

RRCmdrBennett wrote:Can you replace A1 and A2 with a quadrail?

On an A2, yes.  It has the "flat top" or convertable receiver.  You will still have to contend with the fixed front sight.

On an A1, it would do much less good.  The receiver has the carrying handle milled in as a permanent portion of it, so any optics mounted on it would end up being about 5 inches above the line of the bore.

Also on an A1, any optics are mounted on a "rail block" that is mounted on top of the carrying handle in front of the rear sight of the rifle.  Depending on the design, it either fully blocks your iron sights, or severly restricts them, because you would have to look through a "tunnel" under any mounted optics.

You can still put a rail handguard on an A1, but it would pretty-much only be good for mounting a light or laser.  Since the A1 and A2 normally have the 20 inch barrel, vertical handgrips would not be really handy.

Looks like mine is a round handguard with just a short mounting rail near the muzzle and a full rail on top of the upper receiver with nothing in between. It would be nice to mount a light/laser below the handguard for night time home defense.

I found this video while checking reviews of the M&P15
The high end custom rifle is a beauty.